F-22 Raptor missing in Alaska - search underway . . .
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
by the time he realised the situation
The guy either had the correct amount of oxygen in his brain or he did not. If he did not, all bets are off as to his performance levels, including his decision and motor skills and his ability to realise his situation
Training and ability may have no relevance whatsoever...it all depends on the circumstance. Once your kite starts falling to bits around you, training and ability are just factors in what has become a random game of chance. If the emergency is containable and your drills are good you have a better chance of survival, than the numpty who has neglected his training...but no outcome is certain. Becoming impaired, for whatever reason, is just another factor, but one that is going to play a big part in the outcome...and not in a good way.
Oxygen failure has acoounted for many aircrew, military and civilian (and many passengers). Sometimes the crew/pilot will have spotted the problem and fixed it. Sometimes the crew/pilot will have spotted the problem and stoved in anyway. Sometimes the crew/pilot will never have known what happened to them.
How much did to the oxygen failure impair the pilot in this case ...we don't know and we never will. All we know is the oxygen failed to some degree.
Period.
PS I kinda agree with JF. In earlier times life was a little more honest. If the pilot **** up the report said so. Equally if the ac failed the report would have said that too. The vacillation we see nowadays does little to improve flight safety or training. I'm pretty sure an old style accident report on this event would simply have said words to the effect of..
Oxygen supply failed and killed pilot.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess those that put forward these accusations would suggest that pilots being presented with the same conditions can comfortably recover from the situation..
A situation the pilot is forewarned about and probably in a simulator.
What an awful, awful waste of a human life and then to publish a report that causes further distress to this man's loved ones is not the sort of loyalty I would expect from my 'employer' Reading that report really highlights the awful conditions that were thrown at that pilot.
I say waste of a human life just because of the issues with this aircraft. If a pilot makes mistakes then they must accept the consequences. if a manufacturer\designer has made mistakes then surely they also have a duty to accept they made mistakes. I am not someone that believes in litigation but by crikey.
I hope the next of kin of that pilot sues the bee Jesus out of the manufacturer of that aircraft...
Said in my best Mr Angry voice.
My respects to this man's Next of Kin
A situation the pilot is forewarned about and probably in a simulator.
What an awful, awful waste of a human life and then to publish a report that causes further distress to this man's loved ones is not the sort of loyalty I would expect from my 'employer' Reading that report really highlights the awful conditions that were thrown at that pilot.
I say waste of a human life just because of the issues with this aircraft. If a pilot makes mistakes then they must accept the consequences. if a manufacturer\designer has made mistakes then surely they also have a duty to accept they made mistakes. I am not someone that believes in litigation but by crikey.
I hope the next of kin of that pilot sues the bee Jesus out of the manufacturer of that aircraft...
Said in my best Mr Angry voice.My respects to this man's Next of Kin
Beagle
No, the F-22 does not have an HMS at this time.
NVGs are attached to the pilot's HGU-55 via a 'banana clip' that means the visor cannot be raised or lowered - as a consequence, the visor is almost always removed altogether.
No, the F-22 does not have an HMS at this time.
NVGs are attached to the pilot's HGU-55 via a 'banana clip' that means the visor cannot be raised or lowered - as a consequence, the visor is almost always removed altogether.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi OK465,
I totally agree and FULLY endorse your sentiments and I can say that first hand.
I know you quoted my post and I stand by what I said but only because of the way this man is being portrayed.
I accept it is only being said that his actions were contributory to that incident, but the implication is far more character assassinating?
This is just one headline:
Pilot is to blame for F-22 crash in Alaska, Air Force says
Anchorage Daily News click here
Is that right or fair?
Is this what we expect and what about the victim's children when they go to school? There is nowt as spiteful as children and can we even begin to imagine what they are having to contend with? In my humble opinion this could have been avoided quite simply by blaming the defective equipment!
I guess I just feel angry that this type of headline has been allowed... it has been allowed because the USAF used words that they knew would do just that.
They must have known what they were doing when they wrote that report for public release.
They must have known how the media would react.
They must have known the media would 'slaughter' the good name of that pilot.
It smacks of an attempt to sacrifice the good name of a loyal pilot just to cover up an issue they are fully aware of!!!
Many apologies for my response but I would like to think that pilot deserved better...and boy I would like to have words with those that worded that report in the way they have.
No one but no one knows if the pilot suffered any physical symptoms as a result of that DEFECTIVE EQUPMENT
No one knows when or indeed IF this pilot FULLY recovered from any possible effects of that DEFECTIVE EQUIPMENT
I accept he tried to recover the aircraft but without being too graphic it very much sounds like his remains have sadly not been recovered which means we will never know just how fully compos mentis this man was solely because of the DEFECTIVE EQUIPMENT that was possibly the direct cause of the pilot needing to taking corrective action which may, or may not have caused him to become either semi-concious or even possibly black out.
did he suffer from deprivation of oxygen? My answer would be 'Yes' but who can say by what degree?
