ulmont posted:

https://twitter.com/IAFF574/status/991707731143872512
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/military-c-130-plane-crashes-near-airport-savannah-georgia-n870786

Sagebrush posted:

If you're puking that color you should probably examine your diet

Prop Wash posted:

Puerto Rico ANG, WC-130H. 5 souls on board. Not sure if they’ve confirmed 5 dead yet, but I can’t imagine walking away from that.

Mortabis posted:

I heard 2 confirmed dead. If 3 survived that's a goddamn miracle.

PT6A posted:

What the gently caress was that? Low altitude stall and spin? I couldn't really tell from the surveillance footage.

Finger Prince posted:

Needs more vacuum tubes.

ausgezeichnet posted:

Really - it looked like a classic stall/spin. How is that possible in an aircraft of that sophistication? Pulling two on the same side? It was supposed to be a training flight.

ausgezeichnet posted:

Really - it looked like a classic stall/spin. How is that possible in an aircraft of that sophistication? Pulling two on the same side? It was supposed to be a training flight.

Lime Tonics posted:

Man buys helicopter, tries to learn to fly in his own yard, crashes. Read page 1, then skip to page 7.

https://www.ar15.com/forums/General/His-property-his-rules/5-2101215/?page=1

hobbesmaster posted:

Page 6
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MJsn2sONCU

quote:

"If I had a helicopter I wouldn't choose to fly it into a tree but that's his property and I respect his right to do that."

slidebite posted:

Haha

Nope. Nothing bad can happen here. Now, excuse me while I try to fly a helicopter with no training right out of a loving forest.

MisterOblivious posted:

You've really got to see it from another angle to get an idea of just how large of a slope he's loving around on @0:56 http://www.wbtv.com/story/38094215/crews-responding-to-reported-helicopter-crash-in-iron-station

Prop Wash posted:

An aircraft of that sophistication? If faceplace is telling me the truth that was a 1965 model and on its way to the boneyard (which is plausible given what I know about the PR tails). If that's true, then it was likely empty. Rumor mill says they may have lost an engine, but of course nobody will know anything for sure until the public release.

Tough day for the Herk family. I taught a lot of Puerto Ricans at the schoolhouse, and I'm selfishly hoping that none of my students were aboard.

Spaced God posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oF7FR7TjnME
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Spaced God posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oF7FR7TjnME
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

mlmp08 posted:

It must be an awful feeling to be a pilot on the ground on the taxi-way getting blinded by landing lights with fuckall you can do save maybe yell at ATC about it.

slidebite posted:

OK, I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, but how can 2 pilots not see their touchdown point isn't literally on top of aircraft on a taxiway?

quote:

The crew reported that the approach was flown, by the autopilot, until prior to the final waypoint
on the approach, which was labeled as F101D, at which point the captain disconnected the
autopilot and hand flew the remainder of the approach. The captain requested that the first officer
verify that their runway was clear. ATC voice recordings included the following10:
2355:45 ACA759 Just want to confirm this is air canada seven five nine we see some lights
on the runway there across the runway. Can you confirm we’re cleared to land?
2355:5211 ATCT air canada seven five nine confirmed cleared to land runway two eight
right. There’s no one on runway two eight right but you.
2355:59 United Airlines 1 Where’s this guy going
2356:02 United Airlines 1 He’s on the taxiway
2356:09 ATCT instructed ACA759 to go around
During post incident interviews, the first officer reported that prior to his query to the ATCT if the
runway was clear he was looking more inside the cockpit than out because, as the PM, he was
required to set the missed approach altitude and the anticipated heading for a missed approach.
These tasks required him to look inside at his approach chart to obtain that information. He further
stated that when the captain asked him to query the control tower, he looked outside, and it “didn’t
look right.” Although he was not certain what was incorrect, he was unable to process what he was
seeing. He subsequently commanded the go around to the captain by saying “go around go
around.” According to the captain, that was simultaneous to him beginning the go around. During
the initiation of the go around, the ATCT controller also issued go around instructions.
During the downwind leg for the second approach, the first officer asked the captain if they should
“tune in the ILS12” to which the captain agreed.

1.1 Previous Arrival – Crew Statement13
The flight preceding the incident flight landed on runway 28R about 4 minutes prior to the
incident. The flight crew of the preceding flight reported that the “construction lights were so
bright we could not determine the location of the inboard runway, 28L.” Visually acquiring the
runway, both crewmembers reported questioning if they were lined up for runway 28R; however,
after crosschecking with the LNAV14 they were able to determine they were lined-up for runway
28R. They received additional confirmation about 300 feet above ground level (agl) when the
captain visually acquired the painted “28R” on the paved surface of the runway. The captain of
that flight further reported that the aircraft on taxiway C were stopped and had their taxi lights
off, which “helped to create this misconception that taxiway C was RWY 28R.”

quote:

On Friday, July 7, he fell asleep between 0200 and 0300 and awoke about 0745 by his children.
About 1120, crew scheduling called to notify him that he had been assigned a flight. He did not
take any naps that day and reported to the airport by 1940 for the flight. The incident flight departed
at 2125 EDT and this was the incident flight. Prior to the incident flight he considered himself
rested. He started feeling fatigued about midpoint on the incident flight, about the time they
encountered the area of thunderstorm activity.

quote:

On Friday, July 7, the flight to Toronto arrived about 0030 and he went to bed about 0300. He
awoke about 0900. The rest of the day, he “took it easy.” His wife and kids were out so he was
able to sleep in. He had lunch around noon and took a 90-minute nap about 1300. He woke up
from the nap, spent time with his kids, had dinner and went back to work arriving at 1910 for a
1940 report time. He departed on the incident flight to SFO that evening. He stated that both he
and the captain began to feel tired about 0200-0300 EDT on Saturday, July 8.

Sagebrush posted:

No -- the lowest altitude would have been shortly after they pulled up. Takes a second to stop the descent before it begins to climb. When they hit 81 feet they were probably more like 10-15 degrees nose-up, depending on how terrified the pilots were.

It's a reasonable angle for the descent though iirc (I set it to 3 degrees)

However, if I do set it to 10 degrees nose-up, the image becomes even more terrifying, because the static port (from where the altitude is measured, though I dunno if 737s have radar altimeters or whatever) is located just below the cockpit. Putting that at 81 feet with 10 degree alpha...

Wombot posted:

I know there were arguments, with merit I think, about the taxiway lights being easily mistaken for runway, but if they saw lights that could be distinguished as traffic and still proceeded... ++

Sagebrush posted:

If the FAA can use commercial flight simulators to reenact accidents, so can I! I made the same approach in X-Plane, which is known to have accurate and high-quality night lighting. I also photoshopped out 28L to simulate the appearance of the airport that night, more or less -- the runway was under construction, so its lights were off. There was apparently also a large illuminated X on the runway but I don't know what that looked like so I ignored it.

Anyway, yes the taxiway is parallel and everything, but it's still pretty unfathomable that they confused it with 28R:

hobbesmaster posted:

Did you set the runway lighting levels correctly based on the NOTAMs active at the time?

Sagebrush posted:

I just turned off the lights on 28L, which is what the NOTAM said had been done. Didn't mess with the brightness of the others. Do pilots flying into a place like SFO regularly request that the brightness be changed? Is it possible that a previous flight had asked to dim the lighting on 28R, so there was less of a distinction?

In any case, one dim blue line vs a huge bright yellow line should be a pretty obvious distinction, and if they were confused because they were expecting to see two runways -- well, read the NOTAMs, that's what they're for.

Dannywilson posted:

I'm incredibly sorry for the loss of life in today's WC-130 crash, but I can't say I didn't expect it to happen eventually.

As someone who has personally laid hands and tools on a Puerto Rico ANG C-130, you could not pay me enough to get on one as PAX. Like literally I would pay whatever I needed to, and eat whatever administrative action/punishment I had to not to fly on one of their birds. About 10 years ago, I was in Europe doing an OEF/OIF support trip, and PRANG were the rotation relieving us. Their birds came in, and myself and another couple guys were tasked with putting their birds to bed for the evening, along with fixing anything fixable in the time left on our shift, while the rest of our unit threw the PRANG guys a welcome party. We opened the forms on one of their birds and there were discrepancies in the forms that were 18 months old. Of particular note was an autopilot discrepancy from many months previous that, by it's nature, would have rendered the autopilot system completely inoperable. We then verified the discrepancy and fixed the problem via a parts change. We came to realize later that this meant that they had manually flown the plane, hands on yoke, all the way from PR to central Europe. It's not a straight shot in a non-air refuel/non Benson tank equipped 130 either, I believe their route was PR->somewhere Eastern Seaboard (probably Norfolk)->St Johns->Shannon/Lakenheath/Mildenhall->our location. We later asked about this with some of the PR maintainers and got answers of "Yes, we didn't have autopilot". When we were later loading defensive flares, half the dispensers were installed upside down, which from experience, takes some real creative stretching of wire bundles. Those are only two of the things that rapidly come to mind, but they speak of a maintenance culture that is entirely foreign to me, and I wasn't even working on the propulsion/nitty-gritty airframe stuff at the time but I'm sure some of the crewchiefs that were there with me could tell similar stories.

PT6A posted:

What the gently caress was that? Low altitude stall and spin? I couldn't really tell from the surveillance footage.

Dannywilson posted:

Dannywilson posted:

I'm incredibly sorry for the loss of life in today's WC-130 crash, but I can't say I didn't expect it to happen eventually.

As someone who has personally laid hands and tools on a Puerto Rico ANG C-130, you could not pay me enough to get on one as PAX. Like literally I would pay whatever I needed to, and eat whatever administrative action/punishment I had to not to fly on one of their birds. About 10 years ago, I was in Europe doing an OEF/OIF support trip, and PRANG were the rotation relieving us. Their birds came in, and myself and another couple guys were tasked with putting their birds to bed for the evening, along with fixing anything fixable in the time left on our shift, while the rest of our unit threw the PRANG guys a welcome party. We opened the forms on one of their birds and there were discrepancies in the forms that were 18 months old. Of particular note was an autopilot discrepancy from many months previous that, by it's nature, would have rendered the autopilot system completely inoperable. We then verified the discrepancy and fixed the problem via a parts change. We came to realize later that this meant that they had manually flown the plane, hands on yoke, all the way from PR to central Europe. It's not a straight shot in a non-air refuel/non Benson tank equipped 130 either, I believe their route was PR->somewhere Eastern Seaboard (probably Norfolk)->St Johns->Shannon/Lakenheath/Mildenhall->our location. We later asked about this with some of the PR maintainers and got answers of "Yes, we didn't have autopilot". When we were later loading defensive flares, half the dispensers were installed upside down, which from experience, takes some real creative stretching of wire bundles. Those are only two of the things that rapidly come to mind, but they speak of a maintenance culture that is entirely foreign to me, and I wasn't even working on the propulsion/nitty-gritty airframe stuff at the time but I'm sure some of the crewchiefs that were there with me could tell similar stories.

Prop Wash posted:

There's not necessarily anything strange about a C-130 crew electing to continue with an inoperative autopilot. I saw it happen several times during long missions, and while it's a tremendous pain for the pilots, the autopilot system isn't technically required for flight. All it does is slash down the maximum flight duty period (normally 16 hrs / 18 hrs augmented, drops to 12 hrs / 16 hrs augmented without autopilot). I can't speak for their MXG choosing to deploy a bird with that issue, though.

Plastic_Gargoyle posted:

Russian Su-30 crashed in Syria, possible birdstrike

https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/syria/russian-fighter-jet-crashes-off-syrian-coast-both-pilots-killed-1.6052882

Godholio posted:

There are dozens of aircraft in the USAF inventory as old or older than that WC-130. And a lot more built within 10 years of it.

CommieGIR posted:

It really did look like a sudden stall due to center of gravity change. I wonder if they loaded someone on it.