Space News
space history and artifacts articles

Messages
space history discussion forums

Sightings
worldwide astronaut appearances

Resources
selected space history documents

  collectSPACE: Messages
  Space Explorers & Workers
  T-38 jets: astronaut fatalities and accidents

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   T-38 jets: astronaut fatalities and accidents
stsmithva
Member

Posts: 2101
From: Fairfax, VA
Registered: Feb 2007

posted 04-22-2007 07:28 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for stsmithva   Click Here to Email stsmithva     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Was the T-38 an unusually dangerous plane to fly?

That would seem unlikely, since the original models were used for decades and the official Air Force website says it is still "used in a variety of roles because of its design, economy of operations, ease of maintenance, high performance and exceptional safety record." But you probably know why I'm asking: the deaths of Freeman in 1964, See and Bassett in 1966, and Williams in 1967.

Isn't that an unusually high number of pilots from one group killed flying the same aircraft? True, in Freeman's case any fighter-sized aircraft probably wouldn't have survived hitting a goose. But were there comments and questions at the time about its safety?

carmelo
Member

Posts: 1109
From: Messina, Sicilia, Italia
Registered: Jun 2004

posted 04-22-2007 07:33 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for carmelo   Click Here to Email carmelo     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Well, I know that T-38 is one of the most easy plane to fly but I'm not a pilot.

ColinBurgess
Member

Posts: 2155
From: Sydney, Australia
Registered: Sep 2003

posted 04-22-2007 08:15 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for ColinBurgess   Click Here to Email ColinBurgess     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
NASA's astronauts have been flying the T-38 for more than forty years now, and I keep hearing how much they love strapping one on and just how easy it is to fly.

Yes, there were indeed a spate of bad accidents early on, but one would have to say that Ted Freeman's T-38 was just in the wrong piece of airspace at the wrong time, colliding with a flock of snow geese. A combination of atrocious weather conditions and poor judgment by the pilot resulted in the loss of See and Bassett - nothing to do with the aircraft - and the likely cause of CC's death has been attributed to a foreign object, carried on board, that had fallen loose and jammed the aileron control system in the lower part of the (unoccupied) rear cockpit.

None of these accidents had anything to do with the integrity or performance of the T-38.

ea757grrl
Member

Posts: 815
From: South Carolina
Registered: Jul 2006

posted 04-22-2007 09:53 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for ea757grrl   Click Here to Email ea757grrl     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I can't remember which memoir it was in off the top of my head, but it described how at lower airspeeds (i.e., especially on approach) the T-38 can be a bear, and you can get into a lot of trouble if you're not careful. That part of the flight regime especially requires the pilot to be one step ahead of the airplane. Other than that, all the reports I've seen or heard have little but praise for the T-38.

ColinBurgess
Member

Posts: 2155
From: Sydney, Australia
Registered: Sep 2003

posted 04-22-2007 10:03 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for ColinBurgess   Click Here to Email ColinBurgess     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
You might be referring to mention of Elliot See's flying too slow in a T-38 in Walt Cunningham's book, "The All-American Boys," which could have caused problems had he not decided to speak up from the rear cockpit.

mdmyer
Member

Posts: 900
From: Humboldt KS USA
Registered: Dec 2003

posted 04-22-2007 10:06 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for mdmyer   Click Here to Email mdmyer     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I seem to remember Frank Borman writing about having to take the controls from a senior officer when he did not like his flying but I can't remember what airplane they were in. Of course that would have been in Countdown.

E2M Lem Man
Member

Posts: 846
From: Los Angeles CA. USA
Registered: Jan 2005

posted 04-23-2007 07:10 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for E2M Lem Man   Click Here to Email E2M Lem Man     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
There is a lot more to the astronauts and the T-38 than we know. I got to hear a lot of those stories from a west coast perspective.

