F-14 goes down during air show
Lorne D. Gilsig
http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/06/18/f14.crash.02/index.html.
Another victim of the TF-30?
Lorne D. Gilsig
Regnirps
>Cnn is reporting that an F-14 went down during an air show:
>http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/06/18/f14.crash.02/index.html.
>Another victim of the TF-30?
Condolences to the pilot's family and friends.
I saw a portion of the video. GLOC comes to mind, but that would be jumping to
conclusions considering they are not showing enough time. However the way the
plane seems to "go limp" and no ejection but plenty of time ... ?
Charlie Springer
P.S. What is the TF-30 problem?
Mike Weeks
>Date: 6/18/2000 10:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>P.S. What is the TF-30 problem?
The A model's engines; basically under-powered. It hasn't been stated yet
however which model was flying. IIRC VF-101 had a "show bird", and I _thought_
is was a D model.
MW
remove "nojunk" for email
Dennis Jensen
not the specific issue with the TF-=30s. The major problem is that the
engines do not like disturbed airflow, and tend to flame out if the
airflow is disturbed. Not good when high-alpha is going to disturb the
airflow into the engine.
Dennis
Ralph Savelsberg
> Under powered is a problem for an air superiority fighter, but that is
> not the specific issue with the TF-=30s. The major problem is that the
> engines do not like disturbed airflow, and tend to flame out if the
> airflow is disturbed. Not good when high-alpha is going to disturb the
> airflow into the engine.
>
> Dennis
>
Overall the TF-30 has had a great number of problems. It was only meant to power the
firs 80 or so F-14s. The rest was to be powered by the P&W F-401, but this was
cancelled.
Not only did the TF-30 have trouble with disturbed airflow, rapid throttle movements
also caused problems for the enigine. There also was a problem with the some of the
turbine stages which occasionally blew up. The manufacturer's answer to this was
derating the engine and putting a protective ring around the turbine to keep pieces
from the blades from damaging the rest of the aircraft. The result was that the
F-14, which was underpowered in the first place was retrofitted with heavier engines
that delivered less power.
Ralph
qnca...@my-deja.com
> Cnn is reporting that an F-14 went down during an air show:
.... crash video on T.V. news this morning looks like a classic slow
speed stall.....pilot error the most likely cause IMO. News reports
said the F-14 crashed during a 'low-speed capabilities' demonstration
for the air show/spectators.
Anybody keeping tally on how many aircraft have crashed at air shows
during the last 25 years?
Hard to believe the high cost in lives & aircraft is worth the
"entertainment" value of such military (i.e., taxpayer funded) air
shows.
--
Quinn R. Casey
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
dced...@my-deja.com
models.
I didn't think they used A's in airshows much anymore, because the
throttle restrictions prevent them from giving a good "show"
From the abcnews realvideo feed, the announcer said it did seem to be
loss of power. The video itself was too choppy for me to see what went
on, so that's purely on what the audio clip said.
In article <394D9B58...@rcn.com>,
"Lorne D. Gilsig" <dataw...@rcn.com> wrote:
> Cnn is reporting that an F-14 went down during an air show:
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/06/18/f14.crash.02/index.html.
>
> Another victim of the TF-30?
>
> Lorne D. Gilsig
Sniper
were all those twists and turns while coming in for a landing necessary or
normal?
<dced...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8il552$fe4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Vern
>just seen clip on telly.....
>
>
>were all those twists and turns while coming in for a landing necessary or
>normal?
>
Oh man........<hand on forehead, head shaking>
in2focus
and last year's Oceana show. From seeing the video on the
AP site, the engines were smoking like an A model on an
approach. The video quality is too poor to actually see the
exaust nozzle.
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
Craig C.
crew was supposedly doing a simulated, non-stabilized approach and
wave-off when they went down. It's a tough thing though, to lose the
guys...no matter what they were doing. The a/c can be replaced,, but
not the crew....
Craig C.
in2focus
approach, too. Just that TF-30's smoke more.
Steven Holzinger
>
> The A model's engines; basically under-powered. It hasn't been stated yet
> however which model was flying. IIRC VF-101 had a "show bird", and I _thought_
> is was a D model.
I was one of the unfortunate people that saw the Sunday show. Gordon did state
this was an "A" model that was in the demo.
--
Steven Holzinger
ICQ #30159629
E-mail: USAi...@hotmail.com
USAir1489 on AOL Instant Messenger
http://www.geocities.com/usair1489 - Aviation/Airshows Page
http://www.geocities.com/aviojep - Airport of Game Shows
PLEASE NOTE: Adding my e-mail address to any mailing list is PROHIBITED.
Steven Holzinger
I was unfortunately taping the demonstration at the time, and
apparently, after he accelerated, he turned to the right, went inverted,
flipped to normal flight, banked sharply left, another jolt brought the
nose down to the ground as he went beyond the trees.
Mike Weeks
>Date: 6/19/2000 10:02 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>I was one of the unfortunate people that saw the Sunday show.
So very sorry.
> Gordon did
>state
>this was an "A" model that was in the demo.
Yes, BuNo 158629 (from a NavAir contact).
Mike Weeks
>Date: 6/19/2000 4:53 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Anybody keeping tally on how many aircraft have crashed at air shows
>during the last 25 years?
I would think far less than the number of aircraft lost during normal
operations in the last 25, 35 or even 50 years.
>Hard to believe the high cost in lives & aircraft is worth the
>"entertainment" value of such military (i.e., taxpayer funded) air
>shows.
What "high cost" unless the actual numbers are known. Besides, what's the
value to those same taxpayers to get at least some general idea of what their
money has paid for - especially given that military a/c aren't falling out of
the sky all that often at airshows.
Ken Duffey
My condolences to the families of the aircrew.
I will refrain from any other comment until someones starts to make snide remarks
about the Russians always losing a/c during airshows.
The loss of life - any life - is a tragedy and is to be deeply regretted.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ken Duffey - Flanker Freak & Russian Aviation Enthusiast
Flankers Website - http://www.flankers.co.uk/
Genuine E-mailers - remove the x after uk
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dale
Anyone keeping tally on how many aircraft have NOT crashed at air shows during
the last 25 years?
> Anybody keeping tally on how many aircraft have crashed at air shows
> during the last 25 years?
--
Dale L. Falk
Cessna 182A
N5912B
Ad Astra
"John Carrier" <j...@netdoor.com> wrote
> Also the comment on GLOC is ridiculous
> ... you don't pull G's in the landing configuration.
I guess you haven't seen the video, then. After the waveoff, the
aircraft commences a 90 degree bank to the right, turns, rolls inverted,
then snaps upright, all in a few seconds. Try that at 1G.
That said, you can pull 'G' in *any* configuration.
Cheers!
Gary
Greg Mantz
Ale2NOSPAM wrote:
> << Hard to believe the high cost in lives & aircraft is worth the
> "entertainment" value of such military (i.e., taxpayer funded) air
> shows. >>
>
> I was at the Saturday show and it was a great pleasure and yes thrill to see,
> hear, and feel those military aircraft roar by. Just watching them fly low and
> fast was a blast.
>
> I hope they keep the shows going, just cut out the dangerous stuff.
Me too! This didn't sound like anything particularly dangerous though. Sometimes
things just happen.
>
>
> I would hope that the crew was having a good time putting on the show for the
> estimated 100,000 in attendance?
>
> My sympathies to the families of the lost crew.
John Carrier
> not the specific issue with the TF-=30s. The major problem is that the
> engines do not like disturbed airflow, and tend to flame out if the
> airflow is disturbed. Not good when high-alpha is going to disturb the
> airflow into the engine.
Actually, the engines will occasionally pop stall, not flame out ... been
there and done that. Tends to be fairly uncommon, although it can be
encouraged by high AOA accompanied a bootful of rudder.
Also the comment on GLOC is ridiculous ... you don't pull G's in the landing
configuration.
R / John
TOPFLIGHTPICS
>value to those same taxpayers to get at least some general idea of what their
>money has paid for - especially given that military a/c aren't falling out of
>the sky all that often at airshows.
>
HERE HERE!!!
John Binford
Warminster, PA
Ale2NOSPAM
"entertainment" value of such military (i.e., taxpayer funded) air
shows. >>
I was at the Saturday show and it was a great pleasure and yes thrill to see,
hear, and feel those military aircraft roar by. Just watching them fly low and
fast was a blast.
I hope they keep the shows going, just cut out the dangerous stuff.
I would hope that the crew was having a good time putting on the show for the
Craig C.
lot over the last few years as I see friends and acquaintences hit the
dirt in various shows....I think it's about time that the show
promoters and participants establish a standard minimum show
performance altitude. ...say 100'. I don't know if you guys ever
notice, but if you are not within about 10' of the crowd line at most
shows, you can't see any of the performance that is below about 100'.
