Blue Angels Crash (Merged)

[spudskier]

Everyone's being pretty tight-lipped, but it appears a US Navy Blue Angel went down at an air show in Beaufort, S.C. No word about the pilot...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18248797/

[brockenspectre]

Apologies if this is posted elsewhere on the board but I haven't seen it...Mods please relocate if you consider it appropriate.

"A member of the U.S. Navy's Blue Angels precision flight team has crashed during an air show in Beaufort, South Carolina, witnesses tell CNN."

The local newspaper, the Beaufort Gazette, reports:

"A Blue Angel crashed Saturday afternoon while performing at an air show at the Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort.
Authorities say the pilot, still not identified, was killed in the crash.
It was not immediately known whether anyone else was hurt in the crash.
Emergency crews at the scene of the crash site called for the coroner about 4:20 p.m., indicating that the pilot was killed in the crash.
Police reports indicate that the Blue Angel clipped power lines near Shanklin Raod in Burton about 4 p.m. and went down about 30 minutes into the unit's show at Marine Corps Air Sttion Beaufort."

Dunno why but I always feel especially sorrowful when one of the "best of the best" of military types, chosen to be part of display teams, have the worst of all sh*t happen to them.

RIP whoever you are. Thoughts and prayers to your family and friends.

[threepointonefour]

Just announced on the news tonight - apparently 1 pilot killed at a US air show. :sad:

Can't find anymore info yet.

[TheWizard]

Report here http://www.thestate.com/136/story/42843.html

RIP

[gordonroxburgh]

really sad news. My sympathies to the pilot involved and their family
Questions do need to be asked - this is 23rd death in team's history

[Squirrel 41]

Terrible news - saw the Angels years ago as a cadet; wonderful stuff.

Thoughts with the family.

RIP

S41

[spudskier]

G-d speed on your flight west...

So sad to lose anyone. These guys train so hard and so much yet the margin of error is so small.

[robbreid]

http://www.kptv.com/news/12736945/detail.html

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/04/21/blueangels.crash/index.html

http://www.beaufortairshow.com/index.asp

http://www.blueangels.navy.mil/index.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xlFTbvVh9E

Apologies, did not see previous post!!!

[HowlingWind]

The full story from Chicken Noodle News is here (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/21/blueangels.crash/index.html). This piece does not mention whether the pilot was in fact the flightleader. It does introduce speculation from an "off-duty air traffic controller" that a bird strike might have been the cause (he said it, I didn't!).

Certainly a tragedy, even more so when the "elite" are involved. It's my understanding airshow rules are pretty stringent in the US, but nevertheless this might invite even more scrutiny (parts of the wreckage reportedly landed in a residential area).

[garyeast]

RIP

Sympathies to the family

[ElFot]

http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=28989

[Check 6]

Kevin J. Davis
Lieutenant Commander, U.S. Navy
Opposing Solo


Lieutenant Commander Kevin Davis is a native of Pittsfield, Massachusetts, and graduated from Reading Memorial High School in 1992 where he played football and was active with the Civil Air Patrol. He attended Embry Riddle Aeronautical University, earning a Bachelor of Science degree in Aeronautical Science with honors in 1996.


Kevin reported to Naval Air Station (NAS) Pensacola, Florida, for Officer Candidate School and aviation indoctrination in September 1996. He completed primary flight training at NAS Corpus Christi, Texas, and transferred to NAS Meridian, Mississippi, for intermediate and advanced flight training. While there, he flew the T-2C Buckeye and TA-4J Skyhawk, and received his wings of gold in June 1999.


Kevin reported to Fighter Squadron 101 (VF-101) at NAS Oceana, Virginia, for training in the F-14 Tomcat and was the "Top Stick" in his class. In July 2000 he reported to the VF-11 "Red Rippers" where he completed deployments aboard the aircraft carriers USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69) and USS John F. Kennedy (CV 67). While with the "Red Rippers," Kevin served as the airframes/corrosion branch officer, air-to-ground training officer and head landing signals officer. His deployments included extended operations in the North Arabian Sea and Arabian Gulf in support of Operation Enduring Freedom.


In July 2003, Kevin transitioned to the F/A-18 Hornet through Strike Fighter Squadron 125 (VFA-125) at NAS Lemoore, California, and then reported to the Fighter Composite Squadron (VFC-12) "Omars," stationed at NAS Oceana, Virginia. While at VFC-12, Kevin served as a Navy adversary pilot providing valuable air-to-air training for fleet squadrons.


In December of 2004, Kevin graduated from the United States Navy Fighter Weapons School (TOPGUN) as an adversary pilot. During his tour at VFC-12, Kevin worked as the schedules officer, legal officer, FRS/SFARP officer and assistant operations officer.


Kevin joined the Blue Angels in September 2005. He has accumulated more than 2,500 flight hours and 200 carrier arrested landings. His decorations include the Air Medal, two Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medals, and various personal and unit awards.

[Millski]

Check 6,
Thanks for that info,
He had accomplished so much.
I guess you just never know when your time is up
Very sad, condolences to the family.
Millski Aus :(

[M609]

It crashed in a residential district, 8 civilians injured. Several houses on fire apparently.

RIP

[Runaway Gun]

Apparently members of his family were at the show. Very tragic.

