US Herk

I\'ve never had a major birdstrike myself - nothing with any significant damage. Have had several in the various units I\'ve been in like when I was in 52d, we had one through the center windscreen on a Red Route @ POB many years ago - SKE scope saved the FE on that one. I think one of only three documented center windscreen penetrations. P,CP,FE covered in blood & glass - think it was a turkey vulture too, so you know it stunk good! When I was at Hurbie, we had one go through the leading edge & into the spar in S. America - got one-time flight home & long repair. At Kirtland a few years back, we had a goose through the metal under the center windscreen - very messy as all the backs of the instruments got covered with that one. One at the 1st - 155K takeoff in the PI took well over 300 counted birdstrikes, lost #1 and #2 decayed to 70% and overtemped, but eventually recovered - needless to say, the crew didn\'t shut it down as they frantically dumped & came back around. I used to say there\'d never been a loss of a 130 due to birds, but I was recently informed of a Belgian 130 that crashed in the Netherlands. Had a flock of birds flush as they were coming in on approach, so they went around & lost power on three engines, rolled, & cartwheeled - almost all aboard died (Dutch band in the back!) - this was at Eindhoven in \'96...

Awesome! Thanks!

You should get that video up on youtube!

Something else to consider - the J was originally delivered w/o externals due to having the same, or increased range as a classic w/o them. This, however, was based on being able to climb to their optimum cruise altitude which is in the upper FL300s. ATC won\'t let them up there because they\'re too slow to mix it up with the airlines. Even the low FL300s are usually unobtainable due to short-range airline & mil-jet traffic. When kept below FL300, they end up burning more fuel & not realizing the speed increases they are capable of. The RAF\'s standard Lyneham-to-Akrotiri run is almost a wash J v K - the J does have the edge, but not by much...

I believe the J has slightly re-designed CWB (I think some H3 have it too) using some of the upgrades of the SOF CWB. Don\'t know what the EBH limit is on the newer ones (SOF is 85K). Here at WR-ALC last week & this helping train them on T2 - saw 0011 in the jig getting ready to pull CWB with new one sitting next to it - apparently was delivered two weeks ago. Good to see first T2 getting a box (1212 doesn\'t count!) EDIT: \'92 & up do have strengthened CWB, but EBH limit is still the same. Current production J-models will be getting SOF-style CWB with increased EBH starting next year... ...this from the CWB bubbas here at WR-ALC today.

Currently at Warner-Bubba helping 339th get MC-H through FCF & providing some MC-H specific training for them. Seen a few birds going through wombat conversion... Also saw 0011 sitting in the CWB jig (moved in yesterday) for first (new production) CWB for T2...

Pre-66 the Tac-Trained Killers were probably flying fingertip vics in trail at 1000\' or so, right? I believe the Pope accident was one of the contributing factors to the move towards in-trail formation we do today. That and strat SAMs like SA2/SA3 with very large warheads, low-level tactics, etc. But the POB accident was the \"nail in the coffin\" that pushed the change if I have my history right...

...there could be another explanation for these prop arc incidents... ...I believe Darwin called it \'natural selection\'... :ohmy:

jetcal1 wrote: You should still hear it, feel it, & smell it...

DC10FE wrote: Yes - apparently the AFOSH isn\'t specific enough - there is a note for C-130 aircraft that w/o bleed air there is no danger. But people still teach it and put it in local sups \"just to be safe\" - like a Herk prop is just gonna start spinning... I understand habit patterns, but it\'s pretty obvious when the APU/GTC is running, or an M60 is hooked up & screaming or, better yet, an engine is running...most folks avoid all those things simply because of the noise alone!

Dan Wilson wrote: ...or a spear! :laugh: :silly:

TalonOneTF wrote: At Cannon, I think they\'re using the callsign \"wombat\" & refer to themselves as \"whiskeys\" They\'re a wombat. :laugh:

Rumor has it there will be a combined 1st/7th reunion this summer at HRT - haven\'t heard any dates yet...

I don\'t, as a rule, randomly flip switches on the overhead panel. I think I probably do it about how Dan described. If the FE is in the back & an aux/ext tank went dry, I\'d have my co-pilot fix it under my supervision & inform the FE when he got back. If I\'m on a high-level cruise & want to teach something on the overhead panel to the CP, I make sure the FE is involved. I *might* tweak the temp (always check it\'s in auto first - old trick, Dan), but that\'s a rarity - and I would only do it if the FE is occupied (doing TOLD or out of his seat). SEFEGeorge wrote: Nope, no contradiction there - plenty of big egos on the Officer side of the house & pilots tend to have it worse than others. That said, there\'s plenty of FEs who like to show how important they are in various ways. There\'s bad apples in every crew position, but to paint them all with the same brush is short-sighted. SEFEGeorge wrote: I\'ve been in heaps of trouble for things my crew did (mainly LMs :laugh: ). I\'ve been on a AIB & fought hard to keep crew issues from getting planted on a single crewmember\'s shoulders too. The bottom line is, the buck stops with the AC - like I said, there\'s often collateral damage & other crew positions get hit. SEFEGeorge wrote: I know what you\'re saying here, but it isn\'t rocket science (neither is flying the plane for that matter). Familiarity makes it easier & expertise from being the man who does it makes you proficient. I don\'t claim to be proficient & I\'m happy to let the FE run the overhead panel. SEFEGeorge wrote: I\'ve done both of those things. I also did my last sim refresher from the FE seat & loved it - I learned a lot. You should never stop learning. SEFEGeorge wrote: Maybe AFSOC is just different, but yes. If the FE was not able to take care of the panel because he was in back working an issue, checking a leak, or whatever, then I would - even on an ASET eval. You keep taking my posts personally & it\'s not my intent. I simply asked why you did what you did & the answer was basically some pilots are arrogant. I still stand by my statement you might have been better off with the tactful approach, but that\'s not everyone\'s style - that\'s fine too. It\'d be an awfully boring world if we were all the same...:cheer:

MEng Doug Johnson lost his battle with cancer a week ago. I had the honor of flying with Dougie during my short stay with the RAF. He was a true character with a quick wit, but a kind & generous side. We\'ll miss you Dougie! Link at PPRuNe: http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?p=3853060#post3853060

SEFEGeorge wrote: No doubt - all good engineers do. My point was there\'s a different way to handle it than just pissing him off. SEFEGeorge wrote: If he\'s doing it to help, maybe. If he\'s doing it to piss me off, we\'ll talk. SEFEGeorge wrote: Ultimate responsibility lies with the A-code & it\'s his a** in a crack. Sure, there may be \"collateral damage\" when the A/C gets taken out, but the A/C needs to know how to run that panel & a co-pilot is nothing more than an A/C in training (if he\'s any good). SEFEGeorge wrote: Yeah, PC BS sucks, but it doesn\'t mean we don\'t have good crews, good training, and get the job done. Good AFSOC crews learn each others crew position... The purpose of my original post wasn\'t to start anything - on the contrary. But it seemed the discussion devolved into co-pilot bashing for the sake of co-pilot bashing & a game of one up-manship (I was waiting for the, \'oh yea, I once punched a co-pilot for even looking at my panel!\') - which serves no good purpose. Going back to your original post: SEFEGeorge wrote: Why let them get away with it the first time? Why not politely ask them to ask you to do whatever it is, or if they wanted instruction, you\'d be happy to give it to them. Instead, they get the silent treatment the first time implying that it\'s OK just so you can smack them with your pointer when you catch them the next time. Perhaps it\'s me, but I don\'t see how that\'s constructive. This is not an attack on you - I\'m just curious why you did things that way?

SEFEGeorge wrote: Why didn\'t you just teach him about the fuel system instead?

FLIR is being used generically - turreted infrared sensor, infrared detection set, etc. All are same thing, just that they can look anywhere - not just forward. ;)

Forward Air Refueling Point or Forward Air Refueling/Rearming Point. Think Eagle Claw & Desert 1. Land, hook hoses up to the aircraft SPR, & refuel/rearm helicopters. Was used extensively in Afghanistan - particularly the rearming part.

Dan Wilson wrote: Yes. Just not quite as well. :laugh: :kiss: Set & forget...yeah, that\'s how it is. Autopilot too. Cush. Easy. Whisky has no TF, no ECM. Has high-speed ramp/door, UARRSI, SOFI-type stuff (FLIR, etc.), 241 radar - but 1 nav. Talon-lite or shado-plus - however you wanna look at it. :laugh:

HeyChief wrote: At one time, we were hearing a total of 15 aircraft - I know that\'s not in the program of record, but... And 10+3=12 to keep people at SOCOM out of jail. Have heard the positive feedback from 160th before - glad to hear it. Can the SF pod tunnel not be modified to accept it? It would seem that getting the ligher (not by a lot) SF pod & the VSD would be the obvious win/win best COA...or has nobody gone down that road? Still - there is no money for J. There is no money for Cannon. There is no money for GSP (which I\'ve heard is officially dead). As I\'ve said before (a quote I stole from someone else) - Leadership \"vision\" without funding is called hallucination. :silly:

That\'s what common sense would say. Weight is never looked at until it\'s too late. First - I\'m not MCARS qualified. However, I\'ve heard (and I could very well be wrong) that the VSD is retrofittable to any NATO-std coupling. If true, you could hang it on a Sgt Fletcher pod (which FRL owns now). I would assume the hydraulic Sgt Fletcher could reel in the hose/drogue at high speed...but that\'s an assumption. Who knows - every bit of the above may be incorrect... ;)

AFSOC spells replacement tanker as K-C-1-3-0-J with USMC config, but FRL MCARS pods, & Tac Airlift software. Any funding for this? Or more \"pie in the sky\" dreaming?

Yeah - they almost glow on NVGs too! (at least the ones in the \'90s did)

I remember when they showed up in Mombaassa for the Somali airlift & the deployed/CC had them taken off. Big urinary olympics over that as I recall...