Aerobatics in a Warrior

Status
Not open for further replies.
EdFred said:
sarcasm doesn't always come across as it's supposed to.
Click to expand...
Especially when it's done wrong.

EdFred said:
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.
Click to expand...
And so because of that, she is in the wrong. That makes it OK for someone to abuse her airplane.
EdFred said:
Put out a clickbait video get criticism of it being a clickbait video. if it was straight forward and not trying to just generate views I'm okay with that. Don't **** on my shoes and tell me it's raining.

Not sure why the Simps are giving her a pass.
Click to expand...
She doesn't need a pass. Other than a video you didn't like, she did nothing wrong.
You are saying she is wrong just because you didn't like her video.
 
midwestpa24 said:
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.
Click to expand...

To be clear, I didn't mention her gender or personally attack her, I just felt that the dramatization of the incident was distracting and unnecessary. It just felt like those tv reenactments of a real crime. None of that makes her the bad guy or at fault for the incident. I also don't condone aerobatics in aircraft not certified for such, despite knowing that most basic aerobatic maneuvers aren't going to cause major stress on the airframe when performed properly.

Sent from my SM-N976U using Tapatalk
 
  • Like
Reactions: YKA
PaulS said:
No way landings are tougher on an airframe than overloading it with prohibited aerobatic moves.
Click to expand...
True, but landings can be tougher on an airplane than doing aerobatics while not overloading it, which is quite possible, if not smart or legal.

flyingron said:
An aileron roll is not a positive G maneuver all the way around.
Click to expand...
Sure it is. In a properly executed aileron roll you'll be somewhere between zero and 1/2g positive while upside down. Barrel roll, +1 to +2g. It's a slow roll that goes to -1g while inverted. The risk in all of them is letting the nose get too low and picking up too much speed... or losing sight of the horizon when inverted, panicking, and trying to split-s out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YKA
Lindberg said:
If anyone needs an example of a straw man fallacy, here's a good one.
Click to expand...
Well, let's take a look at the comments- He has minimized the unauthorized aerobatics the whole thread, while complaining abut the video:

EdFred said:
if you keep everything under 2G what damage and endangerment is there?
Click to expand...

EdFred said:
against the regs isn't necessarily unsafe
and unsafe isn't necessarily against the regs.

Should just have titled the video Estrogen Gone Wild.
Click to expand...

EdFred said:
Did you watch the video and see how fake everything was? It was a click-bait video; plain and simple. You put out something that's solely for getting views by slapping a female on the thumbnail, you get the criticism that comes with it. She wasn't really emotional. It was horrible acting, horrible delivery, horrible everything. She tried to play it up as emotional and what not, you get the repercussions that come with it. If you're gonna play the woman card to get views, then you get everything that comes with it. You don't get to have it both ways.


You love your plane and are so emotional about it so much that you have it on leaseback?

That dog don't hunt.
Click to expand...

EdFred said:
how many G's was that envelope exceeded by?

you are correct it is not the same it is much more benign.
Click to expand...

EdFred said:
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...
Click to expand...


EdFred said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
midwestpa24 said:
I never expected people to personally attack her, mock her gender, and mock her outrage at someone abusing the airplane.
Click to expand...

Who mocked her gender? Which, of course is her stock in trade in the YouTubeUniverse.

The other mocking was well deserved. Unless of course you were crying crocodile tears with her.
 
Lindberg said:
If anyone needs an example of a straw man fallacy, here's a good one.
Click to expand...
Not in this case. A few people are trying to distract from the pilot's betrayal of trust and abysmal airmanship by nitpicking on the victim's comments instead: the rest of us aren't falling for it, and are calling them out on that.
 
Groundpounder said:
It's amazing how the resident POA a-holes continually prove they are indeed a-holes.
Click to expand...
I haven’t been on this site long enough to know who is who, but name calling those who disagree with you has helped me to figure at least one out, thanks.
 
David Megginson said:
Not in this case. A few people are trying to distract from the pilot's betrayal of trust and abysmal airmanship by nitpicking on the victim's comments instead: the rest of us aren't falling for it, and are calling them out on that.
Click to expand...

So we are only allowed to comment on one aspect of a video that was made specifically to get clicks? Are we only allowed to comment on one aspect of it because it's a female presenting it? Because we've torn new buttholes for a number of guys videos on YouTube that have
gone full drama queen, and that was perfectly OK. I already addressed that he should face certificate action and should be kicked out of the club but you conveniently ignored that. Why?

Seems like I am not the one that has an issue with gender.
 
Ravioli said:
Who mocked her gender? Which, of course is her stock in trade in the YouTubeUniverse.

The other mocking was well deserved. Unless of course you were crying crocodile tears with her.
Click to expand...

See below. Either way I'm done with this thread. Should have never shared it I guess.

EdFred said:
against the regs isn't necessarily unsafe
and unsafe isn't necessarily against the regs.

Should just have titled the video Estrogen Gone Wild.
Click to expand...
 
The worst revelation after reading this thread is that I have watched enough of BrYan's videos that I realize I now read his replies using his voice in my head. o_O
 
N1120A said:
You should report that instructor. While some/many 172s are certified to spin in the utility category, that is not appropriate
Click to expand...


That was 1999 lol. I really don't care to be that guy running around reporting people, and especially something that happened 22 years ago.
 
EdFred said:
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.

Acro is a blast, do it. Its a toss up between that and seaplane on the fun-o-meter.
Click to expand...


Agreed, and will add this...I bet some of those students landings are damn close to breaking a wing off, and are causing a lot of aluminum fatigue. The roll is absolutely nothing compared to the students in the circuit for airframe, and engine stresses.
 
Todd82 said:
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?
Click to expand...

She doesn't own that channel, somebody else does. She just appears on it.
 
