Birds confirmed as cause for Spanish F-18 maneuver

I just watched one from a water line perspective and yeah it was 4-5x higher than what I originally thought. The first one I saw was like on a boardwalk up the beach which made it look like it got real close, but the one I just saw you can't even see the water react to the exhaust.

[-]

piercejay@reddit

"pretty fuckin' close" is the textbook definition here

[-]

wanderer1999@reddit

And folks this is why these are multimillions fighter jets, it's unbelievable that he was able to recover. He was this close to crashing it and killing a bunch of people on the beach that day.

[-]

MonthMaterial3351@reddit

No, he wasn't. He was well clear of the beach when he almost stalled and powered out of it.
If he'd gone in, he would have been in the water and clear of the audience, which is part of the safety barrier.

[-]

soulseeker31@reddit

As an armchair expert, I concur.

[-]

DigBarsbiggestfan@reddit

As a futon expert, I also agree.

[-]

powerpuffpopcorn@reddit

As a recliner expert, i vote to agree.

[-]

PRC_Spy@reddit

As an appreciator of chaise longues I must concur.

[-]

snoopdr@reddit

as a La-Z-Boy connoisseur I acknowledge this statement

[-]

TitoGrande1980@reddit

Toilet king here, my flock of poo agrees.

[-]

Oreo-witty@reddit

I think the book F18 Flying Guide for Advanced Pilots, which is set in this plane, says, "Please eject your seat NOW at this altitude".

[-]

wannacumnbeatmeoff@reddit

I would guess, as a pilot that close to a huge crowd of people, ejection wasn't an option. Ditching it in the water and certain death were really the only option here other than the one he took.

[-]

leonderbaertige_II@reddit

About 4 Buccaneers. Definetly below the "Sheep have legs" height.

[-]

LaFleur90@reddit

I'm a Veteran Navy Pylote, with thousands of flight hours in the Hornet ^((in dcs)). I can confirm that it was a VERY close call. I don't know if this was an intentional maneuver or i was caused because he hit the flock of birds (he got flogged as we say). Seems like it happened after the bird strike and it wasn't preemptive. Almost like he got an engine flame-out because of the strike.

[-]

Velvet_Llama@reddit

Did the pylote apply enough right rudder?

[-]

early_earl@reddit

Im a former US roadworker Pylon

[-]

Anhedonia10@reddit

When you're \~25 deg nose up, burners lit and minimal airspeed, yeh even to my untrained eye, im saying the pilot is needing a new flight suit.

[-]

Weak_Jeweler3077@reddit

Let's just say they won't be releasing the cockpit audio.

[-]

_Totorotrip_@reddit

Here is a translated snip. It seems the pilot was a Studio Ghibli fan

Waffeer! Laputa! Laputa! Laputa! Laputa waffer, uncle.

References:

Laputa / Castle in the sky

Waffer

[-]

waxlez2@reddit

L 　 M 　　　 A 　　　　 o 　　　　　o 　　　　　 o 　　　　　o 　　　　。　　　。　　　. 　　　. 　　　 . 　　　　.

[-]

Anhedonia10@reddit

Oh he released something!

[-]

RudySanchez-G@reddit

Burners helped to recover here

[-]

antesocial@reddit

Close enough for some sand in his underpants.

[-]

djsnoopmike@reddit

Yeah...lets go with

[-]

Torvaldicus_Unknown@reddit

In reality he was still completely in control of the aircraft. I don't think it's as big as people are making it. He wasn't at critical AoA.

[-]

arbpotatoes@reddit

It's still a lot of AoA very close to the ground and a crowded beach. Not ideal in any sense of the word. But I'm sure he had it

[-]

Torvaldicus_Unknown@reddit

Yeah. Wouldn't have been my first choice to fly over that beach like that haha

[-]

kemb0@reddit

I think you’re only saying that because he succeeded. if the jet had rolled a further 5 degree we’d likely be reading a different headline today. Or are we going to pretend every averted accident was “completely in control” and every crash was “he totally lost control.”?

[-]

_QLFON_@reddit

I think I saw the compilation of three clips from that event yesterday. The one we see here looks very close, but in another video with a different perspective, it looked much better. Still extremely low for my liking but my experience with F18 is only DCS:)

[-]

lujimerton@reddit

He definitely threw negative G’s on that thing and poured the coals to it super low once he got a positive live vector. I didn’t see the burners kick on. But yeah he was lower than he was hoping to be.

Source. Am not an expert.

[-]

-WARisTHEanswer-@reddit

There are other videos on YouTube that show jist how close he got.

[-]

Crazy__Donkey@reddit

i don't want to be that guy, but the entire talk, conversation and coverage were different if that plane had crashed, and it was VERY close to that.

I'm not a fighter pilot, but could the scenario of hitting the birds be better? yes, the plane might damaged, but not a catastrophic damage that cause a crash on the spectators. at worse, the pilot could have point it away from the crowd and eject.

[-]

dcolomer10@reddit

I mean, yes, maybe, but we are talking about 1. A flock of birds not one bird. Could have been double engine failure and directly falling towards the beach. 2. This is a split second decision. People here are debating whether it’s the right decision. The fact that there is a debate means that it’s not clear which one is the right choice. Now imagine doing that choice in less than a second.

[-]

Undercoverexmo@reddit

A double engine failure does not prevent you from turning away...

[-]

gdabull@reddit

If you have a double engine failure, you aren’t turning anywhere other than within 30° of where the nose is pointing.

[-]

Undercoverexmo@reddit

This is false. It depends on your altitude and speed.

[-]

gdabull@reddit

Pre-solo PPL students are drilled not to turn back. This is very basic knowledge.

