C-5B AMP 84-0059 Crash Investigation Results

Có thể bạn quan tâm

Skip to content Search… Search

Quick links
- Unanswered topics
- Active topics
- Search
- The team
Forum
FAQ

Quick links
- Unanswered topics
- Active topics
- Search
- The team
Forum
FAQ

- Civil Aviation
- Travel and Loyalty
- Technical/Operations
- Helicopter / VTOL Discussion Forum
- Aviation Hobby
- Aviation Photography
- Photography Feedback
- Trip Reports
- Military Aviation & Space Flight
- Non-Aviation
- Site Related
Airliners.net
Aviation Forums
Military Aviation & Space Flight

C-5B AMP 84-0059 Crash Investigation Results

Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

Post Reply

Galaxy5007 Topic Author Posts: 663 Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:06 pm

C-5B AMP 84-0059 Crash Investigation Results

Quote
#1

Wed Jun 14, 2006 1:10 pm

6/13/2006 - SCOTT AIR FORCE BASE, Ill (AFPN) -- The results of an investigation into the C-5 Galaxy crash at Dover Air Force Base, Del., on April 3 found that human error was the cause, Air Mobility Command officials released today. The accident investigation board determined the pilots and flight engineers did not properly configure, maneuver and power the aircraft during approach and landing. Following a normal takeoff and initial climb, the C-5 aircrew observed a No. 2 engine “Thrust Reverser Not Locked” indication light. They shut down the No. 2 engine as a precaution and returned to Dover AFB. The board determined that during the return to the base: -- The pilots and flight engineers continued to use the shut-down No. 2 engine’s throttle while leaving the fully-operational No. 3 engine in idle. -- Both instructor and primary flight engineers failed to brief, and pilots failed to consider and use, a proper flap setting. -- The pilots’ attempt at a visual approach to runway 32 resulted in the aircraft descending well below a normal glidepath for an instrument-aided approach or the normal visual flight rules pattern altitude. -- The aircraft commander failed to give a complete approach briefing that would have included non-standard factors, configuration, landing distance and missed approach intentions. All 17 people on board the C-5 survived the crash, but three crewmembers were seriously injured when the aircraft stalled, hit a utility pole and crashed into a field about a mile short of the runway. The other passengers and crewmembers sustained minor injures and were treated and released from local hospitals. The aircraft was assigned to the 436th Airlift Wing and was flown by members of the 512th Airlift Wing, a Reserve associate unit at Dover. It was bound for Ramstein Air Base, Germany, and was carrying 105,000 pounds of replenishment supplies for the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility One note on my part, being stationed at Dover and seeing certain things; the plane didn't hit the power pole that they keep saying they hit. They missed it, and the tail slammed into the ground first, cartwheeling the tail into its current position in the field. I figured as much so that it was pilot error. I didn't think that the pilots were that out of it to not realize that they weren't moving #3 engines throttle at all on thier displays. So basically, they were running off of 2 engines, and stalled it, again as I said before, not paying attention to airspeed. I also mentioned the flap settings were at 40%, which should have been at 100%, land. Have they had the flaps at 100, they may have made it. One last thing, the plane landed about a half mile short of the runway, and stopped about 1000 feet away from the end of the runway, 500 feet from Rt 9. Top

BladeLWS Posts: 358 Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 12:41 pm

RE: C-5B AMP 84-0059 Crash Investigation Results

Quote
#2

Wed Jun 14, 2006 1:41 pm

Christ, trying to fly let alone land a behemoth like that close to MTOW on two engines, oh yea that'll slam your ass into the ground... I can't see how they didn't notice that they didn't notice they were moving the wrong throttle, with the pilot, copilot, and FE looking on...[Edited 2006-06-14 06:43:29] Top

jarheadk5 Posts: 256 Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 2:45 pm

RE: C-5B AMP 84-0059 Crash Investigation Results

Quote
#3

Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:20 pm

Wow... Even with a full bag of gas and (seemingly) plenty of time to assess the situation, the crew seems to have put themselves into a "hurry-up" mode, with disastrous consequences. I'm guessing the new cockpit didn't help much (unfamiliar layout, new scan, etc.)... Top

Galaxy5007 Topic Author Posts: 663 Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:06 pm

RE: C-5B AMP 84-0059 Crash Investigation Results

Quote
#4

Thu Jun 15, 2006 1:22 am

Quoting JarheadK5 (Reply 2):I'm guessing the new cockpit didn't help much (unfamiliar layout, new scan, etc.)...

