This is a discussion on Bad landing @ Kuzentzov - Su33 Abort within the Military Photos & Videos forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; YouTube - Su-33 Near-Miss on Carrier Deck
This looks unreal, what do you guys think. If it is real its ...
Hmm...that's not helping the squadron boarding rate any.
The LSO screwed up big time, although the pilot probably bears some blame as well. (Note I'm not real familiar on how Russian LSOs and pilots interact. Are Russian LSO instructions orders or are they purely advisory?)
Still it's a credit to the pilot and the plane. That sharp pullup could have very easily turned into a nasty stall.
1st class pilot skills, no armaments being carried and most probably low fuel levels ( which should mean all over a 'light' aircraft ) all helped.
Very impressive.
In my mind, a "good, skilled, etc." pilot would probably never have ended up in such a situation in the first place.
While the Russian's last-ditch maneuver and his recovery showed he was an unusually good stick-and-rudder pilot who knew how to get the most of of his airplane, the fact that he even had to make the maneuver in the first place concerns me.
It was a clear day, good visibility, wing levels seemed fairly moral, minimal deck pitch. Not conditions which usually lead to such close calls. I'm not trying to in any way denigrate the skill it takes to land on a carrier, and I have utmost respect for all brownshoes, regardless of the uniform they wear, however, I'm hard-pressed to find a clear-cut reason for this event that doesn't boil down to pilot error or poor judgment on the part of the Russian paddles (LSO).
Someone screwed up big time and made a major error in judgment and the pilot only survived because he was good/lucky.
I know that I sound very judgmental is saying this, especially since I am a non-aviator and little more than an aircraft enthusiast.
If I am wrong or if I am missing something important here, I'd like to hear your opinions on this matter.
In my mind, a "good, skilled, etc." pilot would probably never have ended up in such a situation in the first place.
While the Russian's last-ditch maneuver and his recovery showed he was an unusually good stick-and-rudder pilot who knew how to get the most of of his airplane, the fact that he even had to make the maneuver in the first place concerns me.
It was a clear day, good visibility, wing levels seemed fairly moral, minimal deck pitch. Not conditions which usually lead to such close calls. I'm not trying to in any way denigrate the skill it takes to land on a carrier, and I have utmost respect for all brownshoes, regardless of the uniform they wear, however, I'm hard-pressed to find a clear-cut reason for this event that doesn't boil down to pilot error or poor judgment on the part of the Russian paddles (LSO).
Someone screwed up big time and made a major error in judgment and the pilot only survived because he was good/lucky.
I know that I sound very judgmental is saying this, especially since I am a non-aviator and little more than an aircraft enthusiast.
If I am wrong or if I am missing something important here, I'd like to hear your opinions on this matter.
Perhaps the pilot was new to carrier landings? Despite all the progress we've made in terms of simulators and other training aids, they still aren't 100% accurate. For all we know, this could be his very first carrier landing.
Perhaps the pilot was new to carrier landings? Despite all the progress we've made in terms of simulators and other training aids, they still aren't 100% accurate. For all we know, this could be his very first carrier landing.
Or maybe he got told to abort.
in case you are wondering the pilot was a new pilot Tomas Cruiseovski here is the transcript.
"Tower this is Lenins Ghost Rider requesting a landing." "Negative Lenins Ghost Rider the pattern is full.." "Please repeat"
"Go to the store get more vodka, and some smokes, dont come back without them!"
The landing attempt itself wasn't, but the tail standing afterwards certainly was.
It seems to me that he pulled back too far on the stick. The fact that he could control the plane in such a steep and slow climb shows that he's good, but the fact that he got into the situation in the first place doesn't.
The landing attempt itself wasn't, but the tail standing afterwards certainly was.
It seems to me that he pulled back too far on the stick. The fact that he could control the plane in such a steep and slow climb shows that he's good, but the fact that he got into the situation in the first place doesn't.
Yeah, 1+.
I've heard a while back that a Flanker with little fuel and weapon onboard are a little aft-heavy on the stick..
But why the hell doesn't the FCS address such a problem
But if this is so, then it could explain some of the overcompansating manuvering on these two vids.
But then again i could be wrong here..
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 10,631
Threads:
Pilot flight hours are poor in general. This has a particularly nasty effect on the carrier-based aviation. Especially given how few of them there are.
Pilot flight hours are poor in general. This has a particularly nasty effect on the carrier-based aviation. Especially given how few of them there are.
Yes that would be a nasty side effect Feanor.
But thinking of it, do you think any other Navy-fighter that could recover from any of these crazy manuveres?
But i've never seen such a close call, holee jeeze...
