What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Double Standards?

Toobuilder

Well Known Member
So I ran across this video found in this thread:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhYaDFLDoEQ

It was of particular interest to me because it was filmed in my "backyard"... The low flying sequences are over areas I fly every day. Though I avoid buzzing stretches of roadways, I have certainly buzzed much of the same exact real estate shown in the video. Then it struck me that if any member of the board had actually filmed the same sequence in an RV and posted it on this site they would have been booted from the board or almost certainly would have taken plenty of arrows from some of you... There certainly would have been plenty of discussion concerning risk/reward, etc, etc...

Yet when Burt does it, it's a marketing video.

Any comments on this apparent disparity?
 
Not double standard but evolving standard

Knowledge and attitudes about the risks associated with that type of flying have changed over the 30 years since that video was shot.
 
I think Doug boots "illegal" flying videos and such. [ed. That is correct. dr] So some low level work through the Mohave should be ok, IMO.

Foolish aircraft accidents are not cool. Flying RV's around like spam can's without exploring at least some of the quality flying traits, also not cool.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Knowledge and attitudes about the risks associated with that type of flying have changed over the 30 years since that video was shot.

If we are talking about public perception only, then I am inclined to agree. We as pilots are looked upon with suspicion and distrust more than ever, so buzzing a lonely stretch of road was likely more acceptable back then.

However, if we as pilots are discussing increases in physical risks associated with a particular flying activity, I don't think we were any less aware back in the mid 80's than we are today. After all, the ground was just as hard, and power lines were just as difficult to see back in 1985 as they are today.
 
There certainly would have been plenty of discussion concerning risk/reward, etc, etc...

You say that like it's a bad thing. :rolleyes: I learn a lot about flying on this board and others like the RV List. Of course, I tend to pay attention to some pilots -- Kevin Horton, for example -- more than others. But anything that gets me thinking about safely flying an airplane is a good thing, and browsing the NTSB accident reports after entering the keyword "RV" tells me that we're not doing it too much.

Whether there's some sort of double standard is irrelevant to me.
 
What gets me are the sideburns / Mutton chops!!!!
Back around 91 we were going to cut out a bunch of velcro muttonchops and sell them at Osh under the "Sideburts" label. Then I got laid off and wound up here so it didn't happen. I really wanted to see 500 people walking around wearing them.
 
If we are talking about public perception only, then I am inclined to agree. We as pilots are looked upon with suspicion and distrust more than ever, so buzzing a lonely stretch of road was likely more acceptable back then.

However, if we as pilots are discussing increases in physical risks associated with a particular flying activity, I don't think we were any less aware back in the mid 80's than we are today. After all, the ground was just as hard, and power lines were just as difficult to see back in 1985 as they are today.

I disagree. It's not just the public's perception that has changed, but also perceptions and attitudes among pilots. It's not that the ground got any harder or the power lines any more difficult to spot. The dangers were just as real then. Rather, it is that there is a) a greater awareness today in the aviation community that low level maneuvering is a very high risk activity, and b) there's a more safety conscious culture today in the aviation community that is less tolerant of high risk taking.
 
Not sure what the broo-ha-ha is....:confused: Nothing they did was illegal was it? Much like ag flying. Dick and Burt know that area extremely well as they did a lot of their fun flying and photo ops in the same area, which was practically deserted back then and nobody complained. If they did it today they would have problems.
Dick Rutan flying a plane in the desert is nothing like amateurs doing low passes over airports (illegal) and rivers (potentialy very dangerous). Dick flew FAC in jets so he knows a thing or two about low level flying.
And they don't do this anymore since their new designs tend to fly a little higher....:rolleyes:
 
I disagree. It's not just the public's perception that has changed, but also perceptions and attitudes among pilots. It's not that the ground got any harder or the power lines any more difficult to spot. The dangers were just as real then. Rather, it is that there is a) a greater awareness today in the aviation community that low level maneuvering is a very high risk activity, and b) there's a more safety conscious culture today in the aviation community that is less tolerant of high risk taking.

So if I am to interpret your statement, the facts have not changed, but our acceptance level has evolved? It is akin to being "politically correct"... Some behaviors were perfectly ok once (like driving a full size SUV), but now are not?
 
So if I am to interpret your statement, the facts have not changed, but our acceptance level has evolved?

That's correct. The facts haven't changed, although the awareness of them has. And yes, so has our acceptance level.