[-]

AhoyWilliam@reddit

Private pilots don't have the luxury of an ejection seat. This guy just needed to get the velocity vector pointed somewhere that was wet and blue, and head-above-arse, and pull the handle, a PPL pilot is trying to keep the plane in a state where they can land it. Like, I am not disputing that he would have not many options and even less time to make the decision here, but in a double engine out the airframe was definitely toast and he wouldn't be staying in it to the splash.

[-]

gdabull@reddit

That’s great until you don’t have enough energy to get clear of the crowd, look how much power it took just to get straight and level again

[-]

Undercoverexmo@reddit

That was because of the maneuvers to avoid the birds... and you don't have to clear the crowd, you only have to avoid it.

[-]

gdabull@reddit

And when the energy still carries the aircraft and shrapnel into the crowd? You also have the benefit of hindsight and multiples of the time the pilot had. US Airways 1549 technically, had enough energy to reach La Guardia, as the simulations by the NTSB proved, but that is with the benefit of hindsight of knowing what would happen and multiple attempts in a sim. The pilot has none of the foresight we have now

[-]

Undercoverexmo@reddit

Cool, so now you are changing your story. Your point was that they couldn’t have turned around, now your point is that they made the best decision under pressure. Maybe the best decision under pressure is to not do a crazy maneuver that almost crashes your plane into a crowd, no matter the circumstances?

[-]

gdabull@reddit

No, I am making a direct comparison of two similar events

[-]

Undercoverexmo@reddit

Exactly. You’re saying that in another situation a better decision could have been made with hindsight. But this whole time you were arguing that they made the best decision…

[-]

gdabull@reddit

Yes, they made the best decision they could with the facts as they saw them at the time, taking into account the situation they found themselves in. They did not have the foresight of what damage a bird strike may or may not have, considering two Eurofighters this summer have lost canopies during display routines.

[-]

Undercoverexmo@reddit

You're all over the map here and it's getting ridiculous.

Let's recap this, shall we?

You started with this absolute gem: "If you have a double engine failure, you aren’t turning anywhere other than within 30° of where the nose is pointing." Flat out wrong, as I said. It depends on your energy.
When I pointed out that it's not always true, you immediately jumped to talking about PPL students. Seriously? What does a student pilot trying to save a Cessna have to do with a fighter pilot pointing his jet at the ocean before ejecting? That was a total non-sequitur.
Then you tried to claim you were only talking about the specific plane in the video, even though your original comment was a general statement. Cool, so you're moving the goalposts when your first point doesn't hold up.
And now, you've completely abandoned your whole "30 degrees" argument and you're hiding behind "they made the best decision they could at the time."

So, which is it?

Are you arguing that it was aerodynamically impossible for him to turn? Or are you arguing that he made the best choice under pressure? Because those are two completely different things.

You started this by making a claim about physics that was just wrong. Now you're trying to make it a debate about a pilot's split-second decision making.

This is exactly my point. You're just changing your argument every time you get cornered. The evasive maneuver you're defending is the very thing that put him in that low-energy state, almost causing a crash. As u/AhoyWilliam pointed out, if he hadn't made that maneuver, he would've had more energy to deal with a potential engine failure in the first place. You can't have it both ways.

[-]

Undercoverexmo@reddit

So you're changing your story. Exactly my point. You said that planes can't turn around without engines, now you say that they made the best decision they could at the time.

[-]

AhoyWilliam@reddit

It took a lot of power to get straight and level again after the evasive manoeuvre, but we are talking about going "fine, eat the birds" and not taking the evasive manoeuvre. He would be aimed significantly more towards the wet blue bit at the start of any "oh fuck, no engines" response.

[-]

gdabull@reddit

US Airways 1549 could have made it back to La Guardia, but they didn’t have that foresight of what was about to happen, as didn’t this pilot. What did they have, 3, 4 seconds?

[-]

AhoyWilliam@reddit

... we're discussing different things here. This evasive manoeuvre put the plane in a state where it took all of the power to get out of a crash onto a crowd. Not. Disputing. That. However, it was evasive, and successful.

The thread you are responding to is about another situation that didn't happen, where instead of evading, the jet simply ate birds and potentially lost power. In that situation, the plane starts in a completely different attitude and energy state because the evasive manoeuvre never happened and in that situation it wouldn't necessarily (but potentially could have) needed all of the thrust in the world to point the nose in a safe direction to allow the pilot to abandon ship without wiping out hundreds of people.

[-]

Undercoverexmo@reddit

Yes exactly this.

[-]

Undercoverexmo@reddit

And? That doesn't support your claim above.

[-]

gdabull@reddit

Did we watch the same video? Because I could have sworn they were low and slow, not at 10,000ft at 350kts.

[-]

Undercoverexmo@reddit

> If you have a double engine failure, you aren’t turning anywhere other than within 30° of where the nose is pointing.

You were speaking generally.

[-]

gdabull@reddit

No, I was talking specifically, about the video posted, as was everyone else.

[-]

Undercoverexmo@reddit

Then why did you bring up PPL?

[-]

gdabull@reddit

Because it is a very basic concept that when low and slow, if you suffer a power failure, that trying to turn to find someone to land beyond about 30° will result in a spin and creating a nice scorch mark on the ground. I mentioned PPL because it is a very, very basic lesson that is thought to pilots with less than 10 hours because it is so essential.

[-]

Undercoverexmo@reddit

Creating a scorch mark is literally part of what happens when you properly eject from a fighter jet… PPL has nothing to do with this situation.

[-]

gdabull@reddit

I think you need to work on your reading contract

[-]

Undercoverexmo@reddit

Ah the classic argument when you have no good argument. Nice

[-]

gdabull@reddit

No, I have a well explained rationale for why a pilot may have made a certain decision, referring back very basic instruction that pilots are thought at a very early stage, however, you do not seem to be able to piece together two separate strands of information and how they might come together to form an single organised course of action for a professional pilot.

[-]

Undercoverexmo@reddit

And you seem to have a misunderstanding of how planes work. Your initial argument had nothing to do with training.

