CVN 70 F-35 ramp strike mishap report

[Random8145]

Broadly speaking, yes, in that a system intended to reduce pilot workload ended up contributing to two total-loss mishaps.

My understanding of the Boeing fiasco was it happened because they decided to use an old airframe to make a "new" plane, as this was cheaper. To make it more fuel efficient, they added new engines, but these new engines were huge, and so couldn't be mounted in the same spot as the old ones. So they had to move them forward, but this then changed the dynamics of the plane, causing it to angle upwards. So they added in the MCAS system to correct for the way the engines would destabilize the plane. However, the MCAS was tied to a single point of failure in that it relied on one sensor mounted on the front left of the plane, and so if this sensor got a faulty reading, the system would activate even if it shouldn't, angling the plane downward.

But then to top it off, to be cheap, Boeing decided to not train pilots on the new system. I don't know the full details but basically they were able to say that since it wasn't technically a "new" plane, pilots didn't need training on it. Which was pretty bad, because if the MCAS activated when it shouldn't, pilots had to know to deactivate it and that they had less than ten seconds to do so or the plane couldn't recover.

The Boeing corporate management at the very top were fully aware of the danger, but decided to not say anything and figured they would silently implement a fix and no one would know. Then when the first plane crashed, they tried initially blaming the pilots. They did end up saying pilots needed to disable the MCAS though if it activated wrongly, but not that they must do so within the first ten seconds. So then the second crash happened. In that, the junior pilot who was a brand-new kid, recognized and said to the senior pilot they needed to deactivate the MCAS but unfortunately it was too late.

So the whole thing was a huge screwup. What they probably should have done was just design a brand-new plane from the start where such s system wouldn't be needed.

 

[kmac]

From Ward’s commentary apparently the docs onboard said the patient needed to be lower than 100 feet (wavetops as he put it), and the -22 guys said no to flying that low.

I know head trauma needs to be kept low but I always was under the impression that meant a couple hundred feet versus thousands. I can’t imagine the difference between 50 and 200 was that significant, but then again I’m not a flight doc.

I've stopped asking if I'm staying under 2K'. No one seems to be concerned with it, though our flights are considerably shorter. I will make sure if it's certain kinds of trauma if it's okay to go up to 3K' or higher for an IFR flight plan.

I did have to fly an aortic disection (I believe that's what it was) where the guy was sewn up from stem to stern and needed to go to a surgeon. I had to fly him from Jax to Tampa and we had to go IFR, which pretty much meant 5K' for at least an hour. The crew was good with it, because they knew it was the only thing I could give them. I think they were just happy it was a smooth flight and the patient didn't die along the way, which was very possible, independent of any altitude related issues.

I once flew a MEDEVAC where the patient had a brain aneurysm. We let the flight doc do some flying and became wide-eyed when she suddenly noticed the altimeter. When we showed her the cabin pressure (~4K) she didn’t seem too concerned. Of course, it would have been helpful to have known of any altitude restrictions prior to launch.

 

[Random8145]

Exactly- it only takes one flight to crash a $100M+ fighter because you exceeded the limits of your own skill.

So curiosity on my part, but....WHY would a pilot try a flashy maneuver where if you mess it up, you can sink your career? I know from reading this forum over the years that the most dangerous words in aviation can be when a pilot says, "Watch this." Mike Durant, the Black Hawk pilot shot down and captured in Mogadishu, describes in his book how early in his career, he tried a flashy landing in the Blackhawk and proceeded to knock the rear landing wheel off from under the tail rotor. He had to hold the helicopter in position while someone pushed an object in place to rest the tail on. Worse was a Colonel was flying above and saw the whole thing and meant to rip him a new one, but never got around to it.

 

[hdr777]

So curiosity on my part, but....WHY would a pilot try a flashy maneuver where if you mess it up, you can sink your career?

Because he thought that the worse that could happen was that he would get waved off

 

[cfam]

So curiosity on my part, but....WHY would a pilot try a flashy maneuver where if you mess it up, you can sink your career? I know from reading this forum over the years that the most dangerous words in aviation can be when a pilot says, "Watch this." Mike Durant, the Black Hawk pilot shot down and captured in Mogadishu, describes in his book how early in his career, he tried a flashy landing in the Blackhawk and proceeded to knock the rear landing wheel off from under the tail rotor. He had to hold the helicopter in position while someone pushed an object in place to rest the tail on. Worse was a Colonel was flying above and saw the whole thing and meant to rip him a new one, but never got around to it.