I'm almost always working the start-up area or last chance at most
shows that I attend, and I miss almost every part of the acts that
work below 150' or so. Personally I don't see the need for someone in
a Pitts doing snap rolls at 25'...because more than 50% of the people
there can't see him...I guess I'm pretty blase about an act where all
I can do is hear the a/c screaming about.
Anybody else feel the same? I'm not out to outlaw or prohibit an act
going that low, but if you can't see most of a performance......
Craig C.
Dudley Henriques
Ad Astra <ada...@nospam.home.com> wrote in message
news:q3w35.1130$061....@news1.rdc1.mb.home.com...
>
> "John Carrier" <j...@netdoor.com> wrote
>
> > Also the comment on GLOC is ridiculous
> > ... you don't pull G's in the landing configuration.
>
> aircraft commences a 90 degree bank to the right, turns, rolls
inverted,
> then snaps upright, all in a few seconds. Try that at 1G.
>
> That said, you can pull 'G' in *any* configuration.
>
> Cheers!
>
> Gary
Carrier is right!
Although it's obvious "you can pull g in any configuration", the exact
maneuver performed prior to the accident didn't get anywhere even get
close to the gloc min range, and that includes the half roll to
inverted. The entire flight profile prior to what appeared to be an
un-commanded pitch input or a thrust asymmetric at knife edge during the
second half of his roll that had to exceed his critical aoa, was flown
well within 2 to 3 g's as I saw it anyway. The sudden pitch during the
roll recovery that finished him could very well have been at a higher
loading, but by then, it was academic. The airplane at that point was
little more than a falling rock.
I've flown the Tomcat ; I've seen the film, and I have no idea what
actually happened to him. The investigation will no doubt provide better
answers.
--
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Dudley Henriques
Craig C. <valc...@dhc.net> wrote in message
Craig,
Having flown several hundred hours of demonstration flying, I can
sympathize with what you are saying. It's true about the visibility
problems for the crowd under 100'. I've had people tell me about it many
times, although with the P51, I seldom got below 100' anyway.
I have to admit, I'm getting edgy myself about the current safety rules
and waivers at the shows. We used a parallel show line 1500' from the
crowd for high performance airplanes, and 500' for some of the civilian
demonstrations. Although I flew a civilian P51D, I used the 1500' line.
Also, we never flew AT the crowd. The general idea was a parallel energy
dispersion field for aircraft parts if something happened.
My problem today involves the surrounding areas to the airports where
the shows are flown. There is little that can be done to protect people
and property on the ground in these areas. If someone comes apart, or
has a mid-air, the chances are up for grabs for the people in the fringe
areas. This F14 accident this week is a prime example. Although the
crowd was protected, it was a miracle that no one on the fringe area was
killed.
Ad Astra
"Dudley Henriques" <dhenr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > Also the comment on GLOC is ridiculous
> > > ... you don't pull G's in the landing configuration.
> > I guess you haven't seen the video, then. After the
> > waveoff, the aircraft commences a 90 degree bank
> > to the right, turns, rolls inverted, then snaps upright,
> >all in a few seconds. Try that at 1G.
> >
> > That said, you can pull 'G' in *any* configuration.
> Carrier is right!
Well, no he's not. He said <quote> Also the comment on GLOC is
ridiculous... you don't pull G's in the landing configuration. </quote>
Point 1: the aircraft was not "in the landing configuration", but rather
post waveoff, under A/B power. Furthermore, he was in a very tight turn
(*minimum* 4G, I would say), and eventually inverted, before snapping
upright. Last, he departed controlled flight. Who knows what G load he
was experiencing? Me? You? Nobody but the investigators, I'll bet.
Point 2: Carrier said "you don't pull G in the landing configuration."
That is an incorrect statement and you know it.
> Although it's obvious "you can pull g in any configuration", the
exact
> maneuver performed prior to the accident didn't get anywhere even get
> close to the gloc min range, and that includes the half roll to
> inverted.
Ah, so you're a flight surgeon too? What, exactly, was that pilot's
"GLOC min range" at that time, on that day? You don't know, and neither
do I. And how many G did he pull? Hmmm... a hard crank at 90 degrees of
bank followed by a roll has *always* meant more than "2 or 3" to me. For
crying out loud, you need to pull 2 G just to maintain altitude at 60
degrees of bank. At 90 degrees, G required is infinite.
Now, I DID NOT SAY that GLOC was (or was not) the cause of the accident.
What I DID say was that the aircraft was not "in the landing
configuration", and that the statement that you "don't pull G in the
landing configuration" is incorrect. Both of my statements are true.
Again, I did not say that the pilot approached GLOC range; I did say
that the statement that one can not pull G in the landing configuration
is bullshit.
> I've flown the Tomcat ; I've seen the film, and I have no idea what
> actually happened to him. The investigation will no doubt provide
better
> answers.
Exactly. And so how can you state that "Carrier is right!" when none of
us know what happened yet?
My point one more time: The aircraft pulled G, and was not landing.
That's it. That's all it was.
Cheers!
Gary
Dudley Henriques
I'm sorry my friend,in my opinion you are very mistaken, and I have no
intention of arguing the point with you. Two people are dead. Let's just
say we disagree and let it go at that.
Regards,
Craig C.
my AT-21 finally gets back into the air, it will probably not be flown
at the few airshows I take it to. I want to be able to show it off,
but I also want it to survive for genratiosn to come. I say this for
a couple of reasons..
1. It is the sole remaining AT-21 in existance
2. It's taking me a tremendous amount of time to restore as well as
money.
3. Technically it has to be flown as single person crew, but the
visability out of the cockpit sucks for every direction but straight
ahead and to the pilot's left.
Because of #1, it will end up in one of two museum collections.
Besides, its such a large beast that I am going to have trouble
hangaring it once it starts being reassembled
Craig C.
Dudley Henriques
.
Sounds like a monster project! It's a hassle sometimes putting an
airplane like that on static display. You really have to be careful
about security. I remember Bill Ross, an old friend , who owned a
beautiful Mk 16 Spitfire turning around one afternoon to find a kid
hanging on his rudder trim tab.
I just finished going through a bunch of old things and threw out about
a dozen signs from the Mustang days,
"Look but don't touch"
I wish you all the best with your project.
Dudley
John Keeney
<qnca...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8il1jj$d88$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > Another victim of the TF-30?
>
>
> .... crash video on T.V. news this morning looks like a classic slow
> speed stall.....pilot error the most likely cause IMO. News reports
"Classic slow speed stall"? Not to me.
Pilot rolls inverted, stable flight for a couple of seconds, rolls right
side up
then rolls into a rougly 90 degree bank nose level and starts pulling hard,
nose falls sharply down while still in steep bank, plane rights but in
unrecoverable flight conditions.
Stall? Possible, but not a "classic" since there was no meaningfull lift
from
wings at the time.
> said the F-14 crashed during a 'low-speed capabilities' demonstration
> for the air show/spectators.
>
> Anybody keeping tally on how many aircraft have crashed at air shows
> during the last 25 years?
>
Dudley Henriques
<qnca...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> .... crash video on T.V. news this morning looks like a classic slow
> speed stall.....pilot error the most likely cause IMO.
Mr Casey,
Ordinarily, when something like this accident happens, I will simply
lurk a thread like this one and let it go in one ear and out the other.
You might think that people like myself, who have experience with the
F14, airshows, and accident investigation, would have something to say
about it. We usually don't. Even if we do, our comments are less
conclusive than yours.
I have no idea how much time you have in the Tomcat, or how qualified
you might be to make a statement like you just did, and I am fully aware
of your right to an opinion, regardless of how stupid and moronic it is.
MLenoch
>beautiful Mk 16 Spitfire turning around one afternoon to find a kid
>hanging on his rudder trim tab.
I once caught a kid doing chin ups on the pitot tube; his father couldn't
understand why I was so upset (must something in that family).
V. Lenoch
Ad Astra
"Dudley Henriques" <dhenr...@earthlink.net> wrote
> I'm sorry my friend,in my opinion you are very mistaken, and I have no
> intention of arguing the point with you. Two people are dead. Let's
just
> say we disagree and let it go at that.
>
> Regards,
Agreed. I would, however, to simply say that if you think I am mistaken
then you don't understand what it is that I'm writing. That said, the
fault lies with me for failing to make myself understood.
Perhaps we're reacting the way we are fo rthe same reason: I think we
both get awful punchy when things like this happen, no?
Cheers!
Gary
EDF
Ad Astra wrote:
> For crying out loud, you need to pull 2 G just to maintain altitude at 60
> degrees of bank. At 90 degrees, G required is infinite.
How much money would you like to bet on this one? Hint, ever hear of top
rudder?