They used to leave the North American Downey plant, race down Imperial Blvd. (there was no 105 Freeway then) to Los Angeles International where the T-38s were parked at NAA's site there, prep and jump into their T-38s and race to Houston and Ellington field taking chances along the way - even betting if they had the fuel to get all the way without refueling! Cunningham's book mentioned these, others have not!

Pete Conrad and a couple of others ran out of gas, or crashed doing this.

It was much like their sport car driving.

John Charles
Member

Posts: 342
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Registered: Jun 2004

posted 04-23-2007 08:43 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for John Charles     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by ColinBurgess:
Ted Freeman's T-38 was just in the wrong piece of airspace at the wrong time, colliding with a flock of snow geese...
According to O'Leary's book (p. 161), Freeman's accident led to the "goose rule" that there had to be two qualified pilots aboard the T-38 during goose migration season. But I don't recall any other mention, in other biographies, of the goose rule. It seems to have been reversed by 1978, when the Shuttle-era non-pilot astronauts arrived. And no current and recent NASA T-38 pilots know anything about it. I was wondering if anyone has any different information on the goose rule.

lewarren
Member

Posts: 269
From: Houston, TX, USA
Registered: Aug 2001

posted 04-23-2007 10:35 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for lewarren   Click Here to Email lewarren     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
From conversations with U-2 pilots and astronauts (both groups train on the T-38 for proficiency):
  1. The T-38 is known for its very high roll rate capability. It can achieve 720 degrees of roll per second. That's 2 revolutions around its longitudinal axis in one second!

  2. The T-38 has a supersonic wing design with very little compromise for its low speed performance. In fact, without extending the flaps, it cannot be flown under 280 knots and it actually has a special waiver from the FAA which normally requires all aircraft operating below 10,000 feet to maintain 250 knots or less.
How to land a T-38 (paraphrased):
Your speed is now down to 155 knots plus 1 knot for every 100 pounds of fuel remaining - about 160 to 165 knots (184 to 190 mph). Flare for landing and gently plant the main gear wheels on the concrete and then extend the speed brake. Now the problem is that you are still traveling almost 200 mph. Bleed off speed with your nose in the air, which is a high drag profile. As your speed drops below 100 knots, lower your nose to the runway before you lose all of your lift. You do not have anti-skid brakes, so brake gently and gingerly. You are still traveling fast enough to blow a tire instantly should the wheel lock up. Turn off the runway and pop open the canopy - with the engine at idle, there is almost no air conditioning output and the hot Houston sun will heat the cockpit to well over a hundred degrees in no time at all.

Dwayne Day
Member

Posts: 532
From:
Registered: Feb 2004

posted 04-24-2007 08:15 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Dwayne Day   Click Here to Email Dwayne Day     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
If you want a good description of the T-38's performance, there was an article in Air & Space magazine within the last two years. From what I remember of the article, it described the plane as ideal to fly. I forget all the reasons why, but one of them was that it is totally predictable--it does the same exact thing in certain parts of the flight envelope every single time. This is great for a trainer, because an instructor can teach a student how to accomplish certain things because the plane always reacts the same way. I think it also has good spin recovery as well (meaning that it is easy to get out of a spin).

That thin wing is not made for low speeds, however, so it is not used as a trainer for inexperienced pilots. I think that most US military pilots go through about two different types of training aircraft before they move on to their operational aircraft. They start with basic prop planes like the T-34C Turbomentor, and then move up to something like the T-38 or the US Navy's T-45 Goshawk.

767FO
Member

Posts: 269
From: Boca Raton, FL
Registered: Sep 2002

posted 04-24-2007 08:58 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for 767FO   Click Here to Email 767FO     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Having logged about 1,200 instructor hours in the T-38 I can certainly second the motion of the astronauts that the T-38 was a sheer pleasure to fly and probably most pilot's favorite aircraft. It certainly wasn't an easy plane to learn to fly (the wash out rate would attest to that) but once you learned to fly it wasn't "difficult" (but isn't that the case with most airplanes?) One thing it was is it was a very unforgiving airplane.