The part of my quote you accidentally left out was:
I agree entirely with your sentiments but when someone stabs you in the back in the style they have deliberately encouraged then I just feel those responsible need a 'slap'
Apologies one and all for the emotive post but wrong is wrong and I feel better for saying it
I totally agree and FULLY endorse your sentiments and I can say that first hand.
I know you quoted my post and I stand by what I said but only because of the way this man is being portrayed.
I accept it is only being said that his actions were contributory to that incident, but the implication is far more character assassinating?
This is just one headline:
Pilot is to blame for F-22 crash in Alaska, Air Force says
Anchorage Daily News click here
Is that right or fair?
Is this what we expect and what about the victim's children when they go to school? There is nowt as spiteful as children and can we even begin to imagine what they are having to contend with? In my humble opinion this could have been avoided quite simply by blaming the defective equipment!
I guess I just feel angry that this type of headline has been allowed... it has been allowed because the USAF used words that they knew would do just that.
They must have known what they were doing when they wrote that report for public release.
They must have known how the media would react.
They must have known the media would 'slaughter' the good name of that pilot.
It smacks of an attempt to sacrifice the good name of a loyal pilot just to cover up an issue they are fully aware of!!!
Many apologies for my response but I would like to think that pilot deserved better...and boy I would like to have words with those that worded that report in the way they have.
No one but no one knows if the pilot suffered any physical symptoms as a result of that DEFECTIVE EQUPMENT
No one knows when or indeed IF this pilot FULLY recovered from any possible effects of that DEFECTIVE EQUIPMENT
I accept he tried to recover the aircraft but without being too graphic it very much sounds like his remains have sadly not been recovered which means we will never know just how fully compos mentis this man was solely because of the DEFECTIVE EQUIPMENT that was possibly the direct cause of the pilot needing to taking corrective action which may, or may not have caused him to become either semi-concious or even possibly black out.
did he suffer from deprivation of oxygen? My answer would be 'Yes' but who can say by what degree?
The part of my quote you accidentally left out was:
Originally Posted by glojo
I am not someone that believes in litigation but by crikey
Apologies one and all for the emotive post but wrong is wrong and I feel better for saying it
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: South Central UK
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is not the aircraft manufacturer that 'approves' the aircraft to be operated in the military flying environment - it is the Military Authority.
All too often, because of cost and/or delay or simple inability to understand an issue identified by others, the said Military Authority accepts obvious deficiencies in systems etc and clears a platform into Service.
Once this action has been taken, the aircraft manufacturer is of the hook and any subsequent remedy that is deemed essential must be paid for by the tax payer. That places the whole problem back into the 'cost loop' again with all the attendant affordability issues; plus the cost to fix will now have risen considerably!
lm
All too often, because of cost and/or delay or simple inability to understand an issue identified by others, the said Military Authority accepts obvious deficiencies in systems etc and clears a platform into Service.
Once this action has been taken, the aircraft manufacturer is of the hook and any subsequent remedy that is deemed essential must be paid for by the tax payer. That places the whole problem back into the 'cost loop' again with all the attendant affordability issues; plus the cost to fix will now have risen considerably!
lm
Pilots have said that the emergency oxygen supply is notoriously difficult to use in the Raptor.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The Great Midwest
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
am I correct in thinking that the onboard oxygen generation equipment comes from Honeywell - i.e. a British Normalair-Garrett (as was) product?
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Malkin Tower
Posts: 847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The F-22 OBOGS unit is supplied by Honeywell as is the unit on the F-35."
So admitting there may be a problem with the OBOGS of the F-22 could lead to political issues over the workshare on the F-35?
So admitting there may be a problem with the OBOGS of the F-22 could lead to political issues over the workshare on the F-35?
james,
Unless I am mis-reading this text, the serviceability of the OBOGS itself was not a factor in this accident. Rather it was a failure of the aircraft's own bleed-air system which starved the OBOGS of the air input it needed to function. So this particular accident looks unlikely to be laid at Honeywell's door.
The F-22's On-board Oxygen Generating System (OBOGS), which supplies breathing air to the pilot and has been under investigation for most of the year, did not malfunction and wasn't a contributing factor, the report said. But the crucial device did shut down because of the bleed-air problem.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JF:
I am not sure the report does say this is "Pilot Error"? I might be misunderstanding your point (?) of course 
Ditto the oft quoted
... yet the report does not blame the pilot. It finds factors, but nowhere do I see "negligence", "poor judgement", even "error". It does state the pilot "failure to recognize and initiate..." - but that is not the same as blame. He clearly did "fail to...", but nowhere does it say he ought to have "recognized" etc. in the circumstances i.e. the root cause of his failure might be other factors e.g. training / equipment.
NoD
I think to say this accident was pilot error is quite astonishing
Ditto the oft quoted
Air Force Blames Pilot
NoD
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The Great Midwest
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So admitting there may be a problem with the OBOGS of the F-22 could lead to political issues over the workshare on the F-35?
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Malkin Tower
Posts: 847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem is when some pork-barreling congressman realises that theres a foreign supplier he can take a pot shot at and tries to mandate a bill insisting on USA manufactured kit
1) NVG help you stay oriented whilst looking out of the window as you can see the ground surface quite clearly even from high altitude (providing there is decent moonlight or cultural lighting). This avoids the problem of perceiving false horizons due to confusion between stars and points of light on the surface.
2) NVG immediately highlight any aircraft displaying lights or using reheat. A view of the night skies over the UK using NVG will reveal many, many more aircraft than you could possibly see by day even in the clearest weather. Indeed it can become very confusing as you get very little idea of range. However if you have a radar or GCI service to help correlate the picture then you can get very long-range tallies (50nm+) using NVG.
Additional uses of NVG at high altitude, not relevant in this case, are close formation flying at night and joining AAR. Boom AAR such as practised by the USAF is often completed wearing NVG (most probe-and-drogue receivers will remove NVG once behind the tanker due to the lack of depth perception).
2) NVG immediately highlight any aircraft displaying lights or using reheat. A view of the night skies over the UK using NVG will reveal many, many more aircraft than you could possibly see by day even in the clearest weather. Indeed it can become very confusing as you get very little idea of range. However if you have a radar or GCI service to help correlate the picture then you can get very long-range tallies (50nm+) using NVG.
Additional uses of NVG at high altitude, not relevant in this case, are close formation flying at night and joining AAR. Boom AAR such as practised by the USAF is often completed wearing NVG (most probe-and-drogue receivers will remove NVG once behind the tanker due to the lack of depth perception).
NVG immediately highlight any aircraft displaying lights or using reheat.
The Harrier mate saw us from miles away when we were just cruising along showing normal lights. Then he read out our registration letters whilst still in loose formation. He was most chuffed with the way the NVGs were working. Then he asked me to pop one into burner....
"Ah - wish I hadn't asked that! The whole world's just gone bright green!"
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NigelOnDraft
Since oinly the MP is criticised in this conclusion I believe that is just a PC way of saying Pilot Error. The above is a picture from the actual report. They could have used a proof reader.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi John...
It could be read that way.
However, if you come at it from a different viewpoint, firstly it was the direct "cause" of the accident - after all, if he had "recognized" etc. the accident would not have occurred. That viewpoint applied would also lead me to say the quote you give is not "criticism" - just an observation. Furthermore, the subsequent "factors" given in the report make it fairly clear that it was perfectly understandable, if not likely, that the pilot would "fail to recognize" / "make timely"... and that the priority needs to be given to correcting those "factors" in order to remove the likliehood of the "cause" being repeated i.e. you can improve training / equipment, you cannot easily improve scan rates / prioritisation of an already clearly capable and experienced pilot.
Quite what "cause" "fault" "blame" can be inferred depends on what the terms of Ref are for USAF Accident Investigations - I believe AF 51-503 which I cannot find after a quick search.
NoD
Since oinly the MP is criticised in this conclusion I believe that is just a PC way of saying Pilot Error.
However, if you come at it from a different viewpoint, firstly it was the direct "cause" of the accident - after all, if he had "recognized" etc. the accident would not have occurred. That viewpoint applied would also lead me to say the quote you give is not "criticism" - just an observation. Furthermore, the subsequent "factors" given in the report make it fairly clear that it was perfectly understandable, if not likely, that the pilot would "fail to recognize" / "make timely"... and that the priority needs to be given to correcting those "factors" in order to remove the likliehood of the "cause" being repeated i.e. you can improve training / equipment, you cannot easily improve scan rates / prioritisation of an already clearly capable and experienced pilot.
Quite what "cause" "fault" "blame" can be inferred depends on what the terms of Ref are for USAF Accident Investigations - I believe AF 51-503 which I cannot find after a quick search.
NoD
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hypoxic hypoxia is an insidious event. Here is one such, a lone pilot who had an aircraft fail to pressurise, and by luck more then anything, survived.
http://atsb.gov.au/media/2499615/ao2009044.pdf
http://atsb.gov.au/media/2499615/ao2009044.pdf