Question for C-130 and C-17 Drivers
05-29-2014, 04:33 PM
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: Work
Posts: 506
Originally Posted by LowSlowT2
It was stopped, restarted, and stopped for good in the span of about 6-9 months in late '93/early '94
LCLA is different and C-130s do this as well....Flightworks is even doing these drops (or was) with their Turbo Caribou!
That's exactly why it went away. The customer didn't need the service any longer.
The LAPES legacy lives on with anything being done using released drogues like Tow-Plate Heavy Equipment or the new High Velocity CDS. It's just the altitudes are a bit different.
LCLA is different and C-130s do this as well....Flightworks is even doing these drops (or was) with their Turbo Caribou!
That's exactly why it went away. The customer didn't need the service any longer.
The LAPES legacy lives on with anything being done using released drogues like Tow-Plate Heavy Equipment or the new High Velocity CDS. It's just the altitudes are a bit different.
IMO the Army could have put DZs in their back yards in Iraq and prevented the need for many convoys.
Back to LAPES-we have the capes to secure a lapes zone we can secure an LZ...but what will happen when/if we go into a Pacific or Carribean country. Just musing..
05-30-2014, 08:24 AM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2013
Position: B737
Posts: 1,204
Originally Posted by dtfl
IMO the Army could have put DZs in their back yards in Iraq and prevented the need for many convoys.
I mentioned it to an O-6 I knew and he also had heard of that idea, and agreed with the USAF's premise. Yet he had no problem with our crews coming home from 120 day vacations doing nothing but landing on 10,000' paved runways to get their currency re-hacked on our 3,000' dirt LZ. I'm quite sure the LZs the Army would have built would have been longer and wider than anything we train on back home.
It's a travesty we never did that...I imagine a few Army and Marine troops would still be alive had we been able to deliver their supplies and people via airplane to their own LZ.
05-30-2014, 09:03 AM
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2009
Posts: 595
Originally Posted by Hueypilot
I worked with a Army dude that said they had pitched the idea to the USAF. The Army would build dirt LZs with their engineers if we'd fly to them and deliver, thus cutting out the need for a bunch of convoys. The USAF declined, stating that landing on dirt would result in too many bent airplanes.
I mentioned it to an O-6 I knew and he also had heard of that idea, and agreed with the USAF's premise. Yet he had no problem with our crews coming home from 120 day vacations doing nothing but landing on 10,000' paved runways to get their currency re-hacked on our 3,000' dirt LZ. I'm quite sure the LZs the Army would have built would have been longer and wider than anything we train on back home.
It's a travesty we never did that...I imagine a few Army and Marine troops would still be alive had we been able to deliver their supplies and people via airplane to their own LZ.
I mentioned it to an O-6 I knew and he also had heard of that idea, and agreed with the USAF's premise. Yet he had no problem with our crews coming home from 120 day vacations doing nothing but landing on 10,000' paved runways to get their currency re-hacked on our 3,000' dirt LZ. I'm quite sure the LZs the Army would have built would have been longer and wider than anything we train on back home.
It's a travesty we never did that...I imagine a few Army and Marine troops would still be alive had we been able to deliver their supplies and people via airplane to their own LZ.
I can't remember the length of the 'runway'. It was maintained by US Army engineers who worked a good bit. The used to spread some kind of compound to keep the dust down... 'elephant snot' I think they called it.
05-30-2014, 10:36 AM
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2011
Posts: 484
Originally Posted by dtfl
Only about 995' or so. What's 5'?!?
But I get your point..
Originally Posted by Hueypilot
I worked with a Army dude that said they had pitched the idea to the USAF. The Army would build dirt LZs with their engineers if we'd fly to them and deliver, thus cutting out the need for a bunch of convoys. The USAF declined, stating that landing on dirt would result in too many bent airplanes.
I mentioned it to an O-6 I knew and he also had heard of that idea, and agreed with the USAF's premise. Yet he had no problem with our crews coming home from 120 day vacations doing nothing but landing on 10,000' paved runways to get their currency re-hacked on our 3,000' dirt LZ. I'm quite sure the LZs the Army would have built would have been longer and wider than anything we train on back home.
It's a travesty we never did that...I imagine a few Army and Marine troops would still be alive had we been able to deliver their supplies and people via airplane to their own LZ.
I mentioned it to an O-6 I knew and he also had heard of that idea, and agreed with the USAF's premise. Yet he had no problem with our crews coming home from 120 day vacations doing nothing but landing on 10,000' paved runways to get their currency re-hacked on our 3,000' dirt LZ. I'm quite sure the LZs the Army would have built would have been longer and wider than anything we train on back home.
It's a travesty we never did that...I imagine a few Army and Marine troops would still be alive had we been able to deliver their supplies and people via airplane to their own LZ.
05-30-2014, 05:00 PM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Left Seat, Toyota Tacoma
Posts: 593
Originally Posted by Hueypilot
I worked with a Army dude that said they had pitched the idea to the USAF. The Army would build dirt LZs with their engineers if we'd fly to them and deliver, thus cutting out the need for a bunch of convoys. The USAF declined, stating that landing on dirt would result in too many bent airplanes.
I mentioned it to an O-6 I knew and he also had heard of that idea, and agreed with the USAF's premise. Yet he had no problem with our crews coming home from 120 day vacations doing nothing but landing on 10,000' paved runways to get their currency re-hacked on our 3,000' dirt LZ. I'm quite sure the LZs the Army would have built would have been longer and wider than anything we train on back home.
It's a travesty we never did that...I imagine a few Army and Marine troops would still be alive had we been able to deliver their supplies and people via airplane to their own LZ.
I mentioned it to an O-6 I knew and he also had heard of that idea, and agreed with the USAF's premise. Yet he had no problem with our crews coming home from 120 day vacations doing nothing but landing on 10,000' paved runways to get their currency re-hacked on our 3,000' dirt LZ. I'm quite sure the LZs the Army would have built would have been longer and wider than anything we train on back home.
It's a travesty we never did that...I imagine a few Army and Marine troops would still be alive had we been able to deliver their supplies and people via airplane to their own LZ.
05-31-2014, 04:02 AM
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: 744 CA
Posts: 4,772
Originally Posted by thurberm
Air Force C-130s stopped doing it after a crash at Pope AFB in July 1987. Google it and you'll find the video on YouTube. I believe C-17s have tested the capability, don't know if they actually train to it currently or not.
05-31-2014, 07:42 AM
#17
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2014
Position: DAL A320 CA
Posts: 558
Never did LAPES, but in Coast Guard Hercs we'd drop survival rafts, dewatering pumps, message blocks to vessels/PIW from 300-50ft AWL depending on the sea state. During training drops to CG patrol boats, we'd write "return to the CO for a case of the beverage of your choice"...the guys on the 41 footer would climb up in the rigging to get the best shot at grabbing the message. Our CO had the privilege of buying a couple of cases of Sierra Nevada for the Bodega Bay Station over his tenure!
I know, I know..not nearly as low as LAPES, but still got your attention at 50ft over 20ft seas..and you gotta get low and slow to save those lost penguins!
I know, I know..not nearly as low as LAPES, but still got your attention at 50ft over 20ft seas..and you gotta get low and slow to save those lost penguins!
06-02-2014, 04:31 PM
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: Work
Posts: 506
Originally Posted by LowSlowT2
Well, a lot of the LCADS is being done at 300A at very high MSL altitudes in very confined areas...far more sporty than a stroll down the EZ at 5'. But I get your point..
A lot of Herks have/are operating into small LZs in country. And yes, a few have been bent...more RAF than USAF, but not by a large number. What you'll find, however, is the bulk of the Herks operating into these types of strips are not those of "big MAC"...
But I get your point..A lot of Herks have/are operating into small LZs in country. And yes, a few have been bent...more RAF than USAF, but not by a large number. What you'll find, however, is the bulk of the Herks operating into these types of strips are not those of "big MAC"...
...actually the kid who wrote the thesis on LCAD in WIC was my Wep & Tac Captain I sent to WIC when I was the CC.
06-02-2014, 04:32 PM
#19
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: Work
Posts: 506
Originally Posted by Hueypilot
I worked with a Army dude that said they had pitched the idea to the USAF. The Army would build dirt LZs with their engineers if we'd fly to them and deliver, thus cutting out the need for a bunch of convoys. The USAF declined, stating that landing on dirt would result in too many bent airplanes.
I mentioned it to an O-6 I knew and he also had heard of that idea, and agreed with the USAF's premise. Yet he had no problem with our crews coming home from 120 day vacations doing nothing but landing on 10,000' paved runways to get their currency re-hacked on our 3,000' dirt LZ. I'm quite sure the LZs the Army would have built would have been longer and wider than anything we train on back home.
It's a travesty we never did that...I imagine a few Army and Marine troops would still be alive had we been able to deliver their supplies and people via airplane to their own LZ.
I mentioned it to an O-6 I knew and he also had heard of that idea, and agreed with the USAF's premise. Yet he had no problem with our crews coming home from 120 day vacations doing nothing but landing on 10,000' paved runways to get their currency re-hacked on our 3,000' dirt LZ. I'm quite sure the LZs the Army would have built would have been longer and wider than anything we train on back home.
It's a travesty we never did that...I imagine a few Army and Marine troops would still be alive had we been able to deliver their supplies and people via airplane to their own LZ.
06-03-2014, 10:01 PM
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2011
Posts: 484
Originally Posted by dtfl
Good points...but reread my post - I said DZs. Meaning we could have dropped the stuff (what COULD be dropped) into their back yard!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
