Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 8/4/2005 6:03:13 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/4/2005 6:17:55 PM EDT by crazyhorse705]

www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/04/fighter.jet.brakes.ap/index.html

Report exposes warplane's brake dangers
'A severe hazard to Naval aviation'


WASHINGTON (AP) -- The front-line fighter jet of the Navy and Marines has suffered a series of recent accidents blamed on brake failure, exposing a problem that has spurred urgent warnings from commanders, military documents obtained by The Associated Press show.

Brake problems affecting the F/A-18 Hornet pose "a severe hazard to Naval aviation" that could kill pilots and ruin valuable aircraft, a Navy air wing commander wrote last year after one of his jets roared off a runway and splashed into San Diego Bay, destroying the $30 million plane.

Many of the brake failures have been traced to a $535 electrical cable -- about as thin as a drinking straw -- that controls the jet's antiskid brakes, the equivalent of antilock brakes on a passenger car. Investigators say the cable can chafe or break, since it runs close to where heavy tie-down chains secure the jets to a carrier deck.

In the San Diego crash, Navy investigators cited "a trend of similar, if not identical, emergencies" that date to 1990 but went unnoticed until a series of failures last year, according to records the AP obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

One Navy pilot aborted a landing last fall when his brakes failed after a combat mission over Iraq. He took off again, circled the runway in Kuwait for a second landing attempt, then lowered his tailhook and caught the emergency arresting cable on the ground. He was not hurt and there was no damage to the jet.

A month earlier, a Marine commander was seriously injured when he ejected after he lost his brakes landing on a short runway at Marine Corps headquarters in Quantico, Virginia. Other failures have occurred as recently as February.

Making matters worse, some pilots did not know the proper procedures for brake emergencies and took actions that contributed to crashes, the records show.

The Navy ordered fleetwide inspections last fall and is continuing to investigate whether it needs to redesign the Hornet's brakes, as some commanders have urged. "This matter is by no means closed," said Navy spokesman James Darcy.

The maker of the jet, Boeing Co., deferred comment to the Navy.

The U.S. military owns 561 Hornets, including those flown by the elite Blue Angels aerobatic team. Collectively, they represent a mainstay of Navy and Marine aviation, operating from both aircraft carriers and runways. They drop bombs and dogfight, and flew more than 50,000 sorties during the height of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Investigators have concluded that cockpit procedures were confusing for Hornet pilots landing with brake failures.

Lt. Jason Walker, low on fuel, was landing in San Diego at night after two unsuccessful landing attempts aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln. The jet's brakes failed one second after touchdown, and, among other problems, Walker couldn't find the cockpit controls to engage emergency backup brakes. He ejected as the jet sped off the runway and into the bay at 60 mph. The Navy determined Walker shouldn't be disciplined.

"He stood on the brakes as much as possible but the aircraft was still not slowing," investigators wrote, concluding his brake cable severed.

The Navy last fall ordered fleetwide inspections of brake components, instructed mechanics to immediately replace any cables they previously had repaired and reminded pilots about procedures to help land safely even when antiskid brakes fail.

But fresh problems have surfaced.

At AP's request, the Naval Safety Center in Norfolk, Virginia, located about two-dozen formal reports describing failures of the Hornet's antiskid brakes since 1990.

The incidents caused the loss of one jet, damage of at least $1 million to another, damage of up to $200,000 on three additional jets, one serious injury and one other overnight hospital stay.

Officials acknowledge that their tally of formal reports probably understates the number of brake failures. One report filed in January referred to 14 Hornet brake failures and tire blowouts in a single squadron during 2004 alone.

"This trend of brake failures and blown tires cannot be ignored," Marine Col. Earl S. Wederbrook wrote to senior Navy and Marine officials after one of his jets spun backward on a runway from a blown tire in California. "Short of an aircraft system fix ... the pilot is the only control measure that can mitigate this hazard."

The Navy told the AP the antiskid brakes are safe and reliable, and that pilots should be able to land safely despite problems if they follow proper emergency procedures. It also said the sporadic brake failures must be viewed in light of the jets' roughly 6 million landings since the 1980s.

"There has never been a landing mishap to date where procedures were followed correctly," said Capt. Jeffrey Penfield, a Navy pilot for 17 years who is deputy program manager for F/A-18 system development in Patuxent River, Maryland.

The Navy also told the AP that based on its investigation so far, redesigning the brake system is unwarranted and would require lengthy and costly new safety reviews.

"It's been highly reliable," said Capt. Tom Huff, the executive officer at the Navy's Test Pilot School. "We don't want to venture too far from what we know works. We just know that wire is vulnerable in that location, and we've done some engineering changes to preclude damage to that wire."

