Jump to content

What's wrong with the Air Force?


Catbox

Recommended Posts

Same thing happened in Germany or Italy( I forget which) in about 2007. I think the dude ended up punching. F16 as well. By “the same thing” I mean hitting the antenna and cocking a wheel sideways.

If memory serves it wasn’t a flown ILS but something about a non standard pattern or landing runway with visual illusions were contributing to why he his the ILS antenna.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Same thing happened in Germany or Italy( I forget which) in about 2007. I think the dude ended up punching. F16 as well. By “the same thing” I mean hitting the antenna and cocking a wheel sideways.

If memory serves it wasn’t a flown ILS but something about a non standard pattern or landing runway with visual illusions were contributing to why he his the ILS antenna.


It was at Spangdahlem. Younger pilot drug in on final. Home station so he should have been familiar, but the south flow runway could give a visual illusion with rapidly rising terrain near the approach end. Yes he ended up doing a controlled ejection.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Hacker said:

I can't wait for the day when Big Blue starts shooting off the same platitudes that the airline industry does about, "visual approaches are the hardest thing we do".

IMG_4842.thumb.jpeg.345b965c56eabb2266929c67b80a346a.jpeg

I know you’re a fighter guy so you scoff at all things involved with flying an approach and landing as motherhood and admin- but look at the data; a lot of mistakes happen in those phases.
 

 I actually researched visual approaches for my BS embry top-off paper since I was intrigued by the only two operational go arounds I had seen in the C-17 being from visual approaches.  We do a ton of canned local patterns and a bunch of instrument approaches but when dudes get the random “Cleared for a visual” they’d F it up.  
 

The ASRS database actually had a lot of info on mistakes on visual approaches.  Not surprisingly most instances of trying to land on the wrong runway or taxiway (Seattle in particular) were from visual approaches. The takeaway from almost all of them was ignoring ILS/LOC/MFD data.  This is also very true in the C-17 landing at Peter O Knight instead of MacDill with Centcom/CC onboard.

Add:  The Shaw F-16 and Eglin F-35 crashes also show the importance of not neglecting the training for a VMC night landing. 

Edited by go_cubbies22
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, go_cubbies22 said:

I know you’re a fighter guy so you scoff at all things involved with flying an approach and landing as motherhood and admin- but look at the data; a lot of mistakes happen in those phases.
 

 I actually researched visual approaches for my BS embry top-off paper since I was intrigued by the only two operational go arounds I had seen in the C-17 being from visual approaches.  We do a ton of canned local patterns and a bunch of instrument approaches but when dudes get the random “Cleared for a visual” they’d F it up.  
 

The ASRS database actually had a lot of info on mistakes on visual approaches.  Not surprisingly most instances of trying to land on the wrong runway or taxiway (Seattle in particular) were from visual approaches. The takeaway from almost all of them was ignoring ILS/LOC/MFD data.  This is also very true in the C-17 landing at Peter O Knight instead of MacDill with Centcom/CC onboard.

Add:  The Shaw F-16 and Eglin F-35 crashes also show the importance of not neglecting the training for a VMC night landing. 

Symptomatic not causal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Royal said:

Symptomatic not causal

F-35-The AIB President found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the mishap was caused first, by the MA touching down at 202 KCAS, and second, by the MA flight control surfaces, namely the tail of the aircraft, conflicting with the MP inputs upon landing, resulting in the MP’s inability to recover from the aircraft oscillation.
 

F-16- The Accident Investigation Board (AIB) President found by a preponderance of evidence the cause of the mishap was the MP’s failure to correctly interpret the approach lighting system and identify the runway threshold during his first landing attempt, which resulted in severely damaged landing gear.

Both mishaps were causal by the pilot not executing a safe night landing in VMC. 
 

if you’re getting at that the cause of the crash is decreased pilot training/hours then I agree with the F-16 crash; the F-35 crash was an F-15E IP with plenty of experience.

 

Edited by go_cubbies22
Link to comment
Share on other sites

how many have ever practiced a full stop at night staying on the glide slope and not ducking under?

that's what I see a lot in AETC land...IPs "taking over visually" at 900' AGL...i'd groove that shit down to 200' AGL (100' if you want to get weird and call "continue" at the DH)

instrument basics is the most fundamentally important thing that can be taught at UPT (cue the triggered "heat to guns" crowd) and imo it's totally glossed over on the 38 side. hell most IPs don't even know about lunar illumination.

Edited by BashiChuni
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, go_cubbies22 said:

The takeaway from almost all of them was ignoring ILS/LOC/MFD data.  This is also very true in the C-17 landing at Peter O Knight instead of MacDill with Centcom/CC onboard.

