Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Fatal Problems Continue To Plague F-22 Raptor

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the let's-keep-throwing-money-at-it-until-it-works dept.

The Military 379

Hugh Pickens writes "The LA Times reports that even though the Air Force has used its F-22 Raptor planes only in test missions, pilots have experienced seven major crashes with two deaths, a grim reminder that the U.S. military's most expensive fighter jet, never called into combat despite conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, continues to experience equipment problems — notably with its oxygen systems. New details from an Air Force report last week drew attention to a crash in November 2010 that left Capt. Jeff Haney dead and raised debate over whether the Air Force turned Haney into a scapegoat to escape more criticism of the F-22. Haney 'most likely experienced a sense similar to suffocation,' the report said. 'This was likely [Haney's] first experience under such physiological duress.' According to the Air Force Accident Report, Haney should have leaned over and with a gloved hand pulled a silver-dollar-size green ring that was under his seat by his left thigh to engage the emergency system (PDF). It takes 40 pounds of pull to engage the emergency system. That's a tall order for a man who has gone nearly a minute without a breath of air, speeding faster than sound, while wearing bulky weather gear, says Michael Barr, a former Air Force fighter pilot and former accident investigation officer. 'It would've taken superhuman efforts on the pilot's behalf to save that aircraft,' says Barr. 'The initial cause of this accident was a malfunction with the aircraft — not the pilot.'"

cancel ×

379 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Fatal problems (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38439810)

They aren't using Raptors, they're using RockMelt now. Especially RockMelt is an interesting browser - it completely abandons geeky stuff like NoScript or Adblock but instead caters to casual, normal people and how they use the internet. RockMelt has online Facebook friends directly on the site, along with recent news and updates from all social networks. It lets you easily add social bookmarks to sites like Reddit and Digg, along with sharing to Facebook and Twitter. Most people have been saying how wonderful it is compared to Firefox. It's an browser that actual people want.

Bleeding Edge Aviation (4, Insightful)

AB3A (192265) | more than 2 years ago | (#38439824)

In every case where aviation has been stretching the envelope, there have been accidents and fatalities. The GB Racer is a classic case of this. Many of the renown WWII aircraft had A versions that were anything but safe to fly.

The venerated F-16 wasn't much to write home about either when it was first released. The engineers will learn and get experience. It will come at a horrible price. But if you wanted to live a safe life, you shouldn't be in the military in the first place.

Re:Bleeding Edge Aviation (2, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#38439952)

Hasn't F-22 production been shut down? So 'lessons learned' won't help much.

Re:Bleeding Edge Aviation (1, Insightful)

Nimey (114278) | more than 2 years ago | (#38440016)

Please. Lockheed will be getting upgrade contracts for years to come.

Re:Bleeding Edge Aviation (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#38440034)

Please. Lockheed will be getting upgrade contracts for years to come.

Sure, but that's minor compared to producing hundreds of new aircraft.

Re:Bleeding Edge Aviation (2)

fotbr (855184) | more than 2 years ago | (#38440142)

You haven't seen what they can charge for updates.

Re:Bleeding Edge Aviation (4, Insightful)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 2 years ago | (#38440152)

Guess again, support and upgrade contracts can surpass construction contracts significantly - it's where most companies look to make the bulk of their profits in this arena.

For example, recently the USAF asked for $8billion to upgrade the F-22 fleet to be able to use the much vaunted datalink capability. That's more than 10% of the current program cost.

Re:Bleeding Edge Aviation (1)

gentryx (759438) | more than 2 years ago | (#38440042)

Yes, but the existing planes are constantly updated. Military planes are not like commodity cars, which get build once and only receive new wipers every now end then. The airforce plans to use them for decades. Also, the insight gained will influence the next generation of fighters.

Re:Bleeding Edge Aviation (4, Informative)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#38440160)

Yes, but the existing planes are constantly updated. Military planes are not like commodity cars, which get build once and only receive new wipers every now end then. The airforce plans to use them for decades. Also, the insight gained will influence the next generation of fighters.

My grandfather the B-17 and B-24 pilot had some saying about the first couple hundred B-17 (or was it B-24?) engines pretty much being no good, lots of return to base after engine failure, a couple times for him personally, he even had a wing fire (obviously, survived, somehow). No big deal if the first couple hundred fail, because they made thousands.

Sounds like they're doing that with the F-22, the first couple hundred are kind of learning experiments. Whoops, they only made a couple hundred and then shut down the line. Well, thats not gonna work so well.

Re:Bleeding Edge Aviation (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#38440274)

lots of return to base after engine failure, a couple times for him personally, he even had a wing fire

I mean he had a couple aborted missions due to engines burning out, and once he had a wing fire, not caught fire each time.

Re:Bleeding Edge Aviation (5, Interesting)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 2 years ago | (#38440492)

When Rolls Royce had to make their Merlin engine reliable enough fr long range bombing missions, they took every 10th engine off the production line and ran it constantly until it broke, took it apart and made whatever piece that failed stronger.

By the end of the war they had one of the most reliable piston engines the world has ever seen.

Re:Bleeding Edge Aviation (5, Insightful)

somersault (912633) | more than 2 years ago | (#38440232)

They plan to use them for decades, but they haven't used them at all yet. As the summary says, they've only been used for test missions so far.

The article says that there have been many cases of F22 pilots showing signs of hypoxia, and they grounded all craft earlier this year to run a study as to why. They didn't find or fix the problem, but started allowing people to fly them again. Now someone dies and they blame him rather than the faulty air supply. That's pretty damn low. I hope they keep all of these planes grounded now until the issue is resolved.

Re:Bleeding Edge Aviation (3, Insightful)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 2 years ago | (#38439982)

There's nothing cutting edge about the inboard oxygen system on the F-22, which is where they have had a lot of problems recently - it *should* be a solved problem, but seems not to be.

Re:Bleeding Edge Aviation (4, Informative)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#38440530)

Remember that if you are a programmer and your program goes into production and it fails within the first 5 minutes when you import the data because you code fails on O'Connor.
Sure any programmer with his salt knows how to fix it and should have though about it before hand... However things slip threw the cracks, as you are focusing on proof of concepts, then by the time you got the proof of concept working you were behind schedule and never really went back and looked at your data inputs (for that one routine).
Then it goes out and you end up looking like an idiot.
Mistakes happen, most mistakes that cause the biggest problems are the ones that are easiest to solve, and are often just overlooked mistakes.
Because Oxygen system wasn't cutting edge, I am willing to bet no one stressed out too much over it, as it was a piece of cake issue. Well it got overlooked and it cost peoples lives (which is much worse then looking like an idiot). But where was the mistake.... Lets go back to the code example.
Sure you are to blame because you coded it, but QA should have tested common names with special characters, management should have adjusted their project plan because you were having issues getting some proof of concepts working... Mistakes even big ones really isn't any ones problem but usually due to a full breakdown in the organization.

Re:Bleeding Edge Aviation (4, Insightful)

MetalliQaZ (539913) | more than 2 years ago | (#38439986)

In this case, though, the "OBOGS" oxygen system had an "air bleed failure" which probably means that it was still generating oxygen, but there was no pressure to deliver the oxygen to the pilot. Sounds like a gasket, seal, or hose failure. Those things are hardly bleeding edge technology. Another possible cause was the overly difficult emergency pull. Again, not exactly hi-tech. These kinds of design problems are often attributable to poor management in the design phase, rushed development, or sweeping known problems under the rug because of budgetary concerns.

Why is the emergency oxygen manually triggered? (5, Insightful)

bigtrike (904535) | more than 2 years ago | (#38440062)

It seems like this should have been automatically switched on.

Re:Why is the emergency oxygen manually triggered? (1)

MetalliQaZ (539913) | more than 2 years ago | (#38440192)

It is probably a fail-safe that can be activated even during a complete systems failure, like no power. It probably opens a bottle of pressurized air.

Re:Why is the emergency oxygen manually triggered? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38440382)

Why wasn't there a 5 minute reserve attached to the pilot's flight suit? Even General Aviation pilots can get such a reserve for $12.50 [sportys.com] .

Re:Why is the emergency oxygen manually triggered? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38440688)

That's only activated when the pilot is removed from the OBOGS, like during ejection. I think it's part of the seat not the flight suit (could be wrong, I never worked the F-22.)

On the F-18 E/F the Emergency supply is accessed via a turn nob in what sounds like nearly the same position as this pull tab in the F-22.

They aren't releasing where the failures are occurring beyond the ECS/OBOGS so speculating where the failure occurred is like throwing darts at a list that's literally hundreds of possible targets.

Re:Bleeding Edge Aviation (5, Informative)

PyroMosh (287149) | more than 2 years ago | (#38440280)

No, that is not what this means.

"Air bleed" is the method by which the OBOGS generates breathable air. It's called "bleed" because it "bleeds" off a small amount of air from the engine's compressor system. (This air can also be used for deicing flight surfaces, generating power, and other purposes).

An "air bleed failure" means that either no air is getting into the system, or a sensor failed and it thinks no air is getting into the system.

To summarize, this wasn't a failure where air was bleeding, this was a failure of the system that bleeds air from the engine for the pilot to breathe. That's important to understand.

Re:Bleeding Edge Aviation (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38440344)

In this case, though, the "OBOGS" oxygen system had an "air bleed failure" which probably means that it was still generating oxygen, but there was no pressure to deliver the oxygen to the pilot. Sounds like a gasket, seal, or hose failure. Those things are hardly bleeding edge technology. Another possible cause was the overly difficult emergency pull. Again, not exactly hi-tech. These kinds of design problems are often attributable to poor management in the design phase, rushed development, or sweeping known problems under the rug because of budgetary concerns.

From the article, the computer detected an oxygen leak in the engine compartment seal and shut off the oxygen. Unfortunately, the engine oxygen and pilot oxygen are one and the same on this plane. Not too smart of an idea.

The F-22 should be decommissioned. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38440376)

.... or sweeping known problems under the rug because of budgetary concerns.

Or maybe because of Congressional appropriations concerns?

The F-22 was a great piece of pork for my district. And when I say that I agree that the F-22 is a cold war weapon and that it's not needed anymore, I get the a response that "we're always fighting the last war." - whatever that means.

China rising? By the time China becomes a real threat, the F-22 will be an old outdated piece of crap.

Anyway, China is too smart to get into a hot war - even if they do achieve superior military strength. The have enough economic clout to make military action unnecessary and a complete waste.

Re:Bleeding Edge Aviation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38440656)

yes. this aircraft was rushed into production concurrent with the design phase and before enough prototypes were flown to pieces in an effort to find design flaws.

And you see how well that works: the first flight was 1997 and the damn thing is STILL killing pilots and unusable in combat.

RIP two pieces of expensive military-grade human collateral damage. damn.

Re:Bleeding Edge Aviation (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38440024)

"if you wanted to live a safe life, you shouldn't be in the military in the first place."
This is a load of Horse Shit. This is not whats at issue here.
There is a difference between dying in combat or for a cause and dying due to someone's incompetence or unfinished work.

If this was a car then lawyers, consumer prot organizations, and the gov will all be up in arms. Any industry is accountable with dire consequences. What was acceptable 70 yrs ago is no more, and the same applies for all industries; I don't see why the military should be any different.

Re:Bleeding Edge Aviation (4, Insightful)

Jeng (926980) | more than 2 years ago | (#38440250)

There is a difference between dying in combat or for a cause and dying due to someone's incompetence or unfinished work.

Test pilot is synonymous with risk, even more so than being a fighter pilot.

If this was a car then lawyers, consumer prot organizations, and the gov will all be up in arms.

But it is not a car is it?

Re:Bleeding Edge Aviation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38440374)

In a car you dont go to extremes keeping things on the bleeding edge of experimental technology. In a car you dont train test drivers for extreme physical endurance. In a car you dont need an ejection seat. In a car if things go wrong you just pull over not crash to the ground. In a car your simple engine isn't under tremendous pressure where a single point of failure can cause an explosion.

