|
Author
|
Topic: Remembering the original Gemini 9 crew
|
perineau
Member Posts: 244
From: FRANCE
Registered: Jul 2007
|
posted 02-28-2011 02:58 PM
   
45 years ago, the original crew of Gemini 9, Charles Bassett II and Elliot See Jr. died in a plane crash while on their way to inspect their Gemini capsule. I hope that one day, this crew will be included in the remembrance day organized by NASA for Apollo 1 as well as the Challenger 51L crew and the crew of STS-107. I have sent several emails to NASA on this matter, they have never bothered to reply... |
star51L
Member Posts: 354
From: Vilano Beach, FL, USA
Registered: Aug 2002
|
posted 02-28-2011 03:54 PM
I always felt Charlie Bassett would have proven to be one of the best astronauts ever chosen. |
Tom
Member Posts: 1610
From: New York
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 02-28-2011 06:06 PM
Elliot / Charlie...45 years later, you're still in our thoughts and prayers. |
Delta7
Member Posts: 1527
From: Bluffton IN USA
Registered: Oct 2007
|
posted 02-28-2011 06:28 PM
Whenever I fly into Lambert Field as a corporate pilot, I wind up parking very close to the crash site. Last time it was low overcast and snowy, and I couldn't help visualize a T-38 circling by very low and suddenly hitting the afterburners.May God speed always, Elliot and Charlie. |
dtemple
Member Posts: 730
From: Longview, Texas, USA
Registered: Apr 2000
|
posted 02-28-2011 07:57 PM
I have been to Lambert International a few times and have tried to determine which building was struck by the T-38, but without any success. In case I am there again can I see it from the terminal or perhaps on approach/takeoff? |
micropooz
Member Posts: 1532
From: Washington, DC, USA
Registered: Apr 2003
|
posted 02-28-2011 08:21 PM
When I went to work for McDonnell Douglas in the early 1980's, one of the older guys was showing me through Building 101, which at the time was the assembly line for the Harrier. He pointed out to me where the roof and rafters had been repaired after the Bassett and See crash. It was toward the north end of the building. Building 101 is the large white topped building in the center of this photo. |
Henry Heatherbank
Member Posts: 250
From: Adelaide, South Australia
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 03-01-2011 02:57 PM
Never forgotten, given the impact this event had on the course of history taken in the remainder of the Gemini and Apollo programs.How history may have been different if See and Bassett had not died on that day. |
Delta7
Member Posts: 1527
From: Bluffton IN USA
Registered: Oct 2007
|
posted 03-02-2011 02:24 PM
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. |
ColinBurgess
Member Posts: 2043
From: Sydney, Australia
Registered: Sep 2003
|
posted 03-02-2011 02:44 PM
No doubt at all in my mind. Charlie had already been informed by Deke Slayton that if GT-9 went well he was in line for one of the early Apollo missions, and Slayton felt that he would work well on a crew with Frank Borman and Bill Anders. This of course meant that he may well have flown as senior pilot on Apollo 8. I'm sure he would have then stuck around for a lunar landing mission. He was very highly regarded and respected by his peers, both as a pilot and as a person. |
LM-12
Member Posts: 3324
From: Ontario, Canada
Registered: Oct 2010
|
posted 02-28-2012 05:51 PM
NASA photo S66-15620 is the original Gemini 9 crew portrait of See and Bassett. The image is dated 01/05/1966.Both the prime (See-Bassett) and backup (Stafford-Cernan) Gemini 9 crews can be seen in photo S66-15622. |
jasonelam
Member Posts: 691
From: Monticello, KY USA
Registered: Mar 2007
|
posted 02-29-2012 08:46 PM
I can remember flying into St Louis in January, 1996 and seeing the building they hit right before we landed. It was a really emotional moment, especially when you consider the weather conditions were similar to that bad day 30 years prior.I agree NASA needs to remember February 28th and the memory of See and Bassett in much the same way as they remember 51L, Columbia and Apollo 1. |
LM-12
Member Posts: 3324
From: Ontario, Canada
Registered: Oct 2010
|
posted 03-07-2012 10:24 AM
