F-14 crash near Nashville, TN 1/2- any info available?
rwa...@gcn.scri.fsu.edu
Listening to Limbaugh on the radio and heard top of the hour newcast
which ststed that an F-14 taking off from Nashville crashed, killing
crew and at least three civilians in houses that it hit. Anyone know
more details?
Glen A Braden
check it out.
Thanks
Glen A Braden
Melody Womack
I'm about 10 miles down the road from the crash site and it is THE news
here on all the local TV stations. The F14a from Squadron 213 had just
taken off on its way back to Miramar and went down a couple of minutes
later. Apparently the pilot is from this area and Nashville was chosen
as refueling stop so he could visit his parents who watched him take
off. There were no unusual weather conditions as the jet left with
full tanks. One of the stations here had an interview with a man from
the civilian refueling crew and he said there were no problems on that
end. Since fighter craft are relatively rare around here the noise of
the jet's ascent attracted the attention of two women who watched it
head toward the clouds. But within seconds the plane was headed back
nose down, apparently a victim of engine stallout. Shortly before it
hit the pilot managed to level out and made it past I-24 which would
have been crowded at the time. The street the Tomcat went down on is
only a second or two away by air from 4 lane roads on two sides and is
relatively free of houses. DOD is sending a team of investigators from
Norfolk. Debris was everywhere, the engines have been recovered, but
since one of the explosive devices from the ejection seats hasn't been
located yet police aren't letting people into the area for safety
reasons.
An elderly couple and a visitor were killed in the house it came down
on directly. Another couple who were sleeping in the next door house
were able to escape from their flaming home. An elementary school was
a mile away, some kids on recess saw the crash, and parents were asked
to pick up their children. Buses weren't allowed into the area since
the 2 lane residental streets were crowded with emergency vehicles.
I don't know about the other guy but at least the pilot survived for a
short time. A priest gave him last rights and he was able to talk a
little bit so that's how the news crews found out he was from around
here. According to later reports this particular pilot was involved in
another crash within the last year but they gave no details. While
F14a's have a good overall operating record, within the last 5 years
there has been 30 "class A" mishaps meaning loss of life. They're
prone to stallouts and were scheduled to receive new engines, but
budget cuts scuttled that.
Melody
Hal K. and Chris Litchford
>Listening to Limbaugh on the radio and heard top of the hour newcast
>which ststed that an F-14 taking off from Nashville crashed, killing
>crew and at least three civilians in houses that it hit. Anyone know
>more details?
I grew up in a neighborhood adjacent to the Nashville airport. SOme of
the houses I saw in the background of the news clips looked familiar.
I would appreciate info as to the exact location of the crash.
I remember 2 military crashes in the vicinity of my neighborhood in
the early 1950's. Although I was very young, my recollection is that
the aircraft were an F-84 and a C-119.
HKL
Donald Dade
the F-14A Tomcat from VF-213 from right here in San Diego. I heard a
witness say that the Tomcat took off, and less than 90 seconds out, came
down out of some clouds purely vertical. It crashed into a home, killing
three. Apparently TF-30s now kill more than just pilots...
regards,
Don
Melody Womack
Chris Litchford) writes:
>
>rwa...@gcn.scri.fsu.edu wrote:
>
>
>>Listening to Limbaugh on the radio and heard top of the hour newcast
>>which ststed that an F-14 taking off from Nashville crashed, killing
>>crew and at least three civilians in houses that it hit. Anyone know
>>more details?
>
>I grew up in a neighborhood adjacent to the Nashville airport. SOme of
>the houses I saw in the background of the news clips looked familiar.
>I would appreciate info as to the exact location of the crash.
>
>HKL
>
Here's an update on my earlier posting since the 10pm news had more
details available. HKL, you probably did recognize those houses since
they are in an older neighborhood. The Tomcat went down on 322 Luna
Drive, a street just off Harding Place and running south roughly
parallel to Interstate 24. Three houses were destroyed, two right down
to the foundations which isn't surprising since they got 20,000 pounds
of jet fuel dumped on them. After a couple of hours Metro Fire
Department got the flames knocked down but kept onlookers back, just in
case. Good thing since about 10 hours later flames burst out again,
probably due to the substantial amount of fuel believed to have soaked
into the ground. About 25 people are spending the night away from
their homes since as of dark the second ejector mechanism hasn't been
located yet.
Vice Admiral Brian Bennett showed up this afternoon from California and
released the names of the crew, Pilot Lt. Cmd. John Stacy Bates and
Radar Specialist Lt. Graham Alden Higgins. Bates was from Chattanooga,
another Tennessee city about 100 miles from here and he had stopped in
Nashville Friday night to visit his parents and attend the Grand Ole
Opry. Higgins was from Maine. Bates and Higgins were members of the
Fighting Black Lions which served in the Persian Gulf. Previous to
today the Lions have had 4 "major mishaps" in the last 2 years, some
resulting in death. Oddly enough Bates and another back seater were
one of those mishaps, having ejected over the Pacific. After
investigation the Navy cleared him of responsibility (mechanical
problems were the culprit) and he went back to duty.
At some point this morning Bates must have regained some power because
a witness taking a smoke break outside a high office building on
Perimeter Park testified that the jet "gunned his engines" to avoid
hitting the building which is a very short distance from the actual
crash site. It's not clear whether the pilot was trying to swing
around and get back to the airport or if he realized the jig was up and
was trying to avoid as many people on the ground as possible.
Whichever, Nashville was extremely lucky since the I-24/Harding Place
junction a quarter of a mile away is one of the busiest in the city. A
crash there could have resulted in dozens of deaths instead of just 5.
Today a team of 70 investigators from DOD will be giving the area the
fine toothed comb treatment. Since there is uncombusted fuel still in
the ground at the site much of the dirt there will be backhoed up and
carried away. To people directly affected in the area the military
will pick up all costs due to loss of property, offsite lodging, and
probably will make some sort of settlement to the families of the
victims.
Melody
Simon Lam
[snip]
: nose down, apparently a victim of engine stallout. Shortly before it
[snip]
I knew it would happen again. The bloody A version has struck again! When
the bugger are they going to replace those dangerous engines?
Don't get me wrong. The F-14 is a beautiful aircraft and all the other
versions, especially the D, are excellent. But the F-14A's engines have
killed enough people!
Simon Lam
It's the man, not the machine.
(But it often helps)
E-mail:simo...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca
john.w.lyngdal
>From: war...@sundial.net (Hal K. and Chris Litchford)
>Subject: Re: F-14 crash near Nashville, TN 1/2- any info available?
>Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 04:16:52 GMT
>rwa...@gcn.scri.fsu.edu wrote:
>>Listening to Limbaugh on the radio and heard top of the hour newcast
>>which ststed that an F-14 taking off from Nashville crashed, killing
>>crew and at least three civilians in houses that it hit. Anyone know
>>more details?
>I grew up in a neighborhood adjacent to the Nashville airport. SOme of
>the houses I saw in the background of the news clips looked familiar.
>I would appreciate info as to the exact location of the crash.
>I remember 2 military crashes in the vicinity of my neighborhood in
>the early 1950's. Although I was very young, my recollection is that
>the aircraft were an F-84 and a C-119.
>HKL
I was informed that this saw the second F-14 the pilot planted.
John
Lou Haas
to lost four birds in the last two years, including the douche bag
that they got jammed down their throats.
PlaneJo
away with nobody responding. Usually I let remarks like that slide off
(being a warbird pilot of the female gender) but you know, SHE wasn't
"shoved down their throats", and perhaps HER F-14 went down due to a combo
of pilot error and mechanical. After all, it looks like this poor Tomcat
driver in Nashville was guilty of ditching last year (due to pilot error).
So people with (usually) larger external genitalia (than the "douche
bag") are apt to cause crashes to occur occasionally too.
The problem here has more to do with the problematic P&W engines - as
already noted.
Jo
Donald Dade
I heard on the news today that the pilot had requested to go home to TN
for training flights. When he left, he requested to go vertical to angels
15, wanting to do something cool because his parents/friends were
watching him leave. He did so, and the TF-30s probably killed them.
don
N. Bradford-Reid
> OK Lou, you KNEW you couldn't write a comment like "douche bag" and get
> away with nobody responding. Usually I let remarks like that slide off
> (being a warbird pilot of the female gender) but you know, SHE wasn't
> "shoved down their throats",
Actually, from all I've heard, she was. Her instructors had said she was
not ready, but the "powers that be" were so hot to be the first to get
female fighter pilots out there that she was, in effect, sacrificed.
and perhaps HER F-14 went down due to a combo
> of pilot error and mechanical.
True.
After all, it looks like this poor Tomcat
> driver in Nashville was guilty of ditching last year (due to pilot error).
Not true. He was absolved of responsibility. The crash was due to
mechanical failure, as Melody stated.
> So people with (usually) larger external genitalia (than the "douche
> bag") are apt to cause crashes to occur occasionally too.
Also true, but let's at least try to refer to her a little more
professionally (Lou?), eh what?
> The problem here has more to do with the problematic P&W engines - as
> already noted.
Engines which probably should have been replaced about two days after the
a/c came on line. My personal belief is a) if Congress can't stop voting
themselves pay raises long enough to see their way clear to either upgrade
or replace the -As that they should be grounded; and b) Congress ought
to pay all reparations out of their own pockets.
It's fairly obvious that the pilot, knowing he had signed the deed, fought
that bastard plane to keep it from hitting highly populated areas and he
and the RIO rode it in rather than ejecting--if they even had a chance to
eject. For that final act of sacrifice and courage they should be
recognized, albeit posthumously, not denigrated.
All my personal opinion and subject to the mercurial winds of my
particular hot buttons.
____________________
...Navy Wings are made of Gold...
_____________________________________________________________________
|N. Bradford-Reid |"If you want to inspire confidence, |
|Department of English |*give plenty of statistics*. It |
|The University of Texas |does not matter that they should be |
|n.b-...@mail.utexas.edu |accurate, or even intelligible, so |
| |long as there is enough of them." |
| | Lewis Carroll |
____________________________________________________________________
Ron Miller
: From a taxpayer's point of view it is utterly rediculous to
: allow any pilot who butched up on mulitimillion airplane for
: us to do so again. Would certainly not happen in commercial
: aviation and maybe the reaseon many airlines do not hire
: fighter jockeys. So there
: you are!
It's a judgement call. Are you willing to throw away all the training
investment every single time anything happens for whatever reason?
How will genuine learning take place?
Brings to mind one of my father's buddies who, as a young F-4 pilot,
followed the advice he was given to 'keep it on the deck until ' a
certain speed was reached and then to raise the nose and depart.
What was meant was to fly low in ground effect while accelerating.
What occurred was shredded tires :-)
That same pilot went on to have a very fine career and I remember him
as one of the nicest men my father ever introduced me to.
Or how about the transitioning F-4 student who, on his *first* flight in
the F-4 missed the part about keeping the stick fully back in his lap
until the nose rotated and, instead, drove a perfectly good airplane
straight off the far end of the runway at high speed thinking he
had a control failure and ejected at the end of runway? (I don't
know what happened to this student)
Life isn't as simple as it ought to be.
Ron Miller
(and I *never* *ever* made a *single* mistake when I was operating
a nuclear submarine or instructing in sailplanes or driving my car......)
Lou Haas
would be interesting to get an old BROWNSHOE to give neutral
comments on this subject.
For the uninitiated, it is my believe that Naval aviation
started its turn to the worse when their flyers were forced to
start wearing black shoes. (Was that Zumwalt again?)
S. Sampson
>It's a judgement call. Are you willing to throw away all the training
>investment every single time anything happens for whatever reason?
>How will genuine learning take place?
>Brings to mind one of my father's buddies who, as a young F-4 pilot,
>followed the advice he was given to 'keep it on the deck until ' a
>certain speed was reached and then to raise the nose and depart.
I met a WW-II pilot who flew P-38's and he told his wingman the next
time he didn't keep it tight, he'd wash him out. The next sortie he blew
an engine on take-off and as he came back around to land he noticed
his wingman stuck to him like glue :-) He said the kid would have
followed him into the ground, as he wanted to keep flying airplanes
real bad! ha.
N. Bradford-Reid
(Lou Haas) wrote:
Lou--not exactly sure to whom you were addressing this response. My dad
was in the Brownshoe Navy and there was a Dunkers' Club even back then (he
was not a member, AFIK). If, in fact, the ditching was due to mechanical
error, as per the findings of the AI, why should he be grounded? That's
the whole point of the AI. If they were going to find the driver
guiltless and then ground him anyway, why waste even more $$ on the AI,
just yank his multimillion dollar wings and move on.
Tex
Art Day
mwo...@ix.netcom.com writes:
>Vice Admiral Brian Bennett showed up.....
That's Brent Bennitt, not Brian Bennett.
Blad4068
definitely the cause for some amusement. The immediate placement of
"blame" on the TF-30 engine is interesting, since it is only a machine
part that is slightly underpowered. The current word from the site was
both engines were going full bore at ground impact.