It is akin to being "politically correct"... Some behaviors were perfectly ok once (like driving a full size SUV), but now are not?

No, it is not akin to political correctness. A better example would be, say, drunk driving. The more we become aware of just how harmful it really is (and always has been), endangering not just those doing it but everyone around, the less accepting of it we become. Naturally, and for good reason. Or do you consider that one "political correctness" as well?...
 
...Dick Rutan flying a plane in the desert is nothing like amateurs doing low passes over airports...

Well, not according to this forum... Discussion eventually boils down to a judgment of the activity being "right" or "wrong" based upon whether it is necessary for normal operation.

I posted a thread about a face full of birds and plexi a couple of weeks ago hoping to highlight the fact that flying hazards are real, but instead some came very close to implying that I deserved it. Why? Because low flying is not required for normal operation and is therefore "wrong".

This forum seems to be overly judgmental as of late. Raging, highly polarized debates erupt all the time concerning stalls, pattern entry, radio communication, proper fuel line material, or even the "right" and "wrong" way to start a fuel injected engine. This perception may be mildly irritating to me, but in the end does not change how I operate very much. However, if we step back, this hard over polarity of opinion stifles discussion and actively prevents many people from even getting involved.

I don't know where DR wants this forum to go, but I suspect he is more interested in it being a source of information promoting RV's and GA than he is making an on line version of the Jerry Springer show.

So to bring this back on topic, I think we have a double standard on this forum and we spend more time defending a position than actually discussing the subject at hand - Just like on Springer.
 
If this were facebook...

Well, not according to this forum... Discussion eventually boils down to a judgment of the activity being "right" or "wrong" based upon whether it is necessary for normal operation.

I posted a thread about a face full of birds and plexi a couple of weeks ago hoping to highlight the fact that flying hazards are real, but instead some came very close to implying that I deserved it. Why? Because low flying is not required for normal operation and is therefore "wrong".

This forum seems to be overly judgmental as of late. Raging, highly polarized debates erupt all the time concerning stalls, pattern entry, radio communication, proper fuel line material, or even the "right" and "wrong" way to start a fuel injected engine. This perception may be mildly irritating to me, but in the end does not change how I operate very much. However, if we step back, this hard over polarity of opinion stifles discussion and actively prevents many people from even getting involved.

I don't know where DR wants this forum to go, but I suspect he is more interested in it being a source of information promoting RV's and GA than he is making an on line version of the Jerry Springer show.

So to bring this back on topic, I think we have a double standard on this forum and we spend more time defending a position than actually discussing the subject at hand - Just like on Springer.


I'd hit the "LIKE" button on this post.
 
I don't see double standards here at all.

I see a video celebrating another leap forward in Burt Rutan's glorious career of designing aeroplanes, just as Van has done himself.

The fact that he enjoyed flying around Mojave low, to demonstrate his new aeroplane is neither dangerous, or bad.

One of my personal favourite videos of RV's is by Jon Thocker.

http://vimeo.com/4172767?ab

It shows all aspects of what we in the RV community relish and enjoy - a bit of formation, a bit of aero's and a bit of showing off to friends.

Now, are we to criticise Jon because he flew low over a friend's house or over the water and wilderness ?

Doubt it.

The Rutan video reminds me of times when homebuilding was newer, exciting, different and almost every month, a new revelation was displayed.

PC doesn't enter into it, freedom to express in an appropriate manner on the day is everything.

Some criticised me for rolling my RV7 on one of it's first flights, some applauded me...........

We are all different,

That is what makes this whole fraternity so special.

Enjoy :D
 
Nice to see a thread actually get better for a change. Any more like these last 3 posts out there?
 
Thanks for posting the video, Michael. It harkened back to days when the business of building and flying was more exciting than it is today. We are in a bit of a rut doing the same old thing day and day out.

I do not see a double standard unless you ignore the passing of time. Even at that, looking at the video the flight was not much below 500'. Pretty normal stuff then and today out over no where.

I don't understand why you find it necessary to criticize this forum for what it is. The primary mission here is building and flying RV's and the owner has stated his conservative views on flying a single engine airplane. Many here agree with those views. That is not being judgmental about anyone or anything, it is simply a point of view one is entitled to have.

It must be noted that Burt Rutan created some very impressive airplanes in a short period of time but he also bailed out of the home build effort not long after the Defiant plans were available. I was saving pennies to buy the plan but it was jerked from the market after just a couple years. No one knows for sure why except he was sued many times by survivors and others over accidents, some the result of low level flying.

