Followup on FA-18 Crash near St. Louis; McDonnell-Douglas under scrutiny
John M. Vogel
[ Article crossposted from rec.aviation.misc ]
[ Author was John M. Vogel ]
[ Posted on 21 Jun 1996 18:48:06 -0700 ]
Jeezuz, looks like there is going to be a storm of controversy here at
McDonnell-Douglas... Bill Mulcahy would *love* this.
As some of you might know, the McAir machinists have been on strike here
for a couple of weeks. In the meantime, McDonnell-Douglas has been
keeping the maintainance and assembly lines open by using their engineers to
assemble and maintain their planes.
Yesterday, an F/A-18 crashed in Bethalto, Illinois, a bit northeast of
St. Louis.
Here is my original posting on the accident:
[ Article crossposted from alt.disasters.aviation ]
[ Author was John M. Vogel ]
[ Posted on 19 Jun 1996 15:40:24 -0700 ]
A McDonnell-Douglas test pilot was practicing aerobatics in a McD FA-18
this afternoon in Bethalto, Il, near St. Louis when his plane crashed into
a residential area and exploded. Jeff Crutchfield, the pilot, with over
6,000 flight hours, was killed. The plane partially destroyed a home at
the point of impact - the owners were not at home at the time. Witnesses
said it seemed that the pilot was attempting to avoid residences in the
last few seconds. Mr. Crutchfield was practicing maneuvers for the
upcoming airshow at Fair St. Louis. I'm listening to additional updates
as I type - according to McDonnell, the plane was fresh off the assembly
line. There have been witness reports that the plane was on fire before
collision with the ground. It is not clear at this time whether the FAA
or military will conduct the investigation [verbatim from local news].
I later posted an addendum in alt.aviation.disasters (not here) that there
were conflicting reports regarding the age of the plane (brand new vs.
one to two years old). It has now been confirmed that the plane was
built in February of this year, long before the machinists went on strike.
----------------------------------
However...
Now there are questions about whether the changes in McAir's
assembly/maintainance could have contributed to the accident raised in
today's St. Louis Post-Dispatch. The newspaper reports that reporters
had interviewed 7 machinists who had said they had been doing complex
repairs on a plane with the McAir manufacturing number C414, and that
they had suspected that this was the plane that crashed. A
McDonnell-Douglas spokesman, Daryl Stephenson, later confirmed that the
plane that crashed was indeed C414.
Directly quoting from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch...
"The machinists poke on condition of anonymity because they fear
retaliation from McDonnell.
The machinists said they began repairing the plane in mid-May.
'This plane had a history of fuel leaks out of one of its tanks,' a
machinist said. He and others were told to replace the No. 4 fuel cell,
the largest of the multiple fuel tanks aboard an F-18.
The work is complex, the machinists said.
It involves removing hundreds of tubes, clamps, electrical fittings and
other parts to reach the rubber bladder that holds the plane's fuel.
'It's like a crossword puzzle,' said a machinist who had worked on the
plane.
The maze of components regulate and deliver fuel to the plane's engines.
So significant is the task of removing and replacing them that the
Federal Aviation Administration, in a document obtained by the
Post-Dispatch, describes the 4-month-old plane as 'rebuilt.'
Mechanics must work in the fuel cell compartment, which is about 4 feet
deep and so narrow that only a slender person can do the job.
In all, enough components to fill three boxes, each 3 feet high, wide
and long, were removed from the fuel cell before the machinists could
reach and replace the fuel bladder.
The machinists said they began putting the components back together as
the June 5 [strike] deadline drew near.
They said it is difficult to avoid damaging the components because of
the cramped quarters of the fuel cell compartment. Some electrical
components, for example, have dozens of wires, and it is easy to dislodge
them.
'You can knock fuel lines loose, or you can knock a clamp off,' said
one machinist who had worked on C414. He said that could cause a fuel
line to sever, cutting off fuel to one or both of the plane's engines.
Some components supply the engines with fuel when the plane is upside
down, as it was jsut before the crash. If these components malfunction,
the machinists said, the engines would get no fuel.
The machinists said much work - at least two full shifts by two
experienced mechanics - remained to be done on plane C414 when the strike
began on June 5. The machinists left their jobs for the picket line.
McDonnell then began using supervisors and other white-collar employees
to do work previously done by the machinists.
On Thursday, company spokesman Stephenson said white-collar employees
completed unfinished repairs needed by plane C414.
The machinists said white-collar employees do not have the skill needed
to fix the fuel cell.
