# Pilot trapped for 5h in cockpit of USAF's new $135m F-22A Raptor after canopy jams



## syscom3 (Apr 28, 2006)

Raptor canopy stuck in down and locked position sawn open by fire crew after 5h

A fire crew had to cut open the canopy of a US Air Force Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor fighter with chainsaws on 10 April to free the pilot, who had been trapped inside for 5h.

The canopy became stuck in the down and locked position and could not be opened manually after the pilot cycled the mechanism several times, following a pre-flight warning that the canopy was unlocked.

The cause of the malfunction has not been determined. The cost of replacing the canopy, which belongs to an aircraft from the 27th Fighter Squadron at Langley AFB, Virginia, is estimated at more than $180,000.

On 10 April 2006 at approximately 08:15, aircraft 03-041 had a Red Ball for a canopy unlock indication. Attempts to clear the problems by cycling the canopy failed. The final cycling of the canopy resulted in it being in the down and locked position. The canopy would not cycle up from this position, trapping the pilot in the cockpit. The aircraft subsequently ground aborted. 

Stranded inside the Raptor's cockpit, the pilot had to be cut free. Langley AFB consulted Lockheed Martin and the F-22A system programme office to determine alternate methods to open the canopy and extract the pilot.


----------



## marconi (Apr 29, 2006)

What kind of material do they use for canopys?Some kind of plastic?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 29, 2006)

marconi said:


> What kind of material do they use for canopys?Some kind of plastic?


 Its a thermoplastic transparicy that's about 1/2 thick...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 29, 2006)

i wonder how he passed the time in there............


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 29, 2006)

its fairly easy to entertain a pilot just jingle some keys or something similar and your good for hours


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 29, 2006)

very good......


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 29, 2006)

Danm Joe and Eric, did pb just open a can o whoop ***????


----------



## plan_D (Apr 29, 2006)

My dad got "stuck" in the cockpit of a Lightning once when the hydraulic pressure fell and the canopy closed. New starters often panicked in this situation, but my dad knew exactly how to get out. However, he used it as an excuse to get a good read so pulled out a book and began to read. Until the Chief Tech saw it and told them to get him out, simply by pumping the hydraulic pressure to lift the canopy. You could actually do it from the inside and lift the canopy with your back while standing on the seat.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 30, 2006)

pbfoot said:


> its fairly easy to entertain a pilot just jingle some keys or something similar and your good for hours


 oooo you're bad.... Exlax in your coffee!!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 30, 2006)

Ive only had about an hours basic flying time, but hey


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 1, 2006)

yes but that's not the only difference between you and the other pilots here, the keys trick would actually work on you


----------



## evangilder (May 2, 2006)

pbfoot said:


> its fairly easy to entertain a pilot just jingle some keys or something similar and your good for hours



ROFL! That cracked me u...LOOK Shiny object!


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (May 2, 2006)

canopy stuck for 5 hours, hope that doesn't happen when the F-22 is in combat.


----------



## ozumn (May 8, 2006)

Better it happens now then later.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 13, 2006)

Vassili Zaitzev said:


> canopy stuck for 5 hours, hope that doesn't happen when the F-22 is in combat.



you mean just in case the pilot wants to get out and stretch his legs? if he's in combat that's the least of his worries


----------



## Henk (May 13, 2006)

It could be a mess if the pilot wants to eject and the canopy does not want to pop off, though the ejection seat can go through the canopy the pilot can still get hurt during such a move.

Henk


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 13, 2006)

if he has to punch out the canopy is blown off, not opened in the way in would be on the ground, explosive charges are higher up the food chain than locking mechanisms..........


----------



## Bullockracing (May 13, 2006)

I actually spoke with an OG member at Langley over this one, the mechanism that failed is a divorced system from the rest of the plane, meaning the plane was FMC, but while parked the canopy wouldn't open. The powers that be discussed ejecting which would blow the canopy, but the cost of replacing the pieces following an ejection would have been significantly more than just a canopy. In addition, the ejection seat is not designed to be used on the ground and there were some safety concerns that couldn't be mitigated.


