F-18 Fighter Jet Crashes Into Virginia Apartment Complex 295
New submitter atomatica writes "A Navy F/A-18 Super Hornet crashed shortly after takeoff into an apartment complex near Virginia Beach, Virginia. Both pilots and multiple civilians have been transported to a hospital."
Gizmodo has lots of shiny pictures and more detail.
Combat record (Score:5, Funny)
Even if you only count one apartment building demolished, the F-18 still has a better combat record than the F-22.
(I only joke because there were no fatalities!)
Re:Combat record (Score:5, Funny)
Even if you only count one apartment building demolished, the F-18 still has a better combat record than the F-22.
(I only joke because there were no fatalities!)
The F-18, now also fitted as a suburbian domicile buster.
Re: (Score:3)
the F-18 still has a better combat record than the F-22.
(I only joke because there were no fatalities!)
And this will remain the case as long as F-22's are so expensive... around $150 million apiece, flyaway... that we're reluctant to risk them in, you know, actual combat.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not the cost that stops deployment, it's the lack of need of deployment. F-22 is a fighter plane, not a multirole fighter/attack plane which is what is needed in modern world.
Duh McDuhface (Score:5, Insightful)
The coverage of this was nuts. The TV in my restaurant had some idiot reporter asking someone who was there asking him, "What's the chaos like? Were there people scattering?" #1, it's a sure bet she wanted to say BODIES scattering, an #2, if not, then the question is one of the dumbest I'd ever heard. That's like asking, "Is everyone standing there in harm's way, or fleeing in terror?"
Re:Duh McDuhface (Score:5, Insightful)
In order to take advantage of the 'live' nature of the medium, the station is effectively required to field somebody to stand at the scene and make noises while facing the camera as soon as humanly possible. Regardless of whether they know anything useful, and regardless of whether they could spend the camera time learning something useful to bring back to the camera. At one time, this did have the virtue of ensuring a camera at the scene; but cheap silicon sensors have basically covered that now. Since they don't actually know anything of use, they generally fill their time by asking unutterably stupid questions. Since that is boring, they'll have to elicit some emotion or 'reaction' so that the audience doesn't glaze over and change the channel.
Even better, after the big kids have had time to sift through the details, airtime is too limited(and broadcast video not terribly information dense) for those details to be presented in any comprehensive or coherent way. Instead, you generally get a brief summary "Pilot Error!/Mechanical Failure!/Search For Answers Continues!" followed by some emotive human-interest stories.
Re: (Score:2)
stupidest question ever. What response are they expecting?
"Why, we are sad, because they got out of taking the test and we didn't. Boo hoo for us, but we are happy for the dead kids!"
"The Pornography of Grief" (Score:5, Interesting)
That is how George Will labeled this kind reporting. The bottom feeders have even gotten worse since he issued his indictment of this vile practice. Mr Will and I share few political ideas. But he was spot on with this characterization. I think of it every time I see one of these savage reports.
"So, your son died in a friendly fire incident in Kabul this morning. How does this make you feel, Mrs ________?"
Re:Duh McDuhface (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, you know what says a lot about the pilots? They ejected as close to the last second as possible. When you have a rocket chair that leads to instant safety, it's gotta be pretty goddamned hard not to take that option when you know shit hit the fan.
But they didn't. They got the plane under control as best they could and only ejected when crashing was practically imminent.
Re: (Score:3)
If it bleeds, it leads. The media is a bunch of ghouls when it comes right down to it.
A proud few [guardian.co.uk] choose to rise above mere feeding on the already dead...
Conspiracy (Score:5, Funny)
We all know it was an inside job by the owners of the apartment complex who just wanted to build more expensive real estate without having to actually pay for it.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
They heard someone in the complex was hiding yellow cake in the kitchen.
Hmm (Score:2, Interesting)
Anyone have an idea why this happened? Pilot error? Mechanical failure?
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Informative)
Anyone have an idea why this happened? Pilot error? Mechanical failure?
A witness was quoted as saying that the engine sounded like it was dying. The problem there is that the Hornet is a twin engine plane. If it was an engine going out, then they could have just shut it down and flew home on the remaining engine. The Navy has had a policy of two engines for decades now precisely because of the safety factor (and this is why there's some grumbling about the F-35C being a single engine bird). Unless it was the world's biggest birdstrike and FOD-ed up both intakes, it had to be something else... loss of power, internal fire, something.
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
What student pilot? (Seriously, I cannot find mention of a student pilot, except in reference to a similar accident that occurred but they were referring the a student pilot in the previous incident in that case). I'm not saying you're wrong or making it up, I'm just looking for where you read that there was a student pilot.
Re: (Score:3)
The jet carried a student pilot in the front seat and an experienced instructor behind him,
http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/06/us/virginia-plane-crash/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 [cnn.com] Second paragraph
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks. I can't view CNN at the moment (not sure why, maybe it's slashdotted from Australia).
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Informative)
Second paragraph of TFA:
The jet carried a student pilot in the front seat and an experienced instructor behind him, and the dumping of jet fuel was "one of the indications that there was a mechanical malfunction," Navy Capt. Mark Weisgerber told reporters.
Emphasis mine.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
With current fuel prices being so high, will some lucky person in the area have hit the jackpot when they check their pool for the stuff? They could skim it off the top and run their truck for a week or two. I really should Google aviation fuel, for some reason I have it in my head as being pretty similar to diesel.
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
You can use it in a diesel engine. The US Army does. JP-8 is their everything fuel.
Re: (Score:3)
There was also apparently a fuel dump. So, either the student pilot hit a wrong button, or when they say "catastrophic mechanical failure", catastrophic is probably not an exaggeration.
Just a guess, but maybe they dumped fuel in order to incinerate as little as possible of the crash site? It might even make sense for the flight computer to do this automatically if it predicts an imminent crash.
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Interesting)
There was also apparently a fuel dump. So, either the student pilot hit a wrong button, or when they say "catastrophic mechanical failure", catastrophic is probably not an exaggeration.
Just a guess, but maybe they dumped fuel in order to incinerate as little as possible of the crash site? It might even make sense for the flight computer to do this automatically if it predicts an imminent crash.
They primarily dump fuel to reduce weight, and increase manoeuvrability, the flaming inferno factor usually comes in last.
Re:Hmm (Score:4, Insightful)
There was also apparently a fuel dump...
I will guess that the fuel dump was intentional, a (successful) attempt to limit the severity of damage, knowing that the plane was going down.
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Informative)
You may have been alluding to this, but it's standard procedure (even in civilian aircraft) to dump fuel when landing after a failure on takeoff. It reduces the landing weight (which is usually lower than the takeoff weight by a surprising amount; the extra weight is fuel intended to be burned), but also reduces the size of a fire ignited by a crash. Thus, one of the first things he would have done if he'd had engine problems would be dumping fuel.
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Informative)
Dumping fuel is a normal procedure if you're going to make an emergency landing (to lighten the load) or expect to crash (to minimize the fire)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. I thought it rather odd that a Hornet would drop from the sky. It's an older plane, so one would think any teething issues have long since been worked out. Still...both engines suddenly going out? Someone else forget one of those cleaning rags in the fuel line?
Re: (Score:2)
There's been quite a few F-18 accidents in recent years. Despite being a two engine plane, it seems there are a lot more mechanical failures than the single engine F-16.
Re:Hmm (Score:4, Informative)
There's been quite a few F-18 accidents in recent years. Despite being a two engine plane, it seems there are a lot more mechanical failures than the single engine F-16.
Two engines == twice as many engines to fail. Just less likely to crash when one does.
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Interesting)
A witness was quoted as saying that the engine sounded like it was dying. The problem there is that the Hornet is a twin engine plane. If it was an engine going out, then they could have just shut it down and flew home on the remaining engine.
The accident happened during (or shortly after) take-off. Anyone know if an F-18 *needs* both engines at that time. BTW, I live in Virginia Beach and the crash happened less than 5 miles from both my house and office. Obviously, the area (Birdneck Road and I-264) is a mess at the moment...
