Near crash of F/A-22 fighter jet sparked probe, officials say

The Dallas Morning News. ^ | Oct. 11, 2003 | RICHARD WHITTLE

[BenLurkin]

WASHINGTON - One of the Air Force's prized - and politically vulnerable - (KRT) - F/A-22 Raptor fighter jets nearly crashed during a recent practice flight, prompting an investigation, service officials confirm.

The previously unreported incident occurred Sept. 19 near Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., officials said, when an experienced F-15 pilot with less than 20 hours in the exotic new F/A-22 attempted a dogfight maneuver that sent the aircraft plummeting downward in an upside-down spiral.

The unidentified pilot became disoriented as the $161 million plane plunged more than 10,000 feet from a beginning altitude of 13,000 to 15,000 feet, a senior Air Force official told The Dallas Morning News, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The pilot and plane were saved when he released the controls and the F/A-22 stopped spiraling, allowing him to regain his bearings, the official said.

"He pulled out at about 2,800 feet above the ground, not knowing what had happened to him, declared an emergency" and landed safely at Edwards, where F/A-22 flight tests are conducted, this official said.

The pilot of an F-16 chase plane witnessed the incident, which occurred during a flight that began in nearby Palmdale, Calif., where maintenance had been performed on the F/A-22.

A safety investigation board headed by a brigadier general found no flaw in the airplane or any mechanical reason for the incident, the official said. The Air Force is expected to examine the pilot's conduct in a process called a commander-directed investigation. Such a proceeding could lead to disciplinary action against the pilot or any others deemed responsible for the in-flight emergency.

"There are no restrictions on this aircraft," the Air Force official said. "We have not in any way grounded the fleet of aircraft. We have not grounded this particular aircraft.

"This is not an airplane problem."

The F/A-22, a twin-engine stealth jet with "thrust vectoring" that allows it to do unconventional maneuvers by pointing its exhaust in different directions, is built by Lockheed Martin Corp. in Fort Worth, Texas, and Marietta, Ga. Boeing Co. of Seattle, Wash., is a one-third partner.

"Lockheed Martin is cooperating with the Air Force investigation as requested," company spokesman Sam Grizzle said. "Any other questions have to go to the Air Force."

The near loss of F/A-22 No. 4011, which would have been the first Raptor to crash since a prototype in 1992, came four days before a high-level Pentagon committee met to review the $67 billion program.

Critics have tried for years to cancel the costly Raptor on grounds that it is a Cold War relic designed to contend with high-performance fighters from a hostile Soviet Union that no longer exists.

Development problems, including difficulties with the F/A-22's complex avionics software, have led Congress to cap the program and cut the number the Air Force is to buy.

The Air Force official, however, said the urgency and depth of the investigation of the near crash had nothing to do with the F/A-22's troubled political history and the Pentagon panel's meeting.

Rather than a threat to the program, the official said, the incident "more than reassured us that we have a rock-solid aircraft, we have a robust design and we have no problems with this airplane."

In its Sept. 23 meeting, the Defense Acquisition Board approved continued F/A-22 production but scheduled another session in February to decide whether the plane is ready for operational testing.

With 18 F/A-22s in the Air Force test program inventory, Congress recently approved $3.6 billion to build an additional 22 Raptors.

The F/A-22 program employs about 2,500 of the 16,300 workers at Lockheed's Fort Worth plant. The plant also builds the F-16 Fighting Falcon and will build the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

Air Force officials declined to identify the pilot in the Sept. 19 incident by name but described him as an experienced F-15C Eagle fighter pilot who is among seven Air Combat Command fliers tapped to learn the F/A-22.

Col. Joseph Lanni, director of F/A-22 testing at Edwards, said the pilot "is not flying right now" but refused to describe him as "grounded."

"He was not doing some unauthorized maneuver," Lanni said. "He had an unexpected response out of the airplane, got the airplane back into a straight-in landing and landed right here at Edwards."

The official who spoke on condition of anonymity said the initial investigation was a comprehensive effort that focused on whether something was wrong with the aircraft that caused it to go into its near-death spiral.

