F-35B catches fire

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2016, 03:24
by zerion
An F-35B Joint Strike Fighter caught fire while in-flight during a training exercise last month, according to a report from Hope Hodge Seck of Military.com.

The incident was listed by the Naval Safety Center as a "Class A Mishap" — the most serious mishap class — which means that there was $2 million or more in damage. The Safety Center's report said the fire occurred in the aircraft's weapons bay on Oct. 27, and was followed by an "uneventful landing."

The actual amount of damage to the aircraft, which belonged to Marine Fighter Attack Training Squadron 501 out of Beaufort, S.C., is not yet known.

A number of calls made by Business Insider to the 2nd Marine Aircraft Wing for comment went unanswered. However, a spokesman reported to Military.com that there were no injuries in the incident.

"The aircraft landed safely and there were no injuries sustained," 1st Lt. John Roberts told the site. "An investigation is ongoing and we will provide updates as they are available...

http://www.businessinsider.com/marine-f ... re-2016-11

Re: F-35B catches fire

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2016, 03:27
by popcorn

Re: F-35B catches fire

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2016, 03:45
by zerion
popcorn wrote:Ya don't say... :D
viewtopic.php?f=47&t=52466


Saw this right after I posted. I didn't see anything in the F-35 forum so I posted. I didn't expect it would be posted there.

Re: F-35B catches fire

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2016, 06:44
by popcorn
The 'view new posts" option will flag and display only those threads with new entries since the last time you accessed the forum. No need to go thru the different threads.

Re: F-35B catches fire

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2016, 20:29
by Dragon029
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... re-431286/

The cause of the weapons bay fire is still not specified, but the event did also affect the IPP and a hydraulics system. Maybe the IPP started the fire, or maybe a hydraulic leak and/or chaffed wire caused a fire in the weapons bay that starved the IPP of hydraulics, or perhaps the fire just destroyed a hydraulics line and either wiring, PAO or fuel line that the IPP uses.

Re: F-35B catches fire

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2016, 22:06
by XanderCrews
zerion wrote:
popcorn wrote:Ya don't say... :D
viewtopic.php?f=47&t=52466


Saw this right after I posted. I didn't see anything in the F-35 forum so I posted. I didn't expect it would be posted there.


You dun good, don't worry

Re: F-35B catches fire

Unread postPosted: 10 Nov 2016, 17:16
by maus92
Dragon029 wrote:https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-marine-corps-investigating-cause-of-f-35b-fire-431286/

The cause of the weapons bay fire is still not specified, but the event did also affect the IPP and a hydraulics system. Maybe the IPP started the fire, or maybe a hydraulic leak and/or chaffed wire caused a fire in the weapons bay that starved the IPP of hydraulics, or perhaps the fire just destroyed a hydraulics line and either wiring, PAO or fuel line that the IPP uses.


Good thing this mishap occurred in the airfield's traffic pattern rather than out in the Warning areas over the Atlantic.

Re: F-35B catches fire

Unread postPosted: 10 Nov 2016, 17:42
by SpudmanWP
You are assuming that it was a critical failure of the system as a whole. Remember that there is no central hydraulic system as each actuator is it's won electro-hydraulic system.

He probably could (if he did not already) open the bay doors and the rush of high-speed wind could put the fire out.

Re: F-35B catches fire

Unread postPosted: 11 Nov 2016, 01:40
by sferrin
maus92 wrote:
Dragon029 wrote:https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-marine-corps-investigating-cause-of-f-35b-fire-431286/

The cause of the weapons bay fire is still not specified, but the event did also affect the IPP and a hydraulics system. Maybe the IPP started the fire, or maybe a hydraulic leak and/or chaffed wire caused a fire in the weapons bay that starved the IPP of hydraulics, or perhaps the fire just destroyed a hydraulics line and either wiring, PAO or fuel line that the IPP uses.


Good thing this mishap occurred in the airfield's traffic pattern rather than out in the Warning areas over the Atlantic.


How many Hornets have crashed since the F-35 started flying?