'Supervisors do not maintain the planes,' one machinist said. 'They do
not know what we do.'
A machinist who worked on C414 said a supervisor who took his job had
experience working on the aircraft - 15 years ago. The supervisor could
not be reached for comment.
It is difficult even for an experienced mechanic to finish fuel cell
work begun by another person, the machinists said, because the second
mechanic can not know for sure what the first had done.
The machinists noted that witnesses heard the plane's engines make a
popping noise just before the crash. The nnoise is typical of a jet
engine starved for fuel.
One witness to the crash was Jim Crutchfield, the 18-year-old son of
Jeffrey Crutchfield [the late pilot]. Jim Crutchfield has been a pilot
for two years. He was taught to fly by his father.
As the plane plunged toward the ground, Jim Crutchfield saaid its
engines made a clicking sound. He said it sounded line an engine
deprived of fuel.
'The engine lost power, he said. 'It sounded like it was trying to
develop power but it couldn't. It clicked like it needed fuel.'"...
Copyright 1996, St. Louis Post-Dispatch
What's even more mystifying is that both the Navy and McDonnell Douglas
were supposed to be investigating the crash, but, thus far, only McAir
personnel have been seen at the scene. Local news stations have shown
video of McAir personnel (wearing jumpsuits with 'McAir' on the back and
wearing filtration masks) picking up wreckage and depositing it into
burlap bags.
Of course, the full investigation results won't be in for several months,
but there are definitely some things to ponder here.
John
jvo...@crl.com
Token
Crutch was a hell of a nice guy. He used to like to crank the canopy
of the (Q)F-86 back and wave at people on the ground.
Token
Rusty Harris
Yeah, but once again someone was "apparently" doing stunts low
to the ground for his relatives. Wonder why he didn't punch
out as the F-18 has zero zero seats?
About 10 years ago, we had an A-10 pilot from K.C killed near
here when he was doing a loop too low to the ground to impress
friends he knew lived nearby. You should have seen the idiots on
the ground grabbing up the 30mm rounds that were scattered.
The Air Force and the fire dept. had to beg people to bring em
back for an exchange for a dummy round.
I can just see it in 20-30 years when one of those rounds is sitting
on someones shelf and drops off. Ahhh honey, about that new
sun porch you were begging me to build......we now have one!
Rusty/KB0GNK
Token
Rusty Harris wrote:
> Yeah, but once again someone was "apparently" doing stunts low
> to the ground for his relatives. Wonder why he didn't punch
> out as the F-18 has zero zero seats?
>
> About 10 years ago, we had an A-10 pilot from K.C killed near
> here when he was doing a loop too low to the ground to impress
> friends he knew lived nearby.
> Rusty/KB0GNK
The stunts Crutch was "apparently" doing at low level were in
preperations for an air show in Europe later this year.
Also while I have seen Crutch do a few things at low level, I think
that I have never seen him do anything that was as unsafe as say,
what Top Gun agressors do daily. Buy this I meen flying high
performance militairy aircraft, in militairy formations, and using
militairy procedures is inharently risky. But there are a lot of
professionals that do it daily at low levels. Thank God.
Token
Darrell Leach
KD6LRC DM-15
E-mail: to...@owens.ridgecrest.ca.us
Jonathan M. Elson
airport. One told the other that one engine WASN'T BOLTED IN! That
explains the picture showing one engine that looked like it had been
ejected from the plane in the crash. As I understand the mounting
flanges on these engines, it is a face mounted flange at the inlet,
so when the engine produces thrust, it presses the flanges together,
and the engine won't go anywhere. When coming down in a loop, however,
with thrust reduced, the engine could drop until pipes, wires, etc. break.
Any one else heard anything to confirm/dispute this?
Bradley Flick
The front flange is strictly an air seal to prevent inlet air from leaking
around the engine/airframe interface. The F404 has 3 engine mounts. One
on top is a lug/pin arrangement and two at 3:00 and 9:00 are pins on the
engine that are held captive by mounts in the aircraft engine bay. I have
a hard time believing the engine wasn't "bolted in". It is possible that
one or both of the side mounts were improperly torqued. I haven't kept up
on the investigation, but I seem to remember hearing that the pilot hit
trees or power lines or something.
