Public release on Dover C-5 crash

[CKJET]

I have flown into Dover a few times in a 747 on Milatary charters...


1. They went for the longer runway is that the skinny one? It is easy to get low on a visual approach to a skinny 150ft runway in a large airplane such as a C-5? My next question is why would they cancel IFR? Third why on earth would you put the flaps out when you are so far out and low? How could all of these guys not see what was happening?

I'm not trying to bash these guys at all.. I fly with a ton of ex milatary guys and a lot of 141/C-5 guys I just think there must be a lot more to this story then has been made public.

 

[C-141/C-5]

first it's military. Next there is more to the story, but in the end it's just bad pilot mojo

 

[LearLove]

question, this may have been answered but I did not read all the posts:

If the flying pilot had used the 3rd good engine and they left the aircraft configured the way it was (prior to raising the flaps) would the approach and landing moost likely been sucessful? Again, same question but now they retract the flaps (to whatever setting they were going to) but used the 3rd good engine, would it have been a sucessful app. and landing all things considered?

 

[Patriot328]

question, this may have been answered but I did not read all the posts:

If the flying pilot had used the 3rd good engine and they left the aircraft configured the way it was (prior to raising the flaps) would the approach and landing moost likely been sucessful? Again, same question but now they retract the flaps (to whatever setting they were going to) but used the 3rd good engine, would it have been a sucessful app. and landing all things considered?

"The board says the crew was complacent and failed to realize the potential risk of a heavy-weight, full-flap approach and landing. Torres says simulator sessions showed if any of three errors (flying below the normal glidepath, using less than the available thrust on the three running engines or selecting the 100% flap setting) had been corrected, the aircraft could have landed safely. For example, simulator sessions showed that using the No. 3 engine as late as 300 ft. above the ground resulted in a safe landing. The accident aircraft stalled at 150 ft. Another scenario showed that using a 62.5% or 40% flap setting and the related approach speed without using the No. 3 engine above idle led to a safe landing. And a third scenario showed that flying an ILS or tactical air navigation approach to the runways at the base at the right altitudes would have worked even without the No. 3 engine above idle and flaps at 100%. Torres says that crew performance in this accident did not meet the Air Force's professional standards, but he does not know if any disciplinary action will be taken against crewmembers."

 

[Caveman]

That is privileged info. I suggest you remove the link. It is not to be disseminated to the public.

By public, I assume you mean the public that bought the plane, trained and paid the crew, paid for the investigation, support crew, MX, fuel, facilities and ATC services. Yeah, they have NO right to that info.

 

[stonewall]

By public, I assume you mean the public that bought the plane, trained and paid the crew, paid for the investigation, support crew, MX, fuel, facilities and ATC services. Yeah, they have NO right to that info.

I guess by that logic you have the "right" to know everything about every black program that your tax dollars pay for. You have the "right" to know EXACTLY what YOUR special forces in Iraq and Afghanistan are up to. CIA? Yup, YOU fund it so YOU should know what's going on.

The rationale for "privilege" has already been explained on this board. Research it.

 

[Caveman]

I guess by that logic you have the "right" to know everything about every black program that your tax dollars pay for. You have the "right" to know EXACTLY what YOUR special forces in Iraq and Afghanistan are up to. CIA? Yup, YOU fund it so YOU should know what's going on.

The rationale for "privilege" has already been explained on this board. Research it.

If this was a classified SpecOps mission and the crash was directly related to that mission I agree with you, but this appears to be a plain jane ordinary cargo mission. Give me one good reason why this information shouldn't be in the public domain.

 

[stonewall]

If this was a classified SpecOps mission and the crash was directly related to that mission I agree with you, but this appears to be a plain jane ordinary cargo mission. Give me one good reason why this information shouldn't be in the public domain.

The whole premise behind the AF Safety Program, covered by AFI's 91-202 and 91-204, is ACCIDENT PREVENTION. When the principals invovled in a mishap are interviewed by the Safety Investigation Board, they are given confidentiality. Why? So they can get the whole story from the crew without the fear of looking like idiots in the public or to the rest of the AF.

Was one of the crewmembers up late feeding a kid? Fighting with his wife? Sleeping with another crew member? Being pressured by the commander? In debt? We look for ANYTHING that might contribute to the accident, as bad as it may sound. When the board is concluded, the privileged part is circulated among air crews so we can say "look what they did, don't do this." All anonymously, of course.

If the crew knows all this ******************** is gonna be posted on FI or in every newspaper across the land, you WILL NOT GET THE WHOLE STORY. Plain and simple. Without all the info, the real lessons to be learned may not get out, and future accidents are not prevented. Make sense?

And to answer your question ahead of time, if anything illegal comes out of the SIB, and Accident Investigation Board is convened with lawyers, etc, and punishment can be handed out. No privilege in an AIB.

Some of the facts in this case seem pretty cut and dry with no behind the scenes "whoppers." But I've read some doozies. That stuff simply would not have been uncovered without confidentiality. You may not agree with this policy, but guess what? You don't have to. It's the way it is and works for us. As a civilian, you can put out whatever info you want. But if any military person disseminated "privileged info" to the public, they could (and should) be subject to disciplinary action.

Looks like I gave you a couple good reasons.

 

[Caveman]

None of the data in that video betrays any personal info about the crew. It's just an animated version of flight data and all it shows is the flight dynamics of the last couple minutes before the crash. None of which is in dispute.

The investigation policy of the military is essentially the same as the civil side. Protect the personal lives of the crews where possible but shed the light of day on what happened so that other crews don't make the same mistake. Nothing I've seen, read or heard on here or anywhere else gives any personal info other than the crew's names and position. The animated flight data isn't personal in nature at all.

I don't want to see anybody embarrassed, but they did appear to make some pretty critical mistakes and calling the data from this particular crash 'priviledged' in order to protect them is unjustified. Keep their personal circumstances under wraps, but there isn't anything wrong with the public seeing the facts and being aware of the circumstanaces that occurred during the flight. Like it or not, the taxpayer pays the freight and unless there is a security or personal issue they are entitled to know what happened.

So, no, you still haven't given me a good reason yet.

 

[stonewall]

None of the data in that video betrays any personal info about the crew. It's just an animated version of flight data and all it shows is the flight dynamics of the last couple minutes before the crash. None of which is in dispute.

The investigation policy of the military is essentially the same as the civil side. Protect the personal lives of the crews where possible but shed the light of day on what happened so that other crews don't make the same mistake. Nothing I've seen, read or heard on here or anywhere else gives any personal info other than the crew's names and position. The animated flight data isn't personal in nature at all.

I don't want to see anybody embarrassed, but they did appear to make some pretty critical mistakes and calling the data from this particular crash 'priviledged' in order to protect them is unjustified. Keep their personal circumstances under wraps, but there isn't anything wrong with the public seeing the facts and being aware of the circumstanaces that occurred during the flight. Like it or not, the taxpayer pays the freight and unless there is a security or personal issue they are entitled to know what happened.

So, no, you still haven't given me a good reason yet.

I already said if anything was uncovered that was illegal or contrary to regs was uncovered, they would be subject to discipline. There is no "protection" going on here.

I also said the facts IN THIS CASE seem pretty straightforward. However, we don't go into Safety Boards assuming there will be no need for "privilege" and "confidentiality." We go in assuming the need. Like I said, if the people involved know everything they say will be for public consumption, you will only get vague and incomplete statements. Ever watch a presidential news conference?

I'm just telling what the rules are. We can't pick and choose which mishaps we apply the rules to. If the Board President in this mishap chooses to release info and the AF Safety Center agrees, then so be it. If, however, privileged or confidential testimony or info was released without approval, then discipline is warranted.

Look, bro, you may not think these reasons are valid. However, if YOU were the A/C, I think all of a sudden you'd like the rules the way they're written. These ARE the regs, and we ARE expected to follow them. I've given the reasons and the rationale, if you don't like them, that's your issue. I'm not trying to get in a argument here.

And I do like the fact the taxpayer pays "the freight," whatever that means. I also like the fact they buy the jets, bombs, missiles, and gas. And I'm a taxpayer, too.