C-5 Galaxy to C-17 Globemaster Transition

[StainedClass]

New O-5 here with lots of C-5 and airline time and bad habits going to Altus early next year and transitioning to the C-17.

Do any of you C-5 guys that have transitioned have any thoughts on how to make it easier? What's important to study?

I've heard all the horror stories about back side flying. How's Barney behind the tanker? Is the HUDD wierd to get used to? NVGs? Assaults?

I liked the C-5, but it was pretty much big concrete to big concrete. I'll sit back with a J/C and read your replies.

SC

[Guest Boom]

How's Barney behind the tanker?

Worst plane to refuel heavy wise.

[Tone deaf]

C-17 guys can tell you the specifics about NVGs, airdrop, and other mission-related items. I have the perspective of having flown the C-17 once during an instructor enrichment flight. My preparation consisted of about an hour in the simulator, and about 30 minutes on an RDS (a simplified trainer that is essentially a glorified computer flight simulator that replicates the C-17 instruments and HUD display).

My overall impression is that the jet itself is very easy to fly due to the high level of automation. I was able to consistently land with 12-15 knot crosswinds from the start. The HUD is the bomb, and the amount of information it gives you allows you to fly a precision glidepath with ease. The backside flying takes a little getting used to, as I initially wanted to make pitch changes to adjust the glidepath. There is a pitch hold feature that allows you to park the jet at a given pitch attitude and fly AOA using power to adjust glidepath. At 50 feet or so you feed in some power to move the flight path vector in the HUD to the far end of the runway and just fly it onto the runway. It's easy to judge the amount of rudder to use in crosswinds because there is an indicator in the HUD that enables you to feed in rudder until the yaw indicators (or whatever they are called) merge together.

I would say that the landings and backside approaches are nothing to be feared, but the enormous amount of systems will probably present the biggest challenge to someone with your level of experience. Knowing all of the low-level, SKE, NVG, ground ops, and refueling procedures will likely consume the bulk of your study time.

Good luck, the C-17 was a blast to fly, and I'm sure you will love it.

[StainedClass]

Worst plane to refuel heavy wise.

Really? Worse than FRED?

Over the years, I've deadheaded on dozens of tankers and I've chatted with dozens of boomers in my TALCE life, and I would say if I've asked 100 boomers what airplane scared them the most, 90 of them said the C-5. The other 10-ish said foreign fighters.

Interesting take, Boom.

SC

[Guest Boom]

Really? Worse than FRED?

Over the years, I've deadheaded on dozens of tankers and I've chatted with dozens of boomers in my TALCE life, and I would say if I've asked 100 boomers what airplane scared them the most, 90 of them said the C-5. The other 10-ish said foreign fighters.

Interesting take, Boom.

SC

If you can pull up the past five year mishaps air refueling wise and you'll see C-17's there. There's a reason why the C-17 has a whole page of cautions and warnings associated with it and it's bow wave effect on the KC-135. It's even in their -1. What makes the C-17 scary is the bow wave it has is like a C-5/KC-10. However with their fly by wire flight control system they can move very rapidly in the envelope and before you blink they're coming in to the inner limit and possibly crushing an ice shield.

[Tone deaf]

What makes the C-17 scary is the bow wave it has is like a C-5/KC-10. However with their fly by wire flight control system they can move very rapidly in the envelope and before you blink they're coming in to the inner limit and possibly crushing an ice shield.

In addition to the rapid inward movements that Boom described, dropping down quickly happens often and the tanker autopilot is unable to keep up with the trim changes and then disengages in an out-of-trim condition that makes for some interesting moments. So, when you get a disconnect, remember to back out slowly and carefully to prevent this from happening.

[Guest c17guy]

New O-5 here with lots of C-5 and airline time and bad habits going to Altus early next year and transitioning to the C-17.

Have fun. Altus is lovely in the winter!

Do any of you C-5 guys that have transitioned have any thoughts on how to make it easier? What's important to study?.

I'm a C-17 baby, but I did teach there for 4 years and am in a transitioned C-5 unit now. Guys with your level of experience and willingness to learn never have trouble with the PIQ course.

