It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


F-18 Crash

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 08:08 AM
reply to post by Mondogiwa

Thanks for posting Mondo
From my understanding the Pilot ejected and was snagged in a tree on landing. Sounds like he is fine but 3 people have died on the ground. The talk is of an engine failure of some sort and the question is why the pilot brought the plane back over the city instead of out in the open where it would do less damage. The simple non technical answer is that the failure started earlier and he guessed he thought he could make it or the failure happened on final and he had no other choice.

[edit on 9-12-2008 by Canada_EH]

posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 08:17 AM
reply to post by DarrylGalasso

Have you ever seen the damage internally to a engine that has suffered a bird strike and ingested its own compressor blades and other components? A bird strike is more then enough to bring down a F/A-18. Losing a engine on final would be more than a small issue if not properly corrected for.

posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 08:39 AM

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]

posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 10:03 AM

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!

posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 10:12 AM
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]

posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 10:36 AM
reply to post by 121200

Contrary to popular belief most or at least the members I talk to on this forum aren't interested in the red vs blue debate that can be applied to just about anything. I appreciate Russian hardware for its own reasons. To take this topic and hijack it is not look kindly on many who post on these forums.

posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 10:46 AM
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.

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.


posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 02:41 PM
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]

posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 03:08 PM

Originally posted by Zaphod58
That's because there ARE more Russian crashes. In one article from March of this year, the author (from the Eurasia Daily Monitor) is quoted as saying:

Accidents involving Russian-made aircraft have become so frequent over the last two years that even the most pro-Moscow media have begun to raise doubts about their safety.

How is that article you posted relavant?

It talks about Russian-made Aircraft in the KAZAKH AIR FORCE NOT the Russian airforce which you are comparing. Using this source to claim "more" Russian crashes based on the experience of the Kazakh airforce is entirely misleading and does not prove a point.

If you want to "compare" we should take into all US-made aircraft if you shall compare aircraft from other forces

posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 03:11 PM
One bird can ruin your day, especially at low altitude.

I'm sure most of you have seen this, but in case you haven't, here is a reminder of what a single bird can do to a modern jet aircraft..

Canadian Hawk Crash at Moose Jaw

The whole thing, from bird strije to a fiery crash, took less than 60 seconds.

posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 04:42 PM
reply to post by chinawhite

And as I said, more Russian built military planes. But the article is talking about Russian military planes in general, not just in the Kazakh Air Force. It's hard to compare the Russian Air Force and USAF because there are fewer sources that show the Russian Air Force crashes, but when I have time tonight I'll compare the two.

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

[edit on 12/9/2008 by Zaphod58]

posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 04:45 PM

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,

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

[edit on 9-12-2008 by Mondogiwa]

posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 07:30 PM
Looking at FY06-08 for the USAF. FY08 was already covered in a previous post.

Class A Mishaps- 24

Class A Mishaps-24
(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.

Class A Mishaps-31
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.

posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 09:15 PM

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

posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 09:20 PM

Originally posted by Zaphod58
The only Russian plane crashes I hear about are ones involving large airliners, which unfortunately they've had several of over the last couple of years, or spectacular ones at airshows.

There are a lots of Russian accidents reported. The MiG-29 and Su-25 this year which grounded their repected fleets

posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 06:56 AM
Ok, from the Norwegian news page:

Dong Yun Yoon lost he's Wife, 2 kids (1 year and 2months old), and he's mother in-law.
He has apperently released a press release on CNN:

Please pray for him, and that he does not suffer for this accident, the pilot has done a superb job for this great country.

Nor: Vær så snill og be for at han ikke må lide for denne ulykken. Piloten har gjort og gjør en kjempeinnsats for landet, sa en opprørt Dong Yun Yoon på en pressekonferanse tirsdag, ifølge CNN

I trully feel sorry for Mr. Yun Yoon, living in the house for about a month when the accident hapend.

What I'm pussled about is the nature of the failure and if the pilot had any time at all to do any evaluation of the situation.

Was he directed this way intentionally by air traffic control event they new of the failure?

I read somewhere that the problems was escalating to the point of no control of the plane, and did this hapend in a fast rate or was it slowly then suddenly catastrophic failure?

anyway, unlucky for both partys.

Norwegian source:

posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 12:53 PM
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.

posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 06:27 PM
reply to post by Phoebus

You can only land certain ways. You have to land going into the wind, so they can only direct them to the runway from certain directions.

posted on Dec, 11 2008 @ 10:49 AM
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.


posted on Dec, 12 2008 @ 08:06 AM
A new news release from CNN this morning. Also has a photo of the pilot.

"The Marines' investigation is in its preliminary stages, but it is apparent that the pilot operating the aircraft followed procedure before ejecting," Hunter said Thursday after he was briefed on the investigation into Monday's fatal crash.

"Double engine failure in the F/A-18D is an extremely rare occurrence, and the pilot made every effort to bring the aircraft under control," Hunter said in a statement.

Kasper said that the pilot ejected at 2,200 feet -- "relatively low to the ground" -- and that if he had waited much longer, his survival would have been "very much in question."

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in