Airline Pilot Forums

Airline Pilot Forums was designed to be a community where working airline pilots can share ideas and information about the aviation field. In the forum you will find information about major and regional airline carriers, career training, interview and job seeker help, finance, and living the airline pilot lifestyle.




View Full Version : 😔 Guard C-130 Down


UAL T38 Phlyer
05-02-2018, 08:45 AM
Guard C-130 down near Savanah. Doesn’t look good......

Another site (unverified) says it is a Puerto Rico Guard plane, was on its way to the boneyard, and had been on the Savanah ramp for several days....

They also said two dead, and three survivors. Steep roll just after liftoff. :(

Again, all unverified.


Excargodog
05-02-2018, 08:51 AM
Guard C-130 down near Savanah. Doesn’t look good......


Local news is claiming a PR ANG aircraft with five aboard. And no, it doesn't look good.

rickair7777
05-02-2018, 09:56 AM
Looks like no survivors now. Godspeed.

https://www.ajc.com/news/breaking-news/breaking-military-plane-crashes-near-savannah/7hZfZUOZPzp15ISzdyasPK/


andreas500
05-02-2018, 12:31 PM
Puerto Rico ANG C-130 crashed near Savannah GA airport earlier today. Reports that all 5 on board were killed. Always sad. RIP

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/savannah-plane-crash-today-2018-05-02-live-updates/ (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/savannah-plane-crash-today-2018-05-02-live-updates/)

bizzlepilot
05-02-2018, 12:43 PM
Terrible news. It's been a rough year it seems.

trip
05-02-2018, 12:45 PM
R.I.P

This is difficult to watch.

Military cargo plane crash caught on camera outside Savannah GA | Island Packet (http://www.islandpacket.com/news/local/article210307899.html)

USMCFLYR
05-02-2018, 02:06 PM
Fair winds and following seas airmen. :(

bizzlepilot
05-02-2018, 02:25 PM
R.I.P

This is difficult to watch.

Military cargo plane crash caught on camera outside Savannah GA | Island Packet (http://www.islandpacket.com/news/local/article210307899.html)

Whoa I hadn't seen the video, that is tough. Prayers for their families and unit.

AirBear
05-02-2018, 09:04 PM
Crash was caught on video. I flew C-130's back in the 1980's and I'm still scratching my head. If a prop had a major issue, or if wing structural occurred that might explain it. News says (not exactly always accurate) the plane had just taken off.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/02/us/military-plane-crash-savannah-georgia/index.html

sRYu9OcEISo

HuggyU2
05-02-2018, 09:14 PM
I’m hearing from a Herc person it was headed to the boneyard. YGBSM.
Those older Hercs need to be parked.

C130driver
05-02-2018, 09:56 PM
I’m hearing from a Herc person it was headed to the boneyard. YGBSM.
Those older Hercs need to be parked.

Js now, I hated the H..every time I took off I spent the whole flight wondering what would go wrong today. They had their run, they all need to be sent to the bone yard.

VSTOLG4
05-02-2018, 10:23 PM
RIP fellow aviators!

TiredSoul
05-03-2018, 12:51 AM
I don’t know anything about those engines, prop governor and backup or fail safe systems.
Any chance an outboard prop going flat or even beta could have caused this?

Klondike Bear
05-03-2018, 02:20 AM
Js now, I hated the H..every time I took off I spent the whole flight wondering what would go wrong today. They had their run, they all need to be sent to the bone yard.

This one was an E not an H.

4V14T0R
05-03-2018, 04:52 AM
What about something similar to what happened a few years ago overseas with a charter or cargo company (the name is escaping me, maybe National) and the weight shifting on takeoff?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

JTwift
05-03-2018, 05:06 AM
This one was an E not an H.

Even worse

Fdxlag2
05-03-2018, 05:28 AM
Crash was caught on video. I flew C-130's back in the 1980's and I'm still scratching my head. If a prop had a major issue, or if wing structural occurred that might explain it. News says (not exactly always accurate) the plane had just taken off.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/02/us/military-plane-crash-savannah-georgia/index.html

sRYu9OcEISo

I saw part of something that looked similar in an F-15 crash after take off. Essentially the aileron rudder interconnect was installed backwards. The faster you went the more the rudder put you out of control. I guess the points are, they will figure it out, and it could be a lot of things.

F4E Mx
05-03-2018, 05:59 AM
Even worse

The flight path may possibly indicate a split flap occurred on flap retraction? the left flap retracted from the take-off position but the right one didn't and then they couldn't lower the left flap back into position to compensate. Don't know if that is even possible on the C-130. The aircraft is rotating about the roll axis even in a 90 degrees nose-down attitude. Beyond tragic. Prayers for the families.

rickair7777
05-03-2018, 07:24 AM
The flight path may possibly indicate a split flap occurred on flap retraction? the left flap retracted from the take-off position but the right one didn't and then they couldn't lower the left flap back into position to compensate. Don't know if that is even possible on the C-130. The aircraft is rotating about the roll axis even in a 90 degrees nose-down attitude. Beyond tragic. Prayers for the families.

