17 October 2019, 03:04:16 *

Login with username, password and session length
Welcome to War and Tactics!    War and Tactics Forum is currently undergoing some modifications that might disable features you are used to. This is unabvoidable as we have to update the forum engine to a new structure that is incompatible with many of the features we had used so far. The good news: WaT will be more secure and stable, and most of the features we uninstalled will be a natural part of the new structure anyway. For the rest we will be looking for solutions. (APR 23, 2018)
   
  Home   Forum   Help ! Forum Rules ! Search Calendar Donations Login Register Chat  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Share this topic on Del.icio.usShare this topic on DiggShare this topic on FacebookShare this topic on GoogleShare this topic on MySpaceShare this topic on RedditShare this topic on StumbleUponShare this topic on TechnoratiShare this topic on TwitterShare this topic on Yahoo
Author Topic: Amazing: Plane-to-Plane Skydive  (Read 6597 times)
Rattler
WaT Supporter

*

Offline Offline

Germany

Location: Med Island
Posts: 2268




View Profile WWW
« on: 5 November 2009, 03:25:43 »
ReplyReply

stumbled over this amazing skydiving vid (wonder if they ever did that w/o chutes?):

http://www.kontraband.com/videos/20242/Plane-To-Plane-Skydive/

Rattler
Logged

"War does not determine who is right, war determines who is left...": The Rattler Way Of Life (thanks! to Solideo)... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9v3Vyr5o2Q
Koen
Poster

****

Offline Offline

Belgium

Location: Belgium
Posts: 4247




View Profile
« Reply #1 on: 5 November 2009, 19:48:52 »
ReplyReply

there'll certainly be champagne popped afterwards  champ
Logged
Rattler
WaT Supporter

*

Offline Offline

Germany

Location: Med Island
Posts: 2268




View Profile WWW
« Reply #2 on: 5 November 2009, 19:59:53 »
ReplyReply

there'll certainly be champagne popped afterwards  champ

For the pilot, as I think this baby (dont´know the PC model exactly, but let´s assume it´s a PC-6 B2 Turbo-Porter) is not certified for this dive... Vne = 131 kn, they were close or exeeded it IMHO (free falling divers go 140 if trying to catch up with a falling/diving a/c).

Seriously: Question them, then, if they cannot rectify being below Vne, ground them. For a long time.

Rattler
« Last Edit: 5 November 2009, 20:05:48 by Rattler » Logged

"War does not determine who is right, war determines who is left...": The Rattler Way Of Life (thanks! to Solideo)... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9v3Vyr5o2Q
Koen
Poster

****

Offline Offline

Belgium

Location: Belgium
Posts: 4247




View Profile
« Reply #3 on: 5 November 2009, 20:07:22 »
ReplyReply

there'll certainly be champagne popped afterwards  champ

For the pilot, as I think this baby (dont´know the PC model exactly, but let´s assume it´s a PC-6 B2 Turbo-Porter) is not certified for this dive... Vne = 131 kn, they were close or exeeded it IMHO (free falling divers go 140 if trying to catch up with a falling/diving a/c).

Seriously: Question them, then, if they cannot rectify being below Vne, ground them. For a long time.

Rattler


there'll certainly be champagne popped afterwards  champ (grounded or not)
Logged
Rattler
WaT Supporter

*

Offline Offline

Germany

Location: Med Island
Posts: 2268




View Profile WWW
« Reply #4 on: 5 November 2009, 20:51:52 »
ReplyReply

I can understand that you as non-aviator like (like F1) playing with risk exectued, but, in our aviator´s world, things are valued differently, and with a reason (*you* will be the first asking to not getting flame bombed like in Rammstein, or to be able to trust your pilots on your next trip to Republica Dominicana). I do evaluate this as a *systemtic* disregard for safety, you guys see it as an "accident" if it goes wrong (and I would call it homicide).

