Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 3/29/2006 12:56:36 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/29/2006 12:57:14 AM EDT by vito113]
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 12:59:03 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/29/2006 12:59:56 AM EDT by HarrySacz]
Thats a spendy little pin.

Still,gots be better than that Euro fighter.
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 1:01:53 AM EDT
This is how they do things. When something bad happens, the people involved sit down and figure out what went wrong, and make the approriate changes. This incident just happened to be a very expensive one. Chances are slim it will ever happen again...
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 2:14:58 AM EDT
it was a simple case of a "Remove Before Flight" not being removed. The streamers are only held on by a light ring and are easily bent. Put a giant vaccum cleaner in front of it and OOOPS, where did it go. Thanks to that chowderhead, we are all having to re-up our FOD training here at the marietta facility
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 2:19:01 AM EDT

Originally Posted By PromptCritical:
This is how they do things. When something bad happens, the people involved sit down and figure out what went wrong, and make the approriate changes. This incident just happened to be a very expensive one. Chances are slim it will ever happen again...



Like to bet on that? The flag was on the pin because it has happened before. Maybe not to an F-22. It will happen again. It's the nature of the beast.
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 2:20:28 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 2:53:35 AM EDT
But arent engines tested against ingesting foreign objects? birds, dirt, etc...
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 3:03:59 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/29/2006 3:04:34 AM EDT by vito113]
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 3:05:47 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/29/2006 3:06:54 AM EDT by Dave_A]

Originally Posted By vito113:
So that's the answer to the USAF's stealth fighters…


split pins tied to ribbons!


Small part sucked into engine damaged expensive new F-22 Raptor
By LOUIS HANSEN, The Virginian-Pilot
© March 22, 2006 | Last updated 12:23 AM Mar. 23

A small metal pin and streamer accidentally sucked into the jet engine of a new, Air Force F-22 Raptor caused $6.7 million in damage, according to an Air Force report released today.

The accident occurred Oct. 20, 2005, during a night training exercise at Hill Air Force Base in Utah. No one was injured in the accident, but the engine was ruined, an Air Force spokesman said.

The fighter jet comes from the first generation of stealth Raptors and is assigned to the 27th Fighter Squadron at Langley Air Force Base.
“It was an accident,” said Lt. Daniel Goldberg, spokesman for Air Combat Command. “It’s a new plane. As we work along, we’re going to try to find out any problems.”

The 22-page report blamed the accident on an inadequate and incomplete training manual. The manual failed to instruct mechanics to pull the nose landing gear pin before starting the jet engines.

The Air Force deemed the Raptor ready for combat in December. Two squadrons at Langley Air Force base have received Raptors, which are slated to replace older F-15 and F-16 aircraft.

Critics have said the plane is too expensive and has an ill-defined role in the national defense. The Raptor was designed during the Cold War to engage Soviet fighters in air-to-air combat.

Reach Louis Hansen at 446-2322 or louis.hansen@pilotonline.com



http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=101837&ran=104685



FOD KILLS!!

Fortunately, it didn't kill anyone this time...

(I'm in aviation maintanance with the Army... FOD = Foreign Object Debris, aviation-speak for any loose piece of shit that could possibly find it's way into an aircraft's machinery... This isn't, of course, the first time that someone fried a motor with a bit of FOD)

Somebody's unit is going to get death-by-powerpoint for this one .....
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 3:06:55 AM EDT
If you read the milspec for those ribbons, you'd wonder why we didnt build the M1 Abrams out of them.

Kharn
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 3:10:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By mcantu:
But arent engines tested against ingesting foreign objects? birds, dirt, etc...



Dirt.. Check...

Occasional bit of gravel... Check...

Tools, nuts/bolts/rivets, pins, safety streamers, birds, pieces of mechanic's uniforms, mechanics themselves.... NO, you're fucked if yer bird eats any of the above....


Link Posted: 3/29/2006 3:11:56 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 3:27:04 AM EDT

FOD = Foreign Object Debris, aviation-speak for any loose piece of shit



Not just aviation. I worked on Trident II guidance for GE Aerospace/Martin Marietta/Lockheed Martin and you should see the procedures to prevent FOD in a guidance gimbal.

