Can we talk about this C-130 crash?

[Vraciu]

If that's the case, then it is entirely plausible.  In the mid-90s we lost a C-130 from the local ANG that was practicing 2-engined flight.  I worked with a crew chief who helped with the crash recovery efforts who told me about the incident.  It probably boils down to the C-130 not having enough rudder authority to control flight with 2 engines out on the same side, or having a very high minimum airspeed for 2-engined flight.  Either way, this isn't the first time it's happened.

The airplane has to be certified to fly in that condition.   If you get below the manufacturer’s designated Vmc speed you’ll lose the ability to maintain heading.   Lots of solutions to that situation that don’t involve loss of control. 

Vmc certification criteria:

“Bed Wetting Commercial Pilots Go Get 150 Pizzas From Control Tower Dudes” - I will never forget this mnemonic until the day I die. 

Transport category turboprops have to be able to climb out like that with certain gross and net climb gradients, I would guess, and I have no doubt the C-130 can as well, especially since it was sold to the civilian market as the L-100. 

[Ack-Ack]

It was only thirty years old, maybe forty, last I read.   Lots of active duty planes older than that I suspect.

Just looked it up, it was a 53 year old aircraft.  First flight was 1965, and according to the PR ANG themselves, they operate the oldest aircraft of any state's ANG.

[FESS67]

Probably a flakker parked next to a tiny bush in the middle of an otherwise open field with engine off.  C130 never stood a chance and no way a humble cctv camera would be able to see it!!!

[Vraciu]

Just looked it up, it was a 53 year old aircraft.  First flight was 1965, and according to the PR ANG themselves, they operate the oldest aircraft of any state's ANG.

There you go.  Not-sixty. 

I am betting there are some ANG KC-135s that are older than that. 

I'm not buying the theme.  Maybe they have the oldest Herks but that's as far as I will go on face value.    Small sample size, too.  Five?  Six planes?  Tulsa, ANG’s F-16s have it worse than anything the PRANG has to deal with.

[DaveBB]

The airplane has to be certified to fly in that condition.   If you get below the manufacturer’s designated Vmc speed you’ll lose the ability to maintain heading.   Lots of solutions to that situation that don’t involve loss of control. 

Vmc certification criteria:

“Bed Wetting Commercial Pilots Go Get 150 Pizzas From Control Tower Dudes” - I will never forget this mnemonic until the day I die. 

Transport category turboprops have to be able to climb out like that with certain gross and net climb gradients, I would guess, and I have no doubt the C-130 can as well, especially since it was sold to the civilian market as the L-100.

Apparently it's not that easy or the Thoroughbred Express wouldn't have lost one in the 90s and this C-130 wouldn't have crashed.

[Vraciu]

Apparently it's not that easy or the Thoroughbred Express wouldn't have lost one in the 90s and this C-130 wouldn't have crashed.

So because someone doesn't fly the airplane right that makes it difficult?

It's easy if you do  it properly.   There are millions of hours on this fleet with very few problems.  Screw it up and they'll bite you same as any aircraft.

[Oldman731]

This is yet another CIA trick.

Ah.  That tricky CIA again.  Good to see there's a citizen who still credits the agency with mystical powers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2q-NL3R8wm0

- oldman

[Gman]

IMO there is tech out there which we've been lied to about for a long time, but in a case like this 130 crash, where life has been lost, and the only "proof" so far of anything even arguably being hidden from the public - some cut footage or whatever, of which I can't see or tell there being anything solid showing this - it's just not right, especially before any official crash investigation, which should be the starting place of any "investigation" not the mid point.

The problem I find with jump to the gun deals like this in the OP is that it discredits incidents with actual evidence.  Such as the 50 witnesses at O'Hare in 2006, many of whom were military, former military, airline pilots, etc, who saw a craft hovering, defying physics in broad daylight at close range there.  Or the recent sensor pod vid from a Super Hornet showing a craft moving at 120knts with no exhaust or rotor, and according to the pilots of both fighters present and the radar ops on the Aegis ship, moving and accel/deccel ing at impossible speeds.

