Airline Pilot Forums

Airline Pilot Forums was designed to be a community where working airline pilots can share ideas and information about the aviation field. In the forum you will find information about major and regional airline carriers, career training, interview and job seeker help, finance, and living the airline pilot lifestyle.




F4E Mx
10-02-2017, 10:28 AM
A T-45C Goshawk out of Meridian, Mississippi is reported to have crashed in the foothills of the Great Smoky Mountains near Tellico Plains, Tennessee, with the loss of the instructor and student.


UAL T38 Phlyer
10-02-2017, 03:15 PM
...nickel on the grass....:(

Beech Dude
10-02-2017, 05:41 PM
...nickel on the grass....:(

Seconded...blue skies and tailwinds.


sourdough44
10-03-2017, 02:52 AM
Mishap while on a LL training route? Sad indeed.

USMCFLYR
10-03-2017, 03:44 AM
Fair winds and following seas.

F4E Mx
10-03-2017, 04:47 AM
It is reported that the debris path is over a mile long with parts on either side of a road leading to a fish hatchery and that there was no attempt at ejection by either crew member. The crash site is very close to the Tennessee/North Carolina border.

F4E Mx
10-03-2017, 02:19 PM
One witness on the ground said she saw three aircraft at low level and described "bangs" (compressor stalls?) coming from one aircraft. So, low-level, single-engine maneuvering over mountainous terrain? If her observations were correct or not you would think the Navy would have looked at the safety record of the twin-engine T-38 and the twin-engine T-37 and the twin-engine T2C Buckeye before buying a single-engine trainer.

USMCFLYR
10-03-2017, 02:45 PM
One witness on the ground said she saw three aircraft at low level and described "bangs" (compressor stalls?) coming from one aircraft. So, low-level, single-engine maneuvering over mountainous terrain? If her observations were correct or not you would think the Navy would have looked at the safety record of the twin-engine T-38 and the twin-engine T-37 and the twin-engine T2C Buckeye before buying a single-engine trainer.
They traded 3 engines and 2 aircraft for 1 engine and one aircraft.

We've said the same thing about going to the F-35.
Their answer on that issue is the dependability of the F-35's single engine on the test stand. Not that the USN/USMC don't have a mixed history of single-vs-twin engined aircraft operating blue water ops.

HuggyU2
10-04-2017, 04:02 AM
... you would think the Navy would have looked at the safety record of the twin-engine T-38 and the twin-engine T-37 and the twin-engine T2C Buckeye before buying a single-engine trainer.
They did...

sailingfun
10-04-2017, 06:08 AM
One witness on the ground said she saw three aircraft at low level and described "bangs" (compressor stalls?) coming from one aircraft. So, low-level, single-engine maneuvering over mountainous terrain? If her observations were correct or not you would think the Navy would have looked at the safety record of the twin-engine T-38 and the twin-engine T-37 and the twin-engine T2C Buckeye before buying a single-engine trainer.

That you attribute any validity at all to a witness on the ground is disturbing if you are involved in aviation.

sourdough44
10-04-2017, 06:58 AM
I agree, witness accounts can be of limited value.

Some that is known, were they actually on a LL training route? Was it a formation flight of some sort? If neither of those, what exact type of flight?

What if any local ATC was controlling? Hopefully we don't have to investigate into if either of the pilots were from the area or had interests on the ground.

With no ejection attempt, was it a planned flight close to terrain? If so, how was the weather? There seemed to be some oxygen issues in the recent past. Is that related to this mishap? If that was the case, I would think one pilot would possibly hold on longer than the other, then able to take action.

UAL T38 Phlyer
10-04-2017, 08:28 AM
There are several low-level routes in the area; VR-1031 and IR-2 come to mind. I don't know if the Navy's syllabus has 2 or 4 plane low levels, but I'd guess they do...the Air Force has two-ships.

I had several birdstrikes in the T-38 that trashed a motor; one was on a low-level. We also had an airplane have a double-birdstrike that hit the canopy....shards of the canopy went down BOTH intakes and trashed both motors. IP and student both ejected successfully.

Then: my base in Europe had a birdstrike on a tactical range in Spain with a turkey vulture. The 16lb bird hit the windscreen at 450 knots. It might as well have been a cannonball. The pilot was killed outright; the WSO was knocked out, and tried to recover nine miles later....but, possibly blinded by the impact, they hit the ground. :(

A long debris trail means a low impact angle. Avoiding conjecture and speculation, I'll just say birdstrikes were always my highest concern on a low-level. I KNEW I wasn't going to fly into the ground or my wingman...because I could see them all of the time.

But birds? Maybe 3 seconds before you passed them.

Here's a toast....

Tandem46
10-04-2017, 09:25 AM
There are several low-level routes in the area; VR-1031 and IR-2 come to mind.

Actually VR1052 and VR1055 are both within a mile of the crash site.

rickair7777
10-04-2017, 03:09 PM
They traded 3 engines and 2 aircraft for 1 engine and one aircraft.

We've said the same thing about going to the F-35.
Their answer on that issue is the dependability of the F-35's single engine on the test stand. Not that the USN/USMC don't have a mixed history of single-vs-twin engined aircraft operating blue water ops.

All modern engines are orders of magnitude more reliable than 50 years ago.

That's why we have ETOPS, and have never had any ETOPS-related crashes to my knowledge. Not counting fuel mismanagement or bird strikes, neither of which have anything to do with engine reliability.