On the other hand, I also worked on the BFV Turrent stabilization systems and hydromechanical transmissions and they had extensive FOD preventive programs.

FOD is not your friend.

Bomber
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 5:41:31 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/29/2006 5:42:34 AM EDT by vito113]
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 5:57:39 AM EDT
Don't the doors close off the centerline intakes and route the intake through the top of the aircraft?
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 6:36:33 AM EDT
Wouldn't that drop down door simply catch the FOD only to release it into the engine when the doors are stowed after taxiing?


bomber
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 6:38:06 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/29/2006 10:39:05 AM EDT by vito113]
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 6:42:38 AM EDT
Yup. And that's why you aren't supposed to wear hats on the flight line. Those little metal pins stuck in your hat will do the same thing.
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 6:44:42 AM EDT

Originally Posted By vito113:


There are 'gills' in the bottom of the intake duck that open to allow the crap to fall through…

ANdy



How do they get the bird to stay still? Is it a trained duck or will any farmyard bird do? Could you use a goose? Does it have to be aquatic? It seems cheaper to use chickens, and a Cornish game hen would probably be better in terms of weight, but then you might not get the same flow that say a swan might get you.
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 6:49:32 AM EDT
I know a crew chief that is having a fit over this thread.
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 6:59:23 AM EDT

Originally Posted By vito113:
Critics have said the plane is too expensive and has an ill-defined role in the national defense. The Raptor was designed during the Cold War to engage Soviet fighters in air-to-air combat.



Why do they have to include these types of stupid comments in the article? Are they seriously trying to tell us that the most modern stealth fighter was actually designed some 20 years ago before the public had really even been made aware of stealth? That's just stupid. Not to mention the fact that I graduated college back in 1999 and my roommate, who was one smart son of a bitch, did everything he could to get a job at Lockhead Martin in Ft. Worth doing guess what...designing the Raptor. The last time I checked neither the Soviet Union nor the Cold War were around in 1999.
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 7:03:10 AM EDT

Originally Posted By PromptCritical:
This is how they do things. When something bad happens, the people involved sit down and figure out what went wrong, and make the approriate changes. This incident just happened to be a very expensive one. Chances are slim it will ever happen again...



No, they actually sit down and shift blame from department to department, finally blaming the tech manuals
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 7:11:04 AM EDT
Newsies are famous for putting crap like that in their articles. Back when the Army was trying to field the M1, they said the M1 was a "bad tank" because it was so expensive. You could buy 5 M60A1s for what one M1 cost.

Never mentioned the Army did not have enough troops to man that many M60A1s. We would have had to train the cooks and mailmen and "laundry and bath specialists" to be tank crewman and we'd still have had tanks lying around without men to fill them.

Newsies are a dedicated bunch of morons.

BTW, I was out at Tyndall AFB a few weeks ago and got to see the F22s flying. Pretty cool looking airplanes. Also saw some F4s in the air. I didn't know anyone was still flying that critter.

Cheers,

kk7sm
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 7:11:23 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/29/2006 7:12:47 AM EDT by Greenhorn]
They should take a lesson from the Russians and have breathing vents above the engines that open during taxiing, while the main intakes are closed.

EDITED: Oh, Vito beat me to it. Well, +1 on what he said.
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 7:12:48 AM EDT
This "small pin" is apparently 1" in diameter and about 6" long. Its a locking pin for the landing gear. There aren't many engines that would swallow one of those without ill effect.
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 7:16:36 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SWIRE:

Why do they have to include these types of stupid comments in the article? Are they seriously trying to tell us that the most modern stealth fighter was actually designed some 20 years ago before the public had really even been made aware of stealth? That's just stupid. Not to mention the fact that I graduated college back in 1999 and my roommate, who was one smart son of a bitch, did everything he could to get a job at Lockhead Martin in Ft. Worth doing guess what...designing the Raptor. The last time I checked neither the Soviet Union nor the Cold War were around in 1999.


Umm, the requirements for the ATF, now known as the F-22, were laid out in the early 80s. The first prototype flyoffs were in 90 or 91, IIRC. The ATF/F-22 was in continual redesign during the Clinton era.
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 7:19:02 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Greenhorn:
They should take a lesson from the Russians and have breathing vents above the engines that open during taxiing, while the main intakes are closed.




IMHO, it isn't worth the weight and extra crap on the jet unless you're expecting to operate off crap airfields (another reason why A-10 engines are up so high).

A shield wouldn't have been needed here if the crew chief hadn't tried a shortcut.
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 8:49:28 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SWIRE:

Originally Posted By vito113:
Critics have said the plane is too expensive and has an ill-defined role in the national defense. The Raptor was designed during the Cold War to engage Soviet fighters in air-to-air combat.



Why do they have to include these types of stupid comments in the article? Are they seriously trying to tell us that the most modern stealth fighter was actually designed some 20 years ago before the public had really even been made aware of stealth? That's just stupid. Not to mention the fact that I graduated college back in 1999 and my roommate, who was one smart son of a bitch, did everything he could to get a job at Lockhead Martin in Ft. Worth doing guess what...designing the Raptor. The last time I checked neither the Soviet Union nor the Cold War were around in 1999.



The prototype YF-22 flew off against the prototype YF-23 in 1992, I remember watching a program on that flyoff on cable (Discovery channel?) in the early 1990s.

If the prototype was flying in 1992, you can figure it was designed before 1992. Of course, there was a lot of work to be done finishing the design for production--but the design was far enough along to build a flying prototype when you were in about your freshman or sophomore year of high school.

Jim
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 9:00:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By KS_Physicist:
The prototype YF-22 flew off against the prototype YF-23 in 1992, I remember watching a program on that flyoff on cable (Discovery channel?) in the early 1990s.


It was actually earlier than that!

F-22 Raptor History
The Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) program had its origins in numerous US Air Force air combat studies carried out in the late 1970s and early 1980s, when intelligence revealed the Soviets' early flight testing of the Fulcrum and Flanker. From the observed geometry of the airframes it was clear that both types would have the vortex lift performance to challenge existing US aircraft such as the F-15 in turning dogfights. Hoever, both Soviet fighters would be handicapped by their geometry in both supersonic maneuver and low observability performance.

In 1981, the Air Force developed a requirement for an Advanced Tactical Fighter as a new air superiority fighter. It would take advantage of the new technologies in fighter design on the horizon including composite materials, lightweight alloys, advanced flight control systems, higher power propulsion systems and stealth technology. Air Force leaders believed these new technologies would make aircraft like the F-15 and F-16 obsolete by the early 21st century.

The requirement for the F-22 was identified through the process described in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 10-601, Mission Needs and Operational Requirements Document and Procedures. During the early 1980s, the Air Force assessed its tactical capabilities against projected threats and determined that a mission deficiency would exist in the near future that could jeopardize the ability of the United States to ensure that its forces have the freedom of action to conduct operations against opposing forces. The Advanced Tactical Fighter Statement of Operational Need (November 1984) detailed this need, and Congressional funding and approval were received in 1985.

The ATF was to be the successor to the F-15, a long range air superiority fighter with the performance to kill any other tactical aircraft and the operating radius to threaten targets deep inside the USSR while flying from bases in Western Europe. This was to be achieved by the use of a highly integrated airframe/systems/propulsion design exploiting advanced aerodynamics, engines and stealth technology, the latter to delay an opponent's initial firing opportunity for as long as possible, and thus capitalise on the large Radar Cross section (RCS) of the Fulcrum and Flanker.

Modern weapon systems have traditionally contained many more specifications and greater detailed Statements of Work [SOW] than those of the past. Contrast the Army Signal Corps SOW for the Wright Brothers' heavier-than-air flying machine in 1908 to the Air Force SOW for the Advanced Tactical Fighter in 1986. Requirements in the 1908 SOW (e.g., be easily taken apart for transport in Army wagons and be capable of being reassembled for operation in an hour, carry 350 pounds for 125 miles, and maintain 40 miles per hours in still air) and other contract conditions were specified on one page. The requirements section in the 1986 SOW for the Air Force Advanced Tactical Fighter is 85 pages long with 300 paragraphs of requirements.

Subsequent to studies, an RFP was issued in July 1986. In October 1986, the Phase I Demonstration/Validation (Dem/Val) program was initiated, and the F-22's operational requirements, or Key Performance Parameters, were established. These parameters were documented in the System Operational Requirements document in 1987 and supported a Milestone I decision. Two contractor teams, Northrop/McDonnell-Douglas and Lockheed/Boeing/General Dynamics were selected in October 1986 for the initial 50 month demonstration/validation phase flyoff between the YF-22 and YF-23, the original designations of the F/A-22. The rollout of the prototypes was initially scheduled for mid 1989, but ongoing slippages delayed this. Both ATF prototypes were approximately 10% larger than the F-15 and both carry approximately twice the internal fuel of an F-15C, while both have about 50% more wing area at about 30% greater combat weight. As such both aircraft clearly illustrate the long range air superiority mission which was originally envisaged for the aircraft, penetrating deep into Soviet airspace to destroy air defence aircraft and to disrupt Soviet offensive air operations.

The F-22 team conducted a 54-month demonstration/ validation (dem/val) program. The effort involved the design, construction and flight testing of two YF-22 prototype aircraft. Two prototype engines, the Pratt & Whitney YF119 and General Electric YF120, also were developed and tested during the program. The dem/val program was completed in December 1990. Much of that work was performed at Boeing in Seattle, Lockheed (now known as Lockheed Martin) facilities in Burbank, Calif., and at General Dynamics' Fort Worth, Texas, facilities (now known as Lockheed Martin Tactical Aircraft Systems). The prototypes were assembled in Lockheed's Palmdale, Calif., facility and made their maiden flight from there. Since that time Lockheed's program management and aircraft assembly operations have moved to Marietta, Ga., for the EMD and production phases.

The System Operational Requirements document were updated on 01 March 1991. During the same time, the Advanced Tactical Fighter Full-Scale Development Environmental Assessment was prepared. Full-Scale Development has been subsequently redesignated as Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD).

In August 1991, the YF-22 was declared the winner. The F-22 passed milestone II in 1991.

Link Posted: 3/29/2006 9:03:17 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dave_A:
FOD KILLS!!


Somebody's unit is going to get death-by-powerpoint for this one .....



you should know by now.... EVERYONE is going to get death by powerpoint!
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 10:39:52 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Napoleon_Tanerite:

Originally Posted By Dave_A:
FOD KILLS!!


Somebody's unit is going to get death-by-powerpoint for this one .....



you should know by now.... EVERYONE is going to get death by powerpoint!



Everyone is probably going to have to attend a mandatory annual training session for this, followed with death by powerpoint.
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 11:09:08 AM EDT

Originally Posted By g136653:

Originally Posted By vito113:


There are 'gills' in the bottom of the intake duck that open to allow the crap to fall through…

ANdy



How do they get the bird to stay still? Is it a trained duck or will any farmyard bird do? Could you use a goose? Does it have to be aquatic? It seems cheaper to use chickens, and a Cornish game hen would probably be better in terms of weight, but then you might not get the same flow that say a swan might get you.



No, they would have to use either a European of African swallow, carrying 2 coconuts South for the winter
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 11:10:49 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 11:13:06 AM EDT

Originally Posted By metroplex:

Originally Posted By Napoleon_Tanerite:

Originally Posted By Dave_A:
FOD KILLS!!


Somebody's unit is going to get death-by-powerpoint for this one .....



you should know by now.... EVERYONE is going to get death by powerpoint!



Everyone is probably going to have to attend a mandatory annual training session for this, followed with death by powerpoint.



Did you know we won WWII without any powerpoint briefings? I'm still baffled as to how.
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 11:33:34 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/29/2006 11:34:59 AM EDT by TRW]
As a military technical writer, I know there are a few tech writers/equipment specialists working overtime on this right now.

Expect a safety sup in the next 24 hours if they haven't already released it.
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 11:35:39 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TRW:
As a military technical writer, I know there are a few tech writers/equipment specialists working overtime on this right now.

Expect a safety sup in the next 24 hours if they haven't already released it.



Add another line to the DOPP checklist.
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 3:06:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By vito113:

Originally Posted By g136653:

Originally Posted By vito113:


There are 'gills' in the bottom of the intake duck that open to allow the crap to fall through…

ANdy



How do they get the bird to stay still? Is it a trained duck or will any farmyard bird do? Could you use a goose? Does it have to be aquatic? It seems cheaper to use chickens, and a Cornish game hen would probably be better in terms of weight, but then you might not get the same flow that say a swan might get you.





