Discussion in 'Rules and Regulations / Flight Safety / Better Pil' started by choppergirl, Jun 8, 2016.
Really. I believe everything the Islamic Ideology Dissemination Organization tells me.
That B-52 "crash" looks odd.
In Blane’s posted chart, it looks like 100% of “security related” accidents were fatal. I wonder what those were?
I'll be right behind you.
Picture looks pretty real. If something like that had happened in say, North Carolina, in this day and age, it would be plastered all over the news.
What disturbs me probably the most, is I only find the story on three foreign websites. No confirmation or denial from US news agencies.
Which means the news getting to us must be censored :-/ That is not a good thing.
Happened almost three years ago, on Guam.
Either that, or the original report (that this was a recent accident in Afghanistan) was a lie.
I took the image you posted and did a Google Image search. Took a few seconds to find the Air Force Times report. Hardest part was weeding out the 1994 Fairchild accident story.
The crash site looks pretty lush... I doubt there is that much grass in the entirety of Afghanistan.
I remember when this one happened. It didn't make a whole lot of news, in part I think because the crew all made it out and the B-52 isn't a new program or a favored political punching bag.
The source is a news agency that is an arm of the Islamic Ideology Dissemination Organization, founded by decree of Ayatollah Khomeini. Look at the rest of their website and judge whether they deserve to be taken seriously by anyone. By the way, according to Reporters Without Borders, Iran's "World Press Freedom Index" is 164/180.
Thanks for posting the real story, Ron.
There are countries that claim they have a free press, and there are countries that don't. I don't know of any countries where the government doesn't occasionally censor some stories. Sometimes a tweak, sometimes a complete change. Occasionally, the whole story is disappeared. Can you say 'national security'?
It can be quite enlightening to read foreign news at times.
As a general rule, when Faux news, BBC, Al Jazeera and Russia today all report the same story, it's probably true-ish. Sometimes, they are wildy different, and you'd be a **** fool to think that one particular country or news outlet is always giving the correct story. I personally hold the BBC in particularly high esteem, but know of several occasions when they have made gross 'factual errors' AND failed to issue a correction that they are legally obliged to do should they find they got something wrong.
When anthrax was big news in the UK and the hoaxers joined in, a friend was working at an office that received an envelope containing white powder. She was rather perturbed at how the police really weren't at all worried about the whole thing. I explained that anthrax spores are dark brown to black, and that 'accidental' misreporting of the colour was making it incredibly easy for police to spot the hoaxes and know which cases they actually need to be scared of...
Sometimes, censorship makes a lot of sense.
My stepfather used to work at News International and would gleefully tell us juicy news that was censored... This partly explains my cynicism of the world! An ex-girlfriends father was a high ranking civil servant, it was interesting to watch his eye rolls and head shakes at news stories that he would have known something about.
Anyway, this is steering awfully close to politricks, so we better can it before Topaz comes along with his personal censor stick.
Now we know why the term "Fake News" is so popular. And accurate.
In the course of my career (military, Government, and corporate) I have lived through events where the reported news is not only technically wrong, but purposefully so. This is sometimes a result of reporting bias or spin, but sometimes not.
There is probably no better example of the reason for this than the widely reported massing of troops during the first Gulf War. CNN reported and speculated that the coalition was getting ready for an invasion. Sadam took the bait, moved his troops to counter, and we came in from the other direction. Good thing we weren't relying on the news agencies to keep any tactical secrets under wraps!
I think the big difference is governments did the spinning until they got caught. Now opinionated spin and ignore when they get caught. They only care when sponsors pull out when they go too far. No one has empathy for their common man. They only have empathy for their side and hate for the common man. In the end no common ground, which is most of it, ever gets set into motion. It’s more exhilarating to hate and get the heart rate up than talk about what you agree with.
I read that article, and realized, that B-52 is the new white elephant battleship of WW2. As in, now a sitting duck for a swarm of drones to take it out on take off, like the battleship was a sitting duck for torpedo or dive bombers in WW2. A swarm of low tech birds took out a $112 million dollar plane, and they weren't even trying.
At any rate, zero love lost for it. An anti-civilian weapon to carpet bomb women or children with cluster bomb mines that stick around for decades, or white phosphorous munitions that burn through skin. IMHO, the B-52 is the one plane that gives aviation's reputation the biggest black eye to the public (and yeah, it's made by Boeing too). The second biggest offender in my book probably being the A-10 shooting radioactive waste depleted uranium rounds all over the battlefield that cause uranium dust on detonation and grotesque mutant birth defects for whatever half life plus XYZ years it lasts.
Forget hippies in ultralights getting their own selves tangled in electrical lines and making a puff piece story for Channel 10 news. No, it's the B-52 that makes my s*** list of aviation dropping explosives on non-combatant people that needs to be shut the F(rack) down.
Wear a uniform for a few years and your opinion might have some weight. Until then...
I wear a uniform, they are black and white stripey socks. I fight for freedom and civil liberty just about every darn day. Any further comments in that direction that is not aviation related, take it to email, it's in my signature line.
Weaponizing a drone swarm (vs. an individual drone) is an interesting concept. Would be simple enough to task a swarm to position itself on a departure or approach path using current technology. Civilian airports have been shut down for days by the appearance of a single drone. Could deploy the drones from the back of an ordinary pickup truck driving by the airport (e.g., the movie, "Twister). Consider the British airports shut down by a single reported drone; terrorists would reap the benefits of potentially triggering crashes as well.
The trade studies will be difficult. The larger the drones, the more effective they can be (especially if that payload includes explosives) but the power requirements will rise exponentially with individual drone mass. Bigger, more capable drones means fewer drones, and a less effective swarm. You'd love them to home in on large objects, but that would mean a sensor system and, again, heavier drones with less endurance.
It's less effective as a weapon against military aircraft. Civilian airliners keep to a publicly-released schedule, military aircraft do not. Birds can fly for hours, drones can't. The loiter time for the drones is going to be low, unless the drones are upsized for more battery capacity (in which case you'll have a smaller swarm, less effective). Having the drones fly to a recharge station isn't really an option, at least after the swarm is noticed.
Military bases (especially those in places like Afghanistan) have ground response forces, which may make deployment more difficult. They can quickly deploy personnel to monitor the approach paths and warn off approaching aircraft. A go-around or diversion is not going to be as major for military operations, as (fixed-wing aircraft, at least) are not turned around and re-launched that quickly under normal circumstances. If the swarm only lasts 15 minutes, that's not a major impact, and ground forces can be deployed to the potential deployment zones to inhibit restoration of the swarm.
Military aircraft would probably be less vulnerable, since they're designed to absorb battle damage. Ironically, the B-52 would probably be the least vulnerable of the lot, as the BUFF has eight engines.
Development of the system would produce some huge observables; large shipments of drones to "Cave Three, Foladi Mountain, Afghanistan" would likely trigger some intelligence reaction.
Use of drones in this matter would probably result in a reaction similar to 9/11: Severe disruption of civilian air traffic for a period, then actions to minimize reoccurence.
Separate names with a comma.