Dayton Ohio Airshow USAF Thunderbird Mishap
Salute!
I,too, am surprised about both the rain accumulating on the canopy and the final approach speed and rollout technique.
1) I did not fly in a lotta heavy rain in that jet. Snow, yes, rain not much.
The HUD symbology is useable even if the canopy in front of it is completely FUBAR. We had one guy fly for about 10 minutes using the HUD and the inertial flight path marker and such because he was attacked by a large pelican and blood/gore obscured his vision, heh heh. The bird also broke off most of his radome, including the AoA sensors. Then the computers got contaminated and the jet went la la, so he punched.
If you look at my HUD tape from the leading edge flap failure, you can see a great display of the ILS symbology. Should be on my profile entry interview. So you can lean around the HUD and skid, as this guy apparently did. No biggie so land in the skid while following the ILS all the way down and keep speed down where it should be.
2) I did land in squirelly winds and even crosswinds right at the limit when flying the Viper. The jet is very susceptible to gusts and to be honest, it does not want to land and floats if you are fast and wish to touch down firmly. Thus a very long landing.
This episode comes down to lack of experience by a low time Viper driver and poor technique from approach speed, then flare and then rollout braking. I can't believe the 'birds selected a guy with so few Viper hours ( 150 hrs or so?), and he may have gotten a fair share of them after being selected as the narrator. BTW, I used to think No.8 was the logistics/maintenance guy and no 7 was the narrator. Oh well. If that first female had zero Viper time, then I guess this guy was good to go.
The jet lands very well at high yaw in a steady crosswind. It also lands well without a flare if you have plenty of drag, but the T-bird jets are extremely clean and light. So you gotta pull back on that throttle lever, duh?
Or you go around.
The anti-skid on our jets got way better during the early 70's and were not the pulse mode doofers I flew with in the Deuce and VooDoo. You simply pressed hard and the brakes would gradually increase pressure as you slowed and stopped the "rolling skid". As with this dude, I once went out on the overrun after landing my VooDoo on an ice-coated runway after landing long. Anti-skid cycled the whole way and I had my hand on the "hook" as nose gear crossed the barrier cable, all the while debating with my RSO whether to drop the hook!!! We were at a walking speed and the asphalt had more traction than the concrete runway, so we turned and cleared the runway for the next guy. A Cannuck transport guy on the taxiway watched the whole thing and after I reported to tower ( they could not see see me due to the heavy snow), he said, "nice going, mate" or something like that.
Gums sends...
I,too, am surprised about both the rain accumulating on the canopy and the final approach speed and rollout technique.
1) I did not fly in a lotta heavy rain in that jet. Snow, yes, rain not much.
The HUD symbology is useable even if the canopy in front of it is completely FUBAR. We had one guy fly for about 10 minutes using the HUD and the inertial flight path marker and such because he was attacked by a large pelican and blood/gore obscured his vision, heh heh. The bird also broke off most of his radome, including the AoA sensors. Then the computers got contaminated and the jet went la la, so he punched.
If you look at my HUD tape from the leading edge flap failure, you can see a great display of the ILS symbology. Should be on my profile entry interview. So you can lean around the HUD and skid, as this guy apparently did. No biggie so land in the skid while following the ILS all the way down and keep speed down where it should be.
2) I did land in squirelly winds and even crosswinds right at the limit when flying the Viper. The jet is very susceptible to gusts and to be honest, it does not want to land and floats if you are fast and wish to touch down firmly. Thus a very long landing.
This episode comes down to lack of experience by a low time Viper driver and poor technique from approach speed, then flare and then rollout braking. I can't believe the 'birds selected a guy with so few Viper hours ( 150 hrs or so?), and he may have gotten a fair share of them after being selected as the narrator. BTW, I used to think No.8 was the logistics/maintenance guy and no 7 was the narrator. Oh well. If that first female had zero Viper time, then I guess this guy was good to go.
The jet lands very well at high yaw in a steady crosswind. It also lands well without a flare if you have plenty of drag, but the T-bird jets are extremely clean and light. So you gotta pull back on that throttle lever, duh?
Or you go around.
The anti-skid on our jets got way better during the early 70's and were not the pulse mode doofers I flew with in the Deuce and VooDoo. You simply pressed hard and the brakes would gradually increase pressure as you slowed and stopped the "rolling skid". As with this dude, I once went out on the overrun after landing my VooDoo on an ice-coated runway after landing long. Anti-skid cycled the whole way and I had my hand on the "hook" as nose gear crossed the barrier cable, all the while debating with my RSO whether to drop the hook!!! We were at a walking speed and the asphalt had more traction than the concrete runway, so we turned and cleared the runway for the next guy. A Cannuck transport guy on the taxiway watched the whole thing and after I reported to tower ( they could not see see me due to the heavy snow), he said, "nice going, mate" or something like that.
Gums sends...
Last edited by gums; 4th Nov 2017 at 16:40. Reason: typos
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
I'm surprised there's no real mention of the obvious "press-on-itis" that took place here. The weather was dog****e (how useful a ground crew famil in those conditions is another question) and the pilot was confronted by an aerodynamic visibility/precipitation condition he had not previously encountered. So that generates 2 questions:
1. Why not divert to somewhere that wasn't enjoying torrential rain and thunderstorms?
2. If the weather was widespread enough to preclude a meaningful diversion, why even get airborne in the first place?
The reports hits all the technical and technique issues, but there was some basic airmanship and command decision making at fault here around the entire sortie.
1. Why not divert to somewhere that wasn't enjoying torrential rain and thunderstorms?
2. If the weather was widespread enough to preclude a meaningful diversion, why even get airborne in the first place?
The reports hits all the technical and technique issues, but there was some basic airmanship and command decision making at fault here around the entire sortie.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Not lost, but slightly uncertain of position.
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When the F-16 got the bird slicers (AIFF) antennas in front of the canopy, it changed the airflow and got us a phenomenon called water pooling. Our jets did not have bird slicers originally and water pooling was never a problem even though we get lots of rain in northern europe. Once we got the MLU upgrade and the bird slicers were mounted in front of the canopy, we started noticing this problem. The solution for now is to treat the canopy with a product that repels the water, but it does not work good enough if the rain is really heavy.
From my own experience, if water pooling conditions are present, the water will start to pool once slowing below 170-160 knots (9-10 AOA ish). In some cases it will spread all the way back to the sides of the HUD. If that happens you can not lean to one side and look past the HUD and land. With water pooling present you will have to accelerate to at least 30-40 knots over the speed where the water pooling started, to get it to disappear.
Water pooling sucks!
Agree that less then 150 hours on the Viper is very few for a T-bird. With a bit more experience on the F-16 the MP would have known that best way to reduce landing roll is to apply aerobreak down to 80 knots, lower the NLG to the RWY, pull full aft stick, speed brake fully out and max wheel braking. It is very difficult to resist the urge to bring the nose down early and hit the brakes if the RWY end is charging at you, but its not as effective as the above. Especially on wet and slippery surfaces. If in doubt, full A/B, speed brake in and go around.
Last but not least, I dont get the diversion fuel 1900 lb part. My take is that if you have not landed safely by 1900 lb remaining, you divert. The MP commenced the approach at 1900 lb and touched down with 1600 lb, thereby committing him to land at KDAY since he is now below divert fuel. Or am I missing something?
From my own experience, if water pooling conditions are present, the water will start to pool once slowing below 170-160 knots (9-10 AOA ish). In some cases it will spread all the way back to the sides of the HUD. If that happens you can not lean to one side and look past the HUD and land. With water pooling present you will have to accelerate to at least 30-40 knots over the speed where the water pooling started, to get it to disappear.
Water pooling sucks!
Agree that less then 150 hours on the Viper is very few for a T-bird. With a bit more experience on the F-16 the MP would have known that best way to reduce landing roll is to apply aerobreak down to 80 knots, lower the NLG to the RWY, pull full aft stick, speed brake fully out and max wheel braking. It is very difficult to resist the urge to bring the nose down early and hit the brakes if the RWY end is charging at you, but its not as effective as the above. Especially on wet and slippery surfaces. If in doubt, full A/B, speed brake in and go around.
Last but not least, I dont get the diversion fuel 1900 lb part. My take is that if you have not landed safely by 1900 lb remaining, you divert. The MP commenced the approach at 1900 lb and touched down with 1600 lb, thereby committing him to land at KDAY since he is now below divert fuel. Or am I missing something?
