AIRCRAFT - Wrong airport

[B47]

Originally Posted by OldCoot

Can't the C130 use JATO?

IIRC one or two early models of the C130 did use JATO at one time. I'm not a C130 guy,but Herk probably has more information on this.

[B47]

Originally Posted by OldCoot

Dumb question: Why can't they just unload all the cargo and take off?

Not that simple - you have the weather conditions to factor in here plus runway length limitations.

In addition,the aircraft probably landed with a fuel load that is in excess of that required for take off from that airport.

[Herk7769]

Originally Posted by bubbles

Sure, and no one noticed the chute pod cover open and asked, "hey, where's your chute"?.

Not an F-4 driver. Flew C-130's out of Hill AFB for 5 years in the late 70's and was told the story while stationed there.

I can only assume that since the incident supposedly happened at night, in low visibility, the ground crew could not find the chute when the aircraft cleared the runway without it and figured they would find it in the morning.

[Herk7769]

The C-130 H1 was the last model of C-130 to be equipped with JATO mount points. The C-130 J does not have the capability at all.

C-130 "Fat Albert" Jet Assisted Take Off (JATO), NAS Miramar Air show - YouTube

[OldCoot]

Originally Posted by B47

Not that simple - you have the weather conditions to factor in here plus runway length limitations.

In addition,the aircraft probably landed with a fuel load that is in excess of that required for take off from that airport.

"The cargo plane normally requires a runway of 2,780m (9,119ft) to take off at maximum weight."

Where they are has over 6100 ft, so with no cargo and just enough fuel to get to where they were suppose to land should be doable I would think.

[B47]

Originally Posted by herk7769

The C-130 H1 was the last model of C-130 to be equipped with JATO mount points. The C-130 J does not have the capability at all.

JATO is also called RATO (Rocker Assisted Take Off) and that video explains why.

[Herk7769]

Originally Posted by OldCoot

"The cargo plane normally requires a runway of 2,780m (9,119ft) to take off at maximum weight."

Where they are has over 6100 ft, so with no cargo and just enough fuel to get to where they were suppose to land should be doable I would think.

They apparently downloaded some cargo, changed out the crew and flew over to McConnell AFB (the original destination).

The concern was whether the runway was damaged on landing and whether it was safe for the takeoff.

[B47]

Originally Posted by OldCoot

"The cargo plane normally requires a runway of 2,780m (9,119ft) to take off at maximum weight."

Where they are has over 6100 ft, so with no cargo and just enough fuel to get to where they were suppose to land should be doable I would think.

It was doable and they did do it.

[B47]

Originally Posted by herk7769

They apparently downloaded some cargo, changed out the crew and flew over to McConnell AFB (the original destination).

The concern was whether the runway was damaged on landing and whether it was safe for the takeoff.

You wonder why they changed out the crew?

[OldCoot]

Originally Posted by B47

You wonder why they changed out the crew?

Original crew will probably be filing for Unemployment next week or taking a remedial map reading course for the next few weeks.

[B47]

Originally Posted by OldCoot

Original crew will probably be filing for Unemployment next week or taking a remedial map reading course for the next few weeks.

And doing all that while talking to the FAA.

[Ford Idaho]

Last night there was a short news report that said todays pilots rely on the auto pilot/computer more than they should.

Nov. 17, 2013 11:45 p.m. ET
Commercial airline pilots have become so dependent on automation that poor manual flying skills and failure to master the latest changes in cockpit technology pose the greatest hazards to passengers, an international panel of air-safety experts warns.
A soon-to-be-released study commissioned by the Federal Aviation Administration determined, among other things, that "pilots sometimes rely too much on automated systems and may be reluctant to intervene" or switch them off in unusual or risky circumstances, according to a draft reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.

Pilots Rely Too Much on Automation, Panel Says - WSJ.com

[DDC]

Now my DW knows why I argue with that woman in my gar in GPS.

[B47]

Originally Posted by Ford Idaho

Last night there was a short news report that said todays pilots rely on the auto pilot/computer more than they should.



Pilots Rely Too Much on Automation, Panel Says - WSJ.com

I'm not a pilot and don't pretend to be so you certified pilots please be easy on me, but I have in my 20 plus years as a FAA Airworthiness Inspector performed many Flight Deck En-Route inspections for the purpose of evaluating an air carriers maintenance program. The inspections were conducted in aircraft ranging from the DC-9 (MD-80) up thru the Boeing 767.

And I can say that a lot of that article is true from my point of view.

Not taking anything from today's flight crews, but these modern aircraft are automated that the flight crew can be lulled into just be radio operators and instrument watchers - they certainly earn their money flying in lousy weather.

Today's aircraft are so reliable that it has been said that many pilots of large transport aircraft will probably never encounter an inflight emergency requiring an engine shutdown in their flying career.

Remember - it wasn't that long ago that 4 engine aircraft were the only ones that were allowed to fly long distances over water - now 2 engine aircraft do it every day.

[Timtation]

Originally Posted by B47

- in fact the only civil aircraft I recall as having any assisted take off certified equipment is the old Swearingen Metro

I don't remember what the plane was but in the late 1960's to very early '70's Ralston Purina had a twin piston engine corporate plane, probably 6 to 8 passengers, two pilots and it was certified for jato. The story goes that the chief pilot and one other took the plane out for jato training and to be certified. They fired up the engines, hit the bottle trigger and launched. Rumored report of the chief pilot to the CEO was to the effect that if we need to use them we will leave the plane and drive home.

[B47]

Originally Posted by Timtation

I don't remember what the plane was but in the late 1960's to very early '70's Ralston Purina had a twin piston engine corporate plane, probably 6 to 8 passengers, two pilots and it was certified for jato. The story goes that the chief pilot and one other took the plane out for jato training and to be certified. They fired up the engines, hit the bottle trigger and launched. Rumored report of the chief pilot to the CEO was to the effect that if we need to use them we will leave the plane and drive home.

That's about the time frame for the Swearingen aka the San Antonio Sewer Pipe.

I'll have to do some research on it.

[wneise]

Wired posted the conversation between ATC and "Giant 4241"
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2013/11...wrong-airport/

[Timtation]

B47, I remember it as low wing, not radial and I was thinking Commander but Bamboo Bomber keeps popping into my head. I think that was what my Dad told me was the pilots name for Skyking's plane.

[bubbles]

Originally Posted by B47

JATO is also called RATO (Rocker Assisted Take Off) and that video explains why.

Actually they are not the same. Rato is rocket assisted and jato is jet assisted. C-130's have rato and I believe the B-36 had jato (may be others) on the outboards.

[B47]

Originally Posted by bubbles

Actually they are not the same. Rato is rocket assisted and jato is jet assisted. C-130's have rato and I believe the B-36 had jato (may be others) on the outboards.

Well I know what the "J" in JATO means as well as what the "R" in RATO means as I explained in Herks video. I think perhaps the two names are used interchangeably although there are differences in the two.

Regarding the B-36 - it had neither JATO or RATO. It's takeoff performance was enhanced by the later addition of two J47 engines on each outer wing positions that were housed in the same nacelle used on the B-47 for its numbers 2&3 and 4&5 engines.