10 ms·
Belgian Air Force F-16 destroyed by fire during maintenance
- goldenkey 8y agoDebugging..hmm..pretty important stuff when your guns aren't mocked.
- aetherspawn 8y agoI thought these sorts of planes would have a safety. And if the safety is designed in such a way without i.e. interlocks and such that you can fire off guns accidentally by poking around in the wires/connectors, that's a little sad.
- smdyc1 8y agoNow I don't know about fighters, but I used to work on C-130s. Countermeasure systems (flare and chaff) rely on a weight on wheels microswitch completing a circuit when the aircraft is in the air, safety pins being removed from a panel to arm the system, an on switch, and a guarded switch being activated before the system can be used. Now sometimes the weight on wheels switches need to be bypassed for testing a wide range of aircraft systems. Perhaps the aircraft was on jacks (tyre replacement?) or some sort of EMI occurred... But ultimately there really is a great deal of safety layers that had to be compromised for this to happen, including human factors. Like with software development, you can't predict every possible action of your users (air or ground crew), and sooner or later you'll encounter an edge case nobody had considered.
- poof131 8y agoThere is an “arm” switch.[1] This certainly shouldn’t have happened and indicates a break down in safety procedures. Significant maintenance should not be performed on an aircraft with ordnance. The plane never should have been armed. The maintainer should have been careful around the trigger. And a plane loaded with forward firing ordnance should not be pointed at another plane. This seems like a Commanding Officer gets fired type accident. [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=f+16+master+arm+switch https://www.google.com/search?q=f+16+master+arm+switch
- curiousgal 8y agoThat has got to be the most expensive fuckup by a technician ever.
- sleavey 8y agoSurely there must be a checklist to follow before maintenance like this that involves either locking the fire buttons, unloading the ammunition or with some kind of reliable software switch. Either possibility, that such a procedure is not followed, or that there is no such procedure, is worrying.
- appleiigs 8y agoYeah, for accidentally hitting a button... I wonder if that characterization is accurate. Cost would be up there with the economic cost of Hawaii’s accidental missle alarm button click.
- CamperBob2 8y agoIt's got to be up there with the NOAA N-Prime (un)screwup: http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/65776main_noaa_np_mishap.pdf http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/65776main_noaa_np_mishap.pdf Not sure if knocking over a satellite is more or less expensive than totaling one F-16 and damaging another.
- roma1n 8y agoNot sure. An ariane 4 rocket exploded due to a leftover cleaning rag in a water line. I would guess the launcher + payload price would top the price of an F16?
- jpatokal 8y agoTwo F16s were damaged, although it's not clear from the article if the other one is also a write-off.
- anonymfus 8y agoIn Russian media it's always portrayed that a professional pilot must be in the cockpit during any maintenance operations to avoid exactly such things.
- vinay427 8y agoI wouldn't be surprised if technicians trained on a specific piece of equipment are more broadly skilled at operating the controls than a pilot or other operator.
- pingec 8y agoWhy would such a plane even allow firing a gun when not in air?
- dragonwriter 8y agoBecause any system which attempted to prevent that would have a nonzero chance of preventing shots while in the air, and it's quite easy to imagine the cost of that being much greater than what is saved by the intended effect. That's not to say that there shouldn't be safety systems that would prevent accidental firing, just that “never shoot if system thinks we're on the ground” is very likely not a good one.
- chx 8y agoBut there _is_ such a system, there's a weight-on-wheels switch they needed to override. Source: https://www.resetera.com/threads/technician-accidentally-fires-f-16-cannon-and-destroys-another-f-16-on-the-ground-in-belgium.74660/page-2#post-13766279 https://www.resetera.com/threads/technician-accidentally-fir... and many more.
- tschwimmer 8y agoI 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/9nyorn/belgium_technician_sets_off_an_f16_cannon_during/ https://reddit.com/r/AirForce/comments/9nyorn/belgium_techni...
- the-dude 8y agoBelgian nuclear plant suspected sabotage : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doel_Nuclear_Power_Station#2014_Doel_4_turbine_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doel_Nuclear_Power_Station#201...
- Yeri 8y agoHow is that related?
- the-dude 8y agoAnother strange incident in Belgian critical infrastructure.
- stinos 8y agoI 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.
- Joeri 8y agoThe 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.
- AlexanderDhoore 8y agoAs a Belgian I find this hilarious. This might be the most Belgian thing ever. By the way they are investigating whether this was an accident or on purpose. The chances of this being an accident are quite small.
- mklarmann 8y agoYou suspect some insurance fraud?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- wjnc 8y agoAfaik governments usually don't insure such mishaps. They have pretty much unlimited funds in comparison with insurers. Subcontractors couldn't insure themselves for these kinds of liabilities. No insurer would go that high in liability. Insuring military apparatus itself, well kind of beats the point. Insuring machines of mass destruction against destruction... On the outliers of 'crazy' insurance that I know are things like (private) sattelites and of course the global nuclear pool.
- AlexanderDhoore 8y agoAs 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.
- Tharkun 8y agoThese 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 are beinv considered.
- jbverschoor 8y agoSo tempting to make dutch - belgian jokes now
- jacquesm 8y agoIt is ok, just tell them once.
- chillidoor 8y agoWell, I guess they now know how effective the cannon is... This is going to be one hell of a rough couple of days for the technician(s) involved.
- johnchristopher 8y agoThere were a lot of low altitude training over the south of Belgium this summer. Maybe some people are exhausted.
- kyriakos 8y agowhy was it loaded?
