PDA

View Full Version : Latest Future Brize 'hiccups'


Blighter Pilot
6th May 2010, 06:51
Some more gems just released from the disaster that is Project 'Future Brize':mad:

SFA build now not complete until 2016
C130 hangar due for completion late 2012/early 2013 - aircraft move Jul 2011!
47 AD hangar won't be ready until the end of 2011 - meaning 5/6 months of split location ops for the unit with uncertainty as to where the loads will be prepped
Extra money being spent to build cycle path network to allow access to the stn - the rumour of not taking a motor vehicle onto the stn if you live within 3 miles is true
RAF Fairford will be used to house personnel, aircraft and equipment until RAF Brize Norton is complete.
Officer's Mess and Sgt's Mess new build will be complete on time but is estimated to be short of rooms by 25%.

Now, I'm all for the co-location of the AT and AR fleets and agree with the principle and cost-saving measures but surely we could postpone the move until everything is complete?

Or hands up those who want to spend the first 3 years commuting from Fairford or anywhere else within the 25 mile radius? Even better - how about moving 3 times in 2 years from SFA into SSFA and back into SFA:mad:

BEagle
6th May 2010, 07:09
What a complete and utter rolling goatf**k!

So if there isn't enough room in the Messes, where will people live?

Who will pay for the bicycles if this cretinous idea of compulsory cycling to work becomes reality?

The first thing I said when this daft 'CATARA' programme started was "And where will everyone park?"

Surely it's time to call time on this utter nonsense?

Pontius Navigator
6th May 2010, 07:17
the rumour of not taking a motor vehicle onto the stn if you live within 3 miles is true

At least you will have plenty of locker storage for all your cabbage kit, flying kit, sports kit and of course shower rooms and changing rooms.

You will, won't you?:\

Wander00
6th May 2010, 07:24
(Very flippant) So if you live withinn 3 miles your wife goes to the Summer Ball on her bike!!

Dan Winterland
6th May 2010, 07:28
''Extra money being spent to build cycle path network to allow access to the stn - the rumour of not taking a motor vehicle onto the stn if you live within 3 miles is true''

That should add a bit of time to a TANSOR scramble!

Mr C Hinecap
6th May 2010, 07:32
Excellent news on the cycling front there. I hope this might lead back to station bicycles and the promotion of a far better form of transport. 3 miles is a very reasonable distance for a cycle commute - but the larger older types will no doubt find sick chits for themselves to continue to drive.

Grabbers
6th May 2010, 07:56
This 3 miles thing. What is the datum? Domestic site, midpoint of the runway, 3 miles from the wire? And will the cycle routes extend to all localities within 3 miles? Will crash gates be open to ease the pressure on an already congested main gate? Who will pay for the extra MPGS? Come on Proj Os, details please!

stiknruda
6th May 2010, 08:02
A three mile cycle in summer - fine. Same distance in winter, in snow for an 0600 launch, even my boundless enthusiasm would wane. So I'd book a room in the mess, if there were space, oh - there isn't. I predict a very busy SMO - writing chits and seeing to cycling related injuries! Stupid idea!

pma 32dd
6th May 2010, 08:11
I rode a station bike once - I also did the same with a Falkland Islands Princess

happy days

:)

thesimtech
6th May 2010, 08:19
Just out of interest, this 3 miles thing. Is it only applicable to Air Force types, or everyone civies included. Not that I care, I'm 20 miles away in a "large North Wiltshire town", but in 6 months time I'll be 3500 miles. Quite a commute!!!!

Albert Another
6th May 2010, 09:01
Suddenly the 16 hour crew duty day took on a new meaning during the cycle to work before going on route:

http://allpics4u.com/www/slike/bizarre-oddities/overload_bike/overload_bicycle3.jpg

Pontius Navigator
6th May 2010, 09:15
As a matter of interest I just measured the distance I used to cycle on my last real job inside the wire going from my office to one of my outstations - 5.5 miles round trip.

Best will in the world, that was 20-25 minutes out of my day. Two trips and you were looking at an hour.

Turn that round, shag on sqn goes to SHQ and back - 6 mile round trip - that is an awful lot of manhours.

VinRouge
6th May 2010, 10:08
http://www.lolblog.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/facepalm.jpg

SirPeterHardingsLovechild
6th May 2010, 10:58
The main problem here is that many Officers have inexplicably forgotten that the smooth running of the RAF relies on the goodwill of the SNCO's.

Tell us what to do, and we'll do it. We'll find a way. Trust us. Take the glory, we don't care. We like what we do, we're simple folk.

Go back to your endless meetings and briefings, backstabbing your rivals and sidelining your dissenters.

Let the professional 'project manager', your SNCO, get it sorted out for you. He's been promoted because he's experienced, he's good at what he does. He might even enjoy working for and respect you if you don't change your mind every five minutes and micro-manage him.

There, I said it.

99luftballon
6th May 2010, 11:04
Head of nail, hammer, BANG!!!

Yep, you hit it!

fincastle84
6th May 2010, 11:09
As a retired member of the 'Kipper Fleet' I think that this is an excellent idea. You truckies were always way over weight after eating all those wonderful in flight meals!

On a serious note, have the 'elf an safety' goons been consulted about this cycling idea?

Glad I've retired.

NutLoose
6th May 2010, 11:46
Extra money being spent to build cycle path network to allow access to the stn - the rumour of not taking a motor vehicle onto the stn if you live within 3 miles is true

So if you live in you will fall under that particular Turkey? :p

Is it indicative of things to come??

RAF in flight Catering deliver rations to the Afghanistan Tristar flight.

http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/sites/default/files/images/http-inlinethumb41.webshots.com-5928-2732919050104237032S425x425Q85.jpg

RAF Regiment move campsite

http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/sites/default/files/images/http-inlinethumb41.webshots.com-44136-2782356080104237032S500x500Q85.preview.jpg

Marching out day

http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/sites/default/files/images/http-inlinethumb20.webshots.com-7251-2984399880104237032S600x600Q85_0.preview.jpg


Clothing stores deliver latest in WRAF issue Kevlar Bras

http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/sites/default/files/images/http-inlinethumb22.webshots.com-41621-2150289240104237032S600x600Q85.preview.jpg

RAF trials rock formation camouflaged battering ram

http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/sites/default/files/images/http-inlinethumb24.webshots.com-35095-2414406290104237032S600x600Q85.preview.jpg


:p


11 Impossibly Loaded Bicycles (http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/featured/impossibly-loaded-bicycles/12720)



Exercise equipped

http://www.free-images.org.uk/military/home-guard-bicycle.jpg

Willard Whyte
6th May 2010, 13:05
For the first time in my life I'm glad I'm not on Hercs any more.

Mr C Hinecap
6th May 2010, 14:34
Same distance in winter, in snow for an 0600 launch

Given we've not really got the snow and ice clearance capability any more, there wouldn't be a lot of flying going on.

Turn that round, shag on sqn goes to SHQ and back - 6 mile round trip

Given there is now JPA, there is even less need to bimble over to SHQ.

Always nice to see the 'can do' spirit shining through :ok:

BEagle
6th May 2010, 15:09
Anway, there are acres of space which could be used for car parking. For example, the whole area between the OM and Belfast Square could be dug up and concreted over......:ooh:

cornish-stormrider
6th May 2010, 15:31
I hate to laugh at your misfortune but -


BWAHH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

I am sooo impressed with the state of the RAF now, it confirms my decision to get out when I did.

