Home » Wars » Afghan Update » Midair Collision Between a C-130 and a UAV

Midair Collision Between a C-130 and a UAV

by John Reed on August 17, 2011

Well, it finally happened. Something some pilots operating in Iraq and Afghanistan have told me they worry about more than enemy surface-to-air fire; a midair collision with a UAV.

A small RQ-7 Shadow UAV apparently collided with what looks like it might be an Air Force Special Operations Command MC-130 in the skies over Afghanistan. The collision apparently ruptured the wing fuel tank and may have done damage to the spar and wing box. Still, this could have been much worse. Good job to the pilots for bringing the Herk home safely.

It will be interesting to see how this changes protocols for operating UAVs in congested airspace. Maybe this was a fluke incident that no amount of UAV sense and avoid technology could have stopped or maybe the collision is a prime example of why this technology must be implemented ASAP.

Via sUAS News.

Share |

{ 98 comments… read them below or add one }

James August 17, 2011 at 11:25 am

I wonder how the UAV looks after the collision. Something tells me the Herk came out on top.

Reply

Scathsealgaire August 17, 2011 at 8:08 pm

I imagine pieces raining all over the place, but the majority flying earthward like a brick. And a UAV operator wondering why he has lost control, with a scream of "Game over, man. Game over."

Reply

GunsUpFitz31 August 17, 2011 at 8:36 pm

Man one of our "UAV operators" in country lost control or something to that effect (honestly have no idea what the hell they were doing) but that thing went down "in or around the [insert river name] and you WILL GO FIND IT" is what we got told…. 8 hours of wild goose chasing later a little Afghan child came out of a hut on the riverbed holding it over his head saying "you give me money!"…. Irrelevant to the article but your post made me think of that and I got a good laugh about it.

Reply

jackson August 21, 2011 at 6:26 pm

there was nothin left of the bird. and when the dust clears and fault is blamed changes im sure will be made for everyone.

Reply

MVRCK March 12, 2013 at 8:07 pm

First hand knowledge of this wreck, I watched the repairs happen to it for an entire year. First, the accident occurred because tower released the C 130 at the same time as the shadow. At FOB Sharana the UAV flight line is perpendicular to the main active runway, basically the UAV was released by tower saying airspace was clear, then released the C130 as well. Take off an landing incursions are statistically the number one point of failure for all aviation accidents. UAV's rely solely on towers guidance. No amount of sense and avoid would have worked in this situation as a C130 pulls of the ground right into the UAV flight path. As to your question about the UAV, it was demolished completely.

Reply

blight August 17, 2011 at 11:48 am

If the RQ-7 had been carrying an explosive payload instead of a reconaissance one, I imagine the Herk might've been challenged to return home at all.

The RQ-7 on paper would seem unlikely to intersect with the operating envelope of a C-130; perhaps this occured while on approach or takeoff?

Reply

guest August 17, 2011 at 12:27 pm

SOCOM C-130s operate in a very different operating envelope as your standard ones depending on mission. They'd definitely have the potential to be in the same area.

Reply

c130 tech August 17, 2011 at 8:42 pm

This wasn't a SOCOM c-130, but a standard one.

Reply

Shadow Maintainer August 17, 2011 at 9:40 pm

I work with the shadow. It's MAX is 15k ft and usually flies much lower, so it is most likely in takeoff or landing with them both. and it doesn't have any ordinance. The only payload you can put on it is a camera. All of this is unclass if you care to look it up

Reply

blight August 18, 2011 at 9:02 am

I suggested it as a hypothetical, since Hezbollah is already using UAVs for reconnaissance.

Reply

blight August 18, 2011 at 11:50 am

I posited the hypothetical because UAVs still make decent suicide weapons. Hezbollah has them, for instance.

Reply

guest May 25, 2013 at 1:33 am

This happened during landing and it was an ATC failure in which they cleared both aircraft into the same airspace so you had a mid air collision.

Reply

guest June 14, 2013 at 2:56 pm

from what i was told. the uas was conducting a mission and the c-130 was given permission to enter the a/s where the uas was flying and the c-130 has an avoidance system in regards to detecting the uas. the pilots of the c-130 never turned it on and a collision was the outcome.

