C-17 down Elmendorf (Merged)

[Shore Guy]

Cargo plane crashes, burns on Elmendorf: Military | adn.com (http://www.adn.com/2010/07/28/1385727/cargo-plane-reported-down-on-base.html)

[stilton]

Hope the Crew is OK but it doesn't look good.



I guess this was number 3..

[sprocky_ger]

A C-17 with four people onboard crashed on a training mission on Elmendorf AFB.

Cargo plane crashes and burns on Elmendorf: Military | adn.com (http://www.adn.com/2010/07/28/1385727/cargo-plane-reported-down-on-base.html)

EDIT:
Just found this to be covered in the rumours section already. Me stupid :ugh:

[herkman]

My understanding that this is the first total Hull lose.

There has been at least two other incidents but I believe those airplanes can and will be repaired.

Does not good for the crew, are thoughts and prayers go out to those involved.

Col

[Wycombe]

Very sad news,

Wasn't the C17 display at RIAT (large Military Show at Fairford in the UK for the unitiated) over 17th/18th July conducted by an Alaskan-based aircraft?

[Gainesy]

No, they're stupid, already totally unfounded comments about a possible Bud Holland scenario. Idiots.

C-17 operated by Alaska Air National Guard, four POB. It was on a practice demo flight for an airshow at the base this weekend. USAF witnesses on other sites report it going down in heavy woods a few miles from the base. Descriptions of it going in from either a tight turn or a wingover. Big fireball.:(

[KarlADrage]

No, the RIAT display was by a crew and aircraft from the 97th AMW of AETC, based at Altus AFB, OK.

It has, however, been suggested here - C-17 plane crashes at Elmendorf - KTUU.com | Alaska's news and information source | (http://www.ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?S=12889630) - that the crew was training for the upcoming airshow at Elmendorf this weekend.

:(

[Airbubba]

Just hoping..

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
..that this isn't another Bud Holland sort of accident..bm

Looks like they were indeed practicing for the weekend Arctic Thunder Airshow according to notams and colleagues in the C-17 community.

When you go onto the base for the airshow you pass the somber memorial for Yukla 27, the AWACS that crashed at Elmendorf in 1995.

The Blue Angels have already arrived at PAED for the airshow and are scheduled to practice this afternoon at 2100Z. The Snowbirds will also be at the show.

Sadly, CNN is reporting no survivors from the C-17 crash:

Military plane crashes on training mission in Alaska, killing 4 airmen - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/07/29/alaska.plane.crash/index.html?hpt=T2)

[LowObservable]

It's premature for sure. But if it was indeed airshow practice and reports of a wingover/tight turn are correct, it's hard to stop the mind going in that direction.

[Runaway Gun]

Or birdstrike, or engine/mechanical failure, or pilot incapacitation, or windshear, or a million other things.

[lomapaseo]

any debris on the runway?

[4321]

Was watching the practice 30 mins before the accident and they were conducting some pretty aggresive manoevers! Not making any comments on cause as whatever, it is too late.

[DelaneyT]

General probability of pilot-error in any airshow related mishap is 80%+.

Airshows are always popular, but the world safety record over many decades of these events is terrible. Not worth it in lives and lost resources.

:sad:

[lomapaseo]

Airshows are always popular, but the world safety record over many decades of these events is terrible. Not worth it in lives and lost resources.


I might be inclined to agree with your if at an airshow we are asking a pilot to perform outside of his training.

I am reminded of a study which showed that actual engine out real aircraft training on multi-engine turboprops resulted in more accidents than all other flight experience. This kind-of suggested why simulator training might be more appropriate to reinforce training lessons learned.

just food for thought

[TBM-Legend]

The public [i.e.. taxpayers] have every right to see the equipment and people they pay for every once in awhile....

The real issue is a form of "airshow-itus" where people get carried away trying to impress the crowd and of course their peers. Crashing is not part of any routine!

Public support and pride in our servicemen and women is essential and as Governments have pissed our tax dollars up against the wall on 'failed' or non-productive projects and handouts, the uniformed services need to engage with the community even more..

RIP to crew who were simply trying to do their best for all...

[onetrack]

The victims of the C-17 crash at Elmendorf have officially been identified and families notified. The victims were -

Major Michael Freyholtz & Major Aaron Malone - both pilots assigned to the Alaska Air National Guard's 249th Airlift Squadron;

Capt. Jeffrey Hill, a pilot assigned to Elmendorf's 517th Airlift Squadron;

Master Sgt. Thomas Cicardo; a 249th Airlift Squadron loadmaster.

[Dengue_Dude]

I HATE air displays and never go to them anymore. Just Google airshow crashes and the like.

I've lost too many friends in them or practising for them. Watching C130s pulling 100+ degrees of bank to 'impress' the public who didn't know the aircraft was 40+ degrees beyond its published limitations.

Please spare me the theory that a barrel roll is +1g all the way round, I KNOW it is, I also know that not many people can actually achieve that.

When Joe Public is used to seeing aircraft doing amazing stuff, big aeroplanes often look staid - they're supposed to be, the inertia is something to behold compared with FJs or A10s et al.

Remember the famous B-52 video, wasn't that Elmendorf too?

RIP (again). I just feel SOoo sorry for the NOK.

[412SP]

The B-52 crash was Spokane, WA......Fairchild AFB.

[Dengue_Dude]

Thanks 412SP - tragedy either way.

[RumPunch]

you guys do what you do and you do it in a way that nobody else can judge as you are better at your job than a reporter.

[Zoom]

Very sad indeed. I spent two glorious years at Elmendorf in the 70s and so I have a soft spot for the base and its personnel. I wish them all well.

[Dengue_Dude]

nobody else can judge as you are better at your job than a reporter.

For whatever reasons, reporters generally don't end up like these poor sods.

Not really sure what you're driving at but probably not the right place to discuss it in any event.

[rottenray]

Dengue writes:
I HATE air displays and never go to them anymore. Just Google airshow crashes and the like.I agree 100%.

I admit I have enjoyed airshows, especially when the "big boys" show off, but it certainly isn't worth the risk to the aircrews.

As you mentioned, not all of the audience appreciates what they're seeing for what it really is worth.

If you have to go, probably no better way than doing what you love best!


