C130 down NE Cooma

[pinkpanther1]

Reports of a US registered C130 down near Cooma. SAR choppers heading out now.

From NSWRFS:
The NSW Rural Fire Service is investigating reports of a serious incident involving an aircraft in southern NSW this afternoon.

Contact was lost with a Large Air Tanker which was working in the Snowy Monaro area.

Local ground crews indicate the aircraft may have crashed.

A number of helicopters are in the area carrying out a search.

No further information is available at this time.

[logansi]

Bomber 134 - N134CG

[Allan L]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-23/nsw-rfs-air-tanker-crashes-near-numeralla-bushfire/11893554

[logansi]

Sounds like a LAT working in Southern NSW has crashed, appears to be N134CG

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N134CG

[segfault]

This article:

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/nsw-bushfires-fire-danger-spikes-amid-hot-windy-weather/news-story/ab48651d81becd7363c0ec46273d22a2

Says the crash is in Peak View

https://goo.gl/maps/y35Ye6ViVBQadvQC6

[SnowFella]

Both flightaware and FR24 tracks end rather abruptly with several helicopters rather quickly making their way to the last "known" location.
Might ad, looks like the ABC report doesn't show the correct airframe.

[mickjoebill]

A Royal Australian Airforce P-8-A is circling just north of Peak View.

MJB

[Airbubba]

From the New South Wales Rural Fire Service:

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/884x531/nsw_rfs_09553c368b227dadb8dd12827e8a63afbe305eac.jpg

[Airbubba]

RAAF P-8A orbiting over the scene.

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1155x507/raaf_p_8a_6023a264af96223f92711e020aa0244441fe5f86.jpg

[unworry]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EO79xZYVAAAy2Os?format=png&name=small

RAAF A47-005 P-8A Poseidon as "BLACKCAT 50" currently searching for a missing C-130 Large Air Tanker in the Snowy Mountains region of NSW, Australia. NSW RFS confirmed that a C-130 is currently missing and a SAR operation is taking place

[dash34]

Hoping this is not a Coulson aircraft. They have bomber 134 registered as N130CG. Fingers crossed for the crew.

https://cdn.jetphotos.com/full/6/81849_1555835145.jpg

[rattman]

Hoping this is not a Coulson aircraft. The have bomber 134 registered as N130CG



yes thats it apparently

crash scene is being orbited by P-8 callsign BLKT50 and rscu201 is airborne and looks to be heading to that area

[unworry]

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N134CG

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1069x658/qbu1wzd_461777cb69313cb201abfb2b58d131a85eaac40f.png

[Airbubba]

From JetPhotos.com:

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1280x873/33451_1559458523_ae9df2556c06d36ba1fd03491f5cbce38faffd9e.jp g

[Cedrik]

The speed fluctuates wildly, very bad turbulence in the lee of those hills. Structural failure?

[Green.Dot]

The speed fluctuates wildly, very bad turbulence in the lee of those hills. Structural failure?

As is often said on these forums, let’s not speculate. It could be a multitude of possibilities. Come up with them in your head. No need to post them right now- they haven’t even found the wreckage yet! As for your comment- I dare say the GROUNDspeed indications on that primitive freely available little graph would be similar on most firebombing sorties. Let’s hope there are some survivors

[RatsoreA]

Nil survivors.

Take care everyone.

[CaptainEmad]

Speculating, rumours yep.

SPECI YCOM 230130Z AUTO 33021G36KT 9999 // NCD 28/07 Q1001

SPECI YCOM 230109Z AUTO 33025G37KT 9999 // SCT023 27/05 Q1001

METAR YCOM 230100Z AUTO 33025G36KT 7000 // SCT016 SCT023
28/03 Q1001

SPECI YCOM 230100Z AUTO 33025G36KT 7000 // SCT016 SCT023
28/03 Q1001=

[machtuk]

It hurts all when fellow aviators take their final flight. RIP -(

[onetrack]

Channel 7 News is reporting that witnesses saw the C130 crash in a ball of fire. 3 crew on board. It looks like the chances of survivors would be very slim.

https://7news.com.au/news/bushfires/large-water-bombing-aircraft-has-crashed-at-peak-view-reports-c-661253

[unworry]

Channel 7 News is reporting that witnesses saw the C130 crash in a ball of fire. 3 crew on board. It looks like the chances of survivors would be very slim.

https://7news.com.au/news/bushfires/large-water-bombing-aircraft-has-crashed-at-peak-view-reports-c-661253


The report actually stated: "Witnesses in the area say they saw a “ball of fire” as the aircraft reportedly hit the ground"

Your 'crash in a ball of fire" makes it sound like it went down in flames. I trust you were not being needlessly sensational.


\

[landyvlad]

The wreckage of the missing RFS air tanker has reportedly be found by search crews.
Seven News reporter Cameron Price tweeted that that only the tail section of the aircraft is believed to be still intact, with the rest breaking upon impact.
(Fire) Crews reporting difficult terrain and "terrible visibility".

[landyvlad]

Existing thread in the Aussie NZ etc forum entitled C130 down NE Cooma (https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/629086-c130-down-ne-cooma.html)

(sorry can't post link as only newly registered)

[ACMS]

What about the Bird dog that accompanies the LAT and directs the drop? They must have seen everything?

[Lantern10]

Tragic news. R.I.P. to the crew.

[unworry]

What about the Bird dog that accompanies the LAT and directs the drop? They must have seen everything?

Unlikely, they are usually the lead aircraft.

We don't know yet whether they were on a bombing run, though the flight profile and location aligns with the current firegrounds

[RE Koyich]

Sadly, the ABC just reporting three dead.

One of the riskier aviation crewing jobs - thinking of their families and friends.

[Foxxster]

All crew were American. No names mentioned obviously.

[junk22]

Coulson Aviation press release text - can't post URLs yet

While working in the Snowy Monaro Area in southern NSW, Australia contact was lots with one of our large airtankers, a Lockheed C-130 registration N134CG.
The aircraft had departed Richmond, NSW with a load of retardant and was on a firebombing mission. The accident is reported to be extensive and we are deeply saddened to confirm there were 3 fatalities.

The accident response team has been activated as well as local emergency services, Coulson Aviation will be sending a team to the site to assist in emergency operations. Our thoughts and prayers are with the familes of the three crew members onboard.

Sincerely,
The Coulson Family

[Cloudbase4812]

Has anybody crunched the numbers to what happens to stall speeds or engine performance if you were to pass into extreme high temp, high humidity fire storm air masses?

[SnowFella]

Already seen mentioned that all the Coulson airframes we have in NSW have been grounded.
Not sure of the validity of it though as it came from someone not showing any official sources.

[Cleared Visual]

Already seen mentioned that all the Coulson airframes we have in NSW have been grounded.
Not sure of the validity of it though as it came from someone not showing any official sources.

Actually it came directly from the NSW RFS commissioner. He stated during a press conference that it is a precautionary grounding initiated by Coulson to rule out things like fuel contamination across their fleet or other "systematic issues" within their operation that may have contributed, as well as a "mark of respect" and for the psychological welfare of their other crews (per the article below). I expect they'll be back up in the air within days or even hours.

https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-23/nsw-rfs-air-tanker-crashes-near-numeralla-bushfire/11893554?pfmredir=sm

[rattman]

Already seen mentioned that all the Coulson airframes we have in NSW have been grounded.
Not sure of the validity of it though as it came from someone not showing any official sources.

Yep coulson media release says nothing about grounding

https://i.redd.it/30xu65szwgc41.jpg


Imagine the C130 will be grounded for a while but other will be reletively short grounding

“Coulsons have grounded their large air tankers this afternoon and, indeed, as a mark of respect and as welfare for the rest of their crews operating large air tankers here in New South Wales and interstate in Victoria, have grounded the operations pending review to ensure that there’s nothing systemic like a fuel problem or something,” Fitzsimmons said. “We’ve [also] got the military helping us with the evaluation of the fuel to rule that out.”

[LTP90]

Sad news, the Coulson crews are well respected.
The C-130s had several wing failure crashes in the late 1990's/early 2000s, that grounded the firefighting fleet. It wasnt till Coulson that any were back flying. I know when the U.S. Forest service was set to acquire some from the USAF that wing box replacement was a requirement before acceptance.
I'm hoping this is not another wing failure.

[landyvlad]

Very sad. R.I.P.


Three people killed in air tanker crash

NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian has confirmed that three people have died after an RFS air tanker crashed while fighting fires in the Snowy Mountains.

"Our thoughts and prayers and heartfelt condolences go to their families," she said.

"It was a company contracted by the RFS to undertake that vital work and, again, our deepest condolences to those families who have been impacted.

"It demonstrates the dangerous work currently being undertaken and it also demonstrates the conditions that our firefighters are working under."

The large C-130 aircraft is understood to have crashed around 1.45pm near Peak View while conducting water bombing on large fires in the area.

RFS Commissioner Shane Fitzsimmons said it appears no one on board the aircraft survived the crash.

"Tragically, there appears to be no survivors as a result of the crash down in the Snowy Monaro area.

"It's impacted heavily with the ground and initial reports are that there was a large fireball associated with the impact of the plane as it hit the ground.

"We've got a number of firefighters and a number of crew that are in the area and working to contain and work around the fire.

"It is still an active fire ground. It did take some time with the use of ground crews and a number of aerial surveillance platforms to try to locate the wreckage."

Coulson Aviation have provided large air tankers to NSW for the past four or five years.

The company has made the decision to ground its other large air tankers as a precaution while crews review the aircrafts to ensure there are no "systematic" issues.

Commissioner Fitzsimmons said at this stage it is not known what caused the crash.


The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) has announced it will launch an investigation into the deadly C-130 large air tanker crash.

The organisation is deploying a team of transport safety investigators with experience in aircraft operations, maintenance and data recovery to the site of the crash in order to collect evidence.

ATSB investigaotrs also analyse any available recorded data, review weather information and interview any witnesses.

"A preliminary report will be released in approximately 30 days," the ATSB said in a statement.

"However, should a critical safety issue we identified during the course of the investigation, the ATSB will immediately notify relevant stakeholders so appropriate and timely safety action can be taken."

[Maggie Island]

There’s a NOTAM out quarantining all the Jet A1 at Richmond too

[rattman]

Sad news, the Coulson crews are well respected.
The C-130s had several wing failure crashes in the late 1990's/early 2000s, that grounded the firefighting fleet. It wasnt till Coulson that any were back flying. I know when the U.S. Forest service was set to acquire some from the USAF that wing box replacement was a requirement before acceptance.
I'm hoping this is not another wing failure.

Even last year 100+ USAF C130j's grounded for inspection after premature cracking was found in spar/wing box

[LTP90]

Even last year 100+ USAF C130j's grounded for inspection after premature cracking was found in spar/wing box
I know both Coulson C-130s were inspected during this time period because of the USAF grounding.

The Flight tracking shows a very sudden deceleration before tracking is loss. I checked and they should have been 1500-2000 feet above the terrain when tracking was lost.

[RatsoreA]

There’s a NOTAM out quarantining all the Jet A1 at Richmond too

You’d think that if they made it all the way to Cooma from Richmond, a fuel issue would have presented itself before then?

[Walking Ballast]

RIP.

Nothing I can say here expresses the depth of my condolences, my sadness or my eternal thanks.

You made the ultimate sacrifice for us in coming here to help. I didnt know you, and will never have the privilage of meeting you.....but thank you.

You left your families, your homes and your country to come here in our time of need.

People knew you for who you were. We will remember you for what you have done. You will not be forgotten.

[gordonfvckingramsay]

RIP.

Nothing I can say here expresses the depth of my condolences, my sadness or my eternal thanks.

You made the ultimate sacrifice for us in coming here to help.

You left your families, your homes and your country to come here in our time of need.

People knew you for who you were. We will remember you for what you have done. You will not be forgotten.

Well said.

[Deaf]

You’d think that if they made it all the way to Cooma from Richmond, a fuel issue would have presented itself before then?
As NOTAM is talking about a week before fuel is available it appears the issue is serious.

Tank use and turbulence can affect when the trouble occurs

[Asturias56]

RIP.

Nothing I can say here expresses the depth of my condolences, my sadness or my eternal thanks.

You made the ultimate sacrifice for us in coming here to help. I didnt know you, and will never have the privilage of meeting you.....but thank you.

You left your families, your homes and your country to come here in our time of need.

People knew you for who you were. We will remember you for what you have done. You will not be forgotten.


Thoughtful words.....................

[junior.VH-LFA]

My heart is breaking tonight. Bomber 134 has been a familiar sound on centre for the last few months, and I met the crew at Richmond merely days ago.

Blue skies.

[Desert Flower]

There’s a NOTAM out quarantining all the Jet A1 at Richmond too

Standard practice. Been through it a couple of times.

DF.

[Homesick-Angel]

Very sorry to the families, friends and colleagues for their loss.

What a brutal fire season this one has been.. I’m in awe of the work all the crews do..

[rjtjrt]

RIP.

Nothing I can say here expresses the depth of my condolences, my sadness or my eternal thanks.

You made the ultimate sacrifice for us in coming here to help. I didnt know you, and will never have the privilage of meeting you.....but thank you.

You left your families, your homes and your country to come here in our time of need.

People knew you for who you were. We will remember you for what you have done. You will not be forgotten.

I can't put it better.
We are so grateful to the crews who come here to do this difficult and dangerous work.
Very sad.
I hope their families and colleagues know of the admiration of the Australian people who want embrace them in this sad time.
Respect.

[ZAZ]

This is so devastating news, I listened to the sister crew as they did their runs into Mt Eccles and saved the park. It was from the sister ship based in Avalon. I remember thinking at the time with the smoke terrain and speed of approach at 1500 feet how risky this was and their courage at taking on such a task.
On the radio, cool, calm voices got the job done laid down the pink retardent and saved a friends avery on Mt Eccles Road, town of Macarthur did not have to evacuate and there is a great picture of the c130 in their bulletin.
There will be speculation as to what took place in the Snowey fire ground.
But it wont change the fact that we just lost three great people.

RIP you were heroes to the end risking your lives for us Australians!

[rattman]

Very sorry to the families, friends and colleagues for their loss.

What a brutal fire season this one has been.. I’m in awe of the work all the crews do..

Yep 3 helicopter down, piiots walked or swum away from them virtually uninjured

[logansi]

This is so devastating news, I listened to these guys as they did there runs into Mt Eccles and saved the park. It was from Avalon. I remember thinking at the time with the smoke terrain and speed of approach at 1500 feet how risky this was and their courage at taking on such a task.
On the radio, cool, calm voices got the job done laid down the pink retardent and saved a friends avery on Mt Eccles Road, town of Macarthur did not have to evacuate and there is a great picture of the c130 in their bulletin.
RIP you were heroes to the end risking your lives for us Australians!

