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.

 

Firefighter says an F-18 fighter jet has crashed in a San Diego residential area.

page: 5
9
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 09:20 AM
link   
so

is anyone questioning as to WHY the fighter crashed into a U.S. residential area for the first time since I've been alive??

-



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 10:02 AM
link   



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by prevenge
so

is anyone questioning as to WHY the fighter crashed into a U.S. residential area for the first time since I've been alive??

-


This is hardly the first time a fighter crashed into a residential area. I can think of four counting the one that I drove up to see with my father, since it was one of our birds. And that's without even looking them up online. They're rare to see, but they do happen.



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by prevenge
 


Are you like 6 days old.
(No insult intended).

Last time I recall was April 21, 2007.



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 11:41 AM
link   
But how do we know it was really a plane that crashed? I mean aside from the video, the eyewitnesses, and reporters on the scene, helicopter footage, and the fact that the military is missing a plane. How do we REALLY know? Last time I checked, homes don't mysteriously get destroyed just because a tiny little plane hits 'em.

Where's the debris field? Why did both homeowners immediately take out coverage on their home upon purchasing them INDEPENDENTLY?

This stinks to high heaven.



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by ldunquist
 


erm its hardly a tiny little plane.. personally i'm not surprised there isn't a lot more damage than there is. and i really doubt there is anything sinister behind this, unless the people in the house were wanted dead by the government cos they watched Zeitgeist or something. and there is surely a better way of keeping someone quiet than ramming a F-18 jet into the side of their house...



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by nomorelies
reply to post by ldunquist
 


erm its hardly a tiny little plane.. personally i'm not surprised there isn't a lot more damage than there is. and i really doubt there is anything sinister behind this, unless the people in the house were wanted dead by the government cos they watched Zeitgeist or something. and there is surely a better way of keeping someone quiet than ramming a F-18 jet into the side of their house...


Exactly! There is a better way than ramming their house with a F-18. So what do you think it was? Ship launched Tomahawk? Satellite Laser Beam? Tom Cruise Force Lightning Fingers? I was thinking it was more because they watched Loose Change. Did they watch Zeitgeist too though? Unrelated question: Does anybody know of a way to scrub your Netflix queue?

Also, I was being sarcastic and poking fun at the 9-11 people who insist there were no planes. I thought that much was obvious.



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by ldunquist
 



haha sorry.. can't believe i didn't pick that up.. been a long day!



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 12:18 PM
link   
Rest In Peace.

www.nbcsandiego.com...


There are photos of the pilot on the above link also. He seems to be uninjured. In shock I would imagine.

[edit on 9/12/08 by Yossarian]



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 12:33 PM
link   
Going to play devils advocate here...

I think a question I would ask if I was living around there is why the hell is it necessary for the plane to be in the air at that time anyway.

I mean, constant military training, to be ready for what? When the terrorists fly in with their airforce? Oh wait, they don't have one and we all saw how effective US air defence was on 9/11 - it was a joke.

On a deadly serious note, a jet carrying life warheads (someone should confirm before I back that) - flying on what - 'a patrol' - 'a training mission' - is dangerous. As we have seen, something goes wrong and this thing becomes a missile.

FACTS - each flight costs thousands. Live warheads are dangerous in any hands. Flying over any residential area with live ammo is dangerous. Airforce activity in terms of patrols and training are not necessary at the extent the are currently operated. Even though the incidence is still low, accidents involving military hardware malfunction is still much higher than the incidence in the civilian/commercial sector - why is this?



Is carrying live ordnance really necessary - cannon, missiles maybe - but bombs? What needs bombing over home soil?

Wouldn't the defence budget be better spent on anti terror measures, or border/naval defence? As far as I know the US isn't at war with any nation where air combat is playing a major role and is unlikely to for the foreseeable future. I'm not suggesting removing all airpower - but the emphasis the US has put on air superiority seems rather excessive considering where the main threats to the US lie today.