The safety investigation board collected and analyzed radar tapes, voice tapes, eyewitness accounts, interviews with the pilots, maintenance documents and all other available data, the official said.

"We brought in government and industry experts, we brought in individuals who were developmental test pilots in the F/A-22, we brought in test community experts, we brought in operational experts, we bought in logisticians," he added.

After finding no problem with the airplane, the Air Force is considering whether the pilot or others in the chain of command were at fault.

The senior official recounted what is known about the incident this way:

After taking off from Palmdale, the F/A-22 pilot went through a prescribed set of maneuvers known as advanced handling characteristics "so that he, the pilot, could learn how the aircraft responds to his control inputs," the official said.

Having successfully completed that phase of the flight, the F/A-22 pilot and the F-16 chase plane began flying basic fighter maneuvers - practicing for combat.

The trouble started, the official said, as the planes were flying side-by-side at slow speed and "fighting for position."

"In an attempt to get behind the other aircraft, the pilot of our F/A-22 raised the nose very excessively at extraordinarily slow speeds" and tried a "rolling reposition to get behind the other aircraft," the official said.

As the F/A-22 rolled upside down and over the F-16, the official said, the Raptor lost all airspeed but continued maneuvering because the thrust vectoring nozzles were pushing the exhaust out at an angle and the pilot was continuing to use the rudders and stick to try to roll.

"He finds himself literally hanging upside down," the official said, and the F/A-22 "starts him into an inverted, rolling spiral … towards the ground."

After falling thousands of feet, the pilot "lets go of the flight controls," the official said, and the highly computerized F/A-22 straightened itself out.

"The nose is now pointed towards the ground, the airspeed continues to build, he recognizes that the airplane is flying and he very carefully and gingerly flies out the back side of what almost looks like a loop, ending at the lowest point about 2,800 feet above ground," the official said.

The incident lasted "a matter of seconds," the official reported, but "it probably did seem like an eternity to him."

---

[BenLurkin]

FROM THE ARTICLE:

As the F/A-22 rolled upside down and over the F-16, the official said, the Raptor lost all airspeed but continued maneuvering because the thrust vectoring nozzles were pushing the exhaust out at an angle and the pilot was continuing to use the rudders and stick to try to roll.

"He finds himself literally hanging upside down," the official said, and the F/A-22 "starts him into an inverted, rolling spiral … towards the ground."

After falling thousands of feet, the pilot "lets go of the flight controls," the official said, and the highly computerized F/A-22 straightened itself out.

The incident lasted "a matter of seconds," the official reported, but "it probably did seem like an eternity to him."

[Bogey78O]

Seems like the F-22 doesn't handle as expected in the maneuver he tried to perform. I'm not a pilot but I figure the avionics of the F-22 are quite a change from the F-15 considering the vector thrust and all. They can probably come up with some fix even if it is "don't do that".

[Support Free Republic]

What would you do Without Free Republic?

"What would you do Without FR?????

How would You Feel without FR??? Suppose one day you tried to log on and Free Republic wasn’t there?

Where would you get your up to the minute news? How about the live threads as things are happening?

How would you know about the latest Demorat scams, anti-second amendment schemes and all the other liberal, anti-American ploys that are tried every single day?

Insight into world affairs, brilliant wit, sharp retorts, instant information gratification are a few of the things that make FR so vital.

How would you keep on top of things without FR?

How would you know who to contact to complain about the lying politicians, Media Bias, Hollyweirds latest mouth off, sponsors of these idiots, company policies that are unfair and all the other things we need to know to counteract the liberal mindset and the evil plans of liberals?

How would you be part of a Freep?

What would you do without FR????

Freedom isn’t free.

If you enjoy the site and find it a place of like minded Americans to sound off, to get together, to fight back, to have your voice heard and make a difference, PLEASE CONTRIBUTE NOW! Jim can’t do this alone.

The liberals are sure we won’t be able to keep FR up & running. Prove them wrong. Show them we are indeed united Freepers.

Whether it is $5.00, $50.00 or more, it all adds up. Please send a donation now to Free Republic."

Thank You for your support!

