Randolph AFB mishap

Hope the crew are ok. Gawd hopefully not another Talon!
 
Seems to be alot of Mil crashes in that past year or 2. But honestly the amount of sorties they pull they are still doing pretty darn well. Here at CAFB we have had over 26k T6 sorties this year and over 13k (IFF and primary) -38 sorties. Thats just CAFB alone.
 
hindsight2020 said:
Literally left the base by the time this was getting reported, so you all know more than me at this point. It's confirmed a T-6. Both got out alive and well (Martin Baker.... AGAIN FTW). I'm sure we'll hear more about this particular instance in the coming days.
Click to expand...

I bet they'll be happy to receive those Martin Baker Ties. Those seats saved their bacon.
 
ARFlyer said:
I bet they'll be happy to receive those Martin Baker Ties. Those seats saved their bacon.
Click to expand...


Bull. Saved their bacon. Yea sure, speculation here, but........ Right there in the approach to the field, they probably run it out of fuel. With that big huge open field ahead, that tricycle gear aircraft should have sustained little, or possibly no damage.

The problem here is another 4 million of my tax dollars was totally wasted because engine out Emergency Landings are not taught in ejection aircraft. Something needs to change. There needs to be a thorough investigation, and some changes made.
 
Art Rose said:
Bull. Saved their bacon. Yea sure, speculation here, but........ Right there in the approach to the field, they probably run it out of fuel. With that big huge open field ahead, that tricycle gear aircraft should have sustained little, or possibly no damage.

The problem here is another 4 million of my tax dollars was totally wasted because engine out Emergency Landings are not taught in ejection aircraft. Something needs to change. There needs to be a thorough investigation, and some changes made.
Click to expand...

Wow.

IMG_3932.GIF
 
Art Rose said:
Bull. Saved their bacon. Yea sure, speculation here, but........ Right there in the approach to the field, they probably run it out of fuel. With that big huge open field ahead, that tricycle gear aircraft should have sustained little, or possibly no damage.

The problem here is another 4 million of my tax dollars was totally wasted because engine out Emergency Landings are not taught in ejection aircraft. Something needs to change. There needs to be a thorough investigation, and some changes made.
Click to expand...
Engine out, punch out, seems to be the mantra. Perhaps USAF values the pilots more than the plane; I do. That plane was built to land on pavement, it could have easily flipped in the field, which could have left us with two dead pilots. In any case, let's hope it wasn't merely out of fuel.
 
Last edited:
SkyDog58 said:
Yep. I do wonder though with all of the possible numbers and names why they chose to call it that.
Click to expand...
There was plenty of precedent with the Phantom II, Thunderbolt II, of course almost the same time they came out with the Lightning II, so it's kind of honoring a well-beloved aircraft from the past, and a nice re-use of an awesome name.
 
And they need to take a page out of the Cirrus book and as soon as the pilots punch out, a chute should save the airframe, too.
 
Do we really need to go to that "values the pilots more than the hardware discussion? It doesn't hold water. That's where this "some changes made" discussion comes into play.

You do realize that the explosive charge in that canopy might have failed, or any other number of failures during punch out could have easily yielded deadly consequences?

That's a robust tricycle geared aircraft with relatively low landing speeds and inertia. No reason it can't be successfully landed off field. Besides, these aircraft at this base are used to train instructors. Experienced pilots.

Yes, very true...... ignorance is bliss.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
Engine out, punch out, seems to be the mantra. Perhaps USAF values the pilots more than the plane; I do.
Click to expand...

Last spring an F-16 out of Luke AFB lost power while operating in the MOAs in western Arizona. The pilot attempted an emergency landing at Lake Havasu City AZ (KHII). He got it on the ground, but when it became apparent he was going to run off the far end of the runway, he punched out. He's OK; the airplane not so much.

Screen Shot 2018-09-19 at 7.46.30 AM.png

Not to minimize the seriousness of these events, but here's a little perspective on how treacherous wartime flying was, especially training. The link below contains a list of US military aircraft accidents -- stateside only -- for one month, June 1943. Presumably flying weather would be relatively benign that time of year. The number of fatalities/injuries is not shown, but if the "Action Code" begins with a 'K', somebody was killed. Aircraft damage ("D" column) is shown, 0 to 5, 5 being a total loss.

http://www.aviationarchaeology.com/src/AARmonthly/Jun1943S.htm
 
Art Rose said:
Do we really need to go to that "values the pilots more than the hardware discussion? It doesn't hold water. That's where this "some changes made" discussion comes into play.