Looks like something asymmetric... engine out, flaps, elevators. Too bad they didn't send it to DM last month :(

rickair7777
05-03-2018, 07:31 AM
I saw part of something that looked similar in an F-15 crash after take off. Essentially the aileron rudder interconnect was installed backwards. The faster you went the more the rudder put you out of control. I guess the points are, they will figure it out, and it could be a lot of things.

I think it was a brief stopover in SAV, probably not long enough for controls to get mis-rigged.

sailingfun
05-03-2018, 07:39 AM
Looks like something asymmetric... engine out, flaps, elevators. Too bad they didn't send it to DM last month :(

Rumor only:Lost an engine after departure and on the return to SAV lost a second engine same side.

tahoejace
05-03-2018, 07:49 AM
Js now, I hated the H..every time I took off I spent the whole flight wondering what would go wrong today. They had their run, they all need to be sent to the bone yard.
Dramatic much? :rolleyes:

AirBear
05-03-2018, 07:54 AM
Rumor only:Lost an engine after departure and on the return to SAV lost a second engine same side.

Still should have been able to fly with 2 out on the same side as long as the plane weighed less than 120K. We practiced this in the Sim. Could have been a number of things: rudder hardover, prop malfunction and would not feather or the crew didn't get to that point in time. C-130E's do not have auto-feather, when an engine quits you have to manually pull the condition level to feather. Always a chance to pull the wrong lever too, that's why our SOP's call for verifying the correct lever with the F/E.

AirBear
05-03-2018, 08:03 AM
Dramatic much? :rolleyes:

No, reality. Old airplanes maintained by 19 yr olds. In my airline and fractional aviation career from 1989 until last year I've only had one incident where I could have declared an emergency (no flap landing).

In 2700 hours flying C-130E's from 1982-89 I had ELEVEN inflight emergencies. 8 were engine failures/shut downs, 3 were hydraulic boost pack malfunctions. Nothing like uncommanded control inputs to get your attention.

Fdxlag2
05-03-2018, 08:14 AM
I think it was a brief stopover in SAV, probably not long enough for controls to get mis-rigged.

Agreed, wasn’t trying to diagnose. Just pointing out an aileron or rudder surface could cause the same flight profile.

rickair7777
05-03-2018, 09:51 AM
Agreed, wasn’t trying to diagnose. Just pointing out an aileron or rudder surface could cause the same flight profile.

Yes they could. Almost has to be something mechanically catastrophic. It was going to the boneyard, so presumably no cargo. I assume even two engines out on one side would be manageable in an empty C-130?

JTwift
05-03-2018, 10:27 AM
The flight path may possibly indicate a split flap occurred on flap retraction? the left flap retracted from the take-off position but the right one didn't and then they couldn't lower the left flap back into position to compensate. Don't know if that is even possible on the C-130. The aircraft is rotating about the roll axis even in a 90 degrees nose-down attitude. Beyond tragic. Prayers for the families.

C-130s have asymmetrical flap protection (left vs right side) but not split flap protection (onboard left flap vs inboard left flap)

JTwift
05-03-2018, 10:30 AM
No, reality. Old airplanes maintained by 19 yr olds. In my airline and fractional aviation career from 1989 until last year I've only had one incident where I could have declared an emergency (no flap landing).

In 2700 hours flying C-130E's from 1982-89 I had ELEVEN inflight emergencies. 8 were engine failures/shut downs, 3 were hydraulic boost pack malfunctions. Nothing like uncommanded control inputs to get your attention.

You’re not factoring in the MTBF on parts that the military is willing to accept that airlines aren’t. If a part has a MTBF (Mean Time Before Failure) of 200 hours, the military might think that’s fine, but t the airlines will laugh you out of the room.

Those 19 year olds right out of MX school have oversight by 5 and 7 levels. It’s not like some kid is just Slapping things together.

JohnBurke
05-03-2018, 02:23 PM
Even worse

Don't feel bad. I flew the A.

Great airplane, when the wings stayed on.

Hrkdrivr
05-03-2018, 03:08 PM
Still should have been able to fly with 2 out on the same side as long as the plane weighed less than 120K. We practiced this in the Sim. Could have been a number of things: rudder hardover, prop malfunction and would not feather or the crew didn't get to that point in time. C-130E's do not have auto-feather, when an engine quits you have to manually pull the condition level to feather. Always a chance to pull the wrong lever too, that's why our SOP's call for verifying the correct lever with the F/E.