[beechgal]

Thoughts are with the family :sad:

[Dagger Dirk]

Blue Angels jet #6 crashed about 4 p.m. on Saturday 21 April, about three miles from Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort in South Carolina. The F/A18 clipped the top of a pine-tree during a formation rejoin behind the crowd, in preparation for the team's grand finale flypast and pitch and break into the circuit for landing. The aircraft wreckage was scattered along a rural roadway, impacting a vehicle and several homes. Eight people on the ground were injured and the pilot died. The rejoin join-up comes after the downward bomb-burst known as the fleur-de-lis scatters the six team-members to the four points of the compass. Conjecture has centered upon the fact that the team doesn't wear G suits because the sudden inflation of the suit under g onset can affect the delicate stick-grip required for close formation flying. The inference is that G-LOC (or G induced loss of consciousness) may have therefore been to blame. Others have hypothesized about the possibility of a birdstrike penetrating the canopy and disabling the pilot. However there is another possible explanation, based upon eyewitness accounts of the aircraft's final maneuvering.
.
During the low-level rejoin, the traditional and classic threat is that of the concentration and focused gaze of the rejoining pilot on the low (inside) side of the leader's turn towards him being upward (i.e. upon the lead aircraft and the aircraft that he is supposed to follow in the rejoin). If the leader banks slightly further toward the rejoining #6 for geographic positioning alignment, this can have a much magnified and disproportionate effect upon the team-member rejoining from well down on the "low side" ( i.e. it can cause (for him) an unnoticed and inadvertent height loss). This is caused by the distant rejoining team-member rolling and pushing in concert with the leader's roll to a higher bank angle - in order to maintain his correct extended echelon rejoin "line" of relativity. This is a well-known cause of accidents in military rejoins, particularly at night or overwater - where inadequate peripheral vision of the terrain/water can fail the "low-man" formation rejoiner, simply because of where he is looking.

[False Capture]

Dagger Dirk,
Are those your words or are you quoting someone else?

[Belgique]

.
Dagger Dirk's Summary sounds about right
.
"Joe Farrell, who had a plane on display at Saturday's air show, said the jet largely appeared in control.
"It looked like it was in absolute control all the way into the ground," he said.
"We watched the guys try to reform. He made the turn and slid right into the ground."
Saturday's show was at the beginning of the team's flight season, which began last month, and more than 100,000 people were expected to attend."
.
from link (http://www.pensacolanewsjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070422/NEWS01/704220323/1006)

[BOAC]

Are those your words or are you quoting someone else? - it matters not - it is absolutely right.

[Runaway Gun]

I'd prefer to wait for the official investigators to release their findings.

[OKOC]

Blues return home today
The Beaufort (S.C) Gazette
BEAUFORT, S.C. -- A U.S. Navy Blue Angels pilot was killed after crashing Saturday afternoon while performing at an air show.
Lt. Cmdr. Kevin J. Davis, a native of Pittsfield, Mass., was piloting the No. 6 jet when it went down at about 3 p.m. (CDT), 30 minutes into the show at Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort (S.C.).
RIP

[UNCTUOUS]

This same "inside of the turn" rejoin phenomenon caused an F4E crash off the Range at Evans Head, Qld and a number of crashes of Mirage III's off Saltash Bombing Range near RAAF Williamtown NSW (A3-61 & A3-77 & A3-109) and near RAAF Butterworth Malaysia (A3-32 & A3-37).
.
This RAAF F4E (reg: A69-7203) aircraft was lost 16/06/71 off Evans Head, NSW with the loss of both crew. Report extract below (from this link (http://www.adf-serials.com/dfs/PhantomA69-7203.pdf) ):
.
During the bombing phase, the No.2 aircraft in the formation suffered a suspected hang-up of one bomb so a decision
was made to return via the alternate route to base with No.2 aircraft flying as leader.
The No.2 aircraft reported off the range at 1943 hrs, heading 120 M and climbing out to 6,500 ft. As he (the lead aircraft) was passing 2,500 ft the RSO instructed the formation to maintain 1,000 ft due to conflicting traffic (Cordite formation). The instruction was acknowledged by No.2 and he commenced a descent to 1,000 ft, turning to port onto a heading of 010 M. No.1, at this stage, was in the process of rejoining his No.2 on the inside of the turn from about three miles astern.
While the leader was levelling at 1,000 feet, he entered a patch of low cloud causing the rejoining aircraft to lose visual contact. The leader then stopped his turn until he emerged from the cloud and the joining aircraft regained visual contact. The leader then resumed his port turn and rolled out on the desired heading. He then looked behind to see lights, which he thought to be the other aircraft, at his 8:30 position and very low. Almost immediately the lights disappeared.
.
Leader's statement: 'The range then told me not to climb above 1,000 ft. I acknowledged and started a descent back to 1,000 ft. I also started a left turn. During the turn (30° bank) I entered cloud and No.1 called lost contact. I rolled wings' level and called my heading of 030 M. Shortly after, I broke out of cloud and he said "confirm heading 030". I replied "affirmative". He then said "contact, we're in your left eight o'clock, continue your turn".'
'I then rolled left to a heading of 010 M (only about 20° of bank was used). After No.l's call, my navigator advised me that he had the aircraft in sight and that he was moving into position.' 'Once I was steady on 010 M, I looked to the left and saw what I believe was an aircraft in my left 8.30 position, very low on me. This almost immediately disappeared...'
.
Extract #2
Evaluating the evidence
During the investigation, the route flown by the formation on the night of the accident was reconstructed, using two other Phantom aircraft. The pilot of the rejoining aircraft reported the following observations.
'As No.1 commenced the descending left turn, I attempted to match his angle of bank and remain in the same plane as his wing. To do this I had to be at a lower altitude than No.1. Although I had prior knowledge that No.1 was to descend and there was a good visual horizon on this day, there was no sensation of a descent when remaining in the same plane as No.1's wing.'
When No.1 went into the 20° left bank turn onto 0100M, I matched his angle of bank and when I noticed that he was rolling wings level, I rolled into a 30° right bank turn to effect the rejoin as I was approximately one mile from No.1 in his low 8 o'clock position. My altimeter at this point indicated 3,000 ft. and No.1 was still at 4,000 ft.'

[False Capture]

- it matters not - it is absolutely right.Thanks BOAC, no need for an investigation then.:ugh:

[robbreid]

http://www.nctimes.com/movie/blueangel/viewer.html Lt. Cmdr. Kevin Davis aka KOJAK

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cc9_1177225142 MCAS Beaufort Air Show photos, and crash site photos

http://myaviation.net/search/photo_search.php?id=00970100&size=large photo of fallen Blue Angel 6

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/04/21/blueangels.crash/index.html CNN update story and crash scene video

[Huck]

I take my children to the end-of-season Blue Angels show every year in Pensacola. Their act is riveting. I also know 3 ex-Blues that now fly for my company. This is so tragic. We spend so much time talking about the worthlessness of today's youth - this guy was 33 and had accomplished so much. A sad day indeed.

