# Herc # 315 Makes Aviation History



## Bruce Monkhouse (24 Jun 2005)

http://www.trentonian.ca/webapp/sitepages/content.asp?contentid=115065&catname=Local+News

Herc 315 honoured as world record holder 
Ernst Kuglin 
Local News - Friday, June 24, 2005 @ 10:00 

It takes a special aircraft to log enough time in the air to fly the equivalent of 60 round trips to the moon. 

CC-130 Hercules 315 has made world military aviation history as the first military Hercules to reach 45,000 flying hours, and 8 Wing/CFB Trenton is the proud home to the record setter. 
Built in 1964 and delivered to the Canadian Air Force in 1965, number 315 reached the impressive milestone May 27, while deployed to 4 Wing Cold Lake, Alta. in support of Exercise Maple Flag, a multinational training exercise. 

To put its length of service into perspective, most of the aircrews that fly Herc. 315 today are younger than the aircraft itself.
Thursday morning 8 Wing and aviation officials celebrated the military aviation benchmark with a tribute fitting a world-record holder. 
Herc 315 was scheduled for a special fly past over Baker's Island where the tribute was held. 

But the military had other, more important plans for the famous Herc.  
It was assigned to 426 Training Squadron for a drop exercise at CFB Mountainview. Crews are working up to replace aircrew deployed to Operation Athena. 
And, yet again, the old reliable and steadfast Herc 315 was called upon to log even more hours. 
But as much as yesterday's ceremony paid tribute to Herc 315, special attention was paid to the hundreds of air force and industry personnel who have spent thousands of hours keeping the aircraft flying â â€ everyone from mechanics to logistical staff. 

â Å“We're here to celebrate those people,'' said Lt. Col Bill Lewis, commanding officer of 8 Air Maintenance Squadron. 

â Å“It takes a world-class team effort. We didn't reach this milestone without the dedication of many, many people.'' 
Herc 315 was purchased in May 1965 as part of a 20-aircraft purchase from Lockheed Aircraft in Marietta, Ga. After serving in squadrons in Edmonton and Ottawa, Herc. 315 was transferred to 8 Wing in 1973. 
Over its lifetime, Herc 315 has undergone more than 600 modifications, including modern electronic warfare and countermeasures suite and armour plating to increase its serviceability in hostile environments. 

As a pilot, 8 Wing Commanding Officer Col. Andre Deschamps has logged hundreds of hours on Herc 315, about 100 of those flying dangerous missions into Sarejevo. 
Deschamps described the aircraft's serviceability as outstanding. 
â Å“We never missed a single mission,'' said Deschamps following the ceremony. â Å“It's seat may be torn, it's paint a bit chipped, but it always got us back.'' 

While other countries had numerous aircraft in the theatre of operations, Canada had Herc 315. And while the serviceability of their aircraft was challenged, Herc. 315 kept on flying. 
â Å“It was a real significant achievement,'' said Deschamps. â Å“We flew three very aggressive missions a day.'' 
Herc 315 has flown and landed thousands of times on mission around the globe â â€ from the heat of the African desert, into the frigidness of Canada's arctic. 

Base officials described the serviceability of Herc 315 as a unique achievement for both the Air Force and Lockheed Martin. 
Lt. Col. Bruce Cooke said Herc 315 has its own personality. â Å“It has a distinct personality of reliability and steadfastness. It has flown around the world and participated in an incredible number of operations,'' said Cooke. 
Cooke also paid tribute to the thousands of hours by personnel 

â Å“This is a rich and wonderful history ... a world class team that generated 45,000 flying hours ... a team that has kept Herc. 315 safe and operationally fit. This is a true cause for celebration.'' 
Herc 315 has flown into over 50 countries around the world and has participated in hundreds of operations over its 40-year career, resulting in an accumulation of more than 20,816 landings.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (24 Jun 2005)

> This is a true cause for celebration.



You have got to be kidding me.  Only in Canada would we proud of the fact that we have the high-time Herc in the world.  No offense to the guys who have probably moved heaven and earth to keep that aircraft serviceable, but this particular airframe should have been beer cans along time ago.

Did I mention that I start flying Sea Kings again this summer  

Cheers


----------



## condor888000 (24 Jun 2005)

Pretty amazing though. 45000 hours. Thats the equivalent of 1875 _days_ spent airborne. Thats a bit more than 5 _*years!*_ Incredable, but I agree, that aircraft should be sitting on a taxiway somewhere, or better yet, in a museum. 5 years....


----------



## 1feral1 (24 Jun 2005)

Hats off to such a fine workhorse of an aircraft, but 45,000 hours to me personally is embarrassing, and being honest is downright dangerous! Thats my opinion anyways. Personally, I would be concerned to fly in it, and I do have confidence in the maintenance of the beast, and the crew, but age, metal fatigue, etc, thats what worries me, and that A/C, belongs in a museum, as its done its time. I hope she is retired with honours, but knowing the CF, she'll be around for some time yet.

We use the J series here, but when I read the above article I thought of that Herc (an older one, retired to civvy service) which broke up in California, during a firefighting operation. The wings fell off (metal fatigue), and burst into flames before it hit the ground. Very traumatising footage as all the crew perished. I am sure many of you remember the footage of that.

