New Cracks Found in RAF C-130 Fleet

[ORAC]

Looks like even more problems in running on the K fleet till the A-400M arrives. Mind you, that 200 ton payload is impressive.....

Torygraph: Cracks found in Hercules wings threaten to scupper vital military training exercises (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/frontline/1925255/Cracks-found-in-Hercules-wings-threaten-to-scupper-vital-military-training-exercises.html) The RAF has launched an investigation following the discovery of cracks in the wings of its ageing Hercules C130 transport aircraft.

Up to five of the planes – more than a 10th of the fleet – have developed the potentially dangerous defect, according to documents leaked to The Sunday Telegraph. The report adds that with a further five C130s being retired from service this summer, the future for military training exercises is "bleak".

It is understood that the faults were found last month during routine maintenance at RAF Lyneham in Wiltshire, where the majority of the aircraft are based........

The document, marked restricted and dated April, states: "A number of wing cracks found on certain C130s recently has resulted in a reduction in current and forthcoming allocations for a number of exercises. Those major exercises deemed vital ground for the maintenance of Herrick and Telic operations [the RAF names for duties in Afghanistan and Iraq] capability should continue to be supported, but smaller exercises are now at risk. Exercise Marble Tor 1 is the first to be seriously affected by this and efforts are under way to salvage some form of airlift for this exercise. With a further five C130s scheduled to be retired from service this summer, the future is bleak for C130 support to exercises."

The RAF workload has soared enormously since 2003. The brunt of the transport effort is being met by the C130, which first entered service with the RAF in the Sixties. Such is the shortage of transport aircraft that the loss of just one C130 will have a direct impact on operations and exercises. Each carries up to 130 passengers or more than 200 tons of equipment.

Three years ago an RAF Hercules with 10 SAS members on board was shot down in Iraq while on a mission close to Baghdad. It later emerged that the plane had not been fitted with explosive-suppressant foam, which extinguishes fires and could have saved the aircraft. Last year another C130 was destroyed after it struck an improvised explosive device which had been laid on an airstrip in Maysan Province in Iraq. One officer was seriously wounded in the attack. In 2006, a third Hercules was lost after landing at Lashkar Gar in Helmand, southern Afghanistan, when it struck a land mine. No one on board was injured but the aircraft was destroyed.

Patrick Mercer, a former infantry commander and Tory MP, said: "Our battle-winning equipment is being flogged to death. We simply do not have the resources to fight two wars on two fronts and the Government seems to be in denial about it."......

Last night a spokesman for the RAF said: "We don't comment on leaked documents." But he added: "All aircraft will have cracks due to such things as fatigue damage: the C130 is no exception. There is a comprehensive inspection regime in place and all aircraft are maintained according to approved military airworthiness regulations to ensure that no crack becomes critical for the continued safe operation of the aircraft.".......

[goneeast]

200 tons of equipment?? No wonder the wings have developed cracks. :ugh:

[Exrigger]

all aircraft are maintained according to approved military airworthiness regulations to ensure that no crack becomes critical for the continued safe operation of the aircraft

Classic, considering the comments on the Nimrod and other threads.

[On_The_Top_Bunk]

More holes in that article than a sieve. :ugh:

[Dan D'air]

Or, indeed, the Herc fleet apparently.

[tucumseh]

“all aircraft are maintained according to approved military airworthiness regulations”


Well, given they were NOT when the Nimrod BoI report was issued and at the time of Browne’s statement in December 2007, and the QC’s inquiry which is meant to report on the implementation (or otherwise) of these regs hasn’t properly convened yet, I’d say this is an astonishingly naïve statement. In fact, it’s utter bo##ocks.

Given implementation of the applicable procedures and processes began rundown on a very specific date almost 20 years ago, leading to the almost complete loss of necessary experience and corporate memory (and personal memory judging by the Hercules inquest), for this statement to be true half the Defence budget must have been invested over the last few months on, for example, resurrecting and stabilising the build standard of every aircraft type, including equipment, ground equipment, trainers etc. Even if the funding were available, the MoD simply doesn’t have enough knowledgeable staff left to work out what to say in the Invitations to Tender, never mind deliver and implement the output. (Hint to MoD – look at the mandated procedures you so blithely cite – they tell you how to do this quickly and consistently. Oops, sorry, you no longer have a copy. Do you really think it was a good idea to announce 14 years ago they were to be cancelled, with no replacement?).

