C-17 Globemaster Q&A

[JS]

The HUD on the C-130J is a certified primary flight display also.

[Guest JArcher00]

Are you sure the C-17 is allowed legally not normal ops. That is why they each have their own attitude indicator next to the HDD versus 1 standby "peanut" gyro. I also thought the F-16 had an attitude indicator in the center console as the primary flight display with the HUD as the normal use. This is a legal question not normal Ops. The -130J is the only aircraft that is "certified" with the HUD as the "sole primary flight display" IE: no other attitude reference active on any panel or HDD besides the emergency gyro.

[ 13. April 2005, 10:42: Message edited by: RedDog ]

[Guest AirGuardian]

AF procurement agency goofed and forgot to fund the yokes...only sticks laying around in the boneyard so we took'em from the F-4s... (kidding of course)

Flying a Cat II approach requires the pilot flying to have an operable HUD... the other isn't necessary. Just some added hoobla :cool:

I'd rather not fly a Cat III like some folks are certified for - not us is fine with me and I'll take the alternate at Cancun...

[ 13. April 2005, 11:33: Message edited by: AirGuardian ]

[Guest JArcher00]

The question is, that is the HUD the "sole primary flight display?" They are not. The -130J is the only aircraft in the inventory right now..not including the F-22 that does not need any other attitude reference beside the emergency standby gyro for certified flight. I just spoke to a fellow friend in the -17 community and he agrees that the C-17 has to have the 2 attitude indicators besides the HUDs for it to be "legal"..which in this case we are talking about certification not including the MEL. Which airframes are certified for CAT III approaches? The -130J is CAT II certified, but are other models of the Herc? I have not flown any other model so I do not know. Thanks

[Toro]

Originally posted by RedDog:

This is a legal question not normal Ops. The -130J is the only aircraft that is "certified" with the HUD as the "sole primary flight display"

Afraid you are incorrect. AFI 11-217, 25.3, talks about using the HUD as a Primary Flight Reference - in other words, if you are spacially disoriented can you use the HUD as your sole method of recognize, confirm, recover?

11-2F-15E Vol 3, 4.8, says we cannot.

11-2F-16 Vol 3, 4.8, says they can.

11-2C-17, 6.51 says they can.

[Guest JArcher00]

"The HUDs are certified by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) as the C-130J’s primary flight displays, an industry first, according to Arlen Rens, C-130J pilot at Lockheed Martin’s Aeronautical Systems Division, in Marietta, Ga. Why obtain FAA certification? Rens explains that the aircraft was developed as a private venture, not by the Air Force, so civil certification was required in lieu of military qualification."

Just came across another site:

http://www.jco.wpafb.af.mil/Endorsement%20process.htm

I guess it does say that:

-Recently completed endorsement of the C-130J PFR

-Completed PFR endorsements for the F-16, F-22, C-17 displays.

-The predator has applied for endorsement of their HUD as a PFR.

I stand corrected.

[Chuck17]

Direct from the 11-2C-17V3:

6.51 C-17 HUD/MFD Endorsement.

The C-17 MFD (Multi-Functional display) is certified as a single medium display and may be used as a primary flight reference (PFR). Due to lack of a full-time attitude reference, the heads up display (HUD) is endorsed as a PFR as long as one primary flight display (PFD) is present on an MFD. To the maximum extent possible, keep a primary flight display (PFD) on one of the MFDs at all times. When mission requirements dictate, the PFD may be replaced with another display for short periods of time.

Right now, we have to have a PFD (Primary Flight Display) on one of our MFD (Multi-Function Displays) in order for the HUD to be a 'Primary Flight instrument. What does that mean? It means that the HUD is good to go for a PFD as long as it is backed up with another PFD on one of the 4 MFD's we have... normally, it will be one of the two in the middle, on the side of the PF (Pilot Flying).

We also have the two stby attitude indicators that back that up.

Lack of a full time attitude ref. makes the HUD sub-standard for use in unusual attitude recovery/ recogition, despite the fact that you can plainly tell which way is up in the HUD, you just have to know the differences between nose high and nose low... thus the HUD alone isnt a PFD...

The new HUDs we are supposed to get within the next few years will be full up certed HUDs and hopefully they will be better...

Hope that helps.

Chuck

[ 13. April 2005, 20:24: Message edited by: ChuckFlys17s ]

[Guest Rainman A-10]

I don't know much about airlift but I do know this...the C-17 is the most remarkable big airplane I have ever seen. I used to have to deconflict their part of CAPSTONE at Indian Springs. It was a pain in my ass. I went up and watched them practice their little demo one day, just to see if it was really worth it to include it in the whole "show" and they blew me away. That, however, was nothing compared to what I saw that jet do in my 5 months at Bagram back when it first opened. We could only let them use 4500' x 75' of the 5000' elev runway. They didn't even blink. They would land, chunk off tons of rubber dog sh!t (including LOX for the A-10s...thanks) and download a tons of fuel into the bladders so we could fly, run generators and heat our tents, load back up with rubber dog sh!t and blast off again. I know there were issues with enough C-17 crews to do the blacked out ops and not everyone could fly into Bagram but we had the same issue back then for A-10 guys doing everything from start-up to shutdown with NVGs on, too. There was a war an and we all had to start doing things we had never done before (like high altitude airdrop), big deal. My only problem with the C-17 guys was all the SAFIRE reports they kept generating. They weren't the worst about that though...

Big pic, no other airlift aircraft could even come close to what I saw from the C-17. I know nothing really about airlift but from an outsiders vantage point, I am impressed.

I would not call it the F-16 of the airlift world. That is WAY too harsh.

[Guest AirGuardian]

The C-17 is quite amusing Rainmaster,

A few quirks here and there, but who wouldn't want a kegarator, cigarette lighter, On-Star(We have AOC = AMC keeps tabs on you...good???), and a better cup holder.

Getting out heavy, she's a pig like most. But, going into Terra Haute last month when empty, she'll stop around 1700ft landing distance for practice(I'm sure that others have beat that one). Tower enjoyed it with a comment - What are you VSTOL, niiiice... Not quite, but they seemed impressed for such a fat blimp that can float like one...somewhat! Trying to find a way to install a couple of B-Ball hoops into the floor deck so we can shoot a few hoops at 35K or so... Guess it's NVG training soon - so they tell me.

[ 15. April 2005, 17:04: Message edited by: AirGuardian ]

[Guest bargiel20]

I am applying for a pilot slot in july, and if I get it, I'm trying to get as much info as I can on the different airframes. I would really like to fly C-17s, but at the same time, I want to be able to spend time with my family and have a guaranteed job (ie: cutting aircraft), or are they not going to cut many fighters or bombers? Anyways, I was wondering if there are any C-17 pilots out there that are happily raising a family and have no regrets flying the C-17. And if there is anybody that completely hates it, feel free to respond also. I'm just trying to gather as much info as possible. Thanks everyone,

[Clayton Bigsby]

I doubt they'll be cutting C-17s anytime soon, and especially with the production line being shuttered at 180 jets, their importance will only go up!!! At least until the FRED is up to par (if it ever does get there...).

And have fun out on the stage...

good luck with your UPT applications.

[Chuck17]

Im telling you first hand its a great jet to fly. You will fly everywhere and you will love flying the jet. But, as a new co-pilot, if you are active duty you will be gone at least 250 days a year for the first 2 years. Guarenteed. If your family can handle that, youre golden.

PM me if you have more questions.

Chuck

[Guest America, F*ck Yeah]

Been mission ready for about four months, been on four trips so i'll let you know what i've experienced so far

-there are some good trips out there to some great places but mostly spend your time in germany or qutar(where you will share a room with another guy that you spend all day with)

-walk on the med coast, saw the pyramids from the air, walked in the second largest mosque, drove through germany, christmas market in germany,

-my watch says noon, the sun is going down and i'm just waking up to go fly.

- i know/met more people in turkey or qutar or germany than i do in charleston

- i practically forgotten my local phone number but remember all the points in the AOR.

- all i do is watch my flying hours and bank account go up...though i'm not sure how many good deals there are going to be in the future...new dorm opening up in ramstien and they are already cutting back in turkey.

- been doing two week trips with about less than a week off then two week trips, but now they are going to three week trips, plus talking about deploying two squadrons at the same time.

- spent thanksgiving in a hotel in germany eating dinner with two married folks on my crew(who were away from their wife/children on the holiday).

-You can't plan for anything unless you take leave. Never know your schedule more than 24 hours out for they can call you for a trip/sim/whatever almost any time. And local leave can be canceled. been on trips where they have pushed back leave so we could fly another mission before returning home.

- heard to expect to be copilot for about two or more years, backlog of school slots plus they are slowing down the push for copilots to become a/c as soon as possible.

just some things, ask if you've got more ?

[Guest a_uhan23]

B-20

I am a -135 guy about to switch from AD to the reserves. It seems -130s, -17s, and -135s are out in the system more than anbody else (could be wrong). The bosses are projecting a huge drawdown in -135 TDY rates, per base. This is due to our TOADs at Mildenhall and Kadena (+ some Guard/Reserves) picking up some more stuff in the desert. Overall, I would say if you are going to step off into an MWS (major weapon system) you are going to be gone a lot as a co-pilot. This is to get you expericence, flying hours, and suitable knowledge base to operate in the system when your time comes for AC. If the bosses can, they sometimes try to give the guys who have had the shit kicked out of them the last couple of years a break. If you want to be home more, FAIPing and the C-21 are your best bets.

This is all AD perspective and I am certainly no expert. My theory has changed since I first became operational. Assignments in the -135 are like real estate; the most important thing in both is...location, location, location. Good luck.

(this was a fairly useless post now that I reread it)

[Chuck17]

Lately I have recieved a lot of PMs asking what C-17 life is like and what to expect when arriving from Altus.

Here is an article on how we are deploying now from AF.mil. This is the new thing. Example: In May, my squadron had 10-13 crews on the road for 3 week trips. In mid-June we were down to 2. Thats a big change. Guys are home a lot more (a nice break from the 250+ days TDY a year like I had the last two). We are getting proficient instead of just 'current' as far as training goes. It's a good thing and its good to see AMC on-board with this. I know there are a few Colonels (and maybe a general or two) at HQ AMC that are eating their words right about now...

C-17 deployment length, efficiency increase

7/10/2006 - SOUTHWEST ASIA (AFPN) -- In a break from the past, C-17 Globemaster IIIs and Airmen supporting the aircraft are deploying to the theaters and operating from one location for an entire air and space expeditionary force rotation.

Previously a squadron traveled to an area, flew 14-15 days, then returned home. About one-third of its deployment was traveling to and from the operating location.

Prior to June, C-17 deployments varied according to combat demand, subjecting crews to an unrelenting operations tempo. In an effort to slow that tempo, ongoing since 9/11, and increase aircrew efficiency and aircraft utilization rates, Air Mobility Command leaders implemented a two-expeditionary-airlift-squadron initiative for C-17 squadrons. One squadron, the 816th Expeditionary Airlift Squadron, is operating from a forward deployed location in Southwest Asia, and the other, the 817th EAS, is based at Incirlik Air Base, Turkey.

"This way of operating gives both the combatant commander as well as the aircrews the continuity needed to improve reliability and efficiency. Aircrews get accustomed to the combat environment and users get accustomed to the crew and squadron leadership. It's a win for everyone," said Lt. Col. Lenny Richoux, 816 EAS commander.

"Air Mobility Command leadership decided to take the two squadrons, the 17th Airlift Squadron from Charleston Air Force Base, S.C., and the 7th Airlift Squadron from McChord Air Force Base, Wash., and deploy them under the 385th Expeditionary Airlift Group," said Colonel Richoux, the Charleston-based squadron commander. "So, now we have two full squadrons in theater operating at a more a stable, predictable, efficient and disciplined manner than in the past."

The change has given the air mobility division tactics folks at the Combined Air Operations Center predictability.

"Having the 816 EAS on regular AEF rotations helps us," said Maj. Brian Wald, an air mobility division tactics chief deployed from Scott AFB, Ill. "They have a full-time person who handles tactical-level plans, leaving us to focus on the operational-level plans. Previously we handled both. Also, in previous rotations, the C-17 squadron had only one qualified crew and if (it was) in crew rest, we had to take care of any changes that may have come up. This isn't the case anymore.

"Ultimately," said Major Wald, "if I find out I need an aircraft two days from now, I know they will be there."

The new way of doing business also has allowed the squadron commander an opportunity to structure the deployed squadron more efficiently.

"When we stood up this operation, it allowed me to arrange it in a way where we could predictably fly about a dozen C-17s every day," said Colonel Richoux. "We have to.

"I organized the fliers into hard crews (a set crew of two pilots and one loadmaster who always fly together), which is not the way airlift has been done in the past," he said. "Airlift used to be done with ‘pools' of pilots and loadmasters pulled together as a mission came up.

"I did not want to do that. I wanted my officers to lead their aircrew for the entire deployment. I also have augmented crews (three pilots and two loadmasters). We use augmented crews on long missions, allowing time for one of the pilots and loadmasters to get out of their seat, into a bunk and get a couple hours of sleep so they can safely operate the mission," said the colonel.

According to Colonel Richoux, the change has worked. The 816 EAS has, in their first month in the theater, flown 854 sorties and moved roughly 23 million pounds of cargo and 23,530 passengers. The squadron also played a key part in the airdrop of nearly 813,000 pounds of troop re-supply and humanitarian civil assistance throughout the theater.

"While we mainly provide troop re-supply to coalition forces, we also deliver humanitarian aid for the local communities surrounding that combat zone," said Colonel Richoux. "And it's done with airlift, C-17s and C-130 (Hercules)."

Aircraft are loaded quickly and operators are flexible enough to adjust where a load is going even while in flight.

"We can also get in there under (the) cover of darkness so the bad guys can't see us," said the colonel. "We can get in there low; we can get in and out of there fast, and we can deliver the load with precision, within 25 yards of where it is supposed to go."

He attributed much of the success to 8th Expeditionary Aircraft Maintenance Squadron maintainers, who retained a 95.2-percent aircraft reliability rate for June.

"We are literally coming together, saving lives and delivering hope to fledgling democracies," said Colonel Richoux. "We are all proud to be a part of it."

Not only is the mission rewarding to the deployed members, but it benefits those at home stations who, thanks to this new approach, now have more time to focus on issues the operations tempo normally puts on the back burner.

"Since the two EAS construct achieved initial operating capability June 1, current operations at Charleston Air Force Base has experienced a 50-percent reduction in required crews," said Lt. Col. Keith Parnell, 816 EAS director of operations, in a study he conducted. "With a significantly lower aircrew and aircraft tasking system rate, squadrons at home station are offered the opportunity to maintain currency, improve proficiency, complete upgrades, work on professional military education and take leave."

This evolution of C-17 deployments has transformed with the adaptation of the AEF cycle. According to Colonel Richoux, the stand-up of two rotational squadrons has and will continue to ensure the coalition ground forces are re-supplied when needed, and the people caught in the midst of the war on terrorism are provided with assistance and hope.

[LockheedFix]

This is NOT meant to start a flame war, just an honest question.

I've always heard since way back in UPT that you do very little handflying in the C-17. And in the Herk world, you hear all kinds of anecdotes about C-17 drivers never actually getting to fly the plane.

I've also heard what I'm sure is an urban legend of a former C-130 pilot that crossed over to the C-17 getting a downgrade on a checkride for turning the autopilot off.

So, how much do you guys actually handfly your jet? On a normal point A to point B flight, do you turn on the autopilot immediately after takeoff and turn it back off on short final? And how often do the Tac qualified guys actually get to train on handlfying the plane on low levels, etc.?

[ 27. September 2006, 13:59: Message edited by: Toro ]

[Coasta]

So, how much do you guys actually handfly your jet? On a normal point A to point B flight, do you turn on the autopilot immediately after takeoff and turn it back off on short final? And how often do the Tac qualified guys actually get to train on handlfying the plane on low levels, etc.?

Well put Chuck (enjoy a few too many at Charlie's tonight)

For me, it really depends on what your doing which dictates the use of the A/P. On a 13 hr pond crossing, my after take off checklist might look something like this:

1. Gear................UP

2. A/P.................ON

3. Aircraft control....X-fer to CP

4. ACM.................get in pilots seat

5. Box Nasty...........Eat

6. Sack(bunk)..........hit it like a bad handjob

Of course, why would you want to hand fly at cruise for 10 hrs at 350? Chuck is dead on about LL trng. Here at Long Beach we almost never use the A/P except to get to and from the area. Most of the time we're in a non-standard configuration (doing airstarts, abnormal flap/slat configs, GPWS/TAWS ops checks) that prevents us from using the A/P or Autothrottles.

Basically it's all personal preference on how much or little you want to use the A/P. The guy who got down graded for turning the A/P off...sounds like he had a real winner for an EP. Us C-17 guys have our share of douchebags too.

What the C-17 community does have are what we call "HUD babies." I'd encourage the SNAPs to do a HUD down approach every once in a while. Preferably an NDB with standbys only. That outta show you how sharp your instrument skills/scans are.

Coasta

[Riddller]

Originally posted by Chuck17:

...or a tactical descent from altitude (thrust reversers extended) with a descent rate in excess of 11,000 feet per min).

11,000 fpm??? no $hit?!?! I'm impressed! The max I ever saw in the Herk was 6000 fpm in a hell of slip! I don't think we were normally supposed to put it in that bad of a slip, but ATC told us to expedite our descent if we didn't want to get put in holding for 2 hours. The AC (the Sq./CC at the time) grabbed the controls, yelled, "Everyone hang on to something!!" and stomped his right foot down like he was running from the cops. I was a new Nav at the time and didn't even know what a slip was until all my crap went sliding off my table!

That just makes me want to fly the C-17 even more!!

[ 20. September 2006, 17:12: Message edited by: Riddller ]

[HerkDerka]

Originally posted by Chuck17:

The jet has a good autopilot and autothrottle; they are good tools for new pilots to keep them from falling behind the jet, but shouldnt be used as a crutch.

I don't exactly see using the throttles as an SA problem. That's just the basics of flying an airplane.

Originally posted by Chuck17:

We can do a 'speed on pitch' descent which allows us to maintain speed via the autopilot (pitch) while pulling the throttles to idle for a screaming descent. It allows you to do things like a 1/1 cooled descent (lose 1000 feet/mile) from 25,000 feet (base to final), or a tactical descent from altitude (thrust reversers extended) with a descent rate in excess of 11,000 feet per min).

Or you could hand fly it. I still can't believe it when I hear the words "tac descent" and "autopilot" in the same sentence.

HD

[FourFans]

Question: How is a descent profile that you can HEAR from 50 miles away "tactical."

Extended thrust reversers may drop the plane faster than beer bottles on a weekend at Benders house, but when everyone within a 2 state radius knows you're there, you've kinda defeated the purpose of being "tactical."

[Chuck17]

I had to re-read my original post before I posted this...

I made it sound like the autopilot is the only way to do a tac-D. Thats not the case - my bad for a lousy explaination.

FF: Why do you think we dont do it in theater?

Anyone ever been on the ground when a 17 did one of these? Its INSANELY loud. Its still taught as a viable approach technique, but next to no one uses it. The cooled approach on a 1000'/mile gradient is quieter and just as effective at getting you from altitude in a hurry.

Chuck

[Guest Hydro130]

Originally posted by Chuck17:

Anyone ever been on the ground when a 17 did one of these? Its INSANELY loud.

Is it somehow louder than when you guys reverse taxi? Good Lord, that makes any pointy-nose full burner takeoff sound like Yanni elevator music!

It's funny since you can hardly even hear the engines running whatsoever when you guys are "forward" taxiing (low-sped engines, I suppose).

Makes me laugh. And cover my ears.

Cheers, Hydro

EDIT: Quote-thingy buffoonery.

Oh, and I've always wondered something about that "Hella TD" -- how much of a possibility/concern is it that one of the engines hangs up in reverse when you push 'em back up at the bottom? That would be the front-and-center thing going through my mind as I pulled those throttles back over the gate (or however it works in the 17)...

[ 20. September 2006, 19:31: Message edited by: Hydro130 ]

[CHS17]

Alright, after a deep breath (and that )...

First, us -17 guys call the TR descent a tactical descent because that's what the -1 calls it. Is it tactical? Quite the debate inside and outside of Barney's world. I agree w/ HD and other Herks guys that in the current conflict w/ the threat of manpads, small arms, etc that much noise is completely counter-productive tactically. Like I said before, who knows what the future threat holds, hopefully we don't need to find out.

As for the TR hang-up issue...It is a huge concern. I don't know of an incident of this actually happening inflight, but we have plenty of other reverser issues. And because of that most people don't do tac-D's during training sortie. I've only done it a couple of times.

Anyway, there is plenty debate about tac-D's, speed on pitch, idle descents and on and on. I'm sure other guys will chime in here

[Guest AirGuardian]

Basically it comes down to how YOU want to fly the plane or how YOU want Betty to do it...

I myself tend to handfly quite a bit to keep that lov'n feeling... And Betty sometimes forgets what to do or stay within parameters/expectations. Overall a nice jet to fly and I prefer not to do the TR in flight since it only creates TR disag issues especially during the hot summer months... This is based upon flying the AD jets that most guys pull the TRs on... We haven't had this issue yet since we tend to keep it quiet and smooth for our current mission... No sense testing the max cap if you don't need it in my book. Good to know it's there if you need it!

TR's in flight during training initiation only and basic practice, but not on a normal basis!

It is the C-17 Technique only - yours to be decided it seems...

[Coasta]

ZRooster,

Here's my take on your T/R issue. The -1 procedure tells you to T-Handle the engine if the core T/R fails to stow. The T/R failing to stow hasn't been the problem. The problem arises when when the engines are hot and the core fails to deploy due to thermal binding at the core turning lip seal (the stowed seal). If this happens in flight, who cares, put the throttle back to fwd idle. Boeing is currently working to find the root cause of this anomaly.

You should see a -1 change regarding the Thrust Rev X procedure that pertains to P-151 and greater, and a TCTO to retrofit T/R hydraulic lines for the rest of the fleet.

Coasta

By the way, I've never used the T/Rs in the box.

[ 21. September 2006, 12:39: Message edited by: Coasta ]