Ernie
Ad Astra
Dudley Henriques
>
> "Dudley Henriques" <dhenr...@earthlink.net> wrote
> Agreed. I would, however, to simply say that if you think I am
mistaken
> then you don't understand what it is that I'm writing. That said, the
> fault lies with me for failing to make myself understood.
>
> Perhaps we're reacting the way we are fo rthe same reason: I think we
> both get awful punchy when things like this happen, no?
I feel your posts are sincere, and you're right; some of the posts these
accidents generate are very distasteful to me, and others, who have
lived and worked within the air show community. The internet is a free
information source and I'd be the last person to play internet
policeman.
What gets me is when someone who flies a 150 on the weekend or even
worse, doesn't fly at all, but "reads a lot" comes up with a detailed
analysis of the "probable cause". Some mean well, and their opinions are
offered because they share, or believe they share, a common bond with
those of us who fly and have flown air shows. But there are some out
there who seem to live vicariously through the risks taken by others; a
sort of Walter Mitty mentality. They jump on board with their little
comments, desperately trying to out do each other. It's like some kind
of crazy ritual mating dance. They woo each other with their "facts",
each one trying to insert more than the post being answered. They go on
and on with it, usually ending up in a heated discussion about the
pilot's flight suit, complete with model number, manufacturing date,
government contract specs, or something else just as ridiculous.
I always felt that had I dug a six foot deep hole in the runway during
one of my demonstrations with the P51, there would have been at least
one person out there willing and able to run out to the fire and roast a
few marshmallows. Fortunately, these people are the minority. I flew the
shows for the rest of you.
--
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
North American P51D Mustang
Dudley Henriques
MLenoch <mle...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000620091834...@ng-fb1.aol.com...
> I once caught a kid doing chin ups on the pitot tube; his father
couldn't
> understand why I was so upset (must something in that family).
Oh how I remember those days!
I used to carry four signs with me in the gun bays. When I parked the
51 at a show site, I'd install the stack plugs, pitot cover,(we had a
pitot cover that said, "high voltage" :-) and rope off the airplane.
Then I'd place the signs around the rope.
They all said,
"If you were going to fly this airplane upside down at show altitudes in
30 min. , would you want ME to touch it?"
Dudley
Calum Tsang
>during the last 25 years?
>
>Hard to believe the high cost in lives & aircraft is worth the
>"entertainment" value of such military (i.e., taxpayer funded) air
>shows.
It's not just entertainment-militaries fly at airshows as public
relations: Demos promote the military, help justify spending and
buys good faith from the taxpayers. Whether this is important enough to
risk lives is up for debate, but there's a significant political aspect to
airshows and the like.
Calum
--
Calum Tsang Research Systems Manager, Interactive Media Lab
tsa...@mie.utoronto.ca -- Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
http://peach.mie.utoronto.ca/people/tsangc University of Toronto
"A straight shooter with upper management written all over him"-Office Space
José Herculano
> rudder?
Remember vividly a video of an F-8 really crash landing on the deck,
breaking the mainmounts and going over the edge. The bird did start rolling
dramatically to the left, but what the bird did with a bootfull of rudder
still amazes me!
--
José Herculano
NI}{ER
> said the F-14 crashed during a 'low-speed capabilities' demonstration
> for the air show/spectators.
>
Man you are so fucking full of shit!!! You are a disgrace to all pilots
everywhere. WHY THE FUCK DO PEOPLE ALWAYS THINK IT IS PILOT ERROR!
Let me ask you, what causes SLOW SPEED?
Could it be an ENGINE FLAMOUT maybe???
When your engine dies at the worst possible moment, there is not much you
can do. This happened to me once, engine failure on takeoff at night, but
thankfully I'm still alive.
It the final moments of these two brave men's lives, they were not concerned
for themselves, they maneuvered their tomcat out of the way of the houses.
It could have been a lot worse, save for the selflessness these fine men
showed in what will be their finest moment.
Please keep your brainfarts to yourself next time dude...
NI}{ER
Al Gerharter
retention problem, they need the airshows.
Al Gerharter
"Calum Tsang" <tsa...@mie.utoronto.ca> wrote in message
news:FwGMC...@mie.utoronto.ca...
Jeff Crowell
> Point 1: the aircraft was not "in the landing configuration", but rather
> post waveoff, under A/B power. Furthermore, he was in a very tight turn
> (*minimum* 4G, I would say), and eventually inverted, before snapping
> upright.
I wrote (and cancelled) an angry post I wrote earlier today when I read the
above, and I'm glad I did, though I have not changed the gist of my
comments, to wit:
look at the wings
they are usually a good indicator of the Tomcat's energy state, and in this
case they are all the way forward throughout the segment of video I saw. In
my opinion, a Tomcat could not pull even 4 Gs with an energy state suggested
by the wing position I saw. Not did the wings appear to be in transition
during the maneuver.
In fact, as I watched the video I flashed back to video of a similar
event--Kara Hultgreen's slow-speed departure before her crash. I do not
mean to suggest that an engine was a factor--none of us should speculate as
to cause, IMO. But the aircraft's behavior seemed very similar to me.
At the bottom line, we have lost an expensive airplane and two irreplaceable
aircrew. As far as I am concerned, that's as much as needs to be said. My
thoughts go out to their families.
Jeff
Passmore
Ah.. same reason makes me dread the "Take your kids to work day". Might
be good for office workers, but I don't see it working well on the
flightline.
--
Passmore
Wingedhoof
>Overall the TF-30 has had a great number of problems. It was only meant to
>power the
>firs 80 or so F-14s. The rest was to be powered by the P&W F-401, but this
>was
>cancelled.
>Not only did the TF-30 have trouble with disturbed airflow, rapid throttle
>movements
>also caused problems for the enigine. There also was a problem with the some
>of the
>turbine stages which occasionally blew up. The manufacturer's answer to this
>was
>derating the engine and putting a protective ring around the turbine to keep
>pieces
>from the blades from damaging the rest of the aircraft.
The manufacturer's answer to this was the F401 which was canceled by the Navy.
Actually, to be more precise, the TF30 was a temporary measure to allow time to
complete the development of the F401 as mentioned above. The decision to make
the TF30 permanent and to apply band-aids was Navy all the way.
When budgets are tight, preferred courses are not taken. That is still true
today and it is not restricted to the Navy.
MLenoch
Calling a spade a spade.
Irregardless, loss of life is tragic.
John Carrier
> What I DID say was that the aircraft was not "in the landing
> configuration", and that the statement that you "don't pull G in the
> landing configuration" is incorrect. Both of my statements are true.
> Again, I did not say that the pilot approached GLOC range; I did say
> that the statement that one can not pull G in the landing configuration
> is bullshit.
Well excuse me. Perhaps our semantics (I'm just a dumb ole fighter pilot)
are at issue.
I admit, I haven't seen the tape, but the description as a very nose high
A/B wave off (which is consistent with the F-14 airshow maneuever done since
Moby Dick was a minnow) and recovery. Evidently the pilot rolled inverted,
tried to roll upright and got into an accellerated stall. The maneuver I've
observed (I wasn't one of AIRLANT's demo pilots) is an A/B waveoff to
perhaps 60 degrees nose high roll into an angle of bank and rudder the
aircraft over until the nose is just above the horizon to roll wings level.
(The B's and D's do a dirty Immelman ... or at least they easily can ...
requires a bit of finesse in the A and I've never seen it at an airshow).
Obviously, more than one G is available dirty (albeit "on speed" not that
much). When I commented about "pulling G" I was referring the the levels
associated with tactical maneuvering, typically 6 or more up to LBA (which
varies with the aircraft). The maneuver described doesn't fit the ready
room definition of pulling G. So while one may maneuver a dirty aircraft at
something more than 1G (or 2 maybe 3), it's not pulling G in the accepted
sense nor is GLOC an issue.
R / John
Regnirps
>Obviously, more than one G is available dirty (albeit "on speed" not that
>much). When I commented about "pulling G" I was referring the the levels
>associated with tactical maneuvering, typically 6 or more up to LBA (which
>varies with the aircraft). The maneuver described doesn't fit the ready
>room definition of pulling G. So while one may maneuver a dirty aircraft at
>something more than 1G (or 2 maybe 3), it's not pulling G in the accepted
>sense nor is GLOC an issue.
I may have started the GLOC business after seeing the first video. I missed
some postings since then by forgetting to check back here. I was speculating
based on the odd behavior that didn't really look like a stall. But your
description of the wave off maneuver kind of fits and now there is a second
video from a different perspective.
One thing, I didn't get a chance to look real close, but my impression is the
gear was up. I had the impression there wasn't much control input going on but
maybe I should have been watching the rudder. It reminded me of a Pitts I once
saw dive into the bay about a hundred feet from my boat. I could plainly see
that there was no control input as the guy finished a loop and came right on
in. But I have to admit I have not seen many F-14's fluttering down out of
control so I'm talking through my hat.
