USAF Report Indicates Microburst A Factor In C-130 Firefighting Accident | Aero-News Network
Aero-News Network
RSS icon RSS feed
podcast icon MP3 podcast
Subscribe Aero-News e-mail Newsletter Subscribe

Airborne Unlimited -- Most Recent Daily Episodes

Episode Date

Airborne-Monday

Airborne-Tuesday

Airborne-Wednesday Airborne-Thursday

Airborne-Friday

Airborne On YouTube

Airborne-Unlimited-04.22.24

Airborne-Unlimited-04.16.24

Airborne-FlightTraining-04.17.24 Airborne-AffordableFlyers-04.18.24

Airborne-Unlimited-04.19.24

Join Us At 0900ET, Friday, 4/10, for the LIVE Morning Brief.
Watch It LIVE at
www.airborne-live.net

Fri, Nov 16, 2012

USAF Report Indicates Microburst A Factor In C-130 Firefighting Accident

Crew Misjudged Wind Conditions While Flying In The South Dakota Black Hills

The crew of a MAFFS C-130 engaged in a firefight mission misjudged wind conditions and flew into the area of a microburst, which caused the airplane to impact the ground. That is the assessment of an Air Force accident panel investigating the crash.

The accident occurred July 1. In releasing an executive summary of the full report from the Air Force Mobility Command, Brig. Gen. Randall Guthrie said that the pilots' actions allowed two crewmembers in the back of the plane to survive the accident.

Stars and Stripes reports that the investigation found that that the C-130 Hercules tanker flew into a microburst just a few minutes after the pilot narrowly avoided an accident from another downdraft. Guthrie said that the crew had "struggled" to regain airspeed after their first drop of fire retardant, and the airplane encountered the microburst on the second run. He said that the prop from the number 4 engine struck the door near the back of the aircraft, and gave the loadmasters there an opportunity to escape. The four crewmen in the cockpit were killed instantly, Guthrie said.

The General said that the crew should have aborted the second run given the weather conditions, but added that they were not solely to blame for the accident. He said that a smaller lead plane did not adequately communicate the conditions to the MAFFS crew, but that considering that airplane had "barely escaped" impacting the ground, the lack of communications was "understandable." He also said that there was no ground control that could have provided a warning about weather conditions.

The full report has not been released. A safety investigation board will determine if any safety recommendations need to be made.

(USAF Image)

FMI: www.af.mil

Advertisement

More News

ANN's Daily Aero-Term (04.26.24): DETRESFA (Distress Phrase)

DETRESFA (Distress Phrase) The code word used to designate an emergency phase wherein there is reasonable certainty that an aircraft and its occupants are threatened by grave and i>[...]

ANN's Daily Aero-Linx (04.26.24)

Aero Linx: The International Association of Missionary Aviation (IAMA) The International Association of Missionary Aviation (IAMA) is comprised of Mission organizations, flight sch>[...]

Airborne 04.22.24: Rotor X Worsens, Airport Fees 4 FNB?, USMC Drone Pilot

Also: EP Systems' Battery, Boeing SAF, Repeat TBM 960 Order, Japan Coast Guard H225 Buy Despite nearly 100 complaints totaling millions of dollars of potential fraud, combined with>[...]

Airborne 04.24.24: INTEGRAL E, Elixir USA, M700 RVSM

Also: Viasat-uAvionix, UL94 Fuel Investigation, AF Materiel Command, NTSB Safety Alert Norges Luftsportforbund chose Aura Aero's little 2-seater in electric trim for their next gli>[...]

Airborne-NextGen 04.23.24: UAVOS UVH 170, magni650 Engine, World eVTOL Directory

Also: Moya Delivery Drone, USMC Drone Pilot, Inversion RAY Reentry Vehicle, RapidFlight UAVOS has recently achieved a significant milestone in public safety and emergency services >[...]

blog comments powered by Disqus



Advertisement

Advertisement

Podcasts

Advertisement

© 2007 - 2024 Web Development & Design by Pauli Systems, LC