It surprises me that a pilot, of such quality as to be a member of the Thunderbirds team, deliberately landed so fast
....and so far in. Its always been a military truism that there is nothing so useless as runway behind you
....and so far in. Its always been a military truism that there is nothing so useless as runway behind you
Salute!
Thanks for the updates, you guys. Haven't talked with a current Viper driver for many moons.
I can't believe ACC or USAF approved the mod unless they never tested the configuration in weather with "glued on" bumps. As I departed the fix, they were placing RHAW antennas on the LEF's because we were getting inaccurate azimuth for tgts on the the nose. They figured out a way later to get rid of those doofers. Could be where those bumps came from.
Not taking into account the water puddling on the canopy with no "blast air" as the Sluf and Phantom had is another example of the influence of the "Edwards mafia". With a few tests here at Eglin the issue would have been well known. But running the majority of your airframe and weapon tests in the dry desert is not a good test of all the new stuff, IMHO. We have seen test responsibility "creep" here at Eglin for 40 years!! Oh well, I'll stop whining.
I join others about the decision-making, concerning at least one other great divert base with the barriers and such ( don't think Dayton has departure end cables or he would have used the hook). Also agree about technique. Viper antiskid is awesome, but you need weight on the tires to exploit the coefficient of friction and break thru hydrofoiling.
Gums opines...
Thanks for the updates, you guys. Haven't talked with a current Viper driver for many moons.
I can't believe ACC or USAF approved the mod unless they never tested the configuration in weather with "glued on" bumps. As I departed the fix, they were placing RHAW antennas on the LEF's because we were getting inaccurate azimuth for tgts on the the nose. They figured out a way later to get rid of those doofers. Could be where those bumps came from.
Not taking into account the water puddling on the canopy with no "blast air" as the Sluf and Phantom had is another example of the influence of the "Edwards mafia". With a few tests here at Eglin the issue would have been well known. But running the majority of your airframe and weapon tests in the dry desert is not a good test of all the new stuff, IMHO. We have seen test responsibility "creep" here at Eglin for 40 years!! Oh well, I'll stop whining.
I join others about the decision-making, concerning at least one other great divert base with the barriers and such ( don't think Dayton has departure end cables or he would have used the hook). Also agree about technique. Viper antiskid is awesome, but you need weight on the tires to exploit the coefficient of friction and break thru hydrofoiling.
Gums opines...
Last edited by gums; 5th Nov 2017 at 19:31. Reason: spelling
Water pooling sucks!
Never flew one with AIFF, but even without it there were times in the Oklahoma rain that I wished I had some kind of windshield exterior air ala the F-4.
Dayton would probably have had the disorienting ALSF sequenced flasher lights up full bright in these conditions. I recall asking to have the sequenced flashers turned off a couple of rainy nights. (I believe they lost one at Shaw due to disorientation on short final.) Would that also mitigate some of the AIFF water pooling visual effects or was it a lost cause?
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Somewhere in England
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember reading Air Clues in the 60's or 70's of an accident to an RAF aircraft and the explanation concluded something about lots of water on the windscreen and it causing an apparent error in what the pilot saw due to refraction in the different substances, water and glass. Perhaps the Thunderbird accident had a similar root cause but not identified?
I have not read to the report, but is the speed quoted IAS or groundspeed?
Perhaps a Microburst from a thunderstorm causing a large tailwind during the landing was the cause of the problem.
Thunderstorms and wet runways have always been a source of problems. One such was when 8 RAAF Sabres came down to Tengah from Butterworth in the early 60s to reinforce the Singapore air defence. They arrived on a Saturday morning in a heavy tropical thunderstorm. The first landed and slid off the end into the Safeland barrier, his No2 diverted to Changi. The leader of the second pair slid off the side of the runway near to the end. No2 to Changi again. The third pair, the same except the leader was off the other side of the runway. The fourth pair also tried to land with the result that ATC tannoyed " Crash Crash Crash Another Sabre in the Barrier". No serious damage was done to the aircraft, and when the pilots came into the Mess we were all "very sympathetic"
Perhaps a Microburst from a thunderstorm causing a large tailwind during the landing was the cause of the problem.
Thunderstorms and wet runways have always been a source of problems. One such was when 8 RAAF Sabres came down to Tengah from Butterworth in the early 60s to reinforce the Singapore air defence. They arrived on a Saturday morning in a heavy tropical thunderstorm. The first landed and slid off the end into the Safeland barrier, his No2 diverted to Changi. The leader of the second pair slid off the side of the runway near to the end. No2 to Changi again. The third pair, the same except the leader was off the other side of the runway. The fourth pair also tried to land with the result that ATC tannoyed " Crash Crash Crash Another Sabre in the Barrier". No serious damage was done to the aircraft, and when the pilots came into the Mess we were all "very sympathetic"
I remember reading Air Clues in the 60's or 70's of an accident to an RAF aircraft and the explanation concluded something about lots of water on the windscreen and it causing an apparent error in what the pilot saw due to refraction in the different substances, water and glass. Perhaps the Thunderbird accident had a similar root cause but not identified?
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Not lost, but slightly uncertain of position.
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember reading Air Clues in the 60's or 70's of an accident to an RAF aircraft and the explanation concluded something about lots of water on the windscreen and it causing an apparent error in what the pilot saw due to refraction in the different substances, water and glass. Perhaps the Thunderbird accident had a similar root cause but not identified?
I have not read to the report, but is the speed quoted IAS or groundspeed?
I think it was at a party for participants at Dayton Air Show in the 80’s that a Thunderbird pilot introduced himself to a group of 101 Sqn aircrew as “hi I’m Thunderbird 6” to which a Scottish Flt Lt pilot replied “hi I’m obnoxious 2”! You just had to be there!
haltonapp wrote:
Wasn't it actually a polite Blue Angels pilot at a room party? But it was indeed rather a well-oiled Scottish Flt Lt VC10K pilot, who replied "An' I'm obnoxious two, so f**k o*f!". To his credit, the Blue Angel laughed it off and they had another drink together, to bury the hatchet.
Anyway, notwithstanding water pooling on the windscreen obscuring the HUD (which reportedly suffers from vibration effects in such conditions), how much HUD-out instrument flying do regular F-16 pilots practice, let alone the rather more specialised Thunderbirds pilots?
Heavy Welsh rain and the flat windscreen of the Hunter FGA9 didn't make manual GCAs much fun at Brawdy, as I recall. Absolutely NO forward visibility, but at least there was enough peripheral vision to let you know when you were over RW rather than grass.
The mishap report is somewhat harsh, in my opinion.
I think it was at a party for participants at Dayton Air Show in the 80’s that a Thunderbird pilot introduced himself to a group of 101 Sqn aircrew as “hi I’m Thunderbird 6” to which a Scottish Flt Lt pilot replied “hi I’m obnoxious 2”!
Anyway, notwithstanding water pooling on the windscreen obscuring the HUD (which reportedly suffers from vibration effects in such conditions), how much HUD-out instrument flying do regular F-16 pilots practice, let alone the rather more specialised Thunderbirds pilots?
Heavy Welsh rain and the flat windscreen of the Hunter FGA9 didn't make manual GCAs much fun at Brawdy, as I recall. Absolutely NO forward visibility, but at least there was enough peripheral vision to let you know when you were over RW rather than grass.
The mishap report is somewhat harsh, in my opinion.
Salute!
@Beagle and maybe others........
There is no "windshield" panel on the F-16. You are looking thru a "bubble" and the HUD is in the way, heh heh.
So the aero effects of RHAW gear "improvements" seem to have made for the problem that we early drivers did not see.
++++++
I cannot find the whole accident report, and would like to see if the "board" recommended a re-design and testing of new antennas that would eliminate the water puddling. But what do I know?
Hell, maybe a strip of duct tape just behind those antennas and in front of the canopy seal might solve the problem!!!
Gums sends...
@Beagle and maybe others........
There is no "windshield" panel on the F-16. You are looking thru a "bubble" and the HUD is in the way, heh heh.
So the aero effects of RHAW gear "improvements" seem to have made for the problem that we early drivers did not see.
++++++
I cannot find the whole accident report, and would like to see if the "board" recommended a re-design and testing of new antennas that would eliminate the water puddling. But what do I know?
Hell, maybe a strip of duct tape just behind those antennas and in front of the canopy seal might solve the problem!!!
Gums sends...
AIFF is not RHAW, it's the interrogator....like the old APX.
I'd rather have that equipment with less forward viz in the rain, than not....maybe if necessary with duct tape.
And some 'bubble' exterior air....
