[HN Gopher] French fighter jet joy ride goes tres, tres wrong (2...
___________________________________________________________________
French fighter jet joy ride goes tres, tres wrong (2020)
Author : curmudgeon22
Score : 291 points
Date : 2022-04-24 15:56 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.caranddriver.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.caranddriver.com)
| scarier wrote:
| It's wild that the ejection sequence failed. Some two-seat
| aircraft have a "forward both, aft self" ejection mode for these
| types of events where you don't trust the guy in the back to make
| good ejection decisions, and I originally assumed that was what
| happened here. Oops.
| smileysteve wrote:
| It's also practical; as the plane is moving forward, the aft
| seat needs a head start to reduce chances of mid air collision,
| or even burns.
| everybodyknows wrote:
| > the first ejection damaged the front seat, such that it
| didn't eject
|
| This as well -- fairly damning evidence of failures in design
| and/or manufacturing. Fortunate that the extemporaneous round
| of belated testing happened over friendly territory!
| TheFlash wrote:
| The post-incident report found a design flaw in the box that
| transmits the ejection signal from the back seat to the front
| seat, allowing it to get damaged. That and one loose screw.
| bombcar wrote:
| It's kind of surprising how often people get a good idea for a
| gift and totally ignore the recipient's cries of protest.
| teh_klev wrote:
| When I crossed into my forties a couple of friends were
| insistent that I do "a big thing" of clay pigeon shooting, go
| karting, overnighting in a rented a cottage, get all the guys
| together etc etc.
|
| I point blank refused, I was going through a serious bout of
| panic/anxiety attacks at the time, and this was the last thing
| I needed. All I wanted was a few quiet drinks and a sit-in
| curry with some local pals. The amount of sulking that went on
| for weeks afterwards was quite something to behold.
| listenallyall wrote:
| progman32 wrote:
| False dichotomy.
| listenallyall wrote:
| How?
| schwammy wrote:
| What a rude and unhelpful comment. If "stop feeling sorry
| for yourself, just go outside and do things" was actually
| good advice no one would have mental health problems.
| listenallyall wrote:
| Your comment is the equivalent of "if eat healthy and
| exercise was actually good advice, nobody would be fat".
| But it _is_ good advice (doesn 't mean it will cure 100%
| of weight-related issues). It is certainly better than
| "don't exercise and pig out."
|
| "Stop feeling sorry for yourself, just go outside and do
| things" may not be a universal cure for panic and
| anxiety, but it is certainly preferable to "isolate from
| friends, stay indoors, drink, and don't try anything new"
| which is what the OP described.
|
| edit: since my original comment has been flagged and no
| longer viewable, it was NOT "stop feeling sorry for
| yourself, just go outside and do things"
| zh3 wrote:
| I know that feeling; people projecting what they like onto
| you, assuming therefore you will like it too and then getting
| upset when you don't. It's horrible because it feels like
| it's your problem - but it's really not.
| imtringued wrote:
| It's their problem because there is absolutely nothing
| wrong with just asking. People want to surprise other
| people with nice gifts while simultaneously having no idea
| whether the recipient will want it.
| katbyte wrote:
| It's weird too, because if they wanted to do all that why
| not just make that a separate plan/trip at a later date?
| There's no reason to force it on someone when your free to
| just go do it as a group later
| ILMostro7 wrote:
| Easier to justify. Maybe even a little test or shooting
| off steam for their own life.
| Ecco wrote:
| The copy of this article is so good. The entire piece made me
| laugh so hard. Thanks for posting this!
| system2 wrote:
| Came here to say this. After reading SEO riddled garbage for
| years, this was a pleasant surprise.
| sydthrowaway wrote:
| Want to know more? Scroll past 2 pages of ads
| BrentOzar wrote:
| The author, Ezra Dyer, does spectacular work. He's written
| many, many other brilliant automotive pieces around the web.
| bonestamp2 wrote:
| Agreed. The phrase, "al fresco fighter jet" is enough to
| consider reading this article if you haven't already.
| bennysomething wrote:
| Had me in stitches that line :)
| kergonath wrote:
| Indeed. And then I felt bad for that old guy. But then it was
| really hard not to laugh again. Very glad nobody got seriously
| hurt.
| vinay427 wrote:
| Most Car and Driver pieces, even the relatively objective car
| reviews, tend to be better than average in this regard, with
| more editorialized pieces especially entertaining. It's one of
| the main reasons I subscribe to the physical magazine despite
| its very large proportion of advertising, which is at least
| somewhat offset by a low subscription price.
| frontierkodiak wrote:
| Ezra Dyer is such a great car writer. I loved the Car & Drivers
| of yore, especially pre-2010ish. Ezra's pieces are the only ones
| left that remind me of why I was so obsessed with hoarding and
| re-reading these mags as a kid. Even so, I miss how clever &
| irreverent the old C&D was.
| kingcharles wrote:
| Ezra's column was always the first thing I turned to when C&D
| turned up.
| [deleted]
| jll29 wrote:
| I'm so sorry for the retiree. I'm sure the colleagues meant well
| with this unusual present, and it probably was an admin effort to
| pull it off, but he was clearly uncomfortable to receive his
| gift.
|
| What hasn't been covered in the comments, to my surprise, is the
| aspect of peer pressure that made him accept the present. This
| wasn't a gift voucher for a flight in a hot air balloon, so
| colleagues should have planned for a "plan b" in case he wasn't
| going to have the flight for fear for his safety. Apparently,
| social pressure was exercised to coerce him - bad, shame on them!
| mcculley wrote:
| This is a perfect example of how state militaries have more power
| than they are mature enough to handle.
|
| This is the likeliest explanation for The Great Filter, in my
| opinion. Civilizations develop power well beyond their wisdom and
| then snuff themselves out.
| woodruffw wrote:
| I don't understand the connection you're making. This was a
| civilian who happened to work in the defense industry; we have
| no indication that he was otherwise familiar with the
| mechanical workings of the fighter jet he was put in. For all
| we know, he was the night janitor at a warehouse.
| mcculley wrote:
| I don't blame the civilian. I am not optimistic that the
| military organization that owns this fighter jet is capable
| of making good decisions.
| codr7 wrote:
| I think the point was more about the entire chain of command
| that allowed themselves to be talked into allowing the flight
| to take place.
| mcculley wrote:
| Exactly. These organizations are entrusted with nuclear and
| biological weapons.
| mc4ndr3 wrote:
| And these people conduct wars.
| hef19898 wrote:
| No, usually passengers on joy rides are not conducting combat
| operations.
| [deleted]
| alduin32 wrote:
| So wrong that the GoPro that the retiree was wearing was not even
| turned on, which is a shame, even if I doubt that the footage
| would have been released.
| H8crilA wrote:
| A former US fighter pilot comments on this incident:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zIxqKwoHsM
|
| Intro ends at 1:25
| sokoloff wrote:
| The top comment on that video is great.
| andrelaszlo wrote:
| I don't get it?
| kube-system wrote:
| https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Yeet
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| Depending if I'm watching the video on the mobile Youtube
| app, or in the desktop browser, I get completely different
| top comments.
|
| Mobile app: _" Pilot: you OK back there? Retiree:
| Le'YEET!!!!"_
|
| Desktop browser: _" He got everything in one trip. Ride in a
| fighter jet, ejecting, and a sky dive."_
|
| Another testament to Youtube's amazing UX consistency. /s
| Jap2-0 wrote:
| I see "I flew backseat Mig-29. Will always remember pilot
| pointing at my ejection handle "please do not grab this, my
| government will be unhappy with both of us" [emoji]"
| [deleted]
| sokoloff wrote:
| In mobile incognito, I get that as well.
| ChuckMcM wrote:
| Ouch! I'm glad the guy is okay, that could not have been "fun"
| given the description of the ejection.
|
| In Sunnyvale they used to train Orion P3 crews at Moffett field.
| Of course Sunnyvale and the surrounding towns had a few military
| contractors doing RADAR development who did not have many
| military targets to paint, so when a P3 flew over it made for a
| good "real life" test.
|
| On one such flight, the check pilot decided to "spice up" the
| newbie pilot's life as they returned to Moffett field by casually
| flicked on the RADAR threat detector. Sure enough, one of the
| contractor's search RADARs was 'pinging' them, but unexpectedly
| they were also testing a tracking RADAR which then subsequently
| got a good lock on the plane. That made the RADAR LOCK alarm go
| off in the cockpit and the trainee, as he was trained to do,
| immediately hit countermeasures without thinking. (That will save
| your life!)
