Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Maverick on March 11, 2008, 03:51:51 PM
-
This guy did everything he could to keep the bird intact and bring it back. I'm wondering if he didn't lose hydraulic pressure as the bird just wouldn't slow down on the runway. This is a great clip.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8df_1205185501
-
HE did it right. At those speeds his brakes probably glassed over and faded.
-
Why was he so fast at touchdown?
HUD shows 250+ at touchdown. Wouldn't that almost insure an EOR overrun?
Thanks for the clip.
Regards,
Sun
-
If anyone can find a link to the publicly released accident report, I might be able to discuss this one. If not... well, the tape sort of speaks for itself.
-
Wow that was amazing. I could not find the actual report but i did find this. It happened 9th November 1995. I also found this site. http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/Aircraft_by_Type/f-15.htm
-
Here's a forum post by someone claiming to have been shown this accident during USAF pilot training. Quote: "They show us this video to show how not to do things."
http://tinyurl.com/32jsjg
His summary of the events on the tape:
Emergency: Engine fire.
Flight Lead thought he had an engine fire, had his wingman check it out: Correct, that's one of the major reason fighters fly with wingmen, just for such a situation as this.
@ 0:48 Flight Lead declares an emergency and states intentions: Correct
@ 1:23, wingman reports confirmed fire in right engine-says to shut it down: Sorta correct. Good on wingman, was exactly what he should have done. Bad on lead if he hadn't shut down the engine yet.
@ 1:41, Wingman says fire is still burning: Good on wingmen, he needs to let lead know what's going on
@ 1:56, Wingman asks to confirm engine is off: Debatable. He takes 15 seconds to ask, but on the other hand, he probably doesn't want to clutter up the radio if flight lead has his hands full.
@ 1:58, Flight lead confirms he has engine off: Either he had it off for a while, or he just turned it off. If it was off for a while, he was wrong. He should have got an update from the wingman much sooner. If he just turned it off, he was wrong because he took WAY too long to perform that critical action.
@ 2:00, Wingman RE-confirms there is a fire in the right engine.
Stop. There is one action now. Only one. EJECT. That's it. Period. Dot. The end. No debate. This isn't WWII. People don't deadstick flaming aircraft anymore. Every engine fire checklist in every ejection seat aircraft in the USAF ends with: If a fire is confirmed eject. He needed to state his intentions to his wingman, get his stuff together, get in a good ejection envelope, and punch. There's no other answer. None. Yeah, if you're over a city or something, it may be a good idea to quickly point the aircraft in a more open spot if the pilot still has control, but where that flight was taking place there is farm land and that's about it.
@ 2:10, Flight Lead states he will fly back to land: Wrong. Dead wrong.
@ 2:15, Wingman says "copy": Dead wrong. As a wingman, he shouldn't tell lead what to do, but reminding lead what the checklist actually says to do might be a good place to start. Actually, that's what he's supposed to do.
@ 3:07, Wingman says "Misty 1, it's your call, but this thing is burning." : Wrong. He was trying to not step on leads toes, but at this point, it’s clear #2 knows what's going on and knows the correct steps. Eject. He's no longer helping lead like he needs to. Lead gives no response.
@ 3:34, Lead asks to confirm right engine on fire, gets conformation of fire still burning: See above.
@ 3:43, #2 tries to throw lead a hint of fire stagnation once he slows down. It’s his way of saying "follow the squealing checklist" but lead isn’t getting or chooses to ignore the hints.
@ 4:00, Lead, "This is going to be a bad one.": That should be a clue that the steps being taken are wrong ones.
@ 4:10, Lead asks #2 to go over the stagnation again, #2 again tries to throw a hint. Wastes 19 seconds talking. #2 is making things worse now.
@ 5:02, once lined up with the runway, lead is flying 350 knots on a straight in. That's crazy. He's about 180 knots too fast. Aircraft want to fly and even being 10-20 knots fast drastically lengthens landing distance (up to 50% in some cases). Think what 180 knots will do.
