Social Media Fools .. again

flyingron said:
Bullhocky. Neither a barrel roll or an aileron roll are constant 1G manouvers. It is impossible that they are. A barrel roll (properly executed) is a small number of positive Gs throughout, but it goes as little as .5 and as much as 2.5 or 3. Still within the normal category g limits.

An aileron roll *can* be done maintaining positive gs, but also can go through zero. It's still not going to be 1G throughout.
Click to expand...

Well obviously it’s not exactly 1 G but it’s positive throughout if done by the IAC definition. “Very light positive G force will be maintained.”

If anything the vid depicted is closer to a slow roll. The sun glasses hit the ceiling during the roll. And without inverted fuel / oil, I wouldn’t go 0 G during an aileron roll.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aileron_roll
 
Last edited:
3393RP said:
...I can only assume the photo was taken over Lake Washington, because that's where Allen was, and where the barrel rolls took place. It wasn't over Puget Sound. Whether the lake was directly below the plane or in the photo I don't know.
Click to expand...
I agree. From the positions of the visible landmarks in the photo, it looks to me like the lake could have been directly below the plane, which would have been consistent with doing the maneuvers where they would be seen by the greatest number of spectators at the hydroplane races.
 
Didn't Bob Hoover do that while pouring a glass of iced tea in a Commander? Now that said, to quote Paul B, "you're not Bob Hoover, unless that's your name, in which case I'm sorry."

Doesn't seem very smart to do it as a normal pilot. Because of the risk. I can see a lot of risks, not the least of which being the aircraft probably was never tested for it, and flight testing with passengers isn't what I'd call a moral thing to do.
 
EdFred said:
Conspiracy for what? There's been no crime committed. And with no crime, what judge is issuing a search warrant?
Click to expand...

What about this law the pilot endangered the 3 other passengers.

14 CFR § 91.13 Careless or reckless operation.
(a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.

Conspiracy in federal law is "Just having an agreement between two or more persons to commit a criminal offense" Then one or both actually commit the crime. If the woman who published the video made an agreement to have the pilot violate 91.13 for the purpose to create a ticktok video then that is a conspiracy.

18 U.S. Code § 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States

If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States
 
To get into the nuances of terminology, as commonly used within the IAC:

Aileron Roll: a roll with ailerons only. Requires pitch up before roll to offset nose drop during the roll. G during the roll is zero, but the pitch up and recovery require >1G.

Slow Roll: a roll such that the flight path draws a straight and level line. Requires constantly changing elevator and rudder inputs to maintain lift sufficient for level flight. Force on the aircraft as a whole is by definition 1G throughout the maneuver. G applied to the wings varies between +1 and -1.

Barrel Roll: a combination of a loop and a roll such that the flight path inscribes a horizontal spiral. G forces range between 0.5 and 2ish.

Barrel rolls and aileron rolls have no prescribed judging standard and thus are not competition maneuvers.

Technique to fly a barrel roll varies widely from pilot to pilot, as do the resulting G forces.

IMO a competent aerobatic pilot could safely fly an aileron roll in any fixed wing aircraft. Legalities aside, the issue would be recovering if something went wrong. Botched aerobatic maneuvers often result in excess G's during recovery, and sometimes in an inadvertent spin entry.

I won't lose sleep over a pilot taking his chances in his own aircraft by himself. But putting unsuspecting passengers in jeopardy is incredibly irresponsible and IMO worthy of maximum legal and regulatory sanctions.
 
kell490 said:
What about this law the pilot endangered the 3 other passengers.

14 CFR § 91.13 Careless or reckless operation.
(a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.

Conspiracy in federal law is "Just having an agreement between two or more persons to commit a criminal offense" Then one or both actually commit the crime. If the woman who published the video made an agreement to have the pilot violate 91.13 for the purpose to create a ticktok video then that is a conspiracy.

18 U.S. Code § 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States

If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States
Click to expand...

That's a regulation. And violating it is not a crime. Since it's not a crime, there's no conspiracy.
 
EdFred said:
That's a regulation. And violating it is not a crime. Since it's not a crime, there's no conspiracy.
Click to expand...

A pilot could take a 737 and perform a roll like in the video with 300 people on board worst that could happen is loss of his certificate and a civil penalty?
 
kell490 said:
A pilot could take a 737 and perform a roll like in the video with 300 people on board worst that could happen is loss of his certificate and a civil penalty?
Click to expand...

Interesting question. But the district attorney would have to find some statute other than that regulation to charge the pilot under for it to be a criminal matter. Perhaps if the registration were expired. Then the DA would be good to go.
 
it's a different spanks for different ranks. Yes, double standards exist in our admin and criminal system. Shocker. Yes, the airline pilot would get in more criminal trouble than the recreational piston driver.
 
