Originally posted by 121200
What's so shocking the U.S. has crashes ALL THE TIME but you'll only hear about Russian ones on western News souirces. If you look at the AirInternational Magazine's "CIVIL & MILITARY ACCIDENTS" in each months issue you won't be suprised when you hear about USAF crashes.

Woo, deja vu. This sounds like an echo from a year or so ago, what was the guy called called??? I think he got banned eventually, but the sentiment posted here was exactly the same, hhmmmm.


The shocking thing is not that an F-18 crashed, it is that it was onto a housing estate and civilians were under it, or could you not work that out in your rush to score a political point?



[edit on 9-12-2008 by waynos]

There was nothing shocking about it scince it happens all the time, but in order to have some sort of last say YOU claim the shocking thing happend on a civilian housing estate!

So you find the deaths of people who were just going about their business in their own home something to laugh at? Shame on you.

No, military planes do not crash onto houses all the time, that is why it is shocking when they do.

"some sort of last say"? WTF?? I started the thread, that was my sentiment in the FIRST post.

[edit on 9-12-2008 by waynos]

Latest reports are as follows:

It was a Marine Hornet that was at practice on a carrier off the coast of San Diego, the pilot contacted the carrier that he was having some sort of difficulty. The carrier diverted him to land at Miramar, and on that approach was when the failure happened.

So, even though it could be a bird strike, it seems that he was initially having some sort of problem before the diversion to mainland. I have seen pilots have problems with carrier landings get diverted to out field at Point Mugu and they were totally frazzled, but so far it seems mechanical in nature.

Canada_eh,
I have seen what a California Seagull can do to the fan blades and engine on a Hornet in fact. It was actually on approach as well, the pilot had literally touched on the ground when it happened so he was pulled back on the power, not that it really made too much a difference. I love the talk here about how a meager bird cannot bring down a mutli-million dollar aircraft, just ridiculous. It happens a lot, ask any RAF pilot what their biggest concern is and they will echo what I/we have said.

Peace

I'd imagine birdstrikes would be a huge consideration for the RAF as they do so much low-level flying.

A witness, a retired naval aviator who helped the pilot get out of a tree he'd landed in said the pilot said he'd lost an engine and diverted to Miramar, but more systems started failing during the approach - at the last minute he tried to point the aircraft toward an empty canyon but he had no control authority anymore and ejected - witness said the pilot was quite concerned because he saw the a/c go into a house as he came down in his chute

I can't imagine the guy is having a good day today - but it sounds to me like he did everything possible.

[edit on 12/9/08 by xmotex]

Pyros,

Excellent vid link, thanks!

Yeah, I heard the same news as stated before about the pilot going for the canyon but not making it. Believe me, our airmen are the ultimate professionals and would never ever do anything to endanger civilians on purpose. They give their lives if they have to, this guy had no other choice but to eject.
If anybody does not believe it, check out what the Blue Angels pilot did last year to save his aircraft from going into a heavily populated area, he still hit in a residential area but he gave his life to ride it down as far away from people as he could!

Sorry to hear about the reported 4 losses of life now, it is a tragedy.

Peace and God Bless,
Mondo

P.S.
Zaphod...nice debate you have going here, I always enjoy reading your work!!!

[edit on 9-12-2008 by Mondogiwa]

Looking at FY06-08 for the USAF. FY08 was already covered in a previous post.

FY-06:
Class A Mishaps- 24
Losses:
UAV-3
Manned-7

FY-07:
Class A Mishaps-24
Losses:
UAV-4
Manned-15
(Bad year for F-16s. Almost half of all Class A Mishaps in this year were F-16s.)
Of 24 Mishaps, 7 took place in Iraq/Afghanistan.
Of 24 Class A Mishaps, an AIB was convened for 22. Details of the other two are unknown, but being that one is a B-1, I'm assuming that neither are a loss. Both are listed in the total count however.

FY-08:
Class A Mishaps-31
Losses:
UAV-4
Manned-15
Missiles-1 (2 Class A Mishaps, one report not released yet.)
7 AIB reports have not been released, so details of all the accidents are not known. Of the 7 not released 2 are known fatal accidents.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
And as I said, more Russian built military planes.

The discussion was a comparison between the RuAF and the USAF.

121200 said
"everyone makes comments about Russian military crashes, like it's more than U.S.A.'s "

You replied
"That's because there ARE more Russian crashes"


And then proceeded to post an article about the Kazak airforce which you failed to specify. You did later make a remark about Russian-built aircraft but that is not what you meant when I replied

But the article is talking about Russian military planes in general, not just in the Kazakh Air Force.

The Jamestown think tank is more politically focused and the article is talking about Russia's polictical alliances in the Central Asian region. It has very little to do with Russian military planes and a lot more to do with polictics. You have to read between the lines because the purpose of the Jamestown Foundation is definately not designed to discuss the capabilities of military hardware

I'll compare Russian and USAF, and then I'll compare US made aircraft and Russian built aircraft over the last two years.

Forces who use Russian military hardware are underfunded, ageing and also under trained while forces who use American equipment spend hundreds of millions maintenaning their aircraft. It wouldn't matter if they were Russian built or American built its not a fair comparison.

There is a direct relation between funding and accidents

The whole "Russians crash more than we do" should be a different thread.

I'd like to get back to the whole "court martial" thing. I call BS. I don't think that ANY branch would court martial a pilot for this unless there was blatant negligence, which would mean that the heavily screened pilot was psychotic. I think what happens is a complete investigation - looking at the black box data, pilot and witness interviews. I don't think that any military pilot from any country's armed forces would just say "F*** it - I'll punch out here". Not buying it - sorry.

In regards to the "court martial" issue, you are correct in calling B.S..
As I mentioned before, no pilot ever gets it to, as you say, "F@#k it, I am punching out of this B*&^%h!" attitude. They try any and all options and would NEVER EVER indanger anybody, especially civilians. This gou will not be court martialed unless there is overwhelming evidence to suggest that he was reckless and careless for the safety of others.
He ejected because he had to, that's it! He did all he could with a failing aircraft and put it in the best situation it could be, albeit it was still not great. The only other option was to become a martyr and die for no good reason as well, which would be pointless and selfish in fact since we all pay great amounts of money to train and entrust these highly professional aviators.

So, I agree with you totally..until I hear otherwise, I believe this pilot actually saved lives by tring to put it into the canyon. He could have gotten out earlier and killed many more. Please don't misunderstand me, it is a tragedy and I feel for the people that were lost. But come on now, this pilot tried to make a bad situation better, not the other way around.

Peace,
Mondo