B-52 crash at Fairchild Air Force Base, near Spokane.

I have seen many times the fatal crash of a B-52 when it flew into the ground as a result of, presumably, it being banked too severely and too low. I saw it again, this time with a commentary that stated that a pilot called "Holland" ( no other details disclosed) had a habit of flying dangerously that it had been widely complained about by other officers, including a Navigator ( called Mark McGeehan - my spelling) who died in the crash, as did a number of senior officers (possibly four). It seems remarkable that if Holland's flying style was so seemingly dangerous as to have had many complaints made about it, that he was allowed to continue flying.

Does anyone know any more about this ?
BG

 

B-52 crash

By all means please comment on the above message if you want to, but, frankly,having obtained full information from Wikipedia, I am now fully satisfied. The only element I lack is a picture of the pilot, Lt.Colonel Arthur (Bud) Holland, who flew this aircract into the ground. I would be curious to a see a picture of Holland, since it would be elucidating to see what a man looks like, who, having obtained command rank in his service ( and is also a consummate jet bomber pilot ) is nevertheless a complete and utter idiot !
BG

 

Mistakes happen to the best of us. Pilot error (stupidity, etc) isn't the only reason aircraft crash.

 

ker-ash

WHOOPS!

 

This is a famous crash because it was filmed!

http://visionandpsychosis.net/B52_Crash.htm
http://www.crm-devel.org/resources/pape ... rkblue.htm

The "french" version has the earlier (Yakima on March 10, 1994) Holland B-52 movie at the end.

http://www.aviation-history.com/video/b52crash.htm

This is not Holland but IS a nice shot!

 

I don't understand why this crash is more notable than other air crashes which were due to mistakes, screw ups or poor judgment on the part of the pilot. Military pilots tend to be an aggressive lot and are often risk takers.
I don't doubt that he often performed dangerous maneuvers. B-52 pilots were trained to fly nap of the earth low level flight profiles that placed a very large aircraft that was originally designed to operate at high altitudes in a situation where low level maneuvers were part of the training.
In any case he had completed the "dangerous maneuvers" and was preparing to land when he had a missed approach and had to go around because of another plane on the runway. apparently he misjudged his turn, stalled and augered in.
At least his screwup didn't take a lot of innocent lives on the ground like has occurred at some airshows notably Ramstein in 1988 when the Italian stuntflyers crashed into the crowd and 67 people were killed.

 

B-52 crash.

Any time spent accessing Wikipedia or other reputable Internet sources would pay great dividends to anyone wishing to get an insight into the circumstances behind this incident,which springs virtually exclusively from the pilots well documented "gung ho" attitude. He was, without a doubt, a truly exceptional big jet pilot, but his crazy flying and response to discipline, coupled with the astonishingly lax attitude of many of his senior officers, let alone those of his junior officers (most of whom refused outright to fly with him ) are extraordinarily remarkable in an air force as skilled and professional as that of the USA's. That even a fighter pilot was allowed to get away with transgressions of this nature would be incredible, but a bomber pilot entrusted with such a huge aircraft and the lives of other crew members.............it just defies belief !
BG

 

can I just say that wiki is not always accurate and the person they are ripping to pieces isn't here to defend himself

FNG

 

Re: B-52 crash.

Transgressions of what sort? You are doing no more than repeating gossip.
The report on the incident indicated that he was performing a "go around" to make another approach. Obviously he misjudged his turn and tried to make it too tight. This resulted in a stall, thus the crash.
You've convicted the man based on second and third hand hearsay. I have used Wiki to aid in a search for other sources however if I'm researching an issue that is in any way controversial and the sole source is Wiki or other sources that anyone can be anonymously edited or posted then corroborating sources are essential.
I think I'm beginning to detect a disturbing pattern in your postings BG

 

Grieg,

There seems to be little that can be printed in this forum that is in even the slightest way critical of anything to do with America, without you immediately finding it necessary to leap to America's defence. Even if I concede that I am in any way anti American (AND I DO NOT !), it is no more healthy for you to be always believing "My Country, right or wrong",than it is for a foreigner to be thought to be constantly criticising that country.
In this lastest post of mine I am complimentary about the US Air Force, but critical of the officer and the system that permitted him to carry on serving in an entirely unprofessional manner that eventually permitted the deaths of a number of his fellow servicemen. Irrespective of whatever country's forces they served in, both the incident and the circumstances that surround it are entirely suitable material for a forum of this nature. Insofar as the Wikipedia report is concerned, of course one would not take it as being definitive, but it does at least link into other sources including official reports. If I thought for one minute that you would even bother to read them, I'd happily send you you a hyperlink, or whatever the bloody thing is called, and then you would be able to judge for yourself the suitability of the officer in question being allowed to serve, let alone fly.
In closing, suffice it to say that America has been the principal World power for over sixty years and sole World power for ten or so ; thus it follows that virtually everything pertaining to military matters is dominated by that country, which therefore means that it invariably provides the preponderance of material for discussion in forums such as these. This will include comments both favourable and otherwise.
Cheers,
BG

 

