|
Author
|
Topic: Remembering the original Gemini 9 crew
|
328KF
Member Posts: 1251
From:
Registered: Apr 2008
|
posted 03-12-2012 09:34 PM
   
It is a common trap to fall into when ones blames an accident on "pilot error" in the absence of any other real data. We're trying to analyze an aircraft mishap decades old with no real unbiased information. No flight data recorder, no cockpit voice recorder. There may well have been some air to ground comm and radar plots if we're lucky, but who knows where all of that is?I'd love to read any product of the original investigation if it is available, but I'll bet it will lead to more questions than answers. I discussed the mentioned the perceptions of his colleagues before, and if it was done all in-house, those would have definitely found their way into the findings. However, it does not appear to me from everything I have read that See simply flew directly into the building. Rather he wrapped the aircraft into a tight turn at low altitude, likely in landing configuration ( gear and flaps down) which would rapidly increase all the bad stuff...G-load, drag, stall speed, and descent rate. The aircraft descended into the top of the building in a steep left bank, with the left wing slicing through the roof before being ripped off. If the afterburners were indeed lit just before impact, this would indicate that See recognized the situation and attempted to power out of the descent. The next steps would have been to simultaneously level the wings and clean the aircraft up, but the impact occurred before he could do this. But like I said, the holes in the swiss cheese started lining up long before See made that turn, and there may have been other factors none of us are aware of. |
ColinBurgess
Member Posts: 2043
From: Sydney, Australia
Registered: Sep 2003
|
posted 03-12-2012 10:10 PM
I do in fact have a copy of the full, official report into the accident that was given to me by Jeannie Bassett. It is 63 pages long.John (328KF), as you are a pilot who could analyse its contents and conclusions far better than me, if I were to send it to you, could you share your findings? In citing this document in "Fallen Astronauts" I did try not to draw too many inferences in regard to the procedures followed (or not), but some things may be glaringly obvious to you. It is all in there, and very comprehensive, even down to witness accounts. I'm afraid I can't open this offer to everyone, but if John can contact me at my email address we can discuss this off-board. |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2458
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 03-13-2012 03:03 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong - but surely there had to be an official investgation into the accident by the relevant civil aviation authority as well as the 'in house' inquiry. If this is the case, then wouldn't it be in the public domain and there be a link to it?I've had a cursory search of the FAA records but have found no trace. This raises the question as to why possibly this accident was not investgated by the FAA and left to just the NASA inquiry. |
Jay Chladek
Member Posts: 2272
From: Bellevue, NE, USA
Registered: Aug 2007
|
posted 03-13-2012 06:46 AM
quote:
Originally posted by ilbasso:
Cernan owned up to his own stupidity in his chopper crash.
Cernan also owned up to another incident when he was flying FJ Fury jets in the Navy. One day he was hot dogging and obviously flying too low and he climbed a little to avoid a thick row of trees when he heard a thump. When he got back to base, there were parts of trees embedded in some of the cooling intakes on the bottom of his jet. If he had been a little lower, he would have been dead. He never did that again.The thing about aircraft accidents is people who aren't necessarily pilots when they hear other pilots making mention of another aviator cracking up automatically think it is just a criticism and saying the other guy is a bad person. Indeed it can be way off base in some cases (Yeager's uncalled for criticism of Scott Crossfield's fatal Cessna crash for one when ATC dropped the ball and cleared him to fly too close to a thunderhead). Any pilot who thinks he is better than anyone else and can't make mistakes is a dang fool if they don't respect that the fickle hand of fate can kill an experienced pilot with thousands of hours of flight time just as easily as the flight school nugget