Re: F-35B catches fire

Unread postPosted: 11 Nov 2016, 13:33
by ngroot0
sferrin wrote:
maus92 wrote:
Dragon029 wrote:https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-marine-corps-investigating-cause-of-f-35b-fire-431286/

The cause of the weapons bay fire is still not specified, but the event did also affect the IPP and a hydraulics system. Maybe the IPP started the fire, or maybe a hydraulic leak and/or chaffed wire caused a fire in the weapons bay that starved the IPP of hydraulics, or perhaps the fire just destroyed a hydraulics line and either wiring, PAO or fuel line that the IPP uses.


Good thing this mishap occurred in the airfield's traffic pattern rather than out in the Warning areas over the Atlantic.


How many Hornets have crashed since the F-35 started flying?


Since December 2006, 31 Hornets and 11 Super Hornets have been written off according to aviation-safety.net.
https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/db ... key&page=2

Re: F-35B catches fire

Unread postPosted: 11 Nov 2016, 16:46
by maus92
SpudmanWP wrote:You are assuming that it was a critical failure of the system as a whole. Remember that there is no central hydraulic system as each actuator is it's won electro-hydraulic system.

He probably could (if he did not already) open the bay doors and the rush of high-speed wind could put the fire out.


Fire and Class A mishaps are not minor occurrences, so I'm going to assume that the NATOPS/PCL guidance was to land as soon as possible. If the IPP malfunctioned - which seems to be a possible scenario in this case considering the Class A cost threshold - numerous systems could be affected by the loss of PTMS functions tied to the IPP. Any way you look at it, a fire means a bad day, and I'm glad the pilot made it back safely.

Re: F-35B catches fire

Unread postPosted: 11 Nov 2016, 16:59
by SpudmanWP
Never said it was not a bad thing. You were implying that if it happen over water that he would have had to ditch.

Re: F-35B catches fire

Unread postPosted: 11 Nov 2016, 19:46
by sferrin
maus92 wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:You are assuming that it was a critical failure of the system as a whole. Remember that there is no central hydraulic system as each actuator is it's won electro-hydraulic system.

He probably could (if he did not already) open the bay doors and the rush of high-speed wind could put the fire out.


Fire and Class A mishaps are not minor occurrences, so I'm going to assume that the NATOPS/PCL guidance was to land as soon as possible. If the IPP malfunctioned - which seems to be a possible scenario in this case considering the Class A cost threshold - numerous systems could be affected by the loss of PTMS functions tied to the IPP. Any way you look at it, a fire means a bad day, and I'm glad the pilot made it back safely.


Hey Maus, did you see this:

Since December 2006, 31 Hornets and 11 Super Hornets have been written off according to aviation-safety.net.
https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/db ... key&page=2

42 Hornets - GONE.

Re: F-35B catches fire

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2016, 03:00
by neurotech
maus92 wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:You are assuming that it was a critical failure of the system as a whole. Remember that there is no central hydraulic system as each actuator is it's won electro-hydraulic system.

He probably could (if he did not already) open the bay doors and the rush of high-speed wind could put the fire out.


Fire and Class A mishaps are not minor occurrences, so I'm going to assume that the NATOPS/PCL guidance was to land as soon as possible. If the IPP malfunctioned - which seems to be a possible scenario in this case considering the Class A cost threshold - numerous systems could be affected by the loss of PTMS functions tied to the IPP. Any way you look at it, a fire means a bad day, and I'm glad the pilot made it back safely.

The mishap summary says "IPP FAIL" so IPP malfunction seems a likely possibility.

And even in twin engine jets, if there is a fire that can't be extinguished per NATOPS/PCL, there is a high probability the pilot will eject if they can't get on the ground ASAP. As you know, several F/A-18s have landed safely but never flown again after an airframe/engine bay fire.

Re: F-35B catches fire

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2016, 13:06
by hythelday
Today a Greek F-16 Block 52 caught fire during taxiing...

viewtopic.php?f=32&t=52485&p=355971#p355971

http://www.protothema.gr/greece/article ... o-pilotos/

Those so called "advanced" 4th gen fighters, even after decades of development and MILLIONS of tax $$$ catch fire... even before take off. This is unacceptable and clearly a sign of complete failure of Lightweight Fighter program. I want it immediately scrapped; all useless F-16 to be trashed and replaced with cheaper, simplier and robust tried and true Century Series. If the DoD keeps this treacherous practice of bankrolling evil military industrial complex at the expense of equipment's performance our boys and girls get to use we will surely fall behind our potential enemies in TACAIR capability. The end of times is upon us. :bang:

Re: F-35B catches fire

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2016, 01:11
by spazsinbad
May we bring this to the attention of 'maus92' or would that be too rude? OMG quote from well known luvvers of F-35 bits.
"...fixing a faulty wiring bracket that caused a fire in an F-35B..."

