Navy Airplane in flight engine malfunction in TX

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hope everything is ok. I know this is off topic, but it was satisfying seeing the P-8A perform over the weekend at NAS. I'm gonna miss the hum of the P3 when it's finally gone.
 
More detail here. CC TX is where I grew up, Kingsville where I finished college. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.caller.com/amp/836881001 Interesting NAS CC says plane is not associated with CC or Kingsville bases, and they have no idea where the plane came from or what it was doing there. Growing up I never saw military planes using the commercial airport for training, there were (and still are) numerous military training fields in addition to NAS CC & Kingsville in South Texas.
 
Last edited:
The statement was released by the Chief of Naval Air Training Public Affairs Officer. They didn't know where the plane came from because it wasn't a training aircraft. It was a fleet aircraft. Generally we don't train at training command bases because the dissimilar platforms don't play well in the pattern together, and we prefer to avoid student aviators. That leaves commercial airports and Air Force bases.
 
Originally Posted By: nwjones18
Saw a P-8A doing touch and go's today at Robins AFB. Glad they made it in safe.
One of my favorite places to go bounce, last year I evacuated there for hurricane Matthew, nice base, great museum.
 
Originally Posted By: BrownBox88
Hope everything is ok. I know this is off topic, but it was satisfying seeing the P-8A perform over the weekend at NAS. I'm gonna miss the hum of the P3 when it's finally gone.
I'm glad you enjoyed the show, I avoided the base like the plague this weekend because I knew it'd be a mad house. Did you get the opportunity to tour a P-8?
 
Originally Posted By: Cujet
Sure looks and sounds like a classic compressor stall situation.
I'm unable to comment due to an ongoing investigation. However if any further information is released I'll comment and post references here. I can say that overall the CFM56 has not been as reliable as promised in the service we see. I don't think CFM ever envisioned their engines being operated at 200-2000 feet over salt water for hours and hours on end.
 
Originally Posted By: FlyNavyP3
The statement was released by the Chief of Naval Air Training Public Affairs Officer. They didn't know where the plane came from because it wasn't a training aircraft. It was a fleet aircraft. Generally we don't train at training command bases because the dissimilar platforms don't play well in the pattern together, and we prefer to avoid student aviators. That leaves commercial airports and Air Force bases.
In my civilian ignorace I'm surprised a USN aircraft was operating in the area of active NAS with no knowledge of the NAS, and real surprise the commercial airport was used instead of the runway at a NAS when an emergency, landing was made. Was this aircraft invisible to NAS radar much less other internal communication? Weird the Fleet operation play better with patterns at a commercial airport than at a NAS? Never would have figured. Navy doesn't play well with Navy. Nearest USAF bases I can think of are here in San Antonio. Not far to avoid using a commercial airport.
 
Last edited:
Maybe in your direct involvement you can mention the questionable wisdom of operating military training operations using a commercial airport in close proximity to a major commercial port heavily skewed to petroleum and petrochemicals with large petroleum refineries, a petrochemicals plant, and a NGL fractionation facility right in the area vs. a nearby NAS on open water away not only ftom these facilities but also ftom the majority of the population center. From a fundamental perspecive of risk awareness and risk management, it makes little sense vs. addressing internal issues to make Navy play well with Navy for training. A short examination of a map of the area will show what I'm speaking of.
 
We use commercial airports for a number of reasons. Approaches not available at military fields, traffic volume, like size and type aircraft. It's not a matter of Navy not playing well with Navy. It's an issue of small turbo prop aircraft that fly the pattern 30-50 KTS SLOWER than the P-8, not to mention the desire to stay away from large groups of training aircraft. I'm sure NAS controllers had the plane on their radar, but if they never switched from approach controllers to tower the NAS wouldn't have had any interaction with the P-8. As for the statement, information was available for the affected plane, but may not have been available to the PAO at the time of the release. A flight plan was on file as we fly IFR to the max extent possible in accordance with the OPNAV 3710 instruction. Such a flight plan would've included where the plane originated from. The tail letters indicate the squadron who owns the plane as does the BUNO. Additionally it's not a mystery where a P-8 came from as there's only a few places where they're based. As for why the emergency landing was at a civilian field as opposed to the NAS, it was the closet suitable runway during the emergency. In a land as soon as possible situation this was the obvious choice. No need (or desire) to leave a suitable strip of concrete to divert to a military field with a land as soon as possible malfunction.
 
Originally Posted By: Nyogtha
Maybe in your direct involvement you can mention the questionable wisdom of operating military training operations using a commercial airport in close proximity to a major commercial port heavily skewed to petroleum and petrochemicals with large petroleum refineries, a petrochemicals plant, and a NGL fractionation facility right in the area vs. a nearby NAS on open water away not only ftom these facilities but also ftom the majority of the population center. From a fundamental perspecive of risk awareness and risk management, it makes little sense vs. addressing internal issues to make Navy play well with Navy for training. A short examination of a map of the area will show what I'm speaking of.
By that logic no 737 aircraft or any other aircraft should operate at Corpus international. I'm not really sure what I can explain that I already haven't explained. Operating a civilian based aircraft conducting an approach to an airport that terminates in a touch and go and on the the next airfield is hardly high risk training. By no stretch of the imagination did their operations at a commercial airport subject anyone to any undue risk.
 
I disagree with your logic as the 737's operating out of CC airport are not on training flights. Simple as that. Why was NAS CC established as far away as possible from the Port of CC after all? Seems like bureaucracy not looking at alternatives. Clearly this won't merit further mention by you from the inside. Fair enough. FWIW more jet aircraft train at Kingsville.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Nyogtha
I disagree with your logic as the 737's operating out of CC airport are not on training flights. Simple as that. Why was NAS CC established as far away as possible from the Port of CC after all? Seems like bureaucracy not looking at alternatives. Clearly this won't merit further mention by you from the inside. Fair enough. FWIW more jet aircraft train at Kingsville.
First off I didn't say the aircraft involved in the incident was on a training mission. So please don't make correlations where I didn't state there were any. I stated that it is routine to shoot practice approaches to commercial and military fields for training. Perhaps training is the wrong word, as it's really pilot proficiency, no different than any commercial pilot gets, there are monthly requirements in place to ensure proficiency is maintained. A pilot proficiency flight is flown no different than any standard commercial flight, in a comparable platform. I'm well aware more jet aircraft operate at Kingsville, again, dissimilar platforms, those small jet trainer aircraft fly significantly faster in the pattern than the P-8 which complicates operations unnecessarily for both platforms when other options are available. Furthermore the wake turbulence created by the much larger and heavier P-8 is a hazard to their aircraft as well as the turbo prop aircraft at Corpus NAS. The other various outlying military fields are unsuitable in both length and width to accommodate the P-8 and the runway is of insufficient strength for the weight of the P-8. It's not bureaucratic anything. It's solid and well thought out risk management not having grossly dissimilar platforms operating in close proximity to each other. Students stick to training bases for the most part, and we stay away. A qualified pilot shooting an approach to a suitable field is no different from a risk standpoint than a likewise qualified commercial pilot shooting the same approach to the same field. If you're so concerned about risk you should probably protest any and all GA flying near any populated area or industrial complex, the risks of mechanical failure or procedural noncompliance is significantly higher there than in a brand new commercial jet aircraft performing a routine approach to an airport.
 
Well if you look at your first post after mine it specifically stated "we don't train . . ." so it's not me making assumptions on something you didn't say. You wish to bandy semantics where pilot proficiency is substituted for practice? OK, I see no other purpose to touch-and-gos than training. Even if it's refresher training. I understand internal pressure not wanting to discuss alternatives to one specific commercial airport then expand from there, rather than try to take some global approach to begin. Not very effective, so I'll pass on your suggestion with its logic. It does fit the rest of the logic expressed though. Huge bureaucracy gets things wrong by not looking at case by case details all the time. Until something goes wrong and a root cause incident investigations bears thst out. One big takeaway for me from executice training is thd dangers of groupthink and cultures that reward those that go along to get along. If there was such a risk assessment performed surely the USN wouldn't resist releasing it to the public, especially in light of this incident. Not an unreasonable request from an educated citizen with family in that town.
 
Originally Posted By: Nyogtha
More detail here. CC TX is where I grew up, Kingsville where I finished college. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.caller.com/amp/836881001 Interesting NAS CC says plane is not associated with CC or Kingsville bases, and they have no idea where the plane came from or what it was doing there. Growing up I never saw military planes using the commercial airport for training, there were (and still are) numerous military training fields in addition to NAS CC & Kingsville in South Texas.
Well... Growing up, you must not have been looking. We flew approaches into Corpus Christi International all the time when I was in VT-27 (T-34 squadron at NAS Corpus Christi). We did that for several reasons. First, to keep IFR traffic out of the crowded VFR pattern at NAS, because IFR straight in approaches are difficult to deconflict with overhead pattern entries, next, to expose the students (me) to different approaches and procedures, and finally, because the controllers at International requested it. Controllers have to train, too. Low-traffic airports like Corpus Christi are bad for controller proficiency. The T-34 (and the P-8) are capable of flying civilian ILS approaches. So: win-win. Controllers get the training they need, and military gets better training through varied procedures. Most carrier based fighters were not capable of flying a civilian ILS. The Navy had to have unique ILS systems on the carrier because the frequencies that civilians use were already in use for tactical systems. So, F-14s at Oceana wouldn't ever fly approaches into Norfolk International, eight miles away. No point. The safety benefit of keeping big jet airplanes out of the crowded traffic pattern with small propeller airplanes cannot be overstated. They don't mix well. Those small airplanes are being flown by students! And the pattern is crowded with them. The wake vortex, higher speeds, and different approach procedures of airplanes like the P-8 all raise the risk for those students. NAS Corpus Christi is a training base. A T-34 airplane collided with an F-14 in the pattern at Corpus Christi NAS years ago (1993?) and the student and instructor in that airplane were killed. Finally, the city of Corpus Christi has grown up around the NAS. It was placed outside of the city in World War Two, when it was built, but the city just expanded around it...like Oceana, North Island, and many other Navy airfields. Waldron Field (where the larger T-44 airplanes would go do practice landings, again, to keep dissimilar airplanes from mixing in the traffic pattern) just to the south of NAS CC was in the middle of fields when I was there in the 80s. Now, it's completely surrounded by development. Little airplanes like T-34s are low risk. Fighters are much higher risk to the encroaching city. Several crashes have happened near fighter bases over the years, and civic planners that have allowed residential building right up to the field boundaries are to blame for the encroachment and greater risk to the public. The crash of an F/A-18 in Virginia Beach (dual engine failure due to two sequential mechanical failures) in 2012 exemplifies the risk of encroachment. It hit an apartment complex fewer than two miles outside the Naval Air Station. There were no fatalities, fortunately, but keeping people's homes away from fighter bases would be better for all concerned.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Nyogtha
Well if you look at your first post after mine it specifically stated "we don't train . . ." so it's not me making assumptions on something you didn't say. You wish to bandy semantics where pilot proficiency is substituted for practice? OK, I see no other purpose to touch-and-gos than training. Even if it's refresher training. I understand internal pressure not wanting to discuss alternatives to one specific commercial airport then expand from there, rather than try to take some global approach to begin. Not very effective, so I'll pass on your suggestion with its logic. It does fit the rest of the logic expressed though. Huge bureaucracy gets things wrong by not looking at case by case details all the time. Until something goes wrong and a root cause incident investigations bears thst out. One big takeaway for me from executice training is thd dangers of groupthink and cultures that reward those that go along to get along. If there was such a risk assessment performed surely the USN wouldn't resist releasing it to the public, especially in light of this incident. Not an unreasonable request from an educated citizen with family in that town.
Risk assessments are done all the time. One of things that the military does very well is assess risk. Military operations, by their very nature, are risky. All of the risk assessments for air field operations and encroachment are public domain. Google "AICUZ" and add your favorite city. Dozens of results in Virginia Beach alone. Your reasonable citizen request was covered by FOIA decades ago, you just haven't gone looking for it. You'll note that in addition to NAS Corpus Christi having AICUZ high risk zones, Corpus Christi International has high risk zones. Every airport does. Here is an example: VB.Gov planning map
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
F9F vs MiG-15s
Replies
7
Views
1K
supton
wwillson
  • Locked
  • Sticky
Pennzoil Q&A GF-6 and GF-7 with the American Petroleum Institute (API) - Answers
2
Replies
22
Views
6K
eroberts82
Slow Car Sport Mode
Chasing down fuel issue on the Taurus. Might just be a weak fuel pump..
2
Replies
22
Views
2K
Slow Car Sport Mode
F
2023 Spring Mobil Delvac™ Rebate Program
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
fleetguy1984
Jackson_Slugger
A short history of US fighter aircraft — from biplanes to stealth jet
Replies
19
Views
2K
Kira
Top