US grounds C130Es due to wing cracks
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko, the eng officers in question during the scheme were not merely trained to fly, get wings and return to eng duties. They were posted to sqns and flew operational for 1 or 2 tours before reverting to engineers.
Really? The only engineers with Wings I knew had returned to branch after Wings - the prime example being Taff Holden.
Perhaps the scheme developed later, and they did the same as the flying doctors?
Perhaps the scheme developed later, and they did the same as the flying doctors?
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK, North Riding
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There were two young engineer pilots on my first squadron - both above good aviators and very popular. The scheme allowed for only one squadron tour. One of our chaps asked to remain in the GD branch at the end of his tour and received a very short answer from his own lot.
When was that, Pindi?
I suppose that cost would rule it out today.
I remember Engineer University Cadets being given no more than an hour or two on our UAS, and always thought that taking them to BHT would have been useful enough to justify the cost. Then on a vacation attachment I ran across a medic Squadron Leader flying a tour on Canberras - which seemed like an extraordinary use of resources - though said Doc was a top bloke!
I suppose that cost would rule it out today.
I remember Engineer University Cadets being given no more than an hour or two on our UAS, and always thought that taking them to BHT would have been useful enough to justify the cost. Then on a vacation attachment I ran across a medic Squadron Leader flying a tour on Canberras - which seemed like an extraordinary use of resources - though said Doc was a top bloke!
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK, North Riding
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko
Mid-1950's. The JMO at CFS was also an aviator when I did the course and must have undergone flying training at a rather more advanced age than the rest of us as he was an un-winged MO at Cranwell when I was a cadet. I believe he finished up as quite a senior wheel in the medical branch and had done a spell at IAM on the way.
Mid-1950's. The JMO at CFS was also an aviator when I did the course and must have undergone flying training at a rather more advanced age than the rest of us as he was an un-winged MO at Cranwell when I was a cadet. I believe he finished up as quite a senior wheel in the medical branch and had done a spell at IAM on the way.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There was a course with an Eng O and a Doc at Basic jet School on JPs early 70s. Deal was to get wings then return to normal duties. Doc was subsequently killed in Meteor crash I think. Eng argued the case to be allowed one tour and won. Went on to helis - SAR, winning an AFC.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I did a course in the mid 70s with a Herc pilot who was an eng in a flying tour.
Farnborough, IIRC, had an established post for a flying Doc. Used to fly Hunters. The one I met had one helluva reputation and was quite unhinged in the best possible way. I believe they started and flew airsickness desensitising courses.
My personal knowledge quite sketchy, but believe the above to be fact...
Farnborough, IIRC, had an established post for a flying Doc. Used to fly Hunters. The one I met had one helluva reputation and was quite unhinged in the best possible way. I believe they started and flew airsickness desensitising courses.
My personal knowledge quite sketchy, but believe the above to be fact...
(a bear of little brain)
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: 51 10 03.70N 2 58 37.15W
Age: 75
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Friend of mine was an engineer who did a tour on Canberras, late 50s/early 60s I think.
I posted hime a link to the Canberra thread, showing the pic of the Canberras coming low over the beach on Cyprus. His reply was "I think I was flying the second one, actually".
I posted hime a link to the Canberra thread, showing the pic of the Canberras coming low over the beach on Cyprus. His reply was "I think I was flying the second one, actually".
News 24 say:
"
Pretoria - Seven of the air force's nine C130 Hercules transport aircraft have been grounded.
Sources and the SAAF said on Thursday the grounding related to a wing life-span problem.
Air force spokesperson Captain Ronald Maseko said: "Information gathered at the Hercules Operators Conference during October 2004 and follow-up information... indicated a possible impact on the predicted life-span of the wings of the Hercules C130 fleet of the SAAF."
He said the information was issued by Lockheed Martin, the original equipment manufacturer, during December 2004.
"The SAAF, as a professional military operator acting in the exigencies of aviation safety, issued a stop-flying instruction for the fleet with effect from February 15... Therefore the fleet was not grounded."
A former pilot said the terms amounted to the same thing.
Three independent sources have said the grounding relates to apparently incorrect modifications or maintenance procedures being carried out on the main wingspar - a rod connecting the two wings.
