Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Belgian Air Force F-16 destroyed by fire during maintenance

aviation24.be

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 130 posts

Re: Belgian Air Force F-16 destroyed by fire during maintenance

#111

Post by escherplex »

kwhitefoot wrote: post #56
Jerry2 wrote: post #28

This reminded me of Taffy Holden, UK's RAF technician, who in 1966 accidentally took off in Lightning after making an error. English Electric Lightning was one of the fastest fighter jets of its time. > The account has been widely published across the internet, but we make no apology for running the story here, as it’s a fascinating tale and it’s good to hear the original account of how Taffy Holden, an RAF Engineeri…

Brilliant! That's the kind of people and story we need more of. But he wasn't a technician, he was an engineering officer and qualified pilot (though not on the Lightning) and commanding officer of the unit in question.

Or stories like the one about the TUI Airways pilot who managed to land a Boeing 757-200 at Bristol airport on October 12 with a 40kt crosswind:

https://videos.metro.co.uk/video/met/2018/10/14/876690853828...

Re: Belgian Air Force F-16 destroyed by fire during maintenance

#112

Post by stinos »

Tharkun wrote: post #35
AlexanderDhoore wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As rutgerv said, there is some controversy about what the future of Belgian air force looks like. Do we maintain current planes? Do we buy new ones? If yes, which ones? Does Belgium even need these weapons? Very difficult political questions. I'm not saying this has anything to do with it. But at least that's the context.

These are not difficult political questions. The US through NATO are forcing Belgium to buy F35s, and that'll be that. Out of all the jets allegedly in the running, only F35s can be used to drop US nukes. The very same US nukes which have been sitting around in Belgium for decades. The worst best kept secret in the country. No politician is willing/allowed to go on record about this, so they all pretend other jets ar…

The very same US nukes which have been sitting around in Belgium for decades

So are the current F16 able to drop these? Or which other planes during those decades?

Re: Belgian Air Force F-16 destroyed by fire during maintenance

#113

Post by wiz21c »

Joeri wrote: post #34
tschwimmer wrote: post #7

I took a look at the US Air Force subreddit[0] and lots of people who maintain these jets are skeptical as to the accidental nature of this incident. According to several comments there are many physical failsafes that would need to be deactivated in order for this to happen. The incident occurred in Belgium but it’s hard to believe their F-16s are significantly different. [0] https://reddit.com/r/AirForce/comments/9…

The military leadership in belgium also commented that it had to be a very unlucky combination of circumstances, but they didn’t want to say more without further investigation.

Note that the belgiam army wants to buy new war planes sooner or later and that the whole buying procedure has been affected by mismanagment, unclear pressures, etc. (as reported in the local news). So this could be done on intent to discredit the F16, etc.

Re: Belgian Air Force F-16 destroyed by fire during maintenance

#114

Post by stinos »

the-dude wrote: post #95
Yeri wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that related?

Another strange incident in Belgian critical infrastructure.

I wouldn't call the F16 critical. They might even never have been used for an actual mission within Belgium. That nuclear plant though, that is something else. Perhaps also not critical from a 'need this or no more electricity' point of view, but safety-wise this a couple of magnitudes worse than an F16. Word on the street, apparently originating from people working there, is that it has something to do with Engie/France showing off they can do whatever they want.

Re: Belgian Air Force F-16 destroyed by fire during maintenance

#115

Post by bitwalker »

metaphor wrote: post #74
Jerry2 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they needed to do something stupid or the weight-on-wheels switch needed to malfunction. Actually, the F-16 has a switch to override the 'weight on wheels' (WOW) safety for the weapons. It's used for doing checks and maintenance on the ground. Switch was probably flipped and it did what it was supposed to do. You can see the procedure here: http://aviationandaccessories.tpub.com/TM-1-1510-224-10/css/...

The reference cited is from the wrong airframe. The correct manual for Belgian F-16s will be either a GS (general system; theory of operations) or JG (job guide; step-by-step procedural instructions) technical order of the form T.O. 1F-16AM-2- x where x = [system][GS or JG]-[subsystem]-[manual]. If memory serves correct, F-16 WOW switch override is strictly an external affair and cannot be performed from the cockpit.

It has to be done from outside the cockpit, but is not unusual as a prerequisite step for a variety of avionics systems tests and repairs (source: I'm an ex-USAF F-16C/D avionics maintainer). They may have had it overridden for a check, or if deliberate, done so prior to entering the cockpit.

