F-35 "brake problem" - 03 May 2007

[MKopack]

Of course they move asymetrically. But do they stay in that condition once the airplane is on the ground? Notice that they remain in the same asymetric attitude in the pictures of the aircraft on the ground. Also, had it been a problem with the brakes running hot, why was the aircraft not doused, which would have been SOP if there was any concern of ignition?

I can think of several possible scenarios which would cause the flight controls to remain asymmetrical after power down - most of which do not portend any real crisis.

Since you are obviously so up to speed on the SOP for hot brakes I'll humor you - and stand way back when you douse them. There are a LOT of maintainers here - anyone like to answer why you don't dump cold water on hot brakes, or should I?

Bottom line is, if the F-35 prototype has had a major malfunction, as is apparently the case, the public has a right to know, and it will know. LM public relaions will be getting a few phone calls, and they will provide answers. So far the mainstream media hasn't touched this, because obviously it is oblivious. But no more. Time to contact the AP...

No, the bottom line is, maybe you should contact an A&P, rather than the AP. Your knowledge doesn't seem to back up your suppositions/conspiracies. If you did more listening and less talking, you might just learn something here.

Mike

[checksixx]

Also, had it been a problem with the brakes running hot, why was the aircraft not doused, which would have been SOP if there was any concern of ignition?

Bottom line is, if the F-35 prototype has had a major malfunction, as is apparently the case, the public has a right to know, and it will know. LM public relaions will be getting a few phone calls, and they will provide answers. So far the mainstream media hasn't touched this, because obviously it is oblivious. But no more. Time to contact the AP...

SOP isn't just to hose down the aircraft or the brakes for that matter unless they're already producing flame. Normally the aircraft sits with the fire department until the brakes have had time to throughly cool, or the aircraft will be shut down and towed back to the ramp with a fire unit in tow. As far as having any problems with the aircraft...the public has absolutely no specific right to know anythng as they don't have a need to know. Any major issue that comes up...such as a major design flaw...wouldn't be kept secret anyways. But minor issues...no one has the need to know except the vender and the customer....Check

[viper1234]

Firecrews most definitely do NOT douse an aircraft with hot brakes unless there is a fire. Wheel fusible plugs will relieve tire pressure if it gets to high (can take longer than 15 minutes for the heat to propogate and the pressure to build) so as to avoid damaging hyd. lines and other equip. An asymetric condition is an emergency but it would be a bit early to to call it news worthy. It there is significant delay in the program due to a flaw that is discovered than you have a story. Jumping to conclusions will serve no one. You don't know what happened and since you don't have the full context of what happened you really shouldn't jump to conclusions to quickly. On the other hand I'd love to hear the response from the news service when you 'break' your story. Could be priceless.

[checksixx]

Damn viper...we must have been typing at the same time! LoL

[viper1234]

Idesof- I actually appreciate your desire for accountability. I think in this and in MANY other subjects your message is lost in the delivery.

[VPRGUY]

Accountability is of course a good thing. I think, however that what you're going to run into is most AP reporters going "Huh? Whats an F-..what did you call it? Something overheated? Are you talking about the fires in Florida and California?". And, most of the public will do the same thing. You will NOT get this on the front page of much of anything, no matter how hard you try. You may have good luck with defense and military related news publications, but that is about as far as it will go. An incident with the F-35, and most other airplanes that don't carry 400+ people, just isn't much of a concern to the general population.

[habu2]

Bottom line is, if the F-35 prototype has had a major malfunction, as is apparently the case, the public has a right to know, and it will know. LM public relaions will be getting a few phone calls, and they will provide answers. So far the mainstream media hasn't touched this, because obviously it is oblivious. But no more. Time to contact the AP...

This statement is wrong on so many levels, I don't know where to begin.

Not crass, slanted or alarmist, merely opportunistic. The media would be all over this, and it would bring exposure to the site. It is, in fact, a legitimate news story. Simply lay out the facts and let the chips fall where they may. Like it or not, this is the way journalism works. And in this case, the public certainly has a right to know. I think it would be both prudent and legitimate to do something with this story.

You assume the type of exposure this irresponsible speculation would bring to this site would be a good thing?

[parrothead]

By the way, the editors of this site should post a story ASAP and contact the major news organizations to report that the very $$$$$$ F-35 prototype suffered some sort of major failure. Will be picked up by all the major wire services such as AP and Reuters, and guaranteed to generate exposure to this site, such as, "The internet site F-16.net is reporting that the JSF prototype, part of the controversial $gazillion program, has suffered a major failure..." Let me know if you guys want to move on this because if you won't, I certainly will!

Something tells me that the editors and moderators aren't nearly so crass, slanted, or alarmist as to do something like that ...

Not crass, slanted or alarmist, merely opportunistic. The media would be all over this, and it would bring exposure to the site. It is, in fact, a legitimate news story. Simply lay out the facts and let the chips fall where they may. Like it or not, this is the way journalism works. And in this case, the public certainly has a right to know. I think it would be both prudent and legitimate to do something with this story.

I feel I must defend my earlier statement. I'll stand behind my assertion that the previous quote was crass, slanted, and alarmist.

Main Entry: crass
Pronunciation: 'kras
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin crassus thick, gross
1 a : GROSS 6a; especially : having or indicating such grossness of mind as precludes delicacy and discrimination
Source: Merriam-Webster

transitive verb
2 : to interpret or present in line with a special interest
Source: Merriam-Webster

Main Entry: alarm·ism
Pronunciation: &-'lär-"mi-z&m
Function: noun
: the often unwarranted exciting of fears or warning of danger
- alarm·ist /-mist/ noun or adjective
Source: Merriam-Webster

I have several reasons for my opinion. The main reason is that no details of the nature of the electrical problem have been publicly released. WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED OR HOW SERIOUS IT WAS. Therefore, there is no basis for the assertion that there was some sort of "major malfunction." Publishing a negative NEWS ARTICLE (bad news) based on an ASSUMPTION rather than fact would qualify as crass and alarmist. As many in this thread have stated, there could be any number of reasons for calling out the trucks and for the appearance of the flight controls.

I would also judge that your plan is slanted against the F-35 project. Why? Beacuse by running to every media outlet with a story based on assumptions and conjecture while trying to highlight the cost of a prototype of a high performance, state of the art military combat aircraft, you are clearly trying to draw NEGATIVE attention to the F-35 program.

A neutral article about the incident might read something like this:

The first prototype for the F-35 Lightning II fighter jet suffered an unknown malfunction while on a test flight. Unofficial information posted in a forum on the website F-16.net indicate that an electrical malfunction occured during the flight. Other statements in the same forum indicate that such problems are to be expected during testing and that test flights are normally ended early for what might be considered minor problems in an operational environment due to the high cost and low numbers of prototype aircraft. Emergency vehicles were called out to the runway as a precautionary measure.

The F-35 Lightning II is scheduled to replace aircraft such as the F-16 Viper and the AV-8 Harrier in several different nations' air forces. The F-35 program is a multinational effort which is valued at several billion US dollars.

F-16.net is already cited by many different news outlets including the United States Department of Defense and IMHO doesn't need to resort to sensationalizing an electrical malfunction which occured on a test flight of a prototype fighter jet less than 20 flights into its test program for the sake of momentary publicity.

F-16.net probably chose not to publish such an article because an electrical malfunction on a prototype aircraft just ain't newsworthy.

I'll agree that your statements were opportunistic. Ambulance chasing lawyers are also opportunistic...

[Roscoe]

As a career tester, I will say with confidence that test jets are often aborted when production jets would fly.

If I'm going up on an envelope expansion flight, I want my jet 100% working with 100% confidence.

[sferrin]

Accountability is of course a good thing. I think, however that what you're going to run into is most AP reporters going "Huh? Whats an F-..what did you call it? Something overheated? Are you talking about the fires in Florida and California?". And, most of the public will do the same thing. You will NOT get this on the front page of much of anything, no matter how hard you try. You may have good luck with defense and military related news publications, but that is about as far as it will go. An incident with the F-35, and most other airplanes that don't carry 400+ people, just isn't much of a concern to the general population.

Most likely he'd report his "story" and we'd see "$375 million dollar F-22 has major design flaw" by the time it was a headline.

[idesof]

Parrothead, I never suggested that anyone publish speculation, and even less so present speculation as fact. There is a vast difference between a news story and idle chatter on a message board. In fact, your try at a news story is pretty close to what I would, as an editor, want to see published myself.

The fact is that this development is newsworthy, if only because so much political attention is being devoted to the issue of funding for this program. If I were the editor of a news service and I was presented with this story, I would not hesitate to run it--just the facts as you stated them--because as a news editor I don't give a flying f*ck whether running the story is good or bad for the program. That's not my business. But I am in the business of journalism, and the currency of journalism is information. All I care about to determine is, is this a story that may interest my readers and do my readers have a right to know? The answer on both counts, regarding this specific issue, is yes. Should a news outlet contact LM and ask for comment regarding this incident? Certainly. Is LM or the USAF obligated to comment? Not at all. But they should be given the opportunity to explain themselves, if they so wish.

I understand that there are biases that affect how people on this board may react to this way of thinking--that is, there are people on this board who have a vested interest in this story never seeing the light of day--but that is not my concern.

I do not have a bias one way or another. Actually, I do--I think the F-35 is critically needed--but as a journalist, my opinion isn't worth a damn. The facts, however, are what counts, and we know what the facts are. The pictures alone are worth a thousand words.

[parrothead]

I never suggested that anyone publish speculation, and even less so present speculation as fact. There is a vast difference between a news story and idle chatter on a message board. In fact, your try at a news story is pretty close to what I would, as an editor, want to see published myself. The fact is that this development is newsworthy, if only because so much political attention is being devoted to the issue of funding for this program. If I were the editor of a news service and I was presented with this story, I would not hesitate to run it--just the facts as you stated them--because as a news editor I don't give a flying f*ck whether running the story is good or bad for the program. That's not my business. But I am in the business of journalism, and the currency of journalism is information. All I care about to determine is, is this a story that may interest my readers and do my readers have a right to know? The answer on both counts, regarding this specific issue, is yes. Should a news outlet contact LM and ask for comment regarding this incident? Certainly. Is LM or the USAF obligated to comment? Not at all. But they should be given the opportunity to explain themselves, if they so wish. I understand that there are biases that affect how people on this board may react to this way of thinking--that is, there are people on this board who have a vested interest in this story never seeing the light of day--but that is not my concern. I do not have a bias one way or another. Actually, I do--I think the F-35 is critically needed--but as a journalist, my opinion isn't worth a damn. The facts, however, are what counts, and we know what the facts are. The pictures alone are worth a thousand words.

I'm glad that what I wrote is what you would like to see as a news story - just the facts.

However, you did suggest that an article be published reporting a "major malfunction." That is pure speculation. Your previous posts show that you do not know how this aircraft functions, but you still wish to label this incident a "major malfunction" and that the press should publish it. Again, WE DO NOT KNOW FOR A FACT WHAT THE MALFUNCTION WAS so we have no way of knowing for a FACT that this was a MAJOR MALFUNCTION

Excellent catch. In the pictures first posted in this thread, I in fact noticed that the flaps, and especially the tailplanes, were in an asymetric position. The picture--awesome, by the way--of it coming in to land tells the story: the flying surfaces are totally asymetric. Looks like the pilot may have had a major electrical/hydraulic issue on at least one side, which in the F-35 presents an interesting issue, since the actuators are at least partially electrical rather than hydraulic. From the looks of it, whomever the pilot was seems to have done quite a job of saving the plane.

Of course they move asymetrically. But do they stay in that condition once the airplane is on the ground? Notice that they remain in the same asymetric attitude in the pictures of the aircraft on the ground.

Bottom line is, if the F-35 prototype has had a major malfunction, as is apparently the case, the public has a right to know, and it will know. LM public relaions will be getting a few phone calls, and they will provide answers. So far the mainstream media hasn't touched this, because obviously it is oblivious. But no more. Time to contact the AP...

By the way, the editors of this site should post a story ASAP and contact the major news organizations to report that the very $$$$$$ F-35 prototype suffered some sort of major failure.

You stated that this story is newsworthy if only because of the amount of political attention being devoted to the issue of funding for the F-35 program. By that reasoning it would seem that a string of successful test flights following succesful pre-flight tests (ie no leaks in the fuel barn) would also be newsworthy. In fact, each successful test flight should be newsworthy. I don't see you calling for all outlets to be alerted to these.

Should a news outlet contact LM and ask for comment regarding this incident? Certainly. Is LM or the USAF obligated to comment? Not at all. But they should be given the opportunity to explain themselves, if they so wish.

I whole heartedly agree with you on this one. I just hope that the contacts and responses be completed prior to the story being written.

I understand that there are biases that affect how people on this board may react to this way of thinking--that is, there are people on this board who have a vested interest in this story never seeing the light of day--but that is not my concern. I do not have a bias one way or another. Actually, I do--I think the F-35 is critically needed--but as a journalist, my opinion isn't worth a damn.

Well, I'm glad you acknowledge that as a journalist your opinion isn't worth much. There are people on this board who think that the F-35 is great. I just want the best that money can buy to put warheads on enemies' foreheads. Your stated opinion in this post is at odds with a previous post:

Our friend Raptor_claw sure is being silent about the whole thing, and conspicuously so. Maybe the thing is fried. Then maybe we can cancel this whole misbegotten, ugly-as-all-holy-hell POS and get some far more attractive F-16s instead!

This might be an attempt at humor, but it comes across more as gloating.

The facts, however, are what counts, and we know what the facts are. The pictures alone are worth a thousand words.

Yes, the facts are what count. I'll state again, we don't know what the facts are. You state that the pictures alone are worth a thousand words. The problem with that is that by your own admission, you have no idea what they show other than the emergency vehicles were called out. You don't know if the flight control surfaces staying in an asymmetric condition after shutdown is a normal condition. I don't know about that with regards to the F-35 either. I do know that the exhaust nozzle position on the two engines of an F-14 is normally different between the two engines. It has to do with which one loses power first if I recall correctly.

I'll sum it all up. By your own admission, you don't know if the pictures show any sort of abnormal positioning of the flight control surfaces. The only thing that the pictures show is an airplane with the canopy up on a runway with emergency vehicles around it. I've seen emergency vehicles called out at an airshow because a B-17 had a slight problem with one engine and the pilot had elected to shut the engine down. This was not a major malfunction - the pilot was being extra cautious with a rare aircraft and called the emergency vehicles out as a precaution.

Emergency vehicles being called out to an otherwise normal landing of a prototype aircraft on a flight test mission as a precaution does not indicate a major malfunction.

[VPRGUY]

The fact is that this development is newsworthy, if only because so much political attention is being devoted to the issue of funding for this program.

There hasn't been a thing mentioned about the F-35 on any news channel I've seen in months- well, with exception of the Pentagon channel. It hasn't even made it onto the little "ticker" at the bottom of the screen. But I'll humor you, and post a question:

Since so much political attention has been focused on this airplane, how come we haven't seen you so adamant about getting facts and figures about the, what, 16+ incredibly successful flights this aircraft has had? I haven't seen anything about DEMANDING information from LM about what speeds the F-35 achieved the first time the jet flew with "afterburner". Or anything about the first flights with the Helmet Mounted Display. Or even if the airplane has returned code 1 or code 2 on previous flights.

Since you are so adamant about publishing something that may possibly be negative, but you have no personal bias, why have you not been eager to publish the good stuff? Is it because good news doesn't sell? Or, are you just thrilled to have garbage to throw at an airplane you obviously don't like?

Then maybe we can cancel this whole misbegotten, ugly-as-all-holy-hell POS and get some far more attractive F-16s instead!

This really doesn't sound like anything an "unbiased" publisher or reporter would be caught dead saying. Suck it up and admit it: You, personally, HATE the F-35. Nothing would make you happier than to see it scrubbed. You were almost giddy with excitement at the possibility of a major problem. The possibility that this was just a minor glitch, or even just precautionary measures, flies in the face of your opinions, so you're just going to go on the attack because you're in a corner and can't think of any other action to take. Step up and be honest, and quit trying to hide behind your "Journalistic rights".

[habu2]

The facts, however, are what counts, and we know what the facts are. The pictures alone are worth a thousand words.

You don't know the facts, you are speculating. If you knew the facts you would not need to contact LM PR for answers.

Yes there is a photo of an aircraft with asymmetric surfaces. You are speculating this is an unplanned failure, you don't know that for a fact.

Here's a fact for you. Asymmetric surface conditions are practiced in the sim. Surfaces, actuators, and yes even brakes are intentionally "failed" to determine their effects on aircraft handling etc. The fact that the aircraft was observed landing successfully in this condition shows that system testing to determine handling qualities in asymmetric surface conditions was done successfully before being flown, and because of that the pilot landed the aircraft safely rather than spun into a smoking hole in the ground. My point is, there is just as much chance this was a planned test as there is it was an unplanned failure. More relevent to this thread, YOU don't know for a fact whether it was planned or not, and claiming your speculations as fact is irresponsible.

Flameouts and deadstick landings are tested in the sim, and will be tested in the air. Is that a failure?

Along with journalistic duties and freedom of speech comes a great deal of responsibility and the forethought to consider the consequences of your actions. I suggest you remember that next time.

[habu2]

idesof, let's look at this from another point of view. When the YF-16 had it's famous "first flight" (Flight "0") did the media scream about a major malfunction on a new program? No, instead they wrote about the skill and courage with which the pilot handled the situation and saved the aircraft. And the famous "belly landing" of the second YF-16 at Carswell, did the media scream about another major malfunction on a new program? No, instead they wrote about the skill and courage with which the pilot handled the situation and saved the aircraft.

Another example a bit closer to home: when Gums landed that early A model with the right LEF jammed straight up, did the community scream about another major malfunction on a new jet? No, instead they wrote about the skill and courage with which he handled the situation and saved the aircraft.

To make my point here, let's assume (not speculate) that this was indeed a malfunction that placed the first F-35 (and pilot) is serious danger. How about we show some respect and recognition for the F-35 pilot whose skills, abilities and courage permitted him to save the aircraft with no more damage than overheated brakes? Or does it sell more papers when you sling mud instead of praise?

My, how times have changed.