FAA research paper - Civil Airworthiness Certification

Lieven · by **Lieven** » 07 Oct 2013, 20:44

Nice to see so many references to F-16.net in this recently released Federal Aviation Administration research paper. :-)

Civil Airworthiness Certification: Former Military High - Performance Aircraft (PDF)

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 07 Oct 2013, 23:03

Some GRIM accident photos in that PDF above. This A-4B with a gear problem landing probably did not end well....

neurotech · by **neurotech** » 08 Oct 2013, 01:21

@spazsinbad: That looks like they lost the wheel, and the hook didn't engage. If they set up for a barricade on the next approach there is a slim chance the aircraft might survive, but if I was in that jet, I'd be seriously considering ejecting out. If the pilot went for another tailhook arrested landing, I'd worry the gear stub would grab the wire and the jet would tumble out of control. An F/A-18 survived a really bad landing, but the jet grabbed the wire and stopped.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fw_Pcmgnus

Tragically, a "civilian" A-4 was lost when the engine had a bird strike, and the ejection seat misfired, sending the pilot into the tail fin. The NTSB investigated with US Navy assistance.
http://dms.ntsb.gov/aviation/GenPDF.asp ... 079&rpt=fi
http://dms.ntsb.gov/aviation/GenPDF.asp ... 079&rpt=fa

I don't know the details of the maintenance of the crashed A-4, but civilian ejection seats are a necessary but problematic part of flying ex-military fighters. I think at least one L-39 pilot had an ejection outside envelope.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 08 Oct 2013, 02:16

Thanks for the info 'neurotech'. Yes I think it was ATSI or similar which lost an A-4 pilot as you describe some years back. [I see the two PDF links you cite describes the accident.] A-4 NATOPS has an extensive checklist about undercarriage problem landings/arrests. Looks like one SMALL detail was overlooked from this description. From the trusted source 'skyhawkstudygroup' on YAHOO.com here is the news about the above A-4B:

"This was a hard landing that resulted in the loss of the right main landing gear wheel. The subsequent bolter was pretty iffy (down below deck edge). The barricade was rigged but the pendants remained raised, so on the touchdown prior to reaching the barricade, the stub of the strut caught a wire and slewed the airplane so the barricade engagement was pretty ugly. However, all's well that ends well."

neurotech · by **neurotech** » 08 Oct 2013, 03:33

ATSI was the company involved in the Fatal A-4N crash. I think the jet might have been leased from ATAC. ATAC had a A-4L go down at NAS Fallon with a safe ejection. ATAC have had had 3-4 aircraft crash in almost 20 years and 30,000 hours. I'm not sure how many jets ATSI have crashed but its at least one. I'm surprised neither the NTSB or US Navy made a big deal about these crashes.

Apparently, the FAA is more concerned with private warbirds because they are operated from GA airfields close to populated areas. There was a F-86 crash in Sacramento, CA which killed 22 people in 1972. The fallout was pretty substantial for the FAA, and even tighter restrictions on selling flyable USAF/USN aircraft as surplus. It now requires Congress, and the SecDef to approve it.
http://www.check-six.com/Crash_Sites/Sa ... h_site.htm

Doesn't the NATOPS recommend removing the wires (Cross Deck Pendant) in case of lost wheel or "stub" only?

The F/A-18 planning link failure can also cause the wheel to be skewed sideways. Even for a carrier rated F/A-18, a hard landing can bend or break the planning link and unless the tailhook engages, the jet can suddenly turn towards the damaged side.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 08 Oct 2013, 04:41

NATOPS A-4E/F/G

"Stub-main gear - LAND (Carrier) Note - 1

Notes: 1. Crossdeck pendant configuration shall be in accordance with current recovery bulletin...."

Other combinations require ejection. I would have thought the wires should be removed - but - barricade not mentioned. Perhaps barricade is in another page and just assumed as shown in graphic (new NATOPS - old NATOPS as shown). The graphic is annotated to highlight why the A4G, which lost a wheel onboard in late 1970s did not arrest ashore, as was required in old version of NATOPS.

neurotech · by **neurotech** » 08 Oct 2013, 06:49

Did NAS Nowra have a emergency barricade net on the runway? NAS Pax River and NAES Lakehurst have barricade nets but rarely used and not usually available. They are really just for carrier suitability testing.

