5 ms·

This reminds me of the fictional story The Flight of the Phoenix, a 1964 novel turned into a 1965 film. The plot is that a group of men crash their Fairchild C-

This reminds me of the fictional story The Flight of the Phoenix, a 1964 novel turned into a 1965 film. The plot is that a group of men crash their Fairchild C-82 aircraft in the Libyan desert and build a make-shift aircraft out of its pieces to fly to rescue. [1] I did not find it to be a very remarkable film in-and-of itself (personal opinion only), but what I do find remarkable (and tragic) was that for purposes of the movie, a flying, FAA certified, "one off" aircraft was built - the Tallmantz Phoenix P-1 [2]. Tragic because one of the stuntmen was killed then the aircraft came apart during a practice touch-and-go [3]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Flight_of_the_Phoenix_(1965_film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Flight_of_the_Phoenix_(196... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tallmantz_Phoenix_P-1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tallmantz_Phoenix_P-1 [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n82nN_lqn58 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n82nN_lqn58

zh3 5y ago
The twist in that film is the guy who designs the escape plane turns out to be a model plane designer. Ok, but all the people on the wing are going to have a hard time (quite apart from messing up the aerodynamics). Movie stuntmen getting hurt - even dead - has been happening long after that movie. Even non-stuntmen can have close shaves on-set (I've had three, just as an SFX tech, safety is probably much better these days since the '80s); always seemed to be the cameramen who ran the highest risks.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  I once went into the woods with a logging crew. The amount of unsafe stuff I saw was mind boggling. Then, my turn came. A skidder had gotten a tree stuck. Instead of backup they just floored it, and predictably a tree trunk came shooting out of the bush. If not for some pretty good reflexes (better than I thought I had) I'd surely be dead, I dropped to the floor and the tree flew over me still attached to the steel cable that had tensioned. Very, very scary. After that I did all the work myself. Slowly, deliberately and without taking chances, not a single issue in more than a years' worth of cleanup. They say that logging is one of the most dangerous jobs. I am not surprised but I think a good factor in that equation is the loggers themselves. (And some of the trees, which can be downright treacherous.) In comparison what I've seen on film sets has always been pretty mild.
  - kwhitefoot 5y ago
    I think logging in the US is probably much more dangerous than in other developed countries. At least that's the impression I have from watching a few television programmes and YouTube videos. US loggers seem to take more risks and have less sophisticated equipment. Is my impression correct?
    - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
      Television isn't real life. It's an entire career's worth of shenanigans compressed into one season because nobody is going to watch them drive heavy equipment back and forth all day with nothing interesting happening. If it were even close to that eventful people would live-stream it. Note the release schedule of all the <insert workplace more dangerous than an office> youtubers and how little of their content is sketchy stuff.
      - jacquesm 5y ago
        This goes for most jobs. Pilots: endless boredom punctuated by moments of stark terror.
      - kwhitefoot 5y ago
        > Television isn't real life. I'm aware of that. The question was about risky behaviour being more visible in videos from the US than other rich countries.
    - maxerickson 5y ago
      By volume it's mostly done with mechanized harvesters where the operator is sitting in a cab (and then the rest of the equipment is operators sitting in cabs also).
      - jacquesm 5y ago
        Indeed, that's the way the big companies do it. But smaller operations operating on private land are often chainsaws+skidders, there is apparently enough money in it to be profitable, and it probably isn't worth it to truck over a large harvester for a small job.
- yodon 5y ago
  Was it necessary to include the plot spoiler in your comment?
  - derekp7 5y ago
    Considering that the film is more than 55 years old, and the discussion was advanced by discussing the plot point, I don't see a problem with it myself.
    - yodon 5y ago
      The fact that the film is 55 years old means most visitors here have not seen it (this isn't a classic films forum and the majority of HN readers were born long after the film came out), and the quality of the discussion here increases the odds people might be interested in seeing it. Why spoiler the film for them by needlessly including a detail that's a plot surprise but irrelevant to the subject matter of the discussion here?
      - troutwine 5y ago
        The commenter must have believed -- and I tend to agree with them -- that it improved the quality of their comment. I'm sympathetic to the notion that one shouldn't needlessly spoil twists of movies, books etc when they're relatively fresh but at a certain point if we can't discuss what is interesting and fresh about a piece of culture we'll fail to make new touchstones for the culture.
      - maxerickson 5y ago
        It was remade in 2004 (under the title "Flight of the Phoenix").
Stevvo 5y ago
No way that thing was "FAA certified". Just checked the TCDS list; nothing there under "Tallmantz". Sounds like Experimental category, with the pilot killed before it finished the initial 40 hours of flight-testing.
- daveslash 5y ago
  Thank you for the correction. I was just looking at the Wikipedia page when I claimed "FAA Certified", and that appears to most likely be incorrect. I was not previously familiar with the TCDS List - thank you; I'm going to use this as a future reference.
neverartful 5y ago
I instantly thought of the same film. I do rather enjoy the movie although it's a bit long. It's pure drama and there are some well known actors and very good acting. Highly recommended for a Saturday or Sunday afternoon when weather forces you to stay indoors.

