Mid-air: 2 F-18's collide over Georgia (pilots ejected safely)

Sad, at least they're safe. It happens when they're dog fighting, training, or whatever they were doing.
 
You can bet there will be hell to pay for all of this.
Some bonehead will demand a massive safety program change.
Everyone in the military will be ordered to attend the new safety training.
The only people who will end up being forced to attend will be the infantry, clerks and MPs below tech sergeant (or the Naval equivalent).
Officers will be exempted and anyone remotely related to an aviation unit will be assigned enough extra duty as to never be able to attend.
 
There's a lot of major military aircraft incidents going down in a very short time.
 
could it be that our worthless administration has cut the military budget so bad that these men and women are not getting enough flight time to stay at the top of their game? tough to fly to the level they need to without getting flight time.

bob
 
Could be these planes are getting or are worn out due to all the crap that's been going on since 9-11. Yes could be a proficiency deal too with funding. Air Force has about a third of bases in the US that they want to close (not needed) but Congress won't allow that, not in my backyard! But in this case one of the two fighter guys screwed up would be my guess. Not trying to say that's what happened just a guess.
 
Shepherd said:
You can bet there will be hell to pay for all of this.
Some bonehead will demand a massive safety program change.
Everyone in the military will be ordered to attend the new safety training.
The only people who will end up being forced to attend will be the infantry, clerks and MPs below tech sergeant (or the Naval equivalent).
Officers will be exempted and anyone remotely related to an aviation unit will be assigned enough extra duty as to never be able to attend.
Click to expand...

Yeah, at least the usual safety stand down. Go to the theater, watch some crash videos, get a class on CRM, CG gives his words of wisdom on how not to crash, then you go and get back to business.

Aviation is unforgiving. Military aviation is extremely unforgiving. Just the nature of the beast.
 
Seems like we take out more of our own aircraft than the enemies, lately. Maybe it's time to stop grabassin' around and grow up, fly straight. Can't handle a fighter yet? That's what trainers are for. Elite military. Best on Earth. Act like it. 'Merica!
 
vkhosid said:
Expound on that, please.
Click to expand...
Military aviation is about more than aviating. It often focuses on combat operations, or training for combat ops. NVG, formation, low-level, ACM, weapons delivery, etc.

Almost forgot landing on boats
 
Cooter143 said:
Military aviation is about more than aviating. It often focuses on combat operations, or training for combat ops. NVG, formation, low-level, ACM, weapons delivery, etc.

Almost forgot landing on boats
Click to expand...
I may be splitting hairs here....but the complexity is not in question here.
 
vkhosid said:
Expound on that, please.
Click to expand...

What Cooter said. I would clarify further, "tactical military aviation." He mentioned some fighter tasks. I'd add on the helo side, sling loads, night dust landings (multi-ship), urban ops (MOUT), NOE flight, pinnacle / ridge line ops, SPIES / FRIES, gunnery and obviously combat ops. Now, a few of those tasks are sometimes employed by civilian helo ops but not nearly to the extent that they do in the military. You have to be a Jack of all trades at a moments notice.

Never once have I felt worried or even really challenged in civilian flying from A to B. In the military, there were several times where I thought we bought the farm or at least we're going to bend some metal. Off hand, I'd say probably at least half my friends have damaged their aircraft either in combat or just training. When you push aircraft and crew to the limits of their capabilities, you're gonna break things.
 
Just the profile alone makes it different....my first 1000hrs of flight time as an Army Aviator after hitting a unit less than 50 of that was over 200ft AGL and much of that was at night multi-ship with often with no lights...we did have NVG's but they were first gen full face...mistakes unfortunately require the right quick response the first time....Altitude and Airspeed are your friends... I have bent a couple...
 
Warlock said:
Just the profile alone makes it different....my first 1000hrs of flight time as an Army Aviator after hitting a unit less than 50 of that was over 200ft AGL and much of that was at night multi-ship with often with no lights...we did have NVG's but they were first gen full face...mistakes unfortunately require the right quick response the first time....Altitude and Airspeed are your friends... I have bent a couple...
Click to expand...

PVS-5s...you're nuts man!:D
 
vkhosid said:
I may be splitting hairs here....but the complexity is not in question here.
Click to expand...

