larry myers

Wow! ronsram, that pretty amazing, especially when considering how the airplanes where flown when in country. When I was at CCK, 72, we sent acft. in country with a recently completed phase inspection. Several weeks later the acft. would return to CCK out of time. When you looked down the intake you almost see out the tailpipe there was so much compressor blade erosion. Comply with the next phase, change all four engines, send the bird back to TSN. This didn't occur with every acft but enough that the engine shop guys just could not catch a break. Don't think anyone worked harder.

OBTW US Herk your going to need more than a flame retardent suit.:D

Anytime there is a discrepancy in tolerances it creates a catch 22 between ops and mx. When this situation occurs the only way to resolve it to get a decision from SPO engineering. I don't know how or where -1 limits orginate and don't understand how the identical limit shows up in the -1 with a different tolerance than the -2. I do, however, have intimate knowledge of how -2 limits are determined. Without going into a lot of detail the process is lengthly and detailed, involving the system design engineer, other engineering disciplines, much analysis and testing. Based on the foregoing my position in these situations was the -2 always prevailed. I would explain this to the FE/AC. If they disagreed the next step was to call crew transport and turn the problem over to the maintenance superintendent. And as Lkuest calls it, Ops Cx. Later when I was assigned to the Hq TAC 130 shop and this issue surfaced the chief FE and I would send a joint message to WR-ALC explaining the problem and asking them to fix it. I've been out a very long time but am sure maintenance's objectives have not changed. That is provide the aircrew a safe clean ready to fly bird!!!

If I get called out to an airplane for a lip seal leak, I'm going to use the maintenance book for the limit. If the aircrew refuses the plane for something that's within limits to me, it's their option, but it's also a late or an abort against OPS, not MX. Oh yea! My kind of talk.

l

It seems every outfit had a LtCol Leake/Hanley. Proof the officer promoton system wasn't perfect. But then neither was ours. Fortunately, in reality, these guys were few and far between. And at least we didn't have requirement for a picture. That would have been the kiss of death for me.:D

Will the mostly junior enlisted sensor operator sitting next to the pilot (puke) be eligible for this medal?

Giz, Was this guy the dingbat that removed all the single troops from seperate rations without considering what that would do to morale. Talk about a flawed decision making process. Am I right in thinking this guy was the CO? Scarey!!!! On the plus side consider how much money he saved theAF. I want my medal too.

Is engine normal ground shutdown on the J like the E/H consist of simply moving the condition lever to ground stop? Is there even a condition lever on the J? Looking at static J photos I often wondered why the props were always feathered. Now I know. Thanks combat donkey. The P&W PT6 engine prop also goes to feather on normal shutdown.

Watching the FE pulling the prop in reverse didn't freak me out but it did make me wary of the FE's intentions. My response to such action was to stick to the FE like glue for the remainder of his PR. In all fairness some FEs after pulling the prop in the opposite direction would then pull/push the prop in its intended direction. Further, all the above was a rare occurance. Most FEs pre-flighted using the dash one checklist. Those who checked items not on the checklist usually did so because of a negative experience involving that compenent. I did the same myself when cw the dash six.

I did about seven years as a C-130 crew chief. My cross country experience with aircrews was mixed. On most trips the crew treated me well. One instance ron at Lajes I ended up in the hospital. The next morning the AC came to see me. I asked him not to depart without me....he didn't. A day later I was ok and we took off for Langley. On another ron as I was securing the acft. I looked up and saw the crew bus still setting in front of the acft. I walked to the bus to see what was going on. The AC told me they were waiting for me. Laughingly I told him it was going to be several hours before I was done. Other times it seemed the props were still coasting down as the crew bus was pulling away. No fuel load, departure time, nothing. On another trip the AC treated me so poorly the FE later apologized. On occasion when recovery stretched into the wee hours I would bum a shower at the fire station and sleep on the acft, sometimes running the GTC the remainder of the night. All in all I took the good with the bad, just part of the job.

You could make a rough guess whether the gearbox was a high/low time one by how much oomph it took to pull the prop thru. Low time hard, high time easy. During accomplishment of the dash one preflight some FEs would pull the prop in reverse to ensure the brake would set. I would always follow and pull it through a bit to hopefully preclude starter shaft failure. The sqd. I was in at the time flew hi altitude long duration missions. On occasion, the crew would shut down outboard engines so as to achieve maximum sortie duration. After a couple of hours in feather with the gearbox cold soaked the prop would slowly begin to rotate backwards. Not surprising the crew wrote this up. The powers in maintenance, with help from our Lockheed field rep., finally convinced ops. to cease writing this up. All in all the prop brake is, for the most part, trouble free assuming the prop is rigged properly.

Wow, the 919th was in fat city with a TSgt crew chief and a TSgt assistant crew chief. After I made TSgt I continued to crew for several months. My assistant was an experienced SSgt. Boy did he ever make my job easier. We took turns launching and recovering. There was seldom any surprises during the -6 or -1 PR. The way flight line maintenance should be.

Edward, Getting your logistic command involved is for sure the right approach. They will have the expertise and wherewithal to help you make the right decision. Don't have anything official but my own experience over a period of about 40 years is the use of retread tires is equal to virgin tire performance and far more economical. A virgin tire that would be discarded after three/four months use, if not retreaded, conciveably, if retreaded, could still be in service over a period of three/four years. I may be able to determine the price of a new C-130 MLG tire versus a retread tire. If successful will pass the info to you.

Giz, Am assuming, based on above post, you don't need the link you asked me to fwd. If not let me know.

