Down She Goes

Jesse U.
5,497 Views 1 decade ago

They sure don't build planes the way they used to. That plane just fell apart for no aparent reason. I would have to sue the manufacturer.

29 Comments
  • likemeballz December 9, 2006

    mus of been a women pilot

    +0
  • nudrop December 9, 2006

    well, so much for trying to get the fire a little smaller...no way to eject outta that plane.

    +0
  • big_daddy305 December 9, 2006

    Ha ha ha ha ha! How the hell did those wings just fall off? That was fucked up.. I bet there were no survivors..

    +0
  • adrao December 9, 2006

    ROFL!!!

    hahahahahha

    good one

    +0
  • sleeko December 9, 2006

    big_daddy305 ...This happened afew years ago near LA. There were no survivors.

    +0
  • gurtman23 December 9, 2006

    plane was probably made in Ireland

    +0
  • nickkk December 9, 2006

    The wings fell off because the pilot was a dumb ass. You can fly low, you can fly slow, but it starts to become deadly to fly low and slow. The fucker was stressing the bird too much. He should have known better. One less idiot in this world.

    +0
  • hornetmaker85 December 9, 2006

    Main wing spar snapped. Kinda like having your back broke. The only time these break is when the airframe either exceeds its flight life or when it experiences stress fractures due to over exhertion. If an airframe becomes stressed during flight it's taken to NDT (non destructive testing) for eddy current and penetrant inspection. The aircraft is usually not requalified until it has been scanned. I'd have to say that the aircraft proly exceeded its flight hours, overloaded, and experienced heavy wind shears caused by the fires.

    +0
  • sl December 9, 2006

    ^^^^ Wow!! Someone with some intelligence on this site. :P

    +0
  • satanburger December 9, 2006

    ^^^shhhhh....it's A.D.D.

    +0
  • hatedogs December 9, 2006

    " ^^^^ Wow!! Someone with some intelligence on this site. :P " you've not been exposed to intelligence: you've been dazzled with bullshit. Deciding that the main spar snapped is the equivilent of deducing that cat shit stink comes from catshit. He doesn't know why the spar snapped anymore than you do, you sorry sonofabitch. And BTW. The wings didn't fall off, the fuselage did.

    +0
  • hatedogs December 9, 2006

    NTSB Identification: LAX02GA201.

    The docket is stored in the Docket Management System (DMS). Please contact Records Management Division

    14 CFR Public Use

    Accident occurred Monday, June 17, 2002 in Walker, CA

    Probable Cause Approval Date: 4/23/2004

    Aircraft: Lockheed C-130A, registration: N130HP

    Injuries: 3 Fatal.

    The airplane was making a fire retardant drop over a mountain drainage valley when the wings separated from the fuselage. A videotape of the accident sequence showed the airplane as it flew down the valley and proceeded to make a fire retardant drop. When the drop was almost completed, the airplane's nose began moving up, and the airplane started to arrest its descent and level out. The nose of the airplane continued to rise, and the airplane's wings folded upward until they detached from the fuselage at the center wing box beam-to-fuselage attachment location. Close examination of the video revealed that the right wing folded upward first, followed by the left wing about 1 second later. Metallurgical examination of the center wing box lower skin revealed a 12-inch long fatigue crack on the lower surface of the right wing beneath the forward doubler, with two separate fatigue crack initiation sites at stringer attachment rivet holes (which join the external doubler and the internal stringers to the lower skin panel). The cracks from both initiation sites eventually linked up to create a single crack. The portion of the wing skin containing the fatigue crack was covered by a manufacturer-installed doubler, which would have hidden the crack from view and, therefore, prevented detection of the crack from a visual inspection of the exterior of the airplane. The investigation found that the airplane was probably operated within the maximum takeoff gross weight limits specified in the airplane flight manual. The airplane was delivered new to the U.S. Air Force (USAF) in 1957 and was retired from military service in 1978. The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) acquired it from the USAF in 1988 for use as a fire suppression tanker. Between 1978 and 1988, it was kept in a desert storage facility. It was transferred to a civilian contractor for firefighting operations and modified for that role, then sold to a Part 135 operator. The airplane was certificated by the FAA in the restricted category under a type certificate held by the USFS. A Lockheed study concluded that firefighting missions were substantially more severe than typical military logistics operations and aircraft operated in this role would require inspection intervals as much as 12 times more frequently than typical military transport usage for meeting damage tolerance requirements. Concerning the detectability of the cracks, Lockheed reported that nondestructive x-ray inspection methods in current industry and military depot level maintenance processes could have detected, with high confidence, the fatigue cracks when they were 0.50 to 0.75 inch long. Inspection intervals appropriate for this detectable crack size can be determined from a damage tolerance crack growth analysis; however, this requires an extensive knowledge of the operational loads environment and internal stresses of the C-130A wing such as would be found in a military depot level maintenance program. The operating limitations accompanying the restricted certificate specified that it be flown and maintained in accordance with the then-current (1988) USAF technical orders for the C-130A. The USAF depot level maintenance program was not included in the maintenance technical orders and was not individually specified on the certificate's operating limitations. The limitations letter did not specify compliance with USAF maintenance program modifications/amendments in technical orders issued after 1988. The operator devised a maintenance and inspection program based on the specified USAF maintenance technical order but did not develop a depot level inspection requirement to ensure continued long-term airworthiness and damage tolerance that would account for the stresses on the airplane resulting from its new firefighting role and the increasing age of the airplanes. Investigation found that there are five separate FAA-issued type certificates owned by five separate firms for the C-130As used as tankers. Although the five certificates have similar maintenance requirements, none are standardized, there is no depot level maintenance program specified for any of them, and none require full compliance with all military airworthiness technical orders. In 1991, the Department of Interior (DOI) began to doubt the continued airworthiness of the C-130A firefighting tanker fleet and was specifically concerned that the lack of a depot level maintenance program or any requirement for compliance with all military airworthiness technical orders could compromise the safety of the airplane. The DOI asked the FAA to standardize the type certificate for the C-130A and mandate improvements in the maintenance and inspection requirements. In a written opinion, the USAF agreed and urged the FAA to mandate that operators establish a depot level type continuing airworthiness program for the airplane and mandate compliance with all technical orders. In a series of meetings held in 1993, FAA management internally agreed that the DOI and USAF positions held merit and began to develop requirements. In late 1993, in a meeting between the FAA, DOI, USFS, and the airplane operators, the USFS and the operators objected to the idea of depot level maintenance programs and full compliance with all technical orders on the basis of the potential economic impact of these requirements. As of the time of the accident, the FAA had not standardized the existing five type certificates nor had they imposed any additional maintenance or inspection program requirements.

    The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:

    the inflight failure of the right wing due to fatigue cracking in the center wing lower skin and underlying structural members. A factor contributing to the accident was inadequate maintenance procedures to detect fatigue cracking.

    +0
  • behellzebub December 9, 2006

    my synopsis of hatedogs statement is: the plane crashed

    +0
  • gurtman23 December 9, 2006

    hatedogs do you think anyone is gonna read that shit. like the bitch said the wings fell off the plane crashed

    +0
  • deadfred December 10, 2006

    Hatedog who cares the damn plane crashed killing all three aboard Someone was in a wrogful death suit.

    +0
  • big_daddy305 December 10, 2006

    Wow.. what's up with hating on hatedog? He was trying to drop some knowledge on you guys.. Ah fuck it.. Free country.. hate on my fellow crazyshitters..

    +0
  • digitalechoz December 10, 2006

    That dog must have bitten off hatedogs balls to hate them that much.

    +0
  • pooper27 December 10, 2006

    Hey nickkk,

    Please know what your talking about when you post. That had nothing to do with flying 'low and slow'. Flying slow would actually put less stress on the wings, not more. This happened because routine maintenance was not performed correctly. Don't make shit up and blame the poor pilot who had to sit in the cockpit when that C-130 crashed. It wasn't his or the co-pilots fault, it was the ground crew's. Know what your talking about before you post so you don't make everyone else stupider.

    +0
  • dizmo December 10, 2006

    HEY HATEDOG,I read your post , thanks for setting things straight. It may be too difficult for the others to follow though since you didnt include pictures.

    +0
  • catamite December 10, 2006

    Gurtman and others - I read hatedog's post and it was very interesting. Just because you're technically weak doesn't mean everybody is. I'd stick to necrophilia if I were you, you sick old cunt!

    +0
  • commoneagle December 10, 2006

    geovir78 wrote:

    First Post.........Bitches!! ..........................ok here's orders from the high command... if the video involves death the ritualistic tradition of calling first is suspended from that video...in ode to words or other words don't call first if somone is killed in the vid... all three crew were killed

    +0
  • badboyscott December 10, 2006

    THEY WERE PISSED

    +0
  • satanburger December 10, 2006

    Hey hatedog, can you redo all of that for me in Navaho? Appreciate it. Thanks.

    +0
  • hatedogs December 10, 2006

    [ Hey hatedog, can you redo all of that for me in Navaho? Appreciate it. Thanks.] Can you belive that this ass sucking turd knocker wants a translation into a fucking language that the ignorant sonofabitch can't even spell?

    +0
  • detroitleanin December 10, 2006

    More repair parts from china!

    +0
  • detroitleanin December 10, 2006

    Oh yeah and the vid was shot by the cocksucking zipper heads that sold us the parts!

    +0
  • k1tson December 12, 2006

    why the fuck are there so many posts on this? plane crashed, dint even see end of clip

    +0
  • pablosdog December 13, 2006

    Wow! hatedogs is awesome! I have never met anyone who knew how to highlight text on an internet site, right click and hit "copy", then come back to crazyshit and hit "paste". I hope you are using your technical wizardry to solve the worlds problems Dr. Einstein. Oh, wait a minute! Most dogs know how to do what you did you shit for brains!

    +0
  • mydogguinness December 17, 2006

    Thats not the correct way to start a backfire

    +0
 
Home Videos Pictures Categories Submit Login Register