A pilot handles a normal plane that's been well tested and is safe. The test pilot is the one who takes an untested plane and makes it safe. The engineers can only go so far with simulation before they have to try for the real world, after all no one knows exactly how planes stay in the air. That's no joke, all stages of flight are not fully explained. Had you put in 2 minutes of thinking before you made your comment you would have realized how ridiculous you statement is.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2214/how-do-airplanes-fly-really

Re:Bleeding Edge Aviation (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38440050)

In every case where aviation has been stretching the envelope, there have been accidents and fatalities. The GB Racer is a classic case of this. Many of the renown WWII aircraft had A versions that were anything but safe to fly.

The venerated F-16 wasn't much to write home about either when it was first released. The engineers will learn and get experience. It will come at a horrible price. But if you wanted to live a safe life, you shouldn't be in the military in the first place.

OBOGS isn't bleeding edge even F16s used them http://www.cobham.com/media/75388/SYSTEM%20F-16%20OBOGS%20ADV10556.pdf

This is just a case of poor design, the Eurofighter has Oxygen level warning system, the F22 doesn't. If you put the emergency O2 actuator in an ergonomically challenging position, what do you expect?

Re:Bleeding Edge Aviation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38440074)

Sir! With all due respect I find future of the manned aircraft rather doomed.
Drones all the way. Crash'em, smash'em, try'em, fly'em, whatever, nobody gets hurt on training and lazy ass programmers such as our pretty selves get fine jobs writing AI stuff. Arn't they (drones) already better fighters than us humans?

Yours truly,
One very drunk Russian dude.

Re:Bleeding Edge Aviation (1)

GigG (887839) | more than 2 years ago | (#38440176)

Worked real well in Iran a little over a week ago. Drones seem like a great way to turn over leading edge tech to those that are our enemies or will be at some point in the future.

I'd be willing to bet there were a lot hof happy pilots in the AF and Navy when the CIAs drone landed in Iran.

Re:Bleeding Edge Aviation (1)

Waffle Iron (339739) | more than 2 years ago | (#38440720)

Worked real well in Iran a little over a week ago.

The situation wasn't ideal, but there was nowhere near as much egg on our face as with the little adventure with Gary Powers and his U2.

Drones seem like a great way to turn over leading edge tech to those that are our enemies or will be at some point in the future.

Don't forget the B-29s that made emergency landings in the Soviet Union during WWII, which were promptly cloned rivet-for-rivet into the Tu-4. Or how about that Navy surveillance plane that crash landed in China shortly after GWB was elected, and which was eventually returned to the US in pieces. Having crews didn't prevent the losses, and just made the situations more politically volatile. Oh yea, then there's that stealth helicopter than Pakistan got to have and share with its friends as a result of the OBL mission.

At any rate, if you have military equipment that's too precious to actually risk in combat, it ends up being nothing more a huge waste of money, like all those expensive battleships that the various parties in WWI kept mostly in their home ports so they wouldn't risk losing them.

Re:Bleeding Edge Aviation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38440548)

Crash'em, smash'em, try'em, fly'em,

Stick 'em inna stew?

Re:Bleeding Edge Aviation (2, Interesting)

rahvin112 (446269) | more than 2 years ago | (#38440112)

The crashes of the early F-16 that they couldn't figure out were related to a similar situation but it was blood deprivation of the brain in High G Turns. They didn't actually figure out what the problem was until a pilot woke up from the blackout and bailed out before his plane crashed. It's because of those crashes that pilots today where flight suits that constrict the legs to keep blood in the upper body and there's now a significant warning system when the pilot pulls turns that exceed the G-rating of the human body.

The F-16 was the first US aircraft that could easily make turns the human body couldn't and I wouldn't be surprised if they've discovered another area where pilots are incapable of doing what the aircraft can with the F-22. The end result will likely be automated systems that kick in when these situations are within the parameters of occurring according to the instruments or a specialized computer will be installed and blood oxygen monitors will be added to the flight suits.

It's just a simple reality that as we push the aircraft engineering to the edge of our capabilities that they will find areas where the body can't keep up, just like with the F-16.

Re:Bleeding Edge Aviation (5, Informative)

PyroMosh (287149) | more than 2 years ago | (#38440452)

No. Read the report:

http://usaf.aib.law.af.mil/ExecSum2011/F-22A_AK_16%20Nov%2010.pdf [af.mil]

This wasn't a case of extraordinary circumstances. This was calm, high altitude flight where a critical (but understood) subsystem failed.

The pilot then became distracted by the system failure possible because of oxygen deprivation, or because the emergency air control was in an ergonomically challenging location. While distracted, he became inverted (240 degree roll during descent) and didn't attempt to correct until 3 seconds prior to impact.

The ergonomic issue may be a contributing cause. but a pilot *must* be able to continue instrument scan while dealing with an emergency. Just because you're air doesn't work doesn't mean you can't still crash while dealing with that.

It's sad, but more or less understood what happened.

Re:Bleeding Edge Aviation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38440194)

Let's not forget that it was the on-board computer that turned off his oxygen. The air force calling it pilot error because the oxygen starved pilot couldn't reach/activate the emergency oxygen system while still trying to control the plane is unconscionable.

Pilots know the risk of testing out a new aerodynamic design. However, the plane should never have been test flown until its safety systems (ie oxygen) were fool-proof. Somewhere a decision was made to combine the pilot oxygen supply. That is an engineering error, not a pilot error.

Re:Bleeding Edge Aviation (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#38440510)

In every case where ___________ has been stretching the envelope, there have been accidents and fatalities. The __________ is a classic case of this. Many of the renown WWII _________ had A versions that were anything but safe to ________.

The venerated ______ wasn't much to write home about either when it was first released. The engineers will learn and get experience. It will come at a horrible price. But if you wanted to live a safe life, you shouldn't be in the military in the first place.

Stripped out the context because, upon reflection you can fill in the blanks with just about any military hardware. It's not so much pushing the envelope (as a broad term) as increasing the complexity. Ian Malcolm was the voice (largely cut from the gee-whizzy movie) in Jurassic Park explaining how increased complexity leads to increased probability of flaws, to the point where flaws are inevitable and, as any pilot/driver/footsoldier learns, you find a way to work around it.

"Lieutenant, why is there a bottle cap wedged between the RADAR console and starboard ailertuder?" "I could go through all the explanation as to what diagnostics found or 7 hours techs tried to resolve it, swapping in and out all the hardware and wiring harnesses, only to find jamming a bottle cap in there makes it all work."

This is largely how every television set made during the 1960's came to have a playing card jammed behind a the channel changing knob.

Re:Bleeding Edge Aviation (1)

mark_elf (2009518) | more than 2 years ago | (#38440612)

Score:6, Should be Obvious to Anyone

Newly designed fighter aircraft are very dangerous to fly.

Re:Bleeding Edge Aviation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38440678)

Your Correct, the F-111 hadits share of problems and more crashes and deaths

But don't worry (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38439876)

private enterprise will totally have the technology to colonize the universe.

Trump Card (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38439898)

It hasn't been called into combat because it is a trump card. Why reveal its capabilities for others to prepare for? The F-22 is there so no major air force in the world challenges the US. In mock combat the F-22 has had something like 1-100 kill ratios, so what air force could?

Re:Trump Card (5, Funny)

localman57 (1340533) | more than 2 years ago | (#38439930)

In mock combat the F-22 has had something like 1-100 kill ratios, so what air force could?

That only lasted a few days though. Then the next version of PunkBuster was released, and all those guys got banned.

Re:Trump Card (1)

perpenso (1613749) | more than 2 years ago | (#38440060)

It hasn't been called into combat because it is a trump card. Why reveal its capabilities for others to prepare for? The F-22 is there so no major air force in the world challenges the US. In mock combat the F-22 has had something like 1-100 kill ratios, so what air force could?

All of them with a 1:100 ratio. The ratio is normally expressed as kill:loss, so you should use 100:1 to accommodate the less careful readers. ;-)

Re:Trump Card (0)

fnj (64210) | more than 2 years ago | (#38440134)

I hope the fuck it's 100:1 kill ratio, not 1:100.

Re:Trump Card (3, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#38440150)

It hasn't been called into combat because it is a trump card.

That and because it's too expensive to lose. In real terms, a single F-22 probably costs about the same as a dozen squadrons of Spitfires did in WWII.

Sure, that sounds pretty bad... (5, Insightful)

Dr. Spork (142693) | more than 2 years ago | (#38439916)

Yeah, it sounds like whoever made these things and charged the government billions had really screwed up. Luckily, they are never going to get another multibillion dollar contract from the government, right? I mean, if they did, that could screw that one up just as badly, and then where would we be? We're lucky that we don't live in some communist country where arms manufacturers just get fat from the handouts of the government without any real accountability.

Re:Sure, that sounds pretty bad... (5, Funny)

cusco (717999) | more than 2 years ago | (#38440146)

You have just raised the sarcasm bar unacceptably high, approaching an art form.

Ground them (1)

ZeroSerenity (923363) | more than 2 years ago | (#38439938)

Manned aircraft is now becoming more than just a liablity for the pilots, it's now becomming to expensive. Take down the F-22, scrap the F-35 (as it's cost is now more than double it's original plan and years behind schedule) and work on stuff that isn't going to get somebody killed even when empty.

Re:Ground them (1)

LeperPuppet (1591409) | more than 2 years ago | (#38440348)

Sure, and then the Iranians can simply hijack them, leaving us with a multi-billion dollar airforce parked on our enemy's runways.

Re:Ground them (1)

bryansj (89051) | more than 2 years ago | (#38440506)

It actually costs more to fly unmanned aircraft. You now have two support teams, one in country fielding the aircraft and another flying the thing.

Use the old O2 system? (1)

TheGoodNamesWereGone (1844118) | more than 2 years ago | (#38439948)

Can someone 'splain to me why the old oxygen systems from previous planes couldn't be used? It seem like this would've been perfected by now...?

Re:Use the old O2 system? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38440026)

The new systems are smaller and lighter. Also, at least from the original crash report, the oxygen system wasn't at fault. It shut down like it was supposed to (it was operated by bleed air from the engine, the ECS detected a hot bleed air leak and shut off the bleed air valves. If you don't check a hot bleed air leak, you can set the plane on fire or melt parts of it), but the pilot struggled to activate the emergency oxygen system and had significant difficulty with this due to the bulky gear he was wearing.

While struggling with activation of the EOS, he lost track of time and became disoriented, failed to notice that his aircraft attitude had changed, and attempted a dive recovery far too late to save himself.

Re:Use the old O2 system? (1)

FrankSchwab (675585) | more than 2 years ago | (#38440674)

While struggling with activation of the EOS, he

lost consciousness until seconds before impact,...

is the alternate interpretation that places less blame on the pilot. After reading the report (and, yes, I did) there is nothing in there that suggests that this wasn't the case.

Re:Use the old O2 system? (1)

MetalliQaZ (539913) | more than 2 years ago | (#38440068)

These systems have very specific design parameters, especially for weight, space/shape, power usage, oxygen output, and communication interface. In addition, the F-22 has low-visibility goals across the EM spectrum. Its not like taking the water pump out of a Ford.

Re:Use the old O2 system? (3, Informative)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#38440202)

Actually its almost exactly like taking the water pump out of a 1960 ford falcon and being surprised you can't use it on a 2011 ford F-150.

Re:Use the old O2 system? (0)

MetalliQaZ (539913) | more than 2 years ago | (#38440256)

Heh, good point.

Re:Use the old O2 system? (1)

craash420 (884493) | more than 2 years ago | (#38440416)

Sweet, a car analogy! /thread

Re:Use the old O2 system? (1)

yodleboy (982200) | more than 2 years ago | (#38440402)

funny, i read that as "they could charge more by reinventing the wheel".

no one's really saying yank one out of an F18. With all the previous planes produced for the military, all the major ergonomic requirements should have been known in advance. little things like accessibility (under the seat and behind your back is not a good idea) of emergency handle and realistic limits for pull pressure should have been ironed out decades ago. Planes change, pilots, not so much. Of course that only addresses the final failure of the emergency part of the system, not the utter crap of the O2 generating system failing to begin with. Why there's not an automatic cutover is beyond me. Light goes off, system switches over and pilot stays alive while determining whether this is a real emergency or not. I'd think that fail safe would be the operating mode for anything directly keeping your operator alive...

Maybe I'm attributing corporate greed to an error of simple human nature. some smarty pants engineering team probably wanted to get to the "good stuff" and called this one in. Too bad all the bells and whistles don't mean much if your subsystem kills the pilot first.

Re:Use the old O2 system? (2)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 2 years ago | (#38440122)

You'd think so, but remember that these aren't being built by the "government" in a continuously operating design laboratory where the knowledge from all previous generations is leveraged to create the next great fighter jet. It was contracted out to not one, but three (four if you count the engines) different corporations, each with it's own expertise and history. While there was undoubtedly a great deal of aircraft design experience in the teams, the lack of long term mission continuity has been traded for apparent cost savings through a contractor workforce. The facilities for the contractors are, not surprisingly, not co-located, but are in Georgia, Texas, and Washington (state).

Re:Use the old O2 system? (1)

lightknight (213164) | more than 2 years ago | (#38440138)

Random guess? There isn't a lot of extra room in military aircraft. Things need to be molded into the shape of the air-frame itself, which probably causes a few headaches. So, what may fit in the corner of an old air-frame, may be jutting out into the ribs of the pilot in a new one.

Additionally, they're probably trying to improve things, with more dials / electronics / what have you. And while things may work in the lab, reality is the true test.

It's kind of how everyone looks at an anatomy model of the human body, and thinks, damn, there's a lot of empty space in there. And then you're in med school, dissecting your first body, and coming to the stark realization that there is *NO* empty space in there. It's filled, completely, with muscle, fat, organs, and some things which defy description.

In a military aircraft, I imagine the place with the most amount of "free" space is inside the engines, which, when turned on, becomes filled with super-heated fluids and probably isn't the best place to store anything.

 

Re:Use the old O2 system? (2)

cusco (717999) | more than 2 years ago | (#38440332)

It essentially was perfected on the B52, but you can't charge top dollar for adapting existing technology to a new air frame. The only way to really rake in the bucks is to start over from scratch and re-invent the wheel. The extra advantage from doing that is now you are the only source for maintenance, upgrades, parts, etc. Just Pentagon business as usual.

Re:Use the old O2 system? (1)

heinousjay (683506) | more than 2 years ago | (#38440682)

Yeah, and the only reason marijuana is illegal is because they can't figure out how to tax it...

Re:Use the old O2 system? (3, Informative)

PyroMosh (287149) | more than 2 years ago | (#38440700)

Easy. With bottled air, you've got to cart around what you can breathe. You're limited by that, and it takes up space and weight.

The early F-16s didn't have OBOGS. When they got an engine upgrade (block 50, I think) they recieved OBOGS. From the company that builds the OBOGS, here's the advantages:

OBOGS presents considerable advantages over
LOX, including:
* Significant life cycle cost advantage
* Improves safety
* Weighs less than LOX
* Reduces turn-around time
* Extends the operational theater of aircraft
* Enhances mission effectiveness
* Eliminates LOX quantity management
  workload in flight
* Reduces logistics infrastructure
* Eliminates the need for LOX generation,
  servicing and storage
* Eliminates Daily/Turn-around inspections
* Eliminates âoeIâ level support

http://www.cobham.com/media/75388/SYSTEM%20F-16%20OBOGS%20ADV10556.pdf [cobham.com]

The problem is that if something goes wrong, you have to shut the system down. In this case a sensor detected hot air entering the system, which is a sign of a fire, or a potential cause of one. So the system shuts down, and the pilot needs to go to his emergency O2 supply. But this guy struggled trying to activate it. Possibly an ergonomic problem that needs to be addressed.

Generally speaking though, OBOGS is a sound, logical way to go.

America. Fuck Yea! (0)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 2 years ago | (#38439972)

6 days ago they built the 187th and final F-22 Raptor.
None of them are safe to fly.

Blamed F16 Pilots Too (4, Interesting)

perpenso (1613749) | more than 2 years ago | (#38439978)

Deja Vu. F16 pilots were also falsely blamed when the true fault was a hardware failure in instrumentation. Wiring rubbing against a rivet eventually shorted out IIRC and pilots were given erroneous info regarding which way is up or down, critical when flying on instruments (zero visibility) where a pilots ignores his senses and puts full faith in instruments.

Re:Blamed F16 Pilots Too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38440292)

Side point....If you have zero visibility, you need a gyroscope to tell up from down because of centripetal forces, your other senses can't help you whether you're ignoring them or not.

Things that make you go "Huh?" (0)

Shoten (260439) | more than 2 years ago | (#38440010)

First thing:
"'This was likely [Haney's] first experience under such physiological duress.'"

Okay, that makes no sense to me. My understanding is that both USN and USAF pilots undergo extreme physiological and psychological duress in the course of their training, for just this reason. They expose you to hypoxia, to decompression, to high-g forces, even to having to survive and avoid capture (with most trainees end up getting caught) and resist interrogation techniques (see under 'most trainees end up getting caught').

Second thing:
"It takes 40 pounds of pull to engage the emergency system. That's a tall order for a man who has gone nearly a minute without a breath of air, speeding faster than sound, while wearing bulky weather gear, says Michael Barr, a former Air Force fighter pilot and former accident investigation officer. 'It would've taken superhuman efforts on the pilot's behalf to save that aircraft,' says Barr. 'The initial cause of this accident was a malfunction with the aircraft — not the pilot.'"