Some commanders urged the Navy to do more.

"Ultimately, the wiring harness needs to be protected or redesigned," Cmdr. John R. "J.D." Dixon wrote to senior Navy officials after brakes failed in February on a Hornet speeding 115 mph down a runway at Lemoore Naval Air Station in California's San Joaquin Valley.

The jet blew two tires when the pilot activated emergency backup brakes. The incident happened months after the Navy's new mandatory inspections and training, and mechanics traced the problem to the same brake cable. The same problem was discovered later on another jet in the same squadron.

After last year's accident in San Diego, Naval air-wing commander M.C. Geron also wrote to the chief of naval operations to urge the service to improve the brake system. Failure to fix the problem "could lead to loss of use of the antiskid system, loss of normal brakes and potential loss of aircraft and life," Geron warned.

Pilots landing on shore are instructed to turn on the antiskid brakes, but pilots leave them switched off for carrier landings.

Investigators in the San Diego and Quantico accidents determined pilots didn't follow procedures when the brake system failed. Investigators and documents also said the Navy's instructions and computerized simulators do not train pilots adequately for brake hazards.

"The brake problem and loss-of-directional-control-on-ground emergency procedures are confusing," wrote investigators in the San Diego accident.

Days after the crash in San Diego harbor, the Navy used a heavy crane to hoist the destroyed jet out of the sea. The call sign "Lucky" was stenciled outside Walker's waterlogged cockpit.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 6:05:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By crazyhorse705:
ohhhhhhhhhhhhh but arent they the darling of the fleet supposed to be so much better that that perfectley good f-14 assholes should have not got rid of the prince of the seas



You are utterly clueless about the history of the F-14, aren't you?
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 6:10:01 PM EDT
Oh my god.



We found the reincarnation of Hackworth.

It's a known problem.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 6:11:14 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/4/2005 6:12:18 PM EDT by BlairHous]
Did an F18 rape your mother or something?
Gee lighten up. It's a sound combat aircraft

EDIT: It would appear that he has edited his comments that made him sound like a 3 year old who likes to do Tomcats up the intake.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 6:16:13 PM EDT
here is link to the other part of the story hmmmmm you say known problem show me proof because first time im hereing of it and im sure same thing with others


now im wondering if that f 18 that crashed and burned at rdu airport in nc had brake problems to thank god that bird only landed with 250 ft of a very busy terminal i would like to see them explain that one.had it crashed in to the terminal.

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8829186/

U.S. fighter jet problem sparked warnings
Weakness in brake system poses ‘a severe hazard’ for Navy, Marines

The Associated Press
Updated: 6:41 p.m. ET Aug. 4, 2005

WASHINGTON - The front-line fighter jet of the Navy and Marines has suffered a series of recent accidents blamed on brake failure, exposing a problem that has spurred urgent warnings from commanders, military documents obtained by The Associated Press show.

Brake problems affecting the F/A-18 Hornet pose “a severe hazard to Naval aviation” that could kill pilots and ruin valuable aircraft, a Navy air wing commander wrote last year after one of his jets roared off a runway and splashed into San Diego Bay, destroying the $30 million plane.

Many of the brake failures have been traced to a $535 electrical cable — about as thin as a drinking straw — that controls the jet’s antiskid brakes, the equivalent of antilock brakes on a passenger car. Investigators say the cable can chafe or break, since it runs close to where heavy tie-down chains secure the jets to a carrier deck.

In the San Diego crash, Navy investigators cited “a trend of similar, if not identical, emergencies” that date to 1990 but went unnoticed until a series of failures last year, according to records the AP obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

Close calls
One Navy pilot aborted a landing last fall when his brakes failed after a combat mission over Iraq. He took off again, circled the runway in Kuwait for a second landing attempt, then lowered his tailhook and caught the emergency arresting cable on the ground. He was not hurt, and there was no damage to the jet.

A month earlier, a Marine commander was seriously injured when he ejected after he lost his brakes landing on a short runway at Marine Corps headquarters in Quantico, Va. Other failures have occurred as recently as February.

Making matters worse, some pilots did not know the proper procedures for brake emergencies and took actions that contributed to crashes, the records show.

The Navy ordered fleetwide inspections last fall and is continuing to investigate whether it needs to redesign the Hornet’s brakes, as some commanders have urged. “This matter is by no means closed,” said Navy spokesman James Darcy.

The maker of the jet, Boeing Co., deferred comment to the Navy.

Mainstay of Navy, Marine aviation
The U.S. military owns 561 Hornets, including those flown by the elite Blue Angels aerobatics team. Collectively, they represent a mainstay of Navy and Marine aviation, operating from both aircraft carriers and runways. They drop bombs and dogfight, and flew more than 50,000 sorties during the height of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Investigators have concluded that cockpit procedures were confusing for Hornet pilots landing with brake failures.

Lt. Jason Walker, low on fuel, was landing in San Diego at night after two unsuccessful landing attempts aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln. The jet’s brakes failed one second after touchdown, and, among other problems, Walker couldn’t find the cockpit controls to engage emergency backup brakes. He ejected as the jet sped off the runway and into the bay at 60 mph. The Navy determined Walker shouldn’t be disciplined.

“He stood on the brakes as much as possible, but the aircraft was still not slowing,” investigators wrote, concluding his brake cable severed.

The Navy last fall ordered fleetwide inspections of brake components, instructed mechanics to immediately replace any cables they previously had repaired and reminded pilots about procedures to help land safely even when antiskid brakes fail.

Continued failures
But fresh problems have surfaced.

At AP’s request, the Naval Safety Center in Norfolk, Va., located about two dozen formal reports describing failures of the Hornet’s antiskid brakes since 1990.

The incidents caused the loss of one jet, damage of at least $1 million to another, damage of up to $200,000 on three additional jets, one serious injury and one other overnight hospital stay.
Story continues below ↓ advertisement

Officials acknowledge that their tally of formal reports probably understates the number of brake failures. One report filed in January referred to 14 Hornet brake failures and tire blowouts in a single squadron during 2004 alone.

“This trend of brake failures and blown tires cannot be ignored,” Marine Col. Earl S. Wederbrook wrote to senior Navy and Marine officials after one of his jets spun backward on a runway from a blown tire in California. “Short of an aircraft system fix ... the pilot is the only control measure that can mitigate this hazard.”

The Navy told the AP the antiskid brakes are safe and reliable and that pilots should be able to land safely despite problems if they follow proper emergency procedures. It also said the sporadic brake failures must be viewed in light of the jets’ roughly 6 million landings since the 1980s.

“There has never been a landing mishap to date where procedures were followed correctly,” Capt. Jeffrey Penfield, a Navy pilot for 17 years who is deputy program manager for F/A-18 system development in Patuxent River, Md.

Is redesign needed?
The Navy also told the AP that based on its investigation so far, redesigning the brake system is unwarranted and would require lengthy and costly new safety reviews.

“It’s been highly reliable,” said Capt. Tom Huff, the executive officer at the Navy’s Test Pilot School. “We don’t want to venture too far from what we know works. We just know that wire is vulnerable in that location, and we’ve done some engineering changes to preclude damage to that wire.”

Some commanders urged the Navy to do more.

“Ultimately, the wiring harness needs to be protected or redesigned,” Cmdr. John R. “J.D.” Dixon wrote to senior Navy officials after brakes failed in February on a Hornet speeding 115 mph down a runway at Lemoore Naval Air Station in California’s San Joaquin Valley.

The jet blew two tires when the pilot activated emergency backup brakes. The incident happened months after the Navy’s new mandatory inspections and training, and mechanics traced the problem to the same brake cable. The same problem was discovered later on another jet in the same squadron.

Confusing procedures
After last year’s accident in San Diego, Naval air-wing commander M.C. Geron also wrote to the chief of naval operations to urge the service to improve the brake system. Failure to fix the problem “could lead to loss of use of the antiskid system, loss of normal brakes and potential loss of aircraft and life,” Geron warned.

Pilots landing on shore are instructed to turn on the antiskid brakes, but pilots leave them switched off for carrier landings.

Investigators in the San Diego and Quantico accidents determined pilots didn’t follow procedures when the brake system failed. Investigators and documents also said the Navy’s instructions and computerized simulators do not train pilots adequately for brake hazards.

“The brake problem and loss-of-directional-control-on-ground emergency procedures are confusing,” wrote investigators in the San Diego accident.

Days after the crash in San Diego harbor, the Navy used a heavy crane to hoist the destroyed jet out of the sea. The call sign “Lucky” was stenciled outside Walker’s waterlogged cockpit.

Link Posted: 8/4/2005 6:17:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By BlairHous:
Did an F18 rape your mother or something?no did it fuck yours
Gee lighten up. It's a sound combat aircraft

EDIT: It would appear that he has edited his comments that made him sound like a 3 year old who likes to do Tomcats up the intake.



according to the navy and the marines it is not such a sound aircraft.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 6:18:10 PM EDT
I hope they get whatever problems fixed immediately.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 6:19:03 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/4/2005 6:21:59 PM EDT by mmx1]
posted by a F-14 NFO on another board (in response to the same article). He's very ho-hum about it. Fact of life (and naval aviation) is that stuff breaks. They break less than they used to, but they break. Shit happens when you toss a 20-ton piece of steel and plastic off a carrier deck and crash it back down daily.



