Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 23, 2014, 02:34:23 PM
Home Help Login Register      
News: NEW Follow LiveATC updates on Twitter and Facebook


+  LiveATC Discussion Forums
|-+  Air Traffic Monitoring
| |-+  Aviation Audio Clips (Moderators: dave, RonR)
| | |-+  F-18 Crash, San Diego, CA
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Go Down Print
Author Topic: F-18 Crash, San Diego, CA  (Read 14064 times)
kea001
Guest
« Reply #15 on: March 26, 2009, 12:11:16 PM »

Report: Accident Pilot Followed Orders To Continue To Miramar

"While the heavily-redacted report -- obtained by The Los Angeles Times under the US Freedom of Information Act -- offers few new details beyond what the Corps has previously released, it does reveal the young trainee pilot followed orders from superior officers to overfly dense residential development to try and make it to Miramar, when he passed up a closer available runway with an approach over open water at North Island Naval Air Station.
The Corps has since relieved four officers of duty, a sanction which could end their careers. Still, Lieutenant Dan Neubauer -- who was identified in local media reports but not in the report -- is criticized in the USMC report for "...an unacceptable lack of assertiveness even given his lack of experience," for not questioning the orders to proceed to Miramar."

Full story at Aero-news.net:
http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=8e1d2b86-c648-41bf-98a9-60ba539ea6ac&
Logged
SJ30
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 34



« Reply #16 on: March 26, 2009, 01:57:15 PM »


Thanks for posting this, Laylow.

By all accounts, it appears as though 225 was cleared for the visual on 06 and was last instructed to down to 2,000.  He was executing a left-turn in the clouds while at the same time, civilian control instructed a right-hand turn to 060 to 080 [it varied about two times in rapid succession].  225 knew that there were clouds and asked for vectors to align with 06 at Miramar.  225 confirmed that he had the runway in sight but a split second later somebody calls in to confirm "smoke" at 2 miles short of the runway.

I'm not so sure anymore that this was merely a second engine out problem.  Prior to 225's verbal confirmation that he had 060 in sight, he made no mention of an immanent engine problem.  225's last mention of a "possible" remaining engine problem came much earlier in the ATC transmission - he never mentions it after that as being something that he felt would be causal of him not making the runway.

He was also conscious and aware of his aircraft's energy status, as he refused to begin his descent when control initially instructed a descent down to 4,000 ft.  He refused twice and then began his descent on his own while control fed him vectors.  But, at some point he ended up at 2,000 on his own in the clouds(?)  I'm still not sure why 225 did this [we were not there, of course], but this placed him 2,000 ft lower than control was expecting initially.  Right after that, 225 confirms visual on 060 and then a split second after that, "smoke" was called by someone else short of the active at 2 miles.

Now, I know I'm not a pilot yet and I am still very green, but hearing this audio puts things in a different light for me.  It sounds like 225 penetrated the clouds and went "too low" initially to make 060 on the visual.  If there was a second engine failure, he simply did not have the altitude to deal with it in time.  According to the Naval Aviation Safety Center, the F-18 has a four channel, dual computer control-by-wire with hydraulic boost control flight system, that has had problems before within certain engine out scenarios and when pilots failed to run the FCS I-Bit test as a normal part of the engine start-up procs routine.  It does not sound like an I-Bit problem, but who knows.

As far as the F404 shutting itself down automatically is concerned, that's not something I've read in any specification on the F404.  From what I've read in the past, the F404 is fairly resistant to compressor stalls, even at high angles of attack.  And, when it does suffer a stall, both the engine and then the afterburners auto-start/ignite as a matter of design, not as a course of anything the pilot does.  So, the pilot could have a compressor stall and never have to manually restart the engines or light the afterburners [manually].

 

 
Logged

In a world gone completely insane, one thing sill remains... ... ... Flight!  You just, gotta love it!
jonnevin
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 79



« Reply #17 on: March 26, 2009, 05:00:39 PM »

this was just a colossal mess of errors and poor decision making all the way around. I completely understand that it this is armchair quarterbacking and none of us were there, but the decision not to go to NZY was wrong, and unfortunately dead wrong.

Sadly, not long there after, they had another incident where an F-18 went minimum fuel and had trouble getting back to Miramar at night and initially lined up with MYF to the south (a GA airport) and had to be advised of his error.

Not good times for military flying in SD right now.
Logged
laylow
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 124


« Reply #18 on: March 29, 2009, 10:37:46 AM »

That would've been interesting, an F-18 landing at Montgomery.
Logged
flygirltammy
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 73



« Reply #19 on: March 29, 2009, 02:38:46 PM »

this was just a colossal mess of errors and poor decision making all the way around. I completely understand that it this is armchair quarterbacking and none of us were there, but the decision not to go to NZY was wrong, and unfortunately dead wrong.


Yes. It's an example of how there is a chain of events leading up to the sad accident. Had one link been removed, maybe it would not have happened. But I certainly cannot put myself in anybody's shoes who were involved. I hope I never have to.
Logged

Pages: 1 [2] Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!