|
| The plane was on final approach to the field, and when it
| activated countermeasures it consisted of both chaff and IR
| flares (bits of magnesium, lit and cast to the side to distract
| heat seekers) These mostly landed on the Sunnyvale golf course
| which is in the approach path.
|
| I used to play that course, and after this event there were a
| number of burn spots where the flares had landed and then burned
| out on the ground, and for probably two months there were bits of
| foil chaff that could be found in various nooks and crannies
| around the course!
| oconnor663 wrote:
| > immediately hit countermeasures without thinking
|
| Out of curiosity, if this is the doctrine, why doesn't the
| plane just fire countermeasures automatically?
| tbihl wrote:
| Ah, the balancing act of human in the loop.
| samstave wrote:
| This was super interesting regarding the ejection seat's
| features and behavior depending on speed and altitude at
| which the seat ejects.
|
| https://martin-baker.com/products/mk16-ejection-seat-for-
| raf...
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Some systems do. I've worked on one.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| If you're low on countermeasures you may want to dole them
| out more sparingly.
| dasudasu wrote:
| Pretty much. There's a recent video going around of a
| Russian helicopter in Ukraine firing off all its flares in
| panic after its sister helicopter is taken out by MANPADS.
| Predictably, the Ukrainians wait until he runs out, and
| then he gets taken out anyway. Not that hard to search for
| it.
| krisoft wrote:
| Indeed. I was thinking about the same video in response
| to this question.
|
| Here is a link: https://twitter.com/Blue_Sauron/status/15
| 17817773199699977
| oconnor663 wrote:
| It seems like the natural next step would be
| "automatically deploy countermeasures while you still
| have [some threshold] remaining, then revert to manual
| below that," but I can also see how needing to train
| pilots in two or more different modes starts to pile up
| complexity costs and maybe leads to more mistakes
| compared to a simpler system.
| samstave wrote:
| /Why, I _oughta_....
|
| -- In Military Countermeasures
| Diesel555 wrote:
| https://extantaerospace.com/products/ALE-47_CDU.pdf [pdf]
|
| In the picture above you will see a dial for modes. They
| range from human tell the machine exactly what to do, to
| human consent to what the machine wants to do, to machine do
| what you want to do.
| inamberclad wrote:
| Love those old stories. I've climbed through the P-3 on static
| display outside the ramp, and I wish they still flew more of
| them around there. I used to be friends with a guy at the local
| grocery store who was a P-3 mechanic.
| marcodiego wrote:
| Ejecting from a fighter plane is not only dangerous. It is
| relatively common that people who eject develop spinal injuries
| because of it.
| vba616 wrote:
| Meanwhile, in Soviet Russia:
|
| "For improved pilot survivability the Ka-50 is fitted with a
| NPP Zvezda K-37-800 ejection seat, which is a rare feature for
| a helicopter."
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamov_Ka-50
|
| Yes, ok, it has explosives to blow away the rotors. But how
| many different ways could that go wrong...
| qaq wrote:
| There was a single successful ejection in Ukraine so far
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| Well, you'd (theoretically) only do it when not doing it
| would be _worse_. So all those ways it could go wrong won 't
| kill you, because you were already going to die. But if it
| all works, you _might_ live.
| vba616 wrote:
| What if the rotor destruct system fired when you weren't
| ejecting tho?
|
| I can't find the specific incident easily by Googling, but
| I read a long time ago about an incident, possibly with
| F-16s, a training exercise where suddenly a sidewinder
| fired uncommanded, and took out another plane.
|
| You would _think_ that would surely be human error, but
| investigation showed that apparently something just shorted
| out.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| Well, if it takes off the rotor, hopefully it _also_
| ejects you. If it doesn 't, well, you should probably
| promptly initiate ejection. And the ejection should be
| easier, since there's now no pesky rotor in the way...
