What an eyewitness to an F-15 crash saw

"Another said, 'It went lower and lower and in a little bit three parachutes
came out and then the plane hit the ground.' "

There was only the pilot aboard.

http://www.wishtv.com:80/Global/stor...91286&nav=0Ra7

On Jun 1, 7:23 am, "Dan Luke" wrote:
"Another said, 'It went lower and lower and in a little bit three parachutes
came out and then the plane hit the ground.' "

There was only the pilot aboard.


A military spokeman said, "The airplane has pretty much impacted the
ground"

Well, that pretty much sums up most accidents...

"Kingfish" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jun 1, 7:23 am, "Dan Luke" wrote:
"Another said, 'It went lower and lower and in a little bit three
parachutes
came out and then the plane hit the ground.' "

There was only the pilot aboard.


A military spokeman said, "The airplane has pretty much impacted the
ground"

Well, that pretty much sums up most accidents...

"It's not flying that's dangerous, it's the hard impact with the ground
that's dangerous."

"Another said, 'It went lower and lower and in a little bit three parachutes


OK, I will assume we are taking about a recent version of the F-15 and
since the story discusses a pilot only with no GIB (Guy-In-Back), that
eliminates the F-15E, and we are left with the F-15C. The F-15C is
equipped with the McDonnell Douglas (now Boeing) Advanced Concept
Ejection Seat (ACES) II zero-zero seat.

This seat uses an extractor chute to help deploy the drogue which
slows and stabilizes the seat. Then after the pilot separates from
the seat, out comes the main chute to bring the pilot down. [See:
http://www.ejectionsite.com] So the extractor, drogue and main chutes
may account for three chutes seen by the witness.

Two problems with this explanation:

1. We don't know what mode the seat was in. In Mode 1 which cover 0
- 250 kts, the all chutes are deployed but the drogue is not inflated
since the main deploys and inflates within 2 seconds (makes a groin
ache thinking about it).

2. The witness rseems to say that the three chutes were small
(whatever that means). While the main is not a big chute, the three
chutes deployed in succession are distinctly larger than their
predecessor.

So yeah . . . witnesses need to be taken with a grain of salt, but
this person could have seen three chutes.

Take care . . .

John

"Dan Luke" wrote

"Another said, 'It went lower and lower and in a little bit three
parachutes came out and then the plane hit the ground.' "

There was only the pilot aboard.

http://www.wishtv.com:80/Global/stor...91286&nav=0Ra7

OMG !!!

In the same link, in the other news listings, it says, "South Bend officer
looses finger during dog training."

If they can't spell "loses," how do you expect them to report an airplane
crash correctly?
--
Jim in NC

Morgans wrote:

"Dan Luke" wrote


"Another said, 'It went lower and lower and in a little bit three
parachutes came out and then the plane hit the ground.' "

There was only the pilot aboard.

http://www.wishtv.com:80/Global/stor...91286&nav=0Ra7


OMG !!!

In the same link, in the other news listings, it says, "South Bend officer
looses finger during dog training."

If they can't spell "loses," how do you expect them to report an airplane
crash correctly?

Maybe Lockheed Martin is doing reporting, now, too.

Morgans wrote:
If they can't spell "loses," how do you expect them to report an airplane
crash correctly?

What leads you to believe they misreported it? The three parachutes line
is precisely what the witness said. You can see her on the video saying
it. The reporting was accurate. The witness may have been wrong, but
that's an entirely different question.

"Rich Ahrens" wrote

What leads you to believe they misreported it? The three parachutes line
is precisely what the witness said. You can see her on the video saying
it. The reporting was accurate. The witness may have been wrong, but
that's an entirely different question.

THAT aspect may have been right, but what else did they mess up? I can't
have ?ANY faith in anyone who could write copy with such an obvious mistake,
and not even have an editor catch it, either.

Come on, Rich; loose for lose, from a so called journalist? If you made
that mistake, I would think you were stupid. A journalist makes that
mistake, and it gets out to the whole world? I think they are ignorant.
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" wrote:

Come on, Rich; loose for lose, from a so called journalist? If you made
that mistake, I would think you were stupid. A journalist makes that
mistake, and it gets out to the whole world? I think they are ignorant.

What's being a good speller got to do with being a good reporter? It's the
copy editor's job to catch stuff like that.

--
Dan
? at BFM

"Dan Luke" wrote.

What's being a good speller got to do with being a good reporter? It's
the copy editor's job to catch stuff like that.

It is all about being a professional, and using the tools of the trade; in
this case, words. A simple word. One that a 5th grader should be able to
recognize as being the wrong choice.

What your argument is like is about like asking, "why should a mechanic need
to know how to use a torque wrench?"

And yes, the copy editor and the webmaster should have caught it, too.
--
Jim in NC