Not that it matters but are you sure it was bomber 134? From my knowledge only Bomber 391 (RJ85) and Bomber 390 another C130 from Collusion the Avalon based bombers were involved down that way, there were at least 3 C130s in Australia for the season. Regardless all these crews are heroes and their skills level most other pilots far far behind.

[logansi]

Yep 3 helicopter down, piiots walked or swum away from them virtually uninjured

On top of that had the sky crane go down in a dam near the Thompson Dam this time last year. Also a fatal chopper last year i think?

[Heatseeker]

Walking Ballast says it all for all of us. You will not be forgotten. Thank you from my heart.

[Gin Jockey]

RIP.

Nothing I can say here expresses the depth of my condolences, my sadness or my eternal thanks.

You made the ultimate sacrifice for us in coming here to help. I didnt know you, and will never have the privilage of meeting you.....but thank you.

You left your families, your homes and your country to come here in our time of need.

People knew you for who you were. We will remember you for what you have done. You will not be forgotten.

This should be printed on a plaque and given to their families.

[ZAZ]

Not that it matters but are you sure it was bomber 134? From my knowledge only Bomber 391 (RJ85) and Bomber 390 another C130 from Collusion the Avalon based bombers were involved down that way, there were at least 3 C130s in Australia for the season. Regardless all these crews are heroes and their skills level most other pilots far far behind.

Sorry correction the herc that saved our park was not the one that crashed it was the ship now grounded out of respect and investigation if the one in nsw had a catastrophic failure or not?

[Squawk7700]

On top of that had the sky crane go down in a dam near the Thompson Dam this time last year. Also a fatal chopper last year i think?

A BK117 water-bombing, in August 2018.

[junior.VH-LFA]

A gesture, so please don't read anything in to it......

A plaque for the families of the three lost today would be a kind gesture expressing our appreciation.
If the NSW RFS or Aussie Government does not intend to arrange for same, then I will happily contribute $500 -$100 for three plaques to be made for the families of those lost in the C130 today. I would take advice on the design, wording, etc
Thanks Guy's
Kags!

Something on behalf of fellow aviators would be appropriate. I would like to contribute to this.

[DaveReidUK]

The accident aircraft has a chequered history. Built as an EC-130Q for the US Navy’s TACAMO program, it served from 1981 to 1994 before being retired to the Davis-Monthan boneyard. Subsequently stored at Western International’s boneyard at Tucson, it was used as a spares source for the C-130 operated by the National Center for Atmospheric Research. It was then sold in 2017 to Coulson, who restored it to airworthy condition configured for fire suppression.

Good description of the aircraft and its equipment here: Coulson and SkyTrac partner on Next Generation Air Tanker program (https://www.skiesmag.com/press-releases/19796-coulson-and-skytrac-partner-on-next-generation-air-tanker-pr-html/)

[parabellum]

In aviation film archives somewhere there is an horrific video of the wings coming off a C130 during water bombing.

[The Ancient Geek]

We have no idea of the causes at this stage but stuctural issues would not surprise me, low level water bombing involves a lot of rough manoevering while heavily loaded which must put a lot of accumulated stress on the airframe, certainly more than normal airline operations.

[DaveReidUK]

In aviation film archives somewhere there is an horrific video of the wings coming off a C130 during water bombing.

Hawkins & Powers C-130A, 2002.

[nevillestyke]

Here's a visit to the memorial site.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSSxrfCxP20

[SCPL_1988]

The Flight Aware ADSB information gives an altitude of around 6000 feet
which means, that the rapid change in air speed and altitude started several
thousand feet above the ground.

Take a look at their flight path and altitude, it shows nothing unsafe.
That is, it cannot be controlled flight into terrain.

I used to ride a motor bike around that area and don't recall any mountain peak
around there rising to 6000 feet.

Correct me if you know other wise but this accident appears to me to
be another catastrophic wing failure.

[Capt Fathom]

The Flight Aware / Flight Radar data is not reliable down low around the mountains. I have been watching their operations over the last few months and quite often the aircraft disappear whilst doing their runs. Same with the Bird Dog aircraft.

[retired guy]

The Flight Aware / Flight Radar data is not reliable down low around the mountains. I have been watching their operations over the last few months and quite often the aircraft disappear whilst doing their runs. Same with the Bird Dog aircraft.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=emb_share&v=-A4QZAxrb28

[SCPL_1988]

Retired Guy,
Thank you

[DaveReidUK]

You appear to be in total denial that this was most probably a structural wing failure

The reality is that the ADSB does not show any gaps or disappear and the altitude flown was not down low.

Actually, the ADS-B data on FlightAware is pretty patchy (only 11 plots covering the last 5 minutes of received transmissions). I'd be very dubious about drawing any conclusions from it.

[Capt Fathom]

Capt Fathom,
You appear to be in total denial that this was most probably a structural wing failure
and incorrectly and illogically suggesting that this was a flight into terrain.


I made no comment what so ever re the cause of this accident. I merely pointed out the limitations of using ADSB data from public websites!

[SCPL_1988]

Just went over the A-DSB from https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N134CG
the most probable wing failure occurred at 1980 meters, thats quite
a fair distance above the ground.
Towards the end, there is a pitch change, that follows what appears to be
G force stresses on the wings.
More evidence that points directly at a Wing Failure as being the cause
of the accident.
Throw in the dubious history of this aircraft and it appears to have
been an accident going to happen.

[junior.VH-LFA]

Throw in the dubious history of this aircraft and it appears to have
been an accident going to happen.

That’s it everyone, pack up your bat and ball, the results are in. Cancel the ATSB investigation.

Without as much as a glance at the maintenance history of the aeroplane, we now know it was an accident waiting to happen.

Spoiler alert mate, an aeroplane spending time at Davis Monthan doesn’t make it have a chequered history, nor does it being grounded for use as spares. There’s brand new aeroplanes sitting in various places doing the same thing that will all go on to fly again.

[SCPL_1988]

Junior VH-LFA
Your first line speaks volumes .

The legally mandated and practically required investigations take so long that by the time they are completed
the insurance is paid out, the records are sanitized to be politically correct
and the world goes on while more accidents with the same cause continue.

When the cause of an accident can be most probably predicted
its important to get that news out ASAP in order to have
others take the precautions to avoid similar causes.

If you read the history of this particular C-130 it has a lot in common with other
aircraft that ended up having structural failure.

the A-DSB record makes equally disturbing reading
and anyone flying any aircraft that has similar history and risks
needs to consider if they want to be a party to what is called denial.

And its not just C-130s.

[spektrum]

Can someone please explain to me why discussing possible accident causes on the internet is such a bad thing? It seems every time something like this occurs the virtue signalers scream from atop of their moral high ground.

[ACMS]

SCPL
Mate, you’ve already been told by others in here that the ADSB readouts from the Aircraft are patchy and unreliable.......especially from public internet sites that rely on public ADSB receivers MILES away from the crash site in mountainous terrain.

wind ya head in.

[junior.VH-LFA]

Can someone please explain to me why discussing possible accident causes on the internet is such a bad thing? It seems every time something like this occurs the virtue signalers scream from atop of their moral high ground.

Discussing isn’t a problem. Shooting from the hip with no actual knowledge, information or experience using **** data is frowned upon. There’s a difference.

[Flaming galah]

Heartbreaking. Vale the three heroes that came here to help us at our time of need.

[rjtjrt]

A gesture, so please don't read anything in to it......

A plaque for the families of the three lost today would be a kind gesture expressing our appreciation.
If the NSW RFS or Aussie Government does not intend to arrange for same, then I will happily contribute $500 -$100 for three plaques to be made for the families of those lost in the C130 today. I would take advice on the design, wording, etc
Thanks Guy's
Kags!

I would like to contribute to this.

[trashie]

When operating the C130 MAAFS program in 1983 during the Ash Wednesday operations it was important that the aircraft maintained its maximum 3G protection against the turbulence. Due to the substantial weight of the system and retardant in the fuselage the outboard fuel tanks were required to carry maximum fuel to prevent excessive upward wing flexing. This meant the aircraft was always operating close to max all up weight.and increased power off stall speeds..

Very sad at this tragic loss. Sincere condolences to the crew's family and friends. RIP

[Roj approved]

A gesture, so please don't read anything in to it......

A plaque for the families of the three lost today would be a kind gesture expressing our appreciation.
If the NSW RFS or Aussie Government does not intend to arrange for same, then I will happily contribute $500 -$100 for three plaques to be made for the families of those lost in the C130 today. I would take advice on the design, wording, etc
Thanks Guy's
Kags!

I will donate to this cause. Let me know where to send my money

[SCPL_1988]

Spektrum,
Thanks, its a sad reality that anyone and everyone who discusses or provides
an intelligent analysis of an accident results in getting personal attacks
from those who rarely post anything intelligent but 2 or 3 line inordinary posts.

FACTS
A-DSB signals for the C-130 were in this case continuous.
There is no evidence of "patchy" or "unreliable signals" involving this C-130.

Most A-DSB signals above 10,000 feet can be seen continuously across most continents.
Even at 6,000 feet, A-DSB is seen continuously over most of Australian flight routes.

Public Internet sites - refer primarily to flight aware, which takes feeds
from anyone and everyone that provides far more than that received by
official ground receivers.

If you provide such a feed, then you get to see all the hidden "blocked" information
that you cannot see on flight aware public site. You get to have your own
IP address that you can share with others to see all that info.

Now, I happen to be one of those "feeders" and together with other "feeders" we get
to see 'the big picture" and rarely do signals at altitude drop out unless typically
at the extreme end of the range say 200 to 300 NM at 35,000 feet depending on location, height and antenna.

Your own A-DSB feeder will have "blind spots" such as directly overhead, or blocked by the location of either
your antenna or the aircraft antenna or a combination thereof. But, because each aircraft is received by
multiple receivers, the odds of all receivers not receiving the signal is generally, entirely remote.

150 miles at 6,000 feet is a no-brainer and odds are that at 6,000 feet where this C-130 broke up, that
there were a significant number of receivers monitoring the A-DSB out.

This brings in an increase in accuracy to the point of indicating
altitude and airspeed. Its called M-LAT, meaning multiple stations increase accuracy of data interpreted.

That's why its vitally important to enter your exact location and the height of your A-DSB antenna to enable
the MLAT accuracy.

Yes, this accident happened "miles away" but 1090 Mhz Signals go a very long way at 6,000 feet and
odds are it could be seen as far afield as Albury, Canberra and Sydney let alone
the hundreds of private receivers who feed data into the system.

Another good reason why A-DSB in and out was adopted and why 406 mhz beacons
should be in every aircraft regardless of size.

[jonkster]

Can someone please explain to me why discussing possible accident causes on the internet is such a bad thing? It seems every time something like this occurs the virtue signalers scream from atop of their moral high ground.

Speculation is natural, all we effectively we know though is the aircraft crashed and 3 are dead and not much else that is definitive.

It sometimes feels to me, in how incidents like these play on much social media, it is more about claiming bragging rights for being first to guess the cause than to try and mitigate future incidents. That seems pretty unhelpful (and for me, distasteful).

That is just my 2c in response to your question. Other's opinions may differ.

[SCPL_1988]

Johkster,
You are conflating inappropriate speculation with fact based discussions on probable causes
which is vitally necessary for general aviation safety.

With respect, we know a great deal more than just 3 people are dead.

You can call it a contest and I'll admit to seeing any accident as a challenge and or a riddle to be solved
and generally, those probable conclusions are also stated by the official accident reports which
are often of no more value.

It is not however a contest. I see it as a public duty, if you have the experience and knowledge
to see the cause of an accident then you have a public duty to share it with as many people
as possible. Its improper to attack the messenger of a message you don't want to see.

Its a modern fake news trend, to create narratives that are opposite reality that is
a modern twist in the definition of denial called reaction formation.

If you find that distasteful than perhaps its the taste of sour grapes.

[DaveReidUK]

150 miles at 6,000 feet is a no-brainer and odds are that at 6,000 feet where this C-130 broke up, that
there were a significant number of receivers monitoring the A-DSB out.

This brings in an increase in accuracy to the point of indicating altitude and airspeed. Its called M-LAT, meaning multiple stations increase accuracy of data interpreted.

Multilateration (MLat) does not improve the accuracy of airborne ADS-B.

[Squawk7700]

I see it as a public duty, if you have the experience and knowledge
to see the cause of an accident then you have a public duty to share it with as many people
as possible. Its improper to attack the messenger of a message you don't want to see.

This is laughable at best and the true definition of an armchair expert. How you could possibly know what caused this and somehow feel that it is your public duty to inform others is incomprehensible.

[ACMS]

SCPL..

I’m fully aware of Flightradar24, have a subscription and use it multiple times everyday. I’ve been watching the C130’s BAE146 737 and DC10 VLT’s on their runs a lot and can tell you that the signal is scratchy and subject to dropouts a lot when they are in remote areas at low level. The position freezes, and jumps around the screen or sometimes totally drops out.

Given my experience I will only trust ADSB data that the ATC screens get from the offical receivers correctly calibrated....

I really like flightradar24, it’s really useful......but for accident investigation????

let’s wait for the FDR report shall we.

[SCPL_1988]

DaveReidUK,
I get tired of all the uneducated illinformed responses that promote conclusions opposite the facts
that literally come out of the woodwork with one or two lines.

MLAT can be determined using a minimum of 3 receivers but generally requires more than 3.
Ive watched my ADSB receiver join a large number of other receivers in providing enhanced accuracy.

While old transponders are going out of use, 3 or 4 receivers can turn that standard generic transponder code
into an aircraft symbol on a map with altitude speed and direction displayed accurately.

MLAT can show surprising results, you can see A-DSB show weird information and the MLAT shows the correct
information. This is important when you see something at 85,000 feet moving along at fast or slow speed.

From my location, I've seen what is obviously classified military flights and or, other low altitude flights
that cannot be seen on Flight Aware.

There needs to be a collaborative approach to A-DSB data and I'm not convinced that Flight Aware is the
most appropriate company to be giving this data when they literally sell what you give them for free.

Before you comment, please search google for A-DSB MLAT and read how it improves accuracy.

...
Quote:

Multilateration (MLat) does not improve the accuracy of airborne ADS-B.

[SCPL_1988]

ACMS,
Unfortunately, just because you "subscribe" and use "flight aware daily"
does not mean you comprehend A-DSB or that your "observations" have
any relevance to this C-130 accident.

If you checked the flight aware file for this C130 you will see that there
there are no drop outs in signal until after we see what appears to be
mid air break up with the ADSB sending signals down to a very low
altitude.

The FDR report will take a very long time and other accidents can
and might occur in the meantime.

[ACMS]

Gee thanks mate, I bow down to your obvious superiority complex....


p.s. improve your reading skill........I never mentioned flight aware.......and it’s ADS-B ( not A-DSB )

do you even know what ADS-B means? Or ADS-C?

