sensors were fooled by the presense of water
Yeah, the Earth is made up of a whole bunch of that.
You'd think they would have included that in the QA plan.

DeepFriar

Glad the crew got out safe.
Poor thing looks like it had trouble right from the start.

It sure looks like the pilot was doing everything possible to keep it together, but with so little airspeed things are gonna go to shit real fast.

Never good to see an aircraft go down...unless of course it's stock footage from the birth of aviation!!!!!!

+ Watch video

strider_mt2k

The crash itself was pretty underwhelming, but the flaming streak of wreckage left over was pretty fun to look at.

@Gann:
Ditto.

DisposableInterloper

@dambo29:
I'm with you!

stoleriko

good Lord, zoom out, wide angle lens, something...

med

@P3nnst8r: When they cost that much... I'd have to assume, yes.

There's nothing like the moment when things start to get out of control like that and your butt begins to inhale your seat cushion. Props to the pilots, they were working their ass off when the nose popped up!

DustyButt

look at the camera work again... 'Sector 3.'.... 'Sector 4'...

looks like an automatic system or a man sitting in an office with a remote control system.

KhaiJB

I want to know who was taking the footage, I imagine that the area is pretty secure and they don't let just anyone take footage of an installation housing B-2 bombers. If it was military personnel or some other official entity, then what was up with that shoddy panning? Jerking the camera sporadically.

TOWken22

I gotta buy me a few of them $1.2 Stealth bombers. I figure a 5 spot should get me at least 4 to play with for awhile.

Ideapimp

that was one hell of a pan with the camera. was that like 720 degrees or something?

discounteggroll

Must've been hauling a Pinto.

Kaiser-Machead

@Gann: Me too. And do they always videotape planes taking off?

P3nnst8r

That guy has got to be the worst camera man in the history of motion pictures. Almost felt sick just by watching this.

dambo29

I kept expecting the first one to crash.

Gann

My 6 year old can take better footage than whoever was filming that.

Husar

This is what you get when you employee the camera operator from Cloverfield and a throw in a non-fluidhead tripod.

With the news of carbon-nano toxicity, I bet that smoke was pretty toxic.

Atleast they got to eject.

SigmundTheSeaMonster

I guess there is a reason Dubai is investing in opera houses instead of B-2 bombers.

I am just glad that no one was hurt.

Monty

Good thing all Stealth Bombers come equiped with OnStar.

MagnoliaBoy

@DeepFriar: Exactly what I was thinking.

Somebody spits on the runway and I'm out 1.2 billion?

I want my money back.

bpatten

it was going a v. long way somewhere.. the flight laws look sppoky - was it really the sensors?

fly boy Virgil

When you look at the time between when the plane obviously is not behaving like the first, and when the pilots eject - makes you wonder when did the pilots go "oh man, this is screwed." and stop trying to fix the problem. Not a whole lot of room for error!

Cetrian

"Apparently the plane's sensors were fooled by the presence of water"

Really? they weren't expecting water in earth's atmosphere? At least it wasn't a metric conversion issue. Now that would be embarrassing.

@KhaiJB: Maybe the automatic camera system was fooled by the presence of light.

Gann

"it's really, really hard watching so much taxpayer cash wastefully go up in flames"

Gee, don't we spend more than that every week in Iraq?

TommySez

Looks like fuel spilled out to me.

Vindicoth

@FredicvsMaximvs: I noticed the pilots stayed in until the last second too. Maybe DOD Developers should increase their confidence in their pilots abilities, and decrease their confidence in their own coding.

@uberfu: school girls you say? I'll "whup-em"!

newgalactic

@Barry99705: why would they be filming 2 planes taking off with a security camera? Was the Security Office just bored that day?

uberfu

@DustyButt: way to drop some science!

Does anyone else think that the resulting fire is a little strange? When the plane hits the ground it doesn't look like it has much speed (that being the problem that caused the crash in the first place). Then the camera pans right after the plane hits the ground, the plane disappears behind the smoke (strangely) and there's a fireball half a mile long. Must have been chock-full of weapons that detonated, I guess. Bombs thrown on impact? What could cause that?

weatherman

@Cetrian: True! And if you look at the amount of time between ejection and the plane actually hitting the ground, it's obvious they held on 'til the absolute last possible second. Mad propz!

FredicvsMaximvs

@newgalactic: wait - I think there are some little school girls around the corner you haven't beat on yet - let me get them for you_

@packetsniffer: I would expect that it might be documented NOW !

uberfu

@packetsniffer: Uhh, pitot heat is on every flight check list I've ever looked at. I wouldn't call it undocumented.

Barry99705

It was filmed with security cameras. Which is why there's the wired pan lag. Water in the pitot tubes can cause all kinds of problems. What's worse id grabbing one when the heater is still on. My scar is mostly faded now....

Barry99705

"Apparently the plane's sensors were fooled by the presence of water"
Yeah, something tells me you guys don't quite get what the problem was.

Here's the original wording, which makes much more sense:
"The Air Force on Thursday said the first crash of a B-2 stealth bomber was caused by moisture in sensors"

So the bottom line is that the sensors aren't protected against high humidity during calibration, and most of the pilots are unaware of the problem and of the undocumented measures that can be taken to heat the sensors and evaporate any condensation.

packetsniffer

It's really sad, the state of software quality in our nations defense industry. First there were the F-22's that almost crashed because of a bug in their code, due to crossing the international date line. Now a B-2 that freaks out because of water, and tries to clime at a ridiculously slow airspeed. This is a horrible, expensive trend. I think it's time for some more robust QA. International Dateline? Water? Were these things not anticipated? Pathetic.

...Mars landers crashing due to English/Metric mix-up. Challenger, Columbia? Though the foam hitting the wing does seem like it's somewhat unavoidable. But frozen o-rings? That's pathetic too.

newgalactic

nothing beats a pilot...stupid computers put the plane into a stall

deadatbirth

@Cetrian:

As they say in situations like that (very much paraphrased), "Out of altitude, out of airspeed, and out of options."

MyPetFly

@Cetrian: The plane was out of control long before that. At 1:59 the plane is out of control. They dont bail until the left wing had been dragging on the groud for 2 seconds at 2:16... That's a long time to keep working the controls of an aircraft less than 80ft off the ground thats out of control.

The acft has pitot tubes and heaters that you switch on during your take off check. You switch them on and they evaporate any access water that might affect any readings for your flight computer. But if one of the pitot heaters fails and you don't know about it... this is what you get.

Also if there is a driving rainstorm (I'm talking howling mad rain) sometimes water will intrude deeply into your pressure sensing system and your pitot heater won't work that deeply in the system. The flight computer should check and report a blockage, but if the blockage occures mid flight due to the shifting of water in the system during acft attitude changes its too late... you're in trouble.

I miss my old job.

DustyButt

@bpatten: Wasn't $1.2 billion_

You should read the article more closely_ It was only $1.20_

Apparently - either the repairs were very minor OR the cost of B-2 Stealth Bombers has significantly dropped in the past 20 years_

uberfu

@gavscott: Shoddy camera-work solved... radar-controlled camera + B-52 Stealth Bomber = Shite Vids

FreshJulius

What I'm wondering is what the white smoke is. Magnesium burning, maybe?

MyPetFly

The only thought I had was that fly-by-wire is a real son of a bitch when something breaks.

Canthros

@uberfu: I'm sure it's Standard Operating Procedure to tape the test and routine practice runs of expensive military equipment. Just because 99.9% of the time, nothing goes wrong, the military likes to be able to provide material for pilots and their COs to review.

tandonmiir

To all the brave test pilots that we have lost over the years, today I raise a glass to you.

dragonphyre

@weatherman: I'm guessing they had a full load of fuel.

GoPadge

love that drink b-52

king-ILL

@weatherman: I imagine there wouldn't be a fire if the plane had simply skidded on it's belly on the grass, but it listed left and the left wing drug the ground causing it to rotate at an odd angle. The mass of the plane hitting the ground at the angle it did likely caused quite a bit of strain on the frame and pulled apart the fuel tanks. Just my speculation though, but whenever a plane full of fuel crashes a fire is the last thing that seems strange.

opedog

First off, as for the shaky camerawork - it's a radar controlled camera. It tracks every airplane that takes off, so that if something like this were to happen, it's captured on tape for later analysis.