You do realize that the explosive charge in that canopy might have failed, or any other number of failures during punch out could have easily yielded deadly consequences?

That's a robust tricycle geared aircraft with relatively low landing speeds and inertia. No reason it can't be successfully landed off field. Besides, these aircraft at this base are used to train instructors. Experienced pilots.

Yes, very true...... ignorance is bliss.
Click to expand...
Not super low speeds when doing tng's they are doing 120 130 kts even if they do a full stall landing thats still impacting something at 90kts. If that field isnt perfectly smooth your still likely to total the aircraft. The expected value of saving some aircraft doesnt seem to outweigh the potential loss of aircrew. 1 fully trained pilot is already approaching the $value of a t6ii if not greater.
 
Pilawt said:
Not to minimize the seriousness of these events, but here's a little perspective on how treacherous wartime flying was, especially training. The link below contains a list of US military aircraft accidents -- stateside only -- for one month, June 1943. Presumably flying weather would be relatively benign that time of year. The number of fatalities/injuries is not shown, but if the "Action Code" begins with a 'K', somebody was killed. Aircraft damage ("D" column) is shown, 0 to 5, 5 being a total loss.

http://www.aviationarchaeology.com/src/AARmonthly/Jun1943S.htm
Click to expand...

:eek:

2061 total entries
183 entries with a K prefix
(All Fatal Action Codes were rated 5)

Damage Column
0 - 1 entry (aircraft lost)
1 - 10 entries
2 - 31 entries
3 - 1140 entries
4 - 436 entries
5 - 442 entries

Unique A/C variants - 175
Reduced to base model - 79

Sorted by Number of incidents:
L7xx8A3.png


Sorted by A/C Prefix:
SVkGsuz.png


Fatal Incidents by Count:
bIj5kBz.png


Fatal Incidents by Prefix:
pWXJxpq.png


Incident Category:
NqpS6vh.png
 
Last edited:
Art Rose said:
Bull. Saved their bacon. Yea sure, speculation here, but........ Right there in the approach to the field, they probably run it out of fuel. With that big huge open field ahead, that tricycle gear aircraft should have sustained little, or possibly no damage.

The problem here is another 4 million of my tax dollars was totally wasted because engine out Emergency Landings are not taught in ejection aircraft. Something needs to change. There needs to be a thorough investigation, and some changes made.
Click to expand...

WTF.

Art Rose said:
Do we really need to go to that "values the pilots more than the hardware discussion? It doesn't hold water. That's where this "some changes made" discussion comes into play.

You do realize that the explosive charge in that canopy might have failed, or any other number of failures during punch out could have easily yielded deadly consequences?

That's a robust tricycle geared aircraft with relatively low landing speeds and inertia. No reason it can't be successfully landed off field. Besides, these aircraft at this base are used to train instructors. Experienced pilots.

Yes, very true...... ignorance is bliss.
Click to expand...

Again, WTF. PLEASE, stick to flying "robust" lawnmowers with "relatively low landing speeds and inertia" and avoid, at all costs, any piece of heavy machinery that has potential to harm anyone other than yourself. You have clearly demonstrated with your comments here that you cannot handle the level of responsibility required to do otherwise.
 
I support my Armed Forces, especially the Air Force, 100%. I highly appreciate the job they are all doing for me, and I Thank All of you.

But, my support does not come unconditionally. There's been a cultural problem in the AF for many years. In the trenches, someone requisitions materials, and eventually the order gets delivered. Lots of hell raising when it doesn't come in a timely manner, but normally what's really needed, eventually shows up. You should have been here when my wife left the military and took up employment in the private sector. A Major awakening. The system works very differently out here.

I highly respect our folks in Uniform, but too many of these folks look at the resources the tax payer provides as simply expendable, and when the well runs dry, they raise hell, and the bean counters are forced to go back to the well for more. Culture change needed. SOP reviews needed.

I speak up, (and I'm obviously one of those individuals you show little respect for), and yes, I strap myself to (as you say) a lawn mower, every week, or more often, and I fly myself through the free skies of this country. But you're forgetting something very important. I personally pay for all the expenses related to my activity. I also pay your expenses to the day you're pushing up daisy's, (if you decide to hang in there long enough). And I'm happy to do so.