zh3 5y ago

The twist in that film is the guy who designs the escape plane turns out to be a model plane designer. Ok, but all the people on the wing are going to have a hard time (quite apart from messing up the aerodynamics). Movie stuntmen getting hurt - even dead - has been happening long after that movie. Even non-stuntmen can have close shaves on-set (I've had three, just as an SFX tech, safety is probably much better these days since the '80s); always seemed to be the cameramen who ran the highest risks.

jacquesm 5y ago
I once went into the woods with a logging crew. The amount of unsafe stuff I saw was mind boggling. Then, my turn came. A skidder had gotten a tree stuck. Instead of backup they just floored it, and predictably a tree trunk came shooting out of the bush. If not for some pretty good reflexes (better than I thought I had) I'd surely be dead, I dropped to the floor and the tree flew over me still attached to the steel cable that had tensioned. Very, very scary. After that I did all the work myself. Slowly, deliberately and without taking chances, not a single issue in more than a years' worth of cleanup. They say that logging is one of the most dangerous jobs. I am not surprised but I think a good factor in that equation is the loggers themselves. (And some of the trees, which can be downright treacherous.) In comparison what I've seen on film sets has always been pretty mild.
- kwhitefoot 5y ago
  I think logging in the US is probably much more dangerous than in other developed countries. At least that's the impression I have from watching a few television programmes and YouTube videos. US loggers seem to take more risks and have less sophisticated equipment. Is my impression correct?
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    Television isn't real life. It's an entire career's worth of shenanigans compressed into one season because nobody is going to watch them drive heavy equipment back and forth all day with nothing interesting happening. If it were even close to that eventful people would live-stream it. Note the release schedule of all the <insert workplace more dangerous than an office> youtubers and how little of their content is sketchy stuff.
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      This goes for most jobs. Pilots: endless boredom punctuated by moments of stark terror.
    - kwhitefoot 5y ago
      > Television isn't real life. I'm aware of that. The question was about risky behaviour being more visible in videos from the US than other rich countries.
  - maxerickson 5y ago
    By volume it's mostly done with mechanized harvesters where the operator is sitting in a cab (and then the rest of the equipment is operators sitting in cabs also).
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      Indeed, that's the way the big companies do it. But smaller operations operating on private land are often chainsaws+skidders, there is apparently enough money in it to be profitable, and it probably isn't worth it to truck over a large harvester for a small job.
yodon 5y ago
Was it necessary to include the plot spoiler in your comment?
- derekp7 5y ago
  Considering that the film is more than 55 years old, and the discussion was advanced by discussing the plot point, I don't see a problem with it myself.
  - yodon 5y ago
    The fact that the film is 55 years old means most visitors here have not seen it (this isn't a classic films forum and the majority of HN readers were born long after the film came out), and the quality of the discussion here increases the odds people might be interested in seeing it. Why spoiler the film for them by needlessly including a detail that's a plot surprise but irrelevant to the subject matter of the discussion here?
    - troutwine 5y ago
      The commenter must have believed -- and I tend to agree with them -- that it improved the quality of their comment. I'm sympathetic to the notion that one shouldn't needlessly spoil twists of movies, books etc when they're relatively fresh but at a certain point if we can't discuss what is interesting and fresh about a piece of culture we'll fail to make new touchstones for the culture.
    - maxerickson 5y ago
      It was remade in 2004 (under the title "Flight of the Phoenix").

Stevvo 5y ago

No way that thing was "FAA certified". Just checked the TCDS list; nothing there under "Tallmantz". Sounds like Experimental category, with the pilot killed before it finished the initial 40 hours of flight-testing.

daveslash 5y ago
Thank you for the correction. I was just looking at the Wikipedia page when I claimed "FAA Certified", and that appears to most likely be incorrect. I was not previously familiar with the TCDS List - thank you; I'm going to use this as a future reference.

neverartful 5y ago

I instantly thought of the same film. I do rather enjoy the movie although it's a bit long. It's pure drama and there are some well known actors and very good acting. Highly recommended for a Saturday or Sunday afternoon when weather forces you to stay indoors.