C-17 4-engine flameout/SIB/FEB questions in here

[whodat17]

My point was if I was guaranteed a safe landing again, I wouldn't do anything different. If I had turned the fuel switches off, would the engines had relit in time? If we had gone into holding to sort shit out, would 1 & 4 eventually catch fire? No one knows. We were lucky...if you want to test your theories (not in a sim), have at it.

Do I recommend this COA for the next guy? Probably not.

That still doesn't answer my post, and you still don't grasp the fact that what you did was procedurally incorrect, and, if not for dumb luck, could have possibly killed everyone on that plane. And I wouldn't want any crewmember, little less a newer one trying to learn something, reading what you're writing here and coming away with the perception that "if I don't think I should do it, then I can skip a checklist item." If you had run the checklists like you were supposed to, I wouldn't have any gripe either way.

You say if you were guaranteed a safe landing again, you'd do everything the same. Problem is, you'll never be guaranteed that, and the next guy that flies into a thunderstorm and then loses all four engines (hopefully never again...) might not be as lucky as you if they have your same "sixth sense" about the engines. They might, however, have a better chance, according to those that built the plane, if they follow the checklist. That's what it's there for. At a minimum, they would have done everything the manufacturer said they needed to do to try to save the jet.

So I'll ask directly, what's the point of this thread if you don't want to talk about learning points and things you could have done better?

[addict]

Say what?

ORI pep rally. It still haunts me.

A year later in the same hangar, we got the presentation. If there's accountability up and down the chain, at some point the AMC/CC has to look in the mirror at himself and say "WTF" which he probably did.

Edited September 29, 2013 by addict

[Day Man]

That still doesn't answer my post, and you still don't grasp the fact that what you did was procedurally incorrect, and, if not for dumb luck, could have possibly killed everyone on that plane. And I wouldn't want any crewmember, little less a newer one trying to learn something, reading what you're writing here and coming away with the perception that "if I don't think I should do it, then I can skip a checklist item." If you had run the checklists like you were supposed to, I wouldn't have any gripe either way.

You say if you were guaranteed a safe landing again, you'd do everything the same. Problem is, you'll never be guaranteed that, and the next guy that flies into a thunderstorm and then loses all four engines (hopefully never again...) might not be as lucky as you if they have your same "sixth sense" about the engines. They might, however, have a better chance, according to those that built the plane, if they follow the checklist. That's what it's there for. At a minimum, they would have done everything the manufacturer said they needed to do to try to save the jet.

So I'll ask directly, what's the point of this thread if you don't want to talk about learning points and things you could have done better?

I know what I did wasn't procedurally correct. Have you read the whole thread? I didn't want to inhibit relight by denying the engines fuel. Was there a point (time/altitude) where I would resume checklist items? Probably. Do I know what it was? No, but it's probably something that should be discussed (I don't know if it's in the current -1).

The point of this thread is to discuss the incident, an SIB, and an FEB...kinda like the title says. I knew nothing of how an SIB or FEB was conducted, and would like to help out guys who might have to go through it as well. If that bothers you, don't view it.

Edited September 29, 2013 by day man

[Murph]

If this was 30years + earlier you would have been awarded DFC's.

Giving DFCs for flying through thunderstorms and flaming out all four engines? I don't 100% agree with the punishment, but rewarding these guys? That's retarded.

[Techsan]

If there is boldface, you should do it. However, I remember lessons early on in my career that mentioned something about being a "checklist monkey" and ALWAYS doing EXACTLY what the checklist says without any thought about what you are actually doing, which sometimes meant that you should think about what you were doing.

I'm not saying you were right or you were wrong for doing what you did, but I applaud you for bringing it up, although I'm still unsure of your motives for doing so.

Peeps will always Monday morning QB @ ground speed zero...

[sputnik]

Current AMC CC? Or the last one?

[tunes]

I know what I did wasn't procedurally correct. Have you read the whole thread? I didn't want to inhibit relight by denying the engines fuel. Was there a point (time/altitude) where I would resume checklist items? Probably. Do I know what it was? No, but it's probably something that should be discussed (I don't know if it's in the current -1).

The point of this thread is to discuss the incident, an SIB, and an FEB...kinda like the title says. I knew nothing of how an SIB or FEB was conducted, and would like to help out guys who might have to go through it as well. If that bothers you, don't view it.

Not trying be a dick but I'm pretty sure the engineers they built the plane know more about how it works than you do.. Hence why they wrote the checklist for you to run......

[Azimuth]

Current AMC CC? Or the last one?

It would've been the last one.

Not trying be a dick but I'm pretty sure the engineers they built the plane know more about how it works than you do.. Hence why they wrote the checklist for you to run......

