Let's not get into the nuts and bolts of the incident. I quoted the item about the glideslope to express that in an air force that demands perfection, they need to change the culture and accept that small errors will be made. TACC takes you right up to the edge without batting an eye. And they rationalize some of that through perceived mitigation: For TACC, a AF Base with an ILS is a no-brainer. Long legs over the ocean are regarded as rest. I keep seeing the ORM pop up, but what was the mission detail that would've raised a red flag under the present criteria? The circumstances were pretty mundane up until the last minute.

Which secondly comes to the crew complement. Were they ready to do this, or not?

Question for other MWS: What is an augmenting pilot's qualification? On the C-130, I've heard its another AC. True?

Question for other MWS: What is an augmenting pilot's qualification? On the C-130, I've heard its another AC. True?

Yup another AC.

KC-10 is two ACs and a copilot. I think the C-17 are the only gomers who augment with an AC and two copilots.

KC-10 is two ACs and a copilot. I think the C-17 are the only gomers who augment with an AC and two copilots.

C-17s augment with another AC if 2 ARs are scheduled, otherwise you correct.

Yea for the 17 one co has to be an "augmenting co" or basically I think our sq standard for that is 300 hours and maybe a GRACC workbook. Then a sq cc approval.

Rather be Flying but I'm using Tapatalk

KC-10 is two ACs and a copilot. I think the C-17 are the only gomers who augment with an AC and two copilots.

Same for -135s. Good to see that the different rule is working out well for the C-17s.

What if the PNF started checking the things the PF set, like the glideslope for example? If that's too drastic, maybe the PF could verbalize what he's setting or something like that. Would that help? Maybe we could make that a rule...

Nah...it's probably the ORM thing. Let's keep going with that...nothing to see here.

Bendy

So, I'm not an expert in the C-17, but I'm pretty sure that every pilot is taught ETCA in UPT.

Establish

Trim

Crosscheck

Adjust

So unless the glide slope is drastically different from the standard 3 degrees and has a crazy short final, I would think the "C" and "A" would take care of minor deviations. Straight up poor airmanship.

*break break*

ORM tools are ridiculous. Ours doesn't even include air refueling... you know, the most dangerous thing we do in the airplane.

Not that obvious. Because of unique design characteristics, the C-17 in landing configuration flies on the "backside" of the power curve and the controls are "reversed"-- that's why you flare with power. I think this guy did what most crossflows guys do when they are still getting used to C-17... he reverted to flying "frontside" when the aircraft was configured for backside.

most crossflows guys.

Ugh, don't get me started.

... he reverted to flying "frontside" when...configured for backside.

BQZip's mom hates it when that happens.

A normal C-17 approach is an AOA approach. Pitch for airspeed, power for glidepath. We also have an autotrim mode that holds a set deck angle, which means your airspeed is normally shacked. Setting this is required for visual approaches but not instrument approaches. This seems to create a tendency for airspeed to drop out of crosscheck and fixation on the flight path vector. Since we almost never practice approaches without autotrim, well, you can see how it could cause a problem...

KC-10 is two ACs and a copilot. I think the C-17 are the only gomers who augment with an AC and two copilots.

false.

C5 is 1 AC 2 Co-pilots for augmented

this guy did what most crossflows guys do

Hmmm... seems to be a trend in the C-17 community with crossflows. Maybe if we stopped associating crew qualification with career progression we wouldn't be having so many issues.

That just doesn't even make sense. How would the AF know when to promote you then?