F18 down in san diego

[Panther_99FS]

Next question I have is: Do military bases (or even airports for that matter) located in crowded urban areas
-Ed-

You'll find out that a lot of military & civilian bases/airports were built in quite open areas until people decided to move in close to them...

 

[EasyEd]

Hey All,

Panther that dog won't hunt.

I've seen farms and ranches in exactly the same situation and the will of the people will prevail and I'm sure no base commander wants the kind of negativity saying we were here first guarantees him/her. The history of how it happened is irrelevant only the will of the people there will count with the politicians. Proactivity outside of "do I havta" in working with the community is your best defense. That said...

Is there an answer to the question I asked?

-Ed-

 

[Panther_99FS]

Wait until the safety report comes out, Then you can go into full gear...(and I've seen pilots get 100% of the blame in some safety reports)

BTW Ed,
How come you haven't commented/posted about the 2 civilian planes that collided in the other tragic thread???

 

[EasyEd]

Hey All,

Panther I'm not in full gear about anything. Just looking for answers as I bet others are as well. Basically I'd like to know the decision-making and full rationale that went into the idea that it is best to fly an FA18 on one engine over crowded housing tracts into a military base instead of ditching it, landing on the carrier, flying a less hazardous route, landing elsewhere. What thinking went into this?

Now before you think I'm anti-military you should know my brother-in-law flew air force transports for 25 odd years and retired a lt colonel - my sister retired from the air force after 25 years a lt colonel in logistics but at one time worked on sr71s at Beale where I saw one up close and personal - very cool plane. I'm not anti-military but am often unabashedly anti the leadership of the military.

And Yes I feel for the pilot he'll have to deal with this the rest of his life.

That said yes the incident over Florida was tragic but not in the same way as this or another example I'll give you. Remember the Southwest airlines over-run at midway in Chicago in 2005. A 6 year-old boy missed Christmas that year and every year thereafter because a pilot forgot the 737 had thrust reversers on a snowy winter night.

To put it simply I hold airline pilots and military pilots to a far higher standard than GA pilots just as I hold Police officers to a higher standard than the ordinary driver. I think rightfully so.

All this said I'm not interested in blood but am curious about the rationale and how the military cooperates - or doesn't - with local communities. Why you wonder - in real life I plan strategies around how wildfire (forest fires) do or not not get fought coupled with fuels management and other associated activities. I'm finding ever increasingly the "silo" mentality has to be broken down because so many have a stake in the work that I do.

-Ed-

PS Oh an I don't like to see children paying the ultimate price for adult errors.

 

[Panther_99FS]

The problem I have with your comments Ed is that you've already reached a conclusion without even seeing a safety board report. (Which has nothing to do with higher standards)

If you came to that conclusion after reviewing the safety board report, I'd have no issues at all....

 

[EasyEd]

Hey All,

Panther I've no prob waiting for that report - that's why I said I am going to make a point of following this through. Some "facts" though do appear to be very self evident... (from the newspaper link)

The aircraft, on a training mission off the carrier Abraham Lincoln, was ordered to fly to Miramar rather than return to the flattop after one of its engines failed.

Military officials blamed the crash on equipment malfunction.

"We don't know exactly what was the cause of the problem he was having, and ... we will be conducting a thorough safety investigation to find that out," USMC Col. Chris O'Connor told reporters Monday afternoon.

Is the newspaper wrong? Is all this bogus? Or was there a utterly totally and completely wrong decision made? About the return to Miramar or the route taken? Does the testing (which I bet was done) of the flying capability of an FA18 with one engine turned off truly represent the real ability of the aircraft to fly on one engine when one has failed?

Irrespective of the aircraft what about the decision-making. As I get older I ever increasingly ask - "what was the thinking?" Whether it be this or the concept of unfettered capitalism on the part of the USA that is clearly to blame for the current economic crisis or my 14 year-old son's sometimes dumb decisions. What was the thinking? and why can't humans "smarten up"?

-Ed-

 

[Panther_99FS]

What was the thinking? -Ed-

That will be in the safety report...

 

[EasyEd]

Hey All,

Fair enuff - It better be or I'll know that military leadership - in this case - has gone down the exact same "hole" that political leadership has.

-Ed-

 

[Panther_99FS]

Hey All,

Fair enuff - It better be or I'll know that military leadership - in this case - has gone down the exact same "hole" that political leadership has.

-Ed-

Like I stated earlier,
You've already come to a conclusion without seeing the safety report....

And thus judging by your post above, if the safety report doesn't match your already pre-determined conclusion, then you'll have lost faith in military leadership....

 

[EasyEd]

Hey All,

One more time...

It's not about the conclusion it's about full and complete disclosure. I believe that people deserve all and I mean all the facts so that we can decide based on the evidence that "someone" came to the proper conclusion and subsequent actions. "Trust me" don't cut it anymore - too much lying has gone on for "officials" to be credible. It's the sad truth about where we are in this world and it will take time, truth and leadership before "the people" believe again. We call it apathy but I think this is what it really is.

