C-130 Crash Savannah

RyanLikesFlying said:
I agree. Definitely odd. Maybe one needed to be shut down and the wrong one was pulled back. Hard to say. These old WC-130s were tired...
Click to expand...
Wouldn’t be the first time that’s happened either.

One thing I will always remember from the little ME training that I’ve had is the phrase ‘dead foot, dead engine’, which should help reduce an accidental feather or shut down of the wrong engine. Check and verify, although that doesn’t really apply to a four engined aircraft.
 
Ryanb said:
One thing I will always remember from the little ME training that I’ve had is the phrase ‘dead foot, dead engine’, which should help reduce an accidental feather or shut down of the wrong engine. Check and verify, although that doesn’t really apply to a four engined aircraft.
Click to expand...

I’ve been on several C-130 flights where we shut down an engine. It’s not a split second process. Both pilots and FE are involved and there’s a lot of check and verify going on. Yes, this is a boldface procedure but someone will have a checklist out of they can manage it. Granted, the shut down of the wrong engine still does occur even with sims, and challenge and response checklist actions. Pretty sad. I’ll be curious what the USAF safety office puts out on this one.
 
dell30rb said:
Did he have any more details? Looks like it had a problem after takeoff and tried to put it down on the median between a 4 lane road. I can't imagine what... must have been something catastrophic like a prop coming apart.
Click to expand...

He texted me and said: Several things can cause that roll and dive...wing seperation, fin stall, C.F Shift. Suicidal pilot, outboard engine failure or going into reverse...or old aircraft with serious problems...it was gong to the bone yard...
 
In the 80's we did three engine takeoffs to qualify IP's - this was in E models; a few of our aircraft had a box to capture some parameters, but not a true FDR; if I recall, there was some pre-flight action to "start" it, which we usually didn't bother with. So, it is conceivable they had one shut down before they launched, but that's just speculation, and I don't even know if that's a procedure anymore.

Even then, in the 80s, the E model was showing its age - we spent about 90% of our sorties at 300' AGL, as fast as we could scoot, and the ride was rough down there, on hot humid days. So we beat them up pretty good, basically dedicated to tactical airlift. They found issues with aileron control cables running back to the booster pack, cracks in the wing attach straps, and they never got the blue and orange (maybe yellow?) fire suppressing fuel tank foam figured out.
 
Kelvin said:
He texted me and said: Several things can cause that roll and dive...wing seperation, fin stall, C.F Shift. Suicidal pilot, outboard engine failure or going into reverse...or old aircraft with serious problems...it was gong to the bone yard...
Click to expand...

A tight turn followed by a buzz-job down the runway would cause that too.
 
Morgan3820 said:
I was referring specifically to the C-130. Can you site an example where two engines shut down simultaneously, without intent, on a C-130.
Click to expand...

I can tell you that the Navy has had two engines fail on the same side of a p3 more than once. Same engines as the 130. I personally witnessed one land at Miramar with two out on the left side.
 
Why were there 9 people onboard a plane being flown to the boneyard? You’d think it would just be minimum crew.

I also wonder about the maintenance that was done in Savannah. They said it was routine maintenance but I’d be surprised if they would do much in the way of heavy routine mx on the way to the boneyard. I sort of wonder if they pulled off low time engines and put high time ones on but I would think that could be done at the boneyard.

Lots of questions.
 
Jeff767 said:
I can tell you that the Navy has had two engines fail on the same side of a p3 more than once. Same engines as the 130. I personally witnessed one land at Miramar with two out on the left side.
Click to expand...

I was wrong in my guess.
 
SkyDog58 said:
<snip>I also wonder about the maintenance that was done in Savannah. They said it was routine maintenance but I’d be surprised if they would do much in the way of heavy routine mx on the way to the boneyard. I sort of wonder if they pulled off low time engines and put high time ones on but I would think that could be done at the boneyard.

Lots of questions.
Click to expand...
Col. Pete Boone, vice commander of the Savannah, Georgia-based 165th Airlift Wing, said the plane had been in Savannah for "a number of days" undergoing routine maintenance before heading to the Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group (AMARG) in Arizona.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/03/us/military-plane-crash-savannah-georgia/index.html

One of the unanswered (so far) questions is why routine maintenance on an airplane on its way to the boneyard would take "a number of days".
 
Fearless Tower said:
In military public affairs speak, ‘Routine’ maintenance can apply to a lot of things.
Click to expand...
As a vet (four years active duty USAF), I get that. In light of the accident, though, you'd think that four days after the accident there would be more details about what kind of maintenance was performed.
 
Stan Cooper said:
One of the unanswered (so far) questions is why routine maintenance on an airplane on its way to the boneyard would take "a number of days".
Click to expand...

If the inspection of the reciprocating dinglearm control bearing is due every 2500 hrs and you have reached 2499, it'll have to be inspected before the plane can continue. Doesn't matter whether it is the retirement flight.
 
Stan Cooper said:
Col. Pete Boone, vice commander of the Savannah, Georgia-based 165th Airlift Wing, said the plane had been in Savannah for "a number of days" undergoing routine maintenance before heading to the Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group (AMARG) in Arizona.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/03/us/military-plane-crash-savannah-georgia/index.html

One of the unanswered (so far) questions is why routine maintenance on an airplane on its way to the boneyard would take "a number of days".
Click to expand...

Could’ve been stripping non essential mission equipment off that would be used for the ANG Hercs at Savannah. Removing all that equipment and updating W&B could take days. Could’ve sat on the ramp for a couple of days before they even got to working on it. Who knows.
 
Velocity173 said:
Could’ve been stripping non essential mission equipment off that would be used for the ANG Hercs at Savannah. Removing all that equipment and updating W&B could take days. Could’ve sat on the ramp for a couple of days before they even got to working on it. Who knows.
Click to expand...

Yup, Occam's Razor. What is true with absolute confidence is they would have bolted on the highest time, most mx and inspection laden/overdue engines and props they had on property before leaving PR. They're not gonna take that bird to Arizona with four shiny new T-props to then have to crate back. This is certainly one of the more pennywise pounds foolish economic decisions that are routinely made when it comes to AMARC-bound jets.
 
Stan Cooper said:
As a vet (four years active duty USAF), I get that. In light of the accident, though, you'd think that four days after the accident there would be more details about what kind of maintenance was performed.
Click to expand...

When the Air Force decides to release any additional information, they will do so. You were in the AF, things move slower and careful decisions and statements about the same. "Hurry up and wait", remember that expression, although it doesn't apply in this situation.
 
weilke said:
If the inspection of the reciprocating dinglearm control bearing is due every 2500 hrs and you have reached 2499, it'll have to be inspected before the plane can continue. Doesn't matter whether it is the retirement flight.
Click to expand...
Most inspections you can overfly by 10%, if I remember correctly. If they were that close and going to the boneyard, there would have been a waiver anyway.
 
Stan Cooper said:
As a vet (four years active duty USAF), I get that. In light of the accident, though, you'd think that four days after the accident there would be more details about what kind of maintenance was performed.
Click to expand...

4 days after the mishap, I’m certain there’s a lot more details. They’re just none of our business until the mishap board completes its investigation and the Air Force decides to release them to us.
 
mscard88 said:
When the Air Force decides to release any additional information, they will do so. You were in the AF, things move slower and careful decisions and statements about the same. "Hurry up and wait", remember that expression, although it doesn't apply in this situation.
Click to expand...
Yep. You forgot the word "optics" in the statement.
 
The SIB is also privileged. meaning the public will never see it. the AIB is not, and will be a matter of public record and access. the latter is also editorial in nature and can be used for the purpose of bringing charges and/or legal proceedings.

as a mil aviator, I gather the most value out of the SIB. the AIB for me is too political/editorial/legally hazardous to gather relavant lessons on flight safety improvement, but usually satisfies the voyeurism of the public.
 
hindsight2020 said:
The SIB is also privileged. meaning the public will never see it. the AIB is not, and will be a matter of public record and access. the latter is also editorial in nature and can be used for the purpose of bringing charges and/or legal proceedings.

as a mil aviator, I gather the most value out of the SIB. the AIB for me is too political/editorial/legally hazardous to gather relavant lessons on flight safety improvement, but usually satisfies the voyeurism of the public.
Click to expand...
I assume you can FOIA as SIB?
 
Fearless Tower said:
I assume you can FOIA as SIB?
Click to expand...
i would assume so. i would also assume it would come out so redacted to be worth less than the aib. no way they release pilot interview (when applicable) which are routinely part of the sib and hardly ever part of the aib (upon counsels advice, and with good reason).
 
dell30rb said:
Just curious, did the AIB ever come out for this crash? The one that broke up in flight about a year ago. I havent seen anything in the news regarding a cause, however I heard they figured it out pretty quickly.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/07/10/us/mississippi-plane-crash/index.html
Click to expand...

The Aviation Mishap Board (safety-side) has completed their investigation and released the SIR (the privileged report that won’t get released to the public), we received it about a month or so ago. I have not heard if the JAGMAN investigation is complete or not.
 
hindsight2020 said:
i would assume so. i would also assume it would come out so redacted to be worth less than the aib. no way they release pilot interview (when applicable) which are routinely part of the sib and hardly ever part of the aib (upon counsels advice, and with good reason).
Click to expand...
I have never dealt with AF stuff, but seems like the Navy is pretty good about releasing everything through a FOIA request (usually with names redacted).
 
Some information can be released with stipulations.

4.1. General. If an accident involves only military aircraft and a duty of the Secretary (DOT) is or may be involved, the military authorities shall provide for the participation of the Secretary. In any other acci- dents involving only military aircraft, the military authorities shall give the Board (NTSB) or Secretary (DOT) information the military authorities decide would contribute to the promotion of air safety.

4.1.1. Service directives restrict the release of findings or recommendations. An investigative board’s conclusion attributing cause to another agency or recommendation of corrective action by another agency may be released only by the service headquarters.

4.1.2. A military mishap safety investigation report may not be disseminated. Nonprivileged portions may be extracted and released according to respective service policy.

4.1.3. Other investigations may be releasable to other agencies and the public when so authorized by the military service.

4.1.4. A service safety center will transmit to the FAA, the NTSB or others as necessary, a report of a hazard requiring immediate action by a component of civil aviation.

4.1.5. Information of interest to the NTSB and FAA. Each military safety center evaluates informa- tion gathered from various reports it receives and provides the NTSB and the FAA that information it considers useful in promoting aviation safety. Information such as:

4.1.5.1. Data derived on the basis of comparable models, components or systems in civil aviation, or experience in similar operations.

4.1.5.2. Information may be drawn from one occurrence or generalized from multiple events.
 
hindsight2020 said:
4.1.2 listed above would make a foia request targeting a usaf SIB effectively useless.
Click to expand...

And for good reason, as you know.

The SIB provides certain protections and confidentiality to promote open and honest comments from those involved in the mishap, so a true and factual understanding of the mishap can be developed.
 
I'm a long time subscriber to Aviation Week & Space Technology, and often there are details of similar incidents or accidents online at http://aviationweek.com/ within a couple of days of the accident or incident. So far, nada.
 
working here
 
3d77c440a08dad8a540d36c9c75d6db2.jpg


Hmmm
Seems to be a Tapatalk issue. It works if I open in Safari.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top