Navy Pilot Killed In A-29 Test Aircraft

PeoplesElbow

Well-Known Member
7th crash of AF planes this year in non-combat situation. Way cool prop plane with lots of attack features.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-navy-ids-pilot-killed-in-crash-at-new-mexico-air-force-base/ar-AAz4G4D

Although in use around the world the last few years, this is still considered by the AF to be a test aircraft. I'm scratching my head on that one.
Because it is an aircraft used for test. Testing isn't over when an aircraft goes into service, some aircraft are still being used for test almost until they are removed from service.
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
Because it is an aircraft used for test. Testing isn't over when an aircraft goes into service, some aircraft are still being used for test almost until they are removed from service.
:yeahthat: And it is pretty much explained here what they are doing with it and the AT-6.
 

glhs837

Power with Control
7th crash of AF planes this year in non-combat situation. Way cool prop plane with lots of attack features.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-navy-ids-pilot-killed-in-crash-at-new-mexico-air-force-base/ar-AAz4G4D

Although in use around the world the last few years, this is still considered by the AF to be a test aircraft. I'm scratching my head on that one.


Hell, if someone brings me an A/F cleared item, guess what? Navys still gonna test the crap out of it. So I certainly don't blame the A/F for not accepting Belize's airworthiness processes.......
 

PeoplesElbow

Well-Known Member
Hell, if someone brings me an A/F cleared item, guess what? Navys still gonna test the crap out of it. So I certainly don't blame the A/F for not accepting Belize's airworthiness processes.......
CH-46's, which were first introduced in 1964, still occasionally pop up for test.

There is always something new, a new configuration etc that someone wants to fly an aircraft in, and to ensure it is safe we test.
 

b23hqb

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
Because it is an aircraft used for test. Testing isn't over when an aircraft goes into service, some aircraft are still being used for test almost until they are removed from service.
I'm well aware they are always adding to aircraft and those additions need to be tested. I'm wondering what was being tested - a new engine? new aerodynamics? guidance/computer systems? Hopefully they can fix the issue fast.
 

glhs837

Power with Control
I'm well aware they are always adding to aircraft and those additions need to be tested. I'm wondering what was being tested - a new engine? new aerodynamics? guidance/computer systems? Hopefully they can fix the issue fast.
Unless I'm mistaken, this wasn't testing anew thing, but rather testing the entire aircraft to see if it's suitable for service with the US.
 

DoWhat

Sexy Stud
PREMO Member
Do not forget EMC (Electromagnetic Compatibility).
It can and will take an aircraft to the ground.
 

glhs837

Power with Control
Really?
I wonder who determines if an EMC SoFT is required and who performs it?
:whistle:
In the AF? Damnifiknow. Really, those guys don't even speak HERO, and we at Pax do a lot of EMC stuff for them like they do environmental stuff for us. But given the oddball nature of this thing they were doing, who knows.
 

PeoplesElbow

Well-Known Member
I'm well aware they are always adding to aircraft and those additions need to be tested. I'm wondering what was being tested - a new engine? new aerodynamics? guidance/computer systems? Hopefully they can fix the issue fast.
Many times testing is just flying the aircraft in a slightly different manner or determining suitability for a different mission than originally intended. Testing is often quite mundane sounding and people not involved in it would think "they didn't already know that"...
 
Last edited:

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Hell, if someone brings me an A/F cleared item, guess what? Navys still gonna test the crap out of it. So I certainly don't blame the A/F for not accepting Belize's airworthiness processes.......


my understanding is Countries for Potential Sales will take a Navy Airworthiness Cert but not A/F one ...
 

limblips

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
In the AF? Damnifiknow. Really, those guys don't even speak HERO, and we at Pax do a lot of EMC stuff for them like they do environmental stuff for us. But given the oddball nature of this thing they were doing, who knows.
Always understood the difference in HERO and EMC between AF and Navy was due to operating environment. The flight deck of an aircraft carrier is a much higher and stronger RF environment than a 10,000 acre airfield. The hardening of support equipment for the environment was always an issue.
 

glhs837

Power with Control
Always understood the difference in HERO and EMC between AF and Navy was due to operating environment. The flight deck of an aircraft carrier is a much higher and stronger RF environment than a 10,000 acre airfield. The hardening of support equipment for the environment was always an issue.
Exaactly. When you can just move you emitter a few thousand feet away, you have no incentive to harden your stuff or subject it to rigorous test. Just say "When building the airfield, no emitters greater than X alllowed within 2,000 feet of aircraft areas". Easy Peasy. I've heard "No problem, the AF has been using it for years" a few times over the years. always preceding a ton of HERO issues.
 

PeoplesElbow

Well-Known Member
Exaactly. When you can just move you emitter a few thousand feet away, you have no incentive to harden your stuff or subject it to rigorous test. Just say "When building the airfield, no emitters greater than X alllowed within 2,000 feet of aircraft areas". Easy Peasy. I've heard "No problem, the AF has been using it for years" a few times over the years. always preceding a ton of HERO issues.
Same for strength of things, some people that even work for the Navy don't seem to understand how planes land on a carrier.
 

glhs837

Power with Control
Same for strength of things, some people that even work for the Navy don't seem to understand how planes land on a carrier.
I understood it logically, then did some testing out at TC-7, I was the tech going in under the intake to inspect the countermeasures between both cats and traps so I got to get a visceral appreciation. As a P-3 guy who had done some time up close and personal with operating helos, got me a whole new bar for "Danger close" crouching under that E/Fs intake....... I really think we miss a lot by not making a greater effort to get the folks in the offices out around the reality of the things they make decisions about.
 
Top