[-]

AnotherNitG@reddit

Fighter glide ratios are pretty low generally. Not sure what it is on the F-18, but this low at this speed with a dual engine failure probably doesn't give the pilot a whole lotta wiggle room

[-]

E492@reddit

But that's why you risk manage by not flying directly at an audience/built up area without an abort.

[-]

Basil-Faw1ty@reddit

If you get a double engine failure, which is a big IF.

[-]

AnotherNitG@reddit

Well yea, I was replying to a guy talking about double engine failure

[-]

FlyHighAviator@reddit

An F/A-18 with low speed and a glide ratio of a rock? Yes, it most definitely can prevent you from turning away.

[-]

deleted_by_reddit@reddit

[removed]

[-]

AutoModerator@reddit

To reduce political fighting this post or comment has been filtered for approval.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[-]

Additional-Ad-1644@reddit

Birds are one of the main threats during an approach and landing at any airport in the world.

Ingestion of an entire flock of birds is not an inconvenience. There’s a whole myriad of damage that could lead to hydraulic and electrical failure.

At worst, the pilot could actually fail to eject from his seat and pointed it straight at the crowd.

[-]

Ok_Giraffe60@reddit

The thing is he reacted after passing the birds, making his maneuver totally rendundant in avoiding any birds, only putting the people on the beach at risk, which goes totally counter to the military statement, because of course they wouldn't want to admit such a grave mistake.

[-]

gdabull@reddit

If they lost both engines in a bird strike, they likely would not have had enough altitude or airspeed to do anything other than aim 30° in front of the nose and pick a spot.

[-]

-WARisTHEanswer-@reddit

I dont want to be that guy, but everything you said was just dumb.

[-]

PsychologicalGlass47@reddit

He did hit the birds, that's the cause for the quick snap roll right. Rudder input was pinned full left with modest left roll during the hit and while the aircraft was still pitching to the side.

[-]

Bulky-Accident3819@reddit

What a pilot. That could’ve been disastrous.

[-]

Synor@reddit

Shitty pilot for attempting the stunt in the first place. Completely reckless.

[-]

Dabgod101@reddit

???

[-]

Synor@reddit

One of the principles for military leaders is to only take risks that are worth it. Stunts at beaches probably aren't.

[-]

uwotmVIII@reddit

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but military leaders are busy leading the military… Airshows are not necessarily organized by military leaders, since they have military shit to worry about.

[-]

Isa_Matteo@reddit

So this pilot just took a jet and went to perform in an air show? Didn’t ask his commanding officer?

[-]

uwotmVIII@reddit

Well, easier to beg for forgiveness than to ask for permission… But no. I’m sure he got permission first, obviously. But the air boss is responsible for safety stuff like this, not a commanding officer in the military.

[-]

Synor@reddit

That pilot is a military officer.

[-]

uwotmVIII@reddit

And the air show is overseen by an air boss, not necessarily the military itself, no?

[-]

Fun-Sorbet-Tui@reddit

Oh right so the squadron leader just gives the keys to the pilots on the weekends? Go at boys I'm busy moving these markers on this giant map...

[-]

uwotmVIII@reddit

That wouldn’t surprise me a bit, honestly.

[-]

Clean_Garage_4541@reddit

You should never point the plane directly towards spectators at these shows

[-]

VigdisBT@reddit

Imagine being so confidently wrong about airshows in a sub of aviation experts and enthusiasts.

[-]

Synor@reddit

Yes lets upvote the expert that congratulates the pilots' skill of twitching full rudder to avert bird strike. Are you joking?

[-]

VigdisBT@reddit

Please, take the doll and show us where the pilot touched you.

[-]

Bar50cal@reddit

It wasn't a stunt. He was just doing a fly by with no planned maneuver.

The stunt as you call it was him avoiding a bird strike at low altitude.

[-]

bokewalka@reddit

Are you lost, or just have no idea what are you talking about?

Ignorance is bliss...

[-]

Ok_Sandwich_1544@reddit

Birds, obviously. 🐦

[-]

meowitzer_911@reddit

Government Drones

[-]

mattfromjoisey@reddit

r/birdsarentreal

[-]

ElOneElOnlyElZorro@reddit

So much respect for that pilot jesusss

[-]

Basil-Faw1ty@reddit

Would we be saying ‘what a pilot’ if he didn’t pull out on time?

It would have been like that Su-27 that went into a crowd in Ukraine.

Was it really a good idea to turn into the crowd like that? For only the chance of a birdstrike. Worst case scenario is it kills scores of people on the beach.

By contrast case scenario with a catastrophic bird strike is you ditch an old classic hornet in the sea, but he could have missed the birds or only suffered superficial damage or even taken a big hit and limped back.

[-]

Astrochimp46@reddit

Would we call Michael Jordan the goat if he wasn’t good at basketball? Tune in here for more thought provoking questions!

[-]

AlfalfaGlitter@reddit

While you are right, I think that pilots need to trust their instinct too. This is not an exhibition pilot, the exhibition squad is the eagle patrol (patrulla águila) and they have colourful schemes.

I'm not 100% sure, but I'd say this is a real combat pilot, and IMHO, instinct plays a role in that.

[-]

JimmehGrant@reddit

It’s the same thing when the Aussies do the low passes with the C-17 300ft off the ground through the city between buildings.

Like I get it - it’s cool. But one thing goes wrong and heaps of people are dead.

https://youtu.be/NaYDIqktzag?si=QGbbfEMMWFoiVD3g

[-]

Fun-Sorbet-Tui@reddit

Also I didn't see any birds. Sounds like a bullshit excuse. Cowboy was show boating.

[-]

Intrepid_Walk_5150@reddit

You can see them about 1 second into the clip

[-]

gdabull@reddit

Did you try watching with your eyes?

