KC 46 tanker landing at Paris Airshow

[Smythe]

interesting way to make an appearance...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=32&v=PzRGsZJkjUY

[Hotel Tango]

Makes an approach on 25 and breaks off for 21. Only they overshot the CL of 21 and had to readjust a little.

[gearlever]

Nicely done...:D

[Slow Progress]

No reverse thrust?

[yoko1]

No reverse thrust?

I pretty sure the KC-46 does not have reverse thrust. While that sounds odd at first, it is in keeping with previous Air Force philosophy that the extra stopping power was not worth the trade-off in additional weight and maintenance. The Air Force usually operates from long runways where stopping distance isn't nearly as critical.

[boxedlunch]

No reverse thrust?

Not installed on the KC-46. KC-135s do not have them either. Most airfields that a USAF tanker will operate into are long enough to make reversers unnecessary. Their additional weight and maintenance requirements further reduce reversers' desirability for an aircraft that is primarily designed to take off full of fuel and land empty.

[Sqwak7700]

Seems pretty short sighted to not install reverse thrust. I can’t imagine it the trade off and cost to remove outweigh the benefits.

Then again, government decision made by government employees. Can’t say I’m surprised.

[LGW Vulture]

Blame leftover manufacturing FOD.

[Sailvi767]

Tankers are never quick turned. Brake temps are not the issue they are in airline ops. Why lug all that extra weight and deal with the maintenance issues. It’s a smart move and you get a higher fuel offload which is the whole point of a tanker.

[Max Angle]

If they had bought the Airbus option they could have had reverse thrust AND a higher offload.

[bvcu]

and operated from shorter runways............

[Magplug]

In a big aircraft, when you land that far beyond the touchdown zone..... The fact that you have reversers (or not) is quite often academic

[aterpster]

Seems pretty short sighted to not install reverse thrust. I can’t imagine it the trade off and cost to remove outweigh the benefits.

Then again, government decision made by government employees. Can’t say I’m surprised.
This is a modified design of the 767. This design did not include T/Rs by specification of the USAF. So, they didn't have to be removed.

[Smythe]

I was a bit surprised, that the Paris Airshow, the head of AF acquisition states the aircraft still show up with FOD.

[DaveReidUK]

I was a bit surprised, that the Paris Airshow, the head of AF acquisition states the aircraft still show up with FOD.

You're surprised that it's still going on, or that he acknowledged it ?

[oceancrosser]

Nicely done...:D

Well if I did that I would get a few calls from our FDM guy... Actually it did not look that nicely done. Arrival type of landing.
Over the threshold the left wingtip is still lower than the left gear. An he plants it on the runway after floating along it.
More like embarrasing than nicely done...

[The Range]

Well if I did that I would get a few calls from our FDM guy... Actually it did not look that nicely done. Arrival type of landing.
Over the threshold the left wingtip is still lower than the left gear. An he plants it on the runway after floating along it.
More like embarrasing than nicely done...
The pilots must have been very tired after a long flight

[Smythe]

Originally Posted by Smythe https://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/622596-kc-46-tanker-landing-paris-airshow.html#post10496710)
I was a bit surprised, that the Paris Airshow, the head of AF acquisition states the aircraft still show up with FOD.
You're surprised that it's still going on, or that he acknowledged it ?

Both...well, and that the AF would be so vocal at the Airshow.

https://www.defenseone.com/business/2019/06/boeing-tankers-still-have-debris-fix-months-maybe-longer-away/157786/

[Fly Aiprt]

Both...well, and that the AF would be so vocal at the Airshow.

https://www.defenseone.com/business/2019/06/boeing-tankers-still-have-debris-fix-months-maybe-longer-away/157786/

Maybe they're really not happy with Boeing and wish to let it be known...

[yoko1]

Well if I did that I would get a few calls from our FDM guy... Actually it did not look that nicely done. Arrival type of landing.
Over the threshold the left wingtip is still lower than the left gear. An he plants it on the runway after floating along it.
More like embarrasing than nicely done...

Can't speak for now, but back in the day the military operated with much looser parameters as to what was acceptable for traffic pattern ops. There was generally a perspective that one day we might be required to operate from some "unusual" airfields or with non-standard approach requirements (think bad guys with shoulder launched SAM's out on the approach or departure corridor), so we would intentionally practice close in turns arriving and departing. Not saying that's what is happening here, but military heavies will do things that commercial airlines would never even contemplate.

[F-16GUY]

Can't speak for now, but back in the day the military operated with much looser parameters as to what was acceptable for traffic pattern ops. There was generally a perspective that one day we might be required to operate from some "unusual" airfields or with non-standard approach requirements (think bad guys with shoulder launched SAM's out on the approach or departure corridor), so we would intentionally practice close in turns arriving and departing. Not saying that's what is happening here, but military heavies will do things that commercial airlines would never even contemplate.

I was trying to spread the same words in the military forum.

[tdracer]

This is a modified design of the 767. This design did not include T/Rs by specification of the USAF. So, they didn't have to be removed.

It sort of depends on how you define 'remove'. The USAF didn't want thrust reversers on the new tanker. The T/R is basic on the 767, so we had the choice to either build as is - with the T/R deactivated - or get rid of the T/R and design a new fan cowl for the PW4000. Boeing decided to do the later - it saved some weight, but I doubt it saved much (if any) money as there were significant non-recurring costs involved.
A while back another potential customer came in and wanted to buy some KC-46s, with reversers - no problem, just return to the original design, right? Not so fast - turns out as soon as the decision was made to get rid of the wiring and hydraulics for the T/Rs, much of the space that was opened up in the strut was filled with the extra wiring and such required for the KC-46 (bigger generators, additional wire shielding for HIRF/EMI, and stuff I can't talk about). So putting the T/Rs back on was cost prohibitive.

[DaveReidUK]

Makes an approach on 25 and breaks off for 21. Only they overshot the CL of 21 and had to readjust a little.

It positioned from Ramstein, so it was always going to approach from the east, but it doesn't look like it was established for 25 (which has implications for CDG traffic) at any stage.

Maybe the video doesn't tell the whole story, but the approach didn't look particularly sporty compared to some I've seen from aircraft that size at LBG during show week.

[Hotel Tango]

It positioned from Ramstein, so it was always going to approach from the east, but it doesn't look like it was established for 25 (which has implications for CDG traffic) at any stage.

I don't understand your comment about CDG. All landings on 25 at LBG (which tends to be the predominant runway in use) pass just to the south of CDG. It would make perfect sense that they made a standard approach to 25 up to a point and then broke off for 21. They may have first edged right before staring the left turn. Of course you may have seen otherwise on some tracking app, but you haven't said so.

[DaveReidUK]

I don't understand your comment about CDG. All landings on 25 at LBG (which tends to be the predominant runway in use) pass just to the south of CDG.

The LBG 25 extended centreline passes directly over CDG T2 at about 5nm from the piano keys.

From the French AIP:

If a pilot of an ACFT plans to use the RWY 25 for safety reasons, he should have to report it to CHARLES DE GAULLE approach at the first contact. Flow control measures (potential holding) should apply to him in order to ensure the compatibility with PARIS-CHARLES DE GAULLE traffic.

It would make perfect sense that they made a standard approach to 25 up to a point and then broke off for 21. They may have first edged right before staring the left turn. Of course you may have seen otherwise on some tracking app, but you haven't said so.

Yes, I was referring to data from ADSBExchange. I didn't just make it up. :O

[Smythe]

tdracer.....remember the SW 737's, with only avionics for the left seat? I think they only upgraded when Boeing said they were going to start charging them more for that! (well, and they wanted RNAV/RNP)

[Meester proach]

Being a bit of a dull git with nothing else to do, I measured where he touched down on google earth , 3100 feet from the threshold , so it was a tad long.

lack of circling alignment below 300 and the above, would have caused me to GA, lest I get a call from the air safety guys

[Hotel Tango]

Yes, I was referring to data from ADSBExchange. I didn't just make it up.

Might have helped to point that out. Btw last time I was at CDG I watched quite a number of approaches to 25 into LBG, so not that uncommon.

[Hotel Tango]

OK, apologies, I've sorted it out now :O I was confusing 25 with 27. What I had been watching from CDG were approaches to 27 which do pass south of CDG. So did they make an initial approach to 27 and break first right and then left for 21? Or were they just doing a left hand circuit on 21?

[tdracer]

tdracer.....remember the SW 737's, with only avionics for the left seat? I think they only upgraded when Boeing said they were going to start charging them more for that! (well, and they wanted RNAV/RNP)
Never spent much time working the 737. But I do recall on the 747-400, Autostart was an extra cost option, which was reasonable for Pratt and Rolls, since it required costly additions to the engine. plus wiring changes to the aircraft. But the CF6-80C2 FADEC had autostart basic, all you needed to do was hook it up (plus it was a much better autostart system than the other guys, especially Pratt). For a while every GE powered 747-400 had autostart - in fact we didn't even have drawings for a non-autostart 747-400/CF6-80C2. Then someone came in, ordered a couple GE powered 747-400s, but declined the autostart option. Cost a small fortune to develop and certify the configuration, just so that we could charge less for the aircraft.:ugh:
I always figured we should have simply had the sales team tell them we were having a limited time special and would throw in autostart for free...

