C-17 lands short at Dover

[Cornholio5]

Godwin's law of Baseops never fails. A C-17 lands short at Dover and it only take 3 pages before the discussion turns to AAD woes.

Well isn't the AAD the root of the problem :).

To bring this train back on track, has anyone got any details on what happened? Does it just boil down to an aimpoint in the grass?

[jango220]

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

I've been at Dover for the past couple days and it is definitely a USAF jet. Still sitting on the taxiway too.

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

From what I've been told by the Base Ops / TA folks, that notam and notam M0256 are related..

[FUSEPLUG]

From what I've been told by the Base Ops / TA folks, that notam and notam M0256 are related..

Ouch. Looks like there was more than just grass in that aimpoint.

[Butters]

For you C-17 guys out there, next time you stop by your local LZ check out the amount of tire marks that start way before the threshold of the LZ. I have seen nose wheel marks prior to the threshold of 27 at Moses Lake. Luckily it has a very nice paved under run. I have alway wondered how bad you have to screw up to land out of the zone by an aircraft length. With or without the HUD.

Edited May 12, 2013 by Butters

[ThreeHoler]

I love that the 1000' roll bar and the LOC for 19 are both OTS. Sound like landing short by five aircraft lengths.

[moosepileit]

1000' short isn't likely a case of the sucks.

But, you knew that...

Bet it will read as a chain of unbroken events.

"Love", oh, that's awesome of you.

PM me for some letters of rec. Always need more bulletproof types around.

[addict]

Remember that in 2008 a 777 was about 1000' short at Heathrow for what boils down to insufficient throttle response. Speaking of underrun, that place only has 100' whereas Dover has a full 1000' and the equipment is another 50-200 ft south.

[Hugo Stiglitz]

For you C-17 guys out there, next time you stop by your local LZ check out the amount of tire marks that start way before the threshold of the LZ. I have seen nose heat marks prior to the threshold of 27 at Moses Lake. Luckily is has a very nice paved under run. I have alway wondered how bad you have to screw up to land out of the zone by an aircraft length. With or without the HUD.

No kidding. You know, speaking from one amazing pilot to another, I think they ought to take all the inexperienced C-17 pilots to some aux field with a "nice paved under run" or something so they can practice how to flare into the zone...

[moosepileit]

Trying to flare into the zone? That's a joke, right? Your aft mains should touch down where your proper HUD picture had your sightline at 50' when you started to flare with power. Works 3/4 or full flap, but full flap is easier- you get 50% more spoilers biased up to help use enough power to have a stable powered lift setting with pitch hold for your airspeed.

Weak pilots aim at the front of the landing zone because they are not confident in an accurate flare without floating out the back of the zone. Since an under flare with not enough power added fast enough can lose over 100' from where you thought you would touchdown, you can be short.

3/4 flap has a flare distance, and does not require a HUD. Full flap assaults need only the 500' zone plus ground roll.

No HUD should be no big deal, still a big jet to fly backside.

[Butters]

Trying to flare into the zone? That's a joke, right? Your aft mains should touch down where your proper HUD picture had your sightline at 50' when you started to flare with power. Works 3/4 or full flap, but full flap is easier- you get 50% more spoilers biased up to help use enough power to have a stable powered lift setting with pitch hold for your airspeed.

Weak pilots aim at the front of the landing zone because they are not confident in an accurate flare without floating out the back of the zone. Since an under flare with not enough power added fast enough can lose over 100' from where you thought you would touchdown, you can be short.

3/4 flap has a flare distance, and does not require a HUD. Full flap assaults need only the 500' zone plus ground roll.

No HUD should be no big deal, still a big jet to fly backside.

That is my point, it is not really hard. So what went on the flight deck when you touch down and the threshold is still a 100 feet in front of you.

Like a said, there are more than a few tire marks very short of the landing zone.

No kidding. You know, speaking from one amazing pilot to another, I think they ought to take all the inexperienced C-17 pilots to some aux field with a "nice paved under run" or something so they can practice how to flare into the zone...

You do not have to be amazing to fly the C-17. It helps, I know from experience. However, we take inexperienced pilots out all the time and IPs that are doing their job say something called "go around" when they are going to land short or long. Landing 300 feet short on a training sortie is not something a crew should accepted as good enough.

Edited May 12, 2013 by Butters

[DazedandCynical]

1000' short isn't likely a case of the sucks.

But, you knew that...

I think there was a C-17 crew that landed 56,000 short about a year ago...but you knew that. I heard the CP switched his display tho.

Edited May 12, 2013 by DazedandCynical

[Surf70]

Well I have said it before and I will continue to say it. The C-17 community lost out when they gave up the Flight Engineer position. If the crew would have had an FE on board this would have never happened. And the Tampa experience as well. AMC is losing huge without a FE in the flight deck. Their fix was to place an extra couple of Pilots in the seats. That really helped in Tampa didn’t it? A typical CRM issue in the making. In the Tampa incident two were IP's and one was I believe an EP. Tunnel vision down to the mark IMHO. Bring back the FE, same goes in the C-130J community... Why because with that much airplane it keeps you honest and safe. I could write a book on how much safer the C-17 community would be if the FE was back as a crew member. The Alaska crash would not have happened as well if there would have been a FE in the seat behind them keeping them honest.

On a side note, one of my lasting memories with my last deployment in OIF was seeing C-17's taxi off the taxiways at numerous places. With all the craziness in the theater to see that just tops it off. We would just taxi by them shaking our heads. If they would have had an FE on board they would have stayed legit and straight.

Edited May 12, 2013 by Surf70

[GearMonkey]

Well I have said it before and I will continue to say it. The C-17 community lost out when they gave up the Flight Engineer position.

Surely you can't be serious.

Tell me again how the FE saved the day on the KDOV C-5?

[Surf70]

Surely you can't be serious.

Tell me again how the FE saved the day on the KDOV C-5?

Have you listened to the CVR tapes?

[matmacwc]

Well I have said it before and I will continue to say it. The C-17 community lost out when they gave up the Flight Engineer position. If the crew would have had an FE on board this would have never happened. And the Tampa experience as well. AMC is losing huge without a FE in the flight deck. Their fix was to place an extra couple of Pilots in the seats. That really helped in Tampa didn’t it? A typical CRM issue in the making. In the Tampa incident two were IP's and one was I believe an EP. Tunnel vision down to the mark IMHO. Bring back the FE, same goes in the C-130J community... Why because with that much airplane it keeps you honest and safe. I could write a book on how much safer the C-17 community would be if the FE was back as a crew member. The Alaska crash would not have happened as well if there would have been a FE in the seat behind them keeping them honest.

On a side note, one of my lasting memories with my last deployment in OIF was seeing C-17's taxi off the taxiways at numerous places. With all the craziness in the theater to see that just tops it off. We would just taxi by them shaking our heads. If they would have had an FE on board they would have stayed legit and straight.

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. There was a freaking safety observer on the AK flight and that didn't stop them. My rant stops here....

Edited May 12, 2013 by matmacwc

[Surf70]

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. There was a freaking safety observer on the AK flight and that didn't stop them. My rant stops here....

Was the saftey officer a rated pilot as well?

[Azimuth]

Have you listened to the CVR tapes?

Yeah, you mean BOTH FE's talking about which engine was pulled back and NOT talking about it to the crew? What about the AWACS that pranged in a landing at Nellis in 2009 and snapped off the nose gear (jet is still at Nellis)? What about the JSTARS that flared way too high, in the weather, at the Deid a few years ago and sent some people to the hospital? Where were the FE's then?

The C-17 was never designed to have an FE, so quit bringing up the "how do jets fly without some old guy yelling at us to run checklists and do pilot things" that seem to be brought up in the annual C-17 mishap post.

The two oldest aircraft in the USAF inventory (BUFFS and tankers) have flown just fine for 50+ years without an FE.

Edited May 12, 2013 by Azimuth

[Hugo Stiglitz]

If they would have had an FE on board they would have stayed legit and straight.

Trolling. "If we elected FEs to Congress, we'd be swimming in cash."

[Surf70]

Yeah, you mean BOTH FE's talking about which engine was pulled back and NOT talking about it to the crew? What about the AWACS that pranged in a landing at Nellis in 2009 and snapped off the nose gear (jet is still at Nellis)? What about the JSTARS that flared way too high, in the weather, at the Deid a few years ago and sent some people to the hospital? Where were the FE's then?

The C-17 was never designed to have an FE, so quit bringing up the "how do jets fly without some old guy yelling at us to run checklists and do pilot things" that seem to be brought up in the annual C-17 mishap post.

The two oldest aircraft in the USAF inventory (BUFFS and tankers) have flown just fine for 50+ years without an FE.

Yep and they do not do assault landings, airdrops, or short field take off's as well. Multiple legs, double shuttle's on NVG's. Most of the time they take off once and land once if they are lucky.

Yep and they do not do assault landings, airdrops, or short field take off's as well. Multiple legs, double shuttle's on NVG's. Most of the time they take off once and land once if they are lucky.

And to caveat if you have never flown with an FE and have no experience with one as a crewmember. Then you have no valid opinion. The old heads in the C-17 community (former C-141) brought this up a while ago. After that they threw a couple of pilots on instead. Oh and a flying crew chief who is not a systems, EP expert like the FE nor is he/she a trained crewmember.

Edited May 12, 2013 by Surf70

[GearMonkey]

Then you have no valid opinion.

Got a mirror nearby?

Interesting technique with the self quote. I can't decide whether I should be impressed or not.

[Guest LumberjackAxe]

Well I have said it before and I will continue to say it. The C-17 community lost out when they gave up the Flight Engineer position. If the crew would have had an FE on board this would have never happened. And the Tampa experience as well. AMC is losing huge without a FE in the flight deck. Their fix was to place an extra couple of Pilots in the seats. That really helped in Tampa didn’t it? A typical CRM issue in the making. In the Tampa incident two were IP's and one was I believe an EP. Tunnel vision down to the mark IMHO. Bring back the FE, same goes in the C-130J community... Why because with that much airplane it keeps you honest and safe. I could write a book on how much safer the C-17 community would be if the FE was back as a crew member. The Alaska crash would not have happened as well if there would have been a FE in the seat behind them keeping them honest.

On a side note, one of my lasting memories with my last deployment in OIF was seeing C-17's taxi off the taxiways at numerous places. With all the craziness in the theater to see that just tops it off. We would just taxi by them shaking our heads. If they would have had an FE on board they would have stayed legit and straight.

Should we also bring back Navigators too?! Bring back an obsolete position to have an extra set of eyes? Or is there something special they teach at engineer school that allows them to recognize an unsafe position? What about the Load Master? Boom Operator?

With that kind of logic, any plane without a flight engineer should have the same reputation for mishaps--which isn't the case. What probably IS the case is what we've been discussing the past four pages.

Me, personally, I love having an FE... but it is not related at all to keeping my landings honest. Given the examples, having an extra set of eyes is clearly not going to stop mishaps in the -17--the problem is more related to the culture as we've been discussing. And even if there WAS an FE, I get the feeling that they would succumb to the culture too, and still not magically prevent mishaps.

Edit to add:

Yep and they do not do assault landings, airdrops, or short field take off's as well. Multiple legs, double shuttle's on NVG's. Most of the time they take off once and land once if they are lucky.

And to caveat if you have never flown with an FE and have no experience with one as a crewmember. Then you have no valid opinion. The old heads in the C-17 community (former C-141) brought this up a while ago. After that they threw a couple of pilots on instead. Oh and a flying crew chief who is not a systems, EP expert like the FE nor is he/she a trained crewmember.

So having an FE would only help prevent mishaps if the aircraft does assault landings, airdrops, or short field takeoffs. All those other aircraft without FE's are only doing so good because they takeoff off once and land once. Got it.

Edited May 12, 2013 by LumberjackAxe

[Surf70]

Should we also bring back Navigators too?! Bring back an obsolete position to have an extra set of eyes? Or is there something special they teach at engineer school that allows them to recognize an unsafe position? What about the Load Master? Boom Operator?

With that kind of logic, any plane without a flight engineer should have the same reputation for mishaps--which isn't the case. What probably IS the case is what we've been discussing the past four pages.

Me, personally, I love having an FE... but it is not related at all to keeping my landings honest. Given the examples, having an extra set of eyes is clearly not going to stop mishaps in the -17--the problem is more related to the culture as we've been discussing. And even if there WAS an FE, I get the feeling that they would succumb to the culture too, and still not magically prevent mishaps.

Edit to add:

So having an FE would only help prevent mishaps if the aircraft does assault landings, airdrops, or short field takeoffs. All those other aircraft without FE's are only doing so good because they takeoff off once and land once. Got it.

Having an FE would reduce the mishap rate. And you for one have to admit that. In the C-17 community having the FE would increase the CRM on the airplane. The FE would have just like on the Herk the overhead panel, and everything on the console behind the throttles. Read all the checklists, be the EP expert, walk around/preflight, and be the technical expert on the airplane. This relieves the Pilot from being the jack of all trades as he or she currently is and can go back to just flying. Full attention to maintaining postive control of the airplane and SA would increase crew wise three or more fold. They invisioned this when they placed the extra pilot on but sad to say this increased the tunnel vision IMHO. The FE is not in the pilot union and is a seperate enity. This in itself relieves the "tunnel scope" in the CRM.

[Fuzz]

Having an FE would reduce the mishap rate. And you for one have to admit that. In the C-17 community having the FE would increase the CRM on the airplane. The FE would have just like on the Herk the overhead panel, and everything on the console behind the throttles. Read all the checklists, be the EP expert, walk around/preflight, and be the technical expert on the airplane. This relieves the Pilot from being the jack of all trades as he or she currently is and can go back to just flying. Full attention to maintaining postive control of the airplane and SA would increase crew wise three or more fold. They invisioned this when they placed the extra pilot on but sad to say this increased the tunnel vision IMHO. The FE is not in the pilot union and is a seperate enity. This in itself relieves the "tunnel scope" in the CRM.

I feel like the backseater in your avatar when reading your logic (for those who don't know the picture the backseater is holding a sign that says "I'm with stupid")

[DazedandCynical]

Having an FE would reduce the mishap rate.

C-5s have an FE. It's ridiculous to say that we train a person for 50 wks (x2)...but an AF pilot needs an FE to determine a go-around. An extra set of eyes okay, maybe...but should NOT be the savior.

[Surf70]

The FE is trained from my understanding very differently than a boom or loadmaster. For one their ASVAB scores have to be Top of the Chart from what I understand. At least it used to be and an NCO with a maintenance background. Old school TOLD was their bread and butter. Slide rule engineering in the 1-1, E6-B experts as well. At one time about 10 or so years ago congress was about to force the AF to adopt the Warrant Officer position and align their rank with the other services. Randolph put a list out, it ended up in AF times somehow and the FE was at the top of the list. In the RAF the FE is a Warrant Officer.

A former SQ CC told me back in the day that he flew Herks out of Clark. At the time his CC was a Nam guy and had a local directive for all of the FE's to have at least 3 take off's and landings a quarter. The reason behind it was in his squadron in Nam one of the crews cockpit got sprayed with machine gun fire on departure. Messed both the pilots up real bad. The FE had to fly the bird home. Long story short he got a DFC out of it.