C-5 accident at Dover AFB
Sims Fly Virtually
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Used to be 3rd Sand Dune from the Left - But now I'm somewhere else somewhere else.
Posts: 704
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dead bird carcases are not being reported found on the runway
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>>...or do you suppose that this is just a rumor?<<
Dunno, Lomapaseo, but my info comes straight from the horse's (keyboard) via a first-hand observer of the takeoff, and the very many birds present.
Having only operated into Dover a very few times (L10) it seems that this time of year is prevelent for large flocks of birds.
It would appear that this accident is very similar to the Eastern Air Lines Lockheed Electra accident many years ago at Boston Logan....multiple engine failures disabled by bird injestion.
Really bad news...and 'luck'.
Dunno, Lomapaseo, but my info comes straight from the horse's (keyboard) via a first-hand observer of the takeoff, and the very many birds present.
Having only operated into Dover a very few times (L10) it seems that this time of year is prevelent for large flocks of birds.
It would appear that this accident is very similar to the Eastern Air Lines Lockheed Electra accident many years ago at Boston Logan....multiple engine failures disabled by bird injestion.
Really bad news...and 'luck'.
Originally Posted by ExSimGuy
Surely any birds that managed to find their way into the engines would have been quite well "liquidised"? not much to be found on the runway?
Sure only one or two birds could be actually involved, but that is something different.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The bird flock may not have been over the runway - "right after liftoff" may have been further along the r/w centerline extended, given the heavy TOGW.
The key factor in bird control is to remove the favored components of the habitat - food, water etc. Evidently Dover isn't too successful here?
The key factor in bird control is to remove the favored components of the habitat - food, water etc. Evidently Dover isn't too successful here?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montgomery, NY, USA
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In a conversation with a former C-5 pilot yesterday, he stated that flaps at 40% would normally be wrong for a 1 engine out scenario. But that the accepted procedure for any failure on takeoff which required an immediate return was to maintain takeoff configuration, which has flaps at 40% and gear down. Would love for someone in the know to confirm. That would explain the flap configuration, even for one engine out, and take the "crew error"speculation off the table....at least until the facts come out. Not that we would ever let that get in our way guessing to wrong conclusions. 
Well, the engines appear to have all the thrust reverser cowls closed, so I would discount an in-flight T/R. And the wreckage shows clearly flaps symetrical at about 40%
A heavy weight return after a "simple" engine failure in decent weather (existing that day) could be flown at 100% (40 degrees for the civvies), but if in doubt about the health of the other engines, most guys would opt for 40% which happens to be the two-engine approach configuration. They were well above the normal landing weight of 635,850 based on the mission and destination.
Dover has a huge bird problem, but no amount of mitigation is going to entirely solve it. They are right smack dab in the middle of the largest migratory flyway AND right on a large saltwater bay with oodles of wildlife (read: BIRDS) sanctuaries. Flying during migratory season is subject to a number of rules, esp, around dawn and dusk. But, can be waived for mission departures and frequently is, if all the factors are considered.
GF, who wasn't stationed at DOV, but is familiar with the place. Not happily.
A heavy weight return after a "simple" engine failure in decent weather (existing that day) could be flown at 100% (40 degrees for the civvies), but if in doubt about the health of the other engines, most guys would opt for 40% which happens to be the two-engine approach configuration. They were well above the normal landing weight of 635,850 based on the mission and destination.
Dover has a huge bird problem, but no amount of mitigation is going to entirely solve it. They are right smack dab in the middle of the largest migratory flyway AND right on a large saltwater bay with oodles of wildlife (read: BIRDS) sanctuaries. Flying during migratory season is subject to a number of rules, esp, around dawn and dusk. But, can be waived for mission departures and frequently is, if all the factors are considered.
GF, who wasn't stationed at DOV, but is familiar with the place. Not happily.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: California, USA
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gentlemen,
Consider this information highly unofficial, but I believe it to be reliable. It was obtained from sources close to the situation.
It was not a bird ingestion but a "reverser unlock" on the #2 engine that started this. They lost a C-5 with all aboard a few years back in Germany for the same cause. This crew however shut down the engine before an actual unstow took place. The airplane was well over 700K gross weight with FOB of over 300K. The airplane had the newest version of the C-5 flight deck with big panel glass. Unfortunately, only one of the three pilots was really comfortable with the new equipment and FMS.
