F18 Crash at RDU, Raleigh, NC

[Tom Hyslip]

An F-18 Naval Strike Fighter crashed at RDU today. It appears it was taxing
or in the process of taking off, but never lifted off. Might have been
wake turbulance from another F-18 that had just departed.

http://www.wral.com/news/2953163/detail.html

[G.R. Patterson III]

Tom Hyslip wrote:
>
> Might have been wake turbulance from another F-18 that had just departed.

Aircraft on the ground do not burst into flames due to wake turbulence.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

[Tom Hyslip]

Just reading from the reports. The controllers said it never left the
ground. Doesn't sound right to me either. Maybe it started to climb, then
had problems.


"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Tom Hyslip wrote:
> >
> > Might have been wake turbulance from another F-18 that had just
departed.
>
> Aircraft on the ground do not burst into flames due to wake turbulence.
>
> George Patterson
> Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that
would
> not yield to the tongue.

[Peter Gottlieb]

Wake turbulence with teeth, I'd say.

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Tom Hyslip wrote:
> >
> > Might have been wake turbulance from another F-18 that had just
departed.
>
> Aircraft on the ground do not burst into flames due to wake turbulence.
>
> George Patterson
> Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that
would
> not yield to the tongue.

[Mackfly]

Maybe P factor took it off the runway hee hee hee mac

[Michelle P]

George,
an uncontained failure of one of the engine would cause swerving and can
puncture a fuel tank with hot metal and start a fire....
Michelle

G.R. Patterson III wrote:

>Tom Hyslip wrote:
>
>
>>Might have been wake turbulance from another F-18 that had just departed.
>>
>>
>
>Aircraft on the ground do not burst into flames due to wake turbulence.
>
>George Patterson
> Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
> not yield to the tongue.
>
>

--

Michelle P ATP-ASEL, CP-AMEL, and AMT-A&P

"Elisabeth" a Maule M-7-235B (no two are alike)

Volunteer Pilot, Angel Flight Mid-Atlantic

Volunteer Builder, Habitat for Humanity

[Casey Wilson]

> > > Might have been wake turbulance from another F-18 that had just
> departed.
> >
> > Aircraft on the ground do not burst into flames due to wake turbulence.
> >
> > George Patterson

Ain't speculation fun? I'm with you, George, wake turbulence, not.
Section (one plus playmate) and even flight (of four) takeoffs are done
without mishap. That aircraft is too heavy and the engines produce too much
thrust.
How come nobody has speculated on (1) blowing a tire, (2) collapsing a
gear, (3) combination of 1+2, (4) because of 1 or 2 or 3, rupturing a drop
tank or wing tank [nah, skip the wing tank -- bullet proof fuel cell there],
(5) rotor burst, (6) Al Queda attack.
Having some familiarity with military mishap investigation, unless some
kind soul in the CHINFO office wants to release the information or some good
journalist [been there, done that] can weasel it out, it will be months
before any kind of preliminary finding will come out of the Navy.
Meanwhile, y'all keep on spekleatin', y'hear.

[BTIZ]

possible situations... pure speculation...

blown tire on take off.. causing problems... directional control, FOD into
the engine.. engine gauges spike.. engine starts tearing itself apart..

or some other FOD on the runway thrown up by the preceding jet.. ingested
into engine.. scenario continues..

pilot realizing engine is about to come apart and aircraft is not responding
to braking decides to use his e-ticket ride coupon..

as an instructor once said to me...
never try to save an airplane that is trying to kill you..
do not hesitate to give it back to the tax payers for another one..

planes can be replaced .... combat warriors are harder to come by..

BT

"Tom Hyslip" > wrote in message
. com...
> An F-18 Naval Strike Fighter crashed at RDU today. It appears it was
taxing
> or in the process of taking off, but never lifted off. Might have been
> wake turbulance from another F-18 that had just departed.
>
> http://www.wral.com/news/2953163/detail.html
>
>

[Big John]

Casey

I also have experience with USAF/Navy accident investigations.

For some reason the flight of 2 did not make a formation take off. Sq
policy at Civilian Fields. Runway to narrow. #2 experience level,
etc.

To continue, when I was flying heavy iron and we landed at a Civilian
Field for fuel, I always pulled the gear ASAP on takeoff R/W a foot
off the ground with burner flame hitting the R/W and looking like you
were riding on the flame.