What to study. Do you have the pubs already? If you are bored...

-1 section 1, 1800 pages of stuff that will be virtually useless to you at this point. You will have lots of systems CBTs to get through out there which will help a lot.

-1 Section 2. Probably worth looking at. This will be the bulk of your mission checkride. Checklist expanded items, visual patterns etc.

-1 Section 3. Maybe start looking at Engine failure stuff. This will be pretty important on you Sim checkride.

-1 Section 7. Windshear will be discussed on every checkride you ever take, and cold wx stuff may still be on the mind when you go to the flightline.

-2 Don't bother. The mission computer won't make any sense to you for at least a year after you are qualified.

11-2C-17 vol 3. Will need to know the low level planning among other things.

I've heard all the horror stories about back side flying. How's Barney behind the tanker? Is the HUDD wierd to get used to? NVGs? Assaults?

Occasionally when guys transitioning from other aircraft get stressed and behind the revert to front side flying. The guys out there are used to it. You will get LOTS of sims to get the muscle memory down. I now fly a front side aircraft for my day job and I haven't noticed too many problems once I relearned how to flare.

Unless things have changed again the year since I left, everyone is going through PIQ. It is a glorified co-pilot course. You will get AR and Assaults in the sim, but you won't be required to do them on your checkride. Occasionally, I got tankers on PIQ rides and I would let the student flail a bit, but it wasn't graded. Co-pilot duties for the assault, 300' or "Go-Around" and 50'.

You may not like the HUD. Most experienced guys don't initially. The best thing I can tell you is just embrace it. The 17 is meant to be flown with the HUD and the rest of the glass and automation. The sooner you learn how to use all the tools, the better off you will be.

NVGs suck...but aren't hard to use. You will get one ride for just NVGs.

If it were me, I probably wouldn't crack a book until I got there. As I prior C-5 guy, I'm sure you know the joy of a 2 month course crammed into 4 at the lovely Red River Inn. You will have plenty of time to study and lots of sims (40 plus if I remember correctly) to prep for your rides. When you get there, walk over to the 58th and get a current copy of the discussion topics for the two flights. If you know all that material your checkride will be a breeze. Hope this helps.

I liked the C-5, but it was pretty much big concrete to big concrete. I'll sit back with a J/C and read your replies.

SC

[FlyinGrunt]

what exactly is "back-side flying" vs "front-side flying"?

[DFRESH]

what exactly is "back-side flying" vs "front-side flying"?

They're talking about the power curve. On the front side, power =airspeed, and pitch=altitude. On the back side, power=altitude, and pitch=airspeed. Kinda simply speaking though. There's much more to it.... I know there was a site that had some good detail on it somewhere. Basically a power on stall is flirting with the back side of the power curve, and the manuever called "slow flight" is hanging out on the back side of the curve.

In the 172 we often would slow flight on really windy days and nearly get a negative ground speed. Slow enough to piss off the glass fo sho.

edit for proppa grammaz

Edited December 16, 2008 by DFRESH

[FlyinGrunt]

yeah, I did the "flying in reverse" thing in a 172 myself. Good wind+full flaps+slow flight=hilarious.

[DFRESH]

Yeah, it was really interesting to read on here that they run their approaches on the back side. I did a few back side approaches in the 172 for super short landings.

As for the 17, I'm really curious to hear more (within reason) about its capes and more on the whole back side approaches deal. Does that make precision (ILS,MLS,etc) approaches much more difficult?

On a side note, my father was a loadmaster on the Barney, and flying one is kinda my second dream job (right behind any fighter platform, lol)

[DFRESH]

10x easier, Once you go past half flaps you are automatically put in backside. At that point you just look to put the approach path on your intended touchdown zone and line that up with the flight path vector. It you are short, just add a little power and take it back out once the approach path gets in right spot, vice versa for long landings.

As far as precision approaches go, you just add the flight director in the mix and follow that until you break out. No sweat.

Cross winds are easy too. Just step on the rudder until the flight path vector is in the middle and lower the wing a bit.

Basically it's just a video game in your hud where you line up two things over the spot you want to touch down.

HUD is a little strange at 1st, but once you get use to it, there is no going back.

Very cool. I flew a 172 with a G-1000 and fully integrated AP the other day, and it shot the entire ILS down to mins @ KJAX (minus power adjustments, which I had to do). Similar idea with the C17's flight director? With the G-1000, you just put the wind vector line on the GPS line, and you're good to go. For xwinds landings, though, you have to figure it out on your own.

On a seperate note, and pretty much a redonkulous thread hijack, what are the chances of grabbing a space-a to germany on a chs c-17 (as an ROTC cadet)? My lil sis lives over there so I have a free place to crash after I get blitzed and fool around with some hot german bitches. And I got family in chs too, so I can park my car for the summer.

Also, I'm gonna throw in a STS for good measure, considering all the use of the "backside approach" (which happens to be one of my favorite)

[Goblin]

Very cool. I flew a 172 with a G-1000 and fully integrated AP the other day, and it shot the entire ILS down to mins @ KJAX (minus power adjustments, which I had to do). Similar idea with the C17's flight director? With the G-1000, you just put the wind vector line on the GPS line, and you're good to go. For xwinds landings, though, you have to figure it out on your own.

AWESOME!

Also, I'm gonna throw in a STS for good measure, considering all the use of the "backside approach" (which happens to be one of my favorite)

I bet it is

[jango220]

On a seperate note, and pretty much a redonkulous thread hijack, what are the chances of grabbing a space-a to germany on a chs c-17 (as an ROTC cadet)? My lil sis lives over there so I have a free place to crash after I get blitzed and fool around with some hot german bitches. And I got family in chs too, so I can park my car for the summer.

There's a space-a thread and a whole 'nother forum that goes into a lot more detail. Long story short, cadets are restricted to CONUS, Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, and USVI. CHS does happen to fly down to St. Croix though a few times a month, so that's always a possibility for you.

Edited December 16, 2008 by jango220

[DFRESH]

@Jango220:

Thanks for the heads up.

@100LL:

I am opening another Bud Light in .69 seconds. And the tail no was the one that ends in 69Q, if you're interested in trying to check it out sometime, definitely worth the cost. XM is still good too.

[MT near]

There is no reason a C-172 should be thrown in this mix. Please refrain from doing that again.

[DFRESH]

Noted

[Champ Kind]

You bet cha, the c-17 flight director will fly the entire ILS if programmed correctly. As far as an auto pilot approach, we are legal to 200ft (100ft CATII ILS) so you can keep the auto pilot on until then. Most people will disconnect the auto pilot well before the mins so they can get a better feel for the winds.

The C-17 also has auto throttles so you don't even need to make a power adjustment on an instrument approach.

"What would you say ya do here?"

Edited December 17, 2008 by Champ Kind

[JeepGuyC17]

"What would you say ya do here?"

"I have people skills! I'm good at dealing with people!"

Agreed on the whole backside approach thing, even without the flight director/autopilot, precision approaches in the C-17 are easy as hell to fly. Once you set your pitch, the only adjustments you need to make are your wind corrected heading, and your power for the glidepath. The position of the flight path vector relative to the -3 degree pitch line will tell you in real time whether you'll trend above or below glidepath, and the airspeed takes care of itself if you have the pitch hold set correctly. Then just push the power in at 50 feet and touchdown. I love this jet. (For those not in the know, the "flight path vector" is a little pipper on the HUD that shows where the aircraft is going. For example, to fly straight and level, you line the flight path vector up with the horizon line)

Edited December 17, 2008 by JeepGuyC17

[WeMeantWell]

No such thing as true back-side flight versus front side flight. Flight controls will always do the same thing, just with differening amount of effects; common problem with students, who think there is this magical barrier that once passed completely change how the plane flies...that the thrust will only affect their aim point and not change their speed...