I have no doubt this cracking problem is being dealt with efficiently, but that is not the same as adhering to “approved” airworthiness regs. Which, by the way, infers there are “unapproved” regs. That would be the historical rulings that implementing the regs is optional.

[mary_hinge]

For a number of years Marshall Aerospace ran a fatigue test rig, on behalf of the MoD for the c130K wing, at the time of switch off, this was at aprox double that, at the time, of the forecast requirement. (aprox 4 years ago if I recall correctly) Marshall was then tasked with fatigue testing the C130K fuselage, alongside the wing of a C130J, I belive these tests are up and running running. Question could be asked why the C130K wing test was stopped, when the aircraft still had 10 years remaining service

http://www.marshalltestservices.co.uk/default.asp

[JFZ90]

Mary - the wing test would have completed as it proved / reached a set objective, the the sake of argument a set number of hours of fatigue life - i.e. if the reqt was e.g. 20,000 hrs* and the rig did that, then in simplistic terms that would give confidence in the fleet to that number of hours. A fleet could only be at say 10,000 hours at a time of having already flown for 20 years, hence 20 more years (at same usage rates of course#) is available upto the proven 20,000 hours tested. It is not uncommon for these rigs to stop operations well before the end of an aircraft types life - can't remember the exact dates but I think the Concorde one for example stopped in 1994ish, nearly 10 years before the end of Concorde ops, and even then the reason it stopped ops was not related to having run out of fatigue life.

It is usual for test rigs to be well ahead of the fleet - indeed thats the whole point - cracks etc. appear on the rig, fixes are developed and go into the fleet which is thousands of hours behind and hence will not have developed the same cracks yet. It is possible the cracks reported above were seen on the rig 6-7 years ago with fixes developed. It is also possible the failures/cracks are not easy or economic to fix. It all depends - the key point is the problems are seen on the rig before the fleet and can be safely handled either through fixes (which will have also been tested in the rig) or other action (e.g. scrapping).

The only reason I can think of for the fuselage still being on-going is that it is infact well behind the wing tests in hours and is now on the critical path for extending the life (i.e. fuselage only upto say 13,000 hours, so tests need to be continued to get to 20,000, i.e. same as the wing).

The 130J fatigue tests are possibly along way behind just because it is newer. These tests although accelerated, still take a long time as you are trying to simulate 30/40+ years of use in albeit compressed timescales.

* these numbers just picked from the air, not related to any aircraft type.

# more ops means using up hours more quickly which may mean shortening the planned life of an aircraft fleet (i.e. when test rigs & their duration were planned the assumptions may have been different).

[glad rag]

Sortie profiles (perhaps ones unheard of before) will be eating the FI as well I would imagine. When I first saw the thread title I thought Albert was getting hosties!! Silly me:uhoh::uhoh:

[parapauk]

What kind of airframe life does the K fleet have left anyway? I seem to remember hearing about 18 months ago that some of the SF K's had less than 1000 hours left.

[Warmtoast]

Up to five of the planes – more than a 10th of the fleet – have developed the potentially dangerous defect.....

......With a further five C130s scheduled to be retired from service this summer.

The answer is simple:
1. Retire the five with defects and
2. Retain the five scheduled to be retired this summer.

Which should solve the problem, or am I being too simplistic?

[rej]

Warmtoast

Unfortunately this is a very simplistic view. If only it were that easy. If the 5 that are due to be retired (due to airframe hours being used up) are not the 5 in question then the fleet is potentially 10 down.

I am no engineer but I am sure that there are one or 2 out there who can put it in more technical terms

[Always a Sapper]

Is there any chance that some usable wings could be sourced from the scrappy at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in the US?

Of course we would have to hand over even more beer tokens to marshall's to get them fitted but the frames are badly needed with the current fun and games.

[Always a Sapper]

Anyone got the number for Black Nasty.... :rolleyes: have a feeling it could be 'dues' out very soon...... :suspect:

[StopStart]

Is there any chance that some usable wings could be sourced from the scrappy at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in the US?

...or we could be sensible and spend the money on some engineers and spares to service all the other aircraft we have sitting around u/s. We've got enough aircraft to do the job but sadly all our lineys were sacked and our spares sold off when we were subjected to that utter bollocks that is Lean. Consequently half the fleet is sitting around u/s whilst most the line have been DWR'd to run VASS at Basra or some such idiocy......

:rolleyes:

[On_The_Top_Bunk]

Is there any chance that some usable wings could be sourced from the scrappy at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in the US?

Of course we would have to hand over even more beer tokens to marshall's to get them fitted but the frames are badly needed with the current fun and games.

Currently there is a world-wide shortage of C130 wings as everyone is flying the A$$ off them.


It's a sellers market unfortuately.

[parapauk]

Norway thought about the new wing trick - they decided new J's were a better bet.

[US Herk]

Is there any chance that some usable wings could be sourced from the scrappy at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in the US?
Doubtful. Most of the C-130E (similar vintage to the K) are there precisely because of cracks & no useable life left w/o re-winging (more specifically, the centre wing box (CWB)).

Lockheed do not use airframe hours, instead use equivalent baseline hours (EBH). Sortie details are input into a computer program and a severity factor (SF) is assigned to each portion of the sortie. The flight time for that segment is then multiplied by the SF for that segment to arrive at EBH.

For example, MCT has an average SF of about 3, whilst low-flying has an average SF of closer to 9. There are many variables, of coures, relating to weight, speed, altitude, etc.

Currently, US CWB are restricted at 38K EBH and grounded at 45K EBH. Most of the birds sat in AMARC are somewhere between 38K-45K EBH on them already & would require a new CWB fitted to return to service.

CWB are in short supply as Lockheed can only produce approximately 30-35 per year, of which all current J-model production is pulled and others are sent to the various depots to replace the few acft that are deemed vital with new CWB (AC-130U, MC-130H, HC-130H, etc.) - mainly special mission aircraft.

There are other programmes out there that refurbish CWB vice all out replacement, but they have a limited life compared to replacement.

[dionysius]

Three years ago an RAF Hercules with 10 SAS members on board was shot down in Iraq while on a mission close to Baghdad.

Not very accurate reporting for such a defence orientated paper :confused:

[Always a Sapper]

Quite dionysius, quite... a pretty poor effort for the Torygraph, it's the sort of thing you'd expect from a 'chip wrapper' such as the sun or mirror....

[XV277]

...or we could be sensible and spend the money on some engineers and spares to service all the other aircraft we have sitting around u/s. We've got enough aircraft to do the job but sadly all our lineys were sacked and our spares sold off when we were subjected to that utter bollocks that is Lean.

Ah, Lean systems - work great when you are building a Toyota, tend to be fairly crap elsewhere.

[Epimetheus]

XV277,

You speak the truth, and clearly. LEAN was invented to work in the Japanese manufacturing industry, but it hasn't stopped some from gaining personal recognition and career points by misapplying it to RAF engineering manpower.

[Kengineer-130]

Unfortunatly they are now suffering the fall out of thier mistakes in the last few years..... The K is a forgotten child now, spares and manpower are non-existant, shifts are running with 1or 2 lekkys, 1 or 2 fairies, 3-4 sooties and 6-8 riggers and a few AMM's most of the time, and often with no NCO's for a trade.... It ain't gonna get any better I'm afraid :(

[mr fish]

AND, the US have started to report skin cracks in their globemasters. Bearing in mind the heavy use our SIX are being put to, how long before a grounding (ps ,i read this in a magazine, i am SOOO up to speed)!!!!

[oldsimscot]

Reading this slightly ill informed article in "The Telegraph" points me to the government's attitude to trusty old servants that are getting on in years and suffering fatigue.
I'm afraid I'm not terribly hopeful that the fix of a new main spar and update of equipment will ensue.
Look what they have done to alzheimer's patients in the NHS because of cost. They are old and there work has been done. Medication(upgrade) denied
What happened to the Valiant in the 60's. Main spar crack, finished. Put AAR back 10 years.
I would like to think that the 'K' would last till the 400(M) enters service, but I'm afraid that the bean (BEEN) counters will have there way and the 'J' will be overexposed to operational abuse like the 'K' has been and will encounter the same problems around 2014.

