Question For The Military Aviation Experts

[AJM8125]

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-jetcrash9-2008dec09,0,5856840.story

Yesterday in San Diego California, a Navy F/A-18 crashed upon appraoch to the Miramar Marine Corps Air Station. Unfortunately the fighter fell upon on a house, killing four people inside. The four killed were the mother and grandmother of two children, ages 2 and 15 months. The F/A-18 pilot ejected safely from the fighter.

My circle of friends is currently having a heated debate over this. One the one hand, there is a group of them who steadfastly argue that the pilot of the F/A-18 should have gone down with his plane in an attempt to steer it away from the civillian population and is bound by some naval regualtion or an unwritten code of ethics or moral obligation to do just that. By not being a kamikaze, they think this pilot should hang.

On the other hand, there are those of us (myself included) who completely disagree. If the fighter is falling from the sky with no engine power and no hope of manouvering, forget about recovering, then what's to stop the pilot from saving his own neck? I've failed to locate any regualtion that says a fighter pilot must take this last course of action.

There is an investigation still to be conducted but yet my freinds have already convicted this pilot, in their opinion.

Your thoughts please.

[Redtail]

I'm not an expert, (I was Army enlisted ferchristsakes) but from the reports I've heard, both engines were out and the plane was in a spin. The pilot ejected very low and according to the guy who helped him out of the tree he landed in his first concern was he hoped no one was hurt. I imagine we'll have to wait for the investigation to run it's course to make a final call but at this point it seems as if he had done all he could do.

[PhantomWolf]

If there is nothing the pilot can do staying with the plane, what's the point of having the ejection system and not using it? Serious, if the plane would have hit the house regardless of the pilot still being in the plane or not, why have 5 deaths instead of 4?

[casebro]

The fact that the pilot was found in close proximity shows that the stayed in the plane until the last second. If the plane had gone another 150 yards it would have missed any houses- from there on, the next two miles were open space. 150 miles per hour is 220 feet per second. That is cutting it pretty close. Maybe Google maps/satellite would show you that. I know because I live here in San Diego.

I'm not a real expert, but two days before the accident I was at a party within two miles of the crash site, with at least four retired navy pilots. We've talked.

[bigred]

Sounds like there was little else he could have done at that point. Wanting to make him a scapegoat is emotional BS and your friends thinking otherwise are in desperate need of a clue.

[Esperdome]

Too bad there isn't a self destruct order written in the code when a pilot chooses to eject.

A rain of many little pieces is way better than one huge av-fuel bloated angel of death.

[quixotecoyote]

Too bad there isn't a self destruct order written in the code when a pilot chooses to eject.

A rain of many little pieces is way better than one huge av-fuel bloated angel of death.

Consider the process by which the huge piece is transformed into a rain of little pieces. You probably aren't winning anything there.

[Miss_Kitt]

The pilot deserves a bloody commendation (NPI) for missing the school!! I'm very sorry for the family's loss, and for the damage to the other homes -- but really, this is an example of excellence in dealing with a sudden catastrophic failure of the aircraft.

Put me down in the "pilot did what he could and was clear to eject" column. MK

[MRC_Hans]

An F18 weighs in at some 12 tons, and it's wings are the size of large dinner tables.
Once control is lost, it is not an aircraft any longer, it is just one big lump of metal.
At that point, there is absolutely nothing the pilot can do but get the hell out; staying with the ship will only add (if marginally) to the damage where it hits.

To destroy the plane by disintegrating it will require a huge explosive charge. Remember, this thing is built to withstand flying and maneuvering at the speed of a rifle bullet. And what happens when you blow something solid to pieces? Those pieces fly off as shrapnel at supersonic speeds. So, unless this happens at an altitude of several miles, it will do far more damage than the plane auguring in in one piece.

Hans

[BirdStrike]

My circle of friends is currently having a heated debate over this. One the one hand, there is a group of them who steadfastly argue that the pilot of the F/A-18 should have gone down with his plane in an attempt to steer it away from the civillian population and is bound by some naval regualtion or an unwritten code of ethics or moral obligation to do just that.

So they feel if your gonna loose a multimillion dollar plane toss the crew out with the scrap too huh? Deep thinkers these friends of yours. :D

[Darth Rotor]

He is required to eject by the NATOPS manual. A dual engine failure with no restart, or an OCF event states that at "X" altitude, eject.

