Andy44
owner: Oil Creek Astronautix
Randomly choose a file on your hard drive. And delete it.
News US fighter jet slams into home
- Thread starter tblaxland
- Start date
Randomly choose a file on your hard drive. And delete it.
James.Denholm
Addon ponderer
I don't know, both can be just as fun. Especially when repeated.
Reading this, I'm now slightly worried (though ever so slightly): The Avalon Airshow is just across the bay from where my house and school is, and they were doing fly-overs not too long ago.
Reading this, I'm now slightly worried (though ever so slightly): The Avalon Airshow is just across the bay from where my house and school is, and they were doing fly-overs not too long ago.
tblaxland
O-F Administrator
Have you been in your car today? Risks, desensitisation and all that...
James.Denholm
Addon ponderer
Ha, you've overestimated my age - I'm only 16, without L-Plates, certainly without a car! Not everyone here is your age, remember.
doggie015
Addon Developer
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2007
- Messages
- 351
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
:hesaid:except that I have L-plates and a car! (Alright, it is a Volvo but so what?)Ha, you've overestimated my age - I'm only 16, without L-Plates, certainly without a car! Not everyone here is your age, remember.
tblaxland
O-F Administrator
No, I remember, but I thought you might ride in one. The risk is just being on the road in the car, not necessarily driving one (although that can increase or decrease your risk, depending on skill levelHa, you've overestimated my age - I'm only 16, without L-Plates, certainly without a car! Not everyone here is your age, remember.
). You are certainly more likely to get killed on the road than by a plane dropping out of the sky, even if they are doing fly-overs of your home.James.Denholm
Addon ponderer
No, I remember, but I thought you might ride in one. The risk is just being on the road in the car, not necessarily driving one (although that can increase or decrease your risk, depending on skill level
Good point, after all, no planes from the airshow have dropped out of the sky in living memory.
Though, I suppose I should note that I've never been in a car crash either...
tblaxland
O-F Administrator
Lucky, I've had three (nothing too serious), all whilst I was driving :hmm:Though, I suppose I should note that I've never been in a car crash either...
Urwumpe
Not funny anymore
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2008
- Messages
- 38,965
- Reaction score
- 3,937
- Points
- 203
- Location
- Wolfsburg
- Preferred Pronouns
- Sire
Your parents don't have much faith in your driving skills, is that possible? :lol: The only way to be more careful than driving Volvo would be getting hands on a M1 tank.
Pablo
New member
Indeed, I did read it. I was making the point as to what would happen if you crash at Mach 1+. In fact, and perhaps I did not express myself quite clearly, I was saying that the pilot would have been flying at less than 250 KTS.
Probably the same as what would happen if you do so in real life: crashing. It is true that the FAA or similar entity in otehr countries would make your life harder, but the real truth is that if you go faster than 250KTS at low altitude you would not have enough time to react if you make a mistake. Plus, maneuvering is far easier at lower speeds. For example, if you perform a standard airplane maneuver like a teardrop turn to intercept the ILS glideslope on approach, going at more than that speed makes it almost impossible to complete the thing on time and you will end overshooting the runway radial, meaning that you will have to abort the approach and do the thing all over again.
If you want to get to the ILS without trouble and any sort of approach chart, first set your HSI to the intended runway's ILS of course, descend to about 1.000 m, reduce your speed to about 170KTS, go right over the VOR/ILS beacon in level flight, turn about 30 degrees right or left from the radial, fly one minute and then turn back to intercept it . You will be left at about 12 NM from the runway, giving you enough time to get well into the glideslope. That works usually with all sorts of airplanes, both in real life and on a sim, except with the DG at 250KTS or over. With charts and plates it is even easier, so if you really get hooked on instrument flying rules, you will find that your Orbiter operations could become far more precise.
doggie015
Addon Developer
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2007
- Messages
- 351
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Thanks for the reassurance! I always thought that Volvos were safe, now I know that if another road user is a bit
on the road I will be safe.BTW: Are you sure that the M1 is the only safer option? In that case I am one step away from SEVERE overkill.
Update: Military releases pilot's account
News story: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29868371/page/2/
The report: http://www.10newsblogs.com/pdf/JetCrashReport.pdf
News story: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29868371/page/2/
The report: http://www.10newsblogs.com/pdf/JetCrashReport.pdf
Pablo
New member
Other than running out of fuel, wrongly fiddling with their controls or a major design flaw, it is extremely rare to suffer the loss of both engines in any plane. Lack of fuel is the most likely and to me it seems that there were some serious preflight and emergency planning mistakes in this case, assuming that the report is true and precise:
- Should such a plane be authorized to depart an aircraft carrier with the dump system offline? Had the ship been far from land, the pilot would have had to either eject or attempt to land back at the carrier with the plane up to the brim with jet fuel. Was it mandatory to use a plane with such defective systems just for a training run, considering that such a ship carries tens of similar planes, mostly at any given moment in perfect operational conditions?
- You should never initiate a flight without having planned for an alternative landing strip and enough fuel to reach that airfield and then stay forty five minutes in the air (normal regulations).
- When you have any sort of trouble or malfunction with critical systems in a plane, even if your MEL (Minimum List Equipment) allows for a flight, you should double check things. In the case of fuel, you should go on top of your wings, open the lids of each fuel tank and literally measure the level with a stick. The report doesn't tell anything about such added precautions.
- Both the pilot, the approach control at the ship, and the approach control in the mainland acted in a way as to decrease the risks for the vessel, but they did so by sending the plane to a land strip and placing it over populated areas - they should have given the pilot approach vectors over open, non-populated land, and had the plane had its correct fuel reserves it could have attempted that with no trouble, even at another base.
By the way, if you would like to learn about proper flying procedures, at the FAA website you will find some free and really good pdf-format manuals.
Look at http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/
It doesn't sound like he ran out of fuel. The plane had been having trouble in its left engine already (previous to this incident), at least according to that news report (or maybe it was a different one I saw...whatever). Something about the fuel pump, I think?
Then, when the right engine failed (for whatever reason it did), he was left flying on a single faulty engine which flew fine for a while but then cut out when he reduced throttle for landing.
If you read the report you'll see that the aircraft did not run out of fuel.
The military do not follow the same set of regulations as civilian traffic. Additionally, I'd suggest you read up on 'bingo' fuel levels.
Generally a military pilot will depend upon his ground crew for such things, a military aircraft is much more carefully looked after than a Cessna
Andy44
owner: Oil Creek Astronautix
Years ago there was a DC-10 jetliner that took off from the U.S. east coast on a transatlantic flight and all three engines failed within minutes of each other. The crew managed to get the tail engine restarted before ditching and though it ran roughly, it provided enough thrust to get the plane safely onto a runway in Florida (I think it was?) . I remember that the cause was a ~$2 part, like a gasket ring or some such, that had been left off the engines in a stupid maintenance mistake. For want of a shoe nail, the horse was lost, thus the general, thus the battle, thus the war...
Military jets are very vulnerable to such mistakes as well, especially if the operating tempo is high. Lots of precautions are taken, but things still slip through the cracks every once in a while.
Military jets are very vulnerable to such mistakes as well, especially if the operating tempo is high. Lots of precautions are taken, but things still slip through the cracks every once in a while.
Pablo
New member
If you read the report you'll see that the aircraft did not run out of fuel.
If you read the report you'll see that the aircraft did not run out of fuel.
The military do not follow the same set of regulations as civilian traffic. Additionally, I'd suggest you read up on 'bingo' fuel levels.
Generally a military pilot will depend upon his ground crew for such things, a military aircraft is much more carefully looked after than a Cessna
It is not that I don't read things. I am giving you an analysis of all options, which is something that has to be done in the analysis of all sorts of air incidents; that's why I mention different scenarios. Besides, all these reports are based in what interested parties say, while an independent investigation is required because the accident happened in civilian territory; unintentional murder is the issue here. And you even have to consider the politics involved in the contracts related to the provision of new F-18 as replacements for F-14s in the U.S. Navy. Air investigations are never as simple as believing wha the pilot says.
