ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 26 เม.ย. 2016
- This training video was originally manufactured by the United States Air Force. The crew of a C-141 Starlifter are confronted with a partially retracted landing gear after departure from a snow covered runway with a destination of New Zealand. The crew are required to confront and solve a range of problems - documented and otherwise. While not specifically mentioned, the crew implement a decision-making model to guide their decision making process (see more of decision making models on flight.org).
For training purposes, there are breaks in the film to allow for classroom discussion.
Reproduced with permission with only minor title edits.
You can listen to our podcast at www.FlightPodcast.com, subscribe to us on Twitter at / flightorg , or find us on Facebook at / flightorg . Our website is at www.flight.org/.
Coolest CRM video so far
I wish they made more of these on C-17, C-5s as well. I can watch these type of problem solving all day.
"Snow and Ice covered runway"? No, the runway IS snow and ice.
The epitome of excellent CRM.
The airspeed limitation isn't about the gear. The gear are amazingly strong! It's the gear doors that get ripped off at higher cruise speeds. But that's a lesser detriment compared to fuel on board. You have to make it to a field.
As I live in Christchurch, N. Z. I remember the actual incident and a number of others covering both the LC130 and the C141 A and B plus other aircraft used by VX6 and the USAF over the many years of Operation Deep Freeze.
Good to see this out there after all these years, "MAC 249, What Are Your Intentions?"
[U.S. Air Force: Produced by 1352nd AVS/DOPV under contract with Aerospace Audiovisual Service MAC for U.S. Air Force 607704DF.]
starting at 2:40 screenplay itensifies and is peaking at 2:50
The dash one says do not recycle gear to get a down and locked indication!
one thing they failed miserably on-the pronounciation of dunedin!otherwise,well done chaps!
Watching the video, I thought this was a simulation. I only just found out that MAC 249 was indeed a real flight incident that occurred almost exactly one month before the crash of Air New Zealand flight 901 in Antarctica.
The game was up when they damaged the gear on landing, obviously there was either major damage done that was undetectable using just visual inspection or the runway wasn't suitable to begin with. The risk they took with continuing just seemed to be "get er done" versus landing back on the runway they just took off from which they had a known quantity. If this was wartime, sure that is all out the window, but what if they ended up in a ditching situtation instead at night? fun. Yeah this was all supposed to be how teamwork saved the day however if it had ended up badly for the crew and passengers it would have been a CRM video showing the dangers of get there itis and finishing the "misson" at all costs.
There was no way they were going to wind up without enough fuel to reach NZ. They calculated their enroute fuel burn as soon as they leveled off, at which point they could turn back if they wanted.
I entered the Air Force in 1979 and worked on the C-141 as well as C-5A as a mechanic in AR shop at Travis AFB. Afterwards I worked for American Airlines for 36 years. This is a great video but in all my years I never heard of anyone "pinning" a gear from inside the plane in flight. You might pull a circuit breaker or look at the downlock from inside, but the pin has to be inserted while ON THE GROUND. What am I missing?
The C-141 and several other military transports have the ability to pin the gear in flight. As you saw, a window in the cargo compartment gave the crew access to the MLG wheel well. The crew uses this access to insert the gear pins. Military transports are usually designed with extra capability since operations may occur in hostile environments. Several checklists on the 141 include pinning the gear inflight.
Not sure I would have continued. Given continuing...why a descent 200 miles away? Would brief landing left of centerline, anticipating possible pull to right caused by bad gear. And big time..I would have had everyone wearing flight jackets and gloves....for protection. May have asked that the runway be foamed for landing.
Had similar landing at Okinawa...on “buddy ride”, initial AC. Worked out fine, but lots of Sky Hook and Stab Eval stuff.
Anyway....everyone has an opinion.
Wouldn't foaming the runway negatively impact on tire-traction/braking performance?
@@AhmadDanHamidu Yes, but if they come in for a belly, that doesn't matter as you are doing a scrape and stop.
Interesting analysis and gear thoughts.
However, my approach would gear down, touch on the working one, fight to
keep the wing up for as long as possible and then settle it in as you
lose the ability to keep the wing with the broken gear up due to low air
speed.
But that may also be because that is the method you have to rely on in commercial aviation.
I think they would've found out about it during pre-flight since it is considerable damage, is this a real story or is it fictional?
+Aviator997 It's a fictional story based on a real incident.
As a former Flight Engineer on the C-141, I can tell you that one has to practice for all emergency situations. The landing gear falling off the pod is low probability. But, we had collapsed main landing gear strut during Desert Storm, leaving Saudi Arabia back to Germany! We landed in middle of a snow storm with right main LG completely collapsed! Another flight in the books!
Apparently it happened in 1982 - c141heaven.info/dotcom/mishap_paul_hansen.htm
C141 had same problem landing Lajes in 1980.
This is a true story. This was my squadron. The nut on the top of the landing gear strut had backed off enough that when the landing gear fully extended on liftoff the internal part of the gear strut separated leaving the gear dangling by the scissors. This would not have been checked on the through flight inspection. The tail number/call sign was actually MAC50249
OKAY, WAS THE LANDING GEAR CHECKED DURING THE CRM?
No.... first I would get a cup of coffee.
There is no way in hell I would take a major landing gear malfunction and it's unknown cause across the Southern Ocean. Diagnose the problem, dump fuel and land at McMurdo. The ice runway is your best environment.
Landing at McMurdo would depend on what time of year it is! There's normally a three-month window to get in and out of McMurdo. And, givin' the fact that McMurdo would have no ground support and probably no emergency or fire crew, especially at night, landing there wouldn't be the best choice!
Limited CFR and bare-bones hospital facilities I'd set sail for civilization. I'd be sure to have a return fuel point plotted if a return was indicated but dumping fuel in this case would expend trouble-shooting time.
Well, you also have to consider going where you have the facilities to help you as the other commenters mentioned.
If it is too much unknown and you wreck the plane on the runway, you have a lot of injured and the facilities may not be equipped to deal with that.
Just the gear, you can go places, the plane still flies, and you can go to a place where having a bad crash if unavoidable would yield the best possible outcome.
Well, you’d like the aircraft to be a light as possible on touchdown. Apart from the gear the aircraft was otherwise fine. So after their fuel assessment was done why not continue. Also we don’t know what the engineers on the ground suggested. Good crm tho.
I was the pilot on this flight . If you want the real story message me.
Hi Robert. Can you send us an email or send us a message. We're unable to send anything to you. Thank you.
HE IS ONLY LOOKING AT THE LANDING GEAR
CERTIFIED REPAIR MAINTENCE????!??!???????!?
Cockpit Resource Management
Omg