Slashdot Mirror
F-18 Fighter Jet Crashes Into Virginia Apartment Complex
New submitter atomatica writes "A Navy F/A-18 Super Hornet crashed shortly after takeoff into an apartment complex near Virginia Beach, Virginia. Both pilots and multiple civilians have been transported to a hospital."
Gizmodo has lots of shiny pictures and more detail.
Even if you only count one apartment building demolished, the F-18 still has a better combat record than the F-22.
(I only joke because there were no fatalities!)
The coverage of this was nuts. The TV in my restaurant had some idiot reporter asking someone who was there asking him, "What's the chaos like? Were there people scattering?" #1, it's a sure bet she wanted to say BODIES scattering, an #2, if not, then the question is one of the dumbest I'd ever heard. That's like asking, "Is everyone standing there in harm's way, or fleeing in terror?"
You want to know how to help your kids? LEAVE THEM THE F*&K ALONE. --George Carlin
We all know it was an inside job by the owners of the apartment complex who just wanted to build more expensive real estate without having to actually pay for it.
I bullshit you not, this is a 100% true story. A friend of mine just got a small apartment complex construction approved by the city and county and the nearby airport denied it because it's in some kind of zone. It's not even the 2-story part, it's a density thing. If it was spread out houses, they'd approve it but having that many people that close together is a safety hazard if a plan were to miss the runway and crash. It was over a mile from the front of the runway by the way. So anyway, they were appealing the decision because "how often do planes randomly crash into apartment complexes next to airports." I have a feeling they're about to either drop the appeal or lose.
Both pilots and multiple civilians have been transported to a hospital.
Gizmodo has lots of shiny pictures and more detail.
Really Slashdot/Unknown Lamer? I've got a morbid sense of humor at times, and i'm not even saying i'm not interested in the pictures, but "lots of people are injured and some of them may die" and we've got "lots of shiny pictures" about it! seems a bit callous to me. I mean if it were actually part of some morbid joke it'd be fine, but it's not even a joke, it's just being totally insensitive for no good reason.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
Anyone have an idea why this happened? Pilot error? Mechanical failure?
A witness was quoted as saying that the engine sounded like it was dying. The problem there is that the Hornet is a twin engine plane. If it was an engine going out, then they could have just shut it down and flew home on the remaining engine. The Navy has had a policy of two engines for decades now precisely because of the safety factor (and this is why there's some grumbling about the F-35C being a single engine bird). Unless it was the world's biggest birdstrike and FOD-ed up both intakes, it had to be something else... loss of power, internal fire, something.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
I really don't think our well trained pilots would ditch into a populated area so my guess is mechanical failure. (along with gravity and the pilot struggling to keep civilians out of harms way)
There was also apparently a fuel dump. So, either the student pilot hit a wrong button, or when they say "catastrophic mechanical failure", catastrophic is probably not an exaggeration.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
2 pilots that safely ejected, 1 person fainted, 1 police who was hurt while attending the scene, 2 for smoke inhaulation. It seems that the pilots knew that something was wrong and were dumping fuel before the crash. Quick thinking stopped a larger fire and the possibility of more casualties.
There was an unknown error in the submission.
Anyone have an idea why this happened? Pilot error? Mechanical failure?
Gravity.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Catastrophic mechanical errors do fall under the jurisdiction of News for Nerds, as a fair number of site visitors have some understanding of mechanics (if not outright degrees in Mechanical Engineering), as do F-18 Hornets (which is more Aeronautical Engineering, but whatever).
And the politics thing has been a part of the site since 2000 or 2001.
I am John Hurt.
Second paragraph of TFA:
The jet carried a student pilot in the front seat and an experienced instructor behind him, and the dumping of jet fuel was "one of the indications that there was a mechanical malfunction," Navy Capt. Mark Weisgerber told reporters.
Emphasis mine.
Just because they dumped fuel doesn't mean they dumped all of it. If it was a Super Hornet (media reports concerning aviation are always suspect), then it has the extra ability to refuel other aircraft in flight, which means they could probably dump fuel pretty quickly.
The article also lauds them for dumping fuel to make the fire upon impact much less severe. I guarantee they were dumping fuel to reduce weight. This was (99% probability) an engine malfunction. In one of the picture you can see the left nozzle closed and the right nozzle wide open. They probably had a lot less thrust than they needed and were dumping fuel reduce the amount of thrust required for flight.
Last, circling back to the runway that you took off almost never works. And it definitely isn't going to work in a thrust deficient situation in a fighter-type aircraft. You just don't have enough energy. I don't know how the Super Hornet works, but it may have also lost flight controls depending on the malfunction. I've never flown the F-18, but I have flown the T-38 (the Mig-28 in Top Gun, btw) which was a pig if you lost an engine and lost all flight controls if both motors died.