with less than 100 hours. I should know as although I maybe only have 300 hours of flight time in my log book, I still came close to having a bad screw up on two occasions and some minor ones other times. Because I survived them, they are learning experiences and I told myself after I landed... "Do not do that again!" Those that try to learn from others mistakes or their own and make a comment about it to others from an educational standpoint are trying to do the proper thing, which is hopefully preventing it from happening to them or someone else. Granted our culture has been brought up to not own up to mistakes as it shows a sign of weakness to others. But in my opinion, those that do mention them show a lot more courage than those that do not. So to me, Gene showed a lot of initiative by saying "I screwed up" to Deke when he did. I even remember him bringing up the subject of the helicopter crash in passing during STS-1's launch coverage as he was an analyst in the ABC booth and Deke Slayton (still the chief astronaut) was sitting right next to him. Both men chuckled a little when Gene mentioned it. An airplane is a thing with an engine (or two) a cockpit, two wings, a tail and landing gear at minimum. It doesn't care if you are the most popular guy in the world with lots of friends or the biggest gluteus maximus cranium in the known universe. If you don't do what you should be doing when you need to do it due to any number of factors you can end up just as dead. The plane does not care who you are, it is more concerned with what is being done at a given moment. |
ejectr
Member Posts: 1758
From: Killingly, CT
Registered: Mar 2002
|
posted 03-13-2012 08:25 AM
And those of us that fly know how demanding a steep banked turn can be with the lack of a horizon out the window at low altitude. The artificial horizon on the panel is also demanding and unforgiving in a steep bank at low altitude as well. It all must have started to go bad as soon as he made the decision to make a low visual approach and not a missed approach in IMC. |
328KF
Member Posts: 1251
From:
Registered: Apr 2008
|
posted 03-13-2012 09:22 AM
quote:
Originally posted by ColinBurgess:
I'm afraid I can't open this offer to everyone, but if John can contact me at my email address we can discuss this off-board.
Email sent Colin.
|
LM-12
Member Posts: 3324
From: Ontario, Canada
Registered: Oct 2010
|
posted 03-13-2012 10:33 AM
Lambert Field was a bit smaller back in 1966. Runway 11-29, which is almost parallel to and slightly west of runway 12R-30L, did not exist back then - it opened in 2006. |
Captain Apollo
Member Posts: 260
From: UK
Registered: Jun 2004
|
posted 03-13-2012 11:37 AM
I have always wondered why they (or at least Bassett) did not eject? |
ilbasso
Member Posts: 1522
From: Greensboro, NC USA
Registered: Feb 2006
|
posted 03-13-2012 03:23 PM
When they realized they were in trouble, they were far too low for the chutes to open if they had ejected. |
Captain Apollo
Member Posts: 260
From: UK
Registered: Jun 2004
|
posted 03-13-2012 04:46 PM
They didn't have zero height ejection seats in the mid 1960s? |
ilbasso
Member Posts: 1522
From: Greensboro, NC USA
Registered: Feb 2006
|
posted 03-13-2012 05:06 PM
Both Ted Freeman and C. C. Williams also died whilst ejecting from their T-38's too close to the ground. |
User997
Member Posts: 59
From:
Registered: Oct 2005
|
posted 03-13-2012 10:32 PM
quote:
Originally posted by micropooz:
To answer the question on the height of Building 101, the three buildings that jut out of its left side in the photo were 4 stories tall. Building 101 was even taller than they were.
To give everyone a better visualization of the building that was struck versus where they ended up:  |
Skylon
Member Posts: 277
From:
Registered: Sep 2010
|
posted 03-14-2012 08:17 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Captain Apollo:
I have always wondered why they (or at least Bassett) did not eject?
It always sounded like there was no time to process that decision. One second See hit the afterburners, and next they ended up striking the building. Freeman and Williams deaths, and ability to eject (albeit too late) were the result of vastly different situations. |
Jay Chladek
Member Posts: 2272
From: Bellevue, NE, USA
Registered: Aug 2007
|
posted 03-14-2012 09:12 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Captain Apollo:
They didn't have zero height ejection seats in the mid 1960s?