Brad Flick
F-18 HARV Operations Engineer
In article <4r2ctv$g...@newsreader.wustl.edu>, jme...@artsci.wustl.edu
Doug Brindle
>In article <4r2ctv$g...@newsreader.wustl.edu>, jme...@artsci.wustl.edu
>(Jonathan M. Elson) wrote:
>
>> I overheard two McDonnell employees talking in the Lambert-St. Louis
>> airport. One told the other that one engine WASN'T BOLTED IN! That
>> explains the picture showing one engine that looked like it had been
>> ejected from the plane in the crash. As I understand the mounting
>> flanges on these engines, it is a face mounted flange at the inlet,
>> so when the engine produces thrust, it presses the flanges together,
>> and the engine won't go anywhere. When coming down in a loop, however,
>> with thrust reduced, the engine could drop until pipes, wires, etc. break.
>>
>> Any one else heard anything to confirm/dispute this?
I'll "dispute" this....
I have a couple of buddies that work at MDA, St. Louis, one even knew the
pilot - sorta. He remarked that just prior to the crash, the pilot had
made a relatively low altitude loop, and then landed for fuel. My
"sources" believe he must have been trying another - even lower - loop -
but with increased fuel weight.. and he might have miscalculated the
pull-out height. It's hard to believe someone with that many hours in
jets coulda done something like this... but it seems a little more
reasonable than one of the engines not being bolted in... afterall, he
had been performing several 'vertical' manuevers that day.
-d
Jonathan M. Elson
Bradley Flick (brad_...@qmgate.dfrc.nasa.gov) wrote:
: The front flange is strictly an air seal to prevent inlet air from leaking
: around the engine/airframe interface. The F404 has 3 engine mounts. One
: on top is a lug/pin arrangement and two at 3:00 and 9:00 are pins on the
: engine that are held captive by mounts in the aircraft engine bay. I have
: a hard time believing the engine wasn't "bolted in". It is possible that
: on the investigation, but I seem to remember hearing that the pilot hit
: trees or power lines or something.
Thanks for describing the engine mount arangement. Quite a few observers,
including Crutch's son (a pilot), indicate the engines were BOTH stopped
and may have been in a relight sequence when the aircraft went into the
trees after completing a low-level loop during practice for an air show
in the Czech Republic. I have never heard anything about power lines.
A photo in the newspaper showed one engine that had been stripped of its
accessories, and appeared to have been ejected from the aircraft during
the crash. The other engine appeared that it had been removed carefully
from the A/C by the investigators, as the accessories and tailpipe were
still attached, and no obvious dents/damage were visible.
From the vague descriptions in the paper, Crutch may have died as a result
of hitting the trees himself. The forced landing might have been
survivable, although quite punishing, if it hadn't been for a stand of
large trees.
Anyway, the overheard conversation alluded to perhaps ONE of the locks
you mention being in place, instead of all of them (three, as you point
out). This may have allowed the engine enough freedom to eventually
break (or crimp) the fuel lines. This could have affected both engines.
I don't know how much isolation there is between the two engines, but
having seen the inside of an F-15 with one engine removed, (and perhaps
assuming the -18 is similar) it seems that a whole loose engine rocking
around in there could cause quite a lot of damage to the other engine's
fuel supply.
Perhaps you could shed a little light on this, Mr. Flick. Thanks
again. I wish the NTSB would let out a little of what they have
found. We don't ask for conclusions yet, just where they are going with
it.
Mary Shafer
On 5 Jul 1996 19:55:56 GMT, jme...@artsci.wustl.edu (Jonathan M. Elson) said:
J> I wish the NTSB would let out a little of what they have
J> found. We don't ask for conclusions yet, just where they are going
J> with it.
What makes you think the NTSB is investigating? It was a military
airplane flown under a military contract. It may well be entirely out
of the NTSB's area of authority. The NTSB's charter only covers
_private_ aviation, not _public_ aviation. When Steve had to jump out
of an uncontrollable F-18, there was no NTSB involvement in the
investigation at all; NASA convened a Mishap Investigation Board and
that was all there was to it.
--
Mary Shafer NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA
SR-71 Flying Qualities Lead Engineer Of course I don't speak for NASA
sha...@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov DoD #362 KotFR
URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html
Kevin Renshaw
sha...@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) wrote:
>On 5 Jul 1996 19:55:56 GMT, jme...@artsci.wustl.edu (Jonathan M. Elson) said:
>
>J> I wish the NTSB would let out a little of what they have
>J> found. We don't ask for conclusions yet, just where they are going
>J> with it.
>
>What makes you think the NTSB is investigating? It was a military
>airplane flown under a military contract. It may well be entirely out
>of the NTSB's area of authority. The NTSB's charter only covers
>_private_ aviation, not _public_ aviation. When Steve had to jump out
>of an uncontrollable F-18, there was no NTSB involvement in the
>investigation at all; NASA convened a Mishap Investigation Board and
>that was all there was to it.
>
>
>--
>Mary Shafer NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA
>
ercial type sales demos in the Czheck Republic (it sounds funny, but that is how some military products are sold these days). There=
was a blurb in Av Week last week saying that the FAA was even involved because McAir should have applied for an N number and an "Ex=
perimental" registration while they were the operating the airplane.
Kevin Renshaw
Bob Keeter
Until the investigators FIND the reason for the crash, all any of us
can do is to hypothesize. I dont KNOW about any flange that is a load
bearing member in the F/A-18 and I dont KNOW that Crutch pulled a loop
without getting enough altitude to recover. I did not inspect the
wreckage and I did not see the maneuver. There are a few things that I
might hypothesize on though.
I think I can claim a little knowledge of the Hornet's construction and
the pilot. Crutch was a personal friend and a coworker while he was the
chief test pilot here at China Lake. The first poster had obviously never
even seen an F/A-18 with the back end opened up; I have to think that you did
not know Jeff Crutchfield. Anybody can make a mistake, Crutch included; but if
you want a "hot tip", follow the smart money and bet on a simple aircraft
failure, not pilot error! He would obviously push the limits of what
a layman considered safe (of course what sane layman would consider 'coming
aboard' on a dark stormy night in the north Pacific a safe thing to do!)
but if there was ever a man who knew the limits of his aircraft and his own
personal limits, it was Crutch. If it came down to one of the engine mounts
not being connected or Crutch busting the pull-out from a simple loop, sight
unseen, I bet you that they spend a long, _long_ time looking for that last
engine mount in the pile of wreckage!
Whatever comes out on the crash, I'm believing that the airplane broke
under Crutch; he did not fly it into the ground.
Regards
bk
David Hyde
Mary Shafer (sha...@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov) wrote:
> What makes you think the NTSB is investigating? It was a military
> airplane flown under a military contract. It may well be entirely out
> of the NTSB's area of authority.
_Normally_, when an airplane is bailed to a contractor, the _contractor_
assumes accident investigating and reporting responsibilities.
According to AvWeek (7/1/96), the FAA and NTSB will be conducting this
investigation. AvWeek did not state a reason for the switch.
As usual, there seems to be a great deal of speculation on the mishap, but
this time it's got the added 'feature' of having participants who knew the
pilot. I also knew, worked with, and respected Crutch, and have no intention
of marring his reputation. I do think it's unwise to disregard facts and base
my decision on my professional opinion of the man and his flying. I'll wait
until the experts sifting through the parts and watching the tapes come up with
the probable cause. To do otherwise jeopardizes future investigations and
safety implications of proposed changes.
Dave 'solemn' Hyde
na...@windvane.umd.edu
Nick Lappos
Posters:
I am a test pilot for a major airframer, and have been thru the process
enough to have to comment on the posts above.
Regardless of your personal judgements as to the personality of the
pilot, and your hopes as to the cause, it is most unwise to close your
eyes to any probable cause until all the facts are in. It is as wrong
to leap to pilot error as the cause as it is to exclude pilot error,
until all the facts are organized.
having participated as an expert pilot in too many of these
investigations, I can assure you that the "convenient' pilot error angle
is only explored as the facts begin to rule out other causes.
We as a culture are too willing to believe that professionals reach
unreasonable decisions and explore cover ups in all fields (Roswell,
anyone?).
Let's keep all eyes open until the facts tell the story, OK?
I am amused by the post that quotes an overheard conversation as some
"fact' to toss on the pile. I only hope that poster uses better facts
in the everyday conduct of his/her life. I wouldn't cross the street
based on those "facts".
Nick Lappos
Jonathan M. Elson
Nick Lappos (nla...@igc.net) wrote:
: I am amused by the post that quotes an overheard conversation as some
: "fact' to toss on the pile. I only hope that poster uses better facts
: in the everyday conduct of his/her life. I wouldn't cross the street
: based on those "facts".
I was careful to point out the source of the 'information' I overheard.
I wouldn't have mentioned it without making it clear that it was hearsay,
overheard, etc. and therefore pretty unreliable. I threw it out clearly
labeled as something of weak veracity and asked for confirmation/rebuttal
from anyone who knew anything.
I was getting irritated by not hearing ANYTHING for a week or so.