Perhaps there is a lesson to be learned here.
 
Well, not according to this forum... Discussion eventually boils down to a judgment of the activity being "right" or "wrong" based upon whether it is necessary for normal operation.

I posted a thread about a face full of birds and plexi a couple of weeks ago hoping to highlight the fact that flying hazards are real, but instead some came very close to implying that I deserved it. Why? Because low flying is not required for normal operation and is therefore "wrong".

This forum seems to be overly judgmental as of late. Raging, highly polarized debates erupt all the time concerning stalls, pattern entry, radio communication, proper fuel line material, or even the "right" and "wrong" way to start a fuel injected engine. This perception may be mildly irritating to me, but in the end does not change how I operate very much. However, if we step back, this hard over polarity of opinion stifles discussion and actively prevents many people from even getting involved.

I don't know where DR wants this forum to go, but I suspect he is more interested in it being a source of information promoting RV's and GA than he is making an on line version of the Jerry Springer show.

So to bring this back on topic, I think we have a double standard on this forum and we spend more time defending a position than actually discussing the subject at hand - Just like on Springer.

Interesting of you to say that, given that:

1) You started this thread as somewhat of an argumentative rant from the get go

and

2) When opposing views were presented in the manner of civil discourse, you dismiss them as Jerry Springer like.

And you claim that you would want less snap judgment and more healthy debate? Hmm...

As for your recent bird strike incident. Firstly, I'm glad you're ok. And secondly, I commend you for posting about it. I didn't participate nor read most of that discussion, so I don't know if anyone crossed the line in passing judgment or assigning blame. But I will say that it is perfectly sensible for an incident like that to spark thought and debate about risk management. It's not as black and white as right and wrong, and certainly not a matter of "deserve", but surely you can admit that some of the decisions we make can have significant effects on the probabilities of adverse outcomes. Much of the value in sharing, studying, and discussing incidents is in that there are often conclusions to be drawn, lessons to be learned, and improvements made to future decision making. Yes?

As for this forum, its members, and its moderators. There have certainly been occasions where members have jumped to conclusions and even assigned blame for incidents or accidents with little or no factual information. When that's occurred, the moderators have usually been quick to step in. Short of those lines being crossed, and so long as the discussion remains civil, the moderators usually let healthy debate continue, as they should.
 
...I don't understand why you find it necessary to criticize this forum for what it is...

Because it could easily be a better forum... I'm not critical of the forum, per se, I'm critical of the forces at work (personalities) that drive the forum. For example, low flying is one of those hot button topics that often brings out the "experts" who will (quite correctly) point out that such activity is unnecessary and increases risk. The fact that it is fun is completely overshadowed by the "unnecessary risk" trump card. Of course, everyone knows this, but the end result is that The Forum (collective) condemns the activity as "wrong", and anyone who tries to use the "yes, but it's fun" argument is beaten down and labeled "reckless", "anti-authority", etc. However, when anyone brings up formation flying, an equally unnecessary and risky behavior, it is cause for celebration and awe.

Both low flying and formation are completely unnecessary and risky, yet one is "wrong", while the other has its own section on the forum. I hit some birds and landed safely with some cuts on my face... but according to some, I was "asking for it". We also had a tragic formation practice fatality recently...

Double standard.

We have a good thing in this forum; I believe it could be better if we would all relax a little and discuss things as adults.
 
risk vs. reward

Humans take all kinds of unnecessary risks all the time. Flying in general is an unnecessary risk - no one needs to fly.

Unless you post about helping save a kitten's life, and even then, you'll probably find someone to disagree with your activity - don't let it bother you if you are comfortable. If what you do is legal, and doesn't hurt others, no problem. If it's not legal, or does hurt others, get out the nomex. "We" will flame you, bro! :)
 
That's correct. The facts haven't changed, although the awareness of them has. And yes, so has our acceptance level.



No, it is not akin to political correctness. A better example would be, say, drunk driving. The more we become aware of just how harmful it really is (and always has been), endangering not just those doing it but everyone around, the less accepting of it we become. Naturally, and for good reason. Or do you consider that one "political correctness" as well?...

well, it depends on what you consider drunk driving. MADD now considers having a single drink and driving as "drunk driving". So yes in that case it is political correctness.
 
I looked at the video and reread the min safe altitude FARs

It looks pretty sparsly populated to me - so the 500 ft minimum goes away. When flying in cross country air races into a headwind over sparsly populated areas I take advantage of that rule - today!

