RTB

Returned home late last night from a trip to the Dayton airshow. One
seemingly minor incident raised my curiousity.

A two plane detachment of F-117s were sent to the show. As is quite
typical one aircraft departed intending to provide flybys at other
regional shows before returning to Dayton for a final flyby and landing.

Shortly after departing however he experienced a loss of one engine.
Aircraft recovered at Dayton. I wonder why he would RTB to a civilian
field when WRI-PAT is so near. With this aircraft considered to be a
high value asset wouldn't the increased security of a major military
airfield have made more sense?

So a question for all is what criteria would have been applied here?
Ed, being USAF do you have any comments. Should note here that
monitoring the frequencies there were no other systems failures mentioned.






ACC USN ret.
NKX, BIKF, NAB, CV-63, NIR
67-69 69-71 71-74 77-80 80-85
&
74-77

Founder: RAMN (rec.aviation.military.naval)

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 08:00:59 -0400, Jim wrote:

Shortly after departing however he experienced a loss of one engine.
Aircraft recovered at Dayton. I wonder why he would RTB to a civilian
field when WRI-PAT is so near.

I'm betting he returned to the airfield that already had personnel trained
to generate and recover F-117s there.

--

-Jeff B. (who's only guessing)
zoomie at fastmail fm

Hey Jim,

I had so so time on Saturday. With the lack of flying and the weather, it
was medicore. I thought the Thunderbirds did ok, they were kinda sloppy on
few demos though.

I had a cool experince though. I shook a hand of a Tuskegee Airman. I also
thanked him for his service. I couldn't talk to him though, their tent was
full of people that wanted to talk to them.

It was cool though. Did the weather improved any on Sunday Jim?

Erik

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 14:19:31 GMT, Yeff wrote:

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 08:00:59 -0400, Jim wrote:

Shortly after departing however he experienced a loss of one engine.
Aircraft recovered at Dayton. I wonder why he would RTB to a civilian
field when WRI-PAT is so near.

I'm betting he returned to the airfield that already had personnel trained
to generate and recover F-117s there.

Sounds like the answer to me. Limited number special purpose aircraft
have some peculiar support requirements and might need some specially
trained support personnel.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 19:11:47 GMT, "Erik \"Falcon\" Glascoe"
wrote:

Hey Jim,

I had so so time on Saturday. With the lack of flying and the weather, it
was medicore. I thought the Thunderbirds did ok, they were kinda sloppy on
few demos though.

I had a cool experince though. I shook a hand of a Tuskegee Airman. I also
thanked him for his service. I couldn't talk to him though, their tent was
full of people that wanted to talk to them.

It was cool though. Did the weather improved any on Sunday Jim?

Erik


While I was serving on the Board of Trustees of the Pikes Peak Library
District, I often had occasion to meet Lt. Col (ret) Clarence Shivers,
one of the Tuskegee Airmen. He and his wife, Peggy were great
supporters of the library and quite successful in business as well.
They established a foundation to support the library and the arts in
the Colorado Springs area. Great folks who give back to their
community in a big way.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

Ed Rasimus wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 14:19:31 GMT, Yeff wrote:


On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 08:00:59 -0400, Jim wrote:


Shortly after departing however he experienced a loss of one engine.
Aircraft recovered at Dayton. I wonder why he would RTB to a civilian
field when WRI-PAT is so near.

I'm betting he returned to the airfield that already had personnel trained
to generate and recover F-117s there.


Sounds like the answer to me. Limited number special purpose aircraft
have some peculiar support requirements and might need some specially
trained support personnel.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

True but those people were but 10-20 miles away. Working at an AF
hangar with AF tools and support would seem to me the wiser option.
After all if an engine change out were required would that not be easier
all around at an AF facility compared to a borrowed civilian one?

Erik "Falcon" Glascoe wrote:
Hey Jim,

I had so so time on Saturday. With the lack of flying and the weather, it
was medicore. I thought the Thunderbirds did ok, they were kinda sloppy on
few demos though.

I had a cool experince though. I shook a hand of a Tuskegee Airman. I also
thanked him for his service. I couldn't talk to him though, their tent was
full of people that wanted to talk to them.

