The "What the Bloody Fuckintosh?" Thread

Holocaust denial is another can of worms on it's own, it's illegal in Germany, here to, but I don't think it is in most of the rest of the world.
 
Believe me, I have no intention of opening that can. I was just using it to describe the ridiculousness of hate crime laws.
 
I'd have understood it being illegal in Germany. Because as far as I know, all Nazi symbols are illegal there.
Not really. You can reproduce Nazi symbols in e.g. history books as long as you don't do so to idolise (even a little bit) the Nazis or anything else related to the "Third Reich". Which means that e.g. some museums prefer erring on the side of caution to putting the swastika on WW2 artifacts and replicas. Also interesting: there was a court case over the legality of anti-Nazi symbols that use swastikas, e.g. the swastika being thrown in a rubbish bin. The German High Court ruled that those do not violate the ban.
 
I don't see the WTF issue here, there are genuine safety concerns involved with stunt flights in any area.
 
They're not allowed to aerobat over the city proper. When they're over the city, they're just transiting it like anyone else in a Cessna. Admittedly faster and louder than a Cessna, but with the same rules.

The guy is whining about the eeeeeeevil fighter planes with their Gaia-destroying non-solar engines flying over at the same altitude as any other transiting general aviation aircraft in the middle of the day.

Same kind of idiot that comes out on their front lawn to yell and shake their fist at me to "Think of the children, SLOW DOWN ASSHOLE" when I am on my older Honda motorcycle and:

1. Have the stock reasonably quiet factory exhaust.
2. Am simply idling along so not revving the engine.
3. Am doing 10 in a 20.
4. And am visibly keeping a watch out for said children.
 
They're not allowed to aerobat over the city proper. When they're over the city, they're just transiting it like anyone else in a Cessna. Admittedly faster and louder than a Cessna, but with the same rules.

The guy is whining about the eeeeeeevil fighter planes with their Gaia-destroying non-solar engines flying over at the same altitude as any other transiting general aviation aircraft in the middle of the day.

Same kind of idiot that comes out on their front lawn to yell and shake their fist at me to "Think of the children, SLOW DOWN ASSHOLE" when I am on my older Honda motorcycle and:

1. Have the stock reasonably quiet factory exhaust.
2. Am simply idling along so not revving the engine.
3. Am doing 10 in a 20.
4. And am visibly keeping a watch out for said children.

Funny, I only see one reference to the climate, and it is in reference to the budget differential. Funny how you get to pick and choose when Gaia is used derogatorily, and the environmental concerns that bother you are not(see VW and LA pollution). Are you on a planet where environmental concerns are not an issue most of the time? Anyway, I disagree with your assessment that is it about Gaia at all. There were just two plane crashes involving the Blue Angels and Thunderbirds, so safety issues are raised at such times.
 
Funny, I only see one reference to the climate, and it is in reference to the budget differential. Funny how you get to pick and choose when Gaia is used derogatorily, and the environmental concerns that bother you are not(see VW and LA pollution). Are you on a planet where environmental concerns are not an issue most of the time? Anyway, I disagree with your assessment that is it about Gaia at all. There were just two plane crashes involving the Blue Angels and Thunderbirds, so safety issues are raised at such times.

That's because one of the last times John Avalos brought up this stupid ordinance, he proposed it on environmental grounds, saying that the jets were super-polluters and should not be allowed to besmirch his city.

Same idiot, same regulation, different claimed reason. He's proposed banning fighters from passing over SF repeatedly, usually on environmental grounds, sometimes to 'protest the war in Iraq,' etc.

Further, those aircraft, again, are no different than any others passing over SF on a regular basis in terms of how they behave and what they're allowed to do. You're not allowed to stunt, aerobat, or show off over a populated area, period. Even the simple slow barrel roll is banned. The Blue Angels and other fighters are simply transiting the area on their way somewhere else. What this idiot wants is for the fighters to go way, way out of the way instead of directly overflying in a straight line, just because they're fighters.

Further, the Blue Angels transiting an area should be the *least* worrisome military aircraft. Air show aircraft for the military are the best maintained with components being replaced far before their usual times, just to make sure they're reliable. No, these things fly over SF all the time and *they're* the ones he should be worrying about, since they're all older than most people on this forum and due to budget cuts they're not as well maintained as one would like.

b-52_hero_lrg_01_1280x720.jpg


Or these things, which fly into SF every damn day and are some of the worst maintained planes in the world:

Air_Vanuatu_Boeing_737-800_SYD_Gilbert.jpg


I'll believe his regulation is for safety when he bans Air Vanuatu and similarly unsafe crap airlines from SFO.

- - - Updated - - -

I remember a news story about an RAAF jet managing to shatter almost every window in a suburb it was flying over. People weren't happy.

That's because the pilot went supersonic in the thing. Not permitted in peacetime in US airspace at the altitudes this guy is seeing the fighters. Military policy generally limits even training flights to subsonic over populated areas; in the few places they do allow it, the fighters have to be well over FL310, or over 31,000 feet above ground level.

Civilians are generally not permitted to go supersonic at *all* over land in the US. Military policy is only slightly looser. This is why Braniff had to fly the Concorde (yes, an American airline had Concorde service!) between Dallas and Washington completely subsonic.
 
Last edited:
Air Vanuatu = Fiji Airways.
No. Air Vanuatu = Air Vanuatu and Fiji Airways = Fiji Airways. There seem to be codeshares, but that's it.