Aviator Rambos end toast, taking hundred(s) of ppl with them sometimes, here a nice analysis what way they proceed and why things happen, especially in shows, companies and AF:

Darker Shades of Blue: A Case Study of Failed Leadership
By Major Tony Kern, United States Air Force

One of the key phrases regarding the pilot, Bud Holland, is right at start:

Quote
"What's the deal with this guy?" Captain Bill Kramer asked, indicating a car conspicuously parked in the center of the red-curbed "No Parking" zone adjacent to the wing headquarters building. It was a short walk from the HQ building, commonly referred to as The White House, to the parking lot where they had left their own vehicles while attending the briefing on the upcoming airshow. As they passed the illegally-parked car and then the various "reserved" spaces for the wing and operations group commanders, Lt Col Winslow turned to Captain Kramer, and replied, "That's Bud's car. He always parks there." After a few more steps the Captain inquired, "How does he get away with that?" The Lieutenant Colonel reflected for a moment and responded, "I don't know--he just does."


http://www.crm-devel.org/resources/paper/darkblue/darkblue.htm

It explains quite clearly the *knowledge* of everyone involved that the end would be disastrous (The Co, R.I.P., literally sacrificed himself as he did not want anybody else of the staff to die in a -clearly visible to him- future, forbid the rest of the staff going with Holland, and consecuently made the last flight with him in this - foreseeable - mishap!)

Now, you civvies (and the AF spectators) had the following comments, just to put it into perspective (talking the mishap flight), it is for those guys ppl do those stunts and end up screwing over not only a community but many innocent bystanders/pax:

Quote
The maneuver demonstrated? at 2:30 is off the hook! The B-52 bomber at its best!


Quote
Obviously a skilled pilot in the B-52. He handled the big bird like? it was a fighter. The only report I saw on the cockpit chatter was that the last words were "sorry guys". I'm assuming spoken by the pilot.


Quote
Dunno why you all are all hating on the pilot, sure it was his fault that people died, but do you really think? that was his intention was toincinerate him and his fellow pilots?

Quote
Hahahahaha!, murdering the crew.
So lets say a train strikes a car on the tracks, but the driver was traveling slighter faster than he should have been and the brakes hadn't been serviced and the train derails.
Was it the drivers fault, the person who had stopped? on the tracks or the engineers fault?


Quote
...must have been a fighter jock in a previous life. biggest set of cahoonies I have ever seen


Quote
I agree that doing anything this isn't in the ops manual is stupid. Agreed. But my statement? was that it can be done (well, i'm not sure about the 90 degree bank, different arguement). My statement is that it can be done. Doesn't mean it ever should or that I will.


Quote
As with most people that do a job well for along time you get bored? . You find new ways to push the boundries . It is an absolute shame that he hurt anyone while preforming this acts but I would say if this was a situation where you needed to get you butt through a hostile terittory I would have wanted to fly with him . As far as the playing around and goofing off the good always use that to get better and become the best . I have honed my skills just messing around more than most could be not .


And so on... Only one got it right:

Quote
What I find unbelievable is that they took a pilot who probably should have been grounded and disciplined, and made him the chief of stan-eval. That pretty much tells the entire crew force that he's the example they should follow. I have no problem with this fool dying, but I'm saddened that he took others with him,? and lost an irreplaceable aircraft.


The vids (reproducing all the - mentioned in the analysis by Marjor Kern - "Champagne!!!!" ones of the years before... ... and the sad end):

Mishap of B-52 at Fairchild Air Force Base Washington


Co tried to eject, alas, too late, just the hatch made it:





Quote
Other good videos long videos of the same plane and pilot. Courtesy of jescates
http://youtube.com/watch?v=UJb08ZzejAA


Rattler
« Last Edit: 5 November 2009, 21:10:50 by Rattler » Logged

"War does not determine who is right, war determines who is left...": The Rattler Way Of Life (thanks! to Solideo)... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9v3Vyr5o2Q
Koen
Poster

****

Offline Offline

Belgium

Location: Belgium
Posts: 4247




View Profile
« Reply #5 on: 5 November 2009, 22:11:09 »
ReplyReply

ok, but I do see a difference...

the one guy has a small civil plane
the other has a B-52

yes, I know...when they crash they kill people...both of them

when I saw the vid I got scared when the vid went on and on....I'm not a flyer but I'm a still an ex-airforce dude so I've seen planes live and on vid doing stunts....with F-16's...not with B-52's...the feeling I got watching the vid is watching someone who every time he took off took it 1 step further...

why wasn't he stopped? was he so high-ranked?

the speed, or lack of, he's taking the corners with...well....you see it coming....and that on an airshow?
Logged
Rattler
WaT Supporter

*

Offline Offline

Germany

Location: Med Island
Posts: 2268




View Profile WWW
« Reply #6 on: 5 November 2009, 22:49:29 »
ReplyReply

why wasn't he stopped? was he so high-ranked?

read the analysis I mentioned (http://www.crm-devel.org/resources/paper/darkblue/darkblue.htm), it really is an interesting piece about leadership, its flaws and responsibilities, that goes way beyond this special case, one of the pieces I will never forget.

Rattler
Logged

"War does not determine who is right, war determines who is left...": The Rattler Way Of Life (thanks! to Solideo)... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9v3Vyr5o2Q
Koen
Poster

****

Offline Offline

Belgium

Location: Belgium
Posts: 4247




View Profile
« Reply #7 on: 5 November 2009, 22:50:56 »
ReplyReply

why wasn't he stopped? was he so high-ranked?

read the analysis I mentioned (http://www.crm-devel.org/resources/paper/darkblue/darkblue.htm), it really is an interesting piece about leadership, its flaws and responsibilities, that goes way beyond this special case, one of the pieces I will never forget.

Rattler



I will, I'll print it out tomorrow at work and have a read
Logged
FACman
WaT Supporter

*

Offline Offline

United States

Location: Ar-kansas
Posts: 819




View Profile
« Reply #8 on: 7 November 2009, 02:22:24 »
ReplyReply

Yes, this occurred at an airshow just outside Spokane, Wa.. I was visiting Spokane that weekend and remember seeing the smoke plume from east of Spokane. While I didnt see it happen, I knew from the plume that it had been a large aircraft, having witnessed the after effects of  KC-135 crashes from my fire lookout tower east of Beale AFB in California. News reports indicated that the pilot was a senior officer with the wing.
Logged

"You can call me by my first name...Sarge."
Heinrich505
Staff Sergeant
**

Offline Offline

United States

Location: Woodbridge, Virginia USA
Posts: 103


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: 9 November 2009, 03:57:40 »
ReplyReply

Rattler,
  I read, with great interest, the posted analysis by Major Tony Kern, in his paper Darker Shades of Blue: A Case Study of Failed Leadership.  It is very well done, and I found myself seeing so many parallels to management dealing with leadership failures in civilian workplace jobs as well.  Clearly, in military circles, and to some extent, in Para-military type jobs, such as law enforcement, there is a great reluctance for management to discipline a fellow manager, "one of their own," so to speak.  I have found that several reasons come into play for such reluctance.  These all seem to apply to the accident at Fairchild as well as my civilian experiences.

1)   Management is hesitant to discipline a fellow manager because "management" chose to promote that individual to a leadership position.  By disciplining them, they are, in effect, disciplining themselves in a general way, for having made a promotional decision that probably wasn't such a good idea in the first place.  In other words, it makes them (management) collectively look bad.  This also fosters an accompanying climate of us versus them, management versus rank-and-file, because the non-managers are quick to point out that management has no qualms in disciplining them, but always seem reluctant to discipline a boss.

2)    With a high turnover rate of command which was the case at Fairchild, and in some large bureaucratic organizations, there is a tendency to view a managerial problem as something a manager only has to deal with until the manager is transferred away to another duty station.  Then the problem is no longer theirs, and becomes that of the new guy.  At Fairchild, it seems the commanders rotated out fairly quickly, checking off another command box and moving on to bigger or better jobs.  In a large bureaucracy, the managers may not move around so often, so then the solution is to move the problem to another duty station.  But, the ideal situation for the manager is to plunge their head into the sand, hope that nothing bad happens during their tour of duty, and then move on quickly and safely, with the problem continuing for the next guy.

