Eurofighter Crash Spain
Lost both engines at 50K, unable to relight, both (Spanish Air Force) pilots ejected safely.
No RAT? No possibility of dead-sticking it?
Wonder how much delay this will add to the programme.
No RAT? No possibility of dead-sticking it?
Wonder how much delay this will add to the programme.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eurofighter crashes in Spain
This morning a spanish EF two seater crashed in spain after a double engine failure at 450. Both crew ejected.
(austrian) http://orf.at/ticker/95895.html?tmp=17855
(austrian) http://orf.at/ticker/95895.html?tmp=17855
Guest
Posts: n/a
Software and/or ECU snag at a guess, it would appear they did dead stick it AWAY from poulated areas but had no hope of recovering it to an airfield. If they lost all electric power it could have been interesting as it's a bit tricky to fly if your computer goes down!
Ooops!
Ooops!
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds like a long way down then.
Here's the beeb http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2499783.stm
existing pprune post to be found at http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...threadid=73207
Here's the beeb http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2499783.stm
existing pprune post to be found at http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...threadid=73207
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Back in the UK from the Sunshine Island for the last 8 years.
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would have thought that a double flameout @ 45000 ft would not normally call for baleout: is this a case of Spanish premature ej####### ection? Surely the thing has been designed with a RAT, or whatever the modern equivalent is called, to allow the crew to glide the beast down to a lower level (if necessary) to allow a relight and RTB. If not then it should have been and all you lucky taxpayers would have saved a bob or two!
John Farley and the rest of you TP aces - what's your opinion?
Sorry all you Spaniards for even suspecting your stamina! It appears on closer reading that the Austrians may need to start counting tables or whatever it is you do to d-e-l-a-y t-h-e m-o-m-e-n-t c-r-i-t-i-q-u-e ! Aaaaaaaaaaaaagh let's pull the bloody handle anyway!
John Farley and the rest of you TP aces - what's your opinion?
Sorry all you Spaniards for even suspecting your stamina! It appears on closer reading that the Austrians may need to start counting tables or whatever it is you do to d-e-l-a-y t-h-e m-o-m-e-n-t c-r-i-t-i-q-u-e ! Aaaaaaaaaaaaagh let's pull the bloody handle anyway!
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Something of a take on Morrissey's fine song 'Seasick yet still docked'; perhaps the boys at Warton will be humming 'Grounded but already 5h1tt1ng myself!' Just a thought!
Great news though that both the Spanish lads got out okay; and this is the first loss in over eight years, so before we go overboard in slagging off the Typhoon ...
Great news though that both the Spanish lads got out okay; and this is the first loss in over eight years, so before we go overboard in slagging off the Typhoon ...
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Spain
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello,
The engines flamed-out at about 45 000 feet, it doesn't mean that the crew ejected at this altitude. They tried to relight the engines but it was not possible. With the poor glide ratio of a delta wing aircraft it's impossible to reach any suitable airport from their possition when the flameout happened. I think no RAT or such stuff in this aircraft.
To end the disscussion, the Emergency Checklist of the DA6 is very clear on that point:
"Double engine flameout":
1.- If "Hyd Tot" lit or critical operation occurs:
EJECT
Both pilots came from Spanish Air Force but hired by EADS-CASA for the test flights. High rank and tons of flight hours.
The engines flamed-out at about 45 000 feet, it doesn't mean that the crew ejected at this altitude. They tried to relight the engines but it was not possible. With the poor glide ratio of a delta wing aircraft it's impossible to reach any suitable airport from their possition when the flameout happened. I think no RAT or such stuff in this aircraft.
To end the disscussion, the Emergency Checklist of the DA6 is very clear on that point:
"Double engine flameout":
1.- If "Hyd Tot" lit or critical operation occurs:
EJECT
Both pilots came from Spanish Air Force but hired by EADS-CASA for the test flights. High rank and tons of flight hours.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Valley
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Death by Media
Guys, I agree with John. No information yet so it is time to sit and wait. Jumping to conclusions at this stage isn't worthy of any true professional. See the thread at the top of the forum if you doubt that.
Just be glad that they got out. Nuff said
Roger
Just be glad that they got out. Nuff said
Roger
I understand that, being an aircraft whch is naturally highly unstable, loss of hydraulic power to the flight controls will lead to a rapid departure in pitch which would probably be unsurvivable. So much so that 'automatic ejection' was once considered for the TypHoon to avoid the crew becomiing pink sludge on the floor in the event of double hydraulic failure?
Glad the guys are OK!
Glad the guys are OK!
Should double engine failure be so catastrophic?
I dimly recall that one single-engined aircraft (the Harrier GR3, or the Hawk?) did originally have a RAT to allow deastick landings, but that this was later removed in recognition of the fact that this was unlikely to ever be successful.