I think the rot had set in when Joe SWO and I had a discussion about cycling and how a beret was a good enough cycle helmet - I disagreed and we had several run ins

Still never mind eh - it's nice to see common sense is still in a good supply. It is stuck in supply main warehouse, never been issued.

Cows getting bigger
6th May 2010, 16:00
So, the RAF's largest airfield isn't large enough to find a few car parking slots? I just love the irony. :)

Now, in the good old days when CGB was a spotty plt off, we had an MT shuttle.

Pontius Navigator
6th May 2010, 16:48
Given there is now JPA, there is even less need to bimble over to SHQ.

knit picker

Ok, to the Mess for a committee meeting, secondary duties, clothing stores, etc etc.

For my part I used to avoid SHQ and then it was only half a mile away.

Albert Another
6th May 2010, 16:48
Quote: Always nice to see the 'can do' spirit shining through

A ‘can do attitude’ is what we are all about and should be applauded. However, the danger comes if that attitude has to become the norm to cover shortfalls or planning oversights. The issues become masked and when they do become an problem it is too late or too expensive to address them.

crashtest
6th May 2010, 17:56
...but still kinda connected: heard the one about UPS buying Lyneham? :bored:

Photoplanet
6th May 2010, 18:16
Not to mention the lack of a second runway........ Eggs/basket, etc.

Farfrompuken
6th May 2010, 18:29
Photoplanet, you may well be proven to be correct in the near future methinks......

LookingNorth
6th May 2010, 18:47
Or about an hour ago in fact.

Redcarpet
6th May 2010, 18:59
Come on Farfrom, spill the beans ;) Then get back to work.

SammySu
6th May 2010, 19:01
Photos doing the rounds on the enthusiast forums of a C130 landing with the gear up may explain it.........

Photoplanet
6th May 2010, 19:03
About 1815, by my watch, when the 'value' of Lyneham suddenly increased rather a lot.. !

RAF_SARGE
6th May 2010, 19:16
Photo - link

FighterControl • Home to the Military Aviation Enthusiast • View topic - Brize black - C130 wheels-up. (http://www.fightercontrol.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=10877)

Rigga
6th May 2010, 19:31
I'ld estimate a fleet of 12 buses to keep a 24 hour Clockwise and Anti-clockwise every 10 mins service...(Tickets! Please)

Oh! I don't think the RAF have any of them any more, either?

...and if they did? - can you imagine getting on board with some spares to send to another sqn/hangar?
"Laidees an' Jentss - Kendlee moov dahn the bass pleees - Hoi can't get this bleeedin' Propelhorr throoh the doah"

Blighter Pilot
6th May 2010, 19:33
It's okay - we've loads of C130s!

Glad to hear crew okay - that's the main thing:ok:

Big Eric
6th May 2010, 19:50
That's a fantastic site RAF SARGE,thanks for pointing me in that direction mate.
What's the "& bull" bit mean ?
It looks like these guys know more than us :sad:

B.E.

RAF_SARGE
6th May 2010, 20:00
The bull stuff must be PPrune related, something to do with how they transfer links.

As for Fighter Control, seems a good site. Quite knowledgeable and friendly.

Sorry Mods for plugging them, but thought the link was certainly topical. :O

cornish-stormrider
6th May 2010, 20:32
Damn, I was not expecting this.

Will the orifice'r that thought up this truly wonderful idea kindly step forward to have the scrambled egg removed from hat and added to face.

I can see the CATARA (or whatever it is called today) having a big team "FACEPALM" session on the morrow.

Still crew ok - thats main thing, trukky is robust, jack it and drop wheelys send to paint shop and bribe dopers: Jobzagudun

ExAscoteer
6th May 2010, 21:06
How in **** could any Albert Crew land an a/c wheels up? Unless it was an u/c problem complicated by lack of fuel?

Christ Albert has THREE modes of getting his wheels down!

"Loadie, start winding. Nav, get down the back and help the Loadie!"

VinRouge
6th May 2010, 21:13
We shall have to sit, wait and see, rather than talk 10 pages of b0llocks and speculation on here.

Seldomfitforpurpose
6th May 2010, 21:22
How in **** could any Albert Crew land an a/c wheels up? Unless it was an u/c problem complicated by lack of fuel?

Christ Albert has THREE modes of getting his wheels down!

"Loadie, start winding. Nav, get down the back and help the Loadie!"

Silly billy :rolleyes:

ExAscoteer
6th May 2010, 21:24
And your point is?

Could be the last?
6th May 2010, 21:31
There is a link here, so stick with it.......

Listening to various deliberations about the future bases required for MFTS, and I quote 'Valley and Linton must remain open to avoid putting all our eggs in one basket'.........

So where will all our AT divert to, when BZN is the only AT base in use???? Say when a Herc has an issue and blacks the rwy???:ugh::ugh::ugh:

MichaelBuckle
6th May 2010, 21:38
That's a fantastic site RAF SARGE,thanks for pointing me in that direction mate.
What's the "& bull" bit mean ?
It looks like these guys know more than us

B.E.

The &Bull; is just HTML code for the round circle in the title of the forum, that's all.

So where will all our AT divert to, when BZN is the only AT base in use???? Say when a Herc has an issue and blacks the rwy???

The same civilian airports that are already designated to take Brize Norton diversions when Brize is u/s due to bad conditions.

Cheers,
Mike

Squirrel 41
6th May 2010, 21:50
"We shall have to sit, wait and see, rather than talk 10 pages of b0llocks and speculation on here." - VinRouge

Why spoil the PPrune habits of a lifetime? Roll on the rampant speculation!:ok:

Good news is that the crew are ok.

S41

Seldomfitforpurpose
6th May 2010, 21:53
And your point is?

My point is they may well have had 19 tons of fuel on board but if it's stuck it's stuck and all the freefall, winding, torque shaft disconnects in the world will not get it down..................:p

Photoplanet
6th May 2010, 22:37
Yes, but when the poo hits the turbine, the undercarriage is comprised of 3 seperable systems, operated in normal conditions by 1 hyd system in flight.

For all 3 to fail is unlikely. For the lowered undercarriage (mains) to both collapse on landing is most unlikely, due to the nature of the friction washers at the bottom of the 4 mains screwjacks.

The nose U/c has 2 additional methods of emergency lowering, but has (rarely) collapsed on landing in the past.

I think you know the answer to this question........

Seldomfitforpurpose
6th May 2010, 22:54
Yes, but when the poo hits the turbine, the undercarriage is comprised of 3 seperable systems, operated in normal conditions by 1 hyd system in flight.

For all 3 to fail is unlikely. For the lowered undercarriage (mains) to both collapse on landing is most unlikely, due to the nature of the friction washers at the bottom of the 4 mains screwjacks.

The nose U/c has 2 additional methods of emergency lowering, but has (rarely) collapsed on landing in the past.

I think you know the answer to this question........

Collapsed......................who mentioned that :confused:

Just tried to have a closer look at the pic and cant see any U/C doors open but the one thing I dont know and you dont know is exactly what happened so lets wait and see eh :ok:

Kengineer-130
6th May 2010, 23:20
To those people asking how the **** could an Albert crew land wheels up, all I'm going to say is they certainly are not the first, and I will bet my life they will not be the last if it is just a finger problem.....

