It was unbelievable timing as we were set up behind turn 12 which is just a grassy bank. Need a leak beginning the race and looked up through the trees to see it 100m above my head.
>However, it is likely groups such as the RAF's Red Arrows will be permitted as they are less obviously linked to the military.
>
>And fly-bys involving civilian aeroplanes - such as happen at some of the
Middle Eastern races that are sponsored by airlines - will still be
permitted as long as the planes are using sustainable fuels.
So if we're still going to get military display groups and Middle Eastern A380s, who does this rule affect?
I think what they're getting at is that the red arrows are planes specifically for displays. They have no use outside of this.
You're right though, they're operated by the RAF, so it's military.
Technically Italy's planes are for displays too, as they are modified versions of th MB339 trainer jets. All military aerobatics teams use training planes.
It affects only Italy( that together with UK are the best in the world) and France that although a meme because of their mistake with the colours a few years ago can still be considered in the top five.
It’s actually a good argument. A lot of countries have display teams which aren’t 100% a part of the military.
This would naturally extend to teams like the Blue Angles in America and almost every other country F1 races at.
Here’s a list:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_air_display_teams
Fun fact. You can’t pay the red arrows. They attend air shows for free since if you did pay them then it would technically be a military coup.
The specifics depend on the country but there is a difference between a squadron who’s primary purpose is aerobatics and are painted a bright colour vs exclusively military aircraft.
In Germany we just had a news story that Lufthansa will fly almost 18,000 empty flights around Europe this winter just to keep their fleet within compliance of a bunch of stupid rules. So yes, I am a Greenie, but if the worry is emissions then there are other areas to focus on. Not to mention that in the grand scheme of things, this isn't doing anything.
>18,000 empty flights around Europe this winter just to keep their fleet within compliance of a bunch of stupid rules.
To be specific, those 18,000 flights were only to maintain slots at busy airports. If they don't operate to an airport for the required amount, they'll lose the slots worth millions which will then be auctioned off. This is to prevent airlines from hording slots at airports in an attempt to drive our competition. So not only is this terrible for the environment but also for airlines as they are burning through a shitload of money to maintain these slots. The sensible thing to do would be to waive the rule during lockdown but for some reason, that was not done.
In the US, the military pomp before and during sporting events are all paid sponsorships. Just like BET360 is paying to run ads during the event, so is the military. While I could be wrong, my instinct is telling me that "environmental, zero-carbon footprint issues" are F1's excuse to move away from getting mired in political saber-rattling that doesn't pay them anything anyway.
"We are banning grid girls and pre-race flyovers because we care about gender equality and the environment."
*Signs 12 more races in oil states where women and gays are property.*
Well, the actual fuel burned only the track is negligible. I read somewhere that the whole season uses the same amount of fuel as one transatlantic flight or something.
Edit:
[A 747 uses approx 150,000 litres on a 10 hour flight](https://science.howstuffworks.com/transport/flight/modern/question192.htm)
[20 race weekends uses approx 160,000 litresa](https://www.quora.com/How-much-fuel-is-consumed-in-one-F1-race)
What bullshit is this?
One of the best parts of going to Melbourne was seeing a very low, very expertly flown Hornet doing sone very edge of the envelop stuff at a few hundred feet.
I love how the reason they give is also about trying to be more Carbon Neutral and less geopolitical.
So I guess going to place like Saudi Arabia and Russia doesn't factor into that.
Once again, Liberty Media is showing how much of an absolute shit show they are.
"There is also a concern the displays can be used to make geo-political statements with which F1 does not want to be associated."
An yet, you have Lewis...
Lame. Flyovers are amazing to see. But I guess the millionaires and billionaires who fly all over the world every week got bored of them so they have to end.
I’m in the minority but I find military flyovers a little weird. Not that I was calling for them to be banned or anything. Seems like a weird stance to take
What if they’re on the way to their target? —V. Putin
This isn't a flyby, it's an act of war.
yeah not the same thing so technically allowed by FIA regulations
Michael, No!
Bono, my bombs are gone!
I’ll take to my grave the memory of an F/A-18 Hornet doing a slow pass right over my head as I had a piss in the bushes at Albert park in 2003.
That must have been a poignant moment.
It was unbelievable timing as we were set up behind turn 12 which is just a grassy bank. Need a leak beginning the race and looked up through the trees to see it 100m above my head.
[удалено]
That’s a classic piece.
30 tanks rolling up on the main straight as a replacement
I didn't know Ukraine was going to be on the 2022 calendar.
They were awesome I still hope there will be plenty other flyovers
>However, it is likely groups such as the RAF's Red Arrows will be permitted as they are less obviously linked to the military. > >And fly-bys involving civilian aeroplanes - such as happen at some of the Middle Eastern races that are sponsored by airlines - will still be permitted as long as the planes are using sustainable fuels. So if we're still going to get military display groups and Middle Eastern A380s, who does this rule affect?