Also, the navy did consider the cost of 2 vs. 1, as well as fuel economy, ie range ie tactical utility. The math reasonably supported increased risk vs. cost savings & utility. But ultimately you cannot escape and must accept the fact that you're going to lose a few F-35's due to engine out...

I assume they looked hard at hornet engine reliability as a comparative baseline?

hindsight2020
10-04-2017, 04:08 PM
yeah LL training with undergraduate students in bona fide mountain routes is no joke. The NAVY does appear to have a different philosophy on hull loss risk than the AF when it comes to AETC/NATRACOM side of things, carrier training and overwater ops being the big divergence imo. Remind me again why the Navy went with single engine for their adv strike trainer? Seems peculiar considering the bulk of tailhook follow-on are multi-engine.


ETA: sorry posted before I saw rickair reply wrt 2 v 1 engines.

sourdough44
10-04-2017, 04:47 PM
Yes, lots of those 'turkey buzzards' down in that area, big too. One would think if it didn't come through the front canopy there would be the opportunity for a zoom climb?

The type/phase of flight would be helpful.

USMCFLYR
10-05-2017, 03:31 AM
All modern engines are orders of magnitude more reliable than 50 years ago.

That's why we have ETOPS, and have never had any ETOPS-related crashes to my knowledge. Not counting fuel mismanagement or bird strikes, neither of which have anything to do with engine reliability.

Also, the navy did consider the cost of 2 vs. 1, as well as fuel economy, ie range ie tactical utility. The math reasonably supported increased risk vs. cost savings & utility. But ultimately you cannot escape and must accept the fact that you're going to lose a few F-35's due to engine out...

I assume they looked hard at hornet engine reliability as a comparative baseline?
I assume they did that too - but the results passed on to the fleet/down from leadership were numbers on a test stand.

How does that work out when deployed for 9 months to an austere operating base or on the ship? I'd like to know how the numbers have worked out already in VMFAT-501 or if they have yet deployed to a CAX.

Castle Bravo
10-07-2017, 05:55 AM
a road leading to a fish hatchery

Large birds like to eat fish...

F4E Mx
10-09-2017, 04:37 AM
The RR Turbomeca Adour engine in the Hawk goes back to 1968. There are dozens of high-bypass lightweight turbofans developed in the last few years by several manufacturers that could have been selected to power a modern twin-engine trainer. For whatever reason, the Navy bought an old design airplane powered by a single old design engine, and did so at a horrendous budget cost. I think it was a horrible decision for which no one is being held accountable.

Peacock
10-09-2017, 06:42 AM
The RR Turbomeca Adour engine in the Hawk goes back to 1968. There are dozens of high-bypass lightweight turbofans developed in the last few years by several manufacturers that could have been selected to power a modern twin-engine trainer. For whatever reason, the Navy bought an old design airplane powered by a single old design engine, and did so at a horrendous budget cost. I think it was a horrible decision for which no one is being held accountable.

Even if one agrees with the first part of your post, how exactly do you think someone should be held accountable? Should they dig up the admiral who signed off on using the hawk in 1981 and reduce the rank on his gravestone?

sailingfun
10-10-2017, 04:47 AM
The RR Turbomeca Adour engine in the Hawk goes back to 1968. There are dozens of high-bypass lightweight turbofans developed in the last few years by several manufacturers that could have been selected to power a modern twin-engine trainer. For whatever reason, the Navy bought an old design airplane powered by a single old design engine, and did so at a horrendous budget cost. I think it was a horrible decision for which no one is being held accountable.

The Hawke was ordered by the Navy in 1981. First flight was in 1988.

F4E Mx
10-10-2017, 01:22 PM
The Hawke was ordered by the Navy in 1981. First flight was in 1988.

The BAe Hawk, with the RR Adour engine, first flew in 1974 when BAe was still Hawker Siddeley. At least the original had an oxygen system that worked.

USMCFLYR
10-10-2017, 01:50 PM
The BAe Hawk, with the RR Adour engine, first flew in 1974 when BAe was still Hawker Siddeley. At least the original had an oxygen system that worked.
Both the airframe and engines are highly updated versions.
Plain and simple. Pointing out that the first flight of the original engine was in 1968 is meaningless.

OBOGS has had trouble in nearly ALL airframes.
Guess making breathable O2 out of engine bleed air isn't simple.

Your habit of always trying to make more out of a problem than there is makes your posts less and less meaningful in my opinion.

RhinoBallAuto
10-15-2017, 09:11 AM
If anyone thinks an 1981 era BAE Hawk is anyway close to the same airplane as the T-45C Goshawk, I would ask that you take your expertise elsewhere... I would argue you have less to offer the discussion than anyone cares to refute.

Synixman
10-15-2017, 02:00 PM
This one sucks. I cruised with the IP in '13-14 and crushed beers with him in Bahrain. Guess it was only a matter of time before someone I knew got their number called. Stay safe out there.

F4E Mx
10-16-2017, 08:54 AM
If anyone thinks an 1981 era BAE Hawk is anyway close to the same airplane as the T-45C Goshawk, I would ask that you take your expertise elsewhere... I would argue you have less to offer the discussion than anyone cares to refute.

Why yes, the US Navy version is heavier, slower, has less range, payload, and a lower service ceiling than most other Hawk versions. This after only 14 years in development for the Navy.

Grumble
10-16-2017, 09:24 AM
Why yes, the US Navy version is heavier, slower, has less range, payload, and a lower service ceiling than most other Hawk versions. This after only 14 years in development for the Navy.

