kallend 1,672 #1 June 6, 2008 www.acc.af.mil/accspecialreports/b-2accidentinvestigationboard.asp www.acc.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-080605-058.pdf... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #2 June 6, 2008 Wow.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RB_Hammer 0 #3 June 7, 2008 Yeah, wow. So they didn't dry in completely after washing, started it up and this caused it to crash?"I'm not lost. I don't know where I'm going, but there's no sense in being late." Mathew Quigley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,672 #4 June 7, 2008 QuoteYeah, wow. So they didn't dry in completely after washing, started it up and this caused it to crash? Should be a lesson for all who believe advanced technology never fails.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jumpin_Jan 1 #5 June 8, 2008 video here http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/06/video-stealth-b.html and here http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a8be10a24-deff-4b03-9e7f-33fdc364898f Yikes! PULL! jumpin_Jan EDITed to fix link (I'm tag challenged today)"Dangerous toys are fun but ya could get hurt" -- Vash The Stampede Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FlyingJ 0 #6 June 8, 2008 Articles and reports say that the pilots were fine, but curious if anyone has seen a report that mentions what kind of landing they had following ejection. From the trajectory on their way out of the cockpit it hardly looked like they'd get enough altitude to inflate their canopies.Killing threads since 2004. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
n23x 0 #7 June 8, 2008 I think most ejection seats are capable of 0/0 operation. Correct me if I'm wrong? http://www.ejectionsite.com/project90.htm .jim"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FlyingJ 0 #8 June 8, 2008 No doubt if it were firing straight up they'd get the altitude. Seems like the shot out much more horizontally though. Who knows. Way beyond any knowledge I have of this kind of stuff, just curious.Killing threads since 2004. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #9 June 8, 2008 This site gives up to date info on ejections around the world: http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/PROJECT/YEAR_Pages/2008.htm#0221 No info on what the pilots' landings were like.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sinjin 0 #10 June 9, 2008 The pilot received minor injuries, and the co-pilot received a spinal compression fracture during ejection. He was treated at Tripler Army Medical Center, Hawaii, and released. The aircraft was assigned to the 509th Bomb Wing at Whiteman Air Force Base, Mo.dont let life pass you by Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,672 #11 June 9, 2008 QuoteThe pilot received minor injuries, and the co-pilot received a spinal compression fracture during ejection. He was treated at Tripler Army Medical Center, Hawaii, and released. The aircraft was assigned to the 509th Bomb Wing at Whiteman Air Force Base, Mo. Something I find surprising is that Whiteman has only Class D airspace over it. Anyone can fly over the top at 2,600ft agl without talking to the tower. I did it last month, saw a B2 on the ramp, circled around for a better look.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #12 June 9, 2008 You should have taken pictures too! Even if it is allowed, it makes one wonder why would you fly over it and do circles. Did you smile for the cameras? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,672 #13 June 9, 2008 Quote You should have taken pictures too! Even if it is allowed, it makes one wonder why would you fly over it and do circles. Did you smile for the cameras? I didn't write that I did "circles". Now, how about being a class guy and apologizing for calling me a liar when the error was in fact yours?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,463 #14 June 9, 2008 >Even if it is allowed, it makes one wonder why would you fly over it and do circles. Back around 1990 I was flying a 172 over the north shore of Long Island when I saw what looked like a 707 basically lying in the trees. I turned around to take another look, and realized that it was the wreckage of the Avianca flight that crashed. It had happened pretty late the night before and they didn't have many details on the crash yet. After the second pass I left because there were a lot of helicopters buzzing around. I later found out that I had violated the TFR over the area; it had been created after I got the briefing and checked ATIS. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,271 #15 June 9, 2008 Quote Even if it is allowed, it makes one wonder why would you fly over it and do circles. I think we should take names and do background checks of everyone that goes to military airshows, too. I've seen people taking photo's of all kinds of fighter jets, bombers, transports... Makes me wonder what kind of ulterior motive these guys have for wanting to check out so much high tech, cutting edge hardware, even if it's allowed.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cloudseeker2001 0 #16 June 9, 2008 I am looking for info concerning how much computer aid the pilot needs to fly the plane. From what I have read in the past, the plane cannot fly at all without the help of computers.....I suspect not all the info is being released on this crash......Of course..... "Some call it heavenly in it's brilliance, others mean and rueful of the western dream" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,463 #17 June 9, 2008 > I am looking for info concerning how much computer aid the pilot needs to fly the plane. ?? The plane cannot fly without the computer system. There is no direct link between the pilot's flight controls and the flight surfaces. Without the computer system the plane is not controllable at all. It's like trying to drive a remote control car with dead batteries in the transmitter; just doesn't work. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cloudseeker2001 0 #18 June 9, 2008 Quote > I am looking for info concerning how much computer aid the pilot needs to fly the plane. ?? The plane cannot fly without the computer system. There is no direct link between the pilot's flight controls and the flight surfaces. Without the computer system the plane is not controllable at all. It's like trying to drive a remote control car with dead batteries in the transmitter; just doesn't work. In addition to being a well trained pilot, you must be an IT specialist as well! Poor computers on that plane were probably in a panic when they realized they were in trouble. "Some call it heavenly in it's brilliance, others mean and rueful of the western dream" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,463 #19 June 9, 2008 >In addition to being a well trained pilot, you must be an IT specialist as well! The two are sorta synonymous lately. Commercial pilots who can't operate EFIS instruments are like secretaries who can't use word processors or spreadsheets. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #20 June 9, 2008 Quote Quote > I am looking for info concerning how much computer aid the pilot needs to fly the plane. ?? The plane cannot fly without the computer system. There is no direct link between the pilot's flight controls and the flight surfaces. Without the computer system the plane is not controllable at all. It's like trying to drive a remote control car with dead batteries in the transmitter; just doesn't work. In addition to being a well trained pilot, you must be an IT specialist as well! Poor computers on that plane were probably in a panic when they realized they were in trouble. There is actually a quadruple redundant system on board, if I recall what an engineer from Lockheed Martin told me once. It makes sense that a tangible interference factor might be the primary factor to cause the entire system to "fail". With as much flight time as all the aircraft in all the branches of service have...So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
