JeremiahWeed

I agree with your post after this one I’m quoting. But, come on….. if they were “ at or below (not above)” the minimum clearance as the pax bird crosses over top ON GLIDEPATH was 75 feet. There’s no way anyone involved creating this procedure should have found that acceptable. I guarantee if the pilots flying into DCA knew that was a possibility when they accepted a clearance to sidestep to the other runway with a helo on that route, they would have declined every time.

I gotta call BS. Maybe a good on-the-fly excuse to his leadership and a face saving option for media consumption. Sure. But if anyone in the business actually thinks that abortion of a maneuver and near destruction of beach side property and potential death of numerous innocent beach goers is a better alternative to taking a bird or two, they’re not playing with a full deck. He wasn’t even going that fast. The canopy is easily rated to take that and if an engine gets involved, well he’s got another. UFB.

Soooooo....... Not an appendix carry fan I take it? 😄

My guess is the pilot was either very new to the demo world or possibly untrained and just a wild card. It really looks like something he was just making up on the fly, which is obviously a recipe for disaster. I will say the video with him going away from the camera looks a lot more ugly than the one with the camera closest to the recovery. But he’s definitely a lucky fellow. Too bad it’s not one of those self critiquing mistakes where you scare yourself, but no one else sees it. I imagine he’s got some explaining to do.

Off current topic, but looking for holster recommendation for everyday appendix carry. S&W MP shield, 10/13 rnd mag

Are you sure about this? I know an Academy grad or ROTC candidate already has an ADSC due to the money spent on their education. But why would someone who shows up and signs on the line to go to OTS have any commitment at that point? All they’ve done is 90 days of basic training, gotten maybe a couple of airline tickets and attempted UPT. A ROTC commission with likely hundreds of thousands of dollars paid to a college gives that new officer a four year commitment prior to them getting their wings of course. It seems unlikely that an OTS candidate would have a similar ADSC with a fraction of the money spent on them so far. I would think if they were so inclined that would be the end of their USAF career.

Isn't that just falling into the common attitude that "if we only understood them better and found common ground we would all get along"? There is an extreme faction of a particular middle eastern religion that wants us all dead and wants to take over our country and wipe any record of our existence off the planet. We have no ability to affect that one way or the other. So, the premise that we have anything to do with the actions or goals of those on the other side of that war or the current less obvious war is ludicrous in my opinion. Their end game remains unchanged regardless of what we may or may not do.

I’ve passed between China and Korea well north of that area over AGAVO on my way in and out of TAO/ZSQD. From what I can see, there are four very large SIGMETS from surface to FL400 for embedded thunderstorms just north of where they made that big turn to the east. My guess would be they were either preemptively avoiding or they just weren’t happy with their ride and what they were seeing on the radar. or it could be what FF said. It looks like historically, they do jink east (though not usually that big) in the vicinity of Shanghai, which is the normal corridor.

I don’t understand what is being correlated to drinking/smoking.

If you make it through and get your wings, I’d say there’s a better than average chance you get a callsign as a result. Probably not a good one. 😂 Free advice. There’s almost zero upside to putting your personal shit out for public consumption. A picture, opinion, video, look what I did, listen to what I know, etc. the cons far outweigh the pros. Think about applying for a future airline job or maybe a Guard unit and having them read a questionable Facebook post or play your podcast and then ask for an explanation. Your older, wiser self will thank you if you just STFU and live your life. You’ll mess up enough in private or within your normal circle. No need to expand the list of people who you might have to explain extra shit to sometime in the future.

WTF? The effing airplane is upside down, sliding down the runway, on fire at one point and idiots have their damn phones out while they’re trying to evacuate. YGBSM!

Ok, fair enough. I’ve always heard it with the other word, but I stand corrected.

Just a minor point. I believe the word we’re all looking for is actually “deviation”, not deviance. Deviance is a word with its roots in the word Deviant. Deviant behavior is any behavior that does not conform to societal norms.There are many different types of deviant behavior, including impoliteness, violence, and substance abuse. These behaviors may or may not be criminal.

Ok. If we have the same FOM reject criteria, then aside from the ambiguous "unable or unsafe to fly", then we're on the same page. I guess I feel like the industry statistics leading to us going into the air versus accepting a high speed reject are valid. In the high speed reject regime up to airborne, I can deal with the typical engine, oil, bleed air, hyd, etc. that might manifest during takeoff by 1) avoiding the risk of a high speed reject by not doing that and 2) mitigating the same issue with a lower speed, longer runway, lighter weight landing solution after takeoff and after checklist completion.