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| _> Meanwhile, in Soviet Russia:_
|
| There are videos on Youtube with captured Russian pilots who
| ejected their aircrafts in the recent Ruso-Ukrainian war and
| they all had pretty big gashes on their necks and their
| overalls soaked in blood from all that bleeding like a stuck
| pig.
|
| Apparently the canopy and ejection system acts like a
| guillotine on Russian aircrafts, but that's just what I've
| heard, I'm no expert on soviet era ejection seats, so if
| anyone has more info on this would love to learn more.
| zabzonk wrote:
| There are other problems. My Dad had an engine fire in his RAF
| Vampire over East England, didn't have an ejector seat, and
| decided it would be better to belly-land the thing, which he
| did, succesfully, in a cabbage field.
|
| He got out of the Vampire and trudged over to an old yokel who
| had been sitting watching all this.
|
| Dad: Is there a phone around here?
|
| Yokel: You'm will be paying for all them cabbages?
| rendall wrote:
| Hmm. Was the farmer compensated?
| zabzonk wrote:
| No idea. I'm not sure he should have been, but he very
| probably was - but my Dad was risking his life to protect
| the farmer, so Dad would not have paid for it. And as far
| as I know people were compensated for RAF crashes on their
| property - they certainly are now today, though RAF pilots
| do everything they can (up to their own deaths) to avoid
| militraliry accidents.
| [deleted]
| sealeck wrote:
| How was he risking his life to protect the farmer?
| zabzonk wrote:
| If you knew anything of the history of the RAF you would
| not ask this.
| mechanical_bear wrote:
| You could just answer the question. Obviously there are
| many readers here not intimately aware of RAF history.
| SirYandi wrote:
| I assume they were referring to the blitz in WW2, where
| the RAF defended Britain from Nazi bombing runs.
| wtallis wrote:
| The plane in question doesn't seem to have entered
| service until shortly after the end of WW2:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Vampire
| zabzonk wrote:
| The question is really not about a particular fighter,
| but about the RAF.
| zabzonk wrote:
| Are you expecting me to write an article for you here on
| the RAF, rather than you doing a search?
| MerelyMortal wrote:
| One person spending 1 minute to write a reply versus a
| dozen people spending 15 minutes trying to find the right
| answer.
| Dayshine wrote:
| How was a post war RAF fighter crashing during training
| exercise protecting our country?
|
| Has the RAF been anything other than a deterrent in
| Europe since then?
| wolverine876 wrote:
| For most of its history, RAF pilots haven't been fighting
| wars or risking their lives.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| > my Dad was risking his life to protect the farmer
|
| The farmer is an equal citizen with equal rights,
| regardless - that is what the pilot was protecting.
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| _> I 'm not sure he should have been, but he very
| probably was - but my Dad was risking his life to protect
| the farmer_
|
| Why not? It's not your father who should compensate the
| farmer but the government. And if government property
| causes damages to a citizen's livelihood, then the
| government should compensate them. At least, in a
| civilized democracy.
| zabzonk wrote:
| And that's happens in the UK. Of course, the farmer has
| to put in a claim, and I mean't that I do not know if he
| did so.
|
| Hence:
|
| > but he very probably was
| scarier wrote:
| This is supposedly where the idiom "bought the farm" comes
| from.
| ILMostro7 wrote:
| Closer to "not in my backyard", until and unless it
| absolutely and directly benefits ME
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| I don't think so. It came from the life insurance paying
| off the family farm (if I understand correctly).
| InCityDreams wrote:
| A lot of people sure don't get British humour, with a 'u'.
| upofadown wrote:
| A reaction like that implies that the farmer was screwed over
| in a previous incident or has heard of someone that was.
| [deleted]
| huhtenberg wrote:
| Lol... somebody sure had a lot of fun writing this up :)
| jug wrote:
| Now that's an article author that enjoys his job.
| nickt wrote:
| It's a Martin Baker seat. At least he'll get a tie.
|
| https://martin-baker.com/ejection-tie-club/
| lastofthemojito wrote:
| Irritatingly imprecise wording on that page:
|
| > Here at Martin-Baker, we run an exclusive club that unifies
| all pilots whose lives we've helped save: life membership of
| the Ejection Tie Club is confined solely to those who have
| emergency ejected from an aircraft using a Martin-Baker
| ejection seat, which has thereby saved their life.