It's a trainer dipchit, not a frontline fighter. The other Hawk versions can't land on the boat. Care to fancy a guess how many carrier quald aviators have earned their wings in it?

It's got enough range to take good deal low level cross countries, enough ceiling to go to 410, and enough payload to drop mk76's or a blivet to haul all your crap on the road.

F4E Mx
10-16-2017, 09:47 AM
All I am saying is that if the Navy had bought, or developed, a twin-engine trainer with a reliable oxygen system there would be quite a few more airplanes on the line today and quite a few more Navy pilots alive. The whole wretched program has 'Political Influence' written all over it, because you really can't achieve this level of stupid.

rickair7777
10-16-2017, 09:59 AM
Why yes, the US Navy version is heavier, slower, has less range, payload, and a lower service ceiling than most other Hawk versions. This after only 14 years in development for the Navy.

It's a custom-built tailhook trainer. It's fine for that, other than OBOGs malfunctions which are more likely a result of technical issues than corruption.

Grumble
10-16-2017, 10:41 AM
All I am saying is that if the Navy had bought, or developed, a twin-engine trainer with a reliable oxygen system there would be quite a few more airplanes on the line today and quite a few more Navy pilots alive. The whole wretched program has 'Political Influence' written all over it, because you really can't achieve this level of stupid.

OBOGS is a system, its in the Hornet, Super, Raptor, etc. It's failures are not unique to the airplane. A twin engine trainer for the Navy Jet pipeline buys you nothing more more cost. So you're saying the A-4 was a terrible airplane.....

RhinoBallAuto
10-16-2017, 11:56 AM
It's a custom-built tailhook trainer. It's fine for that, .

This........

RhinoBallAuto
10-16-2017, 11:59 AM
OBOGS is a system, its in the Hornet, Super, Raptor, etc. It's failures are not unique to the airplane. A twin engine trainer for the Navy Jet pipeline buys you nothing more more cost. So you're saying the A-4 was a terrible airplane.....

And OBOGS was developed as system wide solution that brings a level of independence to operations that the 70s hadn't even begun to consider.

Does everyone on here know that we don't use power carts and huffers for jet airplanes anymore? Batteries and APUs are pretty cool!

USMCFLYR
10-16-2017, 12:20 PM
Why yes, the US Navy version is heavier, slower, has less range, payload, and a lower service ceiling than most other Hawk versions. This after only 14 years in development for the Navy.

............AND CAN LAND ON AN AIRCRAFT CARRIER! :eek:

Wow...talk about a complete loss of internet respect ;)

F4E Mx
10-16-2017, 01:00 PM
............AND CAN LAND ON AN AIRCRAFT CARRIER! :eek:

Wow...talk about a complete loss of internet respect ;)

"............AND CAN LAND ON AN AIRCRAFT CARRIER"

Whoopee. So could the F-86 and it didn't take 14 years of development to do it.

HuggyU2
10-16-2017, 01:08 PM
Why do y'all even waste your time arguing with him?

RhinoBallAuto
10-16-2017, 02:59 PM
"............AND CAN LAND ON AN AIRCRAFT CARRIER"

Whoopee. So could the F-86 and it didn't take 14 years of development to do it.

http://memecrunch.com/meme/3UA/fry/image.jpg

USMCFLYR
10-16-2017, 03:17 PM
Why do y'all even waste your time arguing with him?
Because like the 'SkyHIgh' of old - it is fun to see just how far down a hole a poster can get himself. :D There is no arguing here. It is like outing a troll.

F-86s on aircraft carriers? Which version was that?
If you are trying to say the FJ Furys - well......those were different aircraft. Hmmmmm.....sounds familiar.

F4E Mx
10-17-2017, 05:54 AM
The FJ-2 was a derivative of the F-86E and the FJ-3 was a derivative of the F-86F.

Interestingly enough many parts of the original straight-wing FJ-1 were based on the P-51. North American then used the basically unchanged wing of the FJ-1 as the basis for the T-2 Buckeye trainer.

But you guys knew that, you guys know everything.

Sputnik
10-17-2017, 10:38 AM
Wow...talk about a complete loss of internet respect ;)

You're implying he had some to lose.

Somewhere there might be an interesting story of where this ax came to be ground. Well, maybe not that interesting. But a story

USMCFLYR
10-17-2017, 12:40 PM
The FJ-2 was a derivative of the F-86E and the FJ-3 was a derivative of the F-86F.

Interestingly enough many parts of the original straight-wing FJ-1 were based on the P-51. North American then used the basically unchanged wing of the FJ-1 as the basis for the T-2 Buckeye trainer.

But you guys knew that, you guys know everything.

Hey.... impressive Google-Fu!

RhinoBallAuto
10-17-2017, 03:50 PM
Somewhere there might be an interesting story of where this ax came to be ground.

This is what I've been wondering... well, may have I wondered. Briefly.

Or not.

Grumble
10-17-2017, 08:03 PM
The FJ-2 was a derivative of the F-86E and the FJ-3 was a derivative of the F-86F.

Interestingly enough many parts of the original straight-wing FJ-1 were based on the P-51. North American then used the basically unchanged wing of the FJ-1 as the basis for the T-2 Buckeye trainer.

But you guys knew that, you guys know everything.

So with what carrier aviator experience are you basing your arguments on.

BTW the accident in question is looking more and more like CFIT. Damn single engine airplane.

F4E Mx
10-18-2017, 05:42 AM
So with what carrier aviator experience are you basing your arguments on.

