C-17 lands short at Dover

[Coasta]

Maybe we should use stricter criteria than year group and hours to determine upgrades?

IMO the C-17 has a growing number of CPs flying around coded as ACs and IPs. Get enough of these on one crew and you get buffoonery like we've been seeing.

This.

[Napoleon_Tanerite]

Famous last words. If you look at the vast majority of aircrew involved in incidents you will find very serious people who expect excellence from themselves and others. Nothing scares me more than someone who doesn't think that they could be next.

A thousands times this. Arrogance and hubris have been the cause of MANY mishaps. Show my a guy who has never screwed up in an airplane and I will show you someone who has never flown one. Part of being a good pilot is recognizing your own vulnerability to making mistakes and be vigilant to identify them before mistakes grow into mishaps. QC your own work just like you would with a student pilot, ESPECIALLY if you are an AC, and DOUBLE ESPECIALLY if you are an IP. The higher your position, the more likely the rest of your crew will be to accept what you have done as the "correct" way to do things, and not speak up due to your experience and seniority.

If you think you can/will never make a mistake in an airplane, you need to find a new line of work, because you are destined to kill yourself and others with your arrogance.

[moosepileit]

Wonder if the crew's last sim instructors are surprised or not.

Can't tell the time from the notam to even guess if wx was a factor.

My only CAT IIs to mins that looked just like the sim set to mins were Rwy 1 at Dover.

You can hate on the stereotypes all you'd like, but some kids are pretty quick with the stones. Go ahead, you missed a few.

[dontshavemyhead]

I believe there was a NATO C-17 headed that way yesterday.... Have we confirmed it was USAF?

Edited May 10, 2013 by dontshavemyhead

[Butters]

Isn't that the one that resulted in a sit down with the AMC/CC to listen to the CVR?

Not just the CVR, but the HD Video that combat camera made from the Left Additional Crew Member seat. CVR was limited since it turned off when the engines did.

I believe there was a NATO C-17 headed that way yesterday.... Have we confirmed it was USAF?

AMC made the call for safety guys. Not sure if they would to that for a NATO C-17.

[addict]

M0250/13 - DISABLED AIRCRAFT (C17) LOCATED ON CHARLIE TAXIWAY BETWEEN RWY01

AND BRAVO TAXIWAY. AIRCRAFT IS OUTSIDE THE RWY 01 HOLD LINE. TAIL

HEIGHT 55FT. 09 MAY 21:46 2013 UNTIL 14 MAY 23:59 2013. CREATED: 09 MAY 21:47

2013

[bowe96]

*Waiting with my popcorn to find out how I'm going to eat crow on this one*

Apparently I misjudged the amount of sarcasm this board can handle. Accidents can happen to anyone, but there is a difference between an accident and things like landing at the wrong airport. That's called being an idiot. My point was that I suspect this is a case of the latter.

[Whitman]

I believe there was a NATO C-17 headed that way yesterday.... Have we confirmed it was USAF?

:grabs popcorn for G2 FOUO discussion:

[pcola]

The last 10 years have probably seen, hours-wise, more flying than at any other time in the Air Force's short history. It's not an experience issue, it's a focus issue. Even the most experienced aviators get in trouble because they can't focus on their primary duties. Honestly, this all starts at the squadron level. Commanders are willing to throw flying ops under the bus so that they can enhance the careers of people that they like. Now, these commanders and the people they hook up see it "taking care of your people", but in reality, they're putting the needs of the few over the needs of the overall crew force.

I don't even know if that's a factor with this mishap, but I will say that from what I've seen and heard, the C-17 community has always been notorious for putting career progression over flying.

I deleted the post you quoted because I was on my 3rd or 4th finger of Macallan when I wrote it, but then agreed more with matmacwc's post...I decided I had made the common error of assuming too much before the facts were known.

While I do not know what caused this incident, I do know that the MAF community is squeezing the training budget right now, and while that may or may not ultimately be the cause of this incident, it will be problematic in the long run. At my base, we are currently not authorized to fly anything in the jet that can be accomplished in the sim. That means no (zero!) transition for anybody with more than 500 hours in the airplane. And for the brand new folks with less than 500 hours, well, they can accomplish half of their required M010s in the airplane - no more. The sim is a useful training tool, but it is not the end-all, be-all.

And hours, in the MAF community, does not always equal proficiency. How many of those vast hours are at cruise or in the bunk? How many of those hours culminate in an autopilot ILS to a full stop at the end of a 23 hour day? Again, not speaking specifically to this incident, but when you can't train to the skill that you don't use very often, you lose proficiency in that particular skill.

However, I can't argue that focus is not also an issue. I definitely agree that careerism is a cancer in the AF rated community, and is certainly leading to a degradation in the quality of the current and future generations of ACs and IPs.

Edited May 10, 2013 by pcola

[Rusty Pipes]

The last 10 years have probably seen, hours-wise, more flying than at any other time in the Air Force's short history. It's not an experience issue, it's a focus issue.

I don't even know if that's a factor with this mishap, but I will say that from what I've seen and heard, the C-17 community has always been notorious for putting career progression over flying.

Hours vs. experience in the C-17 very often have nothing to do with each other. You take a FAIP, C-21 guy or a cross flow... either send them through a direct left seat program or upgrade them in min time to AC... 2-3 trips later with multiple pond crossings they have enough hours to technically go to IP school and off you go! Next thing you know you have an "IP" with only about 300 hrs in the jet (half of it was in the bunk or at FL350 trying to stay awake talking to Gander) with 2 "First Pilots" with about 300 total hrs each flying combat missions; so essentially this experienced IP (sarcasm) is flying combat missions solo. If it happens to be a cross flow golden boy from AMC/Intern... it is almost an all our race to get them to be an IP if not an EP. Welcome to the C-17 community...

As far as your second point... yes!

We don't know what happened yet at Dover though... so as much as we like to decide guilt before innocence in the Air Force these days maybe we should find out what happened before we start ending people's careers via this forum.

Edited May 10, 2013 by Rusty Pipes

[Techsan]

Hours vs. experience in the C-17 very often have nothing to do with each other. You take a FAIP, C-21 guy or a cross flow... either send them through a direct left seat program or upgrade them in min time to AC... 2-3 trips later with multiple pond crossings they have enough hours to technically go to IP school and off you go! Next thing you know you have an "IP" with only about 300 hrs in the jet (half of it was in the bunk or at FL350 trying to stay awake talking to Gander) with 2 "First Pilots" with about 300 total hrs each flying combat missions; so essentially this experienced IP (sarcasm) is flying combat missions solo. If it happens to be a cross flow golden boy from AMC/Intern... it is almost an all our race to get them to be an IP if not an EP. Welcome to the C-17 community...

Rusty,

Welcome to many other MAF communities as well. The C-17 isn't the only airframe that has an ACIQ program. The KC-10 is exactly the same. I flew C-21s before I flew the -10 & went through ACIQ. I had a grand total of TWO pond crossings under my belt (both Pacific) & 200 hrs before I was sent on the road dragging A-10s across the world with a new copilot with about as many hours. So, believe me, it happens to other communities as well.

Not to flame you bro, but you sound kind of jaded toward the ACIQ bros...one of them step in front of you in the IP school line?

[Day Man]

Isn't that the one that resulted in a sit down with the AMC/CC to listen to the CVR?

No.

[Rusty Pipes]

Not to flame you bro, but you sound kind of jaded toward the ACIQ bros...one of them step in front of you in the IP school line?

Nope, I was a quick upgrade to instructor myself because I was an prior MWS instructor; I jumped over a lot of guys actually... and I have absolutely nothing against ACIQ bros. You look at most of the major C-17 incidents (excluding Alaska) and from the outside it looked like experienced crews (IP with 2 Fps), but the IPs were ACIQ who were rushed to IP. In my last Sq we had several ACIQs who were being pushed to upgrade to IP by the "leadership" for career reasons and they were coming to me saying they were still getting comfortable flying the damn jet, let alone being an instructor! I've been in two AMC MWS and know that this happens in all communities, but in the C-17 they turn it up to 11.

[addict]

"C-17's don't land, they crash"

[sputnik]

I don't always land at the right airport with the gear down, but when I do, I land short...

You know, that's just funny.

[PirateAF]

A lot of sound and fury here...signifying nothing.

[noumenon]

You look at most of the major C-17 incidents (excluding Alaska) and from the outside it looked like experienced crews (IP with 2 Fps), but the IPs were ACIQ who were rushed to IP.

As an exercise in time management I ask the audience to type your MWS into Google and then hit the 'space' bar and see where Google thinks you might be going with your search next, aside from giving you something to do, it may be cathartic if you try searching other folks MWS's.

The reasons you're citing when you bring these examples to the table are valid in that they are endemic to a culture of careerism during a decade long war (they are true things), but they do not establish the conclusion that they are causal. I share your sentiments to some degree, but only in the way that some AFA or A&M grads are arseholes, and others are really good dudes. I've seen cross-flow, FAIPs, C-21 dudes join my community and become experts rapidly much the same way that a young FP can be upgraded ahead of peers. Additionally, at least three of the major incidents, wrong field, t-storms, c-5 crashes short had nothing to do with ACIQ MWS newness. The entire crew force is less experienced due to having been 'gut' in 2005-6, and again in 2011.

Careerism is a problem, but early upgrades are just symptoms, driven from the top down. Get rid of AAD (UPT WAS my friggin advanced study) and add an unmasked 942 (yep, lift up your skirt boys and girls), then separate pilots from the rest for major's board promotion, two simple ideas to help fight ops cancer.

As a side note, and for the love of all things Marlboro, please mother Air Force stop putting the word 'Innovation' in front of me. Innovation--the word in and of itself--is not the solution to our problems even if it provides a little serotonin kick when said by those past 0-4. This, let's do less with less spiced up by the innovation mantra is putting the entire AF on final below glide path--no one quite knows whether to speak up because no one really knows if the dudes driving have SA on what they mean by that word (do they know WE are going well below glidepath?). Hey bosses, a sustainable future is NOT in sight, f#6K!ng go-around. How about some professional common sense as a solution to our problems on short final.

We're gonna go to Tampa, we're gonna go to Dover, we're gonna go to Bagram, we're gonna go to Alaska and then we're gonna wash up, we're gonna wash up and then we're gonna go to Scott, walk up in that office and chop that motha f#6K!n desk in HALLFFF....BYAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!

Safety checks, getcha' sum!!!

Edited May 11, 2013 by noumenon

[Cornholio5]

The last 10 years have probably seen, hours-wise, more flying than at any other time in the Air Force's short history. It's not an experience issue, it's a focus issue. Even the most experienced aviators get in trouble because they can't focus on their primary duties. Honestly, this all starts at the squadron level. Commanders are willing to throw flying ops under the bus so that they can enhance the careers of people that they like. Now, these commanders and the people they hook up see it "taking care of your people", but in reality, they're putting the needs of the few over the needs of the overall crew force.

I don't even know if that's a factor with this mishap, but I will say that from what I've seen and heard, the C-17 community has always been notorious for putting career progression over flying.

However, I can't argue that focus is not also an issue. I definitely agree that careerism is a cancer in the AF rated community, and is certainly leading to a degradation in the quality of the current and future generations of ACs and IPs.

THIS!!!!!

What Big Blue is doing is trying to do is combine two inherently different things: being a career AF officer AND an "experienced" pilot. We are making pilots instructors/evaluators and group stan-eval who, in some cases (many would argue most), are not the best or most-experienced pilots in their respective units. Their upgrade to IP/EP is based solely on the almighty "career progression". My unit, in particular, is very much like this. For instance, the guy who graduated IP school two months after I did and has less than half my IP time, got upgraded to be chief of DOV. In addition, the head of our group stan-eval has been here a year longer than I have and I have surpassed him on hours. What do these two have in common? Well, lets just say that leadership loves them and "coddles" them because they focus their time on things other than flying such as paperwork, planning events, etc.

What this messed up system is doing is creating "artificial experience" for these guys so that they can move up the almighty career ladder. What is happening, though, is that we are sending people to these positions who are not necessarily good in their primary jobs. I have to laugh every time I read the cookie-cutter AF bios for senior leadership who are pilots. Most, if not all, have evaluator experience and I have to wonder--are they REALLY that good in their airframe, or were they just given "artificial experience"?

In my previous airframe, we upgraded a guy to AC so that his career would not be killed. This guy, though, once his OME was complete, was not allowed to fly with two copilots. He had to fly with another "seeing-eye" aircraft commander and copilot. So, from a scheduling perspective, this guy took out two certified aircraft commanders for one mission. Makes sense to have a "seeing eye" AC, but this guy should have never upgraded in the first place.

This madness has got to stop. The line has to be drawn between being an officer and being a GOOD, PROFESSIONAL, EXPERIENCED, KNOWLEDGEABLE, CURRENT, MISSION READY, pilot... Yes, careerism is a cancer.

Have any of you read Tim Kane's book, Bleeding Talent? It describes how the military mismanages great leaders and why the system NEEDS to be changed.

Edited May 11, 2013 by Cornholio5

[Techsan]

As an exercise in time management I ask the audience to type your MWS into Google and then hit the 'space' bar and see where Google thinks you might be going with your search next, aside from giving you something to do, it may be cathartic if you try searching other folks MWS's.

The reasons you're citing when you bring these examples to the table are valid in that they are endemic to a culture of careerism during a decade long war (they are true things), but they do not establish the conclusion that they are causal. I share your sentiments to some degree, but only in the way that some AFA or A&M grads are arseholes, and others are really good dudes. I've seen cross-flow, FAIPs, C-21 dudes join my community and become experts rapidly much the same way that a young FP can be upgraded ahead of peers. Additionally, at least three of the major incidents, wrong field, t-storms, c-5 crashes short had nothing to do with ACIQ MWS newness. The entire crew force is less experienced due to having been 'gut' in 2005-6, and again in 2011.

Careerism is a problem, but early upgrades are just symptoms, driven from the top down. Get rid of AAD (UPT WAS my friggin advanced study) and add an unmasked 942 (yep, lift up your skirt boys and girls), then separate pilots from the rest for major's board promotion, two simple ideas to help fight ops cancer.

As a side note, and for the love of all things Marlboro, please mother Air Force stop putting the word 'Innovation' in front of me. Innovation--the word in and of itself--is not the solution to our problems even if it provides a little serotonin kick when said by those past 0-4. This, let's do less with less spiced up by the innovation mantra is putting the entire AF on final below glide path--no one quite knows whether to speak up because no one really knows if the dudes driving have SA on what they mean by that word (do they know WE are going well below glidepath?). Hey bosses, a sustainable future is NOT in sight, f#6K!ng go-around. How about some professional common sense as a solution to our problems on short final.

We're gonna go to Tampa, we're gonna go to Dover, we're gonna go to Bagram, we're gonna go to Alaska and then we're gonna wash up, we're gonna wash up and then we're gonna go to Scott, walk up in that office and chop that motha f#6K!n desk in HALLFFF....BYAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!

Safety checks, getcha' sum!!!

Preach on brother.

This madness has got to stop. The line has to be drawn between being an officer and being a GOOD, PROFESSIONAL, EXPERIENCED, KNOWLEDGEABLE, CURRENT, MISSION READY, pilot... Yes, careerism is a cancer.

I'm by no means a careerist, and consider myself on the professional pilot side of the line, but it is possible to be both. It sure as hell isn't easy, but it can be done. There are about 50 O-5s in my squadron that can attest.

[noumenon]

Preach on brother.

I'm by no means a careerist, and consider myself on the professional pilot side of the line, but it is possible to be both. It sure as hell isn't easy, but it can be done. There are about 50 O-5s in my squadron that can attest.

In a previous baseops post, I argued this subject and I still maintain that the question is invalid--are you an officer or a pilot? I'm sorry, for me that's a formal fallacy. This enters me into an argument which is invalid...the premises of the question are both and always true--I am always both.

The only way I can answer this question, whether pushing pallets or paper is by asking myself a higher question--am I a leader? If Yes, then I will make damn sure I am always authentically both an officer and a pilot; or, even better, have the integrity to admit when it's out of balance and correct.

[BQZip01]

wait I'm confused are we talking about 17 drivers or CAF squadrons?

Can't it be both?

[Karl Hungus]

Careerism is a problem, but early upgrades are just symptoms, driven from the top down. Get rid of AAD (UPT WAS my friggin advanced study) and add an unmasked 942 (yep, lift up your skirt boys and girls), then separate pilots from the rest for major's board promotion, two simple ideas to help fight ops cancer.

Been saying this for years. Won't happen, though. Can't wait to take my services elsewhere.

[Cornholio5]

Been saying this for years. Won't happen, though. Can't wait to take my services elsewhere.

No, it won't change. In order to get anywhere in this AF, you have to conform and not innovate. New, crazy ideas do not ever make it because the rules of the game say that you do not even attempt to change anything if you want to make it up the ladder. It is a self-licking ice cream cone. I was just told by a FAIP yesterday (who has been here only 6 months) that he was told by his commander on day one after PIT that if he does not do his AAD now, he will be considered a failure. This is a guy that SHOULD be focusing his time on being the best instructor and technical expert he can be, but instead has to do a worthless online masters program. Absolutely pathetic--a SEVERE lack of focus on what is important.

I hear you on taking your services elsewhere. It looks like this hiring boom is going to occur and I see a MASSIVE outflow of pilots from the AF to the airlines. Heck, United just got a 35% pay increase, and they are hiring 50/month.

[10percenttruth]

I hear you on taking your services elsewhere. It looks like this hiring boom is going to occur and I see a MASSIVE outflow of pilots from the AF to the airlines. Heck, United just got a 35% pay increase, and they are hiring 50/month.

Oh shit, thread derail / Butters meltdown in 3... 2...

[arg]

THIS!!!!!

What Big Blue is doing is trying to do is combine two inherently different things: being a career AF officer AND an "experienced" pilot. We are making pilots instructors/evaluators and group stan-eval who, in some cases (many would argue most), are not the best or most-experienced pilots in their respective units. Their upgrade to IP/EP is based solely on the almighty "career progression". My unit, in particular, is very much like this. For instance, the guy who graduated IP school two months after I did and has less than half my IP time, got upgraded to be chief of DOV. In addition, the head of our group stan-eval has been here a year longer than I have and I have surpassed him on hours. What do these two have in common? Well, lets just say that leadership loves them and "coddles" them because they focus their time on things other than flying such as paperwork, planning events, etc.

What this messed up system is doing is creating "artificial experience" for these guys so that they can move up the almighty career ladder. What is happening, though, is that we are sending people to these positions who are not necessarily good in their primary jobs. I have to laugh every time I read the cookie-cutter AF bios for senior leadership who are pilots. Most, if not all, have evaluator experience and I have to wonder--are they REALLY that good in their airframe, or were they just given "artificial experience"?

In my previous airframe, we upgraded a guy to AC so that his career would not be killed. This guy, though, once his OME was complete, was not allowed to fly with two copilots. He had to fly with another "seeing-eye" aircraft commander and copilot. So, from a scheduling perspective, this guy took out two certified aircraft commanders for one mission. Makes sense to have a "seeing eye" AC, but this guy should have never upgraded in the first place.

This madness has got to stop. The line has to be drawn between being an officer and being a GOOD, PROFESSIONAL, EXPERIENCED, KNOWLEDGEABLE, CURRENT, MISSION READY, pilot... Yes, careerism is a cancer.

Have any of you read Tim Kane's book, Bleeding Talent? It describes how the military mismanages great leaders and why the system NEEDS to be changed.

This started really growing in AFSOC shortly after it became a MAJCOM. In two years at Gp DOV I had five bosses run through just to get that stink on. One of them sent an email to all of us about how important it was for us to look good. Shiny boots, haircuts and all that. Nothing about airplanes. Holy shit, we wondered if we were in Stan Eval or SOS/PME school.

Edited May 11, 2013 by arg