Warbird Information Exchange

Very sad situation. I hope the pilot doesn't suffer unduly from PTSD after this accident. As always, a chain of events with an unfortunate ending. No one really at fault but horrible consequences.

My condolences to all.

_________________
"There are old pilots and bold pilots but few old, bold pilots."

Anyone got video of it?

Bill, I got my commercial around the same time. I trained at Fallbrook airport, hard up against Camp Pendelton. I was the classic airport brat-hung out as much as I could, helped in any way I could and got flight time in return. The airport was run by good folks who don't tolerate any BS or unsafe behavior. I remember a guy coming around and asking about instrument instruction, and they basically gave him the run-around and turned him away. I might have been naive at the time (having just started college) but didn't understand why they treated him so harshly. He didn't seem right to them, so they sent him packing. I went back to school in SLO and a few weeks later this disaster happened-he was the student.
I have no idea if what they saw and made them reject him as a student contributed, but I always thought if they'd taken him, that horror woudn't have happened.
-Bret

Bret, if you read the report by the NTSB, neither 172 pilot was just a student. One was an instructor with almost all the main ratings. The other was a Marine who was a comercial pilot and was working on his IFR rating. In any event, despite the slanted info put out by PSA then and later, the ratings of the Cessna pilots did not matter much. The PSA plane, going perhaps 250 ran over the 172 going perhaps 100. They were operating in VFR conditions under see and avoid and the 172 traffic was given and received by PSA. The controller assumed they had the traffic and did not warn them as it got tighter.

I bought my house in S D , 1576 Law St. on the NW corner of Ingrahm from a PSA stewardess. A sad time.

_________________
Bill Greenwood
Spitfire N308WK

No, it is a hydraulically operated/actuated flight control system*. The hydraulic systems are powered by power-take-off shafts from the engines.

No engine rotation = no hydro power for most systems = no flight controls



*note: The flight controls are actually more complicated than that, but I'm describing them this way since the hydraulics are the achilles heel of the system. It is technically also a fly-by-wire system, but the difference between the Hornet and the F-16 is that the Viper has "Integrated Servo Actuators" which are self-contained flight control servos. So, a RAT or other system for producing electricity in the event of an engine failure would still not help to physically move the flight control surfaces.

Oh man, I expected just the opposite:

CNN

Yeah, he seems like a good guy.

Ryan

_________________
Aerial Photographer with Red Wing Aerial Photography currently based at KRBD and tailwheel CFI.
Websites: Texas Tailwheel Flight Training, DoolittleRaid.com and Lbirds.com.

The horse is prepared against the day of battle: but safety is of the LORD. - Prov. 21:31 - Train, Practice, Trust.

The RAT on the F-4 and A-4 supplies limited electrical power only.

The F-4 primary flight control system was the forerunner of the systems on the F-18, F-15, ie: the mfg refined the systems by adding new technology to the old technology. Servo actuators are very prevalent on the F-4 control surface actuators.

Bold face procedure in several emergency scenarios is simply EJECT !, it is actually written that way in the checklist. The main one is stab failure, the pilot has 0 control in that event. A double PC failure would certainly cause that very failure, as Randy said, the pilot has no control of where the jet will go ( hit the ground).

To folow up on the seat and the MFG website statements, every seat has an envelope that pilots learn. Actuation of the seat within that envelope gives the seat rider a very good chance of having a successful outcome. Out of the envelope? Not so good but not impossible. One of the things that most folks don't look at is sink rate and aircraft attitude. I believe the NACES seat is gyro stabilized. The sink rate is another matter, if the aircraft sink rate is excessive then it reduces the effectiveness of the seat rate of climb, therefore seat/aircraft seperation is degraded which could be put the seat out of it's envelope. 2000ft aint that high when your jet is falling out of the sky ! An awful lot of pilots have been killed simply because they waited too long.

_________________
"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass..."
Admiral Isoruku Yamamoto

no comment.

_________________
"I knew the jig was up when I saw the P-51D-20-NA Mustang blue-nosed bastards from Bodney, and by the way the blue was more of a royal blue than an indigo and the inner landing gear interiors were NOT green, over Berlin."

I am opening this thread back up. Please guys keep it civil and friendly.

Thanks,
Nathan

_________________
Shop the Airplane Bunker At
www.warbirdbunker.com

I seem to recall a story from back in my San Antonio days that a local park was named for a B-25 pilot whose plane lost power over the city. He ordered his crew out and piloted the aircraft straight down into the only open vacant lot he could reach. Any one know of this or is it just one of those stories that float around? It has to be a horrible decision to make, to punch out over a city or ride it in!

Again, the idea here is that in some aircraft when you lose a critical system, there is simply no way to fly the aircraft anywhere. It becomes a big mass of metal that is going wherever physics dictates it will go.

In such a case, what's the benefit of adding *another* life to the ones lost?

The decision to eject is NEVER one that is taken lightly...so much so that safety reports from military jet crashes are full of pilots who delayed their decision to eject so long that they were fatally injured. It is not a casual decision by any means.

Bill,
I knew that-he wanted his instrument. At that time we had lots of training at our airport from Marines with benefits and guys in the GI bill. My point wasn't about his ratings or experience, more of a question about place and time. I don't know why he was turned away at our airport, and whatever the reason it had nothing to do with the tragedy. But if he'd gotten his training at Fallbrook that 172 wouldn't have been in that space in that time.

I clicked on the CNN link. I wish I hadn't. I can't even begin to imagine that guy's state of mind right now.

_________________
.
.
Sure, Charles Lindbergh flew the plane... but Tom Rutledge built the engine!

Visit Django Studios online or Facebook!

Tragic in every way. Say a prayer for the poor fellow who lost his family and the pilot. They both need it.