Page 1 of 1

C-5 Galaxy emr landing at Lackland AB, TX

Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2018 7:41 pm
by blackbox67
Looks as if the nose gear would not come down.
https://twitter.com/JacdecNew/status/975817896877314049

Re: C-5 Galaxy emr landing at Lackland AB, TX

Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2018 8:13 pm
by Ozair
blackbox67 wrote:
Looks as if the nose gear would not come down.
https://twitter.com/JacdecNew/status/975817896877314049

A nose gear incident happened three days ago at Lackland, assume this is the same but just a delayed posting of a photo?

Re: C-5 Galaxy emr landing at Lackland AB, TX

Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2018 3:14 am
by Andre3K
If this one recently got upgraded here then that's going to look pretty bad.

Re: C-5 Galaxy emr landing at Lackland AB, TX

Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2018 7:39 pm
by JohnM
The M model conversion doesn't rework or otherwise address much with the landing gear systems. Most if not all NLG jackscrews that have been installed in recent years are canned parts from the boneyard. The boneyard A models were built in the late 60's, and those parts have lots of wear. The C-5 is a small fleet, with lots of one off parts that haven't been made since the B models were built, which is now many years back. I just saw that M model APUs were being canned from one jet to another, so there are already issues with the new stuff. The practice of flying "locals" in the pattern for hours on end, with many landing gear cycles help wear out the gear, very hard on the flaps and slats also.

Re: C-5 Galaxy emr landing at Lackland AB, TX

Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2018 2:36 pm
by GalaxyFlyer
Yes, 63 touch and goes, 3 full stops for me one week. Add in 2-4 hours of AAR time and the abuse goes on.

GF

Re: C-5 Galaxy emr landing at Lackland AB, TX

Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2018 12:23 am
by Max Q
Why do they do so much training in the aircraft ?

Are the simulators not up to snuff ?

Re: C-5 Galaxy emr landing at Lackland AB, TX

Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2018 8:43 pm
by GalaxyFlyer
Level D (C?) sims, qualified for landings and air refueling. To some extent, just tradition; to another, the AF has lots of low-time pilots who need “hands on” time. It’s been reduced over the years, half what it was 15 years ago, I believe. The Reserves have to fly to get paid, so there’s that. The three full stops were “no flaps”, also. We were good at them, never done in the civil world in the plane except the real thing.

I probably got 8 landings that week, maybe 10 other pilots on the three trainers. One thing I noticed was guys that “flew” the sim a lot in lieu of flying, there was a difference and it wasn’t a good difference. Knowing you can’t BS the real thing effects the standards.

GF

Re: C-5 Galaxy emr landing at Lackland AB, TX

Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2018 1:00 am
by JohnM
As maintenance troops we also wondered about the high level of local training flights. Somebody told me once that at Dover for example the Reserve wing had almost 100 co-pilots to train and keep current, let alone the active duty wing. Also many of these guys are new to the AF, the military is just a huge training operation that at times does some war stuff. I know we had a brutal personnel turnover working on the planes, we would get somebody spun up pretty well just in time to separate, or get orders to an enroute base. Then AMP happened, which kicked our ass. Then the M models started to show up, more problems, then no one knew what to do with an older legacy jet that would transit through the base, some newbys had never seen one.

GF mentioned about the AFRES not getting paid unless they flew. I was waiting for a part to fix a plane to fly a local. Just sitting upstairs waiting on supply, and was talking to one of the pilots. He had a 4 hour one way commute to get to the base. That day was the third time he had done that without flying because the jets kept breaking. He didn't fly that day either, and yes I felt bad as we had a multi hour ETIC to fix the jet. He left again without flying. 3 ea 8 hour trips, zero pay.

Back in the good old days, at times we had 3 locals flying at once in the AM, same in the PM. Add in the mission jets that actually went somewhere, and add the visiting transit planes into the mix....We had lots of people then, but it was busy.