RR

[andrasz]

Surprised nobody picked it up yet on this forum:

USAF investigates cause of Elmendorf C-17 crash (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/07/29/345515/usaf-investigates-cause-of-elmendorf-c-17-crash.html)

PICTURES: US Air Force releases images of crashed C-17 (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/08/03/345694/pictures-us-air-force-releases-images-of-crashed-c-17.html)

Based on the pictures looks like a high energy impact, wonder if anybody can shed some more light on what happened.

[Dani]

Based on the pictures looks like a high energy impact

Not necessarily. Aircraft has been destroyed by postcrash fire. Could also be a relatively "normal" landing off a runway.

Dani

[TheSmiter]

Beat me to it by 2 mins PN.

Andras

wonder if anybody can shed some more light on what happened.


Yes, the USAF BOI.

[andrasz]

Sorry, lesson learned, just went through rumors/news, assumed (wrongly) news of this importance would not be moved to a secondary area.

[lomapaseo]

Based on the pictures looks like a high energy impact,

agree:ok:

but without a wider field of view nothing else follows in my mind

[Pontius Navigator]

Based on the pictures looks like a high energy impact

To use an old formula, E=MC2, and that is a lot of Mass so even a relatively low speed impact will have a great amount of energy.

[andrasz]

Pontius,

I posted in the News/rumors where I found no trace of this accident, moderators moved and merged my post. As I said, lesson learned :)

[ion_berkley]

To use an old formula, E=MC2,

I think you had E = 1/2MV^2 in mind....or the C17 has a higher top speed than many imagined :}

[Dengue_Dude]

Censuring people for speculating on 'Professional Pilots Rumour Network' is a bit crass, if you don't like it, then don't log in - simples.

If we were going to have no opinion on why these things happen - then there would be no point in posting them.

If you YouTube "C17 Elmendorf 'aerobatics'" or some such title. Watch that (practice for last year apparently) then theorise away. THAT'S WHAT THIS SITE IS - RUMOURS - fill your boots.

Cranking on that degree of bank, with that pitch angle whilst at low speed would be exploring the stall envelope rather well - even modern fly-by-wire aircraft have to obey the laws of basic physics.

[Pontius Navigator]

Ion, true but you got the idea.

[Pontius Navigator]

DD, here is a Youtube clip from last year:

YouTube - Boeing C-17 Globemaster III Aerobatics (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IK2lQfPqcPI)

Neat but not gaudy, kept the aircraft in front of the display line as best he could for such a large aircraft. Other than that, just a neat display.

Who are you suggested was doing the censuring?

[VinRouge]

Dengue,

The jet won't let you stall; it has a pretty amazing flight control system...

What the jet WILL let you do is run out of performance; if you are out of energy, you have had it. But that runs true with any design surely?

I hope the US are willing to share any valuable lessons learned from this tragic accident. If it is something we all can learn from, it is worth sharing imho.

[Dengue_Dude]

Who are you suggested was doing the censuring?

Not you.

If you read the list of posts, it reads like one member appears to be censured for having the temerity to wonder who would know more details. A curt - the BOI.

It occurs quite a bit on these threads. Crashing aircraft was something that most of us live/lived with - anyone here knows that it happened to 'someone else' or wasn't so bad they couldn't walk away.

Then we get those that jump on their high horse and castigate people for theorising - not everyone here is a journo.

In another life, even I was a Station Flight Safety Officer and have had a healthy interest in accident causes. Tell me that we all don't have a minor theory (or more).

Yes, that C17 display is impressive, BUT tell me that those angles of bank/pitch are allowable. Whilst an old aircraft, the C130K limits were 45 deg bank with any flap. It's impressive up to the point where disaster occurs.

Look at the B52 video of the high bank turn. It looked brilliant, right up to the point he lost it and killed everybody. Theories at the time were high bank angle stall - it's happened time and again, irrespective of aircraft type.

Just sounds like it may have happened again. That's just a guess and it hurts nobody that's likely to read it here.

I am glad the jet 'looks after the crew', but sadly many aircraft fitted with things like TAWS, GPWS and TCAS still commit CFIT or middairs.

[Pontius Navigator]

DD,

Thank you. Having been inadvertently inverted in a Vulcan I know what you mean. At some point some one will make a mistake. There was mention of the particular problem with large aircraft being displayed. One only has to think of the Victor SR2 that broke up, The Vulcan that broke up. The Nimrod that was too low. The pilot that knew he could fly better than the Airbus computers.

PN

[Dengue_Dude]

PN,

You're more than welcome.

There are pilots I would follow without much thought because I TRUST them - to get us out of trouble as quickly as we got into it.

There are others that, for me, are waiting to become a statistic. Sadly, so many of them don't know that.

[DelaneyT]

Then we get those that jump on their high horse and castigate people for theorising -- Dengue Dude

Yup, that's standard practice here. Comes right after the initial mawkish comments about any crash.

I'd also note that formal Boards-of-Investigation do make errors, usually take excessive time to release conclusions, and sometimes deliberately hide results from the public.

The U.S. Navy hid the results of the last Blue Angels/F-18 fatal airshow crash (pilot error) ... until a newspaper forced them in judicial court to release the basic investigation report.

:(

[Double Zero]

Dengue Dude & RottenRay,

I am with you; I hate air displays.

I was privileged to watch JF practice his takeoff, all completely under control; when a water pump failed in a Farnborough display, that was already envisaged and within limits, the display carried on.

If the engine had gone bang, John had an escape route, with neither himself or the aircraft involving the crowd.

On the other hand a colleague in another aircraft performed the most incredible displays I and a lot of others have ever seen, for a conventional jet; right up to the moment he died.

As said elsewhere, the list of such casualties is endless.

I won’t go to see a toe-curling, gut wrenching display any more; if people will perform graceful displays ( warbirds for me ) well within the envelope of aircraft and pilot, I’ll pay.

Personally I can't help thinking display flying selling aeroplanes is probably long gone, a jet could do repeated -20G outside turns, but the accountants won't even be watching, and wouldn't get it if they did.

If people are going to push themselves and aircraft to the limits, let the people left be able to tell their families they were doing something like development or militarily useful helping comrades, not performing for ice cream lickers.

[Pontius Navigator]

[COLOR=#000063]if people will perform graceful displays ( warbirds for me ) well within the envelope of aircraft and pilot, I’ll pay

We had a pair of FAF Mirage do a pairs display at Waddo. They were there for ACMI and got permission from MOD FR to do a display. I don't know how they rated compared with the UK display pilots - practices and authorisations - but they put on an immaculate display.