[TOPBUNKER]

Is it not true that the long-term fatigue-testing conducted by any company is only useful or retro-relevant if the Statement of Operating Intent or MAR or RTS is, and always has been, adhered to by an aeroplane's 'operators'.
I refer to the MAR and RTS but surely the SoOI is the lead document by the way.

Is there one for the J yet, and do any on the K fleet have current access to it's own version I wonder?

[TOPBUNKER]

Rather than further editing - may I add that I've just found this outfit...

http://www.aace.co.uk/adams.php

Can't say I'm terribly impressed though!

[cornish-stormrider]

I would say that the midden hath hit the windmill in such quantity the windmill now is mired in sh1t and won't even turn.

[tucumseh]

Is it not true that the long-term fatigue-testing conducted by any company is only useful or retro-relevant if the Statement of Operating Intent or MAR or RTS is, and always has been, adhered to by an aeroplane's 'operators'.


A valid point, but the good book requires a Fatigue Type Record, Part 2 of which demands “reassessment of fatigue life and damage tolerance in the light of Service usage and fatigue test results” with Part 3 being a “re-assessment of inspection methods shown to be necessary by the Part 2 analysis”. Also, that the IPTL reviews structural integrity measures at least twice every year and retains a permanent record of decisions.

I’m sure MoD has it covered………..



Topbunker

Your comment –re ADAMS is equally valid. I liken this to Risk Registers. They are but one link in the airworthiness and safety chains. Many in MoD think it sufficient to have a populated Risk Register (a list of Risks) and they may even have them classified and mitigation plans drawn up. But implementingthe plans is a quite different thing. That requires no little funding and skill but, frankly, few want to know; if only because people who understand and deal with risks are seen as a hindrance. This lack of implementation is precisely what the Nimrod BoI report reiterated, and is why MoD had to admit liability.

[N Joe]

TOPBUNKER

Your comments are true for the K but not quite so for the J. The J's ground maintenance system records all manoeuvres and aircraft state/configuration so that the calculated fatigue usage is far more representative of the actual usage than a "simple" G counts vs Sortie Profile Code estimate.

N Joe

P.S. Cracks found in the Ks and complaints about Lean - is it Groundhog Day?

[ZH875]

N Joe,

If only it was that simple.

GMS is Sh1te, initial baseline input from Lockheed is Sh1te, hard landings with a sink rate of -5200 feet per minute(!) add massive figures to the incorrect numbers in the GMS.

Couple that with the unlogged and unknown baseline on some of the fleet, and there is a mess waiting to happen.

ZH

[flipster]

What about overweight landings and T/Os (up to max overload) for weeks/months at a time?
What about high-speed taxying turns at high AUW?

I would like to think that the fatigue engineers take those into account too.....?

Flip

[XV277]

Mmm, what chance an attrition buy of Js to cover until the A400M comes along.....


Answers on a two letter postcard to.....

[N Joe]

875 - Never claimed GMS was simple or perfect. But having worked on a variety of (older)aircraft types, and spent a (thankfully brief) time at Swampy Mortuary, the J's fatigue system is still the best I've seen. I've seen potential overstress data downloaded, sent to the manufacturer, analysed and reported back in time for the aircraft to make the next day's programme - that would have been impossible on all the other systems.

Flipster - As I understand it, the GMS stops monitoring loads when the weight-on-wheels kicks in so taxy loads won't be included (am prepared to be corrected on this). And Lockheed will take into account everything that you tell them.

N Joe

[NDB]

There are a few v.old C130's falling apart in Tan Son Nhat, Vietnam.

[mlc]

The C130s are on Google Earth

lat=10.8089410003, lon=106.658724501

[On_The_Top_Bunk]

The C130s are on Google Earth

lat=10.8089410003, lon=106.658724501

A night out in Ho Chi Minh sounds lovely

[larssnowpharter]

Hallf a dozen more here:

10.182351 N 123.582212E

[FireLight]

On Google Maps shows: Mactan Airport, Philippines - near Cebu City. (makes sense given your noted location.)
10.307863 N, 123.973315 E