[-]

CoronaMcFarm@reddit

By contrast case scenario with a catastrophic bird strike is you ditch an old classic hornet in the sea

Or it crashes inside the city, he didn't exactly seem to have much energy to trade for altidude.

[-]

Basil-Faw1ty@reddit

If he hadn’t started that manoeuvre he would have had enough to turn it out to sea but that’s making a big assumption it disables the plane. Compare that to the split second he was away from creating a pink mist on that beach.

[-]

dizietasma@reddit

This is my thought as well. It seems to me (and I’m no expert so happy to be told I’m wrong) that it would have been safer to take the birdstrike, turn away from the crowd, and ditch in the water if he’d lost thrust.

If this is what the pilot is trained to do then it’s hardly their fault. I’d say he executed his training very well by the looks of things. It does make me wonder though whether the training needs tweaking.

[-]

anotherblog@reddit

The bay location doesn't feel like the smartest place to hold an air show. You really want a long straight beach so aircraft can perform parallel to the crowd line so if there's any problems they won't plough into them. I know here in the UK the rules are extremely strict in this respect and I can't imagine this location being approved.

I hope they learn from this near disaster and take it as an opportunity to improve safety and don't just heap praise on the pilot.

[-]

Basil-Faw1ty@reddit

Would we be saying ‘what a pilot’ if he didn’t pull out of that in time?

It would have been like that Su-27 that went into a crowd in Ukraine.

Was it really a good idea to turn into the crowd like that? For only the chance of a birdstrike. Worst case scenario is it kills scores of people on the beach.

By contrast case scenario with a catastrophic bird strike is you ditch an old classic hornet in the sea, but he could have missed the birds or only suffered superficial damage or even taken a big hit and limped back.

[-]

KualaLJ@reddit

Looks like pilot error to be honest. He triggered a stall and recovered and I don’t think that was intentional. That is not the sign a good pilot.

[-]

piercejay@reddit

And I got downvoted for saying it yesterday lol

[-]

High_AspectRatio@reddit

I mean it still makes no sense, abrupt maneuvers at low airspeed right next to a crowd of people… to avoid birds?

[-]

Federal_Cobbler6647@reddit

Yeah, smells fishy to me. I dont see how risking stall is less dangerous than flying trought flock of not too large birbs.

[-]

Cut-Minimum@reddit

You know whats worse than a stall? Stalling because you suddenly don’t have engines

[-]

Federal_Cobbler6647@reddit

Stall due loss of thrust is not instant and gradual. You can somewhat choose where you crash. It is not guaranteed that you even get to the point of engine failure.

High AOA stall can develop quite quickly to falling leaf with Hornet. At this altitude punching out is only solution to that and pilot cannot affect to final crashing place of aircraft.

[-]

High_AspectRatio@reddit

It’s better to crash that fighter into the water than risk public lives 10/10 times. There’s stalling, and then there’s needing full thrust to recover a couple hundred feet from human lives at like 20 degrees…

The odds that the pilot could have perceived a single bird at the speed he was going is already low, to think the maneuver he pulled was to avoid one is a bit romantic don’t you think. It’s like when spaceships are maneuvering through asteroid belts

[-]

remysl@reddit (OP)

I can't seem to find the comment, but a veteran pilot said on another post yesterday that F-18s are notorious to be really sensitive to roll input under certain circumstances and that this was one of them. The pilot probably didn't intend for the jet to roll that much

[-]

Federal_Cobbler6647@reddit

So pilot mistake anyway.

[-]

High_AspectRatio@reddit

So that’s the real story. Not that this guy intentionally almost wiped out a beach of people to avoid bird strike.

[-]

Available-Goose2718@reddit

To me it looks that the turn towards the beach is due to the loss of power in the one engine that ingested the birds, not the pilot trying to avoid the flock of birds.

[-]

High_AspectRatio@reddit

Birds were not ingested according to reports.

[-]

JimmyNewcleus@reddit

Makes sense to me, bird strikes at that altitude are not to be taken lightly. Pilot did what he was trained to do, nothing more to it really.

[-]

High_AspectRatio@reddit

I don’t buy that at all, that makes the assumption that what you see in this video is 100% controlled. If you saw this in top gun you’d say yeah right.

Public life is never worth the safety of the craft or pilot.

[-]

JimmyNewcleus@reddit

I believe that what we see was controlled and intentional. Hitting the birds likely would have been more dangerous for everyone involved.

[-]

graspedbythehusk@reddit

I think the guy who claimed to be a Hornet driver and said this manoeuvre was deliberate deserves all the downvotes.

[-]

Turborapt0r@reddit

Yeah and remember that „fight pilot“ who claimed it wasn’t a birdstrike? Confused the fuck out of me yesterday because of the obvious reason being a birdstrike

[-]

MalaysiaTeacher@reddit

It wasn't a bird strike. It was the avoidance of a bird strike

[-]

WAR_T0RN1226@reddit

It still doesn't say it was a bird strike...

[-]

qdp@reddit

Your redemption arc was a swift one

[-]

MalaysiaTeacher@reddit

Every day it's someone's tern in the barrel

[-]

powerpuffpopcorn@reddit

Your U/D ratio is balanced now i guess.

[-]

Silver-Spy@reddit

I am gonna go back and upvote you

[-]

BAN_MOTORCYCLES@reddit

might of been the way you said it like if you didnt check that tude

[-]

Remarkable-Detail-31@reddit

I hope my upvote covers it up more you

[-]

CeleritasLucis@reddit

Schrodinger's vote

[-]

Roxylius@reddit

What do you expect from reddit? Lol

[-]

Character_Ship3555@reddit

I know. I remember. You were right

[-]

yobob591@reddit

People in the comments going 'he should've just hit the birds' clearly have no idea how much damage birds can do to an aircraft like that. It's very possible the bird could've gone through the front canopy and maimed or straight up killed him, and then the pilotless aircraft would've landed somewhere uncontrolled. Besides, if you were in that spot I imagine your instinct would be to try and evade because you don't want to hit something, you're probably not trying to do advanced calculations to determine exactly how much damage a bird will do in 0.01 seconds before you hit it.

