Fire damages F-35A

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

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 25431
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post09 Jun 2015, 08:28

'ruderamronbo' said this on previous page:
"Awkward having to thank the Navy for posting the full report. The boat folks really do need to follow the example (ignoring the fact that Acrobat exists) of how the how the AF does these reports. Try reading this Navy report written by some JAG Officer and compare the two."

Not following whatever you are saying here - please explain. Thanks.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

ruderamronbo

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 321
  • Joined: 07 Jan 2005, 23:36
  • Location: Wright Patterson

Unread post09 Jun 2015, 21:16

spazsinbad wrote:'ruderamronbo' said this on previous page:
"Awkward having to thank the Navy for posting the full report. The boat folks really do need to follow the example (ignoring the fact that Acrobat exists) of how the how the AF does these reports. Try reading this Navy report written by some JAG Officer and compare the two."

Not following whatever you are saying here - please explain. Thanks.


My point is the vast difference who conducts the investigation, subject matter experts versus a lawyer and the structure of the reports produced by each. I think many would agree that investigations of technical matters are best conducted by those who know and understand the subject matter--the Space Shuttle accident boards were staffed by SMEs, not lawyers. The Navy approach removes that direct expertise from their process, presumably they are consulted. The format of both reports couldn't be more different. Having read dozens of Air Force reports and numerous Navy reports, the AF ones are more readable, consistent in content, and arguably understandable. I read one Canadian (or British) Helicopter accident report and it followed the AF model much more although it was extremely long and often repetitive.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 25431
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post09 Jun 2015, 21:47

OK - thanks for explanation. I have not read enough (any really except one or two from either service) accident reports to compare. However I would suggest that similar USAF / USN accidents should be a basis for comparison. Comparing a non-fatal ground accident, when aircraft and recorders remain intact, with a fatal aircraft collision at sea, when both aircraft lost and surviving pilot not responsible for collision (so nothing much to say) seems a bit difficult.

Whether this is true or not I have been told earlier, regarding other USN accidents, that the accident reports are not usually released to the public - therefore NOT prepared for the public to read; whereas USAF reports - made available to public - are prepared for same. Perhaps those with more knowledge of such matters will comment about it.

I think this story from the NYT describes the 'non-public' nature of the original USN accident fatal two Hornet collision near CVN report:
A Navy Pilot’s Death Reflects the Everyday Hazards of the Job
11 May 2015 ERIC SCHMITT

"...The Navy’s investigation into Lieutenant Poloski’s fatal crash — a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times through a Freedom of Information Act request after it was completed last month..."

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/12/us/lt ... death.html
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3219
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post09 Jun 2015, 23:30

"The Navy approach removes that direct expertise from their process..."

No it does not. As a result of aircraft mishaps, different authorities conduct various types of investigations for different purposes. A JAGMAN investigation (one of the earlier links) is not the same as that conducted by an Aircraft Mishap Board under the safety system. One is releaseable under FOIA guidelines, the other contains safety privileged info that is not releaseable.
Offline

neurotech

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2346
  • Joined: 09 May 2012, 21:34

Unread post10 Jun 2015, 02:04

ruderamronbo wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:'ruderamronbo' said this on previous page:
"Awkward having to thank the Navy for posting the full report. The boat folks really do need to follow the example (ignoring the fact that Acrobat exists) of how the how the AF does these reports. Try reading this Navy report written by some JAG Officer and compare the two."

Not following whatever you are saying here - please explain. Thanks.


My point is the vast difference who conducts the investigation, subject matter experts versus a lawyer and the structure of the reports produced by each. I think many would agree that investigations of technical matters are best conducted by those who know and understand the subject matter--the Space Shuttle accident boards were staffed by SMEs, not lawyers. The Navy approach removes that direct expertise from their process, presumably they are consulted. The format of both reports couldn't be more different. Having read dozens of Air Force reports and numerous Navy reports, the AF ones are more readable, consistent in content, and arguably understandable. I read one Canadian (or British) Helicopter accident report and it followed the AF model much more although it was extremely long and often repetitive.

