C17 question.
 

I’ve noticed lately in the coverage of Afghanistan failure, that the thrust reversers are deployed while aircraft are parked. Personnel are loading. Can’t tell for sure if engines are running. Why?

Probably keep the engines running while minimize idle thrust in the loading area.

That would be a “hot” on-load. Pretty typical for that kind of hostile environment. Get ‘em on and GTHOT!

They didn't seem to be in a hurry in the pics. I understand keeping the engines running so you can get out quickly, but FOD and other injury might seem to be a concern. Besides, the thrust blockers only block the fan not the core. But, whatever ya'll say.

Considering they’re at Kabul with no Maint and no huffers, they probably left them running to avoid the slight possibility that they wouldn’t start again.

Yes procedures for engine running off/onload is to have the engines in reverse idle. This directs the exhaust upward so as to not hurt anyone.

Incorrect.

Attachment 6284

Yep, and a core TR disagree was a reason to pull the fire handle. No way to know if hydraulics were leaking into the core, I had it happen twice. Once at Al Asad and the other at home station.

EROs are the best way to keep ground time to a minimum. I would imagine they had crews doing double or triple shuttles in a single duty day to get as many people out as possible. Part of me is really glad to no longer be active duty, but part of me wishes I had been there to help.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Technically, the plane is more reliable if you don't shut down.

Burn is only about 1000 #/hr/motor.

A T/R issue is the risk, but worth the gains. 4 childbirths on these fllights I heard.

Moose -

I'm going to guess the latter half of your statement.
This is probably a HIGHLIGHT of anyone's career in strat lift I'd imagine.
Humanitarian lift - especially under such conditions as these - has to be high on the list of major career satisfaction and something that I bet those crews will be telling their grandkids about.

LIVES SAVED PERIOD.

Aeromedical Evacuation is very rewarding also

Agreed. Not only was dustoff personally rewarding (saving soldiers/airman/marines from all over) but also a major way to gain the trust of a skeptical populace. Many many of our patients were locals who had no other option. Humanitarian flying was something I wasn't expecting but what I think about the most.

At CBP, same thing. Surveillance work rarely pays off in the moment. Federal investigations take forever. But an SAR is an immediate benefit to my community which builds massive goodwill.

Weighing the benefits and negatives
 

A few questions, 1. First of all, why is guard bumming looked down upon? 2. I would like to be able to fly as much as possible while serving and realize reserves is the way to go but I would like some help understanding the difference in potential hours someone who guard bums a c-17 vs kc-135 could earn. 3. Lastly if down the line if I wanted to change locations, how easily could someone switch from let's say a reserve kc-135 unit switch to a guard c-17 unit or vice versa?, or is that just plain stupid and not possible?, thanks to anyone willing to take the time to answer my questions (:

I hadn't heard that. If the mil has work that's legit enough to be funded they are happy to have you. The airlines are happy with any and all mil time you bring to the table regardless of your status when you acquired it.

An airline will not be too excited about folks who do a lot of mil drop but there's really nothing they can do about it.

At the application/interview phase, there's nuance (which probably hurt me). They might be less excited about you if they think you're looking forward to decades of extensive mil drop and long-term AD. If they get the impression that you're looking forward to getting on with a major, tapering off the mil to the min, and settling down to enjoy normal life that might work in your favor.

It's possible, availability would depend on staffing and outflow from the AD. Any unit will naturally prefer someone who's current in type. Probably be in your favor if both units are in the same state (guard likes locals, although some units are too remote to be picky).

Filler, posted inside the quoted

Guard Bumming was fantastic as I did it for nearly three years before securing a mil full time gig. As a former Chief of Scheduling my Guard Bums were crucial to executing our mission sets when activated or not, during lean times or not. The experience level varies and can help immensely when required. Regarding Air Evac, definitely one of the most rewarding missions out there. Our unit did the majority of dedicated Air Evac to/from Iraq/Afghanistan than any other ANG unit from 2002-2012 before I left to a D.C. tour. Other infamous runs aside from OIF/OEF, Hurricane Katrina, Haiti, Tomodachi (Japan Earthquake/Nuclear Reactor issue), one mission into China transporting L.A. firefighters for earthquake rescue - Very fulfilling, humbling and greatful to be a part of such humanitarian relief efforts. Towards the end of my mil career the airline was more than accommodating regarding mil leave. Major Kudos to all involved in the Afghanistan debacle, Top Leaders Suck! To those given the sh*t sandwich = Planners, Crews and support You ALL Rock!!!

Both fan and core have blocker doors on the 17. If an ERO is performed, they would be in reverse for a ramp onload. Some guys (myself included) will shut down with the T/Rs deployed in windy conditions (or if windy conditions are expected while parked overnight) to reduce the fan windmilling that can occur with a strong tailwind. As far as I know, it's not a -1 procedure, but it's what I learned from some smart dudes/dudettes.

Have to admit that I always wondered why it's OK for the N1 spool to spin freely (maybe backwards) for hours on end when parked in a stiff breeze without any oil flow.

100% correct. We had FCC's but no dedicated mx ground support and a broken jet would have destroyed the ground flow for offload/onload ops. Also, the ability to taxi and takeoff at a moments notice was worth the minimal risk/negligible fuel burn of leaving the engines running.