Everything we do in Naval Aviation has associated risk. A SHB is no more inherently dangerous than any other pass behind a boat. I love flying with pilots who are confident enough to attempt a SHB as it shows they want to keep challenging themselves to be better. Note I said confident and not cocky/out of their element.

Am I going to let a nugget do a SHB? No. But the experienced guy who wants to challenge himself, absolutely. It’s part of what makes Naval Aviation awesome, and I’m sorry it’s going away.

 

[nittany03]

So curiosity on my part, but....WHY would a pilot try a flashy maneuver where if you mess it up, you can sink your career?

Anything you screw up badly enough can sink your career, even the most mundane evolution. If the MP had flown the most boring textbook CV NATOPS break ever and still hit the ramp, the result would have been exactly the same.

SHBs aren't "flashy maneuvers." They're at the edge of what's allowed, and the JAGMAN explicitly says why: to get the jet on deck expeditiously. It's expected that aviators know their limitations and don't deliberately bite off more than they can chew; that's why the MP got FNAEBed. Because he showed a lack of judgment and a lack of awareness of his own personal limitations that cast doubt on his future ability to do his job. He got to keep his wings because the Air Boss determined that this wasn't done willfully, negligently, or to bring disgrace on Naval Aviation.

I've seen SHBs be canned before at the Air Wing level. Dumbass Marine Hornet guy cut the COD out of the pattern. This is higher profile, for sure, but I hope this is a transient phenomenon and not a long-term thing, even if I'm an old fart who's 10 years out of the cockpit. JOs need to learn how and when to push themselves and when not to.

 

[Random8145]

Anything you screw up badly enough can sink your career, even the most mundane evolution. If the MP had flown the most boring textbook CV NATOPS break ever and still hit the ramp, the result would have been exactly the same.

SHBs aren't "flashy maneuvers." They're at the edge of what's allowed, and the JAGMAN explicitly says why: to get the jet on deck expeditiously. It's expected that aviators know their limitations and don't deliberately bite off more than they can chew; that's why the MP got FNAEBed. Because he showed a lack of judgment and a lack of awareness of his own personal limitations that cast doubt on his future ability to do his job. He got to keep his wings because the Air Boss determined that this wasn't done willfully, negligently, or to bring disgrace on Naval Aviation.

I've seen SHBs be canned before at the Air Wing level. Dumbass Marine Hornet guy cut the COD out of the pattern. This is higher profile, for sure, but I hope this is a transient phenomenon and not a long-term thing, even if I'm an old fart who's 10 years out of the cockpit. JOs need to learn how and when to push themselves and when not to.

Sounds kind of arbitrary though, like how can a pilot ever really know their own personal limitations regarding something like that without trying it first? Also, when you say he got to keep his wings, is that like a formality or will he ever be able to fly again?

Another crash was the C-17 Globemaster in 2010, due to the pilot trying too aggressive a maneuver.

 

[nittany03]

My God, this is like talking to a 5-year-old . . . no, you can't know your limitations without trying it first, but you have peers and mentors in your squadron who are supposed to give you guidance and keep you from going too far off the rails. "Hey, I'm thinking of trying a SHB in the next large force exercise" should lead to "OK, I think you're ready, so here's some things to keep in mind and here's how to be safe" or "fuck no, kid, you're not ready yet, don't even try it."

There are two ways you can have your flight status pulled. The worst is to lose your flight status AND have to hand over your wings. According to the instruction that governs such things, this is only appropriate for "willful violation of rules and regulations" or "bringing disgrace upon Naval Aviation." So physically losing your wings is a sign that you have formally been cast out of the fraternity by the three-star Admiral in charge of it for abusing its rights and privileges. If you do the best you can and fall short, or in the MP's case, hose up in (reasonably) good faith, you keep the right to wear gold wings on your uniform but lose the ability to be detailed to jobs which require them in the future. No, the MP will not fly Navy aircraft again.

 

[Random8145]

My God, this is like talking to a 5-year-old . . . no, you can't know your limitations without trying it first, but you have peers and mentors in your squadron who are supposed to give you guidance and keep you from going too far off the rails. "Hey, I'm thinking of trying a SHB in the next large force exercise" should lead to "OK, I think you're ready, so here's some things to keep in mind and here's how to be safe" or "fuck no, kid, you're not ready yet, don't even try it."