You need weight below 120k and you MUST have 160 KIAS, or you need to unload or descend to get the speed. Hopefully you have the altitude. If you've lost 2 on the same side, you're heavy/slow and the engineer instinctively reaches up and closes the bleeds on the 2 good engines, you'll have more yaw than the very large rudder can overcome.

The video looks like the airplane rolled left and then yawed hard left and just quit flying.

A Southern Air plane crashed in the 80s and it seems similar. The setup was different, but that plane yawed so quickly into the simulated dead engine the airplane pretty much turned sideways in flight and stalled/crashed.

RIP to the crew...Here's a toast.

JackStraw
05-03-2018, 03:15 PM
Rumor only:Lost an engine after departure and on the return to SAV lost a second engine same side.

That doesn’t explain a hard over roll like that though.

C130driver
05-03-2018, 03:41 PM
Dramatic much? :rolleyes:

Maybe it came across like that, but I’m dead serious. At least towards the end of the H stint on active duty they were poorly maintained (to no fault of the hard working maintainers - just lack of money), beat to death and worn out.

tahoejace
05-03-2018, 04:21 PM
Maybe it came across like that, but I’m dead serious. At least towards the end of the H stint on active duty they were poorly maintained (to no fault of the hard working maintainers - just lack of money), beat to death and worn out.

I know what you mean, I've been flying these things for 16 years. You're right, they're tired, but I think there's a difference between expecting an HSI to fail and expecting a catastrophic failure causing a Class A. The Air Force flies a lot of parts to failure, but I'm not walking out to every airplane expecting it to crash. I think there's something else to blame here besides just being an old, tired, poorly maintained airplane. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm not one to jump on the aging warhorse bandwagon until I see some facts that point in that direction. At this point we don't have any.

C130driver
05-03-2018, 08:05 PM
I know what you mean, I've been flying these things for 16 years. You're right, they're tired, but I think there's a difference between expecting an HSI to fail and expecting a catastrophic failure causing a Class A. The Air Force flies a lot of parts to failure, but I'm not walking out to every airplane expecting it to crash. I think there's something else to blame here besides just being an old, tired, poorly maintained airplane. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm not one to jump on the aging warhorse bandwagon until I see some facts that point in that direction. At this point we don't have any.

Fair enough, I am very curious to see the AIB when it comes out; hopefully there is something we can all learn from it when it does.

HuggyU2
05-03-2018, 11:27 PM
Fair enough, I am very curious to see the AIB when it comes out; hopefully there is something we can all learn from it when it does.
Agreed.
And let's hope... that until then... the unnecessary and unprofessional public speculation stops.

A Squared
05-04-2018, 02:37 AM
This one was an E not an H.

No, it was an H, #65-0968

A Squared
05-04-2018, 02:42 AM
I don’t know anything about those engines, prop governor and backup or fail safe systems.
Any chance an outboard prop going flat or even beta could have caused this?


It's possible. There are systems in the prop intended to prevent a prop going into flat pitch in flight, but like anything, they're not infallible. I know of at least one instance where a prop has gone below the low-pitch stop in flight.

A Squared
05-04-2018, 02:47 AM
C-130E's do not have auto-feather, when an engine quits you have to manually pull the condition level to feather.

As noted, it was an H, not an E. True, neither the E nor the H had autofeather, but they both have negative torque sensing which will drive the prop toward feather until the negative torque condition is alleviated. It's not autofeather, but it does dramatically reduce the drag of a windmilling prop.

A Squared
05-04-2018, 02:52 AM
C-130s have asymmetrical flap protection (left vs right side) but not split flap protection (onboard left flap vs inboard left flap)

And the asymmetrical flap protection is not foolproof. If the flap drive separates between the 90 degree gearbox and the flap drive screw, it's outside of the asymmetrical flap sensor. This exact failure happened to a co-worker bout 6 months ago.

Han Solo
05-04-2018, 04:37 AM
Agreed.
And let's hope... that until then... the unnecessary and unprofessional public speculation stops.

*shrug*
It's not like we're on the news telling millions or somebody in the chain of command taking punitive action based upon speculation. What's happening here doesn't hurt anybody. In a month the truth will come out and people will either look like geniuses or asses and likely it'll be forgotten by the majority anyway. Discussions revolving around safety shouldn't be stifled and are most certainly not unprofessional.

JohnBurke
05-04-2018, 05:22 AM
It's possible. There are systems in the prop intended to prevent a prop going into flat pitch in flight, but like anything, they're not infallible. I know of at least one instance where a prop has gone below the low-pitch stop in flight.

An overspeed with a failure to pitch lock and a runaway propeller can cause a severe yawing motion and application of power makes it worse, as does any increase in airspeed.

aeroengineer
05-04-2018, 05:49 AM
According to one witness aircraft impacted flat. Base on the condition of the tail/rudder I'm inclined to agree. Maybe trying to recover from whatever occurred and just ran out of altitude. My .02.https://www.military.com/daily-news/2018/05/02/air-national-guard-c-130-has-crashed-near-georgia-reports.html

rickair7777
05-04-2018, 06:07 AM
According to one witness aircraft impacted flat. Base on the condition of the tail/rudder I'm inclined to agree. Maybe trying to recover from whatever occurred and just ran out of altitude. My .02.https://www.military.com/daily-news/2018/05/02/air-national-guard-c-130-has-crashed-near-georgia-reports.html

The video shows vertical and rolling but it does look like the roll might have stopped and pitch up started at the last moment.

A Squared
05-04-2018, 07:04 AM
The video shows vertical and rolling but it does look like the roll might have stopped and pitch up started at the last moment.

FWIW, my first reaction on seeing the pictures of the wreckage was that it must have hit in a fairly level attitude.

Yoda2
05-04-2018, 07:40 AM
Something else to consider is that historically [not saying it's the case here] when an aircraft is prepped for a flight to the boneyard, especially to meet the ax [vs flyable storage] they are often stripped to various degrees and also low time/cycle components are removed and replaced with high time/cycle, sometimes nearly run out components.

As an example, I know of a flight, many years ago, where a ferry crew delivered a 4 engine jet airliner for demolition. Besides being prepped for its 2 Hr last flight, it had been stripped to the point of being a lighter weight than even the factory had ever flown one; so the crew had to extrapolate data... And flying with essentially a ferry kit of instruments.

Apparently this accident aircrew was very experienced, as is typical of these sorts of flights; so I am of the opinion that this was not likely pilot error, more likely something they did not have the ability to deal with.

God bless this crew, and all of our troops...

Klondike Bear
05-04-2018, 08:44 AM
No, it was an H, #65-0968

Ok I guess I’m wrong. I had a few hours in an old 65 model WC and that one was an E. Because of that I figured they were all Es. I’m going to stop speculating because I have no idea what went wrong or even what model Herk it was.

Snag41
05-04-2018, 09:59 AM
Definitely an "H" model. After they left Keesler, they were sent to Willow Grove ARS for storage. Once we had our E models taken away, and then the 4 H-3 loaners taken away (2 to C Springs; 2 to Niagara) in late 2006/early 2007, we got permission to fly the WC-130H's. There were no rollers in them, so not much chance of carrying cargo... we flew them on off station trainers and simply to maintain currency (kind of like a flying club at that point). Eventually it was discovered that a few of them had some serious cracks in the wing structure (don't remember exactly where, and I think two were pretty much no longer flyable). Once Willow Grove closed, the remaining WC-130's went to the TN (Nashville) ANG and I guess on to the PRANG after TN. I think most of them had the modified nose for the fulton recovery system, as they actually started out as HC-130's... They were old then and I was surprised to hear they're still being used, esp considering the fact (at the time), that putting rollers in them was out of the question and they're usefulness was severely limited (considering AF mobility operations and the missions we fly and the way we move/handle cargo). I wish they'd been retired earlier and we weren't having this conversation today.

hindsight2020
05-04-2018, 11:52 AM
It may be too soon, but I think this is going to expedite the discussion about the fate of the flying mission for the PRANG. It's been a decade and a half of back and forth regarding the follow-on mission and potential outright flying mission loss. At least such has been the case since they lost the fighters.

RC-26s were discussed back a while ago but a certain congressional delegation were apendage-blocking PR from having them because one Congressperson flies them (or used to) in his home state (RUMINT). At any rate, for a while it looked like the flying mission was over for the unrepresented territory of Puerto Rico, flying these sloppy third hand me down airframes. Local leadership apparently had insisted in the push for Hs due to having the extra crews (a J model or RC mission would represent aircrew job losses for the wing, so political interests abound).

This accident changes the game imo. Hopefully it galvanizes an improvement in conditions, though it could very well likely represent complete and permanent ANG mission loss for the territory on account of lack of political top cover. What else is new with colonialism....And I digress.

F4E Mx
05-04-2018, 12:50 PM
As critical as the Caribbean is I don't see why the USAF doesn't have an active-duty base at the old Ramey AFB with a Guard unit as tenant. Same for the Navy base at Roosevelt Roads and their associated Air Station. And why would you have decrepit C-130s with wing cracks as weather airplanes? Surely they were not asked to fly into hurricanes in those things?

4FanFlyer
05-04-2018, 12:59 PM
And why would you have decrepit C-130s with wing cracks as weather airplanes? Surely they were not asked to fly into hurricanes in those things?

Those tails aren't currently flying the weather reconnaissance mission. They did in a past life.

F15andMD11
05-04-2018, 01:21 PM
...Old airplanes maintained by 19 yr olds... Not in the ANG! I’ll take Guard maintenance any day!:cool:

AirBear
05-04-2018, 02:46 PM
Not in the ANG! I’ll take Guard maintenance any day!:cool:

That's true, you would have more experienced maintainers in a Guard unit. Those guys were in the same boat as many B-52 pilots. The plane was older than they were. I flew 1964 E models 30 years ago, I can't imagine flying a 65 model after all this time. And PR doesn't have the best weather for long term aircraft health.

rickair7777
05-04-2018, 03:00 PM
As critical as the Caribbean is I don't see why the USAF doesn't have an active-duty base at the old Ramey AFB with a Guard unit as tenant. Same for the Navy base at Roosevelt Roads and their associated Air Station. And why would you have decrepit C-130s with wing cracks as weather airplanes? Surely they were not asked to fly into hurricanes in those things?

Weather mission is not priority for new planes. New planes have the latest technical capabilities which are intended for warfighting. Weather is always going to be hand-me-downs. I "assume" they pay extra special attention to the structure of aircraft so employed.

hydrostream
05-04-2018, 04:44 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldwWfQb4Odo

Start watching at 2:40

:(

PowderFinger
05-04-2018, 04:52 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldwWfQb4Odo

Start watching at 2:40

:(

That was some serious yaw. :(

B757
05-04-2018, 06:03 PM
That was some serious yaw. :(..My condolences for the families and friends..It does look like one or both engines went to reverse thrust on the left side..Is this possible to select in flight..??..C130 drivers..??

Fly safe,
B757

A Squared
05-04-2018, 07:54 PM
..My condolences for the families and friends..It does look like one or both engines went to reverse thrust on the left side..Is this possible to select in flight..??..C130 drivers..??

Fly safe,
B757

Yes, it is possible to select reverse in flight, but You'd have to lift the throttle up over the flight idle gate. I can't imagine any scenario where someone would do that, even unintentionally on a departure. There have been mechanical failures which have resulted in in-flight prop reversing. That would seem more likely, if prop reversing is a factor.

rickair7777
05-04-2018, 08:00 PM
..My condolences for the families and friends..It does look like one or both engines went to reverse thrust on the left side..Is this possible to select in flight..??..C130 drivers..??

Fly safe,
B757

On any turboprop the potential exists if the interlocks/safeties fail, or if the hub mechanism fails, for the prop to unintentionally go into Beta (low/reserve pitch). Usually with bad results.

Grumble
05-04-2018, 08:48 PM
Something else to consider is that historically [not saying it's the case here] when an aircraft is prepped for a flight to the boneyard, especially to meet the ax [vs flyable storage] they are often stripped to various degrees and also low time/cycle components are removed and replaced with high time/cycle, sometimes nearly run out components.

As an example, I know of a flight, many years ago, where a ferry crew delivered a 4 engine jet airliner for demolition. Besides being prepped for its 2 Hr last flight, it had been stripped to the point of being a lighter weight than even the factory had ever flown one; so the crew had to extrapolate data... And flying with essentially a ferry kit of instruments.

Apparently this accident aircrew was very experienced, as is typical of these sorts of flights; so I am of the opinion that this was not likely pilot error, more likely something they did not have the ability to deal with.

God bless this crew, and all of our troops...

Military aircraft going to Davis Monthan for storage must show up in a full mission capable status. Junkers are rejected... it’s war reserve storage. We had to cannibalize several fleet jets a few years ago in order to send another down there to the boneyard. Sounds backwards, until the balloon goes up and those airplanes are called upon.

True junkers that have corrosion/fatigue or other unrepairable issues usually wind up on a stick somewhere after being stripped of useable parts.

Dirty30
05-04-2018, 08:54 PM
Those were devastating news, I knew some of those guys personally so it just hurts even more. I have nothing but good things to say about those guys and the rest of the PRANG. Hoping this incident drives some positive change, they deserve it. I'll never forget those guys, may they RIP and hopefully their families find some peace.

VSTOLG4
05-04-2018, 10:36 PM
The second half of that youtube video above is going to help the investigation big time. Scary to see an airplane yaw around a turn like that and even scarier to watch the results. RIP aviators.

A Squared
05-04-2018, 10:55 PM
The second half of that youtube video above is going to help the investigation big time. Scary to see an airplane yaw around a turn like that and even scarier to watch the results. RIP aviators.

Yes, seeing that it was yawing well before it was rolling would seem to point away from aileron malfunction or asymmetric flap condition.

trip
05-05-2018, 06:45 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldwWfQb4Odo

Start watching at 2:40

:(

It looked like a power application on the right side as indicated by exhaust smoke followed by the VMC roll.

BDGERJMN
05-05-2018, 08:15 AM
Those were devastating news, I knew some of those guys personally so it just hurts even more. I have nothing but good things to say about those guys and the rest of the PRANG. Hoping this incident drives some positive change, they deserve it. I'll never forget those guys, may they RIP and hopefully their families find some peace.

Dirty, I'm sorry for your loss. Very difficult to watch that. My hope is that the mishap investigation will glean something all Herc (and similar airframe) crews can learn from in prevention of future mishaps.

My thoughts and prayers to the crew, families/friends and squadron with a very difficult loss/circumstances!

joepilot
05-05-2018, 11:01 AM
Military aircraft going to Davis Monthan for storage must show up in a full mission capable status. Junkers are rejected... it’s war reserve storage. We had to cannibalize several fleet jets a few years ago in order to send another down there to the boneyard. Sounds backwards, until the balloon goes up and those airplanes are called upon.

True junkers that have corrosion/fatigue or other unrepairable issues usually wind up on a stick somewhere after being stripped of useable parts.

The aircraft will be fully mission capable. On paper.

The engines will have been exchanged for the oldest, most trouble prone engines on the base. Same with the radar and radios.

Joe

hydrostream
05-05-2018, 09:03 PM
The helicopter I flew there went straight to the shredder and only a few of them were put into shrink wrap. We definitely stripped them of the mission equipment too, even the ones being stored. They were as bare bones as we could get them.

Han Solo
05-06-2018, 05:03 AM
It looked like a power application on the right side as indicated by exhaust smoke followed by the VMC roll.

I noticed that as well.

The aircraft will be fully mission capable. On paper.

The engines will have been exchanged for the oldest, most trouble prone engines on the base. Same with the radar and radios.

Joe

Exactly. The one jet I took to the boneyard was safe per the forms but you know MX put the most troublesome parts into that jet before it left. In addition, the mission gear was in shambles and much of it didn't work.

Castle Bravo
05-06-2018, 06:24 AM
I took 2 jets to the Bone Yard (one of which, Ghost Rider, has returned to service). They were stripped down to min equipment required for flight for min crew (all extra ejection seats removed, etc), but MX did not install or swap out any older parts just to send it the Bone Yard.
We still had snow in the wheel wells when we landed in Arizona, so the Bone Yard civilians had a snowball fight before it all melted.

nfnsquared
05-06-2018, 11:40 AM
Yeah, the G-model BUFF that I flew to the boneyard was definitely not mission ready. No engines were swapped or anything like that, but the nav systems were stripped and the flight was flown unpressurized, at/below 10K....

It was like a giant tweet flight.

Hueypilot
05-06-2018, 12:45 PM
No, it was an H, #65-0968

The WC-130Hs started out as E-models and were modified into HC-130Hs before being further modified into WC-130Hs.

They are basically Super Es. They have many of the sub-systems of the E (GTC/ATM, etc), but have the -15 engines of the H.

The only thing we know here is they departed controlled flight. What precipitated that is unknown at this time. There's rumor out there they were having some kind of propulsion problem, which would make sense given the yaw in the video. However, a large range of problems could have caused that...everything from mechanical problems to improper pilot inputs during a mechanical failure. It could've been a combination of a VMCA roll and a stall. Time will tell. No sense in getting too invested in any particular theory.

Until the AIB/SIB is released, just pray for the families left behind.

Dirty30
05-06-2018, 03:38 PM
Dirty, I'm sorry for your loss. Very difficult to watch that. My hope is that the mishap investigation will glean something all Herc (and similar airframe) crews can learn from in prevention of future mishaps.

My thoughts and prayers to the crew, families/friends and squadron with a very difficult loss/circumstances!

Very tough circumstances indeed...

Grumble
05-06-2018, 05:14 PM
The WC-130Hs started out as E-models and were modified into HC-130Hs before being further modified into WC-130Hs.

They are basically Super Es. They have many of the sub-systems of the E (GTC/ATM, etc), but have the -15 engines of the H.

The only thing we know here is they departed controlled flight. What precipitated that is unknown at this time. There's rumor out there they were having some kind of propulsion problem, which would make sense given the yaw in the video. However, a large range of problems could have caused that...everything from mechanical problems to improper pilot inputs during a mechanical failure. It could've been a combination of a VMCA roll and a stall. Time will tell. No sense in getting too invested in any particular theory.

Until the AIB/SIB is released, just pray for the families left behind.

Think I counted 16 kids left behind, heart breaking.

A Squared
05-06-2018, 05:22 PM
The WC-130Hs started out as E-models and were modified into HC-130Hs before being further modified into WC-130Hs.

They are basically Super Es. They have many of the sub-systems of the E (GTC/ATM, etc), but have the -15 engines of the H.

OK, so it left Marietta as an E. Thanks for the clarification. All the sources I saw listed that serial number as an "H" and I took that at face value.

1wife2airlines
11-14-2018, 09:49 AM
A series of pilot and aircrew errors brought down a Puerto Rico Air National Guard WC-130H in May, killing all nine on board, the Air Force determined in a recently released investigation into the crash.

However, the Accident Investigation Board report on the Savannah, Ga., crash also details a long series of systemic issues inside the wing, including a disregard and lack of knowledge of maintenance practices and a “good enough” mentality on an aircraft that was headed to the bone yard after flying in a unit that considers itself not connected to the broader Air Force mission.

At about 11:25 a.m. local time on May 2, the WC-130H from the Puerto Rico ANG’s 156th Airlift Wing, took off from Savannah/Hilton Head International Airport en route to Davis-Monthan AFB, Ariz., where tail 65-0968—one of the oldest C-130s in the Air Force’s inventory—was to be retired.

According to the Air Mobility Command investigation, the aircraft’s first engine fluctuated and did not provide the normal revolutions per minute when advanced for takeoff. That fluctuation continued as the aircraft advanced down the flight line, eventually losing thrust and pulling the WC-130 to the left and almost off the runway into the grass. Still, the pilot was able to pull the aircraft into the air, and banked right to try to maintain runway centerline before raising the landing gear.

Fifteen seconds into flight, the pilot asked the co-pilot to shut down one of the left engines because it continued to fluctuate and the power was low. At about 430 feet, he then banked left instead of accelerating to the climb speed dictated for three-engine flight.

The board found that the pilot and crew were able to successfully shut down the engine at about 600 feet, but they did not complete proper procedures for takeoff after engine failure or for engine shutdown, and they did not complete the “After Takeoff” checklist. If completed, these steps could have helped the crew maintain control by retracting flaps, which could have decreased drag and helped the aircraft accelerate, according to the AIB.

The pilot varied rudder inputs as the aircraft continued to climb, but failed to retract the flaps or achieve the three-engine climb speed. At about 900 feet, the aircraft skidded to the left, lost thrust on its left side, and departed controlled flight.

The WC-130 dove at a maximum 52 degrees, did a left barrel roll, and crashed directly onto Georgia State Highway 21, about 1.5 miles from the airport. The crash killed pilot Maj. Jose R. Roman Rosado, navigator Maj. Carlos Perez Serra, co-pilot 1st Lt. David Albandoz, mechanic SMSgt. Jan Paravisini, MSgt. Jean Audriffred, flight engineer MSgt. Mario Brana, MSgt. Victor Colon, loadmaster MSgt. Eric Circuns, and SrA. Roberto Espada. The aircraft was completely destroyed.

A CULTURE OF 'APATHY AND LOW MORALE'

Accident Investigation Board President Brig. Gen. John Millard wrote in the report the main cause of the crash was the pilot’s improper application of the left rudder, causing the skid and loss of control. Additionally, the crew didn’t prepare for emergency actions before takeoff, didn’t reject takeoff as the engine fluctuated its RPM, and didn’t execute the checklists and procedures.

Maintainers failure to diagnose and repair the engine prior to the flight, combined with a culture of “apathy and low morale” within in the wing were “substantially contributing” factors in the crash. Crews interviewed during the investigation outlined several issues plaguing their unit:

The unit flies the oldest C-130s in the Air Force, and there is a belief the wing is an afterthought to USAF planning.
The wing’s aircraft are not combat-coded, so members do not feel they are a part of the Total Force.
There is no direct connection to a mission. During interviews, many senior leaders at the group and squadron level could not “accurately describe the mission of the unit.”
The wing’s base, Muniz Air National Guard Base, is old and in poor condition. The wing believes there was a lack of urgency to repair, replace, or fix damage after Hurricane Maria in September 2017.
The wing, because they are remote, has trouble getting spare parts so aircraft have long repair times and a low mission capable rate.
The wing has manning challenges, with prolonged vacancies and inadequate replacements.
There is a lack of pride, with the concept of a “citizen airman” twisted into the excuse that “I am just a (Traditional Reservist).”
The commander of the 156th Operations Group believed the aging WC-130 was actually “one of the better aircraft” in the wing, and that the crew was fully capable of getting it safely to the boneyard, according to the investigation.

However, the investigation found the Operations Group’s processes appeared “to be broken,” citing discrepancies in training and maintenance forms provided to the board. The pilot involved in the crash was recently listed as Duties Not Including Flying, though he continued to fly. Also, while training records state maintainers were qualified, many in the wing could not say if they had attended Maintenance Resource Management Training and were not sure what the training included. Additionally, a propulsion shop lead on the aircraft did not know the difference between back shop and in-aircraft manuals, and maintainers on the aircraft did not realize there were troubleshooting guides in on-aircraft manuals. One maintainer could not define his role during a maintenance engine run.

MISDIAGNOSING THE PROBLEM

The aircraft first arrived in Savannah on April 9 on a ferry flight from Puerto Rico for fuel cell maintenance, and during that flight the aircrew noticed a similar RPM issue with engine one and reported it for troubleshooting and repair.

From April 10 to April 23, five fuel cell problems were addressed and fixed on the aircraft. On April 24, two maintainers from the 156th conducted engine runs to diagnose the RPM issue.

However, the maintainers did not have a precision tachometer required to accurately test the RPM of the engine. The maintainers checked out a different tachometer from the 165th Airlift Wing at Savannah, but it wasn’t the same model and did not have the same connection plugs to use on their aircraft. There was an adapter that would have allowed them to use this piece of equipment, but the maintainers were not aware of it, according to the AIB.

The maintainers conducted two engine runs to check the RPM, using gauges inside the cockpit instead of the precision meter. During the first, the gauge showed the RPM was running low at about 96 percent instead of the required 99 percent. The maintainers swapped the engine one gauge with the engine two gauge to test its accuracy, a common move by maintainers outlined in task order guidance. However, they did not shut the engine down, which is outlined in guidance. During the second run, the gauge showed the same reading. The maintainers then adjusted the engine’s valve housing, which causes an increase in the engine’s RPM, according to the investigation. Following the adjustment, the maintainers said the engine was producing 99 percent RPM, however the aircraft’s data recorder showed that the engine during the test never went above 96, according to the AIB. The engine should run at 100 percent RPM, but the maintainers believed the 99 percent reading they saw was sufficient.

“Thus, the mishap maintainers never corrected the engine one discrepancy and did not resolve the RPM issue, not just because they stopped at what they believed was a sufficient engine speed of 99 percent RPM, but because, in actuality, the engine only made it to 96.8 percent sustained speed during the runs ...,” the report states.

The crash at the time was the latest in a series of high-profile incidents in the Air Force. Six days after the crash, USAF Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein ordered a one-day stand down and review of organizational safety for all units.

TankerDriver
11-19-2018, 12:59 PM
What's the source of your post?

1wife2airlines
11-19-2018, 01:45 PM
What's the source of your post?

I saw it on an Allied Pilots message board but it's also referenced here:
https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2018/11/14/report-on-fatal-wc-130-crash-reveals-troubling-maintenance-morale-discipline-lapses-in-puerto-rico-air-guard-wing/

Someone also in that message board mentioned that: "Co-pilot had 17 hours C-130 time and the FE had 189 hours."

But the actual report is here:https://media.defense.gov/2018/Nov/09/2002061699/-1/-1/0/180502-AMC-MU%C3%91IZ%20AIR%20NATIONAL%20GUARD%20BASE,%20PUER TO%20RICO-WC-C130H-AIB-NARRATIVE%20REPORT.PDF%20

JamesNoBrakes
11-20-2018, 05:41 AM
To have lost control and crashed with 3 good engines is mind-blowing.

pilotyip
11-20-2018, 05:49 AM
To have lost control and crashed with 3 good engines is mind-blowing.
Did in a C-5 up at Dover a few years ago

Excargodog
11-20-2018, 06:59 AM
To have lost control and crashed with 3 good engines is mind-blowing.



With the exception of that C-5 taking off out of Ramstein that got the uncommanded thrust reverser deployment on the number one engine despite normal engine indications, I would tend to agree.

https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19900829-0

There are times when something happens that is so bizarre and unique and totally unexpected that you would expect that even a well trained crew might not be able to recover. This C130 mishap doesn't seem to be one of those times though. Particularly since the aircraft was well under MTOW.

rickair7777
11-20-2018, 07:00 AM
Did in a C-5 up at Dover a few years ago

They didn't really lose control.

A Squared
11-20-2018, 07:09 AM
They didn't really lose control.


They weren't controlling the vertical dimension too effectively.

rickair7777
11-20-2018, 07:13 AM
They weren't controlling the vertical dimension too effectively.

Technically they didn't control thrust effectively. Given that, they did OK with with A/S and V/S... stalling while trying to hold the G/S would have killed them.

A Squared
11-20-2018, 07:19 AM
Did in a C-5 up at Dover a few years ago


I can at least understand the trap the C-5 crew fell into; in the heat of the moment getting confused about which engine had failed and said confusion coupled with confirmation bias and such leading to them not catching that they'd pulled power on the wrong engine. In the C-130 crash, they correctly identified the failed engine and had successfully feathered the failed engine. Given that it was Day VMC at a relatively light Gross Weight, success should have been a foregone conclusion.

A Squared
11-20-2018, 07:20 AM
Technically they didn't control thrust effectively. Given that, they did OK with with A/S and V/S... stalling while trying to hold the G/S would have killed them.


Yeah, I know. That wasn't really a serious comment.