Eglin F-35 crash

[HuggyU2]

This could end up being an excellent case-study on the negatives of over-reliance on cockpit automation when task saturated.  

I honestly cannot tell if the HUD comment is tongue-in-cheek.  I hope it is.  

I remember years ago when we did a gas-and-go with a four-ship at Laughlin.  We grabbed a bite in the Base Ops snack bar and got in a conversation with the students about the C-model.  They told us a No-HUD landing was a Special Syllabus event flown dual... and that if the HUD goes out while solo, it was one to a full stop.  We initially thought they were kidding.  The dreaded "no HUD T-38 landing" has stymied many a great aviator.   

Maybe some emphasis on proficiency with backup instruments would be a good thing for all communities?  

[HuggyU2]

One more thing...

The MP had 138 hours in the F-35A and less than 1500 hours total time.  He became an IP over 9 months before the accident... so he did IPUG with maybe 80 hours in the F-35A?  

Is it normal in Fighter Land to create an IP who has so few hours in the new airframe?  

[Hacker]

On 5/23/2020 at 2:11 PM, 08Dawg said:

Standing by for another “aircrew discipline” video...

Only valid when the investigation hasn't actually been completed yet and the General doing the speaking is relaying "facts" that weren't in evidence.  🙂

[Hawg15]

59 minutes ago, HuggyU2 said:

One more thing...

The MP had 138 hours in the F-35A and less than 1500 hours total time.  He became an IP over 9 months before the accident... so he did IPUG with maybe 80 hours in the F-35A?  

Is it normal in Fighter Land to create an IP who has so few hours in the new airframe?  

If he’s already highly experienced in another fighter airframe he will get pushed through upgrades quickly, and if you have close to 1500 hours you are definitely very experienced. I’m guessing he was transitioned to help bring the older experienced type into the community. 1500 hours in a fighter isn’t a small amount. We don’t fly 50 hours in 5 days twice a month like those heavy pilots do on their missions. 

[ClearedHot]

Technology is great but it can be a double edged sword when it allows basic flying skills to atrophy.

Flying WIC sorties between the various Gunpig models it was obvious some of the crew on the "newer gunships" leaned a bit too much (IMHO), on all whiz-bang gadgets they had.  As an example the U Boat had a display in the center of the dash called a Tactical Situation Map (TSM).  On 99% of my flights in the UBoat, the Co-Pilots would basically stare at that display rather than look outside.  Pilots also tended to spend an inordinate amount of time "inside" the airplane looking at that display.  As a dinosaur flying older gunships my first action flying into the threat area was to quickly find visual ques that matched my understanding of the battle space...a road pattern, a set of lights, a river as a boundary...etc.  That kept my eyes outside scanning for threats...by the way AAA does not show on the TSM.  Finally I started bringing a piece of card board that I would place over the display and tell the WUG, "your TSM just failed...no what are you going to do?"

I also saw this reliance in the older gunships when it came to degraded modes of fire.  I won't go into all the modes but most of the crew only wanted to shoot in the mode with the most automation.  I made sure to shoot a few rounds on each sortie in each mode to keep my skills sharp...often getting raised eyebrows from other members of the crew..."what are the odds that will happen in combat?"  On my first combat mission in Afghanistan and several others over the years I was forced by mechanical failures to shoot in a degraded mode and on one mission I was forced to shoot with no input from the system at all...and a bad trigger that required a cadence call to the gunners who were manually pulling a lanyard to fire the 105MM and pushing a pin with a bar to shoot the 40MM....all while I was semi-imposing a manual site on a 23MM that was lighting me up.

Lesson learned...use technology as much as possible but have a plan AND be prepared to degrade gracefully and still execute the mission.

Old guy rant over.

[SocialD]

For the 35 bros in the room, can't you just turn the helmet off and fly a no-hud ILS/landing?  For many of the reasons listed above, I try to fly a no-hud ILS and/or landing every month.

 

[Homestar]

Being proficient with automation is a critical pilot skill. 
 