Bob Axsom
 
Last edited:
I hear you Mike. It does seem that when some people make a random post, there are several folks who like to pick out the peripheral issues. I know there are lot's of people who don't post at all because they are terrified about the criticism they might receive. When I saw your bird strike, I thought wow, that sucks. Reminds me to watch out for birds when flying down low, something I do at least twice on every flight. Mike Newall's first flight video was one of the coolest I have every seen. Frankly, I don't understand why you guys like to go upside down at all, but when he rolled it, it seemed safe enough for me.

People are just hyper sensitive right now. Homebuilts are under the microscope of public and peer scrutiny. We all need to remember we are supposed to be friends. No body want's to get beat up on here that's for sure.
 
No one knows for sure why except he was sued many times by survivors and others over accidents, some the result of low level flying.

Actually he has addressed this a couple times. That time was when he was establishing Scaled and wanted to have a clean slate given that there were investors being courted etc. He had hoped to have both companies running but saw the need to close out RAF and move forward with Scaled. The lawsuits were more of a nuisance than a major reason for closing out RAF and plan sales/support. Plus he had poured a lot of time into support for essentially no income and Scaled took so much more time and effort. Turns out it was the right decision, as were many he made!
 
Both low flying and formation are completely unnecessary and risky, yet one is "wrong", while the other has its own section on the forum.

From a behavioral sciences perspective, the way people related to and deal with risk is quite fascinating. As a practical matter, a common behavior is for people to rationalize their personal risk limitations to a point where they lose objectivity. An example would be that if there is an activity or behavior that I conclude is too dangerous (risky) for me, it’s an easy progression to go the additional step and conclude that it’s actually too dangerous for anyone. And once you make this little progression it’s easy (especially for some personality types) for the “mother hen” complex to emerge. After all, if the activity or behavior is really too dangerous then one not only has latitude to voice their opposition, but perhaps even a duty to point out and discourage the wayward behavior to others in a “genuine effort” to keep them from harm.

Then there’s the equally fascinating tendency for blind spots (the double standard you refer to), where some view a particular risk-based activity as positive, exciting, entertaining, etc. while adamantly believing another equally risky activity is unwarranted and excessively dangerous. It would be perfectly acceptable to just say “I'm personally ill at ease with that activity”, but many don’t seem satisfied with this and feel the need to undermine the things they're uncomfortable with. People be interesting critters…think I’ll have a libation. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
... An example would be that if there is an activity or behavior that I conclude is too dangerous (risky) for me, it?s an easy progression to go the additional step and conclude that it?s actually too dangerous for anyone. And once you make this little progression it?s easy (especially for some personality types) for the ?mother hen? complex to emerge...

Yes, I think you nailed it. I have been unable to accurately describe this behavior, but that's it.

My Dad was a pilot and I grew up with a "family airplane", but I did not take formal instruction until my mid 20's. My CFI demonstrated some task (I don't remember what it was) and I commented that this was different from what Dad had shown me. My CFI's comment was something to the effect "Your Dad has been flying a long time and it obviously works for him..." The takeaway being: There are few absolutes in aviation, and there are plenty of different ways to accomplish a task.

Perhaps if we could keep this in mind, the forum will be a bit less hostile.

?think I?ll have a libation....

I'll second that!:D
 
video

To reiterate it was Dick flying the airplane not Burt. Dick flew low level airshows for several years, first in the prototype Long, then in his own. If one makes the decision to fly low level airshows, then a reasonable portion of practice should be done at airshow altitude. To do otherwise is to compromise safety by NOT FLYING LOW. I am personally very comfortable with low altitude flying. I hate formation. I do not judge people who feel the other way around.
EAA has stated that Bob Hoover is the worlds greatest pilot. While I don't dispute that Bob Hoover was a great pilot(he is retired now), saying he is the greatest is an insult to Dick Rutan, the Late Leo Laudenslager and so many other great pilots. Dick Rutans accomplishments are far more impressive than most of the others. No one will ever know just how great Dick is because no one else ever flew the Voyager at maximum weight.
 
Yet when Burt does it, it's a marketing video.

Toolbuilder, How are you? Just to answer the question. Because it does look like a marketing video. Add the fact that, talking a peer out of flying too low and a video of a non peer shot long ago is different. I don't think it is a double standard. Just a big difference in examples.
 
