Video: Stealth Bomber Crashes
In February, a B-2 stealth bomber crashed in Guam. Now we know why. And we've got video of the scene.
On takeoff from Andersen Air Force Base, the $1.4 billion plane abruptly "pitched up, rolled and yawed to the left before plunging to the ground," the AP describes. The reason why: "Water distorted preflight readings in three of the plane's 24 sensors, making the aircraft's control computer force the B-2 to pitch up on takeoff, resulting in a stall and subsequent crash." Luckily, "both pilots ejected safely just after the left wing made contact with the ground in the first crash since the maiden B-2 flights nearly 20 years ago." Check out the video, and you'll see just how fortunate the pilots were to make it out.
(Spotter: CA)
the b2 is a beautiful plane, and as strange as this may sound, this crash had a very strange asthetic quality, almost beautiful.
Ouch! that hurts just to watch. Pilots barely made it out of there. you can see they tried to save it, props to them.
I almost threw up.
Why don't they call it what it is. It wasn't that sensors were "fooled". It was the SOFTWARE reading the sensors that had a bug and reacted incorrectly. It was a software problem.
whoever filmed that should definitely be fired
Yeah...the filmer isn't getting hired to do birthday parties anytime soon...
random dude in a morbid kind of way i agree with you
drew, dno't be such a pansy
matt, it was the sensors problem not the software,
Aircraft departures such as the B2 are routinely video taped by the military. That looks like a military video, notice as the video pans, you can see automatic sector notification. They do this on aircraft carriers all the time.
Who the hell was the cameraman, Donald Duck? Geez.. I mean, if it's important enough to tape the takeoffs, at least the person doing it could figure out how to capture it properly.
The software was fooled by the incorrect baseline readings of the sensors.
It's possible it was a software problem, but it's more likely that in fact it was water clogging a pitot tube or static port.
For those that don't know, a pitot tube measures the pressure of air being pushed into it as the aircraft is flying. A static port is out of the airstream, and as a result measures the air pressure without the influence of aircraft motion (barometric pressure, mostly affected by altitude). The difference between the pitot reading (let's say "A") and the barometric pressure ("B") gives you your airspeed -- A-B=C, the pressure generated only by the forward motion of the aircraft, which can be translated into speed.
Of course, there are other means to calculate airspeed -- GPS, etc., but this essentially mechanical method is generally a reliable method, now used as a backup. Of course, there can be problems, as in the case of an airliner (from Latin America, I believe) that crashed after the plane was washed. The cleaning crew taped over the static ports and forgot to remove the tape, so the system believed the airplane was flying much faster than it really was, since the static pressure was zero.
My taxpayer precious money up in smoke.
It is called a "Pilot Tube" and you say it "Pee low t"
The cameraman is not using a tripod. He is using a little joy-stick on a remote camera. Very hard to do with a moving object like that. Billion dollar plane, but the cheapest way to get the video.
See here for the actual reports and videos that the press is writing their articles on...
http://www.acc.af.mil/accspecialreports/b-2accidentinvestigationboard.asp
It was NOT found to be a software bug. Nor was it found to be an equipment failure. It was a procedure/communication problem. The AUTO-CAL was not intended to be performed in the manner used on the "mishap aircraft".
also almost threw up.
Dan - you are incorrect it is Pitot Tube and it is "pee-toe".
FYI... there are no pitot tubes on a B-2. It is a flush air data system.
the take off of the 2nd B@ just did not look as smooth as the 1st one..
i mean 1st one took a smooth ramp up into the air
2nd one just took off almost immediately..
i guess it was needing some more run-up on the strip before it could take off..
but..oh, well..i dont even know a tenth of what these guys are doing in there
Man... Look at the elevons coming up, that shows the pilot fought until the end to pitch the nose down but the computer kept pitching it up.
I wonder who had to change the "Months without a crash" sign from almost 240 back to 0.
The camera is a remotely mounted camera on a servo - smooth panning to track the aircraft is exceedingly difficult to do. While the servo does have variable speed capability it is very twitchy and tends to be either full speed or off. To even keep the plane in frame is a minor achievement on that system. Just folks realie that were not talking about a tripod mounted or handlheld here.
@Dan: "It is called a 'Pilot Tube' and you say it 'Pee low t'"
Um, no. As Dave said it's a pitot tube, pronounced "peeto".
I did throw up
$2 Billion. Ouch.
What a fricking boring 1:45 minutes. Seriously, have the courtesy to cut the crap out and get to the good stuff. I'm not here for a dramatic movie. BUT, the crash is GREAT! (oh, I'm supposed to be sensitive) I'm so glad everyone is ok and stuff.
=P
That plane was not ready to rotate. The previous takeoff shows clearly what the run-up should have been. Perhaps this is ultimately caused by equipment malfunction, but the bottom line is it took off before it was at speed, and it yawed because it stalled.
I am embarassed for the pitot. er. pilot.
I don't think the pilots were lucky; they chose exactly the right moment to get out -- when they knew for sure that they wouldn't be able to regain control. Pure skill!
Just a shame such beautiful birds have to be used for such an ugly purpose...
Considering what they're spending on the planes, you'd think they'd have some sort of automated camera that followed a signal from the plane.
ha, 1,400,000,000 dollars gone, what a waste.
To the camera operator:
LEARN HOW TO PAN!!
The bottom line is that malfunctioning equipment caused the computer to try to take off too early, causing the crash. The pilot probably had enough time to say "CRAP! WTF?!?", attempt to override a couple of times and then get the hell out of the plane.
Suuuuure, that's just what we need, a STEALTH bomber transmitting signals so that cameras can TRACK them! LOL! "Ummm, I don't see it on radar, but our camcorder says it's right over there!"
lousy filming, a 3yr old could have done better
It may be relevant to mention here that without any kind of stabilizers, the B2 relies on sensors and computers to maintain control in a situation where a traditional airplane would have no hope. I would bet that there is far more involved here than a pitot tube, and that when the computer got "confused" and started the roll, there was nothing the pilot could do. A wing w/no vertical stabilizers is an incredibly instable vehicle to fly. Those pilots are lucky.
Those pilots were incredibly brave to try to recover until the last possible moment.
At $1.4 billion, we'd better be pretty darned sure they solve this problem and that nobody can ever shoot these down in significant quantities.
As beautiful as it is, I am not sure it is worth the cash compared to other craft that can perform the same function for much cheaper.
one carrier down the toilet.. at least it wasn't 5000 sailors
looks like the climbed too steep and lost lift to me.
"Considering what they're spending on the planes, you'd think they'd have some sort of automated camera that followed a signal from the plane."
but the plane is "stealth"... so how would that work?
OK, ?--water? Where?
>A wing w/no vertical stabilizers is an incredibly instable vehicle to fly. Those pilots are lucky.
yeah, I believe it's basically in a constant state of instability and what keeps it in the air is continual software controlled corrections
"Considering what they're spending on the planes, you'd think they'd have some sort of automated camera that followed a signal from the plane."
but the plane is "stealth"... so how would that work?
Did not one of those bombers crash in Serbia- a piece of it is on display at the 'war museum'
I'd have to agree with Charles, I've heard that the aerodynamics of these things is really non-linear and flaky when compared to a normal aircraft, so they make up for it by using computer algorithms to make it act more like what a pilot expects when he or she pulls on the controls (kind of like flying a sheet of plywood - as long as you can predict how the lift and drag act as you put it through its paces, you could in theory fly it). So, if the computer gets fooled by its sensors, there is no way to intuitivly correct for it as a pilot.
Guys... calm down on the camera rants... it's an automated object-detection-based panning system. Old and crappy given new tech, but the kind of thing that's low on the upgrade list when budget time comes around.
Has a manual override, which you can see at the end, when someone forces it back to the fire, after several seconds of the camera being "lost" with no object to track where it expected it.
who was the jack arse behind the camera?
what an unbelievable box of rocks.
uhm... priorities???
In reading these comments, there are like 10 saying "what bad filming" for every 1 saying "my tax $$ up in smoke". Has everyone gone freaking nuts??!? $1.4b!!! That's $1,400,000,000. Or, put another way, that's the equivalent of ~ 40,000 gov't employees' salaries, like teachers. Nice to know US priorities are so well aligned!!
With our current fights & enemies, explain to me how a stealth bomber can POSSIBLY HELP to quell the anarchy in Iraq. Or, are we so scared of Kim Jung-Il technology that we need to either spy or attack upon them with stealth bombers??!? Puhh-lease! Exactly who do we need to be stealthy with these days?!?
I know we need this stuff and all -- but why not spend some that money at home. you know the good old USA
Serbia was a F-117 not a B-2.
Hey guys - the $1.4 Billion is a sunk cost, alright? Cold war economics dictated that we spend it, and it's spent. Relax already with the "Oh my god look how much money we lost" rants. Maintenance cost per hour in the air is a different story.
Glad to see the guys made it out. Must have been a tough decision, but the resulting fireball indicates it was the right one to eject.
damn. all the cool stuff happens on andy *after* i leave.
The Russians and Chinese are not our friends. We need the stealth bomber as a part of our deterrent strategy.
But it also proves useful when we decide to invade an inferior country that was never any threat to us. =P
Looks like the cameraman was hired by the lowest bidder. Good thing the ejection system worked, which was also probably provided by the lowest bidder.
Did you know that the wreckage burned for 6 hours?!?!?
http://www.acc.af.mil/accspecialreports/b-2accidentinvestigationboard.asp
Does everyone enjoy hearing the chatter in their own heads? Is anyone thinking here? Water? If it is the shading on the video, why did the first wing get through? Equally important--water is part of flying, what are the paramenters in the codes? We don't need those pilots facing scrambled sensors or software.
It'll actually be a cost-saving measure in the long run. Although it's $1.4b of aircraft, they need repainting after they've flown every single time because the special paint that ensures their radar invisibility flakes off after a flight. That alone costs $millions each time.
My understanding is that this was a civilian film--groups of "plane spotters" film takeoffs on Guam due to its unique geography. In this case, it is likely a tripod-mounted camcorder, and yes, the camera operator could have done a lot better job. Tragic--the B-2 was returning to Whiteman. The person who said an aircraft carrier equivalent was lost is only partly right--it's way, way cheaper than an aircraft carrier and its air wing, but is a much more effective deterrent because it can penetrate modern air defenses and travel deep inland, and the carrier air wing cannot. Increasingly, the carrier will not be able to get close enough to launch its air wing, either.
"Puhh-lease! Exactly who do we need to be stealthy with these days?!?"
You never know, but you might also want to check out when that plane was made. My guess would be 15-20 years ago, when they were far more necessary than they are today. But you are right, $1.4 billion dollar airplane that we don't need anymore, think we could see if we could return it for a refund? Or maybe we should see if we could sell it off and risk it being used against us.
Nope. I think that we should see what kind of uses we can still get out of it and at least get some return on our money.
$1.2B plane.
$40 camera control system.
Good times.
I'd be willing to bet the camera is part of a computer controlled unmanned system that records all takeoffs and landings. GET OVER IT.
The B2 has a fly by wire system (pilot has no direct control of the plane's control surfaces) that interprets pilot input and sensor data then adjusts control surfaces and thrust vector controls to keep the plane flying. If the sensors are transmitting bad data there's not much the pilots can do.
However, according to the report it appears the pilots failed to heat the pitot tube sensors duing calibration as their procedures probably require--in that case, it was pilot error...an unforgivable one.
I've used this camera system for over a decade since the Air Force Acquired it, with various upgrades throughout the years. The camera is a WSTI-CCTV, routinely used by Security Forces personnel at all Air Force bases. Although this one is in daytime mode, they also have the capability to work as a thermal imager hence the T.I. This one was operated by a person and looked to be zoomed in way too far. The normal op ranges on these are between 0-3km for detection of a person and -5km for a vehicle. But it's not perfect. I would be willing to bet the camera is set at least 800 meters from the aircraft taking off.
Someone made the comment that 1.4B is the equivalent of 40K govt employees salaries, alluding to the waste of funds. What a laugh, lets build more bombers and can more of those lazy govt employees :)
JDAM, way to be the only person who reads the actual report! It was more a communication error, no one communicated that in Guam they were running the AUTO-CAL more frequent then other areas of the plane's service. Also, in Guam there are not enough hangers for all the planes so some sit outside in all weather conditions. Running the heater on the ground for a long duration prior to air-flow-cooling might damage aircraft skin.
"failed to heat the pitot tube sensors duing calibration as their procedures probably require--in that case, it was pilot error"
WRONG, read it again (Summary of Facts 11d).
There were recommendations from systems engineers to line staff of more frequent calibrations with pitot heat on, but were never formulated into a TOC or lessons learned. Therefore many pilots and staff above line level (including these pilots) were unaware of the recommendation.
It was not pilot failure, it was a engineering communication and documentation failure.
oh, wonderful.
that's a half a week less we can spend on killing civilians in iraq.
2billion wasted,..
It could have been used to used to
put every Iraqi kid through College.
2billion wasted,..
It could have been used to used to
put every Iraqi kid through College.
2billion wasted,..
It could have been used to used to
put every Iraqi kid through College.
It's an opening-up experience when the value of an aircraft becomes so starklingly understandable as when one witnesses such a rapid chaotic decay of such a splendidly delicate machine. I love how the guys get out in the end.
Also - to add to a number of previous voices, the camera is on a mechanical platform probably driven by software, probably with a man in the loop.
Colinnwn, is the first person to talk intelligently after actually reading the report. He has correctly interpreted the findings. (he echoes my comment immediately prior to his own.)
1.4 billion spent on a kick as jet is 1.4 billion better spent than on lazy unproductive government employees and stupid social progams!
god, what an unskilled idiot taping. pan as you go with the plane you moron!
@GHynson
1.4 billion would not put every kid in Iraq through college! By the way try not to inflate the price by 600 million! But then again your a liberal so 600 million is down played to look like $600 dollars, so that you can spend and spend and spend!
too bad the pilots didn't die, that would have been cool.
looks like it rotated too early, angle of attack waay too high, left ground effect, and crashed. what i dont understand is why autopilot would be engaged so early on in the flight, so close to the ground. i guess military does things differently.
The B-2 = useless junk. Totally useless in todays modern battlefield where the future of warfare is going toward private military contractors, and guerilla style warfare. We should have scraped those b-2's back in the early 90's.
Matt | Jun 6, 2008 7:20:30 AM
Matt... not a software error - as stated, the sensors were clogged w/ water which means they weren't providing accurate information to the system(s).
Geez...
Psst - cost per plane was really about 650 - 700 million. The whole 1.2 billion - 2 billion includes ammortized engineering costs. Costs that were supposed to have been split over a fleet of 130, not 21.
Actually the sensors weren't clogged with water during the flight. The heaters were on. They were clogged with water when calibrated because they forgot to turn on the heaters during calibration. Hence the calibrated values were off from the actual values, causing the onboard computer to think it was in a dive and overcorrect upward.
It's all in the report. WHich is what this story really should link to.
http://www.acc.af.mil/accspecialreports/b-2accidentinvestigationboard.asp
well there goes 1.4 billion dollars... good job chair force..
I'm a retired airline pilot and ex-USAF pilot. "Pitot" is an abbreviation for "P" (variable for air Pressure) and tot (abbreviation for "total") or P-sub-tot, or "total air pressure". It's a sensor that gives total air pressure readings. It's always been pronounced Pee-tow.
Also large air force planes take off quickly after each other and rejoin in the air for formation flight, instead of taking off together like smaller fighters do.
Thanks for the help interpreting the accident report. That sort of systemic error is the worry of every pilot. Something out of your control makes the plane go out of control. It was certainly a good operational test of the ejection system in any case. One pilot suffered a compressed vertebra, which will be a permanent reminder for him of that nice, clear day on his way back home to Missouri. When you are a nation with global strategic interests, a platform like the B-2 comprises one of our most important power projection icons. Too bad we only bought 21. The next-generation bomber will be even more capable in some important ways.
Where's the manual override? 1.4 billion and they couldn't put a manual override switch in there? SkyNet would be so proud.
I'm a retired airline pilot and ex-USAF pilot. "Pitot" is an abbreviation for "P" (variable for air Pressure) and tot (abbreviation for "total") or P-sub-tot, or "total air pressure". It's a sensor that gives total air pressure readings. It's always been pronounced Pee-tow.
Also large air force planes take off quickly after each other and rejoin in the air for formation flight, instead of taking off together like smaller fighters do.
Erich what manual override? It's not possible. Tailless planes are inherently very unstable. No human can control them manually. The only way they fly is sensors feeding acceleration information to computers and making control surface changes literally 100s of times per second. The pilot joystick tells the plane where he wants to go, the computer figures out how to turn that into motion. In this case incorrectly calbirated sensors were giving junk info to the computer. Junk in, junk out.
Suckers!
Nice explanation, me. Pilots don't fly the plane, the computer flies the plane. Pilots point the plane. Automated flight controls in a Boeing 777 are even more "in control" than in the 1980's technology used in the B-2. In the main, robot "pilots" fly and human pilots have less of an input as technology advances. As a result, human "stick and rudder" skills atrophy. So it goes.
The pitot tube is named after the French physicist, Henri Pitot, who invented it.
Who is filming this!??? Someone needs to learn how to use a camera.
""Pitot" is an abbreviation for "P" (variable for air Pressure) and tot (abbreviation for "total") or P-sub-tot, or "total air pressure"."
Well, in the rest of the world, it's named after Henri Pitot who invented it, back in the 18th century.
"It's always been pronounced Pee-tow."
Yeah, those french guys talk funny...
first of all.....yes, water. it rains EVERY DAY on Guam, even during the dry season. Second, this was not shot by plane spotters, it was shot from the roof of the control tower right next to the exchange. There is no way for a civilian to see the runways from off base. Third, sometimes I miss Guam, and all the dirty boonie dogs!!!
Looks like the plane was being "shot" at from the rear at 1:56 onwards. That or some pieces of it were coming off from the rear...
And there goes $1 billion.
Can I just join in and criticise the camerawork, even though the reasons for it have already been explained above several times? It's been several posts now since somebody did, and that's no fun!
Water is so evil and heartless. Constantly eroding, rusting, dissolving and crashing B-2's. Congress needs to start a war on water! I demand it!
I'd just like to be the first to say that SCAT is a moron.
...and a closet homosexual.
so.. a 2 billion dollar military aircraft has software that cant handle some failed sensors for critical flight operations. Love to fly one of these things into battle..
Anyone in the design team hear of redundancy? So any minor flaw with these sensors (sensors being very VERY failure prone) could result in total loss? This is definitely a software problem, that grows out of loss of sensors. This needs a fix that includes both components.
Those ancient Bear bombers the russians are flying all over NATO airspace. Bet you could blow half a wing off and they would stay in th air, at least long enough to nuke whatever was shooting at them.
This is shoddy workmanship on a billion dollar scale.
It's an automated recording I believe. So probably recorded by software.
here's another video from a different angle:
http://www.acc.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-080605-046.mpg
Camerawork, yaddayadda. $1.4 billion, yaddayadda. Software, yaddayadda.
Prices of our bombers (USD)
B-52 - $40,000,000
B-1 - $225,000,000
B-2 - $2,160,000,000
For comparison
Aircraft Carrier - $4,500,000,000
Take care of all foster children in the entire USA - $5,000,000,000
Is the military really giving us our money's worth?
Coming from a school where we have 17 year old science textbooks, this is sickening.
I wonder if there were any nukes on board.
It looks like something breaks off of it at 1:58 to 1:59. What am I seeing there?
@Hellos
So donate some greenbacks to the cause:
http://www.dhmo.org/
No sensors, no software. A good take off is a LONG take off. Have you seen the first plane: loooonnnnng take off.
Pilot, you gonna have a problem.
are you guys stupid!! as we can evidently see from the video, the 5th poster tail flap, had a crimson response witch leads to the aircraft inverting its position to about 30-42 degrees sideways. Never the less the pilots could have puled a 'Brooklyn maneuver' to ensure that the center of equilibrium was moved slightly to the right of the air craft. (Near the 7 barrel gas compressor). This would have ensured a proper landing and saved the US government millions of dollars
Ha Ha, I guess they wont be killing and maiming innocent Iraqi civilians!
Nick: It's just one of the runway markers flashing past behind the plane.
Am I the only one who saw this video and mourned the loss of an incredible plane?
Those things are spectacular, and you can bet that they aren't being built that often anymore.