Being proficient with hand-eyeball flying is a critical pilot skill. 
 

Thank you for coming to my TED talk. 

Edited October 6, 2020 by Homestar

[Danger41]

9 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

so he landed via a prohibited maneuver? (speed hold enabled)

 

"The pilot pulled back on the stick and hit full afterburners to try to abort the landing. But with the stabilizers pointing down, his effort to take off again was unsuccessful and he was forced to bail out."

that's terrifying to me that the computer could overrule the pilot trying to go around!\

"And he had several things on his mind, the report said, including a positive COVID-19 test of a contact of a contact that might require him to quarantine, which contributed to his task over-saturation." - really?

Don’t know this dude (but if it’s the F-15E turned F-35 guy I had in my element at SERE I can’t say I’m surprised), but that bolded part above is the kind of warrior spirit and attitude I want leading as an F-35 IP on night 1 with China. JFC.

And having never flown the battle penguin, is that a common technique to land? And did the airplane act normally in that particular mode? Is there something like an “autopilot disconnect” or equivalent so when you plug in the AB it doesn’t do that? Seems amazingly stupid if that’s the logic of the flight control system. 
 

And how did the convening authority arrive at the fatigue conclusion when he said he had adequate crew rest? The entirety of the 1 SOW is grossly fatigued with constant night flying and schedule changes if that’s the consensus. 
 

Not trying to be overly critical here, but this seems crazy. Imagine the outcry if this had been a new guy and not some 1500 hour IP. 

[ViperMan]

9 hours ago, HuggyU2 said:

This could end up being an excellent case-study on the negatives of over-reliance on cockpit automation when task saturated.  

I honestly cannot tell if the HUD comment is tongue-in-cheek.  I hope it is.  

...

Maybe some emphasis on proficiency with backup instruments would be a good thing for all communities?  

Only partly tongue-in-cheek - yes in the sense that the lack of a HUD didn't actually cause the accident. Not in the sense that design decisions and other factors substantially contribute to accidents like this.

The comment was originally made in the vein of a bit of mud-slinging against an airplane that has had multiple design decisions that cause operators to go "huh???" Lacking a HUD, a gun that breaks the air frame, having a canopy bow, all the design trade-offs required to allow certain models to take-off/land vertically, and so on. "Hundreds of design flaws the pentagon has no intent of ever fixing." Wow. It's part and parcel of a program that if we're being totally honest, should have been scrapped and started anew. We built an airplane to please everyone, so it's no wonder that no one is happy with it. Obviously, considerations like this are well beyond the scope of the AIB/SIB process, though I would love for an O-6 to go there.

Back to the accident, the cause was determined to be the fact that the MP landed at 202 KCAS. Duh. Fly the airplane past it's design limit or do something with it that is going to break it and all bets are off. The secondary cause (re: flight control logic/PIO) I can't really comment on because I'm completely out of my element, but it certainly seems reasonable that had it been landed at a normal speed and the control inputs had been made appropriately the "weirdness" would have been avoided. So on that note, I (personally) can chalk that up to a "substantially contributing factor" which resulted from trying to land it too fast - at least that's what I would call it in the debrief. I say this with no intent to Fox 3 the AIB, because I think it's basically spot on.

That said, I can't take much from "don't land at 200 knots" as an aviator because if I said it during a brief, my 4-ship would look at me sideways, as they should if I was going to say something so obvious (standard motherhood briefs notwithstanding). What I can take from this, and what I think others can take from this, is that our bro got distracted by something during a critical phase of flight. The AIB says this exactly, and it's what I take away from it as one more example of how much the basic shit matters.

So in summary, I agree with your assessment that it was basically over-reliance on automation resulting from task saturation. But, I will add that I think it could have been more easily avoided had he not had conflicting information being presented to him during a critical phase of flight - which IMO is caused by over-design. Simple works very well. The T-38, F-15, F-16, F-22, C-17 (even), etc, etc, all have HUDs. We are used to flying on HUDs. The F-35 should have a HUD.