No problem with splitting hairs, but refine your statement/question a little. Increased complexity typically means increased risk. Seems straightforward unless your are trying to point out something else?
 
Shepherd said:
You can bet there will be hell to pay for all of this.
Some bonehead will demand a massive safety program change.
Everyone in the military will be ordered to attend the new safety training.
The only people who will end up being forced to attend will be the infantry, clerks and MPs below tech sergeant (or the Naval equivalent).
Officers will be exempted and anyone remotely related to an aviation unit will be assigned enough extra duty as to never be able to attend.
Click to expand...

You've clearly been retired for too long :) If I had a dollar for every useless mandatory GMT event I was forced to attend, in addition to all my flying and ground job commitments, I'd be a billionaire. I'd gladly cash all that money in if you could actually make your last sentence true :)
 
Lachlan said:
Seems like we take out more of our own aircraft than the enemies, lately. Maybe it's time to stop grabassin' around and grow up, fly straight. Can't handle a fighter yet? That's what trainers are for. Elite military. Best on Earth. Act like it. 'Merica!
Click to expand...

I don't think the youtube comments section could have captured the opinions of the uninformed masses any better than this…...
 
35 AoA said:
I don't think the youtube comments section could have captured the opinions of the uninformed masses any better than this…...
Click to expand...

Not likely, no. I guess crashes and training deaths are on the rise, and it's something we should expect. Right? I mean, it's only 2016. We have the best technology humankind had ever had. Budget cuts? Give me a break. Poor maintenance due to lack of funds? Who told you that? It comes down to caring about what you're doing and not accepting minimum standards. Do it well, do it right, do it like your life depends on it, because it just might. Or pile in a few million dollars' worth of precious hardware and hopefully have a good story to tell.
 
Lachlan said:
It comes down to caring about what you're doing and not accepting minimum standards. Do it well, do it right, do it like your life depends on it, because it just might.
Click to expand...

What makes you think that this isn't exactly what each and every one of us does on a daily basis? How many briefs/flights/debriefs have you attended in a military fighter aircraft?

While I don't think there is a simple solution to the risks of flying high performance jet aircraft, I would argue that having the majority of our aircrew well below the minimum monthly/quarterly/yearly amount of hours can't make anything safer. Everyone is a little more rusty, a little more task saturated, and a little less proficient when they are flying so little. This applies to junior as well as senior pilots alike. The only difference is that the senior guys normally have at least enough experience to make up for the lack of currency. This funding problem is especially hard on the younger guys who don't have that experience bucket very full.
 
Last edited:
Right after they collided, there was a student and CFI that lost control doing touch and go at night at HQU 30 minutes north.
 
35 AoA said:
What makes you think that this isn't exactly what each and every one of us does on a daily basis? How many briefs/flights/debriefs have you attended in a military fighter aircraft?

While I don't think there is a simple solution to the risks of flying high performance jet aircraft, I would argue that having the majority of our aircrew well below the minimum monthly/quarterly/yearly amount of hours can't make anything safer. Everyone is a little more rusty, a little more task saturated, and a little less proficient when they are flying so little. This applies to junior as well as senior pilots alike. The only difference is that the senior guys normally have at least enough experience to make up for the lack of currency. This funding problem is especially hard on the younger guys who don't have that experience bucket very full.
Click to expand...

So we're in agreement, then? For various reasons (budget, availability, "below the minimum hours," and "flying so little") some of these guys are, as you said, "a little more rusty" and perhaps unable to handle a fighter jet like they should. So, as I originally posted, if you can't handle a jet fly a trainer. Trainers still exist, right? What would you rather have crash in your unit, a trainer or a full-on warbird? What would you rather have pranged? In a perfect world, blah blah blah. Guess what? It ain't a perfect world. No one said it was fair. If you don't want to lose expensive materiel then don't hand it to rusty pilots. Stuff them into a trainer until they prove that they aren't going to make more headlines. Hey, that's just the point of view of a member of the uninformed mass. (And you agreed.) First round of beers is on me. ;)
 
Lachlan said:
So we're in agreement, then? For various reasons (budget, availability, "below the minimum hours," and "flying so little") some of these guys are, as you said, "a little more rusty" and perhaps unable to handle a fighter jet like they should. So, as I originally posted, if you can't handle a jet fly a trainer. Trainers still exist, right? What would you rather have crash in your unit, a trainer or a full-on warbird? What would you rather have pranged? In a perfect world, blah blah blah. Guess what? It ain't a perfect world. No one said it was fair. If you don't want to lose expensive materiel then don't hand it to rusty pilots. Stuff them into a trainer until they prove that they aren't going to make more headlines. Hey, that's just the point of view of a member of the uninformed mass. (And you agreed.) First round of beers is on me. ;)
Click to expand...
I don't mean this to sound rude, but your ignorance here is not allowing you to understand the issue. And, I mean ignorance strictly as a lack of knowledge, not in the pejorative sense. It is not the flying part that is hard, so giving them T-38s to fly around to brush up won't fix the problem. It is the mission capabilities, and mastering the aircraft and weapon systems that is the problem. T-38s and T-45s don't have the ability to train them to that level. Now I'm sure any pilot would love to have a trainer to go hop in to keep the rust off, but it wouldn't help much to prevent accidents. It is not a perfect analogy, but it would be like telling Tiger Woods to up his game by playing more PUTT-Putt mini golf.
 
Its the 1990s military all over again. Everyone is complaining about readiness, maintenance and flight hours but we've be here before and it won't be the last time. Just gotta suck it up and deal with it.

Nothing new with the increase in accidents either. If you study the numbers they go in cycles. They went up after 9/11, then gradually went down again. Even with the latest up turn, accident rates today are nothing like they used to be decades ago.
 
Lachlan said:
So we're in agreement, then? For various reasons (budget, availability, "below the minimum hours," and "flying so little") some of these guys are, as you said, "a little more rusty" and perhaps unable to handle a fighter jet like they should. So, as I originally posted, if you can't handle a jet fly a trainer. Trainers still exist, right? What would you rather have crash in your unit, a trainer or a full-on warbird? What would you rather have pranged? In a perfect world, blah blah blah. Guess what? It ain't a perfect world. No one said it was fair. If you don't want to lose expensive materiel then don't hand it to rusty pilots. Stuff them into a trainer until they prove that they aren't going to make more headlines. Hey, that's just the point of view of a member of the uninformed mass. (And you agreed.) First round of beers is on me. ;)
Click to expand...

I think I misread your post a little, so I'd agree with most of what you just wrote. Unfortunately, like cooter said, while getting in a T-38/T-45 might get a guy airborne, it just isn't feasible with any reasonable amount of money. As an example, if my current command were to decide that we would augment our flight time with T-45s, I'd have to go TAD for weeks if not months to Meridian or Kingsville, get re-qualified (haven't flown one in years), and then we would either have to buy some new T-45's (god knows Meridian/Kingsville/Pensacola can't afford to give any of theirs up) and bring them up to our line permanently, or I would have to travel with full TAD funding down to a T-45 base to fly each time, including commercial airline tickets both ways, and per diem/lodging. Multiply that by maybe 50+ people (and that is just one command out of hundreds DoD wide), and that is a ton of money. It is also a ton of money to add the T-45 to our current line of airplanes. In addition to just buying the aircraft from Boeing, we'd also have to get another MX contract, hire people. None of that is even remotely affordable. And it still wouldn't make a guy even remotely proficient tactically, as in the skills we need a guy to have before he launches off the front end of the boat into combat.

We actually do a pretty decent job of making sure people are scheduled, based on currency, with the appropriate level of complexity on a hop. If I haven't flown in a month (thats a pretty extreme case but as an example), I would be sent out as a single jet to go just basically get airborne, maybe shoot some approaches, fly around the working area, and land. Nothing fancy with wingmen, tactics, etc. We call it a "1 v 0". It is great for getting a rusty guy back to being a little more comfortable in the airplane. But that is all it is good for. Unfortunately, with some of the funding and mx problems, this is the only kind of flight a lot of commands can sustainably support…….just a whole lot of 1 v 0's for their pilots when jets become available here and there. Let's say a guy did a couple, and is now feeling pretty comfortable in the aircraft, just with the respect of "i can start/taxi/takeoff/land safely". Now you throw him into a tactical event, because after all, this isn't a flying club, and there is no point in us flying at all if we can't do our various missions. He might be safe getting airborne and landing, but he sure as he** isn't safe flying wing, executing tactics, dynamic maneuvering, etc. At some point, you have to make that leap between the two levels of proficiency, administrative/basic aviating, and tactical. If you don't, like I said, we might as well not fly.

Washington expects us to deploy, and we still have a mission to do, regardless of things like currency/proficiency. There is no way around that. So at the tactical level of leadership, you do the best you can, with the limited resources provided, to ensure that you can provide the combatant commanders the support they have been allocated by POTUS/SECDEF/Congress/etc. Sometimes that just means sending a group of guys out the door who are not at all ready for combat. I've seen it, and we will continue to see it until the funding situation improves.

And as a related aside, I don't agree that accident numbers are statistically higher right now than they have been for most of modern history. I think it is actually a testament to the professionalism of aircrew and their leadership that we haven't had more, given what I just described.
 
Cooter143 said:
I don't mean this to sound rude, but your ignorance here is not allowing you to understand the issue. And, I mean ignorance strictly as a lack of knowledge, not in the pejorative sense. It is not the flying part that is hard, so giving them T-38s to fly around to brush up won't fix the problem. It is the mission capabilities, and mastering the aircraft and weapon systems that is the problem. T-38s and T-45s don't have the ability to train them to that level. Now I'm sure any pilot would love to have a trainer to go hop in to keep the rust off, but it wouldn't help much to prevent accidents. It is not a perfect analogy, but it would be like telling Tiger Woods to up his game by playing more PUTT-Putt mini golf.
Click to expand...

Naw, you're just looking at what I'm saying a little too defensively. I'm not saying these guys crashing jets aren't good sticks. I'm saying they're not getting enough flight time. There's nothing you or I can do about that, unless you're in Congress. My other point is that we really can't afford to throw away millions of dollars per crash and have one fewer birds on the ramp so frequently. Pilots need more flight time. Tactical readiness shouldn't have to be a "make it or break it" exercise. Too much "break it" and there are fewer aircraft available for getting everyone trained up, and the cycle continues.
 
With all due respect considering the limitations of internet communication, you have changed your tune significantly. I haven't quite figured out how to multi-quote here, but your initial response was that the pilots needed to stop grab-assin as if the blame was on their attitude towards flying not their abilities or proficiency, which is what 35AoA responded to.
Maybe it's time to stop grabassin' around and grow up, fly straight. Can't handle a fighter yet? That's what trainers are for. Elite military. Best on Earth. Act like it.
Click to expand...

Then, you actually ruled out budgetary reasons as a contributor in a follow on post.
Budget cuts? Give me a break. Poor maintenance due to lack of funds? Who told you that? It comes down to caring about what you're doing and not accepting minimum standards. Do it well, do it right, do it like your life depends on it...
Click to expand...

But now, you are saying it's congress and not the pilots?
Lachlan said:
Naw, you're just looking at what I'm saying a little too defensively. I'm not saying these guys crashing jets aren't good sticks. I'm saying they're not getting enough flight time. There's nothing you or I can do about that, unless you're in Congress. My other point is that we really can't afford to throw away millions of dollars per crash and have one fewer birds on the ramp so frequently. Pilots need more flight time.
Click to expand...

I'm happy to have the discussion, as others seem to be, but you should figure out your own position before posting. I'm happy to be corrected if I've misread, but how do you reconcile your series of posts? It seems to me you changed your story.
 
