He was a marine test pilot a major and was assigned to strike aircraft test directorate Patuxent River Maryland. This took place in the early 80's over the Chesapeake test range. The major was testing the roll rate of the FA/18 Hornet and departed flight after the 3rd roll. The Hornet tumbled end over end until he finally regained control with just a few hundred feet to go before he hit the deck. You can see the altitude in the right box and the airspeed is displayed in the left one along with mach number and g rate. The Hornet does have a 00 ejection seat but by the time his brain told him to eject he probably would have already hit the ground and if he ejected while inverted at a few hundred feet he would not have survived. Because of this the Blue Angels had a 3 roll limit their first year flying the Hornet. A Canadian test pilot realized that if you apply a little opposite rudder during the roll the Hornet can roll without departing flight and now days they roll from the deck straight up to 25k. The end of the video is missing. He lands safely and declares the jet down for over stress.
Not as dramatic as you put it, but it could've been worse if it wouldn't have recovered almost itself regardless of his inputs! The recovery started from 3000ft and was already in control at 2000 and he started pulling gently from above 1500ft and wasn't inverted at a few hundred feet as you say. He could've ejected from 2000 or more if he wanted to when he was right side up and any pilot wouldn't eject anymore at that point. It was a bit of a wake up for him though and glad he made it out with no problems!
Surprised to see this video on here. This happened in the section that I worked at the then Naval Air Test Center at Patuxent River, MD. I'll answer some of the questions that I saw here. This is the actual audio that you hear on the video and it was a USMC test pilot assigned to the then Strike Aircraft Test Directorate (now VX-23). The reason why the testing was being done so low was that it was for the qualification of the F/A-18 for the Blue Angels mission. The Blue Angels require very precise stick control. For the A-4, the Blue Angels would fly with nose down trim, forcing the pilot to hold aft stick force for the entire flight and masking the freeplay (free movement) in the stick. For the F-18 they attached a spring to the lower part of the stick - this causes the stick to move forward. So, the pilot needs to hold aft stick force (at neutral trim) - the same effect occurs, the masking of the freeplay in the stick, thus allowing very precise stick control. This mission involved flying maneuvers that would typically be seen by the Blues, e.g. multiple rolls (which are not typically allowed by standard Fleet pilots). However, if the stick is released during the roll, the stick will move forward, unloading the jet and causing it to depart controlled flight. The airplane auto-recovered from the departure, but it was pure luck that the airplane was recovered. Procedurally, the pilot should have ejected. At the point that the pilot cognitively figured out his situation, the airplane was beginning to recover. It was an extraordinary situation, and extraordinary airmanship...
Thank you for the explanation. 👍 It was clear that there was something special going on there. Never heard before of the Blue Angels nose down trim, and the spring loaded stick.
This is clearly at Pax River. Not sure if this guys service or a company test pilot. It’s obvious he thought he was finished. Phenomenal recovery. RTB is Return to Base as in test flights over and I want to go kiss my wife and hug my kids. Bravo Zulu to this guy!!!
This was VX-23 SD-153 Hornet. Has to be a fairly old incident based on the video quality probably using the CVRS system for the HUD recording. We had a similar incident during Super Hornet flight test. LCDR Floyd was in E-1 doing low altitude "single" engine work and it stalled rolled over and HUD showed -40 ft altitude which means he skipped off the water but stayed with it and brought it home. When we recovered the airplane he never said a word but we knew something happened we just didn't know what yet. About 20 min during postflight we found out. He wasn't even supposed to be flying that day his wife was in the hospital getting ready to have a baby. There is a HUD video but as far as I know has never been released.
We also had a 2 seat “B” model do the same thing. The larger canopy seemed to contribute to the mishap. After a few rolls the Hornet tumbled end over end ripping the center line drop tank from its rack and taking off the right wing just outboard of the wing fold transmission. After many long nights we got her up again. They flew that low because they were testing the Hornet for the Blue Angels.