So what do you mean by dirty? Flaps and air brakes and gear and hook or any of
the these?
Charlie Springer
Jim Herring
> Ad Astra <ada...@nospam.home.com> wrote in message
> news:q3w35.1130$061....@news1.rdc1.mb.home.com...
> >
> > "John Carrier" <j...@netdoor.com> wrote
> >
> > > Also the comment on GLOC is ridiculous
> > > ... you don't pull G's in the landing configuration.
> >
> > I guess you haven't seen the video, then. After the waveoff, the
> > aircraft commences a 90 degree bank to the right, turns, rolls
> inverted,
> > then snaps upright, all in a few seconds. Try that at 1G.
> >
> > That said, you can pull 'G' in *any* configuration.
> >
> > Cheers!
> >
> > Gary
>
> Carrier is right!
>
> Although it's obvious "you can pull g in any configuration", the exact
> maneuver performed prior to the accident didn't get anywhere even get
> close to the gloc min range, and that includes the half roll to
> inverted. The entire flight profile prior to what appeared to be an
> un-commanded pitch input or a thrust asymmetric at knife edge during the
> second half of his roll that had to exceed his critical aoa, was flown
> well within 2 to 3 g's as I saw it anyway. The sudden pitch during the
> roll recovery that finished him could very well have been at a higher
> loading, but by then, it was academic. The airplane at that point was
> little more than a falling rock.
>
> I've flown the Tomcat ; I've seen the film, and I have no idea what
> actually happened to him. The investigation will no doubt provide better
> answers.
Is a F-14A fly by wire or by cable? The reason I ask is that recently
inspections have been called for control cables from a one manufacturer. It
appears the cables weren't tested for tensile strength, yet sold as if they
were tested. The DOD did test the cables and ordered replacement. The FAA is
only getting around to it. It's possible that this aircraft did not have the
cables replaced. These cables are used for rudder, flaps, and aileron
control The short video I saw could be a aileron cable breaking and the
pilot attempting to recover. One report I read said that it could be
recovered if the pilot determined what was happening. But, were Fleet crews
told about this problem?
It did appear to be something the crew could have ejected from safely, if
the pilot wasn't trying to save the plane. No blame, he probably thought he
could recover and didn't recognize the problem.
--
Jim
carry on
Tony Stark
"NI}{ER" <nos...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cMO35.119331$uw6.2...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Ralph Savelsberg
Okay, it was a navy decision not to continue with the F-401, though they were more
or less pressured into it. The F-401 also had problems and was over budget. Given
that the navy decided to stick with the TF-30s, P&W devised the band-aids. I
didn't intend to criticise the company.
Anyway, no matter who was responsible, it is a terrible waste that so many planes
and more importantly lives were lost due to trouble with these 'interim' engines.
Ralph
O.G. Mike
"MLenoch" <mle...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000620195012...@ng-ci1.aol.com...
> >WHY THE FUCK DO PEOPLE ALWAYS THINK IT IS PILOT ERROR!
>
chunk
it.....I was on the other side of the jet answering questions. I walked
around to find out the condition of our LOX bottle (it was leaking somewhere
in the system), when to my suprise I saw a guy with a big fat lit stogie
sticking his F*ing head in the compartment. I almost lost my mind...
MLenoch <mle...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000620091834...@ng-fb1.aol.com...
> > I remember Bill Ross, an old friend , who owned a
> >beautiful Mk 16 Spitfire turning around one afternoon to find a kid
> >hanging on his rudder trim tab.
>
> I once caught a kid doing chin ups on the pitot tube; his father couldn't
> understand why I was so upset (must something in that family).
> V. Lenoch
Kevin Riley
If there is enough interest I will run the tape and give you my observations
without commentary.
My background in aviation is 7 years Naval Air, Aircrew, Crew Chief, a pilot for 17
years, I've been involved in aviation in one form or another my whole life. While
at the Naval Research Labs in Washington DC I worked on the A-6 wing failure.
Kevin Riley
AFPCA/OMAD
The Pentagon
Wahington, DC
Derek Cedillo
to 6 G's, which unless a pilot is WAY out of shape and not aware, GLOC
really doesn't come into play very often. More often than not, the F-14 is
limited even further, often down to 4.5-5 G's. This is all due to Airframe
issues. This data is for the F-14B, I would suspect the F-14A is even more
restricted.
Derek
regn...@aol.com (Regnirps) wrote in
<20000620222911...@ng-cj1.aol.com>:
PaulReinman
concerned
> for themselves, they maneuvered their tomcat out of the way of the houses.
> It could have been a lot worse, save for the selflessness these fine men
> showed in what will be their finest moment.
How do we know this?
Paul Reinman
Blake McNeill
pilot in the RAF during the 50's, as well as a test pilot. He mention one
jet fighter they used to fly that had a tendency to flame out (or some other
problem I can't remember exactly, but it not really important to the story)
on take off, but there was a procedure the pilot was to execute to recover
from this problem, otherwise they would crash and be killed. When crashes
occurred due to this problem, it was written up as pilot error as they
didn't execute the required procedure (they wacked a number of pilots this
way). One day his squadron command was killed due to this problem, and they
all had a hard time believing that it could be written off to pilot error as
he was known as an excellent pilot. So my prof being the bright guy he was,
had someone time him while he executed the required procedure, and they
found that by the time you had completed this procedure you would have
crashed. The procedure would work, but you would never have time to
complete the task, before crashing. So is it still pilot error???
Blake
(Story told by Professor Emeritus David Hill, expert in Man Machine
Interfaces)
"MLenoch" <mle...@aol.com> wrote in message
Tarver Engineering
John
Kevin Riley <kevin...@army.pentagon.mil> wrote in message
news:3950A435...@army.pentagon.mil...
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Tarver Engineering
O.G. Mike <ogm...@NOSPAMmailcity.com> wrote in message
news:3950...@newsguy.shorenetworks.com...
> Military jets are WAR MACHINES, not TOYS!
They knew the job was dangerous when they took it.
John
> "MLenoch" <mle...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20000620195012...@ng-ci1.aol.com...
> > >WHY THE FUCK DO PEOPLE ALWAYS THINK IT IS PILOT ERROR!
> >
> > Calling a spade a spade.
> >
> > Irregardless, loss of life is tragic.
>
>
Kevin Riley
Tarver Engineering wrote:
> Post away Mr. Riley.
>
> John
>
> Kevin Riley <kevin...@army.pentagon.mil> wrote in message
> news:3950A435...@army.pentagon.mil...
> > I have the incident on tape (I tape the news to watch it later).
> >
> > If there is enough interest I will run the tape and give you my
> observations
> > without commentary.
> >
> > My background in aviation is 7 years Naval Air, Aircrew, Crew Chief, a
> pilot for 17
> > years, I've been involved in aviation in one form or another my whole
> life. While
> > at the Naval Research Labs in Washington DC I worked on the A-6 wing
> failure.
> >
> > Kevin Riley
> > AFPCA/OMAD
> > The Pentagon
> > Wahington, DC
> >
>
Gordon
>around to find out the condition of our LOX bottle (it was leaking somewhere
>in the system), when to my suprise I saw a guy with a big fat lit stogie
>sticking his F*ing head in the compartment. I almost lost my mind...
So did he :)
Simon H. Lee
line of high-kicking electrons to spell out:
Good as any a time to drop this link back into circulation:
http://ghg.ecn.purdue.edu/ (page down) for those who've not already
seen what a little LOX'll do for a fire...
--
__ (-o-) <*> A L L D O N E! B Y E B Y E!
(__ * _ _ _ _ "Hey! You! Get off of my cloud!"
__)|| | |(_)| \ --The Rolling Stones
Mike Bandor
Paul,
Some of the early info coming out of the investigation is the path
cut through/into the trees right before the impact. One of the
investigators stated that based on the tree damage, it appeared that
the pilot tried to keep it away from the housing development.
Mike
John Haggerty
"PaulReinman" <paulr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000621075832...@ng-cq1.aol.com...
> > It the final moments of these two brave men's lives, they were not
> concerned
> > for themselves, they maneuvered their tomcat out of the way of the
houses.
> > It could have been a lot worse, save for the selflessness these fine men
> > showed in what will be their finest moment.
>
> How do we know this?
>
> Paul Reinman
We probably never will.
The instructor of the last Accident Investigation class I took several years
ago related how he believed that when a pilot flies the aircraft to the
ground, it's more likely that he is under the impression that he can salvage
the aircraft, not that he is trying to prevent damage on the ground.
Obviously, we can't prove he is correct, unless a pilot blurts out to ATC
that he's trying to avoid such and such and is staying with the aircraft in
order to do so.
