F18 Crash at RDU, Raleigh, NC

An F-18 Naval Strike Fighter crashed at RDU today. It appears it was taxing
or in the process of taking off, but never lifted off. Might have been
wake turbulance from another F-18 that had just departed.

http://www.wral.com/news/2953163/detail.html

Tom Hyslip wrote:

Might have been wake turbulance from another F-18 that had just departed.

Aircraft on the ground do not burst into flames due to wake turbulence.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

Just reading from the reports. The controllers said it never left the
ground. Doesn't sound right to me either. Maybe it started to climb, then
had problems.


"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


Tom Hyslip wrote:

Might have been wake turbulance from another F-18 that had just
departed.

Aircraft on the ground do not burst into flames due to wake turbulence.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that
would
not yield to the tongue.

Wake turbulence with teeth, I'd say.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


Tom Hyslip wrote:

Might have been wake turbulance from another F-18 that had just
departed.

Aircraft on the ground do not burst into flames due to wake turbulence.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that
would
not yield to the tongue.

Maybe P factor took it off the runway hee hee hee mac

George,
an uncontained failure of one of the engine would cause swerving and can
puncture a fuel tank with hot metal and start a fire....
Michelle

G.R. Patterson III wrote:

Tom Hyslip wrote:


Might have been wake turbulance from another F-18 that had just departed.



Aircraft on the ground do not burst into flames due to wake turbulence.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.



--

Michelle P ATP-ASEL, CP-AMEL, and AMT-A&P

"Elisabeth" a Maule M-7-235B (no two are alike)

Volunteer Pilot, Angel Flight Mid-Atlantic

Volunteer Builder, Habitat for Humanity

Might have been wake turbulance from another F-18 that had just
departed.

Aircraft on the ground do not burst into flames due to wake turbulence.

George Patterson

Ain't speculation fun? I'm with you, George, wake turbulence, not.
Section (one plus playmate) and even flight (of four) takeoffs are done
without mishap. That aircraft is too heavy and the engines produce too much
thrust.
How come nobody has speculated on (1) blowing a tire, (2) collapsing a
gear, (3) combination of 1+2, (4) because of 1 or 2 or 3, rupturing a drop
tank or wing tank [nah, skip the wing tank -- bullet proof fuel cell there],
(5) rotor burst, (6) Al Queda attack.
Having some familiarity with military mishap investigation, unless some
kind soul in the CHINFO office wants to release the information or some good
journalist [been there, done that] can weasel it out, it will be months
before any kind of preliminary finding will come out of the Navy.
Meanwhile, y'all keep on spekleatin', y'hear.

possible situations... pure speculation...

blown tire on take off.. causing problems... directional control, FOD into
the engine.. engine gauges spike.. engine starts tearing itself apart..

or some other FOD on the runway thrown up by the preceding jet.. ingested
into engine.. scenario continues..

pilot realizing engine is about to come apart and aircraft is not responding
to braking decides to use his e-ticket ride coupon..

as an instructor once said to me...
never try to save an airplane that is trying to kill you..
do not hesitate to give it back to the tax payers for another one..

planes can be replaced .... combat warriors are harder to come by..

BT

"Tom Hyslip" wrote in message
. com...
An F-18 Naval Strike Fighter crashed at RDU today. It appears it was
taxing
or in the process of taking off, but never lifted off. Might have been
wake turbulance from another F-18 that had just departed.

http://www.wral.com/news/2953163/detail.html

Casey

I also have experience with USAF/Navy accident investigations.

For some reason the flight of 2 did not make a formation take off. Sq
policy at Civilian Fields. Runway to narrow. #2 experience level,
etc.

To continue, when I was flying heavy iron and we landed at a Civilian
Field for fuel, I always pulled the gear ASAP on takeoff R/W a foot
off the ground with burner flame hitting the R/W and looking like you
were riding on the flame.

In the case in question, if he had pulled the gear as he broke ground
and then hit jet wash from the leader and it slapped the bird back
against the R/W the pilot not knowing how much damage was caused
punched. The bird then continued skidding down the R/W and catching
fire.

They don't normally report the cause of an accident unless it causes
some civilian damage which this one didn't. The basic accident report
is 'restricted data' and will not be released to the public. If things
warrant and/or if the public is screaming then they hold a formal
accident board with everyone sworn and all have the ability to not
answer/testfy like in a civilian court.

So to end, as Casey said, have at it.

BJ

Shame to waste a multi million dollar aircraft for any reason.

Big John


On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 05:13:48 GMT, "Casey Wilson"
wrote:


Might have been wake turbulance from another F-18 that had just
departed.

Aircraft on the ground do not burst into flames due to wake turbulence.

George Patterson

Ain't speculation fun? I'm with you, George, wake turbulence, not.
Section (one plus playmate) and even flight (of four) takeoffs are done
without mishap. That aircraft is too heavy and the engines produce too much
thrust.
How come nobody has speculated on (1) blowing a tire, (2) collapsing a
gear, (3) combination of 1+2, (4) because of 1 or 2 or 3, rupturing a drop
tank or wing tank [nah, skip the wing tank -- bullet proof fuel cell there],
(5) rotor burst, (6) Al Queda attack.
Having some familiarity with military mishap investigation, unless some
kind soul in the CHINFO office wants to release the information or some good
journalist [been there, done that] can weasel it out, it will be months
before any kind of preliminary finding will come out of the Navy.
Meanwhile, y'all keep on spekleatin', y'hear.

In article ,
Big John wrote:

They don't normally report the cause of an accident unless it causes
some civilian damage which this one didn't.

No damage, but a close call. The plane ended up about 250 feet from a
passenger terminal, having passed near passenger jets on the ramp along
the way. The newspaper had a diagram that showed the airplane beginning
along runway 23L, the pilot ejecting as he passed taxiway charlie, and
the plane skidding across taxiway alpha and a corner of the terminal A
ramp before ending up past the end of the ramp. Kind of a busy area.
Most GA traffic uses that side of the airport, too.

It's a little higher profile than the typical military mishap. Not too
many airline passengers get to watch unmanned tactical jets
roll/bounce/tumble (whatever it in fact did) by as they wait for
departure. I guess we'll see if that leads the Navy to release any
information from the investigation.

Here are a couple more local media links:

Jet crashes at RDU (Saturday 3/27)
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/sto...-3071734c.html

Cause of crash at RDU unclear (Sunday 3/28)
http://www.newsandobserver.com/front...-3073838c.html

- Nathan