Now that's an Alpha that would make even a Sukoi Boi sick as a dog. When your AoA spikes to 80 and your sink rate is -30'k FPM at 2,500' it's gonna be a bad day.
could have been a Pitot error caused by the rolls, not common but happens, just like the spiked rocket launch that read North instead of south for .00001 seconds and caused an explosive wash, the FLCS computer deflects about 12 different control surfaces at different angles based on the airspeed, so a pilot inputting the roll at 380 would be a different signal and result than a pilot inputting the roll at 65. the FLCS probably went full deflection for a half a second caused massive deviation good thing they designed the FLCS in the hornet to always default to hands off stick recovery nose down, it saved his ass big time, but not his underwear.
He did full stick input at over 400 kts. The jet started buffeting at the 3rd roll. He pulled up the nose above the horizon and went into a secondary stall and started to roll again almost straight down before he got it under control. Amazing he recovered control at over 8 g's so low to the ground. Don't understand why he didn't do this test at a safer altitude, especially in a semi-populated area.
We have been discussing lately whether the pilot in the above video had any chance if he decided to eject when he was at his lowest altitude during the departure stall in the above video. I believe it was fortuitous for him not to eject at 400 ft. altitude. His decision saved his life. But in the video links below, the AirForce makes it very clear that hesitation kills. There simply is no time to ponder the decision. It was pure instinct that lead the above pilot to stay with his aircraft. At his rate of descent, he would have ejected along a vector that would have ended with him slamming into the ground while his parachute was about to open IMHO. He was so lucky that I believe 9 out of 10 pilots would have met their demise if they were in the same position as this pilot when he recovered from the departure stall. As the test pilot in the following link experienced during early testing of a new Jet. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-gLxK3maZqiA.html Here are two RU-vid videos on ejection seats that I'm linking below. Very good discussion on why it may be too late to eject when the aircraft is going down at a high rate of descent. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-_P7B9TuvYUk.html Here is another video. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-OAghNmsn3qA.html
Okay for those who don't know what caused this problem I'll explain this briefly. In this video, the pilot is flying with f18 which has Fly by Wire system to assist the flying. Once the pilot starts rolling left and right while pilot is pulling G's or minus G the plane automatically kicks rudder to it's rolling direction.It is because of auto rudder system is related to Angle-of-Attack of it's plane,which means if you pulling G's(If AOA goes beyond a certain angle,) and you trying to roll to the right even if you don't kick your rudder, The rudder goes to the right. This rudder assistance is necessary for counter adverse yaw effect. What the pilot should have done was, he had to wait a bit more to stable the plane (or put negative G's to set AOA to it's minimum state) so as the rudder wouldn't be involved. You can see auto rudder assistance in pretty much all U.S modern fighter jets like f15 16 18 and even 35 and 22
The accelerating beeping is the FCS yaw alert. The two-toned beeps are the master caution, and the low-pitched, steadily paced beeping is the landing configuration alert.
BTW that same Hornet crashed about a year later killing the pilot. Different pilot doing unauthorized testing. CO was relieved of his command because of it. Sad day @ SATD.
And have someone ready to clean the seat. On second thought, judging from how that plane was whipping around, better thoroughly wipe the entire cockpit and go heavy on the air freshener...
Maxumized see here. Essentially the same test, departure of control envelope taking advantage of inertia ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Rv9YC-gaNYo.html
I come across this every so often and still have an adrenaline spike of my own sitting in my living room 30years after it happened. The one thing that’s always bothered me and have yet to understand is, with the high likelihood of events such as this, why in the world are these maneuvers being tested at 2500 ft?
@@Zerbey I wasn’t questioning it being done, only why to do so at 2500 agl since these were not altitude sensitive test parameters. In this particular test sequence, any altitude up to 15000 offers the same result (or acceptable difference for this specific objective) so why make it far more likely you’ll die in the event of a DFCF like this?
another comment said something about blue angel testing, their jets require you to hold the stick back for neutral position but if you let go then that will unload the jet as seen in the video. So I guess they are testing it at the altitudes they fly at
I wish this video were named in a way that's more easily found. Thinking I'll re-UL it to make it findable ... even when searching it after watching it I couldn't just search for FA-18 ... F-18 ... F18 and had to use my history. But it's scary!!
