LockheedFix Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 The Wing Chief of Safety (a Nav) at Offutt has decided that this does not apply to 135 Pilots and will not release it to the biggest wing in ACC. Shame, looks like we could all learn a lot from this accident. A couple of points on this: 1) I don't think it is the local Chief of Safety's call whether or not to release it. If the JA guys at the Safety Center deem it applicable, it is their call to release it to Offutt's flight safety office. 2) This guy sounds like he will make a great WG/CC at the Deid sometime very soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butters Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 I wish there was some kind of hotline you could can and report guys like this. Then 20 minutes later he is thrown out of the safety office. Does he have the brief? If he does, get your SQ/CC to lean on him. Mishap prevention is his job, and this brief give a lot of insight into how mishaps can develop over time and you won't notice until bites you in the ass. I am surprised the AIB is taking so long. Side note: SIB on C-17 4-eng falme out is due out soon. If you want to know more about this one, start new thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crew Report Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 I am surprised the AIB is taking so long. Maybe it's taking so long due to the process of firing some OG people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SocialD Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 The Wing Chief of Safety (a Nav) at Offutt has decided that this does not apply to 135 Pilots and will not release it to the biggest wing in ACC. Shame, looks like we could all learn a lot from this accident. Somebody needs to tell the half-wing that it's his job to provide you the report, if you want it! That's weird, because our squadron safety shop gave us the briefing, with the actual footage and the animation. This is in a pointy nose squadron...so yes, it applies to everyone who flies. But if he will not show that, take a look at the ever famous BUFF crash. Having seen that so many times in training, that's all I could think about as I watched the videos. All for an airshow... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herk Driver Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 (edited) 1) I don't think it is the local Chief of Safety's call whether or not to release it. If the JA guys at the Safety Center deem it applicable, it is their call to release it to Offutt's flight safety office. However, it is the local CoS call whether to ask AFSC to release it in the first place. It sounds like he hasn't or won't ask. Edited November 11, 2010 by Herk Driver Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuggyU2 Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 All for an airshow... Don't blame the airshow. The "airshow" didn't ask that they do something stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SocialD Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 Don't blame the airshow. The "airshow" didn't ask that they do something stupid. That's what I was going for Huggy...seems so senseless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matmacwc Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 Watch what you say! It's up to AFSC to allow Tab access (re-creation), they can lock it down if they find fit. The CoS works for the WG/CC, not the OG/CC, so in the end, its up to the WG/CC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stract Posted November 12, 2010 Share Posted November 12, 2010 and any SE person can access the message in AFSAS, so find your SQ-level FSO for that hookup. What matmacwc said about Tab access. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xaarman Posted December 2, 2010 Share Posted December 2, 2010 (edited) Just a follow up, the OG/CC found out about SE witholding it, and the report was released the following Monday (so I heard, now TDY.) Edited December 2, 2010 by xaarman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donkey Posted December 2, 2010 Share Posted December 2, 2010 Will/does this information ever become available for civilians to view? I don't mean to be disrespectful, I'm just curious. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xaarman Posted December 2, 2010 Share Posted December 2, 2010 The AIB is for the public, and has not been released yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abmwaldo Posted December 11, 2010 Share Posted December 11, 2010 AIB and the edited video... RIP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sky_king Posted December 11, 2010 Share Posted December 11, 2010 ouch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Davies Posted December 11, 2010 Share Posted December 11, 2010 Given the comments above about the OG CC, and the report's mention of procedural guidance and programme oversight, does the release of the AIB mean that there has not been any disciplinary action in the Wing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toro Posted December 11, 2010 Share Posted December 11, 2010 Steve, The release of AIB is not directly related to disciplinary actions taken. AIBs are public record (whereas SIBs are not) and may be used to determine punitive actions, but its release is not tied to those actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Davies Posted December 11, 2010 Share Posted December 11, 2010 Thanks, Toro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 11, 2010 Share Posted December 11, 2010 What a waste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alwyn2d Posted December 11, 2010 Share Posted December 11, 2010 It will be interesting in seeing if this accident will have any bearing on the possible punishment of the low flyby of the T-38s several weeks ago. That's if they were found in violation of regulations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BQZip01 Posted December 11, 2010 Share Posted December 11, 2010 Thanks abmwaldo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitman Posted December 11, 2010 Share Posted December 11, 2010 Can some of you C-17 guys shed some light on this part? This was the final right turn as they were completing the 80/260 reversal. Seems a little odd to use FULL right rudder in a jet. Did the board rule out hard over rudder or uncommanded rudder deflection? Five seconds into the right turn, the stall warning system activated. At this time, the MA's configuration was full right rudder, the control stick aft, and slats retracting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck17 Posted December 11, 2010 Share Posted December 11, 2010 Given the comments above about the OG CC, and the report's mention of procedural guidance and programme oversight, does the release of the AIB mean that there has not been any disciplinary action in the Wing? Nothing has happened to anyone in the wing... yet. Standing by for that... Chuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck17 Posted December 11, 2010 Share Posted December 11, 2010 Can some of you C-17 guys shed some light on this part? This was the final right turn as they were completing the 80/260 reversal. Seems a little odd to use FULL right rudder in a jet. Did the board rule out hard over rudder or uncommanded rudder deflection? There was no hard over or uncommanded deflection. Upon realizing what was happening, the MP swapped from full right rudder to full left and aft left stick to try and recover. If you can figure out the "why?" on either of those happenings, you'd answer the million dollar question we've been wrestling with for months up here. It would have taken THOUSANDS of feet required to recover the jet. Chuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitman Posted December 11, 2010 Share Posted December 11, 2010 There was no hard over or uncommanded deflection. Upon realizing what was happening, the MP swapped from full right rudder to full left and aft left stick to try and recover. If you can figure out the "why?" on either of those happenings, you'd answer the million dollar question we've been wrestling with for months up here. It would have taken THOUSANDS of feet required to recover the jet. Chuck Would you have used rudder for that turn? I'm just confused why they were using any rudder, much less full right rudder for a turn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JS Posted December 11, 2010 Share Posted December 11, 2010 (edited) Actually, from what a C-17 guy told me, you might want to bold the "slats retracting" portion of this text as opposed to the rudder stuff. Losing an enormous amount of lift (and increasing stall speed by dozens on knots) in a middle of a max performing turn is not a good thing, and probably had something to do with this one being an accident as opposed to the dozens of times that they successfully performed this maneuver. Five seconds into the right turn, the stall warning system activated. At this time, the MA's configuration was full right rudder, the control stick aft, and slats retracting. Edited December 11, 2010 by JS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now