- hnarn 8y agoI might be stating the obvious here, but why is maintenance work being done on a fighter jet that is loaded with sharp ammunition? You wouldn't do maintenance on a gun when it's loaded, why would you do it on a multi million dollar fighter jet?
- toomanybeersies 8y agoAnd yet people still manage to accidentally shoot themselves when cleaning their firearms. Usually it's a series of failures that lead to such an incident, rather than one single critical failure. Failsafes aren't failproofs.
- hnarn 8y agoI'm not sure I understand your point, surely people shoot themselves by accident because they neglect to remove ammunition from the weapon, proving my point? It's not a "series of failures", it's the exact opposite, it's literally one failure.
- RyJones 8y agoBreaking 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.
- CydeWeys 8y agoIn 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.
- RyJones 8y agoSure. 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.
- chx 8y agohttps://www.resetera.com/threads/technician-accidentally-fires-f-16-cannon-and-destroys-another-f-16-on-the-ground-in-belgium.74660/page-2#post-13766279 https://www.resetera.com/threads/technician-accidentally-fir... here's someone claiming to be an F-16 weapons technician posting and -- they needed to do something stupid or the weight-on-wheels switch needed to malfunction.
- Jerry2 8y ago>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/TM-1-1510-224-10_207.htm http://aviationandaccessories.tpub.com/TM-1-1510-224-10/css/...
- jacobush 8y agoBut, but ... the action hero scenario then? Strafing enemy while taxiing to the runway?!
- metaphor 8y agoThe 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.
- Jerry2 8y agoThis 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 Engineering Officer, accidentally selected reheat, then managed to fly several circuits in the Lightning jet fighter, position it for an approach and then land it with only minor damage. The flight in Taffy’s own words is reproduced in full below. http://www.historicracer.com/aviation/accidental-fighter-pilot/ http://www.historicracer.com/aviation/accidental-fighter-pil...
- Stratoscope 8y agoWhat a great story! Thanks for posting it. Taffy had a great commanding officer, too. At least from the account here, a truly humble leader. But you will have to read to the end to find out.
- mothsonasloth 8y agoI just read that story, amazing. It reads like an awesome Root Cause Analysis ticket.
- chrisseaton 8y agoWhat do you mean by ‘ticket’?
- pimlottc 8y agoLike an item in an issue tracker.
- mothsonasloth 8y agoNormally if there a bug or other ticket I will write the root cause into the comments or notes of that ticket after its solved. It makes it useful for future referencing and is searchable. Unlike writing it up in a word doc and uploading it to something like sharepoint where it is forgotten
- gear54rus 8y agoWoah, what kind of burst was that? Surely it couldn't have lasted more than a second or so (while the jump-scare wears off of the technician :) yet the plane is torched. Thought they are a bit more resilient.
- Steve44 8y agoI don't know the exact variant but the F16s have/had a 6 barrel 20mm canon which fires about 100 shells per second. That's a bit more than a few rounds from small arms and more than plenty to destroy the 'target' aircraft. It possibly only took one or two hits to do that damage.
- Merad 8y agoAs the other reply said, even if the gun was just triggered for a fraction of a second it's likely that several dozen shells were fired. I'm not sure if NATO uses the same cannon rounds as the US military, but they almost certainly use some form of high explosive incendiary ammo.
- salex89 8y agoWell, at least they know the gun works...
- sebazzz 8y agoNot to mention the power of a gun. An aircraft is powerless when it is hit, so obviously the only defense is not being hit at all.
- rzzzwilson 8y ago> fires canon and blows up F16 Though why the Belgian Air Force fired a minor cleric for this incident goes unanswered.
- beilabs 8y agoWould love to reead the technicians resume after this. 2018: successfully targeted and destroyed a F-16 with a second F-16 also grounded. Only person in Europe to do so. Would you be proud of that entry?
- Steve44 8y ago> Only person in Europe to do so In 1982 an RAFG Phantom shot down an RAFG Jaguar. Not on the ground admittedly, but still quite an incident. https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=55364 https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=55364 > Shot down 35 miles NE of Bruggen, West Germany by a Sidewinder missile accidentally fired from 92 Squadron Phantom FGR2 XV422. The pilot ejected safely. The master armament switch in the Phantom had not been taped in the ‘safe’ position and the pilot inadvertently rendered ‘live’ one of the two main safely switches. The pilot and navigator of the Phantom were court martialed and found guilty of offences of neglect.
- justtopost 8y ago'Recieved Air-Forces most expensive and exclusive unconventional live-fire training.'
- tragomaskhalos 8y agoA minor mishap compared to a similar inadvertent weapons incident aboard USS Forrestal - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_USS_Forrestal_fire https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_USS_Forrestal_fire
- Improvotter 8y agoMy landlord works on military aircrafts as well, maybe he wasn't working on these specifically. But I'm gonna ask him whether he knows the people. Should be interesting haha.
- ccnafr 8y agoI'm wondering why they even do maintenance on loaded guns. Are they stupid difficult to unload? Did the worker screw up during unloading?
- major505 8y agoWell, if you gonna mess with somethnig that spits 6000 rounds per min, you better be damn sure what the hell you are doing. The good news is now the guy can almost qualify as an ace. He just need 3 more planes shot.
- rurban 8y agoHeadline should be "by friendly fire". The technician shot with the cannon at the 2 other planes. Similar to the old story when Arnold Schwarzenegger stole a tank and went on a rampage, but then was protected by his protégé and got away with it.