An aircraft which is pressureised, flys at high altitude, experiences extreme temperature inversions, etc, repeatedly FOR OVER 40 YEARS of military use, flying still today carrying out most likely the same or more demanding use its ever had, is an accident, and yes a tragedy, waiting to happen.

My 2 cents,

Wes


----------



## Zoomie (24 Jun 2005)

Please remember that we are not a low-cost fire-fighting outfit that does the minimum maintenance required on its fleet.

Our CC-130's undergo routine NDT examinations, they have been taken down to the individual rivet and rebuilt again.  We rotate our Hercs through SPAR Aerospace in Edmonton, where their wings are removed, maintained, and then remounted.

J Model Hercs would not be a good replacement for our models, as the most current Hercules workhorse is a pale version of what we still use today.

45,000 hours is a tremendous feat - I applaud the work of 8 AMS.


----------



## Gramps (24 Jun 2005)

You know it's scary when the aircraft is older that those who fly them (especially when the pilot is not old enough to rent a car ;D). 45,000 hours is a testament to those who maintain the aircraft and its construction but, aren't many of the CC130's in the fleet restricted to certain Operational limitations due to age and fatigue? 

I know we don't do things like LAPES (Low Altitude Parachute Extraction System) anymore for other reasons but, I mean things like TAL (Tactical Airlift), or SAR (Search and Rescue) missions and roles. I have flown on #305 a few times (not to mention a few other vintage tail numbers) and as far as I am concerned if the actual aircrew is comfortable than I have no reason to worry but, 45,000 hours and at the ripe old age of 40yrs it makes me wonder. Don't get me wrong, I would fly anywhere in a Herc but it would be nice to have some newer ones in the fleet.


----------



## Slim (24 Jun 2005)

Wow...That's quite a bit of time in the air...I am constantly amazed that the vehicles and aircraft we have are able to do this type of work for so long. (Incidently the first CF veh I ever served on, a Lynx, was built the same year I was born!)

The abilities of the groundcrews must be phenominal to be able to keep those things in the air!

Great for the aircraft too, but probably timje the us to go buy some new ones.

Incidentlyt what's wrong with the modern day Hercs? are they not as good as the first ones we bought?

Slim


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (24 Jun 2005)

Zoomie,
I agree that our aircraft are well serviced, however, no matter how well my 1964 car has been looked after I would expect to have more breakdowns than I would in my 2005 automobile.
.......and my car just rolls to a stop.


----------



## nULL (24 Jun 2005)

Slim said:
			
		

> Incidentlyt what's wrong with the modern day Hercs? are they not as good as the first ones we bought?
> 
> Slim



Computerized displays, lower maintanance requirements, and one fewer aircrew member in the cockpit, off the top of my head.


----------



## Slim (24 Jun 2005)

nULL said:
			
		

> Computerized displays, lower maintanance requirements, and one fewer aircrew member in the cockpit, off the top of my head.



Not to nitpick but...Where are you getting your facts from?


----------



## childs56 (24 Jun 2005)

this is from the Australian military web site

The Lockheed C-130J entered service with the Royal Australian Air Force in 1999, replacing the ageing C-30E fleet that had served since 1966. Operated by No.37 Squadron at RAAF Richmond, approximately 50kms north west of Sydney, the C-130J is the most comprehensive update of the Hercules aircraft with a new two crew flight compartment and turbo prop engines that drive six blade propellers. 

The 'J' is highly automated and contains state-of-the-art avionics technology. The flightdeck features two head up displays (HUDs), four large multi function displays, five monochrome displays and fighter style controls on the control columns. This glass cockpit technology also includes an Automatic Flight Control System, autothrottle, Head Down Display, Traffic Collision Avoidance System, Ground Collision Avoidance System and a stick pusher to prevent inadvertent aircraft stall. Integrated Navigation equipment provides the pilots with an automatic navigation solution from Inertial Navigation System, Global Positioning System as well as regular ground based navigation aids. 

All automation has multiple levels of redundancy for the tactical environment. The aircraft is Night Vision Goggle compatible and is fitted for, but not with, electronic countermeasure equipment. 

This increase in automated control has allowed the minimum crew to be reduced from five in the C-130H, to just three (two pilots and a loadmaster), removing the requirement for a Flight Engineer and Navigator. 

The C-130J is a tactical and multi role transport aircraft providing strategic air support to the Australian Defence Force (ADF) throughout the world, search and survivor assistance, aeromedical evacuation and aid to Australian and neighbouring civil communities. 

The 'J' can seat 120 passengers, or 92 ground troops, or 64 paratroopers, or 74 stretcher patients and two medical attendants. It can also carry two extra cargo pallets â â€œ an increase of nearly 30% in cargo carrying capability. Compared to the earlier C-130E and H models, the 'stretch' C-130J can also carry two extra cargo pallets, allowing an increase of nearly 30% in cargo carrying capability. Chains and tie-downs for cargo, and passenger seating platforms are stowed integral to the cargo compartment to allow last minute changes to tasking and loads.


