"we are human and we make mistakes." Once you get past mechanical problems and combat related incidents, the words of this pilot pretty well sums it up.
Sounds like a pointless article to me. The number of crashes is up by one since last year. Maybe if we weren't cycling military personnel in and out so fast we would have enough experience and proper time training for this not to happen.
The engine failures could have very well have been the maintainence guys being lazy or as they said, complacent.
Either way, I am a grunt so please feel free to correct me.
I work in an F-16 maintenence backshop and sometimes I see stuff come up that might be considered as complacency. But you need to remember this also - the flightline maintainers work 11-12 hour shifts, sometimes 6-7 days a week due to lack of manning. And they're still losing people. Nevermind the lack of parts in the supply system to fix the planes. Sometimes these guys have to do what they need to do to get planes off the ground and get supervision off their backs. I don't condone shoddy maintenence practices, but I do understand how it can happen in our Air Force with the opstempo showing no signs of slowing down. Maybe with more people to fix the planes and parts availability this trend can be reversed.
Originally posted by GFriend0515: I work in an F-16 maintenence backshop and sometimes I see stuff come up that might be considered as complacency. But you need to remember this also - the flightline maintainers work 11-12 hour shifts, sometimes 6-7 days a week due to lack of manning. And they're still losing people. Nevermind the lack of parts in the supply system to fix the planes. Sometimes these guys have to do what they need to do to get planes off the ground and get supervision off their backs. I don't condone shoddy maintenence practices, but I do understand how it can happen in our Air Force with the opstempo showing no signs of slowing down. Maybe with more people to fix the planes and parts availability this trend can be reversed.
I haven't heard of any F-15 crashes? Perhaps its the overall quality of the aircraft and not the crews? Why don't they compare the stat's; F-16 v. F-15? If the current excuse is that the crews are worn out, then the F-15's should be crashing too!
remember f-15's have TWO engines in em. the "lawn darts" only have one. thats what the marine corps likes about most of its planes, they all, with the exception of the harrier, have 2 engines. thats especially nice if yer flyin over water dontcha know. i guess i want to know is WHY is there a manpower.....er people power, sorry ladies, shortage? is the airforce not meeting its recruiting goals? or not retaining enough of their more experienced "people"
I'd say it's the current operations tempo as much as anything else. This is a protracted engagement, unlike any we've seen in a long time, and we have a finite number of people and materiel.
Consider the law of diminishing returns...one can perform at a high level, but not indefinitely. Eventually, performance will degrade.
Relax, this isn't 'new news', the F-16 has been killing pilots for over 30 years.
The original competing designs were the YF-16(Falcon, single engine) and the YF-17(Tigrshark, twin engine). Both won and were accepted. General Dynamics was ultimately awarded the contract and Northrop made the F-20 for sale outside the US.
When the Lightweight Fighter competition was completed early in 1975, both the YF-16 and the YF-17 showed great promise. The two prototypes performed so well, in fact, that both were selected for military service. On 13 January 1975 the Air Force announced that the YF-16's performance had made it the winner of its Air Combat Fighter (ACF) competition. This marked a shift from the original intention to use the two airplanes strictly as technology demonstrators. General Dynamics' YF-16 had generally shown superior performance over its rival from Northrop. At the same time, the shark-like fighter was judged to have production costs lower than expected, both for initial procurement and over the life cycle of the plane. At the same time, the YF-16 had proved the usefulness not only of fly-by-wire flight controls, but also such innovations as reclined seat backs and transparent head-up display (HUD) panels to facilitate high-G maneuvering, and the use of high profile, one-piece canopies to give pilots greater visibility. Thus, the Air Force had its lightweight fighter, the F-16.
You pretty much hit the nail on its head. I have regular contact with a Marine chopper unit in Iraq and things have not changed. Crews go out and fly for hours and when the day is done, they are responsible for the maintenance on their aircraft. You do whatever has to be done to get the plane ready for the next day of flying. It was no different in Nam. We would fly 8, 10, 12 hours and more in a day and when we got back to the barn, we had to have the plane in an up status ASAP. And I can tell you, there were times a plane should have never left the ground especially on max effort days. Up status percentages made some people look good to the bosses.
I'd bet the same situations exist today.
