C130 down NE Cooma
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: United States
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: Derry
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: United States
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: United States
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Discussing isn’t a problem. Shooting from the hip with no actual knowledge, information or experience using shit data is frowned upon. There’s a difference.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 925
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Very sad at this tragic loss. Sincere condolences to the crew's family and friends. RIP
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Australia the Awesome
Posts: 398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: United States
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: United States
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
