Jump to content
Baseops Forums
Sign in to follow this  
BashiChuni

Eglin F-35 crash

Recommended Posts

On 10/7/2020 at 12:44 PM, brabus said:

 

I can’t count hows many times I’ve seen “do some pilot shit” to salvage a poor approach. I think culturally in the fighter world there is a lot of lip serviced paid, but reality is going around on a full stop attempt is an “emotional event” for most. It shouldn’t be, but it sure seems that way. Guys are so against diverting (fear of unknown/going somewhere new), don’t want to be “the one guy” who couldn’t land on first attempt out of the entire go (ego), etc. It’s a bad cultural precedent and it’s been around my entire fighter career. I don’t know how to fix it, because saying “just go around if it doesn’t look right” or “no worries if you guys have to divert” isn’t cutting it. 
 

 

Easy to go into the "salvage mode" when you're alone.  First leg of my first flight as a newly minted Bus CA landing at the shortest field (SNA) in our system I fu*k'd the approach and somehow had the fortitude to go around.  20+ years later I still have nightmares of trying to salvage the approach and going off the end of the runway.

Heck, even this morning I went around in my trusty RV.....I was high but at least I was fast.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I have no other legacy with my bros in the AF, I hope that my insistence on good instrument flying sticks around. I always get asked about various threat systems and capes/lims, but I always ask the questioner how many people they know that have been shot down in the last 20 years. You need to know your threats obviously, but don’t scoff the IFR environment and run into the ground with its pK of 1.

If the vHUD isn’t IFR certified, why are guys being taught to fly approaches off of it? Why is it written into approved guidance (3-3) to use? This whole case has been really interesting to me. Thanks for bearing with the myriad of questions.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't speak for the fighter or F-35 specific stuff, but if go-arounds were a bean, people would have to log them.  That might diminish the reluctance of folks to go around in a borderline situation, since they'd have the face-saving option of rehacking currency.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure why there is a negative opinion of going around in the fighter community, but it's there.  A few months before the Eglin mishap I was going around the final turn and ended up too high.  The F-35 does not like to slow down when descending, even at idle with full "virtual speedbrake."  I was aiming short of the threshold to get on the wire but it still wouldn't slow down.  I took it around approaching the overrun and am very happy I did considering that I would have been in the same low AOA landing situation that occurred at Eglin and another incident that happened around the same time. 

Nobody I know knew at that time about the different pitch response that occurs in that situation.  When I landed the tower told me to call the SOF.  I said what's up and he was like "everything okay dude, you hit some wake turbulence or something?"  I said "no man, I just couldn't get the jet slowed down."  Taxiing back it occurred to me again how uncommon it is for a dude to go around when he calls full stop.  So much so that the SOF felt he needed to check up on me to make sure I was okay.  Landing is definitely an emphasis item for all F-35 pilots now, and we now have to take it around if not on speed approaching the threshold.  I also fly at the airlines and have never heard the term "stabilized approached criteria" briefed in an F-16 or F-35 squadron.  

3 hours ago, Springer said:

Easy to go into the "salvage mode" when you're alone.  First leg of my first flight as a newly minted Bus CA landing at the shortest field (SNA) in our system I fu*k'd the approach and somehow had the fortitude to go around.  20+ years later I still have nightmares of trying to salvage the approach and going off the end of the runway.

Heck, even this morning I went around in my trusty RV.....I was high but at least I was fast.

I remember my first approach into SNA in the 757.  During the approach brief I set autobrakes to either 4 or Max, can't remember now.  The captain looked at me with a half grin and said "you sure?"  I was like yeah, the runway is like 5,000 feet dude.  He said okay and started strapping into his seat, making sure he was pretty secure.  We touched down and I almost went through the window.  Apparently there was a lot of bags, phones, and other items all over the place too, but hey, better safe than sorry.    

