C-130's are not 4WD
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Wanna Be Up There...
Age: 53
Posts: 279
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
C-130's are not 4WD
Got this on email
Subject: C-130 vs Runway Construction
Here's what happens when you don't properly "NOTAM" (notice to airmen) an airfield under construction. A lack of communication over in Iraq.
Last week, one C-23 Sherpa flew into a U.S. operated airfield in Iraq during the day and saw there was construction equipment on the runway. Yet there was no NOTAM. A trench was being dug in the runway, and it was not marked.
It's a long runway and they just landed beyond the construction. They filed a safety hazard report that was immediately forwarded to our higher headquarters and to the Air Force wing based here.
Well, it seems the construction continued and still was not marked or NOTAM'ed or anything. A C-130 landed on the runway the night of the 29th and didn't see the construction. It wound up going through what is now a large pit on the runway. A few pictures are attached. The C-130 was totaled.
There were several injuries to the crew and the few passengers that were on board but luckily nobody was killed. Quite the set of failures somewhere in the system regarding this improper construction and no notifications about it.
I have the pictures but I can't work out how to upload them. Looks nasty. if you want me to email them send me a pm.
Subject: C-130 vs Runway Construction
Here's what happens when you don't properly "NOTAM" (notice to airmen) an airfield under construction. A lack of communication over in Iraq.
Last week, one C-23 Sherpa flew into a U.S. operated airfield in Iraq during the day and saw there was construction equipment on the runway. Yet there was no NOTAM. A trench was being dug in the runway, and it was not marked.
It's a long runway and they just landed beyond the construction. They filed a safety hazard report that was immediately forwarded to our higher headquarters and to the Air Force wing based here.
Well, it seems the construction continued and still was not marked or NOTAM'ed or anything. A C-130 landed on the runway the night of the 29th and didn't see the construction. It wound up going through what is now a large pit on the runway. A few pictures are attached. The C-130 was totaled.
There were several injuries to the crew and the few passengers that were on board but luckily nobody was killed. Quite the set of failures somewhere in the system regarding this improper construction and no notifications about it.
I have the pictures but I can't work out how to upload them. Looks nasty. if you want me to email them send me a pm.
Is this what you're looking for?
Here's the rest of tem:
http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/..._200516232.asp
http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/..._200516233.asp
http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/..._200516234.asp
http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/..._200516235.asp
Nice looking hole though...
Here's the rest of tem:
http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/..._200516232.asp
http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/..._200516233.asp
http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/..._200516234.asp
http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/..._200516235.asp
Nice looking hole though...
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Over 250 posts so far. Perhaps I support Pprune by posting regularly.
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe they were landing on a moonless night, unlit runway using passive night vision following a tac approach.
How much use are these cones gonna be then??
How much use are these cones gonna be then??
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Down at the sharp pointy end, where all the weather is made.
Age: 74
Posts: 1,684
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Looks like a straightforward bay replacement job to me; quite nicely cut edges ready for shuttering and a pour of sub-base. The rest of the pavement looks in quite good nick so I can't imagine why they might be replacing that bit. I really don't like those spoil heaps and trenching parallel to the runway within the Cleared & Graded Area, although they pale into insignificance if you're not going to bother about the yawning chasm on the running surface itself!
A nice object-lesson for our Work In Progress training file! Thanks to notmyC150v2 for posting it.
Cheers,
TheOddOne
A nice object-lesson for our Work In Progress training file! Thanks to notmyC150v2 for posting it.
Cheers,
TheOddOne
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Writing Part 141 and 142 manuals these days
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The "ginger beers" would have been very surprised, on both accounts...................
Betchya the Troop Commander would have got a reaming for not doing the risk analysis in his recon
Betchya the Troop Commander would have got a reaming for not doing the risk analysis in his recon
Prof. Airport Engineer
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Australia (mostly)
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the post notmyC150v2 - not something one sees very often. Useful for education as TheOddOne noted.
Not quite sure which troop Ace on Base was referring to: "Betchya the Troop Commander would have got a reaming for not doing the risk analysis in his recon". Runway construction, Logistics or the Herc squadron? It made me wonder again if "formalised risk analysis" really does for us what we hope it will do.
The "formalised risk analysis" concept was introduced as a tool some (long) time after my airport engineering training. In those less-systemised days, we did things as NOTAMs and closures as such a routine part of normal practice that they weren't even questioned - a bit like the sun coming up each morning. It just happened. Now they are part of a safety management system, with boxes to tick and reports to file. I imagine that in the US military QC system, there is no box to tick called "ripped the wheels off and totalled the aircraft", so this won't show up too strongly except as another Quality Deficiency Report. Probably won't find such a box in any Australian SMS either.
I sometimes walk students through a comparison of their designs with some more famous designs done 30, 50 or even 100 years ago. I remind them that the earlier designers did an excellent job because they had the advantage of better computers than the students have today - the earlier designers used the human brain. Didn't have a formalised risk analysis either.
Exit stage left on walking stick with creaking knees and white beard
Not quite sure which troop Ace on Base was referring to: "Betchya the Troop Commander would have got a reaming for not doing the risk analysis in his recon". Runway construction, Logistics or the Herc squadron? It made me wonder again if "formalised risk analysis" really does for us what we hope it will do.
The "formalised risk analysis" concept was introduced as a tool some (long) time after my airport engineering training. In those less-systemised days, we did things as NOTAMs and closures as such a routine part of normal practice that they weren't even questioned - a bit like the sun coming up each morning. It just happened. Now they are part of a safety management system, with boxes to tick and reports to file. I imagine that in the US military QC system, there is no box to tick called "ripped the wheels off and totalled the aircraft", so this won't show up too strongly except as another Quality Deficiency Report. Probably won't find such a box in any Australian SMS either.
I sometimes walk students through a comparison of their designs with some more famous designs done 30, 50 or even 100 years ago. I remind them that the earlier designers did an excellent job because they had the advantage of better computers than the students have today - the earlier designers used the human brain. Didn't have a formalised risk analysis either.
Exit stage left on walking stick with creaking knees and white beard
