It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NAS Fallon F-22 accident report

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 17 2018 @ 01:07 AM
link   
The Air Force announced that an accident involving an F-22 at NAS Fallon on April 13th, was caused by the pilot taking off with incorrect data loaded, and retracting the gear too quickly after becoming airborne. The report stated that the pilot, from the 90th Fighter Squadron at Elmendorf, had 136 KIAS for rotation, and 163 KIAS for full takeoff. Conditions called for 143 and 164 that day.

It went on to state that the flight brief was inadequate, and the F-22 community has "organizational overconfidence" in the equipment, inadequate formal training, and acceptance of an incorrect takeoff technique.

Air Force Magazine
edit on 11/17/2018 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 17 2018 @ 01:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

That picture is hard to look at considering I love that bird so much.

As per your OP and the article it seems that too much confidence is being given to the on board systems and not the pilot.
I can see this being a huge problem in the now and future.
Are there any plans to remedy this that you know of or may I have possible missed that past of the article?



posted on Nov, 17 2018 @ 01:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Wow, imagine the damage caused by one of those sliding down the runway on its belly.
Another one down.



posted on Nov, 17 2018 @ 02:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Allaroundyou

could be much much worse. it will live on, if not in its own skin then in anothers.

thankfully no fire damage



posted on Nov, 17 2018 @ 02:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Allaroundyou

At this point any changes are still in the planning stages. Over reliance on technology is becoming the norm almost everywhere lately. It's really becoming an issue in commercial aviation.



posted on Nov, 17 2018 @ 02:32 AM
link   
I’m guessing that the rotation speed is what screwed the pooch and not the actual takeoff I can’t see being off one knot could cause enough of a difference, the roatatiom speed delta of 7 knots is another story, still seems like the pilot should have been able to compensate. No bueno either way.



posted on Nov, 17 2018 @ 02:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: BigDave-AR
I’m guessing that the rotation speed is what screwed the pooch and not the actual takeoff I can’t see being off one knot could cause enough of a difference, the roatatiom speed delta of 7 knots is another story, still seems like the pilot should have been able to compensate. No bueno either way.


Does the pilot have the ability to compensate on the fly with the F35?

Well in the amount of time that the pilot had at least.
edit on 2/19/2013 by Allaroundyou because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2018 @ 02:52 AM
link   
a reply to: BigDave-AR

It was a combination of bad rotation speed and not establishing positive rate of climb before pulling the gear.



posted on Nov, 17 2018 @ 02:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Allaroundyou

If it's JUST bad data, then it's not a huge issue, as long as it's not too far off. In this case, the bigger issue was not establishing positive climb before pulling the gear. Since his data was slightly off, it resulted in the aircraft settling after it showed it was airborne.



posted on Nov, 17 2018 @ 03:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: BigDave-AR
I’m guessing that the rotation speed is what screwed the pooch and not the actual takeoff I can’t see being off one knot could cause enough of a difference, the roatatiom speed delta of 7 knots is another story, still seems like the pilot should have been able to compensate. No bueno either way.


The article states that he rotated at 120, well below the incorrect setting.

That is one way to test the limits of the aircraft I guess.



posted on Nov, 17 2018 @ 03:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: BigDave-AR

It was a combination of bad rotation speed and not establishing positive rate of climb before pulling the gear.

Sorry, can you please explain rotation speed and why it made a difference here?
Thanks, there's always something new to learn.



posted on Nov, 17 2018 @ 05:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Human error caused by a computer, then a false start-got it.

The reliance on motherboards is a worry, I saw something similar to this in formula one, there was a car with a data transfer cable that was prematurely unplugged and the car froze, like a computer does and it was out of the race.



posted on Nov, 17 2018 @ 05:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

So they need different settings and a long line of specialists to determine take of conditions?

Is that typical for a fast response combat aircraft?

That would make this a peacetime war machine. It seems over complicated for a primary fleet backbone fighter.


edit on 11 17 2018 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2018 @ 07:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Osirisvset

It's the speed at which you rotate the nose upward to initiate the takeoff. You calculate the approximate speed to rotate the nose, and then the speed you need to reach to begin flying. If you rotate too slow, you can have a tail strike, increase your takeoff distance, or the aircraft won't lift off the runway smoothly.



posted on Nov, 17 2018 @ 07:14 AM
link   
a reply to: tadaman

No, it's a simple calculation the pilot makes based on altitude of the runway, weight of the aircraft, and temperature. In this case, one of the numbers used was slightly off, or he miscalculated. If he had waited until the aircraft showed he was climbing to retract the gear, it wouldn't have mattered.



posted on Nov, 17 2018 @ 11:07 AM
link   
It's crazy I am just now hearing about this. I live near Fallon and there was quite a bit of air traffic on that day. F-22's and F-18's constantly circling around most of western Washoe County around Reno. Never heard of a crash.



posted on Nov, 17 2018 @ 01:22 PM
link   


So they need different settings and a long line of specialists to determine take of conditions? 

Is that typical for a fast response combat aircraft? 



The pilot of every aircraft should calculate density altitude before take off. It is usually supplied to you on landings. The quick and dirty is that the higher and hotter the temp and drier, the thinner the air. Thinner air means less lift. So you need more speed for sufficient lift-- which means your stall speed is higher. So also longer take off run and landing roll. If you see people talking about "hot and high" performance, they are talking about the effects of thin air on performance in those conditions.

Because it is a function of altitude, pressure, humidity, temperature, etc it will vary not just by location, but by the day or hour. If I take off on a morning flight in the summer time, my run will be much shorter than in the afternoon the same day because temps on the runway are frequently 130°+ in the summer time. A change of only 3000' of density altitude means over a 10% increase on landing distances.

Many, many crashes have taken place because some ignored density altitude or calculated it wrong.
edit on 17-11-2018 by RadioRobert because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2018 @ 11:37 AM
link   
The Aviationist has a link to the report which includes more details. The Mishap Pilot rotated the nose at 120 knots, and the aircraft registered weight off the wheels at 135 knots. The pilot failed to reference his computed speeds and raised the landing gear before the aircraft had sufficient lift to remain airborne.

The report goes on to say that F-22 pilots so rarely operate from higher altitude airfields that when they do, they continue to takeoff as if they are at sea level (F-22 bases are all at or near sea level). Investigators found that 82% of F-22 pilots retracted the landing gear on takeoff before reaching takeoff speed in 56 examined takeoffs.
edit on 11/19/2018 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2018 @ 12:13 PM
link   
I don't know the issues but I was stranded n Vegas for 3 extra days in the early 90's because it was too hot to fly until after 1AM and I wasn't a priority to get out.

Hated being stranded there on the company dime. They were really unhappy I think there was 8-9 of us.

HAHAHAHAAA Good times.




new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join