DavidWhite said:
If that pilot had 1000 acro hours he wouldn’t have floated everything in the plane….
Click to expand...

I would go so far as to say an experienced aerobatic pilot would understand the risks associated with doing unapproved acro in an aircraft full of passengers, and probably not do it.

Usually these types of stunts are done by people who don't know or understand the risks, are not trained, and therefore make the risk even higher. Its all fun and games until they end up in an attitude they didn't expect, and either don't have the room to recover, or don't recover properly and destroy the aircraft. Even worse, they survive but overstress the aircraft, but don't tell anyone and the hidden damage comes back to bite some other unsuspecting pilot.
 
I
3393RP said:
In August 1955, the unlimited hydroplane Gold Cup races were taking place on Lake Washington, and Boeing CEO William Allen had invited several VIP customers aboard his yacht on the lake for the event. He had directed test pilot Tex Johnston to overfly the event in the Dash 80 to showcase it to those clients.

Johnston decided to exhibit the plane's topside to those below, performing the maneuver that placed him in the pantheon of test pilot greats.

I can only assume the photo was taken over Lake Washington, because that's where Allen was, and where the barrel rolls took place. It wasn't over Puget Sound. Whether the lake was directly below the plane or in the photo I don't know.
Click to expand...
I was 18 miles NW of the lake when that happened. But, as I was only 22 months old, I have no independent recollection...

Paul
 
EdFred said:
Conspiracy for what? There's been no crime committed. And with no crime, what judge is issuing a search warrant?
Click to expand...
The FISA Court will give warrants to anyone, even if the supporting evidence is forged. They're easy.
 
hindsight2020 said:
it's a different spanks for different ranks. Yes, double standards exist in our admin and criminal system. Shocker. Yes, the airline pilot would get in more criminal trouble than the recreational piston driver.
Click to expand...

What is the exact federal criminal statute the Airline pilot could be charged under I can't find anything.
 
kell490 said:
What is the exact federal criminal statute the Airline pilot could be charged under I can't find anything.
Click to expand...

Exact statute? Who am I, your paralegal? You've come to the wrong message board. /TC

Who knows what statute they'll use. I'm just saying it's not a stretch to suggest they could shoehorn 120 counts of attempted whatever somehow, given the visibility of such a happenstance in this day and age. Plus with americans on board, a half dozen of them would be already cardiovascularly primed to have an instant heart attack back there after a well botched barrel dive. :D
 
As far as I know, the charges don't have to line up at all. Someone just needs to convince a dozen random people that they *might* line up.

On the right day, I'm pretty sure someone could get indicted for illegal time travel and consequently breaking the speed of light.
 
While you are arguing about doing a simple roll in this fictional 737, you all completely glossed over the 300 passengers on it.
The fictional pilot already broke the regs by overloading the 737, so who cares if he now does a roll or 15 to.
 
kell490 said:
What is the exact federal criminal statute the Airline pilot could be charged under I can't find anything.
Click to expand...

If the aircraft registration were expired, he could be charged with a felony.
 
Whitney said:
While you are arguing about doing a simple roll in this fictional 737, you all completely glossed over the 300 passengers on it.
The fictional pilot already broke the regs by overloading the 737, so who cares if he now does a roll or 15 to.
Click to expand...

Lets say it's a 50 passengers. The point I'm making is that there is no criminal statue against operating an aircraft unsafely in a way that endangers others.
 
TCABM said:
...
Click to expand...
7f6f9db45c04aabc75e7e1fe3ec1996c.jpg


Oh, look at that. Now I see where those sneaky bastages at Honda came up with their design concept.

59b30b6d609c3020008b5d39
 
kell490 said:
Lets say it's a 50 passengers. The point I'm making is that there is no criminal statue against operating an aircraft unsafely in a way that endangers others.
Click to expand...

Reckless endangerment is a crime in all 50 states. Most have misdemeanor and felony versions depending on degree of egregiousness.
 
3393RP said:
The story goes that during the CEO's retirement ceremony a couple of years later, someone presented him with a framed enlarged photo of the Lake Washington shoreline and nearby area taken from the cabin of the inverted Dash 80. He supposedly left the photo at the dias when the ceremony ended, not appreciating the humor.

:D

5aedc13c-3af2-11e5-917e-8590c54c670f.jpg
Click to expand...

Photo upside down lol
 
Ed Haywood said:
Reckless endangerment is a crime in all 50 states. Most have misdemeanor and felony versions depending on degree of egregiousness.
Click to expand...

If nobody was injured, it would be difficult to prove in court.

Heck if I was on the jury, I would be wanting to high five him, and say well done.
 
