nscode Posted December 11, 2008 Posted December 11, 2008 It's not a matter of intensions, but of negligence. Who ever - be it the pilot, the controler, the one who wrote the procedures - neglected lives of people in favor of saving a failing aircraft, should be held responsible. Never forget that World War III was not Cold for most of us.
v1per Posted December 11, 2008 Author Posted December 11, 2008 I got no respect to the people with a "Gotta blame somebody" attitude. Shit happens.
nscode Posted December 11, 2008 Posted December 11, 2008 Some shit can't be avoided. Some can. Never forget that World War III was not Cold for most of us.
Rhen Posted December 12, 2008 Posted December 12, 2008 It's not a matter of intensions, but of negligence. Who ever - be it the pilot, the controler, the one who wrote the procedures - neglected lives of people in favor of saving a failing aircraft, should be held responsible. So, paraphrasing your words... It's not a matter of intensions[sic], but of negligence. Who ever - be it the homeowner who bought the house, the builder who built it on the approach end of a runway, or the developer who bought the land at the approach end of a runway just to put up houses - neglected lives of people in favor of selling houses, should be held responsible. Do you understand how ridiculous that statement, along with yours is? Military pilots are checked out in emergency procedures (EPs) yearly. We take EP exams, and have to perform all critical action procedures (CAPs) in the simulator. We even fly with an IP in the back of the family model and do EPs in the aircraft. Amongst the EPs we perform is a single-engine approach and landing. We're proficient in these maneuvers BEFORE we're allowed to solo the jet. Miramar NAS has been around since the 1940's and, ironically enough, there's a school named after a navy pilot who stayed with his aircraft to avoid hitting a school. But you've got to remember that in those days, aircraft were flown with physical control over the flight surfaces. In the hornet, if you've got no engines, don't have windmilling RPM sufficient to generate hydraulic power, or rapidly deplete what's left in the accumulators, you have very little - if any control of the aircraft. As IvanK said, there's no way in hell a bug with one fully operational engine is underpowered at sea level on a southern California December day. You don't just eject from the aircraft because it lost an engine. If that were true, then why the hell put 2 engines in a jet? So we can scratch our balls before we decide to punch out? The pilot tried to recover his aircraft, single-engine. The aircraft lost thrust while on approach. That leaves few options, especially if the aircraft is beyond control. If we closed down every airport - and I do mean AIRPORT not USAF/USN/USMC base - whose flight paths take them over populated areas, then so long every major airport you've ever flown into. 1
nscode Posted December 12, 2008 Posted December 12, 2008 It not ridiculous, it ridiculously missunderstood. I am not questioning the pilots training, the aircrafts abilities, or the positioning of the airbase. I am questioning the decision to fly single engined over a populated area. And it's not a training flight where you just shut down one engine, and have a fair chance it will restarst if you need it. You don't just eject from the aircraft because it lost an engine. And I'm not saying you should do it just because you've lost an engine. I'm saying it should be done if you've lost an engine AND there is no other way to get to an airport than to fly over a heavily populated area. Never forget that World War III was not Cold for most of us.
morsmortis Posted December 12, 2008 Posted December 12, 2008 And I'm not saying you should do it just because you've lost an engine. I'm saying it should be done if you've lost an engine AND there is no other way to get to an airport than to fly over a heavily populated area. the question is....being the cost of a F/A-18D is around 35million Should I try to land it with one engine or ditch it in the ocean even though I have been trained that it can fly fine on one engine? :huh: When I first saw this crash I was upset. As a marine, it made me even angrier that the pilot let the plane go into the houses. After I learned the 2nd engine died and probably the FCS, I eased up and became empathetic as a pilot, because I can understand how horrible the controls probably felt to him as he flew in feet dry. A 2nd engine is not just there for extra power, it's a backup. The chances of two engines going out are EXTREMELY rare.
nscode Posted December 12, 2008 Posted December 12, 2008 The fact that that is the question is what upsets me the most. A 2nd engine is not just there for extra power, it's a backup. The chances of two engines going out are EXTREMELY rare. If one of two engines fails, chances of the other engine failing are MUCH higer than the only engine failing on a single engine aircraft. Yes, it is there as a backup, and if it is possible to use it to safely land the plane, by all means it should be done. It's safer for the pilot than the ejection anyway. But if one engine has failed, that means that something is failing on the airplane. The root of the problem might not be in the failed engine, and the failures could easily propagate to other systems, including the other engine. So, an aircraft with a failed engine should be directed away from populated areas, while it is still possible. 1 Never forget that World War III was not Cold for most of us.
