Fire Fighter crash

[Sopwith Pup]

Just saw a quick shot of what looked like a C130 (?) fire fighter in Califonia crash on TV news. The wings separated at low level, quite dramatic and shocking.
All three crew were killed, god bless them and my condolences to their families.:(

[Kiteflyer]

Pic... http://www.kolotv.com/images/main/tanker_crash_big_061702.jpg


http://www.kolotv.com/index.php?link=readmore&sid=2359

WALKER, Calif. (AP) - An air tanker fighting a blaze near Yosemite National Park caught fire Monday and crashed in this Sierra resort town, killing all three crew members and just missing a mechanic's shop, authorities and witnesses said.

A Reno, Nev., television news crew captured the scene on videotape as the wings broke off, the fuselage rolled left and spiraled nose first into the ground.

"It was almost surreal," KOLO-TV reporter Terri Russell said. "You saw it go down and for a second, I thought, 'is that really what I saw?' "'

Medical crews were sent to the mountain hamlet after the plane went down in a ball of flames shortly before 3 p.m., said Laura Williams, spokeswoman for the Sierra Front Interagency Dispatch Center in Minden, Nev.

Williams said she had no information on the crew and it wasn't clear whether anyone on the ground was injured.

Jerry Johnston, operations officer with the Federal Aviation Administration in Hawthorne, Calif., confirmed all three crew members of the C-130 transport plane were killed in the crash "under unknown circumstances after making a drop" of retardant.

"It was destroyed on impact and by fire," he said.

Investigators for the National Transportation Safety Board were on the way to the scene, he said.

Other aircraft battling the fire were grounded. High winds had grounded tankers and helicopters Sunday.

Russell, who witnessed the crash, said one of the plane's wings was on fire before the tanker lost altitude and crashed within 150 feet of an auto shop.

"I'm standing here looking at the tail section," shop owner Mike Mandichaka told The Associated Press by telephone. "My shop is right next door. It almost hit it."

The tanker was battling an 8,000-acre blaze that had forced 400 people out of their homes. Walker is 90 miles south of Reno, and about 25 miles north of Yosemite. At least one home has burned.

A deputy coroner on the scene said the bodies would be taken to Bishop, Calif.

KOLO-TV's news crew was interviewing a man watching the skies with his own camcorder near Walker Sporting Goods Mobile Home Park when the plane came into view.

The plane came in low to the ground trailing a red flow of fire retardant above tall green pines. Both wings suddenly snapped off, with flashes of flame as they separated. The fuselage rolled left and spiraled nose first into the ground.

"We saw it circle around once and then drop through the middle there. ... That's where we saw it break up," Russell said.

The fire from the crash threatened about 10 structures in the immediate area, including homes, trailers and the mechanic's shop.

Many residents had made a narrow escape from wind-whipped flames Sunday night.

"The flames were coming down the mountain toward the town so it was time to go," Dan McCall said as he watched the fire burn a few miles east of town Monday afternoon.

"You could feel the heat and hear the roar of the flames," he said.

[Knave]

Saw the film. To me it seems the spar failed and the wings fell off, and the fire only started after the structural failure. Awful to watch.

[777AV8R]

Unfortunately, the Hercs were never noted for their negative g loading. Dropping a load puts the aircraft on the limits. Only the investigators will know for sure.

Sad day.

[DrSyn]

Very disturbing pictures of the tragedy. "Eye-witness" reports always see the explosion or flames first because that is what draws their attention. Having watched the video a few times now, the Herc appears to have been pulling out of a descent when both wings separated, almost simultaneously, within the centre box section. The flash fire clearly follows the separation.

There is no spar, in the traditional sense, on the Herc wing.

Since her first flight in 1955, there have been many wing failures due to overstress - Cb penetration is a favourite. The UK MOD learnt, at considerable cost, the importance of using beefed-up centre sections when operating the 130 on frequent low-level ops. Contrary to Lockheed's advice, the MOD opted for "standard" wings, in order to save (I believe) £7k per production airframe on the initial order of 66 aircraft.

When, in the '70s, the test rig at Marshall's of Cambridge unexpectedly broke the C130 test box, the entire RAF fleet was grounded temporarily whilst the NDT team travelled the world to clear each overseas located aircraft back to base. The entire fleet's centre sections were duly replaced at around £250k each.

The military Herc is cleared to pull 3g, clean, operationally, and has a G-meter on the panel. I cannot vouch for the civil version, nor do I know which category the downed firefighter came from. Repeated ops at low level will eventually crack the centre box and result in failure at less than the optimum stress limits.

777AV8R is right about negative g, but all large transports share that weakness for obvious reasons. However, wings rarely fail in negative g but on (the) subsequent positive.

My sincere condolences to the families and friends of the crew who were conducting a dangerous and valuable public service, should they happen to read this thread.

[Kalium Chloride]

BBC report here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/video/38082000/rm/_38082047_colorado06_pannell_vi.ram)

Be advised, contains the video clip.

[Evo7]

The bl**dy BBC have got "Firefighting plane explodes mid-air in California" as their 'video choice' :mad:

[VP8]

Shocking footage

Condolencies to all the families concerned....

VEEPS :(

[Nopax,thanx]

I see what you mean, DrSyn....no evidence of the centre wing still being attached to the fuse...looks like a centre wing failure, sadly - a most terrifying accident. Aircraft was probably an early model (C-130A or B) and most likely would have had the older type wing with the rectangular apertures (manholes) unlike the later ones, which were oval and less likely to produce a stress raiser.

Aerial fire fighting must rate as one of the most hazardous occupations going; I do hope that the crew's sacrifice in the name of public safety does not go unrecognised...

[Boss Raptor]

Just watched the clip...horrible...at least I think one can say it was a very quick end... :(

[Eastwest Loco]

Square access holes??

Didn't anyone learn from the Comet 1?

What absolutely horendous footage.

God bless the crew - leaving us trying to save others.

EWL

[greatorex]

Oh my God. How absolutely horrific.

[Capt H Peacock]

I have just seen the TV footage and sickening it is too. What a dreadful reward for our fellow aviators for their tireless work in fighting some of the biggest fires that the USA has ever seen.