Couple things to consider, you put the pieces together...Max performance
takeoff...weather ceiling 2000 feet, tops 10,000 feet. Family at airport.
Aircraft tops out in the climb at 5000 feet. Aircraft strikes ground with
engines operating as advertised (as far as could be told from visual
observation.)
This is taking some serious damage control.
The opinions are mine only.
Blad
John Weiss
> I heard that they are already blaming the Pratt&Whitney TF-30 engines of
> the F-14A Tomcat from VF-213 from right here in San Diego. I heard a
> witness say that the Tomcat took off, and less than 90 seconds out, came
> down out of some clouds purely vertical. It crashed into a home, killing
> three. Apparently TF-30s now kill more than just pilots...
>
It's not apparent to me...
On what do you base your conclusions? A couple bits of hearsay from a frantic
viewer?
----
John Weiss -- jrw...@seanet.com
Federico Machado
Rose) writes:
>
>In article <4ep40s$c...@theopolis.orl.mmc.com>,
gosc...@escmail.orl.mmc.com
>(John Goscinski) writes:
>|> From: gosc...@escmail.orl.mmc.com (John Goscinski)
>|> Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
>|> Subject: Re: F-14 crash near Nashville, TN 1/2- any
>|>
>|> Organization: Martin Marietta Corp.
>|>
>|> In article 31019609...@par110fin.en.utexas.edu,
n.b-...@mail.utexas.edu
>|> (N. Bradford-Reid) writes:
>
>|> > Actually, from all I've heard, she was. Her instructors had said
she was
>|> > not ready, but the "powers that be" were so hot to be the first
to get
>|> > female fighter pilots out there that she was, in effect,
sacrificed.
>|>
>|>
>
>According to an article in Newsweek *this* week (2/5/96 issue, pg. 71)
> Under normal conditions, she would have washed out. two "downs" --
> serious mistakes in training -- are usually enough to disqualify a
> pilot. Hultgreen had four, but she still qualified, in part
because
> the Navy felt tremendous pressure to promote women after Tailhook
'91.
>
>
>|> > and perhaps HER F-14 went down due to a combo
>|> > > of pilot error and mechanical.
>|> >
>|> > True.
>|> >
busted on
>|> approach
>|> to the boat. You blast her and the engines that failed her in the
same post.
>|> |> Which will it be, Mr Good-ol-boy? Like the guy you mention
below, she was
>|> |> cleared of responsibility for the crash. Her only error was in
not getting
>|> the hell
>|> out of the busted plane.
>|
>
>
>Well, we can take your word for it, or we can trust Newsweek.
>
>Their article goes on to state:
> ... the Navy publicly defender her, claiming she died because of
> engine failure. The brass tried to suppress a secret report blamin
> pilot error, which was leaked to the press.
>
>--
>____________________________________________________________________
>Ken Rose (ke...@engr.sgi.com)
>The Usual Disclaimer: Any opinions expressed above are mine alone,
> not those of Silicon Graphics
And you belive all that Newsweek say?you are a litle innocent.It piss
me off all the bullshits and how fast some times the media and people
are to judge without having a good knowledge of what they are talking
about. Hultgreen was a good pilot as Bates too,they both live to defend
this country and die while in service,they dont need that disrespect.A
figther is a complex machine and in those planes that the interface
human-machine is not that good you are prone to human error,Bates wasnt
reading Playboy when he crash last april,it was an error product of a
machine that is 25 years old,fitted with the worst engines that this
country ever produce:TF 30.The Navy realize after building 500
Tomcats,and come up with F100-GE400(different to the Air Force
F100-GE100)base of the F14D,even if the Navy want to convert 400 A to D
less than 70 were produced or converted,the result is that we have a
outdated plane as a main defensor of the fleet,blame it to Washington,
no to the pilots.
fred machado
John Goscinski
>
> > OK Lou, you KNEW you couldn't write a comment like "douche bag" and get
> > away with nobody responding. Usually I let remarks like that slide off
> > (being a warbird pilot of the female gender) but you know, SHE wasn't
> > "shoved down their throats",
>
> not ready, but the "powers that be" were so hot to be the first to get
> female fighter pilots out there that she was, in effect, sacrificed.
You have a source for this pile-o-crap?
> and perhaps HER F-14 went down due to a combo
> > of pilot error and mechanical.
>
> True.
>
No, false. Hultgreen's plane went down because one of the engines busted on approach
to the boat. You blast her and the engines that failed her in the same post.
Which will it be, Mr Good-ol-boy? Like the guy you mention below, she was
cleared of responsibility for the crash. Her only error was in not getting the hell
out of the busted plane.
> After all, it looks like this poor Tomcat
> > driver in Nashville was guilty of ditching last year (due to pilot error).
>
> Not true. He was absolved of responsibility. The crash was due to
BTW - USA Today claims the guy was partly blamed by the Navy for the previous crash
and sent through *extensive retraining*(their words).
John
*The shape of a person's private parts has no effect on how well they fly*
-Paraphrase of Chuck Yeager - anyone have the direct quote?
Lou Haas
got him into a flat sping from which he could not recover.
That sounds like pilot error to me. So does hot dogging an
airplane with questinable engines in the first place.
RIP>
Ken Rose
(John Goscinski) writes:
|> From: gosc...@escmail.orl.mmc.com (John Goscinski)
|> Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
|> Subject: Re: F-14 crash near Nashville, TN 1/2- any
|> Date: Wed, 31 Jan 96 17:11:56 1996
|>
|> Organization: Martin Marietta Corp.
|>
|> (N. Bradford-Reid) writes:
|> > Actually, from all I've heard, she was. Her instructors had said she was
|> > not ready, but the "powers that be" were so hot to be the first to get
|> > female fighter pilots out there that she was, in effect, sacrificed.
|>
|> You have a source for this pile-o-crap?
|>
According to an article in Newsweek *this* week (2/5/96 issue, pg. 71)
Under normal conditions, she would have washed out. two "downs" --
serious mistakes in training -- are usually enough to disqualify a
pilot. Hultgreen had four, but she still qualified, in part because
the Navy felt tremendous pressure to promote women after Tailhook '91.
|> > and perhaps HER F-14 went down due to a combo
|> > > of pilot error and mechanical.
|> >
|> > True.
|> >
|> No, false. Hultgreen's plane went down because one of the engines busted on
|> approach
|> to the boat. You blast her and the engines that failed her in the same post.
|> |> Which will it be, Mr Good-ol-boy? Like the guy you mention below, she was
|> |> cleared of responsibility for the crash. Her only error was in not getting
|> the hell
|> out of the busted plane.
|
Lou Haas
me zink you god ziss al vronk!
Sheeb enchins is no egsquos four pilod errer!
Ron Miller
: machine that is 25 years old,fitted with the worst engines that this
: country ever produce:TF 30.The Navy realize after building 500
: fred machado
Ever? Ever?
Heard any F3H Demon stories lately?
Or did history begin in 1973?
With all the controversy revolving around Hultgreen's death, I don't know
how folks decide what they believe on it now. Just thought I'd
put a damper on a little of the rhetoric.
Ron Miller
Sandy Redding
>
> Thanks for your comments. While I respect your opinions, it
> would be interesting to get an old BROWNSHOE to give neutral
> comments on this subject.
> For the uninitiated, it is my believe that Naval aviation
> started its turn to the worse when their flyers were forced to
> start wearing black shoes. (Was that Zumwalt again?)
> From a taxpayer's point of view it is utterly rediculous to
> allow any pilot who butched up on mulitimillion airplane for
> us to do so again. Would certainly not happen in commercial
> aviation and maybe the reaseon many airlines do not hire
> fighter jockeys. So there
> you are!
I am not sure when the change occured but Brownshoes have been wearing brownshoes for
quite some time now.
sr
John Goscinski
>
> Well, we can take your word for it, or we can trust Newsweek.
>
No you don't need to take my word for it, but if trusting Newsweek
is your idea of being informed, sorry for you. The fuctional word is TRUST.
Newsweek is as much popular conjecture as it is news.
> Their article goes on to state:
> ... the Navy publicly defender her, claiming she died because of
> engine failure. The brass tried to suppress a secret report blamin
> pilot error, which was leaked to the press.
....by good-ol-boys who want to keep their little club intact. If it's her fault the engine died, then blame her. If the engine flat broke, then its simply mechanical
failure. This was far from an easily salvagable situation.
john
Harold Hutchison
stories.
DO tell.
> With all the controversy revolving around Hultgreen's death, I don't know
> how folks decide what they believe on it now. Just thought I'd
> put a damper on a little of the rhetoric.
No kidding. First it was engine problem, then pilot error.
--
"No weapon in the arsenals of the world is as powerful as the will and
courage of a free people."
"We will always remember. We will always be proud. We will always be
prepared, so we may always be free."
"History teaches us that wars begin when governments believe the price
of aggression is cheap."
"All the way into the hangar."
- Ronald W. Reagan, 40th President of the United States.
God bless him, and God Bless AMERICA!
BRETT ZEITZ
MW->F14a's have a good overall operating record, within the last 5 years
MW->there has been 30 "class A" mishaps meaning loss of life. They're
MW->prone to stallouts and were scheduled to receive new engines, but
MW->budget cuts scuttled that.
As I remember, mishaps are catergorized according to the dollar amount
of damage. A "class A" mishap is where the aircraft is either written
off due to unrepairable damage, or, as in this case, completely
destroyed. I had a good friend that came out of a class A unscathed,
and so did his RIO, so it had nothing to do with loss of life.
You are correct about the engines, though. We were taught how to fly
the engines to prevent stalls. You had to handle them with kit gloves,
especially when pushing the envelope in the high "g" or AOA (or both)
areas. I never had a stall, but maybe I was just lucky. When in zone
5, if one stalled, you could develop a yaw rate that could incapcitate
the pilot in seconds by pushing him into his instrument panel.
Brett
"Weasel" VF-1 Wolfpack
---
* SLMR 2.1a #0001 * Cannot find REALITY.SYS. Universe halted.
Buzz Nau
>Federico Machado (avi...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: machine that is 25 years old,fitted with the worst engines that this
>: country ever produce:TF 30.The Navy realize after building 500
>Ever? Ever?
>Heard any F3H Demon stories lately?
The engine that put Westinghouse out of the jet engine business. :-/
>With all the controversy revolving around Hultgreen's death, I don't know
>how folks decide what they believe on it now. Just thought I'd
>put a damper on a little of the rhetoric.
Yep, we'll know what happened after the investigation. Speculation now
pure BS.
Buzz
========================================================
Evan "Buzz" Nau
University of Michigan - Medical School Administration
buz...@umich.edu / http://www-personal.umich.edu/~buzznau/
========================================================
Stephen M. Ryan
: If it's
: her fault the engine died, then blame her. If the engine flat broke, then
: its simply mechanical failure. This was far from an easily salvagable
: situation.
It seems to me that engine-out approaches are required practice by all
military pilots, and that the flame out of one engine on approach is not
typically fatal unless compounded by other pilot errors, more mechanical
problems, or weather, and weather and other mech. problems were not a
factor here. She appeared to be to slow and off the glide path to begin
with, and made the wrong reaction to the emergency...can happen to any
pilot that loses situational awareness or is task saturated, and is most
common in an inexperienced pilot (but not necessarily *unqualified*).
Many *qualified* fighter pilots crash airplanes due to pilot error--I
think many are overreacting to the assertion she made mistakes thinking
it proves she was unqualified. I think it was inexperience.
Steve Ryan
Will Outlaw
--snip--
> When in zone
> 5, if one stalled, you could develop a yaw rate that could incapcitate
> the pilot in seconds by pushing him into his instrument panel.
>
> Brett
Thanks
Will (never had a compressor stall in a 172)
Ken Rose
(John Goscinski) writes:
|
|> In article 8...@murrow.corp.sgi.com, ke...@yarmouth.engr.sgi.com (Ken Rose)
|> writes:
|>
|> >
|> > Well, we can take your word for it, or we can trust Newsweek.
|> >
|> No you don't need to take my word for it, but if trusting Newsweek
|> is your idea of being informed, sorry for you. The fuctional word is TRUST.
|> Newsweek is as much popular conjecture as it is news.
|>
Thank you for your sympathy John, but save it for yourself. And
while your at it, ponder the idea of critical reasoning.
Let me refresh your memory. My post was a reply to your message
which said
"You have a source for this pile-o-crap?"
while replying to N. Bradford-Reid assertion that Hultgreen was
not fully qual'd to fly. Well, I gave you a source. Now thats
not good enough either. If we gave you her records I bet you'd
claim they'd been forged, too.
And, curiously enough, you edited out the quotation which held
that Hultgreen made 4 serious mistakes in a training program
under which 2 normally result in a wash-out. This is a question
of fact; either she did or she didn't. I don't have access to
her personnel records, and I suspect you don't either. The
best I'm left to go on are public sources, like Newsweek.
Although not perfect, I find that much preferable to operating
on paranoia and wishful thinking.
Mary Shafer
r> A class "A" mishap is defined as total loss of aircraft, OR greater
r> than $1 million in damages, OR loss of life/total permament
r> disability.