|
| Does that mean you need to be a pilot to be a member of the
| club? Or does being a co-pilot or passenger qualify? And if
| you're testing the ejection seat (wittingly or unwittingly as
| in the case of this article) in a healthy airplane, such that
| it isn't a life-saving technique, do you still qualify?
| nraynaud wrote:
| no, but you have bail out volontarily and in a dangerous
| situation, the question has already been put to the
| manufacturer: no tie for the unluky retired.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Voluntarily leaving your healthy plane will get your
| license revoked by the FAA as we've recently seen happen.
| kube-system wrote:
| Only if you're the pilot.
| ILMostro7 wrote:
| Where?
| ghostly_s wrote:
| That odd story a couple months ago where some guy
| seemingly crashed his plane deliberately for tiktok
| clout?
| userbinator wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31104691
|
| And before,
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29729307
| LittlePeter wrote:
| A YouTuber purposely crashed his plane in California, FAA
| says: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31104691
| kergonath wrote:
| That is terrible PR. In any case, who knows what would have
| happened if he'd stayed on board, considering that nobody
| seemed to care about the limits the doctor set?
|
| On the other hand, he probably does not want a reminder of
| his "adventure".
| tbihl wrote:
| >In any case, who knows what would have happened if he'd
| stayed on board, considering that nobody seemed to care
| about the limits the doctor set?
|
| He would've been much safer, though maybe he would've
| passed out (which I fully recognize as an unpleasant
| experience.) Ejecting from a jet would be a very
| hazardous day for _any_ job.
| [deleted]
| ChuckMcM wrote:
| Given the spirit of the club I bet he got a tie.
| adwww wrote:
| A co-pilot is still a pilot, and nobody willingly ejects from
| a healthy aircraft.
|
| Ejecting can still go wrong, and subjects your body to huge
| compressive forces - it's not uncommon to fracture your
| spine.
|
| Interesting point about non pilot crew though - although
| there must be a fairly limited number of fast jets that have
| mission crew with ejector seats. Perhaps a couple of US
| bombers?
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > Interesting point about non pilot crew though - although
| there must be a fairly limited number of fast jets that
| have mission crew with ejector seats.
|
| I mean you're reading an article about one, aren't you?
| Also the Panavia Tornado. F-15E, etc.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Wasn't there a plane (thinking bomber with you) that
| ejected down from the aircraft so that the minimum altitude
| was super important?
| rjsw wrote:
| Early F-104 Starfighters had a downward-firing ejection
| seat [1].
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_F-104_Starfigh
| ter#Eje...
| [deleted]
| robonerd wrote:
| The Soviet Tu-22 (a bomber) also did this. (Though not
| the Tu-22M, which is basically a different plane.)
| lstodd wrote:
| http://www.airforce.ru/aircraft/miscellaneous/ejectionsea
| ts/...
|
| Super convenient - climb a ladder, strap in and then tech
| guys winch you up with a hand crank (on first models).
|
| Altitude less than 1500 ft and you're dead. G-load above
| a threshold and its rails jam, so you're not going
| anywhere. 1950s tech that flew into 1990s.
| adwww wrote:
| B52 ejects in all directions, some up, some down ha.
| rwmj wrote:
| The Avro Vulcan had two ejection seats, for the pilot and
| co-pilot, and nothing for the three other crew members.
| They had a door and were expected to bail out, which
| after they switched to flying low level under enemy radar
| wasn't really possible. Predictably this lead to several
| tragedies. https://hackaday.com/2021/01/11/the-v-bomber-
| ejector-seat-co...
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Vulcan
| robonerd wrote:
| > _subjects your body to huge compressive forces - it 's
| not uncommon to fracture your spine._
|
| I've heard that military pilots are retired from flying
| after the second ejection (regardless of the reason for it)
| due to this spinal injury concern. It must be one hell of a
| kick in the ass.
| darrenf wrote:
| Back in the 1950s and 60s my dad was a parachute training
| instructor for the RAF. As well as teach others how to
| safely jump out of planes, he also basically did QA for
| ejector seats.
|
| His service ended when one such seat really wasn't ready
| for humans. It totally fucked his back up -- he didn't
| become wheelchair bound, but was told to never lift
| anything heavier than a cup of tea for the rest of his
| life. Registered disabled from his mid-30s. Ejector seats
| were, and I assume still are, no joke.