As mentioned, there is little room for error, especially in the approach and landing phase of flight.

Because of the very short wing, approach and landing speeds were higher than they are for most aircraft and the stall margin was less. The final turn to landing was actually flown in a stall buffet -- at a fairly high angle of attack that is very unusual for that phase of flight. I don't know of any other aircraft that required this.

Because of this, there is little room for error (i.e.; bad spacing, strong crosswinds, over aggressive turns, etc). and the majority of crashes occurred in the final turn. But this also was one of the most fun phases of flight as it was also one of the most challenging.

capoetc
Member

Posts: 2383
From: McKinney TX (USA)
Registered: Aug 2005

posted 04-24-2007 06:57 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for capoetc   Click Here to Email capoetc     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by 767FO:
...the T-38 was a sheer pleasure to fly and probably most pilot's favorite aircraft.
Yup... I second what he said. Definitely my favorite jet.

I can remember more than once having to bail out of the RSU box (runway supervisory unit, which controls student traffic to a particular runway at a pilot training base) when a T-38 started saber-dancing toward the box on final approach.

Low and slow is not a good place to be in a T-38. Final turn at 60 degrees of bank and excessive angle-of-attack is a bad place to be too.

Rusty B
Member

Posts: 239
From: Sacramento, CA
Registered: Oct 2004

posted 02-02-2011 09:40 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Rusty B   Click Here to Email Rusty B     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
List of NASA T-38 accidents:
  • 1964 Oct 31: bird strike - fatal: astronaut Theodore Freeman
  • 1966 Feb 28: struck building in fog - fatal: astronauts Elliott See, Charles Bassett
  • 1966 Jul 18: engine failure, aborted takeoff, gear collapse - no injuries: astronauts Edward H. White, Russell Schweickart
  • 1967 Oct 05: aileron jam - fatal: astronaut Clifton "C.C." Williams
  • 1972 Jan 20: instrument approach in fog, crashed - fatal: NASA pilot Stewart M. Present and NASA pilot Mark C. Heath.
  • 1972 May 10: electrical failure, out of fuel, ejected - no injuries: astronaut Charles "Pete" Conrad
  • 1974 Feb 06: low visibility, landing mishap, gear collapse - no injuries: astronaut Dr. Karl G. Henize
  • 1982 Dec 01: heavy rain, ran off runway, gear collapse - no injuries : astronaut Thomas K. Mattingly
  • 1984 Apr 05: bird strike, engine flameout, aborted takeoff - no injuries: astronaut James van Hoften
  • 1987 Feb 24: engine failure, fire, emergency landing - no injuries : astronaut Brewster Shaw and NASA pilot Robert Rivers.
For reference links to these incidents go to Wikipedia's Northrop T-38 page, Accidents section.

Jay Chladek
Member

Posts: 2272
From: Bellevue, NE, USA
Registered: Aug 2007

posted 02-02-2011 11:51 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Jay Chladek   Click Here to Email Jay Chladek     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The main thing to consider about planes like the T-38 is they are high performance and as such, demand a certain amount of attention to fly. Lack of paying attention can be very unforgiving. Military pilots have learned to fly them properly. As such, when one learns to fly the plane, they are capable of taking it to the limits and it will do so without hitting them with anything unexpected.

When it comes to the early accident rate for T-38s in NASA hands, just consider how different things might have been if they had followed Pete Conrad's recommendation and gone with F-4s instead. If you think the T-38 is tough to fly, try a Phantom!