Initially there appears to be a considerable descent rate at an obviously low altitude at the beginning of the clip. My guess would be an overstress during terrain avoidance.

Very sad indeed.

[Dockjock]

The woman who started the fire must be held accountable.

[Hartington]

I thought "the woman" started a Colorado fire. This crash was near Yosemite, California.

My thoughts are with the crew and, more importanly, their families and friends.

[PaperTiger]

It was an ex-USAF C-130A vintage 1957.
And not the first tanker to crash in very similar circumstances ( http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001206X02066&key=1 ). Seems to me the right wing clearly separated first.

Brave men.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

I wonder if they hit a tree with the right wing?

The very start of the film shows what might possibly be a tree strike with the right wing.

I spent fifteen years fire bombing all over North and South America, having watched the short clip on television there does not seem to be any reason for the pilots to have exceeded the structural limits from the looks of the area being flown over.

I also feel dismay and sadness to watch such a loss of life, having worked with and lost friends under simular circumstances.

Cat Driver:

..................
:D The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no.:D

[EGGW]

Chuck, i couldn't have said it better. No good reason why the wings came off. Hitting a tree would be nasty. The video footage i'm sure will help in the investigation.
Condolences to the frriends and family of those who perished. Brave men who died in the course of duty. http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/icon5.gif

[411A]

It is my personal belief that the root cause of this (and another) disaster with these old C-130 aircraft is the (mis) management of the US Forest Service a few years ago requesting bailed aircraft from the military....in the mistaken belief that piston powered aeroplanes were "old fashioned" and needed to be replaced with turbine powered machines. Absolutely nothing wrong with the P3 aircraft, but these old C-130 models are just not up to the task.

Just about in line with the type of thinking that today goes on in the USFS...when one of their OWN set the campfire that results today in the blaze just outside Denver.
There needs to be a top-to-bottom realignment in the Forest Service, IMHO, and the sooner the better. Just last year for example, the very large fire just outside Los Alamos was just another example of the incompetence that riddles that agency.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

411A: and everyone else here..

I quit flying firebombers because the bureaucracy within government had taken complete control of decision making and policy for aerial fire supression.

To continue working under their system would have required me to compromise my self worth by becoming one of them, this I could never do.

Thirty years ago private enterprise contracted to government for aerial fire suppression, we actually performed the job that we contracted to do...we put out the fires before they had a chance to become uncontrollable. We performed this task by the very simple method of initial attack as soon as there was a report of a possible fire.. We also understood how to effectively attack and supress forest fires.

I quit in 1986 because by that time almost all aerial fire suppression had come under the umbrella of government employees, they can only do one thing very well and that is build and protect an ever expanding bureaucracy.

You are now blessed with the end result.

Stupidity, Arrogance and corruption of what was once a very proud and professional industry, aerial fire suppression.

Accidents such as we have just witnessed on T.V. are not only tragic but in the grand scheme of things today just another example of good people trying to do the almost impossible... Protect the public and the forest from forest fires.


Truly tragic.

Cat Driver:

................
:D The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no.:D

[rick1128]

First of all it is my understanding that all the C130 and P3 tankers are 'bailed' aircraft. In other words they are sold to the states or tanker companies for public use only for a low fee from the military.

This not the first accident nor will it be the last. In the past it was the C119 tankers.

We need to remember those who do the jobs that are not glamorous or get a lot of public reccognition, but keep all of us healthy, protected and safe.

[MarkD]

411a

would you like the pilot of the Egyptair that went down in the Atlantic to be thought of as representative of professional pilots?

USFS personnel, regardless of their management, are risking their collective necks to put these blazes out. They are as entitled to close ranks, just as frequently as people on this board fulminate against press speculation of pilot error.

[411A]

...or starting them. Hello....Denver.

MarkD,

Hello, are you listening?

When was the last time you noticed the wings separate from a DC-7 or a P2V?....or even a C-54?

[Paterbrat]

Thoughts are with the friends and families of the crew so tragicaly killed in the course of their duties. Theirs was a valuable public service that involved risk. Condolances.

[treadigraph]

Specifically, what caused the fire these guys were tackling?

Well, no matter what the answer to that, in my book they are heroes and history should record them as such. I'm not in any way religious, just in awe of those who risk their own lives to preserve their environment and the lives of other inhabitants of our earth.

RIP...

[DrSyn]

Chuck Ellsworth, lest I created any doubt in my first post, I was not implying any operational overstress by the crew. I was referring to the known problem of centre section failure which, in an undetected case could even occur at 1g.

Those C130 centre boxes get one heck of a work-out on repetitive fire bombing ops.

Wing separation, however was "almost" simultaneous with a possible lead by the starboard wing.

[Knave]

A question.
Does anyone know if the PB4Y used by Hawkins and Powers is still being flown? I read that this Privateer conversion was still operating as recently as 1994. Its a hard life for any aircraft at low altitude in summer, but Im amazed at how long some of these aircraft put up with it.

[Techman]

It truly felt like a dagger through the heart to watch the footage.

I salute the crew.

[411A]

Knave--

I believe that I noticed this aeroplane on a very recent news program and believe that, yes, it is still being operated. Last noticed personally at WJF about four years ago.

There can't be many Privateer's around.

Chuck Ellsworth--

Could not agree more with your comments.
Noticed during the Scottsdale Arizona fire in 1997 one particular P3 was directed by the fire boss to drop some retardant on a hill that was not on fire. When he protested, the fire boss replied..."it doesn't matter what you think, the mayor wants to see some red on that hill, period." This was clearly heard by a group of us watching and listening on the VHF radio.

I cannot think offhand of more dangerous and appreciated work that these pilots do...hats off to them. It is a shame that they do not get the backing from the Forest Service that they deserve.

[PaperTiger]

All five P4Ys are active this year.
http://airtanker.com/aap/assign2002f.html

[Ignition Override]

Good gosh: Let's hope that their family members were notified quickly and were kept away from the tv for days. What a nightmare to watch. My condolences. It must have done wonders for news show ratings.

