Posted on 12/01/2014 6:10:13 PM PST by Jet Jaguar
A U.S. Air Force pilot taking part in Operation Inherent Resolve was killed when his F-16 Fighting Falcon crashed due to maintenance problems, according to the Pentagon.
The crash occurred late Sunday Washington time.
The Defense Department is calling it a “noncombat-related incident”, but acknowledged the aircraft was on its way to Iraq or Syria to participate in ongoing operations against the Islamic State when things went wrong.
“The aircraft was returning to its base in the Middle East” when the crash occurred, Pentagon spokesman Col. Steve Warren said. “Apparently there were some maintenance problems on takeoff. It turned around and unfortunately was not able to land.”
No one was injured beside the pilot, according to Warren.
First responders remain on the scene and the cause of the crash is under investigation, he said.
It was unclear Monday why the pilot was unable to eject before the aircraft crashed, Warren said.
The name of the pilot will not be released until 24 hours after next of kin have been notified.
The crash did not occur in Iraq or Syria, Warren noted. He declined to identify which country the pilot and aircraft were stationed in due to host nation sensitivities.
The pilot’s death constitutes the third U.S. military fatality from Operation Inherent Resolve. On Oct. 23, Marine Lance Cpl. Sean Neal died in Iraq from a noncombat related injury. On Oct. 1, Marine Cpl. Jordan Spears was lost at sea while conducting flight operations in the North Arabian Gulf.
F-16 ping.
I hate the typical speculation and “expert” guessing in these situations, but there frankly isn’t but seconds between an aborted takeoff and either crashing or landing. You’d think a pilot could get to the ejection handle but it gets real busy about then.
How do they know it was due to maintenance problems?
Active Duty ping.
I imagine the pilot reported the problem before hitting the ground.
 |
 |
 America demands Justice for the Fallen of Benghazi! |
 |
 |
It’s very rare, but that handle doesn’t work everytime.
And it is not always so easy to get to if being tossed around in an unpowered fighter. I fly bug smashers and have all day to land an unpowered aircraft, but a fighter can go completely unstable pretty easy.
Its likely he thought he had it or decided not to eject.
If you were over ISIS territory would you eject?
“If you were over ISIS territory would you eject?”
Hell no! I would do everything to ride it home. He may have tried and didn’t make it. Not to mention, an off-field landing for an F-16 may not be an automatic crash. Maybe he thought the area could tolerate a wheels down landing. We know little of this incident, but RIP to the pilot for being one and giving it a go.
3 Americans dead, so far, in Obama’s War against “ISIS”. absolute media SILENCE....
If a REPUBLICAN were in charge, every Gruber voter would know their names, and would be watching endless hours of TV bios about them.
My wholly uneducated guess is engine failure. In a single engine aircraft, that’s a BIG uh-oh.
That’s yet another reason why the F-35 is such a BAD idea.
Could have been upside down at low altitude making ejecting suicidal.
A friend is an ex f16 pilot and currently instructing in Colorado. I’ll ask him.
I did spend 2 years at a base with 2 squadrons of these supporting the pilots. Numerous crashes during those two years, never saw something like this. The only deaths were mid-air collisions.
they classify it noncombat so that extra pay/benefits do not go to his family if it happened in combat. this was the trip for’him’to get into combat, ie deployment. i’d give it to his’family.
That was a big deciding factor when Canada went with the F-18s. The two engines won the day.
The F16 is a very stable aircraft. Most likely he thought he could save the aircraft or was over an area he didnt want to land in. IMO
It is curious to me that the term “maintenance problems” is used. To me, a pilot, that means that the problem was due to errors that persons, responsible for maintaining the aircraft, had in doing their job. “Mechanical problems” are usually the appropriate term to use.
Hey USAF, let’s make it more clear as to what the problem was, don’t leave the reader spinning, on fire, and about to crash!
You are so right. Few know what a “helmet fire” is.
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.