Chapter 14 in NASA SP-4203 On the Shoulders of Titans: A History of Project Gemini has an account of what happened that day.One bright winter morning, the last day of February 1966, the Gemini IX foursome checked into Ellington Air Force Base, Texas, for flight clearance to St. Louis in two dual-seat T-38 jet aircraft. They planned to spend several days practicing on the rendezvous simulator at the McDonnell plant. At Ellington, the four fliers learned that weather in St. Louis was gloomy: 180-meter overcast, visibility 3 kilometers, rain, and fog, with little change expected. Instrument flight rules would be required. See called the St. Louis air traffic controllers, saying he would see them in a couple of hours. He and Cernan discussed the different runways at Lambert Field in St. Louis. See then climbed into the front seat of one T-38, with Bassett easing into the back seat. Stafford and Cernan got into the other plane. They took off from Ellington at 7:35 a.m. See and Bassett led, with Stafford and Cernan flying wing position. Reaching St. Louis just before 9 o'clock, See radioed the Lambert Field control tower and learned that the overcast had lifted to 240 meters since his earlier call, but the visibility had dropped to 2.4 kilometers. Light snow flurries now mixed with the rain and fog. As the aircraft descended through the overcast, the pilots found themselves too far down the runway to land. See elected to keep the field in sight and he circled to the left underneath the cloud cover. Stafford followed a missed approach procedure and climbed straight ahead into the soup to 600 meters, intending to make another instrument approach. He landed safely on his next attempt. Meanwhile, See had continued his left turn. The aircraft angled toward McDonnell Building 101, where technicians were working on the very spacecraft See and Bassett were scheduled to fly. Apparently recognizing that his sink rate was too high, See cut in his afterburners and attempted a sharp right turn; but it was too late. The aircraft struck the roof of the building and crashed into a courtyard. Both pilots were killed. NASA named a seven-man board to investigate the accident. Led by Astronaut Alan B. Shepard, Jr.,* the board looked into all aspects of the tragedy - aircraft maintenance, pilot experience, medical histories, and weather conditions. Shepard's group listened to testimony from everyone who had anything to say, sifted the wreckage for clues, and drew conclusions. They found nothing wrong with the aircraft; it had functioned properly to the moment of impact. Within the past six months, See and Bassett had renewed their instrument flying certificates. Before and during the flight, both men had been in good physical and mental condition, as attested by medical examinations and by reported pre- and in-flight conversations. Furthermore, See was reputed to be an excellent test pilot. Careful, judicious, and technically competent, he should never have crashed at all. Weather appeared to have been the major contributing cause, and pilot error prompted by a desire not to lose sight of the field had carried them too low. On Wednesday, 2 March 1966, Spacecraft No. 9, on its way to the flight dock for shipment to Cape Kennedy, passed an American flag flying at half-mast at the McDonnell plant. The next day, Elliot See and Charles Bassett, attended by their fellow astronauts, were buried in Arlington National Cemetery across the Potomac from the Nation's capital. NASA assigned the Gemini IX prime crew positions to Stafford and Cernan, marking the first time in the agency's manned space flight history that a backup crew had taken over a mission. On 21 March James Lovell and Edwin Aldrin were given the backup duties. There would be no delay in the launch schedule. |
garymilgrom
Member Posts: 1966
From: Atlanta, GA
Registered: Feb 2007
|
posted 03-07-2012 12:57 PM
With all due respect - NASA memorials seem to be for accidents where equipment failed and astronauts died as a result.This accident was the result of a poor decision by Mr. See. Mr. Stafford, faced with the same situation, made a different decision and lived to visit the moon. I don't think this tragedy falls into the same category as those that befell Apollo 1, STS-51L or STS-107. Just my opinion. |
LM-12
Member Posts: 3324
From: Ontario, Canada
Registered: Oct 2010
|
posted 03-07-2012 06:39 PM
The KSC Astronaut Memorial also honours See, Bassett, Freeman, Williams, Carter, Adams and Lawrence. |
ilbasso
Member Posts: 1522