Reply

Tee Rye August 17, 2011 at 1:05 pm

It's amazing that it hit the wing right between the propellers. I wonder if they have video footage from the UAV up until impact.

Reply

runningbakergirlie January 2, 2012 at 2:03 pm

i bet they do but once an accident like that happens. the payload data is given to the MPs for the investigation.

Reply

curtst March 22, 2012 at 10:06 am

Not like it will do any good since the RPA was probably looking at the ground.

Reply

guest June 14, 2013 at 3:01 pm

the payload doesn't hold any data nor does the a/c itself. the video is transmitted to a ground control station. and if equipped with recording video. the vid would be at the control station and not on board the a/c. more than likely the uas was totally destroyed and the payload would be completely destroyed as well. also, more than likely the po (payload operator) was conducting ground surveillance and would have seen his screen go black. the ao (aircraft operator) wouldn't/let alone know what other manned or unmanned a/c are in the area since the system has no radar on board.

Reply

Harv P March 1, 2013 at 1:11 pm

what an amazing story! the impact was on the left wing!!

Reply

Sanem August 17, 2011 at 1:11 pm

at least it was "only" a UAV: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_California_mid-

maybe UAVs are the solution, rather than the problem

Reply

anonomous November 13, 2013 at 5:25 pm

like that luftwaffe program where they had their planes collide with B-17s on purpose

Reply

mr. j August 17, 2011 at 1:21 pm

Your not gonna see the footage, the army can't have the whole world seeing there mistake! No fluke, if they don't change the way they fly your gonna see more of this,
TCAS only works if you use it!!

Reply

RME AV8R August 21, 2011 at 12:36 pm

Funny…follow on reports indicate it was the C-130 crew that over took the Shadow while it was holding as directed. Time for fly boys with the silk scarf to realize they share the airspace….not own it.

Reply

Brian August 21, 2011 at 6:26 pm

And you would completely wrong. Knowing some of the people involved on the aircrew side. The UAV wasn't where it was supposed to be nor was it using its Mode-C. Kinda important to use that, of course if someone was actually strapped to the Aluminum they were flying they'd realize that. Time for us all to slow down the UAV development and take a good look at how we operate them instead of just throwing more and more up in the sky without proper instruction to the operators. I can say my crew has come to close proximity of a few UAV's in my deployment. We were where we were supposed to be, no one knew the UAV's were going to be there.

Reply

Mr. M March 9, 2013 at 8:11 am

TCAS only works if you are "painting". Otherwise you are invisible except to the naked eye!

Reply

Lance August 17, 2011 at 3:28 pm

Bet it woke the pilot up. There are many cases in history i saw WW2 B-17 almost torn in two by collisions but made it home.

Reply

blight August 17, 2011 at 3:52 pm

That was just B-17s. The Liberators weren't quite as lucky.

Reply

John Johnson September 18, 2011 at 5:07 am

Read 'Unbroken' and agree. A lot more Liberators were made than B-17 for a reason. Hard to fly, impossible to ditch safely in ocean, and ugly to look at.

Reply

Vstress August 17, 2011 at 4:08 pm

Not that it really matters… but the spar is part of the wing box.

Thank goodness for birdstrike protection regulations on the leading edges!

In response to the main comment though… the air-traffic control with UAV's is already being investigated quite a lot. In particular as someone mentioned to ensure no collision with aircraft without TCAS. This also applies to civilian based UAV's in particular where people fly microlights and balloons etc.

It is a problem you can throw technology at… but the UAV's are all about minimising weight, so adding extra equipment (recognition cameras and software) is terribly expensive. Even then, it is unlikely to be trusted 100%, If the probability of a UAV strike is 1×10^5 and you half that to 5×10^4 it is a serious question if this is really worth the money.

Reply

ToolTime August 17, 2011 at 5:09 pm

As far as weight goes, current TCAS II w Mode S comes in slightly over 4 lbs for the boxes. Weight is for this system is no excuse.

Reply

shadow maintainer August 17, 2011 at 9:49 pm

Space is though. The main compartment is already 10 lbs of sh!t in a 5 lbs bag. I tried to find specs on it but if its bigger than about 5 in cubed you're talking major rehaul on the bird

Reply

TMB August 17, 2011 at 7:41 pm

For those reasons there are very few places in the US we're allowed to fly UAVs.

