Elmendorf C-17 Crash Video

[Blackhawk]

Look at the rudder use and the movement of the nose during the maneuvers. Very poor stick/rudder skills. Doing this low altitude, low speed=the outcome.

 

[///AMG]

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.

Wow, that is pretty frightening IMO

 

[///AMG]

Look at the rudder use and the movement of the nose during the maneuvers. Very poor stick/rudder skills. Doing this low altitude, low speed=the outcome.

And additionally, aggressive and smooth should not be mutually exclusive. Jerky, hamfisted, binary control inputs never equate to aggressive, at least in a desireable way.

 

[v1valarob]

Is it common for military aircraft to be filmed taking off and performing maneuvers?

 

[MikeD]

Is it common for military aircraft to be filmed taking off and performing maneuvers?

This was practice for an upcoming airshow, so the filming was likely for critique and debrief purposes of the maneuvers

 

[Hacker15e]

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.

Without throwing spears at anyone specifically, C-17 pilots have a bit of a reputation for being particularly poor stick-and-rudder pilots when they come back to the training command as T-6 IPs.

I'm not a T-6 IP, so my knowledge is secondhand, but close friends who ran T-6 Mission Qualification Training at a previous AETC base I was stationed at were quite frustrated with the skill level of their former C-17 IPs. It's highly unusual to paint an entire community with such a broad brush, so I have to think that there's something with how the C-17 community flies which lends itself to less hand flying.

 

[Hacker15e]

And additionally, aggressive and smooth should not be mutually exclusive. Jerky, hamfisted, binary control inputs never equate to aggressive, at least in a desireable way.

I frequently have to tell T-38 students that "aggressive" doesn't translate to a stick position, G onset rate, or roll rate.

 

[ppragman]

Without throwing spears at anyone specifically, C-17 pilots have a bit of a reputation for being particularly poor stick-and-rudder pilots when they come back to the training command as T-6 IPs.

I'm not a T-6 IP, so my knowledge is secondhand, but close friends who ran T-6 Mission Qualification Training at a previous AETC base I was stationed at were quite frustrated with the skill level of their former C-17 IPs. It's highly unusual to paint an entire community with such a broad brush, so I have to think that there's something with how the C-17 community flies which lends itself to less hand flying.

How does this compare to the reputation of other "large" airplane drivers, like C130 or C5 pilots?

 

[///AMG]

I frequently have to tell T-38 students that "aggressive" doesn't translate to a stick position, G onset rate, or roll rate.

Yeah, it was a lesson that took me a little while to absorb and refine. I'd imagine heavy guys, not doing that kind of flying day in and day out, probably don't get a chance to refine their flying skills in this regime very often.

 

[MikeD]

Yeah, it was a lesson that took me a little while to absorb and refine. I'd imagine heavy guys, not doing that kind of flying day in and day out, probably don't get a chance to refine their flying skills in this regime very often.

They used to back in the late '80s/early '90s when many bomber and heavy units had ACE detachments with C-12s/T-37s/T-38s for the co-pilots to get additional flight time on.

 

[ppragman]

They used to back in the late '80s/early '90s when many bomber and heavy units had ACE detachments with C-12s/T-37s/T-38s for the co-pilots to get additional flight time on.

Whoa, whoa, that costs too much.

 

[Blackhawk]

And additionally, aggressive and smooth should not be mutually exclusive. Jerky, ham fisted, binary control inputs never equate to aggressive, at least in a desireable way.

Agree 100%. This was aggressive, ham fisted flying with a predictable outcome.

 

[Hacker15e]

How does this compare to the reputation of other "large" airplane drivers, like C130 or C5 pilots?

Again, not being a T-6 IP, I don't fly with guys that come from heavy backgrounds, so I can't really comment on that based on personal experience. All the IPs I fly with come from fighter and bomber backgrounds (except the FAIPs).

Based on the comments that I heard from T-6 IPs a couple years ago, though, it did not sound "typical" that the heavy guys all had average or below average stick and rudder skills/proficiency. They made it sound like there was a higher incidence of C-17 guys who struggled at getting back to those skills when upgrading to be T-6 IPs. They never really gave a reason why they thought this was the case -- the conversation never really got that detailed, as it was just bar-top gossip.

 

[LoadMasterC141]

Again, not being a T-6 IP, I don't fly with guys that come from heavy backgrounds, so I can't really comment on that based on personal experience. All the IPs I fly with come from fighter and bomber backgrounds (except the FAIPs).

Based on the comments that I heard from T-6 IPs a couple years ago, though, it did not sound "typical" that the heavy guys all had average or below average stick and rudder skills/proficiency. They made it sound like there was a higher incidence of C-17 guys who struggled at getting back to those skills when upgrading to be T-6 IPs. They never really gave a reason why they thought this was the case -- the conversation never really got that detailed, as it was just bar-top gossip.

I trained many military pilots from many venues. The training was a one day course in a Seminole to get their ATP certificate. As a general rule of thumb, 17 and 135 guys were the absolute worst. Their stick and rudder skills were poor and they lacked the ability to multi-task and fly the airplane as a single pilot operation. Seems rather poorly inviting to put a stick in place of a yoke on the C-17.

 

[MikeD]

I trained many military pilots from many venues. The training was a one day course in a Seminole to get their ATP certificate. As a general rule of thumb, 17 and 135 guys were the absolute worst. Their stick and rudder skills were poor and they lacked the ability to multi-task and fly the airplane as a single pilot operation. Seems rather poorly inviting to put a stick in place of a yoke on the C-17.

Were -141, -130 or -5 guys any better?

 

[LoadMasterC141]

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.

Actually I watched a C-17 Demo last year and thought the Short field takeoff pretty cool. Super cool was the short field landing. Watching something that big stop on a dime and then go backwards was pretty neat.

 

[LoadMasterC141]

Were -141, -130 or -5 guys any better?

Never trained a 141 guy but flew with them obviously. I would venture they would be similar to 17 guys. I have only worked with one C-5 guy and he was pretty decent, but flew GA for fun, so that discounts it. C-130 guys usually do pretty well for some reason. I am guessing they do more stick and rudder flying. My cousin went from a 130 to a Galaxy and he said the C-5 is boring. I am guessing that substantiates it. No idea why one would be better at multi-tasking than the other though.

Of course, the best are generally fighter guys. It has a lot less to do with stick and rudder than multi-tasking. Lets' face it, a Seminole is not a hard plane to fly. The big part is being able to Fly the airplane, talk on the radios, set-up the approaches, set-up the GPS, etc....All things two people do in big planes. Fighter guys generally do all that every day, and shoot at each other.

 

[Hacker15e]

Actually I watched a C-17 Demo last year and thought the Short field takeoff pretty cool. Super cool was the short field landing. Watching something that big stop on a dime and then go backwards was pretty neat.

I saw the C-17 demo a couple times this summer, too, and I actually enjoy watching it. The assault landing was definitely the best part...puts into perspective what the airplane is capable of.

 

[ian]

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.

said perfectly. I wanted to reply with more info but thought it better not to.

 

[ian]

Never trained a 141 guy but flew with them obviously. I would venture they would be similar to 17 guys. I have only worked with one C-5 guy and he was pretty decent, but flew GA for fun, so that discounts it. C-130 guys usually do pretty well for some reason. I am guessing they do more stick and rudder flying. My cousin went from a 130 to a Galaxy and he said the C-5 is boring. I am guessing that substantiates it. No idea why one would be better at multi-tasking than the other though.

Of course, the best are generally fighter guys. It has a lot less to do with stick and rudder than multi-tasking. Lets' face it, a Seminole is not a hard plane to fly. The big part is being able to Fly the airplane, talk on the radios, set-up the approaches, set-up the GPS, etc....All things two people do in big planes. Fighter guys generally do all that every day, and shoot at each other.

C-5 is not boring at all....imho