RAAF Hercules in Emergency Landing
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From crikey.com today:
2. Howard's C-130 dash: all the angles
Crikey's aviation cinematography expert writes:
I watched ABC TV's lead news story last night re John Howard's in-flight "emergency" in Southern Iraq -- watch the video here -- and have reached the conclusion that the story may have been something of a contrived beat-up.
As the narrative tells it, the plane filled with smoke and was diverted to an emergency landing. We are then treated to footage of the Prime Minister running from the plane accompanied by bodyguards, amidst apparent alarm and looks of deep concern etc.
But it's all humbug, as careful examination of the footage shows:
One cameraman got out of the aircraft before the PM, in sufficient time to capture him exiting the aircraft. Another cameraman was inside the aircraft, near the rear ramp, and panned with the PM’s party as they ran from the aircraft. However, cut to the second camera as the PM exits the plane, and the first cameraman inside the plane is nowhere to be seen. Very strange – or were there several takes of this?
Camera on ground pans with PM and bodyguard as they run past, and we then see numerous passengers calmly walking away from the aircraft with their baggage –so they must have exited the aircraft well ahead of the PM and escort. Which, given the apparent emergency, is unlikely.
If you look at the aircraft's engines in the background, the propellers have almost come to a halt when the PM and bodyguard emerge running down the ramp. As anyone familiar with C-130 aircraft will know, it takes well over a minute from the time that the pilot cuts the engines until the propellers actually stop. So the aircraft was stopped on the ground for some time, and had initiated normal engine shutdown, well before the PM was bundled off.
Add to that the fact that only the PM and escort are running – everybody else in shot appears calm and relaxed – and the odour of rodent becomes overwhelming.
Crikey's aviation cinematography expert writes:
I watched ABC TV's lead news story last night re John Howard's in-flight "emergency" in Southern Iraq -- watch the video here -- and have reached the conclusion that the story may have been something of a contrived beat-up.
As the narrative tells it, the plane filled with smoke and was diverted to an emergency landing. We are then treated to footage of the Prime Minister running from the plane accompanied by bodyguards, amidst apparent alarm and looks of deep concern etc.
But it's all humbug, as careful examination of the footage shows:
One cameraman got out of the aircraft before the PM, in sufficient time to capture him exiting the aircraft. Another cameraman was inside the aircraft, near the rear ramp, and panned with the PM’s party as they ran from the aircraft. However, cut to the second camera as the PM exits the plane, and the first cameraman inside the plane is nowhere to be seen. Very strange – or were there several takes of this?
Camera on ground pans with PM and bodyguard as they run past, and we then see numerous passengers calmly walking away from the aircraft with their baggage –so they must have exited the aircraft well ahead of the PM and escort. Which, given the apparent emergency, is unlikely.
If you look at the aircraft's engines in the background, the propellers have almost come to a halt when the PM and bodyguard emerge running down the ramp. As anyone familiar with C-130 aircraft will know, it takes well over a minute from the time that the pilot cuts the engines until the propellers actually stop. So the aircraft was stopped on the ground for some time, and had initiated normal engine shutdown, well before the PM was bundled off.
Add to that the fact that only the PM and escort are running – everybody else in shot appears calm and relaxed – and the odour of rodent becomes overwhelming.
Evertonian
Ahh, I've just found out that there was no need to exit suddenly & the PM was quite relaxed on board, enjoying RAAF hospitality when he was told that his shares in Aussie Reactors.com had dropped 3% on the ASX!
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: ...
Posts: 341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B. Abraham, sorry you still don't get it. Yes, the media spelt "plane" correctly but the use of the word "plane" is traditionally held, by many pilots, to be a misnomer.
The play on words using the word, "plain", and likening it to a burger really only works using the spoken word, rather than the written. I thought I'd give it a go anyway but you've defeated me...
As an aside, there are countless examples of the media consistently using incorrect terminology or application to suit their own agenda, despite widespread public knowledge of the proper version.