3)   The out-going commander or head manager may be reluctant to brief the new guy about problems in his command, because this will reflect poorly on the out-going manager’s ability to command.  In the case of Fairchild, each out-going commander knew the problems with their “rogue” B-52 pilot/expert, but chose not to bring the new commander up to speed on him, because the system allowed for them to quickly and quietly move away from the problem, and without any sort of written record, they couldn’t be scrutinized for any failure to command properly.  If a manager is reluctant to lead or manage, then his safest recourse is to quietly slip away from his former post, with no formal record or even verbal conversation with the new commander, and thus he leaves the new appointee cold, starting out with no knowledge of any ongoing problems he should be aware of.  The out-going manager will probably believe, or tell himself to justify it in his own mind, that the incoming commander or manager should be the one to discover problems inherent with his new command.  The old adage that “I had to discover all the problems when I arrived, so he should have to do the same thing when he comes in” simply perpetuates the problems inherent with the system.  Over time this behavior and lack of leadership actually becomes the expected norm for managers or commanders.  They don’t expect, or even want, to be told about ongoing problems in their new command, preferring to discover them on their own.  This then becomes a test of their own leadership prowess.

All of this is amazing to people who have not experienced this sort of action, because they inevitably ask the valid question, “If this was known all along, why didn’t someone do something?”  Those who live it everyday become inured to the situation, knowing that it is endemic to the job, and that until the “leaders” do something about it, there is nothing they can do to fix the situation.  They themselves hope for transfers, but in the case of Fairchild, many chose the drastic and probably career-damaging course of action of refusing to fly with Lt. Col. Holland.  Many more simply knew something really bad had to happen soon, and as one put it,

Red flags of warning were abundant-- and yet those who could act did not do so, in spite of recommendations to ground Bud Holland. As one B-52 crewmember said about the accident, "You could see it, hear it, feel it, and smell it coming. We were all just trying to be somewhere else when it happened." 6
 
Incredibly enough, all those who refused to fly with him were probably ending a long-term career with the Air Force, as long as commanders continued to protect Lt. Col Holland.  The terrible accident resulting in the death of Holland and his crew forced the Air Force to reconsider their position.  The men who refused to fly with Holland were vindicated in their fears and concerns, and the Air Force had to act.  However, all those who were brave enough to stand up and refuse to fly with Holland had inexorably damaged their careers, and would likely not be promoted or get decent postings, simply because they had tried to make the commanders do something that should have been done long ago.

I have seen dangerous incompetence promoted, and then kept around even though they were clearly mistakes and should never have been promoted in the first place.  They usually end up quietly promoted or transferred to some HQ position, where they either finish out in imposed obscurity, or re-invent themselves and come out of HQ even more dangerous than before.  But rarely, if ever, are they downgraded, having their promotions rescinded and being relegated back to being rank-and-file.  Management will protect their lower-level managers, unless the mistakes made by them are so grievous in nature that no upper level manager will risk their own careers to protect the guy.  And even then, if possible, they will pigeon-hole the problem manager into some safe place, where he allegedly can’t hurt anyone – meaning he can’t hurt anyone’s career, rather than hurt someone in the non-manager category. 

The commander in the Fairchild accident, Col. Pellerin, got off lightly in his punishment, and likely his contemporaries all shook their heads and clucked about how unlucky Pellerin was, because “but for the grace of God” it could have been one of them.

Rattler, do we know what happened to Major Tony Kern?  After he published this paper, I would imagine that his career in the Air Force was essentially ended.  The Big Birds would have closed ranks and seen to it that he was punished for his temerity.  Perhaps, banished to laundry and morale officer in Greenland?  I have seen it happen, often.

Thanks for posting this.  It is a sad commentary on the failures of our leaders, both in uniform and in high manager positions.  Kern’s article was excellent, and right on target.

                                 Heinrich505 
 
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Unique Hits: 26642608 | Sitemap
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines
TinyPortal v0.9.8 © Bloc
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!


Google visited last this page 6 October 2019, 20:11:46