Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Air tanker crash in Utah 3 June 2012

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Air tanker crash in Utah 3 June 2012

Old 4th Jun 2012, 13:44
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Montreal
Age: 88
Posts: 156
Air tanker crash in Utah 3 June 2012

Air tanker crash kills 2 in Utah - CNN.com
Yankee Whisky is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2012, 14:00
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 11,600
Report suggests a P-2 (Neptune).
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 4th Jun 2012, 14:03
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: CA
Posts: 86
Quite a coincidence....2 of these ol' birds lost the same day. JACDEC - Current News
gwillie is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2012, 15:43
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 11,600
Quite a coincidence....2 of these ol' birds lost the same day.
Happily the crew walked away from the other one:

DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 5th Jun 2012, 22:32
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: EIDW
Posts: 271
Sadly, this is the aircraft that crashed with the loss of two lives ...


Neptune Aviation Services Lockheed P2V Neptune N14447 / "Tanker 11" ,
Flame is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2012, 15:26
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Denver
Posts: 1,029
Only hint of cause so far in the fatal Utah crash is a mention by local sheriff that a wingtip may have grazed the ground/wall in a canyon.

Investigator scours site of Utah tanker crash | ajc.com

My hat's off to the folks who fly these birds.
pattern_is_full is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2012, 20:28
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Leicester UK
Posts: 68
Video here of the Minden emergency landing.


Last edited by Wiggly Bob; 6th Jun 2012 at 20:29.
Wiggly Bob is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2012, 22:50
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: My Stringy Brane
Posts: 377




Machaca is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2012, 02:19
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: CY??
Posts: 110
^ Looks like a line of retardant leading into the debris trail. How does the emergency dump work on the P2V - would it leave a line, or a splodge? Could it have been just a simple CFIT?
Immaterial, I guess, compared to the loss that two families must be feeling today.
Condolences and thoughts from CYGM ATB.
North Shore is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2012, 20:53
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: retirementland
Age: 75
Posts: 767
Clearly time to retire these elderly aircraft from such a highly demanding mission.
Shell Management is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2012, 21:55
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: East of Eden
Posts: 23
"Clearly time to retire these elderly aircraft from such a highly demanding mission."

I fail to see what is remotely clear from what we know that causes you to make such a ridiculous and crass statement.
Raikum is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2012, 22:08
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: In the shadows
Age: 76
Posts: 291
Originally Posted by Shell Management View Post
Clearly time to retire these elderly aircraft from such a highly demanding mission.
Clearly time for this elderly pseudo Shell manager and his ridiculous comments to retire from PPRuNe.
CharlieOneSix is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2012, 22:17
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: West Coast Canada
Posts: 3,666
In many ways the Neptune airframe is very well suited to the firebombing mission.

It is heavily built with a big wing and good low speed characteristics and excellent visibility from the cockpit. Its Achilles heel is the temperamental R 3350 engines. They don't really have enough power now that purple gas is long gone and these engines are getting harder and harder to maintain.

What is needed is a program to refurbish the airframe and then fit 4000 hp Alison 501 Turbo prop engines. Now that would be kick butt tanker.

Instead everyone seems all hot to tank BAE 146's an program to me that just makes no sense.
Big Pistons Forever is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2012, 01:29
  #14 (permalink)  
Trash du Blanc
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: KBHM
Posts: 1,184
If they have engine problems now, just wait 'til the Bring Another Engine arrives....

You know why it has four? They couldn't fit five.
Huck is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2012, 02:02
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Springfield
Posts: 735
146's have 5 APU's in formation
Ejector is offline  
Old 9th Jun 2012, 00:47
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Cornwall-on-Hudson, New York
Posts: 877
Clearly time to retire these elderly aircraft from such a highly demanding mission.
This person--man? woman? child?--is a classic troll.
stepwilk is offline  
Old 9th Jun 2012, 04:18
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: passing a cloud
Posts: 324
BAe 146 ----> 5 Oil Leaks connected by an electrical fault.
TWOTBAGS is offline  
Old 13th Jun 2012, 06:32
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 451
Shell M
I assume from your comment that you have extensive experience in operating or maintaining R3350s and /or Neptunes?
If no, what qualifies you to comment?
Wunwing

Last edited by Wunwing; 13th Jun 2012 at 06:33.
Wunwing is offline  
Old 13th Jun 2012, 07:59
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wingham NSW Australia
Age: 79
Posts: 1,349
Wunwing, was your comment aimed at Shell Management or Big Pistons Forever? The R3350's can be cantankerous and they do go well on 145 Octane fuel which is no longer around. The Power Recovery Turbines are problematic, as the RAAF sadly learned in about February of 1959.

Last edited by Old Fella; 13th Jun 2012 at 08:02. Reason: spelling
Old Fella is offline  
Old 13th Jun 2012, 10:22
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 451
Old Fella, my comments were to Shell Management.It would be interesting to see what information and experience he bases his comments on.

I'm a current FE on a Lockheed C121/Connie so I have some experience in running 4 X R3350s on lower octane fuel. Our operation has so far not had any dire problems with either our 1049 or Neptunes with power recovery turbines.We also don't use high blower.Biggest problem and the only reason for any engine shutdowns for us has been fouled plugs. Two fouled on one cylinder is a mandatory shutdown. Both the Neptune and L1049 are fitted with an engine analyser so all 36 plug conditions are readily observed.

The trick with these engines seems to be to follow the procedures exactly and never allow them to be negatively torqued, landings being the exception.

On the Neptunes including both recent accident aircraft (from the photos) except for low fuel, there is always the emergency option of using the jets to get you out of trouble.

I do agree that the Neptune with propjets would be an interesting fire bomber.Probably a bit lighter as well because it would allow the removal of the jets.

It is interesting that the Canadians are moving to Electras and CV 580 propjets as the US is going British jets.

Wunwing
Wunwing is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.