S/F Gordon ______________________________________________
I work in an F-16 maintenence backshop and sometimes I see stuff come up that might be considered as complacency. But you need to remember this also - the flightline maintainers work 11-12 hour shifts, sometimes 6-7 days a week due to lack of manning. And they're still losing people. Nevermind the lack of parts in the supply system to fix the planes. Sometimes these guys have to do what they need to do to get planes off the ground and get supervision off their backs. I don't condone shoddy maintenence practices, but I do understand how it can happen in our Air Force with the opstempo showing no signs of slowing down. Maybe with more people to fix the planes and parts availability this trend can be reversed.
Originally posted by GFriend0515: I work in an F-16 maintenence backshop and sometimes I see stuff come up that might be considered as complacency. But you need to remember this also - the flightline maintainers work 11-12 hour shifts, sometimes 6-7 days a week due to lack of manning. And they're still losing people. Nevermind the lack of parts in the supply system to fix the planes. Sometimes these guys have to do what they need to do to get planes off the ground and get supervision off their backs. I don't condone shoddy maintenence practices, but I do understand how it can happen in our Air Force with the opstempo showing no signs of slowing down. Maybe with more people to fix the planes and parts availability this trend can be reversed.
Never can complacency or non standard maintenance take the place of safety. A fighter aircraft and especially single engine one is not a forgiving aircraft. All maintainers when you clear that final red X and you waive the aircraft out of parking cup your hands together and then say I am holding the life of that pilot here Have I done everything that I can and safely to ensure his safe return.
As those of us who lived thru the Carter years, realize that the F-20 never came to be because of 2 factors. General Dynamics proposed a F-16N (US Navy version) and Carter set out new rules that prohibited US companies to sell "Top Line" military aircraft being sold to foreign countries. At that time, General Dynamics dropped the Navy version, thus putting the last nail in the F-20's coffin.
Despite offering excellent performance at modest cost, sales never materialized for the F-20. An early sale to Taiwan was canceled to avoid offending mainland China. Other countries were interested, but they were hesitant to buy into the F-20 unless the USAF or Navy would adopt the aircraft. A small but critical sale to the US Navy for aggressor aircraft was a heartbreaking loss to Northrop when the US Navy purchased the F-16N. You cannot blame the US Navy since the F-16N was offered to them for well under cost just to stiff Northrop. The final nail in the coffin came when President Reagan declared that he was willing to sell anything to anyone as long as they had the cash. This opened the flood gates for export sales of the F-15 and F-16. The few sales that the F-20 had written up were converted to F-5E Tiger II aircraft. The F-20 program was shuttered in late 1986.
Finally; In the end, the F-20 Tigershark was reported to use 53% less fuel, required 52% less maintenance, had 63% lower operating costs, was four times more reliable, and had the fastest scramble time of any fighter jet in the world. That made it the finest fighter aircraft that never went into production. And the F-16N sale that doomed the F-20? The F-16N was quietly retired long before its time due to airframe cracks. The F-16N simply could not hold up to the daily use that those Navy fliers expect from an airplane.
Sorry to dwell on this, but politics as usual has put us in the position. Problems with the F-16 are only get worse. The aircraft was never meant to fly this many hours.
I watched the US Army do the same thing. A new design was in the works to replace that "piece of crap", or better still, the Hanger Queen, the Apache. The project called the "Commanche".... it was cancelled by Rumsfield !
Sounds to Me, there just might be a serious Problem with this Engine, sure hope We consider future Aircraft with two engines. When We fly less hours with the same amount of Aircraft as the previous Year and We have more Crashes dont add up. Perhaps a review of the Incident Aircraft Flight and Ground Records, against each other, or combined could indicate a possible area other than Air or Ground Crew Problems. I recall F-100 Aircraft falling out of the Sky due to a Fuel Filter T. C. T. O. problem causing Flame Outs. wcarter41
ALL As on old maintainer of aircraft long in the boneyard, I can relate to the F16 maintainers and the pilots. It is not easy, nor safe. Flying and the op tempo WILL eventually wear out aircraft and pilots, as well as the maintainers. Stand downs worked well in Nam for the USN folks. A 24 hour rest, clear the air, safety reviews etc, all seemed to give us a fresh start. End LKA
......or ordering them into support/combat roles with the USA?