----------



## Henk (May 13, 2006)

I said if the pilot was in combat or in the air, I know that it is not safe or right in the mind to eject on the ground. A pilot have survived ejecting near the ground and was not badly hurt.

Henk


----------



## Bullockracing (May 13, 2006)

Roger that, Henk, it was mostly for VZ...


----------



## Henk (May 13, 2006)

Cool mate.

Henk


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 14, 2006)

Who made the seat? because most of Martin-Baker's seats for high performance fighters have full Zero-Zero ability?


----------



## evangilder (May 14, 2006)

Even still, ejecting out of an airplane is risky. Not to mention the damage it would do to the airplane, which would be much more expensive to repair that just a replacement canopy.


----------



## syscom3 (May 14, 2006)

A zero-zero ejection has been known to seriously injure the pilot.

Far safer to sit in the cockpit looking like a monkey (and look at the dangling keys) than to do the macho thing and get yourself grounded.


----------



## pbfoot (May 14, 2006)

the russians now make the Cadilac of ejector seats far superior to any western one so I.ve been told eliminating the biggest cause of injury while ejecting while the a/c is in a sideslip it uses acombination of thrusters and drogue chutes


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 15, 2006)

i'm not saying he should have punched out i realise this wasn't the time or place, but if that canopy was stuck and he was sitting on the runway, with his plane on fire, there would be questions as to why such a high performance jet with a very expensive pilot wasn't fitted with a zero-zero seat, who makes the seat for her?


----------



## Bullockracing (May 15, 2006)

The F-22 uses the ACES II seat, manufactured by McDonnell Douglas. It is a zero-zero seat.

http://www.ejectionsite.com/f22acesii.htm


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 16, 2006)

good lord why don't people just stick to what's best and go for Martin-Baker seats


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 17, 2006)

Bullockracing said:


> The F-22 uses the ACES II seat, manufactured by McDonnell Douglas.


Nope - Boeing!


----------



## Bullockracing (May 20, 2006)

FBJ, where did you find that? I called my contact at Langley, but it's possible that the link above referred to only the XF-22 and YF-22.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 20, 2006)

Bullockracing said:


> FBJ, where did you find that? I called my contact at Langley, but it's possible that the link above referred to only the XF-22 and YF-22.


Back then McDonnell Douglas still existed. They disappeared in 1997. Anything you see referring to North American, Rockwell or McDonnell Douglas belongs to Boeing....


----------



## Bullockracing (May 21, 2006)

Roger that FBJ. Are they still using the MCD name or is it all changed to Boeing?


----------



## v2 (Aug 7, 2006)

Published reports indicate that screws which had loosened and backed out of their mounting holes were to blame for a stuck canopy on an F-22A Raptor on 10 April 2006, trapping the pilot in the cockpit for five hours.
While the chances of another canopy sticking in the closed position on an F-22 are considered remote, contractors are planning on retrofitting longer screws as a preventive measure sometime in the future.
Fire and rescue crews were forced to extract the stuck pilot by cutting the canopy with a rotary saw after all other remedies had failed. Initial replacement estimates for the canopy were quoted at $182,000, but it now appears that it will only cost approximately $83,000.


----------



## HealzDevo (Nov 29, 2006)

Makes one wonder though... If things are going wrong this early its life are there any other problems with it? It hasn't been said whether this was an aircraft that had been flown or whether it was new. The bolts working themselves loose though sounds like a potential problem... I think there are questions over the building of the aircraft. Raptors are only fairly new so it shouldn't have that many flying hours on the frame should it?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 29, 2006)

HealzDevo said:


> Makes one wonder though... If things are going wrong this early its life are there any other problems with it? It hasn't been said whether this was an aircraft that had been flown or whether it was new. The bolts working themselves loose though sounds like a potential problem... I think there are questions over the building of the aircraft. Raptors are only fairly new so it shouldn't have that many flying hours on the frame should it?


There was a "TCTO" issued to inspect the entire fleet for this condition - I'm sure this is the last we'll hear from it.


----------



## evangilder (Nov 29, 2006)

Agreed. This is the reason you have a test and evaluation period, to work out the kinks. It would be very premature to say it's a bad airplane based on one incident like this.


----------



## R-2800 (Nov 29, 2006)

hahaha, i like the look on the pilot's face in the first picture! that sucks that he was stuck in there for so long, has there been any othere incidents like this I heared that they cut into the side of the plane to free a pilot, or it might be a variation of this story.


----------



## HealzDevo (Dec 3, 2006)

All I am saying is that with something like this, I would be doing an extremely thorough check to make sure no other bugs have accidently slipped through... This is something that I haven't heard of happening with any other modern aircraft...


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 4, 2006)

You kidding? This kinda stuff happens all the time. One of the most visible examples are flight test aircraft that typically fly with the gear down. Why? They test the $hit out of the gear before flight during engineering ground tests? Because the risk ain't worth it. These are complex machines whose high level requirements number in the tens of thousands and whose derived requirements number in the millions. Exhaustive testing of the literally millions of permutations of things that can go wrong is not an option and thus engineering and flight test will opt for development assurance techniques that minimize risk such as structural coverage, requirements trace, module testing, quality assurance methodologies, etc.


----------



## mkloby (Dec 4, 2006)

HealzDevo said:


> All I am saying is that with something like this, I would be doing an extremely thorough check to make sure no other bugs have accidently slipped through... This is something that I haven't heard of happening with any other modern aircraft...



That's EXACTLY the kind of sh*t that happens in the military ALL THE TIME! To civilians mil-spec means tough and durable, but to the military it means it's broken, works halfway when it does work, no spare parts will be available, spare parts don't work anyway  

You cannot test out ALL possible bugs and kinks in design. You'd never have an operational A/C if you attempted to do that.


----------



## Smokey (Dec 4, 2006)

Have any of you heard this old story?












The Super Hornet guns down the F-22 Raptor - Above Top Secret Conspiracy Community

Alert 5 - Military Aviation News: F/A-18F guns down F-22A



> This gun kill picture is from the HUD recorder of a VFA-11 Super Hornet taken during a Red Air exercise. The black box on the top left is an event marker to show that the trigger was squeezed.


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 4, 2006)

I wouldn't doubt it. The F-22 is not invincible, but properly staged is a silver bullet. Once the furball begins the F-22 likely only has marginal advantages over other latest generation fighters. If you see it, you can shoot it. Put it in its element (ie long range detection) and this scenario becomes much different.

But remember, F-18 Super Hornet has AESA radar. And notice he's gone guns.


----------



## Smokey (Dec 4, 2006)

I read an article by one of the guys who designed the F16 and a military expert in which one of them said that the F22 had compromised its maneuvrability with its stealthy airframe. One of them claimed that alot of the 60s/70s designs (Mig 29, Su 27, F16 and F15) could outmaneuver it in a dogfight and that beyond visual range engagements suffered from a very low hit probability due to ECM, flares and maneuvering.

One guy said that since the F22 airframe was originally designed in the late 80s, surely theres a risk that fighter radar technology will soon be able to detect the F22 at long ranges


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 4, 2006)

Perhaps. But I rather doubt that soon means in the next 10-15 years. but it is inevitable.


----------



## mkloby (Dec 4, 2006)

Smokey said:


> I read an article by one of the guys who designed the F16 and a military expert in which one of them said that the F22 had compromised its maneuvrability with its stealthy airframe. One of them claimed that alot of the 60s/70s designs (Mig 29, Su 27, F16 and F15) could outmaneuver it in a dogfight and that beyond visual range engagements suffered from a very low hit probability due to ECM, flares and maneuvering.
> 
> One guy said that since the F22 airframe was originally designed in the late 80s, surely theres a risk that fighter radar technology will soon be able to detect the F22 at long ranges



I wonder how hawkeyes or awacs pick up a 22...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 4, 2006)

mkloby said:


> I wonder how hawkeyes or awacs pick up a 22...


Transponder...