-Ed-

PS I'll edit a bit - facts and rationale - thats what I'm looking for.

 

[viking3]

Aircraft Accidents

Almost every aircraft incident/accident is a chain of events which may or may not result in catastrophe. An AF-18 is more than capable of flying on 1 good engine, a major reason Canada bought them. It is hard enough to land on a carrier with 2 good engines, After the first engine failure the safest option would be to divert to the nearest land facility. Whatever took out the first engine MAY have caused the second failure while the aircraft was too close to final to divert over water or away from housing. The encroachment of the 'burbs is a problem all airports face. Just some observations of the incident from my computer chair.:cost1:

Regards, Rob:ernae:

 

[Allen]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/12/09/military.jet.crash/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

 

[jmig]

Hey All,

http://www.sandiego6.com/news/local...1e261b8c-260e-46de-9da0-cb1635075720&rss=tick

for some details.

My prayers are with the father too.

As I said before I think there will rightly be fallout over this one. From all I can tell the decision-making was pretty poor to say the least. I'm going to make a point of following this one through just to see how it ends up.

Next question I have is: Do military bases (or even airports for that matter) located in crowded urban areas have emergency highway/freeway landing strips preidentified and actually work with and practice how fast local police/sheriffs/highway patrol/fire depts can make one ready? If not why not? Wouldn't it help get local government bureaucracies including the military used to working with each other as well as potentially avoid this kind of krapp? Seems to me some countries Finland for one routinely practice using highways as runways - for the FA-18 as well as other aircraft. Strikes me as a pretty obvious thing to do.

-Ed-

Ed, my answer will be based on my experience from thirty years (God, can't believe it was THAT long) ago. However, my experience with the military is that while, tactics and equipment change, the basic process remains relatively the same.

To answer you question about landing on a highway, the answer is no. Why? Because that would be much more dangerous. Think about it, a modern fighter will take could 5000 feet or more to stop. That is just short of a mile. What are the odds of missing cars in that amount of room. Plus they may be overhead wires, turns, overpasses, etc in the way. It is much safer to fly to an airfield.

Concerning this accident, tou have no idea what discussions were made and what the reasoning was for attempting to land at Miramar.

If the Navy is anything like the Air Force was 30 years ago, there was a lot of discussion before the pilot landed. I was involved with a no-**** serious emergency while in the F-4s. Not unlike this F-18.

On takeoff from Hill AFB we had a bleed air leak into the right wing. This meant 800 degree air was being dumped into the wing. You can imagine what happened. Darn near every warning light in the cockpit came on.

The jet was in serious trouble and it could have gotten worse any minute. We could either eject or land. Problem was we were very heavy, too heavy in fact to land.

For fifteen minutes we monitored the jet and burnt off fuel while circling over the Great Salt Lake. During that time a group of experts both experienced pilots, McDonald Douglass engineers, and some heavy metal officers discussed the best course of action.

The decision was made (thank goodness) to land. We burnt off enough fuel to get just below max landing weight and took the cable. All ended well.

During the approach, I did have to fly over houses. what if the wing had decided to fall off because of the high heat weaken it? What if fuel or oil would have ignited in the wing? Or, if I had had an electric fire because of shorted wiring?

I would have ejected, just like that F-18 pilot did. Maybe someone would have been killed? Would you have ranted about the decision and how stupid it was?

The point is, we know only one thing. The decision to land at Miramar tragically was the wrong decision. That is all you, Panther or I know. We don't know any other facts.

We don't what went into the decision or WHY it was made. We don't know the final events before the crash? Did the pilot lose control? The stress factor of landing a crippled jet is high. I would say my anus was about chest high, when I landed at 220 plus knots. Did something else break, due to stress or damage from the engine failure?

These posibilites were obviously discussed and considered in the group decision to land. From my past experience I believe the Navy was very aware of safety and was doing what they thought was best.

If the father and husband of the victims isn't placing blame, shouldn't we wait until the facts are learned to make a judgment?

 

[Panther_99FS]

Well described jmig,
And your personal experience example distinctly illustrates that you shouldn't have knee-jerk reactions and "point the finger" solely at the individual in the seat.....And it also re-affirms that you must wait until the safety report is finished before you make any conclusions...

 

[EasyEd]

Hey All,

I've said I'll wait for the report but I expect it to detail their rationale and the assumptions they made in sending that jet to Miramar.

From an above link...

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 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." A retired general, a pilot who has flown for 40 years and more than 270 missions in Vietnam, said the decision to eject is up to the pilot. F/A-18D planes are very dependable, but any aircraft is subject to error. That model has two engines, and it can operate with one engine. But if one engine malfunctions, it's possible that a blade can break off and fly into the other engine, causing it to malfunction, too. If both engines are inoperable and the plane descends below 10,000 feet, it's likely the pilot will soon lose control.