Finally, our St. Louis paper has an update. The NTSB investigators
told the St. Louis Post Dispatch thet the engines were running normally
until the plane hit the ground. This has been determined both from the
flight incident recorder data, as well as teardown of the engines.
(They reported that the engines were still in the plane and intact, but
a published photo shows one engine severly dented on the 'bullet' in
front of the fan. Since the engines are pretty well shrouded by the
fuselage and the intake ducts, that is a bit confusing, but could be
explained by the nature of the crash.) This is in complete conflict
with the witnesses of the crash, some of whom are pilots. It may be
that the pilot (Crutchfield) may have shut the throttles to minimize
the crash he couldn't avoid for some reason. If I had a plane not
responding to control, and heading down, I'd shut the throttles, too.
(It also may be that the throttles were shut at the top of the loop,
and the pilot never re-applied thrust from there on. A mystery.)
Also in reference to the witnesses, Crutchfield's son, a pilot, reported
clicking noises from the A/C, which I think he interpreted as a relight
attempt. My experience is that the F-18 is a VERY noisy bird, with
such a loud fan buzz at low power, that the first time I heard it I
was sure it was a plane with a massive malfunction. That buzz is
apparently normal, they all do it at low power. But, anyway, that
clicking is still unexplained.
They also said there was no indication of flight control problems or
other malfunctions of the aircraft. They have X-rayed all flight control
surfaces, and are disassembling them, looking for loose fittings and
bolts, etc. Nothing found there, yet.
They also looked into the possibility that the ejection system
malfunctioned, or was safety pinned. They were confident there was
nothing preventing the pilot from ejecting if he chose to do so.
This brings one back to the pilot. Could he have been incapacitated
in some way? I would think the flight incident recorder takes flight
control commands as well as surface positions. One should be able to
tell if the pilot was effectively in control of the plane, or was not
properly responding to the imminent crash. This might take a lot of
study, however. Noone has mentioned cause of death of the pilot.
If his lungs weren't filled with smoke, one wonders if he was alive
or having some kind of medical incident moments before the crash.
Hard to be sure, of course, since the crash injuries may have prevented
breathing after the impact.
Well, this crash is looking like it will be a lot harder to solve than
the initial tidbits of data indicated. Since many people thought there
were engine problems, and since the A/C had just had major fuel system
work done, it looked like that was where the trouble would be found.
Apparently, not so.
Confused, and wanting lots more data,
Jon
Mary Shafer
On 12 Jul 1996 20:38:29 GMT, jme...@artsci.wustl.edu (Jonathan M. Elson) said:
J> I was getting irritated by not hearing ANYTHING for a week or so.
J> Finally, our St. Louis paper has an update. The NTSB investigators
J> told the St. Louis Post Dispatch thet the engines were running
J> normally until the plane hit the ground. This has been determined
J> both from the flight incident recorder data, as well as teardown of
J> the engines. (They reported that the engines were still in the
J> plane and intact, but a published photo shows one engine severly
J> dented on the 'bullet' in front of the fan. Since the engines are
J> pretty well shrouded by the fuselage and the intake ducts, that is
J> a bit confusing, but could be explained by the nature of the
J> crash.) This is in complete conflict with the witnesses of the
J> crash, some of whom are pilots. It may be that the pilot
J> (Crutchfield) may have shut the throttles to minimize the crash he
J> couldn't avoid for some reason. If I had a plane not responding to
J> control, and heading down, I'd shut the throttles, too. (It also
J> may be that the throttles were shut at the top of the loop, and the
J> pilot never re-applied thrust from there on. A mystery.)
No, he probably pulled it to flight idle, rather than shutting it off.
At least that's how all the pilots I know do F-18 loops.
Just as "losing an engine" usually means that the engine stopped
working, not that the engine is no longer on or in the aircraft, so
does "shutting the throttles" refer to going to flight idle, not to
engine shutdown.
J> Well, this crash is looking like it will be a lot harder to solve
J> than the initial tidbits of data indicated. Since many people
J> thought there were engine problems, and since the A/C had just had
J> major fuel system work done, it looked like that was where the
J> trouble would be found. Apparently, not so.
There's a moral right here. Dealing with data is much harder than
dealing with assumptions. And leaping to those assumptions based on
reports in the media is particularly prone to error, especially for
those not greatly conversant with aircraft operations. As an example
of this latter, consider the conspiracy theory about the USAF flight
with Ron Brown.
