Home » Air » Air Force » A Basic Mistake That Trashed a JSTARS

A Basic Mistake That Trashed a JSTARS

by John Reed on January 27, 2012

Imagine flying, along with 20 or so fellow aircrew, in an Air Force E-8C Joint Surveillance Targeting and Attack Radar System (JSTARS) jet for a mission to track down insurgents planting roadside bombs in Iraq or Afghanistan. You’ve just taken off from your base in Qatar but before you can go scan the ground for bad guys with the plane’s powerful AN/APY-7  radar, you’ve got to refuel from a waiting KC-135 tanker since the E-8’s ancient Pratt & Whitney JT3D engines burned way too much gas taking off on a hot Middle Eastern day.

The E-8 you’re flying in is a converted Boeing 707 passenger jet that was built in 1967 and flew in airline service for decades before being purchased by the Air Force and refurbished for military use in the 1990s.

Approaching the tanker, all is going smoothly until the two planes hook up and fuel starts flowing into the JSTARS. You hear a “loud bang throughout the midsection of the aircraft.” This freaks everyone out enough for the pilot to immediately stop the refueling to check the aircraft for damage or malfunctioning systems.  Finding none, the pilot brings the jet back into contact with the tanker and as soon as fuel starts flowing between the two jets, the E-8C begins to shudder as “another series of loud noises and vibrations” are “heard and felt throughout the aircraft.”

As this is happening, the KC-135’s boom operator, lying on his couch underneath the aft-belly of his jet, sees vapor and fuel pouring out of the JSTARS. Something is very wrong. The tanker crew tells the pilots of the JSTARS what they’re seeing and the E-8’s crew sees the same thing as they look out the windows in the aft of their jet; fuel is streaming out of “at least two holes in the left wing, just inboard of the number two engine.”

The pilot immediately brings the jet back to its base in Qatar. Once on the ground, mechanics find that the number two main fuel tank has been ruptured, “causing extensive damage to the wing of the aircraft.” How extensive? $25 million dollars worth of damage extensive.

What caused this potentially fatal and incredibly expensive accident to one of the United States’ biggest spy planes? A contractor accidentally left a plug in one of the fuel tank’s relief vents during routine maintenance.

This actually happened on March 13, 2009 and the story above is taken directly out of the Air Force accident investigative board’s report on the incident.

Yup, a civilian contractor inadvertently left the test plug inside the jet’s fuel tank when the plane went in for Programmed Depot Maintenance (PDM) — which may have been at the Air Force’s E-8 PDM depot, the Warner Robins Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center  – according to the accident report.

“The PDM subcontractor employed ineffective tool control measures,” reads the document. Tool control measures; you know, the absolutely basic practice of accounting for the exact location of every tool that is used to work on an airplane once that work is finished. Wow. Just, wow.

The contractor’s mistake caused a “near catastrophic fuel tank over-pressurization” and $25 million in damage during that aerial refueling session, the report states. Luckily, no one was hurt.

The report goes on to say, “The PDM subcontractor failed to follow Technical Order (TO) mandated procedures when employing the fuel vent test plug during PDM. Due to the relatively short period of time between take-off and [aerial refueling], the [mishap crew] did not have the opportunity to burn a substantial amount of fuel from the number two fuel tank which could have allowed the “dive flapper” valve to open after the tank’s excessive air pressure decreased to the point where the flapper valve would open. This explains why this mishap did not occur during [aerial refueling] conducted between the time the [mishap aircraft] left the PDM facility and the time of the mishap.

A colleague tells me that Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz said this morning that one JSTARS will be retired, it may well be this bird.

Here are some pictures of the damage to the wing. Note how it doesn’t look that bad from outside. Once you see the inside however, it’s another story. If that’s not enough to convince you that fuel tank over-pressurization caused by a forgotten plug is a big deal, check this out.

 

 

 

 

 

Share |

{ 248 comments… read them below or add one }

Kski January 27, 2012 at 1:08 pm

Well someone got shit canned.

Reply

Nicky January 27, 2012 at 1:32 pm

Looks like someone's gona be on the unemployment line real shortly

Reply

TMB January 27, 2012 at 3:25 pm

So who foots the $25 million bill?

Reply

Bill January 27, 2012 at 9:19 pm

no one, they're retiring her.

Reply

TGR January 28, 2012 at 6:56 am

Taxpayers…

Reply

Kurt January 28, 2012 at 7:04 pm

It’s not 25 million, but 358 million for the cost of the aircraft. The Airforce will never get that cost back… I know the people who were on that flight. Thank God for the air crew. Special bunch that made sure they made it back…. The Depot for the a/c is in Lake Charles, La not Robins AFB. Those people should be in jail for how the conducted the PDM inputs and what they sent out. To this day I don’t think it is any better. We double check every a/c we get from them…..

Reply

blight January 28, 2012 at 11:30 pm

If the government messes up, companies are more than happy to jump in their face. Return fire.

Kurt January 28, 2012 at 7:06 pm

It’s not 25 million, but 358 million for the cost of the aircraft. The Airforce will never get that cost back… I know the people who were on that flight. Thank God for the air crew. Special bunch that made sure they made it back….

Reply

CWO3USNRET January 28, 2012 at 8:34 pm

Depends union shop or non union shop. Union shop no one gets canned. Non union shop the idiot gets ****canned.

Reply

Guest A January 31, 2012 at 7:38 am

Or he gets promoted so he can't screw up anymore aircraft…

Reply

irgendeiner January 27, 2012 at 1:38 pm

Here's the photo for the 2001 c-141 accident in Memphis: http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA—Air/Lockheed
Looks pretty scary…

Reply

BobSacamano January 27, 2012 at 1:45 pm

Good grief, scrap it!!!

Reply

a380 January 30, 2012 at 10:12 am

It reminds me of the early 747s (see Plane Truth)

Reply

a380 January 30, 2012 at 12:25 pm

Bob do you think this what happened to T.W.A instead of the center tank exploding with fumes as it was sucsessful on tape only when PROPANE WAS ADDED as where karosine/pararfin need more than a spark to ignight it as i have had primus stoves for years and it only burns when turned into a gas by pressure and to start that prosess you need methalated sprit to genarate the heat on the burner to ignight the only time i have seen a tank expand on my primus was caused by back pressure and it was cured by the valve (see plane truth)

Reply

BobSacamano January 30, 2012 at 12:35 pm

What's scrapping the intensely damaged aircraft have to do with your reply??? My comment was simply addressing the amount of damage and the aircraft's continued usefulness, albeit your explanation of what happened to TWA 800 may be right-on…

Reply

paul February 2, 2012 at 5:36 pm

scrap this aircraft, when they can change the wing faster then repairing the damage.

Reply

SJE January 27, 2012 at 1:48 pm

Here's a question: why are flying planes with such ancient engines? Commercial airliners upgraded engines years ago, even on many older bodies, because the fuel efficiencies pay for themselves.

Reply

Tom January 27, 2012 at 4:30 pm

What commercial airliners have had their engines upgraded with all new engines? It is not common practice on commercial airliners, there just is not a business case for it for them. Military aircraft are different because the engines make up a smaller part of the total cost.

Reply

joe January 30, 2012 at 3:10 am

More common than you'd think. A lot of aero engine companies have switched into a 'power by the hour' type contract – essentially you rent the engine off them, and they have a responsibility to sort out taking the engine away for servicing, and replacing where necessary. By doing that, the cost of spares, service labour, etc, becomes a drain on GE/Rolls Royce/Etc, not the airline, so it becomes in their interest to offer newer, more efficient engines as part of the deal.

Reply

blight January 30, 2012 at 8:46 am

Sounds like an interesting deal. Do they send the old engines to their military clients after refurbishing?

Reply

Larry February 5, 2012 at 3:45 pm

I would suggest you look into the DC-8 conversions; they are still flying as commercial cargo aircraft. IIRC, the 707 was studied for new engines at the same time and determined the cost was too high for the number of airframes eligible for the extended life that the new engines would provide. The remaining life of the airframe is usually the limiting factor for installing new engines. This is true on aircraft with alternate engines on the same airframe. for example, B767 having JT9D engines compared to the 767 with PW 4000 engines.

Reply

Robles January 31, 2013 at 10:40 am

This may be true for some military airplanes but not for Joint STARS. In most cases the 707 airframes were acquired for less than the cost of a single engine. There is no ligitimate business case today to replace the 'ancient' JT3D engines despite their poor efficiency and performance.

Reply

Anonymous January 27, 2012 at 6:38 pm

That's what happens when you pay for 2 wars and nationbuild 3rd world countries. Less money for new toys.

Reply

Bill January 27, 2012 at 9:25 pm

Hallelujah! I was patiently waiting for someone to tell us the moral of the story, thank you so much for sharing.

Reply

elmondohummus January 30, 2012 at 11:20 am

LOL! Right on, Bill. God save us from all the moral scolds on the internet.

Reply

Sailorman January 28, 2012 at 11:08 am

I was working on the JSTARS program at MITRE when Congress (a powerful coalition of reps that had aircraft rework facilities in their states) instructed the Air Force to buy Boeing 707 airframes for JSTARS. The USAF wanted to use new McDonnell-Douglas MD-80 airframes. An analysis had shown it was more cost effective. US air carriers had sent their 707s to the “bone yards;” so the USAF had to buy 707 airframes from 3rd word countries and rework them for JSTARS. This event is the result of that decision 20 years later.

