Fighter pilots shut down CF-18 engines more than 200 times since 1988

By Lee Berthiaume

OTTAWA — Government records show Canadian CF-18 pilots shut down one of their aircraft’s two engines in midflight more than 200 times since 1988 because of safety concerns.

The revelation highlights a key aspect of the debate over whether the single-engine F-35 stealth jet is not only the right aircraft for Canada, but also the safest — or whether the air force would be better off with another dual-engine jet.

Critics of the Harper government’s plan to purchase the F-35 stealth fighter have long maintained that a dual-engine fighter is better suited and safer for Canada’s air force pilots — particularly so they will have a backup while patrolling the country’s vast north.

That was one of the main reasons given by the federal government and military for choosing the twin-engine CF-18s as Canada’s main fighter jet in the 1980s.

In a report filed in Parliament this week, National Defence says it does not officially known how many times CF-18 engines have failed since 1988.

“With two engines, pilots are trained so that when an engine malfunction occurs or is suspected,” the report reads, “they complete an early precautionary shut-down of the affected engine and return to base using a single engine.”

Between 1988 and March 31, 2012, there were 228 precautionary engine shutdowns, the report reads, though it emphasizes that “a precautionary engine shut-down is not an engine failure.”

“Since this is a precautionary measure, there is no way to know if the engine would actually have failed or not, had it continued to be used.”

That caveat did little to calm opposition critics and experts, who were alarmed by the average of about 10 engine shutdowns per year for more than two decades — and what it could mean for the F-35.

“They’re not shutting down the engine because they think it’s a great idea,” said NDP defence critic Jack Harris, who requested the information from National Defence. “They’re shutting it down because they have to.

“This means 228 times they had an opportunity of getting a plane back to base when it could have resulted in an engine failure of significant proportions.”

Liberal defence critic John McKay said the figures are concerning not only from the perspective of pilot safety, but also the potential cost of losing a multi-million-dollar F-35 due to engine failure.

“Say there’s one failure a year, not only is the life of a pilot at risk, but you lose one of your fleet,” he said.

“I think they’d better start teaching our F-35 pilots some gliding and some ejection skills.”

The Harper government, Defence Department officials and F-35 manufacturer Lockheed Martin have previously downplayed the significance of moving from a twin-engine fighter to one.

They say there is no statistical evidence to indicate single-engine fighters are any less safe than those with two engines.

They also say today’s jet engines are much more reliable than previous generations, while maintenance costs are cut in half.

Alan Williams, who was responsible for military procurement until 2005, said National Defence had little doubt the Defence Department has studied whether one engine is as good as two.
The problem is that it continues refusing to come clean with what it knows.

“Whether we should buy the F-35 because it has only one engine is a legitimate question to ask,” he said. “And this is one more issue that we should have the information for.”

Read more: http://www.canada.com