Glad I wasn't the only person thinking that.

[jazzdude]

Not trying be a dick but I'm pretty sure the engineers they built the plane know more about how it works than you do.. Hence why they wrote the checklist for you to run......

But sometimes they don't, resulting in some sort of incident, followed by a safety sup and some new notes/cautions/warnings that may/may not be written in bent metal or blood.

Most of the time the checklist will solve the problem, but it is not all inclusive.

[Fuzz]

Where was the AC and why wasn't he being an AC during this EP? Oh wait, I read that unfortunate answer in the SIB when asked what he thought day man was doing.

And why did you, as the copilot, decide that you were going to not accomplish the complete checklist? Did your AC/crew agree with this?

I have been told the checklist pre-incident was very unwieldy and full of write in changes, and when some guys from AMC actually tried to run the checklist in the sim replicating the incident they determined it wasn't a great checklist and rewrote it.

I'm not saying Day Man shouldn't have known how to run said checklist but how often was 4 engine flameout really talked about or done in the sim prior to the incident? (Honest question, the incident predates my time in the aircraft)

Edited September 30, 2013 by Fuzz

[matmacwc]

Dudes, everyone is alive, I call it a win. Sure, crap gets F'd up, but if some engine light off after ALL of them going out, and I land the bitch, GTG. How we got there will rewrite regs, which is a good thing! I just want to see the Combat Camera video.

[pawnman]

Not trying be a dick but I'm pretty sure the engineers they built the plane know more about how it works than you do.. Hence why they wrote the checklist for you to run......

That's why we never change the checklists, right?

[GearMonkey]

Not trying be a dick but I'm pretty sure the engineers that built the plane know more about how it works than you do.. Hence why they wrote the checklist for you to run......

The engineers know more about their particular part of the design but history has shown that the checklists they produce are far from perfect. They do the best they can imagining and resoloving theoretical problems but pilots have a nasty habit of discovering design weaknesses or unexpected system interactions.

After this incident there were extensive changes to both the FOUR ENGINE FLAMEOUT and AIRSTART checklists. This doesn't absolve the crew of their mistakes but it shows that there were systematic influences (training, checklist procedures, WX radar only giving accurate info at 40NM, etc.) that don't fit nicely into your and Ray-J's black and white view of the world.

Edited September 30, 2013 by GearMonkey

[Herk Driver]

So without running the checklists from Step 1 to Step last in regards to the number 1 and 4 engine, were you getting thrust out of those engines? If so, how much did it help? If not, what was the end result with regards to the engines? Were the indications in the cockpit sufficient to tell you that they were either producing or not producing thrust? Was there any damage to number 1 or 4?

If you had run the checklist from Step 1 to last, do you think you would still have gotten the same treatment?

Edited September 30, 2013 by Herk Driver

[BigFreddie]

Thanks for coming forward - big balls man!

You got rolled by the system...

Had Combat Camera not been on the aircraft you would have been heroes.

Personally, I would have run the full checklist to see if it would have worked. I also flew an airplane with a flight engineer who would have beat me to death with a Maglite for not running it.

I too had a Class A. Life pretty much sucks when you really have mere seconds to make a decision and those investigating can take months to determine what you did wrong. My incident resulted in neither a CDI or an AIB.

[FlyinGrunt]

I don't fly the C-17, so I'm not going to talk out of my ass about coulda/shoulda/woulda. However, I echo what was said earlier: I respect the hell out of you for coming forward, even on an internet forum, to say "I was that guy" so that others may learn.

1. On my aircraft(with another crew), an additional crewmember did some dumb shit with his weapon and had an AD through the floor of the aircraft. He flew with us in combat a few weeks later. As he introduced himself, he finished with, " . . . and I'm that guy." Our crew respected the hell out of him too.

2. I concur with your analysis of your actions. Clearly, there are things your crew could have done better. But seeing as you landed the plane and everyone lived, I think it would be infinitely easier to live with myself, wings taken and all, than if I had been a mindless checklist monkey and, say, I had glided in a brick and killed half my pax as a result. I don't know if everything you did was right, but if I were the 4-star, I'd keep you around if for no other purpose than instilling the importance of systems knowledge and the seriousness of our business in the new guys.

3. I sincerely wish that the other recent C-17 mishap crews would do as you have. I feel that all jokes aside, there are lessons to be learned by all of us that cannot be taught by an O-6 politician briefing an SIB/AIB, and all of us would respect those crews more for having the courage to stand in front of us and teach.