[BOAC]

Thanks BOAC, no need for an investigation then. - reviewing your posting history, FC, it appears you have significant difficulty reading and understanding. It is a pity you choose this sad thread concerning a loss of life and injury to amply furthur demonstrate this.

IF you re-read the post by DD, you will see that no single cause was suggested, but the items covered are all relevant and worthy of discussion. My point to you was what difference does it make where his 'words' come from?

I happen to feel particular sadness at this accident, having been in that world, and I know that the low-level rejoin is a particular hazard and nearly caused my demise on one occasion.

Putting all that aside, does anyone know how far into the season they were?

[Dagger Dirk]

a. I'm familiar with this particular rejoin trap because I lost a friend to it and I've nearly been there myself.
.
b. It ranks next to one other leader trick that also nearly wrote finis to my military career. That was a low speed rejoin of a six-ship at low-level with me on the inside and just about "in" when the leader called "speedbrakes go". That's when you find out about all you know about flying with crossed controls without losing sight or taking it into the flick,spin,crash,burn,die addenda.
It's very hard to bug out of a low-level rejoin when you're on the inside of a turn and performing for a crowd. MMSOBGYTAST
.
DD

[Check 6]

Hi BOAC, I believe this was their sixth venue for the 2007 season.


2007 schedule (http://www.blueangels.navy.mil/schedules.htm)

[Airbubba]

The rejoin join-up comes after the downward bomb-burst known as the fleur-de-lis scatters the six team-members to the four points [sic] of the compass.

Don't know whose words these are but I believe the writer described the Delta Vertical Break, not the Fleur de Lis (the Blues do both).

[BootFlap]

At the moment, it matters not who is right about the cause of this tragic accident, what matters is that a fellow aviator has 'gone West'. To his family and friends I offer my sincere condolences. RIP

[DelaneyT]

..During the low-level rejoin, the traditional and classic threat is that of the concentration and focused gaze of the rejoining pilot on the low (inside) side of the leader's turn towards him being upward (i.e. upon the lead aircraft and the aircraft that he is supposed to follow in the rejoin).......yup, sure looks like loss of situational-awareness during a critical low-altitude rejoin maneuver. However, the mishap pilot was performing a tight, fast 'descending turn' to join with his Blue Angels formation.

TV News today broadcast a brief amateur video of this F-18 crash -- I recorded it on DVR... and reviewed it frame by frame.

The main Blue Angels formation (5 aircraft) was straight & level at about 500 ft AGL (tree tops in the frame); two of those aircraft were just rejoining to close formation with the leader. The 6th aircraft suddenly enters the field-of-camera-view very high & left of the leader (9 o'clock high on the leader with a large heading differential).

This 6th {mishap} aircraft is in a steep (~60 degrees) left bank with a high descent rate (...like a dive-bomb pass). Looks like he's trying to make a 120 degree left, descending turn to align with the leader's heading & rejoin. He gets thru ~90 degrees of turn, below the leader's altitude & about 1500 ft behind-- and vanishes into the treetops. The whole thing happens in just a few seconds.

I've commented previously here about the high mishap rate in 'airshows', worldwide. This incident reinforces my opinion. :sad:

[mojocvh]

Sincere condolences to all those affected by this tragic accident.

RIP Kojak

MoJo

[TheGorrilla]

Ok.. I think certain people should leave this investigation to the real professional crash investigators. I think an "expert" opinion is a bad thing. Perhaps some of you lot should read your posts again.... This is a rumour network not an authority.

[Roadster280]

I live not far from Dobbins/(former) Atlanta NAS. Our regional newspaper is called the Atlanta Journal Constitution. Last year,the then Lt Davis took one of the AJC's reporters up for a demo flight. Here on Pprune, we enjoyed the resultant videos. At the time, I remember thinking what a thoroughly nice chap he was, letting the reporter know what was going to happen, how, and when. He was so enthusiastic, too. I watched the videos again tonight in silence with my other half.

RIP Lieutenant Commander Davis.

God bless all. Keep safe.

[Airbubba]

Here's the famous video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65fZhws76Jk

And here's reporter Steve Beatty's eulogistic remembrance of that day a year ago:

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/2007/04/22/0423natcrashside.html

[Millski]

Airbubbas,
Do you have the link to the full version of the famous vid ?
Still can't nelp feeling a little sad for him and his family
:(

[wessex19]

This is the original "DREAMS" clip featuring A-4F's

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzMzGXRUlaM

here is the remake of "DREAMS" featuring F-18A's

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUDPjsvjRkA

RIP LCDR Kevin Davis USN

[Chronic Snoozer]

The RAAF incident report you refer to is over 35 years old. Rejoins at low level are not flown as suggested by the comments from the 'rejoining aircraft' in Extract 2. The lesson was learned for obvious reasons. Hardly a 'phenomenon'.

[Fat Reggie]

The Blue Angels fly without G-suits. From the vid I get the impression he either blacked out or stalled? Hitting the tree was after the fact. Had to be.

[Brat]

The consummate professionalism grace and beauty of the displays given by Blue Angles and many other countries display teams have conveyed to millions the chance to see and perhaps for some small time experience some of the exhilaration excitement and joy of flight. These pilots daily fly to limits most aviators aspire to. They are an inspiration to countless fellow aviators and those who would be. When one falls it is a loss to all of us.
Our thoughts go with both Lieut Commander Davis U.S.N. and those he has left behind.

[IntheTin]

Nicely put Brat. :D

[Airbubba]

Do you have the link to the full version of the famous vid ?

The original has been removed from the ajc.com site it seems. I'm sure a copy lives on somewhere on the net but I couldn't find it either.

