Those two pilots will probably never fly a commercial aircraft again after the investigation.

The negative outcome would have been horrific.

Its bad enough when two aircraft strike one another like in the case of KLM Pan Am Tenerife Accident (1977), the worse aviation disaster in history:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjLrZ2SDDaU

If the Air Canada pilots didn't start their go around when they did they probably would have taken out 2 other aircraft at a minimum.

Thats one very bad day at work for those 2 pilots.

He makes a very persuasive argument.

But then, I think about how there are lots of counterexamples to the "legislation that gets out will be good legislation" bit. Patriot Act. DMCA. Citizens United. Homeland Security and Aviation and Transportation Security Acts.

I dunno. If there is a weakness in the system, perhaps it is that while the separation of powers theoretically makes it hard to get garbage in, it sure as hell also makes it nigh-on-impossible to get it out when any sneaks through.

Dog fighting does not exist, and has not existed since WW1.

Even in WW2, planes attacked in passes. They start up high, fly down to pick up speed, attack and keep flying so that the enemy cannot catch them.

As that is happening, another pair of planes is already on it's way to make another pass.

Planes do not chase each other dodging around like X-wings and Tie Fighters. Because as soon as you do that their wingman shoots you down.

TopGun trains pilots in BFM and team work skills, not so much dog fighting. While one v one dog-fighting is part of learning good team work skills and becoming familiar with different scenarios, it isn't the focus.

In Vietnam, the missiles and radars were unreliable and missile had to be fired from a fairly close range. That hasn't been the case for some 30 years now, with missiles getting better all of the time with some insane ranges upwards of 80 miles. The plane is becoming more of a launch platform for missiles than anything else. That's why every fighter plane after the F-4 was designed that way primarily. The worlds best fighter is still the F-15 which has a massive radar and the best missiles. And less maneuverability than the F-16. Because they know dog fighting does not happen.



The scenario you mentioned where the planes are flying close together is not realistic - close in air to air combat is 100 miles.

Especially if the enemy plane has better maneuverability(which all Russian planes do already do anyway, apart from the F-16 if lightly loaded).
Pilots know very well the strengths of their planes, they would never put them in a position like that. They would be pinging each other to make their presence known (if a show of force was the desired effect) from over 100 miles away.


None of this makes the F-35 a good plane by any means. But I just don't agree with the reasoning in the comments here and in the media.

For example people keep mentioning the "Jack of all trades" issue. But they ignore the fact that ALL fighter planes built over the last 40 years have been turned into jack of all trades through necessity. Yet nobody criticizes them for it.

I mostly fly the same simulators as the US national guard does. So I'm hoping that it's accurate. But more than that I read a lot of books written by pilots about air to air and air to ground engagements. Which makes me more knowledgeable than 99.99% of the journalists reporting on the F-35. You'll notice that most aviation specific sites don't tend to bag out the F-35 because have a much better idea of how air combat works than the regular media sites.

EDIT: I was not aware they were ignoring failed tests. That's pretty worrying. Do you have more info on it I can read about?

Thanks for those two pointless adages that you've parroted from the lame-stream media.

Since you're a military aviation expert could you tell us what's wrong with the JSF?

Tags for this video have been changed from 'personal flight, real jet engine' to 'personal flight, real jet engine, jb9, jetpack aviation' - edited by blutruth

About the X-1 being the first manned vehicle to break the sound barrier: there are records of Bf 109Fs surpassing 950km/h TAS in a dive when they tried to solve the issue of elevator and aileron lock-ups at very high speeds. I wouldn't call it far-fetched to assume that both G10 and K4 could surpass Mach 1 in a high-altitude dive without the wings shearing off. Alas, no proof. Just an interesting bit of aviation.

http://www.businessinsider.com/two-guys-build-working-jetpack-using-real-jet-engines-2015-11

http://www.gizmag.com/jetpack-aviation-new-york-flight/40286/

*related=http://videosift.com/video/X-47B-UCAS-Aviation-History-Under-Way

X-47B UCAS Aviation History Under Way has been added as a related post - related requested by kulpims.

Hi There friends!! thanks for all comments this video is mine! Im euro aviation spotter the video is took without any premession!! so i ask to the 1 that posted it delete it right away thanks alot !!

The american police seem like some kind of african militia imposing their will on a township. Or some bastardised wild-west town from a film, where the bad guys got the sheriff's badge. They effectively do whatever they like as long as there's plausible deniability to their actions, or no witnesses left over. If they happen to overstep the line, they get told they're very naughty.

I'm afraid the spirit of the wild west lives on in the minds of many US law enforcement.. it's a case of the stereotypical aviator glasses wearing, steel toe cap booted, pencil mustachio'd ex-jock strolling around a one horse town, trying to feel powerful any way he can, hating all those he used to bully all the more for having nice cars and better paid/more fulfilling jobs.

Why do they always have to be men? Are there statistically more men in the american police or what?

Minor (admittedly pedantic) nit: the plane on display on the Intrepid is an A-12, not an SR-71 Blackbird. The SR-71 is slightly longer and heavier, and can carry a larger sensor payload while the A-12 can fly faster and higher, but they are otherwise fairly similar (the Blackbird is a refinement of the A-12).

Still the closest many of us are ever going to get to a real SR-71 though.

And I second ChaosEngine's recommendation: if you are an aviation buff, the Intrepid is definitely worth a visit. The shuttle is really impressive up close too; it's amazing they got something so big and truck-like off the ground.

Having just watched the first Air Crash/Mayday episode again (American Airlines, Flight 1420) I'm rather glad to see that

They reported a study from MIT that found that the aircrews were more likely to fly into a thunderstorm at night, if they were running late, or if aircraft ahead had gone through the same thunderstorm. (Rhoda, D.A. and Pawlak, M.L., 1999).

I have the feeling this is more of a worst case scenario or complete exaggeration being used as an enrolment tool for the AMA rather than a plan set in stone. That said, the FAA is required to respond to public input before setting their rulings, and usually actually listens, so comment to them and follow the story is the best advice I've heard. Sending your $60 to AMA does NOT seem like the proper course of action except for the AMA themselves.
The law is already fairly clear about this....
Here's what the statute says about exempting model aircraft from additional regulation.
(https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr658)
"SEC. 336. SPECIAL RULE FOR MODEL AIRCRAFT.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law
relating to the incorporation of unmanned aircraft systems into
Federal Aviation Administration plans and policies, including this
subtitle, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration
may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model
aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft, if—
(1) the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use;
(2) the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-
based set of safety guidelines and within the programming
of a nationwide community-based organization;
(3) the aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds
unless otherwise certified through a design, construction,
inspection, flight test, and operational safety program adminis-
tered by a community-based organization;
(4) the aircraft is operated in a manner that does not
interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft; and
(5) when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator
of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport
air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located
at the airport) with prior notice of the operation (model aircraft
operators flying from a permanent location within 5 miles of
an airport should establish a mutually-agreed upon operating
procedure with the airport operator and the airport air traffic
control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the
airport)).
(b) STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section shall
be construed to limit the authority of the Administrator to pursue
enforcement action against persons operating model aircraft who
endanger the safety of the national airspace system.
(c) MODEL AIRCRAFT DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘model
aircraft’’ means an unmanned aircraft that is—
(1) capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere;
(2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating
the aircraft; and
(3) flown for hobby or recreational purposes."

Pilots have called out this airport for being one of the worst:
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/958607/