Lack of Flight Discipline

[Homestar]

For the non-MAF types, what is the GRACC program?

Global Ready Aircraft Commander Course. Copilots in (or just prior to) upgrade go to Scott to watch the AMC/TACC machine roll along for a day or two. They get briefings on how the machine benefits the greater collective and stuff like that.

6 months post-IQT with no additional duties? The 135V1 also requires that copilots during in-unit upgrade have NO additional duties. No exec duties, no Anti-terrorism/Force Protection stuff. Does that happen? Nope.

(edit to change 135V3 to 135V1)

Edited December 13, 2011 by Homestar

[BitteEinBit]

Global Ready Aircraft Commander Course. Copilots in (or just prior to) upgrade go to Scott to watch the AMC/TACC machine roll along for a day or two. They get briefings on how the machine benefits the greater collective and stuff like that.

6 months post-IQT with no additional duties? The 135V1 also requires that copilots during in-unit upgrade have NO additional duties. No exec duties, no Anti-terrorism/Force Protection stuff. Does that happen? Nope.

(edit to change 135V3 to 135V1)

Unfortunately we don't have the manning to support a "no additional duties" policy. I'm glad to see someone at AMC is addressing it, but I don't think it will last. We just don't have the manpower to allow that while the mobility, SEFE, safety, OCC, execs, training, scheduling, tactics, security manager, etc shops need FP manning. Big Blue says we're overmanned (heavy side) in pilots but we have a hard time filling additional duties...hate to see what it will be like at 90% manning....

[Napoleon_Tanerite]

It would have to be more than just a message. There has to be accountability. As long as one dude thinks he can get ahead by doing a Master's early; as long as one commander racks and stacks by PME/AAD completion date; this will continue.

The only way to do that is to re-mask PME and AAD. Trying to tell a guy that he needs to focus on flying and that should be priority will always fall on deaf ears when so long as you pass your annual checkride (and don't hook a no-no) flying has ZERO bearing on your career progression. It's like the battle against firewall 5 EPRs-- nobody is willing to do it because nobody wants to take that first step and risk burning their people, and understandably so. I look like shit on paper because I flew the line and deployed my ass off for the first 3 years on station. Aside from some faster-than-normal positional upgrades, I've really got nothing to hang my hat on when it comes to shoe centered stuff. I haven't won CGO of the quarter, I haven't planned the christmas party, I haven't been an exec or any of that stuff. I'd be ok with it, if I didn't know that shitty pilots are in a better position because they have checked all the shoe boxes. It doesn't matter that they can't even tell you which section of the TO covers emergency procedures, they're the CGO of the quarter! The fact of the matter is that everyone is assumed to be a good pilot (even though that is clearly not the case) and commanders have come to rely on what should be tiebreakers to break ties that are FAR from existing.

Thinking that PME and AAD are going to be masked is a pipe dream though-- the shoes will never allow it to happen. If the promotion board rack-and-stack were actually based on the contributions of the individual to actually accomplishing the AF mission, the shoes know they will continually be eating the table scraps of guys who have forgotten what the color green looks like. PME and AAD and bullshit meaningless awards are the only way shoes have a chance of competing with guys who make their living doing what they were actually hired and trained to do, and doing it DAMN well.

Unfortunately we don't have the manning to support a "no additional duties" policy. I'm glad to see someone at AMC is addressing it, but I don't think it will last. We just don't have the manpower to allow that while the mobility, SEFE, safety, OCC, execs, training, scheduling, tactics, security manager, etc shops need FP manning. Big Blue says we're overmanned (heavy side) in pilots but we have a hard time filling additional duties...hate to see what it will be like at 90% manning....

Part of the "overmanned" fallacy is that all those dudes out flying the MC-12 are still on YOUR books. So if your unit is allocated 20 pilots, and 5 are out flying MC-12s, you are showing 100% manned on the books, while in reality you only have 75% of bodies on hand, before you even start to count DNIF, R&R, leave, etc. It's bad, and I doubt it's going to get anything but worse as the years progress.

[Bergman]

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying everything has to be spelled out. Not knowing the whole story, I would still say that this maneuver had nothing to with the mission at all...and to justify it by saying the Air Force didn't tell me I couldn't do that is what I'm saying is wrong.

Cool. Just making sure you "get it" (sts).

I understand about hacking the mission by getting around the black and white of AFIs and TOs, I've been there and done that. We wouldn't get anything done if we went strictly by the letter of the law.

Excellent. Glad you realize that!

Clearly, I should not have to tell MC-12 pilots that barrel rolls are not authorized.

No shit! I really would like to meet these folks and find out WTF they were thinking. Reference my earlier T-37 example....chances of doing this maneuver properly on the first go are slim IMHO.

Those of you that think rolling a King Air just for the hell of it is "ok" need to ask yourself this question...it's been proven that a Boeing 707 can be rolled. It was accomplished by a Boeing demonstration pilot.

IIRC he had in the neighborhood of 30,000 flying hours when he did the barrel rolls. His autobiography is a good read. https://www.amazon.co...23751178&sr=1-3

[General Condition]

I think everyone on this board knows what the problem is with the "basics." We don't focus on the basics anymore. We have Lts and young Capts doing everything but focusing on flying (a generalization, not all inclusive). When I see young LTs taking leave to finish a Master's paper, I think the leadership and the culture have done them a disservice. We're still good at what we do, we just aren't as good as we could be. I am predicting that it will get worse before it gets better...especially in light of the current state of the force. With force reductions coming, everyone is in "self preservation" mode, which means they are focusing on the things that count in today's Air Force that will keep them employed an upwardly mobile. Unfortunately today, flying isn't one of those things. Perhaps a message from the boss re-caging the focus on the basics is what we need. Sorry, slight hijack.

Not just taking leave to finish a Master's paper, but failing tests in initial qual training because they were more focused on their Master's paper. Yes, Lieutenants in initial qual training. As in the kind of Lieutenants who finished Undergraduate Pilot Training less than 6-9 months ago. What's it going to take, another Class A.

Excuse me Mr. Emperor, but you have no clothes.

[Guest CAVEMAN]

Sounds like a typical Air Force (We tell you what you CAN and CAN NOT do) vs. Navy mentality (We only tell you what you CAN NOT do) argument.

Anyways, with the current Air Force mindset legends like Bob Hoover or Chuck Yeager would all have their wings clipped. Sad.

Well said. And that is why comments like this don't surprise me.

I am particularly worried that there are people out there who don't think this was wrong because it "doesn't say anywhere that I can't do it." It bothers me more that it was done in the AOR when assets on the ground may be counting on that MWS for critical mission support. The 'attitude' out there that if the Air Force doesn't specifically tell me I can't do it, I should be able to do it should worry you too. Again, I don't know the whole story, but I can't think of a reason to have flown an aircraft that way. If you think it was ok, then you are focused on something other than the mission in my opinion.

Knowing a little bit more about he situation than most on here, I would not say it was the smartest thing to have done but it is not criminal either.

As Rainman said, this should not have gone past the Sq/DO's office. There are issues in the AF needing real leaders to solve not this kinds of crap that could be handled at the lowest levels. But the fact that many of you are reflecting this outrageous view point shows that leadership is successful in infesting the pool with ineffective leadership styles.

[HercDude]

Well said. And that is why comments like this don't surprise me.

Bullshit. It's not the 40's anymore. It's not the dawn of the jet age. The MC-12 is not an experimental platform. This is a combat asset in the AOR and if its true than these guys were shining their ass. There is no way you can logically argue that doing an aileron roll, barrel roll, whatever in a damn King Air is anything other than self-aggrandizement. That's why the comparison to Sitka 43 and Czar 52 are way more appropriate than invoking legends like Hoover. Maybe this guy/these guys thought they were Chuck Yeager - they aren't. There was a time when we needed men like that. I'm sure that mentality exists and is needed in places like Edwards and Pax River - not in the AOR in a friggin' MC-12.

If these guys bent metal and are keeping a critical assent out of the skies then the DO is certainly not where the discussion should end.

[Guest Hueypilot812]

I'm "familiar" with the incident to a degree, being flight safety in theater. These sorts of things tend to filter into the flying culture. I've already dealt with enough buffoonery out here where I've seen people doing idiotic things "just because", and while 99% of the time they get away with it just fine, there's that 1% of the time we have airplanes nearly burn up due to hot brakes, forklifts flipping over and nearly killing the operator, and people losing their digits while loading aircraft.

There's a time and a place to push things and be John Wayne. But I've seen too many people play John Wayne just because, and in a few cases it's bitten them. Before you condemn leadership here, think about what would have happened had they rolled the King Air, ed it up, and caused a smoking hole for no good reason? And then add that people knew about it but just said "eh, nothing says we can't". It's one thing to tell someone's family and the taxpayers that we lost a crew and an airplane because Haji got 'em with the golden BB, but entirely another when we lose an aircraft just because someone felt it would be cool to roll a non-aerobatic aircraft.

Most of the time I'd agree with the statements about shoes being shoes, and leadership being ineffective, but after having done safety out here for a while, I agree this needs to stop...and it's not just the MC-12s that's seeing clown behavior at times, but I'm pretty sure this one had leadership going "ok, we've ing had it".

[ThreeHoler]

I'm "familiar" with the incident to a degree, being flight safety in theater. These sorts of things tend to filter into the flying culture. I've already dealt with enough buffoonery out here where I've seen people doing idiotic things "just because", and while 99% of the time they get away with it just fine, there's that 1% of the time we have airplanes nearly burn up due to hot brakes, forklifts flipping over and nearly killing the operator, and people losing their digits while loading aircraft.

There's a time and a place to push things and be John Wayne. But I've seen too many people play John Wayne just because, and in a few cases it's bitten them. Before you condemn leadership here, think about what would have happened had they rolled the King Air, fucked it up, and caused a smoking hole for no good reason? And then add that people knew about it but just said "eh, nothing says we can't". It's one thing to tell someone's family and the taxpayers that we lost a crew and an airplane because Haji got 'em with the golden BB, but entirely another when we lose an aircraft just because someone felt it would be cool to roll a non-aerobatic aircraft.

Most of the time I'd agree with the statements about shoes being shoes, and leadership being ineffective, but after having done safety out here for a while, I agree this needs to stop...and it's not just the MC-12s that's seeing clown behavior at times, but I'm pretty sure this one had leadership going "ok, we've fucking had it".

This.

Those who have completed AMIC or FSO should understand the losses the USAF has suffered because of squadron culture. There are many previous accidents that are direct results of a culture that accepts FM/TO/POH deviations because they're cool, or a right of passage, etc.

[Spoo]

I think people really do take for granted how safe flying is these days.

Speak for yourself...

[Jughead]

You don't do things like this in a MC-12 thinking there's nothing wrong with it, you do it because you think you can get away with it.

Doesn't mean they're horrible human beings, and no one can say with any degree of certainty they were on the edge of catastrophe.

They gambled and lost. Adios.

Excellent point, meshes with the opinion I've been forming on the subject. For those who are hanging onto "it doesn't say I can't do it" and/or "it's a 1-g maneuver" [despite the quoted text from the flight manual, not to mention good old-fashioned common sense when discussing a cabin-class type aircraft]: even if I agreed with you (I don't), even if you could prove that the maneuver was performed 100% perfectly & safely (you can't), even if Masshole were able to provide us with a physics equation demonstrating unequivocally that there was no possibility of rolling an MC-12 going horribly wrong (she cannot)... i.e., completely taking the "right or wrong" question out of the discussion... I would still want these guys hung out to dry.

Why? Because if you are too flat-out stupid and/or have such incredibly low SA as to think that doing so would in any way, shape, or form not be a problem in today's Air Force--well, then, you're too fucking clueless to be trusted with any aspect of the mission.

Want to argue that today's culture is too restrictive? I may or may not agree, and it's a debatable topic--but it is what it is, and only an ostrich could fail to understand the inevitable consequences of taking such an action.

Edited December 13, 2011 by Jughead

[contraildash]

How, exactly, is rolling a King Air unsafe? Any proof of that versus any other flight regime? I'll buy that it's a bad decision and abnormal in the current climate... but unsafe?

So rolling the MC-12W loaded with a metric shit ton of mission equipment and a bunch of other shit in the back of the plane that may or may not be secured in a fashion as to ensure that when a crew tries to roll a MC-12W and doesn't do it just right and now your 1G maneuver becomes a negative G maneuver...just for a second...and now you have multiple projectiles inside the aircraft + 4 not all that hard nuggets just sitting there....how is that unsafe? Really?

[sky_king]

Exactly how is a barrel roll a 1-G maneuver? Takeoffs, landings and level turns are more than 1-G maneuvers. You can do a barrel "dive" at 1-G but not a barrel roll.

[matmacwc]

There's no need to up and crucify people over the incident if nothing bad actually happened (outside of an ass chewing by the SQ/CC), but it's the attitude that is perhaps the problem the FCIF was poorly trying to address.

Really Maverick? Where in the MC-12 syllabus is the B. Roll maneuver? I guess I'll do some aerobatics outside a MOA as long as I don't get caught, well, as long as something bad doesn't happen.

[Seriously]

Why? Because if you are too flat-out stupid and/or have such incredibly low SA as to think that doing so would in any way, shape, or form not be a problem in today's Air Force--well, then, you're too ######ing clueless to be trusted with any aspect of the mission.

Want to argue that today's culture is too restrictive? I may or may not agree, and it's a debatable topic--but it is what it is, and only an ostrich could fail to understand the inevitable consequences of taking such an action.

Unrelated to the point you're trying to make (which I agree with except for the hanging 'em out to dry bit), but wanted to point something out: Going along with something just because it's "today's culture" is a horrible mindset to have. And certainly something that is not in the tradition of the Air Force. Perhaps you worded that wrong, but it makes you sound like someone who has no spine. If something is wrong, then the current "culture" is irrelevant.

[CJ-6A]

So rolling the MC-12W loaded with a metric shit ton of mission equipment and a bunch of other shit in the back of the plane that may or may not be secured in a fashion as to ensure that when a crew tries to roll a MC-12W and doesn't do it just right and now your 1G maneuver becomes a negative G maneuver...just for a second...and now you have multiple projectiles inside the aircraft + 4 not all that hard nuggets just sitting there....how is that unsafe? Really?

Obviously you were there and know exactly what and how it happened, right?

Exactly how is a barrel roll a 1-G maneuver? Takeoffs, landings and level turns are more than 1-G maneuvers. You can do a barrel "dive" at 1-G but not a barrel roll.

An Aileron Roll... which is different than a barrel roll... is a ~1G maneuver. It's not terribly hard to do. If you're putting negative loading on the aircraft, you just suck.

Anyways... all agreed, it was a bad decision in the current climate... but from a 'safety of flight' standpoint, it's no different than an intentional / complacent over-g on a 50 year old airframe. Normal category aircraft, from an FAA perspective, aren't certified to do aerobatics because they're not required to go through a certification process (which may or may not mean they, structurally, can handle it). Not condoning what happened here, but let's just keep this in perspective.

[ThreeHoler]

You keep talking about "unsafe." is that seriously all you care about when it was previously demonstrated that this type of maneuver is specifically prohibited in the POH?

From the B300/300C POH Page 2-16:

"The Model B300 and B300C are Commuter Category Airplanes. Acrobatic (yes that's what it says) maneuvers, including spins, are prohibited."

If you are of the opinion that rolling the MC-12 is not unsafe and this whole thing is being blown out of proportion, I will never get in an aircraft with you.

My question to you is simple: how do you even justify an intentional deviation from the POH that in no way can ever be construed as mission essential?

[matmacwc]

Isn't that what I said but with more sarcasm?

[CJ-6A]

My question to you is simple: how do you even justify an intentional deviation from the POH that in no way can ever be construed as mission essential?

You don't justify it, you just put it in perspective... take appropriate action... learn from it.. and move on. My entire point wasn't to justify it, just put it in perspective. This wasn't a 737 full of passengers or Bud Holland, round 2. Most of the people here don't know the circumstances and people involved, yet they feel the need to gather the pitchforks and light the torches. There's no need for a witch hunt or to burn good dudes who may have had a lapse in judgement for a split second. I'm sure many here would be proud of you for not deviating from the POH.

[Jughead]

Going along with something just because it's "today's culture" is a horrible mindset to have. And certainly something that is not in the tradition of the Air Force. [...] If something is wrong, then the current "culture" is irrelevant.

Indeed. Difference between "going along with" vs "recognizing reality." Plenty of things wrong w/ the AF today--rolling an MC-12 won't fix any of them, not even a little.

Perhaps you worded that wrong, but it makes you sound like someone who has no spine.

Perhaps you worded that wrong, but it makes you sound like someone who is a complete douche.

[nsplayr]

Really Maverick? Where in the MC-12 syllabus is the B. Roll maneuver? I guess I'll do some aerobatics outside a MOA as long as I don't get caught, well, as long as something bad doesn't happen.

Did you read anything else I wrote in this entire thread? I think I came down pretty damn hard on the side of flight safety. Really CJ6A is the only guy that's defending any part of it. My only caveat to the whole argument over what do do after the fact was that it should be handled at the lowest level possible and I don't see taking someone's wings for a SLOJ when there was no actual mishap.

[ThreeHoler]

You don't justify it, you just put it in perspective... take appropriate action... learn from it.. and move on. My entire point wasn't to justify it, just put it in perspective. This wasn't a 737 full of passengers or Bud Holland, round 2. Most of the people here don't know the circumstances and people involved, yet they feel the need to gather the pitchforks and light the torches. There's no need for a witch hunt or to burn good dudes who may have had a lapse in judgement for a split second. I'm sure many here would be proud of you for not deviating from the POH.

Ok, then please put into perspective how this intentional deviation from the POH/FM/TO/AFI contributed to mission accomplishment in a positive manner.

[CJ-6A]

Ok, then please put into perspective how this intentional deviation from the POH/FM/TO/AFI contributed to mission accomplishment in a positive manner.

Why don't you re-read what I wrote... and actually think about it.

[Champ Kind]

Stop feeding the troll.

[soultrain]

CJ-6A....imagine for a moment that you are the Sq/CC of these guys. (let's assume for the moment that what's currently being discussed is fact....because for all we know, it's rumor at best). Anyway...what action, if any, would you take? Would you Q-3 them? Would you feel compelled to let your Wg/CC know? Or would you give them a stern talking-to and put them on tomorrow's schedule?