What makes this event even more tragic besides the loss of several good men is the fact that many of their family members were watching. The deputy wing commander was on board, and this was to have been his last flight, so his wife and family were on the flightline watching as it happened. The pilot should have been removed years before this was allowed to happen. Again, so very tragic.
The jerk of a pilot stalled the tail once, as you could see in an earlier video, but, oh, no, he had to go on and pull back on the stick and back it so freakin' hard he couldn't recover and it augered into the ground. What a complete dickhead! Loss of a good airplane and the loss of valuable crew members, to say the least. He was slapped on the wrist a couple of times, but the command changed hands and they never put anything official in his record for the next commander to see--jerks!
ya the smart co-pilot KNEW what was coming he tryed to eject to save his life in fact you can see the flash from the attemped ejection at 9:44 if you look closely near the cockpit but it was just too late the moronic pilot killed all crew and himslef and i dont know but probably some on the ground RIP to all...
what a waste of a perfectly good plan...right when he stalls, I'm thinking, why is this pilot at a 90 degree bank, low speed and only 2-300 feet off the ground...not a bright man
A pilot with a long reputation for violating flight regs, forgetting a basic law of aerodynamics; tip an aircraft on its side and your wings give you no lift, so you fly like a lead balloon. The real tragedy here is the three other lives that were lost because of this one idiot. His Squadron Commander (Lt Col Mark McGeehan) died with him that day. He was in the co-pilots seat because did not want others taking the risk. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but there are no old-bold pilots.
@smartcooky99 Thats correct.. the tragedy was more odd because McGeehan was in that seat because others were afraid/pissed off of that pilot and he was there to fill and see for himself what this idiot was doing.. he trully sacrificied himself for others..
And responsable for this are too those superiors who didnt grounded or seriously amonested this pilot..
I know one of the Air Force officers that was part of the investigation of this accident. I understand that the ejection sequence was interrupted by the collision with the power lines. I also understand that a higher ranking officer in the unit took the place of the copilot on that flight because he didn't want the death of that man on his concious if it came down to that.
@GodHatesWar: No. The flash you see just before impact is the port wing hitting high-tension power lines. If you watch the YT video at v=FUEhNKBi4DY you will see the crash taken from a different angle, and that shows the wing hitting the power lines.
Not surprisingly there are plenty of equally ridiculous flying stunts on YouTube with folks commenting on what great pilots these guys are. Yeah, they're great alright.
@ 3.30, Wtf, ive never seen a B-52 Climb that Intensely, and by the sound of the people recording it, they didnt either, all i can say is, Looks like it was in the Post
Isn't there ejection seats installed on these bombers? If not, you would think the designers would incorporate them after all what goes up could come down?
I have an uncle who was an AWACS pilot for some years before he retired; and my remembrances of him make me comment on what a truly terrible tragedy this is.
Regardless of reasons, excuses, explanations....It's sad that this happened...May God keep this aircrew in the palm of His hand.........and bless them forever....
The pilot became arrogant and overconfident with his own skills, and wound up paying the ultimate price for it. Sadly, the price he paid included the lives of others as well as himself.
The pilot had violated safety rules many times before but was never taken off of flight duty. Right before the plane crashes one crewmember does eject but dosen't clear the fire ball and also dies. An irresponsible bomber pilot that wanted to be a fighter pilot I guess.
They were too low and too slow and at too of an acute angle/bank to have a decent chance of survival. The copilot started the ejection sequence, the hatch had blown off, but there wasn't time for the ejection sequence to complete. From what I understand the copilot and seat were still in the aircraft when it impacted the ground.
@ATFSCrash I agree completely. The pilot probably realized the turn was too steep and they were losing too much speed and eventually didn't make it out of the crash. The pilot just didn't listen to his superiors, and violated safety limits numerous times, and eventually, it led to this.
Flying is inherently dangerous, and the airframe is 60 years old... The B-52 is not a stunt plane, it's 747 size and it can't manuever like a fighter. Ballsy pilot. Too ballsy. Wannabe fighter jock.
Air shows were recently banned here (Grand Jct.) because the old people complained about the noise, but life is not safe, especially in the military. Seen a Mayday parade in Russia? Dude won't do it again. Think of it as 80,000 pound NASCAR.
That recent Soviet parade was very scary. An SU-24 appears to nearly collide with the building. I feel the aircraft were doing unreasonable aerobatics over a densely populated urban area. It certainly would have not been acceptable by US airshow standards and aviation regulations. When I saw what they did it, was reminiscent of this crash, Ramstein & Sknyliv airshow disasters. They should've known better, fortunately there was no crash THIS time.
srry i just saw that he was not the only one flying. may he be haunted for the rest of his days for claiming his crew just to show off for the camera.
No-one considered that this guy was a test/stunt pilot? These guys jobs are to do the incredibly dangerous stuff so that others don't kill themselves. Dying in a horrific fireball is in the job description :P
Like McArthur are said: it's foolish to unnecessarily die for your country. If at all possible make the enemy die for his country. Of course he typically used much harsher and colorful language.
The pilot was dangerous to his crew and to the public as well as to himself. A soldier is supposed to be dangerous to the enemy. A soldier is supposed to kill the enemy, not their own crew and their own countrymen.
@ATFSCrash I believe it was George S Patton said that "it's foolish to unnecessarily die for your country. If at all possible make the enemy die for his country."
@AlpacaNinja dude just wow you r the r tard of the universe.what are ya 12 maybe 13. i thought the job description was to protect and defend our soils. he neglected safety when flying a monstrous plane at banks impossible for aerodynamics of flight... just saying you obviously are ignorant to what actually goes on in our military and their preparations for flight shows. sure he ejected and not much but appeared a power stations was hurt. but what if a crowd had been there you dip $#!+
i didnt think they did maneuvers over crowds i thought they had to do them over the air field itself and pilots like the fact of being pilots go to their head especially in the military, trust me i work with them
During the public airshows he didn't directly overfly the public audience area. However considering the size and speed of the aircraft and the extreme aerobatics that he was doing; I don't feel he was a safe distance from the audience line. I feel that the distance to the audience should be proportional to the risk; to keep the risk of the audience reasonable. During the military ceremony it appears he directly overflew the audience in a manner that I would consider unreasonable.
@gooferman609 Well current federal law stipulates that you can't perform acrobatics over congested areas or areas that put the public's safety at risk. This applies to air shows, as well. The US has a fairly decent public safety record for air shows.
My first plane was a Piper Cub. The flight instructor taped a piece of yarn on the forward canopy so I could tell I had good airflow. Maybe this guy could have used that.
