F-21 down at Fallon

I'm guessing that's a MiG 21 being used as opposing force in training?
 
Henning said:
I'm guessing that's a MiG 21 being used as opposing force in training?
Click to expand...
No, Isreali F-21 Kfir

One of these:
4862384580_cf54a1abab_z.jpg
 
Last edited:
Let'sgoflying! said:
Israeli bird, on lease to Navy.
Click to expand...

Not exactly. As I understand it, the birds are owned by ATAC who has the contract to provide OPFOR services to NSAWC. Basically if you can think back to Top Gun, many of the active duty aggressors (guys like Viper and Jester) have been replaced by contractors.

But calling them civilians is a little misleading....Lex was a retired Navy O6 Hornet guy. I believe all of the ATAC pilots are prior military.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
A bootlegged Mirage5 using american engines. Some deal with sanctions against Israel after the six day war.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Not exactly. As I understand it, the birds are owned by ATAC who has the contract to provide OPFOR services to NSAWC. Basically if you can think back to Top Gun, many of the active duty aggressors (guys like Viper and Jester) have been replaced by contractors.

But calling them civilians is a little misleading....Lex was a retired Navy O6 Hornet guy. I believe all of the ATAC pilots are prior military.
Click to expand...

Are they owned or on lease back? I would assume that the pilots are all former military pilots out on good standings.
 
Henning said:
Are they owned or on lease back? I would assume that the pilots are all former military pilots out on good standings.
Click to expand...
Not sure about the outright ownership, but basically all pilots are former military fighter guys.

ATAC's hiring mins are:
Experience Required:
• 1200 tactical flight hours in air-to-air radar aircraft
• ATP or Commercial Single Engine Land License
• FAA Instrument Rating
• Class 2 Medical
• Secret Security Clearance
Click to expand...
These days most guys would need at least 10 years (if not more) on active duty to achieve the first bullet.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Not sure about the outright ownership, but basically all pilots are former military fighter guys.

ATAC's hiring mins are:
These days most guys would need at least 10 years (if not more) on active duty to achieve the first bullet.
Click to expand...

Yeah yeah, way better deal for "the best and brightest" than a starting slot at the airlines.
 
NTSB Prelim is out:
NTSB Identification: DCA12PA049
Nonscheduled 14 CFR Public Use
Accident occurred Tuesday, March 06, 2012 in Fallon, NV
Aircraft: ISRAEL AIRCRAFT INDUSTRIES F21-C2, registration: N404AX
Injuries: 1 Fatal.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.
On March 6, 2012 at 0914 pacific standard time, an Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI) Kfir F-21C2 single-seat turbojet fighter type aircraft, registration N404AX, operated by Airborne Tactical Advantage Company (ATAC) under contract to Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) as a civil pubic aircraft operation, crashed upon landing at Naval Air Station Fallon, Fallon, Nevada. The sole occupant pilot aboard was killed, and the airplane was substantially damaged by impact forces and fire. The flight had departed Fallon at 0752 the same day, and attempted to return following an adversary training mission. The pilot initiated two Ground Control Approach (GCA) radar approaches to Fallon and then attempted to divert to Reno but was unable to land there as the field was reporting below minimum weather conditions. The pilot then turned back toward Fallon and stated to air traffic controllers that he was in a critical fuel state. The pilot descended and maneuvered first toward runway 31, then toward runway 13. The airplane struck the ground in an open field in the northwest corner of the airport property and impacted a concrete building on the field. Weather at the time of the accident was reported as snowing with northerly winds of 23 knots gusting to 34 knots, and visibility between one-half and one and one-half miles.
Click to expand...

Just a really crappy situation to be in. About the only thing else I think he could have done is eject (assuming the seat worked). Damn....just Damn.
 
Fearless Tower said:
NTSB Prelim is out:


Just a really crappy situation to be in. About the only thing else I think he could have done is eject (assuming the seat worked). Damn....just Damn.
Click to expand...

Indeed, I believe he should have used his ejection seat...that's really sad.

The Kfir C2, based on the Mirage V, with reinforced structures, better engine and improved avionics was decomissioned in the second half of the nineties...


8-img_18_19734_0.jpeg
 
Armageddon Aviator said:
Indeed, I believe he should have used his ejection seat...that's really sad.
Click to expand...
I just read this (written by a former F-14 RIO):
http://instapinch.com/?p=2030

Looks like in those winds, he wouldn't have even survived the ejection.

Other than not leaving the ground, I am not sure how you survive a situation like that.
 
Fearless Tower said:
I just read this (written by a former F-14 RIO):
http://instapinch.com/?p=2030

Looks like in those winds, he wouldn't have even survived the ejection.

Other than not leaving the ground, I am not sure how you survive a situation like that.
Click to expand...

Sad.

Be able to fly it below minimums, needles nailed, when it is your last resort. Of course, I bet he had that skill and ability. Sad. I'm not going to second guess this man's flying.
 
