JASDF F-35A crashed

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

inst

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 110
  • Joined: 04 Jul 2015, 01:58

Unread post29 Sep 2019, 07:50

Transition course flight hours are either unavailable or difficult to find for the JASDF.

However, I will mention:

https://www.defensenews.com/digital-sho ... onal-unit/

The time of training is 18 months in this case, although it's probably referring to multiple pilots sharing the fighter.

https://www.944fw.afrc.af.mil/News/Arti ... 5-program/

This article quotes 7 months.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23308
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post29 Sep 2019, 09:18

Thanks for going to the trouble to find those 'training' articles. The '18 months' is for the TRAINING F-35A AIRCRAFT - not pilots. ["... The Japanese F-35s [aircraft] spent 18 months training at Luke AFB before returning earlier this year to Misawa...." ]While I will guess SEVEN MONTHS is for 'training the trainers' who will train pilots in Japan and to have a cadre of relatively experienced F-35A pilots initially. Various country reports about similar 'training the trainers' appear in various country threads. Australia with the RAAF F-35As in one such example - links could be provided if required. The second article above makes the intention clear:
"[2017]...said Col. Kurt Gallegos, 944 FW commander. “I am confident these pilots will take back what they have learned here and effectively stand up their own program making an impact.” The two pilots will take part in establishing Japan’s first F-35A squadron enhancing their national defense abilities...." https://www.944fw.afrc.af.mil/News/Arti ... 5-program/

In 2018 FIVE locally trained Japanese pilots graduated according to the first URL cited above. Relatively speaking because of language issues (I'm understanding that ALL Japanese military pilots speak/understand excellent English) it is Japanese written articles and then translated (usually poorly) by Google Translate for example it can be difficult to get good info.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

inst

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 110
  • Joined: 04 Jul 2015, 01:58

Unread post02 Oct 2019, 00:28

The odd thing is that 60 flight hours seems to map to a 7 month transition course. This is implying that the Japanese pilot, for his first flight after certification, was chosen to lead a night training mission.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23308
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post02 Oct 2019, 04:01

Methinks you read too much into this story. What is your background in aviation to make such a claim above please. Sixty hours may or may not include simulator time which is often quoted as 50%. Then to guess - if ONLY 60 hours flight time - that MAY IMPLY - 60 hours simulator time (which is very realistic according to all reports & is relied upon in F-35 training).

You cannot forget the three thousand hours of fast jet time beforehand. This is a VERY SIGNIFICANT total time in this age.

Then to get back to SD. Every pilot is subject to this phenomena no matter their total experience day/night. This is clear in the medical reports often gleaned from military fast jet accident reports. EVERY pilot will encounter SD at some stage, as has been made clear often it may be unrecognised initially, until it is, so that correct recovery actions may be taken.

Sometimes there is no time to recover and a crash ensues. This seems to have happened here OR the pilot was somehow medically incapacitated by stroke/heart attack perhaps. This is where the accident report with a clear diagram of the flight path of the aircraft becomes important. Point a fast jet at the surface & woe betide any inattention to what follows.

As one may see the jet accelerated rapidly (DOH!) and if unrecognised along with SD then no time &/or space to recover.

It may be postulated that the pilot was distracted, with inattention to dive angle/attitude and speed. A sad event indeed.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23308
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post03 Oct 2019, 09:37

Nugget USAF F-35A training statistics flight hours, ground school & simulator time mentioned in this USAF video from LM.

F-35 Initial Qualification https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIu1sfAhulo

A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23308
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post03 Oct 2019, 11:55

F-35A Initial Qual, Days Ground School, Flight & Simulator Hours https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNM_oIOdb5M

Course 141 days - 300+ hours academic training - 70-80 hours FMS [simulator] time & 80+ hours flying time

Attachments

Wolfmother - Joker & the Thief MUSIC ONLY 2min37sec LOq.mp4 [ 8.43 MiB | Viewed 1826 times ]

A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

inst

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 110
  • Joined: 04 Jul 2015, 01:58

Unread post04 Oct 2019, 19:48

I used transition training instead of Initial Qualification since it's closer to oranges-to-oranges. Initial Qualification courses are basically skeet shooting if you pretend they're oranges-to-oranges; i.e, the hours clearly exceed the 60 flight hours in the F-35 this pilot had. And transition training isn't initial qualification because the pilot already knows how to fly.

I'd also point out that SD is when biological inertia sensors fail to match instrument inertia sensors, and the pilot trusts the wrong source. How much sustained acceleration can a simulator simulate? So you could see this accident as relying too much on simulators.

TBH, I'll leave this at that. My angle is more to put the JASDF's competence into question; it's the peacetime army of a country with a high reputation for professionalism, quality, and warfighting. Given recent scandals in Japan, I'd think the JASDF is overrated by some people. While the notion of the JASDF being trash, I think, is unwarranted, when you boost a nation's capability too much, you're likely to overshoot the reality and overstate capabilities. But that's a subject for another thread.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23308
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post04 Oct 2019, 20:19

inst wrote:I used transition training instead of Initial Qualification since it's closer to oranges-to-oranges. Initial Qualification courses are basically skeet shooting if you pretend they're oranges-to-oranges; i.e, the hours clearly exceed the 60 flight hours in the F-35 this pilot had. And transition training isn't initial qualification because the pilot already knows how to fly. I'd also point out that SD is when biological inertia sensors fail to match instrument inertia sensors, and the pilot trusts the wrong source. How much sustained acceleration can a simulator simulate? So you could see this accident as relying too much on simulators. TBH, I'll leave this at that. My angle is more to put the JASDF's competence into question;....

Because you had not been forthcoming about what you were 'on about' I could only guess thus providing some information of my own choosing. Now that I know the reason for your opinion (and lack of answers to my questions) I can see you have very little understanding/knowledge about this accident and the accident report itself and the nature of pilot spatial D.

SD has no favourites, any pilot - especially at night - may experience SD. This point is clear in the documentation & comments/quotes provided in posts in this thread. IF the SD is unrecognised the aircrew/aircraft is in extreme jeopardy. Sadly we can only really speculate as to the actual pilot circumstances - given the sparse facts known from the accident report - however the flight path is known which seems to indicate 'unrecognised SD' leading up to the crash with perhaps any late recognition of the SD by the pilot then not giving him any time/space for recovery from same.

"...How much sustained acceleration can a simulator simulate?..." The FMS full mission simulator does not move the pilot however you would be surprised at how much the pilot will move in such a fixed simulator because that pilot brings his own flying experience (even if not in that particular aircraft) to the simulation. (I was shocked in the early days of desk-top computer flightsims how I would move when flying - I'm old enough never to have been in a military jet simulator though.)

The FMS has known limitations however it is so good by all reports that realistic training is ongoing in said simulator. I would not know - and neither would you - if any SD situations are simulated (or can be simulated) deliberately in the FMS. I will guess that the accident flight profile has been simulated to the nth degree in an attempt to understand the accident circumstances as best as possible. There will always be a degree of speculation when the pilot does not survive to clarify details and actions taken. An example of the backseater of an USMC aircrew surviving an otherwise fatal collision for others with an USMC C-130J tanker at night is one example: viewtopic.php?f=47&t=54714&p=427426&hilit=HTML#p427426

"...So you could see this accident as relying too much on simulators...." It seems an unfounded proposition from you.

"... My angle is more to put the JASDF's competence into question..." And there we have it. Got any evidence please.

Also you seem to have no comprehension of what 3,000 hours of previous miljet flying competence/understanding brings to a new F-35 pilot during the transition. We have quotes from an F-35 (test?) pilot about having to adjust to the HMDS (IIRC he said it took him 50 hours but he would never go back to an ordinary HUD). However one may speculate from other quotes about HMDS that the transition is 'easy enough'. Without accident pilot to say one may only guess - again. Even though the HMDS is 'weirdly' simulated in the FMS it seems to be good enough and fit for purpose.

Notice at the end 5min 36sec how the FMS pilot moves during turn... I'll guess he provides his earlier flying experience.

F-35 Pilot Desk & FMS Full Mission Simulator Training https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zcc2zmTHgxo


______________________________________________________

Short but sweet version: The US Air Force's F-35 simulator is awesome and I want one for my house
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHkpfc4gGX8

A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

outlaw162

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1310
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2008, 02:33

Unread post04 Oct 2019, 22:55

Classically, from the F-100, F-105, F-4 to the F-16A, what was called a 'simulator' was really nothing more than a procedural trainer, although some like the A-7D had a primitive visual display (Rediffusion? I believe) that could make you physically nauseous from the display latency.

The TAC Aces Air Combat Simulator at Luke was a reasonable step forward, with cockpits that moved on tracks (similar to that F-35 sim) into a dome display with a primitive, but 3D visual display, and inflatable G-seats and active G-suits. Effective for fighting against the other cockpit, but not much else. You'd be sweating when you got out.

The HRL F-16 simulator at Williams in the 80s, was a stationery cockpit in a big room with a pretty good motion dome ceiling display along the lines of a planetarium projector. It had a G-seat and active G-suit and was primarily used for pitch hang-up recovery training but was not bad for any motion event.....acro, approaches, landings, etc.

30+ years later, using similar technology to that associated with highly regulated and frequently evaluated for realism Level-D airliner/mil heavy simulators, I can imagine how highly effective that F-35 sim can be for a slew of different taskings. Looks fantastic and I'm guessing it also has an active G-suit, which can leave you sweating after a session.

It's a brave new world, but one thing will always be missing from simulators......fear.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23308
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post05 Oct 2019, 01:51

Agree on the lack of fear factor for any simulator (and they are getting airborne now with LVC & soon AI with augmented reality I read about). My experience is limited to a desktop flight sim but in the end they disappoint with improvements to come I guess with BIGGER SCREENS & better resolution, fast frames rates so one can see the ball at half a mile for OK 2.

LCDR 'Dusty' King RAN FAA A4G pilot talks about FEAR inflight https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6z1VuNZCIQ

Last edited by spazsinbad on 05 Oct 2019, 02:19, edited 1 time in total.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

inst

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 110
  • Joined: 04 Jul 2015, 01:58

Unread post05 Oct 2019, 01:58

spazsinbad wrote:
inst wrote:I used transition training instead of Initial Qualification since it's closer to oranges-to-oranges. Initial Qualification courses are basically skeet shooting if you pretend they're oranges-to-oranges; i.e, the hours clearly exceed the 60 flight hours in the F-35 this pilot had. And transition training isn't initial qualification because the pilot already knows how to fly. I'd also point out that SD is when biological inertia sensors fail to match instrument inertia sensors, and the pilot trusts the wrong source. How much sustained acceleration can a simulator simulate? So you could see this accident as relying too much on simulators. TBH, I'll leave this at that. My angle is more to put the JASDF's competence into question;....

Because you had not been forthcoming about what you were 'on about' I could only guess thus providing some information of my own choosing. Now that I know the reason for your opinion (and lack of answers to my questions) I can see you have very little understanding/knowledge about this accident and the accident report itself and the nature of pilot spatial D.

SD has no favourites, any pilot - especially at night - may experience SD. This point is clear in the documentation & comments/quotes provided in posts in this thread. IF the SD is unrecognised the aircrew/aircraft is in extreme jeopardy. Sadly we can only really speculate as to the actual pilot circumstances - given the sparse facts known from the accident report - however the flight path is known which seems to indicate 'unrecognised SD' leading up to the crash with perhaps any late recognition of the SD by the pilot then not giving him any time/space for recovery from same.

"...How much sustained acceleration can a simulator simulate?..." The FMS full mission simulator does not move the pilot however you would be surprised at how much the pilot will move in such a fixed simulator because that pilot brings his own flying experience (even if not in that particular aircraft) to the simulation. (I was shocked in the early days of desk-top computer flightsims how I would move when flying - I'm old enough never to have been in a military jet simulator though.)

The FMS has known limitations however it is so good by all reports that realistic training is ongoing in said simulator. I would not know - and neither would you - if any SD situations are simulated (or can be simulated) deliberately in the FMS. I will guess that the accident flight profile has been simulated to the nth degree in an attempt to understand the accident circumstances as best as possible. There will always be a degree of speculation when the pilot does not survive to clarify details and actions taken. An example of the backseater of an USMC aircrew surviving an otherwise fatal collision for others with an USMC C-130J tanker at night is one example: viewtopic.php?f=47&t=54714&p=427426&hilit=HTML#p427426

"...So you could see this accident as relying too much on simulators...." It seems an unfounded proposition from you.

"... My angle is more to put the JASDF's competence into question..." And there we have it. Got any evidence please.

Also you seem to have no comprehension of what 3,000 hours of previous miljet flying competence/understanding brings to a new F-35 pilot during the transition. We have quotes from an F-35 (test?) pilot about having to adjust to the HMDS (IIRC he said it took him 50 hours but he would never go back to an ordinary HUD). However one may speculate from other quotes about HMDS that the transition is 'easy enough'. Without accident pilot to say one may only guess - again. Even though the HMDS is 'weirdly' simulated in the FMS it seems to be good enough and fit for purpose.