Those C-130 A models had three-bladed props for faster speed at lower altitudes. Believe that B models had outboard external fuel tanks, versus between engines on E/H models. All of them must have gone through lots of stress at 300 knots or more while looking for Strellas and other popular SAM missiles racing towards or from the drop zones (Khe Sanh, An Loc...)(and how about "assault landings"!? Have y'all seen these up close, to watch the wings flex down and up?) especially Southeast Asia.

I read or heard that some crews even pulled all four throttles below the flight idle stops just BEFORE they smashed onto the zone (in the air), in order to win landing competitions.

How good was the maintenance? I thought there was a bit of an orange stripe, which resembled the Coast Guard's markings.

Has anyone ruled out the possibility of a small area of sharp moderate or severe turbulence due to the winds or fires underneath?

Does anyone know if the flight pay per hour or month is pretty good, considering the risks? How about now? Typos, typos. (Roger, go mechanical on #2...)

[arcniz]

Ig Over: Point well made. The area near Reno has considerable potential for significant turbulence. I have flown those parts in various seasons - and have never missed a whumping jolt or ten in the process.

Reno is a desert town (about 4500msl) immediately in the lee of a major mountain massif that rises some 3000-5000 feet agl just to the west (where the fire evidently was located). The crest of the Sierra Nevada is some 20 miles further west at more than 11000msl. And 50 miles further west is the Sacramento delta at sea level, washed by laminar winds uninterrupted from 6000 miles of Pacific. So you have onshore, orographic and mountain and desert and valley winds, thermals and eddies and cline this and cline that, plus whatever the fires added.

It's not too hard to imagine a circumstance where the fully loaded aircraft, already under g-stress from manoeuvering, encountered a localized transient gust load that put them across the breaking limit of the wing.

Unspeakably sad to see it thus - one hopes something enduring may be learned as a result.

[Cyclic Hotline]

My heart goes out to the families of the crew-members lost in this horrifying accident.

Been gone for a couple of weeks fire-fighting myself, indeed having to park and watch the C-130's attacking the fire at very close quarters! Television coverage of fire-fighting never shows the reality of the activity, it's a bit like watching air-racing or an airshow on TV, you never get the true perspective of speed and position to the ground and consequently the true relationship between a large aircraft travelling rapidly, very close to the ground. Last week I was watching a C-130 starting a drop following a ridge line from the summit of a mountain. As he started his run, nose way down - high bank angle, the shadow of the aircraft converged with the aircraft at the summit and there could not have been more than 50 feet clearance between the two. Drop completed and off to town for more.

Many of the comments above accurately reflect the past problems with specific models in this application. Overall though, firefighting has a pretty good safety record, especially considering the specific flight regimes required for retardent application.

The big piston fleet is alive and well. We were working with KC-97's, PB4Y's and DC-7's, in addition to the 130's. There was a steady turn-over at the tanker base, as the machines stayed pretty busy. And this is all just South of the Arctic Circle, so constant daylight means constant firefighting!

Be back there again next week! Fly safe.

Watch for the C-130's and operators in the news later this year, as the process of surplusing them was under a major investigation by the Feds!

[SaturnV]

Firefighting Plane Had Wing Repairs
Wed Jun 19, 5:00 AM ET

By TOM GARDNER, Associated Press Writer

An air tanker that nose-dived in Northern California killing all
three crew members was repaired four years ago for cracks in one wing, a representative of the plane's owner said Tuesday
night.

The downed C-130A Hercules, operated under contract with the U.S. Forest Service, had just completed a pass over the blaze Monday when its wings snapped off and the fuselage plunged in
Walker, Calif.

George Petterson, the lead Nationa Transportation Safety Board investigator at the crash scene, said he was not aware of the earlier wing problem but that it would be examined.

"I have no idea if that's related to what we've got," he said.

The nation's C-130A tankers, workhorse of the firefighting fleet, were grounded Tuesday in the midst of what could become one of the worst fire seasons in history.

The C-130A that crashed Monday was fighting a 15,000-acre
annon fire north of Yosemite National Park. Investigators
ere trying to determine if a practice campfire set by Marine
trainees started the blaze Saturday.

The plane's operator, Hawkins & Powers Aviation Inc., notified
the Federal Aviation Administration ( news - web sites) in April
1998 that an inspection discovered two 1-inch cracks in the
surface or "skin" of one of Lockheed-built plane's wings,
according to an FAA document obtained by The Associated Press.

In the Service Difficulty Report, Hawkins & Powers described the cracks as near a rivet hole on the bottom of a wing. The damage was repaired and no subsequent problems were reported, a company employee said Tuesday night.

"All I can tell you is there were some wing repairs done to the aircraft. I don't know the extent of that," said Diane Nuttall, an administrative assistant at Hawkins & Powers in Greybull, Wyo. She did not know when the repair work was done.

Records show the 46-year-old aircraft passed its last major inspection in October. "Near-simultaneous wing failure — I've never seen it," Petterson said.

FAA representatives did not immediately return calls Tuesday night.

The C-130A tankers are only a fraction of the National Interagency Fire Center's fleet of 43 contract planes. Nancy Lull, a spokeswoman for the fire center in Boise, Idaho, said the five planes will be grounded for at least two days while their safety is evaluated.

"They will be shut down until a preliminary investigation can determine what happened to this particular aircraft is unique or that there is some sort of structural problem with all C-130s," said Ed Waldapfel, a Forest Service information officer at the fire center in Boise, Idaho.

Authorities identified the crash victims as pilot Steven Wass, 42, of Gardnerville, Nev.; co-pilot Craig Labare, 36, of Loomis, Calif.; and crew member Michael Davis, 59, of Bakersfield, Calif.

Hawkins & Powers' only previous accident listed in an NTSB database is a 1999 hard landing of a helicopter during coyote research in Utah. The company owns six C-130s and 22 other aircraft.

C-130s, made in the 1950s and '60s, are among the stalwarts of the world's air cargo fleet and were the primary transport used in Vietnam. They are also among the most important weapons in the government's aerial firefighting arsenal because they can hold 3,000 gallons of retardant.
_____________________________________

411A, the Los Alamos fire you mentioned was started by the National Park Service, not the Forest Service. It was deliberately lit as part of a plan of prescribed burns to reduce fire loads. Unfortunately, the Park Service chose to light it when conditions were unfavorable meteorologically, and the vegetation was too dry. The Federal Government (through US taxpayers) is compensating all the property owners for their losses.

