PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Military Aviation (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation-57/)
-   -   C130 and FA-18 incident off the coast of Japan (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/616085-c130-fa-18-incident-off-coast-japan.html)

Cloudee 5th Dec 2018 21:56

C130 and FA-18 incident off the coast of Japan
 
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-...coast/10588348

jolihokistix 6th Dec 2018 00:08

1:30~2:00 am, sounds like tough training. Hope they find more survivors.

Cloudee 6th Dec 2018 05:44

Media reporting two crew from the FA-18 have been found.

Flap62 6th Dec 2018 07:51

I guess the F18 chaps always have a higher probability of survival. Hopefully better news of C-130 crew soon.

bakseetblatherer 8th Dec 2018 06:07


Originally Posted by Cloudee (Post 10329096)
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/

fallmonk 8th Dec 2018 06:36

Would the C130 crew have the option of parachutes or not ?

vascodegama 8th Dec 2018 06:40

I would suggest that, even if parachutes were worn, the timescale involved would be unlikely to allow the crew to escape.

ancientaviator62 8th Dec 2018 07:31

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.

Ken Scott 8th Dec 2018 08:01

I don’t 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 we’d have had to leave all the passengers behind who might have been distinctly unimpressed watching the crew depart.

ancientaviator62 8th Dec 2018 08:20

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.

SASless 8th Dec 2018 10:32


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 we’d 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.

TBM-Legend 8th Dec 2018 11:44

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.

ORAC 8th Dec 2018 12:15

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=22796

ancientaviator62 9th Dec 2018 07:29

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.

mr ripley 9th Dec 2018 07:49

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!

BEagle 9th Dec 2018 07:53

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!

TBM-Legend 9th Dec 2018 07:59

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..

Pontius Navigator 9th Dec 2018 08:14

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.

ancientaviator62 9th Dec 2018 08:42

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.

Fareastdriver 9th Dec 2018 10:16


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.'


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:35.


Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.