       

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Danger41 said:

If the vHUD isn’t IFR certified, why are guys being taught to fly approaches off of it? Why is it written into approved guidance (3-3) to use? This whole case has been really interesting to me. Thanks for bearing with the myriad of questions.

To clarify, the HMD (the helmet video, which also produces the “HUD” when looking straight ahead) is not primary certified, just like almost every other fighter HUD (to my knowledge). We also have a vHUD (HUD representation on the panel display) and an EFI that are certified. So technically we should crosscheck those, and I do at least for the initial part of the approach (everything match? Good, tx to HUD). That said, every fighter pilot uses their HUD when flying approaches, landing, etc. Why would I choose to have my “head in my lap” when I can be monitoring outside looking for the runway environment whilst flying the approach (the single seat difference). The IFR discussion of HUDs doesn’t have anything to do with this mishap; it was the jacked up attitude display that he fixated on, not invalid approach data. Also, I’m not sure why HUDs aren’t certified...I’ve flown 99% of my landings and approaches in my 2k hours using the HUD, with no issues.

Edited by brabus
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, brabus said:

To clarify, the HMD (the helmet video, which also produces the “HUD” when looking straight ahead) is not primary certified, just like almost every other fighter HUD (to my knowledge). We also have a vHUD (HUD representation on the panel display) and an EFI that are certified. So technically we should crosscheck those, and I do at least for the initial part of the approach (everything match? Good, tx to HUD). That said, every fighter pilot uses their HUD when flying approaches, landing, etc. Why would I choose to have my “head in my lap” when I can be monitoring outside looking for the runway environment whilst flying the approach (the single seat difference). The IFR discussion of HUDs doesn’t have anything to do with this mishap; it was the jacked up attitude display that he fixated on, not invalid approach data. Also, I’m not sure why HUDs aren’t certified...I’ve flown 99% of my landings and approaches in my 2k hours using the HUD, with no issues.

The HUD in the C130J is certified. I assume because in a rare scenario where it throws out bad info like that it turns off and forces us to use our PFD in our HDD.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



The IFR discussion of HUDs doesn’t have anything to do with this mishap; it was the jacked up attitude display that he fixated on, not invalid approach data. Also, I’m not sure why HUDs aren’t certified...I’ve flown 99% of my landings and approaches in my 2k hours using the HUD, with no issues.


I'd be willing to bet that the jacked up attitude display (reliable full time horizon/attitude display) is probably one of the reasons the HUD isn't IFR certified.

C-17 HUDs (both legacy and our new HUD that should be fielding soon) are certified for primary IFR reference, though our legacy HUD had a caveat for having a PFD/attitude info displayed on an MFD due to lack of full time horizon info at high/low pitch angles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jazzdude said:

I'd be willing to bet that the jacked up attitude display (reliable full time horizon/attitude display) is probably one of the reasons the HUD isn't IFR certified.

Totally buy it for the F-35. Don’t know why the Viper wasn’t; no trend of fucked up issues with that HUD. Although maybe it changed to certified a little bit ago, can’t remember...could be making that up.

Any other fighters out there with certified primary flight instrument HUDs? Back in the day I don’t think any fighters were, but maybe it has changed.  Regardless, everyone uses their HUD to fly approaches and land (unless forced not to by HUD failure, etc.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, guineapigfury said:

I can't speak for the fighter or F-35 specific stuff, but if go-arounds were a bean, people would have to log them.  That might diminish the reluctance of folks to go around in a borderline situation, since they'd have the face-saving option of rehacking currency.

They are in some communities.

Edited by Sua Sponte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Totally buy it for the F-35. Don’t know why the Viper wasn’t; no trend of ed up issues with that HUD. Although maybe it changed to certified a little bit ago, can’t remember...could be making that up.
Any other fighters out there with certified primary flight instrument HUDs? Back in the day I don’t think any fighters were, but maybe it has changed.  Regardless, everyone uses their HUD to fly approaches and land (unless forced not to by HUD failure, etc.)


Mudhen?