Click The Logo To Donate

Or mail checks to

FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

[TomB]

Wow, a relatively inexperienced pilot (in that type) loses control of an advanced aircraft. Now there's something you don't see very often.

Sounds series.

[July 4th]

It seems the plane knew what was going on - kudos to the techs for writing good software. I just hope it wasn't some major aerodynamic design flaw that caused the problem in the first place.

[Lazamataz]

After falling thousands of feet, the pilot "lets go of the flight controls," the official said, and the highly computerized F/A-22 straightened itself out.

Okay, I'm impressed.

[steve86]

After falling thousands of feet, the pilot "lets go of the flight controls," the official said, and the highly computerized F/A-22 straightened itself out.

HAL and the computers have taken over. Will be hard on some pilots' egos.

[Gunrunner2]

Yes. . .and speaking as a fomrer A-10 and F-15E fighter pilot, all aircraft perfom differenlty, thurst vectoring or no.

We are exploring the envelope and learning. That is why it is a "test" flight, flown by "test" pilots.

Series, yes, and hugh.

[FReepaholic]

>>..."In an attempt to get behind the other aircraft, the pilot of our F/A-22 raised the nose very excessively at extraordinarily slow speeds" and tried a "rolling reposition to get behind the other aircraft," the official said...<<

Russian "Cobra" maneuver??

[BenLurkin]

It could have been hugh but the avionics and the pilot's instincts combined to save the day.

It's no surprise that the test pilots are greatly admired out in the Antelope Valley.

[Bogey78O]

Yea, some of these new fangled contraptions have internal sensors that detect hazardous conditions. In all aircraft you'll find stall indicators or on many Collision Avoidance systems. The military took it one step farther and decided if the plane knows what's wrong it can be taught how to correct it. The pilot seemed to have performed a maneuver the F-22 tried to correct and when he tried to correct it himself counter to what the plane was doing it made the situation even worse.

The next firmware upgrade will correct it probably.

[Southack]

As you can imagine, we are rapidly approaching that point in time where we start moving our pilots into bunkers in order to destroy targets remotely, as the computers are quite capable of flying the actual vehicle itself into harms way.

[Gunrunner2]

>>Will be hard on some pilots' egos. <<

Not really. Sometimes you are fighting counter-intuitive inputs and releasing the stick is the fastest and easiest way to achieve neutral controls and the aircraft becomes very stable very fast. We learn this is basic jets.

[BenLurkin]

I suspect Bogey78O hit the nail on the head: this is likely to be a "don't do that" fix. (Reading between the lines of the statements in the article)

[BenLurkin]

Artificial Intelligence and the Geneva Convetion will soon meet head to head (if they haven't already)

[Gunrunner2]

I'd be guessing here, but not Cobra, but your normal line-abreast set-up into a rolling scissors.

[Bobby777]

sounds like a "yo-yo" to me ... F-4 Phantom II tactic used against more manueverable MiG to bring the nose to bear ... initiated when the MiG is behind the F-4 ...

[Gunrunner2]

I'm not too sure it was a yo-yo, as a yo-yo is to control your closure on an aircraft. The article said the jets were line abreast at set-up, so a yo-yo isn't the maneuver.

BTW, yo-yos are not taught anymore in the F-16 or F-15, as aerodynamics and thrust make that maneuver no longer relevant. Squaring corners beats yo-yos.

Given the set-up was line abreast and the pilots were testing the aircraft to see who could fly their jet to the other's six, a scissors would be the maneuver and a rolling scissors is usually the result.

[steve86]

...releasing the stick is the fastest and easiest way to achieve neutral controls and the aircraft becomes very stable very fast.

Not arguing, but I learned that also in basic fixed wing and glider training. But it would still be hard on my ego. There is a big difference here because it is not a passive stability that is recovering the F22 (unlike some of the trainers I flew). It is a very active control and vectoring response on the part of the aircraft's digital flight control system. Something that might be very difficult for a human pilot to achieve in such a negatively-stable aircraft. I am not an airframe engineer and might have used some of the terms inappropriately.

[Bobby777]

thanks for the info ... I was typing my response when you put in the scissors info ..

[Orangedog]

...as the computers are quite capable of flying the actual vehicle itself into harms way.

It would also seem that the computers are capable of flying the plane out of harms way to some degree as well. "I'm sorry, Dave, but I'm afraid I can't do that."

[LibKill]

HAL and the computers have taken over. Will be hard on some pilots' egos.

HAL! Go vertical!

I'm sorry, Dave, I can't do that right now. :)

[Orangedog]

Sometimes you are fighting counter-intuitive inputs and releasing the stick is the fastest and easiest way to achieve neutral controls and the aircraft becomes very stable very fast. We learn this is basic jets.

A few years ago I saw a video clip of an F-22 where the pilot had intentionally thrown the plane into a flat spin and, on cue, corrected it very quickly. I wonder if the method used was just releasing the controls?

[PeterPrinciple]

"plunged more than 10,000 feet from a beginning altitude of 13,000 to 15,000 feet, "


huh?

[tophat9000]

The pilot seemed to have performed a maneuver the F-22 tried to correct and when he tried to correct it himself counter to what the plane was doing it made the situation even worse.

Yea when the software thinks it's smarter then you ... after 23 years working with computers ...I REALLY DO hate when that happens

[DJtex]

"starts him into an inverted, rolling spiral … towards the ground."

Inverted spins are particularly nasty--used to be almost invariably fatal to the craft and/or the pilot. It's a great testament to both craft and pilot that this F/A-22 survived.

The new French Airbus puts computers between the pilot's yoke and the control surfaces to prevent him from doing things that could harm the aircraft or the passengers. Pilots generally don't like it--it feels mushy. And there's always the issue of a programming glitch in the software that prevents you from executing the one life-saving manuveur in a highly unusual situation.

[Orangedog]

Yea when the software thinks it's smarter then you ... after 23 years working with computers ...I REALLY DO hate when that happens

Ah, but would it be the software thinking it's smarter than you, or the programmer who coded it?

[Bobby777]

yes, I've been writing software for 20+ years too ... I imagine there will be a software upgrade after analysis is complete ...

[Bobby777]

writing software isn't as easy as people think ... you're tryng to catch everything into a "box" and control the outcome ... in this situation, the AOA, airspeed, thrust-vectoring angles and pilot's inputs will all have to be examined as a situation arose that was unexpected ...

and when you want a balance between computers assisting a pilot and giving the pilot a decent stick "feel" ... well, that's got to be awfully hard to find that fine line ... again, that's why there are years of mock dogfighting and analysis points on manuevers ... test aircraft are put into intentional stalls, dives, etc. to see what is recoverable ... sometimes the aircraft (or more) is lost ...

[pabianice]

The Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle (UCAV) demonstration program is a joint DARPA, US Air Force and Boeing initiative.

The services are quietly but quickly converting to UCAVs, which are winners both in cost and in not risking aircrews, which are a public relations disaster in the 21st century world of the US public refusing to accept ANY combat deaths.

The services are actively recruiting good video game players and R/C pilots to "crew" the next generation of UCAVs. They will be warrant officer or NCO "pilots." The Pilots' Protective Association -- the senior flag officers who run the Navy and Air Force -- is having a stroke.

Go: http://www.navlog.org to see "US Navy's Multimission Maritime Aircraft Program in Trouble" and related articles.

[Eaker]

That was the first thing that I caught. I figured that someone else caught it before me.

Dagnabit!

Eaker

[Mr Rogers]

That has been true for some time now - as far back as the F-111, there was a Stall Inhibition System (hope I'm remembering the name right). At higher AOAs, the fuselage would blank out the tail, usually resulting in a nose slice. Since the F-111 had no demonstrated spin recovery, they installed SIS to prevent excessive AOA.

When you attempted to pull the stick back at that point, the nose would drop regardless.

[Bobby777]

that's why I was trying to elucidate ... thank you for the fine example ...

[tophat9000]

Ah, but would it be the software thinking it's smarter than you, or the programmer who coded it?

Ah you are wise grasshopper.... you are aware of a truth I have not expanded on yet

All software and programmer must assume some variables when written

Where as it the real world, in real time I may know a unique variable that was not anticipated

The problem is sometimes AI in software (and the programmer who coded it) will try to out think you when it really needs to shut up and do what its told ......

I learn a long time ago that AI routines can get it self to a point were in being dense & stubborn as a three year old ... you either see what its having a fit about(it could have a point you missed) wait till it’s done being silly (ok you done yet so we can get back to work) or if it being a real pain .. and you have to wack it on tha ass

Some times you might even have to go the full HAL9000 on its ass... "try and kill me will you .. I’l rip your little brains out!"

Good code is well behaved code

[Common Tator]

Okay, I'm impressed

You shouldn't be. Every civilian student who has learned to fly is told by his instructor that when the instructor says "I've got the airplane!" the student is to let go of the controls. The instructor will then take the controls and show the student what he or she was doing wrong.

At some point a student will get the small civilian trainer in a bad situation. The instructor will say,"I've got the air plane!" except the instrutor never touches the controls. In a few seconds after the student has let go of the controls the plane is back flying straight and level again. At that point the instructor says to the student, "The plane just straighened out the mess you created..feel free to take the controls and screw it all up again."

Every student is taught from day one that if the plane gets totally out of control just let go of everything .... the plane will straighten itself out.

Planes will fly themselves in the air.. It is the landing part that is hard.

[First_Salute]

"plunged more than 10,000 feet from a beginning altitude [range] of 13,000 to 15,000 feet" [to a few thousand feet]

[polemikos]

[Gunrunner2]

I think (for me) the hard part on the ego is getting yourself in the situation where you had to let go, not actually letting go.

;-)

[Gunrunner2]

Perhaps. Don't know.

[Mr Rogers]

UCAV has a valuable role to play, but don't hold your breath expecting it to replace humans yet. Secure, jam resistant data links don't allow sufficient data transmission for most real world missions, and we're years away from computerized targeting.

[Gunrunner2]

Not sure, but starting at 13k to 15k is not unusual, and pulling out and 2800 feet is about right if you dropped 10k or so.

10k isn't unusual when an aircraft departs, as it is no longer flying and it drops like a chunk of steel. So, it departed, the pilots tried to recover, released the stick and it recovered and then he flew out of it no lower than 2800 feet.

Actually, for most modern fighters, if the aircraft departs below 10k, SOP is to eject as you are below recovery altitude. Now I think it is around 6k.

Cheers

[RedBloodedAmerican]

""This is not an airplane problem.""

Idiot pilot. Happens most of the time. Hire a monkey to do a mans job, this is what you'll get.

[robertpaulsen]

Ah, but I think they omitted something. It should read:

"After falling thousands of feet, the pilot "lets go of the flight controls and grabs for the ejection seat handle," the official said, and the highly computerized F/A-22 straightened itself out."

[Gunrunner2]

Okay, I'll bite.

What sort of time/type do you have. . . and be sure to highlight any test pilot expereicen you have in high perfoamcne fighters.

Just asking.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

High performance fighter? You mean like kickboxing, or jousting?

IMO you don't stick a 20 hour pilot in an F22.

[Gunrunner2]

Better re-read the article, son, as you missed something very important.


Let me give you a clue. . .
1) 20hrs in the F-22, NOT 20 hrs in jets.
2) The pilot is a test pilot and that means years of training and test flights in all sorts of jets.
3) They just don't hand the keys to an F-22 to just any test pilot, but the most experienced.
4) With 20hrs logged, you are barely past your initial solo in the basic jet portion of undergraduate pilot training in a T-37.

I could go on, but you embarrassed yourself enough.

Your apology is accepted.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

My sentence didnt get typed:

"IMO you don't stick a 20 hour pilot in an F22 in those manuevers".

It's obvious from what happened (pilot error) that he didn't know what he was doing. And why didn't he know it would correct itself?

But then again, I don't write the rules.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

Who apologized? Your reading skills lack.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

:)

Yep, there are a ton of similarities between a T37 and an F22 with 3D nozzles. Yep, sho' is.