Jump to content

Air Force Pilot Screws Up - Wrong Airport


Recommended Posts

Well it's a good thing it was a C17, they can take off on a pretty small amount of runway for their size.  Impressive sound on the jet engines.  They were designed for small and rugged runways.  And they can go in reverse so they don't need any special handling on the ground.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Think I read somewhere it takes more runway to take off than to land. A cub doesn't matter but it might make a diff with the really big AF cargo plane. I can fly one but unsure about the other.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Old news.

Seems (IIRC) that the two airports were basically adjacent to each other.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rum Runner said:

The guy lands a big jet at a small airport. Oops! Maybe they won't notice.

 

@Burning Man to the white courtesy phone please.:lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't this sort of thing happen with some regularity?

Or perhaps the burritos in the food court are better?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bump-n-Grind said:

image.png.3fb9b5f3e3da414b2b2fce0eb11126c8.png

Wrong airport mapped.  The one you want is Peter Knight airport located to the NE of MacDill on Davis Island.  But jeez, how'd those Jersey boys mistake a 3600 foot general aviation runway for a roughly 11000 foot runway loaded with military a/c.   Hope it's not a career ending landing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That provided a lot of hilarity here a couple of years ago.  As I recall they had to strip everything out of the plane including most of the fuel and gun it to get the plane off the ground.  DIYC is right under the runway so there was some nervous boat owners at the time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rum Runner said:

The guy lands a big jet at a small airport. Oops! Maybe they won't notice.

 

Take a look at the engines dancing around, starting around 0:39.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, RedTuna said:

Wrong airport mapped.  The one you want is Peter Knight airport located to the NE of MacDill on Davis Island.  But jeez, how'd those Jersey boys mistake a 3600 foot general aviation runway for a roughly 11000 foot runway loaded with military a/c.   Hope it's not a career ending landing.

Punchline to classic Cajun Airlines joke - man dat runway sure is short, but it's really wide.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RedTuna said:

Wrong airport mapped.  The one you want is Peter Knight airport located to the NE of MacDill on Davis Island.  But jeez, how'd those Jersey boys mistake a 3600 foot general aviation runway for a roughly 11000 foot runway loaded with military a/c.   Hope it's not a career ending landing.

You sure? there was a fire truck with Tampa International Airport on the side of it in the video... Knight would make more sense, since the runways are oriented more similarly to McDill... They each have a "22"

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ed Lada said:

Well it's a good thing it was a C17, they can take off on a pretty small amount of runway for their size.  Impressive sound on the jet engines.  They were designed for small and rugged runways.  And they can go in reverse so they don't need any special handling on the ground.

That’s my baby!  Spent 10 years on the program. Fun times. 
 

And it’s an amazingly capable craft. They once put an Orca in the trunk and flew to a beach on an Icelandic fiord. Got the fish to the water but found a boulder with a main gear. No prob, we shipped them a new one and our RAMS team installed it on the beach.  All in a days work.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Corpus Christi has a naval air field not too far from the airport. I think a Continental 737 landed there by mistake once. They had to bus everyone off to take off again because the runway was too short. 

(They aren't as close as this looks...)

image.png.8b2adb88c55c7466e0e608d76f98a849.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RedTuna said:

Wrong airport mapped.  The one you want is Peter Knight airport located to the NE of MacDill on Davis Island.  But jeez, how'd those Jersey boys mistake a 3600 foot general aviation runway for a roughly 11000 foot runway loaded with military a/c.   Hope it's not a career ending landing.

I was wondering if they let the pilot continue after landing at the wrong strip, or did someone else get that duty?

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, mad said:

Don't spoil it, we were having fun.:P

Apologies. GA Lesson learned. Forgot about the Weedo lesson ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Gangbusters said:

I was wondering if they let the pilot continue after landing at the wrong strip, or did someone else get that duty?

As Ricky Ricardo used to say to Lucy, "Lucy you got some 'splaining' to do"

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Bump-n-Grind said:

You sure? there was a fire truck with Tampa International Airport on the side of it in the video... Knight would make more sense, since the runways are oriented more similarly to McDill... They each have a "22"

 

Kinda sure.  I used to TDY into Tampa Int'l periodically.  I have no memory of the backgrounds in the video, but it's been ages.