From: Greensboro, NC USA
Registered: Feb 2006
|
posted 03-08-2012 08:25 AM
I just finished re-reading Gene Cernan's "Last Man on the Moon," in which he said that there were widespread concerns in the astronaut corps about Mr. See's flying abilities before the accident. Everything I've read does make the accident appear to be pilot error.One of the primary reasons the astronauts were given T-38's to fly was to keep them sharp, to put them in situations where their lives were riding on their abilities to make snap decisions when something didn't go as planned. There were no consequences to fouling up in a simulator other than looking bad to one's peers or to management. Screw up in a T-38, though, and you pay the price. It's a shame that two astronauts died, and many workers in the plant were injured, as a result of a bad decision. It's fortunate that Mr. See's plane did not destroy the four Gemini spacecraft being assembled in the plant that day. What would that have done to America's race to the Moon? |
Delta7
Member Posts: 1527
From: Bluffton IN USA
Registered: Oct 2007
|
posted 03-08-2012 10:29 AM
As a long-time professional pilot, from what I've read about the accident it was entirely avoidable and frankly inexcusable. Either deliberately or inadvertently. See allowed his altitude to descend well below circling minimums for that approach, as evidenced by the fact he was forced to pull up AND fire afterburners in a desperate attempt to avoid the obstacle he suddenly became aware of. Standard procedure is to NOT descend below the prescribed circling altitude until you are in a position to do so safely and land; See obviously violated this by a wide margin being BELOW the height of buildings! I always wonder how much Bassett was aware of what See was setting them up for and if he had any role in the decision to "Pour on the coals" and get out of there. It all probably happened so fast so possibly not, at least to it's fullest extent until the last few seconds. Tom Stafford's remark to Gene Cernan as See broke off and began the circling maneuver pretty much sums it up: "What the hell is he doing?!" |
Glint
Member Posts: 1044
From: New Windsor, Maryland USA
Registered: Jan 2004
|
posted 03-08-2012 01:28 PM
quote:
Originally posted by ilbasso:
I just finished re-reading Gene Cernan's "Last Man on the Moon," in which he said that there were widespread concerns in the astronaut corps about Mr. See's flying abilities before the accident.
I admire Gene Cernan and intend no disrespect. But isn't this a little like the pot calling the kettle black? This, of course, is in reference to Cernan's 1971 helicopter crash in which there was "no evidence of any mechanical malfunction." To be fair, Cernan isn't necessarily stating his own opinion. He's simply repeating the opinions, or rumors of opinions, that he once heard. |
ilbasso
Member Posts: 1522
From: Greensboro, NC USA
Registered: Feb 2006
|
posted 03-08-2012 08:09 PM
Cernan owned up to his own stupidity in his chopper crash. Deke Slayton tried to give him a cover story that his engine had quit, but Cernan insisted on taking responsibility for his error in judgment. Cernan also trained as a formation flyer when he was flying off carriers, so I assume his jet skills were pretty sharp. |
LM-12
Member Posts: 3324
From: Ontario, Canada
Registered: Oct 2010
|
posted 03-08-2012 08:25 PM
The NASA biography for Elliot See is here. The NASA biography for Charles Bassett is here. |
ColinBurgess
Member Posts: 2043
From: Sydney, Australia
Registered: Sep 2003
|
posted 03-08-2012 09:09 PM
Chapter-length biographies of both Elliot See and Charlie Bassett are contained in one of my earlier books, "Fallen Astronauts." It also has a full description of the circumstances surrounding the crash, as well as the aftermath. The See and Bassett families assisted me in compiling their stories and checked them for complete accuracy.In response to an earlier post, there were some trace elements suggesting that Charlie Bassett could see what was going to happen and had initiated an ejection, but this simply did not happen in time. |
Delta7
Member Posts: 1527
From: Bluffton IN USA
Registered: Oct 2007
|
posted 03-09-2012 11:19 AM