This is not the first Texan in this area to bite the dust, nor will it likely be the last. And, we can argue this to the Nth degree. The truth about what really occurred here will eventually be revealed. This incident stinks, and it needs a thorough review.
 
https://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Police-A-F-plane-crashes-on-North-Side-13239359.php

Chris Lowe, 41, who manages the Circle Dot Ranch, said he heard an explosion and looked up to see the plane falling and the two pilots parachuting toward the middle of the property.

He and his wife drove their pickups to where they found the pilots standing among several mesquite trees. Both were scratched from the trees, but appeared OK, he said.
Click to expand...

And...
Michael Spencer, 36, also looked up when he heard a boom, and could see the descending plane and the two parachutes from his house. The plane crashed on his property.
Click to expand...

Two eyewitnesses heard an explosion before the pilots bailed; it doesn't sound like they ran out of fuel or had a simple loss of engine power. Let's wait for the probable cause report before engaging in rampant speculation. Thank you.
 
Last edited:
Art Rose said:
This is not the first Texan in this area to bite the dust, nor will it likely be the last. And, we can argue this to the Nth degree. The truth about what really occurred here will eventually be revealed. This incident stinks, and it needs a thorough review.
Click to expand...

So why haven't you waited?

I quote:

"Bull. Saved their bacon. Yea sure, speculation here, but........ Right there in the approach to the field, they probably run it out of fuel. With that big huge open field ahead, that tricycle gear aircraft should have sustained little, or possibly no damage.

The problem here is another 4 million of my tax dollars was totally wasted because engine out Emergency Landings are not taught in ejection aircraft. Something needs to change. There needs to be a thorough investigation, and some changes made. "
 
Art Rose said:
I support my Armed Forces, especially the Air Force, 100%. I highly appreciate the job they are all doing for me, and I Thank All of you.

But, my support does not come unconditionally. There's been a cultural problem in the AF for many years. In the trenches, someone requisitions materials, and eventually the order gets delivered. Lots of hell raising when it doesn't come in a timely manner, but normally what's really needed, eventually shows up. You should have been here when my wife left the military and took up employment in the private sector. A Major awakening. The system works very differently out here.

I highly respect our folks in Uniform, but too many of these folks look at the resources the tax payer provides as simply expendable, and when the well runs dry, they raise hell, and the bean counters are forced to go back to the well for more. Culture change needed. SOP reviews needed.

I speak up, (and I'm obviously one of those individuals you show little respect for), and yes, I strap myself to (as you say) a lawn mower, every week, or more often, and I fly myself through the free skies of this country. But you're forgetting something very important. I personally pay for all the expenses related to my activity. I also pay your expenses to the day you're pushing up daisy's, (if you decide to hang in there long enough). And I'm happy to do so.

This is not the first Texan in this area to bite the dust, nor will it likely be the last. And, we can argue this to the Nth degree. The truth about what really occurred here will eventually be revealed. This incident stinks, and it needs a thorough review.
Click to expand...

Your “culture change” occurred a long time ago. Military aviation is the safest most risk averse than its ever been. Class A accident rates are about 1/3 of what they were 35-40 years ago. The accident rates in the 50s & 60s (century jets & early helos) were even worse.
 
Last edited:
Art Rose said:
I support my Armed Forces, especially the Air Force, 100%. I highly appreciate the job they are all doing for me, and I Thank All of you.

But, my support does not come unconditionally. There's been a cultural problem in the AF for many years. In the trenches, someone requisitions materials, and eventually the order gets delivered. Lots of hell raising when it doesn't come in a timely manner, but normally what's really needed, eventually shows up. You should have been here when my wife left the military and took up employment in the private sector. A Major awakening. The system works very differently out here.

I highly respect our folks in Uniform, but too many of these folks look at the resources the tax payer provides as simply expendable, and when the well runs dry, they raise hell, and the bean counters are forced to go back to the well for more. Culture change needed. SOP reviews needed.

I speak up, (and I'm obviously one of those individuals you show little respect for), and yes, I strap myself to (as you say) a lawn mower, every week, or more often, and I fly myself through the free skies of this country. But you're forgetting something very important. I personally pay for all the expenses related to my activity. I also pay your expenses to the day you're pushing up daisy's, (if you decide to hang in there long enough). And I'm happy to do so.

This is not the first Texan in this area to bite the dust, nor will it likely be the last. And, we can argue this to the Nth degree. The truth about what really occurred here will eventually be revealed. This incident stinks, and it needs a thorough review.
Click to expand...

I see your point, and respect your opinion. With that said, you are missing the big picture completely.

Culture problem in the AF? Maybe, but DoD is more accurate. I can tell you from the "trenches" level, it's not us wasting your tax dollars. Look at your election ballot in November to find the culprits. Yes, the system works differently in a for-profit environment. The DoD has never been, and will never be, a for profit corporation. Some of the private sector companies you likely have in your city probably think otherwise...

I believe you've forgotten something very important, we are all taxpayers as well. To take that a step further, we pay our own salaries, benefits, etc. I challenge you to name another corporation that requires their employees to do the same.

Regarding paying for your own flying activities, I'm glad you are able to do so. Many are not. I too, pay my own way, one hour at a time.

Whether this crew did the right thing or not is irrelevant. The aircraft was unsuitable for flight, and they are still alive. I'm willing to bet if they were put into the same exact situation again, the outcome would not differ. On the topic of ejecting vs landing in the field, I'm no Texan II expert, but I'd be willing to bet it has hydraulically powered flight controls. If so, if the fan up front stops turning, so does the hydro pump. The airplane is uncontrollable at that point. Regarding handling the emergency, when I earned my PPL, my instructor stressed the point to me that once an emergency happened in the airplane, the airplane now belonged to the insurance company. My only goal was to get on the ground without injuring myself or my passengers. Anything better than that was pure bonus. Look at Cirrus emergency procedures for a comparable reference.

You are correct, we can debate this to the Nth degree, but I will not change your mind. The only thing that will change your mind is being in a situation where you have to choose between saving you own life and those of your passengers, but at the cost of the airplane, or trying to save the airplane, and failing, thus losing everything in the end. I know which course of action I will choose when faced with such an event.
 
Stan Cooper said:
...Two eyewitnesses heard an explosion before the pilots bailed; it doesn't sound like they ran out of fuel or had a simple loss of engine power. Let's wait for the probable cause report before engaging in rampant speculation. Thank you.
Click to expand...

Aren't the canopy and seat ejection devices powered with explosive charges?
 
GRG55 said:
Aren't the canopy and seat ejection devices powered with explosive charges?
Click to expand...
The Martin-Baker US16LA ejection seats in the T-6A Texan II use an underseat rocket motor in the ejection mechanism. Explosive charges? I think it would depend on how you define the term. A solid propellant rocket motor is a controlled burn.

It makes more of a "whoosh" sound than a boom.

Martin-Baker MK16 Ejection Seat Tests | YouTube
 
Last edited:
RyanShort1 said:
There was plenty of precedent with the Phantom II, Thunderbolt II, of course almost the same time they came out with the Lightning II, so it's kind of honoring a well-beloved aircraft from the past, and a nice re-use of an awesome name.
Click to expand...

Yeah but those don't use both the model designation and the name. The first Lightning was the P-38 while the Lightning II is the F-35. The original Thunderbolt was the P-47 while the second one was the A-10. As to the original Phantom, very few people know what that was. Those are all different than using both the model and the name.

Besides, if they really wanted to reuse an awesome name, it'd been the Harvard II. ;)
 
SkyDog58 said:
Yeah but those don't use both the model designation and the name. The first Lightning was the P-38 while the Lightning II is the F-35. The original Thunderbolt was the P-47 while the second one was the A-10. As to the original Phantom, very few people know what that was. Those are all different than using both the model and the name.

Besides, if they really wanted to reuse an awesome name, it'd been the Harvard II. ;)
Click to expand...
Blasphemy. That's the Canadian moniker. :)
 
@Art Rose ,you're way out of your lane suggesting the rent seek and graft endemic of the military industrial complex since Eisenhower called it out, is even marginally responsible for our written and implemented ejection criteria in the T-6, or any hot seat trainer for that matter. I'm absolutely appalled somebody could make such an overreach of an argument while sitting on the cheap seats.

The IP in question is a member of my squadron, and we're happy he's safe on the ground and able to be with his friends and family, instead of in a casket today. Ditto for his student. I'm going to refrain from engaging in further debate with you wrt this accident. Your accusation is hasty; in my opinion extremely misguided (aka conflating governmental waste with flying operational decisions at the tactical level) and ultimately does not deserve the dignity of a response from those of us actually qualified to speak on the matter.

