Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

C-17 down Elmendorf (Merged)

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

C-17 down Elmendorf (Merged)

Old 2nd Aug 2010, 20:02
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 890
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.
Zoom is offline  
Old 2nd Aug 2010, 21:38
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Erehwon
Posts: 1,148
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.
Dengue_Dude is offline  
Old 2nd Aug 2010, 22:21
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 265
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
rottenray is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2010, 09:20
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Where it is comfortable...
Age: 55
Posts: 686
C17 Crash, Elmendorf AFB, 28th July

Surprised nobody picked it up yet on this forum:

USAF investigates cause of Elmendorf C-17 crash

PICTURES: US Air Force releases images of crashed C-17

Based on the pictures looks like a high energy impact, wonder if anybody can shed some more light on what happened.
andrasz is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2010, 09:40
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Switzerland, Singapore
Posts: 1,305
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
Dani is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2010, 10:01
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Shed
Posts: 196
Beat me to it by 2 mins PN.

Andras
wonder if anybody can shed some more light on what happened.
Yes, the USAF BOI.
TheSmiter is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2010, 13:12
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Where it is comfortable...
Age: 55
Posts: 686
Sorry, lesson learned, just went through rumors/news, assumed (wrongly) news of this importance would not be moved to a secondary area.
andrasz is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2010, 14:31
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 5,177
Based on the pictures looks like a high energy impact,
agree

but without a wider field of view nothing else follows in my mind
lomapaseo is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2010, 16:09
  #29 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 76
Posts: 16,613
Originally Posted by andrasz View Post
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.
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2010, 16:13
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Where it is comfortable...
Age: 55
Posts: 686
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
andrasz is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2010, 18:43
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 93
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
ion_berkley is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2010, 19:06
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Erehwon
Posts: 1,148
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.
Dengue_Dude is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2010, 20:12
  #33 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 76
Posts: 16,613
Ion, true but you got the idea.
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2010, 20:28
  #34 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 76
Posts: 16,613
DD, here is a Youtube clip from last year:

YouTube - Boeing C-17 Globemaster III Aerobatics

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?
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2010, 21:07
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 2,030
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.
VinRouge is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2010, 22:20
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Erehwon
Posts: 1,148
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.
Dengue_Dude is offline  
Old 16th Aug 2010, 07:54
  #37 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 76
Posts: 16,613
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
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 16th Aug 2010, 18:34
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Erehwon
Posts: 1,148
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.
Dengue_Dude is offline  
Old 18th Aug 2010, 15:57
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: California U.S.
Posts: 70
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.

DelaneyT is offline  
Old 18th Aug 2010, 20:50
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,770
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 wonít 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, Iíll 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.

Last edited by Double Zero; 18th Aug 2010 at 21:07.
Double Zero is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.