DaleB
Final Approach
Forum posts don't pay.You know the "This meeting could've been an email" thing?
That video could've been a forum post, in words, without the heavy production and editing, dramatics, etc.
Forum posts don't pay.You know the "This meeting could've been an email" thing?
That video could've been a forum post, in words, without the heavy production and editing, dramatics, etc.
Exactly. Although when her husband came at me on another forum he claimed she doesn't make the money for this stuff, it's whoever owns the Youtube account that monetized it. Are Youtube pimps a thing?Forum posts don't pay.
I'm guessing the shocked people are the same ones who have not done anything acro, so are of the opinion its difficult, and requires some super special pilot skills. I did a loop 20 minutes after the first take off in the Eagle, my instructor sat back not touching the controls at all. Using 50% of a planes rated G force amount is not hurting a thing.
And just worth mentioning, hour 2 of flight instruction was my second day of flying in a school 172. That was the first day I experienced the floating pencil trick, and barrel rolls, as my instructor said I have control, check this out. That was also the day he taught me how to do both, with 2 hours in my log book, and it was his idea, not mine.
And just worth mentioning, hour 2 of flight instruction was my second day of flying in a school 172. That was the first day I experienced the floating pencil trick, and barrel rolls, as my instructor said I have control, check this out. That was also the day he taught me how to do both, with 2 hours in my log book, and it was his idea, not mine.
I thought acro planes had oil and fuel systems that can handle being upside down, compared to non. Thats what my CFI told me at least years ago.
That's why zero G and negative G is also discouraged in some planes. I believe the PA28 I flew had that in the POH. A float style carburetor will be "fooled" in a zero or negative G situation and cut fuel flow to the engineI thought acro planes had oil and fuel systems that can handle being upside down, compared to non. Thats what my CFI told me at least years ago.
That's why zero G and negative G is also discouraged in some planes. I believe the PA28 I flew had that in the POH. A float style carburetor will be "fooled" in a zero or negative G situation and cut fuel flow to the engine
The picture she showed of her plane upside down scares the crap out of me as a CFI. I don't blame her for being angry.
The picture she showed of her plane upside down scares the crap out of me as a CFI. I don't blame her for being angry.
Let's seeGo fly some acro and the unnecessary fear goes away. If you close your eyes, you barely know you are in a roll. A loop however...
It wasn't the fear of acro, but the fear of the wing breaking off. I wan to try some acro some day.Go fly some acro and the unnecessary fear goes away. If you close your eyes, you barely know you are in a roll. A loop however...
It wasn't the fear of acro, but the fear of the wing breaking off. I wan to try some acro some day.
Let's see
Do I have the salient facts here?
- The girl is wrong because of her delivery.
- It's perfectly OK to fly acrobatics in a plane not designed for such maneuvers
- There's no problem in flying flying a non-acrobatic plane that doesn't belong to you
I never stated it was legal to do aerobatics, just stated it wasn't necessarily unsafe. There was no mocking of her gender. She played that card. I'd give Jerry the exact same treatment. And I actually gave Cardinal pilot way more **** about his over-the-top videos than this one. But feel free to mis-state my position.I'd say you got it figured out. I figured when I shared this video (and I have no connection to the YouTuber at all, don't even know her name) there would be a few that would point out that basic aerobatics can be done. I never expected people to personally attack her, mock her gender, and mock her outrage at someone abusing the airplane. Learned a lot about a few forum members today.
I never stated it was legal to do aerobatics, just stated it wasn't necessarily unsafe. There was no mocking of her gender. She played that card. I'd give Jerry the exact same treatment. And I actually gave Cardinal pilot way more **** about his over-the-top videos than this one. But feel free to mis-state my position.
How could you possibly trust an a**hole like that saying they kept it under 2G? They have no right to be believed at all (and should have no right to their pilot license, but that's up to the FAA).Didn't watch the video, but if you keep everything under 2G what damage and endangerment is there?
I did end up watching the video and my comments on the YouTube video address that.How could you possibly trust an a**hole like that saying they kept it under 2G? They have no right to be believed at all (and should have no right to their pilot license, but that's up to the FAA).
Why do you think the wing would break off? A roll is a maneuver that is well within the structural (although prohibited for other reasons) limits of the air frame. If a wing is going to break off it would happen in a steep turn or very deep stall/spin recovery before it would in a roll.
All the more reason to bring the hammer down hard on any idiot who manages to get caught, in the hope of deterring other idiots.Unless you buy new, you have no idea what previous pilots have done with your plane.
I think you're criticising the wrong person here. I'd probably react differently, because I have a different personality, but the person at fault here is 100% the dangerous idiot who did that in her plane, and it's wrong to try to deflect attention away from that by nitpicking over her reaction.the hysterics are just ridiculous
I think you're criticising the wrong person here. I'd probably react differently, because I have a different personality, but the person at fault here is 100% the dangerous idiot who did that in her plane, and it's wrong to try to deflect attention away from that by nitpicking over her reaction.
And as we know, gyros tumbling lead to needing a spar inspection and faux tears.
So her hysterics makes her the bad person here.I did end up watching the video and my comments on the YouTube video address that.
Certificate action and Club action should be taken but the hysterics are just ridiculous
Fun Fact 2: Bob Hoover peeled the fabric off the top of the wing of one of those while learning aerobatics.Fun fact: Older aircraft type certificated under the old CAR4 (not sure when that was superseded) have no restriction on aerobatics, so it's perfectly legal to loop and roll an old J-3 Cub, T-Craft, etc...
That's what I mean. You dismiss what the perpetrator did with brief lip service (yeah, yeah, it was wrong) then go out of your way to criticise the victim's reaction in detail and try to throw doubt on her credibility. Your priorities are badly mixed up — nobody kills anyone with an emotional YouTube video.I never said it was okay for the person to do that without permission. However if you are so emotional and so caring and so tied to your plane that it's going to cause you a nervous breakdown you probably shouldn't have it on lease back.
and if you're okay with it on lease back and getting pounded by student Pilots with horrible Landings then you're probably making that video just for attention.
By the way, I'm not condoning this, but I bet you this is way more common than people think
A few seconds of Youtube'ing found these:
I didn't say or even imply that. Not sure how you got there from my comment.
However, I would be royally ****ed if someone did aerobatics in my plane, not necessarily because I'm worried about structural damage (I know Super Viking can handle aerobatic flight) but because of the potential damage to the instruments that keep me alive and right side up in the clouds. My plane is my traveling machine, not an aerobatic machine. When I want to do aerobatics, I rent aerobatic planes for that.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
That's what I mean. You dismiss what the perpetrator did with brief lip service (yeah, yeah, it was wrong) then go out of your way to criticise the victim's reaction in detail and try to throw doubt on her credibility. Your priorities are badly mixed up — nobody kills anyone with an emotional YouTube video.
Why are you still focusing on the victim's reaction instead of the perpetrator's actions?If it was really about what happened it wouldn't have been emotionally forced, it would have just been factual in nature and not what it was - an effort to get views.
If it was really about what happened it wouldn't have been emotionally forced, it would have just been factual in nature and not what it was - an effort to get views.
And thank God for that.Hmmm, girls can be very different from boys EdFred, just sayin'.
Why are you still focusing on the victim's reaction instead of the perpetrator's actions?