C17 Gear Up Landing Bagram
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"In Oz it is mandatory for the (military) tower controller to ask all aircraft to check wheels as part of their landing clearance. Many RAAF aircraft have a beeper fitted which pilots must press after readback of "3 greens".
Is this procedure used anywhere else?"
It's mandatory throughout the USAF as well, but doesn't help much. When making the base call or accepting the landing clearance it becomes punctuation rather than a gear check. It only works as a check for the first few times as the pilot thinks through what he's saying. After that, he doesn't have to think of which leg of the circuit he's on, and certainly "knows" he'll have the gear down. It becomes habit to utter the correct words in sequence.
In fact I know of a gear up USAF landing (completely pilot error) with the tower tape recording of "left base, gear down."
Is this procedure used anywhere else?"
It's mandatory throughout the USAF as well, but doesn't help much. When making the base call or accepting the landing clearance it becomes punctuation rather than a gear check. It only works as a check for the first few times as the pilot thinks through what he's saying. After that, he doesn't have to think of which leg of the circuit he's on, and certainly "knows" he'll have the gear down. It becomes habit to utter the correct words in sequence.
In fact I know of a gear up USAF landing (completely pilot error) with the tower tape recording of "left base, gear down."
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's an unfortnate habit that pilots / crew get so used to routine that aircrew when asked by the tower," confirm ' 3 greens " ' automatically do so; ( 4 in the case of a Harrier, etc - ) it seems red lights and horns are not enough for overworked aircrews, how about a few volts or a 'seat shaker' ?!
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Well, Lincolnshire
Age: 69
Posts: 1,101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, as an ex- Runway Caravan Controller at Linton on Ouse in the late 70's early 80's, I had to blat off a red very in anger, on average, about once a month.
Multiply that by 2 (2 x RWC per day). Factor in 1 RWC when night flying.
Multiply that by the number of FTS's in the UK
Add the odd OCU guy who had a bad day.
Also the odd CR guy who similarly had a bad day.
Agreed, very few land without any gear problems. Little mates in the chequered Ice Cream van, alongside the piano keys, may have something to do with that.
Oh, and to the guys who did avoid the ultimate embarrassment, thanks for the beers afterwards. We appreciated that you appreciated.
Funny, no matter the technology, the mark 1 eyeball still has it's uses.
Multiply that by 2 (2 x RWC per day). Factor in 1 RWC when night flying.
Multiply that by the number of FTS's in the UK
Add the odd OCU guy who had a bad day.
Also the odd CR guy who similarly had a bad day.
Agreed, very few land without any gear problems. Little mates in the chequered Ice Cream van, alongside the piano keys, may have something to do with that.
Oh, and to the guys who did avoid the ultimate embarrassment, thanks for the beers afterwards. We appreciated that you appreciated.
Funny, no matter the technology, the mark 1 eyeball still has it's uses.
It's mandatory throughout the USAF as well, but doesn't help much. When making the base call or accepting the landing clearance it becomes punctuation rather than a gear check. It only works as a check for the first few times as the pilot thinks through what he's saying. After that, he doesn't have to think of which leg of the circuit he's on, and certainly "knows" he'll have the gear down. It becomes habit to utter the correct words in sequence.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was that the second-oldest 17 in the fleet? (serial 0002?)
at least they trashed one of the old ones!
Anyone know what equivalent UK category that is?
Looks as if there has been a bit of a fire from the port CMDS dispenser up to the para door....
Least everyone got off ok!
at least they trashed one of the old ones!
Anyone know what equivalent UK category that is?
Looks as if there has been a bit of a fire from the port CMDS dispenser up to the para door....
Least everyone got off ok!
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Hawaii
Age: 47
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some insight
Just a couple of points:
1. That jet is not the second operational C-17. Jet T1 (the Edwards test jet) is tail 870025 and was delivered in 1987. The first operational jet, P1, made after T1, was 880265. As you can see, the last digits do not indicate where the bird lies in the lineage. Tail 60002 is P34 and was delivered in 1996.
