Fatal T38 Mishap at Laughlin
 

https://www.newsnationnow.com/us-new...base-in-texas/

Fair winds & following seas.

Indeed.

https://i.ibb.co/D1Vrr0y/59911-B35-2...-A9-A67829.jpg

I went thru Laughlin 50 years ago, and I think that the last two new T-38s were delivered to the Air Force that year.

It is time for something more modern. Yes, the T-38 is challenging to learn to fly, and that is a good screening tool. Still, it is 50 years old.

Joe

Replacement is the T-7, still a few years out though.

Final accident report
 

Ouch. Miscommunication and lack of assertive clarification.

I just read the first page, but am already confused.
I've flown numerous formation landings as lead and wingman. Part of the brief was always as you get closer to touchdown - and certainly once 'kissed off', you look forward and center yourself on your half of the runway. I'm still having trouble seeing how one aircraft NOSE WHEEL hits the other aircraft's LEFT HORZ STAB and the major focus is discussing who was supposed to land and who wasn't. IME - bother aircraft should be able to land out of a formation approach to landing.

The root problem was that they both thought only one was landing, that was the plan all along, but they didn't figure WHICH one was landing.

Because one aircraft failed to treat centerline as a BRICK WALL (or they both did and collided on CL). Even in the new UPT policy of 1u1d, I have to think that is still the standard. If it wasn't, gotta imagine it is now.

No...I don't believe that is the root problem. As I explained, any formation landing is suppose to chose thier side in the final stages and it doesn't matter if either chooses to land or only one. You are still on YOUR side of the runway. To end up at the runway with one on top of the other goes MUCH further than not knowing who was landing.
I agree BFM. I'd venture to say that the formation landing is pretty well figured out by this time. Not really sure what any 'new policy' is going to solve.