UNITED STATES AIR FORCE - Air Force Safety Center

U N I T E D S T A T E S A I R F O R C E

M A G A Z I N E

August 2000

4 Maintenance Closeup: The RQ-1A Predator SystemAn inside look at maintaining the USAF’s first operational UAV

10 Aircraft Maintenance Documentation:An Example of What NOT To Do

11 Death’s DoorWhy is it important to respect hangar doors? Because they can kill!

AUGUST 2000, VOL 56, NO 8AIR FORCE RECURRING PUBLICATION 91-1

THE ISSUE:

U N I T E D S T A T E S A I R F O R C E

M A G A Z I N E

22 The Pratt & Whitney F100 Engine:A Primer On Inspecting for 3rd Stage LPT Blade Tip Curling

28 Maintenance MattersEagles and Falcons and Warthogs—Oh My!

30 Class A Mishap Summary

31 The Well Done AwardHerr Ulrich Meyer

Cover Photo by MSgt Perry J. Heimer

12 RY2K, and Don’t You Forget It!Air Mobility Rodeo 2000: An aviator’s point-of-view

14 Air Mobility Rodeo 2000: A Maintenance PerspectiveThey worked hard, they played hard… And they did it mishap-free!

August 2000 ● FLYING SAFETY 3

FSMFSMFLYING OUTSIDE THE BOOK

Courtesy ASRS Callback #243, Sep 99NASA’s Aviation Safety Reporting System

From a pilot who was persuaded by a company salesman to bendweight-and-balance rules to sew up a sale:

The salesman, myself, and the (new aircraft) owner were flying (on a longcross-country). With three people and full fuel, this aircraft is approximately 50pounds over gross takeoff weight. We departed with an additional eight bags andone set of golf clubs, which clearly put us over gross weight. I know better, butrationalizing the salesman’s statement, “I fly with five people and full fuel...andit is fine,”I proceeded. When I had the plane at approximately 400 ft AGL, I ranout of nose-down elevator trim. I called Tower and requested that we comearound to land. That was my first experience out of the college training envi-ronment, which consists of good habit patterns and flying by the book. Unfortu-nately, I did not follow good judgment. Upon my return, I told the salesman heneeded to get someone else.

(We believe it was Mark Twain who once said something like: “It’s better to becareful a hundred times than to be dead once.” Ed.)

IT’S IN THE BAGCourtesy ASRS Callback #242, Aug 99

NASA’s Aviation Safety Reporting System

A lost-communications incident that affected this air carrier flight crewmay inspire other pilots to take a second look at where they place bookbags containing flight charts and manuals.

About 30 NM out of (the) airport at 10,000 ft, I reviewed the approach andrunway diagram and set my approach book back on top of my book bag. Afterabout 4-5 minutes of silence on the radio and about ten miles from the airport, Iasked the First Officer to query Approach Control about his intentions. The FirstOfficer was unable to contact approach. I attempted to no avail, but the First Of-ficer now told me he was getting feedback even when I was not transmitting. Ilooked down and realized that my approach book had shifted up to my commpanel and had toggled the transmission switch to “On.” I removed the book, con-tacted and apologized to Approach and continued to landing. Approach was veryunderstanding, even though I knew we had unintentionally disrupted his oper-ation.

The comm panel on the (aircraft) on the Captain’s side has been moveddown and aft to make room for the steering wheel. This puts it right atthe same level as the approach books, and the transmit switch is the firstto be touched should the book shift.

GENERAL MICHAEL E. RYANChief of Staff, USAF

MAJ GEN TIMOTHY A. PEPPEChief of Safety, USAF

LT COL J. PAUL LANEChief, Safety Education and Media DivisionEditor-in-ChiefDSN 246-0922

JERRY ROODManaging EditorDSN 246-0950

CMSGT MIKE BAKERMaintenance/Technical EditorDSN 246-0972

PATRICIA RIDEOUTEditorial AssistantDSN 246-1983

MSGT PERRY J. HEIMERArt Director/PhotojournalistDSN 246-0986

Air Force Safety Center web page: http://www-afsc.saia.af.mil/Flying Safety Magazine on line:http://www-afsc.saia.af.mil/magazine/htdocs/fsmfirst.htm

Commercial Prefix (505) 846-XXXXE-Mail — [email protected] Changes —[email protected]

24 hour fax: DSN 246-0931Commercial: (505) 846-0931

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE —THE CHIEF OF SAFETY, USAF

PURPOSE — Flying Safety is published month-ly to promote aircraft mishap prevention. Facts,testimony, and conclusions of aircraft mishapsprinted herein may not be construed as incrimi-nating under Article 31 of the Uniform Code ofMilitary Justice. The contents of this magazine arenot directive and should not be construed asinstructions, technical orders, or directives unlessso stated. SUBSCRIPTIONS — For sale by theSuperintendent of Documents, PO Box 371954,Pittsburgh PA 15250-7954; $32 CONUS, $40 for-eign per year. REPRINTS — Air Force organiza-tions may reprint articles from Flying Safety with-out further authorization. Non-Air Force organiza-tions must advise the Editor of the intended use ofthe material prior to reprinting. Such action willensure complete accuracy of material amended inlight of most recent developments. DISTRIBUTION — One copy for each three air-crew members and one copy for each six directaircrew support and maintenance personnel.

POSTAL INFORMATION — Flying Safety (ISSN00279-9308) is published monthly by HQAFSC/SEMM, 9700 G Avenue, SE, Kirtland AFBNM 87117-5670. Periodicals postage paid atAlbuquerque NM and additional mailing offices.POSTMASTER: Send address changes to FlyingSafety, 9700 G Avenue, SE, Kirtland AFB NM87117-5670.

CONTRIBUTIONS — Contributions are welcomeas are comments and criticism. The editorreserves the right to make any editorial changes inmanuscripts which he believes will improve thematerial without altering the intended meaning.

CAPT RICARDO HUERTACMSGT JOHN MULLEN11th Reconnaissance Squadron

Dipping down to 14,000 ft, the aircraftbanks right to allow the sensor operator

a better image of the suspected Serb SAMsite that has been harassing NATO aircraftin the Kosovo region. The sensor operatoremploys the aircraft’s electro-optical sensorto perform a wide-area search, then uses azoom lens to verify the presence and loca-tion of a SAM site. As the three-person air-crew—a pilot and two sensor operators—loiters the aircraft over the area awaitingCombined Area of Operations Center(CAOC) instructions, a small, white puff ofsmoke is detected in the imagery. Suddenly,the image freezes and all contact with theaircraft is lost. The CAOC uses other sourcesof information to confirm the combat loss...

Over 300 miles from the crash site, thedowned aircraft’s dedicated crew chief(DCC) gets the bad news and enters theGround Control Station (GCS) to reviewvideo of the incident...and tease the pilotabout getting knocked out of the sky. Foryou see, while it was flying in harm’s wayover Kosovo, the aircrew was safely operat-ing the aircraft—an RQ-1K Predator Un-

4 FLYING SAFETY ● August 2000

The PredatorUAV systemis, without a

doubt, one ofthe most

sought-aftersurveillance

assets byTheaterCINCs.

manned Aerial Vehicle (UAV)—from Tuzla,Bosnia, using dedicated satellite communi-cation links. The DCC is saddened by theloss of his plane but, as usual, there’s no lossof life. Welcome to the world of the PredatorUAV.

Whether it’s battle damage assessment,force protection, or monitoring civil unrestor troop movements, the Predator UAV sys-tem is, without a doubt, one of the mostsought-after surveillance assets by TheaterCINCs. It provides unmatched reconnais-sance capabilities to commanders in theform of near-real-time video. It also presentsnew challenges for the maintainers whokeep the system operational.

A Brief Predator BackgroundThe Predator began its life as an Ad-

vanced Concept Technology Demonstration(ACTD) asset under control of the US Navy-led Joint Program Office. The system wastested and flown in Taszar, Hungary, inMarch 1996, in support of Operation JOINTENDEAVOR peace efforts in Bosnia.

In July 1996, the Air Force took control ofthe program and assigned the PredatorACTD assets to the 11th ReconnaissanceSquadron, which had been formed in 1995.The 11 RS undertook JOINT ENDEAVOR

USAF Photo by MSgt Steven M. Turner


able-pitch propeller, a major step forward.In addition to increasing performance andoverall UAV capability, the variable-pitchpropeller engine has tech data that enablesmilitary personnel to perform and sign offmaintenance tasks. Previously, we had torely on contractor personnel to supervise themaintenance and sign off work. As youmight expect, this was both a morale-killerfor our GIs and a significant “inconve-nience” in a deployed environment.

The Predator currently has a requirementfor an inspection every 50 hours of enginetime. Since the UAV typically flies 8-10 hourtraining sorties and 14-20 missions at de-ployed locations, this is the single most im-portant factor our scheduler has to consider.

The 50-hour inspection is of major impor-tance to all of us. Typically, four maintainersand one contractor perform the 50-hour.During this inspection, the DCC inspects theengine bay, changes the air filter, changesthe oil and oil filter, performs compressionand gearbox backlash checks, changes sparkplugs and coolant and—most importantlyfor the Predator—replaces the rubber cou-pler (the “donut”) and its radial bolts.

The donut connects and cushions thestarter/alternator assembly to the engine.Because previous Predator mishaps havebeen linked to donut failures at around the50-hour mark, the donut is the driving fac-tor behind the 50-hour inspection.

R&R’ing the donut is a two-person jobsince it involves removing the engine andstarter/alternator assembly from the aircraft

operations in September 1996 and begantraining at Indian Springs AFAF in Decem-ber 1996. The Predator UAV system was thefirst weapon system to go from ACTD to op-erationally capable, and it did so two yearsahead of schedule.