Notice at the end 5min 36sec how the FMS pilot moves during turn... I'll guess he provides his earlier flying experience.

F-35 Pilot Desk & FMS Full Mission Simulator Training https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zcc2zmTHgxo


______________________________________________________

Short but sweet version: The US Air Force's F-35 simulator is awesome and I want one for my house
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHkpfc4gGX8



===

Put another way, the JASDF increased SD training afterwards. So is this a "duck and cover" maneuver like they taught in the 1950s in the event of a nuclear war?

I'm familiar with SD in the terms of the JFK Jr. crash, but in that event, JFK Jr. wasn't instrument-rated. From the descriptions online, some forms of SD are recoverable, some forms are not. There's always going to be a risk, but skilled and trained pilots have less risk.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23308
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post05 Oct 2019, 02:26

'inst' said above: "Put another way, the JASDF increased SD training afterwards. So is this a "duck and cover" maneuver like they taught in the 1950s in the event of a nuclear war? I'm familiar with SD in the terms of the JFK Jr. crash, but in that event, JFK Jr. wasn't instrument-rated. From the descriptions online, some forms of SD are recoverable, some forms are not. There's always going to be a risk, but skilled and trained pilots have less risk."

Not unreasonable to increase training for SD given the recent accident - note that was not done in secret either. How 'duck & cover' gets into this discussion I'm flabbergasted - please explain - I was a school kid when this advice was in vogue with a partly demolished air raid shelter in my playground (being about nine years old I thought it might be OK).

Now we go really off the reservation with a non-instrument rated pilot suffering SD in cloud? in a single engine prop A/C?

Yes for sure skilled pilots have less risk to recover from RECOGNISED SD - however if the SD is unrecognised then chances for recovery are slim - depending on other flight conditions, altitude/airspeed/flight attitude - when recovery initiated.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

Gamera

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 877
  • Joined: 23 May 2005, 07:54

Unread post05 Oct 2019, 10:19

I'm also a civilian chickenhawk.
Personally, I've no problem with playing flight sims and first-person RPGs, unlike a friend or two who threw up the first time they played, say, Ultima Underworld I.
But in real world, I don't play roller coasters.
A decade or so ago, I was tricked into riding a roller coaster that friends said was mild (by their standard).
After a turn or two, I began to feel uncomfortable, and closed my eyes, but by inertia and jerking directions, I knew I was turning left or right, or up or down.
I kept thinking whether I could retrieve a plastic bag in the sack on my back, or not...
Fortunately, I hadn't thrown up when the ride ended.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23308
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post05 Oct 2019, 10:50

I think there is a misunderstanding about what I have said about desktop computer flightsims (especially the early days). Having been an A4G Skyhawk pilot (late 1960s-early 1970s) in the RAN FAA (Royal Australian Navy Fleet Air Arm) as well as flying older fast jets in that world, I had ample experience of fast jet ops to bring to any 'flight simulation - non-moving'. I was surprised by how I invested that prior experience into the simulation, especially of all things a simple wire frame DOS simulation that was very realistic. Obviously I was generating any sensation, the sim was just helping me do that.

When in the real world suffering any form of SD it is always best to have ones eyes OPEN to see the horizon to remain orientated. Closing ones eyes is the worst. Similarly aboard a ship if one can be on deck looking at the horizon and allowing the ship to move under ones feet - that is the best strategy. If one has flight experience I hope it is clear that the horizon is the key whilst at night / in cloud the artificial horizon is necessary to remain orientated.

However I have had enough experience taking back seat passengers in dual/tandem jet aircraft who have not had any prior flight experience to hear/see them throw up even during very mild maneuvers. (We would NEVER take them on any harsh maneuvering flights.) To ease their discomfort we would return to land ASAP using - again - mild maneuvers.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

rheonomic

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 666
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 03:44

Unread post05 Oct 2019, 23:10

Simulator fidelity is actually kind of interesting. If you do motion base you really have to get it right, because otherwise there's a disconnect between what you see, what you feel, and what you've experienced. So, in many cases a fixed-base desktop simulator is better than a motion-base simulator unless the latter is particularly high fidelity.
"You could do that, but it would be wrong."
PreviousNext

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 3 guests