To reiterate it was Dick flying the airplane not Burt. Dick flew low level airshows for several years, first in the prototype Long, then in his own. If one makes the decision to fly low level airshows, then a reasonable portion of practice should be done at airshow altitude. To do otherwise is to compromise safety by NOT FLYING LOW. I am personally very comfortable with low altitude flying. I hate formation. I do not judge people who feel the other way around.
EAA has stated that Bob Hoover is the worlds greatest pilot. While I don't dispute that Bob Hoover was a great pilot(he is retired now), saying he is the greatest is an insult to Dick Rutan, the Late Leo Laudenslager and so many other great pilots. Dick Rutans accomplishments are far more impressive than most of the others. No one will ever know just how great Dick is because no one else ever flew the Voyager at maximum weight.

Dick is the greatest pilot ever, just ask him, he'll tell you. Sorry, Bob Hoover is the Godfather, Dick Rutan is Fredo.

Flying is inherently dangerous, your personal risk mitigation beyond that is up to you. TB I think what you're getting at, and something that no one has really addressed is the fact that aviation, GA in particular has become very image conscious compared to days past. Behavior like flying low, while acceptable to some (and fun!) is seen as a threat to our public image to others, and the safety trump card is usually pulled to justify it. What is seen as an acceptable practice to some (low level, formation, acro, racing, whatever) is seen as a possible threat to others and their ability to own/operate their a/c if an accident occurs. This... Along with everything WM posted.

I liken your point of a double standar to the instance of Van publicly ostracizing the builder of a certain RV-10, for design changes and customizing... But the applaud and praise given to another mounting an RV on floats.
 
...TB I think what you're getting at, and something that no one has really addressed is the fact that aviation, GA in particular has become very image conscious compared to days past. Behavior like flying low, while acceptable to some (and fun!) is seen as a threat to our public image to others, and the safety trump card is usually pulled to justify it...


Sig,

I hadn?t thought of the public perception angle when I started this thread, but now that you mention it, that is probably one of the underlying causes of the so called ?double standard? on the forum. Using my earlier example of ?low flying = bad; formation flying = good? as an example of two forms of high risk, non essential flying, both hold different values in public perception as well as among The Forum. In the eyes of John Q. Public, formation is likely held as a positive, while buzzing down a crowded beach is not.

I suppose then, if we are discussing physical aspects of flying, the ?political risks? will also eventually rear their heads. To me, this is unfortunate because I like to keep discussion of physical or technical topics separate from the more ?soft? or political issues. And it?s not that the soft issues are any less important; but in most cases they are either self evident or only require a cursory mention. As a seeker of information, it would be nice to be able to discuss the technical side of finding yourself under a cloud deck scud running in an emergency without having it devolve into an admonition of anyone ?stupid? enough to fly VFR on a cloudy day.
 
Advice for aviators and YouTube users

Please forgive this interjection into the topic at hand, but it IS related.

In my mind, there is "risky" flying and there is "blatantly illegal" flying. I see them as two separate issues, albeit linked by some common factors -- one of which being the way other people view the activity.

Hypothetically, if I went out and videotaped myself flying an RV at 50' AGL across a sparsely-populated area with smoke on, then did some Extended Trail aerobatic maneuvering with another RV, flew a low-level route through the mountains, then performed some low approaches and aggressive pullups at my home airport, I could probably edit together a pretty impressive video that would make a certain percentage of pilots say, "Wow, that guy's really good (or crazy, or skilled, or awesome, or idiotic, etc)." All while staying strictly within the Federal Aviation Regulations. Is any of that particular flying too "risky"? That's for the pilot to decide. "Risk" is a highly subjective term, as has been pointed out.

With certain qualifications and restrictions, I could also utilize a legal, low-altitude aerobatic box and perform low-altitude aerobatics, legally.

Or, because I'm instrument rated, I could get an IFR block-altitude clearance and zigzag my way around the clouds, performing rolls over the tops of the cumulus clouds and weaving my way through the holes and canyons. All legally.

But what would be missing from my resulting hypothetical video (and what is missing from 99% of the YouTube "flying videos" out there) is context. And that's what gets some amateurs in trouble. Some people watch videos and think they can (and should) replicate what they see others doing, without the slightest idea of what the other person's qualifications, training, and skill level are -- or even the knowledge that what they were doing was entirely legal and/or waivered!