----------



## Gramps (24 Jun 2005)

As a note, the CF has a few "Stretch Herc's" and eventhough they may have more room for cargo, the MPL (Maximum Payload) is not that much off from the "H" model. Yes you can put more pallets on them and they are easier to Load Plan but the MPL stays the same, the center of gravity will be slightly different though. This is true for our stretch Herc's, I don't know for sure about any of the newer ones that other Forces may use though.


----------



## nULL (25 Jun 2005)

Slim said:
			
		

> Not to nitpick but...Where are you getting your facts from?



Guess CTD answered that for me  That was, precisely, where I originally read it. Hey, have to know where I'll be applying in a few years, right?


----------



## childs56 (25 Jun 2005)

You know what gets me is the fact that we make it a huge deal when the herc reached x #of hours and say it is an accomplishment and then we act like it is a big feat. Well it is a big feat. yet is it really one that we should be proud of. We have some of the highest hour aircraft around the world, and have a decent maintenance record. But the fact remains it is a ticking time bomb. If we have put as much work into the herc as stated above as spar has done to them why havent we done this to the remainder of the fleet for example the sea king, their are no banners waving or cheering for the sea king and its long service in the CF. Most of the crashes and accidents are usually related to human error, which then results in mechanicle error, then into one of various forms of emergencies. The fact that the herc has had a long life and many are on op restrictions is no great feet as i see it. To make a comment as we are not a rag tag firefighting out fit we do more in depth maintence then them. If i beleive correctly that firfighting herc was owned by the department of forestry(not a rag tag company if i say so myself) in the states and had just come out of all the proper testing to clear it to fly. what casued it to go down was wind shear from the updrafts from the fire (which may attain velocitys of up to 200km/hr), hitting the wings and the fact that it was at or exceeding its gross weight carrying a load of water. Kinda making you wonder what running over the hot flames of a fire can do to an aircraft.  pilots have reported seeing wings fold up on a airplanes as they hit the up drafts from fires.   I am willing to bet that if we were to go to spar and see the work they do we would find that our hercs are in just as good of shape as any other, that includes stress fractures, corrosion damage etc. We arnt special because we kept a herc in the air that long, we have been LUCKY. and that is it. It is time to up grade the whole fleet of aircraft, we have to and yet it will take years and years to do. By placing op restrictions on aircraftand then bragging about how great they are we are really not doing any justice in teh matter. What they should have said is that we have been lucky up till now. We have the highest hour herc in the world and it needs to be replaced, it has been amazing we havent had more accidents with this fleet. Yet for some reason it becomes an glorifyed feet. I hope that Lock Heed is going to anti up and trade us a new plane for this one, and then put it on display.  enough on this subject, yes it is a great feet, and something for the members who have maintained and flown this herc to be proud of. But this should be a case point in the CF to replace the fleet.


----------



## beenthere (29 Dec 2005)

People in the know about such matters report that a civilian Hercules owned by Transafrik passed the 94,000 hr mark this past summer. She works for money so she works hard.


----------



## armyvern (29 Dec 2005)

beenthere said:
			
		

> People in the know about such matters report that a civilian Hercules owned by Transafrik passed the 94,000 hr mark this past summer. She works for money so she works hard.



Guess that's why if you read the original post it quite clearly states that 130315 is being recognized as the "first military aircraft to accomplish the feat."

All civilian (ie Transafrik) birds work hard for their money. That's why recognition in the "Military Class" of non-paying birds is not comparable. She flies because of the men and women who work hard to keep her up there...not to line someone else's pockets.


----------



## Armymedic (29 Dec 2005)

BZ to the crews...

Next time I shuffle out to a Herc with my chute on, I'll take a peek to see what the tail number is.


----------



## Sf2 (29 Dec 2005)

good one....9 months later :


----------



## beenthere (29 Dec 2005)

This thread came back from a nine month rest because I only recently became aware of this site. 
I'm of the opinion that there's a lot more to the Hercules problem than just the age of the aircraft. The aircraft themselves have undergone continuous upgrades since they were first bought and in fact most of 315 and the rest of the fleet consists of parts that are a lot newer than the aircraft themselves.
The entire wing system has been replaced at least once over the life of the aircraft and just about everything else has been replaced over the years. 
The fleet has a number of much newer airframes as well and they don't have the high hours that the older E models have yet the availability of aircraft for use has been dwindling at a great rate. 
I don't have the numbers but I know that the aircraft maintenance squadrons have had drastic cuts in personnel which have resulted in losses of both the number and experience level of people who keep the aircraft flying. 
It would be easy to use age as an excuse for the problem and I feel that this is indeed being done but there are other factors which are likely more relevant.


----------



## Sf2 (29 Dec 2005)

um, not to mention that Transafrik isn't doing tactical approaches into Kabul, or flying around the TATEX at 250'....things like that tend to wear out and fatigue aircraft.


----------



## beenthere (29 Dec 2005)

As a matter of fact the Hercules with the record now is owned by Transafrik and carries Reg.#S9-BAT It  has been doing all sorts of things in it's lifetime. Under US registry as N916SJ it was owned by a CIA fronted company and when not involved in covert operations it operated mostly in Africa flying into dirt strips under charter to the UN World Food Program and other groups. Now, virtually all of it's work is on charter operations for the UN in Sudan and other such places. That's about as demanding as it gets and the work is not just occasional. It's full time.


