C-17 lands short at Dover

[tunes]

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

ok so explain FE's giving me TOLD data for an airplane that is 100k lbs lighter than what we actually are?

[disgruntledemployee]

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.

Go Around!

Have you listened to the CVR tapes?

Go Around!

Was the saftey officer a rated pilot as well?

Go Around!

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.

Go Around!

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.

Go Around!

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.

Go Around!

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

Go Aound!

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.

Well, you might land one of these days. You might want to get it right before you run out of gas! Thanks Eng!

Out

[Butters]

ok so explain FE's giving me TOLD data[\b] for an airplane that is 100k lbs lighter than what we actually are?

Maybe you should ask the FE what the D stands for in TOLD.

Edited May 13, 2013 by Butters

[Rusty Pipes]

ok so explain FE's giving me TOLD data for an airplane that is 100k lbs lighter than what we actually are?

The FE probably didn't know about all the Ecstasy that was stashed down in the cargo compartment! See, nobody likes the FEs... they won't even let them in on the easy cash from an international drug ring! Hahahaha... sorry, that one was too easy!!! No more trash talking from me on Mother's Day...

[ThreeHoler]

So, how come the FE didn't "save" the deployed KC-10 bubbas from landing on the wrong runway and/or without clearance a few years back? Guess no one is perfect. Except me, of course.

[addict]

Is this mishap known to be crew error?

Ok probably... They mistook a roll bar for a threshold? I don't see many other explanations.

[arg]

Eng didn't help the Herk in Blytheville AR.

[TacAirCoug]

Eng didn't help the Herk in Blytheville AR.

...or Kuwait...or Jackson Hole...or...

Edited May 12, 2013 by TacAirCoug

[tunes]

Maybe you should ask the FE why the D stands for in TOLD.

or you could just choke yourself.

[HU&W]

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.

Your argument sounds eerily similar to having support functions on base do things like travel vouchers or Awards/Decs so the pilots can focus on doing their jobs. The problem with your logic is that EPs and systems ARE a major part of the pilot's job. Most of us strive to be something more than just stick actuators and checklist monkeys. Also,

If both pilots are heads down, he/she is outside.

Is this the standard way of flying in your airplane? This is exactly the kind of CRM complacency that makes planes crash.

[TAMInated]

FE's on fighters!

Like on the strike pig?

[Buddy Spike]

I have only two questions.

1) Why do you need an FE when Booms/Loadmasters are in the cockpit reading approach plates and critiquing ILS approaches?

2) Are FEs like Navs, or are they actually real people with souls and feelings?

Thanks

[Hueypilot]

I've flown -21s, E/H model Herks and Js. The FE is absolutely essential on the E/H airplanes, but would serve little purpose on the J or other airlift aircraft. Nearly all modern aircraft today lack FEs. IMO they would complicate CRM on a -17 or J-model, not improve it.

FEs from the outset were intended to run aircraft systems in a time before automation, not be a CRM babysitter. Landing at the wrong airport, or in the wrong configuration has and still does occur in the legacy Herk world. I could name plenty of cases of E/H buffoonery, even recent ones.

Finally, I found I had a TON of SA and found CRM to be easier on the J flight deck than the H flight deck. I'm flying H-models now and I noticed the difference...the H flight deck is quite a bit more chaotic.

[arg]

...or Kuwait...or Jackson Hole...or...

To be fair IIRC the eng called go around twice on the Kuwait incident.

In 22 years of flying I never called a go around. I brought things to the attention of the pilot that made them decide to go around a few times. Things like "We're lined up on the taxi way" or stuff like that.

I've flown -21s, E/H model Herks and Js. The FE is absolutely essential on the E/H airplanes, but would serve little purpose on the J or other airlift aircraft. Nearly all modern aircraft today lack FEs. IMO they would complicate CRM on a -17 or J-model, not improve it.

FEs from the outset were intended to run aircraft systems in a time before automation, not be a CRM babysitter. Landing at the wrong airport, or in the wrong configuration has and still does occur in the legacy Herk world. I could name plenty of cases of E/H buffoonery, even recent ones.

Finally, I found I had a TON of SA and found CRM to be easier on the J flight deck than the H flight deck. I'm flying H-models now and I noticed the difference...the H flight deck is quite a bit more chaotic.

Makes sense, less people less chaos and CRM issues.

[TacAirCoug]

To be fair IIRC the eng called go around twice on the Kuwait incident.

That may be, I've long forgotten the details. I stand corrected, but I could put any number of accidents in place of that one, so the point remains valid.

[motch]

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.

Surf...

After reading numerous post on here, I had to finally chime in.

A little background. I retired a few months after 27+ years in. Loadmaster (C/MC-130's,) CC (HC-130) and finally FE (C-5).

On top of that, I hold A&P, CFI and ATP licenses/ratings.

While I truly enjoyed being an FE on Fred (and would have remained, if my unit had not switched to -17's), your vision and version on what the FE of today and the past decade are is misguided.

Yes, at some point they were system experts, and also outside the "Pilot" union.. but those days are long gone.

My unit had some of the BEST FE's out there.. we also had some of the worse. No different that the Pilot section, or the Load section.

The fact that there was one Class A C-5 accident, and a handful of Class B's is testimony that even with FE's on board, shit can and will still happen.

Can we say for sure (100%) that this incident, or the Tampa landing, or the gear up.. would not have happened if there had been an FE onboard?- Nope.

As a strat airlifter- the C-17 probably doesn't need an FE. Hell, the 74's flying cargo with new -400's/8's don't have FE's either. There comes a day/time that the FE position needs to go away.

Now, don't get me wrong- an FE is a great asset to have. If he's a true Flight Engineer..an aviator, a guy who loves his airframe and loves his place in life. Unfortunately, those are far and few inbetween. Mostly the old heads and a handful of young tigers (until they get sick and tired of all the AF BS)

Just like many of the gunners have left, same with navs and slowly FE's, there will come a day when many pilots will disappear. Just the way it is.

Hopefully that's another 50 years away!

Always

Motch

[motch]

The FE probably didn't know about all the Ecstasy that was stashed down in the cargo compartment! See, nobody likes the FEs... they won't even let them in on the easy cash from an international drug ring! Hahahaha... sorry, that one was too easy!!! No more trash talking from me on Mother's Day...

That just hurts~

LOL

Poor FE's (along with the rest of the crew) had to deal with the BullShit that two idiots caused. Oh, and one of those idiots is the reason I didn't get my age waiver and UPT slot.

Oh well.. it was fun having Customs go through all our bags for years following.. hope those two are enjoying their time in Federal Lockup.

Always

Motch

so.. back to the Thread-

where are the pics?

[arg]

That may be, I've long forgotten the details. I stand corrected, but I could put any number of accidents in place of that one, so the point remains valid.

Yes it's valid. Was not disputing that.

[HerkFE]

So, we are putting FE's on 17's and fighters now....as warrant officers?? Awesome! What's it take to come out of retirement?? I only want to do weekend XC's to cool places though.

[Mark1]

... and there isn't too much to handle in a C-17 or a C-130J that two pilots can't handle.

Like operating the gear handle or landing at the proper airfield?

[Hueypilot]

I can think of several cases where C-130E/H crews landed at the wrong airfield, on the wrong runway, on closed runways or on taxiways...having an FE is not the silver bullet here.

[Rusty Pipes]

Like operating the gear handle or landing at the proper airfield?

Fine... there isn't too much to handle in a C-17 or a 130J that two "properly trained" pilots "who are allowed to focus on their job as pilots as opposed to focusing on career box checking at the direction of careerist commanders who are committed to an officer corps of clone followers that fit their own mold" can't handle. Is that better???

Edited May 13, 2013 by Rusty Pipes

[sky_king]

..... and it's back to Master's degrees .......

[Rusty Pipes]

..... and it's back to Master's degrees .......

No it’s back to not overloading pilots (and all officers to that point) with queep that management values more than job performance. Too many penguins on the iceberg! When Lts/young Capts going on their first ever combat deployment are more worried about the hours of the testing center and how good the wifi is for their AAD classes than they are about their combat missions... well, you start forgetting to put the gear down and you start landing on the wrong runways because maybe their focus isn't where it is supposed to be. I have a great idea; let’s add FEs to both C-17s and 130Js... That should free pilots up to gets an online PhD!!!

[Techsan]

All I know is that in the KC-10, I would choose 100% of the time a shit hot FE over a shit hot copilot any day & twice on Sunday. An FE that is slow as shit running the checklist and doing TOLD is just brutal. With an idiot for a copilot, I can easily fly & work the radios while he sits on his hands.