C-17 Gear Up
02-06-2009, 11:28 AM
#31
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: 757 FO
Posts: 143
Originally Posted by SoPinesHeel
Yeah...Tar and Feather them!!!!! Off with their heads!!!!! Screw Um!!!!!!
In no way do I take this lightheartedly, and I agree there should be serious repercussions, but it has been my experience that those who are ready to rip the wings off of the mishap aircrew are the ones who have the most to cover for.
Thunder, you should have stayed on active duty with that attitude. You would make a great commander and an even better evaluator.
I think I remember hearing about some dude saying something like "Those without sin, throw the first stone..." I can't remember what his name was.
In no way do I take this lightheartedly, and I agree there should be serious repercussions, but it has been my experience that those who are ready to rip the wings off of the mishap aircrew are the ones who have the most to cover for.
Thunder, you should have stayed on active duty with that attitude. You would make a great commander and an even better evaluator.
I think I remember hearing about some dude saying something like "Those without sin, throw the first stone..." I can't remember what his name was.
Things like this can happen to anyone. On one trip to OAIX, the 1/2-on, 1/2-off C-17 incident had just occurred when we arrived. It was on the ramp until the day before our stint was over. While it sucks for anyone, it served as a great reminder to take care that we didn't do something similar.
"Those that have and those that will..." Yeah there's truth to it, but we can't use it as a rationale for leniency or complete forgiveness when doling out consequences. I think it's more about things that can happen to you if you're not careful.
02-06-2009, 12:37 PM
#32
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Posts: 225
Originally Posted by USMCFLYR
SPH -
This is an insult to every one of us who have stayed on active duty, are great commanders and even better evaluators.
I don't know what caused this gear up landing. What I do know is that in earlier posts people were ready to blame: TACC, Tactical mindset, poor ATC, wx, terrain, Talibany, AD crews that have limited experience, duty days, fatigue, NVG issues etc - for instance. No one yet has said what very well may be the cause and that is a crew that messed up, they made a mistake, they didn't do some checklist or perform adequate CRM. But bashing on someone who brings up this possibility and then basically saying that anyone on active duty has a bad attitude is wrong.
USMCFLYR
This is an insult to every one of us who have stayed on active duty, are great commanders and even better evaluators.
I don't know what caused this gear up landing. What I do know is that in earlier posts people were ready to blame: TACC, Tactical mindset, poor ATC, wx, terrain, Talibany, AD crews that have limited experience, duty days, fatigue, NVG issues etc - for instance. No one yet has said what very well may be the cause and that is a crew that messed up, they made a mistake, they didn't do some checklist or perform adequate CRM. But bashing on someone who brings up this possibility and then basically saying that anyone on active duty has a bad attitude is wrong.
USMCFLYR
Thanks for the cut and paste without actually quoting me. I think you missed the point- well I know you missed the point. C-17 ops are demanding but the problem is in the mission push. Obviously in Bagram some rated dude screwed up. That is at the micro scale and I was retorting on the bigger picture. Our management (vice "leadership") in continued quest to do more with less, continues to undermine the operation. I could give you dozens of ways our Cols and Gen weaken the system but most experienced operators are already aware. In summary, the post Clinton/9-11 AF does not resemble the AF of the 80's or 90's.
Carpe Diem
02-06-2009, 12:47 PM
#33
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: FAA 'Flight Check'
Posts: 13,837
Originally Posted by REAL Pilot
Thanks for the cut and paste without actually quoting me. I think you missed the point- well I know you missed the point. C-17 ops are demanding but the problem is in the mission push. Obviously in Bagram some rated dude screwed up. That is at the micro scale and I was retorting on the bigger picture. Our management (vice "leadership") in continued quest to do more with less, continues to undermine the operation. I could give you dozens of ways our Cols and Gen weaken the system but most experienced operators are already aware. In summary, the post Clinton/9-11 AF does not resemble the AF of the 80's or 90's.
Carpe Diem
Carpe Diem
, and I'm sure that if you were to look at that bigger picture that you would probably find dozens of ways that the Cols and Gens have improved the system too. I'm sorry if you truly think that every O-4 and above in the USAF is not worth the air they breath. In my experience with your service - I have not found that to be an accurate picture.USMCFLYR
02-06-2009, 01:20 PM
#35
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: 737 FO
Posts: 466
Originally Posted by Photon
out of interest, how do you remove something like that from the runway?
Method B: Use cranes to lift onto several flatbed trucks and haul it off.
Mehotd C: Chop it up into pieces and remove
02-06-2009, 01:30 PM
#36
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: On the Rock
Posts: 162
Originally Posted by CheyDogFlies
USMCFLYER--
That anti-commander attitude has been fostered by the very tip-top of leadership in the USAF heavy world. Easy to understand why guys feel that way. I'm not trying to excuse it--and I certainly don't subscribe to it--but I understand why some have that point of view.
