As a few have said, its up to the ATSB and police now.
In the light of day as is often the case investigators are in bright sunshine with an aircraft wreckage and minus the low cloud, reduced viz, wind and in this case as has often been commented upon that fire makes its own weather.
Looking at the approach path to the crash site my heart goes out to the pilot and my thoughts of what was he trying to do?
Put it down or try to restore normal flight ?
A few more feet and they would have missed the tops, assuming they could see.
None of the elements of that day now exist except
Are there any radio calls to indicate a mayday aircraft in distress?
We will see the results of the flight recorders assuming they were running .

We owe the crew the respect they deserve as fellow pilots who gave their lives operating a large aircraft close to the ground in unprecedented conditions where the fires possibly created unsurvivable dimensions that no normal operations would be contemplated.
But these were exceptional people who put their skills and lives on the line 130 sorties before this ill fated one.

Fires are still around us, 41 degree here next week fire bombers still on base no one packs up and goes home just like in wartime when pilots and aircraft are lost.
And this is war these fires have and will put people at risk.
Not for the faint if heart.
It takes courage and more so being selfless these guys pressed on in unimaginable conditions.

I see that now logged in to my computer. My iPhone rounded the flightaware table down to two decimals.

Well said ZAZ.

Looks right to me, now the question is this (for me), was the tanker conducting a retardant drop in the bush area immediately prior to the crash location and did the aircraft crash on climb out?

News reports said it had just dropped the remainder of the load and turned sharp left shortly after and not long before this happened.

If the coordinates are correct, here's the topo map.
https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....b4bd0d4754.jpg

And for good measure, heres the fire map for the area

https://i.imgur.com/RPw2OJB.png


If the aircraft was in the process of conducting the drop, I assume the lead plane and AAS would of likely witnessed the crash - that would be the best evidence.

Not to mention that the C-130A had a completely different wing structure than subsequent C-130 models. No real comparison between the C-130A wing and other C-130 wings.



I don't know the answer, but I will say that the Civilian Hercs were built without those windows. It may be that the C-130Qs were built without them, or it could be that they were subsequently replaced with aluminum skins a la the L382, perhaps by Colulson, because sheet metal is less expensive than windows.



David, good response to SPCL's obvious confusion about ADS-B and Multilateration, however, you've stumbled across one of my pet peeves. to wit: "roughly analogous to triangulation" No, it is not. Triangulation is determining positions by measuring angles (usually in the context of surveying, with theodolites) Determining positions by measuring distances, and forming triangles is "trilateration" or if multiple triangles are formed, multilateration. No angles are measured.

Triangulation

Trilateration and Multilateration


For what it's worth, that is the remains of the RADS retardant hopper.


https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....24c660ce3d.jpg

Not that it really changes anything or contradicts what you're saying.

No, it would not be "unprecedented" for this aircraft type. In fact, there have been a number of instances of power loss on multiple engines. Some have been definitively attributed to fuel mismanagement, others seem to have been caused by a malfunction of the propeller synchrophasing system. I can tell you for an absolute fact that Lockheed's manuals for the L382 contain an 8 step procedure for power loss on multiple engines. It involves setting fuel, bleed air, propeller control and electrical systems to a configuration that is believed to eliminate all possible causes of multiple power losses. I think that you should contact Lockheed with your knowledge that power loss on multiple engines in the C-130 is impossible. I think that they would be surprised to hear that is true. They quite clearly believe otherwise. I'm sure they would appreciate your wisdom.

Note: this is not to say that I believe that a multiple engine power loss was a factor in this accident. I don't know, and am not suggesting it is. Just stating that it's utter horsecrap to say that such is "unprecedented"

I can assure you, "less expensive" is not a phrase one would associate with Wayne Coulson.

I didn't mean that in any pejorative sense. Frankly, if I were rebuilding a Herc for a mission for which the lower windows were of no benefit, and faced with the choice of replacing damaged/unairworthy window panes, I would consider replacing them with metal also.

Thanks for this.

I know Wayne Coulson and Jim Messer personally and I want there to be no misconception - they run an absolutely top-notch operation.

They have also done some cutting-edge work in fire-detection/mapping and bird-dogging.

I haven't worked with their RADS system, but folks I know have, and I've seen the system up close. It struck me as a pretty well designed system, and I've heard it performs very well.

Yup, it's pretty fancy for a couple of back-country loggers. 😁

i find it interesting that there is no mention of a lead plane. Observers in Richmond said the air command aircraft did not go with Bomber 134 - can anyone provide tracking evidence for a lead plane?

Really? Fascinating!!!! 1980m would be 6500 ft. Looking at the flight log, it descended through 6500 ft at 09:07:13 PM (that's in the EST time zone, the default when I view it, no doubt others see it in a different time zone, but the minutes should be the same) that's the 5th data point from the end of the data set. 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?


Where exactly do you see a "pitch change"? The last 4 data points show the aircraft in more or less level flight (5400, 5300, 5300 and 5300 ft, respectively) for about 40 seconds. That's most of a minute. How do you infer a "pitch change" from that?

What exactly is "expected to be seen" and where do you see it. Be specific. I'd expect to see a descent in the multiple thousands of feet per minute. What I see instead is a descent at less than a thousand feet per minute, seeming to level off and hold altitude at 5400-5300 ft for most of a minute. Then the data ends.

What exactly "appears to be a mid air break up" to you? What is the timestamp?

How does the ADS-B data indicate that? You keep repeating that, over and over, as if it's a foregone conclusion, but so far I haven't seen you make even an attempt at a rational explanation how the data is suggestive of an inflight break up.

There is mention in this article of a lead plane, although who knows how reliable that is. Obviously falls far short of an ADS-B track of same.

If that container isn't empty it better stay in place for CG reasons.

Possible reason on a windy turbulent day?

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.

Well OK, I should have said "very roughly analogous". :O

I'm well aware of the fundamental difference in technique (I did mention TDOA in my explanation, after all). But I still maintain that it's a useful analogy to get across the concept of using a network of ground stations take measurements from a target (whether angle or TDOA) in order to establish its position.

Particularly as I was trying to explain it to someone who was making ridiculous claims for its accuracy. :O

No, I don't think so. The wheels are only to roll it into the plane for installation. When it is installed is is attached to the airframe securely and in accordance with all the appropriate airworthiness regulations. it's not likely to move around inside the airplane in flight.