BTW the accident in question is looking more and more like CFIT. Damn single engine airplane.

Odd you would go out of your way to impugn the pilots who are deceased. The debris path was a mile long along either side of a road that is over 1,000 feet below the ridge tops on either side of the road. Unless you know the IP had a history of reckless flying your comments are irresponsible.

Grumble
10-18-2017, 09:53 AM
Odd you would go out of your way to impugn the pilots who are deceased. The debris path was a mile long along either side of a road that is over 1,000 feet below the ridge tops on either side of the road. Unless you know the IP had a history of reckless flying your comments are irresponsible.

I'm not impugning anyone ****** I happen to have friends involved in the process. CFIT isn't the result of reckless flying dumbass... it's a simple mistake which when flying a low level into the sun late in the day in mountainous terrain is easy to make. ****

Sputnik
10-18-2017, 11:19 AM
I'm not impugning anyone ***** I happen to have friends involved in the process. CFIT isn't the result of reckless flying *** it's a simple mistake which when flying a low level into the sun late in the day in mountainous terrain is easy to make. ****

Well said.

Peacock
10-18-2017, 08:00 PM
All I am saying is that if the Navy had bought, or developed, a twin-engine trainer with a reliable oxygen system there would be quite a few more airplanes on the line today and quite a few more Navy pilots alive. The whole wretched program has 'Political Influence' written all over it, because you really can't achieve this level of stupid.
Feel free to enlighten us on where "quite a few" lives could have been saved with a two engine trainer.

Sliceback
10-19-2017, 04:29 AM
F-16
F-105

Lots of dangerous single engine jets.

RhinoBallAuto
10-19-2017, 04:08 PM
Odd you would go out of your way to impugn the pilots who are deceased. The debris path was a mile long along either side of a road that is over 1,000 feet below the ridge tops on either side of the road. Unless you know the IP had a history of reckless flying your comments are irresponsible.

Unless you've walked the site, I suggest you close your pie hole.

And, yes. I have.

F4E Mx
10-20-2017, 04:21 AM
Unless you've walked the site, I suggest you close your pie hole.

And, yes. I have.

How about something constructive, like Magee-Tyson 30 miles away to the north was reporting overcast skies when the accident was first reported before four-o'clock - making the pilots squinting into the setting sun while flying a perfectly good aircraft into the ground not too plausible.
I don't think there is any indication it was the pilots' fault and every other avenue needs to be exhausted before going there. I am sorry if you don't like my comments. Actually, hold that, I don't really care if you like my comments or not.

ducgsxr
10-20-2017, 04:43 AM
How about something constructive, like Magee-Tyson 30 miles away to the north was reporting overcast skies when the accident was first reported before four-o'clock - making the pilots squinting into the setting sun while flying a perfectly good aircraft into the ground not too plausible.
I don't think there is any indication it was the pilots' fault and every other avenue needs to be exhausted before going there. I am sorry if you don't like my comments. Actually, hold that, I don't really care if you like my comments or not.

In my previous life I was an ASO who had to work fatal aviation mishaps... I just can't convey in words how obvious it is that you know little to nothing about these things. Is this some kind of compulsion? A "need" to troll perhaps?

RhinoBallAuto
10-20-2017, 08:13 AM
I am sorry if you don't like my comments. Actually, hold that, I don't really care if you like my comments or not.

It's not about liking your comments or not. The sort of speculation that you are throwing around is irresponsible and quite frankly disrespectful. Not only for the fallen, but also for the integrity of the processes that are in place to determine causal factors. Nothing you write is helpful -- in fact, uninformed rambling only undermines the investigators' efforts. Your rush to be the smartest guy on an internet forum only circulates rumor, innuendo, and being that you are privy to no facts just makes you a gossip merchant, and nothing more.

The suggestion to close your pie hole was based on the reality that you in fact know nothing about the facts of the matter. Zero. The your internet search mojo does not make you an expert on this mishap, nor any other. Please stop acting like you know something more than you do. If not for your own credibility, then at least out of respect for those who are actually working to find the truth.

Peacock
10-20-2017, 11:34 AM
How about something constructive, like Magee-Tyson 30 miles away to the north was reporting overcast skies when the accident was first reported before four-o'clock - making the pilots squinting into the setting sun while flying a perfectly good aircraft into the ground not too plausible.
I don't think there is any indication it was the pilots' fault and every other avenue needs to be exhausted before going there. I am sorry if you don't like my comments. Actually, hold that, I don't really care if you like my comments or not.

I'm still waiting for you to back up your claim that "quite a few" lives would have been saved by selecting a multi engine trainer. Facts, please.

F4E Mx
10-20-2017, 01:05 PM
It's not about liking your comments or not. The sort of speculation that you are throwing around is irresponsible and quite frankly disrespectful. Not only for the fallen, but also for the integrity of the processes that are in place to determine causal factors. Nothing you write is helpful -- in fact, uninformed rambling only undermines the investigators' efforts. Your rush to be the smartest guy on an internet forum only circulates rumor, innuendo, and being that you are privy to no facts just makes you a gossip merchant, and nothing more.

The suggestion to close your pie hole was based on the reality that you in fact know nothing about the facts of the matter. Zero. The your internet search mojo does not make you an expert on this mishap, nor any other. Please stop acting like you know something more than you do. If not for your own credibility, then at least out of respect for those who are actually working to find the truth.



I am not the one who came up with the suggestion that the pilots flew into the ground because they were looking at the setting sun. I pointed out that the time of day of the accident and the reported cloud ceiling at a nearby airport made that not very likely after the suggestion was made.

