C-17 down Elmendorf (Merged)
 

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



I guess this was number 3..

C-17 crashed on Elmendorf
 

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

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

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

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?

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.:(

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 | - that the crew was training for the upcoming airshow at Elmendorf this weekend.

:(

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

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.

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

any debris on the runway?

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.

Yet Another Airshow Crash
 

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:

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

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...

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.

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.

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

Thanks 412SP - tragedy either way.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

Dani

Beat me to it by 2 mins PN.

Andras
Yes, the USAF BOI.

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

agree:ok:

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

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,

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 :)

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

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.

Ion, true but you got the idea.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

:(

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.