I suspect that he's correct, though, since if the pilot was still able to
effect enough control of the aircraft to turn away from a populated area,
then it's likely he can aim it where he wants and then eject.
However, without any proof that the pilot didn't stick with the aircraft
solely to prevent casualties on the ground, I suggest we give them the
benefit of the doubt and allow that assumption to prevail.
John Haggerty
Regnirps
he could save it.
I have always thought it takes a lot of the "right stuff" to know when to go in
those fast low nasty situations.
Wasn't it Neil Armstrong who ejected from the jet powered lunar lander practice
contraption? I remain impressed by how fast that situation went bad and how
quikly he got the hell out. You have to be willing to throw away millions worth
of equipment and effort on a snap judgement that could ruin your career if you
are wrong.
Charlie Springer
Albert H. Dobyns
>
> We had the LOX compartment of our S-3 open so some maintainers could look at
> around to find out the condition of our LOX bottle (it was leaking somewhere
> in the system), when to my suprise I saw a guy with a big fat lit stogie
> sticking his F*ing head in the compartment. I almost lost my mind...
>
I've done supid things, mostly as a kid, and walked
away not having even the slightest hint what could
have happened if the homemade rockets blew up!
NI}{ER
Tony Stark <dd...@ibm.net> wrote in message
news:39505...@news1.prserv.net...
> Mabey the pilot accidently stepped on the brakes instead of the gas pedal.
>
>
> "NI}{ER" <nos...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:cMO35.119331$uw6.2...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > <qnca...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8il1jj$d88$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > .... crash video on T.V. news this morning looks like a classic slow
> > > speed stall.....pilot error the most likely cause IMO. News reports
> > > said the F-14 crashed during a 'low-speed capabilities' demonstration
> > > for the air show/spectators.
> > >
> > > Quinn R. Casey
> >
> >
> > Man you are so fucking full of shit!!! You are a disgrace to all pilots
> > everywhere. WHY THE FUCK DO PEOPLE ALWAYS THINK IT IS PILOT ERROR!
> >
> > Let me ask you, what causes SLOW SPEED?
> >
> > Could it be an ENGINE FLAMOUT maybe???
> >
> > When your engine dies at the worst possible moment, there is not much
you
> > can do. This happened to me once, engine failure on takeoff at night,
but
> > thankfully I'm still alive.
> >
> > It the final moments of these two brave men's lives, they were not
> concerned
> > for themselves, they maneuvered their tomcat out of the way of the
houses.
> > It could have been a lot worse, save for the selflessness these fine men
> > showed in what will be their finest moment.
> >
Sergio Rodrigues
Derek Cedillo <ci...@SPAMisoc.net> a écrit dans le message :
8F5944F5F...@209.247.210.101...
> GLOC not really possible in an F-14 anyway...the A/C is typically limited
> to 6 G's, which unless a pilot is WAY out of shape and not aware, GLOC
> really doesn't come into play very often. More often than not, the F-14 is
> limited even further, often down to 4.5-5 G's. This is all due to Airframe
> issues. This data is for the F-14B, I would suspect the F-14A is even more
> restricted.
You just forgot that GLOC is applicated to the pilot and not to the
structural limits of an airplane. May be the pilot was a little tired that
day and suddenly, a guy who bears 8 or 9 Gs is limited to a 6G turn before
getting unconscious. Well, I'm not saying that happened in this case,
because I don't know, but I just correct your remark...
Sergio
Sergio Rodrigues
Jim Herring <mus...@bga.com> a écrit dans le message :
3950ED82...@bga.com...
> Is a F-14A fly by wire or by cable? The reason I ask is that recently
> inspections have been called for control cables from a one manufacturer.
The first fighter with FBW tech was the F-16. Some people named it as the
Electric Plane.
Sergio
Sergio Rodrigues
Regnirps <regn...@aol.com> a écrit dans le message :
20000622003904...@ng-ft1.aol.com...
> Wasn't it Neil Armstrong who ejected from the jet powered lunar lander
practice
> contraption? I remain impressed by how fast that situation went bad and
how
> quikly he got the hell out. You have to be willing to throw away millions
worth
> of equipment and effort on a snap judgement that could ruin your career if
you
> are wrong.
Just remember the Mig-29's pilot ejection at the Bourget Air Show ? The
pilot have had one or two seconds to make the decision. Have to think fast
!!!
Sergio
Sergio Rodrigues
Dudley Henriques <dhenr...@earthlink.net> a écrit dans le message :
BgB35.13061$ds.3...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> Also, we never flew AT the crowd. The general idea was a parallel energy
> dispersion field for aircraft parts if something happened.
Dudley,
Is that the result of the Frecce Tricolori crash at a Ramstein Air Show ? I
Just remember that the italians collided during a fast-crossing fly-by
(please forgive me the technical terms, I don't know the appropriate one)
and that the solo (who flew in the direction of the crowd), hit his leader,
and crashed out of control (and propably with the killed pilot in the
cockpit) into the crowd. Several deads.
Sergio
Sergio Rodrigues
> <qnca...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8il1jj$d88$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > .... crash video on T.V. news this morning looks like a classic slow
> > speed stall.....pilot error the most likely cause IMO.
Ok... How many of the guys who are analysing the F-14 crash are fighter
pilots or former ones ?... And how many of you flew or fly the F-14 ? How
many of you experienced such a problem and are alive to tell ? How many of
you are crash investigators ?
I'm not. And frankly, this video doesn't show any evidence, just a crew
having a hard time making his jet flying. I knew a fighter pilot who died in
a
crash. He hit a moutain in a silly night. Some guys started to tell that
this pilot made a mistake and so on... That was bullshit, purely bullshit,
and more than that, that was a lack of respect for his memory.
Sergio
Kevin Riley
out to the families of the crew. They are the secondary victims as Bud Davidson
says. They must deal with a lose most of will never have to.
The following is from a tape I made of the evening news. As I said I tape it to
watch it later.
The tape was by a spectator but is farily steady.
The quality was such that I could not desern wing control surface movments.
I did not see burner glow at any point. The engines were showing smoke at the
climb but at the first turn all visible smoke ended (Burners On?)
There was a report in another news group from a photographer that was under the
aircraft as it passed over inverted. He claimed that the left engine "quit" and
the right engine remained in burner. During the few flameouts I have witnessed
there was a puff of mixed black and white smoke when the engine flamed out. I
didn't see any on the tape but that does not rule out a flamout.
The numbers refer to the VCR timer.
00 is at the point the plane is about 75-100 feet off the ground in a climb
After viewing the tape one frame at a time it looks like the crew attemted to
eject at the last moment. See 16+ and 16++
After the hard left turn when it all went bad it appears that the Aviator has
little or no control.
Dudley, if your still lurking, your an expieranced F-14 Driver maybe you could
coment on this.
00 Aircraft climbing at 45deg nose up along the axis off the runway, gear and
hook down.
01 Initiates a right climbing turn.
03 Aircraft has turned 90deg to runway flying away from the stands and is at
90deg bank to the right.
06 Aircraft has rolled inverted and continues for approximately 4 seconds, gear
and hook retracted.
11 Aircraft starts rolling right to level.
12 Aircraft continues roll to level and at about 45deg from level the nose comes
up, the left wing drops and the plane banks and turns hard left. At this
point the plane looks like it has stopped flying.
13 The plane continues the left roll past 90deg with the nose about 20deg down
and starts a rapid decent.
15 Almost wings level approximately 15deg bank and 10deg nose down and
descending rapidly. The looks to be falling almost flat.
16 Back to 90deg left bank, 15deg nose down, with the left wing tip at tree top
level.
16+ At this point the canopy was blown.
16++ The first seat goes while the plane is still above any structures. I can't
tell if the seat is the Aviator or the RIO and it looks like the seat hits the
roof of a building. I didn't see the second seat go as the aircraft was below
the trees.
Kevin J. Riley
AFPCA/OAMD
The Pentagon
Washington DC
(703)614-1759
Dudley Henriques
> Dudley, if your still lurking, your an expieranced F-14 Driver maybe
you could
> coment on this.
Most pilots who have flown a specific airplane will watch something like
this and form an initial opinion. It's natural. You put yourself in the
cockpit and visualize it step by step. More often than not, your initial
gut feelings turn out to be correct, but it's not good procedure, and
can be VERY wrong.
I've watched the tape many times and I have an opinion, but it's only
that; an opinion. I don't make a general habit of trying to outguess an
MIR board. The guys at Willow Grove are a pretty good bunch. I'm sure
that they will find the answers without my help.
One thing that does bother me though, and it puts me at odds with many
people who would like to think otherwise, is the tendency to lean toward
heroics when it comes to crashes like this one. From what I saw on the
film, the airplane was not under positive control during the final
descent to ground contact. Any discussion at this point that puts a
mantle of heroism on two professionals faced with a fatal impact just
seconds after total loss of control is in my opinion premature .
