Still trying to replace the F14....

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Man that's cold. The more I converse with you the more I understand I could never have cut it in the military. Not a slam on you.


A person either possesses the talent and skill to operate a $30-$40 million jet off a carrier, or they don't. If they don't there is no way to sugar coat that fact. Or worse, B.S. their abilities into thinking they do, and pushing them forward under false pretenses. That's what politics pushed the military to do with Hultgreen. You see what it ended up accomplishing.


Any military service person who dies could be critiqued in the same way. They didn't do this or that, poor training wasn't smart enough yada yada.

I believe there was someone who crashed a plane on the deck and injured a bunch of people and you don't hear about that because it wasn't a woman.
 
Last edited:
Turtlevette said:

I believe there was someone who crashed a plane on the deck and injured a bunch of people and you don't hear about that because it wasn't a woman.


I don't get it Turtlevette. Consider if that *someone* you mention was a VIP's kid and got pushed forward by a congressman without regard to their ability and crashed that plane, killing people yada yada...that's exactly what was happening here. Yes, when that came out there would indeed be just as much noise without regard to what gender the person was. And rightly so.

So what's up with this sudden gender appropriation and holding forth on how unfair it all is because it was a woman up against the big bad military? Oh boo hoo and horse pucky. I get that you have some sort of problem with the military but poor logic is underminig your position. How about sharing where this logic-killing animosity comes from?
 
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
I believe there was someone who crashed a plane on the deck and injured a bunch of people and you don't hear about that because it wasn't a woman.


Don't be naïve. The military investigates every one of their aircraft accidents. It has nothing to do with the sex of the pilot. The same as the NTSB investigates and reports on aviation accidents and incidents, certain types of highway crashes, ship and marine accidents, pipeline incidents, and even railroad accidents.

You heard more about the Hultgreen accident because she was the first female carrier based fighter pilot in the U.S. Navy. And she received a lot of press as such. And the fact she didn't last very long doing it, didn't help her position either. The spotlight never had a chance to go dim on her. She received a lot of press as the first woman carrier based fighter pilot. So why wouldn't she receive the same when she crashed and killed herself just a short time later.
 
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Man that's cold...The more I converse with you the more I understand I could never have cut it in the military...Not a slam on you.
You have to remember aviation is inherently unforgiving of human error. You can't just stop.

FLYING is not a static act nor position. You sit in the seat but you don't sit in the air nor on the air.

Thus my old-school A&P uncle's insistence on YOU HAVE TO FLY THE AIRPLANE.
 
Hultgreen ranked No. 1 in defending the fleet from simulated attacks by enemy aircraft and in air refueling, the report said. She ranked No. 2 in tactics to evade enemy aircraft and in combined familiarization with tactics and aircraft. According to the report, Hultgreen had a total of 1,242 hours of flying time and 58 carrier landings, including 17 night landings.

I pulled that from an old LA times article. Doesn't sound to me like someone who is undertrained or incompetent.

Doing searches on her I see opinion very similar to astro14's coming from the center for military readiness and George mason university.
 
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
...Doesn't sound to me like someone who is undertrained or incompetent.
Given Astro's BTDT and his previous detailed explanations, I refer you to them.

I suggest you re-read the section where he states you never, ever skid the F-14 to correct for a bad turn caused by being out of position in the landing sequence. The consequences can be disastrous and fatal. Altitude above you is useless.
 
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Hultgreen ranked No. 1 in defending the fleet from simulated attacks by enemy aircraft and in air refueling, the report said. She ranked No. 2 in tactics to evade enemy aircraft and in combined familiarization with tactics and aircraft. According to the report, Hultgreen had a total of 1,242 hours of flying time and 58 carrier landings, including 17 night landings.

I pulled that from an old LA times article. Doesn't sound to me like someone who is undertrained or incompetent.

Doing searches on her I see opinion very similar to astro14's coming from the center for military readiness and George mason university.




You’re like a blind man looking at an elephant...and telling me that it’s tall, skinny, and hairy...like a rope...

Once you let go of the tail, and are able to see the whole animal, you’ll know that just a few facts do not allow you to see the big picture, or the entirety of the situation.

Let’s start with “cold”.

Nothing cold about objective assessment. I don’t care one bit about your color, gender, or anything else. I care about your ability to fly. Perhaps, if those evaluating her were more objective, she would be with us here today, instead of dead and buried at Arlington.

Which is more “cold” - false feedback that makes the person feel good, while taking their life? OR feedback that paints reality, and allows them to live?

I never felt good about ending a career. I’m not “cold”. I had tremendous empathy for those young pilots who were not able to pass the program. I’ll give you one example - his name was “JD”. He was a great guy. Bright, skilled, everything you would hope for, but at night, at the boat, he could not handle the pressure. I did everything that I could for “JD”. Extra training. Personal attention. The best RIO in the squadron. Everything.

He got two tries. While on the Lincoln, off the coast of Miramar, JD performed badly on his second try at carrier qualification. So poorly, in fact that on his second night, he never was able to land and had to go back to Miramar. My good, good friend, “Doc” was there, had to deliver the news to “JD”. When Doc and I talked, he told me that “JD” was heartbroken. So, was I. You couldn’t find a nicer young man than “JD”. As I was talking to “Doc”, I mentioned how bad I felt (even though I knew that my decision was rational, and correct).

“Doc” corrected me. “Doc” lit me up and told me that I was saving his life.

On July, 20, 1993, “Doc”’s room mate and best friend “Planet” crashed aboard the USS Lincoln. Ironically, he was in VF-213, the same squadron that Hultgreen was assigned to, and on the same ship. “Planet” crashed spectacularly- the airplane broke up, and a fireball containing ruptured fuel tanks and the cockpit careened down the deck while most of the airplane was scattered over the aft end. The RIO survived.

“Planet” was dead.

Everyone loved “Planet”. Great guy. Great at the air-air employment of the airplane. “Planet” had been before a Field Naval Aviator Evaluation Board previously for poor landing performance at night. The CO knew he was having trouble. Everyone knew. But everyone loved him. Everyone thought he was a great guy. Everyone thought he should get one more chance.

They weren’t objective. Those making decisions weren’t...”cold”.

And “Planet” died as a result.

Not his fault. It was theirs. All those who failed to be objective. All those who failed to be “cold”. They sent him out night after night, in an airplane that was too much for him.

The same thing killed Hultgreen. A lack of “cold”.

But “Planet” died in obscurity. Not to “Doc” and his squadron of course, but to the rest of the world, it was another F-14 crash. Another statistic in a world where those kinds of things happened. He wasn’t feted on news Channels. His picture was never plastered on the front of magazines. No national mourning. No pundits heaping praise upon him.

No burial at Arlington.

He rests in obscurity at Washington Crossing United Methodist Cemetery - Washington Crossing, Pennsylvania, where he was from.

Kara Hultgreen had Congressional and media attention from day one. Admirals called the squadron every day to ask about her progress. Representative Pat Schroeder (D-CO) called the CO personally and often to ask about her. That level of attention and scrutiny caused the CO of the training squadron to over-ride the “cold” (and objective) assessment of her instructors. After twice failing to qualify at the carrier (just like “JD”), she was given a 3rd chance. A chance no other Naval Aviator got. A chance that “JD” didn’t get and during that 3rd qualification attempt, the CO, who was NOT an LSO, pronounced her qualified.

But she wasn’t.

And her subsequent crash proved that. The specious and superficial “facts” that the media posted in the aftermath were an attempt to tell a story that wasn’t true. “No. 1 in defending the fleet”!!?? That training was done in a simulator. A simulator that didn’t even have motion. The pilot flew a console, not even a real cockpit, while the RIO worked the radar in a fixed base cockpit with an AWG-9 radar. The rest of her grades are specious. So what if you can defend the fleet IF YOU CANNOT LAND THE AIRPLANE ON A SHIP?? In that moment, your landing performance is a larger threat to the ship, the fleet, and your squadron than the enemy.

But only if enough “cold” thought is given to a pilot that can’t land a fighter at sea. Gender doesn’t matter, only performance does. And in that, both Kara and “Planet” had the same affliction - they couldn’t land the jet safely. Landing is the hardest of the mission sets in that airplane, at that time, and no one was willing to make the “cold” call.

The Navy released (leaked, actually, as it’s confidential) the JAG investigation to the public, for reasons known only to the senior leadership. No other mishap investigations, or JAG investigations, were leaked. But that investigation was charged only with determining whether she died in the line of duty (she did) and whether is was due to misconduct (she did not*).

The failure of her CO to be “Cold” put her in harm’s way without the tools to handle it. Just as “Planet”’s CO put him in harm’s way that night aboard the same carrier, and in the same squadron.

When you make decisions upon which rest people’s lives, cold, rational thought is a good thing.


*Misconduct is willful disregard of rules and orders. Ineptitude, or failure to do your job in difficult circumstances, is not misconduct. The JAG investigation cleared her of misconduct. It didn’t clear her of pilot error, it couldn’t, because that wasn’t its precept. The press, of course, twisted this around to crow that she was a hero, killed by a dangerous airplane that no one could fly. But that simply wasn’t true.
 
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Quite clearly. All too clearly.



