Posted on 05/03/2018 7:32:34 AM PDT by BenLurkin
*television news video only. 30 second ad precedes the report*
(Excerpt) Read more at losangeles.cbslocal.com ...
Interesting... when I first heard reports that it banked hard after take off, I suspected a load-shift rear of center like that video from Afghanistan, where the pilot’s instinct is to turn over so they can move the nose down (which is folly, because you don’t have the altitude to recover, but its still instinct), but this shot does not show nose up. It doesn’t even look like a stall.
Pretty bizarre. Don’t think the pilot was avoiding anything. He just had no control whatever that I could see.
It turned over and basically nosed in.............
Could be the same problem that C-130 had that crashed in MS a while ago.
Looked like load shift to me...prayers for crew and families.
May God rest their souls...
I heard that it was a 60 year old C-130 on it’s way to the boneyard in Arizona when it crashed. Something mechanical give out at the worst possible time?
You can have load shift forward as well as aft (Afghan one looked like load shift aft).
That plane just looked like it was dragged down to the ground.
Just awful.
It stalled out but why?
Loss of lift on that left/ low wing. The right wing still generating lift, the left, not.
flying and analyzing from my office chair ... which is dangerous and notably under-informed.
At the end, it looked liked a ‘classic’ low airspeed/ low altitude/ stall and incipient spin into the ground.
The question(s) is WHY? Loss of power on both left engines??
Dunno.
Didn’t look like any time to react. So sad.
The beginning of the video shows the C-130 in a slight descent which would be very unusual on takeoff. Then a snap roll to the left.
By nosing down the pilot may be attempting to maintain airspeed following engine failure. It could also be power failure on the left side but to induce that type of roll it would have to be both engines.
There is no way a pilot would command that kind of roll rate although the 130 is capable of it. That could have resulted from excessive rudder input or flap failure on the left side. So, it could well be an unfortunate mechanical issue.
I would be surprised if load shifting is an issue as some are speculating on this thread. There probably was a light load or no load since it was going to the boneyard.
In any case I mourn the loss of the 9 aircrew members and I grieve with their families and squadron mates.
Because it was headed to the boneyard, I wonder if the PR ANG unit thought they might be able to baby it there with major maintenance issues the plane may have had. Just guessing.
Whenever I see a cargo plane act like that in the air, it is usually one of three things:
Load Shift
Pilot Error
Mechanical failure
Load shift would look like that...everything is tied down, distributed in such a way to keep the center of gravity at the right place, and when the plane maneuvers, something not tied down breaks loose, sometimes hitting some other tied down load which gives way, creating a deadly chain vicious circle where the more things that give way and shift, the worse the attitude of the plane gets, causing more shift,until everything piles to the front or the back of the cargo area, and you either go in tail first or nose first.
If it were pilot error, that kind of maneuver would be seen in fog or darkness, where a pilot becomes disoriented and fails to trust instruments.
Mechanical error speaks for itself.
Ugh. Makes my stomach tighten to see that.
I would agree, I did not know the details of the plane coming or going, what it was or wasn’t carrying, but in a plane of that age, mechanical failure could absolutely be an issue.
In a cargo plane, I always think load shift first, pilot error second, and mechanical third.
But no load rules out load shift.
It was heading to the boneyard at Davis Monthan. It should have been empty. When we sent planes to the boneyard they were completely empty. No Space A allowed and no extra personnel.
Fake news. Tail number was 65-0968. It was delivered in 1965 or 1966. Going on 53 years old.
There were 9 onboard so about 5 were pax. Probably just catching a hop to Davis Monthan.
Agh. Just awful. To catch a hop and go down...
That would never happen. The aircrew wouldn’t have signed off the dash one with major deficiencies noted. They wanted to live.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.