[SCPL_1988]

ACMS,
I stand corrected. You mentioned "Flightradar24" which is very similar to Flight Aware

[Cedrik]

Same old prune self appointed experts decrying any posts suggesting anything contradictory to their own opinion is wrong. Why is it inappropriate to speculate on accidents? Does the mock moral indignation give some of you folks a sense of superiority?

[Chronic Snoozer]

Can someone please explain to me why discussing possible accident causes on the internet is such a bad thing? It seems every time something like this occurs the virtue signalers scream from atop of their moral high ground.

If you can't answer that question yourself then you probably won't get it. It is unedifying because it is often thoughtless and disrespectful in the absence of facts. Many of us have thoughts or theories and speculate - privately. There is no reason other than a deeply self-centred one to publicly state your opinions and assumptions before the proper authorities have even had a chance to inform relatives. Unedifying. That is why most professional aviators will be circumspect in their immediate commentary. Timing is also important - most of us will let the dust settle, wait for some initial report of the facts and then discuss. It's not difficult, just be patient.

[junior.VH-LFA]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hPsah1rMB3o

[SCPL_1988]

Thanks Cedrik,
This forum is riddled with personalities that would compromise real world aviation safety
by ridiculing anyone who suggests causes and solutions to accidents.

[markis10]

Spektrum,
Thanks, its a sad reality that anyone and everyone who discusses or provides
an intelligent analysis of an accident results in getting personal attacks
from those who rarely post anything intelligent but 2 or 3 line inordinary posts.

FACTS
A-DSB signals for the C-130 were in this case continuous.
There is no evidence of "patchy" or "unreliable signals" involving this C-130.

Most A-DSB signals above 10,000 feet can be seen continuously across most continents.
Even at 6,000 feet, A-DSB is seen continuously over most of Australian flight routes.

......Yes, this accident happened "miles away" but 1090 Mhz Signals go a very long way at 6,000 feet and
odds are it could be seen as far afield as Albury, Canberra and Sydney let alone
the hundreds of private receivers who feed data into the system.

.

I have to take you to task with your "facts" as they are not facts. You post smacks of a lack of knowledge of RF and the Australian terrain. An aircraft at a reported altitude of 6000ft is not 6000ft above ground level, which is the scenario you base your facts on. In this case at 6000 ft the aircraft was probably at best 1000 ft above most of the terrain and 1000ft BELOW the hightest terrain in the snowy area. As such, the footprint of microwave signals would be very limited indeed , likely sub 100km. As a former air traffic controller I can assure you sub 10000ft coverage at VHF is very unreliable in that area (it was part of my sector) let alone at microwave frequencies. There may well have been an enthusiast nearby who had coverage but I would prefer to wait for the official details to come out before any analysis of data is made.

[ACMS]

Same old prune self appointed experts decrying any posts suggesting anything contradictory to their own opinion is wrong. Why is it inappropriate to speculate on accidents? Does the mock moral indignation give some of you folks a sense of superiority?

We aren’t saying an in flight breakup isn’t the cause but the wreckage isn’t even cold yet and we are already saying what has happened based on supposed ADS-B data on the internet!!

Have some respect for the dead will ya.

[junior.VH-LFA]

Thanks Cedrik,
This forum is riddled with personalities that would compromise real world aviation safety
by ridiculing anyone who suggests causes and solutions to accidents.

Yep. Not making a decision about global firefighting operations based off your analysis of some ADSB data and a google search of an aircraft rego history makes others guilty of wanting to compromise aviation safety.

Imagine actually being this arrogant.

[SCPL_1988]

markis10,
You are conflating facts with fiction.
I've had a strong interest in RF especially uhf and microwave propagation for decades.
ADSB 1090 mhz signals go amazing distances that rivals theoretical vhf expected distances.
Obviously 6000 ALT is not 6000 AGL however, over most of Australia, generally speaking
the ground is not anywhere near 6000 ft altitude and has a hell of range.

Now back to relevance. The A-DSB information indicates that this C130 broke up
in flight several thousand feet above the ground and was NOT at less than 1,000 feet above the ground.

You are conflating facts.
Your attitude of waiting till official reports are in is typical of old school attitudes
that compromise expedited responses to probable accident causes.

In modern language,its called denial and its a major factor in failing
to address root causes of aviation accidents.




I have to take you to task with your "facts" as they are not facts. You post smacks of a lack of knowledge of RF and the Australian terrain. An aircraft at a reported altitude of 6000ft is not 6000ft above ground level, which is the scenario you base your facts on. In this case at 6000 ft the aircraft was probably at best 1000 ft above most of the terrain and 1000ft BELOW the hightest terrain in the snowy area. As such, the footprint of microwave signals would be very limited indeed , likely sub 100km. As a former air traffic controller I can assure you sub 10000ft coverage at VHF is very unreliable in that area (it was part of my sector) let alone at microwave frequencies. There may well have been an enthusiast nearby who had coverage but I would prefer to wait for the official details to come out before any analysis of data is made.

[Cedrik]

Some more public speculation from a pilot who has been flying Herks for 40 years
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-23/large-air-tanker-c-130-water-bomber-crash-cooma/11894892

[SCPL_1988]

Thanks Cedrick,
Coulson Aviation has grounded their Large Air Tanker fleet as a precaution and as "a mark of respect", and an investigation will take place into the incident.

Coulson have chosen their only way to mitigate liability
that will be another issue.

[Sunfish]

Can all you speculators, SCPL, Cedric, etc. please **** off and die. We who live here are in the middle of a national fire emergency that is not going to be over for at least another month. We are losing firefighters as it is and the last thing the bereaved need as well as our wives, friends and children is some pseudo intellectual wankers thousands of miles away, pontificating about something they know nothing about.


To put the loss in terms you might possibly understand and then withdraw, when you are on the fire ground most of us I think regard the water bombers as something like a guardian angel or big brother and we feel their loss exactly as you would a member of your own family - which those three crew are now for eternity.

[markis10]

m

Now back to relevance. The A-DSB information indicates that this C130 broke up
in flight several thousand feet above the ground and was NOT at less than 1,000 feet above the ground.

You are conflating facts.
Your attitude of waiting till official reports are in is typical of old school attitudes
that compromise expedited responses to probable accident causes.
.

LOL, the ADSB does not show the aircraft broke up several thousand feet above the ground, its AMSL, Geometric height is not broadcast via ADSB , and neither is geometric altitude I suspect as that aircraft was most likey not GNSS equipped. One of the facts known it the aircraft was in a bombing run and went into a valley below the height of adjacent terrain following a birddog, only the birddog came out, it was not 1000's of feet above terrain, it was effectively in a faraday cage for Microwave spectrum for land stations.

My comments are based on my experience as a former ATC, helitak pilot, and current RF specialist for microwave data transmission who has driven countless times down the Monaro highway beaconing APRS, not an enthusiast!

[tartare]

When operating the C130 MAAFS program in 1983 during the Ash Wednesday operations it was important that the aircraft maintained its maximum 3G protection against the turbulence. Due to the substantial weight of the system and retardant in the fuselage the outboard fuel tanks were required to carry maximum fuel to prevent excessive upward wing flexing. This meant the aircraft was always operating close to max all up weight.and increased power off stall speeds..

Very sad at this tragic loss. Sincere condolences to the crew's family and friends. RIP

Thanks Trashie - informative and interesting.
Personally I don't take any offence at people speculating.
Natural instinct as a pilot - look at the incident and the evidence - think of possible scenarios and imagine what the report might say.
All with the underlying intention of always thinking safety, safety, safety.
CFIT, structural failure, mechanical failure, momentary loss of situational awareness in extraordinarily challenging conditions?
What I do object to is the vitriol that self appointed sky-gods on this particular part of the forum heap on others who might innocently speculate or ask questions.
It's like a chest beating drunken bar-room brawl out the back of Burke.
We post not just to express condolences about a terrible accident, but to question and learn.
Like my grizzled old instructor who would asked me years ago when I'd done something stupid - "OK, what do you think happened?"

[SCPL_1988]

You are conflating commentary about fire bombing being at low level with the A-DSB data that shows the signal stopped after what appeared to
be severe turbulence. The A-DSB accurately depicts what is expected to be seen by a mid air wing failure.
If you have a link stating a witness saw it enter a valley then post it. I have read every thing I can and have not see that assertion.

So rather than tell us about your achievements and experience, (which are irrelevant) would you kindly put up the link
that corroborates your claim that it disappeared down a valley?
LOL, the ADSB does not show the aircraft broke up several thousand feet above the ground, its AMSL, Geometric height is not broadcast via ADSB , and neither is geometric altitude I suspect as that aircraft was most likey not GNSS equipped. One of the facts known it the aircraft was in a bombing run and went into a valley below the height of adjacent terrain following a birddog, only the birddog came out, it was not 1000's of feet above terrain, it was effectively in a faraday cage for Microwave spectrum for land stations.

My comments are based on my experience as a former ATC, helitak pilot, and current RF specialist for microwave data transmission who has driven countless times down the Monaro highway beaconing APRS, not an enthusiast!

[ZAZ]

Unlikely, they are usually the lead aircraft.

We don't know yet whether they were on a bombing run, though the flight profile and location aligns with the current firegrounds

A report in the age quotes the spotter aircraft went through a valley and the Herc followed and did not come out behind them.
Unsure where that report originated from fwiw.

[Cyclic Hotline]

Some more information on the history and background of the aircraft. https://fireaviation.com/

[terminus mos]

Some more public speculation from a pilot who has been flying Herks for 40 years
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-...cooma/11894892 (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-23/large-air-tanker-c-130-water-bomber-crash-cooma/11894892)

The "speculation" was from me.

The ABC, like most journos got it wrong. I have not flown Hercs for 40 years. I have flown a variety of IFR helicopters and FW professionally since 1980. I now have my own Aviation Advisory business with industry, government and end user customers.

I was asked to comment.

[nomorecatering]

I think some people need to lighten up a little. PPRUNE is nothing more than an internet discussion board. It's not an official investigation organisation. It's the electronic equivalent to people standing around a bar talking about events, as most of us do. So speculate away, it's away to get stuff off your chest and frequently brings up things I had never thought about.

[unworry]

To those that has offered to 'chip' in and those also whom have sent PM's.
We'll let the dust settle for a few months; wait until the fire season is over. I will then check very carefully to see if any such remembrance or memorial has been undertaken.
I will then contact all you via PM, later on.
I would suggest April, May at this stage....

The Government and NSW RFS need time to undertake and review their protocols etc.

A gesture, so please don't read anything in to it......

A plaque for the families of the three lost today would be a kind gesture expressing our appreciation.
If the NSW RFS or Aussie Government does not intend to arrange for same, then I will happily contribute $500 -$100 for three plaques to be made for the families of those lost in the C130 today. I would take advice on the design, wording, etc
Thanks Guy's
Kags!

As a volunteer member of our rural Fire Service for over 20 years, I'd like to thank you and others for sharing your thoughts and kind words. Every loss of life, be it in a brigade or member of the public, profoundly affects those of us fighting the fires on the ground. My thoughts are also with those who need to carrying on the good fight

In the spring, there is an annual ceremony to honour those who have paid the ultimate price for their service. details below.


from https://www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/about-us/history/honour-roll

"The NSW RFS recognises the contribution and sacrifice of those members who have lost their lives in the line of duty, while helping to protect others in need.

The names of the following volunteers are inscribed on the Volunteer Memorial Honour Roll at Mrs Macquaries Chair, Sydney.

A service is held at the Memorial each October and NSW RFS members, family, friends and members of the community are welcome to attend."

[SCPL_1988]

There is a report in the Age
https://www.theage.com.au/national/nsw/it-s-just-a-ball-of-flames-three-die-in-aircraft-crash-while-fighting-fires-20200123-p53u4s.html

QuoteThe C-130 Hercules crashed after 1pm on Thursday while battling the blaze near Cooma, as strong, hot winds swept across NSW, reigniting dozens of fires and wreaking havoc for exhausted firefighters.

Firefighting command lost contact with the aircraft after it made an approach towards a fire in the Snowy Monaro region. The Herald understands a "spotter plane" flying ahead of the American aircraft travelled through a valley near Peak View, but the C-130 never emerged behind it.
Witnesses to the crash told fire control over the radio the aircraft had "crashed" before another man answered him: "It’s just a ball of flames."
End Quote

Take a look at
https://static.ffx.io/images/$zoom_0.552%2C$multiply_1.5109%2C$ratio_1.776846%2C$width_10 59%2C$x_0%2C$y_0/t_crop_custom/q_62%2Cf_auto/b0328a640f7bc74b36663bcb00af93d303a7947c

The above picture shows a flight into terrain without any intact bits of wing or fuselage.
This would decrease the probable cause of the accident to being other than an in flight wing failure.

On face Value, this may contradict the A-DSB data that shows stresses flight that looks like
severe turbulence resulting in a wing failure.

https://www.theage.com.au/national/nsw/darkest-summer-in-state-s-history-us-firefighters-to-be-honoured-in-state-memorial-20200124-p53ubf.html


Nine News
https://www.9news.com.au/national/firefighting-plane-may-have-crashed-in-nsw-south/dae5f69d-c400-46ce-83a3-940558a02892

This has a radio call, that indicates a flight into the ground.
"Firecoms message red"
yeah it crashed.


"at about 1:30 pm it disappeared off the flight radar"


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX5t4qDxfGE


Then https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysnuaLCuQvU

"SHORTLY Before 1:30 pm,we lost contact with"
and
"There was a large fireball as it impacted the ground."

When asked about witnesses,the answer was vague.