[ORAC]

....The Blue Angels are unique from other jet aviators because they don't wear the traditional G-suits that most jet pilots use to avoid blacking out during maneuvers that exert strong gravitational forces. The suits inflate around the lower body to keep blood in the brain, but that could cause a pilot to bump the control stick -- a potentially deadly move when flying inches from other planes.

After the deadly 1999 crash, the Navy's air training chief ordered the Blue Angels to consider wearing G-suits. An investigation determined that the most likely cause of that crash was that the pilot was momentarily impaired because of a prior rib injury. Pain from the rib injury might have kept the pilot from tensing his abdominal muscles during a turn causing him to suffer tunnel vision.

Friends and neighbors of Davis in Pittsfield, Mass., where he was raised, said Sunday he was fascinated with planes from the time he was a child.

During his Navy career, he earned "Top Stick" status in his class at Fighter Squadron 101 at Naval Air Station Oceana, Va., while training in F-14 Tomcat jets. He flew missions supporting the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan and graduated from Navy Flight Weapons School in 2004.

"He was fascinated with airplanes from the time he was little," former neighbor Betty Sweeney said. "He knew what he wanted to do, and he did it. That's the only relief -- that he went doing what he wanted to do.".......

[oldfella]

Why don't we forget the speculation.

When you fly close to the ground, or others, fast and heavy, accidents will happen.

I mourn the loss of a professional airman, as I would the loss from any service or nation, and my thoughts are with his family and friends.

Wings forever folded. RIP

[saudipc-9]

An investigation determined that the most likely cause of that crash was that the pilot was momentarily impaired because of a prior rib injury. Pain from the rib injury might have kept the pilot from tensing his abdominal muscles during a turn causing him to suffer tunnel vision.

As a military pilot with close to 5000 hrs of high performance flying I have to say "What a load of cr@p" How the hell do investigators come up with this wild rubbish and who the hell signs off on it?

[Fox3snapshot]

Agree mate, what a load of cr*p! :suspect:

Jet too low, hit tree....crashed!

Unfortunate sequence of events commonly known as display flying gone bad, and the Blue Angels whilst a magnificiant American Icon don't have the best track record in the world for Death V Displays!

Sad yes, surprised no...........:bored:

[Navy_Adversary]

I was saddened to hear of the loss of the Blues pilot.
In 2000 I got to fly with the Blues at the Reno Air Races show, albeit in Fat Albert.

Also I have spent many hours over the years at NAF El Centro watching the team work up at winter training.
RIP LTCDR K Davis "You were born to Fly"

[GreenKnight121]

"the Blue Angels whilst a magnificiant American Icon don't have the best track record in the world for Death V Displays!"

:rolleyes:

26 in-air fatalities in 60 years (first show June 15, 1946)... not that bad for a 7-aircraft team (6 perform, with 1 back-up) that puts on 70 shows a year (usually 2-3 performances per show... Friday for VIP/special groups, Saturday & Sunday normal performance), plus practice flights at each show site, plus 120+ training flights per pilot each winter, plus flying to each airshow... one he!l of a lot of flight-hours, isn't it?

Only 4 of those fatalities (including LCdr Davis) were during shows, by the way! 1946, 1952, 1985, 2007

Between 140 and 210 performances per year, and its been 22 years between fatals? I'd say that's pretty Damm good, myself!
:*

[Check 6]

GreenKnight, thank you for posting the facts as I did not have the time to research them. Sadly, there appears to be typical American bashing above, however subtle.

[Ignition Override]

Now if Cdr Davis had been from Texas instead of Mass...

[green granite]

Couldn't see any ref to this Flight article, plus video of the crash incident although it's not very obvious whats going on

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/04/24/213408/video-us-navy-boeing-fa-18a-hornet-crashed-during-blue-angels.html

[DelaneyT]

...that referenced Flight URL doesn't have it right.

CNN broadcast another (better quality) amateur video this week.

Again, Blue Angel #6 was performing an aggressive, high-G, left descending turn for the low altitude rejoin. As #6 passes co-altitude (~500 ft AGL) behind the straight & level leader, he has 80-90 degrees of left bank and about 10 degrees nose low pitch. His nose is still 30-40 degrees right of the leader's heading -- and obviously is going to over-shoot the rejoin.

The #6 aircraft seems to be under control ... no apparent stall or smoke/flames, etc. Looks like a relatively smooth, continuous descent into the treetops... however, with no attempt to re-postion (barrel roll ?) or compensate for the over-shoot.

As DD mentioned here, G-LOC seems probable.

The U.S Navy reportedly will issue preliminary findings in 3 weeks (... that's real quick for a government investigation).

[US Herk]

The U.S Navy reportedly will issue preliminary findings in 3 weeks (... that's real quick for a government investigation).

Can't speak for the Navy process, but USAF process is meant to be complete in 30 days - actual investigation is typically complete by week 3 - last week is report & briefing writing/preparing. That's for the safety side.

The public side investigation is also completed in 30 days, but their clock doesn't start until the safety investigation hands over factual data - which typically occurs in week 2-3.

I can only assume the Navy's investigations are at least similar...

[West Coast]

"USAF process is meant to be complete in 30 days"

Cant help but compare the time frame to a NTSB investigation of probable cause. Many, many months to years of investigation to determine probable cause vs a month.

I know the scope of a NTSB investigation may lead further into prevention by determining reccomendations to the FAA, as opposed to a clinical who what where when and why investigation. Scope aside, one side is either sandbagging it or the other is letting expediency run the show.

[US Herk]

Cant help but compare the time frame to a NTSB investigation of probable cause. Many, many months to years of investigation to determine probable cause vs a month.
I know the scope of a NTSB investigation may lead further into prevention by determining reccomendations to the FAA, as opposed to a clinical who what where when and why investigation. Scope aside, one side is either sandbagging it or the other is letting expediency run the show.

