Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

2013 F/A-18 crash: Out of fuel, out of time and one chance to land
Stars & Stripes ^ | April 12, 2014 | Mike Hixenbaugh

Posted on 04/12/2014 5:47:40 AM PDT by Timber Rattler

The aircraft carrier Dwight D. Eisenhower was finally in sight.

The pilot of the F/A-18 Super Hornet hurriedly flipped switches and pushed levers. The aviator in the backseat leaned forward, straining to see the flight deck floating in the distance. The jet’s right engine had locked up, its landing gear jammed, the main fuel tank almost empty.

(snip)

The pilot made some quick calculations. He had 15,500 pounds of fuel in his tanks, enough to return to the Eisenhower and make six passes at the ship.

Landing in nearby Kandahar was a more prudent option, but that would likely have meant several days or more awaiting repairs. The Eisenhower’s air wing commander had decided earlier not to put a maintenance detachment in Afghanistan — a cost-saving measure pilots perceived as a signal they should attempt to divert back to the ship whenever possible.

(snip)

About the story: This report was based on an investigation into the April 8, 2013, crash of an F/A-18 Super Hornet. Names and other identifying details were redacted from the report, which was obtained by The Virginian-Pilot through a Freedom of Information Act request. The report cited questionable decision making by the pilot but did not recommend disciplinary action.

(Excerpt) Read more at stripes.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Government; US: Virginia
KEYWORDS: carrier; f18; foia; hornet; navair; planecrash; usnavy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-58 next last
After a bad call by the strike group commander, the aviator and his backseater ran out of fuel just as they were about to land on the Eisenhower and had to punch out, losing the aircraft.

Seems to me that the root of the original chain of bad decisions was the failure to station a Maintenance Det in Afghganistan to save money and to encourage aviators in trouble to try and make it back to their carriers. So, here they lost a $50 million Super Hornet and nearly their lives because of financial shenanigans in Washington.

1 posted on 04/12/2014 5:47:41 AM PDT by Timber Rattler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Timber Rattler
true..and afterall; this IS the Resident "Bathhouse" Barrack 0'Muslim Administration.

2 posted on 04/12/2014 5:57:58 AM PDT by skinkinthegrass (The end move in politics is always to pick up a gun..0'Caligula / 0'Reid / 0'Pelosi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Timber Rattler

Seems to me that our government’s main mission is to provide defense for our country. It follows that we should have people in place,from the Commander-in-Chief on down,with military experience. This is vital,but doesn’t seem to be the case this time.


3 posted on 04/12/2014 5:59:28 AM PDT by oldtech
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Timber Rattler

Two seat Hornet = Marines or a Growler. Carrier aviation is a high risk occupation. Running out of gas is always a pilot error.


4 posted on 04/12/2014 6:01:05 AM PDT by Afterguard (Liberals will let you do anything you want, as long as it's mandatory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Timber Rattler

Why doesn’t our govt ever try to save money by, say, cutting handouts to the slimy takers of society - those born on BOTH sides of our southern border???


5 posted on 04/12/2014 6:03:42 AM PDT by C. Edmund Wright (Tokyo Rove is more than a name, it's a GREAT WEBSITE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Timber Rattler

“The jet had flown more than 400 miles, two-thirds of the way back to the ship, when the aviators noticed another problem.”

Glad their safe. I don’t blame it on anybody. I was a green shirt for a month ... not long by anybodies standard, but I don’t question their decision. If both made it back alive, then It was a good decision in my book.


6 posted on 04/12/2014 6:07:42 AM PDT by Usagi_yo (Islamunism = Facism + Islam : Islamunist = someone that adheres to Islamunism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Afterguard

<> Running out of gas is always a pilot error.<>

You don’t know wtf you are talking about.


7 posted on 04/12/2014 6:09:22 AM PDT by Jacquerie ( Article V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Afterguard
Running out of gas is always a pilot error.

I highly recommend reading the article. If nothing else, it will save you making a fool of yourself the next time.

8 posted on 04/12/2014 6:12:11 AM PDT by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Timber Rattler

I couldn’t read the rest of this. You’re spot on.

The incident could have resulted in loss of crew, all consequent to a major command error in logistics, which I can only assume extends all the way up the chain back to the Pentagon since they only assigned blame on the pilot. They simply chose to ignore the problem.

The proof is the lack of disciplinary action.

Why am I not surprised...

Footnote: At least some still care enough
http://www.goatlocker.org/resources/cpo/about/culture.htm


9 posted on 04/12/2014 6:12:53 AM PDT by logi_cal869
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: centurion316

THat’s not what he’s really saying. He’s saying the pilot might not likely fly a high performance jet for the military anymore. Which is more than likely true. At least that’s how I read his comment.