Dial back the clock (recent past) to the C17 that landed half-on the runway at the same airfield. The independent investigation determined that the #1 factor in the mishap was fatigue. On briefing this to the then-AMC commander (general X), he threw a fit and ordered that the board release that the #1 factor was crew error.
C17 Commanders at base Y have been caught upgrading themselves to instructors and getting themselves in mishaps.
I had a commander on a previous aircraft who took down a crew for "checklist discipline" although there was no evidence for such other than maintenance said so. I believe his ultimate reason was to make maintenance trust him, but at the same time he made his operators distrust him.
I have a positive attitude about most commanders, but there are some that set some very poor examples. Sadly, those are the examples that some remember most.
That anti-commander attitude has been fostered by the very tip-top of leadership in the USAF heavy world. Easy to understand why guys feel that way. I'm not trying to excuse it--and I certainly don't subscribe to it--but I understand why some have that point of view.
Dial back the clock (recent past) to the C17 that landed half-on the runway at the same airfield. The independent investigation determined that the #1 factor in the mishap was fatigue. On briefing this to the then-AMC commander (general X), he threw a fit and ordered that the board release that the #1 factor was crew error.
C17 Commanders at base Y have been caught upgrading themselves to instructors and getting themselves in mishaps.
I had a commander on a previous aircraft who took down a crew for "checklist discipline" although there was no evidence for such other than maintenance said so. I believe his ultimate reason was to make maintenance trust him, but at the same time he made his operators distrust him.
I have a positive attitude about most commanders, but there are some that set some very poor examples. Sadly, those are the examples that some remember most.
02-06-2009, 01:59 PM
#37
New Hire
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Position: C-17
Posts: 6
Originally Posted by Moose
Method A: Jack it up, swing the gear down and then tow off runway.
Method B: Use cranes to lift onto several flatbed trucks and haul it off.
Mehotd C: Chop it up into pieces and remove
Method B: Use cranes to lift onto several flatbed trucks and haul it off.
Mehotd C: Chop it up into pieces and remove
New pics are floating around, good to look at. Flaps were almost to full (40 degrees) according to the guage, although it could have been some droop. Gear handle was UP.
02-07-2009, 04:53 AM
#38
Line Holder
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Bunk Logging Other Time
Posts: 79
In Air Mobility Command, most who are career aviators get out. Many of the leadership class are barely, marginally or completely unqualified in the aircraft they are in charge of. Yet the think that because they used to be an IP in a different plane 10 years ago they know how things are. They don't.
Having been stationed at a fighter base, I was impressed that the Wing CC at least maintained his quals and flew once a week or so. Maybe he wasnt as good as a young captain but he still was competent. That has not been my experience in AMC. Maybe the short duration of the sorties helps, but I think they just hold aviation in higher regard in that community.
Also too many "leaders" are worried how many meaningless awards are given out instead of the conditions of aircrew qualifications. When you are getting an award for getting awards, then you know the system is idiotic. The fact that the air force is worried about what uniforms are being worn and who has their CBTs complete, and then flying nukes around without knowing it summarizes the whole issue to me. I would have canned many more if it had been up to me but I salute Sec Gates for having the balls to do what he did.
Having been stationed at a fighter base, I was impressed that the Wing CC at least maintained his quals and flew once a week or so. Maybe he wasnt as good as a young captain but he still was competent. That has not been my experience in AMC. Maybe the short duration of the sorties helps, but I think they just hold aviation in higher regard in that community.
Also too many "leaders" are worried how many meaningless awards are given out instead of the conditions of aircrew qualifications. When you are getting an award for getting awards, then you know the system is idiotic. The fact that the air force is worried about what uniforms are being worn and who has their CBTs complete, and then flying nukes around without knowing it summarizes the whole issue to me. I would have canned many more if it had been up to me but I salute Sec Gates for having the balls to do what he did.
02-07-2009, 06:00 AM
#39
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Left and Right of Whatever
Posts: 406
Keep breaking them....you keep getting more.
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Air Force said Friday that it is awarding a $2.95 billion contract to a unit of defense contractor Boeing Co. for the purchase of C-17 cargo airplanes.
The contract is for 15 of the planes that can be used to carry cargo or ferry troops. It is made by Boeing unit McDonnell Douglas Corp.
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Air Force said Friday that it is awarding a $2.95 billion contract to a unit of defense contractor Boeing Co. for the purchase of C-17 cargo airplanes.
The contract is for 15 of the planes that can be used to carry cargo or ferry troops. It is made by Boeing unit McDonnell Douglas Corp.
02-07-2009, 07:12 AM
#40
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: Student Pilot
Posts: 409
Originally Posted by Moose
Method A: Jack it up, swing the gear down and then tow off runway.
Method B: Use cranes to lift onto several flatbed trucks and haul it off.
Mehotd C: Chop it up into pieces and remove
Method B: Use cranes to lift onto several flatbed trucks and haul it off.
Mehotd C: Chop it up into pieces and remove
Can I go with option D?
A load of C4? Just repave the spot and vacuum up the pieces! But what do I know, Im just bored.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
