How to fly a Herc!
Does Beags see the difference between a "planned" and surely practiced Demostration Flight...and some off the cuff unplanned hot dogging?
A friend of mine that retired from the USAF after a career of flying T-38, F-4, F-117, and F-15's...remarked how old and "bent" some of the 15's have become due to the stresses put on them during training when Pilots are pushing them hard. If that can happen to an F-15 why could it not happen to the Vulcan after all...we hear folks telling us stories about how they whipped the best USAF fighters in ACM in the old V Bomber.
Beags....was it you even that told us that?
Surely someone here remembers the account of a Red Flag exercise in Nevada where that is supposed to have happened.
Beags...surely you can grasp the difference as you seem to be suggesting there is a difference...but somehow in the translation it seems you find fault with the USAF Hercules Demo crew. The Blue Angel's Hercules crew are very professional, well trained, fly to very strict parameters, and have an enviable safety record.
Probably the most important aspect of the Blue Angel's show is they include the C-130 and show off its amazing capability...and thus make the show all about Naval Aviation and not just a mono-coloured jet trainer.
Even good Teams have bad days and learn from their mistakes....just because they are the "pick of the litter" does not make them infallible or in any way a "'Sky God".
Seeing in-cockpit videos of aero displays and observing how professionally done they are should evoke praise and appreciation and not green eyed slanging or whatever provokes some folks to poke sticks at these crews.
A friend of mine that retired from the USAF after a career of flying T-38, F-4, F-117, and F-15's...remarked how old and "bent" some of the 15's have become due to the stresses put on them during training when Pilots are pushing them hard. If that can happen to an F-15 why could it not happen to the Vulcan after all...we hear folks telling us stories about how they whipped the best USAF fighters in ACM in the old V Bomber.
Beags....was it you even that told us that?
Surely someone here remembers the account of a Red Flag exercise in Nevada where that is supposed to have happened.
Beags...surely you can grasp the difference as you seem to be suggesting there is a difference...but somehow in the translation it seems you find fault with the USAF Hercules Demo crew. The Blue Angel's Hercules crew are very professional, well trained, fly to very strict parameters, and have an enviable safety record.
Probably the most important aspect of the Blue Angel's show is they include the C-130 and show off its amazing capability...and thus make the show all about Naval Aviation and not just a mono-coloured jet trainer.
Even good Teams have bad days and learn from their mistakes....just because they are the "pick of the litter" does not make them infallible or in any way a "'Sky God".
Seeing in-cockpit videos of aero displays and observing how professionally done they are should evoke praise and appreciation and not green eyed slanging or whatever provokes some folks to poke sticks at these crews.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Displaying multi-crew aircraft
I have to agree with M2 (#35) and Courtney (#37). Both of these clips show outstanding skill and crew co-op. Yes, our American cousins may seem verbose and casual at times but that is their way, and it shouldn't be used as an excuse to ignore the skill embedded in these performances.
Beags, I agree with you 90% of the time, but on this one you have erred. I have seen both the 'J' and Blue Angels displays and can assure you that the spectators (both joe public and experts) were not "bored fartless after the first minute or so..." anymore than crowds were bored when the RAF 'Funbus' was enthusiastically displayed by the incomparable John R*****g!! (long time ago)
Lets not get into a 'willy-waving' contest, but to answer Beags' question and despite possibly smelling of wee, I have attended both the Flying Authorisers and Supervisors' Courses (even done tours in seperate AT Stanevals) and been part of properly trained and briefed display crews over 4 years at venues as public and varied as RIAT, Farnborough, Abbotsford and FIDAE. I reckon these American crews deserve our admiration (and a bit of envy).
Beags, I agree with you 90% of the time, but on this one you have erred. I have seen both the 'J' and Blue Angels displays and can assure you that the spectators (both joe public and experts) were not "bored fartless after the first minute or so..." anymore than crowds were bored when the RAF 'Funbus' was enthusiastically displayed by the incomparable John R*****g!! (long time ago)
Lets not get into a 'willy-waving' contest, but to answer Beags' question and despite possibly smelling of wee, I have attended both the Flying Authorisers and Supervisors' Courses (even done tours in seperate AT Stanevals) and been part of properly trained and briefed display crews over 4 years at venues as public and varied as RIAT, Farnborough, Abbotsford and FIDAE. I reckon these American crews deserve our admiration (and a bit of envy).
