hindsight2020

No FDR/CVR equipment on the BUFF. From my understanding CONECT did NOT include CVR cape.

This is a touchy subject for me, as I was part of the very next iron swap to Guam immediately after the RAIDR 21 accident, which mind you was merely only a year after the big nuclear boo boo.

Let's just say I lost a lot of faith on the investigation and safety processes of mother blue as a result of that accident. It is clear to me that the lack of FDR/CVR equipment (a decision done for allegedly EMP-hardening expense reasons, i.e. the AF doesn't want to spend an extra nickle on the BUFF it doesn't have to) was a clear limfac to uncovering the truth. In the end, the resultant AIB and a buck twenty gets me a cup of coffee. That's how I feel about that roll of toilet paper.

I've always been a believer that the manner in which one behaves in reaction to events is more indicative of the truth than what often comes out of people's man pleasers, especially in the absence of data recording.

What came out of the '08 accident? Well, the AIB is out there for public consumption. Did the conclusions put forth on that accident yield a widespread grounding of the fleet and a subsequent inspection/overhaul of the supposed smoking gun mechanical failure part, the trim jackscrew? Not only no, but heall naw. They stuffed me in a 3-ship non-stop to the Pacific a mere 3 weeks later to go execute the iron swap (first flight after the safety stand down), feeling like Columbus and the three carabelas. But you know what they did do? A couple interesting FCIFs, the biggest one being the elimination of the speedown maneuver as an approved maneuver both in the T.O and the 3-3. I'll let the gallery come to their own conclusions, lest I be accused of being the one stomping on people's graves. Go talk to the Mudhen guys that were in trail that day prior to the flyby push, and you'll find out a lot more about the disparities between truth and narrative than perhaps most folks have the stomach for. Feel free to PM if you want a more candid conversation.

Back to this accident. In an environment where all you have is aircrew testimony, good luck getting a useful picture out of the accident. Let's hope the tower cameras were rolling and put it together with the tower comm, to see what precipitated the decision to high-speed abort. Very, very few reasons to high speed abort a 200K+ fuel load Buff past reject speed. In my book, the only one would be 4 engines out on one side, or inability to rotate the aircraft. No way in hell that happens though, if you look at how the rudder/elevator hydraulic system is built. That airplane is a tactical POS, but it is a wet dream of redundancies. I mean, what else are ya gonna do when you have 8 stinking engines and 12 fuel tanks to stick accessories, generators and hydro/fuel-crossfeeds lines to?

The hydro systems are too complicated to list on here but BL? In order to lose the tail control on this POS, you have to have all 4 generators trip offline on takeoff at the same time, for the two AC motors of main 1 and main 2 rudder/elev system to go offline, and THEN you have to have #4 and #5 engines flame out on takeoff too so that the left and right body system lose pressure as the engine driven pumps wind down and thus no mechanical pressure to the transfer impellers can keep the rudder/elevator system standby pressurized. Yeah, ok.... I have a better shot at winning bronze in female gymnastics than getting a pitch loss in the B-52. Oh and the stab? That sucker can be manually moved in the cockpit. Not pretty, but could be done. And on takeoff the trim was already set for rotation anyways, so all you have to do it melt the engines and the aircraft will rotate at S2 on its own.

Fire? Take it airborne. Engine loss? You damn skippy take it airborne (you can't stop in Guam that heavy, you're gonna end up past the cliff). Electrics? Are you kidding, you got 4 generators and the entire thing can run flaps on two!! (technically one, but it's highly likely it gets tripped offline due to overload when flaps are running). The spoilers run on engine driven hydro off pumps in #1 #3 #6 and #7, and the tail I already described. In short, it's gonna be an interesting testimony, the reason for the abort.


Think of the BUFF as a 4-engine airplane, not 8. It's a 4 engine airplane split in 8. Each pod is effectively a de facto engine. Numbers are run based on "pod loss" not individual engine losses. Worst case is always the outboard pods, thus the numbers get run assuming their loss when computing landing speeds et al. When you lose an engine in a pod, the assumption for conservative reasons is that you lost that pod. In reality, light weight, these are non-issues especially below 250K gross, where it's even permissive to go-around on only 4 engines in training! LOL. Heavyweight however, you don't play around, the thing is a pig. A single engine loss before decision speed is cause to abort. At the same time, once committed, you don't ground abort this thing.

bkmoore

Thanks for the detailed description. What a shame and a waste. Glad the crew's safe. I controlled Buffs as a FAC. Great airplane...at least when it's on your side. One question, did they have the braking chute out?

PurpleToolBox

Any word on what happened?

nfnsquared

Accident report released today:

Just saw the summary, not the report.

Pilot saw bird activity, misinterpreted cockpit indications as engine loss, initiated abort procedures (probably beyond S1, dunno, haven't seen the report). Drag chute failed (unclear if it failed to deploy or if it deployed and sheared due to high speed or deployed a brick). Exceeded brake energy limits which led to fire.

hindsight2020

Yup, just like I called it a year ago.

Don't abort that pig heavyweight past S1 for a mickey mouse engine loss, especially on the island. And I bet ya they didn't even lose it. This is the inexperience/turnover, plus pentagon-rusty-hands for "experienced cadre" stuff the pilot crisis is going to continue to accelerate. Chute? Likely they threw it @higher than 135KIAS (limit) in haste and blew it up. If it actually streamed while deployed properly, then Jesus talk about nothing going that guy's way that particular day in paradise.

A major airframe loss for nothing more than unverified loss of thrust in a configuration guaranteed to take off. BUFFoonery, in short.

They got lucky. Had the nose trunnions collapsed prior to the fire, not all of them get out alive. They pay lip service to the rope escape method, and nobody practices that stuff with the michelin man vest on. Better lucky than good. I sleep well at night knowing I'm only responsible for myself and my student these days. But responsible for 6-9 people (no sts), a third of which can only eject downward, the last third cannot eject at all, and you pull a stunt like this on heavyweight equipment? Like I said a year ago, I'll let the dead rest in peace and digress on this one.