Henning said:
How about, 'load up with fuel and head for better weather'?
Click to expand...

My guess is he got caught in a shrinking window with deteriorating weather, diminishing fuel, and no time to launch a tanker before the gas tanks ran dry.
 
Hard to believe they had multi plane training ops going on over IMC without tanker support on orbit. That would seem negligent.
 
Looks like the visibility dropped from 10 miles to 1 1/2 miles in 10 minutes and only 4 minutes after that it was down to 1/2 miles.

=============================================

METAR KNFL 061456Z 26019G24KT 10SM FEW060 SCT080 BKN120 06/M02 A2965 RMK AO2 SLP025 ACSL DSNT NW T00561017 56004

155Z - Takeoff

METAR KNFL 061556Z 28021G25KT 10SM FEW050 BKN075 BKN120 07/M02 A2967 RMK AO2 PK WND 26026/1546 SLP030 SH DSNT W-NW AND NE T00671022

SPECI KNFL 061636Z 33021G33KT 10SM -SN BKN050 BKN065 OVC120 03/M03 A2969 RMK AO2 PK WND 33033/1631 SNB36 P0000

SPECI KNFL 061646Z 34021G31KT 1 1/2SM -SN BKN033 BKN047 OVC085 02/M02 A2970 RMK AO2 PK WND 33033/1631 SFC VIS 2 1/2 SNB36 RCRNR P0000

SPECI KNFL 061650Z 34021G33KT 1/2SM SN OVC012 01/M02 A2970 RMK AO2 PK WND 35033/1648 SNB36 RCRNR P0000

METAR KNFL 061656Z 35024G33KT 1/2SM SN FZFG OVC012 M01/M03 A2971 RMK AO2 PK WND 35033/1654 SNB36 SLP041 RCRNR P0000 T10061028

SPECI KNFL 061703Z 35022G33KT 1/2SM -SN BKN015 OVC045 M01/M03 A2971 RMK AO2 PK WND 36031/1701 SFC VIS 3/4 RNRNR P0000

1714Z - Crash

SPECI KNFL 061720Z 35023G34KT 1 1/2SM -SN BKN015 OVC045 M01/M04 A2972 RMK AO2 PK WND 36041/1705 SFC VIS 2 WR// P0000
 
Last edited:
Armageddon Aviator said:
I don't think that the Kfir had in-flight refueling capacity....
Click to expand...


I find it absurd that anyone would design/build/operate a tactical military jet that didn't have in flight refueling capabilities. I also find it absurd that US Navy and Air Force run incompatible systems.
 
Google say that inflight refuling was added in the C7 model going online in 83, so this C2. Probably lacked the ability.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
I find it absurd that anyone would design/build/operate a tactical military jet that didn't have in flight refueling capabilities.
Click to expand...

If you live in a country that is 236x71miles in size, has generally good weather and has most of its enemies right on the border, a ground-attack aircraft may not need refueling capacity. These planes were built to defend against tank armies attacking accross the Sinai.

I believe the first mission the IAF flew with inflight refueling was the attack on the PLO compound in Tunisia in 1985, and for that they used a jury-rigged 707 with drogue chutes rather than a purpose built tanker.

I also find it absurd that US Navy and Air Force run incompatible systems.
Click to expand...

Name two federal agencies that have compatible systems in anything (unless they were dragged kicking and screaming by congress to agree) ?
 
weilke said:
Name two federal agencies that have compatible systems in anything (unless they were dragged kicking and screaming by congress to agree) ?
Click to expand...


You would imagine that since they have to fight wars together they would you know, make it so they can support each other....:dunno: We are a doomed species.:(


Supersonic tactical aircraft require tanker support regardless of territory size, they don't hold much and choad it down when they are doing what they were designed to do. As you note, they finally figured that out and built them with refuel capabilities. Why didn't they have airframes with the capability?
 
Last edited:
TangoWhiskey said:
Be able to fly it below minimums, needles nailed, when it is your last resort.
Click to expand...
Problem is there are no needles to nail. No ILS at Fallon. This wasn't like the story of the Zero-Zero KC-97 landing. He was doing a Ground Controlled Approach (PAR), so the guidance was 100 percent from the controller....at least until he could have seen the ground.
 
Henning said:
You would imagine that since they have to fight wars together they would you know, make it so they can support each other....:dunno: We are a doomed species.:(


Supersonic tactical aircraft require tanker support regardless of territory size, they don't hold much and choad it down when they are doing what they were designed to do. As you note, they finally figured that out and built them with refuel capabilities. Why didn't they have airframes with the capability?
Click to expand...

Navy flies their tactical aircraft off ships and they dedicate some of their tactical aircraft as refueling aircraft. The probe and drogue system is the only one that is practical for carrier based aircraft.

Air Force refuels everything from bombers to transports to fighters. The high fuel transfer rate available from a boom system is much more practical when you're refueling a bomber or large aircraft.