So decision by committee and who knows what the state of the second engine was. I'll be looking at the quality of the decision making process.


In this case if an engine fails why is it logical to assume the other engine is fine enough to take unnecessary risks? I very much doubt that the effects of a failed engine are truly represented by turning an engine off during flight testing in terms of the probability of the second engine failing. It is the data and logic behind the decision that the second engine would keep running that I want to see. Now lets suppose that only 1 in 10,000 times will both engines fail? What is the logic and rationale that says - we'll take that risk - over San Diego in a fly by wire aircraft that you can't control without power? To me it is obviously a bad gamble because it then becomes a case of not - if - but when. Is that smart?


As for landing on a highway - it is clear to me that what I was saying simply went over everyone's head. I never suggested a plane land among cars. The issue is can local authorities completely clear a temporary runway on a highway of cars for an emergency situation in a matter of minutes say 15 or 20 if trained and practiced? Why not? Is it a hassle? Yes but still why not?


I'm not ranting about anything - where does this come from?


-Ed-

An edit: Jmig I've no doubt that was scary - just as scary as I have been in a hughes 500 threading our way up a drainage in steep mountainous country and then in a sudden absolute milkbottle with trees and steep hillsides less than 75 yards away in two directions and maybe a 100 in another in. We got out by going as straight up as we could but I never wanna do it again. But getting back to your story - I don't know all the details but your of the opinion the right decision was made since it worked out but what if it hadn't? Or what if you weren't in the air force but lived in one of those houses on final? What defines acceptable risk?

 

[Panther_99FS]

What defines acceptable risk?

Operational Risk Management (ORM) --> http://www.safetycenter.navy.mil/orm/generalorm/introduction/default.htm

 

[EasyEd]

Hey All,

Interesting site Panther. I'll give it a pretty thorough look as much of this could apply to what I do in RL. That said - the 4 operational principles of risk management (ORM) pretty well say it all.

4 Principles of Applying ORM

#1 Accept risk when the Benefit>Risk.

• Risk is inherent in the nature of military action.
• Leaders who are in the risk-taking business must be top-quality risk managers.
• Risk is usually proportional to gain.
• You cannot eliminate all risk

#2 Accept no unnecessary risk.

• An unnecessary risk is any risk that, if taken, will not contribute meaningfully to mission accomplishment.
• Leaders who accept unnecessary risks are gambling with the lives of their Marines - for nothing.
• The gambler doesn't know what will happen; the risk -managing leader can reasonably predict what the outcome will be.

#3 Anticipate and manage risks by planning.

• Risks are more easily controlled when identified in planning because more time, assets, and options are available to deal with the risk.
• It improves efficiency and saves money if ORM is integrated early in the planning process. If risk controls are tacked on as an afterthought in training or in combat, they will probably fail.
• Proper Prior Planning Prevents Poor Performance

#4 Make risk decisions at the right level.

• The leader directly responsible for the operation makes risk decisions.
• If Risk > Benefit; goes beyond the Commander's stated intent; or help is needed to implement controls - communicate with higher authority.

Now apply the context of FA-18 with an engine out for unknown reasons flying over housing tracts in San Diego to Miramar. See where my doubts come from? We'll wait for the report though.

-Ed-

PS This is funny! http://www.safetycenter.navy.mil/photo/archive/archive_301-350/photo313.asp

 

[Panther_99FS]

See where my doubts come from?

No.

Because as I've stated before, your doubts are based upon a pre-determined conclusion....And your doubts demonstrate bias without any investigative facts & therefore I wouldn't want you as an investigator...


As for me, I've seen enough of these to know that I shouldn't lean in ANY DIRECTION until after the investigation has concluded...

 

[EasyEd]

Hey All,

I said doubts not conclusions... big difference. You have percieved a bias on my part where no bias exists. I draw conclusions from facts and there is absolutely no reason why my conclusions can't change with additional facts - in fact they often do. I am a scientist by training. The fundamental point is that you have assumed that I have come to a conclusion and that I'm the type that sticks to that conclusion no matter what the facts are. You have no cause for that conclusion and in fact it isn't true - but you wouldn't know that. So you accuse me when in fact you are the one with a preformed apparently unchangable opinion - not about the incident itself but about my perception of it.

But as to that site

Go through this

http://www.safetycenter.navy.mil/orm/generalorm/introduction/5steps.htm

especially the risk matrix

Now what is the benefit of getting that FA-18 to Miramar via that route that makes the benefit exceed the risk? Because the risk is at least serious by my reckoning.

-Ed-

 

[stiz]

the way i see it, if he'd ejected over the sea, there would have been some sort of upoar about how they ditched a plane which still had an engine and that the air force was wasteing money.

Also whats the chance that both engines where faultly?? (from what i've read). Isnt it standard that if one engine goes you land and the nearest airport?