It was more impressive as a pair of heavy metal rather than the individual 'aeros' that we do now with a GR4 hi-speed left right, lo-speed right left followed by an F3 hi-speed . . .

You need more than one aircraft to lend depth and perception.

[galaxy flyer]

Delaney T

I'd also note that formal Boards-of-Investigation do make errors, usually take excessive time to release conclusions, and sometimes deliberately hide results from the public.

The U.S. Navy hid the results of the last Blue Angels/F-18 fatal airshow crash (pilot error) ... until a newspaper forced them in judicial court to release the basic investigation report.


IF you knew how the US Military investigates and under its legal privilege for Safety Investigation Boards for confidentiality, you would know that that statement is incorrect.

SIB reports are confidential, not releasable to the public, they are solely to prevent accidents. A releasable, legally admissible report is written by the Accident Board, who conducts its own investigation. The SIB privilege is a long-standing (50 years or more) policy granted the military by law.

GF

[JEM60]

DOUBLEZERO.
I so agree with you. Warbirds for me too. Duxford, the best flying in the world, graceful and above all safe. 11 Airshow crashes for me over the years. I really have had enough of spoilt days and spoilt lives.

[Machaca]

USAF Accident Report (PDF) available here (http://www.pacaf.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-101210-079.pdf).

Video of actual flight (ends before impact) can be seen here (http://www.pacaf.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-101210-080.wmv).

PAFPA reports:

Air Force releases findings on Alaska C-17 fatal mishap

by Pacific Air Forces Public Affairs 12/10/2010

12/10/2010 - JOINT BASE PEARL HARBOR-HICKAM, Hawaii -- Headquarters Pacific Air Forces today released the results of its investigation into a fatal C-17 Globemaster III aircraft mishap July 28, 2010, at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska.

Gen. Gary North, Pacific Air Forces commander, directed an investigation into the incident which resulted in the deaths of the four crewmembers aboard, the destruction of the $184 million aircraft, and damage to part of the Alaska Railroad.

The accident investigation board found clear and convincing evidence the cause of the mishap was pilot error. The investigation revealed the pilot placed the aircraft outside established flight parameters and capabilities. During the mishap sortie, the pilot aggressively flew the aircraft in a manner inconsistent with established flight procedures, resulting in a stall. The pilot failed to take required stall recovery actions. Furthermore, the board concluded the co-pilot and safety observer failed to recognize or address the developing dangerous situation. As a result, the C-17 stalled at an attitude and altitude from which recovery to controlled flight was impossible.

Brig. Gen. Carlton D. Everhart II, served as the Accident Investigation Board president. General Everhart is vice commander of the 618th Air and Space Operations Center at Scott Air Force Base, Ill. The general is a command pilot with more than 4,400 flight hours in a variety of aircraft, including the C-17.

The mishap occurred as the C-17 -- tail number 00-0173 and call sign Sitka 43 -- practiced for the Arctic Thunder Air Show scheduled for the weekend of July 31 at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson.

For a copy of the Accident Investigation Board report, visit: Pacific Air Forces - AIB Reports (http://www.pacaf.af.mil/library/aibreports/index.asp). Video footage of the mishap flight is also available at that Web site. The footage has been edited to cut off just prior to the aircraft's impact, out of consideration and respect for the families of the deceased.

[Co-Captain]

Horrendous. Pretty damning report to boot. Memories of a certain B-52...

[TheSmiter]

And a certain Nimrod, Co-Captain.


The Inquiry detenmined that the captain made an error of judgement in modifying one of the display manoeuvres to the extent that he stalled the aircraft at a height and attitude from which recovery was impossible. The Inquiry considered that contributory factors could have included deficiencies in the flight deck crew's training and in the method of supervision which could have allowed the captain to develop an unsafe technique without full appreciation of the consequences.
my italics

So sad that, despite all the corporate knowledge and experience among the aviation community, these events still occur. Is it too much trouble to incorporate lessons identified (I was going to say learned, but patently not in this case) into pre season training for display crews?

WRT to this report, the timescale between mishap and full publication (4 months) of a thorough investigation seems pretty damn quick; also compared to UK BoI's, the finding of pilot error seems unequivocal whereas post Mull of Kintyre our findings are subtly different.

Good thing, bad thing?

[Co-Captain]

I imagine the USAF has had just about enough of these accidents now, so why not call a spade a spade...

[onetrack]

Thats completely out of orderNo, it's not. It's the only scenario I can offer whereby, a supposedly, highly trained... supposedly highly competent pilot officer... ignored flight instruction procedures and replaced them with his own untested version... that involved taking the aircraft beyond known limits and then ignoring the multitude of warnings.

It goes further than pilot and crew incompetence. Maybe the issue is just lack of ability within the USAF commanders, and severe deficiencies in their training programs, as indicated in this extract...

"Because he (the pilot) was an accomplished aviator, leadership allowed him to operate independently with little or no oversight".

If this isn't a major failure within USAF leadership and command procedures, I don't know what is. The only parallel I could imagine with this setup, is a battle commander landing a battalion of troops on a battlefield, and then allowing the officers to formulate their own individual plans of attack, because they were individually regarded as being extremely competent. :ugh: :rolleyes:

[JFZ90]

The video is quite shocking in relation to how fast the situation develops.

If - to be simplictic - the right hand turn which started at 42 seconds was too aggressive for the aircraft speed/energy at the time, when was the ac fate sealed - at 45 secs, 50? It looks like its definately all over and unrecoverable at 53 seconds, if not earlier. When would you guess the stall warning went off?

Not long to realise the mistake. I assume they would have done this many times before, but this time they were a few critical knots short. Seems rather dangerous to be trying to fly so near the stall limits anyway, or where they actually far off the "approved" speeds do you think?

[green granite]

Surely it only has a close parallel to the Bob Holland incident if the pilot had been pulled up for similar occurrences before the accident flight. If this was his first transgression, although the accident had very similar causes, the failures of higher command wouldn't exist.

[VinRouge]

An individual doesnt have to fly a couple of knots slow on one occasion for this sort of accident to happen.

they were flying with various exceedences, bank being the most particular and height being the other.

Where was the supervision?