----------



## Zoomie (29 Dec 2005)

Sorry partner... UN charter flying is not even one iota as demanding as what the TAL boys in Trenton put on their birds.  Dirt strips and flying in Africa is not considered demanding work, it is just ops normal for the C-130.

I find it interesting that the CIA is openly admitting to the use of this particular civilian registered Herc for its covert ops in the past.  I guess the boys in Langley are pretty open with all that secret stuff, eh?   :


----------



## beenthere (30 Dec 2005)

There is nothing on this thread indicating that the CIA openly admits to anything. :
I have a hobby of keeping track of C-130s and most of them have a recorded history.Some very committed people have managed to put together a lot of information regarding the careers of individual airframes.
Unfortunately the Canadian Hercs have no recorded history other than their production dates and with the passage of time it's almost impossible to retrieve any significant history.


----------



## Good2Golf (30 Dec 2005)

Beenthere, you seem to be rather combatitive and like to put forth a lot of unsubstantiated information.

First off, you state that Canadian Hercs have no recorded history other than production dates.  I'll let the folks here decide how that statement sounds, even the non-aviators can probably figure out the veracity of such a statement.

Then, you "roll your eyes" that nothing in the thread indicated that the CIA openly admits to anything...okay, we look through the thread and find that YOU state that N619SJ was run by a CIA front company...so the CIA didn't openly admit anything, the only bit worthy of  : appears to be your own statements.

In keeping with the general user guidelines of this board, perhaps if you either backed up statements with references, or more information in your profile or qualified what you say in a more substantive manner, the members of this board would be less inclined to think of you in less than endearing terms.

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## beenthere (30 Dec 2005)

Well just for a start. My first post was in defense of the presumed factor of flight time on airframes being a cause of problems with the C-130. When people have great concern over something like this I consider that an example such as I gave regarding a similar aircraft with approximately twice as many hours should be complimentary as it would indicate that 45,000 hours on an aircraft that has had excellent maintenance is not such a bad thing.

Response from Short Final--Rolls eyes because thread is 9 months old. I'm sorry SF but I just got here and it's new to me.

My next response is in defense of C-130 including the fact that the civilian C-130 has also led a hard life.
Zoomie responds with a post indicating that he knows all about what charter work and TAL are about.

So now you interpret my defense of the C-130 as being combative. Just look at the combative responses to my defense
.
As for historic records of Canadian C-130/CC-130 aircraft the only thing that I have seen is their date of manufacture. Maybe someone here has more information and they can post it. I have never found the source.

As for backing my posts with references. Will do.


----------



## mover1 (30 Dec 2005)

beenthere welcome to ARMY.ca  home of armchair analysts and one or two individuals who genuinley know their subjects.


----------



## aesop081 (30 Dec 2005)

mover1 said:
			
		

> beenthere welcome to ARMY.ca  home of armchair analysts and one or two individuals who genuinley know their subjects.



Which one of the 2 might you be ?

 ;D


----------



## beenthere (30 Dec 2005)

I can't claim to fit into either category. How about a blend of the two? >


----------



## Good2Golf (30 Dec 2005)

beenthere said:
			
		

> Well just for a start. My first post was in defense of the presumed factor of flight time on airframes being a cause of problems with the C-130. When people have great concern over something like this I consider that an example such as I gave regarding a similar aircraft with approximately twice as many hours should be complimentary as it would indicate that 45,000 hours on an aircraft that has had excellent maintenance is not such a bad thing.
> 
> Response from Short Final--Rolls eyes because thread is 9 months old. I'm sorry SF but I just got here and it's new to me.
> 
> ...



1.  Hours are one thing, usage spectrum is another...CC130's are used hard, especially E's in TAL.  No doubt servicability is as good as it is because of tech humping their 6's...harder today than in the past with manning, but our 130 fleet's acheivments are right up their with the   life of high timers working contracts around the world.  

2.  My comment about the  : was about yours after your CIA/open admission bit...not on SF dissing you for showing up 9months later...as you said, you just arrived...fair cop.

3.  Zoomie compares UN charter to dirt strips in Africa to TAL, not states he knows "all about charter work"...

4.  Aside from in-service dates of each airframe, there are piles of K1017's with every Herc hour on them in archives.  I still don't understand your statement about no history to the CF CC130 fleet.

5.  Backing up material:  You were absolutely clear when you said you didn't have the numbers but understood that servicability was down, fair enough... the other stuff was neither qualified nor caveated.  Some may say that this really isn't necessary but it is something that makes this board a little bit more than a bunch of kids asking each other 'sup?  As folks become known here, other members get a feel for where they're coming from and understand what's factual and what is opinion, and there's a bit of slack handed out from time to time. 

It's clear you have decent knowledge of the 130 fleet, but three posts in and yes, I think there was more combativity than there was solid statement of fact making your case.  Perhaps it might have been clearer if you said something like, "although the CF Hercs do fly lots of hours in challening roles, I believe that significant reductions in the MOC500 technicians servicing the fleet also had a large part to play in less than optimal servicability..." from the outset.  Your principle point, I believe, got lost in the lower level back-and-forthing.

So, welcome to Army.ca and I look forward to discussion tpt and many other issues! 8)

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## aesop081 (30 Dec 2005)

well, after a little bit of a distraction....