I was involved, tangentially, in the mishap investigation. I was, at airplanes, but allowing her to fly the Tomcat was a mistake that ultimately took her life.



I always kept that in mind when I was training, and judging the performance of, my students in the carrier landing phase. Not every one of my students passed. But every one that did pass, and flew Tomcats in the fleet, is still alive.


Man that's cold.

The more I converse with you the more I understand I could never have cut it in the military.

Not a slam on you.




The military is not for everyone I didn't do the military. I know some friends that thrive in the military
 
Originally Posted By: Astro14

On July, 20, 1993, “Doc”’s room mate and best friend “Planet” crashed aboard the USS Lincoln. Ironically, he was in VF-213, the same squadron that Hultgreen was assigned to, and on the same ship. “Planet” crashed spectacularly- the airplane broke up, and a fireball containing ruptured fuel tanks and the cockpit careened down the deck while most of the airplane was scattered over the aft end. The RIO survived.


Youtube link to this crash
 
That is the crash to which I was referring.

Though I never met him, it is hard to watch, as all fatal crashes are.

In the trivia department, a friend now runs a business in Denver, making skateboards (long boards, he calls them).

On every board they make is the logo “Planet 720”. A tribute to a lost friend. He doesn’t advertise what that logo means.

But it’s quite clear to me...
 
Originally Posted By: Astro14
That is the crash to which I was referring.


Terrible to watch, the silhouette of the shattered airframe against the fireball ....

The horizontal line in the video .... glideslope? Vertical line ... centerline?

Was the glideslope moving because the deck was moving up and down? Or was the camera locked to the aircraft, regardless of deck movement and the Lieutenant let it drop below the glideslope at the end? If I am asking that right .....
 
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Sir yes sir

I guess I'm on latrine duty for stepping out of line.



TV - You're not in trouble with me. I'm not upset.

I spent a lot of time describing the "rest of the elephant" in that post. I wanted to help you (and others) understand.

If I thought you were not worth my time, I would've simply said as much.

Would've been a whole lot less thought and effort on my part...

Cheers,
Astro
 
Originally Posted By: Win
Originally Posted By: Astro14
That is the crash to which I was referring.


Terrible to watch, the silhouette of the shattered airframe against the fireball ....

The horizontal line in the video .... glideslope? Vertical line ... centerline?

Was the glideslope moving because the deck was moving up and down? Or was the camera locked to the aircraft, regardless of deck movement and the Lieutenant let it drop below the glideslope at the end? If I am asking that right .....


The camera is known as the "PLAT" (Pilot Landing Aid Television). There are multiple PLAT cameras. The first view in the video is from one mounted in the deck forward of the wires. The centerline is accurate. The glide slope is not, but is does provide some reference. While the camera view is moving up and down with the deck motion (the ship was in the Indian Ocean, big swells), the glideslope reference has some stabilization.

When the deck is moving (we call it pitching deck) there several issues/challenges. The first is that the glideslope indicator (meatball) cannot keep up with the motion. So, a manually controlled (by the LSO) glideslope is rigged in its place. This is called MOVLAS*. The second is that pilot perception of how "high" they are is distorted by the deck itself. When the deck (stern) is down, the landing area is at a much higher angle and the pilot "feels" high. Conversely, when the deck (stern) is up, the landing area is a lower angle to the pilot and he "feels" low. The third is that the airplane itself still has landing limits. IF the deck drops 20 feet (not uncommon in the IO), you simply can't bring the airplane down to the deck at the last second of the extreme sink rate will break the airplane. IF the deck goes up 20 feet, the airplane is BELOW the deck level and that won't work, either...so there are lots of wave offs, and lots of small last minute adjustments to get the airplane to where the deck is... it's known as "working the airplane in sync with the deck" and it's part art, part science.

What happened on this approach was classic - deck went down. Pilot chased it down (aforementioned visual illusion - very common error). The LSO showed him low on MOVLAS. Pilot did NOT correct with enough power (the power call on the radio is always to add MORE power...never less.)

Then, the tragic mistake.

It's an old adage# in Naval Aviation that "you never lead a low". That means that if you're correcting off a low "ball" (low in relation to glideslope), you should not correct (pull power) until the airplane is high. Don't ever, ever, ever, lead the correction. It's simply too hard to stop the airplane on glideslope.

"Planet" led the low. He pulled power as he perceived he was coming up on glideslope, but he pulled way too much and got a wave off...but the wave off wasn't enough. His energy state, caused by an excessive power correction (off, in this case), was not correctable in the time before the airplane hit the stern of the ship. Full power wasn't enough.

On a steady deck, Nimitz class (as this was), there is 14.1 feet of hook-ramp clearance when the airplane is on a perfect glideslope. This airplane got about 25 feet low in relation to the deck. Caused by pilot error.

Remember from the previous post that this pilot had had landing difficulties at night. His gross over-correction on power was a symptom of that inability to handle the night landing. Night landing wasn't easy in any airplane. It was harder in the F-14A, which suffered from poor engine response. Pull the power back too far, and those engines won't respond for several seconds.

Seconds in which the airplane gets lower and slower as it inexorably approaches the deck.

That's what happened here.

The RIO felt the impact and asked on the ICS (intercom) if he should eject.

But no ICS was possible as the electric power source (engine generators) were scattered at the back of the ship.

The RIO did eject them at the end of the slide down the deck, but while he made it, Planet struck the ship and was killed.

Pilot error. Plain and simple.

Understand that this is the most demanding environment in aviation - night, pitching deck, F-14A. So, his inability to handle it is understandable. Not all Naval Aviators can handle it. Most of the pilot population probably couldn't. It's not a slam on him.

When a guy struggles on a steady deck, asking him to handle a pitching deck is simply a failure in leadership and judgement on the part of those who directed him to fly. His CO killed him in my opinion.

Hope that helps...



*MOVLAS is great for extreme pitching decks because it allows the LSO to manually place the airplane in relation to where it should be in space, not in relation to the deck. This stabilization keeps the approach consistent but it does require predictable pilot responses, as well as great trust between pilot and LSO.

#Sort of like "never get involved in a land war in Southeast Asia" or "Never bet against a Sicilian where death is on the line!"
 
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Sir yes sir

I guess I'm on latrine duty for stepping out of line.



TV - You're not in trouble with me. I'm not upset.

I spent a lot of time describing the "rest of the elephant" in that post. I wanted to help you (and others) understand.

If I thought you were not worth my time, I would've simply said as much.

Would've been a whole lot less thought and effort on my part...

Cheers,
Astro


I'm being silly. I thought that was a really good write up.

I remember when it happened I made some comment about her not being that good and my wife got really mad at me. As a civilian I feel I have no place to judge someone who died in the line of duty.
 
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Hope that helps...

*MOVLAS is great for extreme pitching decks because it allows the LSO to manually place the airplane in relation to where it should be in space, not in relation to the deck. ....


Indeed, it does. So if I am following you correctly, the MOVLAS allows the LSO, who is presumably in sync with the deck oscillation, to put the glideslope to the flight path that he believes will cause the deck and airplane to intersect at the correct point in time / space?

And the root cause of the fatal pilot error was flying off sensory (visual) cues rather than his instruments?

These lucid explanations are always appreciated. Those of us in the shallow end of the pool learn lots from them.
 
Originally Posted By: sleddriver
Great detailed, thorough explanations Astro! I appreciate your time spent typing!


Thanks - more in the thread that Bill started.

Cheers,
Astro
 
Originally Posted By: Win
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Hope that helps...

*MOVLAS is great for extreme pitching decks because it allows the LSO to manually place the airplane in relation to where it should be in space, not in relation to the deck. ....


Indeed, it does. So if I am following you correctly, the MOVLAS allows the LSO, who is presumably in sync with the deck oscillation, to put the glideslope to the flight path that he believes will cause the deck and airplane to intersect at the correct point in time / space?

And the root cause of the fatal pilot error was flying off sensory (visual) cues rather than his instruments?

These lucid explanations are always appreciated. Those of us in the shallow end of the pool learn lots from them.



Win - Most landings (there is an automatic/autopilot system for landing) end up with a pure visual component. The visual is the glideslope, from the "ball" or visual landing aid, your lineup (centerline) and your AOA (angle of attack). There is an AOA reticle on some airplanes' HUD. The F-14 had an on speed indicator on the left side of the canopy, right in the pilot's line of sight for the ball, so it was easily seen.

The Mantra of the Naval Aviator: Meatball, Lineup, AOA.

All monitored and corrected smoothly and rapidly. You fly the airplane visually...but your perception of what's going on can't over-ride what your indicators are telling you.

The error in the case of Planet was allowing his perception/feeling ("I must be high" - when he never was...the deck was down...) to override what he was seeing on the MOVLAS...your amygdala is great for a fight/flight/freeze response if you're a caveman encountering a sabre-tooth, but there is a point in the stress response were higher brain function is shut down...and your performance declines, often rapidly, with higher stress...

Landing on a ship is stressful. Night adds stress. So does a pitching deck.

Your description of the LSO in a pitching deck scenario is right on, with the added caveat that you can't exceed the normal design sink rate/landing gear load, which is easily done if the deck is rising up to meet the airplane.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top