[-]

ElectricalYak7236@reddit

The speed rating for the Legacy Hornets canopy is like 475 knots, about twice the speed he was doing during this flypast. As for "evading" the birds, there have already been other fast jet pilots who have argued that flying through the birds is far safer than what he did and having had Solo Turk suffer a very similar scenario a while ago, I'd say that bird avoidance is just a cover up for a horrifically misjudged inverted pass.

[-]

JimmyNewcleus@reddit

I highly doubt this is a cover up for anything. The description paired with the video makes plenty of sense as it is. Bird strikes are no joke, I think the pilot did the right thing and did a great job given the situation.

[-]

ElectricalYak7236@reddit

Bird strikes are absolutely no joke but there are Hornet drivers who are saying that the guy should have just taken the risk on a strike and not done what he did, and other pilots saying similar as well. Regardless of anything, he fucked up doing this, regardless of the fact he "saved" it. As another comment said this was very nearly 2002 Ukraine all over again.

[-]

JimmyNewcleus@reddit

There are also people saying he did the right thing given the circumstances. I'm choosing to side with that mentality. I don't think the pilot fucked up here, I think he reacted well given the situation.

[-]

ElectricalYak7236@reddit

I've yet to see a fast jet pilot say he did the right thing. He did indeed react well to save it and get the plane out of there, but he made a huge mistake of putting the aircraft in that inverted attitude like that - and those aren't my words, those are the words of ex legacy Hornet pilots

[-]

JimmyNewcleus@reddit

I'm more inclined to take the word of the officials over random folks online.

[-]

ElectricalYak7236@reddit

Real fighter pilots making videos discussing this aren't just random folks online, but thats just my opinion I guess

[-]

JimmyNewcleus@reddit

I don't think there are that many "real fighter pilots" who are saying what you are.

[-]

ElectricalYak7236@reddit

There are, but okay

[-]

JimmyNewcleus@reddit

I have my doubts, but even if some are saying that, it doesn't mean they're correct. Just like with pretty well all aircraft incidents, official reports are much more reliable than any other sources.

[-]

guille9@reddit

I know a fighter pilot who lost his plane to a bird strike, only one bird and the whole plane had to be retired. He managed to land it alive. Everyone here is an expert but real experts say otherwise.

[-]

Velvet_Llama@reddit

I'll have you know I've logged over 7 hours in the Hornet in DCS. I'm pretty much an expert at this point.

[-]

pythonic_dude@reddit

Damn, so you got to the taxiing part? Respectable.

[-]

ttrw38@reddit

armchair reddit pilots

[-]

deletetemptemp@reddit

Military grade bird right there

[-]

TheGoalkeeper@reddit

Still, makes you wonder what would have been less risky: losing one engine due to a bird strike (ignoring the possibility of a two engine strike or a hit on the cockpit as seen with the Eurofighter a few days ago), or such risks maneuver which could have resulted in a crash in the sea or even worse in the beach.

[-]

JaymZZZ@reddit

Yeah but, as you mentioned, what if you lose both? Then you're going down on the beach or in the buildings....at least in this case the pilot is a) still in the jet And b) still able to at least attempt to save everyone.

[-]

Az1234er@reddit

Yeah but, as you mentioned, what if you lose both? Then you're going down on the beach or in the buildings

The odds of it happening are way lower than the plane crashing on the beach after what they did

at least in this case the pilot is a) still in the jet And b) still able to at least attempt to save everyone.

That's result oriented, let's say you bet all your money for a chance of x2 but the odds are 1 out of 10 but you still win. Was is a good decision ? Should we continue doing that

[-]

JaymZZZ@reddit

It worked, so it was objectively a good decision

[-]

cheetuzz@reddit

what if you lose both? Then you're going down on the beach or in the buildings..

Even with no engines, the pilot could steer the plane into the water and eject.

[-]

gdabull@reddit

“If you ignore the worst scenarios that could have happened, and only focus on these less worse options, did the pilot chose the wrong split second decision”

[-]

ezequielmunozx2@reddit

Exactly what I thought. The "usual protocol" must not be putting lives in danger...

[-]

gdabull@reddit

The “usual protocol” was to make a bank to the left and fly over the sea, across the bay, parallel to the crowd line, like all the other aircraft that displayed at the show.

[-]

ezequielmunozx2@reddit

Literally, this is what makes sense. I'm Spanish, and I don't really like that my air force is trying to appear "heroic" when in any other air force this pilot would be facing a huge reprimand

[-]

gdabull@reddit

The pilot wasn’t trying to be heroic, they were trying not to crash. They were following the above procedure when they encountered a large flock of birds which they successfully avoided.

[-]

ezequielmunozx2@reddit

Yes yes. But, as you say, their first intention should have been to bank left and not right. Obviously, I'm not saying he's a bad pilot. It's just weird that the air force is not publicly self critique. Cause, for me, this situation (risking bystanders' lives) shouldn't happen again

[-]

JimmyNewcleus@reddit

It's possible that banking left wasn't an option.

[-]

xrxl@reddit

Yeah in the US you would never direct energy at a crowd of spectators like this, birds or not. No one wants a repeat of Rammstein or Sknyliv

[-]

ezequielmunozx2@reddit

Exactly. I think our Spanish air force should be honest to the public (and themselves) and try to avoid this to happen again. If the bird strike happened, it would have been impossible to recover.

[-]

gdabull@reddit

If they bank left, at an already compromised attitude trying to avoid the birds, they are heading closer to the crowd. Following the display line went out the window to try avoid the birds.