LT-DT, he's got himself an ICB on his jacket now...
The play on words using the word, "plain", and likening it to a burger really only works using the spoken word, rather than the written. I thought I'd give it a go anyway but you've defeated me...
As an aside, there are countless examples of the media consistently using incorrect terminology or application to suit their own agenda, despite widespread public knowledge of the proper version.
LT-DT, he's got himself an ICB on his jacket now...
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Scotty and Hempy, I come from a generation a long time before '94. I know language is something that evolves with time and meaning change (gay for example, I remember when all pilots would proudly proclaim to be gay, and if they were not, wished they were). Some one should tell Websters what the meaning of 'plane' is in the modern lexicon. When I asked my gunner "Can you see any planes?" I dont for one minute think he assumed I was talking about trees or things that shave wood.
WORD HISTORY The plane in which we fly is properly named for a very important element of its structure—the wing that keeps it in the air. But the story behind this name is slightly complicated. To begin with, plane in the sense of “winged vehicle,” first recorded in April 1908, is a shortened form of aeroplane. In June of that year plane appeared in a quotation from the London Times that mentioned one of the Wright brothers. Aeroplane, first recorded in 1866, is made up of the prefix aero–, “air, aviation,” and the word plane, referring to the structure designed to keep an air vehicle aloft. Originally the plane in such contexts was imagined as flat, hence the choice of the word plane; in practice this surface must curve slightly in order to work. The word aeroplane for the vehicle is first found in 1873. The first recorded appearance of the form airplane in our current sense, which uses air– instead of aero–, is found in 1907. An American flies in an airplane while a Briton still travels in an aeroplane, but both can catch a plane.
WORD HISTORY The plane in which we fly is properly named for a very important element of its structure—the wing that keeps it in the air. But the story behind this name is slightly complicated. To begin with, plane in the sense of “winged vehicle,” first recorded in April 1908, is a shortened form of aeroplane. In June of that year plane appeared in a quotation from the London Times that mentioned one of the Wright brothers. Aeroplane, first recorded in 1866, is made up of the prefix aero–, “air, aviation,” and the word plane, referring to the structure designed to keep an air vehicle aloft. Originally the plane in such contexts was imagined as flat, hence the choice of the word plane; in practice this surface must curve slightly in order to work. The word aeroplane for the vehicle is first found in 1873. The first recorded appearance of the form airplane in our current sense, which uses air– instead of aero–, is found in 1907. An American flies in an airplane while a Briton still travels in an aeroplane, but both can catch a plane.
Last edited by Brian Abraham; 19th Mar 2007 at 08:31.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a load of utter horse%^&t that crikey stuff is. Some people are so blinded by their hatred of Howard and Bush that they will believe almost anything if it could possibly put either in a bad light.
Clearly the conspiracy theorists out there have absolutely zero idea about anything to do with military operations - either ground or air - as the ignorance displayed in some of the above is quite breathtaking. The people pontificating quite obviously have no experience of either C-130 operations or close personal protection tactics. Since I've been involved extensively with both, here are some facts:
One: There was quite clearly smoke in the cabin during the flight. The vision shows it. Plenty of journos attest to it. The crew properly decided to make an immediate return for landing.
Two: The prop brake in the Herc clicks in at something like 30-ish % RPM (from memory). If the props are still spinning in the TV vision, then the aircraft has been shut down within around 60 seconds or so.
Three - and more important. Once the ramp and door were opened (presumably just after landing) the smoke in the cabin would have cleared. By the time the aircraft parked, the smoke wasn't the problem.
The emergency at that point was no longer aircraft related. It was that the Prime Minister of Australia had just made an unplanned arrival at a relatively insecure airfield in what is basically bandit country. OPSEC had been broken by his presence there half an hour previously. He's now sitting in the middle of the tarmac in a lame duck aircraft. All it takes is one crazy with an RPG and a mobile phone to realise that he's back and the aircraft is broken, and there's trouble.
So, the SAS close protection team no doubt did what all professional CPP teams would do. You establish contact with whatever assets you have on the ground. That may take some time - although given the still-moving props, not much in this case. They secure an area - and once that's done, you move the principal there - as fast as you can and with heavy force around him / her. That's what was happening when the PM was moved - you can see the CPP operatives with their hand in the small of his back pushing him along.
Who cares whether Joe Blow cameraman (or anyone else) got off before the PM or not? It is of absolutely no relevance whatsoever - he isn't a target, the Prime Minister is.
Any suggestion that the SAS were sitting around inside the aircraft doing their hair while the PM's office organised a photo op (with multiple takes, no less) is not only insulting to their professionalism, it is so naive as to be ridiculous. Some people need to get a grip.
There, I feel better now. Rant over.
SW
Clearly the conspiracy theorists out there have absolutely zero idea about anything to do with military operations - either ground or air - as the ignorance displayed in some of the above is quite breathtaking. The people pontificating quite obviously have no experience of either C-130 operations or close personal protection tactics. Since I've been involved extensively with both, here are some facts:
One: There was quite clearly smoke in the cabin during the flight. The vision shows it. Plenty of journos attest to it. The crew properly decided to make an immediate return for landing.
Two: The prop brake in the Herc clicks in at something like 30-ish % RPM (from memory). If the props are still spinning in the TV vision, then the aircraft has been shut down within around 60 seconds or so.
Three - and more important. Once the ramp and door were opened (presumably just after landing) the smoke in the cabin would have cleared. By the time the aircraft parked, the smoke wasn't the problem.
The emergency at that point was no longer aircraft related. It was that the Prime Minister of Australia had just made an unplanned arrival at a relatively insecure airfield in what is basically bandit country. OPSEC had been broken by his presence there half an hour previously. He's now sitting in the middle of the tarmac in a lame duck aircraft. All it takes is one crazy with an RPG and a mobile phone to realise that he's back and the aircraft is broken, and there's trouble.
So, the SAS close protection team no doubt did what all professional CPP teams would do. You establish contact with whatever assets you have on the ground. That may take some time - although given the still-moving props, not much in this case. They secure an area - and once that's done, you move the principal there - as fast as you can and with heavy force around him / her. That's what was happening when the PM was moved - you can see the CPP operatives with their hand in the small of his back pushing him along.
Who cares whether Joe Blow cameraman (or anyone else) got off before the PM or not? It is of absolutely no relevance whatsoever - he isn't a target, the Prime Minister is.
Any suggestion that the SAS were sitting around inside the aircraft doing their hair while the PM's office organised a photo op (with multiple takes, no less) is not only insulting to their professionalism, it is so naive as to be ridiculous. Some people need to get a grip.
There, I feel better now. Rant over.
SW
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Chronic Snoozer
Please indulge my thread drift. I've always understood PAN to have come from the French 'panne' meaning 'breakdown' originating from the language of vehicular transport.
Swingwing.........excellent post, nice to read some informed information on Pprune. By the way the C130J with it's new Engines and Props shutdown in Feather don't they? this would mean they only spin for ( i'm guessing ) 30 seconds max. I used to fly the F50 and the spin down from feather was quite quick, a lot quicker than the good ol F27 !!
So this means the aircraft was stopped for even less time than a lot of Labour voters here think?
So this means the aircraft was stopped for even less time than a lot of Labour voters here think?
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I’m not so sure Swingwing…
One: There is no argument that there was smoke and that they had good reason to land ASAP.
Two: Irrespective of the time needed to stop the props if you had a VIP such as the PM of YOUR country then as you descended you would have arranged for an area to be secured for disembarkation.
I imagine one of the main concerns would be anti aircraft fire of different sorts during the approach as well as the source of the smoke.
