Eurofighter midair collision with Learjet

[leafer]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27979964

[Kaktus29]

yup, when i read about it i thought..wow, that powerful radar eurofighter has sure is powerful if it can't detect a civilian learjet in front of him.. just shows how theory and reality works ..

 

either that or the dude had his radar off and ground control had their radar off or both elements failed because of lack of professionalism(slacking off at the job).. in any way this is just.. so 3rd world accident..

[Rangi]

This was not in controlled airspace, they were doing airwork together, the Lear acting as a target. I will wait for the official investigation before making up my mind as to the cause or laying blame on the respective pilots skills or professionalism.

[VTJS17_Fire]

The Eurofighters did an daily exercise (Intercept/ ID Run), with the Learjet acting as target. While the Eurofighter did the visual ID, they were in a easy left hand turn and the Learjet collided with him. So, it wasn't a problem with its Radar, nor the GCI controller.

 

http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/absturz-im-sauerland-kollision-von-eurofighter-und-learjet-a-976940.html

 

Sad news, We'll wait for the investigation reports ...

[-Flo-]

Having served a couple of years back in the corresponding control and reporting centre for this mission, I can assure you that you won't find any "lack of professionalism", especially when missions are conducted over densely populated areas.

 

As rangi stated correctly, the Learjet was an aircraft of the GFD, a company that provides aerial targets for interception training.

A possible collision scenario could be a simulated comms fail of the learjet with the EF having to visually ID the contact, thus getting up close with the LJ.

[Pikey]

Is it unusual for one aircraft to be able to land and one to go into pieces following a mid air collision? Terrible accident which will prompt some close questioning at the inquest.

[Emu]

So the Eurofighter managed to land?

[bongodriver]

So the Eurofighter managed to land?

 

Yes, badly damaged apparently but thankfully no injuries, it would be interesting to see the damage.

 

RIP to the learjet crew.

[Aginor]

If I read correctly the learjet lost an engine in the collision, it crashed into the Eurofighter's drop tank and fuselage. That would explain why the Learjet crashed and the EF didn't.

 

I wish the Learjet crew would have been so lucky. :(

[bongodriver]

I'm guessing the Learjet crashed because it does not have fly-by wire with electronic stability software to re learn how to fly a damaged airframe in a split second, the Eurofighter probably does have that.

I used to fly Learjets up until December last year, trying to find out which model was involved.

[Aginor]

Learjet 35 or 36 as far as I know.

[TAW_Blaze]

Learjet 35 AFAIK. Poor crew :(

[GGTharos]

It's probably because the collision destroyed control surfaces or severed hydraulic lines. No amount of FBW will save you here.

 

I'm guessing the Learjet crashed because it does not have fly-by wire with electronic stability software to re learn how to fly a damaged airframe in a split second, the Eurofighter probably does have that.

I used to fly Learjets up until December last year, trying to find out which model was involved.

[bongodriver]

It's probably because the collision destroyed control surfaces or severed hydraulic lines. No amount of FBW will save you here.

 

I think you misunderstand me, indeed the learjet probably took too much damage to be able to fly, I don't believe the typhoon is made of diamond and is probably also heavily damaged, but FBW 'can' assist in the recovery of a severely damaged aircraft and I'd like to see how much damage that airframe took.

[GGTharos]

I believe fighters are just built to take more damage. The hydraulic systems are far more isolated from each other etc. Just IMHO.

[mig29movt]

I believe fighters are just built to take more damage. The hydraulic systems are far more isolated from each other etc. Just IMHO.

 

I was thinking the same... And some (like the A-10) even have redundant and emergency flight control systems.

I guess the average aircraft doesn't have this.

 

The Learjet was operated by a civilian company which serves as a target for the fighters.

Don't know if it's said in the english news

Their website:

http://www.gfd-hohn.de

 

Well the swiss air force PC-9 are painted black-yellow just sayin...

 

Pictures

[Emu]

It's times like this I remember the story of how an F-15 landed with 1 wing.

[VTJS17_Fire]

http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/gesellschaft/learjet-absturz-im-sauerland-kollision-mit-eurofighter-a-977150.html#ref=rss

[ericoh]

A question, what is the worth of using a civil aircraft for that? Wouldnt you be able to use a jet trainer or anything else with ejection seats?

 

Im thinking if you "train" you should take precautions. Please enlighten me!

[GGTharos]

A question, what is the worth of using a civil aircraft for that? Wouldnt you be able to use a jet trainer or anything else with ejection seats?

 

You can do it more often, possibly for less money. It's one less plane for you to maintain. Pilots get to see a typical intercept target.

 

Im thinking if you "train" you should take precautions. Please enlighten me!

 

They do take precautions. Someone did something wrong, basically.

[G00dnight]

Apparently they were in a left hand turn EF in front and above the LJ turned to tight and hit the EF under the rear right destroying a drop tank and ripping other parts from the EF, The LJ lost an engine and went into the ground at an angle like they were trying to pull out.

this is almost identical to the skyraider V P51 at duxford only the P51 was the EF but crashed and the skyraider lost about 6 foot of wing and managed to land both pilots were safe.

[Cake]

I believe fighters are just built to take more damage. The hydraulic systems are far more isolated from each other etc. Just IMHO.

 

Never flown the Lear, but I think hydraulic systems would sort of be irrelevant. On the Lear, the hydraulics would be for flaps, spoilers, gear operation, brakes, and thrust reversers. Loss of hydraulics wouldn't have been the issue I don't think. Not sure what else might be hydraulic but I don't think any of the primary flight controls are. This is a relatively small jet.

 

On the other hand, airplanes don't take collisions well. Flight control surfaces get destroyed in hangar incidents when tugs are moving them at a couple miles per hour. It wouldn't take much of a collision to render an airplane uncontrollable, especially the hit was in the wrong spot.

 

Here in the US, F15s and F16s practice intercepts against civilian targets that are much slower than Learjets.

 

 

Apparently they were in a left hand turn EF in front and above the LJ turned to tight and hit the EF under the rear right destroying a drop tank and ripping other parts from the EF, The LJ lost an engine and went into the ground at an angle like they were trying to pull out.

this is almost identical to the skyraider V P51 at duxford only the P51 was the EF but crashed and the skyraider lost about 6 foot of wing and managed to land both pilots were safe.

 

One of my buddies used to fly Skyraiders into thunderstorms as part of a research project. He said it was a tough airplane, but it would come back full of dents, get torn down and rebuilt, and then they'd do it again.

[bongodriver]

I have only flown the Lear45, the controls are all direct cable with no power assist, gear, flap, spoilerons and TR are indeed hydraulic, in the case of aileron jams it has the ability to control roll using only the spoilerons but only from the P1 side

[DGC338]

If it took off an engine, it would most likely take out one or both elevators as being a T-tail the elevators are above though slightly behind the engine. Sad though.