B-52 crash

Because of wartime friendships, my family and I have enjoyed the warmest of friendships with literally hundreds of American servicemen. I myself cross the Atlantic several times a year to both visit them and attend their unit reunions. Indeed, for many years until it was finally published, I colloborated with an Amercian friend of mine in the production of the official wartime history of one particular air force wing. This even included the carrying on my part of a suitcase full of bricks across the Atlantic to a reunion in Memphis ( these came from the demolished Officer's Mess of their airfield in England, and were intended to be used to form the base of the unit's memorial in the USA ). So , whatever my disposition is, it is most certainly NOT anti American. However, as a researcher and author, my temperament, instinct and motivation is to follow up an interesting story ; so perhaps it follows ( and I concede that this might be a mistake ) that because I am so bloody PRO- American, too many stories that I choose to follow up ARE American !
Cheers,
BG

 

What leads you to belive that this issue has anything to do with the nationality of the officer involved? I didn't mention it. Nor do I think it is particularly important in the discussion.
As it happens, I have read Maj. Kerns analysis of the situation regarding Lt. Col Holland and of the higher command involved and though it raises some disturbing issues I didn't find it as convincing as some due to a glaringly obvious lack of objectivity. Frankly, it seems like a hatchet job to me. For instance, it may very well be that Lt. Col Holland parked his car in unauthorized parking spots but I don't really think that it's relevant to the case at hand.
Speaking of sources I have not yet seen any besides Maj. Kerns article.
He did not refer to the official investigation in his comments.

Even if is true that Lt. Col. Hollands flying practices sometimes crossed over from aggressiveness into recklessness it isn't clear that grandstanding or reckless behavior was the cause of the crash. At the time he wasn't flying for an airshow audience or perorming any of the maneuvers that Maj. Kern (and perhaps others) felt were foolhardy but was simply "going around" for another landing approach.

Perhaps overconfidence in his ability to handle the aircraft caused him to make too steep a bank in his turn, perhaps there were other contributing factors that we will never know since all aboard were killed.

In any case, I'm never particularly enthusiastic about smearing the name of men who were serving their country and performing a difficult and demanding job. And least of all not in a case where overwhelming evidence of their deriliction is lacking.

 

I am surprised that the old so you hate the US arguement came up here

All the comments I have seen have made no mention of it being pro opr anti US.

What I have seen is an official smear campaign against a deceased pilot for no obvious reason.

Maybe they want to move the arguement away from the any pilot aids the plane may have had that should have prevented such an impossable manouver?

FNG

 

Big, big organisation the USAF easy for infringements that don't result in damage or injury to be overlooked. I had heard of this case and I seem to recall that the dead pilot had a track record for pushing too hard. On this occasion he pushed too hard and it killed him (stupidity is generally a capital crime, sooner or later) and the crew, whose live he was responsible for. His superiors were caned over their failure to discipline him.

 

Risk takers are weeded out pretty early on in the training and moved to more suitable tasks than flying an airplane. It's not in the interest to have a pilot that can be a risk to himself, to his expensive plane and to his fellows.

I don't know personally, but I know a few cases where an active duty pilots have been taken away from the flying duty when they expressed a too "risky" flying.

 

Really? I suppose the astronauts as depicted in The Right Stuff (in those days all military pilots) who liked to race each other in corvettes weren't risk takers by nature.
Or the fighter jocks that like to ride big, fast motorcycles.
Confidence, an aggressive attitude and the willingness to take calculated risks are all vital parts of a military pilot. Unless he is a cargo type content to haul @ass and trash for his whole career.

 

No, I agree that recklessness and agresiveness have been weeded out of the US Air force.

Planes are just to expensive for that type of Top Gun/Maverick airplay and the gung ho pilot is not what they want.

They want physically fit and intelegent robots capable of processing what is no longer a reactions and instinct matter but is a more acin to playing 3 consecutive games of speed chess on your PC whilst being spun around.

But on the flip side a lot of US military pilots are currently reservists due to being over stretched on commitments and these can be poorly trained and lack experience.

FNG

 

I'm not sure what leads you to this conclusion. I realize it is only your opinion but do you have personal knowledge to base this on or...put another way... what exactly caused you to form this opinion of what the USAF wants and expects of it's pilots?

Insofar as experience and abilty, the pilot in question was acknowledged, even by his critics, to be one of the best BUFF pilots around and he had loads of hours in type (probably more than anyone in the USAF) so that wasn't a factor.

 

I base it on an article Hunter S Thompson did in the 70's when he interviewed a load of USAF test pilots for Playboy magazine.

He expected to see jocks with motorbikes and a danger streak like he read about in the 50's and 60's but what he found was a bunch of dull married blokes driving family estate cars who have degrees in areonatical engineering.

Plus if you ever see interviews of British modern tornado pilots they are also grey and boring.

FNG

 

Hunter S. Thompson? hehe...not exactly the first name that comes to mind when thinking of things military. In any case, I was in the US military in the 70's and I would tend to disagree. Psychological typing isn't something easily accomplished even with extensive personal access however if the outward trappings are any indication, and I think they are, at least to some extent, many of the pilots that I knew tended toward the confident, self assured. some would say cocky type. That being said it would be silly to think that it was a universal attribute. I just think that it is a characteristic that occurs in larger percentages than in the general public. The engineer types have always been well represented in professional military aviation as well (post WW II).