 |
AirTalk.org Aviation discussions newsgroups
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Pits Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
TB Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
OverSpeed Guest
|
Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2004 2:14 pm Post subject: Re: Ejection sequence F16 |
|
|
"TB" <t@b.com> wrote
This is fantastic footage. Would love to know what the story was with the
ejection - did he just screw up the manoeuvre, or did the engine flame out
right when he needed it most?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
CD Guest
|
Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2004 3:20 pm Post subject: Re: Ejection sequence F16 |
|
|
"OverSpeed" <dmmwdmmwxx (AT) hotmailxx (DOT) com> wrote
| Quote: |
This is fantastic footage. Would love to know what the story was with the
ejection - did he just screw up the manoeuvre, or did the engine flame out
right when he needed it most?
|
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_news_article968.html
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Peter Guest
|
Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2004 6:54 pm Post subject: Re: Ejection sequence F16 |
|
|
In article <4017d32d$0$5224$afc38c87 (AT) news (DOT) optusnet.com.au>, CD
(loco_driver01 (AT) hotmail (DOT) com) says...
| Quote: | "OverSpeed" <dmmwdmmwxx (AT) hotmailxx (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:atPRb.32389$Wa.31247 (AT) news-server (DOT) bigpond.net.au...
This is fantastic footage. Would love to know what the story was with the
ejection - did he just screw up the manoeuvre, or did the engine flame out
right when he needed it most?
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_news_article968.html
|
The engine is still going, as can be seen by the plume in the still
photograph.
I'm a bit puzzled by the change in safety procedures noted in the article.
The crash occurred because the pilot got the ground level wrong and was
relying on MSL rather than AGL figures. It seems that they are now to use
MSL rather than AGL but the pilot was doing that anyway.
"The maneuver the pilot was trying to complete is called the "Split S
Maneuver." The stunt requires that the pilot climb to 2,500 feet.
Investigators say Stricklin only climbed to 1,670 feet before he went into
the spinning roll.
"The board determined other factors substantially contributed to creating
the opportunity for the error including the requirement to convert sea
level altitude information from the F-16 instruments - to their altitude
above ground and call out that information to a safety operator below.
"But the Air Force has now changed that as a result of the crash.
Thunderbird pilots will now call out the MSL (mean-sea-level) altitudes as
opposed to the AGL (above-ground-level) altitudes."
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Paul Repacholi Guest
|
Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2004 8:08 pm Post subject: Re: Ejection sequence F16 |
|
|
"OverSpeed" <dmmwdmmwxx (AT) hotmailxx (DOT) com> writes:
| Quote: | This is fantastic footage. Would love to know what the story was
with the ejection - did he just screw up the manoeuvre, or did the
engine flame out right when he needed it most?
|
Some one put the ground at ground level, not sea level. Opps...
Planing error with altitudes and height needed.
Can't help but wonder if his xfer to Wash DC is punisment, or because
he is now qualified to go there :)
--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (0 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Tosser Guest
|
Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2004 9:30 pm Post subject: Re: Ejection sequence F16 |
|
|
"Paul Repacholi" <prep (AT) prep (DOT) synonet.com> wrote
| Quote: | "OverSpeed" <dmmwdmmwxx (AT) hotmailxx (DOT) com> writes:
This is fantastic footage. Would love to know what the story was
with the ejection - did he just screw up the manoeuvre, or did the
engine flame out right when he needed it most?
Some one put the ground at ground level, not sea level. Opps...
Planing error with altitudes and height needed.
|
My reading of it was that he told investigators he had a snap brainfart and used
the entry altitude applicable to his home base, where the elevation is lower.
We're talking about someone who was in the job because he was one of the very
best.
Think of the thousands of times he must have rolled inverted, pulled the stick
back and blown the cobwebs off the weeds ...
(But no-one will be doing that any more ... they've added 1000ft to the entry
altitude).
Bet he had something personal on his mind, poor bugger.
Cheers.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Tosser Guest
|
Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2004 9:30 pm Post subject: Re: Ejection sequence F16 |
|
|
"OverSpeed" <dmmwdmmwxx (AT) hotmailxx (DOT) com> wrote
| Quote: | This is fantastic footage. Would love to know what the story was with the
ejection - did he just screw up the manoeuvre, or did the engine flame out
right when he needed it most?
|
The short story is that he began the manoeuvre too low and ran out of air.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Peter Guest
|
Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2004 10:24 pm Post subject: Re: Ejection sequence F16 |
|
|
In article <87wu7bg7k6.fsf (AT) prep (DOT) synonet.com>, Paul Repacholi
(prep (AT) prep (DOT) synonet.com) says...
| Quote: | "OverSpeed" <dmmwdmmwxx (AT) hotmailxx (DOT) com> writes:
This is fantastic footage. Would love to know what the story was
with the ejection - did he just screw up the manoeuvre, or did the
engine flame out right when he needed it most?
Some one put the ground at ground level, not sea level.
|
Well no, the ground was 3 000' up, not 2 000'. His problem was that he
thought he was at 5 500' when he was actually nearly a thousand lower.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Peter Guest
|
Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2004 10:26 pm Post subject: Re: Ejection sequence F16 |
|
|
In article <8SVRb.32524$Wa.22299 (AT) news-server (DOT) bigpond.net.au>, Tosser
(electric_enema (AT) flush (DOT) com) says...
| Quote: |
Bet he had something personal on his mind, poor bugger.
|
He was thinking about his impending transfer to Washington... 8^)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
matt weber Guest
|
Posted: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:14 am Post subject: Re: Ejection sequence F16 |
|
|
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 14:14:30 GMT, "OverSpeed"
<dmmwdmmwxx (AT) hotmailxx (DOT) com> wrote:
1000ft above seal level
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|