[-]

remysl@reddit (OP)

I agree with this. It wasn't as much the pilot's fault but the whole show planning team. That trajectory should have never been planned.

I've been to an airshow before at the military air base in Madrid and the F-18s do usually do this as an “ending to the show”, fly directly at the crowd and bail at the last second. Honestly, super cool as a spectator, but I can't imagine the amount of risks they're taking doing that.

[-]

KopfSmertZz@reddit

The incredible skills of the pilot and the powerful thrust capabilities of the F-18 prevented a disaster

[-]

aviation-ModTeam@reddit

Your post has been removed for breaking the r/aviation rules.

This content has already been posted, or this subject has been covered repeatedly.

If you believe this was a mistake, please message the moderators through modmail. Thank you for participating in the r/aviation community.

[-]

ShirtUsual9544@reddit

What I'm wondering is why put nose down when he was inverted. Seems like when he went inverted he tried push nose down and then rolled to the left.

But anyway the biggest screw up was the planning of the flyby. Going directly at the crowd and the buildings behind.

[-]

cruiserman_80@reddit

I saw the damage a single Magpie did to a RAAF F-18 at Tindall RAAF Base in the 90s. Entered the inside of one intake and somehow punched straight out the side of the fuselage rather than go through the engine. The Magpie is not a large bird.

People saying that just hitting the birds was a safer option are making a lot of assumptions about how much damage a bird can do and I suspect about how much time the pilot had to analyze their course of action.

[-]

Traditional-Win-5288@reddit

Unlucky

[-]

apsilonblue@reddit

That was a magpie though. It was probably fine and went after a cyclist a few minutes later.

[-]

Basil-Faw1ty@reddit

I was watching the mover and gonky show and both said you should just take the bird hit in that situation vs risk taking out the crowd.

[-]

Vast_Vegetable9222@reddit

Bird strike recently broke the canopy of a Spanish eurofighter

[-]

jchest25@reddit

I mean the F-18’s engines won’t even cough in most cases if you hit a small to medium bird. Seems like a ton of unnecessary risk to avoid a seagull. Source: me.

[-]

AboveAverage1988@reddit

They say it was an evasive manouver, but to me it kinda looks like he hit a bird and had some sort of malfunction he then recovered from? Either way I expect there was an uptick in underwear sales that day...

[-]

weakplay@reddit

I still agree with you and think he ate one bird and lost the engine - he was already past the flock and then reacted - the reaction wasn’t required to avoid a bird he had already injected it was to deal with the upset of losing his right engine.

[-]

bacondesign@reddit

He did not lose any engines. Any disruption to it by an ingested bird would be visible and audible. He probably saw the birds and due to speed and reaction time he was already past the birda by the time he initiated the evasive maneuver.

[-]

er1catwork@reddit

Then what would cause that puff of smoke from his right engine? Just seems odd to me..

[-]

sent-off@reddit

Watching video several times before reading the description about the 'evasive' action I was pretty sure at least one bird got into the engine hence the sudden roll and a puff of smoke form the left engine (could be a just fuel mixture obviously)

[-]

UW_Ebay@reddit

Yeah looks the pilot reacted after he had passed or gone thru the birds.

[-]

Majestic_Matt_459@reddit

A lot of people saying, "Oh he got really close to the crowd, he could have hit us"

If you've ever been to a Spanish restaurant, you'll know the waiter can come past you within inches about 100 times before he'll get you the bloody bill :)

[-]

Thanato26@reddit

Hell of a pilot

[-]

ES_Legman@reddit

I think it's shameful we still have our pilots flying these hornets that should have been retired many years ago

[-]

BrewCityChaserV2@reddit

This will be an unpopular opinion but I don't think that maneuver was as brilliant as everyone is making it out to be.

[-]

Az1234er@reddit

Obviously, it's like doubling your money in a casino and saying it's a brilliant investment.

Getting lucky with bad decision is not a good decision. If it was a hotter day or some minor parameters and it would have ended up in a crash

[-]

Kriver7524@reddit

Sure, you could have been lucky like that pilot.

[-]

TheInterneAteMyBalls@reddit

I'm not a pilot, and I've no idea what I'm talking about... However!

I've cocked up the piloting a lot of fast moving, highly capable (land based) machines in my time and it looks to me like the vehicle itself saved this one.

[-]

JimmyNewcleus@reddit

So what do you think he should have done differently?

[-]

tank5@reddit

He pulled negative gs to avoid the birds, then went “nope that doesn’t feel good” and did a squirrelly maneuver to get his ass back under him.

[-]

Big_Assignment5949@reddit

I lean towards you. They say not to swerve for animals on the road. This looks like that in 3d

[-]

Pulp__Reality@reddit

Quite risky to have the flight line go directly towards a crowd of people. Theres a reason air shows have large safety zones

[-]

BenjaminaAU@reddit

Everybody's focussing on the pilot evading the birds, but what that overlooks is the whole planning and decision making process that led to the aircraft being in that position at that height.

Birds are a forseeable risk, flying along shoreline at 400ft. What plan did the team have in place to ensure the crowd's safety and the pilot's safety if they hit birds during the routine?

[-]

asreagy@reddit

You are right, of course. The thing is this is in Spain, and Spain has a culture of thrill seeking and daredevil-ness, which means higher risk is often tolerated for spectacle than in other countries. See for example the following festivities:

The running of the bulls in Pamplona: Casualties (goring, trampling) happening every year.
Castellers: Dozens of people form multi-level human towers, with children often at the top.
Mascletá/Fallas: Fireworks exploding in narrow streets.
Correfocs: “Fire-runs” in which people dress as devils and dance while carrying handheld fireworks that shower everyone and everything with sparks and fill the air with thick smoke.

[-]

Pulp__Reality@reddit

Exactly. Poor planning, not taking into account basic threat and errors that are part of every flight. Like you said, super low, by the beach. Hmm… what possible threats could there be? Birds? What?!

Skilled pilot for sure, and not putting it on him, since planning is probably done by a team, but ultimately the pilot is responsible for the safety of the flight. Personally I would think there was probably a consideration for birds and such, but the ”coolness factor” for the pilot to fly low and close to spectators took precedent and they dismissed the threats.

One could also think that an evasive manoeuvre that puts the plane at like a 135 deg bank angle towards the ground and people would be worse than maybe keeping it straight and level and taking the risk of the birds flaming out the engines. What do I know, just my two cents and im an idiot and least of all an F-18 pilot. The situation just seems odd

[-]

bacchusoneseven@reddit

That's what's now called the Sully Recovery

[-]

Far_Note6719@reddit

No matter what, this was too close to the crowd anyway! Should not be allowed to fly like this just for a dumb show.

[-]

owaisusmani@reddit

Poor birds were harmlessly flying on their path, that idiot pilot almost crashed into them.

[-]

donnie-stingray@reddit

Question from a completely clueless person:

when he was upside down, could he have just pushed the stick forward as to nose dive but towards the sky?

[-]

goat_screamPS4@reddit

All the armchair pilots confidently claiming a pilot-induced stall will be deleting their comments on the other posts.

[-]

mattrussell2319@reddit

Why not both?

[-]

reddituserperson1122@reddit

Haha indeed.

[-]

leMatth@reddit

Nobody expects the Spanish maneuver!

[-]

sykocus@reddit

/u/redditspeedbot .25x

[-]

AboveAverage1988@reddit

Kinda looks like he hit a bird and had some sort of malfunction..?

[-]

RiskyNight@reddit

He rolled after the birds, didn't help the situation at that point. Maybe he assumed there would be more. It seems like such a strange move, but hey I've only flown a 172.

[-]

kaliakyrsa@reddit

you can see the ailerons steering the opposite side of the manoeuvre almost immediately after it, i think why it turned out to be scary is because the aircraft seems to go into a some kind of stall condition even though he’s actively correcting for it

[-]

mattrussell2319@reddit

Someone on YouTube kept talking about a known wingtip stall with early F18s. I’m curious if that played a role here

[-]

AboveAverage1988@reddit

Doesn't it look like both ailerons are angled up right after? 🧐

[-]

RiskyNight@reddit

Good eye, it does look like both ailerons are angled up after initiating the roll, before it corrects with both ailerons. We need an f18 pilot to chime in and tell us if there's some sort of mixing that does that in certain scenarios.

[-]

redditspeedbot@reddit

Here is your video at 0.25x speed

https://i.imgur.com/vL06ufr.mp4

^(I'm a bot | Summon with) ^"/u/redditspeedbot ^" ^| ^(Complete Guide) ^| ^(Do report bugs) ^here ^| ^(Keep me alive)

[-]

ethicalhumanbeing@reddit

Holy fuck, now seeing it in slow motion makes me realise how close that was to the ground. Damn.

[-]

DiverDownChunder@reddit

Good bot

[-]

AboveAverage1988@reddit

Good bot

[-]

kwajagimp@reddit

Yeah, it's much easier to see from this footage. Nice save! Did the pilot get it home ok?

[-]

New-IncognitoWindow@reddit

So if I see a pigeon while flying a C172 does that give me the authority as PIC to complete aerobatic maneuvers to avoid a collision?

[-]

MoodyPilot@reddit

Yeah, half of these people don't know what they are talking about. Everyone wants to be an expert.

[-]

SlicerShanks@reddit

91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command. (Per the FAA, so US flying laws)

(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.

(b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency.

[-]

FelisCantabrigiensis@reddit

Authority over Laws of the Air, yes.

Authority over Laws of Physics, no.

Fortunately, this pilot had a lot more Physics (thrust) available with an F-18 than with a C172.

[-]

LetUsGetTheBread@reddit

Legally speaking yes, as long as it is ‘within reason’ which is intentionally vague.

[-]

alanalan426@reddit

Really depends if u crashed or not ig

[-]

pdxnormal@reddit

Only if you're over a crowded beach and people are calling you a hero for evading them.

[-]

deleted_by_reddit@reddit

[removed]

[-]

AutoModerator@reddit

Your comment or post has been automatically removed from /r/aviation. Posts/Comments from new accounts are automatically removed by our automated systems. We, and many other large subreddits, do this to combat spam, spambots, and other activities that are not condusive to the sub. In the meantime, participate on Reddit to build your acouunt age and this restriction will go away. Also, please familiarize yourself with this subreddit's rules, which you can find in the sidebar or by clicking this link. Do not contact the moderation team unless you feel you have received this message/action in error. We will not manually approve comments or posts from new accounts.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[-]

Az1234er@reddit

As you have seen, one of our F-18 fighters performed an evasive maneuver when it detected a flock of birds in its trajectory. This action is part of the usual protocol to preserve both the integrity of the pilot and the safety of the public.

What a load of bullshit, your usual protocol is to have your plane upside down in the direction of the public and 10 meter from the ground ?

And not like, wing stright and go up

[-]

niceandros2024@reddit

A great pilot.... A great maneuver....👏👏👏💪💪

[-]

Anxious-Fig-8854@reddit

is it acceptable that a bird can kill many people gruesomely? If the odds line up?

[-]

3delStahl@reddit

In thrust, we trust

[-]

NotMeInParticular@reddit

I want a video from the perspective of that beach it nearly crashed into. There seemed yo have been a lot of people on that beach. It could have ended really badly, it must have been very frightening to them.

[-]

kw10001@reddit

It's a convenient explanation after the fact. The pilot is already past the birds by the time he does that expertly coordinated, inverted roll over a crowd of spectators.

[-]

MikeTangoRom3o@reddit

Even if birds was the cause manœuvring at such close and towards the public was pretty reckless imo.

