C130 Crash Video

[avbug]

This wasn't a MAFFs airplane; what the USAF does has no bearing on what the FE's in these airplanes do. The USAF doesn't require their crews to be mechanics and do the work on the airplanes, either.

I didn't enter into this discussion to throw dirt in anybodies face. I posted what I did because the origional intent of the thread, specifically stated, was to enquire about speculation. As we know from watching the talking heads of the media after every disaster and event, hundreds of experts plug up the airwaves with loads of speculation which is entirely worthless. In this case, what occured is already known, and it's being heavily discussed by those involved in these ops. There is absolutely nothing that can benifit the public by discussion of those things outside the industry, at the moment.

However, for reasons that would take a VERY long time to explain, opening a can of worms in any form for the industry could have harsh ramifications for those in the industry. Therefore, all that really needs be said is that speculation is futile and pointless, and that the problem is being dealt with by those whom it directly affects.

 

[Mr Freeze]

I guess it all depends on the FE or pilot's build. If he/she is a short person, some duties may be difficult for that person to reach. If they were on the heavy or tall side; the removal of one's seat belt might be necessary for them to perform their duties. Everyone has their own style as to how they get the job done.

 

[C-5 MEM]

What I was saying about the FE adjusting the power levers was not correct. The FE never touches the power levers. Thats why I was saying that the T130 the FE does not use his shoulder harness. Plus I emailed an FE out of KDEN and asked him about the T130. He said the only person who touches the power levers are the pilots.
As for the mechanics, that is correct we do not work on the aircraft, but are able to have limited repairs if we are out of maint. help.

Where does the T130 crews go for training? Are they in house?

 

[avbug]

In the USAF perhaps the FE doesn't touch the power levers. At Hawkins & Powers Aviation, the FE certainly does touch and manipulate the power levers, especially on the drop.

The HPC130A is type certificated for two crewmembers; the FE is optional. All crews without question have opted to use the FE. It's company policy, and everyone flies with an FE. All crewmembers are flight engineer qualified. In most cases, all crewmembers also hold a mechanic certificate with airframe and powerplant ratings.

In the case of Mike Davis on T130, he was commercially certificated as well as being an experienced FE, and could crew from the middle or right seat. All three members of the crew were able to perform maintenance, carried tools, and were FE qualified.

Crewmembers of each type flown there (P2V-7, C-130A, PB4Y-2, and C-97G) are mechanics, and carry tools, as well as a full compliment of spare parts (including built up tires, and a spare GTC in each herc). In the case of a couple of the airplanes, the two or three man crew does the full workload of a former 11 man crew, plus the entire support squadron that maintained the aircraft. It means a relatively high work load with a lot of manual labor and a limited number of people qualified and able to crew the airplanes. However, it's necessitated by the operating environment and requirements of these aircraft.

Being able to work on the aircraft as well as fly it is standard fare in the tanker industry; it's very necessary. There are a few exceptions; most military pilots coming aboard aren't qualified to turn wrenches, and aren't asked to. Several of the former C-130 drivers there are military, mostly Naval Aviators. No herc pilots there are currently military/former military. One is a former civil P3A driver. The Director of Operations is a former Navy P3 driver, and does some relief work in the hercs. Stevie Waas was civillian all the way, and a tanker driver from his youth.

All training is done in-house, excepting industry standard training, such as the National Aerial Firefighting Academy, some simulator training, etc. Primarily, training is done with live loads each spring, and as required during lulls in the season. Groundschools, type ratings, FE ratings, etc, are all done in-house. Occasionally an outside student is taken during groundschool, and taught inhouse.

There is really no preparatory background for this kind of work, and there are no schools or training programs for tanker pilots. The closest outside work would be ag work (crop dusting), though very few ag operations any more use large airplanes, or do the type of mountainous application done with the tankers. As a result, only limited training is available, and most training takes place in the field and on the job. Typical upgrades are five to ten years, depending on the individual and opportunities.