The cause of the crash was water - sort of. There was moisture in three sensors that calculate air pressure. Because of that moisture, the computers calculated the Vr (rotation speed) incorrectly, causing the aircraft to rotate early, and too slow, with a subsequent stall and crash.

Look at the attitude of the aircraft - it's a classic low-speed high-power departure stall. Nose high, buffeting, wing drops, and into the ground. Doesn't matter if it's a B-2 or a Cessna 152, they all fly the same.

gavscott

Somebody NEEDS to learn how to track something with a camera. Also, right after the big fuel burn off he randomy pans away? WTF?

pzich

At 1:59, during the rotation, something seems to fly off the top of the plane. Huh?

bandit

I agree with everyone who says it was a computer controlled camera. Just like they have cameras that follow people automatically, that's what this one appears to be doing. Given the shape and color of the plane, I'm guessing it's harder recognize the pattern and keep an accurate track. A human cameraman can use his experience to follow the plane smoothly as it is accelerating at a constant speed, and would keep track without the plane dropping out of frame and the lag. I have minimal experience with cameras, yet at my one job that had semi decent PTZ cameras, I could use the joystick and follow a car down the road and keep it in frame the whole time after a few attempts. I could even zoom in and out while doing the PT part and keep it in frame to get license plate shots.

Git Em SteveDave

@MyPetFly: Great minds think alike. creepy!

N@tedog

@weatherman: The resulting fire/debris field is the tens of thousands of pounds of jet fuel exploding when the tanks ruptured.

Xerloq

Wow. So all thsi tech I love and cherish screwed the pooch on thsi one. That would have been hell trying to fight the controls. "I'm sorry, Dave. I cannot roll right, Dave. No, I will not increase throttle. Goodbye, Dave." Glad the pilots are okay. Can we taxpayers get our money back? Did the govt save the receipt?

N@tedog

@Canthros:

Fly-by-wire always reminds me of the footage of an Airbus airliner crashing into a bunch of trees. The pilots wanted to climb at the end of the takeoff roll (they did get into the air a few dozen feet), and the computer said "I'm sorry Dave, I can't do that," and the airplane made a nice flat approach into the trees.

MyPetFly

I bet all the B2 pilots and crew chiefs are learning a new inspection technique for those sensors.

If that technique already exists I bet someone is in deep dookie.

SgtBeavis

@Ideapimp: Don't be ridiculous.

Figuring sales tax, you can probably only get 3.

JazzmanSA80

@Barry99705:
Read the original article, Barry. We're not talking about pilot heat here.

@uberfu:
Indeed it is, as per the original article.

packetsniffer

@dambo29: my guess is that it was an automated camera

DoPeY5007

@weatherman: That was caused by teams of spec ops soldiers sent in weeks before this fire. They told the security guards, who were led by someone related to George Bush, to take some time off. Then they placed charges on specific points of the field. The plane you see didn't actually have anyone on board. You notice there weren't any windows. What they did was fly the plane to a civilian airfield, off loaded the crew, whom were sent to either Africa or executed, and then rigged the plane to fly by remote control.

Notice the difference in the color of smoke? Notice that the plane fell faster than gravity? There are reports that weeks after this plane "crashed", they found molten metal in the crater of the crash. Never before in the history of b-2 crashes has something like this happened. If you also notice, there was damage in areas nearby the crash that the plane didn't touch. Guess what? YES, those areas were owned by the US Military, and were probably destroyed to destroy documents and "evidence" that they did not want anyone to see.

You can find out more about this, and read reports by literally TENS of scientists and ex-military officers at my website B2Truth.org. You can also check out my YouTube video documentary "Tight Paper Bills".

Git Em SteveDave

[en.wikipedia.org]

Wow, horrible things happen when pitot sensors malfunction.

N@tedog

I'm surprised that so many geeks commenting on an über tech blog can't figure out for themselves that the camera is automated.

Shikestarr

@harshmellow: Where they in the same hanger? Was one out in the sun for longer than the other? Did the first plane kick up some moisture that hit the second plane? How about the temp of the fuel? since it's stored close to the surface of the plane, it could cause a temp imbalance if the second planes fuel was colder....