An additional Predator squadron, the 15RS, was activated in the summer of 1997.Their first deployment was to SWA in Janu-ary 1999. In support of Operations JOINTFORGE, NOBLE ANVIL, and ALLIEDFORCE, the 11 RS deployed to Tuzla AB,Bosnia, in March 1999. As the Kosovo aircampaign escalated, a second Predator sys-tem deployed in April, followed by a thirdsystem in May. All systems returned tohome station in October 1999.

The RQ-1A Predator SystemA Predator system is comprised of four

UAVs, a ground control station (GCS), and aTrojan SPIRIT (Special Purpose IntegratedRemote Intelligence Terminal) satellite com-munications system. Crew chiefs, avionicsspecialists, computer maintainers, and satel-lite communications personnel all have ahand in maintaining the Predator system,and it’s this hybrid of background andknowledge that makes the Predator the suc-cess it is today.

The RQ-1K Predator UAVThe Predator UAV uses a rear-mounted

Rotax 912, four-stroke, four-cylinder enginefor propulsion. Over the last two yearswe’ve converted from a fixed-pitch to a vari-

continued on next page

The PredatorUAV systemwas the firstweapon sys-tem to go fromAdvancedTechnologyConceptDemonstrationasset to oper-ationally capa-ble, and it didso two yearsahead ofschedule.

frequency of inspections. Unlike the Rotax912, where we took over an existing pro-gram from contractors, our crew chiefs willbe in the initial training cadre for the 914.It’ll be a challenge, but our crew chiefs arelooking forward to it.

Most other maintenance practices andprocedures for the Predator UAV are similarto those for manned aircraft. Maintainersperform R&R functions on items like the C-Band directional antenna, video processor,engine bay cooling fan and cowl flap servo,flight sensor unit, GPS antennas, KU-Bandantenna and synthetic aperture radar (SAR)antenna and processor. One item of specialinterest is the electro-optical/infrared pay-load Versatron Skyball—the “v-ball”—andassociated interface unit, and their removaland installation procedures.

The interface unit and v-ball are “mar-ried,” and must be replaced as a single LRU.The v-ball contains the electro-optical sensorthat allows the sensor operator to performwide-area searches, zooming in on items ofinterest with the 900 mm spotter lens. Thisallows imagery analysts to identify specifictarget features. The sensor is capable of de-tecting vehicles at 15 miles.

The v-ball also contains an infrared sensorthat allows imagery analysts to detect andidentify a target in day or night operations.It’s capable of detecting hot vehicles at 7-10miles and cold vehicles at 2-3 miles.

The v-ball is the “eyes of the warrior” forthe Predator UAV and it’s often used fortakeoffs and landings instead of the nosecamera. Where the nose camera gives the pi-


It’scapable ofdetecting

hotvehicles at7-10 miles

and coldvehicles at2-3 miles.

to get to it. After replacing the donut and itsradial bolts, a time-consuming, but critical,alternator plate alignment must be done toproperly mate the engine and starter/alter-nator assembly back together. If this align-ment isn’t done properly, the engine willhave unbalanced stress placed on it and theentire Predator vehicle will vibrate, causingloss of imagery capabilities. Improper bal-ancing could even result in loss of the UAVitself. A propeller inspection is also doneconcurrently with the 50-hour inspection.

As you might expect, an engine run is re-quired after the inspection is complete. Inprevious years, an FCF was flown, but nu-merous sorties and flight hours have provena ground maintenance engine run will suf-fice. If everything runs smoothly, the entire50-hour inspection process may only takesix hours.

There are two other major inspections thatoccur every 300 and 900 hours of engine op-erating time. During the 300-hour inspec-tion, the engine is stripped and cleaned andthe manifold air pressure (MAP) sensor,throttle servo, and starter/alternator areR&R’d. During the 900-hour inspection, theengine is R&R’d. Despite being somewhatlabor-intensive due to the length of a typicalPredator sortie, the Rotax 912 engine hasproven to be efficient and reliable.

Replacing the 912 engine with the Rotax914 turbo-charged engine in the near futurewill give the Predator greater speed and de-crease transit time to targets. It will also en-able longer loiter times over targets or short-er sorties, which should decrease the


lot a view from the front of the UAV, the pic-ture from the v-ball allows pilots to view theground and get a better feel for takeoffs andlandings.

One final item that’s unique for us inPredator maintenance is that when we firstbecame operational, we did a lot of “hardlanding” inspections. Understand that oper-ating an aircraft by remote control is a one-of-a-kind experience for any pilot and youunderstand why hard landings weren’t un-common when our pilots were getting usedto flying the Predator.

What constitutes a hard landing? Anytouchdown where the landing gear contactthe ground at a rate greater than eight feet-per-second. Hard landings require us to in-spect the landing gear attachment bulk-heads for structural damage anddelamination in the composite material.Any bulkhead structure repairs are depot-level maintenance jobs. We also inspectlanding gear struts and fittings for cracks,ensure gear retract servos are securely at-tached with no bent or broken parts and in-spect the tires for cuts and abrasions. Final-ly, we’ll inspect the nose landing gearassembly and tailplanes for cracks and dam-age. A landing gear retract test is requiredprior to releasing the UAV for its next flight.

Overall, the Predator is a reliable aircraft.Although the small number of UAVs as-signed to a system causes MC rates to seemlow, missions are rarely canceled except forweather. The Predator isn’t an all-weatheraircraft. We don’t launch under high-windor rain conditions, but if already airborne, it

can loiter for extended periods until theweather blows over, a luxury that otherweapon systems don’t have.

The RQ-1P Ground Control Station (GCS)The GCS has two main sections. The pilot

(rated) and sensor operator (enlisted) workfrom the front of the GCS, while the DataExploitation, Mission Planning, and Com-munications (DEMPC) operator’s area is lo-cated in the back section.

From the front of the GCS, the pilot andsensor operator command and control theUAV, with the pilot flying the aircraft andthe sensor operator controlling the v-balland imagery. In essence, the front rack of theGCS is the cockpit of the aircraft, where thepilot has the typical throttle assembly andrudder pedals for UAV control. The pilotand payload operator basically use a com-puter monitoring station with a heads-updisplay function, where the video from thenose camera and v-ball are displayed. Thevideo can be switched to either computerrack based on pilot wishes. Our avionicsmaintainers are responsible for this area ofthe GCS.

The second half of the GCS contains theDEMPC computer systems, SAR worksta-tion and KU-Band link management assem-bly. This is the heart of the Predator system,as all reconnaissance imagery and informa-tion flows through this location. The enlist-ed DEMPC operator is also responsible forproviding targeting coordinates and targetheading to the pilot and sensor operator.Computer-electronics and satellite commu-

ThePredatorcan loiterfor extend-ed periodsuntil theweatherblows over.


nications maintenance personnel maintainthis portion of the GCS. A lot of the knowl-edge and skills acquired by maintainers inthis area has been through OJT and priorUNIX computer system work.

RQ-1U Trojan SPIRITThe last portion of the Predator system is

the Trojan SPIRIT satellite system. This sys-tem was taken over from the US Army andhas two main components. The first is a se-cure voice/data satellite communicationsspare equipment and maintenance shelterand associated 5.5 meter KU Tri-Band an-tenna used for UAV command and control.The second is a secure voice/data satellitecommunications primary heavy shelter andassociated 2.4 meter mobile antenna plat-form. This second component is used pri-marily for establishing a wide-area networkcapability with access to the Secret InternetProtocol Router Network (SIPRNET) andthe Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communi-cations System (JWICS). Our intelligencefunction uses this feature for activities asso-ciated with reconnaissance missions.

While the US Army typically deploys onlyoperators for their Trojan SPIRIT, and dele-gate maintenance activities to contractors,our workforce does both. Our personnel areresponsible for setting up the antennas,grounding the equipment, establishing linkswith the satellite and connecting the TrojanSPIRIT to the GCS and operations cell.

One interesting aspect of satellite opera-tions involves establishing the KU link withthe satellite. The autotrack feature is often


Eighteenmaintainersare respon-

sible foroperating

onePredator

system 24hours a

day, sevendays aweek.

unreliable, so our maintainers acquire thesatellite manually. They start from a knownlatitude and longitude and map the areawith the antenna, attempting to acquire theexpected signal. This can take anywherefrom 20 minutes to two hours, depending onthe satellites and different signals in the sec-tor.

Upon acquiring the signal, they’ll contactthe bandwidth management office to verifythat they’ve identified the correct satellitesector and then lock on to the signal. This in-formation is then loaded into the TrojanSPIRIT satellite system, allowing its antennato maintain signal lock in the auto mode.

Predator MaintainersNo description of the Predator system

would be complete without discussing themaintainers who make it all work. Despitethe complexity of the system, 18 maintain-ers—crew chiefs, avionics specialists, com-puter maintainers, and satellite communica-tion maintainers—are responsible foroperating one Predator system 24 hours aday, seven days a week.

Crew chiefs and avionics specialists havea diverse background and come from virtu-ally all other weapon systems. We currentlyhave “J”-shred crew chiefs, however, futurePredator crew chiefs may come from anyweapon system since the learning curve isthe same, regardless of experience with pre-vious aircraft. Those from heavies seem tograsp UAV requirements and expectationsmore quickly than fighter crew chiefs be-cause the Predator operates much like a typ-


ical heavy aircraft.It usually takes about six months experi-

ence to become a fully-qualified Predatormaintainer. All new personnel attend a two-week general UAV FTD course to get famil-iar with the Predator. Specialized coursesfollow later, after they’ve become accus-tomed to UAV maintenance. Our maintain-ers are expected to know Predator launchand recovery procedures, PRE/BPO andthruflight inspections, refuel/defuel proce-dures and all of the other standard mainte-nance activities and inspections associatedwith traditional manned weapon systems.New maintainers must also have participat-ed in the six-person team required to launchand recover the Predator to be consideredqualified.

