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!

cancel ×

295 comments

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

Combat record (5, Funny)

Leebert (1694) | more than 2 years ago | (#39602781)

Even if you only count one apartment building demolished, the F-18 still has a better combat record than the F-22.

(I only joke because there were no fatalities!)

Re:Combat record (4, Funny)

kanto (1851816) | more than 2 years ago | (#39602901)

Even if you only count one apartment building demolished, the F-18 still has a better combat record than the F-22.

(I only joke because there were no fatalities!)

The F-18, now also fitted as a suburbian domicile buster.

Re:Combat record (2)

DesScorp (410532) | more than 2 years ago | (#39602935)

the F-18 still has a better combat record than the F-22.

(I only joke because there were no fatalities!)

And this will remain the case as long as F-22's are so expensive... around $150 million apiece, flyaway... that we're reluctant to risk them in, you know, actual combat.

Re:Combat record (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39603423)

High cost never stopped them from deploying before. Just look at the F-14 and B-2.

Re:Combat record (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39602957)

Even if you only count one apartment building demolished, the F-18 still has a better combat record than the F-22.

(I only joke because there were no fatalities!)

There is an apartment building. A black family lives on the 3rd floor, a Mexican family lives on the 2nd floor, and a white family lives on the 1st floor. At 2PM a terrible plane crash happens totally destroying the apartment building. Which family survives?

The White family because both parents were at work and all the kids were in school.

Re:Combat record (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39603269)

The Mexicans were at work too. Unfortunately it was tending the grounds at the apartment complex.

Re:Combat record (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39603123)

All I have to say about the crash is LOL. Military intelligence indeed.

Duh McDuhface (5, Insightful)

Cazekiel (1417893) | more than 2 years ago | (#39602787)

The coverage of this was nuts. The TV in my restaurant had some idiot reporter asking someone who was there asking him, "What's the chaos like? Were there people scattering?" #1, it's a sure bet she wanted to say BODIES scattering, an #2, if not, then the question is one of the dumbest I'd ever heard. That's like asking, "Is everyone standing there in harm's way, or fleeing in terror?"

Re:Duh McDuhface (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39603171)

And all because of all those damn terrorists! How did they passed the TSA security checkpoints!?

Oh... wait...

Re:Duh McDuhface (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39603497)

If it bleeds, it leads.
 
The media is a bunch of ghouls when it comes right down to it.

Re:Duh McDuhface (5, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#39603503)

The idea that the medium is the message is overblown; but it certainly shapes the message. Unfortunately, TV gets all the wrong shaping.

In order to take advantage of the 'live' nature of the medium, the station is effectively required to field somebody to stand at the scene and make noises while facing the camera as soon as humanly possible. Regardless of whether they know anything useful, and regardless of whether they could spend the camera time learning something useful to bring back to the camera. At one time, this did have the virtue of ensuring a camera at the scene; but cheap silicon sensors have basically covered that now. Since they don't actually know anything of use, they generally fill their time by asking unutterably stupid questions. Since that is boring, they'll have to elicit some emotion or 'reaction' so that the audience doesn't glaze over and change the channel.

Even better, after the big kids have had time to sift through the details, airtime is too limited(and broadcast video not terribly information dense) for those details to be presented in any comprehensive or coherent way. Instead, you generally get a brief summary "Pilot Error!/Mechanical Failure!/Search For Answers Continues!" followed by some emotive human-interest stories.

Conspiracy (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39602801)

We all know it was an inside job by the owners of the apartment complex who just wanted to build more expensive real estate without having to actually pay for it.

Re:Conspiracy (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39602815)

I'm really surprised that the gov. of the US of A isnt using this to start a war somewhere rich in ressources...

Re:Conspiracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39603415)

No, but given that it was a military aircraft, perhaps they think is a good idea to put TSA checkpoints for both humans and airplanes on apartment complexes.

But your theory is interesting, maybe they can "pinpoint" some foreign hackers.

Hmm (1, Interesting)

lightknight (213164) | more than 2 years ago | (#39602805)

Anyone have an idea why this happened? Pilot error? Mechanical failure?

Re:Hmm (0)

mcl630 (1839996) | more than 2 years ago | (#39602851)

Sheesh... it's in the headline of TFA.

