F-35 Crash – Adequate Generic Cause Analysis?
Recently, an F-35 combat jet crashed in Alaska, and while the pilot ejected safely, the incident immediately raised concerns about whether a generic cause was missed.
Reports show that the landing gear did not properly retract upon take-off, and then they were stuck in the wrong position. There was a 50-minute conference call with the pilot while in the air to attempt to correct the issue. Here’s an article that discusses it in more detail: F-35 Crash
There are quite a few head-scratchers here, and we obviously aren’t privy to the full accident report. However, one of the items that sticks out to me was this statement:
The investigation found a similar hydraulic icing problem in another F-35 at the same base during a flight nine days after the crash, but that aircraft was able to land without incident.
Digging Deeper into Failure
How is it possible that a hydraulic system that was 1/3 full of water caused a crash of a $200 million aircraft, and 9 days later, another aircraft had the same issue? This is mind-boggling to me. Normally, the military is pretty good at looking for what we would call generic cause analysis. Sometimes a problem can be subtle, tough to initially identify. But a frozen hydraulic system, with 1/3 of the system being water instead of hydraulic fluid, is pretty in-your-face.
OK, I probably sound a bit excited here. Let me take a step back and see if I’m making some assumptions. And I probably am. For instance, they may not have known that the hydraulics were so contaminated only 9 days after the crash. They had to examine the wreckage to identify the issue. So, at the time of the second incident, they may only have known that the gear on the first plane had failed. I also note that the second hydraulics issue may NOT have been in the landing gear. Possibly in the control surfaces; it isn’t clear from the article.
So I want to be very careful about jumping to conclusions. However, when a pilot must eject (dangerous in itself) after detailed troubleshooting with experts on the ground, and the aircraft is subsequently lost, I would expect that there would be at least a preliminary finding of immediate cause (water in hydraulics) before similar aircraft would be allowed to operate. ESPECIALLY at the same airbase. While a full RCA might not be completed right away, a risk analysis would seem to indicate that the failure mode should be identified before additional flights are allowed.
Lessons in Risk
Seems a very unusual risk stance after a pilot ejects due to mechanical failure. If this type of equipment failure analysis catches your attention, it may be time to sharpen your own skills. Our Equifactor® Equipment Troubleshooting and Root Cause Analysis Course teaches you how to systematically find and fix equipment-related issues using proven troubleshooting tables developed by Heinz Bloch. You’ll learn how to go beyond immediate fixes, identify generic causes, and prevent costly repeat failures. Sign up for an upcoming Equifactor® course here and make sure you’re ready the next time equipment performance is on the line.