Source: I am a USAF pilot.
FTFA:
Update 3:31 PM EDT: The Virginian-Pilot points out another grim factoid about the Navy base in question today: There have been more than 25 crashes involving Navy aircraft on or near the base over the past four decades.
That's grim? Less than one crash per year with people flying fighter jets? That seems like an outstanding safety record to me -- those things are twitchy and the pilots take them to the boundaries as a matter of proper training. Calling one crash per year "grim" strikes me as misleading and sensationalistic.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
With current fuel prices being so high, will some lucky person in the area have hit the jackpot when they check their pool for the stuff? They could skim it off the top and run their truck for a week or two. I really should Google aviation fuel, for some reason I have it in my head as being pretty similar to diesel.
To be fair, I thought "catastrophic mechanical malfunction" was just military speak for "a building just went through my engines" and not the root cause of the actual accident.
United States military protocol, a press conference was announced later on in the day at which an amorphous "surge strategy" was announced and a commitment to peace in the region was renewed. Many analysts in the media blamed weather or mechanical failure, while fox news attributed the terrorist mechanical failure to Obamacare death panels.
In response to media-fueled concerns and United States foreign policy
the country then promptly invaded the neighboring state of North Carolina.
Good people go to bed earlier.
Sure is ... quantity of training, not quality of patronage.
I've worked with several allied and friendly militaries. The Brits, Germans and Aussies, just as good as us. Turks, Italians, Colombians and Bulgarians, professional, competent, but much lower fidelity of training and exercises. Mexicans, Kenyans, Ehtiopians, Ugandans, Iraqis, marginal competency and leadership adequate to engage in combat. Every other OPEC country I've worked with, most eastern European countries, and the Chinese -- enlisted mercenary mindset and straightforward patronage in the officer corps.
Western militaries all work on quality of training and equipment. The 3rd world militaries are all about size. China is in the middle of an internal RMA as they realize that their 3 million soldiers are roughly useless with their byzantine C2 structure and backwards procurement, and are pouring money into modern materiel. The quantities and type of procurement, I hope, is aimed at retaking Taiwan in a paper maneuver, but they appear intent on starting the next world war to secure oil and mineral resources. Yes, that means conquering Australia (iron ore), much of the islands to secure oil, and I have no clue how much of Africa they expect to occupy. I sure hope I'm wrong, but hope isn't much to live on.
>> How exactly is this News for Nerds?
Slashdot always reports on things that crash windows.
A witness was quoted as saying that the engine sounded like it was dying. The problem there is that the Hornet is a twin engine plane. If it was an engine going out, then they could have just shut it down and flew home on the remaining engine.
The accident happened during (or shortly after) take-off. Anyone know if an F-18 *needs* both engines at that time. BTW, I live in Virginia Beach and the crash happened less than 5 miles from both my house and office. Obviously, the area (Birdneck Road and I-264) is a mess at the moment...
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
The ejector seats definitely separated from the aircraft before it hit the ground, so they must have ditched; but I get the impression that fighter jets don't give you very much "we'll just glide along for a while until we find something that looks nice and open" time once the thrust goes out so they quite likely didn't have much choice about location.
There's been quite a few F-18 accidents in recent years. Despite being a two engine plane, it seems there are a lot more mechanical failures than the single engine F-16.
Two engines == twice as many engines to fail. Just less likely to crash when one does.
Just to quell some of the more off-base but understandable conjecture. Disclaimer- I have no insider information on this particular mishap, but I am a retired Navy pilot.
A Hornet can fly on one operating engine assuming the "good" one is not having a problem also.
The engines are isolated from a control and fuel standpoint. There are relatively few malfunctions that could affect both. Most likely would be foreign object damage (FOD) most likely birds. There are some other possibilities I can think of, such as the pilot shutting down the wrong (good) engine. It has happened before. Maybe it wasn't shortly after takeoff and they were limping back on one engine and it failed. Maybe it was a massive fuel leak (he wasn't dumping).
Dumping fuel would be normal to reduce gross weight following loss of an engine, particularly if it was shortly after takeoff (leads me to my speculation above). It wasn't done to reduce the amount of fuel for the fireball.
The plane hit at relatively low energy (slow) probably 150kts or less (approach speed). If it was cruise speed (300-350) the wreckage would be much less intact. Witnesses reported the gear down.
Looking at the pictures, the exhaust nozzle is open on one engine, closed on the other. Assuming that didn't happen on impact it means the engines were not doing the same thing. One was in afterburner or at idle, while the other was at or near mil.
VFA-106 is the Fleet Replacement Squadron (FRS). This is where new pilots transition from trainers to fleet aircraft (the FA-18). They are "replacement pilots" not "student pilots" in the traditional sense. They have wings, but are training in a new type aircraft.
