Jump to content
Baseops Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Butters

C-17 lands short at Dover

Recommended Posts

THIS!!!!!

What Big Blue is doing is trying to do is combine two inherently different things: being a career AF officer AND an "experienced" pilot. We are making pilots instructors/evaluators and group stan-eval who, in some cases (many would argue most), are not the best or most-experienced pilots in their respective units. Their upgrade to IP/EP is based solely on the almighty "career progression". My unit, in particular, is very much like this. For instance, the guy who graduated IP school two months after I did and has less than half my IP time, got upgraded to be chief of DOV. In addition, the head of our group stan-eval has been here a year longer than I have and I have surpassed him on hours. What do these two have in common? Well, lets just say that leadership loves them and "coddles" them because they focus their time on things other than flying such as paperwork, planning events, etc.

What this messed up system is doing is creating "artificial experience" for these guys so that they can move up the almighty career ladder. What is happening, though, is that we are sending people to these positions who are not necessarily good in their primary jobs. I have to laugh every time I read the cookie-cutter AF bios for senior leadership who are pilots. Most, if not all, have evaluator experience and I have to wonder--are they REALLY that good in their airframe, or were they just given "artificial experience"?

In my previous airframe, we upgraded a guy to AC so that his career would not be killed. This guy, though, once his OME was complete, was not allowed to fly with two copilots. He had to fly with another "seeing-eye" aircraft commander and copilot. So, from a scheduling perspective, this guy took out two certified aircraft commanders for one mission. Makes sense to have a "seeing eye" AC, but this guy should have never upgraded in the first place.

This madness has got to stop. The line has to be drawn between being an officer and being a GOOD, PROFESSIONAL, EXPERIENCED, KNOWLEDGEABLE, CURRENT, MISSION READY, pilot... Yes, careerism is a cancer.

Have any of you read Tim Kane's book, Bleeding Talent? It describes how the military mismanages great leaders and why the system NEEDS to be changed.

This started really growing in AFSOC shortly after it became a MAJCOM. In two years at Gp DOV I had five bosses run through just to get that stink on. One of them sent an email to all of us about how important it was for us to look good. Shiny boots, haircuts and all that. Nothing about airplanes. Holy shit, we wondered if we were in Stan Eval or SOS/PME school.

Edited by arg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Godwin's law of Baseops never fails. A C-17 lands short at Dover and it only take 3 pages before the discussion turns to AAD woes.

Well isn't the AAD the root of the problem :).

To bring this train back on track, has anyone got any details on what happened? Does it just boil down to an aimpoint in the grass?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe there was a NATO C-17 headed that way yesterday.... Have we confirmed it was USAF?

I've been at Dover for the past couple days and it is definitely a USAF jet. Still sitting on the taxiway too.

M0250/13 - DISABLED AIRCRAFT (C17) LOCATED ON CHARLIE TAXIWAY BETWEEN RWY01

AND BRAVO TAXIWAY. AIRCRAFT IS OUTSIDE THE RWY 01 HOLD LINE. TAIL

HEIGHT 55FT. 09 MAY 21:46 2013 UNTIL 14 MAY 23:59 2013. CREATED: 09 MAY 21:47

2013

From what I've been told by the Base Ops / TA folks, that notam and notam M0256 are related..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I've been told by the Base Ops / TA folks, that notam and notam M0256 are related..

Ouch. Looks like there was more than just grass in that aimpoint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For you C-17 guys out there, next time you stop by your local LZ check out the amount of tire marks that start way before the threshold of the LZ. I have seen nose wheel marks prior to the threshold of 27 at Moses Lake. Luckily it has a very nice paved under run. I have alway wondered how bad you have to screw up to land out of the zone by an aircraft length. With or without the HUD.

Edited by Butters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love that the 1000' roll bar and the LOC for 19 are both OTS. Sound like landing short by five aircraft lengths.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1000' short isn't likely a case of the sucks.

But, you knew that...

Bet it will read as a chain of unbroken events.

"Love", oh, that's awesome of you.

