Smyrna, TN. Blue Angel Crash Report Released

Status
Not open for further replies.
Not exactly the full report, the endorsement on the full report.

The report, along with the endorsement, are protected and not releasable. This is the result of a leak, that's why the full report isn't there, and neither are any of the enclosures. Someone will be in trouble over this getting out.

I'll give it a look soon.

Thanks.
 
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: Rand
http://lmgcorporate.com/wsmv/documents/BlueAngelsCrash.pdf

interesting.


Same link. Same information: CNATRA endorsement AIRPAC on the mishap.

Still privileged information and still not releasable, but also, not the original report, it's RDML Dell Bull's take on the original report.


Right I was just adding the link since the direct link wasn't in the OP's post.

For example WSMV.com might be blocked on some work networks etc.
 
I stand corrected.

This IS the mishap report, with Dell Bull's endorsement on top, minus the enclosures.

I just finished it, but I'm in the car with my wife and can't do the complexity of the topic any justice on my iPhone.

I can answer simple questions, if you like.

Thank you gentlemen, for posting this. It's a fascinating (if illegal) read...
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Astro14
I stand corrected.

This IS the mishap report, with Dell Bull's endorsement on top, minus the enclosures.

I just finished it, but I'm in the car with my wife and can't do the complexity of the topic any justice on my iPhone.

I can answer simple questions, if you like.

Thank you gentlemen, for posting this. It's a fascinating (if illegal) read...


Isn't a Split S a pretty standard maneuver for a fighter pilot/aviator of a fully-aerobatic combat jet?

Even if his radar altimeter wasn't reading correctly due to angle of attack, shouldn't he have been able to visually maintain situational awareness, with the help of the barometric altimeter?

I can't recall right now whether the report said he corrected for field altitude or whether that was one of the things he forgot.

Report said he neglected to sign the maintenance logbook, I believe. Sounds like he was a bit tired and/or mentally distracted.
 
A split S is a standard maneuver. Simple to do.

What's interesting in this case is that he added a 540 degree roll to initiate it, instead of the usual 180.

Fundamentally, he completed the max performance takeoff and began the Split S with too much airspeed and at too low an altitude, which increased his turn radius and gave him less room to recover.

Also interesting: he made the required radio call, "vertical, blowers, radalt" but didn't come out of AB...and he didn't max perform the airplane or initiate recovery. Both point to a lack of awareness about the situation.

And that's the critical point - why wasn't he aware? What didn't he see? Was he distracted?

I think the investigation focuses on a fascinating point: the reliance on Blue Angel SOP. SOP that is not consistent with the F/A-18 flight manual. SOP that lacks a history of development. And, astonishingly, isn't well understood by the team itself.

It's my opinion that the reliance on that SOP diminishes the team's awareness of how close to the edge of the performance evelope they are flying. That reduced awareness may have prevented him from even realizing (until he initiated ejection less than a second prior to impact with the trees) how close to crashing his low altitude and high speed initiation of maneuver placed him.

I encourage a careful reading.

The investigating officer did an exceptionally thorough, diligent and careful job. The recommendations are thoughtful and sound.
 
Astro, question:

Re: Finding of Fact #125 "Between the barometric altitudes of 3196 feet AGL ..... and 2856 feet AGL, the aircraft
reached its steepest nose down attitude of 86.8°, 26.6 AOA, ....

AOA is wing angle of attack? This would mean the aircraft was pointing almost straight down, but was moving in some other direction? I'm having trouble grasping this. Is AOA in an F-18 something different from AOA in a light aircraft?

Thanks in advance.
 
If you watch the Blue Angles VS the Thunderbirds , the Blue Angles fly a lot harder and use the air space differently. Naval Aviators as I have mentioned before and always will are the better pilots. Try landing on an aircraft Carrier. It seems like a stupid thing to to though. I am sure the analogy of the fighter jets are like riding a Moto GP superbike WOT around the race track as compared to a 50cc motor scooter.
 
Originally Posted By: Win
Astro, question:

Re: Finding of Fact #125 "Between the barometric altitudes of 3196 feet AGL ..... and 2856 feet AGL, the aircraft
reached its steepest nose down attitude of 86.8°, 26.6 AOA, ....