In the case in question, if he had pulled the gear as he broke ground
and then hit jet wash from the leader and it slapped the bird back
against the R/W the pilot not knowing how much damage was caused
punched. The bird then continued skidding down the R/W and catching
fire.

They don't normally report the cause of an accident unless it causes
some civilian damage which this one didn't. The basic accident report
is 'restricted data' and will not be released to the public. If things
warrant and/or if the public is screaming then they hold a formal
accident board with everyone sworn and all have the ability to not
answer/testfy like in a civilian court.

So to end, as Casey said, have at it.

BJ

Shame to waste a multi million dollar aircraft for any reason.

Big John


On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 05:13:48 GMT, "Casey Wilson" >
wrote:

>
>> > > Might have been wake turbulance from another F-18 that had just
>> departed.
>> >
>> > Aircraft on the ground do not burst into flames due to wake turbulence.
>> >
>> > George Patterson
>
> Ain't speculation fun? I'm with you, George, wake turbulence, not.
>Section (one plus playmate) and even flight (of four) takeoffs are done
>without mishap. That aircraft is too heavy and the engines produce too much
>thrust.
> How come nobody has speculated on (1) blowing a tire, (2) collapsing a
>gear, (3) combination of 1+2, (4) because of 1 or 2 or 3, rupturing a drop
>tank or wing tank [nah, skip the wing tank -- bullet proof fuel cell there],
>(5) rotor burst, (6) Al Queda attack.
> Having some familiarity with military mishap investigation, unless some
>kind soul in the CHINFO office wants to release the information or some good
>journalist [been there, done that] can weasel it out, it will be months
>before any kind of preliminary finding will come out of the Navy.
> Meanwhile, y'all keep on spekleatin', y'hear.
>
>

[Nathan Gilliatt]

In article >,
Big John > wrote:

> They don't normally report the cause of an accident unless it causes
> some civilian damage which this one didn't.

No damage, but a close call. The plane ended up about 250 feet from a
passenger terminal, having passed near passenger jets on the ramp along
the way. The newspaper had a diagram that showed the airplane beginning
along runway 23L, the pilot ejecting as he passed taxiway charlie, and
the plane skidding across taxiway alpha and a corner of the terminal A
ramp before ending up past the end of the ramp. Kind of a busy area.
Most GA traffic uses that side of the airport, too.

It's a little higher profile than the typical military mishap. Not too
many airline passengers get to watch unmanned tactical jets
roll/bounce/tumble (whatever it in fact did) by as they wait for
departure. I guess we'll see if that leads the Navy to release any
information from the investigation.

Here are a couple more local media links:

Jet crashes at RDU (Saturday 3/27)
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/3455531p-3071734c.html

Cause of crash at RDU unclear (Sunday 3/28)
http://www.newsandobserver.com/front/story/3458230p-3073838c.html

- Nathan

[Doug Carter]

Nathan Gilliatt wrote:
> many airline passengers get to watch unmanned tactical jets
> roll/bounce/tumble (whatever it in fact did) by as they wait for
> departure.

On the way to Seattle we made an emergency landing at
Sacramento after the pilot mentioned a small fire in the
cockpit.

Fire trucks followed us to the terminal.

A few minutes later the pilot tells us fire seems to be
out and we taxi to the departure end of the runway. A
couple NG fighters took off and, while we watched, one of
them flamed out (I guess) and went through the fence. No
idea what happened to the pilot.

Fire trucks follow NG fighter to fence area.

Not really that dramatic but the most fire trucks I've
ever seen running loose at an airport.

[Big John]

Nathon

One news report you listed said that pilot did not separate from seat
and landed in it and ended up with a few scrapes and bruises. Wrong.
Wrong. Wrong. Chute won't open until after you separate from seat as
you are sitting against it in a back pack and you are strapped in the
seat with shoulder and lap belts. Until you separate from seat the
chute won't/can't open.

One picture showed the left rudder and up along the port side of the
fuselage and most of the port wing. There was no obvious damage to the
wing or rudder from a ground impact if bird had rolled as summarized
by reporter????