Okay, this is total bullshit, I'm sorry. Pilots work out...a lot. A hell of a lot. They do a lot of strength exercises, including push-presses and other exercises that work the back, because in the course of these exercises they ALSO end up building up their legs. As a method of fighting black-out, they tense their legs to tighten the muscles and help push air up into their upper body (away from where it tends to go during positive high-g manuvers). Yes, there is the flight suit that squeezes them as well, but every bit counts. And since the ring that starts the emergency system is forward and beneath the pilot, that means that they would be using their back to pull against that 40-lb resistance...which is not that big a deal if you're in shape. After a minute without air? That's what it feels like to be working out hard...and since he wouldn't have been exercising vigorously during that minute, he'd have had plenty of glucose on hand, so his muscles could easily have worked using anaerobic respiration long enough for one pull of a ring. Furthermore, how is this supposed to be harder based on how fast you're moving? I fly in airplanes all the time, and I don't notice that it gets harder to lift things or move around based on how fast or slow the plane flies. And even if all of this WAS a tall order, that's exactly what fighter pilots are trained for; that's why so few people who apply are accepted, and why so few who are accepted make the grade in training.

Re:Things that make you go "Huh?" (1)

Maximum Prophet (716608) | more than 2 years ago | (#38440120)

Okay, this is total bullshit ...that's exactly what fighter pilots are trained for; that's why so few people who apply are accepted, and why so few who are accepted make the grade...

<Tinfoil Hat Mode> "Died during training (or testing)" is a military euphemism for "Died on a secret mission". At least they didn't say he "Rolled a Jeep" </Tinfoil Hat Mode>

Re:Things that make you go "Huh?" (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38440166)

Whoa buddy, don't get so riled up. You might fall out of your armchair.

Re:Things that make you go "Huh?" (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38440224)

First thing:

    None of what you said matters. Accidents are situational. Pilots are trained in a lot of things to reduce the number of accidents, but accidents will still happen. His attention became channelized, or in other words, he fixated on a couple of tasks and that doomed him. He lost situational awareness. That's how things happen in the pilot world.

Second thing:

    Hypoxia was not factor. Had it not been, you're essentially dead after about half a minute. No, you're not actually dead, but your brain is no longer able of doing anything useful. Your period of useful consciousness is over. This is not like working out: Someone who's working out still has oxygen being delivered to their brain. Someone suffering from hypoxia is running on very borrowed time. This is similar, but not the same, to G-LOC. When you exceed a certain number of G's abruptly, or do not do the G-straining maneuver properly, the brain runs on its 5-second oxygen reserve, and you will literally go out like a light once that's gone. No grey-outs, no warnings, nothing. Just sleeping.

Re:Things that make you go "Huh?" (4, Insightful)

mewsenews (251487) | more than 2 years ago | (#38440246)

they would be using their back to pull against that 40-lb resistance...which is not that big a deal if you're in shape.

40 lb resistance is not a lot of weight but putting all that pressure onto a coin-sized ring that could only be pulled with one gloved finger? That seems really odd to me.

Think of the last time you carried groceries nowhere near 40 lb and the bags cut into your hand, even though you were using all four fingers. Increase the weight to 40lb, then quadruple it by putting it on one finger. That's a lot of force required.

Re:Things that make you go "Huh?" (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38440258)

You're absolutely right. I'm totally going to believe some dude on Slashdot over a former Air Force pilot who was ALSO an aircraft accident investigator. He obviously doesn't know what he's talking about.

Re:Things that make you go "Huh?" (5, Insightful)

Moryath (553296) | more than 2 years ago | (#38440276)

Oh for fuck's sake.

Pilots work out...a lot. A hell of a lot. They do a lot of strength exercises, including push-presses and other exercises that work the back, because in the course of these exercises they ALSO end up building up their legs. As a method of fighting black-out, they tense their legs to tighten the muscles and help push air up into their upper body (away from where it tends to go during positive high-g manuvers). Yes, there is the flight suit that squeezes them as well, but every bit counts. And since the ring that starts the emergency system is forward and beneath the pilot, that means that they would be using their back to pull against that 40-lb resistance...

Actually no, they're expected to twist and turn to reach the ring while held in place by an insanely tight harness. This ain't no Cessna. Further, they're then expected to pull the ring in a direction away from their body - it's stupidly designed in the most un-ergonomic way possible.

After a minute without air? That's what it feels like to be working out hard...and since he wouldn't have been exercising vigorously during that minute, he'd have had plenty of glucose on hand, so his muscles could easily have worked using anaerobic respiration long enough for one pull of a ring.

A minute without air? I have an idea. We put a stopwatch on you and make you hold your breath while sitting in a chair. I'll put a 40-lb weight with a pop-tab on top under the chair between your legs and we'll see if you can manage to reach down, find it, then lift it a couple inches after you hold your breath an entire minute. If you're even awake still. And that test STILL won't account for the vertigo and g-forces involved in the dive and attempting a dive recovery.

Furthermore, how is this supposed to be harder based on how fast you're moving? I fly in airplanes all the time, and I don't notice that it gets harder to lift things or move around based on how fast or slow the plane flies.

And I doubt that you, Cessna-boy, even get CLOSE to the g-forces involved in the kind of maneuvers done by military pilots, especially those trying to pull out of a dive.

And even if all of this WAS a tall order, that's exactly what fighter pilots are trained for; that's why so few people who apply are accepted, and why so few who are accepted make the grade in training.

Which is why, when they get into the air, they should be confident that someone has fucking sanity-checked the design of the safety features aboard the aircraft. Clearly, in this case, that was NOT done.

Re:Things that make you go "Huh?" (1)

mykepredko (40154) | more than 2 years ago | (#38440290)

Shoten,

Your first point was one of the things that came to mind - not only are military pilots exposed to things like (explosive) decompression, hypoxia, etc., they are continually tested in these environments. Similarly regarding the issue of "speed" - it shouldn't matter how fast your going to access a control or instrument.

As for your second point, I think that you are disregarding the issues of restrictive flight gear (straps, ejection seat tethers, anti-G vests and so on) coupled with poor placement of the ring which could make it impossible for a fully oxygenated person to engage the system.

myke

Re:Things that make you go "Huh?" (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 2 years ago | (#38440308)

Sorry but air starvation is a terrible thing to deal with. Hold your breath for a minute while doing anything that takes effort and skill and see what happens.
This system MUST BE FIXED. Breathing is not an option it is mandatory.

