f-16 fog

[Tlb67]

yeah sure ,, fog in the cockpit
landing long and fast didnt help either!!

[DRGT]

Sometimes the truth isn't as sinister as some would like. Sometimes machine malfunction. A lot have people have become so jaded that they believe everytime the government speaks, it must be hiding something.
I kinda miss the days we generally trusted large institutions.

[Bill]

Out of the thousands of F-16s that have been built, which and what incident does this thread relate to? It's a phantasmagoria as it now stands.

[CarlOrton]

I believe he's referring to the story stating that the USAF released the accident report of the F-16 that ran off the end of the rwy at AirVenture in 2011. The windshield fogged over, according to the official report.

[gpinnell]

Was thinking that same thing.....
yeah sure ,, fog in the cockpit
landing long and fast didnt help either!!

[Floatsflyer]

By chance, I was on the grass close to the intersection where he ran off the end. As it rolled by on the runway I knew he was too fast to stop before the pavement ended and I could clearly see the pilot through the cockpit glass. So if I could see him, he could see clearly out as well. I didn't see where he touched down so don't know if he landed long but he was surely landing hot. Fog??!!, I don't think so. The only fog that's apparent is in the minds and judgement of the USAF investigators who came up with this wacky conclusion.

So...is "fog" also the likely reason for the vintage jet(a variant of the F-86 I believe) that ran of the end of the very same runway the very next day?

[CarlOrton]

Guess the airshow boss will have to start issuing fog advisories during the pre-show briefing.

[gpinnell]

I am a LtC. with the USAFR. The crazy thing about this report is usually Accident Investigation Boards usually come up with the right cause and contributory factors. I don't get this one at all.

[rwanttaja]

I believe he's referring to the story stating that the USAF released the accident report of the F-16 that ran off the end of the rwy at AirVenture in 2011. The windshield fogged over, according to the official report.

Apparently made the brake pedals slippery, too.... :-)

Ron Wanttaja

[Bill]

Its not unusual to get a lot of fog in the cockpit when the environmental control system (ECS) fails. I've had it happen to me. Also, fog typically only lasts a short period of time and disappears with extreme rapidity when the conditions change.

[CraigCantwell]

Under the right conditions, the ECS system in an F-16 can turn the cockpit into zero visability in seconds. Defog can take as little as 15 seconds to clear and as much as 30 seconds. Any ECS control other than the defog lever requires the pilot to remove his hand from the stick.....not exactly what you want to do at 100' and 125+ kts on final or above nosewheel steering limits on the runway.

I've been in the back seat on ground runs that went to zero vis in the cockpit in less than 30 seconds. It was bad enough that I couldn't see my engine guy in the front seat other than a dark shape. I've even had it rain on me due to ambient conditions and a really cranky ECS.

[RickFE]

If it was the pilot himself using this story without concurrence from the investigating authority I might be pretty skeptical. I just don't see the advantage of the Air Force Accident Investigation lying about this. I wasn't in or there, so although I am intrigued by the results of the finding, I am going to take it at face value. Fog it is!

[Tlb67]

By chance, I was on the grass close to the intersection where he ran off the end. As it rolled by on the runway I knew he was too fast to stop before the pavement ended and I could clearly see the pilot through the cockpit glass. So if I could see him, he could see clearly out as well. I didn't see where he touched down so don't know if he landed long but he was surely landing hot. Fog??!!, I don't think so. The only fog that's apparent is in the minds and judgement of the USAF investigators who came up with this wacky conclusion.

So...is "fog" also the likely reason for the vintage jet(a variant of the F-86 I believe) that ran of the end of the very same runway the very next day?


they need a like button on here!!!LOL

[Dave Stadt]

Under the right conditions, the ECS system in an F-16 can turn the cockpit into zero visability in seconds. Defog can take as little as 15 seconds to clear and as much as 30 seconds. Any ECS control other than the defog lever requires the pilot to remove his hand from the stick.....not exactly what you want to do at 100' and 125+ kts on final or above nosewheel steering limits on the runway.

I've been in the back seat on ground runs that went to zero vis in the cockpit in less than 30 seconds. It was bad enough that I couldn't see my engine guy in the front seat other than a dark shape. I've even had it rain on me due to ambient conditions and a really cranky ECS.


