C-5 crash video

[h25b]

Hey, h25b, you surely don't think you got all the facts from a few minutes of video do you? If you don't have all the info, don't pass judgement. There are usually many factors involved in an accident, and the truth is, you just don't know. The AC may have been dead tired, he may have been stone drunk, or he may have just made a mistake (albiet a big one) that no one caught. The fact is, we are all human, and we all f&*k up once in a while, whatever the reason.

I don't disagree with anything you're saying.. I just don't see where you could disagree with anything I stated ??? If you can listen to the conversations they were having as they were turning final and can conclude that they were ready for the approach then perhaps there's something missing in your military CRM training. Pretty much CRM 101 stuff going on there.

Perhaps there were other aircraft issues or perhaps other issues pertaining to the crew but I'll be damned if I can figure out what they would be that could make any of my observations too off base.

 

[prozac]

h25b,
In some aircraft, there is a "local" function on the interphone. It allows people at different crew stations to have conversations without stepping all over each other. I'm not familiar with the C-5, but I wouldn't be surprised if it had this feature. Perhaps this is why there seems to be so much unnecessary chatter going on? I also know for a fact that when you start to pile crewdogs into an airplane that CRM can become a nightmare. Anyways, with these things you never really know what happened unless you were there.

 

[h25b]

Perhaps this is why there seems to be so much unnecessary chatter going on? I also know for a fact that when you start to pile crewdogs into an airplane that CRM can become a nightmare. Anyways, with these things you never really know what happened unless you were there.

You're missing my point... It's not that there's a problem with all of the discussion going on. It's the fact that all of this discussion was still going on while they were bailing in for approach. They probably had enough gas to circle for 7 hours to get everything figured out and come to a consensus between all of them before deciding to go on in. I don't care if there were 20 of them on the flight deck they had plenty of time to get all all figured out... My point is that all of the discussion could have been to their favor.

Like I said, CRM 101...

 

[milplt]

RampFreeze - shack. It is time that the AF leadership stopped being "pissed" about these leaks and started making some examples. This is one of a long list. Back in '03 there was the AC-130 video using the 105mm against ground targets with comm (and callsigns) included. Very classified. Then, the safety reports of the MC-130 in Afghan that landed on the runway construction - safety reports being cut/pasted to the web. Who knows how many LANTIRN videos with audio and individual (and detailed) there I was stroies have been posted.

It's about time our leadership grew some hairy ones and started to create an environment where we are expected to show the professionalism that is required - and not do this crap just because it's cool. To much PC B******t, not enough concentration on the warfighting.

 

[flyboyike]

Granted the C5 is no Piper Meridian buuuut... understand this is more than putting two of Jerry's Kids in the front seats and asking them to fly.

I wholeheartedly understand and respect that, but I would think this is why the C-5 requires 4 times the flight crew of the Meridian. I can't help but hope that someone should give those engine gauges an occasional glance.

 

[satpak77]

this has nothing to do with the aircraft being a big bad C-5

take the accident report, delete "C-5", and you will see the following themes, common to most accidents

- lost S/A
- poor CRM
- got slow, and actually stalled the airplane on short final
- was below VASI/GS
- no brief
- quick to return to field...was an immediate return, ASAP, necessary? It was VFR, why not orbit overhead in a hold and let things settle down. "Wind your watch" and count to 10, etc.
- chitter chatter in cockpit from 5 miles until the crash
- crew rest issues
- multiple links in error chain

so everybody who thinks the "big bad C-5" factor had something to do with this, they are wrong. The above will set you up for any accident.

If you don't believe me, go stall your Skyhawk on 1 mile final, while flying 300 feet below the VASI, and see what happens.

If the Dover crew was at DFW they would have wiped out Grapevine Mills mall and killed hundreds. It just happened that a pasture existed at Dover AFB.

Don't kill the messenger, "you don't fly C-5s", etc etc

It is what it is.

 

[Gorilla]

Stapak is correct.

Guys, I love and support the military as much as anybody here. The video should not have been leaked because it was declared priveledged, although I don't agree with that classification in this instance.