Re:Hmm (1)

lightknight (213164) | more than 2 years ago | (#39602987)

Hmm. I was following it through other sources, which lacked details at the time of my post.

Re:Hmm (5, Funny)

jamesh (87723) | more than 2 years ago | (#39603321)

To be fair, I thought "catastrophic mechanical malfunction" was just military speak for "a building just went through my engines" and not the root cause of the actual accident.

Re:Hmm (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39602853)

Well, since everyone know (except for americans themself) that it take 3 american soldier to equal most soldier from others country, id say that the pilot had like 100hours of flight only and they let him fly over a city anyway.

Re:Hmm (2, Insightful)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 2 years ago | (#39602923)

The average US Air Force/Navy pilot probably has more flight time as an individual than many other countries do in their whole air force. Nice try though. Also, when trying to insult America, it helps to at least use proper grammar in your insults. Otherwise we just laugh at you.

Re:Hmm (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39602955)

You're obviously biased by our own government propaganda. AC is right, our army is based on quantity and not quality.

Re:Hmm (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39603383)

Sure is ... quantity of training, not quality of patronage.

I've worked with several allied and friendly militaries. The Brits, Germans and Aussies, just as good as us. Turks, Italians, Colombians and Bulgarians, professional, competent, but much lower fidelity of training and exercises. Mexicans, Kenyans, Ehtiopians, Ugandans, Iraqis, marginal competency and leadership adequate to engage in combat. Every other OPEC country I've worked with, most eastern European countries, and the Chinese -- enlisted mercenary mindset and straightforward patronage in the officer corps.

Western militaries all work on quality of training and equipment. The 3rd world militaries are all about size. China is in the middle of an internal RMA as they realize that their 3 million soldiers are roughly useless with their byzantine C2 structure and backwards procurement, and are pouring money into modern materiel. The quantities and type of procurement, I hope, is aimed at retaking Taiwan in a paper maneuver, but they appear intent on starting the next world war to secure oil and mineral resources. Yes, that means conquering Australia (iron ore), much of the islands to secure oil, and I have no clue how much of Africa they expect to occupy. I sure hope I'm wrong, but hope isn't much to live on.

Re:Hmm (1)

lightknight (213164) | more than 2 years ago | (#39602995)

Agreed. Most other nations are limited by expense from flying as much as American pilots.

Re:Hmm (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#39602993)

Great troll! Very original.

However, you could have linked to goatse, claiming that it was a report supporting your claim. So you only get ***/*****.

Re:Hmm (1)

Cazekiel (1417893) | more than 2 years ago | (#39603009)

Yes, of course. Never before have there been mechanical failures; just us dumb Yanks fucking everything up, every time.

Your jerk off material may be your country's national anthem, but that doesn't mean you're right, or better.

Re:Hmm (5, Informative)

DesScorp (410532) | more than 2 years ago | (#39602913)

Anyone have an idea why this happened? Pilot error? Mechanical failure?

A witness was quoted as saying that the engine sounded like it was dying. The problem there is that the Hornet is a twin engine plane. If it was an engine going out, then they could have just shut it down and flew home on the remaining engine. The Navy has had a policy of two engines for decades now precisely because of the safety factor (and this is why there's some grumbling about the F-35C being a single engine bird). Unless it was the world's biggest birdstrike and FOD-ed up both intakes, it had to be something else... loss of power, internal fire, something.

Re:Hmm (4, Interesting)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 2 years ago | (#39602985)

There was also apparently a fuel dump. So, either the student pilot hit a wrong button, or when they say "catastrophic mechanical failure", catastrophic is probably not an exaggeration.

Re:Hmm (1)

Psychotria (953670) | more than 2 years ago | (#39603095)

What student pilot? (Seriously, I cannot find mention of a student pilot, except in reference to a similar accident that occurred but they were referring the a student pilot in the previous incident in that case). I'm not saying you're wrong or making it up, I'm just looking for where you read that there was a student pilot.

Re:Hmm (2)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 2 years ago | (#39603139)

The jet carried a student pilot in the front seat and an experienced instructor behind him,

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/06/us/virginia-plane-crash/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 [cnn.com] Second paragraph

Re:Hmm (1)

Psychotria (953670) | more than 2 years ago | (#39603287)

Thanks. I can't view CNN at the moment (not sure why, maybe it's slashdotted from Australia).

