ANG F-15 into Canal, Oregon, 5/15/2023, no injuries

Well, no funeral, so that’s good. Not necessarily anything to do with the pilot coming up short, listed as an instructor also.
 
Last edited:
tobnpr said:
Update... swiss cheese...
www.airforcetimes.com

Series of jet, staff failures faulted in 2023 F-15 crash

An Air Force investigation said a pilot, maintainers and miscommunication with air traffic controllers were to blame for an F-15D crash in May 2023.
www.airforcetimes.com www.airforcetimes.com
Click to expand...
Looks like the Navy has the right idea. They don't have to worry about a Controller somehow interpreting that a pilot saying 'cable' means he wants it down.

3−3−6. ARRESTING SYSTEM OPERATION
a. For normal operations, arresting systems remotely controlled by ATC must remain in the retracted or down
position.
NOTE−
1. USN− Runway Arresting Gear− barriers are not operated by ATC personnel. Readiness/rigging of the equipment is the
responsibility of the operations department.
2. A request to raise a barrier or hook cable means the barrier or cable on the departure end of the runway. If an approach
end engagement is required, the pilot or military authority will specifically request that the approach end cable be raised.
REFERENCE−
FAA Order JO 7610.4, Chapter 9, Section 3. Aircraft Arresting System, Single Frequency Approach (SFA), Simulated Flameout (SFO)/Emergency
Landing Pattern (ELP) Operations, Celestial Navigation (CELNAV) Training, Para 9−3−1 through Para 9−3−8.
b. Raise aircraft arresting systems whenever:
1. Requested by a pilot.
NOTE−
The standard emergency phraseology for a pilot requesting an arresting system to be raised for immediate engagement is:
“BARRIER − BARRIER − BARRIER”
or
“CABLE − CABLE − CABLE.”
 
So you would be okay with rolling over a raised cable in a light plane? Klamath Falls is a civil/military airfield.
 
Maintainer #1: "Hey, there's a hydraulic leak somewhere. There's fluid on the door behind the right landing gear."
Maintainer #2: "Meh...let's go have a beer."

Un*******believable.
 
kkoran said:
So you would be okay with rolling over a raised cable in a light plane? Klamath Falls is a civil/military airfield.
Click to expand...
He’s not saying to land on a raised cable. At Navy / Marine fields, they’ll derig the approach end gear of the duty runway but the departure end and other runways will be rigged. Smaller aircraft can snag nose wheels and larger aircraft will sometimes knock it out of battery. So they derig it and if necessary (emergency / standing water) than can rig it with enough notice.
 
Velocity173 said:
He’s not saying to land on a raised cable. At Navy / Marine fields, they’ll derig the approach end gear of the duty runway but the departure end and other runways will be rigged. Smaller aircraft can snag nose wheels and larger aircraft will sometimes knock it out of battery. So they derig it and if necessary (emergency / standing water) than can rig it with enough notice.
Click to expand...
Not just the nose wheel. They will do a number on the main fairings of C-172 and probably most others. Don’t ask me how I know:eek:
 
luvflyin said:
Not just the nose wheel. They will do a number on the main fairings of C-172 and probably most others. Don’t ask me how I know:eek:
Click to expand...
I ran over one as a student in a C150 at KCHS. Instructor asked if I wanted to land beyond it or in front of it with the caveat of keeping the nose wheel off the deck. I hit it with the mains and it sure felt like it bounced us up. Probably should’ve have chosen to land beyond it.
 
Here's what I don't get.

The MP communicated the intent to land on RWY 14, and if abnormal braking was encountered, would execute a go-around to attempt an approach end arrestment (Tab AA-5).

The MA touched down on speed at 138 knots calibrated airspeed (KCAS) approximately 850 feet (ft) down the RWY (Tab Z-3). The MP extended the speed brake and performed an aerobrake to 100 KCAS (Tab Z-3). The MP lowered the nose wheel of the MA approximately 2,500 ft down the RWY (Tab Z-3). After landing, the SOF communicated to the MP that the speed brake did not fully extend (Tab AA-6). The MP applied brake pressure but subsequently recognized that braking was insufficient to slow the MA. (Tabs V-1.7 and Z-3). During the aircraft investigation board (AIB) interview, the MP was uncertain whether sufficient runway remained to safely execute a go-around and elected to continue the landing to attempt a departure-end cable arrestment (Tab V-1.6 to V-1.8). The MP lowered the arresting hook at approximately 5,000 ft down the RWY
Click to expand...

The pilot tried the brakes and determined that there was insufficient braking when he was 5,000' down a 10,000' runway. I would have thought 5,000' was plenty of runway to make a go around. Especially if you're still at about 100kts.
 
donjohnston said:
Here's what I don't get.