With the billions our mlitary has to spend they can't have this problem fixed? I find that very hard to believe.

[CraigCantwell]

Dave: That would be like trying to get carb vendors to make carbs that won't ice up at 60F in any weather condition....No matter how hard you design for every case, it's not possible. On that day, at the time of the incident, temp was 75F, dew point 72F and RH over 88%. If I remember my weather stuff correctly, temp-dew point spreads of 3 degrees or less and you are within the window of being able to form fog. Now couple that with an ECS system that had a hard fail prior to the last landing attempt and things went bad in a hurry. Here is a link to the AIB report and if you look at Tab Z-13, it shows the cockpit extremely foggy and this was shot after the nosewheel was already on the ground.

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/Reports/2012/February%202012/Day22/022112_ACC_%20F-16C_AIB.pdf

It makes for some interesting reading from the prospective as both a pilot and a maintainer.

[rwanttaja]

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/Reports/2012/February%202012/Day22/022112_ACC_%20F-16C_AIB.pdf

It makes for some interesting reading from the prospective as both a pilot and a maintainer.
Thanks for posting that. Things start to make a bit more sense....

Ron Wanttaja

[Bill Greenwood]

I think, like most of us when you first read that cockpit fog caused the overrun, I was pretty skeptical. I would have given that pilot credit for being able to think up a good story, even if improbable, when faced with a damaged plane. How can fog, even if present affect brakes? Sounded like someone was trying to sell us an Edsel.

After reading the full report, I am not so sure. It admits that the pilot flew the pattern too low, approached and touched down too fast, a little long, and without air brakes. Then it says the fog interfered. Maybe so, I am no F-16 expert, never even heard of the fog thing before.
Hard to believe it was $5.4 million of damage.
And what about the other plane that overran the runway, I think a civilian jet with no damage?

I am glad the pilot was able to "egress" safely. Most of the rest of us would have just climbed out. Much hotter to be able to "egress".

One interesting part of the report is that the pilot, a very experienced AF and F-16 instructor, had not only flown an F-16 into EAA Osh before, but also flew in a WW II civilian warbird. I wonder who he is and what warbird he was flying?

[Flyfalcons]

I was surpised to read about the published F-16 landing distances. How many people have we seen who can barely get a Mooney stopped in 3000'?

[Bill Greenwood]

I owned and flew 2 Mooney's , M20C,and M20J for more than 10 years, and also flew a friends 231. There is no problem getting either one of them stopped in a reasonable distance, more like 1500 feet or less.
You just have to use the proper approach speed, seems to me I recall to be 70k on short final for the J, and then close the throttle and hold the nose off just like any normal landing.
If you come in too fast,then keep power on, it will continue to fly down the runway. I have a friend, a CFI who had trouble landing his M20E. He'd fly to the runway ok, but was leery of closing the throttle so would float along in ground effect, with the plane practically asking to land.
Like many people, this CFI learned to fly in a Cessna, and got used to relying on the flaps to slow down.
I have landed on an 1800 foot long Texas ranch strip and used Plymouth, Mi, at 2556 long with 4 people and luggage.

[Dave Prizio]

As much as I would like to give the F-16 pilot the benefit of the doubt, I was there and saw him land long and fast. I do not understand how a temporary fogging of the windscreen could cause him to do that. If he fogged up before he touched down he should have gone around. If he fogged up after he landed that does not explain why he landed long and fast. What am I missing here?

Dave Prizio

[CraigCantwell]

Dave, it wasn't a question of fogging the canopy, but of the entire cockpit being filled with fog. Take a close look at the Tab Z-13 picture and see how much fog is in the cockpit. If you notice, he has shed his visor in an attempt to gain some additional visability. That picture was taken after he was on the nosegear and under 140 kts groundspeed. The report states that both ships landed about 25 kts above calculated speeds. Aerobraking would have taken care of the excess speed, but when the AOA indexer and the HUD cues are no longer visable, you cannot maintain the proper aerobraking attitude. At that point you have to put the nose down and get on the nosewheel steering. As the report said, had the proper attitude been used, he would have stopped with more than 1000 feet of runway left, despite the excess landing speed. As to the speedbrakes, as the report states, it wouldn't have mattered that much. the speedbrakes are really used as a variable drag device and not used as a speed control device.
As to going around, about all I can say is that he most likely would have been getting a low fuel warning as he passed the end of the field and then the staff would have been dealing with an IFE call and possibly an ejection instead. No matter how you slice it, the pilot ws in a bad situation that could have turned out much worse.

[Flyfalcons]

Bill, it wasn't a dig on Mooneys in particular, but was just an observation on how a plane with a 151kt ref speed has a remarkably low landing distance based mostly on proper aerodynamic braking. Meanwhile, we've all witnessed a pilot or two having a tough time putting a plane with half the ref speed on the same runway safely. At least I have certainly seen some close calls.

[danielfindling]

I read the report and it seems highly plausible. The key findings appear to be:

1. Photographic evidence of fog in the cockpit immediately after landing;
2. Defective Anolog Module (which can cause a loss of warm air and reduced airflow);
3. Defective Anti-Ice Control Water Separator Modulating Valve (requiring 10 mA more that specifications typically the result of wear). The defective valve could lead to icing in the system or increased moisture downstream, leading to additional fog.

Thanks to the person who posted the link to the entire report. I found it an enjoyable read.

Landing an f16 with no visual cues immediately on landing and no one was hurt. Imagine if he chose to eject? Appears to be a lucky day after all.

Daniel

[Bill Greenwood]

Dave, if you read the whole accident report above ,it explains several mistakes in the approach, attributes it to a lower than normal ceiling when they were in the pattern, and thus a touchdown too fast. The fog came after the touchdown.

[Bill]

With the billions our mlitary (sic) has to spend they can't have this problem fixed? I find that very hard to believe.

Military and civilian aircraft are designed to have vastly different risk levels, with the civilian being orders of magnitude safer. I've working on the design of both (B-777, F-22, F-35, etc.) and, by design, a military aircraft will have more failures than than a civilian aircraft. We in the military accept that, since we're in an inherently hazardous line of work.

If you look at FAA AC 25.1309-1A, System Design and Analysis, for civilian transport category aircraft, you will find that the probability of a catastrophic failure must be less than 1 in 10^-9 (one in a billion). While I can't quote specific numbers, I can suggest that that probability is far higher for all the military aircraft that I have worked on. So we have failures and live or die with them. Its the price for having an aircraft that performs better than the bad guy's airplane and taking him out instead of him taking you out. A good example of a military-aircraft design that ignored this was the A-12. It was too heavy to land on a carrier deck and, consequently, canceled after spending more than 5 billion of our tax dollars on design and engineering.

[Dekef4]

Horse Crap! The guy has pictures of someone. Heard he was a full bird Colonel. I flew fighters in the AF for 21years, including the F16. Hesitate to make final judgement without reading the Accident Report from the Safety Board. But what I read in the EAA blurb is Crap!

[Floatsflyer]

Guess the airshow boss will have to start issuing fog advisories during the pre-show briefing.


Best line yet! Must forward to those USAF accident investigators for inclusion in prevention recommendations section of report;)

[fisch1221]

So...is "fog" also the likely reason for the vintage jet(a variant of the F-86 I believe) that ran of the end of the very same runway the very next day?

I think it ran off the runway later that same day.

[Hangar10]

Yep, it was later that same day and it was an FJ-4B Fury.

[RickL]

I'm still learning so forgive me for asking but as this approach and landing started going bad, shouldn't he have just added power and gone around? Isn't that rule #1?

[battplatt]

All,

I don't post often, but this thread has struck a chord with me. In the interest of full disclosure, i am a current active duty fighter pilot (not an F-16), so at the risk of sounding like "big government"...

How about instead of taking a bad situation that happened to a fellow aviatior, a situation mind you that very few if any of us have experienced ourselves, we should look at what we can learn here from it. I think the potential of this thread has been lost to an irrelavant discussion or wheter there was "fog" and what "we" think happened. The truth is, the Pilot was no amateur, they were highly trained and proficient, but still bad things happen to good people. We should look at this andattemt to derive some universal lessons learned rather than a "well i really know what happened" type conversation, because honestly no one other than that pilot really truly will ever know exactly what happened.

Back in my heyday, Hangar talk meant telling stories and anecdotes that led you to become a better aviatior, not just a a reason to arm chair quarterback people and glow in their failures.

Maybe my view is a bit altruistic for this forum, but i would like to see opportunities like this become useful to anyone who reads them, then even as tragic as it is, damage to an airplane and a pilot's pride becomes something more than embarrassment and tax dollars spent.

And now to avoid hipocracy...One of the largest lessons here is...Always fly your speeds. A good landing starts with a good approach, which is in turn defined by being on speed, perhaps if this guy did not touch down hot he would have had a different outcome. I agree that the thought of a go around should have been in his head, but let's just say that in this case for whatever reason that wasn't an option. The old adage that runway behind you is useless hold true.

On a technical note, USAF ECS (Environmental Systems) are notorious for having issues with the filters, in that once they are dirty, they create a fog or somke like effect in the cockpit, it can be very distracting and disorienting. If it was bad enough it is completely plausible that it impeded the view of his flight instruments/HUD and cause complications. It may have ven made him question whether or not going around was possible without totally losing control of the aircraft.

Again, consider my point in that this whole forum could be a much more valuable resource if we actually tried to teach each other and learn from things. I agree there are times and things worth griping about, but i strongly feel this isn't one of them.

Batt

[Chad Jensen]

Well said Batt. I was standing at the T-28 line when this happened, and have watched all the videos, read the report. Seems plausible to me, and I think learning from this is the best take-away.

[Zack Baughman]

Thanks for sharing that info and point of view Batt, and THANK YOU for your service Sir!

Zack

[Bill]

Thanks for sharing that info and point of view Batt, and THANK YOU for your service Sir!

Zack

Its good to know that some EAA members appreciate our service to the United States of America. It was hard to tell that from some of the posts in this thread.

[Tlb67]

I started this thread not to pick on the pilot, thank God for his service
Poor guy just happened to do it on the biggest stage in the world
I was more of the final report, sorry guys but the days of believing what the goverment feeds us are long gone !!!!
probbly a little drenaline going in that cockpit buzin Oshkosh
Im not on here to piss people offf!!

[johnerrington]

I was at KOSH that day and watched the pair of F-16's do their high speed passes down the runway. The flight leader was very aggressive in making his turn to the east. He used afterburner and approximately 90 degrees of bank in what looked like a very high G turn. The second pilot was much less aggressive as he started his 180 degree turn toward the downwind leg. He did not use afterburner and his bank angle was about 65 degrees. I remember thinking at the time that perhaps he had an aircraft problem and was doing the best he could.

I also watched both F-16's during the last part of their landing roll, in fact, the back of my head is in the famous video of that event. I was concerned that even the 1st plane might miss his turnoff. When the 2nd one went past my position, I knew he was in trouble because he was even faster, but did not appear to be slowing. I thought accident report would indicate a brake failure... Just shows how wrong I was.

[steveinindy]

Its good to know that some EAA members appreciate our service to the United States of America. It was hard to tell that from some of the posts in this thread.

Well said, although I do have to say (thanks to my time in the Air Force) that I'm not exactly the first to give them a free pass just because it's the US military. I'm with Batt on this one: let's not criticize or assume that the colonel had pictures of someone and learn from the incident here as best we can. Everyone knows you save those for when you need a promotion that you're not going to get otherwise or to quash a full IG investigation....I think that's part of the second day's lesson plan in NCO and officer leadership programs right behind how to write reports making your unit (and therefore yourself) look great on paper. ;)

[flyingriki]

Apparently made the brake pedals slippery, too.... :-)

Ron Wanttaja

Good point Ron. He went by us with the nose still floating and about 500' to the grass.........! Didn't seem to be having any visibility issues with that show.

[Dekef4]

Children,children please stop! I for one, am definately not laying the whole affair on the pilot. I didn't perceive a single comment from anyone that would disparage anyone's service or show a lack of "appreciation" for our service men and women. I spent a career and my son is half way through his and truly understand intimately all aspects of this problem.So just look at the facts and evaluate for yourself.I reviewed the u tube footage and read thoroughly theUSAF Accident Investigation Report as this thread piqued my interest. Let me say this, I was an Air Force trained accident investigator and have been on both side of an Accident Board. I am the last person to be spring- loaded either for or against a pilot mechanic, controller or anyone else. The Environmental Control System was Definately a factor in this mishap. I have no doubt that moments after the MIshap Pilot retarded the throttle that forward visibility was severely limited if not non-exist ant. I believe The MPs testimony was his accurate perception of what occurred However, Flight Safety Officer School at USC taught me that when we start to talk about mishaps there are Causes and Factors that create a chain of events in the accident sequence. If elimination of any of these factors eliminates the mishap then that factor is a "Cause". the Board steps through all the events in the sequence. Eg. #1 "The MP took off from MGM" and so forth thru the entire sequence. All I am trying to get across is that there were several factors that caused this Mishap. Failure of the ECS system is only one of them. pilot error cannot be discounted because had the pilot not flown an overhead pattern, after one approach clearly demonstrated that the weather was not suitable and a straight in visual or an instrument approach should have likely been the next step (fuel was NOT an issue,he nearly 50% internal fuel). The ceiling was 1400'. A normal overhead pattern used to be flown at 1500' AGL in the F16. thus, cloud clearance requirements dictated a ceiling of2000'AGL. We all know we did what we had to in order to complete the mission, but if caught outside the rules it was at our own risk. So the low pattern altitude requires more g (thus, more speed ) to complete the same radius turn that could be completed while trading altitude from a normal pattern. This effect is known as "radial g" in Fighter Pilot lingo. You have gravity, in effect, helping you turn. As a result the Board estimated that the MP touched down 1,000 to 1500' down the runway (normal point) however, speed was estimated 165 to 175Kts. Planned touchdown speed should have been 140 Kts. This would yield a normal landing distance 2800' from the report. 165 knots yields 5400' on an 8000' runway with no overrun or arresting system. Failure to deploy the speed brakes cost him another 600'. So, giving him the benefit of doubt, we say he landed 1000' down plus a 6000' rollout. Leaving a1000' excess. You make the call, had he conducted an on speed landing in the desired touchdown would he likely have been able to stop prior to the end even with impaired or no forward visibility. He did say that the fog disoriented him. I do not doubt that. But the last airspeed he recalled was 140kts which would have occurred well after touchdown with the aircraft already tracking down the runway. Winds were negligible. I'm sorry, but I have doubts that he seriously considered an ejection. A power increase for a go around may have cleared the problem could have been a scary or worse prospect especially if he was disoriented.One point I'd like to make. The Accident Report is the AFs official position on the matter as far as the media and the lawyers are concerned. However, know that there is another report that is never released, it is known as the Safety Investigation Board Report. It is conducted by a completely separate board that conducts an entirely independant investigation. The reason it is protected is because all information revealed by any party to the accident, pilot, mechanic,or vendor is guaranteed non retribution or litigation in return for their honesty and full cooperation. This is a sacred trust that is never broken in the interest of accurate investigation and accident prevention. The SIB is conducted first and only the facts are given to the Accident Board no testimony or analysis of any kind is yielded.Finally, I apologize for the length, this is my understamding of how these boards were conducted during my time (20 years ago). I also apologize for the "pictures" comment, it was a crude joke and in poor taste. I'm afraid that's part of the fighter pilot culture I grew up in. I love and truly respect all of our troops and especially our intrepid aviators. We all make mistakes!

[Intruder]

For the F-16 pilots - could the canopy have been raised enough to blow out the fog or to give the pilot clear view forward? If it was smoke or fumes in the cockpit on landing, what would have been done?

[steveinindy]

If I'm sitting on a rocket-equipped seat in an aircraft I don't have to pay for and I get smoke/fumes in the cockpit, I'm going to be exiting the aircraft expeditiously. I mean....that would at least have been kind of cool to see and worth all the noise of having the kerosene club around.

[bjldiver]

1656I was at the end of the runway when this happened and I have a series of photos of the incident. This photo is a cropped down shot of the cockpit when the plane was less then 100 yards from the end of the runway. Could the fog have cleared by this point? Also in the report if the photos z12 and z13 were taken from the same camera than z12 was taken after z13. Link to photo series http://www.wpix.com/news/nationworld/witi-20110728-eaa-f16-incident,0,5934051.photogallery?index=witi-20110728-eaa-f16-incident-013

[pchapman]

I think people may have been so skeptical about the accident report because initial brief news reports we heard focused only on one thing -- "it was fog in the cockpit". Too simple a statement to be believed without evidence, and also missing some contributory factors.