T-38 Crash in OK, Pilot OK

Just watched the T-38 yesterday on the Smithsonian Channel. They’ve got good aircraft specials.

Anyways, glad the IP is OK. The T-X can’t come soon enough.
 
Last edited:
It can take a while to come. My wife works In the -38 avionics upgrade program haha. In which case it was recently extended and they have yet to award any aircraft yet. So...im betting another 15 years before the -38 even starts to phase out.

Glad the pilot is okay for sure. We had one recently here at CAFB. Hate seeing it.
 
5fc665de28b2a92e3216cbe6f5af1adc.jpg
 
Velocity173 said:
Just watched the T-38 yesterday on the Smithsonian Channel. They’ve got good aircraft specials.

Anyways, glad the IP is OK. The T-X can’t come soon enough.
Click to expand...
Hey, we were watching the same show at the same time. Did you see Kyle's face when he thought he flunked after breaking the hard deck?:D

Did you watch the next episode of the F-16 and the next on the AC-130?

Man I love the Smithsonian Channel! One of the few select channels I watch.
My son and I spent around three hours visiting the Smithsonian Air & Space museum in DC a few years ago. I highly recommend it if you get the chance.
 
Last edited:
redtail said:
Hey, we were watching the same show at the same time. Did you see Kyle's face when he thought he flunked after breaking the hard deck?:D

Did you watch the next episode of the F-16 and the next on the AC-130?

Man I love the Smithsonian Channel! One of the few select channels I watch.
Click to expand...

Yeah it was good. Watched only part of the F-16. Didn’t see any of the AC-130. Think that was a brand new episode as well.
 
redtail said:
Hey, we were watching the same show at the same time. Did you see Kyle's face when he thought he flunked after breaking the hard deck?:D

Did you watch the next episode of the F-16 and the next on the AC-130?

Man I love the Smithsonian Channel! One of the few select channels I watch.
My son and I spent around three hours visiting the Smithsonian Air & Space museum in DC a few years ago. I highly recommend it if you get the chance.
Click to expand...

Me too! Had the Smithsonian channel running all day at work. That's right, I got paid to watch airplanes all day.
 
OkieFlyer said:
Me too! Had the Smithsonian channel running all day at work. That's right, I got paid to watch airplanes all day.
Click to expand...
You lucky animal LOL. We have Direct TV here in the Control Room on my job. Unfortunately, that is the one channel they don't carry :mad:.
Oh well, I can't complain since it's a perk.

Occasionally I'll DVR a program at home and burn it to a DVD for work. Haven't done so in awhile though.
 
Last edited:
Training flight with only the instructor on board? Can I log CFI time when there is no student on board?
 
A1Topgun said:
Training flight with only the instructor on board? Can I log CFI time when there is no student on board?
Click to expand...

Unless it’s an operational flight, it’s training.

USAF IP is not equal to FAA CFI.

IPs can instruct while in a separate aircraft from the student.

There are no 2-seat A-10s, F-22s, or F-117s, for example.
 
TCABM said:
Unless it’s an operational flight, it’s training.

USAF IP is not equal to FAA CFI.

IPs can instruct while in a separate aircraft from the student.

There are no 2-seat A-10s, F-22s, or F-117s, for example.
Click to expand...

Well, there aren’t any airworthy 2 seat A-10s. ;)
 
as a civilian pilot I have instructed pilots in single seat aircraft... If my hillbilly ass can make it happen I'm sure the military has no problem
 
A1Topgun said:
Training flight with only the instructor on board? Can I log CFI time when there is no student on board?
Click to expand...

I don't think the news reported what kind of time the IP was logging, did they?

Only that it was a "training mission"...which happens to include instructors going out to practice solo. Instructors have recency requirements for practicing all kinds of different maneuvers and events.

And, yes, as has been said, you can log dual given when your student is in another aircraft. Typical event in the single-seat world, both military and civilian alike.

I used to fly Strike Eagles with the IP that jumped out of this one...glad he is okay.
 
A1Topgun said:
Now I see my error. Training in a single place A/C.
Click to expand...

Except the T-38 is a 2-place aircraft.

The way I read the release is the mishap a/c had a crew of one. That individual is a USAF Instructor Pilot (duty title) and may or may not have been supervising or instructing at the time the mishap occurred.
 
TCABM said:
Except the T-38 is a 2-place aircraft.
Click to expand...

It isn't the number of seats that dictates. In the AF flying training syllabus at multiple levels, there are required formation solo flights.
 
Hacker said:
It isn't the number of seats that dictates. In the AF flying training syllabus at multiple levels, there are required formation solo flights.
Click to expand...

I’m familiar with the syllabus...didn’t want to go that far down the rabbit hole; what little is given in the press release leads us to not know what was going on..could have been CT, FCF, solo form syllabus ride, who knows.

I haven’t been following the thread (if there is one) on jetcareers.
 
TCABM said:
Except the T-38 is a 2-place aircraft.

The way I read the release is the mishap a/c had a crew of one. That individual is a USAF Instructor Pilot (duty title) and may or may not have been supervising or instructing at the time the mishap occurred.
Click to expand...

Hacker said:
It isn't the number of seats that dictates. In the AF flying training syllabus at multiple levels, there are required formation solo flights.
Click to expand...

Yeah all the press releases stated was that an IP was aboard and that the flight was a training flight, leading one to wonder if a student was onboard and ejected also. However, found this update from the Wing CO stating only the IP was aboard and that the IP ejected.

https://www.enidnews.com/news/vance...cle_bb5d7c22-a630-11e8-8820-9758f9d8d6db.html
 
So this is what speculation looks like from the inside looking out...interesting. At any rate, close, but no cigar I'm afraid. :D

Joking aside. Fellas, stand by for the safety out, I can't get into details as it is still privileged. Martin Baker did its job again. All personnel are accounted for, so don't go wrapping yourself around the axle trying to count bodies vs seats. I say again, everybody on that sortie is accounted for. We're still batting 100% on the new seat. <---My and my wife's favorite part of the 38, bar none.

And yes, @Velocity173 ,the T-X can't come soon enough. That one too is FOUO; suffice to say it's not happening this decade. That means we're still gonna be asked to go out there on these old airplanes. It's dangerous business we're in. I know the CAF guys don't like hearing it, but by sortie count the AETC hot seat gig is statistically more hazardous than "combat" right now.

I'm not even gonna get into the syllabus "innovation" initiatives currently cooking and being implemented at fast food joint nuke setting right now. I hate saying it, but you guys better get accustomed to these kinds of stories going forward. And I'm out.
 
hindsight2020 said:
So this is what speculation looks like from the inside looking out...interesting. At any rate, close, but no cigar I'm afraid. :D

Joking aside. Fellas, stand by for the safety out, I can't get into details as it is still privileged. Martin Baker did its job again. All personnel are accounted for, so don't go wrapping yourself around the axle trying to count bodies vs seats. I say again, everybody on that sortie is accounted for. We're still batting 100% on the new seat. <---My and my wife's favorite part of the 38, bar none.

And yes, @Velocity173 ,the T-X can't come soon enough. That one too is FOUO; suffice to say it's not happening this decade. That means we're still gonna be asked to go out there on these old airplanes. It's dangerous business we're in. I know the CAF guys don't like hearing it, but by sortie count the AETC hot seat gig is statistically more hazardous than "combat" right now.

I'm not even gonna get into the syllabus "innovation" initiatives currently cooking and being implemented at fast food joint nuke setting right now. I hate saying it, but you guys better get accustomed to these kinds of stories going forward. And I'm out.
Click to expand...

This month’s Combat Aircraft Monthly had a pic of a T-38 with the Pacer Classic III upgrade. Is that really working well as a life extension or are the problems elsewhere?
 
We just had a -38 seat go off on the ground injuring maintenance personnel. Got lucky nobody was killed.
 
simtech said:
We just had a -38 seat go off on the ground injuring maintenance personnel. Got lucky nobody was killed.
Click to expand...

Very lucky indeed. It's currently an SII across all 38 bases right now, brief requirement prior to step on every brief UFN. Those dudes are lucky they didn't get killed by that thing.This one is a CRM issue, not an equipment issue per se.

Velocity173 said:
This month’s Combat Aircraft Monthly had a pic of a T-38 with the Pacer Classic III upgrade. Is that really working well as a life extension or are the problems elsewhere?
Click to expand...

Problems elsewhere.
 
Correct, I was actually coming back to say this was NOT an equipment issue (as far as the seat itself). Very lucky indeed!
 
At least it went off on the T-38, unlike that seat on the B-1B out in Midland...
 
When I was at Moody back in the 70s a newbie maintenance airman went out to a T38 parked on the "tarmac" ( :)) and launched himself up in the air and back onto the ramp and died. Had to to pull two pins from what I understand so he obviously did it intentionally. If I recall it was a he missed his home and/or old girlfriend deal.
 
Last edited:
Velocity173 said:
This month’s Combat Aircraft Monthly had a pic of a T-38 with the Pacer Classic III upgrade. Is that really working well as a life extension or are the problems elsewhere?
Click to expand...

Well, we're already a decade (and for some jets, 15+ years) into T-38Cs and PMP modifications...so we are living in the middle of the "life extension".
 
Having flown the A, B, and C / PMP models, in my opinion the C model upgrade was a big success in terms of training capability for students, as well as being able to field the same jet for both SUPT and IFF.

IMHO outside of actually getting takeoff and landing data that was valid, I think the PMP was a bit of a bust that has created probably just as many issues as it fixed...transferred the A model's compressor stall issues from one portion of the envelope to another.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top