The dollar value on damages is to the aircraft. What you damage on
the ground doesn't count. When my friends had their drop tank try to
set itself free, it was a Class B because it only caused $350,000 in
damages to the F-15, even though it took another $175,000 to clean up
all the JP-4 that had ended up all over the desert. They were greatly
relieved by this, by the way. There is no such distinction for loss
of life, injury, or disability.
A Class B is between $500,000 and $1,000,000 in damages to the
aircraft OR serious injury (broken bones in the hands and feet aren't
serious injury, but all other broken bones are, by the way).
Class C is less than $500,000 in damages to the aircraft OR minor
injury.
There's another category that's no damage and no injury but a really
close call, but I can't remember what it's called. Maybe an incident
instead of a mishap.
--
Mary Shafer NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA
SR-71 Flying Qualities Lead Engineer Of course I don't speak for NASA
sha...@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov DoD #362 KotFR
URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html
Pete Bowen
>In article <4ep40s$c...@theopolis.orl.mmc.com>, gosc...@escmail.orl.mmc.com
>(John Goscinski) writes:
>|> From: gosc...@escmail.orl.mmc.com (John Goscinski)
>|> Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
>|> Subject: Re: F-14 crash near Nashville, TN 1/2- any
>|> Date: Wed, 31 Jan 96 17:11:56 1996
>|>
>|> Organization: Martin Marietta Corp.
>|>
>|> In article 31019609...@par110fin.en.utexas.edu, n.b-...@mail.utexas.edu
>|> (N. Bradford-Reid) writes:
>|> > Actually, from all I've heard, she was. Her instructors had said she was
>|> > not ready, but the "powers that be" were so hot to be the first to get
>|> > female fighter pilots out there that she was, in effect, sacrificed.
>|>
>|> You have a source for this pile-o-crap?
>|>
>According to an article in Newsweek *this* week (2/5/96 issue, pg. 71)
> Under normal conditions, she would have washed out. two "downs" --
> serious mistakes in training -- are usually enough to disqualify a
> pilot. Hultgreen had four, but she still qualified, in part because
> the Navy felt tremendous pressure to promote women after Tailhook '91.
Hultgreen's crash was the result of several things. It's illegal to do
it, but the Navy mishap report was leaked. The jist of it is that
Hultgreen made a couple of piloting mistakes (too much rudder
partially blanking out an engine air inlet), the engine had a problem
and lack of experience (not her fault--you only have as much as
experience as you have) that meant that she didn't recognize the bad
situation as quickly as a more experienced person could have. All of
those at the same time and place meant she got killed.
The fact that she was a female and got her own Arlington burial and
the way testing simulations were conducted all added to the stress of
a situation that couldn't help but be political.
Mary Shafer
was flathatting--something about telling his family to watch his
takeoff, having filed for a max-performance takeoff.
Anyone else pick that up?
Mary Shafer
L> This morning on TV they said that the squadron this bird belonged
L> to lost four birds in the last two years, including the douche bag
L> that they got jammed down their throats.
This is incredibly offensive.
PLONK!
Mary Shafer
WJ> Is it wise to do a high performance takeoff at a civilian airport
WJ> to impress the family? Who approved this hot dog stuff?
It's pretty common to do max performance takeoffs at civilian fields
in fighter aircraft, in part because the military doesn't pay any
attention to the FARs that restrict noise. The idea is to get as high
as you can as quick as you can before you generate a bunch of noise
complaints, making you and the rest of the military unwelcome at that
airport.
Max performance takeoffs don't have to be "approved" because they're
within the normal operating envelope of the aircraft. It's not "hot
dog" stuff, either. It's just as safe as any other part of the
flight, which, I remind everyone, has a certain inherent risk. There
is no such thing as perfect safety, particularly in aviation.
Ron Miller
: >Heard any F3H Demon stories lately?
: The engine that put Westinghouse out of the jet engine business. :-/
Actually, I think that Westinghouse was the 2nd casualty. I think the
Demon was put into service with Allison engines. Not a current name in
jet engines either :-) Plane was designed around the Allison & so
finding a better engine also required airframe redesign.
McDonnell-Douglas' last single-engined fighter - for good reason!
Some Demon tidbits:
1. Often flameout in a hard rain. (Single-engine allweather interceptor????)
2. One failure mode was to idle in afterburner.
3. Vacuum tube control element with 90 minute service life.
4. Throttle retard preventer aneroid that prevents pulling power below
80% above 10,000'. And often below 10,000'.
5. Certain seals in the engine, when worn would result in the most
godawful smoke cloud around the airplane when in arrestment. Looked
like a smoke bomb shoved up the plane's tail & scared hell out of
Ship's Company. (Saw a slide of this at Xmas. Didn't seem to affect the
bird though)
6. Service life of engine supposed to be 250 hrs. Never made 100
in my dad's squadron experience. (He was maintenance officer under
Gerry O'Rourke who writes a chapter in INTO THE JET AGE)
I shoulda been a fatherless child.
Ron Miller
Mary Shafer
W> BRETT ZEITZ wrote:
W> --snip--
> When in zone 5, if one stalled, you could develop a yaw rate that
> could incapcitate
> the pilot in seconds by pushing him into his instrument panel.
W> I can follow all the other stuff but what's zone 5?
Maximum afterburner. It refers to the zones, or rings, of fuel
injectors in the burner. Zone 1 is minimum a/b.
Bomber Bill
(Ken Rose) wrote:
> Thank you for your sympathy John, but save it for yourself. And
> while your at it, ponder the idea of critical reasoning.
Stuff it, you're wrong. One cite to a Newsweek article, that wasn't even
about the Hultgreen crash, isn't canonical. Hell, Newsweek wasn't even
citing a published source. How do you know the reporter wasn't rooked by
some brownshoe bigot with an axe to grind?
Even so, Newsweek claimed Hultgreen was two downchecks over the limit in
fighter training. I'm not clear on exactly how things go at Mirimar these
days, but this probably would have meant she'd have ended up flying
Intruders or Hornets instead of the Tomcat, not that she'd have washed out
of flight training totally. Meaning at the worst she was an average Navy
pilot pushed into the front seat of a Tomcat, which is much different than
claiming she was unworthy of her wings.
What you and Newsweek curiously edited out, even though Newsweek had some
of this in their original story on the Hultgreen prang, is this:
* The Navy's investigation found that there was some kind of mechanical
malfunction in the engines of her bird. I wish I could remember the
details but from the island-view video (I forget the acronym for that damn
thing) she clearly had an incidence of asymmetric thrust just off the
ramp. The only way she could have induced that purposely was to have
input a severely unbalanced throttle change, which is pretty damned
unlikely. Plus the plane was recovered with both throttles firewalled, as
I recall. Either the port engine flamed out on its own or flamed out due
to her throttling up very fast due to coming in slow. The latter is also
mechanical failure, despite the claims of armchair pilots who claimed she
should have cooly babied the throttles up to MIL at less than a hundred
yards from the ramp and dropping like a rock.
(Did the Nashville LtCdr. do exactly the same thing with his show-off zoom
climb? I wonder. If so, you can't fault Hultgreen for firewalling TF-30
throttles and not fault him.)
* Her own squadron commander stated that her aircraft situation,
post-flameout, was recoverable only by the most experienced, senior Tomcat
drivers, and that SOP was to punch out. Her crash after this point was
"pilot error" only in that she wasn't the second coming of Dick Bong.
Frankly, I don't believe that the plane was recoverable at all once she
lost the port engine and I wonder if her unit lead was actually referring
to an experienced stick knowing to baby the Tomcat's throttles in the
first place. I challenge anyone here to show how you fly a Tomcat out of
that predicament. Even if you trim out with full flaps and rudder, you're
still behind the power curve and going in the drink. I still don't see
how they managed it in the simulator afterwards.
Unfortunately, his claim and the post-mortem simulator replays in which a
small percentage of Tomcat drivers managed to fly out of the situation
(knowing it was coming, of course) lead to the underground assertion of
pilot error. If you define error as the failure to react as the ideal
naval aviator in that situation, then it was pilot error. By any rational
standard, and by the standards by which the Navy evaluates its pilots, it
was mechanical failure. Period, end of story.
(I still speculate, as I did at the time of the crash, that she pulled the
handles 1.5-2 seconds too late. Even allowing for the staggered ejection
sequence, from the video it looks like she held on just too long. Why was
that? Maybe she had realized at the start of her cruise that she had to
fly to a higher standard than her squadron mates. Maybe she anticipated
that she'd have to fly out of situations that the average Tomcat driver
could eject from, under regs, knowing the whisper campaign that would
ensue if she lost a plane for anything but gross mechanical failure. The
only pilot error I can see in her situation might be that she let pride
and fear of failure keep her hands off the handles too long, and it killed
her.)
As to whether she was a douche bag...well hell, maybe she was. And maybe
that Intruder stick who punched out over Beirut was just a damn nigger who
panicked. Or maybe you're just a dumb cracker who types with his thumbs.
We don't know. What we do know was that the WAC ferry pilots in WWII were
both women and better stickhandlers than 95% of the men with wings at the
time. Same thing for the Tuskeegee Airmen. What we do know is that
gender and race seem to have no bearing on innate piloting ability or
courage under fire. What we do know is that poor Lt. Hultgreen is pushing
up daisies and yet she's still being slandered posthumously by people who
could never have approached her ability as a pilot or an officer. What I
ask of the people who served or could have served with such distinction is
to not abet this kind of scurrilous slander. As a matter of course, drop
such threads and put the author in your killfile. That is the only
honorable response.
Red Ripp
$1 million in damages, OR loss of life/total permament disability.
Unfortunately, this mishap seems to meet all three criteria....
Pete Bowen
>bo...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Lou Haas) wrote:
>Well, Lou tends to fire from the hip but he has a point.
>Is it wise to do a high performance takeoff at a civilian airport to
>impress the family? Who approved this hot dog stuff?
>And what's the real beef with these engines? An awful lot of F-14's
>are going in, it seems.
A max performance takeoff is not hot-dogging, or more accurately,
flat-hatting. Flat-hatting/hot-dogging is illegal--max performance
takeoffs are not. Besides being fun and impressive (and not any more
dangerous), max performance takeoffs enable a pilot to clear local
airspace quickly, taking a load off pilots and controllers. They can
also save fuel by avoiding level-offs on climbout.
Let's not jump to any conclusions
Wayne Johnson
>The way I understood he was flying an evasive maneuver that
>got him into a flat sping from which he could not recover.
>That sounds like pilot error to me. So does hot dogging an
>airplane with questinable engines in the first place.
>RIP>
Well, Lou tends to fire from the hip but he has a point.
Is it wise to do a high performance takeoff at a civilian airport to
impress the family? Who approved this hot dog stuff?
And what's the real beef with these engines? An awful lot of F-14's
are going in, it seems.
Wayne Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
John Goscinski
> John Goscinski (gosc...@escmail.orl.mmc.com) wrote:
>
> : If it's
> : her fault the engine died, then blame her. If the engine flat broke, then
> : its simply mechanical failure. This was far from an easily salvagable
> : situation.
>
In article 1...@lastactionhero.rs.itd.umich.edu, smr...@umich.edu (Stephen M. Ryan) writes:
> It seems to me that engine-out approaches are required practice by all
> military pilots, and that the flame out of one engine on approach is not
> typically fatal unless compounded by other pilot errors, more mechanical
> problems, or weather, and weather and other mech. problems were not a
> factor here.
Anyone here ever shot an engine out approach in a Tomcat to a carrier?
Me either, but I've been around plenty of Navy pilots and I've never heard
anyone talking about single engine landing practice - on a boat. Also,
it's one thing to initiate an approach with one engine, it's another
to be low, slow, dirty, descending, and have no time to jetison fuel, etc
when the motor quits. She should'a bailed.
john
Phil Brandt
>In <4epp5n$8...@murrow.corp.sgi.com> ke...@yarmouth.engr.sgi.com (Ken
>>|> > > of pilot error and mechanical.
>>|> >
>>|> > True.
>>|> >
>>|> No, false. Hultgreen's plane went down because one of the engines
>busted on
>>|> approach
>>|> to the boat. You blast her and the engines that failed her in the
>same post.
>>|> |> Which will it be, Mr Good-ol-boy? Like the guy you mention
>below, she was
>>|> |> cleared of responsibility for the crash. Her only error was in
>not getting
>>|> the hell
>>|> out of the busted plane.
>>|
>>
>>
>>
>> ... the Navy publicly defender her, claiming she died because of
>> engine failure. The brass tried to suppress a secret report blamin
>> pilot error, which was leaked to the press.
>>
>>____________________________________________________________________
>>Ken Rose (ke...@engr.sgi.com)
>>The Usual Disclaimer: Any opinions expressed above are mine alone,
>> not those of Silicon Graphics
>
>
>
the worst engines that this
>country ever produce:TF 30.
>
> fred machado
For the pioneering technology involved in this, the very first
afterburning turbofan, it's not even close to the worst engine. For the
worst, check the abominable Westinghouse engines of the Fifties which
were singularly responsible for ruining an entire generation of Navy
fighter aircraft!
