Every once in a while things happen in aircraft that you simply couldn't make up. This email, currently doing the rounds, appears to be authentic and the pix below back it up.Pilots may feel that there is a certain step in the sequence of events which may have been, how can I put this, more optimally executed.
Kudos to Lockheed for building them to last.
Full story below....
Tuesday,
22 Jul 2008, a P-3 Orion from VP-1 was flying an approach to NAS
Whidbey Island with the #1 engine in a simulated failure mode. At 160
KIAS, the #2 engine started to surge, so they had to chop power to it.
As all this was happening, they were still decelerating, so by the time
they added power to #3 and #4, they were at 122 knots, and in the dry
terms of investigators, "departed controlled flight." The P-3 did FIVE
rotations in a flat spin, dropping 5500 feet, finally recovering
between 50 and 200 feet AGL (above ground level), pulling a whopping 7
positive G's on the airframe after sustaining 2.4 negative G's in the
spin. The rolling pullout burst 45 rivets on one wing, physically
RIPPED the main spar, and bent the entire airframe... the crew could see
INSIDE the fuel tanks of the wing.
The P-3C that almost went into Puget Sound waters was from NAS Whidbey. It was a CPW-10 aircraft being operated by VP-1. Squadrons don't own aircraft any more. The P-3 fleet has so deteriorated because of under-funding and over-use that there are less than 100 still flyable*. The P-3s belong to the wing and are "lent to the squadrons on an as-needed" basis.
The mission was a NATOPS pilot check, with a CPW-10 pilot (LT) aboard, a VP-1 LT and LTJG, plus VP-1 aircrewmen that included two flight engineers. The bird was landed back at NASW. Max damage was sustained by the aircraft, including almost tearing off a wing. Aircraft BuNo 161331.
At Whidbey, P-3C 161331 was doing a Functional Check Flight. They could see the inside of the fuel tanks when they landed. SDRS recorded the flaps being raised and the landing gear being cycled down and then back up. Aircraft released all the fuel in tank #3 when it appears that the seam between planks 3 and 4 split. Tank #4 also lost its fuel load when plank #1 separated from rest of the aircraft wing.
Wing panel
MAD boom
Wing spar
on September 20, 2010 6:14 PM | Reply
I have logged all of 95 (100 minus 5) hours on a C-152 but still I have the temerity to volunteer why the experienced Navy crew did not seem to have added full power to No. 1 engine when No. 2 surged, after all the momentum of those big propellers is so great that when a C-130 takes off the only engines pushed to max power are Nos. 2 and 3 until the aircraft reaches I guess 100 KIA or so then Nos. 1 and 2 are pushed to the wall. This procedure was adopted after a number of accidents when one of the outboard engines lost power the aircraft veered violently towards the dead engine. I would assume that the same procedure applies to the P-3 an otherwise wonderful workhorse of almost 50 years of faithful operation thanks to the excellent crews that fly and maintain them in spite of inadequate funding for spares.
on September 24, 2010 2:37 PM | Reply
This event may be true but I have sincere doubt as to its accuracy. For two years I served as a Navy test pilot on the first P-3s. My logbook records P3V-1 hours as well as P-3A time. With #1 & #2 engines at zero thrust, I investigated stall characteristics; they were NOT friendly to say the least. The first time, during Navy Preliminary Evaluation #1, I lost 4,000 ft during recovery, the stall occuring at 92kt IAS at 10,000 ft. The entire crew was astounded, so we tried it again with similar results. Some of the notes in the NATOPS instructions stem from our investigations then and later at Patuxent River. The damage to the airplane cannot be disputed. I suggest it was sustained in some other activity -- perhaps the crew simply lost memory of something else during the flight -- maybe "let's roll this thing"?
The story is good, though.
on September 24, 2010 4:16 PM | Reply
100 P3s left in the air
100 P3s
Spin one down,
Now it's "on ground"
99 P3s left in the air.
99 P3s left in the air
99 P3s.
Sad...
Good recovery and God bless the pilots, but sad.
on September 25, 2010 4:34 AM | Reply
The Lockheed Electra 188 was suspected of having a structural problem when first developed. The Chief Test Pilot for Lockheed, Herman "Fish" Salmon was assigned the duty to test fly the a/c and find out what the limits were. He had a door installed for both the Captain and F/O and wore parachutes.
The result was Harmonic tip imbalance from the propeller tips.
The attitudes of flight that Mr. Salmon put the a/c through were conclusive of the structural dependability as witnessed by this crew.
I knew him and his son Scooter personally and he never thought that Lockheed built a compromised airplane.
on September 25, 2010 6:22 AM | Reply
From near first hand knowledge (I am a P3 pilot in Jacksonville), the story is almost correct with the exception of the beginning. As per the flight instructor guide book (FIG), there shall be no engines shut down duirng an approach. The number one engine was actually completely shut down for a simulated emergency over the working area, not on approach. The other engine then failed and was shut down for emergency, resulting in two engines out on the same side (#1 and #2). The instructor pilot took the controls, and while dealing with the emergency, he allowed the aircraft to slow to below VMC (which is based among other thing, on # and position of operating engines) while incorrectly not immediately restarting the engine shutdown for training (big mistake #1). When he realized the aircraft was well below optimal speed, instead of dropping the nose to add airspeed, he threw power on the remaining engines (big mistake #2), hence- departed controlled flight.
My memory gets a bit hazy here, but I believe that during the decent, the flight engineer was able to restart the #1 engine, after which, the instructor was able to regain control, but only after pulling masive Gs (massive for the P3 anyway).
You can fault the flight instructor for making some big mistakes, and ultimately destroying a P3. However, the fact that he ultimately saved the aircraft and crew aboard took some strong arms and a lot of training and ability. Not to mention, it is probably the work of the flight engineer that allowed the aircraft to be restored to controled flight at all.
on September 25, 2010 3:23 PM | Reply
Power agrevates spins. Aft center of gravity will induce "flat" spin.