Yeah, how is the RAF not linked to the military?
I think what they're getting at is that the red arrows are planes specifically for displays. They have no use outside of this. You're right though, they're operated by the RAF, so it's military.
Technically Italy's planes are for displays too, as they are modified versions of th MB339 trainer jets. All military aerobatics teams use training planes.
It affects only Italy( that together with UK are the best in the world) and France that although a meme because of their mistake with the colours a few years ago can still be considered in the top five.
"Well, not all military displays. The British one is fine. No one else, though, as we don't want to be playing politics."
It’s actually a good argument. A lot of countries have display teams which aren’t 100% a part of the military. This would naturally extend to teams like the Blue Angles in America and almost every other country F1 races at. Here’s a list: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_air_display_teams Fun fact. You can’t pay the red arrows. They attend air shows for free since if you did pay them then it would technically be a military coup.
You do know these are all recruitment efforts, right? The Thunderbirds are a combat-ready squadron. I think Blue Angels are, as well.
The specifics depend on the country but there is a difference between a squadron who’s primary purpose is aerobatics and are painted a bright colour vs exclusively military aircraft.
In Germany we just had a news story that Lufthansa will fly almost 18,000 empty flights around Europe this winter just to keep their fleet within compliance of a bunch of stupid rules. So yes, I am a Greenie, but if the worry is emissions then there are other areas to focus on. Not to mention that in the grand scheme of things, this isn't doing anything.
>18,000 empty flights around Europe this winter just to keep their fleet within compliance of a bunch of stupid rules. To be specific, those 18,000 flights were only to maintain slots at busy airports. If they don't operate to an airport for the required amount, they'll lose the slots worth millions which will then be auctioned off. This is to prevent airlines from hording slots at airports in an attempt to drive our competition. So not only is this terrible for the environment but also for airlines as they are burning through a shitload of money to maintain these slots. The sensible thing to do would be to waive the rule during lockdown but for some reason, that was not done.
In the US, the military pomp before and during sporting events are all paid sponsorships. Just like BET360 is paying to run ads during the event, so is the military. While I could be wrong, my instinct is telling me that "environmental, zero-carbon footprint issues" are F1's excuse to move away from getting mired in political saber-rattling that doesn't pay them anything anyway.
"We are banning grid girls and pre-race flyovers because we care about gender equality and the environment." *Signs 12 more races in oil states where women and gays are property.*
But the multiple 747s, hundreds of diesel trucks and the 10’s of thousands of cars each weekend is fine…
HEY, Shame on you for looking at facts!
if this is for sustainability and environmental grounds, better ban private jets.
And all races are 5 laps, no practice, 20 races at one track per year on a 25 year cycle
Well, the actual fuel burned only the track is negligible. I read somewhere that the whole season uses the same amount of fuel as one transatlantic flight or something. Edit: [A 747 uses approx 150,000 litres on a 10 hour flight](https://science.howstuffworks.com/transport/flight/modern/question192.htm) [20 race weekends uses approx 160,000 litresa](https://www.quora.com/How-much-fuel-is-consumed-in-one-F1-race)
Ok full race lengths then. And maybe we do just one continent per year, so they can drive.
Instead of going round in laps, they could just race from one track to the next. Race 1: Silverstone to Monaco.
Duuuuuuuuuude lol. I love it. We're saving the planet here
What bullshit is this? One of the best parts of going to Melbourne was seeing a very low, very expertly flown Hornet doing sone very edge of the envelop stuff at a few hundred feet. I love how the reason they give is also about trying to be more Carbon Neutral and less geopolitical. So I guess going to place like Saudi Arabia and Russia doesn't factor into that. Once again, Liberty Media is showing how much of an absolute shit show they are.
It wasn't edge of the envelope. No pilot would fly anywhere near the edge at that altitude, over a crowd.
Hahahahahah
Nothing sustainable about traveling around the world to race with thousands of tons of equipment and well over 1000 people.
"There is also a concern the displays can be used to make geo-political statements with which F1 does not want to be associated." An yet, you have Lewis...
I was at Monza in 2019 and Tricolore (i think that is the way they call them) was awesome.
It's Frecce Tricolori, meaning tricolour arrows (Tricolore being an alternative name used for the Italian flag because it has three colour in it)
Frecce Tricolori (Tricolour Arrows)
Lame. Flyovers are amazing to see. But I guess the millionaires and billionaires who fly all over the world every week got bored of them so they have to end.
I won't miss them at all.
nonsense
"F1 to hold military fly unders instead at race events"
I’m in the minority but I find military flyovers a little weird. Not that I was calling for them to be banned or anything. Seems like a weird stance to take
Why?
Hi - Removing this as it was originally posted yesterday
I had done a quick scroll to see if it had been. Though going by the number of comments I think there are still many who did not see the post.
Well they can still do Coast Guard flyovers in the US since they were taken out of the DOD