Scratch one MC-130 (pictorial)

[MikeD]

Pic#1

[MikeD]

Pic#2

[MikeD]

Pic#3

[MikeD]

Pic#3

[MikeD]

Pic#3

A C-23 Sherpa flew into a US operated airfield in Iraq during the day and saw there was construction equipment on the runway. Yet there was no NOTAM. A trench was being dug in the runway, and it was not marked. Its a long runway and the Sherpa crew simply landed beyond the construction. They filed a safety hazard report that was immediately forwarded to our higher headquarters and to the Air Force wing based here. Well, it seems the construction continued and still was not marked or NOTAMed or anything. An MC-130 landed on the runway the night of the 29th and didn't see the construction. It wound up going through what is now a large pit on the runway.

The MC-130 was totaled.

Several injuries to the crew and the few passengers that were on board but nobody was killed. A tree-branch of failures in the system regarding the construction and lack of notification regarding it.

[SteveC]

That's got me puckerin' just looking at it. Can't imagine what runs through your mind as that big hole suddenly appears in front of you....

[kellwolf]

Apparently, the accident investigation class I'm taking has already taken hold. I started trying to figure out what happened to the plane from pic #1. My first thought was "Well, the four corners are right there, so inflight break up or structural failure was right out."

[I_WANNA_BE_ATP]

OUCH!!!!

Who will catch heck for this, the crew or the flight planners?

I know the crew has some responsibility but info needs to be disseminated.

[MikeD]

[ QUOTE ]
OUCH!!!!

Who will catch heck for this, the crew or the flight planners?

I know the crew has some responsibility but info needs to be disseminated.

[/ QUOTE ]

Crew didn't know the ditch was there. They checked the NOTAMs and it wasn't NOTAMd for that airfield. They made a night landing. First time they saw the ditch, it was being illuminated in their landing lights. The previous US Army crew in the C-23 Sherpa (btw, the same unit supported in this year's JC Carepack) reported the no-NOTAMd construction after they landed past it during a day landing earlier. They even filed a safety report on it. It still wasn't NOTAMd when the 130 crew checked the NOTAMs, so there wasn't much they could do.

[I_WANNA_BE_ATP]

Does anyone know how far down the runway this ditch was???

[MikeD]

It's about 1000' down from the approach end. In the overall pic, you can see the alert HASs that lead out to the beginning of the runway,

[dgRoot]

I was recently stationed with these guys in Kuwait. Was anyone hurt?

[Doug Taylor]

Man, that'd suck.

Wife: "Hi honey, how was your day today?"

AC: "Ohh, a little scathing, yours?"

[sky7]

what is the "M" in MC-130?

[Doug Taylor]

Multi-mission? Judging from the nose on the aircraft, it's probably a recon-variant, but it's still a "C" as in C-130.

Hey Mike, would that be a logbook writeup?

[MikeD]

M denotes special operations version.

Prefixes are as such, you've got the obvious F= fighter, B= bomber, C= cargo, H= helicopter, A= attack, U= utility, O= observation

examples: F-15, A-10, H-1, B-52, C-135, U-21, O-2

Then you've got the pre-prefixes. Example K= aerial tanker, H= rescue, R= recon, E= electronic warfare, D= drone controller, Q= drone aircraft, M= special operations, J= permanent test conversion, X/Y= first and second prototype aircraft

examples: KC-135, EC-135, EC-130, DC-130, HH-1, CH-46, HH-46, EA-6B, QF-4, RF-4, HC-130.

So the MC-130 would be a special ops variant of the C-130.

[Doug Taylor]

MikeD, you're WRONG! Tomcatter said that M stood for Mujadeen!

[bullmastiff]

Someones career is shot!!!! [censored] they might have came in Light out. Damn that would suck

[Doug Taylor]

Turns out that I'm flying with a former MC-130 pilot!

That thing in the front is a "Fuller extraction device" or something like that. A special ops guy releases this weird tethered ballon that extends like 50 feet into the air, then the device will snatch the balloon cable, lift the special ops agent into the air and swing him far enough back to the tail section that they can pull him into the aircraft.

Bizarre!

[dgRoot]

[ QUOTE ]
Turns out that I'm flying with a former MC-130 pilot!

That thing in the front is a "Fuller extraction device" or something like that. A special ops guy releases this weird tethered ballon that extends like 50 feet into the air, then the device will snatch the balloon cable, lift the special ops agent into the air and swing him far enough back to the tail section that they can pull him into the aircraft.

Bizarre!

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think they use those any more. They look like a big V on the front of the acft. and also have lines running to the wingtip so the balloon line dosen't get caught in the props.

I guess the acceleration was to much to yank a guy off the ground while flying over...

[Hawker]

I fly on Talon IIs as a Loadmaster. First, the Fulton recovery system is pretty close to as you described it, although it is used only on MC-130E Talon I's. However its use is discontinued not because of 'yank'. The shock felt from this system is less than that of an opening shock of a parachute. It was discontinued because people would become so disoriented after recovery that they would actually stumble off of the ramp after getting into the plane. This crew is not to blame for the crash though, sure the situation probably could have been prevented by the crew alone. But dont forget Talon II's fly Low Level on NVGs. They we not circling the runway looking for holes, and even if so it would still be hard to identify on NVGs. The problem should have been notified in the NOTAMs.

[MikeD]

[ QUOTE ]
I fly on Talon IIs as a Loadmaster. First, the Fulton recovery system is pretty close to as you described it, although it is used only on MC-130E Talon I's. However its use is discontinued not because of 'yank'. The shock felt from this system is less than that of an opening shock of a parachute. It was discontinued because people would become so disoriented after recovery that they would actually stumble off of the ramp after getting into the plane. This crew is not to blame for the crash though, sure the situation probably could have been prevented by the crew alone. But dont forget Talon II's fly Low Level on NVGs. They we not circling the runway looking for holes, and even if so it would still be hard to identify on NVGs. The problem should have been notified in the NOTAMs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good info! Question: Is the J-model forecast to be integrated into the MC mission anytime down the road, either Talon or Shadow...or for that matter Spectre?

[Doug Taylor]

Oh lord. Don't get MikeD started on the "Spectre"!

[Hawker]

The Talon III's are actually in the makings from rumors around here. I believe the J's are going to be used for them. However the crew would be quite diffrent and there would be drastic structure changes. AFSOC would still require an engineer which of course the current J's dont have and Talons fly with an EWO as well, i dont think they would want to get rid of him/her either. The J would also need the upgraded countermeasures and TF/TA system plus talons are getting upgraded with the refueling pods for the cv-22 so i imagine they would want to throw that in as well, so the proposed idea of J's into AFSOC might take a while just due to budgeting but i think it will get there.

[PorcoRosso]

Don't forget the "W" prefix
Like in the WC-130. W prefix for weather.


I have also noticed that after I started flying, how much I look into every accident I can see. I just feel the urge to know the specifics about every accident that is on the news or on the web. Also, I always want to look for pictures/video/audio of the accidents; I don't know why, I just do.