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, jazzdude said:

C-17 HUDs (both legacy and our new HUD that should be fielding soon) are certified for primary IFR reference, though our legacy HUD had a caveat for having a PFD/attitude info displayed on an MFD due to lack of full time horizon info at high/low pitch angles

 

...which is a way of saying that it's not certified as a primary IFR reference.  God willing the new one will, and should be.  Putting pilots in the half-way position is downright negligent.

That's an issue we as an AF are coming up against right now: what are we considering "data reference fully safe to fly"    We've got drones that do it.  We're playing with booms that do it. So what exactly is a safe reference to fly off of?

Obviously the unfortunate individual that is the topic of this threat got to play the game of "congrats you're a test pilot!" as he found one of the loop holes between software and hardware, reminiscent of the highly youtubed F-22 PIO crash where the airplane didn't know if it was landing or going around (see below...the pilot tried a low pass with the gear up and discovered the end of the airplane's digital code.  It didn't know if it was landing or going around, and it fought the pilot). 

Thank God he was able to escape safely.  Honestly, I am glad we are pushing this edge, but safely.  If we don't, someone else will.  I'd rather it be us.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, brabus said:

Totally buy it for the F-35. Don’t know why the Viper wasn’t; no trend of ed up issues with that HUD. Although maybe it changed to certified a little bit ago, can’t remember...could be making that up.

Viper HUD has been certified as a primary flight instrument for quite a few years, not a recent change. Although there have been a couple instances recently where the attitude indications froze without telling the pilot, one of which led to a less than ideal outcome. Crosscheck is key. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, brabus said:

Any other fighters out there with certified primary flight instrument HUDs?

T-38C?  Not a fighter I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



...which is a way of saying that it's not certified as a primary IFR reference.  God willing the new one will, and should be.  Putting pilots in the half-way position is downright negligent.
 


C-17 legacy HUD is certified as an IFR PFR, with the limitation of having an extra PFD up (essentially for unusual attitude recovery). It's not a VFR only or SA only device.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/8/2020 at 6:35 PM, Springer said:

First leg of my first flight as a newly minted Bus CA landing at the shortest field (SNA) in our system I fu*k'd the approach and somehow had the fortitude to go around.  20+ years later I still have nightmares of trying to salvage the approach and going off the end of the runway.

I can attest that SoCal Approach will "assist" you by keeping you high prior to your turn to final even to this day. Flaps 40, medium brakes, exit at Taxiway E. "No problem, GI!" 

But there's something fun about putting a 300,000-pound fatty into 5700', then cocktails in Newport Beach in an hour.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jazzdude said:

C-17 legacy HUD is certified as an IFR PFR, with the limitation of having an extra PFD up (essentially for unusual attitude recovery). It's not a VFR only or SA only device.

Thank you for clarifying, I stand corrected.  I've encounter a whole lot of ego and thin skin surrounding the primacy of the HUD in the C-17.  Not a judgment, just a statement of my experience.

//RANT//

What is ultimately concerning to me is the institutionalized acceptance of mediocre engineer and lawyer crafted solutions to line operator problems with no input from said operators.  Anyone remember the response to the F-22 pilot who was blamed for not flying his jet because he had no oxygen? (I know, a gross oversimplification, just hang with me, I'm ranting)  Or on a micro scale, how about the functionality of the CNBP number pad on the J-model?  Not a big problem, but an annoyance non-the-less.  The mentality that we get handed "good enough" training, maintenance, and equipment with virtually no feedback channel it appalling.  "But it's how the acquisition/training/regs/etc process works..."  is the routine answer, with no one effectively challenging those processes. 

If we can improve things, regardless of how major or minor, we should.  Instead we accept them, demand that others do the same, and even shame them when they don't.