One factor that we impress throughouttraining is that the Predator must be main-tained just like a manned aircraft. Flightsafety requirements are the same, and UAVmishaps incur the same Safety Investigationand Accident Investigation Boards asmanned aircraft. Quality-of-maintenancemust be of the highest possible caliber.

The last step in overall training is aug-menting the debrief section. Unlike otheraircraft, our maintainers can walk into theGCS and actually view problems a pilot ishaving—live, or on tape. It’s a luxury thatother weapon systems don’t have. This ca-pability has even prevented some write-upsthat we would later have attributed to “op-erator error.”

The Predator system continues to evolveand mature. With new UAV features like

wings that can deice themselves, the im-proved Rotax 914 engine, a UHF voice-relayradio for improved communications withATC, improvements in software and hard-ware designs, and a new satellite communi-cations antenna system, maintenance willcontinue to be a challenging and rewardingexperience.

(All information in this article is unclassified.Ed.)

About the authors: Captain Huerta is Sortie Gen-eration and Communications Flight commanderfor the 11 RS. Captain Huerta started his Air Forcecareer in 1995 as a communications officer at Tyn-dall AFB. He was reassigned to the 11 RS at Indi-an Springs AFAF in 1997. He deployed to Taszar,Hungary, and Tuzla, Bosnia, to set up and operatePredator UAV systems in support of OperationsJOINT GUARD, JOINT FORGE, NOBLEANVIL and ALLIED FORCE. Captain Huerta hasa bachelor’s degree in Civil Engineering from Geor-gia Institute of Technology, and a master’s degreein Business Administration from Idaho State Uni-versity.

CMSgt Mullen is Maintenance Superintendentfor the 11 RS. He enlisted in 1977, with a first as-signment as an F-111E DCC at RAF Upper Hey-ford, United Kingdom. During his career, he hasalso worked the F-15 and F-16, and served at LukeAFB, Bitburg AB, Edwards AFB and Kunsan AB.Chief Mullen has earned a CCAF associate degreein Aircraft Maintenance Technology, and a bache-lor’s degree in Aviation Maintenance Managementfrom Embry-Riddle University.

All photos by SMSgt Orival E. Greenfield, 11RS.

One factorthat weimpressthroughouttraining isthat thePredatormust bemaintainedjust like amannedaircraft.

CMSGT JEFFERY A. MOENINGCAPT FRANK A. MCVAY550th Special Operations Squadron

You think it can’t happen in your unit, butthen it does. Failure to properly docu-

ment an aircraft maintenance action thatcould very easily have proven deadly...

It started out as a normal MC-130H Com-bat Talon II training sortie, with the launchproceeding on time. Unfortunately, shortlyafter takeoff, the aircrew realized twothings: There was a loud, howling noisecoming from the nose of the aircraft; and thecabin wouldn’t pressurize. They aborted themission, landed uneventfully, and turnedthe aircraft over to our maintainers.

It didn’t take long to locate the cause oftheir problems. Troubleshooters found thecenter kidney panel for the nose wheel welllying near the throttle control cables on the flightdeck. The kidney panel hadn’t been installed se-curely. What made things worse was the factthat some of the kidney panel hardware wasfound sitting in the forward nose landinggear door and some of it had fallen out dur-ing takeoff or in flight. Why? The kidneypanel removal hadn’t been documented inthe aircraft forms.

As with any mishap, this one was preced-ed by a chain of events, and breaking anyone of the links in that chain would haveaverted it. In this case, we had four chancesto prevent it.

• The first chance was when a Crew Chiefassisting an Electro/Environmental (E/E)troop in the search for a lost tool removedthe kidney panel without documenting theaction.

• The second chance occurred when theCrew Chief was pulled from the search tohelp recover another aircraft, and he as-sumed the E/E tech would document thepanel.

• The third opportunity came and wentwhen the E/E troop assumed the CrewChief took care of documenting the kidneypanel and reinstalling it.


• The final opportunity to prevent themishap occurred when the Crew Chief per-forming the preflight and the InstructorFlight Engineer (FE) failed to notice the kid-ney panel wasn’t secured properly. (In allfairness to them, the Dash-6 and Dash-1checklists only state the nose wheel wellarea should be checked for leaks and gener-al condition. Besides, the panel was neverdocumented as having been removed.)

Lessons learned? You bet! Once again, itwas proven that:

• You must always document what you do;and

• You must never assume someone else hastaken care of your responsibilities.

It is every maintainer’s responsibility todocument what he or she accomplishes andmake sure his or her integrity is never inquestion. If the Crew Chief had documentedthe panel, the E/E tech had performed a fol-low-up on the Crew Chief’s work, or thepreflight Crew Chief or Instructor FE hadscrutinized the wheel well area a little moreclosely, this mishap wouldn’t have occurred.

Bottom Line? This lapse in maintenancediscipline resulted in an aircraft that wasn’tsafe for flight. Besides the dropped object in-cident (kidney panel hardware) and loss of avaluable training sortie, we dodged anotherbullet when the lost hardware didn’t causedamage to our Talon or another aircraft.However, the solid reputation of oursquadron maintenance professionals didtake a hit.

Always remember: No matter what wedo, no matter what the pressures, we mustnever compromise the safety of our aircrewsand aircraft!

We aircraft maintainers are a proud andtrusted group of professionals. We must al-ways strive for perfection and quality. In-tegrity First!

(At the time of this writing, Chief Moening and Captain Mc-Vay were the Maintenance Superintendent and MaintenanceSupervisor, respectively, for the 550 SOS, part of AETC’s58th Special Operations Wing at Kirtland AFB, New Mexi-co. Editor.)

There was aloud, howl-

ing noisecoming

from thenose of the

aircraft; andthe cabinwouldn’t

pressurize.

USAF Photo by MSgt Perry J. Heimer


MR. LAWRENCE SIMEKCourtesy Torch, Apr 00

I remember reading an article that told ofa sergeant crushing her head in a hangar

door. The article said that her coworkerscould do nothing but stand there and watchher die. It seemed unbelievable at the time.But almost a year later, I witnessed anothersergeant do the same thing and fully under-stood how helpless her coworkers musthave felt.

As with all mishaps, there’s a chain ofevents that must occur to bring abouttragedy. In this case, there were several.First, the door controls had been wired il-logically. That is, the left switch moved thehangar door to the right, and the rightswitch moved the door to the left. The doorswere being repainted, and tape and papercovered the outside switches. Also, thedoors were open about one foot—a real no-no.

The sergeant needed to bring a crane intothe hangar, so he asked the painters if hecould open the door. When they said yes, hereached through the opened doors and hitthe switch farthest from him.

He lived for another 15 agonizing min-utes.

The human skull is stronger than youwould think. Huge hangar doors won’tcrush the skull—nature made it strong, andit flexes quite a lot. Unfortunately, the tissueunder the skull, like the sinus cavities andtemples, can’t take this kind of pressure.When the sinuses rupture, it’s impossible tostop the blood from flowing. Even if thishappened in an operating room with thebest doctors, you’re certain to bleed todeath.

The Fire Department had to be called towash away all the blood. I now understandwhen historians write: “The streets were asa river of blood after the battle.”

Everything happened so fast, I didn’thave time to mourn. That lasted until a fewdays later when I went to get a condolencecard for his family. As I looked for the bestcard, all I could think about was his wifeand kids without him, and his mother and

Don’t letcomplacencybe in yourepitaph.

father not being able to see their son anymore. I’m sure I was a sight, biting down onmy hand as hard as I could to keep from cry-ing out in anguish.

As with most mishaps, this one wouldhave been avoided had the rules been fol-lowed. Maintenance troops see the signswarning “Hangar doors must be fullyclosed or opened not less than ten feet.” Butmany ignore the warning and open thedoors just enough to get through—especial-ly when cold weather sets in and they wantto keep in the heat.

As with most warnings, events have oc-curred in the past that led to the logic be-hind the warning. Hangar doors are defi-nitely no exception.

If you haven’t applied the OperationalRisk Management formula to hangar doors,the process is long overdue. Take the time totalk about scenarios with hangar doors thatmight lead to an unnecessary, hazardousrisk. Formulate a plan that helps reducethese risks and, ultimately, may help pre-vent another mishap.

The bottom line is awareness and follow-ing the established safety guidelines.

The next time you see people openinghangar doors just enough to get their toolbox through, tell them for their own safetyto follow the warning. If you are a supervi-sor, keep alert to the actions of your people.It’s the little, seemingly unimportant thingsthat can cause a lot of heartache and endwith having to explain to families why theyare now widows and orphans.

Don’t let complacency be in your epi-taph.

(Mr. Simek is with the 325th Logistics SupportSquadron at Tyndall AFB, FL)(AHFOSHSTD 91-100, Aircraft FlightlineGround Operations and Activities, contains asection entitled “Hangar, Nose Dock, and Shel-ter Door Design Guidance and Operations.” Itprovides basic Air Force policies for hangar dooroperation. It’s also likely your unit has estab-lished local Operating Instructions to governhangar door operations. If you’re not sure whatthe local policies are, Quality Assurance shouldbe able to help. Ed.)