Encroachment around Oceana is horrible (or was, I assume it has not gotten better).
You can use it in a diesel engine. The US Army does. JP-8 is their everything fuel.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
There was also apparently a fuel dump...
I will guess that the fuel dump was intentional, a (successful) attempt to limit the severity of damage, knowing that the plane was going down.
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
> If it was an engine going out, then they could have just
> shut it down and flew home on the remaining engine
It's not so simple at takeoff and landing, any time you are below or near low speeds and at low altitudes things get very very complicated.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/AERO.2000.878212
http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-58841.html
In summary - in theory you can always save the day. In reality -- one mistake, and you're going down hard.
Navy pilot, I have flown the Hornet.
Dumping was definitely to reduce gross weight. Just because some random guy on the street says "It would have been worse if he hadn't dumped his fuel" does not mean it's true. You can start dumping immediately, but it would take several minutes to dump enough to make a difference.
The nozzles (Variable Exhaust Nozzles or VENs on the FA-18) change based on throttle setting. Actually it's a complex formula done by the engines control system to regulate things like EGT, EPR, and a bunch of other parameters. For simplicity an engine has the VEN near full open at idle, off, or max afterburner. The VEN is near closed at or near military power (full power without afterburner).
Circling back to the runway you took off of works well if you have the thrust to get there. If you don't, it just doesn't matter. A normal sequence of events in case of loss of engine shortly after takeoff would be to go to max power, jettison stores and attempt to fly away straight ahead. Once you successfully get the airplane flying you have all sorts of options. The FA-18 flies pretty well on one engine as long as that engine is fully functional and you don't get yourself slow.
Gravity never loses. The best you can hope for a is a draw. -- old pilot axiom
You may have been alluding to this, but it's standard procedure (even in civilian aircraft) to dump fuel when landing after a failure on takeoff. It reduces the landing weight (which is usually lower than the takeoff weight by a surprising amount; the extra weight is fuel intended to be burned), but also reduces the size of a fire ignited by a crash. Thus, one of the first things he would have done if he'd had engine problems would be dumping fuel.
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
I used to live in Poway (1969-1982), under the approach pattern for Miramar Marine Corps, formerly Naval, Air Station. I also went to university at [[UCSD]] on the west end of the station. There were accidents over the years, this one especially bad as a single-engine [[F-8 Crusader]] lost power on approach, hit a hangar full of aircraft caught fire. I bet this tragedy and others figured into all subsequent Navy/Marines fighters having two engines. More recently, a [[2008 San Diego F/A-18 crash]] caused four civilian fatalities, following a (relatively rare) double-engine flameout. Most crashes were far less spectacular (ejections over open water or empty fields). Both Miramar and Oceana have more development now, adding to the danger.
The clearance system sounds logical. It is not. It is completely arbitrary. -- John Bolton
It was pointed out on an aviation site (and visible in a Gizmodo photo that the engine nozzles are set asymmetrically (left side is closed down, right is opened up). So this could indicate a problem with one (the right?) engine.
Have gnu, will travel.
Dumping fuel is a normal procedure if you're going to make an emergency landing (to lighten the load) or expect to crash (to minimize the fire)
That is how George Will labeled this kind reporting. The bottom feeders have even gotten worse since he issued his indictment of this vile practice. Mr Will and I share few political ideas. But he was spot on with this characterization. I think of it every time I see one of these savage reports.
"So, your son died in a friendly fire incident in Kabul this morning. How does this make you feel, Mrs ________?"
"No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
I've worked with several allied and friendly militaries. The Brits, Germans and Aussies, just as good as us.
India's air force is top notch.
They've embarrassed us a few times during international military exercises.
And they have the 4th largest air force in the world
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
He should have used the boost to get through!
There was also apparently a fuel dump. So, either the student pilot hit a wrong button, or when they say "catastrophic mechanical failure", catastrophic is probably not an exaggeration.
Just a guess, but maybe they dumped fuel in order to incinerate as little as possible of the crash site? It might even make sense for the flight computer to do this automatically if it predicts an imminent crash.
They primarily dump fuel to reduce weight, and increase manoeuvrability, the flaming inferno factor usually comes in last.
They've allready bought the goodwill of the largest companies, virtually purchased one political party outright via a fat idiot proxy and the fawning goodwill of the other. They have no need to conquer, if it comes down between a choice between trade partner number one and the US at number 5 (after screwing Australia over in a one sided free trade deal) it's obvious which way it's going to go.
The Chinese government would be insane to try to conquer a continent that could easily be turned into a client state without military action. Anyway, most of China's military force is directed towards controlling their own country.