@@MULTIPLESHOTSFIRED AWESOME. I'd just went looking for it and was like, "noooo ... he removed it!?" Glad (and impressed) you found my comment in the ether buddy. I think the reason video is often brutally rough quality (esp. on carriers) is all the RADAR making it hard for sensors to properly register + record their location on the CCD or CMOS ... especially if it's "hardened" in which case (applicable for NASA for reasons other than EW) they have to use larger "process node" (lithography) for obviously different causes ... EW vs CMB and high energy particles which interfere ... eg over the S Atlantic Anomaly ... consumer computers crash regularly. Of course it could just be that we always get old crap for some tech and super high end only for the exact spec if required to be lethal.
@@trumanhw Generally probably a mix of the extremely heavy electromagnetic environment and the video gear not getting nearly as much research money as the sensors on the important gear. Look at the picture from a targeting pod, even an old LANTIRN, and it's crystal clear as far as the digital sensor's resolution allows. Doesn't matter if you're being painted or you're sitting on the deck in the middle of the radio storm. A good AVTR is much less likely to save lives than a good NAVFLIR sensor.
ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-gLxK3maZqiA.html Watch the link above (not this video) at the 20:45 time mark. The test pilot in the link did something very similar to what happened in this video. There, the test pilot attempted a departure in an FA-18 but didn't expect it to be so violent. He said it was the "most interesting ride I had to date". In the link supplied at the beginning of this paragraph, the test pilot lost a lot more altitude than the pilot did in the above video doing almost the same thing although he was much higher when he started. Check out the time again beginning at 20:45 in the link above for a comparison. It is amazing that the test pilot in the present video recovered with only 400 ft altitude remaining. Very good pilot. Very lucky pilot. But in the other video, the test pilot did his testing over the ocean, not over buildings most likely with people in them. Looks like it might be the same base.
Seems like part of the problem likely arose from setting "zero-G" meaning he was putting the plane into a slight downward arc and with it a situation not really best for multiple successive rolls and the tumbling it was going to initiate. Almost like very slight barrel roll, except pushing down on the nose, not pulling up.
Yaw coupling = mass of fuselage wants to spin around due rotational inertia. A RAAF Mirage pilot was killed during a low level multi roll hence max allowed is only 3 rolls. F104 was the worst.
Holy shit is I would say after someone yells 1500 feet 1:46 and he responds by saying "I got it" yet the plane continues to plummet to almost 300 ft above the ground when suddenly it starts climbing safely again.
Ba A - He had regained control and established airspeed and attitude prior to the call. He could already see he was going to make it before the 1500 call - "I got it" -was reassuring but unnecessary. The plane did not "plummet" - it was a standard dive recovery.
A zero zero certified ejection seat means you can eject at zero altitude and zero airspeed. It does NOT mean you can eject in an uncontrolled spin while hurtling into the ground!
Forgive me for asking such a ridiculously stupid question, but what exactly happened in this video? I'm not a pilot nor do I have the flying knowledge that many who watched this video have. Thank you in advance for those kind enough to chime in.
Simple explanation: The F-18 which is a fighter plane departed from controlled flight during flight testing. The test pilot was testing how the aircraft responded to rolls to the left and right. The plane went into a spin after 3 rolls and the pilot leveled out at 300ft above the ground. 8Gs means the plane and pilot was subjected to 8 times the force of gravity during the recovery.
Doe Joe Perhaps you are correct! But even if some of the answers are not bullshit, none of them have been crafted in an effective manner. Even the ones that may be correct are still incomplete enough for them to remain confusing. I think my primary issue here is that I am looking for an explanation of why the plane departed from controlled flight. Just saying it can't do 3 rolls in a row is not a sufficient explanation. Are you able to explain it in more detail? Rather than just saying "it departed from controlled flight," for this much is quite obvious. (Regarding your explanation - I'm not sure the pilot was who leveled the plane out. I don't know about this particular case, but a lot of the time the whole point it to take your hands off the controls and let the computer fix it. It looks like the plane did that itself, in this case.)
