Inadvertent Jettison of an F-16D Canopy

Discussions about F-16.net news articles. A topic is created automatically whenever someone posts a comment in the F-16 News section.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

NewsBot

F-16.net Moderator

F-16.net Moderator

  • Posts: 334
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2005, 21:20

Unread post11 Jan 2005, 00:33

This is a discussion topic for the F-16.net news article: "<a href="news_article966.html" target="_top">Inadvertent Jettison of an F-16D Canopy</A>". You can read the <a href="index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=2003.html" target="_top">full forum discussion</A> in the F-16.net forum.
Offline

NewsBot

F-16.net Moderator

F-16.net Moderator

  • Posts: 334
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2005, 21:20

Unread post11 Jan 2005, 00:33

Aircraft 83-1184, block 25---wouldn't that make it a "D" model? The site shows 83-1118 as being the first "C" model. I work on A/B ADFs, man would we like to have 83 models right about now!!!
Offline

NewsBot

F-16.net Moderator

F-16.net Moderator

  • Posts: 334
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2005, 21:20

Unread post11 Jan 2005, 00:33

Right, it is not a B but a D. Corrected now.
Offline

NewsBot

F-16.net Moderator

F-16.net Moderator

  • Posts: 334
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2005, 21:20

Unread post11 Jan 2005, 00:34

83-174 was the first D model produced..still flying at Luke i believe..took a ride in it at McConnell in 93...same plane also flew our late Ks govenor Finney with the unit co. had her name on the rail for a while...gee they didnt put mine on...better give me another ride to make it up...sounds good to me

c watson
Offline

NewsBot

F-16.net Moderator

F-16.net Moderator

  • Posts: 334
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2005, 21:20

Unread post11 Jan 2005, 00:34

C Watson huh? How goes the Doc business? I remember 1184 as a rotten bomber, along with the entire 11XX series.

Check 6, Lazer
Offline

NewsBot

F-16.net Moderator

F-16.net Moderator

  • Posts: 334
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2005, 21:20

Unread post11 Jan 2005, 00:34

3184 is my jet right now. Has been for three years. We are still rebuilding the jet to this day. It has been down for 85 days now. We tried to FCF it two weeks ago but GAB (ground abort) for traped fuel and flight controls. We are still working the flight controls wireing problem. And it is an F-16D.
Offline

NewsBot

F-16.net Moderator

F-16.net Moderator

  • Posts: 334
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2005, 21:20

Unread post11 Jan 2005, 00:34

Yes it is the first f-16D. Yes it is in the 62AMU. It is the biggest POS on the ramp. As for your name on the canopy, if you are not the Crew Chief or the Pilot forget about it. Its a pride thing. You work it twelve hours a day and six days a week and we will talk. MAC
Offline

NewsBot

F-16.net Moderator

F-16.net Moderator

  • Posts: 334
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2005, 21:20

Unread post11 Jan 2005, 00:34

Rotten bomber?? It won the Turkey shot for the 62nd AMU in 2003!!
Offline

NewsBot

F-16.net Moderator

F-16.net Moderator

  • Posts: 334
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2005, 21:20

Unread post11 Jan 2005, 00:34

I was in my squadron when all that happened, I'm on the other side of the ramp, when 2 airmen came inside saying something happened, cause they heard like a shotgun blast pretty close, and then they saw the smoke coming out of somewhere in the 62 AMU. The story behind it, is that one Dumb Staff Sargeant pulled the wrong handle while doing an Alternate Landing Gear Ops Check. I say he is an idiot because there is NO WAY you can confuse both handles, they are in different places, and the Canopy jettison handle has a safety pin, which he had to remove, and also, two buttons on the sides which you have to press in order to pull the handle. Besides, the Handle with stripes or black and yellow is bigger than the Alternate landing gear handle and also it has clearly etched on it: CANOPY JETTISON. Even an Airman basic knows this stuff, How dumb can you be???? Thanks to this, everyone had to go to the Egress Initial training, instead of the Egress Refresher. Egress refresher is only 15 min. The initial is like 3 hours of a very boring video showing us what these handles are for, but apparently, someone didnt go through this class or just didnt pay attention. Anyways, I'll just add a quote that resembles this incident: "Men accomplish great things every day and are forgotten the next one... But everyone remembers the idiot"
Offline

NewsBot

F-16.net Moderator

F-16.net Moderator

  • Posts: 334
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2005, 21:20

Unread post11 Jan 2005, 00:35

Trust me bro, I work on 83's, 84's, and 85's, including 83-1184, and they aren't as easy as you'd think. These block 25s are aweful.
Offline

f16crewchief03

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 30
  • Joined: 20 Jun 2006, 00:44

Unread post14 Sep 2006, 19:39

I crewed some of the 83's,84's, and 85's of Luke to include 83-1184 and I agree, they aren't easy ACFT to maintain. I now crew the 89's and 90's of Eielson and soon to crew the block 30 aggressors that will start coming in during the summer of 2007. The block 25's of luke are old and are HUGE POS's!! The individual that was mentioned above was/is a huge idiot. He is no longer in the AF. I've seen some of the pictures and it wasn't pretty.
Offline

blain2

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 67
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2005, 16:52

Unread post14 Sep 2006, 19:44

Guys sorry for a lame question, but on the same topic, if you all recall the scene in TopGun where our two studs eject and goose ends up hitting the canopy at ejection, how likely is that to happen? I am sure it is a possibility but how likely or risky is that sort of a situation?
Offline

Meathook

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3304
  • Joined: 13 May 2004, 23:37

Unread post14 Sep 2006, 19:51

Even in a flat spin, I think the likelihood of such an event is rare to say the least (if that situation could even exist where the canopy could not be pushed away), the squids firing would propel the canopy aft and away from the aircraft (in flight, the airstream helps pull it away).

Even if a negative vacuum was to exist, I feel the canopy would still go backwards enough to launch the crew out safely, I bet money this was tested before production began.

I find it very hard to believe that the canopy would not have moved away from the aircraft allowing a safe ejection, least not in an F16...hard for me to believe that one (Hollywood or not). Even on the ground, I saw one go off, the canopy was blown back towards the vertical stab, away from the aircraft and the jet was on the ground chocked.
Offline

blain2

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 67
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2005, 16:52

Unread post14 Sep 2006, 20:00

"Even on the ground, I saw one go off, the canopy was blown back towards the vertical stab, away from the aircraft and the jet was on the ground chocked."

Is that possible due to the directional (aft) firing of the canopy ejection mechanism or due to the wind etc? Can't really see wind doing that on a parked aircraft.
Offline

Meathook

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3304
  • Joined: 13 May 2004, 23:37

Unread post14 Sep 2006, 20:01

Makes sense to me......could be but I am not egress expert (technician type)...but it does blow away from the aircraft, I do know that much
More than likely have "been there and done that at some point", it sure keeps you young if done correctly
Next

Return to F-16 News

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest