Buzzed by the Swedish Air Force

[BFM]

On a recent Celebrity cruise, our ship was repeatedly buzzed by a Swedish fighter jet as we approached Stockholm. The pilot first crossed the bow of the ship, then the stern, then flew alongside no more than 100 years away, close enough to see the pilot and read the numbers. Our Captain, who was visibly disturbed by this, says it happens often, with the excuse that they are checking for "water pollution." At 400 knots or so?

Considering that Swedish fighter pilots don't have much real war time experience, this was a highly dangerous and reckless act. The smallest pilot error or mechanical malfunction could have resulted in a disaster. Has anyone had this experience? Doesn't say much for the Country of Sweden to allow such juvenile antics!

[joelamp]

It is a wonder the Swedes don't use a helicopter or a patrol boat if they are really interested in checking for pollution or illegal dumping. I don't know if I've ever heard of a country using fighter jets for this purpose.

[bigwally]

A bit silly, true. But also very cool. Certainly not something you'd see every day. Was this out in open water or in the archipelago?

[Globaliser]

Considering that Swedish fighter pilots don't have much real war time experience, this was a highly dangerous and reckless act.

And your qualifications for making this damning judgement are what?

[bbwex]

Well, since the OP didn't say how close this guy was when he passed the bow or the stern, I shall assume it was at a safe distance, though it can be a bit unnerving. Flying 100 yards off the beam is likely not as dangerous as it seemed, though there is some inherent danger if there is some sort of failure on the aircraft. If you were able to see much more than a blur, he was likely flying fairly slowly (for a jet) ay --maybe 200 mph or so.

 

All that being said, the typical fighter pilot tends to be a bit of a hot dog, and many take some risk or expose others to some small amount of danger just to show off. It does not take much to turn an innocent situation into a more deadly situation, but it still goes on all the time, and this incident simply shows that probably every air force has its share of wise guys.

 

Had the ship's captain called in the guy's tail number and complained, the charade of checking for pollution would have been busted. I am sure they count on the captain's not knowing who or where to call.

 

The wilder guys don't realize they are not flying a personal toy.

[BFM]

Yes, you are exactly right. Veterans who have flown combat have said that most pilots have too much respect for their aircraft and for their profession to do this. The Captain did plan to file a protest, since he believed this incident was especially close.

[Globaliser]

Veterans who have flown combat have said that most pilots have too much respect for their aircraft and for their profession to do this. The Captain did plan to file a protest, since he believed this incident was especially close.

I still see nothing at all to support the accusation of a "highly dangerous and reckless act", nor of your qualifications to judge this.

[bbwex]

Well, the OP did say the captain thought that this was "especially close." Let's use that description. We have a single engine, high-speed aircraft coming close to a ship. It does not take much of a mistake and/or much of a system failure to cause a collision. If there is a collision, you have a lot of damage, threat of many injuries (with large number of passengers on the ship), and a serious fire from the aircraft's fuel. I can say that in all of the onboard crashes I experienced, none was due to a pilot's intention to do so. On the contrary, they were doing their best to avoid such a disaster. But some hotdog horsing around endangers not only himself in these situations but also tens or perhaps hundreds of others if he collides with a passenger vessel.

 

There might well have been the most danger as he crossed the bow or stern and not when he was flying up the side of the ship, but in any case, if this is as described (and I have to assume it was), then there were times when an unnecessary danger was imposed, and for no real purpose other than to show off.

 

While all ships are prepared to fight fires, regular ships are ill-prepared for the potential horrific damage of an aircraft collision. Someone who puts a ship and its passengers in this situation recklessly should be punished accordingly.

[Drifting Happily]

We had a similar experience leaving Marseilles, France, a few years ago. It was on a Princess ship, and he only passed by once, but he was low and close to the side of the ship. Not so close to be dangerous, it seemed like hot-dogging. It sure was loud!

[Globaliser]

Well, the OP did say the captain thought that this was "especially close." Let's use that description.

Yes, why don't we? That says so much about the actual proximity of the aircraft to the ship. Instantly, two words (possibly spoken by someone whose native language isn't English) allow everyone who wasn't there to judge the exact degree of risk involved.

 

Come on, do we all have to describe everything in tabloid terms now?

[bbwex]

I am not trying to exaggerate the issue or use some terms out of thin air. I used the terms used by the captain of the ship -- someone I would grant the honor of knowing what was "too close" and what was not.

 

Let's see, now that Globaliser doesn't seem to want to believe that this could possibly have been dangerous..... I have been there when a couple of jet jockeys thought it would be cool to break the sound barrier right next to the ship, oooh that was fun! Then there was the time four jet jockeys thought it would be funny to dump fuel as they flew low and slow next to a ship --- ah the sweet smell of JP-5! Those weren't particularly dangerous, but I can give you some dangerous ones as well: the pilot who took up a jet that had just had the engine rebuilt and decided to fly low and fast over the ship's deck -- fortunately the engine was OK, but this was not a good place to check it out.

I can go on, and on, and on....

 

There is a chance that what this pilot did was dangerous. There is also the chance that the OP -- not being too familiar with aircraft operations -- was overstating the risk. I did caution my first reply by saying IF it was too close.

 

I will stand by the statement that this guy was a hotdog.

[Globaliser]

Let's see, now that Globaliser doesn't seem to want to believe that this could possibly have been dangerous.....

Now, did I say that? Perhaps I've forgotten and someone can remind me.

There is a chance that what this pilot did was dangerous. There is also the chance that the OP -- not being too familiar with aircraft operations -- was overstating the risk.

Quite so.

 

But you're not in a position to know; and I'm not in a position to know; and the OP has not given any details to suggest that they had any sort of qualification, experience or knowledge to allow them to hold or express any sort of informed opinion about it. The captain's words were not "too close"; he is reported just to have said "exceptionally close" (if accurately reported), which could just as well have been exceptionally close without being unsafe.

 

None of us know whether this was authorised or directed.

 

Even if there was an element of risk, it was not necessarily a "highly dangerous and reckless act", which is a pretty extreme and damning statement. That should definitely only come from someone who's qualified to form such an opinion.

 

And it didn't need to be delivered with the tone of condescension in which the whole sentence was couched:-

Considering that Swedish fighter pilots don't have much real war time experience ...

Lurid tabloids - that's all we get these days. :rolleyes:

[memawree]

Globaliser: What are you so angry about? Were you on that ship?

 

Marie:confused:

[Globaliser]

I'm not angry.

 

But I do take strong exception to some unqualified ignoramus passing a damning judgement on a pilot's actions when they have neither the knowledge nor the experience to reach an informed opinion about it. Too many people do it; it's a feature of a world where everyone is encouraged to believe that they know better than everyone else, including the experts.

 

BFM, the OP, has notably not taken up the invitation to state why they don't fall within that description, or why they were qualified to say something that strong about this incident.

[capnpugwash]

It was a stupid stunt, almost as stupid as flying Air Force 1 and two fast jets low over Manhattan. Look to yourselves before criticising others.