Back to the TF30. They carried me for over 700 hours in the A Model Vark
with only one compressor stall (the engine recovered), in conditions
including 100' AGL at 600+ knots in a variety of weather. Most of our
problems were in the Seventies when the engine was shedding compressor
blades which were penetrating the compressor case--DOD needed lightness,
so didn't specify that, as in the case of airliners, the case had to
contain the flying blades--and causing fires in various fuel tanks.
Also, it was revealed that engine depots were not tracking blades during
the rebuilding process, that is,keeping them with the original engine.
Instead, they were mixing them up with all the blades from who knows what
other suffix engines (P-3s, -7s, -9s etc.)
Buzz Nau
>bo...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Lou Haas) wrote:
>Is it wise to do a high performance takeoff at a civilian airport to
>impress the family? Who approved this hot dog stuff?
The media has labeled the max performance or "unlimited" T/O as a
"hotdog" stunt. While it certainly looks that way, it is a common and
legal T/O profile for Turkeys leaving civilian airports. ATC's like
them because it get's them out of their airspace *real* quick. I know
if my folks dropped me off at the airport and I knew I was going to
takeoff like that I'd tell them to hang around and watch, who
wouldn't.
>And what's the real beef with these engines? An awful lot of F-14's
>are going in, it seems.
Very good question.
Karon
>OK Lou, you KNEW you couldn't write a comment like "douche bag" and get
>away with nobody responding. Usually I let remarks like that slide off
>(being a warbird pilot of the female gender) but you know, SHE wasn't
>"shoved down their throats", and perhaps HER F-14 went down due to a combo
>of pilot error and mechanical. After all, it looks like this poor Tomcat
>driver in Nashville was guilty of ditching last year (due to pilot error).
> So people with (usually) larger external genitalia (than the "douche
>bag") are apt to cause crashes to occur occasionally too.
>The problem here has more to do with the problematic P&W engines - as
>already noted.
>Jo
Well, Lou, as we used to say: Nothing will spoil your day any faster than
a heat seeker up your exhaust. BUT... it looks like Jo used a Super High
Intensity Testicle seeker to me.
Thanks, Jo. He needed that!
Karon
------------------------------------------------
Karon G. Campbell All Reality is Virtual
I am me and only me
Whatever that may be.
Wayne Johnson
>It's pretty common to do max performance takeoffs at civilian fields
>in fighter aircraft, in part because the military doesn't pay any
>attention to the FARs that restrict noise. The idea is to get as high
>as you can as quick as you can before you generate a bunch of noise
>complaints, making you and the rest of the military unwelcome at that
>airport.
>Max performance takeoffs don't have to be "approved" because they're
>within the normal operating envelope of the aircraft. It's not "hot
>dog" stuff, either. It's just as safe as any other part of the
>flight, which, I remind everyone, has a certain inherent risk. There
>is no such thing as perfect safety, particularly in aviation.
One day the kids and I were riding bikes around Van Nuys Airport, and
saw a T-38 do a max performance takeoff. The guy just wound the
sucker up and boosted off the pavement, and went up at a 45 degree
angle.
I've seen this many times at Van Nuys, but never that close, and I
thought it was just a fun maneuver for a pilot with a hot plane.
There have never been any problems that I've heard of.
However, there is a difference between the inherent risks of aviation,
particularly military aviation, and civilian air travel. Having
visited every military airfield in Southern California at one time or
another, I can say that all are located in fairly remote areas,
without a neighborhood at the end of the runway. Many of these
airfields parallel neighborhoods (March is next to a busy freeway,
Edwards is near civilian housing, George (now unused) was near some
homes, but none are near heavy concentrations of people like Van Nuys,
Orange County, or Burbank Airport.
Are you saying that a less aggressive takeoff is no safer than a max
performance takeoff? I'd think that in a civilian area, aircraft
would be more careful, just as military vehicles travel
non-aggressively while traveling on civilian freeways.
Wayne Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Andy Bush
>
> Anyone here ever shot an engine out approach in a Tomcat to a carrier?
> Me either, but I've been around plenty of Navy pilots and I've never heard
> anyone talking about single engine landing practice - on a boat. Also,
> it's one thing to initiate an approach with one engine, it's another
> to be low, slow, dirty, descending, and have no time to jetison fuel, etc
> when the motor quits. She should'a bailed.
>
> john
>
She did, just not soon enough!
--
*****************************************************************************
Andy Bush ay...@freenet.carleton.ca
*****************************************************************************
Joe Falls
sha...@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes:
>
>My husband heard something on the news that indicated that the pilot
>was flathatting--something about telling his family to watch his
>takeoff, having filed for a max-performance takeoff.
>Mary Shafer NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards,
Mary-
We always thought that "flathatting" in the Navy was a term synonymous
with "buzzing" in the USAF.
I'll bet that every pilot that took off from his home town in a
military aircraft tried in some way to impress the folks!
Joe Falls
>
>On Tue, 30 Jan 1996 16:40:47 GMT, bo...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Lou Haas)
said:
>
>L> This morning on TV they said that the squadron this bird belonged
>L> to lost four birds in the last two years, including the douche bag
>L> that they got jammed down their throats.
>
>This is incredibly offensive.
>
Makes you wonder how her RIO felt?
Jim Noetzel
>It's pretty common to do max performance takeoffs at civilian fields
>in fighter aircraft, in part because the military doesn't pay any
>attention to the FARs that restrict noise.
>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
It's not that cut and dried. I've use to fly into some fields that
are no longer open to mil a/c due to noise complaints. Most people DO
try to pay attention to the noise complaints, or else you can lose
that airport. Sometimes though... you just have to tick people off.
Question off the top of my head - does anybody know the runway length
the the F-14 was taking off on? Maybe that's why he was doing a max
climb.
Jim Noetzel
Flying Contraptions Home Page
Jet/Rocket Belts, Flying Platforms, One Man Helicopters
http://www.prysm.net/~jnuts/jnuts.htm
S. Sampson
> Under normal conditions, she would have washed out. two "downs" --
> serious mistakes in training -- are usually enough to disqualify a
> pilot.
Don't read that shit. Newsweek depends on shitheads for facts, and smoke
when there is none.
Here's why she died: Her fucking airplane malfunctioned. Now if she was to
point the God Damned airplane at the water and kill herself, then you could
blame her. The fact is the whole event took about 3 seconds before she was
past the point of no return. Low and slow ain't the place to be when your
fucking engine quits. I'd like to see someone with 10,000 hrs in the seat do
any better. 3 seconds ain't much to decide to eject. Her only failure was
she waited too long, soon as she got the thump, she should have gave it back
to the taxpayers...
Karon
wrote:
Sorry, but in my experience 3 seconds can be a long time. I personally
think she may have tried to gather it in because much was expected of her
and she knew it. I believe if she had 10,000 hrs, she would have kissed
that bird goodbye.
I agree with you, but I think your logic is faulty.
JeffM
>>
>> Thanks for your comments. While I respect your opinions, it
>> would be interesting to get an old BROWNSHOE to give neutral
>> comments on this subject.
>> For the uninitiated, it is my believe that Naval aviation
>> started its turn to the worse when their flyers were forced to
>> start wearing black shoes. (Was that Zumwalt again?)
>> From a taxpayer's point of view it is utterly rediculous to
>> allow any pilot who butched up on mulitimillion airplane for
>> us to do so again. Would certainly not happen in commercial
>> aviation and maybe the reaseon many airlines do not hire
>> fighter jockeys. So there
>> you are!
I did not catch the original article and can no longer access it so I
will respond to this excerpt.
First, brown shoes are back!
Second, Naval Aviation has been hurt by a few driving forces lately.
Negative publicity stemming from the actions of a few really hurt morale,
as well as the way the Navy handled a politically charged situation. The
downsizing and budget crunches hit Naval Aviation VERY hard. The Navy has
many other priorities going on which need its budget money as well as
aviation so the money issue has REALLY hurt. A contributing factor in the
money issue is the Navy's lack of experience when dealing with the press.
Desert Storm was a prime example of losing the "publicity opportunity."
Of course this is no way to fight for funding, however in a downsizing
budget, dollars will be spent on things which get high visibility for
congressmen. The Navy is getting better at generating positive publicity,
but has a long way to go. It is not the way it SHOULD work, but it is the
way it DOES work.
Finally, to base judgements on a pilot's ability from a leaked Mishap
Investigation Report that was referenced on CNN out of context is VERY
unfair to the pilot. In this case his family. If you are not intimately
familiar with the purpose of, and the methodology with which an MIR is
put together, to make those judgements about a pilot is simply not
reasonable. The fact he was still flying, in a community that regularly
weeds out the weak, is a statement more revealing than an out of context
leaked Navy document. The aircrew's family have every reason to be proud
of them and their accomplishments. Despite people's attempts to assign
blame to things they have no knowledge on, his career was distinguished,
honorable, and unfortunately cut short through circumstances that have
not been determined. I won't go any farther than this on the subject.
If you are looking for airline pilot qualities in a warrior, you will get
them. Is that what we really want? The job has inherent risks.
JeffM.
Douglas Byerly
'zones', we are referring to different zones of the altitude-velocity
flight envelope. 'Zone 5' wouldn't apply to all engines, because not all
engines have 5 sprayrings. The sprayrings are usually referred to as
segments, so we talk about Seg 1 (Min AB) to Seg 5 (Max AB), but the
zones give a relative speed and altitude. Engines can be a little touchy
depending on what zone you are flying in. Of course, I am talking from
the AF side of the house; maybe the Navy does things differently, in
which case I apologize.
'I thought I had made a mistake, but I was wrong."
Doogie
Douglas Byerly
argument):
1. The GE engine is the F110, not the F100 (Pratt & Whitney).
2. There are an awful lot of T56 engines out there to say that Allison is
not a big name in the jet engine business.
Thanks, and please return to your senseless bickering. It is very
similar to watching a soap opera.
Doogie
Simon Lam
: malfunction in the engines of her bird. I wish I could remember the
: details but from the island-view video (I forget the acronym for that damn
: thing) she clearly had an incidence of asymmetric thrust just off the
: ramp. The only way she could have induced that purposely was to have
: input a severely unbalanced throttle change, which is pretty damned
: unlikely. Plus the plane was recovered with both throttles firewalled, as
: I recall. Either the port engine flamed out on its own or flamed out due
: to her throttling up very fast due to coming in slow. The latter is also
: mechanical failure, despite the claims of armchair pilots who claimed she
: should have cooly babied the throttles up to MIL at less than a hundred
: yards from the ramp and dropping like a rock.
I remember reading about this somewhere. It said her approach was
slightly off and when she tried to correct it, she didn't corrdinate here
turn, causing the plane to slip, causing the engine to flame out, causing
the crash. If the engine had a higher tolerance or if her approach was
correct, or if she coordinated her turn, it wouldn't have happened. I
thinkg it's a mixture of a low tolerance engine and pilot error.
: * Her own squadron commander stated that her aircraft situation,
: post-flameout, was recoverable only by the most experienced, senior Tomcat
: drivers, and that SOP was to punch out. Her crash after this point was
: "pilot error" only in that she wasn't the second coming of Dick Bong.
: Frankly, I don't believe that the plane was recoverable at all once she
: lost the port engine and I wonder if her unit lead was actually referring
: to an experienced stick knowing to baby the Tomcat's throttles in the
: first place. I challenge anyone here to show how you fly a Tomcat out of
: that predicament. Even if you trim out with full flaps and rudder, you're
: still behind the power curve and going in the drink. I still don't see
: how they managed it in the simulator afterwards.
I'd say it's near impossible to recover that aircraft from the video.
However, she should have punched out earlier.
: that? Maybe she had realized at the start of her cruise that she had to
: fly to a higher standard than her squadron mates. Maybe she anticipated
: that she'd have to fly out of situations that the average Tomcat driver
: could eject from, under regs, knowing the whisper campaign that would
: ensue if she lost a plane for anything but gross mechanical failure. The
: only pilot error I can see in her situation might be that she let pride
: and fear of failure keep her hands off the handles too long, and it killed
: her.)
Or maybe it was just an over inflated ego.
--
Simon Lam
It's the man, not the machine.
(But it often helps)
E-mail:simo...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca
JMcea
foing straight up, then came down out of clouds shortly thereafter. I
think you'll find the final result related to the weak performance of the
F-14A's anemic engine. The reports I saw on TV and in the NYTimes didn't
sound at all like flathatting.
Joel in CT (who lost a friend flathatting in Daytona Beach area out of
Sanford, FL, in 1960).
jlmce
Travfarley
>Don't read that shit. Newsweek depends on shitheads for facts, and smoke
>when there is none.
>Here's why she died: Her fucking airplane malfunctioned. Now if she was
to
>point the God Damned airplane at the water and kill herself, then you
could
>blame her. The fact is the whole event took about 3 seconds before she
was
>past the point of no return. Low and slow ain't the place to be when
your
>fucking engine quits. I'd like to see someone with 10,000 hrs in the
seat do
>any better. 3 seconds ain't much to decide to eject. Her only failure
was
>she waited too long, soon as she got the thump, she should have gave it
back
>to the taxpayers...
