Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

C130 and FA-18 incident off the coast of Japan

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

C130 and FA-18 incident off the coast of Japan

Old 5th Dec 2018, 21:56
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Australia
Posts: 362
C130 and FA-18 incident off the coast of Japan

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-...coast/10588348
Cloudee is offline  
Old 6th Dec 2018, 00:08
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Japan
Posts: 697
1:30~2:00 am, sounds like tough training. Hope they find more survivors.
jolihokistix is offline  
Old 6th Dec 2018, 05:44
  #3 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Australia
Posts: 362
Media reporting two crew from the FA-18 have been found.
Cloudee is offline  
Old 6th Dec 2018, 07:51
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Northants
Posts: 692
I guess the F18 chaps always have a higher probability of survival. Hopefully better news of C-130 crew soon.
Flap62 is offline  
Old 8th Dec 2018, 06:07
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Overlooking the beach, NZ
Posts: 236
Originally Posted by Cloudee View Post
Media reporting two crew from the FA-18 have been found.
Sadly not found alive, one crewman dead the other just injured

https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/new...still-missing/
bakseetblatherer is offline  
Old 8th Dec 2018, 06:36
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Glesga, Scotland
Age: 47
Posts: 213
Would the C130 crew have the option of parachutes or not ?
fallmonk is offline  
Old 8th Dec 2018, 06:40
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 394
I would suggest that, even if parachutes were worn, the timescale involved would be unlikely to allow the crew to escape.
vascodegama is offline  
Old 8th Dec 2018, 07:31
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: sussex
Posts: 1,601
When we operated the RAF C130 tanker we did carry parachutes. They were the old WW2 chest types with a harness to go with it. We also carried so called quick don immersion suits.
They were stowed on a stretcher forward of the fuselage tanks on the starboard side. In the event of an incident like the one under discussion we could never have even reached the parachutes much less put them on. Even if we had fitted them egress from the a/c would have been nigh impossible. Going out through the crew entrance door would probably have only resulted ind hitting the props and gaining access to the para doors with the a/c in a dive well nigh impossible. It was always a constant risk in the tanker of being 'nurfed ' by a receiver.

Last edited by ancientaviator62; 8th Dec 2018 at 07:56.
ancientaviator62 is offline  
Old 8th Dec 2018, 08:01
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 809
I dont recall parachutes being provided when I flew C130 tankers, I guess by my time it had been realized that the opportunity to use them was fantastically small given the most likely incident of being taken out by an errant receiver. I did carry them on air tests but if the aircraft was stable enough that you could get down the back, strap one on & make an orderly exit, why were you abandoning?

Post the Nimrod fire in Afghanistan the carriage of parachutes was briefly raised so that you could abandon a burning airframe but it was felt impractical given that wed have had to leave all the passengers behind who might have been distinctly unimpressed watching the crew depart.
Ken Scott is offline  
Old 8th Dec 2018, 08:20
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: sussex
Posts: 1,601
Ken,
that was exactly my argument as to why we needed to carry them. If you could ,in extremis, ditch then you had the comfort of two MS26 liferafts to climb in to. Why would you want to jump into the water otherwise ?
In the early days of the RAF C130 tanker we were driven by the 'Marham Mafia' in respect of operating our tanker. This is why we carried parachutes (the Victor had them) and the HDU panel was fitted above the Nav station. The 'spare' Nav in the Victor operated the panel which ideally should have been affixed to the forward face of the HDU frame.There were other irritations.
Remember this is the same school of thought that had an escape exit cut into the VC10 tankers on the port side of the fuselage.
ancientaviator62 is offline  
Old 8th Dec 2018, 10:32
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 71
Posts: 16,615
Post the Nimrod fire in Afghanistan the carriage of parachutes was briefly raised so that you could abandon a burning airframe but it was felt impractical given that wed have had to leave all the passengers behind who might have been distinctly unimpressed watching the crew depart.
In the 1960's the USAF had a novel idea....they equipped their aircraft that had tactical troop seats with enough parachutes for all occupants and one got a brief on the use of the parachute should it become necessary for all to exit short of the intended destination.

My experience with that was on USAF Reserve C-119's.
SASless is offline  
Old 8th Dec 2018, 11:44
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NSW
Posts: 329
In days of old>>>


The 1966 Palomares B-52 crash, or the Palomares incident, occurred on 17 January 1966, when a B-52G bomber of the United States Air Force's Strategic Air Command collided with a KC-135 tanker during mid-air refueling at 31,000 feet (9,450 m) over the Mediterranean Sea, off the coast of Spain. The KC-135 was completely destroyed when its fuel load ignited, killing all four crew members. The B-52G broke apart, killing three of the seven crew members aboard.

We came in behind the tanker, and we were a little bit fast, and we started to overrun him a little bit. There is a procedure they have in refueling where if the boom operator feels that you're getting too close and it's a dangerous situation, he will call, "Break away, break away, break away." There was no call for a break away, so we didn't see anything dangerous about the situation. But all of a sudden, all hell seemed to break loose.
TBM-Legend is offline  
Old 8th Dec 2018, 12:15
  #13 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,393
https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=22796
ORAC is offline  
Old 9th Dec 2018, 07:29
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: sussex
Posts: 1,601
SASless,
it would seem to be a solution.But the Hercules with the ability to rerole from pax to anything else then brings up the problem of storage. All those 'chutes take up space and payload. We did not have the RAF bases nor the storage facilities to store them down route. Not to mention the damage and theft. We used to lose a lot of LSJs.
ancientaviator62 is offline  
Old 9th Dec 2018, 07:49
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: earth
Posts: 299
I once guested on a USAF Rammstein based C130, whilst they flew in the UK LFS. There was a rail of back pack parachutes behind the normal entrance door. They said they could be used if everybody on board was trained!
mr ripley is offline  
Old 9th Dec 2018, 07:53
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,615
Million pound dustbin

When the VC10K entered service, it was fitted with an absurd 'escape system' which those of us on the first few courses were taught how to use... One of the prototypes had flown (briefly) with the chute extended, but such was the buffeting that it soon landed.

Having decided to abandon aircraft, the first task was to depressurise. No special system; the pressurisation was turned off and the cabin pressure then rose until the max diff at which the chute could be extended was reached. Meanwhile individual crew members were supposed to struggle back to the pax compartment using walk round oxygen bottles, change to bone domes, don immersion suits and parachutes plus dinghy packs. One pilot was supposed to fly the aircraft from behind his seat, leaning over whilst wearing bone dome, parachute and dinghy pack - with the added fun of the large portable oxygen bottle. Then the chute was to be extended; the sealing strip would probably have been ingested by no.1 & no.2 engines, which RR said would probably lead to uncontained failures...

After 3 of the 4 crew had escaped, the 4th was then supposed to let go of the controls and make his way to the escape chute before jumping out. Whether the loss of 2 engines would have allowed this was open to conjecture.

Needless to say, this expensive farce was soon de-modded and the chute became a convenient place to stow the large blue rubbish bags we used to carry for galley rubbish etc. - hence it became known as the 'million pound dustbin'. On my VC10K course, we all refused to have anything to do with the stupid system, as I told some wandering Air Wheel once (knowing that he was the person who had specified the nonsense), much to the chagrin of my Flt Cdr who was giving me 'please shut up' looks. "Hmmph, I think you chaps are very important and should have an escape system", mumbled the multi-starred one. "But not so important as to have Martin Baker seats?", I queried.... "Places to go, people to see, good morning" came the reply.

There was also a low level override button which enabled the air engineer to transfer all tanker fuel to receivers when operated. Quite who dreamed up that daft idea, I do not know as no-one in their right mind would ever use it - if it was a choice between a receiver running out of fuel or the tanker giving it all away and having to ditch, well, the receiver crews all had bang seats!
BEagle is offline  
Old 9th Dec 2018, 07:59
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NSW
Posts: 329
The Douglas A-3 Skywarrior only had a slide for mid-flight departures for the crew. Its Air Force brother B-66 had "leave the scene" seats..
TBM-Legend is offline  
Old 9th Dec 2018, 08:14
  #18 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 77
Posts: 16,680
The Valiant had a 100% giveaway capability, but I think this was a legacy feature and not a deliberate design.

The KC135 had a hole in the floor bailout chute and I think this was carried forward to the E3. I suppose an uncontrolled engine fire or combat damage might have made a n Irving descent preferable to a crash landing - in theory.
Pontius Navigator is online now  
Old 9th Dec 2018, 08:42
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: sussex
Posts: 1,601
Beags,
shades of what I called the 'Marham Mafia' approach of trying to install totally unsuitable and unworkable Victor features and procedures on other a/c. They could not seem to accept that the RAF Hercules tanker was so different in so many ways.
ancientaviator62 is offline  
Old 9th Dec 2018, 10:16
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 4,818
The Valiant had a 100% giveaway capability, but I think this was a legacy feature and not a deliberate design.
Not quite.

Max fuel of the BK1 was 80,165 lb with under wing and bomb bay tanks. The Pilots Notes give:

'The tanks used for transferable fuel have a total capacity of 46,248 lb, but 1,160 lb is not transferable. This gives a total of 45,088 lb of fuel which can be transferred from the Tanker to the Receiver.'
Fareastdriver 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 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.