F-16.net

Printed from: F-16.net - The Ultimate F-16 Reference [http://www.f-16.net]
Document title: BOI Report: Nellis Raptor crash due to FLCS problem - F-16.net - The Ultimate F-16 Reference
Original URL: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-3235-sid-e34980bbaeaa7739b74fb7e380374326.html
Printed on: 22 November 2008

Forum: F-22A Raptor

BOI Report: Nellis Raptor crash due to FLCS problem



Search Search  Register Register  Log in to check your private messages Log in to check your private messages
guidelines Forum Guidelines
Post new topic   Reply to topic   
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Author Message
LinkF16SimDude
PostPosted: Jun 09, 2005 - 06:43 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Elite 1K
Elite 1K


Joined: Jan 31, 2004
Posts: 1574

Status: Offline
From www.af.mil:
Quote:
6/8/2005 - LANGLEY AIR FORCE BASE, Va. (AFPN) -- A flight control system problem caused an F/A-22 Raptor to crash on the runway at Nellis Air Force Base, Nev., on Dec. 20, according to an Air Force report released June 8.

The pilot ejected and sustained minor injuries. The $133.3-million aircraft, assigned to the 422nd Test and Evaluation Squadron at Nellis, was destroyed when it crashed. Additional damage was limited to an arresting cable, runway guide sign, runway light and the runway itself.

The flight control system malfunction was caused by a brief power interruption to the aircraft’s three rate sensor assemblies, which caused them to fail. The assemblies measure angular acceleration in all three axes: pitch, roll and yaw. With three failed assemblies, the F/A-22 is not able to fly, investigators said.

When the pilot shut down engines for maintenance servicing, he left the auxiliary power unit running. Based on technical order guidance, he believed the power unit would supply continuous power to the flight control system. However, there was a less-than-one second power interruption to the assemblies during engine shutdown.

There is no automatic warning of this condition. To discover it, the pilot would have had performed a diagnostic test. The pilot accomplished a successful test before engine shutdown, and because the power unit was on, he believed a second test was unnecessary. (Courtesy of Air Combat Command News Service)


Sounds like a "Bold Face" addition to the checklist may be called for.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Sponsor
New postPosted: Nov 23, 2008 - 12:41 AM Back to top
F-16.net Sponsor





   
 
falconmaintainer
PostPosted: Jun 09, 2005 - 04:58 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Active Member
Active Member


Joined: Sep 16, 2004
Posts: 118

Status: Offline
LinkF-16SimDude wrote:
Sounds like a "Bold Face" addition to the checklist may be called for.


Too bad that it was found after a raptor was lost.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
parrothead
PostPosted: Jun 09, 2005 - 07:14 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Elite 3K
Elite 3K


Joined: May 10, 2004
Posts: 3103

Status: Offline
It's always the little things Bang Head !

I got to see the Raptor shut down at Aviation Nation and watch the doors on the airframe open up for the APU - neat! I wouldn't have guessed that something like this would have been a problem, either. I'm glad the pilot's OK, but I just wish we could've learned this in a less expensive way!!!

_________________
No plane on Sunday, maybe be one come Monday...
www.parrotheadjeff.com
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
allenperos
PostPosted: Jun 09, 2005 - 08:23 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran


Joined: Feb 24, 2005
Posts: 631
Location: Philadelphia, PA USA
Status: Offline
It amazes me how long it takes to hear about these things unless your actually there. I wish I was, Parrothead, no need to worry too much about the expense, we finance our aircraft and insure them the same we do our automobiles, it's been taken care of.

These incidences can be expected anytime a new a weapons system is introduced, we've actually had good, very good results with the Raptor thus far. I've been away for a week moving and this my first post in a few days, so it's good to be back.

_________________
F-16B, CC 80-0623 ERAU ROTC
MD-11, 90, 80, Cognizant Aerospace Technical Writer - Powerplant RR, GE, and P&W
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website  
 
falconfixer860261
PostPosted: Jun 09, 2005 - 08:30 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran


Joined: May 17, 2005
Posts: 984

Status: Offline
allenperos wrote:
no need to worry too much about the expense, we finance our aircraft and insure them the same we do our automobiles, it's been taken care of.


Hmmm - I've never seen the line item for aircraft insurance in any DoD budget....I'm pretty sure USAF is self-insured. Just like the airlines are. I don't remember us getting a check for the last two 16's we lost either.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
allenperos
PostPosted: Jun 09, 2005 - 08:39 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran


Joined: Feb 24, 2005
Posts: 631
Location: Philadelphia, PA USA
Status: Offline
To tell you the truth Falcon Fixer, I'm not certain how this works, but there must be a provisions account for circumstances involving accidents during test and training, I believe another service with another high risk aircraft had insurance (provisions for funding) for an aircraft that was high risk even though it was already beyond testing phase.

Common sense would tell you if you are financing aircraft, even military aircraft, you need insurance of some type. We don't buy aircraft off the shelf, nobody can. Aircraft Manufacturing Companies would go out of business as soon as the last order was placed, and that is not always the truth, military or commercial.

_________________
F-16B, CC 80-0623 ERAU ROTC
MD-11, 90, 80, Cognizant Aerospace Technical Writer - Powerplant RR, GE, and P&W
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website  
 
falconfixer860261
PostPosted: Jun 09, 2005 - 08:45 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran


Joined: May 17, 2005
Posts: 984

Status: Offline
allenperos wrote:
To tell you the truth Falcon Fixer, I'm not certain how this works, but there must be a provisions account for circumstances involving accidents during test and training, I believe another service with another high risk aircraft had insurance (provisions for funding) for an aircraft that was high risk even though it was already beyond testing phase.

Common sense would tell you if you are financing aircraft, even military aircraft, you need insurance of some type. We don't buy aircraft off the shelf, nobody can. Aircraft Manufacturing Companies would go out of business as soon as the last order was placed, and that is not always the truth, military or commercial.


Are you talking about Lockheed having insurance or the USAF? The jet that crashed was already DD-250'd and therefore an Air Force asset. LMCO could care less from a financial standpoint once that happened. And I know the USAF does not carry hull loss insurance. Losses are figured in as part of the operational budget but money is not held aside to replace the asset like your car would be if it got wrecked.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
TenguNoHi
PostPosted: Jun 10, 2005 - 01:51 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran


Joined: Sep 29, 2004
Posts: 922

Status: Offline
Quote:
but I just wish we could've learned this in a less expensive way!!!


Rather cheap if you ask me. The pilot only sustained minor injuries. The Jet is a loss, but its replaceable... Glad the pilot was on his toes.

Quote:
Hmmm - I've never seen the line item for aircraft insurance in any DoD budget....I'm pretty sure USAF is self-insured. Just like the airlines are. I don't remember us getting a check for the last two 16's we lost either.


It would make sense LM would give the A/C a warranty the same way chevorlet gives me a warranty when I buy a new car or gateway does when i buy a new computer. The terms in conditions of this warranty are disputable though. While I have no idea if such a warranty exhist or what the conditions of it are, some notworthy information may be that the aircraft in question belonged to the test and evaluation squadron. (Hince it was not a active type) Also, the A/C was rather new and the failure was on part of the manufacture, not on part of the USAF or the USAF pilot. The F-16s you mentioned may not meet all these conditions...

Just some thoughts :p

-Aaron
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
YAIFW
PostPosted: Jun 10, 2005 - 03:35 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: Aug 07, 2004
Posts: 18

Status: Offline
From what I've been reading there are a few questions about who pays the bills from this type accident. Maybe this info will help.

The Air Force isn't insured by anyone. The Federal Treasury will pick up any bill that comes from an aircraft accident (specifically from lawsuits resulting from the accident. ie liability).

Someone wrote that crashes are actually budgeted for which is pretty much a true statement. The Air Force has a good idea how many F-16s will crash in a year, so future years aircraft requirements take into account the aircraft which will be lost. Essentially when a jet crashes there is no money for a new one, the Air Force had already planned on losing it (this is especially true to F-16s).

Lockheed has a type of insurance from the Air Force. After a jet is painted and removed from the factory the Air Force assumes liabilty for any accidents that cost over 250,000.

An interesting case.

Lockheed crashed a CD model in the Mid 90's. The crash Lockheeds fault and the aircraft was never delivered to the AF. The AF still paid for the A/C minus the "deductible".

The Blk 60 program does has commerical insurance for deliveries. And it is a VERY large amount. 100's of millions.

Finally, the F-16 does not come with a warranty. Some parts do but not the Aircraft. But, Lokckeed will sell Technical Support to any customer willing to pay.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
allenperos
PostPosted: Jun 10, 2005 - 08:29 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran


Joined: Feb 24, 2005
Posts: 631
Location: Philadelphia, PA USA
Status: Offline
Makes sense, I guess this legislature pertains to wartime as well, I knew there was some provision for damage. I understand about providing technical support, used to work ina department like that, it's expensive to buy. Sometimes they abuse the customer. Thank you for bringing up the clarification.

_________________
F-16B, CC 80-0623 ERAU ROTC
MD-11, 90, 80, Cognizant Aerospace Technical Writer - Powerplant RR, GE, and P&W
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website  
 
habu2
PostPosted: Jun 16, 2005 - 04:33 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Elite 2K
Elite 2K


Joined: Sep 05, 2003
Posts: 2804
Location: ACES II
Status: Offline
Quote:
An interesting case.

Lockheed crashed a CD model in the Mid 90's. The crash Lockheeds fault and the aircraft was never delivered to the AF. The AF still paid for the A/C minus the "deductible".


I assume this was the 24 May 1993 crash that claimed <a href="f-16_pilots_num2019.html">Dryden</a>'s life?

_________________
Reality Is For People Who Can't Handle Simulation
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website  
 
Gums
PostPosted: Jun 21, 2005 - 03:00 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran


Joined: Dec 16, 2003
Posts: 824

Status: Offline
Salute!

I find it amazing that the blame goes on FLCS versus electrical power.

As with the Viper, they put the A-team on the computers and Joebaggodonuts on the power supplies for the computers. power supplies are easy, old hat, no biggie - right?

So our first fatality is a very low alt FLCS shutdown and 22 negative gees within a half a second.

The power guys designed the system to cut the computers out of the loop if they were subject to too many volts!!! Duhhhh? Not a biggie in the chocks, but at 500 knots and 300 feet? We then proceeded to keep the FLCS computers on no matter what and they degraded gracefully. So you could fly around briefly with components burning up/melting one after another. But at least you could eject before going end over end.

The Viper was/is not as sensitive to the rate gyros, apparently. Still, it would be a crap shoot without them.

hope they get better warning/caution setup.

out,

_________________
Gums
Viper pilot '79
"God in your guts, good men at your back, wings that stay on - and Tally Ho!"
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
calhoun
PostPosted: Jun 28, 2005 - 02:37 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Active Member
Active Member


Joined: Nov 05, 2004
Posts: 138

Status: Offline
The reason the power interruption was so critical, is that the RSA's loose thair bias's. Another FLCS BIT would have to be reaccomplished, which subsequently wasnt.
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website  
 
navav2002
PostPosted: Jun 28, 2005 - 09:22 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Enthusiast
Enthusiast


Joined: May 30, 2005
Posts: 44
Location: Atl, Georgia
Status: Offline
Have Yall (Southern for You All...) seen the computer animation of the crash at f-22raptor.c**...I am not sure if it's real Air Force stuff or not...It looks a little "low budget" to be authentic to me??? But it is interesting...If it even somewhat represents the crash...Boy that plane got Wackey!!!...Looks like the pilot ejected almost horizontally!!! Whew!!! None too soon either!!! What a ride!!!
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:     
Jump to:  
All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Copyright © 2008 Lieven Dewitte and Stefaan Vanhastel