Thai Air Force fighter jet crashes, pilot killed

[Buchholz]

It is a first rate aircraft, but it is not new

The F-16 fighter jet was introduced 36 years ago in 1974

To amplify my post, the fighter jet that crashed was an F-16A from the 4th Air Wing.

The F-16A fighter jet was introduced 25 years ago in 1985.

[Tokay]

I wonder why he could not eject?

I didn't even know Thailand had active fighter jets.

[Tigs]

Bird strike comes to mind.. F-16 is also single engine, pilots like to try to save the craft rather than eject. Hitting a mountain would indicate something distracted the pilot.

Whilst a bird strike is a distinct possibility, your comment concerning Pilots preferring to save the aircraft rather than eject is totally wrong. I guarantee that if the Pilot had time to think at all, then knowing his aircraft was going down in mountains, he would have pulled the handle and been out. The speculation on here is just totally unnecessary. A board of Inquiry will be convened and an investigation carried out, until then the causes and factors involved in the tragedy remain unknown to anyone.

There are also what appears to be some attempts at some sort of sicko humour, such as "maybe e couldn't read the instructions in English", a comment which is pretty inappropriate really!

RIP

[ukfool]

Let's hope their board of enquiry gives people the truth, I know, I know

[Tigs]

UKfool

To be honest I guess as long as the military learn the truth and the family learns the truth that's the important thing. In terms of future accident prevention it would be nice if the Thai Air Force disclose the truthful details for the use of other Air Forces operating F-16's, or if there is a large Human Factors element involved, we could all learn from it. I understand your reservations though.

[Buchholz]

The body of just recently wedded Flight Lieutenant Thanikorn Luengrungwari being transported to Bangkok for his funeral:

[Buchholz]

F-16 Crash Viewers Warned of Radioactive Leak

Air force officials have notified individuals who viewed the crashed F-16 jet fighter wreckage in Tak province to quickly seek medical attention if they develop any irregular symptoms as the wreckage is feared to have emitted radioactivity.

Following the crash of the F-16 jet fighter in Tak province yesterday that killed the pilot Flight Lieutenant Thanikorn Luengrungwari, the Chiang Mai-based 41st Air Base Commander Group Captain Prayut Thammathiwat said the crashed F-16 is one of the four jets that took off from Nakhon Sawan in a flight exercise.

However, when the aircraft flew into a turbulence, the pilot lost control, resulting in the crash.

The other three jets landed safely.

The official cause of the crash must be confirmed by air force officials who are currently examining the wreckage of the 1.6 billion-baht jet fighter.

Meanwhile, air force officials have warned salvation crews, locals and members of the press who viewed the wreckage to observe any health irregularity since radioactive Hydrosyn substance was found to have leaked from the wreckage.

Individuals who develop facial burns and bitterness in their throats are recommended to quickly seek medical attention.

-- Tan Network 2010-10-19

[peecee]

Sad loss of a brave fighter who dies for his country,

Now he is on his last flight. R.I.P.

I never new him so cannot comment on how brave he was, I know a lot of aircrew killed in non combat flying and all but the guy's at low level had made r/t report's on the incident. This therefore suggests a catastrophic failure that rendered the pilot unable to eject. Transiting at medium level tends to illiminate bird strikes but a high soaring eagle at 450kts can go through the canopy and take out the pilot, The sad truth is that military aviation always has an element of risk that is far greater than civil flying.

[Buchholz]

to observe any health irregularity since radioactive Hydrosyn substance was found to have leaked from the wreckage.

Can only find reference to Hydosyn used as a lubricant, grease, or hydraulic fluid, so not sure where they are getting the notion that it is radioactive.

[Thongkorn]

maybe he was concentrating on his instruments , i don't know about the F16 but most UK planes have ground hugging Equipment , so that it is one less thing to worry about . but even that could have go wrong, things do go wrong even to the best pilots, RIP to the man he died in the employment for his country .

[Tigs]

to observe any health irregularity since radioactive Hydrosyn substance was found to have leaked from the wreckage.