It's that simple.
As the plane crossed over land at Torrey Pines en route to Miramar, more problems struck, including possible "flame out" of a second engine. The plane lost altitude and began to wobble. Residents of the University City neighborhood west of Miramar, accustomed to the sight of warplanes overhead, looked up and knew something was terribly wrong.

Within seconds, the plane nosed downward and picked up speed, clipping the top of a jacaranda tree and smashing into a Cather Avenue home where a mother, a grandmother and two children lived. Skid marks could be seen on the driveway.

Jason Widmer, who was working in the neighborhood, talked to the pilot after he ejected and landed. The pilot said he had tried to steer into a brushy canyon to avoid homes.
It cost the taxpayers a few million to train him. Deliberately augering in in order to satisfy someone's sense of balance would be negligent, and deprives the Nation of an expensive asset: him.

"It was mushing through the air," Kreischer said. "It was chugging along with what seemed like one engine. Then I heard a roar of engine and all of a sudden, whoop, dead silence. "This guy could have turned it around and put it in the ocean. He was never going to make it to Miramar."
****** moron. You don't ditch a plane that is still flying. I've done more than one single engine approach in my day, granted in multi engine helicopters. Had he been able to predict the second engine would flame out, which obviuosly he could not, odds are he'd have ejected over a non-populated area, as regulations (and NATOPS) require. F-18's are not disposable toys, so one tries to land them, not crash them, as a matter of habit, Mr Kreischer. This post hoc BS is lame, lame, lame.

Asking questions of the ignorant, and then printing their utterances, is so typical of the media. I will also point out that the approaches to Miramar are decades old. Despite being under an approach corridor, developers keep building houses under them, and people keep buying them. Same problem in VA Beach with Oceana.
Marine officials said that the pilot was part of a training squadron and that he was trying to aim the plane at a deserted canyon to avoid slamming into homes or Interstate 805.
I'd need to see the flight path, but he doubtless has very little glide range, given the observed altitude. That part of San Diego county is densley developed.
Students at University City High were eating lunch when they saw the F/A-18D. "It was coming in too low," student Mike Scott said. "It was like the plane hit a wall: It went straight down."
I love "expert" witnesses like this. Too low for what, boy? His description of what happens to a fighter at approach speeds losing all thrust was spot on.
Glauser thought of the pilot: "Can you imagine what's going through his head when he's ejecting and he sees his plane going down into a neighborhood?"
I can, and it's an understatement to say his thoughts included horror at where the plane landed.

Aviation experts come and go. 25 years Naval Aviator here.
Put me down in the "pilot did what he could and was clear to eject
Kitt, he was required to eject. ;)

About five years ago, a T-45 crash landed in a field not far from Waco, Texas. Engine starved of fuel. The NATOPS manual requires that if you run out of gas, you eject before you hit the ground (at X altitude depending on aircraft condition) as you are not flying but plummeting. It turns out that he chose to hazard himself and his student (his fuel management had already hazarded the jet) and "glide" land it in a muddy field a few miles short of Waco when the flameout occurred. While that wasn't a bad bit of flying, it was a gross violation of the regulations. As it worked out, they walked away from it. Both of them. Thank God. The jet was damaged, but not totalled. He lost his wings, among other things.

DR

[Delvo]

To say he should have stayed in it to steer it into an open street or such must mean that one presumes that he actually could steer it. Steering is done by moving various flaps and fins. Those are only effective if the plane is flying above a certain minimum speed, and when it's crashing, it isn't. The speed just gets too low to provide sufficient air flow over the control surfaces; no matter which way they moved, they'd just not apply enough aerodynamic force to alter the plane's direction or orientation. A fighter jet does not work as a glider.

Also, the flaps & fins in big fast planes are usually moved by hydraulics, and the hydraulic pumps in question usually draw their power from the turbines in the jet engines, so engine failure means loss of use of the flaps & fins. I'm not sure whether this is the setup in a Hornet or Superhornet, but it probably is. (Otherwise they'd have to carry an extra power source for that, and that's extra weight, and these things are built light.)

Still, with or without the ability to move the flaps & fins, the aerodynamic issue alone still means that asking the pilot to steer away is like asking a driver to do so when it's not just the engine and brakes that are dead, but also the steering wheel.

And the irony is that this pilot tried to do so anyway. He actually stayed in the plane for a strangely LONG time and ejected rather low and late.