Pilotasso Posted December 12, 2008 Posted December 12, 2008 2nd engine after the failiure of the first are comon AFAIK. .
4c Hajduk Veljko Posted December 12, 2008 Posted December 12, 2008 (edited) 2nd engine after the failiure of the first are comon AFAIK.Same with 3rd after first two fail, and 4th after three engines fail and etc ... I am coming to a conclusion that B-52 is doomed after the first engine fails. :music_whistling: :smilewink: Edited December 12, 2008 by =4c= Hajduk Veljko 1 Thermaltake Kandalf LCS | Gigabyte GA-X58A-UD3R | Etasis ET750 (850W Max) | i7-920 OC to 4.0 GHz | Gigabyte HD5850 | OCZ Gold 6GB DDR3 2000 | 2 X 30GB OCZ Vertex SSD in RAID 0 | ASUS VW266H 25.5" | LG Blue Ray 10X burner | TIR 5 | Saitek X-52 Pro | Logitech G930 | Saitek Pro flight rudder pedals | Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit
4c Hajduk Veljko Posted December 12, 2008 Posted December 12, 2008 (edited) We certainly don't know of all the circumstances with this tragic event. The question is what does the procedure calls for? There is a saying that goes like, "procedures are written in blood". That's because until something really bad happens, people don't realize how wrong (or none existent) their procedure was. Also, I am sure, or at least I hope, that after this accident, somebody will take a closer look at the emergency landing procedures for this airport. Edited December 12, 2008 by =4c= Hajduk Veljko Thermaltake Kandalf LCS | Gigabyte GA-X58A-UD3R | Etasis ET750 (850W Max) | i7-920 OC to 4.0 GHz | Gigabyte HD5850 | OCZ Gold 6GB DDR3 2000 | 2 X 30GB OCZ Vertex SSD in RAID 0 | ASUS VW266H 25.5" | LG Blue Ray 10X burner | TIR 5 | Saitek X-52 Pro | Logitech G930 | Saitek Pro flight rudder pedals | Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit
RedTiger Posted December 12, 2008 Posted December 12, 2008 And I'm not saying you should do it just because you've lost an engine. I'm saying it should be done if you've lost an engine AND there is no other way to get to an airport than to fly over a heavily populated area. I'm sorry, but I find this just crazy. If you have lost one engine in a 2 engine plane, all is definately not well, but you are no where close to being beyond hope of landing. Your training would probably kick in and you'd think "Oh crap...well, lets find some place close to land". If the pilot thought "Oh crap...well, the only place close to land is surrounded by houses, guess I'm going to have to ditch this perfectly servicible and flyable plane in the ocean" I'd find that about as sane as saying "Oh crap...I have 2 flat tires. Guess I'll just abandoned the car and torch it, the service station is on the other side of this residential neighborhood. I could lose control and drive into a house.".
morsmortis Posted December 12, 2008 Posted December 12, 2008 2nd engine after the failiure of the first are comon AFAIK. Yeah, if you have some type of fuel/contamination/starvation problem or if one engine suffers a failure and one of the fan blades breaks off and flies into the other engine. http://www.pe.com/ap_news/California/CA_Military_Jet_Crash_374056C.shtml Some of you guys are too used to simulators. Search for "one engine landing" with Google and see how many planes land at civil/military airports with one engine.
morsmortis Posted December 12, 2008 Posted December 12, 2008 Yes, it is there as a backup, and if it is possible to use it to safely land the plane, by all means it should be done. It's safer for the pilot than the ejection anyway. But if one engine has failed, that means that something is failing on the airplane. The root of the problem might not be in the failed engine, and the failures could easily propagate to other systems, including the other engine. So, an aircraft with a failed engine should be directed away from populated areas, while it is still possible. I understand your logic but, it's California, and you low and near the coast . All nearby fields are surrounded by civilian buildings. People wanted to live near San Diego and the beach that bad, that they built homes around Miramar one mile under the directional path of outgoing jets/helicopters. His only other option besides landing at Miramar or ditching was landing back on the carrier and who knows how far out it was.