Witnesses
"Witnesses in the area say they saw a “ball of fire” as the aircraft reportedly hit the ground."
https://7news.com.au/news/bushfires/large-water-bombing-aircraft-has-crashed-at-peak-view-reports-c-661253

Flight Radar 24 (https://7news.com.au/news/bushfires/large-water-bombing-aircraft-has-crashed-at-peak-view-reports-c-661253)
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-23/nsw-rfs-air-tanker-crashes-near-numeralla-bushfire/11893554?pfmredir=sm

Print (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-23/nsw-rfs-air-tanker-crashes-near-numeralla-bushfire/11893554?pfmredir=sm#) ?subject=ABC%20News:%20Three%20US%20firefighters%20killed%20 in%20NSW%20waterbomber%20crash%20tragedy&body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.abc.net.au%2Fnews%2F2020-01-23%2Fnsw-rfs-air-tanker-crashes-near-numeralla-bushfire%2F11893554%3Fpfmredir%3Dsm%0D%0A%0D%0AThe%20America n%20company%20that%20has%20been%20helping%20with%20the%20Aus tralian%20bushfire%20crisis%20has%20grounded%20its%20Large%2 0Air%20Tanker%20fleet%20as%20a%20mark%20of%20respect%20for%2 0three%20US%20firefighters%20who%20died%20in%20a%20plane%20c rash. Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.abc.net.au%2Fnews%2F2020-01-23%2Fnsw-rfs-air-tanker-crashes-near-numeralla-bushfire%2F11893554%3Fpfmredir%3Dsm) Twitter (https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Three%20US%20firefighters%20killed%20in%20NSW%20w aterbomber%20crash%20tragedy%20https%3A%2F%2Fwww.abc.net.au% 2Fnews%2F2020-01-23%2Fnsw-rfs-air-tanker-crashes-near-numeralla-bushfire%2F11893554%3Fpfmredir%3Dsm&via=ABCNews&related=abcnews) More (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-23/nsw-rfs-air-tanker-crashes-near-numeralla-bushfire/11893554?pfmredir=sm#)Three firefighters dead after Large Air Tanker crashes while fighting bushfires in southern NSWBy Kevin Nguyen (https://www.abc.net.au/news/kevin-nguyen/10373694) and Matthew Doran (https://www.abc.net.au/news/matthew-doran/5511636)Updated earlier today at 7:10am

Space to play or pause, M to mute, left and right arrows to seek, up and down arrows for volume.

VIDEO: NSW Premier confirms death of three firefighters after air tanker crash (ABC News) (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-23/nsw-premier-confirm-death-of-three-after-air/11894778)
RELATED STORY: Homes lost as bushfires hit NSW South Coast (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-23/bom-forecast-wild-weather-for-sydney-and-nsw/11890296)
RELATED STORY: Blaze that cancelled Canberra flights downgraded to advice (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-23/bushfire-burning-at-pialligo-in-canberra/11892476)Three US crew members were killed when their Large Air Tanker crashed while fighting a bushfire in southern NSW.
Key points:

Contact with the aircraft was lost south of Canberra just after 2pm
The aircraft was brought into Australia in August, 2019
All Large Air Tankers have been grounded as a "mark of respect"



Early Thursday afternoon, the NSW Rural Fire Service (RFS) said it had "lost contact" with a Lockheed C-130 Hercules being used in water bombing operations in the Snowy Monaro area.

Firefighters, emergency services and military personnel launched a search and rescue operation and located the wreckage.

However, RFS Commissioner Shane Fitzsimmons said all the crew members were "tragically" killed.

"[The aircraft] impacted heavily with the ground and initial reports are that there was a large fireball associated with the impact of the plane as it hit the ground," he said.

Commissioner Fitzsimmons said there was no indication on what caused the accident, but the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) was working to determine what happened.

The C-130 was contracted through North American aerial firefighting company Coulson Aviation (USA).
https://www.abc.net.au/news/image/11894144-3x2-700x467.jpg (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-23/crashed-plane-1/11894158)PHOTO: The C-130 which crashed while fighting a bushfire in southern NSW. (AAP Image: Dan Himbrechts) (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-23/crashed-plane-1/11894158)

The company has grounded their Large Air Tankers fleet as a precaution and as "a mark of respect".

The grounding of the water bombers by Coulson Aviation will have an immediate impact on aerial firefighting capacity, Commissioner Fitzsimmons said, but he understood their decision.
What we know about the C-130 (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-23/large-air-tanker-c-130-water-bomber-crash-cooma/11894892)https://www.abc.net.au/cm/lb/11895612/data/c130-hercules-coulson-data.jpg (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-23/large-air-tanker-c-130-water-bomber-crash-cooma/11894892)
As an investigation into the crash begins, here's what we know about the waterbomber and previous incidents involving the same model. (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-23/large-air-tanker-c-130-water-bomber-crash-cooma/11894892)

"It's absolutely warranted and I support them 100 per cent," he said.

"They are very mindful of the emotional and psychological effect that such a tragedy will have on the rest of their workforce, not just here in Australia but in North America or Canada."

Commissioner Fitzsimmons said all three occupants on the plane were American firefighters, and he extended his deepest sympathies to their families.

"Our hearts are with all those that are suffering in what is the loss of three remarkable, well respected, crew that have invested so many decades of their life into firefighting," he said.

The RFS said the aircraft was engaged in "routine" water bombing activities at the time of the crash.
PauseGIF0.2 MBSettings
GIF: The C-130 Hercules, seen on Flightradar24, suddenly stopped moving south of Canberra.Flight tracking website Flightradar24 showed the flight path for the C-130 suddenly stopping south of Canberra.

According to its flight data, the aircraft departed RAAF Base Richmond, in western Sydney, about 12:05pm.

However, soon after 2pm the aircraft stopped in an area called Peak View, north-east of Cooma.


This is different from the FlightAware tracking that can be looked at closely
and shows what appears to be severe turbulence before what appears to be
an in flight break up.

My take on it is that, the witness information leads to a flight into terrain
while the Flight Aware A-DSB indicates an in flight break up.

its possible that both occurred.

[rattman]

Names of the crew have been released

https://www.kktv.com/content/news/3--567249941.html

[Squawk7700]

SCPL, you should send your “findings” to the ATSB, as they love it when people do that.

The investigation has already surpassed your half-arsed findings as there are eye witnesses.

[tartare]

On ABC just now:

In a post to Facebook, Coulson Aviation (USA) named captain Ian McBeth, first officer Paul Hudson and flight engineer Rick DeMorgan Jr as the aerial firefighting crew who died in the crash of the C-130 Large Air Tanker north-east of Cooma.

Rest in Peace gentlemen.

[Cedrik]

Can all you speculators, SCPL, Cedric, etc. please **** off and die. We who live here are in the middle of a national fire emergency that is not going to be over for at least another month. We are losing firefighters as it is and the last thing the bereaved need as well as our wives, friends and children is some pseudo intellectual wankers thousands of miles away, pontificating about something they know nothing about.


To put the loss in terms you might possibly understand and then withdraw, when you are on the fire ground most of us I think regard the water bombers as something like a guardian angel or big brother and we feel their loss exactly as you would a member of your own family - which those three crew are now for eternity.

I think you might be a bit harsh there Sunny, but you are right with one thing we do have a few months of worry left yet. Any loss is tragic, including those on the ground which there have been a few.

I have been fighting fires (From the air) in Vic since the beginning of November from Corryong Mansfield through to the SA border. Also have been working in close proximity with DC10, RJ, Herc trough to medium Helitacs so I do have a bit of an idea what goes on with aerial fire fighting. So next time you look up and see an aircraft coming into a fire, wave. I might wave back

[fatbus]

2002 was an A model 1957 , this crash H model 1981 , inner and outer wing mods was a continuous program when I flew them .

[SCPL_1988]

2002 was an A model 1957 , this crash H model 1981 , inner and outer wing mods was a continuous program when I flew them .

Thanks Fatbus, That was about the most relevant post on this thread so far.
What is your view on the probability of a wing failure on the H model of 1981 with inner and outer wing mods?

[Squawk7700]

Thanks Fatbus, That was about the most relevant post on this thread so far.
What is your view on the probability of a wing failure on the H model of 1981 with inner and outer wing mods?

Perhaps an engineering forum would be more appropriate for that question. I doubt any pilot short of perhaps Buffalo Joe would know be able to answer that question.

[Sunfish]

Thank you Cedric, I would have seen you at Mansfield, no bombers when I was at Corryong and Kempsey but I was very glad of them last year. I notice the strip has just been watered and rolled.

If the speculators want to consider anything, then they might like to know that RFS lost a member when their ten ton tanker was rolled by a fire generated tornado.

[megan]

What is your view on the probability of a wing failure on the H model of 1981 with inner and outer wing mods?He wouldn't know, subject any aircraft to sufficient "G" and the wings will fall off. Being an expert you will know all about V-n diagrams, "Limit" and "Ultimate" loads.

On another tack, how are so sure this doesn't represent a possible accident scenario? Visibility was said to be extremely poor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2KCYhULWZ8

Thank you for your dedication and sacrifice Gentlemen. Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil; For You are with me; Your rod and Your staff, they comfort me.

Sign me up for a donation as well.

[wishiwasupthere]

ATSB just had a press conference. Things of note,

- Police said that the crash site ‘covers at least a kilometre’.
- Crash occurred after its retardant had been dropped.
- A number of people witnessed the crash.

[gerry111]

My take on it is that, the witness information leads to a flight into terrain
while the Flight Aware A-DSB indicates an in flight break up.

its possible that both occurred.

I thought CFIT and In Flight Break Up to be mutually exclusive?

[onetrack]

Australian ABC news has some aerial footage of the crash site. There's very little left of the aircraft, almost total destruction of it.
If the wing/s separated in flight, I would have expected the ABC camera crew would have filmed them, sitting some distance away from the actual crash site.
Many trees are still standing in the crash zone, because these are Australian Eucalypt Hardwood trees, they don't snap off easily, even under impact from flying aircraft wreckage.
The impact zone does not appear to indicate a wings-level impact. Just my opinion.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-24/three-firefighters-who-died-in-nsw-tanker-crash-named/11897704

[physicus]

Many if not most posters here don’t understand what ADS-B is, and how public sites such as ADSBExchange/Flightaware/Flightradar/Radarbox/RealTraffic alter that data (or not). This results in two extremely annoying camps forming: Camp A who take ADS-B data for gospel, and camp B who decry any publicly sourced ADS-B data as made up and false.

Both are dead wrong.

The very short explanation is this: ADS-B messages are a digitally encoded data packets, transmitted at 1090 MHz, containing information about the state vectors of the transmitting aircraft. If a receiver was able to decode the message and the checksum was correct, the data is real as measured and broadcast by the aircraft. There is no guesswork involved in this - it’s true information.

But: Not all state vector data is sent in each message. Vertical speed and altitude are broadcast up to 10 times per second. Position and GPS derived speed up to 4 times per second. Other parameters less frequently. The Callsign for instance may only be transmitted once every 2 seconds.

So it is up to the ADS-B data aggregators (i.e. FR24, ADSBExchange, …) to FILL IN and SUBSTITUTE data that is not present in messages with data from previous messages. What’s more, a position update rate of several times a second is not feasible to use on a tracking website. So all tracking websites aggregate the data, and each web browser connected retrieves the information once every 10 seconds or so.

That is why some websites such as FR24 use extrapolation when displaying aircraft on their websites, so the update on the display is quicker than the actual data rate. The data itself with MOST tracking websites updates in 10 second intervals. Any position updates you see inbetween are generally extrapolated positions based on the previous track and speed. Those extrapolated positions can’t be trusted of course, as they are the guesswork of software.

To avoid using guesswork when analysing an accident, you therefore can’t use the web displays, but you have to download a CSV file from FR24 or Flightaware or ADSBExchange and only use the data points presented there. These points have a very high degree of reliability - but you must be aware of the system’s limitations. You may for instance see position updates but the altitude or vertical speed remains the same. That doesn’t mean the altitude or vertical speed hasn’t changed, it’s possible no altitude message has been successfully decoded and passed on. The data aggregators then may cross fill altitude from previous data points. If you don’t see the altitude change, it may or may not be the same. But if the altitude field has changed, then a new altitude has been received. It’s simple, really.

So by all means, use the publicly available data and try and interpret as much from it as you can. But be aware of its limitations and make adequate use of the space between your ears!

[DaveReidUK]

DaveReidUK,
I get tired of all the uneducated illinformed responses that promote conclusions opposite the facts
that literally come out of the woodwork with one or two lines.

MLAT can be determined using a minimum of 3 receivers but generally requires more than 3.
Ive watched my ADSB receiver join a large number of other receivers in providing enhanced accuracy.

While old transponders are going out of use, 3 or 4 receivers can turn that standard generic transponder code
into an aircraft symbol on a map with altitude speed and direction displayed accurately.

MLAT can show surprising results, you can see A-DSB show weird information and the MLAT shows the correct
information. This is important when you see something at 85,000 feet moving along at fast or slow speed.

From my location, I've seen what is obviously classified military flights and or, other low altitude flights
that cannot be seen on Flight Aware.

There needs to be a collaborative approach to A-DSB data and I'm not convinced that Flight Aware is the
most appropriate company to be giving this data when they literally sell what you give them for free.

Before you comment, please search google for A-DSB MLAT and read how it improves accuracy.

Hmmm. Thanks, but I've been familiar with airborne multilateration since I first did trials with it more than 10 years ago.

MLAT is based on Mode S, by the way, not on ADS-B, though it sounds like you don't understand the difference. While it has some value for deriving an approximate position for a non-ADS-B-equipped aircraft, that's not really relevant here as the Coulson C-130s have ADS-B. If an aircraft is broadcasting ADS-B, then using multilateration to try to derive its position is pointless.

As for accuracy, MLAT - in the the crowd-sourced implementations used by the enthusiast flight trackers - is a relatively crude technique, roughly analogous to triangulation (though the technology is different, and more tricky, being based on TDOA). To suggest that multilateration can somehow give more accurate positional information than ADS-B - which nowadays is almost universally based on GPS - is just plain ridiculous.

[logansi]

Interested to know how close to the drop the aircraft was, if it was just after the drop its possible one of the birdogs onboard cameras were still tracking the aircraft. Also may have been witnessed by Air Attack Supervisor on the birdog - could be valuable evidence

[Vag277]

There are no MLAT receivers or radar heads in the accident area. The only position/vector data will be ADS-B

[Green.Dot]

Discussing isn’t a problem. Shooting from the hip with no actual knowledge, information or experience using **** data is frowned upon. There’s a difference.

Brilliant LFA! Summed up well

[unworry]

'Unworry' re yr post #110
In regards to my suggestion of a plaque for the lost members,
I'll just articulate myself a little clearer. It is/was my intention that these will be a personal item which would be sent to each of the families. Wooded background, etched map, data, etc, all very respectful
As I said I will take advice from others, input welcome. We'll see what the authorities undertake first, no sense in duplication.

My intention was to add to your post, not take away from the sentiment :ok:

@NSWRFS release the following via twitter today

The NSW RFS mourns the loss of the three crewmembers, killed in yesterday's Large Air Tanker crash. Our thoughts are with their families, fellow crewmembers and the broader emergency services family that knew and worked with them


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EPAqMVgU4AE3Iwb?format=jpg&name=4096x4096
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EPAqMVjU8AAhEIm?format=jpg&name=4096x4096

[Jabberwocky82]

There is much more detailed tracking data available that not everyone should be privy to. The Flightradar24 data is close, but there is some more detail towards the end, I’m sure the ATSB will use it.

RIP fellas and thank you for your heroic service.

[DaveReidUK]

My take on it is that, the witness information leads to a flight into terrain while the Flight Aware A-DSB indicates an in flight break up.

its possible that both occurred.
I thought CFIT and In Flight Break Up to be mutually exclusive?

Er, yes - by definition.