Todd82 said:
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?
Click to expand...

The religious fanatic guy who has the 210 and owns the TV production facility runs the channel.
 
I am confident I could safely fly an aileron roll in a Cessna or Piper. I would never try, but I ain't gonna lie and say I have not thought about it. Fortunately I own a Decathlon for when the urge strikes.

Having said that, if someone else were to attempt an aerobatic maneuver in my non-aerobatic aircraft without my permission, I would consider it an assault upon the safety of myself and my family. Regardless of what the FAA did, I would pursue legal action in civil court, attempt to persuade law enforcement to file criminal charges, and probably take an axe handle to the #%^K@'$ skull if he were not sufficiently penitent.

I also agree that there was way too much drama in the video. I did what I usually do when I find a YouTube video with an attractive female: mute it and keep watching. Sadly, that technique does not work IRL. :p
 
I’m a bit disturbed at the number of pilots here brushing this off. Even one is too many.

Forget the theatrics. Forget the YouTube angle. Forget gender. Forget the fact that this may (or may not have been) faked. Forget that pilots make bad landings.

Pilots here are saying “it’s okay” to perform aerobatics when the manufacturer explicitly forbids it. No ... it’s not okay. End of story. Unless it’s your aircraft. And nobody else flies it. And you fully disclose the aerobatics you have been performing in an aircraft not rated for such when you sell it.

And don’t tell me to buy my own plane. I expect others to do what is right. If you don’t want to do what is right buy your own damn plane.
 
Groundpounder said:
There is a difference between having a crappy landing and doing aerobatics in a non-aerobatic aircraft. But in the days of the "I can do whatever I want cause I know better" I guess people don't care about that kind of stuff.
Click to expand...
When has it ever not been the days of do whatever. People like that have been around forever.
 
It was a 19 year old being a 19 year old. Not defending the pilot. Just saying 19 year olds do silly stuff sometimes.

there’s a reason the army put 19 year olds in helicopters during Vietnam...
 
  • Like
Reactions: YKA
N1120A said:
He made a recent video that alluded to it.
Click to expand...

He alluded to his religion is a pretty broad statement. Was he trying to convert people? The channel has videos going back 3 years please provide a definition of "religious fanatic"
 
catmandu said:
The worst revelation after reading this thread is that I have watched enough of BrYan's videos that I realize I now read his replies using his voice in my head. o_O
Click to expand...

Haha. Me too!!!!

Wait.
 
SoonerAviator said:
To be clear, I didn't mention her gender or personally attack her, I just felt that the dramatization of the incident was distracting and unnecessary. It just felt like those tv reenactments of a real crime. None of that makes her the bad guy or at fault for the incident. I also don't condone aerobatics in aircraft not certified for such, despite knowing that most basic aerobatic maneuvers aren't going to cause major stress on the airframe when performed properly.

Sent from my SM-N976U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

In theory what you state is correct. The problem is those with proper aerobatic training are the least likely to do stupid things in inappropriate aircraft. Those who don’t have proper training are the most likely. There is more to the equation than basic airframe strength also. You need to think about the aircraft gyros, constant speed props, fuel system, oil systems ect..
 
David Megginson said:
Not in this case. A few people are trying to distract from the pilot's betrayal of trust and abysmal airmanship by nitpicking on the victim's comments instead: the rest of us aren't falling for it, and are calling them out on that.
Click to expand...
And even those that are valid are wrapped in unwarranted sexist jabs. This thread has gone off the reails more than most.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
It was a 19 year old being a 19 year old. Not defending the pilot. Just saying 19 year olds do silly stuff sometimes.
Click to expand...

True but most 19 year olds have not been training in ADM. Apparently this one's training didn't take. :D

I have zero issues with the video or her emotion about the breach of trust. However, I think like her, I'm one of those people that believes pilots are a cut above others when it comes to expected behaviors and trust. So far I've not been overly disappointed.

I'm in two clubs and we expect member to treat the airplanes as if they are their own (which they technically are). Fly them with care, clean the bugs off, put air in the tires, pre-heat, all those things you would do with your own plane. If you decided to go do acro with one of our planes, even if you know how, and don't even think about the next guy that is going to go fly IFR with that gyro with his wife and kid in the plane then you'll be out of the club.

In the one club we have enough DC lawyers you'll also find you get to pay for the inspection and any repairs too. In the other club we banned lawyers but a couple members are the sort that may take it out in a more personal way. :eek:.
 
Last edited:
N1120A said:
Wow, that wasn't misogynstic or anything.
Click to expand...

Actually the misogyny here is everyone giving her a pass on her manufactured emotional crap because she's female. No. You put up a video with fake emotions trying to play the female card, you get called out on playing the female card. I can call every guy that goes over the top with manufactured and fake drama, and you'll all line up with "yeah, I agree." But as soon as it's a female, it's a full on parade of white knights and simps. BS. Use a stereotype to get clicks, get called out on it. I'm as equal opportunity as they come. If that was a guy putting out the video and pretending to be choked up and forcing himself to cry, you would all be lined up with torches and pitchforks. It's the rest of you that need to take a look at who is being the real sexists are here.
 
Snipped from some quote of @David Megginson: "Not in this case. A few people are trying to distract from the pilot's betrayal of trust and abysmal airmanship by nitpicking on the victim's comments instead:"

I think others, and I are, are laughing out loud at the betrayal and victimhood angles portrayed in the person's video.

Does Hertz make sobbing videos when their cars get boo-boos or renters drive recklessly? Yes, it's a similar example: She (er, the person) is in the business of renting a vehicle.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: YKA
N1120A said:
The religious fanatic guy who has the 210 and owns the TV production facility runs the channel.
Click to expand...
I'd have to actually watch it or any of these other youtube clowns to find out who that is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top