--
Mary Shafer NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA
SR-71 Flying Qualities Lead Engineer Of course I don't speak for NASA
sha...@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov DoD #362 KotFR
URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html
For personal messages, please use sha...@ursa-major.spdcc.com
Tarver Engineering
On Mon, 15 Jul 1996 17:26:56 GMT, sha...@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov (Mary
Shafer) wrote:
<snip>
>There's a moral right here. Dealing with data is much harder than
>dealing with assumptions. And leaping to those assumptions based on
>reports in the media is particularly prone to error, especially for
>those not greatly conversant with aircraft operations. As an example
>of this latter, consider the conspiracy theory about the USAF flight
>with Ron Brown.
The public seems intent on misatributing conspiracy for stupidity.
JT
Jonathan M. Elson
Mary Shafer (sha...@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov) wrote:
: J> Well, this crash is looking like it will be a lot harder to solve
: J> than the initial tidbits of data indicated. Since many people
: J> thought there were engine problems, and since the A/C had just had
: J> major fuel system work done, it looked like that was where the
: J> trouble would be found. Apparently, not so.
: There's a moral right here. Dealing with data is much harder than
: dealing with assumptions. And leaping to those assumptions based on
: reports in the media is particularly prone to error, especially for
: those not greatly conversant with aircraft operations. As an example
: of this latter, consider the conspiracy theory about the USAF flight
: with Ron Brown.
The coroner had his inquest yesterday, and revealed nothing of any
substance. They are listing 'accident' as the cause of death, but
other than that, there isn't much. Of cours, after what Crutch went
through, it may be hard to tell if there was anything that caused him
to be unable to be in control of the aircraft. I hoped that the coroner
might shed some light on it, but at least there is nothing in the paper
that does.
Woody
On Mon, 15 Jul 1996 17:26:56 GMT, Mary Schafer wrote:
M> On 12 Jul 1996 20:38:29 GMT, jme...@artsci.wustl.edu (Jonathan M.
M> Elson) said:
J> I was getting irritated by not hearing ANYTHING for a week or so.
J> Finally, our St. Louis paper has an update. The NTSB investigators
J> told the St. Louis Post Dispatch thet the engines were running
J> normally until the plane hit the ground. This has been determined
J> both from the flight incident recorder data, as well as teardown of
J> the engines. (They reported that the engines were still in the
J> plane and intact, but a published photo shows one engine severly
J> dented on the 'bullet' in front of the fan. Since the engines are
J> pretty well shrouded by the fuselage and the intake ducts, that is
J> a bit confusing, but could be explained by the nature of the
J> crash.) This is in complete conflict with the witnesses of the
J> crash, some of whom are pilots. It may be that the pilot
J> (Crutchfield) may have shut the throttles to minimize the crash he
J> couldn't avoid for some reason. If I had a plane not responding to
J> control, and heading down, I'd shut the throttles, too. (It also
J> may be that the throttles were shut at the top of the loop, and the
J> pilot never re-applied thrust from there on. A mystery.)
M> No, he probably pulled it to flight idle, rather than shutting it
M> off. At least that's how all the pilots I know do F-18 loops.
Woody sends:
Mary, you need to meet some new F/A-18 pilots. The Hornet bleeds like a
big dog when you haul aft on the stick--even when going down hill. You
need to have all the power on the jet to keep enough energy on it to
retain a respectable pitch rate and minimize the turn radius. For
instance, best results in making a min alt split-S when starting at 250
KCAS on top is to go to blower and hold 25-35 alpha (providing that's
within NATOPS for your config) through the pull.
If Crutch was doing lots of knots coming down hill, it would make sense
to pull 'em back to idle. In most cases, though, you'd have the
throttles wide open in a hard pull.
Reanna
Being that i had seen it first hand i was interview my military men, I'm not sure what branch, I was to young to wonder about the difference then. He asked me questions about how the plane went down and made me show him with my hand as to whether it went straight down or weather he had pulled up in the end.
I was told and overheard what can only be truly counted as hear-say but that there is a black box thing that records the last words of a pilot. I was said that He wouldn't eject and that his last words were "I see kids,... I see kids"
I also heard and I have know idea about this but That there is a pin that's used to assemble an ejector seat and unless this pin is removed it can't be ejected. I was told that they found that pin so he couldn't have ejected even if he wanted too.
I'm not sure how much of the hear-say is truth.
I choose to believe that he died a hero and wouldn't I'm thankful he didn't or that plane would no have just hit someone's garage it could have come down on Tiffany and Abby and I. I was very lucky that day. It's a day I will never forget.
