USAF Thunderbird down
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Tick tock, it is now October and not even a preliminary yet? Hmm. Often at this point it would suggest disagreement between the investigators and approvers up the chain- sometimes political, sometimes not enough or contradictory information, sometimes very complicated issues. But if it were an engine issue you would think there would be some sort of hint that they were investigating a complex mechanical issue...
The word in the COS local area was that the Thunderbirds held quite a while longer than expected due to the late arrival of Air Force One. My friend thought a low fuel state was the culprit in the pilotless landing with no fire.
Similar to your analysis, he was guessing that the technical cause of the crash was known almost immediately and that the politics and blame game were what were taking so long.
He recalled a flight display timing snafu three decades ago when he was supposed to lead a four ship F-16 Super Bowl flyover.
Now, this is no s**t.
He had practiced the maneuver with his wingmen and knew exactly when to start the turn inbound to make a pass for the TV cameras at the start of the National Anthem. Nobody took a knee in those days.
There were technical problems with the stadium sound system and the plan was to run a couple of commercials and an interview while sorting things out. The F-16's were told hang to hang loose and they would get a three-minute warning before the music started. Somehow the Star-Spangled Banner suddenly began and nobody told the Air Force.
My friend was in a turn out low over the water and missed the first couple of frantic radio calls to turn inbound. By the time he got the word, the song was half over. Seeing his military career passing before his eyes, he pushed up the power while trying to leave a little throttle for his wingmen to play catchup.
Just as the last notes of the National Anthem were played, the TV camera found the inbound Viper attack. They were still accelerating at a high power setting as they roared over the crowd and then did a pullup to slow the planes before they busted the Mach. It wasn't exactly the gentle banked formation flyby that had been approved by the feds. But the crowd went wild and the General called from Colorado Springs to congratulate Jitney on his spectacular performance.
My friend was also standing in cadet formation at the Academy in 1968 when the F-105's (at least one anyway) famously went supersonic and broke hundreds of windows.
Salute!
You prolly have most of the story correct, Bubba. I refrained posting as I, too, expected more words by now. But my feeling is you will not gt an official report until Bronco leaves 21 Jan 17. Bronco?, see:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n47rVfYG-Qc
I didn't watch the 'birds performance from the hill across I-25 as I usually do, so no comment about too long a speech. Apparently "W" went the longest on one of his. Willie was always long and one year the 'birds were holding over my cabin west of school behind a KC-10, heh heh.
My intell from connections at Pete Field, Denver Guard and a zoomie classmate was that Secret Service would not let the 'birds land until Bronco was on his way, or something to that effect. That may explain his desire to "comfort" the pilot.
As a cadre Viper pilot in 1979 at Hill, we never saw a mechanical fuel starvation incident in those first few years. We had two fuel starvation crashes, including the first loss of a Viper at Hill by an exchange OT&E pilot that did not close the AAR door in a family model after refueling and the jet still had plenty of gas in the drop tank(s) that had not been re-pressurized. Second was pilot error and he flat ran outta gas. He ejected versus deadstick on a country road and the jet continued at 15 deg AoA with gear down and EPU power. Bounced and broke one main gear, and no fire, no severe damage. Pilot walked over a low ridge and there she was with EPU puffing and collision beacon flashing - heh heh.
There could be a trapped fuel condition, and the F-35 has had plumbing insulation "flaking/delaminating" in the tanks that could be a big problem. So even very low on gas ( 600 pounds or so), he should have made it. I do not agree with some of the rumors that one or more of the 'birds flamed out taxiing in. My sources are not in agreement in that regard.
The "joker" fuel call apparently was heard by a Buckley guard troop that had the bird VHF freq. Same source also recalled the "bingo" call and a transmission from #1 re: low fuel.
Gums waits....
You prolly have most of the story correct, Bubba. I refrained posting as I, too, expected more words by now. But my feeling is you will not gt an official report until Bronco leaves 21 Jan 17. Bronco?, see:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n47rVfYG-Qc
I didn't watch the 'birds performance from the hill across I-25 as I usually do, so no comment about too long a speech. Apparently "W" went the longest on one of his. Willie was always long and one year the 'birds were holding over my cabin west of school behind a KC-10, heh heh.
My intell from connections at Pete Field, Denver Guard and a zoomie classmate was that Secret Service would not let the 'birds land until Bronco was on his way, or something to that effect. That may explain his desire to "comfort" the pilot.
As a cadre Viper pilot in 1979 at Hill, we never saw a mechanical fuel starvation incident in those first few years. We had two fuel starvation crashes, including the first loss of a Viper at Hill by an exchange OT&E pilot that did not close the AAR door in a family model after refueling and the jet still had plenty of gas in the drop tank(s) that had not been re-pressurized. Second was pilot error and he flat ran outta gas. He ejected versus deadstick on a country road and the jet continued at 15 deg AoA with gear down and EPU power. Bounced and broke one main gear, and no fire, no severe damage. Pilot walked over a low ridge and there she was with EPU puffing and collision beacon flashing - heh heh.
There could be a trapped fuel condition, and the F-35 has had plumbing insulation "flaking/delaminating" in the tanks that could be a big problem. So even very low on gas ( 600 pounds or so), he should have made it. I do not agree with some of the rumors that one or more of the 'birds flamed out taxiing in. My sources are not in agreement in that regard.
The "joker" fuel call apparently was heard by a Buckley guard troop that had the bird VHF freq. Same source also recalled the "bingo" call and a transmission from #1 re: low fuel.
Gums waits....
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,586
Likes: 0
Received 53 Likes
on
46 Posts
Shades of a Russian NavAv jet perhaps flaming out due fuel starvation recently. BigWigs making BigDecisions on behalf of pilots - never good. At least both ended well.
And now we are in December and still not even a preliminary report? Guess it will now come out after the Inauguration. Surely the board has plenty to go on with a live pilot, a pretty intact aircraft, great records, exact timelines.....This one reeks of politics and internal hand wringing.
You know, regardless of whether the conspiracy gang/flat earth'ers are correct or not, it just seems incredulous to me that if a true indicated fuel emergency was evident in the flight, that.....
.....considering how easy and predictable a flame-out pattern is in the F-16, the flight lead did not put that/those aircraft thru high or low key.
.....considering how easy and predictable a flame-out pattern is in the F-16, the flight lead did not put that/those aircraft thru high or low key.
I will admit that as a flight lead, if a wingman indicated that he had a fairly low fuel state, the absolutely critical first question I would always ask was.....
....."If you don't make it, can I have your stereo?"
....."If you don't make it, can I have your stereo?"
Salute!
Gotta laugh, Okie.
I thot "emergency fuel" was something like 800 pounds for the new motors. So by lining up for new rwy than one they took off from, could have gotten lower. Then finally, lead told tower they were landing. Lowest I ever had on initial was about 700 pounds, and that was the original Pratt F100, pre-DEEC.
I maintain we will not get the real story until 21 Jan.
Gums...
Gotta laugh, Okie.
I thot "emergency fuel" was something like 800 pounds for the new motors. So by lining up for new rwy than one they took off from, could have gotten lower. Then finally, lead told tower they were landing. Lowest I ever had on initial was about 700 pounds, and that was the original Pratt F100, pre-DEEC.
I maintain we will not get the real story until 21 Jan.
Gums...
Throttle trigger malfunction and inadvertent throttle rotation responsible for this mishap according to the AI.
F-16CM THUNDERBIRD ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION RELEASED > Air Combat Command > Article Display
F-16CM THUNDERBIRD ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION RELEASED > Air Combat Command > Article Display
Well, been wrong before and will bite the bullet here.
The throttle doesn't "rotate" as if you twisted it. It moves outboard from the idle detent. I guess you could define that as rotating if your eye level was down on the panel looking forward. But it's like your auto automatic transmission lever that you move left and right thru various "tracks" or "channels".
Something sounds fishy here, because I can't believe the guy didn't pull back all the way to the idle stop sometime during the flight until base turn. In other words, the throttle was outboard at least partially. That still smells, as outboard when forward lights the burner.
Crying shame, as the data looks like the motor was starting back up and he just ran outta time/altitude.
The throttle doesn't "rotate" as if you twisted it. It moves outboard from the idle detent. I guess you could define that as rotating if your eye level was down on the panel looking forward. But it's like your auto automatic transmission lever that you move left and right thru various "tracks" or "channels".
Something sounds fishy here, because I can't believe the guy didn't pull back all the way to the idle stop sometime during the flight until base turn. In other words, the throttle was outboard at least partially. That still smells, as outboard when forward lights the burner.
Crying shame, as the data looks like the motor was starting back up and he just ran outta time/altitude.
As I was one being critical of the investigation delay, I am happy to eat crow if it was indeed an inadvertent throttle pull past the cut off combined with a mechanical failure that allowed the pull past the stop. I still think it took to long, and is a bit fishy- they could have said we were looking at a throttle issue months ago and the main report did little to address the fuel situation during the flight. The main investigation report is here, but did not seem to answer all the questions a few of us had about the mishap flight. Perhaps the appendices do.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/content.gaze...h%20Action.pdf
A few items after a quick scan:
- 56 minute flight before mishap (no external tanks)
- 20-25 minute ground hold before the flight (engine running)
- estimated 1,000 to 1,100 pounds remaining as the mishap aircraft was entering the pattern.
- mentions that bingo and joker fuel would be part of the brief, but the report does not state what those states were or if they were declared.
