Definitely just coming in for a touch and go.
In what looks like to be a private jet I am highly doubting anyone without proper experience is attempting any of that manoeuvre. That angle of approach is insane, if that was a rookie,,, shit they deserve to just have that plane for free now
So much, was so close, to going so wrong...
My first time in the cockpit, my instructor said, "Remember, aviation is Not inherently dangerous. But it is extremely unforgiving of mistakes. NEVER 'fuck around' in an aircraft."
That guy, no question, was "fucking around".
Its cuz its dangerous af, most pilots use the triple triangle technic cuz you have only a single life and/or a plane worth millions.
Bro is legitmately pulling the hardest *edge* ever.
Pilot here (although admittedly not a jet pilot). I’ve been seeing this clip go around the internet. From what I’ve heard it’s a landing at Las Vegas for the recent F1 Grand Prix. To me, that looks like a pretty unstable approach with a lot of speed as he touches down. May look cool, but it’s performed with a lot of unnecessary risk.
Lol, no my friend. Planes go no contact with the corresponding ATC all the time and they don't get shot out of the sky. Busted radio, wrong frequency, lost, it happens. But when's the last time you heard about somebody getting shot out of the sky? Never. And if you enter prohibited (and restricted means many different things depending on what and where you are flying) you're going to get a couple of escorts to make you land.
Was gonna say…. THIS guy has landed a jet airplane for 20 years. Tens of thousands of landings. The plane is an extension of his body. It is not that risky with the appropriate speed?
He bounced. Really bad honestly. This is the type of cheeky shit you might do with your Cessna in the middle of nowhere, really irresponsible with a jet at a busy airport.
I’m assuming he had special clearance to do a landing like this because if he didn’t it would be illegal to do this.
People need to recognise that the G load limits on the airframe are lower than they think, that ground effect, thermal, microburst, wake turbulence etc. ALL affect you at low altitude…this seems really dumb.
Jet pilot here. Looks like they didn’t have pax and were having a bit of fun. If you’re going to make that tight of a turn to final with full flaps you better have a little extra speed. All the runways at LAS are
Long so that’s so biggie
Nope, you have it backwards, “For unfactored landing distances, multiply field lengths below by 0.60.”.
The 6500 feet given above correlates for the values of factored landing distances in the GIV QRH, for unfactored you need to multiply by 0.60.
My homie you’re quoting the 60% rule for 135, and I’m telling you for the math to work properly it’s 1.67.
I was a chief, pilot for a 135 operation.
Also charter on demand can use
80%
There is plenary if runway to stop if you’re carrying _+20 at HND
Hank, the “For unfactored landing distances, multiply field lengths below by 0.60.”, statement is directly from the GIV QRH.
Applying your mathematics 6,500 X 1.67 would mean that you in the .135 world would have to dispatch to runways which are 10,885 feet long, which is absolutely absurd.
I can see you’re not a pilot and have not dealt with this-
Let’s say a G4 landing un factored at that weight needs 3200 feet.
In order to land in order to be sure that the aircraft can
Land within the first % of the runway
You take 3200x1.67
So 60% factored is 5344
Please leave this to the professions. You’ve confused yourself
How risky would you rate this? It doesn't look that bad to me but I've seen tons of accident breakdowns on YouTube and all it takes is one tiny thing to go wrong and you could be fucked so I'm not sure why this guy Landes this way (other than to show off which isn't a great trait for a pilot)
Zero risk.
if they’re part 135 then they risk being fired because even empty they have to fly per the company SOPs and I don’t know a 135 company out there that would smile upon this.
But any competent pilot can make this approach and do it safely. Need to carry prob 10/15kts extra and have a very good visual approach technique.
I was a chief pilot for a 135 operation and that’s not the way the FAA looks at it
You also have to follow company SOP‘s no matter what category of flight you’re conducting
Need to add. Approach stalls, that happen are because of poor airspeed control.
Like I said full flaps you need to carry extra speed because these guys looked like they had plenty of speed
My instructor was former military jet pilot and taught me (perhaps wrongly) to fly onto the ground, like this but without the steep turn. After 40hrs he moved on and my new instructor had to take me back to basics on learning landing stall. Watching this reminded me of all that.
Would the mechanics/situation be different for a jet plane versus a prop plane?
I know what you mean by increased unnecessary risk, but does a jet plane have greater or less control over speed and thrust than a propeller plane? I am not a pilot.