Ailerons vs. spoilers... Hold your right hand flat, palm down. Ailerons: rotate your hand around your middle finger. Spoilers: rotate your hand around your pinky for a left turn, around your thumb for a right turn. Spoilers reduce lift.
That said, the pilot was 100% at fault. If I recall, several junior officers refused to fly with him and the crew on the mishap flight were Full Colonels or better.
Was this aircraft manned by anyone but a single pilot? If so that's not only stupid but murder as well. This pilot had obviously seen too many Slim Pickins movies.
It would be like putting high profile racing slicks on a 57 Chevy Nomad with manual steering and expecting to do a slalom course in a rainstorm at high speed.
The main cause is the reckless flying; and the atmosphere of tolerance to recklessness by command, the ranks and the general public. However the difference between ailerons and spoilerons that birddoggarton seems to be alluding to, is a minor contributing factor. Ailerons are basically lift neutral and generally have more command authority. Spoilerons are lift deficit and generally have less command authority.
It was a series of leadership failures across the board by the Fairchild and USAF officers who served over the overly confident and insubordinate pilot.
Today, the USAF uses this chain of events and incident as a teaching tool for all of its officers to show what a failure in proper leadership and accountability can do.
The Ailerons are diferent for most. The B52's Ailerons push the wings down instead of pushing them up. They are smaller also. When he rolled, there wasn't enough air speed to level the wing back to level flight.
I think Im right on the cause of the crash. Right you guys ?
Sorry this was just plain stupidity. This is a HUGE aircraft...not a jet fighter. 8 engines and wheels on the wing tips to prevent the wings from striking the ground. It is one thing if we are at war and he is flying manuevers or missions. But this guy was showing off and it finally caught up with him. I do not feel bad for the pilot but I do for rest of the crew and their families. You reap what you sow.
@hebneh Are you really that ignorant and or are you a drama queen?
USAF definition of Class A mishap: is defined as one where there is loss of life, injury resulting in permanent total disability, destruction of an AF aircraft, and/or property damage/loss exceeding $1 million.
It could be just vapor trails from the pressure change. However allegedly I think that is the flight that he essentially ruptured the fuel tanks and the wing skin so fuel was venting. IIRC allegedly it was during that maneuver that he unzipped about 500 rivets by over stressing the aircraft.
I think, for a few seconds there, he forgot his altitude. Ordinarily, he made turning maneuvers with even higher degrees of bank with no problem. But most of you are right...he was an accident waiting to happen. Very sad.
Part of the pilots job is to know his altitude. They had many instruments that told them their altitude, yet repeatedly he pushed the aircraft to low too hard and too close to spectators and other innocent bystanders. He had been warned about being too low before, yet he repeatedly busted minimums. He obviously knew he was too low, he was an egomaniac that just didn't care.
I've always thought the avionics term high-speed stall was an oxymoron, and stills do. Attack angle, G. loading, wing loading, angle of bank, and many other things raise the stall speed. He was flying to slow for the conditions. Like they say in engineering; it depends on the variables.
Like George Carlin says; isn't "jumbo shrimp" an oxymoron? ;)
what an idiot how many lives on the ground were in danger for this idiot trying to be a billy bad ass. How come his crew never stood up to him to say captain sir WTF your gonna hurt somebody.
That's a rather idiotic assumption. Part of the pilots job is to know his altitude. They had many instruments that told them their altitude, yet repeatedly he pushed the aircraft to low, too hard and too close to spectators and other innocent bystanders.
I feel awful for the rest of the aircrew killed by a reckless fool of a pilot. From reading the story behind the crash on Wikipedia, it seems like a lot of blame should also go to the higher-ups who allowed Holland to keep flying after repeated and flagrant breaches of safety rules (many of them documented in this video). The man was clearly an accident looking for a place to happen, it's just a shame he took three other innocent men with him.
Nothing that he did earlier is really that bad. Everything looks controlled, sure he is flying low but everything is gradual. However the last time it looks like while he is turning the plane lost lift and starting falling and he was just so close to the ground he couldnt recover. It also looks maybe like hydraulic failure, did they ever figure out what caused it?
You certainly know nothing of physics, mechanics, aviation and safety. He did many foolish and reckless things in the video. If you would've read the report summary at Wikipedia you would already know the findings of this accident and that your hydraulic failure claim is ridiculous.
Maybe it is because of my English but do i understand it right that alle shots are from the same pilot ending up in the crash in 1994? And i suppose that he had permission to stunt like this?
if he had these dangerous tendencies, years before this deadly accident, then WHY was he able to continue to fly like this?? I think that people that were in charge of th is guy had to know he was on the edge of danger all the time. I am sure he had to have permission to fly these profiles, like the one on the YAKIMA RANGES. he had to have had permission, to be that low, you know what i mean??
YAKIMA RANGES: I'm suspect he had permission to fly low, but I'm sure he wasn't told to fly reckless like he did. There's a difference between 100 foot high low pass and a estimated 3 foot high low pass. If the copilot didn't intervene on that pass they may have crashed.
After the YAKIMA RANGE I think he should've been grounded and had a psychiatric evaluation and been reviewed by a court-martial. Regrettably it seems that command was under his spell and probably had what I call retireitis (command probably didn't want to make any controversial decisions that would disgrace and embarrass such a high-ranking official. They probably didn't want any backlash to jeopardize their retirement.)
if he had these dangerous tendencies, years before this deadly accident, then WHY was he able to continue to fly like this?? I think that people that were in charge of th is guy had to know he was on the edge of danger all the time. I am sure he had to have permission to fly these profiles, like the one on the YAKIMA RANGES. he had to have had permission, to be that low, you know what i mean??
You should get off your holy high horse yourself since you can't understand the difference. The only blue Angel crash as I can think of were honest accidents; whereas Bud Holland was clearly reckless. There is a humongous difference.
When is a full on pilot error a "mishap" and not a crash? He pushed the plane way past its aerodynamic capablities and killed himself and 8 others not to mention the cost of the B-52 and the pontential that was there to kill others on the airfield.
There are several classifications of mishap. USAF definition of Class A mishap: is defined as one where there is loss of life, injury resulting in permanent total disability, destruction of an AF aircraft, and/or property damage/loss exceeding $1 million.
ive said that the pilot was at fault on another video of this but to be fair this video has shocked me how monuverable this plane is for its size. maybe he did just exceed the planes limits but it looks like it has done it before n that day he was just unlucky. Feel bad 4 everyone involved.