There is no evidence this accident was pilot error and I have never implied that. Why that offends you I don't have a clue.

I have flown an MU-2 into the nearby Andrews-Murphy airport several times. There is no place for a single-engine airplane to go in the crash area if the engine is lost at low altitude. It is in the Nantahala National Forest and very close to a wilderness area as well. Was it an engine problem? I don't know. It may be possible to isolate a fatigue failure in an engine component that was pre-existing before impact. I hope a definite cause can be found.

The whole OBOGS/bleed air can of worms is another issue.

I don't see how discussing possible mechanical issues to a serious accident impedes any investigation or is in anyway disrespectful to the pilots. Just the opposite, in fact.

Adlerdriver
10-20-2017, 01:30 PM
There is no place for a single-engine airplane to go in the crash area if the engine is lost at low altitude.
:confused: "no place to go"??
As in an off-field landing?

One of the Navy guys here can correct me if necessary, but I seriously doubt that would be a normal option considered by T-45 aviators who lose their engine. I doubt it's trained for or discussed beyond a "hail Mary" option if they try the Martin-Baker escape plan and still find themselves sitting in the jet.

Peacock
10-20-2017, 01:37 PM
:confused: "no place to go"??
As in an off-field landing?

One of the Navy guys here can correct me if necessary, but I seriously doubt that would be a normal option considered by T-45 aviators who lose their engine. I doubt it's trained for or discussed beyond a "hail Mary" option if they try the Martin-Baker escape plan and still find themselves sitting in the jet.

Engine out landing was a prohibited maneuver when I flew the T-45

Grumble
10-20-2017, 01:39 PM
I am not the one who came up with the suggestion that the pilots flew into the ground because they were looking at the setting sun. I pointed out that the time of day of the accident and the reported cloud ceiling at a nearby airport made that not very likely after the suggestion was made.

There is no evidence this accident was pilot error and I have never implied that. Why that offends you I don't have a clue.

I have flown an MU-2 into the nearby Andrews-Murphy airport several times. There is no place for a single-engine airplane to go in the crash area if the engine is lost at low altitude. It is in the Nantahala National Forest and very close to a wilderness area as well. Was it an engine problem? I don't know. It may be possible to isolate a fatigue failure in an engine component that was pre-existing before impact. I hope a definite cause can be found.

The whole OBOGS/bleed air can of worms is another issue.

I don't see how discussing possible mechanical issues to a serious accident impedes any investigation or is in anyway disrespectful to the pilots. Just the opposite, in fact.

You do know that the T-45 has ejection seats right? Off airport landing with an engine failure is prohibited by NATOPS.

Just stop....

RhinoBallAuto
10-20-2017, 06:32 PM
I am not the one who came up with the suggestion that the pilots flew into the ground because they were looking at the setting sun. I pointed out that the time of day of the accident and the reported cloud ceiling at a nearby airport made that not very likely after the suggestion was made.

There is no evidence this accident was pilot error and I have never implied that. Why that offends you I don't have a clue.

I have flown an MU-2 into the nearby Andrews-Murphy airport several times. There is no place for a single-engine airplane to go in the crash area if the engine is lost at low altitude. It is in the Nantahala National Forest and very close to a wilderness area as well. Was it an engine problem? I don't know. It may be possible to isolate a fatigue failure in an engine component that was pre-existing before impact. I hope a definite cause can be found.

The whole OBOGS/bleed air can of worms is another issue.

I don't see how discussing possible mechanical issues to a serious accident impedes any investigation or is in anyway disrespectful to the pilots. Just the opposite, in fact.

Clearly you don't get it. And going back and rereading your posts on this makes that all the more obvious. You want to be the first to the forum with information, and sound like the best-informed and smartest guy in the subject. News for ya though, the time turning wrenches on F-4Es and MU-2 flights into Andrews does not make you the SME on T-45 and their development/procurement, OBOGS, SE jet trainers, Navy training, low level flights, nor accident investigations. None of that will change with any amount of information you can scour from the internet.

So to risk repeating what others have said, please stop.

sailingfun
10-21-2017, 03:32 AM
:confused: "no place to go"??
As in an off-field landing?

One of the Navy guys here can correct me if necessary, but I seriously doubt that would be a normal option considered by T-45 aviators who lose their engine. I doubt it's trained for or discussed beyond a "hail Mary" option if they try the Martin-Baker escape plan and still find themselves sitting in the jet.

Low levels are flown at fairly high speeds. The procedure in the event of a engine failure would be to zoom climb and attempt a restart if applicable and altitude dependent. If no restart attempt or failed attempt a ejection would follow. There would be no attempt at a off or on field landing. Off field landings are almost never survivable in a tactical jet.

Adlerdriver
10-21-2017, 05:24 AM
Low levels are flown at fairly high speeds. The procedure in the event of a engine failure would be to zoom climb and attempt a restart if applicable and altitude dependent. If no restart attempt or failed attempt a ejection would follow. There would be no attempt at a off or on field landing. Off field landings are almost never survivable in a tactical jet.
:confused: ?? This is directed at me because...........
Somehow my post left you with the impression that I thought anything other than ejection was a serious option?

sailingfun
10-21-2017, 06:40 AM
:confused: ?? This is directed at me because...........
Somehow my post left you with the impression that I thought anything other than ejection was a serious option?

It was directed at F4E.