In 1997, A US Navy F/A-18 diverted to RAAF Wiliamstown after a main gear collapse on launch, the jet used standard field arresting gear and scraped the tail on the runway (no center tank) at night, sparks flying. I haven't seen the video on YouTube yet. Its debatable if a barricade net or Mk7 arresting gear (carrier style, 300ft run out ) would have helped. From memory it was C-5'd back to the US for repair, and it took years before the jet was flying again.

Capt. Scott Slater's F/A-18 barricade landing was successful, with a nose gear problem on the USS Nimitz.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sD_mUwzpUs4

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 08 Oct 2013, 08:40

In the 1960s and 1970s the RAAF airfields had crash barriers at the long end of the runway - some better than others for their different aircraft. Once the F-4 Phantoms were leased before the F-111s arrived and later the F-18s the RAAF started to install short/long field arrestor gear on suitable runways. The RAN Fixed Wing Era never had crash barriers - only arrestor gear. Chain during the Prop/Sea Venom era changing to better BAK-9 arrestor gear for the A4G era. Later the gear upgraded after A4Gs gone but then not used today except for one main runway I believe.

Your 1997 Hornet story was in our RAN Navy News 21 April 1997

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 08 Oct 2013, 09:57

Back on topic? F-35 maintainer duckwalking from the PDF that started this fred.....

"...an USAF Airman crouches under the exhaust of an F-35A Lightning II as the aircraft is prepped for a training mission at Nellis Air Force Base, in April 2013. This photograph illustrates the jet blast dangers that some former military aircraft can pose to untrained or unaware personnel. The blast from some of these military jet engines dwarf the jet blast from many civilian corporate jets typically found at a GA airport. Source: www.defenseimagery.mil. Source: www.defense.gov.

http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/ai ... Report.pdf (55Mb)

neurotech · by **neurotech** » 08 Oct 2013, 18:19

The times I've seen military fighter jets flown out of civilian airports on divert, they put plastic barriers up to keep people away, and usually additional security personnel as well. Even at LAX, they usually have personnel who have some experience with military jets. When I flew to LAX, they even had the correct tow equipment for a F/A-18F available. They pinned the gear etc. and Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF) escorted us to the ramp. No damage to the jets.

For warbird operators, the ideal plan would be to distribute their own "Crash Rescue" emergency guide and ground procedures sheets to the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) and ARFF services ahead of time. The warbird jets operate in the experimental category, and are usually required to submit a flight plan to FSDO ahead of time, and in some cases to every FSDO along their transit route.

We did have some problems with the F/A-18E/Fs as they were not in the standard guides (the paper copies ARFF had were out of date!) and surprisingly the F-5s as they'd received structural & systems upgrades even though they all were Navy owned jets. I don't have a copy of the A-4 version, but I'm guessing you've seen the NATOPS A-4 crash rescue information before.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 08 Oct 2013, 19:05

A-4 NATOPS has the crash rescue info. Otherwise I do not have any outside crash rescue info. Back in the day in Oz any Navy aircraft landing at an RAAF base repelled any RAAF ground crew. An unique property and power they had over those RAAFieChappies.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 08 Oct 2013, 20:24

I wonder how the crash info for the new Brazilian AF-1B has changed?

From a 'skyhawkstudygroup' at Yahoo.com came this info about Brazil upgrading their A-4s:

"In a few words:

The first flight of an upgraded AF-1B aircraft was made on August 13th. Its the first of 12 aircraft who must be delivered to MB to 2015. The first flight was made on Embraer Defense and Security factory in SP. With the upgrade the aircraft will be on service to 2025. The upgrade programme has scheduled the delivery of 5 upgraded aircraft in 2014 and 7 in 2015.

Some details of the upgrade program:

http://www.naval.com.br/blog/2013/05/25 ... z2epTsNbFY "

Via Google Translate - URL above: http://translate.google.com/translate?s ... FY&act=url

Primeiro voo da aeronave _AF-1B_ modernizada.mp4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNxvVZH2j7w