The pilot tried the brakes and determined that there was insufficient braking when he was 5,000' down a 10,000' runway. I would have thought 5,000' was plenty of runway to make a go around. Especially if you're still at about 100kts.
Click to expand...
The accident report determined that he could have gone around. Not what the pilot thought in the heat of the moment. Kinda like it was determined that Sully ‘could have made the airport.’
 
Velocity173 said:
He’s not saying to land on a raised cable. At Navy / Marine fields, they’ll derig the approach end gear of the duty runway but the departure end and other runways will be rigged. Smaller aircraft can snag nose wheels and larger aircraft will sometimes knock it out of battery. So they derig it and if necessary (emergency / standing water) than can rig it with enough notice.
Click to expand...

This all makes sense and is true most other places I've been based, but I believe the AF OPS policy at NUW is to rig the short field gear on the active anytime the winds exceed 12 knots or something weird. There is literally no F/A-18 or EA-18 procedure involving winds/crosswind that involves taking an arrested landing (there is for 1/4 inch or more of standing water on the runway), much less a short field arrestment. So they do this in a vacuum, and then a P-3 or P-8 knocks the gear out of battery, and everyone has to hold or if available, switch to the other piece of pavement. Love it :)
 
donjohnston said:
Here's what I don't get.



The pilot tried the brakes and determined that there was insufficient braking when he was 5,000' down a 10,000' runway. I would have thought 5,000' was plenty of runway to make a go around. Especially if you're still at about 100kts.
Click to expand...
In a tactical jet speed is generally not your friend when looking at runway required to get airborne. If your fast you eat up all the runway waiting for the engine or engines to spool and then burners to light. You can often get airborne in a light weight situation in a shorter distance from a stop than from 100 knots or more.
 
Velocity173 said:
I ran over one as a student in a C150 at KCHS. Instructor asked if I wanted to land beyond it or in front of it with the caveat of keeping the nose wheel off the deck. I hit it with the mains and it sure felt like it bounced us up. Probably should’ve have chosen to land beyond it.
Click to expand...
It happened to me at North Island KNZY. I wasn’t the one flying but I still hold myself accountable for not thinking of it and saying something. Friend calls me up and says I’m gonna go get some night flying in, wanna go? Coming home we landed Rwy 29. Hit the E-28 by the 5 board.
 
What I don’t understand is why the pilot didn't want the departure end cable up for the landing.
 
kkoran said:
What I don’t understand is why the pilot didn't want the departure end cable up for the landing.
Click to expand...
He did. And he had told the Tower so. And it was. Then he said ‘cable.’ Once. Not ‘cable cable cable’ which is the established phraseology to ask that the cable be raised. Controller concluded that he said that because he wanted the cable put back down. Controller pushed the down button and told the pilot. Pilot says, in so many words, NO I NEED IT UP, but it was to late….
 
Last edited:
Is there a SOP for landing with hydraulic failure ?
 
I don’t know squat about the F15 hydraulic system. In most hi performance aircraft it is recommended to take a arrestment if available with possible brake issues. Navy aircraft would generally make a short field arrestment if available Other aircraft would make a normal landing with the long field gear as a back up. Air Force aircraft even hook equipped can not generally make a short field arrestment. They also need to avoid a long field arrestment in the event of a go around. Tower would have been very alert for this and the single “Cable” call confused them.
 
I remember the F-18s if they lost a certain engine (I think right) hyd pressure for braking / steering is lost. They’d request the cable in that case.

We had one depart and had an engine out on the roll and took the emergency E5 gear in the overrun. Wiped out some of the approach lights but no substantial damage. There was some controversy because they were under the impression the departure E28 was rigged. It was inop for maint.
 
The 15 has 3 hydraulic systems, Utility, PC1 and PC2. There are 4 total hydraulic pumps, PC1 and a utility pump driven by left engine, and right utility and PC2 driven by the right engine. The landing gear system, to include brakes, are operated on the utility system so if either engine is down, there is still utility system pressure to run landing gear and brakes. For a utility hydraulic failure, the pilot can pull the “Emergency Brake/Steer” handle which directs pressure from 2 accumulators to the landing gear door locks allowing a free fall, the brake system, and nose wheel steering. Anti-skid will not be available. (Correction edit: the emer brake/steer handle directs accumulator pressure to brakes and NWS, no anti-skid. The Emer landing gear handle directs accumulator pressure to the landing gear door locks. They are two separate handles.)