In today's aviation era, the C-17 should have a HUD that is allowed to be the sole source of flight information.  Just like a C-130J should be able to fly GPS approaches.  Just as both should have internal and external camera systems.  Instead of fixing these things, we "make the best of it" because that's how we do it in X community, get with the program!  In the end crews like those of Shell 77, Torque 62, this F-35, and countless others pay the price as they discover the holes in our training and technology. 

But don't worry, I'm sure a Warning in the dash 1 will cover it.

//RANT//

Edited by FourFans130
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



Thank you for clarifying, I stand corrected.  I've encounter a whole lot of ego and thin skin surrounding the primacy of the HUD in the C-17.  Not a judgment, just a statement of my experience.
//RANT//
In today's aviation era, the C-17 should have a HUD that is allowed to be the sole source of flight information.  Just like a C-130J should be able to fly GPS approaches.  Just as both should have internal and external camera systems. 
//RANT//

No worries, we (c-17 community) are be HUD babies, no doubt about that. But our jet was designed to use the HUD as our primary reference, with the best of 80s technology. Good news is our new HUD is pretty sweet. Not perfect, but is sole source IFR certified without limitation.

And I think C-130J block 8 will give you gps approach capes.

Just comes down to money/budgets, and drawing the line at where "good enough" is. Need good dudes/dudettes in A5/8 to make and defend those budget cases for the line flyers.

The hard (worrisome) part is that our budgets probably not going to get bigger, limiting what we can but as far as improvements, and training is being cut on the front end in UPT, undercutting the ability to just "be a pilot and make it happen."
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HH60 Whiskey is a prime example of barely "good enough".  Bringing USAF into the 20th century with PR capes.  

4 hours ago, jazzdude said:


 


No worries, we (c-17 community) are be HUD babies, no doubt about that. But our jet was designed to use the HUD as our primary reference, with the best of 80s technology. Good news is our new HUD is pretty sweet. Not perfect, but is sole source IFR certified without limitation.

And I think C-130J block 8 will give you gps approach capes.

Just comes down to money/budgets, and drawing the line at where "good enough" is. Need good dudes/dudettes in A5/8 to make and defend those budget cases for the line flyers.

The hard (worrisome) part is that our budgets probably not going to get bigger, limiting what we can but as far as improvements, and training is being cut on the front end in UPT, undercutting the ability to just "be a pilot and make it happen."

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the dude also had to pee?  

I have yet to talk to a Fat Amy rider that has figured out the art of piddle packs in that jet.  That should be fleet-grounding until they figure it out.  Unsat unsafe.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s not an issue. The only difference between the viper and it is I loosen one shoulder strap...overblown “problem.” That’s not to say the entire canopy design/seat/ejection sequence isn’t retarded. Thanks again B Model. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, brabus said:

It’s not an issue. The only difference between the viper and it is I loosen one shoulder strap...overblown “problem.” That’s not to say the entire canopy design/seat/ejection sequence isn’t retarded. Thanks again B Model. 

Do you wear the jacket?  I guess the Eglin bubba didn't and now has shards permanently in his skin.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do both, temp dependent, though I’ve only worn jacket since. His arms and neck are obviously embedded with metal, but “they” say it’ll work itself out, no problem! I believe it’ll work it’s way out, but what does that type of metal in your body for X time do long term? Nobody actually knows...or they don’t want to admit an ugly truth. Honestly I’ll probably still take my chances and wear the flight suit when it’s hot enough...the jacket is just so damn hot above ~85 air temp, uncomfortable above 75.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's this metal in the skin thing? How does that come about during the aircraft jettison process?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TreeA10 said:

What's this metal in the skin thing? How does that come about during the aircraft jettison process?

During the ejection sequence the “transparency removal system”/det cord embedded in the canopy fires to create a hole for the seat to go through. As the Eglin pilot found out, apparently this sends shards of plexiglass and whatever metal coatings are on the canopy both inside and outside the jet. If you’re wearing the issued flight suit and vest option (instead of the flight jacket), it sounds like this metal ends up going through the sleeves into the pilot’s skin 

Edited by moabust
Spellin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...