I think there's more than a fair bit of sandbagging simply due to the political nature of the NTSB, the bureacracies involved & the media attention. There's also a fair bit of pressure for expediency on the military side. But we can order someone to do something - harder to do on the civilian side...moreso when dealing with governmental bureaucracies. Consequently, things actually get done quicker. Neither is perfect, but I would caution against using subjective terms like "better" ;)

While it would be naive to think the USAF Safety Investigation Board gets it right all the time, they do a pretty good job. There is an entire organization resident within the USAF (Air Force Safety Center) that is on call to respond immediately. Similarly, each unit has at least one (and usually several) specially trained mishap investigators. So the investigation is initiated extremely quickly - typically less than 24hrs.

As for the timeframe to complete - that's a recommendation. If they need longer, they get it. It's rare though. The SIB report is privileged information & not publicly releasable - intent is prevention much like NTSB - and there are always findings & recommendations laid out in the report.

Unlike high-profile NTSB investigations (TWA 800 comes to mind), there usually isn't a lot of media attention, there isn't the bureaucratic compulsion to micro-manage or determine something within 100% accuracy (beyond any doubt), and the "reasonable man" methodology is utilized to a large extent when information gaps exist - these are clearly delineated in the investigation and often left open for future investigation if applicable.

The parallel publicly releasable report done by the Accident Investigation Board is similar, but does not have the resources available to it that the SIB does. Causal findings can be grounds for administrative or judicial recourse. It is meant to be a public accounting to the families & tax-payers of what happend. Due to the differing nature of these investigations, resource availability, concern of repercussions, etc., there is occasionally different outcomes on causal findings.

It is far from a perfect system, and it doesn't mean further investigations cease. The King 56 crash off the Portland coast in '95 or so is a good case in point - the SIB concluded their official report in a normal timeframe, but several aspects of the investigation continued & the final report was ultimately updated. Most of this was due to the nature of the crash site (like TWA 800).


Back to the topic at hand - it wouldn't surprise me if the USN has a report ready in a month. I hope that it will find something to prevent another tragic mishap and will provide the families with some consolation.
RIP

[GreenKnight121]

The major difference between the NTSB and the military is in the way they do their investigations:


The military looks until they find the base cause... "part NSN XXXX-XXX-XXXX failed, causing the aircraft to depart controlled flight, and condition Z prevented the pilot from regaining control prior to impact".

They issue their "cause of accident" report, and then refer the part to an engineering investigation to determine how it failed, and whether it was a materials flaw, manufacturing defect, fatigue failure, damage from external cause, etc. The other factors are also then referred to their own investigational bodies to determine how they happened, if (and how) they could have been prevented, and how to work around them if they cannot be avoided.


The NTSB will not issue its "cause of accident" report until all of those secondary investigations are complete, and "recommendations and procedures" are written, evaluated, and approved.


They both do the same work, they just issue their "cause of accident" report at different points in the process.

[US Herk]

Thanks, GK - Much better put! I sort of said that, but in many more words with much more confusion! Haha! Over-explaining is a fault of mine - lots of words, little communication at times.:ugh:

[barit1]

Inside speculation from those who've seen the Blues' own video is G-LOC during an aggressive formation re-join. Closure speeds are quite fast, thus heavy G's are pulled to get back in 6-plane delta formation quickly.

Whether #6 was out of position prior to this, forcing a late & hurried rejoin, will be up to the board to determine.

Sad day for the Blues and the whole USN. I've watched you guys since Cleveland in the 40s - you bring poetry to the sky.

[DelaneyT]

....here's a link to a U.S. Navy flying safety magazine article (Nov-Dec 2006) addressing F-18 mishap causes, including G-LOC:


http://www.safetycenter.navy.mil/MEDIA/approach/issues/NovDec06/Unsafe_Acts_in_the_Hornet.htm




[excerpt]

Human-aircrew errors comprise 80 percent of all {F-18} Hornet Class A mishaps.

The Navy’s Human Factors Analysis Classification System (HFACS) of accident causation defines the logical progression through which these errors can be traced and causal factors explained.

...To capture recent trends, Class A mishaps were researched using data from a six-year period, starting in FY2000.

Of 65 mishaps, 52 were caused primarily by aircrew.

...Physiological factors are most often a precondition for a mishap in HFACS; however, they realistically can be shown to be the root cause of many accidents. Gravity-induced loss of consciousness (GLOC) and hypoxia continue to kill Hornet pilots. Six Hornets were lost directly because of physiological factors: three to hypoxia, two to GLOC, and one with vertigo as a contributing cause.

[set1958]

I just read all of the pilot's discussions regarding the crash of the Blue Angel #6. I have the full version of the amateur video that was sent to CNN. There is a clip that shows the plane attempting to fly up and it straighten out as if flying when suddenly it loses altitude very fast, just drops. No nose dive, the plane just fell straight down as if it were dropped. Prior to that clip the video shows a small amount of dark smoke coming from the rear of the plane. Do you still think that it was G force?

[West Coast]

GK

Thanks for the insight. Perhaps comparing the two methods of investigation with differing focus is a bit unfair. I'm still scratching my head over the NTSB approach however. Look at the NTSB database, pick an accident. I looked at a number of corporate turbojet accidents. Complex aircraft, professionally flown but low profile accidents minus public hearings, media scrutiny and other artificial extensions. The time frame from date of accident to a finding of probable cause is still measured in months to years.

Hope the investigators short game reflects the relaxed pace.

[barit1]

I think there's more than a fair bit of sandbagging simply due to the political nature of the NTSB

NTSB only took 30 months to issue this one (http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20041015X01633&key=1) - with essentially no new findings from 29 months ago.

[acrolite]

More speculation (quoted from over at the AOPA forum):

From: "Ross, Peter G CAPT, USNR
Subject:
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 12:23:28 -0400

Stew,

More detail available today. Having seen video of the crash, my initial speculation is that there was a G induced loss of consciousness (GLOC).

