• Album@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    It’s flying over a river not over people or buildings. Just some info for the terminally outraged.

        • theyoyomaster@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          I mean, it’s an annual airshow. It’s done every year without an issue, it’s not more dangerous than normal military flying if done correctly.

          • YashaB@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Humans make mistakes. That’s just a simple fact.

            This stunt is putting lives at risk. And for what, marketing purposes? That’s just stupid.

            • theyoyomaster@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              Very little in flying is left to chance or simple human execution. If there is an actual risk, it has been identified, discussed and mitigated from multiple angles. That is why the C-17 has a min crew of 3 and they fly this with at least 5. Two pilots and two additional observers in the jump seats. Every obstacle is known, charted, identified and visually acquired before they are allowed to continue without climbing. The route is closely monitored and built into the mission computer to ensure they are sticking to it. There are calculated margins and buffers with triggers should any be breached with sufficient excess to allow an escape maneuver before anything bad happens. People who don’t know what they are talking about thinking it is dangerous doesn’t make it dangerous.

              • riodoro1@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Ok, so what about this one C-17 that crashed in Alaska in 2010 practicing for an air show?

                Its stupid to be that confident in anything. What if an engine fails? A control surface? What if the plane breaks in half? Maybe those are unlikely to happen but is the risk worth killing hundreds if not thousands of unsuspecting people?

                Its a 100 ton machine flying at 300km/h between buildings in a populated city. It doesn’t matter how much people believe it’s safe, nothing is ever 100% safe and here the risks are too high while the reward is simply a cool stunt.

          • IronKrill@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            I think the “if done correctly” is the part they’re worried about. Accidents do happen at airshows. Still though, what an experience to see that.

            • theyoyomaster@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Simple low level flying is one of the safer things they show off at airshows. This really isn’t anywhere near as dangerous as people with no experience or training in it think it is.

      • zoe@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        i am no pilot, but a typical one would be frightened if saw such plane would fly that low, especially between skyscrapers like that…anyway, thats also taxpayer freedom money not put in very good use

        • theyoyomaster@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Morale, recruiting and training value. Low level flying is one of the C-17’s main mission sets. If it wasn’t doing it here it would be doing the exact same thing somewhere else.

          • zoe@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            i thought chinooks were intended for that kind of usage, but i am no expert…u seem to be informed enough that i shouldn’t argue with u much. so TIL