Cause of Miltary Dermo Crashes

[Bill Greenwood]

I have not seen official cause of F-16 accident after fly by at Air Force grad ceremony when the engine quit and pilot ejected safely, after doing a good job of aiming the plane to an empty field, where it ended upright and with less damage than youd expect.
Educated guesses are a bird strike of which there are some large ones in the area or some type of fuel malfunction. There was fuel, 800 lbs found in the plane on the ground.
A friend in the area is an ex F-16 ground crew, and has heard the ATC tapes of just last moments of this flight , not the time before. The pilot says he tries several times to restart the engine before getting out.
Thanks are due to Martin Baker or someone.

Sadly the Blue Angel F-18 pilot was not so fortunate. The offical cause is starting the split s "too low and too fast". Its usually started from level ,then a 180* roll to upside down, then a pull nose down and through back to level like the last half of a loop. Too fast means the size of the arc would be larger than ideal and of course too low gives less room to finish the arc. Also says he had afterburner on which would acclerate rapidly when nose down and again make the arc too big. I dony know much about jets to know if it is likely that afterburner could have stuck on.
Even an expert pilot can have a problem and this agressive down low leaves litttle room for error. Sad for a young man and his family.
I have done some split s, s and they are exhirerating. but I do them thoudsands of feet up high and try to enter slowly enough.

[Byron J. Covey]

I have not seen official cause of F-16 accident after fly by at Air Force grad ceremony when the engine quit and pilot ejected safely, after doing a good job of aiming the plane to an empty field, where it ended upright and with less damage than youd expect.
Educated guesses are a bird strike of which there are some large ones in the area or some type of fuel malfunction. There was fuel, 800 lbs found in the plane on the ground.
A friend in the area is an ex F-16 ground crew, and has heard the ATC tapes of just last moments of this flight , not the time before. The pilot says he tries several times to restart the engine before getting out.
Thanks are due to Martin Baker or someone.

Sadly the Blue Angel F-18 pilot was not so fortunate. The offical cause is starting the split s "too low and too fast". Its usually started from level ,then a 180* roll to upside down, then a pull nose down and through back to level like the last half of a loop. Too fast means the size of the arc would be larger than ideal and of course too low gives less room to finish the arc. Also says he had afterburner on which would acclerate rapidly when nose down and again make the arc too big. I dony know much about jets to know if it is likely that afterburner could have stuck on.
Even an expert pilot can have a problem and this agressive down low leaves litttle room for error. Sad for a young man and his family.
I have done some split s, s and they are exhirerating. but I do them thoudsands of feet up high and try to enter slowly enough.


The reverse half Cuban eight, from low altitude, has killed many airshow pilots, and destroyed a Thunderbird (pilot ejected and survived) and the Blue Angel (pilot killed).

It is stupid to perform that maneuver; the viewing public probably doesn't distinguish it from a half Cuban.

A 450 Stearman that once belonged to my neighbor recently crashed with fatal results while attempting a loop on takeoff.

I really apperciate precision flying, but I seldom enjoy watchng today's airshows.


BJC

[cub builder]

I have not seen official cause of F-16 accident after fly by at Air Force grad ceremony when the engine quit and pilot ejected safely, after doing a good job of aiming the plane to an empty field, where it ended upright and with less damage than youd expect.
Educated guesses are a bird strike of which there are some large ones in the area or some type of fuel malfunction. There was fuel, 800 lbs found in the plane on the ground.
A friend in the area is an ex F-16 ground crew, and has heard the ATC tapes of just last moments of this flight , not the time before. The pilot says he tries several times to restart the engine before getting out.
Thanks are due to Martin Baker or someone.


I'm not trying to make this a political discussion or place blame on anyone, but this article (http://www.fly-low.com/throttle-forward/) in Fly-Low certainly reports the F-16 crash much differently.

-Cub Builder

[Bill Greenwood]

I have not yet heard the OFFICIAL REPORT OF THE CAUSE OF THIS F-16 CRASH, and I think FLY Low version is rumors, no facts or sources given. There is not any doubt of two basic facts, that the pilot safely ejected and the plane landed in a field away from houses. This was seen by many people and shown on tv news as well as news paper reports, by a local reporter( Col Spr Gazette) at the scene. I am thankful that the ejection seat, Martin Baker, or whatever gave the pilot that 2nd chance.

[Byron J. Covey]

The reverse half Cuban eight, from low altitude, has killed many airshow pilots, and destroyed a Thunderbird (pilot ejected and survived) and the Blue Angel (pilot killed).

It is stupid to perform that maneuver; the viewing public probably doesn't distinguish it from a half Cuban.

A 450 Stearman that once belonged to my neighbor recently crashed with fatal results while attempting a loop on takeoff.

I really apperciate precision flying, but I seldom enjoy watchng today's airshows.


BJC

Link to F-16 crash video, referenced above: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jaWNj-ZkADY


BJC

[Gunslinger37]

First, the NTSB is not involved with the F-16 accident at Colorado Springs.
From a source close to the Thunderbirds maintenance crew, the F-16 engine shut down due to a mechanical problem with the cockpit throttle to engine fuel control rigging. A quick check of other F-16 airplanes found 30+ with the same problem.

[1600vw]

Link to F-16 crash video, referenced above: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jaWNj-ZkADY


BJC


Why this happened:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alo_XWCqNUQ

[TomBush]

Hard data from the LiveATC.net audio clips for the COS (Colorado Springs / Petersen AFB) sector. You can't hear the voices of T-Birds since they are transmitting on UHF, but the controllers are simulcasting on VHF so you hear them going out. Timeline on 02 June. All times Local (Zulu-6):

-1139:50: You hear either COS GND or CLNC query T-Bird 1 about a fix or something along his route. It's the very first comm exchange found on this flight, and means their engines are turning at this point.

-1145:15: You hear COS GND or CLNC querying T-Bird 1 about his on-course heading following his planned left turnout. Sounds like they're using the 17's at COS at the time.

-1201:54 COS Tower calls "Change to Departure, Fly Runway Heading" (cleared for takeoff). They came off COS Rwy 17L or 17R, drilled on Rwy Heading for a few miles, came left to 080, then 010 based on several other routine ATC calls.

-1205:00 COS Departure calls traffic for T-Bird flight

-1208:58 T-Bird flight checks in with Denver Departure on 128.45 / 251.07 and exchanges multiple S.A. calls over the course of the next 15 minutes or so

-1223:00 Denver Departure tells T-Bird 1 to contact COS Approach on 239.025 or 118.5.

-1224:08 Denver Approach calls "Thunderbird 1...." (unintelligible, but sounds like he's looking for him as if he hadn't checked into the new sector yet)


DEMO GOING ON SOMETIME BETWEEN 1223 and 1253


-1253:16 T-Bird flight checks in with COS Approach, approach says "Understand you want to land 35R?" Approach then clears them to initial for 35R.

-1255:25: COS Approach tells T-Bird Flight to "Contact Tower 360.6" (assumption is that they've driven around to the initial and are coming into the break

-1255:45 "Thunderbird 1, Springs Tower, Runway 35 Right, winds 010 at 4, cleared to land."


EJECTION MOST LIKELY HAPPENS SOMETIME AROUND 1256 - 1258


-1259:30 COS Approach clears a MEDEVAC Helo, callsign 5MT, from the COS hospital into "the police hangar." (no indication that this was anything other than a routine MEDEVAC flight, and had nothing to do with the fact that a guy just punched)

-1300:58 COS Tower says "The one in the air, is that Thunderbird 5?" (apparently it was actually 4)

-1301:15 MEDEVAC 5MT calls 3 1/2 out to the west. Tower clears him to land, and advises him of a UH-60 holding position on the ramp.

-1301:20 COS Tower says "Thunderbird 4, do you wanna land?" Apparently T-Bird 4 declines, because a few seconds later Tower tells him to "Squawk VFR if you're able) (sounds like he was detached from the flight, and prolly had his squawk strangled).

-1302:15 COS Tower says "Thunderbird 4 ONLY, say again?"

-1303:05 COS Tower says "Thunderbird 4, Roger, wind calm, Runway 35 right, cleared to land."

-1303:12 COS Tower asks "is it where you're circling; is that the position where the other aircraft went down?"

-1303:52 Clears T-Bird 4 to land again

-1304:35 COS Ground says "Thunderbird ......?" (unintelligible, but has a questioning tone to it)

-1305:35 Ground says "Thunderbird 4, turn left there and taxi to the ramp via Bravo." (4 appears to be the last guy on deck, as you don't hear any other T-Bird callsigns being used after this)

-1306:25 Approach talking to a helicopter - Huntsman xx - that had taken off from COS and reported that he was heading towards the USAF Academy. After heading northbound, at 1306:40 he tells approach that he is changing his course to the south to "look for downed aircraft." Approach tells him that he thinks it's about 5 miles southeast of the field.

