Elmendorf C-17 Crash Video

Hacker15e said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'd be interested in the general content of the CVR discussion - was their any disagreement or anything like that, or did every stay quiet through the maneuver?
 
Murdoughnut said:
I'd be interested in the general content of the CVR discussion - was their any disagreement or anything like that, or did every stay quiet through the maneuver?
Click to expand...

I can't really say anything about it given the confidence in which it was shown.

There was not a flight deck argument or anything spectacular like that.
 
LoadMasterC141 said:
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.
Click to expand...

In the T-37 and T-6 pit programs, the -135 and -17 guys generally do not do as well as the fighter guys... but according to the PIT IP's I flew with that was generally true of all heavy guys versus all fighter guys, not really specific to those airframes versus any others. The reasons are pretty obvious:

1) The T-6 or the T-37 is basically single seat, and anyone coming from a heavy is used to a division of duties and running a crew.
2) The trainers have no autopilot or automation, and one of the skills of learning to fly large airplanes is learning to manage the automation... but of course that means that you don't hand fly as much.
3) The lighter airplanes react a whole lot faster... that takes a little getting used to, just like going from a small airplane to a large airplane takes some getting used to because they react a lot slower.
4) Heavy drivers of any stripe do not fly close formation, but a big part of T-37/T-6 is formation flying.
5) Mentality is different when it comes to emergencies... in all heavies, there are very few emergencies that require immediate action, and in most cases, after you handle the immediate actions you are still going to be airborne for a good hour or two before you can land... In a T-6, especially (less so a Tweet), quite a few of the emergencies require you to basically be turning toward the nearest airfield within about 3-6 seconds of recognizing the problem or you wind up giving the airplane back to the tax-payers. Also in most heavies, you see a problem, handle the memorized "critical procedures" (i.e. boldface), and then break out the books and read about the rest of the issues. In small trainers, as in fighters, you don't have room to carry the books on board, or someone to read them to you even if you did. So everything is memorized.

In the case of the C-17, there is another potential difficulty to overcome: the C-17 auto-trims. Basically, you set the pitch and hold it and the computer trims it off all by itself. I heard from an F-16 driver that the -16 does the same thing (but of course the -16 is a lot closer to a T-6 than a C-17 is... not that it's really that close either, but still).

Fighter guys tend to similarly sink to the bottom of the class going the other way, i.e. transitioning to a heavy (at least according to some of the guys I know who teach at Altus). It's basically the same issue: unfamiliarity with a new type of flying, different pace, different skill sets, etc. In both cases though, the difference doesn't seem to last very long. I know quite a few heavy guys who became great T-6 IP's, and the few former pointy-nose types I know who transitioned to heavies have all done great as well past those first few months of getting used to things.

Actually reminds me of a story. About 10 years ago, I flew with a KC-135 IP who used to work out at Edwards. This IP was out there doing test flights on -135 upgrades, probably about 10 years before she told me the story (about 20 years ago, if you're keeping count), and talked about when Chuck Yeager used to come out to the base and fly. They would let him fly pretty much anything, based on the fact that he was Chuck Yeager. Of course, he had to fly with an IP, because he wasn't qualified in the airplanes. She said she had never been more scared in her life than when Chuck Yeager was at the controls of a -135. He basically tried to fly it like a fighter and would have put the gear through the wings if she hadn't sent him around... about 10 times.
 
I always enjoyed and felt privileged to fly with so many military pilots, regardless of their airframe. As a low-time instructor, I learned ALOT from them. As said before, the only thing that made a certain difference in training is number one on Fish314's list.
 
ppragman said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think you're missing my point, at an airshow, there's only so much a large transport aircaft can do to impress and it's not much. I'm not talking about the overall mission as this mishap was due to pilots pushing the envelope of a big airplane to impress. Not worth it.
 
With respect to advanced jet training, the E2/C2 types like myself do worse than their jet counterparts. It's a single seat mentality going through the IUT and being we come from a relatively big turbo-prop with crew concept, it's a bit difficult at first. Even for those who have flown the T-45 as a stud. Though I went from the COD to the T-34C as an IP and adapted to it rather quickly, it was not hard to learn, fly or teach (teaching effectively is a different story). Not so much with the 45.
 
Murdoughnut said:
I'd be interested in the general content of the CVR discussion - was their any disagreement or anything like that, or did every stay quiet through the maneuver?
Click to expand...

i'll second what hacker said about there being no disagreement
 
fish314 said:
5) Mentality is different when it comes to emergencies... in all heavies, there are very few emergencies that require immediate action, and in most cases, after you handle the immediate actions you are still going to be airborne for a good hour or two before you can land... In a T-6, especially (less so a Tweet), quite a few of the emergencies require you to basically be turning toward the nearest airfield within about 3-6 seconds of recognizing the problem or you wind up giving the airplane back to the tax-payers. Also in most heavies, you see a problem, handle the memorized "critical procedures" (i.e. boldface), and then break out the books and read about the rest of the issues. In small trainers, as in fighters, you don't have room to carry the books on board, or someone to read them to you even if you did. So everything is memorized.
Click to expand...

While the urgency is certainly different for most fighter type jets, I wouldn't say that we memorize everything. Pretty much boldface only, with a familiarity in the other procedures. You normally have a wingman or base/tower rep to work as a book reader, and fulfill that CRM hole that is left by being single seat. That being said, I'd guess our systems, and the level of in-flight troubleshooting are probably less complicated than for heavy guys.

fish314 said:
In the case of the C-17, there is another potential difficulty to overcome: the C-17 auto-trims. Basically, you set the pitch and hold it and the computer trims it off all by itself. I heard from an F-16 driver that the -16 does the same thing (but of course the -16 is a lot closer to a T-6 than a C-17 is... not that it's really that close either, but still).
Click to expand...

The Hornet does this too, at least in flaps auto mode (ie not in the landing pattern/dirty). It is a nice thing to have in admin portions of the flight, but doesn't relinquish the pilot from other stick and rudder skills.
 
///AMG said:
While the urgency is certainly different for most fighter type jets, I wouldn't say that we memorize everything. Pretty much boldface only, with a familiarity in the other procedures. You normally have a wingman or base/tower rep to work as a book reader, and fulfill that CRM hole that is left by being single seat. That being said, I'd guess our systems, and the level of in-flight troubleshooting are probably less complicated than for heavy guys.
Click to expand...

Well, yeah, I guess "memorize" is a poor choice of wording. "Familiarized" is probably better. In the Tweet/ T-6 we still had the checklist for IFE's, but depending on the situation you may or may not have time to read it. Generally you already knew what it said, at least the broad brush-strokes of it, and of course the boldface was word for word memorized.


///AMG said:
The Hornet does this too, at least in flaps auto mode (ie not in the landing pattern/dirty). It is a nice thing to have in admin portions of the flight, but doesn't relinquish the pilot from other stick and rudder skills.
Click to expand...
Never had that in an aircraft that I flew, so I don't know how difficult it is to get used to not having it again. I just remember C-17 guys in Tweet PIT talk about having to "remember to trim." I always thought, "wow... for me, remembering to trim is almost like 'remembering' to tell my heart to beat!"
 
fish314 said:
Never had that in an aircraft that I flew, so I don't know how difficult it is to get used to not having it again. I just remember C-17 guys in Tweet PIT talk about having to "remember to trim." I always thought, "wow... for me, remembering to trim is almost like 'remembering' to tell my heart to beat!"
Click to expand...

The Eagle has auto-trim, too, and I never saw any of the fighter dudes have any difficulty transitioning back to the '38 from the big gray airplanes (at least, as far as the stick and rudder aspect was concerned). As ///AMG mentioned, it's not really that big of a deal.
 
Hehe. I just had to laugh at the phrase "big gray airplanes" in reference to Eagles. I guess it's a matter of perspective. As for the auto-trim thing, they may have been making excuses. I wouldn't know. In the -135, you live and die by the trim. If the airplane is significantly out of trim it can be literally hundreds of pounds of yoke pressure.


BTW, what does the Eagle feel like compared to a -38? I've flown both once, but when I had my Eagle ride I had been a tanker guy for the previous 5 years. I was shocked by how light the stick was, because I was used to flying the tanker. In that airplane (the tanker, that is), you really have to exert some force to get it to move... and then you still have to wait for the response to kick in. When I got my -38 ride, on the other hand, I had been back in tweets for a little over a year, and consequently, to me, the -38 stick felt a little heavy (although the roll rate was REALLY impressive). I imagine "feel-wise" they're probably pretty similar, but I was coming from such different backgrounds that the differences were more exaggerated in my mind.
 
fish314 said:
Hehe. I just had to laugh at the phrase "big gray airplanes" in reference to Eagles. I guess it's a matter of perspective. As for the auto-trim thing, they may have been making excuses. I wouldn't know. In the -135, you live and die by the trim. If the airplane is significantly out of trim it can be literally hundreds of pounds of yoke pressure.
Click to expand...

And the C-5 guy would laugh at the both of us using that phrase.

BTW, what does the Eagle feel like compared to a -38? I've flown both once, but when I had my Eagle ride I had been a tanker guy for the previous 5 years. I was shocked by how light the stick was, because I was used to flying the tanker. In that airplane (the tanker, that is), you really have to exert some force to get it to move... and then you still have to wait for the response to kick in. When I got my -38 ride, on the other hand, I had been back in tweets for a little over a year, and consequently, to me, the -38 stick felt a little heavy (although the roll rate was REALLY impressive). I imagine "feel-wise" they're probably pretty similar, but I was coming from such different backgrounds that the differences were more exaggerated in my mind.
Click to expand...

Can't tell you Eagle, as I don't remember that one ride ride. But -38 stick force was heavier than 117, and seemed lighter than the A-10.
 
MikeD said:
And the C-5 guy would laugh at the both of us using that phrase.
Click to expand...
Too true, too true.


MikeD said:
Can't tell you Eagle, as I don't remember that one ride ride. But -38 stick force was heavier than 117, and seemed lighter than the A-10.
Click to expand...
Hmm. Interesting. Seems like no matter how heavy or light, it's one of those things that you don't even notice after a few flights. Going back from the T-6 to the tanker, I was like, "how did I ever used to move this freakin' thing?" Now it's back to second nature again.
 
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...

There was an excellent seminar video they made us watch in new hire training from the 90's ish. It talked a lot about this.
 
The sad thing here is there has been yet another AF jet destroyed and a crew killed because of doing stupid crap. Generally speaking, if you come screaming across the field at 200' and 200 knots, the "average Joe" will be impressed. Airshow profiles will continue to get more and more restrictive.

Not sure about -17, but the C-5 is flown with the feet on the floor, so doing the airshow profile would be a little more interesting if you "kicked it a notch".

The actual AF video/CVR was quite humbling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top