[gumboot]

Darth Rotor summed it up pretty nicely. I couldn't agree more. "Going down with the ship" is a quaint and noble notion, and people have been awarded VCs when doing so let them carry the fight to the enemy a little longer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lloyd_Allan_Trigg), but to throw away something as valuable and difficult to replace as a trained, experienced pilot for no good reason and no benefit is simply illogical.

[Jimbo07]

It cost the taxpayers a few million to train him. Deliberately augering in in order to satisfy someone's sense of balance would be negligent, and deprives the Nation of an expensive asset: him.

I am not a pilot, but I do know first hand that certain members of the military are very expensive to train to an operational level of expertise.


Asking questions of the ignorant, and then printing their utterances, is so typical of the media.

I believe those segments are called "streeters," and even some journalists despise doing them. Again, by first hand experience, I happen to know that the comments which appear are cherry-picked from amongst a greater range of recorded comments.

[BirdStrike]

I love "expert" witnesses like this. Too low for what, boy? His description of what happens to a fighter at approach speeds losing all thrust was spot on.

DR

Hey. That student's done that approach a hundred times on FlightSim! He knows what he is talking about. :D

[ElMondoHummus]

The fact that the pilot was found in close proximity shows that the stayed in the plane until the last second.

This is corroborated by a witness statement I read (I think it was on MSNBC??) who said the plane was very, very low before the pilot ejected. The analysis I read was that the pilot really did stay with the jet to the last possible instant before punching out.

Then again, that was a reporter's analysis, and not a flight-trained individual. Keeping in mind Darth Rotor's point that procedures require a pilot to bail out at a certain point, the witness statement sort of suggests that possibly the pilot did violate that part of the procedure to try and avoid the houses. Assuming the witness is accurate, that is. I don't know what the required ejection point is that Darth Rotor is pointing out, and the witness statement didn't give a percieved altitude, not that a person on the ground could tell that sort of thing with reasonable accuracy. Still, though, the point is that there is a witness who's statement, if accurate, suggests that the pilot did indeed stay with the jet quite a long time, which implies he was in fact trying to steer it away from where it ultimately landed.

ETA: Ah... not MSNBC, CNN.com. And the witness did estimate a height. And it was a separate person who actually made the analysis about the pilot trying to avoid the house, not the reporter. Here's the relevant section from the CNN.com story (http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/12/09/military.jet.crash/index.html):


San Diego resident Ian Lerner said he was heading to lunch at a shopping center about a half-mile from the neighborhood of about 20 homes when he saw the jet flying low.

"It was, oh, gosh, maybe a couple of hundred feet off the ground. And it was quiet; I think the engine was off," Lerner said.

"Then all of a sudden, we saw the canopy of the jet explode and go up, and then we saw the pilot blast out of the plane and the parachute open," Lerner said.

Another witness said the jet was flying at a low altitude and "just spiraled, right out of [the movie] 'Top Gun.' "

A photograph taken at the crash site showed the pilot, after ejection, sitting on the front lawn, making a call on his cell phone before he was taken to a hospital.

The pilot was the only occupant of the two-seat aircraft, according to the Marine Corps.

The Union-Tribune spoke with Steve Diamond, a retired naval aviator who said he found the pilot in a tree behind a house. He told the paper he helped the man, who Diamond said was a lieutenant in his 20s, down from the tree.

The pilot told him that after he lost power in one engine, it was decided he would try to get the jet to Miramar on the single working engine, Diamond told the paper.

The pilot was in communication with military air traffic controllers before the jet crashed about two miles from the airfield, the Federal Aviation Administration (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/federal_aviation_administration) said.

According to the Los Angeles Times, the pilot ejected moments before the crash and landed in a tree. Jason Widmer said he talked to the pilot, who said he had tried to steer the jet from the homes and into a brushy canyon.

"He was pretty shook up and pretty concerned if he had killed anyone," Widmer told San Diego 6. "He had seen his bird go into a house."

[MRC_Hans]

Hey. That student's done that approach a hundred times on FlightSim! He knows what he is talking about. :DI've done that. Well, make that a few thousand times. And even from flight sims you know that below stall speed, a jet fighter is exactly as maneuverable as a brick.

Hans

[BirdStrike]

I don't know what the required ejection point is that Darth Rotor is pointing out, and the witness statement didn't give a percieved altitude, not that a person on the ground could tell that sort of thing with reasonable accuracy.

Specifications NACES - F/A18C F/A18D

Operating ceiling 50 000 ft (15,250 m)
Minimum height/speed Zero/zero in near level attitude

Mk 14 NACES F-18 (http://www.martin-baker.com/Products/Ejection-Seats/Mk-14-NACES---F-18.aspx)

Zero/zero means pilot's dead as the plane has hit the ground. So you gotta bail before you hit the ground. It's a split-second decision based on many factors.

[BirdStrike]

I've done that. Well, make that a few thousand times. And even from flight sims you know that below stall speed, a jet fighter is exactly as maneuverable as a brick.

Hans

I like shootin' CAT III approaches onto carriers... keeps the old instrument skills exercised! :D

[bigred]

I am not a pilot, but I do know first hand that certain members of the military are very expensive to train to an operational level of expertise.

Precious few members of the military are actually cheap to train, actually, given the inherent cost of housing them, shipping them to tech schools, costs of the schools themselves etc etc - but relatively speaking, of course, more technical/complex careers are typically much more so, esp officers (eg pilots).

[Darth Rotor]

Zero/zero means pilot's dead as the plane has hit the ground.
Not quite. Zero zero means that you are in the ejection envelope, even if on the ground, stopped. It wasn't always thus. It means that you'll shoot high enough and the chute will deploy and get you (at least) one swing under the canopy before you hit terra firma should you eject at low or no speed.

For example: you and I are in an F-14. We are landing on a slick runway, and upon touchdown experience a brake or nose wheel steering failure, and are unable to remain on the runway. Airfield is very muddy. NATOPS bold face may (been years since I saw an F-14 NATOPS PCL) state "if running off prepared surface in excess of X knots, Eject" in the landing emergencies section. (Bold face is required procedures that have to be committed to memory.)

Reason for that is that one can roll a jet if it departs a runway at high enough speeds, and if you roll it, you are trapped in it. Soo, if a fire starts, you are cooked alive. Not good.

So, you and I eject as the Tomcat runs off the runway, as the aircraft slows down. A zero zero seat is nice, to ensure we survive the ejection.

So you gotta bail before you hit the ground. It's a split-second decision based on many factors
Yes, it is a split second decision, but "you gotta bail" is "you gotta eject" as bail out is for non ejection seat aircraft.

Typically, be out of the plane, if bailing out from controlled flight, by 1000-1200 feet, and if out of control, get out by around 5000 feet if unable to regain controlled flight.

DR

[Jimbo07]

Precious few members of the military are actually cheap to train, actually, given the inherent cost of housing them, shipping them to tech schools, costs of the schools themselves etc etc

... and I meant no disrespect to any trade. However, I can only speak of first hand knowledge of a few, so I didn't want to generalize too much.

Yes, there is a certain minimum expense to train any trade. What is the outfitted cost of a trained infantry soldier, compared to the cost of a Taliban IED? It's a problem...

[BirdStrike]

Not quite. Zero zero means that you are in the ejection envelope, even if on the ground, stopped.

True. You are right I should have said:

"Zero/zero means pilot's dead as the plane has hit parked on the ground."

I guess I was trying to draw a mental image for ElMondoHummus whereby the pilot could eject at some altitude but not stationary, see: crashed -(also see: parked.)

Yes, it is a split second decision, but "you gotta bail" is "you gotta eject" as bail out is for non ejection seat aircraft.

I used a colloqualism, rather than a technical term. DAMN, this is a tough audience! :D

[Darth Rotor]

True. You are right I should have said:

"Zero/zero means pilot's dead as the plane has hit parked on the ground."

I guess I was trying to draw a mental image for ElMondoHummus whereby the pilot could eject at some altitude but not stationary, see: crashed -(also see: parked.)

I used a colloqualism, rather than a technical term. DAMN, this is a tough audience! :D
Well, it easy for any of us to fall into pointless pedantry now and again.

Darnit, I wish I had an easy slide for old, early 60's era ejection envelopes and 0/0 to illustrate. :(

There is an OK diagram here, (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/equip/eject.htm) but not as pithy as I'd like.

[bigred]

... and I meant no disrespect to any trade.
Sure, wasn't implying otherwise.

[AJM8125]

He is required to eject by the NATOPS manual. A dual engine failure with no restart, or an OCF event states that at "X" altitude, eject.

It's that simple.

It cost the taxpayers a few million to train him. Deliberately augering in in order to satisfy someone's sense of balance would be negligent, and deprives the Nation of an expensive asset: him. <snip>

Thank you very much, I appreciate your response. Several of my friends who read this quickly handwaved it away as disinfo:rolleyes: The fact that they no longer wish to talk about it speaks volumes. Again; Thanks much.