I sometimes wonder if Elliot See was aware of the whispers being made about his skills as a pilot (Deke Slayton describing them as "Old woman-ish", i.e. not forceful or aggressive enough), and if so might that have contributed to the accident? That could have been in the back of his mind as he made the decision to circle for another runway, rather than do the more prudent thing and go missed as Stafford did. Regardless, had See flown the circling maneuver as it was supposed to be flown, he either would have been able to land or would have had to "go missed" and come back around for another instrument approach. As Stafford and Cernan did.Circling approaches in marginal weather are not fun and inherently risky. Most airlines do not allow them. They obviously can be and are done all the time, but the margins are tight and there is very little margin for error. It requires a significant amount of division of attention to keep the runway in sight, maintain the proper altitude, stay close to the runway, and fly the airplane to a normal touchdown. I do not like them, and avoid them if possible as do most pilots I know. We will never know what was going through the minds of See and Bassett during the last few seconds of their lives. I still consider Elliot See one of my heroes just like the other astronauts, but he messed up that day. He and Bassett paid the price. |
LM-12
Member Posts: 3324
From: Ontario, Canada
Registered: Oct 2010
|
posted 03-09-2012 12:11 PM
Considering See's 3700 hours experience flying a dozen different types of aircraft, doesn't that indicate that he must have been a skilled pilot to make it as far as he did in his career? |
Delta7
Member Posts: 1527
From: Bluffton IN USA
Registered: Oct 2007
|
posted 03-09-2012 12:45 PM
quote:
Originally posted by LM-12:
Considering See's 3700 hours experience flying a dozen different types of aircraft, doesn't that indicate that he must have been a skilled pilot to make it as far as he did in his career?
Yes and no. I've flown with pilots with twice that amount who I thought were questionable. See could obviously fly. His reputation was good enough to land him the astronaut job, no small feat considering the competition. However, 3700 hours is just a number. It accumulates through a minimum level of skill, opportunity, circumstance and luck. It's that last hour that ends with an accident that wipes the others out. And who knows how many other astronauts came close to getting killed while flying but managed to land unscathed? We'll never know. Regardless, See made a fatal error. He allowed his altitude to decay prematurely, which put him on a collision course with a building. Whether deliberately or inadvertently, it was a colossal mistake which cost 2 men their lives and changed space history, and should not have happened. Period. |
Delta7
Member Posts: 1527
From: Bluffton IN USA
Registered: Oct 2007
|
posted 03-09-2012 12:57 PM
Dave Griggs was killed practicing low-level aerobatics in a vintage T-6. This was immediately after being strongly advised not to do so by a pilot or pilots a lot more experienced in that airplane. He did it anyway with fatal results. He had almost 10,000 hours of flying time under his belt.All the hours in the world cannot make up for a lapse in judgment or feeling of invincibility brought on by one's ego. Happens all too frequently, and no one is 100% immune. |
LM-12
Member Posts: 3324
From: Ontario, Canada
Registered: Oct 2010
|
posted 03-09-2012 02:50 PM
It is hard to tell from the satellite photo posted earlier how high Building 101 is. As a pilot, would you consider the distance at Lambert Field between a building of that size and the nearest runway to be normal? It looks close on the satellite image. |
Michael Davis
Member Posts: 530
From: Houston, Texas
Registered: Aug 2002
|
posted 03-09-2012 03:31 PM
I have flown into Lambert many times as a passenger. I have never quite understood the approach that See and Bassett must have been making in order to hit the building while executing a left turn. Perhaps the approach was to a different runway than that currently used for commercial flights. Can anyone point to a diagram of the Lambert runway system that shows the approach used that day? |
Delta7
Member Posts: 1527
From: Bluffton IN USA
Registered: Oct 2007
|
posted 03-09-2012 07:18 PM
quote:
Originally posted by LM-12:
As a pilot, would you consider the distance at Lambert Field between a building of that size and the nearest runway to be normal?
Kind of unusual, but not that uncommon. The minimum circling altitude would be predicated on all obstacles withing a certain distance of the runway, including buildings. Go beyond the protected distance and you're on your own so to speak. But at the minimum altitude within the distance you're not supposed to hit anything. |
Delta7
Member Posts: 1527
From: Bluffton IN USA
Registered: Oct 2007
|
posted 03-09-2012 07:29 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Davis:
Perhaps the approach was to a different runway than that currently used for commercial flights.
See flew a localizer-only approach to runway 12 Right (oriented to the southeast) because the glide slope was out of service that day. He broke off into a left turn to land on runway 24 (to the southwest). |
LM-12
Member Posts: 3324
From: Ontario, Canada
Registered: Oct 2010
|
posted 03-09-2012 08:01 PM
Thanks for the info - it is interesting to get a professional pilot's perspective on the incident.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? |
ASCAN1984
Member Posts: 1049
From: County Down, Nothern Ireland
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 03-11-2012 06:18 AM
Often wonder how different would things have been for Eugene Cernan had this tragic event not occurred. |
capoetc
Member Posts: 2178
From: McKinney TX (USA)
Registered: Aug 2005
|
posted 03-11-2012 06:57 AM
I've never been comfortable with the Monday morning quarterbacking that goes on regarding aircraft accidents.As an AF pilot, I have had several (too many) opportunities to sit in on a safety board review following an accident when I personally knew the pilots. From the back of the room, one hears the comments from others, "Boy, that guy was an idiot... I never would have let that happen." Those kinds of responses are natural for a pilot -- one never wants to consider that perhaps something like that could happen to me. But in those cases where I personally knew the pilot(s), I also knew that they weren't idiots. They were caught within a chain of events that could lead to an accident, and they failed to break that chain. But they weren't idiots. They were highly skilled professional pilots who had to be perfect on a particular day, and the did not meet they standard. In Elliot See's case, here is a list of aircraft he flew as a test pilot for GE: F-86, XF4D, F-104, F11F-1F, RB-66, F4H, and T-38. He was a good, skilled pilot. And he made a mistake that day. Maybe he was the weakest pilot in the astronaut office, I don't know ... I never flew with the guy, so impossible for me to know. But even if he was, that still placed him in the very top echelon of test pilots in his day. Let he who is immune to making a similar mistake cast the first stone. |
Tom
Member Posts: 1610
From: New York
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 03-11-2012 10:34 AM
quote:
Originally posted by ASCAN1984:
Often wonder how different would things have been for Eugene Cernan had this tragic event not occurred.
I don't believe Cernan's career would have been changed much... he would of flown on Gemini 12 with Stafford. I'm sure he would have been assigned an Apollo mission after that.On the other hand, Aldrin's future would have been quite different. |
328KF
Member Posts: 1251
From:
Registered: Apr 2008
|
posted 03-11-2012 10:51 AM
quote:
Originally posted by capoetc:
I've never been comfortable with the Monday morning quarterbacking that goes on regarding aircraft accidents...