Or the following very recent incidents involving many aircrew and military pilots (below)-  again, jumping in with both feet with this 130 crash isn't fair to the families/friends of those killed, nor to those involved in incidents with actual evidence of something being up.  Just my opinion.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/19095/listen-in-as-a-learjet-and-an-airbus-encounter-a-mystery-craft-high-over-arizona

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/18473/faa-recordings-deepen-mystery-surrounding-ufo-over-oregon-that-sent-f-15s-scrambling

[1stpar3]

This is literally the same footage the guy used from HLN and you can clearly see the cut frames from the same camera angle. 76 cut frames. It's proven. It's not a bird. Birds don't fly that fast. Birds don't disappear.

False... Stop being a Meadwad.

Yes I do. There's clear evidence that MsM tampered with the video. Just because it's "anonomous" doesn't make it fake. This is yet another CIA trick. "Only believe our MSM". Fools and delusions only believing large fascist MSM while simultaneously believing that those same corps are evil. I just don't get it. There's a lot you can learn from anonymous news sources.

Reason I posted that video...It was the Video used in the comparison between the one with missing frames NOT the one that showed OBVIOUS EDITING. Unless I just screwed the pooch. Wouldnt be the first time,just dont think thats what I did. The one missing frames was the other camera,the one with the shaking. The one I posted showed A BIRD. Then again,I wasnt there,and I didnt see a NON edited video...non of us did. Is interesting though...i am on the fence

[Puma44]

Another observation from the video.  Assuming this was after takeoff, there’s very little exhaust smoke and the aircraft appears to be in a gradual descent at relatively slow speed.  All the 130s I’ve ever seen on climb out after takeoff have a visible trail of exhaust smoke. That could indicate it was at reduced power setting for some reason.  Obviously not a normal set of circumstances during a 130 climb out.

Has anyone seen or heard ATC/aircraft radio transmissions before the crash? 

[DmonSlyr]

They didn't roll the airplane, physics rolled the airplane.

Maybe he means "roll" as in takeoff roll, i.e. thinking they took off with two bad engines...(?)  No.  No no no.

Sorry, yes I meant take off. Why would they even take off?

Why would anyone "sabotage" a 60 year old "Hurricane Hunter" C-130 that was on it's way to being decommissioned after maintenance repairs were done on it in Savannah?  Did you know that the PR ANG has the oldest air fleet of any state's ANG units?  Did you know that there are serious issues with PR ANG aircraft maintenance, where a lot of their planes are not flyable do to maintenance issues and lack of spare parts?

Again, then why would they even risk take off?

Why would it be sabatoged? That's the question. If the plane just went thru maintenance repairs.. how could the plane fail so quickly right after take off? Why wouldn't they just put it on a semi and ship it accross? What's the point of even flying it with that risk?

Because Violator will just excuse away the NTSB report as nothing more than that department being part of the "conspiracy" he's constructed in his head.  Quite frankly, he'll ignore any logical reason why the plane went down as it doesn't fit the tin foil narrative he's constructed in his mind.

That's simply not true. How about the reports of the last 5 military aircraft that crashed the week before?

IMO there is tech out there which we've been lied to about for a long time, but in a case like this 130 crash, where life has been lost, and the only "proof" so far of anything even arguably being hidden from the public - some cut footage or whatever, of which I can't see or tell there being anything solid showing this - it's just not right, especially before any official crash investigation, which should be the starting place of any "investigation" not the mid point.

The problem I find with jump to the gun deals like this in the OP is that it discredits incidents with actual evidence.  Such as the 50 witnesses at O'Hare in 2006, many of whom were military, former military, airline pilots, etc, who saw a craft hovering, defying physics in broad daylight at close range there.  Or the recent sensor pod vid from a Super Hornet showing a craft moving at 120knts with no exhaust or rotor, and according to the pilots of both fighters present and the radar ops on the Aegis ship, moving and accel/deccel ing at impossible speeds.

Or the following very recent incidents involving many aircrew and military pilots (below)-  again, jumping in with both feet with this 130 crash isn't fair to the families/friends of those killed, nor to those involved in incidents with actual evidence of something being up.  Just my opinion.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/19095/listen-in-as-a-learjet-and-an-airbus-encounter-a-mystery-craft-high-over-arizona

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/18473/faa-recordings-deepen-mystery-surrounding-ufo-over-oregon-that-sent-f-15s-scrambling

There is technology and they are hiding it from us. I'm not discrediting anything. I want answers. Look up how many airman have lost their lives in the last 2 months. This is not a joke.

Asked me. Why should I should I take their reports with a grain of salt? Well, because they don't want you to know. They don't want people in a panic if they find out some satalite is able to down the systems of a particular aircraft. Even Q has elluded to the facts of all of these downed military aircraft being extremely very rare statistically.

Just look at the Vegas shooting cover-up. Look at the evidence cover up, the sweet police cam footage showed removed items in the room compared to the News photos. Witnesses of the event have been getting killed off. This is no joke.

The Douglass school shooting. The sweet kids house that he stayed at. The guy who owned it was a member of the school board and also military Intelligence. Not a single witness account adds up. Hogg is a fraud. Hogg rehearsed his lines before the initial interview. It's all a set up to take your rights.

Do you not see what is going on? Why should I trust the MSM? They hide news. They cut frames. They cover up for the MIC. Ill take the report as a  grain of salt. I'm tired of it. We are in the days of mass media manipulation and cover ups and I'm trying to prove it.





 

[Tec]

My truly insane theory is that the guy walking in front of the truck was just an innocent bystander and possible employee of the trucking business who didn't want to end up on the news/internet and spend the rest of his life being stalked by truthers.  At first glance it's weird, but the plane has already impacted at that point so they aren't depriving you of any evidence. 

[DmonSlyr]

My truly insane theory is that the guy walking in front of the truck was just an innocent bystander and possible employee of the trucking business who didn't want to end up on the news/internet and spend the rest of his life being stalked by truthers.  At first glance it's weird, but the plane has already impacted at that point so they aren't depriving you of any evidence.

It's no guy walking in front of the truck. It's the guys elbow that pops put of the window of the semi. Re watch my original video. In it's entirety.   

1. Why did HLN remove 76 frames so it appears like it blew up instantly after the crash.
2. Why did the plane take 5-6 seconds or more to blow up in the other films.
3. Why does it only blow up after the black drone things zooms from the sky?
4. Why was the explosion so big? Has anyone ever seen an explosion this large from a plane, 5-10 seconds after it crashes?

In the original video where you can see the black thing. The original one with sounds (not the one I posted). One of the guys even asked if it was 2 planes. Then the guy says, nah it was only one... So they noticed the black thing too. In that original footage. It just looks way to fast to be a bird to me.

Another observation from the video.  Assuming this was after takeoff, there’s very little exhaust smoke and the aircraft appears to be in a gradual descent at relatively slow speed.  All the 130s I’ve ever seen on climb out after takeoff have a visible trail of exhaust smoke. That could indicate it was at reduced power setting for some reason.  Obviously not a normal set of circumstances during a 130 climb out.

Has anyone seen or heard ATC/aircraft radio transmissions before the crash? 

And this is the 4th question. Why weren't they at full power? Why is there no attempt at correcting the plane from falling?

This is just bizzare to me, that's why I'm asking yall who have seen and been around planes and this kind of stuff before.

Here is the very original video that the guy used in the film I posted.
https://youtu.be/GQeVoXU3ZI8

[Ciaphas]

Since this is a class A mishap, it will be investigated by the Air Force. Right now every mechanic, crew chief, backshop (hydro, electrics, avionics, AFE etc...) and POL troop that touched that aircraft are masters of puckering.

They will figure it out and a report will be released. They will be truthful but they will not drag the crew members names through the mud should they find it to be pilot/crew error.

I’ve Been through way to many of these... .




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Puma44]

And this is the 4th question. Why weren't they at full power? Why is there no attempt at correcting the plane from falling?

This is just bizzare to me, that's why I'm asking yall who have seen and been around planes and this kind of stuff before.

Here is the very original video that the guy used in the film I posted.
https://youtu.be/GQeVoXU3ZI8

Just a thought.  IF, they had an engine failure and/or prop issue or both, or any number of possibilities that was causing a great deal of drag and resulting yaw force while at climb power, it might be they reduced power to get the aircraft under control and started working the emergency.  It’s conceivable that there were multiple systems malfunctions going on causing a lot of distraction and delay in getting the aircraft under control.