Git Em SteveDave

@newgalactic:
You are only looking at the things that go WRONG, Look at the Millions of things that go right each day. As a Software Engineer you try to catch everything, TEST TEST TEST, But you also learn from past mistakes.

Snapper

It's been pointed out on other posts featuring stealth planes, but when they say, 1.2 billion dollars, they're calculating in the entire cost of the whole project. Engineering, Design, and Development for the whole project from the start. Doesn't cost that much to put the plane together. Also, there isn't as much of an edge anymore for the stealth planes. Technology has already starting catching up with them. Can't wait to see the next gen of fighter/bombers they have secreted away.

MagnoliaBoy

Seems strange to me that any water "fooled" the plane since an identical plane took off from the same runway only seconds before. There must have been something really wrong with this particular plane...

harshmellow

Sensors were fooled by the presence of water?! What the hell? Those bombers have been taking off from the tiny island of Guam for years and just now the computer realizes it is surrounded by water?

DMF

I like how all these guys think they understand control systems just because they can program a Tivo and built their own myspace html.

Just because we can watch youtube on your iphone doesn't mean we can just as easily put a robot on Mars. These are not gadgets kids.

redgar99

Sensors - computers - pitot tubes.

I know how vacuum ports and pitot tubes work, but it seems like quite a bit more went wrong than a little "water on the sensors," here.

What I can't begin to imagine, is the maze/labyrinth of avionics and aerodynamic control surface mechanisms of a beast like this.

Also, the fact that the pilot was unable to "override" what the machine thought was right... granted it was quite a steep and quick ascent...

meh.. too many unknowns.

*shakes fist @ media

avconsumer

Despite the quality, the video was outstanding. You can really see the pilot fighting for -- and almost gaining -- control over that stalled aircraft. It looks like if he'd had another second or two before that wing drag he'd have recovered the flight (unless there was something to run into in front of him, because it was gonna be a bit before he could climb)

AndrewJayPollack

@Git Em SteveDave: True. I guess there are other possible variables to look at...

It always cracks me up on Mythbusters when they blow something up and point at some part of the charred remains and say "Well, there's your problem."

harshmellow

How does a radar controlled automatic camera track a *stealth* bomber?

tlb

If my camera work were that bad I'd fight like hell to keep it out of public view too.

SeattleTed

Its only painfully slow to watch because someone didht use a FLV file extractor and edit the movie down to the 12 seconds it should have been :)

BABABOOEY!

Stacky Botrus

"Apparently the plane's sensors were fooled by the presence of water"

The planes were evidently built by the aliens from "Signs."

Dave J.

Cut the first half of the video, I was so bored.

chrstphr

Radar controlled camera? Used to film a "stealth" bomber? Maybe that explains why the camera was having such trouble tracking the plane.

A lot of you probably don't realize that the B-2 is a very unstable aircraft, it is impossible to fly without the help of a computer that can make thousands of tiny adjustments per second to keep the thing flying straight. Without the computer, the thing would probably be flipping end over end through the air.

dabub

Soo.. the camera man is on the high-school AV team? Seriously.. someone show him what a wide angle shot is.

I also love how the first 60+ seconds of video you need to sit through have nothing whatsoever with what you're looking to see.

diverguy

@harshmellow: well, if there wasn't much wrong with it before that led to the crash, there sure as hell is something wrong with it now, seeign as it's been spread over the better part of a half mile of grass...

gover57

I was expecting dramatic music or something.

Mike918

that's a cheap B-2! "$1.2"

drive90

Worst... Cameraman... ever...

Muttonchops

I just love how the "problem" is listed as water... Actually the problem is that you crashed a 1.2 Billion dollar f'n plane. The cause of the problem was a bit of water. If the water messed up the sensors and the plane landed fine there would be a problem.

portugue

@tlb:
When the landing gear are down the bomber isn't exactly being stealthy.

petedmeatv

WOW!

even i could tell you: that's NOT how you take off. he angled it up WAY too early. he needed to wait to get some lift from the speed of the airplane. if they didn't angle it, it could have gained lift.

watch the first plane take off. it steadily takes off upward. second one was a bit in a hurry...

Akmed

Worst.Unboxing.Ever!

