|
CNN Video of Blue Angels Sent By Me
I just read all of the pilot's discussions regarding the crash of the Blue Angel #6. I have the full version of the amateur video that was sent to CNN. There is a clip that shows the plane attempting to fly up and it straighten out as if flying when suddenly it loses altitude very fast, just drops. No nose dive, the plane just fell straight down as if it were dropped. Prior to that clip the video shows a small amount of dark smoke coming from the rear of the plane. Do you still think that it was G force?
|
GK
Thanks for the insight. Perhaps comparing the two methods of investigation with differing focus is a bit unfair. I'm still scratching my head over the NTSB approach however. Look at the NTSB database, pick an accident. I looked at a number of corporate turbojet accidents. Complex aircraft, professionally flown but low profile accidents minus public hearings, media scrutiny and other artificial extensions. The time frame from date of accident to a finding of probable cause is still measured in months to years. Hope the investigators short game reflects the relaxed pace. |
I think there's more than a fair bit of sandbagging simply due to the political nature of the NTSB |
More speculation (quoted from over at the AOPA forum):
From: "Ross, Peter G CAPT, USNR Subject: Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 12:23:28 -0400 Stew, More detail available today. Having seen video of the crash, my initial speculation is that there was a G induced loss of consciousness (GLOC). The most aggressive flying in the Blue Angel show takes place in the join ups behind show center. The timing requires "expeditious" join ups involving huge overtake speeds and high G maneuvering in the terminal phase of the rejoin to dissipate the overtake. The video I saw shows No. 6 closing on the formation for the rejoin, but before he gets there, the jet lags the formation, goes outside the turn radius and descends in seeming controlled flight to the tree line. This would be consistent with GLOC on the rendezvous. If the pilot passed out at the join up, he'd be back on the power. Upon loss of consciousness, the G would ease immediately taking him outside the formation turn radius. At flight idle, the jet would slowly descend. To regain consciousness, the pilot needs blood to flow to the brain which takes a varying amount of time depending how deep the GLOC. The senses return in reverse sequence to their loss. Hearing, then vision, cognition, then motor control. The frustrating part is when you can see and understand the problem but don't have the motor control to manipulate the flight controls appropriately. I have done this to myself in the Hornet, thankfully not so close to the ground. Of course, without the determinations of the safety investigation, the foregoing is mere speculation. However, a catastrophic, double engine failure is unheard of in the Hornet, and it would likely provide evidence in smoke, flames and parts emanating from the tailpipes prior to the crash. The media all seem focused on the impact with trees and power lines, but that is inevitable when falling to the earth. This pilot was no rookie. A former Tomcat driver and TOPGUN grad, he was an experienced fighter pilot. GLOC is something that can effect even the most seasoned pilots and it varies day to day and can turn on something as innocuous as time since the pilot's last meal. In any event, this is a sad day for the Navy. |
I would agree with the previous post.
Having seen the video, the accident pilot undoubtedly flew an extremely hard manoeuvre at very low level. Notwithstanding the high levels of training and fitness which predominate within the Blues, this manoeuvre would require high sustained +g manoeuvring, something which would hardly be assisted by the Blues peculiar decision to dispense with anti-G suits. Why? |
Beag's
http://www.navy.com/about/navylife/o...lueangels/faq/ Down about 10 Q's or so your question is answered. |
Thanks for the link, Westie.
"Overall G-suits would detrimentally impact flight safety." :hmm: I'm not convinced... |
Imagine... you are flying at ~300 knots with about 3'-4' (sometimes closer) separation from the other aircraft in the formation.
In order to keep the stick from moving due to the bouncing from the turbulence created by the other aircraft, you have to brace it against your torso. You pull back, G-forces increase, and your suit suddenly puffs up. This moves your arm... and the stick... to the side, which makes your aircraft move sideways... right into another aircraft. It doesn't take much stick movement at those distances. I can see exactly how a g-suit could be very dangerous for close-formation flying in high-performance aircraft. |
I do believe this 'G-suit' thing to be a distraction here. Very rarely does formation aerobatic work REQUIRE a G-suit as the levels of 'g' are relatively low. In my time on the Arrows, 3-4 g was the maximum 'in-formation' g pulled, while obviously when 'let loose' after bomb-burst or during rejoins and opposition pair work the g was significantly higher. The main function of such a suit is to reduce the amount of fatigue a pilot experiences during a multi-sector day as less physical effort is required to counter the g-forces with a suit than without.
Even with a 'suit' (and NB I am NOT making any comment on the cause of this particular crash) it is easy to induce loss of consciousness if the manoeuvre is hard enough - and even with a suit, out you go. |
I would agree that an anti-G suit isn't needed at all below about +5G. However, for the very high g manoeuvring which is part of the Blues formation rejoin, protection against GLOC would seem sensible.
So why not wear anti-G suits which have a modified inflation threshold - say +5G - so that protection will only be there when it is really needed and won't be disturbing during less extreme manoeuvring. At least the Hornet doesn't used bottled air like the old Hunter did. Finding that you'd run out of puff when recovering from a strafe dive at Pembrey was always a nasty surprise. As one of my colleagues (of Jamaican descent) remarked - "When the bottles ran out, I nearly blacked out completely!" Fortunately the data recorder has been recovered from the accident aircraft, so it should be possible to assess why the aircraft descended into the ground during that hard turn. |
I'm glad that they've found the black box.
Maybe, just maybe, everyone will wait for the outcome now. |
As I understand it, G-LOC is caused by the onset rate of the G, not the actual value, so a suit modded to start work at 5G would already be behind the onset rate and so would probably be detrimental. I think.
NB Talking generally, not about this crash. |
I find it very unprofessional of a fellow Hornet pilot to speculate from video footage about how one of his colleagues lost his life. Lets leave it to the professionals to discover the cause of this sad incident, no matter how long it takes. It is only right and just to the pilot and his family.
If people want to discuss GLOC, lets start a new thread and not make tenuous, unsubstantiated links to this incident. Off soapbox..... RIP :( |
Perhaps the dog and pony show the Blues put on as they man up might have something to do with some reluctance to wear them.
|
I'm glad it was you who said that, Westie! I have a sneaking feeling that you're probably correct - it could well be part of the reason......
|
Do the Thunderbirds wear G-suits?
|
Yes they do, but then the F-16 has a sidestick.
Therefore, the pilots arm is not affected by the g-suit inflating. |
Anyone heard anything from the investigation?
|
BTTT- any news yet?
|
G-LOC was cause
Report: Pilot Failed To Compensate For G-Forces In Blue Angels Mishap (15 Jan 2008)
The US Navy's final report on the April 2007 loss of an F/A-18 pilot during a performance of the Blue Angels aerial demonstration team concludes the pilot failed to properly tense his muscles to counter the g-forces from a high-speed turn ... The Associated Press obtained the accident report through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request... The investigation also found the Blues violated Navy policy by allowing the waiver allowing the pilots to fly without g-suits to expire in 2005 -- a lapse Ball called "a lack of careful attention to operating requirements." The waiver was reinstated following Davis' accident... ============== ...many here recognized it as a probable G-LOC, after viewing the brief video clips of the mishap. Apparently, the U.S. Navy has been sitting on this final report for quite some time -- the Associated Press had to force it out into the public. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 22:44. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.