KC135 down in Iraq

Sluggo63 said:
Almost no KC-135s can take gas as a receiver.

There’s only 8 KC-135Rs that are receiver capable (there may be less now, but there were 8 when I was flying them). They’re all at McConnell. By the tail flash, this doesn’t look like one of them.
Click to expand...
Interesting - I assumed they all could. We must have one of them them back in my day. We were doing a TRANSLANT from Rhoda Spain home with 4 EA-6B's. We had one KC-135 and off of England another joined and topped off our single one that took us home. Of course our was equipped with the "Iron Maiden" basket but the one that joined us to top it off was probe equipped.
 
Last edited:
orca64 said:
I’ve got about 5000 hours in B-52G/H’s (when dinosaurs still roamed the earth), and I don’t recall any capability to reverse refuel any tanker. If I’m wrong, someone, please, show me the -1 procedure. I’ve got an inquiring mind…
Click to expand...

lmao. 5000 hours in the thing, and you are still that confidently wrong? And since you opted for that uncharitable appeal to authority fallacy snark, I'll reply in kind. And I only needed 1000 hours in the H model to do so:
1773431908642.png

I'm not posting the whole procedure here, this medium isn't FOUO worthy.

ProTip: Do your own homework next time. And KIO on the appeal-to-authority bit, it's not a good look. This may be a recreational centric board but we're all in mixed company here. Very easy to get humbled these days, since most of us have to use these anonymous avatars to engage in social media.
 
I would wager the odds of a problem in a KC-135 that would require the use of parachutes and allow the ability to use parachutes is astronomical. I'm guessing the downed tanker in this accident was missing large pieces of structure and out of control. The crew probably would not have had time or ability to don a parachute and make their exit during what I assume were wild gyrations and vertical descent.
 
Pugs said:
Interesting - I assumed they all could. We must have one of them them back in my day. We were doing a TRANSLANT from Rhoda Spain home with 4 EA-6B's. We had one KC-135 and off of England another joined and topped off our single one that took us home. Of course our was equipped with the "Iron Maiden" basket but the one that joined us to top it off was problem equipped.
Click to expand...
TWZ is reporting today that the surviving 135 that landed at Ben Gurion was indeed the RT (receiver tanker) variant.
 
Ed Haywood said:
But then again a C130 is pretty darn easy to jump out of. I got that T-shirt about 60 times.
Click to expand...

Yeah, for the folks in the back. I never thought it would be possible to bail out from the cockpit. As long as I had control, I would try to land it somewhere. Out of control.... fuggetaboutit.
 
bonefishpete said:
Would the pilots probably be current Airline also being a Guard plane?
Click to expand...
Yes. The plurality of USAF Reserve Component (AFRC and ANG) pilots, whether on full time orders/status or not, tend to be airline pilots.

Please forgive my cynicism; are you trying to imply that the potential happenstance of any of the involved being a civilian airline pilot, as causal or contributory to the collision? Advance apologies if that is not your angle, the question just struck me as random and loaded.

Understand that friction is historically known; there's always been accussations of lack of preparation or competency from the Active Duty onto the Reserve component, even though in the collective the Reserve Component is the repository of high experience, being more senior and top heavy.
 
Gilbert Buettner said:
Yeah, for the folks in the back. I never thought it would be possible to bail out from the cockpit. As long as I had control, I would try to land it somewhere. Out of control.... fuggetaboutit.
Click to expand...

Much like the back seat in my Decathlon.
 
hindsight2020 said:
Yes. The plurality of USAF Reserve Component (AFRC and ANG) pilots, whether on full time orders/status or not, tend to be airline pilots.

Please forgive my cynicism; are you trying to imply that the potential happenstance of any of the involved being a civilian airline pilot, as causal or contributory to the collision? Advance apologies if that is not your angle, the question just struck me as random and loaded.

Understand that friction is historically known; there's always been accussations of lack of preparation or competency from the Active Duty onto the Reserve component, even though in the collective the Reserve Component is the repository of high experience, being more senior and top heavy.
Click to expand...
No quite the opposite. I always believed having current Airline pilots was a huge advantage to fly military planes. Their experience and constant flying gives them the edge especially dealing with weather and different locales. Huge compliment to full time military pilots.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
Gonna guess that a half-dozen parachutes wouldn't really figure in the maintenance costs. Lost in the noise.
Click to expand...
I hear you, but when you add up the amount of chutes per airframe, per platform, service wide, that are required by regs, it's not insignificant. Especially if the equipment is not used between inspections. It IS a burden on those who have to maintain it, when they have other equipment to fix or inspect that does get used. The bean counters / production control dudes notice these things.
 
midwestpa24 said:
I would wager the odds of a problem in a KC-135 that would require the use of parachutes and allow the ability to use parachutes is astronomical. I'm guessing the downed tanker in this accident was missing large pieces of structure and out of control. The crew probably would not have had time or ability to don a parachute and make their exit during what I assume were wild gyrations and vertical descent.
Click to expand...
Totally agree. I was always told if it isn't on your body, you're not getting out of the aircraft with it.
 
AFR and AFG pilots flying are sort of like Army National Guard tube artillery batteries…if you want steel on target or competence with the equipment they have been flying for years or shooting for years they are number one on your list…
 
hindsight2020 said:
lmao. 5000 hours in the thing, and you are still that confidently wrong? And since you opted for that uncharitable appeal to authority fallacy snark, I'll reply in kind. And I only needed 1000 hours in the H model to do so:
View attachment 150765

I'm not posting the whole procedure here, this medium isn't FOUO worthy.

ProTip: Do your own homework next time. And KIO on the appeal-to-authority bit, it's not a good look. This may be a recreational centric board but we're all in mixed company here. Very easy to get humbled these days, since most of us have to use these anonymous avatars to engage in social media.
Click to expand...

Clearly, I was wrong.

I’m fortunate that you were able to set me straight on this.

I’ll sleep better tonight.
 
hindsight2020 said:
Yes. The plurality of USAF Reserve Component (AFRC and ANG) pilots, whether on full time orders/status or not, tend to be airline pilots.

Please forgive my cynicism; are you trying to imply that the potential happenstance of any of the involved being a civilian airline pilot, as causal or contributory to the collision? Advance apologies if that is not your angle, the question just struck me as random and loaded.

Understand that friction is historically known; there's always been accussations of lack of preparation or competency from the Active Duty onto the Reserve component, even though in the collective the Reserve Component is the repository of high experience, being more senior and top heavy.
Click to expand...
Yeah. I mean it’s typically the other way around…

Lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top