The most aggressive flying in the Blue Angel show takes place in the join ups behind show center. The timing requires "expeditious" join ups involving huge overtake speeds and high G maneuvering in the terminal phase of the rejoin to dissipate the overtake. The video I saw shows No. 6 closing on the formation for the rejoin, but before he gets there, the jet lags the formation, goes outside the turn radius and descends in seeming controlled flight to the tree line. This would be consistent with GLOC on the rendezvous. If the pilot passed out at the join up, he'd be back on the power. Upon loss of consciousness, the G would ease immediately taking him outside the formation turn radius. At flight idle, the jet would slowly descend. To regain consciousness, the pilot needs blood to flow to the brain which takes a varying amount of time depending how deep the GLOC. The senses return in reverse sequence to their loss. Hearing, then vision, cognition, then motor control. The frustrating part is when you can see and understand the problem but don't have the motor control to manipulate the flight controls appropriately.

I have done this to myself in the Hornet, thankfully not so close to the ground.

Of course, without the determinations of the safety investigation, the foregoing is mere speculation. However, a catastrophic, double engine failure is unheard of in the Hornet, and it would likely provide evidence in smoke, flames and parts emanating from the tailpipes prior to the crash.

The media all seem focused on the impact with trees and power lines, but that is inevitable when falling to the earth.

This pilot was no rookie. A former Tomcat driver and TOPGUN grad, he was an experienced fighter pilot. GLOC is something that can effect even the most seasoned pilots and it varies day to day and can turn on something as innocuous as time since the pilot's last meal.

In any event, this is a sad day for the Navy.

[BEagle]

I would agree with the previous post.

Having seen the video, the accident pilot undoubtedly flew an extremely hard manoeuvre at very low level. Notwithstanding the high levels of training and fitness which predominate within the Blues, this manoeuvre would require high sustained +g manoeuvring, something which would hardly be assisted by the Blues peculiar decision to dispense with anti-G suits.

Why?

[West Coast]

Beag's

http://www.navy.com/about/navylife/onduty/blueangels/faq/

Down about 10 Q's or so your question is answered.

[BEagle]

Thanks for the link, Westie.

"Overall G-suits would detrimentally impact flight safety."

:hmm:

I'm not convinced...

[GreenKnight121]

Imagine... you are flying at ~300 knots with about 3'-4' (sometimes closer) separation from the other aircraft in the formation.

In order to keep the stick from moving due to the bouncing from the turbulence created by the other aircraft, you have to brace it against your torso. You pull back, G-forces increase, and your suit suddenly puffs up.

This moves your arm... and the stick... to the side, which makes your aircraft move sideways... right into another aircraft.

It doesn't take much stick movement at those distances.



I can see exactly how a g-suit could be very dangerous for close-formation flying in high-performance aircraft.

[BOAC]

I do believe this 'G-suit' thing to be a distraction here. Very rarely does formation aerobatic work REQUIRE a G-suit as the levels of 'g' are relatively low. In my time on the Arrows, 3-4 g was the maximum 'in-formation' g pulled, while obviously when 'let loose' after bomb-burst or during rejoins and opposition pair work the g was significantly higher. The main function of such a suit is to reduce the amount of fatigue a pilot experiences during a multi-sector day as less physical effort is required to counter the g-forces with a suit than without.

Even with a 'suit' (and NB I am NOT making any comment on the cause of this particular crash) it is easy to induce loss of consciousness if the manoeuvre is hard enough - and even with a suit, out you go.

[BEagle]

I would agree that an anti-G suit isn't needed at all below about +5G. However, for the very high g manoeuvring which is part of the Blues formation rejoin, protection against GLOC would seem sensible.

So why not wear anti-G suits which have a modified inflation threshold - say +5G - so that protection will only be there when it is really needed and won't be disturbing during less extreme manoeuvring.

At least the Hornet doesn't used bottled air like the old Hunter did. Finding that you'd run out of puff when recovering from a strafe dive at Pembrey was always a nasty surprise. As one of my colleagues (of Jamaican descent) remarked - "When the bottles ran out, I nearly blacked out completely!"

Fortunately the data recorder has been recovered from the accident aircraft, so it should be possible to assess why the aircraft descended into the ground during that hard turn.

[Runaway Gun]

I'm glad that they've found the black box.

Maybe, just maybe, everyone will wait for the outcome now.

[Gainesy]

As I understand it, G-LOC is caused by the onset rate of the G, not the actual value, so a suit modded to start work at 5G would already be behind the onset rate and so would probably be detrimental. I think.

NB Talking generally, not about this crash.

[Charlie Griffiths]

I find it very unprofessional of a fellow Hornet pilot to speculate from video footage about how one of his colleagues lost his life. Lets leave it to the professionals to discover the cause of this sad incident, no matter how long it takes. It is only right and just to the pilot and his family.

If people want to discuss GLOC, lets start a new thread and not make tenuous, unsubstantiated links to this incident.

Off soapbox.....

RIP :(

[West Coast]

Perhaps the dog and pony show the Blues put on as they man up might have something to do with some reluctance to wear them.

[BEagle]

I'm glad it was you who said that, Westie! I have a sneaking feeling that you're probably correct - it could well be part of the reason......

[Gainesy]

Do the Thunderbirds wear G-suits?

[Rolling-Thunderbird]

Yes they do, but then the F-16 has a sidestick.

Therefore, the pilots arm is not affected by the g-suit inflating.

[BOAC]

Anyone heard anything from the investigation?

[BOAC]

BTTT- any news yet?

[DelaneyT]

Report: Pilot Failed To Compensate For G-Forces In Blue Angels Mishap (15 Jan 2008)


The US Navy's final report on the April 2007 loss of an F/A-18 pilot during a performance of the Blue Angels aerial demonstration team concludes the pilot failed to properly tense his muscles to counter the g-forces from a high-speed turn ...


The Associated Press obtained the accident report through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request...