It wasn't bad luck. He had been taking unreasonable risks for a long time, that doesn't mean it's all right, he crashed because the long overdue odds caught up with him. He was an accident waiting to happen. His reckless criminal behavior murdered his crew and destroyed an aircraft at taxpayer expense. In many respects he was an intelligent and gifted person, but he had a very dark side and was an egomaniac in some respects.
In 1980, A B52 went down at March, 22ND Bomb Wing, A reasonale expectation the aircraft stalled on final approach. When the aircraft flew over me the engines had shut off. At 300 ft. under a B-52 is like standing in a tornado. The aircraft crash 1/2 mile from the runway. I had just got off duty from the fire dept, the gunner survived out of the 10 man crew. The B-52 has alwaws been a stable platform and always had an excellent flying record. How do you stall 8 engines?
I'm not familiar with the mishap you speak of. I would be skeptical that all eight engines would just shut down simultaneously or in quick succession unless it was a mechanical issue (like electrical or fuel) or operator error (IE the crew shut down the engines).
You're not confusing and aerodynamic stall with a flameout (engine stall)?
The aircraft in this video stalled aerodynamically; it has nothing to do with engine flameout. Though an engine flameout will often cascade into circumstances that lead to and aerodynamic stall.
They were too low and too slow and at too of an acute angle/bank to have a decent chance of survival. The copilot started the ejection sequence, the hatch had blown off, but there wasn't time for the ejection sequence to complete. From what I understand the copilot and seat were still in the aircraft when it impacted the ground.
There was only a four-man crew, I think typically there are six.
At one point during the Cold War, it was considered necessary to fly below enemy radar, ie under 250` all the way in. Or less. Disciplining pilots for low flying would have been counterproductive. The lowest flying pilots were the best. Mind you, this was at a higher speed. The turbulence encountered at low level over the desert caused several structural failures, the most spectacular was the loss of the majority of the vertical tail surface. There must be a picture of that somewhere!
That mishap did not happen at low-level it happened at 14,300. I have a video of that B-52 with most of its vertical stabilizer missing on approach and landing. My video is a montage and has a lot of other things mixed in with it, however there is a shorter better preserved video of it.
The manufacturer has a page on it which includes the photo and the story.
Google.
Even with No Tail, B-52 'Finest I Ever Flew,' Says Pilot
To the best of my knowledge they still do terrain masking. Contrary to your claim pilots should be written up and grounded for flying as low and as reckless as this nut did. Allegedly he passed about 3 m on that ridge pass, allegedly the copilot grabbed the yoke and pulled back. If the copilot hadn't intervened they may very well have crashed. Terrain masking you fly low, but not that low and not over populated areas or significant buildings.
Sorry. On second thought you may be right. You may be talking about another mishap. Now that I think about it there might have been a mishap like you described. I think you may be describing the 1963 elephant Mountain crash. They were about 500 feet AGL when they had a structural failure.
, any person who has any knowledge of any aviation laws knows you are not allowed below 200'agl when there is people under you,. this this was a pilot a LCOL Who was hotdogging, all his co-pilots refused to fly with him, and someone was ordered by him to get in the plane, and they ultimatly crashed and burned.. everyone from his squadron refused to fly with him, and unfortuantly it too this to get him out of the air.
@deltadiv his squadron commander actually volunteered to fly with him this day. everyone knew he was a show off and did things with the plane that he shouldnt so they didnt want to fly with him. his squadron commander realized this and agreed so he said if anyone has to fly with him hed do it
@deltadiv There would be no discussion about this sort of event if all pilots were sensible. I`ve done stupid things in the past, 35 years ago prosecuted for a 5 feet low pass. Two guys were looking down on me from the cab of a lorry, and said so in court. I grew up, but didn`t fly solo again for twenty five years after that! Got the T-shirt, okay? Kids know rules don`t apply to them, speed limit signs are for other people. Same with aeroplanes, engage mind before opening throttle!
God bless the people who built this plane, the people who maintained it and the crew who had the privilege of flying it. We grieve for the loss and respect you all!
I'm not a pilot, tech, or anything other than a flight enthusiast. That being said, I don't need any smart ass answers. My question: why couldn't the pilot have turned the other way when they realized they were in over their head?
@simsburyct Basically, in this situation only one wing is working. The faster moving one on the outside of the turn. So the roll and turn continue into a full spin, like a sycamore seed, the lift goes round the weight. The ground stopped it happening here, I believe a B-52 would need more than 15.000 feet to recover, even if it stayed in one piece. Full opposite spoileron destroys almost all of the lift from both wings, you are going down fast! Turning just ain`t possible....
@SuperAviatar That's what I thought when I first saw this video. It turns out that it is incorrect though. My boss was an Air Force colonel with 20 years of B-52 experience. What he said was that the aircraft stalled in the turn and couldn't be recovered because roll-control on a B-52 is done with spoilers rather than ailerons. Spoilers lose effectiveness in a stall so he couldn't roll out of the turn.
He was right, he just gave a better description than you did. The B-52 has spoilerons because they can act independently and asymmetrically. True spoilers can only be used dependently while acting symmetrically.
This was a tip stall, and accelerated stall. There is a lot of different language that can describe the type of stall. As he said the inside of the wingtip was going a lot slower, so that's where the stall started. Once the stall started it was self propagating. Once the tip went into a deep stall it triggered a cascading sequence event (domino effect) that deepened the roll and stall. Spoilerons are less effective than ailerons in a stall situation.
As he said the inside of the wingtip was going a lot slower, so that's where the stall started. Once the stall started it was self propagating. Once the tip went into a deep stall it triggered a cascading sequence event (domino effect) that deepened the roll and stall. Spoilerons are less effective than ailerons in a stall situation.
@simsburyct: If you mean when he realized the plane was going to crash, by that time it's too late. The plane was in a tip stall, which means the wingtip pointed at the ground was moving too slowly to generate lift. He may well have been trying to roll level, but without the airflow, nothing will happen. It's like turning the steering wheel on a car when it's not moving.
Sadly the B-52 essentially is our main bomber. Sadly most if not all of the B-52's are older than the pilots flying them. The aircraft are so old and worn that some of the floorboards were so worn from the pilots resting their feet at the floorboards had to be replaced.
wikipedia is crap its all old rubbish. This was pilot error the us air force did complain about this the pilot was being to agressive with an aircraft this size he had warnings. Plus he was to low on that turn. He was to dangerous.
Wikipedia is more accurate on this issue than you are. Sure it was pilot error, but there is more to it, because this pilot was a known rogue pilot and he was allowed to fly recklessly or several years. So its more than simply pilot error, theres plenty of blame to go around. Command, many of the ranks and airshow spectators are also complicit because they enabled the reckless behavior. I notice that most people that hate Wikipedia, hate it because it proves them wrong.
To the best of my knowledge no model of B-52 uses flaperons. Flaperons are flight control surfaces that are flaps that are modified to operate asymmetrically to bank the aircraft. This model of B-52 uses spoilrons; spoilers there are modified to operate asymmetrically to bank the aircraft.
When devices are forced to perform beyond their intended purpose, usually something goes wrong. I am sure none of the design engineers intended this huge bomber to be flown like it was a fighter jet.
You ought to pick another user name because you certainly lack of knowledge of Aeronautics. The B-52H in this video uses flaps and spoilerons. If you watch the video closely you can see the "spoilers" operating asymmetrically, therefore they are not true spoilers, they are spoilerons.
That guy was getting way to confident
Wildguitar007 1 year ago 294
them b52's are real big boys,i saw one at wright field and i couldn't stop wondering how a thing like that could get into the sky
bearhaulin120 1 year ago 77
What makes this event even more tragic besides the loss of several good men is the fact that many of their family members were watching. The deputy wing commander was on board, and this was to have been his last flight, so his wife and family were on the flightline watching as it happened. The pilot should have been removed years before this was allowed to happen. Again, so very tragic.
JPH1786 1 year ago 70
An uncontrolled flight and crash.
deltadude61 1 year ago 15
It could just be glare, but at 9:45 it looks like the ejection canopy got jettisoned.
kush2121 1 year ago 16
What a pity! A beautiful plane. Terrible disaster!
vegeboyx 1 year ago 11
this guy should have been quare matialed long before this take his wings away and smack him across the face is what i say
gunny556fly 1 year ago 14
wow.........what a moron i feel bad for his crew
cjh134414 1 year ago 26
Blimey, shocking video O_O
MajorT0m 1 year ago 17
the video comment thing makes a good point
twizzr 1 year ago 2
Crazy basterd.
SCHRUBBE1966 1 year ago 2
Thats pretty darn fast for a B-52 at the start...
TheKevinV08 1 year ago 4
The Man Had Some SKILL!Give Him That! BUT............
Branzo29 1 year ago 6
The jerk of a pilot stalled the tail once, as you could see in an earlier video, but, oh, no, he had to go on and pull back on the stick and back it so freakin' hard he couldn't recover and it augered into the ground. What a complete dickhead! Loss of a good airplane and the loss of valuable crew members, to say the least. He was slapped on the wrist a couple of times, but the command changed hands and they never put anything official in his record for the next commander to see--jerks!
kctriesler 1 year ago 9
Terrible waste of life
ruzphi 1 year ago 6
ya the smart co-pilot KNEW what was coming he tryed to eject to save his life in fact you can see the flash from the attemped ejection at 9:44 if you look closely near the cockpit but it was just too late the moronic pilot killed all crew and himslef and i dont know but probably some on the ground RIP to all...
thefsxandREALpilot 1 year ago
Banked way too hard...Took too many good lives with him....
chargamer 1 year ago 3
That's what happens with 90 degrees of bank fifty feet from the ground.
pelagic6 1 year ago 5
I have researched his, and as you see, the co-pilot hatch deploys, but too late for him to eject. This is why all 4 people onboard died
robertsd553 1 year ago 3
that fools dead
zzachh909 1 year ago
That plane is suprisingly agile.
SilencerLX 1 year ago
what a waste of a perfectly good plan...right when he stalls, I'm thinking, why is this pilot at a 90 degree bank, low speed and only 2-300 feet off the ground...not a bright man
andrewfrazee 1 year ago
That's sort of like why you don't mess with 360,000 pounds of flying steel so low...
mank1nd 1 year ago
flew the wings
out from under
that b-52....
oppps
chena3 1 year ago
A terrible day for the USAF.
alteck5 1 year ago 2
A pilot with a long reputation for violating flight regs, forgetting a basic law of aerodynamics; tip an aircraft on its side and your wings give you no lift, so you fly like a lead balloon. The real tragedy here is the three other lives that were lost because of this one idiot. His Squadron Commander (Lt Col Mark McGeehan) died with him that day. He was in the co-pilots seat because did not want others taking the risk. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but there are no old-bold pilots.
smartcooky99 1 year ago 11
@smartcooky99 Thats correct.. the tragedy was more odd because McGeehan was in that seat because others were afraid/pissed off of that pilot and he was there to fill and see for himself what this idiot was doing.. he trully sacrificied himself for others..
And responsable for this are too those superiors who didnt grounded or seriously amonested this pilot..
sparrowlt 1 year ago 44
its a bomber not a fighter, why would anyone try that stuff in a bomber!
fiddlenut24 1 year ago
Poor B-52. She must have hated to see him walking up the tarmac. "Not again..."
CJ7with285andt18 1 year ago 2
must've been awful to see it live.
DavidVanPatten 1 year ago
I know one of the Air Force officers that was part of the investigation of this accident. I understand that the ejection sequence was interrupted by the collision with the power lines. I also understand that a higher ranking officer in the unit took the place of the copilot on that flight because he didn't want the death of that man on his concious if it came down to that.
FJones9508 1 year ago
8 is enough!
nipponhouseplayer 1 year ago
Does the plane hit the building at 09:47?
GodHatesWar 1 year ago
@GodHatesWar: No. The flash you see just before impact is the port wing hitting high-tension power lines. If you watch the YT video at v=FUEhNKBi4DY you will see the crash taken from a different angle, and that shows the wing hitting the power lines.
smartcooky99 1 year ago
@GodHatesWar
Looks close, also looks like it hit a power line.
all4golf 1 year ago
Not surprisingly there are plenty of equally ridiculous flying stunts on YouTube with folks commenting on what great pilots these guys are. Yeah, they're great alright.
aligerous 1 year ago 4
I'm no aviation expert, but I would hazzard a guess that a plane of that size and weight isn't built for such manouvres.
culchie1982 1 year ago 16
Wow thats ridiculous
tiggytigg08 1 year ago
R.I.P.
rcedwardsen 1 year ago
This incident is why the Air Force created their core values program.
swhis85 1 year ago 4
Wait; Is that the same pilot in all the clips? I mean how those who have gave him the toy didn't see it coming?
Orthodoxcrusader 1 year ago 5
wtf was he doing low flybys for anyway thats not a friggin fighter.
