Blue Angels Crash (Merged)
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Lon UK
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Our thoughts go with both Lieut Commander Davis U.S.N. and those he has left behind.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Do you have the link to the full version of the famous vid ?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
....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.".......
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.".......
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Not a huge sand box but very nice winters anymore
Age: 57
Posts: 548
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Middle East
Posts: 1,183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Saudi-PC9
Agree mate, what a load of cr*p! 
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...........
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...........
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: R4808E
Posts: 422
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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"
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"
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"the Blue Angels whilst a magnificiant American Icon don't have the best track record in the world for Death V Displays!"
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!
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!
More bang for your buck
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 82
Posts: 3,512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...ue-angels.html
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...ue-angels.html
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: California U.S.
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G-LOC ?
...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).
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).
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NW FL
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by DelaneyT
The U.S Navy reportedly will issue preliminary findings in 3 weeks (... that's real quick for a government investigation).
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...
"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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NW FL
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by West Coast
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 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.
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
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NW FL
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: California U.S.
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
U.S. Navy Safety Center article
....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/MED...the_Hornet.htm
[excerpt]
http://www.safetycenter.navy.mil/MED...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.
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.