F16 mishap at Oshkosh last year

[N601RX]

Many of you may remember the F16 that had the mishap at Oshkosh last year.  I remember it happened about the time I arrived.  Official cause seems to be fog in the cockpit?  Any military personal on here have any instight on this?

http://www.wsfa.com/story/16982263/air-force-fogging-led-to-damage-of-f-16

[Omega703]

Landing at an airfield with high humidity, it is common to have fog coming out of the ecs, and even fog up the canopy and/or HUD. Usually, throwing the defroster forward takes care of this at the expense of a cool cockpit (sends heated air through the vents). 

[xftrplt]

The answer is to preheat the canopy.  You (should) learn that early.  IMNSHO, pilot F/U, USAF coverup.

[fantom]

No doubt.

A squadron mate ran a Phantom off the Homestead AFB runway for the very same reason. Destroyed a fine plane and the promising career of a USAFA grad. No cover up possible due to several Generals being on base at the time.

[Omega703]

Quote: xftrplt

The answer is to preheat the canopy.  You (should) learn that early.  IMNSHO, pilot F/U, USAF coverup.

[jetdriven]

Whats strange is you can see INSIDE the canopy and through it when it rolls by on the video.. I am with Dick S.    It is a cover up.

[Omega703]

Quote: jetdriven

Whats strange is you can see INSIDE the canopy and through it when it rolls by on the video.. I am with Dick S.    It is a cover up.

[GeorgePerry]

Quote: Omega703

Wow. A coverup of what? In your time in the f16, where did you find ecs moisture most obtrusive? In my experience, I found it most obstructing in the font of the canopy (near the HUD), where the vents are. Furthermore, I never had a problem with the side vents interrupting my field of view as they are well below the canopy rail, but that's just my experience. 

[xftrplt]

Omega, Don't let first hand knowledge and experience get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.  The uninitiated have no idea of the vetting process that Safety report findings go through before being released to the public.

Nicely and opaquely said, George.  I think I agree. 

If in doubt of the capacity for (or audacity of) cover ups,  research "The Diamond Crash."  It surely takes the cake:  TB1 screws the pooch, four die in one smoking hole.  Nothing left but aluminum confetti.  AF report:  the stick must have jammed.  YGBSM.

BTW, I WAS in his cockpit, or rather he was in mine, as I checked him out in the 38 at Holloman (where, later, the crash occured).

[Shadrach]

Quote: GeorgePerry

Wow. A coverup of what? In your time in the f16, where did you find ecs moisture most obtrusive? In my experience, I found it most obstructing in the font of the canopy (near the HUD), where the vents are. Furthermore, I never had a problem with the side vents interrupting my field of view as they are well below the canopy rail, but that's just my experience. 

[xftrplt]

Agreed, Ross, coverup was probably too strong word.  I had forgotten the references to no SB and improper aero braking.  I have the always been intolerant of boneheaded errors in aviation--military and civilian--if not a fault, at least a flaw in my disposition.   I do, however, have time in the Viper.

[Shadrach]

Quote: xftrplt

Agreed, Ross, coverup was probably too strong word.  I had forgotten the references to no SB and improper aero braking.  I have the always been intolerant of boneheaded errors in aviation--military and civilian--if not a fault, at least a flaw in my disposition.   I do, however, have time in the Viper.

[Shadrach]

Quote: JimR

Civilian here with no time whatsoever in any aircraft even remotely similar to a F-16.  But I do have some experience as an investigator, although admittedly not as an aircraft accident investigator.

So, in summary, the well qualified and rested pilot landed 25 to 35 knots faster than the optimal 140 knot landing speed in his properly maintained F-16C because he misjudged the flatter than standard overhead pattern that was necesitated by the weather conditions that existed at the time.  Aerobraking was his best option to slow down, and adequate runway remained for him to do so even with the excessive landing speed.  However, he only managed to slow the aircraft to approximately 80 knots in 7000 feet of remaining runway due to improper aerobraking that was caused by his inability to judge AOA due to fog in the cockpit.  The fog in the cockpit was determined to have been caused by a failure of the environmental control system. 

I personally found the report to be incredibly detailed in all areas except it lacked the kind of post crash physical examination of the wreckage details that I am accustomed to seeing in NTSB reports.  The discussion about the failure modes of the environmental control system was almost entirely theoretical in nature, and it forced the reader to a certain degree to take the pilot and the review board's word for the fact that the environmental controls were, in fact, not functioning properly at the time of the accident.  A more thorough discussion of any post crash laboratory analysis of the actual accident aircraft's environmental control system that took place to determine its functionality at the time of the accident might have eliminated some of the Monday morning quarterbacking that we've seen here and have made for a more credible report.  

Jim

[jetdriven]

In the youtube 1080P video, you can clearly see the HUD, and the pilot.  The ANN video this week mentioned that the pilot "was extrememly concerned abouty other planes and the spectators on the left side of the aircraft.".   Don't those things have anti-skid brakes?  What's to prevent him from lowering the nose and stomping on the brakes.   I just have a  hard time seeing how you can run off an 8000' runway, with what sounds like the power still on, and the conclusion was "no other choice"

[Shadrach]

I agree that the pilot and the HUD are visable Byron, but there's no real way to know what it looked like from the inside with a helmet shield down. I'm inclined to believe that there were definite visability issues, if for no other reason the guy in the pilot seat had 3000+ hrs in type and was an active warbird pilot as well. A guy with that level of experience doesn't just screw the pooch for no reason. Whether someone else would have handled it better on any given Sunday is anyones guess. I still stand behind my opinion that the investigation summary was not the most comprehensive I've read. That makes me wonder what really happened...

[xftrplt]

No apology in order, Ross.