The JAGMAN report might be formatted differently than an AIB report, but to say that "written by lawyers" is mischaracterizing the process. A Navy JAGMAN report is expressly endorsed by the chain of command. If these senior officers, who are often aviators, do not concur with a particular detail, then its edited in the final report of record.

Contrary to popular belief, at the Navy Safety Center and elsewhere, there is a number of JAG lawyers with actual flight experience. Some are former fleet aviators, but most have a limited NATOPS qualification only. I would even say that in certain cases, they specifically find JAGs with actual flight experience for the JAGMAN investigation.

Come to think of it, did Capt. Dorsey ever serve in JAG? Or just Naval Intelligence. He was most definitely grounded by FNAEB. He was one of the flew who went F-14 pilot to lawyer.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6773
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42
Offline

neurotech

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2346
  • Joined: 09 May 2012, 21:34

Unread post10 Jun 2015, 03:40

XanderCrews wrote:http://www.sandcastlevi.com/images/scifi_other/jag-season-02-dvd.jpg

In case the joke went over a few peoples' heads;
Capt. Tim Dorsey (as a Lt. jg) was a F-14 pilot who shot down a RF-4 due to stupidity, and was grounded by FNAEB. Whilst in the Reserves, he went to law school.

On the USAF side, Col. Bud Day, was actually a lawyer turned fighter pilot, and Vietnam war hero. He was known for his zealous defense at FEB/FNAEB hearings. He also represented pilots for the investigations into mishaps.

@spazinbad: I vaguely remember hearing about a few Vietnam era A-4 pilots going to law school, and transferring to JAG during the later part of their careers. Do you recall any of the details?
Offline

ruderamronbo

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 321
  • Joined: 07 Jan 2005, 23:36
  • Location: Wright Patterson

Unread post10 Jun 2015, 03:50

Interesting feedback, thanks. I reread the attached Navy report and several CDRs, names redacted, were "consulted" during the process and they may indeed be Aviators. Attached is the actual JAGMAN Chapter (11) which makes it obvious the investigating Officer, a lawyer, is conducting the investigation and writing the report.

Endorsing a report, NATOPs qualified or not, after the investigation complete is in no way the same as having a subject matter expert actually conduct the investigation and write the report. Suggesting that particular F-14 "Pilot" who shot down a US Air Force F-4 intentionally, placing the crews' lives at risk, for no apparent reason during an exercise is somehow qualified or appropriate to conduct an investigation is frankly disturbing. That gentleman is lucky he was not prosecuted for dereliction of duty and dishonorably discharged. For those who aren't aware of the event http://militarycorruption.com/timdorsey2.htm .
Attachments
JAGMANInvestigationHandbook.pdf
(3.62 MiB) Downloaded 394 times
Last edited by ruderamronbo on 10 Jun 2015, 03:52, edited 2 times in total.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 25431
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post10 Jun 2015, 03:50

'neurotech' said: "...@spazinbad: I vaguely remember hearing about a few Vietnam era A-4 pilots going to law school, and transferring to JAG during the later part of their careers. Do you recall any of the details?" I'm not USN so I would have no idea - I only know about JAG from the TV series - they did an episode or two in Sydney, Australia before the show ended.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3219
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post10 Jun 2015, 03:56

ruderamronbo wrote:Interesting feedback, thanks. I reread the attached Navy report and several CDRs, names redacted, were "consulted" during the process and they may indeed be Aviators. Attached is the actual JAGMAN Chapter (11) which makes it obvious the investigating Officer, a lawyer, is conducting the investigation and writing the report.

Endorsing a report, NATOPs qualified or not, after the investigation complete is in no way the same as having a subject matter expert actually conduct the investigation and write the report. Suggesting that particular F-14 "Pilot" who shot down a US Air Force F-4 intentionally, placing the crews' lives at risk, for no apparent reason during an exercise is somehow qualified or appropriate to conduct an investigation is frankly disturbing. That gentleman is lucky he was not prosecuted for dereliction of duty and dishonorably discharged. For those who aren't aware of the event http://militarycorruption.com/timdorsey2.htm .