The Spanish Typhoon DA6 (two-seater) had been undertaking engine relight trials and was returning to Getafe, when it experienced a flame-out on one engine, at 40,000ft, over Toledo. The aircraft descended to 30,000ft, where the crew attempted a relight of the dead engine. At this point, the second engine flamed-out and with the aircraft descending, the crew ejected - having first ensured that the aircraft was headed for a 'safe' area.
I dimly recall that one single-engined aircraft (the Harrier GR3, or the Hawk?) did originally have a RAT to allow deastick landings, but that this was later removed in recognition of the fact that this was unlikely to ever be successful.
The Spanish Typhoon DA6 (two-seater) had been undertaking engine relight trials and was returning to Getafe, when it experienced a flame-out on one engine, at 40,000ft, over Toledo. The aircraft descended to 30,000ft, where the crew attempted a relight of the dead engine. At this point, the second engine flamed-out and with the aircraft descending, the crew ejected - having first ensured that the aircraft was headed for a 'safe' area.
Smartman.
Do you think being a retired RAF officer, with no apparent licences or flying experience (if you have, why not say so in your profile?) makes you so much better than those you condemn as spotters?
And in any case, no-one's rushing to determine cause (apart from Duck Dodgers), nor to question aircrew decisions, and people are only enquiring into the likely impact on the programme, and asking a broad and very general philosophical question as to whether an aircraft should remain 'flyable' following a complete engine failure, and a specific question as to whether the EFA has a RAT. None of this is the kind of thing that should be sub judice.
Do you think being a retired RAF officer, with no apparent licences or flying experience (if you have, why not say so in your profile?) makes you so much better than those you condemn as spotters?
And in any case, no-one's rushing to determine cause (apart from Duck Dodgers), nor to question aircrew decisions, and people are only enquiring into the likely impact on the programme, and asking a broad and very general philosophical question as to whether an aircraft should remain 'flyable' following a complete engine failure, and a specific question as to whether the EFA has a RAT. None of this is the kind of thing that should be sub judice.
Quite so.
The Hawk certainly has an automatic RAT- and glides pretty well. Much better than the Hunter and far better than attempting a deadstick approach in a Gnat in manual!
My comments followed a lecture some years ago from a (then) EFA TP who described the departure to double amplitude time as being extremely short - part of the characteristic needed for the TypHoon's supersonic agility. We asked what the effect of total hydraulic failure would be..."If you had time to spot it, you'd punch out immediately - otherwise you'd be unconscious", he said. Even the Phantom would pitch up uncontrollably with a double PC failure.
You cannot 'glide' an aeroplane which is naturally unstable in the accepted sense of the word 'glide'. Thus so long as the engines are windmilling and you have some hydraulic and electrical power, you could probably control such an aeroplane to a bail out area. But you couldn't land it...........
The Hawk certainly has an automatic RAT- and glides pretty well. Much better than the Hunter and far better than attempting a deadstick approach in a Gnat in manual!
My comments followed a lecture some years ago from a (then) EFA TP who described the departure to double amplitude time as being extremely short - part of the characteristic needed for the TypHoon's supersonic agility. We asked what the effect of total hydraulic failure would be..."If you had time to spot it, you'd punch out immediately - otherwise you'd be unconscious", he said. Even the Phantom would pitch up uncontrollably with a double PC failure.
You cannot 'glide' an aeroplane which is naturally unstable in the accepted sense of the word 'glide'. Thus so long as the engines are windmilling and you have some hydraulic and electrical power, you could probably control such an aeroplane to a bail out area. But you couldn't land it...........
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: @ a loss
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Harrier GR3 RAT
A little bit of thread creep. However, to answer Jackoniko's query about the RAT on the GR3.
The RAT's main job was as a back up in the event of engine driven hydraulic pump failure, not engine failure. Service experience showed clearly that instead of adding integrity to the hydraulic system, the RAT detracted from it by being the prime cause of most hydraulic problems. In an aircraft where weight (sorry, mass, under JAR-OPS!) is always at a premium, it was a no brainer, even for the RAF, to delete the RAT.
As to deadsticking a GR3, with the gliding characteristics of a brick and a 12,000' landing roll, no thanks.
A little bit of thread creep. However, to answer Jackoniko's query about the RAT on the GR3.
The RAT's main job was as a back up in the event of engine driven hydraulic pump failure, not engine failure. Service experience showed clearly that instead of adding integrity to the hydraulic system, the RAT detracted from it by being the prime cause of most hydraulic problems. In an aircraft where weight (sorry, mass, under JAR-OPS!) is always at a premium, it was a no brainer, even for the RAF, to delete the RAT.
As to deadsticking a GR3, with the gliding characteristics of a brick and a 12,000' landing roll, no thanks.
