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

Hard landing in C-130J

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.

Hard landing in C-130J

Old 22nd May 2019, 18:09
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: under the sea
Posts: 2,208
Hard landing in C-130J

Flight global has reported on the SI into the hard landing of ZH873.
Having read the SI report I would have personally placed the error as lack of currency rather than a loss of SA.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...3H#sf213125226


https://assets.publishing.service.go...RT_Final-O.pdf A very comprehensive and thorough report.




tubby linton is online now  
Old 22nd May 2019, 21:20
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 1,816
An extensive report; ‘comprehensive and thorough’ to the point of using every flight safety and HF cliche in the industry.

If you require a crew to undertake a very challenging operation in limiting conditions, with significant operational hazards, then the better conclusion is that the accident was an operational risk.
Those on the front line managed what they could at the time; those in background, with hindsight might have managed to greater effect, but those distant managers conducted their tasks very well - never took their hands out of their pockets.


Last edited by safetypee; 23rd May 2019 at 07:28. Reason: italicised to emphasise irony
safetypee is offline  
Old 22nd May 2019, 22:17
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Somerset
Posts: 2
Not sure that either actually constitute an error
Tutamen1 is offline  
Old 22nd May 2019, 22:21
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Somerset
Posts: 2
Not really. You might conclude that such an accident is an acceptable operational risk when weighing up the cost versus gain. But the purpose of an accident investigation is to understand its cause so as to minimise the likelihood of recurrence. Operational risk did not cause the accident!
Tutamen1 is offline  
Old 23rd May 2019, 06:49
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: England
Posts: 13
Originally Posted by safetypee View Post
An extensive report; comprehensive and thorough to the point
The report states that the PF had been working 12 hour days for the three weeks before the accident, flew out to the operating location, had three days of acclimatisation in theater and was then sent off for the accident flight, the first of the crews rotation.

In the three day acclimatisation period they completed a handover, theatre read-in and mission planning.

The PF was unable to remember any details of the handover brief, nor did the PF or PNF manage to commit either the aircraft parking location or take off time to memory.

The use of the term "consistently fast" on the approach, which the PNF called out twice, is quaint. Maybe "approach speed was never stabilised"? That's also a good indicator of something...

"The panel concluded that fatigue was not a factor"

It appears that the definition of fatigue used now extends to 'they had a good sleep the night before' in a single section which considers fatigue through the narrowest of windows. To my reading, the rest of the report is littered with indications of significant fatigue factors.

The report is also spectacularly verbose, I opine.

​​​

​​​

​​​​​​

Last edited by reader8; 23rd May 2019 at 10:14.
reader8 is offline  
Old 23rd May 2019, 19:11
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: east ESSEX
Posts: 3,078
A real `double Leerdammer` for parts of the AT fleet.
Why is there no mention of the use of `tactical IR PAPIs`....? or are they `in stores`...?
Even a good google on GE would show up the slope......
Agree with SP, whilst the crew were unfortunate, a lot of others contributed along the way....
The word " should" in the recommendations `should` be replaced by "must"...!!!
sycamore is online now  
Old 23rd May 2019, 20:33
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 270
The word " should" in the recommendations `should` be replaced by "must"...!!!
In MAA speak should = must. You need to re-tune your mind when you read these things...
Bing is offline  
Old 23rd May 2019, 20:49
  #8 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 9,846
The report is also spectacularly verbose, I opine.
Prolix, not verbose.
ORAC is online now  
Old 24th May 2019, 05:39
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: England
Posts: 13
Originally Posted by ORAC View Post
Prolix, not verbose.
Make a note of that word Darling. I like it, and intend to make use of it more in the future.
reader8 is offline  
Old 24th May 2019, 06:09
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 588
Originally Posted by Bing View Post
In MAA speak should = must. You need to re-tune your mind when you read these things...
I also find their use of the work "Shall" in their regulation equally unnatural. I always felt there were better plain English terms than should/shall.

Last edited by Chris Kebab; 24th May 2019 at 06:30.
Chris Kebab is offline  
Old 24th May 2019, 11:27
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Richard Burtonville, South Wales.
Posts: 1,778
'Must': do it or be in the crap.
'Should': if you can't demonstrate good reason for not doing it, you can expect to be in the crap.

That, as it happens, is the official usage of the words in Welsh Assembly documents. Who knew the Giant Parish Council would have the foresight eh?

CG
charliegolf is online now  
Old 24th May 2019, 15:14
  #12 (permalink)  

"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: England
Age: 72
Posts: 2,879
"Propose" = "I would like to do this if you approve" "Intend" = I will do this unless you tell me otherwise". I once flew with a captain who was a great user of "intend", as in "I intend that we will route AAA to BBB via a nightstop in XXX" XXX was always, of course a great place to nightstop.
Herod is offline  
Old 24th May 2019, 17:29
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Nigeria
Age: 52
Posts: 4,418
The word " should" in the recommendations `should` be replaced by "must"...!!!
​​​​​​​they wouldn’t be recommendations in that case
212man is offline  
Old 24th May 2019, 17:51
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 74
Posts: 5,169
But “must” implies an order to someone beneath you in the CoC, surely?

Anyway, a most interesting and detailed read.
MPN11 is online now  
Old 25th May 2019, 00:17
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Nigeria
Age: 52
Posts: 4,418
Originally Posted by MPN11 View Post
But “must” implies an order to someone beneath you in the CoC, surely?

Anyway, a most interesting and detailed read.
Yes, but these aren’t orders they’re recommendations from an independent body not in the CoC. It mirrors the AAIB and ICAO Annex 13
212man is offline  
Old 25th May 2019, 00:53
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Nigeria
Age: 52
Posts: 4,418
Originally Posted by MPN11 View Post
But “must” implies an order to someone beneath you in the CoC, surely?

Anyway, a most interesting and detailed read.
Yes, but these aren’t orders they’re recommendations from an independent body not in the CoC. It mirrors the AAIB and ICAO Annex 13
212man is offline  
Old 25th May 2019, 09:10
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: east ESSEX
Posts: 3,078
They`re not `independent of the CoC.....
Anyway,nobody answered my query about tactical IR PAPIs...?
50 Yrs ago we used to fly into DZ/LZs using torches mounted on bamboo poles,or Gurkhas holding torches,45 yrs ago I did trials on tactical ILS in helos and tac transports,;the Navy have been getting guys onboard at night using a man and illuminated tennis bats.,.........
Seems like not much `lateral/out of the box thinking` going on......

Gaius Petronius AD22-67

Must go and make up a few acronyms.....
sycamore is online now  
Old 25th May 2019, 12:53
  #18 (permalink)  
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 1,615
This SI is the crowning glory of the long growing trend to validate the "holes in the cheese" theory of accident cause (it even uses that graphic in the report). Yes, we all know there is seldom a single root cause, yes, we all know you have to look well past the smoking hole, and yes, we all know piss-poor organisation is a frequent driver for uninformed decision making in the cockpit, but my life, this outpouring of self-serving drivel is ridiculous. When I hear hoof beats I think horses, not zebras, but this report has looked for every zebra the AT fleet ever rode.
Two's in is offline  
Old 25th May 2019, 18:10
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 74
Posts: 5,169
(Not a pilot) Agreed, Sir! What also struck me from the surgical dissection was the voluminous documentation and cross-referencing and box-checking associated with operations these days. Yes, in my ATC days (69s-90s) we had [I guess] about a 2 to 3 ft pile of documentation to work from ... with a limited pile of ‘recall items’ within it. But nowadays it seems that operators are submerged in paperwork, as the comments about meeting actions never being actioned indicates.

I know safety is paramount, and things have progressed since my days, but I just wonder how much brain-power is required to trawl through, memorise or comply with the myriad of regulationary and other material required now.
MPN11 is online now  
Old 26th May 2019, 15:49
  #20 (permalink)  
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 1,615
Originally Posted by MPN11 View Post
...I know safety is paramount, and things have progressed since my days, but I just wonder how much brain-power is required to trawl through, memorise or comply with the myriad of regulationary and other material required now....
A good friend of mine who used to operate the twin rotor non-essential bus out of Odiham used to regale me with tales of exactly how much paperwork and clearance materiel was required before you even attempted to commit aviation. And of course, being rotary, you were invariably operating below 2,000' for most of the sortie, so the Low Flying clearances were a byzantine structure of pooh-traps and gotcha's. That was bad enough, but God forbid you saw a single equine within a mile of your flight path at anything more than trot. That was, and is, a career defining event. Needless to say, he carefully weighed up the benefits of all that additional scrutiny against the joy of flying and is now happily retired building model boats or something...
Two's in is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.