With that said, I am a bit confused with the attitudes here. Military guys screw up just like civilian guys. We're all human. The "keep it secret" mentality seems to me to really say "we're embarrassed, and don't want anyone to know we screwed up." That's a bit childish.

I messed up plenty in the AF and fortunately lived through it.

I've mentioned this once before - If the incident involved national security, a weapons system, or some other problem that could be exploited by the bad guys, put a lid on it and seal it hard. But this is none of those.

 

[KeroseneSnorter]

In that situation a lot is happening. Sounds like the crew acted about like any other crew would in the situation except for the screw up that put them in the dirt. I heard nothing unusual about the approach, the brief obviously happened before the part we got to hear.

Sounds like a simple procedure problem in the standard operating procedures, namely the practice of keeping the "dead" throttle at idle position. Most twin engine jets I have flown use this procedure to help identify quickly which one is failed during the high stress and workload period. However every airplane that I have flown with 3 or 4 engines the standard procedure trained is to use all thrust levers once the shut down is complete to avoid the situation that put them in the dirt.

I suspect that the C-5 op specs will see a revision shortly that mirrors what the civilian 747 and other 4 engine airplanes already do(if it's not already a procedure in the sim), all thrust levers in use even with one failed. Given the fact that the military still does a lot of engine out training in the airplane and almost no civilian does training in the airplane anymore (all in the sims) it will be a difference for the crews from sim to airplane, but it is obvious that simple little procedure would have avoided the accident given the info "released" to the public.

I know I do not fly FRED but I do fly one of the few airplanes out there that outweighs FRED and from that point of view this accident should never have happened. I would say that a good part of the blame on this one would have to go on the training that they received, IF they were indeed following standard procedure by leaving the "failed" throttle at idle. As we all know when the stress level goes up people tend to revert back to their training and sometimes seemingly simple things that would be noticed readily at other times are missed. (two n1's or EPR's at idle instead of just one etc.)

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

this has nothing to do with the aircraft being a big bad C-5

take the accident report, delete "C-5", and you will see the following themes, common to most accidents

- lost S/A
- poor CRM
- got slow, and actually stalled the airplane on short final
- was below VASI/GS
- no brief
- quick to return to field...was an immediate return, ASAP, necessary? It was VFR, why not orbit overhead in a hold and let things settle down. "Wind your watch" and count to 10, etc.
- chitter chatter in cockpit from 5 miles until the crash
- crew rest issues
- multiple links in error chain

Lost SA....

There are multiple red flags that indicate a loss of SA. Four or more red flags equals an accident.

1. Ambiguity- thrust lever position, indication and percieved thrust output. Flap position too.
2. Preoccupation/No one flying the plane- PF flying switching(?), calling for flap changes and stalling the wing.
3. Ignoring minimums/limitations/policy- going below GS/VASI. Not following engine out procedures, variable flap positions.
4. Over trust/complacency- Lots of senior pilots/instructors-what could go wrong?
5. Not addressing descepancies- good engine at idle, slowing airspeed, below G/S and different flap positions
6. Confusion- Statement- "I am concerned". Concerned about what?
7. Poor communication- not following up on 'concerned' statement. AC didn't organize crew to get them cohesive for the approach.

I see 7 red flags. Almost twice needed to wreck a jet.

A total CRM failure. It also appears that the AC was not in command.

 

[RampFreeze]

...although I don't agree with that classification in this instance.

The reason the information should be kept "in house" is entirely for the protection of the people involved. If the AIB had created and released an identical tape, I'm all for releasing it. However, the very premise of the SIB is that everything generated through an SIB is "privileged information" so that the people involved can speak freely and say, "Yup, I screwed up. Here's how to keep from doing the dumb thing I did." By keeping the info in-house they don't have to fear that whatever they say "will be used against them in a court of law." Simply put, you can't court martial a guy (or be sued by a civilian lawyer) for what the SIB says or what the guy said to the SIB since the lawyers don't have (or shouldn't have) access to the information. On the other hand, saying I screwed up at an AIB can be the same as saying, "don't worry about gathering any other details to find out the real/contributing causes of the accident. Just go ahead and set my court martial date for dereliction of duty."

The only thing that makes this not as bad as releasing other SIB info is that the CVR tape is not considered the sole property of the SIB. The AIB has access to it as well. As a matter of fact, the regs say, "The Air Force does not give a promise of confidentiality to aircrews regarding their recorded cockpit communications." So, this one boils down to one thing – this is an SIB video and no SIB info should ever be released. If the AIB released an identical video, no foul.

 

[captdorn81]

I have heard all types of rumors from that the pilots walked away to they broke their backs and are in some bad shape does anyone know the truth?

 

[milplt]

Classification vs. privileged

Gorilla, not an attack - but , if you were in the military, it may have been a while since you were active you may have forgotten some of the finer admin points.

Just as Rampfreeze said - privileged is a liability thing - not a security thing. This information is completely releasable to every military pilot and anyone else who may benefit from a safety aspect by directly knowing the details. You said that it should have been posted to get everyone informed. Well, now the reverse will happen. Because we can't trust our people to treat privileged info with the proper attention, we will start to restrict who has that info. Written copies of the reports will become accountable and we will not be allowed to send electronic versions via unsecure means. In short, there will be aircrew who don't get this info because it wasn't as freely distributed as in the past.

As far as the civilians and non-military aircrew knowing the details, the AIB hid nothing and stated it was aircrew error - read AW&ST or Air Force times - I am sure that the AIB details were in both. There was absolutely no hiding of anything from the public.

I do have to respectfully disagree with your not agreeing with the classification statement. NEVER has it been appropriate to divulge information just because you disagreed with the classification. If there is an inappropriate classification, go to the OPR (or whatever the classifying source is called these days) and request a change of classification - but you could never, and still can't, decide to disregard a classification just because you didn't see the point of it.

I saw you previously had a 58 FS patch as an avatar, so you may have had some sort of association with that squadron. I flew in that unit, and breaches of security were treated very harshly (and very immediately). Some people still do take these things seriously.

 

[Gorilla]

Milplt, it was a 58th TFS patch. Note the "T". Long time ago.

Please understand, my objections here began because of certain attitudes displayed. They were something like "how DARE these pilots be subject to scrutiny."

I've been civilian a long time now, and I have seen my airline compadres absolutely crucified, over and over, the moment the slightest thing goes wrong. When AA crashed at Cali, within days, the newspapers shrieked "ALCOHOL FOUND IN DEAD PILOTS BODIES!!!!" Later, it was determined that the alcohols were the result of decay.

The double standard was and remains annoying. Liability is not an issue here. There was no civilian property damage or injury.

It's a bit childish of me to wish the same ill treatment on mil pilots. I'd rather have all accidents on both sides treated with a measure of dignity.

I also know how to keep a secret. And I'll do so regardless of my personal wishes. That doesn't change the fact that I find the whole secrecy thing with a cargo aircraft accident puzzling. I never advocated the release of any material that is priveledged or classified... I simply said I don't agree with this particular classification, in this case.

 

[talondriver]

I'm not sure if it was mentioned earlier, but I was told this jet had the new avionics upgrade and the only one familiar with it was one of the pilots. I can see how they didn't notice obvious (to us) buffoonery with what engines were being used during the approach if their crosscheck was slower due to the glass. In parts of the tape you can here someone talking about something new.

 

[TankerDriver]

I'm not sure if it was mentioned earlier, but I was told this jet had the new avionics upgrade and the only one familiar with it was one of the pilots. I can see how they didn't notice obvious (to us) buffoonery with what engines were being used during the approach if their crosscheck was slower due to the glass. In parts of the tape you can here someone talking about something new.

I'm sure they all had to be familiar with it. I'm assuming they had to be qualified to fly an aircraft with a new cockpit. In the 135, we have new avionics also (Block 40/40.2). We go through Block 40 qualification through our training department in our mission qual phase, which consists of about 10 hours of CBT's, 3 sims and 3 flights. Everyone goes through it. If you're not qualified, you don't fly Block 40 aircraft. Now, being qualified and being proficient are two different things. We're only required to log one sortie per semester (6 months) in the Block 40 aircraft. I don't know if the C-5 guys go through the same type of in house qualification training as we do for the new avionics (I would assume they do), but depending on how frequently or infrequently pilots are flying the "new" aircraft, I could see someone having a brain fart.