For the C-17 guys/gals
12-26-2012 | 03:41 PM
#21
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,349
Likes: 0
From: Body at sea level; heart at 70,000+
Back in the 60's the Navy could crash a four engine transport in the middle of Kansas and the accident report would read "hazards of carrier aviation." That's what I have been told.
12-26-2012 | 04:05 PM
#22
Line Holder
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 704
Likes: 8
From: 757/767 Capt
SatPak77
the location of the accident was the cause to a large degree, there was alot more to this than meets the eye and thats why the simple explanations that people wanted weren't forthcoming. Like explaining Tenerief by saying two planes hit eachother..there was alot more to this incident and to explain it would be giving out way too much info, not being a tool, but sometimes we have to be careful whats discussed, thats all
the location of the accident was the cause to a large degree, there was alot more to this than meets the eye and thats why the simple explanations that people wanted weren't forthcoming. Like explaining Tenerief by saying two planes hit eachother..there was alot more to this incident and to explain it would be giving out way too much info, not being a tool, but sometimes we have to be careful whats discussed, thats all
12-26-2012 | 05:40 PM
#23
Working weekends
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,384
Likes: 0
From: Left Seat
SatPak77
the location of the accident was the cause to a large degree, there was alot more to this than meets the eye and thats why the simple explanations that people wanted weren't forthcoming. Like explaining Tenerief by saying two planes hit eachother..there was alot more to this incident and to explain it would be giving out way too much info, not being a tool, but sometimes we have to be careful whats discussed, thats all
the location of the accident was the cause to a large degree, there was alot more to this than meets the eye and thats why the simple explanations that people wanted weren't forthcoming. Like explaining Tenerief by saying two planes hit eachother..there was alot more to this incident and to explain it would be giving out way too much info, not being a tool, but sometimes we have to be careful whats discussed, thats all
04-03-2013 | 06:05 AM
#24
New Hire
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
The C17 was a few pounds short of MTOW trying to land on a 6800'x90' concrete runway that had a NOTAM x'ing out the first 1500'. The airfield has just experienced a moderate winter storm event and the breaking action on the runway was only 'fair'. The CP entered the wrong value into the landing computer - for good conditions. When they entered the proper value for 'fair' into the computer in the after incident simulation it displayed a '---' value for no go.
It would have been a tight squeeze in optimal conditions.
Didn't help that the US Army was airfield management, a rotary unit from GA with no apparent winter airfield experience. From reading the AIB, apparently they didn't even bother to check out airfield conditions to see what kind of job Snow and Ice Control had done from the time the winter storm ended to the C17 landed. One small prop STOL landed/took off about an hour before the C17 showed how good a C17's off roading ability is and how amazing durable a C17 truly is.
This was pretty much FUBAR from start to end, starting with the Ops guys in Kuwait. Most of the procedural and operational safeguards that try to mitigate the pilot error in this situation either weren't there or just blown off.
Gotta love contingency ops and different branches of the military trying to interface. I believe the Army ATC tower traffic when the C17 queried about airfield conditions was basically, 'do a fly by and if you think it's OK, land.'
This stuff isn't classified or FOUO, you can find the AIB summary online in a few clicks. Finding the full AIB with witness statements is a lot harder but that isn't classified or FOUO either.
04-16-2013 | 03:29 PM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
From: Retired AF/A320 FO
The C17 was a few pounds short of MTOW trying to land on a 6800'x90' concrete runway that had a NOTAM x'ing out the first 1500'. The airfield has just experienced a moderate winter storm event and the breaking action on the runway was only 'fair'. The CP entered the wrong value into the landing computer - for good conditions. When they entered the proper value for 'fair' into the computer in the after incident simulation it displayed a '---' value for no go.
It would have been a tight squeeze in optimal conditions.
Didn't help that the US Army was airfield management, a rotary unit from GA with no apparent winter airfield experience. From reading the AIB, apparently they didn't even bother to check out airfield conditions to see what kind of job Snow and Ice Control had done from the time the winter storm ended to the C17 landed. One small prop STOL landed/took off about an hour before the C17 showed how good a C17's off roading ability is and how amazing durable a C17 truly is.
This was pretty much FUBAR from start to end, starting with the Ops guys in Kuwait. Most of the procedural and operational safeguards that try to mitigate the pilot error in this situation either weren't there or just blown off.
Gotta love contingency ops and different branches of the military trying to interface. I believe the Army ATC tower traffic when the C17 queried about airfield conditions was basically, 'do a fly by and if you think it's OK, land.'
This stuff isn't classified or FOUO, you can find the AIB summary online in a few clicks. Finding the full AIB with witness statements is a lot harder but that isn't classified or FOUO either.
04-17-2013 | 04:34 PM
#29
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,707
Likes: 0
From: Permanently scarred
04-17-2013 | 09:35 PM
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 484
Likes: 0
I would love to know how much the AF thought they'd save by not putting an FE in the cockpit. Between gear up landings, landing on the wrong field, and this kind of "accident" I think they might be ahead had they invested in an additional crew member. Maybe cut down on how many they actually need with a stipulation they be mandatory until the CP has over 300 hours.
That's why AFSOC is putting at least one Nav (nee CSO) on the MC-130J.
As to why no FE? Personnel are the biggest cost requirement and over the lifetime of the aircraft would far outweigh these accident-induced costs...
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
