Sputnik

Checks, normally all seats up front are full, typically 3 pilots and one of the loads.

What would the FE's job be--to monitor pilots? The systems FE's used to work on are automated. And if they fail they tell you. In the mishaps you cite, systems were not a factor.

Hueypilot

I've been an IP in the C-130J and the E/H. I've gone back and forth, started on H1s, then Es, then Js and now back to H2s. I've got a lot of friends that are FEs and Navs, and there are some really good people in those career fields...but the J flight deck, even during low-level airdrop sorties, is much better than the E/H flight deck. I had excellent situational awareness in the J, and CRM was simpler.

I don't see how having an FE on the J flight deck would make things so much better. They would be pretty bored most of the time. AFSOC Js have Navs (or CSOs if you prefer that term) mostly because they have a broader suite of defensive systems and their missions can be much more complicated than a slick C-130, so there's some value keeping them on those flight decks.

Landing at the right airport and with the gear down isn't something that requires an FE. It just requires good task management, airmanship and attention to detail. Lots of airplanes successfully do this every day and they do so sans FE and Nav.

LowSlowT2

I wasn't advocating for an FE or a Nav, simply making an observation. And I haven't flown the J except once several years ago (late 90s) when Lockheed brought it to Hurlburt for evaluation. I was on exchange with the RAF 00-02 at LYE and know their teething pains with the J. And I do know, the AF has a long history of trying to do too much with too little...and then putting band aids on it. That much, at least, is not unique to tactical airlift.

My perception of the J cockpit when I flew it that one time was that Lockheed didn't take a big enough step forward to actually eliminate all the crewmembers it wanted to. I had flown and evaluated various cockpits in simulators prior to this for other projects that were light-years ahead of that. Granted, many of them were pie in the sky stuff, but some of the concepts were ancient. The information fusion and RTIC was what made them different. I viewed the J cockpit as nothing more than the glass version of a standard cockpit. I also recall that during testing, Lockheed (like Boeing during AMP eval) complained that a 9-line retasking was an unrealistic workload. Take from that what you will.

I fully concede 100% of my first-hand experience predates the USAF IOC of the J. However, I also believe culture to be the bigger challenge for the 2-man C17 crew than the C130J crew - for now. I'm glad to hear of your positive experience with the J.


No doubt. And a handful of these in forward locations were significantly influenced by external factors. The Tampa incident, well, that's hard to slough off.

In CRM, 'strength of an idea' can be a strong risk factor, but it's influence goes down when the number of crewmembers goes up.

Hueypilot

You were flying with a much older block version of the J software. Things like 9-lines are actually very easy to do in a J, even with a two person flight deck. The J as it is today is a very substantial shift from the E/H mindset. Checklists are done in flows and the CNI-MU (think FMS with tactical pages) is fairly intuitive.

I've had plenty of people ask which airframe I prefer and I'll honestly say the J is tops without hesitation.

As for "strength of an idea", I've seen an entire H2 crew agree they were cleared onto a runway when they weren't. And typically a C-17 will have at least 4 people on the flight deck. There are challenges with fewer people, but I think there are significant challenges with more people as well.

LowSlowT2

No doubt older, much older - the USAF hadn't even ordered any yet. I flew it in probably '97 or so. I watched the RAF struggle through early generations as well and was friends with their test guy. His experienced colors my opinion, no doubt. But the cockpits I've seen, able to be done today, leaves the J, and any other current tac airlifter, in the weeds...and it'd be relatively easy. But that's pie in the sky right now.

Why didn't Lockheed make the HUD interactive? In other words, why couldn't I display radar on the HUD and use a coolie-hat-style controller to put a radar target on actual terrain with my courseline overlaid?

Or has the software evolved to where you can do your 9 line w/o going heads down??

No doubt we can all cherry pick specific incidents to prove our points, I was speaking in generalities. But you're right, more people can definitely add to the challenge at times.

Fred

The C17 overrun at Shank happened around noon local.

Speaking of C130J, Shanks and mishaps....

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/b5811e2523e8

The landing strip at Shank is situated fairly poorly, far too close to the Mountains and a tad bit too short to be a C17 strip at 6800-6900' considering the elevation - 6600' and the weather they can get there. The original dirt landing strip was situated in the middle of the base starting where the N HLZ is now. about 1 mile north of the concrete landing strip - a much better location, allowing for a better angle off the mountains to the south.

I don't think the J crashing had anything to do with that tho. Anyone know what happened? Looking at the photo it looks like a hard landing where the right nacelle impacted the runway.