F-117

Flying Safety, Jan, 2001 by Kurt Saladana

There were no rate-generating mishaps for the F-117 in FY00; however, the potential for a Class A or B was, as always, high. While the total of mishaps reported was low, those reported identified several areas where there appear to be more incidents than in other fighter or attack communities.

Foreign object damage (FOD) was reported twice, totaling over $600,000 damage to engines. In a community as small as the F117, this gives a rate of approximately 15.4 per 100,000 flying hours. Interaction with weather also occurred with what appears to be a higher-than-normal rate. The reported incidents resulting from flying through heavy precipitation or hail, and the two reported incidents of lightning strikes cost almost $400,000. These mishaps generated a weather-related mishap rate of approximately 38.5.

Statistically, these FOD and weather mishap rates appear high. From a cost perspective, the total amount of money that these mishaps represent is not really significant. However, as possible precursors for Class A mishaps, these incidents are important. Time spent in repair is also very important. During the Safety Investigation Board for the 1997 Class A F-117 mishap at the Chesapeake Bay Airshow, when the F-117 fleet was temporarily grounded, one of the world's many dictators started rattling his saber. Tacticians tied his actions directly to his belief that the 117 was out of business. Operations are impacted adversely when aircraft are out of service because of system malfunctions or routine maintenance, but mission capability becomes severely restricted when preventable mishaps ground aircraft.

No matter how good the FOD program, some debris is occasionally going to find its way to a place where it poses a hazard. The bases from which the F-117 routinely operates are aware of the aircraft's susceptibility to FOD. Other bases, particularly those not maintained by the USAF, will likely not run as intense an anti-POD program.

In the past, damage due to weather was usually reported as caused by the weather. This has changed-if adverse weather was reported and the pilot chose to fly through it, he or she accepted the risk and the consequences. While a certain level of risk may be unavoidable on a real-world mission, how much is acceptable on a training mission or a cross-country flight? There may be cases where it is worthwhile to try to negotiate weather, but for most peacetime missions, flying a different route, changing destinations, changing the type of sortie, or canceling the mission are likely better options. If weather is encountered or reported en route, turning around or diverting (if possible) is the smart option. This type of risk management is not popular--nobody wants to turn off a mission, particularly the pilot scheduled to fly.

Although certain mishap rates appear to be high for the F-117, most are well within normal limits when compared to other small communities such as the U-2, E-3, etc. The most important safety goal is to eliminate the preventable mishaps, which easily have the potential to destroy aircraft and cost lives.