Edited October 7, 2020 by ViperMan

[di1630]

The helmet is 2006 (not joking) spec’d technology that is still having issues in 2020.

I did a masters paper on it in 2009 and the problems where I visited the factory and talked with engineers.

They should have gone with a HUD/Scorpion combo a decade ago.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[DFNJ]

8 hours ago, SocialD said:

For the 35 bros in the room, can't you just turn the helmet off and fly a no-hud ILS/landing?  For many of the reasons listed above, I try to fly a no-hud ILS and/or landing every month.

 

You can just flip the visor up and it would be the same.

We flew no-HUD FCLPs in the Rhino and same for the C.

One issue with this mishap is at 202 knots your E bracket is gonna be pegged, it should be obvious in an A that’s it’s not there. 

 

[brabus]

Here’s my informed viewpoint:

- There are no excuses about corona, family stuff, etc...AIB/SIBs love to list everything, including which brand of knock-off cheerios he ate at breakfast, so don’t read too much into things of that nature. The AIB overemphasized these things/people are reading too much into them.

- The RC is a breakdown in crosscheck from ~FAF and in. It is standard to use speedhold, it is not standard to keep speedhold on for landing. Normally you discontinue use of speedhold at some point prior to landing, but he was distracted by his fucked up HMD (e.g. “HUD”) and he lost crosscheck of his airspeed/fact speedhold was still engaged. He did in fact transfer to a visual approach (i.e. “no HUD”), just as many of you have lamented him for “not doing,” but the downfall was dropping AOA out of his crosscheck. Had he cross checked, he would have realized he was fast and made the appropriate correction. There is some negative transfer from the Strike Eagle that contributed to the above problem; but might be SE Priv...don’t know.

- The “HUD” issue: It sometimes gets fucked and displays invalid attitude information...so yeah, think about the main attitude reference you look at being out of whack at night, flying an approach over the black hole of the bay. It’s pretty disorienting. There are other options and you can ignore it, so not an excuse, but it is not just a “millennial” thing.  Trust me, I grew up on no datalink/helmet/9M only/visual formation (including takeoff/landings...yay!); also still use a 1:50 map in CAS and am more efficient/accurate than all those young guys trying to keep everything digital on their displays. So I get it. But, the first time I saw this shit in the TX, coupled with LM’s flippant attitude towards it, sent me ballistic. I honestly can’t believe we haven’t crashed more jets due to this problem. It’s a massive safety of flight issue, yet who knows when/if ever it’ll be fixed.  If someone dies with one of these things as a CF, I hope LM gets sued for billions.

- Nobody knew about the portion of control laws he got into, except a few folks at LM holding their cards close...literally not written in T.O.s, etc. Another “go fuck yourself LM” thing. When he landed and immediately realized what was going on, the jet did not act like he thought it would; his control inputs were normal/as any of us would have done in the same situation. He was unable to go around due to the jet essentially ignoring what he wanted. So, while he could have avoided this situation by the earlier cross check discussion above, its ludicrous the jet would not react properly to your control inputs at such a critical phase of flight. Checks in the mail how this might be changed in future S/W drops.  For now, at least the community knows this can happen, and frankly it was only a matter of time before some guy in the CAF unintentionally played test pilot and lost. Huge foul on this not being a warning in the T.O.s or something to that effect.

Bottom line that every pilot can take away: This was not so much an over reliance on technology as it was a distraction that led to fixation, and a break down of basic instrument crosscheck (at night, with no peripheral vision). Establish solid habit patterns that will keep your instrument crosscheck from breaking down, while actively ensuring you do not fixate on a problem and drop the rest of the crosscheck. Remember the guys who were trying to change a light bulb and crashed in the Everglades, or just about every pilot who has CFIT’d? This loss of SA due to basic speed/altitude/position crosscheck breakdown is the the type of thing that has caused tens of thousands of aviation accidents at this point. It is agnostic to airframe and every single one of us is capable of distraction leading to bad/no crosscheck. God knows I’ve been in countless situations where I “broke the chain” in my own cockpit far too late for comfort, but here I am, wiser and alive. So many times it could have been the other way around in a matter of seconds. So, I took something from this mishap, and it wasn’t “fucking SNAPs and their reliance on Gucci shit!” 