[onetrack]

Surely it only has a close parallel to the Bob Holland incident if the pilot had been pulled up for similar occurrences before the accident flight. If this was his first transgression, although the accident had very similar causes, the failures of higher command wouldn't exist.GG - Wrong. This pilot's abilities were lacking, largely due to a failure of higher command to ensure that this person was a team player, was able to follow instructions to the nth degree, and was training others correctly.

His personality was deficient in that he...

1. Had an arrogance that was nothing short of breathtaking. He believed that he alone, knew better than any aircraft designer, the limits of an aircraft.

2. Taught other pilots that stall warnings were an "anomaly" and could be ignored when the pilot considered that he knew better than a proven warning device... :ugh:

3. Lacked basic understanding of the aeronautical theory behind a stall... :ugh:

4. Lacked any sense of responsibility towards the men under his command, and the crew of his aircraft, in a peacetime environment... :ugh:

5. Suffered from such arrogance and basic incompetence, that it led him to totally ignore a valid stall warning for an extended period... led to him failing to initiate correct stall recovery procedures... and led to him applying the incorrect response to that approaching stall, by maintaining control stick pressure and rudder... :ugh:

The pilots commander did nothing to ensure that strict instructions (written, prescribed procedures) for climbout speed, heights, and angles of bank were to be followed as per the written word.

He was never pulled up, because of the deficiency in his leadership, that allowed his arrogance and incompetence, full rein... :ugh:

The only saving grace that I see is that Brig. Gen. Everhart hasn't minced matters in the collation and summary of the accident report, and has delivered a biting report that not only stands as a monument to one man's breathtaking arrogance, incompetence, and major personality flaws... but which stands as a monument to serious flaws in USAF officer selection and training.

This pilot suffered from such major deficits in personality traits and abilities, that they should have led to him never being given any kind of officers commission... and which deficits should have led to him never being allowed to fly an aircraft, without permanent supervision... :ugh:

[Ewan Whosearmy]

Disregard - just read the full report.

[M609]

The report says nose down elevator imput, max engine power and no large rudder imputs.

When it stalled after the stall warning he still had full back stick and right rudder imput. He tried to roll wings level, but with little effect since the wing was stalled.

Tell me if I read the report wrong.

[green granite]

Unfortunately I cant seem to be able access the full report, only the summary, so I wouldn't know about onetrack's allegations.

[Ewan Whosearmy]

GG. Try Mithaca's link here: http://www.pacaf.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-101210-079.pdf

[Two's in]

If - to be simplictic - the right hand turn which started at 42 seconds was too aggressive for the aircraft speed/energy at the time, when was the ac fate sealed - at 45 secs, 50?

The fate of the Aircraft was sealed the moment the USAF decided to believe this guy's own publicity. Military flying is characterized by aggresive, confident, but capable individuals. That trait is countered only by effective supervision. That didn't happen here.

It also underlines the point made when any well-respected and experienced aviator commits a fatal error, on the day, experience counts for nothing if you go beyond your ability. Good experience teaches you the limits of your ability in a more benign manner than a smoking hole.

Suffered from such arrogance and basic incompetence If only it were that simple.

[green granite]

Thanks for that link Ewan, it makes interesting reading, certainly the command failures weren't as bad as in Bob Holland's case, but there was definitely a dire lack of over sight, and what were the rest of the team doing allowing it to continue flight after flight?

[LowObservable]

The parallels with the Bud Holland accident are amazing. It's not "Why did this happen?" but "How the **** did it happen again?"

[VinRouge]

Thanks for that link Ewan, it makes interesting reading, certainly the command failures weren't as bad as in Bob Holland's case, but there was definitely a dire lack of over sight, and what were the rest of the team doing allowing it to continue flight after flight?Thing is, there are two sorts of accidents in this world.

There is the sort where people stand back and think "I just knew that would happen".

And the sort which no-one foresaw and was completely down to bad luck, wrong place wrong time.

The whole point of the authorisation process is to stop example one happening. This could be as simple as taking someone to one side and having a quiet chat, it could be crewing them with strong willed people. It could be a grounding.

I am guessing the jet involved had some form of CVR/FDR. I wonder how many auths would consider using the data to verify the display development process and as oversight?

Bearing in mind how many fine people we have spray themselves across the countryside with wrongly executed best intentions, I wonder if it needs to feature more highly in future, to stop the overexuberance we all have the potential for inside.

Was this a "violation for organizational gain", or one for "personal thrill seeking"?

Thats for the board to determine surely. I would lean towards the former. We shouldnt underestimate the effect of pressure on individuals that normally excel, especially when we have very high expectations. Having prizes for best, most complex display imho does little to reduce the problem, despite how popular they may be with the decent characters that put themselves forwards for the display role.

I think everyone should have a long hard think before sullying anyone on here; are we all as white as white as we make out, or have we simply been "lucky" in the past?

[Semaphore Sam]

Considering how much engineering and technology go into "idiot-proofing" aircraft nowadays (shakers, pushers, warnings, etc), there are individuals around who demonstrate ways to 'out-idiot' the engineers. Airshows attract such people. Sam

[DelaneyT]

Airshows attract such people. --Sam


Probably. But also the airshow 'environment' frequently prompts sober pilots to bend the rules & take very unnecessary risks.

General probability of pilot-error in any airshow related mishap is over 80% {versus ~ 50% in normal aviation incidents}.

Airshows are always popular, but the world safety record over many decades of these events is terrible. Not worth it in lives and lost resources... but airshows {.. and tragic mishaps} continue unabated.

:sad:


http://www.pprune.org/5839003-post13.html

[RumPunch]

Watching that video just makes me so sad. They served there country and do the most incredible of jobs, one lapse in judgement and they paid the price, we can all say at one point we have done the same but got away with it.

:(

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

one lapse in judgement


That's not strictly accurate, is it?


we can all say at one point we have done the same but got away with it.


Speak for yourself! I can honestly say that I have never set out to violate the rules & regs; on the frequent occasions when I have made mistakes and got things wrong, I have tried to learn from them (an ongoing process!) rather than repeating said errors in the name of excitement. There's plenty of fun to be had within the rules!

[Two's in]

one lapse in judgement

As TotD says, it wasn't one lapse. There are plenty of examples of lapses in judgement - overflying maintenance, ignoring a Bingo fuel, busting an assigned level. These are all serious enough, but unlikely to kill you instantly.

This guy on the other hand ignored repeated stall warnings, failed to ever achieve the correct speed for the aircraft configuration, failed to establish his assigned minimum height, and when the laws of physics invariably took over, he failed in a fundamental way to recognise, correct and recover from the stall - that most basic but critical of flight manoeuvres.

