Elmendorf C-17 Crash Video

Military guys who have seen the USAF Safety video or read the Safety report must be extremely careful about what we say with respect to what happened here...which is exactly what I will do, too.

You guys are all generally thinking in the correct direction, though, with respect to the climb and bank angles appearing to be excessive.

Interesting that the video that was released doesn't show the impact. Too bad, really, because seeing that impact and hearing the CVR comm (which, unfortunately hasn't been released either and probably won't) is what really made my stomach turn up in knots when I saw the video, and what reinforced in my mind the lesson aviators should take away from this accident (the whole purpose of accident investigation, BTW).

That lesson is not exactly what happened with the Bud Holland crash at Fairchild, but similar in some ways.
 
Hacker, might you possibly be referring to some "impending" reactions? If so, that seems a pretty serious shortcoming on the systems of that MWS to me. Have you been to a safety brief about the incident? I'd be really curious to hear what else was said...
 
FWIW, here's the actual text of the AIB:

http://www.pacaf.af.mil/library/aibreports/index.asp

The board president found clear and convincing evidence that the cause of the mishap was pilot error. The pilot violated regulatory provisions and multiple flight manual procedures, placing the aircraft outside established flight parameters at an attitude and altitude where recovery was not possible. Furthermore, the copilot and safety observer did not realize the developing dangerous situation and failed to make appropriate inputs. In addition to multiple procedural errors, the board president found sufficient evidence that the crew on the flight deck ignored cautions and warnings and failed to respond to various challenge and reply items. The board also found channelized attention, overconfidence, expectancy, misplaced motivation, procedural guidance, and program oversight substantially contributed to the mishap.
Click to expand...
 
///AMG said:
I guess what is second nature to the pointy nosed guys, may be a little less common sense for heavies? Fair enough, no ribbing intended and that might explain the last few seconds of this video clip, thinking about it from another perspective
Click to expand...
In the long time I was with the airlines, I met all kinds who had flown all kinds. Somewhere along the line more than a few were NOT taught to unload (reduce AOA) and just tried to power out, even before getting wings level and in a recent demonstration at a school teaching upset maneuvers, about **80%** who were beyond 90deg of bank tried to split-S out of the upset and didn't try to roll upright or go wings level first. ??? They just PULLED.
 
Orange Anchor said:
And so have I. I have pictures of my -135 sitting in fingertip with another -135 and we are probably not 50ft apart.. over Thailand. And I have had the tanker in 45deg+ when I was a lot younger and a lot less experienced. And I met the receivers where they said they had to be including the karst region in northern Laos near the Chinese border. All this to say you can have a fighter attitude in something other than a fighter and it can have consequences. In this case, it appears the fatal error was letting the nose drop.

Also, as I learned in the tanker and later repeated in the 737 when we were having the rudder-hard-overs, you MUST unload the airplane if you expect to roll out. Without that, it is a foregone conclusion if you are low.
Click to expand...

Orange Anchor said:
In the long time I was with the airlines, I met all kinds who had flown all kinds. Somewhere along the line more than a few were NOT taught to unload (reduce AOA) and just tried to power out, even before getting wings level and in a recent demonstration at a school teaching upset maneuvers, about **80%** who were beyond 90deg of bank tried to split-S out of the upset and didn't try to roll upright or go wings level first. ??? They just PULLED.
Click to expand...


The school I used to instruct at taught this very scenario. "Unload, PUSH!!!!, roll" if I remember correctly. Twotwoleft can jump in(probably one of the most competent pilots I know of). He teaches it still. It's a very common theme it seems to try and pull to fix something that has gone awry in an airplane unfortunatley. I think it's human nature(fight or flight) that has to be rejected at all costs, or else.
 
MikeD said:
Crew was trying a new maneuver, briefed beforehand and not flat out hot-dogging like the Fairchild B-52 in '94, but not within parameters and aggressive apparently. Put the aircraft into the maneuver, stalled, and there wasn't altitude to recover, unfortunately. Lack of CRM contributory.
Click to expand...