Now one thing that is being done to the current T-38 fleet (both NASA's and the USAF's) is they are being retrofitted with new intakes that improve airflow at subsonic speeds. Normal T-38 intakes are optimized for supersonic airflow with their fixed inlet diverters, which are designed to slow supersonic airflow down to subsonic speed for the engines to take in the air. But at subsonic speed ranges, this results in a certain percentage loss of power as the engines don't receive full airflow (many fighters today have variable inlets to counteract this problem). Since it is very rare for a T-38 to go supersonic due to the fuel bill and the noise problems involved with doing it over land, losing supersonic performance in favor of gaining improved engine performance at subsonic speeds is considered a win win situation.

OV-105
Member

Posts: 917
From: Ridgecrest, CA
Registered: Sep 2000

posted 02-03-2011 03:45 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for OV-105   Click Here to Email OV-105     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
"Ox" VanHoften has his flameout the day before the 41-C launch. That could have been bad for the program back then for that flight.

kr4mula
Member

Posts: 642
From: Cinci, OH
Registered: Mar 2006

posted 02-03-2011 11:02 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for kr4mula   Click Here to Email kr4mula     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
To address the original question (albeit 4 years late), it just seems like the astronaut/T-38 accident rate is high because that's what they fly most of the time. If you drive a VW Bug to and from work every day, you're mostly likely to have an accident in a VW Bug. If you look at overall accident statistics, I'd guess that the T-38 isn't out of line with other military aircraft. If the astronauts flew something else, I bet they'd run into just as many geese, fog banks, etc. I do know, after having spoken with some of the ground crew, that the NASA T-38s are perhaps the best maintained aircraft in the world, excepting perhaps Air Force 1.

albatron
Member

Posts: 2804
From: Stuart, Florida
Registered: Jun 2000

posted 02-03-2011 12:15 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for albatron   Click Here to Email albatron     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Well, come to Spacefest. Lew Nelson, the chief test and first flight pilot of the YT-38 program, will be there.

Who better to ask?

Lew was also the chief test and first flight pilot of the N-156F - that became the F-5.

You guys who flew it added some very pertinent info - thanks.

328KF
Member

Posts: 1391
From:
Registered: Apr 2008

posted 02-03-2011 09:36 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for 328KF     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by ColinBurgess:
A combination of atrocious weather conditions and poor judgment by the pilot resulted in the loss of See and Bassett - nothing to do with the aircraft
In the decades that have passed since this tragedy, the science of aviation accident investigation has evolved considerably. Today, a modern investigator might find many more "contributing factors" to an accident such as this instead of producing the often seen oversimplified conclusion of "pilot error."

As I read through your fine book Fallen Astronauts, I was struck by the fact that prior to departure, there were no instrument approach plates (a diagram of procedures, altitudes, and missed approach instructions) available to the crew. In an act of improvisation, the two crews drew one by hand on sheet of notepaper.

This single, perhaps incomplete, diagram was carried in the cockpit of Stafford and Cernan's jet, so See and Bassett's (in the lead aircraft) only means of shooting the approach would be to take some sort of guidance from Stafford.

Even the hand-drawn approach chart was said to be lacking the missed approach procedure, so it would seem to me that See might have had every intention of "getting in on the first try" since the option of going around would most certainly have resulted in some confusion over the correct flight path to follow.

Couple this with the deteriorating weather and even a momentary loss of visual contact with Stafford's aircraft, and the pilot may have thought his only option was to make a play for a circling approach, keeping the runway in sight.

Now the actual performance of the maneuver itself could obviously be called into question, but without the extensive data recorder and even ground camera coverage we have today, it is difficult to envision how the weather (low visibility and icing conditions) affected his desire to stay in tight to the runway.

Either way, it seems to me that the string of events which led to the accident began before the flight ever left the ground.

Much of what has been said by peers of See's might be attributed to the rationalization that "it could never happen to me...I'd never make that mistake." I don't think that anyone with the knowledge, skills, and abilities to make the astronaut ranks in those days could ever be considered less than average in anything they did in their professional life.

moorouge
Member

Posts: 2486
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009

posted 03-24-2012 12:08 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for moorouge   Click Here to Email moorouge     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
On might like to look at this site that records the accident record of the T-38, the chosen aircraft flown by the astronauts.