However, I would strongly suspect a problem that prevented one part of the gear being lowered, so landing belly would be safer than trying land with only half the gear deployed. If you have a look on YouTube thre is a full video of ( think it's American) a Herc belly landing due to u/c issues, and being a high wing a/c it takes it very very well....

YouTube - Bad landing C-130 Hercules (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CdkUuGdjJU&feature=youtube_gdata)

But no one knows the facts, The main concern is that all the crew are safe, aircraft can be replaced....

Now, was XV304 on a print????

Seldomfitforpurpose
6th May 2010, 23:24
SFFP, this is a rumour site. No one's hurt (physically - a few egos and reputations may be damaged), if you don't like the speculation, don't read it.

btw, what is the guidance for a Herc if part of the u/c will not lower, is it to land with no u/c or to land with any available u/c ?

BGG

And their in lies the clue young man :ok:

Spurlash2
6th May 2010, 23:32
SFFP
And their in lies the clue young man
Spoll chock, over.

philrigger
7th May 2010, 07:34
A ‘can do attitude’ is what we are all about

That is what got you into this position in the first place.

oxenos
7th May 2010, 12:55
Had the aircraft flown in from Liverpool?

MATELO
7th May 2010, 13:24
However, I would strongly suspect a problem that prevented one part of the gear being lowered, so landing belly would be safer than trying land with only half the gear deployed

Yup, as you can clearly see in the video clip, the fireman had stopped playing volleyball and were sitting in a fire engine by the side of the runway awaiting the arrival of the Herc.

tommee_hawk
7th May 2010, 13:31
"Did somebody say "Gear Up Landing...?"
Just imagine if there was some sort of aural warning to stop that:"

Any truth in the rumour that the aural warning can be suppressed by pulling a CB?

Just wondered.........

BTW u/c doors all appear to be closed

Kengineer-130
7th May 2010, 13:36
Yes the horn can be disabled by pulling the CB for it.

Razor61
7th May 2010, 14:35
New photo posted on the fightercontrol link now showing the main gear doors shut... as they appeared to be when it happened.

Kengineer-130
7th May 2010, 15:13
Matelo, the video is NOT of the Brize incident...It was just to show how well an Albert can take a belly landing.

billynospares
7th May 2010, 15:38
Surely if this was an emergency wheels up no captain worth his salt would have done it at Brize and blacked the runway. A short hop to Lyneham and 2 runways would be a better option ?

Pontius Navigator
7th May 2010, 15:57
Surely if this was an emergency wheels up no captain worth his salt would have done it at Brize and blacked the runway. A short hop to Lyneham and 2 runways would be a better option ?

You know all the facts?

cheesedoff
7th May 2010, 16:00
As this is a site for rumour and speculation...Gear horn CB tripped and forgotten about. No U/C or util hyd problems as surely there would have been a call / diversion to black another runway.

Come on gents, how many times have you forgotten to reset the CB and during a busy sortie, said what you thought you saw? I suspect alot of people. We are only human.

Glad everyone was ok, a few damaged egos but no injuries.

Talk Reaction
7th May 2010, 16:07
If you landed on your belly would you not still black both runways as you gouge the intersection anyway??

vernon99
7th May 2010, 16:21
I think the point is you do not close the only runway at an operational unit if you have a choice, instead hop somewhere else, in this instance it may not have been possible to hop anywhere else, as we are not aware of the facts, ie is it a simple case of operator error, or was there a system failure leaving the crew with no choice?

As for somewhere else to ditch it I guess Kemble can't be more than 5-10 mins from Brize?

Willard Whyte
7th May 2010, 16:44
Lack of fire cover?

RAF_SARGE
7th May 2010, 17:22
Much better photo now posted!

FighterControl • Home to the Military Aviation Enthusiast • View topic - Brize black - C130 wheels-up. (http://www.fightercontrol.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=10877&start=20#p58382)

Jambo Jet
7th May 2010, 17:30
If it's a speculation website.

Sim double assy approach to roll.... oops

John Farley
7th May 2010, 17:30
The picture at post 68 tells a story. But only if you think.

TheWizard
7th May 2010, 17:42
Does one not look out of ones control tower to check these things anymore?
(only if they were not already aware of course- btw that is not speculation, more of a question!)

Pontius Navigator
7th May 2010, 18:12
The Wizard, probably not, or more probably unsighted which is why in fast-jet or training bases they have a runway caravan.

I don't know BZN but the view of an approaching aircraft from a distant and tall visual control room is necessarily limited.

bayete
7th May 2010, 18:12
John,
Mmmm I see what you mean.
Although I can think of 2 stories it might tell.

billynospares
7th May 2010, 18:41
I am sorry pontious do i need facts to post on a rumour site ? :ugh:

dallas
7th May 2010, 19:21
The Wizard, probably not, or more probably unsighted which is why in fast-jet or training bases they have a runway caravan.

I don't know BZN but the view of an approaching aircraft from a distant and tall visual control room is necessarily limited.
On the contrary Pontius, it was always SOP at BZZ Tower for the assistant to positively check the gear because there wasn't a caravan there.

3 bladed beast
7th May 2010, 21:31
It's quite clearly a conspiracy to keep Lyneham open......

Hueymeister
7th May 2010, 22:35
This looks soooo sad:}

VP8
7th May 2010, 22:53
From what i understand from my man @ BZZ aircraft notified ATC of prob with U/C did two flybys for U/C check sent to loose a bit of gas then plonked it on centreline in a good orderly fashion...:}

Kitbag
7th May 2010, 23:31
Probably a stupid question, but if there was a fault with the gear why black a runway away from the types MOB. Recovery/repair would surely be easer at home rather than driving 30 or 40 miles. Was fuel a problem perhaps? or was it just a c@ck up?

MATELO
8th May 2010, 00:46
Ken-130
Matelo, the video is NOT of the Brize incident...It was just to show how well an Albert can take a belly landing

Yes I know, hence the little sarcastic remark about the fireman:)

The Nr Fairy
8th May 2010, 06:47
See, the plan to move Hercs to Lyneham is so bad, even the airframes are trying to sabotage it.

And the Fighter Control link doesn't seem to be working at the moment, so here's the BBC version:

BBC News - Hercules makes emergency landing at RAF Brize Norton (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/8668092.stm)

Although I take issue with "London / South"

JagRigger
8th May 2010, 07:05
Would you bother to feather the props if it was accidental, or would you be more concerned with getting out ASAP ?

Seldomfitforpurpose
8th May 2010, 07:43
Why would you "do a couple of circuits" at Bzn when your home base with all your technical expertise, infrastructure etc is no more than 4 minutes away :rolleyes:

billynospares
8th May 2010, 08:09
That was my point seldom but pontious didnt like it ? :ok:

TheChitterneFlyer
8th May 2010, 08:20
Quote - Would you bother to feather the props if it was accidental, or would you be more concerned with getting out ASAP ?

Er, you don't have any other choice but to feather the props... 'Ground Stop' only works if the weight is on the wheels!

JagRigger
8th May 2010, 08:31
OK - fair enough :ouch:

SX983
8th May 2010, 09:19
Bearing in mind there was a repat at Lyenham on Friday,perhaps that is why the decision was made to (potentially)black the runway at Brize-which was,of course exactly what happened.

Whaaa newark
8th May 2010, 09:25
Come on guys, I hardly think this is the correct forum to spread rumours and half baked theories.

Dengue_Dude
8th May 2010, 09:45
Come on guys, I hardly think this is the correct forum to spread rumours and half baked theories.