For example: Failures in both engines other than by depletion of fuel or a gross cockpit mistake are extremely rare; that's what I was saying. About 85% of all aeronautical incidents are caused by human factors - i.e mistakes - plus, the odds of having both engines fail are something like one chance in a hundred years fo continuous use per aircraft. Human errors tend to occur regarding the management of power plants mostly during takeoffs and landings because of the higher workload during those phases and especially, with the increased stress related to a mid-air engine malfunction. Then, having your last good engine stalling while you are in short final for causes other than wrongly manipulating your controls are close to nil.
I know the regulations related to military flights because I am in fact a military-trained pilot, and I know how such planes are cared for - or not (you would be surprised); such regulations are indeed different but with the intention of providing better training for combat duties, not to hamper flight safety.
Then, visual inspection and walk-around your plane prior to jumping in are mandatory. Relying on a ground crew doesn't relieve you as the commander of a plane from the responsibility for its safe operation; this is the ABC of flight command. It is the pilot the one who is responsible for the plane, not the ground crew, and preflight checks - with more reason in an aircraft carrier - should be performed with attention to the task in hand for the sake of the pilot's personal integrity as well. Even the mark left by a drop of brake fluid under a wheel does matter. So, unless and so far there is no other explanation with tangible proof at hand, the pilot remains responsible even for accepting the advice given by ground operators.
When you go into a cockpit it is your life at stake, not that of the NCO that loads the fuel or cleans the windshield. The pilot has authority even over the president of his own country in what regards the flight as long as he remains the ship's commander. In other words, you carry Mr. Obama in your F-18 and you rule there, not him. The pilot is king, and responsible for everything that happens during the flight no matter what his orders are. Plus, in the event of an emergency you are allowed even to break regulations if that is required for the safety of your crew, your plane and the people down below.
When you go on flying you must have spare fuel for diversion and plan for alternative emergency landings whether you are military or not, or at the very least in the military case, be provided with mid flight refuelling to stay put and thing thinks over, and when you fly over civilian airspace you have to take that into account as well; you can only fly like in combat if you are in your restricted-flight zone box, not over declared civilian airspace or where such people might be at risk. You just don't toy with that because Cessnas tend to fall from the sky as much as F-18s when they run out of gas. Being in the military doesn't give you a blank check to play Red Baron.
Military pilots know as well as civilian pilots that you should never, ever put a plane in distress over populated areas unless you have no other choice; these guys had about half an hour to ponder that, as well as different approach routes. Moreover: The intended landing base's operational safety is questionable as well, considering this incident.
Then, he could or could not have enough fuel. If he was going on bingo, he as well as operational control on the carrier and ground control on land should have diverted him to an area with no urban installations below. That's a common procedure be yours a military or civilian airplane. If he wasn't getting dry, he could have done a safer approach. From a pilot's viewpoint there is simply no excuse to fly for a rather long time over suburban homes in order to reach a runway that could have been reached following safer vectors if you were not in a dire emergency, and until both engines stopped, he wasn't.
Twin engine failures just don't happen by coincidence and such planes do have secondary or backup pumps and fuel systems, especially those for naval use. The issue here is not technical but of airmanship. If it wasn't fuel and operational mistakes by the pilot - could be, but it is something rather hard to believe with no clear proof at hand -, then there was a major failure that is still unaccounted for but even so, that doesn't excuse the fact that a military plane in trouble flew for tens of minutes and went right over a town when there were other options available. It is simply a mistake in judgement, and at such point it doesn't matter whether you fly a Mirage or a Cessna. Responsibility is the single most important quality in flying.
No matter what we say, we cannot argue with the facts: a multimillion dollar plane has been destroyed and some people are dead. The responsibility, unless proven otherwise, remains on the side of the pilot that took the decisions or accepted the advice that led to this chain of events.
Last edited:
Pablo
New member
Something like that is described by the pilot himself in his own report; he said that he suddenly realized that he was flying over a populated area moments before the accident. That's enough to nail him down independently from all other factors because he lost his situational awareness, which is a serious misjudgement. Had he not lost it, had he avoided such areas, then the plane would have hit the ground with less serious consequences.
Similar threads