The SAAF acquired seven of the aircraft in the late 1960s, but the United States shortly afterwards cut off military aid.
This included assistance on the safe operation of the C130s.
Aid was restored only in 1990s after the settlement of a lawsuit related to illegal activities in the US by arms agency Armscor.
The US donated a further five airframes a few years ago, of which two were restored to flying status.
All nine were sent in turn to arms company Denel for a comprehensive upgrade in co-operation with Marshall's, a British aircraft re-manufacturer.
There has been persistent talk in aviation circles that the upgrade programme has not been as successful as expected.
Maseko said two of the nine SAAF C130s were fitted with different wing sections from the seven grounded and the safety instruction did not apply to them.
"These two aircraft are serviceable and being operated by the SAAF."
The latest issue of the African Armed Forces Journal reported that Lockheed Martin appeared keen to establish a continental maintenance depot in South Africa in co-operation with Denel."
"
Pretoria - Seven of the air force's nine C130 Hercules transport aircraft have been grounded.
Sources and the SAAF said on Thursday the grounding related to a wing life-span problem.
Air force spokesperson Captain Ronald Maseko said: "Information gathered at the Hercules Operators Conference during October 2004 and follow-up information... indicated a possible impact on the predicted life-span of the wings of the Hercules C130 fleet of the SAAF."
He said the information was issued by Lockheed Martin, the original equipment manufacturer, during December 2004.
"The SAAF, as a professional military operator acting in the exigencies of aviation safety, issued a stop-flying instruction for the fleet with effect from February 15... Therefore the fleet was not grounded."
A former pilot said the terms amounted to the same thing.
Three independent sources have said the grounding relates to apparently incorrect modifications or maintenance procedures being carried out on the main wingspar - a rod connecting the two wings.
The SAAF acquired seven of the aircraft in the late 1960s, but the United States shortly afterwards cut off military aid.
This included assistance on the safe operation of the C130s.
Aid was restored only in 1990s after the settlement of a lawsuit related to illegal activities in the US by arms agency Armscor.
The US donated a further five airframes a few years ago, of which two were restored to flying status.
All nine were sent in turn to arms company Denel for a comprehensive upgrade in co-operation with Marshall's, a British aircraft re-manufacturer.
There has been persistent talk in aviation circles that the upgrade programme has not been as successful as expected.
Maseko said two of the nine SAAF C130s were fitted with different wing sections from the seven grounded and the safety instruction did not apply to them.
"These two aircraft are serviceable and being operated by the SAAF."
The latest issue of the African Armed Forces Journal reported that Lockheed Martin appeared keen to establish a continental maintenance depot in South Africa in co-operation with Denel."
I didn't recall having seen the phrase:
"Three independent sources have said the grounding relates to apparently incorrect modifications or maintenance procedures being carried out on the main wingspar"
Though in retrospect his link would have told me so.
Colour me stupid!
"Three independent sources have said the grounding relates to apparently incorrect modifications or maintenance procedures being carried out on the main wingspar"
Though in retrospect his link would have told me so.
Colour me stupid!
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: western europe
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
quote ....
"The SAAF, as a professional military operator acting in the exigencies of aviation safety, issued a stop-flying instruction for the fleet with effect from February 15... Therefore the fleet was not grounded."
I'm still trying to work out where I went wrong in learning the English language
"The SAAF, as a professional military operator acting in the exigencies of aviation safety, issued a stop-flying instruction for the fleet with effect from February 15... Therefore the fleet was not grounded."
I'm still trying to work out where I went wrong in learning the English language
Latest here...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/w...re/4325775.stm
Mod site..
The RAF Board of Inquiry (BOI) has produced its interim report into the crash of the C130 Hercules in Iraq on 30 January 2005 with the tragic loss of all ten personnel on board.
"I should emphasise that the BOI is not yet in a position to establish the cause of the crash. There is a great deal of detailed evidence that has yet to be analysed and a number of lines of enquiry that need further investigation.
"Based on the evidence currently available, the BOI has ruled out a number of possibilities. These are bird strike, lightning strike, mid-air collision, controlled flight into the ground, wire/obstacle strike, restriction in the aircraft’s flying controls, cargo explosion, engine fire, sabotage (including the use of an improvised explosive device) and aircraft fatigue. These interim findings are supported by the UK Air Accident Investigation Branch (AAIB).