As for CRM, the co-pilot learned that the price for reacting to a "Flaps" call without ensuring the correct flying speed was attained, was the same as the price the safety observer paid for failing to ensure the sortie was flown within the aircraft and authorization limits - and that was the real tragedy.

[VinRouge]

Torque,

There's plenty of fun to be had within the rules!

Are you saying you have never bended the regs or broke the regs to assist the RAF, to achieve a mission, especially on ops? Really?

Certainly not my experience on operations. In fact, its only recently (post Haddon-cave?) That I notice individuals turning round more and saying "No, thats crazy", or
"we need to weigh up the risks here".

I dont think I would have flown much on ops if we had stayed within the regs. I know of many times in which regs were changed to fit ops.

This guy on the other hand ignored repeated stall warnings, failed to ever achieve the correct speed for the aircraft configuration, failed to establish his assigned minimum height,

Ask your self this, WHY was the individual doing these things, and who was there to stop him? Was he doing it for thrill-seeking? I personally think not. I think it more likely that he was doing it to achieve the best display for the service. Was there external pressure to achieve? None of this relieves him of his responsibilities, but id hazard a guess that if stronger supervision had taken place, monitoring of postflight data, this accident would never have happened.

[Easy Street]

VinRouge,

Pressure to achieve a task on operations is one thing - and you are right, there is a move towards better management of risk in recent months. However, lives are at stake on ops, and soldiers might die if the rescue helicopter / CAS asset / supply drop (delete as appropriate) is cancelled purely due to "the rules".

There are only a few things at stake at an airshow. The end-of-season display prizes are one. Another is the display pilot's pride. The only other thing at stake is public reputation, and arguably the steady stream of display practice accidents does more harm than good in that regard. I'm not saying that we shouldn't have displays - I just wonder why this C17 pilot thought that his 'special' display would impress the viewing public so much more than the cleared one; why a Tucano pilot thought a stall-turn below a low cloudbase would win him a trophy; why the already world-renowned Red Arrows' synchro pair ended up colliding on the opposition manoeuvre (which looks impressive enough from the crowdline without needing to actually graze paint). I get the feeling that all of these guys are trying to impress either themselves or their fellow professionals - the average hamburger-munching airshow spectator couldn't give a monkey's about the technical merit, he just wants to see a competent display and not bear witness to a fireball.

Sorry to get all that off my chest but risk-taking and rule-bending of the level seen recently belongs nowhere except the front line, and even then only when the operational situation demands it.

[Cows getting bigger]

Two's in, I agree, sort of. There were three people who could have stopped the accident. The real tragedy was the poor soul sat down back who had no chance of influencing the outcome. :(

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

you have never bended [sic] the regs or broke the regs to assist the RAF, to achieve a mission, especially on ops?


Perhaps I was unclear. When I said "I never set out to violate rules and regs", that doesn't mean "I never violated...". The point being that my violations of rules & regs have occurred because a situation has unexpectedly cropped up and the lesser of two evils, due to operational pressure, has been to violate something. The decision to do so has been made in consultation with the crew, and the violation has been kept to a minimum, in terms of degree and duration, required to achieve the task.

This (to me) is quite different from an individual who launches on a training flight with the deliberate intent to carry out manoeuvres which he is not cleared for and which are appallingly dangerous.

[L J R]

Having displayed, I can say that the urge to tighten the show is always present - especially when it comes to repositioning......and being aware of personal limitations and your jet and its unforgiving nature (esp at lower levels), must be at ones minds forefront if you think that a few seconds can be saved to put the beast back to crowd-front. Sometimes it is simply a bad judgement call......


Regardless...RIP chaps.....

[RumPunch]

Ok sorry my wording was a bit innapropriate. Just a sad thing to happen.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Just a sad thing to happen.

Agreed. RIP indeed.

[onetrack]

There's another perspective from which it pays to view this disastrous event. Just say, the PIC was the sole survivor of the crash?
Right about now, he'd be facing a court martial, and the articles of the UCMJ he'd be facing charges under, would likely be...

Article 92: Failure to obey regulations or orders...
Article 108: Loss or damage of Govt Property...
Article 111: Recklessness in the operation of an aircraft...
Article 119: Manslaughter (3 counts)...

The majority of these Articles provide substantial prison terms for any major violations of the relevant sections. A term of imprisonment in the military usually results in being busted to the lowest ranking enlistee.

More importantly, he'd have to face the bitterness and anger of the many family members of the people he killed with his negligence and arrogance.

Remember, these are the relevant facts.
The PIC never reached the instructed climbout speed. Because he chose a 40° angle of climbout, rather than meeting the required climbout speed... when he levelled off, he ended up 26kts below minimum climbout speed.
The target climbout speed was 133 kts. He only reached 107 kts.
He levelled off at 850' AGL, rather than the mandated 1500'. He conducted two particularly tight turns where the bank angle firstly reached 57°, and then 62°. The bank limit for the C-17 is 60°.
He had inadequate airspeed for the turns, and then increased the danger by continuing to apply aft control stick pressure, and full right rudder. The wing load increased to 2.4G's.
Just after commencement of stall, part-way around the second turn, the aircrafts deep stall protection system (the AoA Limiter System - ALS) commenced to operate, but was overcome by the aggressiveness of the PIC's control system inputs.
When the stall warning sounded, it continued to sound for 12 seconds, until impact.
The PIC did not initiate any proper stall recovery technique, until 2 seconds prior to impact, when he commenced to actuate a left roll. There was inadequate airspeed for the aircraft to respond to the left roll input satisfactorily.

Remember, this was a peacetime exercise. The PIC didn't have to exceed the aircrafts design limits, unlike a wartime operation. His responsibility was to the people under his command, the aircraft crew.
He showed no responsibility befitting an officer, in particular a senior and supposedly competent officer.

An event like this is just like throwing a rock in a pond. You only think of the initial big splash when the rock hits... but the ripples extend far and wide, and affect so much more, on a much wider scale, than you ever possibly imagined, initially... :hmm:

[aterpster]

Green Granite:

Surely it only has a close parallel to the Bob Holland incident if the pilot had been pulled up for similar occurrences before the accident flight. If this was his first transgression, although the accident had very similar causes, the failures of higher command wouldn't exist.

