1/13/2005: C-130 crash in Iraq

Ow. Gruntdoc sends his entry containing these shots and a few more. His page includes some narrative:

"A lack of communication"
Last week one C-23 Sherpas 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 (notice to airmen). A trench was being dug in the runway, and it was not marked. It's a long runway and they just 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. A C-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. A few pictures are attached. The C-130 was totalled.

There were several injuries to the crew and the few passengers that were on board but luckily nobody was killed. Quite the set of failures somewhere in the system regarding this improper construction and no notifications about it.

Well there's an expensive little miscommunication....at least no one was killed.

Darn,

Now there's one less C-130 TW can insist needs to be in India rather than in Iraq.

Agreed garnet, at least no one was killed...but I certainly wouldn't want to be the one who let that little part of my job duties slip!

my guess, is that was the end of at least 10 careers.

garnet wrote:

Well there's an expensive little miscommunication....at least no one was killed.

Injuries can be pretty bad too... (long painful recovery, permanent disability, disfigurment, etc...)

I guess the only point of this cheery note is to warn against classifying an accident as "not that bad" just because nobody was killed.

axlrosen wrote:

Injuries can be pretty bad too... (long painful recovery, permanent disability, disfigurment, etc...)

I guess the only point of this cheery note is to warn against classifying an accident as "not that bad" just because nobody was killed.

Really? Ya think? :rollanim:

Dagney wrote:

Now there's one less C-130 TW can insist needs to be in India rather than in Iraq.

One day, Dagney, you will learn there is more to life that insulting people. For example, the plane was called a C-17. Basic intellgence know a propeller C-130 (from Nam) from a jet C-17.

If you had first read posts you insulted, then you would have none the difference.

Dagney Math: C17 + C17 = C260. No wonder George Jr is a genius.

That isn't just a punky transport model Herky Bird, either...it has the big snout on it, so it is some sort of Elint platform, in all likelihood. Even bigger bucks down the drain.

Duh...I just read some of the blog entries. Looks like I'm no detective.

If I were them, i'd be careful opening the overhead lockers. Things might have moved....

Elspode wrote:

That isn't just a punky transport model Herky Bird, either...it has the big snout on it, so it is some sort of Elint platform, in all likelihood.

Two things bothered me. First was the front end. Second was how short this C-130 appeared. Maybe how the picture was taken distorts perspective.

tw wrote:

One day, Dagney, you will learn there is more to life that insulting people. For example, the plane was called a C-17. Basic intellgence know a propeller C-130 (from Nam) from a jet C-17.

If you had first read posts you insulted, then you would have none the difference.

Dagney Math: C17 + C17 = C260. No wonder George Jr is a genius.

1. Twasn't an insult, merely a statement. If you took it as an insult, well, that's your onus, not mine. Translation - this was a JOKE......geesh. You really are a touchy bird.
2. Never claimed to know jack squat about planes. They fly, that I know, and they crash at times too. Last time I checked, knowledge of what type of planes are what were not part of the 'basic intelligence' you speak about.
3. There are posts where you mention C130s. I'll gladly dig them out if you want. I do recall UT asked you direct questions about them you've yet to answer.
4. Check your own grammar and spelling before you start tossing insults tw...wouldn't want you to look like a fool or anything.
5. Oh, and I'm SO insulted by your cleverly veiled insinuation that I'm an idiot. I must go cry now. GMAFB.

tw wrote:

Two things bothered me. First was the front end. Second was how short this C-130 appeared. Maybe how the picture was taken distorts perspective.

Length: C-130E/H/J: 97 feet, 9 inches (29.3 meters)
C-130J-30: 112 feet, 9 inches (34.69 meters)
Height: 38 feet, 10 inches (11. 9 meters)
Wingspan: 132 feet, 7 inches (39.7 meters)
:)

With this aircraft weighing in at at least 155,000 lbs, around 9,000 gallons of fuel (cap. 9,680 US gal.), I'm amazed it wasn't an inferno.
No casualties? Call it fate, luck, destiny, whatthefuckever, It turned out "good".
Uncle Samuel will recover......trust me.
Need proof? Look closely at you tax documents. Hell, we should all own one of these by now.
I figured they had grounded the C130's by now & were using all C130J's. Oh, well an aircraft expert i'm not, obviously.
About all I ever knew about planes & copters is Thats what they kick your ass out of to fight & then run back & play poker with the Navy guys until you got thru kicking ass, and if you're lucky they may give you a ride to another fight.........You gotta love it! :stickpoke

Well,here is an example why you really need seatbelts.
I bet everybody used them on the plane... wonder if they used them
when they're in a car? :eyebrow:

With this aircraft weighing in at at least 155,000 lbs, around 9,000 gallons of fuel (cap. 9,680 US gal.), I'm amazed it wasn't an inferno.

I think they were landing so they may have had a lot less fuel.
Probably nobody was killed is because it was more like having 4 flat tires and skidding into a ditch than smashing into a tree. :dead:

capnhowdy wrote:

With this aircraft weighing in at at least 155,000 lbs, around 9,000 gallons of fuel (cap. 9,680 US gal.), I'm amazed it wasn't an inferno.

It *did* burn a bit, on one of the flap areas...you have to go to the blog site and look at the pics there to see it.

Wormfood wrote:

Well,here is an example why you really need seatbelts.
I bet everybody used them on the plane... wonder if they used them
when they're in a car? :eyebrow:

:biglaugha

I thought that in one of these babies you just kind of sat on an uncomfortable canvas bench thingy and hung on a cargo net when things got bumpy ...

When i flew up to Iceland in a C141 , we had seat belts , but the rear cargo ramp wouldn't seal up , so i got to freeze my ass OFF ( i was in a Alpha uniform ) and worry that the ramp was going to rip off over the north atlantic sucking me out to plummit to my icey death after i bounced off an iceberg to be consumed by polar bears ( yes it was a LONG and Boring flight )

Man, you'd think someone would have let somebody know something... That thing's spilling goodies like a plastic easter egg.

zippyt wrote:

...and worry that the ramp was going to rip off over the north atlantic sucking me out to plummit to my icey death after i bounced off an iceberg to be consumed by polar bears...

Well it's either that or plummet straight into the sea to be consumed by killer whales instead :D

zippyt wrote:

When i flew up to Iceland in a C141...i got to freeze my ass OFF ...and worry that the ramp was going to rip off over the north atlantic sucking me out to...

...Spend an eternity listening to Bjork remixes. :)

tw wrote:

One day, Dagney, you will learn there is more to life that insulting people. For example, the plane was called a C-17. Basic intellgence know a propeller C-130 (from Nam) from a jet C-17.

If you had first read posts you insulted, then you would have none the difference.

Dagney Math: C17 + C17 = C260. No wonder George Jr is a genius.

Insulting someone, TW? How logical is that? Seems to me to be an emotional response to a perceived slight. A slight that an adult would generally ignore. Only boys insult. Isn't that what you told Lumberjim?

OnyxCougar wrote:

Insulting someone, TW? How logical is that? Seems to me to be an emotional response to a perceived slight. A slight that an adult would generally ignore. Only boys insult. Isn't that what you told Lumberjim?

Still waiting for you to explain your most confusing and illogical post. You can post in coherent sentences rather than attack individual sentences out of context. Right? I thought so. Still waiting for your coherent paragraphs.

TW is right...only proper grammar, spelling and punctuation counts. Concepts shall forthwith be rendered invalid until they expressed in proper format. Whoops! I meant to say, "expressed in *a* proper format".

tw wrote:

Still waiting for you to explain your most confusing and illogical post. You can post in coherent sentences rather than attack individual sentences out of context. Right? I thought so. Still waiting for your coherent paragraphs.

I'm genuinely sorry, TW, I have no idea what you're talking about. What is it that I said that you don't understand?

And second, you didn't respond to the points in the post itself. Nice smoke screen, but I wasn't sidetracked.....

Elspode wrote:

TW is right...only proper grammar, spelling and punctuation counts. Concepts shall forthwith be rendered invalid until they expressed in proper format. Whoops! I meant to say, "expressed in *a* proper format".

You are a very bad man.

Damn...even my scathing sarcastic commentary can't be considered now...I left out a word, making me appear to be illiterate and my ideas unworthy.