Re: Belgian Air Force F-16 destroyed by fire during maintenance

#116

Post by valesco »

koonsolo wrote: post #109
Joeri wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They mobilized 20% of the male population, built large modern fortifications and had a strong air force. The germans just had better weapons and better tactics and rolled over them in 18 days. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Belgium

My Flemisch grandad was in the second WW. Back then all official things in Belgium were in French. Can you imagine a Flemisch farmer getting French instructions? Must have been real chaos I suppose.

So many nationalities served in so many armies with officers that didn't speak their own language (think of the USSR, the Italian colonies, the French colonies, the British colonies, the French enlisted in the RAF in WW2...). It isn't so hard to understand military orders when you're doing it on a daily basis.

Re: Belgian Air Force F-16 destroyed by fire during maintenance

#117

Post by jtbayly »

amelius wrote: post #67
Jerry2 wrote: post #28

This reminded me of Taffy Holden, UK's RAF technician, who in 1966 accidentally took off in Lightning after making an error. English Electric Lightning was one of the fastest fighter jets of its time. > The account has been widely published across the internet, but we make no apology for running the story here, as it’s a fascinating tale and it’s good to hear the original account of how Taffy Holden, an RAF Engineeri…

Any chance he just couldn't resist to fly that plane?

With the canopy off? I doubt it!

Re: Belgian Air Force F-16 destroyed by fire during maintenance

#118

Post by arthurcolle »

cptskippy wrote: post #100
Jerry2 wrote: post #28

This reminded me of Taffy Holden, UK's RAF technician, who in 1966 accidentally took off in Lightning after making an error. English Electric Lightning was one of the fastest fighter jets of its time. > The account has been widely published across the internet, but we make no apology for running the story here, as it’s a fascinating tale and it’s good to hear the original account of how Taffy Holden, an RAF Engineeri…

That quote makes it sound more deliberate and less a terrifying accident. The Lightning was a high speed interceptor tasked to shoot down nuclear bombers, to say it was fast is an understatement. He wasn't certified to fly that aircraft and was troubleshooting an electrical problem that couldn't be reproduced in the hanger. So he was taking short taxis down a closed portion of runway without a canopy. The equivalent…

> new guy thrown into production support

Re: Belgian Air Force F-16 destroyed by fire during maintenance

#119

Post by elabajaba »

jnurmine wrote: post #50
Tharkun wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not many countries are capable of building their own fighter jets. Many use hand-me-downs from the US or Russia. Some more 'favoured' partners can buy them outright, but terms & conditions apply... There are rumours about US intervention/approval being required when loading the F35 computer with mission details..

But in Europe there are several fighter programs. These include JAS 39 (from SAAB in Sweden), Eurofighter Typhoon (from BAE, Airbus and Leonardo; Great Britain, Germany, Spain, Italy), Raphael (from Dassault in France). They are not strictly 100% European manufacture, I suppose, but could very well be. There being several domestic European options, obtaining hardware from USA seems counter-productive. The F35 are ver…

The F-35 is vastly superior compared to any of the planes you listed (due to much better sensors, stealth (way lower radar cross section, meaning radars will only detect it once it is much closer vs a non stealth fighter), radar, sensor fusion, datalink with other aircraft, payload(due to having massive internal fuel tanks and much better sensors, while 4th gen fighters need to carry external fuel tanks and a targeting pod to complete air to ground missions)) as well as being cheaper than all but the Gripen (with the Gripen currently being the least capable).

Re: Belgian Air Force F-16 destroyed by fire during maintenance

#120

Post by RyJones »

CydeWeys wrote: post #68
RyJones wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Breaking one rule of firearm safety won't lead to death or injury. Breaking two at the same time might. It is not one failure. It is at least two.

In the case of firearms it might be 3 or more rules you'd have to break simultaneously to experience a negligent injurious discharge: Don't point the gun at something you don't intend to shoot, don't keep a gun loaded unless necessary, don't put your finger on the trigger until preparing to shoot, and use the gun's manual safety if it has one.

Sure. I wanted to avoid the argument over Cooper rules versus NRA rules; I wanted to emphasize that regardless of the rules you use, you need to break multiple rules. The rules interlock.
Post reply on HN