Replies

“How much time do you have flying acrobatics in a jet?
I’ve got just shy of 3,000 hts in the A-10 and F-15E.
Not an Immelmann from what these old eyes can see.”

Then can you tell me what you call a turn to port ascending maybe a few hundred feet, because in my mind they didn’t have any room on takeoff, where the aircraft goes further than 90 degrees during the maneuver, and ends up going the opposite direction?

You don’t have to be a person that has flown jets to see and make an assumption on an accident. Even the NTSB uses non-flying experts in their system to investigate accidents. And as you know, they are the final word on those unless the AG considers the incident criminal and hands it off to the FBI. I was at Galena in 1985 when an F-16a went into the Yukon. The FAA, the NTSB, EOD, and the Coast Guard were all represented there. They were using my equipment with the sonar from Adack to find him and the main body of the aircraft. Most of the weapons had broken free and were stuck in the bank across the river.

Do I have time in a jet like a Warthog or an eagle? Nope. How much time do you have in a tutor? Especially one that was in trouble and wouldn’t, in my mind, have veered away from the other aircraft it was ascending with at that altitude unless it was.

I can only use the experience I have and have been trained to use in evaluation. Everything we do here is observation. Without what would have been on the radio, we don’t know a whole lot. If you have further information concerning the incident, would you please enter it on the board. It would help a lot of us.

rwood

“Then can you tell me what you call a turn to port ascending maybe a few hundred feet, because in my mind they didn’t have any room on takeoff, where the aircraft goes further than 90 degrees during the maneuver, and ends up going the opposite direction?”

Hearing the “pop” as the jet passes the videographer indicates to me a compressor stall or some sort of major system failure. The climb action was standard when experiencing a malfunction when at low level, as altitude means time/life. The “roll” presumes the pilot had control over the jet, when we don’t know that. It is likely, based on the pop noise and subsequent zoom, controlled flight was fleeting and the roll quickly followed when loss of primary flight control was experienced.

Doing an “Immelmann” when experiencing a major system failure shortly after take-off and at low altitude would be the dumbest action a pilot could choose to do. An Immelmann takes speed (energy), power and control and altitude, and is NOT safe given the conditions the video shows. A simple turn would be more practical and safer.

“You don’t have to be a person that has flown jets to see and make an assumption on an accident.”

Clearly.

“Even the NTSB uses non-flying experts in their system to investigate accidents. And as you know, they are the final word on those unless the AG considers the incident criminal and hands it off to the FBI. “

Not even close to being true true for military mishaps/accidents. Explanation below.

“I was at Galena in 1985 when an F-16a went into the Yukon. The FAA, the NTSB, EOD, and the Coast Guard were all represented there. They were using my equipment with the sonar from Adack to find him and the main body of the aircraft. Most of the weapons had broken free and were stuck in the bank across the river.”

The mishap and accident boards of the US military are the ones that investigate military incidents. They do not use or allow the NTSB or FAA to participate in the investigations because they know nothing about military jets, training and maintenance practices. (If there is a mishap involving a military platform and a civilian platform, a joint board will be help but the military issues their report and the NTSB issues their own report.

And the FBI is NOT included in investigating a military mishap incident. We fly military jets that are not subject to FAA certifications or FBI oversight, so, IF they show up somewhere, they have no authority to assess the suitability of the jet or the pilot and his actions. Was the pilots actions expected or “normal?” FBI and NTSB can’t make that assumption. (Joint reporting requirement listed above).

If the pilot was found to intentionally violate the rules (crime?), then UCMJ takes over and the FBI has no say. They are fenced out. NTSB has some systems knowledge but are not officially part of the investigation and have no input on what happened because they are not present during the boards internal consultations and fact examinations. They, at best, would be in observer status, learning how the military conducts complex mishaps/accidents. Coast Guard, sort of, and EOD are military and are allowed to participate.

The military mishap and accident boards examine systems by SMEs (From OEMs, usually); you don’t need a pilot to examine actuators or mechanical failures that might have been experienced. These experts are the ones that examine pieces parts. If you are NOT a military pilot you do not judge military pilots and their chosen actions. You have no standing.

There are two investigations for military mishap investigations—the mishap board and the accident review board. Mishap board keeps all interviews of surviving aircrew confidential so they are protected and do not lie, so they can be truthful without fear of prosecution. This is important to evaluate what actually happened.

The accident board places aircrew under oath, or other significant people involved in the mission and/or maintaining the jet.

“Do I have time in a jet like a Warthog or an eagle? Nope. How much time do you have in a tutor?”

About 2.5hrs. You?

“Especially one that was in trouble and wouldn’t, in my mind, have veered away from the other aircraft. . .”

You are presuming the aircraft was under the control of the pilot when that is not proven. Not uncommon that when a system catastrophically fails it sometimes affects or destroys the pilots’ ability to fly the jet. (Especially jet engines throwing blades).

“I can only use the experience I have and have been trained to use in evaluation.”

Evaluation? Of what and where were you trained and how many mishap boards were you part of? I am a mishap investigator certified by the University of Southern California, Systems and Safety mishap investigators course (1985). (Since moved to Kirkland AFB, NM and is a service school now: https://www.safety.af.mil/Divisions/Training-and-Force-Development-Division/AMIC/)

I was part of the mishap investigation team that examined what happened at Pope AFB where a F-16 hit a C-130 and crashed into a bunch of troops on the flight-line (https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/03/24/i-can-still-picture-it-pilots-recall-role-green-ramp-disaster.html).

I also led a mishap board where an A-10 crashed off the approach end of runway 26. (https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/56098). (Funny, the Hog Driver ejected and landed in the middle of a pig farm).

“Everything we do here is observation.”

That is why final reports take a long time. Sometimes things are not what they initially appear to be and more evaluations and inspections are required.

“Without what would have been on the radio,”

We will have additional data-points if the radio transcripts are published.

“If you have further information concerning the incident, would you please enter it on the board.”

Like you, I comment based on known (video) data. Unlike you, I comment as an experienced and certified mishap investigator.

Cheers, that’s all until the mishap board issues their report. Canada operates mishap boards along the lines of the US military, not the same but close.