"There remain a number of other possible causes that require further investigation. The BOI is continuing its work, assisted by the AAIB which is also working independently from the BOI to ensure every possible avenue is explored. We will not be commenting or speculating further on the possible causes of the crash until the BOI has concluded.
"The families of those killed in the crash are being informed personally of the BOI interim findings
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/w...re/4325775.stm
Mod site..
The RAF Board of Inquiry (BOI) has produced its interim report into the crash of the C130 Hercules in Iraq on 30 January 2005 with the tragic loss of all ten personnel on board.
"I should emphasise that the BOI is not yet in a position to establish the cause of the crash. There is a great deal of detailed evidence that has yet to be analysed and a number of lines of enquiry that need further investigation.
"Based on the evidence currently available, the BOI has ruled out a number of possibilities. These are bird strike, lightning strike, mid-air collision, controlled flight into the ground, wire/obstacle strike, restriction in the aircraft’s flying controls, cargo explosion, engine fire, sabotage (including the use of an improvised explosive device) and aircraft fatigue. These interim findings are supported by the UK Air Accident Investigation Branch (AAIB).
"There remain a number of other possible causes that require further investigation. The BOI is continuing its work, assisted by the AAIB which is also working independently from the BOI to ensure every possible avenue is explored. We will not be commenting or speculating further on the possible causes of the crash until the BOI has concluded.
"The families of those killed in the crash are being informed personally of the BOI interim findings
Scottish news direct from Scotland Monday, 7th March 2005_
The Scotsman
Sabotage Ruled Out in Hercules Crash
"PA"
British military officials today ruled out sabotage as the cause of the crash of an RAF Hercules transport aircraft in Iraq in January, in which 10 people died.
An interim report by the RAF board of inquiry did not rule out the possibility that the plane was shot down by hostile fire.
But it excluded a range of possible explanations including lightning, bird strike, engine fire or collision with another aircraft.
The Scotsman
Sabotage Ruled Out in Hercules Crash
"PA"
British military officials today ruled out sabotage as the cause of the crash of an RAF Hercules transport aircraft in Iraq in January, in which 10 people died.
An interim report by the RAF board of inquiry did not rule out the possibility that the plane was shot down by hostile fire.
But it excluded a range of possible explanations including lightning, bird strike, engine fire or collision with another aircraft.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Tracey Island
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Probably wont come as a relief to those that insisted on speculating and making 2+2=5.
Most important is the fact that the crew were doing everything right, and no blame can be placed with them. Its hard to find any positives in such tragic circumstances, but I am glad that we can lay the guys to rest without the mud-slinging in the background.
Most important is the fact that the crew were doing everything right, and no blame can be placed with them. Its hard to find any positives in such tragic circumstances, but I am glad that we can lay the guys to rest without the mud-slinging in the background.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Cambs
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone for some fresh crow?
SD:
Curious to see now that the recognised experts in the field have spoken, how many of the other type will be 'fessing up to being speculative pr@ts?
Families of the lost past, present and future:
The BOI will present the findings - not anyone you read on PPrune.
Curious to see now that the recognised experts in the field have spoken, how many of the other type will be 'fessing up to being speculative pr@ts?
Families of the lost past, present and future:
The BOI will present the findings - not anyone you read on PPrune.
"It rules out aircraft fatigue as a possible cause, which will come as a relief to a number of people I'm sure."
I was going to ask you to elaborate? That was the first I've heard of fatigue being ruled out.
I see though, that a statement is now on the MoD website.
It says:
"Hercules crash Board of Inquiry releases Interim Report
Published Monday 7th March 2005
Royal Air Force
On 7 March 2005, the Secretary of State for Defence announced to Parliament the interim findings of the RAF Board of Inquiry investigating the loss of a Hercules C130 in Iraq.
_
In a Written Ministerial Statement, the Secretary of State said:_
"The RAF Board of Inquiry (BOI) has produced its interim report into the crash of the C130 Hercules in Iraq on 30 January 2005 with the tragic loss of all ten personnel on board.
"I should emphasise that the BOI is not yet in a position to establish the cause of the crash._ There is a great deal of detailed evidence that has yet to be analysed and a number of lines of enquiry that need further investigation.
"Based on the evidence currently available, the BOI has ruled out a number of possibilities._ These are bird strike, lightning strike, mid-air collision, controlled flight into the ground, wire/obstacle strike, restriction in the aircraft’s flying controls, cargo explosion, engine fire, sabotage (including the use of an improvised explosive device) and aircraft fatigue._ These interim findings are supported by the UK Air Accident Investigation Branch (AAIB).
"There remain a number of other possible causes that require further investigation._ The BOI is continuing its work, assisted by the AAIB which is also working independently from the BOI to ensure every possible avenue is explored._ We will not be commenting or speculating further on the possible causes of the crash until the BOI has concluded.
"The families of those killed in the crash are being informed personally of the BOI interim findings."
What other credible explanations are there of the starboard wing separating from the aircraft in those circumstances?
Re 'speculative tw@ts' and '2+2=5', it strikes me that asking questions about fatigue as a possible cause was entirely legitimate, especially when no-one 'speculating' was insisting that fatigue WAS the cause, only asking whether it could have been.
And before anyone starts gloating, whether or not this accident was caused by a fatigue failure, it has highlighted that there is a real concern over C-130K fatigue, and no-one should be too complacent (nor too relieved, perhaps) about the C-130K's structure.
Certainly there are no grounds for assuming that all is well with the C-130K wing box, nor that this BOI finding 'proves' that there is no problem in this area.
And then there's the thorny question as to what extent we can trust BOI findings, especially after the Chinook.....
I was going to ask you to elaborate? That was the first I've heard of fatigue being ruled out.
I see though, that a statement is now on the MoD website.
It says:
"Hercules crash Board of Inquiry releases Interim Report
Published Monday 7th March 2005
Royal Air Force
On 7 March 2005, the Secretary of State for Defence announced to Parliament the interim findings of the RAF Board of Inquiry investigating the loss of a Hercules C130 in Iraq.
_
In a Written Ministerial Statement, the Secretary of State said:_
"The RAF Board of Inquiry (BOI) has produced its interim report into the crash of the C130 Hercules in Iraq on 30 January 2005 with the tragic loss of all ten personnel on board.
"I should emphasise that the BOI is not yet in a position to establish the cause of the crash._ There is a great deal of detailed evidence that has yet to be analysed and a number of lines of enquiry that need further investigation.
"Based on the evidence currently available, the BOI has ruled out a number of possibilities._ These are bird strike, lightning strike, mid-air collision, controlled flight into the ground, wire/obstacle strike, restriction in the aircraft’s flying controls, cargo explosion, engine fire, sabotage (including the use of an improvised explosive device) and aircraft fatigue._ These interim findings are supported by the UK Air Accident Investigation Branch (AAIB).
"There remain a number of other possible causes that require further investigation._ The BOI is continuing its work, assisted by the AAIB which is also working independently from the BOI to ensure every possible avenue is explored._ We will not be commenting or speculating further on the possible causes of the crash until the BOI has concluded.
"The families of those killed in the crash are being informed personally of the BOI interim findings."
What other credible explanations are there of the starboard wing separating from the aircraft in those circumstances?
Re 'speculative tw@ts' and '2+2=5', it strikes me that asking questions about fatigue as a possible cause was entirely legitimate, especially when no-one 'speculating' was insisting that fatigue WAS the cause, only asking whether it could have been.
And before anyone starts gloating, whether or not this accident was caused by a fatigue failure, it has highlighted that there is a real concern over C-130K fatigue, and no-one should be too complacent (nor too relieved, perhaps) about the C-130K's structure.
Certainly there are no grounds for assuming that all is well with the C-130K wing box, nor that this BOI finding 'proves' that there is no problem in this area.
And then there's the thorny question as to what extent we can trust BOI findings, especially after the Chinook.....
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While the BoI are suggesting that fatigue didn't cause this crash it doesn't answer the questions raised about the SF fleet's fatigue life following the data in that presentation about the RAF C-130s. It still also doesn't answer the question about whether or not the the problems with the C-130Es affect RAF C-130s.
And yes...how else can a C-130 fall out of the sky in so many pieces?
And yes...how else can a C-130 fall out of the sky in so many pieces?