Why do the controls have differing effects in the landing phase for the C-17? Because they put big freaking flaps in the exhaust of the engines, so the C-17 recieves vertical thrust as well as horizontal thrust from their engines (think Harrier on a very very small scale). Benies: significantly slower app speed, higher descent angles, preciscion aim point control which translates to bitchin' short field landings. Downside: higher VVI in landing phase with high by-pass engines, means you better not screw up late in the game with a heavy pig, cause you are going to land (err touch down) wether you want to or not...

[DC]

"Backside" approaches in the C-17 are very easy. Easiest plane you'll ever land. Nothing to fear at all, just takes a couple run-throughs in the sim and it'll click for you.. You set the Approach Path Indicator to the angle of your approach (3 degrees for normal 3/4 flap approaches and up to 5 degrees to get a 1000 VVI at approach speed on full flap approaches). Then select final flaps, engage the ATT (holds pitch angle automatically) 8 degrees above the API and use the throttles to move the Flight Path Vector to the API line. If the API line isn't on the spot you want to land, you drag it up and down with the FPV (it'll basically move towards it). If you need to drag it down quite a bit, in "backside" the speed brakes switch modes to be activated only as you hold the switch in and dump lift off the wing nearly instantly to sink the jet without taking power off the engines (the lift comes back nearly instantly when you let go of the thumb switch). Step on the FPV to center it and use roll to keep it all on the runway. Hard to describe in text, but easy to understand about the second time you try. Enjoy!

[Guest AirGuardian]

Concur with Biaspoint,

We use the "Backside" term alot, but you nailed it... Easy to land 3/4, although I will admit some pucker factor on the short field Full Flap stuff every once in awhile. I'm sure the Altus guys are numb too it, but when you're only flying night currency un-aided every once in awhile cus you're away from the house a bit - you tend not to be too complacent...ever. I actually think the NVgs make it alot easier despite how cumbersome they are...

Good plane, comfortable and no eery sounds every so often... former 141 guy talking now. Tube of pain. But the upgraded glass system we had was much better despite the overall $$$waste, I was still thankful for it (the 17s system is packed with other stuff and slows it down.) You airline guys will roll your eyes a little during "crunch" time....

CPDLC - Bring it on, got busted a few years ago using that sucka in the Pacific. Great piece O work not talking to anyone and having freqs sent to you via datalink. Spoiled for a few runs before someone caught on...

Godspeed,

AG

[Guest Rusty Pipes]

Can't say enough good things about the C-17. I know a boat load of guys who cross flowed from Fred to the Moose and I have not heard a single one say a bad word about it (disclaimer... I never flew Fred myself). A few of the AD guys who cross flowed liked the C-5 community a little better because, especially at some of the bigger bases (CHS/TCM), it can get pretty cut throat with all the "fast burner" types all getting pushed to the C-17. But if you are ANG/RES then it should be transparent. I know on the East coast Dover and McGuire C-17's are now flying a lot of the channels Fred used to fly so many of your favorite TDY locations are the same.

AR is very easy in the C-17, especially with all the fly by wire. I can attest to the bow wave thing though, being a former Tanker guy... you would think Fred would be worse, but because of the more rounded nose the C-17's bow wave is far worse. All you need to do is have a smooth closure rate and it is as smooth as can be though.

Backside flight is fantastic and if you add the HUD it just spoils you from flying anything else. If you can't put a C-17 smoothly on the ground in the first 1500' with backside flight and a HUD on a VFR then you don't deserve to be a pilot. 15 miles from the runway and still at 10,000 ft? No problem. "Approach, no need for vectors for the descent, we can make 2,000 ft by the FAF from here."

Profiles definitely get busy though. Your normal local is pattern work, to an AR, to a low level, to tactical work (assaults to one of our tac fields), and then maybe back for a little more pattern work. Lots to pack into one sortie, but it sure as hell is better than beating up the pattern for 4-5 hrs at a time... and ever AC is qualified to do all of it straight out of PCO (AC school).

As a crew dawg you'll obviously still find something to bitch about but one thing is for sure as far as C-17's go... C-17 pilots can only complain to other C-17 pilots!!!