Well you'll never be able to contact them now, the bomb shelter locks won't release for another 30 years.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You mean like, he ejects and then controls the plane like some kind of remote control via joystick? While that would be awesome, I doubt it.
I'm going to suggest that if the pilot was desperate enough to ditch over a residential area, his staying in the plane probably wouldn't have done any good.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Per pilots I know, first choice would have been to ditch over the ocean. Second choice would have been to crash away from an inhabited area even if it meant going down with the plane to do so. Third and last choice is ditch over an inhabited area. This would mean that there's no chance of either of the first two.
posted
Didn't something like this happen not too long ago? I seem to recall that the plane cut the house in half, and although the pilot(s) died, no one inside was harmed..?
Posts: 1215 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
When the Canadian military purchases it's first jet aircraft, I'm sure we'll see similar training exercises. Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you aspectre! I still haven't heard from my friend (she may be out still) but that's a full 4 blocks from her home. *phew*
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
A single death is a tragedy a million is a statistic.
Preemptive Judo! Our Submarines caught on fire before they even made it to Canada.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: You mean like, he ejects and then controls the plane like some kind of remote control via joystick? While that would be awesome, I doubt it.
I'm going to suggest that if the pilot was desperate enough to ditch over a residential area, his staying in the plane probably wouldn't have done any good.
No, I was wondering if he had ditched before he lost complete control. From later comments it seems like that's against military policy, for whatever that's worth.
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: A single death is a tragedy a million is a statistic.
Preemptive Judo! Our Submarines caught on fire before they even made it to Canada.
I'm pretty sure three is still a tragedy.
Posts: 959 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Per pilots I know, first choice would have been to ditch over the ocean. Second choice would have been to crash away from an inhabited area even if it meant going down with the plane to do so. Third and last choice is ditch over an inhabited area. This would mean that there's no chance of either of the first two.
Story says plane lost both engines on approach. One engine is bad enough; you lose both engines in a plane like that and it's not long before you fall like an anvil.
Posts: 3486 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Indeed. At that point it's a choice between losing the plane or losing the plane and the pilot.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Especially considering these planes are fly by wire and computer controlled just to keep them from spinning in a thousand circles in the first place. They've very maneuverable, but yeah, the engine goes out, and the plane becomes a brick.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The guy who helped rescue the pilot was reported as hearing from the pilot that he was attempting to ditch the plane into the nearby canyon / brush (where the pilot landed after ejecting). The same story also said one engine was lost during training, and the decision was made to return to base. The second engine was lost during the approach. The pilot will likely be second guessing himself for a long long time to come, and will probably not get another chance to fly for the military (small chance he could, but I doubt it).
Wasn't there a story from the past 10 years or so where the pilot chose not to eject just so he could maintain enough control to crash the plane away from people on the ground? As I'm typing this out, I'm thinking it may have been at an air show, and I think it was an F-117... May have to look for it.
quote: The Union-Tribune spoke with Steve Diamond, a retired naval aviator, who said he found the pilot in a tree behind a house. He told the paper he helped the man, who Diamond said was a lieutenant in his 20s, down from the tree.
The pilot told him that after he lost power in one engine, it was decided he would try to get the jet to Miramar on the single working engine, Diamond told the paper.
The pilot was in communication with military air traffic controllers before the jet crashed, and the crash site is about two miles from the airfield, the Federal Aviation Administration said.
According to the Los Angeles Times, the pilot ejected moments before the crash and landed without injury in a tree about two miles from Miramar. Jason Widmer said he talked to the pilot, who said he had tried to steer the jet from the homes and into a brushy canyon.
"He was pretty shook up and pretty concerned if he had killed anyone," Widmer told San Diego 6. "He had seen his bird go into a house."
posted
That is not an uncommon story; I think a pilot in training (wasn't this a training flight?) is less likely to do that successfully, though.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Architraz Warden: Wasn't there a story from the past 10 years or so where the pilot chose not to eject just so he could maintain enough control to crash the plane away from people on the ground?
Some stories that come to mind, but might not be what you're thinking of:
A Thunderbird solo pilot took his plane right to the ground, ejecting a couple of tenths of a second before impact, after flying too low on his split S after takeoff.
A T-38 Instructor Pilot in Lubbock stayed with a plane after the student ejected to control it into the ground.
An F-4 aircrew out of Dallas NAS flew their plane into an empty field to avoid civilian casualties, ejecting safely about 2 seconds before impact.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: That is not an uncommon story; I think a pilot in training (wasn't this a training flight?) is less likely to do that successfully, though.
I don't know how much you can read into that. The majority of flights in the US are probably training flights. Pilots log thousands of training hours.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know, something I read somewhere had given me the impression he was relatively young and inexperienced and this was a training flight as in, like, essential training, like not even qualified yet.
The one I just linked to said he was doing training on a carrier, so probably a little more experienced pilot than I was thinking. Though I don't know if he was just doing quals or if he was actually TRAINING training out there. In any case, he's likely more experienced than I had in my mind at first thought. I honestly don't know where I heard that, probably the news, was distracted and lept to the wrong conclusions. (It's been a long day-- my two year old just came home from dental work under general anesthesia...)
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: I know, something I read somewhere had given me the impression he was relatively young and inexperienced and this was a training flight as in, like, essential training, like not even qualified yet.
The Hornet is a single pilot, no navigator vehicle, and I believe, though I am not sure, that one must have considerable flight experience just to train in one. It's an extremely complex and versatile craft, so I'd be surprised if the pilot was unqualified and flying over inhabited areas, much less carrier training, which is only for elite pilots anyway.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Standard issue Hornets are indeed single seat plans. Hornets used in training are often a two-seat variety, even if there is only one person on board.
My gut feel... if he lost power to one engine, someone had a lot of confidence in both the pilot's skills as well as the plane to attempt a landing at Miramar rather than A) Ditch at Sea or B) Land at a more remote strip. I'm guessing whoever made that call will be facing about as much inquiry as the pilot before this is said and done.
And yes, anyone qualifying for carrier landings is already a near-elite pilot, even if they're still technically in training. It's also possible he had been an F-18 pilot for some time, and was simply qualifying for Carrier landings.
Posts: 1368 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I go to the same church as that guy who lost his family. Pretty scary stuff, just doing random house things and BAM you're dead.
Posts: 80 | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Architraz Warden: My gut feel... if he lost power to one engine, someone had a lot of confidence in both the pilot's skills as well as the plane to attempt a landing at Miramar rather than A) Ditch at Sea or B) Land at a more remote strip. I'm guessing whoever made that call will be facing about as much inquiry as the pilot before this is said and done.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
The whole thing is just sad.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I honestly don't know where I heard that, probably the news, was distracted and lept to the wrong conclusions. (It's been a long day-- my two year old just came home from dental work under general anesthesia...)