2. If the gear handle was up when the jet was landing, assuming that a CB wasn't pulled, "Betty" would have been saying, "TOO LOW, GEAR" over and over until the jet was nearly over the runway at which point she would have said "TOO LOW, POWER".
3. The flight deck has 4 seats and it is very likely that all 4 would have had an occupant given the location of the landing, most likely 3 pilots and a loadmaster, all of whom are trained to look for the gear handle to be down with 5 green prior to landing (among other safety items).
Bottom line: if this wasn't a malfunction, 4 qualified crewmembers would have had to skip the before landing checklist, not notice as a crew that the gear handle wasn't down, AND either 1) decide to pull the CB (not a common thing to do) or 2) ignore the loud and obnoxious voice repeatedly telling them that their gear wasn't down all the way to touchdown. Would the addition of an FE have prevented this? In this circumstance, I'm going to guess probably not.
By the way, the mains on the C-17 don't extend all that much from the fuselage, so they can be difficult to see from the ground even during the day.
1. That jet is not the second operational C-17. Jet T1 (the Edwards test jet) is tail 870025 and was delivered in 1987. The first operational jet, P1, made after T1, was 880265. As you can see, the last digits do not indicate where the bird lies in the lineage. Tail 60002 is P34 and was delivered in 1996.
2. If the gear handle was up when the jet was landing, assuming that a CB wasn't pulled, "Betty" would have been saying, "TOO LOW, GEAR" over and over until the jet was nearly over the runway at which point she would have said "TOO LOW, POWER".
3. The flight deck has 4 seats and it is very likely that all 4 would have had an occupant given the location of the landing, most likely 3 pilots and a loadmaster, all of whom are trained to look for the gear handle to be down with 5 green prior to landing (among other safety items).
Bottom line: if this wasn't a malfunction, 4 qualified crewmembers would have had to skip the before landing checklist, not notice as a crew that the gear handle wasn't down, AND either 1) decide to pull the CB (not a common thing to do) or 2) ignore the loud and obnoxious voice repeatedly telling them that their gear wasn't down all the way to touchdown. Would the addition of an FE have prevented this? In this circumstance, I'm going to guess probably not.
By the way, the mains on the C-17 don't extend all that much from the fuselage, so they can be difficult to see from the ground even during the day.
I wonder how long they had been flying? A USAF C-17 crew I spoke to at RAAF Richmond a couple of years ago told me that they regularly flew sorties of aroung 30 hours with in flight re-fueling. Anyone would start making mistakes after that long in the air.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 960
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I flew P3s and 747s for some very long flights, as well as multi-landings type of days where this sort of thing could quite easily happen...
I developed a VERY easy way to guard against it..
Each and every time the landing checks were done (or I got to an approach height where I thought they should have been done), I ALWAYS, ALWAYS repeated this check, every single time...
"FUC check complete = Flaps + Undercarriage + Clearance"
If those three things were complete, at lease I wouldn't hurt myself with the landing, or get my arse kicked after it!
This I did every single landing, and I'm still here to repeat it!
Cheers...FD...
I developed a VERY easy way to guard against it..
Each and every time the landing checks were done (or I got to an approach height where I thought they should have been done), I ALWAYS, ALWAYS repeated this check, every single time...
"FUC check complete = Flaps + Undercarriage + Clearance"
If those three things were complete, at lease I wouldn't hurt myself with the landing, or get my arse kicked after it!
This I did every single landing, and I'm still here to repeat it!
Cheers...FD...
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FD,
You, as well may be the case here THINK you did it every time..........but how do you know for sure you did it every time and never ever ever missed it just once
You, as well may be the case here THINK you did it every time..........but how do you know for sure you did it every time and never ever ever missed it just once
Quote:
It's an unfortnate habit that pilots / crew get so used to routine that aircrew when asked by the tower," confirm ' 3 greens " ' automatically do so;
How do you know that?
It's an unfortnate habit that pilots / crew get so used to routine that aircrew when asked by the tower," confirm ' 3 greens " ' automatically do so;
How do you know that?
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: North Yorkshire
Age: 82
Posts: 641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Me: Army 7** finals.
Tower: Roger Army 7**, confirm 3 greens.
Me: Negative.
Pause.
Tower: Army 7**, confirm u/c down and locked.
Me: Confirmed down, locked and welded.
I was flying a Sioux.
Tower: Roger Army 7**, confirm 3 greens.
Me: Negative.
Pause.
Tower: Army 7**, confirm u/c down and locked.
Me: Confirmed down, locked and welded.
I was flying a Sioux.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Oxfordshire
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its kind of difficult to believe the crew could miss all the bells and whistles. Even if a CB was pulled numerous checks would have to be missed to land gear up.
It seems much more likely that the gear lever was selected up deliberately.
It is possible that after touch down, one main gear unlocked/started to retract and the crew selected up to keep the aircraft level ?
An aircraft gear up on the runway is probably a lot more survivable and less of a problem to recover than one that has groundlooped with wing and engine damage.
There is always the chance that someone supplied a pic of a gear up lever that was nothing to do with this accident as a joke or wind up.
It seems much more likely that the gear lever was selected up deliberately.
It is possible that after touch down, one main gear unlocked/started to retract and the crew selected up to keep the aircraft level ?
An aircraft gear up on the runway is probably a lot more survivable and less of a problem to recover than one that has groundlooped with wing and engine damage.
There is always the chance that someone supplied a pic of a gear up lever that was nothing to do with this accident as a joke or wind up.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lancashire
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it was human error then so be it, however just to let you know that "Betty" bitches about all sorts of things.
Depending on what else was going on at the time, it may have been possible for the crew not to hear her.
I remember 1 landing during a sand storm with bad crosswind and poor vis when "Betty" was bitching about glide slope, power, gear and missile launch.
It was incredibly difficult to distinguish between the calls, especially after "missile launch" so we went round.
Depending on what else was going on at the time, it may have been possible for the crew not to hear her.
I remember 1 landing during a sand storm with bad crosswind and poor vis when "Betty" was bitching about glide slope, power, gear and missile launch.
It was incredibly difficult to distinguish between the calls, especially after "missile launch" so we went round.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: California U.S.
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilot Error
Wheels-up C-17 crash caused by pilot error
Friday May 8, 2009
Pilots of a C-17 Globemaster failed to lower the transport’s landing gear, forcing them to make a crash landing at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan, an Air Mobility Command investigation concluded.
None of the six onboard were injured; the repair bill for the $200 million aircraft, however, totaled $19 million.
The aircrew was assigned to the 16th Airlift Squadron and 437th Airlift Wing at Charleston Air Force Base, S.C. The pilots have been grounded pending a command review of the accident investigation report.
The automated “ground proximately warning system” that would have instructed the crew to lower the wheels was apparently accidentally turned off.
The tower controllers failed to make the required reminder call — “Check wheels down.”
The plane was also flying at 172 mph, 42 mph faster than approach rules called for... had correct procedures been followed, the landing would have been aborted because of the high speed and a second approach made.
The three pilots in the cockpit didn’t realize they missed the “Before Landing Checklist.”
Read the report:
http://www.militarytimes.com/static/.../AIBreport.pdf
Friday May 8, 2009
Pilots of a C-17 Globemaster failed to lower the transport’s landing gear, forcing them to make a crash landing at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan, an Air Mobility Command investigation concluded.
None of the six onboard were injured; the repair bill for the $200 million aircraft, however, totaled $19 million.
The aircrew was assigned to the 16th Airlift Squadron and 437th Airlift Wing at Charleston Air Force Base, S.C. The pilots have been grounded pending a command review of the accident investigation report.
The automated “ground proximately warning system” that would have instructed the crew to lower the wheels was apparently accidentally turned off.
The tower controllers failed to make the required reminder call — “Check wheels down.”
The plane was also flying at 172 mph, 42 mph faster than approach rules called for... had correct procedures been followed, the landing would have been aborted because of the high speed and a second approach made.
The three pilots in the cockpit didn’t realize they missed the “Before Landing Checklist.”
Read the report:
http://www.militarytimes.com/static/.../AIBreport.pdf