Reply

blight January 28, 2012 at 4:14 pm

That's pretty short term thinking, especially when they do handwaving about the "reduced costs" of using old airframes.

We assume that parts support won't evaporate like a can of ether. We assume..

Reply

cfabfreddy December 11, 2012 at 11:44 pm

your absoulutely right, those airframes came from, all over the world, some from germany, some from the airforce, they got all of the airframes and the engines on the "cheap". Everybody was getting rid of the noisey , fuel inefficent jt3d-3 and -7's and airforce converted each aircraft to the E-8 configurations, note there are about 3 different strut configurations. some of blanked out windows some have remenants of large cargo doors near the front of the nose.

Reply

Robles January 31, 2013 at 10:44 am

Wrong This event was the result of the failure by contractor performing maintenance to account for tools. The decision to use the over engineered 707 saved the crew from a catastrophic failure that would have resulted if this problem occurred on any other airframe.

Reply

Crystal W. January 29, 2012 at 12:57 am

Also because military budgets keep getting cut! Liberal American citizens and Bureaucrats (whom most have never even visited a military instillation, much less have any working knowledge of what's in the best interest financially and productively for the military, that they are making decisions for) don't believe in spending money on military service members, much less infrastructure support of our military's productive functionality!

Reply

Randolph January 30, 2012 at 9:15 pm

I'm a liberal American citizen, and I spent 6 years on or about military installations while on active duty. I'd request that you keep comments focused on the aircraft and the components, and leave the politicking for somewhere else.

Reply

Bud V. April 5, 2012 at 3:35 pm

The JT3B engines on these jets have been refurbished to MIL SPEC, nothing was spared on the rebuilds. Additionally the JT3B engines (MIL TF33) have a low signature and do not hang down and interfere with the SLR. CFM 56 engines which are now hung on the similar KC-135 airframe, although have more thrust and are more efficient, have a much larger diameter and create a problem for the SLR.

Reply

Anonymous Guest August 17, 2012 at 3:42 pm

Because the Gov't isn't willing to pay for it. MANY changes in air frame have been estimated over the years on this aircraft – all deemed too expensive and the idea canned.

Reply

jstars maintainer February 7, 2014 at 6:01 am

there was a contract and several test flights with new and upgraded engines on our test plane. The contract was scrapped because the new engines were so large they portruded and interfered with the sweep or the radar, limiting it’s effective capabilities.

Reply

Folsythe January 27, 2012 at 2:20 pm

Privatization wins again!

Reply

A. Nonymous January 27, 2012 at 6:08 pm

I've seen mistakes as bad or worse than this one on C-17s, KC-10s, and KC-135s maintained by blue suiters. Mechanics are only human, whether they are in uniform or wearing civvies. Hopefully the contractor makes the necessary changes. If they don't, the Air Force needs to find a new contractor or bring the work back inside.

Reply

Mark January 30, 2012 at 8:15 am

It was not to long ago when a AF Civilian did the same thing and blew the aft end of the KC-135 off here at Tinker.

Reply

jumper January 30, 2012 at 9:32 am

That had nothing to do with the fuel system… it was cabin a cabin pressure test.

Reply

Mark January 30, 2012 at 10:04 am

Does it really matter? The Civilian left a plug in the vent system and was using unauthorized equipment. On another occassion, in 2009, they ruptured a reserve tank on a -135 from using incorrect tools and procedures.

Guest A January 31, 2012 at 7:40 am

I'd be willing to bet the maintainer was prior service at some point. So what are you saying?

Reply

Ret. AF March 29, 2012 at 9:02 am

I would have to agree that the mechanic was prior service. I'm a former Air Force structural mechanic and I work for Lock Heed and Dyn Corp. I would say about 98% of the employees are former military and military retirees. A&P (civilian) mechanics rarely work in government aircraft maintenance.

Reply

Musson January 27, 2012 at 2:27 pm

In the early days of the F-86 – there was a mechanic on the line who installed a single bolt in upside down – because he did not believe the blueprints were correct. It caused the elevators on the tail to lock all the way down when the aircraft went into a dive. Several planes and pilots were lost before the problem was identified.

Reply

kim January 27, 2012 at 3:04 pm

That was the first thing I thought of too. It's mentioned in Chuck Yeager's biography.

Reply

Sumo February 3, 2012 at 1:58 pm

What was Quality control doing ? Sleeping ?

Reply

blight February 3, 2012 at 2:29 pm

This is why robots are better assemblers than people. Program it once, and personnel don't change their minds or experience turnover and change things up.

Reply

docstomper March 27, 2012 at 7:55 pm

This was at a depot. This bird has been around since the 1990's how are you going to build a robot that can climb into the wing… perform all inspections, make mechanical adjustments, and then sign off forms. Just sayin, if you have one of these robots I would love to see one!

Reply

William C. January 27, 2012 at 2:48 pm

There was a program underway to replace the engines at some point, but I have heard no news about it. It was probably unwisely cancelled at some point in the last several years.

Reply

Gunther January 27, 2012 at 3:06 pm

The program was delayed because the contractor wanted nearly $ 2 billion to upgrade the engines on a the small fleet of 17 aircraft. The Air Force wisely took a step back to study the alternatives.

Reply

William C. January 28, 2012 at 2:30 am

If they didn't want to pay a hefty price to upgrade the engines at some point maybe they shouldn't have used repurposed ancient 707 airframes in the first place. That would have been wise.

Reply

blight January 28, 2012 at 4:12 pm

We can't even replace old airframes for airlift.

Reply

Shag March 6, 2013 at 6:18 am
Mark January 30, 2012 at 8:16 am

There are quite a few JSTARS with the F108's I believe, out of Offutt.

Reply

MSgtRet January 30, 2012 at 9:39 am

Kinda wierd, seeing as how they are only stationed at Robins, in Georgia…

Reply

Mark January 30, 2012 at 12:15 pm

Okay, so I was thinking of the Rivet Joints, so you had to give me a thumbs down? Noob.

Crew Chief March 29, 2012 at 8:16 am

The RC-135 aircraft we have at Offutt do have the F-108 engines, but are NOT JSTARS!!!! We do totally different missions with these jets. Futhermore, the JSTARS are the true 707 airliner airframe, where as us RC-135's are from KC-135 airframes which have the shorter wingspan. The big answer for the JSTARS not upgrading to better fuel saving engines is because of MONEY! There is A LOT that goes into upgrading jet engines than just salpping them on. YOu have to replace and "beef" up the engine struts, fuel systems, etc…The RC-135's are around the same age as the JSTARS and the RC's are going to be around until at least 2030…

Reply

Craig H February 2, 2012 at 1:38 pm

For whatever reason, getting maintenance funds for older proven airframes is easier than getting funds for new aircraft. The AF has been trying to replace the C-135 airframes with the E-10/KC-46 aircraft for years. Up until recently, it was a tough sell as the C-135 airframes are very versatile and quite young. Aircraft age is measured by flight hours not by years, and most C-135 variants are only about 33% used up. Even though it is a 1950's design, the last one was built in 1979. A big issue now is manpower costs, which can be more than fuel and maintenance. Once the KC-46 tanker program is done, I think you'll see the remaining C-135 variants phased out and early model KC-46s modified to EC variants. Believe it or not, The B-52 is not scheduled to be retired until 2045, and the US still uses turboprop versions of the venerable DC-3 which is 77 years old!

Reply

MSgt RET 2005 March 29, 2012 at 12:08 am

I'm just curious why they weren't just lumped in with the rest of the 707/C135 fleet when all the tankers got their "New" fuel efficient GE engines…Would have been cheaper.
I flew on my share of KC 135's over the years and always enjoyed the ride

Reply

Robles January 31, 2013 at 10:36 am

The CFM 56 engines that are installed on the KC 135s and some AWACS planes (UK,France and Saudi Arabia) are much larger than the Pratt JT3D engines now on Joint STARS. The CFM engines were excluded from consideration for the E8 because their position on the wing would block the 'wndow' for the Joint STARS radar scan. The larger engines do not affect the AWACS radar.

Reply

jamesb January 27, 2012 at 3:12 pm

Bless the crew and the people who put the rivets into that a/c….

Reply

anonymous Guest August 17, 2012 at 3:49 pm

Northrop Grumman did all the airframe upgrades, including rivets.

Reply

Lance January 27, 2012 at 3:18 pm

Time to fire bad Crew Chiefs and who screwed up the plane.

Reply

TMB January 27, 2012 at 4:09 pm

A contracted maintenance tech screwed up, not the crew chief.

Reply

Thunder350 January 27, 2012 at 8:04 pm

Reading the articles your posting comments on is hard.

Reply

Lance January 28, 2012 at 1:57 am

Your stupidity is hard enough and you dont have to comment and read every comment if you don't like it don't read it pal.

Reply

Thunder350 January 28, 2012 at 2:15 am

Stupidity is blaming the crew chiefs, when the article clearly states in black and white, that the problem was traced back to incompetent contractors. Our men and women have enough to worry about then to get slandered like that.

Reply

Lance January 28, 2012 at 3:48 pm

Sorry they are the same any one who screws up and wreaks a plane should be fired if he enlisted or contracted if your so inflamed over little mistake proves your too incompetent to get the main message. I can tell your one who thinks no one in the service can do wrong well they can any person military or not makes mistakes some times negligence and this happen to military personnel too. I know of Navy deck crew who accidentally pushed a plane off the deck.