This emergency began inverted at very low altitude. Even to experienced
pilots, this kind of emergency happens in an instant. I can tell you
from experience in very low altitude aerobatics that during a roll at
low altitude, there is a very high degree of intense concentration on
the maneuver itself. During the actual execution, there is a natural
tendency to "assume" the airplane won't let you down during the time it
takes to do the maneuver. I know, I've been there many times myself, and
this feeling is shared by almost every pilot I know who flies low
altitude akro.
From what I saw, whatever happened to them caused an instinctive
reaction to roll out. The actual reaction time to analyze what had
happened, react to the emergency, and decide what to do was spaced
within the half roll recovery attempt that added a departure to the
equation. I don't know any pilot who could have solved all this
multitasking in the time they had remaining. It was altitude remaining
against altitude available.....that simple.
I do have an opinion about what happened, but as I said before, it's
better to trust the guys carrying the ball.
--
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
qnca...@my-deja.com
(PaulReinman) wrote:
>> It the final moments of these two brave men's lives, they were not
>>concerned for themselves, they maneuvered their tomcat out of the way
>>of the houses. It could have been a lot worse, save for the
>>selflessness these fine men...
-------------------------------------------------------
" You smile reading newspaper stories about a pilot in a disabled plane
that maneuvered to miss a schoolyard before he hit the ground.
That's crap.
In an emergency situation, a pilot thinks only about one thing --
survival. You battle to survive right down to the ground; you
think about nothing else. Your concentration is riveted on what to
try next. You don't say anything on the radio, and you aren't even
aware a schoolyard exists. That's exactly how it is. "
'General Chuck Yeager'
{quoted from his autobiography "Yeager" ; 1985 Bantam Books, page 119}
--
Quinn R. Casey
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Dudley Henriques
Sergio Rodrigues <s.rod...@free.fr> wrote in message
news:q4m45.2393$eR7.7...@nnrp3.proxad.net...
The Tricolori flew a show in the United States just before the accident
at Ramstein. They omitted the "arrow through the heart" maneuver in the
US and put it back into the program for the Ramstein show. The accident
was an unfortunate example of the thinking behind our regulation
concerning the energy dispersion field NOT being aimed at the crowd at
any time during show maneuvers.
I might add that I was involved in a safety meeting at Transpo at Dulles
in 72 when we asked the Red Arrows to conform to this same rule. They
had been practicing the day before and over-flying the crowd
perpendicular to the 1500' show line because they were allowed to fly
that way in Europe. After some "discussion" they agreed, and conformed
to our rules the entire week of the show. As it was, we did suffer
accidents that week. One of the formula one racing pilots was killed; a
fellow flying some kind of a kite contraption was killed, and I lost a
friend, when Joe Howard of the Thunderbirds was killed during their
demonstration. A bad week all around for everyone concerned, but because
of the energy dispersion rule AT the crowd, no spectators were involved.
Ramstein was a disaster in more ways than one. We had been telling the
people in Europe that this could happen for years with no effect. To be
blunt, I personally was involved, as were other air show professionals,
in some of these attempts to convey common sense to the European show
format.
Then, after Ramstein, I was asked to appear on radio and TV in the
United States to "offer professional comment" on WHY this happened. I
don't have to tell you just how distasteful that was for me.
Jughead
>I did not see burner glow at any point. The engines were
>showing smoke at the climb but at the first turn all visible
>smoke ended (Burners On?) There was a report in another news
>group from a photographer that was under the aircraft as it
>passed over inverted. He claimed that the left engine "quit" and
>the right engine remained in burner. During the few flameouts I
>have witnessed there was a puff of mixed black and white smoke
>when the engine flamed out. I didn't see any on the tape but
>that does not rule out a flamout.
My guess is that the #1 engine suffered a compressor stall then.
I work on C-141's and can tell you that I've personally been on
a few maintenance runs in which a com stall was experienced.
Aside from the smoke that the engines normally puff out, there
is nothing unusual at all just by looking. The only thing
noticeable is a banging sound. There was no mention of a banging
sound at that point was there?
Jughead
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
Kevin Riley
tapes audio
Edward Zager
|> > I remember Bill Ross, an old friend , who owned a
|> >beautiful Mk 16 Spitfire turning around one afternoon to find a kid
|> >hanging on his rudder trim tab.
|>
|> I once caught a kid doing chin ups on the pitot tube; his father couldn't
|> understand why I was so upset (must something in that family).
|> V. Lenoch
Turning the Pitot heat on will quickly solve this problem.
Edward Zager Focke Wulf 149JZ
Kevin Riley
I also have an opinion and it’s just that, an opinion.
I agree let the guys that do this for a living do their job and I’ll read
their conclusions in Approach.
I’m reminded of the only accident that I was involved with while in the
Navy. I was in VA-42 and one of our A-6s crashed at the practice field
(Fentrus I believe). Both crew got out safely and the plane went into a
cornfield. We saw the seats go from our ramp at Oceana. When we got to the
scene there wasn’t much left.
The speculation among the troops was fast and furious as to what happened.
The plane broke, they over stressed it, they hit a bird/another plane, the
plane stalled, hydo/electrical failure.
Short story, there was no fire. Yes they ran out of fuel.
Kevin J. Riley
AFPCA/OAMD
The Pentagon
Washington DC
(703)614-1759
Dudley Henriques wrote:
Edward Zager
|>
|> Sergio Rodrigues <s.rod...@free.fr> wrote in message
|> news:q4m45.2393$eR7.7...@nnrp3.proxad.net...
|> >
|> > Dudley Henriques <dhenr...@earthlink.net> a écrit dans le message :
|> > BgB35.13061$ds.3...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
|> >
|> > > Also, we never flew AT the crowd. The general idea was a parallel
|> energy
|> > > dispersion field for aircraft parts if something happened.
|> >
|> > Dudley,
|> >
|> > Is that the result of the Frecce Tricolori crash at a Ramstein Air
|> Show ? I
|> > Just remember that the italians collided during a fast-crossing fly-by
|> > (please forgive me the technical terms, I don't know the appropriate
|> one)
|> > and that the solo (who flew in the direction of the crowd), hit his
|> leader,
|> > and crashed out of control (and propably with the killed pilot in the
|> > cockpit) into the crowd. Several deads.
|>
|> The Tricolori flew a show in the United States just before the accident
|> at Ramstein. They omitted the "arrow through the heart" maneuver in the
|> US and put it back into the program for the Ramstein show. The accident
|> was an unfortunate example of the thinking behind our regulation
|> concerning the energy dispersion field NOT being aimed at the crowd at
|> any time during show maneuvers.
|>
Where Dudley is quite correct about the "rules", the Frecci Tricolori also
flew at Moffet Field, CA on their US tour. They flew three consecutive
days, and flew the (appropriately named) "arrow through the heart" maneuver
all three days. The team did have quite a reputation for pushing the rules.
So, at least in some parts of the US, they still bent the rules
(past breaking) and got away with it.
John Carrier
> pilots or former ones ?... And how many of you flew or fly the F-14 ?
I qualify on both counts as a former fighter and F-14 pilot with a fair
amount of experience in high performance aircraft. I agree with Dudley that
the tape by itself is inconclusive. The aircraft was slow enough that GLOC
was not an issue. Other than that, it's ridiculous to speculate on the
cause of the mishap.
The F-14 originally had a standard irreversible hydraulic flight control
system with spoilers and differential tail for roll control. It is being
retrofitted with digital flight controls ... an associate who has flown the
DFCS system says it's an upgrade that vastly improves the aircraft's
capability.
R / John
Regnirps
>Where Dudley is quite correct about the "rules", the Frecci Tricolori also
>flew at Moffet Field, CA on their US tour. They flew three consecutive
>days, and flew the (appropriately named) "arrow through the heart" maneuver
>all three days. The team did have quite a reputation for pushing the rules.
>So, at least in some parts of the US, they still bent the rules
>(past breaking) and got away with it.
At Moffet they also like to do things like fly an F-16 in a TINY circle that
points at everybody at one time or another. I think I taped Hariers there once.
I couldn't help wonder which way they go when something starts to go wrong!
Charlie Springer
P.S. I lived in Palo Alto, worked in Mountain View. Almost did the "cockpit of
the future" noise work by riding the new Apache with tape recorders in my lap
but "flight test" and "helicopter" didn't seem to go well together in my mind.
The program was accident free. Too bad I didn't take it. Wringing out the
Apache in Texas would have been a hoot. A classmate of mine was on all the IR
telescope flights. The Keiper (?) flying observatory. I think it was a C-141 at
the time. We could also get up early and watch the white U-2 take off. Zoom, up
up and away!
MLenoch
>points at everybody at one time or another.