Another article off of newszap.com for Dover area, stated that the AMP modifications were not a factor in the incident. Although AMP modified birds have only been around for a year and a half or so, They have been training hard to learn the easy new displays. The AMP is designed to immediately display any problems with the master caution system. As I said earlier, it was pure human error or stupidity for that matter to not use the right engine and flap settings. I stand corrected about the flaps; They had the flaps at 100%, but at the last minute, they put them at 40, which induced the stall even more. Top

wannabe Posts: 652 Joined: Wed Jun 30, 1999 3:37 am

RE: C-5B AMP 84-0059 Crash Investigation Results

Quote
#5

Thu Jun 15, 2006 1:53 am

Main questions to me; 1.What are the procedures for a one engine out return? 2.Have they been updated since the AMP modifications? 3. If they have been updated, how well was quality assurance performed on the updates. 4. What was the training levels of ALL the crew members on the updates? (if not all members are updated, that puts the entire load on only those who are, and you can then throw your resource management logic right out the window.) The AF can blame the crew, but if the resouces available to them are not proven, and the AF allows partially trained crews to fly, you can probably expect results like this. Is any of this addressed in the final report? Top

MissedApproach Posts: 678 Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:12 am

RE: C-5B AMP 84-0059 Crash Investigation Results

Quote
#6

Thu Jun 15, 2006 5:51 am

Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 3):I stand corrected about the flaps; They had the flaps at 100%, but at the last minute, they put them at 40, which induced the stall even more.

Considering they were mistakenly only using two engines, could the full flaps setting have caused the airspeed to drop off too quickly for them to notice, given that they put themselves in a task-saturated situation with the immediate return? It seems strange that they would correctly identify & shut down the offending engine, then use the wrong power levers afterwards. I can almost understand the pilots missing things while manoeuvring the airplane, but you would think the flight engineer would notice the airspeed & power settings. I wouldn't think any of his duties would require him to look out of the cockpit. Top

Galaxy5007 Topic Author Posts: 663 Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:06 pm

RE: C-5B AMP 84-0059 Crash Investigation Results

Quote
#7

Thu Jun 15, 2006 7:54 am

Yes it is very strange that they didn't notice the airspeed....Like I said, the Flaps slowed them down, and then a sudden correction putting them half way back up caused the plane to stall. Engine out procedures are to declare an emergency landing and land at the nearest capable facility. The procedures were not changed, and did not need changing for the AMP mod. AMP only modernized the indication systems, it did not change anything engine related itself. RERP will be the major changes that cause for a new Tech data system for the C-5M. Tech Data development occurred here for 7 months working out discrepancies for AMP. Everything has been completed in that realm. Like I said before in this thread, AMP has only been around for about a year and a half, but the plane is still the same. The main difference is the indication systems, and malfunction detection systems. Also said before, the news articles state that AMP was NOT a factor in the crash. For 5 people to make all the errors they made, cost the AF a 200 million dollar plane. Top

jarheadk5 Posts: 256 Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 2:45 pm

RE: C-5B AMP 84-0059 Crash Investigation Results

Quote
#8

Fri Jun 16, 2006 11:13 pm

Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 6):Yes it is very strange that they didn't notice the airspeed....