[-]

wooloomulu@reddit

”The safety of the public huh” - my tax money should not be spent on these clown shows

[-]

TranslatorNormal7117@reddit

The military should not be allowed to fly so low over a beach. Things can happen. Everything that can happen actually happens at some point.

[-]

DefiantOuiOui@reddit

That’s absolutely insane. Hats of to the pilot who kept his cool and absolutely saved the day. Bravo

[-]

John97212@reddit

No matter the cause or who is at fault, BZ to the pilot for not punching out in that last moment before recovery.

[-]

Ok_Giraffe60@reddit

I'm sure he'd rather die in the crash than punch out.

[-]

Dru2021@reddit

Chicks love this one skilled manoeuvre..

[-]

bogfoot94@reddit

I'm pretty sure the bird did not fly that plane. So much misinformation on here, smh...

[-]

beenplaces@reddit

Why was he flying around busy beach where there is alot of birds?

[-]

Turborapt0r@reddit

In the main thread I saw that one person that claimed to be a fighter pilot saying it wasn’t a bird strike which confused me a lot since it seemed so obvious to be an birdstrike. Wonder if that person was just making shit up

[-]

metaliving@reddit

They confirmed there wasn't any bird strike, his post holds up.

[-]

Turborapt0r@reddit

You can literally see the right exhaust blow out the pieces 😂

[-]

metaliving@reddit

You can see whatever you want if you make it up.

[-]

Turborapt0r@reddit

You don’t do eyes I see

[-]

metaliving@reddit

If you can see the exhaust blow out the pieces, you'll surely be able to post the frame of the pieces, right?

Except you can't, because there's no birdstrike. Because when a turbojet swallows a seagull it tends to make some noise. Because the military have confirmed the maneuver was TO AVOID said birds.

I can't see a non existing airstrike. You can't read. I'll take mine over yours.

[-]

EnvironmentCrafty710@reddit

"An unfortunate training incident"

[-]

PDXGuy33333@reddit

I am far more amazed that he actually saw and avoided the bird(s) than I was when I thought he had probably saved the plane after it ingested one.

[-]

Technical_Anteater45@reddit

Bad-ass maneuver, overall, now that we know the reason for the SEVERE diversion.

[-]

reddituserperson1122@reddit

And what a stunning accidental display of the F-18’s high alpha control. Damn.

[-]

Efficient_Sky5173@reddit

Birds near a beach. Never heard of. The director of display planed the show very well. And the pilot agreed to fly in the direction of the public.

Main cause of disasters: Tribalism.

[-]

_Totorotrip_@reddit

Just as he passes through some flock, the left engine spews a black smoke. Maybe a bird was caught on the engine and lost power enough for the plane to make that movement side and down?

[-]

Jon_Has_Landed@reddit

Nose pointed at the crowd is the first item to talk about. He put hundreds of lives in danger in the first place.

This idiot should never be allowed to fly any air shows ever again.

Of course to the Spanish he’s some sort of hero. This BS needs to stop.

[-]

Mad_kat4@reddit

Turning into a bay, with a packed beach and apartment blocks at the back of the beach?

I think the organisers need to seriously rethink that location.

[-]

Gold_Support3565@reddit

If you look at aileron deflection, just after the birds on the video, you can see that they are quite deflected so that he can avoid the birds

[-]

Otherwise_Patience47@reddit

“Dear Diary, today I saw death and I escaped”.

[-]

gkon7@reddit

It seems that he was already passed the birds before started to manouver.

[-]

Twolef@reddit

I know it’s a beach and hard to control for but surely some diligence should be done to keep birds away for an event like this. Either that or you don’t have such low altitude manoeuvres.

It wouldn’t be as spectacular but the death toll would have been horrific if that pilot hadn’t been as skilled.

[-]

chokeonmywords@reddit

Insane save

[-]

Twolef@reddit

u/savevideo

[-]

SaveVideo@reddit

View link

[-]

RevolutionaryWorker1@reddit

It seems that Spain is at war with birds? Wasn't the Eurofighter that got hit some weeks ago also from Spain?

[-]

Late-Objective-9218@reddit

It's summer with new young flocking around

[-]

ArTR_007@reddit

My man just didn't want to hit the poor bird, I respect that. It was dangerous, but it ended up working out so there's no need to keep overanalyzing, at least imo

[-]

JaymZZZ@reddit

From this angle it looks like the pilot had way more distance and altitude than the previous zoomed in videos showed. Without seeing this in person we may all be making assumptions that it was a lot closer and riskier than it really was.

[-]

chogeRR@reddit

I was at the beach and it looked pretty sketchy, luckily I wasn't in its trajectory or I would've needed new underwear.

[-]

metaliving@reddit

I was there in person. It looked close.

[-]

JaymZZZ@reddit

Fair enough. There's a reason nobody trusts me with an F18...

[-]

Pvnels@reddit

Holy fuck

[-]

Con-vit@reddit

I’m sure he shit himself

[-]

One_Specialist_5082@reddit

Sikk!!

[-]

E492@reddit

I mean, almost CFIT vs bird strike. Would probably rather take the bird strike.

[-]

Appleochapelsin@reddit

It was only yesterday in the comments section from "military pilots" said it wasn't a bird strike. Lmao, that's reddit fot you

[-]

Kaiisim@reddit

It's still a failure. Like we know birds exist, they aren't an unknown factor. If you're doing an airshow with huge crowds underneath you need to risk assess that and mitigate that.

The plan for birds should never be "idk I'll dodge them and almost crash"

[-]

Anyway. Glad we're all hear to bitch and moan about it .......

[-]

Stoner_Space_Wizard@reddit

Why are they even flying that close to the ground during an airshow above a beach? Isn’t it obvious that the risk of bird strike is high?

[-]

Royal_Employee_2129@reddit

Excellent pilot.