The parallels are striking and show a complete breakdown in the command structure of the USAF as it pertains to air shows. After the Holland crash the command structure established a form of air show C.R.M. Apparently, it was just a paper drill.

The ill-fated crew in this tragic, unnecessary, and very expensive crash were trying to to it better for the "home team." What kind of mentality is that? I thought the entire USAF was the "home team."

[green granite]

aterpster That was written before I had access to the full report, however I didn't actually see in the report that he'd been warned about his flying being unacceptable so it's management failure by abdication of responsibilities.

That, coupled with him teaching that stall warnings can be ignored during sim training without being censored, should mean that senior heads should roll.

[aterpster]

If you look at Page 8 of the report then locate the crash site on Google Earth it is ironic that the crash site is nearly the same place as the tragic crash of a Boeing E-3 (Yulka 27) that had a fatal ingestion of birds just after becoming airborne (Sep 22, 1995). That killed 24 souls.

[Lonewolf_50]

Remember, this was a peacetime exercise. The PIC didn't have to exceed the aircrafts design limits, unlike a wartime operation.
Of course, if one exceeds op design limits in war time, and crashes a Full C-17, the outcome is much worse than the four lost in this case. :ugh: I think we all appreciate that exceeding limits induces an untrained for risk to any operation ...
His respons ability was to the people under his command, the aircraft crew.
He showed no responsibility befitting an officer, in particular a senior and supposedly competent officer

Your considerable sound and fury in this thread isn't as important as something I was taught on my first flight: make sure to keep your airspeed in your scan, and fly the proper airspeed for the maneuver.

That this aircraft commander didn't do that strikes me as twofold in origin:

Higher command picked the wrong guy for this mission. Airshow maneuvers require a great deal more, not less, flight discipline and preparation than ordinary flying, and a flight crew/pilot who are zealous in their attention to detail and precision.

The precise gates/checkpoints in the maneuver to be attained had either not been determined, or not correctly rehearsed, and the "go no go" points for each high performance maneuver had not been agreed and rehearsed in both training and briefing.

Seems to me the rehearsal phase of this airshow (both on the ground and at altitude) was shorted.

Maybe an insidious problem was that the C-17 "cargo" guys are not be as attuned to a "knock it off" call as the fighter guys (who perform high performance maneuvers frequently) are, in both the giving and responding.

Airspeed.

From the various summaries, and some of the comments, it appears that airspeed dropped out of the scan of the pilot flying and was replaced by something else ~ ground reference?

Not sure.

That, coupled with him teaching that stall warnings can be ignored during sim training without being censored, should mean that senior heads should roll.
Indeed. Negative training has all sorts of sad after effects. :(

[Two's in]

it appears that airspeed dropped out of the scan of the pilot flying and was replaced by something else ~ ground reference?

The report also states the throttles were firewalled for take off and remained in that position - easy to make an assumption that full thrust will always save the day when you're light.

[noperf]

A pretty good definition of arrogance is to think you're smarter than the book.

[noperf]

Yep, I'm ignorant.

[BEagle]

I suspect that the comments regarding 57° and 62° indicate that the pilot was attempting to turn the aircraft at its absolute limit rather than at the bank angle defined for the display.

That meant he was exceeding his authorisation. However, whilst that might have been an error of discipline, his failure to recognise and recover from an accelerated stall in the turn was a fundamental handling error, with fatal results. He had ample time to recover at the incipient stage, but persisted with his mishandling until the aircraft entered an irrecoverable fully developed stall.

Safe rule stretchers? If you can prove that the rule itself is too restrictive, then get it changed. Selective obediance to flying orders is a dangerous notion - a pilot flying 'well outside of various limits for significant parts of the job' is an accident waiting to happen.

[Hueymeister]

60 deg AOB limit...bugger...the 90 deg AOB 320kt run and break I did in one the other day was...fab fun actually!!! :ok::}

[BEagle]

Captaincy is the art of knowing exactly when to ignore precisely the correct sections of the rule book.
And then going home and justifying it to the authoriser.......
Even for you that is complete and utter bolleaux.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

old medal gathering SAR job wind conditions


I think that a BoI would count immediate life-saving in desperate conditions as a strong mitigating factor for using the winch outside limits, were this to result in aircraft damage/loss of life. Please explain the relevance of this to the C-17 case?

[VinRouge]

People struggle to understand that there isnt a difference. If someone will rule-break to get the job done under life saving conditions (when someone isnt looking), they will do it when they are trying to make a limited display area by turning too tight at low speed (when someone isnt looking).

Really they will.

Dont believe me?

OK, how many on here speed to work? How many of you have driven home from work after one more than 2 pints, or know someone, a "good egg" thats done the same? Is that not "breaking the rules?" So, when you pile into a little girl crossing the street, whats the difference between you and aforesaid captain? A holier than thou attitude and luck pure and simple.

You still do it though, and you still do it for the same reasons people push sh!t vis on a medivac and the same reason people kill themselves practicing for an air display. Its human nature. Unfortunately, the other crew concerned were partly let down by poor supervision and a stepwise approach to display limits.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

That's priceless! I think my favourite part of the high comedy which VR has kindly provided is the concept of display flying when noone is looking!


How many of you have driven home from work after one more than 2 pints


Not me - there are things called mates or wives who can bring one home after a few drinks. Maybe you don't have any...ever heard of a taxi?


Is that not "breaking the rules?"


Yes it is - which is why I don't do it, both for my sake and for the sake of all the little girls who might be crossing the street. Am I alone in this?

[onetrack]

I particularly enjoyed the "He conducted two particularly tight turns where the bank angle firstly reached 57°, and then 62°. The bank limit for the C-17 is 60°"

You must be an amazing pilot to have never gone to 62° when trying to fly 60°

Tourist - You're missing a lot of relevant points here - and suffering from the same preoccupation with one detail, that ignores other vastly important details, as the crash pilot.
The information about the bank angle of the aircraft in question, is posted as merely indicative, relevant information, not causative information.
The information about bank angle is provided, as one of the facts, to be considered in conjunction with the other facts.

Neither I, nor any accident investigator, stated that exceeding the manufacturers recommended bank angle by 2°, was a major causative factor in the crash.

The relevant points are, that: The aircraft was being operated at a maximum recommended bank angle. No problem.
However... the addition of heavy control stick input, to carry out an excessively tight turn, in conjunction with inadequate airspeed, inadequate height, a lack of correct stall response... COUPLED WITH... maximum bank angle... were all contributory factors to the crash.