Which is exactly what leads me to believe the new cockpit played a part... regardless of what any media outlet has to say. I'm familiar with the transition to a new instrument panel layout, as part of the aircrew - the CH-53E was getting modified with a FLIR system while I was in (and actually still is, slowly), and the instrument layout changed drastically after the mod. The flight instruments are now arranged around the FLIR displays, and in conversations with our pilots, they said it took them a long time to adjust their scan to the new arrangement. I know it took me a few flights to get used to the new locations of the VSI and radalt, which were the only two flight instruments I was really concerned with most of the time... Top

Galaxy5007 Topic Author Posts: 663 Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:06 pm

RE: C-5B AMP 84-0059 Crash Investigation Results

Quote
#9

Sat Jun 17, 2006 1:15 pm

For a crew thats been flying the AMP bird for a year and a half, and how apparent the air speed indicator is to anyone that goes up there(including myself), they were more than qualified to fly the plane. Again, AMP wasn't the cause, Pilot and Engineer error was, straight up, which was proven in the investigation. Black boxes and digital flight recorders don't lie. Top

hangarrat Posts: 428 Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 12:24 pm

RE: C-5B AMP 84-0059 Crash Investigation Results

Quote
#10

Mon Jun 19, 2006 1:32 am

Is the hulk of this aircraft still in the field where it came down? I flew past Dover going into PHL last week, and I thought I could make out something off the end of a runway to the south of the base. Top

XC5Eng Posts: 54 Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 2:10 am

RE: C-5B AMP 84-0059 Crash Investigation Results

Quote
#11

Tue Jun 20, 2006 2:41 am

I'm not sure what they were thinking by not using #3, but I'm pretty sure that according to the book 40% is the proper flap configuration for a 2 eng approach and landing. Not minding the store... that's a big one! Everyone has a job to do... unfortunately no one in the cockpit did theirs. Very unfortunate for the loss of the airframe, but glad no one lost their lives! Top

jhooper Posts: 5561 Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2001 8:27 pm

RE: C-5B AMP 84-0059 Crash Investigation Results

Quote
#12

Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:45 pm

The -1 says to consider a 40% flap approach and landing for heavyweight engine-out approaches. However it's possible the crew was conditioned against the 40 flap due to another C-5 Class A mishap at Dover a few months ago involving hot brakes (which incidently had little if anything to do with that crew's selection of 40 flaps). Top

Galaxy5007 Topic Author Posts: 663 Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:06 pm

RE: C-5B AMP 84-0059 Crash Investigation Results

Quote
#13

Sun Jun 25, 2006 11:24 pm

Quoting Jhooper (Reply 11):The -1 says to consider a 40% flap approach and landing for heavyweight engine-out approaches. However it's possible the crew was conditioned against the 40 flap due to another C-5 Class A mishap at Dover a few months ago involving hot brakes (which incidently had little if anything to do with that crew's selection of 40 flaps).

The checklist does state it was supposed to be at 40 for approach. What had happened is they had the flaps at 100% and put them to 40 right before they stalled, which was probably the last straw before it fell out of the sky. As for the hot brakes issue, which I was out on that one(9006), flaps were stuck at 40 from what I heard. They had all engines operational as well. It was deemed pilot error on that one as well when they slammed on the brakes and failed to use thrust reversers. Funny thing is the same pilots took a Dover bird to continue the mission, and did the same thing at its forward location(but not as bad as the 9006 mishap). Speaking of mishaps, another C-5 had a "hard landing" at Charleston AFB, A/C 87-0038, a Travis bird. I guess from what I have heard, they have to change two pylons, 3 gears, a bogie, and a bunch of flap carraiges were cracked due to the impact. If you ask me, hard landings are just controlled crashes.

Quoting HangarRat (Reply 9):Is the hulk of this aircraft still in the field where it came down?