Professional Pilots Rumour Network? There's a clue in the title.

Many of us know this aircraft quite well (some of us instructed on it), it's almost unbelievable that you'd not get ANY portion of the gear . . .

We'll see.

But if you're going to complain that people are rumouring and having half-baked theories - go somewhere else.

Redcarpet
8th May 2010, 09:49
Good Work Whaaa. Cheers Easy.:ok:

cornish-stormrider
8th May 2010, 10:00
Tis obvious a conspiracy theory but disaffected gorbags to try and push the election off the front page, either that or someone has a mate in a tarmac company and an envelope, brown, full of PBT's had changed hands:E

Grabbers
8th May 2010, 10:14
So, now the whole 'eggs in one basket' theory has been proven does pprune think anyone on the project might actually acknowledge there may be a problem?

Sgt.Slabber
8th May 2010, 10:17
So, now the whole 'eggs in one basket' theory has been proven does PPRuNe think anyone on the project might actually acknowledge there may be a problem?


Long answer: No

bitsleftover66
8th May 2010, 10:35
VP8-Fraid your man at Bzz is a wee bit wide of the mark

Father Jack Hackett
8th May 2010, 10:46
More (albeit qualified) speculation for you.

Maybe the captain of an aircraft with no functioning undercarriage (and hence no brakes) might choose to utilise a nearly 10'000 ft long rwy as opposed to a 7'200 odd ft long runway and frankly not give a tinkers about his truckie brethren having to spend the night in Lyneham mess or Bredbury Hall (yippee).

It was standard practice in my time on Albert to take any problems involving unreliable braking or reverse thrust to Brize.

I guess you're going to get a lot of braking action off the bottom of a Herc. However if you are compelled to do that you're going to need a lot of runway length to make sure that you set her down gently, in balance and pointing the right direction.

So if, as it appears, this was done in a premeditated fashion, well done guys!

And furthermore, if those responsible for steam-rollering the CATARA debacle don't take this opprtunity to pause and reconsider, shame on you.

On_The_Top_Bunk
8th May 2010, 11:07
Some of the speculation on here is making me chortle. :rolleyes:

Dummy Run
8th May 2010, 11:08
Quote "Bearing in mind there was a repat at Lyenham on Friday,perhaps that is why the decision was made to (potentially)black the runway at Brize-which was,of course exactly what happened."

But this happened on thursday night!!!:hmm:

Herc-u-lease
8th May 2010, 14:43
the icelandic volcano did **** things up for a few days and we got through it. that's a natural disaster, an unforeseen risk. Why build risk into your operations knowingly by putting all AT into a single airfield, with a single runway?

but that seems like a risk the upper management is happy to accept. so what happens when BZN needs re-surfacing? was fairford the bolthole?

John Farley
8th May 2010, 18:22
E

I was not trying to be clever. Nor was I suggesting any scenario. Does the fact that the top pic shows the aircraft very close to the end of the runway not make you think?

VP8
8th May 2010, 18:39
BLO66

I thought it was a bit simple!!:eek:

TheSmiter
8th May 2010, 21:26
Hercyleese - Why build risk into your operations knowingly by putting all AT into a single airfield, with a single runway?


Mate, post SDR, the only AT we'll need to move UK Armed Forces and equipment around, will be one Shorts Skyvan or equivalent. I gather the Omanis have one we could use - may need a bit of a dust off and some wheels, but dirt cheap my friend.

In this context, one runway will be more than sufficient.

Chugalug2
9th May 2010, 15:57
course profile:
Its not as if people at the top arn't aware or acknowledging that it is a potential snag, its just that the decision has been made and its going ahead.
And there in a nutshell is the whole tragic reality of the situation laid bare. Someone, somewhere, has to stop this sleep walking into oblivion before we reap the inevitable consequences of such recklessness. Perhaps that nice Mr Clegg might be able to do.....oh, really? Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear!

Sook
9th May 2010, 20:41
Why would you "do a couple of circuits" at Bzn when your home base with all your technical expertise, infrastructure etc is no more than 4 minutes away :rolleyes:


Perhaps they were doing some training to see how they would fit in with the Brize traffic pattern, doing circuits, pulled the CB and missed the gear check on the checklist.

Good to see that is doesn't look too badly damaged given that it's supposed to soldier on for another couple of years.

Blighter Pilot
10th May 2010, 06:22
Missing the gear on the checklist should never happen on a multi-crew flightdeck.

Not to mention the big red light in the gear handle that works even with the warning horn CB pulled.

Lip-service to checks? What an earth was the Air Engineer doing?

Unforgivable:mad:

As for the aircraft soldiering for a couple of years - why not just pull the plug on the whole C130K fleet - it is providing nothing in terms of output for Defence.

Someone wake up and smell the coffee - this incident could have been a lot worse and is indicative of lack of trg on a reducing fleet approaching OSD.:mad:

MichaelBuckle
10th May 2010, 06:53
Why would you "do a couple of circuits" at Bzn when your home base with all your technical expertise, infrastructure etc is no more than 4 minutes away

Because there was an exercise taking place 'Ex Tac Brize' involving the C-130's at the time.

Cheers,
Mike

Seldomfitforpurpose
10th May 2010, 15:51
Because there was an exercise taking place 'Ex Tac Brize' involving the C-130's at the time.

Cheers,
Mike

Why would you "do a couple of circuits" at Bzn in an unservicable aircraft then plan to land it wheels up at Bzn and black the runway when your home base with all your technical expertise, infrastructure etc is no more than 4 minutes away.

Perhaps if I had typed the above it would have made my point a little clearer :ok:

SirPeterHardingsLovechild
10th May 2010, 16:20
There's gonna be a list of 'contributory factors' as long as your arm on this one.

I'll pre-empt the BoI and award you 0.1% for every single one.

If you can get the 'main cause' below 98% then I'll keep the punishment down to 3 points on your licence, providing you write a nice article for Air Clues to ensure no-one does it again.

Then I'll book an appointment at the Med Centre to see if my arse has healed up

:}

CirrusF
10th May 2010, 17:16
If it was some sort of technical failure, I expect the RAF would have let us know by now in a fanfare of publicity. The fact that they have not made any press release suggests it is another one of those accidental wheels up landings that "happen from time to time" in the RAF.

clicker
10th May 2010, 18:55
Crew calls Lyneham ops, person at the other end of the radio doesnt want the blame of blacking a runway at Lyneham so tells them to sod off to Brize, case sorted. :E

green granite
10th May 2010, 19:14
I was not trying to be clever. Nor was I suggesting any scenario. Does the fact that the top pic shows the aircraft very close to the end of the runway not make you think?

Gear up too early Mr Farley?

Duncan D'Sorderlee
10th May 2010, 19:36
SPHL,

I suspect that the cause of the incident/accident was that the ac landed without the landing gear in the 'down' position.

Duncs:ok:

billynospares
10th May 2010, 19:36
The rumour i have just heard is as follows " Aircraft cat 3 damage probably one flight to Cambridge for repair, crew have put their hands up , landed with gear up , warning horn cb pulled during training sortie" Like i said this is only a rumour posted on a rumour site :ok:

Uncle Ginsters
10th May 2010, 20:51
Well, anyone can read the initial OR on ASIMS - it puts half of the rumour here to bed.