Typically for takeoff, the FE will set the power and take care of it until trend monitoring is done, then release it to the captain. The FE sets power during the takeoff under the captains hand and maintains the power levers through the takeoff. The same applies during the drop; the captain will make the drop with both hands on the yoke in most cases, and the FE will set power off the drop and limit it as required. The captain or copilot will operate the power levers during landing, depending on who is performing the landing. In most cases, it's always the captain.

There's really no comparison to the way the military flies these airplanes, and the way they're operated in the fire service. Pilots load retardant, get dirty, wash the airplanes with a brush and a firehose, change tires by hand, and perform the A & B checks in the field, etc. At least one Captain has over 30 years experience performing maintenance as well as flying these airplanes; he runs the T-56 engine shop and does all the heavy maintenance (including hot sections) on them.

The crews are extremely qualified in the airplanes, in every aspect of their operation and maintenance, from IFR operations to Non Destructive Inspection techniques, structural repair, pneumatic troubleshooting, fuel systems, hydraulics, etc. The FE's are required to be the same, often to a much greater degree mechanically than the pilots, though few regular FE's are also pilots.

I promised a link to Mike Lynn's pages on Steve and T130. The links at the bottom of the following site will have pics on the airplane and things related to it, as well as some of the pilots who flew it. It was put together by a close friend of Steve Waas, and a genuine authority in the industry.

http://home.earthlink.net/~leadplane/_wsn/page3.html

I'm burned out on this thread. Have fun with it.

 

[de727ups]

Avbug

I've been following this thread. This pics at the links avbug provided reminded me of the movie "always"....these guys are a rare breed and a breed to be honored for what they are.

At the same time.....

"In the case of a couple of the airplanes, the two or three man crew does the full workload of a former 11 man crew, plus the entire support squadron that maintained the aircraft. It means a relatively high work load with a lot of manual labor and a limited number of people qualified and able to crew the airplanes. However, it's necessitated by the operating environment and requirements of these aircraft."

"Being able to work on the aircraft as well as fly it is standard fare in the tanker industry; it's very necessary. There are a few exceptions;"

"The crews are extremely qualified in the airplanes, in every aspect of their operation and maintenance, from IFR operations to Non Destructive Inspection techniques, structural repair, pneumatic troubleshooting, fuel systems, hydraulics, etc. The FE's are required to be the same, often to a much greater degree mechanically than the pilots, though few regular FE's are also pilots."

"Pilots load retardant, get dirty, wash the airplanes with a brush and a firehose, change tires by hand, and perform the A & B checks in the field, etc."

and finally.......

"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?"

There are those here that think ALPA and pilot's union's are a scam and a fraud....have no respect for airline pilot's and the job they do....and think airline pilots are all prima donna's who don't care about "real flying" or whatever.....

Personally, I'm grateful for organized labor and the union's that came about out of necessity years ago to see that airline pilot's don't have to deal with the "extra stuff" that tanker pilots have to endure. Tanker pilots do it out of a sense of honor and duty.....but is it really safe, especially considering avbugs one in ten quote? Does it make sense to keep pushing the envelope in the name of duty and honor? At some point the reasonable pilot says "hell no...we're not gonna take it anymore". So the tanker pilots haven't reached that point yet....I don't think airline pilot's can be blamed for having reached that point years ago....or now.

I have respect for the "tanker trash" that does a hard job in difficult circumstances.....at the same time I think airline pilot's deserve a lot of respect for standing up to management over the years when presented with situations or conditions that compromised safey....airline pilots should never have the "get the job done at any cost" attitude that the tanker pilots have...and shouldn't be thought less of for not having it.

 

[avbug]

I said I was done, but really have to respond to that. You're right; there is no excuse for lack of safe proceedures or attitudes. In the case of the tanker industry, the pilots doing this job don't approach it with an "at any cost" attitude. The details I provided before are the stats when everything is going well, in a normal year. This isn't pushing things; this is just normal operations.

