C130 Crash Video

[Captain Over]

Avbug,

Will you please post a list of EVERY aircraft you flown, rode in, or touched(make, model, serial#) so that I can stay the he11 away from them!

Either you are 110 years old and have just flown long enough to experience everything, or have crap for luck.

But seriously, someone is looking after you for some reason. Maybe some day you'll know why.

Respectfully,
Andy

 

[enigma]

OK, Avbug. I certainly understand and support your desire to avoid speculation, and especially to honor the memory of your friends.

What I want to know is this: You say that the cause is known. You go so far as to say that everyone who flys these aircraft knows that answer. To me, that just demands this question. (and a few more)

Why did three knowledgable men, allow a known defect/situation to kill them? Is there such a sense of necessity of the mission, that the risks are understood, but determined to be worth taking in order to accomplish that mission? If the T130's are put back into service after the grounding, will you all continue to operate them under the same conditions that led to this tragedy, or will some part/procedure be changed in order to prevent an occurence?

Whatever your community of aviators decides, I wish you Godspeed.

8N

 

[avbug]

If you're asking if the airplanes will continue to be operated in extreme conditions: inside box canyons in severe to extreme turbulence in zero visibility at 200' in situations involving 300' flame lengths, in close proximity to numerous other aircraft without radar control or terrain mapping, in tight formation with dissimiliar light and heavy aircraft and helicopters, grossed out at max weights with minimal available performance, with fire whirls, severe up and downdrafts, exploding trees, and the works, then the answer is yes. They will. And the crews will take them there.

It has nothing to do with the memory of friends. They're good men, but they're dead, and that's the thick of it. Presently, they're not saying much on the subject, and I don't anticipate much from them in the near future. Of course nobody wishes to compromise safety.

However, how many people would go to work if they knew that on any given day there was a one in ten chance their airplane or truck or desk would explode? Very few people. Very few would be willing, and very few would be qualified to truly make such a call. Those that are willing are flying the tankers, and three of them were in T-130.

Is the C-130 a safe airplane? Sure. But consider the environment. Several years ago on a drop outside ABQ (in Tanker 130, the airplane that just crashed, incidentally), we were in extreme turbulence. The wings were flapping wildly and flexing a LOT. It was bad enough that the FE in the company airplane behind us (T-131) was ejected out of his seat, bounced off the ceiling, hit the floor, hit the ceiling again, and ended up in the cargo bay. He didn't make it back to the flightdeck for the drop. (I bunked with him that night in ABQ; he was in a lot of pain, but went back and flew the next day).

(Before anybody asks, the FE can't wear a belt of harness during those drops because of the requirements of what he is doing).

What do you imagine that kind of stress does to an airplane, even a good one?

The C-130 has some very strict wing bending and loading limitations even in normal, unacclerated flight. It has a long arm and potential moment from wingtip to center section. It has no internal structure, to speak of, except wingribs and a dual shearweb "spar" (the only real value of which is to form fuel tank walls). In essence, the strength of the wing skin is the strength of the wing. The newer hercs have a completely different wing and structure; not the same at all. They also have much greater capacities for payload and maneuvering.

The A model hercs were the first off the line. The "modern" turboprops being flown in tanker service are only 10 years older than the WWII bombers I was also flying.

I will miss the crew, and that airplane. Some important moments in my life were spent in there.

I am not 110 years old. However, the suggestion that I have bad luck or am old only underscores the fact the people wouldn't understand this subject. Most folks wouldn't believe it. Unless you've been in this environment, it's outside the comprehension range of most folks. I began crop dusting as a teenager. My first season everybody died. Every neighbor and competitor. I took photos of the wrecks. I knew some of the people. I put out the fire on a burning airplane that had just crashed that belonged to my employer...it was the first ag airplane I ever flew for revenue.

Do I have bad luck? No. Did the crew of T-130 have bad luck? I wouldn't say so. They operated in a very high risk environment that most wouldn't understand; but they did. What I experienced my first teenage year as a pilot, I've experienced every year. Unless you've been there and expeienced it, you probably wouldn't understand it, and further discussion on the subject then takes on a philosophical caste, rather than being a meaningful treatment of the subject.

A few years ago on a fire I got cut during ground operations. My finger was bleeding badly, and cut to the bone. It was broken. We didn't have time to stop what we were doing. I shot the wound full of antibiotic, butterfly taped the cut closed, broke a popsicle stick and staped it between the broken finger and the adjacent finger, and kept working. The point there is that it's very much a working environment; there is no glory, no stripes are worn; it's a matter of doing the job. Very few people who try it out, stick with it. A lot of people have been killed doing it.

Those who do stick with it understand very well the risks. I know one gentleman flying DC-4's who lost his father to a C-119...when the wing came off the airplane during a drop in Banning pass. Some 10 or so Boxcars lost wings over fires. This man is intimately familiar with the risks, as is every pilot flying these fires. Everyone is familiar with those who have died, as well as the reasons and the costs. Everyone knows that they are not immune.

We all die. The only issue is how well we live.

 

[Timebuilder]

As far as the 737 analogy goes, I disagree. These brave souls do what they do for our benefit. They are paid their small wage by our tax dollars. I think that it would be a good thing to share some known problem with us. I don't think we have to be on the plane to have a stake in this. Not the same stake, granted, but a stake none the less.

Is the problem that caused the crash unavoidable, an endemic part of the job? Is there an airframe defect or design flaw which cannot be fixed, and we are resigned to an expected attrition rate of aircrews every fire season?

In other words, if everyone in this small community of aviators knows what has happened, then why does it keep happening? What was that figure I read yesterday, 39 failures? Is it me, or does something in this picture seem radically wrong, and cry out for change?

 

[bigboy]

WOW.

God bless their souls.

 

[XJAVRO]

I can tell you the problem this 130 had is one that the military has known about for a long time. The Marine Corps does wing Xrays inspections because of this. I'm sure the fact that they were flying old A models in hard conditions didn't help.

 

[inline]

Avweb,

Your stated in your post that an F.E. cannot wear a harness while performing his duties. That's news to me. I was an F.E. ( and F.O.) for H&P on 130,131 and 133HP. I always wore lap and shoulder harnesses.

 

[avbug]

That's quite a trick. How did you work the thrust levers during the drop or set them for takeoff? In order to lean far enough forward, one often needs to be almost completely out of the seat, or sitting on the very forward edge. It's necessary to do most of what the FE does, especially on the drops. I also occupied the FE seat from time to time (I took my FE turbopropeller practical test in T-130, in fact)...I was unable to perform those duties with a belt on.

No FE during my time there wore his belt because of the inability to properly perform the functions required. On our aircraft, the FE owned the airplane, the captain drove, and the copilot occasionally had a lucid thought. The FE did the bulk of the work. I'm not saying you didn't wear your seatbelt, but no other FE I worked with did, including the chief FE. The only FE I'm aware of in the company who did stay in place and strapped in was on the C-97G.

 

[F/O]

So the C-130 FE seat doesn't move on a track?????

Really????

 

[avbug]

Yes, the seat moves on a track. What does that have to do with anything? In order to sit in the seat, it must be moved back far enough to get the legs between the seat and pedestle. The FE sits at the rear of the pedestle. In order to reach everything he must reach, he must almost lay down along the pedestle for the thrust levers, and has a good reach for most of the forward switches, too. Perhaps long bodied folks can reach everything, but even with the lap belt fully extended, I couldn't reach everything and still keep the belt around me.

Xjarvo,

These airplanes get full NDI wing inspections at least twice a year.