As the aurora fleet advances in age ( all our airframes here are past 21 000 hours) and no replacement in sight i cant help but feel that we will , in time, have a thread similar to this for the CP-140.


----------



## danny1222 (30 Dec 2005)

to back up dueys post,   the Canadian hercs are very well documented.  i have been working on them at SPAR for 3 years now and the amount of paperwork for maintenance is overwhelming.  some say it's more important than the aircraft itself.  

beenthere--  where do you get your information from about hercs?


----------



## aesop081 (30 Dec 2005)

The CP-140 fleet's employement history is rather well documented, i can't see the CC-130 being any different.


----------



## beenthere (30 Dec 2005)

I'm talking more of the history of individual aircraft. I know that there is a complete technical history but going back to the original post on this thread we know that 315 has accumulated more than 45,000 hours of flying time but it would be really interesting to be able to go back over time and read about some of the things that the aircraft has done. It's just general interest of course and of no great value but it would help to give some perspective of what the military does.


----------



## armyvern (30 Dec 2005)

Well, she dropped me off for 6 months in Alert in 1998.  

Triple Pig picked me up again. 333. Egads.  ;D


----------



## beenthere (30 Dec 2005)

I'm sure that the legend of 333 has a lot more fiction than fact. When you consider that the individual parts get shuffled around like a deck of cards in Vegas it's hard to associate serviceability to a tail number. 
The latest saga in Alert involved a Herc that spent weeks up there on a one night stopover. I haven't heard the real story but it involved just about every thing that can go wrong with the aircraft happening in a chain of failures. It is something that has never happened before. 
After 6 months In Alert I'd be happy to leave on anything that moves in a southerly direction. ;D


----------



## armyvern (30 Dec 2005)

beenthere said:
			
		

> I'm sure that the legend of 333 has a lot more fiction than fact. When you consider that the individual parts get shuffled around like a deck of cards in Vegas it's hard to associate serviceability to a tail number.


She didn't earn her nick-name for nothing. After 6 years in Trenton, 3 years in 10 Hgr ASF supporting Aircraft spares to 8AMS and Snags she had the highest US rate on many occasions. Her AOG/IOR rate was well-known and she once sat in the slot for quite awhile so Snags/AMS could perform robs from her for the 'less-broken' birds.

I love her though. She got me home safely and I've had the priveledge to fly on her on many an occasion. My thanks go to the hard-workings lads and lass' who keep her in the air.


----------



## Bert (31 Dec 2005)

beenthere said:
			
		

> The latest saga in Alert involved a Herc that spent weeks up there on a one night stopover. I haven't heard the real story but it involved just about every thing that can go wrong with the aircraft happening in a chain of failures. It is something that has never happened before.
> After 6 months In Alert I'd be happy to leave on anything that moves in a southerly direction. ;D



Aircraft snags and maintenance issues can occur at any time.  The problem in this circumstance isn't so much that snags occur but
where they occur.   If an aircraft runs into difficult in Alert, replacement parts/assemblies and repair crews may have to be acquired from
the South and flown north.  That takes time.  Sometimes during repair, it is discovered more parts are required and further time is lost.
Murphy's laws works against everybody even the military.  In my opinion having served in Alert, survived two BoxTops and an Op Hurricane, 
things run rather smoothly all things considered.


----------



## beenthere (31 Dec 2005)

In fact they usually do run smoothly for the Herc because the aircraft has enough systems to provide lots of backups and over the years a number of methods have been devised to get around some snags which would keep the aircraft from operating. Some very ingenious methods have been developed to overcome some things that in the early days of  Herc operations would have meant sending for parts.

One of the worst things is leaving the aircraft out in the cold which really invites problems. 
I had a personal experience up there one time where we had several malfunctions after an overnight stop when it was very cold and used it as justification to bring about a change in the itinerary of the weekly 85/86 flight during the winter period. It got changed so that the overnight was in Thule rather than Alert.
It just doesn't make sense to set things up to invite trouble when there's a better way to do it.


----------



## Good2Golf (1 Jan 2006)

Yup, aircraft definitely don't like the cold.

When we'd go somewhere cold with the Chinook or Twin, we'd take the battery out overnight and bring it wherever we were staying overnight (mod tent, hotel, etc...).  That way the battery still works.  Then the problem is a cold-soaked aircraft, in particular the fuel systems...very cold weather would usually results either in an engine hang on start, or more recently on the Griffon, an engine run-away (high-side governor failure).  Coldest I've started at was -42 in Kirkland lake in a Twin, she definitely didn't like it...spewed huge clouds of white smoke on start and for about 30 secs after light of...took about 20 mins for all Ts&Ps to come green.   Such cold/warm/cold cycles are rough on aircraft, that's for sure...

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## aesop081 (1 Jan 2006)

Duey said:
			
		

> (high-side governor failure).



Those words bring back alot of memories,,,,,then i moved on to the CT-142 !!

2 full from the back.....


----------



## beenthere (1 Jan 2006)

Herc has built in preheat for the engines but the props which are hydraulic have seals that become leaky if the blade angle is changed before the fluid gets warmed up and even when it "warms up" if there's such a thing with all of the airflow over the prop they can leak.

On that particular trip out of Alert we had a prop low oil warning--which is a shutdown condition on one engine, another prop leaking with fluid running back over the engine-just waiting for the warning lite to come on, a cracked window and the refuelling system leaking really bad.

After we put it in the semi heated hangar in Thule and got some rooms we had a crew discussion>very long and serious and made a decision based on the biggest factors--2 leaky props that we'd call it unserviceable. There was a chance that they would seal after 24 hrs. in the hangar and an equal chance that they would still leak. If we waited 24 hrs. and they sealed we would be able to go home and the flight would only be 24 hrs. late. If they /or even one leaked we would still be unserviceable and we'd need an MRP with a prop which would make it 24 hrs. plus the time to get an MRP and a prop to Thule. The other factor was the cracked window. If the leaks sealed we were still limited in pressurization and had to limit our altitude.  If the cracks progressed we were looking at flying with no pressurization and the possibility of the prop leak(s) coming back.  Blundering along at 10,000 with an engine or two shut down would be not a good thing.  We also had another small factor.   The first officer had left the bulk travel claim and the US $3,000.00 advance on the top of the TV in his apartment in Trenton and the only US$ that we had between the crew and 12 passengers was $70.00 that I had in my wallet plus the odd 10 or 20 that a couple of others had. That wouldn't go very far.

We called Trenton and they sent an MRP with two props. They arrived and we switched aircraft with them and went home. Only a 24 hr. delay. The MRP topped up the leakers and ran them for an hour. The result was no leaks on either of them so they brought it home with the two replacement props in the back.

Some careful research disclosed that over many years there were only a couple of occasions where a CC-130 had been declared us in Alert during the (real) cold months but there were many occasions where CC-130s had been declared us in Thule after arriving from Alert.  Obviously something was happening.  Either our aircraft were getting sick between Alert and Thule or people were "not seeing" problems in Alert but  upon arrival in Thule their vision improved, or maybe it was a combination of both.

At any rate we were able to have the itinerary changed so that Service Flight 85/86 would overnight in Thule vs Alert from Sept. to March. I  retired a few years later so I don't know if that is the case now or if it somehow got changed. Things do have a way of changing over time so  wouldn't be surprised.

A good crew always takes the battery to bed with them. The loss of power in a battery as the temperature drops is phenomenal. At -30 it's only a shadow of itself and aircraft are only equipped with minimal battery power at best. The engineering people go for little batteries to save weight so aircraft can haul more cargo. Problem is if you can't get them started they don't haul anything. 
That's something that should be specified on our new acquisitions. Two batteries. One big one is too hard to handle.
There are lots of things that our forces need for our specific operations that aren't standard for most military ops. Our old Chinooks had more modifications done to them in the first five years that we had them than the US Army had done since they were built. 

 From my Log Book>>>Apr. 10, 76 Ottawa-Shearwater 4.7 hrs. Apr. 15  Greenwood-Ottawa 5.0 hrs.
That was the test run on the Chinook long range fuel system. It was pure bootleg equipment. Even 10 TAG HQ  queried the duration of the flight. The first production of the system was a squadron secret. 
That's a story all on it's own. But it's a fact. The Canadian Forces only learned about it after it was built. 

I just noticed. It's next year!
Happy New Year !


----------



## Good2Golf (1 Jan 2006)

Beenthere, heard from Herc and Aurora buds that prop issues heading south on a T56-powered machine can ruin your day really quickly! 

Yes, funny how makeshift, buckshee mods finally make it as endorsed systems, the 3 bladder mod was the preferred solution to Alert...although bladder 4 was only half useful and #5 just gave a bit more gas than its weight offset...in the end, we were pushing 7 hours endurnace...Grise Fjiord to Eureka usually doable without a stop at the Cache at Hazen Lake, otherwise hop to  Eureka was required...IIRC, Grise Fjiord to Alert is about 480nm, cucked the maps long time ago, though so I could stand corrected.  Trying to remember what our hop after resolute but before Grise was.... ???  Darn old age!

p.s.  ya know George Leduc or Roy Clement by any chance? 

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## beenthere (1 Jan 2006)

Nope. I never heard of those guys. 
For sure, lots of the things that are now a part of what we take for granted had humble beginnings.
 The new sophisticated chip detector system started as a simple schematic drawn on a Craven Menthol cigarette package in the Jr. Ranks Club at Uplands. It was only going to be a box with 5 wires going into it . One from each gearbox chip detector so that when the one and only chip light on the panel came on the FE could break the circuit to each detector/one at a time with one of 5 switches on the box thereby through a process of elimination he (there were no shes at the time) could tell which chip detector was hot.   It was a great idea and by the next day at noon an electrician had added a bunch of diodes and crap that had driven the price up to over $20.00 per unit.   Then the wizards got involved and it grew and grew. The result was that something that could have been made locally and put into service by the weekend and then improved over time took at least a couple of years to show up. 
It all worked out in the end and when I was in Winnipeg in the 80's Boeing dropped in with one of their commercial Chinooks and as a part of a tour around the aircraft one of the Boeing folks pointed out the wonderful new chip detector systems that they had developed for their customers. I had to agree. It was real nice. ;D


----------



## Good2Golf (1 Jan 2006)

Beenthere, that reminds me (not only of the 17 lights on the panel behind my seat in the 147) of the NVG mod we did on the first Twin Huey's in 90-91-ish....localy made, cracked some instruments open to put in a 75¢ NVG-bluegreen filter and got it all running...then DAEPM(TH) got in on the scene and we ended up with some fricking $50,000/ac piece of crap that worked like crap, especially the HSI.  In the end, the (TH) didn't go the simple and effective route (internal instrument filtering) because they felt it would be to "expensive" opening up the instruments out of cycle....  How some things don't change!

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Sf2 (1 Jan 2006)

sounds like you two have been around the block a few times.....

I'm glad most of the bugs were out by the time I started flying.  Except for those damn 6 minute cold weather starts......


----------



## aesop081 (1 Jan 2006)

short final said:
			
		

> sounds like you two have been around the block a few times.....
> 
> Except for those damn 6 minute cold weather starts......



Hey at least your aircraft doesnt take 3 hours to pre-flight


----------



## BillN (1 Jan 2006)

Duey,

Just checked my log book.....Grise Fiord to Eureka - June 18th 1986 - LCol Dave Purich was the pilot - Flight was 2.2 Hours.  Well under refuelling time ;-)

The longest flight I did in a chinook was on 005, again piloted by LCol Purich, on June 7th 1987.  Twas from Eureka to Devon Island - 6.4 hours - non-stop with one bladder......we had 15 fuel barrels on board, and the FE (who shall remain nameless to protect the guilty as he is still around) hooked up a "contraption", and fed the bladder from individual barrels in flight.  10TAG would have had a bird if they had seen it.

Most pax I ever carried in a single lift was 68, that was May 31st 1985.  Pilot was Tessier, and the machine was 009.  Flew two platoons from 2 Commando from "Wainwright in the field' to their bivvy site, just after end-ex was called on RV85.  

The old 'hook was an amazing machine, if I had the chance I'd be back on them in less than a heartbeat.

Hope all is well out there in the 'stan.

Happy New Year
Regards,
Bill


----------



## beenthere (1 Jan 2006)

I have a photo somewhere in my collection that shows one of my fellow engineers manning a hose that is sucking the contents from a 45 gallon barrel in the back of a Chinook.
 We were dropping barrels all over eastern Baffin Island to provide fuel caches for helicopters that were going to transport people from The Mapping& Charting Establishment the following summer on a survey. A couple of times we had to cannibalize the load to make it back home to Frobisher Bay. All we had to do was open the barrels and stick the hose from the long range system into them. It went through a filter so of course it was "legal". >
It's just another example of the versatility of the system.


----------



## Good2Golf (1 Jan 2006)

Bill, you're right...for some reason I always thought Grise was further but looking on the map, Ellesmere is not so big and Alert you could get to even on mains only.  I think I was remembering either the hop from Devon to Eureka or from Resolute up to Devon for the long, arse-tingling flight...  Most fuel I've seen myself was 3 bladders...non-stop Uplands to Goose Bay, 10,000' and grounding 230 kts with a good tailwind.  I have heard of 5 bladders and 6 barells on the ramp...but not sure I'd want to open pump JP-4.  It would be a different thing with JP-8, but the naptha in the JP-4 would make me a bit twitchy...but it would entirely depend on the situation...what the headshed in St-Hubert though was a good idea was often much different than reality up on Baffin, Devon or Ellesmere Islands!  I remember the "can't use a Zenith pump" edict...obviously, no one from HQ 10 TAG ever had to wobble pump 12 45-gal drums of Jet-A from a cache in the middle of nowhere (one of the few problems with the Chinook's tiny battery)  

Hopefully the new beasties we get will be -G models....almost 9000lbs on-board mains...almost twice our C+....here's hoping.

Keeping an eye out for things here for when I come back in a bit flying a (hopefully) 'Hook again!

Cheers! (By Air to Battle)
Duey


----------



## beenthere (1 Jan 2006)

We used the pumping and filter system from the CH-113A long range system. It was all contained in an open cabinet that was about 3'x3' and 4' high. 24 Volt pump 2 filters and all of the necessary plumbing. The original pump motors failed quite often so we replaced them with pumps from the belly tanks on Trackers. 
Pumping from barrels was smooth. The hose was just a bit smaller than the bung in the barrel and as the fuel came out air went in so there were no fumes. Pumping time for a barrel was fast. Less than 10 minutes for sure.
 I forget the exact source that we used as an electrical hookup but there was some outlet designed for something like a missile heating system that was already in the aircraft when we got them. I seem to recall using that.


----------



## BillN (1 Jan 2006)

Beenthere,

The pumping system you describe sounds like what we still had during my time on the Squadron - 1983- 1987.

As for the electrical source, we had a proper 120V outlet on the left side of the cabin, about equal to the hook.  I don't know it's intended purpose, but I can tell you that a certain CO decided that if the REME guys built a container the same size as the fule pump unit, with a flat top, we could have the FE and LM cook meals with a kettle and electric frying pan.....lets all save $$$ on TD budgets  ;D

Needless to say, that didn't last too long, and the "portable inflight Kitchens" rotted away in the Loadies lock-up.

Cheers,
Bill


----------



## armyvern (2 Jan 2006)

beenthere said:
			
		

> Some careful research disclosed that over many years there were only a couple of occasions where a CC-130 had been declared us in Alert during the (real) cold months but there were many occasions where CC-130s had been declared us in Thule after arriving from Alert.  Obviously something was happening.  Either our aircraft were getting sick between Alert and Thule or people were "not seeing" problems in Alert but  upon arrival in Thule their vision improved, or maybe it was a combination of both.



Funny how that works eh? I'm sure that the requirement for 24hrs 'out of country' for duty-free entitlement/claim has played absolutely no role in snags being not being picked up til hitting the land of the green either. Funny how show-tours, VIPs et al can manage to land and overnight (on many an ocassion park in Alert's wonderful open-air hangar for periods greater than 24 hours) during the coldest months and manage to get out without a problem. Must be that it's just so much warmer in Thule during the winter and the availability of critical spares there.

Yeah, us Sup Tech Zippos were very busy hot refuelling SF86 to get it back to the "Top of the World" as quick as we could. 

I'd take Thule too, if given the choice.


----------



## mover1 (2 Jan 2006)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> Which one of the 2 might you be ?
> 
> ;D



Aesop you know me, I am the airmchair expert.....i got my info from the history chanel last night time, I belive everything JAG does is gosple and Overthere is a a great show where I learn my tactics from Greenday videos and I love to speak like all the marines I see on TV.


Well I gotta Go and Load Herc# 313 full of Passengers, Gotta Love those Chrismas flights.............


----------



## aesop081 (2 Jan 2006)

mover1 said:
			
		

> Aesop you know me, I am the airmchair expert.....i got my info from the history chanel last night time, I belive everything JAG does is gosple and Overthere is a a great show where I learn my tactics from Greenday videos and I love to speak like all the marines I see on TV.
> 
> 
> Well I gotta Go and Load Herc# 313 full of Passengers, Gotta Love those Chrismas flights.............



Hey Mover1....I'm coming to visit on wednesday.  I'm bringing Aurora #113 with me


----------



## beenthere (2 Jan 2006)

Armyvern. Your assumption that crews would like to go to Thule to go unserviceable and do some shopping is a part of it. I would never even try to suggest that airlifters would prefer Alert to Thule. 
There are some more pertinent factors however and they represent the real reason that SF 85/86 lays over in Thule. It took a lot of research as stated in a previous post and some cold hard facts that were presented to some of the powers in the head shed to convince them to change the itinerary. I don't recall the exact words or facts as it was in 1989 that it all came about but the following should be a fair representation of the reasoning.

 No one unless they have some serious issues or a great fondness for Alert would chose to stay there when there is a much better facility in Thule. I'm not just referring to the shopping mall, casino and the bright lights of the TOW Club. There is a hangar that's warm, work stands, and all kinds of aircraft support equipment and often a USAF or other military detachment with C-130's and spare parts plus a hospital facility.

 When it's -30 to -50 it takes a lot longer to carry out the technical functions required to prep an aircraft for flight.Prolonged work in such temperatures is neither efficient or healthy and exposes personnel to the danger of frost injury and other injuries caused by becoming overwhelmed by the cold such as not being as aware of moving equipment or falling off the aircraft.

Some of the pre flight checks that are required in the operations manual simply cannot be done in that sort of environment so they are not done. There is no provision for doing an abbreviated preflight inspection because of weather/climate so the people who skip items out of necessity are doing this strictly on their own decision and should anything that was skipped on an abbreviated preflight check   develop into a problem that has serious consequences the person who made the decision not to check the item will be held responsible. 

Some people may not be aware of the implications of some of the difficulties that occur in a super cold environment and may chose to commit the aircraft to flight with components or systems in a condition that could cause significant problems in flight.

Crew experience has dropped at a rate that has never been known in the past. Not many years ago a crew would  have at least a couple of members with several years and many flight hours on the c-130 and a number of other aircraft. 7 to 10 thousand hours and more were the norm for aircraft commanders and engineers not so long ago where now an entire crew would not have as much as one of their predecessors. The lack of experience combined with pressure to complete the mission creates a less than ideal situation.

 In flight emergencies in the Arctic in darkness with prevalent bad weather, few airfields with little equipment and facilities can easily cause a major accident in an area that is days away from rescue resources.

When intentionally by means of creating a flight itinerary that causes the aircraft to do a layover in an environment where crew preflight preparations cannot be carried out as specified in the operating manual the organization that creates and and approves the itinerary is creating a situation where the crew are obligated to operate in non compliance with the operating manual.

The rather sad part of this was that when the order was finally given it only applied to SF 85/86. They did not include non scheduled flights in the order and specials such as 6185/6186 which is an extra flight which runs occasionally and others such as entertainment and visit flights don't come under the same order.
I only became aware of that when I arrived at Base Ops early one morning for a 6185/6186 and discovered that we were going to overnight in Alert at minus thirty something. I actually was hoping  > >that the aircraft would get chilled and crap out and never make it home until June but she worked like a charm.  ;D


----------



## mover1 (3 Jan 2006)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> Hey Mover1....I'm coming to visit on wednesday.  I'm bringing Aurora #113 with me



Missed the Top Hat that much eh?


----------

