Thunderbirds radomes appearing at shows without paint

[tigisfat]

check the solo aircraft out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_7jr07tDA8&feature=quicklist

I wonder what's going on.

[smoores]

Maybe some sort shortage of painted noses or something?

[Toastmaker]

DoD budget restrictions. . . paint costs money.

:kilroy:

[tigisfat]

Maybe some sort shortage of painted noses or something?

That nose is nothing more than a radome. They appeared several times this year with grey nose radomes. My best guess is that they are going through them so fast for some reason that they can't keep the painted ones on. That's usually our story when we have odd colored parts flying around on the jets. Usually we only do that when a jet is needed IMMEDIATELY, and then the part gets painted later. I don't know about their multiple jets and appearances like this though.

[PRB]

I don't see any crowd... Practice? Planes's areen't painted up for air show day yet?

[GT182]

Nope, that so called unpainted one was hot doggin it and got caught up in somebodies afterburner..... burnt the paint right off. Now as punishment he's got to go to all the shows with no nose paint. Embarassssing fer him.

[djscoo]

http://www.f-16.net/news_article3356.html
They were damaged by inclement weather and the replacements were flown in...no time to slap some paint on before the show. Nice try GT182 lol...:173go1:

[Panther_99FS]

I wonder what's going on.

Your answer is below :)

--> http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123143071

"...inclement weather damaged five of the aircraft's noses."

(You beat me to it djscoo) :)

[AckAck]

Is that why #4 is the two-seater also?

Brian

[tigisfat]

That's somewhat dissapointing to find that kind of airmanship displayed by them. Oh well, I guess if there's an aircraft you'd want to go through a thunderstorm in, it'd be a fighter. The high wing loading makes it easier.

[Falcon10]

That's somewhat dissapointing to find that kind of airmanship displayed by them. Oh well, I guess if there's an aircraft you'd want to go through a thunderstorm in, it'd be a fighter. The high wing loading makes it easier.


Que? Poor airmanship?

[tigisfat]

Que? Poor airmanship?

Absolutely. No pilot has any business in a thunderstorm, no matter the skill or aircraft. As a flight instructor, I can tell you that every syllabus used includes the FAA's mandatory lessons about avoidance. Most instructors teach that thunderstorms should be avoided by 20NM.

To make the decision to fly through a thunderstorm because you think you'll make it or it won't be that bad is HORRIBLE decision making and poor airmanship.

To inadvertantly end up in a thunderstorm for any reason means the same.

The only way that radome damage like this occurs (and I'm speaking from experience) is from flying through areas painted with heavy rain or hail. The rain inside a cell is such that even at landing speeds it will wreck radar absorbent structures.

There's no way around the fact that this is a display of poor airmanship.

[Panther_99FS]

There's no way around the fact that this is a display of poor airmanship.

Is that what the mishap/safety report stated? :engel016:

[Falcon10]

Chalk me up to one of those with poor airmanship. I will disagree with you on this subject.

[Panther_99FS]

Chalk me up to one of those with poor airmanship. I will disagree with you on this subject.

Disagree with whom?
Without seeing the mishap report, I won't make a decision one way or the other....

[Falcon10]

Sorry panther I was responding to tigisfat.

[Panther_99FS]

No worries...
I'm a firm believer in mis-understandings when you can't see any body language :)

[tigisfat]

might I ask why you disagree? I just got done speaking with a weapons school graduate who agrees with me.

[Panther_99FS]

What we don't know is the following:
a) Was it unexpected weather?
b) Did they have enough fuel to divert?
c) Did area ATC vector them away or no?


Unkown factor:
The report is dated 6 April. The airshow was 4-5 April. The 6 April report stated "inclement weather 2 days ago" (meaning 4 April). I've never known the Thunderbirds to arrive the DAY of an airshow. They're at least 24 hours early.

These are but a few factors as to why I don't make a decision one way or the other until after the mishap report..

[tigisfat]

What we don't know is the following:
a) Was it unexpected weather?
That doesn't matter. These things are very hard to explain to someone who isn't a pilot. I don't mean any offense by assuming you're not, I apologize if you are. Anyway, a PIC's responsibilities do not have any accords for accidentally encountering weather. There are way too many resources available to pilots of all kinds before and during a flight. With these aviators, the onboard radar really ices the cake.


b) Did they have enough fuel to divert?If they did not have enough fuel to divert, they were flying illegaly. That would be another display of poor airmanship. You are right though, let us not assume things like that until we hear more. We may never hear more though, given the public eyes on the T-birds.



c) Did area ATC vector them away or no?ATC's primary and first responsibility before all others is separating IFR traffic. Everything else falls in behind, such as separating VFR traffic and guiding pilots around weather. No matter what the case, it again falls onto the PIC's shoulders to not accept any ATC instruction which, if followed out, would jeopardize the safety of the flight. Even if ATC vectored them directly into a super cell, it is still their fault. Those without radar don't fly into areas where you cannot see t-storms (IMC/night)and the prevailing atmospheric conditions are conducive to their formation. Those with radar REALLY don't have an excuse.




