MiG-29K from the Kuznetsov has crashed in the Med...
 

One of the MiG-29K's embarked on the Kuznetsov has crashed in the Med, pilot ok according to initial reports...

https://theaviationist.com/2016/11/1...terranean-sea/

-RP

Not exactly the most auspicious start to the carrier's combat operations in theatre...

Isn't it the first time it's been used in anger?

Actually the FAA had a bit of a reputation in this regard. Glad the pilot is O.K.

Fast aircraft + ships = occasional splash. As Haraka says, I'm pretty sure the Russians aren't the only ones who have form here.

Yeah. One of the hazards of flying, and flying at sea, is that things can go wrong. Glad the pilot got out.

yes - part & parcel of active op s - good the pil0t got out

Russians Blame MiG-29K Crash on Broken Arrestor Cable, Catastrophic Engine Failure 21 Nov 2016 Sam LaGrone

https://news.usni.org/2016/11/21/rus...ngine-shutdown

The aircraft flamed out while waiting for the deck to clear. No TAT (Terminal Air Tanker) it seems. The MiG29 isn't usually flush for fuel.

If the aircraft ran out of fuel waiting for the deck to clear, that's not one of your 'part and parcel', things go wrong at sea' occurrences. Nor is it 'part and parcel of active ops'.

If true, it would indicate a basic lack of ability to properly plan and execute a fly pro from the deck.

I'd also be interested to know what 'waiting for the deck to clear' meant. Aircraft parked in the landing area? Damaged arresting gear? Previous aircraft stuck in the landing area? Looking at the report, it appears that the first of three aircraft landed, the second ditched, and the third diverted.

However, best regards as ever to all those of whatever nation doing their bit at sea,

Engines

I found the 3-4 minute landing interval noted in the article linked by spaz interesting as well. Intervals on well oiled carriers ops are much shorter than that.


Engines if you read the article linked by spaz, the reasons are there: arresting cable snapped, aircraft directed to orbit with fouled deck, ran out of gas....Would not be surprised if he had already dumped gas to get to landing weight as he was next to land


tough business.

Sndie,

Thanks for pointing the details - my bad for not reading all the links. I apologise.

Snapped arresting cables are not uncommon, which is why the USN (and the RN of old) have well trained and exercised deck crews whose job is to replace broken cables as quickly as possible. (I was told the USN aim for about one and a half minutes).

However, it also raises the question of how many arresting cables the Kuznetsov normally has rigged. If one was broken on a USN carrier, day recoveries would normally continue using the remaining cables, or so I have been told.

It's also interesting that the article mentions a 'reserve arresting cable' - anyone know what that was referring to?

There '3 to 4 minutes' landing interval is also long - that means about 9 to 12 minutes to recover a 3 ship formation - a long time if the course into wind isn't where you want to be going. (like towards the shore). I am told that the USN aim for day recoveries about 45 seconds to a minute apart, as id the RN of old.

In any case, this accident shows just how demanding cat and trap aviation is.

Best Regards as ever to all those doing it,

Engines

HMAS Melbourne (das boot) had five arrestor wires in the A4G Skyhawk era (six in the Sea Venom / Gannet times) whilst three was the minimum strung for deck ops (LSOs would know if wot numbers from 1 to 5 were important in that three). With five set then No.4 was the target wire. I'll hunt out a photo of 2 wire ops on a 4 wire CVN??? (no name).

KUZNETZOV Video still frame here shows 3 arrestor wires only [maybe FOUR? No.1 just out of frame? - NOPE Indian Carrier has only three] at that time:

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/th...-miss-wit.html (no workee now) :-(

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l2...M.jpg~original

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l2...M.gif~original

4 arresting cables there. The 2nd and 3rd are the main ones. On that day, No. 2 was torn during the previous landing and, even worse, it spinned around the 3rd one making it (and the whole deck) temporaly unavailable either.
Source in Russian: http://tehnowar.ru/52656-prichina-pa...igatelyah.html

Picked up on a Russian website as well.


23/11/2016 Russian jet crash off Syria blamed on poor decision-making
News Update 23 November

The loss of a Russian MiG-29K naval fighter n the Mediterranean Sea near Syria earlier this month has been blamed on a failure to promptly send the plane to a diversion airfield, after a problem on the ship it had taken off from.

The crash of one of the aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov's jets reportedly happened on 13 November. The Russian Defence Ministry confirmed the accident the following day, saying the "air incident" occurred because of a "technical fault". (See BBC Monitoring report "Russia confirms its fighter jet crashed in Mediterranean")
However, Lenta.ru news website said today that the jet crashed because it had run out of fuel before any decision was taken to send it to a diversion airfield following equipment failure on the Admiral Kuznetsov's deck (bit.ly/2gBLHCL).
"The breaking of an arrester wire and delay in rectifying the fault were the starting point of the events. The pilot was forced to eject after using up all the fuel as! the command did not want to send the aircraft to a diversion airfield, hoping to quickly rectify the breakage on the ship's deck. Had it landed at Hmeimim [in Syria], let alone Cyprus, they would have had to report the incident and be reprimanded," Lenta quoted an unnamed source as saying.

An article published on a LiveJournal blogging platform page run by the Russian Centre for Analysis of Strategy and Technology (CAST) provided more details about the incident (bit.ly/2fROu9B).
Quoting an unnamed "informed source", it said the Admiral Kuznetsov's second arrester wire broke after the landing of the second of a group of three fighter jets that had taken off that morning. The broken wire became entangled with the third wire, rendering the system unusable and forcing the third jet to circle overhead awaiting completion of repairs.

The article described the situation on the deck after the breakage as a "mess".

The exact designation of the lost jet has variously been given as MiG-29K and MiG-29KR.

Source: Lenta.ru website, Moscow, in Russian 1215 gmt 23 Nov 16

Cdr Air is in the poo, it would seem ;)

If his/ her fuel state was that low, it would seem unlikely it would have made it safely anywhere else anyway?

one of the reasons they're out there is to learn - this was an expensive error but I'll bet it doesn't happen again......

At least he doesn't need to report his f***up. ;)

Our own FAA lads and lasses were pretty well superb at running our own decks in their day. This crash strikes me of inexperience.

The guy in the hot seat should make his own bingo decision. If the brains trust says deck will be clear, trust me, then it's their fault.

How many would trust the guy on the ground?

I know the RAF lost a Victor and a Vulcan through brains trust advice.