I’d say the takeaway is that most platforms in the AF treat the pilots like children and this is a perfect example. You decrease their proficiency by telling them all they should do is unnecessary IFR and to follow the thingy on the MFD instead of look outside the aircraft. If it’s not night or IMC I never have an ILS pulled up, I look outside. I’ve flown significantly more visual approaches than instrument approaches. This is something the general aviation world does that I like. Then again, we can’t even fly the magenta line and also spend most of our time VFR. I do have an issue with the fighter mentality of land on brick one, and have always taught the captains bars. I won’t go into the plethora of major factors that went into those incidents, or the total organizational shit show that was the Shaw mishap. 

Edited by Hawg15
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Hawg15 said:

If it’s not night or IMC I never have an ILS pulled up

Why not? It seems like such a simple thing to give yourself another tool to fly a visual approach. 
 

This is truly what I see as the great cultural difference between fighter pilots and heavy pilots. 
 

That and an irrational avoidance of the word “head”.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

how many have ever practiced a full stop at night staying on the glide slope and not ducking under?

I have!  Many times.  But Beale has a 12,000 runway so no factor, even in the T-38.  

That said, the F-16 mishap doesn't appear to be a duckunder, but rather a misinterpretation of the lighting that he saw.  

And as stated elsewhere, the F-35 Class A seems to be more a function of poor decision making in that he didn't go around on final when he had problems, long before he crossed the runway threshold (although the Board President didn't address that issue... shockingly, IMO).  

"Thing on the thing on the thing"... my gut feeling tells me that letting UPT students land the T-38 30% of the time without the HUD might have some benefits.  But what the fuck do I know?  

I had a pretty long post planned about "admin" and such during the briefing.  Having edited it down, I'll tell you this:  one of my two best friends in UPT died 7 months after we got our wings in a landing accident.  In my 34 years since that date, it seems an inordinate number of pilots have Class A'd aircraft on approaches and landings.  Fighters, bombers, heavies, trainers... none are immune.  "Admin" or not, if you fuck it up, it will allow the ChiCom's to chalk up a kill   

Edited by HuggyU2
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Homestar said:

Why not? It seems like such a simple thing to give yourself another tool to fly a visual approach. 
 

This is truly what I see as the great cultural difference between fighter pilots and heavy pilots. 
 

That and an irrational avoidance of the word “head”.

 

Because it's pointless when flying the overhead.

Fun fact: the Navy flies night overheads.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anecdotally, it seems to me more fixed wing guys ball it up during the admin phase, and more rotary wing guys ball it up in the terminal/tactical phase. I don't recall the last time I heard of a pointy nose type not pulling out on dive delivery, but I have heard of plenty planting it short of the runway. Conversely, I have friends no longer with us who have drove straight into the dirt trying to infil or use guns down low.

I'm not saying one is better or worse than the other, but in my memory that's what stands out.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Buddy Spike said:

 

Because it's pointless when flying the overhead.

Fun fact: the Navy flies night overheads.  

Definitely not useless. But if noones taught you how to use it in the overhead maybe that's your perception. It's not meant to replace looking outside. It's just another tool to take into your cross check. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, FLEA said:

Definitely not useless. But if noones taught you how to use it in the overhead maybe that's your perception. It's not meant to replace looking outside. It's just another tool to take into your cross check. 

Okay, explain.  How do you use the ILS on an overhead?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess you can get on a stable 3 degree wire at half mile to QC? I personally wouldn’t rely on an ILS for guidance on an overhead because it’s a visual maneuver, but I also never learned that. 
 

AFSOC does night overheads and much lower/aggressive maneuvers than that on certain platforms. Do they still have that night overhead sortie at ENJJPT?

Another piece of food for thought on the whole fighter vs heavy thing re IFR. It’s pretty easy in a fighter recovering to your main base after going to the same couple of MOA’s every day and not needing instrument backup because you’re so familiar. In heavy flying, they’re going to unfamiliar and different airports all the time with minimal local area fam. It’s a good idea to just do a published procedure when you aren’t familiar with the lay of the land.

One thing that seems to have atrophied over the years is the ability to read a map and navigate VFR off of that. That’s a great skill to have and definitely has tactical applications.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Danger41 said:

I guess you can get on a stable 3 degree wire at half mile to QC? 

 

We don't fly a 3 degree wire on overheads.  If I'm worried about lining up on the wrong airport (off station), I just look for the diamond in the hud as a quick QC.  However, in the airline world, I will always fly an ILS even when cleared for the visual.  Love the guys who have to "show their airmanship" by hand flying everything and flying the visual without an ILS backup...really showing off those "stick and rudder" skills. 🙄

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Danger41 said:

I guess you can get on a stable 3 degree wire at half mile to QC? I personally wouldn’t rely on an ILS for guidance on an overhead because it’s a visual maneuver, but I also never learned that. 
 

The ILS wire isn't to the end of the runway though.  If you're using that for glidepath guidance on an overhead, you're going to be landing really long.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Buddy Spike said:

The ILS wire isn't to the end of the runway though.  If you're using that for glidepath guidance on an overhead, you're going to be landing really long.  

I used it a lot on -130s and they were also a brick 1 mentality. At the end of the day, it's a course, vertical guidance to a known point. Yes it is a visual maneuver and you should be 90% outside, but it's one of those things of have it, so might as well use it. It's 0 investment, you probably know the ILS data to your home field without having to look it up. So it takes all of 3 seconds to input it and just have another set of data giving your spacial information. Was useful for me at fields like Spang where you have huge runway terrain illusions on the approach end. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, FLEA said:

I used it a lot on -130s and they were also a brick 1 mentality. At the end of the day, it's a course, vertical guidance to a known point. Yes it is a visual maneuver and you should be 90% outside, but it's one of those things of have it, so might as well use it. It's 0 investment, you probably know the ILS data to your home field without having to look it up. So it takes all of 3 seconds to input it and just have another set of data giving your spacial information. Was useful for me at fields like Spang where you have huge runway terrain illusions on the approach end. 

I don't know anything about flying AF fatties, but it's useless info in a fighter overhead.  Especially in a jet with a HUD (2.5 degree line) and a steerpoint diamond on the end of the runway.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't remember what all is required to bring this up in the HUD on the 787 but on a visual or instrument approach a dashed line at 2.5 or 3 degrees ( don't remember that either) is displayed. If your flight path marker isn't near that line, it is very easy to see you, or the other guy, are screwing up the approach. With all that being said, the runway and approach are always loaded in the FMS for backup and confirmation .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Homestar said:

Why not? It seems like such a simple thing to give yourself another tool to fly a visual approach. 
 

This is truly what I see as the great cultural difference between fighter pilots and heavy pilots. 
 

That and an irrational avoidance of the word “head”.

As buddy spike said, I don’t view it as providing me any valuable data. If I’m flying visually in the pattern, the only time I look inside is to lower the gear and confirm 3 green. I have a HUD and helmet display to provide airspeed, altitude, and navigation information. Our aux field on the range doesn’t have any sort of approach. The Air Force and all their IFR to the max extent crutches create absolutely awful VFR pilots.
 

If someone wants to pull up the ILS to back themselves up then go for it, I’m not going to stop them. I personally feel it’s useless to me, like using a GPS on my drive to work. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Hawg15 said:

As buddy spike said, I don’t view it as providing me any valuable data. If I’m flying visually in the pattern, the only time I look inside is to lower the gear and confirm 3 green. I have a HUD and helmet display to provide airspeed, altitude, and navigation information. Our aux field on the range doesn’t have any sort of approach. The Air Force and all their IFR to the max extent crutches create absolutely awful VFR pilots.
 

If someone wants to pull up the ILS to back themselves up then go for it, I’m not going to stop them. I personally feel it’s useless to me, like using a GPS on my drive to work. 

So it's interesting because I agree with your 1st statement but I think it contradicts your second statement. Part of being great at VFR, IMO, is knowing how to use your IFR knowledge to enhance your skill set. 

Hybrid flying (using IFR skills in VFR and VFR skills in IFR) would actually probably make a great paper topic in aviation safety if anyone is working on their master's in that area. 

Edit: and copy your and others inputs about differences using a HUD. 

Edited by FLEA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, FLEA said:

So it's interesting because I agree with your 1st statement but I think it contradicts your second statement. Part of being great at VFR, IMO, is knowing how to use your IFR knowledge to enhance your skill set. 

Hybrid flying (using IFR skills in VFR and VFR skills in IFR) would actually probably make a great paper topic in aviation safety if anyone is working on their master's in that area. 

I think hybrid flying is great once you have the foundation. As an example, we have a detailed moving map in the jet that students aren’t allowed to use during low altitude navigation until they demonstrate proficiency using paper maps to navigate by terrain features.

You definitely end up using hybrid flying for point to point navigation, but they way we do it in the hawg is really just homing on a steer point. 

My second statement contradicts the first, but that is the difference between a single seat and a crewed aircraft. I’m not going to tell you what to do in your cockpit outside of basic instructor recommendations for new/struggling guys. Be a good, tactically proficient pilot flying the jet per the T.O. and I don’t care what you’re doing in there. 

Edited by Hawg15
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...