Just to be clear, I did not mean to imply that the accident was due to hot-dogging. The manuevers were just very similar to those seen in the Fairchild crash with nearly identical results.
 
mshunter said:
The school I used to instruct at taught this very scenario. "Unload, PUSH!!!!, roll" if I remember correctly. Twotwoleft can jump in(probably one of the most competent pilots I know of). He teaches it still. It's a very common theme it seems to try and pull to fix something that has gone awry in an airplane unfortunatley. I think it's human nature(fight or flight) that has to be rejected at all costs, or else.
Click to expand...

Also, I'd suspect that the average C17 crew doesn't have the same level of recurrent and experience in low speed maneuvering that the average pointy nose would have. But that's just a guess on my part.

Also, @AMG, yeah, I agree with you, we're on the same sheet of muzak! Hey, when are you coming up to Eugene? Beers?
 
ppragman said:
Also, I'd suspect that the average C17 crew doesn't have the same level of recurrent and experience in low speed maneuvering that the average pointy nose would have. But that's just a guess on my part.

Also, @AMG, yeah, I agree with you, we're on the same sheet of muzak! Hey, when are you coming up to Eugene? Beers?
Click to expand...

I'd love to come up that way. But aw ned a jerb first.
 
I might (stress might) be going down to Van Nuys to see a friend here in a couple three weeks, you gonna be around?
 
Big aircraft just don't have the smaller recovery window that jets or smaller aircaraft have. I flew a small/med sized military transport and there's only so much one can do with the aircraft. Lets face it, cargo planes do not impress, mostly. I would say, why even bother? The JATO rockets on Fat Albert is impressive and maybe a C-27 doing a barrel roll but thats about it. That's my take at least.
 
ppragman said:
I might (stress might) be going down to Van Nuys to see a friend here in a couple three weeks, you gonna be around?
Click to expand...

Should be. If you are, beers are on me, or my wife really, since she's the only one working right now. But she doesn't have to know!
images
 
bunk22 said:
Big aircraft just don't have the smaller recovery window that jets or smaller aircaraft have. I flew a small/med sized military transport and there's only so much one can do with the aircraft. Lets face it, cargo planes do not impress, mostly. I would say, why even bother? The JATO rockets on Fat Albert is impressive and maybe a C-27 doing a barrel roll but thats about it. That's my take at least.
Click to expand...

Ehh, not me, I think cargo planes are dammed cool. Everyone of them for the most part. The logistical might that a C130 or a C17, or even the Humble Cod provides are so useful, so completely responsible for success that nothing else compares. Think about this, a C130 can rally in at 100' AGL pop up to a couple thousand and drop off 64 Airborne GIs, then drop back down and dart out. They can land on unimproved fields, drop of tanks, medical supplies, you name it, then rally back home. C130s can deposit tanks friggin' TANKS! The P3 can sink submarines. While maybe not as glamorous to the public as flying a hornet off the carrier deck, or doing low level strafing runs in the hog, without the power and force that can be brought to bare as a result of the transport planes, the pointy nose types would never have a chance.

The C130 and C17 are amazing, the deck angle on that initial climb out is awesome. Then the fact that the airplane can drop off pretty much as much stuff as you want anywhere there's a 3000' long patch of level gravel is incredible. The support the provide is remarkably impressive. I've heard stories of rescue units doing IFR parachute drops out of the backs of C130s on NVGs! Oh, and doing that in highly mountainous terrain, dangerous terrain at fairly low level. P3s run grids at a couple hundred feet for hours looking for submarines, the C17 does combat dropoffs off-airport in the sandbox. That's friggin' awesome.
 
Hacker15e said:
Did you read the AIB summary? That's precisely what it does say.
Click to expand...

I was meaning it doesn't appear to be Holland-ish in the sense of a long trail of years of known hot-dogging. It appears these guys...or the AC.... wanted to sharpen up their show this time, and pushed it too far.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top