4. I'm sincerely glad you all made it back alive to see your families again, like you said. Too many aircrews have died in these wars for what said conflicts have achieved. I wish you luck in your next endeavor . . . and beers on me if I meet you.

[JarheadBoom]

Not trying be a dick but I'm pretty sure the engineers they built the plane know more about how it works than you do.. Hence why they wrote the checklist for you to run......

You might be surprised (and maybe a little concerned...) by the number of aero engineers who have ZERO clue about how pilots/crew/mechs actually operate and maintain the systems they design.

Technical questions (if anyone here can answer them):

- Does the C-17 engine have a dedicated generator to power the EECs?

- If so, at what engine speed do those generators provide enough power to the EECs that they are no longer dependent on the aircraft's buses to operate?

Day man, I commend you for having the balls to "out" yourself to this community, knowing that you'd be exposing yourself to some tough questions and strong opinions/judgements. It sucks that you guys were sacrificed for ultimately "saving the day" for yourselves and 100+ others, but I suppose being alive to talk about it after the fact is about the best you can hope for in today's climate.

[Fuzz]

You might be surprised (and maybe a little concerned...) by the number of aero engineers who have ZERO clue about how pilots/crew/mechs actually operate and maintain the systems they design.

Technical questions (if anyone here can answer them):

- Does the C-17 engine have a dedicated generator to power the EECs?

- If so, at what engine speed do those generators provide enough power to the EECs that they are no longer dependent on the aircraft's buses to operate?

.

Yes, it has an engine driven PMA (permanent magnetic alternator) that powers it above 10% N2. The EEC will pull power from which ever source has a higher output, the buses will provide power when the fuel switch is on or the starter button is engaged.

[Welcome Thrillho]

Current AMC CC? Or the last one?

Wow... anyone notice said AMC/CC didn't hold a true "Ops" assignment until 19 years into his career? I do, however, see a lot of seat time correcting OPRs and grooming programs. Mark of a "true Air Force leader"

http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/Biographies/Display/tabid/225/Article/106641/general-raymond-e-johns-jr.aspx

[moosepileit]

Of the three times I've had to stop the flying crew chief from cycling an engine shutoff switch in flight when I was pointing out and writing up an EEC fault in flight- had he done so over Pakistan, the stalls "would" have cleared sooner with less damage incurred to the engines- in theory.

And for the lurkers on the MDS- yes, I know "how" it "can" be done. On old fashioned multi engine jets we'd also just shut her down and maybe airstart an engine, if later desired.

They have not fixed the 150 radar's software issues- it does over-present in Auto, and if you use manual you don't have the predictive windshear mode. I hope they'll figure out some "gain" settings magic in "Auto" that can be easily taught.

It would be a start to fly a legacy radar next to the 150 radar in and around the type of weather at altitudes that pose the most issues.

The checklists are better now, as a result of your experience, as is the training.

[Day Man]

So without running the checklists from Step 1 to Step last in regards to the number 1 and 4 engine, were you getting thrust out of those engines? If so, how much did it help? If not, what was the end result with regards to the engines? Were the indications in the cockpit sufficient to tell you that they were either producing or not producing thrust? Was there any damage to number 1 or 4?

If you had run the checklist from Step 1 to last, do you think you would still have gotten the same treatment?

No thrust from 1 & 4. There ended up being some damage to the cores from over-temping. We initially thought they were back online when all engine tapes looked good, but that was apparently just from windmilling.

No idea about the same treatment. They said we landed in the wrong configuration, but no one still has told me the right configuration.

[Chapter29]

They said we landed in the wrong configuration, but no one still has told me the right configuration.

I thought I remembered reading something about a checklist directing the proper configuration not being referenced.

I'm not a -17 bubba, just asking.

[Homestar]

Wow... anyone notice said AMC/CC didn't hold a true "Ops" assignment until 19 years into his career? I do, however, see a lot of seat time correcting OPRs and grooming programs. Mark of a "true Air Force leader" http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/Biographies/Display/tabid/225/Article/106641/general-raymond-e-johns-jr.aspx

The guy went to TPS.

[Welcome Thrillho]

The guy went to TPS.

True. TPS is a great accomplishment. However, it's not really the same thing as being a part of Ops. He's one of those tapped to rise to the top. Hell, even the fast burners I've seen have at least done touch-and-goes in ops between blue-chip assignments.

Why disregard the findings of the board? Why even have a board? Are their findings only valid if he agrees with it? Maybe he decided his TPS background trumped all the experience of the board members', and heads HAD to roll...

All moot now, I guess

[Hacker]

Dudes, everyone is alive, I call it a win.

Unless you are one of the guys whose careers and futures in aviation were deep-sixed. My bet is that they see it quite differently.