@ 5:25, he is having extreme difficulty controlling the jet at 300 knots with the gear down. Fighter type aircraft are much more sensitive than most people would assume and at that speed and configuration, his aircraft is extremely sensitive. He's getting into pilot-induced-oscillations as he's tiring to get it down. That's an extremely bad place to be when landing. Hundreds of people have died because of that though the years.
@ 5:33, he finally smacks it down at 260 knots. Tires aren't even rated to go that fast on most aircraft (not sure about the F-15 though). He's going way to fast to aero brake. If he pulls the nose up like he's supposed to, the aircraft will start flying again.
@ 5:51, wingman tells lead to "get it stopped." Waste of airtime again. Entirely unhelpful.
@ 5:52, Lead says he can't stop and he'll need to punch: Un-needed, un-helpful communication, wastes his brainbites.
@ 6:07, Only kills about 80 knots, STILL hasn't ejected. Wingman FINALLY says to "get out." That's something he should have said at 1:41 or earlier.
That the aircraft ended upright is a surprise. Most aircraft in that situation flip over which usually results in the death of the crew.
-
Culero you on ADV?
-
Culero you on ADV?
Nah, I'm on Google :)
(and what's ADV?)
-
Ya Culero, I watched the whole damned thing and NO-ONE said the "E" word! Hope they grounded that pilot for a bit and pounded the "get-home-itis" outta his skull.
-
Ya Culero, I watched the whole damned thing and NO-ONE said the "E" word! Hope they grounded that pilot for a bit and pounded the "get-home-itis" outta his skull.
Whaddaya mean no one said the "E" word? The pilot declared "E"mergency clearly. You mean "E"ject?
What I'd like to know is whether or not the forum post I quoted has accurate information. Should the pilot have ejected immediately once it was clear he had an engine fire?
-
What I'd like to know is whether or not the forum post I quoted has accurate information. Should the pilot have ejected immediately once it was clear he had an engine fire?
If the fire can't be put out the pilot has to eject. It's stupid to try land a burning plane if you have an option, because once it's on the ground it will be destroyed by fire anyway. Assuming it doesn't blow up before that.
-
I'm thinking it was a judgement call on the pilots part, though a bad one. Having been an ejection seat mechanic for 13yrs in the marines and talking to pilots that had and had not ejected they all pretty much agreed. The ones that hadn't didn't really ever want to and the ones that had didn't want to do it again unless absolutely neccessary. Personally listening to that i think i would have picked a spot to point the plane and gotten out before i attempted to land it. Ejection at ground level is one of the worst options as that's the poorest area of performance for an ejection seat. Sure it will get you out, under a chute, and you'll have about 3 swings under a full canopy before you hit the ground, but who's to say the wind may not blow you back into your burning aircraft? I know our pilot emergency procedures told them to put themselves in the optimal ejection envelope possible for the situation, which ground level in a burning, rolling aircraft surely is not one of them.
AKsleepy
-
I bet everyone hates the idea of being thrown out of a plane when you still have control of it. Fire or no fire. :cry
-
The ones that hadn't didn't really ever want to and the ones that had didn't want to do it again unless absolutely neccessary.
Doesn't pilots get grounded if they're ejected like 2 or 3 times? Something about the force of ejection compressing the spinal joints.
-
Doesn't pilots get grounded if they're ejected like 2 or 3 times? Something about the force of ejection compressing the spinal joints.
I don't think there's a set limit but I do know that the old Martin Baker seats in F4s were a killer on the backs of pilots. They would come out sometimes up to an inch shorter than they were. Your body could not handle more than 2 of those.
The newer MBs and ACES II/III seats aren't as bad as the old ones. There's alot less umph in the first stage in the two stage catapult (somthing like 43ft p/sec).
What I'm wondering is that jet is equiped with an arrestor hook....does whiteman not have an overunn cable system?
-
i understand in the RAF you get 2 ejects and then you're career in fast jets is over (mainly because of the inevitable spinal damage.)
still cant work out why his final was so fast though, he didnt call out any control damage.