Re:Hmm (4, Informative)

Kneo24 (688412) | more than 2 years ago | (#39603157)

Second paragraph of TFA:

The jet carried a student pilot in the front seat and an experienced instructor behind him, and the dumping of jet fuel was "one of the indications that there was a mechanical malfunction," Navy Capt. Mark Weisgerber told reporters.

Emphasis mine.

Re:Hmm (1)

Psychotria (953670) | more than 2 years ago | (#39603271)

Thank you

Re:Hmm (3, Funny)

dow (7718) | more than 2 years ago | (#39603283)

With current fuel prices being so high, will some lucky person in the area have hit the jackpot when they check their pool for the stuff? They could skim it off the top and run their truck for a week or two. I really should Google aviation fuel, for some reason I have it in my head as being pretty similar to diesel.

Re:Hmm (1)

lightknight (213164) | more than 2 years ago | (#39603039)

Indeed. I thought it rather odd that a Hornet would drop from the sky. It's an older plane, so one would think any teething issues have long since been worked out. Still...both engines suddenly going out? Someone else forget one of those cleaning rags in the fuel line?

 

Re:Hmm (1)

jpmorgan (517966) | more than 2 years ago | (#39603247)

There's been quite a few F-18 accidents in recent years. Despite being a two engine plane, it seems there are a lot more mechanical failures than the single engine F-16.

Re:Hmm (4, Interesting)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | more than 2 years ago | (#39603489)

A witness was quoted as saying that the engine sounded like it was dying. The problem there is that the Hornet is a twin engine plane. If it was an engine going out, then they could have just shut it down and flew home on the remaining engine.

The accident happened during (or shortly after) take-off. Anyone know if an F-18 *needs* both engines at that time. BTW, I live in Virginia Beach and the crash happened less than 5 miles from both my house and office. Obviously, the area (Birdneck Road and I-264) is a mess at the moment...

Things break, even multi million dollar equipment. (4, Insightful)

dclozier (1002772) | more than 2 years ago | (#39602931)

I really don't think our well trained pilots would ditch into a populated area so my guess is mechanical failure. (along with gravity and the pilot struggling to keep civilians out of harms way)

Re:Things break, even multi million dollar equipme (2)

zammer990 (2225956) | more than 2 years ago | (#39603201)

I don't know, maybe he thought he'd play angry birds with people.

Re:Hmm (5, Funny)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#39603021)

Anyone have an idea why this happened? Pilot error? Mechanical failure?

Gravity.

Re:Hmm (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 2 years ago | (#39603447)

Anyone have an idea why this happened? Pilot error? Mechanical failure?

Gravity.

Sucks.

Re:Hmm (1, Troll)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 2 years ago | (#39603091)

Anyone have an idea why this happened? Pilot error? Mechanical failure?

It was your typical White Hispanic aircraft hunting down and murdering an unarmed black household. They never brought this plane to jail to be interrogated, and the photos I've seen of F-18's flying around showed no damage. Who cares that it was a crack house, the poor thing looks just like Obama's house would, if he had one.

We need to put a dead-or-alive bounty on this aircraft, and tweet out an unrelated aircraft's address.

Re:Hmm (2)

Kneo24 (688412) | more than 2 years ago | (#39603137)

The article indicates possible mechanical failure from eye witness accounts. This just happened today, so it will be sometime before an official report is.

Re:Hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39603491)

No real details about how this happened. Though they did mention the jet was from "106 Training Squad" so I guess these guys were on their way to becoming experienced pilots then this happened :(
The article also says it looks like they tried to steer towards the ocean.

Okay, fine (5, Interesting)

slashmydots (2189826) | more than 2 years ago | (#39602809)

I bullshit you not, this is a 100% true story. A friend of mine just got a small apartment complex construction approved by the city and county and the nearby airport denied it because it's in some kind of zone. It's not even the 2-story part, it's a density thing. If it was spread out houses, they'd approve it but having that many people that close together is a safety hazard if a plan were to miss the runway and crash. It was over a mile from the front of the runway by the way. So anyway, they were appealing the decision because "how often do planes randomly crash into apartment complexes next to airports." I have a feeling they're about to either drop the appeal or lose.