Can only find reference to Hydosyn used as a lubricant, grease, or hydraulic fluid, so not sure where they are getting the notion that it is radioactive.

They spelled it wrong. They meant to say, hydrazine, a very toxic substance, often used in rocket propellants, it presents the greatest hazard at any F-16 crash site.

[bangon04]

I wonder why he could not eject?

I didn't even know Thailand had active fighter jets.

Apparently they do - according to the report they seem to have 60 (F16s, not counting all the other aircraft types), and they want us to think that they are all operational at the same time. Unfortunately none o fthem can land on the Royal Thai Aircraft Carrier. or can they do that too?

Amazing Thailand .

[Tigs]

I wonder why he could not eject?

I didn't even know Thailand had active fighter jets.

Apparently they do - according to the report they seem to have 60 (F16s, not counting all the other aircraft types), and they want us to think that they are all operational at the same time. Unfortunately none o fthem can land on the Royal Thai Aircraft Carrier. or can they do that too?

Amazing Thailand .

The F-16 was not designed for carrier operations, and the Royal Thai Carrier, is designed to take Harrier/Av8s and helicopters anyway. Furthermore, any Air Force with 60 fighter/bombers such as the F-16 cannot hope to have them all servicable at the same time. Out of 60 then to have 40 servicable would be excellent, the rest would be on varying levels of servicing/maintenance or simply used as spare parts to keep the others going.

So what's your point? or are you just trying to have a go at them for no reason?

[Buchholz]

to observe any health irregularity since radioactive Hydrosyn substance was found to have leaked from the wreckage.

Can only find reference to Hydosyn used as a lubricant, grease, or hydraulic fluid, so not sure where they are getting the notion that it is radioactive.

They spelled it wrong. They meant to say, hydrazine, a very toxic substance, often used in rocket propellants, it presents the greatest hazard at any F-16 crash site.

It can certainly be a quiz show sometimes trying to sort out what is meant in these reports. If they did mean hydrazine, while it is toxic, it's not radioactive.

With such an improper knowledge base, it is more incentive to NOT have nuclear reactors in Thailand.

[Tigs]

It can certainly be a quiz show sometimes trying to sort out what is meant in these reports. If they did mean hydrazine, while it is toxic, it's not radioactive.

Spot on. It is Hydrazine by the way, it is a well known hazard at all F-16 crash sites but dissipates eventually. In this instance the only people it will damage are locals who go in to the forest and start wandering around the wreckage straight away. I have been scratching my head over what might be radioactive, and apart from the luminous paint on the standby artificial horizon or the pilots watch (tongue firmly in cheek!), there is nothing on the aircraft that would present a radioactive hazard, unless..............they were carrying something that nobody knows about!!....but my opinion is, it is just crap reporting, so situation normal.

Anymore news Hawkup2000?

Edited October 20, 2010 by Tigs

[zorro1]

It can certainly be a quiz show sometimes trying to sort out what is meant in these reports. If they did mean hydrazine, while it is toxic, it's not radioactive.

Spot on. It is Hydrazine by the way, it is a well known hazard at all F-16 crash sites but dissipates eventually. In this instance the only people it will damage are locals who go in to the forest and start wandering around the wreckage straight away. I have been scratching my head over what might be radioactive, and apart from the luminous paint on the standby artificial horizon or the pilots watch (tongue firmly in cheek!), there is nothing on the aircraft that would present a radioactive hazard, unless..............they were carrying something that nobody knows about!!....but my opinion is, it is just crap reporting, so situation normal.

Anymore news Hawkup2000?

Tigs you mentioned not to speculate however your doing it your self, its just normal on a forum. You sound like you may be a fellow pilot. If so can you explain this

"However, when the aircraft flew into a turbulence, the pilot lost control, resulting in the crash"

That doesn't sound right.

[Hawkup2000]

Zorro1

TIgs didn't mentioned not to speculate, I did.

Tigs

No, there is no news at the moment from my side. I'm not in the circle of the "need-to know". I could ask; but I don't want to stick my nose in this business and come of as a vulture.