Earthslide

This is what happen when humans depends too much on technology. "Apparently the plane's sensors were fooled" If the pilot has proper training then he should have know when to pull up. However I do give him credit for attempting to land the B2 to safety. He also made another good move by dropping the plane on soft dirt instead of hard concrete. That delayed the explosion by a few second which save the pilots lives.

Somadis

@Akmed: You seem to have missed the bit about the computer erroneously commanding an early rotation. That's the entire problem, you have an amazing grasp of the obvious.

The B2 is completely aerodynamically unstable. Without computers it can't fly. The pilot doesn't - *cannot* - have direct control of the aircraft, because humans can't make the adjustments needed fast enough. So the pilot's input tells the computer what he wants to do, and the computer figures out how to do it.

For takeoff the computer normally handles the rotation at the correct speed. And in this accident the sensors that determine the speed provided an incorrect reading, giving a speed higher than the actual. So the aircraft rotated too early and stalled - with no altitude to recover.

And for those mindlessly bashing on the B2, this kind of accident happens to 'normal' aircraft too. Blocked pitot or static ports can cause erroneous instrument readings which have lead pilots flying IFR astray, as well as causing autopilots to fly an aircraft into dangerous flight attitudes. There have been civilian airliner crashes due to ports blocked by foreign objects, ice, etc. One semi-famous crash was due to an exterior cleaning crew covering the ports with tape to prevent water infiltration while washing the plane - and then forgetting to remove the tape. No one spotted it and after takeoff the instruments all provided bad readings. And it was at night so there were no visual references - the airliner crashed.

MegaZone

@Somadis: Most modern day planes actually require NO pilot input or control to take off. The f-16 is an example. When taking off, the pilot must not have a hand on the stick. If you ever watch when they take off a carrier, the pilot's grab a handle on the side of the cockpit. The computer handles the first few seconds after the catapault launches them, whereupon they take over.

Also, it doesn't matter where he ditched it, if he even had control of it. As the ejector seats launch, they figure out what direction is up and away from the plane, and adjust their rockets accordingly. An ejector seat can work on the ground and get the seat high enough to still deploy chutes. The pilot and copilots seats launch a second apart to avoid collision. You can note this in the videos below, which happened either near ground, or while heading towards it.

+ Watch video

+ Watch video

Git Em SteveDave

@Git Em SteveDave: Good point but I think you meant an F18 and not the F16 because those F16's don't have catapult gear to launch them from carriers.

apeguero

"Apparently the plane's sensors were fooled by the presence of water and convinced the vehicle to pitch up on take-off."

So is the Pentagon going to revise that All-Weather Bomber certification then?

Gotta hand it to that pilot though. If this was the aircraft avionics screwing up, then he/she was/were very courageous to try to save it with so little air under the wings. Oh yes, that camera airman should be demoted and sent back to Tech School to learn how to properly use the zoom button on that camera. Wow.

apeguero

I think the shoddy camera work is more embarrassing than the crash.

UniComp

Does nobody read the comments anymore before posting their own? F-cakes! Cameras and water! All-right!

@tlb: giggle!

bensinger

did anyone else see that faded sign at the side of the road that said 15 miles to the love shack?

BigViper

@stoleriko: nerds getting motion sickness from a video? weak

hellboy997

@Husar: we want cool video. whats a 6 gonna shoot? a cat or dad getting hit in the balls?

hellboy997

@MegaZone:

well... i guess i could have just simply said it stalled too early. but it's obviously either a computer error or the pilot failed.

still, the B2 is a great bomber.

Akmed

1.2 billion dollars got fooled by water on the sensors. I think i can understand if the engine choked off a chicken bone or something, but this is hard to grasp. Something this expensive and sophisticated shouldn't be defeated by water !!!!

Anyway, I still dont understand why we have to purchase these super expensive bomber when a single missile can do the same job at a fraction of the cost.

gconol

its a controlled security cam. thats why you see the sector updates on the screen to know where the camera is pointing. im sure he could have done better with a handheld

viettek

This is really sad.

MadMacs

I just wanna know why you wasted 1m40s with the first plane taking off. Like wanted to see that.

DavidG64

worst camera work ever.

lmc

A buck-tweny? My Sausage, Egg and Cheese this morning was more than that! No wonder our planes are falling out of the sky!

kchendricks

sad face...

shawnmeboy86