Yes the plane is still in the same location south of the base. Oddly enough, we went by it yesterday, and noticed a bunch of trees went down near it. We suspect jet fuel killed them, seeing that they were fine a week and a half ago before I went on vacation. You can drive by it and view everything pretty clearly. Top

jhooper Posts: 5561 Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2001 8:27 pm

RE: C-5B AMP 84-0059 Crash Investigation Results

Quote
#14

Mon Jun 26, 2006 5:08 pm

Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 12): As for the hot brakes issue, which I was out on that one(9006), flaps were stuck at 40 from what I heard. They had all engines operational as well. It was deemed pilot error on that one as well when they slammed on the brakes and failed to use thrust reversers. Funny thing is the same pilots took a Dover bird to continue the mission, and did the same thing at its forward location(but not as bad as the 9006 mishap).

I don't want to get into discussing privileged information in a public forum, but I do recommend you do some follow-up research on this mishap. There has been so much misinformation going around about this one. The safety investigation board was quick to point the finger at the crew, but when the engineers looks deeper into it, further investigation shows they really did nothing wrong. Nobody lost their wings and life goes on. BTW, the flaps were not "stuck" at 40; the crew elected to land that way.[Edited 2006-06-26 10:10:17] Top

XC5Eng Posts: 54 Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 2:10 am

RE: C-5B AMP 84-0059 Crash Investigation Results

Quote
#15

Wed Jun 28, 2006 3:22 am

Quoting Jhooper (Reply 13):I don't want to get into discussing privileged information in a public forum, but I do recommend you do some follow-up research on this mishap. There has been so much misinformation going around about this one. The safety investigation board was quick to point the finger at the crew, but when the engineers looks deeper into it, further investigation shows they really did nothing wrong. Nobody lost their wings and life goes on. BTW, the flaps were not "stuck" at 40; the crew elected to land that way.

I don't think Galaxy5007 was speaking from a position of first hand knowledge, more of hear say. If the flaps were not stuck then why on earth would a crew elect to do a 40% flaps approach and landing with all engines operating on an operational mission. Seems reckless and lacking in judgement. In my day a crew would have been busted just for that type of stupidity!

Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 12):Speaking of mishaps, another C-5 had a "hard landing" at Charleston AFB, A/C 87-0038, a Travis bird. I guess from what I have heard, they have to change two pylons, 3 gears, a bogie, and a bunch of flap carraiges were cracked due to the impact. If you ask me, hard landings are just controlled crashes.

That must have been a hellava hard landing to do that kind of damage. We used to do some really hard landings in SOLLII without damaging the bird. You would think there would have been some spinal compression injuries out of that one. Top

jhooper Posts: 5561 Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2001 8:27 pm

RE: C-5B AMP 84-0059 Crash Investigation Results

Quote
#16

Wed Jun 28, 2006 11:14 am

Quoting XC5Eng (Reply 14):why on earth would a crew elect to do a 40% flaps approach and landing with all engines operating on an operational mission

I'm not exactly sure why, but they were well within their TOLD data for a 40 Flap. I'm new to the C-5, but some pilots I've talked to simply prefer a 40 Flap because it handles better. Until the new safety supplement came out immediately after that mishap, the technique wasn't necessarily prohibited. Now it says we need a legitimate reason for it (i.e. training, engine-out, crosswinds). Of course there are also a few cases where a no-flap approach and landing would be appropriate (i.e. you've had runaway trim). Top

Galaxy5007 Topic Author Posts: 663 Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:06 pm

RE: C-5B AMP 84-0059 Crash Investigation Results

Quote
#17

Wed Jun 28, 2006 1:19 pm

Quoting XC5Eng (Reply 14):That must have been a hellava hard landing to do that kind of damage.

As I said, controlled Crash. At least they can fix 38.

Quoting XC5Eng (Reply 14):I don't think Galaxy5007 was speaking from a position of first hand knowledge, more of hear say

Alot of the info was said before the investigation was released, which I never saw. Nevertheless, I was out on the recovery of that plane when they stopped on the taxiway waiting for the brakes to cool down. We changed the brakes, and T/A changed the tires on it so they could off load the plane, and tow it to a parking spot before impounding it for the safety investigation. My supervisor was on the impoundment team(hydraulics support), and had to perform the brake pressure tests and what not to determine if it was equipment malfunction or not. From what he told me, a couple of electro hydraulic valves were bad, but weren't the cause of the hot brakes. Again, brings the pilot error up, which was deemed two days before they released the safety investigation report(although I never saw the final report). Regardless, just because they had a hot brakes landing, and it was pilot error, that doesn't deem loosing thier wings for it. It happens more often than you think; just not nearly as extreme as that. Top

jhooper Posts: 5561 Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2001 8:27 pm