I deserved that!

ANdy



Yeah - aren't you supposed to be the guardian of the language as our token Brit?
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 3:10:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:

Originally Posted By TRW:
As a military technical writer, I know there are a few tech writers/equipment specialists working overtime on this right now.

Expect a safety sup in the next 24 hours if they haven't already released it.



Add another line to the DOPP checklist.



Fighters don't do DOPPs.
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 4:11:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:
Did you know we won WWII without any powerpoint briefings? I'm still baffled as to how.

They had the DOD training films, like Powerpoint, but the images move.

Kharn
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 4:12:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Kharn:

Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:
Did you know we won WWII without any powerpoint briefings? I'm still baffled as to how.

They had the DOD training films, like Powerpoint, but the images move.

Kharn


A good powerpoint ranger includes animation and sometimes movies.
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 4:21:24 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 4:23:45 PM EDT
Morons! Do you really need a manual to tell you that! Duh!
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 4:33:08 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Spade:

Originally Posted By Greenhorn:
They should take a lesson from the Russians and have breathing vents above the engines that open during taxiing, while the main intakes are closed.




IMHO, it isn't worth the weight and extra crap on the jet unless you're expecting to operate off crap airfields (another reason why A-10 engines are up so high).

A shield wouldn't have been needed here if the crew chief hadn't tried a shortcut.



Actually, the balme doesn't rest on the crew chief alone. The pilot is supposed to do a preflight walk, and part of the walk is making sure all safety pins are removed, all panels are on and buttoned up, and the area around the intakes is free of any FOD. Pilots have the final responsibility of aircraft integrity when they go fly.

That being said, the crew chief should get a talking to, as should the pilot.
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 4:44:44 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:

Did you know we won WWII without any powerpoint briefings? I'm still baffled as to how.



Transparencies and dittos.
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 4:47:22 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Hydguy:

Actually, the balme doesn't rest on the crew chief alone. The pilot is supposed to do a preflight walk, and part of the walk is making sure all safety pins are removed, all panels are on and buttoned up, and the area around the intakes is free of any FOD. Pilots have the final responsibility of aircraft integrity when they go fly.

That being said, the crew chief should get a talking to, as should the pilot.



First thing I said when I read the article is WTF was the pilot doing. Maybe I'm just an anal pilot of an antique aircraft, but I sure as hell never missed a "remove before flight" tag.
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 5:14:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/29/2006 5:21:44 PM EDT by vito113]
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 5:16:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By H46Driver:

Originally Posted By Hydguy:

Actually, the balme doesn't rest on the crew chief alone. The pilot is supposed to do a preflight walk, and part of the walk is making sure all safety pins are removed, all panels are on and buttoned up, and the area around the intakes is free of any FOD. Pilots have the final responsibility of aircraft integrity when they go fly.

That being said, the crew chief should get a talking to, as should the pilot.



First thing I said when I read the article is WTF was the pilot doing. Maybe I'm just an anal pilot of an antique aircraft, but I sure as hell never missed a "remove before flight" tag.



We had low power guys not do walkarounds, and a few of them sucked in intake blanks. I always did my walks when doing a maintainance turn.
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 5:24:54 PM EDT
Fuck.
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 5:30:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By kk7sm:
Also saw some F4s in the air. I didn't know anyone was still flying that critter.



Those F-4's are called "targets".
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 5:37:15 PM EDT
Strange that you would pull the landing gear safety pins before engine start.
It's not done that way in the Navy....

So "what if" the maintenance guys were doing some sort of a check that requires a simulated weight off wheels (ordnance squib check, landing gear electrical system check, external fuel tank pressurization) using some sort of a squat switch override and they leave it on, the pilot forgets to lower the landing gear handle, engines spool up, hydraulic pressure comes on line and boom, the landing gear retracts and there goes the Raptor to the deck.

It's happened before.
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 5:40:31 PM EDT
Where can I buy the remove before flight tags. My father and I built a Sebring MX with a modified ZZ1 crate motor that we race and show. A couple of those would be a sweet addition. 550 hp in a 2268lb car there is a checklist before a good run!!!
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top