C-17 lands short at Dover

[Coasta]

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.

Surf70, what you have just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

[MTW]

While we're on the topic of bringing back dinosaur crew members, can we just agree that the Air Force also needs to bring back radio operators to all aircraft? How can we expect a copilot to possibly tune the radios and fly the aircraft at the same time?

I kinda miss the eng from my E/H model Herk days and they were generally incredibly good and professional at their jobs, but they are completely unnecessary on modern aircraft, and would be completely unnecessary on the C-17. Same with the nav...oh wait, navs were always unnecessary. There have been plenty of incidents where the eng did not save the day. There may be a solution to the recent problems the air force (most notably the C-17) have been experiencing lately, but adding an eng would not even be close to effective.

I hear a lot from leadership about "being professional" and how it means having a sharp haircut, well pressed uniform, dotting every i and crossing every t when you write an MFR etc... They almost always fail to mention that part of being a professional aviator involves being in the books almost constantly, chair flying your next flight, and having your airframes mission down so well that you dream about it. We imediately take young copilots from the schoolhouse and they are instantly thrown into 50hr a week shoeclerk style jobs in the squadron. Then they see awards being given out not for flying missions well, but for planning the Christmas party. That is the problem, and until the leadership culture un######s itself and says focus on flying we will continue to have these problems. And no, publishing a new FCIF or AMC special interest item will not solve the problem.

[DazedandCynical]

Badass...we are not in Nam. We are landing jets short of the runway (if the correct one), even w/ an FE.

[Surf70]

[ThreeHoler]

What is this I don't even

[Clayton Bigsby]

I flew with old head coots in the -17 and they sure as shit didn't want FEs. NOBODY wanted FEs.

[Surf70]

[StoleIt]

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.

[PlanePhlyer]

This thread has def become derailed. So if 2 pilots can't handle the rigors of flying, running checklists and talking in the radios (all at the same time) maybe they should choose a different career path (www.nettts.com is hiring)

[Rusty Pipes]

"I really wish I had an FE right about now!"

"Man, I wish I were a C-5 pilot..."

...SAID NO C-17 PILOT EVER!!!

The biggest C-17 haters in the world are FE's... sorry guys, but get over it. Nothing personal, but C-17s don't want or need you. Lots of stupid shit happens in all airframes... we've seen C-130s (with a Nav and FE) CFIT on a low level, a C-5 (with 2 FEs) crash short at Dover! Hmmm... I seem to recall a certain KC-135 pilot who shut down all 4 engines at the FAF at Kadena a few years back leading to a caution or warning saying that you aren't supposed to do that! I think I recall a few stories about jets wandering into Iran too... not C-17s. Crazy shit happens sometimes. I don't need an FE and I don't need a Nav... and there isn't too much to handle in a C-17 or a C-130J that two pilots can't handle. I just think that if we let our pilots be pilots and actually placed importance on being a good pilot that some of these stupid and preventable things might just go away.

EXCEPTION: The guy who shut down all 4 at Kadena... sometimes you just can't fix stupid!

[moosepileit]

Surf70, guess the airshow sequester has freed up your weekends to post here rather than bug pilots in public.

[sweaty]

And I've heard this same story for years coming from FE's forced to get out or cross train in converting units. I guess the mx guys for 17s need a "systems expert" to help trouble shoot issues for them as well? So we could re write the T.O.s for a FE ditch the mx interface panel, get rid of the mission computer, and the Loadmaster computer to accommodate a dinosaur in the cockpit trying to un ###### a fuel log and hand write a TOLD card using a slide ruler trying to make data from charts?

Edit: I have been told some Guard or Reseve units hire FE's off the street with no prior military or maintenance experience.

Edited May 12, 2013 by sweaty

[sputnik]

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.

Find a C17 mishap where a systems issue was causal--where an "EP expert" would have made a difference. All there is behind the throttle is the clown nose and an ICS panel, whoever sits there is welcome to them--pilot, load or FCC. The systems are all automated (and in front of the throttles), if they fail they tell you. There isn't anything for an FE to do except preflight the plane (which I wouldn't mind truthfully). With the duty days they throw at us, there's always an extra copilot to do that. I've never had a load who wasn't smart enough to knock out their part either.

So basically, your argument is that we should add a non-pilot crew position, whose sole in flight role would be to supervise pilots as they do pilot stuff.

And that would prevent mishaps.

Makes sense.