Re:Things that make you go "Huh?" (4, Insightful)

hawguy (1600213) | more than 2 years ago | (#38440370)

"It takes 40 pounds of pull to engage the emergency system. That's a tall order for a man who has gone nearly a minute without a breath of air, speeding faster than sound, while wearing bulky weather gear, says Michael Barr, a former Air Force fighter pilot and former accident investigation officer

Okay, this is total bullshit, I'm sorry. Pilots work out...a lot. A hell of a lot. They do a lot of strength exercises, including push-presses and other exercises that work the back, because in the course of these exercises they ALSO end up building up their legs

Hmm...an airforce pilot who has actually piloted fighter jets (and is an experienced accident investigator and knows the failure modes that get pilots into trouble) says it's hard, and a slashdot commenter says "bullshit, the pilot was just being a pussy". Who to believe!?

I can believe it's hard - trying to pick up a 40 pound box from beneath my chair seems like it would be quite challenging. And I'm under no stress, wearing non-bulky street clothes, and have plenty of oxygen.

Furthermore, how is this supposed to be harder based on how fast you're moving? I fly in airplanes all the time, and I don't notice that it gets harder to lift things or move around based on how fast or slow the plane flies.

You fly *in* airplanes, but do you pilot fighter jets? Or do you sit back in coach on an airline and play on your iPhone? In straight and level flight at 800mph, movement is not restricted and you're not feeling any high G-forces.... but if you deviate from straight and level, start struggling from oxygen deprivation while you try to pilot the plane, then things can get much harder -- worse, you can get into trouble much faster.

We don't want your crappy jets (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38440088)

Dear America,

Why are you pushing us Canadians sooooo hard to buy your latest super-jet? It is way over budget and getting more expensive by the day. Heck, it isn't even appropriate for defence of the far north, it's really only for offensive missions in countries with lots of sand and oil. We, the people of Canada, do not want your expensive military toys. It is only our prime minister who wants that (and his lips around the cock of whoever is currently in power in the US).

Yours truly,

A. Hoser, eh

Re:We don't want your crappy jets (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38440214)

Canada has a military?

Re:We don't want your crappy jets (1)

AdamJS (2466928) | more than 2 years ago | (#38440320)

Sadly, it has been severely undermined by the prevalence of cheap, ineffective dollar-store duct tape.

Re:We don't want your crappy jets (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38440244)

Dear 51st stater (yes 1 state).

Shut the fuck up and do what you are told. Your beer sucks too. As bad as any American can beer.

Re:We don't want your crappy jets (1)

AdamJS (2466928) | more than 2 years ago | (#38440262)

Better than the swill called "American microbrews".
Of course, that's not saying much.

Re:We don't want your crappy jets (1)

AdamJS (2466928) | more than 2 years ago | (#38440288)

Dear Citizen,

Harper automatically assumes any US position is the correct one. This includes that of their military, politicians and representatives. This is his confirmed platform position and policy, so whenever you assume that the Americans are trying to sell us something, you can be sure that Harper had been asking for it before the salesmen even got out of bed.

Re:We don't want your crappy jets (1, Informative)

fnj (64210) | more than 2 years ago | (#38440316)

Why are you [Americans] pushing us Canadians sooooo hard to buy your latest super-jet blah blah blah blah blah

As an American, I assure you Canadians I couldn't fucking care less whether you buy the F-22 to defend yourselves, or even whether you deign to defend yourselves at all. Actually, I think you have the F-22 confused with the F-35. It might interest you to know that export sale of the F-22 is barred by American federal law.

Seriously. It's just not on my radar. Not on the radar of anybody I know.

Re:We don't want your crappy jets (1)

AdamJS (2466928) | more than 2 years ago | (#38440360)

Now try getting him to talk about the submarine deal(s) and see how much confusion THAT brings to the table.

Re:We don't want your crappy jets (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38440610)

We don't want your F22s, your F35, or any other F-ing lame-ass plane that America is trying to sucker us into buying. If the Canadian government had any backbone at all they would get off the insanity train that is US imperialism.

PS. I don't fucking care about you either. Merry Christmas, asshole!

Re:We don't want your crappy jets (1)

hawguy (1600213) | more than 2 years ago | (#38440474)

Dear America,

Why are you pushing us Canadians sooooo hard to buy your latest super-jet? It is way over budget and getting more expensive by the day. Heck, it isn't even appropriate for defence of the far north, it's really only for offensive missions in countries with lots of sand and oil.

I didn't know we were trying to sell the F-22 to Canada, but if we were, the answer is obvious - the more that are made, the lower the per-unit (and spare parts) costs.

And we'd rather have you buy military hardware from us instead of other countries so if we ever needed to, we could flip the remote control switch and watch your fleet drop from the air.

We, the people of Canada, do not want your expensive military toys. It is only our prime minister who wants that (and his lips around the cock of whoever is currently in power in the US).

Yours truly,

A. Hoser, eh

So shouldn't you be telling your prime minister and not the readership of Slashdot?

"Too much politics" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38440104)

My brother spent quite a long time flying around Fort Worth in the airliner equipped with the F-22 cockpit in it, working on the avionics. But awhile back he specifically got off that program to work on the F-16 because, he said, there was "way too much politics" on that program and he wanted out.

I loved the one a few years back where the F-22's crossed the international dateline on the way to Japan and all the software crashed and they had to follow another plane to navigate. Sounds like a great plane!

Why Not Just Buy +5, PatRIOTic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38440136)

from MIG [youtube.com] ?

Yours In The Pentagon,
K. Trout, C.T.O.

same old story.... (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38440184)

American hitech is costly and fails.
Russian tech is good enough and doesn't empty your coffers.

Sure looks like the US should have bought several hundreds of SU-27 for the price of 50/100 F-22. Lol.
And don't get me started on the epic fail that is the F-35. It sure seems like the time when the US managed to sell thousands of Lockheed Starfighters to the european military when better planes were available.

Russian aircraft, fastest way to run to neighbor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38440602)

American hitech is costly and fails. Russian tech is good enough and doesn't empty your coffers.

