Tracking data from AirNav suggests the B-52 that crashed at Edwards Air Force Base on Monday was in the air for three minutes and may have been involved in the eight-engine version of the impossible turn. There are also unconfirmed reports that the rudder on the aircraft had been cannibalized from another B-52 and installed on the crash airplane over the weekend so that it could make its Monday flight. That corresponds with a statement by Lauren Smith, the widow of one of the victims, who told KGET News her husband discussed a mechanical issue with the plane with her. “He told me on Friday the plane was broken, he was supposed to fly on Friday and the mission just kept getting pushed back and pushed back. By the time between Friday and Monday supposedly it was fixed and I don’t know. They should have just not flown that day,” said Smith. Other posts in forums say the rudder swap happened a month ago and the aircraft has flown since. Air Force spokesman Chase Kohler said he could not confirm or deny the rudder report because the Air Force does not publicly discuss maintenance operations. He did say that flight test programs are “very dynamic” and can change at any time due to a range of factors including maintenance.
The plane was not transmitting an ADS-B signal but AirNav Radar was able to get an MLAT plotting, which, while less accurate than ADS-B, shows the gist of what happened. The image of the plane in the graphic is not correct, however. “Apparently the MLAT only got the initial crash position report right on runway 5R,” AirNav spokesperson Caio Barros told AvBrief. “Apparently the plane took off from runway 23L and crashed shortly afterwards on runway 5R (same runway in opposite directions).” The turn ended with a 5,000 fpm plunge to the desert floor. There were eight people on the aircraft, including at least two civilian Boeing employees.
As we reported Monday, the aircraft was a test bed for a new radar system that is key to keeping the aircraft flying likely beyond its 100th birthday. The fleet now has antiquated radar developed in the 1950s and a new active electronically scanned array (AESA) system is being evaluated to replace it. It’s not been confirmed that the plane that crashed actually had the system installed.
There was an unconfirmed report it may have had a rudder replacement performed over the weekend.
The traffic in a military group seems to indicate that “yes, the rudder was exchanged (they didn’t say why) but it was over a month ago” and “the aircraft has flown subsequent to that change”. This was posted by a few of the maintainers based at Edwards and familiar with the bird and the test programs.
There’s something wrong with the MLAT drawn diagram of the crash scene? I am intimately familiar with Edwards AFB … having flown there for 27 years. The MLAT drawing would indicate the crash scene was at what’s called “SouthBase.” The actual crash picture does not support this. IT shows the scene near the intersection of the main runway 04-22 and center taxiway. Further, the MLAT diagram is showing lakebed runways like “regular” runways … they’re not. They’re just black lines drawn to show the sides of areas of the dry lakebed; they’re cluttering the drawing. Finally, the airplane would have taken off on runway 22; a 180 deg turn wouldn’t look like the red lines drawn on the diagram at all?
I don’t guess it matters but …
I’ve changed the story again with an explanation from AirNav Radar. Very confusing but I think it’s correct now.
Larry, does it look to you like they tried to save the airplane?
I’d be hazarding a guess, John. From the actual pic, I’d say they went down hard, the thing was full of fuel and melted in the ensuing fire. That’s consistent with a ‘plunge’ from 5K’ AGL I don’t see anything discernable resembling a Buff. The pilot woulda known that he could land anywhere on 05R and just roll out onto the lakebed. Problem is … this doesn’t fit the MLAT drawing above??
Since I last flew there (1999), I guess they changed the runway headings by 10 deg (mag var) so now the main runway is 05R-23L AND there’s a new parallel ‘inner’ runway that wasn’t there back then. The usual long 15,000′ runway used is 23L because of the prevailing SW desert winds. The SouthBase (the original Muroc AAB) runway 07-25 isn’t normally used by the military test missions but is available in an emergency, I’d say. Unlikely they’d have been shooting for that runway. The PIC woulda known that he could roll out onto the lakebed by landing downwind on runway 23R. It’s starting to look like a stall or total loss of control to me?
The MLAT drawing just doesn’t fit ???? Rolling out on 25L would end at a road and calamity and would have required a 360 deg turn.. There’s no over run on that W end of the main runway.
I’m 110% certain they’d have taken off on runway 23L with a Buff, had an issue and started turning back. The extension of the reverse runway 05R runs right into the lakebed and it’d be possible to land long and just keep rolling onto the lakebed once past the overrun. That was the way the first space shuttles landed … in case they needed more runway. So if this is correct, they MIGHT have been aiming to just land on that reverse runway and roll out making a downwind landing; the SW winds were gusting in the high teens that day — as per usual.
I know one thing … IF the rudder was R&R’ed … I wouldn’t want to be the maintenance chief who signed that operation off.
I see where the USAF released the names of the eight crew. SAD … RIP !!
These sorts of things don’t happen often at Edwards anymore because of all the safety protocols in place required before a test mission is flown. Given that the crew is gone and the aircraft is destroyed, a definitive cause may be hard to determine? Hopefully, radio communications gave some inkling as to the issue?
Nailed it, Larry.
I wonder how much pressure was on the crew to complete the mission? Every time I pushed the weather or a mechanical issue to make a business trip, we never got the order. It was almost as if the aviation Gods were punishing me for being stupid.
If rudder (primary flight control, rigging, hyds) were changed I’d expect a post-maint check flt with minimum crew.
So, was this a first flt post maint? and if so, not sure how you’d categorize engineers as min crew…
The comments here are very professional but I want to add one item — the aircraft has spoilers, not ailerons, and in a steep bank at diminishing air speed it is difficult to get the wings level for a stabilized approach.
The analysis of the radar tapes will tell the air speed and angle of bank and may indicate if the aircraft was in an unrecoverable turn.
RichR makes excellent point. In the civilian maintenance world, work on a primary flight control surface requires an operational test flight with minimum crew be logged, before the aircraft can be returned to service. I have read elsewhere that military crew and equipment are commonly flying on waivers due to maintenance and flight time issues.