FYI F-22 on 60 Minutes Tonight

[11bee]

Its all risk John. All of it. in the last month we have had a F-15, 16 and 18 fall out of the sky. Its all a calculated risk. and what constitutes excessive risk, will vary depending on who you ask. any aircraft that flies carries a risk of becoming a smoking hole that kills people on the ground.

I get it but there is a big difference between flying a tactical jet that is free of design defects and flying a jet with a latent condition that could incapacitate the pilot. Both scenarios have risk and I don't think you will find an AF pilot who would whine about the risk of flying one of the legacy jets. However, the issue with the F-22 is a bit different. It has a documented, recurring defect, unresolved to date, that has the potential to either incapacitate the pilot during flight or (if you believe the two guys last night) could be making it's pilots sick with some undiagnosed respiratory condition.

The AF lost an F-15C a few years back due to structural failure. What did they do? They immediately grounded the entire fleet. They then identified the cause, inspected the entire fleet, retired some aircraft, repaired any that required it and implemented an enhanced inspection program to aggressively monitor the condition of the remaining aircraft. Only then did the F-15's return to operational service.

Compare that to what the AF is doing (or not doing) with the Raptor.

[TaiidanTomcat]

I get it but there is a big difference between flying a tactical jet that is free of design defects and flying a jet with a latent condition that could incapacitate the pilot. Both scenarios have risk and I don't think you will find an AF pilot who would whine about the risk of flying one of the legacy jets. However, the issue with the F-22 is a bit different. It has a documented, recurring defect, unresolved to date, that has the potential to either incapacitate the pilot during flight or (if you believe the two guys last night) could be making it's pilots sick with some undiagnosed respiratory condition.

The AF lost an F-15C a few years back due to structural failure. What did they do? They immediately grounded the entire fleet. They then identified the cause, inspected the entire fleet, retired some aircraft, repaired any that required it and implemented an enhanced inspection program to aggressively monitor the condition of the remaining aircraft. Only then did the F-15's return to operational service.

Compare that to what the AF is doing (or not doing) with the Raptor.

What if you can't replicate or locate the failure? The F-22 would be on the ground for around a year at this point. Please tell me the USAF if it could find the problem would neglect to fix it?

Edited May 8, 2012 by TaiidanTomcat

[Fellow Hobbyist]

...Compare that to what the AF is doing (or not doing) with the Raptor.

The Air Force Scientific Advisory Board has recommended automating the activation of the pilots emergency oxygen supply, improving contaminant filtration within the pilot life support system, and add monitoring of the pilot's blood oxygen levels while in flight. From my readings so far the Air Force has been implementing these recommendations.

Edited May 8, 2012 by Fellow Hobbyist

[Jay Chladek]

The one thing that hit me is if the OBOGS system is apparently "the same" as on other Air Force jets, then the problem isn't necessarily with the OBOGS, but rather its input of air. So that would mean focus should be on the intakes, the engines, the hoses used to send the inlet air to the OBOGS etc... Can they find it? Can they fix it? Or are they trying to put a band aid on the situation because it can't be fixed easily even if it has been found? Something isn't jiving. Now granted I am not trying to scream "government conspiracy" but I do have to wonder if some of the classified nature of the technology in the jet might be throwing in a stumbling block because those who could perhaps help in the analysis aren't able to be briefed on some of that stuff because the DoD deems them as not "needing to know".

The other thing is as I recall the jets were operational for a few years before the first problems appeared. The Virginia jets are some of the highest time F-22s in the fleet. It seemed like they went a long time with no problems and now all of the sudden, problems. Was something done at the operational maintenence level that was implemented which started this problem? Could it be something as simple as cleaning fluid used on the RAM coatings? Have the engineers that were tasked with trying to find the problem REALLY turned over all the stones no matter how crazy an idea might sound?

[Rapier01]

The Virginia jets are some of the highest time F-22s in the fleet.

They're not. They are actually the newest jets. The original Raptors at Langley were shipped off to Holloman, Hickam and Nellis when the Lot 8,9,and 10 jets started to arrive.

Edited May 8, 2012 by Rapier01

[Tony Stark]

The other thing is as I recall the jets were operational for a few years before the first problems appeared. The Virginia jets are some of the highest time F-22s in the fleet. It seemed like they went a long time with no problems and now all of the sudden, problems. Was something done at the operational maintenence level that was implemented which started this problem? Could it be something as simple as cleaning fluid used on the RAM coatings? Have the engineers that were tasked with trying to find the problem REALLY turned over all the stones no matter how crazy an idea might sound?