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/12/33483/

Re: F-35B catches fire

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2016, 03:32
by steve2267
spazsinbad wrote:May we bring this to the attention of 'maus92' or would that be too rude? OMG quote from well known luvvers of F-35 bits.
"...fixing a faulty wiring bracket that caused a fire in an F-35B..."

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/12/33483/


I found the following to be quite interesting:
By Sydney J. Freedberg Jr. on December 19, 2016 at 3:42 PM

F-35 ‘Not Out Of Control’: Prices Drop 5.5% For F-35A

and Pentagon IOT&E director Michael Gilmore — famous for his independence and his withering critiques of high-priced programs — has refused to allow work-arounds to save time, Bogdan said. The delays will add about $532 million to the cost of the program, but Bogdan said $100 million of that reflected past cuts imposed by the Pentagon to pay bills elsewhere...


So Gilmore won't allow Bogdan et al to work the schedule to recover time and money. But Gilmore doesn't mention to Sen McCain et al that his schedule intransigence is costing the good Senator and his checkbook hundreds of millions of dollars.

Also, $100M of that $532M came about because of Pentagon budget games elsewhere...

Re: F-35B catches fire

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2016, 12:48
by XanderCrews
steve2267 wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:May we bring this to the attention of 'maus92' or would that be too rude? OMG quote from well known luvvers of F-35 bits.
"...fixing a faulty wiring bracket that caused a fire in an F-35B..."

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/12/33483/


I found the following to be quite interesting:
By Sydney J. Freedberg Jr. on December 19, 2016 at 3:42 PM

F-35 ‘Not Out Of Control’: Prices Drop 5.5% For F-35A

and Pentagon IOT&E director Michael Gilmore — famous for his independence and his withering critiques of high-priced programs — has refused to allow work-arounds to save time, Bogdan said. The delays will add about $532 million to the cost of the program, but Bogdan said $100 million of that reflected past cuts imposed by the Pentagon to pay bills elsewhere...


So Gilmore won't allow Bogdan et al to work the schedule to recover time and money. But Gilmore doesn't mention to Sen McCain et al that his schedule intransigence is costing the good Senator and his checkbook hundreds of millions of dollars.

Also, $100M of that $532M came about because of Pentagon budget games elsewhere...


It's great that Gilmore and the great "fiscal hawk" scooter mccain can team on to screw the taxpayers like this as they blame others

Re: F-35B catches fire

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2016, 17:07
by SpudmanWP
So Gilmore won't allow workarounds to save time & money on a program that Trump says that he will make them save time & money...

I think the transition team needs to have a sit-down with Gilmore with pink-slip in hand.

Re: F-35B catches fire

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2016, 17:21
by blindpilot
SpudmanWP wrote:So Gilmore won't allow workarounds to save time & money on a program that Trump says that he will make them save time & money...

I think the transition team needs to have a sit-down with Gilmore with pink-slip in hand.


Actually, I'd be willing to bet that DOT&E was in the report the Pentagon commissioned to save $25B a year. My guess is that report will make the PEOTUS' desk.

MHO
BP

Re: F-35B catches fire

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2016, 19:06
by maus92
Gilmore is a political appointee, so he's likely going to be replaced when the new administration takes over. So the faithful can rejoice - (maybe.)

On to the fire. The USMC decided to continue flying its F-35Bs even after the program identified an issue with a support bracket within the weapons bays. A fix had been devised, but not yet installed in the mishap jet. The inspection program implemented to mitigate the risk failed to prevent electrical cables from impinging on hydraulic lines which lead to the fire. In hindsight, probably the wrong decision not to ground the fleet until repairs were made (which sound relatively simple.) The result was a Class A mishap that could have resulted in the total loss of the aircraft and pilot had it occurred over the Atlantic. They were lucky the incident took place in the pattern over the field. The program (semi) dodged a bullet:

Pentagon Knew of F-35B Weapons Bay Fire Problem
POSTED BY: HOPE HODGE SECK DECEMBER 20, 2016 | DefenceTech

"A Marine Corps F-35B caught fire during a late October flight because of a weapons bay defect that military officials knew about and were already working to fix.

Air Force Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, the F-35 program executive officer, told reporters Monday at the program’s offices in Arlington, Virginia, that the Oct. 27 mishap occurred when a bracket that held electrical wires in the weapons bay came loose, allowing the wires to chafe and come into contact with hydraulic lines, causing the fire...."

"“The good news is, we knew what it was,” Bogdan said. “When knew about this problem long before that, and all of our airplanes were being retrofitted with a new bracket.”

The F-35B that caught fire had not yet received the replacement bracket, he said, but had been inspected as part of a stopgap regiment designed to prevent mishaps. Prior to the flight, Bogdan said, the bracket had seemed to be holding.

“We inspected, it looked fine, and it just didn’t look fine in the air,” he said."

http://defensetech.org/2016/12/20/penta ... -bay-fire/

Re: F-35B catches fire

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2016, 20:22
by XanderCrews
maus92 wrote: So the faithful can rejoice - (maybe.)



Says the guy who thinks F/A-XX is right around the corner.

Maus on a scale of good to super hornet, how do you think this compares with their constant oxygen problems?

Any comment on the recent grounding?

Re: F-35B catches fire

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2016, 21:53
by marauder2048
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.

Re: F-35B catches fire

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2016, 06:28
by XanderCrews
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.



Yup.

Re: F-35B catches fire

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2016, 06:38
by spazsinbad
To be fair the USN have devised some 'fixes' such as better monitoring of air quality in the mask - but not implemented fleet wide AFAIK at moment. It is a curly problem for sure.

Re: F-35B catches fire

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2016, 15:48
by XanderCrews
spazsinbad wrote:To be fair the USN have devised some 'fixes' such as better monitoring of air quality in the mask - but not implemented fleet wide AFAIK at moment. It is a curly problem for sure.


The point still stands that maus is saying "hey you should ground the fleet less something happen" but then with the Super Hornet there is miles of context, risk management, gray decisions, and imperfect solutions in order to not ground the fleet

Typical maus92 double standard

Re: F-35B catches fire

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2016, 16:26
by maus92
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.

Re: F-35B catches fire

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2016, 16:31
by maus92
More detail on the F-35B fire:

F-35 Chief: Loose Bracket Sparked Fire on Marine Corps Plane
By: Valerie Insinna, December 20, 2016 | Defense News

"“We knew about this problem long before that [incident], and all of our airplanes were being retrofitted with a new bracket,” Bogdan said during a Dec. 19 briefing to reporters.

The engineering work for the bracket retrofit has been finished, but the aircraft affected by the fire, assigned to Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 501, had not been modified with the new hardware yet. Instead, aircraft with the original brackets underwent periodic inspections to check whether the bracket is still sturdy.

“It had passed its previous inspection, but the bracket still became dislodged,” Bogdan said, adding that a new inspection regiment has now been put into place as a result of the mishap.

The October incident was the F-35B’s first Class A mishap, which involve loss of life or damage of more than $2 million, reported Defense News sister publication Marine Corps Times.

Because not all aircraft have been modified, B-model pilots are flying with heightened levels of risk, Bogdan acknowledged.

“Yes, there are acknowledged risks, and that would be one of them,” he said. “And until you fix that bracket, every airplane in the B-model that doesn’t have that bracket is going to have to be inspected, and hopefully that bracket remains in place when it’s flying.” "

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/f-3 ... f-35b-fire

Re: F-35B catches fire

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2016, 17:28
by cosmicdwarf
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.

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

Re: F-35B catches fire

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2016, 17:41
by XanderCrews
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.



Yeah we noticed because you suddenly disappeared, then magically reappeared when their was bad F-35 news.


and again what about the continual oxygen problems?

Re: F-35B catches fire

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2016, 18:41
by maus92
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.

Re: F-35B catches fire

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2016, 18:58
by cosmicdwarf
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.

Re: F-35B catches fire

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2016, 19:56
by neurotech
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.

Re: F-35B catches fire

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2016, 20:24
by XanderCrews
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.

Re: F-35B catches fire

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2016, 20:45
by neurotech
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.

Re: F-35B catches fire

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2016, 22:10
by marauder2048
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.

Re: F-35B catches fire

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2016, 22:57
by spazsinbad
'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.

Re: F-35B catches fire

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2016, 23:57
by vanshilar
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!

Re: F-35B catches fire

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2016, 02:12
by maus92
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.

Re: F-35B catches fire

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2016, 02:24
by maus92
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.

Re: F-35B catches fire

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2016, 02:37
by marauder2048
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.

Re: F-35B catches fire

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2016, 02:59
by marauder2048
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?

Re: F-35B catches fire

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2016, 03:01
by maus92
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.

Re: F-35B catches fire

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2016, 03:09
by maus92
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.

Re: F-35B catches fire

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2016, 03:22
by smsgtmac
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:

Re: F-35B catches fire

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2016, 03:34
by marauder2048
maus92 wrote: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.


Yet there's no Navy budgeting for Auto-GCAS or Auto-ICAS. Guess the Navy's waiting for it to happen on the F-35.

Re: F-35B catches fire

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2016, 04:05
by spazsinbad
:devil: However the Navy has auto landing systems whilst USAF does not - I'll figure it out one day. :doh: JPALS - anyone?

Re: F-35B catches fire

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2016, 22:32
by marauder2048
spazsinbad wrote::devil: However the Navy has auto landing systems whilst USAF does not - I'll figure it out one day. :doh: JPALS - anyone?


Recall, the 'J' in JPALS stands for Joint as in Joint FAA, Army, Air Force and Navy.
The Army and Air Force dropped out after the FAA dropped out since they fly extensively in FAA airspace.
The Block 3F drop that supports JPALS works on all variants so the Air Force can elect
in the future to acquire the JPALS ground equipment.

In a similar vein, Auto-GCAS is an Air Force requirement for the F-35 and they are the service funding it
but all users will benefit from if they elect to enable it.

Re: F-35B catches fire

Unread postPosted: 23 Dec 2016, 00:13
by spazsinbad
Your answer does not address 'auto landing' for USAF. I'm talking about zero zero W - does the FAA Federal Aviation Administration (not Fleet Air Arm or Fuerza Aérea Argentina) in USofA provide auto landings for USAF?

Re: F-35B catches fire

Unread postPosted: 23 Dec 2016, 01:15
by marauder2048
spazsinbad wrote:Your answer does not address 'auto landing' for USAF. I'm talking about zero zero W - does the FAA Federal Aviation Administration (not Fleet Air Arm or Fuerza Aérea Argentina) in USofA provide auto landings for USAF?


Air traffic control at a good number of US Air Force and Army bases is under FAA management.
When the FAA elected not to pursue JPALS it wrecked it for the Air Force and Army.

The Navy persevered because JPALS-supported autoland is really the only way to get unmanned aircraft onboard ship.

In a similar vein, the main use of autoland for the USAF is for the QF-16.

Re: F-35B catches fire

Unread postPosted: 23 Dec 2016, 01:21
by neurotech
spazsinbad wrote:Your answer does not address 'auto landing' for USAF. I'm talking about zero zero W - does the FAA Federal Aviation Administration (not Fleet Air Arm or Fuerza Aérea Argentina) in USofA provide auto landings for USAF?

Not sure the FAA has jurisdiction over approving autoland for the USAF aircraft, unless the jet has a civilian type certificate (e.g 737-700/C-40), as the basis of a military type certificate.

Also, no tactical aircraft in the regular USAF fleet can do a coupled ILS(ACLS) landing. In the future, Its possible the F-35 will be allowed to fly coupled ILS/JPALS approach down to decision height (e.g 200ft) with Enhanced Vision System capability, aka FLIR being used for the touchdown. It would be pretty extreme conditions if F-35 FLIR (EODAS) couldn't provide runway visibility from 200ft.

The Navy does allow near zero viz landings on the carrier, with a ACLS 'decision height' of 200 ft and 1/4 mile, subject to the LSOs judgement to allow the jet to land with the pilot "clara ship" until touchdown. I thought JPALS will be cleared to similar limits, again subject to LSO judgment.