-
First it's and airforce jet, so no arresting gear/tailhook and wimpy gear, i'm amazed that landing that fast he held it to the end of the runway. Think the rule in navy/marines is 2 ejections then medical eval and if you pass you can fly but if you have a 3rd your done. I was one of the instructors that helped write the training program for the N.A.C.E.S system and it's much better than the ole F4U spine crusher. The one thing you have to remember is anytime you are forcefully removed from a fixed position your going to suffer some type of injury. It can be as simple as spine compression to dislocated shoulders, broken bones, ect.. The 1 ejection i witnessed happened on takeoff, the trainee pilot and instructor in the F18 ejected on takeoff roll halfway down the runway. The instructor was in rear c/p and got almost 3 swings from his chute, hit the pavement and broke his leg. The traineee in the fwd c/p got about 3 1/2 swings from his chute hit pavement and walked away sore and bruised.
-
First it's and airforce jet, so no arresting gear/tailhook and wimpy gear, i'm amazed that landing that fast he held it to the end of the runway. Think the rule in navy/marines is 2 ejections then medical eval and if you pass you can fly but if you have a 3rd your done. I was one of the instructors that helped write the training program for the N.A.C.E.S system and it's much better than the ole F4U spine crusher. The one thing you have to remember is anytime you are forcefully removed from a fixed position your going to suffer some type of injury. It can be as simple as spine compression to dislocated shoulders, broken bones, ect.. The 1 ejection i witnessed happened on takeoff, the trainee pilot and instructor in the F18 ejected on takeoff roll halfway down the runway. The instructor was in rear c/p and got almost 3 swings from his chute, hit the pavement and broke his leg. The traineee in the fwd c/p got about 3 1/2 swings from his chute hit pavement and walked away sore and bruised.
On tailhooks. All land based fighters have them for use in case of emergency. But its pretty much a 1 time deal since they are not strong enough for repeated traps like the carrier birds.
(http://www.combatreform2.com/F15barrierhooklanding.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6f/USAF_F-16_hooks_an_arresting_cable.jpg)
-
Coming in on one engine with the other on fire would probably make anyone approach too fast.
-
that guy sure worked hard to get her down in one piece... too bad it didn't work out for him.
-
Whiteman tower stated "Negative cable at Whiteman" at 5:03.
-
Fuel burns, vapors explode. I remember watching an interview with an AV8B pilot during the first Gulf War. His Harrier caught fire and he flew it back a long way before the controls finally burned out. Then he had to eject.
Procedures are good and all, but back injuries are permanent. From a right and wrong standpoint (and not an airforce procedure one), all he did wrong was land too fast. Its a shame he had to eject.
-
What I'm wondering is that jet is equiped with an arrestor hook....does whiteman not have an overunn cable system?
I think he was WAY beyond the speed limits of hook engagement.
The F-15 prolly has a beefier arresting hook than the F-16 but I'm willing to bet the "Arrestment should always be accomplished at the lowest speed and GW possible." concept applies to all fighters.
My copy of T.O. 1F-16A-1 states the following:
"HOOK ENGAGEMENT LIMITS
ROUTINE ARRESTMENT 135 KNOTS
EMERGENCY ARRESTMENT 150 KNOTS
Arrestment should always be accomplished at the lowest speed and GW possible. The cable should be engaged on center with the nosewheel on the ground."
This guy's HUD showed 250+ KTS at touchdown.
Regards,
Sun
-
There have been a number of mishaps where F-15s have flown some distance while on fire, and landed safely. The plane is very robust and has multiple redundant systems. The standard inflight fire checklist for pretty much every ejection seat equipped aircraft ends with something like "if fire continues - eject". But since burning F-15s don't tend to just blow up, there have been a bunch of cases where a burning F-15 was flown back for a landing. The standard answer for "why didn't you eject?" seems to be "well the plane was flying ok, so I stayed with it a bit longer." Nobody will recommend that a pilot continue to fly a burning aircraft if they have the option to eject, but in the end it is the pilot's decision and second-guessing it after the fact isn't usually helpful. If he survives, his decision worked out. If he dies or it otherwise goes wrong, it was self-critiquing and will be used as an example of what not to do.
-
Thanks for the clarification, eagl.