They do indeed fly to SFO
No. Fiji Airways ? Air Vanuatu will start a seasonal service to SFO later this month.

though sometimes they do codeshare with American for a leg in the US.
And what does that tell you about Fiji Airways ? Air Vanuatu? That AA is confident enough about their safety to codeshare with them. And the safety issue concerning Air Vanuatu = Air Vanuatu is the condition of the runway at their home airport, not the safety of their aircraft.
 
Also-

Blue Angels accidents: 25
Air Vanuatu accidents: 2


Blue Angels killed in accidents: 27
Deaths in Air Vanuatu accidents: 11

:p

So, Air Vanuatu/Fiji Air accidents are *far* more deadly per accident by your own admission? :p Accidents where the pilot ends up killing only themselves don't count. :p

Of course, then you get this at SFO:


Number of people killed by Blue Angels in SF in past 50 years: 0
Number of people killed by crappy Asian airlines in SF in the five years alone: 3

I know which is statistically more dangerous, no?

Also, you all should probably read the Washington Post article on the same incident, which should help you confirm what I'm saying about this guy.

A San Francisco lawmaker has revived a proposal following the crash of a Blue Angels jet last week: It?s time, he said, to ban the renowned Navy squadron from flying over his city.

John Avalos, a member of the board of supervisors, told the San Francisco Chronicle that the jets are a threat to safety and should not be allowed to fly over occupied areas. Rather, he said, they should be kept over San Francisco Bay, where sea vessels typically congregate for Blue Angels performances.

?It?s about them crashing and hitting a building ? a place where people live,? Avalos told the Chronicle. ?It?s about the terror that they cause in people when they strafe neighborhoods. That?s something I hear about all the time when Blue Angels fly overhead.?

Avalos misused the term ?strafing,? which is typically used to describe when pilots are flying their aircraft low to the ground, firing at targets while using machine guns or rotary cannons. He did not return requests for an interview Monday morning, but took to Twitter over the weekend to double down on his comments, saying there are many San Francisco citizens who don?t want the planes.

Avalos has raised the issue before. Last fall, he said a Blue Angels performance over San Francisco reminded him of U.S. ?imperialism.? The planes, he said, buzz San Francisco with ?feel good jingoism.? He also appeared to allude to the Pentagon budget, which was estimated at $560 billion in fiscal 2015 and $585 billion this year.

-snip-

Avalos did not explain his opposition to the highly trained Blue Angels as compared to other military aircraft squadrons. There are several military installations in the San Francisco area, including Moffett Federal Airfield, a former Navy base that is now used by NASA, the California Air National Guard and other tenants.

Lots of laughable Twitter quotes from him at the WaPo link. He's got a long history of pulling various reasons out of his ass to try to get them banned from flying over SF - again, they DO NOT fly acrobatics over the city, just straight over with perhaps a standard turn to go where they need to go. No stunting, no nothing, no non-standard low level - the traffic planes and commuter copters fly much lower than the Angels do. This guyt just hates the Blue Angels and wants those eeeevil fighters to not fly over his city. It doesn't actually have *anything* to do with safety in reality - that's just his latest excuse/attempt to get his agenda passed.

- - - Updated - - -

That AA is confident enough about their safety to codeshare with them.

AA is based in Dallas, and I know a number of AA pilots and ground maintenance people. I've heard what they have to say about the aircraft and conditions there. I've seen the mismanagement that goes on there.

I don't fly AA.

It tells me that I really, really, really don't want to fly Fiji, Vanuatu or indeed many of their other codeshares/allies/whatever.

In any case, it's not like there's not a shortage of other shit airlines that land at SFO if I'm wrong on Fiji/Vanuatu (pretty sure I remember seeing a Fiji/Van plane on the ground at SFO back in the 2000s right when Survivor Vanuatu was a thing.) Like, oh, Asiana, from the above clip? (Though I guess it would be more fair to say they *crash* at SFO.)
 
Last edited:
I wasn't endorsing the claim that the Blue Angels should be banned from flying over SF. I was just playing devil's advocate.

Of course Air Vanuatu's accidents are more deadly. Any passenger airline's accidents would be. But over 10% of all Blue Angels pilots there have ever been have died from crashing their planes. Name an airline with a record like that.
 
I wasn't endorsing the claim that the Blue Angels should be banned from flying over SF. I was just playing devil's advocate.

Of course Air Vanuatu's accidents are more deadly. Any passenger airline's accidents would be. But over 10% of all Blue Angels pilots there have ever been have died from crashing their planes. Name an airline with a record like that.

Some airlines have had a 100% pilot fatality record, particularly in the early days. Charles Lindberg wrote of mail pilots and mail carrying airlines that got wiped out in crashes. Even today, small regional/commuter airlines and air taxi services (which flourish in the US) can lose 50% or more of their pilots in a crash. Chalk's Ocean Airways ended its long and illustrious history when they lost, IIRC, something like 20% of their pilots in just one crash.

The Blue Angels also tend to train harder and there's still no good simulators for their fighter jets so their training mistakes can be lethal. If you check, most of those fatalities were in training, which takes place in deserted areas.

Then, too, the Blue Angels, as with many military pilots, also have a history of riding the aircraft in to make damn sure it doesn't come down anywhere near people if at all possible. (Confirmed by CVR and radio recordings, by the way.) Airline pilots not so much, but riding it in tends to be kind of hard on the pilot.

Nobody wants another Cornfield Bomber only this time in some city that was downrange.
 
Last edited:
Top