So they feel if your gonna loose a multimillion dollar plane toss the crew out with the scrap too huh? Deep thinkers these friends of yours. :D

They're of the mind that anything military is evil. The only deep thinking they do is trying to remember the phone number of the guy with the killer buds when payday comes around.

And to all else; Thanks for your comments too. :)

[gumboot]

Yes, there is a certain minimum expense to train any trade. What is the outfitted cost of a trained infantry soldier, compared to the cost of a Taliban IED? It's a problem...



It costs about $100,000 to train up a raw recruit to raw private as light infantry.

That includes $11,000 for recruitment and $35,000 for initial entry training. I guess that would make the cost of a basic infantryman course about $55,000?

It costs about £50,000 to put a recruit through basic training in the British Army.

Obviously you can increase that costs substantially for every subsequent year the person serves, and all additional training they do.

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

Yeah, why didn't the guy just turn around and fly back to the airport thingie? He's a murderer!


And another thing, why don't the police just shoot the bad guy in the leg?

[mhaze]

Thank you very much, I appreciate your response. Several of my friends who read this quickly handwaved it away as disinfo:rolleyes: The fact that they no longer wish to talk about it speaks volumes. Again; Thanks much.

They're of the mind that anything military is evil. The only deep thinking they do is trying to remember the phone number of the guy with the killer buds when payday comes around.

And to all else; Thanks for your comments too. :)

....steadfastly argue that the pilot of the F/A-18 should have gone down with his plane in an attempt to steer it away....

I do not think any control would be possible....digital fly by wire, battery only, no hydraulics for flaps.

With no power, that wasn't an airplane. It was $30M of aluminum falling out of the sky.

[AJM8125]

....steadfastly argue that the pilot of the F/A-18 should have gone down with his plane in an attempt to steer it away....

I do not think any control would be possible....digital fly by wire, battery only, no hydraulics for flaps.

With no power, that wasn't an airplane. It was $30M of aluminum falling out of the sky.

And any logical person would agree with that. These people actually believe that the pilot could have glided the approximately two miles to Miramar and ejected over the airfield. But he "panicked" and ejected, only thinking of saving his own butt. Therefore, he's just another murderous tool of the US Military.

Great guys eh? They're good for a few laughs and they even pick up a tab, once in a while. :D

[bigred]

I hope so as I can't imagine what else they'd be good for.



;)

[AJM8125]

I hope so as I can't imagine what else they'd be good for.



;)

Ah yes, it's the price I pay for living in San Francisco.

[Corsair 115]

Darth "Going down with the ship" is a quaint and noble notion, and people have been awarded VCs when doing so let them carry the fight to the enemy a little longer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lloyd_Allan_Trigg)...


Here's (http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/general/sub.cfm?source=history/secondwar/citations/hornell) a similar incident involving a member of the RCAF who was awarded a VC for pressing home at attack.

[gumboot]

And any logical person would agree with that. These people actually believe that the pilot could have glided the approximately two miles to Miramar and ejected over the airfield. But he "panicked" and ejected, only thinking of saving his own butt. Therefore, he's just another murderous tool of the US Military.



I've unfortunately heard some recordings of US military pilots who found themselves up Excrement Creek without a Paddle. Some of them did not have the option of ejecting, and must have known their number was up.

None of them panicked. Most shocking and striking was how all of them, every single one, remained cool, calm, and collected at all times, and fought to the very end to save their bird, and their lives.

US military pilots do not "panic". :cool:

[Redtail]

I've unfortunately heard some recordings of US military pilots who found themselves up Excrement Creek without a Paddle. Some of them did not have the option of ejecting, and must have known their number was up.

None of them panicked. Most shocking and striking was how all of them, every single one, remained cool, calm, and collected at all times, and fought to the very end to save their bird, and their lives.

US military pilots do not "panic". :cool:

Never seen last call at a "pilot" bar have you?

[gumboot]

Here's (http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/general/sub.cfm?source=history/secondwar/citations/hornell) a similar incident involving a member of the RCAF who was awarded a VC for pressing home at attack.


Well played Flt. Lt Hornell. Well played. :CANADA:

[gumboot]

Never seen last call at a "pilot" bar have you?

:D

Drink makes scoundrels of us all.

[bigred]

Never seen last call at a "pilot" bar have you?

I have. They don't panic even then.

Training is everything. :cool: