RFS air tanker feared crashed in NSW

[onetrack]

M61A1 - I was under the impression that somatogravic illusion only becomes present under conditions of high acceleration/high deceleration?

 

I don't see that happening clearly in the video, although it's certain they would've shoved the throttles forward to commence a climb after the retardant drop.

 

I don't see enough damage on that single prop blade shown, that would indicate it was running at full, or near-full throttle.

 

One would expect a prop blade to be bent severely along its length, if it was producing full power. However the angle of the photo may not show the full extent of any bending.

 

The aircraft collided with moderately-rising terrain, and obviously whilst descending. The commencement of the left turn and bank seems to indicate that they were planning to head out down the valley, to the right of the impact site.

 

There's an initial pitch-up, right after the retardant drop, then the aircraft appears to level out again. The aircraft does not appear to be gaining height through the partially-smoke-obscured view, as one would expect.

 

Maybe there was a wind shear event that effectively stalled the aircraft. They appeared to be still slow on airspeed, in the last view of the aircraft.

 

I think Facthunter is onto it, the wave effect appears to be strong - you can always expect increased windspeeds on the lee side of hills in strong winds, and it appears they were turning to a tailwind position, which seems all wrong to me, for low altitude and low airspeed.

 

Watch the smoke in the valley at the 55 sec to 1:00 minute mark in the video - it's travelling downhill, not rising or travelling horizontally, as you'd expect.

 

 

[Student Pilot]

If you listen to the video you can hear the engines powering up.

 

 

[facthunter]

 You would have to allow for the lag due distance same as with lightning/ thunder with the power add noises. the Allisons don't change revs,  just prop pitch. These illusions  always exist but are far more marked with high power to weight planes that accelerate quickly and also go to 18 plus degrees  pitch angle for the climb out.. Procedure is to go on instruments during the rotation or when you power up for go around. I don't imagine these operations go IMC that often, deliberately.. and they would avoid flying in smoke. when that close to the ground. Nev. 

 

 

[propfarmer]

Did anyone see the footage on ch7 shortly after the accident showing the starboard wing breaking off? I haven’t been able to find it online but the terrain looks similar to the video posted here. Wondering whether it was old footage or not?

[BackcountryAeropup]

Seen the latest blancolirio report today and the photo's at the end makes it look like flown into the ground at speed. What a mess it made me feel for them even more.

[SplitS]

Did anyone see the footage on ch7 shortly after the accident showing the starboard wing breaking off? I haven’t been able to find it online but the terrain looks similar to the video posted here. Wondering whether it was old footage or not?

That was this crash in the states years ago

[propfarmer]

No that looks to be different footage to what I saw. Similar result with starboard wing off first then port wing off followed by crash. The camera angle was looking down towards where the accident happened. Possibly taken from a nearby ridge.

[onetrack]

There's only ever been one C-130 captured on video, losing both wings whilst firefighting. You may have seen a fabricated video of the event, plenty of video experts like to make them up.

 

This crash of a C-130 in Georgia in May 2018 is quite interesting. Essentially, they had a No.1 engine power rollback on takeoff, and the aircraft was then mishandled by the PIC, whilst trying to return to the airbase.

The PIC applied excessive rudder whilst carrying out a turn on three engines, the airspeed fell below 3 engine minimum airspeed, the port wing stalled, and this resulted in "departure from controlled flight".

The final report is very comprehensive and makes interesting reading, particularly the engine operation of the C-130 - and how little it takes to stall the C-130 with one engine out, coupled with low airspeed.

 

There's CCTV footage of the aircraft going down in this news report - Military cargo plane was on its FINAL FLIGHT after 60 YEARS of service

 

https://media.defense.gov/2018/Nov/09/2002061699/-1/-1/0/180502-AMC-MU%C3%91IZ%20AIR%20NATIONAL%20GUARD%20BASE,%20PUERTO%20RICO-WC-C130H-AIB-NARRATIVE%20REPORT.PDF%20

Edited January 31, 2020 by onetrack

[Student Pilot]

You would have to allow for the lag due distance same as with lightning/ thunder with the power add noises. the Allisons don't change revs, just prop pitch. These illusions always exist but are far more marked with high power to weight planes that accelerate quickly and also go to 18 plus degrees pitch angle for the climb out.. Procedure is to go on instruments during the rotation or when you power up for go around. I don't imagine these operations go IMC that often, deliberately.. and they would avoid flying in smoke. when that close to the ground. Nev.

The engine tone deepened and an increase in volume can be heard. The Herc drops I have seen (LATs have been used a lot more this year), their climb angle wouldn't be 10 degrees let alone 18 after dropping.

Yes they avoid flight into smoke. The lead aircraft normally fly's the drop then when clearing the LAT for the drop explains what they want with the drop including exit and departure from the fire after the drop.

[Thruster88]

ATSB preliminary report

 

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2020/aair/ao-2020-007/

[Student Pilot]

There was no lead aircraft, they considered conditions too rough and didn't take off.

[Guest Machtuk]

It's difficult to understand why such a trained crew would put themselves in a such a high risk situation? RIP?

[onetrack]

Many Americans are known for their gung-ho approach to risky operations. In many cases, it can be viewed as simply outstanding bravery, in other cases, it can be viewed as downright foolhardiness. It's simply calculated risk.

 

How many VC winners would have been regarded as complete fools for the risks they took? Pte. Tom Starcevich took on two Jap machine gun posts by standing up and walking straight towards them, firing a Bren Gun from his hip!

He wiped out both MG posts, one after the other, using the same technique. He got a VC for his efforts. But a lot of blokes reckoned Tom was already a bit of a mad b*****d, anyway.

 

In WW1, the green, newly-arrived Doughboys on the French front, were placed with Australian Diggers, to learn infantry tactics and strategies - against the wishes of the American General Pershing.

Pershing wanted the American troops to go straight into battle with the Germans, with no combat experience.

 

When the Doughboys were placed with the Aussie Diggers (who already had 3 years of combat experience against the Germans, and who had perfected the tactics and strategies to ensure battle wins with minimal casualties), the gung-ho Doughboys would jump up out of the trenches, wanting to engage with any Germans they could find, on the spot.

The Diggers had to grab and haul the Doughboys back in to the trenches, and explain to them, that caution was the order of the day, and being gung-ho in the circumstances they were in, got you killed very quickly.

 

The Doughboys, to their credit were fast learners, and were soon operating on their own. But the infantry tactics and strategies devised by the Diggers still stand today, as SOP for all armies.

Just don't try to tell the Yanks, that the Aussies taught them infantry tactics, from Day One.

[Downunder]

[facthunter]

Been impressed with that guy every time I've seen him. Nev

[Flying Binghi]

...Just don't try to tell the Yanks, that the Aussies taught them infantry tactics, from Day One.

 

Yep!

 

And Monash taught Patton how to use a tank.....?

 

 

 

 

.

[Flying Binghi]

Had a look-see at the prelim report: Investigation: AO-2020-007 - Collision with terrain involving Lockheed EC130Q, N134CG, 50 km north-east of Cooma-Snowy Mountains Airport (near Peak View), NSW, on 23 January 2020

 

If the arrow indicating the drop target is correct then the photo shows a pink ‘stain’ out in the paddock to the left of the drop run. An indication of wind velocity/direction ?

 

Looking at what I take to be the left turning line of flight from the drop point to the crash site looks to me to be tracking roughly parallel to, and just behind, the curving ridge line. I say behind the ridge line reference the prevailing winds that the ‘pink’ indicates.

 

 

 

 

.

[Old Koreelah]

...In WW1, the green, newly-arrived Doughboys on the French front, were placed with Australian Diggers, to learn infantry tactics and strategies - against the wishes of the American General Pershing...

Some of those fresh American troops joined in the great Aussie push meticulously planned by Monash; one of the greatest Australian feats of arms.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hamel

[bull]

[Flying Binghi]

Been looping the crash vid again.

 

Prelim report lists Cooma 11 minutes prior to prang with a mean wind of 320˚, 30kts, gusting 48kt. Aircraft apparently pranged in a turn heading about 100˚ at time of impact.

 

In the video there is a dirt track shown about 13 seconds into the vid. Looking at google earth I’d ballpark the direction as heading about 280˚ away from the camera. At about 13 seconds there is a bit of dust blown almost directly down the road towards the camera.

 

Looking at the tail end of the water drop I note the nearest smoke looks to be heading northwards relative to the back ground terrain. The cameraman ‘angle’ would get a northwards feel even if the smoke were blowing 280, though my feeling is by looking at the smoke travel speed the direction is 240 or less.

 

If the average mean were 320, though the local were 280 or so, then I’d imagine there would have been a lot of local terrain influence causing wind shear ‘rolls’ and and narrow dramatic wind ‘flume’ accelerations. I’d suggest the little hill the C130 hit, apart from all the other terrain influences, would likely have created its own wind ‘flume’ acceleration just upwind of it.

 

Something else the prelim noted were the C130 could tank 15,000 litres, though dropped 4,500...?

 

Going off the one video I’ve seen so far I get no indication that the C130 simply turned left into raising terrain - the little hill it hit.

 

The prelim mentions “witness videos” and “numerous witness reports”, so more to come I guess...

 

 

 

 

.

Edited March 20, 2020 by Flying Binghi

[Garfly]

 

 

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2020/aair/ao-2020-007/

 

 

 

[Flying Binghi]

On 27/09/2020 at 11:47 PM, Garfly said:

 

 

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2020/aair/ao-2020-007/

 

 

 

 

With such a precise track available I would love to fly it to get a feel of the terrain (on a calmer day)

 

When the idiotic china virus restrictions are over it will be a trip to do.

 

 

 

 

.

[onetrack]

Well, the final report is out. The determination is that a vicious windshear caught the crew out when they were in a vulnerable position close to the ground, and flying close to stall speed, and with a tailwind.

No mechanical failure of any component such as a wing spar has been discovered, and no power rollback has been discovered in the investigation. The aircraft dropped the port wing steeply and rapidly as it entered a stall close to terrain, and there was inadequate altitude to recover.

It's unfortunate that a CVR was fitted, but wasn't operating, and this may have assisted the investigation a little more, if it had been operational. No FDR was fitted to the aircraft, and none was required.

 

It's a sad event, but this crash simply shows up the fact that low-level retardant dropping over fire zones, involving mountainous terrain, strong and gusty winds, ahead of a cold front, worsened by fire activity, is an extremely dangerous operation - and these aircrews really are putting their lives on the line regularly, exactly the same as the blokes on the ground.

 

The ATSB has made two recommendations that involve Coulson advancing their flight safety management to widen the support available to aircrews, so there's less load on them trying to make "on-the-spot" decisions as to whether the mission is safe to continue. Note that nearly all of the other aerial operators on this day in question aborted their missions due to "terrible (wind gusts and visibility) conditions".

The second recommendation is that Coulson fit windshear detection systems to their C-130's to assist aircrew to manage their aircraft handling.

 

Whether this will happen remains to be seen (cost VS benefit), and whether the fitment of windshear detection equipment to the C-130's is of major advantage when flying fire missions at extremely low altitude in extreme weather, in mountainous terrain conditions, and in mountain wave/rotor conditions, along with poor visibility, will probably be debated ad infinitum.

The records show that windshear detection systems have saved quite a number of commercial flights from disaster, that were operating in adverse weather conditions at commercial airports.

 

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2020/aair/ao-2020-007/

[Yenn]

Why the comment about tail wind. That would only have had any bearing on the crash if the pilot had been flying in relation to the ground and with no regard to airspeed. I would not expect a pilot of the quality required for that sort of job to be unaware of the need to disregard the false impression of speed when flying with the wind.

[onetrack]

Because a windshear/gust event with a tailwind has to have a more severe effect on the aircrafts flying ability, than a windshear/gust event with a headwind?