Hopes Flew With Lame Jet

The Daily Oklahoman ^ | 11-20-07 | Bryan Dean

[Osage Orange]

Tue November 20, 2007

Hopes Flew With Lame Jet

By Bryan Dean

Staff Writer

A four-star general pinned medals Monday on 12 airmen and nine civilians from Tinker Air Force Base for their role in salvaging a B-1B bomber after an engine fire left the jet crippled on an airstrip in Afghanistan.

The plane landed at an airfield in Afghanistan in mid-August after a fire warning went off during a mission. The jet's No. 4 engine was in flames, and firefighters had to extinguish the blaze after the plane landed.

The Air Force had a tough choice. The fire caused significant damage that couldn't be repaired at a field air base in hostile territory. Commanders considered junking the craft. But scrapping a $283 million bomber is a last resort if the plane can be salvaged.

Three units based at Tinker would team up to save the plane by conducting field repairs and flying the jet on three engines in the face of possible enemy fire.

‘Not a natural thing'

Gen. Bruce Carlson, commander of the Air Force Materiel Command, pinned medals Monday on the Tinker airmen and civilians. The plan to fly on three engines worried him.

"This has actually been done two other times in Air Force history, but never with as much damage as was suffered in this case,” Carlson said. "I'm a fighter pilot, and a lot of my time has been spent in single-engine aircraft, so flying without one engine is not a natural thing. I wasn't inclined to go along with this.”

Members of Tinker's 654th Combat Logistics Squadron, which specializes in repairing battle-damaged B-1 bombers, convinced Carlson it could work.

With help from the civilian 555th Aircraft Sustainment Squadron, an engineering unit also based at Tinker, the airmen came up with a plan for making what repairs they could in Afghanistan before flying the jet out of hostile territory.

The airmen flew to Afghanistan in mid-September and began making the repairs. Tech Sgt. Albert Bryant said he and the rest of the maintenance crew talked with the pilots who would fly the plane, four Tinker officers from the 10th Flight Test Squadron.

"They said, ‘If you can give us an aircraft that is structurally sound and will inspect it and sign off on it, we would be comfortable flying it,'” Bryant said.

A risky flight

The pilots went to Texas to run through a series of worst-case scenarios on a B-1 simulator. Maj. Erick Peterson said some of those scenarios were a little scary. Pilots trained to fly the plane on only two engines in case another of the B-1's jets went out in-flight.

Peterson said he and his fellow pilots knew a B-1 could fly on three engines, but they also knew what they were attempting was more dangerous than those other flights.

"When they've done it in the past, it's been out of places where they only fly for about an hour or an hour and a half, and there is plenty of divert places, places where if they lose another engine or a system, they are 20 minutes away from a place they can land,” Peterson said. "We were leaving from a place where we expected to get shot at on takeoff.”

The pilots planned to fly to Qatar before re-evaluating the plane at an air base in the country and continuing to Royal Air Force Fairford in England.

If something did go wrong, the pilots had only three choices — keep going, ditch the aircraft or return to the airfield in Afghanistan. Landing a B-1 at most foreign air bases in the Middle East was not an option politically.

To make the plane lighter, crews didn't fill its gas tanks.

"We weren't low on gas, but I didn't have enough gas to fly the whole mission,” Peterson said. "We didn't take off until I heard my tanker overhead.”

After refueling in the air, the plane made its way to Qatar and landed safely. Peterson said the plane handled better than he expected, but he said the stress level was probably double that of a normal flight because of the added dangers of flying while down an engine and the potential of being shot at.

When word came back that the plane had landed safely in Qatar, Bryant said he and his fellow maintenance crew members were relieved.

"I don't think any of us took a breath for a couple of hours,” Bryant said.

The flight to England also was a success. Carlson said long-term repairs have begun on the B-1, and it will fly again — on four engines next time.

Carlson said the entire operation cost about $1 million, a small price to pay.

"That plane should have never survived,” Carlson said. "But this is a national asset. You have to try.”

[Osage Orange]

Stuff....the drive-by’s never report.

[MizSterious]

Indeed. Good fine, Osage.

[Doomonyou]

But scrapping a $283 million bomber is a last resort if the plane can be salvaged.

The decision to Throw a grenade in the cockpit would be above my pay grade!

[MizSterious]

“Good fine” should have been “good find”—some things, the spellchecker doesn’t help....

[Osage Orange]

I thought so......

And a darn good story....to boot.