Whitney said:
If nobody was injured, it would be difficult to prove in court.

Heck if I was on the jury, I would be wanting to high five him, and say well done.
Click to expand...

Actual injury is not a required element of the criminal statue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endan...U.S. states, such,or serious injury to others.

"Reckless endangerment: A person commits the crime of reckless endangerment if the person recklessly engages in conduct which creates substantial jeopardy of severe corporeal trauma to another person. “Reckless” conduct is conduct that exhibits a culpable disregard of foreseeable consequences to others from the act or omission involved. The accused need not intentionally cause resulting harm. The ultimate question is whether, under all of the circumstances, the accused's demeanor was of that heedless nature that made it actually or imminently dangerous to the rights or safety of others."
 
Ed Haywood said:
Actual injury is not a required element of the criminal statue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endangerment#:~:text=In some U.S. states, such,or serious injury to others.

"Reckless endangerment: A person commits the crime of reckless endangerment if the person recklessly engages in conduct which creates substantial jeopardy of severe corporeal trauma to another person. “Reckless” conduct is conduct that exhibits a culpable disregard of foreseeable consequences to others from the act or omission involved. The accused need not intentionally cause resulting harm. The ultimate question is whether, under all of the circumstances, the accused's demeanor was of that heedless nature that made it actually or imminently dangerous to the rights or safety of others."
Click to expand...


Then every time an airline pilot taxis out to the runway, that is reckless endangerment.
Just pulling onto the runway is dangerous, what if another airliner crashes into it while sitting there.
But attempting take off is really dangerous, as is flying.
A lot of people have been injured or killed in plane crashes, so it is a dangerous thing.
Which is why I said, if nobody was hurt, to me it would be hard to prove. Not impossible to prove, but difficult.
Now if a pilot hits another plane on the runway, slides off the runway, and someone gets hurt, that to me should be a slam dunk case to win.
 
Whitney said:
Then every time an airline pilot taxis out to the runway, that is reckless endangerment.
Just pulling onto the runway is dangerous, what if another airliner crashes into it while sitting there.
But attempting take off is really dangerous, as is flying.
A lot of people have been injured or killed in plane crashes, so it is a dangerous thing.
Which is why I said, if nobody was hurt, to me it would be hard to prove. Not impossible to prove, but difficult.
Now if a pilot hits another plane on the runway, slides off the runway, and someone gets hurt, that to me should be a slam dunk case to win.
Click to expand...
How many of those things are intentional regulatory violations?

I find it interesting that you defend intentional violators, but condemn those who tried to do things right.
 
Last edited:
MauleSkinner said:
How many of those things are intentional regulatory violations?

I find it interesting that you defend intentional violators, but condemn those who tried to do things right.
Click to expand...


If nobody is hurt, how reckless was it really.

But if you hurt people, it was very likely reckless behavior.

Don't crash the plane, good job...do crash the plane, bad job.
That is what a jury is likely going to hear, and react to.

Driving my tractor around my property, and nobody gets hurt, no problem.
Drive my tractor over a family having a picnic in my hay field, who shouldn't have been there, because its my private property, but still i ran over them, so problem.
 
Whitney said:
If nobody is hurt, how reckless was it really.

But if you hurt people, it was very likely reckless behavior.

Don't crash the plane, good job...do crash the plane, bad job.
That is what a jury is likely going to hear, and react to.

Driving my tractor around my property, and nobody gets hurt, no problem.
Drive my tractor over a family having a picnic in my hay field, who shouldn't have been there, because its my private property, but still i ran over them, so problem.
Click to expand...
Safety has never been defined solely by the outcome.
 
If I was on a plane, and it crashed, I sure as hell wouldn't be singing the pilots praise after.
I would be asking them wtf there problem is, and wtf they were thinking.

I've been in 2 car accidents in my life.
Both were when my piece of crap mother was driving.
Guess what, I did blame her for both, and then never rode in a car with her again.
My dad was a great driver, never had any accidents, yet would often drift around corners on backroads, spin a donut in the snow on purpose, go over a rise on a road so fast the pickup tires were in the air, and took me out 4x4ing on some wild terrain. I used to ask papa to punch it in turns to make the back end kick out, or do donuts in parking lots.

You can figure out why I'm sure.

One had no driving skills, the other was a great driver.
While one never intentionally drove really fast and floored it in corners, she was crappolla as a driver.

The other would have fun and punch it, go 4x4ing just for fun, and was an amazing driver!!!
 
Whitney said:
Hard to not notice the bent plane, and injured or dead passengers.
Click to expand...
When you figure out how to guarantee the outcome of a stupid, careless, reckless, or illegal action, I’m sure the governments of the world would love to know about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top