Do you mean a flat 360 degree turn? If so, this is not a 'at the crowd'
maneuver, as per the current airshow FAA rulings. FYI
Dudley Henriques
Edward Zager <eza...@td2cad.KiLLSPam.intel.com> wrote in message
news:8iu5d0$f...@news.or.intel.com...
> Where Dudley is quite correct about the "rules", the Frecci Tricolori
also
> flew at Moffet Field, CA on their US tour. They flew three
consecutive
> days, and flew the (appropriately named) "arrow through the heart"
maneuver
> all three days. The team did have quite a reputation for pushing the
rules.
>
> So, at least in some parts of the US, they still bent the rules
> (past breaking) and got away with it.
>
> Edward Zager Focke Wulf 149JZ
That's true Ed. We heard about it. The bottom line is now and has always
been local authority and willingness to conform. There's no doubt that
the "rules" are "bent" at various venues throughout the United States.
I've seen it myself.
Generally, OUR aerobatic teams fly as safe a show as is humanly
possible. From time to time, even the Blues and the Thunderbirds have
cut a thin line however. Mistakes are made in every show flown. Both
teams film each show and run the tape during the de-brief. It can get
quite candid and direct in these sessions, as each pilot is totally free
to criticize the others. I've been in on these sessions, and I can tell
you, both the Blues and the TBirds take this quite seriously. Most of
the time it's something minute like a slight position error, but from
time to time, a solo can get way off his line and bend it a bit trying
to re-sequence with the diamond. It's these isolated events that make up
the experiences related by people viewing the show, that tell about the
team flying "over the crowd". But the bottom line is that it happens;
not on purpose with our guys anyway, but it happens!
So far in the United States, we have been very lucky. I'm convinced
through my personal experience over a span of many, many years being
closely associated with our aerobatic teams, that it is their dedication
to flying the safest show possible, and to safety in general, that has
resulted in the 0 net loss of life to spectators viewing the shows.
I have mixed feelings about air shows in general. I loved doing them,
and I never willingly broke the safety limits. That being said, even I
was involved in two separate incidents that could very easily have
resulted in loss of life.
The bottom line of all this seems to be a great void between what the
public wants and the safety issue. I've always felt that there are
issues concerning the peripheral areas surrounding the airports,
especially as it relates to mid-air collisions and falling parts. These
areas comprise the over fly, staging, and approach paths of the
performing aircraft. The airplanes over these houses are being flown at
very low altitudes at maximum performance inconsistent with "normal"
operations. There is danger lurking there. I remember at Reading, during
my demonstration with the 51, there was a housing development right off
the end of the runway we used for the show line. Each time, as I was
coming down the backside of my half Cuban turn around, I was looking
right into the window of the same house. I can shut my eyes right now
and still see it. It was painted red with yellow shutters on the
windows, and there was a broken TV antenna on the roof.
That was over twenty years ago.....and I still remember it!
I don't really know WHAT the answer is...but it deserves serious,
dedicated discussion.
--
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
North American P51D Mustang
TOPFLIGHTPICS
>for themselves, they maneuvered their tomcat out of the way of the houses.
>showed in what will be their finest moment.
>NI}{ER
>
I hope you read this NI}{ER.....
I will agree with my life and my wifes life on this quote....these two men
saved our lives...we were only 150 yards from impact, he was nose down at us
when he leveled plane off and added throttle as best he could in his state, and
got enough clearance to save us. There were about 20 other people in the area
and I'm sure that if he had ejected when he could have, many could have been
injured or killed.
GOD BLESS THESE SHIPMATES!!!!
John & Jill Binford
Warminster, Pa
TOPFLIGHTPICS
>he could save it.
>
they did punch out....but when they did the plane was turned about 100 degrees
to the port side.
Jim Herring
The reason I put this line in is that I didn't know for sure if the F-14A had
FBW. From some of the other reports the aircrafts action could be due the
results of a flight control cable breaking. And, that there is a current issue
with faulty control cables in military and civilian aircraft.
--
Jim
carry on
Regnirps
All I can remember is it circles in the space between the blimp hanger and one
of the other buildings and it seems in the late 80's there were people all over
the place. But I may be recalling it wrong -- I was always looking up!
Charlie Springer
Regnirps
Maybe that was below the trees on the first video. Now I'm glad I didn't see it
-- too much empathy!
Charlie Springer
Derek Cedillo
<n4m45.2390$eR7.7...@nnrp3.proxad.net>:
>
>Derek Cedillo <ci...@SPAMisoc.net> a écrit dans le message :
>8F5944F5F...@209.247.210.101...
>> GLOC not really possible in an F-14 anyway...the A/C is typically
>> limited to 6 G's, which unless a pilot is WAY out of shape and not
>> aware, GLOC really doesn't come into play very often. More often than
>> not, the F-14 is limited even further, often down to 4.5-5 G's. This
>> is all due to Airframe issues. This data is for the F-14B, I would
>> suspect the F-14A is even more restricted.
>
I didn't say IMPOSSIBLE, just not really possible. The G forces are the
same throughout the aircraft though. Just because his tolerance was
down because of being tired, out of shape, not doing his G-grunts, etc,
doesn't mean he experienced more G's. It just means he konked out before
the "human limit of G forces", which of course is a statistical average of
some sort anyway.
>You just forgot that GLOC is applicated to the pilot and not to the
>structural limits of an airplane. May be the pilot was a little tired
>that day and suddenly, a guy who bears 8 or 9 Gs is limited to a 6G turn
>before getting unconscious. Well, I'm not saying that happened in this
>case, because I don't know, but I just correct your remark...
And I had to correct yours :) I don't think that's what happened either. I
interview a lot of F-14 pilots (it's my job :) and GLOC is almost NEVER
mentioned. In my experience, they never even talk about it. They go over
their G-warms, and that kinda stuff, but they never talk about over
stressing their bodies.
Now, the F-16 pilots on the other hand, that is a very common occurance.
>Sergio
>
>
Derek Cedillo
have flamed out, but this is pure speculation, because streaming frame
rates aren't the best. It may just be a jiggle in the frame that makes it
seem to go out. On the MSNBC cam, it's at about the 1:19 mark of the
streaming video, and 4:42.56 mark on the camcorder.
Hard to see much at the end, but you may be right about a last second
attempt to eject.
At such a low speed, and in a roll, I would think that left engine flame
out would put that left wing in a stall pretty quick. And whatever the true
reason for it, that left wing looks like it stalled pretty damn hard.
Just my $.02.
I hope that the families are doing well, and I am forever grateful to the
aviators of our armed forces for their dedication and sacrifice.
Derek
kevin...@army.pentagon.mil (Kevin Riley) wrote in
<39520445...@army.pentagon.mil>:
>I'll start by saying I have no idea why this tragedy happened. My
>thoughts go out to the families of the crew. They are the secondary
>victims as Bud Davidson says. They must deal with a lose most of will
>never have to.
>
>The following is from a tape I made of the evening news. As I said I
>tape it to watch it later.
>The tape was by a spectator but is farily steady.
>The quality was such that I could not desern wing control surface
>movments. I did not see burner glow at any point. The engines were
>showing smoke at the climb but at the first turn all visible smoke ended
>(Burners On?) There was a report in another news group from a
>photographer that was under the aircraft as it passed over inverted. He
>claimed that the left engine "quit" and the right engine remained in
>burner. During the few flameouts I have witnessed there was a puff of
>mixed black and white smoke when the engine flamed out. I didn't see any
>on the tape but that does not rule out a flamout. The numbers refer to
>the VCR timer. 00 is at the point the plane is about 75-100 feet off the
>ground in a climb After viewing the tape one frame at a time it looks
>like the crew attemted to eject at the last moment. See 16+ and 16++
>After the hard left turn when it all went bad it appears that the
>Aviator has little or no control.
>
>Dudley, if your still lurking, your an expieranced F-14 Driver maybe you
>could coment on this.
>
>00 Aircraft climbing at 45deg nose up along the axis off the runway,
>gear and hook down.
>
>01 Initiates a right climbing turn.
>
>03 Aircraft has turned 90deg to runway flying away from the stands and
>is at 90deg bank to the right.
>
>06 Aircraft has rolled inverted and continues for approximately 4
>seconds, gear and hook retracted.
>
>11 Aircraft starts rolling right to level.
>
>12 Aircraft continues roll to level and at about 45deg from level the
>nose comes up, the left wing drops and the plane banks and turns hard
>left. At this point the plane looks like it has stopped flying.
>
>13 The plane continues the left roll past 90deg with the nose about
>20deg down and starts a rapid decent.
>
>15 Almost wings level approximately 15deg bank and 10deg nose down and
>descending rapidly. The looks to be falling almost flat.
>
>16 Back to 90deg left bank, 15deg nose down, with the left wing tip at
>tree top level.