-- break break--

For the rest of the gallery, as a former T-6 IP and former Chief of FCF of the T-6 program at another pilot training base, I think I'm somewhat qualified on the topic. I can tell you that details are pretty tight lipped right now, but by the geographic position of the accident, this was a low altitude, in-the-pattern occurrence, certainly below 1k AGL. The ejection criteria for controlled bailout on the MB seat is 2K AGL. And that is the extent to which I will comment, as we have been instructed to limit our social media inputs on this topic UFN.

As to the question of controls, the T-6 is conventional mechanical controls, not hydro actuated. The flaps are electric, the gear electro-hydraulic.

Everybody stay safe out there. And stay classy if you can help it too.
 
@hindsight2020 during the normal ejection sequence does the canopy fracture system self charge or is it strictly the stob of the seat breaking the glass in that case?

But I'm thinking the rear seat doesn't not have the stob so I may have answered my own question .
 
simtech said:
@hindsight2020 during the normal ejection sequence does the canopy fracture system self charge or is it strictly the stob of the seat breaking the glass in that case?

But I'm thinking the rear seat doesn't not have the stob so I may have answered my own question .
Click to expand...

The ejection sequence triggers a laser that no kidding illuminates crystals that amplify/direct the heat and ignite the primers for the det cord (talk about rube goldberg). That's why alignment of the canopy and the rail is of great importance to get the det cord to fire correctly.

The rear seat does have breaker spikes. Both seats do. In the event the det cord doesn't fracture the canopy, the spikes are there to shatter through it.
 
SkyDog58 said:
Yep. I do wonder though with all of the possible numbers and names why they chose to call it that.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I’ve never understood it either.

Particularly since the Texan II is built by Beechcraft and not Boeing (North American).

In the past, when aircraft names have been given a sequel, it was with the original manufacturer.

For example...

Republic P-47 Thunderbolt
Fairchild-Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II

Douglas C-74 Globemaster
Douglas C-124 Globemaster II
Boeing (McDonnell-Douglas) C-17 Globemaster III

Lockheed P-38 Lightning
Lockheed-Martin F-35 Lightning II

McDonnell FH Phantom
McDonnell-Douglas F4 Phantom II

Why Beechcraft thought it was cool to use another companies name, I don’t know.
 
hindsight2020 said:
@Art Rose ,you're way out of your lane suggesting the rent seek and graft endemic of the military industrial complex since Eisenhower called it out, is even marginally responsible for our written and implemented ejection criteria in the T-6, or any hot seat trainer for that matter. I'm absolutely appalled somebody could make such an overreach of an argument while sitting on the cheap seats.

The IP in question is a member of my squadron, and we're happy he's safe on the ground and able to be with his friends and family, instead of in a casket today. Ditto for his student. I'm going to refrain from engaging in further debate with you wrt this accident. Your accusation is hasty; in my opinion extremely misguided (aka conflating governmental waste with flying operational decisions at the tactical level) and ultimately does not deserve the dignity of a response from those of us actually qualified to speak on the matter.

-- break break--

For the rest of the gallery, as a former T-6 IP and former Chief of FCF of the T-6 program at another pilot training base, I think I'm somewhat qualified on the topic. I can tell you that details are pretty tight lipped right now, but by the geographic position of the accident, this was a low altitude, in-the-pattern occurrence, certainly below 1k AGL. The ejection criteria for controlled bailout on the MB seat is 2K AGL. And that is the extent to which I will comment, as we have been instructed to limit our social media inputs on this topic UFN.

As to the question of controls, the T-6 is conventional mechanical controls, not hydro actuated. The flaps are electric, the gear electro-hydraulic.

Everybody stay safe out there. And stay classy if you can help it too.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification regarding flight controls. Good to know not all is lost in the event of a hydraulics failure (I think you had eluded to such a flaw in the T-38 in a different thread).
 
AWACSEng said:
Thanks for the clarification regarding flight controls. Good to know not all is lost in the event of a hydraulics failure (I think you had eluded to such a flaw in the T-38 in a different thread).
Click to expand...

Correct. The T-38 is a completely different animal. We do not have controllability of consequence once both hydro systems are gone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top