KC-135 reported down in Iraq.

[treadigraph]

I'm amazed that apparently only 52 KC-135s have been written off out of a production run of some 800 aircraft in nearly 70 years of service. A few of these have been through mid-airs with other tankers or recipients, the rest training, weather, etc, etc. Pretty impressive record for an early generation jet I'd think.

[RetiredBA/BY]

Do USAF tankers not have TCAS ?

[ignorantAndroid]

Originally Posted by MechEngr

This was the cause of the head-on collision over Brazil a few years back that put the wingtip of a private jet through the windscreen of a commercial airliner after ATC assigned both the same altitude on the same track, in opposite directions.

Not that it matters, but it was the wing of the 737 that was hit, not the windscreen.

[Cornish Jack]

Re. the provision of parachutes for crews on 130s/ Comets/Brits/Hastings/Valettas et al, the premise was that, since these were pax carriers, SLF morale might take a hit on seeing the crew so equipped !

[Tengah Type]

ORAC @ 3861

The scenario you suggest would seem to be what happened. I could not puzzle out how the Receiver KC135 could
hit the tailplane/horizontal stabiliser or wing of the Tanker KC135 whilst the Boom was deployed. This led to the
question of why the Receiver would be so close to the Tanker if the Boom was retracted.

The Victor/Buccaneer accident was different in that the Buccaneer was attempting to use a wing hose when its wing
hit the Victor tailplane/horizontal stabiliser.

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by DaveReidUK

One of the crewmen who died is identified here:

Airman from Columbus among those killed in refueling crash in Iraq

Not officially confirmed, but if correct that would suggest the crew was from 121st ARW/166th ARS at Columbus/Rickenbacker

Three of the six apparently from the Ohio ANG at Columbus, though the aircraft wasn't from that unit:

(1) ShayneB52🇺🇸🇺🇸🦅🇺🇸 on X: "This hurts. Three from the Ohio ANG in a bird from another base. Prayers to their families and the whole wing. 💔💔💔🙏🙏 It is with a heavy heart that we share the tragic news of the passing of three Airmen from the 121st Air Refueling Wing. Our thoughts and prayers are with https://t.co/NCkGlkaecr" / X

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by bille1319

The stricken aircraft did try to get back to Tel Aviv but crashed.

Do you have a source for that?

I wondered if parachutes were available to the crew to give them some chance of survival, all be it a small one.

​​​​
KC-135s carried parachutes for the first 50 years of operation. Nobody ever made use of one.
​​​

Looks like it picked off the HF antenna on the survivor's vertical stabilizer.

Pre-accident photos of the aircraft don't show a long-wire HF aerial.

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by Tengah Type

I could not puzzle out how the Receiver KC135 could hit the tailplane/horizontal stabiliser or wing of the Tanker KC135 whilst the Boom was deployed. This led to the question of why the Receiver would be so close to the Tanker if the Boom was retracted.

There's even more evidence to discount that scenario now that it appears that no receive-capable aircraft was involved.

[Chiefttp]

In 1992 2 C-141’s collided during a formation air refueling. We had detailed procedures to insure separation between multiple receivers and refuelers. They worked fine for decades. But on that particular evening, one C-141 deviated from those procedures and descended quickly while simultaneously turning towards his post refueling position, a big no-no…the procedure was to descend to your post refueling altitude, THEN once at your altitude turn to attain your lateral position. That crew didn’t follow the proper sequence and collided with another C-141. It doesn’t take much.

[JW411]

I had it in my mind that the HF aerial on the 707 series aircraft was inside the probelike fairing on top of the vertical stabiliser.

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by Chiefttp

In 1992 2 C-141’s collided during a formation air refueling. We had detailed procedures to insure separation between multiple receivers and refuelers. They worked fine for decades. But on that particular evening, one C-141 deviated from those procedures and descended quickly while simultaneously turning towards his post refueling position, a big no-no…the procedure was to descend to your post refueling altitude, THEN once at your altitude turn to attain your lateral position. That crew didn’t follow the proper sequence and collided with another C-141. It doesn’t take much.

True. But I'm not sure why we're still talking about a collision between tanker and receiver.

[moosepileit]

Originally Posted by DaveReidUK

True. But I'm not sure why we're still talking about a collision between tanker and receiver.

Because it's the last class A with fatalities in the same genre of heavy aircraft in-flight refueling. The context carries directly.

Looking at the tanker fin, that says head on collision. So removing parachutes now looks as poor an action as it ever did.

[DaveReidUK]

The chances are nobody will be able to prove you wrong,

Even though you probably are.

[Machinbird]

Regarding the possibility of bailing out of a large jet aircraft, yes, it is possible, but just about has to be properly built into the aircraft to have a chance of real success.
The twin engine Navy A-3D Skywarrior had no ejection seats, but did have a bailout door/chute between the pilot and navigator positions that has been used successfully a number of times. The bailout door was extended pneumatically to block the airflow and give the escapee a clear path as he fell away from the aircraft.
Nickname for the aircraft was the Whale, or All Three Dead, a sarcastic reference to the A-3D designation .

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by Machinbird

Regarding the possibility of bailing out of a large jet aircraft, yes, it is possible, but just about has to be properly built into the aircraft to have a chance of real success.

More than 40 C-135s of assorted variants were lost between service entry and the point in 2008 when crew stopped carrying parachutes.

Not a single crew member aboard any of those 40+ aircraft bailed out.

[tdracer]

Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50

A tanker would go up full of gas. Strike aircraft would come and go, each topping off, or not, as the mission warranted.

Eventually, the tanker's relief would show up to be the "Tanker On Station" for the next 6- 8 hours or so. The "about to leave as on station tanker" would Top Them Up with their spare gas before checking off station. The point of doing this is to OPTIMIZE the amount of gas that the on-coming tanker had in his tanks to offer to the Tactical Aircraft who were going to be showing up while that tanker was orbiting around at Max Loiter, waiting to feed gas to those who need it.

That is why tankers fill up other tankers: to better take care of the Fighters and Attack aircraft who will need gas during their shift. Support the war fighter.

Savvy?

Repeating a previous post, but one of the mandatory requirements for the KC-46 was the ability to receive fuel as well as dispense it. It was a far from trivial change to the aircraft configuration - so not cheap - but the USAF obviously saw value in the ability.
As to why it wasn't retrofit to the majority of the KC-135 fleet, given what adding that capability 'during built' to the KC-46 entailed, I'm sure it would have cost a fortune to retrofit that capability to an existing airframe.

Question - did this apparent mid-air happen at night or during daylight?

[MechEngr]

Originally Posted by ignorantAndroid

Not that it matters, but it was the wing of the 737 that was hit, not the windscreen.

I mixed it up with some other accident. Mea culpa.

[moosepileit]

Originally Posted by DaveReidUK

More than 40 C-135s of assorted variants were lost between service entry and the point in 2008 when crew stopped carrying parachutes.

Not a single crew member aboard any of those 40+ aircraft bailed out.

Each of those mishaps had its own context. Robbing Peter's chutes based on Paul's mishap was negligent.

Several logical fallacies aside, formation airspace breaches 10^-6th to 9th, so there should be a bailout procedure. We know it has scant chance, historically, but why remove all chance? In this case, call it the 41st, I assume the lost and their families will find a lost chance in no chutes.

Taking my wager of £100 to families of the lost implicitly then?

Originally Posted by Tarnished

Try here:Flight Statistics EOY At least to start with

Aviation safety and design look at risk. That put parachutes in various aircraft in the 20th century Test, combat and non combat Airdrop, Air Refueling most common to the subject context. Test having its own risks, airdrop and air refueling are formations and special procedural airspace, combat or not. History shows training is nearly the same risk as combat. Humans err in aviation today more than machine. We will cause collisions and those, on paper have bailout chances. Airdrop also has payload risk that can damage the aircraft. That's why the chutes were there. If we had more human failures, they'd still be there, in a way. Ejection seats would not make sense. Wrong environment for risk vs. weight, complexity and cost. Would raise eyebrows of the passengers. Parachutes allow the designers to create a bailout procedure, as Rube Goldberg as it may appear. I thought the first P before Prune would make this go without saying. Engine Inflight shutdowns are far under 1 per 500,000 hours. The plane can handle it, we all train to it, some have had it. Check. I have one in under 20,000 hours, and the other two pilots on board have at least that one. Engine falling off? Should be a ten to the minus 9th or 10th. Can't happen, by design, but once per entire fleet history. But, I lost three coworkers to one. Somewhere between those extremes of our common flight histories sits the operational risk that put bailout into the design of some aircraft.

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by DaveReidUK

Three of the six apparently from the Ohio ANG at Columbus, though the aircraft wasn't from that unit:

And the other three were reportedly from a unit in Alabama. The reason there were two complete crews on board was apparently shadowing/familiarisation.

[galaxy flyer]

6th ARW from McDill AFB, FL outside of Tampa