Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

Any additional details on this?

http://www.newsherald.com/articles/tyndall-103215-mishap-probes.html

TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE — The Air Force is not calling a “ground incident” involving an F-22 Raptor last week a “crash.”

The F-22 was in a “touch-and-go” practice session at about 5 p.m. Thursday when it was put out of commission. The “ground incident” put the plane on the sidelines and benched the pilot, officials said.

“Everything around this is in freeze frame right now,” said Herman Bell, chief of Tyndall’s 325th Fighter Wing Public Affairs.

Base officials would not comment on how the plane made contact with the ground, nor would base officials give any indication of whether the “incident” was mechanical or pilot error. The pilot was not injured in the incident.

“It is all under investigation,” Bell said.

Bell said the pilot had been flying F-16s and had little experience with the F-22. “It was his second flight in the F-22,” he said.

(Left out Hypoxia and cost sensationalist reporting)

F-16.net Sponsor

Rookie mistake I presume, perhaps dragged the tail on the touch-and-goes.

Shrug. Nobody's hurt, the aircraft can almost certainly be returned to service after some skin and possible structural reworking.

Benched?

Another OBOGS incident?

I know it sounds like a high schooler wrote it for his school paper. I'm just curious as to what the details are. Damage during touch and goes could be a wingtip-runway strike, TV nozzle scraping, or to fast a decent rate damaging the landing gear.

If this was a planned touch-and-go, that's something relatively new in the single-seat business.

At the time I checked out in the A-7 there were no 2-seaters, and with the F-105, the 2-seater was not usable for transition training because of forward visibility limitations in the back seat...there was none. (It was, for this reason however, excellent for instrument checks)

So first (& second, actually ALL) transition flights in the A-7 & F-105 were in a single seater with an IP chase and all approach practice was flown to low (actually very low) approaches only until the final full stop landing.

F-100, F-4, F-16 & others of course (& eventually the A-7K) regularly did touch & goes throughout transition training & IP backseat landing training, but only with a qualified IP on board in one or the other seat. Planned T&G's were not allowed at any time in the single seaters, back then.

I wonder if this was really a 'planned' T&G... Shocked

(I got benched once in Little League)

Forgot to lower the landing gear? Doh

outlaw162 wrote:

If this was a planned touch-and-go, that's something relatively new in the single-seat business.

At the time I checked out in the A-7 there were no 2-seaters, and with the F-105, the 2-seater was not usable for transition training because of forward visibility limitations in the back seat...there was none. (It was, for this reason however, excellent for instrument checks)

So first (& second, actually ALL) transition flights in the A-7 & F-105 were in a single seater with an IP chase and all approach practice was flown to low (actually very low) approaches only until the final full stop landing.

F-100, F-4, F-16 & others of course (& eventually the A-7K) regularly did touch & goes throughout transition training & IP backseat landing training, but only with a qualified IP on board in one or the other seat. Planned T&G's were not allowed at any time in the single seaters, back then.

I wonder if this was really a 'planned' T&G... Shocked

(I got benched once in Little League)

I'm no pilot, but I've read several accounts of lots&lots of touch and go training done by single-seat Navy Hornets. IIRC though, the Air Force doesn't do T&Gs that often in training as of now.

Perhaps he was training to land on a carrier deck? Laughing

firstimpulse;

I think you're right about the USN.

I should have said USAF single-seat business.

The Navy does what's called FCLP's (field carrier landing practice). Navy's weird (port, starboard, mizzenmast, etc.) Very Happy

Outlaw: what was the main reason why y'all did not do touch-and-go's back when you were active?

Additionally, there is probably a sortie or two in the Student Syllabus where they get some landings. The other fighter syllabi have those type of sorties.

huggy wrote:

Outlaw: what was the main reason why y'all did not do touch-and-go's back when you were active?

Additionally, there is probably a sortie or two in the Student Syllabus where they get some landings. The other fighter syllabi have those type of sorties.

We still do not do touch and go's in single seat fighters in the USAF (can't speak to the F-22). The reason is mostly due to wear on the tires. They are expensive and can reach their wear limit rather quickly, especially if you are doing touch and gos. Additionally, there is very limited training one would get once they get to that point in the game.

