F/A-18F-18 Incident, Persian Gulf, Monday 08th April

[hval]

An F/A -18F, operating from the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, crashed in to the North Arabia sea yesterday at approximately 12:20 hrs local time.

Both crew members (VFA-103) of the fighter ejected from the jet and were rescued safely.

I have read that there was an engine failure.

[Lonewolf_50]

Doesn't it have 2 engines? :confused:

[Courtney Mil]

Thank Goodness they're safe. I thought that too, LM. We shall see.

[Pontius Navigator]

Lonewolf you should know better. There would be many parts of the flight envelope where one engine isn't enough.

[Arm out the window]

Jeez, if that's an incident, what would you call an accident?

[Dufo]

Loss of human lives?

[lomapaseo]

There would be many parts of the flight envelope where one engine isn't enough.

yes ... but do you really need to operate there in order to make it back to a landing?


I suspect something more to this report

[hval]

Arm out the window,

Jeez, if that's an incident, what would you call an accident?

The definition of what is an incident and what is an accident vary from country to country. The NTSB would probably define what happened as an accident, whereas in Europe that would not necessarily be the case. Also remember that there are different levels of incidents and accidents (e.g. incident and major incident; or accident and fatal accident).

[TBM-Legend]

Comments on ME newslink.....childish and laughable but shows their view of "us"...

Truth
Apr 9, 2013 10:29 PM
Why is that these supper jets drop from the sky in ME, two top new jet purchasd by Saudi at the cost of 60 millions Plus another 60 million bribe Just droped to ground in saudi arabia,knowing that saudi pilots are not allowed to fly them. and now another one droped in P.golf. Can we call it magic and mystory, or engine failure?
Click to Rate ReplyRating0
eireanneach
Apr 9, 2013 8:53 PM
this happens and they are only PRACTICING!! no-brainers,they are like robots,when a problem arises,abandon ship. buy 1 get 1 free!! their army is the same,they are controlled from afar. they have cameras mounted on their helmits to issue on the spot orders,kill,kill,kill. they are MORONS,not marines. they operate exactly as the nazi ss criminals did in the last centaury. they murder unarmed men and women and children,with impunity,and they do this with this knowledge in mind. they opperate illegal prisons where they torture and abuse prisoners. REAL military men do NOT act in this manner.
Click to Rate ReplyRating1
Lol. Engine failure!
Apr 9, 2013 8:43 PM
It was Iranian. Electronic jammers that brought this jet down. Look at our power ,its not yet fully reviled . Bravo Iranian fighters god is with you .
Click to Rate ReplyRating1
Sweden
Apr 9, 2013 7:43 PM
The engine failure....I love it. There are more to come
Click to Rate ReplyRating5
E warfare
Apr 9, 2013 6:46 PM
E warfar or just a crash
Click to Rate ReplyRating2
boboyz
Apr 9, 2013 6:16 PM
hoping the ejecting seat dosent work,,crash together,banji jumping man,fun.
Click to Rate ReplyRating3
Westy
Apr 9, 2013 9:0 AM
The F/A-18F Super Hornet is probably the best fighter jet that the US produces.
Click to Rate ReplyRating3
truthin reply to Westy
4/9/2013 6:48:00 PM
its a close contest between the F-22 Raptor and the super hornet, the raptor is designed mainly for air to air, and the hornet can fill both ground and air attack roles, so i have to agree, the hornet is probably better for middle east deployment since it can take out enemies in the sky and on the ground
Click to Rate Rating3
flyer19999in reply to Westy
4/9/2013 11:13:56 AM
Just before the Iraq-Kuwait war Iraq could have captured A few F/A-18F fighters if they had waited until there delivered.k
Click to Rate Rating5
Iranian In Australiain reply to Westy
4/9/2013 10:48:13 AM
You should get your facts right, and have at least SOME knowledge of military hardware before making such comment. FA-18, super or otherwise, is inferior to most Russian planes and because it is fly-by-wire its Navy pilots are more like computer programers than fighter pilots.
Click to Rate Rating13
KB
Apr 9, 2013 1:41 AM
One devil dead more please.
Click to Rate ReplyRating36
John Scully
Apr 9, 2013 12:44 AM
One less to shoot down

[Courtney Mil]

I wonder what a "supper jet" is.