It was cool though. Did the weather improved any on Sunday Jim?

Erik


I left before the T-Birds started. Low show isn't my fort'e.
Considering the iffy forecast for Sunday I opted to drive home. 708
miles in 14 hours not too shabby, eh? Oh yeah, two food and fuel stops.

Jim wrote:
Ed Rasimus wrote:

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 14:19:31 GMT, Yeff wrote:


On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 08:00:59 -0400, Jim wrote:


Shortly after departing however he experienced a loss of one engine.
Aircraft recovered at Dayton. I wonder why he would RTB to a
civilian field when WRI-PAT is so near.


I'm betting he returned to the airfield that already had personnel
trained
to generate and recover F-117s there.



Sounds like the answer to me. Limited number special purpose aircraft
have some peculiar support requirements and might need some specially
trained support personnel.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com


True but those people were but 10-20 miles away. Working at an AF
hangar with AF tools and support would seem to me the wiser option.
After all if an engine change out were required would that not be easier
all around at an AF facility compared to a borrowed civilian one?

I bet his field selection was at least partly based on whatever
caused the engine failure (oil related, fuel related, fod, other,
unknown?), what was in between him and each facility (ie, populated
areas), historical experience of F-117 engine failures, he was
already at Dayton anyway so he stuck with a workable "plan A,"
command climate (written directives and unwritten preferences of the
squadron CO and chain of command)... etc.

PIC decision making stuff - I know, pretty general answer (I'm not
trying to sound sarcastic).

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 08:00:59 -0400, Jim wrote:

So a question for all is what criteria would have been applied here?
Ed, being USAF do you have any comments. Should note here that
monitoring the frequencies there were no other systems failures mentioned.

In my experience you are better off to put a twin with a failure on
the ground ASAP. Afterall, you have just lost 50% of your power and
100% of your "J" factor. This is not the time to "fool around."

If you are in a many-motor (P-3, KC-135, etc.) then maybe you can
"fudge" a short flight to a facility with better maintenance. The P-3
NATOPS specifically addresses "three engine ferry" flights (I don't
know about Air Force policy and proceedure). But I don't know of
anyone who ever did one who was really comfortable. Sure, it might be
a "pain in the butt" to mount up a maintenance det, but I'd rather see
that than a "smoking hole."

Bill Kambic

Most of his time and 100% of his engine failures in S-2, P-3, and
T-44.

Might have been a simple safety plus prudence-driven decision.

Perhaps DAY was the best field available versus schlepping a sick bird
across the northern Dayton suburbs to FFO. With as high a profile as the
Dayton airshow is, you are smart not to risk a prang on the way over all the
playgrounds and residences. This is like choosing to fly a lonely route when
with hung ordnance. Suburbanites mourn their dead, seek compensation for
their losses, and vote. Fishes in the sea and lizards in the desert do not.

Support availability is nice, but if my choice is avoiding a high-visibility
mishap by taking the nearest capable runway versus landing at a field with
all the whistles and bells, I'll let the techs and the yellow gear follow me
wherever I go.
--
Mike Kanze

"Large increases in cost with questionable increases in performance can be
tolerated only in race horses and women."

- Lord Kelvin


"Jim" wrote in message ...
Returned home late last night from a trip to the Dayton airshow. One
seemingly minor incident raised my curiousity.

A two plane detachment of F-117s were sent to the show. As is quite
typical one aircraft departed intending to provide flybys at other
regional shows before returning to Dayton for a final flyby and landing.

Shortly after departing however he experienced a loss of one engine.
Aircraft recovered at Dayton. I wonder why he would RTB to a civilian
field when WRI-PAT is so near. With this aircraft considered to be a high
value asset wouldn't the increased security of a major military airfield
have made more sense?

So a question for all is what criteria would have been applied here? Ed,
being USAF do you have any comments. Should note here that monitoring the
frequencies there were no other systems failures mentioned.






ACC USN ret.
NKX, BIKF, NAB, CV-63, NIR
67-69 69-71 71-74 77-80 80-85
&
74-77

Founder: RAMN (rec.aviation.military.naval)