So, Mr Sampson, If we are to disregard Newsweek ( which is probably a good
idea) Why should we treat your opinion as truth? Do you have some
special insight or do you think the navy version is more reliable and less
politically caharged than that of Newsweek? Does using bad language lend
credence to your opinion?
-Travis Farley F-14D rio.
Brian Varine
>
> sha...@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) wrote:
>
> >It's pretty common to do max performance takeoffs at civilian fields
> >in fighter aircraft, in part because the military doesn't pay any
> >attention to the FARs that restrict noise.
>
> >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
>
> It's not that cut and dried. I've use to fly into some fields that
> are no longer open to mil a/c due to noise complaints. Most people DO
> try to pay attention to the noise complaints, or else you can lose
> that airport. Sometimes though... you just have to tick people off.
I heard an interesting thing on the news. Apparently the house that was hit
by the F-14 had a noise monitor on it to monitor A/C noise from the airport.
Apparently the owner had been a vocal opponent of the airport. I'd like to
see the last recording.
Kinda makes you wonder how people can move next to an airport and bitch about
noise.
==============================================================================
Brian R. Varine <var...@ucs.orst.edu>
http://www.orst.edu/~varineb
Oregon Freqs/Military.jpgs/Russian ECM list/car ECM eval
He who owns the electromagnetic spectrum, owns the battlefield!
When in doubt, JAM IT!!!!
STOP HIGHWAY ROBBERY------JOIN THE NMA!
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.6.2
mQBtAzDwm6oAAAEDAOjurmD0Ft9VXTvnVVOf5uOLbsSB4PuidmW+aDjV7F7+KRSb
fakuNHXVEhBYwTINVVnIjiSik12UcCv8UZXj/x9hAXBJXCk+v/8y9w6zk1Gu1iXC
/HYnR/zJIyVohkIJwQAFEbQmQnJpYW4gUi4gVmFyaW5lIDx2YXJpbmViQHVjcy5v
cnN0LmVkdT4=
=NYjj
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
John Weiss
> It's pretty common to do max performance takeoffs at civilian fields
> in fighter aircraft, in part because the military doesn't pay any
> as you can as quick as you can before you generate a bunch of noise
> complaints, making you and the rest of the military unwelcome at that
> airport.
>
> Max performance takeoffs don't have to be "approved" because they're
> within the normal operating envelope of the aircraft. It's not "hot
> dog" stuff, either. It's just as safe as any other part of the
> flight, which, I remind everyone, has a certain inherent risk. There
> is no such thing as perfect safety, particularly in aviation.
> Mary Shafer NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA
>
You might want to qualify the lead-in...
The military may not be subject to regulation of the noise-production level at
the engine, but it IS subject to all the other FARs that regulate flight of
the aircraft once it's built. Those include arrival and departure routing,
afterburner restrictions, and other airport-specific regulations. If you ever
had to fly a SID out of Cecil Field or Miramar, you'd appreciate the cockpit
load in those situations.
----
John Weiss -- jrw...@seanet.com
J.D. Baldwin
<ke...@yarmouth.engr.sgi.com> wrote:
>According to an article in Newsweek *this* week (2/5/96 issue, pg. 71)
> Under normal conditions, she would have washed out. two "downs" --
> serious mistakes in training -- are usually enough to disqualify a
> the Navy felt tremendous pressure to promote women after Tailhook '91.
This is true but misleading. Kara Hultgreen was a competent A-6 pilot
who was way out of her depth in the Tomcat. The consensus of opinion
among West Coast Navy LSO's to whom I have spoken is that there was
pressure to pass her along despite serious deficiencies in handling the
sheer cockpit workload in that type.
>Well, we can take your word for it, or we can trust Newsweek.
Probably neither is a good idea. In this case, Newsweek is much more
on the ball than the person to whom you responded.
>Their article goes on to state:
> ... the Navy publicly defender her, claiming she died because of
> engine failure. The brass tried to suppress a secret report blamin
> pilot error, which was leaked to the press.
Absolutely true, and as far as I'm concerned this was one of the most
shameful episodes in Naval Aviation history--eclipsing Tailhook in the
blatantness and importance of the deception. The safety review
process is supposed to be *sacrosanct*. NO considerations other than
the facts--not friendship, not politics, not cover-the-asses-of-the-
senior-officers--are relevant when determining factors contributing to
the mishap. The Navy departed from this philosophy when it publicly
stated that the MIR (Mishap Investigation Report) had concluded that
Hultgreen's actions were not a cause of her mishap. This was a
blatant lie, I can prove it, and I will be more than happy to mail a
copy of the MIR to anyone who asks. (It was obtained by Navy Times
and released publicly over the Navy's strenuous objections.)
It gets worse: officials on SECNAV staff (I'm not sure about that
part, but it was from pretty high up and one knowledgable source said
it came straight from an undersecretary) staged a phony, rigged
simulation of the mishap that was nearly impossible to recover from
because the pilots were prohibited from executing proper waveoff
procedures. They then announced publicly that of thirteen pilots who
simulated the engine failure, only one or two (I can't recall the
details) "survived."
Anyway, the bottom line is this: whether Kara Hultgreen "belonged" where
she was or not, we can never know for sure. Whether she committed an
error that directly caused her death we *do* know with a high degree
of certainty, and the answer is that she did. Anyone who tells you
otherwise is in the throes of PC-mania or just plain ignorant.
--
From the catapult of J.D. Baldwin |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I
_,_ Finger bal...@netcom.com |+| say, I am quite prepared not only to
_|70|___:::)=}- for PGP public |+| retract it, but also to deny under
\ / key information. |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer
***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Courtne934
Actually, I believe it was the JAG investigation that was "leaked", not
the MIR. If I'm not mistaken, JAG's are Freedom of Info stuff so I doubt
it was "leaked", just obtained. If you want evidence of the Navy's
failure of leadership, look no further than how they treated the "max
perf. T/O" question. Those kind of T/O's and stuff have been "taboo" ever
since some VF-102 guys got in huge trouble for some flathatting. IMO,
it's poor judgement to accept, much worse to request, such a T/O because
of 1) the weather, 2) the current political climate, and 3) no operational
necessity. I'd like to see the Navy just say, "No it wasn't normal, yes
it is more dangerous than a normal T/O, and, by the way, the pilot was in
fact human and maybe made a mistake." I'd guess pending litigation would
prevent this. And finally, to chuck the grenade into the poker game,
compare this to Kara Hultgreen's mishap. At this point, the Navy is
extending the same "innocent unitl proven otherwise" attitude that was
extended to Kara Hultgreen. I'm sure if this had been a female (and be
honest now) we would hear that this mishap pilot only got to fly again
after the first mishap because of gender. I'm also sure someone would
have leaked some flight school grades from somewhere. I remember seeing a
quote somewhere to the effect of: "Aviation is not inherently dangerous,
it's just extremely unforgiving..." We're all human, we all err.
Regards,
Peter C.
Lee Green MD MPH
> Lou Haas (bo...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
> : From a taxpayer's point of view it is utterly rediculous to
> : allow any pilot who butched up on mulitimillion airplane for
> : us to do so again. Would certainly not happen in commercial
> : aviation and maybe the reaseon many airlines do not hire
> : fighter jockeys. So there
> : you are!
>
> It's a judgement call. Are you willing to throw away all the training
> investment every single time anything happens for whatever reason?
> How will genuine learning take place?
Hear hear. As the militant taxpayer of r.a.m., I have to agree with Lou
that it's a judgment call. I don't like paying for pranged aircraft, but
wasting trained pilots isn't prudent either. I suppose it comes down to
whether the guy is a chronic smartass who's just trouble looking for a
place to happen, or a sensible pilot who made a mistake or had bad luck
that day.
I'd also keep emotionalism out of the decision to the extent possible.
Sure, the guy was doing a max performance takeoff and that can be made to
look bad, but realistically the risk of such a takeoff does not exceed
that of normal flight operations so that can't logically be held against
the pilot as a cause of the crash. Regardless of what sensationalizing
the media do!
--
Lee Green MD MPH Disclaimer: Information for general interest
Family Practice and discussion only. I can't examine you via
University of Michigan the Internet, so you should ALWAYS consult
gre...@umich.edu your personal physician. These posts are my
KF8MO personal doings, not a service of nor the
responsibility of the University of Michigan.
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.6
mQA/Ai8httwAAAEBgLIu//t4J2W5K2cP6aHpXnZUeyVfzz85b3MXMfSsjrbcbB2k
0wnI/33ZENZ8jc7fBQARAQABtCBMZWUgR3JlZW4gTUQgPGdyZWVubGFAdW1pY2gu
ZWR1Pg==
=g15t
BRETT ZEITZ
JG->Anyone here ever shot an engine out approach in a Tomcat to a carrier?
Well, _I_ haven't, but a squadron mate of mine did....AT NIGHT! We were
just pulling away from land on cruise, and he had a engine failure
during his sortie. Choice: divert him back to Miramar (and have him
meet us a couple weeks later, leaving the plane), or bring him aboard.
The power that be chose the latter. The pilot was one of the best LSO's
on the boat, and a good stick to boot! He did a great job.
I don't know what became of the guy....this was about 10 years ago...his
name : Fred "Killer" Killian.
Any other Tomcat questions, send 'em my way. I only got about 700 hours
in the "A" model, but I'll answer what I can!
Brett "Weasel" Zeitz VF-1 Wolfpack
---
* SLMR 2.1a #0001 * Computers make very fast, very accurate mistakes.
Crow6B
discussion. Hultgren was not the first, nor will she be the last, carrier
pilot to induce a mishap behind the boat. The truth of that statement does
not call question her ability as a Naval Officer or person. It's just a
fact. The key is that the Navy has to allow its safety system to conduct
a through NON-POLITICIZED mishap investigation so that later higher ups
know what really happened and that later pilots learn from the mistakes of
others. To do otherwise does a disservice to those who have gone before
us.
Rick Morgan 2300 hours EA-6B board member for four MIRs.
S. Sampson
>Kinda makes you wonder how people can move next to an airport and bitch about
>noise.
People don't move to the Airport, the Airport encircles them through growth.
First a 5 kft runway is good, the 11 kft, then one isn't enough, they need
two, then the wind is always wrong, so they make two more cross-wise. Then the
airports just the right size, and THEN 5 million FUCKING airplanes want to
land in the same God Damned 10 minutes...
Let's see... No hard stuff, no wine... Shit, guess I'll have another beer...
John Weiss
Bad conclusion for an initial analysis without further facts...
The most likely scenario is disorientation in the clouds (I read something
about clouds from 2000 - 10,000 feet or so). A high-performance takeoff into
the goo is not easy...
chie...@unix.asb.com
:Thanks for your comments. While I respect your opinions, it
:would be interesting to get an old BROWNSHOE to give neutral
:comments on this subject.
:For the uninitiated, it is my believe that Naval aviation
:started its turn to the worse when their flyers were forced to
:start wearing black shoes. (Was that Zumwalt again?)
:From a taxpayer's point of view it is utterly rediculous to
:allow any pilot who butched up on mulitimillion airplane for
:us to do so again. Would certainly not happen in commercial
:aviation and maybe the reaseon many airlines do not hire
:fighter jockeys. So there
:you are!
Admiral Nimitz, as a young Ensign, ran his ship aground. If he had
been dismissed one can only wonder what changes may have occured in
the Pacific during WWII.
==============================================================
: Chief Jim Long Island, NY :
: :
: Chie...@unix.asb.com :
==============================================================
Phil Brandt
are going Delta Sierra, is why WSOs have a high accident survival rate,
at least Air Force-wise. Often the front (or left) seater is busy
solving the mysteries of why his whole telelight panel is lit, why he
just lost intercom (generators just dropped off the line as the engines
wound down), or just trying to maintain stable flight, maybe even
dwelling for a split second on the "I'm not going to lose a bird" stigma.
That's what was nice with the F-4 and F-111. The F-4 backseater could
punch out the front seater--sequenced after the WSO--involuntarily (using
the Command Selector Valve), and, of course, with the Vark, you're both
going out regardless of whose handle is pulled (and the added advantage
that you both get to coordinate your stories for the safety board on the
way down!).
Some SEA front seaters, because of pilot pride, told their WSOs not to
dare to use the Command Selector Valve, and some of them are deep in the
ground under that jungle triple canopy. I'm very glad that in 1968 my
Night Owl A/C brother didn't dwell on the situation when, after a AAA
hit, he was out of control, upside down, low level, high speed, at night
in "bad guy country". The rocket seat took him into the trees, and he was
injured, but his instant ejection decision put him on the high side of
the "quick and the dead", and the Jolley's got him out the next day.
Having more than a few hours up in front of two TF30s leads me to believe
that perhaps the booms heard by some witnesses at Nashville may have been
one or both engines stalling. That neither crewmember appears to have
pulled the handles is not unusual. We had a Mt. Home Vark crew flat spin
out of close trail formation--double engine stall--for 45 seconds on a
CAVU day, with a forward velocity of less than fifty knots, and neither
tried to eject.
