Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Two EA-18 fighter jets collide at Mountain Home airshow, pilots ejected safely

idahonews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 278 posts

Re: Two EA-18 fighter jets collide at Mountain Home airshow, pilots ejected safely

#231

Post by alistairSH »

somenameforme wrote: post #117
Waterluvian wrote: post #2

I don’t know anything about anything but it feels kind of amazing that all four ejected with good looking parachutes given the orientation of the conglomerated plane.

Something that seems interesting to me is that they all ejected at nearly the identical time. I'm curious if those systems are automated in case of scenarios like an unconscious pilot. If so, there may be automated clearance/angle systems, but that's speculation on top of speculation.

100% guessing, but odds are the timing was exactly how long it took 1 of each crew to decide ejection was the only way out (1 of each, because the seats are frequently coupled to ensure there's a small time gap between pilot and weapons officer).

Re: Two EA-18 fighter jets collide at Mountain Home airshow, pilots ejected safely

#232

Post by NikolaNovak »

ExoticPearTree wrote: post #159
mlyle wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yah.. the roaring sound and precision of military aerial display teams can't be denied, and are an awesome experience. But it's something you see someone doing in a Pitts or Extra or maybe even a Citabria or 150 that makes you question your understanding of the laws of physics :D

It is not the same. Having a jet do a low pass is something that you will remember for a long time. Or having it go vertical with full after burners, especially close to sunset where you can see it better. The other factor is showing how good you are: sure, you can do formation flying in an Extra 300 or a C150, but doing it in a fighter jet show precission and skill, because it will not forgive you as easy as a slowe…

Let's recognize this is subjective :)

I've been to a few air shows and even f22 with its vector thrusting, is not (to me) as impressive as the little prop aerobatics doing things that make me (even with a bit of flight training) wonder how is that even possible :). They are typically closer & slower (so you can appreciate the action better), and just pack so much more stuff and maneuvers right there where you can see them - the density / bang for the buck is far greater. By necessity, military jets are fly bys - they zoom in, pull up and wheee go up fast, then they go away. Then 2 minutes later they zoom in, cross each other impressively closely, then they fly away for a bit. It's exciting and fun don't get me wrong, but when I plan my air show day, I plan it around cool little aerobatic planes, not the military jets.

YMMV :). But my point in this thread is:

1. Yes, absolutely, military is there for recruitment

2. Military recruitment flying is empathically not all there is to an air show to all the people, and there exist air shows with minimal to no armed force presence.

Re: Two EA-18 fighter jets collide at Mountain Home airshow, pilots ejected safely

#233

Post by NikolaNovak »

mlyle wrote: post #103
NikolaNovak wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a LOT of air shows where military airplanes are a small or zero component. I'm totally in agreement that armed forces are there for reasons you described. But an "air show" is a massive and sometimes separate Venn diagram. There are air shows where main thing is thousands of private airplanes coming from across the country to be together and meet up and have fun. Put it other way, if armed forces decided it…

Yah.. the roaring sound and precision of military aerial display teams can't be denied, and are an awesome experience. But it's something you see someone doing in a Pitts or Extra or maybe even a Citabria or 150 that makes you question your understanding of the laws of physics :D

I love it when there is a little Cessna 150/152 with aerobatic designation even though it's engine cuts off when you go inverted (carburated design). The sheer pluck of those pilots! I was once given a Cessna 150 aerobatic experience as a birthday gift and the pilot was just cheerfully mad lol. He gave me the parachute, told me we are legally obliged to wear them, but not to worry about it too much - at heights and speeds and Gs we're at, they're absolutely useless. Gulp!

Re: Two EA-18 fighter jets collide at Mountain Home airshow, pilots ejected safely

#234

Post by llm_nerd »

somenameforme wrote: post #117
Waterluvian wrote: post #2

I don’t know anything about anything but it feels kind of amazing that all four ejected with good looking parachutes given the orientation of the conglomerated plane.

Something that seems interesting to me is that they all ejected at nearly the identical time. I'm curious if those systems are automated in case of scenarios like an unconscious pilot. If so, there may be automated clearance/angle systems, but that's speculation on top of speculation.

The initiation of the ejection wasn't automated, but it was very clear to both pilots that it was unrecoverable. It was less than 4 seconds after ejection that the jets struck the ground, so there wasn't a lot of time.

By the timing seen in the video, the front seater -- the pilot -- ejected in both jets at close to the same time. That automatically ejects the electronics officer first then the pilot momentarily after, as otherwise the front-seat ejection would wash the rear-seater with the launch exhaust from the front seat ejection.

Re: Two EA-18 fighter jets collide at Mountain Home airshow, pilots ejected safely

#235

Post by dudul »

bulbar wrote: post #132
rootusrootus wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Too many comments are trying to overanalyze, or just show off their insightful cynicism. We do airshows because they are cool . Lots of us love airplanes. Humans do all kinds of activities for entertainment that are not strictly justifiable returns on investment. I hope we never get that boring, though every year we do seem to go that direction.

I would say it's part of the US culture. It's not a thing in Europe (one reason might be practical reasons. We have less space to do it safely).

I guess the half dozen airshows my dad took me to as a kid just happened in my head.

Re: Two EA-18 fighter jets collide at Mountain Home airshow, pilots ejected safely

#236

Post by infecto »

peteforde wrote: post #170

It's crazy to me that Americans feel like they can't afford socialized healthcare, but performing tricks in $70M jets is something that must proceed at all costs.

One of the things that honestly gets boring is this style of comment (typically European in origin but not always!). It does not constructively start any type discussion and just becomes a cheap shots style of argument.

Every country and culture has its own pros/cons. I always think of the classic examples, Europe lacks a lot of innovation in business and that’s partly attributed to lack of free movement of labor (high layoff cost). Now we could argue to the end of time if that is good or bad and it’s quite too simple minded to point fingers. Every entity has its pro/con.

Re: Two EA-18 fighter jets collide at Mountain Home airshow, pilots ejected safely

#237

Post by PretzelPirate »

jterrys wrote: post #41
avalys wrote: post #3

These are pretty expensive and specialized electronic warfare planes that are identical to a regular F18 in aerodynamic performance. Sucks to lose two of them for an airshow display. Isn’t that what the Blue Angels are for?

This actually begs the question...why the fuck would they use THESE for an airshow? They're aesthetically identical to F18 from a ground silhouette perspective. They blew through some really expensive planes from a much smaller fleet for a pony show that any regular F18 could've been part of.

> This actually begs the question

I beleive that raises the question. I don't think it begs the question at all.

Re: Two EA-18 fighter jets collide at Mountain Home airshow, pilots ejected safely

#238

Post by drob518 »

dboreham wrote: post #86
jcgrillo wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arms and legs can take a serious beating too. Airplane cockpits are pretty tight spaces, and to be explosively shot out of one with little notice is.. yikes.

Ejection is often a career-ending event, unfortunately. Better than dying though.

Needless to say, crashing jets at an air show is not going to help anyone’s career.

Re: Two EA-18 fighter jets collide at Mountain Home airshow, pilots ejected safely

#239

Post by alistairSH »

mschuster91 wrote: post #186
tintor wrote: post #143

Four people ejected. What is the purpose of the second person in such plane, at the air show?

> What is the purpose of the second person in such plane, at the air show? Pilot Flying, Pilot Monitoring (and dealing with radio and coordination). It's hard to see single-pilot operations outside of General Aviation aka people flying for fun or for dusting crops - and enough incidents happen in GA, especially in cropdusting, that it might make sense to mandate two-pilot operations there, but good luck trying to get…

Uh, that's not correct. The back-seat in the Growler is an Electronics Warfare Officer. He may be monitoring the radio, but he's not just a second pilot (as is the case with commercial passenger aviation); it's a completely distinct job with a distinct training program.

And of course, most modern fighter jets are actually single seat. And they operate just fine that way.

Re: Two EA-18 fighter jets collide at Mountain Home airshow, pilots ejected safely

#240

Post by Steve44 »

arwhatever wrote: post #8

That maneuver they were attempting looks WILD. Would have been amazing to have pulled of. Or, perhaps to have regularly pulled off until today. I'm guessing that must be some sort of vectored thrust trickery.

https://x.com/Brick_Suit/status/2056183711549608239

It doesn't look like a fancy manoeuvrer, just slow repositioning and they drifted into each other.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QlJrUX1Ags is probably a better link to the clip.

Post reply on HN