Edited October 7, 2020 by brabus

[HuggyU2]

Excellent posts, especially Brabus'.  This is a subject that could generate a ton of additional good posts.  

Two additional things I find interesting from the report:

1. "According to the MP and other witnesses, landing an F-35 at nighttime is not a mundane task, and is more difficult than a nighttime ILS landing in some of the legacy fighter aircraft."  I'm somewhat amazed by this reality.  

2.  The MP has anomolies approaching Decision Altitude; he believes he has an HMD misalignment while low to the ground; he is manually adjusting the brightness late on final because it was "distracting"; the report states his corrections "placed the HMD misaligned symbology further and uncomfortably short of the runway."  He is behind and unstable.  Nowhere in the entire report do I see any discussion on the fact he had the option to abort the approach and go-around on short final.  We all learned this in our first few months in UPT, and I don't have an explanation as to why the Board didn't address this simple fix, since when it happens again, I would expect the next pilot to go-around/missed.  I did a go-around from a less-than-well flown approach less than 24 hours ago.  It is so basic... yet has it become insignificant?  Go around... get to a safe altitude... smoke a Lucky... sort it out.  How does the Board not address this?  

Edited October 7, 2020 by HuggyU2

[brabus]

37 minutes ago, HuggyU2 said:

I'm somewhat amazed by this reality. 

Terrible, isn’t it? I’ve ceased being amazed by all the ridiculous things acquisitions/contracting/LM has done in relation to the program. Don’t get me wrong, the jet is awesome and extremely capable in many ways,  but there are so many overlooked things when it comes to basic shit like flying an ILS, not having a HUD, a disaster of a helmet that is not even in the same league as Scorpion/HMIT, etc.

42 minutes ago, HuggyU2 said:

It is so basic... yet has it become insignificant?

I can’t count how many times I’ve seen “do some pilot shit” to salvage a poor approach. I think culturally in the fighter world there is a lot of lip serviced paid, but reality is going around on a full stop attempt is an “emotional event” for most. It shouldn’t be, but it sure seems that way. Guys are so against diverting (fear of unknown/going somewhere new), don’t want to be “the one guy” who couldn’t land on first attempt out of the entire go (ego), etc. It’s a bad cultural precedent and it’s been around my entire fighter career. I don’t know how to fix it, because saying “just go around if it doesn’t look right” or “no worries if you guys have to divert” isn’t cutting it. 
 

Maybe actually having defined criteria to meet by X AGL/distance to runway or else go around would be good (ala Airlines). Never seen anything like that published or definitively talked about in the fighter world (but certainly have in the civilian world). 

[TreeA10]

The MOST BASIC part of being an aviator is composed of two parts:  A)  Takeoff and B) Landing.  Lots of other stuff can happen in-between those two events but you have to be able to master those two if you want to take the very expensive war machine and refuel, rearm, and go kill more bad guys and break their stuff.  How a $400,000 helmet slapped onto the noggin of an "experienced" IP flying a $176 Million dollar machine landing VF "friggin" R on a huge a$$ piece of concrete can screw that up resulting in destruction of said cosmic aircraft shows a tremendous lack of proficiency and/or training in basic flying skills.  Just absolutely stupid for that to happen.

[brabus]

FWIW, an extremely experienced IP and weapons officer with years in the jet did the same thing, but luckily didn’t have to eject out of it. He recognized he was fast and corrected/accepted a long landing because of the runway available (as have thousands of pilots before him), but the ensuing flight control shit show also happened. So, just food for thought...there are some significant system CFs at play (not to say they are the PCF), and no level of experience/capability is immune from these types of situations. 

[Danger41]

Is the speed hold at 202 normal? That seems really fast? Is there an auto-throttle type system too or does it control pitch? Is the vHUD IFR rated? Can you pop the visor up and fly off of some kind of display in the cockpit?

 

Thanks for the capes brief!

[di1630]

Is the speed hold at 202 normal? That seems really fast? Is there an auto-throttle type system too or does it control pitch? Is the vHUD IFR rated? Can you pop the visor up and fly off of some kind of display in the cockpit?
 
Thanks for the capes brief!

Generally you speed hold in the instrument pattern then simply press a button on the throttle to hold your AOA at the FAF as you set your flight path marker where you want to touch down. No flare or power modulation required, the throttle rolls back at touchdown.

A lot about the jet is rediculously easy and automation can greatly help but over reliance is an issue and sometimes you think something is on/off when it isn’t, get sidetracked such as 6-9 steps to get your ILS symbology and it bites you.

The ILS is horrible. I mean worst I’ve ever seen in aviation horrible to include GA.






Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[HuggyU2]

5 hours ago, Danger41 said:

Is the speed hold at 202 normal?

Realize that, according to the report, he never put it into the Approach Power Compensator mode (APC).  My understanding is that had he done so, it would have flown the correct AoA/Airspeed for the approach.  

Edited October 8, 2020 by HuggyU2

[Majestik Møøse]

Is there a “just fly like a regular jet” mode?

[ThreeHoler]

I did a go-around from a less-than-well flown approach less than 24 hours ago.  It is so basic... yet has it become insignificant?  Go around... get to a safe altitude... smoke a Lucky... sort it out.  How does the Board not address this?  

Huggy, I believe the phrase you’re looking for is “instrument flying [in a fighter] is admin.”

[brabus]

7 hours ago, HuggyU2 said:

Realize that, according to the report, he never put it into the Approach Power Compensator mode (APC).  My understanding is that had he done so, it would have flown the correct AoA/Airspeed for the approach.  

Correct. He was fixated on the jacked up HUD issue that he never cross checked whether APC was engaged or not (APC is the standard). You can also fly it manually like any other jet, just look at the AOA staple and make your FPM lineup with the middle (e.g. 13 AOA...normal apch speed). Thats something else that dropped from the crosscheck. 

[AA]

13 hours ago, Danger41 said:

Is the speed hold at 202 normal? That seems really fast? Is there an auto-throttle type system too or does it control pitch? Is the vHUD IFR rated? Can you pop the visor up and fly off of some kind of display in the cockpit?

 

Thanks for the capes brief!

No, the F-35 HMD has NOT BEEN endorsed as a primary flight reference (PFR) for IFR flight. AFFSA looked at it years ago but efforts to endorse it stopped for unknown reasons and no further efforts to endorse it have been made.  

Edited October 8, 2020 by AA

[hindsight2020]

Oh lookie, it's children of the magenta  "5th gen" style.

"tHaT's jUsT tHe aDmIn bRuH". 

The irony of the intersectionality between 5th gen'er commentary and the PTN/UPTX.X shills does not escape me.

Oh well, Uncle hindsight's gotta get back to "standing in the way of progress" and tend to my Luddite affairs now.  Horse got loose from the ol' buggy in the final turn again....*shouts in the distance*  "runway-airspeed-bank Stan, there ya go, watch your sink Stan...." 

 

[DirkDiggler]

43 minutes ago, hindsight2020 said:

Oh lookie, it's children of the magenta  "5th gen" style.

"tHaT's jUsT tHe aDmIn bRuH". 

The irony of the intersectionality between 5th gen'er commentary and the PTN/UPTX.X shills does not escape me.

Oh well, Uncle hindsight's gotta get back to "standing in the way of progress" and tend to my Luddite affairs now.  Horse got loose from the ol' buggy in the final turn again....*shouts in the distance*  "runway-airspeed-bank Stan, there ya go, watch your sink Stan...." 

 

I actually lol’d