Sorry - Had to go fly. Good discussion and I had some time to consider my response at cruise. It's been over 20 years since I flew the 737 or A320 and I've rammed dumped them. My more recent experience is on the MD-11, 777, 757 and I'm currently in the left seat of the 767. First, I can already see we're coming at this from very different directions due to the lack of inhibits in your aircraft. I'd be curious to hear from other 737 operators. I'm really surprised that some of the newer versions don't have that feature. So, from my perspective, the inhibits allow me to ignore the failures that have already been determined to be unworthy of a high speed reject. All I need to know are the ones for which I am going to high speed reject. The other ones I'm not going to know about (or can be ignored) until 400' on takeoff. My company FOM directs a reject in the high speed regime for 4 things: Fire or Fire Warning, Engine Failure, Any type of windshear alert or warning and if the aircraft is unsafe or unable to fly. That's it. So I have thought about what I'm going to abort for and it's those items. Since other possible failures are filtered from my decision process by the inhibits, I don't have to look for all possible cockpit indications of problems and then determine if those are in my pre-thought-out list of high speed rejectable events and then decide to reject. Barring some kind of runway excusion or other external event, If I don't see one of the 4 things I listed above between 80 knots and V1, then I'm going flying. Some things I'm probably going to eventually declare an E for that might occur on takeoff (speaking now for the 767): Most of the ones that the QRH directs a land at nearest suitable and some that don't. Loss of generator or IDG with a deferred (MELed) APU in the Wx (so only one primary AC source), dual engine fuel filter issues, Anti-skid failure/fault, any single hyd failure since they all come with reduced spoiler panels operating on each wing (potential stopping issues) while in addition, the center system failure requires a higher landing speed and reduced landing flap setting using the alternate flap system, alternate gear extension and use of reserve brakes. I'm not trying to start a secondary "when to declare" thread. I realize there are lots of opinions. Mine is declaring an E doesn't cost anything other than some extra paperwork and if I'm going to be dealing with possible stopping issues, dual engine issues or one more failure putting me on battery power in the wx then I want priority and equipment standing by. Here are some examples of when inhibits occur during takeoff (FYI, there are also landing inhibits): MD-11 - Warnings for some fires from V1 to 400' RA or 25 seconds airborne. Lower priority cautions/alerts and the associated MC lights inhibited at either throttle advance, 80 knots or V1-20 until 400'/25 seconds airborne (some even inhibited until 1000' or 120 seconds airborne). A couple of exceptions are Engine fire is not inhibited at V1 but the master warning light/aurals from it are until 400' and the tire failure isn't inhibited. 777 - All EICAS advisory messages and MC light w/ new EICAS caution level messages inhibited from 80 knots to 400'/20 seconds airborne, Master warning lights/fire bell from the first of V1 or rotation to 400'/25 seconds airborne 767 - Advisory messages inhibited from t/o thrust application to 400'/20 seconds airborne, MC lights and EICAS caution aurals from 80 knots to 400'/20 seconds after rotation (actual EICAS cautions not inhibited - just the sound), Master Warning lights/fire bells from rotation to 400' or 20 seconds elapsed. A fire during inhibit will show an EICAS warning but no aurals until inhibit ends. I agree with your "time is the enemy" comments to a degree. But in some cases it depends on the aircraft. None of the bleed air malfunctions in the 767 require land at nearest suitable. All fuel related EICAS messages with the exception of L/R system pressure are advisory and I'll never even see them in the high speed regime. So, to a large majority of today's pilots, many of those malfunctions you mention are not going to be evident or if they are, only a partial, inaudible caution during the critical time between 80 knots and V1. That obviously excludes you and others flying 737s that don't inhibit cautions and advisories. On my flight today with a medium TOW (322K out of 408K max), I had 18 seconds from 80 knots to V1. I was PF. Bleed, fuel, oil and hyd leaks or a bad generator were probably not going to manifest themselves in such a way that they would have been recognized in the early half of that 18 seconds for the FO to let me know in time. No aurals and no MC lights while I'm looking outside through the HUD with a "go" mentality listening for only what I know can audibly warn me about 3 out of the 4 reasons I'm trained to reject at high speed. We're simply not conditioned and trained to bring a silent EICAS message into the decision process between 80 knots and V1. Yes, the non-rotating aircraft is an outlier. I wasn't using it as an example of a high speed reject, but more to offer an example of an aircraft that is unsafe or isn't going to fly. But, not really adding much to the discussion, I agree.