God rest the crew
Madcat151 1 year ago
I believe it was a Col Holland wasn't it?
thebes56 1 year ago
@ 3.30, Wtf, ive never seen a B-52 Climb that Intensely, and by the sound of the people recording it, they didnt either, all i can say is, Looks like it was in the Post
ASJO19 1 year ago
Isn't there ejection seats installed on these bombers? If not, you would think the designers would incorporate them after all what goes up could come down?
raiden711 1 year ago 3
I remember that one from when I was a kid.
kendoka0girl 1 year ago
I have an uncle who was an AWACS pilot for some years before he retired; and my remembrances of him make me comment on what a truly terrible tragedy this is.
gbwisconsin 1 year ago
Regardless of reasons, excuses, explanations....It's sad that this happened...May God keep this aircrew in the palm of His hand.........and bless them forever....
ATBirdMan 1 year ago 2
The pilot became arrogant and overconfident with his own skills, and wound up paying the ultimate price for it. Sadly, the price he paid included the lives of others as well as himself.
Kelvari7882 1 year ago
My dad was 120 feet away from the crash in a building doing work
BRJ3434 1 year ago
A B-52c an do alot of things even some things fighter jets can do but is a bomber first. Probably the greatest bomber in history.
muddplaying 1 year ago
The pilot had violated safety rules many times before but was never taken off of flight duty. Right before the plane crashes one crewmember does eject but dosen't clear the fire ball and also dies. An irresponsible bomber pilot that wanted to be a fighter pilot I guess.
aqinthe 1 year ago 467
@aqinthe
They were too low and too slow and at too of an acute angle/bank to have a decent chance of survival. The copilot started the ejection sequence, the hatch had blown off, but there wasn't time for the ejection sequence to complete. From what I understand the copilot and seat were still in the aircraft when it impacted the ground.
ATFSCrash 1 year ago 146
@ATFSCrash I agree completely. The pilot probably realized the turn was too steep and they were losing too much speed and eventually didn't make it out of the crash. The pilot just didn't listen to his superiors, and violated safety limits numerous times, and eventually, it led to this.
coolpixer 1 year ago
So how do we know this is the same pilot in each frame?
Pacedawg 1 year ago
Damn, 6 engines on those suckers! Try getting THAT up in the air.
goofygoat2009 1 year ago
Flying is inherently dangerous, and the airframe is 60 years old... The B-52 is not a stunt plane, it's 747 size and it can't manuever like a fighter. Ballsy pilot. Too ballsy. Wannabe fighter jock.
Air shows were recently banned here (Grand Jct.) because the old people complained about the noise, but life is not safe, especially in the military. Seen a Mayday parade in Russia? Dude won't do it again. Think of it as 80,000 pound NASCAR.
RacistRazaRaper 1 year ago
@RacistRazaRaper
That recent Soviet parade was very scary. An SU-24 appears to nearly collide with the building. I feel the aircraft were doing unreasonable aerobatics over a densely populated urban area. It certainly would have not been acceptable by US airshow standards and aviation regulations. When I saw what they did it, was reminiscent of this crash, Ramstein & Sknyliv airshow disasters. They should've known better, fortunately there was no crash THIS time.
ATFSCrash 1 year ago
srry i just saw that he was not the only one flying. may he be haunted for the rest of his days for claiming his crew just to show off for the camera.
derkaderkastan420 1 year ago
my dad used to drive the B52 and from what i remember he said they responded fairly well for maneuvers for the size of the thing
the pilot that crashed it was his last flight and they were going to apparently retired him and his B52
wont say he went with his boots on but what the hey
tylerjayd 1 year ago
oops....
lostcruise007 1 year ago
No-one considered that this guy was a test/stunt pilot? These guys jobs are to do the incredibly dangerous stuff so that others don't kill themselves. Dying in a horrific fireball is in the job description :P
AlpacaNinja 1 year ago
@AlpacaNinja
You're an idiot. You got it all wrong.
Like McArthur are said: it's foolish to unnecessarily die for your country. If at all possible make the enemy die for his country. Of course he typically used much harsher and colorful language.
The pilot was dangerous to his crew and to the public as well as to himself. A soldier is supposed to be dangerous to the enemy. A soldier is supposed to kill the enemy, not their own crew and their own countrymen.
ATFSCrash 1 year ago 5
@ATFSCrash ..Patton,not MacArthur
unclemax4 1 year ago 2
@unclemax4
Thanks for your correction. My mistake.
ATFSCrash 1 year ago 4
@ATFSCrash I believe it was George S Patton said that "it's foolish to unnecessarily die for your country. If at all possible make the enemy die for his country."
realdealz39 1 year ago 29
@realdealz39
Thanks for your correction. My mistake.
ATFSCrash 1 year ago 4
@AlpacaNinja dude just wow you r the r tard of the universe.what are ya 12 maybe 13. i thought the job description was to protect and defend our soils. he neglected safety when flying a monstrous plane at banks impossible for aerodynamics of flight... just saying you obviously are ignorant to what actually goes on in our military and their preparations for flight shows. sure he ejected and not much but appeared a power stations was hurt. but what if a crowd had been there you dip $#!+
derkaderkastan420 1 year ago
I hope the pilots are ok. There pilots are specialists at trickery
dominique0204 1 year ago
i didnt think they did maneuvers over crowds i thought they had to do them over the air field itself and pilots like the fact of being pilots go to their head especially in the military, trust me i work with them
gooferman609 1 year ago
@gooferman609
During the public airshows he didn't directly overfly the public audience area. However considering the size and speed of the aircraft and the extreme aerobatics that he was doing; I don't feel he was a safe distance from the audience line. I feel that the distance to the audience should be proportional to the risk; to keep the risk of the audience reasonable. During the military ceremony it appears he directly overflew the audience in a manner that I would consider unreasonable.
ATFSCrash 1 year ago
@gooferman609 Well current federal law stipulates that you can't perform acrobatics over congested areas or areas that put the public's safety at risk. This applies to air shows, as well. The US has a fairly decent public safety record for air shows.
Kosh800 1 year ago
This was caused due to pilot error
remas14 1 year ago
This is a blatant dis-regard for his aircraft and his crew
toddstotman 1 year ago
My first plane was a Piper Cub. The flight instructor taped a piece of yarn on the forward canopy so I could tell I had good airflow. Maybe this guy could have used that.
azimuth361 1 year ago
Ailerons vs. spoilers... Hold your right hand flat, palm down. Ailerons: rotate your hand around your middle finger. Spoilers: rotate your hand around your pinky for a left turn, around your thumb for a right turn. Spoilers reduce lift.
That said, the pilot was 100% at fault. If I recall, several junior officers refused to fly with him and the crew on the mishap flight were Full Colonels or better.
ledhed430 1 year ago
04:53 almost cut the grass. All the videos is from the same pilot?
fertiredoflove 1 year ago
Was this aircraft manned by anyone but a single pilot? If so that's not only stupid but murder as well. This pilot had obviously seen too many Slim Pickins movies.
ericberner 1 year ago
@ericberner yippe yi yo kiyay?