What is being done to track and improve standards of engineering support in all air corps including the marines, navy and USAF - as mentioned, standards are much higher in the commercial world. Normally the argument that those standards are not necessary as pilots can assume some risk etc etc as they have ejector seats etc etc is valid.. but incidents like this show that accidents often involve non military personal who have not elected to assume any 'extra risk'.

What do we think - could anything have been done in this case? Is anyone at fault? Or is this simply tragic and unavoidable.



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheController
The pilot is a coward. If you look in the pictures you can see open fields very close by. He should not have ejected and tryied to navigate to the field as long as possible. If someone had to die..He should be dead, not the others.


OK, let's try this again, since my other post was "ill-mannered".

Gus, have you ever flown a fighter? Do you have any idea how quickly things can go from great to really bad? If you did, you wouldn't be making such BS remarks about the pilot being a coward.

You are a no-go at this station. Have a fine AFSOC day.

Mod Edit: Do Not Use Profanity.

[edit on 9-12-2008 by MemoryShock]



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 01:23 PM
link   
I just read that the plane crashed due to a double engine failure. I was under the impression that the engine system was redundant just like the A-10.

What are the odds of a double failure?? I am not an expert on the subject matter. Any ideas.?



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dutty_Rag
Going to play devils advocate here...

I think a question I would ask if I was living around there is why the hell is it necessary for the plane to be in the air at that time anyway.


Well, when do you think pilots should get their training? They have to fly day and night, because you have no idea when you'll have to fly in combat.


Originally posted by Dutty_Rag
I mean, constant military training, to be ready for what? When the terrorists fly in with their airforce? Oh wait, they don't have one and we all saw how effective US air defence was on 9/11 - it was a joke.


I'll let that one slide, homeslice.


Originally posted by Dutty_Rag
On a deadly serious note, a jet carrying life warheads (someone should confirm before I back that) - flying on what - 'a patrol' - 'a training mission' - is dangerous. As we have seen, something goes wrong and this thing becomes a missile.


So, when they fly to a range to do training, what are they suppose to carry? I'm not sure, but in a case like this crash, I don't think you have to worry about the missiles. The ammo for the gun will "cook off", tho



Originally posted by Dutty_Rag
FACTS - each flight costs thousands. Live warheads are dangerous in any hands. Flying over any residential area with live ammo is dangerous. Airforce activity in terms of patrols and training are not necessary at the extent the are currently operated. Even though the incidence is still low, accidents involving military hardware malfunction is still much higher than the incidence in the civilian/commercial sector - why is this?


FACT - most military bases were established in the boondocks when they were first built. The cities just got bigger and are now bordering the main gate? What are they suppose to do, move the base?




Originally posted by Dutty_Rag
Is carrying live ordnance really necessary - cannon, missiles maybe - but bombs? What needs bombing over home soil?


Once again, they have to get the bombs to the range somehow? I don't think that when they do that, they are going to take a route over housing if they can avoid it.


Originally posted by Dutty_Rag
Wouldn't the defence budget be better spent on anti terror measures, or border/naval defence? As far as I know the US isn't at war with any nation where air combat is playing a major role and is unlikely to for the foreseeable future. I'm not suggesting removing all airpower - but the emphasis the US has put on air superiority seems rather excessive considering where the main threats to the US lie today.


That's today. What if we go to war with China or Russia tomorrow? And Air Superiority also includes being able to deliver CAS without any hassles


Originally posted by Dutty_Rag
What is being done to track and improve standards of engineering support in all air corps including the marines, navy and USAF - as mentioned, standards are much higher in the commercial world. Normally the argument that those standards are not necessary as pilots can assume some risk etc etc as they have ejector seats etc etc is valid.. but incidents like this show that accidents often involve non military personal who have not elected to assume any 'extra risk'.


Well, if you're worried about a military jet crashing into your house, don't live near a military base.