Phil
Bomber Bill
(Stephen M. Ryan) wrote:
> John Goscinski (gosc...@escmail.orl.mmc.com) wrote:
>
> : If it's
> : her fault the engine died, then blame her. If the engine flat broke, then
> : its simply mechanical failure. This was far from an easily salvagable
> : situation.
>
> It seems to me that engine-out approaches are required practice by all
> military pilots
Ah c'mon, did you practice approaches with all the port engines out in
your BUFF? I don't recall that as training SOP. I'm sure it is in
fighters, but only in controlled situations, and even so a significant
percentage of engine-out failures still call for immediate abandonment of
the aircraft as SOP. You can't practice all types of engine-out
failures.
> and that the flame out of one engine on approach is not
> typically fatal unless compounded by other pilot errors, more mechanical
> problems, or weather...
...or if you're too far down the slope. Cripes, she was very deep in the
approach. If she'd lost both engines, the plane would've probably hit the
boat she was so close. As I understand it, you are supposed to be waved
off at the point at which you cannot recover from your approach at the
standard approach sink rate. If you lose power past this point, you are
by definition in a low probability of recovery situation. I don't think
we really appreciate the sink rate of carrier approaches.
> She appeared to be to slow and off the glide path to begin
> with
This is true...
> and made the wrong reaction to the emergency
...and this is not true. What is the "right" reaction to a major thrust
asymmetry right off the ramp? Hmm? Anyone? I still have not heard a
satisfactory answer to that, and I don't think anyone who had wings should
be claiming otherwise until they can answer that. Like I said, full
opposite flaps and rudder and you're still going in the drink because you
have to throttle back on the starboard engine to recover. If there's any
Pentagon cover-up its the one in which Mirimar or Pensacola doesn't
release their simulator tapes of the 1 in 10 Tomcat drivers who
supposedly did fly out of that corner.
She made a mistake in her approach, a pretty common mistake. If her
reaction to the wave-off was to firewall the throttles of the TF-30's,
then she committed pilot error there. After that--and we'll never even
know if she did ramrod the throttles--no pilot error is possible. I
checked with my best available source, and ex-Phantom driver, and he's
pretty sure that regs have you go for the handles immediately in that
situation. Maybe you're honor bound to stay with it if the plane is
pointed at people, but it's not pilot error to eject.
> pilot that loses situational awareness or is task saturated, and is most
> common in an inexperienced pilot (but not necessarily *unqualified*).
In my opinion, "task saturation" and "situational awareness" is USAF
butt-covering langauge. Sure, sure, modern avionics draw much more
attention than the old analog targeting and flight instruments, but you're
supposed to be able to chew gum and walk at the same time if you're a
military pilot, or guide a Maverick and keep an eye on the altimeter at
the same time. That's peacetime guff for "don't bilge my career for
flying this expensive jet into the ground, and did I mention that my uncle
is a general?"
Besides, one thing I am sure of is that past a certain point there is no
other task in a carrier approach other than flying the lights.
> Many *qualified* fighter pilots crash airplanes due to pilot error--I
> think many are overreacting to the assertion she made mistakes thinking
> it proves she was unqualified. I think it was inexperience.
This is charitable but it still has that avuncular hint of patronizing.
Hey, maybe it wasn't pilot error at all. From the evidence of the tape
and condition of her plane afterwards it is just as likely that the port
engine flamed out on its own, in which case her only pilot error was not
pulling the handles immediately. Only _maybe_ was it pilot error, and if
it was it was the pretty natural reaction of ramming the throttles in a
jam. It's not like she panicked and wrung her hands like a ditz while the
plane crashed, which is what the brownshoe whisper campaign seems to
claim.
Travfarley
> Cripes, she was very deep in the
>approach. If she'd lost both engines, the plane would've probably hit
the
>boat she was so close.]
Not true. her problems started at the 45 degree to go position.
>What is the "right" reaction to a major thrust
>asymmetry right off the ramp? Hmm? Anyone? I still have not heard a
>satisfactory answer to that, and I don't think anyone who had wings
should
>be claiming otherwise until they can answer that. Like I said, full
>opposite flaps and rudder and you're still going in the drink because you
>have to throttle back on the starboard engine to recover.
again not true. Procedure to counter a single engine situation is the
same as a single engine off the cat.
-Set 10 degrees attitude
-Rudder oppiste roll and yaw(supplemented by lateral stick)
-BOTH throttles as required for pos rate of climb(including afterburner)
-Gear up
-stores jettison if necessary
unlike your buff the turkey does have a single engine(read full asymetry)
fly away capability.
>. If there's any
>Pentagon cover-up its the one in which Mirimar or Pensacola doesn't
>release their simulator tapes of the 1 in 10 Tomcat drivers who
>supposedly did fly out of that corner.
Even if the simulation was bogus?
what if they did not start the sim until the aircraft was too far in teh
hole?
what if the pilots were instructed not to use proper teqnique?
There are a few different stories floating around about how the test was
totaly bogus, but few insiders give this unscientifc test any creedence.
EVENTUALY the situation was unrecoverable.
>She made a mistake in her approach, a pretty common mistake. If her
>reaction to the wave-off was to firewall the throttles of the TF-30's,
>then she committed pilot error there. After that--and we'll never even
>know if she did ramrod the throttles--no pilot error is possible.
Not true. The contention is there was pilot error on 2 counts.
1. inducing the left engine compressor stall by blanking the engine in an
uncoordinated wrapped up turn to try to salvage an over-shooting start.
2. not recognizing it quickly enough and not applying the aforementioned
recovery procedure.
Going to MRT on both engines (which teh investigation revealled she did)
was not wrong. The lack of opposite rudder and the over-cooking of the
angle of attack was. If these procedures were applied the jet would have
been upright during ejection.
> From the evidence of the tape
>and condition of her plane afterwards it is just as likely that the port
>engine flamed out on its own, in which case her only pilot error was not
>pulling the handles immediately. Only _maybe_ was it pilot error, and if
>it was it was the pretty natural reaction of ramming the throttles in a
>jam. It's not like she panicked and wrung her hands like a ditz while
the
>plane crashed, which is what the brownshoe whisper campaign seems to
>claim.
Not true. You assume an engine out emergency is unrecoverable. I'm not
here to say that this pilot was in an easy situation or any pilot with any
experience level should be expected to react perfectly. I am just tired
of all the people writing their opinions as fact. This is a perfect
example. Some bomber guy starts spouting of about the specifics of a
Tomcat accident when he very obviously doesn't have any knowledge of the
tom's capabilities or flying qualities.( although I'm sure he is a great
guy).
You can take what I've said here for what it is worth. It is my
opinion and that of a lot of Tomcat flyers at Miramar. Throw away the
political agendas and try to look at this objectively.
-Travis F-14rio
e...@cbncp5.cb.att.com
One news report said that one of the aircraft's engins
was found some distance from the crash sight.
(implying it may have departed the aircraft before impact)
In an earlier posting I read that one of the engines in
Lt. Heulgreen's (sp) F-14 had broken loose from its
mounts. Maybe Tomcat engines are breaking loose and causing
some crashes. I dought even the best F-14 driver could
do much with an airplane with the center of gravity change
induced by an engine shift, or loss, not to mention its shuting down.
Just a thought.
Earl Watkins
Ron Miller
: People don't move to the Airport, the Airport encircles them through growth.
: First a 5 kft runway is good, the 11 kft, then one isn't enough, they need
Two airports that I am familiar with went like this:
airport in the dingles, 40 years pass, development reaches airport,
neighbors ignore aircraft flying over/thru their new home construction,
neighbors move in then demand airport close.
My glider field (Warrenton, VA.) had been an airfield since the late 1920's.
Area developed in the late 1980's. Neighbors objected to our towing thru
their backyards at 0900 on Sundays like had been going on for half a century.
Who's to blame?
Navy Aux. Field Fentress near Va. Beach. I watched my dad's squadron of
F-4s doing FCLP in 1970 from the LSO's shack. Round-the-clock ops there.
I was taking a drive on my motorcycle when I was active-duty in 1982.
Found brand new big houses with a view of the runway across the perimeter
road. You could literally read the side numbers of the airplanes going
by in the 'bounce-and-go' pattern from the driveways of these houses.
I like airplanes as much as anyone but until I go totally deaf, I wouldn't
want to live *there*
And I'm not going to start on DIA (Democrats In Action).
Ron Miller
MITCHKRON
something
>about clouds from 2000 - 10,000 feet or so). A high-performance takeoff
into
>the goo is not easy...
As much as I hate to think this happened to a couple of shipmates, I do
remember an F-16 and pilot that crashed shortly after takeoff in Idaho or
Utah, I believe it was. The cause of crash was determined to be
disorientation in the clouds (although the factors contributing to that
crash were a bit different than this one).
BRETT ZEITZ
Doug,
DB->flight envelope. 'Zone 5' wouldn't apply to all engines, because not all
I only flew one engine with AB, the TF-30 on the F-14A. The zones I was
referring to relate to the "stages" of the afterburner. There were VERY
discernable stages the AB went through, as it progressed through the
different zones. (At sea level, they would push you back in your
seat!) We even had a gauge showing the zone the engine was operating in,
but, roughly the size of a quarter (or was it a nickel?), it was of
little use, except to verify the AB did light.
Again, in our _Navy_ fighter community, the zone you were operating in
referred to your AB, unless of course you were referring to the previous
night at the O Club!
-Brett
---
* SLMR 2.1a #0001 * Best file compression around: "DEL *.*" = 100% compressi
Lee Albert Green MD MPH
: In article Brian Varine <var...@ucs.orst.edu> writes:
: >Kinda makes you wonder how people can move next to an airport and bitch about
: >noise.
: People don't move to the Airport, the Airport encircles them through growth.
: First a 5 kft runway is good, the 11 kft, then one isn't enough, they need
: two, then the wind is always wrong, so they make two more cross-wise. Then the
This may indeed happen at some airports, but it's not the story around
here. Detroit Metro was built out in the boonies, and housing
developments came out to encircle it. New runways have been built, but
the airport isn't larger, they're just using open space they already had
as the airport was planned for growth from the start. It's always been a
busy airport, so no one can claim they built their house next to a cow
pasture and suddenly it's noisy.
I think what happens is that developers get land pretty cheaply close to
airports, put up subdivisions, and offer the homes at attractive prices.
I suspect the buyers don't really realize what they're getting into until
they've signed on the dotted line, or else that low price just seems too
good to pass up.
--
Lee Green MD MPH
Dept Family Practice
University of Michigan
gre...@umich.edu
Verify public key with MIT keyserver
Ed Rasimus
>Some SEA front seaters, because of pilot pride, told their WSOs not to
>dare to use the Command Selector Valve, and some of them are deep in the
>ground under that jungle triple canopy. I'm very glad that in 1968 my
>Night Owl A/C brother didn't dwell on the situation when, after a AAA
>hit, he was out of control, upside down, low level, high speed, at night
>in "bad guy country". The rocket seat took him into the trees, and he was
>injured, but his instant ejection decision put him on the high side of
>the "quick and the dead", and the Jolley's got him out the next day.
>
Don't assume it was "pilot pride" that dictated some A/Cs telling the
WSO not to rotate the Command Selector Valve. Depending upon the level
of competence of the back-seater and the level of familiarity (how
often we had flown together), I defaulted to the "take care of
yourself" position.
The briefing usually said rotate it (take command ejection control)
for take-offs and for emergency situation landings. At all other
times, when we have intercom, I will control my own ejection or will
tell you when to rotate the handle. That's what being the aircraft
commander is about--command.
Stephen M. Ryan
: experience level should be expected to react perfectly. I am just tired
: of all the people writing their opinions as fact. This is a perfect
: example. Some bomber guy starts spouting of about the specifics of a
: Tomcat accident when he very obviously doesn't have any knowledge of the
: tom's capabilities or flying qualities.( although I'm sure he is a great
: guy).
Whoops! I committed a major faux pas--I wasn't told you needed expert
qualifications to comment on rec.aviation.military. I just assumed
everyone takes everything they read here with a few grains of salt. My
mistake! I should start including disclaimers on my lack of knowledge so
I don't mislead anyone else...maybe I should get a signature line.
:^)
Steve "Just Spouting Off My Opinion" Ryan
J.D. Baldwin
<df...@nukulator.net> wrote:
>Oh for pete's sake! Blanked inlet? Look at the tape. LOOK AT THE
>TAPE! Her Tomcat is flying essentially straight when the port engine
>flames out. What rudder yaw are they claiming caused the inlet to be
>blanked?
Yell all you want, but you only drive home your (invincible?)
ignorance that much further. The LSO's on the platform and the Mishap
Investigation Board disagree with you, and I guarantee they've seen
the tape. THEY'VE SEEN THE TAPE! To wit:
MP's attempt to salvage overshooting approach with left rudder
led to reduced eng[ine] comp[ressor] stall margin, contributing
to left eng comp stall.
