>> ^Sylvester_Ink:
As Payback already pointed out, it's definitely not supersonic.
Also, one of the characteristics of a sonic boom is the loud CRACK that you get as it passes by. This is loud enough to deafen people and shatter windows for at least 100 meters around.


Um.. the sonic boom I thought was at the moment you exceed speed of sound when you stack up the soundwaves.

Do you think all planes flying at supersonic CONSTANTLY emit a sonic boom everywhere they fly? Wouldn't that make fighter plane detection pretty easy?

>> ^phelixian:
>>
I stand corrected. It is much louder when traveling at the Mach 1 boundary then when past it. Also jets are allowed to travel over populated areas supersonic as long as they are at 30,000 feet or above.


Bizzarely, flying HIGHER makes it WORSE, even at 70,000ft. Flying lower than 60,000 is extremely inefficient for supersonics, but flying lower actually makes the boom lessened, when you read into the article.

Good possibility this plane is supersonic, it's just too close to the ground for the pressure waves between the nose and tail to form.

>> ^Payback:
Phelixian, you are incorrect. The sonic boom is due to a pressure wave passing you from object moving at supersonic speeds. It's continuous, not unlike the bow wave of a boat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_boom
Otherwise, supersonic planes like the old Concorde would have been allowed over populated areas.


I stand corrected. It is much louder when traveling at the Mach 1 boundary then when past it. Also jets are allowed to travel over populated areas supersonic as long as they are at 30,000 feet or above.

Don't get me wrong guys, I'm sure he didn't spend the next week crying into his blankie, but I think this may be one of those "finding the limit" moments where you make a mental note not to go that close again. As sillma points out, these French pilots seem to have a bit of a penchant for low passes, so it's pretty obvious that the move in general was no mistake.

Yoghurt - Clearly the roll was to shake his enormous balls back out from where they had sharply retracted moments earlier

Tags for this video have been changed from 'airstrip, landing, honduras, runway' to 'airstrip, landing, honduras, runway, low, pass, dangerous, skilled, pilot, scary' - edited by kulpims

>> ^supersparky:
...Oh, wait, they're dead now because of being involved with THE craziest low pass ever by a helicopter.

Actually, the helo wasn't passing in that case, it was hovering overhead and was more-or-less "shot down" by pyrotechnics. Nothing to do with crazy, it was an accident. An accident made possible by a maverick director, but an accident none the less.

I think Vic Marrow, Myca Dinh Le, and Renee Shin-Yi Chen would take issue with the title "The CRAZIEST low pass ever by a HELICOPTER" and say "No, a crazy low pass by a helicopter, but not THE craziest" Oh, wait, they're dead now because of being involved with THE craziest low pass ever by a helicopter.

Maneuvers like this don't express skill. They just show how stupid some people will go to impress people.

hey, great portal avatar.

In reply to this comment by Payback:
I'm more impressed with the flying between the trees right after. THAT takes balls. You scuff the dirt, you'll probably be ok. Scuff a rotor blade and you're scrap metal.

Here is the NTSB synopsis of the accident:

NTSB Identification: NYC05LA085.
The docket is stored in the Docket Management System (DMS). Please contact Records Management Division
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Sunday, May 15, 2005 in Atlantic City, NJ
Probable Cause Approval Date: 5/30/2006
Aircraft: Cessna 525A, registration: OY-JET
Injuries: 1 Minor, 3 Uninjured.

The pilot performed "a low pass" over the runway, and then touched down approximately 1,000 feet beyond the approach end of the 2,948-foot long runway, with a tailwind of approximately 10 knots. After touchdown, the airplane continued off the end of the runway, and subsequently impacted water. According to the Cessna 525A Landing Distance Chart, an airplane with a landing weight of 11,400 pounds required 3,000 feet of landing distance, in a no wind situation. With a 10 knot tailwind, the airplane required 3,570 feet of landing distance. The published airport diagram for the airport, was observed attached to the pilot's control column after the accident. A notation, which read, "airport closed to jet aircraft" was observed on the diagram. Additionally, the same notation, "Arpt CLOSED to jet traffic," was observed in the FAA Airport/Facility Directory. Examination of the airplane revealed no mechanical deficiencies.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
The pilot's improper decision to plan a flight to a runway of insufficient length, his improper in-flight decision to land on that inadequate runway with a tailwind, and his failure to obtain the proper touchdown point. A factor in the accident was the tailwind condition.

Full narrative available at http://ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20050526X00676&ntsbno=NYC05LA085&akey=1