F-18 crashes in San Diego

[Mister V]

In a residential area as well.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7772344....

[JonRB]

The pilot banged out and let the plane go down in a residential area?

I hope he can live with himself.

Edit: But at least nobody died. So that's probably easier to live with.

Edited by JonRB on Monday 8th December 21:16

[Grand Fromage]

According to channel 5, no injuries on the ground, pilot was bloody lucky there then!

[Famous Graham]

Anyone know which neighbourhood?

[john_p]

Famous Graham said:

Anyone know which neighbourhood?

From another forum -

"the 4500 block of Higgins Ave in University City"

\/\/\/ also who knows how much control he had over the aircraft, it may have been totally uncontrollable

Edited by john_p on Monday 8th December 21:21

[SamHH]

JonRB said:

The pilot banged out and let the plane go down in a residential area?

I hope he can live with himself.

If the plane you are flying is going to crash, why allow yourself to be killed when it's so easy to avoid?

[sadoksevoli]

JonRB said:

The pilot banged out and let the plane go down in a residential area?

I hope he can live with himself.

Edit: But at least nobody died. So that's probably easier to live with.

Edited by JonRB on Monday 8th December 21:16

Whoa according to the FAA he/she was coming in to land so maybe he/she had no choice but to "let the plane go down in a residential area". Maybe you should go ask the pilot once he/she's unstrapped the parachute and remembered what year we're all in.

[Pesty]

Grand Fromage said:

According to channel 5, no injuries on the ground, pilot was bloody lucky there then!

The link says it appears no injuries.

Lets hope that gets confirmed

[LukeBird]

JonRB said:

The pilot banged out and let the plane go down in a residential area?

I hope he can live with himself.

I don't think that would have been intentional...
No idea on the circumstances, but first thoughts would be the pilot has put the aircraft into a situation it shouldn't have been in...
Very interested to see what the FAA's findings are.

RDE said:

Fly jets long enough, something like this happens.

How did I know I was going to read that when I opened the thread!
I'll drop you a text later mate (just about to crash) you about tomorrow?

[Famous Graham]

john_p said:

Famous Graham said:

Anyone know which neighbourhood?

From another forum -

"the 4500 block of Higgins Ave in University City"

\/\/\/ also who knows how much control he had over the aircraft, it may have been totally uncontrollable

Edited by john_p on Monday 8th December 21:21

Cheers. Not the areas I was worried about. Regardless, good to hear that there's no one hurt thus far - hopefully it'll stay that way.

[JonRB]

SamHH said:

If the plane you are flying is going to crash, why allow yourself to be killed when it's so easy to avoid?

To save the lives of the people you're paid to protect in the event of a war, perhaps?

There are plenty of reports of pilots deliberately and nobly staying with the plane to minimise loss of life below, by aiming for open ground, even if it be only a park or playing field, at the cost of their own life.

I'm just saying that if a pilot is willing to sacrifice their life for their country in a theatre of war, the same applies in peacetime too, especially when your own citizens are below you and you are looking likely to kill a number of them.

But, no, you're right. Obviously banging out is the right thing to do and let your plane potentially crash into a packed school.

Edited by JonRB on Monday 8th December 21:35

[zagato]

I suspect it was totally out of control, therefore he couldn't park up in the nearest field, funnily enough.

[robinhood21]

I hope the pilot had his harness adjusted properly!

[SamHH]

JonRB said:

To save the lives of the people you're paid to protect in the event of a war, perhaps?

There are plenty of reports of pilots deliberately and nobly staying with the plane to minimise loss of life below, by aiming for open ground, even if it be only a park or playing field, at the cost of their own life.

I'm just saying that if a pilot is willing to sacrifice their life for their country in a theatre of war, the same applies in peacetime too, especially when your own citizens are below you and you are looking likely to kill a number of them.

But, no, you're right. Obviously banging out is the right thing to and let your plane potentially crash into a packed school.

It seems that you are assuming that if the pilot had stayed in the plane he would have been able to cause it to crash in a safer place. How do you know that is the case? How do you know that he didn't stay in the plane until the last possible moment and that he didn't direct plane to the safest possible place? BTW, there is no need for the sarcasm; I am not being impolite to you.