There were zero height seats back then. But if the plane is going down in a hurry (say over 200 knots), there will be a critical few seconds when the ejection seat will be traveling on a parallel path with the plane at about the same speed, assuming the ejection lever gets pulled well enough above the ground. Even if the lever gets pulled, ejection is not instantaneous. The canopy has to jettison first and then the seat fires and that take precious time. Just watch any of the Russian MiG ejections at airshows and you get a clear idea as to how long it can really take. Robert Lawrence died under similar circumstances. At ARPS, he was in the back seat of a TF-104 doing a high sink rate and the gear collapsed when it hit the ground. Since a 104 is so skinny, mission rules call for ejection when the gear collapses since the plane usually starts flipping over after that. So Lawrence fired his seat. But in the time it took for the seat to fire, the plane had rolled 90 degrees on its side and he got fired sideways and was killed almost instantly. |
dtemple
Member Posts: 730
From: Longview, Texas, USA
Registered: Apr 2000
|
posted 03-17-2012 11:53 AM
Could someone post a diagram of See and Bassett's flight path or otherwise provide a clear idea of their flight path into McDonnell Building 101? I have never understood exactly where the initial impact point was located. After studying the Google image link posted earlier I do not understand why that building was even in their flight path to runway 24. As for C.C. Williams ejecting... his plane was flying almost vertically downward at about Mach 1 as he completed his ejection about one second before impact of the aircraft. Ted Freeman's T-38 rolled as he ejected at an altitude of about 100 feet thus propelling him sideways. If he had been able to eject straight up or nearly so I presume he would have survived. Colin's book, "Fallen Astronauts" is the source for the above about Williams' and Freeman's crashes - or rather my memory of what I read about them. |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2458
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 03-17-2012 03:55 PM
quote:
Originally posted by dtemple:
Could someone post a diagram of See and Bassett's flight path or otherwise provide a clear idea of their flight path into McDonnell Building 101?
This might be answered if one could read the FAA Accident Report. However, this does not appear to exist. The only record would seem to be the internal NASA investigation which also is not in the public domain. Why? |
Skylon
Member Posts: 277
From:
Registered: Sep 2010
|
posted 03-17-2012 11:37 PM
quote:
Originally posted by dtemple:
As for C.C. Williams ejecting... his plane was flying almost vertically downward at about Mach 1 as he completed his ejection about one second before impact of the aircraft.
Dang, I didn't realize how fast, or low Williams was at ejection. I do recall reading the air craft for some reason had a low ceiling to begin with. I think the consensus with him was he stuck with the plane longer than he should have, believing "I can get out of this". He even managed to signal a mayday, and describe his situation.On a better day Freeman probably would have still been alive. I thought the conclusion in his incident was there was evidence he was disoriented by the bird impact, which delayed his ejection. |
capoetc
Member Posts: 2178
From: McKinney TX (USA)
Registered: Aug 2005
|
posted 03-18-2012 08:02 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Captain Apollo:
They didn't have zero height ejection seats in the mid 1960s?
At the time, the T-38 had a zero/50 seat -- meaning, if you were at zero altitude (on the ground) and had 50 knots of speed, you could "safely" eject, although no one really wanted to test that option out. If you were close to the ground with any downward vector at all, then you were outside the ejection envelope. |
LM-12
Member Posts: 3324
From: Ontario, Canada
Registered: Oct 2010
|
posted 03-24-2012 06:52 AM
Talk about being cool under pressure. Armstrong had to command a Gemini flight that launched only 16 days after the T-38 crash that killed two fellow astronauts - one of whom (See) was the pilot he trained with on the back-up crew for Gemini 5. Then he had to deal with his own in-flight emergency on the Gemini 8 mission. |
ejectr
Member Posts: 1758
From: Killingly, CT
Registered: Mar 2002
|
posted 03-24-2012 07:45 AM
quote:
Originally posted by LM-12:
Armstrong had to command a Gemini flight that launched only 16 days after the T-38 crash that killed two fellow astronauts...
That's why they have ice water running through their veins. |
onesmallstep
Member Posts: 1313
From: Staten Island, New York USA
Registered: Nov 2007
|
posted 03-04-2015 11:57 AM
quote:
Originally posted by LM-12:
NASA 907 was the T-38 jet that Stafford and Cernan were flying that day. Does anyone know if that aircraft is still in the NASA T-38 fleet today?
A post under this thread shows that in Oct. 2011 that particular aircraft was no longer in service with NASA (per FlightAware) and was probably dispersed/recycled through the US Air Force. |
music_space
Member Posts: 1179
From: Canada
Registered: Jul 2001
|
posted 03-04-2015 04:55 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Delta7:
There's little doubt in my mind that Charlie Bassett would have been one of the 12 men to walk on the moon had he lived.