17 hours ago, Charlie Foxtrot said:

That’s my baby!  Spent 10 years on the program. Fun times. 
 

And it’s an amazingly capable craft. They once put an Orca in the trunk and flew to a beach on an Icelandic fiord. Got the fish to the water but found a boulder with a main gear. No prob, we shipped them a new one and our RAMS team installed it on the beach.  All in a days work.  

You worked the program?  Cool.  Wondering if maybe we ever met in the late 80s, early 90s.  I was an engine test cell weenie and helped bed down the first a/c at Charleston.  I remember being in the mock-up a/c in Long Beach while the first five a/c were already in production and wondering WTF.  I think it was the industry's first try at concurrent engineering and it wasn't going well.  Always on the verge of cancellation.  Behind schedule, over budget, over weight, under range and under powered.  Very gratifying to see it not only survive but become an exceptional airplane.

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, RedTuna said:

Kinda sure.  I used to TDY into Tampa Int'l periodically.  I have no memory of the backgrounds in the video, but it's been ages.

You worked the program?  Cool.  Wondering if maybe we ever met in the late 80s, early 90s.  I was an engine test cell weenie and helped bed down the first a/c at Charleston.  I remember being in the mock-up a/c in Long Beach while the first five a/c were already in production and wondering WTF.  I think it was the industry's first try at concurrent engineering and it wasn't going well.  Always on the verge of cancellation.  Behind schedule, over budget, over weight, under range and under powered.  Very gratifying to see it not only survive but become an exceptional airplane.

Such is the life of most, if not all, military procurements.  The system has fundamental flaws.

The C-17, coupled with the A-12 fighter damn near bankrupted McDonnell Douglas.  The company was within days (hours?) of filing.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RedTuna said:

Kinda sure.  I used to TDY into Tampa Int'l periodically.  I have no memory of the backgrounds in the video, but it's been ages.

You worked the program?  Cool.  Wondering if maybe we ever met in the late 80s, early 90s.  I was an engine test cell weenie and helped bed down the first a/c at Charleston.  I remember being in the mock-up a/c in Long Beach while the first five a/c were already in production and wondering WTF.  I think it was the industry's first try at concurrent engineering and it wasn't going well.  Always on the verge of cancellation.  Behind schedule, over budget, over weight, under range and under powered.  Very gratifying to see it not only survive but become an exceptional airplane.

I was part of the “50 That Saved the Program” when McD Program and AF SPO management hated each other so heartily in the early 90s. I worked mainly with company management and the SPO. But, I liked going down to the floor or over to the fuse and wing mock-ups. Kick the tires and see what my work was making possible. Got chased off of the “Hanging Garden” assembly tooling.
 

Fun times - kinda felt like SpaceX’s battle rhythm with all we were doing so fast.  
 

I’ll tip a glass of Highland Scotch to the best damn airlifter and all of us that breathed life into her!

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Charlie Foxtrot said:

I’ll tip a glass of Highland Scotch to the best damn airlifter and all of us that breathed life into her!

I'll drink to that and add, "If it's too big, too heavy or has to go too far, put it on a C-5." 

I love all the heavies, even the rarely praised flying sippy cups that make global reach possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a famous expression about pilots landing at the wrong airport.  Something like "the pilot had never previously landed at XX airport..... and still hasn't".

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bugsy said:

There is a famous expression about pilots landing at the wrong airport.  Something like "the pilot had never previously landed at XX airport..... and still hasn't".

 

There is an old but great joke about an irritable German Air Traffic Controller giving a British Airways pilot a hard time, and asking him if this was his first time flying to Berlin?  Pilot replies, "No Sir, I was here back in 1944, but we didn't land"....

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, RedTuna said:

I'll drink to that and add, "If it's too big, too heavy or has to go too far, put it on a C-5." 

I love all the heavies, even the rarely praised flying sippy cups that make global reach possible.