Unexpected turbulence is sometimes a polite way of saying “he screwed up”. Doesn’t have to be the case, but the Navy frowns upon pilots who lose their aircraft.


10 posted on 04/12/2014 6:18:30 AM PDT by Usagi_yo (Islamunism = Facism + Islam : Islamunist = someone that adheres to Islamunism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: centurion316

F/A 18’s don’t have any gas.


11 posted on 04/12/2014 6:19:45 AM PDT by Loud Mime (Character matters for those who understand the concept)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Usagi_yo

How many aircraft did John McCain lose?


12 posted on 04/12/2014 6:21:28 AM PDT by Former Proud Canadian (Cruz/Palin 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie; Afterguard
<> Running out of gas is always a pilot error.<>

You don’t know wtf you are talking about.

I had a friend with whom I had flown as his co-pilot. He ran out of fuel, tried an autorotation to the sea, hit hard, aircraft broke up and everyone was killed. While on a routine training mission in Okinawa he was diverted to an outlining island for a passenger pickup. When the passenger was boarding the crew chief was heard to say, "Hurry up we are low on fuel".

Classic pilot error, right? Mostly, yes. However, the squadron commander demanded "drill team" precision and punctuality for each aircraft meeting launch and recovery times, even down to requiring the senior pilot on a multi-plane launch to do a countdown to synchronized rotor brake release. The commander's other insistence was that "You will make your 'chock time' (return to base)."

Without that command pressure, probably the pilot would have taken the delay and refueled. Yes, the pilot in command is responsible. However, the command authority has the responsibility to create an environment that promotes wise decisions on the part of the pilots.

Second incident. Another friend was possibly the last US military man killed in the Vietnam war. In 1975, during the fall of Saigon, his helicopter carrier was off-shore receiving the fleeing South Vietnamese helos full of escaping military and civilians.

The Vietnamese Hueys would land and unload their passengers. If there was time, radios and other useful component were yanked out before the Huey was shoved over the side due to insufficient deck space. My buddy was flying "plane guard", orbiting to one side of the ship to rescue anyone in a helo that did not have enough fuel to make it safely to the flight deck.

He had been flying for 12-13 hours, refueling when necessary. Night had fallen and he had tried to refuel again, only to be bumped by an incoming Huey flying on fumes. He continues to orbit, then one time, they did not come around.

Fatigue?
Disorientation at night over water?
Flame out after fuel exhaustion?

Who knows. But please, DO NOT call that "pilot error".

13 posted on 04/12/2014 6:33:20 AM PDT by BwanaNdege
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

You don’t know what you’re talking about. Unless the ARB can prove the jet was broken in some way, the pilot gets the blame for running out of gas.


14 posted on 04/12/2014 6:35:42 AM PDT by Afterguard (Liberals will let you do anything you want, as long as it's mandatory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Afterguard

Hey numbnuts, read the column.


15 posted on 04/12/2014 6:36:34 AM PDT by Jacquerie ( Article V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie
This was about a lot more than running out of fuel. The turbulence during re-fueling caused the basket to be ripped off. This disabled the fuel pumps so he couldn't use all his fuel. Diverting to Kandahar was discouraged because of command decisions. He was ordered to divert to another land field too late. Then the pilot squandered his emergency power and couldn't lower his landing gear.

I count two pilot errors, that might have been the result of poor training. I also count two command errors. So, who is at fault? The command authority, the training system, or the pilot?

My take? I am appalled at the command decisions and the lack of pilot knowledge of the aircraft due to lack of training.

16 posted on 04/12/2014 6:37:35 AM PDT by Former Proud Canadian (Cruz/Palin 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Usagi_yo

A good landing is when the pilot and all passengers can walk away.

A great landing is when you can use the airplane again.


17 posted on 04/12/2014 6:38:17 AM PDT by alloysteel (Selective and willful ignorance spells doom, to both victim and perpetrator - mostly the perp.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Timber Rattler

They should have the team, which is investigating MH370, solve the investigation...


18 posted on 04/12/2014 6:40:35 AM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously-you won't live through it anyway-Enjoy Yourself ala Louis Prima)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vendome

Seems the root of the prob was the pilot didn’t want 2 days of maint and lost a zillion dollar aircraft!


19 posted on 04/12/2014 6:48:45 AM PDT by DocJhn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Former Proud Canadian

Enough to be a reverse ace.


20 posted on 04/12/2014 6:58:04 AM PDT by mcshot (..."And this too shall end.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-58 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson