New Insights into TWA 800?

[X3 Skier]

As I have said, I could not induce an explosion in confined spaces using jetA, and I don't think anyone else has either. Repeating a fallacy over and over does not make it true.

As you say, stating over and over the results of an experiment you are unable to share or offer evidence of in any manner does not make it true.

Perhaps you have evidence of similar experiments conducted by others that failed to induce explosions in a confined space with the proper fuel / air ratios of Jet-A and are not restricted by the unidentifed limitations hampering your disclosure of your experiments which you self identified as possibly uncontrolled.

Until such time you provide further information other than repeated assertions of the results of an experiment you have conducted and cannot share or otherwise provide results of others duplicating your results from either published or unpublished sources, I will mange to survive without further debate, intellectual or otherwise.

BTW, since this is a public forum, I plan to use this entire colloquy as an example in my logic class. The point it will be used to illustrate is self evident.

Cheers

 

[35 AoA]

1.) Exercises with live warheads are only conducted in long established and well marked areas which are fully protected by airspace restrictions and NOTAMS. No air or surface traffic would be allowed anywhere within range of a live fire exercise.

2.) There is no way a live round could be loaded by mistake as all training and inert missiles and projectiles are painted blue. No aircraft would be authorized to launch on an exercise with a live round, in fact no one can even draw a single live 9mm round from a military magazine without the proper paperwork .

3.) No live SAM sites are anywhere near the accident site.

You would have better credibility claiming a mid-air with a UFO.

Agree with all of the above. We don't carry live missiles for training stateside. That is why we have "captive carry" training ordnance.....no motors, no warheads, just the seeker/guidance control unit. On the other side of that token, when we do live missile shoots, it is in an almost humorously controlled environment. When I shot a Sparrow, I think just about everyone on the entire earth had to verify that I was shooting at the right thing. There were multiple ships, aircraft, and observers all dedicated to making sure that not a single aircraft or vessel penetrated the confines of the warning area we were shooting in. Had anything come close, the whole thing would have been suspended until the range was clear again. The idea that a Tomcat (or any other jet) could have just accidentally hosed off a live missile that it would have not been carrying in the first place, at a commercial airliner on a departure route, is just absurd. If it were a live missile ex, it wouldn't have been conducted anywhere near JFK airspace or LI.

 

[weilke]

2.) There is no way a live round could be loaded by mistake as all training and inert missiles and projectiles are painted blue. No aircraft would be authorized to launch on an exercise with a live round, in fact no one can even draw a single live 9mm round from a military magazine without the proper paperwork .

Well, maybe you can't pull a 9mm round without the right paperwork, apparently you can load 6 cruise missiles with live warheads on a B52 through a paperwork mixup:

http://www.kplctv.com/story/7232631...ght-with-nuclear-weapons?clienttype=printable

Also, back in '82, an F15 out of Ramstein 'lost' a live AIM9L during a training mission. The burned out shell was found by some mushroom pickers in the black forest a couple of weeks later.

BUT, in both cases, the error was detected in flight or right after the respective planes landed and reports were made up the chain of command. A F14 or 18 landing with a live missile missing back in '96 wouldn't have gone unnoticed.

 

[poadeleted20]

Well, maybe you can't pull a 9mm round without the right paperwork, apparently you can load 6 cruise missiles with live warheads on a B52 through a paperwork mixup:

http://www.kplctv.com/story/7232631...ght-with-nuclear-weapons?clienttype=printable

That wasn't exactly covered up.

Also, back in '82, an F15 out of Ramstein 'lost' a live AIM9L during a training mission. The burned out shell was found by some mushroom pickers in the black forest a couple of weeks later.

The 86th Wing at Ramstein had a Zulu Alert commitment, with a couple of fighters on 5-minute air defense alert in those days. Those aircraft were loaded with live air-to-air weaponry. Occasionally, at the end of the crew's 24-hour alert shift, they'd be launched on a training mission with those weapons still aboard, and the crews were supposed to be very careful with them. That's not the same as launching with the intent to do a live fire training exercise where they are planning to shoot a missile at a drone. Further, when they did screw it up (like a Navy F-14 crew on a similar deal off a carrier-based air defense alert training mission who accidently hosed an Air Force RF-4C acting as their target), the publicity was huge.

BTW, those were not F-15's at Ramstein in 1982 -- F-4E's, replaced by F-16's in 1985.

BUT, in both cases, the error was detected in flight or right after the respective planes landed and reports were made up the chain of command. A F14 or 18 landing with a live missile missing back in '96 wouldn't have gone unnoticed.

'Zactly. However, this is not relevant to TW800, since the allegation bandied about the most was that a Navy guided missile destroyer/cruiser fired a SAM which hit the 747, not that an F-14 filed an AAM. Had a Navy ship fired a SAM in that area at that time, every swingin' Richard on the boat would have known it, and you can be sure someone would have come forward.

 

[Jaybird180]

Agree with all of the above. We don't carry live missiles for training stateside. That is why we have "captive carry" training ordnance.....no motors, no warheads, just the seeker/guidance control unit. On the other side of that token, when we do live missile shoots, it is in an almost humorously controlled environment. When I shot a Sparrow, I think just about everyone on the entire earth had to verify that I was shooting at the right thing. There were multiple ships, aircraft, and observers all dedicated to making sure that not a single aircraft or vessel penetrated the confines of the warning area we were shooting in. Had anything come close, the whole thing would have been suspended until the range was clear again. The idea that a Tomcat (or any other jet) could have just accidentally hosed off a live missile that it would have not been carrying in the first place, at a commercial airliner on a departure route, is just absurd. If it were a live missile ex, it wouldn't have been conducted anywhere near JFK airspace or LI.

There's a reason the procedures are now in place....(see below)

1.) Exercises with live warheads are only conducted in long established and well marked areas which are fully protected by airspace restrictions and NOTAMS. No air or surface traffic would be allowed anywhere within range of a live fire exercise.

2.) There is no way a live round could be loaded by mistake as all training and inert missiles and projectiles are painted blue. No aircraft would be authorized to launch on an exercise with a live round, in fact no one can even draw a single live 9mm round from a military magazine without the proper paperwork .

3.) No live SAM sites are anywhere near the accident site.

You would have better credibility claiming a mid-air with a UFO.

You sure about that??? (see below and read backround on this former aviator - Google will suffice)

Let me play devils advocate for a second.................

Suppose the military was conducting excercises in the area, which I think they actually said they were... And by some fluke a huge mistake was made and a missle was accidently armed and sent skyward... Does anyone even think for a New York second they would fess up and take blame.. There is not a snowballs chance in hell they would ......

It has happened
http://hamptonroads.com/2012/02/past-accident-casts-shadow-navy-officers-future


(see Ron's #105 above)

 

[poadeleted20]

There's a reason the procedures are now in place....(see below)

You sure about that??? (see below and read backround on this former aviator - Google will suffice)


It has happened
http://hamptonroads.com/2012/02/past-accident-casts-shadow-navy-officers-future


(see Ron's #105 above)

In the case of the B-52, the screw-up made the papers -- fast. In the case of the F-14, the live weapon was supposed to be on the aircraft -- the pilot just hit a switch the wrong way. And having shot down an Air Force jet, there's no way that was getting covered up, either -- the Air Force was too p.o.'d to help bury it.

When stuff like this happens, like Chris LeDoux said (more or less), "buddy, you can't hide it from your friends." Or anyone else.

 

[weilke]

That wasn't exactly covered up.

And I didn't say it was, right ? Both examples of live missiles going unaccounted for were publicized and investigated.

 

[poadeleted20]

And I didn't say it was, right ? Both examples of live missiles going unaccounted for were publicized and investigated.

I wouldn't say the F-14 incident involved a live missile going "unaccounted for" -- everybody knew exactly where it went -- right up that RF-4C's tailpipe.

 

[Jaybird180]

In the case of the B-52, the screw-up made the papers -- fast. In the case of the F-14, the live weapon was supposed to be on the aircraft -- the pilot just hit a switch the wrong way. And having shot down an Air Force jet, there's no way that was getting covered up, either -- the Air Force was too p.o.'d to help bury it.

When stuff like this happens, like Chris LeDoux said (more or less), "buddy, you can't hide it from your friends." Or anyone else.

Wrong way for the F-4 crew. The reports I read said that he intentionally pressed the FIRE trigger. IMO he blindly followed orders, then became the fall for the communication failures. I seem to recall a term: Commander's Intent.

 

[poadeleted20]

Wrong way for the F-4 crew. The reports I read said that he intentionally pressed the FIRE trigger. IMO he blindly followed orders, then became the fall for the communication failures. I seem to recall a term: Commander's Intent.

That's not accurate. The pilot put the master arm switch into ARM rather than PRAC[tice]. You had to do one or the other to make the seeker on the AIM-9 work so you could practice tracking with tone. Since it was a training exercise, it was supposed to be in PRAC, which would not allow the missile to fire when you pull the trigger. The pilot just screwed up and put the switch up instead of down, and when he pulled the trigger, it was "FOX TWO". The only communication failure was the failure of the pilot's brain to communicate properly with his hand.

In the A-6, the master arm was right where both of us could see it, and the B/N normally handled it anyway, with the pilot able to visually check, too. There was even a locking collar you had to rotate so you couldn't move the switch at all without rotating the collar, and then you had to rotate the collar in the proper direction before moving the switch in the same direction. Either way, you had four eyes on the switch. In the F-14, the switch was in the front 'pit -- don't know what indications the RIO got in the back, so I don't know if he could have caught it.

 

[Jaybird180]

That's not accurate. The pilot put the master arm switch into ARM rather than PRAC[tice]. You had to do one or the other to make the seeker on the AIM-9 work so you could practice tracking with tone. Since it was a training exercise, it was supposed to be in PRAC, which would not allow the missile to fire when you pull the trigger. The pilot just screwed up and put the switch up instead of down, and when he pulled the trigger, it was "FOX TWO". The only communication failure was the failure of the pilot's brain to communicate properly with his hand.

The stories that I read said that he was pulled from LIVE fire training into the scenario exercise and was only told of an incursion into the protected zone of the carrier (not that it was an exercise). He then visually identified the target as a USAF F-4, when they hooked up to the tanker, yet the confusion continued as he verified with the RIO words to the effect of: 'they really want me to shoot this guy??' prior to pressing the trigger.

 

[Jaybird180]

Thank you for the thoughtful reply. I am aware of the report from Caltech embedded in the NTSB paperwork. While I acknowledge the rigor and theory, most of their work "approximated" jetA with a mixture of hexane and dodecane (simulating the higher volatility components of jetA ). I am also critical of the weasel-words: If jetA can be blown-up, show me the conditions where that happens with any jetA. I couldn't do it in my experiments (and that data is no longer available to me by agreements that restrict them; unfortunately, they were all negative results, but possibly not correctly controlled either). Trial lawyers usually state a conclusion and then adduce facts to compel an argument. Using a conclusion as a fact is malpractice.

Mythbusters had a tough time getting ordinary gasonline to explode when tested against the cellphone theory. In spite of their inability to produce an explosion (or even a spark) it is still plastered on all the gas pumps a supposed LAW to turn off cellphone when pumping gasonline.

edit: forgot to post link
http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/videos/cell-phone-gas-station-minimyth.htm

 

[35 AoA]

There's a reason the procedures are now in place....(see below)

It's an outrageous claim that has no basis in reality....(see above)

 

[ClimbnSink]

And I didn't say it was, right ? Both examples of live missiles going unaccounted for were publicized and investigated.

You guys are assuming because they told us about two incidents there have only been two incidents.

 

[poadeleted20]

The stories that I read said that he was pulled from LIVE fire training into the scenario exercise and was only told of an incursion into the protected zone of the carrier (not that it was an exercise). He then visually identified the target as a USAF F-4, when they hooked up to the tanker, yet the confusion continued as he verified with the RIO words to the effect of: 'they really want me to shoot this guy??' prior to pressing the trigger.

Everybody in USAFE was briefed on the accident when it happened. That's not consistent with what we were told.

 

[Jaybird180]

It's an outrageous claim that has no basis in reality....(see above)

Meaning???

 

[Jaybird180]

Everybody in USAFE was briefed on the accident when it happened. That's not consistent with what we were told.

I never claimed to be an eyewitness to the incident. Only that I and a few coworkers read up on it as events were unfolding about the former
Tomcat Pilot's promotion to RADM were breaking the news. We collectively read as much as we could find and compared notes.

 

[N801BH]

Everybody in USAFE was briefed on the accident when it happened. That's not consistent with what we were told.

What the Pentagon tells it's forces and then the general public usually consist of 99.999994% bull*****... It is all cover your a$$ any more.... As for the suggestion of "there is NO way a mistake can happen because someone on board will spill the secret".... All I can think of is they will end up like this guy who reported on....

http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2013/06/michael_hastings_car_crash_highland_hollywood_video.php


Accident my a$$...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OtBnaQlcpo

 

[poadeleted20]

What the Pentagon tells it's forces and then the general public usually consist of 99.999994% bull*****...

What we got briefed on many accidents was way more and often not consistent with what the public got told. "The Pentagon" doesn't want any more people or material lost to preventable accidents, so we got the straight skinny even if it would be embarrassing to DoD if it got out. The folks in the safety business have no reason to lie to the folks in the business, but the Government has every reason not to allow evidence and testimony collected with assurance of immunity to the person providing it to be released to the public.

That's why there are two investigations of every accident -- one by the safety board, run by operators, with no sworn testimony but guaranteed immunity and no right to refuse to testify, plus the legal ("JAG") board, run by lawyers with sworn testimony and full Fifth Amendment protections. What you get out of the safety board is the very best guess of exactly what happened, while what you get out of the JAG board is only what you can prove in court. The JAG results can therefore be very misleading, but those are the ones releasable to the public, as opposed to the safety board whose findings are protected from public dissemination just a notch below classified material.

In fact, I may have violated a law or regulation by posting what I did on that accidental shootdown since all I know about it is what we were briefed and read from the safety report. I don't think I ever even read the JAG report. So shoot me.

 

[Jaybird180]

What the Pentagon tells it's forces and then the general public usually consist of 99.999994% bull*****... It is all cover your a$$ any more.... As for the suggestion of "there is NO way a mistake can happen because someone on board will spill the secret".... All I can think of is they will end up like this guy who reported on....

http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2013/06/michael_hastings_car_crash_highland_hollywood_video.php


Accident my a$$...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OtBnaQlcpo

Interesting to see the engine on the other side of the street like that. I'd imagine that Mercedes would build a better product...one that doesn't explode on impact and launch the friggin motor

 

[Jaybird180]

What we got briefed on many accidents was way more and often not consistent with what the public got told. "The Pentagon" doesn't want any more people or material lost to preventable accidents, so we got the straight skinny even if it would be embarrassing to DoD if it got out. The folks in the safety business have no reason to lie to the folks in the business, but the Government has every reason not to allow evidence and testimony collected with assurance of immunity to the person providing it to be released to the public.

That's why there are two investigations of every accident -- one by the safety board, run by operators, with no sworn testimony but guaranteed immunity and no right to refuse to testify, plus the legal ("JAG") board, run by lawyers with sworn testimony and full Fifth Amendment protections. What you get out of the safety board is the very best guess of exactly what happened, while what you get out of the JAG board is only what you can prove in court. The JAG results can therefore be very misleading, but those are the ones releasable to the public, as opposed to the safety board whose findings are protected from public dissemination just a notch below classified material.

In fact, I may have violated a law or regulation by posting what I did on that accidental shootdown since all I know about it is what we were briefed and read from the safety report. I don't think I ever even read the JAG report. So shoot me.

1- If you didn't sign a non-disclosure then you're safe
2- I refute that the pentagon practices full disclosure even inside the community (M1 Abrams tank, F-16A, MV22 and numerous other systems wherein people got hurt bears witness to this).

 

[N801BH]

What we got briefed on many accidents was way more and often not consistent with what the public got told. "The Pentagon" doesn't want any more people or material lost to preventable accidents, so we got the straight skinny even if it would be embarrassing to DoD if it got out. The folks in the safety business have no reason to lie to the folks in the business, but the Government has every reason not to allow evidence and testimony collected with assurance of immunity to the person providing it to be released to the public.

That's why there are two investigations of every accident -- one by the safety board, run by operators, with no sworn testimony but guaranteed immunity and no right to refuse to testify, plus the legal ("JAG") board, run by lawyers with sworn testimony and full Fifth Amendment protections. What you get out of the safety board is the very best guess of exactly what happened, while what you get out of the JAG board is only what you can prove in court. The JAG results can therefore be very misleading, but those are the ones releasable to the public, as opposed to the safety board whose findings are protected from public dissemination just a notch below classified material.

In fact, I may have violated a law or regulation by posting what I did on that accidental shootdown since all I know about it is what we were briefed and read from the safety report. I don't think I ever even read the JAG report. So shoot me.

We won't shoot.... But may I suggest you head to Hong Kong and claim political asylem...

 

[X3 Skier]

That's why there are two investigations of every accident -- one by the safety board, run by operators, with no sworn testimony but guaranteed immunity and no right to refuse to testify, plus the legal ("JAG") board, run by lawyers with sworn testimony and full Fifth Amendment protections. What you get out of the safety board is the very best guess of exactly what happened, while what you get out of the JAG board is only what you can prove in court. The JAG results can therefore be very misleading, but those are the ones releasable to the public, as opposed to the safety board whose findings are protected from public dissemination just a notch below classified material.

Totally accurate assessment based on my experience and not a few Class A Mishap investigations I worked personally from A-7's to the YF-22 at EAFB.

Cheers

 

[poadeleted20]

1- If you didn't sign a non-disclosure then you're safe

Not true. It's in an Air Force Regulation referenced on the cover of the report -- no signature needed on that one.

2- I refute that the pentagon practices full disclosure even inside the community (M1 Abrams tank, F-16A, MV22 and numerous other systems wherein people got hurt bears witness to this).

I refute your refutation. The safety reports have it all. Problem is, not everyone in the government has access to all of them. In the case of the F-16A, for example, I'm guessing you're talking about the wiring problem that led to a pitch-over. The safety report had the details, the JAG report did not. Then someone (probably the Flight Surgeon on the accident board, but they never could prove it enough to court-martial him) sent a copy of the safety report to the widow, and she used what was in it (but not in the JAG report to which she did have legal access) to collect millions from Lockheed for wrongful death.

 

[Jaybird180]

Not true. It's in an Air Force Regulation referenced on the cover of the report -- no signature needed on that one.

Unless you're retired they can't come after you for breaking a regulation. At most it's a violation of Article 90 UCMJ (minor). Non-disclosure is required for every breifing if your feet could be held to the fire. A blanket reg cannot do this.

 

[Jaybird180]

Not true. It's in an Air Force Regulation referenced on the cover of the report -- no signature needed on that one.
I refute your refutation. The safety reports have it all. Problem is, not everyone in the government has access to all of them. In the case of the F-16A, for example, I'm guessing you're talking about the wiring problem that led to a pitch-over. The safety report had the details, the JAG report did not. Then someone (probably the Flight Surgeon on the accident board, but they never could prove it enough to court-martial him) sent a copy of the safety report to the widow, and she used what was in it (but not in the JAG report to which she did have legal access) to collect millions from Lockheed for wrongful death.

Then if we are to believe this, then General James Jones really got "promoted" after 3 years as Commandant of the Marine Corps.

 

[X3 Skier]

Then if we are to believe this, then General James Jones really got "promoted" after 3 years as Commandant of the Marine Corps.

Believe what you want, it is what happened in the F-16 case.

Cheers

 

[dell30rb]

When you find Elvis, have him give me a call -- it's been too long. Have a wonderful, blessed Sunday.

I found him yesterday. He sold me a red bull and gatorade at the citgo off of Hwy 70 in Goldsboro. Nice guy.

 

[cirrusmx]

who gives a fck? that plane is destroyed. bodies were desintegrated. carnage unfold, families destroyed . maybe a misilie, maybe the lockness monster, maybe alqueaieauoade ( alqueada or wahtever the hell you wanna call them), osama, hitler, or the engs At boeing screwed up a calc. anyways airline travel is and will be the safest way of travelling. being overweight, over forty, god fearing christian, driving to your in laws, being all american, mcds loyal, or having a boring life will have you killed before a terrorist gets you.

 

[poadeleted20]

Unless you're retired

I am.

At most it's a violation of Article 90 UCMJ (minor).

Article 92, actually -- Failure to Obey a Lawful Order or Regulation. Article 90 (Assaulting or willfully disobeying superior commissioned officer) isn't relevant.

Non-disclosure is required for every breifing if your feet could be held to the fire. A blanket reg cannot do this.

Yes, it can. It says it on the cover of the report and at the beginning of the briefing. In fact, on the F-16A case, they wanted to try the Flight Surgeon from the safety board on just that charge under just that Article and regulation for giving a copy of the safety report to the widow (it appeared by magic in the mailbox at her house), but they couldn't prove "beyond reasonable doubt" that he was the one who put it in her mailbox. I believe his USAF career terminated shortly thereafter.

 

[poadeleted20]

Believe what you want, it is what happened in the F-16 case.

You and I must have overlapped a good bit in service and probably a lot of friends in common from our USAF days. BTW, do you remember the reg numbers regarding FOUO and safety reports? I sure don't, but I remember seeing the warnings on the briefings and reports -- don't let it out to the public or it's "death by boogaloo".

 

[poadeleted20]

who gives a [deleted]? that plane is destroyed. bodies were desintegrated. carnage unfold, families destroyed .

...and we don't want it to ever happen again, so everybody involved with aviation safety give a big [hoot] about finding out what happened and making sure it doesn't happen again, and if you get the cause wrong, you can't do that, not to mention the resources wasted fixing the wrong problem.

Personally, at the time, I didn't think the solution of changing the operational procedures to manage ullage temp/fuel-air mix was anything but a Band-Aid, and along with Ralph Lauzze and other experts pushed hard for ullage inerting systems like those on the C-17 and C-5 or foaming the tanks like the C-130's (see http://www.nist.gov/el/fire_research/upload/R0201333.pdf for some background on those options), so even if somebody goofed, it couldn't happen again. Sitting here over 15 years later, I guess in retrospect the preventive measures adopted worked, since there hasn't been a CWT ullage explosion since, but there were quite a few before it.

 

[N801BH]

....., they wanted to try the Flight Surgeon from the safety board on just that charge under just that Article and regulation for giving a copy of the safety report to the widow (it appeared by magic in the mailbox at her house), but they couldn't prove "beyond reasonable doubt" that he was the one who put it in her mailbox. I believe his USAF career terminated shortly thereafter.

Another GOOD reason not to join the military.......

 

[poadeleted20]

Another GOOD reason not to join the military.......

More of a reason, I think, just to obey the rules you agree to obey. Goes to flying, too. In either case, if you don't think you can obey the rules, best to stay out of the field.

 

[X3 Skier]

You and I must have overlapped a good bit in service and probably a lot of friends in common from our USAF days. BTW, do you remember the reg numbers regarding FOUO and safety reports? I sure don't, but I remember seeing the warnings on the briefings and reports -- don't let it out to the public or it's "death by boogaloo".

No clue on the Reg. But every Class A Mishap investigation I participated in started with the discussion of the need for complete openness AND the need to keep the information confidential to assure the cause is identified and rectified. That's just like the NTSB BTW, since I was asked by the NTSB on occasion to supply technical information or analysis.

Cheers

 

[N801BH]

More of a reason, I think, just to obey the rules you agree to obey. Goes to flying, too. In either case, if you don't think you can obey the rules, best to stay out of the field.

I obey LOGICAL rules....... Not bizzare ones...

 

[poadeleted20]

I obey LOGICAL rules....... Not bizzare ones...

Good thing you didn't join the military, but I hope that attitude doesn't get you in trouble with the FAA. The FAA does not treat selective obedience to the regulations kindly, especially when it's based on your belief that the reg in question is "bizarre".

 

[35 AoA]

Meaning???

Sorry, was kind of being a sarcastic jerk there, but I just meant that I had explained what I meant in a previous post. To summarize though:

I intentionally used the term "stateside" because that is an important difference between the scenario surrounding this conspiracy theory, and the real world incidents listed in this thread (the Tomcat/F-4 shoot down, the USAFE F-15, etc). All of those mishaps occurred in a deployed environment, be it on the ship, or at a forward airfield on a Cold War alert. It is common to carry live missiles in that environment. Back home conversely, it is extremely uncommon to carry live missiles. CATM's are nothing new, and it's not like we ran around with live missiles in the 1990's any more than we do today. So you are essentially left with the following 2 scenarios.....a live missile shoot/ex, or potentially east coast ANG alert jets. Oceana isn't an alert base nor is it part of the ADC (or whatever component of the ACC they are nowadays) structure, and it wasn't then either. That is the only place that had Tomcats on the eastern seaboard. So then it would have had to have been a missile exercise. Those happen in Tyndall, in some capacities in the west coast ranges, and on occasion near Wallops off the SE VA coast. None of those places are even remotely close enough to have been a factor to an airliner departing JFK and climbing out over Long Island. Not to mention all of the safety controls involved both then and now in such a shoot. It is quite simply a ludicrous assertion (and I'm not saying it is yours, just the idea in general). I can't really speak intelligently to what the AEGIS does in their spare time, but I would guess it doesn't involve lobbing SM-2's into busy NYC departure/arrival corridors.

 

[Fearless Tower]

There's a reason the procedures are now in place....(see below)

You sure about that??? (see below and read backround on this former aviator - Google will suffice)


It has happened
http://hamptonroads.com/2012/02/past-accident-casts-shadow-navy-officers-future


(see Ron's #105 above)

Look at the date - that 'accident' happened in the late 80s. ALOT of policy changes (much of what 35AoA was referring to) occured in the aftermath to prevent a idiot pilot from doing something like that again.

 

[Fearless Tower]

That's not accurate. The pilot put the master arm switch into ARM rather than PRAC[tice]. You had to do one or the other to make the seeker on the AIM-9 work so you could practice tracking with tone. Since it was a training exercise, it was supposed to be in PRAC, which would not allow the missile to fire when you pull the trigger. The pilot just screwed up and put the switch up instead of down, and when he pulled the trigger, it was "FOX TWO". The only communication failure was the failure of the pilot's brain to communicate properly with his hand.

In the A-6, the master arm was right where both of us could see it, and the B/N normally handled it anyway, with the pilot able to visually check, too. There was even a locking collar you had to rotate so you couldn't move the switch at all without rotating the collar, and then you had to rotate the collar in the proper direction before moving the switch in the same direction. Either way, you had four eyes on the switch. In the F-14, the switch was in the front 'pit -- don't know what indications the RIO got in the back, so I don't know if he could have caught it.

The word I have heard from some folks in the Tomcat community was that the first attempt was a mis-fire/missile didn't go.....so he went and pickled off another.