Actually, you’ll need to put it on two FREDs, the C-5’s dispatch reliability is so poor.  
 

 But, I might be biased.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, RedTuna said:

I'll drink to that and add, "If it's too big, too heavy or has to go too far, put it on a C-5." 

I love all the heavies, even the rarely praised flying sippy cups that make global reach possible.

How do they get something that ginormous to become airborne in such a short takeoff distance? Do they exploit ground effects somehow?

I have to admit, landing that behemoth at a small field like that, and then taking off again like it's nothing, is a danged effective bit of public relations to the value of our tax dollars for that one particular plane.  Even if the future of warfare is economic, an airplane with that ability could have a million humanitarian uses.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, mikewof said:

How do they get something that ginormous to become airborne in such a short takeoff distance? Do they exploit ground effects somehow?

A huge wing are and the power to push it thru the air. A quick Google reveals it can takeoff from a 3000 foot runway with considerable fuel and cargo. Unload everything including the drinking water then wait for a 25 kn headwind and it can depart from farm fields. Certainly ground effect helps. 

Saw a demo at an airshow. Must have been absolutely minimum weight. Appeared to roll about its own length before rotation. Nuts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, El Borracho said:

A huge wing are and the power to push it thru the air. A quick Google reveals it can takeoff from a 3000 foot runway with considerable fuel and cargo. Unload everything including the drinking water then wait for a 25 kn headwind and it can depart from farm fields. Certainly ground effect helps. 

Saw a demo at an airshow. Must have been absolutely minimum weight. Appeared to roll about its own length before rotation. Nuts.

It was designed to carry maximum cargo on unimproved and small airfields, a job relegated to C-130s mostly.  It does that well.  Comparing it to a C5 which was designed to carry the highest possible payload, like some do above, is like comparing a Jeep to an Escalade. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, El Borracho said:

A huge wing are and the power to push it thru the air. 

IIRC, a kind of blown flaps via the engines exhausts. Normally, flaps have gaps at the engines, not the C17

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Xlot said:

IIRC, a kind of blown flaps via the engines exhausts. Normally, flaps have gaps at the engines, not the C17

So it's using the jet exhaust to add turbulence and lift into the ground effect?

Cripes, whoever thought of that at Boeing was a mad genius.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, mikewof said:

So it's using the jet exhaust to add turbulence and lift into the ground effect?

No, not tied to ground effect. Blowing the (strenghted, I suppose) flaps delays stall and achieves a higher lift coefficient. Old technology (F104, F4) bled and piped air from engine compressor to near flap hinge

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Xlot said:

No, not tied to ground effect. Blowing the (strenghted, I suppose) flaps delays stall and achieves a higher lift coefficient

 

I watched the video, I noticed the solid flaps you described.

So lessee ... lift, gravity, thrust, drag ... the flaps extend into the path of the jet exhaust, a certain vector of that thrust then is directed downward, increases lift, but increases drag. In the video that looked to be at least 20-degrees or more of flap, is that normal for takeoff, or is it a short-runway thing?

The way they backed they reverse thrusted the plane, they only seemed to move it back a short distance. Is that common for takeoff or a flex of the ability?

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, mikewof said:

The way they backed they reverse thrusted the plane, they only seemed to move it back a short distance. Is that common for takeoff or a flex of the ability?

I'm going to guess since they could back up , they did so to get the max runway length.  

They already fucked up once, why not take advantage of every bit of runway they could easily get.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Ed Lada said:

I'm going to guess since they could back up , they did so to get the max runway length.  

They already fucked up once, why not take advantage of every bit of runway they could easily get.  

It's hard to tell, but in the video it looked like they only backed up a bit, and had a good bit of runway behind them, and a good bit in front of them when they lifted. An airplane that big, I would have backed its tail was over the rhubarb ... it's just something in my head that screams at me that it's too big and heavy to take off in anything shorter than one of the runways at Denver International, let alone a runway at Centennial.

That takeoff, couldn't have been a better promotional piece for the folks at Boeing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, mikewof said:

It's hard to tell, but in the video it looked like they only backed up a bit, and had a good bit of runway behind them, and a good bit in front of them when they lifted. An airplane that big, I would have backed its tail was over the rhubarb ... it's just something in my head that screams at me that it's too big and heavy to take off in anything shorter than one of the runways at Denver International, let alone a runway at Centennial.

That takeoff, couldn't have been a better promotional piece for the folks at Boeing.

They certainly only needed a portion of the 5,000' runway.  They only need 3,500' to take off.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ed Lada said:

They only need 3,500' to take off.  

Wiki states that with a full load they need 12,000 plus feet of runway.

The plane must have been offloaded?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, justsomeguy! said:

Wiki states that with a full load they need 12,000 plus feet of runway.

The plane must have been offloaded?

I'm thinking you are confusing it with the C5.  A fully loaded 747 can take of in a little under 11,000'.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, IStream said:

I thought the C-5M program addressed most of the reliability issues, but I could be wrong.

FRED is still FRED.  I monitored the fleet of C-5As, Bs, Cs and Ms on a daily basis for years looking for engine issues, and there were days when not one of the first dozen or so C-5Ms were mission capable.  The aircraft System Program Office, now Life Cycle Management, at Warner-Robins didn't understand the first fucking thing about Reliability Centered Maintenance.  Maybe it's gotten better since 2014.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, mikewof said:

How do they get something that ginormous to become airborne in such a short takeoff distance? Do they exploit ground effects somehow?

Given enough thrust, pigs fly just fine.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, IStream said:

I thought the C-5M program addressed most of the reliability issues, but I could be wrong.

 New engines and avionics certainly helped. But, that old Rube Goldberg hydraulic system is still there.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, mikewof said:

So it's using the jet exhaust to add turbulence and lift into the ground effect?

Cripes, whoever thought of that at Boeing was a mad genius.

McDonnell Douglas.  And, yes. 
 

Boeing had the Powered Lift concept, which was very good very slow, but sucked rock at cruise.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Charlie Foxtrot said:

Boeing had the Powered Lift concept, which was very good very slow, but sucked rock at cruise.  

The Coandă Effect, since there appear to be other nerds here.

And hey, have a Weird Al ear worm while we're at it:

Think I'm just too white and nerdy
Think I'm just too white and nerdy
Can't you see I'm white and nerdy?
Look at me, I'm white and nerdy.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/1/2021 at 4:39 PM, Charlie Foxtrot said:

McDonnell Douglas.  And, yes. 
 

Boeing had the Powered Lift concept, which was very good very slow, but sucked rock at cruise.  

The one in the OP was made by McDD?

Do you know how the system works? Is it that the jet engine hits the flap in its way, then makes the billowy cushion of ground-effect turbulence? I assume the need to contain the ground effect turbulence is why the plane has such a strong negative dihedral?

Any issue with that dihedral and the wingtip vortices with paratroops?

Link to post
Share on other sites

My uncle used to flight engineer these for the Air National Guard, it's the C-130?

He once told me that flight engineering a jet was a bore, little to do other than monitor temperatures. He preferred the reciprocating engines ...20190331_001744.jpg.326e2f92a8bbe1037058ed99bde97460.jpg

20181122_132016.thumb.jpg.c7e9621a84667a5c3c4c61229ca06e79.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

New York Air Guard?

That's pretty funni.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, mikewof said:

My uncle used to flight engineer these for the Air National Guard, it's the C-130?

He once told me that flight engineering a jet was a bore, little to do other than monitor temperatures. He preferred the reciprocating engines ...20190331_001744.jpg.326e2f92a8bbe1037058ed99bde97460.jpg

 

That's a C 137 Stratoliner made by Boeing.

 

This is a C 130 Hercules made by Lockheed.

 

NASA - NASA & Lockheed Martin: Partners in C-130 Technology     C-130 Hercules - Military Aircraft

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, mikewof said:

The one in the OP was made by McDD?

Do you know how the system works? Is it that the jet engine hits the flap in its way, then makes the billowy cushion of ground-effect turbulence? I assume the need to contain the ground effect turbulence is why the plane has such a strong negative dihedral?

Any issue with that dihedral and the wingtip vortices with paratroops?

Let’s unpack this, shall we?

The one in the OP was made by McDD?

McDonnell Douglas designed and built the C-17 (the plane in the first photo), based largely on the YC-15 flying prototype, which was developed by Douglas Aircraft. The C-17’s first flight was in September, 1991. Boeing <spit> bought McDonnell Douglas at the end of 1996.  By that time we had the program under control and were pumping out money. 

Do you know how the system works? Is it that the jet engine hits the flap in its way, then makes the billowy cushion of ground-effect turbulence? I assume the need to contain the ground effect turbulence is why the plane has such a strong negative dihedral?

Ground effect has very little to do with the 17’s performance; the wing is set far too high to have any significant benefit from the very short time the plane is in ground effect. The plane’s short field capabilities arise from the Blown Flaps. (Got the shirt “It’s Better Being Blown” before uppah management had a stroke.)  https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/c-17.htm is a high level discussion of the externally blown flaps of the C-17 and the 17 in general.  If you really want to get in the weeds, try https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/c-17.htm. We put together a really outstanding webpage (for 1996 or 97) on the Blown Flaps, but I guess Boeing killed that too.          

Any issue with that dihedral and the wingtip vortices with paratroops?

The anhedral wing was chosen for maneuverability (all the cargo weight well below the wing would otherwise make the plane too stable) and to direct the apparent wind toward the wing root and the flaps. The 17 did have problems with paratroopers getting too close when using both paratroop doors. Even though the 17 is basically a flying knockwurst, it is also a very cleverly designed aerodynamic one. The slipstream recombined underneath the tail, dragging the port and starboard paratrooper sticks together. In a test, one troopie hit and collapsed the chute of another, who had to ditch his main and ride down under his reserve chute. Another time there were collisions, that I seem to remember resulted in bruises, a broken arm, maybe a short period of unconsciousness, and much heavy drinking. That issue was resolved by much larger airstream deflectors ahead of both paratroop doors and a maybe a change in speed and deck angle.  

IMNSHO, the C-17 is the best airlifter ever, by a huge amount. It is a crying shame that Boeing, ‘Boma, and Airbus combined to kill the program. Talking to a friend that was still on the remnant of the program several years ago, all the Air Force can complain about is that there are just too damn few of the C-17s.    

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Charlie Foxtrot said:

Ground effect has very little to do with the 17’s performance; the wing is set far too high to have any significant benefit from the very short time the plane is in ground effect. The plane’s short field capabilities arise from the Blown Flaps. (Got the shirt “It’s Better Being Blown” before uppah management had a stroke.)  https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/c-17.htm is a high level discussion of the externally blown flaps of the C-17 and the 17 in general.  If you really want to get in the weeds, try https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/c-17.htm. We put together a really outstanding webpage (for 1996 or 97) on the Blown Flaps, but I guess Boeing killed that too.    

 

Okay, so it's more complicated than just vectoring the jet exhaust downward from the flaps for extra lift, because that would make the plane harder to land?

In your links, it seems that the blown flaps are made of the flaps plus a controllable diverter of some kind in the jet exhaust.  In the videos, it's odd to see such aggressive flap position on takeoff, but the effect is undeniable, that enormous bitch seems to just float off the runway.

With the negative dihedral, why did they mount the wings so high if it's too stable?

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, mikewof said:

He once told me that flight engineering a jet was a bore, little to do other than monitor temperatures. He preferred the reciprocating engines ...

Here's the flight engineer's desk in an old version of the C-5.  From the lap brick, I think MADARS III.  Look like a boring place to sit?

 

DSC_0285.jpg

A bit overwhelming, huh?  When a friend and co-worker was transitioning from a C-130 FE to C-5 in 1985 or so, he was amazed and challenged at the additional complexity.  Really only mentioning this because he rode 68-228 into the dirt at Ramstein during Desert Shield and to remind people how dangerous military aviation can be even as we mock the occasional cock-up. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, RedTuna said:

Here's the flight engineer's desk in an old version of the C-5.  From the lap brick, I think MADARS III.  Look like a boring place to sit?

 

DSC_0285.jpg

A bit overwhelming, huh?  When a friend and co-worker was transitioning from a C-130 FE to C-5 in 1985 or so, he was amazed and challenged at the additional complexity.  Really only mentioning this because he rode 68-228 into the dirt at Ramstein during Desert Shield and to remind people how dangerous military aviation can be even as we mock the occasional cock-up. 

Cripes, like fucking a robot.

Anyway, that's what my Uncle told me, he said the flight engineering for the jet cargo transports was partly automated and not too much went wrong. He engineered and repaired planes in the Pacific in WWII, he was presumably used to a lot of shit getting screwed-up, iced-up, melted and broken in flight in the old reciprocating engine planes, with no computers to control anything.

 

That photo is interesting, I think I can see the symmetry on the bottom row of gauge and controls, with the gauge sets on either side of the fuselage, to sets for each engine ... is that little U-shape to the upper left corner of the computer representative of the center of the plane?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RedTuna said:

Here's the flight engineer's desk in an old version of the C-5.  From the lap brick, I think MADARS III.  Look like a boring place to sit?

 

DSC_0285.jpg

A bit overwhelming, huh?  When a friend and co-worker was transitioning from a C-130 FE to C-5 in 1985 or so, he was amazed and challenged at the additional complexity.  Really only mentioning this because he rode 68-228 into the dirt at Ramstein during Desert Shield and to remind people how dangerous military aviation can be even as we mock the occasional cock-up. 

I was a docent and airplane and crew focal for an air show at Long Beach.  They gave me the C-5A. Those guys and gals were great: The crew of 12-15 were pros and had everything already figured out long ago. The hardest thing I did for them all weekend was get them several cases of water and bags of ice a day. My buddies who had the F-16, F-18 and F-117 had a much harder time, as the pilots were only interested in chasing skirt.  ;) The F-117 at that time was still Top Secret, and it was guarded by a huge, non-smiling Air Police Sergeant with an M-16, who desperately wanted to shoot a pilot, but would settle for a docent.  

In my spare time, the four(!) pilots and two flight engineers took me up the ladder to the cockpit. (Nowhere nearly as well lit as the photo.)  I remember looking at the flight engineer's station and being amazed at the amount of systems that were red-tagged InOp. That's we we have lots of 'em!, was the cheerful reply.    

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Charlie Foxtrot said:

That's we we have lots of 'em!, was the cheerful reply.    

Sine of confidense, and sense of selfe..........       to thums waye up....                     :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Snaggletooth said:

Sine of confidense, and sense of selfe..........       to thums waye up....                     :)

If you say so, Mr Snags.  Me, when my own, dearly beloved, neon-white butt is wearing a seat in a yestertech C-5... I'd like a little margin.  ;)

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/3/2021 at 5:10 PM, Charlie Foxtrot said:

If you say so, Mr Snags.  Me, when my own, dearly beloved, neon-white butt is wearing a seat in a yestertech C-5... I'd like a little margin.  ;)

I hope the guys whose feet were dangling from the seats shown here on the pax deck were wearing their brown pants, for a little extra margin.  Glass cockpit, so not a completely yestertech C-5.

4059 2.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

My father flew C-141's in MAC during Vietnam because in his words, "It was the safest aircraft in the inventory" and "Too expensive to let anyone shoot at".  He was a different kind of guy.  Apparently he had to finish high enough in his training class to be able to pick his aircraft. 

He had stories about fellow pilots navigating by following highways, landing on wrong runways or even airports - occasionally people coming back with a branch in the wing. Different time I guess. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Elegua said:

My father flew C-141's in MAC during Vietnam because in his words, "It was the safest aircraft in the inventory" and "Too expensive to let anyone shoot at".  He was a different kind of guy.  Apparently he had to finish high enough in his training class to be able to pick his aircraft. 

He had stories about fellow pilots navigating by following highways, landing on wrong runways or even airports - occasionally people coming back with a branch in the wing. Different time I guess. 

I've flown a few times in C 141s.  both in the web seats down the sides and also on regular passenger seats, but facing to the rear of the plane.   I can't say that it's the most comfortable aircraft I've ever flown on.  Not too far below EasyJet though, maybe even a wash.  We didn't have to pay for the box lunch on the C 141.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Ed Lada said:

I've flown a few times in C 141s.  both in the web seats down the sides and also on regular passenger seats, but facing to the rear of the plane.   I can't say that it's the most comfortable aircraft I've ever flown on.  Not too far below EasyJet though, maybe even a wash.  We didn't have to pay for the box lunch on the C 141.   

Did you get lunch? Seemed pretty austere from the pictures. I think it was one of the few AF jets to fly on a schedule like an airline. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RedTuna said:

I hope the guys whose feet were dangling from the seats shown here on the pax deck were wearing their brown pants, for a little extra margin.  Glass cockpit, so not a completely yestertech C-5.

4059 2.jpg

Ho Lee Fwuk!  I'll bet that was a ride.  That'd be one where Rescue has to use the Jaws of Life to pull the seat cushions out of the crew's puckered arses.   

 

1 hour ago, Elegua said:

Did you get lunch? Seemed pretty austere from the pictures. I think it was one of the few AF jets to fly on a schedule like an airline. 


Overran the runway on landing? Takeoff? Where?    

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Elegua said:

Did you get lunch? Seemed pretty austere from the pictures...

Coworker flew C-141s before thankfully transitioning to the KC-10. He called the StarLifter the East German WhisperJet.  Pressurized to keep the sound inside.    

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Charlie Foxtrot said:

Coworker flew C-141s before thankfully transitioning to the KC-10. He called the StarLifter the East German WhisperJet.  Pressurized to keep the sound inside.    

Haha... These are stories from the '68-'72.  He enlisted when he graduated from grad school (same class as the orange one).  Some stories I believe, some I don't really believe, some I'd like to believe. The trees was supposedly a senior officer that didn't fly much landing a bit low at McGuire.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/6/2021 at 3:29 PM, Charlie Foxtrot said:

Ho Lee Fwuk!  I'll bet that was a ride.  That'd be one where Rescue has to use the Jaws of Life to pull the seat cushions out of the crew's puckered arses.   

 


Overran the runway on landing? Takeoff? Where?    

Well, one of the pax, a retired Navy Chief's wife flying Space A, thought it was just a rough landing.  Guessing she couldn't see daylight. 

The instructor crew flying 84-059 out of Dover got a thrust reverser not locked light shortly after takeoff, maybe ten minutes or twelve, so shut down the engine per the TO.  Came back around to make a three engine landing, which they train for.  Every emergency checklist item basically screwed up due to the A/C commander getting pissed off at being vectored and slightly delayed for his instrument landing due to fire trucks not being in position yet.  So he declared a visual landing on an adjacent, longer runway.  Suddenly they were on approach and thrown into confusion.  Retarded throttles to descend a bit and then advanced throttles.  Problem was, crew advanced throttle on the dead engine and left the fully functional #3 engine at idle.  No one noticed, in part because of the new glass cockpit gauges showed the throttles advanced, but mostly confusion, as N1, N2 or TIT/EGT would have shown it.  Flaps were also set incorrectly and noticed too late; full flaps vs the correct 40% (IIRC).  Too low and out of energy.  I remember the FE not even knowing they were on approach until just before they crashed.  And I can still hear another voice saying, "Guys, I'm concerned."  Fortunately they ended up in farmland and not forest.

 

4059 1.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mein Gott.  Read the report - two seriously injured, no one killed.

Fortunately, St. Christopher was on the ball... Sounds like he was just about the only one.  

Problem when you fly with multiple pilots, copilots, naviguessers, flight engineers, flight commanders, check pilots, Brass... It can sometimes sound like more of a board meeting than a cockpit.  Cockpit Resource Management (CRM) can be a real challenge. 

Company sent me to ground school CRM. Unfortunately, I missed out getting to do it in the simulator.  The take away: Involve, listen, value, direct, delegate -- but if your butt is in the pilot's seat, when it comes time, YOU'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DECISIONS!  

  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...