Trainers

Flying Safety,  Jan-Feb, 2002  by Major Mike Folkerts

• E-mail
• Print
• Link

T-37 Tweet

Hard to believe the first UPT class to train in the T-37 was Class 59-9 ...over forty years ago at Bainbridge AFB, GA! Even though the Tweet is marching steadily towards the boneyard, for now it remains AETC's pilot training workhorse. In FY01, the Tweet flew over 169,000 hours, which is more than any other trainer aircraft. The T-37 community suffered one Class A mishap last year, bringing the Tweet's last 10-year total to seven Class A mishaps. To put that figure in perspective, in its first 10 years of operation (1957-1966) the T-37 was involved in 73 Class A mishaps. So while one mishap may seem like too many, we've come a long way in reducing our totals!

One benefit of growing old is predictability; the narratives of many of this year's mishaps are strikingly similar to previous years. A piece of good news was the significant drop in Class Cs, from 49 in FY00 to 19 in FY00, so it looks like the LG community has made some good fixes. Even so, engine problems and the Tweet seem inseparable, as the J69 powerplant has historically been the Achilles' heel of the T-37. FY01 was no exception, as 15 out of the 19 Class C mishaps were engine-related. While you need to be prepared for any emergency or condition, the wily aviator focuses on maintaining proficiency--not just currency--with single-engine procedures and operations.

As far as operator issues are concerned, physiological incidents involving GLOC far outpaced all other reportable mishaps, with inadequate anti-G straining maneuvers by student pilots leading the way. Twenty-four GLOC incidents occurred in the T-37 last year. Historically, the Tweet accounts for 80 percent of all Air Force GLOC incidents. With an unpressurized cockpit, very limited air conditioning and an exceptionally high G-onset rate, the benign-appearing Tweet has the power to put one to sleep. Quickly. Be sure to focus your efforts on high-quality instruction and evaluation of your student's anti-G straining maneuver.

Class A GLOC (Sep 01). The mission was a solo syllabus sortie, which called for the student to practice aerobatics. The student flew the departure to his training area and attempted a G-awareness exercise. Soon after entering the turn, he found himself in a nose-low attitude and attempted a nose-low recovery by selecting idle power and extending the speedbrake. He began to roll wings level and increased backpressure. The student began to gray out, but remained focused on reducing his airspeed from the nose-low attitude. Because he channelized his attention on airspeed, his anti-G straining maneuver (AGSM) was ineffective and he GLOC'd. Right after "waking up," the student attempted to make control inputs to fly the aircraft, but put the aircraft into a spin instead. He recognized a bad situation and ejected successfully. When the student channelized attention on airspeed at the expense of an effective AGSM, he made a very common error that strikes pilots of all experience levels. Challenge yourself to think a bout what actions and techniques you can take to guard against channelized attention, and teach them to your students.

The student's ejection decision! training was the silver lining in a stormy cloud. The student pilot made a timely, but difficult, decision to eject while in a reduced state of post-GLOC consciousness. Prior to the mishap sortie, the student had extensive discussions with IPs and received safety briefings concerning the ejection decision. This laid a solid foundation for him to formulate his own clearly thought-out decision process. This mishap highlights the importance of thinking through emergencies and critical response items while on the ground.

T-38 Talon

In FY01, the Talon flew over 126,000 hours. The T-38 community suffered two Class A mishaps last year, which calculates to a rate of 1.59 per 100,000 flying hours. This rate is very close to the historical average of 1.55 since the T-38 started flying, but definitely not what the T-38 world has grown accustomed to the last few years. In fact, the last year with more than one Class A was FY93. Of the two Class A mishaps this year, one was operator-induced and the other involved material failure. On the positive side, Class C and Class E rates dropped compared to the previous year.

Loss of Control (Dec 00). The sortie was a two-ship dual formation mission. Shortly before the mishap, the student was performing a G-awareness mission. While rolling wings level, he felt a "burble" on the flight controls, similar to flying through jet wash. Immediately after, the aircraft made an abrupt and uncommanded pitch up and roll to the left. The instructor took control of the aircraft shortly thereafter with approximately 120 degrees of bank and nose slightly above the horizon. The instructor was able to recover the aircraft to an upright position using ailerons; however, the aircraft entered a series of uncommanded rolling and pitching maneuvers. The instructor was unable to regain control of the aircraft and, passing through 9500' MSL, directed ejection. Analysis of the wreckage revealed a fatigue break in the left servo valve control rod-end, which rendered the aircraft uncontrollable.