Reports of a large air tanker crash in NSW

https://youtu.be/zGhzpx5Zxw8

I could agree with his thoughts - dump down wind, windshear and sinking into rising ground. He is critical of the controllers which may or may not turn out to be valid but as he talks about, it is ultimately the decision of the aircraft captain and the primary drop had been cancelled due to poor conditions so the Captain was up to making decisions to cancel - so i would assume that in the aircraft crew were happy with the drop.

He also raises an issue that I also noticed - there does not seem to be a 'bird dog' aircraft leading the way - maybe as it was a secondary target one was not needed.

Again, all speculation until something from investigators is leaked.

Garry

Thanks John. It doesn't get any clearer does it?[bigsad]

The windshear was basically what I have alluded to in previous posts. The author correctly describes the windshear escape manoeuvre (as flown in a jet).

We don't know (from the footage) whether the aircraft flew into the smoke column, or behind it. If it did fly into the smoke there is another possibility of one or more engine flameouts or other malfunctions due lack of oxygen. CASA Airworthiness bulletin explains:

https://www.casa.gov.au/file/79356/d...token=nn90sTPX

John R.

A normal climb out would be straight ahead but the aircraft did a mild bank left - most likely to avoid smoke ahead and as it went behind some smoke - my assumption would be that the mild bank left was to pass between plumes of smoke.

Again speculation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4bee

Yes will locate it later on OF, I've just come inside from being out most of the day..

Fwiw, it was a discussion on the Caulson Website. Will find the link later if you don't find it before me.



Edit. Still haven't found the link but I will keep trying even if it kills me. [bigsad] No Flowers by Request please if it comes to that.[happycry]

It was a Chat between blokes with names like Chuck, Al, Squirrel, [smilebigeye] etc who seemed very familiar with C130 Tanker operations & the impression I was left with was some other brands of A/C had them fitted & some didn't & this was generally thought to be a negative as the C130 didn't.

It may have been deleted by now for whatever reason but Search can't find it nor History on my computer & I have exhausted nearly all the links that sound familiar.

Maybe it was a link following a link following a link etc, but it deffo started with the Coulson Website.?

Alternatively, do you have a link that confirms that it does have such a system, OF?



COULSON AVIATION




.

---

Here is some fact sheets from Coulson:

https://web.archive.org/web/20150415073023/http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed/data/aero/documents/global-sustainment/product-support/2013-hoc-presentations/2013-HOC-Tuesday/Tues%201145%20Coulson%20Aviation.pdf

And the full specs from Lockheed Martin: (H model)

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/aero/documents/sustainment/csc/service-news/sn-mag-v11-v20/V16N1.pdf

Is this what I am supposed to be looking at? ADS-XL Flow Checks– Flows at 1,600


USG
– Emergency
Dump in 2.1
Seconds
– Coverage Level
Selections from
1-8

[/QUOTE] This is the specified criteria & I was looking for the discussion on the System & it's possible shortcomings they described..

Thanks anyway & I enjoyed the the whole two reads in those Links.. Certainly wouldn't like to have to build one.[smilebigeye]

Yes - as I alluded to earlier; level flight into slowly rising terrain.

But if they actually did enter the smoke, not go behind it, they may have lost appreciation of the terrain, and loss of height due to windshear or a drop in power due to the smoke. At that height there is little safety margin.

Another question - was that a retardant drop - or an emergency dump? It looked to me to be upwind from the fire, with the fire presumably travelling downwind.

But I take his point about trying to work in those conditions, and the pressure to do it. There have been numerous occasions during this fire season when aerial support has not been available due to conditions, but it is easy to see the pressure they work under. And this drop was, if I remember correctly, intended to try and protect a specific target, an animal sanctuary.

That AWB raises another point I had not considered. If the aircraft entered the hot air from the fire, while you would expect this to be rising, it not only makes loss of power likely as the bulletin points out because of lower air density, but this lower air density also means a loss of lift, resulting in descent or even just failure to climb as expected. Combine this with rising terrain and low altitude, even without loss of vision due to the smoke, and a collision with terrain is all too likely.

I think you just answered your own question, JD regarding the last application of retardant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDNSW

That AWB raises another point I had not considered. If the aircraft entered the hot air from the fire, while you would expect this to be rising, it not only makes loss of power likely as the bulletin points out because of lower air density, but this lower air density also means a loss of lift, resulting in descent or even just failure to climb as expected. Combine this with rising terrain and low altitude, even without loss of vision due to the smoke, and a collision with terrain is all too likely.

---

which is why they should not be used for this purpose