It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

C-130 crash in Afghanistan

page: 1
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 06:02 PM
link   
A US Air Force C-130 has crashed in Jalalabad, Afghanistan. The aircraft went down just after midnight local time. No word on crew or passengers yet.

Reports are that they were on approach at the time. No indications of hostile fire at this point. It appears it was a C-130J, the newest version of the aircraft. The J carries a crew of three, two pilots and a loadmaster. No word on passengers. A statement is expected soon.


www.nbcnewyork.com...
edi t on 10/1/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

That's not good news.

Can you give us an idea on how many people would be needed to operate this craft and if the c-130 has any well-known issues?



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 06:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Zaphod58

That's not good news.

Can you give us an idea on how many people would be needed to operate this craft and if the c-130 has any well-known issues?


It takes 2 to fly it and a loadmaster should it have cargo but they can ferry people as well as equipment, depends what its mission was?



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 06:12 PM
link   
My insane mind just said; Freemason! that Nemean lion just took a dive!



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Three to five depending on model. I just updated the OP with more information. It appears to be the latest version, which is a crew of three. They can carry 128 troops, 98 paratroopers, or 94 litters.

It's been years since the fleet has had any major issues.
edit on 10/1/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 06:20 PM
link   
The Pentagon is saying it was not shot down. Which means we're probably going to see the cause as Controlled Flight Into Terrain (CFIT).



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 06:22 PM
link   
12 dead.
I wonder if Obama will make a national address on this today, too.
edit on 1-10-2015 by IAMTAT because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 06:32 PM
link   
Five military, including the three crew, five contractors supporting operations in the area, and two civilians on the ground.



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 06:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Prayers to the crew and families.



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 06:54 PM
link   
Wow this breaks my heart, my son is a C-130 crew chief. My prayers go out to the families.



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 07:07 PM
link   
They were initially saying it was Air Force, now they're saying it's unconfirmed whether it was AF or Marine.

Now it's 11 dead. They had an Augmented crew of 6 on board, and five civilians.
edit on 10/1/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 07:58 PM
link   
The aircraft belonged to the 774th Expeditionary Airlift Squadron, 455th Air Expeditionary Wing. They're currently based at Bagram Air Base.



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 08:04 PM
link   
Thanks for the update.

Let us know when the cause is released.



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 08:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58

It's been years since the fleet has had any major issues.


My old squadron back in the C-130 E'H days



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 08:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

The Es were always a bit of a pain to keep flying.



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 08:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
The aircraft belonged to the 774th Expeditionary Airlift Squadron, 455th Air Expeditionary Wing. They're currently based at Bagram Air Base.


Actually that is the deployed SQ, they are from a stateside SQ. I'm not sure which one now since the picture on MSN is a C-130 H from Yokota AB.

The Crew and C-130 were out of the 39th at Dyess AFB, Tx.


edit on 1-10-2015 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 08:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Xtrozero

The Es were always a bit of a pain to keep flying.


I was at Yokota AB on Es, super Es and H1...lol hard to keep my pubs correct.



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 08:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

I know, but that's who they were under at Bagram. They were the responsible unit for them while TDY.
edit on 10/1/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 08:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

I hated that damn Super E. It was almost as bad as the -135 with the digital fuel system.



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 08:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Xtrozero

I know, but that's who they were under at Bagram. They were the responsible unit for them while TDY. As for the crew, this wouldn't be the first time I've seen a crew from another squadron flying the aircraft. Shell 77 was a McConnell aircraft, with a Fairchild crew flying it at the time of the accident.


True, but typically they are from the same squadron on C-130s since it is more tactical than global. We would spend a week getting over there and didn't have mixed squadrons. I was in the 777 in Iraq a few times. When I was on C-141s I could get any C-141 from a number of bases.

My C-130 buddies told me the crew was a Dyess crew.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join