[ExcursionGuy84]

Wow...and here I used to think that Survival Tales of US Air Force Bombers and their crews were gone since the Rolling Thunder days of Vietnam.

[Neidermeyer]

Air Force pilots can be such weenies when it comes to not having 100% centerline thrust , they’re just not trained as well as civilian multi-engine pilots.

[BallyBill]

Great Story, Thanks for posting it.

[AF_Blue]

Would’ve been interesting to know the circumstances or extent of damage preventing an engine swap.

[Osage Orange]

You may or may not be right.....I've never piloted a B-1B.

Have you?

[Osage Orange]

You are welcome.....

I thought it was a good story, myself.

[Osage Orange]

I wonder if the way the engines are placed..poses a problem in just "swapping" out?

Seems from the pic's I've seen...the engines seem more part of the body..and not just "hanging" off of a wing.

But I admit to knowing squat here...and will defer to others more knowledgeable.

[quark]

Good on the Air Force!

In my Navy fighter pilot days, had a USAF C-130 land with damage to one of its main landing gear nacelles on a weekend when I was the air wing duty officer. Defective waste system - a chunk of blue ice from the onboard crapper hit it. The Zoomies thought they were stranded for a long time, but good 'ol Navy know-how and can-do attitude came to the rescue. The sailors from our intermediate maintenance airframe shop had that nacelle repaired and patched overnight, a superb job. Our brothers in blue were mightily impressed...and on their way early the next morning.

Our U.S. Armed Forces: The one part of the Federal bureaucracy that works!

[krb]

Oh, the dreaded 3-engine landing. :-)

[quark]

Perhaps structural damage to the surrounding engine firewall or to the supporting electrical or hydraulic lines.

[em2vn]

Or,”Good,fine!”

[Osage Orange]

Yes....sounds plausible.

Thanks-

[PeteB570]

One time we were flying as cargo in the back of a C-130. One of the guys noticed one of the props stop and feather.

About and hour later another engine on the other side stopped and the prop feathered.

When asked about the situation the crew chief replied that it was no big deal but he was worried about the oil pressure in a third engine.

When asked if we were going to set down at the nearest base he replied “Hell no, none of them have good repair facilities. We’re going to a large base that can fix us.”

As long as they were in the air and flying they were good to go. Land and there they sat until repaired. So we flew on.

If the Air Force ain’t worried - Oh, well, back to the things cargo do to kill time.

[2CAVTrooper]

“Air Force pilots can be such weenies when it comes to not having 100% centerline thrust , they’re just not trained as well as civilian multi-engine pilots.”

And you know this how?

FYI, a majority of those “civilian multi-engine pilots” are former Airforce or Navy pilots.

And last I checked those “civilian multi-engine pilots” don’t have to face getting shot at on take off or landing as those Airforce pilots currently face in places like Afghanistan or Iraq.

[ASOC]

This is a bigger story than you might first think. The B1B was modified while in production, so each airframe is just about serial number specific for parts - no going the boneyard (sorry, bad pun) at D-M and pulling another engine to ship over to swap out.

As far as Air Force weenies being so funny about....

I routinely flew in C130s that cracks in the main wing spar - so long, I was told, the crew chief could not fit his hand in past the second knuckle, it was good to fly.

We have seen the photos of the battle damage the A10 survives......

[Osage Orange]

This is a bigger story than you might first think. The B1B was modified while in production, so each airframe is just about serial number specific for parts - no going the boneyard (sorry, bad pun) at D-M and pulling another engine to ship over to swap out.

Thanks....makes sense.

[wrench]

""They said, ‘If you can give us an aircraft that is structurally sound and will inspect it and sign off on it, we would be comfortable flying it,'” Bryant said."

He would have really gotten their attention if he had said "We are stripping the bombay and making room for the repair crew to make the flight with us.

[Neidermeyer]

You are mistaken if you perceive having huge amounts of power at your disposal as a pilot to be a detriment ... that plane on 3 engines can still climb at a dizzying rate and I guarantee you it can maintain altitude or maybe even climb on 2 engines,,, there was no danger or bravery here ... if you want a thrill ride fly a civilian piston twin on 1 motor for a while ,, few of them can manage better than a 50 fpm climb in hot weather and some will lose altitude in the best of conditions. I was a flight instructor (MEI-CFI) and no I am not turbine rated in a B-1 , this really is a non-story. My point was the centerline thrust issue ... I have had students from (non-US) air forces (and the USAF pilots tell me the same) they get ZERO training in asymetrical flight as their aircraft are all centerline thrust. They all report civilian aircraft as being much more difficult to maneuver correctly as we don’t have the excess power (or the simplified military procedures and ATC).

