|
Originally Posted by farefield
(Post 12052803)
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?
|
Originally Posted by farefield
(Post 12052803)
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 don't recall seeing anything that identified their respective roles, though I may have missed it. |
Originally Posted by Ninthace
(Post 12052811)
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?
|
Originally Posted by DuncanDoenitz
(Post 12052768)
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.
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. |
Thanks, wasn't aware of that TD, interesting.
|
Originally Posted by farefield
(Post 12052803)
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?
Where has that theory come from? |
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK
(Post 12052178)
Do you have a source for that?
KC-135s carried parachutes for the first 50 years of operation. Nobody ever made use of one. |
Originally Posted by EFHF
(Post 12052891)
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.
Happy to stand corrected. |
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK
(Post 12052832)
Fair point. I wouldn't know where to even start in order to research that information - does anyone know?
|
Originally Posted by Professor Plum
(Post 12052887)
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? |
Originally Posted by GlobalNav
(Post 12052913)
Who would need an SOP!
|
Originally Posted by helispotter
(Post 12052908)
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.
|
Originally Posted by GlobalNav
(Post 12052913)
Who would need an SOP!
|
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK
(Post 12052832)
Fair point. I wouldn't know where to even start in order to research that information - does anyone know?
Flight Statistics EOY At least to start with |
Originally Posted by Tarnished
(Post 12053148)
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. |
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK
(Post 12053155)
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.
|
Originally Posted by EXDAC
(Post 12053157)
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"?
Particularly given that
Originally Posted by Chronic Snoozer
(Post 12052678)
"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."
|
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.) |
Originally Posted by Liffy 1M
(Post 12053126)
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.
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....514a0d88aa.jpg |
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. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 00:38. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.