Whoops

The splash after the crash was just the pilot hitting the water with his escape chair, I think the parachute just doesn’t open when it doesn’t have a sufficient height, hence the chair just falls back. Or it was the canopy that flew away.

you’re probably right.. either that or one big fish LOL

The splash after the crash was just the pilot hitting the water with his escape chair, I think the parachute just doesn’t open when it doesn’t have a sufficient height, hence the chair just falls back. Or it was the canopy that flew away.

A big factor in wire life if martensitic hardening, something that can be very hard to detect until it’s too late. When i was offshore that was one of the biggest factors leading to premature changing out of the mooring cables, drill floor cables etc

Maybe the wire didn’t fail but rather the hook on the Su-33.

Well, that is after 100 times that particular wire was caught by the hook.

This means that (in the few remaining 4-wire carriers) #1 wire is almost never changed, #2 wire is changed a bit more frequently, #4 is next-most, and #3 is changed nearly as often as the others combined.
In the 3-wire carriers, #2 is the most-changed, #3 next, and #1 least.

Of course, all are kept properly greased to prevent corrosion, regardless of how long they are in place… and visible rust and frayed/broken strands are also factors in unscheduled replacements.

Many years ago I was on board a US carrier, I believe it was the Constellation (or perhaps the Independance) and the CAG was telling me they had suffered a wire snap incident a few days out of port.

The wire had snapped close to the port end, and had whiplashed across the flight deck, injuring a significant number of deck crew with numerous broken bones, two crewmen had lost limbs and two had died from being struck in the chest or head.

You can see why the US Navy is over-cautious with the arrestor cable, that said however, 100 seems a very low number, barely a few days operations.

Unicorn

Look at the vid again and follow the black speck I marked, to me it looks like the cable didn’t snap until the Su was at the position in this screenshot. Seems to me the cable held on long enough to slow the Flanker below minimum take-off-speed even with full thrusters.

Yes, it appears the Flanker lost too much momentum and didn’t have enough speed to get back in the air. I wonder how often the Russians replace their cables.. I heard somewhere that the USN changes cables after every 100 traps. can anyone confirm this figure? seems a bit low.

Also, why didn’t the Flanker go to full power when he felt the tailhook catch,like USN pilots do, just in case the cable snaps? Or isn’t this SOPfor russian naval pilots?

Look at the vid again and follow the black speck I marked, to me it looks like the cable didn’t snap until the Su was at the position in this screenshot. Seems to me the cable held on long enough to slow the Flanker below minimum take-off-speed even at full thrust.

Uhhh, it’s a Flanker.

Good thing their pilots wear those heavy cold-water survival suits!

I don’t think the splash I mentioned was caused by the first Flanker hittingthe water.. that would have occured a long time before the 2nd Flanker was waved off.. just curious..

Uhhh, it’s a Flanker.

Good thing their pilots wear those heavy cold-water survival suits!

Any idea what caused the splash after the 2nd jet was waved off?
Also, why didn’t the Fulcrum go to full power when he felt the tailhook catch,like USN pilots do, just in case the cable snaps? Or isn’t this SOPfor russian naval pilots?

I am sure that the first thought that went through the pilots mind was a cyrillic version of “Oh F#$@”

Poor ba-stard, he was having a bad day at work.

Unicorn

Whoops indeed.