[Lord Farringdon]

Looks like he only used half the runway to land...................that would be the half to right of the centre line!

[fox niner]

I have seen enough B52’s and C17’s do low turns on horrible vids. This one is certainly not in that category, but you are getting there.
Habit creep.
Or did they also remove the toga switches to save weight?

[groundbum]

I have seen enough B52’s and C17’s do low turns on horrible vids. This one is certainly not in that category, but you are getting there.
Habit creep.
Or did they also remove the toga switches to save weight?

maybe the TOGA switches were recycled 787 fire switches and got .... stuck...

G

[Maninthebar]

Consider the mentality:
You have been elected to fly into The Paris Airshow - eyes of the world on you and all that
You have stuffed up the approach BUT there is a stack of runway ahead, the plane feels good and conditions are OK
Do you
- plant it and hope that only the geeks on PPRUNE will notice OR
- Go Around and ensure that the entire audience, local and worldwide, get to see a clip of it on their local news channels
?

[DaveReidUK]

OK, apologies, I've sorted it out now :O I was confusing 25 with 27. What I had been watching from CDG were approaches to 27 which do pass south of CDG.

No problem, I suspected we were at cross-purposes. :O

So did they make an initial approach to 27 and break first right and then left for 21? Or were they just doing a left hand circuit on 21?

ADSBE suggests the latter - the last 30 nm or so of the track were more-or-less due west from roughly Montreuil-aux-Lions. The track stops just short of the field, but is consistent with a simple (albeit not quite textbook) left turn onto short final for 21, where the video picks up.

Sadly, it appears that the KC-46 is only on static display at the Show, so we won't get any further chances to admire his approach technique. :O

[parabellum]

Americans are much more familiar with side-step procedures than we British and a military flight positioning from Germany could well have incorporated a training element, so it is anybody's guess what their plan was. All looked pretty smooth and controlled to me. No drama.

[Fly Aiprt]

Consider the mentality:
You have been elected to fly into The Paris Airshow - eyes of the world on you and all that
You have stuffed up the approach BUT there is a stack of runway ahead, the plane feels good and conditions are OK
Do you
- plant it and hope that only the geeks on PPRUNE will notice OR
- Go Around and ensure that the entire audience, local and worldwide, get to see a clip of it on their local news channels
?

Of course do the latter, offering a macho low pass followed by an impressive precision full stop landing right on the touchdown marks and centerline. And then taxi while waving to the subjugated crowd.
That would have looked like something.

Instead, did you hear the last comment from the guy taking the video ?
An appalled "Oh la la" isn't quite the "Wow !" a top pilot should expect...

[DaveReidUK]

Could have been worse.

The unofficial US military.com (https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/06/17/kc-46-debuts-paris-air-show-amid-news-more-delays.html) website gleefully informs us that "The Air Force's new KC-46 Pegasus tanker landed on the flight line at France's Paris-Le Bourget Airport Saturday ahead of its public debut at the air show here."

Ouch. :O

[stilton]

Don’t see what all the fuss is about



It is an air show

[Sailvi767]

If they had bought the Airbus option they could have had reverse thrust AND a higher offload.

They could have had reverse thrust. The Airforce did not want to because of complexity. The Airbus because of brake temp issues probably would have required it. Ramp space was a bigger issue with the A330 because it would not fit in the footprint of a 135.

[Lake1952]

Yes, unfortunately, of late the U.S. military has been showing up uninvited. 😁

The U.S. military showed up 75 years ago along with the military forces of other nations uninvited.

[Hotel Tango]

The U.S. military showed up 75 years ago along with the military forces of other nations uninvited.

I get the humour, but not entirely accurate! But that's for another forum! ;)

[misd-agin]

Looks like he only used half the runway to land...................that would be the half to right of the centre line!

He actually used 1/4 of the runway, the last half in length and the right half in width.

[Smythe]

They were showing how the tanker version of MCAS works....no worries.

[Mk 1]

He actually used 1/4 of the runway, the last half in length and the right half in width.
Decent saving in landing fees?

[golfyankeesierra]

Don’t see what all the fuss is about

It is an air show
The more one would expect the best of the best to show up.
This display shows poor skills and even worse, poor judgement. He almost touched in the grass.

[groundbum]

could be some trillion star General that needed to keep currency and figured he'd do it on this flight...

G

[DaveReidUK]

could be some trillion star General that needed to keep currency and figured he'd do it on this flight...

Unconfirmed reports elsewhere suggest that it was being flown by the squadron (344th ARS) commander.

[hec7or]

stilton is on the money, why arrive at an airshow like a scheduled air transport.

[oceancrosser]

stilton is on the money, why arrive at an airshow like a scheduled air transport.

Well if you are going to show off, make sure you can handle it...

[Fly Aiprt]

Well if you are going to show off, make sure you can handle it...

:)
Maybe he wasn't showing of, just having his hands full trying to get that thing "somewhere" onto the runway ?

[dr dre]

The more one would expect the best of the best to show up.
This display shows poor skills and even worse, poor judgement. He almost touched in the grass.

Funny, I thought military pilots were meant to be the best trained and much more skilled at hand flying than us mere autopilot dependent civilians. Well that’s what they insist anyway....

[BEagle]

Once upon a time, novice BOAC VC10 pilots flew something like 40 landings under training, with plenty of manual circuit flying. Whereas today the emphasis appears to be on SOPs and autoflight systems monitoring, with aircraft largely flying themselves, so much so that the airlines have discouraged much in the way of manual flying skills, deeming them unnecessary in day-to-day flying. As a result , some 'children of the magenta' would be quite out of their depth flying something as simple as a visual circuit.

Some military operations require a higher degree of manual flying, it is true. But emphatically not the type of approach flown by that KC-46A at Paris. Start the final turn with the RW threshold 45 deg behind you, control speed, rate of descent and configuration throughout the turn until you roll out on the centreline at about 600ft 2 miles out fully configured and stabilised at the correct speed. Not exactly demanding. But something that KC-46A crew seemed to be unable to manage.

[beardy]

Start the final turn with the RW threshold 45 deg behind you, control speed, rate of descent and configuration throughout the turn until you roll out on the centreline at about 600ft 2 miles out fully configured and stabilised at the correct speed.

Is that how you would fly an instrument approach to a sidestep which is seemingly what this was?

[BEagle]

No, beardy. Was that really an instrument approach to sidestep? I admit I only had to do those a couple of times (e.g. Frankfurt easterly sidestepping to the right hand runway for Rhein-Main AB) and at a couple of other major airports and agree that the angles of bank required to make a positive sidestep were probably greater than you would normally need on a conventional approach, but on each occasion we landed in the right place at the right speed...

Out of curiosity, has a sidestep ever been necessary at London Heathrow?

[Toolonginthisjob]

Out of curiosity, has a sidestep ever been necessary at London Heathrow?
Well I’ve done one. 09L to 09R due to poor speed control from the one ahead.

Whichever way you look at it. Landing that far down the runway, and that far off the centreline is no advert for great handling skills. The right main gear is pretty clearly over the grass at 50’, and the aircraft not even lined up with the runway. Possibly reflecting that, the last couple of hundred feet appeared very much on the ragged edge of the handling pilot’s ability curve.

That was much closer to being an incident, than it ever needed to be. Even arriving at an air show.

[wiggy]

..Out of curiosity, has a sidestep ever been necessary at London Heathrow?

Yep, another one here who side stepped 09L to 09R at LHR though can’t remember why it was offered.

[beardy]

No, beardy. Was that really an instrument approach to sidestep? I admit I only had to do those a couple of times (e.g. Frankfurt easterly sidestepping to the right hand runway for Rhein-Main AB) and at a couple of other major airports and agree that the angles of bank required to make a positive sidestep were probably greater than you would normally need on a conventional approach, but on each occasion we landed in the right place at the right speed...
Apparently it was a sidestep through 20 degree runway headings which from minima can be interesting. I concur that it was not particularly impressively handled.

[golfyankeesierra]

Out of curiosity, has a sidestep ever been necessary at London Heathrow?
Had the occasional sidestep from 27R to 27L, saves a ton of taxitime when parkes at T4.

[DaveReidUK]

Apparently it was a sidestep through 20 degree runway headings which from minima can be interesting.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the tanker landed on 21. LBG's other runways are 25 and 27.

[beardy]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the tanker landed on 21. LBG's other runways are 25 and 27.
I am corrected. I misread post #2 which says approach to 25 sidestep to 21 overshoot CL and correct. Still not impressively handled.

[LowObservable]

Do I hear a voice say "vache!" at 0:22?

[pax2908]

"la vache!" == "holy ..."

[DaveReidUK]

I am corrected. I misread post #2 which says approach to 25 sidestep to 21 overshoot CL and correct. Still not impressively handled.

Yes, see the previous discussion - there isn't actually any definitive evidence of a sidestep at all. Having flown a 30 nm base leg, it might simply be a misjudged turn onto final approach.

Other explanations are available. :O

[bill fly]

... . For a while every GE powered 747-400 had autostart - in fact we didn't even have drawings for a non-autostart 747-400/CF6-80C2. Then someone came in, ordered a couple GE powered 747-400s, but declined the autostart option. Cost a small fortune to develop and certify the configuration, just so that we could charge less for the aircraft.:ugh:
I always figured we should have simply had the sales team tell them we were having a limited time special and would throw in autostart for free...

Like when X Air bought a couple of Jumbos - wanted them with no logo lights... B said sure! Made up and certified blanking plates to cover the holes where the lights would have gone and each copy cost a massive extra fee. The next Jumbos came with logo lights, as did all subsequent X Air aircraft.

[cessnapete]

Once upon a time, novice BOAC VC10 pilots flew something like 40 landings under training, with plenty of manual circuit flying. Whereas today the emphasis appears to be on SOPs and autoflight systems monitoring, with aircraft largely flying themselves, so much so that the airlines have discouraged much in the way of manual flying skills, deeming them unnecessary in day-to-day flying. As a result , some 'children of the magenta' would be quite out of their depth flying something as simple as a visual circuit.

Some military operations require a higher degree of manual flying, it is true. But emphatically not the type of approach flown by that KC-46A at Paris. Start the final turn with the RW threshold 45 deg behind you, control speed, rate of descent and configuration throughout the turn until you roll out on the centreline at about 600ft 2 miles out fully configured and stabilised at the correct speed. Not exactly demanding. But something that KC-46A crew seemed to be unable to manage.


Nearly correct Beagle! on my Command Course at Prestwick I had 29 landings, a real cross country for a final Route Check. Prestwick -Newcastle diverted to Shannon due “disruptive pax” with engine failure simulated en route. Flew a VC10 to Keflavik for the day with a bunch of us to find some real X Wind landings, I think we had to have min 25 kt to qualify.
On the subsequent 6 month new Capt. handling Check at Stansted, the final circuit was briefed by the very Senior ex WWII TC as, “ Show me the tightest visual circuit you can do, don’t be below 500 lined up on final”. Stansted was still a quiet back country airport then!

Different times!!

[OK465]

don’t be below 500 lined up on final

Hmmm. Not trying to one up.....but we taught roll out at 300' and a mile from touchdown in the 727 aircraft (not simulator)....and that was the regulator's aircraft. Used 300 and a mile for no-flaps and 2-engine outs also, just wider downwinds. Generally to touch-and-goes and right back around. Trainee would generally get 10 or more landings a day.

I can see why the opinions vary so much on this poor (unfairly I think) maligned dude.

[bill fly]

Hmmm. Not trying to one up.....but we taught roll out at 300' and a mile from touchdown in the 727 aircraft (not simulator)....and that was the regulator's aircraft. Used 300 and a mile for no-flaps and 2-engine outs also, just wider downwinds. Generally to touch-and-goes and right back around. Trainee would generally get 10 or more landings a day.

I can see why the opinions vary so much on this poor (unfairly I think) maligned dude.

At LSZH for years the locals could ask for a “Swing over“ from 14 to 16 which cut taxy time considerably.
Due to the geometry of the thresholds, this manoeuvre would only start below 300ft. Only a small amount of bank was required but the glide path had also to be adjusted.
Occasionally one could be asked by ATC quite far out whether a Swing over to 14 from 16 could be made for traffic reasons. This was more demanding and needed more ROD. Needless to say only in VMC.

[OK465]

bill fly,

That's another excellent example of why 'one-size doesn't fit all' at all airports at all times.

The current 'stabilized approach' guidance was primarily driven by 'misadventures' in thrust control and not bank excursions....and whose to say at any moment exactly where 'normal bracketing' becomes 'abnormal bracketing'. In the past we used to train circling at altitudes below 1000', with turns done 15 seconds beyond the abeam to accommodate the visibility minimums, resulting in roll-outs inside 1 mile, with maybe room for one reversal in the event of an overshot centerline. If taught properly and flown precisely in line with the training guidance it was generally doable. But you also tried to give trainees the room to determine what they could cope with and what they would recognize in the future as requiring 'conservative' judgement and not worth attempting.

For better or worse, a lot of those options are not available anymore...I always avoided the 'policy' level and just adhered to whatever guidance was in place.....but there are still airports in the CONUS & Alaska where if you roll-out at 500' and 1 and 2/3 mile out VMC, you'll be in the terrain.