Overall, this is a stellar example of a 'highly trained journalist' reporting on a subject they've been assigned to on which they know essentially nothing about.
Those are some of the most entertaining news segments. Especially in smaller markets where they get the kids just out of college, likely in their first TV job. I highly doubt that the PIC declared and emergency and flew around for 4 more hours after such declaration. The controllers would have had to give priority in the Class Bravo for FOUR hours! Probably would have been best to describe this as an unexpected arrival at PDX but click-bait is what it is.
@@alanf403 The F-15 flew for a long time after the pilot noticed the problem, long enough for several refuelings and to both jettison some and fire the rest of the 4 AIM-120s and 2 AIM-9Xs that it had. www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/36688/the-full-story-on-that-oregon-f-15-that-fired-its-missiles-into-the-sea-before-landing
They aren’t and shouldn’t be expected to be experts on everything. They’re doing their best and I’d imagine they can report on a LOT of things since they don’t specialize in one thing. If they had a reporter specializing in a every single thing, they each wouldn’t get paid much and some would get used more than others. It just doesn’t make sense what you’re saying.
They say that because usually F-15's have two pilots during combat missions. I belive one is the pilot who can also fire the machine gun, and the second handles all the bombs and missiles, dont take my word for it though.
@@axdawg3014 that depends on the model and there are no gunners. F-15C (eagle) is a single seat, air superiority platform. The F-15E (strike eagle) is a two seat, multi role aircraft specializing in air to ground. The two seats are for the pilot and CSO/WSO. The CSO does not control much in flight and is certainly not the one shooting the gun. I believe the CSO may laze for the laser guided bombs, but otherwise, they are not a gunner.
If this is a f-15 c variant, then it should has only one seat. D variants are two seated and f-15e the strike eagle also has two seats, which the later is for the weapon officer to manage ground attack data and such. C and D variants are extremely upgraded A and B developed only for air to air engagements from the start, and E on the other hand mainly for strike missions.
The 142nd has only had single-seaters since the 70’s. News reporters should be well informed of their home field before they do any reporting... Clearly Im asking too much, my apologies.
The exact cause of the landing gear malfunction and any subsequent recommendations in the report are redacted. However, the narrative and other unredacted details point to a failure in the jury link, a supporting component attached to the main landing gear strut, as a key factor. "This specific LMLG [left main landing gear assembly] was modified by Time Compliance Technical Order (TCTO) 1F-15-1680 on 07 Jul 2017, to receive a newly manufactured upper jury link, replacing the previous jury link that was prone to failure," an unredacted portion of the report notes. The Air Force subsequently ruled this incident to be so-called Class C mishap, which covers accidents that result in between $50,000 and $500,000 worth of damage or a nonfatal injury or illness that put someone out of work for one or more days, or both. The report says that the official total cost of the damage to the Eagle was $418,280 dollars. All of the damaged components were deemed to be repairable.
Tail hooks on land based fighters are different. They are there in case Of emergencies where the plane can’t use breaks. If an F15 were to land on a carrier, the gear would be damaged, and the airframe would collapse. Most US airbases have these systems.
The hook on air force aircraft are nowhere as strong as the hook on navy jets, not just the hook its self, but the underlying structure, navy jets use their tail hook to go from flying speed to a dead stop in a couple hundred feet, same deceleration as a high speed car accident, air force jets use their hooks only in an emergency, or if the runways are damaged, and they are designed to slow the plane from flying speed to taxi speed in under 4000 feet. Marine aircraft are bought through the navy so all are naval spec'ed, airwing Marines also train with the Navy, so a marine ground crewman will take his A school at a navy facility.
All air force aircraft have hooks, but they'd be ripped apart if they tried to land on a carrier. These hooks are for malfunctions in the aircraft, or if the runways are catered in war and they resort to using a taxiway for landings. Navy carrier landings are a controlled crash to land in 200 feet, air force arrested landings are fairly gentle affairs to stop the plane in 2000 feet. Huge difference in energy.
Come on now, people, be kind! Obviously this was a complete aviation buff of a reporter who simply hadn't yet been informed whether it was the 1- or 2-seater F-15 variant.
On second viewing, regarding using the arresting cable, one must wonder why the air brake behind the one person on the jet was not deployed? Related to a landing gear assembly problem?
F-15 ain't built for Carrier landing the hook is for safety reasons to quickly slow the aircraft down also it's hard to land such jet on a carrier especially the pilot isn't trained to land on a moving runway
That tail hook isn't as beefy as one on an F18 and it's not designed for carrier landings. It's the same story for the landing gear. You probably could in theory land an F15 on a carrier but you definitely wouldn't be able to take off again 😂
Yep, that optimizes airflow to the engines at high angles of attack. The F-15 was designed from the start to be extremely maneuverable, and keeping the engines from stalling at extreme angles was important.
The exact cause of the landing gear malfunction and any subsequent recommendations in the report are redacted. However, the narrative and other unredacted details point to a failure in the jury link, a supporting component attached to the main landing gear strut, as a key factor. "This specific LMLG [left main landing gear assembly] was modified by Time Compliance Technical Order (TCTO) 1F-15-1680 on 07 Jul 2017, to receive a newly manufactured upper jury link, replacing the previous jury link that was prone to failure," an unredacted portion of the report notes. The Air Force subsequently ruled this incident to be so-called Class C mishap, which covers accidents that result in between $50,000 and $500,000 worth of damage or a nonfatal injury or illness that put someone out of work for one or more days, or both. The report says that the official total cost of the damage to the Eagle was $418,280 dollars. All of the damaged components were deemed to be repairable.
Will These Planes Flyover American Secondary Schools Colleges and Universities OUSD Job Training Centers DeFremery School Santa Fe School Recreational Centers For a Fire Drill?No or Yes, Not Until 2021 due to COVID
LOL exactly! What the hell is a barrier cable. It's an arrestor cable, a barrier is something completely different. I wish they could find women reporters that actually know what the hell they're talking about, rather than them being on the job for their looks.
ANG F-15, probably some of the oldest F-15s in service now. A few years back a Hawaii ANG F-15 broke up in flight and it was found that the older eagles had so outlived their original design life that the structure around the cockpit was starting to crack. A lot of national guard units had to stand down while their aircraft were inspected and repaired.