A waste of 1.4 billion dollars it is not.
A masterpiece it is
david b: yes, everything on that jet is redundant. there are actually 8 air data sensors on the underside of the leading edge and another 4 on the top side just below the windscreen. there are 2 main avionics processors.
jammin: no, it is NEVER flown with nukes unless it is going to drop one.
looks faked. Yes I know there was a real B2 crash but this video looks fake to me.
China will make another one for us. ;)
Lemme guess: the guy who filmed this mess also designed the software.
And the sensors.
I feel safer already.
This reminds me of reading the book "The Black Box," which includes the transcripts of the final moments of about 20 aircraft mishaps ranging from some unsafe activity to 100% fatal crashes. At least two of them involved sensors being taped up to waterproof them while the aircraft was cleaned, and then the cleaners neglected to remove the tape. The pilots couldn't disbelieve their fouled sensors despite what the radar controllers were telling them, and made bad decisions. As it happened, they were ground-avoidance decisions, and, well, they were in the book for a reason.
The B-2 has a computer making sensor-based decisions many thousands or millions of times faster than a pilot. Give it bad info, and no ability to disbelieve that info, and you've got a crash on your hands. At least these pilots had an exit.
For those who are saying tax dollars in waste, you do know the internal parts can still be scavenged, or so it looks like it. And wouldn't that be the more expensive part?
Truth observes: "...you do know the internal parts can still be scavenged, or so it looks like it."
-----
"It *looks* like it?"
All I can make out is burning jet fuel with nary a bit of the plane in view - much less any "salvageable" parts!
So I wonder, then, how you would see a plane crash in which nothing salvageable was left. Do you have Second Sight?
That's one less the rest of the world has to worry about... Imagine you guys had to fight a war using the same crappy equipment as the other side; well, we know who would win!
i believe i read on CNN that the B-2 is 13 years old and expected to to retire in 50 years, grand total years of service: 63 years?
I don't understand how our current technology could realistically compete for another 50 years but its not like its a new plane.
i completely agree that we could better budget 1.4 BILLION! on young adult's education-- or tax general relief. at least no one was killed.
an expensive piece of military hardware is destroyed, two US servicmen barely escape with their lives, and people are bitching about the quality of the video? idiots.
the camera that produced this video wasn't made to track paris hilton or for uploading fight club videos for youtubers to watch.
this is video is from a security camera made for monitoring intruders, not meant to track aircraft coming and going. the fact that someone was trying to track the aircraft at all adds significant flight safety information to the investigation.
the level of idiocy on the internet is truly astounding.
(formerly posted as 'me' but someone else seems to be ignoring my requests to stop using the same name)
I didn't know Danger Room had so many aero and software engineer readers with enough knowledge to evaluate the merits of the B-2 avionics.
Sigh for the price of two of those planes we could have high speed rail corridors for the whole country like civilized countries in Europe do. Why doesn't the military just burn big bails of tax payer supplied hundred dollar bills?
So no I DON'T ever want to here from tax and spend "Conservatives" ever again about how we can't afford single payer health care, or high speed rail, or PBS.
And even from a pro military paradigm what are these planes for? Hint, the U.S.S.R. folded up in the late 90s. This is NOT a counter insurgency weapon but rather a big giant literally burning example of wasteful government pork.
too bad they survived, CNN and Fox could have blamed it on "Terrorism" and George Dubya could have spent another 4 trillion on the fight against moisture.
Compared with the first take-off, it appears that the failed one's angle of ascent was too steep. That might have tricked the computer into giving more fuel than it needed, and the pilot might over over-compensated by manually reducing the throttle, thus causing what appeared to be a stall. So, I'd say it was human error compounded by computer error compounded by human error. BTW, have you heard the rumor that a non-computerized P-51 was able to "destroy" a fully-computerized F-16 in a mock dogfight? Ain't technology wunnerful? ;)
ALL "fly by wire" or computer controlled aircraft should have a manual over-ride to fly it mannually. Hell, The Space shuttle has a manual over-ride! Might save a few lives and some 1.3 billion of U.S. tax dollars.
Whoa. Pretty scary, and those guys were indeed damn lucky to punch out when they did, thank goodness.
Damn.