Well said...I have worked on many of those same types of investigations and your observations are absolutely correct. The chain of events which led to the crash began all the way back at Ellington, where they were unable to obtain an approach chart for the runway at Lambert. Instead, one was hand drawn on the back of a card, a dicey proposition, and this single copy was carried in Stafford's aircraft. During the approach, See began his circle to the left, and initially Stafford followed him, but soon lost sight of the other T-38 in the low hanging clouds. Given that he had the approach chart, I would think that Stafford was much better prepared mentally to go around, while See may have felt more pressure to get in on that first try, but this is only speculation. I will never understand why the lead aircraft did not carry the rough drawn approach chart. I think much of See' s public reputation has been driven by the few comments published in the books from Slayton and Cunningham. Just a few words from each, and the labels stick. These words were written in hindsight many years after the fact, and as was stated above, it is human nature to justify the mistakes by pointing out perceived flaws in the abilities of the the victim. See came up through a different program than most of the astronauts...merchant marines, maintenance officer, and civilian test pilot. Many of the cookie cutter military test pilots from Edwards and Patuxent no doubt found this sub standard, because it was not within their realm of experience. When the accident happened it just validated their opinions in their own minds. Colin did the greatest service to See, Bassett, and the others when he committed to telling their stories in his book, and covered this accident in great technical detail. For anyone that thinks they know the stories of these men, this read will give you a whole new and different understanding. |
micropooz
Member Posts: 1532
From: Washington, DC, USA
Registered: Apr 2003
|
posted 03-11-2012 12:10 PM
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. |
LM-12
Member Posts: 3324
From: Ontario, Canada
Registered: Oct 2010
|
posted 03-12-2012 10:47 AM
See and Bassett on Gemini 9 would have been the fourth all-rookie Gemini crew had they flown in 1966. Gemini 4, 7 and 8 were the others. |
Delta7
Member Posts: 1527
From: Bluffton IN USA
Registered: Oct 2007
|
posted 03-12-2012 10:57 AM
Nobody is suggesting that See was an "idiot" or that any "superior" pilot would not have allowed that accident to happen. Lord knows I've made my share of dumb mistakes and only by the grace of God am I here today typing this. However, the fact of the matter is that See violated procedure and minimums on this approach and he and Bassett died as a result. The accident was totally avoidable and should not have happened. There was a published procedure, the obstacles were known, and the weather made the requirement for precision and caution all the more essential. The comments made concerning See's piloting skills by some of his peers are public record and cannot be completely dismissed. We'll never know all the mitigating factors concerning thought processes and decision-making, but we do know at some point they failed the crew. No possible argument there. |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2458
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 03-12-2012 11:41 AM
I find the comments made by the experienced pilots both interesting and valid. But, has anyone a link to the actual findings of the Accident Investigation Board?On edit - I'm reminded of a comment made by David Gunson in 'What goes up might come down' that the definition of a good pilot is one who has the same number of landings as take-offs. |
capoetc
Member Posts: 2178
From: McKinney TX (USA)
Registered: Aug 2005
|
posted 03-12-2012 06:49 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Delta7:
However, the fact of the matter is that See violated procedure and minimums on this approach and he and Bassett died as a result. The accident was totally avoidable and should not have happened.
Are you sure?Maybe you are right. Since the accident investigation was conducted in-house (Shepard + 7), it was a hearing, not a report. To the best of my knowledge, no actual accident report was ever made (or was it?). How much gas did See have in his T-38? Maybe he had plenty... I don't know. But if he didn't, then his decision to attempt a circling approach at (or even below) mins would not be faulted by me. The vis was 1.5 miles... what were the mins on the circling approach at the time? Are you sure he violated them? I'm not accusing anyone of anything, and I'm not suggesting I'm right and anyone else is wrong. What I'm saying is, I do not have enough empirical data to definitively say that the decisions See made were unreasonable at the time. If you do have the data, I'd love to see them. Stuff happens fast in a T-38. I've painted myself into a corner in one a few times, so maybe I'm just a bit less inclined to cast the first stone. |
Fra Mauro
Member Posts: 1624
From: Bethpage, N.Y.
Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted 03-12-2012 07:19 PM
Don't forget the effect it would have had on Lovell's career as well, if the tragedy didn't happen. |
Delta7
Member Posts: 1527
From: Bluffton IN USA
Registered: Oct 2007
|
posted 03-12-2012 07:56 PM
I simply do not see how one can suggest putting one's airplane on a direct collision course with a building can be anything other than gross error. The building did not move or pop up suddenly. The procedure had to be designed to avoid it by a minimum margin mandated by regulation. And if See planned on having just enough fuel to make one approach and landing attempt and not enough for a missed approach and second approach in forecast marginal conditions, well there is no excuse. And I doubt very much that was the case. Again, maybe there were other circumstances that contributed to See making this error, but make no mistake that it was an error. If See had maintained the minimum altitude prescribed for the approach until he had a clear shot at a normal descent and landing, See and Bassett would have flown Gemini 9 and then who knows what. |
advertisement