Last edited:
One other thing we are sacrificing right now is the training institution. Right now, first tour guys are leaving their squadrons with less than 800 hours total, likely 550-600 of those being in their primary aircraft type. When I was in their shoes, I had well over 1000 hours in type, not including training command/flight school hours…….10 years before that time, I would have been considered ridiculously short on time as well. While a difference of 500-600 hours is probably not a big thing to you airline or commercial guys, in fighter aviation, that is a pretty significant difference in experience, especially early on. So now we have a bunch of guys coming back as instructors with a fraction of the experience that historically they would have had. So the effect is compounded. The new guys and gals get less flight time in general, and then they also have a less experienced core of junior officer pilots to lean on when they have questions or need the wisdom of a salty senior Capt/USN LT (who are typically the cornerstone of mentoring and instructing). The procedural side isn't really a big deal in this environment…….anyone can hop in the sim, or chair fly, or read the pubs etc. Where the rubber hits the road is in general decision making and situational awareness. For a lot of people, that requires either a lot of reps and errors, or listening to the mistakes of those before you. One of the ultimate schools of hard knox is a carrier based combat deployment. I probably learned more in that environment, than anywhere else in my life, including childhood, engineering school, flight training, or anything professionally since then. Those experiences are the most real and raw of anything in my entire life, both good and bad. The stakes were/are so incredibly high…….even a minor error in judgement can mean things like the loss of a 60+ million dollar aircraft, or even worse, the death of innocent civilians, and those decisions fall entirely on the shoulders of potentially very junior aviators. If you don't F it up, you get to keep flying, and your judgement and aviation sense build at an exponential rate. What we are building right now, is a future instructor cadre that not only has less overall flight experience and "air sense", but also a growing group of folks who, through the effects of sequestration, have never actually experienced the bread and butter of being a military aviator, which is deployment. The effects will be felt for at least a generation of winged military aviators who depend on these folks to guide them along the way.
 
Last edited:
Cooter143 said:
With all due respect considering the limitations of internet communication, you have changed your tune significantly. I haven't quite figured out how to multi-quote here, but your initial response was that the pilots needed to stop grab-assin as if the blame was on their attitude towards flying not their abilities or proficiency, which is what 35AoA responded to.


But now, you are saying it's congress and not the pilots?

It seems to me you changed your story.
Click to expand...

If you're not getting enough time in an aircraft to not be rusty, then perhaps you're not competent to fly. You're probably a great pilot, but without time in type no one is going to expect perfection. Right? If the "budget" doesn't allow for adequate aircraft to parse out to all of the fighter pilots to get enough time in, then, well, that's been the cry of the military since the first rock was thrown in anger. Never enough money. Too many cuts. Not enough of this or that. But too many crashes. Am I supposed to believe that huge financial losses in terms of aircraft is acceptable trade for inadequate training, whether it's due to time, money, or scheduling? If budgeting is the problem, then isn't piling in a shiny jet just exacerbating the monetary shortfall? One fighter likely costs enough to warrant preservation when the continued existence of said fighter is in question because of a readiness issue. Double edged sword, though, as not flying leads to even less capability. Blame Congress? Blame me? Who's the guy with his butt in the seat? That's the guy who is crashing airplanes. If you can't handle a fighter then maybe you need more trainer time, and that seems a whole lot less expensive than breaking a F-16 or two. Not saying I've got the answers, but a cavalier attitude toward training losses doesn't instill a great deal of confidence. I will say again, we have the most elite military (all branches) in the world. That's a hard standard to live up to. I have a lot of family in the Air Force, Navy and Marines.

As for your quote of me saying to stop grabassin' around, I stand by it. Not a lot of room for mistakes, is there?
 
To say the pilots in the latest accidents weren't up to the task is naïve and at this point, very premature. No way of knowing their experience in said aircraft.

They're not going to go back to trainers. They're qualified pilots and flying a trainer would have nothing to do with maintaining proficiency in their assigned airframe.

You don't stop flying simply because of the budget has decreased your flying hour program. You mix the reduction in hours with an increase in sim time and mitigate risks by assigning the right mission with the appropriate experience level.

Accidents happen. That's not cavalier but acceptance of the cycle that these things come in. As I said, this is nothing compared to decades ago. Look at the history of military aviation accidents, especially in the 50s and 60s. Post war Vietnam sucked far worse than what's happening today as well. It's a drawdown. Doing the best with what you have is the reality of it.
 
Open your old stats text book, and maybe the ones on probability, permutations, and combinations. Events cluster. Sometimes. If we averaged 12 crashes a year, likely it wouldn't be one on the first of each month. . .
 
Sundancer said:
Open your old stats text book, and maybe the ones on probability, permutations, and combinations. .
Click to expand...

No way! Why relive that nightmare course! :eek:;)
Besides the entire class had a mass burning of that textbook. :D
 
vkhosid said:
I may be splitting hairs here....but the complexity is not in question here.
Click to expand...

Not sure if Bulldog MOA allows ACM but if that's what they're doing, complexity is a factor here.