Re:Hmm (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
From what I have been told by the knowledgeable in previous discussions is that civilian twin engine aircraft are designed to function on one engine, so it is a sure bet that military ones are as well. The only case I can think where this mightn't apply is if the aircraft had a full combat load, but this was a training flight.
From the fact that people could hear a failing engine it is likely that both engines failed one after the other (eg catastrophic turbine failure leading to the other engine being damag
Re: (Score:3)
sounds like uncontained engine failure (Score:2)
Turbine blades go shooting out all over, ripping apart anything nearby. Often this takes out hydraulic systems and rips open fuel tanks. Note that the F/A-18 engines are unusually close together. (compare with F-14 for example) I think one could easily wipe out the other. Metal fatigue is a likely cause, as well as the commonly mentioned bird strike. Wikipedia has a great list of uncontained engine failures: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncontained_engine_failure [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
It can fly on one engine if one fails while cruising. During takeoff, when the plane is still accelerating to cruising speed, it can't get by on just one. If it could, do you think the Navy would be wasting both the expense, weight, and fuel necessary to purchase and fly around completely unecessary engines?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Hmm (Score:4, Informative)
> If it was an engine going out, then they could have just
> shut it down and flew home on the remaining engine
It's not so simple at takeoff and landing, any time you are below or near low speeds and at low altitudes things get very very complicated.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/AERO.2000.878212 [doi.org]
http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-58841.html [pprune.org]
In summary - in theory you can always save the day. In reality -- one mistake, and you're going down hard.
Things break, even multi million dollar equipment. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Things break, even multi million dollar equipme (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Funny)
Anyone have an idea why this happened? Pilot error? Mechanical failure?
Gravity.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone have an idea why this happened? Pilot error? Mechanical failure?
Gravity.
Sucks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. Most other nations are limited by expense from flying as much as American pilots.
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure is ... quantity of training, not quality of patronage.
I've worked with several allied and friendly militaries. The Brits, Germans and Aussies, just as good as us. Turks, Italians, Colombians and Bulgarians, professional, competent, but much lower fidelity of training and exercises. Mexicans, Kenyans, Ehtiopians, Ugandans, Iraqis, marginal competency and leadership adequate to engage in combat. Every other OPEC country I've worked with, most eastern European countries, and the Chinese -- enlisted mercenary mindset and straightforward patronage in the officer corps.
Western militaries all work on quality of training and equipment. The 3rd world militaries are all about size. China is in the middle of an internal RMA as they realize that their 3 million soldiers are roughly useless with their byzantine C2 structure and backwards procurement, and are pouring money into modern materiel. The quantities and type of procurement, I hope, is aimed at retaking Taiwan in a paper maneuver, but they appear intent on starting the next world war to secure oil and mineral resources. Yes, that means conquering Australia (iron ore), much of the islands to secure oil, and I have no clue how much of Africa they expect to occupy. I sure hope I'm wrong, but hope isn't much to live on.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Interesting)
I've worked with several allied and friendly militaries. The Brits, Germans and Aussies, just as good as us.
India's air force is top notch.
They've embarrassed us a few times during international military exercises.
And they have the 4th largest air force in the world
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
They've allready bought the goodwill of the largest companies, virtually purchased one political party outright via a fat idiot proxy and the fawning goodwill of the other. They have no need to conquer, if it comes down between a choice between trade partner number one and the US at number 5 (after screwing Australia over in a one sided free trade deal) it's obvious which way it's going to go.
The Chinese government would be insane to try to conquer a continent that could easily be turned into a client state without military action. Anyway, most of China's military force is directed towards controlling their own country.
Re: (Score:2)
Great troll! Very original.
However, you could have linked to goatse, claiming that it was a report supporting your claim. So you only get ***/*****.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, of course. Never before have there been mechanical failures; just us dumb Yanks fucking everything up, every time.
Your jerk off material may be your country's national anthem, but that doesn't mean you're right, or better.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm. I was following it through other sources, which lacked details at the time of my post.
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Funny)
To be fair, I thought "catastrophic mechanical malfunction" was just military speak for "a building just went through my engines" and not the root cause of the actual accident.
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Funny)
Okay, fine (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I bullshit you not, this is a 100% true story. A friend of mine just got a small apartment complex construction approved by the city and county and the nearby airport denied it because it's in some kind of zone. It's not even the 2-story part, it's a density thing. If it was spread out houses, they'd approve it but having that many people that close together is a safety hazard if a plan were to miss the runway and crash. It was over a mile from the front of the runway by the way. So anyway, they were appealing the decision because "how often do planes randomly crash into apartment complexes next to airports." I have a feeling they're about to either drop the appeal or lose.
Going to drop an appeal that likely cost thousands because of a single recent incident? He would probably be stupid to do so.
Here, let me prove my point. When was the last time we heard of a fighter jet crashing into an apartment complex? I can think of a dozen other reasons the permit would be denied that would be a hell of a lot more "in-your-face" issues than events that mirror meteor strikes in probability.
Re: (Score:2)
About 11 years ago, on September 11 2001? Well, it wasn't an apartment complex as such, but it was definitely a fighter (commandeered) jet.
Re:Okay, fine (Score:4, Interesting)
About 11 years ago, on September 11 2001? Well, it wasn't an apartment complex as such, but it was definitely a fighter (commandeered) jet.
It's not a crash if you "land" exactly where you planned to. Well I guess technically it is but only in the way suicide is technically murder.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Its a landing if you walk away from it, as one of the plots apparently did.
Re: (Score:2)
About 11 years ago, on September 11 2001? Well, it wasn't an apartment complex as such, but it was definitely a fighter (commandeered) jet.
Er, since when did we start mixing fatality via sleep deprivation on the freeway with Charles Manson's criminal record in a potpourri of death statistics?
Even a layman can see there is a large chasm separating a true accident from an intentional act of mass murder/suicide.
And I've seen a lot of fighter jets perform. Regardless of who "commandeered" them, a commercial airliner has about as much "fighter" capability as my radium-powered smoke detector has "nuclear" capability.
Re: (Score:3)
I would suggest that your original question "When was the last time we heard of a fighter jet crashing into an apartment complex?" is badly posed. It's too specific to be truly useful, and
Re: (Score:3)
It's equally a mistake to lump things together, it obscures the potential effectiveness or ineffectiveness of countermeasures. For example, it would be a mistake to not include a proximity alarm just because it won't prevent a deliberate crash. It would likewise be foolish to act as if a proximity alarm is at all effective in the case of a deliberate crash.
Likewise, a lock on the cockpit door goes a long way to addressing a terrorist risk but is completely useless for the case of pilot and copilot losing si
Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Both pilots and multiple civilians have been transported to a hospital.
Gizmodo has lots of shiny pictures and more detail.
Really Slashdot/Unknown Lamer? I've got a morbid sense of humor at times, and i'm not even saying i'm not interested in the pictures, but "lots of people are injured and some of them may die" and we've got "lots of shiny pictures" about it! seems a bit callous to me. I mean if it were actually part of some morbid joke it'd be fine, but it's not even a joke, it's just being totally insensitive for no good reason.
Re:Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
Both pilots and multiple civilians have been transported to a hospital.
Gizmodo has lots of shiny pictures and more detail.
Really Slashdot/Unknown Lamer? I've got a morbid sense of humor at times, and i'm not even saying i'm not interested in the pictures, but "lots of people are injured and some of them may die" and we've got "lots of shiny pictures" about it! seems a bit callous to me. I mean if it were actually part of some morbid joke it'd be fine, but it's not even a joke, it's just being totally insensitive for no good reason.
From the linked CNN article:
The two pilots, a police officer and three other people were treated and released at a hospital, except for one of the pilots, who was admitted, according to Sentara Virginia Beach General Hospital. Both pilots, who live in Virginia Beach, are 'doing well and they suffered minor injuries,"
So, hardly "lots of people", and hospitals usually don't treat and release people who "may die". I think you can lighten up a bit. You'd think it was your apartment they crashed into or something.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
However "Oooohhh! People have been hurt! And there are shiny pictures of it! Wanna see?!?" isn't being sensitive and it isn't funny either.
