Military cargo aircraft crash - Savannah, Georgia

[Carbon Bootprint]

In a press briefing that just ended, a spokesman who I believe was identified as the Vice Commander of the 165th Airlift Wing confirmed nine airmen from the Puerto Rico Air National Guard died in the crash. He noted a number of state and federal agencies are on scene, with USAF leading the investigation. During the Q&A, he said the plane was actually built in the "late 1970s" and was not in fact 60 years old. He said the plane was in Savannah for routine maintenance enroute to Arizona, but did not elaborate. He didn't really have much else to say.

[Vzlet]

65-0965?

Joe Baugher's site indicates that 65-0965 crashed decades ago:
"(65-)0965 (MSN 382-4106) converted to WC-130H. Crashed while flying Typhoon Bess off Taiwan Oct 13, 1974. All 6 onboard killed. Some speculation that it was actually shot down."

[ShyTorque]

I was called out on a SAR mission some twenty years ago after a C-130 finished up in the sea, not long after takeoff. The cause of that one was loss of propellor pitch control (a propellor went into reverse pitch).

[sandiego89]

Originally Posted by JamaicaJoe

Since this plane was being decommissioned, I would expect that all of the electronics bays would have been removed or stripped.....

Joe, many aircraft arrive at the Davis Monthan with their standard equipment, and surely safety off flight essentials intact. Some equipment may be removed, but too early to expect it was "stripped", and definitely not "all".

[Airbubba]

Originally Posted by Thaihawk

Tail number 65-0965. A WC-130H.

Originally Posted by Vzlet

Joe Baugher's site indicates that 65-0965 crashed decades ago:
"(65-)0965 (MSN 382-4106) converted to WC-130H. Crashed while flying Typhoon Bess off Taiwan Oct 13, 1974. All 6 onboard killed. Some speculation that it was actually shot down."

The PRANG plane that crashed in SAV was 65-0968.

https://www.onenewspage.com/video/20...r-Savannah.htm

[Saintsman]

It's not unusual for an aircraft to be robbed before it goes into storage or maintenance, which may explain why there were 4 others on board. Take the bits they need and bring them back with them so that their remaining aircraft can carry on flying.

However no point in speculating at this stage.

[gums]

Salute!

Seems to me we should avoid naming the Guard outfit parent organization with an acronym, as the quote here is redundant:

The PRANG plane that crashed in SAV was 65-0968.

Gums sends...

[RAFEngO74to09]

Names released - RIP: http://www.military.com/daily-news/2...130-crash.html

• Maj. José R. Román Rosado - pilot
• Maj. Carlos Pérez Serra - navigator
• 1st Lt. David Albandoz - co-pilot
• Senior Master Sgt. Jan Paravisini - mechanic
• Master Sgt. Mario Braña - flight engineer
• Master Sgt. Eric Circuns - loadmaster
• Master Sgt. Jean Audriffred - crew member
• Master Sgt. Víctor Colón - crew member
• Senior Airman Roberto Espada - crew member

[A Squared]

Originally Posted by RAFEngO74to09

Names released - RIP: http://www.military.com/daily-news/2...130-crash.html

• Maj. José R. Román Rosado - pilot
• Maj. Carlos Pérez Serra - navigator
• 1st Lt. David Albandoz - co-pilot
• Senior Master Sgt. Jan Paravisini - mechanic
• Master Sgt. Mario Braña - flight engineer
• Master Sgt. Eric Circuns - loadmaster
• Master Sgt. Jean Audriffred - crew member
• Master Sgt. Víctor Colón - crew member
• Senior Airman Roberto Espada - crew member

Last October I was flying Hurricane relief in the Caribbean. We were parked on the ramp in St Criox next to a Puerto Rico ANG herc, and the crew came over and up ont our flight deck to chat, and see what a civil herc looked like. Wondering if any of the guys I chatted with are on that list ...

[A Squared]

Originally Posted by ShyTorque

I was called out on a SAR mission some twenty years ago after a C-130 finished up in the sea, not long after takeoff. The cause of that one was loss of propellor pitch control (a propellor went into reverse pitch).

I don't have any information of the crash at hand, just what I've seen in the video. I have to say that a prop going into flat pitch or reverse is what immediately comes to mind as a possible cause of the loss of control shown.

[scifi]

I don't suppose they have FDR or CVRs..?
.

[ShyTorque]

Originally Posted by A Squared

I don't have any information of the crash at hand, just what I've seen in the video. I have to say that a prop going into flat pitch or reverse is what immediately comes to mind as a possible cause of the loss of control shown.

Agreed, which is why I mentioned that event.

[ExAscoteer]

I'm wondering just how you could get a C-130 Hamilton Standard prop into reverse in flight, given that the low pitch stop is at 23 degrees and reverse is -6 to -8 degrees.

Before you even got to the low pitch stop the negative torque (drag) build up would be such that the blades would be NTS-ing (-1260 +/- 600 inch.pounds) and by -6000 inch.pounds the prop would decouple.

[A Squared]

Originally Posted by ExAscoteer

I'm wondering just how you could get a C-130 Hamilton Standard prop into reverse in flight, given that the low pitch stop is at 23 degrees and reverse is -6 to -8 degrees.

Before you even got to the low pitch stop the negative torque (drag) build up would be such that the blades would be NTS-ing (-1260 +/- 600 inch.poinds) and by -6000 inch.pounds the prop would decouple.

Well, the low pitch stop isn't immovable, it retracts so the the prop can go into the beta range. So if there's something that retracts the low pitch stops, that something could conceivably retract them in flight. And it's not just hypothetical, there have been instances of props reversing in flight, more than a few. One of my co-workers has had it happen to him. I don't know all of the ways it can happen, but a throttle cable failure is one way it happens. There are also failures of the prop control unit (Valve housing) whcih can command flat pitch in flight. Bottom line is that going onto flat pitch or reverse in flight is not some sort of a impossible, never happen, condition. It can and has happened. More than once. Regardless of what your googling about the prop specs told you.

[ExAscoteer]

Excuse me?

You might want to wind your kneck with the googling comments, I happen to be an ex Albert driver (the screen name rather gives it away).

I didn't say it couldn't occur, but for it to happen there would have to have been multiple failures:

a. Stop pins retract
b. NTS system fails to work
c. Prop fails to decouple.

[A Squared]

Originally Posted by ExAscoteer

Excuse me?

You might want to wind your kneck with the googling comments, I happen to be an ex Albert driver (the screen name rather gives it away).

I didn't say it couldn't occur, but for it to happen there would have to have been multiple failures:

a. Stop pins retract
b. NTS system fails to work
c. Prop fails to decouple.

Well, I'm not sure what an "ex-albert driver" is, but if we assume that you at one time flew a c-130, we have to also assume that it was a while ago, because your systems knowledge is pretty lacking. Spouting the numerical specs for the prop is not the same as understanding how it works First the prop does not have "stop pins", I don't know where you got that but there's nothing in there that could be remotely described as a "pin". Regardless, the props go into reverse at high airspeeds on almost every flight. That's what you do on landing. It doesn't activate the NTS and it doesn't decouple the prop Besides, even if it *did* decouple, that doesn't prevent the prop from going into reverse. The safety coupling has nothing to do with prop function or control, All the safety coupling does is disconnect the reduction gearbox from the turbine, the prop is still out there in reverse. You may (or may not) recall that there is nothing to prevent you from moving the throttle into the beta range in flight. All you have to do is pick the throttle up over the flight idle gate and move it back into the ground range, and the prop will got to flat pitch, then reverse. It won't NTS because the NTS linkage is cammed out of engagement when you move the throttle into the ground range. Obviously that's a really bad thing to do in flight, so you don't do that. But, here's the thing; if you have a throttle cable break, the effect on the throttle coordinator out on the engine can be essentially the same, the throttle coordinator doesn't 'know" whether the cable broke or the throttle was moved into the ground range, all it knows is something just rotated it into the reverse range, and it does what it does in the reverse range ..whcih is this: it moves linkage to the valve housing whcih causes a prop pitch change into the reverse range and it cams the NTS linkage out of engagement. There you go: One single point of failure, and you have a prop reversing in flight. This isn't just speculation or theorizing this is the actual, real, cause of actual, real inflight prop reverse incidents. It seems odd that you claim to be a C-130 pilot and don't know about this. I thought that was one of those things that all Herc crews knew about. That's why you have a special Engine Shutdown Procedure which is different than a standard ESP when there's a known or suspected throttle or condition lever cable failure. You do remember that from your "albert" days, right? That a throttle cable failure had a special procedure? It's in all the Lockheed manuals, I don't know how you could have missed it. That's the reason, because it can cause the prop to reverse in flight.

