+Fates 63 Posted August 5, 2005 The Associated Press Updated: 6:41 p.m. ET Aug. 4, 2005 WASHINGTON - The front-line fighter jet of the Navy and Marines has suffered a series of recent accidents blamed on brake failure, exposing a problem that has spurred urgent warnings from commanders, military documents obtained by The Associated Press show. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8829186/ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dagger 21 Posted August 6, 2005 Bad brakes on a fighter..thats not good.Bad enough on my pick up! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Jug 99 Posted August 7, 2005 If our part-time flyboys with anchors on their necks would add an anchor to the back of an A/F-18 and be able to toss it out, they might be able to stop on the runway available. Getting stopped by Big Floating Momma's arresting cable all the time does lead to poor verification that the brakes work on a regular basis. When flying jets becomes their primary mission, instead of chugging around in big floating targets, the Navy's flying safety record will get better. Until such time, who can blame a young jet jock for jettisoning a manfunctioning jet with USN painted on the side. Somebody once said the Navy guys cannot get it through their heads that they are a 30-40 knot force in a supersonic fight. Blub..........................! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
firehawkordy 34 Posted August 7, 2005 Jugs, I'm not sure what point you are trying to get at but I and I'm sure NavyChief and the others dont appreciate your 30-40 knot force remark. Having said that, the squadrons have been reporting gripes on the brakes for years. I have helped change out the problem part in question more than once during drill weekend. The fault lies with the manufacture and the armchair aviators in Washington who know better than the end users. As for not finding the trouble because we always use the wires, the squadrons are not always embarked on the boat. We do come home once in a while and use the shore stations, unlike the Air Force who have to operate for land all the time. Just so all the new members know, I do have a sence of humor, just not when some one tries to apply it to some thing that has cost aircraft and potentially lives. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Fates 63 Posted August 7, 2005 As a civilian liscensed Aircraft Technician with Inspection Authorization, I believe there's only 1 mission of any aircraft be it military or civilian. That mission is to bring the occupants back to the ground safely. It's a shame that this brake situation was not resolved after the first couple instances. In the Civilan world, I think the cause and solution would have occured much faster. If this had happened on a 737 and it went of the runway and injured lives, the "SAME GOVERNEMENT" that armchair quarterbacks would have demanded a solution. I've seen this governement issue Mandatory AD's (Advisory Directives) that require a piece of paper be placed in the Flight Manual describing how Icing condition happen simply becasue 1 aircraft was lost and 60 people died due to the pilots inability to identify ice. The FAA is quick to pounce on these things. Whatever the solution is, it generaly cost the operator money. My opinion is that when something is going to cost the US Government money, they are probably not as quick to spend it....even when it will save lives. Like bad brake parts, added armor for Humvees, etc...etc... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Scout_51 0 Posted August 10, 2005 Well its been a while since I had added my two cents worth,but this one screamed do it!! If our part-time flyboys with anchors on their necks would add an anchor to the back of an A/F-18 and be able to toss it out, they might be able to stop on the runway available. part time? unless you are talking of the naval reserve Naval Aviators have a primary job,to Fly.... Getting stopped by Big Floating Momma's arresting cable all the time does lead to poor verification that the brakes work on a regular basis. well they do have to be able to hold the bird Prior to launch,they do have to work when the wire is off of the hook.try moving a jet in the dark on a fouled,greasy wet deck,I do believe brakes are needed then... When flying jets becomes their primary mission, instead of chugging around in big floating targets, the Navy's flying safety record will get better. chugging? and again,flying airplanes is a Naval Aviators PRIMARY job,unless detached for other duties.. Somebody once said the Navy guys cannot get it through their heads that they are a 30-40 knot force in a supersonic fight. Blub..........................! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Fire Hawk adressed this rather well... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Jug 99 Posted August 11, 2005 OK, guys, I deserve all of the criticism. I just love to pimp my Navy buddies. I'm a retired AF U-2 pilot with about 5400 flying hours and have been there and done that. Don't ever think that I take the service each and every one gives to this nation lightly. I just enjoy pulling their chain (anchor chain). Sounds like too many of you took this personally. I don't make it a habit of taking shots at people I really don't like. Sorry if I offended too deep. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
