neu Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 I've just found this at Alert5. It's really sad. Does anyone have info on the damages, and about the aircrew? http://www.alert5.com/2007/01/pilot-blamed...carrier_31.html Greetings, neu Link to post Share on other sites
Ken Middleton Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 neu, a year and 3 days ago..... Link to post Share on other sites
neu Posted January 31, 2007 Author Share Posted January 31, 2007 Gosh....you're right :) :D Sorry guys! Even then...I don't know what happened to the pilot. Does anyone know about him? Link to post Share on other sites
Ken Middleton Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 if I remember correctly, he ejected and landed in the sea, and was rescued Link to post Share on other sites
Iron Eagle Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 Sheesh neu, talk about false advertising! Glad the pilot is okay. Thanks for the video - I have never seen it before. Link to post Share on other sites
Sean Bratton Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 Neu, I found this: McDonnell Douglas F/A-18C Block 35 Hornet (Lot 14) 164642 (VFA-25) struck ramp in night landing on USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) Jan 28, 2006 about 120 mi SE of Brisbane, Australia. Pilot ejected safely and was recovered. Aircraft fell into the sea. AFM Apr 2006 Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites
shadowy_one Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 this was 150miles off my coast! pilot ejected but was found at fault apparently he had a fondness for TOO low approaches! wonder if he is still with a Fleet sqn? Link to post Share on other sites
phantom Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 The link says he relized he was to low and slow, ejected and was safely recovered. Plane sunk and was not recovered which annoyed the enviromentalists in Australia near where the accident happened. Link to post Share on other sites
shadowy_one Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 IF he knew why did'nt he bolter? AND he should have known before it was to late true? why did'nt he just abort his approach and go around again? instead they lost a $30 million a/c and could have been many lives the report states he had a bad habit of flying his approaches to low (just going by what the official report states). This pilot should not have gone to sea operationally in my opinion its one thing if it was a mechanical problem but another to have what occurred. Link to post Share on other sites
jai5w4 Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 I just love it when these posts turn to unqualified, generally ignorant criticisms of winged aviators' mishaps. Really makes me glad I still frequent these boards. -John Link to post Share on other sites
John B Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 (edited) Edited February 1, 2007 by John Bibay Link to post Share on other sites
Dan 88 Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 (edited) mmmm Pizza sounds good right now. Edited January 31, 2007 by Super Hornet 88 Link to post Share on other sites
Frank Steffens Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 I like airplanes. Link to post Share on other sites
CRASCA Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 I like airplanes. Link to post Share on other sites
Jay Chladek Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 IF he knew why did'nt he bolter? AND he should have known before it was to late true?why did'nt he just abort his approach and go around again? instead they lost a $30 million a/c and could have been many lives the report states he had a bad habit of flying his approaches to low (just going by what the official report states). This pilot should not have gone to sea operationally in my opinion its one thing if it was a mechanical problem but another to have what occurred. He probably punched out since he was at a decision point where he knew that just adding power probably would have only resulted in sending the plane into the fantail of the carrier and then the results would have been even more disasterous. There comes a point in most aircraft mishaps where the guy in the pilot seat knows that something is unavoidable. Those with the ejection seats can live to tell about it if they are lucky. Link to post Share on other sites
Sunliner Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 IF he knew why did'nt he bolter? AND he should have known before it was to late true?why did'nt he just abort his approach and go around again? instead they lost a $30 million a/c and could have been many lives the report states he had a bad habit of flying his approaches to low (just going by what the official report states). This pilot should not have gone to sea operationally in my opinion its one thing if it was a mechanical problem but another to have what occurred. Not quite as easy as it sounds to to just abort and go around at that low of a speed. Things can happen pretty quickly, unfortunately engine spool-up isn't one of them. Sounds like he goofed alright but I'm sure he was punished accordingly by those who were in the position to do so (ie not us), so I'll just get my bag of popcorn & sit down. -Mike Link to post Share on other sites
Karl Sander Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 IF he knew why did'nt he bolter? Um, no one CHOOSES to bolter, for ANY reason... and you "generally" don't know you bolter till you pass the four wire... Frankly, I'm not really sure what you mean here. Link to post Share on other sites
David Walker Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 This very thing has caused me to rethink my presence here as well. Why? The front line knowledge you and others provide make this board a better place. I'd think that's a good thing. (apologies to Martha Stewart) Link to post Share on other sites
Ken Middleton Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 I just love it when these posts turn to unqualified, generally ignorant criticisms of winged aviators' mishaps. Really makes me glad I still frequent these boards. -John This very thing has caused me to rethink my presence here as well. With all due respect John and Jeff, good luck finding any board that doesn't have its share of armchair pilots and wannabes. Even if you visited boards that were restricted to people with military experience, you'll get the usual peeing matches over F-14s versus Supa Hornets, etc etc etc With that said, I appreciate the information that people like you, and all the other folks with real world experience bring to ARC. Trying being a moderator and having to read all of the drival Link to post Share on other sites
Sunliner Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Besides, doesn't it give you real aircrew types comfort knowing that your every move could be shadowed by us model mafia types? On a distantly related note, my mechanic has a sign in his garage: LABOR RATE IS $35.00/HOUR ...IF YOU WATCH:$45/HOUR ......IF YOU TRY TO GIVE ADVICE: $55/HOUR -Mike Link to post Share on other sites
neu Posted February 1, 2007 Author Share Posted February 1, 2007 Holly crap...if I know that my simple question starts a war here, I don't ask it! No one should leave, you guys are all at the best place around, and we all appreciate your presence, it's important for all of us. Though, it goes like this on all other boards, whether it's modeling or something totally different. Forums are battlefields, and are visited by wide range of personalities with different approach to different things.... Link to post Share on other sites
Karl Sander Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 With all due respect John and Jeff, good luck finding any board that doesn't have its share of armchair pilots and wannabes. Even if you visited boards that were restricted to people with military experience, you'll get the usual peeing matches over F-14s versus Supa Hornets, etc etc etc Plus, just because someone does it for a living doesn't mean they're any good at it. Keep your eyes open as you progress to the fleet, John - a not insignificant part of the bell curve resides in the range where on the one hand they know enough to get by, but also JUST enough to be dangerous. Hell, I got a question yesterday from another "patch wearer" that about gave me an aneurysm... someone who should have DEFINITELY known better.... Link to post Share on other sites
John B Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Forums are battlefields, and are visited by wide range of personalities with different approach to different things.... "Love is a battlefield...."- Pat Benatar Link to post Share on other sites
FrankC Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Maybe the problem was the false canopy painted on the Hornet? It could easily cause the pilot to think he was taking off rather than landing. The other point of fact so grossly overlooked by those "armchair experts" - no Tweet has ever been lost in a carrier landing incident - need I say more? Clearly the second biggest mistake the Fleet ever made was switching over to Hornets rather than Tweets - the first was painting false canopies.. Link to post Share on other sites
Karl Sander Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Maybe the problem was the false canopy painted on the Hornet? It could easily cause the pilot to think he was taking off rather than landing. The other point of fact so grossly overlooked by those "armchair experts" - no Tweet has ever been lost in a carrier landing incident - need I say more? Clearly the second biggest mistake the Fleet ever made was switching over to Hornets rather than Tweets - the first was painting false canopies.. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts