Lack of Flight Discipline

[Vetter]

Okay, I got ya.

I'll PM you about the abort issues.

[Guest]

Okay, I got ya.

I'll PM you about the abort issues.

FWIW, I'm not saying something was right or wrong about what you posted or what happened on the deployment.

Just saying it depends is usually the best first answer for a leader (from a Flt/CC to the CSAF), time and conditions permitting.

[NEflyer]

Beech 1900-

Wow, that was pretty scary. Quite frankly I'm surprised nobody died.

Edited December 18, 2011 by NEflyer

[Guest]

No shit.

[tac airlifter]

Risk aversion is telling the Army that landing a Herk on a dirt LZ in Iraq is "too risky" despite the fact they have dudes running IED-laden roads every day to do stuff we could have been doing in that theater.

Quick thread derail- I'm glad you mentioned this Huey, I will never forget the cowardice from AMC on this issue. As a -130 IP w/5 deployments to Iraq when I directly questioned the AMC/CC on this subject, I can tell you cowardice at every level of mobility leadership is the only reason we risked convoys into FOBs instead of flying into Taji or the rest at the height of war in 05-07. And literally hundreds of Soldiers and Marines died as a result. I enjoyed AMC, the slick -130 and all the TDYs; but this issue is the reason I left that career and started over in SOF.

[KEL]

Well, like everything else, it depends - mostly on altitude, airspeed, and pilot SA. Elmo was a tragic error chain, but flatly saying "I bet you think 90 degrees of bank in a C-17 isn't dangerous either" is just stupid. This "sky is falling" nonsense that you and the rest of the Air Force leaders are spewing lacks a basic understanding of the principles of flight we all learned in UPT. Is a barrel roll inherently dangerous? No. Is it dangerous at night, at 10,000 ft in mountainous terrain with unsecured equipment in the back? Yes. Is doing 90 degrees of bank in any aircraft dangerous? No. Is it dangerous at 500' in an aircraft going slow (already in the stick shaker) with very little roll authority? Yes.

While it is possible to do these types of manuevers in a transport type aircraft, not all pilots will be able to pull it off and will leave a smoking hole in the ground. Sucks for the pilot that dies, but it is criminal for the people that are riding along and get unwillingly sent to an early grave. If you want to roll an airplane, go rent an aerobatic airplane, put on a chute and have a blast. And as an FTU instructor, I will tell you that the principles that should have been learned at UPT are not always remembered. Performing acro in a T-6 or T-37 6-9 years prior does not translate very well into being able to fly aerobatics in a MC-12 or C-130 etc.

[Guest]

And as an FTU instructor a mushhead, I will tell you that blah blah blah

FIFY

[Buddy Spike]

While it is possible to do these types of manuevers in a transport type aircraft, not all pilots will be able to pull it off and will leave a smoking hole in the ground. Sucks for the pilot that dies, but it is criminal for the people that are riding along and get unwillingly sent to an early grave. If you want to roll an airplane, go rent an aerobatic airplane, put on a chute and have a blast. And as an FTU instructor, I will tell you that the principles that should have been learned at UPT are not always remembered. Performing acro in a T-6 or T-37 6-9 years prior does not translate very well into being able to fly aerobatics in a MC-12 or C-130 etc.

Seriously? Maybe not any civilian pilot, but if you can't put an aircraft in 90 degrees of bank at altitude and live to tell about it, you shouldn't be flying in the military anymore.

And I'm not talking about techniques learned in UPT, I'm talking about the basic aero concepts. Any airplane can be flown at 90, *gasp* even 120 degrees of bank and the pilot will live to tell about it. I was pointing out the stupid knee jerk reaction from the previous post. Granted, there's a time and place for everything, and it may be foolish or lacking discipline, but it's not necessarily dangerous (and neither is a barrel roll). Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. But the reason isn't always because it may be dangerous (our jobs are inherently dangerous, deal with it).

[addict]

...and it may be foolish or lacking discipline

[Napoleon_Tanerite]

Beech 1900-

Wow, that was pretty scary. Quite frankly I'm surprised nobody died.

JTFC-- What part of "it's a prohibited maneuver" are you missing out on? While I certainly think that equating me tucking my shirt in to how I fly is idiotic, I damn sure don't think it's idiotic to draw a few conclusions about a dude's flying based on whether he adheres to basic flight maneuver prohibitions.

Is it safe? In the grand scheme of things, probably.

Is it legal? Not one bit

Is it your airplane to decide what you will and will not do with it? Nope.

[Learjetter]

These kinds of leadership reactions are not new....

[ThreeHoler]

Here's a question for the masses: Does your opinion of flying a prohibited maneuver in an aircraft change if it is a Lt, Capt, Maj, or a LtCol doing it, i.e. does rank/position of the offender have anything to do with it?

[Learjetter]

Here's a question for the masses: Does your opinion of flying a prohibited maneuver in an aircraft change if it is a Lt, Capt, Maj, or a LtCol doing it, i.e. does rank/position of the offender have anything to do with it?

Nope. PIC is PIC. However, what I DO about such an event may be partially based on the rank/position of the PIC in question.

[LJDRVR]

Beech 1900-

Wow, that was pretty scary. Quite frankly I'm surprised nobody died.

But somebody did!

http://aviation-safe...p?id=19930428-0

Beech 99

Edited December 19, 2011 by LJDRVR

[soultrain]

Beech 1900-

Wow, that was pretty scary. Quite frankly I'm surprised nobody died.

And...your thoughts on the accident posted above, NEFlyer?

Narrative:

While on a proficiency check flight both pilots attempted to perform a barrel roll (a prohibited aerobatics manoeuvre). The Beech struck the ground shortly before completion of the roll.

PROBABLE CAUSE: "The deliberate disregard for Federal Aviation Regulations, GP Express procedures, and prudent concern for safety by the two pilots in their decision to execute an aerobatic manoeuvre during a scheduled check ride flight, and the failure of GP Express management to establish and maintain a commitment to instill professionalism in their pilots consistent with the highest levels of safety necessary for an airline operating scheduled passenger service."

[D-ron]

The maneuver in the video of the Beech 1900 was an aileron roll, not a barrel roll. I have no idea if the Beech 99 incident was a barrel roll or an aileron roll, but an aileron roll is pretty hard to mess up.

[ThreeHoler]

http://aircrashed.com/cause/cCHI07CA058.shtml

The airplane was substantially damaged during an in-flight recovery after the captain attempted an intentional aileron roll maneuver during cruise flight and lost control. The cargo flight was being operated at night under the provisions of 14 CFR Part 135 at the time of the accident. The captain reported the airplane was "functioning normally" prior to the intentional aileron roll maneuver. The captain stated that the "intentional roll maneuver got out of control" while descending through flight level 200. The captain reported that the airplane "over sped" and experienced "excessive G-loads" during the subsequent recovery. The copilot reported that the roll maneuver initiated by the captain resulted in a "nose-down unusual attitude" and a "high speed dive." Inspection of the airplane showed substantial damage to the left wing and elevator assembly.

Man, those aileron rolls in transport aircraft sure are safe!

BRB, combat rolling the KC-10.

[NEflyer]

And...your thoughts on the accident posted above, NEFlyer?

Someone in the history of aviation managed to crash while attempting a roll in a twin? I would have never guessed. What about the hundreds of people who've killed themselves rolling aircraft that were intended for it? As for the incident itself...

Further, even overlooking the violation of the most fundamental rules governing the conduct of flight proficiency checks, the pilots showed a self-destructive disregard for common sense by performing a highly demanding maneuver at night, less than 2,000 feet above the ground

Subsequently, the flying pilot said, "I bet it would be real easy to just take

it right on over." The pilots then discussed rolling airplanes. At 234952, the

flying pilot referred to his experience rolling Cessna 152 and 172 airplanes, and

said, "...I guess we've got enough speed right now. And you just kinda start

coming in like this, pullin up ... and keep positive Gs on it. Take it all the way

around, unload ... and then point straight for the ground." The recording ended

after this last remark, at 235035.

Enough said.

http://aircrashed.co...HI07CA058.shtml

Since this has descended into "I found someone who crashed doing this," it must be dangerous, search the NTSB accident database for "aileron roll" and "barrel roll." It returns well over a hundred results, the vast majority of which are aerobatic aircraft. Since exponentially more people have died rolling aerobatic aircraft than twins, should we continue to act like it's some sort of extremely dangerous maneuver in that context as well?

JTFC-- What part of "it's a prohibited maneuver" are you missing out on?

None, nor did I speculate on the incident. I'm simply trying to add some context to the maneuver itself to help get over how it sounds. If the pilot was doing something else "prohibited" albeit less spectacular, but equally or more dangerous, I doubt we'd even be talking about it.

Edited December 19, 2011 by NEflyer

[soultrain]

What about the hundreds of people who've killed themselves rolling aircraft that were intended for it?

Curious...you mean some airplanes aren't "intended" for barrel rolls? Chasing our tails on this one...I believe we all know right from wrong here. I get your devil's advocate standpoint...but it's a losing argument. Akin to barrel rolling a T-38 on a UPT instrument flight...certainly possible, but stupid - and with an equally predictable outcome.

[sky_king]

Subsequently, the flying pilot said, "I bet it would be real easy to just take

it right on over." The pilots then discussed rolling airplanes. At 234952, the flying

pilot referred to his experience rolling Cessna 152 and 172 airplanes, and

said, "...I guess we've got enough speed right now. And you just kinda start

coming in like this, pullin up ... and keep positive Gs on it. Take it all the way

around, unload ... and then point straight for the ground." The recording ended

after this last remark, at 235035.

Um, this may be his problem. I haven't taught barrel rolls for a few months now, but I'm pretty sure you don't point straight at the ground.

[Guest]

I found something on the internet where a bunch of people crashed taking off and landing.

If I were in charge I would suspend that type of activity immediately.

[spaceman]

The more that I think about this, the more I realize that it must have been perfectly safe, as all the pilot had to do was press Z or R twice.

Do a barrel roll!

Here is the remedial block of instruction for those who missed this training:

http://youtu.be/cIx1NCvb5TU

[nunya]

And just in case you need more info, http://lmgtfy.com/?q=do+a+barrel+roll

Edited December 20, 2011 by nunya

[BlackKnight]

You mean the guy that flew his intelligence officer into combat, by himself, as a prank?

I kid; you mean Col/Gen Olds, not Lt/Cpt Olds

You missed the point of that section of the book. Go back and read it again. It wasn't a prank. He was trying to teach the intel dude something.

BTW- this flt discipline topic is beat to death.

Barney

[backseatdriver]

BTW- this flt discipline topic is beat to death.

Agreed. The horse is done - starting to smell like glue in here.