The report is dated 6 April. The airshow was 4-5 April. The 6 April report stated "inclement weather 2 days ago" (meaning 4 April). I've never known the Thunderbirds to arrive the DAY of an airshow. They're at least 24 hours early.:

I've seen them arrive the day of, I've seen them arrive the day before and not practice, and I've seen them arrive three days before to begin practicing. I don't know how they choose what they'll do. Many years ago I saw them perform an 'arrival' show at the beginning of the travis airshow in the morning, then perform a 'departure' show at the end of the afternoon. Both shows were short, like if you cut the show in half. They literally weren't at the show before they began the arrival show, and landed for a few hours, then left without stopping for gas immediately after the departure show. Who knows.



These are but a few factors as to why I don't make a decision one way or the other until after the mishap report..It really is hard to explain a pilot's responsibilities to a non-pilot. If they flew their aircraft into conditions which damaged them, they are at fault. This is a case where they are guilty (because of the radome damage) and must prove innocence. Right now, I can't think of any combination of factors which would relinquish them of their responsibility to not fly their aircraft into damaging weather.

Where's N2056? I'd sure like to hear his take on this. I don't know if he's an instrument guy or an instructor or not though.

[Panther_99FS]

Dang Tigisfat...
With folks like you, we can cut through a lot of our fluff & manhour losses by eliminating mishap boards & investigations.

I think you should submit it to the IDEA program :)

Frankly, I'm confused as to why someone with your experience would make a condemining decision without examining any mishap board data...

[redriver6]

Absolutely. No pilot has any business in a thunderstorm, no matter the skill or aircraft. As a flight instructor, I can tell you that every syllabus used includes the FAA's mandatory lessons about avoidance. Most instructors teach that thunderstorms should be avoided by 20NM.

To make the decision to fly through a thunderstorm because you think you'll make it or it won't be that bad is HORRIBLE decision making and poor airmanship.

To inadvertantly end up in a thunderstorm for any reason means the same.

The only way that radome damage like this occurs (and I'm speaking from experience) is from flying through areas painted with heavy rain or hail. The rain inside a cell is such that even at landing speeds it will wreck radar absorbent structures.

There's no way around the fact that this is a display of poor airmanship.

is there any way around the fact that just maybe the Thunderbirds were not airborne during the hailstorm...in fact just exactly where did you read they were flying during this incident?


April 6, 2009 (by Capt. Jason McCree) - After inclement weather damaged five Thunderbird aircraft upon their arrival to Keesler Air Force Base, Miss., for the base's air show -- a display of teamwork happened behind the scenes.

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2009/apr/04/thunderbirds-highlight-air-show/



The aerial team arrived Thursday in their F16 Fighting Falcon jets from their home base at Nellis Air Force Base in Las Vegas, just ahead of hail and other severe weather.
"We were expecting it," said Thunderbird No. 4 Sean Gustafson, the first Reservist to fly with the Thunderbirds. The planes took off from Las Vegas and refueled in midair and made it to Biloxi just ahead of the large hail storm. The weather is expected to be better for the air show.

[tigisfat]

If they weren't flying, then why do the articles explain that damage was almost exclusively to the radomes? If hail fell on top of the parked aircraft, then I'd assume there would be more damage. I've also come to know that the T-birds request hangar space. YOu could be right though. I'm used to aircraft where many structures are as weak as the radomes. Maybe the radomes on F-16s are just weak and they did recieve hail from above while on the ground.

[tigisfat]

Dang Tigisfat...
With folks like you, we can cut through a lot of our fluff & manhour losses by eliminating mishap boards & investigations.

I think you should submit it to the IDEA program :)

Frankly, I'm confused as to why someone with your experience would make a condemining decision without examining any mishap board data...



No, that's fine. I can completely understand why this is hard to explain to someone who's not in aviation. I'd still like N2056 to swing by; I'd like to know what he thinks.

[PRB]

If they flew through it, I might expect to see more damage to other parts of the plane, like leading edges. Radomes might only receive "glancing blows" from ice cubes while in flight and may get less damage. Just a thought. Radomes are covered with "rubbery stuff" which may have been ripped by the hail, requiring thier replacement. Maybe the hail stones weren't big enough to cause dents in the metal bits. Maybe they had to replace a couple canopys too. Maybe the news reporter didn't exactly get all the facts correct to begin with (shocker!!)