Again, as Casey said. Lots of Monday morning quarterbacks and report
will never be released so we will never know unless someone in the Sq
talks to his bed mate or a friend :o)

Big John


On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 21:11:46 GMT, Nathan Gilliatt
> wrote:

>In article >,
> Big John > wrote:
>
>> They don't normally report the cause of an accident unless it causes
>> some civilian damage which this one didn't.
>
>No damage, but a close call. The plane ended up about 250 feet from a
>passenger terminal, having passed near passenger jets on the ramp along
>the way. The newspaper had a diagram that showed the airplane beginning
>along runway 23L, the pilot ejecting as he passed taxiway charlie, and
>the plane skidding across taxiway alpha and a corner of the terminal A
>ramp before ending up past the end of the ramp. Kind of a busy area.
>Most GA traffic uses that side of the airport, too.
>
>It's a little higher profile than the typical military mishap. Not too
>many airline passengers get to watch unmanned tactical jets
>roll/bounce/tumble (whatever it in fact did) by as they wait for
>departure. I guess we'll see if that leads the Navy to release any
>information from the investigation.
>
>Here are a couple more local media links:
>
>Jet crashes at RDU (Saturday 3/27)
>http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/3455531p-3071734c.html
>
>Cause of crash at RDU unclear (Sunday 3/28)
>http://www.newsandobserver.com/front/story/3458230p-3073838c.html
>
> - Nathan

[Andrew Gideon]

BTIZ wrote:

> pilot realizing engine is about to come apart and aircraft is not
> responding to braking decides to use his e-ticket ride coupon..

The article at:

http://www.newsandobserver.com/front/story/3458230p-3073838c.html

has at the end:

Commercial pilots can raise their landing gear to stop in an
emergency, he said. "It's not pleasant, but it works," he said.

No squat switch on airliners? Yes squat switch on F-18?

- Andrew

[David CL Francis]

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 at 02:33:50 in message
>, Tom Hyslip
> wrote:
>An F-18 Naval Strike Fighter crashed at RDU today. It appears it was taxing
>or in the process of taking off, but never lifted off. Might have been
>wake turbulance from another F-18 that had just departed.
>
>http://www.wral.com/news/2953163/detail.html
>
Please don't post any more URLs from a site that spawns such tiresome
stupid windows.
--
David CL Francis

[BTIZ]

Big John, if the seat is the F18 is the ACES II Style that I used in the
B-1, then it is not a "back pack" style chute, the parachute is packed in
the head rest and ballistically deployed as part of the ejection sequence,
when it goes.. and inflates.. you get man seat separation.

Actually the ACESII seat works in 3 modes depending on where you are in the
ejection envelope.

BT

"Big John" > wrote in message
...
> Nathon
>
> One news report you listed said that pilot did not separate from seat
> and landed in it and ended up with a few scrapes and bruises. Wrong.
> Wrong. Wrong. Chute won't open until after you separate from seat as
> you are sitting against it in a back pack and you are strapped in the
> seat with shoulder and lap belts. Until you separate from seat the
> chute won't/can't open.
>
> One picture showed the left rudder and up along the port side of the
> fuselage and most of the port wing. There was no obvious damage to the
> wing or rudder from a ground impact if bird had rolled as summarized
> by reporter????
>
> Again, as Casey said. Lots of Monday morning quarterbacks and report
> will never be released so we will never know unless someone in the Sq
> talks to his bed mate or a friend :o)
>
> Big John
>
>
> On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 21:11:46 GMT, Nathan Gilliatt
> > wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > Big John > wrote:
> >
> >> They don't normally report the cause of an accident unless it causes
> >> some civilian damage which this one didn't.
> >
> >No damage, but a close call. The plane ended up about 250 feet from a
> >passenger terminal, having passed near passenger jets on the ramp along
> >the way. The newspaper had a diagram that showed the airplane beginning
> >along runway 23L, the pilot ejecting as he passed taxiway charlie, and
> >the plane skidding across taxiway alpha and a corner of the terminal A
> >ramp before ending up past the end of the ramp. Kind of a busy area.
> >Most GA traffic uses that side of the airport, too.
> >
> >It's a little higher profile than the typical military mishap. Not too
> >many airline passengers get to watch unmanned tactical jets
> >roll/bounce/tumble (whatever it in fact did) by as they wait for
> >departure. I guess we'll see if that leads the Navy to release any
> >information from the investigation.
> >
> >Here are a couple more local media links:
> >
> >Jet crashes at RDU (Saturday 3/27)
> >http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/3455531p-3071734c.html
> >
> >Cause of crash at RDU unclear (Sunday 3/28)
> >http://www.newsandobserver.com/front/story/3458230p-3073838c.html
> >
> > - Nathan
>

[Big John]

BT

Showing my age of course.

