US fighter jet crashes off northern Japan, page 1


Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 5 times
Topic started on 22-7-2012 @ 01:59 AM by OccamAssassin

US fighter jet crashes off northern Japan


www.abc.net.au
A US military fighter jet has crashed into the sea off northern Japan and its solo pilot is waiting for rescue at sea after ejecting.

"The F-16 jet crashed some 470 nautical miles north-east of Nemuro," a spokesman at the Japan Coast Guard said.

(visit the link for the full news article)


reply posted on 22-7-2012 @ 02:09 AM by daynight42
reply to post by OccamAssassin



"OOOOhhhh boy, dat's comin' outta yo' paycheck!!"

hehehehe.

Glad he ejected in time. Hope the water is warm there this time of year.


reply posted on 22-7-2012 @ 02:12 AM by benrl
reply to post by daynight42





"OOOOhhhh boy, dat's comin' outta yo' paycheck!!"


Ive actually always wondered, what kind of discipline does the pilot of a multi million dollar fighter get if he crashes it due to his own error?

"well, looks like your great grand kids will be paying for that one..." lol


reply posted on 22-7-2012 @ 02:22 AM by Darth_Prime
Originally posted by benrl
reply to
post by daynight42





"OOOOhhhh boy, dat's comin' outta yo' paycheck!!"


Ive actually always wondered, what kind of discipline does the pilot of a multi million dollar fighter get if he crashes it due to his own error?

"well, looks like your great grand kids will be paying for that one..." lol


Or better known as 'Tax Payers'


reply posted on 22-7-2012 @ 02:24 AM by Zaphod58
reply to post by benrl



Depends. If it is a bad enough screw up, he works as a maintenance officer for the rest of his career and eventually doesn't get promoted and gets the message and gets out.


reply posted on 22-7-2012 @ 02:35 AM by Zaphod58
reply to post by Wrabbit2000



The F-22 problem really isn't as bad as it's made out in a sheer numbers point of view, it's just that it deals with life support, which is a bad thing.

As for the F-16, it's hardly crashing in large numbers. It has an average accident rate of 3-4/100,000 flight hours, which is where it should be for an aircraft in high use, especially considering the number of CAS/CAP missions being flown over Afghanistan.


reply posted on 22-7-2012 @ 02:45 AM by Zaphod58
reply to post by OccamAssassin



The toast was upset over the Batman shooting, and caught the F-16 laying a chemtrail, and forced it to crash, oh, and it was one of the F-16s from Andrews on 9/11?
edit on 7/22/2012 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)




reply posted on 22-7-2012 @ 02:59 AM by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by Zaphod58


On the F-22, any fault is too much fault for those price tags and representing the very edge of what we're supposed to have plenty of for front line fighters. Failure numbers on a new radio system sounds like something reasonable to expect. Failure rates on billion dollar airplanes should have some people involved with making it in prison.

The F-16 is the workhorse and generally has an excellent safety record. I know that and I'm half kidding about referring to accidents. Though, only half kidding, really. Outright crashes are rare, thank God, but the whole force has been run at as high a level as our military has in it's entire history. They all need a break...and there have been a number of accidents in recent years across different aircraft types. It's just wearing all the way around, I think.


reply posted on 22-7-2012 @ 03:22 AM by OccamAssassin
reply to post by mkgandhas


Wow. Feel the hate.

I don't know what is sadder.

The fact that you said it.....or that someone starred it.


reply posted on 22-7-2012 @ 03:22 AM by Zaphod58
reply to post by Wrabbit2000



I agree on the F-22, but unfortunately they're built by people, and that means screw ups, both deliberate to make more money (no I'm not saying they're sabotaging anything, but they slow work down, approve designs with known screw ups and then have to fix them etc), and unknown.

I just downloaded twenty four AIB reports, based on aircraft type from 2001 (C-141 in Memphis) until 2009, and the one common factor I found in them was that the crew screwed the pooch, took it out to dinner, and did it again. Everything from over rotating (to twice the specified angle), to completely forgetting to do their "Before Landing" checklist and putting the wheels down (believe it or not, twice, in two separate aircraft types, and one being an augmented crew). Not only are the aircraft being used hard, the crews just aren't flying the damn jets.


reply posted on 22-7-2012 @ 03:28 AM by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by Zaphod58


Thank you for the information and insight. Given the source, I take this as real insight and that's amazing. The ultimate facepalm. I do believe lowering the landing gear is a text book step in any successful landing.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^



Pregnant Rape Victim Shoots, Beheads Attacker
  Posted 4 days ago with 17 member flags
Bolivian Police Seize 2 Tons of Uranium
  Posted 13 days ago with 12 member flags
Mother Hears Heartbeat Of Her 16-year-old Dead Son
  Posted 18 days ago with 9 member flags
LA Cops Body Slam Nurse To The Ground
  Posted 11 days ago with 7 member flags
Egypt\'s sexual harassment of women \'epidemic\'
  Posted 8 days ago with 7 member flags
World\'s Largest Maple Syrup Heist
  Posted 10 days ago with 6 member flags