Modern tankers are configured with both boom and drogue refueling capability to service both Navy and Air Force aircraft on the same sortie.

During my career which ended in 2004, great strides had been made with increasing the interoperability of the services. It wasn't too long ago that Navy aircraft couldn't communicate with Air Force aircraft using jam resistant radios even though foreign NATO aircraft could. Navy chaff and flares were round cylinders while Air Force used rectangular. We even used different terminology and acronyms for the same things. All this has gotten better...except maybe the acronym part. :D
 
With regards to the ejection window, I am curious since I am not at all familiar with it. My experience as a paratrooper was limited to T10C and T10D parachutes (hence "Lawn Dart" since there is no major control). The only go-around jump I was on was our first pass, and surface winds were 19 at the time of go-around. Our second pass was 17, and we jumped. This jump is the one I call my worst since it was my hardest landing and I was dragged on my face/side about 100 feet shortly after my PLF, and it was the only jump in division I was on that we did not have full combat load as this was a dog and pony show for dignitaries to watch as the kick off of All American Week. Getting back to the point (sorry). While I realize a tremendous difference in winds and thus survivability, what conditions are pilots trained as acceptable or unacceptable? Also, Army uses different chutes now, but did pilots get new ones as well?
 
airbornejohnny said:
With regards to the ejection window, I am curious since I am not at all familiar with it. My experience as a paratrooper was limited to T10C and T10D parachutes (hence "Lawn Dart" since there is no major control). The only go-around jump I was on was our first pass, and surface winds were 19 at the time of go-around. Our second pass was 17, and we jumped. This jump is the one I call my worst since it was my hardest landing and I was dragged on my face/side about 100 feet shortly after my PLF, and it was the only jump in division I was on that we did not have full combat load as this was a dog and pony show for dignitaries to watch as the kick off of All American Week. Getting back to the point (sorry). While I realize a tremendous difference in winds and thus survivability, what conditions are pilots trained as acceptable or unacceptable? Also, Army uses different chutes now, but did pilots get new ones as well?
Click to expand...

My understanding of it is that 25kts on the ground is the limit. Over 25 kts, the odds of you being dragged to death by the chute are greater than the risk of surviving a forced landing. I am told that rule is written in blood, if you know what I mean.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
Henning said:
I find it absurd that anyone would design/build/operate a tactical military jet that didn't have in flight refueling capabilities. I also find it absurd that US Navy and Air Force run incompatible systems.
Click to expand...

It's Israeli. The place is ten miles long and two miles thick. How far is it going to go before it needs a tanker?
 
Wind limits depend on the seat in question. For the Hornet's NACES seat (and that of several other Naval aircraft), it's now sustained winds in excess of 30 kts. When I first started, it was sustained 25 or gusts > 35, but somewhere that got changed. Regardless, above that limit, and the engineers figure we have an unacceptable risk of being dragged to death in the chute. That said, I'm sure the limits for whatever seat they have in the Kfir are different.

Fearless Tower is right about the approach scenario. Really not a good one. Rumor mill claimed that he had tried to divert to Reno, was unable to break out there, and returned on minimum fuel to NFL. 2nd or 3rd PAR, and he finally ran out of time. I'm guessing fuel would have been gone pretty shortly afterwards, those jets don't carry much. Having talked with some of the ATAC guys, it sounds like they burn the centerline tank completely by the time they get wheels in the well on takeoff, and are limited to their minimal internal fuel after that. I can't imagine that gets you far with a big J-79 behind you.
 
I also find it absurd that US Navy and Air Force run incompatible systems.
Click to expand...

It's irrelevant here. This wasn't a military aircraft. It was a civil aircraft, being flown by civil contract pilots, under contract support to the military.

These aircraft have a short loiter time. The range at Fallon isn't far away.

Reno has minimums that go a lot lower than published mins, but only for those who are qualified. I've flown them all the way down before when the weather didn't cooperate. When the weather is down in that neck of the woods, one's options become very limited, very quickly. Reno has a lot of terrain, and that includes the final approach.

The entire area has mountains, and turbulence is very common with any significant wind. A hand flown approach IMC in a very agile, maneuverable aircraft in strong mountain turbulence is a real handful to begin with. Make that a GCA approach in deteriorating conditions and gusty winds, it's easy to see how the fuel state could become critical in a hurry. On top of that, tension rises as fuel goes down and the wave-offs increase, helping to reduce the likelihood of the next approach turning out well.

Bad deal all around. At Reno, the ILS is from the North. Most turbojet equipment has a 10 knot tailwind limit. Where an emergency state exists, forget the limits, but in an airplane with no reverse and only a drag chute for stopping, plus minimal brakes, landing on a snowy runway in low conditions with a 30 knot tailwind would have been a bust. Coming the other way it's step-downs on a back course with lots of terrain close and some extreme turbulence once the wind picks up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top