Reply

jackson August 21, 2011 at 6:27 pm

yeah this was towers fault.

Reply

MBI August 17, 2011 at 4:13 pm

Damn, I'm glad the C-130 and crew weren't lost.

Reply

Jayson August 17, 2011 at 4:21 pm

Assuming cameras on the UAV are monitored by ground operators, likely the Herc overtook the UAV or it came into the FP on an angle. I can't see it being a headon collision.

Reply

Crew Chief Xx-87-xX August 17, 2011 at 5:22 pm

The Aircraft would have been a total loss if it wasn't for the quick thinking and reaction of the Aircrew and Maintenance Response Team. This is another example of why UAV's should never be operated near airstrips where actual people land and take off.

Reply

Avionics August 17, 2011 at 8:48 pm

Rumor has it, it was one of the worst C-130s in the fleet…Just Kidding T.R.

Reply

Shadow SO August 19, 2011 at 10:59 am

Maybe that C-130 pilot shouldn't have misreported its position. Also, the C-130 pilot overtook the Shadow, which suggests he could have "seen and avoided".

Reply

Guest September 7, 2011 at 1:09 pm

Your a moron Shadow SO. Maybe you should wait til you have the facts before you dig that hole of yours any deeper….

Reply

Bill August 21, 2011 at 9:36 am

Get used to it! it's the wave of the future. Truth be told the C-130 was probably in the wrong place. I've seen it happen. The Shadow has over 600,000 flight hours in theatre with no incidents.

Reply

guest June 14, 2013 at 3:17 pm

we use the same locations that manned a/c takeoff and land at. what would prefer? us slamming our a/c into populated areas when we run out of fuel and kill a lot of innocent people? or, allow us to land at airfields and airports that support uas systems and have set up approaches and departures for manned and unmanned a/c? i am a uas operator and not once have i lost a single a/c to mid-air collision landing along side my manned a/c brethren.

Reply

Another Crew Chief August 17, 2011 at 5:55 pm
fxdidan August 17, 2011 at 6:06 pm

the real problem is with uav's,the operator can only see what the cameras see.they are talking about pilotless airliners,hope that never happens

Reply

john s. August 17, 2011 at 7:16 pm

As an avionics tech for a major UAV manufacturer, I find it interesting that everyone is assuming that the UAS operators screwed up. The reports don't entertain the possibility that ATC or the C-130 aircrew might have screwed up.

Reply

Guest A August 18, 2011 at 8:20 am

That's actually a pretty good point…

Reply

Animal August 17, 2011 at 8:33 pm

Fix the problem not the blame…Air Crew is alive. 87's and her Crew chief one of the best. She will be missed… JAFO thanks for your concern for the crew…

Reply

Sean August 17, 2011 at 11:58 pm

I'm a Shadow operator. As John s. Pointed out, we get the immediate blame ALLOT. Pilots are the leading cause of near misses, simply because of the lack of training on how we operate. airspace management is a close second since they are in a windowless building several hundred miles away. I would also like to point out that the Shadow program has flow a HALF MILLION flight hours in both theaters without an accident like this, and an accident record/flight hour record much better then any manned aircraft in the Army inventory.

Reply

Jagg1 August 20, 2011 at 5:50 am

Well said! Also it will be interesting to see if UAS crew rest was a factor. Crew rest for UAS operators is often not taken seriously because it is a “video game”. Sadly this attitude is often perpetuated by the manned aviation community.

Reply

Herkcrew October 12, 2011 at 9:37 pm

Oh so that’s why they forget to turn on their nav lights and transponders(if equipped) in airspace that requires it so the people in that airspace and the people controlling the airspace have a clue where all the toys are. Especially at night when we have enough to worry about at night!! It’s funny how these thing make it into the approach corridor and nobody seems to know where the **** these things are. Been there done that and almost got the t-shirt! And trust me, We weren’t the ones that where lost!!

Reply

Unknown March 30, 2012 at 5:38 pm

Well Sean, the UAV driver was to blame along side the ATC controller…… Not the C-130 Crew.

Reply

Paul Deplagne May 17, 2013 at 9:08 pm

You as drone pilot are not risking your life so that is easy to say that you may be the victim. A life is a life and is more important then all considerations about the teleoperation. UAVs have to keep the blame. It is going to be even worst when they send them completely autonomous since there is no valid sense-and-avoid algorithm yet (and we are working hard on it now) and therefore yet one of the first important police UAV robot has already crashed on a SWAT team.

Reply

Thomas L. Nielsen August 18, 2011 at 2:04 am

As I see it, the question is not "Will we have mid-airs with UAV's?" OF COURSE we will.

It's also not "Will we have blue-on-blue incidents with UAV's?" Again, OF COURSE we will.

The question is "Will this happen more or less often with UAV's than with crewed aircraft?"

Regards & all,

Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg

Reply

Eric August 18, 2011 at 2:15 am

The report I saw was the UAV lost link and it's "predetermined" course flew it through the approach of the 130. It may not have been a Shadow, but I know for a fact that an Army UAV flew into an Pave Hawk (which took evasive action) while the Hawk was on approach a few years ago. The only explanation we were given is that it had also "lost link", though they didn't report it until after the UAV wreckage had hit the ground….I'm not trying to pick on the UAV guys, but seriously, lost link should be a airfield declared IFE.

Reply

unknown March 30, 2012 at 5:41 pm

What report did you see? this being 32 weeks ago on your post. That report would have been classified and not published as of you post time….. With that bieng said, be careful on what you say in the future.

Reply

MX Chief August 18, 2011 at 9:00 am

Concur. Lost link should be IFE situation; perhaps with a warning beacon transmittal during any lost link occurences. Particularly if it occurs in a controlled airspace. Could you imagine what havoc a lost-link UAV could cause in a domestic airspace for civilian ATC? Yikes. How many times has that already happened

Reply

uav operator August 18, 2011 at 10:48 am

An operator is suppose to let ATC when they lose link with the AV. The operator also knows where the AV is going and at what altitude. Losing link is not a problem as long as you let ATC know. The AV will still be on ATCs radar regardless of the link issue.

Reply

Gapilot December 30, 2011 at 9:08 am

Loosing a link is not a problem? What about all of the GA aircraft that are not using ATC services? There are thousands that are Nordo. How can they possibly interact in the domestic airspace if they are loosing their primary means of control? That, in my view is the main reason they are not ready for use in the domestic airspace.

Reply

guest June 14, 2013 at 3:23 pm

none for a uas in combined a/s with mil and civ a/c in the area. and we use a mode-3 and mode-c transponder to squak our locations.

Reply

Keith August 18, 2011 at 10:20 am

The argument about UAV's vs manned aircraft is sort of like the Buggy whip versus the horseless carriage. They (UAV's) are not going away and in fact are going to grow exponentially. Sophisticated on board active Sense and Avoid (which by the way is very high on the military’s priority list) is coming VERY soon to both military as well as civilian applications and will be the first step toward a totally pilotless airspace. .

Reply

S Pendergast August 18, 2011 at 11:50 am

Aviation Week article points finger at C130 pilot in this incident. RQ7 was stationed where it was supposed to be under full control at 4500ft off end of runway, when C130 flew into it. Army says ground based sense and avoid would have prevented this, but I don’t see how. See: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_gene

Reply

blight August 18, 2011 at 11:51 am

Shh, but we should blame those lowly UAV drivers.

You know, like how the cavalry guys thought those tank guys were just dirty, ungenteel brutes?

Reply

OMEGATALON August 18, 2011 at 4:34 pm

With the US military planning to use smaller UAVs, situations like this will happen more frequently as it's just a matter of time before a military or civilian aircraft experiences something like a bird-strike where the UAV gets sucked into an engine or worst because these small UAVs do have onboard radar and are virtually invisible.

Reply

Hernan Betancourt August 19, 2011 at 12:01 am

This collision happened in FOB Sharana. I did see UAV’s around the pattern daily and wondered if they would ever be an obstacle to other aircraft. Well surprise, surprise. Apparently, there is no good ATC near Sharana. Somebody is getting demoted. Air traffic around Sharana is similar to Class Delta back home…and the one near Bagram a little moire busy than JFK.

Reply

M in YOW August 19, 2011 at 9:19 am

Why do most automatically assumed that this was the UAVs fault. I'm not saying it was or wasn't but for those that are not aware there are very strict airspace integration plans in place to seperate aircraft (being manned or unmanned). Was it the UAV or the Herc that wasn't where he was supposed to be. Of all the near mid-airs that I have researched it is usally the manned aircraft that violated their airspace. The investigation will bring out the facts. Just because it was a UAV does not mean it caused the accident.

Reply

Unknown March 30, 2012 at 5:45 pm

It was the UAV 's fault…..

Reply

Mick August 20, 2011 at 8:15 am

Who said the UAV was to blame. Why did the C-130 not see and avoid or sense and avoid. Who was in compliance with their ATC clearance…….

Reply

raf August 22, 2011 at 6:35 pm

To "sense and avoid" would require the RQ-7 to be sqawking, all stories I have heard indicate that it was not. As far as "see and avoid"; the C-130 was on final to a FOB, so lets assume they were in the vicinity of 180 KIAS, the RQ-7 was probably in the vicinity of 60 KIAS and has a wing span of 14 feet. So at a closure rate of 240 KIAS and a very small visible cross section, you'll probably see it with about .69 seconds of reaction time which is just long enough to realize that it's too late. As far as the UAV's position relative to the airfield, what was it doing working 4500 feet off the approach end of an active runway? That's just an accident waiting to happen, oh wait….

Reply

Shadow SO August 25, 2011 at 3:32 pm

Actually, the RQ was holding where it was supposed to and squaking as well. And it was not head on. The 130 overtook and merged. So, looking at a closing velocity of somehwere around 70-90 KIAS. On a strobing bird, during the day, with clear vis…….

Reply

Herk Flyer August 27, 2011 at 1:39 am

All the H model herks in theater are equipped with TCAS. So if the Shadow was squawking even Mode-A they would have known there was a contact somewhere around the final corridor. Simply put, I know the shadow WAS NOT squawking. He might have been where they were supposed to be…fine I can accept that, but what kind of aviator realizes they are holding on the final approach path and hears another aircraft cleared for an approach and doesn't bring to ATC's attention."Hey Tower, I'm still holding on final do you want me to move?" Especially after ATC doesn't issue a traffic advisory? Long story short, the UAV was holding possibly where it was supposed to, wasn't really paying attention imho to the ATC chatter or didn't comprehend the big picture. ATC screwed up by not issuing a traffic advisory. And the herk crew are the ones that paid the price.
Sure they could have kept their eyes out more. But try to see it if from their point of view, they are flying a heavy aircraft, in mountainous area. Have to listen to 2+ radios at all times, keep their eyes out for other aircraft AND look at the ground around them for any signs of people engaging them. Yes people just cause they are in the Air Force doesn't exempt them from being engaged by the enemy, sorry to burst your bubble.
It was Dawn btw, so that means haze not clear vis in Afghanistan as well harder to see aircraft. And if they forgot the Transponder what makes anyone think they had any sort of anti-collision lighting on? Unless they are tide to some sort of squat switch…but then again I've personally seen UAV's fixed wing, and Helo's over there not using that equipment. Almost hit a couple UAV's myself.
So why don't you UAV people stop believing what Col Sova say's right off the bat….they just pulled the ATC tapes and the accident investigation has barely began. What on earth makes you think he even has a CLUE to what really happened? He's 12000 miles away and has a job to protect and his information is something like 10th hand. Rule #1 in the military CYA. I'd also like to hear a UAV person actually show concern for the aircrew for once…all I've seen them do in the forum is try to assign blame while others express their concern.
Another question…if the UAV crew was so innocent..why is it when the facility commander at Sharana pulled "all" those involved into a room to see what happened…the UAV crew was NO WHERE to be found? The herk crew and ATC were the only ones present???

Reply

Herkcrew October 12, 2011 at 9:48 pm

We flew in there all the time and those **** things where never squawking, you where lucky if it was day time then you might stand a chance of seeing the things!!!

Sgt. Buffy March 22, 2012 at 9:00 am

Thank you Herk Flyer, your view is just what we needed here, someone who has actually flown with the UAV's and knows what it's all about. We're all just sitting behind a desk reading articles all day. It's nice to get some experience in here. Nod to you too Herk Crew.
But I agree, you can't see the darned thing if it isn't squawking, and this one appears to have been silent. I'm surprised this doesn't happen more often really.

Guest August 31, 2011 at 9:14 am

Actually…. No the UAV wasn't squaking. The C130 was on final @1400' coming in. The report here as well as all other new about this incedent has many numerous errors.

Reply

Unknown March 30, 2012 at 5:51 pm

Oh really…… Squaking as well….. Are you sure Shadow SO?

Reply

bob August 22, 2011 at 12:08 pm

I hope the people on the UAV are OK

Reply

Guest September 3, 2011 at 5:27 am

According to the report on this incedent by ChristianFighterPilot.com, all personnel aboard the UAV died.
a Direct Quote from the article: "The name of the UAV is being withheld pending notification of next of kin."

I LOVE articles where the authors are THAT uninformed, and too lazy to research the subject.

Reply

Tom Milkie September 12, 2011 at 6:15 pm

Even with the best of air traffic control in crowded situations, in military operations, UAVs can easily end up in the flight path of other aircraft. The UAV operators are not even aware of potential collisions, because they are not looking out a cockpit window, and because collisions can come from any direction.
Our company (www.sara.com) has been testing an acoustic-based Sense & Avoid system for years that is able to detect and automatically avoid collisions by listening for the sound of other aircraft. We have flown the system on UAVs as large as the Shadow. The C-130 would have easily been detected at over 2 miles and a collision avoided, with no operator intervention.

Reply

M.S. September 29, 2011 at 6:26 am

It happened here on my FOB, the C-130 was on final approach to the airfield. The UAV launched with an inbound aircraft? Whose protocol is that? The UAV cut across the C-130's nose, I was told that 4 feet to the left and it would have taken out the entire C-130 Aircrew and would never have made the landing, probably killing all the passengers. The 130 pilots did an awesome job landing it safely with only 2 good engines and should be commended on their expertise. Nothing against the UAV pilots and program, just might want to look into their launch protocols.

Reply

Unknown March 30, 2012 at 5:32 pm

How do you know the specifics of the location of the UAV relative to the aircraft? (The 4 FT reference)

Reply

Uknown May 2, 2012 at 6:40 pm

Pass right to left. Hit the #2 Prop into the leading edge between the #1 and #2 engine. I think if we use common sense and a bit of basic arithmetic. we would find that if you placed the Shadow a few feet further right before impact, that with the forward motion of the Herk it would have penetrated the flight deck first. All you need to do is measure the distance from the flight deck to the #2 Prop (horizontal only no angles needed.) I think you'd be surprised of how little distance your really talkin about in the end. Talkin to a crew member all they saw was a big white/grey flash of the plane passing in front of them an instant before impact just to show how close this came to a tragic end.

Reply

unknownrider May 5, 2012 at 2:00 am

I don't know what color it was….. All I heard was "UAV" from the NAV

Reply

Mike S. December 12, 2011 at 8:56 am

I knew this would happen soon, just glad the Herky Bird landed safely, I was flying over in Afghanistan once and the operator lost control of the uav, which made us change course(due to it about to fly through our flight path) and stop CAS to destroy it. Last year on my deployment there on approach an uav came right across our flightpath right before landing, so we had to do an emergency climb to get away from it.

Reply

R Walter Hoeppner February 3, 2012 at 11:14 am

Imagine the fallout if such a collision brought down a passenger jet.

Reply

Robert Adelbride February 15, 2012 at 3:36 pm

Shadows in Afghanistan have the same procedural controls as manned aircraft. Tower. If see and avoid were the only factor then mid air collisions would not have been a consideration prior to the advent of UAS OR this C130 could have prevented the incident. Pilots have every reason to fear mid air collisions but pointing at UAS like it’s the boogeyman is as ignorant as it is unproductive. It is what happens when two things share the sky…pilots undergo extensive training to ensure proper coordination occurs but accidents happen and complacency is as rampant in the manned world as it is in any other field. With a wingspan of 20 feet the shadow is big enough to do considerable damage to an aircraft when (for perspectives sake) you consider how much damage can be caused by a birdstrike. Opinions can differ wildly, but when you come right down to it regulations for UAS have long since been brought up to speed with manned aviation requirements and it doesn’t take alot of digging to recognize that.

Reply

Pat March 11, 2012 at 1:26 pm

Hey Bob,

Did you ever find out if the UAS guys were OK?

As long as your life is not on the line for avoiding a collision then your not taking is serious enough, period.

There is a time and a place for UAS. But as soon as the real ground to air threat is over let’s put them away until they are needed again. There is an industry that is pushing their use for everything and it defies logic.

Have fun with this one boys and girls.

Reply

c130 crewchief March 19, 2012 at 9:08 pm

Well after months of field repairs, 89-1187 (the C-130 that gobbled up that poor little UAV) is back in the states getting final repairs. Can’t wait to get her home for a good old fashioned ISO. Maybe some day I’ll be able to post some of the “up close” pictures I have.

Reply

unknown March 30, 2012 at 5:48 pm

Good to hear. Thank you Cheif, she is like a Timex. "Take a Lickin' and Keep on Tickin'"

Reply

yoyo March 21, 2012 at 12:17 pm

"you should've seen the other guy"

Reply

Uranium238 March 21, 2012 at 2:59 pm

Just missed the external fuel tank I see.

Reply

Sgt. Buffy March 22, 2012 at 8:54 am

For one: Thank God that the crew is OK. This could have turned out very poorly, but it looks like the UAV didn't hit anything too major. Secondly, I can't determine whether this is human or program error, and there doesn't seem to be any way to see (on radar or visually) the RQ7, it's a tiny plane, as far as aircraft go. This does remind me of the German LUNA drone that was destroyed by an Airbus A300 a while ago. The drone missed the aircraft by a hair, then turbulence threw it into an unrecoverable spin. It was at the end of the runway like this one. Maybe our holding patterns need to be rethought?
At the end of the day:
Very Large Aircraft: 2. Military Drones: 0.
Let's keep this game a shutout, shall we?

Reply

Unknownrider April 6, 2012 at 3:14 pm

Yes SGT. Buffy thank God all are well. However, it did make a very good Flight Engineer hang up his Flight bag and end his flying gig. He was one of the best flight crew members I have ever seen. He was good yet never pounded his chest how good he was. He always tried to ensure that the crew chiefs were never left to bed the plane on TDY's. He was one of us….. "You will always be looked at as one of the Best FE's past, present, and future. Never forget us as wwe will never forget you"

Reply

Jim February 27, 2013 at 3:25 am

The UAV Pilot will now get the New Medal that has been released — The C-130 Crew will get nothing!!

Reply

medbroker March 6, 2013 at 7:31 pm

Obama may have decided to take out the Talon crew without due process..

Reply

Paul Deplagne May 17, 2013 at 7:38 pm

Well, this is material for high level research since no UAV does include sense-and-avoid algorithms. The actual police and defence drones are actually a serious threat to civilian safety. I do not want to see them over our cities. Moreover, these are so small that pilots cannot see them 90% of the time. Hence, they should be grounded until someone researchers do find proper techniques.

Reply

Lucky7 August 22, 2013 at 4:43 pm

This is for everyone the C-130, carrying cargo not passengers, broke airspace and over ran the UAV. Don't ask how I know. It was Pilot error that caused the crash if he would of have followed towers instructions this story would not be here.

Reply

Joe Snuffy September 25, 2013 at 12:27 pm

They came to this conclusion over a year and a half ago while I was still in Afg… where do people get these wild assumptions from in the above posts? BTW: I am an aircraft mechanic, not an "operator" or "pilot"

Reply

Herkflteng November 4, 2013 at 2:45 pm

You guys are both incorrect. I happen to know the aircrew. There was no action taken against the C-130 crew nor were they blamed. They ended up pinning his on the ATC.

Reply

Lou August 7, 2014 at 3:19 pm

TCAS requires a transponder on the other aircraft. Unless the UAV had an operating transponder, it was invisible to the Herk's TCAS.

Reply

tiger August 17, 2011 at 1:49 pm

Yep, The Cylons are comming

Reply

Thomas L. Nielsen August 18, 2011 at 2:00 am

If they do, could you send a Number 6 and a Number 8 over my way?

(Yes, I know, I have issues….).

Regards & all,

Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: