Author Topic: C-130 #5125 crashed in Jolo  (Read 4909 times)

adroth

  • Administrator
  • Boffin
  • *****
  • Posts: 14312
    • View Profile
    • The ADROTH Project
C-130 #5125 crashed in Jolo
« on: July 04, 2021, 02:23:41 PM »
PAF STATEMENT ON C130 MISHAP

https://www.facebook.com/dwdd1134/posts/3111022219142253

A C-130 aircraft of the Philippine Air Force with tail #5125 figured in a mishap upon landing in Jolo. The said aircraft  took off from CJVAB to Lumbia Airport and subsequently ferried personnel to Jolo.
Rescue efforts are ongoing, details will follow soonest.

girder

  • Boffin
  • *****
  • Posts: 700
    • View Profile
Re: C-130 #5125 crashed in Jolo
« Reply #1 on: July 04, 2021, 03:00:31 PM »
SECOND UPDATE: At least 17 dead as PAF transport plane crashes in Sulu — Sobejana
Published July 4, 2021, 1:28 PM
by Martin Sadongdong


Quote
A Philippine Air Force (PAF) C130 transport plane carrying personnel of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) crash landed in Patikul, Sulu on Sunday morning, July 4, killing at least 17 soldiers.

Gen. Cirilito Sobejana, AFP Chief of Staff, said the military plane with tail no. 5125 was carrying troops from Cagayan de Oro when it missed the runway while landing in Barangay Bangkal, Patikul around 11:30 a.m.

The ill-fated aircraft was carrying 92 soldiers onboard: three pilots, five air crew, and 84 passengers, according to Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana.

Lorenzana said at least 17 bodies were recovered from the crash site.

Rescue operations were on-going as around 40 soldiers were saved from the wrecked plane.

“It’s very unfortunate. One of our C-130s crashed while transporting our troops from Cagayan de Oro. It missed the runway while trying to regain power. Hindi nakayanan at bumagsak (It couldn’t handle [the plane] and it went down),” Sobejana said.

Lt. Col. Maynard Mariano, PAF spokesperson, said the aircraft took off from Villamor Air Base in Pasay City to Lumbia Airport in Cagayan de Oro to ferry the soldiers to Sulu when the air mishap occured.

Accordingly, around 30 soldiers aboard the crashed helicopter were fresh privates from the 4th Infantry Division and were deployed to Sulu to combat local extremists and communist rebels.

A military report obtained by the Manila Bulletin said all three pilots and five crew are alive but in a critical condition.

Sobejana said he already ordered Maj. Gen. William Gonzales, commander of Joint Task Force Sulu, to oversee the resue efforts on the ground.

“We are doing our best effort to rescue the passengers,” the AFP Chief assured.

The rescued soldiers were brought to the 11th Infantry Division hospital in Brgy. Busbus in Jolo, Sulu for immediate treatment.

girder

  • Boffin
  • *****
  • Posts: 700
    • View Profile
Re: C-130 #5125 crashed in Jolo
« Reply #2 on: July 04, 2021, 07:30:16 PM »
FOURTH UPDATE: At least 29 dead as PAF transport plane crashes in Sulu — military

Quote
The ill-fated aircraft was carrying 96 soldiers onboard: three pilots, five air crew, and 88 passengers, according to Joint Task Force Sulu commander, Maj. Gen. William Gonzales.

Gonzales said at least 29 bodies were recovered from the crash site as of 5:30 p.m.

Meanwhile, at least 50 soldiers were injured while 17 others were unaccounted for, he added.

LionFlyer

  • Timawan
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 321
    • View Profile
Re: C-130 #5125 crashed in Jolo
« Reply #3 on: July 05, 2021, 07:34:20 AM »
Stretching it.

https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/1555054/c-130-hercules/

Quote

Maximum Allowable Payload:

C-130H, 42,000 pounds (19,090 kilograms)

Maximum Load:

C-130E/H/J: 6 pallets or 72 litters or 16 CDS bundles or 90 combat troops or 64 paratroopers, or a combination of any of these up to the cargo compartment capacity or maximum allowable weight.

Crew: C-130E/H: Five (two pilots, navigator, flight engineer and loadmaster)


tagalacion

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 45
    • View Profile
Re: C-130 #5125 crashed in Jolo
« Reply #4 on: July 05, 2021, 03:18:59 PM »
Footage of the aircraft's final moments.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPmuChMI2MA&t=35s
(Credit to the original video poster on Youtube)

RIP to our fallen soldiers, airmen, and the civilians caught on the ground.

Previously, whenever a PAF aircraft crashed, the knee-jerk reaction was to immediately blame the age of the aircraft.  But the last 2 accidents involved brand new (i.e. Tarlac S70i crash) or newly refurbished (i.e. Sulu C-130 crash) assets.  So what could be causing these crashes?

Obviously, this looks like human error and that's how these things get explained most of the time.  But could these series of misfortunes be pointing to something else?  Something deeper?

For instance, could there be a flaw in the training regime resulting in ill-prepared pilots?  Or could this somehow be the result of fatigue where too few qualified pilots end up flying too many hours?  Should the PAF re-examine its priorities from focusing too much on getting new assets to re-calibrating how they prepare their personnel to operate these assets safely?

It's times like this when I really miss the old forum because one didn't just get the news there; one got treated to in-depth analysis and high quality discussions that almost always resulted in making things clearer for mere mortals like myself.

masq

  • Timawan
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 61
    • View Profile
Re: C-130 #5125 crashed in Jolo
« Reply #5 on: July 06, 2021, 12:37:28 PM »
Quote
It's times like this when I really miss the old forum because one didn't just get the news there; one got treated to in-depth analysis and high quality discussions that almost always resulted in making things clearer for mere mortals like myself.


I learned a lot from those discussions and explanations. And it is what I miss most in this forum. The silence when there are issues that could be discussed and explained, especially by those who can explain or discuss things based on their expertise and experiences, can be deafening. Would it be possible for a return to that mode of sharing learnings? And I would be first to agree that stringent measures be used to ensure the chaff will not get mixed with the wheat. Just allow discussions to return. IMHO, that is the fastest way of educating readers of this forum.

tagalacion

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 45
    • View Profile
Re: C-130 #5125 crashed in Jolo
« Reply #6 on: July 06, 2021, 03:01:41 PM »

PAF probe team now in C-130 crash site in Sulu

Quote
"According to available information, the aircraft followed the specified protocols regarding "approach speed (and) the landing spot"."


Some reports say the Hercules was also carrying 5 vehicles when it crashed.  A factor, maybe?

And I would be first to agree that stringent measures be used to ensure the chaff will not get mixed with the wheat.

If the only way to hear and learn from those in-the-know is to also have to put up with the know-it-alls, then so be it.  :o

masq

  • Timawan
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 61
    • View Profile
Re: C-130 #5125 crashed in Jolo
« Reply #7 on: July 07, 2021, 10:49:15 AM »


masq

  • Timawan
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 61
    • View Profile
Re: C-130 #5125 crashed in Jolo
« Reply #9 on: July 08, 2021, 10:44:49 PM »
Quote
Some reports say the Hercules was also carrying 5 vehicles when it crashed.  A factor, maybe?


C-130 plane in Sulu crash not overloaded: PAF
https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1146202

Barber 6

  • Timawan
  • Tyro
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: C-130 #5125 crashed in Jolo
« Reply #10 on: July 09, 2021, 10:10:09 AM »
I’m not a Pilot but this can be one of the causes (snipped from another group).

“Jolo runway is inclined with the end significantly higher than the threshold. One way takeoff and landing. I think the gradient is 2%. Gives pilot a ‘too low’ optical sensation.”

Everyone says the runway is very short.

But I wasn’t there so I don’t know what happened and I don’t want to speculate.

masq

  • Timawan
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 61
    • View Profile
Re: C-130 #5125 crashed in Jolo
« Reply #11 on: July 09, 2021, 03:01:38 PM »
Quote
2.2.3 Philippines - Mindanao Jolo Airport
Operator: Civil Aviation Authority (Class 2 Principal Airport) – (in 2008 – Pax 18,749, Cargo 13 MT, Movement 862) – Current ongoing work to extend the runway to 1,800m with a width of 60m. - Magnetic Variation 000 E (01/06) – PCN 010FBWT - NO ILS – Runway 09 (Heading 088.7) Landing distance reduced to 1,200m (displaced threshold length 63 m). – Runway 27 (Heading 268.7) Landing distance reduced to 1,219m (displaced threshold length 44 m).. Operating hours: 2200 – 0600Z –

Caution approach zone of runway 09 obstructed by trees and ant. In addition 98’ antennas are on both side of the runway.

RESTRICTION:
LANDING ON RWY 09 AND TAKE OFF ON RWY 27.

Communications: RDO 122.2 / 6765 / 4454. Navaid: Type NDB, ID JL, Name JOLO, Freq 404, coordinates Lat 06 03’ 20.05” N– Long 121 01’ 05.03” E at field.
Quote
Runway Condition: FAIR however to be confirmed before landing
https://dlca.logcluster.org/spaces/flyingpdf/pdfpageexport.action?pageId=852420



Quote
Airport reference point: Latitude: 6° 03'15"N
Longitude: 121° 00'30"E
Runway designation number: 9/27
Runway elevation: 36 m. AMSL
Runway efficient grade: Eff. 2.02% uphill to E (AIP data)
Runway pavement strength: PCN 41 R/A/W/T
True bearing N 16° 14' E


2 Aircraft Movement Area
Runway: 1,845 m total length (concrete), (1,535 m x 30 m @ RWY09, 310 m x 45 m @ RWY27)
Apron: 150 m x 60 m (concrete)
Taxiway: 2–22.5 m x 45 m (concrete)
Stopway: 0 m/60 m
Clearway: 0 m/100 m
Runway shoulder: Macadam
Strip: Approx. 1,900 m x 150 m
https://openjicareport.jica.go.jp/pdf/12253654_02.pdf


I’m not a Pilot but this can be one of the causes (snipped from another group).

“Jolo runway is inclined with the end significantly higher than the threshold. One way takeoff and landing. I think the gradient is 2%. Gives pilot a ‘too low’ optical sensation.”

Everyone says the runway is very short.

But I wasn’t there so I don’t know what happened and I don’t want to speculate.

Maraming salamat po, Sir.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2021, 03:05:10 PM by masq »

horge

  • Timawan
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 139
    • View Profile
Re: C-130 #5125 crashed in Jolo
« Reply #12 on: July 12, 2021, 02:13:38 PM »
I’m not a Pilot but this can be one of the causes (snipped from another group).

“Jolo runway is inclined with the end significantly higher than the threshold. One way takeoff and landing. I think the gradient is 2%. Gives pilot a ‘too low’ optical sensation.”

The emerging suspicion appears to be that the pilot was attempting an assault landing, but at excessive
groundspeed (as in, excessive even for an assault landing); that the aircraft still seemed to have hit the
assault 'sweet-spot' on the runway, meaning the pilot wasn't thrown off by the runway slope, however
the excessive speed necessitated an abort, and then control was lost. I don't know how/if TOLD comps
are filed by PAF drivers. The recovery of the FDR will yield some, but possibly not all, of the answers we
all want.

The post-touchdown 'zigzagging' reported by eyewitnesses, if reliably accurate, raises suspicion of failure
in application of reverse thrust (blade angle), but whether this stems from equipment failure or operator
error may demand forensics on far more than just the FDR.

Quote
But I wasn’t there so I don’t know what happened and I don’t want to speculate.

It's certainly been a tragic couple of months for Philippine military aviation, sir.
My condolences to the families of those who perished.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2021, 02:22:05 PM by horge »

adroth

  • Administrator
  • Boffin
  • *****
  • Posts: 14312
    • View Profile
    • The ADROTH Project
Re: C-130 #5125 crashed in Jolo
« Reply #13 on: July 12, 2021, 02:20:42 PM »
From one of our regular contributors that wants to stay anonymous.

Quote
I saw a picture of an engine ripped off its mount and it’s really bugging me. Why? because the blade angle is almost near, if not, at feather. To me, it means either of two things a) the throttle was at what is called “beta” or ground setting. High blade angle for high throttle setting? Or b) the negative torque system (nts – works when the prop is putting torque to the engine) was activated, initiating a feather. nts can happen when 1) the engine fails (auto feather at take off setting), 2) throttles being moved too fast that caused an imbalance: one engine slow to respond that it becomes driven by the airflow, 3) uneven throttle positioning, again, creating an imbalance. Its one reason why the flight engineer puts his hands over the pilots hands, to keep them even, movement gradual and avoid going over the ramp which would put the blades in reverse (really bad for takeoffs). It would be interesting to see where the levers on the power quadrant are.

Reinforcing this theory is the video where I think the plane was coming in fast and the statement about the lack of power. Unfortunately, I cannot also discount the possibility of confusion in the flight deck whether to put the power levers on reverse or take off. The pilot, copilot, flight engineer could have done conflicting inputs.

Weather looks good and based on the drift of the smoke, relatively calm…


horge

  • Timawan
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 139
    • View Profile
Re: C-130 #5125 crashed in Jolo
« Reply #14 on: July 12, 2021, 03:50:44 PM »
For instance, could there be a flaw in the training regime resulting in ill-prepared pilots?  Or could this somehow be the result of fatigue where too few qualified pilots end up flying too many hours?  Should the PAF re-examine its priorities from focusing too much on getting new assets to re-calibrating how they prepare their personnel to operate these assets safely?

I don't know how PAF really is, wrt to their drivers keeping quals up, but...
the reliable ability to execute, say... an assault landing requires periodic exercise of
the skill, or it perishes; and as the landing was technically in a hot (well, marginally-warm)
AO, then a choice toward an assault landing could be argued as doubly-justified. Shortness
of the runway is arguably another factor in favor.

Quote
It's times like this when I really miss the old forum

Timawa was what we wanted it to be, for awhile...
then it wasn't what some wanted it to be...
and then it simply wasn't.


Quote
...because the blade angle is almost near, if not, at feather. To me, it means either of two things a) the throttle was at what is called “beta” or ground setting. High blade angle for high throttle setting? Or b) the negative torque system (nts – works when the prop is putting torque to the engine) was activated, initiating a feather...

Even a layman could argue that impact kinetics might have thrown the throttle (operator's
attached hands notwithstanding) into the wrong quadrant.

"Flight deck confusion" is a real thing, but with drivers killed, and both FDR and CVR already
in-hand, perhaps that might be a bit too much color preempting. *shrug*