The old rule of thumb for an F-100 IP, was that if you couldn't see the runway out the side, then it had to be in front of you.
I'd rather have that equipment with less forward viz in the rain, than not....maybe if necessary with duct tape.
And some 'bubble' exterior air....
The old rule of thumb for an F-100 IP, was that if you couldn't see the runway out the side, then it had to be in front of you.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Not lost, but slightly uncertain of position.
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
haltonapp wrote:
Anyway, notwithstanding water pooling on the windscreen obscuring the HUD (which reportedly suffers from vibration effects in such conditions), how much HUD-out instrument flying do regular F-16 pilots practice, let alone the rather more specialised Thunderbirds pilots?
Anyway, notwithstanding water pooling on the windscreen obscuring the HUD (which reportedly suffers from vibration effects in such conditions), how much HUD-out instrument flying do regular F-16 pilots practice, let alone the rather more specialised Thunderbirds pilots?
What is the vibration effect you are referring to?
Here you go Gums:
http://www.airforcemag.com/AircraftA...16D_Dayton.pdf
I thinks flying fast on approach by that much is not the way to fly the Viper. Water pooling or not, 40 knots over the recommended speed crossing the numbers is not gonna help you land safely.
Worst I've tried was landing in 28knots gusting to 57knots with a slight crosswind component. Just added 20 knots to the final speed to avoid getting the horn (15 AOA). Landed slightly long and maybe slightly fast, but with plenty of headwind slowing down before the end was easy. With 40 knots over, I bet the jet is going to be convinced that its required to fly, not to land.
The Viper is a great handling aircraft on the ground and in the air. However, its a bit tricky in the transition between the two phases. We teach the students to fly the final approach with 3 degree angle, flight path marker on the piano keys, 11AOA until the start of the roundout, then cut the picture in half (FPM at 1,5 degrees), smoothly retard the go handle to idle while raising the FPM to half a degree below the horizon, and touch down at 13 AOA. If slightly hot, we teach them to delay raising the nose to 13 AOA during the aerobrake or the jet is gone go flying again.
Pushing the stick forward during rollout is a big no no. I wonder if its some technic carried over by the MP from the A-10, but it sounds strange.
AIFF is not RHAW, it's the interrogator....like the old APX.
I'd rather have that equipment with less forward viz in the rain, than not....maybe if necessary with duct tape.
I'd rather have that equipment with less forward viz in the rain, than not....maybe if necessary with duct tape.
F-16GUY, sorry that I used the word 'vibration' - according to the accident report http://www.airforcemag.com/AircraftA...16D_Dayton.pdf 'blurring' would have been a better description.
Salute!
Great updates, F16Guy.
For some reason I thot those antennas were more realted to RHAW than to IFF. Last I dealt with that "spectrum" of electronic stuff we were more interested in non-coperative tgt recognition using the RHAW, IFF and the radar we had.
Only time I flew more than 20 knots above basic speed was with the LEF failure, and I held that until touchdown. Almost lost it, but thank God I did not flare but simply pull back throttle at the touch. The drag was immense and I made the mid-field turnoff easily after a 160 knot touch.
No doubt that sucker does not want to land! And ditto on fwd stick pressure. I personally did not like the 11 deg AoA and then flare , having come from the Sluf. When solo, I flew the 13 deg bracket and then added a touch of back stick as I pulled power off. I taught the studs both, but most folks liked the two-stage flare.
Great stuff from the "new" generation. I miss it sorely.
Gums sends...
Great updates, F16Guy.
For some reason I thot those antennas were more realted to RHAW than to IFF. Last I dealt with that "spectrum" of electronic stuff we were more interested in non-coperative tgt recognition using the RHAW, IFF and the radar we had.
Only time I flew more than 20 knots above basic speed was with the LEF failure, and I held that until touchdown. Almost lost it, but thank God I did not flare but simply pull back throttle at the touch. The drag was immense and I made the mid-field turnoff easily after a 160 knot touch.
No doubt that sucker does not want to land! And ditto on fwd stick pressure. I personally did not like the 11 deg AoA and then flare , having come from the Sluf. When solo, I flew the 13 deg bracket and then added a touch of back stick as I pulled power off. I taught the studs both, but most folks liked the two-stage flare.
Great stuff from the "new" generation. I miss it sorely.
Gums sends...