>Frankly, I doubt this was in the mishap report.
You know, if you just set an environment variable called USER to
"Willf L. Ignoramus," you'd save everyone else the trouble of figuring
it out by making inferences from your posts.
>Only portions of the conclusions were leaked as far as I have read and
>no specifics were offered with regard to purported pilot error.
And yet again, on two *more* counts. The entire report was released and
published by Army Times (owner of "Navy Times") and does indeed identify
numerous deficiencies on Hultgreen's part, including:
What: . . . attempted to salvage a poor approach
Why: Performance, technical error, overcontrol
What: Controlled afloat, other, performed single eng waveoff
improperly.
Why: Performance, failure of attention, distraction external, . . .
cognitive saturation.
What: Failure of aircrew coordination, failed to communicate.
Why: Performance, failure of attention, cognitive saturation, . . .
channelized attention, distraction external.
What: Failed to make timely decision [to eject].
Why: Performance, failure of attention, distraction external, . . .
channelized attention, . . . cognitive saturation.
>I kept my eye on the attributed leaks to see if she was cited for poor
>throttle handling and never saw anything about it, so unless you've
>got a cite for that I plain don't believe it.
Translation: "I've got my own preconceived notions, and damn you or
anyone else who tries to shake them!" The next step (for those
keeping score of the Flat Earth Index) will be to accuse me of making
up the above. After that (when I provide the entire MIR itself, as I
have long offered to do to anyone who e-mails), it will be to accuse
me of making *that* up. (Yeah, I *wish* I had the free time to
fabricate an internally consistent, nearly 55K, technical document
like an MIR.)
>She is unfortunately liable to other areas of pilot error, but let's
>not make things up about a US serviceman (or whatever) who died in the
>line of duty.
OK, I'll promise to refrain from inventing "facts" about the incident,
if you'll promise to *cease* doing so.
>This is how hearsay works, of course. Just leak vague hints and people
>who want to believe them will make up their own details to support their
>prejudices.
Uh-huh, I've seen this at work, too. It goes sort of like, "Anyone who
would suggest that pilot error might have caused or contributed to this
mishap is obviously politically motivated to denigrate Kara Hultgreen's
memory, just because she was a woman." It *is* a despicable practice,
isn't it?
For the benefit of anyone else incapable of distinguishing between
respect for the truth and disrespect to the honorable sacrifice of a
dead aviatrix, I just want to note that I have no opinion as to whether
Hultgreen was pushed into the position in which she found herself
despite being unqualified. There *is* some informed opinion to that
effect in the West Coast naval aviation community, and it's not in
serious dispute that this particularly odious form of "affirmative
action" *is*, after all, a fact of life in the Navy. The fact that
senior Navy officials felt compelled to *lie* about the MIR results
doesn't help the "con" side of the debate much.
But even if we assume the worst about the situation surrounding her
placement in F-14's, it doesn't change the fact that this was a brave
and indomitable young woman of the highest character who died a tragic
and honorable death in the service of her country. I had mutual
friends--including a close one--with Kara Hultgreen, and it gives me
no pleasure to have to point out the contents of the MIR that are less
than complimentary toward her. (In particular, I'd like five or ten
minutes alone with the asshole who casually referred to her as "that
douche bag.") But, to use a quote from Naomi Wolf of which I'm very
fond, "To suggest that the truth is in bad taste is the highest form
of hypocrisy." It's hardly becoming to Hultgreen's memory to shade
our eyes from the facts just because they're politically embarrassing
to her ardent defenders.
Travfarley
>People don't move to the Airport, the Airport encircles them through
growth.
>First a 5 kft runway is good, the 11 kft, then one isn't enough, they
need
>two, then the wind is always wrong, so they make two more cross-wise.
airplanes want to
>land in the same God Damned 10 minutes...
...and then there is Miramar. The Marines build a airbase out in the
middle of BFE in the 40's and San Diego expands around it. Now all you
can't even hear the sound of freedom for all of the whining about noise..
-Travis
Bomber Bill
kar...@airmail.net (Karon) wrote:
> Sorry, but in my experience 3 seconds can be a long time.
Not in a jet, not in that situation. Sorry, I don't mean to quibble with
people on the side, so to speak, of the late Lt. Hultgreen, but again I
don't think any post-mortem critic has the right to say anything about her
reactions after the flame-out.
Watch the tape and put yourself in the cockpit: "Uh oh, wave off,
throttles, stick left [whump!] what's that? check panel [1 sec.]
YAW!STICKRIGHT!REDLIGHTS! [2 sec.] OCEAN! [whump, RIO ejects] HANDLES! [3
sec.] WHUMP- SPLASHCRAAACK!...darkness."
That's it, that fast. You tell me where in that sequence you pull the
plane out of the water. The only legitimate question is whether she
should have gone for the handles before or after she heard the flame-out.
Given the staggered ejection sequence, she would have already been cutting
it thin to check the panel first.
Stephen M. Ryan
: In article <4eruk4$1...@lastactionhero.rs.itd.umich.edu>, smr...@umich.edu
: (Stephen M. Ryan) wrote:
: > It seems to me that engine-out approaches are required practice by all
: > military pilots
: Ah c'mon, did you practice approaches with all the port engines out in
: your BUFF? I don't recall that as training SOP. I'm sure it is in
: fighters, but only in controlled situations, and even so a significant
: percentage of engine-out failures still call for immediate abandonment of
: the aircraft as SOP. You can't practice all types of engine-out
: failures.
Ah c'mon, you're telling me the Navy doesn't practice this stuff in the
sim? You mean to say that F-14 pilots expect never to have this
situation develop because their engines are so reliable it is not worth
the effort to train for it? Sure, nobody practices four-engine out
approaches in the BUFF because that is highly unusual. Can't say the
same for a 2-engine airplane with unreliable engines. If they don't
train their pilots to react properly to that situation (whether it be
recovery or ejection) then it was the Navy's fault. If the pilot was
trained to deal with it but didn't, then it was the pilot's fault (again,
whether there was a recovery procedure or ejection was SOP).
: > and that the flame out of one engine on approach is not
: > typically fatal unless compounded by other pilot errors, more mechanical
: > problems, or weather...
: ...or if you're too far down the slope. Cripes, she was very deep in the
: approach. If she'd lost both engines, the plane would've probably hit the
: boat she was so close. As I understand it, you are supposed to be waved
: off at the point at which you cannot recover from your approach at the
: standard approach sink rate. If you lose power past this point, you are
: by definition in a low probability of recovery situation. I don't think
: we really appreciate the sink rate of carrier approaches.
I believe the report said she was waved off well in advance and delayed
executing the procedure. This error compounded any error in reaction,
because she wasn't where she was supposed to be.
: > and made the wrong reaction to the emergency
: ...and this is not true. What is the "right" reaction to a major thrust
: asymmetry right off the ramp? Hmm? Anyone? I still have not heard a
: satisfactory answer to that, and I don't think anyone who had wings should
: be claiming otherwise until they can answer that. Like I said, full
: opposite flaps and rudder and you're still going in the drink because you
: have to throttle back on the starboard engine to recover. If there's any
: Pentagon cover-up its the one in which Mirimar or Pensacola doesn't
: release their simulator tapes of the 1 in 10 Tomcat drivers who
: supposedly did fly out of that corner.
: She made a mistake in her approach, a pretty common mistake. If her
: reaction to the wave-off was to firewall the throttles of the TF-30's,
: then she committed pilot error there. After that--and we'll never even
: know if she did ramrod the throttles--no pilot error is possible. I
: checked with my best available source, and ex-Phantom driver, and he's
: pretty sure that regs have you go for the handles immediately in that
: situation. Maybe you're honor bound to stay with it if the plane is
: pointed at people, but it's not pilot error to eject.
You prove my point--even if it was unrecoverable as you say, she erred by
delaying her decision to eject. And as I said, pilot error does not make
a pilot unqualified to fly the jet.
: > pilot that loses situational awareness or is task saturated, and is most
: > common in an inexperienced pilot (but not necessarily *unqualified*).
: In my opinion, "task saturation" and "situational awareness" is USAF
: butt-covering langauge. Sure, sure, modern avionics draw much more
: attention than the old analog targeting and flight instruments, but you're
: supposed to be able to chew gum and walk at the same time if you're a
: military pilot, or guide a Maverick and keep an eye on the altimeter at
: the same time. That's peacetime guff for "don't bilge my career for
: flying this expensive jet into the ground, and did I mention that my uncle
: is a general?"
Far from butt-covering, task saturation or loss of SA is an expression of
error, not excuse. You're right, an experienced pilot should not become
task saturated on approach, and despite what you claim below, I think
there is plenty to saturate an inexperienced carrier pilot on approach to
the boat.
: Besides, one thing I am sure of is that past a certain point there is no
: other task in a carrier approach other than flying the lights.
: > Many *qualified* fighter pilots crash airplanes due to pilot error--I
: > think many are overreacting to the assertion she made mistakes thinking
: > it proves she was unqualified. I think it was inexperience.
: This is charitable but it still has that avuncular hint of patronizing.
: Hey, maybe it wasn't pilot error at all. From the evidence of thetape
: and condition of her plane afterwards it is just as likely that the port
: engine flamed out on its own, in which case her only pilot error was not
: pulling the handles immediately. Only _maybe_ was it pilot error, and if
: it was it was the pretty natural reaction of ramming the throttles in a
: jam. It's not like she panicked and wrung her hands like a ditz while the
: plane crashed, which is what the brownshoe whisper campaign seems to
: claim.
Not meant to patronize--I think that she would not have been one of the
first to make the jump to F-14s if she were unqualified as a pilot, which
is what the "whisper campaign" seems to claim. I was trying show that if
she were a relatively new male F-14 pilot, there wouldn't be nearly as
many claims that he was unqualified because he made a mistake in a bad
situation. Unfortunately, Hultgreen's defenders have taken the untenable
ground that she was error-free in this situation to counter the charge
she was unqualified. It bears repeating--one mistake in a close situation
does not make you unqualified to fly. I think it would be better to
admit she didn't do everything right, but any other qualified yet
inexperienced pilot might have done the same thing. I think we should at
least admit she was inexperienced and fairly new to the F-14.
Steve Ryan
Brian Varine
>
> S. Sampson (ssam...@icon.net) wrote:
> : In article Brian Varine <var...@ucs.orst.edu> writes:
>
> : >Kinda makes you wonder how people can move next to an airport and bitch about
> : >noise.
>
> : First a 5 kft runway is good, the 11 kft, then one isn't enough, they need
> : two, then the wind is always wrong, so they make two more cross-wise. Then the
>
> here. Detroit Metro was built out in the boonies, and housing
> developments came out to encircle it. New runways have been built, but
> the airport isn't larger, they're just using open space they already had
> as the airport was planned for growth from the start. It's always been a
> busy airport, so no one can claim they built their house next to a cow
> pasture and suddenly it's noisy.
>
> I think what happens is that developers get land pretty cheaply close to
> airports, put up subdivisions, and offer the homes at attractive prices.
> I suspect the buyers don't really realize what they're getting into until
> they've signed on the dotted line, or else that low price just seems too
> good to pass up.
This is what is happening in Virginia Beach Va. The Navy put Oceana out there
in the '30's. Back then it wasn't populated at all. Now, all the developers
bitch and whine about the noise. The city cracks me up for listening, if
Oceana closes, bye bye tax base. The largest employer is Oceana. I'm sure
Cecil Field would welcome the noise. The thing that really got me is that a
lot of the people who complain are in the or retired from the Navy! They had
some retired aviator on the TV whining about his precious land and how those
noisy A-6's woke him up some nights. This is probably the same guy who
bitches that his retirement check is late.
==============================================================================
Brian R. Varine <var...@ucs.orst.edu>
http://www.orst.edu/~varineb
Oregon Freqs/Military.jpgs/Russian ECM list/car ECM eval
He who owns the electromagnetic spectrum, owns the battlefield!
When in doubt, JAM IT!!!!
STOP HIGHWAY ROBBERY------JOIN THE NMA!
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.6.2
mQBtAzDwm6oAAAEDAOjurmD0Ft9VXTvnVVOf5uOLbsSB4PuidmW+aDjV7F7+KRSb
fakuNHXVEhBYwTINVVnIjiSik12UcCv8UZXj/x9hAXBJXCk+v/8y9w6zk1Gu1iXC
/HYnR/zJIyVohkIJwQAFEbQmQnJpYW4gUi4gVmFyaW5lIDx2YXJpbmViQHVjcy5v
cnN0LmVkdT4=
=NYjj
Simon Lam
If the engine did come off, why didn't he punch out? From the 5000 feet
or so I've heard people say he was in, that should give plenty of time to
bail. BTW, has anybody else heard of F-14 engines coming off? I seriously
doubt it due to the way the engine is almost integrated into the frame.
It isn't in a pod, like most airliners, as you must already know.
--
Simon Lam
It's the man, not the machine.
(But it often helps)
E-mail:simo...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca
Simon Lam
: the Command Selector Valve), and, of course, with the Vark, you're both
: going out regardless of whose handle is pulled (and the added advantage
: that you both get to coordinate your stories for the safety board on the
: way down!).