CTFD13 1 year ago
There went $50 million dollars!!!!
SteveWard3928 1 year ago
"You don't see that much degrees of bank really often." I should hope not.
iiiset 1 year ago
@iiiset My thoughts exactly.
SteveWard3928 1 year ago
@dustinwayne12
It would be like putting high profile racing slicks on a 57 Chevy Nomad with manual steering and expecting to do a slalom course in a rainstorm at high speed.
ATFSCrash 1 year ago
@dustinwayne12
The main cause is the reckless flying; and the atmosphere of tolerance to recklessness by command, the ranks and the general public. However the difference between ailerons and spoilerons that birddoggarton seems to be alluding to, is a minor contributing factor. Ailerons are basically lift neutral and generally have more command authority. Spoilerons are lift deficit and generally have less command authority.
ATFSCrash 1 year ago
It was a series of leadership failures across the board by the Fairchild and USAF officers who served over the overly confident and insubordinate pilot.
Today, the USAF uses this chain of events and incident as a teaching tool for all of its officers to show what a failure in proper leadership and accountability can do.
princepedro 1 year ago
This video only needs 12 seconds.
Whats the point behind 9m 48 secs of a B52 flying about??
Bulletguy07 1 year ago
The Ailerons are diferent for most. The B52's Ailerons push the wings down instead of pushing them up. They are smaller also. When he rolled, there wasn't enough air speed to level the wing back to level flight.
I think Im right on the cause of the crash. Right you guys ?
birddoggarton 1 year ago
@birddoggarton
This version of the B-52 does not have ailerons. It has spoilerons. Wikipedia spoileron.
ATFSCrash 1 year ago
Sorry this was just plain stupidity. This is a HUGE aircraft...not a jet fighter. 8 engines and wheels on the wing tips to prevent the wings from striking the ground. It is one thing if we are at war and he is flying manuevers or missions. But this guy was showing off and it finally caught up with him. I do not feel bad for the pilot but I do for rest of the crew and their families. You reap what you sow.
SteveWard3928 1 year ago
Comment removed
ManganeseMan 1 year ago
@ManganeseMan
You must be ignorant and/or blind if you don't see it.
ATFSCrash 1 year ago
"Mishap"? Nope.
Despite the title of this video, this is not a mishap, it's a full-on disaster.
hebneh 1 year ago
@hebneh Are you really that ignorant and or are you a drama queen?
USAF definition of Class A mishap: is defined as one where there is loss of life, injury resulting in permanent total disability, destruction of an AF aircraft, and/or property damage/loss exceeding $1 million.
ATFSCrash 1 year ago
?I love the sound of b 52s in the morning.
SaberTanker22 1 year ago
rip guys....
yo061209 1 year ago
Comment removed
skazhiprivet 1 year ago
@skazhiprivet
You probably think Hitler was awesome. The pilot was a reckless egomaniac; as far as I'm concerned that's not awesome; it is psychopathic.
ATFSCrash 1 year ago
What are the white streams that come out of the wings
JFM94 1 year ago
@JFM94
It could be just vapor trails from the pressure change. However allegedly I think that is the flight that he essentially ruptured the fuel tanks and the wing skin so fuel was venting. IIRC allegedly it was during that maneuver that he unzipped about 500 rivets by over stressing the aircraft.
ATFSCrash 1 year ago 2
@JFM94 exhaust from the engines.
Hamatitio 1 year ago
I think, for a few seconds there, he forgot his altitude. Ordinarily, he made turning maneuvers with even higher degrees of bank with no problem. But most of you are right...he was an accident waiting to happen. Very sad.
StellarBlue1 1 year ago
@StellarBlue1
Part of the pilots job is to know his altitude. They had many instruments that told them their altitude, yet repeatedly he pushed the aircraft to low too hard and too close to spectators and other innocent bystanders. He had been warned about being too low before, yet he repeatedly busted minimums. He obviously knew he was too low, he was an egomaniac that just didn't care.
ATFSCrash 1 year ago 2
high speed stall? at that angle of bank, she had little lift. tragic
ushouldntjudgeme 1 year ago
@ushouldntjudgeme
I've always thought the avionics term high-speed stall was an oxymoron, and stills do. Attack angle, G. loading, wing loading, angle of bank, and many other things raise the stall speed. He was flying to slow for the conditions. Like they say in engineering; it depends on the variables.
Like George Carlin says; isn't "jumbo shrimp" an oxymoron? ;)
ATFSCrash 1 year ago
what an idiot how many lives on the ground were in danger for this idiot trying to be a billy bad ass. How come his crew never stood up to him to say captain sir WTF your gonna hurt somebody.
LCAC46 1 year ago
@LCAC46
That's a rather idiotic assumption. Part of the pilots job is to know his altitude. They had many instruments that told them their altitude, yet repeatedly he pushed the aircraft to low, too hard and too close to spectators and other innocent bystanders.
ATFSCrash 1 year ago
Yup,that was a stupid thing to try.........
MrWer1138 1 year ago 2
I feel awful for the rest of the aircrew killed by a reckless fool of a pilot. From reading the story behind the crash on Wikipedia, it seems like a lot of blame should also go to the higher-ups who allowed Holland to keep flying after repeated and flagrant breaches of safety rules (many of them documented in this video). The man was clearly an accident looking for a place to happen, it's just a shame he took three other innocent men with him.
jetblack99 1 year ago
Nothing that he did earlier is really that bad. Everything looks controlled, sure he is flying low but everything is gradual. However the last time it looks like while he is turning the plane lost lift and starting falling and he was just so close to the ground he couldnt recover. It also looks maybe like hydraulic failure, did they ever figure out what caused it?
thermo1984 1 year ago
@thermo1984
You certainly know nothing of physics, mechanics, aviation and safety. He did many foolish and reckless things in the video. If you would've read the report summary at Wikipedia you would already know the findings of this accident and that your hydraulic failure claim is ridiculous.
ATFSCrash 1 year ago
Maybe it is because of my English but do i understand it right that alle shots are from the same pilot ending up in the crash in 1994? And i suppose that he had permission to stunt like this?
silvester59 1 year ago
if he had these dangerous tendencies, years before this deadly accident, then WHY was he able to continue to fly like this?? I think that people that were in charge of th is guy had to know he was on the edge of danger all the time. I am sure he had to have permission to fly these profiles, like the one on the YAKIMA RANGES. he had to have had permission, to be that low, you know what i mean??
globemaster68 1 year ago 9
@globemaster68
YAKIMA RANGES: I'm suspect he had permission to fly low, but I'm sure he wasn't told to fly reckless like he did. There's a difference between 100 foot high low pass and a estimated 3 foot high low pass. If the copilot didn't intervene on that pass they may have crashed.