[Robert A. Cook, PE]

Seems to me that any AF general who DIDN’T try to get the bomber out - if it was technically possible, even if technically “difficult” - isn’t worth his salary. Nor his leadership position - he seems to be flying by manual. A strangely odd position for a fighter pilot: the enemy won’t always their manual.

Sure, taking off on 3 isn’t in spec, but if is is possible (at that altitude) then he needs to do it. You don’t risk lives, but he seems overly fearful: If the people shooting were going to shoot, they would have done it during the weeks the plane was on the ground: static and a sitting duck.

[patton]

Wish I could have flown it.

Man, what fun!

[wrench]

Many times I have flown DR&P with nothing but a wet compass,altimeter, and airspeed indicator. When you are paying out of your own pocket, lots of "stuff" becomes optional.

IIRC, the B727 was always considered a twin engine aircraft, with a spare.

Flying the B1 on 3 engines would not present a problem unless it were carring a full combat load of fuel and weapons.

Ferry flight, the pilot would be "reading playboy in the jon with the autopilot on"....

[Secret Agent Man]

We need congresspeople who think like this.

[stubernx98]

Big deal. I landed my twin Cessna at PDX with an engine out due to low oil pressure. So checked out on the ground and since my home airport was only 50 mile away to take off with one engine. I did get the bad one started so I could taxi, then left it at idle and made my Take Off on the left. I had 8500 feet of runway so plenty of room.
Got into the air, then shut down the right one and feathered it. It never got above idle(zero thrust).

Anonymous

[Old Airplane Driver]

I guess the C-141, C-5, C-17, and B-52 must not count, huh? As a C-141 driver, I routinely practiced outboard engine V1 cuts in the aircraft (not in the simluator as is done in civilian practice). We also practiced two engines out on one side approaches and it doesn't get a lot more asymetrical than that. Just as a point of reference, it takes about 60 pounds of rudder force instantly applied to keep it on the centerline in an outboard V1 cut.

The danger in a three engine takeoff in a four engine aircraft, is that the performance charts generally don't reflect this option. Any four engine aircraft can continue from V1 with one engine out, but starting the roll with one caged is not in the charts. That Bone had potential structural damage on top of the missing engine and had to take off with no takeoff alternate and with less fuel than it required to make its first destination. All of this had to be done under combat conditions.

I for one salute that crew and the maintenance team that had to make some tough calls.

As to the B727, it all depends on what model you are talking about. The early 200 series aircraft (stretches) used the same JT8D-7 engines as the 100 series and were commonly called lead sleds. A V1 engine loss at max gross in one of those pigs was a challenge. It wasn't until they started putting JT8D-15 engines in the stretches that engine out performance reached an acceptable level.

Then, of course there was the C-7A (deHavilland DHC-4) I flew in Vietnam. On a STOL takeoff, an engine failure before flap retraction was a rate of climb of -50 fpm. It wasn't a question of whether you were going into the trees, it was a question of how fast you would be going at impact. Fortunately, Pratt & Whitney never let me down.

I can't speak for all USAF pilots, but I can assure you that many have copious experience with asymmetrical thrust and under the extreme duress of being a moving target!

[Neidermeyer]

The biggest I’ve flown is a DC-8 freighter ,, with all 4 turning it has the same thrust as 1 engine on a B-1 with the same weight ,,, 3 engine flight on what is basically a centerline thrust bird is no problem, that damn thing could still go vertical on a 3 engine takeoff ,, maybe he’d wait for cool night weather for better performance,,, so the pilot had to add some trim in level flight ,, bfd... as for combat conditions ,, that B-1 was in Afghanistan ,, we’ve been there 5 long years ,, if our boys haven’t been able to clear the departure end of enemy soldiers by now I don’t know what to say to that..

P.S. in civilian aircraft we do cut engines,, not just simulators.

[CholeraJoe]

OH, BS! I served as an Air Force flight surgeon. I trained with pilots, flew with pilots, took care of them and their families when they were ill. I also scraped up what was left after several crashes, had to break the life-shattering news to grieving families and stood at attention with tears pouring down my face while the flags were being folded.

To a person, man and woman, they were the most courageous people I've ever met. I've seen them fly aircraft with severe mechanical problems, unthinkable battle damage and in weather that would cause brown skivvies in most airline passengers. You are grievously mistaken.

Thanks for the ping, Robert.