The investigation also found the Blues violated Navy policy by allowing the waiver allowing the pilots to fly without g-suits to expire in 2005 -- a lapse Ball called "a lack of careful attention to operating requirements." The waiver was reinstated following Davis' accident...
http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm://


==============

...many here recognized it as a probable G-LOC, after viewing the brief video clips of the mishap.

Apparently, the U.S. Navy has been sitting on this final report for quite some time -- the Associated Press had to force it out into the public.

[BEagle]

How on earth does the USN know that the late Lt Cdr Davis 'failed to properly tense his muscles to counter the g-forces from a high speed turn'.

This was more likely to be corporate manslaughter. The USN did not have a waiver in place allowing pilots to dispense with g-suits - and the display routine clearly exposed Lt Cdr Davis to a hazardous situation without adequate safety provision.

What precautions have since been taken to prevent a similar accident?

Navy CIS - get on the case and don't allow this travesty of justice to go unchallenged!

[Tourist]

Beagle, dont be a tw@t. Flying has its dangers. Whether the waiver was in place due to admin error or not made the square root of **** All difference to the safety of a pilot. They do not wear G-suits for perfectly valid reasons.You cannot make flying perfectly safe, and those of us still flying in the military are well aware of it.I bet there will be no shortage of others fighting to take his place, in the full knowledge of the dangers involved.In your day the acceptable danger level was considerably higher than in todays health and safety bound times, so just remember the things you used to do perfectly happily before you go off on one.

[BEagle]

Tourist, another of your pointless posts full of personal insult...:rolleyes:

The fact is that the USN has reportedly put the blame on a deceased pilot by making an assumption which cannot possibly be proved. Much as Wratten and Day did about the Chinook crash.

I do not know whether the Blues routine changed after the 2005 dispensation expired - if it had, then merely re-applying the dispensation would have been insufficient unless a complementary risk assessment had also been conducted.

[Lurking123]

Tourist, I'm not a military fast jet expert, in any sense of the definition. Please explain the "perfectly valid reasons" for not wearing a G-Suit in an aircraft that is designed for high G and indeed then follows a routine which persistently demonstrates that capability.

One presumes all the parade square stuff and general poncing around on the ground before flight wouldn't be classed as a valid reason?

[BEagle]

Sounds like a serious design flaw if g-suit inflation can obstruct the control column....

If that's the case, why not change the inflation onset rate? The Blues' F-18s have a modified control system, so why not a modified anti-g system that only kicks in above, say, +5 G?

Lurking123, that's not the first time I've heard that. A well-known US PPRuNer said more or less the same thing.

[Jack Aubrey]

Being reluctant to doubt BEagle's encyclopedic knowledge and huge experience of high G maneuvering, aerobatic display flying, aggressive formation rejoins in a time critical phase of a display and, of course, his similarly expert knowledge and training in aviation medicine, I will merely comment thus…

1. Beagle has remarked and expressed an opinion on a report from a press association which has seen the US Navy report and published it’s own interpretation.

2. BOAC, some pages back, has quite correctly identified that G suits are as much about reducing fatigue as about aiding G tolerance.

3. It might be the case that a reasonable person might assume that the leader and members of one of the most highly respected formation display teams in this world might actually be qualified and able to make a balanced judgment on the pros and cons of the equipment they fly with.

4. It might also be reasonable to assume that the chain of command who have supported such decisions might, likewise, be competent.

Whilst Beagle might consider that his experience, wisdom, intellect and judgment are much greater, sadly I disagree.

I also disagree with his eagerness to post his asinine drivel when the purpose of this thread is to remember and pay respect to a fallen member of an international band of brothers!

I could, however, be wrong.

[ORAC]

Points 1 and 2 are irrelevant.

Points 3 & 4 can be said of every accident where, in hindsight, there have been found to major errors in understanding, insight, decision making or supervision. They cannot, therefore, be taken as a given.

[Lurking123]

Sorry guys, I'm just not getting this. The rationale given is that the G suit may get in the way when the aircraft are flying really close to each other. Hence, you get rid of the g-suit (which is essentially a safety enhancement whether you take either the GLOC or extended fatigue argument) in order to allow you to fly closer to other elements of the formation with a perceived degree of increased safety.

Now, I wasn't of the opinion that military formation display flying was an operational necessity - it is a significant chunck of an effective PR machine. Surely someone should have done a proper risk assessment here? If they had, are they not obliged to re-visit that assessment after this unfortunate crash? Maybe the answer is to wear the G-suits and not fly so close to each other (Do the Red Arrows wear a suit?).

I'm not stirring things up, I just don't understand some of the rationale.

[Ewan Whosearmy]

Beagle wrote: How on earth does the USN know that the late Lt Cdr Davis 'failed to properly tense his muscles to counter the g-forces from a high speed turn'.


I think that is a very valid question to ask. Without the opportunity to read the report in full, I would guess that it is based on the VTRS recording from the jet. Perhaps the audio indicates that he wasn't performing his G-strain until he was wrapped up in the turn?

Considering that hydration, crew rest and other factors influence susceptibility to grey-out and GLOC, one also wonders whether they were able to rule out these factors as contributory.

[caligula]

Lurking, to answer your Q, the Reds do wear g suits. They didn't for quite a while with the exception of synchro, however after a few minor g-related issues, common sense prevailed and all the front-seaters now wear them.

Back seaters however do not get that luxury (whether ground crew or experienced FJ mates) - the argument re control column snagging is a little stronger there and back seat G-LOC is less of a concern...!

[West Coast]

"Beagle, dont be a tw@t"

I don't care who you are, that's funny.

[DelaneyT]

...still waiting for at least a formal summary of the U.S. Navy official investigation report, but sounds like the Navy did fault the pilot for an overly aggressive rejoin maneuver -- as well as failing to perform the proper anti-G grunt actions.

More 3rd-hand news report indicate the mishap pilot did not lose consciousness -- but became "disoriented" (??)

What was the actual 'primary' cause of the mishap ?

I was unaware the Blue Angels had previously lost 2 members in 1999 to a G-force related crash.

