F18 Crash at RDU, Raleigh, NC

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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/sto...-3071734c.html

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

- Nathan

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.

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 )

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/sto...-3071734c.html

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

- Nathan

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 )

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/sto...-3071734c.html

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

- Nathan