PM me for some letters of rec. Always need more bulletproof types around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember that in 2008 a 777 was about 1000' short at Heathrow for what boils down to insufficient throttle response. Speaking of underrun, that place only has 100' whereas Dover has a full 1000' and the equipment is another 50-200 ft south.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For you C-17 guys out there, next time you stop by your local LZ check out the amount of tire marks that start way before the threshold of the LZ. I have seen nose heat marks prior to the threshold of 27 at Moses Lake. Luckily is has a very nice paved under run. I have alway wondered how bad you have to screw up to land out of the zone by an aircraft length. With or without the HUD.

No kidding. You know, speaking from one amazing pilot to another, I think they ought to take all the inexperienced C-17 pilots to some aux field with a "nice paved under run" or something so they can practice how to flare into the zone...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trying to flare into the zone? That's a joke, right? Your aft mains should touch down where your proper HUD picture had your sightline at 50' when you started to flare with power. Works 3/4 or full flap, but full flap is easier- you get 50% more spoilers biased up to help use enough power to have a stable powered lift setting with pitch hold for your airspeed.

Weak pilots aim at the front of the landing zone because they are not confident in an accurate flare without floating out the back of the zone. Since an under flare with not enough power added fast enough can lose over 100' from where you thought you would touchdown, you can be short.

3/4 flap has a flare distance, and does not require a HUD. Full flap assaults need only the 500' zone plus ground roll.

No HUD should be no big deal, still a big jet to fly backside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trying to flare into the zone? That's a joke, right? Your aft mains should touch down where your proper HUD picture had your sightline at 50' when you started to flare with power. Works 3/4 or full flap, but full flap is easier- you get 50% more spoilers biased up to help use enough power to have a stable powered lift setting with pitch hold for your airspeed.

Weak pilots aim at the front of the landing zone because they are not confident in an accurate flare without floating out the back of the zone. Since an under flare with not enough power added fast enough can lose over 100' from where you thought you would touchdown, you can be short.

3/4 flap has a flare distance, and does not require a HUD. Full flap assaults need only the 500' zone plus ground roll.

No HUD should be no big deal, still a big jet to fly backside.

That is my point, it is not really hard. So what went on the flight deck when you touch down and the threshold is still a 100 feet in front of you.

Like a said, there are more than a few tire marks very short of the landing zone.

No kidding. You know, speaking from one amazing pilot to another, I think they ought to take all the inexperienced C-17 pilots to some aux field with a "nice paved under run" or something so they can practice how to flare into the zone...

You do not have to be amazing to fly the C-17. It helps, I know from experience. However, we take inexperienced pilots out all the time and IPs that are doing their job say something called "go around" when they are going to land short or long. Landing 300 feet short on a training sortie is not something a crew should accepted as good enough.

Edited by Butters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1000' short isn't likely a case of the sucks.

But, you knew that...

I think there was a C-17 crew that landed 56,000 short about a year ago...but you knew that. I heard the CP switched his display tho.

Edited by DazedandCynical
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I have said it before and I will continue to say it. The C-17 community lost out when they gave up the Flight Engineer position. If the crew would have had an FE on board this would have never happened. And the Tampa experience as well. AMC is losing huge without a FE in the flight deck. Their fix was to place an extra couple of Pilots in the seats. That really helped in Tampa didn’t it? A typical CRM issue in the making. In the Tampa incident two were IP's and one was I believe an EP. Tunnel vision down to the mark IMHO. Bring back the FE, same goes in the C-130J community... Why because with that much airplane it keeps you honest and safe. I could write a book on how much safer the C-17 community would be if the FE was back as a crew member. The Alaska crash would not have happened as well if there would have been a FE in the seat behind them keeping them honest.

On a side note, one of my lasting memories with my last deployment in OIF was seeing C-17's taxi off the taxiways at numerous places. With all the craziness in the theater to see that just tops it off. We would just taxi by them shaking our heads. If they would have had an FE on board they would have stayed legit and straight.

Edited by Surf70

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I have said it before and I will continue to say it. The C-17 community lost out when they gave up the Flight Engineer position.

Surely you can't be serious.

Tell me again how the FE saved the day on the KDOV C-5?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely you can't be serious.

Tell me again how the FE saved the day on the KDOV C-5?