[TBM-Legend]

I wonder what a "supper jet" is.

The "last" supper baby...:D

or

I just lost my "lunch" what's for supper?:eek:

[Trim Stab]

There would be many parts of the flight envelope where one engine isn't enough.

This is a question I've been wondering about for a while, and was also alluded to in a post about the Jaguar a few days ago - does the average multi-engine FJ have to meet minimum performance requirements at take-off along the same lines of thinking as civvy jets? Eg is the MTOW of (say) a Typhoon or Tornado limited by a requirement to meet a specified ROC if an engine pops at Vr?

My reading of the post about the Jaguar suggested that the Jag could not climb if it lost an engine?

[soddim]

Bloody thing could hardly climb on one engine!

[Bob Viking]

Trim Stab.
I shall elaborate slightly on what I said for clarification. At Thumrait (1800' amsl) in 40+ degrees C there was a single engine dead zone after take off (even after jettisoning stores) until enough flying speed had been attained. Bearing in mind the Omanis also operated the Jag there was sufficient pressure on us I guess to participate. We would almost certainly not have got the dispensation to operate like that from a civvy airfield near built up areas.
Anyway back to the thread. Glad they got out OK.
BV

[Lonewolf_50]

Pontius, we'll see what comes out in due course.

Engine failure in close, or off the cat, both might result in underpowered flight close to the sea.

[alfred_the_great]

You can't land on a Carrier with a single engine. It's much more dangerous to attempt to do so than to ditch the aircraft and attempt to eject.

[Just This Once...]

Errr, what??

[Lonewolf_50]

Alfred, have you flown Hornets? (You may be right, I don't actually know)

I know someone who has.

I'll ask her.

[SpazSinbad]

'alfred_the_great' USN Hornets of both varieties have made single engine emergency landings aboard CVNs - depending upon circumstances these single engine emergencies might also BINGO instead. Plenty of stories in USN Safety Magazine APPROACH about them. This Google Search string will find a few:

Hornet Single Engine Approach CVN APPROACH Magazine

Onesuch story:

The Five Wet Flameout By LCdr. Mike Kinter [APPROACH May/June 2010]
"A Hornet with a fuel leak on short final—time for NATOPS knowledge and procedures." page 29

http://www.public.navy.mil/navsafecen/Documents/media/approach/MayJun10.pdf (2mb)

"...As I placed the landing-gear handle down, flap switch to full, and slowed to on-speed, I immediately was greeted by the glorious voice of “Bitching Betty,” with words that I only had heard in the simulator: “Engine left! Engine left!”

I felt the airplane decelerate and yaw to the left and immediately went to afterburner on the starboard engine. After I had thrown out a few choice words, I immediately told approach, “211 is single-engine at six miles.”

I configured the aircraft to half flaps and started talking to the rep on aux radio. I told him I was going to keep it coming and land the aircraft, because I had no idea of the extent of the fuel leak and wanted to get the plane on deck. He offered some soothing words, “Take a deep breath, calm down, and bring it aboard!”

I was amazed how much power was required to keep a five wet on-speed at max trap. Coming down the chute, I was riding the military stop, promising I never again would miss another day of church. I settled into the 2-wire and came to a stop, only to receive three “lights on deck” calls before I came out of my minicoma and shut them off. After landing, I smelled fuel and shut down the starboard engine...."

[Just This Once...]

Yep, they regularly practice single engine carrier approaches to the field by day and by night but (and I am a little out of date) they do not practice single engine approaches to the actual Carrier. They do lots of sim training too but if possible they will divert to a proper runway.

Chucking away an aircraft and risking an ejection with a serviceable engine would be silly.

[Easy Street]

Trim Stab

UK Tornados conduct peacetime flying without a 'dead zone' and reduce mass if required to do so, which might be the case on a short runway with no overrun arrester cable.

If a suitably senior officer is prepared to sign on the dotted line, unbalanced field ops can still be conducted, usually on ops only. The difference from the Jag case is that a 'dead zone' usually exists on the ground only. If a Tonka has an engine failure at or after Vr it can generally fly away, perhaps with store jettison at heavier weights. Engine failure in a 'dead zone' before Vr leads to a Hobson's choice involving overspeed cable engagements, running off the end of the runway, attempting to fly away and hoping the ODM was overly pessimistic, or trading speed for height before ejecting. All of which have their plus and minus points at different airfields!

I would be very surprised if an F/A-18F couldn't fly away from an engine failure after cat launch if it jettisoned stores straight away. A strong possibility could be secondary damage after engine failure - combat aircraft tend not to have a great degree of systems redundancy and a stray turbine blade can easily bring down an aircraft by severing hydraulic lines or starting a fire.

[Lonewolf_50]

Easy Street:

My POC confirms the single engine approach, not desired but doable. She did also point out that as often as not, if you got an engine out (typically tire debris from tires blown during the stroke, seems there were for a few years too many retread tires on Hornets, thanks Bill Clinton) off the cat, the "go no go" decision comes quickly and if you dont see 'three indications' you hit the handle.

Depends on how heavy and how much wind the CV is giving you on that given day.

As always, there's that adage about there being two kinds of jet pilots:

those who have and those who will ... eject.

[Arm out the window]

hval,

(b) the aircraft sustains damage or structural failure which: adversely affects the structural strength, performance or flight characteristics of the aircraft and would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component (except for engine failure or damage, when the damage is limited to the engine, its cowlings or accessories; or for damage limited to propellers, wing tips, antennas, tires, brakes, fairings, small dents or puncture holes in the aircraft skin); or (c) the aircraft is missing or is completely inaccessible. (ICAO Annex 13)

They've probably recovered the bits and are looking at it in the hangar right now - "That'll buff out!" :)

Any definition of an accident I've seen over the years has been in line with the above ICAO one, which is abridged. Part (a) refers to fatal or serious injury of personnel.

[Bevo]

FYI – from NATOPS F/A-18E/F Performance Data

CAT Launch – 90 deg. F end speed = 160 kts.
Configuration:
Gear down
Full flaps
(2) AIM-9
(2) 480 gal. wing tanks
(4) MK-83 1,000 lb. bombs
Drag Index = 165
Single engine – max thrust

Initial rate of climb = 800 ft/min
Gear up rate of climb = 1,300 ft/min
Jettison stores rate of climb > 2,500 ft/min

[orca]

Easy Street,

The Rhino has excellent redundancy, catastrophic failure of any surface, system, engine or computer shouldn't bring the jet down.

All,

A single engine failure off the cat should be recoverable.

Single engine recoveries to boat straight forward.

No-one of sound mind would argue ejection is favourable to single engine approach.

[alfred_the_great]

I had spoken to a FA-18 pilot on a carrier; he stated that unless he really, really needed to, he would never return on a single engine, especially when operating 'hot and heavy'. Having stood on a CVN flight deck watching FA-18s land on, I fully understand why; a crashing aircraft onto a deck with 100s of people as well as 30+ aircraft isn't an attractive proposition.

[lomapaseo]

I had spoken to a FA-18 pilot on a carrier; he stated that unless he really, really needed to, he would never return on a single engine, especially when operating 'hot and heavy'. Having stood on a CVN flight deck watching FA-18s land on, I fully understand why; a crashing aircraft onto a deck with 100s of people as well as 30+ aircraft isn't an attractive proposition.

I was hoping for a more global response to whether to do a carrier landing with an engine out vs bailing.

What general training instruction might apply?

Presumably such instruction should be based on aircraft performance and training or lack-of and not what-if scenarios without data.

[SpazSinbad]

Straight from NATOX (apparently the 'little blue sleeping pill' for some)...

NATOPS FLIGHT MANUAL NAVY MODEL F/A-18E/F 2001

http://publicintelligence.net/u-s-navy-f-18-natops-flight-manuals/ (http://publicintelligence.net/u-s-navy-f-18-natops-flight-manuals/)
&
http://info.publicintelligence.net/F18-EF-000.pdf (http://info.publicintelligence.net/F18-EF-000.pdf) (22Mb)