RE: C-5B AMP 84-0059 Crash Investigation Results

Quote
#18

Wed Jun 28, 2006 5:50 pm

Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 16):Again, brings the pilot error up, which was deemed two days before they released the safety investigation report(although I never saw the final report).

I can't refute that effectively without getting into privileged FOIU info, and I can't do that. But I do encourage you to read the FINAL AIB report (not SIB report). You can bet the crew would be eating a Q3 at minimum if it had been finally determined to be their fault since this was a Class A mishap; but once again engineers looked at it more closely than the SIB did and the crew was exhonorated. That's all I'm going to say about it here. Top

Galaxy5007 Topic Author Posts: 663 Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:06 pm

RE: C-5B AMP 84-0059 Crash Investigation Results

Quote
#19

Sun Jul 09, 2006 3:32 pm

Speaking of 9006, Dover Post put in an article about the 9006 incident, comparing it to 4059s crash. Mistakes cited in fire on C-5; Nov. 2005 incident caused $1 million in damage to plane Associated Press DOVER AIR FORCE BASE — Crew mistakes during a C-5 cargo plane landing late last year resulted in a fire that caused more than $1 million in damage, the Air Force said. The plane was carrying White House vehicles and staffers bound for a presidential visit to Brazil, a Wilmington newspaper reported Saturday. The Nov. 2 accident had some similarities to the crash of another C-5 on April 3 that destroyed the newly modernized aircraft during an emergency return to base. Both incidents involved heavily laden transports and out-of-the-ordinary wing flap adjustments during landings triggered by equipment problems. During the April crash, investigators said a throttle mix-up caused the crew to attempt a landing using only two of three working engines. The problem was complicated by decisions that left the aircraft too low and too slow to reach the runway. In November, problems cited included: - Secret Service pressure for quick action during an unscheduled landing for repairs at Dover. - Confusion over the pilot’s choice of runways during the landing approach. - Aircraft settings that made the plane land too fast on a short runway. - Failure to notice overheated and burning brakes. Twelve crew members and 74 passengers were aboard for the late-night landing. None was injured. Article can be found at: http://www.newszap.com/articles/2006...7/08/dm/central_delaware/dsn03.txt It was a wierd night, thats for sure! Top

wingnut135 Posts: 124 Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 11:17 am

RE: C-5B AMP 84-0059 Crash Investigation Results

Quote
#20

Sat Jul 15, 2006 11:03 pm

I'm sure this isn't supposed to be on the internet, but I stumbled across this today. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqTUoMmYr3k Enjoy it while you can. Wingnut Top

HaveBlue Posts: 2204 Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 3:01 pm

RE: C-5B AMP 84-0059 Crash Investigation Results

Quote
#21

Mon Jul 17, 2006 2:15 am

Very good find there Wingnut, thank you! Top

XC5Eng Posts: 54 Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 2:10 am

RE: C-5B AMP 84-0059 Crash Investigation Results

Quote
#22

Tue Jul 18, 2006 2:34 am

I watched it a few times and can't believe what I was witnessing. All the way to the end no one noticed that they were operating only two engines. Worrying about brake temps and tire speed all the while dropping below approach speed. Then retracting the flaps to 40% sealed it. Unbelievable! Top

SCEagle Posts: 128 Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 2:05 am

RE: C-5B AMP 84-0059 Crash Investigation Results

Quote
#23

Tue Jul 18, 2006 3:38 am

So many beginner mistakes. It's just unbelievable, each time watching it. You keep waiting for someone to catch the error. Not scanning your instrument panel... You think they'd notice that only two engines are producing power. Not watching airspeed. And finally, when the Stall alarm goes off, the sharp pitch up of the nose. You learn in beginning flight school to put the nose DOWN when stalling. Always, always, always. Nose up seals a stall. Sigh. Top