Dumped fuel? (Score:3)
The article I saw said that the aircraft dumped fuel before the pilots ejected, so that must have happed bloody fast. Commercial aircraft can't dump fuel that fast. My initial thought was to wonder why they didn't get back to a runway, if they had time to dump fuel like that.
Re: (Score:2)
It's probably trained to instinct. If they have some catastrophic failure, all you have is instinct to go on... you need to be trained to "do this, this, this, and that." without thinking about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah but how fast can that aircraft pump fuel out of its tanks? Very fast, apparently, like, in a couple of seconds.
Re:Dumped fuel? (Score:5, Informative)
Just because they dumped fuel doesn't mean they dumped all of it. If it was a Super Hornet (media reports concerning aviation are always suspect), then it has the extra ability to refuel other aircraft in flight, which means they could probably dump fuel pretty quickly.
The article also lauds them for dumping fuel to make the fire upon impact much less severe. I guarantee they were dumping fuel to reduce weight. This was (99% probability) an engine malfunction. In one of the picture you can see the left nozzle closed and the right nozzle wide open. They probably had a lot less thrust than they needed and were dumping fuel reduce the amount of thrust required for flight.
Last, circling back to the runway that you took off almost never works. And it definitely isn't going to work in a thrust deficient situation in a fighter-type aircraft. You just don't have enough energy. I don't know how the Super Hornet works, but it may have also lost flight controls depending on the malfunction. I've never flown the F-18, but I have flown the T-38 (the Mig-28 in Top Gun, btw) which was a pig if you lost an engine and lost all flight controls if both motors died.
Source: I am a USAF pilot.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because they dumped fuel doesn't mean they dumped all of it.
But if it prevented a more serious fire they must have dumped most of their fuel. The aircraft would be fueled up on takeoff surely. Nobody wants air in their tanks.
circling back to the runway that you took off almost never works. And it definitely isn't going to work in a thrust deficient situation in a fighter-type aircraft
Maybe I am too accustomed seeing FA/18s climb out at 45 degrees from the runway. I suppose they don't do that routinely.
Re: (Score:3)
The Super Hornet can only refuel other aircraft when it's carrying the centerline buddy store [wikipedia.org] - and no, they can't dump fuel via that route. (The valve at the end of the drogue is operated by the probe of the receiving aircraft. It cannot be operated remotely.)
Re:Dumped fuel? (Score:5, Informative)
Navy pilot, I have flown the Hornet.
Dumping was definitely to reduce gross weight. Just because some random guy on the street says "It would have been worse if he hadn't dumped his fuel" does not mean it's true. You can start dumping immediately, but it would take several minutes to dump enough to make a difference.
The nozzles (Variable Exhaust Nozzles or VENs on the FA-18) change based on throttle setting. Actually it's a complex formula done by the engines control system to regulate things like EGT, EPR, and a bunch of other parameters. For simplicity an engine has the VEN near full open at idle, off, or max afterburner. The VEN is near closed at or near military power (full power without afterburner).
Circling back to the runway you took off of works well if you have the thrust to get there. If you don't, it just doesn't matter. A normal sequence of events in case of loss of engine shortly after takeoff would be to go to max power, jettison stores and attempt to fly away straight ahead. Once you successfully get the airplane flying you have all sorts of options. The FA-18 flies pretty well on one engine as long as that engine is fully functional and you don't get yourself slow.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Not saying it couldn't. Just saying that you would need a hellishly efficient fuel dump mechanism to make a difference in less than a minute. No doubt that is what they have.
Re: (Score:2)
why they didn't get back to a runway, if they had time to dump fuel like that.
You can dump fuel from an aircraft with dead engines, or one that is otherwise unable to fly.
Re: (Score:2)
My initial thought was to wonder why they didn't get back to a runway, if they had time to dump fuel like that.
Maybe the glide angle of an unpowered F18 is roughly 45 degrees?
6 people, pilots stopped it from being more. (Score:5, Insightful)
2 pilots that safely ejected, 1 person fainted, 1 police who was hurt while attending the scene, 2 for smoke inhaulation. It seems that the pilots knew that something was wrong and were dumping fuel before the crash. Quick thinking stopped a larger fire and the possibility of more casualties.
Cue the conspiracy theories (Score:2)
Any wagers on which conspiracy theories will have legs this time?
There should be a law... (Score:2, Funny)
Right wing on fire (Score:3)
I heard this in an interview from a VERY credible sounding woman on CNN. She must have been some sort of engineer the way she was meticulously recalling details without embellishment or the personal feelings commentary track.
Grim Factoid? (Score:5, Insightful)
FTFA:
Update 3:31 PM EDT: The Virginian-Pilot points out another grim factoid about the Navy base in question today: There have been more than 25 crashes involving Navy aircraft on or near the base over the past four decades.
That's grim? Less than one crash per year with people flying fighter jets? That seems like an outstanding safety record to me -- those things are twitchy and the pilots take them to the boundaries as a matter of proper training. Calling one crash per year "grim" strikes me as misleading and sensationalistic.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Indeed. A few months ago I was reading about the Royal Air Force in the 1950s, and some years they lost close to a thousand aircraft of various types; modern jets are so expensive that you can't afford to crash them at the rate we used to a few decades ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, Fox said it was because those death panels got installed on the wrong side of the wing.
Perspective (Score:5, Informative)
Just to quell some of the more off-base but understandable conjecture. Disclaimer- I have no insider information on this particular mishap, but I am a retired Navy pilot.
A Hornet can fly on one operating engine assuming the "good" one is not having a problem also.
The engines are isolated from a control and fuel standpoint. There are relatively few malfunctions that could affect both. Most likely would be foreign object damage (FOD) most likely birds. There are some other possibilities I can think of, such as the pilot shutting down the wrong (good) engine. It has happened before. Maybe it wasn't shortly after takeoff and they were limping back on one engine and it failed. Maybe it was a massive fuel leak (he wasn't dumping).
Dumping fuel would be normal to reduce gross weight following loss of an engine, particularly if it was shortly after takeoff (leads me to my speculation above). It wasn't done to reduce the amount of fuel for the fireball.
The plane hit at relatively low energy (slow) probably 150kts or less (approach speed). If it was cruise speed (300-350) the wreckage would be much less intact. Witnesses reported the gear down.
Looking at the pictures, the exhaust nozzle is open on one engine, closed on the other. Assuming that didn't happen on impact it means the engines were not doing the same thing. One was in afterburner or at idle, while the other was at or near mil.
VFA-106 is the Fleet Replacement Squadron (FRS). This is where new pilots transition from trainers to fleet aircraft (the FA-18). They are "replacement pilots" not "student pilots" in the traditional sense. They have wings, but are training in a new type aircraft.
Encroachment around Oceana is horrible (or was, I assume it has not gotten better).
Re: (Score:2)
Virginia is extremely close to the Atlantic Ocean - train all you want, the noise won't bother anyone, and malfunctions don't make news headlines.
Isn't that why the largest US Navy base in the world is in Nevada?
Miramar and Oceana, similar hazards (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean the speech where he says we must have a ready military?
Re: (Score:2)
How exactly is this News for Nerds? First it's politics, then it's this:"EA Defends Itself Against Thousands of Anti-Gay Letters", and now this story?
I someone threatening to crash a jet into your house if you don't read Slashdot?
Yeah, we're seeing some change in focus. But what's the point in complaining? It's not like there aren't a billion other sites you could visit.
Re:Slashdot-worthy? (Score:4, Interesting)
Catastrophic mechanical errors do fall under the jurisdiction of News for Nerds, as a fair number of site visitors have some understanding of mechanics (if not outright degrees in Mechanical Engineering), as do F-18 Hornets (which is more Aeronautical Engineering, but whatever).
And the politics thing has been a part of the site since 2000 or 2001.
Re:Slashdot-worthy? (Score:5, Funny)
>> How exactly is this News for Nerds?
Slashdot always reports on things that crash windows.
Re: (Score:3)
What it may have looked like from inside the cockpit [youtube.com].