• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

U.S. Loses Contact With Two Jets in Iraq

Status
Not open for further replies.
Grant

Grant

Registered User
BAGHDAD, Iraq — The U.S. military said Tuesday it had lost contact with two jets flying in support of operations in Iraq (search).

The status of the two U.S. Marine F/A-18 Hornet (search) aircraft and their crew was not immediately known, the military said in a statement.

Contact was lost at 10:10 p.m. Monday, the statement said. There were no initial indications of hostile fire in the area at the time.

Search efforts were underway, the military said. No further information was released.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155298,00.html
 
Steve Wilkins

Steve Wilkins

Teaching pigs to dance, one pig at a time.
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
surprised the thread nazis haven't locked the thread yet
 
squeeze

squeeze

Retired Harrier Dude
pilot
Super Moderator
Contributor
Why? It's a publicly released story... it's been made clear that that info is just fine. Infact, here's a better story with official Navy speculation from CNN.


(CNN) -- A search is under way for the pilots of two Marine Corps F/A-18 jets that were lost Monday while flying in support of the war in Iraq, Navy officials said.

Navy officials told CNN they believe the jets collided with each other in bad weather during the routine mission.

The crew of the aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson lost contact with the planes about 10:10 p.m. (2:10 p.m. ET), a U.S. military statement said.

"There was no indication of hostile fire in the area at the time contact was lost," the military statement said.

The statement did not say if the planes were over land or sea when they lost contact.

The Boeing-built F/A-18 Hornet is an all-weather fight and attack aircraft that can carry either one- or two-person crews. The aircraft, with a price tag of $35 million and up, have been in service since the 1980s.

Semper Fidelis
 
Schnugg

Schnugg

It's gettin' a bit dramatic 'round here...
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Steve Wilkins said:
surprised the thread nazis haven't locked the thread yet
Click to expand...

As long as there's no speculation or rumor mill gossip going on, it's okay.
But that pretty much limits it to official releases out of the press.
 
Steve Wilkins

Steve Wilkins

Teaching pigs to dance, one pig at a time.
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Oh please. I've been thinking it for awhile so now I'm just gonna say it. There's some mods on here that are more anal than SWO's.
 
A4sForever

A4sForever

BTDT OLD GUY
pilot
Contributor
I'm gonna say it also --- some of the fellow and ladies on this site are wound waaaaaa-y-y-y-y-y-y-y too tight re: NavAir accidents. Now that we have the "official speculation" via the Navy (and what is "official speculation", anyway ?? ... something from the Land of Oz??), let me offer that I suspected a mid-air when I first heard of the story. That is the nature of the business in TACAIR when a section "disappears" and no MiGs, SAM's, or AAA are present --- the initial assumption is "mid-air".

Is that wrong to say??? ---- and, ultimately, what difference does it make? The accident investigation will out ... it usually does. Come on .... get realistic, some of you ... I used to be a safety officer and have done too many investigations and seldom have I seen the "hyper sensitivity" to anything other than "official" comments (or.... "official speculation"??) than I have seen on this webforum -- and usually from non-safety trained individuals.

Lighten up, folks, and throttle back a little .....
 
Clux4

Clux4

Banned
This looks like the second case of mid-air (USMC Hornets) in a period of 2 years. This is sad,the community will feel this.
 
J

jai5w4

.
A4sForever said:
I'm also gonna say it also --- some of the fellow and ladies on this site are wound waaaaaa-y-y-y-y-y-y-y too tight re: NavAir accidents. Now that we have the "official speculation" via the Navy (and what is "official speculation", anyway ?? ... something from the Land of Oz??), let me offer that I suspected a mid-air when I first heard of the story. That is the nature of the business in TACAIR when a section "disappears" and no MiGs, SAM's, or AAA are present --- the initial assumption is "mid-air".

Is that wrong to say??? ---- and, ultimately, what difference does it make? The accident investigation will out ... it usually does. Come on .... get realistic, some of you ... I used to be a safety officer and have done too many investigations and seldom have I seen the "hyper sensitivity" to anything other than "official" comments (or.... "official speculation"??) than I have seen on this webforum -- and usually from non-safety trained individuals.

Lighten up, folks, and throttle back a little .....
Click to expand...

WORD.

~jai5w4
 
Mayday

Mayday

I thought that was the recline!
Steve Wilkins said:
surprised the thread nazis haven't locked the thread yet...
...just gonna say it. There's some mods on here that are more anal than SWO's.
Click to expand...

Wait a minute.
The Airwarriors Creator doesn't reign supreme over his own creation with sovereign god-like power, but only gets to gripe about others who have the power instead? (scratching head)...
 
squeeze

squeeze

Retired Harrier Dude
pilot
Super Moderator
Contributor
the problem was that, when people speculated, others threw out things like "i heard it from so and so who was there and they said .... " or someone releases a name of a MP before the Navy has. THAT's when you start getting into the privileged stuff. And since it's tough where exactly to draw the line sometimes, it's easier to nip it early.

/my .02
 
Steve Wilkins

Steve Wilkins

Teaching pigs to dance, one pig at a time.
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
A4sForever said:
I'm gonna say it also --- some of the fellow and ladies on this site are wound waaaaaa-y-y-y-y-y-y-y too tight re: NavAir accidents. Now that we have the "official speculation" via the Navy (and what is "official speculation", anyway ?? ... something from the Land of Oz??), let me offer that I suspected a mid-air when I first heard of the story. That is the nature of the business in TACAIR when a section "disappears" and no MiGs, SAM's, or AAA are present --- the initial assumption is "mid-air".

Is that wrong to say??? ---- and, ultimately, what difference does it make? The accident investigation will out ... it usually does. Come on .... get realistic, some of you ... I used to be a safety officer and have done too many investigations and seldom have I seen the "hyper sensitivity" to anything other than "official" comments (or.... "official speculation"??) than I have seen on this webforum -- and usually from non-safety trained individuals.

Lighten up, folks, and throttle back a little .....
Click to expand...

Holy sh!t, that's the most coherent post you've written (that I've read). Have you been drinking?
 
Steve Wilkins

Steve Wilkins

Teaching pigs to dance, one pig at a time.
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Mayday said:
Wait a minute.
The Airwarriors Creator doesn't reign supreme over his own creation with sovereign god-like power, but only gets to gripe about others who have the power instead? (scratching head)...
Click to expand...
Please elaborate.
 
Steve Wilkins

Steve Wilkins

Teaching pigs to dance, one pig at a time.
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
squeeze said:
the problem was that, when people speculated, others threw out things like "i heard it from so and so who was there and they said .... " or someone releases a name of a MP before the Navy has. THAT's when you start getting into the privileged stuff. And since it's tough where exactly to draw the line sometimes, it's easier to nip it early.

/my .02
Click to expand...
names are one thing.....speculating what happened, .....well, that's human and natural.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top