# USAF C-17 Globemaster makes emergency landing in Halifax



## Good2Golf (29 Dec 2007)

*U.S. C-17 makes emergency landing in Halifax*
article link

_Updated Sat. Dec. 29 2007 6:28 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff_

A U.S. military transport plane with a crew of fifteen made an emergency landing in Halifax on Friday because of an on-board fire.

The 15-member crew of the C-17, one of the largest planes of its kind, made the unscheduled stopover while on its way from South Carolina to Germany.

A fire in the hold forced it to make the landing at Stanfield International Airport.

"It was enough to set off an alarm to alert the crew that there was an issue in the hold," Peter Spurway, spokesman for Stanfield Airport told CTV News.

He said the pilot radioed the control tower about 9:45 p.m. on Friday, asking to make an emergency landing. Emergency fire crews were then placed on standby.

CTV News learned that the plane was transporting a truck known as a Chevy Suburban. The vehicle itself was the source of the heat which set off the smoke alarm and forced the landing.

"When the aircraft landed and taxied, they were in a position to deal with the cause of the alarm, which turned out to be the vehicle," Spurway said. "It was removed from the plane and taken care of."

The crew's commander, Lt. Col. Tim Harris, told CTV News that smoke from the burning SUV filled the aircraft and that crew members had to use portable oxygen masks in order to breathe.

The plane landed without incident and the crew checked into a nearby hotel.

_When the crew flies out of Halifax, planned for Saturday evening, the charred Suburban will be left behind.

With a report by CTV Halifax's Marc Patrone_


----------



## 1feral1 (29 Dec 2007)

Lucky crew!


----------



## Good2Golf (29 Dec 2007)

I would have been thinking something along the lines of, "Ramp down, drogue released, 5, 4, 3, 2, green go!"  

G2G


----------



## 1feral1 (29 Dec 2007)

I would think thats what it would have been if they were no where to do an emergency landing.


----------



## gaspasser (29 Dec 2007)

I have to ask the obvious...
Why does a US C-17 need a crew of 15...and the Canadians fly with 5 or 6 ???
Other than that, who checked the load to make sure it was secure and cooled down before loading?
My 0.02 worth .


----------



## Good2Golf (29 Dec 2007)

I would think that since Chevy Suburbans don't normally spring into spontaneous combustion, there must have been some fault with the vehicle that was not detectable by the LM during the load.  The number of the crews may also include other crew or pers dead heading back on the aircraft.

G2G


----------



## gaspasser (29 Dec 2007)

Roger, thanks for clarity.
 8)
edited to add:
"The 15-member crew of the C-17, _one of the largest planes of its kind_"
Sorry, I can think of a few more LARGER ones of thier kind.  Anyone in Trenton see that beastie An225 a few weeks ago???  Dang, she's a big bird!!  
Cheers.


----------



## midget-boyd91 (29 Dec 2007)

> the C-17, one of the largest planes of its kind



Are there different variants of the Globemaster which have a different size, or are they talking Transport planes in general?

Can you imagine being someone on the ground watching the plane overhead if it _did_ drop the suburban.  ;D
"Grab your shovel, Billy-Sue. We's got some scrap metal to pick up."


----------



## aesop081 (30 Dec 2007)

uncle-midget-boyd said:
			
		

> Are there different variants of the Globemaster which have a different size,



No


----------



## GDawg (30 Dec 2007)

> CTV News learned that the plane was transporting a truck known as a Chevy Suburban.




How exotic!

Seems like a awfully big and expensive plane for such a task, how many SUVs could this bird carry?


----------



## beenthere (4 Jan 2008)

The posted news article certainly has raised a number of interesting questions and observations. The article is typical in that someone in a newsroom was given a few facts and they had to weave them together to make a story. 
Here's my take on the story:
"Crew of 15". That is quite possible as sometimes people who are more like passengers than crew are listed as crew members. One explanation could be that because of the nature of the cargo passengers can not be carried. That happens sometimes when cargo items are classified as dangerous or hazardous. For example vehicles are often classified as dangerous or hazardous because of fuel in their tanks. That doesnt make them particularly dangerous or hazardous but that's the way it goes. According to the books which classify things as dangerous or hazardous lots of things fall into this category. Steel wool is one of the things that I recall as being listed as dangerous.
Sometimes people such as maintenance or other operational personnel who are traveling on duty get listed as "crew" to get around the prohibition of carrying passengers and dangerous or hazardous cargo together. 
Also, it used to be that the C-17 carried a group of about 6 people to service the aircraft when it made stops for fuel or to pick up or discharge cargo. Obviously they are necessary as there are no qualified personnel at en route stops and the 2 pilots and 1 loadmaster can not provide these functions as well as carrying out their own duties.
"One of the largest planes of its kind" It certainly is. Its the only plane of its kind and its large.
"It was transporting a Chevy Suburban" Yes and no doubt a lot of other things but the Suburban was the only thing that was smoking. 
"Who checked the load"? Lots of people check vehicles and other equipment that is shipped by air and most often there are very specific inspections that have to be carried out before a piece of equipment is accepted for shipment. However there are lots of things that can cause problems that are one of a kind.  Modifications, loose parts, chafed wires and items which have been stashed under seats or in other areas can cause lots of problems when subjected to motion caused by vibration or turbulence and changes in atmospheric pressure. 
The extent of the fire was not mentioned in the story either. It could have been quite small but when the cargo starts smoking there's no time to fool around.
There are still some parts of the story that may be incorrect.
Can anyone find them?


----------



## Good2Golf (4 Jan 2008)

I still love the quote bit:



> CTV News learned that the plane was transporting a truck known as a Chevy Suburban.



It's best if you use "quotey fingers" when saying "Chevy Suburban".  ;D


----------



## beenthere (4 Jan 2008)

Am I "over quoting" or are you just trying to be "smart"?  ""


----------



## Good2Golf (5 Jan 2008)

beenthere said:
			
		

> Am I "over quoting" or are you just trying to be "smart"?  ""



No, beenthere, nothing with your quoting, I just love the way the press described a Sub....makes it sound kind of conspiratorial...a vehicle known as.....DUN DUN DUHHHH! "a Chevy Suburban"  ;D


If the reporter had gone further, they might even had provided additional details, such as the "Chevy Suburban" being powered by a substance "known by some as gasoline."   

Cheers,
G2G


----------



## armyvern (5 Jan 2008)

I once drove an aformentioned Chev Suburban -- It ROCKED!!! 

I was also once on the back of a herc with a dozer chained in, and wiggling about over the Arctic and north of sixty --- it rocked not so much.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (5 Jan 2008)

Damn I thought it was one of those nuclear propelled ones that the CIA uses to hunt down AQ armed with the death ray


----------



## armyvern (5 Jan 2008)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> No, beenthere, nothing with your quoting, I just love the way the press described a Sub....makes it sound kind of conspiratorial...a vehicle known as.....DUN DUN DUHHHH! "a Chevy Suburban"  ;D
> 
> 
> If the reporter had gone further, they might even had provided additional details, such as the "Chevy Suburban" being powered by a substance "known by some as gasoline."
> ...



Perhaps, they may even downgrade the SEC enough to make mention of the electronic gadgets & indicators someone has surreptitiously installed into it's dash.  8)


----------



## beenthere (5 Jan 2008)

A few years back we flew two armoured limos from Ottawa to Vancouver in a C-130. The loadmaster put a couple of passengers in one of them after takeoff so as to make their trip more comfortable. Somewhere over the prairies I went back and sat in the other one for a while and I checked out the cellphone --that's when cellphones were rather uncommon and sure enough I managed to make a call back to my home in Trenton. Pretty neat. When I went back to the flight deck I told the rest of the crew about my call and just as I was telling them I realized that I'd missed a perfect chance to pull someones leg. I could have called MACCS in Trenton on the cell and requested an HF phone patch to our aircraft and asked the First O (young copilot) to check something on the engineers panel for me. Of course he would never be told about the cellphone in the back and would be totally puzzled about what had gone on and would probably spend the rest of the flight trying to figure out just what had gone on. It would have been one of those classic leg pullers.


----------



## Armymedic (8 Jan 2008)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Damn I thought it was one of those nuclear propelled ones that the CIA uses to hunt down AQ armed with the death ray



They are actually fueled by a quantum generator. The heat is syphoned to form the death ray....


oops....OPSEC, crap.


----------



## geo (9 Jan 2008)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> No, beenthere, nothing with your quoting, I just love the way the press described a Sub....makes it sound kind of conspiratorial...a vehicle known as.....DUN DUN DUHHHH! "a Chevy Suburban"  ;D
> 
> 
> If the reporter had gone further, they might even had provided additional details, such as the "Chevy Suburban" being powered by a substance "known by some as gasoline."
> ...



Maybe we should get CTV to start a new survey poll
Make sure that no one takes Chevy Suburbans into the Air ever again  >


----------



## chrisf (9 Jan 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> Maybe we should get CTV to start a new survey poll
> Make sure that no one takes Chevy Suburbans into the Air ever again  >



But it should also be obscure and extremely open ended...

"Should Suburbans fly?"


----------



## TN2IC (9 Jan 2008)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> I would think that since Chevy Suburbans don't normally spring into spontaneous combustion, there must have been some fault with the vehicle that was not detectable by the LM during the load.  The number of the crews may also include other crew or pers dead heading back on the aircraft.
> 
> G2G




I'm thinking "may be" battery wires hitting other metal objects.  ;D

I do recall the batteries have to be disable in some way while in the vehicle. (ie.. negitive disconnected.)
Please correct me if I'm wrong. It has been a bit since I"ve done it.


----------



## mover1 (9 Jan 2008)

The press could have called it by its shipping name...

" UN 3166 Vehicle, flammable gas powered or UN 3166 Vehicle, flammable liquid powered," sounds mysterious  


Steel wool is not regulated. 
DG and Hazardous Materials fall into different categories as identified in the ICAO and IATA Pubs. 


OR as sited in the TDG 
2.1 Determining When Substances Are Dangerous Goods

A substance is dangerous goods when

(a) it is listed by name in Schedule 1 and is in any form, state or concentration that meets the criteria in this Part for inclusion in at least one of the 9 classes of dangerous goods; or

(b) it is not listed by name in Schedule 1 but meets the criteria in this Part for inclusion in at least one of the 9 classes of dangerous goods.


2.1 Determining When Substances Are Dangerous Goods

A substance is dangerous goods when

(a) it is listed by name in Schedule 1 and is in any form, state or concentration that meets the criteria in this Part for inclusion in at least one of the 9 classes of dangerous goods; or

(b) it is not listed by name in Schedule 1 but meets the criteria in this Part for inclusion in at least one of the 9 classes of dangerous goods.


All Vehicles in the CF are transported with in accordance with the A-LM-117 
Chevy products are crap.

As for the batteris being disconected...NO not necessarily. 
It depends on what it is and what checklist it  falls under.


----------



## geo (9 Jan 2008)

"Steel wool is not regulated. "

Steel wool and a 9 volt battery.... GREAT fire starter


----------



## beenthere (9 Jan 2008)

It's been a few years since I was involved but there used to be a CFP regarding cargo in the library on board the Hercules . "CFP---Manual of Dangerous Cargo" or something similar that covered all of the things which were special in nature and had to be classified. The movers  such as Mover1 had a whole empire which revolved around this book and loadmasters used to cause flight delays out of Trenton (usually at 00Darkhundred) while they got someone out of bed to cut a message from HQ which was across the road authorizing the flight to carry something mundane like a can of oil to Alert.  No one had to look at the cargo in question but they had to provide a piece of paper saying that it was OK to put it on the flight.
The book had listings of all of the things that were considered dangerous or hazardous or whatever and there was no end to the controversy over what was what and who should do what about what.


----------



## geo (9 Jan 2008)

no question about it beenthere

A You look at steel wool & you say so what
B You look at a 9 volt battery and you say so what
You put A & B together and surprise... you say WHOA!


----------



## beenthere (9 Jan 2008)

Yep. Steel wool burns. Those neat little hand warmer packets that you can put in your mitts contain steel filings and something to accelerate oxidation of them--some form of salt? I've heard lots of stories about steel wool being inflamable in the right conditions.
At any rate the CFP regarding dangerous cargo used to be interesting. Why items like bailed human hair, charcoal, and similar things were dangerous topics for conversation  on long flights . A small (1 qt.) can of paint was bad but a large (1 gal.) can was OK.?? 

  A cute note on spellcheck. It must have a naughty mind. In the first line of my post there is "them--some". Spellcheck suggested threesome.  >


----------



## mover1 (9 Jan 2008)

Yes I know steel wool burns and a battery can cause it to ignite. 
There are rules on Batteries too. 
Loose batteries are to be bundled together with their ends taped.  

As for our little empire which revolves around a piece of paper. I suggest you look a little deeper into the picture. 

Firstly all dangerous goods has to be packaged and documented properly. THIS IS THE LAW
Secondly  there are compatibility issues to deal with. If substance A mixes with substance B will it cause a reaction? If so what reaction is this. (hey lets put this LOX cart on with an open can of Grease)
Next we need permission to put it on board DND aircraft. IF DG is boarded then only duty passengers may board the Aircraft. No PRI 5 personnel. 
The people in Move Winnipeg give us authority to load DG on certain Aircraft and they give overflight permission for us to fly into/over different countries with our junk. (Guns/Ammo/Fuel) It also determines where A/C are allowed to park. 


We don't make the rules the Minister of Transport does. I just have to follow it because it's my ass that gets hung to dry and on the safety perspective it make sense.

But there are exceptions to everything on an OP these rules can go out the window. But only if we have that little piece of paper giving us authority for a Combat Load.


----------



## beenthere (9 Jan 2008)

Mover1. I knew all of that and I knew that if I mentioned empire you would respond as you did.  > However, no doubt many people who have read your post will benefit from your explanation of how the system works.


----------



## Gramps (9 Jan 2008)

To add to what Mover 1 said about DC. There are more than one pub that we use depending on the situation. We use ICAO, IATA, IMDG (sea shipments), TDG Act(Road shipments), The AL-M-117, and to a lesser extent the AL-M-258-4, there are more but these are the most commonly used pubs for DC. 

Also for shipping purposes there needs to be a Mov Winnipeg DC Acceptance message, CARF, Waybill, Shippers Declaration of Dangerous Goods, and a couple of other docs depending if you are going out of the country. There is much more to it than most people know.


----------



## Zoomie (9 Jan 2008)

Stop the pain!  

DC is a huge PITA in my world.  We lack MAMs support - don't have a Loadie - and our FE is task saturated enough with his job.  I like to always have the caveat in my back pocket that gives the AC the final authority to decide to go without any paperwork if the conditions are met.  I'd hate to have to delay SAR because A4 Mov wasn't answering their phones.


----------



## mover1 (10 Jan 2008)

no problem beenthere 

besides its our empire to defend with all those FE's and Navs slowly becoming obsolescent. and going the way of the Wireless/ Air Gunner ;D


----------



## beenthere (10 Jan 2008)

Zoomie said:
			
		

> Stop the pain!
> 
> DC is a huge PITA in my world.  We lack MAMs support - don't have a Loadie - and our FE is task saturated enough with his job.  I like to always have the caveat in my back pocket that gives the AC the final authority to decide to go without any paperwork if the conditions are met.  I'd hate to have to delay SAR because A4 Mov wasn't answering their phones.


I recall something about a blanket coverage or permanent waiver for dangerous cargo on SAR ops.  Obviously something has changed.  What about all of the smokes, flares and other fireworks that are carried on all SAR aircraft?


----------



## Zoomie (11 Jan 2008)

beenthere said:
			
		

> I recall something about a blanket coverage or permanent waiver for dangerous cargo on SAR ops.



Sorry to add confusion - the DC waiver still covers all of our SAR load and anything else that we could possibly use in SAR.  The option of being able to self-authorize would be for anything above and beyond the scope of the waiver.


----------



## Good2Golf (12 Jan 2008)

mover1 said:
			
		

> no problem beenthere
> 
> besides its our empire to defend with all those FE's and Navs slowly becoming obsolescent. and going the way of the Wireless/ Air Gunner ;D



 :rofl:


----------



## Rigger (12 Jan 2008)

Zoomie
Be carefull, Us FE's  are pretty on the ball when it comes to DG. Just don't expect the same departure time when we are wearing both hats. I've only been bitten once and that was on a SAR launch while dual tasked to carry an EOD team. It got worked out in the end and lets say it will not happen again. Any way I' don't have to worry about it any more, apparently on the CC-130 there are Load Masters that take care of it .


----------



## Zoomie (12 Jan 2008)

RiggerFE said:
			
		

> apparently on the CC-130 there are Load Masters that take care of it .



You posted?


----------



## beenthere (12 Jan 2008)

Loadies take care of lots of things; coffee, tea, cooking, cleaning and entertainment.  I used to fly with one who provided inflight palm reading services for passengers.  Now, that's a talent you don't find too often.


----------



## Rigger (13 Jan 2008)

Yup
Promoted posted and start course in Trenton mid feb. Its been a blast


----------



## armyvern (13 Jan 2008)

beenthere said:
			
		

> Loadies take care of lots of things; coffee, tea, cooking, cleaning and entertainment.  I used to fly with one who provided inflight palm reading services for passengers.  Now, that's a talent you don't find too often.



Aiden. He provided the most comfy _loadie-tummy-pillow _ for Alert/Thule/Iqaluit flights that I have ever had the pleasure of experiencing.


----------



## Kilroy (9 Feb 2008)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> I would think that since Chevy Suburbans don't normally spring into spontaneous combustion, there must have been some fault with the vehicle that was not detectable by the LM during the load.  The number of the crews may also include other crew or pers dead heading back on the aircraft.
> 
> G2G



Maybe two crewmates inside steaming up the windows?? :rofl:


----------

