F-35B catches fire

Discuss the F-35 Lightning II
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

maus92

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2052
  • Joined: 21 May 2010, 17:50
  • Location: Annapolis, MD

Unread post21 Dec 2016, 18:41

cosmicdwarf wrote:But not over the continuing oxygen problems, which was the problem asked about.


The implication was that they don't ground Super Hornets for safety of flight issues, which they clearly they do.

The OBOGS issue has been ongoing for years. The Navy HAS been replacing components and IS redesigning the system. But the symptoms flight crews are reporting are diffuse, and do not to point to a specific cause. Training is being used to mitigate the risk, and it seems that the issue is being managed successfully for the most part. The OBOGS issue is larger than just the Super Hornet program, so there's that as well - F-22 and F-35 are also potentially affected by the whatever the Navy finds.
Offline
User avatar

cosmicdwarf

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 677
  • Joined: 11 Feb 2015, 21:20

Unread post21 Dec 2016, 18:58

maus92 wrote:
cosmicdwarf wrote:But not over the continuing oxygen problems, which was the problem asked about.


The implication was that they don't ground Super Hornets for safety of flight issues, which they clearly they do.

No it wasn't, but nice try to deflect.
Offline

neurotech

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2346
  • Joined: 09 May 2012, 21:34

Unread post21 Dec 2016, 19:56

maus92 wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:
maus92 wrote:
In hindsight, probably the wrong decision not to ground the fleet until repairs were made (which sound relatively simple.)


So by that reasoning, the entire Super Hornet fleet should be grounded until the OBOGS/ECS problems are resolved.
Oh sorry..the Navy hasn't yet identified the underlying causal issues or devised a fix. Carry on.


They did ground the entire Super Hornet / Growler fleet over the weekend because a Growler canopy shattered (or departed completely) and severely injured the flight crew - luckily the incident occurred on the ground. It appears that the ECS went hard over and over-pressurized the cockpit. Preliminary cause is a plane wash procedure gone bad. New procedures were disseminated, and the grounding has been lifted.

They grounded fleet precisely because the mishap "Severely injured the flight crew" in an unexpected manner. The Navy are quite rightly more concerned about the aircrew, than the damage to the jet.

The thing is that IF an emergency resulted in the crew popping the canopy, the aircraft can be repaired fairly easily. Likely wouldn't even be a Class-A mishap ($2m+). The canopy replacement itself would even stay under Class-C threshold ($500k) for a 2-seater. This happens somewhat frequently, usually from refueling mishaps.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6409
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post21 Dec 2016, 20:24

maus92 wrote:and it seems that the issue is being managed successfully for the most part.


Ditto the F-35B bracket issue correct?

Maus logic. if it's a problem with F-35 ground em. If its a problem with the Super Hornet, training, management and acceptable risk. Gray area Yada Yada.
Choose Crews
Offline

neurotech

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2346
  • Joined: 09 May 2012, 21:34

Unread post21 Dec 2016, 20:45

XanderCrews wrote:
maus92 wrote:and it seems that the issue is being managed successfully for the most part.


Ditto the F-35B bracket issue correct?

Maus logic. if it's a problem with F-35 ground em. If its a problem with the Super Hornet, training, management and acceptable risk. Gray area Yada Yada.

The F-35B bracket issue was probably "managed" by inspecting the wiring, and the planning the proper repair as soon as practical. They would most likely do the same if it was a F/A-18. Its likely the Marines knew the approximate cause shortly after inspecting damaged F-35B.

There have been numerous cases of jets being lost (including a F-22A at Tyndall) that could have been prevented by more frequent wiring inspections, along with minor mods to the bracket/sheath. Notoriously, the F/A-18A-D anti-skid cable would get damaged and the jet would sometimes overrun the runway, causing the pilot to eject. Avoiding reasonably preventable mishaps is probably why the Navy grounded the fleet so quickly, until the situation was addressed.
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1090
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post21 Dec 2016, 22:10

maus92 wrote:
cosmicdwarf wrote:But not over the continuing oxygen problems, which was the problem asked about.


The implication was that they don't ground Super Hornets for safety of flight issues, which they clearly they do.

The OBOGS issue has been ongoing for years. The Navy HAS been replacing components and IS redesigning the system. But the symptoms flight crews are reporting are diffuse, and do not to point to a specific cause. Training is being used to mitigate the risk, and it seems that the issue is being managed successfully for the most part. The OBOGS issue is larger than just the Super Hornet program, so there's that as well - F-22 and F-35 are also potentially affected by the whatever the Navy finds.


Yet the Air Force grounded the F-22 fleet due to diffuse symptoms experienced by flight crews
that did not point to a specific cause.

Perhaps we'll agree to agree that the services use their own, informed and prudent
judgments about how to manage known risks with known causes and known risks with unknown causes.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24476
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post21 Dec 2016, 22:57

'maus92' likes to make mountains out of molehills and to be the first with bad news. He is in the online news game. I pointed this out on another thread.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

vanshilar

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 403
  • Joined: 26 Aug 2015, 11:23

Unread post21 Dec 2016, 23:57

spazsinbad wrote:'maus92' likes to make mountains out of molehills and to be the first with bad news. He is in the online news game. I pointed this out on another thread.


But...but...just think of the number of brackets on any F-35! Any one of them could fall or fail at any time! OMG the F-35 program is such a failure and should be scrapped!
Offline

maus92

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2052
  • Joined: 21 May 2010, 17:50
  • Location: Annapolis, MD

Unread post22 Dec 2016, 02:12

neurotech wrote:

They grounded fleet precisely because the mishap "Severely injured the flight crew" in an unexpected manner. The Navy are quite rightly more concerned about the aircrew, than the damage to the jet.

The thing is that IF an emergency resulted in the crew popping the canopy, the aircraft can be repaired fairly easily. Likely wouldn't even be a Class-A mishap ($2m+). The canopy replacement itself would even stay under Class-C threshold ($500k) for a 2-seater. This happens somewhat frequently, usually from refueling mishaps.


This might end up as a Class A mishap - the flight crew's condition was described as critical, requiring a medevac by helo (and the description of the injuries suffered was not pretty.)

Anyway, I haven't seen confirmation on whether the canopy actually departed, was shattered, or a seal was blown out. Physical damage to the aircraft could be limited, but they surely tore into the ECS to figure out what happened. More info should come out in the next few days.
Offline

maus92

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2052
  • Joined: 21 May 2010, 17:50
  • Location: Annapolis, MD

Unread post22 Dec 2016, 02:24

marauder2048 wrote:
maus92 wrote:
cosmicdwarf wrote:But not over the continuing oxygen problems, which was the problem asked about.


The implication was that they don't ground Super Hornets for safety of flight issues, which they clearly they do.

The OBOGS issue has been ongoing for years. The Navy HAS been replacing components and IS redesigning the system. But the symptoms flight crews are reporting are diffuse, and do not to point to a specific cause. Training is being used to mitigate the risk, and it seems that the issue is being managed successfully for the most part. The OBOGS issue is larger than just the Super Hornet program, so there's that as well - F-22 and F-35 are also potentially affected by the whatever the Navy finds.


Yet the Air Force grounded the F-22 fleet due to diffuse symptoms experienced by flight crews
that did not point to a specific cause.

Perhaps we'll agree to agree that the services use their own, informed and prudent
judgments about how to manage known risks with known causes and known risks with unknown causes.


We can agree that services use their own criteria to ground aircraft, not that I agree with the USMC flying without an effective mitigation program in place. As for the OBOGS issue with the F-22A, the USAF lost a jet or two (of course the USAF blames the pilot;) the Navy did not - at least no Super Hornets. The OBOGS issue also affects the legacy Hornets in equal rates, even though they use systems produced by different manufacturers.
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1090
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post22 Dec 2016, 02:37

maus92 wrote:
This might end up as a Class A mishap - the flight crew's condition was described as critical, requiring a medevac by helo (and the description of the injuries suffered was not pretty.)

Anyway, I haven't seen confirmation on whether the canopy actually departed, was shattered, or a seal was blown out. Physical damage to the aircraft could be limited, but they surely tore into the ECS to figure out what happened. More info should come out in the next few days.


There's a well known failure mode for ECS ovepressurization since the Cautions do not indicate or confirm
the actual Bleed Air shutoff valve positions.