Re:Okay, fine (0, Troll)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 2 years ago | (#39602887)

Your friend probably doesn't give a rat's ass about this incident because he's not going to live there. So he will get his permit refused and will complain that it's the fault of this F-18, when it's his own greed that is at stakes.

Re:Okay, fine (1)

geekmux (1040042) | more than 2 years ago | (#39602933)

I bullshit you not, this is a 100% true story. A friend of mine just got a small apartment complex construction approved by the city and county and the nearby airport denied it because it's in some kind of zone. It's not even the 2-story part, it's a density thing. If it was spread out houses, they'd approve it but having that many people that close together is a safety hazard if a plan were to miss the runway and crash. It was over a mile from the front of the runway by the way. So anyway, they were appealing the decision because "how often do planes randomly crash into apartment complexes next to airports." I have a feeling they're about to either drop the appeal or lose.

Going to drop an appeal that likely cost thousands because of a single recent incident? He would probably be stupid to do so.

Here, let me prove my point. When was the last time we heard of a fighter jet crashing into an apartment complex? I can think of a dozen other reasons the permit would be denied that would be a hell of a lot more "in-your-face" issues than events that mirror meteor strikes in probability.

Re:Okay, fine (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 2 years ago | (#39603099)

When was the last time we heard of a fighter jet crashing into an apartment complex?

About 11 years ago, on September 11 2001? Well, it wasn't an apartment complex as such, but it was definitely a fighter (commandeered) jet.

Re:Okay, fine (3, Interesting)

CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) | more than 2 years ago | (#39603197)

About 11 years ago, on September 11 2001? Well, it wasn't an apartment complex as such, but it was definitely a fighter (commandeered) jet.

It's not a crash if you "land" exactly where you planned to. Well I guess technically it is but only in the way suicide is technically murder.

Re:Okay, fine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39603259)

well, there was that one only a couple of months after September 11...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_587

Re:Okay, fine (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 2 years ago | (#39603327)

But is it "landing" if you never hit the ground? Also, I can see this being a problem for aircraft carrier jargon, although I seem to recall someone saying that landing on a carrier is like a "controlled crash" [google.com] .

Re:Okay, fine (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 2 years ago | (#39603441)

Its a landing if you walk away from it, as one of the plots apparently did.

Re:Okay, fine (1)

geekmux (1040042) | more than 2 years ago | (#39603319)

When was the last time we heard of a fighter jet crashing into an apartment complex?

About 11 years ago, on September 11 2001? Well, it wasn't an apartment complex as such, but it was definitely a fighter (commandeered) jet.

Er, since when did we start mixing fatality via sleep deprivation on the freeway with Charles Manson's criminal record in a potpourri of death statistics?

Even a layman can see there is a large chasm separating a true accident from an intentional act of mass murder/suicide.

And I've seen a lot of fighter jets perform. Regardless of who "commandeered" them, a commercial airliner has about as much "fighter" capability as my radium-powered smoke detector has "nuclear" capability.

Re:Okay, fine (2)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 2 years ago | (#39603465)

Your reply illustrates the classic problem when estimating failure probabilities: Instead of being inclusive, you try to fix a narrow definition that represents a failure event, which causes your final probability estimates to be too low. This also happens with nuclear disasters and black swan type market crashes, etc.

I would suggest that your original question "When was the last time we heard of a fighter jet crashing into an apartment complex?" is badly posed. It's too specific to be truly useful, and if answered precisely, leads to an overly optimistic conclusion.

All airplane crashes are different, of course, but they are still crashes. I've been to airshows myself, and I've seen military aircraft (the F15 flying straight up like a candle is most impressive, btw), and incidentally I've also witnessed a crash into a crowd at such an event.

Re:Okay, fine (1)

commodore73 (967172) | more than 2 years ago | (#39603049)

I once lived in an apartment complex that was under a landing flight path. The noise didn't bother me during the day, but only in that place, I frequently had dreams of luggage, wheels, engines, and other airline debris falling into our unit. I never even considered a complete plane dropping out of the sky.

"That was some of the best flying I've seen... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39602811)

right up to the moment where you got killed.

You never, ever leave your wingman."

"Great balls of fire!"

Chinese Parts (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39602813)

Probably repaired with Fake Military Parts from Chinese [slashdot.org] .

Fighters (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39602845)

Those things are made of jet fuel and explosives. Nothing quite as dramatic as a fighter plowing into a residential area.

Really? (5, Insightful)

Daetrin (576516) | more than 2 years ago | (#39602855)

Both pilots and multiple civilians have been transported to a hospital.

Gizmodo has lots of shiny pictures and more detail.

Really Slashdot/Unknown Lamer? I've got a morbid sense of humor at times, and i'm not even saying i'm not interested in the pictures, but "lots of people are injured and some of them may die" and we've got "lots of shiny pictures" about it! seems a bit callous to me. I mean if it were actually part of some morbid joke it'd be fine, but it's not even a joke, it's just being totally insensitive for no good reason.

Re:Really? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39602871)

boohoo... people die all the time. get over yourself!

Re:Really? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39602905)

yea lol it's not like they came from a valuable country where people deserve to live.

Re:Really? (3, Insightful)

Daetrin (576516) | more than 2 years ago | (#39602939)

You see, normally i agree with you when someone complains about other people on Slashdot making light of death. But see this [slashdot.org] ? That's funny. so is this. [slashdot.org] And i'm sure there will be more funny posts later. Humor is an important part of dealing with tragedy.

However "Oooohhh! People have been hurt! And there are shiny pictures of it! Wanna see?!?" isn't being sensitive and it isn't funny either.

Re:Really? (3, Insightful)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 2 years ago | (#39602941)

Both pilots and multiple civilians have been transported to a hospital.

Gizmodo has lots of shiny pictures and more detail.

Really Slashdot/Unknown Lamer? I've got a morbid sense of humor at times, and i'm not even saying i'm not interested in the pictures, but "lots of people are injured and some of them may die" and we've got "lots of shiny pictures" about it! seems a bit callous to me. I mean if it were actually part of some morbid joke it'd be fine, but it's not even a joke, it's just being totally insensitive for no good reason.

From the linked CNN article:

The two pilots, a police officer and three other people were treated and released at a hospital, except for one of the pilots, who was admitted, according to Sentara Virginia Beach General Hospital. Both pilots, who live in Virginia Beach, are 'doing well and they suffered minor injuries,"

So, hardly "lots of people", and hospitals usually don't treat and release people who "may die". I think you can lighten up a bit. You'd think it was your apartment they crashed into or something.

Re:Really? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39602981)

Lets not speak so soon, shall we? Not all the people who live in these apartment buildings have been accounted for. For all we know, theres a dead family in there. Let the unknown dead rest in peace.

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39603153)

Yeah.. lets get to finding and accounting for those un-spotted owls too..

Re:Really? (1)

Zapotek (1032314) | more than 2 years ago | (#39602947)

So you're saying that it either was or wasn't a joke but if it was it'd be funny but since it may not be it's not funny. Do I even need a punchline here?

Re:Really? (1)

Daetrin (576516) | more than 2 years ago | (#39602971)

No, i'm saying if it were a joke it would be funny, but it definitely wasn't a joke. I've already pointed out in a previous response some comments where people _did_ make jokes and they _are_ funny, but the simple statement "there are shiny pictures" is not a joke.

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39602967)

He also forgot to mention how much the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cost.

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39602969)

Both pilots and multiple civilians have been transported to a hospital.

Gizmodo has lots of shiny pictures and more detail.

Really Slashdot/Unknown Lamer? I've got a morbid sense of humor at times, and i'm not even saying i'm not interested in the pictures, but "lots of people are injured and some of them may die" and we've got "lots of shiny pictures" about it! seems a bit callous to me. I mean if it were actually part of some morbid joke it'd be fine, but it's not even a joke, it's just being totally insensitive for no good reason.

If you call THAT insensitive, then TMZ should be shut the fuck down and it's staff thrown in jail.

Give me a break, sitting here commenting on a story as morbid as this is rather callous. You admitting you're interested in seeing the pictures feeds even more morbid curiosity, so let's put away the morality whistles already.

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39603085)

"lots of people are injured and some of them may die"

Any source for that? Whether 7 people is "lots" is a subjective judgement I guess, but the article I read said that the 2 pilots had minor injuries, 2 people were being treated for smoke inhalation, and 1 person had fainted on the scene. That's 5 out of the 7, and none are anywhere near life-threatening.

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39603229)

Slashdot's editors are going to the dogs. We're on our way to becoming another Digg. Yay.....

Slashdot-worthy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39602875)

How exactly is this News for Nerds? First it's politics, then it's this:"EA Defends Itself Against Thousands of Anti-Gay Letters", and now this story?

Re:Slashdot-worthy? (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#39603031)

How exactly is this News for Nerds? First it's politics, then it's this:"EA Defends Itself Against Thousands of Anti-Gay Letters", and now this story?

I someone threatening to crash a jet into your house if you don't read Slashdot?

Yeah, we're seeing some change in focus. But what's the point in complaining? It's not like there aren't a billion other sites you could visit.

Re:Slashdot-worthy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39603499)

Agree with GP, slashdot is no longer news for nerds, its the new reddit. I haven't kept up, of the billion other sites you mention, is any a particularly good news aggregator for science and technology? (and yes, that's a real question, I am not trying to be snarky, contrary to tradition 'round here)

Re:Slashdot-worthy? (3, Interesting)

lightknight (213164) | more than 2 years ago | (#39603075)

Catastrophic mechanical errors do fall under the jurisdiction of News for Nerds, as a fair number of site visitors have some understanding of mechanics (if not outright degrees in Mechanical Engineering), as do F-18 Hornets (which is more Aeronautical Engineering, but whatever).

And the politics thing has been a part of the site since 2000 or 2001.

Re:Slashdot-worthy? (5, Funny)

Anne_Nonymous (313852) | more than 2 years ago | (#39603481)

>> How exactly is this News for Nerds?

Slashdot always reports on things that crash windows.

Surprisingly similar (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39602893)

Does these pictures remind you of something? That's right, they are almost identical to the 911 ones! It is now obvious that i was an insider job!!1

Eisenhower warned us. (0)

poormanjoe (889634) | more than 2 years ago | (#39602911)

Re:Eisenhower warned us. (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#39602979)

You mean the speech where he says we must have a ready military?

Re:Eisenhower warned us. (1)

poormanjoe (889634) | more than 2 years ago | (#39603391)

2 boarders. There are 2 boarders. Defending those two cost less than operating bases in how many countries?
You tell me!
Not having this conv.......

similarities with 9/11 (1)

gygy (1182865) | more than 2 years ago | (#39602975)

Too bad for the people living at number 7. Their building is next to collapse !

Only 25 crashes in 40 years? (1)

Ranzear (1082021) | more than 2 years ago | (#39602997)

From TFA:

There have been more than 25 crashes involving Navy aircraft on or near the base over the past four decades.

Only 25 crashes of high-performance military hardware in four decades is a staggeringly low number to me if even the B2 [wikipedia.org] can have a glitch caused by a little water on takeoff and crash,

Dumped fuel? (2)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 2 years ago | (#39603001)

The article I saw said that the aircraft dumped fuel before the pilots ejected, so that must have happed bloody fast. Commercial aircraft can't dump fuel that fast. My initial thought was to wonder why they didn't get back to a runway, if they had time to dump fuel like that.

Re:Dumped fuel? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39603083)

No one said they dumped 100%. "Had time" just means they hit the switch before ejecting.

Also, the articles specifically say they ejected late, suggesting they were spending as much time as possible trying to avoid disaster, not that they bailed immediately without trying anything

Re:Dumped fuel? (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 2 years ago | (#39603151)

It's probably trained to instinct. If they have some catastrophic failure, all you have is instinct to go on... you need to be trained to "do this, this, this, and that." without thinking about it.

Re:Dumped fuel? (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 2 years ago | (#39603193)

Yeah but how fast can that aircraft pump fuel out of its tanks? Very fast, apparently, like, in a couple of seconds.

Re:Dumped fuel? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39603169)

Just because they dumped fuel doesn't mean they dumped all of it. If it was a Super Hornet (media reports concerning aviation are always suspect), then it has the extra ability to refuel other aircraft in flight, which means they could probably dump fuel pretty quickly.

The article also lauds them for dumping fuel to make the fire upon impact much less severe. I guarantee they were dumping fuel to reduce weight. This was (99% probability) an engine malfunction. In one of the picture you can see the left nozzle closed and the right nozzle wide open. They probably had a lot less thrust than they needed and were dumping fuel reduce the amount of thrust required for flight.

