Derk 265 Posted August 20, 2012 (edited) http://www.f-16.net/...rticle4523.html Always expect the unexpected.... goes even for 3000+ hours Viper drivers. The official accident report ( AIB report, included in the link ) makes interesting reading !!!! Edited August 20, 2012 by Derk Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FastCargo 412 Posted August 20, 2012 I had wondered what happened in that accident. At least he was able to keep it near the centerline. FC Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+SkateZilla 49 Posted August 20, 2012 OK, this is kinda a double standard... F-16 Crashes at an airshow, they blame the Environmental system and extreme fogging. Pilot is back in air F-22 Crashes in Alaska, they Claim Pilot Error instead of Blaming the Oxygen system... Pilot Dies, but since it was "Pilot Error" family gets nothing. Hmm..... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JediMaster 451 Posted August 20, 2012 F-22 is political, the F-16 is beyond that now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Derk 265 Posted August 20, 2012 Pilot error is sometimes an escape for accident boards. In the F-104 days in the KLu a pilot discovered that below something like 300kts the plane started unctrollably rolling to the left. So with great airmanship he made a very high speed landing above 300kts, missed the arrester cable, sheared of his brake chute but- the F104 has VERY effective brakes- brings the plane to a stop before the end of the runway wth smoking tyres.. Verdict: pilot error: using the brake chute above the Vmax for deployment causing damage...... Things were settled afterwards, but just the same......... In the case of the Oskosh F16 obviously and probably very rightly no further problems for the pilot, but if really necessary it looks like he could have been- in the style mentioned above- blamed for landing quite fast and - for what it's worth- not using his airbrakes........ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+SkateZilla 49 Posted August 20, 2012 (edited) Pilot error is sometimes an escape for accident boards. In the F-104 days in the KLu a pilot discovered that below something like 300kts the plane started unctrollably rolling to the left. So with great airmanship he made a very high speed landing above 300kts, missed the arrester cable, sheared of his brake chute but- the F104 has VERY effective brakes- brings the plane to a stop before the end of the runway wth smoking tyres.. Verdict: pilot error: using the brake chute above the Vmax for deployment causing damage...... Things were settled afterwards, but just the same......... In the case of the Oskosh F16 obviously and probably very rightly no further problems for the pilot, but if really necessary it looks like he could have been- in the style mentioned above- blamed for landing quite fast and - for what it's worth- not using his airbrakes........ in that type of sky, you'd think he'd already have his defogger's running, not waiting until his canopy fogs. F-16 had its share of "Pilot Error" blankets.... Wire Chafing, Ted Harduvul. F-22 Widow did the same, Sued the crap out of the F-22 Manufacturers, the Bleed Air Manufacturers, and the Oxygen System Manufacturers... All 3 of them settled out of court, so the "Pilot Error" Ruling stands... despite what's going on with the Raptor's oxygen for the last year and a half now. Edited August 20, 2012 by SkateZilla Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Toryu 156 Posted August 26, 2012 (edited) Derk do you know the reason for the controllability-issue? 300kias is VERY fishy, as gear-speed (gear-door limit) on the 104 is 260kias and max. tyre-speed is 240kias. Also, at a standard 8000ft RWY, 300 kias is way too fast to get the airplane to a safe stop. The fastest 104-landing I know of was in the vicinity of 240, and that was a flapless approach - Luftwaffe airplane/ pilot. The KLu-story propably has a similar background. F-22 Crashes in Alaska, they Claim Pilot Error instead of Blaming the Oxygen system...Pilot Dies, but since it was "Pilot Error" family gets nothing. Blaming the pilot for the crash in the F-22 case is correct. He lost SA and flew into a mountain. The bleed-air-issue was a contributing factor, not the cause of the crash. The F-16 was in a VFR-only part of the flight and without vision, there's no way of keeping the a/c on the runway except being lucky. He could have jettisoned the canopy and safed the rest of the jet, but that's monday-morning quarterbacking. Edited August 26, 2012 by Toryu Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+SkateZilla 49 Posted August 26, 2012 (edited) Reversed,. The F-16 Canopy Fogging was a contributing factor but not the cause of the crash, if the weather conditions were noted, he should have had the defogger on before he taxi'd. His wingman didnt seem to have that problem. No Speed Brake + Landing about 1/3 down the landing strip + no aero braking. The Pilot Lost his SA and Ran his F-16 into the Mud. (in hind sight, ejecting the canopy with a crowd below you was prolly not a good idea.) I dont see any pilot lasting long in a Night flight, wearing WINTER Gear and NVG, and have their oxygen cut off. Edited August 26, 2012 by SkateZilla Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Toryu 156 Posted August 27, 2012 I dont see any pilot lasting long in a Night flight, wearing WINTER Gear and NVG, and have their oxygen cut off. That's why they spend some time in lo-PX chambers during flight-training, getting used to their signs of oxygen-starvation. Descending below FL150 quickly isn't very challenging in a fighter. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Derk 265 Posted August 27, 2012 (edited) Derk do you know the reason for the controllability-issue? 300kias is VERY fishy, as gear-speed (gear-door limit) on the 104 is 260kias and max. tyre-speed is 240kias. Also, at a standard 8000ft RWY, 300 kias is way too fast to get the airplane to a safe stop. The fastest 104-landing I know of was in the vicinity of 240, and that was a flapless approach - Luftwaffe airplane/ pilot. The KLu-story propably has a similar background. The story is from "Veilig Vliegen", an air safety magazine distributed within the KLu (you cannot subscribe to it) from at least 25 years ago. I bought a couple of examples at an Open Day (still must have them somewhere but I don't know where) and they sure make interesting reading, demonstrating convincingly how true Murphy's Law is. The article did AFAIK not go into the actual cause, but it most probably had to do with faulty i.e. asymetrical deployment of one of the leading edge and/or trailing edge flaps. I dont know if it was a completely flapless landing as the take off/ manoeuvering setting in the F-104G could be used up to 520 kts (!), but in the Phantom book by Robert Prest a 180 kts landing by a BAF F-104 very far down a slippery runway in a heavy snow shower ended succesfully within 3000ft (albeit with brake chute). Good brakes !!! Edited August 27, 2012 by Derk Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Atreides 144 Posted August 29, 2012 F-22 is political, the F-16 is beyond that now. How much do you wanna bet that he same approach will be applied to the JSF when ineviatable accidents do happen not just in the USA but with any of the client nations. I can't wait to hear the bs that our RCAF inquiry guys will spin so as not make the allmighty JSF look bad and btw the way back home the JSF is already are very controversial political fighter. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Toryu 156 Posted August 29, 2012 (edited) @Derk: Asymmetric flaps accounted for a couple of LW crashes (one a/c even lost a leading-edge and made 7 corkscrews into the ground - luckyly the crew (IP and student) ejected after three screws and landed rather safely after half a swing in the chute!). 180 KIAS was a fairly common approach-speed (depending on configuration and the mount of fuel you brought back). Generally, it was 175KIAS +5KIAS per 1000lbs of fuel in tip-tank configuration IIRC. The brakes were indeed pretty good! Single-seat fighters do have better chances of crashing, caused by task-saturation. Add a "single engine"-design and you'll have some more crashes right there. Add a certain single-pilot mindset, competitiveness and machoism, and you'll have much over 50% of the crash-causes of single-seat/ single-engined fighters in the 50s/60s/70s covered. The Luftwaffe didn't prohibit the use of the "Fly alone - die alone!"-patch for nothing (let alone the proverbial german lack of humor!) Edited August 29, 2012 by Toryu Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Derk 265 Posted August 30, 2012 Well Toryu, in the case of the BAF F-104 it was very light, only some 650 pounds of fuel left. It HAD to land however, no fuel for a diversion from Brüggen to Laarbruch, Wildenrath or Volkel, even an overshoot and a second attempt would have been hairy............... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