Quote:

Outlaw: what was the main reason why y'all did not do touch-and-go's back when you were active?

I did plenty of T&G's as an IP in the backseat of the F-100, F-4 & F-16. Very Happy

Just never did 'em in the single-seat model.

The A-7 didn't have a 2-seater when I flew it, and the F-105 backseat was like sitting in a cave with a blindfold on.

I don't know why USAF did not permit them then, Magnum may certainly be correct, although since the engine(s) were being cycled from idle to mil while a lot of dynamic things were occurring, it was possibly a good idea to have someone (the IP) make sure everything was fine. I aborted a T&G once for an engine anomaly in an F-100F with a "B" course student. He didn't have a clue as to what was happening.

But I don't know for sure why this policy was in effect, I just followed orders. Very Happy

edit: (I guess wthat's why I'm surprised if they do them now in the F-22)

Here's what I could find for guidance on F-22 touch-and-go landings. Maybe there's more somewhere else.

From AFI11-2F-22AV3:
3.24.1. Fly touch-and-go landings IAW AFI 11-202 Volume 3, as supplemented by MAJCOM. Multiple touch-and-go landings may be flown to regain landing currency.
3.24.2. Do not fly touch-and-go landings with hung ordnance, live external ordnance, or
with fuel remaining in any external tank.

From AFI11-202V3:
5.18.1. MAJCOMs must authorize touch-and-go landings for command-operated aircraft. The authorization will include explicit guidance on operating conditions and qualifications.
5.18.2. Touch-and-go landings are authorized if required by courses listed in the Air Force Education Training Course Announcement (ETCA) database
(https://etca.randolph.af.mil/).

From AFI11-202V3_ACCSUP_I:
5.18. Touch-and-Go Landings.
5.18.1. MAJCOMs must authorize touch-and-go landings for command-operated aircraft.
The authorization will include explicit guidance on operating conditions and qualifications.
5.18.1. (ACC) ACC aircraft or aircraft under ACC oversight may perform touch-and-go
landings. See appropriate AFI 11-2 MDS-Specific series for restrictions, limitations and
procedures along with the following guidance:
5.18.1.1. (Added-ACC) Dual controlled fighter/attack aircraft must have an IP/Flight
Examiner pilot on board and the sortie must be an approved syllabus/requalification
training flight.
5.18.1.2. (Added-ACC) Dual controlled non-fighter/attack aircraft must have an IP,
flight examiner pilot or aircraft commander occupying one set of the flight controls.
5.18.1.3. (Added-ACC) Two-seat fighter/attack aircraft part of a Formal Training Unit
(FTU) may execute touch-and-go landing demonstrations if they are required by an
approved FTU upgrade syllabus and have an IP in the front cockpit.
5.18.2. Touch-and-go landings are authorized if required by courses listed in the Air Force Education Training Course Announcement (ETCA) database
(https://etca.randolph.af.mil/).

See http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/shared/media/epubs/AFI11-2F-22AV3.pdf and http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/shared/media/epubs/AFI11-202V3.pdf and http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/shared/media/epubs/AFI11-202V3_ACCSUP_I.pdf

It's not just the tires that get wear and tear in landings. The gear structure and attach structure is primarily designed by durability requirements. That means the structure is designed for a certain number of takeoffs, taxi, turning, braking events, extend/retract, towing operations, and landings, all at a variety of speeds, gross weights, and sink rates. That is called a design usage spectrum. The design spectrum for trainer aircraft has many more takeoffs and landings and higher sink rates than for fighter airplanes for obvious reasons.

Normally the actual operating spectrum is fairly close to the design spectrum for landing gear. If that is true, the gear should last the design life of the airplane. If too many T&G are made, there is a risk of premature gear replacement or failure. Like the rest of the airframe, actual gear usage spectrum is tracked for fleet airplanes. If the actual usage becomes more severe than the design usage, shorter inspection intervals are used help preserve the integrity of the gear.

So there is a good reason not to do unnecessary T&G.

Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

Raptor scraped up at Tyndall