[Galerita64]

Please forgive my ignorance and lack of experience. I'm a glider pilot with interest in aviation.

It's possible N134GC was attempting an emergency landing in inhospitable terrain with very poor visibility.

Some observations:
Using flightaware.com/live/flight/N134CG/history/20200123/0115Z/YSRI/YSRI/tracklog
And smh.com.au/national/nsw/not-much-intact-cockpit-recorder-key-to-c-130-crash-investigation-20200124-p53ujr.html
And some local knowledge.

I'm going to assume FlightAware is accurate subject to comments by physicus. Only one AusATC radar indicates a SW trajectory:
Thu 13:08:58 -35.9962 149.3699 (tel:149.3699) 205° 154 285 1,615
This shows on the FlightAware map as a turn to the south. (flightaware.com/live/flight/N134CG)
Only 15 seconds before the trajectory was NNW:
Thu 13:08:43 -35.9837 149.3775 (tel:149.3775) ↑ 343° 132 245 1,615

At the time of the crash (1:04 pm) the wind was close to 25 knots (gusting 39 knots) from the NW in nearby Cooma Airport
bom.gov.au/products/IDN60801/IDN60801.94921.shtml

According to police the "debris from the plane was strewn across more than a kilometre" (SMH above), consistent with an attempted emergency landing. Visibility was about 1 km. The area near Peak View is the only farming land in an area surrounded by forest. The terrain is rough and at a C-130 landing speed of 100 knots could easily cause structural failure on landing. The burn marks appear 200 metres short of the final resting site in a copse of trees unlikely to have been visible on an approach through the smoke.

In the last 2 minutes of flight record N134CG descended from about 2000 metres to 1600 metres and slowed from 243 knots to 132 knots and changed course from 105° to 343° roughly into the wind. The terrain height at Peak View is about 1000 metres. This seems like a preparation for landing at 100 knots. The maximum descent rate of -293 (units unclear ft/min?) was slower than at other times during the flight.

The closest alternative was a gilder field at Bunyan 25 km away with a 1200 metre grass strip YBUY.

The fire retardant was completely discharged, some of it probably at the Adaminaby fire complex about 45-50 minutes into the flight when the airspeed was 200-225 knots and altitude 2000 m, similar to the terrain height in the Adaminably area. From other reports N134GC was on its way to a 2nd drop zone when the leading spoter aircraft noticed it was missing. Also from other reading water bombers fly well above their stall speed when attacking fires due to the severe turbulence encountered. Slowing to 132 knots is not consistent with water bombing. There were no fires, particularly at emergency level, near Peak View at the time of the crash. There were emergency level fires on the coast some 100 km further east.
rfs.nsw.gov.au/fire-information/fires-near-me

If the FlightAware data is accurate, and given the other factors above, may I suggest an emergency landing of an intact aircraft in severe circumstances is a possibility.

Aerial footage of the crash site is here:
abc.net.au/news/2020-01-24/us-canada-fire-death-tanker-crash-site-bushfires-hercules/11897624
(I cannot post links so add the appropriate prescripts)
The footage is clearly taken late in the afternoon in the Southern Hemisphere summer. The sun sets locally at about 245 degrees, so late in the afternoon the shadows from the trees, which are clearly visible, will be approximately from west to east, or maybe WNW to ESE. The impact scar, of which about 200 m is visible, runs slightly to the north of this, perhaps WNW to NW.

It appears the heading of N134GC was approximately WNW to NW at the time of impact, which was in to the strong prevailing wind. This is consistent with an attempted emergency landing.

A possibility is that N134GC lost power on all 4 engines and could not make an alternate (the nest glide ratio is about 17 on a C-130) and was forced to land in the only unforested land available, which was rough undulating terrain. Local glider pilots consider the area offers few outlanding options.

FWIW

My deep sympathies to the family, friends and colleagues of the crew.

[Eclan]

This thread is embarrassing. I sincerely hope none of the professionals from the USA/Canada are looking here for any intelligent comment. Some of you guys are showing yourselves to be complete and utter knobs.

[fatbus]

No this thread is dominated by keyboard warriors who have lost the plot !

[Jabberwocky82]

We will excuse your ignorance but have you bothered to read the rest of the thread? It is embarrassing indeed.
no one needs to work out what happened. The professionals will do it. The flight data from the websites quoted is not complete, there is more available that tells more of the story.
These people were intentionally pushing the envelope in a risk averse job in an attempt to save what is most treasured by all of us. This is not an example of CFIT where poor decisions were made. They are all unnecessary losses, but the delving in to the cause just so you can show Betty down the supermarket you know all things aviation is not needed.
The reports will work it out.

[sandiego89]

A trivial question given the circumstances- curious about the lack of lower "chin" windows on the aircraft. Is that a legacy of the EC-130 TACAMO configuration? I looked at some EC-130 TACAMO pictures on line and it seemed some had the lower windows (down by the rudder pedals), some did not. Was the first time I had noticed a C-130 without these.

[DaveReidUK]

A trivial question given the circumstances- curious about the lack of lower "chin" windows on the aircraft. Is that a legacy of the EC-130 TACAMO configuration? I looked at some EC-130 TACAMO pictures on line and it seemed some had the lower windows (down by the rudder pedals), some did not. Was the first time I had noticed a C-130 without these.

Despite not having block numbers, the 16 EC-130Qs built for the TACAMO mission (plus two conversions from KC-130Ts) were delivered in 3 separate batches, with differences in spec.

The last five aircraft, including the two that ended up with Coulson, were lighter and had improved pressurisation and ECS. It seems likely that they were built with blanked-off chin windows.

[Squawk7700]

http://abc.net.au/news/2020-01-24/us-canada-fire-death-tanker-crash-site-bushfires-hercules/11897624

Not much left to investigate :-(

[Sunfish]

This thread is embarrassing. I sincerely hope none of the professionals from the USA/Canada are looking here for any intelligent comment. Some of you guys are showing yourselves to be complete and utter knobs.

Not just embarrassing, a disgrace.

Moderators could you please close this thread?

[Darwinism]

Can all you speculators, SCPL, Cedric, etc. please **** off and die. We who live here are in the middle of a national fire emergency that is not going to be over for at least another month. We are losing firefighters as it is and the last thing the bereaved need as well as our wives, friends and children is some pseudo intellectual wankers thousands of miles away, pontificating about something they know nothing about.


To put the loss in terms you might possibly understand and then withdraw, when you are on the fire ground most of us I think regard the water bombers as something like a guardian angel or big brother and we feel their loss exactly as you would a member of your own family - which those three crew are now for eternity.

I don’t always agree with your posts Sunfish but 100% with you on this.

[RetiredTooEarly]

Kind of eerie but I’ve got a Rural Fighting Service mate from Queensland who is presently down in the Cooma area volunteering.

He says the winds were around 30-40 knots in the numerous valleys near the crash site and the aircraft had "apparently" been observed as unusually low during its drops but I guess that is what they've gotta do?

I guess its a combination of altitude, turbulence, low visibility, unfamiliarity with the area and possibly getting trapped in a valley with nowhere to go?

A real tragedy with such an experienced crew and superb aircraft!

Whatever, our investigation guys are amongst the best in the world and will undoubtedly pin down the reasons.

We Aussies owe these guys big time!

[PropPiedmont]

For those who’d like to help the families of those lost:

https://www.gofundme.com/f/coulson-tanker-134-memorial-fund?utm_source=customer&utm_medium=copy_link-tip&utm_campaign=p_cp+share-sheet

[grizzled]

I want to thank the likes of DaveReidUK, Squawk7700, physicus, junior.VH-LFA and jabberwocky82 for their attempts to keep this thread professional despite the intrusion of people who are neither knowledgeable nor considerate. I find I don’t have the patience I used to have, when I would try to explain to newbies on this site that there are a great number of ppruners who are true professionals, with vast experience and knowledge in the various sub-disciplines of aviation.

I wish these forums could be more like the discussions one has with one’s aviation colleagues and friends – informed, challenging, diverse, and thought-provoking. Alas, the threads are often more like the discussions one overhears in a pub, among people who have “a little knowledge” (a dangerous thing, we know…) and seem to need to prove the point.

I spent an hour or so yesterday composing a factual response to some of the more outlandish suggestions by a person who had seized on this thread, seized on a theory re the accident, and didn’t want to let go -- but I simply gave up after realizing that his / her reactions to other responses were not those of someone who could engage in a professional exchange of views.

I truly enjoy it when people who are not aviation professionals ask questions, as it’s clear they simply want to know more and are interested in the subject at hand, as opposed to those who post on pprune as if they were posting on a sensationalist news or chat site. As one of my first instructors said half a century ago, “Grizz, there’s a time to transmit and a time to receive.”

Old Fellow Rant Mode off -- and thanks again to those who are patient enough to try to keep these threads deserving of the term “professional”.

[Green.Dot]

Anybody who wants to embarrass themselves further with sketchy ADSB data (may be accurate, may be not), please take in to account it gives GROUNDSPEED data and AMSL altitude.

Unless you have accurate IAS and RADALT data, ie FDR (thanks, let’s leave that to the ATSB)- stop posting BS.

Again, RIP to the great men on board that aircraft

[DaveReidUK]

Anybody who wants to embarrass themselves further with sketchy ADSB data (may be accurate, may be not), please take in to account it gives GROUNDSPEED data and AMSL altitude.

In fact it gives pressure altitude - to derive AMSL, you need to adjust for QNH.

But your point about the limited value of GS is a valid one, particularly given the reported wind strength at the scene.

[Cedrik]

OK all you whingers, Sunfish, grizzley, what sort of experience or knowledge is acceptable on prune to be allowed to comment?
Can only prune regulars comment on topics?
Do you need to have over 1000 posts?
Is it not being employed as a pilot or flown commercially but to have flown privately a posting prerequisite?
Is it just calling yourself an aviation expert? (expurt more likely).
Do you need to have actual experience in the topic being posted?
Or is it you can just dial up the moral indignation like the last post and pat all your mates on the back?
Some of you blokes need to take stock of what you posted, maybe the people you slag off at are due an apology because of your language?

I made the post I did on page 1 of this thread because I was flying fires the day before in Vic, the conditions were very rough. That's why I bought up the topic of structural failure.

[kingRB]

Trying to definitively claim why an aircraft crashed using Flight Radar and ADS-B data is like clueless idiots pointing out where VH-MDX rests in the Barrington Tops using google earth images. Just stop.

[agread]

I am a clueless idiot who nevertheless likes to dabble in aviation things once in awhile! I have been following this discussion/argument/slanging match with great interest and wonder why no-one has responded to Galerita yet about the possibility of a forced landing at Peak View? Too "outlandlish", if you forgive the horrible pun? Sounds like a reasonable possibility to me, who knows nothing. What about somebody who knows something?

[aox]

[shortened a bit]

FACTS
A-DSB signals for the C-130 were in this case continuous.
There is no evidence of "patchy" or "unreliable signals" involving this C-130.

Most A-DSB signals above 10,000 feet can be seen continuously across most continents.
Even at 6,000 feet, A-DSB is seen continuously over most of Australian flight routes.

If you provide such a feed, then you get to see all the hidden "blocked" information that you cannot see on flight aware public site. You get to have your own IP address that you can share with others to see all that info.

Now, I happen to be one of those "feeders" and together with other "feeders" we get
to see 'the big picture" and rarely do signals at altitude drop out unless typically
at the extreme end of the range say 200 to 300 NM at 35,000 feet depending on location, height and antenna.

150 miles at 6,000 feet is a no-brainer and odds are that at 6,000 feet ...

Yes, this accident happened "miles away" but 1090 (tel:1090) Mhz Signals go a very long way at 6,000 feet and
odds are it could be seen as far afield as Albury, Canberra and Sydney let alone
the hundreds of private receivers who feed data into the system.

You decry others, but some of what you're saying simply is not fact.

The earth is not flat. Signals are limited by range, by the curvature of the earth, and surrounding terrain or obstacles.

At 35000 (tel:35000)' line of sight is about 200 NM, at 6000 (tel:6000)' 80 NM

Albury and Sydney are considerably further away than 80 miles.

Yes, in some conditions there is tropospheric ducting, refraction of the signal at a temperature inversion, along a ridge of high pressure, and VHF and UHF signals can go further, but you can't expect this all the time.

Thus my TV in southern UK sometimes has auto-tuned French channels in the programme guide, or experienced radio amateurs with the right kit have managed maybe 1000 (tel:1000) km at UHF, but bear in mind these are more powerful transmitters, and much more directional aerials, multi-element Yagis, maybe sometimes stacked more than one in an array.

But even so, signal strength diminishes with range, and also more at higher frequencies, so even if someone can anecdotally tell us of an occasional 100 or 200 km for aircraft on 120 or 130 MHz, that doesn't prove the same range at 8 or 9 times the frequency.

The nearby terrain is only just below or above the aircraft. This can block line of sight or may cause multipath interference

Your extra information you claim you have doesn't include anything more about the aircraft systems, contrary to your know-all implications

Overall, the end of the ADS-B (sic, not your repeatedly mistyped version) derived trace is not conclusive about the fate of the aircraft.

It's a huge shame the tragic fate of these brave hard-working people is being trolled by parading ignorance

[SRFred]

Slightly OT but perhaps relevant to the ADS-B discussion but do they (sometimes) turn the transponders off when over the fireground?

Reason for the question/observation was that in early 2019 we had a fire nearby and I watched the 737 and RJ85 come down and work the fires. Now I regularly see aircraft on FR24 and the like at about 6000' but the 737 and lead aircraft came down and the lead was visible at say 10000' but the 737 droped off at 15000'.

In December 2019 we had another fire nearby and the C130 and RJ85 were usually "visible" at about 6000' and above but not below that which is probably topography.

Most of the military aircraft involved in the bushfire recovery don't appear on FR24 but do on the global adsb exchange.

[aox]

I made the post I did on page 1 of this thread because I was flying fires the day before in Vic, the conditions were very rough. That's why I bought up the topic of structural failure.

My only experience of fires is as a glider pilot before our farmers were banned from burning crop stubble in the fields.

A good one, if they lit the field on all edges instead of just downwind, so it accelerated by sucking in air from all round, could be going up at well over 10 knots if you could fit a decent turn right in the middle. I saw one in Bedfordshire or Cambridgeshire which really went. They lit the field next to the one I was circling over, it came up like an arm with clenched fist, and in about a minute and a half or two there was a new cumulus to well over the 5000' base, maybe 7000'. I was afraid to go in it, assuming that a 30 knot or so vertical gust might cause some damage, to aircraft or me, or at best very little chance of controlling the glider well.

But that is tiny compared to the energy going into the Australian fires. I'm assuming the cores of strongest lift in some of these forest fires can be a lot stronger and rougher. Can you see well enough to slightly avoid the strongest and most opaque bits, come back when that's died down a bit, or are you trying to deliberately hit them at the worst moment?