This Cowboy stuff just continues unabated.....whatever can we say about these Yanks and their slack attitude about procedures and such!
Taken from a post in the "Strait of Hormuz" thread.
Admiral Stanhope proceeded to “kick the tyres and light the fires”, strap himself into the back of a twin-seat F18 and accelerate off the front end. Safely recovered, and having “buzzed the tower”, Admiral Stanhope reflected on his experiences aboard the flat-top:
“Being catapulted from 0-150 knots in a couple of seconds is certainly a tick in the ‘Taskbook of Life’.
“Being catapulted from 0-150 knots in a couple of seconds is certainly a tick in the ‘Taskbook of Life’.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wingham NSW Australia
Age: 83
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CRM and such
There are those who applaud CRM and those who do not see the point of it. Personally, I believe that standardization is important especially in operations where one may fly with different people on any given day. Some operators in the military have crews who fly as a crew always, except for illness or such precluding that. I'll wager that in that situation there is a degree of 'non-standard' communication brought about by familiarization with each other. The display crews in both the Blue Angels and the Paris Airshow aircraft were obviously confident in each other performing their respective tasks. I would much rather fly with a crew which may be a little less than "word perfect" on intercom but could be relied upon to always handle the aircraft professionally, than to operate with one in which the words were always "by the book" but who would fly me into a mountain in IMC whilst using all the correct terminology. The display crews mentioned demonstrably know how to fly the aircraft despite their, to the purists, non-standard phraseology on intercom.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Old Fella,
Could not agree more and the notion, as a previous poster stated, that keeping your crew in the loop by talking your way through a detailed flying display profile makes that Captain a utter wanquerre is just plain wrong.
The guys patter may seem cheesy to us Brits as that's just "not our style" but thinking of him in such derogatory terms is thankfully so outdated as to be almost extinct in the modern RAF
Could not agree more and the notion, as a previous poster stated, that keeping your crew in the loop by talking your way through a detailed flying display profile makes that Captain a utter wanquerre is just plain wrong.
The guys patter may seem cheesy to us Brits as that's just "not our style" but thinking of him in such derogatory terms is thankfully so outdated as to be almost extinct in the modern RAF
Thread Starter
People in glass houses........
March 24, 1969 : Six crew members were killed when an RAF C-130K, XV180, c/n 4196, crashed shortly after take off at Fairford in Gloucestershire. The aircraft was on a routine training flight when it stalled on take-off and plunged into a ploughed field 300 yards from the end of the runway.
September 12, 1972 : An RAF C-130, XV194, c/n 4214 veered off runway on landing at Tromsø/Langnes Airport (TOS), in Norway and ended up in a ditch. The aircraft was damaged beyond repair.
September 10, 1973 : An RAF C-130K, XV198, c/n 4219, from No. 48 Squadron crashed at RAF Colerne in Wiltshire. It was carrying out co-pilot training when it was overshooting from runway 07 with a simulated engine failure when the other engine on that side failed. At that height (400 ft) and speed involved, the asymmetric forces proved too much for the crew to control and the aircraft dived into the ground.
...these are sad events however don't bag your friends...
September 12, 1972 : An RAF C-130, XV194, c/n 4214 veered off runway on landing at Tromsø/Langnes Airport (TOS), in Norway and ended up in a ditch. The aircraft was damaged beyond repair.
September 10, 1973 : An RAF C-130K, XV198, c/n 4219, from No. 48 Squadron crashed at RAF Colerne in Wiltshire. It was carrying out co-pilot training when it was overshooting from runway 07 with a simulated engine failure when the other engine on that side failed. At that height (400 ft) and speed involved, the asymmetric forces proved too much for the crew to control and the aircraft dived into the ground.
...these are sad events however don't bag your friends...
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 146 Likes
on
28 Posts
TBM-legend:
Sorry, and your point is? The most recent of your examples is nearly 40 years ago, before most of the current C130 force were born (sadly not all of us.....!) The way 'we' operated then is radically different to today - we no longer shut down engines to 'simulate' an EFATO for example, because of the Colerne incident, which shows that the RAF does learn and evolve its procedures in the light of experience. There is no point to be made relating to today's C130 operators, or the RAF in general, based on such old accidents.
Or maybe I just misunderstood your post?
Sorry, and your point is? The most recent of your examples is nearly 40 years ago, before most of the current C130 force were born (sadly not all of us.....!) The way 'we' operated then is radically different to today - we no longer shut down engines to 'simulate' an EFATO for example, because of the Colerne incident, which shows that the RAF does learn and evolve its procedures in the light of experience. There is no point to be made relating to today's C130 operators, or the RAF in general, based on such old accidents.
Or maybe I just misunderstood your post?
Champagne anyone...?
TBM-etc. I too fail to see the point of that list other than that is a list of Herc crashes. If it is prove that we Herc operators are slack and gash operators with a propensity for killing our mates then I'm afraid it's somewhat wide of the mark 
If however its a demonstration of your ability to put "C130 crash" into Google and then wield Copy and Paste then bravo: a masterful tour de force.
If however its a demonstration of your ability to put "C130 crash" into Google and then wield Copy and Paste then bravo: a masterful tour de force.
For a more complete listing of ALL C-130 crashes world-wide.
Perhaps this might be a start on "How not to operate a C-130 Herc".
List of C-130 Hercules crashes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Perhaps this might be a start on "How not to operate a C-130 Herc".
List of C-130 Hercules crashes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 146 Likes
on
28 Posts
I've just spotted that someone inserted into my last post what EFATO stood for....In
is a decode really necessary?
A forum for the professionals who fly the non-civilian hardware etc
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread Starter
My point is simply that certain UK based "experts" on here make comments about the operation of other folks flying "habits" or the like as if they are the oracle. I suggest that those "experts" are from a system that too has had its share of unfortunate accidents. I guess it's OK to post videos of the B-52/C-17 crashes as representative of the failure of USAF systems and people.
Let's face it the RAF did not invent all facets of flying and as I said people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
Let's face it the RAF did not invent all facets of flying and as I said people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
As student pilots are taught during training, 'talking your actions' will ultimately mean that you will slow down your thought processes to the speed at which you can actually talk. Some students used to think that such talking confirmed to their QFI that they were doing what they'd been taught - the 'eager to please' syndrome... So whilst a few short "Rolling.......pitching.....coming back left...NOW" calls from the display pilot to his/her crew would of course be good, non-handling aircrew continuously calling height and speed informmation will soon blend into a blur of 'background noise' which risks important stuff being missed. If that's the way they're happy to fly, that's entirely their call though - I just don't think that it's really necessary. But I will not accept that irrelevant intercom calls during take-off in a ME aeroplane are safe.
Re. the 'background noise' of continuous commentary, on a lighter note one of the 1312 VC10K crew went flying with a particularly humorous C-130K crew at MPA one day. The C-130 navigator (not the most popular young lady, it would seem) kept up an incessant low level commentary, but the co-pilot (a wicked so-and-so) merely responded "La la...not listening..." every time she opened her mouth. It was, of course, just a wind-up - but she soon learned when it was appropriate to talk and when it wasn't. I also went flying with young Stoppers once in the C-130K on another trip at MPA and the whole crew's F3 affiliation commentary was very impressive indeed - short, sharp and to the point. Some very impressive tactical low level flying!
As for cowboy flying - a sadly tragic day at South Cerney in 1994 wised up more than a few people.
Regarding 'EFATO', I've recently heard people using the term 'PLATO' instead - 'power loss' after take-off. The idea being that rather than a clear cut engine failure, a more insidious partial failure could occur. Is that someone being rather too clever, or does it have merit?
Re. the 'background noise' of continuous commentary, on a lighter note one of the 1312 VC10K crew went flying with a particularly humorous C-130K crew at MPA one day. The C-130 navigator (not the most popular young lady, it would seem) kept up an incessant low level commentary, but the co-pilot (a wicked so-and-so) merely responded "La la...not listening..." every time she opened her mouth. It was, of course, just a wind-up - but she soon learned when it was appropriate to talk and when it wasn't. I also went flying with young Stoppers once in the C-130K on another trip at MPA and the whole crew's F3 affiliation commentary was very impressive indeed - short, sharp and to the point. Some very impressive tactical low level flying!
As for cowboy flying - a sadly tragic day at South Cerney in 1994 wised up more than a few people.
Regarding 'EFATO', I've recently heard people using the term 'PLATO' instead - 'power loss' after take-off. The idea being that rather than a clear cut engine failure, a more insidious partial failure could occur. Is that someone being rather too clever, or does it have merit?
Last edited by BEagle; 10th Jan 2012 at 13:21. Reason: speling miskate
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 146 Likes
on
28 Posts
Not heard of 'PLATO' but I agree, far too clever - if it's producing any power you're better off then Perf A assumes, and if it was that insidious you might not even notice the reduction so no need to give it a name.
What would be the crew actions on 'PLATO'? Other than an awareness of the reduced power you wouldn't wish to shut it down. There are a number of failures on the C130J which result in reduced power, all of which allow for continued operation at least until the approach.
I suspect the point of posting these was that as they were much more recent events they reflected current attitudes (rather than those of previous generations) and therefore reinforced the poster's argument that unnecessary intercom chatter was counter to safe operation. Or something.
What would be the crew actions on 'PLATO'? Other than an awareness of the reduced power you wouldn't wish to shut it down. There are a number of failures on the C130J which result in reduced power, all of which allow for continued operation at least until the approach.
I guess it's OK to post videos of the B-52/C-17 crashes as representative of the failure of USAF systems and people.
Another couple of years, if Beags lives that long, and he can put our names in his logbook, as it seems we shall be quite familiar with every single flight he ever made.
Can ye not just concede a point Beags? Your way ain't the only way...never was...never will be!
Different Air Forces, Airlines, Air Taxi Operators, aircraft, taskings, languages, and patois not to mention Nationalities and thus general attitudes towards life and flying.
The rest of the World and Aviation apart from your particular small bit seems to be getting along quite well thank you.
Can ye not just concede a point Beags? Your way ain't the only way...never was...never will be!
Different Air Forces, Airlines, Air Taxi Operators, aircraft, taskings, languages, and patois not to mention Nationalities and thus general attitudes towards life and flying.
The rest of the World and Aviation apart from your particular small bit seems to be getting along quite well thank you.
we no longer shut down engines to 'simulate' an EFATO
Having been almost killed at work and at play several times before joining the RAF at the age of 23 in the sixties, can't say I rated shutting down perfectly good engines. Not that my opinion carried any more weight than a couple of H atoms
Actually, I quite liked some of the dicking about: aeros, LL - instructor demonstrating pissing along a winding valley going from 80 left bank to 80 right bank did concentrate the mind. esp in the knowledge that the bangseat would have been as much use as Mrs. O'Connel's left breast if he'd fvcked up!
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: rourkes drift
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I normally ignore Beagles ill informed statements about the C130, but having spent several seasons displaying the K and J, I can not allow him to slag off the display clips. Especially as I know the J pilot, and he is one of the most professional aviators I know.
As for the 'chatter about altitute', the achievement of height/speed gates is all part of safe display flying, as the Nimrod in the lake tradgedy showed. I thought both crews showed good co-ordination, and pretty much as we operate during a display.
In the RAF (surprise surprise) we do not fly the C130 like the VC10. We operate in a very similar way to every other Herc operator. Indeed many of our Tactical SOPs are USAF based as we deemed them best practice.
The issue of the 2 K's lost at Colerne and Fairford was a case of Hastings/Berverly EFATO techniques being inappropriately read across to the C130. Had we adopted USAF training practices from the outset these accidents would not have occured.
So Beagle, don't give our US brothers a hard time just because you have some personal problem with them. I now have the pleasure of working with your favourite European company, and I long for the days at Atlanta where the concept of a military mission is really understood.
As for the 'chatter about altitute', the achievement of height/speed gates is all part of safe display flying, as the Nimrod in the lake tradgedy showed. I thought both crews showed good co-ordination, and pretty much as we operate during a display.
In the RAF (surprise surprise) we do not fly the C130 like the VC10. We operate in a very similar way to every other Herc operator. Indeed many of our Tactical SOPs are USAF based as we deemed them best practice.
The issue of the 2 K's lost at Colerne and Fairford was a case of Hastings/Berverly EFATO techniques being inappropriately read across to the C130. Had we adopted USAF training practices from the outset these accidents would not have occured.
So Beagle, don't give our US brothers a hard time just because you have some personal problem with them. I now have the pleasure of working with your favourite European company, and I long for the days at Atlanta where the concept of a military mission is really understood.