For a total utility failure, a cable/arresting gear landing would be expected. Sounds like the pilot didn’t want to pull the emer brake/steer handle because he wouldn’t have anti-skid…not sure if that’s squadron policy, but I’m doubting it is. Also sounds like he didn’t want to catch the wire. Although it should be a checklist/no decision item, I could understand that part, as getting the aircraft out of the barrier can be a pain and he’d have to wait for the recovery shop to get to the plane, direct him out of the cable, and then clear him to taxi away or shut down and be towed. Being towed from the runway all the way back to the squadron is a long, hot, annoying ride with no AC.
 
Last edited:
aterry1067 said:
The 15 has 3 hydraulic systems, Utility, PC1 and PC2. There are 4 total hydraulic pumps, PC1 and a utility pump driven by left engine, and right utility and PC2 driven by the right engine. The landing gear system, to include brakes, are operated on the utility system so if either engine is down, there is still utility system pressure to run landing gear and brakes. For a utility hydraulic failure, the pilot can pull the “Emergency Brake/Steer” handle which directs pressure from 2 accumulators to the landing gear door locks allowing a free fall, the brake system, and nose wheel steering. Anti-skid will not be available. (Correction edit: the emer brake/steer handle directs accumulator pressure to brakes and NWS, no anti-skid. The Emer landing gear handle directs accumulator pressure to the landing gear door locks. They are two separate handles.)


For a total utility failure, a cable/arresting gear landing would be expected. Sounds like the pilot didn’t want to pull the emer brake/steer handle because he wouldn’t have anti-skid…not sure if that’s squadron policy, but I’m doubting it is. Also sounds like he didn’t want to catch the wire. Although it should be a checklist/no decision item, I could understand that part, as getting the aircraft out of the barrier can be a pain and he’d have to wait for the recovery shop to get to the plane, direct him out of the cable, and then clear him to taxi away or shut down and be towed. Being towed from the runway all the way back to the squadron is a long, hot, annoying ride with no AC.
Click to expand...
He wanted to catch the wire.

“…That’s when communication between air traffic control and the pilot broke down, the Air Force found. With time and runway running out, the pilot radioed only the word “cable” to the tower. Air traffic control, which had previously told the pilot the arresting cable was positioned upward, misinterpreted the pilot’s intent and began lowering the cable.

“Cable coming down,” air traffic control told the pilot three seconds after their transmission.


“No, no, I need cable, cable up, cable up, cable up, cable up,” the pilot radioed back, seven seconds later, with 3,500 feet of runway to spare. Four seconds later, air traffic control flipped the switch to raise the cable, responding with “cable up.”
 
luvflyin said:
He wanted to catch the wire.

“…That’s when communication between air traffic control and the pilot broke down, the Air Force found. With time and runway running out, the pilot radioed only the word “cable” to the tower. Air traffic control, which had previously told the pilot the arresting cable was positioned upward, misinterpreted the pilot’s intent and began lowering the cable.

“Cable coming down,” air traffic control told the pilot three seconds after their transmission.


“No, no, I need cable, cable up, cable up, cable up, cable up,” the pilot radioed back, seven seconds later, with 3,500 feet of runway to spare. Four seconds later, air traffic control flipped the switch to raise the cable, responding with “cable up.”
Click to expand...


Yeah, the second (departure) cable; with a utility failure and known hydraulic leak, I would think he would want to catch the first (approach) cable. I understand the reasoning and I understand the pilots decision to forego a barrier arrestment, thinking there would be plenty of time to catch the second barrier if required. But that was assuming the cable would be up. It’s reasonable I guess that if the checklist required a barrier arrestment, that it may not specify WHICH barrier, but I’ve never seen any pilot pass up the first barrier with a utility hydraulic failure.

His plan was to go around if his brakes didn’t work, but then he changed his mind halfway down the runway. By not catching the first wire, he limited his options. What’s the saying… runway behind you, airspace above you, and fuel left on the ground?
 
Last edited:
aterry1067 said:
Yeah, the second (departure) cable; with a utility failure and known hydraulic leak, I would think he would want to catch the first (approach) cable. I understand the reasoning and I understand the pilots decision to forego a barrier arrestment, thinking there would be plenty of time to catch the second barrier if required. But that was assuming the cable would be up. It’s reasonable I guess that if the checklist required a barrier arrestment, that it may not specify WHICH barrier, but I’ve never seen any pilot pass up the first barrier with a utility hydraulic failure.

His plan was to go around if his brakes didn’t work, but then he changed his mind halfway down the runway. By not catching the first wire, he limited his options. What’s the saying… runway behind you, airspace above you, and fuel left on the ground?
Click to expand...
Somebody said above that the Air Force doesn’t do short field traps. Why I dunno, maybe their planes aren’t built to do them or maybe just to save on wear and tear. @EvilEagle , whadda ya say?
 
luvflyin said:
Somebody said above that the Air Force doesn’t do short field traps. Why I dunno, maybe their planes aren’t built to do them or maybe just to save on wear and tear. @EvilEagle , whadda ya say?
Click to expand...