Good on the crew for putting their hands up though :ok:

ShortFatOne
10th May 2010, 22:42
OK, so now the crew have manfully held up their hands, would someone explain why it is a crew disables a warning system, designed specifically for providing a warning against this exact cause, by tripping a circuit breaker? The tripping of CB's goes against what is genearlly considered as best practice, unless it is called for specifically as part of a drill.

Just interested to know why more of the scarce, and dwindling resources are being wasted in completely unavoidable accidents.:ugh:

TheInquisitor
11th May 2010, 04:40
Sim asymmetric appch / overshoots - warning horn is linked to throttle position. CB is often pulled when doing the above to stop the horn constantly going on and off since the horn trigger point in throttle travel sits right around the throttle position that corresponds to Zero Torque, used to simulate a feathered prop. Common practice on the fleet.

BEagle
11th May 2010, 04:52
Is that 'common practice on the fleet' officially endorsed, or a habit that has crept in over the years?

If such a 'special procedure' requires a C/B to have been pulled - and I agree that such a practice is virtually unheard of in modern aircraft these days - surely the pre-landing checklist would have been developed to 'double check' the landing gear position?

After a Hercules fatal accident in the early 1990s, the AOC stated that specialist training should be conducted within a disciplined training environment (i.e. an OCU) rather than through on-the-job training at sqn level. I wonder whether this lesson has now been relearned.

I was also taught years ago that any sensible pilot also conducts his/her own private 'gear, flaps, clearance, toes off' check prior to landing. Shouldn't be necessary, but if you grew up with it on the JP it stayed for life.

Farfrompuken
11th May 2010, 05:38
Now then now then children!

BEags et al. Lets wait for the SI to convene before we spout off our theories. I think lots more will come out of this rather than a simple 'they forgot the checks'. I'm sure this will be a FLAC/FSOC case study for years to come....

BEagle
11th May 2010, 05:50
Farfrompuken, I don't know to whom you were addressing your comments. But the fact is that it took a fatal accident to learn essential lessons concerning training last time and now a serious incident has occurred, involving a gear-up landing in a valuable asset. More lessons to be re-learned?

Of course it will form part of FS courses in the future, but the root cause needs to be addressed with some urgency if this is not to happen again.

Farfrompuken
11th May 2010, 06:02
BEags, my comments were addressed at you and many others.

Quotes such as he AOC stated that specialist training should be conducted within a disciplined training environment show your lack of knowledge of trg on the C130 fleet and any sensible pilot also conducts his/her own private 'gear, flaps, clearance, toes off' check prior to landing. Shouldn't be necessary, but if you grew up with it on the JP it stayed for life. implies you haven't considered some of the HF elements which stand out like a sore thumb. It's an easy comment to make, to be fair, but demonstrates your lack of thought on the matter.

But I guess posters here are desperate to point out they're the industry expert on C130 incident matters.

The fallout from this will have big implications for the AT fleet at large, I'm sure, but I'll defer to the SI to make their official recommendations.

Blighter Pilot
11th May 2010, 06:09
It is not common practice for the gear warning horn cb to be pulled during MCT sorties - that is complete hoop!

It is only pulled during TAC AT sorties to prevent the horn going off when the throttles are retarded for slow downs, drops etc.....

It is however the first starred item in the pre-landing checks post TAC AT sorties...Gear Warning C/B - Reset

The results of the SI will enlighten everyone but expect far-reaching consequences across the entire C130 fleets in regards to suitabilty and availability of training sorties, not to mention currencies.

Trim Stab
11th May 2010, 06:12
This is (or at least strongly appears to be) the third avoidable RAF wheels-up landing in two years or so. Can anybody justify this?

Is it poor training? Has there been a decline in standards in the RAF due to budget cuts?

Or is it poor morale?

Or lack of accountability leading to sloppy application of procedures?

Is something badly wrong in the RAF? Or are these sorts of incidents just considered acceptable by RAF standards?

Farfrompuken
11th May 2010, 06:23
Trim Stab,

You've hit the nail on the head:

Or is it poor morale?

Absolutely. The crew were fed up with BOCS, JPA, Future Brize and decided to cheer themselves up by a nice fun wheels up landing.

You deserve a medal:rolleyes:

Dummy Run
11th May 2010, 06:40
Accidents/incidents are the result of many factors lining up concluding with the accident/incident? In this case are these just some of the factors/standards:
Crew training (not just within the sim or bouncing from BCR to BCR) - recent/quality/non-screened?
Pressure of operating adhoc out of Brize? - logistical support (from tranport to a contact number!)
Job security? - K/Sqn draw down/Future Brize move/OSD?

Thoughts?:confused:

Head back below para-pit :ooh:

BEagle
11th May 2010, 09:49
Farfrompuken, after the C-130 fatal accident in Scotland (it stalled during a simulated load drop, if I recall correctly), the Accident Report did comment adversely about 'on-Sqn training' for specialist missions.

The reason I know this is that we used that as primary evidence against the decision being made at the time to disestablish the VC10 OCU. Didn't help though - the bean counters ruled OK...:mad:

On the face of it, 3 avoidable wheels-up landings in 2 years is quite ridiculous. I won't comment on Trm Stab's possible reasons, but it is certainly something which must be firmly investigated.

But I will state that training cut backs, in the broad sense, will eventually prove to be more expensive than any perceived cost saving which they originally sought to achieve.

"Dear Dave. Please tell me how much the RAF's 3 wheels-up landings in the last 2 years have cost the taxpayer."

StopStart
11th May 2010, 10:24
One can try and dress this up in a myriad of ways and attach as many HFs you like but this all boils down to one basic, fundamental issue: the inexplicable efforts to maintain too many crews on an aircraft type that is down to it's last few hours on it's last couple of airframes. Crews bounce between currencies and this is the end result - I'm just glad it was something as trivial as a wheels up landing...

The RAF continue to quote the existence of a fleet of 14 K aircraft and the world in general continues to believe them. Similar accounting would render the RAF a fleet of about 30 Phantom Air Defence Aircraft - I'll start you with the 2 FGR2s at Akrotiri and North Luffenham. Not a dig, just a statement of fact. I guess if enough people say it's true then it becomes true - the Emperor's New Air Force perhaps.....?

Stories abound of the mythical hangar at Marshalls crammed full of delivery-hours Ks just getting their final polish before being delivered back to Lyneham or of the imminent plan to purchase a fleet of a 164 C130H AMPs that will be lifed to 2112. Ain't going to happen and in the meantime the soon to be fatigued-to-death J fleet struggles to get enough hangar space, engineers, Marshalls space or money to keep it thrashing along at the pace it's having to maintain. This will all culminate in the last K dying in 2012 just as the J fleet all goes into major life extension work. Hilarious. I could give you a list as long as my arm of ways to ameliorate it but to be honest it's more fun selling front row tickets to the impending 2012 train wreck (pun intended).

BEags - there is nothing "specialist" about asymmetric training as it should be done on the K. And before you respond I'll refer you back to my first paragraph. If you aren't getting the hours then just strapping in becomes "specialist".

BEagle
11th May 2010, 11:14
True words indeed, Stoppers!

I've also learned (from another source) how truly dire things have become.......

By the way, isn't there another FGR2 at Base Aerea Gringo? Or has it been replaced by a fag-chariot now?

120class
11th May 2010, 11:44
This incident bears certain parallels with the recent F3 accident.

A fleet close to it's OSD, poor aircraft serviceability/availability, inadequete training hours provision and an uncertain future transition to a new type.

I would bet that all of these factors were known about at Sqn (or perhaps even Station) level but became increasingly diluted higher up the command chain.

VinRouge
11th May 2010, 11:46
120class,

I very much doubt it based upon the attention all bases have got post haddon-cave...

They knew alright, far too much in terms of politics of maintaning the imaginary K fleet to allow a sensible decision.

Farfrompuken
11th May 2010, 12:23
Stoppers, I'm sure you'll agree that the K fleet isn't the only fleet getting well below acceptable flying hours. That's my worry.

Poltergeist
11th May 2010, 13:22
Hi, read the thread with interest. As one who left military aviation a long time ago (wessex V were still on coastal sar duty) and is now involved in risk management in in civil air ops, I have long been mystified at the future plans for the AT fleet and Brize. I join those who are happy no serious injury or worse occured in the accident, but in a world where the military is comitted so far and wide making transport a high priority, where government tells us of great threats facing the country, I can not for the life of me see any sense in this decision. I can only hope that the flaws do not come home to roost.

SirPeterHardingsLovechild
11th May 2010, 16:33
I do remember the Instructor Pilot stressing the importance of not missing wheels. :}

PS. BEagle, go careful. The gentleman concerned is the closest thing we have to a Hercules version of your good self.

BEagle
11th May 2010, 16:53
SPHLC, I suspect he's considerably better than that!

Runaway Gun
11th May 2010, 17:23
You mean 17,000 posts? ;)

ShortFatOne
11th May 2010, 23:13
Sim asymmetric appch / overshoots - warning horn is linked to throttle position. CB is often pulled when doing the above to stop the horn constantly going on and off since the horn trigger point in throttle travel sits right around the throttle position that corresponds to Zero Torque, used to simulate a feathered prop. Common practice on the fleet.

It would be an interesting exercise to map actual (as in real life asy apps & o'shoots) occurrences of these situations versus the benefit of practicing in a live asset rather than a simulator. I don't just mean on the Herc fleet, perhaps across the wider Defence Aviation community we need to start looking at using less expensive (both in materiel terms as well as human terms) assets like simulators. I can't recall the last time I went on holiday with Mrs SFO and Speedbird 40 PA'd that we would be landing late due to the crew practicing a simulated asy o'shoot.

And just think of all the fatigue life we could save with fewer gear cycles, ground/air/ground transitions, reduced engine wear, reduced maintenance due to reduced FI usage..................Might even improve the availability rate and, perhaps perversly, the serviceability rate due to reduced maintenance activity.

Just a mad thought which I'm sure will never catch on....except with civvy fleets that have operated in this manner for the last 30 years or so.

Finally, rather than pulling the CB, did anyone ask the Herc Requirements Manager to get an alert that could be cancelled. At least then the crew would get protection provided by the system and still have the ability to cancel the audio each time (could be automatically reset after each approach by any number of conditions - change in flap/gear/altitude increase through...etc).

Blighter Pilot
12th May 2010, 06:03
Again - the gear horn warning CB is only tripped during Tac AT sorties.

If it happened to be tripped during this incident then it wasn't intentional.:ok:

The C130K fleet should, and would have, been scrapped years ago if the RAF/MOD had got it's act together with the C130J EP.

Can you actually believe we are only just getting the correct radios, external tanks(:D) and the clearances to drop certain loads 5 years after the decision was made to replace the C130K in certain roles.

We'd have all been much better off if she'd been retired gracefully at the top of her game as opposed to going out with a wimper after an incident caused by our lords and masters ignorance of the paucity of front-line training:mad:

Art Field
12th May 2010, 10:02
ShortFatOne.

Oh how I agree with you, we made a decision some 15 years ago on the VC10, which I trust is still true, to only practice asymetric in the simulator. I appreciate a fan driven aircraft may be a little more difficult to make real but but it would still seem to be true that there is more danger in practice than in reality. History with the Meteor and Canberra proved that.

Pontius Navigator
12th May 2010, 10:31
Art, and Vulcan and IIRC Victor. And a Valetta in 1962 that went in to Badminton.

That was on a trap, sorry check, ride and one engine was feathered. The crew then, I believe, shut down the other with predictable consequences.

There is a lot to be said for 'if it ain't broke leave it well alone.'

Trim Stab
12th May 2010, 10:33
Pukers:


Trim Stab,

You've hit the nail on the head:


Quote:
Or is it poor morale?
Absolutely. The crew were fed up with BOCS, JPA, Future Brize and decided to cheer themselves up by a nice fun wheels up landing.

You deserve a medal:rolleyes:


Why the sarcasm? Poor morale was identified as a contributory factor in the Catterick Puma crash.

And can you put forward any other suggestions for the RAF's appalling record of incompetence over the past two or three years? The RAF would have their AOC withdrawn if they were subject to the same level of accountability as commercial operators.

Are these really just isolated incidents? Or are they symptomatic of wider malaise in the RAF system?

BEagle
12th May 2010, 10:39
As I recall on the VC10:

1. Practice asymmetric was only ever demo'd on Trip 1 in the aircraft, as it included a relight sequence for the Air Engineer.

2. Simulated asymmetric was flown only with a FI during check rides or during aircraft conversion. Or with a FI during civil IRs....

3. Simulated double asymmetric was flown only with a FI during aircraft conversion.

I'm sure that, as far as aircraft handling is concerned, the VC10 is far more benign when asymmetric or even double asymmetric than the C-130, so maintaining currency in asymmetric operation of the C-130 is probably more crucial than it was on the VC10.

If the simulator is truly representative of the aircraft, simulated asymmetric exercises should rarely be needed in the aircraft. I remember the days when, as a UAS student on summer camp at Thorney Island, observing an MCT sortie from the back of the flight deck included watching an outboard engine being 'T-handled' during a 4-engine roller.....:ooh: That took quite a bit of skill to cope with!

Sideshow Bob
12th May 2010, 12:53
It's not the first time this has happened.

It was common practice on the Comet/Nimrod to pull the fuse for the gear warning whilst carrying out Flapless landings.
Comet G-ADPL was written off, at Newcastle, by a CAA Test Crew landing gear up for this exact reason.

ASN Aircraft accident de Havilland DH-106 Comet 4 G-APDL Newcastle Airport (NCL) (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19701007-0)

I've known at least one Nimrod overshoot at Kinloss whilst carrying out circuits after a call of GEAR from the tower.

(Comet G-ADPM was also damaged in a gear related incident, gear selected up before the aircraft had actually managed to get airborne)

betty swallox
12th May 2010, 16:28
Short Fat One.
Agree strongly. I love it when.........

a plan comes together,

I mean,

when someone talks sense on this site. Such a rare thing...

Trim Stab
12th May 2010, 16:44
A few years ago I was involved in the development of a twin-engine FADEC equipped aircraft.

We developed a simple logic system linked to the FADECs whereby if one engine was set to its position of transparence (as in a simulated asymmetric approach) the horn would not sound unless the other engine was reduced beyond a predetermined setting. This meant that asymmetric circuits and go-arounds could be undertaken without the horn blaring.

Unfortunately, although the system was completely reliable in all the tests we did, we could not convince the certifying authorities. The aircraft was eventually certified without the system, and cannot be flown asymmetrically without the horn blaring.

I have subsequently been involved in recovering two aircraft that landed wheels up in training incidents...

icarus sun
12th May 2010, 17:26
Has the RAF a sim for the C-130h?.

billynospares
12th May 2010, 17:57
No the RAF doesnt have a H sim but then the RAF also doesnt have any H model aircraft either :ok:

SirPeterHardingsLovechild
12th May 2010, 18:01
I think it was Jack, soon to be, 'Jack the Hatch', a Canberra Navigator who selected what he thought was the Master Live switch with loud & embarrassing results, that caused the ageing BAe rep to comment -

'...short of having a monkey with a pointed stick in the cockpit...'


--------------------------

And then you give the monkey a brevet...

TheInquisitor
15th May 2010, 03:25
Yes, there are K sims - the problem is, they're crap, nowhere near representative enough of the real ac for realistic sim assy exercises. And a sim assy approach & land is a recurring BCR. Albert can be tricky to handle asymmetric so such practice is very much required.

Blighter, you are partially correct, in that TacAT sorties are the only place that the CHECKS call for pulling the CB, however it's not uncommon, as I recall, to do so when practising multiple sim assy events on an MCT. The warning horn going on and off constantly is a major distraction. It was usual, if the CB had been pulled, to pencil it into the checks for the final pre-landers so it wasn't forgotten.

The horn CAN be cancelled, if it was set off by throttle retardation, but it's a soft cancel, it will go off again and again if the throttle is left in just the right position (see my original post). The other event that sets off the horn is flaps selected greater than 50% with gear up - in this case the horn will not cancel, hence pulling the CB for Tac sorties, since some drop profiles call for more than 50% flap.

BEags,

and I agree that such a practice is virtually unheard of in modern aircraft these days

Think you kind of answered your own question there...

Blighter Pilot
15th May 2010, 10:18
Blighter, you are partially correct, in that TacAT sorties are the only place that the CHECKS call for pulling the CB, however it's not uncommon, as I recall, to do so when practising multiple sim assy events on an MCT. The warning horn going on and off constantly is a major distraction. It was usual, if the CB had been pulled, to pencil it into the checks for the final pre-landers so it wasn't forgotten.

The horn CAN be cancelled, if it was set off by throttle retardation, but it's a soft cancel, it will go off again and again if the throttle is left in just the right position (see my original post). The other event that sets off the horn is flaps selected greater than 50% with gear up - in this case the horn will not cancel, hence pulling the CB for Tac sorties, since some drop profiles call for more than 50% flap.



Actually I'm 100% correct - Tac AT sorties are the only sorties during which the CB can be pulled. If it used to be practice decades ago to pull it during MCTs it certainly isn't now.

And as a second point - flaps have to move to 70% or greater with the gear up for the horn to sound, and yes you cannot cancel this warning.

It's always nice to be factually correct although this is a rumour forum:ok:

BEagle
15th May 2010, 11:16
downsizer, the word is 'weapon'! Remember Full Metal Jacket:"This is my weapon, this is my 'gun'; this is for fightin', this is for fun!"

But honestly, the Future Brize news doesn't seem to get any better....:hmm:

That font of all knowledge, the Oxford Mail, quotes 'An RAF Brize Norton spokesman' as saying of the C-130 incident:

"There were no casualties and a service inquiry has been raised to investigate the cause of the accident.

"It is too early to tell what happened but it did not make an emergency landing, it landed with undercarriage issues"

Undercarriage issues? That's a new one on me! And has this really now been upgraded to an accident?

Wander00
15th May 2010, 11:34
Downsizer - and all this on a bike if you live less than 3 miles from the station

Neptunus Rex
15th May 2010, 12:22
The ICAO definition of an aircraft accident is:

"an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight and all such persons have disembarked, in which a person is fatally or seriously injured, the aircraft sustains damage or structural failure and/or the aircraft is missing or is completely inaccessible."

bayete
15th May 2010, 17:20
I'm with Blighter Pilot here. I never used to pull the circuit breaker even when bashing the circuit doing several single/double assy approaches.
(OK I would never pull it at all I had a specialist for that job and it was a pain sometimes having the Eng constantly silencing the horn and keeping the 1000Lbs on the retarded thottle/s)
How did it go? "Throttling back number 1, cancel the horn, Eng to monitor for 1000lbs" It is amazing how fast the memory fades.

The only time I pulled the breaker was on TAC AT sorties and reset it when job complete.

Now???..... TAC trip followed buy MCT put 2 & 2 together??? Come up with 5

I once had to shut down 4 engines for real on an MCT trip! Still managed to land it safely though.

BEagle
15th May 2010, 17:53
When I first started working with relatively modern aircraft, I was interested to note the totally different towards C/Bs. For example, a tripped C/B is never routinely reset in civil-certified aircraft, it seems. Only certain listed C/Bs are allowed to be tripped and reset; normally this is to reboot certain avionic computers. This was frequently needed in the early days of the FMS800 installation in the VC10K when (I think) UF21 often had to be tripped and reset to restore the FMS after power was transferred from external to internal power. Most navigators were taught to do this - although the idiot Kelvin Rucksack :uhoh: once claimed to know what he was doing (well, he must have done as he was a Gp Capt...:hmm:). The next thing I knew was that my AI failed.... So he was invited back upstairs and instead a (very) competent NCO did the job for him....which included restoring power to my AI!

If there is this requirement on TAC AT sorties, is there an associated checklist to confirm reset? Not being huggy-fluffy, but surely that would be reasonable?

Neptunus Rex, it's a long time since I left the RAF, but I thought that (apart from death/injury/total loss), the definition of an accident was associated with the Cat of damage? Cat 1 wouldn't be, but Cat 5 certainly would.

Pontius Navigator
15th May 2010, 18:18
BEagle, you will remember also that it was a function of the GIB in the F4 to use a nav rule to reset CBs.

In a combat aircraft resetting CBs or changing fuses was the norm if it restored the operational function of the aircraft for the mission.

You may also remember the actions on a Vulcan in the case of a suspected double TRU failure. On a mission you would put in a new fuse and keep on putting them in until one worked. In peacetime you did not try and isolate the fault and would land as soon as possible. It was one reason why AEOs used to fly with a pair of dead fuses.

At the appropriate time, after landing, the serviceable fuse would be exchanged for a duff one. This usually applied the right side of the $-£ divide :}

BEagle
15th May 2010, 18:52
PN, there was a special CB pulling tool used in the F4 and I don't recall any fightergator ever taking a 'nav rule' on board an F4. I can't remember the drill for double TRU failure in the Vulcan, but most circuits had fuses rather than C/Bs.

I think that it was the Swissair fatal accident near Halifax which highlighted the issue of C/B resetting? Since then, an unexplained C/B trip is never routinely reset in civil-certificated aircraft.

Wrathmonk
15th May 2010, 20:53
Wasn't the nav rule used by the GIB to fly twin stickers that had the rear stick removed ...:E;)

Dengue_Dude
16th May 2010, 13:08
I think that it was the Swissair fatal accident near Halifax which highlighted the issue of C/B resetting? Since then, an unexplained C/B trip is never routinely reset in civil-certificated aircraft.

That rather depends who you fly for.

Certain operators routinely break the rules and do this. It's one of the reasons I left a certain freight company - amongst other blatant safety-related issues. Before you say 'you should insist', this results in a one-on-one interview with the owner or dismissal.

You're quite right though, companies who respect the safety ramifications, obey the rules. Leave it tripped unless a greater emergency exists, and get it checked.

TheInquisitor
17th May 2010, 02:52
Actually I'm 100% correct - Tac AT sorties are the only sorties during which the CB can be pulled. If it used to be practice decades ago to pull it during MCTs it certainly isn't now.

And as a second point - flaps have to move to 70% or greater with the gear up for the horn to sound, and yes you cannot cancel this warning.

It's always nice to be factually correct although this is a rumour forum

Blighter, thank you for the correction - I knew there was a figure of 70% in my head for some reason.

But I will restate what I said earlier - Tac sorties are the only place where the checks call for the CB to be pulled. That does not mean you cannot pull a CB for other reasons, for example to disable a distracting and unnecessary persistent warning with its detriment to flight safety - as long as you remember to reset it before actually landing (by pencilling it into the checks). The checks are not the 'be all and end all' and decisions on what is thought to be most conducive to flight safety at the time are down to the crew. I assure you I have seen this practice several times, and my experience on the K fleet was not 'decades ago'. It did not happen on every sortie, but it DID happen, although I suspect that may now be reviewed...

Blighter Pilot
17th May 2010, 06:53
Shouldn't be any issues now that 60% of the C130K flying has been cancelled by our lords and masters:mad:

Anyone want to buy a shop full of t-shirts and badges??

StopStart
17th May 2010, 07:41
To be honest, it's about time too. Too many people marking time in their careers, bouncing between 31 day currencies, when they should be out collecting hours and experience. :(

Farfrompuken
17th May 2010, 17:50
Stoppers, are you referring to Ks or Js there??!!

Redcarpet
17th May 2010, 18:09
Or any other ME fleet?

StopStart
17th May 2010, 18:56
:hmm:

Some of the J folk might do nothing in between but at least they're guaranteed to get away on det several times a year and rack up the hours & experience there (even it is on endless Quattro Bastionnes). All LXX could hope for was one route sector every three months.

One could argue that if we spent less time and effort trying to resurrect dead Ks in the Marshalls Pet Semetary then we would have more Js serviceable to keep everyone ticking over. As it is we blow 40% of our effort on keeping 2% of the aircraft flying which in the end just disadvantages everyone.

Couldn't comment on other ME fleets.

Blighter Pilot
17th May 2010, 19:10
Some of the J folk might do nothing in between but at least they're guaranteed to get away on det several times a year and rack up the hours & experience there (even it is on endless Quattro Bastionnes). All LXX could hope for was one route sector every three months.



A little harsh stoppers - until September last year LXX were doing a desert tasking line and supporting the Falklands. The reason they left the sandy place was to allow the C130K to go elsewhere releasing a C130J for important training in the UK(which still hasn't been completed 7 months on:mad:)
MPA has only just been released after LXX had provided crews constantly for the last 5 years+.

Yes I agree the Sqn had to go because of lack of trg and I also agree that the C130K should also go - however the RAF are tied into servicing contracts that are absolute s:mad:e and unfortunately has to provide support to UK plc that the C130J still cannot do - and no willy waving from the C130K fraternity, its just the truth:ok:

What it does mean is that you hardworking C130J boys will have to pick up the Guard Cmdrs, CoS, FE Cdr, DetCo, Orderly Officer and other additional duties that the 'slackers' on the C130K wing have been doing while not busy 'flying':ok:

Oh and the addittional 4/6/9 month OOA gnd tours that many LXX personnel have completed in the past 24 months.

Rant off - LXX will go until 2013 when it stands-up as the first A400M Sqn, by then the C130J fleet will be on it's knees due to the p:mad:s-poor management imposed upon it.

Gainesy
18th May 2010, 08:08
What date was LXX stood down?:(

collbar
18th May 2010, 15:16
What on earth will LXX do for the 2 years before an aircraft pitches up..assuming no delays!!

Blighter Pilot
18th May 2010, 18:40
What on earth will LXX do for the 2 years before an aircraft pitches up..assuming no delays!!


Be packed in a box from the end of this year and unpacked to stand-up as the A400M sqn.

:{

Seldomfitforpurpose
18th May 2010, 19:11
A400M.......................2013..............I wonder if Paddy Power have got wind of this :D

TheChitterneFlyer
18th May 2010, 23:52
Despite all of the banter within this thread it still doesn't explain how several 'experienced' aircrew missed the fact that the gear wasn't down for landing... fact!

fergineer
19th May 2010, 03:20
They probably hoped that no-one would ask that question!!!!

Blighter Pilot
19th May 2010, 05:46
That's why we have investigations - to find the cause and hopefully prevent it from happening again:ok:

Shouldn't take too long to figure it out though........

Dengue_Dude
29th May 2010, 18:29
Before the avalanche of 'you can't possibly say that', I served on 242 OCU as a flight instructor.

We did circuit after circuit after circuit, with one throttled back it was easy to get irritated by the gear warning horn, but we briefed never to pull it.

It was SOo easy to wonder if we'd done the checks this time around, or last.

Airmanship dictates though, that at half a mile or so from touchdown, just glance at the gear and flaps FOR YOURSELF.

I am convinced that this was a lapse and nobody looked (distracted perhaps?).

It's just a sad reminder that each member of the crew has responsibility to make sure the essentials are attended to.

I refute that a gear problem occurs which results in no gear available - there are just too many ways to get a C130s gear down - at least partial gear. If you can't get the MLG, you'd go for the nose gear freefall to protect the nose. There's no sign any of the gear doors are even cracked.

Judging by the kit on that aircraft, it's loss is embarrassing to say the least.

http://i445.photobucket.com/albums/qq174/brianwmay/XV304.jpg

Blighter Pilot
29th May 2010, 19:37
Judging by the kit on that aircraft, it's loss is embarrassing to say the least.



Not least that it was the lowest FI Mk 3A just out of Base servicing:{

Mal Drop
29th May 2010, 20:32
Look on the bright side, the tyres will be less worn...

Lockstock
29th May 2010, 20:37
...and there was no risk of injury when jumping off the crew steps :bored:

Finnpog
29th May 2010, 22:20
It looks in slightly better nick in that phot than the B1-B than was landed in one of it's more aerodynamic configurations last year.

IIRC that needed a bit more than a rub down and 5 minutes with the spray gun.

Blighter Pilot
30th May 2010, 06:54
Sadly it looks like Cat 4/5:{

SirPeterHardingsLovechild
30th May 2010, 08:10
If we had the resources and will to fix it ourselves, like we used to, it would be Cat 3

If we sent it to MAe Cambridge where she will join a long queue of broken aircraft with 'emergent' work, it would be Cat 4

If we give up on her, she's Cat 5

Theoretically she's Cat 3 and fixable in a few months

Realistically? Nobody cares.

StopStart
30th May 2010, 09:17
Or you crazy fools could take her on as the next project for the GEs Pet Semetary? You know, take dead aircraft, bury it in the GEs cursed hangar and see it resurrected as a strange, evil, zombie aircraft :)
:ok::ok:

Dengue_Dude
30th May 2010, 22:19
Theoretically she's Cat 3 and fixable in a few months

Realistically? Nobody cares.

How is it that I believe you?

In my time on the Herk, and it's excruciatingly difficult to tell on a photo, but at normal rates of descent and training weights, I would have not expected damage to amount to a write off.

Looking at the flaps, they obviously had Utility hydraulics (for the uninitiated, it's the same system which powers the landing gear).

I can't imagine what it felt like when they didn't feel the mlg touching down - all too late by then of course, but it would make you feel physically sick.