| rich_sasha wrote:
| Ejection seats also got a lot more powerful over time.
| The gold standard now are 0/0 seats, so called because
| they can be used at 0 altitude and 0 speed. Earlier seats
| had speed and/or altitude requirements.
|
| Presumably this means that they kick you harder too, with
| all such subsequent effects.
| robonerd wrote:
| Many early ejection seats used explosive charges instead
| of rocket motors. These were less powerful overall
| (didn't throw pilots as far from the plane) but I suspect
| they might have kicked a lot harder in the instant of
| ignition.
| kayodelycaon wrote:
| Modern ejection seats have a smoother acceleration curve
| than the early ones.
| jimmaswell wrote:
| > nobody willingly ejects from a healthy aircraft.
|
| You'd think so, but sadly:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29729307
| kayodelycaon wrote:
| Technically, that's a bail-out. Has somewhat fewer
| rockets and high-g forces than an ejection seat.
| sydthrowaway wrote:
| I dont get it. Is the parachute deployed of the ejection too? How
| did the man survive
| imglorp wrote:
| The sequence is fully automatic: as soon as you pull the
| handle, the canopy pyros blow a hole, the straps pull the
| occupant's limbs in, the seat launches, separates from person,
| finally chute deploys. Your next inputs after pulling the
| handle are steering and landing the chute if you are conscious.
|
| By the way, the gentleman should be receiving a necktie from
| Martin Baker.
|
| https://ejectionsite.com/
| orbital-decay wrote:
| Yes, the parachute is in the ejection seat, it's deployed
| automatically later by necessity, as the pilot could be injured
| and/or unconscious.
| ledauphin wrote:
| read this far superior retelling:
|
| https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a32131240/french-dassault-...
| [deleted]
| dang wrote:
| Ok, we've changed to that from
| https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/04/13/man-who-never-
| wanted-.... Thanks!
| Jenz wrote:
| do you read everything on the front page? o_O
| bombcar wrote:
| It doesn't take a ton of effort, but dang may have advanced
| searches setup.
| dang wrote:
| Not anymore. I used to keep more on top of it but now I
| just feel guilty about not.
| jt2190 wrote:
| The Mercury News article is a syndicated CNN piece:
|
| Text-only version: https://lite.cnn.com/en/article/h_2ab74240
| 9be210c718777d3fb8...
| curmudgeon22 wrote:
| Agreed, this version is better
| [deleted]
| daniel-cussen wrote:
| There's the story of the guy, he was in GQ I think, who was
| answering questions like "What is't like to:" "Get ejected from a
| fighter jet?"
|
| Scary shit, his flying machine was starting to do its real job
| which is of being a suicide machine, so he had to bail. The guy
| think he was an airman, became an inch shorter.
|
| EDIT: I would say instead of "real job" I would say "original
| job." Early aviation was full of deaths. First the guys jumping
| off the Eiffel tower with wings, splat. Then the famous German
| glider Otto Lilienthal, splat. Then more experiments, then
| eventually the Wright Brothers, who said "how do we fly without
| going splat?" Their invention was how to control the machine,
| wing warping. Others already could power it, just not control it.
| And they both lived in fear of splat, that's why they refused to
| fly on the same flying machine.
| altgans wrote:
| I think this is the official french military report on this: [1].
|
| 1: https://omnirole-rafale.com/wp-
| content/uploads/2020/04/Rappo...
| zepearl wrote:
| Interesting & funny article, but but... my brain keeps focusing
| on the fact that the pilot's ejection seat did not work => is
| that usually supposed to happen? In this case the Rafale wasn't
| even doing anything fancy... .
| poof131 wrote:
| In the F/A-18 we had a selector that you could set to "both" or
| "rear only" exactly for this type of scenario. Qualified NFO in
| the backseat, you want both, and I know people who's lives were
| saved crashing off the carrier. But for a ride along, "rear
| only" is definitely the correct setting. And I'm pretty sure
| this has happened before, remember stories from years ago.
| jaxomlotus wrote:
| I mean it sucks that this happened, but kudos to the writer,
| because this article is hilarious.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-04-24 23:00 UTC)