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 01:53 PM
link   
I don't know why everyone is getting so worked up about it...
Yes, it was a military craft. Yes, it crashed in a neighborhood. Seems to me like that should be the end of the story, but here we have dozens of people who seem to think that someone is to blame.
Here is a piece of information which members of ATS never seem to possess: Accidents can, and will, happen. Whether you get hit by a bus, a plane, a meteor, or a frozen piece of space debris, the odds of something random and unforseeable ending your life at any given moment are much higher than any of you seem to acknowledge; any time something bad happens, like, I don't know, a plane crash, it doesn't mean that there is a conspiracy or an evil government agenda.
To err is human, to royally f--- up is federal.

Okay, quick recap for the literally challenged (I like that phrase; I think I'll keep it) - If a kid on a bike runs over your foot, it is not because of a government agenda against ugly shoes, nor was it orchestrated illegally as a way to control your mind. The kid is clumsy, and you have slow reflexes. Get over it; don't chase down the kid and torture him for info.

As for the accident itself, its a tragedy. The pilot will live knowing that he killed at least two innocent civillians. Unless hes a cold-blooded killer, like some around here seem to think of the military, he'll punish himself for his actions long after each and every one of us has forgotten about him.



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 04:12 PM
link   
with the tech we have today why do they need to train with live ammo?

Most ord is fire and forget so pilots rarely see their stuff hit target anyway.

And as for your idea about moving the base - why not??? Stick a base next to the range, build a runway at the range, hang ord on the planes at the range.

I don't want the military flying over my house with a bomb that would destroy the whole block no more than I'd like the Chinese or the Russians flying over my house with the same..

I've every faith in our pilots, I think they do a great job, but accidents happen and I think one is too much to be honest especially when there's an alternative.

Planes don't just drop out of the sky. Commercial plane crashes generally occur when there has been a major # up - mechanical failure is very rare.

Mech failure is by far the greatest cause of crash in military aircraft (outside combat) - why is this. Of course a fighter is much more complex, and wear is greater on parts etc.

If this is a dual engine failure then someone needs to ask who the hell was servicing those engines and why they didn't see a problem.

Birdstrike, etc etc all forgivable, but mechanical failure can and should be prevented.


I'm not angry this has happened, it's terrible and my sympathy goes to all those involved. But lets learn from it and stop it happening again.


Once upon a time, planes that failed could glide to safety and didn't go into a crazy G spin when the computer failed and the thing becomes aerodynamically unstable.

Maybe we should go back to building planes that look like planes. Or build bases and ranges on the coast only. The US has millions of square miles of dessert, ocean, lakes, forest - why not train there?



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Dutty_Rag
 


First of all, he wasn't carrying ordnance. You don't carry weapons when you're doing training for landing on a carrier. Landing a plane on a carrier with bombs is generally a Bad Thing to do.

As for your "fire and forget" comment, what do you think is going to happen when they're sitting there trying to read the manual on how to arm the weapons with guns going off around them?
You STILL need to train with live weapons to ensure that you can use them when you need to. Most precision guided weapons that are used for close air support on the F-18 and other fighters are laser guided. That means keeping a laser on target until impact.

As for your comment about mechanical failure being rare, think again. Mechanical failure is STILL a big killer in the commercial world. As for the military, parts are under a LOT more stress than the civilian world. Most engine failures are in areas that you can only see with a borescope. Most engines aren't borescoped until they're doing a Depot level inspection. They do a JOAP sample after flight to check for metal shavings in the engine, but they don't borescope unless they have to. They do intake and exhaust inspections after every flight to check the blades, and the external portions of the engines are inspected at various points.

If they had to move a base every time a city built up too close to it, we wouldn't have the money to do any training or even have a military. It would cost billions to move every base we have. There is a reason why there are cities around the bases. The bases are huge money makers for a city. How many small towns and cities have you seen AFTER a base closes or moves out of their area? They're almost ghost towns.



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 07:54 PM
link   
Maybe the answer is : cut back on the massive amounts of military spending and use the savings to service the aircraft to a higher standard, turn 50% of all military bases into nature reserves and move the remaining ones away from population centres.