For a number of years, from the EMD phase up until only a few years back, the only pilots that could fly them were experienced and high-time pilots. These guys had become conditioned to the physical demands of tactical aviation, so when they landed and felt fatigued, joints hurting, etc., they believed that it was a result of the aircraft's performance (it can outturn a clean F-16, that's going to put a strain on anyone at the stick) and a problem was not suspected.

[TaiidanTomcat]

The Air Force Scientific Advisory Board has recommended automating the activation of the pilots emergency oxygen supply, improving contaminant filtration within the pilot life support system, and add monitoring of the pilot's blood oxygen levels while in flight. From my readings so far the Air Force has been implementing these recommendations.

My level of rage has reached the point where no solution is acceptable

The Air Force isn't doing anything to fix this, and if they are whatever it is, its not enough.

Edited May 8, 2012 by TaiidanTomcat

[11bee]

The Air Force Scientific Advisory Board has recommended automating the activation of the pilots emergency oxygen supply, improving contaminant filtration within the pilot life support system, and add monitoring of the pilot's blood oxygen levels while in flight. From my readings so far the Air Force has been implementing these recommendations.

You need to read a bit further. First of all, the contaminant filtration system was mentioned on 60-minutes. It is apparently not working as it should and the AF (with no public notice) is having the canisters pulled from the F-22. And then there is this recent article, which I tool the liberty of posting on the other thread on this subject:

Meanwhile, the USAF is deferring adding an Automatic Ground Collision Avoidance System and full Small Diameter Bomb capability on the forthcoming Increment 3.2B upgrade. The service already deleted the Multi-function Advanced Data-Link(MADL), which would have allowed the F-22 to share data with the F-35, years ago.

Deferring the Auto-GCAS seems troubling. Adding that feature was a specific recommendation by the USAF Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) looking into the Raptor's oxygen system woes.

Given that SAB recommendation, the USAF might consider coughing up the cash to integrate Auto-GCAS sooner rather than later. It probably would have saved at least two lives--those of Captain Jeff Haney and Lockheed Martin test pilot David Cooley.

Still think the AF is doing everything it can?

Edited May 8, 2012 by 11bee

[Fellow Hobbyist]

Deferring the Auto-GCAS seems troubling. Adding that feature was a specific recommendation by the USAF Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) looking into the Raptor's oxygen system woes.

That is news to me. :huh:

[turboz]

Would the Air Force send up pilots knowing they have an unknown heart conditions with just an EKG?

I mean the Air Force is in a tough position, but there has to be a better way than officers ruining careers by refusing to fly. You take a volunteer subset of pilots who are willing to essentially be test pilots and work with them.

Let's understand what's happened. These are not a couple of guys trying to get out of latrine duty by claiming to be sick. These are the "best of the best" who are in the most prestigious flying posts in the Air Force. They WANT to fly this plane. They WANT to be exactly where they are.

[Bigasshammm]

"News" in this country is a big joke on anyone not smart enough to know where to get unbiased information.

Aaron

I get all my news from The Daily Show.

I honestly find it to be more truthful and poignant than any of the news networks. I have long hated all things journalistic media.

[Kei Lau]

"News" in this country is a big joke on anyone not smart enough to know where to get unbiased information.

Aaron

If anyone believes in one sided truth and spoon fed news, it can be had in Russia or China. Government or party controlled news is bad news.

I am thankful that we have a free press in the United States. Is journalist as a whole more libral than the general population? The answer is probably yes. Being libral in one's view does not necessarily mean biasied, neither are conservatives. Both can be. The democracy in this country works because the society has plurality in thinking to provide the check and balance. The competition among the journalists also provides the check and balance in news media too. You just have to get multiple news sources and digest them to get unbiased information. It works if you are not a conservative or libral zealot.

Another bad thing that can happen is big business controlled media. Just watch the mess created by News Corp scandal in England.

I am glad that the F-22 problem got aired on 60 Minutes. It matters because a large part of the country trust the integrity of this news program. I hope that something good will come out of it to help our men and women in uniform.

[11bee]

So much for an open, transparent investigation into the problem.

