MACKINAW CITY, MI - Bystanders near the Straits of Mackinac surely witnessed something remarkable on this day in 1959.

That's when Air Force Capt. John S. Lappo interrupted a calm Friday afternoon in the region by spontaneously flying a state-of-the-art Boeing B-47 jet underneath the Mackinac Bridge.

A native of Muskegon who had an otherwise distinguished career in World War II, Korea, and flying spy planes over Russia, the stunt cost Lappo his wings.

He never flew for the Air Force again.

According to an in-depth account of ordeal written by Danny K. Shepherd and posted by www.north-lights.com, Capt. Lappo and his crew were returning from a routine nighttime simulated bombing and celestial navigation mission when they emerged near the Mackinac Bridge.

Capt. Lappo, a veteran of countless dangerous missions, made a seemingly instant decision to fly the massive bomber underneath the bridge with just 155 feet of clearance.

Traveling at 425 mph with the help of his crew, Lappo navigated the plane above the whitecaps and emerged on the other side unscathed. He was later asked why he attempted such a risky stunt, according to Shepherd.

"Why do men climb mountains? Or what motivates them to go into space? It's just a sense of adventure that some men have and some don't," he is quoted as saying in Shepherd's article.

"I've always wanted to fly under a big bridge. I thought it would be the Golden Gate."

The stunt was initially unreported but news eventually reached military brass. Unsurprisingly, the Air Force wasn't thrilled with Lappo unnecessarily putting its expensive piece of military equipment at risk.

On August 10, 1959 it was preordained that he would be found guilty as charged at a general court-martial. He was accused of violating Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Specifically Air Force regulation 60-16, according to Shepherd. At that time, it stated, "Except during take-off and landing, aircraft will not be flown at less than 500 feet above the ground or water."

Despite the court ruling, Lappo was supported by many in the military and retired at the rank of Lt. Col in 1972. He remained highly regarded for his service until his death from Parkinson's disease on Nov. 15, 2003 at the age of 83. Even then, his daredevil stunt at Mighty Mac was remembered.

"Mr. Lappo made headlines in August 1959 when he flew a B-47 bomber under the Mackinac Bridge in Michigan," his obituary published in the Anchorage Daily News on Nov. 22, 2003 reads.

"We never saw Dad do anything that he did not do well. He was always there for his friends and family. He was also a very loving and active grandpa to his four grandchildren. He will be dearly missed."


http://www.mlive.com/news/gran...orce_pilot_flew.html

quote:

Originally posted by tanner:

The stunt...

That's exactly what it was...a stunt. Hopefully nobody makes this guy out to be some kind of hero.

It was a stunt, and a dangerous one at that. One that could have killed him, his crew, and whoever might have been on the Mac at the time. Dick move.

I used to fly with a helo pilot who was of the same ilk. He liked to take chances and do things no one had done before. He once had our 206 almost upside-down descending through some weather (completely unnecesary). "One more time" I said. Then he decided to go under a bridge, and that was it. I never flew with the guy again.

quote:

On August 10, 1959 it was preordained that he would be found guilty as charged at a general court-martial. He was accused of violating Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

And if he’d been tried in a civilian court today, reckless endangerment could have been added to the charges.

I had an uncle who was a Navy pilot starting in WWII. Ended his career as a Captain and the only reason why he didn't get a commission as Admiral was because he buzzed Virgina Beach one single time so he could do a wing wave at his son's before shipping out to the Pacific. Truth is that no branch of the Military has any sense of humor for any stunts and they have a very long memory.

As much as I admire the guy's service record, there is a reason this cannot be allowed or condoned. Just to cite one example:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..._car_disaster_(1998)

quote:

The Cavalese cable car disaster of 1998, also called the Strage del Cermis ("Massacre at Cermis") occurred on 3 February 1998, near the Italian town of Cavalese, a ski resort in the Dolomites some 40 km (25 mi) northeast of Trento. Twenty people died when a United States Marine Corps EA-6B Prowler aircraft, while flying below cables for the sole purpose of amusement, cut a cable supporting a gondola of an aerial tramway, causing it to plunge 80 m (260 ft) to the ground.[1] Joseph Schweitzer, one of the American aircrew, confessed in 2012 that upon return to the American base, he burned the tape that contained incriminating evidence.[2] The pilot, Captain Richard J. Ashby, and his navigator, Captain Joseph Schweitzer, were put on trial in the United States and were found not guilty of involuntary manslaughter and negligent homicide. Later they were found guilty of obstruction of justice and conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman for having destroyed a videotape recorded from the plane and were dismissed from the Marine Corps. The disaster, and the subsequent acquittal of the pilots, strained relations between the United States and Italy.[3]

So, here we had a pilot doing something similar, just for the thrill of it; resulting in 20 dead civilians and extremely bad political fallout between the people of the host nation and the US military.


There are quite a few cases of 'hot dog' pilots doing stuff like this, where instead of a neat anecdote in one's obituary, the result is a dead crew or dead bystanders. For example, the idiot B-52 pilot treating his B-52 like a light stunt plane up at Fairchild (just before losing control and killing his entire crew) or the C-17 pilot stunting in a C-17 up at Elmendorf before, again, killing his entire crew.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...orce_Base_B-52_crash
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Alaska_C-17_crash

quote:

Originally posted by Scooter123:
Truth is that no branch of the Military has any sense of humor for any stunts and they have a very long memory.

And for very good reasons. During World War II, nearly 15,000 aircrew members were killed inside the United States. Overseas another 20,000+ aircraft were lost to noncombat causes. Those losses were obviously not all due to “stunts,” but if one pilot killed himself and his crew for that reason, it was one too many. The military has countless rules and regulations, and virtually every one was due to something bad that happened before it was made.

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:
As much as I admire the guy's service record, there is a reason this cannot be allowed or condoned. Just to cite one example:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..._car_disaster_(1998)

quote:

The Cavalese cable car disaster of 1998, also called the Strage del Cermis ("Massacre at Cermis") occurred on 3 February 1998, near the Italian town of Cavalese, a ski resort in the Dolomites some 40 km (25 mi) northeast of Trento. Twenty people died when a United States Marine Corps EA-6B Prowler aircraft, while flying below cables for the sole purpose of amusement, cut a cable supporting a gondola of an aerial tramway, causing it to plunge 80 m (260 ft) to the ground.[1] Joseph Schweitzer, one of the American aircrew, confessed in 2012 that upon return to the American base, he burned the tape that contained incriminating evidence.[2] The pilot, Captain Richard J. Ashby, and his navigator, Captain Joseph Schweitzer, were put on trial in the United States and were found not guilty of involuntary manslaughter and negligent homicide. Later they were found guilty of obstruction of justice and conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman for having destroyed a videotape recorded from the plane and were dismissed from the Marine Corps. The disaster, and the subsequent acquittal of the pilots, strained relations between the United States and Italy.[3]

So, here we had a pilot doing something similar, just for the thrill of it; resulting in 20 dead civilians and extremely bad political fallout between the people of the host nation and the US military.


There are quite a few cases of 'hot dog' pilots doing stuff like this, where instead of a neat anecdote in one's obituary, the result is a dead crew or dead bystanders. For example, the idiot B-52 pilot treating his B-52 like a light stunt plane up at Fairchild (just before losing control and killing his entire crew) or the C-17 pilot stunting in a C-17 up at Elmendorf before, again, killing his entire crew.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...orce_Base_B-52_crash
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Alaska_C-17_crash

So this is a very interesting discussion which I'd love to have.

On one hand, I understand and agree with most of what you've said above. On the other hand, you didn't link or list the countless examples of some pilot hot dogging and pulling it off thereby gaining valuable knowledge about his limitations and abilities.

I understand rules and their necessity, but I also understand the desire to push the limits of ones skill. And frankly, we're always going to have an element of that in the military aviation community. And when the weather is shit, fuel is low and fight's on- the guy who will win is not the rule following automaton but the boundary pusher..... if he's been grown appropriately. My struggle is how to cultivate those people to learn their limits and execute beyond the rules only when required, but when required doing so confidently. And I need to teach them this essential combat skill without seeming to endorse them acting like unprofessional dicks and killing themselves and others in the process. It's a fine line!

The official AF answer is, and will always be: shut up & follow the rules! The most conservative answer is always correct!

Except 5500 hours (2600 in combat) & 15 combat deployments has taught me otherwise. You need to have aggressive people doing aggressive shit if you want to win tactical engagements. And you need to train their judgement on when and how to slip outside the rules when required, but only when REQUIRED. And anytime someone is learning their going to F it up.... so how do we course correct a guy without totally squashing him? Guys like flying low and fast. When they snap gondola cables and kill civilians it's obviously unsat. BUT, the official reaction is having them all fly too high to get good training, and then promoting the guys who fly a little bit higher 'just to be safe' thereby encouraging risk aversion. Don't think I'm endorsing unprofessional cowboy bullshit (despite my user name ) but there's got to be a middle ground and we can't default to crushing anyone who pushes the boundaries of safety. We need to find a better way to channel that desire into actual skill and judgement we can rely upon in a crisis.