Vekkinho Posted December 12, 2008 Posted December 12, 2008 (edited) Kinda makes the point about 2 VS 1 engine in one thread we had earlier. I don't share that opinion. 2nd engine (if functional) is something I'd like to have when 1st one fails! We can't really say what actually happened here, was it both engines dead, was it human factor, was it hydro failure that caused 1st engine to spool down or catch a fire etc. What's interesting here is something I always wondered so when Rhen said: In the hornet, if you've got no engines, don't have windmilling RPM sufficient to generate hydraulic power, or rapidly deplete what's left in the accumulators, you have very little - if any control of the aircraft.it sounded like "FLCS driven plane is engine and power dependant as there are no mechanicals ways of actuating control surfaces! It's not a glider so bail out no matter what!" But this could also be a human factor! We have a guy here in Croatia, he used to fly CL-415 at 855. PZE and was very experienced (20+ years of service). His port engine caught fire during exercise held in May 2006. It was pretty hot that summer and he was somewhere over Pag island in Adriatic, local firefighting squads had set controlled fire at one hill and he was supposed to demonstrate his skills and train younger future firefighting pilots. So his starboard engine probably overheated when overflying the bonfire or some particles of debris caused by burning vegetation might have caused his engine to catch fire! In all that panic, frenzy pilot turned fuel pump off ASAP but he realized soon it was a fuel pump that feeds starboard engine! Thankfully he landed on water few moments later with both windmills dead! Edited December 12, 2008 by Vekkinho [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
flipGAF Posted December 13, 2008 Posted December 13, 2008 Fact is, there are many contributing factors, and not one sole cause for such an accident. Such as: The prevailing Wx, System's Health (Flight Control System and other things that have been mentioned here), Pilot fatigue, disorientation, incapacitated due to workload, mental and physical health, and many many more that I can't think of right now. So, we shall wait to hear what the summary of the investigation has to say. But DO bare in mind that aircrash investigation is not there to find the GUILTY, but rather to find the REASONS for why it happened, how it happened, and how to prevent things such as this to happen again in the future. Philipp Der Wille entscheidet
Ramstein Posted December 13, 2008 Posted December 13, 2008 Mirimar use to have a bunch of WWII planes parked next to the fence on Miramar road, around 1990. There were a few P38's there, but.. in nasty condition. Along with some other planes and choppers from many years ago. I wonder if they are still there, as I haven't driven by in many years. Being an Air Force Vet, I never stepped foot on Mirimar, but have watched the area grow from being out in the open to being closed in by civilization. There are still practice bombs being found in the nearby land tracts and hill where houses are built. :pilotfly: ASUS Strix Z790-H, i9-13900, WartHog HOTAS and MFG Crosswind G.Skill 64 GB Ram, 2TB SSD EVGA Nvidia RTX 2080-TI (trying to hang on for a bit longer) 55" Sony OLED TV, Oculus VR
IvanK Posted December 13, 2008 Posted December 13, 2008 Vekkino the Hornet (A through C anyway) has a mechanical backup Flight control mode called "Mech". essentially cables to the stab. It provides very very basic pitch and roll control and the jets not easy to fly in Mech.
RedTiger Posted December 14, 2008 Posted December 14, 2008 Mirimar use to have a bunch of WWII planes parked next to the fence on Miramar road, around 1990. There were a few P38's there, but.. in nasty condition. Along with some other planes and choppers from many years ago. I wonder if they are still there, as I haven't driven by in many years. Being an Air Force Vet, I never stepped foot on Mirimar, but have watched the area grow from being out in the open to being closed in by civilization. There are still practice bombs being found in the nearby land tracts and hill where houses are built. :pilotfly: Man, this doesn't surprise me. As I'm sure you know there are people in the US who have literally rebuilt their homes multiple times after being in essentially the same natural disaster over and over and over and over and over again due to their geographical location. They refuse to move because they like the location. I say that if you have enough money to do this, more power to you. But at some point, there needs to be a limit on amount of care is given to these people. Like say if this is your third time, you don't get any emergency medical care. :D I'm convinced if there was a gigantic bottomless pit in the middle of some rural area in the US, there would eventually be houses with back yards butt up against it and people willing to buy them. :noexpression:
Vekkinho Posted December 14, 2008 Posted December 14, 2008 Vekkino the Hornet (A through C anyway) has a mechanical backup Flight control mode called "Mech". essentially cables to the stab. It provides very very basic pitch and roll control and the jets not easy to fly in Mech. Yeah, I know. Can be compared to driving a car with bad or broken power steering servo. It's more difficult than steering a car with no servo at all! [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
Recommended Posts