Like carrier style landings? No, AF planes are not built for that. The tail hook and landing gear on a 15 (or 16 or 35A) are by no means strong enough to tolerate forces of that nature. The landing gear on a carrier aircraft is substantially more robust. The landing gear on the 35C is absolutely massive compared to the A and B models.
 
aterry1067 said:
Like carrier style landings? No, AF planes are not built for that. The tail hook and landing gear on a 15 (or 16 or 35A) are by no means strong enough to tolerate forces of that nature. The landing gear on a carrier aircraft is substantially more robust. The landing gear on the 35C is absolutely massive compared to the A and B models.
Click to expand...
It’s 1500’ from the threshold. I suppose you could do it flaring without slamming it down like the Navy does but there’s not a lot of room to get it done

1718040375051.png
 
aterry1067 said:
Like carrier style landings? No, AF planes are not built for that. The tail hook and landing gear on a 15 (or 16 or 35A) are by no means strong enough to tolerate forces of that nature. The landing gear on a carrier aircraft is substantially more robust. The landing gear on the 35C is absolutely massive compared to the A and B models.
Click to expand...
If you go to a airshow simply look at the arresting hooks on the Navy verses Airforce aircraft. The answer on short field arrestments will become clear. It’s also an issue of what type arresting gear as they have different deceleration rates. You don’t want to put a Airforce aircraft into a E28 gear at high speed.
 
They can take the short field gear. Seen them do it in Kadena right in front of me while taxiing out in the mighty C152. Perhaps there’s a significant difference though in the tension of an E28 vs say a MK12. Personally seen an E28 rip the hook out the back of a T-2 landing in standing water.

 
Last edited:
I see Oregon ANG has just started getting F-15EXs. That thing is a beast.

 
Velocity173 said:
They can take the short field gear. Seen them do it in Kadena right in front of me while taxiing out in the mighty C152. Perhaps there’s a significant difference though in the tension difference of an E28 vs say a MK12. Personally seen an E28 rip the hook out the back of a T-2 landing in standing water.

Click to expand...


Yeah, agree. The barrier cable on a land based runway and the arrestment gear on a Navy ship are two vastly different systems. The land based system is pretty basic and the resistance load will be the same no matter what aircraft catches the wire. The aircraft that catches a land based barrier cable will be slowed down much more gradually, relatively speaking, compared to a Navy ship based system. The arresting gear on the Navy carrier will use an hydraulic dampening system and the resistance can/will be set for each aircraft weight. And the Navy system is going to stop the aircraft in a very short distance with a very high resistance load.

Catching the first (approach) cable on a land based system is not a short field/carrier type landing event, by any means. After engagement, the land based cable and resistance drums will slow the aircraft to a stop, but it takes a lot longer and uses a lot more distance than the ship based system.

Even in the description in this scenario, the pilot tells ATC that he doesn’t want to catch the cable and he will go around if his brakes didn’t work. He has to be talking about the first cable, as there would not be enough runway to perform a go around after the second cable. They lowered the approach cable, per his request, and had the departure cable raised. When he said “cable”, they lowered the departure cable, and that’s not what he wanted.

I was in the AR/Crash Recovery shop in the Air Force as an F-15 Crew Chief, and have responded to dozens, if not hundreds of F-15 barrier engagements. They always catch the approach wire.
 
luvflyin said:
Somebody said above that the Air Force doesn’t do short field traps. Why I dunno, maybe their planes aren’t built to do them or maybe just to save on wear and tear. @EvilEagle , whadda ya say?
Click to expand...
Sorry, I was without internet for a couple of weeks there. Pretty much covered it here, but we do approach end arrestments in the Eagle regularly for emergencies. I haven't read the full report, but I do know the guy that was flying the jet when this happened. I haven't spoken with him about the details.

There are reasons you would choose not to take the approach end barrier but that is a wide scope and only with experience and having "been there". Since I wasn't there, I won't comment on that - at least not without reading the report. (might do that one day when I get around to it)
 
EvilEagle said:
Sorry, I was without internet for a couple of weeks there. Pretty much covered it here, but we do approach end arrestments in the Eagle regularly for emergencies. I haven't read the full report, but I do know the guy that was flying the jet when this happened. I haven't spoken with him about the details.

There are reasons you would choose not to take the approach end barrier but that is a wide scope and only with experience and having "been there". Since I wasn't there, I won't comment on that - at least not without reading the report. (might do that one day when I get around to it)
Click to expand...
I wasn’t asking about this incident. Understand you not wanting to speculate. I was wondering about what had been said about the Air Force never doing short field traps.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top