-1307:45 Huntsman asks approach for specific location of downed aircraft. Approach tells him to contact tower.

-1311:20: Tower says "Huntsman, ah, Roger; Understand you have the aircraft in sight and are gonna' pick him up?"

-1311:30 Tower says "T-Bird, you copy," as if he's still talking to one of them that's either still airborne, or listening on the ground.

-1315:20 Extraneous Comm by Tower telling someone that "you do understand that they plan on picking up the pilot and bringing him back to the Peterson ramp, right?"

-1318:00 More Comm exchanges regarding disposition of pilot; statements by Tower that "the helicopter spotted the pilot about 200 yards from the aircraft," and that it's about 4 miles SE, most likely not on airport property.

-1319:44 "Airforce 1, Springs Clearance, you're cleared to your destination as filed, xxxx" (that was it; a single call and done. . . Prez. obviously getting ready to move already)

-1329:21 The helicopter (Huntsman xx) is cleared to land. It's not said on the radio, but he's got T-Bird 6 on board. Air Force 1, having been issued his clearance exactly 10 minutes prior, is still sitting on the ramp. The photo of Obama greeting the downed pilot that we all saw is single-digit minutes away from happening at this point. . .


Takeaway:

- From earliest indication of the team's engines turning to them being cleared to land was 1hr, 15 min. In reality, this makes for an entire engine turn time of about 1 hr 20 to 1 hr 25 min - and that was for T-Bird 1! T-Bird 4's total engine turn time was at least 10 minutes more than this, as it sounds like he landed last. This is an EXTREMELY long time for a slick fighter to be operating down low, especially when there's burner involved. I'll leave things at that. . .

[Bill Greenwood]

As for a long time, FROM YOUR ATC TRANSMITS, not guessing otherwisw, they are cleared to take off 12:02 and cleared to land 12:55, so :53 min plus a couple for landing.

[TomBush]

As for a long time, FROM YOUR ATC TRANSMITS, not guessing otherwisw, they are cleared to take off 12:02 and cleared to land 12:55, so :53 min plus a couple for landing.

Fine Sir,

I have no idea what your background is, so please pardon the tone of anything you're about to hear. . .

First things first: Fighter aircraft are THIRSTY creatures - especially on the ground, especially when flown down low, and ESPECIALLY in afterburner.

- The F-16's internal fuel capacity is something on the order of 7,000 lbs. Sitting on the ground at idle, it's burning fuel at a nominal 700 - 1,000 lbs/hr. In full afterburner at sea level, it's burning about 1,000 lbs of fuel each MINUTE. Mid-range power settings (non-AB) have you burning about 7K lbs / hr. Max endurance fuel flow at a low altitude such as the T-Birds would have been flying as they were waiting for the show to start is around 4K lbs / hr. IOW, the LOWEST fuel flow they could set just to remain in the air after takeoff down at low altitudes is around 4K lbs / hr. These guys ran on deck for at least 22 minutes, burning a nominal 367 lbs, meaning they poured the coals to it on T/O roll with a rounded 6,600 lbs. An AB takeoff was going to use about 500-700 more pounds by the time they got airborne and joined, leaving them with a nominal 6,000 lbs. At this point, even if they 'hung on the blades' as we used to call it when trying to max-conserve fuel, they now had a nominal 1.5 hrs till flameout at their max-conserve burn rate of 4K lbs / hr. The actual profile they flew, however, was of course nothing close to this. They'd have been in and out of Burner numerous times as well as sustained periods of full military power with burn rates of 10k-ish / hr.

My overall point is that the math does not look favorably upon the T-Birds on this particular flight.

I flew F-14's in the Navy for 4 years - some variants of which had the same engine(s) the F-16 uses (the GE F-110), then F/A-18s for 16 years after that.

Consider these things:

- in the F/A-18, our STTO (Start, Taxi, and Takeoff) fuel planning factor was 1,200 lbs. IOW, we fully planned to use 1,200 lbs of fuel from the time we started up till the time we crossed the departure end of the runway during an AB takeoff. This number was always close. My main point here is that our desire to minimize idle time on the ground was HUGE, because you're sucking a bunch of fuel!

- Using the Hornet as a reference, most of the "BFM" or 'Basic Fighter Maneuvering' (1 v 1 dogfighting...) stuff we did would have us configured with full internal fuel (10.7K) and a single centerline drop tank (2.2K) for a total startup fuel of 12.9ish. It was not uncommon AT ALL to log a .6 on those types of sorties after landing with our minimum SOP fuel on deck of 2K. IOW, we'd burn 10.9K of fuel in a nominal 36 minutes total time. Why? Because you're in mil or burner most of the time! T-Bird flight profiles are similar.

- I did the solo Hornet 'Tac Demo' at airshows back in 2003. The airplane would be configured 'slick' (no pylons or tanks hanging on it), and would be 'light-loaded' with fuel to about 8.0 - 8.5K lbs. From takeoff to touchdown during the demo was 11 - 12 minutes. I'd land with somewhere between 2.0 - 3.0 K lbs. . . Like I said; fighters are THIRSTY!

- I'm not pretending to know all of the fine details that would be known to the investigators in this particular case. All I am doing is speaking from my experience as a former fighter guy who is skeptical of the math while also realizing the highly unusual political factors in play in this particular case. Think about it: the pilot ejects and happens to be picked up by a helicopter and delivered quite literally to the steps of AF1 as the President is boarding some 30 minutes after the event. The President and the press immediately laud him as a hero. Following that, how in the hell could the subsequent mishap investigation - including any discipline that might normally be meted out in such cases if fault was found - ever be distributed against those responsible? This is the crux of my point. . .

[Gunslinger37]

As I posted two days ago, the F-16 Thunderbird accident was caused by a throttle problem. He had fuel in the tanks, which was removed before they loaded the airframe on a truck. This was the fourth F-16 loss due to throttle problems. The first, was in May 2008 at the Tonopah Test Range in Nevada, where the throttle stuck in afterburner (full power) position. The airplane eventually ran out of fuel and the pilot ejected.

NELLIS AFB, NV -- Engine failure (flame out) resulting from the failure of a throttle cable caused the crash of an F-16C/D short of the runway at Colorado Springs (Peterson AFB) on June 2, 2016. The pilot ejected from the aircraft and received minor injuries. No fatalities and no damage to personal property were reported. According to the Air Combat Command accident investigation board, the pilot retarded the throttle during the landing approach and descent prior to extending the landing gear. As the aircraft slowed he attempted to move the throttle forward but it was stuck in the idle position. At the same time the pilot observed the engine instruments indicated the engine had shut down.
Investigators determined that a fracture within the throttle cable assembly led to the failure of the component, preventing throttle input and loss of the aircraft. The EPU H-70 system auto activated. The pilot directed the aircraft toward an open area before ejecting.

[Bill Greenwood]

Gunslinger, thanks for your input and accident report If It Is, the official report, which just as many logical people said, does not have the cause as the plane running out of fuel.

Tom Bush, the official report, IF IT IS the one given above, doesn't fit conspiracy or negligence claims at all. Of course, you can ignore thisl cause of the accident and insist on a conspiracy one, but it doesnt hold much validity. And I understand the crux of your point as you write,but really if you dislike the Pres it doesn't equate to the F-16 running out of fuel and a big cover up conspiracy. I have seen on another site other views like yours, and at least one of them from an ex mil jet pilot.

And as for your experience in an F-18, no I am not a jet pilot, only had one short flight in a Soko. But I am pretty sure an F-18 has 2, twice as many engines as an F-16 and thus likely burns a lot more fuel, same for the larger F-14. And you are assuming they ran on the ground for 22 min of which I dont see any evidence of that, nor any reports of it. You are also assuming sometime flight at full power and even afterburner for which again there is no direct evidence that I know of.
And just as you didnt run out of fuel on your F-18 demo, most likley the F-16 Tbirds pilots are experienced enough not to run out of fuel with a big runway minutes away.

When this happened, it was reported soon that the plane had 800 lbs of fuel in tanks when on the ground.Newspaper says that is 200 mile range., and he was gear down and ready to land when the problem happened. Of course this could be part of the big lie conspiracy, and blame could be focused on the pilot, or Secret Service, or Pres. or all of them. Logically who would willingly want the plane to run our of fuel? Who would benefit , except maybe rumor sources?
Next cause might be hitting a bird, lot of big ones around. My friend in Co Springs is an retired F-16 crewman and says they have had bird strikes nearby. But he also says you could see feathers and smell the burning smell in the engine then.
Next cause would be something mechanical likley in the fuel system and that is exactly what this report says.
By the way, the prototype 16 also had engine shutdowns due to a computer throttle problem somewhat different than this one.