"...11.4.1 Single Engine Operation. Engine failure or shutdown with flaps AUTO results in no degradation in handling qualities under most circumstances at low angle of attack. A small amount of yaw trim may be required to counter asymmetric thrust effects. At high AOA, dynamic engine failure results in a yaw toward the failed engine that is controllable by quickly reducing AOA and countering the yaw with rudder. During hard maneuvering, a slight degradation in handling qualities may be noticeable at less than 1.0 Mach between approximately 400 to 500 KCAS where the hydraulic system normally operates at 5,000 psi. At these conditions 5,000 psi operation is inhibited by the FCS to maintain a windmill air-start capability. When 5,000 psi operation is inhibited, flying qualities may be degraded during aggressive maneuvers since there may not be enough hydraulic power to fully deflect numerous flight control surfaces. Additionally, a reduction in departure resistance can be expected at flight conditions where normal 5,000 psi hydraulic system operation is inhibited as described above or a HYD 5000 caution present.
　
With flaps HALF or FULL, minimum controllable airspeed is a function of AOA and lateral asymmetry. Maintaining on-speed AOA is critical to avoiding a departure that can rapidly result in excessive roll attitudes which at low altitude may put the crew out of the safe ejection envelope at low altitude. Even with MAX thrust, static and dynamic engine failures are still controllable as long as AOA is maintained near on-speed. When an engine fails, the first perceptible aircraft motion is a yaw toward the failed engine. While too much rudder pedal is not harmful, too little rudder pedal may cause controllability problems. The second perceptible aircraft motion is a tendency to roll into the failed engine. The natural pilot reaction is to first oppose the roll with lateral stick. The resulting differential aileron deflection generates adverse yaw and increases the demand on the rudders to maintain directional control. Furthermore, as AOA increases, the aircraft becomes less directionally stable and rudder control effectiveness deteriorates. The net result is the rudders may become saturated (surfaces against the stops). In this saturated condition, the rudders cannot counter any additional adverse yawing moment resulting in an increase in sideslip and an adverse yaw departure. During single engine operations, restricting lateral stick inputs to less than½throw reduces the potential for an adverse yaw departure.
　
WARNING
When single engine with the operating engine at MAX, the possibility of an adverse yaw departure increases as AOA exceeds on-speed and lateral stick inputs exceed ½ throw.
　
NOTE
- In straight and level flight, a small amount of lateral and/or directional trim is required to maintain balanced flight...."

[GreenKnight121]

I got my copy of the declassified Super Hornet NATOPS manual here: w.scribd.com/doc/34302299/A1-F18EA-NFM-000-NATOPS-Flight-Manual-F-A-18E-F-Super-Hornet (http://www.pprune.org/w.scribd.com/doc/34302299/A1-F18EA-NFM-000-NATOPS-Flight-Manual-F-A-18E-F-Super-Hornet)

SINGLE ENGINE APPROACH and LANDING . . . . . . . . . . . V-16-1
SINGLE ENGINE FAILURE in LANDING CONFIGURATION . .. V-16-1
SINGLE ENGINE WAVEOFF/BOLTER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-16-3Figure 16-3. CV Recovery Matrix
page V-16-15

This table clearly shows single-engine carrier landings as authorized for the Super Hornet.
1. Aircraft will be flying a half flap straight-in. Approach speed will be higher, therefore wind over deck requirements will increase. Consult applicable ARB for details. Possibility of malfunction affecting other engine. Make sure all possible effort is made to recover the aircraft immediately.
2. Aircraft may require a tow out of the landing area.

[orca]

Alfred,

Two minor points. Heavy is probably (though not always) optional. Secondly a single engine approach is not a crash in any way shape or form.

Let's not forget that this was a Rhino, vice Hornet, so whilst a single engine approach would necessitate a high approach speed it is still a minor drama and not a crisis.

Your mate does have a point. Divert is better than a trap. An ejection is miles worse than either. (I suspect; diverted once or twice, trapped a fair bit, yet to eject!;))

[Schiller]

The Bucc was (at least in theory) capable of s/e landings embarked. 30-20-20 blown half-airbrake.

[SpazSinbad]

My last CO VC-724 in 1974 LCDR George Heron RAN (ex-RN) had this single engine Buccaneer experience....

Buccaneer (http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/Aircraft_by_Type/Buccaneer.htm)

"08-Aug-66 RN Blackburn Buccaneer S.Mk.1 XN949 736 Sqdn Ark Royal
Engine IGV failure on final approach, a/c pitched up and spun in on turn. Crashed into Moray Firth.
Lt. George Heron ejected, injured. Lt. J. Eatwell ejected, injured.