Airline pilots didn't have to deal with these conditions or the risks faced ten years ago, or twenty , or fifty. Nor will they ever. It's not really a good comparison; if a tanker pilot decides it's not safe, then he or she doesn't take the trip. However, the conditions and requirements over the fire are very different. This has nothing to do with gung ho aviators who just haven't had enough yet, or operators pushing their pilots to the limits. This is all about pilots doing a professional job in a professional manner, and dealing with some inherent risks in the process.

Electricians have unions, yet still get injured or die on the job, as do fishermen, boilermakers, and divers. In this case, the very limited number of hours flown each year and the limited number of crewed positions available, make the statistics very stark, but there is no lack of attention to detail or seriousness about the job. It will never be an airline type environment. Nobody wants that. It would be dangerous indeed, and nothing would ever get done.

Improvements can be made everywhere, and imrovements are always being made. A few years ago, I went through a season in which not a single heavy tanker crashed and not a single heavy tanker pilot died. (Several helicopters and single engine air tankers, as well as smoke jumpers, weren't so fortunate). It does happen, just as we recently had a year without a single major air disaster.

Airline pilots need unions to accomplish what they do. Tankers don't utilize unions, and I can't imagine a single benifit that could be had from unionizing. In many cases the pilots have the employers over a barrell, if anything; it's not like the employer can go find a replacement in a moments notice. I have been told to load and return, and have refused before due to conditions over the fire. A very effective SAFECOM system exists to transmit safety concerns. I've used it, and typically within fifteen minutes to a day after an incident or unsafe condition, every base in the country will be fully informed. National management visits with every pilot throughout the season, usually multiple times. Sometimes informally, sometimes formally. Everyone has a voice, and there is rarely any hesitation to speak out.

I don't know that I'd go so far as to say tanker trash does it out of a sense of duty or honor; we do it out of a sense of wanting to eat...but the pay isn't the reason people stick with it. Everyone has their reasons...how many jobs let you take a large four engine airplane down in the dirt and ash and flame and play with it like a cub? There is nothing as sweet as the smell of smoke in the cockpit. A million different personal reasons, I guess, but the ability to fly some neat equipment and wear a t-shirt while doing it is worth something.

Probably more than anything is the life; once in the tanker for the season, life is very cut and dried. Tanker, sleep. Tanker again. That's it. There's a lot to be said for that. Whatever. I said I'd give it a rest, and I will. The tanker industry is easy to expound on; we all have our passions, and this is mine. There is nothing in this world I would rather do more than fly an air tanker...my greatest regret (such as those may be) is giving it up. That said, my greatest hope is returning again to doing it soon.

We've all got our corners in life; the areas we fit. For some it's the military, others the airline. Some the bar. Personally, I don't like wearing a white shirt around an airplane. I don't like shiny shoes. I don't like epaulettes, or ties. I feel suffocated in them, and it's time to make the change back to a life I much prefer. God willing (unconstitutional?), I will again.

A reasonable assesment:

http://www.aviationnow.com/content/publication/awst/20020624/aw56b.htm

 

[C-5 MEM]

AVBUG

Do you work for the fire service?

 

[ms6073]

Re: Arrogant

Of course my profile is a joke, I have not flown any of those airplanes. I got accepted to fly in the Army last week and the Marines.

Yes I'm arrogant and yes I have an ego, but I can back it up.

Sorry, way off topic and if this guy is just flaming then so be it!

Look here you meathead 'cherry' leg, a positive attitude is one thing, but heading into the military with the attitude you presented here will get you and possibly your team/crew killed - fast! You are going to have a hard enough time dealing with the pressures of being indoctrinated into the service, dont complicate it with a hollier than though attititude - that will simply make the TAC's turn up the heat and make your peers resent you. Sure, I know, you ahve got it covered, it will be a breeze! 7 soldiers from my basic training company all said the same thing but when it came time to graduate, they were all on the street with bad conduct or general discharges or worse!

Despite the advertisements to the contrary, especially in aviation, you definitely are not an Army of One!

RLTW

 

[goldentrout]

Avbug

In 18 years of flying, I've learned lots of stuff from pilots of planes I never have, nor probably never will, fly. Heck, I've even learned stuff from helo pilots.

So to say that I could not possibly learn anything about flying if I knew the cause, or even probable cause, of the C-130 crash, is just more of your arrogance.

I think I'll stick to conversing with pilots who treat our profession as a brotherhood, where we're all on the same team...instead of the "elite" crowd of pilots to which you feel you belong.

 

[avbug]

Whatever.

 

[goldentrout]

Avbug

Nice comback...I guess when you're out of any decent rebutable arguments, that's about all there is left to say.

I've never, ever, in 18 years of flying and meeting thousands of pilots, had someone deny me information when I asked about an aviation incident/accident, unless the information was classified.

I think I get it now...I apologize for ever questioning you...that fire suppression stuff must be classifed top secret.

goldentrout

 

[BeerNear]

Why no ex-mil 130 pilots at HP?

Avbug,

I am just wondering why there are no ex-mil 130 pilots at HP?

I am moving to the Cheyenne area in Oct to fly with WY ANG. I was planning on applying to HP. I love the flying and seanonal work sounds great. Just wondering why? Thanks for your advice.

BN

 

[avbug]

BN, H&P has used a number of military pilots at varying times. Most don't stay; many are unwilling to put in the time to upgrade. Some are too prideful to get dirty doing maintenance. Some can't handle the working environment; it is a definite departure from the military environment they've grown used to. I've flown with some excellent military pilots at H&P and other places, and have learned a lot from them, and hopefully they've learned from me.

I know they've had pilots and FE's with them who flew with WY ANG. I don't believe there is anybody there now who is ANG. Presently all the hercs are grounded; a reasonable chance exists that they will stay that way. Some of the crewmembers have retired as a result of these events; if the airplanes are put in the air again, positions will be open.

A big problem for many folks is the unpredictability of the season. Often you'll have 12-24 hours notice that you're going into the field. From there you're on a 5-15 minute wheels-up notice, and you have no idea when you'll come home. Field schedules are six on one off, or fourteen on two off in a few cases. No chance to go home to see family, and getting family to you is difficult; you never know where you'll be or how long you'll be there. It's seasonal, but that season could be three months, ten months, or a year. You don't know, and it's hard to work another job or a regular life around it.

This becomes a problem for many people, including those with external obligations such as ANG work.

The company is certainly sympathetic to military pilots; the owner of the company is ex-navy, as is his son, the DO. Others in the organization are also ex-military. However, the most troublesome cases that have been employed there have typically been military pilots. In at least one case, one of the better folks I knew there happened to be military. He was career navy, and despite his background, in his position of Chief Pilot, he did not care to have military pilots come on board. He found them too arrogant, too unwilling to work, and too unwilling to do what was required in that line of work. He felt the same about airline pilots that came on board.

Such attitudes aren't prideful; they're based on observations of many who came aboard and tried, and found that it wasn't their fit. That's okay; everyone has their strengths, likes, dislikes. Being military or civillian, ag or airline, won't make or break anybody. Having C-130 experience is definitely a plus, just like having low level and maintenance experience is a major plus.

Goldentrout, Look mate, I don't care for you or your attitude. I have no obligation to respond to you or your claims or demands.

In all your bountiful experience, you've obviously recieved a lot of inside information long before the official investigations are due for completion. You must have quite a pipeline; I've been involved in the industry have been close to accidents in most segments of the industry for many years, and have never had such priceless treatment.

You feel that something contained in this investigation will benifit you. I tell ya what. It probably will; you go take your airplane down to the ground level and fly it around in the smoke and heavy turbulence, and I bet this information really will benifit you. You go do it in your KC135 after you remove the wing spars, load it to gross, and get put in a situation that costs the lives of more pilots in peacetime than most military units under combat, and it will be a big help to you. Until then, why don't you wait until the official investigation is complete, like everyone else.

Or are you particularly special, that this affects you in some way that it doesn't affect everyone else?

Arrogance? Arrogant by stating repeatedly that folks should wait until the official investigation is complete before "speculating?" You do recall that this thread began by asking for speculation, don't you? Lets speculate, then. Perhaps it was a massive explosion from a terrorist bomb, or perhaps the aircraft received metulargical damage from nocturnal radiation by space aliens. Or perhaps the bloody thing was just 48 years old, was being flown under extreme conditions, and just broke apart in flight.

I am familiar with this case only because both wings cracked completely through in that airplane several years previously, while performing a very similiar drop...the only difference was the wings didin't separate from the aircraft, and we weren't aware of the full extent of the damage until performing NDI work at the home base. I was flying it at the time. Each herc coming back from the field in that industry has experienced cracked wings...every year since then.

The aerial firefighting industry has been fighting tooth and nail for more aircraft and more modern aircraft for many years. A very tenuous situation exists that involves grand juries, the DoD, several federal agencies (including your friends and mine at Central), and a host of misinformation. On the table is the issue of safety for every crew flying these missions, and the budgeting to decide their fate.

Until official recommendations are in, the only benifits that can come from speculation are all negative. I've been dealing with media fools since this happened, calling pretending to want information about the crewmembers that died, and all manner of other angles. Turns out all they wanted was dirt to do damage to the industry. Truth is irrelevant to their cause as it is with most media efforts; selling papers and TV programs is the goal.

"Speculation" involves matters that are under review at the federal level, and yes, some are classified only with respect to the cases to which they pertain. Some matters cannot be discussed because of processes that are underway, and which you will likely know nothing about. That is immaterial, however, because there is no obligation to present any such information until appropriate authorities have completed their efforts and submitted their report.

I can say this: It was not pilot error. The fuel manifold didn't cause the separation, nor did an onboard explosion cause it. It wasn't wind shear, or any of the other ridiculous theories that will abound right now, and which I've been contacted about by various reporters. The airplane broke up; it shed the wings. You've seen the video. Why did the wings separate? Fatigue. Despite frequent NDT/NDI testing and inspection, despite a high degree of maintenance and operation by extremely experienced crews who were also qualified mechanics and aircraft inspectors, despite being on a very rigid maintenance program, the wings left the aircraft; the third time for a C-130 over a fire.

What can you learn from this event, Goldentrout? How about stay the hell out of the fire ground, and you'll probably be fine. Is that good enough, or are you looking for some quirky connection to flying an airliner that would compare to this event? It's very simple (and it's getting very old); don't fly an old airplane in extreme low level conditions that involve high risk operations, and you'll probably never be exposed to this problem. Don't do it in a C-130A, and you've eliminated most of your concerns.

A lot of people have died flying tankers. A lot more will die. The industry will never be sanitary in that respect. There are risks that can be mitigated to some degree, but not eliminated. Those who can accept those risks are part of the industry, and have a right and an obligation to understanding these events. Those who aren't at risk have far less a need to become involved.

As I stated previously in this thread, the details surrounding WHY this can't be expanded on involve many complex issues, from arms exporting to internal governmental policies, to civil and criminal issues. Mishandling of the issues can have large reprocussions, and I really don't feel like being the guy that makes the ripples in the pond. Call me arrogant, if you like. I've been called far worse, by far better people.

Whatever.

 

[goldentrout]

Avbug,

Well, at least you provided some insight into the situation, and got a chance to vent.

I actually did learn something from your post about flying...a reminder that even with great pilots, great mechanics, and supposedly great equipment, stuff happens...and we should never take for granted the state of our equipment, and make sure that the equipment is fully capable of handling the mission for which it is being flown. If not, don't fly.

That's all I wanted...some insight into the situation from which I might learn a thing or two. Yea, right now I don't fly planes near the ground in dangerous conditions...but I have in the past, and might again in the future someday. When I get to those situations, I will want to have as big a bag of tricks and experience as possible. Your comments and insight have filled up my bag just a little bit more...too bad it had to be peppered with insults and bashing, but I'm sure you've got much frustration over this whole issue.

I'm not in the media...I'm a pilot...I'm on your side.

Thanks

goldentrout

 

[Vandal]

I think it's the whole "I know something you don't know!" attitude that is rubbing people the wrong way avbug...why dangle the information if you aren't going to share it.