ATFSCrash 1 year ago
@globemaster68
After the YAKIMA RANGE I think he should've been grounded and had a psychiatric evaluation and been reviewed by a court-martial. Regrettably it seems that command was under his spell and probably had what I call retireitis (command probably didn't want to make any controversial decisions that would disgrace and embarrass such a high-ranking official. They probably didn't want any backlash to jeopardize their retirement.)
ATFSCrash 1 year ago
@globemaster68
Essentially the same reason Clinton wasn't impeached when he was obviously guilty.
ATFSCrash 1 year ago
if he had these dangerous tendencies, years before this deadly accident, then WHY was he able to continue to fly like this?? I think that people that were in charge of th is guy had to know he was on the edge of danger all the time. I am sure he had to have permission to fly these profiles, like the one on the YAKIMA RANGES. he had to have had permission, to be that low, you know what i mean??
globemaster68 1 year ago
Wow, looks like they stalled a wing.
duanedragon2 1 year ago
Blue Angels have crashed several times and nobody blamed the pilots for hot dogging so don't get all holy about this.
Razorfish 1 year ago
@Razorfish
You should get off your holy high horse yourself since you can't understand the difference. The only blue Angel crash as I can think of were honest accidents; whereas Bud Holland was clearly reckless. There is a humongous difference.
ATFSCrash 1 year ago
When is a full on pilot error a "mishap" and not a crash? He pushed the plane way past its aerodynamic capablities and killed himself and 8 others not to mention the cost of the B-52 and the pontential that was there to kill others on the airfield.
yorkhunt65 1 year ago
@yorkhunt65
There are several classifications of mishap. USAF definition of Class A mishap: is defined as one where there is loss of life, injury resulting in permanent total disability, destruction of an AF aircraft, and/or property damage/loss exceeding $1 million.
ATFSCrash 1 year ago
ive said that the pilot was at fault on another video of this but to be fair this video has shocked me how monuverable this plane is for its size. maybe he did just exceed the planes limits but it looks like it has done it before n that day he was just unlucky. Feel bad 4 everyone involved.
simpson3100 1 year ago
@simpson3100
It wasn't bad luck. He had been taking unreasonable risks for a long time, that doesn't mean it's all right, he crashed because the long overdue odds caught up with him. He was an accident waiting to happen. His reckless criminal behavior murdered his crew and destroyed an aircraft at taxpayer expense. In many respects he was an intelligent and gifted person, but he had a very dark side and was an egomaniac in some respects.
ATFSCrash 1 year ago 33
@ATFSCrash very well said
HarleyMikeJrSWA737 1 year ago 2
Sometimes you can be too comfortable with your machine. He tried to push it past its limits.
lobsters12111 1 year ago
I thought rule nr 1 in airshows was "DO NOT FLY OVER THE CROWD"!
larsjake 1 year ago
In 1980, A B52 went down at March, 22ND Bomb Wing, A reasonale expectation the aircraft stalled on final approach. When the aircraft flew over me the engines had shut off. At 300 ft. under a B-52 is like standing in a tornado. The aircraft crash 1/2 mile from the runway. I had just got off duty from the fire dept, the gunner survived out of the 10 man crew. The B-52 has alwaws been a stable platform and always had an excellent flying record. How do you stall 8 engines?
FogBoz 1 year ago
@FogBoz
I'm not familiar with the mishap you speak of. I would be skeptical that all eight engines would just shut down simultaneously or in quick succession unless it was a mechanical issue (like electrical or fuel) or operator error (IE the crew shut down the engines).
ATFSCrash 1 year ago
@FogBoz
You're not confusing and aerodynamic stall with a flameout (engine stall)?
The aircraft in this video stalled aerodynamically; it has nothing to do with engine flameout. Though an engine flameout will often cascade into circumstances that lead to and aerodynamic stall.
ATFSCrash 1 year ago
washout would have prevented this.
lukezaza 1 year ago
why didnt they try to eject those heve ejection seats and there was not a full crew on board?
johnguz76 1 year ago
@johnguz76
They were too low and too slow and at too of an acute angle/bank to have a decent chance of survival. The copilot started the ejection sequence, the hatch had blown off, but there wasn't time for the ejection sequence to complete. From what I understand the copilot and seat were still in the aircraft when it impacted the ground.
There was only a four-man crew, I think typically there are six.
ATFSCrash 1 year ago
What a monster! GOD I love that plane!
LCNNYC 1 year ago
At one point during the Cold War, it was considered necessary to fly below enemy radar, ie under 250` all the way in. Or less. Disciplining pilots for low flying would have been counterproductive. The lowest flying pilots were the best. Mind you, this was at a higher speed. The turbulence encountered at low level over the desert caused several structural failures, the most spectacular was the loss of the majority of the vertical tail surface. There must be a picture of that somewhere!
SuperAviatar 1 year ago
@SuperAviatar
That mishap did not happen at low-level it happened at 14,300. I have a video of that B-52 with most of its vertical stabilizer missing on approach and landing. My video is a montage and has a lot of other things mixed in with it, however there is a shorter better preserved video of it.
The manufacturer has a page on it which includes the photo and the story.
Google.
Even with No Tail, B-52 'Finest I Ever Flew,' Says Pilot
YouTube video
B-52 with no tail
ATFSCrash 1 year ago
@SuperAviatar
To the best of my knowledge they still do terrain masking. Contrary to your claim pilots should be written up and grounded for flying as low and as reckless as this nut did. Allegedly he passed about 3 m on that ridge pass, allegedly the copilot grabbed the yoke and pulled back. If the copilot hadn't intervened they may very well have crashed. Terrain masking you fly low, but not that low and not over populated areas or significant buildings.
ATFSCrash 1 year ago
@SuperAviatar
Sorry. On second thought you may be right. You may be talking about another mishap. Now that I think about it there might have been a mishap like you described. I think you may be describing the 1963 elephant Mountain crash. They were about 500 feet AGL when they had a structural failure.