[TomBush]

Bill,

Yes, their engines were turning when their radios were on.

Yes, my fuel numbers are accurate.

Yes, AB gets used during takeoff and during the show - ESPECIALLY by the solos.

No, the total fuel burn between the F/A-18 and F-16 isn't that much different. For example: my full AB fuel flow at sea level in the Hornet was 1,200 lbs/min. The F-16's is 1,000 lbs/min. Depending on the variant of the Hornet you were flying (all legacy A - D models for me), you either had 16K or 18K thrust out of EACH engine in full AB, for a total thrust of either 32K or 36K lbs. The single F110 in the F-16 puts out 32K lbs. Hmmm. You don't get nuthin' for nuthin' in the real world, so I tell you this to highlight the fact that like-generation fighters that generate similar thrust are gonna' have fuel flows pretty darn close to one another. And they do! I've flown with and against the F-16 throughout my entire career, and know with certainty how their flight profile compares to mine, because we'd literally takeoff with each other, go out to the working area, do our thing, and return. If it was a pure 1 v 1 dogfight where we were both going to be in burner a lot, the F-16 would usually Bingo out first; him having started up with his full internal fuel of 7K, and me with 10.7K.

No, I'm not making a political statement against the President out of this. None whatsoever. What I am saying, however, is that the integrity of the mishap investigation most definitely gets compromised when the pilot and team involved are getting lauded by the CIC and the press within single-digit hours of the event, whereby the mishap investigation and knowledge of what truly happened is going to take a month or more to come out. Think about it: let's say they found the jet completely empty and determined it was actually a flameout. Short a set of very extenuating circumstances, the pilot(s) involved would normally face disciplinary or administrative sanctions. Happens every day in our military. In this particular case, however, the HMFIC declared the pilot a hero while the ejection seat was still smoking in the desert. For the investigating team to now come out and fire #6 and / or the lead would be to throw egg in the face of the CIC. Rather than do that and suffer all the fallout that goes with it, the investigators and / or the endorsing chain of the report could simply push the 'easy button' and blame it on something else.

I stand by my hypothesis. Might I be wrong? I certainly hope I am, TTYTT! My gut, reinforced by word on the street in the community that actually flies these things, however, tells me otherwise. . .

[Bill Greenwood]

Tom, did you read the accident report above provided by "Gunslinger" ?

IF this is the official accident report, ( I dont know but it says Nellis AFB on it) then the cause found is the break in the throttle system, and this report has taken over 3 months, like the Navy one. A mech check of the plane post flight would likely find this defect, as the report says. Do you think or claim this report is false? As for what if on the plane being empty of fuel, again that doesnt fit the facts of 800 lbs of fuel pumped out of the plane before being moved. The Gazette reporter told me he personally witnessed this. Do you claim that this info is also faked as part of a cover up?
And as for your fuel burn figures, they may be accurate, but all the other planes didnt run out of fuel. Also maybe not takeoff on Aft burner, long runway and the show was at the Acadamy not aiprort. Not much on the total, but I still dont see how you can be certain that the planes ran 22 min on the ground, not having been there. A radio can run off ground power or battery, doubt if it has to have the engine . Dont know what a HMFIC is but I think that whatever the accident cause, the pilot was congratulated because he kept the plane away from any houses and in good control before ejecting, as well as joy that he is ok. I think Sully and Stiles were congratulaed long before an accident report was finalized on his emergency.
As for your theory about fuel, how probable is it? How many times has a TBIRD F-16 run out of fuel in a demo, especially close a major airport? Maybe, but I cant recall one? And if the pilot was running out of fuel , would he make a radio call on that? Was there one? Do you really think a pilot would ignore a warning light of low fuel when he's got a big runway near?
"Word on the street" would have value from someone on the accident investiation team or plane crew, or it may just be gossip.

And I am not going to make any comments about AF vs Navy pilots, cant think of a good humorous one.

PS, I share your frustration on Y Eagle red tape, but for the kids, I think I will sometime go through it to fly them again., if there is a need.

[TomBush]

Bill,

What you read above was not an 'accident report,' it was a press release about the accident report. I'm a naval aviation safety school grad and investigated many accidents and wrote reports myself. Remember that 'easy button' I referred to? Throttle cable just happens to break coming out of the break? Sure, strange things happen at strange times sometimes, but. . .

With that, I'm not going to make any further comment on the matter.