In the F-14, to the best of my knowledge, if the RIO or the pilot pulls,
they're both out. I think the RIO goes out first, followed by the pilot
about 1.5 seconds later.
: Having more than a few hours up in front of two TF30s leads me to believe
: that perhaps the booms heard by some witnesses at Nashville may have been
: one or both engines stalling. That neither crewmember appears to have
: pulled the handles is not unusual. We had a Mt. Home Vark crew flat spin
: out of close trail formation--double engine stall--for 45 seconds on a
: CAVU day, with a forward velocity of less than fifty knots, and neither
: tried to eject.
When will people learn that if you're in Delta Sierra, or your plane is
Foxtrot Uniform beyond control, get the hell out now! 45 seconds! What
they hell were they doing!?!
Gee, shall we eject.
No.. Let's see if we can get regain control....
Okay...
[20 seconds later]
Okay, we're offically in Delta Sierra, Let's get out.
Shall I push all the switches into the right positions to Foxtrot the
accident investagator now, or do it after we eject?
Let's see... If we do it now [BOOM!!!!]
Wayne Johnson
>On Sat, 03 Feb 1996 04:09:19 GMT, cia...@popd.ix.netcom.com (Wayne Johnson) said:
>W> However, there is a difference between the inherent risks of
>W> aviation, particularly military aviation, and civilian air travel.
>W> Having visited every military airfield in Southern California at
>W> one time or another, I can say that all are located in fairly
>W> remote areas, without a neighborhood at the end of the runway.
>W> Many of these airfields parallel neighborhoods (March is next to a
>W> busy freeway, Edwards is near civilian housing, George (now unused)
>W> was near some homes, but none are near heavy concentrations of
>W> people like Van Nuys, Orange County, or Burbank Airport.
>EDW's runways are miles from the nearest housing and you have to make
>an extremely tight righthand turn to get to them. As I recall, the
>same was true for George. The military is pretty clever about not
>putting the base housing on the extended centerline of the runway.
Well, what I meant was that planes would have a hard time hitting the
housing at Edwards. A guy I know lives near there, and watches all
kinds of aircraft taking off and landing, from his backyard - without
binoculars. They're not that far off, but I agree, a plane on normal
approach or takeoff could not possibly come near them.
>W> Are you saying that a less aggressive takeoff is no safer than a
>W> max performance takeoff?
>Yes, I am. If I thought about it for a while, I might even say it's
>less safe, in that it's easier to recover if you're at a higher
>altitude, which a max performance t/o will put you at.
Hadn't thought of that.
>W> I'd think that in a civilian area,
>W> aircraft would be more careful, just as military vehicles travel
>W> non-aggressively while traveling on civilian freeways.
>They're equally careful--their little warm pink bodies are in those
>planes and e-seats are last resorts, with no guarantee of no injury.
>Also, the current atmosphere of lose a plane and never be promoted
>again has made pilots more risk-averse. I'm not sure, by the way,
>that "non-aggressively" is quite the word you want; I've heard some
>pretty pushy pilots on ATC when I fly United.
>Also, the Great Santini sacrifice, with the pilot staying with the
>plane to keep it away from populated areas, is not what the military
>teaches or expects. I've talked with a number of pilots about it and
>most of them are disinclined to plan to do such a thing. Remember
>that A-7 drover that hit the apartment building a few years back? He
>ejected as soon as the problem became obvious, although he did come to
>the crash scene and help fight the fire.
Do you mean the incident out of Miramar about '88 or so? There were a
couple of bad ones back then...the one you mention, and one where (I
think) an F-14 went in, and the boys stayed with the plane, and guided
it away from some big structure. My memory is hazy, but it seems to
me that several times pilots have elected to stay with the ship to
keep it from hitting something precious. Either that, or they
couldn't get out in time...
Wayne Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Jim Oke
>I doubt it, he was cleared for a high performance takeoff, appeared to be
>foing straight up, then came down out of clouds shortly thereafter. I
>think you'll find the final result related to the weak performance of the
>F-14A's anemic engine. The reports I saw on TV and in the NYTimes didn't
>sound at all like flathatting.
>Joel in CT (who lost a friend flathatting in Daytona Beach area out of
>Sanford, FL, in 1960).
>jlmce
A more plausible scenario is a sudden, undetected or unnoticed
failure of the pilot's attitude indicator. Does the F-14 have an
inertial platform feeding the pilot's ADI ? A bad INS alignment or
some other failure of the ADI when climbing vertically or nearly
so in cloud would have just about this effect (and has in the past
in other aircraft).
Climbing vertically in a fighter aircraft is just about the ideal
ejection situation after an engine failure. Lots of time and an
excellent ejection vector assuming just a simple (dual ??) engine
problem. I do not accept that an experienced F-14 crew would
attempt to ride a flamed out aircraft down to a deadstick landing
regardless of any laudable attempt to avoid housing, etc.
Becoming disoriented in cloud, eithier with or without an instrument
failure, and then trying to salvage the situation seems to me to be
a far more likely cause of this tragic mishap.
Jim Oke
<winnipeg, canada>
e...@cbncp5.cb.att.com
keep the airplane from going into a crouded highway. Maybe he's a hero!
Ron Cocuzzi
And it never stops to amaze me that the developers continue to build.
There's a new community getting ready to build right behind Tidewater
Community College. This is in Noise Zone 1/2. I live in Zone 2 and was
well aware of the noise. I signed three waivers when I closed on my
house. The VA, realtors and city all required the waivers. The jets
aren't all that bad, what gets me is the static engine testing that they
do EVERY thursday night between 9 and 11 pm. Wanna talk loud? You're
right about Va. Beach politics, remember about five years ago when the
Navy was talking about closing Oceana? If you have never seen ass kissing
at it's finest, this was it. I can say this much, in the 10 years that I
have been in this area, I have seen only one accident where deaths
occured within the city limits. Noisy? Definitely! Dangerous? Nahhhh!
Ron
Michael D. Harvey
>couple of bad ones back then...the one you mention, and one where (I
>think) an F-14 went in, and the boys stayed with the plane, and guided
>it away from some big structure. My memory is hazy, but it seems to
>me that several times pilots have elected to stay with the ship to
>keep it from hitting something precious. Either that, or they
>couldn't get out in time...
>
>Wayne Johnson
>cia...@ix.netcom.com
>
might be remembering, it crashed into an industerial park up where the
I-5 & I-805 join together. The pilot CDR Strong (my old XO from
VFP-306) stayed in the acft until it was about 50 feet from impacting,
stearing it away from a school and shopping center and trying to sit it
down in an area with little loss of life.. Nobody got killed, alot of
car's got new paint jobs due to the burning fuel when it settled in the
induterial park parking lot between two building.
The results of the investigation found the after burner can failed on
takeoff, (they found parts on the runway at NAS Mirimar) and thus, a
single engine plane doens't fly far with no engine..
e8425654
>> Actually, from all I've heard, she was. Her instructors had said she was
>> not ready, but the "powers that be" were so hot to be the first to get
>> female fighter pilots out there that she was, in effect, sacrificed.
Her records say she was a "slightly above the average" navy pilot, so there
were no "powers" who wanted to be the first to put a woman in an F-14 seat.
Have you ever heard they denied this seat to a male "slightly above the
average" navy pilot?
Joe
J.D. Baldwin
I'd like to know where *both* of you are getting this. I've never
seen an *attributed* quote about her abilities either as below or
above average. There is some performance data in the MIR, but it
doesn't specifically support either a finding of "above average" in
raw numbers (the raw numbers, I'm guessing, are slightly below the
fleet average for new Turkey drivers) or any indication of general
lack of confidence in her abilities by her squadron or her peers. In
fact, the MIR concludes she had a "solid reputation" and that the CO
and OPS officer were "confident in [her] CQ ability."
Some facts (I apologize in advance for having the bad taste to
introduce these into the discussion):
Hultgreen was disqualified during her first attempt at CQ. This is
common, but not extremely common. Maybe one in ten disquals, maybe
one in fifteen. Most (maybe 90% or even 98%) DQ's go on to qualify
the second time around, as did Hultgreen. Her ranking for the CQ
phase of training (second time around) was 3 of 7. Her final class
rank for the whole F-14 RAG (excuse me, I mean "FRS") was 3 of 5.
Classes are so small and so variable in general ability that there is
no way to infer anything meaningful from overall class rank.
More specifically, her CQ performance (the first time around) was:
field: well below average
CV day: slightly below average
CV night: unsatisfactory (obviously)
Her problems could be accurately summarized as bad starts compounded
with poor throttle control. Even the second time around, she had a
few identifiable problems with power control, but nothing serious
enough to be unsafe.
None of this changes the fact that, on October 25, 1994, she screwed
up real bad and died as a result. Neither does any of it prove that
she was either unqualified or supremely qualified. You know what?
The record is ambiguous. You don't know, I don't know, no one
*really* knows but her instructors and they're not talking.
Personally, I find it very difficult to believe that Navy LSO's would
pass an unsafe pilot on to the fleet regardless of political pressure,
but I admit it's possible.
So speculate if you like. I've been known to do a little of that,
myself. But STOP PRETENDING TO HAVE INSIDE INFORMATION when all you're
really doing is re-hashing rumors. Once again, if you want the damn
MIR, I'll e-mail it to you. All you have to do is drop me a note.
N. Bradford-Reid
while replying to N. Bradford-Reid assertion that Hultgreen was
> not fully qual'd to fly. Well, I gave you a source. Now thats
> not good enough either. If we gave you her records I bet you'd
> claim they'd been forged, too.
>
Okay, fellas, the ice storm is over here and I can come back on and put my
small foot in my large mouth once again. I would like to clarify a couple
of things. First, being of the feminine gender myself, I am 100% behind
women flying, jumping, driving hum-vees or whatever it takes, but as with
anyone who applies, aptitude is necessary. I did not read the _Newsweek_
article(s) in question. I learned what I stated here about Lt. Hultgreen
in talking to a Tomcat RIO (I do not feel at liberty to publish his sqn
and callsign without his permission and since he and a driver from the
same sqn have not been out here for awhile--and haven't commented on this
thread!--I feel certain they're deployed somewhere) who knew her
instructors. Yes, this young man was disillusioned over the entrance of
women to combat aviation, primarily because of the very incident in
question; however, he was not totally opposed to it and certainly did not
seem to have any "axe to grind."
I was not trying to slander Kara (my God, I was the one who asked that she
please not be referred to as a douche bag! What a horrible thing to say
about *any* woman, let alone an officer in the United States Navy!!). I
was terribly upset when she died. What I was trying to express was the
idea that she might have been sacrificed by a system that was trying to
move ahead too fast, coupled with an unpredictable engine/platform
combination. I am certainly no fighter plane expert and do not claim to
be one (hell, I'm only in ground school for my private ticket). I was
relying on a technically capable source close to the event. I offer my
sincerest apologies to **anyone** who might have taken amiss what I said.
Tex
____________________
...Navy Wings are made of Gold...
_____________________________________________________________________
|N. Bradford-Reid |"If you want to inspire confidence, |
|Department of English |*give plenty of statistics*. It |
|The University of Texas |does not matter that they should be |
|n.b-...@mail.utexas.edu |accurate, or even intelligible, so |
| |long as there is enough of them." |
| | Lewis Carroll |
____________________________________________________________________
N. Bradford-Reid
> In article <ssampson.8...@icon.net>, ssam...@icon.net (S.
Sampson) says:
> >
> >... shit...shitheads...fucking...God Damned...fucking...
>
>
> swell.
>
>
I with you, Paul.
Ken Koller
: In article <4eruk4$1...@lastactionhero.rs.itd.umich.edu>, smr...@umich.edu
: (Stephen M. Ryan) wrote:
: > John Goscinski (gosc...@escmail.orl.mmc.com) wrote:
: >
: > : If it's
: > : her fault the engine died, then blame her. If the engine flat broke, then
: > : its simply mechanical failure. This was far from an easily salvagable
: > : situation.
: >
If Hultgreen would have been a male, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
--
Ken Koller
kko...@adnetsol.com
"Whuh?" -- Brian "Kato" Kaelin
Karon
(Stephen M. Ryan) wrote:
In this thread I am grateful for comments from ANYONE who has ever had a
hand on a throttle. Makes a difference!
Karon
------------------------------------------------
Karon G. Campbell All Reality is Virtual
I am me and only me
Whatever that may be.
Gene Bruce
surrounded by the usual urban development. Thirty years ago it was
pretty quiet around the airport.
Gene Bruce Texas Instruments History teaches that wars
Systems Group begin when governments
Electronic Systems Division believe the price of
_/_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/ Ocean Surveillance Radar aggression is cheap.
_/ _/ 2501 W. University, MS 8049 - Ronald Reagan
_/ _/ McKinney, Texas 75070
_/ _/ Phone/Voice Mail: (214)952-4937
_/ _/_/_/ FAX: (214)952-2104
All expressions of opinion are strictly my own and do not reflect those of my employer.