Preventing Air Show Crashes

[Butters]

Fuck! Finlay out of time out.

OK guys, honestly, I did want to start a good discussion and now that Raminman and I have been out for a while it has turned into that.

First off, I never mentioned the PAED crash. If fact, the only ones mentioning it are the ones that say we should not talk about it. So, stop mentioning it and no one will talk about it. That was easy.

AMC guys:

Should we start pulling FDR data in the C-17, similar to what the ACC guys do after airshows and practices, to make sure guys are not making shit up and pushing the limits?

Not saying that has caused any crashes, but if the B-52 had recorders we might have prevented at least one on SAC.

Just saying the recorders don't lie and if someone gets comfortable with the profile and they start trying to push it, they may not if they know someone (besides the CP and Safety) are watching.

Edited August 26, 2010 by Butters

[BQZip01]

Fuck! Finlay out of time out.

First off, I never mentioned the PAED crash. If fact, the only ones mentioning it are the ones that say we should not talk about it. So, stop mentioning it and no one will talk about it. That was easy.

AMC guys:

Should we start pulling FDR data in the C-17, similar to what the ACC guys do after airshows and practices, to make sure guys are not making shit up and pushing the limits?

Not saying that has caused any crashes, but if the B-52 had recorders we might have prevented at least one on SAC.

Just saying the recorders don't lie and if someone gets comfortable with the profile and they start trying to push it, they may not if they know someone (besides the CP and Safety) are watching.

1. You mentioned heavies and crashes. Without mentioning the C-17 crash at Elmendorf, you certainly alluded to it. Given the timing of your comments I think just about everyone here believes you were doing everything BUT mentioning it by name.

2. Single seat fighters recording stuff is fine by me, but heavies flying with 3 pilots/aircrew (or more) rarely need to record things because they have an extra set of eyeballs. You are absolutely correct in that recorders don't lie (most of the time), but integrating a recorder into a B-52 would be cost prohibitive just to make sure pilots aren't lying on a few low passes a year (I can't speak for other airframes). The B-52's systems aren't set up for computer monitoring the way your "gucci" jet is.

3. They might not push it if someone other than the CP and Safety are watching? Your ignorance is astounding. First of all, the job of the copilot isn't to watch, it is to pilot the aircraft. That may mean watching/handling the trim, controlling throttles (the BUFF isn't a "light stick", monitoring/calling out airspeeds, taking the jet if he has more SA than the pilot flying, and more. Flight engineers handle a host of other things as well. Let's not forget the other aircrew as well (navigators, electronic warfare officers, etc). ALL of them are on the crew and paying attention to what is going on. If the pilot steps out of line, he will hear about it. If he continues to do so, leadership will also hear about it.

4. Please tell me what B-52 crash could have been prevented by data recorder? If you are referring to CZAR 52, you are mistaken. There was ample video evidence, witnesses, substantiated complaints, etc to ground the guy. Bud Holland's recklessness was intentionally overlooked by leadership despite evidence that he was a danger to himself and others. It was a failure in leadership, not because of some damn recorder.

5. "Just saying the recorders don't lie ". No, you aren't. You are questioning our integrity. You want us to put a device in our aircraft "to make sure guys are not making shit up". Your words, not mine.

[Guest]

OK guys, honestly, I did want to start a good discussion and now that Raminman and I have been out for a while it has turned into that.

Huh? Don't drag me into whatever happened to you. Terminate for loss of SA.

First off, I never mentioned the PAED crash. If fact, the only ones mentioning it are the ones that say we should not talk about it. So, stop mentioning it and no one will talk about it. That was easy.

Wow, you learned a lot during your time out. They let you back in and that's the first thing you talk about. Not a single mention while you were locked out and you drag it right back out. Gangload.

AMC guys:

Should we start pulling FDR data in the C-17, similar to what the ACC guys do after airshows and practices, to make sure guys are not making shit up and pushing the limits?

Not saying that has caused any crashes, but if the B-52 had recorders we might have prevented at least one on SAC.

Just saying the recorders don't lie and if someone gets comfortable with the profile and they start trying to push it, they may not if they know someone (besides the CP and Safety) are watching.

Seriously?

Guys with a shitload of experience are giving excellent perspective. I know I'm learning stuff I didn't know before. We used to bring the C-17 into INS for CAPSTONE. It was the first thing the generals watched before we drove them out on the range to see shit blow up. The C-17 crew were always professional, the flying was impressive as hell, the mnvers were exactly as they briefed and I just assumed they had a checkout program with a standard profile. I know we never once thought of being the parameter police just because they were doing the demo in front of a shitpot of general officers.

What do you expect to come of the answers to your questions? You are acting like you're sitting on the Air Staff preparing to write policy. Your proposal to Big Brother the C-17 demo AC assumes the checkout program, CRM training and personal integrity of the crew are not enough. They check the tapes of the fighter guys because there is no one to back them up during the show and that is part of the debrief, not as a disincentive for the pilot to "push it" as you say.

It is almost like you're a troll. You make your own thread

[HuggyU2]

On a happier note, I saw the March ARB C-17 Demo perform twice this weekend. It's at least the 22th performance I've seen them do. They created the profile, they have a lot of experience in that unit, and they do a fantastic job.

I see a lot of airshows. I ask folks "which military demo was your favorite". More than a few choose the March C-17 demo.

[Butters]

1. You mentioned heavies and crashes. Without mentioning the C-17 crash at Elmendorf, you certainly alluded to it. Given the timing of your comments I think just about everyone here believes you were doing everything BUT mentioning it by name.

2. Single seat fighters recording stuff is fine by me, but heavies flying with 3 pilots/aircrew (or more) rarely need to record things because they have an extra set of eyeballs. You are absolutely correct in that recorders don't lie (most of the time), but integrating a recorder into a B-52 would be cost prohibitive just to make sure pilots aren't lying on a few low passes a year (I can't speak for other airframes). The B-52's systems aren't set up for computer monitoring the way your "gucci" jet is.

3. They might not push it if someone other than the CP and Safety are watching? Your ignorance is astounding. First of all, the job of the copilot isn't to watch, it is to pilot the aircraft. That may mean watching/handling the trim, controlling throttles (the BUFF isn't a "light stick", bla bla bla

4. Please tell me what B-52 crash could have been prevented by data recorder? If you are referring to CZAR 52, you are mistaken. There was ample video evidence, witnesses, substantiated complaints, etc to ground the guy. Bud Holland's recklessness was intentionally overlooked by leadership despite evidence that he was a danger to himself and others. It was a failure in leadership, not because of some damn recorder.

5. "Just saying the recorders don't lie ". No, you aren't. You are questioning our integrity. You want us to put a device in our aircraft "to make sure guys are not making shit up". Your words, not mine.

Easy tugger!

When I mentioned the CP and Safety I was talking about the C-17, not the BUFF. I was bringing it up not to say "hey we have no integrity", just saying the ACC Demo teams review their tapes after a show, why don't we. The BUFF crash I was hinting at was Holland's, but everyone knew what he was doing and having data to prove it may not have helped.

Edited August 26, 2010 by Butters

[Guest]

See, where did you hear this rumor? The during that profile if you get in the shaker you were doing something you shouldn't. Crews should not be doing this and the rumors should not start, but they do, so someone somewhere is not doing their job.

BQZip01 this is what I was talking about.

Butters, two quick questions and I'll leave you alone...

1. Is english a second language for you?

2. Are you a USAF pilot?

[Coasta]

Butters, two quick questions and I'll leave you alone...

1. Is english a second language for you?

2. Are you a USAF pilot?

Rainman, I'll go ahead and field this one...

1. Yes, until he has about a sixer in him.

2. Yes.

Butters,

If we start looking at FDR data after each flight, don't you see this snow-balling into the PTB eventually using that as some sort of punitive action against aircrews? I'm sure some mole at TACC is already getting that data so they can stroke their shlong over fuel savings. I'm just saying as much as the AF is already mismanaged, do we need to give the PTB more ammo? It goes along with that SE BS that "every finding needs a recommendation other than: 'the pilot/crew fvcked up, replace pilot/crew.'" You can't make everything idiot-proof. The AF just needs to concentrate on removing the idiots and keeping those that aren't--huge FAIL on their part there.

Someone mentioned the March ARB Demo Team... Those guys were 1LTs in 1993 and have a GAZILLION hours in the C-17. Shouldn't it be those guys doing the demos? It should definitely NOT be a "box-checker" that you can put on your OPR like many of the lame, Letter of X certs. It's hard to define a definite criteria especially after seeing a slick-wing, captain, OGV pilot (obviously box-checker) jump onboard during one of my FCFs. I think the carnivore types get it right because they ridicule the shit out of each other during their debriefs. That's where the weak pilots and strong pilots are identified. If you can have some enginerd tell me what I did right or wrong by decyphering FDR data, then maybe you're on to something, or maybe you're six deep already.

BTW, I can't speak English either.

[Butters]

Butters,

If we start looking at FDR data after each flight, don't you see this snow-balling into the PTB eventually using that as some sort of punitive action against aircrews? I'm sure some mole at TACC is already getting that data so they can stroke their shlong over fuel savings. I'm just saying as much as the AF is already mismanaged, do we need to give the PTB more ammo? It goes along with that SE BS that "every finding needs a recommendation other than: 'the pilot/crew fvcked up, replace pilot/crew.'" You can't make everything idiot-proof. The AF just needs to concentrate on removing the idiots and keeping those that aren't--huge FAIL on their part there.

Someone mentioned the March ARB Demo Team... Those guys were 1LTs in 1993 and have a GAZILLION hours in the C-17. Shouldn't it be those guys doing the demos? It should definitely NOT be a "box-checker" that you can put on your OPR like many of the lame, Letter of X certs. It's hard to define a definite criteria especially after seeing a slick-wing, captain, OGV pilot (obviously box-checker) jump onboard during one of my FCFs. I think the carnivore types get it right because they ridicule the shit out of each other during their debriefs. That's where the weak pilots and strong pilots are identified. If you can have some enginerd tell me what I did right or wrong by decyphering FDR data, then maybe you're on to something, or maybe you're six deep already.

BTW, I can't speak English either.

Just looking for ideas and encouraging discussion. You know, AMC has apparently been looking at our recorders for a few years now.. hence the stabilized approaches FCIF you may have heard about. If you knew where I was right now you would know that I have way more than a sixer.... Peppers!

How is the Mercenary Job working out for you?

[XL0901]

Whoops. I intended that post for someone that could verify/deny the info I got from someone familiar with C-17 demos.

I didn't mean to mislead you into thinking that I was searching for the shittiest reply possible. My fault... sorry.

Sorry maybe I was too subtle. I was implying that I am familiar with the demo and that your statement is incorrect. At no time during the profile is there a reason to intentionally get in the stick shaker and keep it there.

Believe me, the response could've been WAY shittier than that. Butters could've posted something again.

Does the stick shaker in the C-17 indicate max performance? What triggers it?

The stick shaker indicates impending stall. One could argue that would mean max performance but isn't mentioned anywhere in T.O.s, or in AFI 11-246v6 with regards to its use in airshows.

The stick shaker is generated by Aircraft/Propulsion Data Management Computer. The A/PDMC receives no less than 11 different inputs before determining the need for a warning.

Edited August 27, 2010 by XL0901

[Toro]

Should we start pulling FDR data in the C-17, similar to what the ACC guys do after airshows and practices, to make sure guys are not making shit up and pushing the limits?

ACC guys don't pull FDR data, they watch their tapes - just like they do after any other sortie. Assuming they don't debrief their profile like the fighter guys, the only reason to pull heavy FDR data is if somebody on the ground questioned the flight profile.

Not saying that has caused any crashes, but if the B-52 had recorders we might have prevented at least one on SAC.

It's been said several times before, but this is a truly ignorant statement. Before you make any more remarks about the Fairchild crash, read the attached document in its entirety. Recorders in the B-52 wouldn't have prevented shit, somebody with the balls to Q-3 Bud Holland would have.

Just saying the recorders don't lie and if someone gets comfortable with the profile and they start trying to push it, they may not if they know someone (besides the CP and Safety) are watching.

And the OG/CC...and the WG/CC....and sometimes GOs....and tens of thousands of people.

A Darker shade of Blue (Bud Holland B-52 crash).pdf

[Guest Hueypilot812]

ACC guys don't pull FDR data, they watch their tapes - just like they do after any other sortie. Assuming they don't debrief their profile like the fighter guys, the only reason to pull heavy FDR data is if somebody on the ground questioned the flight profile.

And you can't just walk out to the jet and "pull FDR data". The FDR has to be physically removed and sent to one of the several facilities in the country that can read the FDR. The recording medium on an FDR is a metal wire, which is why it's crash-resistant. It's not like a DVD player...

That's my take as someone who's had to "pull FDR data" for real.

[JarheadBoom]

And you can't just walk out to the jet and "pull FDR data". The FDR has to be physically removed and sent to one of the several facilities in the country that can read the FDR. The recording medium on an FDR is a metal wire, which is why it's crash-resistant. It's not like a DVD player...

That's my take as someone who's had to "pull FDR data" for real.

Newer SSFDRs (Solid-State FDR) use EEPROMS (flash memory); some older DFDRs used magnetic tape. Still need specialized equipment to download & interpret the data.

The current FAA requirement for FDRs is for 88 separate parameters to be recorded; I have no idea how many parameters the AF records.

[Chuck17]

Sorry to piss on your parade Chuck, but Boeing bailed a jet from Jackson ANG in June and spent 2 weeks in India doing demo flights w/ Indian pilots.

Youre not. You just dont know what youre talking about. In Feb 2009 we went to India for a demo airshow, a year + later, Boeing went to fly Indian pilots. Now they are under contract for C-17s. Both our statements are valid, but Boeing got beat to the punch my friend.

Chuck

[Chuck17]

FWIW, for the C-17 discussion:

The stick shaker in the -17 is NOT a warning of impending stall... It is an indicator of APPROACH TO STALL. Ever fly low level when it's windy in mountainous terrain? The stick shaker kicks every now and again, all the time. Im not stalling, Im going 330 kts straight and level...

Furthermore, Doing 160 kts at 300', configured and pulling in a circle so tiny your about to fly up you own asshole: Done it, no stick shaker.

The bottom line: the airshow profile and others that are similar (WIC performance sorties in early phases of training) are flown all the time with no ill effects... the airshow profile is still being flown DESPITE what happened a month ago. The jet performs amazingly.

That tells me its safe enough; time will tell us all what really happened. Though these wounds are still fresh gents, FIDO.

Chuck

[Guest Hueypilot812]

Newer SSFDRs (Solid-State FDR) use EEPROMS (flash memory); some older DFDRs used magnetic tape. Still need specialized equipment to download & interpret the data.

The current FAA requirement for FDRs is for 88 separate parameters to be recorded; I have no idea how many parameters the AF records.

That's true...although the DFDRs that used tape aren't very common.

Actually...yes, you can "pull" modern FDR data without removing it & shipping to a specialized facility. That's my take as someone who's had to "pull FDR data".

I'm curious what airframe that's off of. I pulled a FDR off a brand-new King Air 350 about a year ago...I still had to send the FDR to the AFSC to get anything usable. Had a discussion with AFSC people regarding the FDR process and they never mentioned any FDRs that you can just download to your local computer or other device.

[Butters]

ACC guys don't pull FDR data, they watch their tapes - just like they do after any other sortie. Assuming they don't debrief their profile like the fighter guys, the only reason to pull heavy FDR data is if somebody on the ground questioned the flight profile.

I know, sorry. Just accidentally using non-fighter terminology. Our SFDRs are much easier to download and we found out recently AMC has been doing it for a while now without our knowledge to get data on stabilized approaches.

It's been said several times before, but this is a truly ignorant statement. Before you make any more remarks about the Fairchild crash, read the attached document in its entirety. Recorders in the B-52 wouldn't have prevented shit, somebody with the balls to Q-3 Bud Holland would have.

And the OG/CC...and the WG/CC....and sometimes GOs....and tens of thousands of people.

Once again, I can only type so much when I am drunk. I used words like may have, might have, and Gin.

Maybe with more evidence some "might have" been able to convince someone... Just saying, yes I have read Darker Shades of Blue and Kern's other book. I know everyone had plenty of evidence but he was Mr. Airshow.

If no one wants to talk about this just delete the damn thread.

Not trying to say one way is better than the other, I just wanted to see what everyone thought. I am not an expert on every aircraft and may use some non-standard or broad terminology to save time and key strokes.

Edited August 27, 2010 by Butters

[Guest Hueypilot812]

I know, sorry. Just accidentally using non-fighter terminology. Our SFDRs are much easier to download and we found out recently AMC has been doing it for a while now without our knowledge to get data on stabilized approaches.

Do they download the data directly from the FDR or do they use EMMU cards or some kind of PMA system?

[Butters]

Do they download the data directly from the FDR or do they use EMMU cards or some kind of PMA system?

It is something else that ties into it for Maintenance. I have not been able to figure out in my 8 years flying this jet.

It is just something that is sent to you when you ask for it, pure fucking magic as far as I can tell. The dash one really does not go into it and I have not had the time to really ask the Boeing guys.

Maybe Costa can tell you?>

I spend most of my time wondering why half our dash one reads word for word out of the C-141 dash one.

Edited August 27, 2010 by Butters

[moosepileit]

You can ask your base Boeing field reps- they'll take or make the time to fill you in on all the ways data can be peeled from a C-17 in the proper forum.

Just fly safely w/in the standards. The data has no context of reality outside the jet, unless correlated w/ the CVR and the rest of the story... Can't wait til they start recording our HUDs. Maybe they'll add FLIR/EVS (that we could use real time inflight and on the ground) that would really help us out.

Edited August 28, 2010 by moosepileit

[Guest Hueypilot812]

If Mx does it, it's likely downloaded via a PMA/EMMU. The C-130J can do the same thing, but it's not the same thing as downloading from the DFDR.

[PirateAF]

Boeing does have a process called MFOQA - Military Flight Observation Quality Assurance, or something like that. They can download our FDRs quite easily - I believe that is how they (working in concert with AMC) came up with the "stabilized approach" FCIF that was released earlier this year.

[Guest Hueypilot812]

Right...with most modern aircraft like the C-17, F-22 or C-130J, it's fairly easy for maintenance to download aircraft parameters from the onboard monitoring system, which in many cases includes some or all DFDR data.

But I guess what I was getting at was I hadn't heard of any ops guys going to a jet and simply downloading DFDR data and then taking a look at it for a debrief, etc. Even though a PMA isn't the same as sending the DFDR to AFSC to get the data pulled, it's not exactly the same as just walking out and pulling a tape out of it either.

The DFDR I pulled from the KA350 was a solid state unit, but I still had to send it somewhere to get the data, since I (as the IO) didn't have anything that could access the information.

[Clayton Bigsby]

I used to work MX @ TCM, awhile back. I believe what you're talking about are the QAR tapes, which were located in the smaller avionics compartment right below the bunks - you face it in the left CRACM seat. It's a tape, some sort of DAT or the like, so no PMA involved. The C-17 doesn't use PMAs aside from Panasonic Toughbooks used for electronic TOs (called the D-TOS), which is really just like the normal e-pubs. Nothing magical about it, just a tougher than normal laptop. It still breaks when someone, say, lets it fall when working up on the wing. Yeah that happened.

I remember changing out the tapes and handing them in but don't remember who necessarily, and I think it might have been a Mx Specialist job (like Com/Nav or GAAC or something) that I did to help out with.

I also didn't work with anything more advanced than the Block 15, McChord had just gotten its first COSA jets as I left maintenance. So it's possible it's something else now.

[BigFreddie]

The C-17s have the MFOQA system and AMC safety has started publishing some of the data they get from them on a quarterly basis. They will call folks out by their base/theater assigned call signs and locations where they were operating. They take a couple snapshots of the final approach which aren't great indicators unless they are sampling more of the data. The Class E HAP report that AMC finished in February is a good 35 page read about how AMC is thinking in regards to using MFOQA and LOSA programs to make us all safer when we fly. Both of these are airline programs that the Air Force seems to be adopting. If you want more info on the C-17 report, ask your safety folks to find AFSAS Report #834585.

It will be very interesting to see what comes of the PAED crash. They were being taped by folks with very good video cameras from the tower and we'll see what comes from the FDR and MFOQA data...

BF

LOSA = Line Operations Safety Audit

[moosepileit]

IF we could code ACARS/AOC w/ "training in progress" it would help the MFOQA folks figure out which data is relevant to which powerpoint slide in their template. I read the stuff the retired gent from CHS puts out to AMC each time around, then try and translate it for commanders. The slides don't break an unstable mission crew's data at the same airfield that has training sorties into "training" or "operational". You guys know when the AWODS recorders are hooked up to your plane, right? (cables coming out of the vent doors in the large avionics bay access doors)...