XC5Eng Posts: 54 Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 2:10 am

RE: C-5B AMP 84-0059 Crash Investigation Results

Quote
#24

Tue Jul 18, 2006 4:13 am

There is nothing wrong with using all the throttles, including the inop eng. There would be no confusion at that point! Top

AirSpare Posts: 570 Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 1:13 am

RE: C-5B AMP 84-0059 Crash Investigation Results

Quote
#25

Tue Jul 18, 2006 5:27 am

Ugh, that was ugly. Much worse then the C5 wheels up at Travis in 80 (date?). Nobody was flying the airplane, what a total loss of situational awareness. At Beale there was a 135 crash. A friend of mine was on the recovery team, she said that on take off, the student pilot hit an outboard motor, then pulled the wrong fire bottle and turned into the dead wing. No survivors. TopBoom may have more details on that one. Must really suck that the last time you fly, you scratch the A/C. Again you have to be thankfull there were no casualities. Top

okie73 Posts: 367 Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2006 11:09 pm

RE: C-5B AMP 84-0059 Crash Investigation Results

Quote
#26

Tue Jul 18, 2006 9:46 am

Quoting SCEagle (Reply 22):You learn in beginning flight school to put the nose DOWN when stalling. Always, always, always

I think with ground contact imminent, your natural tendency would be to pull up......I don't care what your training was. A the point they got the stall warning they were very close to the ground. Top

SCEagle Posts: 128 Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 2:05 am

RE: C-5B AMP 84-0059 Crash Investigation Results

Quote
#27

Tue Jul 18, 2006 2:33 pm

Quoting Okie73 (Reply 25):I think with ground contact imminent, your natural tendency would be to pull up......I don't care what your training was.

Thus the reason for training... to overide natural tendencies. Top

RichardPrice Posts: 4474 Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:12 am

RE: C-5B AMP 84-0059 Crash Investigation Results

Quote
#28

Tue Jul 18, 2006 7:14 pm

Quoting SCEagle (Reply 26):Thus the reason for training... to overide natural tendencies.

I think in this case it was simply 'pull up or hit the ground' they were that close - regardless of the stall occurance. Its no use avoiding the stall if the alternative is to bury the nose of the aircraft into the ground. Top

okie73 Posts: 367 Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2006 11:09 pm

RE: C-5B AMP 84-0059 Crash Investigation Results

Quote
#29

Tue Jul 18, 2006 8:59 pm

Quoting SCEagle (Reply 26):Thus the reason for training... to overide natural tendencies.

I agree. But, in that situation which training do you follow.........your training to lower the nose to get out of a stall, or your training to raise the nose trying to climb and avoid ground contact. At that point I think the overiding problem is ground avoidance, and I also think your natural tendencie, instinct if you will, is to avoid the ground at all costs. Top

wingnut135 Posts: 124 Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 11:17 am

RE: C-5B AMP 84-0059 Crash Investigation Results

Quote
#30

Wed Jul 19, 2006 10:13 am

To me it looks like the entire crew failed in their training. Look how quickly the breakdown in communication took over. Instead of the pilot directing everything that was going on, everyone was more interested in doing something different. When whoever said that the flaps should have been at 40, everyone should have taken notice. It wasn't until they had lost too much airspeed and altitude did they try to correct it. It was also at that point that the #3 throttle was pushed forward in an attempt to gain altitude. I don't mean to sound like I'm bashing Reserve crews, but maybe they just don't spend enough time in the sim practicing emergencies. I know that since 9-11 all of the Guard and Reserve C-5 units have been activated for a year at a time and that a lot of time has passed since then. But how often so they sit and practice an emergency? Which I'm sure this incident will make its way into every sim session. I worked with a bunch of great maintenance people from all the C-5 bases while I was in Europe, but it seemed like it took a lot to get the reservists spun up on some of the most basic things. Once again, I'm not trying to bash Reservists, just making an observation. Wingnut Top

okie73 Posts: 367 Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2006 11:09 pm

RE: C-5B AMP 84-0059 Crash Investigation Results

Quote
#31

Wed Jul 19, 2006 9:51 pm

Quoting Wingnut135 (Reply 29):I don't mean to sound like I'm bashing Reserve crews, but maybe they just don't spend enough time in the sim practicing emergencies.

I don't know if they do as many EP sims as an active duty crew, but I can tell you the requirements are the same. I remember on active duty, we often got more than what was required, but the requirements are the same either way. Top

XC5Eng Posts: 54 Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 2:10 am

RE: C-5B AMP 84-0059 Crash Investigation Results

Quote
#32

Wed Jul 19, 2006 11:14 pm

Breakdown in communication to say the least. I've posted this many times for this incident, "Engineer becomes the functional leader, a Pilot flies the plane , and the other works the radios". The pilot was relying on the engineer to review 1 engine inop procedures, he never really acknowledged that he did. All the data was calculated for a full flap approach, but it seems no one told the pilot. He mentions flaps up then holds off and voices are heard dismissing it as suggested. Meanwhile the data is for full flaps and pilot is in some other world as he pulls the throttles to idle then switches 2 with 3. When he says "guys I'm concerned" he briefly pushes up #3 but then pulls it back and that's where it stayed. He's says they have nothing left and still puts the flaps up (cringe). I can't believe that no one looked at the N1 tapes and notice only the outboard strips and both inboards at idle. When you are used to seeing those things all the time it's very noticeable. I can't believe no one asked, "why are we on 2 engines, what happened to #3, did we lose #3, what's going on?". It almost seems like when the computer started spitting out "terrain... too low... terrain", tunnel vision set in. The engineer sounded like a student with an instructor. The engineer should have controlled the situation, especially when 40 flaps was mentioned. It sounded like the instructor was teaching him how to check brake temps. This is not a sim ride, Crews do this in the local pattern for hours all the time. They pull one back to idle and treat it as an inop. Do a full flap approach to a landing. Data is calculated for full flaps, brake temps are calculated and TRT is set on the bar. All is good till someone says, "oops... there is a truck on the runway... go-around." Pilot sets the remaining 3 engines to TRT power and says flaps 40. And the plane flies! Then we come around again and land it normally on 3 engines and full flaps, clean the plane up on roll and push the power (all 4) up and go. We used to do that 5 or 6 times in that 4 hour period of flying around the flagpole. There is NO REASON this should have happened, all crews should be able to do this in their sleep! Unbelievable![Edited 2006-07-19 16:15:44] Top

JohnM Posts: 401 Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2001 12:35 pm

RE: C-5B AMP 84-0059 Crash Investigation Results

Quote
#33

Thu Jul 20, 2006 3:17 am

XC5Eng, I agree with what you're saying 100%. However this being an AMP airplane, the vertical tapes are gone, and all the engine instruments are displayed as (in my opinion) very small gauges. I think it is easier to miss something with the AMP display that would normally jump out at you. I think the vertical scale stuff is easy to glance at and spot something that is abnormal. I'm not even sure that the second FE sitting @ the MADAR can really see them very well. Top

Galaxy5007 Topic Author Posts: 663 Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:06 pm

RE: C-5B AMP 84-0059 Crash Investigation Results

Quote
#34

Thu Jul 20, 2006 3:49 am

Quoting JohnM (Reply 32):XC5Eng, I agree with what you're saying 100%. However this being an AMP airplane, the vertical tapes are gone, and all the engine instruments are displayed as (in my opinion) very small gauges. I think it is easier to miss something with the AMP display that would normally jump out at you. I think the vertical scale stuff is easy to glance at and spot something that is abnormal. I'm not even sure that the second FE sitting @ the MADAR can really see them very well.

Yes the tapes are gone, However, they are quite noticable in the LCD display where it is. It has a digital number stating the N1 number. It is the same size as ALL the other planes in the world that have glass cockpits. The 141C had them, and none of them crashed. That isn't a valid excuse for them not paying attention to everything. If they had left the flaps at 100, they probably wouldn't have stalled, but they would have still landed short since they were so low already. Top

XC5Eng Posts: 54 Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 2:10 am

RE: C-5B AMP 84-0059 Crash Investigation Results

Quote
#35

Thu Jul 20, 2006 4:01 am

Oh, I see! I wasn't aware that the tapes were replaced. Thanks for the clarification. I'd call that a definate negative. They should have made the new glass displays resemble the old tapes. As a personal preference I used to call up the test points for speed, alt, N1, N2, TIT, and hydraulics test points in MADARS just as a cross reference and backup for the instruments. I used to monitor those but found that many engineers didn't even know about them. Not saying that anyone would have noticed that on MADARS either. Considering that these instruments are hard to read at extreme angles I would agree that there would be no way that someone sitting in the Scanner's seat would be able to read them. Man, what a mess this whole thing turned out to be! I still don't understand how someone can pull throttles back to idle and immediately push them up and swap #2 with #3. Many years ago I heard an IP instructing a pilot on a mission that we had to shut down an eng on, to use the throttle as if the eng was operating. It was easier to handle that way and would keep confusion out of the mix. I guess not all pilots are taught that. It seems to make sense now! Top Display posts from previous: All posts1 day7 days2 weeks1 month3 months6 months1 year Sort by AuthorPost timeSubject AscendingDescending Go Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests

C-5B AMP 84-0059 Crash Investigation Results

C-5B AMP 84-0059 Crash Investigation Results

RE: C-5B AMP 84-0059 Crash Investigation Results

RE: C-5B AMP 84-0059 Crash Investigation Results

RE: C-5B AMP 84-0059 Crash Investigation Results

RE: C-5B AMP 84-0059 Crash Investigation Results

RE: C-5B AMP 84-0059 Crash Investigation Results

RE: C-5B AMP 84-0059 Crash Investigation Results

RE: C-5B AMP 84-0059 Crash Investigation Results

RE: C-5B AMP 84-0059 Crash Investigation Results

RE: C-5B AMP 84-0059 Crash Investigation Results

RE: C-5B AMP 84-0059 Crash Investigation Results

RE: C-5B AMP 84-0059 Crash Investigation Results

RE: C-5B AMP 84-0059 Crash Investigation Results

RE: C-5B AMP 84-0059 Crash Investigation Results

RE: C-5B AMP 84-0059 Crash Investigation Results

RE: C-5B AMP 84-0059 Crash Investigation Results

RE: C-5B AMP 84-0059 Crash Investigation Results

RE: C-5B AMP 84-0059 Crash Investigation Results

RE: C-5B AMP 84-0059 Crash Investigation Results

RE: C-5B AMP 84-0059 Crash Investigation Results

RE: C-5B AMP 84-0059 Crash Investigation Results

RE: C-5B AMP 84-0059 Crash Investigation Results

RE: C-5B AMP 84-0059 Crash Investigation Results

RE: C-5B AMP 84-0059 Crash Investigation Results

RE: C-5B AMP 84-0059 Crash Investigation Results

RE: C-5B AMP 84-0059 Crash Investigation Results

RE: C-5B AMP 84-0059 Crash Investigation Results

RE: C-5B AMP 84-0059 Crash Investigation Results

RE: C-5B AMP 84-0059 Crash Investigation Results

RE: C-5B AMP 84-0059 Crash Investigation Results

RE: C-5B AMP 84-0059 Crash Investigation Results

RE: C-5B AMP 84-0059 Crash Investigation Results

RE: C-5B AMP 84-0059 Crash Investigation Results

RE: C-5B AMP 84-0059 Crash Investigation Results

RE: C-5B AMP 84-0059 Crash Investigation Results

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Liên Hệ