[Tigs]

Zorro1

Tigs you mentioned not to speculate however your doing it your self, its just normal on a forum. You sound like you may be a fellow pilot. If so can you explain this

"However, when the aircraft flew into a turbulence, the pilot lost control, resulting in the crash"

That doesn't sound right.

Yes, i was a mil pilot for many years. Just one point. Read my posts, at no time have I speculated on anything that could remotely be attached to the cause of crash. I have stated some facts concerning Hydrazine, a reply concerning a poster that seems to think the F-16 is a carrier aircraft, and as was stated, a very tongue in cheek comment aimed at the journo's from the Thai newspapers who are telling us there was some form of radhaz from the aircraft. So I haven't been speculating at all.

Re your comment above. You say I sound like a fellow pilot, if that means that you are one, then why on earth would you want me to explain the turbulence issue?

I won't speculate on the crash. There have been many instances in the past where aircraft have indeed lost control, some temporarily and some encounters have been catastrophic. Turbulence comes in many forms and many degrees of severity. I have no idea of the weather conditions, I have no idea of the altitude of the aircraft. If you are a pilot you will be fully familiar with turbulence caued by Thunderstorms, clear air turbulence, standing waves, micro bursts etc. Unless there is a picture of weather conditions it is impossible to say. Were there Cumulonimbus clouds around, were there lenticularis, what was the wind direction if they were in mountains, what was their heading, etc were they low level or medium level. Aircraft and in particular high performance jets have been brought down in the past by turbulence. If you are transiting at 1000AGL and hit a standing wave with a downward velocity of 8000 ft per minute, then you are in the sh*t. But I say again, I know none of the details so won't be roped in to speculation, so please excuse me, I am sure you understand. The only comment I have, having been involved with Boards of Inquiry, is that the statement from the Thai Air Force claiming that turbulence was to blame, is extremely early as no investigation has taken place and no data recorder information had been studied at the time of the statement. It is therefore, not a statement that was prudent to make.

Hope that answers your question.

Hawkup2000

Understood, thanks!I imagine it has knocked everyone on the unit for 6. Hope everyone gets back on track soon. Sincere condolences to the family (you say you live nearbye). I have sent a pm.

Edited October 20, 2010 by Tigs

[zorro1]

Zorro1

Tigs you mentioned not to speculate however your doing it your self, its just normal on a forum. You sound like you may be a fellow pilot. If so can you explain this

"However, when the aircraft flew into a turbulence, the pilot lost control, resulting in the crash"

That doesn't sound right.

Yes, i was a mil pilot for many years. Just one point. Read my posts, at no time have I speculated on anything that could remotely be attached to the cause of crash. I have stated some facts concerning Hydrazine, a reply concerning a poster that seems to think the F-16 is a carrier aircraft, and as was stated, a very tongue in cheek comment aimed at the journo's from the Thai newspapers who are telling us there was some form of radhaz from the aircraft. So I haven't been speculating at all.

Re your comment above. You say I sound like a fellow pilot, if that means that you are one, then why on earth would you want me to explain the turbulence issue?

I won't speculate on the crash. There have been many instances in the past where aircraft have indeed lost control, some temporarily and some encounters have been catastrophic. Turbulence comes in many forms and many degrees of severity. I have no idea of the weather conditions, I have no idea of the altitude of the aircraft. If you are a pilot you will be fully familiar with turbulence caued by Thunderstorms, clear air turbulence, standing waves, micro bursts etc. Unless there is a picture of weather conditions it is impossible to say. Were there Cumulonimbus clouds around, were there lenticularis, what was the wind direction if they were in mountains, what was their heading, etc were they low level or medium level. Aircraft and in particular high performance jets have been brought down in the past by turbulence. If you are transiting at 1000AGL and hit a standing wave with a downward velocity of 8000 ft per minute, then you are in the sh*t. But I say again, I know none of the details so won't be roped in to speculation, so please excuse me, I am sure you understand. The only comment I have, having been involved with Boards of Inquiry, is that the statement from the Thai Air Force claiming that turbulence was to blame, is extremely early as no investigation has taken place and no data recorder information had been studied at the time of the statement. It is therefore, not a statement that was prudent to make.