Grumble
10-21-2017, 08:02 AM
:confused: ?? This is directed at me because...........
Somehow my post left you with the impression that I thought anything other than ejection was a serious option?

Well you eagle kids are kinda slow. I've heard that the hair coloring from frosting your hair all those years will seep into your brain. (Gotta look good for crew chief date night right?)

Adlerdriver
10-21-2017, 08:58 AM
Well you eagle kids are kinda slow. I've heard that the hair coloring from frosting your hair all those years will seep into your brain. (Gotta look good for crew chief date night right?) :D Almost 40 years later it just never gets old.

Sure, I'm probably a bit slow. But, I responded to F-4E Mx too, so I quoted him. I didn't do it quoting you or some other random poster who shares the same opinion as me.

ExAF
10-22-2017, 07:30 AM
:D Almost 40 years later it just never gets old.Not my squadron?;):D
Sorry....I saw the shot....there was no danger....I took it.

F4E Mx
10-24-2017, 06:15 AM
Clearly you don't get it. And going back and rereading your posts on this makes that all the more obvious. You want to be the first to the forum with information, and sound like the best-informed and smartest guy in the subject. News for ya though, the time turning wrenches on F-4Es and MU-2 flights into Andrews does not make you the SME on T-45 and their development/procurement, OBOGS, SE jet trainers, Navy training, low level flights, nor accident investigations. None of that will change with any amount of information you can scour from the internet.

So to risk repeating what others have said, please stop.

Was the 'turning wrenches' comment supposed to be a derogative comment on me as an enlisted airman? I welcome the comment and have nothing but respect for the enlisted people I worked with in the USAF. I was an aircraft maintenance officer, leaving active service as an O-3 and then being in the Reserves at Charleston AFB on C-141s. You really should stop making assumptions out of thin air. It is a very poor trait in an aircraft accident investigator.

Sputnik
10-24-2017, 07:35 AM
Nice strawman. Havent seen any disdain for e's, or mx. Just your posts.


Its impressive how you continually refuse to let your visably apparent utter lack of knowledge prevent your confident posts.

Thanks for your service

Grumble
10-24-2017, 03:58 PM
Was the 'turning wrenches' comment supposed to be a derogative comment on me as an enlisted airman? I welcome the comment and have nothing but respect for the enlisted people I worked with in the USAF. I was an aircraft maintenance officer, leaving active service as an O-3 and then being in the Reserves at Charleston AFB on C-141s. You really should stop making assumptions out of thin air. It is a very poor trait in an aircraft accident investigator.

So at what point did you go to ASO school?

Thought so.

RhinoBallAuto
10-24-2017, 04:21 PM
Was the 'turning wrenches' comment supposed to be a derogative comment on me as an enlisted airman?

You really should stop making assumptions out of thin air. It is a very poor trait in an aircraft accident investigator.

To the first part of the above quote, quite simply no. I will leave it at that.

To the second part, I relish in the hypocrisy.

Peacock
10-24-2017, 08:05 PM
Was the 'turning wrenches' comment supposed to be a derogative comment on me as an enlisted airman? I welcome the comment and have nothing but respect for the enlisted people I worked with in the USAF. I was an aircraft maintenance officer, leaving active service as an O-3 and then being in the Reserves at Charleston AFB on C-141s. You really should stop making assumptions out of thin air. It is a very poor trait in an aircraft accident investigator.
So you're not going to back up your claim that a single engine trainer design has led to quite a few deaths? Seems like a pretty stupid assumption to pull out of thin air.

Grumble
10-25-2017, 10:05 PM
To the first part of the above quote, quite simply no. I will leave it at that.

To the second part, I relish in the hypocrisy.



https://media.giphy.com/media/xT9DPhONuz1SpCONiM/giphy.gif

F4E Mx
10-26-2017, 08:09 AM
So at what point did you go to ASO school?

Thought so.

Well, it was an FAA accident investigator school in Oklahoma City in 1989. Right after I got hired by an aircraft engine manufacturer as an aircraft accident investigator, a position I held for 12 years before doing the same thing with an airframe manufacturer for nine years.

The position involved going to crash sites and being a part of the NTSB investigative team and doing follow-up investigations at salvage yards, engine test cells, the NTSB lab, or manufacturers factories.

My first boss was a former Navy pilot and a couple of the NTSB IICs I worked with were former Navy pilots also. One was an F/A 18 pilot who had to get a medical retirement after he was seriously injured in an ejection. He always seemed glad to see me show up on site and thought I knew what I was doing. Silly him, huh? Not nearly as sharp as you guys.

If you like I will be glad to list the Registration numbers of the accidents I was a Party to. My name, along with the report I submitted to the Board, is in the back of their report as a party member. You can look them up on line.

While we are discussing qualifications, I also hold FAA airframe and powerplant licenses and held an FAA Inspection Authorization (IA) while I was doing accident investigations.

Do you guys have ANY aircraft maintenance experience or qualifications? Do you have ANY aircraft inspection experience or qualifications? I thought not.

Let me know about the N-Numbers.

Peacock
10-26-2017, 10:28 AM
What does any of that have to do with the dumbfoundingly stupid things you've said on this thread?

F4E Mx
10-26-2017, 10:40 AM
What does any of that have to do with the dumbfoundingly stupid things you've said on this thread?

Besides being infantile, you people are hopeless. I'm done.

HuggyU2
10-26-2017, 12:39 PM
I'm done.

Best news I've heard all day.

VandalF16
10-26-2017, 12:49 PM
Besides being infantile, you people are hopeless. I'm done.