Don't have answers to your questions NATOPS, but the acft. appears to be a Compass Call bird.

Chris, You are right, retread technology has changed a great deal since our day. Not surprisingly it's much improved. All tires submitted for retread are throughly inspected both visually and by NDI. So, the smallest defect is detected and can be cause for rejection. Not unusual to send what appears to be a perfectly good tire off to the retread facility only to have it returned with a reject tag. I think when you were changing tires at least some of them were retreads. I say this because at the same time I was an A crew chief doing the same job as you and like you not giving a damm if the tire was a retread or not, only that it was servicable. I do recall, however, that some tires coming out of the tire shop were, in fact, retreads. It should be pointed out that a retreaded acft. tire looks much different than, say, a heavy truck tire. The retread on an aircraft tire continues down each side of the tire. In most instances it is very difficult to ascertain if the tire is, in fact, a retread. The only way to tell for sure is to look for a brand on the sidewall indicating the retread facility and a number indicating how many retreads the tire has had. In our day the retread facility was in Atlanta, GA. The only acft. that I know of that did not use retreads and did not replace tires based on tread wear was the SR-71. Its tires where changed based on number of landings.

Nope. do not and would not even if they were available. But don't ask why not as I don't have a good answer. Other than it's been years since I've seen a retread car tire on the for sale rack. The painfull aspect of Vette tires is that a set of four costs about two grand and in seven years am working on my fourth set. My last set lasted about 10,000 miles. High Performance Driving Events are the reason. On another note, something I know your well aware of. In my newpaper yesterday was an article about excessive length of time to process VA claims. Guess what, the Baltimore office was at the top of the list. And they had the most errors.

Edward, The wear limitations you are using indicate the MAF is not retreading C-130 MLG tires. Is there a reason for this? By doing so your air force is missing out on significant cost savings. Am confident there is a company in your part of the world certified to retread aircraft tires. Or if your tires are procured through Foreign Military Sales your Liaison Officer at the Air Force Security Assistance Center at Wright Patterson AFB should be able to help.

Dallas, These old photos make me smile. Do you remember being that skinny? Jerry Pegg and I were looking at photos of he and I at CCK 1972. Don't remember either one of us ever being that skinny and having that much hair. I still have just enough to comb but poor Pegg is at best a chrome dome. Have you seen his facebook picture? Anyway we looked as thought we were truant from school. We could, however, drink more than our share of beer. BTW the hat is very cool. Myers

At long last the perpertrators have been identified. Let the article 32 procedings begin. It must be stated at this point no maintenance personel were involved in the above shanagins. Our usual impecable deployed behaviour was attributable to our fine upbringing. Further, in our left breast pocket, over our hearts, we were carrying Amy Vanderbelt's latest guidance, How to Win Friends and Influence People at the Deployed Location. There may have been one alleged minor incident of dancing on tables, later proven untrue. As far as Daley being innocent...no way no how. As you say Bob, for sure, a great trip!

Talk about a thread getting off subject!!!:D

Don, At the time of shootdown, 528 had only been in service eight or nine months. And in those early days photos were strickly forbidden. I recall a photo of an 06 acft., on final, appeared in a local German newspaper causing a big flap in air force and German security. There were a lot of different acft. assigned to Wiesbaden AB. I recall the 07th had other acft. other than the 97s assigned but don't remember how many and what kind. Keep in mind that, at the time, Hqs USAFE was just a few miles away at Lindsey AS. So a number of the C-47s, C-54s, C-118s, C-131s, T-29s T-33s, T-39s ect. were in place to provide VIP transportation and so the Hqs staff could maintain currency. There was also a Flight Facilities checking outfit there flying C-140s. Unlike RM, Wiesbaden AB was a very sedate place. After a two week Reforger exercise there with the 37th we told to leave and never come back. The altered tail number doesn't surprise me. There were a couple of Heavy Chain/Combat Talon acft. flying with tail numbers belonging to other Hercs. We, at times, temperarily applied bogus tail numbers to our aircraft. Couple times a year we flew missions from Bodo, Norway. Before departing Rhein Main all members of the crew below the rank of SSgt were temp. premoted to SSgt. This was done so they would be assigned decent quarters and have access to the NCO mess. We always cautioned them not to get too used to the rocker. And you'd better like fish as you got it three times a day. Recall looking at the chart over the nav's shoulder as we were flying north over the Adratic Sea. The airway we were on was clearly marked in bold red, "Prohibited to USAF aircraft". We routinely flew this route from Rhein Main to Incerlik and back. BTW, at Fort Mead, MD there is a C-130A II replica of 56-528 honoring the crew that was lost. It took lengthly negotations and several years before the USSR returned the flight crew remains and to best of my knowledge the back end crew was never returned.

Well, your not alone, the guy running CSAR for AAC feels pretty much the same.

Not trying to split hairs here, but would like to provide a little clarification. The acft. Don is talking about was assigned to the 7406 Support Sqd (SS). This sqd., along with the 7407 SS and the 7405 SS were part of the 7499 Support Group. All three sqds. had a different classified recce mission. The 05th flew EC-97Gs daily back and forth from Wiesbaden AB to Berlin. Hence the," Berlin for Lunch Bunch". These acft. were equipted with then state of the art cameras which were used to observe SA2 missile sites. Later the sqd. along with the Berlin for Lunch Bunch label was moved to Rhein Main and renamed the 7405th Ops. Sqd and assgned C-130Es. I was long gone by then but believe the mission stayed very much the same. I looked at the photo of 56-528. I'm not convinced this is really 528. I say this because the tail number looks altered. Today we call it photoshopped.