Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

C130 down NE Cooma

Old 27th Jan 2020, 03:43
  #221 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 56
Posts: 1,545
Originally Posted by patagonianworelaud View Post
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.
A Squared is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2020, 03:51
  #222 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: Sunny Oz
Posts: 28
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.
BlackPanther is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2020, 06:52
  #223 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 11,242
Originally Posted by junior.VH-LFA View Post
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
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2020, 07:19
  #224 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Fieldsworthy
Posts: 79
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.
Eclan is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2020, 10:01
  #225 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Aust
Posts: 106
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?

rcoight is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2020, 10:27
  #226 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Auckland nz
Posts: 140
Originally Posted by duncan_g View Post
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.
Exactly. If my memory serves me correctly to my C130 Loadmaster days, sufficient 25,000 tiedown chains would be arrayed to provide 9 g forward and for all intents and purposes 3 g laterally, vertical and rearward. This protects the crew and any passengers forward of the load in accident circumstances where these g loads are not exceed. Obviously not too relevant in otherwise non-survivable accident like this one. RIP brothers!


Lord Farringdon is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2020, 10:40
  #227 (permalink)  
fdr
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: 3rd Rock, #29B
Posts: 788
Originally Posted by SCPL_1988 View Post
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.

fdr is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2020, 10:53
  #228 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Auckland nz
Posts: 140
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK View Post
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

Activities during the Gulf War gave us occasion to fly low level over a number of oil well fires as we approached one of the airfields we used. These fires were fierce and the radiated heat could be felt strongly through the windows along with significant turbulence. We experienced soot and oil build up and fumes ingress as well. Not pleasant. That's about the limit of my knowledge of occasionally flying close to flames.

If I was firefighting with a C130, I could see heat protection value in keeping the chin windows covered or selecting airframes that didn't have them incorporated. Whether that's what Coulsan was thinking or it was just the frame for sale on the block at the time, who knows. But we were only passing individual wells, whereas these boys are flying close along extensive and raging fire lines. Any protection would be helpful I imagine.

Anyway, take care all you firey's, both ground and air. You are all legends!.

David, thanks to you and others for keeping the thread sensible.
Lord Farringdon is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2020, 13:37
  #229 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Aus
Age: 27
Posts: 392
Originally Posted by rcoight View Post
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.
junior.VH-LFA is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2020, 14:53
  #230 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 11,242
Originally Posted by rcoight View Post
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.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2020, 17:12
  #231 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: virginia, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 791
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK View Post
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.
sandiego89 is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2020, 19:56
  #232 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2,492
Originally Posted by junior.VH-LFA View Post
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.
Squawk7700 is online now  
Old 27th Jan 2020, 20:14
  #233 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 56
Posts: 1,545
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK View Post
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)

Originally Posted by A Squared View 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.
A Squared is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2020, 01:29
  #234 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Itinerant
Posts: 643
Originally Posted by Cedrik View Post
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
grizzled is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2020, 04:46
  #235 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Over the Hill and far away
Posts: 45
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.
P2bleed is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2020, 04:58
  #236 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Vermont Hwy
Posts: 469
Video here:



Last edited by Senior Pilot; 28th Jan 2020 at 05:03. Reason: Add YouTube
Car RAMROD is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2020, 05:40
  #237 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2,492
Thanks for posting. That video adds a whole new dimension as to what went wrong and one would argue muddies the waters significantly.
Squawk7700 is online now  
Old 28th Jan 2020, 06:19
  #238 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Australia
Posts: 145
Originally Posted by Squawk7700 View Post
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...
Stickshift3000 is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2020, 06:29
  #239 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 135
Originally Posted by Squawk7700 View Post
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
Alice Kiwican is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2020, 06:43
  #240 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2,492
Originally Posted by Stickshift3000 View Post
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.
Squawk7700 is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.