Many times we attribute accidents to the human factor, where reckless flying has been employed, but how many times do we hear about non-accidents that could have ended up badly? I guess it is a kind of bias, non-accidents are never, or very rarely, investigated, right?
Anyway, check out this video. I started watching the video with a positive attitude, because I wanted to learn more about the Pipistrel electric plane. As the video progressed I got more and more worried until a point where I seriously wanted to jump into my screen and do something about it. Yes I know, you should never question the PIC, etc… etc… blah… blah… And yes, I know nothing about that aircraft, and the guy flying it is probably an expert with aeons of experience. But let me ask you a thing, how many times do you hear about an accident where they don’t say: “He was an expert, thousands of hours of experience, we don’t understand how this could have happened”?
This is a screen dump from 12:37:
Let’s analyze a few things:
How many items need to add up before the luck bucket runs out? Why is it ok to endanger passengers life like this when one has vast amounts of experience?
Dimme wrote:
Yes I know, you should never question the PIC
I’d say the opposite. Always question everybody. First and foremost yourself.
As to the video, I don’t know if it’s smart or not. It looks like fun and excitement. Maybe a bit dangerous too.
If there’s somebody onboard that doesn’t know the risks it might be reckless, yes.
I meant in the sense that as a passenger in the cockpit it should be clear who is the PIC.
You need to bet all your life on engine and millimeters of rudder inputs, the slightest change in sound or coordination and bang !! it looks obvious behind my computer screen but not when you are in the middle of the fun 
Most of us (including me) will not even notice that they are unconsciously pulling the stick beyond a 45 degrees of bank at that height, let alone appreciate the increase of stall speed or unloading the wings, I guess the “right picture” on that snapshot is probably 9/10 ground and 1/10 sky, or 10/10 ground to be “safe”?
Dimme wrote:
The corrective manouvre to get out of the steep turn generates even more drag on the low wing which is at risk of stalling and entering spin
There are no corrective moanouevre at that snapshot height, assuming you are not inverted which can have in a split of a second, the best you can do is to take zero Gs (zero drag and zero stall speed) and hope for the best?
I have heard that all-electric airplanes can not stall. ;)
Jokes aside, there are many videos of “non-standard” flying and it is always hard to know the true nature of a particular flight. Sometimes it is obvious that it was just reckless, sometimes not.
Business as usual I would say
An accident in a similar aircraft, sadly fatal:
@Berto – If you are going to make statements like that please check your facts first. 2 different aircraft, 2 different pilots.
You’re right, sorry. Post edited.
Crop dusters turn steeply at low altitude all day, every work day, to make their living. I assume they know what they’re doing or don’t do it for long. Good flying starting at about 3:45.
This one has more flying and less Mississippi accented talk. It gets pretty good starting at about 5:30.