[Easy Street]

Tourist,

If I am wrong, then why is there always the "Nothing in these regulations obviates the Pilot from doing the right thing if it is in the best interests of............blaa blaa blaa" at the start of the bible?I am struggling to see how disregarding the approved display profile and the stall warning could be "in the best interests of the service" when the stakes are, on the one hand A) a nice tight display to impress all your chums, and B) spanking in a C-17 with the loss of all aboard.

Your (correct) quoted exemption is to allow people to break the rules in the appropriate circumstances. It doesn't say what those circumstances are because we are expected to use our military judgement to decide them. My military judgement is that anyone involved in display flying who thinks they can use that get-out clause is an accident waiting to happen. The stakes are never higher than A) above.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

So let me get this straight.

1. You don't, and have never broken any aviation rules.
2. You don't, and have never broken any driving rules.


You're far from straight, my friend. I never said any of the above. But I don't break aviation rules for the purpose of showing off, and I don't drink drive!


sometimes rules must be broken in the interests of operational effectiveness and sometimes even safety.


Very true - but how can you justify the C-17 pilot, on a training flight, flying his aircraft so far outside the rules that it crashed? Where's the safety or operational effectiveness in that?

[charliegolf]

97 posts and the crew, as I understand it, is still dead.

My experience (limited but real) is that there are pilots who are both gifted AND willing to push the rules. I was never uncomfortable flying with them, because they never 'pushed' to please an audience, never bragged about it, and never belittled others for not 'pushing it'.

What did make the hairs on my neck stand up was when less able pilots tried to emulate their heroes. They wanted to fly through 5 bar gates or ensure the pigeons had to 'break upward' to avoid them.

I did a season on the display routine as a crewman. The two I flew with flew the routine as we had practised: they did not want to impress the F-16 jocks or the Reds. They were comfortable in their own skin (which they still shed about once a month as far as I know).

For my part, I never had to ask them pointedly, "Are we authorised for this?" It worked quite well with the wannabees.

CG

[Less Hair]

Give those guys an A400M next time. It will bank to 110 degrees.

[BEagle]

Tourist, you really do talk nonsense.

A show off, using unofficial techniques, screwed up his climb out, level off and a straightforward steep turn. The laid down display technique was fine; his unofficial method wasn't.

He then killed his crew.

Quite why his co-pilot and/or saftety pilot didn't yell "UNLOAD, YOU F**KWIT, RECOVER!!" is frankly beyond me. A simple relaxation of AoA and roll to wings level would have avoided the death of 4 people and the loss of an aeroplane worth millions of dollars.

If I was your boss, I'd have you taken off flying duties tomorrow - your attitude to regulation is dangerous and wholly unacceptable. Please tell me that it isn't common in the RN....

[Flap62]

Tourist,

Much as it gauls me to admit it but I have to agree with BEagle.

I have a very relaxed attitude to acceptable risk in the military environment but in 10 years of occasionally trawling this site I doubt that I have ever read such dangerous, mis-informed hoop as you have been spouting about military flying and captaincy in general.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

They werent [sic] trying to be twats, they just were.


What kind of defence is that?! And it's not even true for the pilot!

Your entire angle on this is flawed. The rules are there as a result of hard-earned experience about what is and isn't safe or worthwhile, and many good people have died providing the corporate knowledge which informs the rule-makers. While noone places blind faith in the hierarchy these days, I do at least trust them, when they write the rules, to strike a fairly sensible balance between allowing us to achieve worthwhile training while putting in place certain restrictions which reduce the chances of us meeting a sticky end in the process. If you seriously believe that rules should be routinely ignored even in the training environment, then you must have plenty of luck to make up for your seeming total lack of judgment!

[Winco]

Tourist,

Your comments are extremely worrying and a cause of grave concern.

I know several test pilots and I know what an aircraft goes through before the rule book is written. To disregard it because you think you know better is irresponsible, stupid, arrogant and irresponsible.

Sadly, the pilot of the C-17 was like you and thought he knew better than the book - I guess the outcome proved that he didn't. It's just a dreadful shame that he took another 3 souls with him.

Maybe you should get in the sim and try it 'your way' ignoring the book and see what happens. I have tried it in my sim and I can tell you that the book is right EVERY time!

[SAR Bloke]

Deleted thanks to Tourist's generous offer to edit his post:ok:

[alf5071h]

It’s interesting to see the different views stirred up by a report of ‘pilot error’.
The ‘new way’ of thinking about human performance urges us to look beyond pilot error, thus in this accident it could be failures in investigation and reporting, and not necessarily of those of individuals which generate debate.

Cook and Nemeth (Refs) discuss error, their views might apply to this accident.

1. A defense against entanglement with accidents – “As an organizational defense, human (operator) error serves as a kind of lightning rod that conducts the potentially harmful consequences produced by an accident along an (organizationally) safe pathway.”

2. The illusion of control - “If accidents flow from error and error may be lodged in an individual, then exerting control over the individual may be used to prevent accidents.”

3. A means for distancing - “Others feel less at risk if error can be ascribed to a practitioner’s deeply seated, but personal, flaws. If accidents arise from forces and circumstances in the environment, then the experience of my colleague has relevance for me and the event increases my sense of hazard and uncertainty. By attributing my colleague’s accident to his inattention or stupidity, though, I make it possible to believe that the accident has no relevance for me. This is because I do not believe that I am either inattentive or stupid. Distancing limits and obscures the deeper examination of the sources of accidents. It marks an area of research interest, but it also sharply limits the value of post accident attributions.”

4. A marker for failed investigations - “The most important value of ‘‘human error’’ is that it provides an acceptable end point for adverse event investigation. … it forms a ‘‘cognitive barrier’’ beyond which investigators do not make much progress, mainly because it is so difficult to work through the psychology and behavior of human agents. …. ‘‘operator’’ or ‘‘user error’’ is a catchall term for those events that cannot be identified as overt mechanical failure. This is not error by the practitioners who were involved in the accident, but rather error by the analysts who assessed the accident’s source and evolution.”

‘‘Those found responsible have been sacked’’ Observations of the Usefulness of Error. (http://www.ctlab.org/documents/Cook%20and%20Nemeth-Observations%20of%20the%20Usefulness%20of%20Error.pdf) Cook and Nemeth

Perspectives on Human Error: Hindsight Biases and Local Rationality. ( http://www.ctlab.org/documents/PerspOnHumErr.pdf) D. Woods.