quote:
Originally posted by sandidge: remember f-15's have TWO engines in em. the "lawn darts" only have one. thats what the marine corps likes about most of its planes, they all, with the exception of the harrier, have 2 engines. thats especially nice if yer flyin over water dontcha know. i guess i want to know is WHY is there a manpower.....er people power, sorry ladies, shortage? is the airforce not meeting its recruiting goals? or not retaining enough of their more experienced "people"
JSF only has one and Uncle Sam is going full speed ahead to get it on the line.
quote:
Originally posted by wcarter41: Sounds to Me, there just might be a serious Problem with this Engine, sure hope We consider future Aircraft with two engines. When We fly less hours with the same amount of Aircraft as the previous Year and We have more Crashes dont add up. Perhaps a review of the Incident Aircraft Flight and Ground Records, against each other, or combined could indicate a possible area other than Air or Ground Crew Problems. I recall F-100 Aircraft falling out of the Sky due to a Fuel Filter T. C. T. O. problem causing Flame Outs. wcarter41
Originally posted by sandidge: remember f-15's have TWO engines in em. the "lawn darts" only have one. thats what the marine corps likes about most of its planes, they all, with the exception of the harrier, have 2 engines. thats especially nice if yer flyin over water dontcha know. i guess i want to know is WHY is there a manpower.....er people power, sorry ladies, shortage? is the airforce not meeting its recruiting goals? or not retaining enough of their more experienced "people"
Not only is the Air Force meeting its recruiting goals, it turns many applicants away because it is full. Retention is good, to the point that many first term Airmen have to either apply to crosstrain or get out. If the Air Force has a manning issue it is self inflicted with the 40,000 person cut while there is a two front war going on. If ops tempo is an issue the Air Force just shot itself in the foot by cutting over 10% of its active force.
The F-16 always had a high class A mishap rate, lets break it down , their are 3 types of engines in the F-16. F100-PW220 F100-PW229 GE110 GE=General Electric PW=Pratt & Whitney I would be curious to know what is the failure rate of all 3 engines compared to the class A mishap rate. The mx troops love the reliable GE 110 , pilots love the 229 because of the power and nobody likes the 220, it always requires mx.Now I would like to compare ANG and AFR squadrons compared to Active duty, Gaurd and reserve mx is great but they keep troops for almost their whole 20 year career with sometimes father and son working on the same jet.Active duty have high ops tempos always training new pilots, the dreaded flying hour program, high personel turnovers( the same mistakes are always being made)lack of qualified mx troops( A SRA with red X orders)only SSgt on swings forced to expediate and forced to get all red X's then QA kaboshes him for missing something. That is why during my time I couldn't wait to deploy, we were better manned and away from all the home station hassles and everybody was focused on the mission. It is true that the mx gets better when deployed.
Originally posted by blueghost26: Relax, this isn't 'new news', the F-16 has been killing pilots for over 30 years.
The original competing designs were the YF-16(Falcon, single engine) and the YF-17(Tigrshark, twin engine). Both won and were accepted. General Dynamics was ultimately awarded the contract and Northrop made the F-20 for sale outside the US.
When the Lightweight Fighter competition was completed early in 1975, both the YF-16 and the YF-17 showed great promise. The two prototypes performed so well, in fact, that both were selected for military service. On 13 January 1975 the Air Force announced that the YF-16's performance had made it the winner of its Air Combat Fighter (ACF) competition. This marked a shift from the original intention to use the two airplanes strictly as technology demonstrators. General Dynamics' YF-16 had generally shown superior performance over its rival from Northrop. At the same time, the shark-like fighter was judged to have production costs lower than expected, both for initial procurement and over the life cycle of the plane. At the same time, the YF-16 had proved the usefulness not only of fly-by-wire flight controls, but also such innovations as reclined seat backs and transparent head-up display (HUD) panels to facilitate high-G maneuvering, and the use of high profile, one-piece canopies to give pilots greater visibility. Thus, the Air Force had its lightweight fighter, the F-16.
You have your facts wrong. The YF-17 went on to become the F-18 Hornet, made by then McDonnell/Douglass. The F-20 Tigershark was an updated F-5,(Northrop Product) and was never selected for use by any branch of the US military.