Have you listened to the CVR tapes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well I have said it before and I will continue to say it. The C-17 community lost out when they gave up the Flight Engineer position. If the crew would have had an FE on board this would have never happened. And the Tampa experience as well. AMC is losing huge without a FE in the flight deck. Their fix was to place an extra couple of Pilots in the seats. That really helped in Tampa didn’t it? A typical CRM issue in the making. In the Tampa incident two were IP's and one was I believe an EP. Tunnel vision down to the mark IMHO. Bring back the FE, same goes in the C-130J community... Why because with that much airplane it keeps you honest and safe. I could write a book on how much safer the C-17 community would be if the FE was back as a crew member. The Alaska crash would not have happened as well if there would have been a FE in the seat behind them keeping them honest.

On a side note, one of my lasting memories with my last deployment in OIF was seeing C-17's taxi off the taxiways at numerous places. With all the craziness in the theater to see that just tops it off. We would just taxi by them shaking our heads. If they would have had an FE on board they would have stayed legit and straight.

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. There was a freaking safety observer on the AK flight and that didn't stop them. My rant stops here....

Edited by matmacwc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. There was a freaking safety observer on the AK flight and that didn't stop them. My rant stops here....

Was the saftey officer a rated pilot as well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you listened to the CVR tapes?

Yeah, you mean BOTH FE's talking about which engine was pulled back and NOT talking about it to the crew? What about the AWACS that pranged in a landing at Nellis in 2009 and snapped off the nose gear (jet is still at Nellis)? What about the JSTARS that flared way too high, in the weather, at the Deid a few years ago and sent some people to the hospital? Where were the FE's then?

The C-17 was never designed to have an FE, so quit bringing up the "how do jets fly without some old guy yelling at us to run checklists and do pilot things" that seem to be brought up in the annual C-17 mishap post.

The two oldest aircraft in the USAF inventory (BUFFS and tankers) have flown just fine for 50+ years without an FE.

Edited by Azimuth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they would have had an FE on board they would have stayed legit and straight.

Trolling. "If we elected FEs to Congress, we'd be swimming in cash."

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, you mean BOTH FE's talking about which engine was pulled back and NOT talking about it to the crew? What about the AWACS that pranged in a landing at Nellis in 2009 and snapped off the nose gear (jet is still at Nellis)? What about the JSTARS that flared way too high, in the weather, at the Deid a few years ago and sent some people to the hospital? Where were the FE's then?

The C-17 was never designed to have an FE, so quit bringing up the "how do jets fly without some old guy yelling at us to run checklists and do pilot things" that seem to be brought up in the annual C-17 mishap post.

The two oldest aircraft in the USAF inventory (BUFFS and tankers) have flown just fine for 50+ years without an FE.

Yep and they do not do assault landings, airdrops, or short field take off's as well. Multiple legs, double shuttle's on NVG's. Most of the time they take off once and land once if they are lucky.

Yep and they do not do assault landings, airdrops, or short field take off's as well. Multiple legs, double shuttle's on NVG's. Most of the time they take off once and land once if they are lucky.

And to caveat if you have never flown with an FE and have no experience with one as a crewmember. Then you have no valid opinion. The old heads in the C-17 community (former C-141) brought this up a while ago. After that they threw a couple of pilots on instead. Oh and a flying crew chief who is not a systems, EP expert like the FE nor is he/she a trained crewmember.

Edited by Surf70

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then you have no valid opinion.

Got a mirror nearby?

Interesting technique with the self quote. I can't decide whether I should be impressed or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I have said it before and I will continue to say it. The C-17 community lost out when they gave up the Flight Engineer position. If the crew would have had an FE on board this would have never happened. And the Tampa experience as well. AMC is losing huge without a FE in the flight deck. Their fix was to place an extra couple of Pilots in the seats. That really helped in Tampa didn’t it? A typical CRM issue in the making. In the Tampa incident two were IP's and one was I believe an EP. Tunnel vision down to the mark IMHO. Bring back the FE, same goes in the C-130J community... Why because with that much airplane it keeps you honest and safe. I could write a book on how much safer the C-17 community would be if the FE was back as a crew member. The Alaska crash would not have happened as well if there would have been a FE in the seat behind them keeping them honest.

On a side note, one of my lasting memories with my last deployment in OIF was seeing C-17's taxi off the taxiways at numerous places. With all the craziness in the theater to see that just tops it off. We would just taxi by them shaking our heads. If they would have had an FE on board they would have stayed legit and straight.

Should we also bring back Navigators too?! Bring back an obsolete position to have an extra set of eyes? Or is there something special they teach at engineer school that allows them to recognize an unsafe position? What about the Load Master? Boom Operator?

With that kind of logic, any plane without a flight engineer should have the same reputation for mishaps--which isn't the case. What probably IS the case is what we've been discussing the past four pages.

Me, personally, I love having an FE... but it is not related at all to keeping my landings honest. Given the examples, having an extra set of eyes is clearly not going to stop mishaps in the -17--the problem is more related to the culture as we've been discussing. And even if there WAS an FE, I get the feeling that they would succumb to the culture too, and still not magically prevent mishaps.

Edit to add:

Yep and they do not do assault landings, airdrops, or short field take off's as well. Multiple legs, double shuttle's on NVG's. Most of the time they take off once and land once if they are lucky.

And to caveat if you have never flown with an FE and have no experience with one as a crewmember. Then you have no valid opinion. The old heads in the C-17 community (former C-141) brought this up a while ago. After that they threw a couple of pilots on instead. Oh and a flying crew chief who is not a systems, EP expert like the FE nor is he/she a trained crewmember.

So having an FE would only help prevent mishaps if the aircraft does assault landings, airdrops, or short field takeoffs. All those other aircraft without FE's are only doing so good because they takeoff off once and land once. Got it.

Edited by LumberjackAxe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should we also bring back Navigators too?! Bring back an obsolete position to have an extra set of eyes? Or is there something special they teach at engineer school that allows them to recognize an unsafe position? What about the Load Master? Boom Operator?

With that kind of logic, any plane without a flight engineer should have the same reputation for mishaps--which isn't the case. What probably IS the case is what we've been discussing the past four pages.

Me, personally, I love having an FE... but it is not related at all to keeping my landings honest. Given the examples, having an extra set of eyes is clearly not going to stop mishaps in the -17--the problem is more related to the culture as we've been discussing. And even if there WAS an FE, I get the feeling that they would succumb to the culture too, and still not magically prevent mishaps.

Edit to add:

So having an FE would only help prevent mishaps if the aircraft does assault landings, airdrops, or short field takeoffs. All those other aircraft without FE's are only doing so good because they takeoff off once and land once. Got it.

Having an FE would reduce the mishap rate. And you for one have to admit that. In the C-17 community having the FE would increase the CRM on the airplane. The FE would have just like on the Herk the overhead panel, and everything on the console behind the throttles. Read all the checklists, be the EP expert, walk around/preflight, and be the technical expert on the airplane. This relieves the Pilot from being the jack of all trades as he or she currently is and can go back to just flying. Full attention to maintaining postive control of the airplane and SA would increase crew wise three or more fold. They invisioned this when they placed the extra pilot on but sad to say this increased the tunnel vision IMHO. The FE is not in the pilot union and is a seperate enity. This in itself relieves the "tunnel scope" in the CRM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having an FE would reduce the mishap rate. And you for one have to admit that. In the C-17 community having the FE would increase the CRM on the airplane. The FE would have just like on the Herk the overhead panel, and everything on the console behind the throttles. Read all the checklists, be the EP expert, walk around/preflight, and be the technical expert on the airplane. This relieves the Pilot from being the jack of all trades as he or she currently is and can go back to just flying. Full attention to maintaining postive control of the airplane and SA would increase crew wise three or more fold. They invisioned this when they placed the extra pilot on but sad to say this increased the tunnel vision IMHO. The FE is not in the pilot union and is a seperate enity. This in itself relieves the "tunnel scope" in the CRM.

I feel like the backseater in your avatar when reading your logic (for those who don't know the picture the backseater is holding a sign that says "I'm with stupid")

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having an FE would reduce the mishap rate.

C-5s have an FE. It's ridiculous to say that we train a person for 50 wks (x2)...but an AF pilot needs an FE to determine a go-around. An extra set of eyes okay, maybe...but should NOT be the savior.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...