Beyond the stupidity, expert opinion is that the stunt was flown at 200knots. 450 is it's cruise speed.

Once had an F-14 return from a cross-country flight where we had to remove high power wires embedded in the vertical stabs.

Pilot became the base's "Hearing Conservation Officer" shortly thereafter (within days, not weeks). Cannot recall what happened to the RIO.

I'm somewhere in this picture. Commander's Day at Griffiss Air Force Base 1988.



I remember that as a great day, it was my birthday, and that evening we drove over to Weedsport and saw Def Leppard in concert. But...I digress...

While milling around that C-5, I got to talking with one of the Thunderbird pilots who had finished their show and were mingling.

He said to me that he'd like to fly his F-16 through that C-5.

He claimed he could do it. I just shook my head and walked away.

I understand what you're saying ArabianCowboy, I do. What I don't know is where to draw that line. But, it is before you risk anyone else's life besides your own.

quote:

Originally posted by arabiancowboy:


On one hand, I understand and agree with most of what you've said above. On the other hand, you didn't link or list the countless examples of some pilot hot dogging and pulling it off thereby gaining valuable knowledge about his limitations and abilities.

...the guy who will win is not the rule following automaton but the boundary pusher..... if he's been grown appropriately.

You obviously are closer to this kind of thing than I ever was/will be. You also have a different perspective, and I do see your point, to a certain degree. However, it is a VERY fine line between pilots being 'aggressive' and 'dangerous.'

The B-52 pilot AND the C-17 pilot that killed themselves (along with their crews) were known 'hot dogs' that routinely flew outside the permitted regs. In both cases, IIRC, there were quite a few crewmembers who flat-out REFUSED to fly with them (this saved the loadmaster's life in the C-17 crash, as he was not onboard when the 'demo flight' took place). Meaning, that these experienced crewmembers thought both guys were well beyond the 'push your limits' and firmly in 'nut-case dangerous' territory.

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:

quote:

Originally posted by arabiancowboy:


On one hand, I understand and agree with most of what you've said above. On the other hand, you didn't link or list the countless examples of some pilot hot dogging and pulling it off thereby gaining valuable knowledge about his limitations and abilities.

...the guy who will win is not the rule following automaton but the boundary pusher..... if he's been grown appropriately.

it is a VERY fine line between pilots being 'aggressive' and 'dangerous.'

The B-52 pilot AND the C-17 pilot that killed themselves (along with their crews) were known 'hot dogs' that routinely flew outside the permitted regs. In both cases, IIRC, there were quite a few crewmembers who flat-out REFUSED to fly with them (this saved the loadmaster's life in the C-17 crash, as he was not onboard when the 'demo flight' took place). Meaning, that these experienced crewmembers thought both guys were well beyond the 'push your limits' and firmly in 'nut-case dangerous' territory.

You're right, and I hesitated on engaging in this discussion because I didn't want to be perceived as endorsing bad behavior. However, I think the institutional trend towards overly conservative judgement and risk aversion has made the abuses more common, not less. I think if we officially pursued the middle ground of careful, deliberate, and methodical boundary pushing we'd be more likely to produce pilots who can distinguish between controlled aggressive flying and stupid reckless flying.

Said another way-- we're going to keep attracting reckless kids into being military pilots; if we ignore or discourage aggression, it will manifest in unhealthy and foolhardy ways. If we accept it, and encourage controlling it, we'll build folks who know when to cross the line and by how much, and can do so when situations require it. And can regulate their peers who cross that line for amusement, which is unsat.

I'm interested in the discussion because I encounter far more young pilots who need to grow a sack than those who need to be reigned in from their carefree ways. Pilot training hammers conservative behavior into people, to the point of detriment to our ability to safely take any risk. And risk taking is sometimes required in combat (I mean outside the norm).

I typed and deleted a long reply with an anecdote. Suffice to say you're right, the fine line is very fine. But balancing there is the apogee of pilot skill and is necessary for some missions sometimes. How do you think we can grow people to know when to break rules and by how much?

quote:

Originally posted by arabiancowboy:

But balancing there is the apogee of pilot skill and is necessary for some missions sometimes. How do you think we can grow people to know when to break rules and by how much?

As usual, you are dead-on correct with the analysis and diagnosis of the root problems.

That's where our military leadership needs to step up and make the necessary changes. . .

Unfortunately, I think we've been trending in the wrong direction for the past decade or so.

quote:

Originally posted by arabiancowboy:
We need to find a better way to channel that desire into actual skill and judgement we can rely upon in a crisis.

Good point. Other comments about not endangering others come to mind as a consideration. The idea of "...a time and a place...", perhaps expanded to include considerations of an appropriate aircraft could be added to the mix. Two personal thoughts come to mind on both sides of this: 1st: There are things I'd do (and have done) in a Bellanca Decathlon that I'd never consider in a Beech Travel Air. There other things I'd do (and have done) in a Pitts S2B that I wouldn't consider in a Decathlon. One of the considerations has to be is the maneuver (stunt) appropriate in the aircraft.

2nd: If you want to be proficient, you have to know your aircraft right to the edge of its envelope (and preferably beyond). A group I belong to was asked to do the memorial flyby for a member's son. As the only one with much formation experience and the only instructor, I was tasked with getting everyone up to speed and pulling it off. Dissimilar aircraft made it tougher. I flew lead in a Travel Air and had to keep it slow enough for one member's Cessna 172. It was okay for me and most everyone except the guy in the Bonanza (a 36 variant). The problem? He wasn't comfortable maneuvering at 100-110 knots. Sure, it is a going places airplane and the typical mission for a Bonanza (or a Travel Air for that matter) is crank it up and go somewhere, but if you aren't comfortable flying the airplane through the entire envelope, you are cheating yourself and it may bite you someday when you need the airplane to do something it is fully capable of but your aren't comfortable asking it to do.

I suspect that the military, being a large and as a predictable result political organization, will never come up with a solution, at least through channels. The guys who get what you know they need will be those who (on their own) figure out how to gently and slight bend the rules without getting caught to stretch their personal envelopes. Those who push too far and get caught will be sacrificed to the altar of the rules. Some of those folks will have been beyond the pale and getting them out of the sky will have been the right thing. Some will have been folks that would have been real assets in a system that was able to develop and use them. C'est la vie.

Son, your ego is writing checks your body can't cash.

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:



There are quite a few cases of 'hot dog' pilots doing stuff like this, where instead of a neat anecdote in one's obituary, the result is a dead crew or dead bystanders. For example, the idiot B-52 pilot treating his B-52 like a light stunt plane up at Fairchild (just before losing control and killing his entire crew)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...orce_Base_B-52_crash

What is really sad about that whole B-52 disaster is that one of those pilot's entire family was all right there for his "Fini Flight" as he was retiring and they got to watch him die in a fireball right up close, live.

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:
While milling around that C-5, I got to talking with one of the Thunderbird pilots who had finished their show and were mingling.

He said to me that he'd like to fly his F-16 through that C-5.

He claimed he could do it. I just shook my head and walked away.

He probably could. No doubt some of the formation maneuvers the Thunderbirds require significantly *tighter* tolerances than flying through a C5 in an F16.

My take on that would be as follows:
Having the skills and the confidence of being able to do it - GOOD
Bragging about it - typical of many fighter pilots. Maybe obnoxious, but not a big deal.
Having the judgement to go one's entire career and never attempt it, perhaps on one's deathbed thinking, "Gee I wish I had..."- GOOD.
Being stupid enough to ever attempt, successful or not - HORRIBLY BAD.

I think an in between would be to train such risky maneuvers under the most possible controlled conditions with the least amount of life at risk. I.e. minimal crew, the crew knows what is going on, and zero chance of civilian casualty.

outside of that if they want to break the rules, fine, do it on their own time, with their own life, and their own plane, not my tax dollars.

F-16 wingspan: 33 ft.

C-5 cargo bay width: 19 ft.

Methinks the T-bird pilot was pulling your leg. . .



I like how the Europeans can be SOOOO much less hung up on safety. During the London Olympics, they flew a helo through the span of the Tower Bridge. The US would NEVER allow something similar (such as flying an F-16 through the St Louis Arch. . .

Or, the Top Gear episode (available on YouTube, IIRC) where they raced a Bugatti Veyron against a Eurofighter Typhoon on an RAF airbase.

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:

...During the London Olympics, they flew a helo through the span of the Tower Bridge. The US would NEVER allow something similar (such as flying an F-16 through the St Louis Arch...

I've seen photos of Blue Angles F-18s flying REAL close to the Golden Gate Bridge during fleet week.