Terror is the only current and foreseeable threat to the USA (apart from it's own government). The same people who harp on about Russia and China are the very same people who are most likely to escalate any conflict along those lines through their attitudes. China and Russia have zero interest in any kind of international conflict beyond the immediate reaches of their borders and surrounding spheres of influence.

These people are living in the coldwar.

An F18 has many uses - but we don't need anywhere near the airforce (combined air corps of all forces) that we have. What use is a squadron of F18's against 10 sleeper cells of terrorists, possibly already with connections in the White House, our schools, colleges, public offices???

Traditional defence hardware spending = Pork Barrel.

As for the reasons you give for the use of live weapons - seeing as all weapons are now armed electronically, and a laser guidance system also requires no live weapon, I see no reason in the answer you gave for not just using electronic simulations, and at the very most - dummy armament with dead warheads.

3 people are now dead because Uncle Sam doesn't have the cash to do a full service after every flight. Shame on him.



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Dutty_Rag
 


Doesn't have the money to do a full service after every flight? You have no CLUE what you are talking about. I was out on the ramp working on military planes for a VERY long time. I KNOW what goes into keeping those planes flying. We were working on those planes from the time they landed from one flight, to the time they left on the next. In the case of something like a C-135 that could be as long as a week. And you know what? We STILL had mechanical failures. Some parts don't fail unless you have actual loads on them, or unusual conditions.

You have no clue what the military does, or how the maintenance system works. Do you realize how long it takes to tear an engine down and check it? Days in some cases depending on the level of repair. A PDM on a C-135 sized plane takes up to 6 MONTHS to complete. You CAN NOT do that level of maintenance after every flight obviously. The checks that go into these planes are extensive after a flight, but they can't catch everything that can go wrong.

I suggest you get the slightest clue what you're talking about before you start yammering on about some of the things you've said. Do you know how many live fire exercises there are every year? A handful. Training with ordnance in 90% percent of exercises uses a weapon that has a marker warhead. The only ones that use live weapons are Red Flag, William Tell, and the occasional missile shooting exercise out over the ocean. Using simulated weapons is nice, but a real weapon reacts differently and the pilots need to realize just how different that reaction is.

You say we don't need this level of aircraft, but do you have any idea how the USAF is divided? There is a large section of the air fleet that is cargo/transport. They use these planes to get supplies to troops, relief supplies after a disaster, etc. The current size of the USAF is actually almost exactly where it should be, with the exception that we need to increase the transport/tanker fleets.



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dutty_Rag
Planes don't just drop out of the sky. Commercial plane crashes generally occur when there has been a major # up - mechanical failure is very rare.

Mech failure is by far the greatest cause of crash in military aircraft (outside combat) - why is this. Of course a fighter is much more complex, and wear is greater on parts etc.


Let's take a look at NTSB incidents for 2006. These are only going to be for the most commonly used commercial planes, taken from the NTSB website. Not all of these will be crashes, which is why I included Human Error as a seperate cause. Human Error includes things such as Runway Incursions, Mechanics being pulled into the engine, etc.

2006:
77 incidents reported to the NTSB.
Human Error-13
Pilot Error-16
Mechanical Error-34
Unknown-7
Other-7

I was going to do from 2006 to 2008, but it would take longer than I have tonight. 2006 will give enough of an idea that mechanical issues are NOT almost gone from causing accidents. These were ONLY commercial plane incidents reported to the NTSB. These included incidents in other countries as well as the US.

You were saying about mechanical failures being almost gone?



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by becomingaware
Hey, was this plane fully armed, or armed at all. the guys in the hazmat suits putting out the fire looked pretty serious. Are any of those warheads hazardous? That whole area must be sealed off right now.


If anyone was wearing hazmat suits or other protective gear, especially breathing protection, one reason is modern fighters are made in large part with composite materials. Combinations of carbon fibre, resins, and various metals. Burnt carbon fibre, if breathed in, can cause severe respiratory problems similar to breathing in asbestos fibres.

Of course there is burning hydraulic fluid, oil and fuel as well.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join