[TacAirCoug]

Fucking hell, another FE argument? Hey Surf70, it's called progress. Look it up. I fly an airplane with an FE and even I can see their relevance in modern aviation has all but disappeared. What are you going to say next, that taking FE's out of 747's was a bad idea, and that the Bagram crash never would have happened if they still had them on -400's? GMAFB.

I give you facepaw.

[guineapigfury]

Facepaw. That is awesome.

[tunes]

Have you listened to the CVR tapes?

considering the FE on that C-5 Dover crash wasn't doing what he was supposed to makes your argument pretty invalid.

Also, I have had numerous times in the C-5 where the FE has passed up invalid data and if the jump seater hadn't caught it before passing the data up, the approach speeds would put us into a stall......it's a 2 way street

"I really wish I had an FE right about now!"

"Man, I wish I were a C-5 pilot..."

...SAID NO C-17 PILOT EVER!!!

The biggest C-17 haters in the world are FE's... sorry guys, but get over it. Nothing personal, but C-17s don't want or need you. Lots of stupid shit happens in all airframes... we've seen C-130s (with a Nav and FE) CFIT on a low level, a C-5 (with 2 FEs) crash short at Dover! Hmmm... I seem to recall a certain KC-135 pilot who shut down all 4 engines at the FAF at Kadena a few years back leading to a caution or warning saying that you aren't supposed to do that! I think I recall a few stories about jets wandering into Iran too... not C-17s. Crazy shit happens sometimes. I don't need an FE and I don't need a Nav... and there isn't too much to handle in a C-17 or a C-130J that two pilots can't handle. I just think that if we let our pilots be pilots and actually placed importance on being a good pilot that some of these stupid and preventable things might just go away.

EXCEPTION: The guy who shut down all 4 at Kadena... sometimes you just can't fix stupid!

and on the flip side, "Man, i wish i was a c-17 pilot" - Said no C-5 pilot ever

i know, its crazy that we actual run emergency checklists, land at the right airports, land on the runway, stay on the runway, and put the gear down.......

Edited May 12, 2013 by tunes

[matmacwc]

FE's on fighters!

[HercDude]

The lack of an FE is obviously the reason so many F-16s are landing with the gear up, 1000' short, on the wrong runway.

Wait.

[Surf70]

Find a C17 mishap where a systems issue was causal--where an "EP expert" would have made a difference. All there is behind the throttle is the clown nose and an ICS panel, whoever sits there is welcome to them--pilot, load or FCC. The systems are all automated (and in front of the throttles), if they fail they tell you. There isn't anything for an FE to do except preflight the plane (which I wouldn't mind truthfully). With the duty days they throw at us, there's always an extra copilot to do that. I've never had a load who wasn't smart enough to knock out their part either.

So basically, your argument is that we should add a non-pilot crew position, whose sole in flight role would be to supervise pilots as they do pilot stuff.

And that would prevent mishaps.

Makes sense.

Yes... And until you actually fly with a Engineer who is trained and would back up the computer, who is a "front end" crew member, and backs you up constantly and prevents you from landing short after a long 24 hour crew duty day, you do not know the benefits of having this professional on your crew. And he/she is not a loadmaster nor a crew chief and does not perform maintenance duties. However but is the interface between maintenance and the airplane (Ops). And the FCC is not trained as a FE nor is he/she a trained crewmember. Like I said previously the "fix" on all this (with no FE on the C-17) was to place an extra pilot, and a FCC on the airplane. This did nothing and does not compare to a trained Professional Flight Engineer. It was an attempt to replace with two people who are experts in their own realms but equally was not the same and did not solve the issue

[LockheedFix]

Having flown C-130s with and without an engineer, I can honestly say that nothing would complicate the CRM on a J-model or C-17 like an FE. At least a nav knows when he's unnecessary and will STFU.

The C-17 community just needs to pull its head out of its collective ass and get its shit together. The C-17 drivers I've met that have crossed over to the J care way more about their careers than any Herk guy I've ever met, and could give two shits whether than can fly the plane well.

Also this "fix" you keep referring to of adding an extra pilot has nothing to do with backing up the pilots flying. It's because C-17s fly insanely long duty days. J-models have not and will not add extra pilots just to back up the pilots flying the jet because that is completely unnecessary.

[Surf70]

considering the FE on that C-5 Dover crash wasn't doing what he was supposed to makes your argument pretty invalid.

Also, I have had numerous times in the C-5 where the FE has passed up invalid data and if the jump seater hadn't caught it before passing the data up, the approach speeds would put us into a stall......it's a 2 way street

and on the flip side, "Man, i wish i was a c-17 pilot" - Said no C-5 pilot ever

i know, its crazy that we actual run emergency checklists, land at the right airports, land on the runway, stay on the runway, and put the gear down.......

By the way the C-5 FE is a side seater and not looking forward. This totally diminishes their SA. On the herk the FE is directly in between the Pilots and has the best view on the flight deck. Both inside and out. If both pilots are heads down, he/she is outside. SA with all three crew members goes through the roof. FE backs up the Pilot and watches any Altitude, attitude, course corrections, traffic advisories, radio calls etc, and any change beyond what the systems are saying and knows the systems and airplane like the back of their hand to what a degree in that airplane would accomplish. Knows the vol 3 like know one else on the crew. He or she is the resident expert in the sim and most sims for EP's in the Herk esp, are tailored for the FE. The pilots just take notes. The FE is the EP expert and conducts the EP's with the checklist in emergencies, while the pilots maintain positive control of the airplane (i.e. fly and do their jobs). And do not sweat it because they have a resident expert on board called a Flight Engineer...

If the C-17 community ever did adopt a FE position I am sure Boeing would train them as does Lockheed in the Herk. He/she would be a Boeing trained expert on the airplane, as a crew member.

Edited May 12, 2013 by Surf70

[sputnik]

Why do I need a systems expert? In a decade of flying, I never had a problem I couldn't figure out with a copilot and a loadmaster and the crap-ton of pubs on board. If I did, I could have always used one of the 9 million radios to call Boeing. But I never did.

Look, you have an opinion. Which is fine. It's unsupported by facts. And anyone on this forum. And every major aircraft manufacturer. And every airline.

But hang in there man, the rest of the world is wrong.

[Rusty Pipes]

and on the flip side, "Man, i wish i was a c-17 pilot" - Said no C-5 pilot ever

i know, its crazy that we actual run emergency checklists, land at the right airports, land on the runway, stay on the runway, and put the gear down.......

Well yeah, aside from the dozens of C-5 guys that requested and were given a cross flow to C-17s at both Dover and Travis that I've flown with who said they liked the C-5, but would never go back to it after flying the C-17... so aside from those few dozen guys that I've met, flown with and actually discussed this exact subject with... you're right!

I also recall a C-5 crew at Dover landing on the wrong runway on a local... I also remember one landing on the wrong runway at Balad. I'm not trashing my C-5 bros... I knew guys on both of those crews and they were good pilots. Like I said, shit happens and it can happen to anyone... something about glass houses though???

[matmacwc]

By the way the C-5 FE is a side seater and not looking forward. This totally diminishes their SA. On the herk the FE is directly in between the Pilots and has the best view on the flight deck. Both inside and out. If both pilots are heads down, he/she is outside. SA with all three crew members goes through the roof. FE backs up the Pilot and watches any Altitude, attitude, course corrections, traffic advisories, radio calls etc, and any change beyond what the systems are saying and knows the systems and airplane like the back of their hand to what a degree in that airplane would accomplish. Knows the vol 3 like know one else on the crew. He or she is the resident expert in the sim and most sims for EP's in the Herk esp, are tailored for the FE. The pilots just take notes. The FE is the EP expert and conducts the EP's with the checklist in emergencies, while the pilots maintain positive control of the airplane (i.e. fly and do their jobs). And do not sweat it because they have a resident expert on board called a Flight Engineer...

The FE can also shut up and get me more damn coffee.

[nunya]

Both inside and out. If both pilots are heads down, he/she is outside. SA with all three crew members goes through the roof. FE backs up the Pilot and watches any Altitude, attitude, course corrections, traffic advisories, radio calls etc, and any change beyond what the systems are saying and knows the systems and airplane like the back of their hand to what a degree in that airplane would accomplish. Knows the vol 3 like know one else on the crew. He or she is the resident expert in the sim and most sims for EP's in the Herk esp, are tailored for the FE. The pilots just take notes. The FE is the EP expert and conducts the EP's with the checklist in emergencies, while the pilots maintain positive control of the airplane (i.e. fly and do their jobs). And do not sweat it because they have a resident expert on board called a Flight Engineer...

I've known about 2 (two) (dos) FEs that were that good. And they didn't fly with experienced pilots.

Oh, and you forgot to list "smoke on the ramp without the front end smelling anything" as a required skillset for Herk FEs.