I watched some aircraft bombing a fire in the south of France a couple of years ago, but this was actually a fairly modest size. Of course the attempted photos are little more than a speck from a kilometre or so away.

[Sunfish]

I apologized to you Cedric. My point is that there are countless family members of firefighters, including air wing, right now hoping that their nearest and dearest is going to come home safe and sound at the end of their shift and some of the stuff here is just utterly tasteless and injurious to those families.

This is an ongoing event, once it’s over the pedants and technical experts, or who represent themselves as such, can have at it for all their worth.

[Paul C]

Hi Cedrik, I just wanted to say thank you for all of the hard work you are doing protecting lives and property in our beautiful country. Fly Safe.
Regards Paul

[SCPL_1988]

agread, As information comes out, it changes the most probable cause. At first there was just ADSB which is disturbing and so far
only a few have commented on in flight stresses. In this accident, the A-DSB record shows
what appears to be severe turbulence stresses followed by what appears to be a break up or a crash.

Then arrived vague hearsay but apparently considered reliable witness information came out that gave
a picture that the C130 followed another aircraft thru a valley in which it
ended up being seen by other witnesses flying very low level.
The higher the water drop height above ground
the less effective the drop becomes.

With four turbine engines, plenty of fuel, its improbable that this accident was a forced landing gone bad.
Now you threw in "what about somebody who knows something".

In this case, the destruction photographed, shows a nasty rate of descent and high forward speed,
its improbable that they were setting up for a forced landing.

[megan]

shows a nasty rate of descent and high forward speedShows nothing of the sort, go back to sleep. Let the experts do their sleuthing.

[Squawk7700]

I am a clueless idiot who nevertheless likes to dabble in aviation things once in awhile! I have been following this discussion/argument/slanging match with great interest and wonder why no-one has responded to Galerita yet about the possibility of a forced landing at Peak View? Too "outlandlish", if you forgive the horrible pun? Sounds like a reasonable possibility to me, who knows nothing. What about somebody who knows something?

Probably because the simultaneous loss of 4 engines. Let’s just say 2, would likely be unprecedented for the aircraft and engine type and a semi-controlled landing would not lead to such a catastrophic and total loss of the airframe. A little like the 182 on the day before?, if it lost its single engine only, you’d sort of have expected a somewhat intact airframe and not a fireball.

[megan]

Originally Posted by agread View Post (https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/629086-c130-down-ne-cooma-8.html#post10670793)
I am a clueless idiot who nevertheless likes to dabble in aviation things once in awhile! I have been following this discussion/argument/slanging match with great interest and wonder why no-one has responded to Galerita yet about the possibility of a forced landing at Peak View? Too "outlandlish", if you forgive the horrible pun? Sounds like a reasonable possibility to me, who knows nothing. What about somebody who knows something?You're in good company Sir. No one knows nothing at this stage, though the ATSB people on the ground may have clues, but they're not saying, yet. Folks can float all the theories in the world, but at the end of the day it's just conjecture. The final report will tell who's theory stands up to scrutiny.

[wishiwasupthere]

Bodies of hero American firefighters recovered from charred crash site (https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/news/bodies-of-hero-american-firefighters-recovered-from-rural-crash-site/news-story/84612111571464f7ffacdfa4fc48a58f)

A couple of minutes of drone footage of the crash site. Not much left of the aircraft. Interesting to note that the remains of two of the engines are seen very close to the resting site of the tail.

[SCPL_1988]

The internet seems to have a dearth of relevant pictures.
I have yet to see a picture that indicates anything
that appears to have been wings.

[markis10]

You can see the port wing right where you would expect it to be, adjacent to the forward fuselage remains featuring the words next generation, the other starboard appears to be parallel to that, both where you would expect them to be all things considered. The debris trail does appear to be mostly on the port side which is interesting, but I will leave the surmising to Greg (with whom I had the pleasure to work with last century) and his team.

[SCPL_1988]

markis10, Great observation and explanation.

[Skillsy]

Press reports state that the 'black box voice recorder" has been recovered and sent to Canberra and that it may be reviewed tomorrow (Sun 25th). The image was released by NSW Police

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/800x400/1579930961_edb4a5f55a829364279079e7598fbc65d381df50.jpeg

[rattman]

You can see the port wing right where you would expect it to be, adjacent to the forward fuselage remains featuring the words next generation, the other starboard appears to be parallel to that, both where you would expect them to be all things considered. The debris trail does appear to be mostly on the port side which is interesting, but I will leave the surmising to Greg (with whom I had the pleasure to work with last century) and his team.

I saw a series of pictures that look to me had all 4 engines remains very near and forward of the tail

[NumptyAussie]

Some drone footage.

https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-25/nsw-police-investigate-crash-site-of-c-130-used-in-bushfires/11900654

[OZBUSDRIVER]

That image looking forward along the line of impact is very worrying.

[machtuk]

Can't imagine being part of the first responders to this just awful accident -( Those people would be traumatised am sure! Most of us should be grateful we don't get exposed to that level of tragedy.
RIP to the guys still on patrol fighting Mother Nature -(

[Sir HC]

Can anyone tell me if the experience requirements to operate as a LAT or VLAT pilot are the same as a SEAT pilot, ie. Agricultural Rating, Fire Endorsement? Seeing that BAE-146 (or Avro) nearly buy the farm in the US this year made me think that the kind of low level experience that keeps you alive on a truly miserable and challenging day may be missing in favor of the multi-crew and time on type experience that the agencies require.

Condolences to the families, grieving a thousand miles away.

[megan]

Just went over the A-DSB from https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N134CG
the most probable wing failure occurred at 1980 meters, thats quite
a fair distance above the ground.
Towards the end, there is a pitch change, that follows what appears to be
G force stresses on the wings.
More evidence that points directly at a Wing Failure as being the cause
of the accident.
Throw in the dubious history of this aircraft and it appears to have
been an accident going to happen.Given the post that J3 was replying to I can't agree that it was over the top Porter, but that's just me.

[dak_095]

Thats because its in an active fire area - where access is controlled to stop aimless rubber neckers. Its also an official accident site on private property. People cant visit and make silly statements about what why and how... Just the professionals.....

[RickNRoll]

Nevermind.

[onetrack]

Here's better quality drone footage supplied by NSW Police to the ABC News, than the mobile phone news images supplied by Numpty Aussie.
All photos, and the video, are enlargeable.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-25/nsw-police-investigate-crash-site-of-c-130-used-in-bushfires/11900654

[logansi]

From the photos, 1 thing we can say is that the accident occurred at a relatively low angle, definitely didn't plummet into the ground.

[Lookleft]

The footage makes all the speculation about in-flight breakup and ADS-B data redundant. It reminds me of the images from the Erebus debris field.

[DaveReidUK]

In this accident, the A-DSB record shows what appears to be severe turbulence stresses followed by what appears to be a break up or a crash.

Out of interest, which of the 11 ADS-B plots covering the last 5 minutes of the flight (i.e. at about 30 second intervals, on average) do you believe shows "severe turbulence" ?

[catseye]

lookleft agreed but can't find enough engines. Two are obvious.

[Kiwiconehead]

From the photos, 1 thing we can say is that the accident occurred at a relatively low angle, definitely didn't plummet into the ground.

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/940x627/11900690_3x2_940x627_cb75007f5bcf96152c8b39a4e307a6fdd4d6f2a f.jpg

When I first had the news pop up on my phone I pictured that video from 2002 - but now I'm picturing that RJ-85 video from last year.

It's hard to tell from that picture how much of a slope up there is at the site - some pictures make it look quite steep. How does the terrain height at the impact site compare to where they dropped?

[rattman]

Is the gofundme anyone from here or able to shed light on it if its legit

https://www.gofundme.com/f/coulson-tanker-134-memorial-fund

[terminus mos]

It shows just how fine the tolerances are between a "close call" and an accident with multiple fatalities.

[YeahNahYeah]

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/940x627/11900690_3x2_940x627_cb75007f5bcf96152c8b39a4e307a6fdd4d6f2a f.jpg

When I first had the news pop up on my phone I pictured that video from 2002 - but now I'm picturing that RJ-85 video from last year.

It's hard to tell from that picture how much of a slope up there is at the site - some pictures make it look quite steep. How does the terrain height at the impact site compare to where they dropped?

If you can determine the crash location, you might be able to find the topographic map here: https://maps.six.nsw.gov.au/etopo.html

[Xeptu]

The cause of the crash may never be known, simply because we have no data and probably never will, for those forces, ash and debris directly above a fire storm. One can only begin to imagine. The resultant impact is likely to be one of four things, structural failure, down/back draught, CFIT, Stall. These bushfires are unprecedented and all those putting themselves in harms way fighting them are very brave people indeed.

[Jim Peters]

A tragic site / sight. My condolences to all suffering a loss in this accident.

I wonder what investigations have been done on the configuration and intensity of the turbulence induced by a large fire. and the hazard associated with the extreme temperatures, however transient they may be, as well as the sudden major changes in air density and composition.. How ,much oxygen is around to maintain engine power? In a large fire, these hazards may not be transient. I also wonder whether G meters and G limits are used to help limit aerodynamic loading.

I am not about to make any predictions re the outcome of any investigation.,

So whatever the causes and contributing causes happen to be undoubtedly there will be a large number of factors involving the aircraft, pilots, environment, maintenance in a very complex interaction -. There will be many "layers of cheese" in which the "holes have lined up" and hopefully, a useful, complex lesson of their interaction will emerge so that this kind of accident is not repeated.. .

[flighthappens]

agread, As information comes out, it changes the most probable cause. Which is why everyone was saying wait, rather than speculate; it eliminates unnecessary fear mongering, stress to people related to the incident, and incorrect attribution of the reasons for the accident.

At first there was just ADSB which is disturbing and so far
only a few have commented on in flight stresses. in flight stress may, or may not be relevant. But at the moment no one knows.

In this accident, the A-DSB record shows
what appears to be severe turbulence stresses followed by what appears to be a break up or a crash.
I’d love for you to validate your claims. Now that more evidence is out (imagery) it appears in further on posts you are changing your tune. Will you apologise if your original theory is incorrect?

[AAKEE]

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/940x627/drone_photo_48248fa846e4e9eb43a25b2f8b90bf621334cd56.png
dronephoto
https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1255x1280/img_6479_26257f2eb5b7d7e4c80ca0f95b7a3cec94b8662e.jpg
Crash location

I Think this is the position. Some 1.5 km from last ADS-B.

[DaveReidUK]

I think this is the position. Some 1.5 km from last ADS-B.

Last ADS-B per FlightAware was slightly further north than shown: S 35°59'46" E 149°22'12"

[ZAZ]

As a few have said, its up to the ATSB and police now.
In the light of day as is often the case investigators are in bright sunshine with an aircraft wreckage and minus the low cloud, reduced viz, wind and in this case as has often been commented upon that fire makes its own weather.
Looking at the approach path to the crash site my heart goes out to the pilot and my thoughts of what was he trying to do?
Put it down or try to restore normal flight ?
A few more feet and they would have missed the tops, assuming they could see.
None of the elements of that day now exist except
Are there any radio calls to indicate a mayday aircraft in distress?
We will see the results of the flight recorders assuming they were running .

We owe the crew the respect they deserve as fellow pilots who gave their lives operating a large aircraft close to the ground in unprecedented conditions where the fires possibly created unsurvivable dimensions that no normal operations would be contemplated.
But these were exceptional people who put their skills and lives on the line 130 sorties before this ill fated one.

Fires are still around us, 41 degree here next week fire bombers still on base no one packs up and goes home just like in wartime when pilots and aircraft are lost.
And this is war these fires have and will put people at risk.
Not for the faint if heart.
It takes courage and more so being selfless these guys pressed on in unimaginable conditions.

[AAKEE]

Last ADS-B per FlightAware was slightly further north than shown: S 35°59'46" E 149°22'12"

I see that now logged in to my computer. My iPhone rounded the flightaware table down to two decimals.

[Dora-9]

We owe the crew the respect they deserve as fellow pilots who gave their lives operating a large aircraft close to the ground in unprecedented conditions where the fires possibly created unsurvivable dimensions that no normal operations would be contemplated.
But these were exceptional people who put their skills and lives on the line 130 sorties before this ill fated one.


Well said ZAZ.

[log0008]

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/940x627/drone_photo_48248fa846e4e9eb43a25b2f8b90bf621334cd56.png
dronephoto
https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1255x1280/img_6479_26257f2eb5b7d7e4c80ca0f95b7a3cec94b8662e.jpg
Crash location

I Think this is the position. Some 1.5 km from last ADS-B.

Looks right to me, now the question is this (for me), was the tanker conducting a retardant drop in the bush area immediately prior to the crash location and did the aircraft crash on climb out?

[Squawk7700]

Looks right to me, now the question is this (for me), was the tanker conducting a retardant drop in the bush area immediately prior to the crash location and did the aircraft crash on climb out?

News reports said it had just dropped the remainder of the load and turned sharp left shortly after and not long before this happened.

[compressor stall]

If the coordinates are correct, here's the topo map.
https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1024x768/untitled_ec22b65808bd786a66a6724f3b9a1fb4bd0d4754.jpg

[logansi]

And for good measure, heres the fire map for the area

https://i.imgur.com/RPw2OJB.png


If the aircraft was in the process of conducting the drop, I assume the lead plane and AAS would of likely witnessed the crash - that would be the best evidence.

[A Squared]

2002 was an A model 1957 , this crash H model 1981 , inner and outer wing mods was a continuous program when I flew them .

Not to mention that the C-130A had a completely different wing structure than subsequent C-130 models. No real comparison between the C-130A wing and other C-130 wings.



A trivial question given the circumstances- curious about the lack of lower "chin" windows on the aircraft. Is that a legacy of the EC-130 TACAMO configuration? I looked at some EC-130 TACAMO pictures on line and it seemed some had the lower windows (down by the rudder pedals), some did not. Was the first time I had noticed a C-130 without these.

I don't know the answer, but I will say that the Civilian Hercs were built without those windows. It may be that the C-130Qs were built without them, or it could be that they were subsequently replaced with aluminum skins a la the L382, perhaps by Colulson, because sheet metal is less expensive than windows.



Hmmm. Thanks, but I've been familiar with airborne multilateration since I first did trials with it more than 10 years ago.

MLAT is based on Mode S, by the way, not on ADS-B, though it sounds like you don't understand the difference. While it has some value for deriving an approximate position for a non-ADS-B-equipped aircraft, that's not really relevant here as the Coulson C-130s have ADS-B. If an aircraft is broadcasting ADS-B, then using multilateration to try to derive its position is pointless.

As for accuracy, MLAT - in the the crowd-sourced implementations used by the enthusiast flight trackers - is a relatively crude technique, roughly analogous to triangulation (though the technology is different, and more tricky, being based on TDOA). To suggest that multilateration can somehow give more accurate positional information than ADS-B - which nowadays is almost universally based on GPS - is just plain ridiculous.

David, good response to SPCL's obvious confusion about ADS-B and Multilateration, however, you've stumbled across one of my pet peeves. to wit: "roughly analogous to triangulation" No, it is not. Triangulation is determining positions by measuring angles (usually in the context of surveying, with theodolites) Determining positions by measuring distances, and forming triangles is "trilateration" or if multiple triangles are formed, multilateration. No angles are measured.

Triangulation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangulation_(surveying))

Trilateration and Multilateration (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_range_multilateration)


You can see the port wing right where you would expect it to be, adjacent to the forward fuselage remains featuring the words next generation,

For what it's worth, that is the remains of the RADS retardant hopper.


https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/600x450/f_a_conf_074_colson_t131_tank_c7773cb464b3a66160d6f80742905c 24c660ce3d.jpg

Not that it really changes anything or contradicts what you're saying.

[A Squared]

Probably because the simultaneous loss of 4 engines. Let’s just say 2, would likely be unprecedented for the aircraft and engine type

No, it would not be "unprecedented" for this aircraft type. In fact, there have been a number of instances of power loss on multiple engines. Some have been definitively attributed to fuel mismanagement, others seem to have been caused by a malfunction of the propeller synchrophasing system. I can tell you for an absolute fact that Lockheed's manuals for the L382 contain an 8 step procedure for power loss on multiple engines. It involves setting fuel, bleed air, propeller control and electrical systems to a configuration that is believed to eliminate all possible causes of multiple power losses. I think that you should contact Lockheed with your knowledge that power loss on multiple engines in the C-130 is impossible. I think that they would be surprised to hear that is true. They quite clearly believe otherwise. I'm sure they would appreciate your wisdom.

Note: this is not to say that I believe that a multiple engine power loss was a factor in this accident. I don't know, and am not suggesting it is. Just stating that it's utter horsecrap to say that such is "unprecedented"

[Old Dogs]

I don't know the answer, but I will say that the Civilian Hercs were built without those windows. It may be that the C-130Qs were built without them, or it could be that they were subsequently replaced with aluminum skins a la the L382, perhaps by Colulson, because sheet metal is less expensive than windows.
I can assure you, "less expensive" is not a phrase one would associate with Wayne Coulson.

[A Squared]

I can assure you, "less expensive" is not a phrase one would associate with Wayne Coulson.

I didn't mean that in any pejorative sense. Frankly, if I were rebuilding a Herc for a mission for which the lower windows were of no benefit, and faced with the choice of replacing damaged/unairworthy window panes, I would consider replacing them with metal also.

[Old Dogs]

I didn't mean that in any pejorative sense. Frankly, if I were rebuilding a Herc for a mission for which the lower windows were of no benefit, and faced with the choice of replacing damaged/unairworthy window panes, I would consider replacing them with metal also.

Thanks for this.

I know Wayne Coulson and Jim Messer personally and I want there to be no misconception - they run an absolutely top-notch operation.

They have also done some cutting-edge work in fire-detection/mapping and bird-dogging.

[A Squared]

Thanks for this.

I know Wayne Coulson and Jim Messer personally and I want there to be no misconception - they run an absolutely top-notch operation.

They have also done some cutting-edge work in fire-detection/mapping and bird-dogging.

I haven't worked with their RADS system, but folks I know have, and I've seen the system up close. It struck me as a pretty well designed system, and I've heard it performs very well.

[Old Dogs]

Yup, it's pretty fancy for a couple of back-country loggers. 😁

[Trailbreaker]

And for good measure, heres the fire map for the area


If the aircraft was in the process of conducting the drop, I assume the lead plane and AAS would of likely witnessed the crash - that would be the best evidence.


i find it interesting that there is no mention of a lead plane. Observers in Richmond said the air command aircraft did not go with Bomber 134 - can anyone provide tracking evidence for a lead plane?

[A Squared]

Just went over the A-DSB from https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N134CG
the most probable wing failure occurred at 1980 meters, thats quite
a fair distance above the ground.

Really? Fascinating!!!! 1980m would be 6500 ft. Looking at the flight log, it descended through 6500 ft at 09:07:13 PM (that's in the EST time zone, the default when I view it, no doubt others see it in a different time zone, but the minutes should be the same) that's the 5th data point from the end of the data set. So, according to your wing failure theory, the wing came off at that point, but the plane continued to remain airborne for another 1 minute, 45 seconds after losing a wing, and during that time, only descending 1200 feet, at no more than 960 feet per minute. That, to you, seems like the trajectory of an airplane which has lost a wing?


Towards the end, there is a pitch change, that follows what appears to be
G force stresses on the wings..

Where exactly do you see a "pitch change"? The last 4 data points show the aircraft in more or less level flight (5400, 5300, 5300 and 5300 ft, respectively) for about 40 seconds. That's most of a minute. How do you infer a "pitch change" from that?

The A-DSB (sic) accurately depicts what is expected to be seen by a mid air wing failure.


What exactly is "expected to be seen" and where do you see it. Be specific. I'd expect to see a descent in the multiple thousands of feet per minute. What I see instead is a descent at less than a thousand feet per minute, seeming to level off and hold altitude at 5400-5300 ft for most of a minute. Then the data ends.


If you checked the flight aware file for this C130 you will see that there
there are no drop outs in signal until after we see what appears to be
mid air break up with the ADSB

What exactly "appears to be a mid air break up" to you? What is the timestamp?

The A-DSB information indicates that this C130 broke up
in flight several thousand feet above the ground

How does the ADS-B data indicate that? You keep repeating that, over and over, as if it's a foregone conclusion, but so far I haven't seen you make even an attempt at a rational explanation how the data is suggestive of an inflight break up.

[A Squared]

i find it interesting that there is no mention of a lead plane. Observers in Richmond said the air command aircraft did not go with Bomber 134 - can anyone provide tracking evidence for a lead plane?


There is mention in this article (https://www.theage.com.au/national/nsw/it-s-just-a-ball-of-flames-three-die-in-aircraft-crash-while-fighting-fires-20200123-p53u4s.html) of a lead plane, although who knows how reliable that is. Obviously falls far short of an ADS-B track of same.

[AAKEE]

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/600x450/f_a_conf_074_colson_t131_tank_c7773cb464b3a66160d6f80742905c 24c660ce3d.jpg


If that container isn't empty it better stay in place for CG reasons.

Possible reason on a windy turbulent day?

[DaveReidUK]

It may be that the C-130Qs were built without them, or it could be that they were subsequently replaced with aluminum skins a la the L382, perhaps by Coulson, because sheet metal is less expensive than windows.

It's not quite that clear cut (npi) - as per my earlier post, the first two batches of EC-130Qs (the 1970s deliveries) did have the chin windows, but the last (1980s) batch, includng the ones that went to Coulson, didn't.

David, good response to SPCL's obvious confusion about ADS-B and Multilateration, however, you've stumbled across one of my pet peeves. to wit: "roughly analogous to triangulation" No, it is not. Triangulation is determining positions by measuring angles (usually in the context of surveying, with theodolites) Determining positions by measuring distances, and forming triangles is "trilateration" or if multiple triangles are formed, multilateration. No angles are measured.

Well OK, I should have said "very roughly analogous". :O

I'm well aware of the fundamental difference in technique (I did mention TDOA in my explanation, after all). But I still maintain that it's a useful analogy to get across the concept of using a network of ground stations take measurements from a target (whether angle or TDOA) in order to establish its position.

Particularly as I was trying to explain it to someone who was making ridiculous claims for its accuracy. :O

[A Squared]

If that container isn't empty it better stay in place for CG reasons.

Possible reason on a windy turbulent day?

No, I don't think so. The wheels are only to roll it into the plane for installation. When it is installed is is attached to the airframe securely and in accordance with all the appropriate airworthiness regulations. it's not likely to move around inside the airplane in flight.

[A Squared]

It's not quite that clear cut (npi) - as per my earlier post, the first two batches of EC-130Qs (the 1970s deliveries) did have the chin windows, but the last (1980s) batch, includng the ones that went to Coulson, didn't.

OK, well no, that wasn't clear, at least to me. thanks for the clarification.

[ACMS]

i find it interesting that there is no mention of a lead plane. Observers in Richmond said the air command aircraft did not go with Bomber 134 - can anyone provide tracking evidence for a lead plane?

They depart in their Turbo Commanders ( not necessarily from the same base ) and stay on station for hours while the VLT returns multiple times to re load.....

[duncan_g]

If that container isn't empty it better stay in place for CG reasons.

Possible reason on a windy turbulent day?

This video This video (1:30 mark) shows the tank being installed and secured to the floor. Looks like good engineering.. I doubt it is going anywhere.

[BlackPanther]

This is truly a tragic incident, but if there is anything we can take as a positive, it is how many people are finally now realising how amazing these aircraft and their crew are.

[cowl flaps]

A bit of a 3D view of the terrain.
Someone said that after dropping the last of the retardant he hooked a left hand turn. The ground scar looks as if he may have been heading about 105°'
This just gets more puzzling.

https://i.imgur.com/6RLDK1Z.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/PhfxH5e.jpg

[Passagiata]

I am just north of Cooma and the wind conditions on that day were horrendous - turbulent at ground level.

too many posts to scan, but I’m not sure whether it has been recorded here that the flight was an attempt to save a koala sanctuary - an “ark” of disease-free koalas. Adding to everyone’s pain.

Flags flew at half-mast for the crew throughout NSW and Australia’s capital, Canberra, including the national war memorial, the following day. A fitting response.

[Sunfish]

Severe Wind shear is a known phenomenon in that area.

[markis10]

They depart in their Turbo Commanders ( not necessarily from the same base ) and stay on station for hours while the VLT returns multiple times to re load.....

Correct, and often it’s not an aero commander, 337s, Caravans are also used :

Call signs ? Special Task Operations | NAFC (http://nafc.org.au/?page_id=271)

[OZBUSDRIVER]

If there was a smoke in the area as bad as the video on the first ABC link in this thread. It appears from the tracks depicted, no orbit was conducted,therefore no prior knowledge of the terrain regarding ingress and egress. The dry grass is the same colour as the smoke. Combine that with the knoll being the high ground on that plateau. No depth perception, limited horizon and the sortie completed was over lower forested ground. It is quite possible that tree line on the knoll materialising out of the smoke above the pilots was the only indication they were in trouble. My impression of the impact path looks like an attempt to climb..gradual impact followed by a deeper gouge the further up the hill. The splays of the impact are a very narrow angle looking up the hill.

[WhoFlungDung]

If there was a smoke in the area as bad as the video on the first ABC link in this thread. It appears from the tracks depicted, no orbit was conducted,therefore no prior knowledge of the terrain regarding ingress and egress. The dry grass is the same colour as the smoke. Combine that with the knoll being the high ground on that plateau. No depth perception, limited horizon and the sortie completed was over lower forested ground. It is quite possible that tree line on the knoll materialising out of the smoke above the pilots was the only indication they were in trouble. My impression of the impact path looks like an attempt to climb..gradual impact followed by a deeper gouge the further up the hill. The splays of the impact are a very narrow angle looking up the hill.

I agree. It is looking more and more like the same insidious illusion the NZ901 crew experienced on the gradual slope of Mt Erebus - except in entirely the opposite conditions. Brown out perhaps. Whatever the cause, it is an extremely tragic accident and my thoughts are with families of the lost crew. Very sad day.

[cooperplace]

We Australians should never forget that in our hour of need, these skilled, brave professionals generously came here to help. They were obviously amazing people, and represent all that is good and great about their country.

[compressor stall]

That we hold these late aviators in such high esteem is evident in the fact that it's taken 200+ posts to come to terms with the idea of a CFIT as a possible cause. Knee jerk reactions were aplenty, in flight break up, fuel contamination etc. Yes they may still be the cause. But also, these guys operate large machinery at very low levels, in poor visual conditions that are oft changing in unfamiliar terrain. When I looked at the topo chart I posted above, my reaction was that they had been low level, flew (climbed?) to the end of the up sloping forest (thinking it was a ridge) and maintained altitude thinking they were into another valley. It's possible they simply didn't see the gently rising grass beyond in the smoke as there was no expectation it was there.
I have never flown in smoke, but have flown in other high illusion environments. It can catch you out easily - and that's without the extra pressures that these guys face. Acknowledging that CFIT is a possibility does not take away from their professionalism, skill, dedication and sacrifice. Rather it enforces the understanding of what a damn good job these guys do in adverse high stakes dynamic situations.

[junior.VH-LFA]

So SCPL 1988, anymore assertions about the sub standard maintenance of the aeroplane or Coulson wheeling and dealing to save money? Awfully quiet now huh.

If this does end up being a CFIT event, any self respecting aviator who thinks less of the crew is kidding themselves. Flying a large aeroplane that close to the ground, in such terrible weather, zero prep time on the place you're going to apart from during the cruise enroute. Must be bloody tough work and as Compressor Stall said, speaks volumes of the ability and professionalism of the guys and girls that take to the skies each day to fight that fight. I suspect with the CVR recovered etc it won't take long for an interim report to be released.

[Sunfish]

I say again, a friend has direct personal experience of severe wind shear in that area. It may be that everyone was doing everything right. No need for complicated theories.

[megan]

That we hold these late aviators in such high esteem is evident in the fact that it's taken 200+ posts to come to terms with the idea of a CFIT as a possible causeI posed the very question to our resident expert, SCPL 1988, back at post #116 as a possible scenario (RJ85 near miss video).

[compressor stall]

I posed the very question to our resident expert, SCPL 1988, back at post #116 as a possible scenario (RJ85 near miss video).
I must have missed that.... but the point still stands as evidenced by the dismissal of CFIT as “complicated”.

Sunfish, I never said wind shear couldn’t be factor. It may well be. But should the crew not “have done everything right” and fallen for an illusion (the effects are simple not complicated btw!) does not make those three any less professional.

All will be known soon hopefully.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Same here, megan,

[kaz3g]

I say again, a friend has direct personal experience of severe wind shear in that area. It may be that everyone was doing everything right. No need for complicated theories.

my first post on the topic since this tragic event and my sincere condolences to families friends and colleagues across the fire-fighting spectrum.

Agree Sunny and you don’t know how hard it is to see forward in heavy smoke until you have tried. You might see the ground below but little more.

25 yrs CFA and 15 CFL/DCNR/DSE etc including qualified bombardier-navigator a long while ago.

[Trailbreaker]

Correct, and often it’s not an aero commander, 337s, Caravans are also used :



What lead plane was with Bomber 134? Callsign? Where did it come from or go to after the accident?
The AAS is responsible for tactics and environmental conditions.
If there was a lead - and I am starting to think there may not have been one - why did they not report the accident? The initial report of an accident came from the fire ground.
IF there was a lead plane, I am sure we would have reports of turbulence or downdrafts.



.

[patagonianworelaud]

Would this a/c have been fitted with EGPWS?

[A Squared]

Would this a/c have been fitted with EGPWS?

I don't know, but I'd expect EGPWS would be useless in such a situation. The very nature of aerial firefighting is that you're maneuvering in close proximity to the terrain, away from charted airports. Unless you had inhibited it, it would be giving terrain alerts continuously.

[BlackPanther]

I am with A Squared on that - I believe it would have been off.

These aircraft fly IFR enroute, and once arriving at the fire ground operate exclusively VFR until picking up an IFR clearance again on returning to the aerodrome.

I fear that in the pursuit for a successful retardant drop, the crew might have inadvertently blurred the lines of what 'visual' meant. Perhaps this is an absolutely extreme case of 'get-there-itis' but in a far different circumstance where the result of aborting the operation is far different.

[DaveReidUK]

If this does end up being a CFIT event

It won't be classed as a CFIT because the ICAO ADREP definition specifically excludes intentional low-altitude operations: Aviation Occurrence Categories (https://www.icao.int/APAC/Meetings/2012_APRAST/OccurrenceCategoryDefinitions.pdf)

[Eclan]

It won't be found to be CFIT anyway because some complete f*tard with an SCPL and a keyboard already identified the cause as the wings separating inflight and others agreed.
Now we have people "fearing" publicly about the competence of the crew. You guys are awesome.

[rcoight]

Just an observation: it’s a little strange that some of the same people who completely lost the plot at (and continue to ridicule) one or two previous posters speculating on the cause of this awful accident seem to be perfectly fine with the more recent speculation.

So, are we waiting for the official report or does it depend on who it is doing the speculating as to whether it’s ok or not?

[fdr]

In this case, the destruction photographed, shows a nasty rate of descent and high forward speed,
its improbable that they were setting up for a forced landing.

?

Do you have other images that support your observation? The images on this forum show a shallow impact angle at a moderate speed in a near wings level attitude. It is inferable that the body attitude was nose up relative to the terrain at impact, but that is also open to interpretation, the debris field will determine that. As the terrain along the slope has an upslope angle, the "nasty rate of descent" does not correlate with the images at low resolution. As far as speed goes, the tail staying on the aircraft, and being within the wreckage trail doesn't support a very high speed impact event. From prior C130 losses, this would not be much greater than the flap limit speed.

Not sure I agree with your assessment.

What is indicated is that the aircraft was likely in one piece and under control up to impact. There is a very low likelihood of an inflight breakup event here, or loss of a primary flight control. Whether the engines were producing thrust would be determined by the wreckage scars and the direction of bending of the propeller blades, and detail within the compressor and turbine.

Low flying over undulating terrain in poor visibility carries a high operational risk, and the guys that do that should be respected for their turning up day after day in challenging conditions to go and do the task.

[junior.VH-LFA]

Just an observation: it’s a little strange that some of the same people who completely lost the plot at (and continue to ridicule) one or two previous posters speculating on the cause of this awful accident seem to be perfectly fine with the more recent speculation.

So, are we waiting for the official report or does it depend on who it is doing the speculating as to whether it’s ok or not?

Mainly because the previous speculation and discussion contained such brilliantly eloquent statements of fact such as:

”It was an accident waiting to happen”
“When you take into account this aircrafts chequered history.”

Pretty different story to, hey, here’s my opinion on these images of the accident site.

So yeah, really not that strange.

[DaveReidUK]

Just an observation: it’s a little strange that some of the same people who completely lost the plot at (and continue to ridicule) one or two previous posters speculating on the cause of this awful accident seem to be perfectly fine with the more recent speculation.

I think the distinction that's being made is the difference between, on one hand, simple speculation along the lines of "do you think xxx might have been a factor in the accident?"

and, on the other hand, bald assertions that the accident was caused by (for example) an inflight breakup, based on dodgy data analysis that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

[sandiego89]

Despite not having block numbers, the 16 EC-130Qs built for the TACAMO mission (plus two conversions from KC-130Ts) were delivered in 3 separate batches, with differences in spec.

The last five aircraft, including the two that ended up with Coulson, were lighter and had improved pressurisation and ECS. It seems likely that they were built with blanked-off chin windows.

Thank you Dave, that answered my curiosity, another subtlety to the myriad of configurations and special fits to the C-130 family.

[Squawk7700]

Mainly because the previous speculation and discussion contained such brilliantly eloquent statements of fact such as:

”It was an accident waiting to happen”
“When you take into account this aircrafts chequered history.”

Pretty different story to, hey, here’s my opinion on these images of the accident site.

So yeah, really not that strange.

Probably because once the picture came out of the skid mark up to the top of the hill, it because much more obvious as to what took place for those able to interpret the most likely scenario.

[A Squared]

I think the distinction that's being made is the difference between, on one hand, simple speculation along the lines of "do you think xxx might have been a factor in the accident?"

and, on the other hand, bald assertions that the accident was caused by (for example) an inflight breakup, based on dodgy data analysis that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Yes, this. I have no issue with intelligent people, speculating intelligently about possible scenarios based on known facts and personal experience. OZbusdrivers's post is a good example of such. I have little patience for the sanctimonious twits who inevitably pop up on a discussion of an accident and insist loudly and obnoxiously that nobody may discuss possible causes, that we must only read the official report when it is issued.

That said, what SCPL_1988 was posting was not intelligent, reasoned, fact based speculation. Quite the contrary, it was accusatory ranting that disregarded the very facts he claims as support. For whatever reason, he jumped to the conclusion, without any supporting evidence at all , that this accident was due to structural failure involving wing separation, then he went on for pages, insisting that the flight tracking data demonstrated wing separation, even claiming that you could tell from the data when the wing separated. In fact the tracking data shows pretty clearly that the wing did not separate, as he claimed. In my previous post responding to him, you can see the kind of ridiculous claims he was making. (clicking the little arrow icon after my name in the quote box will take you to that post)

So, according to your wing failure theory, the wing came off at that point, but the plane continued to remain airborne for another 1 minute, 45 seconds after losing a wing, and during that time, only descending 1200 feet, at no more than 960 feet per minute. That, to you, seems like the trajectory of an airplane which has lost a wing?

That post of mine quotes his more ridiculous assertions and will link you back to the actual posts of his in which he made them, if you're interested in understanding why he's receiving criticism. The bottom line is that the flight tracking data in no way supports an inflight breakup. There in no flight parameter in the available data set, neither groundspeed, nor rate of descent, nor any other parameter which wouldn't be recorded from that same airplane flying an instrument approach. The recorded groundspeeds are all well within the flight envelope of a C-130 with flaps extended, and at no point within the last 20 minutes of flight did the rate of descent exceed 1000 ft per minute. One would have to be a complete idiot to keep insisting that this is characteristic of an inflight breakup. Unfortunately, SCPL_1988 is that person. There is no inconsistency between believing that there is nothing wrong with intelligent, reasonable speculation on the possible causes of an accident, and being strongly critical of the kind of stupidity which SCPL_1988 was posting.

[grizzled]

OK all you whingers, Sunfish, grizzley, what sort of experience or knowledge is acceptable on prune to be allowed to comment?
Can only prune regulars comment on topics?
Do you need to have over 1000 posts?
Is it not being employed as a pilot or flown commercially but to have flown privately a posting prerequisite?
Is it just calling yourself an aviation expert? (expurt more likely).
Do you need to have actual experience in the topic being posted?
Or is it you can just dial up the moral indignation like the last post and pat all your mates on the back?
Some of you blokes need to take stock of what you posted, maybe the people you slag off at are due an apology because of your language?
I made the post I did on page 1 of this thread because I was flying fires the day before in Vic, the conditions were very rough. That's why I bought up the topic of structural failure.
Hi Cedric,

First, the post of mine to which you refer (Jan 24, permalink #139) was not directed at you. I was speaking of the posts by the now infamous SCPL_1988 but I intentionally left out his identity so as not to provoke a mod into deleting my message as a personal attack. Now that many others have taken him to task for his antagonistic, insulting and ill-informed posts, which were excellent examples of how to lower a professional discussion into a "fake news" style bar-fight, I suppose it's been agreed that his rants were atrocious enough that mentioning his name is acceptable, as an example of how not to behave on a professional site such as pprune.

In any event, in the past two days, other people, more patient than myself (such as A Squared, DavidReidUK, Squawk7700, and junior.VH-LFA) have succinctly and professionally explained why the likes of SCPL_1988 need to be called out if we hope to keep pprune as good as it can be. And it can be superb.

Sidebar to A Squared: Based on your location (per your profile) and your Herc experience, I'm thinking there's a good chance we've chatted over a beer at Happy Hour at Airways in the past couple of years.

Stay safe, mates

[P2bleed]

There is video running around of the last minute of flight which indicates the aircraft was operating normally. I am sure it will assist the ATSB in their investigation.

[Car RAMROD]

Video here:


https://youtu.be/UH1IlTYmBmg

[Squawk7700]

Thanks for posting. That video adds a whole new dimension as to what went wrong and one would argue muddies the waters significantly.

[Stickshift3000]

Thanks for posting. That video adds a whole new dimension as to what went wrong and one would argue muddies the waters significantly.

How so? Low level flight, rising terrain, potentially very poor visibility...

[Alice Kiwican]

Thanks for posting. That video adds a whole new dimension as to what went wrong and one would argue muddies the waters significantly.

Looks a little like they possibly flew into decreasing visibility and unfortunately found the rising terrain maybe too late to climb away from....
Whatever went wrong still a sad day for aviation in Australia

[Squawk7700]

How so? Low level flight, rising terrain, potentially very poor visibility...

Exactly... it’s the same conditions they have been flying in for the previous 130 missions!

The point of impact appears to be significantly lower than their last observed altitude. If the fireball shown in the video is at the start of the 200 metre uphill “scrape” then it is even more puzzling.

[junior.VH-LFA]

It is very disappointing this video has become public domain.

[Rated De]

It is very disappointing this video has become public domain.

Yes this is the sort of thing that ought have been given to the ATSB.
The heart sinks imagining their loved ones, on a long dark night of sadness stumbling across their last seconds.

[SRFred]

It is very disappointing this video has become public domain.

There might actually be more than one video of the incident. I heard about it several days ago.

RIP guys.

[Car RAMROD]

Yes this is the sort of thing that ought have been given to the ATSB.
The heart sinks imagining their loved ones, on a long dark night of sadness stumbling across their last seconds.


how do you know that it hasn’t already been submitted?

it becoming public at least helps stop some of the BS speculation going on.

[fdr]

Exactly... it’s the same conditions they have been flying in for the previous 130 missions!

Low level operations come with elevated risk. An expert, well trained crew can do the same thing day in, day out, and yet have a bad day with very little change from what they were doing 10 minutes, 1 day, 1 year before. Within normal operations, functional resonance of factors associated with the process may just get to a condition where a number are near the edge, and enough together cause an undesired outcome. The operating environment is stochastic, around desired normal conditions, each of which has levels of variation that occur naturally, and are controlled in the course of the operation. Without going too far down the rabbit hole with that, note that the Reason model of causation, the "Swiss Cheese" model is simplistic, and assumes a linear process, and life is just not so. The final point is that the guys and girls that are out there doing this job are professionals, and face the risks that arise from their operation day after day.

R.I.P.

[compressor stall]

Exactly... it’s the same conditions they have been flying in for the previous 130 missions!

The point of impact appears to be significantly lower than their last observed altitude. If the fireball shown in the video is at the start of the 200 metre uphill “scrape” then it is even more puzzling.

Hmmm, I make the videographer at the 1010m contour crossing the road at 35°59.898S 149°23.113'E. This is just west of the right angle dogleg, about 1000m north of the site. The retardant run appears to be inside of the 1100m hills (~2km to the WNW) at 00:15 which are slightly below the aircraft in line of sight. Remember the camera is not level to the horizon (the camera drops during the pan and the crash site is uphill of the videographer ). I'd guess the aircraft at 00:15 is at approx 1100m (The same height as the hills, but you're slightly looking "up" at them) making the aircraft appear higher. Impact was at 1050m or less. If these assumptions are correct the aircraft descended at the most 150 feet in the last 18 seconds m (<50fpm) covering ~0.75nm = 150kts.
The video stops - 2 seconds after the fire is visible - probably just before the sound reaches it (if the northerly let it travel that far) which would have been at about 3 seconds.
RIP

[Sunfish]

A lot of firies have and use the cameras in their phones, both for recreation and documenting matters such as broken stuff, the licence plate numbers of idiots, etc, etc. It’s not unreasonable that someone in a crew would video a drop if they were on a break and in a safe position to do so.

[RickNRoll]

Low level operations come with elevated risk. An expert, well trained crew can do the same thing day in, day out, and yet have a bad day with very little change from what they were doing 10 minutes, 1 day, 1 year before. Within normal operations, functional resonance of factors associated with the process may just get to a condition where a number are near the edge, and enough together cause an undesired outcome. The operating environment is stochastic, around desired normal conditions, each of which has levels of variation that occur naturally, and are controlled in the course of the operation. Without going too far down the rabbit hole with that, note that the Reason model of causation, the "Swiss Cheese" model is simplistic, and assumes a linear process, and life is just not so. The final point is that the guys and girls that are out there doing this job are professionals, and face the risks that arise from their operation day after day.

R.I.P.
An accident in the real sense of the word. It is a job that is inherently risky and there is always the chance that there is going to be a small miscalculation that is fatal. No one would normally fly in those conditions if they could possibly avoid them.

[Eclan]

Just an observation: it’s a little strange that some of the same people who completely lost the plot at (and continue to ridicule) one or two previous posters speculating on the cause of this awful accident seem to be perfectly fine with the more recent speculation.
There's a clear and obvious distinction between reasonable, sensible sharing and discussion of facts and the peddling of empty, pointless speculation, catch-phrases and idiotic references to vague possibilities by ignorant wannabes desperate to appear knowledgeable in the aviation forum. Sadly, this thread is riddled with examples of the latter.

[Global Aviator]

Having just seen one of the videos all I can say is RIP lads. Putting out fires, helping, doing a great job. Then next second yes all ****e come real. I am certainly no accident investigator, actually have no idea about the real circumstances, but it does appear to me that they just well...... hit the ground.

A risky job yes, limits defined no doubt but fires are brutal beasts not just on the ground. The turbulence, the vis. No doubt hey were following their out after the drop and something just didn’t go right.

There but for the grace of god and thank you, you have paid the ultimate price for doing a very risky job.

[spektrum]

The linked video has been made private. Does anyone have another link? Quite keen to see it.

[Sunfish]

You don’t need to see it.