The list includes the following incidents -

  1. 4 Sept 1970 - Maj. James Martin Taylor killed. Says he was a former MOL astronaut (?).
  2. 11 Dec 1970 - two astronauts (unnamed) involved in an incident involving canopy problems.
  3. 20 Jan 1972 - both pilots killed during a flight test of the Shuttle landing system.
  4. 10 May 1972 - Conrad ejected when he ran out of fuel.
  5. 6 Feb 1974 - incident involving Karl Henize.
  6. 19 March 1982 - Gordon Fullerton's plane struck by lightning.
The listing includes also the accidents of Freeman, Williams and See and Bassett.

Editor's note: Threads merged.

astro-nut
Member

Posts: 1054
From: Washington, IL
Registered: Jan 2006

posted 03-24-2012 02:33 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for astro-nut   Click Here to Email astro-nut     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Would also like to add that Astronaut Ron Garan, Jr. ejected from his F-16 jet on September 13, 1988, when his F-16 engines caught fire and exploded. Please note that he was flying a F-16 and not a T-38 jet.

capoetc
Member

Posts: 2383
From: McKinney TX (USA)
Registered: Aug 2005

posted 03-24-2012 05:27 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for capoetc   Click Here to Email capoetc     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by lewarren:
How to land a T-38 (paraphrased):
Your speed is now down to 155 knots plus 1 knot for every 100 pounds of fuel remaining - about 160 to 165 knots (184 to 190 mph).

I just noticed an error here — it should read:
Your speed is now down to 155 knots plus 1 knot for every 100 pounds of fuel remaining over 1,000 lbs.
So, if you have 1,000 lbs of fuel remaining or less, then the approach speed is 155 kts (equivalent to about 178 miles per hour). If you had (for example) 1,400 lbs of fuel remaining, your approach speed would be 159 knots (around 182 miles per hour).

It is not unusual to hear a student in the T-38 declare that he is "breaking out (of the traffic pattern) for math", meaning there is so much going on that he cannot figure out his speed before he has to roll off the perch and start the final turn. It all happens quickly until you get used to it.

p51
Member

Posts: 1784
From: Olympia, WA
Registered: Sep 2011

posted 03-24-2012 05:29 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for p51   Click Here to Email p51     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I rode as a passenger in a T-38 once and got a full brief on the type on approach and landing. "Unforgiving" at slow speeds was said many times. The instructor I was with had at least 1000 hours and told me he always really paid attention on landings, more so than other types. He said, "The moment you take this plane for granted at slow speeds, it will kill you."

Does anyone know if astronauts ever got any regular time in the F-16s and F-18s that NASA has? I saw a Hornet at the JBLM airshow I think two years ago but never could find anyone to ask about that. I assumed they are used for various flight tests at Dryden? They call them 'chase' planes but I assume they're not used in conjunction with space missions, right?

Paul78zephyr
Member

Posts: 812
From: Hudson, MA
Registered: Jul 2005

posted 03-29-2012 07:25 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Paul78zephyr     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Are the flying characteristics of the T-38 discussed in Story Musgrave's book or is that more of a picture book?

Jay Chladek
Member

Posts: 2272
From: Bellevue, NE, USA
Registered: Aug 2007

posted 03-30-2012 01:28 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Jay Chladek   Click Here to Email Jay Chladek     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by p51:
Does anyone know if astronauts ever got any regular time in the F-16s and F-18s that NASA has?
Nope, NASA astronauts do not fly the NASA F-18 or F-16s as those birds are part of Dryden's fleet and typically have "800" numbers on the tail (NASA 821, 814, etc.). The F/A-18B that Dryden has is typically used as a chase plane and is normally used for inflight photography (movie and still photo), so we may see it used for the final shuttle ferry flights to the museums.