______


NAVY TIMES (U.S.) Wednesday Jan 16, 2008:

A crash that killed a Blue Angels pilot during an air show April 21 was caused by a Navy pilot making a sharper-than-normal turn to catch up with his five squadron mates and then failing to take steps to prevent blood from rushing from his brain during the maneuver, according to a report released Monday...

Those forces caused by the maneuver — 6.7 Gs — were within the range expected for that maneuver, but their quick onset left Davis temporarily disoriented.

Navy officials say the squadron’s culture of perfection contributed to the crash.

“The culture of the Naval Flight Demonstration Squadron is that they constantly strive to perform a perfect show, every show,” the investigating officer, Lt. Col. Javier Ball, wrote in his report. “I believe that Lieutenant Commander Davis was simply trying to meet this standard, just as he would have at any other show.” ...

Investigators say they believe Davis never lost consciousness because he maintained control of the Hornet’s control stick until impact, attempting to right the aircraft until it struck the ground at nearly 350 miles per hour.

Before Davis’ death, the most recent Blue Angels fatal crash was in 1999, when a pilot and crew member died while practicing for air shows at a base in Georgia. An investigation determined that the pilot likely developed tunnel vision because a recent rib injury kept him from flexing his abdominal muscles.

After the 1999 crash, the Navy’s air training chief ordered the Blue Angels to consider wearing G-suits....
Since the 1999 crash, the Blue Angels pilots have received a series of waivers that allow them to fly without G-suits. Those waivers, investigators recommend, should continue...





http://www.navytimes.com/news/2008/01/navy_blueangel_080114/

[Runaway Gun]

Ewan's suggestion that the recorder could have recorded Davis's straining, whilst good in theory, won't necessarily work.

Knucks don't always grunt out aloud, let alone loud enough to engage the Voice Activated Mike.

Not a criticism, just an observation.

[Cacciucco]

Hi Guys,
i think that anti-g suit is not so necessary as someone of you said...
The AGSM it's more important then g-suit... i know that in some manuevre the blue angels need to lean on thigh their forearm to move the stick wit precision.
kojak was a great pilot, in many videos you can see him flying at high Gs and speak normally..it was an accident...it's happened, it happen...unfortunately

[Tim McLelland]

Okay, I'll throw in my two penneth...

Beagle makes some valid points. It wouldn't be the first time that an accident has been "blamed" on the guy who got killed, thus precluding any chance of the perceived culprit defending himself. Not saying this has happened in this case but it's hardly unknown.

As for the g-suit argument, it's specious to say the least. If a g-suit has any risk of fouling controls then it's useless by definition. If the gear can't be safely used in the location/conditions it was specifically designed for, then you have to wonder what point there is in buying it!

True, the Reds back seaters don't wear g-suits but having sat-in on a number of full displays with them in the past, I really can't see how the presence of a g-suit would make any difference one way or the other. There's not much room in a Hawk's cockpit to start with so you have to make a conscious effort to push your legs towards the cockpit sides, to ensure they steer clear of the control column. A g-suit (which isn't exactly cumbersome in any case) wouldn't make any difference, and ultimately I think it's just down to the team's own preferences . It's not as if a g-suit suddenly turns the wearer into a Michelin Man - it's fitted tightly to one's legs and in practise it doesn't add any more "bulk" to the wearer's presence at all.

As for the Blue Angels, I flew with them too, and they just don't wear g-suits (or oxygen masks) as a matter of common practise. They certainly never mentioned anything to me about this being because of any perceived risk of fouling controls - they just seemed to think that such gear was unnecessary - simple as that. Maybe (*gulp*) they're wrong? My belief is that they like to stick with their traditions and pride, and they just don't want to get into the business of having to remove additional gear when they're in front of the public, plus their undeniable "can do" attitude makes g-suits sound just a little bit girly for them.

Certainly, they remove the artificial feel from the Hornet's control colum so that they can fly their close formations more precisely, but I really can't see how a g-suit would make any difference to formation flying. When you consider just how much physical force is required to hold the aircraft without artificial feel, then somebody's slightly over-inflated leg really wouldn't be of any significance, even if it was (for some bizarre reason) pushed hard against the control column.

Ultimately, their choice not to wear g-suits can only be seen as a simple matter of personal taste, and you have to wonder whether they ought to compromise their "image" a little in order to add a little bit of built-in safety. Incidentally, I can vouch for the fact that in the Red's flat display, the continual g loadings are often around the 5g mark, and on some of the manoeuvres, the g load does crank up to 6g or more. Likewise, the same is true of the Blue Angles. On one of the display flights I sat-in on, the g load went past 7.5g and even broke the tape head on the internal video recorder (something which happened frequently, they told me), so the flying can get quite brutal at times.

The question of whether a pilot could be heard making any effort to withstand g is hard to answer I guess, as everyon handles these things differently. From my experience with the Blue Angels, there wasn't any particularly audible grunting and groaning, so maybe this is also something which their "pride" discourages. If so, you have to wonder whether this could have contributed to the accident. It compares starkly to the Reds, where the RT is packed full of groans, gasps, expletives and the like.

I suppose the cause of the crash will (by definition) never be known, but even though it does look slightly like a "cop out" to attribute it to "pilot error" ,it does sound like the most likely cause. Even the most hardy of individuals has an off day, and maybe in this instance he was just that little bit over-sensitive to the g loads. We'll never know for sure. But regardless of this, you'd think that if there was even the slightest possibility that the accident was caused by G-LOC, then maybe they ought to forget about the "cool" image, and get themselves some g-suits? The notion that wearing them would render the pilot "weaker" in terms of his ability to withstand g is nonsense, as g-suits don't offer any practical protection unless you still push and grunt at the same time. Realistically, as pilots often say, the g-suit simply gives you something to push against.

Having said this, I have to add that the Blue Angels are a bunch of great people, truly professional and of course, fantastic pilots. Same applies to the guys on the RAFAT who really are exceptional in my opinion, from what I've seen of them. Sad business indeed.