MAJ ROB SHEPHERD9th Airlift SquadronDover AFB

“Let’sget ready to Rodeo!” The warcry rang out and the assem-

bled masses responded, their voices andwhistles reaching a feverish pitch. Welcometo Air Mobility Expeditionary Rodeo 2000.

Rodeo is the showcase for the world’smobility air forces. It features airdrop, aerialrefueling, aeromedical evacuation, securityforces, aerial port and maintenance teams invaried, challenging competitive events.These contests are designed to improve pro-cedures and standardization, allow us toshare techniques among our counterparts inallied forces, and demonstrate our manyimportant capabilities. A nice side effect isthe positive relations and espirit de corpsamong all the participants.

The ”Rodeo” tag dates back to 1962, whenCARP Rodeo was held at Scott AFB.Although the 23 Rodeos since then havebeen similar, the competition has evolvedfrom a strictly airdrop affair to this year’swide-ranging show, with a variety of namechanges to mark the major milestones in theprogression. Many bases have played hostto Rodeo, but none are as well versed asPope AFB (which hosted from 1979 to 1992,and again in 2000). And Team Pope trulyshined this year, as 79 aircraft and over 3000team members descended on the NorthCarolina base from 64 active duty, reserveand Air National Guard units, as well aseight foreign countries. The largest Rodeoever was a sight to see!

During the opening ceremonies, Gen.Charles T. “Tony” Robertson, Jr.,Commander in Chief, U.S. TransportationCommand, and AMC Commander, gave thecompetition four orders: 1) learn somethingnew about air mobility, 2) teach somethingabout air mobility, 3) be safe, and 4) havefun. As a veteran of three Air Force flyingcompetitions, I can attest that all four direc-tives can be complementary. However, the


Crewsthat prac-

tice tosuch tighttolerances

developtech-

niquesalso

applicableto realworld

missions.

unwary aviator can easily lose sight of thebig picture (read: safety) in pursuit of theother goals. Risk awareness and manage-ment techniques, formal and informal, areessential to the successful prosecution ofsuch a massive and challenging event.

Learning more about air mobility is some-thing I do nearly every time I fly, but thepreparation and execution of Rodeo reallytook this continuing education to a newlevel. While the competition focuses onskills we routinely practice, the precisionrequired to even remain in the running atRodeo is much greater than that which willget the mission done in the real world.

Consider an aerial refueling (AR) sortie.The tanker is scored on an orbit exercise(cross the AR control point, orbit to cross theARCP again at a specified time, and set upanother orbit to cross the ARCP at the ARcontrol time with the receiver in contact)and a toggle time exercise (offload 3000pounds of fuel and achieve 24 minutes ofcontact with the receiver in a 24-minuteperiod), worth a total of 1300 points. Thecrew would lose one point for every 100 feetof circular error from the ARCP at the speci-fied orbit time (that’s roughly fifteen-hun-dredths of a second error) or every secondnot in contact with the tanker. Each discon-nect would cost 50 points in addition to tog-gle time lost. In the real world, being within30 seconds at the required points and losing5 minutes of available track time would gen-erally yield an effective sortie, but wouldearn the crew exactly zero points at Rodeo.

There is a silver lining here: Crews thatpractice to such tight tolerances developtechniques also applicable to real world mis-sions, such as efficient use of the airplane’snavigation systems to control arrival timesaccurately. They also build strong aircrewteams, something we can always use. Theother ops competitions—timed arrival,engines-running on/off-loading, cargoloading, airdrop and short field landings—provide some of the same opportunities tohone mobility skills.


You can probably envision the additionalflying hazards that came along with tryingto perform at such a high level. Crews areunder competitive pressure and are general-ly more aggressive than during day-to-dayoperations. This focus can mitigate somerisks, but the loss of “peripheral vision” canallow other factors to creep into our path.

Commanders take this into account whenselecting their teams, with fairly experi-enced crewmembers who will mesh as ateam. By the time the competition takesplace, most teams have flown together for awhile and have developed a division ofduties that will restore a good deal of eachmember’s lost situational awareness. Thebottom line is awareness; if you pay attentionto what’s happening all the time, you’ll bebetter prepared to deal with unexpected sit-uations despite the added pressures.

The flightline presents another host ofdangers. During the arrival of the U.S.teams, 60 airplanes were scheduled to landwith only 5 minutes of separation. Thistimetable continued for over 6 hours. Mix insome unfamiliar taxi routes and unforgivingparking plans and you’ve got some realramp congestion issues. We can all tip ourhats to the Rodeo Ambassadors for mini-mizing the impact of this situation. Thosered-shirted troops, all volunteers from TeamPope, did a masterful job positioning the air-planes without incident, a testament to solidplanning and deliberate execution.Competition days also set challenges for theteams. Maintenance and aerial port teamswere competing on the ramp while aircrewswere launching and recovering their sorties.Once again, smart scheduling and diligenceon the part of team members and Rodeostaff kept the accident demon at bay.

Scheduling that location and season forRodeo is always challenging. McChord pro-vided beautiful weather for part of Rodeo‘98, but the thunderstorms and low ceilingswe experienced there were typical for June.Heat and humidity were on the menu atPope, though we actually didn’t have toomuch of the combination. Nevertheless, itcould have been a very negative factor dur-ing the competition. The Rodeo safety staff,composed of members from HQ AMC, Popeand other units, stepped up to the task oflessening the potential impact. Coolers withbottled water were stationed everywhereand were kept full during the whole week,the Chuck Wagon was continually roamingthe grounds passing out water to anyonewho asked, and shade was available nearly

Crews areunder com-petitivepressureand aregenerallymoreaggressivethan duringday-to-dayoperations.

everywhere for a brief respite from the bru-tal sun.

The ground safety folks had to work withcongestion around Pope and Fort Bragg,with over 3000 competitors sharing theroads with thousands of permanent partymembers. What kept it under control? Ofcourse, prior planning by the diligent staff(see a trend developing here?). Lots of signswere all over Pope and Fort Bragg directingpeople to the various gates, events and com-petition venues. Safety reps gave the aircrewmembers, as well as other competitors, avery detailed safety briefing at the outset, sowe were all aware of areas requiring specialcaution.

Remember the orders from Gen.Robertson? Most folks took the last one toheart and carried it out with zeal. DodgeCity—the traditional Rodeo hangout—offered a wonderful setting for competitionand staff to unwind, share stories (factual orotherwise), and generally improve relations.Long days, late nights, warm weather andsome adult beverages could have led toproblems, even among such professionalairmen. The town “mayor,” along with hisnumerous marshals and deputies, roamedthe premises relentlessly, preserving arelaxed environment while keeping goodorder and discipline. I can personally attestto the positive impact these folks had on thewhole competition, even though most of usspent only a small percentage of our time inDodge City.

I’ll again ask you this question. Do yousee a trend? It’s people! All of our safety pro-grams are designed by people to be imple-mented by people and serve to keep ourpeople out of harm’s way. I’ve alreadydescribed some obvious “mission makers”at the Rodeo: safety staff, marshals, ambas-sadors to name just a few. But we all tookGen. Robertson seriously when he said, “Besafe.” Everyone took an active role in therisk management that goes on every dayaround our Air Force…and you see it waseffective. This was one of the safest Rodeoson record.

Those of you who shared the experiencewith me can pat yourselves on the back forstepping up to the plate, taking your bestswing and making R2K the biggest and bestRodeo ever. It was, in the words of Maj. Gen.“Si” Johnson, Rodeo commander, “a homerun for each person involved.”

Note: The author is a C-5 evaluator pilot at Dover AFB. Hewas part of the Best C-5 Air Refueling Crew at Rodeo 2000,adding to his Top T-37 Aircrew award from Torchlight ‘89.

CMSGT MIKE BAKERMaintenance/Technical Editor

You think the 2000 Olympic Games arebeing held in the Land-Down-Under,

don’t you? Uh-uh. Not for the thousands offolks wearing Air Force Blue in the airmobility profession. They’ll tell you the 2000Olympics already took place May 6-13, atPope Air Force Base, North Carolina, underthe “Air Mobility Rodeo 2000” (“R2K”) ban-ner.

“Rodeo” is an Air Mobility Command-sponsored biennial competition that pro-vides a setting for US Air Force and alliednation air mobility forces to showcase theircore capabilities and war-fighting skills.Rodeo is—dare we say? (Dare! Dare!)—theworld’s premier air mobility competition,and a golden opportunity for maintenance,aircrew, aerial port, special tactics, securityforces and aeromedical evacuation (mede-vac) personnel to show off their combatskills in friendly competition.

Dozens of teams from organizationsaround the world come together at Rodeo tovie for the distinction of being recognized“Best of the Best.” This is where individualunits are recognized with—and get thebragging rights to—the prestige that accom-panies selection as Best Air Refueling Wing,


Rodeo is,first and

foremost, acombat

competition.

Best Airdrop Wing or the top honor, Best AirMobility Wing. For maintainers, this is theirshot at earning a spot in the Rodeo historybooks as Best Preflight, Postflight or all-around Maintenance Team for their particu-lar airframe.

A Little Rodeo HistoryThe granddaddy of today’s Air Mobility

Rodeo was 1962’s “CARP Rodeo.” In thatfirst “Computed Air Release Point” Rodeo,C-124 Globemaster II crews competed to seewho was best at airdropping cargo on target,on time. Since that first Rodeo competition,Rodeo has grown. For instance, in 1979,maintenance competition became an inte-gral part of Rodeo, and the first internation-al teams participated. In 1990, cargo loadingwas added as a competition category. Airrefueling events became permanent parts ofthe competition in 1993. Finally, the inclu-sion of security forces, special tactics andmedevac personnel in Rodeo events, andformal recognition for those both in the airand on the ground who make the mission,accurately reflects the teamwork that hasenabled the evolution in the worldwide airmobility mission.

One of the products of Rodeo’s evolutionis that even though much of the public focus

USAF Photo by SSgt Steven Pearsall


Workdaysand nightsroutinelyaverage 12and 14 hoursor more.

still tends to be on Rodeo’s most obviousaspect—flight operations—every singlecompetitor knows that success in the airisn’t possible without a total team effort. Iwas awed at how closely each of the unitteams functioned. From beginning to end,they acted like family and treated each otherlike family, regardless of rank or specialty.

Rodeo’s moniker has changed over theyears, from CARP Rodeo, to Airlift Rodeo,to today’s Air Mobility Rodeo, but then, asnow, the ultimate goal of competition is toimprove current and future air mobilityoperations.

The Ground RulesIn the 1980s, it was common for a select

group of highly experienced maintainers tobe assigned exclusively to primary andbackup Rodeo aircraft months in advance ofthe competition. Sometimes aircraft andcrews were even exempted from flyingchannel missions and did nothing but getready for Rodeo. And while a lot of empha-sis was put on aircraft “go”—how well air-craft systems worked—there was also a lotof emphasis placed on “show.” Replacingotherwise functional items that were merelyscratched, worn or blemished became thenorm, and Rodeo aircraft were often recipi-

ents of new parts, floor coverings, paint,polished items and, in some cases, “customaccessories,” all to enhance appearance andimpress umpires. In a large Air Force withfew apparent budget constraints, infrequentdeployments and a sizable pool of experi-enced personnel, it was okay to be a littleextravagant. No more. Beauty is a goodthing, but it’s “go,” and not “show,” thatmatters most. The last several competitionshave made it clear Rodeo is, first and fore-most, a combat competition.

Maintenance Teams, MaintenanceUmpires and Scoring

Rodeo preparation and competition areincredibly demanding. Workdays andnights routinely average 12 and 14 hours ormore, with no letup until the return triphome. So, as you would expect, RodeoMaintenance Team members—in additionto being crackerjack mechanics in their ownAFSCs and proficient in a few other special-ties—are dedicated and tough. Only smalldegrees of difference in attitude, ability,cohesiveness and motivation separate indi-vidual teams from one another, but it’s theirperformance, both individually and collec-tively, that determines how well their air-crews will fare in the flying phases of the

USAF Photo by SSgt Lisa M. Zunzanyika



Umpireslots arefilled by

some of themost

experiencedsenior NCOmaintainers

in themobility air

force.

competition. Maintenance Umpire slots are filled by

some of the most experienced senior NCOmaintainers in the mobility air force. TheMaintenance Umpire’s task is straightfor-ward, if not always easy: Use standardinspection and observation criteria to per-form a series of impartial, graded evalua-tions on each aircraft and observe how wellMaintenance Teams comply with tech dataand safety requirements. Because of thenumber of aircraft and teams present forR2K, there were 15 Maintenance Umpireteams this year—three more than for Rodeo98—with eight members assigned to eachteam.

Every Maintenance Team is graded in fourprimary areas, with maximum attainablescores shown for each:

• An Aircraft Preflight (PRE) Inspection. A“zero defect” evaluation is worth 600 points;

• An Aircraft Basic Postflight/HomeStation Check (BPO/HSC) Inspection, 600points available;

• An Aircraft Refueling Evaluation, 100points available; and

• Daily observations of launch, recoveryand maintenance activities, as well as adher-ence to safety practices. 100 points for eachday of competition, 500 points available.

Upon arrival, Maintenance Teams receivea schedule informing them when, duringthe five days of competition, they’ll bereceiving their PRE, BPO/HSC andRefueling evaluations. Even though thesetasks are performed several times duringRodeo, each of them is formally graded onlyonce. The PRE and BPO/HSC evaluationsare done after Maintenance Teams havecompleted their own inspections. Using thesame inspection workcards the MaintenanceTeams use, Maintenance Umpires evaluatehow well the teams followed workcardrequirements, so attention to detail is vital.Aircraft Refueling Evaluations are assessed“live,” as they’re being performed, againusing the same checklists the MaintenanceTeams use. Safety, reliability and workingwithin the prescribed time limits determinescore here.

Daily observations are just that: Umpiresobserve Maintenance Team members as

USAF Photos by (Left to Right) TSgt James E. Lotz, Lotz, SSgt Jerry Morrison, SSgt Lisa M. Zunzanyika, and SrA Lee E. Rogers


they conduct day-to-day launch, recoveryand maintenance activities. Teams can losepoints here in one of two ways: Small pointdeductions for minor infractions, like notusing the right tools, or deviating from techdata or other directives; and big pointdeductions for commission of safety viola-tions that could result in injury (or worse).

All of this may sound pretty simple, butthere are plenty of opportunities throughoutthe competition for teams to lose points.Arriving with “awaiting maintenance” dis-crepancies, transcribing aircraft forms dur-ing the competition and failing to sign(acknowledge) Daily Observation Scoresheets no later than 0700 each competitionday result in point deductions. Bringing abackup aircraft, having a late takeoff (orabort) charged to maintenance, or bringing ateam with too many Rodeo 98 “veterans”are other point killers.

Sure, quality of maintenance and safety ineach of the four major areas earn high scoresand determine, to a large extent, whichMaintenance Teams will take home GoldMedals. But a careful reading of the Rodeo

It would be ahuge under-statement tosay Pope’sramp wasripe for amishap.

Operations Order and knowing the competi-tion rules (hint, hint) can sometimes meanthe difference between a Gold Medal and aSilver Medal. By the way: There is no trophyfor second place.

Safety Is the Word (Again! Really!)Was there potential for an aircraft mishap

or personal injury at Pope AFB? Absolutely!Consider the following: Thousands of peo-ple, new to the area, who were unfamiliarwith the parking ramp, base layout and sur-rounding community areas. Large numbersof diverse types of big aircraft all sharing thesame ramp space at the same time.Language barriers for international teams(no, I’m not talking about dealing with“Southern” here). Workdays (seemingly)without end. Ongoing ramp constructionprojects. Unfamiliar airspace. Record heatand humidity. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.You get the picture. Even without throwingin an ever-changing cast of 10 to 15 transientaircraft that seemed to be present all thetime, it would be a huge understatement tosay Pope’s ramp was ripe for a mishap to


occur. But the thought and effort put intomaking R2K safe were incredible!

Dozens of safety professionals fromAMC’s Directorate of Safety, 43d AirliftWing Safety (Pope’s host unit) and safetypersonnel from several other units workedclosely for months in advance, doing “a lit-tle” R2K risk management. They recognizedRodeo risks, considered ways to eliminateor minimize the hazards and got proactive.Immediately after arrival, the Rodeo com-petitors went through a Rodeo Safety in-processing, where they received a safetybriefing, welcome packages with flightlineand surrounding community safety guid-ance and a quick familiarization with on-and off-base hazards.

It also didn’t hurt that during opening cer-emonies, no less than three Air Force flagofficers made it clear that “Be safe” was onerule not to be violated. General Charles T.Robertson, Jr., AMC and USTRANSCOMCommander, gave the teams four Rules ofEngagement for R2K: “Learn somethingnew about air mobility, teach someone


Three AirForce flag

officersmade it

clear that“Be safe”

was onerule not to

be violated.

something new about air mobility, be safe,and have a helluva lot of fun.” MajorGeneral Silas R. Johnson, Jr., Command, AirMobility Warfare Center, and R2KCommander, reminded participants theemphasis was on “team”—from the smallestto the largest—and looking out for eachother was crucial. He also endorsed use ofORM throughout the competition. Finally,Brigadier General Richard J. Casey, 43 AWCommander, encouraged the teams to havefun, but, above all, to be safe. When threegenerals tell you to be safe and have fun, itleaves a lasting impression. And you knowwhat? Rodeo participants followed theirorders to the letter.

When I asked Maintenance Umpires andMaintenance Team members what kind ofemphasis they’d perceived when it came to“safety,” without exception, they all echoedwhat seemed to be the universal credo of“Work hard, play hard, be safe.” Not a sin-gle one of them felt like all the talk aboutsafety was just “eyewash.”

Here’s a sampling of Umpire comments.

USAF Photos by (Left to Right) SSgt Jeffrey Allen, MSgt P.J. Heimer, SSgt Lisa M. Zunzanyika, SrA Lee E. Rogers, Rogers, and MSgt James D. Mossman


Chief Jim Phillips, of the 19 ARG at Robins,Rodeo’s KC-135 Maintenance UmpireSuperintendent: “Safety is the Number Oneissue. It’s briefed to competitors before any-thing else.” Chief (S) Chris Aitken, of the 437AGS at Charleston, a C-141 MaintenanceUmpire said, “Safety is briefed to arrivingcompetitors, first by AMC Safety, then byPope Safety. The briefs are thorough andeveryone leaves with the understandingthat safety is absolutely paramount.”

Captain Bryan Boggs and MSgt GaryBrewster, both stationed at McChord, andheading the 62 AW’s C-141 MaintenanceTeam, said nearly in unison, “Safety is para-mount.” Mr. Rick Curiel, WS-10, the 97AMW C-5 Maintenance Team Chief, fromAltus, told me, “The safety briefs were asthorough as I’ve ever seen. We were all toldto have fun during the competition, but toplace safety above all else.”

The comments that best summarizedoverall impressions I got from everybody Ispoke with at Rodeo came from Chief JimEagle, a member of the AFRC IG Team at

Robins, and a C-141 Maintenance UmpireTeam Chief. “Just like throughout the AirForce, the Number One issue here at Rodeois safety. We have difficult, dangerous stuffto do and we must do it as safely as possible.We have to use Operational RiskManagement to minimize hazards, and it’sup to everybody—the individual and thesupervisor—to get the mission done safely.”

R2K: The CompetitionCompeting in this year’s Rodeo at Pope

AFB were 58 U.S. and seven internationalunits, with 65 aircraft representing sevenmajor weapon systems, crewed, supportedand maintained by upwards of 3000 person-nel. Major weapon systems vying for honorsthis year were the C-5, KC-10, C-17, KC-135,C-141, and the C-130/C-160 turboprop fam-ily. The Total Force concept—active, guardand reserve units working together—hasmade implementing the Expeditionary AirForce vision possible, so it was no surpriseto see that nearly half of the 58 USAF com-petitors were Air National Guard and Air

We havedifficult,dangerousstuff to doand wemust do itas safelyas possi-ble.


Force Reserve Command units. Units fromACC, AETC, PACAF and USAFE sent com-petition teams as did allied nations, includ-ing Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Egypt, France,South Korea and Turkey.

Maintenance competition immediatelyswung into high gear on Sunday, 7 May,with Preflight Inspection Evaluations, andas competition days rolled on, the pace forMaintenance Teams accelerated. As eachPRE, BPO/HSC, and Refueling Evaluationwas completed, Maintenance Team Chiefswere given a copy of the score sheet toreview for discrepancies, and given theopportunity to appeal the score if he/shefelt points had been deducted in error.Likewise, Maintenance Team Chiefsacknowledged Daily Observation scoresheets and, again, had the opportunity toappeal. But remember what I said earlierabout all the ways there were to lose points?Here was another. Maintenance appeals thatcouldn’t be backed up with hard evidencewithin one hour of the event conclusionmeant loss of an additional 100 points fromthe event score. Ouch!

Cumulative maintenance scores are post-ed throughout the competition, but in orderto preserve confidentiality of the “BestMaintenance Team” for each weapon sys-tem until the conclusion of Rodeo competi-tion, some scores are masked. Rodeo’sMaintenance Staff tallies overall mainte-nance results to determine best-in-categorywinners. These scores are also forwarded toRodeo Central, where they’re incorporatedwith the other competition scores derivedfrom flying, security forces, aerial port andother events to help determine overallRodeo award winners.

R2K Final ResultsWas the competition close? Let me put it

this way. I was afforded the privilege of see-ing Maintenance Teams’ raw scores. In onecase, a mere two points—remember, now,this is out of a maximum possible score of1800 points—separated the winner of theoverall “Best Maintenance” title for an air-frame from the second place competitor.That was no fluke. The greatest margin ofdifference between those awarded overall“Best Maintenance” title for an airframe andtheir nearest competitor was only 56 points.Yes, you could say that competition wasclose.

As you look over the list of MaintenanceTeams who can proclaim themselves titleholders (at least until Rodeo ‘02) in a “Best”


category, note that just as was true at Rodeo98, they come from active, guard, reserveand allied unit organizations. Doesn’t it justprove what we knew all along, that ourTotal Force is greater than the sum of itsindividual parts?

A Few Closing ObservationsFirst things first. AMC’s 43d Airlift Wing

and Pope AFB, host to R2K, did, handsdown, a magnificent job! When it came toproviding the atmosphere, the facilities andall the other necessities to make for a fun,safe, unforgettable Rodeo competition,General Casey and his Command Chief,Chief Ron Carter, made it world class all theway. Special “Kudos” to them and everyoneelse at Team Pope, who treated their Rodeoguests to a huge helping of hospitality,Pope-style!

Constant, positive encouragement fromall levels to “work safe, play safe” paid off.Based on the fact that there was some kindof R2K activity going on around the clock,it’s nothing short of miraculous that therewere no—that’s “zero”—serious injuries orequipment losses during Rodeo. Soundapplication of Risk Management reapedhuge dividends by keeping people andresources safe. So more “Kudos,” first to theSafety cadre, and then to everyone else—from the most junior ranking airman to thecommanders who provided the leader-ship—that made R2K a real success story.

Pride and professionalism were evident inevery person I had the pleasure of meeting.Everyone, from the security forces chargedwith defending the airfield, to the aerialport-types that make cargo movement hap-pen, to the maintainers who provide safe,reliable aircraft to the aircrews, knew theywere part of the same team. It was incredi-bly gratifying to see how well competitorsunderstood that teamwork and safety arethe keys to assuring victory in any contest.

As always, the challenge—and the acidtest—for all maintainers was to prepare andcare for their aircraft in the safest, mosteffective manner possible and give aircrewsthe safest, most reliable, FMC aircraft ontime. Sure, there were a couple of mainte-nance cancellations and a late takeoff or two,but Rodeo Maintainers, you did one helluvafine job of providing aircraft that were readyto execute their wartime mission and bringtheir crews back home safely. Well done!

The greatestmargin ofdifference

betweenthose

awardedoverall “Best

Mainten-ance” titlefor an air-frame and

their nearestcompetitor

was only 56points.


R2K Maintenance Award Winners

Best C-5 Maintenance Team 60 AMW (AMC), Travis AFB, CA

Best C-5 Preflight Team 439 AW (AFRC), Westover ARB, MA

Best C-5 BPO/HSC 349 AMW (AFRC), Travis AFB, CA

Best KC-10 Maintenance Team 305 AMW (AMC), McGuire AFB, NJ

Best KC-10 Preflight Team 305 AMW (AMC), McGuire AFB, NJ

Best KC-10 BPO/HSC Team 60 AMW (AMC), Travis AFB, CA

Best C-17 Maintenance Team 315 AW (AFRC), Charleston AFB, SC

Best C-17 Preflight Team 315 AW (AFRC), Charleston AFB, SC

Best C-17 BPO/HSC Team 315 AW (AFRC), Charleston AFB, SC

Best C-130/C-160 Maintenance Team France

Best C-130/C-160 Preflight Team 167 AW (ANG), Martinsburg, WV

Best C-130/C-160 BPO/HSC Team 3 AW (PACAF), Elmendorf AFB, AK

Best KC-135 Maintenance Team 19 ARG (AMC), Robins AFB GA

Best KC-135 Preflight Team 19 ARG (AMC), Robins AFB, GA

Best KC-135 BPO/HSC Team 22 ARW (AMC), McConnell AFB, KS

Best C-141 Maintenance Team 452 AMW (AFRC), March ARB, CA

Best C-141 Preflight Team 97 AMW (AETC), Altus AFB, OK

Best C-141 BPO/HSC Team 452 AMW (AFRC), March ARB, CA

Won the same category at Air Mobility Rodeo 98.

USAF Photo by MSgt Anderson Allamby

MR RICH GREENWOODP&W Flight SafetyHQ AFSC/SEFE

(Note: This article is for informational purposes only.Nothing contained herein is to be used in place of cur-rent Technical Order guidance. Remember: Alwaysuse and adhere to current tech data! Ed.)

T he Pratt & Whitney F100 series ofengines has been in service with the

USAF since the mid-1970s, logging over 11million engine flight hours in the F-15 and F-16 aircraft. Over this time it has proven to beone of the most reliable fighter engines everproduced.

Throughout those years, many changeshave been made in the F100 engine family,as have the missions of the aircraft in whichthey’re installed. The most significantengine change has been the introduction ofthe Digital Electronic Engine Control(DEEC) in the PW220/E model, which,among other things, allows the engine torun at peak performance throughout its life.

Excessivetip curl

could leadto liberation

of the tip.


The IssueRecently, 3rd stage low pressure turbine

(LPT) blade tip shroud curling has surfacedas an area of concern in the F100-PW-100/200/220/220E series of engines. Whatis tip curl? The 3rd stage LPT blades onthese engines are of a “shrouded” configu-ration, meaning they have a “T” shape withthe cross-piece (shroud) at the tip. Theshrouds of each blade interlock with theshrouds of the adjacent ones, helping todampen out vibrations. Curl refers to thetendency of the shrouds of the blades tostretch or “curl” in service when exposed tohigh temperatures for extended periods oftime. Although not readily apparent fromthe blade shown in Figure 1, there is curlingpresent at the blade tip. If allowed to contin-ue undetected, excessive tip curl could leadto liberation of the tip and damage to theturbine.

What causes 3rd stage LPT blade tip curl-ing? There are a few reasons. Changes inaircraft missions—such as when the F-16force went from a pure air-to-air role to

USAF Photo


eliminates the need for borescope inspec-tions for tip shroud curl. However, based onthe schedule that’s current as of this writing,the majority of the fleet won’t be retrofittedfor at least another 2 years.

Another action being taken to reduce theincidences of 3rd stage blade tip curl is mea-suring 2nd stage HPT blade tip clearancewhenever the low pressure turbine isremoved. Excessive clearance between 2ndstage HPT blade tips and their surroundingairseal allows the bypass of more hot gases,which raises the temperature of the 3rdstage LPT blade tips and can accelerate tipcurling. If 2nd stage HPT blade clearance istoo great, the entire high pressure turbinemust be replaced.

Finally—and this is where you, the flight-line and JEIM mechanic, come in—non-REPturbines require a focused periodicborescope inspection for signs of tip curl.Because of the repetitive nature of theinspection and personnel turnover, it isimportant to periodically review properinspection techniques to be sure the full ben-efit of the inspection is being realized. Youflightline and JEIM mechanics are the frontline of defense for this important inspection.Let’s review some of the basics.

First StepsThe first thing you need to do before

inspecting is to determine what type of air-craft/engine combination you are dealingwith and what part number blade is in theengine. The engine/airframe combinationdetermines the inspection interval, and theblade part number/type determines theinspection method. A caution here: Engine

include air-to-ground attack—have some-times resulted in operational usage exceed-ing original engine design specifications,subjecting the engines to higher tempera-tures for longer periods of time. Also, as theengine fleet has continued to age, morerefurbished parts are used during overhaul.When compared to brand new engines,engines with refurbished parts can run atslightly higher temperatures. These are themajor factors behind tip curling in F100 3rdstage LPT blades.

Reducing the RiskPratt & Whitney and the Air Force have

been working closely on this problem andhave taken several actions to mitigate therisk associated with 3rd stage LPT blade tipcurl. The most significant action is a com-plete redesign of the blade and disk assem-bly as part of the new ReliabilityEnhancement Program (REP) 4000 cycle fandrive turbine assembly. Installation of theREP turbine Air Force-wide is ongoing and

As theengine fleethascontinuedto age,morerefurbishedparts areused duringoverhaul.

Figure 1. PW 100/200 3rd Stage LPT Blade Tip.

PW100/200 Blade PW220/E Blade 4000 Cycle Blade

Figure 2. 3rd Stage LPT Blade Trailing Edge Identifying Features.

Trailing Edge Overhang

Straight Shroud

Trailing EdgeKnife Edge

Flared Shroud

Extended Shroud/TrailingEdge



are inspected at the leading edge throughthe AP6 borescope port. This is because theprime indicator of tip curl on PW100/200blades is wear of the rear knife edge, whilefor the PW220/E blades, it’s mismatchbetween adjacent blade shrouds.

Why the differences in inspection inter-vals? In the older PW100/200 engines, ahydro-mechanical fuel control is primarilyresponsible for fuel scheduling, while theDEEC takes care of it in the PW220/Eengines. Whereas a hydro-mechanically-controlled engine must be manually up-trimmed periodically to regain lost perfor-mance as the engine “wears” over its lifecycle, a DEEC-controlled engine is alwaysbeing trimmed for peak performance, everymoment of its life. This means that DEEC-controlled engines run at higher, “up-trimmed” temperature levels for more oftheir lives than hydro-mechanically-con-trolled engines. As mentioned earlier, it istime at temperature, not just peak tempera-ture, that induces tip curl.

You’ll notice that there’s a shorter inspec-tion interval for the F-16 outfitted with thePW220/E engine than for the F-15 outfittedwith the same engine. That’s because single-engine failure in an F-16, where you onlyhave one engine, can have a radically differ-ent outcome than single-engine failure in anF-15, where you have two engines.

You probably also noticed that the inspec-tion intervals on PW100/200 engines aregiven in terms of “EFH,” or “Engine FlightHours,” while PW220/E inspection inter-

It is time attemperature,not just peaktemperature,that inducestip curl.

vals are given in “HS3” hours, or “HotSection 3” hours. EFH is just that: The num-ber of hours the engine is flown. The firstinspection for these PW100/200 enginesisn’t due until the LPT has accumulated 800calculated cycles (Ccy) of operation. “HS3hours” requires a bit more explanation.

The PW220/E engines have an EngineDiagnostic Unit (EDU), and one of its manyfunctions is to keep track of “hot time”hours, or the number of hours the enginehas operated above a certain temperature.The PW100/200 engines don’t have an EDU.HS3 time is the number of hours the enginehas operated above a fan turbine inlet tem-perature (FTIT) of 915 degrees Centigrade.Different missions will generate differentamounts of HS3 time per EFH. Again, it’stime at temperature that is the driver for bladetip curl. Analysis has shown that HS3 time isthe best parameter to use to track blade tipcurl inspection times.

What To Look ForOK. Now you can identify the different

blade types and you understand whyinspection intervals vary for differentengine configurations. Now it’s time toinspect. But what are you inspecting for?

Let’s start with the PW100/200 engines.Per current tech data, you are going to crawlup the tailpipe with your trusty borescope,snake it through the 4th stage blades andvanes, and start looking at the trailing edgeknife-edge seals on the 3rd stage blade tips.You must carefully examine all blades,

Figure 4. PW100/200 3rd Stage LPT Blade Tip Curl Knife Edge.

Acceptable Blade Tip Knife Edge Thickness

.044” Comparator

Honeycomb Airseal



Differentblades mayhave slight-ly different

materialpropertiesand curl at

differentrates.

because different blades may have slightlydifferent material properties and curl at dif-ferent rates. If you find a knife edge that isworn down to the platform, congratula-tions! You’ve found rejectable curl! Thatbeing said, please be aware that as of thewriting of this article, there is a proposedT.O. revision to this inspection which isscheduled to come out in June 2000.Remember what I said about using currenttech data? This proposed change willrequire use of a comparator to actually mea-sure the knife-edge thickness. The compara-tor is just a calibrated piece of wire (in thiscase, it is 0.044 inches thick) that goesthrough the borescope. You’ll lay the wireup against the backside of the knife edge,and compare the thickness of the wire to thethickness of the knife edge. A knife edgethat’s thicker than the comparator meansthe blade is okay; thinner than the compara-tor and the blade is a reject. If this T.O. revi-sion is approved and accepted for use in thefield, Figure 4 shows how an acceptableknife edge would appear when viewedthrough the borescope.

For PW220/E-powered aircraft, theinspection is performed on the front side, orleading edge, of the blade through the AP6borescope port. What you’re looking for asan indicator of curl here is mismatchbetween adjacent blade tip shrouds. Per theinspection instructions, you will need a0.055-inch comparator to gauge therejectable mismatch. Lay the comparator

gauge on the inner diameter of a bladeshroud and compare the thickness of thecomparator to the difference in heightbetween the tip shroud of the blade beingmeasured and the adjacent blade tip shroud.See Figure 5. Is the difference in shroudheights greater than comparator thickness?If so, you have a reject. Slowly, with some-one turning the low pressure turbine, mea-sure each and every blade with the com-parator. It is very important that you do nottry to “eyeball” this inspection, as differentviewing angles can give the impression thatall blades are OK when they aren’t.

You’re the Last Line of DefenseExperience has shown that repeated

awareness training for this importantinspection is required for inspectors tomaintain their proficiency. Pratt & Whitneyrepresentatives periodically travel to AirForce bases to give Maintenance AwarenessBriefings. When a Maintenance AwarenessBriefing comes to your base, please makeevery effort to attend the session. It will giveyou updates and maintenance tips on 3rdstage tip curl inspections, as well as manyother issues. Your diligence in performingthese inspections will help keep the enginesrunning smoothly until retrofit of the REPturbine is completed.

Photos courtesy of author.

Figure 5. PW220/E 3rd Stage LPT Blade Tip Curl Inspection Using.055” Comparator.

Adjacent Blade Shroud

Curled Blade Shroud

Honeycomb Airseal

Shroud Mismatch

.055” Comparator


“It was a dark and stormy night…”No, we’re not looking for budding novel-

ists, but we would be interested in somegood, solid “There I Was” style accountswhich teach a good, solid safety lesson. Ifyour story is published in Flying Safety, we’llsend you one of our new coffee mugs or com-puter pads*, your choice, in appreciation foryour efforts.

We’ll even sign you as “anonymous,” if youlike.

Send your story to:

[email protected] or

Flying Safety MagazineAFSC/SEMM9700 G Avenue SEKirtland AFB NM 87117-5670

*Coffee and mouse not included.

Caught in the Eagle’s TalonsFor every mishap, there’s a whole

sequence of discrete events that leadup to it. Each of these events is likethe links in a chain: Break one ofthem and you break the chain, pre-venting the mishap from occurring.This near-deadly mishap was no ex-ception. See if you can spot the linkshere.

A Pneudraulics tech and threeElectro/Environmental (E&E) techswere checking out the anti-skid sys-tem on an F-15 Eagle. The Pneu-draulics tech was reading out eachstep in the Job Guide (JG) via inter-phone and operating/monitoringthe hydraulic mule. When the E&Etechs got a bad indication duringone of the anti-skid checks, theyneeded to dig into schematics tofind the cause of the problem. Sincethe Pneudraulics tech wasn’t need-ed for troubleshooting, he shutdown the mule and left to work an-other aircraft.

One of the troubleshooting stepsrequired checking wiring, startingwith a plug in one of the MLGwheel wells. E&E tech No. 1 wentthere and manually opened thedoors to gain access to the plug, butdidn’t install safety pins on thedoors. During the course of trou-bleshooting, several actions weretaken, and the original problem wasfixed, but only one member of theteam—E&E tech No. 1—knew ofevery action taken.

Clipped-Wing FalconIt should have been just another

ordinary night on the F-16 flightline.One of the troops was sick, though.He’d been experiencing stomachupset, vomiting, and was physicallyrun-down, but still reported forduty. When asked the usual“Anybody unprepared or unable toperform their regular dutiestonight?” question at roll call, hedecided he could hack it, and didn’tlet on he was under the weather.

Nevertheless, while cruising theflightline during his shift, the troopstarted feeling worse and worse andbegan missing radio calls. Yup,another wave of nausea was run-ning its course. When the bosscaught up to see if there was a prob-lem, he observed his troop “talkingto Ralph.” Even though the supervi-sor offered to relieve him so that hecould go to sick call, the troop shookhim off and communicated that hewas still able to hack it.

While cruising the flightline a lit-tle while later, this plucky troopbecame disoriented (a micro-sleepepisode, perhaps?) and regainedlucidity just in time to see that he


Once the Pneudraulics tech re-joined the team, the series of opchecks resumed, with him runningthe mule and reading out steps fromthe JG over the interphone. Thingsproceeded normally until an indica-tor light in the cockpit that shouldhave gone out remained illuminat-ed. E&E tech No. 1 in the cockpit re-membered he may not have recon-nected the MLG wheel well plug hedisconnected earlier and asked E&Etech No. 2 to check it out. When theplug was reconnected, the MLGdoors closed on E&E tech No. 2’shead and shoulders almost imme-diately, causing severe injuries.

Each of these techs was trainedand certified, with more than 5years’ experience on the F-15. Howdid they drop their guard like this?Over-confidence? Complacency?Preoccupation? Something else? Wedon’t know. But for all of you withless experience than these techs, thisnear-fatal mishap is a chilling re-minder why we are required to fol-low tech data step-by-step. Techdata “Warnings” and “Cautions”are useless if they’re ignored.

For all of you with just as much ormore experience than these techs,this near-fatal mishap illustrateswhy you, too, are required to followthe book. Remember: New main-tainers look to you to set the stan-dard for performing safe, qualityaircraft maintenance. Do it by thebook and they’ll follow your exam-

ple. Do it wrong, and it’s difficult to“untrain” a poor work habit out of atroop.

Follow tech data. Communicate.Work smart. Work safe.


Forms Documentation Isn’t“Optional”

Know what’s worse than askingsomeone to document your work inthe aircraft forms and not followingup to ensure it was done properly?Yourself being the one guilty ofpoorly documenting the aircraftforms—or not documenting thework at all.

If you’re ever tempted to skipdocumenting the 781s (orCAMS/GO81), and the thoughts“Because it’s required” or “It’s the rightthing to do” don’t motivate you, thenconsider the harm that could result.

Your failure to properly documentcould lead to equipment damage. Itcould also do serious damage toyour otherwise sterling reputation.However, in a worst case scenario,that momentary lapse in good judg-ment could lead to someone beingseriously injured or killed. Whichmeans you’ll still have paperwork tofill out: Accident reports, witnessstatements, stuff like that.

If the temptation to blow off doc-umenting your work lingers, thenthink about the following new, funand exciting things you could expe-rience if you hit the jackpot andyour willful neglect causes a seriousmishap.• You’ll get to spend lots of quality

time with the officers presidingover the Accident InvestigationBoard who, before beginning thequestioning, will first politely askyou to acknowledge in writingthat you understand your rightsas they’ve been read to you underArticle 31 of the UCMJ.

• You’ll get to spend more qualitytime with the local Area DefenseCounsel learning the meaning ofterms like “self-incrimination,”“willful dereliction of duty” and“pretrial restraint.” You’ll alsoattend the course, “How to WriteAn Effective PersonalMemorandum Asking the Courtfor Leniency in Sentencing, 101.”

• In addition to losing sleep andwondering what’s going to hap-pen to your career, you’ll have todeal with the reproachful looks ofthe man in the mirror every dayfor the rest of your life.‘Nuff said?

was about to collide with one of hisown jets. He reacted to avoid thecollision but stomped on the accel-erator instead of the brake pedal,and quickly attained rammingspeed.

The collision moved the nose ofthe Falcon 16 feet, resulting in dam-age to the total temp probe, AOAvane, and radome. The vehicle wastotaled, but the driver suffered onlyminor injuries (another seat beltsave!).

Toughness, courage and carryingyour own weight are traits we alladmire. But don’t jeopardize yoursafety or that of those around you.Know when to call “Time out” or“Knock it off.”

Crippled WarthogNow, having thrown in our two

cents worth about forms documen-tation, here’s a real-life mishap thatshould give you additional pause tothink twice about documentingyour work in the forms.

The troop showed up in the PhaseDock to do a rig check on the A-10’sright MLG door. A quick survey ofthe right MLG door area revealedthe door rods were connected butnot safety-wired. Also, the outboardpushrod and jam nut were nearlybottomed out. The aircraft formsmade no mention of the gear doorbeing out of rig, and the Phase Dockchief stated the rods had been dis-connected FOM for re-torquing ofthe MLG trunions. Based on thisinformation, and per tech data, a rigcheck—but not a complete re-rig-ging of the door—was required.

Whether or not the troop had nag-ging doubts about the door beingproperly rigged, we don’t know, butabsent any documentation or infor-mation to the contrary, he pressedon with a gear retraction and rigcheck. All it took was one landinggear “Up” and “Down” cycle to do$20,000 damage to the structure.

Once again: ‘Nuff said?

USAF Photo by SSgt Andrew N. Dunaway, ll

30 FLYING SAFETY ● August 2000✩ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 2000-673-366/43076

USAF Class A Mishaps

❏ A Class A mishap is defined as one where there is loss of life, injury resulting in permanent total disability,destruction of an AF aircraft, and/or property damage/loss exceeding $1 million.

❏ These Class A mishap descriptions have been sanitized to protect privilege.❏ Unless otherwise stated, all crewmembers successfully ejected/egressed from their aircraft.❏ ”♣” denotes a destroyed aircraft.❏ “✶” denotes a Class A mishap that is of the “non-rate producer” variety. Per AFI 91-204 criteria, only those

mishaps categorized as “Flight Mishaps” are used in determining overall Flight Mishap Rates. Non-rate pro-ducers include the Class A “Flight-Related,” “Flight-Unmanned Vehicle,” and “Ground” mishaps that areshown here for information purposes.

❏ Flight, ground, and weapons safety statistics are updated daily and may be viewed at the following webaddress by “.gov” and “.mil” users: http://www-afsc.saia.af.mil/AFSC/RDBMS/Flight/stats/index.html

❏ Current as of 25 Jun 00.

FY99 Flight Mishaps (Oct 98 - Jun 99)

26 Class A Mishaps8 Fatalities

20 Aircraft Destroyed

FY00 Flight Mishaps (Oct 99 - Jun 00)

13 Class A Mishaps5 Fatalities

8 Aircraft Destroyed

3 Oct ♣ While conducting a SAR mission, a UH-1N went down.17 Nov ♣ Two F-16Cs flying a night vision goggle upgrade sortie collided

during a VID intercept. One pilot ejected and was recovered uninjured. The other pilot returned safely to base.

22 Nov An OA-10A departed the departure end of the runway.The pilot ejected successfully.

6 Dec ✶ An RQ-4A Global Hawk UAV was extensively damaged while taxiingafter landing.

10 Dec A C-130E touched down short of the active runway, thendiverted to another airfield and belly-landed. Threepersonnel were fatally injured.

15 Dec An HH-60G rolled over at an LZ following a hard landing.20 Jan ♣ An A-10 crashed on RTB. The pilot was fatally injured.16 Feb ♣ An F-16CG on a routine training mission experienced an engine

malfunction. The pilot ejected.16 Feb ♣ An F-16DG flying a night vision goggle upgrade sortie crashed.

Both crewmembers ejected.28 Feb ✶ A maintainer sustained fatal injuries after falling from the lower

crew entry ladder on a C-5.19 Mar ♣ An F-16C crashed while performing at an airshow. The pilot was

fatally injured.31 May An F-15E was damaged after a high-speed abort.2 Jun A C-17A sustained main landing gear damage during landing.16 Jun ♣ An F-16C on a routine training mission had an engine malfunction.

The pilot ejected successfully.21 Jun ♣ During egress off target during a ground attack sortie, the pilot

ejected successfully from an F-16CG.


86th Airlift WingRamstein Air Base, Germany

On 16 July 1998, Transient Maintenance crews were in the process ofservicing several aircraft which had been diverted to Ramstein ABbecause of bad weather at Spangdahlem AB. At 1150 local time, theTransient Maintenance board room operator was notified that an addi-tional diverted A-10 would be landing in a few minutes. Due to mainte-nance actions being performed on the initially diverted aircraft, the boardroom operator was unable to make radio contact with the maintenancecrews. So, Herr Meyer was dispatched to inform the technicians thatanother A-10 would be arriving soon. After informing his teammatesabout the additional aircraft, he proceeded back to the shop.

At the junction between taxiways Alpha and Charlie, he observed a con-tractor delivery truck on taxiway Charlie heading towards the runway. Atthis time he noted an A-10 on short final. He did not hear any radio traf-fic from the vehicle or the tower. It appeared that the vehicle was notcleared into the east Controlled Movement Area. Due to his completecomprehension of this area from his constant vigilance in day-to-dayactivities, he knew this area on Taxiway Charlie was not in sight of thetower. He accelerated towards the vehicle in hopes of intercepting itbefore it made its way to the Controlled Movement Area. The driver failedto act on the rotating beacon and flashing of the headlights from HerrMeyer’s vehicle, entered the Controlled Movement Area, and continueddriving towards the runway. At this point Herr Meyer understood thepossible catastrophic situation at hand if he did not act fast, so he imme-diately radioed the tower to inform the air traffic controllers about therunway incursion. At this time the A-10 was about one mile out. The vehi-cle continued driving towards the runway and within a couple of secondsafter the radio transmission, the A-10 received the message from the towerand executed a go around. The A-10 overflew the vehicle at a safe altitudeand came around for an uneventful landing. Herr Meyer’s attentivenessto his surroundings prevented a potential catastrophe, but most impor-tantly may have saved human lives.

HERR ULRICH MEYER

USAF Photos by (Clockwise from Top Left): SSgt Jeffrey Allen, Allen, SSgt Jerry Morrison, TSgt James E. Lotz, Allen, Allen, MSgt Steven M. Turner, SSgt Lisa M. Zunzanyika, and MSgt Perry J. Heimer