T-45 fatal in Tellico Plains, Tennessee
#11
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.
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.
#12
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....
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....
#14
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.
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.
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?
#15
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.
ETA: sorry posted before I saw rickair reply wrt 2 v 1 engines.
#16
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.
The type/phase of flight would be helpful.
#17
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?
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?
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.
#19
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Mar 2014
Posts: 281
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.
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2017
Posts: 659
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.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post