B-1 Bomber Crash

Man that is going to cost us all a lot.
 
Depends on how you do the accounting. I doubt it will be replaced. One less aircraft to maintain and fuel.
 
Old Geek said:
Depends on how you do the accounting. I doubt it will be replaced. One less aircraft to maintain and fuel.
Click to expand...

Yup, the way I heard it long ago was the aircraft at D-M are better off left there.
 
I've seen a pair of these practicing landings here in Billings these last few days. Pretty awesome sight circling at a 1000ft.
 
N321SR said:
I've seen a pair of these practicing landings here in Billings these last few days. Pretty awesome sight circling at a 1000ft.
Click to expand...


Agreed....:yes:

There is a Military training route right over my ranch/ private airport....2WY3... and I see them haulin ass a few times a week......

The true sound of Freedom...:yes::)
 
Glad the crew made it out. hope they recover soon! It might be one more off of the books, but those are beautiful aircraft, stunning... and I hate to see one go.
 
I did 20yrs AF and 10 of those in the B-1 cockpit, and now 10yrs retired.

A glorious aircraft, it was designed for nuclear war, penetrating air defenses. It is now fulfilling roles it was never designed for, a very adaptable platform, as is the B-52 before it.

A very reliable aircraft, only a few of the 100 built have crashed due to technical problems. The Military takes flight safety very seriously.

Due to budget cuts, only 60, now 59 remain in service. Spare parts to keep those flying coming from the retired B-1s parked at D-M.

I never had to leave one in the air, but if I had to, I'd want the B-1 Aces II ejection system.

It will be a while before the final accident report is released, thanks to aircrew decision making and those ejection seats, we have 4 crew members to interview.
 
BillTIZ said:
A glorious aircraft, it was designed for nuclear war, penetrating air defenses. It is now fulfilling roles it was never designed for, a very adaptable platform, as is the B-52 before it.
Click to expand...

It's a big fast airplane designed to carry bombs. I'm not sure Id call that an "adaptable platform" anywhere other than a budget justification meeting. It ain't exactly getting a firefighting tank shoved up its butt and fighting forest fires like the C-130. That's an "adaptable platform".

B-1 is a great haul-ass and GTFO bomber. It's a pretty big stretch to call it "adaptable". If you mean it'll drop different and smarter munitions from the same bomb racks, sure.
 
jaybee said:
Air Force carries insurance on their assets just like any other company/business.
Click to expand...

Are you actually sure about that? At my (civilian) agency we are not able to insure anything, even when shipping six-figures worth of electronics by freight. I've been told the government cannot purchase insurance for anything and generally just replaces damaged items when they can. Had something to do with there not being any mechanism for a private insurer to reimburse the affected organization directly, without the money going straight to the general fund of the Treasury. But I won't premise I'm 100% correct on this.
 
After the crash a TFR was issued. Pretty normal, right? Well, they issued this monster and then didn't even tell KRAP tower. I almost crapped my pants because I was supposed to be leaving the next morning (ended up not being able to anyway). Talk about an over-reaction.

1150922_10151535430041086_226229093_n.jpg
 
jaybee said:
Air Force carries insurance on their assets just like any other company/business.
Click to expand...

Not the U.S. Air Force.

Now I do know from first hand experience that the British Royal Air Force carries civilian auto insurance on the Bedford Lories that tow their Rapier Missiles.

Because one ran over my my wife and daughter when they were stopped at a light in a Mini-Cooper.
 
Z06_Mir said:
After the crash a TFR was issued. Pretty normal, right? Well, they issued this monster and then didn't even tell KRAP tower. I almost crapped my pants because I was supposed to be leaving the next morning (ended up not being able to anyway). Talk about an over-reaction.
Click to expand...
What did the text of the tFR say? Just because there is a big circle does not mean everything is grounded.
 
ScottM said:
What did the text of the tFR say? Just because there is a big circle does not mean everything is grounded.
Click to expand...

"The provide a safe environment for aircraft investigation"
 
Here is what the TFR looks like on my iPod touch. Much smaller.
vemugamu.jpg
 
Didn't the B1, at least early versions, have an ejection module instead of indvidual seats?
 
Z06_Mir said:
"The provide a safe environment for aircraft investigation"
Click to expand...
That is the reason for the NOTAM not the operating restrictions and requirements.

A cached version of the NOTAM had this to say in that section

No pilots may operate an aircraft in the areas covered by this NOTAM (except as described).
Click to expand...
And also stated elsewhere in the NOTAM to contact SLC and Ellsworth App. probably a good idea since it was an incomplete NOTAM and did not describe anything. I'll bet they had a way for flight to occur though and that it was not a complete shutdown, just didn't make it into the NOTAM.
 
Last edited:
Florida Cracker said:
Man that is going to cost us all a lot.
Click to expand...

I'm wondering how much we would have saved if it had not crashed?

Somehow, I doubt if it would have saved or cost me anything, I've already paid my taxes.

Once we give our taxes to our assorted governments, that money is gone, we will never see it again. That is the point when it does or does not cost us.

I usually overcome my grief when I see such things by thinking that it was someone else's tax dollars that went down the toilet, not mine. I know, deep in my heart, that every penny of my taxes that I pay, are carefully spent on responsible things that usually benefit me in some way, nothing is wasted.

-John
 
I'll admit that I had never studied the crew escape system until reading about the four successful ejections. Glad to know it works.
 
As stated earlier in the thread a lot of the aircraft are leased and part of the lease agreement includes insurance premiums.

This is not exactly proof but it took me about 13 seconds on Google to find and that's all I'm going to spend on the subject - http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d031048t.pdf
The government will pay for and the contractor will obtain commercial
insurance to cover aircraft loss and third party liability, as part of the lease
agreement. Aircraft loss insurance is to be in the amount of $138.4 million
per aircraft in calendar year 2002 dollars. Liability insurance will be in the
amount of $1 billion per occurrence per aircraft. If any claim is not
covered by insurance, the Air Force will indemnify the special purpose
entity for any claims from third parties arising out of the use, operation, or
maintenance of the aircraft under the contract.
Click to expand...

and I know for a fact from being in the Civil Engineering field that Real property is definitely insured.
 
That is insurance against a flaw created by the manufacturer. Ain't an insurance company in the world that will insure a weapon of war in wartime, and rarely in training for such.

Bet you dig into that policy and training accidents aren't covered at all.
 
Matthew said:
Didn't the B1, at least early versions, have an ejection module instead of indvidual seats?
Click to expand...

The first three B-1As did. After that they went with separate ACES II seats.
 
jaybee said:
As stated earlier in the thread a lot of the aircraft are leased and part of the lease agreement includes insurance premiums.
Click to expand...
The GAO report you reference concerns the *proposed* KC-767 tanker lease fiasco that resulted in the currently-contracted *purchase* of KC-46 tankers. The lease (and insurance) described in this report never occurred.

Nauga,
with vectors to the tanker
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top