Will McFadden An aircraft is initially modeled in a computer using a fluid dynamic model. As the aircraft rolls the computations used to predict the airflow becomes more complex to model with each roll, like swirls and eddies gone mad. Simply put the high angle of attack along with the rolling created an aerodynamic eddy pattern that blanked the control surfaces that fly the aircraft. Because of the shape of the airframe the stalled surfaces don't have the airflow to regain control during the spin. As the air gets denser during your descent you gain more control authority hopefully. Because of the shape of the plane in certain flight regimes there is a reduction of lateral and directional stability www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a256522.pdf www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/p002709.pdf To see the actual airflow separations take place you would need to visualize it in a fluid simulation using super computers or a wind tunnel with smoke along the airframe(less complex). That's what designers and engineers do during development (When the pilot said "I've got it" at 1500ft that means his hands are on the stick and he is pulling back at 3g's) Altitude, Air-pressure, Temperature, Humidity, Wind direction, Wing loading, Angle of Attack, Turn Rates are all variables to the fluid equation. I hope the pdf references help.
What got my attention was too low to eject my recollection is that aircraft has a 00 ejection seat. Also I think that audio is superimposed that doesn’t even sound like a Navy pilot to me maybe it was the company pilot for McDonnell Douglas?
Zero zero (AFAIK) get you out from zero alt and zero airspeed. If the pilot is at a low altitude and upside down it and eject him right into the ground.
To pile on to Greg's comment, if you have altitude, the seat will right itself before the chute deploys. But, as you noticed from the HUD video, he was spinning on the longitudinal axis. At the low altitude, he most likely would have ejected into the ground before the seat had a chance to straighten him out.
You are correct. However, getting out and slowing down enough not to splatter are two different things. He was headed toward the ground at 500 mph. He'd have splattered before the chute could have opened.
"most likely"? He had a 50/50 chance of ejecting with no problem. In any case all he had to do was level out, then eject. as long as he doesn't eject into the ground, not a problem. But if you're going to do acrobatics at 500 ft you might have issues
OpOpOpOpOpOpoPoPOpOPoP...! I was just stupid to try something which I already knew on that particular plane that could lead me to something like this! I'd rather say: Thank you God!
@@jleiben72 and also inverted, if he’d pulled the handle when he first departed or after the second stall, it would have put him right into the dirt and splattered him
7.5 G was the operational limit. Since he over-g he had to abort. The plane can actually do more, but every over-g weakens the airframe. Many over-g planes were converted to cannibalization for parts.
PrecisionIntermedia It was me. I was flying the new F 18 while drinking some beers when a fucking seagull got stuck on the rudder. Glad to know the thing got out quickly
Yes Danko, military planes must be tested at low altitude. This isn't flight school and the test pilot isn't a student pilot. This video shows exactly why tests like this must be performed...so that flight envelopes can be charted and procedures developed to keep fleet pilots safe.
yes flight test in tactical aircraft is literally handled by a secret fraternity of fly boys and ex mil pilots, each firm has one, lockheed has skunk, boeing has phantom, northrop has the black widows. all the test pilots come from the black world, and they are used to crashing things that don't officially exist so when they get to fly things that can be seen they do it reaaaaaaallllllll low.
That is VX-23 test and evaluation squadron out of Patuxent River. you can hear their call sign, Salty Dog As an aside, touristguy 87 has problems admitting when he is wrong on the internet
No, I guarantee he's done this MANY times before. Test pilots are the most experienced pilots they are with thousands and thousands of hours under their belts. As the name implies their job is to TEST aircraft before they are put into service. This was NOT the first F/A-18 test flight and it was not his first time in the aircraft. That plane is entirely flown by computer, thing with computers is they do exactly what they are told but it's hard to tell the F/A-18 how to fly because on paper it won't get off the ground. There are no manual controls and being an experimental flight issues can and do occour. This is why they TEST them before they put them out in the field. And just like the planes flown into battle, they have to do everything as they would do in the field and that includes low altitude flight.
Even to this day they have to modify F-18 flight software as it still can get out of control and that's never the operator's intention. Take a look at this brief from 2004 about some further improvements to the flight control computer system. ocw.mit.edu/courses/aeronautics-and-astronautics/16-885j-aircraft-systems-engineering-fall-2004/lecture-notes/sohl_mit_brief.pdf
He didn't actually decelerate all the way to 48, the Pitot tubes got into dirty air when the plane went into a spin, so the airspeed readings were wrong. He did hit the lowest speed of somewhere around 170 knots when he recovered from the spin, which is good because the hornet can still maneuver at that speed, anything slower than that and we might not be watching this footage at all. The pilot really showed his massive balls there to pull off a recover at such altitudes.
my guess is pitot error, the thing that detects wind speed and barometric pressure gave his FLCS bad readings which changed the angle of deflection on about 12 control surfaces at once, causing a deviation and loss of control, which he sensed immediately and released the stick, getting the nose down ended the vortex effect of air around the pitot sensor giving his flight computer good data again allowing the proper control surface deflections. the f-18 is designed essentially unstable, it's like being on a razors edge. the flight control computer is always about 1 fraction of a second away from taking the aircraft over and it won't let you input catastrophic fails. that being said, it's all based on sensor readings. this was a hornet a, the system was designed for the f16, a friend of mine died out at los alamos testing the f16 in ccip and ccrp from GLOC. when i see this type of hud film i think of him because of test pilots no loss of life is in vain. always learning by risking it all.
I’m guessing you were in CAT1 given no payload so your AOA limit is way off. You were also under Mach 0.85 so ur going too slow to be pulling that hard on the stick. Full deflection left or right is fine but adding any pitch like you did will stall it at those speeds. If you flew in CAT3 and manually override the WARNING RESET due to no payload being configured then you can limit your AOA more comfortably. There’s no need for such stiff turns at the slow speeds. Good luck pilot
in those kind of videos its so funny to find all sorts of "guys" that have been there, know a mechanic that worked on this plane, the cousin of the pilot or their aunt....
On pilot induced oscilation you just have a pilot comanding like pich input in a wrong maner. This was a stall/ spin thing , induced by heavy rolling at (relativly) low speed / high alfa at the end.
Tyreek Murillo I'm sure theirs a fancy name for it - but essentially.... enough roll rate + pitch angle + too much rudder + current conditions = departure from controlled flight A Hornets slow speed maneuverability is solid - but 400 knots at 3000 feet will bleed very quickly - it's not as much as it sounds... and at that speed and height, if you snap a hornets nose on all three axis youll do two things for sure. Increase alpha and Bleed energy - in this case, he went up to 43 degrees alpha, lost 250 knots in about 3 seconds and dropped about 3,000 feet His AOA will tell you a lot - at 43 degrees... it means the air is now blasting those wings and lift surfaces at... well, a 43 degree angle - and if you think of a passenger plane taking off - the plane shoots straight ahead, at an angle much closer to 5-15 degrees - air travels under and over the wings, generating lift - at the higher the AOA, the less lift you're generating and you start to dump a lot of speed - if it doesn't recover, a rock would fly no better. He's lucky he didn't depart into a flat spin, it'd of been pretty much impossible to recover.... a true credit to the pilots skill and the low speed/high alpha ability of the hornet - would have been very easy to over correct and make that situation so much worse Got to respect those pedals ;)
The fancy name is inertia coupling (Julian Neale got it right). All you need for an instant departure like this one is a sustained high roll rate. Pitch, rudder settings or wing stall are unrelated. Great video. The F-18 has control laws in place to deal with inertia coupling, but multiple 360 rolls are not a normal combat maneuver and a bit risky with most fighter aircraft.
Tyreek; It is well known in the aviation community that any aircraft can be departed from flight (wing stall) at any airspeed and at any flight attitude. What is required is that the angle of attack (AOA) be exceeded to the point that is critical. In most GA airplanes the critical AOA is about 17 degrees. The critical AOA is defined as the maximum angle between the wing's chord line and its flight path. The cord is the average line from the leading edge of the wing to the trailing edge. This can occur at any flight attitude, straight up, straight down, upside down etc. All that is required is a critical angle of attack. It can be at a slow airspeed or at a high airspeed. If you are flying very fast straight and level and suddenly honk back on the stick, the critical angle can be reached instantly. Here, the pilot was going 400 when he started the aileron rolls.