NASA's T-38 fleet is based at Ellington and typically have "900" numbers. Of course, the same thing applies to the 747s that act as SCAs even though they are based at Dryden, but I believe they are registered to Ellington's fleet since they are used in a support capacity directly with the space program. There was even once a T-38 with NASA 911 on it before the second 747 was bought for SCA use.

While some members of the astronaut corps probably could technically fly the Hornets and Vipers, the test birds at Dryden/Edwards are usually some pretty oddball birds, depending on when they were made and how they might have been modified for specific missions. Plus, some of those planes might not be certified for normal flight operations. You don't use a test bird for zipping around from city to city.

The cost of normal flight operations of those planes would also likely be higher since there isn't the same parts inventory as there is for the Ellington T-38 fleet (which operate on an almost daily basis in peak times and have plenty of spares). Plus, just because an astronaut might have flight experience in a Hornet or Viper, they still have to get re-certified to fly said type if they have been out of the cockpit of those types for awhile.

NASA's also been pretty particular about which astronauts can fly the T-38s in the shuttle era. Shuttle pilots fly from the front seat and so can mission specialists who are pilots in the military. Everyone else flies back seat. If somebody was a pilot in the military but became a civilian before joining NASA, they still fly back seat even though they might have flown T-38s as part of their military training (Tom Jones was one example since he trained on T-38s and flew B-52s in SAC before joining the CIA prior to his astronaut selection).

Only other aircraft types I am familiar with that astronauts have flown are the STA Gulfstreams and new shuttle pilots used to fighters also got stick time in a KC-135 to get used to flying something the size of a large transport. I assume the C-9 took over that role (in addition to Vomit Comet) once the KC-135s were retired.

Tom Jones' book "Sky Walking" mentioned that for awhile in the mid-1990s Ellington also had a Cessna Citation jet on hand (and he COULD fly that since he had the proper endorsements in his logbook for it). Former astronaut Gordon Fullerton has flown almost everything in Dryden's fixed wing inventory before he retired, but he had left the astronaut corps by that time to take up test piloting for NASA.

dtemple
Member

Posts: 778
From: Longview, Texas, USA
Registered: Apr 2000

posted 06-13-2022 04:43 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for dtemple   Click Here to Email dtemple     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I was trying to determine if T-38 NASA 907, the aircraft Stafford and Cernan were flying the day See and Bassett crashed, is still in existence. I have found some discrepancies along the way in my search for the answer.

One site shows there were two T-38s designated as 907, stating the original one crashed on January 5, 1973. However, I can find no reference to that crash, even on this site with a list of incidents I never knew happened. The serial numbers for NASA 907(1) and NASA 907(2) were 65-10327 and 61-0912, respectively.

I found a photo of 65-10327 taken in 1991 showing this aircraft had been transferred to the US Navy Test Pilot School. If it ever crashed it was obviously not destroyed beyond repair. Does 65-10327 still exist, and if so, where is it?

Incidentally, there was found an indication 61-0912 may still be in use by NASA (as 907).

APG85
Member

Posts: 317
From:
Registered: Jan 2008

posted 07-15-2024 05:39 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for APG85     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
In reference to the original NASA 907, I found this on Airhistory.net. Not sure if its accurate:
Built for USAF as T-38A 65-10327 and transferred new to NASA on 13 December 1965 as N907NA. NASA operated the a/c until 11 July 1973 (FAA reg. cancelled) and transferred it to the US Navy with Bureau Number 510327. It was assigned to the US Navy Test Pilot School, and was eventually struck off charge on 12 January 2001.

From February 2009 through January 2013 it was on display at the El Paso Museum of History marked as NASA N999NA. Now on display at US Space & Rocket Center in Huntsville, Alabama still marked as NASA N999NA.

All times are CT (US)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | The Source for Space History & Artifacts

Copyright 1999-2024 collectSPACE. All rights reserved.


Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.47a





advertisement