Yes, people not in Naval Aviation asking questions can sound like a five year-old. For example, it didn't occur to me that said pilot would mention to his peers he was going to try such a thing, I was just thinking it was a spur-of-the-moment kind of decision.

There are two ways you can have your flight status pulled. The worst is to lose your flight status AND have to hand over your wings. According to the instruction that governs such things, this is only appropriate for "willful violation of rules and regulations" or "bringing disgrace upon Naval Aviation." So physically losing your wings is a sign that you have formally been cast out of the fraternity by the three-star Admiral in charge of it for abusing its rights and privileges. If you do the best you can and fall short, or in the MP's case, hose up in (reasonably) good faith, you keep the right to wear gold wings on your uniform but lose the ability to be detailed to jobs which require them in the future. No, the MP will not fly Navy aircraft again.

I see, thank you for the info.

 

[Swanee]

it didn't occur to me that said pilot would mention to his peers he was going to try such a thing, I was just thinking it was a spur-of-the-moment kind of decision.

This may have been that but spur of the moment actions in aviation rarely have good outcomes. Aviation is very planning heavy, and very thought out. We use to joke around the squadron that we should tell people that we get paid to read, plan, and talk about flying because we spend a hell of a lot more time doing those things than actually flying.

 

[zippy]

So curiosity on my part, but....WHY would a pilot try a flashy maneuver where if you mess it up, you can sink your career? I know from reading this forum over the years that the most dangerous words in aviation can be when a pilot says, "Watch this." Mike Durant, the Black Hawk pilot shot down and captured in Mogadishu, describes in his book how early in his career, he tried a flashy landing in the Blackhawk and proceeded to knock the rear landing wheel off from under the tail rotor. He had to hold the helicopter in position while someone pushed an object in place to rest the tail on. Worse was a Colonel was flying above and saw the whole thing and meant to rip him a new one, but never got around to it.

The ground combat centric Army fundamentally treats aircraft mishaps differently than the Navy. In the Army an aircraft is almost a consumable item, the Army seems to accept vehicle operations result in crashes. I’ve flown with plenty of Army dudes. Some had mishaps that even totaled the aircraft and one killed people… to the Army they were no big deal. (Perhaps acceptable risk given the circumstances) and they went back to flying in short order. It probably doesn’t hurt that many Army helicopter mishaps aren’t caught on video that makes it to the public domain.

The modern Navy has a total risk avoidance combined with cover your ass mentality, which is why the shit hot break is now being referred to as flat hatting because one dude fucked it up and embarrassed Navy leadership. It doesn’t help that every landing on the boat is on a video which happens to make it to the public domain eventually.

Cost is another considerable aspect… when the Navy toasts technologically advanced aircraft, the bill is pretty steep. EP-3, F-35, E-2, F-18… they’re all a lot more expensive than pretty much any variety of the H-60 (Area 51 helicopters don’t count).

 

[Randy Daytona]

Cost is another considerable aspect… when the Navy toasts technologically advanced aircraft, the bill is pretty steep. EP-3, F-35, E-2, F-18… they’re all a lot more expensive than pretty much any variety of the H-60 (Area 51 helicopters don’t count).

On the Marine side, have you checked the price tag for the new CH-53K ?

 

[taxi1]

So curiosity on my part, but....WHY would a pilot try a flashy maneuver where if you mess it up, you can sink your career?

You ask a good question, and I’ll give you a simple two part answer:

1. It requires total mastery of a maneuver where every parameter on the aircraft is continually changing. In an environment where the norm is “stabilized approach” it is the exact opposite.

2. You have an audience of your most valued peers. Do it well, and you are recognized as having some skills.

 

[robav8r]

You ask a good question, and I’ll give you a simple two part answer:

1. It requires total mastery of a maneuver where every parameter on the aircraft is continually changing. In an environment where the norm is “stabilized approach” it is the exact opposite.

2. You have an audience of your most valued peers. Do it well, and you are recognized as having some skills.

Is not the bigger, better answer is that conducting a SHB in wartime, reduces overall risk to the stack and to the CVN because recovery time is reduced?

 

[Hopeful Hoya]

Is not the bigger, better answer is that conducting a SHB in wartime, reduces overall risk to the stack and to the CVN because recovery time is reduced?

If dudes are getting shot at while in the stack during the next conflict, WW2 style, then things have seriously gotten punted at several different levels.

What will be interesting to see is if the SHB ban means no longer being allowed to break at the stern. Can you break at the stern at 350kts? Otherwise I don't see how you can bring a division into the pattern during Case 1.