Several current and former F-22 pilots contacted by ABC News for its investigation either did not respond or quickly declined to comment on the plane and two relatives of flyers told ABC News that the pilots had been instructed not to speak to the media on penalty of potentially losing their post with the F-22 -- a coveted position despite the safety concerns. One pilot, when initially contacted by ABC News for comment, agreed to speak on the record but only after he checked with the Air Force public affairs office. Since then, the pilot has not responded to any of ABC News' attempts to communicate.

[Kei Lau]

So much for an open, transparent investigation into the problem.

Several current and former F-22 pilots contacted by ABC News for its investigation either did not respond or quickly declined to comment on the plane and two relatives of flyers told ABC News that the pilots had been instructed not to speak to the media on penalty of potentially losing their post with the F-22 -- a coveted position despite the safety concerns. One pilot, when initially contacted by ABC News for comment, agreed to speak on the record but only after he checked with the Air Force public affairs office. Since then, the pilot has not responded to any of ABC News' attempts to communicate.

Capt. Josh Wilson and Maj. Jereme Gordon went to talk to Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill). That's the only protection they have under the whistlerblower's law by talking to a member of the congress. The congressman was there during the interview so the pilots spoke out don't have their wings taken away. Any pilot's worst fear.

It is hard to understand them until you talk to an air force pilot in person. The F-22 pilots are the best among them. It took a lot of courage for Capt. Josh Wilson and Maj. Jereme Gordon to speak out. They have everything to lose and I cannot see what they can gain. They would not have done it out of emotional impulse.

Edited May 9, 2012 by Kei Lau

[Sig Saur & Son]

The entire F-22 / O2 fiasco is already being discussed here:

http://s362974870.onlinehome.us/forums/air/index.php?showtopic=241974&st=60

Although heads should role for the AF's handling of this issue, I still have some real issues with active duty US military officers refusing an assignment and then going on national TV to air their issues.

It kinda sets a precedent for the next 19-year old Army PFC who has an problem taking a particular MRAP outside the wire in Afghanistan.

Speaks VOLUMES of just how serious this issue is and to what extent the USAF has gone to sell out their airmen while providing cover for Lockmart.

[Emvar]

Sometimes the truth creeps out, might not be from one source..... but it does get out. Now the question is what do you believe???

There is something wrong with the jet..... but we don't know what it is yet.

I guess the company in question did not purchase AD time on this segment?

Emil

[jester292]

I get all my news from The Daily Show.

I honestly find it to be more truthful and poignant than any of the news networks. I have long hated all things journalistic media.

I tend to believe that "The Daily Show" is more trustworthy, but its still transparently biased. Albeit funny at times.

To get back on topic, I didn't realize the politics involved with a situation like this. Disappointing, really.

Aaron

Edited May 9, 2012 by jester292

[BadCop]

I'm not going to make any comment about the report beyond saying that the pilots both seem to be telling the truth as they see it. For your information here is a very interesting youtube vid from a journo about some of the tricks of the trade used by the media to twist and manipulate interviews to give the story they want to portray. Once you know them it's amazing how often you see them used.

Edited May 9, 2012 by BadCop

[Horrido]

Remember, the "news" is not there to inform you, it is there to sell you their financier's products (either consumerist or political).

[jester292]

I'm not going to make any comment about the report beyond saying that the pilots both seem to be telling the truth as they see it. For your information here is a very interesting youtube vid from a journo about some of the tricks of the trade used by the media to twist and manipulate interviews to give the story they want to portray. Once you know them it's amazing how often you see them used.

Interesting video. Thanks for sharing. Not only does it cite 60 Minutes multiple times, but it goes to prove my point that it really can't be a trusted source of information, even if you really really want it to be a good source. The same can be said about Fox News, CNN, Headline News, CBS, NBC, and ABC nightly news, and just about every major news program (local and national) that's out there. Even the History Channel and the Discovery Channel are guilty of the same thing (Global Warming, anyone?) They're all pushing a specific agenda or opinion as fact, and they're going to spoon feed you like a baby.

I'm not saying to go put on your tin foil hat, just cross-reference some material, or do some research of your own to come up with your own opinion. Don't let the media do your thinking for you.

Aaron

Edited May 9, 2012 by jester292

[BadCop]

Not only does it cite 60 Minutes multiple times, but it goes to prove my point that it really can't be a trusted source of information,

Really?

Actually he only uses examples of 60 minutes interview to show where quotes and cutaways are used and where they provide opportunities for misuse, and then HE quite deliberately goes and chops up various interviews by 60 minutes to show how it CAN be used. It's a technique that can be used quite validly as well to shorten interviews and provide a more interesting point of view. He then provides examples where Jesse Ventura's Conspiracy show and a "documentary' by Graham Hancock uses the technique to distort experts interviews.

The point he makes is that no specific source can be trusted (or vilified as always wrong), and you need to see other sources where a person seems to completely backflip on a position, later denies an admission, or a controversial statement comes up - look for one of those techniques being used. Given your later comment, it's ironic that the Jesse Ventura example he shows is one where the technique is misused to disingenuously 'show' that global warming is an IPCC hoax that they are trying to cover up.

[AeroCommander690]

I thought 60 minutes did a fair job letting the pilots state their issues.Seems like there is a lot of prejudice on this site from people who didn't see it.Does the F-35 share the same O2 system from compressor bleed air? I do have some issues with the pilots talking to the press if they did it without approval.

[Kei Lau]

The headline news says: Air Force whistle-blowers to get protection

If you want to know what these 2 brave men may face, read the book written by Allan J. McDonald on the Space Shuttle Challenge accident. He and Roger Boisjoly (both engineers at Morton Thiokol) argued fiercely against launch, but were overruled by their supervisors at Utah. Here is what Allan wrote about the treatment they received:

After testifying before a presidential commission on the Challenger disaster, they were removed from investigating the disaster by Morton Thiokol management. Both told the commission they felt they were being punished.

In his book published in 2009, "Truth, Lies and O-Rings," McDonald wrote that "Roger and I already felt like lepers, but when we returned to Utah following the May 2 session our colleagues treated us as if we had just been arrested for child sexual abuse."

I hope that we will treat our whistleblowers better this day.

[Jay Chladek]

Ahhhh, thank you Kei for mentioning one of my FAVORITE books. I know a couple guys that worked with MacDonald at ATK and he IS that straight a shooter in real life.

The sad thing about that whole Challenger situation was the path both men took after that and how it was very different. MacDonald weathered the storm better than Boisjoly did. Granted as Allan explained in that book, part of it may have been down to where each men was during that teleconference and what they did (since Allan actually said he wouldn't sign the waiver). But, even with protections and assurances, things can still end up getting messed up in one's life at their old job.

So I sure as heck do not blame these two pilots for coming forward when they did and getting as much protection as they could before speaking their thoughts. A combat pilot's instinct is to go it alone and be the lone weapon as asking for help could show weakness. But I prefer it when somebody is willing to ask for help rather than keeping quiet. I think whatever happens to these two men, they should still be able to look at themselves in the mirror and at their kids and say they did the right thing, despite what the Air Force and Lockheed might say about them.

And let us hope now that this "dirty laundry" is out in the open, it STAYS in the public eye long enough for a proper solution to be found. Besides, if it was a 737 with a problem, the FAA would be grounding aircraft left and right to do inspections, REGARDLESS of the squaking coming from the operators and the manufacturer. Whether the plane is carrying only one person or 250, I don't think there should be a distinction. Yes, I know combat aircraft are risky by their nature. But a pilot has ENOUGH to worry about before even considering that his aircraft might end up killing him and innocents he swore and oath to protect on the ground.

Edited May 10, 2012 by Jay Chladek

[Kei Lau]

I thought 60 minutes did a fair job letting the pilots state their issues. Seems like there is a lot of prejudice on this site from people who didn't see it.Does the F-35 share the same O2 system from compressor bleed air? I do have some issues with the pilots talking to the press if they did it without approval.

Capt. Josh Wilson and Maj. Jereme Gordon went to talk to Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill). That's the only protection they have under the whistlerblower's law by talking to a member of the congress. And they picked the right congressman too. Kinzinger is a Republican, a Captain of Air National Guard and just engaged to marry active duty Air Force Captain Riki Meyers.

It seems to me that these veteran pilots could not voice their concerns through the regular AF channel and approached a US Representative as the law required them. They seemed to have picked the right member of congress to avoid the accusation of "libral anti-military" label. How they ended up on 60 Minutes instead of conservative news outlet, I don't know.