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

C130 down NE Cooma

Old 24th Jan 2020, 07:33
  #121 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 14,420
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by SCPL_1988 View Post
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.
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 24th Jan 2020, 08:24
  #122 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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
logansi is offline  
Old 24th Jan 2020, 08:29
  #123 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Sunshine Coast
Posts: 331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
There are no MLAT receivers or radar heads in the accident area. The only position/vector data will be ADS-B
Vag277 is offline  
Old 24th Jan 2020, 08:46
  #124 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: HKG
Posts: 399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by junior.VH-LFA View Post
Discussing isnt a problem. Shooting from the hip with no actual knowledge, information or experience using shit data is frowned upon. Theres a difference.
Brilliant LFA! Summed up well
Green.Dot is offline  
Old 24th Jan 2020, 09:02
  #125 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: YARM
Age: 72
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Kagamuga View Post
'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

@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






unworry is offline  
Old 24th Jan 2020, 09:23
  #126 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Ground
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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, Im sure the ATSB will use it.

RIP fellas and thank you for your heroic service.
Jabberwocky82 is offline  
Old 24th Jan 2020, 09:53
  #127 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 14,420
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by gerry111 View Post
Originally Posted by SCPL_1988 View Post
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.
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 24th Jan 2020, 11:03
  #128 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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 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 ↑ 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.


Galerita64 is offline  
Old 24th Jan 2020, 11:22
  #129 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Fieldsworthy
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
Eclan is offline  
Old 24th Jan 2020, 13:51
  #130 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: uae
Posts: 2,778
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
No this thread is dominated by keyboard warriors who have lost the plot !
fatbus is offline  
Old 24th Jan 2020, 19:20
  #131 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Ground
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
  1. 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.
Jabberwocky82 is offline  
Old 24th Jan 2020, 19:22
  #132 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: virginia, USA
Age: 55
Posts: 1,009
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
sandiego89 is offline  
Old 24th Jan 2020, 20:29
  #133 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 14,420
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by sandiego89 View Post
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.
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 24th Jan 2020, 21:28
  #134 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3,365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
http://abc.net.au/news/2020-01-24/us...cules/11897624

Not much left to investigate :-(
Squawk7700 is offline  
Old 24th Jan 2020, 21:47
  #135 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: moon
Posts: 3,471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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?
Sunfish is offline  
Old 24th Jan 2020, 22:22
  #136 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Sunfish View Post
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 dont always agree with your posts Sunfish but 100% with you on this.

Last edited by Darwinism; 24th Jan 2020 at 22:33. Reason: Spelling
Darwinism is offline  
Old 24th Jan 2020, 22:33
  #137 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Brisbane Australia
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Local knowledge

Kind of eerie but Ive 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!
RetiredTooEarly is offline  
Old 24th Jan 2020, 22:49
  #138 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Moved up to a 16%er
Posts: 3,278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
For those whod like to help the families of those lost:

https://www.gofundme.com/f/coulson-t...cp+share-sheet
PropPiedmont is offline  
Old 24th Jan 2020, 22:49
  #139 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Itinerant
Posts: 764
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
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”.

Last edited by grizzled; 24th Jan 2020 at 23:00.
grizzled is offline  
Old 24th Jan 2020, 23:19
  #140 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: HKG
Posts: 399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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, lets leave that to the ATSB)- stop posting BS.

Again, RIP to the great men on board that aircraft
Green.Dot is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

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

Copyright © 2022 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.