Score. Thanks.

USMCFLYR
10-26-2017, 01:02 PM
I've been to Aviation Maintenance Officer School and held a variety of different Maintenance Officer positions in numerous fleet and training squadrons over a 20 year career - and I regularly drink coffee down in my current maintenance office and jaw-jack with our maintainers.

Guess I'm an expert in maintenance issues too!

This has been one of the most interesting threads I've seen in awhile that had to do with obvious 'out of one's element' sidebars.

Now - back on track.............
Can anyone share anything that has been put out for public consumption about the probable cause?

Grumble
10-26-2017, 03:02 PM
I've been to Aviation Maintenance Officer School and held a variety of different Maintenance Officer positions in numerous fleet and training squadrons over a 20 year career - and I regularly drink coffee down in my current maintenance office and jaw-jack with our maintainers.

Guess I'm an expert in maintenance issues too!

This has been one of the most interesting threads I've seen in awhile that had to do with obvious 'out of one's element' sidebars.

Now - back on track.............
Can anyone share anything that has been put out for public consumption about the probable cause?

You know better than that.

USMCFLYR
10-26-2017, 04:57 PM
You know better than that.
That is why I asked for info available to the public.
I haven't been following the mishap in the news.
Anything of substance in any follow-on news articles (if there have been any)?

trip
04-15-2018, 08:20 PM
https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2018/04/14/leadership-failures-in-navy-pilot-training-squadrons-led-to-tennessee-t-45-crash/


"The Navy’s official investigation into the Oct. 1 crash in rural Tennessee of a T-45C Goshawk from Training Squadron 7 concluded the crash was the fault
of the instructor pilot, even though at the time of impact, he wasn’t at the controls.

Investigators said that the instructor pilot was “flat-hatting” by flying and directing his student to fly too close and too fast to ground, which is against the
Navy’s procedure for such training of student pilots, the Navy’s investigation into the crash concluded.

The report also said that the investigation shows that such out-of-bounds flights and unauthorized training had become part of culture in the VT-7, but
also throughout all the Navy’s tactical jet training, which investigators called a “failure of leadership.”"

BeatNavy
04-15-2018, 08:38 PM
https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2018/04/14/leadership-failures-in-navy-pilot-training-squadrons-led-to-tennessee-t-45-crash/

Bynum also said it was questionable that Ruth was even qualified to fly the T-45C or teach the low-level maneuvers, because there was no record he’d completed the requisite training in the T-45C himself

Is this for real? IP not qualified to fly the T-45C? Hopefully this is bad reporting or it was a lost record and had the requisite training, but in an investigation like that, I'd imagine no stone would remain unturned to find said records.

USMCFLYR
04-16-2018, 03:15 AM
More than likely what they meant was that he wasn't qualified to be teaching in the STRIKE phase of T-45 training which would include the low level training - - - - not that he wasn't qualified to teach in the airplane.

VT-7 Eagles ? The Wingman Foundation (http://www.wingmanfoundation.org/vt7eagles)

"Following completion of his training syllabus at the E-2C Hawkeye Fleet Replacement Squadron, Patrick reported to VAW-126 in Norfolk, VA."

Edit: Now after reading the article (yes I answered before reading the article :roll eyes:), it does say:
Bynum noted that the flight’s purpose was low altitude awareness training and they were initially on an approved training route, but that the instructor, Ruth, deviated from proper procedure and also encouraged Burch to do the same.

My guess was that he wasn't STRIKE qualified and doing low levels, but this last sentence seems to say otherwise; if he was truly getting low level 'Xs' per the flight schedule, unless it was a oversight that he had been scheduled for this type of training and maybe had not completed the STRIKE IUT syllabus, therefore not being qualified yet.

rickair7777
04-16-2018, 03:21 PM
Some much for OBOGS, Grampaw P. could have called this one back in WW-II.

Excargodog
04-16-2018, 04:16 PM
Some much for OBOGS, Grampaw P. could have called this one back in WW-II.

Nobody likes to speak ill of the dead and in a very real sense the system failed them if their leadership allowed unsafe practices to develop and did not effectively correct them. Heck, I find the recent spate of Navy surface fleet mishaps that lead to the firing of the PACFLEET commander and may lead to manslaughter charges against some of the ship captains involved in the collision profoundly disturbing.

It is up to the senior officer leadership to assure that mission and training needs and risks - and yes, the risk of youthful enthusiasm too - are appropriately managed and balanced.

Deficiencies in the basics of seamanship demonstrated in those PACFLEET were rather alarming in the case of not only the ships that were involved in collisions but in the one that ran aground in Yokohama harbor as well.

Junior troops deserve better and even the goat locker can only do so much.

rickair7777
04-17-2018, 06:41 AM
Nobody likes to speak ill of the dead and in a very real sense the system failed them if their leadership allowed unsafe practices to develop and did not effectively correct them. Heck, I find the recent spate of Navy surface fleet mishaps that lead to the firing of the PACFLEET commander and may lead to manslaughter charges against some of the ship captains involved in the collision profoundly disturbing.

It is up to the senior officer leadership to assure that mission and training needs and risks - and yes, the risk of youthful enthusiasm too - are appropriately managed and balanced.

Deficiencies in the basics of seamanship demonstrated in those PACFLEET were rather alarming in the case of not only the ships that were involved in collisions but in the one that ran aground in Yokohama harbor as well.

Junior troops deserve better and even the goat locker can only do so much.

