C130 Crash Video

[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.