The crew decided because of their weight to fly their approach to the longest runway, which unfortunately was only being served that day by a Tacan (fancy VOR for you civilian types) approach. They also decided to fly a full flap approach to keep the approach speed down. This isn't prohibited--just highly discouraged. The recommended flap setting for a three engine approach is Flaps 40. During the approach the crew became worried about not having enough power to fly a full flap approach and selected flaps 40--which they were now too slow for. Here's the point all you glass cockpit guys should sit up and take notice about. The one guy who was familiar with the new glass and FMS was also the one flying the aircraft. He became distracted inputting the new approach speed in the FMS. There was also some confusion about just who was flying the A/C while he had his head down updating the speed. Long story short--the got way slow and into the shaker, and actually stuck the tail into the trees and it departed the aircraft first. The nose pitched down hard and the nose and left wing impacted next snapping off the nose. Several cockpit occupants suffered spinal compression injuries. The guys sitting at the crew table behind the cockpit actually came to a stop with their legs dangling out over the ground.
The miracle of this was the left outboard fuel tank was broken open and none of that fuel managed to find something hot enough to ignite it and the other 300k. Again, a bunch of very lucky people.
So I guess there really is a reason we bitch at guys for hand flying and making their own MCP and FMS inputs.
As for no fire you can thank the onboard nitrogen system that pumps nitrogen into the fuel tanks and removes the O2 (similar to a C-17 only we generate our own).
Consider this information highly unofficial, but I believe it to be reliable. It was obtained from sources close to the situation.
It was not a bird ingestion but a "reverser unlock" on the #2 engine that started this. They lost a C-5 with all aboard a few years back in Germany for the same cause. This crew however shut down the engine before an actual unstow took place. The airplane was well over 700K gross weight with FOB of over 300K. The airplane had the newest version of the C-5 flight deck with big panel glass. Unfortunately, only one of the three pilots was really comfortable with the new equipment and FMS.
The crew decided because of their weight to fly their approach to the longest runway, which unfortunately was only being served that day by a Tacan (fancy VOR for you civilian types) approach. They also decided to fly a full flap approach to keep the approach speed down. This isn't prohibited--just highly discouraged. The recommended flap setting for a three engine approach is Flaps 40. During the approach the crew became worried about not having enough power to fly a full flap approach and selected flaps 40--which they were now too slow for. Here's the point all you glass cockpit guys should sit up and take notice about. The one guy who was familiar with the new glass and FMS was also the one flying the aircraft. He became distracted inputting the new approach speed in the FMS. There was also some confusion about just who was flying the A/C while he had his head down updating the speed. Long story short--the got way slow and into the shaker, and actually stuck the tail into the trees and it departed the aircraft first. The nose pitched down hard and the nose and left wing impacted next snapping off the nose. Several cockpit occupants suffered spinal compression injuries. The guys sitting at the crew table behind the cockpit actually came to a stop with their legs dangling out over the ground.
The miracle of this was the left outboard fuel tank was broken open and none of that fuel managed to find something hot enough to ignite it and the other 300k. Again, a bunch of very lucky people.
So I guess there really is a reason we bitch at guys for hand flying and making their own MCP and FMS inputs.
As for no fire you can thank the onboard nitrogen system that pumps nitrogen into the fuel tanks and removes the O2 (similar to a C-17 only we generate our own).
I have received an email with the same story, word for word. If true, it will be a bleak day for AF aviation. A real miracle they survived a real crash, as opposed to controlled descent into the ground which had been my working assumption. Only ONE guy familar with the new equipment! Yikes! All possibly "heads down" in the screens.
"If the speed goes away, the Earth will rise up and smite thee" is rule ONE in flight. Stall, Spin, Crash and Burn are four fundamentals.
Still awaiting facts, though
GF
"If the speed goes away, the Earth will rise up and smite thee" is rule ONE in flight. Stall, Spin, Crash and Burn are four fundamentals.
Still awaiting facts, though
GF
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A B-747 suffered a near-disaster years ago departing SFO. One problem which many people were unaware of, was that the engine surge created enough vibration to make some of their instruments almost unreadable. The requirement to only complete six simulated takeoffs and landings each 6 months was little help to the flying pilot.
**********************************************************
Raw flying skills, or the lack thereof, was a large factor in this incident.
**********************************************************
Raw flying skills, or the lack thereof, was a large factor in this incident.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[quote=jondc9]Ah, thrust reversers and deployment (uncommanded) inflight.
It sure does sound like the plane got a little bit behind the power curve. Does anyone know what the flap settings should be at super heavy weight and loss of one or two engines on approach?
**********************************************************
Jon,
You're against speculating. But folks are taking an Air Force Times article, with quotes by a retired C-5 pilot in California, and another retired Colonel, and viola, these guys are 'experts'
so they must know what happened.
If the case is this simple why have an investigation? Have the retired Colonel and the ex C-5 pilot from California write the report.
Shot, send it to me and I'll have my kids type it up. I'll prime them, "nose up too high, slow, then crashed. Remember to use spell check."
45-50 degrees nose up? I wonder if the actual report will have anything near that pitch up attitude?
Give it time, the facts will come out.
It sure does sound like the plane got a little bit behind the power curve. Does anyone know what the flap settings should be at super heavy weight and loss of one or two engines on approach?
**********************************************************
Jon,
You're against speculating. But folks are taking an Air Force Times article, with quotes by a retired C-5 pilot in California, and another retired Colonel, and viola, these guys are 'experts'
so they must know what happened.If the case is this simple why have an investigation? Have the retired Colonel and the ex C-5 pilot from California write the report.
Shot, send it to me and I'll have my kids type it up. I'll prime them, "nose up too high, slow, then crashed. Remember to use spell check."
45-50 degrees nose up? I wonder if the actual report will have anything near that pitch up attitude?
Give it time, the facts will come out.
On the SFO incident, it appeared to me that the need to only fly six simulated takeoffs and landing each six months is not enough. Often, airline Captains fly most departures and arrivals, which does not allow the FO more than limited experience, except during cruise. It seems ironic to fly across the Pacific numerous times ('split shift' with double crews), yet not be allowed enough 'practice' to get a good feel for manually-flown climbs and descents-and this is with four, normally operating engines, requiring no rudder input, and no vibrations which could create an unreadable EICAS.
How often do 744 (A-330/340) FOs fly a SID departure (mostly by hand-or V1engine failures in the sim.?), and how often do C-5 copilots ("FOs") hand-fly? If this is their first exposure to automation, would it not take quite a number of legs to get fairly familiar with their versions of LNAV and VNAV, or do they ever fly short proficiency legs from their bases, i.e. Dover, Kelly, Memphis or Travis?
Heck, B-757 Captains train in the simulator once a year, specifically for Eagle (EGE) Colorado, in additon to other events, and often practice three V1 engine cuts in a row-the departure, even on one engine, is hand-flown. The engine 5-minute limit on takeoff power is almost reached when the plane clears the mountains. I was there, in the right seat, but only 'flew' into EGE once, at night. It is interesting that, unless procedures have changed, automation is trusted on departure there only if both engines are operating normally. Many foreign pilots on Pprune, around the world, seem to feel that full automation is always superior, no matter what. But does the automation work for the pilots, or are the pilots often trained to be subservient to the "automatics"? Sometimes, I truly wonder.
Does AMC require that any C-5 crew have pilots together, only after one has flown over 100 hours in the same type? This might be, for example, only ten long legs/flights, unless local proficiency is part of the flying budget?
How often do 744 (A-330/340) FOs fly a SID departure (mostly by hand-or V1engine failures in the sim.?), and how often do C-5 copilots ("FOs") hand-fly? If this is their first exposure to automation, would it not take quite a number of legs to get fairly familiar with their versions of LNAV and VNAV, or do they ever fly short proficiency legs from their bases, i.e. Dover, Kelly, Memphis or Travis?
Heck, B-757 Captains train in the simulator once a year, specifically for Eagle (EGE) Colorado, in additon to other events, and often practice three V1 engine cuts in a row-the departure, even on one engine, is hand-flown. The engine 5-minute limit on takeoff power is almost reached when the plane clears the mountains. I was there, in the right seat, but only 'flew' into EGE once, at night. It is interesting that, unless procedures have changed, automation is trusted on departure there only if both engines are operating normally. Many foreign pilots on Pprune, around the world, seem to feel that full automation is always superior, no matter what. But does the automation work for the pilots, or are the pilots often trained to be subservient to the "automatics"? Sometimes, I truly wonder.
Does AMC require that any C-5 crew have pilots together, only after one has flown over 100 hours in the same type? This might be, for example, only ten long legs/flights, unless local proficiency is part of the flying budget?
Last edited by Ignition Override; 11th Apr 2006 at 05:22.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not against speculation. sorry for any confusion.
I do prefer that airplane pilots speculate on airplane crashes...train engineers just don't seem to know that much about planes...and vice versa
:-)
j
I do prefer that airplane pilots speculate on airplane crashes...train engineers just don't seem to know that much about planes...and vice versa
:-)
j
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ignition override, are you an airline pilot for a major carrier? Only Captains fly arrivals an departures? Who are you flying with? The huge majority of pilots in the U.S. get every other leg. Sometimes I'll give a new guy 3 out of the 4 legs. With under 100 hrs in the a/c they can remember every flight in the jet. My 'losing' a leg is peanuts in comparison.
Occasionally for other reasons, sometimes operational, the legs will get dictated. If there are tough operational issues on one particular leg I'm more inclined to break the trip up so that I take that leg, unless I know the FO well. Otherwise it's often a coin flip as to who starts off flying the first leg.
Jumpseated Sat AM. CA asked FO, "what legs you want?" FO - "can I grab the LAS leg? I havn't landed there in years." CA flew the first leg so that the FO could get the leg he wanted.
EGE is not always the standard sim training at my carrier. Sometimes it's part of the standard training package but then they cycle to other scenarios.
I've flown EGE many times. FO's got every other leg into, and out of, a difficult airport.
Went to training with an FO that I'd been flying with all month. Come the sim ride I deliberately didn't brief him prior to our first EGE departure(training scenario that cycle). I ask "Fred, any questions?" "No." "Good, then standard ops." Instructor wasn't too pleased.... "Just kidding, we've been doing this for real all month. This little simulator doesn't scare us after we've been doing it for real all month."
EGE departure? S/E the automation becomes even more critical. With two engines turning and burning above 10,000'(?) it's a hard right turn to the north. With one engine inop you fly the FMC flight path towards the mountain range to the SW. Regardless of altitude, at the 'M' (?)(13 miles) fix you *must* turn, regardless of altitude. You should be above the terrain and have turned earlier, but if it's so bad that you havn't reached a safe altitude the terrain SW of the 13 (?) mile fix is worse than the terrain to the north so turn you must.
The automation is so critical a position update is required not more than 3 or 4 minutes prior to departure. (sorry about the vagueness of my details. Been awhile since I've been there).
Military guys drag C-141's, C-17, and C-5's around their local base doing 'local' training flights all the time. I think it's once a quarter. I can occasionally see them from my yard or at some of the local golf courses. I can't think of anything more boring than taking an large a/c into the sky to practice landings.
The investigation will tell if the crews recent experience, or lack thereof, with the FMC's was an issue.
Occasionally for other reasons, sometimes operational, the legs will get dictated. If there are tough operational issues on one particular leg I'm more inclined to break the trip up so that I take that leg, unless I know the FO well. Otherwise it's often a coin flip as to who starts off flying the first leg.
Jumpseated Sat AM. CA asked FO, "what legs you want?" FO - "can I grab the LAS leg? I havn't landed there in years." CA flew the first leg so that the FO could get the leg he wanted.
EGE is not always the standard sim training at my carrier. Sometimes it's part of the standard training package but then they cycle to other scenarios.
I've flown EGE many times. FO's got every other leg into, and out of, a difficult airport.
Went to training with an FO that I'd been flying with all month. Come the sim ride I deliberately didn't brief him prior to our first EGE departure(training scenario that cycle). I ask "Fred, any questions?" "No." "Good, then standard ops." Instructor wasn't too pleased.... "Just kidding, we've been doing this for real all month. This little simulator doesn't scare us after we've been doing it for real all month."
EGE departure? S/E the automation becomes even more critical. With two engines turning and burning above 10,000'(?) it's a hard right turn to the north. With one engine inop you fly the FMC flight path towards the mountain range to the SW. Regardless of altitude, at the 'M' (?)(13 miles) fix you *must* turn, regardless of altitude. You should be above the terrain and have turned earlier, but if it's so bad that you havn't reached a safe altitude the terrain SW of the 13 (?) mile fix is worse than the terrain to the north so turn you must.
The automation is so critical a position update is required not more than 3 or 4 minutes prior to departure. (sorry about the vagueness of my details. Been awhile since I've been there).
Military guys drag C-141's, C-17, and C-5's around their local base doing 'local' training flights all the time. I think it's once a quarter. I can occasionally see them from my yard or at some of the local golf courses. I can't think of anything more boring than taking an large a/c into the sky to practice landings.
The investigation will tell if the crews recent experience, or lack thereof, with the FMC's was an issue.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by misd-agin
...
Military guys drag C-141's, C-17, and C-5's around their local base doing 'local' training flights all the time. I think it's once a quarter...
Military guys drag C-141's, C-17, and C-5's around their local base doing 'local' training flights all the time. I think it's once a quarter...
"Wasn't that a big contributor in the T-43 (Secy. Brown) Dubrovnic accident?
Today 19:02"
Wasn't it more to do with having a single ADF for an approach that mandated having two ADFs (for two NDBs) ??
Today 19:02"
Wasn't it more to do with having a single ADF for an approach that mandated having two ADFs (for two NDBs) ??
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 212man
"Wasn't that a big contributor in the T-43 (Secy. Brown) Dubrovnic accident?
Today 19:02"
Wasn't it more to do with having a single ADF for an approach that mandated having two ADFs (for two NDBs) ??
Today 19:02"
Wasn't it more to do with having a single ADF for an approach that mandated having two ADFs (for two NDBs) ??
Misd: My comments might not be accurate, and probably don't apply to many types of widebody trips. Many of our 744 FOs, those who go mostly to Narita and back with the double crew, years ago said that they got very few landings or takeoffs, hence their return to the simulator each six months. FEDEX MD-11 trips might circle the planet-in one direction until they are finished. 
A buddy who is brand-new on a widebody Airbus (transoceanic only) just told me that he gets few legs after IOE, but after enough back-to-back Atlantic trips, maybe he will get to learn the MCDU after a while (would he get one leg every two weeks?). Talked to him three days ago passing through LIT. During training, recently, one of his ground instructors gave him his MCDU lesson plan for the day, signed him off, and the 'Instructor' disappeared....for the entire 4-hour period. FAA-approved syllabus.
My flying, by choice the last seven years (the Euro. layover are rarely more than 24-27 hours), has been on narrow-bodies except for vacations and jumpseats on Fedex years ago.
Trying not to be exactly like many Captains years ago, I give the FO the spoke legs most of the time, sometimes a guy suggests do 2 and 2, i.e. each pilot averages a spoke landing then a hub.
I don't understand how the widebody trips to NRT and back equate to narrow-body flying, where on bad days we can do 6-7 legs per duty period, but on many, just 4-5 for us senior guys.
A buddy who is brand-new on a widebody Airbus (transoceanic only) just told me that he gets few legs after IOE, but after enough back-to-back Atlantic trips, maybe he will get to learn the MCDU after a while (would he get one leg every two weeks?). Talked to him three days ago passing through LIT. During training, recently, one of his ground instructors gave him his MCDU lesson plan for the day, signed him off, and the 'Instructor' disappeared....for the entire 4-hour period. FAA-approved syllabus.
My flying, by choice the last seven years (the Euro. layover are rarely more than 24-27 hours), has been on narrow-bodies except for vacations and jumpseats on Fedex years ago.
Trying not to be exactly like many Captains years ago, I give the FO the spoke legs most of the time, sometimes a guy suggests do 2 and 2, i.e. each pilot averages a spoke landing then a hub.
I don't understand how the widebody trips to NRT and back equate to narrow-body flying, where on bad days we can do 6-7 legs per duty period, but on many, just 4-5 for us senior guys.
Last edited by Ignition Override; 13th Apr 2006 at 05:49.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: US
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I went a FULL year on the 777 without "a leg". Zero actual flying. Cruise int'l relief a/p flying only. In the sim every 90 days. Good, full sim profiles....made recurrent sim flying a breeze.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 474
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some of these pics linked individually before.....here is a 38 picture slide show
Just amazing no one was killed/seriously injured
http://www.atalink.org/misc/C-5_84059_c_files/frame.htm
Just amazing no one was killed/seriously injured
http://www.atalink.org/misc/C-5_84059_c_files/frame.htm
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Landing currency is an issue for long haul crews. Especially augmented crews. But the pilot that flies, CA, FO, or relief pilot, gets to fly SID/cruise/STAR/landing typically.
********************************************************
Re:C-5 crash. Unsigned email floating around from a guy who knows a guy who knows a guy, etc, etc.
Unsigned...
*********************************************************
Eyewitness report that morning (I live in local news area and heard report first hand) said #2 engine on fire. Pictures don't support that however. Pictures do so discoloration on top of left wing behind #2 engine. But it is angled from the pylon/wing interface of the #1 engine. Makes me wonder if it's mud from the #1 engine digging into the dirt.
Other eyewitness report stated 45-50 degrees nose high.
My point is that eyewitnesses, and especially non-professional eyewitnesses, can be very wrong at times.
Give it time, we'll hear the truth eventually.
********************************************************
Re:C-5 crash. Unsigned email floating around from a guy who knows a guy who knows a guy, etc, etc.
Unsigned...
*********************************************************
Eyewitness report that morning (I live in local news area and heard report first hand) said #2 engine on fire. Pictures don't support that however. Pictures do so discoloration on top of left wing behind #2 engine. But it is angled from the pylon/wing interface of the #1 engine. Makes me wonder if it's mud from the #1 engine digging into the dirt.
Other eyewitness report stated 45-50 degrees nose high.
My point is that eyewitnesses, and especially non-professional eyewitnesses, can be very wrong at times.
Give it time, we'll hear the truth eventually.