Need help with proper terminology

[story]

In a section of a book I'm working on, two very inexperienced pilots try to turn their fighter jets (F-16's . . . or something comparable) around to take a second pass at a ground target. They're flying through a lightly populated area with some high buildings, so the mistakes they make don't have to be ones that would put down the aircraft completely . . . it could simply be a mistake that ends up heading one (or both) into a building face.

What possible things (plural) might they have done to lose control in a sharp turn, and what would be the result to the plane?

I'm very interested in the right terms involved as their planes fail: ailerons, fairings, flaps, spoilers, etc.. These types of specifics will help me avoid generic lines like, "one pilot tried to turn to fast and lost control." Blah.

TIA for any replies!
~john

PS: I know it's a novice question, but the book is one which covers a lot of areas (physics, biology, philosophy, aviation, etc.) And I need to consult experts when I have questions--since the experts are the ones who will provide not only the right info, but the right "slang" -- since the words I choose are important, too.

 

[zeven]

In a section of a book I'm working on, two very inexperienced pilots try to turn their fighter jets (F-16's . . . or something comparable) around to take a second pass at a ground target. They're flying through a lightly populated area with some high buildings, so the mistakes they make don't have to be ones that would put down the aircraft completely . . . it could simply be a mistake that ends up heading one (or both) into a building face.

What possible things (plural) might they have done to lose control in a sharp turn, and what would be the result to the plane?

I'm very interested in the right terms involved as their planes fail: ailerons, fairings, flaps, spoilers, etc.. These types of specifics will help me avoid generic lines like, "one pilot tried to turn to fast and lost control." Blah.

TIA for any replies!
~john

PS: I know it's a novice question, but the book is one which covers a lot of areas (physics, biology, philosophy, aviation, etc.) And I need to consult experts when I have questions--since the experts are the ones who will provide not only the right info, but the right "slang" -- since the words I choose are important, too.

That is one hard question. because you've plenty of outcomes from each decision the pilots make. the first that comes into my mind is "pilot error" most platforms are restricted in terms of AoA and high 9s. the Gripen crash (93 i believe) under stockholm waterfestival is a great trademark. here the flight control system combined with PIO error caused the crash, this could have been avoided if the pilot had more authority over the aricraft. Pilot didnt know the pre-configurated restrictions in advance good enough. important to know is: a plane crash very rarely accure because of one error, its often multiply events/errors that cause a plane to crash.

 

[story]

That is one hard question. because you've plenty of outcomes from each decision the pilots make. the first that comes into my mind is "pilot error" most platforms are restricted in terms of AoA and high 9s. the Gripen crash (93 i believe) under stockholm waterfestival is a great trademark. here the flight control system combined with PIO error caused the crash, this could have been avoided if the pilot had more authority over the aricraft. Pilot didnt know the pre-configurated restrictions in advance good enough. important to know is: a plane crash very rarely accure because of one error, its often multiply events/errors that cause a plane to crash.

Thanks, Zeven, for the reply! It's exactly that kind of info that will help build a technically accurate passage in the book. I'd love to hear more . . .

~john

 

[zeven]

In this forum you have very well eduacated ppl. just ask them what ever your question is, i will do my best to answer aswell you can PM me if you want. and if im not qualified to answer i will let you know.

 

[gf0012-aust]

important to know is: a plane crash very rarely accure because of one error, its often multiply events/errors that cause a plane to crash.

well put. its usually a series of smaller events that concatenate and lead up to a final larger event.

 

[DeltaSPARTAN003]

well put. its usually a series of smaller events that concatenate and lead up to a final larger event.

The "wake" of an aircrafts engines can be a factor, If there flying at such low altitudes, this isn't a training mission right? No military aircraft can fly at that level, unless engaged in battle. Can you flash out this scenario a bit more?

 

[Kilo 2-3]

The "wake" of an aircrafts engines can be a factor, If there flying at such low altitudes, this isn't a training mission right? No military aircraft can fly at that level, unless engaged in battle. Can you flash out this scenario a bit more?

Someone's been watching Top Gun, I see.

Yes, jetwash can be a factor, especially with compressor-stall prone engines like the ones the F-14As originally had. However, if a pilot's engine did flameout for this reason at low altitude, it's likely that he would probably try to point his aircraft away from the buildings and would then eject.

As for the altitude restriction issue. The US FAA has a minimum altitude requirements for flight over US cities, and in times of peace, the US military must obey these rules. For these pilots to be skimming buildings in the CONUS would likely result in their grounding, complaints and possibly a lawsuit against the Air Force. The pilots would probably face an Article 15 or a court-martial and could lose their careers as well as with their wings.

However, on ranges like Nellis the Air Force used to (don't know if they still do it now) work pilots down to flying at low altitude. At first crews had 500 foot minimums, then 250 foot minimums, and once they were ready, 100 foot minimums. So, yes a military aircraft can fly fairly low, even if its "not engaged in battle." Still, they wouldn't be this low over a city in peacetime.

The best reason I could come up with for their being so low in such cluttered and hazardous terrain would be if the enemy had massive amounts of active SAMs and AAA. Maybe some kind of "Fall of Eastern Europe" type scenario with NATO F-16s flying in low over Sarajevo or Belgrade.

Anyhow, you wanted some lingo. The pilot would probably have suffered a "controlled flight into terrain" basically a fancy way of saying "pilot error, he flew into the ground"

 

[yasar]

pakistan air force capability

Someone's been watching Top Gun, I see.

Yes, jetwash can be a factor, especially with compressor-stall prone engines like the ones the F-14As originally had. However, if a pilot's engine did flameout for this reason at low altitude, it's likely that he would probably try to point his aircraft away from the buildings and would then eject.

As for the altitude restriction issue. The US FAA has a minimum altitude requirements for flight over US cities, and in times of peace, the US military must obey these rules. For these pilots to be skimming buildings in the CONUS would likely result in their grounding, complaints and possibly a lawsuit against the Air Force. The pilots would probably face an Article 15 or a court-martial and could lose their careers as well as with their wings.

However, on ranges like Nellis the Air Force used to (don't know if they still do it now) work pilots down to flying at low altitude. At first crews had 500 foot minimums, then 250 foot minimums, and once they were ready, 100 foot minimums. So, yes a military aircraft can fly fairly low, even if its "not engaged in battle." Still, they wouldn't be this low over a city in peacetime.

The best reason I could come up with for their being so low in such cluttered and hazardous terrain would be if the enemy had massive amounts of active SAMs and AAA. Maybe some kind of "Fall of Eastern Europe" type scenario with NATO F-16s flying in low over Sarajevo or Belgrade.

Anyhow, you wanted some lingo. The pilot would probably have suffered a "controlled flight into terrain" basically a fancy way of saying "pilot error, he flew into the ground"

hi i am new to this forum can u tell me whether paf able to coupe with indian air force abilities as shown in vayo shakti 2010

 

[DeltaSPARTAN003]

Someone's been watching Top Gun, I see.

Yes, jetwash can be a factor, especially with compressor-stall prone engines like the ones the F-14As originally had.

A little something like this?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLyR6kuqfzU"]Jetwash...[/ame]

 

[irtusk]

look through the accident reports to get some ideas

AIB REPORTS


at night it is very easy to pull a 'controlled flight into terrain'

birds are always a hazard

in mountainous areas you have to be aware of cables for cable cars (even if you don't crash, you might cause an international incident)

if it's a high city (like denver), you might forget you need more height on your altimeter before you perform a stunt, otherwise you might try to do a loop and find the ground is there to meet you sooner than you expect

gloc is a big one

lose track of each other and suffer a mid-air collision. one aircraft is destroyed, but the other plane, even though it lost a wing, is able to miraculously fly back to base