Last, circling back to the runway that you took off almost never works. And it definitely isn't going to work in a thrust deficient situation in a fighter-type aircraft. You just don't have enough energy. I don't know how the Super Hornet works, but it may have also lost flight controls depending on the malfunction. I've never flown the F-18, but I have flown the T-38 (the Mig-28 in Top Gun, btw) which was a pig if you lost an engine and lost all flight controls if both motors died.

Source: I am a USAF pilot.

Re:Dumped fuel? (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 2 years ago | (#39603243)

Just because they dumped fuel doesn't mean they dumped all of it.

But if it prevented a more serious fire they must have dumped most of their fuel. The aircraft would be fueled up on takeoff surely. Nobody wants air in their tanks.

circling back to the runway that you took off almost never works. And it definitely isn't going to work in a thrust deficient situation in a fighter-type aircraft

Maybe I am too accustomed seeing FA/18s climb out at 45 degrees from the runway. I suppose they don't do that routinely.

Re:Dumped fuel? (1)

Kneo24 (688412) | more than 2 years ago | (#39603191)

Re-read your comment. Commercial aircraft can't dump fuel that fast. So why would this indicate that military aircraft couldn't?

Re:Dumped fuel? (2)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 2 years ago | (#39603219)

Not saying it couldn't. Just saying that you would need a hellishly efficient fuel dump mechanism to make a difference in less than a minute. No doubt that is what they have.

This is CNN stuff, right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39603003)

Or HLN, or Fox...MSNBC... But /. ?? Wasn't there just this morning a big discussion about what kind of stuff should be posted here?

6 people, pilots stopped it from being more. (5, Insightful)

pbjones (315127) | more than 2 years ago | (#39603005)

2 pilots that safely ejected, 1 person fainted, 1 police who was hurt while attending the scene, 2 for smoke inhaulation. It seems that the pilots knew that something was wrong and were dumping fuel before the crash. Quick thinking stopped a larger fire and the possibility of more casualties.

Re:6 people, pilots stopped it from being more. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39603425)

Not to impugn the pilots' actions, but dumping fuel is absolutely standard when you're planning an emergency landing.

Cue the conspiracy theories (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#39603035)

Any wagers on which conspiracy theories will have legs this time?

Re:Cue the conspiracy theories (1)

murphyje (965004) | more than 2 years ago | (#39603143)

My money is on the military having spotted some Daleks in the building and not taking any chances. Silly, humans! A fighter jet won't get through their shields!

There should be a law... (1, Funny)

interval1066 (668936) | more than 2 years ago | (#39603089)

Early reports indicate the pilot was tweeting while coming in for a landing...

Right wing on fire (2)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | more than 2 years ago | (#39603115)

I heard this in an interview from a VERY credible sounding woman on CNN. She must have been some sort of engineer the way she was meticulously recalling details without embellishment or the personal feelings commentary track.

Shortly after take off... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39603127)

sounds like a possible bird strike

Grim Factoid? (5, Insightful)

Bob9113 (14996) | more than 2 years ago | (#39603251)

FTFA:

Update 3:31 PM EDT: The Virginian-Pilot points out another grim factoid about the Navy base in question today: There have been more than 25 crashes involving Navy aircraft on or near the base over the past four decades.

That's grim? Less than one crash per year with people flying fighter jets? That seems like an outstanding safety record to me -- those things are twitchy and the pilots take them to the boundaries as a matter of proper training. Calling one crash per year "grim" strikes me as misleading and sensationalistic.

Re:Grim Factoid? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39603323)

Indeed. A few months ago I was reading about the Royal Air Force in the 1950s, and some years they lost close to a thousand aircraft of various types; modern jets are so expensive that you can't afford to crash them at the rate we used to a few decades ago.

as part of standard (5, Funny)

nimbius (983462) | more than 2 years ago | (#39603329)

United States military protocol, a press conference was announced later on in the day at which an amorphous "surge strategy" was announced and a commitment to peace in the region was renewed. Many analysts in the media blamed weather or mechanical failure, while fox news attributed the terrorist mechanical failure to Obamacare death panels.

In response to media-fueled concerns and United States foreign policy
the country then promptly invaded the neighboring state of North Carolina.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>