I will tell you. in our checklist, there is not alot of room for error, i dont see how they did it. crazy.

Unusual, but not unheard of, for aircrews to go direct to court marshal for wrecking an airplane. Most often they will meet a Flight Evaluation Board (FEB) first which can get you anywhere from loss of wings to a second chance.

However, that might be just the tip of the iceberg. A flying discipline accident like this tends to cause any or all of the Wing Commander, Dir of Operations, Sqdn Commander and Sqdn Ops officers their jobs/careers. As a bonus, there's usually a command wide thrash over training, safety, and certifications.

Hi Rick,

I was being somewhat facetious, I know how things work in the real world.

BTW, our newest fighter costs more than this C-17 (a lot more). We are scrapping 1/2 of all of the B-52s in the inventory to buy 2 more F-22s.

Actually, those guys are lucky. Usually when you screw up (that bad)... you're DEAD.

Yeah, even the legal ramifications for the crew beat being dead.

Matt, somewhere I saw an analysis that said we could have built 3 or 4 more C-5's per C-17 for what that program has cost. But somebody didn't like C-5's. Modern super fighters aren't cheap but there are some airplanes on the other side of the world, that have been sold all over, that are also very good. As far as B-52's go, sooner or later they're going to figure out that we always need something that just plain drops tons of bombs.

Absolutely

I have not seen the full analysis of the investigation into the accident so can't and would never comment on the accident per se but I CAN say this for something to debate:

Exprerienced pilots and flight engineers such as those crewing the C5 simply DONT make the most fundamantal error which these guys are reported to have made, come to think of it even crews with a LOT less experience than these guys dont make such basic errors, unless there is something fundemantally and seriously wrong, such as excessive crew fatigue.

So, if the investigation team has simply, as reported, put it down to "pilot error" then they need to investigate a LOT deeper and more searchingly into the human factors and find out WHY such basic errors were made and take a long hard look at the CRM being used and practised in the USAF transport fleet and that might mean going right back to the stall training these guys had when they were in flight training as new pilots and engineers, as well as recurrent training. Nothing but nothing should be ruled out until the deep routed source of this crash is determined.

A three engined landing in a four engined jet should be little more than routine. To lose the aircraft as a result of an unlocked reverser light (anyone remember the Everglades TriStar, lost in a CFT accident due to anothing more serious than a failed landing gear indicator bulb ?) has got to set the alarms bells ringing loud and long in the USAF hierachy or MAC at least.

Regards,

David Gladwin.

Which C-17?.....I thought it was a C-5.......

From the brief, early report it sounds like nobody took command in the situation.........I'll just bet the "collective" group in the flight deck was so fixated on the heavy-weight landing and the anticipated long roll out that nothing got done correctly. No special procedures no checklists etc...Just target fixation...They got it low and slow until they were behind the power curve even if the three good engines were used. Back when I used to commute to PHX, I sat a lot of hours on the jump-seat and watched a small problem run into a real comedy of errors on more than one occasion. Nothing serious, just goofy things that made me glad that I worked for the company that I did and not for the guys that I was riding on! Discipline to the checklist and task sharing are paramount....CRM baby! Obviously, no CRM....CREW RESOURCE MANAGEMENT took place in the C-5 scenario......And to top it off, they had ALL THE TIME IN THE WORLD to plan the arrival!...Lots, I mean lots of fuel and VFR weather GEEZ. The more that I type, the more I think about MY tax dollars spread all over that field..........I need a Mai Tai!

Tailwinds,

John

Yeah, unfortunately true. One red flag for the CRM breakdown on leadership IMHO was the transfer of controls from the flying pilot to the non flying pilot so he could get "credit" for the sortie during the return. In the emergency return brief, I doubt they briefed who would fly the airplane/run the radios and who would run the checklist, based on a pay issue - I doubt it even more that anyone would do that in a checkride, or be able to defend the position with a straight face. Now I wasn't there obviously - but these sorts of things typically reflect a crew that's going along for the ride rather than excecuting a well rehearsed game plan.

A more serious issue at large was the fact that these guys were in leadership positions - instructors, check airman, etc. It's impossible to say "pilot error" and walk away from this and still have any sort of credability at the higher up levels of leadership. The pilot error "might have been" the result of a culture that allowed certain norms to exist that may not have been all that normal.

Like the feds say, "Safety Is No Accident, It Must Be Planned"

I still stand by the fact that we are all fallable though. Things like this happen, very suprisingly, quite often - without the results of an accident. It's typically the leadership of one or more crew members that wake up and say, "hey, why don't we back off and make sure we aren't screwing something up here..." and the accident chain get's broken. That takes a lot of leadership in the heat of the battle, training in the right sort of human factors skills and lots of cultural support for CRM like John said to prevent something like this from reaching the bad outcomes.

David G., you have a very solid point on the human factors front. As a tax payer, I won't feel like I'm getting my money's worth unless the accident investigation also includes a really good look at the external factors that affected the decisions that were made. This accident seems really cut and dried on what happened, but we still might be able to prevent another one if we know why and make cultural changes.

Look at me, I'm getting on the dog pile like I said I wouldn't. Let me get back off and go get a coffee. Everything makes sense when we are under no stress and leisurely sitting in front of a computer monitor, I guess that's why monday morning QB pay sucks (unless you are in the media).

OK...so you land at a C5 base and see a Galaxy up on jacks. Anyone know what that means?

Wow, must be some pretty hughe jacks!

"and see a Galaxy up on jacks"

Gear swings or multiple tire changes.

Nope. It means there is only one set of jacks on the airport.

B

So...you are at an airport and see a C5 up on jacks and a guy is standing next to it spraying water underneath it.

What is he doing?

ha..trick question.

he is spraying water under it..

didn't get it.

How do you keep a moron in suspense?

Nope, not a trick question. Why is he doing it?

B

Wiping out bugs?

David, the analysis was correct of the situation. Being a C-5 Engineer, we get the "skinny" before the rest of the world. First, there is no MAC anymore, its AMC. Second, three engine landings are very regular, we practice them all the time. Problem is.....this was an AMP-modded jet. Avionics modernization program. It was a high profile flight, so all the crew were high-time. Problem is, in the Air Force, the higher time you get, the less you start flying. Most of those guys, had the bare-min training requirements for three engine landings. Lastly, as i am sure you remember the C-5 that bit it in Ramstein in the 90s........A TR Unlocked Light in our jet is one of the more SERIOUS lights you worry about. One more thing, the board did find that no one on the crew slept more than 4.5 hours the night before, that could be the only human factor, besides complacency that occred.

Nope. It's the only way to have a successful over water crossing with a C5.

OK...moving on here. The C5 has the nickname of "Fred" in certain circles.

What does it mean?

B

f-ing rediculous economical disaster! cool huh. nowhere near as rediculous as the c-17s though

A winner!!!!!! Woohoo!!!!!

B

With Nick riding in the FRED, I know he'll do everthing in his power to make sure its a complete trip...... I think we had best realize that the C 5 is an OLD Bird has a lot of hours, requires constant care, & Requires CONSTANT monitoring of all systems. NO BRAIN CRAMPING by anyone on the flight deck. I only hope our Aircrews have learned not repeat this failure to follow proceedures.
Semper Fi
Joe
We were LUCKY with this failure lets hope it doesn't happen again

The C-5 has another nickname...remember?

Its Linda Lovelace! Now who (besides you guys flying it) can guess that one?!

Rusty
(former C-141 Loadmaster - "if you can't WAM it, damn it")