Re: F-35B catches fire

Unread postPosted: 23 Dec 2016, 02:01
by spazsinbad
Initially JPALS for USN flat decks will be cleared to that criteria however many posts on the JPALS thread make it clear the eventual goal is zero/zero for manned aircraft - and why not if the X-47B robot can do it so well now. Time will tell.

Re: F-35B catches fire

Unread postPosted: 23 Dec 2016, 02:33
by marauder2048
spazsinbad wrote:Initially JPALS for USN flat decks will be cleared to that criteria however many posts on the JPALS thread make it clear the eventual goal is zero/zero for manned aircraft - and why not if the X-47B robot can do it so well now. Time will tell.



JPALS has a long (the AoA was completed in 1997!) and tortured history. The RAND report from 2015 on it
is probably the best history on it that i know.

Re: F-35B catches fire

Unread postPosted: 23 Dec 2016, 03:11
by spazsinbad
Thanks for this 215 page document dated Nov 2015. I won't be reading it all any time soon but as soon as... meanwhile....

Dec 2016 SEAPOWER has: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=14115&p=358043&hilit=SEAPOWER#p358043 on EMALS - JPALS thread
JPALS to Guide F-35, MQ-25 To Shipboard Landings
Dec 2016 SEAPOWER Magazine

"...The original concept was for JPALS to take the aircraft down to 200 feet in altitude before the pilot resumed control. Under the current program, Raytheon will develop the capability for the aircraft — piloted or unmanned — to be guided all the way to the deck...."

Source: http://www.seapower-digital.com/seapowe ... pg=48#pg48

Two months earlier from a similar and perhaps easier to read source there was this: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=14115&p=354644&hilit=anyhoo#p354644
JPALS to Guide F-35, MQ-25 to Shipboard Landings
19 Oct 2016 RICHARD R. BURGESS

"...JPALS has been tested in a Navy F/A-18 Hornet strike fighter, including taking the aircraft to carrier landings, said Bob Delorge, vice president of Transportation and Support Services at Raytheon’s Intelligence, Information and Services business, told Seapower. The F/A-18 made 38 landings on a carrier with JPALS. Raytheon has tested JPALS for 40,000 hours over the development program so far.

The original concept was for JPALS to take the aircraft down to 200 feet in altitude before the pilot resumed control. Under the current program, Raytheon will develop the capability for the aircraft — piloted or unmanned — to be guided all the way to the deck.

“The goal here is that the pilots [are] going to have a huge increase in confidence knowing that they’re going to return from a mission regardless of conditions that they’re coming back into,” Delorge said.

Under the concept, a signal is broadcast to the aircraft from the ship when the aircraft is 200 nautical miles away. The aircraft logs into the JPALS system at the 60-nautical-mile mark and starts two-way communication with the ship, Maselli said. The ship is receiving GPS data and accounting for pitch and roll of the ship in the sea. The aircraft also is receiving GPS data and sending it to the ship, which calculates relative position. At the 10-nautical mile mark the data transmission speed becomes multiple updates per second, with more data as well.

The hardened JPALS has anti-jamming and anti-spoofing security features, Maselli said.

The original vision for JPALS including retrofitting the Navy’s carrier aircraft fleet, but the current program is limited to moving forward with the F-35 and the MQ-25 and any subsequent aircraft types, Maselli said...."

Source: http://seapowermagazine.org/stories/20161019-jpals.html

Re: F-35B catches fire

Unread postPosted: 24 Dec 2016, 21:07
by spazsinbad
:roll: :devil: This 'news' snippet is now 20 years old but hey don't apologise. :mrgreen: :doh:
Joint Strike Fighter PERSPECTIVES
July 1996 Mike Skaff, Pilot-Vehicle Interface [PVI]; Code One Magazine Vol. 11 No. 3

“...He [Mike Skaff] is also closely reviewing PVI issues related to specific services." In hover mode," says Skaff; "the pilot does not have much time to make the decision to eject. The Russians have used auto-eject systems successfully on their STOVL aircraft for several years. That system will make for a good JSF trade study. We are also looking at an auto approach and auto landing mode. This flight mode is nothing new for the Navy, but it has never earned its way onto an Air Force fighter...."

Source: http://www.codeonemagazine.com/images/C ... 8_7528.pdf