Edited by SamHH on Monday 8th December 21:38

[Simpo Two]

JonRB said:

The pilot banged out and let the plane go down in a residential area?

I hope he can live with himself.

Indeed. He could have stayed with the plane and killed himself as well. What would you choose?

[eharding]

JonRB said:

There are plenty of reports of pilots deliberately and nobly staying with the plane to minimise loss of life below, by aiming for open ground, even if it be only a park or playing field, at the cost of their own life.

...and most of them are bullst. Heavy aircraft like an F18 will glide like a brick, literally, particularly in a situation such as this one appears to be, a landing accident in a high-drag configuration - in the event of power or control loss the reaction drummed into the pilot through years of training would be to eject - to do anything else would merely to be adding to the casualty list.

[youngsyr]

JonRB said:

SamHH said:

If the plane you are flying is going to crash, why allow yourself to be killed when it's so easy to avoid?

To save the lives of the people you're paid to protect in the event of a war, perhaps?

There are plenty of reports of pilots deliberately and nobly staying with the plane to minimise loss of life below, by aiming for open ground, even if it be only a park or playing field, at the cost of their own life.

I'm just saying that if a pilot is willing to sacrifice their life for their country in a theatre of war, the same applies in peacetime too, especially when your own citizens are below you and you are looking likely to kill a number of them.

But, no, you're right. Obviously banging out is the right thing to and let your plane potentially crash into a packed school.

Edited by JonRB on Monday 8th December 21:29

Call me a naive, but if a pilot bails out, that suggests to me that he has lost control of the plane.

Do you not think that perhaps the plane was going to crash where it was going to crash and there wasn't a thing the pilot could have done about it?

[JonRB]

SamHH said:

It seems that you are assuming that if the pilot had stayed in the plane he would have been able to cause it to crash in a safer place. How do you know that is the case? How do you know that he didn't stay in the plane until the last possible moment and that he didn't direct plane to the safest possible place? BTW, there is no need for the sarcasm.

No, you're quite right of course. And that's a fair point to make. I'm sure he did do the best job he could.

[tinman0]

JonRB said:

SamHH said:

If the plane you are flying is going to crash, why allow yourself to be killed when it's so easy to avoid?

To save the lives of the people you're paid to protect in the event of a war, perhaps?

There are plenty of reports of pilots deliberately and nobly staying with the plane to minimise loss of life below, by aiming for open ground, even if it be only a park or playing field, at the cost of their own life.

I'm just saying that if a pilot is willing to sacrifice their life for their country in a theatre of war, the same applies in peacetime too, especially when your own citizens are below you and you are looking likely to kill a number of them.

But, no, you're right. Obviously banging out is the right thing to do and let your plane potentially crash into a packed school.

If you have no control of the plane, what's the point of staying on board?

All very noble going down with the plane, but why bother if its just an unguided missile? As for the taxpayer - doesn't make sense to lose a highly trained (read expensive) pilot for no reason.

[trampagne]

youngsyr said:

JonRB said:

SamHH said:

If the plane you are flying is going to crash, why allow yourself to be killed when it's so easy to avoid?

To save the lives of the people you're paid to protect in the event of a war, perhaps?

There are plenty of reports of pilots deliberately and nobly staying with the plane to minimise loss of life below, by aiming for open ground, even if it be only a park or playing field, at the cost of their own life.

I'm just saying that if a pilot is willing to sacrifice their life for their country in a theatre of war, the same applies in peacetime too, especially when your own citizens are below you and you are looking likely to kill a number of them.

But, no, you're right. Obviously banging out is the right thing to and let your plane potentially crash into a packed school.

Edited by JonRB on Monday 8th December 21:29

Call me a naive, but if a pilot bails out, that suggests to me that he has lost control of the plane.

Do you not think that perhaps the plane was going to crash where it was going to crash and there wasn't a thing the pilot could have done about it?

Don't be too hasty, JonRB is a "Freelance Software Developer specialising in C++ under Windows", he's obviously had his fair share of uncontrollable spins in multirole jet aircraft and instead of realising that it was physically impossible to manouvre the jet anywhere to avoid the built up area, he selflessly went down with his ship, for some reason.