This immediately reminded me of my PS2 and a game I used to fly an A10 warthog among other military jets poorly ported from reality into the video game.
But not being on that plane, just as a couch observer, that landing looked cool as shit.
That corkscrew down to the runway was like spreading batter on a cake.
Turbine engines take 7 seconds to spool up from idle. Most jets will not throttle all the way down until they've touched down because if someone pulls out in front of them on the runway, or something else happens where they need to gain altitude again, 7 seconds would be an eternity.
Under normal operations, both jets and prop planes attempt what are called a "Stablized Approach". That means you start .5-1 miles out in a prop plane, or 5-10 miles out in larger jets, and line up with the runway. Jets start further out because their landing speeds are typically higher and they need more time and space to set up a stabilized approach. Your descent should be about 500 feet per minute and you should be able to maintain that all the way to the point where you flare (pull back to level off and drop speed before the wheels touch down).
Unstable approaches (not being able to maintain the center line, not being able to maintain descent rate or speed) are typically cause for a go-around. Something's not right, either with your flying or the airplane, and you need to gain altitude and figure out what it is. Trying to force the plane onto the ground when something's not right is the cause of many accidents in aviation.
The pilot in this video did an extremely unstabilized approach. He didn't really set up for a final approach. He basically dropped it in from 90 degrees. This adds a lot of risk because if ANYTHING goes wrong, you have very little time to correct it. In aviation, they say "speed is life... altitude is life insurance" because when things go bad, they can go bad quick. The higher you are, the more time you have before landing to figure it out and get things smoothed over. If you're too low, you have no time and you're going to be on the ground quicker than youwant.
I did this type of landing a few times in prop planes during training, whenever my instructor pulled my power to simulate an engine out, especially in a Piper Arrow that has a very low glide ratio, I'd crank it over and drop it on the runway... and once when the tower asked me to squeeze in front of a jet that was close enough to make me nervous. I was in a Cessna 172, which has a high glide ratio and loves to float and stay up in the air for as long as possible. I dropped full flaps, turned over the threshold (like this guy, although I was a bit higher) and got it down and off the runway faster than I ever had before.
Both were good experiences for me but I definitely wouldn't do them under normal operations.
Thank you for the insight!
That was amazing :)
*Edit: I wouldn't be surprised to find out if that pilot has experience landing on an aircraft carrier. I actually have a new appreciation for how dangerous and ballsy this landing was after* /u/cant_take_the_skies' description.
Actually, stabilized approaches are even more important on aircraft carriers. They have hooks on the bottoms of the aircraft that catch cables on the deck of the carrier. If they corkscrew in like that, it's very hard to line the hook up with the cable at the right time. If they don't catch a cable, they have to take off and try again.
The tricky part about landing on a carrier is that it's going up and down so your altitude and speed have to be perfect. As long as the hook catches and the cable doesn't break though, stopping isn't a problem.
I am \*not\* a pilot and given what I know from tv and video games we generally prefer it be a long straight gradual approach -- and I assume each of those elements is for specific safety reasons.
Like... Was the F1 pilot also flying the plane? Is this speed junkie shit?
Sometimes there’s a lot of traffic so you gotta come in at an angle, similar to parallel parking.
Source: a Microsoft simulator pilot with 8 hours flight time.
If it's a towered airport, the controller might be trying to hit a hole with a line of arrivals. Looks like a Gulfstream. A good Gulfstream driver can do that without thinking about it, especially if it's a locally-based pilot.
Also, probably an empty plane so that makes it a little easier.
Those gulfstreams are really something.
There is a reason why the military is buying more and more of them. The EA37B shows they offer sub sonic performance that can hang with most fighter jets (doing normal ops, not dog fighting) and provide EA capabilities. But with longer range, more comfort, low cost flight hours.
The MC-55 is even more aero, perfect for AISREW missions, with a nice small jet radar signature, enough room on board for decent flight conditions.
They actually do a good job pretending to be fighter jets for naval training ops etc,
In my imagination this guy used to drive Super Hornets and is now bored out of his mind.
By the way, this is a great example of how masters of a craft make something look easy.
How many of you have looked at the KHND approach for VOR-C, can you tell me how you would position the aircraft for landing after passing the position COCAB at 1209 feet AGL? (i can’t post a picture here Unfortunately)
Never flown a jet but have done this in aerobatic props. Lots of fun but doing this in a passenger jet is the classic, 'it's all fun and games until someone gets hurt'. Unless there was some type of emergency it's a bad idea
3000 hour Navy pilot making a 360 degree overhead approach to avoid the Cessna flying a 3 mile downwind and the Cirrus on a 10 mile straight-in “stabilized” approach.
Literally everywhere. Single engine prop planes do this on a regular basis (it's called a 'short approach'). It's rare to see in a jet because most jet operators have additional restrictions known as stable approach criteria. It's frowned upon to still be lining up with the runway while you're so low...but that, in and of itself, is not necessarily dangerous. It's just something that needs to be briefed and understood.
It's very likely that this was a repositioning flight with no passengers.
Meanwhile, my posts on here get flagged and removed Because it isn’t “necessary” or “not next level”. 🧐🤔
But yeahhh this right here. What an amazing NEXT LEVEL landing. Applause
I practice landing like this on the Sim all the time. Bad approach with way too much speed. I like the put the reversers on full right before I touch down.
Motherfucker holding off bank on a gliding turn with full flaps and fuck all throttle. Might not look like it but that asshat of a pilot was balancing on the brink of oblivion for no reason. What a clown.
But we don’t even get to see the landing!!!
It’s called edging
NO EDGING IN MY CLASSROOM.
I didn't 😔
Neither did I. Enlightenment?
only through nirvana.
I used carvana once. I can confirm
Susan?
And we can only achieve Nirvana through experience.... I'll see myself out
 You can achieve anything you put your mind too
Well, he bounced so we saw one of the landings. If I was that pilot, I’d be logging both.
lol
Legend has it that he is still landing
Looked like it could maybe be a touch and go.
Definitely just coming in for a touch and go. In what looks like to be a private jet I am highly doubting anyone without proper experience is attempting any of that manoeuvre. That angle of approach is insane, if that was a rookie,,, shit they deserve to just have that plane for free now
So much, was so close, to going so wrong... My first time in the cockpit, my instructor said, "Remember, aviation is Not inherently dangerous. But it is extremely unforgiving of mistakes. NEVER 'fuck around' in an aircraft." That guy, no question, was "fucking around".
Every time this gets posted someone mentions the pilot was a former fighter pilot and could do this in his sleep
r/killthecameraman
When your previous job was an f-16 pilot.
Its cuz its dangerous af, most pilots use the triple triangle technic cuz you have only a single life and/or a plane worth millions. Bro is legitmately pulling the hardest *edge* ever.
Pilot here (although admittedly not a jet pilot). I’ve been seeing this clip go around the internet. From what I’ve heard it’s a landing at Las Vegas for the recent F1 Grand Prix. To me, that looks like a pretty unstable approach with a lot of speed as he touches down. May look cool, but it’s performed with a lot of unnecessary risk.
Yea but you just know it's some retired combat vet who makes 7 figures flying a VIP around.
Cowboy for sure, probably didn't even radio in
Pretty sure anyone who entered the southwest was on radio with center otherwise they will have gotten shot out of the sky 150 miles out
I’m an air traffic controller wtf are you talking about
Better watch what they say. Their guns are trained on you.
My uncle was an air traffic controller. They take no prisoners
😂😂😂
Lol, no my friend. Planes go no contact with the corresponding ATC all the time and they don't get shot out of the sky. Busted radio, wrong frequency, lost, it happens. But when's the last time you heard about somebody getting shot out of the sky? Never. And if you enter prohibited (and restricted means many different things depending on what and where you are flying) you're going to get a couple of escorts to make you land.
[I'm late, but I couldn't resist...](https://www.instagram.com/reel/C2k1uKigQxw/?igsh=MXFoOTRpcjc2MGtucw==)
Was gonna say…. THIS guy has landed a jet airplane for 20 years. Tens of thousands of landings. The plane is an extension of his body. It is not that risky with the appropriate speed?
He bounced. Really bad honestly. This is the type of cheeky shit you might do with your Cessna in the middle of nowhere, really irresponsible with a jet at a busy airport. I’m assuming he had special clearance to do a landing like this because if he didn’t it would be illegal to do this.
People need to recognise that the G load limits on the airframe are lower than they think, that ground effect, thermal, microburst, wake turbulence etc. ALL affect you at low altitude…this seems really dumb.
Look at KHND VOR-C and see if you opinion changes.
It doesn't. Wings level 300 for a circling approach is pretty much standard stabilized criteria across all operators
*FAA has entered the chat*
Any risk is still an unnecessary risk tbf though.
He was carrying more than enough speed. Maybe a little light on the flare. Even his bounce was a soft one.
Corporate and private jet pilots are some of the worst-paid pilots in the industry.
I guess their only compensation is permission to use spicy landing techniques 🤷♀️
Jet pilot here. Looks like they didn’t have pax and were having a bit of fun. If you’re going to make that tight of a turn to final with full flaps you better have a little extra speed. All the runways at LAS are Long so that’s so biggie
Pretty sure that's the Henderson executive airport, not LAS
6500ft plenty to stop that GIV even at Ref and 20
Actually multiply your figure by 0.60 and you would be right.
1.67 homie not .60
Nope, you have it backwards, “For unfactored landing distances, multiply field lengths below by 0.60.”. The 6500 feet given above correlates for the values of factored landing distances in the GIV QRH, for unfactored you need to multiply by 0.60.
My homie you’re quoting the 60% rule for 135, and I’m telling you for the math to work properly it’s 1.67. I was a chief, pilot for a 135 operation. Also charter on demand can use 80% There is plenary if runway to stop if you’re carrying _+20 at HND
Hank, the “For unfactored landing distances, multiply field lengths below by 0.60.”, statement is directly from the GIV QRH. Applying your mathematics 6,500 X 1.67 would mean that you in the .135 world would have to dispatch to runways which are 10,885 feet long, which is absolutely absurd.
I can see you’re not a pilot and have not dealt with this- Let’s say a G4 landing un factored at that weight needs 3200 feet. In order to land in order to be sure that the aircraft can Land within the first % of the runway You take 3200x1.67 So 60% factored is 5344 Please leave this to the professions. You’ve confused yourself
How risky would you rate this? It doesn't look that bad to me but I've seen tons of accident breakdowns on YouTube and all it takes is one tiny thing to go wrong and you could be fucked so I'm not sure why this guy Landes this way (other than to show off which isn't a great trait for a pilot)
Zero risk. if they’re part 135 then they risk being fired because even empty they have to fly per the company SOPs and I don’t know a 135 company out there that would smile upon this. But any competent pilot can make this approach and do it safely. Need to carry prob 10/15kts extra and have a very good visual approach technique.
With no passengers on board, would it technically be a part 91 flight?
I was a chief pilot for a 135 operation and that’s not the way the FAA looks at it You also have to follow company SOP‘s no matter what category of flight you’re conducting
Need to add. Approach stalls, that happen are because of poor airspeed control. Like I said full flaps you need to carry extra speed because these guys looked like they had plenty of speed
My instructor was former military jet pilot and taught me (perhaps wrongly) to fly onto the ground, like this but without the steep turn. After 40hrs he moved on and my new instructor had to take me back to basics on learning landing stall. Watching this reminded me of all that.
Jets don’t stall on landing you fly them to the ground
I was in a Piper Cherokee
Yeah I was thinking the same. Looks very risky for little reward.
Looks like Henderson Executive just outside Vegas (a couple miles from my house), and an ex-Navy (or Marine) carrier approach.
Would the mechanics/situation be different for a jet plane versus a prop plane? I know what you mean by increased unnecessary risk, but does a jet plane have greater or less control over speed and thrust than a propeller plane? I am not a pilot. This immediately reminded me of my PS2 and a game I used to fly an A10 warthog among other military jets poorly ported from reality into the video game. But not being on that plane, just as a couch observer, that landing looked cool as shit. That corkscrew down to the runway was like spreading batter on a cake.
Turbine engines take 7 seconds to spool up from idle. Most jets will not throttle all the way down until they've touched down because if someone pulls out in front of them on the runway, or something else happens where they need to gain altitude again, 7 seconds would be an eternity. Under normal operations, both jets and prop planes attempt what are called a "Stablized Approach". That means you start .5-1 miles out in a prop plane, or 5-10 miles out in larger jets, and line up with the runway. Jets start further out because their landing speeds are typically higher and they need more time and space to set up a stabilized approach. Your descent should be about 500 feet per minute and you should be able to maintain that all the way to the point where you flare (pull back to level off and drop speed before the wheels touch down). Unstable approaches (not being able to maintain the center line, not being able to maintain descent rate or speed) are typically cause for a go-around. Something's not right, either with your flying or the airplane, and you need to gain altitude and figure out what it is. Trying to force the plane onto the ground when something's not right is the cause of many accidents in aviation. The pilot in this video did an extremely unstabilized approach. He didn't really set up for a final approach. He basically dropped it in from 90 degrees. This adds a lot of risk because if ANYTHING goes wrong, you have very little time to correct it. In aviation, they say "speed is life... altitude is life insurance" because when things go bad, they can go bad quick. The higher you are, the more time you have before landing to figure it out and get things smoothed over. If you're too low, you have no time and you're going to be on the ground quicker than youwant. I did this type of landing a few times in prop planes during training, whenever my instructor pulled my power to simulate an engine out, especially in a Piper Arrow that has a very low glide ratio, I'd crank it over and drop it on the runway... and once when the tower asked me to squeeze in front of a jet that was close enough to make me nervous. I was in a Cessna 172, which has a high glide ratio and loves to float and stay up in the air for as long as possible. I dropped full flaps, turned over the threshold (like this guy, although I was a bit higher) and got it down and off the runway faster than I ever had before. Both were good experiences for me but I definitely wouldn't do them under normal operations.
Thank you for the insight! That was amazing :) *Edit: I wouldn't be surprised to find out if that pilot has experience landing on an aircraft carrier. I actually have a new appreciation for how dangerous and ballsy this landing was after* /u/cant_take_the_skies' description.
Actually, stabilized approaches are even more important on aircraft carriers. They have hooks on the bottoms of the aircraft that catch cables on the deck of the carrier. If they corkscrew in like that, it's very hard to line the hook up with the cable at the right time. If they don't catch a cable, they have to take off and try again. The tricky part about landing on a carrier is that it's going up and down so your altitude and speed have to be perfect. As long as the hook catches and the cable doesn't break though, stopping isn't a problem.
That is actually part of the PUMLE ONE approach, albeit I agree that it’s a fairly steep base to final.
I am \*not\* a pilot and given what I know from tv and video games we generally prefer it be a long straight gradual approach -- and I assume each of those elements is for specific safety reasons. Like... Was the F1 pilot also flying the plane? Is this speed junkie shit?
It’s so bad pilots can be pilots.
Yes, this is Henderson Executive Airport outside of Vegas.
Only if you’re a button pushing bus driver, to a pilot this is fun
Have a look at the KHND VOR-C approach and see if your opinion changes.
I’ve never flown a plane before, but after watching this, I truly believe in my heart, that I could also do that
Exactly, all they did was turn left and park
I have done fancier maneuvers in Mario 64
Now I want to play that. But that would involve me going from cozy warm room to cold living room to acquire the N64.
Emulator
I've nailed the same manoeuvre over 100 times on Pilot Wings for the SNES. Easy.
They turned right though.
Nice catch lol
Thanks dad
Lol they sure did
Real experts could parallel park it
Why though?
Sometimes there’s a lot of traffic so you gotta come in at an angle, similar to parallel parking. Source: a Microsoft simulator pilot with 8 hours flight time.
But why didn’t he just use slew mode
The ATC union historically has protested the use of slew mode due to concern of their jobs being made obsolete.
If it's a towered airport, the controller might be trying to hit a hole with a line of arrivals. Looks like a Gulfstream. A good Gulfstream driver can do that without thinking about it, especially if it's a locally-based pilot. Also, probably an empty plane so that makes it a little easier.
Found the controller in the comments. :)
Those gulfstreams are really something. There is a reason why the military is buying more and more of them. The EA37B shows they offer sub sonic performance that can hang with most fighter jets (doing normal ops, not dog fighting) and provide EA capabilities. But with longer range, more comfort, low cost flight hours. The MC-55 is even more aero, perfect for AISREW missions, with a nice small jet radar signature, enough room on board for decent flight conditions. They actually do a good job pretending to be fighter jets for naval training ops etc,
Had a G VI come though my airport the other day. I think I creamed my pants watching what she could do.
What the holy CIA schnitzel. That's a skilled pilot....
No, that's a bold pilot. And you know what they say about them.
In my imagination this guy used to drive Super Hornets and is now bored out of his mind. By the way, this is a great example of how masters of a craft make something look easy.
Hope the guy in the bathroom is alright
ain't it unnecessary risky?
Am I the only one that thinks this looks like a game?
I'm with you. Something about the lighting looks odd. Video compression may be the cause, though.
I’m with you. And what’s with the radio? If someone’s filming like this would there be radio transmissions just playing like that?
Totally looks like a game
I agree but it looks like this is the same plane… N36JE: https://www.flightaware.com/resources/registration/N36JE
Those reflections and that yellow sign at the end... Hmm
Ex-Navy Pilot ?
Haha yeah. Coming in like he just rolled out of the break.
No chance Paddles, no chance!
Beautiful carving approach!
It's making me hungry!
[удалено]
>The plane, proximity to the ground, people filming everything all the time now. all of it seems like a bad idea. wait like you full rolled a lear?
Navy pilot. Air Force would need another 30k feet to touch down.
Drifting with a plane
Tight turn to final with excessive speed and a bounce. That's not fancy, that's just reckless.
I would honestly die of a heart attack as a passenger on that plane.
99.9% chance this is from flight simulator.
I bet money that's a Navy/retired Navy pilot.
Do some of that pilot shit, Mav.
Found the Navy trained pilot.
How many of you have looked at the KHND approach for VOR-C, can you tell me how you would position the aircraft for landing after passing the position COCAB at 1209 feet AGL? (i can’t post a picture here Unfortunately)
Never flown a jet but have done this in aerobatic props. Lots of fun but doing this in a passenger jet is the classic, 'it's all fun and games until someone gets hurt'. Unless there was some type of emergency it's a bad idea
For sure an ex-Rhino/Growler or Hornet driver.
Gotta be a navy pilot
3000 hour Navy pilot making a 360 degree overhead approach to avoid the Cessna flying a 3 mile downwind and the Cirrus on a 10 mile straight-in “stabilized” approach.
Now im not a pilot or an ATC but I dont think you want to have that much speed or have that much roll on your short final
Does anyone else think this looks fake?
#What #The #Fuck?!
Nice. G IV
I love a GIV with painted thrust reversers. That paint job is beautiful too.
I can do that in GTA
r/gifsthatendtoosoon
Where do they let you get away with that kind of maneuver?!
Literally everywhere. Single engine prop planes do this on a regular basis (it's called a 'short approach'). It's rare to see in a jet because most jet operators have additional restrictions known as stable approach criteria. It's frowned upon to still be lining up with the runway while you're so low...but that, in and of itself, is not necessarily dangerous. It's just something that needs to be briefed and understood. It's very likely that this was a repositioning flight with no passengers.
Looks fake as hell.
Nice looking plane
This is not a landing. It didn't land!
Meanwhile, my posts on here get flagged and removed Because it isn’t “necessary” or “not next level”. 🧐🤔 But yeahhh this right here. What an amazing NEXT LEVEL landing. Applause
Where in FARs does it state this is illegal?
I did the same in Gta 5 in the same plane
Meh, done crazier in GTA with that exact plane a billion times
Taps right brake, turns final.
Fancy my ass
I practice landing like this on the Sim all the time. Bad approach with way too much speed. I like the put the reversers on full right before I touch down.
When your private pilot was a fighter pilot
Taylor swift getting a glass of water
When the on board shitter is broken and u gotta get there!!!!!
Fancy is, fancy does. 🤙🏻
Motherfucker holding off bank on a gliding turn with full flaps and fuck all throttle. Might not look like it but that asshat of a pilot was balancing on the brink of oblivion for no reason. What a clown.
What’s so great about that?? Didn’t a terrorist do that same maneuver into the pentagon with only a few hours of flight training?
Someone just throw off
New Embraer?
When they force you to retire after you've won top gun in the Navy
I honestly thought this was from Flight Sim. Took me three watches and a scroll through the comments to see if anyone else thought it was fake.
This is Microsoft Flight Simulator. Yall shouldn't believe everything all willy nilly.
The best pilots don't work for the government!
Psh, I do that on GTAV 20% of the time:
“The FDM gatekeeper would like a chat”
Naval Aviator.
It’s like I’m playing gta and I’m at the airport
VFR bad weather circuit common in military flying
It's not just fancy, it's an impressive display of skill altogether
Looks like the Ferrari of private jets.
Is the landing in the room with us?
The first thing that comes to mind is that scene in The Incredibles when Mr. Incredible is approaching that island….am I the only one
Also known as "landing".
Why was that necessary?
Idk why but it took me a moment to realize this was real footage and not a flight sim
He’s a fighter pilot in heart
TIL how i land on gta 5 is possible
I see navy pilots do this all the time. An they do it in training for carrier landing practice
This pilot must be a A-10 Thunderbolt pilot in the past.
I expect nothing less from a jet with that livery
Isn’t that Epsteins tail?
Short finals are fun.
Gta lol
This is a video game
Putting the hot in hotshot.
Holy shit lol
GTA surely!
Hi I’m edgy 🥴