I have an in the cockpit video of ACM that ALL pilots should see. It's between 2 F-15s on the merge. One F-15 loses sight of the other but continues the attack. The in the cockpit vid shows the pilot pushing negative G to avoid the other aircraft. Even with wide angle lens, I'd say they missed by no more than 100 ft. Closure rate was over 1,400 MPH. In the vid, the other F-15 was nothing more than a gray flash past the canopy. The pilot said some expletives over ICS, had some heavy breathing and hands obviously shaking.

That's what I mean by tactical military aviation being extremely unforgiving. How many civilian pilots point themselves at another aircraft with 1,400 MPH closure rate?
 
Velocity173 said:
Not sure if Bulldog MOA allows ACM but if that's what they're doing, complexity is a factor here.

I have an in the cockpit video of ACM that ALL pilots should see. It's between 2 F-15s on the merge. One F-15 loses sight of the other but continues the attack. The in the cockpit vid shows the pilot pushing negative G to avoid the other aircraft. Even with wide angle lens, I'd say they missed by no more than 100 ft. Closure rate was over 1,400 MPH. In the vid, the other F-15 was nothing more than a gray flash past the canopy. The pilot said some expletives over ICS, had some heavy breathing and hands obviously shaking.

That's what I mean by tactical military aviation being extremely unforgiving. How many civilian pilots point themselves at another aircraft with 1,400 MPH closure rate?
Click to expand...
There are training rules that should prevent that kind of thing, but most fighter pilots have had at least one scary close pass.
 
Cooter143 said:
There are training rules that should prevent that kind of thing, but most fighter pilots have had at least one scary close pass.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think you guys have a 500 ft separation. In the case of the vid, the pilot said he lost contact with the other F-15. The other pilot told him he was close on the "bubble." I think that means canopy?

At any rate, it's a vid I acquired over the years that I probably shouldn't have but none the less a good learning point in the hazards of military aviation.
 
Last edited:
Velocity173 said:
Yeah, I think you guys have a 500 ft separation. In the case of the vid, the pilot said he lost contact with the other F-15. The other pilot told him he was close on the "bubble." I think that means canopy?

At any rate, it's a vid I acquired over the years that I probably shouldn't have but non the less a good learning point in the hazards of military aviation.
Click to expand...
Bubble can be used to describe the turn circle. Meaning, a hard turn approaching the bubble can put you in sync with the defensive fighters turn circle. But I'm getting old and haven't done any of that in quite a while, most of it I've forgotten. I do remember that 500' can be tough to judge, and not everybody's eye is calibrated the same.
 
Last edited:
Lachlan said:
If you're not getting enough time in an aircraft to not be rusty, then perhaps you're not competent to fly. You're probably a great pilot, but without time in type no one is going to expect perfection. Right? If the "budget" doesn't allow for adequate aircraft to parse out to all of the fighter pilots to get enough time in, then, well, that's been the cry of the military since the first rock was thrown in anger. Never enough money. Too many cuts. Not enough of this or that. But too many crashes. Am I supposed to believe that huge financial losses in terms of aircraft is acceptable trade for inadequate training, whether it's due to time, money, or scheduling? If budgeting is the problem, then isn't piling in a shiny jet just exacerbating the monetary shortfall? One fighter likely costs enough to warrant preservation when the continued existence of said fighter is in question because of a readiness issue. Double edged sword, though, as not flying leads to even less capability. Blame Congress? Blame me? Who's the guy with his butt in the seat? That's the guy who is crashing airplanes. If you can't handle a fighter then maybe you need more trainer time, and that seems a whole lot less expensive than breaking a F-16 or two. Not saying I've got the answers, but a cavalier attitude toward training losses doesn't instill a great deal of confidence. I will say again, we have the most elite military (all branches) in the world. That's a hard standard to live up to. I have a lot of family in the Air Force, Navy and Marines.

As for your quote of me saying to stop grabassin' around, I stand by it. Not a lot of room for mistakes, is there?
Click to expand...
The only way the military could comply with your logic under the current funding model would be to suspend all tactical aircraft operations. Frankly you don't understand what you're talking about. As an aside I'm not being defensive about anything since I have never been in the military. I have however earned a living for almost 20 years operating aircraft in diverse operational missions and I understand a few things about proficiency. You either don't understand at all or are doing a very poor job of articulating your thoughts into written English.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top