AOA is wing angle of attack? This would mean the aircraft was pointing almost straight down, but was moving in some other direction? I'm having trouble grasping this. Is AOA in an F-18 something different from AOA in a light aircraft?

Thanks in advance.


Win - AOA is AOA - but you're used to thinking of airplanes in level flight, where the relative wind comes from straight ahead...

Sure, he was pointed straight down, but the relative wind was impacting the mean chord line of the wing (the definition of AOA, right?) at 26.6 degrees. AOA is measured on the nose of the F/A-18 by an AOA vane - a pressure transducer that rotates to balance pressure between two slots. The position of the probe in that range of rotation defines the measured AOA.

So, the nose of the Hornet is pointed straight down, but the pilot has the stick pulled far aft. That means that the AOA is high. AOA and airspeed = lift, right? So, while the nose is pointed down, the airplane is pulling "G" and the lift vector is changing the velocity vector of the airplane.

Consider an airplane in a loop. While going straight up, the airplane is pulling positive "G" so that the path of the airplane is curved. The relative wind, created solely by the motion of the airplane, is from straight up. The AOA is positive, and dependent on elevator position. That AOA creates lift. The lift is pointed toward the center of the loop and curves the airplane's path.

Same thing when the airplane is going down. The only difference is this: when going straight up: the force of gravity is decelerating the airplane. When going straight down, the force of gravity is accelerating the airplane. But in both cases, the airplane "sees" the relative wind as coming from the exact opposite direction of its travel. And, in both cases, the airplane can pull "G" to change its path.

That help?
 
Yes, thank you.

The findings of fact also mention "alpha" with a numeric quantity a number of times. What is that?
 
Originally Posted By: CT8
If you watch the Blue Angles VS the Thunderbirds , the Blue Angles fly a lot harder and use the air space differently. Naval Aviators as I have mentioned before and always will are the better pilots. Try landing on an aircraft Carrier. It seems like a stupid thing to to though. I am sure the analogy of the fighter jets are like riding a Moto GP superbike WOT around the race track as compared to a 50cc motor scooter.


In your opinion...
 
Originally Posted By: Win
Yes, thank you.

The findings of fact also mention "alpha" with a numeric quantity a number of times. What is that?


"Alpha" is AOA.

"Beta" is side slip.

You can buy a nice, clean copy of "Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators" from Amazon or Sporty's. Or you can download it here: http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/media/00-80t-80.pdf

It's as relevant, detailed, and useful today as back when it was published. One of the best explanations of aerodynamic principles written. It does a far better job than I ever could in explaining aero...
 
Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: CT8
If you watch the Blue Angles VS the Thunderbirds , the Blue Angles fly a lot harder and use the air space differently. Naval Aviators as I have mentioned before and always will are the better pilots. Try landing on an aircraft Carrier. It seems like a stupid thing to to though. I am sure the analogy of the fighter jets are like riding a Moto GP superbike WOT around the race track as compared to a 50cc motor scooter.


In your opinion...
No opinion just facts.I know three things as fact and that is one of them.
 
Originally Posted By: CT8
Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: CT8
If you watch the Blue Angles VS the Thunderbirds , the Blue Angles fly a lot harder and use the air space differently. Naval Aviators as I have mentioned before and always will are the better pilots. Try landing on an aircraft Carrier. It seems like a stupid thing to to though. I am sure the analogy of the fighter jets are like riding a Moto GP superbike WOT around the race track as compared to a 50cc motor scooter.


In your opinion...
No opinion just facts.I know three things as fact and that is one of them.


It's all just blather until you prove it...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

E
AOPA Air Safety SVP and Former NFL Player Die in Crash
Replies
18
Views
1K
mbacfp
y_p_w
Trevor Jacob pleads guilty to obstruction for covering up deliberate crash where he bailed out
Replies
13
Views
1K
ctechbob
Jackson_Slugger
Jetpack Men Over LA
Replies
2
Views
1K
Jetronic
slo town
My experience 30 floors up during the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake
2
Replies
20
Views
825
wpod
supton
F9F vs MiG-15s
Replies
7
Views
2K
supton
Back
Top