However, once you have landed you would not wait any longer than you had to before you got the PM off the aircraft, which is a nice target. I imagine that you would have the PM in a location in the aircraft so that he and his protective group would be able to get off the aircraft first and into a safer environment not the cameraman.
Why then were the media able to get off first and film?
If the media were filming it would attract attention don’t you think and that’s the last thing they would want. If there was a risk why did they allow the media to jump off first and film it?
If then it was safe enough for the media to stand around and film why was the PM being rushed?
If there was no threat from the aircraft why wasn’t there a vehicle for him to get into right at the ramp?
No doubt at all that there was a problem and they had to take action but sorry Swingwing but this looks like someone has decided to take advantage of this for PR.
One: There is no argument that there was smoke and that they had good reason to land ASAP.
Two: Irrespective of the time needed to stop the props if you had a VIP such as the PM of YOUR country then as you descended you would have arranged for an area to be secured for disembarkation.
I imagine one of the main concerns would be anti aircraft fire of different sorts during the approach as well as the source of the smoke.
However, once you have landed you would not wait any longer than you had to before you got the PM off the aircraft, which is a nice target. I imagine that you would have the PM in a location in the aircraft so that he and his protective group would be able to get off the aircraft first and into a safer environment not the cameraman.
Why then were the media able to get off first and film?
If the media were filming it would attract attention don’t you think and that’s the last thing they would want. If there was a risk why did they allow the media to jump off first and film it?
If then it was safe enough for the media to stand around and film why was the PM being rushed?
If there was no threat from the aircraft why wasn’t there a vehicle for him to get into right at the ramp?
No doubt at all that there was a problem and they had to take action but sorry Swingwing but this looks like someone has decided to take advantage of this for PR.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Age: 74
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Intelligence
And what no one who is posting on here knows is what the current Threat Assessment was or what intelligence information the CPP blokes had. It's no good trying to second guess the SAS guys - they are going to do what they trained to do and bugger the media!
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We all know how good our SAS are and I believe they are second to none.
BUT do they tell the PM what to do IF he wants a photo op?
BUT do they tell the PM what to do IF he wants a photo op?
Nunc est bibendum
Geez lowerlobe, with a conspiracy theory like this you'll be telling us shortly that it was actually the yanks that rigged the aircraft on September 11. 
I'm no military expert but I can think of a dozen reasons why there would be both a cameraman and a whole bunch of other diggers outside the aircraft before the PM comes running out. How about securing the area first? Allow thirty seconds of that and then bring the PM out. More than enough time for a journo with a camera to also get out and so some filming.
I'm no military expert but I can think of a dozen reasons why there would be both a cameraman and a whole bunch of other diggers outside the aircraft before the PM comes running out. How about securing the area first? Allow thirty seconds of that and then bring the PM out. More than enough time for a journo with a camera to also get out and so some filming.
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No conspiracy theory at all...If they were trying to secure the area with troops do you think they would let the media get in the way?
I have also said that there was obviously smoke..There is no way the PM would stage something like that especially in an environment like Iraq.
All I am saying is that at the end of the day the PM is a politician....
I have also said that there was obviously smoke..There is no way the PM would stage something like that especially in an environment like Iraq.
All I am saying is that at the end of the day the PM is a politician....
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I said before:
Lowerlobe - you've made my point perfectly, thank you.
Since you and your mates were kicked off the Cabin Crew forum you've been all over D&G and made it your business to have an opinion about absolutely everything, even when, as in this case, you quite clearly don't have a clue as to the facts. You are now sitting at your computer on the other side of the world, peddling conspiracy theories, with absolutely zero understanding of military operations - simply because you want to bag the PM.
Your post is riddled with "I imagine" and "don't you think" and "you would have".
How do you have the faintest idea what would or would not have been done? Are you a military pilot? Have you worked with trained CPP operatives? Have you ever been to Iraq? Have you worked in a Minister's office?
I have done all these things, but even I don't really know what happened - because I wasn't there. However, unlike you, my starting proposition is that the professionals involved would not have allowed themselves to be used in a political stunt. They take their jobs far more seriously than that I can assure you.
Also, don't forget that the Chief of the Defence Force was also on the aircraft - you think the guys doing the business weren't thinking about that as well?
You work in Cabin Crew, right? I don't get on here and start banging on about how Sh%*t the CC service on QANTAS is (although god knows I'd love to) but I don't really understand your issues, and so I don't feel it's my place to criticise the way you do your job without having all the facts.
I know this is a rumour network, but perhaps you could see your way clear to extending the military professionals in Iraq the same courtesy?
Just a thought.....
Clearly the conspiracy theorists out there have absolutely zero idea about anything to do with military operations - either ground or air - as the ignorance displayed in some of the above is quite breathtaking.
Since you and your mates were kicked off the Cabin Crew forum you've been all over D&G and made it your business to have an opinion about absolutely everything, even when, as in this case, you quite clearly don't have a clue as to the facts. You are now sitting at your computer on the other side of the world, peddling conspiracy theories, with absolutely zero understanding of military operations - simply because you want to bag the PM.
Your post is riddled with "I imagine" and "don't you think" and "you would have".
How do you have the faintest idea what would or would not have been done? Are you a military pilot? Have you worked with trained CPP operatives? Have you ever been to Iraq? Have you worked in a Minister's office?
I have done all these things, but even I don't really know what happened - because I wasn't there. However, unlike you, my starting proposition is that the professionals involved would not have allowed themselves to be used in a political stunt. They take their jobs far more seriously than that I can assure you.
Also, don't forget that the Chief of the Defence Force was also on the aircraft - you think the guys doing the business weren't thinking about that as well?
You work in Cabin Crew, right? I don't get on here and start banging on about how Sh%*t the CC service on QANTAS is (although god knows I'd love to) but I don't really understand your issues, and so I don't feel it's my place to criticise the way you do your job without having all the facts.
I know this is a rumour network, but perhaps you could see your way clear to extending the military professionals in Iraq the same courtesy?
Just a thought.....
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Swingwing for the post and let me make a few salient facts..
1: I did not post a conspiracy theory…
2:Your right I am cabin crew …so are you saying that because of being cabin crew I am unable or of insufficient intelligence to make a comment or have a view on a matter or is that the sole domain of pilots?
3:You fall into the trap a lot of people do that cabin crew have had no experience at all of any other aspect of life. To say that I have “absolutely zero understanding of military operations” is arrogance personified. I would suggest that assumptions are best left alone unless you are sure of whom you are speaking to.
You’re right I did include phrases like… "I imagine" and "don't you think" and "you would have" because as with you I was not there. This does not preclude any thoughts as to what may have happened. I did not attack any of the people serving in Iraq but I have a healthy cynicism of politicians.
Let’s play the ball and not the man…
1: I did not post a conspiracy theory…
2:Your right I am cabin crew …so are you saying that because of being cabin crew I am unable or of insufficient intelligence to make a comment or have a view on a matter or is that the sole domain of pilots?
3:You fall into the trap a lot of people do that cabin crew have had no experience at all of any other aspect of life. To say that I have “absolutely zero understanding of military operations” is arrogance personified. I would suggest that assumptions are best left alone unless you are sure of whom you are speaking to.
You’re right I did include phrases like… "I imagine" and "don't you think" and "you would have" because as with you I was not there. This does not preclude any thoughts as to what may have happened. I did not attack any of the people serving in Iraq but I have a healthy cynicism of politicians.
Let’s play the ball and not the man…
Nunc est bibendum
Righto LL, I'll play that game.
I imagine that the RAAF guys would have responded absolutely appropriately to smoke on board an aircraft and wouldn't have mucked around after having landed in bandit country setting up for a photo op.
I imagine that landing back at the place I'd just left knowing that it was bandit country wouldn't be a nice feeling and that the safety of the VIP would be the one and only priority. I imagine that the SAS would tell any journo or advisor requesting a re-stage for a photo op to get lost in very strong language and that whilst on the ground in bandit country that they are in charge and not the PM.
I imagine that anyone who believes that our ADF would be complicit in such a way to re-stage the evac- particularly the CDF who if you recall was the one to blow the whistle on the children overboard scandal when CAF- is deluding themselves and searching for any reason to bag the government.
I imagine that harbouring such a strong dislike for the PM such that an individual looks at everything he does through that prism must make for a very sad lifestyle.
I imagine that the RAAF guys would have responded absolutely appropriately to smoke on board an aircraft and wouldn't have mucked around after having landed in bandit country setting up for a photo op.
I imagine that landing back at the place I'd just left knowing that it was bandit country wouldn't be a nice feeling and that the safety of the VIP would be the one and only priority. I imagine that the SAS would tell any journo or advisor requesting a re-stage for a photo op to get lost in very strong language and that whilst on the ground in bandit country that they are in charge and not the PM.
I imagine that anyone who believes that our ADF would be complicit in such a way to re-stage the evac- particularly the CDF who if you recall was the one to blow the whistle on the children overboard scandal when CAF- is deluding themselves and searching for any reason to bag the government.
I imagine that harbouring such a strong dislike for the PM such that an individual looks at everything he does through that prism must make for a very sad lifestyle.
Evertonian
3. The media, having an innate ability to get into a pulitzer prize winning position within a sniff of a story, had cameras rolling & seeking out the best vantage spot first.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: ...
Posts: 341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lowerlobe, you should consider quitting while you're still able to salvage some dignity. You obviously have very little idea of what you're talking about here. An opinion on Howard's motivation for getting off the aircraft is one thing, but watching you digging your own hole about so many things which are so far out of your realm is becoming embarrassing.
Why is it so difficult to picture the ramp opening and some cameramen piling out in time to catch the PM (who is reported to have been in the cockpit, on a headset) as he de-planes moments later?
By the way, the PM would never have been at that airfield in the first place if the location hadn't been deemed relatively safe at the time.
Whilst not saying there was no threat at all and whilst acknowledging that timely action was a factor, the threat assessment was obviously such that the actions on returning to the field could, believe it or not, be taken with a moment or two to think about what they were doing instead of just star-bursting off the aircraft in the sort of screaming, hysterical frenzy that some people here seem to think is the only possible natural response.
Brian A: Respect to you for your privations of the past. In more recent times, punishments have been administered to those of military beginnings for referring to an aircraft as a plane. Said punishments were often doled out with the reminder that "only carpenters use planes" or "a plain (pronounced "plane") is a type of hamburger".
I'll not belabour the point but might add, if I may, that you may want to be careful should you ever wish, in these modern times, to refer to your tail-gunner.
Why is it so difficult to picture the ramp opening and some cameramen piling out in time to catch the PM (who is reported to have been in the cockpit, on a headset) as he de-planes moments later?
By the way, the PM would never have been at that airfield in the first place if the location hadn't been deemed relatively safe at the time.
Whilst not saying there was no threat at all and whilst acknowledging that timely action was a factor, the threat assessment was obviously such that the actions on returning to the field could, believe it or not, be taken with a moment or two to think about what they were doing instead of just star-bursting off the aircraft in the sort of screaming, hysterical frenzy that some people here seem to think is the only possible natural response.
Brian A: Respect to you for your privations of the past. In more recent times, punishments have been administered to those of military beginnings for referring to an aircraft as a plane. Said punishments were often doled out with the reminder that "only carpenters use planes" or "a plain (pronounced "plane") is a type of hamburger".
I'll not belabour the point but might add, if I may, that you may want to be careful should you ever wish, in these modern times, to refer to your tail-gunner.