We turn anti-skid off at the boat or it would sense a stopped tire as a skid and release the brakes in an uncommanded fashion...not good on the roof. When the anti-skid has not been used in so long it tends to bit check okay, but often has problems functioning at the field. Usually manifests itself after a bingo divert or similar reason to fly ashore from the boat.

Also CDPs (cross deck oendants) can slap the anti skid lines and cause problems with their functionality if you divert and needed it.

I flew a Pro A out of North Island on an F-14A that had not flown in 8 months, not only did the fuel dump stick open (dumps to about 2.5k or so) causing us to hose down anyone on the golf course hole under the approach to 36, but the anti-skid locked up both tires the first time we tried it on roll out. Boom, boom, and we're on the rims dribbling jp-5 out our dumpmast scraping 1200' down the runway.

We stopped okay, shut it down and egressed. Rims were ground down about 10" and basically almost flush with the bottom of the main landing gear oleo struts.

Brake problems are not new, this looks like someone just trying to make news to me.

Cheers.
G


Link Posted: 8/4/2005 6:22:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Silesius:
I hope they get whatever problems fixed immediately.



if im reading right since i dont know nothing the part that is broke is right next to where they would tie the plane up to the carrier

here is a pic of it


A close-up look at the left main landing gear of the F/A-18 Hornet shows a tie-down ring, foreground, that is used to attach chains to secure the jet to the deck of an aircraft carrier.

Link Posted: 8/4/2005 6:23:28 PM EDT
Who needs brakes? Navy aircraft should be trapping, not landing.
The EA-6B has brake problems too, they never scaled them up from the standard A6 brakes, even though the EA is a lot heavier.

Kharn
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 6:25:44 PM EDT

Originally Posted By crazyhorse705:
here is link to the other part of the story hmmmmm you say known problem show me proof because first time im hereing of it and im sure same thing with others


now im wondering if that f 18 that crashed and burned at rdu airport in nc had brake problems to thank god that bird only landed with 250 ft of a very busy terminal i would like to see them explain that one.had it crashed in to the terminal.



Did someone beat the grammar out of you?
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 6:26:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Kharn:
Who needs brakes? Navy aircraft should be trapping, not landing.
The EA-6B has brake problems too, they never scaled them up from the standard A6 brakes, even though the EA is a lot heavier.

Kharn



lmao true i know the carriers like to catch things but some times the thing that catches them brake so then what you gonna do go swimming with a multi million dollar airplane no ty would not want that hanging over my records
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 6:31:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By crazyhorse705:

Originally Posted By BlairHous:
Did an F18 rape your mother or something?no did it fuck yours
Gee lighten up. It's a sound combat aircraft

EDIT: It would appear that he has edited his comments that made him sound like a 3 year old who likes to do Tomcats up the intake.



according to the navy and the marines it is not such a sound aircraft.



According to the pilots they are very happy with their new planes.

According to some armchair aviators and some couch commandoes "teh F18 sux! bring back teh Tomcat!!!! OMG TOP GUN!!!!! (fap fap fap)"
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 6:32:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By crazyhorse705:

Originally Posted By Kharn:
Who needs brakes? Navy aircraft should be trapping, not landing.
The EA-6B has brake problems too, they never scaled them up from the standard A6 brakes, even though the EA is a lot heavier.

Kharn



lmao true i know the carriers like to catch things but some times the thing that catches them brake so then what you gonna do go swimming with a multi million dollar airplane no ty would not want that hanging over my records



Yea, well when that "thing that catches them" (the arrestor cable, fyi) BREAKS, then the pilot BOLTS. If he's dumb enough to try to BRAKE, he's headed into the dip and early retirement.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 6:36:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By crazyhorse705:

Originally Posted By Kharn:
Who needs brakes? Navy aircraft should be trapping, not landing.
The EA-6B has brake problems too, they never scaled them up from the standard A6 brakes, even though the EA is a lot heavier.

Kharn



lmao true i know the carriers like to catch things but some times the thing that catches them brake so then what you gonna do go swimming with a multi million dollar airplane no ty would not want that hanging over my records



You are silly and ignorant. Good night.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 7:05:29 PM EDT
F-18 emergency brake problem immediate action checklist:
Hook down, catch the BAK-28 gear at the end of the runway.

Talk shit about the F-18 all you want, I watched an F-14 go over the side of the USS Stennis in 2002 when the tail hook attach point seperated after landing.

That fuck-up caused the entire F-14 fleet to be grounded for 72 hours during Operation Enduring Freedom and right after Operation Anaconda until NADEP, NAVAIR and the Naval Safety Center found out the cause.

The cause? A 30 year old part being worn out. The fix? Replace the part with a new one ASAP.

Happens to the best of them.

The biggest problem?

What happens when the entire fleet is nothing but Super Hornet variants and a common part breaks and the entire fleet is grounded.

Link Posted: 8/4/2005 7:08:25 PM EDT
How many incidents out of how many landings? Or did I miss that?

Link Posted: 8/4/2005 7:08:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By KA3B:
F-18 emergency brake problem immediate action checklist:
Hook down, catch the BAK-28 gear at the end of the runway.

Talk shit about the F-18 all you want, I watched an F-14 go over the side of the USS Stennis in 2002 when the tail hook attach point seperated after landing.

That fuck-up caused the entire F-14 fleet to be grounded for 72 hours during Operation Enduring Freedom and right after Operation Anaconda until NADEP, NAVAIR and the Naval Safety Center found out the cause.

The cause? A 30 year old part being worn out. The fix? Replace the part with a new one ASAP.

Happens to the best of them.

The biggest problem?

What happens when the entire fleet is nothing but Super Hornet variants and a common part breaks and the entire fleet is grounded.


Good post.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 11:33:46 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/4/2005 11:36:43 PM EDT by tangeant]
Sounds like some emerg procedure training / practice is in order.
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 12:18:02 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/5/2005 12:21:47 AM EDT by OLY-M4gery]

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:

Originally Posted By KA3B:
F-18 emergency brake problem immediate action checklist:
Hook down, catch the BAK-28 gear at the end of the runway.

Talk shit about the F-18 all you want, I watched an F-14 go over the side of the USS Stennis in 2002 when the tail hook attach point seperated after landing.

That fuck-up caused the entire F-14 fleet to be grounded for 72 hours during Operation Enduring Freedom and right after Operation Anaconda until NADEP, NAVAIR and the Naval Safety Center found out the cause.

The cause? A 30 year old part being worn out. The fix? Replace the part with a new one ASAP.

Happens to the best of them.

The biggest problem?

What happens when the entire fleet is nothing but Super Hornet variants and a common part breaks and the entire fleet is grounded.


Good post.



I'm guessing they can add it to the list of thing the maint guys check, tire tread, brake pads, ABS brake line.......................

As well as one of the things the pilot should add to a pre-flight inspection.

Of course it sounds like the guys that went off the runway........................

The brakes were faulty, and they did not follow procedure for brake failure.

Then again they weren't adequetely trained either according to the same report.

I'm just guessing here, but it sounds like the military is admitting a poorly designed part, and failure to train, and will be sticking it to the aircrew anyway.

______________________

locally we had an F-16 crash. Just after takeoff, the "master trouble" light (or something similar) came on. The pilot declared an emergency came back to the field, landed "long" and ejected as the F-16 went off the runway. It hit a ditch and burned up.

When thet investigated it, they said the palne went long in part because it was fully loaded with fuel, and that the pilot should have flown until the more fuel was used up before attempting an emergency landing........................ And they also determined the warning light was a malfunction, the engie was ok.

This may be just me, but if I'm DRIVING and the check engine light comes on, I PULL OVER ASAP....................

I'm also sure if he had flown for a bit and the engine died, and he crashed, they would have dinged him for not getting on the ground quick enough.

That's a minor problem on the F-18. They will redesign the part, and add procedures.

KA3B brings up a good point, what happens when the Hornets start getting old, and a part failure happens, and the fleet is grounded? That multi-billion dollar aircraft carrier just became the world's most expensive helipad.
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 3:00:05 AM EDT

Originally Posted By crazyhorse705:

Originally Posted By BlairHous:
Did an F18 rape your mother or something?no did it fuck yours
Gee lighten up. It's a sound combat aircraft

EDIT: It would appear that he has edited his comments that made him sound like a 3 year old who likes to do Tomcats up the intake.



according to the navy and the marines it is not such a sound aircraft.



I am going to chalk up your extreme hysteria to the fact that you are not savvy to military language and terminology. The word "severe" in the report has a defined, specific meaning. IIRC, that word is used any time that a particular failure could lead to a mishap resulting in the loss of the aircraft or of life. It does not necessarily indicate the likely frequency of the event happening. You will have to give me a little slack on the precise usage of the term because I haven't drafted a HAZREP for 10 years and I haven't reveiwed and released one since 2001 or 2002.

It is normal for aircraft to develop problems that require attention as they age. These problems are typically either structural (stress or corrosion induced cracks) or electrical (from chafing lines). HAZREPS are used for two purposes, to alert users to potential problems and for data collection and trend analysis.

If a dangerous trend is discovered, Naval Air Systems Command will develop and promulgate a corrective action. If the trend is high risk, aircraft will be grounded until the corrective action is taken. If it is assessed as a lower threat the corrective action must be completed in a defined amount of time or flight hours, but the aircraft is allowed to continue flight until that milestone is reached.

This happpens day in and day out for all aircraft in all services. Step away from the crack pipe and relax.
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 3:21:10 AM EDT
I remember the F-16 having some sort of wire chaffing problem in the early 80's that led to the loss of some planes and pilots.

This sort of thing sucks, but it can be fixed. The good thing is we know what the problem is and it's a rather simple one.
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 4:11:17 AM EDT

Originally Posted By KA3B:
F-18 emergency brake problem immediate action checklist:
Hook down, catch the BAK-28 gear at the end of the runway.

Talk shit about the F-18 all you want, I watched an F-14 go over the side of the USS Stennis in 2002 when the tail hook attach point seperated after landing.

That fuck-up caused the entire F-14 fleet to be grounded for 72 hours during Operation Enduring Freedom and right after Operation Anaconda until NADEP, NAVAIR and the Naval Safety Center found out the cause.

The cause? A 30 year old part being worn out. The fix? Replace the part with a new one ASAP.

Happens to the best of them.

The biggest problem?

What happens when the entire fleet is nothing but Super Hornet variants and a common part breaks and the entire fleet is grounded.




i was just saying the f-18 isnt all it is cracked up to be i know all you have to do is fix the part but like you said what happens god forbid we are in another war in the next 10 years and we have an all f-18 fleet on the carriers.

and you answered that for me by what you put at the end of your post.

now the president usally first call when i crisis erupts or starts he asks where are the carriers.

sorry sir carriers out of action the f-18s our down because of a simple part should have it fixed soon

ok where is the airborne units would be the next choice which will get people bitching about sending our guys over seas.

it makes know sesne to me to have one type of airframe on the carriers

it used to be what 6 to 10 different planes on a carrier not now only i think 4-5 and the navy is just looking for trouble by only having the f-18 on board and no the f-35 will not be up and online in big enough numbers to solve the problem in 10 years. the navy will just start getting them in 2010


the airforce would have to be called in.

12 to 13 carriers 30 -40 f-18s that cant do jack if the whole fleet gets grounded


back 10 15 years ago atleast they had the f-18 just comming on line the f-14 the a-6 that way one plane fails the other 2 could pick up its slack.

now how you going to explain this one out i know you all love the f-18 and yes i will admit not such a bad aircraft the navy just needs to think about where it is going in 10 years and who would have to pull the ass out of the fire if the fleet of f-18s goes offline for a few days.

Link Posted: 8/5/2005 4:26:54 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/5/2005 2:59:33 PM EDT by H46Driver]



i was just saying the f-18 isnt all it is cracked up to be i know all you have to do is fix the part but like you said what happens god forbid we are in another war in the next 10 years and we have an all f-18 fleet on the carriers.

and you answered that for me by what you put at the end of your post.

now the president usally first call when i crisis erupts or starts he asks where are the carriers.

sorry sir carriers out of action the f-18s our down because of a simple part should have it fixed soon

ok where is the airborne units would be the next choice which will get people bitching about sending our guys over seas.

it makes know sesne to me to have one type of airframe on the carriers

it used to be what 6 to 10 different planes on a carrier not now only i think 4-5 and the navy is just looking for trouble by only having the f-18 on board and no the f-35 will not be up and online in big enough numbers to solve the problem in 10 years. the navy will just start getting them in 2010


the airforce would have to be called in.

12 to 13 carriers 30 -40 f-18s that cant do jack if the whole fleet gets grounded


back 10 15 years ago atleast they had the f-18 just comming on line the f-14 the a-6 that way one plane fails the other 2 could pick up its slack.

now how you going to explain this one out i know you all love the f-18 and yes i will admit not such a bad aircraft the navy just needs to think about where it is going in 10 years and who would have to pull the ass out of the fire if the fleet of f-18s goes offline for a few days.





Gunkid - is that you??
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 5:12:50 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Bellona:
How many incidents out of how many landings? Or did I miss that?




Blythely neglected in the report.


I have $100 that says the wire bundle routing was changed during maintenance, and I would not be surprised if clamps are missing. There's usually a good reason or three we install stuff a certain way, and chaffing is the number one detail to look for in a wire bundle installation. Maybe I'll go look at a new one next week; unfortunately I can't take a photo of the installation.
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 5:41:07 AM EDT
In the grand scheme of things, this is not a big deal. If you REALLY research the history of many famous planes, you will find all sorts of "issues" with them.

For example: the F-4U Corsair first flew in 1940. It was just the second production fighter to exceed 400mph TAS. It was a "hot ship" and a very capable fighter as most of us aviation nut cases know. When the Navy got their first ones aboard ship, they quickly rejected them as unsuitable for carrier duty! One major problem was that they BOUNCED on trapping! Because of the loooonggg nose, they were also very difficult to land using the same approach techniques then in practice with Wildcats and Hellcats. So, until 1944, the hottest Navy fighter went to the USMC and the Brits who used them with great success.

The Bug problems will be fixed.
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 5:41:40 AM EDT

Originally Posted By AeroE:

Originally Posted By Bellona:
How many incidents out of how many landings? Or did I miss that?




Blythely neglected in the report.


I have $100 that says the wire bundle routing was changed during maintenance, and I would not be surprised if clamps are missing. There's usually a good reason or three we install stuff a certain way, and chaffing is the number one detail to look for in a wire bundle installation. Maybe I'll go look at a new one next week; unfortunately I can't take a photo of the installation.



+1
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 5:53:32 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/5/2005 5:54:07 AM EDT by Kharn]

Originally Posted By crazyhorse705:
lmao true i know the carriers like to catch things but some times the thing that catches them brake so then what you gonna do go swimming with a multi million dollar airplane no ty would not want that hanging over my records

There's a reason Navy pilots hit full afterburner as soon as they slam into the deck. Its so if the arrester hook doesnt get a cable, they take off and try again. Or, there's always the net, but thats a one-shot deal.

And, a sidenote: The four cables are independant systems, the ship will keep running if one is down.

Kharn
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 8:32:50 AM EDT

Originally Posted By KA3B:
F-18 emergency brake problem immediate action checklist:
Hook down, catch the BAK-28 gear at the end of the runway.

Talk shit about the F-18 all you want, I watched an F-14 go over the side of the USS Stennis in 2002 when the tail hook attach point seperated after landing.

That fuck-up caused the entire F-14 fleet to be grounded for 72 hours during Operation Enduring Freedom and right after Operation Anaconda until NADEP, NAVAIR and the Naval Safety Center found out the cause.

The cause? A 30 year old part being worn out. The fix? Replace the part with a new one ASAP.

Happens to the best of them.

The biggest problem?

What happens when the entire fleet is nothing but Super Hornet variants and a common part breaks and the entire fleet is grounded.




Correct me if I'm wrong but we're never at any point going to have an all SH fleet. I believe the Navy will retain a Hornet/SH mix until the F-35C comes online to replace the Hornets, at which point it'll be a SH/F-35 mix. In any case the Marine squadrons will stay Hornet until 2012, when the first F-35B squadron is slated to be operational.

The Superhornet, by all rights, is a new airframe, with limited commonality with the Hornet (mostly in avionics).
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 8:57:19 AM EDT

Originally Posted By LWilde:
In the grand scheme of things, this is not a big deal. If you REALLY research the history of many famous planes, you will find all sorts of "issues" with them.

For example: the F-4U Corsair first flew in 1940. It was just the second production fighter to exceed 400mph TAS. It was a "hot ship" and a very capable fighter as most of us aviation nut cases know. When the Navy got their first ones aboard ship, they quickly rejected them as unsuitable for carrier duty! One major problem was that they BOUNCED on trapping! Because of the loooonggg nose, they were also very difficult to land using the same approach techniques then in practice with Wildcats and Hellcats. So, until 1944, the hottest Navy fighter went to the USMC and the Brits who used them with great success.

The Bug problems will be fixed.



Or the automatic flap system that was prone to suddenly retracting at carrier landing speed.............
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 9:04:34 AM EDT

Originally Posted By mmx1:


Correct me if I'm wrong but we're never at any point going to have an all SH fleet. I believe the Navy will retain a Hornet/SH mix until the F-35C comes online to replace the Hornets, at which point it'll be a SH/F-35 mix. In any case the Marine squadrons will stay Hornet until 2012, when the first F-35B squadron is slated to be operational.

The Superhornet, by all rights, is a new airframe, with limited commonality with the Hornet (mostly in avionics).



I believe you are correct, however, if the F-35C were to get delayed (like, say, congress didn't want to pay for them...) then you could see a few all-Superhornet Air wings, that could potentially get 'all' grounded.

In reality, I highly doubt that they'd do that. Everyone BUT the US has been operating single aircraft flight groups for years with only minimal trouble. The USN was able to gound the F-14's briefly because the -18's could take up the slack. If they didn't have that option, they simply wouldn't have grounded them.
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 9:07:23 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/5/2005 9:25:20 AM EDT by vito113]
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 3:01:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Kharn:
Who needs brakes? Navy aircraft should be trapping, not landing.
The EA-6B has brake problems too, they never scaled them up from the standard A6 brakes, even though the EA is a lot heavier.

Kharn



Pilots still use the brakes when taxiing on the carrier flight deck, not to mention that ops ashore far outnumber ops at sea.
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 7:06:22 PM EDT

Originally Posted By H46Driver:
Pilots still use the brakes when taxiing on the carrier flight deck, not to mention that ops ashore far outnumber ops at sea.

The EA6B's brakes are ok for stopping while taxiing, but are notorious for hot brakes during conventional landings, the brakes catching fire isnt uncommon either. Gotta love reading the Navy's safety journal while bored during internships (whats the name of it? its been like two years since I got my hands on a copy).

Kharn
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 7:13:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By H46Driver:



i was just saying the f-18 isnt all it is cracked up to be i know all you have to do is fix the part but like you said what happens god forbid we are in another war in the next 10 years and we have an all f-18 fleet on the carriers.

and you answered that for me by what you put at the end of your post.

now the president usally first call when i crisis erupts or starts he asks where are the carriers.

sorry sir carriers out of action the f-18s our down because of a simple part should have it fixed soon

ok where is the airborne units would be the next choice which will get people bitching about sending our guys over seas.

it makes know sesne to me to have one type of airframe on the carriers

it used to be what 6 to 10 different planes on a carrier not now only i think 4-5 and the navy is just looking for trouble by only having the f-18 on board and no the f-35 will not be up and online in big enough numbers to solve the problem in 10 years. the navy will just start getting them in 2010


the airforce would have to be called in.

12 to 13 carriers 30 -40 f-18s that cant do jack if the whole fleet gets grounded


back 10 15 years ago atleast they had the f-18 just comming on line the f-14 the a-6 that way one plane fails the other 2 could pick up its slack.

now how you going to explain this one out i know you all love the f-18 and yes i will admit not such a bad aircraft the navy just needs to think about where it is going in 10 years and who would have to pull the ass out of the fire if the fleet of f-18s goes offline for a few days.





Gunkid - is that you??


Looks like a duck, smells like a duck, certainly quacks like a duck.
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 7:20:00 PM EDT
Its a known problem. I know the Lt Colonel the first article was talking about. His brakes failed landing at a short strip, and he punched out. Bird ended up in the swamp, he ended up fucking his hand up royally. He still doesnt have full use of it, and to top it off, he is an airline pilot. He needs it.
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 7:36:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AeroE:

Originally Posted By Bellona:
How many incidents out of how many landings? Or did I miss that?




Blythely neglected in the report.


I have $100 that says the wire bundle routing was changed during maintenance, and I would not be surprised if clamps are missing. There's usually a good reason or three we install stuff a certain way, and chaffing is the number one detail to look for in a wire bundle installation. Maybe I'll go look at a new one next week; unfortunately I can't take a photo of the installation.




I dont think it was a wire bundle, looked like a simple braided steel brake line to me. I figure it just needs a cover.
Dont forget, it said the line is being abraided by the tie downs, not something they design clearance for I would think but I will give a +1 on a missing clamp maybe.
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 8:34:07 PM EDT
No, the Navy won't have an all Super Hornet fleet, but it will be pretty close to it.
I was just making a point, that's all.

P.S. This is the correct way to quote a post when responding.
There is no need to quote the entire post, just the parts that you wish to discuss or debate.



Originally Posted By mmx1:
Correct me if I'm wrong but we're never at any point going to have an all SH fleet. I believe the Navy will retain a Hornet/SH mix until the F-35C comes online to replace the Hornets, at which point it'll be a SH/F-35 mix. In any case the Marine squadrons will stay Hornet until 2012, when the first F-35B squadron is slated to be operational.
The Superhornet, by all rights, is a new airframe, with limited commonality with the Hornet (mostly in avionics).

Link Posted: 8/5/2005 8:38:29 PM EDT
LOL, when I was stationed at NAS Whidbey Island flying with the station C-12's I used to fly the various squadrons maintenance guys all up and down the west coast to replace A-6 and EA-6B main mounts and brakes that the pilots blew.
It got to the point where I knew the procedures, the torque limits and what consumables were needed for the brake installation by heart.


Originally Posted By Kharn:
The EA6B's brakes are ok for stopping while taxiing, but are notorious for hot brakes during conventional landings, the brakes catching fire isnt uncommon either. Kharn

Top Top