The emperor’s new clothes: Whatever happened to human error? (erik.hollnagel.googlepages.com/HESSDKeynote.pdf) E Hollnagel, R. Amalberti. On "human error" (http://www.ida.liu.se/~eriho/HumanError_M.htm)

[Winco]

Tourist

I think you have completely lost the plot. You need to see a medic fast, because your brain just isn't working mate.

You don't need to be impressed just because I know a few TPs. Some of them I flew with on the Nimrod fleet,another was a mate I knew on Victors and another was from the E-3 fleet. There's nothing impressive about that, so what are you going on about?

What I do know is that they were all very experienced pilots who went off to ETPS and Q'd as TPs. One was even a TP on the A380 program, but you don't need to be impressed by that either, I'm simply stating facts.

Your tirade of 'who has NEVER..........' displays a somewhat worrying mental problem you appear to have, compounded by your opinion that you know better than any flight manual. Ever considered being a TP yourself??

I don't ever recall an aircraft crashing because the captain was wearing a sqn T shirt instead of an issue one. As for your comment 'passenger carrying section in BR767. Nobody knows what it even means' if that is the case, then why haven't you do something about it?? Oh I know - because you know better than the book, that's right isn't it??

As for the use of the sim, I was merely suggesting that you take a perfectly understood and well-practiced procedure in your aircraft, and go and perform it in the sim, ignore the rule book and do it your way. Make up your own speeds, flap configuration, heights etc and see what happens.

I myself don't need to look for other ways of doing things that contravene the flight manual. If you had thought just a little bit more before launching your tirade, you would have understood that I was trying to educate you to try it your way in the sim and see if it works, thats all. I have no doubt that the USAF have flown that very same profile in the sim a hundred times and come to the same conclusion every time that it 'aint going to work. And they were right - it didn't work, did it??

I hope you get help soon before you come to grief.

[Winco]

Tourist

You're right, I've never flown with you and therefore I can only go by what you have said here, and not what I have (not) seen. But what you have said on this forum is a serious cause for concern.

To advocate that you (or anyone else with the relevant experience) knows better than the aircrew manual or whatever it's called these days in the military, is crass stupidity, and shows an arrogance that is dangerous.

The loss of the C-17 was down to one man who believed that he knew beter than the book, and he didn't. What is there to argue about? We are not talking about the speed being out by a few kts, or the angle of bank a few degrees, we are talking about very serious breaches of flight safety which put the airacrft well outside the envelope. Even the most basic of errors - letting the aircraft stall. Those are the facts.

To argue whether we are of the same mentality because we choose to wear a Sqn T shirt over an issue one is crazy, and I don't see your point. Yes I used to wear a Sqn t shirt, because it caused less fatigue on me than an issue one. But as I said before, no one has ever crashed an airacrft for wearing the wrong t shirt, or underwear, or any other flying kit as far as I am aware (eg 55 sqn Dominie wear full flying kit - 32 sqn Dominie don't)

I hope that by tomorrow morning, having slept on it, you might consider your comments and have a re-think about what you said earlier.

I'm just off to the sim now, to see if I can my 400 odd ton 747 airborne with just 3 engines, in 600 yds and with a 45 kts cross wind. The book says NO, but I'm willing to give it a go! What do you think??


Night night

[Easy Street]

Tourist, the trouble with ignoring the small pointless rules is that it makes it easier to ignore the big important ones. It's called "risky shift" I believe. There's been enough of it around over the last few "can do" years that it's now taught on the supervisory courses; this follows a number of accidents, with the Baghdad Puma det saga being a prime example. No doubt you will now tell us that you are capable of deciding which are the pointless rules and which are the big ones... unfortunately many others have not demonstrated your ability.

I am also proud to say that the RAF middle-management has finally stopped allowing senior leadership to dump all the operational risk down the chain of command - real progress has been made in getting their Airships to understand exactly what is going on at the front line, and material changes are being made in the way many of the deployed units operate. However, if we really want the senior officers to take proper responsibility for the risks under their command, the payback is clear - we have to stick to the regulations they issue as far as is reasonably possible.

[fr8dawg27]

the u.s military released c17 crash footage of the last 60 seconds of flight of sitka43 watch this big aircraft performing some very agressive maneuvering at low level. military removed last seconds of flight before
impacting the ground from video. very sad accident.
go to youtube and click on: military released c17 crash footage or
click c17 crash alaska on search bar.
also good article on flightglobal.com dated 17/12/10

[Dengue_Dude]

Sadly a big aeroplane being taken too close to its limits.

Only needs the slightest hiccup and down you go. There is some excellent footage of the previous year's display practice, that's incredibly close to the limits too.

The expression 'an accident waiting to happen' springs to mind . . . again.

Just sorry for the families of those associated with this latest accident.

[SKS777FLYER]

At the start of this thread, the mere mention of the similarity of this crash to the Bud Holland crash drew a rash of angry responses and even a statement by perhaps a C17 pilot, that the C17 cannot be stalled. The inability of the aircraft to let itself be stalled theory was thrown right out the window in the Air Force report.
That the mission pilot thru his arrogance of supposedly far superior flying skills and systems knowledge, many times took C17's to at least the edge of the flight envelope, even taught students that aerodynamic stall warnings were just anomalies....... is astounding to me in sheer audacity.
Watching the B52 crash video many times over the years and seeing it's sickening destruction and carnage in slow motion right into ground disintegration and massive fireball filled with aircraft debris .......
I would think that B52 mission and its failure would be emblazoned upon ESPECIALLY airshow demonstration USAF pilots.
Of course the skipper of the C17 was told over and overhismachine was far superior to that ancient B52 and would help to take care of itself by not allowing itself to be stalled.
Out of "respect for the surviving family members, etc" the Air Force softened the C17 video so that the video ended a fraction of a second or so before the right wingtip contacted trees or terra firma.
Out of respect for possible future surviving loved ones, I hope the Air Force gathers a little mangled flight deck debris and shows the entire video over and over to current and future demonstration pilots. Maybe they will elect to have sympathy and concern for the future families by doing a better job at preventing such needless carnage. One B52 pilot and one C17 pilot forgot about their families for a few critical seconds, and from reading the reports had done so on many occasions leading to their last flights.