[gums]

Salute!

Great explanation of the system, Squared. And I wonder if the plane had maintenance at SAV that may have involved the linkage or system sensors. My leading edge flap failure was a direct result of the mechs not installing a "keeper pin", so the doggone flap folded up about time gear fully retracted ( see my interview pic on the profile). If it would have vibrated loose just at liftoff I would crashed, as the configuration looses roll authority below about 160 knots.

Maybe "albert" refers to the Blue Angel Herc they call Fat Albert.

Gums sends...

[A Squared]

Originally Posted by gums

My leading edge flap failure was a direct result of the mechs not installing a "keeper pin", so the doggone flap folded up about time gear fully retracted ( see my interview pic on the profile).

That must have held your attention!

[Chris Kebab]

The C-130 is colloquially known as an Albert in the RAF....it's a Brit thing! And sometimes Fat Albert...

[bunta130]

Originally Posted by A Squared

Well, I'm not sure what an "ex-albert driver" is, but if we assume that you at one time flew a c-130, we have to also assume that it was a while ago, because your systems knowledge is pretty lacking. Spouting the numerical specs for the prop is not the same as understanding how it works First the prop does not have "stop pins", I don't know where you got that but there's nothing in there that could be remotely described as a "pin". Regardless, the props go into reverse at high airspeeds on almost every flight. That's what you do on landing. It doesn't activate the NTS and it doesn't decouple the prop Besides, even if it *did* decouple, that doesn't prevent the prop from going into reverse. The safety coupling has nothing to do with prop function or control, All the safety coupling does is disconnect the reduction gearbox from the turbine, the prop is still out there in reverse. You may (or may not) recall that there is nothing to prevent you from moving the throttle into the beta range in flight. All you have to do is pick the throttle up over the flight idle gate and move it back into the ground range, and the prop will got to flat pitch, then reverse. It won't NTS because the NTS linkage is cammed out of engagement when you move the throttle into the ground range. Obviously that's a really bad thing to do in flight, so you don't do that. But, here's the thing; if you have a throttle cable break, the effect on the throttle coordinator out on the engine can be essentially the same, the throttle coordinator doesn't 'know" whether the cable broke or the throttle was moved into the ground range, all it knows is something just rotated it into the reverse range, and it does what it does in the reverse range ..whcih is this: it moves linkage to the valve housing whcih causes a prop pitch change into the reverse range and it cams the NTS linkage out of engagement. There you go: One single point of failure, and you have a prop reversing in flight. This isn't just speculation or theorizing this is the actual, real, cause of actual, real inflight prop reverse incidents. It seems odd that you claim to be a C-130 pilot and don't know about this. I thought that was one of those things that all Herc crews knew about. That's why you have a special Engine Shutdown Procedure which is different than a standard ESP when there's a known or suspected throttle or condition lever cable failure. You do remember that from your "albert" days, right? That a throttle cable failure had a special procedure? It's in all the Lockheed manuals, I don't know how you could have missed it. That's the reason, because it can cause the prop to reverse in flight.

Harsh (arguably unnecessarily so), but completely correct explanation. FYI RAF C-130s were and are referred to as Fat Albert...so ExAscoteer (Ascot was the RAF Air Transport callsign) has a good deal of experience no doubt. However, prop theory was always 'tricky', and time has undoubtedly not helped........

Yes, I just about remember the T-handle shutdown rather than condition lever in the event of suspect throttle cable failure (whilst leaving the power lever/throttle well alone), but it's been a few years for me since flying our 'Super Es' (C-130E plus Dash 15 motors).

'Gentlemanly' should be the way forward.........it's too easy to misconstrue/put others' backs up on forums....

Whatever happened overcame the pilots' capacity to recover at such low altitude....RIP chaps - a dreadful way to go.