Do some more research because you clearly dont get it. And, quoting military corruption dot com detracts from ones credibility.
Offline

neurotech

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2346
  • Joined: 09 May 2012, 21:34

Unread post10 Jun 2015, 04:16

ruderamronbo wrote:Interesting feedback, thanks. I reread the attached Navy report and several CDRs, names redacted, were "consulted" during the process and they may indeed be Aviators. Attached is the actual JAGMAN Chapter (11) which makes it obvious the investigating Officer, a lawyer, is conducting the investigation and writing the report.

Endorsing a report, NATOPs qualified or not, after the investigation complete is in no way the same as having a subject matter expert actually conduct the investigation and write the report. Suggesting that particular F-14 "Pilot" who shot down a US Air Force F-4 intentionally, placing the crews' lives at risk, for no apparent reason during an exercise is somehow qualified or appropriate to conduct an investigation is frankly disturbing. That gentleman is lucky he was not prosecuted for dereliction of duty and dishonorably discharged. For those who aren't aware of the event http://militarycorruption.com/timdorsey2.htm .

I didn't say he was "appropriate" to conduct an investigation, just that he was grounded and became a lawyer. I do think that a court martial would have been "appropriate" what he did to the F-4 crew. Pilots have been court martialed for a lot less.

The CNAF (Commander, Naval Air Force) is a Naval Aviator or NFO. Same with the Wing Commander (CAG). If a JAG merely "consulted" a few aviators in preparing a report, there is a good chance the CAG or CNAF would not endorse the JAGMAN report.

@spazsinbad: I was referring to the Navy JAG Corps. Since you seem to follow everything to do with the A-4, you may have known if any pilots became JAGs.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 25431
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post10 Jun 2015, 04:49

'neurotech' said: "...@spazsinbad: I was referring to the Navy JAG Corps. Since you seem to follow everything to do with the A-4, you may have known if any pilots became JAGs."

Well in this case Gargle is your friend. :devil: How many USN A-4 Skyhawks were flown by how many USN pilots? At least a bazillion. I know about the RAN FAA A4G - less than 150 pilots over 16 years all told and I personally know about a quarter of them and know 'about' most of all of them in some minor way. JAG the TV series had a supposed F-14 buffoon pilot but hey.... :mrgreen:
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

mk82

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 849
  • Joined: 15 Oct 2009, 18:43
  • Location: Australia

Unread post10 Jun 2015, 10:05

sergei wrote:Dangerous-looking wounds often just a scratch.
T-50 received serious damages but they are largely located.
Serious injuries are usually look more accurate.
F-35 small hole looks insignificantly but the area smoked fire and price tag for repair says that inside almost all burned.
Is he dead ?
http://fishki.net/picsw/072013/26/post_ ... dved/2.jpg
http://animalworld.com.ua/images/2010/M ... 9576_9.jpg
No he is alive
http://fishki.net/picsw/072013/26/post_ ... dved/1.jpg


Fanboy Sergei: Hey Sergei Bogdan, that dangerous looking fire damage to the PAK FA is nothing but a puny flesh wound. Fly that burnt out PAK FA like mightiest plane of Mother Russia!

Sergei Bogdan: Nyet Tovarisch!!!!! :shock:

:mrgreen:
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8408
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post10 Jun 2015, 21:07

It's ok, I'm sure it will buff out :)
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

maus92

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2052
  • Joined: 21 May 2010, 17:50
  • Location: Annapolis, MD

Unread post11 Jun 2015, 06:15

mrigdon wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:So the F-35 was externally burned. A surface fire as opposed to a structural fire if you will. Nice pictures. Really doesn't look that bad, just charred up skin. Could have been a LOT worse.


The critics must be so disappointed. Although I'm sure they'll find a way to use the fire they have, even if it wasn't the one they wanted.


Any way you look at it, this was a serious fire that resulted in the aircraft being more or less destroyed (damage in excess of $50M.) It will not return to service, so the actual loss is much greater - although much of the electronics / avionics and other parts are likely to be salvaged. Visually to some apparently, it "doesn't look that bad." It is. This being said, the composite materials that make up the skin of the aircraft held their integrity very well under direct flame impingement (aluminum would have most likely melted.)
PreviousNext

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests