C-17 4-engine flameout/SIB/FEB questions in here

[addict]

No thrust from 1 & 4. There ended up being some damage to the cores from over-temping. We initially thought they were back online when all engine tapes looked good, but that was apparently just from windmilling.

No idea about the same treatment. They said we landed in the wrong configuration, but no one still has told me the right configuration.

8 degrees of flaps

There's also a sweet caution about a loss of 1&4 and how it affects flaps.

Edited September 30, 2013 by addict

[Day Man]

8 degrees of flaps

There's also a sweet caution about a loss of 1&4 and how it affects flaps.

Perfect!

Out of curiosity, what configuration does the Erroneous ALS/Stall Warnings (Nose Damage) checklist recommend?

(Hint: it's not 8 degrees of flaps)

Unless you are one of the guys whose careers and futures in aviation were deep-sixed. My bet is that they see it quite differently.

No way man...like I said before I'm lucky to be here. In fact, I'm glad the AF showed me what they really think relatively early in my career. When I needed guidance, my leadership was nowhere to be found. Both my WG/CC and SQ/CC told me they were hopeful for the final outcome and I was instructed to be "ready to fly" when the decision came down. 2 years later they both signed off on my referral OPR.

Edited September 30, 2013 by day man

[WeatherManC130]

No way man...like I said before I'm lucky to be here. In fact, I'm glad the AF showed me what they really think relatively early in my career. When I needed guidance, my leadership was nowhere to be found. Both my WG/CC and SQ/CC told me they were hopeful for the final outcome and I was instructed to be "ready to fly" when the decision came down. 2 years later they both signed off on my referral OPR.

Sad when leadership says one thing and does the opposite to save their own ass. Like others have said, props to you for having the balls to talk about your experience.

WxMan

[moosepileit]

-1 is not written for compound EPs.

2 engine, slats and 8 degree flap is a lovely way to land. Watch the weights and speeds.

Damaged radome, all engine, 2 basic options. Unsure if the erroneous speed or altitude readouts gave enough clues or indications.

Radome damage, multiple thrust losses, test pilots.

Edited September 30, 2013 by moosepileit

[flyjetz]

Leadership at ANY level using privileged SIB info for an FEB or any disciplinary reason is jacked up. I saw the same thing happen in my community in 2003, when I sat on a Class A SIB. Concurrent with our investigation, a CDI was also initiated. We did NOT share any info with the CDI. There were a LOT (dozens) of witnesses (on three separate continents) to interview. Every single witness we talked to, answered all of our questions, after we gave them the SIB immunity. Those same witnesses were asked to speak with the CDI team. Only one person chose to do so. While our SIB report was fairly damning to a lot of individuals, the CDI report was not, because they could not gather any evidence of wrongdoing. We briefed the SIB findings all the way up to the COMACC, including the 8th AF Commander, who was the convening authority on the CDI. Even though the CDI recommended no punishment, because it could not find any individual fault, the 8th AF CC used our SIB findings (and even stated that he was doing so) to justify grounding one individual permanently, and killing the career of an O-6 on the fast track.

I really lost faith in the AF Safety system when I saw that happen. To see it happen again, makes me question whether or not I'd ever speak to a SIB if I was put in that situation. I know that's the wrong attitude and will do nothing to progress the role of safety, but when 3-Star and 4-Star Generals blatantly ignore your promised and sworn rights under immunity, what other choice do you have?

Day Man, I'm not a C-17 pilot, and don't recall ever reading your mishap's report, so I'm not about to start second guessing your actions. But I highly commend you for the willingness to stick out your neck publicly on a board full of anonymous posters. Good luck as you exit this career.

[LockheedFix]

FEBs and commander directed downgrades are perfectly legal uses of the knowledge a commander gains from the results of a SIB. They are not punishment (though it may seem like it to the guy facing the FEB). How much sense would it make for a commander to find out from a safety investigation that one of his crews was screwing up by the numbers, but have no way to keep them from flying his jets again (at least not before some remedial training)?

Safety Privilege just means you can't face UCMJ or civil punishment based on the findings of a SIB, thus the whole reason an AIB is sometimes conducted.

[SocialD]

FEBs and commander directed downgrades are perfectly legal uses of the knowledge a commander gains from the results of a SIB. They are not punishment (though it may seem like it to the guy facing the FEB). How much sense would it make for a commander to find out from a safety investigation that one of his crews was screwing up by the numbers, but have no way to keep them from flying his jets again (at least not before some remedial training)?

Safety Privilege just means you can't face UCMJ or civil punishment based on the findings of a SIB, thus the whole reason an AIB is sometimes conducted.

But to fuck their entire career, even when the FEB says you're good to go? That's just plain fucked up!

[LockheedFix]

But to fuck their entire career, even when the FEB says you're good to go? That's just plain fucked up!

I agree, I don't understand why he would even bother with the FEB if he was going to give him the boot anyway. I just wish that more guys would realize that safety privilege is more like a literal "get out of jail free" card (kind of) and less like a "save your flying career" card. If your commander doesn't think it's safe for you to fly his planes, he doesn't have to.

[Toro]

FEBs and commander directed downgrades are perfectly legal uses of the knowledge a commander gains from the results of a SIB. They are not punishment (though it may seem like it to the guy facing the FEB).

Disagree. Safety investigations are not supposed to be used for anything punitive. If the CC sees/hears something in the SIB, he can only use that information to order a CDI.

[ThreeHoler]

Disagree. Safety investigations are not supposed to be used for anything punitive. If the CC sees/hears something in the SIB, he can only use that information to order a CDI.

The AFSEC has a very narrow definition of punishment.

[LockheedFix]

Disagree. Safety investigations are not supposed to be used for anything punitive. If the CC sees/hears something in the SIB, he can only use that information to order a CDI.

True and false. SIBs can't be used for anything punitive, but Q-3s and FEBs are not considered punitive.

[matmacwc]

Unless you are one of the guys whose careers and futures in aviation were deep-sixed. My bet is that they see it quite differently.

Could have turned out terribly, made for TV movie different, but it didn't. I don't like the fact the dudes were axed, I would have kept them, for their luck quotient alone.

[Hammer]

Thanks for coming forward - big balls man!

You got rolled by the system...

Had Combat Camera not been on the aircraft you would have been heroes.

Are you saying that if there wasn't video evidence of how poorly this chain of events was handled that the crew would be considered heroes? History is written by the winners I suppose...

[flyjetz]

True and false. SIBs can't be used for anything punitive, but Q-3s and FEBs are not considered punitive.

Wrong.

Check 91-204: From the Witness Promise of Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure Agreement:

"c. I understand that my confidential statement(s) (written and/or verbal) will not be made public and it will only be used by authorized officials solely for mishap prevention purposes. Additionally, my confidential statement will not be used as evidence to support any claims, litigation, disciplinary action or any adverse administrative action such as a Flying Evaluation Board, line-of-duty status determination, pecuniary liability determination, or elimination from military service. I understand, however, that my statement can be released pursuant to a valid court order on behalf of the defendant in a criminal trial. I further understand that if my statement contains an intentional misrepresentation, then my statement will no longer be considered confidential and can be used to support disciplinary and/or administrative actions against myself and/or others."

Also, Day Man said he was given a referral OPR. 91-204 addresses this as well:

"3.3.2.1. Adverse administrative actions include, but are not limited to, letters of reprimand, counseling, or admonishment, referral EPRs/OPRs, promotion propriety actions (not qualified for promotion, delay and/or denial), administrative separations, selective reenlistment denials, or evidence before any evaluation board and other similar actions. Commanders and supervisors will use other sources of information which are not privileged to take punitive or adverse administrative actions."

Day Man, if I were you, I'd wait 5-10 years, then drag all this info back for a second try at the BCMR process, and ask for retroactive promotions, back pay, and interest.

If I read 91-204 correctly, the way Privileged Safety Information was used against you was a "leak" of Privileged and an investigation of that leak should have occurred. It sounds like your due process rights were violated.

[Herk Driver]

Commanders and supervisors will use other sources of information which are not privileged to take punitive or adverse administrative actions."

There was an AIB. Have you read it?

All of the information from the SIB and in the AFSAS report is not priviledged. Either way, info from the AIB can be used. Referrals, FEBs and separations can occur from the information obtained from the AIB. You do not know and were not in the room when the decisions were made. I am not naive enough to believe that anyone keeps all that info separated and doesn't let one effect the other. However, you are making assertions that you cannot substantiate.

[Day Man]

There was an AIB.

False.

[Hacker]

I'm glad the AF showed me what they really think relatively early in my career.

Legit.

But to fuck their entire career, even when the FEB says you're good to go? That's just plain fucked up!

This happens more frequently than one might think....but most folks don't really talk about it in public.

[BQZip01]

1. Props to you for outing yourself on the matter. It is a sign of maturity to accept responsibility for your actions. To be clear, you did NOT completely run the boldface, correct? Your reasoning was that you wanted to give the engines a chance to relight on their own; did you discuss this with anyone else? Was this common practice or something you discussed prior in training or on the ground/in the air? Was this a SEPT discussion?

2. I'm out, so I can't read the SIB. I'm sure it's informative. (I've been involved in 14 AIB/SIBs...as local support, not as the subject) and, while the actions of the AMC/CC seem grossly unfair, they are within his discretion. As stated above, if a commander finds through an FEB that a pilot is routinely performing prohibited maneuvers, he can clip the guy's wings.

3. IMHO, at some point the AMC/CC needs to look at himself in the mirror and ask "What could I do differently?" These spectacular accidents seem to be happening at an all-too-frequent rate in AMC and not elsewhere; or at least it seems that way.

[moosepileit]

BQZip, I believe they ran the 2 steps of the four engine flameout boldface.

[BQZip01]

BQZip, I believe they ran the 2 steps of the four engine flameout boldface.

That's why I'm looking for clarification. He mentioned not performing certain actions.

[flyjetz]

There was an AIB. Have you read it?

All of the information from the SIB and in the AFSAS report is not priviledged. Either way, info from the AIB can be used. Referrals, FEBs and separations can occur from the information obtained from the AIB. You do not know and were not in the room when the decisions were made. I am not naive enough to believe that anyone keeps all that info separated and doesn't let one effect the other. However, you are making assertions that you cannot substantiate.

Have you even read this full thread? Reference post #10 where Day man said AMC/CC was briefed privileged safety information and also used information given at the FEB that was given under a grant of immunity to justify his decision to overturn the recommendation of the FEB. The only assumption I'm making is that Day man is telling the truth.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 4

[JS]

I am not naive enough to believe that anyone keeps all that info separated and doesn't let one effect the other. However, you are making assertions that you cannot substantiate.

So the big thing I am trying to take away from this is whether or not to give anyone any possibly incriminating evidence if, God forbid, something like this happened to me or someone I know.

In reading the above posted AFI on the confidentiality statement with regards to safety information, it appears that safety privileged information is indeed required to be kept separate from decisions reflecting discipline, FEBs, etc. So it's not about being naive and mixing the two, it's about following regulations, due process, confidentially statements, and the freaking law, in my opinion.

Correct, I was not in the room, but there seems to be a pretty big shitload of evidence here, a lot of it first hand, as to what happened. And it sure as hell appears to me that the AMC guy was wrong to carry over privileged information into a discipline/judiciary hearing. Which is not good in any way, shape, or form. Regardless of who was right, what fuck-ups were made, which boldface items were not completed, and how much other armchair quarterbacking was done.

What's at stake here is a loss of confidence in, and a breakdown of the safety-privilege system. Quite honestly, as a safety officer, I would not blame my guys one iota if they chose to not give a single piece of information to the safety investigators if something like this were to happen to them. I have very little confidence left in this system, given what was said here.

Wow... anyone notice said AMC/CC didn't hold a true "Ops" assignment until 19 years into his career? I do, however, see a lot of seat time correcting OPRs and grooming programs. Mark of a "true Air Force leader"

https://www.af.mil/Ab...e-johns-jr.aspx

Was this the same penis-head who required that anyone who had any kind of taxi incident be flown to AMC headquarters to get bitched out by him? I remember having a small plastic light cover on a wingtip light being broken at a certain less than adequate landing zone in Afghanistan. If the story I head was correct, the aircraft commander had to be sent to the States just to meet with this guy before being sent back over. All the while, aside from wasting thousands of my tax dollars in travel, we had to double our efforts, and pull staff guys to fly the lines that this guy was missing.

[JS]

Not trying be a dick but I'm pretty sure the engineers they built the plane know more about how it works than you do.. Hence why they wrote the checklist for you to run......

Ha. One of the funnier things I have read on here in a while. Are these the same engineers who subtracted 200 feet from the TOLD data in the computer of the C-130J instead of adding 200 feet, thus causing the community to have to do some roundabout, ass-backwards addition/subtraction if/when they determine the computer is lying to them about TOLD data? Or the engineers who designed the WX radar on the C-17?

Most of the engineers who designed these planes are not pilots, and most of the pilots who fly them do indeed know more about a lot of systems compared to the guys who designed them. At least the practical stuff like limitations and when a certain system can kill you.

All I consistently tell my guys is to always use judgement, especially when performing boldface items. And always keep the "non-boldface" boldface items (the ones the engineers/lawyers/program managers forgot to make boldface) memorized as if your life depended on it. You know, non-boldface boldface items like 4-engine flameout in the C-130J?

Matter of fact, 50% of the boldface items in the C-130J have the old "if required" attached to them, which obviously is flight manual/lawyer code for "use your fucking head when applying this so we are not held responsible." And for the other 50% of the boldface items, I can personally think of several instances where blindly running those boldface items would have made extremely minor situations a hell of a lot worse had a touch of systems knowledge, SA, and judgement not been used beforehand. And yes, I am talking about the fact that if someone burns a paper/foil wrapped burger in the microwave, it would probably cause more problems than it is worth to get the oxygen masks on.

[Azimuth]

Then you should probably do some 847's, if not previously accomplished, to change those deficiencies in your checklists.

Edited October 1, 2013 by Flare

[Hammer]

It's possible that if privileged information is being misused we will lose the privilege. This should be enough of a motivator for commanders to do what is right.