It may be that Burt and Dick Rutan got a waiver to perform a low-altitude flight over a highway for their 1980s-era promotional video -- I don't know. But when I see a more recent online video posted by a person who does not have an instrument rating performing aerobatics in and around the clouds, or a guy buzzing his buddies' boat on a crowded lake, or whatever, that crosses a line into illegality, and now the activity is not just "risky," but blatantly stupid.

Both types of flying create risks for the pilot and for all of the General Aviation community. Risky (but legal) flying will make some people shake their heads and say "tsk tsk," and that's just fine with me, as long as the activity does not endanger passengers or those on the ground. However, illegal and blatantly dangerous flying can, and should, land you in big trouble, and also earn you the censure of the entire community. I grind my teeth every time I see someone enthusiastically busting VFR cloud-clearance restrictions and then posting footage of their infraction online like it's no big deal. It's a huge friggin' deal. My family could be in an airliner on the other side of that cloud.

As the saying goes: Aviation is inherently unforgiving of any incapacity, carelessness, or neglect. People who advertise their incapacity, carelessness or neglect by posting footage of it online surely shouldn't expect any reasonable person to applaud them for it.

Unfortunately, our nanny-state mentality might now make it necessary for anyone who intends to post creative flying-related videos in a public forum to qualify their work with an explanation of the conditions under which it was filmed. (You'll notice that several of the professional aviators on this forum wisely do exactly that. They feel compelled to a). explain that what they were doing is was legal, and the reasons why it was legal, and b). remind others that they should not try this at home.) I hate that we have to think like this, but the small percentage of knuckleheads out there ruin it for everyone.

So while I love watching flying videos, people should remember that making cool videos can encourage others to "take it up a notch" in their own productions, and their own flying. And if you like videotaping yourself, but don't have a good idea what constitutes poor judgement or illegal flying, you've got the wrong hobby.
 
Last edited:
It looks pretty sparsly populated to me - so the 500 ft minimum goes away. When flying in cross country air races into a headwind over sparsly populated areas I take advantage of that rule - today!

Bob Axsom

But let's remember that the 500 foot minimum from any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure does not go away over sparsely populated areas.

The applicable FAR
 
Yes that is correct

But let's remember that the 500 foot minimum from any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure does not go away over sparsely populated areas.

The applicable FAR

That is correct and I observe that part of the rule as well. I usually set the floor at 500 ft AGL in my cross country air race planning but there are circumstances where that is about where the earth surface friction stops having as much of a break on head winds an I ease it down over sparsely populated aeras.

Another situation where I have used this rule is to fly beneath a stratus layer off the coast - sea level surface/coast line navaid.

Always with preflight planning and high inflight sensitivity. It probably is not appropriate for an inexperienced pilot but it works well for me.

Bob Axsom
 
Yes, double Standards

I love the comments about, "he is more experienced' so that somehow makes it ok. So how did he get his experience? By starting out as inexperienced and learning as he went along, both from his own, and other peoples mistakes. I'm sure he was packing a chute and nomex as well...
 
I love the comments about, "he is more experienced' so that somehow makes it ok. So how did he get his experience? By starting out as inexperienced and learning as he went along, both from his own, and other peoples mistakes. I'm sure he was packing a chute and nomex as well...

I don't think anybody is suggesting that Dick Rutan's level of experience makes it "OK" to fly low over a highway. I think the point was that, as a community, we have always had a problem with people going out and just "trying stuff" with no training. And videos often encourage people to do just that.

There's a legendary video of a very skilled guy flying an RV-4 down a winding river at low altitude. He pulled it off beautifully, and somebody put it on YouTube. And now a bunch of other people have recreated that video in their own way. The web is now FULL of videos of guys doing aerobatics, low flying, formation, etc. -- all fun activities for sure, if performed correctly, by a trained pilot. I just have to wonder about the influence these videos have on inexperienced pilots. My guess is, it's not always good.
 
Last edited:
The web is now FULL of videos of guys doing aerobatics, low flying, formation, etc. -- all fun activities for sure, if performed correctly, by a trained pilot. I just have to wonder about the influence these videos have on inexperienced pilots. My guess is, it's not always good.

That's technology for ya. There are a million things that you could say could possibly be a "bad" influence on somebody. There are plenty of idiots in the world. We can't censor ourselves in hopes of that some idiot doesn't see our video and wrongly attempt the same thing. There are tons of airshow, and backcountry flying videos out there too. There are even videos of kids doing a flying body slam off the roof of their house onto their buddy who's laying on a folding table in the backyard. I say let Darwin take its course.
 
Back
Top