[TankerKC]

Air Force pilots can be such weenies when it comes to not having 100% centerline thrust , they’re just not trained as well as civilian multi-engine pilots.

We're talking about a bit more than a thrust issue. When you find a crew of civilian multi-engine pilots that are willing to fly into enemy territory, endure deployments and alerts, and, worst of all, live in Abilene, get back to me.

[Moonman62]

"That plane should have never survived,” Carlson said. "But this is a national asset. You have to try.”

General Carlson is a bit dramatic.

[Osage Orange]

You are mistaken if you perceive having huge amounts of power at your disposal as a pilot to be a detriment ... that plane on 3 engines can still climb at a dizzying rate and I guarantee you it can maintain altitude or maybe even climb on 2 engines,,, there was no danger or bravery here

I never perceived anything.....

No danger? I guess others concluded otherwise.

fwiw-

[6ppc]

if you want a thrill ride fly a civilian piston twin on 1 motor for a while

No kidding! Add a critical engine stall to really get the heart pumping!

[AFPhys]

RAC,PE: Thanks for the ping. I pretty much agree with you about the risk needing to be taken. That being said ...

Nei’er: [First, and as an aside, the B1B’s engines on burners develop only about twice the thrust of a DC8’s engines, not three times as much as you implied - Their cruise power is about the same as the DC8 - and asymmetric thrust AB operation can be really tricky and that reduces the usable max power.] As a former driver of a heavy, I must assure you that the problem here is more with “what can go wrong next”, rather than merely taking off with one engine out. We’re all talking through our hat here unless we knew what the major problems were that couldn’t be repaired, however... Just suppose that whatever damage existed (and the damage that was undiscovered) were to cause loss of a second, or EVEN a third engine - or major hydraulics trouble [in addition to structural damage that seems fairly certain to have been in existence, from the sounds of it]. Since the engines are in relatively close proximity to the original problem, that might have been a possible scenario, and the risk of losing a second engine certainly had to be higher than a typical flight. I really don’t think this bird has the oomph to take off on one engine - and you just can’t dead stick a landing in a field with a B1 if the worst happens... to say nothing of about not having any idea whether there is sufficient rudder authority for the B1 to handle single engine flight at all. It might not even be possible to climb out on two engines, though they probably had adequate data to estimate that - it had to be very close.

In addition, it is almost certain that North American had never worked up charts for 3-engine —> 2-engine takeoff parameters, and it is absolutely certain that they didn’t field test the accuracy of parameters they ended up guessing to use. There is a whole load of uncertainty here ... in fact there is little to be confident that they could know well - whether speeds, distances, climbout performance, likelihood of further damage on climbout, etc... Add to this the altitude of the terrain in Afghanistan, and you have major performance questions even with a perfectly good bird: Kabul is almost 6000 high! - and it’s got a whole load of even higher terrain around it - (though I don’t see where the plane had grounded - that’s bad enough already) - and all of us in this discussion don’t have any question about altitude deteriorating this situation enormously.

I’m in total agreement with the observation of Old Airplane Driver: “... starting the roll with one caged is not in the charts. That Bone had potential structural damage on top of the missing engine and had to take off with no takeoff alternate and with less fuel than it required to make its first destination. All of this had to be done under combat conditions. I for one salute that crew and the maintenance team that had to make some tough calls.”

I will add, I, for once, wholeheartedly salute the generals and his staff who had to make this very tough call - with >$300,000,000 and four or more highly trained souls riding on this single decision.

And as far as quark’s & Pete’s comments: I believe that the “Can Do” and courageous attitude of the C130 and A10 drivers is typical Air Force... those birds, though, are designed to sustain very heavy damage. I’m similarly confident in the C135 & B52, etc., especially given their long history... however, these new fangled birds tend to be a bit more touchy about their airframe. I also am confident that under typical engine out scenerios, ALL military pilots are far more than merely adequately capable of handling asymmetric thrust - but this was NOT typical - cripes: they weren’t even at a field that had marginally adequate maintenance facilities!

For these and other reasons, I agree with CJoe: it was essential to study this situation as long as needed before flying that bird, or even deciding whether to fly it at all (though I’m sure they were definitely leaning that way all along). This must - must - be done insofar as possible to avoid having to “break the life-shattering news to grieving families ... [of] the most courageous people I’ve ever met”, and we should never minimize this type of decision.

[Osage Orange]

A great and very informative post.

Thanks very much.

FRegards,

[Robert A. Cook, PE]

Good strong statements, I thank you.