Does sound like there were systemic/cultural issues. But what I find interesting in that is that apparently a lot of people in naval aviation seem to think that the regs are too strict, and you need need to color outside the lines a bit to train/maintain warriors... and leadership is at least looking the other way, if not encouraging that. Although this instance went too far, perhaps with an IP who didn't fully understand the machine he was instructing in. But are all those people dead-wrong?

BTW, C7F was fired, not PACFLT. PACFLT is retiring on schedule although he may have lost an opportunity to fleet up to PACOM over the collisions (that's unfortunate IMO).

But the at-sea collisions were not intentional flat-hatting, I suspect that there were multiple root causes, many of them stemming from years of war: poor material condition, long deployments resulting in burnout and insufficient time resources to accomplish all training/maintenance/readiness/political requirements. If the expectations are utterly unrealistic, then they are not taken seriously. If leadership doesn't manage that, then all expectations are taken equally not-seriously and inexperienced folks are choosing what to blow off. Apparently none of the leaders wanted to say "no" to their bosses, which would have forced prioritization of effort. Congress gets blame too, for squeezing blood from the stone for 15+ years. The economy probably didn't help... experienced hands are leaving for industry jobs, and recruiting is a bit hampered.

Grumble
04-17-2018, 09:19 AM
More than likely what they meant was that he wasn't qualified to be teaching in the STRIKE phase of T-45 training which would include the low level training - - - - not that he wasn't qualified to teach in the airplane.



Edit: Now after reading the article (yes I answered before reading the article :roll eyes:), it does say:


My guess was that he wasn't STRIKE qualified and doing low levels, but this last sentence seems to say otherwise; if he was truly getting low level 'Xs' per the flight schedule, unless it was a oversight that he had been scheduled for this type of training and maybe had not completed the STRIKE IUT syllabus, therefore not being qualified yet.

This SIR is a complete farce and there is treachery afoot. Extremely high likelihood that CNATRA gets chit-canned and some of his minions along with.

None of what is reported in this Navytimes article is accurate and none of what CNATRA has said was ever included in the ORIGINAL findings. It’s all BS.

USMCFLYR
04-17-2018, 09:46 AM
This SIR is a complete farce and there is treachery afoot. Extremely high likelihood that CNATRA gets chit-canned and some of his minions along with.

None of what is reported in this Navytimes article is accurate and none of what CNATRA has said was ever included in the ORIGINAL findings. It’s all BS.
So as far as the qualifications question(s) - the IP was fully qualified to be instructing in whatever phase training was taking place?

rickair7777
04-17-2018, 09:55 AM
This SIR is a complete farce and there is treachery afoot. Extremely high likelihood that CNATRA gets chit-canned and some of his minions along with.

None of what is reported in this Navytimes article is accurate and none of what CNATRA has said was ever included in the ORIGINAL findings. It’s all BS.

So navy times is (unwittingly) broadcasting someone's agenda?

Or is CNATRA trying to dilute responsibility?

Do you think there's a cultural issue?

Could be a culture of normalized deviance. Or possibly a culture of working around excessively risk-averse policies and leaders to get the job done?

I don't think we can train warriors with zero accidents (yet). Leadership and policy needs to manage that fine line, without erring too far on either side.

Grumble
04-17-2018, 03:38 PM
So as far as the qualifications question(s) - the IP was fully qualified to be instructing in whatever phase training was taking place?

So far as I know yes. The only factual statement in that whole article, is that two great Americans lost their lives.




So navy times is (unwittingly) broadcasting someone's agenda?

Or is CNATRA trying to dilute responsibility?

Do you think there's a cultural issue?

Could be a culture of normalized deviance. Or possibly a culture of working around excessively risk-averse policies and leaders to get the job done?

I don't think we can train warriors with zero accidents (yet). Leadership and policy needs to manage that fine line, without erring too far on either side.

None of the above. Two deceased aviators are having their memories stomped on and their legacies tarnished to further an agenda, and major violations of OPNAV have occurred under direction of a certain Flag officer.

It will all come out, just not soon enough.

rickair7777
04-17-2018, 03:43 PM
So far as I know yes. The only factual statement in that whole article, is that two great Americans lost their lives.






None of the above. Two deceased aviators are having their memories stomped on and their legacies tarnished to further an agenda, and major violations of OPNAV have occurred under direction of a certain Flag officer.

It will all come out, just not soon enough.

Pretty sweeping statements. I'll take it on faith because we've both been around here for a while. Would appreciate if you post any info which becomes public.

Excargodog
04-17-2018, 04:09 PM
So far as I know yes. The only factual statement in that whole article, is that two great Americans lost their lives.

None of the above. Two deceased aviators are having their memories stomped on and their legacies tarnished to further an agenda, and major violations of OPNAV have occurred under direction of a certain Flag officer.


It will all come out, just not soon enough.

The USAF has had similar failures of adult leadership:

https://robrobinette.com/T-3A_Firefly.htm

https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/t-3.htm

I recall a certain senior officer, after a couple of instructors (and their students) died in stall spin accidents, commenting that both of the instructors had come from "heavies" (C-141) and that had they been fighter pilots they likely would have recovered.

bruhaha
04-17-2018, 07:18 PM
Dont know if this has been posted

redacted command investigation of the incident

https://news.usni.org/2018/04/16/findings-command-investigation-fatal-october-t-45c-goshawk-crash

From just briefly skimming the document on the last two pages opinion 10 and 11, the investigator believes that there was ambiguity as to who was supposed to be flying and no one was flying the aircraft until just before impact.



Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.1