How are they "good enough" when historically they lose air-to-air? Russian aircraft went down to F15s for example, and that includes F15s flown by non-US pilots, so its not necessarily pilot training and experience. Pilots of Russian and French built aircraft quickly learned to fly to a neighbor and defect rather than attempt to engage US made aircraft.

Now in a protracted total war the Russian aircraft may have an advantage in that they are easier to maintain and operate, and thereby make it into the air while less rugged US aircraft are grounded for maintenance or runway repair/cleanup. However that's not what we've seen so far, nor is it as likely as smaller conflicts.

meanwhile, somewhere deep in the engineering dept: (5, Insightful)

wierd_w (1375923) | more than 2 years ago | (#38440362)

A series of engineers argue over who's fault it was.

Was it engineer A, who had to make the emergency system require 40kilos of pull to activate, due to flak that it might engage accidentally if the craft hits stiff turbulence or is kicked while the pilot is entering the cockpit?

Was it engineer B, who designed the oxygen recirculation system, and had to work within the physical space and weight restrictions imposed by engineers C and D, resulting in a suboptimal implementation?

Was it engineer C, who designed the superstructure of the figher's cockpit, for failing to fully appreciate the downstream requirements of his peers?

Was it engineer D, who designed the aesthetic and aerodynamic form of the fighter, imposing limitations on engineers A through C, and many others, for continuing the trend of smaller, faster, sleeker, and more compact designs?

Or was it engineer E, who oversaw ergonomic annd human interaction studies that led to the requirements statements fed to engineers A through D?

Was it the beaurocracies involved in construction, telling the engineers to use cheaper, more easily sourced materials so that the fighter comes out underbudget?

With all these parties in the room, bickering over who's fault it was, is it any wonder that the dead pilot, who can't stand up for himself, is the one that got blamed to save face?

Really. I work in aerospace. Many of the people in the engineering depts of major companies act like their shit doesn't stink, even when it obviously does. I make inspection blueprints, and when the degrees of a circular pattern exceed 360 degrees, or when point to point dimensions exceed total part length, and you inform them of the impossibility of these design specs, more often than not your time would be better spent talking to a brick wall.

It's like trying to have an informed discussion on computing with an ardent member of the cult of mac. All you will get back is snide remarks, or pretentious silence. You can quote rules of geometry until you are blue in the face. Quote directly from the gd&t manual for geometric tolerancing, or even play dumb and ask politely what their intentions were... result is almost always the same.

Don't you know, they have degrees, make big salaries, and are important. They never make mistakes. Just ask them.

I have been surprised a few times by polite aerospace engineers that own up to drafting errors, omissions, and flat out screwups before, and I am always cordial and polite with them. But for the most part, all I get back is silence, and derision.

(Just to clarify what I do: I make manufacturing drawings used for internal QA processes. Often times the customer supplied data is a digital nurbs representation of a part with some datum features called out, hole sizes listed and annotated, an some geometric tolerancing frames tacked on. My job is to take this data and in conjunction with the customer's tolerancing guidelines and practices documentation, create drawings that inspectors can use to validate the part was properly manufactured. This requires that they accurately convey the engineering intent of their geometry and datum choices. This is why I sometimes have to ask seemingly silly questions when they break the rules for gd&t frames, or define impossible (mathematically so) tolerances. You would probably be stunned how often I catch insane engineering mistakes because they pencilwhipped shit, and have to figure out the fit form and function myself, because they won't own up to it.)

Re:meanwhile, somewhere deep in the engineering de (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38440566)

So it's like dealing with Space Nutters?

Re:meanwhile, somewhere deep in the engineering de (2)

BeerCat (685972) | more than 2 years ago | (#38440646)

Some excellent points there.

I'd go with Engineer D - for not "continuing the trend of smaller". The F-22 is pretty much the same size as the F-15 (62ft long with 44ft wingspan for the Raptor). And still around the same size (though with a larger wingspan) than the F-4 Phantom II.

And, going back further, the F-86 Sabre was 37ft long; 37ft wingspan, roughly the same size as the P-51 Mustang.

Priorities. (5, Insightful)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | more than 2 years ago | (#38440396)

The F22 program has cost around 66 billion dollars. That's about equivalent to a mission to Mars and two copies of the Superconducting Supercollider. That's equivalent to about 130 rovers of the same type as Opportunity and Spirit (ignoring the economies of scale that would substantially reduce the cost of having a lot of them). Etc. Etc. Instead we get unworking jet fighters that are supposed to be better than our previous jet fighters which are already estimated to be better than any other anyone else has in the world. Great priorities.

Flew just fine for me. (2)

gorzek (647352) | more than 2 years ago | (#38440410)

Weird. I remember flying a Raptor back in 1994. Thing wrecked everything in its path, no problems. The best was when I installed the tracking gun to shoot up targets I wasn't even aiming at, to say nothing of the badass EMP cannon. Laid waste to most of the Third World with that baby.

Almost 20 years on and now it has problems? Definitely a government clusterfuck at work here.

I don't understand. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38440434)

I've been playing Novalogic's F-22 since 2001, and I've never experienced this oxygen issue. That pilot had something wrong with him.

Welp (1, Insightful)

bhcompy (1877290) | more than 2 years ago | (#38440496)

The Northrop YF-23 is looking better and better all the time. Too bad the USAF chose the wrong plane

I'd love to know which idiot thought $150 million (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38440524)

was a good price for a fighter jet.

The solution they are looking for is... (3, Insightful)

3seas (184403) | more than 2 years ago | (#38440542)

Drone technology to replace the human who needs oxygen...

Missing the bigger point (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38440644)

Whatever the cause of the malfunction, and whatever the cause of the crash, the bigger question is this -- is the United States Air Force willing to offer up a dead pilot as a scapegoat to fend of criticism of the F-22? Absolutely. Every pilot knows that when you're dead, and there are no other witnesses, you become prime fodder for taking the blame. If the pilot is to blame, then no one besides the pilot is liable, and you're not going to get anything from a dead pilot. Let's allow the NTSB to investigate the crash, and see what they come up with. I'm not saying Haney wasn't at fault--maybe he was. But I'm not about to believe Haney was at fault simply because the USAF said so.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>