And there was I hoping that the tinfoil hate idiots, MSFS geeks and the like were confining themselves to endless pages of drivel about the cause of the B-747F accident at Bagram....:rolleyes:

Always easy to spot a timewaster on the Mil board - they refer to a woodworking tool rather than to an aircraft. They probably couldn't tell you the difference between an 'aircraft' or an 'aeroplane' either....:uhoh:

SASless, apart from multiple birdstrikes, I can think of another possible explanation, but am not going to post it here.

Then why mention it?

"The hatch just blew!"

Given where it was flying, I am trying to puzzle out how someone comes up with SAM/MANPAD as a factor.

It's a reach, eh? A long reach, even ...

The crew - RIP


Air Force names airmen killed in Kyrgyzstan KC-135 crash - Air Force - Stripes

PLEASE no-one post that sickly 'slipped the surly bonds of earth' clichéd crap....:(

The point I was trying to make, SASless, is that many of us might have our own ideas, but will NOT post them in a forum infested by people who are frankly not qualified to comment - and whose drivel merely diverts attention....:ugh:

SASless: Add to your inventory of possible causes, "Aft Cabin Pressure Bulkhead failure due to fatigue and corrosin".

Better get used to it BEagle. The word, usually preceded by an apostrophe, has been in use since the earliest days of heavy than air flight. Unless preceded by the apostrophe, the word in the days of old, meant "wing". Remember when you used to be a gay chap? Not any more though. Meanings change, and not necessarily for the better.

Epic thread drift! ;)

.....also an assumption................:)

Well, it is a rumour network..

KC135 Crash
 

I can't help but think of the similarities between this and the Nimrod crash. God bless all of those lost and those they leave behind.

Has the KC 135 fleet and variants been grounded?

Brilliant Question.....grounding the entire 135 fleet would do "What" to Combat Operations extant?

What do you think the chances of that happening are?

ZERO and even more Zero

KC 135 - B 707
 

Seems to be that some believe the B707 and the KC135 are one and the same. They both share the same genesis, the Boeing 367-80. The KC135 pre-dates the B707 by about 18 months, is a narrower and shorter airframe with different construction.

Apart from training flights the aircraft would have been predominately subjected to heavy weight take-offs and over time has been given significant engine upgrades. The type first entered service in around 1957, fifty-six years ago. The last production airframe was built in 1965 so the accident aircraft was at least
forty-eight years old.

Hopefully the cause will be determined and published, otherwise we learn nothing.

It uses the same basic airframe as the 700 series which means the floor is approx 15 inches narrower and so is the cabin shell.

Makes me very sad that good men and women go in harms way and their service is not appreciated by many.

Lest We Forget

Regards

Col

SASless Brilliant Question.....grounding the entire 135 fleet would do "What" to Combat Operations extant?

What do you think the chances of that happening are?


I would hope the risk owner has carefully balanced operational requirement with operating a platform with a potential fleet wide problem. If indeed the fleet is still flying it would indicate:

The operational need outweighed individuals risk.
The fault was understood and manageable.
A mixture of both.

Operational necessity precludes grounding the entire fleet.

Simple enough.

Even if they found something of interest/concern fleet-wide....they would have to do a phased program of inspections all the while meeting Operational requirements.

The Air Force could alter some demand by altering the way they operate but Combat Operations would have to continue even at some risk if need be.

The Tankers are not hauling blue collar folk on sunshine holidays....they have a mission that requires they be there to pass gas.