[redriver6]

Maybe the news reporter didn't exactly get all the facts correct to begin with (shocker!!)

hmm i think the article said 5 aircraft were damaged...but i only see 2 gray radomes..

http://www.keesler.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/090406-F-6737G-051.JPG

[Panther_99FS]

No, that's fine. I can completely understand why this is hard to explain to someone who's not in aviation.

It has absolutely nothing to do with "not being in aviation". As a comm expert, I don't even make conclusions on comm events until after I see all the data.

The reason for mishap boards & investigations to exist are exactly for occasions like these & then some. They exist to gather all the facts & then make a conclusion.

A good investigator won't come to a determination/conclusion until after all the facts have been gathered - then if it's poor airmanship, so be it. But again, the determination won't be made until AFTER all the evidence is gathered & analyzed.

[tigisfat]

Noone's jumping to conclusions, if they did in fact fly through a t-storm, then it was poor airmanship. You keep mentioning a mishap board; I'd be shocked if there was one.

[Panther_99FS]

You keep mentioning a mishap board; I'd be shocked if there was one.

Without knowing the cost of the noses, one of the following *should* be in order:

1) Class B Mishap: Total mishap cost is $200,000 or more and less than $1,000,000.

2) Class C Mishap: Cost of reported damage is between $20,000 and $200,000


<NOBR></NOBR>

[tigisfat]

Without knowing the cost of the noses, one of the following *should* be in order:

1) Class B Mishap: Total mishap cost is $200,000 or more and less than $1,000,000.

2) Class C Mishap: Cost of reported damage is between $20,000 and $200,000


<NOBR></NOBR>




It doesn't work like that. If we did a Class A mishap style investigation every time a part that costs more than a million dollars was replaced due to damage, the figures would be pretty ugly. That happens on a daily basis at our base alone; jillion dollar parts are constantly being replaced due to damage. That's not to say that pilots or maintainers are neglectful, but these parts are all in the 100's of thousands and millions, and they don't last forever; and we must remember the current usage. Usually someone has to be pissed off at someone else's behavior for there to be declared a mishap.

[tigisfat]

Reddriver6, I only saw two in the video I linked to as well. They make it sound like there are more.

[PRB]

... Usually someone has to be pissed off at someone else for there to be declared mishap.

Right ...


... If we did a Class A mishap style investigation every time a part that costs more than a million dollars was replaced due to damage, the figures would be pretty ugly. That happens on a daily basis at our base alone...

Time to cancel the B-1 program!

:icon_eek: :icon_lol:

[tigisfat]

Right ...



Time to cancel the B-1 program!

:icon_eek: :icon_lol:Nah, the B-1B is the world's most versatile and deadly bomber. No other weapons system can do what it does. It does have an aweful lot of million dollar parts that don't last forever though.

[Panther_99FS]

It doesn't work like that. If we did a Class A mishap style investigation every time a part that costs more than a million dollars was replaced due to damage, the figures would be pretty ugly. That happens on a daily basis at our base alone; jillion dollar parts are constantly being replaced due to damage. That's not to say that pilots or maintainers are neglectful, but these parts are all in the 100's of thousands and millions, and they don't last forever; and we must remember the current usage. Usually someone has to be pissed off at someone else's behavior for there to be declared a mishap.

Okay you win....I give up on this... :)

[tigisfat]

Okay you win....I give up on this... :)


We've had a few disagreements here:

I'm more than willing to admit when I'm wrong and you're right, and I'm sure that you know more than I do about certain things. It doesn't seem as if you're willing to so the same. It's almost by principal that you refuse to acknowledge that there are things I may know more about than you. I love a good debate, but the 'whatever' response (as given above) almost seems like quitting a losing game to avoid an actual loss. I do have no doubt, however, that you'd move in for the kill when a win is assured. Regardless, I do hope these discussions/debates are all in good fun and humor to you; they are to me. You learn something you wish you would have known before every time you're proven wrong, right?

[Panther_99FS]

It's almost by principal that you refuse to acknowledge that there are things I may know more about than you. I love a good debate, but the 'whatever' response (as given above) almost seems like quitting a losing game to avoid an actual loss.

You're absolutely correct....

I'm wrong on all accounts...

[Moparmike]

I'd like to know what he thinks.

Well, I'll tell ya what I think...
This thread is starting to get kinda ugly.

So two T-bird F-16s are flying with replacement radomes due to damage from inclement weather. Without more info everyone here is just guessing and starting to get kinda grouchy in close quarters. Time to get some space and talk about something else for a while.

Sorry guys, this one is closed.