About the only indication the pilot gets that his canopy is about to explode is a handy 3-digit MSP code.
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1090
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post22 Dec 2016, 02:59

maus92 wrote:
cosmicdwarf wrote:

We can agree that services use their own criteria to ground aircraft, not that I agree with the USMC flying without an effective mitigation program in place. As for the OBOGS issue with the F-22A, the USAF lost a jet or two (of course the USAF blames the pilot;) the Navy did not - at least no Super Hornets. The OBOGS issue also affects the legacy Hornets in equal rates, even though they use systems produced by different manufacturers.



So in other words, the Navy doesn't believe in learning from aviation history and is compounding it by,
unlike the Air Force which is equipping the entire F-22 fleet with Auto-GCAS, scrapping Auto-GCAS for the Hornet
fleet. Note: the Air Force and only the Air Force made Auto-GCAS a requirement for the F-35.

Hasn't the Navy blamed the pilot for almost all of its recent spate of Super Hornet mishaps?
Offline

maus92

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2052
  • Joined: 21 May 2010, 17:50
  • Location: Annapolis, MD

Unread post22 Dec 2016, 03:01

marauder2048 wrote:
maus92 wrote:
This might end up as a Class A mishap - the flight crew's condition was described as critical, requiring a medevac by helo (and the description of the injuries suffered was not pretty.)

Anyway, I haven't seen confirmation on whether the canopy actually departed, was shattered, or a seal was blown out. Physical damage to the aircraft could be limited, but they surely tore into the ECS to figure out what happened. More info should come out in the next few days.


There's a well known failure mode for ECS ovepressurization since the Cautions do not indicate or confirm
the actual Bleed Air shutoff valve positions.

About the only indication the pilot gets that his canopy is about to explode is a handy 3-digit MSP code.


Interesting. Apparently they were troubleshooting the ECS system when the incident occurred. For whatever reason, a relief valve did not operate; that may be the reason why a plane wash procedure might have something to do with this particular incident. The weather was wet, and temps were 20-34F on the day. Might have been a factor.
Offline

maus92

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2052
  • Joined: 21 May 2010, 17:50
  • Location: Annapolis, MD

Unread post22 Dec 2016, 03:09

marauder2048 wrote:
maus92 wrote:
cosmicdwarf wrote:

We can agree that services use their own criteria to ground aircraft, not that I agree with the USMC flying without an effective mitigation program in place. As for the OBOGS issue with the F-22A, the USAF lost a jet or two (of course the USAF blames the pilot;) the Navy did not - at least no Super Hornets. The OBOGS issue also affects the legacy Hornets in equal rates, even though they use systems produced by different manufacturers.



So in other words, the Navy doesn't believe in learning from aviation history and is compounding it by,
unlike the Air Force which is equipping the entire F-22 fleet with Auto-GCAS, scrapping Auto-GCAS for the Hornet
fleet. Note: the Air Force and only the Air Force made Auto-GCAS a requirement for the F-35.

Hasn't the Navy blamed the pilot for almost all of its recent spate of Super Hornet mishaps?


USAF pilots run into the ground (or Cessnas;) Navy and Marine pilots run into each other... There's a good argument to install auto-GCAS and a similar system for in-flight collision avoidance. It will probably happen.
Offline
User avatar

smsgtmac

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 867
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2013, 04:22
  • Location: Texas

Unread post22 Dec 2016, 03:22

Agghhhhh! Going over individual safety concerns and how they are addressed, or how someone THINKS they should have been addressed is puerile. How the DoD handled and is handling the 'bracket loosening' issue for the F-35B, before and after the fire 'event' is part and parcel with normal aviation risk management and safety programs, be they military or civilian.
That the yellow press seems to be making a big deal of it has nothing to do with safety concerns and everything to do with the F-35 program being a disinformation click-bait target.
Whether or not we CAN agree, reasonable people SHOULD be able to agree that finding potential problems that pose a risk, developing inspection schedules that mitigate the perceived risk until it can be eliminated, and adjusting the mitigation steps when additional information becomes available is part and parcel for ANY aircraft program. And if anyone doubts same and wants to verify for themselves, just go to https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policie ... irectives/ , and type in your favorite airliner (A340 and the 777 have the best safety record BTW) to see all the things now being inspected until a remedy can be devised or installed.

If the journolistas and F-35 h8ters got their panties in a twist over ALL airplanes as tight as they pretend to get them twisted for the F-35, they'd never get on an airplane.
My :2c:
--The ultimate weapon is the mind of man.
PreviousNext

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 47 guests