>
>16+ At this point the canopy was blown.
>
>16++ The first seat goes while the plane is still above any structures.
>I can't tell if the seat is the Aviator or the RIO and it looks like the
>seat hits the roof of a building. I didn't see the second seat go as the
>aircraft was below the trees.
>
>
Derek Cedillo
<395072A9...@vortex.phys.tue.nl>:
>Wingedhoof wrote:
>
>> Ralph Savelsberg ra...@vortex.phys.tue.nl
>>
>> >Overall the TF-30 has had a great number of problems. It was only
>> >meant to power the
>> >firs 80 or so F-14s. The rest was to be powered by the P&W F-401, but
>> >this was
>> >cancelled.
>> >Not only did the TF-30 have trouble with disturbed airflow, rapid
>> >throttle movements
>> >also caused problems for the enigine. There also was a problem with
>> >the some of the
>> >turbine stages which occasionally blew up. The manufacturer's answer
>> >to this was
>> >derating the engine and putting a protective ring around the turbine
>> >to keep pieces
>> >from the blades from damaging the rest of the aircraft.
>>
>> The manufacturer's answer to this was the F401 which was canceled by
>> the Navy. Actually, to be more precise, the TF30 was a temporary
>> measure to allow time to complete the development of the F401 as
>> mentioned above. The decision to make the TF30 permanent and to apply
>> band-aids was Navy all the way.
>>
>> When budgets are tight, preferred courses are not taken. That is
>> still true today and it is not restricted to the Navy.
>
>Okay, it was a navy decision not to continue with the F-401, though they
>were more or less pressured into it. The F-401 also had problems and was
>over budget. Given that the navy decided to stick with the TF-30s, P&W
>devised the band-aids. I didn't intend to criticise the company.
>Anyway, no matter who was responsible, it is a terrible waste that so
>many planes and more importantly lives were lost due to trouble with
>these 'interim' engines.
Don't forget guys/gals/etc. The navy didn't just ditch the F-401 and field
nothing but TF-30's throughout the fleet. The GE F110 powers majority of
the fleet, and has a very good safety and performance record in the F-14.
There was a lot of politics involved, but the F110 engine and the F-401 and
F-200 engine competitions were very interesting. I think P&W got a little
cocky after dominating recent military orders in the late 70's (F-15, F-14,
F-16), and was unresponsive to USN and USAF requests for fixes.
GE had some big wigs in washington that lobbied hard to have them look at
the F110 engine, and eventually, the govt decided to split the contracts up
and stay away from sole-sourcing for quite some time!
There's a really good book on the subject called "The Great Engine War"
I forget the Author's name (some retired AF officer I think) but it's a
quick read (maybe 100 pages) and pretty neat stuff. Even goes into some of
the woes of the lovely F111 and the effect it had on USN/USAF engine
orders.
Derek
>Ralph
>
>
Dennis Jensen
Derek Cedillo wrote:
>
> s.rod...@free.fr (Sergio Rodrigues) wrote in
> <n4m45.2390$eR7.7...@nnrp3.proxad.net>:
>
> >
> >Derek Cedillo <ci...@SPAMisoc.net> a écrit dans le message :
> >8F5944F5F...@209.247.210.101...
> >> GLOC not really possible in an F-14 anyway...the A/C is typically
> >> limited to 6 G's, which unless a pilot is WAY out of shape and not
> >> aware, GLOC really doesn't come into play very often. More often than
> >> not, the F-14 is limited even further, often down to 4.5-5 G's. This
> >> is all due to Airframe issues. This data is for the F-14B, I would
> >> suspect the F-14A is even more restricted.
> >
>
> I didn't say IMPOSSIBLE, just not really possible. The G forces are the
> same throughout the aircraft though. Just because his tolerance was
> down because of being tired, out of shape, not doing his G-grunts, etc,
> doesn't mean he experienced more G's. It just means he konked out before
> the "human limit of G forces", which of course is a statistical average of
> some sort anyway.
>
Derek, two issues. To the best of my knowledge, the F-14A was stressed
to 7.33G, and I have never heard this claim of 4.5-5Gs. Are you talking
about an aircraft loaded in Bombcat configuration.
The second issue is that everyone appears to be concentrating on the
maximum G the pilot can sustain, whereas rate onset is a very well known
factor in GLOC. Given that, and that the F-14 has a pretty good onset
rate (instantaneous turn rate), how does that fly with the contention
that GLOC is very rare with F-14 Drivers?
Dennis
Derek Cedillo
<39531E8C...@amdaat.com.au>:
>
>Derek, two issues. To the best of my knowledge, the F-14A was stressed
>to 7.33G, and I have never heard this claim of 4.5-5Gs. Are you talking
>about an aircraft loaded in Bombcat configuration.
Now we are mixing apples and oranges, but just slightly. :)
The 7.33G's is a design limit. The F-14 is a very old and very worn out
aircraft. Maintanence per flight hour is through the roof, wing pivots are
cracking, and so is the rest of the airframe. Now, I'm not saying this
aircraft is unsafe, I'm just saying it's old. And because of that, it no
longer can reach the 7.33G limit. 6 is more typical. What I mentioned as
far as 4.5-5G's is only when there is a directive due to a currently known
structural problem. Those don't happen all the time, and they don't last
for very long (just until they come up with a fix). For example, the wing
pivot problems limited them to 4.5G's for about 3-4 weeks.
Again, I'm not saying that the aircraft can't pull 7.33G's, or even more,
but in daily flying, they don't like to push 6, if they do, the crew chief
will have their hide, because there will be a heck of a lot of inspecting
that will have to be done.
Remember, the F-14 has already passed one retirement date, and is closing
in quickly on it's next two (F-14A's by 2003/2004 and F-14B's by 2007/2008
according to av-week). Given that they keep upgrading the darn things
avionics, I have a feeling it will get pushed past that date as well. The
super hornet will essentially be the F-14 replacement for now, taking over
the CAP type sorties I'm sure.
>The second issue is that everyone appears to be concentrating on the
>maximum G the pilot can sustain, whereas rate onset is a very well known
>factor in GLOC. Given that, and that the F-14 has a pretty good onset
>rate (instantaneous turn rate), how does that fly with the contention
>that GLOC is very rare with F-14 Drivers?
Agreed, we are not talking maximium average sustained anything,
instantaneous turn rate will get you faster than anything else. The F-14
does have a pretty good turn rate, for it's size. But it is a very large
aircraft, and that limits it a bit. It is very possible that he did reach a
high enough instantaneous rate to induce GLOC, I was just saying that in
normal maneuvers (including a wave off) they won't generally get that high.
And I trust the pilot enough to say that he didn't pull too many G's around
the turn. I guess I'm also biased against the TF-30's and because the way
that Left wing appears to have stalled, I have a feeling it's the engines
more than anything.
Derek
Dennis Jensen
Agreed about the TF-30s. I was not making any specific comment about
GLOC in this incident-I agree that from the video it doesn't appear that
either G-onset or max. G would have been high enough to cause G-onset.
Dennis
Ralph Savelsberg
Another interesting book with a lot of attention on the engine problem mainly
related to the F-14 is 'Tomcat!, the Grumman F-14 story' by retired navy rear
admiral Paul T Gillcrist. In my earlier message I was wrong. It was the 1971
SecDef's decision to ditch the F-401 as a cost cutting measure.
Ralph
Ralph
>
> >Ralph
> >
> >
Steven Holzinger
> have flamed out, but this is pure speculation, because streaming frame
> rates aren't the best. It may just be a jiggle in the frame that makes it
> seem to go out. On the MSNBC cam, it's at about the 1:19 mark of the
> streaming video, and 4:42.56 mark on the camcorder.
>
> Hard to see much at the end, but you may be right about a last second
> attempt to eject.
>
> At such a low speed, and in a roll, I would think that left engine flame
> out would put that left wing in a stall pretty quick. And whatever the true
> reason for it, that left wing looks like it stalled pretty damn hard.
>
> Just my $.02.
>
> I hope that the families are doing well, and I am forever grateful to the
> aviators of our armed forces for their dedication and sacrifice.
>
> Derek
From my video, it's kind of hard to tell if there was a flameout or not. As
for my memorial ro Dey and Bergstrom, I dedicated a section of my site to them
(main page and Airshow World).
--
Steven Holzinger
ICQ #30159629
E-mail: USAi...@hotmail.com
USAir1489 on AOL Instant Messenger
http://www.geocities.com/usair1489 - Aviation/Airshows Page
http://www.geocities.com/aviojep - Airport of Game Shows
PLEASE NOTE: Adding my e-mail address to any mailing list is PROHIBITED.
Leto3d
Derek Cedillo
let...@aol.com (Leto3d) wrote in <20000626111822.03985.00000360@ng-
cq1.aol.com>: