KC-135 reported down in Iraq.

[212man]

Originally Posted by farefield

If they weren't refuelling how much credence can we give to a theory that the Ohio ANG crew were being overseen by an active service crew, detected what they thought was an incoming missile, turned and climbed to avoid and then collided?

Very little, would be my guess, but others may be more expert than me.

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by farefield

If they weren't refuelling how much credence can we give to a theory that the Ohio ANG crew were being overseen by an active service crew, detected what they thought was an incoming missile, turned and climbed to avoid and then collided?

Has it been confirmed that the Ohio crew and not the Alabama crew were the newcomers to the theatre?

I don't recall seeing anything that identified their respective roles, though I may have missed it.

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by Ninthace

That is not telling the whole story. How many of those losses were of crewed aircraft actually flying on ops and at a height where a bail out might have been possible?

Fair point. I wouldn't know where to even start in order to research that information - does anyone know?

[tdracer]

Originally Posted by DuncanDoenitz

Not sure of relevance to the HF thing, but don't lose sight of the fact that a KC-135 is not a Boeing 707 with a boom and a paint job. It's a Boeing 717, with a separate development line from Boeing's original Dash-80 demonstrator. As the company's "717" designation did not feature prominently in marketing, Boeing decades later felt able to re-use the number for its legacy Douglas/MD DC-9 offspring.

Sorry for the thread tangent, but the general belief among Boeing employees at the time was that the idiots running Boeing at the time (specifically Condit and Stonecipher) didn't know Boeing history - and hence didn't know that the official Boeing designation for the KC-135 was the Boeing 717.
There was considerable outrage among the employees that the leaders (who most of us already thought of as idiots in suits) didn't know their own company's history and so re-used a previously used aircraft designation for what had been the MD-95 pre-merger.

[West Coast]

Thanks, wasn't aware of that TD, interesting.

[Professor Plum]

Originally Posted by farefield

If they weren't refuelling how much credence can we give to a theory that the Ohio ANG crew were being overseen by an active service crew, detected what they thought was an incoming missile, turned and climbed to avoid and then collided?

I’m not privvy to US TTPs-but I’d be highly surprised if their SOP was for a tanker to attempt to out manoeuvre a missile.

Where has that theory come from?

[EFHF]

Originally Posted by DaveReidUK

Do you have a source for that?
KC-135s carried parachutes for the first 50 years of operation. Nobody ever made use of one.

Two crew members did it in July 10th, 1964, the navigator and the boom operator, out of a KC-135 on fire. The egress chute worked as designed and both survived.

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by EFHF

Two crew members did it in July 10th, 1964, the navigator and the boom operator, out of a KC-135 on fire. The egress chute worked as designed and both survived.

Thanks for the link.

Happy to stand corrected.

[helispotter]

Originally Posted by DaveReidUK

Fair point. I wouldn't know where to even start in order to research that information - does anyone know?

ASN Wikibase lists 82 incidents related to KC-135 variants if anyone would like to trawl through the circumstances of them all. That wouldn't necessarily be a definitive list though.

[GlobalNav]

Originally Posted by Professor Plum

I’m not privvy to US TTPs-but I’d be highly surprised if their SOP was for a tanker to attempt to out manoeuvre a missile.

Where has that theory come from?

Who would need an SOP!

[Professor Plum]

Originally Posted by GlobalNav

Who would need an SOP!

I think we agree

[Liffy 1M]

Originally Posted by helispotter

ASN Wikibase lists 82 incidents related to KC-135 variants if anyone would like to trawl through the circumstances of them all. That wouldn't necessarily be a definitive list though.

I checked the detailed listing of C-135 losses in the definitive book on the type, Robert S Hopkins III's "Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker: More than a Tanker" and virtually all losses were in circumstances where crew egress at altitude was not an issue, e.g. CFIT, take-off or landing incidents or ground losses such as fires or explosions. There was one collision between two aircraft over the Atlantic but as only wreckage was found, it's impossible to say more. The 2013 loss over Kyrgystan is also discussed but, as the empennage had departed the aircraft, the author considers the parachute issue to be moot. He was himself a C-135 pilot and flew seventeen different variants of the type.

[farefield]

Originally Posted by GlobalNav

Who would need an SOP!

Quite. I think the anal sphincter might be going half a crown/sixpence or quarter/dime.

[Tarnished]

Originally Posted by DaveReidUK

Fair point. I wouldn't know where to even start in order to research that information - does anyone know?

Try here:
Flight Statistics EOY

At least to start with

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by Tarnished

Try here:
Flight Statistics EOY

At least to start with

An interesting resource, good find.

Incidentally, I've come across another reference to parachute use, in 1969, where the boom operator and navigator successfully abandoned a KC-135 because of possible imminent fuel exhaustion, though the aircraft did in fact land safely (as did the one in the 1964 engine fire event).

I've yet to find any instances of bailing out following a flight upset event, so I'm not sure how far that gets us in the "if only they'd had parachutes last week" debate.

[EXDAC]

Originally Posted by DaveReidUK

I've yet to find any instances of bailing out following a flight upset event, so I'm not sure how far that gets us in the "if only they'd had parachutes last week" debate.

Doesn't the fact that parachutes have been used successfully leave us with only the argument "the probability they may be used does not justify the expense"?

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by EXDAC

Doesn't the fact that parachutes have been used successfully leave us with only the argument "the probability they may be used does not justify the expense"?

Well yes, of course, cost ultimately determines pretty well everything, including in aviation safety.

Particularly given that

Originally Posted by Chronic Snoozer

"If the plane is under control, you are going to stay with it," Sergeant Austin said. "If it's out of control, you're not going to be able to get to the parachute anyway."

[EXDAC]

The idea that crew would have to "get to" and then don a chute seems bizarre to me. Modern emergency parachutes are far lighter and more comfortable to wear than the military chutes from the 50s and could be worn by pilot and co-pilot with little or no seat modification. Flight test crews on MD-80 and MD-95 high risk flights wore standard military chutes with the only modification being removal of the seat back cushion.

I have never seen the boomers station of a KC-135 only that of the KC-10 so I don't know if a modern parachute could be worn there.

(I have over 2,500 hours pilot in command time wearing a parachute. Never needed it but glad I had the option.)

[CAEBr]

Originally Posted by Liffy 1M

I checked the detailed listing of C-135 losses in the definitive book on the type, Robert S Hopkins III's "Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker: More than a Tanker" and virtually all losses were in circumstances where crew egress at altitude was not an issue, e.g. CFIT, take-off or landing incidents or ground losses such as fires or explosions. There was one collision between two aircraft over the Atlantic but as only wreckage was found, it's impossible to say more. The 2013 loss over Kyrgystan is also discussed but, as the empennage had departed the aircraft, the author considers the parachute issue to be moot. He was himself a C-135 pilot and flew seventeen different variants of the type.

The photograph below is from the Robert Hopkins book mentioned above.

[BEagle]

From Military History of the Upper Great Lakes by Cody Caelwaerts 30 October 2019:

In August 1969, During a training exercise to Kincheloe Air Force Base near Sault Ste. Marie, a KC-135A was mistakenly instructed to lower its altitude to 5,000-6,000 feet drastically increasing its fuel consumption. After a bad approach to Kincheloe air force base it was decided that they should turn around and refuel at the K.I. Sawyer base due to fuel concerns. Around Munising the engines started to experience fuel starvation in the engines, the Instructor pilot attempted to idle two of the engines and mistakenly turning them all the way off; then restarting them, using more fuel. Heading west over Skandia it became clear that the fuel shortage was now a serious problem, the Instructional pilot now tuning off the two engines, he had minutes prior restarted. The Co-pilot had prior requested a “Mayday” only to have the Instructional pilot state, “We do NOT have an emergency”. Moments later the engines fell silent and the pilot instructed the crew to prepare to bailout. The co-pilot blew the door as the entire crew had already strapped into their chutes. Everyone bailed except for the two pilots and the navigator. As the pilot was saying nothing, and frantically messing with the panel which was illustrating a fuel reserve of “Empty” the co-pilot bailed, saying, “I’m out of here, sir” and shortly after so did the navigator, Joe Roads.

The crew landed on a pine forest and survived the jump, the aircraft touched down just short of the runway, skidding onto the main landing strip suffering relatively minor damages to the landing gear. The 600 or so pounds that was ejected from the plane may have been the saving grace for the plane. The KC-135A ( AF Serial No. 61-0313) became affectionately known as “The Glider” because of this incident, and was fully repaired in a matter of weeks. Reportedly even the door, which was blown off during the crew’s bailout, was returned to the plane by a local farmer who found it in his field.