ATFSCrash 1 year ago
@SuperAviatar
, any person who has any knowledge of any aviation laws knows you are not allowed below 200'agl when there is people under you,. this this was a pilot a LCOL Who was hotdogging, all his co-pilots refused to fly with him, and someone was ordered by him to get in the plane, and they ultimatly crashed and burned.. everyone from his squadron refused to fly with him, and unfortuantly it too this to get him out of the air.
deltadiv 1 year ago
@deltadiv his squadron commander actually volunteered to fly with him this day. everyone knew he was a show off and did things with the plane that he shouldnt so they didnt want to fly with him. his squadron commander realized this and agreed so he said if anyone has to fly with him hed do it
aaronpmeier 1 year ago
@deltadiv There would be no discussion about this sort of event if all pilots were sensible. I`ve done stupid things in the past, 35 years ago prosecuted for a 5 feet low pass. Two guys were looking down on me from the cab of a lorry, and said so in court. I grew up, but didn`t fly solo again for twenty five years after that! Got the T-shirt, okay? Kids know rules don`t apply to them, speed limit signs are for other people. Same with aeroplanes, engage mind before opening throttle!
SuperAviatar 1 year ago
God bless the people who built this plane, the people who maintained it and the crew who had the privilege of flying it. We grieve for the loss and respect you all!
momgose 1 year ago
It looks like he had been pushing his luck for a couple years. Why was he never dealt with?
jonnyspeed 1 year ago
I'm not a pilot, tech, or anything other than a flight enthusiast. That being said, I don't need any smart ass answers. My question: why couldn't the pilot have turned the other way when they realized they were in over their head?
simsburyct 1 year ago
@simsburyct Basically, in this situation only one wing is working. The faster moving one on the outside of the turn. So the roll and turn continue into a full spin, like a sycamore seed, the lift goes round the weight. The ground stopped it happening here, I believe a B-52 would need more than 15.000 feet to recover, even if it stayed in one piece. Full opposite spoileron destroys almost all of the lift from both wings, you are going down fast! Turning just ain`t possible....
SuperAviatar 1 year ago
@SuperAviatar
Good explanation.
I must have been tired because I didn't understand simsburyct's question before.
ATFSCrash 1 year ago
@SuperAviatar That's what I thought when I first saw this video. It turns out that it is incorrect though. My boss was an Air Force colonel with 20 years of B-52 experience. What he said was that the aircraft stalled in the turn and couldn't be recovered because roll-control on a B-52 is done with spoilers rather than ailerons. Spoilers lose effectiveness in a stall so he couldn't roll out of the turn.
msdiediedie 1 year ago
@msdiediedie
He was right, he just gave a better description than you did. The B-52 has spoilerons because they can act independently and asymmetrically. True spoilers can only be used dependently while acting symmetrically.
ATFSCrash 1 year ago
@msdiediedie
This was a tip stall, and accelerated stall. There is a lot of different language that can describe the type of stall. As he said the inside of the wingtip was going a lot slower, so that's where the stall started. Once the stall started it was self propagating. Once the tip went into a deep stall it triggered a cascading sequence event (domino effect) that deepened the roll and stall. Spoilerons are less effective than ailerons in a stall situation.
ATFSCrash 1 year ago
@msdiediedie
This was a "tip stall", an "accelerated stall". There is a lot of different language that can describe the type of stall.
ATFSCrash 1 year ago
@msdiediedie
As he said the inside of the wingtip was going a lot slower, so that's where the stall started. Once the stall started it was self propagating. Once the tip went into a deep stall it triggered a cascading sequence event (domino effect) that deepened the roll and stall. Spoilerons are less effective than ailerons in a stall situation.
ATFSCrash 1 year ago
@simsburyct: If you mean when he realized the plane was going to crash, by that time it's too late. The plane was in a tip stall, which means the wingtip pointed at the ground was moving too slowly to generate lift. He may well have been trying to roll level, but without the airflow, nothing will happen. It's like turning the steering wheel on a car when it's not moving.
fhg1738 1 year ago
Hotdogging gone bad...
straightedger9 1 year ago
you should be mad at the guy filming that said "DING" at 9:52 .
496dart 1 year ago
@496dart I'd never noticed that before..
bikingchad 1 year ago
The dreaded tip stall
ramis182 1 year ago
Yes the usaf still uses them in blowing sh!t up. lol im by them everyday.
cbrfanboy 1 year ago
do they still use b52s in the forces and if so what for??
bates507 1 year ago
@bates507 ya they still use them to blow sh!t up.
cbrfanboy 1 year ago
@bates507
Sadly the B-52 essentially is our main bomber. Sadly most if not all of the B-52's are older than the pilots flying them. The aircraft are so old and worn that some of the floorboards were so worn from the pilots resting their feet at the floorboards had to be replaced.
ATFSCrash 1 year ago
that what happens when you fly an aircraft of that size like that
dudecena 1 year ago
wikipedia is crap its all old rubbish. This was pilot error the us air force did complain about this the pilot was being to agressive with an aircraft this size he had warnings. Plus he was to low on that turn. He was to dangerous.
TheFighterpilot93 1 year ago
@TheFighterpilot93
Wikipedia is more accurate on this issue than you are. Sure it was pilot error, but there is more to it, because this pilot was a known rogue pilot and he was allowed to fly recklessly or several years. So its more than simply pilot error, theres plenty of blame to go around. Command, many of the ranks and airshow spectators are also complicit because they enabled the reckless behavior. I notice that most people that hate Wikipedia, hate it because it proves them wrong.
ATFSCrash 1 year ago
That was terrible. .What caused the crash? Was it just banked over too far and just fell out of the sky?
Rob187ok 1 year ago
it was the flaperons.
D13247 1 year ago
@D13247
To the best of my knowledge no model of B-52 uses flaperons. Flaperons are flight control surfaces that are flaps that are modified to operate asymmetrically to bank the aircraft. This model of B-52 uses spoilrons; spoilers there are modified to operate asymmetrically to bank the aircraft.
ATFSCrash 1 year ago
When devices are forced to perform beyond their intended purpose, usually something goes wrong. I am sure none of the design engineers intended this huge bomber to be flown like it was a fighter jet.
kuei1248 1 year ago
Comment removed
stevenaviator 1 year ago
@stevenaviator
You ought to pick another user name because you certainly lack of knowledge of Aeronautics. The B-52H in this video uses flaps and spoilerons. If you watch the video closely you can see the "spoilers" operating asymmetrically, therefore they are not true spoilers, they are spoilerons.
ATFSCrash 1 year ago
Yeah, the problem was he turned to hard.
cyborg00000 1 year ago
looked like he turned too much and caused a stall
mathewjohn5174 1 year ago 8
What happened? was that on purpose?
packrat557 1 year ago
"That's fantastic - around the tower"
opmdevil 1 year ago
Why did any of his CO's see his reckless attitude and keep him on the ground?
TRP1035 1 year ago
this ladies and gentlemen is a B-52. Not a fighter...
DontScatter 1 year ago