More than a few members here have shared this opinion. Anyone care to substantiate? |
ColinBurgess
Member Posts: 2043
From: Sydney, Australia
Registered: Sep 2003
|
posted 03-04-2015 05:19 PM
Jeannie Bassett told me Deke Slayton definitely but unofficially mentioned to Charlie that after Gemini 9 he was in line for one of the early lunar landing missions. Slayton felt that Bassett would work well with Frank Borman and Bill Anders as an Apollo crew, and said if that went well he would then command his own lunar mission. Of course this never became official and the fatal crash brought these plans to an end. Jeannie told me that Charlie was really excited about being involved in Apollo and the prospect of walking on the moon. Jeannie said she and Charlie discussed it often before he was killed not long after.I have no doubts at all that had he not been killed, he would likely have flown as CMP on Apollo 8 and commanded one of the moon-landing missions. |
Rick Mulheirn
Member Posts: 4208
From: England
Registered: Feb 2001
|
posted 03-04-2015 05:50 PM
The claim that Charlie Bassett would have commanded a lunar landing was substantiated by Gene Cernan at the Q&A that followed the screening of his film in Sheffield last June.I've always thought that Deke and Gene got on particularly well and that is why he got the nod to command 17 over Dick Gordon. If Deke had discussed the possibility of a lunar command with Jeannie Bassett it is likely he would confided the same with his good friend Cernan... perhaps following Charlie's death. |
Delta7
Member Posts: 1527
From: Bluffton IN USA
Registered: Oct 2007
|
posted 03-05-2015 09:11 AM
Assuming everything else remained the same, one could presume that after flying Gemini 9 Bassett would have flown as CMP on Apollo 8 with Borman and Anders. Then one could presume he would have served as backup CDR of Apollo 11, putting him in a position to fly as CDR of Apollo 14 (going by Deke's system of crew assignment and rotation). |
mach3valkyrie
Member Posts: 719
From: Albany, Oregon
Registered: Jul 2006
|
posted 03-05-2015 12:13 PM
While we're discussing "what ifs", had Gemini 9 gone as planned, to what future spaceflight/s would Elliot See have been assigned? I'm thinking maybe a Skylab mission.This is an interesting topic. |
328KF
Member Posts: 1251
From:
Registered: Apr 2008
|
posted 03-05-2015 04:37 PM
It's really impossible to know, as most of these what-if? scenarios are. Astronauts who seemed like perfect heroes to us today were later revealed to not be favored by Deke/management... Ed White comes to mind. On the other hand, guys who were not popular in the office fell into historic assignments by sequences of events and crew rotations, which in no way reflected the preference of management (Aldrin). Seemingly benign decisions, like McDivitt shifting his crew to Apollo 9 in order to stay with the LM, changed everything. That decision alone had implications all the way up to Apollo 17 and onward. It swapped the backup crews as well, which put Armstrong in the right place at the right time. Following Apollo 11, Deke asked Mike Collins if he was interested in the backup job for Shepard's crew, and he declined. That offer probably would have been made to Gordon had the swap not taken place. Gordon would have undoubtedly accepted and rotated to commander of Apollo 17. Cernan may well have been left as commander of a later canceled mission. That's just one example of how no matter what their reputations were within the office at the time, and regardless of intent, there is no telling where See or Bassett may have ended up in Apollo. We don't even have any way of knowing what their own individual desires may have been or may have changed. There were several astronauts over the years who turned down lunar assignments. |
Delta7
Member Posts: 1527
From: Bluffton IN USA
Registered: Oct 2007
|
posted 03-05-2015 04:42 PM
See's immediate post-Gemini 9 assignment would've been as backup Command Pilot of Gemini 12 (with C.C. Williams as backup pilot I believe). I've thought he might have subsequently been given the assignment of chief of the Apollo Applications branch of the astronaut office, the position ultimately assigned to Al Bean. Slayton considered some astronauts as more suited to AAP than lunar crews, such as Cunningham and Eisele. My opinion is that See was included in that category and would have bypassed Apollo and flown on Skylab (if he flew again at all). |
HistoryDiscussion
unregistered
|
posted 03-20-2015 10:51 PM
Has anyone ever seen a diagram/drawing of the See/Bassett crash? |
advertisement