When I ejected (in days of yore) the timer fuse started and burned
down and hit the explosive charge that blew the seat belt apart and
also fired the "butt snapper" which threw me out of the seat. I had
the Zero Lanyard connected to 'D' ring and upon separation from seat
it pulled the 'D' ring and released the Drogue chute which started
canopy out of the pack. The drogue chute pulled the whole canopy out
ending up with no slack in the chute lines and then the drogue chute
pulled the bag off the canopy and it opened. Very smooth opening and
no crack the whip with physical damage to pilot.

Read your comments about the Aces seats. The F-18 uses Martin Baker
(NACES) seats. Not sure how chute is set up in the F-18??? I'll bet a
million that he did not hit the ground still in the seat and only get
a few scrapes and bruises. If he did, he used all 9 lives in one
episode.

I wonder if he sent in and got his Caterpillar Certificate and pin. I
did. They still give out even though the chutes are not made of silk
any more. This started giving out in 1922 by the way and original pins
were gold.

In 1950 there were over 50K registered in Caterpillar Club who had
saved their lives by using a chute (per Internet).

Tomorrow we spring forward and get more daylight to work with in the
afternoon/evening :o)

Big John
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` `````````````````````

BTIZ" > wrote:

>Big John, if the seat is the F18 is the ACES II Style that I used in the
>B-1, then it is not a "back pack" style chute, the parachute is packed in
>the head rest and ballistically deployed as part of the ejection sequence,
>when it goes.. and inflates.. you get man seat separation.
>
>Actually the ACESII seat works in 3 modes depending on where you are in the
>ejection envelope.
>
>BT
>
>"Big John" > wrote in message
...
>> Nathon
>>
>> One news report you listed said that pilot did not separate from seat
>> and landed in it and ended up with a few scrapes and bruises. Wrong.
>> Wrong. Wrong. Chute won't open until after you separate from seat as
>> you are sitting against it in a back pack and you are strapped in the
>> seat with shoulder and lap belts. Until you separate from seat the
>> chute won't/can't open.
>>
>> One picture showed the left rudder and up along the port side of the
>> fuselage and most of the port wing. There was no obvious damage to the
>> wing or rudder from a ground impact if bird had rolled as summarized
>> by reporter????
>>
>> Again, as Casey said. Lots of Monday morning quarterbacks and report
>> will never be released so we will never know unless someone in the Sq
>> talks to his bed mate or a friend :o)
>>
>> Big John
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 21:11:46 GMT, Nathan Gilliatt
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >In article >,
>> > Big John > wrote:
>> >
>> >> They don't normally report the cause of an accident unless it causes
>> >> some civilian damage which this one didn't.
>> >
>> >No damage, but a close call. The plane ended up about 250 feet from a
>> >passenger terminal, having passed near passenger jets on the ramp along
>> >the way. The newspaper had a diagram that showed the airplane beginning
>> >along runway 23L, the pilot ejecting as he passed taxiway charlie, and
>> >the plane skidding across taxiway alpha and a corner of the terminal A
>> >ramp before ending up past the end of the ramp. Kind of a busy area.
>> >Most GA traffic uses that side of the airport, too.
>> >
>> >It's a little higher profile than the typical military mishap. Not too
>> >many airline passengers get to watch unmanned tactical jets
>> >roll/bounce/tumble (whatever it in fact did) by as they wait for
>> >departure. I guess we'll see if that leads the Navy to release any
>> >information from the investigation.
>> >
>> >Here are a couple more local media links:
>> >
>> >Jet crashes at RDU (Saturday 3/27)
>> >http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/3455531p-3071734c.html
>> >
>> >Cause of crash at RDU unclear (Sunday 3/28)
>> >http://www.newsandobserver.com/front/story/3458230p-3073838c.html
>> >
>> > - Nathan
>>
>