[Tree]

My condolences to the crew.

Based on my experience:

Herk wings on "hard working" aircraft must be removed and rebuilt with new spar caps every 5,000 hr. This is an expensive item but necessary. An Alaska Herk experienced wing separation in cruise in the 70's.

[411A]

SaturnV,

Thanks for the correction, yes do now remember that it was the National Park Service, not the Forest Service.

Speaking of the Forest Service, believe it was announced on the radio this morning that the Forest Service employee, who claimed that (for the Denver fire now burning)...
first, she smelled smoke and raised the alert,
then when it was pointed out that she was UP-wind at the time later admitted to burning a "love letter"...now admits that she started the fire deliberately...so she could report same and be classified as a "hero".

Hmmm, think the "hero" might just get 20 years in the Federal slammer.

In addition, the fire where the C-130A experienced wing separation, is now under investigation as allegedly being set by US Marines...during maneuvers.
If true, perhaps the Marines had better stay...on the beach where they belong..altho this is a problem as well, as Marines have started several fires at Camp Pendleton in California in the past.
Not to mention crashing MV-22 craft at civilian airports, at night, no lights, and no notams...but this is a whole 'nother problem.

[West Coast]

You never fail to amaze me 411A

I will make sure to tell my brother Marines to get out of Afghanistan as its not on the beach. I will make sure they fly 46's from the 1960's for another decade or two as you don't like its replacement. To alleviate your ignorance, the Marines have a mountain warfare training center in the area. A number of units have trained there prior to going to Afghanistan. Anything else they are doing bothering you?
You got a bit of a reprieve from Danny, don't take it too far.

[411A]

Actually, West Coast, the so called "reprieve" from management was for those that could NOT keep the diatribe civil, as I always do.
And, if the Marines want to "maneuver" in the hills, there is a very closeby place to do same...'tis called Twentynine Palms. Not much to burn there however. The terrain there is very similar to Afghanistan, especially in the Chocolate or Old Women mountains just slightly further east. It is high time the the Armed Forces stay in their designated areas, and not start fires that civvy guys have to put out. At least the National Guard has brought in later model C-130's to help with the effort, and my hats off to them.
They will be urgently needed in the fire season ahead. I have watched P3's (and I have flown L188's) maneuver and drop retardant within one half mile from my house in Arizona, and they sure are accurate. Superb performance:D :D :D

[Ignition Override]

411A and gang: pardon another (long) wandering from the main topic of the graphic tragedy. I guess that it simple for any of us to point out anyone's' mistakes, especially when a forest fire results. On the subject of Marines, I've never been involved with any Army or Marine activities. As for those dedicated pros being sent into operations which do not concern beach or helo assaults etc, which seem to be their main training focus (just ask that "courageous" reporter on CNN military operations, Ashleigh Banfield), some of 411A's comments reminded me of some remarks in (ret) Army Colonel David Hackworth's major book "About Face".

This book is a blistering critique of how the Vietnam War was "micro-managed"...with no true understanding among many upper level military or civilian leaders, of the various elements involved, as many have described it, from Washington DC (with too many junior or mid-level folks afraid to tell them that they were wrong: no promotion if not in line with team decisions). The colonel was seriously wounded in Korean infantry combat, and was up close in some battles in Vietnam (versus taking part on a "country club" base or only in the the Pentagon etc with no enemy contact...to use his language). He made many enemies over here by his blunt critiques.

My point is that the Marines seem to be required to go wherever politicians need them to go, but I could be mistaken. It would surprise me if most Marines, from the Lt Cols down the ranks to the junior enlisted were allowed to decide where to fight. The Pentagon has always semed to me to be the main "puzzle palace". Incidentally, my father-in-law (ret. Col) once had a tour there in the Army's Quartermaster 'Branch', during his long career.

Would Pprune Towers allow me to quote a little from David Hackworth's quite interesting 834 page (+) book, "About Face", on page 611? Well, here goes: "But having juggled the figures, Westy (Gen. Westmoreland) must have come to believe them, and when he returned to Vietnam he enthusastically embraced the siege on Khe Sanh as Dien Bien Phu (in reverse) of the war...from which would spring his ever-longed-for set-piece battle that would turn the tide of the war decisively in the Americans' favor. It was only Mao who said 'there is no such thing as a decisive battle in guerilla warfare' ...the Marines sat on the receiving end of the same horrific incoming we hill people had endured in Korea in 1952-53. ...But as Ward Just had titled his book to what end was the whole damn thing?"

I don't pretend to know anything about combat, but as in other books on the war, i.e. (another excellent one) by Philip Caputo, "A Rumour of War"(?), a Marine who patroled the forests in the highlands, he said pretty much the same things about Khe Sanh, based on my rusty general impression (nothing personal, Rusty ['sushi' IOE]). Many have said that the Marines' presence in such situations is a waste of lives, when not necessary. When were the Marines' missions broadened to include runnung a firebase etc like the Army? What 'kind' of commanders make such decisions??

I can't back up a question or skepticism on a complex topic with two sound-bytes. Maybe this is another factor as to why my FMC/MCP training was a challenge (and no desk-top mouse training, or anything, available for preparation). Typos, typos.

[Down and Welded]

Back to the thread. Anyone know if crews of these C-130 firefighters are ex-mil? Also, what function does the 'crew member' play (ie the 3rd person)?

God bless these guys...

[411A]

That third crew member is called...the Flight Engineer.

[West Coast]

411
I have more time on the crapper at Twenty nine palms than you have thinking about military training. The Marines (and other services) train in the conditions they expect to fight in. Despite your valued input, the Marines thought it would be best to train for mountainous combat in the mountains. Amphibious training is done on a beach, jungle in the jungle, desert in the desert. See a pattern?
Trying to limit military training as you suggest is what gets people killed

[411A]

Glad you had time in Twentynine Palms for extra-curricular activities West Coast, now try to stick to the thread...just a little bit.:rolleyes:

[Cyclic Hotline]

This very interesting link was posted on the airtanker bulletin board Independent Investigation Link (http://www.iprr.org/COMPS/T82story.htm).

Makes very interesting reading with regard to the accident discussed here!

I have known the author of this report for the last 10 years. He is a highly experienced and competent investigator (former NTSB) and high time (C-130 amongst others) pilot. This is an entirely credible report.

[Latte tester]

411a, you seem to have started the wandering from the thread by mentioning the Marines, I thought the thread was about a C-130 crash. You also seem to very opinionated and closed minded about most of the 'stuff' that has been said about this horrific crash.
The point here is that a C-130 crashed for what is as yet an unknown cause, we can all speculate, as we do, but let's try to keep to the point and quit complaining about other less important stuff.
Oh yes, by the way, you are probably nice and cozey in your Arizona house because of the unselfish dedication to duty of those Marines and other members of the military that are guarding your sorry little a--.
:D :D :D

[Semaphore Sam]

2 items:
First: in 1968 I was stationed in Mactan, PI, which had 2 squadrons of C-130's; this was during the seige at Khe San. It quickly became plain it was dangerous to re-supply Khe San by stopping & off-loading, so at Mactan they developed this system whereby they would come above the area about 5 feet off the ground, & drop the stuff out the back, & accelerate out, never touching down. This had to have bent the airframes quite a bit. I wonder if that airframe in Yosemite had been put through this kind of activity over the years.

Second: I believe the reason such big conflagrations occur is that the natural effect of small fires, burning off underbrush & forest floor, old pine needles, cones, leaves, etc , is stopped by modern firefighting. The underbrush & forest floor is never cleared, and becomes, over time, like a huge time-bomb. Had the famous woman in Colorado not started the fire, something (lightning, etc) or someone would have (accidently or not). One must admire the fire-fighters, but they actually magnify the problem.

[411A]

Semaphore Sam,

Would expect that the type of maneuver that you describe would indeed take its toll over time. Expect that no other type used in aerial fire-fighting today was abused in this manner. Let's hope that more P3's are available in the future as this type was beefed up considerably after L188's experienced wing separation many years ago. Our DirMaintenance is an old Electra hand from way back and he mentions that the Electra is built like the perverbial brick ....house. I flew Electras for a very brief time and would have to say that it had...instant power, right now.

And your comments about the Forest Service were right on target.

[wes_wall]

411A

One of your few posts that I find something in common with. I flew out of IDL, oops, JFK, and use to commute from DCA to the NYC area on the EA or AA shuttle or NA. The Electras, before they
were slowed down, use to make as good a time as the DC-9 or 72s. I never flew them, but I always like the airplane, particularly after they determined the problem. Can see how it would
make for a good tanker.

[UNCTUOUS]

The PearBlossom Crash
Investigation of the 13 Aug 94 Loss of Lockheed C130A Firefighting Tanker ... at http://www.iprr.org/COMPS/T82story.htm
Douglas R. Herlihy, Air Safety Investigator

This Report by an independent ISASI investigator convincingly repudiates the NTSB Report's finding of wiring igniting fuel leaks in the dry bay and attributes the accident to straight overstress (crew + gust-factor) for the weight that they were at. I also believe that that is what we saw in the recent accident. If (in the Pearblossom crash) they were rolling at the time, then you also need to recognise that the ultimate load factor is only two-thirds of the symmetrical limit (3g for a new aircraft). That then puts you at the aircraft limit of only two +g for a fully deflected aileron (and about 2.5g for a half-deflected control input). Based upon 150% ULF, a sharp vertical gust of only 5kts (=500fpm) would break the structure if entered at that rolling g limit.

Pulling whilst rolling can also induce cumulative damage and over a period the residual strength inherent in the structure will be undetectably eroded towards something that will be quite unacceptable for the manoeuvring demanded by the role.

Aerobatic Training aircraft usually carry counting accelerometers (fatigue meters) so that a fatigue index can be calculated and a fatigue life arrived at for the airplane (at the then known rate of fatigue accumulation within its role). Fire Service bailed aircraft apparently do not observe that precaution - and so they find out the hard way.

The Pearblossom breakup sequence and explanations for the witness statements and debris distribution and condition are also satisfactorily explained in that ISASI Investigator's Report. It convincingly debunks the NTSB finding.

Obviously Fire Service Aircraft are accumulating fatigue-cracking in the centre section at a rapid rate because of the nature of their heavy manoeuvring operation amongst strong (fire-initiated) thermal turbulence - and the margin for error is now totally whittled away. I'd be surprised if the C130's return to the role.

[ICT_SLB]

Transport Canada has special integrating g-meter/recorders on all their Flight Inspection aircraft that do a similar amount of low altitude manouevers. From memory the system will allocate up to the equivalent of 5 or more normal 1-g flight hours for some evolutions.

The USAF C-140s used by the Checker Squadron out of Scott AFB were all grounded by stress fatigue in the wing spars. Apparentlythey found even if you spend a lot of money on refurbishment the corrosion just comes back in a few 100 hours

There was a quote by a fire marshal that these aircraft had been doing this for twenty years - just think of the equivalent normal airframe life.

[Ignition Override]

Latte Tester: It was my fault for wandering off the topic (longer) on a previous page.

Whether the accident aircraft was Coast Guard (faded orange stripes?) or not, could it have suffered from many years of corrosion as a previous remark suggested? If this was combined with either Air Force (AFRES/ANG) assault landings with almost no flare, maybe those low-level LAPES airdrops almost on the ground at Khe-Sanh and/or years of low level turbulence from other fires/wind gusts, then was this crash sort of expected by lots of people in aero engineering/maintenance?

Would/does the apparent much higher wing loading on the Electra/P-3 (like a giant Metroliner) prevent it from having the best maneuverability for fire-fighting in small valleys?

[UNCTUOUS]

The 4500 hp Allisons washing that rigid P3 wing gives you instant get up and go (as long as you're not operating to the overweight limit of 145,000lbs). Drop the 10 degrees of maneuver flap (that's good up to 275kts) and you have lots of maneuver abilities. I used to aerobat them (stripped down) at service airshows, including a 120kt departure climbout at light-weight max power/appch flap. That was about a 65 degree climb angle. FE's didn't like that one, or going inverted at the top of wing-overs...

The desert parking lots are full of old P3B's (which have more gutz than the A models) - but I'm not sure how much retardant they'll take in comparison with the Herk. Weightwise about the same, but depends how they plumb it in. I doubt you'd pull the wings off the P-3 (VNe of 405kts and flies v smoothly at that speed).

[Notso Fantastic]

My impression from the video footage was that there was a very pronouncced ridge line just behind where the failure occured, and the Herc was below the ridge level. Did it swoop down after crossing the ridge and overstress on pull up? The way the wings separated almost simultaneously seem to indicate a marked sudden overstress.

My greatest respect to 3 brave fliers and their families who must always live with the risks their men take in their jobs. A sad event that the news services appeared to over indulge in.

[Wobbles]

I wonder what the explanation is. It seems pretty freaky that both wings should fall off at the same time. Are they connected by a spar through the fuselage, which could have failed?

[Nopax,thanx]

Nope... the C-130 wing is a three-piece affair; center wing takes the two inboard engines, and just outboard the outer wings connect via bolts all the way around a set of beefy fittings.

There are spar caps all along top and bottom, and the wing itself has a rigid box all through, with struts inside that brace it. Hefty planks top and bottom make the outer skins.

It's certainly very similar to the 1994 accident.

[UNCTUOUS]

This one is a structural failure and occurred right where Snow (owner and operator of C-130A S/N 3035 produced in 1955) found cracks in the Southern Air Transport L-100 birds in Columbus Ohio. We've had a chance to see the entire tape and it is apparent that the pilot over G'd the aircraft in the turn prior to the drop then the sudden release of all that weight and a strong wind thermal right after drop folded the already damaged wings. Snow is trying to get through to the inspector from the NTSB in charge of the case in Calif. now to suggest exactly where they should go to look for the breaks in the lower spar caps on the crashed aircraft and other C-130 tankers.

The fire everyone saw is the fuel and hydraulic lines with the wiring tearing lose with the fuel igniting either from the wiring or the hot exhaust. It would be damned near impossible for both wings to leave at the same time from just fatigue, corrosion or two simultaneous explosions. The odds of any of those happening to both wings at exactly the same time is very small in our opinion

[411A]

UNCTUOUS

The P3's that I have had a look at have had a capacity of 3,500 gallons of retardant and had the ability of dispersal in several different amounts, enabling multiple drops.
Have to agree with your comments regarding performance. Altho the Allison's on the L188 are derated from the military models, the performance of the aeroplane is superb.:D

[RatherBeFlying]

A Transport Canada King Air used for flight inspection lost a wing. The investigation determined that the structural fatigue design of the King Air was predicated on spending most of its life in high altitude cruise. Bumping around at low level wore out the structure faster than the design life worked out for high altitude operations. Other turboprops are likely designed around the same fatigue parameters.

The older big pistons were overdesigned, but by the time the turboprops came in, the structural fatigue formulae were more precise and the structures were designed more precisely to the expected loads.

Newer is not necessarily stronger, or as this case shows, more durable.

So how many firefighting operators are capable of performing a fatigue analysis of the structural design of a type not yet used for firefighting and setting up an inspection program that will catch defects before something big falls off?

[Nopax,thanx]

I'm not that familiar with FAA regs, but presumably these tankers are in a Category like the UK's old 'Aerial Work' which covered aircraft that did not carry fare paying pax, so were not Transport per se.

So the inspections would be different from those required on an aircraft with a 'full' certificate?

[canberra]

i was shocked at seeing the c130 crash. was the aircraft an ex military aircraft? the uk caa will not allow c130s on to the british civil register due to the aircraft not having a normal wing spar.

[MaxProp]

First of all- heartfealt commeriserations to the familys,

there is an awful lot of verbiage on these posts----many posts allude to the fairly complex nature of the c130 structure. the question is quite simple---the aircraft was designed as a long range transport (in 1960) --not as a dive bomber. what steps were taken by the operator to account for the change of operating profile--the UK air force for example has various fatique models into which every sortie must be allocated ===
no one can just take any aircraft and just flog it to death

[arcniz]

The photo accompanying this news story gives a clearer idea of the possible manoeuvering g-loads and turbulence modes in that firefighting situation.

http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/story/3259756p-4286290c.html

[PaperTiger]

Retardant carrying and delivery capabilities of the C-130 and P-3 are identical.
http://airtanker.com/aap/types.htm

The accident aircraft was not USCG, it was civilian with a civil paint job - cream with red trim. It was ex-USAF (1957 build), its history is being discussed on the C-130 board.
http://pub33.ezboard.com/fc130herculesheadquartersfrm2.showMessage?topicID=211.topic

[DrSyn]

Without repeating my original post on page 1 (which covered "spars", Wobbles), there are some clear points from analysing the KOLO video.

1. When the C130 was filmed passing over the camera in its spiral descent, she clearly had flaps extended to around 50% which, as observed elsewhere, further reduces the operating g-limit.

2. Towards the end of the retardant drop, the body angle appears to be c -17º, rotating to c +6º within 2 secs, which is a significant rate, and failure commences at this point.

3. In the sacbee.com link, provided by arcniz above, the first pic, shows a dark object rising between the apex of the breaking wings as they reach about 40º dihedral. This is the same object behind and above the C130 in pic 2, and looks very much to me like a large piece of the centre box. View the video to see more clearly.

I would reiterate comments by others that flying this and any type in a very punishing rôle requires a carefully controlled programme of stress-monitoring by the operating company and regulating authority (FAA). One has to ask in this case as to what degree, if any, this was and is being done. The Herc has been around longer than most and has a well known, fully documented history of its wing fatigue tendencies, resulting in progressive weaknesses.

Certain quarters are already shaping-up to lay the blame squarely on the crew, which is a common let-out in so many accidents. This is a particularly challenging and dangerous job for the crews. Let us hope that the investigation will not opt for a single conclusion, as so many have done in the past.

[Ignition Override]

Dr Syn: I doubt that those planes had any CVRs or FDRs onboard.

Heck, if the NTSB (..Safety Board) pins the primary cause on the Captain or rest of crew, this helps all of the various participants avoid liability. Many years ago, a TWA crew saved a B-727 which went out of control at very high altitude over Michigan. There was intense pressure to accuse the crew of an unauthorized enroute procedure or technique. A few years ago, according to either "Aviation Week ***" or "Flying" magazine, someone found a logbook entry from the same ship, which was entered BEFORE the serious incident, and concerned an uncommanded leading edge slat extension or other such glitch. This logbook page had been allegedly misplaced or lost for over twenty years or so. There was very strong pressure to find the crew at fault. At least one of them counter-sued either Boeing or the NTSB.

Lots of NTSB reports state something such as "the pilot failed to maintain control, leading to in-flight break-up", as with so many tragic private aircraft accidents etc. Whether the FAA used required oversight or not, even if any extra subjective concerns about wing fatigue were ignored, maybe the company documentation was "legal" and so might this have led to a bit of complacency on everyone's part, knowing the tough reputation of the old plane? For example, "well, they made it through Vietnam (and + or- lots of assault landings with almost no flare) plus lots of fires and never broke...".

Is it possible that fighting so many large fires out west becomes top priority as in wartime? Heck, years ago, the C-130 E/H models could supposedly go from the max takeoff weight of 155,000, but use 175,000 pounds in a combat theater, could it not?

[Cyclic Hotline]

Further to Dr Syn's detailed and informed comments above, the following appears in Aviation Week. (http://www.aviationnow.com/content/publication/awst/20020624/aw56b.htm )

[I. M. Esperto]

Cyclic - Good link.

Thanks.

[747FOCAL]

Ignition Override,

You must be referring to the 727 that had a rather innovative crew and tried to improve the cruise performance of the 727 with a load of passengers and unknowing crew.

The pilot and the co-pilot had cooked up this idea that they could improve the L/D on the 727. During this flight they waited for the FE to head to the biffy and then put their plan into action. After disabling the leading edge extension by pulling the breaker they pulled the flap lever to a slightly extended(maybe 2-3 degrees) position and since this setting was not on the detent they used a pair of vice grips to secure the flaps in this position.. Well it worked and they did gain altitude and speed for the same EPR setting, BUT……… They never let the FE in on the plan. When he returned from the biffy and chatting with the stews he sat down at his station and noticed the breaker sticking out and without saying anything pushed it back in. BAM out came the slats at Mach .9 ripping one or more off(I can’t remember if it was one or two) and instantly they did a split S and only an act of God saved that plane and the unsuspecting people on board. I guess the moral of that story is don’t do things that get you into trouble unless you think your good enough to get yourself out.:D

"Screw around screw around and soon you won't be around"
:p

[con-pilot]

Believe it or not I actually flew that 72 (years after the incident). That thing was terrible to fly. It was impossible to keep it in trim.

Two things saved them.

1. The 72 is one hell of a well-built airplane.
2. They threw the gear out at about 400kts +.

I don’t know if it is still flying or not, the last I heard it been converted in to a cargo airplane and Express One out of Dallas was operating it.

[Cyclic Hotline]

From airtanker.com

USDA Forest Service
Fire and Aviation Management
Briefing Paper

July 3, 2002

Topic: Contract C-130A Airtanker Fleet Disposition

Issue: The Forest Service has suspended operations of the C-130 Fleet pending further developments in the NTSB accident investigation.

Background: On June 17, 2002, a C-130A modified as an airtanker crashed fatally injuring its 3-member crew while dropping fire retardant on the Cannon Fire that was being fought on the Toyiabe National Forest.

Key Points:

· The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is leading the investigation of the accident. Jack Blackwell, Region 5 Regional Forester, will be the leader of the Forest Service Management Evaluative Team.

· Pending receipt of the preliminary indications of the cause of the accident, the Forest Service has ordered the stand-down of the remaining C-130A tankers. Any further speculation concerning future actions based upon this accident is premature.

· Three contractors are effected by this grounding: Hawkins and Powers Aviation, Inc. of Greybull, Wyoming; TBM, Inc of Tulare, California, and International Air Response, Inc. from Chandler, Arizona. Hawkins and Powers and TBM have current contracts with the Forest Service.

· As a result of this stand down, there are 39 operational tankers under contract. Eight Modular Airborne Fire Fighting Systems (MAFFS) aircraft operated by the Air National Guard and the Air Force Reserve are also available.

· In order to be able to reactivate the aircraft as soon as possible if the investigation determines it feasible, the Forest Service will continue to pay daily availability for the C-130As during the course of the investigation. The Forest Service has a liaison with the NTSB investigation team monitoring developments in the investigation.

· A team of contract, operations, and maintenance specialists are standing by to facilitate rapid reactivation of the C-130 fleet if this option becomes available.

[DrSyn]

Thanks Cyclic for that link to AW (I hope life is treating you well in the Great Wilderness!). At least one responsible publication appears to be keeping an eye on the ball. Their lesser body angle figures, taken no doubt from clearer evidence copy than I had, and load factor estimates, add weight to my initial suspicions if correct.

I wonder if others would agree that periodic "inspections" are an unsatisfactory alternative to a proper, ongoing fatigue-monitoring program (as mentioned by MaxProp, myself and others), when these airframes are being subjected to such demanding operating conditions.

As for "Several years ago, a crack was found in the lower left panel of the wing center box and was repaired with a doubler" (my emphases) - any Engineers care to comment on the long-term effect of strengthening one part of a load-bearing structure?

The great God Cash should not be used as an excuse for re-learning past lessons and the loss of life.

[Cyclic Hotline]

There is more about the information on the airtanker programme on the KATU site. (http://www.katu.com/pages/team2.asp) See the 3 Throw away Planes Throw away Pilots stories.

The video stories are interesting viewing if you have an Internet connection capable of watching them.

[csb]

Why Did These 10 Men Die? (http://www.wweek.com/html/10_men_die.html) (Willamette Week, 1997)

Some insightful journalism about the C-130, coincidentally from a Portland newspaper. There's lots in there about maintenance, politics, and the in's and out's of military crash investigations. There are a bunch of sidebars and followups on the main page, most of which are mostly worth reading.

For those of you who may remember, this was the "King 56" case. Ten Air Force Reservists died when their C-130 crashed just off of the Pacific coast. The problem appears to have been "four-engine rollback", a malfunction in the box that keeps the engines out of phase -- it kept slowing all 4 of them.

These articles may not apply directly to the problem at hand; but, it's very good reporting, and it may resonate with the current discussion. I remember this being a very big deal when it came out, esp. since this "alternative weekly" was the only media outlet that dedicated resources to uncovering the truth.

[DownIn3Green]

I.O, Con-P and 747F,

That 727 is still currently flying today with Custom Air Transport, last seen sitting on the cargo ramp in Austin. N220NE...

[SaturnV]

Why would you even consider pulling a plane such as this out of the desert?

NTSB: Airtanker Once Flew Spy Missions
Mon Jan 6, 2:41 AM ET Add U.S. Government - AP to My Yahoo!


By SCOTT SONNER, Associated Press Writer

RENO, Nev. - The investigation of an airtanker crash during a wildfire may have been hampered by missing records on the former Air Force plane — missing, in part, because the plane used to fly spy missions for the CIA (news - web sites), a federal investigator said.



The revelation has renewed criticism of the Forest Service for putting the surplus military plane to work fighting fires.


"Apparently this ... airplane at one point in time was set up along with a few others for electronic surveillance — as in CIA activity — somewhere in the world," said George Petterson, an air safety investigator for the National Transportation Safety Board (news - web sites).


"Those kind of airplanes basically don't exist records-wise. That could be the reason why we don't have a good history on this airplane," he told The Associated Press.


Investigators are unsure how long the C-130A cargo plane had flown — as little as 3,000 hours, or possibly more than 20,000 hours — with the wing assembly that broke off its fuselage in June, killing all three crew members in a crash near Walker, Calif. The airtanker was built by Lockheed in 1956.


Last month, the Forest Service came under fire for having been repeatedly told the aging aircraft never should have been released from the Air Force "boneyard" at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in 1988. A blue-ribbon panel investigating the matter at the request of the Forest Service recommended enhanced safety standards in planes used for fighting fires.


Petterson said the Air Force modified many of its C-130As with new wing parts in the early- to mid-1980s, though he can't tell whether the crashed plane was one of them.


"The modifications were being done because they were having problems with the airplanes' wings cracking," Petterson said. The NTSB (news - web sites) investigator has identified fatigue cracks — one more than a foot long — in the wings of the plane that crashed in June and he suspects the same structural failure caused a 1994 airtanker crash that killed three crew members north of Los Angeles.


The Air Force indicated the records of the wing modifications have been destroyed, Petterson said.


Complicating matters is that the company that performed the modifications, Aero Corp. in Lake City, Fla., "kept the records for many, many years, but they since have been disposed of," he said.


He added that "it would help make the fatigue cracking a little more understandable" if the plane had flown more than 20,000 hours, as opposed to as few as 3,000.


Aero Corp. no longer exists. Michael Moore, general manager of the company that acquired it, Timco Aviation Services of Greensboro, N.C., declined to comment.


An Air Force Reserve spokesman at the Pentagon (news - web sites) said paperwork typically accompanies surplus military aircraft to the new owner, but he had no information on the plane.


Critics of the Forest Service firefighting fleet have alleged that planes on contract to the agency were being used in covert operations after they left the military and were in the possession of private contractors.


This plane involved in the crash was one of nearly two dozen the Air Force released to private contractors in the late 1980s and early 1990 under an aircraft exchange program. Two men involved in the program landed in federal prison after their 1996 convictions on charges of conspiracy to steal the planes.


Hawkins & Powers Aviation Inc. of Greybull, Wyo., received seven of the C-130As, including the one that crashed in June.


The head of aviation at Forest Service headquarters in Washington said the lack of documentation is a major concern.


"We know some aircraft that were part of the aircraft exchange act ended up flying overseas. I don't know for what agency. If he says CIA, he might be right," Tony Kern, national aviation officer, said of Petterson's remarks.

"We also are aware there are gaps in the records of these aircraft, not just for that period of time, but records that never were transferred across from the military," he said. "If you don't know the flight hours, that's a big problem."

The aircraft exchanges were halted under the Clinton administration, but most of the planes remain in the hands of the private contractors.

The transfers were portrayed at the time as necessary to bolster the Forest Service's depleted firefighting fleet. But Gary Eitel, a former Vietnam War combat pilot who filed a lawsuit to try to force the return of the planes to the government in the mid-1990s, testified before Congress that the CIA used the Forest Service to cover up its use of the aircraft for secret missions.

Kern said the Forest Service needs complete documentation on its firefighting fleet.

"This is a major issue we are going to address with whatever aircraft we go with next," Kern said. "We need to have that so 20 years from now there's not another guy in this seat asking, `How the heck did we get into a scenario where the NTSB can't find records on these aircraft?'":confused:

[Ignition Override]

747FOCAL (is that you "J", formerly with Pan-Am Express/Cimber Air [Berlin] and Air Mauritius A-340 ops?): The so-called procedure that the TWA pilots were blamed for, was dreamed up by Boeing, in order to explain what happened to the airplane. Boeing was very nervous after it happened, and had to create any plausible procedure to 'pin on' the crew, which would reduce the aircraft's liability. It was apparently believable enough for many US airline 727 pilots to have suspected that they did such a bizarre procedure, which guys with fifteen or more years on the 727 (even as FE instructors...) had never heard of. The Captain was already fortunate to have recently flown aerobatic planes and had almost no time to recover, but good old Boeing and the NTSB had many weeks and even months to be 'Monday morning quarterbacks' and second-guess the one intense 'play', so long after the 'game'.

Boeing must have done an excellent job 'cooking up' those steps (they have the factory and the technicians who could invent it), which convinced many people that many pilots were already aware of it. By the way, I've never been trained on the 727.

1) The crewmembers counter-sued Boeing (or the NTSB?) and won.

2) What proof or personal testimony (on the part of any of the crewmembers) is there, that any of the crew did what they were accused of?

3) Why did the aircraft maintenance logbook page from the same aircraft ship number, which detailed documented problems with the slat, disappear for so many years and not long ago reappear, according to 'Aviation Week & ST' magazine?