The pilot seemed to be concentrating too much on impressing those on the ground v fly the plane and particularly what the ASI was reading..
Jacko wrote:
Well, it’s no surprise that Jacko disagrees with the nanny-state whining ninnies who sneer at such stunts, especially that inverted flight under a bridge.
I posted the link to the flight under the bridge and hold views just about as far from a “nanny state… etc” as are possible to hold 
The issue with that video is the very close proximity of people, including some on the bridge. Supporting individuality does not equate to supporting bad individual judgement with regard to affecting the uninvolved, quite the opposite.
One of the issues with totalitarian regimes is that people quite obviously lose the ability to make good individual judgements and personal risk evaluations, and it apparently takes generations to recover. If you’re a stalwart supporter of individual risk management (like me) that’s a problem!
Jacko wrote:
These people shine a ray of hope in an era of dull neo-totalitarian conformity, and we should honour them as we do the men, women and children who died for freedom in Europe in the last century.
I agree with your observation of the nanny state taking over more and more aspects of our lives, and I can admit that some individuals are trying to counter this by what you call a form of art, be it base jumping, free climbing or other extreme sports.
However, all these people are putting their lives at risk entirely in order to maximize their own personal adrenaline level, and I strongly disagree with you comparing them to people who lost their lives in the pursuit of freedom, which was always the freedom of others.
Energy management is a weak area of knowledge amongst many pilots. That said, this guy appeared to have some more fundamental weaknesses. Hey ho, not the first and probably not the last.
I’m not convinced that nanny-stateism is the cause of Russians’ love of risk taking:
I hope this doesn’t seem too flippant on this thread. It’s not intended as such, at all. My observation is that in relatively nannying countries such as the UK you’d be far less likely to find a hazard like the one above, and I’m fairly sure you’d be less likely to find people flying recklessly in the manner of the video that opened the thread. I lived in Eastern Slovakia for a time (a few decades ago) and you came to realise that, in contrast to Britain, you had to take a greater responsibility for your own wellbeing. You could open train doors whilst the train was moving. Lamp-posts might be electrified and often had bare wires showing. School discos would have all the fire exits locked. And there were very big holes in the pavement. People were definitely ‘madder’ too i.e. ready to choose to take risks that to me seemed senseless for no benefit.
What makes some nations more ready to take risks than others? Fatalism? Habit? Poverty? I’m not sure, but a lack of political freedom impeding physical risk assessment doesn’t seem high up on the list to me.
“all these people are putting their lives at risk entirely in order to maximize their own personal adrenaline level,”
As opposed to doing something because they enjoy doing it, using skills they have acquired, with little adrenaline involved.
As regards “Nanny”, I see, following the Gymnastics Doctor Conviction, Pennsylvania State University Health and Safety are closing down all Outdoor Activities Clubs on safety grounds.
Terrible outcome of the American legal system. I guess.
All sorts of diverse things happen in the US, many of them aberrant
Jacko wrote:
These people shine a ray of hope in an era of dull neo-totalitarian conformity, and we should honour them as we do the men, women and children who died for freedom in Europe in the last century.
I see two entirely unrelated types of people and activities unempathetically linked in the foregoing statement. In Europe (and other places) last century, millions of people chose against their personal preference, to do the hard thing to oppose an immediate threat to safety and freedom. These people were not undertaking a risky activity for their own entertainment nor excitement.
And, society has its thrill seekers, who for reasons of their own, make a voluntary choice to accept considerable personal risk, and occasionally, risk on behalf of others for their own immediate entertainment or excitement. Various societies each have some tolerance for these sorts of activities, and to some degree may even look the other way, when the bounds are pushed, but safety is well considered. But their always seem to be those few people who assert personal freedom and “art”, then embark ill prepared and poorly trained and practiced, and litter the countryside with debris and bodies. Someone has to clean that up. The people who have to pay those cleanup someones don’t like those expenses simply to enable ill prepared risk takers. So, rules are made to say don’t do that [because it costs too much to clean up if you botch it].
In my capacity as a firefighter, I have occasionally seen citizens breaking our rules. However, in my qualified opinion, they were trained and very well prepared, posed no risk [of cost] to the public, and little risk to themselves, so instead of saying “no”, I smiled and went on to my next assignment. On a few occasions, as a very qualified pilot, I have taken action to change the behaviour of ill prepared or poorly experienced pilots who were doing something which was on the verge of being dangerous.
If the pilot of the accident video had practiced many hours of upper air power off unusual attitude maneuvering, they would have come to understand that that aircraft lacked the inertia to complete that maneuver so close to the ground.
Well said. Same stream of thought as mine, much better choice of words :)