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Dec 4, 2006)

I heard that after the F-22 is gone, The USAF will simply switch to computer driven aircraft. No human pilots flying in the sky. Save on space and protection for the cockpit. Bummer for adventure.


Probably someday, a "hot-shot" pilot will be sitting at some military base and be looking at a computer screen with a vibrating joystick in his hand and instead of manuvering a Simulater plane he will be manuvering a real plane over enemy territory. Ooops, plane lost, game over, and you are now a prisoner of lunch time. 


Then it will really be the Chair Force.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 4, 2006)

Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> I heard that after the F-22 is gone, The USAF will simply switch to computer driven aircraft. No human pilots flying in the sky. Bummer.
> 
> 
> Probably someday, a "hot-shot" pilot will be sitting at some military base and be looking at a computer screen with a vibrating joystick in his hand and instead of manuvering a Simulater plane he will be manuvering a real one over enemy territory.
> ...



Don't hold your breath - in the late 50s some USAF and Pentagon wizkids said that dogfights will be a thing of the past and all fighters will be armed with missiles.

A few years later a little situation called Vietnam proved them very wrong...

I think UAVs will be the next wave of the future and will be used in conjunction with manned combat aircraft.


----------



## mkloby (Dec 4, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Transponder...



 I meant in terms of just using their primary radar to track an F-22... what kind of return it gets...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 4, 2006)

mkloby said:


> I meant in terms of just using their primary radar to track an F-22... what kind of return it gets...






.


​


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 4, 2006)

When they fly on non operational sorties is it not common to leave the aircraft in a dirty mode or not totally stealthy


----------



## CaptTrego (Dec 4, 2006)

He could have used the "eject" sequence??!!  
Seriously, or...err...is the "eject" in the ol' Raptor a single sequence of events? Pilot hits the button and its all over but the landing???


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 4, 2006)

mekgp said:


> He could have used the "eject" sequence??!!
> Seriously, or...err...is the "eject" in the ol' Raptor a single sequence of events? Pilot hits the button and its all over but the landing???


The screws that backed out actually pined the canopy down. To do any egress sequence would of probably meant a lot of damage to the plane and pilot - the right thing was done, hook an AC unit up to the aircraft and just cut him out.


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 4, 2006)

And FBJ is right. Manned aircraft are going to be around for a LONG time. What you are going to see is a more integrated use of UAV/UAS along with manned aircraft in a manner that will allow a significant increase in force projection, minimize pilot risk and maximize resource application to the mission at hand. Technologies that promote information exchange to shorten the kill chain, minimize collateral damage and allow near real-time BDA are the name of the game. UAV/UAS will serve a surrogate role to manned aircraft to make that happen. We have entered a truly new era. As I write this, civil regulations, policy and technical standards are being identified for UAV/UAS introduction into the national airspace system. However, for military tactical oeprations a gamer with a joystick winning wars solo is only a pipedream.


----------



## Husky (Dec 8, 2006)

pbfoot said:


> its fairly easy to entertain a pilot just jingle some keys or something similar and your good for hours



ROFLMAO


----------



## davparlr (Dec 9, 2006)

mkloby said:


> I meant in terms of just using their primary radar to track an F-22... what kind of return it gets...



That's highly classified. The F-22 is thought to have better stealth characteristics than the F-117 and probably as good as the B-2 at certain angles. I would guess that it would have to be pretty close to detect and closer still to track. At least I hope so. That is why it was built.


----------



## mkloby (Dec 9, 2006)

davparlr said:


> That's highly classified. The F-22 is thought to have better stealth characteristics than the F-117 and probably as good as the B-2 at certain angles. I would guess that it would have to be pretty close to detect and closer still to track. At least I hope so. That is why it was built.



Hence the term "wonder!"


----------



## davparlr (Dec 9, 2006)

Smokey said:


> Have any of you heard this old story?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



We have discussed this on another thread. This is strange picture. Note the airpseed is 179 kts at 18k ft., angle of attack is 20.3 degrees !!, and the F-22 is passing horizontally by windscreen. I don't think this is a dogfight picture. The F-22 would only be a target for fraction of a second (enough, of course) as it flashed by. I suspect the f-18 pilot saw the F-22 crossing his path, raised his nose for camera shot. I don't think you can make a judgment on the manueverability of the F-22 vs. F-18. And besides, the F-22 is designed to get close enough to the ememy to launch missiles without being detected. This situation should never exist. By the way, does anyone know when the last real dogfight took place?


----------



## HealzDevo (Dec 10, 2006)

I don't know exactly but I would say it was sometime during Vietnam that the last dog-fight occurred. Although after Vietnam small rag-tag militia and that did operate old prop aircraft so it is difficult to say when definately and be right. But Vietnam probably contained the last official recorded dog-fight.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 10, 2006)

HealzDevo said:


> I don't know exactly but I would say it was sometime during Vietnam that the last dog-fight occurred. Although after Vietnam small rag-tag militia and that did operate old prop aircraft so it is difficult to say when definately and be right. But Vietnam probably contained the last official recorded dog-fight.


Do you really follow aviation? Since Vietnam there has been dozens of dogfights - Bekka Valley in 1984 is just one example!!!! The Falklands, Gulf War 1, Angola, the Iran Iraq War, that's just off the top of my head!!!!


----------



## HealzDevo (Dec 12, 2006)

You sure they were gun-kills and not missiles? Also were the other planes in the air at the time?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 12, 2006)

HealzDevo said:


> You sure they were gun-kills and not missiles? Also were the other planes in the air at the time?


Son, you got some reading to do, here go to this site....

Articles

There have been dozens of dogfights involving guns and missiles since Vietnam. For one, Capt Cesar Rodriguez had a twisting and turning dogfight with a Mig-29 during Gulf War 1. He flew his opponent into the ground. Read on some of the conflicts, there were plenty of dogfights since Vietnam.


----------



## Hunter368 (Dec 12, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Son, you got some reading to do, here go to this site....
> 
> Articles
> 
> There have been dozens of dogfights involving guns and missiles since Vietnam. For one, Capt Cesar Rodriguez had a twisting and turning dogfight with a Mig-29 during Gulf War 1. He flew his opponent into the ground. Read on some of the conflicts, there were plenty of dogfights since Vietnam.




Lol that was a very nice response. Very PC of you.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 13, 2006)

Thank you - thank you very much!


----------



## evangilder (Dec 13, 2006)

Without looking at that site, I recall a Saudi F-15 pilot named Al-Shamrani splashing 2 migs during GW I. I know there have been many air combat engagements beyond Vietnam. You don't have to have a major war to have aerial combat anyway. The Greeks and the Turks are good examples of that.


----------



## davparlr (Dec 13, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Don't hold your breath - in the late 50s some USAF and Pentagon wizkids said that dogfights will be a thing of the past and all fighters will be armed with missiles.
> 
> A few years later a little situation called Vietnam proved them very wrong...
> 
> I think UAVs will be the next wave of the future and will be used in conjunction with manned combat aircraft.




In Vietnam the missiles really stank. I can pretty well bet you that if the AIM-9 and AIM-7 missiles had the same reliability then that they do today, there would still be no guns on the fighters. Looking at the stats on the Persian Gulf War, there were few 20mm kills, like, maybe one? That's not much of return on carrying around nearly 1700 lbs of ordinance. AIM-9s probably only weigh 2 to 3 hundred pounds with rack.

There are a few missions that could be handled today with unmanned combat air vehicles (UCAV) with the technology available. Most air-to-ground mission could easily be handled, including strategic bombing. In another 15 to 20 years, depending on funding, most suppression of enemy air defences could probably be handled by unmanned launch platforms, the associated missiles, and probably manned and unmanned control/sensor vehicles.

This capability is fought against tooth and nail by the services but the cost of personnel in and over the battlefield is expensive, both in material cost and political cost and political pressure will move in this direction.

As for the need for highly manueverable aircraft, give me a F-15, maybe even a C-47 (i.e. any platform), a good sensor, and I will give you a missile that will reach out and out-maneuver any manned aircraft you can put against me.


----------