- No mention of the fuel load or fuel state (other than above), or anything on the reported/rumored call of joker fuel, and reported instruction from lead for a no burner pass.
- Noted wear and debris within the throttle detent that could of allowed the throttle to be rolled back with the button depressed.
Perhaps the rest is in the appendices.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/content.gaze...h%20Action.pdf
A few items after a quick scan:
- 56 minute flight before mishap (no external tanks)
- 20-25 minute ground hold before the flight (engine running)
- estimated 1,000 to 1,100 pounds remaining as the mishap aircraft was entering the pattern.
- mentions that bingo and joker fuel would be part of the brief, but the report does not state what those states were or if they were declared.
- No mention of the fuel load or fuel state (other than above), or anything on the reported/rumored call of joker fuel, and reported instruction from lead for a no burner pass.
- Noted wear and debris within the throttle detent that could of allowed the throttle to be rolled back with the button depressed.
Perhaps the rest is in the appendices.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Something sounds fishy here, because I can't believe the guy didn't pull back all the way to the idle stop sometime during the flight until base turn. In other words, the throttle was outboard at least partially. That still smells, as outboard when forward lights the burner.
The other fishy smell is that if, in fact, this qualified F-16 pilot (a TBird, no less) did actually 'inadvertently' shut down his engine during flight, causing him to eject and lose his aircraft, then why is he still flying with the TBirds ? We all know how the USAF over-reacts to aircraft accidents, especially if pilot error is involved.
Just saying ...
Salute!
If there was debris in the throttle guides, then I can understand that one could pull back and go past the cutoff PLA ( power lever angle), as P&W called it. I still have a problem that the pilot had not pulled back to the idle stop sometime during the flight. The solo birds use burner, idle, speed brakes and all kindsa techniques to have the nice show.
The lift toggle doofer was very obvious, and then you had to also move the throttle outboard to shut down.
The F-16.net has a great post that shows a lot about the throttle:
Thunderbird F-16 down near Colorado Springs - General F-16 forum
In all fairness to the T-bird pilot, I once tapped the flap lever on the A-7D after the initial movement and the sucker stopped lowering the flaps. We had "beep" switches so you could raise/lower the flaps a little bit at a time. So in landing process I grabbed the handle, came around the detent and thot all was well. Leading edge flaps came down, but somewhere in the sequence I bumped the handle and the basic trailing edge flaps stopped at about half or less of required amount. Was a rainy night and runway was slick.
AoA cues in HUD and the "indexers" told me I was doing O.K., but airspeed was 20 knots high and I didn't catch that. So I landed long and hot and could not stop before using the barrier at the far end of the slippery runway.
Gums admits.....
If there was debris in the throttle guides, then I can understand that one could pull back and go past the cutoff PLA ( power lever angle), as P&W called it. I still have a problem that the pilot had not pulled back to the idle stop sometime during the flight. The solo birds use burner, idle, speed brakes and all kindsa techniques to have the nice show.
The lift toggle doofer was very obvious, and then you had to also move the throttle outboard to shut down.
The F-16.net has a great post that shows a lot about the throttle:
Thunderbird F-16 down near Colorado Springs - General F-16 forum
In all fairness to the T-bird pilot, I once tapped the flap lever on the A-7D after the initial movement and the sucker stopped lowering the flaps. We had "beep" switches so you could raise/lower the flaps a little bit at a time. So in landing process I grabbed the handle, came around the detent and thot all was well. Leading edge flaps came down, but somewhere in the sequence I bumped the handle and the basic trailing edge flaps stopped at about half or less of required amount. Was a rainy night and runway was slick.
AoA cues in HUD and the "indexers" told me I was doing O.K., but airspeed was 20 knots high and I didn't catch that. So I landed long and hot and could not stop before using the barrier at the far end of the slippery runway.
Gums admits.....
Last edited by gums; 15th Dec 2016 at 22:41. Reason: spelling/ tech data
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Not lost, but slightly uncertain of position.
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To me it all sounds pretty plausible and I do not see any ghosts. Only two issues as I see it is that 1) The pilot did not perform the following step in his checklist during engine start:
"Throttle cutoff release - Check.
Verify that the cutoff release does not remain in the
actuated position by attempting to retard the throttle to
OFF without depressing the cutoff release. If throttle
moves to OFF, remain in OFF and notify maintenance.
NOTE
Failure to perform this check after engine start
can result in an undetected stuck throttle cutoff
release, which may lead to an unintentional
engine shutdown."
And 2) He used a wrong technic when operating the throttle, and he should not be doing any rotational movement of the throttle at the idle to MIL range, as there is no reason to do so unless you A) want to go into AB from MIL or B) want to go into cutoff from idle.
If you pull the throttle as hard as you can all the way back, without rotating it outboard, there is no chance in hell that it will go into cutoff, even if the cutoff trigger is stuck in the open position. The idle detent will make sure of that.
My technic is to check the cutoff detent twice, first time before engine start when I check the free motion and detents of the throttle, from cutoff to max AB and back, and the second time during engine start, when moving the throttle from cutoff into idle. As soon as I get past the idle detent I will rotate the throttle outboard and try to pull it back to cutoff, without activation of the cutoff trigger.
In 10+ years on the viper I have had to ground abort twice due to stuck cutoff trigger malfunction and once due to missing MIL into AB detent. Both times the cutoff trigger was stuck in the open position due to dust contamination and the throttle quadrant had to be cleaned with compressed air since no lubrication is allowed (oil will collect dust).
"Throttle cutoff release - Check.
Verify that the cutoff release does not remain in the
actuated position by attempting to retard the throttle to
OFF without depressing the cutoff release. If throttle
moves to OFF, remain in OFF and notify maintenance.
NOTE
Failure to perform this check after engine start
can result in an undetected stuck throttle cutoff
release, which may lead to an unintentional
engine shutdown."
And 2) He used a wrong technic when operating the throttle, and he should not be doing any rotational movement of the throttle at the idle to MIL range, as there is no reason to do so unless you A) want to go into AB from MIL or B) want to go into cutoff from idle.
If you pull the throttle as hard as you can all the way back, without rotating it outboard, there is no chance in hell that it will go into cutoff, even if the cutoff trigger is stuck in the open position. The idle detent will make sure of that.
My technic is to check the cutoff detent twice, first time before engine start when I check the free motion and detents of the throttle, from cutoff to max AB and back, and the second time during engine start, when moving the throttle from cutoff into idle. As soon as I get past the idle detent I will rotate the throttle outboard and try to pull it back to cutoff, without activation of the cutoff trigger.
In 10+ years on the viper I have had to ground abort twice due to stuck cutoff trigger malfunction and once due to missing MIL into AB detent. Both times the cutoff trigger was stuck in the open position due to dust contamination and the throttle quadrant had to be cleaned with compressed air since no lubrication is allowed (oil will collect dust).
All sounds very plausible to me too, especially with the history of the pinky trigger. Rocking the throttle outboard/inboard during flight is very much part of the F-16 muscle memory as this is how you select/deselect reheat. Ideally the F-16 throttle would have a push-through detent for reheat, so that the only time you rocked the throttle was during engine start/stop and not part of the normal left-hand cognitive routine, but it is what it is.
(For those who have not flown one, the Viper cockpit is rather tight around the left thigh / throttle area, especially when you are moving your body around, adding another factor to the throttle rocking. Indeed, when flying aggressively it is not uncommon to move your left hand off the throttle completely and grab something more solid.)
(For those who have not flown one, the Viper cockpit is rather tight around the left thigh / throttle area, especially when you are moving your body around, adding another factor to the throttle rocking. Indeed, when flying aggressively it is not uncommon to move your left hand off the throttle completely and grab something more solid.)
Salute, F-16guy!!
Yep, and double yep, and was same in my F-102 and F-101B that had burners, were P&W motors, and such. Just one thing...... was you could come outta burner by pulling straight back and not moving inboard ( I do not like that term "rotate" for some reason). But to shut down took several actions, and my technique from day one was to kinda pull into the inside all the time I moved the throttle except for burner and shutdown.
I don't have my Bk1 checklist, but I do not recall a complicated check of the cutoff trigger except we pulled on it before start to make sure it moved freely and was not jammed.
"Just this once" points out something most folks have not seen. The cockpit is like a Formula 1 or Indy race car. The big pilots are squeezed in. Tall folks no problem as seat goes way up and down and forward/back.
I still have trouble thinking the pilot had the throttle outboard when pulling to idle. And as mentioned, normal movement would not go around the idle detent unless it was broken or shaved off.
If you pull the throttle as hard as you can all the way back, without rotating it outboard, there is no chance in hell that it will go into cutoff, even if the cutoff trigger is stuck in the open position. The idle detent will make sure of that.
I don't have my Bk1 checklist, but I do not recall a complicated check of the cutoff trigger except we pulled on it before start to make sure it moved freely and was not jammed.
"Just this once" points out something most folks have not seen. The cockpit is like a Formula 1 or Indy race car. The big pilots are squeezed in. Tall folks no problem as seat goes way up and down and forward/back.
I still have trouble thinking the pilot had the throttle outboard when pulling to idle. And as mentioned, normal movement would not go around the idle detent unless it was broken or shaved off.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Not lost, but slightly uncertain of position.
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Our aircraft are block 1 and 5 updated to block 10 standard plus block 15 aircraft. All have now been MLU updated, but the throttle quadrant design and operation is still the same as in the block 1, including the drop down detent for BUC operation.