Hope that answers your question.

Hawkup2000

Understood, thanks!I imagine it has knocked everyone on the unit for 6. Hope everyone gets back on track soon. Sincere condolences to the family (you say you live nearbye). I have sent a pm.

tigs sorry got the wrong speculator. Yes working as a flight instructor for many years Im fully aware of the above but on an F16? Im no jet jockey however a micro burst and wind shear etc affecting an F16? I find that very difficult to believe that the thrust produced would not be enough. Would sound a bit odd if the was an emergency scramble but pilots were hesitant to take off due to wind shear. I am happy to be proven wrong by the way. Actually saw footage of fighter a/c flying into a hurricane to collect met data.

Anyway no further comment from me out of respect for this very talented man RIP. pilot threads always seem to deteriorate

cheers

[SergeiY]

to observe any health irregularity since radioactive Hydrosyn substance was found to have leaked from the wreckage.

Can only find reference to Hydosyn used as a lubricant, grease, or hydraulic fluid, so not sure where they are getting the notion that it is radioactive.

They spelled it wrong. They meant to say, hydrazine, a very toxic substance, often used in rocket propellants, it presents the greatest hazard at any F-16 crash site.

It can certainly be a quiz show sometimes trying to sort out what is meant in these reports. If they did mean hydrazine, while it is toxic, it's not radioactive.

With such an improper knowledge base, it is more incentive to NOT have nuclear reactors in Thailand.

Blame it on the 'news source' of your choice and not the people who will actually do the work.

[Antathome]

So sad. The guy lived just a few houses from us at the base.

Please stop speculating. This was a normal transit flight, and at this point, there is nothing that indicates nothing but normal altitude.

Amen to that - a young man has lost his life. That is the most important part. You can always replace an aeroplane. F16s have crashed before and will crash again, as will F15s, F18s, B2, B52s. No doubt there will be an investigation and the truth will come out. Condolences to the pilot's family.

[Tigs]

Amen to that - a young man has lost his life. That is the most important part. You can always replace an aeroplane.

Exactly.

Zorro1

Again, I don't want to speculate on this incident, and feel the initial statement of cause factor was a little like the press release 30 mins after the one-2-go aircraft crashed, when the Owner/Director said "Bad weather was the cause of the accident". Statements without validity and importantly without data.

Regards your question concerning, "could a fast jet be brought down by severe turbulence" the answer is yes. I did not mention wind shear, as in comparison to standing waves it is meek and mild. Wind shear affects all aircraft by the way, regardless of size.

If you imagine a flight profile of a transit at 1000agl, with the guys in perhaps a loose formation where the lead is doing the nav and the pilot of one of the aircraft in formation is at fairly low arousal levels, if that aircraft hit a standing wave which had any form of significant rotational component, then before you know it, the jet is flipped upside down, nose down, in an 8000 ft per minute down draught, with 7 seconds to impact. The poor pilot must regain Situational awareness (bearing in mind the forces involved in such an instant downward velocity are massive) quickly, establish what has just happened in his world, react and make a decision on the best course of action and if he is remotely slow concerning thee actions, boom!, particularly if there is rising ground in front of him that is compounding the problem. It is however totally impossible to say what happend to the F-16 in question, as there are a 100 questions need answering before even a draught conclusion could be considered.

Are you instructing in LOS or UK or elsewhere in fact?

[AloisAmrein]

Same could be said about Pakistan -- who can develop a nuclear weapon but cannot support flood victims without begging the rest of the world for help. Look at mot African countries who spend more on arms than on health care --- no nets for malaria prevention yet plenty of money for bullets to arm 12 tear olds. Who says politicians anywhere want peace and stability.

Yes, you are right. Thailand such as Pakistan spends much too much money for teh army, and not enough for social development. That's why the have the Red Shirts in Thailand and the Taliban in Pakistan. Stupid goverments.

[Buchholz]

Thailand

spends much too much money for teh army

Stupid goverments.

Strange that you post that in a thread about an aged plane from the 1980's that crashes.

If that's not enough contradiction for your sentiments, there is this also: