MiG-21 over ran the runway today at FCM...

[P51Mstg]

WIX is an interesting place..... An accident happens (not this one) and maybe someone can learns something from it to help them when they are in the same situation...... BUT if you ask WHY? the first reply is DONT SPREAD RUMORS, don't talk about it, wait 2 years for the FAA to decide (and blame the pilot, an easy way out for them)...... Apparently this isn't a place to come to learn a lesson.

I've seen pilots who should be well trained, proficient, etc do stupid things. Lots seem to get in over their heads (never figured out why so many run out of fuel.... Never happened to me.. Never will either). I've watched former Blue Angels and TBird pilots do stupid things too.

I can assume in this case that the owner of the airplane knew the pilot well enough (if it wasn't the owner since I don't know him) to let him fly HIS MIG 21 which if flown improperly can cause a lot of damage (financial think accident and people getting hurt). The pilot may or may not have know what he was doing and may or may not have had the experience to handle the situation. But we'lll never know, nor do we really need to know.

If you google "MIG 21 Crash" you'll see that the Indian Air Force seems to loose them pretty regularly. So they must take a certain level of skill to fly, which seems to be above the level that the Indian AF has, or their maintenance standards are not high enough.

BTW web sources say that the pilot was from Ann Arbor MI, so it could be the owner or another MIG qualified pilot from the area. At least he didn't get hurt. Seems that the parachute "broke" (news report said it not me, I've never seen a BROKEN PARACHUTE), but I'd say (spreading a rumor) that the drag chute detached from the plane before it was slowed down enough. So it was a simple mechanical failure (if that was in fact the cause) and that the pilot wasn't at fault nor were his piloting skills called into question. Lesson learned? Be sure drag chute is attached to airplane securely. Maybe replace some of the hardware prone to possible failure on a regular basis (be it annually or every so many landings)

Out of all the posts in this thread, T-33 driver made a very eloquent response. Very well written, something I'd have said if I actually took a few minutes to think about it. Congrats......... As I think he tried to get across, jets are in an area where they are under close scrutiny from the FAA (who I'm sure would rather see them grounded than have to investigate accidents, let alone see anyone get killed). Sooner or later there is going to be another jet in an ice cream parlor, so keep your guard up.

Have a great day

Mark H

[Ken]

Thanks, Paul for sharing your experienced insight. We don't hear enough from you these days and I'm sorry this is the type of thread that floated you to the surface.

Ken

[marine air]

Didn't an Air Force F-16 run off the end of a runway a year or two at Oshkosh? ALso, remember when in the military , an A-4M running off the end of an 8,000' runway. Another incident involved a Colonel landing an A-4 at JAX and the A-4 had to be towed from the runway because it didn't have a single drop of fuel remaining.
Maybe this isn't a "Civilians operating ex-military jets" issue at all. The airplane with possibly the the highest accident rate , including landing accidents, is the lowly, straight wing Citation I !

[Dan K]

deleted by poster

[Flagon]

Excuse me again.

Is the airplane salvageable ?

Francesco.

[Mark Allen M]

Expecting others online to agree with you is unreasonable, but showing compassion, respect and restraint for others online is not. I see both sides of this debate and as someone who has met T33driver in person (the only WIX member I have ever met in person) I can confidently tell you that the fellow is extremely knowledgeable and a very gifted airline and warbird pilot. He's also a class act and a wonderful guy. If he feels the way he expressed in his post a page or so back then I have to give him the respect and credit he deserves. But as I'm sure he would respect my feeble attempt at an opinion on the matter, I personally have read nothing that would throw up too large a red flag for me on this subject. I don't think anyone who has posted on this thread has any sort of a negative agenda in mind. As usual it's just another delicate matter that can be easily turned into a flame war instead of a constructive and informative conversation if not taken with the slightest sense of restraint.

As someone who has learned the hard way that you can most certainly ruffle the feathers of other WIX members faster than you can press the Submit button, I have finally learned to "read what has been posted" more than I "post to what I have not read"

And simply posting a bunch of photos is also a way to stay out of trouble too

[marine air]

The aircraft looks like the Mig-21 I saw a couple months ago at (KDKB) Dekalb, Ill. We were there briefly in a Citation I and there were two Migs , this one and a two seat in the hangar. We were allowed to climb a ladder and look in the cockpit. The aircraft appeared to be in excellent shape. Spotless, with no buckets collecting hydraulic fluids, or anything negative.
It was for sale, and I thought maybe they had a govt. contract of some kind . We were told that a couple of ex military , airline pilots from Chicago fly the pair regularly.
The only thing I didn't like about them were the two "kill" slhouettes, an F-4 and an A-4, below the cockpit on the left.

[donno21]

Why did the F-4 / A-4 kills ruffle your feathers? Facts is facts. In the right hands and when properly employed the '21 in ANY version is a fine piece of machinery. Got to be a lot more to the story than a 6K runway in this "incident".

[b29driver]

Just did a little research but this was taken from http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/mig-21-specs.htm and to show a relevant issue.

Landing Runway:
F-7M = 600-900 m (1,970-2,955 ft) with brake-chute
J-7 III = 550 m (1,805 ft) with flap blowing, drag-chute and brakes

With that I would say that a 5,000' runway is adequate.

Mechanical things fail. People make mistakes. 5000' didn't leave any margin for error. I have a friend that flies MIG-21. He says 7500' is his minimum. I have been told this is the second MIG-21 overrun in the last 3 months.

[b29driver]

What happened ? Are we through discussing this?

[Mr. Scott]

Just did a little research but this was taken from http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/mig-21-specs.htm and to show a relevant issue.

Landing Runway:
F-7M = 600-900 m (1,970-2,955 ft) with brake-chute
J-7 III = 550 m (1,805 ft) with flap blowing, drag-chute and brakes

With that I would say that a 5,000' runway is adequate.

Mechanical things fail. People make mistakes. 5000' didn't leave any margin for error. I have a friend that flies MIG-21. He says 7500' is his minimum. I have been told this is the second MIG-21 overrun in the last 3 months.

True and true. Murphy will show up anytime and anyplace where it will be most inconvenient (and oftern there is not a thing you can do about it). If the statistics is true about the landing data from the website that means that there as 100% extra for any margin for error. You certainly don't get that doing short field operations over a 50' obstacle. One's personal minimum is that person's minimum. It depends on how they feel about the aircraft, their skills, their qualifications, and adding some margin for wife, kids, dogs and cats, and how much your personal insurance is worth.

Ok, it's the second MiG-21 (possibly). Compare that to the stats of the numbers of bug smashers that have done the same thing. Statistics are a wonderful thing - You can bend them any way you want to get the outcome you want. Still warbird operations (propeller based and jet still have less incidences than other aviation area.

[Mr. Scott]

What happened ? Are we through discussing this?

I don't mind thought there are some things legally I can't say. And as long as the discussion is relevant.

[bipe215]

Preliminary Report:

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief ... 0121&key=1