Sorry Thunder50 Service men make mistakes too. So do contractors which you seem to hate with a passion.

Nadnerbus January 27, 2012 at 11:00 pm

Damn Lance. I see your posting all over the mil blogs, and have to wonder, are you trolling? Sometimes the stuff you say makes sense, sometimes its wildly asserted opinion, sometimes it is stuff like this that could easily be avoided by reading the article you comment on.

Not trying to be rude, just curious if that is your game.

Reply

Paul February 2, 2012 at 5:29 pm

why do you think a Crew chief done this, more likely it was left in there from fuel maintenance, you must be a pilot

Reply

DTC February 4, 2012 at 4:43 pm

It wasnt the crew chief. It was the civilian contractor.

Reply

shaun March 29, 2012 at 1:22 pm

Dip shit, it was a civilian contractor and it was in Lake Charles La, not Georgia. The crew chiefs had nothing to do with the contract work done at depot. Northrup Grumman made the mistake and should have to pay big time or loss the contract. Friends, fathers, mothers son and daughters were on that plane. The Georgia guard pilot did a remarkable job of landing the plane and the maintenance guys work hard everyday trying to keep a 50 year old plane flying.

Reply

richard April 26, 2012 at 8:19 am

You don't even know what you're talking about. Crew Chiefs didn't screw this up. You're coming off stupid right now.

Reply

dan scott August 7, 2013 at 5:30 pm

I was not the crew chiefs. This was caused by people not doing their job when they were inside the fuel tanks. I did this job on Tankers and bombers for most of my military service.

Reply

E3FE June 8, 2014 at 12:13 am

crew chiefs don't do things like this. They are only glorified gas attendants. This would be depot work not from Tinker AFB like it shows in the article.

Reply

DockScience January 27, 2012 at 4:18 pm

This crew should be on their knees thanking God for saving them.

Reply

Thomas L. Nielsen January 28, 2012 at 3:49 pm

….and cool heads and piloting skill had nothing to do with it? Maybe, just maybe, the crew deserves a bit of the credit here?

Regards & all,

Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg

Reply

blight January 28, 2012 at 4:06 pm

Or the airframe itself, though old still fundamentally sound. If the tank was empty, the rupture would be less catastrophic, and thus not kill everyone.

Reply

"Whitey" White January 31, 2013 at 6:45 am

I do every night…….I was the MCC on that flight!

Reply

Sanem January 27, 2012 at 4:29 pm

and that's why the USAF needs UAVs like the Global Hawk, you don't risk 20 human lives when something goes wrong

Reply

HawkMX January 27, 2012 at 4:58 pm

That would be true, but the Global Hawk doesn't fly… It just sits on the ground and breaks.

Reply

Sanem January 28, 2012 at 6:37 am

actually the Global Hawk has an impressive operational record of more than a decade, providing vital data better and cheaper then any other aircraft

the block 30 is the one in trouble, because developement problems caused a cut in numbers which led to rising costs and finally cancelation. the USAF and USN are still operating older, proven models, the new BAMS, and plan on buying the future block 40 models

compared to other cutting edge aircraft like the F-22, F-35 and V-22, the Global Hawk is a huge succes, be it in developement, cost or operational performance

Reply

ptitz January 28, 2012 at 9:47 am

ye, only nobody was complaining when it clocked 20k+ flight hours in Iraq.

Reply

TGR January 28, 2012 at 6:59 am

So what do we do when the UAVs/RPS/whatever new acronym is made up for an O-6 to make his/her star doesn't work either?

Reply

Hootie Hoo January 29, 2012 at 10:08 am

UAV's can't cover the large scale that JSTARS can. One plane can see more than several UAV's.

Reply

blight January 29, 2012 at 11:48 am

And if you're processing large quantities of GMTI return data-then it has be piped back to a central facility for data analysis before going back up to the front lines. I imagine JSTARS would have people aboard to process the data on site and parse it for useful information, cutting down on time lag and broadband consumption.

Reply

Flyjinx March 29, 2012 at 9:46 am

You have GOT to be kidding me! I have yet to hear any good reason for taking the crews off the jet and replacing them with RPAs. Putting the aircrews lives at risk is what we do. Did you forget this is the military?? That's why it all-volunteer. So, what happens when the Chinese kill our satellite links and the RPA can't get its information back to the ground station? How do we save lives then? The crew on the aircraft right there overhead of our bros on the ground will still get the info they need via good old fashioned UHF/VHF radios. No satellites needed!

Reply

asdf January 27, 2012 at 5:58 pm

welcome to america

Reply

RCDC January 27, 2012 at 6:20 pm

1967? For Pete's sake buy a new one fron Boeng. It could be the rust that cost it to fail. Metal rust on old age. Maybe Boeng can comeup with new fuel tank that will not rust.

Reply

Scotty January 27, 2012 at 6:36 pm

I know someone that flies in the jstars. He said that some airplanes were bought from oversees and that he can still smell the manure from when the plans were used for animal transports in india.

Reply

quest January 29, 2012 at 9:18 am

OH please!!

Reply

Terry32579 March 28, 2012 at 9:18 am

I have actually seen manure in the JSTARS planes as I am one who worked on JSTARS in 1994 in Melbourne Florida. It is true these planes were used to transport livestock. It was our congress who tried to make points by getting people jobs in Louisiana that was more technical. If you looked at the politics congress is to blame for building JSATRS on a horrible platform. Taxpayers spent more money than buying new aircraft that can lift more weight for less fuel.

Reply

b murray January 30, 2012 at 1:52 pm

None of you people know what you're talking about. The tankers fuel delivery system is designed to sense back pressure during the entire refueling process and should have automatically shut down before this rupture occurred. My guess is that the tankers auto shut off valve pressures were improperly set, as well as the tankers pump by-pass valve. The result is hydraulic hammer. The receiving aircraft fuel tanks would not have ruptured, even with a vent plug in place. It is surprising that the refueling booms hose did not rupture before the tanks did.

Reply

Mark January 31, 2012 at 1:10 pm

No. The wing has it's own vent valves and piping that is not tied into the refuel system. Try again. The tank stops filling when the fill level control valves are closed.

Reply

Mark January 31, 2012 at 1:17 pm

Also, the refuelers pressure would decrease to about 50psi with the issue in the #2 CW, but not stop.

Since the climb vent was blocked, only the dive vent was available to vent the tank. On rotation, the fuel level in main tank #2 and the increased attitude of the MA caused the dive vent valve to close (as designed). With the climb vent blocked, the existing air in the tank at takeoff (14.7 psi — the standard sea level atmospheric pressure) was trapped and left the tank with no means of venting excess pressure.

Reply

Craig H. February 2, 2012 at 2:55 pm

I'm sure they could come up with a gauge or overpressure alarm to keep this from happening again. When I worked avionics in the Corps in the 80's, we had a problem with the AN/ARC-51 radios. The new pilots kept blowing fuses because they couldn't believe these radios had tubes in them that needed to be warmed up first. So we installed 4 minute timed relays that disabled the transmit button. I don't know if they were ever adopted fleet wide, but our CO loved the improvement in our availability rate.

Paul February 2, 2012 at 5:43 pm

airframes do not rust sure theres corrosion, but the AF tears these aircraft apart every year from nose to tail. that airframe is a lifetime airframe, strongest built. anything will burst and crack open when there no ventilation, the gas tank on your car is vented if not it would burst open. mistakes happen all the time, thank God they returned to base all alive.

Reply

j.roberts February 2, 2012 at 10:13 pm

that's not rust , it's sealant , were you ever arou
nd an aircraft before……………….

Reply

Sumo February 3, 2012 at 2:00 pm

If it's not Boeing I'am not going.

Reply

Razer February 3, 2012 at 4:47 pm

Rust is not an issue in aircraft. The fuselage and support structures are ALUMINUM!
But fuel tank over-pressure is.

Reply

mike February 10, 2012 at 12:26 pm

That would be corrosion inhibiting compound jackass, not rust. Stick to what you know.

Reply

crew chief March 28, 2012 at 10:57 pm

That's not rust dip stick, its sealant.

Reply

"Whitey" White January 31, 2013 at 6:48 am

I was the MCC on this flight, therefore in charge of the entire crew. These jets were initially built in the late '60s in some cases. In EACH case of getting a jet, Northrup Grumman would go through extensively and "rebuild" it so that we essentially received a new jet. The life span is expected to be a few more decades for them at this pace.

This crew was saved due to it being a "Guard" crew……the Pilot was a DELTA pilot on military leave to serve. His experience, along with the other pilot (Sr. Instructor at the training squadron and the Nav (former B-1 and B-52 nav)) saved the jet and 18 lives……..

Reply

dan scott August 7, 2013 at 5:32 pm

That is not rust. That is the coating u see.

Reply

dukeofurl January 27, 2012 at 6:43 pm

Urban myth. The cost of air transport would never justify flying cattle, especially in India. What jet planes do transport is race horses, but due to quarantine arrangements would be extensively cleaned between trips.

Reply

Andy January 28, 2012 at 11:43 am

Apparently you've never heard of the middle east where prize breeding cattle and sheep are regularly flown. I've carried more than my share of cows and sheep in DC-8's and 747's and it still goes on.

Reply

blight January 28, 2012 at 4:12 pm

I think duke thought of the price consideration when he mentioned race horses, but stud animals are often worth flying rather than risking death.

Reply

SMSgt Mac January 29, 2012 at 10:56 pm

You are mistaken.
From: CORROSION AND FATIGUE STUDY OF JSTARS AIRCRAFT
Volume I April 1997 WL-TR-97-3093
Pg 2-1. “Each of the aircraft assigned to the Joint STARS program was used as a cargo aircraft, and many hauled livestock during their lives.”
Pg 4-22. “ZONES 2-4 OF P-4 The elevated corrosion levels in zones 2-2 and 2-4 on the P-4 aircraft may be attributed to leakage experienced in the crown skins and the cargo carried by the aircraft. The aircraft experienced leakage in the aft fuselage crown skins The moisture introduced through this leak resulted in elevated corrosion in zone 2-2. The aircraft was used, in part, to carry livestock. The higher corrosion levels in the floor structures is believed to be the result of animal waste products in addition to the leakage from the crown skins.”
…handily copy/pasted from a comment by me on an earlier thread: http://defensetech.org/2011/02/18/usaf-eyes-busin
I can't believe people are still rehashing airframe selection/history. What I want to know" was the contractor mistake one that should have been caught by the AF before the event? Accidents have a 'chain' of causes.

Reply

Sky January 30, 2012 at 11:35 am

Dukeeofurl – In 1991 I was a supplier (Cargo Systems) involved with Northwest Airlines. They we're on the verge of backruptcy and the only real money they were making at this time was from hauling LIVE CATTLE to Singapore on there 747 cargo plane. It was very profitable for them as well.

Reply

Tracey Reed March 30, 2014 at 2:40 pm

I cleaned the inside of the cattle haulers… it was nasty full hazmat

Reply

PrometheusGoneWild January 27, 2012 at 7:05 pm

The Air Force fought tooth and Nail for the F-22 which cost a a baggillion dollars a piece.
Yet everything else in the fleet needs a crank at the front to start…..
The B-52 is so old it is a running joke.

Reply

Razer February 3, 2012 at 4:51 pm

The Boeing B-52 has been a Combat Mainstay since the 1950's. The F-22 can keep from being GROUNDED! How do you explain that?!?

Reply

david December 27, 2012 at 12:14 pm

The B-52 is a joke until you see a few of them overheard, because by that them you will be just a memory.

Reply

Jacob January 27, 2012 at 8:00 pm

I imagine we're going to have one very sad contracting firm soon.

Reply

Andy January 28, 2012 at 11:45 am

As long as the government higher-ups believe it's better to contract the maintenance than to have trained technicians and mechanics in uniform we'll be going to war with more unknown faults than I care to fly with.

Reply

blight January 28, 2012 at 4:11 pm

Contractor calls lobbyist.

Lobbyist calls Congressmen on house and senate ASC.

All is forgiven.

Reply

4FingerofBourbon January 27, 2012 at 9:27 pm

Wow, busting Ribs and popping rivets is serious pressure. Good borescrope footage. My biggest suprise however is the author says the AF bought used jets. FFS.FFS.

Reply

Mark January 30, 2012 at 8:56 am

Borescope? This isn't a engine, this is a fuel tank which people (I used to be one), crawl through.

Reply

Nick January 27, 2012 at 10:16 pm

I did this job in the AF and I was the last one to look and close the tank. We were told we would go to jail of something like this happened. Also, I believe this was his personal tool so it wasn’t on the tool roster, also it should have been in the ac forms. Don’t mess with the vent system or boom boom.

Reply

cards11 February 12, 2012 at 11:58 am

Negative. Thier was NO tool accountability.

Reply

dan scott August 7, 2013 at 5:36 pm

I did it for 22+ years. Fuel Sys Repair Spec. After Mather AFB blew a bomber wing off. QC will inspect the whole fuel tank before closing.

Reply

dn scott August 7, 2013 at 5:39 pm

There was when I was in at the later part of my time in service. The tool boxes had cutouts so u could see if a tool was missing.

Reply

Ben January 27, 2012 at 10:45 pm

We should have started replacing the E-3s and E-8s ten years ago. We could have had E-767s and E-JSTARS by now.

Reply

NoFear January 27, 2012 at 11:43 pm

Agree, but there is even a more compelling reason to upgrade now that the 767 has won the tanker contest, standardization. It’s so difficult for the Air Force brass to pull the trigger on it because of a complete fear it would take $ away from the F-35. Thereby jeopardizing the entire F-35. They won’t make a decision until the F-35 line is well into production

Reply

TSgt TPetty January 28, 2012 at 2:09 am

Just remember, the government loves to go with the lowest bidder. You get what you pay for.

Reply

Nadnerbus January 28, 2012 at 4:03 am

So… yes?

Reply

Lance January 28, 2012 at 3:44 pm

I read all blogs and sorry I made a mistake BUT you seem to take comments too seriously and some of you and your bodies here are too hoped up on owning this site but your opinion is crap sorry mine is too there no way your opinions make decisions.

Reply

AviationBuff January 28, 2012 at 4:09 am

"Spy plane?" Why does the media continue to confuse electronic warfare aircraft, like the E-8 JSTARS and the EP-3 (the aircraft type involved in the collision with a Chinese fighter back in 2001), with spy planes? Spy planes, such as the SR-71 and U-2/TR-1, overfly the airspace of other countries in order to gather intelligence (hence, the "spy" in SPY plane). Such overflights usually involve photographic intelligence. Electronic warfare aircraft, on the other hand, usually DO NOT overfly foreign airspace (if involved strictly with intelligence gathering operations). The type of information gathered is usually electronic (such as communications traffic, or gathering information on radar frequencies used by the systems of a particular nation), and can often be gathered without violating another nation's sovereign airspace.

If members of the press could at least get their basic facts in order, I would find it much easier to believe more of what was reported in the news today…

Reply

Cthel January 28, 2012 at 4:19 am

I believe part of the problem was the shift from actual overflights to being-really-high-up-just-on-the-international-side-of-the-border-and-looking-sideways as the mission profile for the U-2. Actual overflight is illegal and lets your enemy shoot at legally; sitting just the other side of the border makes the decision harder for them, especially if you can monitor the spy-planes position to prove it didn't violate airspace.

The current rule for the media is pretty much "looks at (either visually/radar) another country without their permission/listens into another countries EM emmisions" = " spy plane"

Reply

Mach1 January 28, 2012 at 12:52 pm

Are you serious? Weather your flying inside or outside the country, taking photographs with a camera or radar imaging, your still SPYING! Get a clue

Reply

blight January 28, 2012 at 4:07 pm

From a technical standpoint, when you use a radar in the GMTI mode to observe ground movement of vehicles, you are "spying" on the people on the ground.

Reply

AviationBuff January 29, 2012 at 1:03 am

Back in 2001, after CNN had reported the incident involving the Navy's EP-3 (which the news network insisted upon calling a "spy plane") and a Chinese fighter, I remember hearing about a number of military officers, some of whom had actually flown the EP-3 (similar to the one that had been forced down by the Chinese), trying to inform the network about the error in their information (much as I am attempting to do now). They stated (just as I have done) the differences between "spy planes" and electronic warfare aircraft.

(continued on next comment)

Reply

AviationBuff January 29, 2012 at 1:07 am

Mach1, before you attempt to debate an issue with someone, be sure that you check your information, and NEVER attack, insult, or belittle the person or persons with whom you are debating. Your post shows me that you have failed to do either.

Reply

AviationBuff January 29, 2012 at 1:21 am

Blight, that may be true (from a particular point of view), but, according to international law, there is a difference between a "spy plane" and an electronic warfare aircraft (although it is a relatively fine line, as many countries don't like others to even look in their direction from a distance, and penetrating their airspace or territory is completely out of the question, as far as their concerned. Just look at how China reacts to aircraft flying within 50 miles of their airspace – 50 NAUTICAL MILES at that…). For all intents and purposes, a "spy plane" must fly through another country's sovereign airspace in order to complete its intelligence-gathering mission.

(Sorry about the other posts. They didn't post where I had intended, or even in the order in which I had intended…)

Reply

blight January 29, 2012 at 9:33 am

It requires several set-in-stone assumptions, chief among them that "spy" must be photographic intelligence. With such logic, the NSA is not a "spy" agency, since it deals in electronic and signals intelligence.

I guess we should teach the media types about ISR, and simply dub them all "ISR aircraft". Then their viewers will be hopelessly confused.

Riceball January 30, 2012 at 11:32 am

Basically it's mostly a matter of semantics because as Blight points out, whether you're overflying or just flying along but outside the border as long as you're looking in you're effectively spying. The only real difference is that instead of taking pictures you're sampling electrons/radio waves.

AviationBuff January 29, 2012 at 1:02 am

Sorry, Mach 1, I DO have a clue – more than just one, in fact…

And I am COMPLETELY serious…

For one thing, according to INTERNATIONAL LAW, SPYING (where aircraft are concerned) require that an aircraft overfly foreign airspace. As I stated before, electronic warfare aircraft do not normally do this. As Cthel also stated, such overflights have been deemed illegal by international treaty, and rarely (if ever) occur today, even by spy planes (such as the aforementioned TR-1 and similar aircraft). Most of the missions once performed by such spy planes have been all but taken over by satellites today (as well as other means, such as the "obsolete" practice of human intelligence – keeping people on the ground to report what they see or hear), keeping flight crews out of the dangers of performing such risky overflights, and circumventing the legal issues such intrusions of foreign airspace involve.

(continued on next comment)

Reply

oldboyjettoys February 2, 2012 at 4:00 pm

Aviation Buff,

Are you the big nerd at airshows with all the pins if freaking hat that always asks me for my patch on my uniform…dude if you only knew what the JSTARS actually can do (but you don't) you would stop and close your cake hole. JSTARS can gather images with its radar in all weather, yes even when you can't see the ground. You are such a tool. The story here is that the JSTARS is a product of our US Government spending money where they want to and don't want to. F-22s and the F-35s at the cost of the rest of the machinery in the AF. It pisses me off that I fly a dinosaur when third and second world countries buy new planes from Boeing that we AF pilots would love to fly but we don't have the money for.

Reply

blight February 2, 2012 at 8:12 pm

What's interesting is that many of our /ships/ find life second-hand, but our aircraft do not. Instead, our foreign buyers buy shiny new ones.

Sacorbi February 2, 2012 at 7:29 pm

Recon is legal under international law (flying in friendly or international airspace). Espionage or spying (flying in denied territory) is not. That's a big-ass difference if you are part of a crew that gets shot down or captured. It doesn't matter the type of mission, it matters where you are. You don't know whatbyou are talking about.

Reply

Jeff March 28, 2012 at 10:39 pm

you are not spying if they know you are there and what you are doing. spying is covert, reconnaissance is overt, open, visable

Reply

I Know January 28, 2012 at 11:29 pm

By your definition the J-Star is a Spy Plane.

Reply

AviationBuff January 29, 2012 at 1:10 am

I Know, by the definition I just gave, JSTARS (which does NOT normally overfly hostile airspace) is NOT a spy plane, but, as I pointed out, an ELECTRONICS WARFARE AIRCRAFT.

Reply

oldboyjettoys February 2, 2012 at 4:02 pm

OMG dude, I just want to head butt you you are soo full of it. the RIVET JOINT is a EW aircraft. The JSTARS is a Surveillance platform….go back to your room and shut the door as your mom always tells you. Or better yet go play MS Flight Simulator!!!

Reply

SMSgt Mac January 29, 2012 at 10:46 pm

AviationBuff is correct. The JSTARS is NOT a 'spyplane' but a Battle Management asset. To quote the AF Fact Sheet:
"The E-8C Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System, or Joint STARS, is an airborne battle management, command and control, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance platform. Its primary mission is to provide theater ground and air commanders with ground surveillance to support attack operations and targeting that contributes to the delay, disruption and destruction of enemy forces".
It is not a 'spyplane' in any more sense than a combat recon foot patrol looking for Taliban movement are 'spies'.

'Spyplane' simply makes a better headline hook than 'Battle Management Plane', Gotta scare the women and children.

Reply

AviationBuff January 30, 2012 at 2:50 pm

Thank you, SMSgt.

Reply

nkawtg August 12, 2013 at 7:00 pm

Because the E-8 can be used to collect intel, therefore that makes it a "Spy Plane"

Reply

jkm January 28, 2012 at 6:39 am

the crew might have been saved precisely because this is an ancient 707. Those first jetliners were massively over engineered, compared to say a 767.
On a more modern plane the wing might have sheared off, instead of the gradual failure seen here.

Reply

visitor January 28, 2012 at 10:16 am

Lol. Slide rule precision so they added in a fudge factor to make sure things worked

Reply

quest January 29, 2012 at 9:22 am

Spot on jkm. composite wing would not have taken that!

Reply

blight January 29, 2012 at 9:29 am

As they say in the biking world, composite is strong and light, but when it fails, it fails catastrophically.

Reply

"Whitey" White January 31, 2013 at 6:51 am

JKM, that is EXACTLY the truth in what happened. I am an aerospace engineer who was the Mission Commander for this flight. The fact that this aircraft had a very large "Factor of Safety" is what caused us to be able to get it back to the base. Today's "throw-away" jets would not have been able to do so………in my opinion!

Reply

Armored January 28, 2012 at 10:09 am

So when is Boeing’s P-8 AGS going replace this one? USAF has huge budget in it’s use, but they still choose to fly planes build in 60′s.

Are they waiting Boeing to offer modified 787?

Reply

Nick January 28, 2012 at 5:21 pm

The AF uses alot of fuel, more than anyone. It costs alot too. Contiuous work is done on these structures/fuel tanks.

Reply

mekong68 January 29, 2012 at 8:54 am

That program was canx due to $$. They will continue to fly the E-6, another 707. They are currently undergoing Service life extension program at Tinker

Reply

oldboyjettoys February 2, 2012 at 4:05 pm

Generals in the AF who used to be fighter pilots run the AF…they prefer F-22s and F-35s over spending $$$ on heavies…

Reply

Flyjinx March 29, 2012 at 9:39 am

Never. The P-8 as it is currently desgined will not meet the AF requirements for GMTI, nor will it meet the requirements for the Army, which drove the original decision to put the type of radar that was designed for that mission on the Boeing 707-300 series aircraft.

Reply

yoohoo January 28, 2012 at 10:47 am

The Military needs to build planes to last a good 40-60 years before they need replacing. It is much better to build a quality plane that lasts and keep doing modifications to avionics and air frames as the need arises. Look at c-130's, those things have been around since the 50's only because the line is still active and aircraft are being modified and produced as need be. The government needs to stop getting milked for every penny it gets by defense companies. Seems like now every weapon acquisition contract keeps going into cost overruns.

Reply

Andy January 28, 2012 at 11:50 am

The Air Force flies their planes less than 20% of the hours the airlines do. The highest time KC-10 is barely into the 30K hour range while FEDEX's youngest planes have well over 110K hours on them. If the AF keeps up on the corrosion control there's no reason they shouldn't last 40+ years I have to say, though, I'm surprised they haven't put CFM56's on the rest of the 707/720 fleet they're still flying.

Reply

blight January 28, 2012 at 4:10 pm

I'm surprised about that; I thought we would have put plenty of hours on old airframes during the Cold War, when we expected to throw the airborne nuclear triad into Russia, which requires plenty of tanker support to keep on call and in the air.

Reply

Craig H. February 2, 2012 at 3:10 pm

When a commercial plane is not flying, it's losing money. When a military plane is not flying, it's saving money. It's all about the Benjamins, lol.

Reply

An E8 crewmember January 28, 2012 at 11:52 am

1. The bad maintenance happened in Lake Charles Louisana.
2. It was done by civilians not a crew chief.
3. The main contractor Northrup Grumman has not compensated the USAF and does not intend to.
4. This will liked result in the reduction in USAF assigned crews. This wing in one of the busiest in the Air Force. Longer more frequent deployments for the guard and remaining active squadrons.

Reply

Rocky January 28, 2012 at 12:09 pm

You know what the Northrop salute is don't you? Arms crossed pointing fingers at the people on either side! :)

Reply

blight January 28, 2012 at 4:09 pm

NG owes the AF the cost of pulling another 707 out of the boneyard and fitting it out with the electronics from the wrecked airframe.

At least, until we upgrade from using ancient 707s.

Reply

SHaG January 31, 2013 at 5:43 am

Actually, NG doesn't owe the USAF anything… The USAF an NG have an agreement under the ground/flight risk clause in the DCMA reg 8210 that covers and outlines what the contractor owes in a situation like this. . Before all the spears get thrown at NG remember that USAF and DCMA folks had to inspect and accept the work done by the contractor… My point being, there is plenty of blame to go around. There are a lot of opinions from folks that know about 10% of the whole story…

Reply

quest January 29, 2012 at 9:03 am

This chain of failures does not stop with the contractor. Oversight at that plant was a complete joke. There is plenty of people other than the contractor with the stink of failure all over them.

Reply

Mark January 31, 2012 at 7:04 pm

I haven't met a crew chief that could actually fix anything. They are just glorified parking lot attendants (kidding here.) 99% of maintenance is performed by specialists, like sheetmetal, hydro, fuels, E&E, avionics, etc.

Reply

Nick V January 28, 2012 at 12:08 pm

I live next to Robins AFB and know plenty of people that work out there. In one particular area on the base the Boss was not complying with regs and a family member of mine reported it along with some other people, needles to say, they cleaned house.

Reply

cards11 February 12, 2012 at 12:01 pm

One person took the hit to prevent the airforce from persuing the company.

Reply

Chris Alf January 28, 2012 at 4:30 pm

You want cheap…you got cheap and ruined.

Reply

steve January 28, 2012 at 5:02 pm

Which Jet Tail # was this?

Reply

reader January 28, 2012 at 7:51 pm

93-0597

Reply

olebiker January 29, 2012 at 6:27 am

Tail # 69

Reply

AF1 January 29, 2012 at 4:34 pm

Big Shocker – THE USAF IS CHEAP!!!!!! We use outdated equipment and leadership just keeps going with the flow so their precious careers keep on track. Of course the USAF is not going to get reimbursed – why would they ever think to write a contract that makes business sense. Of course the Wing King will allow crews to keep flying because its just business as usual for the UNION protected contractors. By the way, the 707 frames the JSTARS came from hauled cattle in South American before the USAF got their hands on them.

The US Military – especially the USAF hopes the economy stays down- because if it picks up there will be a mass exodus. The reason for the exodus will not be the wars we have fought, but because of the leadership that is in charge.

Reply

Alex January 29, 2012 at 8:11 pm

The Boom Operator was lying on his couch? This was one of the poorest written articles I've ever read.

Reply

jumper January 30, 2012 at 9:36 am

The article insinuates that a tank tiger (or whatever NG calls them) slipped out of the tank, slapped the access closed and signed off teh forms and the jet went to war… The failure goes much higher than the tech making $14 an hour that left the plugs in. His supervisor, Northrop's QA, the accepting DCAS rep, etc, etc… a long line of indifference and inattention that could have cost this crew their lives.

Reply

Randolph S. January 30, 2012 at 9:28 pm

A long line, certainly, but on the other hand, chances are only the maintenance guy and the QAI/Control watch actually had eyes on the tank internals and what went in/came out. If they signed off on it as being clean, how would those above know something was wrong without opening the wing back up?

Reply

Mark January 31, 2012 at 7:08 pm

We don't have "Forms" in the Depot. No 781's, just work cards or "WCD's" as their known.

Reply

WHOPAYSWINS January 30, 2012 at 10:58 am

Military personnel should be operating out of second-hand equipments, this aircraft is positively fifth-hand and unsafe and military professionals shouldn't fly and work in it in any event. Perhaps they are deemed expendable by the estabilshment.

Reply

Tom January 30, 2012 at 11:34 am

Mistakes like this have nothing to do with the age of the airframe.

Reply

Mastro January 30, 2012 at 11:42 am

Does the Air Force do any math on refueling these beasts in the air? I read somewhere that they really don't.

Jstars should have had a reasonably modern airframe- this is controlled obsolescence at its worst.

Reply

lkq June 22, 2013 at 9:11 pm

They did. It was called the RE program. The jt8-219d that was installed and tested
by NG showed that in aprox, 6 years would pay for themselfs in maint. and fuel
savings. Plus altitude was, on time station and electric power generation wear increased. The allotted funding for the program was taken back by the current powers that be in Wash. Needed more money for food stamps and free health care?

Reply

b murray January 30, 2012 at 12:46 pm

None of you people know what you're talking about. The tankers fuel delivery system is designed to sense back pressure during the entire refueling process and should have automatically shut down before this rupture occurred. My guess is that the tankers auto shut off valve pressures were improperly set, as well as the tankers pump by-pass valve. The result is hydraulic hammer. The receiving aircraft fuel tanks would not have ruptured, even with a vent plug in place. It is surprising that the refueling booms hose did not rupture before the tanks did.

Reply

John D. January 30, 2012 at 5:47 pm

B Murray as a former fueler @ SFO my knowledge is limited to ground op's. You bring up an important question.Fuel pressure /ground operations we were limited to approx 50 PSI and once a tank fill to capacity you are locked out of that tank! So how much pressure was being used during this operation?
These kind of things usually include more than 1 thing to go wrong.As you have pointed out.

Reply

BobG February 1, 2012 at 3:19 pm

The cutouts are set to 30-50psig depending on aircraft. That's more than 2 tons of pressure on a single square foot of tank! Putting that much pressure into a fuel tank is certain to rupture it.

The cutouts are to prevent damage to the boom couplings if the aircraft release values close early or fail to open. They don't protect the tanks.

Reply

cards11 February 12, 2012 at 12:06 pm

All components were doing thier job, on both aircrafts. The Problem is the the "air" in the tank had no where to vent

Reply

Crew Member January 30, 2012 at 1:36 pm

You obviously have no clue about the military, nor how it operates. Anyone in the military knows there is a "HUGE" difference between a Crew Chief and a civilian contractor. Try telling any Crew Chief that they are the same and see where it gets you. Your comment is a slap in the face to all who wear the uniform.

Reply

A CC January 30, 2012 at 7:25 pm

WE DONT DEAL WITH FUEL TANKS, FUEL SHOP DOES!

Reply

Paul February 2, 2012 at 5:33 pm

Thank you I agree, I was a Crew Chief for 22 years in the AF. he must be a pilot or a AF acadamy Grad. and those airframes are lifetime airframes best in the world. I help build the first Open Skies at WPAFB.

Reply

buffnav February 7, 2012 at 8:02 am

ok Paul… Lance is ignorant when in comes to aircraft maintenance for sure not knowing who does what in the AF vs who doesn't do what at depot… Your comment about pilots or graduates of the wayward school for boys (and now girls) is nearly as bad! Crew Chiefs are an aircrews best friend!

and no, I am not a pilot or Academy grad

Reply

The Truth January 31, 2012 at 5:42 am

Those without sin cast the first stone…. Seems this "ANG" Wing forgot that they "Hard Landed" a couple of E-8C aircraft over the years and caused many $$$$ worth of damage. One hard landing was at this same deployed location. The same contractor temp fixed this air crew error and the jet was flown back to the states where "the contractor" repaird and returned this jet to service. This ANG wing are some of the best finger pointers you'll ever see when it's not them who make the mistakes. Much was learned from this event…for the better.

Reply

Zack F January 31, 2012 at 4:31 pm

Also this must not have been an authorized vent plug. Vent plugs normally have long red streamers hanging from them. Something a crew chief should pick up on pre flight inspection. I dont know what this guy used to cap the vent but his ass needs to fired and he should owe the af 25 million.

Reply

Daryl January 31, 2012 at 6:57 pm

Low Bid Contractors strike again! Geez!

Reply

Rick February 1, 2012 at 6:26 pm

As Andrew Dice Clay would say: "Those STUPID, F____in' IDIOTS!!!!"

Reply

Sgt Maintaner(E-8C) February 1, 2012 at 7:48 pm

You are exactly right. This jet is still sitting out in Qatar broken and useless. NG is still trying their hardest not to pay for their mistake. It's a shame but at least this article is bringing some light onto the problem of this ancient airframe and it's less than stellar contractors. I personally think it's a conflict of interest that the NG company is allowed to conduct their own PDM maintenace. Not only can this lead to catastrophic damage that goes through years of litigation in order to be set straight, but also can lead to contractors blatantly ignoring major issues with the airframe in order to assure their "job security". If the PDM's were done by military workers, who knows what they might find?!

Reply

thunderbird84 February 2, 2012 at 12:17 am

They are very lucky the wings didnt explode in flight from the pressure. Not a fireball, just blow completely apart! They are all VERY lucky they got her back to base!

Reply

bashace February 2, 2012 at 9:00 am

Umm, isn't this the one that got broke due to a hard landing (dropped from like 25 feet) in zero visibility fog (landing with only a Category 1 ILS)? Where did this vent plug story come from? If you ask me, I'd say the pilot in command (PIC) owes the USAF $25 Million, he should have diverted to another airfield due to lack of a Category 3 ILS given the extremely limited visibility. Category 1 ILS (Instrument Landing System) service ends about a quarter mile from touchdown. The vent plug story is probably protecting someones flying career. Also, wouldn't this aircraft in-flight refuel from it's home base to Qatar? Do the tanks use a different vent when a fuel truck is refueling them on the ground prior to a mission? I was there on the night in question, had to drive less than 10 mph the entire way home because the fog was so dense. Maybe it's just me, but the fuel plug story is awfully fishy.

Reply

soontobecivilian February 2, 2012 at 1:54 pm

i am a maintainer at robins on jstars the hard landing is a complete different incident separated by two years of this incident. i can promise you the story is not made up ive seen the pics of the vent plugs still in the tank and these pictures are taken w in minutes or hours of incidents happening. the only ppl being protected are the civilian mechanics and their lack of tool accountability. the PSI during in flight refuel is amazingly high. on the ground maintainers usually have to wait over an hour for refueling 100k+ in the air its done in minutes the volume of flow is also a lot larger. so it may be the same vent but on the ground the 7 or so psi is vented easily by a different set of vents but in the air facing upwards of 50 psi and faster flow of fuel it was too much for one vent to handle. i love to blame pilots when they brake my stuff on my jet but the blame goes only to grummen and depot….the pilots saved lives not risked them

Reply

Matt March 28, 2012 at 9:30 pm

This is an entirely different aircraft. The hard landing aircraft has been repaired and is flying again.

I was on the hard landing aircraft when it happened (in the back). The weather was called ABOVE minimums.

Reply

Jstarspilot December 5, 2013 at 9:14 pm

Ummm no, you don't know what you are talking about and you are speaking of things which you are demonstrating an extreme lack of knowledge.

Reply

robsarge February 2, 2012 at 10:45 am

Hmmm, same thing happened to a KC-135A at Pease AFB in the mid '70's. A bird left fuel cell maintenance hanger with the test plug still installed. With a fuel truck still hooked up, the bottom of the right wing blew out. I was in A/R at the time…had to rush out to the acft and seat jacks until it could be cleared…The maintenance said the wing would come "pre-wired" so we cut all the wire bundles at the cannon plugs….needless to say, when we go the new wing…it was bare of any wires…Needless to say…shouldn't there be a "Caution" in the T.O.'s for the test plug, besides accountability on a shadow board or CTK?

Reply

Dave February 2, 2012 at 11:13 am

Some of the “facts” being discussed need to be corrected. In 1988, I was the Operational Test and Evaluation Pilot for the E-6A (TACAMO) aircraft. The E-6 was the last new B-707 produced; however, when the program began it was setup to produce both the E-6 and the E-8 JSTARS. In the early summer of 1988, a design flaw caused an incident during a test flight that resulted in Air Force E-8 officials deciding to cancel the E-8 order with Boeing. The E-6 aircraft were still built and continue to operate very well today. The E-8 program shifted gears and began looking for a different airframe for the JSTARS mission. I never heard discussions of using MD-80 airframes but the airfame mentioned most often were former commercial DC-10 and MD-11 aircraft. When the used airframes could not be obtained in sufficient quantities, E-8 Program officials re-approached Boeing to inquire about purchasing new B-707 aircraft. However, the final E-6 had been built and the production line was dismantled, just as Boeing warned the Air Force it would do. At this point, the Air Force decided to purchase used B-707 commercial airframes and refurbish them. I don’t know the exact reason for keeping the old engines (possibly due to refurb costs and wing strength).

Finally, the new B-707 with CFM engines sold for about $63.5 million while some of the refurbs exceeded $80 million per aircraft. Many of us were shaking our heads in disbelief in when these numbers began floating around.

Reply

Tom J February 2, 2012 at 11:20 am

I flew on the AWACS and one of the reasons that we were using the older aircraft is the need to have a certain number of electrical generators to run the equipment. Each engine had two generators on it at that time about 20 years ago and the systems required most of the eight to work. The newer jets today only have two engines and the number of electrical generators may not be powerful enough to properly power everything needed for the mission of the aircraft. Of course I retired 16 years ago and I don't know what modifications and upgrades have occurred since then.

Reply

Curmudgeon10 February 2, 2012 at 2:55 pm

I'm not sure why it's important to focus on whether the error was made by a civilian contractor or an active duty person. The fact is that PEOPLE have been making errors in the maintenance of aircraft since the Wright Flyer. You can compile Best Practices and Lessons Learned until you are blue in the face and PEOPLE will continue to mess up.

Supposedly, Quality Control functions are there to find and correct mistakes like these before they evolve into catastrophic accidents. Where were those functions in this case?

Reply

Craig H February 2, 2012 at 3:51 pm

Like it or not, politics always plays a role in aircraft procurement. Multiple sources of production lines is another, just like with Navy ships. The selection process is always a series of compromises.

Reply

Dan Moore February 2, 2012 at 10:26 pm

Shades of Palomares! We lost a B52 AND a KC135 there, and nukes. Google it.

Dan

Reply

Charles G. February 3, 2012 at 1:50 pm

If fuel cell maintenance was done that required a vent plug, then a 4 hour leak check would have been required prior to flying. That tank would have to be fueled on the ground before the forms could be cleared. How did it get airborne with a vent plug installed?

Reply

John Montana February 5, 2012 at 7:59 pm

The airplanes were purchased from Africa. The crooks from Northrop Grumman did that to make tat big money out of Air force contract. I remember them, P1 up to P7. They put in charge as supervisors that had nothing to do with aviation. They were craw fish farmers believe me. I read one of them resume that was a Taco Manager and know his name too. I called Pentagon to report and because was more than 2 yrs they did not consider taking action. Lake Charles J Starr program was a big rip off taxpayers money and not from Grumman but Northrop Grumman after take of

Reply

John Montana February 5, 2012 at 8:09 pm

The airplanes B707 were bought for $25000 each. most were transporting cows to Saudi Arabia They were in terrible state like urine and manure were everywhere on structures corroding everything. I had seen no Air Force inspecting the state of this planes until they were delivered to Melbourne Fla.

Reply

E8-C pilot March 6, 2013 at 8:19 am

You are ridiculous… the planes were not bought from Africa… they were procured from all over the globe, one of which served as Air Force two for a number of years, there were a few Canadian AF, Australian and some a German 707's in the mix as well. There was ONE that was in bad shape that was used as a MX trainer at Robins AFB for awhile but do you really think hauling cows in a fleet of 707's is cost effective?? Northrup Grumman did EXACTLY what the USAF contract paid for. You are making a huge overgeneralization of the JSTARS program.

Reply

gary March 1, 2012 at 8:24 am

I was at Robins from 2003-2010 and remember a few stories about the aircraft being used to ship cattle. The first time I heard it mentioned was during training. I could never smell anything but from what I was told it was just one of the aircraft that smelled funny.

Reply

Tom March 28, 2012 at 10:02 pm

My first hand experience was with 3290. It used to stink like old urine on hot days back in the late 90's.

Reply

One who knows March 6, 2012 at 2:25 pm

I have worked on A/C for 31 years, including the JSTARS. This accident was due to one thing, failure to perform REQUIRED tool procedures. I have read many of the comments on this subject, but the most astonishing is the ones about Contractors, other than Boeing being the reason for such failures. This is absurd. Boeing cost the taxpayers of the USA billions each year. They are one of, if not the worst maintenance facilities in the country. Their costs are more than most of their competitors, yet they keep winning the Contracts. Those guys do know one thing, how to staff with the best retired military they can hire. This ensures future work.

Reply

yoda March 26, 2012 at 9:45 am

The reason they have not upgraded the engines is very simple. All money goes to the back end equipment not the airframe and engines. True with AWACS also.

Reply

Steve March 26, 2012 at 4:42 pm

Going from a bladder type fuel cell to a structural type fuel leads to many unusual incidents of failures???? Internal Corrusion is one of the most feared types of metal failing the Air Force faces. The C-130 is famous for that major interanl problem…..

Reply

Hoot March 27, 2012 at 5:49 pm

So is the contractor covering the repair bill?

Reply

PMELDick March 28, 2012 at 8:02 am

Thank you MaintGuy! When this happened at Tinker a number of years ago, we had a B-1 #2 Main open up like a can of sardines, on the GROUND. After all the dust settled, folks were moved out of B-1's, supervision was demoted, time off w/OUT pay was handed out and Rock-OH-Well (before "mother Boeing swallowed em up) got handed major $$$ to fix it. 83-066, Ole Puss, had many a flight hour on her after we fixed her up. Fuel troops, your job is MORE important than 'Lazyonics', PMEL or Crew Chiefs. Bottom line, these contractors are NOT saving the tax payers any $$$!!

Reply

Nathan March 29, 2012 at 2:14 am

This incident still proves the viability and survivability of Boeing airframes. My father-in-law was a crew chief in WW2 and always had high praise for Boeing and the ability to more often bring the crews home even after tremendous damage. There needs to be criminal charges brought against the problem contractor, but that will likely never happen.

Reply

Marcus March 29, 2012 at 5:48 am

I used to guard these aircraft while I was on active duty. I had to fly on them a couple of times. These things break down all the time. You have Air Force personnel and civilians working on them. Would it had been different if the contractor was an Airman? No the same results! The thing is you can’t think we can maintain these aircraft with the budget being constantly cut. These planes contribute greatly to the mission and it makes no sense for the budget to have such an affect on them. They are old and need to replaced!

Reply

-135 Crew Chief March 29, 2012 at 9:21 am

We need to replace the KC-135's before we touch these or the RC-135's…Hopefully the new KC-X tanker program gets going soon. The JSTARS are very solid aircraft and were very well engineered aircraft from the 50's and 60's. Any of the B707/C-135 airframes are easy to work on and solid airframes. I am a AD crew chief and have been on these B707 airframes for almost 10 years now and have deployed all around the world with these aircraft. This incident had NOTHING TO DO with the A/C age, it had to do with a CIVILIAN CONTRACTOR not following his tech. data and not using proper tool control. Age is almost never a factor in these kinds of mishaps, it is HUMAN ERROR.

Reply

Chris March 29, 2012 at 10:11 am

Following this fiasco, we had to inspect every fuel tank on every aircraft. Wasn’t fun. But, it was definitely a good precaution to prevent it from happening again. We even had to pressurize each tank and test the vent system while they were trying to figure out what the world happened. Love my job (sarcasm).

Reply

LTC. Chuck Miller March 29, 2012 at 1:05 pm

Why did the USAF use an old 707 used commercial airframe for JSTARS? I can shed some light. I am an aeronautical engineer and was the USAF Weapon System Manager at Tinker AFB (1976-1981) that started this chain of events. I had been a KC-135 aircraft commander and Instructor Pilot for 5-years with the SR-71 inflight refueling program, then developed and implemented the inflight tanker program with the Canadian Armed Forces as a USAF Exchange Program pilot/instructor (1973-1976), using modified (new) Boeing 707-347C airframes — all prior to becoming the C/KC-135 System Manager (1976-1981).
During my 5-year tenure as System Manager, the 750 aircraft fleet of C/KC-135s underwent major modifications to extend its useful life (25th year in service, at that point) including structural wing re-skin mods, CFM56 re-engining and dozens more. The tanker fleet had a critical shortfall in capability to meet mission requirements in wartime due to number of airframes combined with low operating efficiency of the non-fan, straight turbo-jet engines. But the new CFM-56 engine, and all the related/required airframe and system upgrades drove the pre-aircraft modification cost up to over $25 Million each, and required upwards of a year for each in modification. Meanwhile, the tanker mission capability was degraded even further, with so many aircraft undergoing modification. As a solution, my extensive operational and mechanical experience created the KC-135E re-engining program concept and I "sold it" to the Pentagon's Air Council, which involved the acquisition of large fleets of FAA forced-retirement commercial B-707 aircraft as resources for the later vintage fan-jet engines that they contained, along with struts, nacelles, thrust-reversers and other system components to be used as cannibalized and refurbished assets for modification of over 130 KC-135A airframes. This KC-135E modification would ultimately prove to provide over 90% of the efficiency (fuel savings, and increased fuel offload capability, thus requiring fewer tanker sorties) of the modified KC-135R (CFM-56 re-engined tankers) at about 20% of the cost and modification time. It also provided an established acquisition program and database of potential used B-707 airframe assets. A dozen or more pristine used B-707s were acquired, intact under this program for use as additions to the Presidential fleet of VIP -707s, R&D airframes for prototypes, and other special mission categories, including initial JSTARS prototypes.
The JSTARS program needed a new airframe for its electronics suite. Had there been no C/KC-135 shortages, the fanjet equipped B-model C-135s would have been the likely candidate for this mission. But most of those had already been converted to critical mission RC and EC-135 variants, with a small few remaining as R&D test bed aircraft. The Navy E-6 program had an open assembly-line making new airplanes on the B-707 airframe with the CFM-56 power-plant and ample electrical generation capacity. One airframe was diverted from that assembly line and purchased by the USAF for the JSTARS first-production prototype. However, JSTARS was experiencing typical developmental cost overruns and their focus was on electronics systems issues, not airframe. And there happened to be an available acquisition where good B-707 airframes had been purchased for typical complete airframe costs of $2 million vs $60 million for the similar new E-6 airframe with upgraded CFM-56s. The choice was obvious, especially when the focus was not placed on long-term maintenance cost considerations, nor proof of concept for JSTARS yet concluded. How could anyone make a wiser choice without looking at the 30 year life cycle cost differences?? And the KC-135E program had already acquired the "best of the best" in used 707 airframes!
Finally, I totally agree with previous comments. The quality and viability of the airframes played a minimal (if any) part in this incident. The failure of quality control, experience of contract technicians, and the sloppiness of following technical procedures, was the apparent cause of this incident! And lack of appropriate resources (budget) to do the job right, continues to play a strong role in the unintended (ignorant) consequences causing the destruction of the aircraft and jeopardizing of life and limb of the operators!

Reply

KC135A,E,R,WC,EC December 5, 2013 at 6:47 pm

At least part of your "story" is untrue and I suspect most of it is.
KC-135Es were not built on a 707 airframe, none of the KC-135s were. The E-3 and E8 are built on 707 airframes.

Reply

LTC Chuck Miller December 6, 2013 at 1:12 pm

You mis-interpreted my comments, if you understood me to contend that "KC-135E's were built on a 707 airframe". When American Airlines VP approached my office (me) with a project proposal to buy a fleet of retiring 707-100s and 707-300s for conversion to tankers, I informed him that the KC-135 structure and systems were far too different from the 707 to make this feasible. But the 707 system components were more readily usable as cannibalized parts and systems to use on "existing KC-135 airframes". The KC-135E conversion was thus using 161 used Boeing 707 airframes from various configurations and airlines as sources for cannibalized, JT3D engined. struts, nacelles, thrust-reversers, cockpit throttle quadrants and rigging, plus numerous other systems and components, which were applied to existing KC135A airframes to derive the KC-135E configuration. As part of this used airframe procurement, a greater number of used commercial 707 assets were obtained which were used for the other requirements including the JSTARS platforms. The USAF & NATO AWACS aircraft were new production 707-300 series "militarized" TF-33-PW-100 (JT3D variant) airframes and the USN E-6 was a similar new production "militarized" 707-300 series CFM-57 commercial engine powered variant. The first JSTARS prototype was planned to be a variant of the USN E-6 production aircraft, but due to new airframe costs and Boeing's strong desire to discontinue further 707 "obsolete" production, was ultimately cancelled. The CFM65 powered JSTARS prototype platform with CFM56 engines was purchased off the Navy assembly line and was ultimately sold to Saudi Arabia and used for Royal service. The JSTARS (E-8) fallback position was to revert to outfitting the initial fleet using the used 707 assets that were acquired as part of the KC-135E conversion acquisition program.
One final correction… KC-135s were the original aircraft produced. Commercial Boeing 707 aircraft were initially produced for the most part on USAF owned tooling and fixtures, however the commercial aircraft had lesser maximum weight capabilities and structure than the military tankers. If you are going to call someone a liar, you should review your history and get the facts first!

Reply

Denwd March 30, 2012 at 6:59 pm

To bad our E- 8 , EP-3 and not as p resting as Air Force one I love my couture but if you ware the scars you not ware the stars. We need good engineer in leadership for our military not politicians.

Reply

Gerald Ventury March 2, 2014 at 4:40 pm

It is incredible the amount of damage a simple mistake can create. I didn’t know this story I just dicovered today. It is really interesting story, crew were really close to a serious disaster.

Reply

mhmm... January 27, 2012 at 9:07 pm

It Might not be your grandfather’s airforce, but it very well might be his B-52!

Reply

PrometheusGoneWild January 27, 2012 at 9:08 pm

Granted, but so would a modern modified 747. But it would carry more; have better range and be much more fuel efficient.

Reply

William C. January 28, 2012 at 2:35 am

Unlikely. The 747 was studied as a cruise missile carrier but it couldn't match the B-52 in other missions. The layout was never intended for carrying huge payloads of bombs.

At this point a good portion of the airframe has been re-manufactured. A better option would be to replace the 8 TF-33s engines with 4 modern turbofans. That could serve on until we finally get a new strategic bomber design.

Reply

IronV January 28, 2012 at 3:51 pm

Literally everything you said is dead wrong… and there is nothing wrong with B-52s…

Reply

Cthel January 28, 2012 at 4:12 am

I believe Dale Brown's publisher would like a word with you regarding copyright infringement…

Reply

SJE January 30, 2012 at 1:18 pm

I thought that they upgraded the engines on all the currently flying B-52s.

Reply

quest January 29, 2012 at 9:20 am

Sorry Billy Bob its not CPC its EFC 100 tank sealant. you cant CPC the inside of a tank. Just Sayin…………….

Reply

Randall January 29, 2012 at 1:55 pm

Aluminum most certainly rusts….its called oxidation. In fact, anodizing is a controlled form of aluminum "rusting."

Reply

blight January 29, 2012 at 9:31 am

Fair enough. USAF has final inspection responsibility before signing off on the aircraft. However, this doesn't free the contractor of responsibility in the first place.

In their defense, it is a complex aircraft and zero-defect is usually brutally expensive to aim for. It may require changes to the workflow to get as close as possible to zero defect without having an inspector over every contractor's shoulder and inspection just short of total disassembly of the aircraft.

What kind of inspections does the USAF do on receipt of an aircraft?

Reply

sgtredsox January 30, 2012 at 1:43 am

Actually, rust is only on carbon steel. Aluminum corrodes…oxidation is a form of corrosion.

Reply

john February 3, 2012 at 8:02 am

rusting aluminum is NOT brown.

Reply

shawn1999 January 30, 2012 at 9:25 am

So is a Human Body, yet doctors/surgeons/nurses still ensure that every tool is accounted for BEFORE they close up the body in question- this issue could have been EASILY identified if the PDM contractor had simply COUNTED his tools and said "Oops- there's one missing….I should double check and make sure I didn't leave it somewhere important… like the venthole of a gas tank, or the plane's engine…" The individual that owns that plug should be required to personally apologize to each service member on that flight, the KC-135 flight, and everyone of those members' families with an explanation of just WHY he couldn't be bothered to count his tools before he closed shop on that craft.

Reply

soontobecivilian January 30, 2012 at 7:22 pm

so basicly what im getting is that the maintainers should follow up every single piece of work that is done by civilians?? we should open fuel tanks remove panels and inspect everything they just looked and signed off as complied w? why repeat work, already payed for work, that was certified completed and complied w to 100% standards w the FAA and the AF? that a waste of our busy maintainers time and the govts money. and I am a maintainer on JSTARs and wont get into specifics about inspections but there is no in-tank inspection after depot so the only way this could have been found is in fuel cell for fuel cell maint or if something like this happened

Reply

blight January 31, 2012 at 10:12 am

Cost, presumably.

I wish we'd standardized on semi-new airframes, like the 737, 757, 767 and the (if necessary) larger 747. We do use a mixture of old and new airframes, which seems rather silly. It's even worse because 707s have no parts support, and are only supported by cannibalizing aircraft from the Boneyard. That's the height of crazy.

Reply

Mark January 31, 2012 at 7:07 pm

QA is almost non existent at Depots. They don't do much of Quality of anything, but more just walk around busting people for not wearing safety glasses when just stepping over the yellow line.

Reply

A&P January 31, 2012 at 8:42 pm

I´m an aircraft mechanic myself. If you put in covers or locks in critical areas for maintenance (especially if they are not visible during a pre-flight check), first, you use items with big "Remove Before Flight" streamers. You also make a tech log entry to make sure that everybody is aware of them and you only close this entry after the tool has been removed. You also do a tool check before you leave the aircraft (check that all tools are present). In some companies you´ll have to sign for it. Then, all your tools should be engraved with a unique number, which has to be known to QA, so that any found tool can be traced to the relevant mechanic. This is also why we don´t like to loan tools to others or borrow tools.
In this case the person responsible will be whoever certified for the job (and obviously didn´t do his close up inspection correctly) and whoever actually carried out the job and put the tool into position without raising a maintenence writeup.

Reply

cards11 February 12, 2012 at 12:04 pm

The Employee did get fired

Reply

Brandon Gomolski February 1, 2012 at 8:25 pm

Correct, we have had several models of our acrft (out of Offutt) upgraded to the 108's. But we still have several using a different model but just as old JT3D motors.

Reply

Brandon Gomolski February 1, 2012 at 8:32 pm

They did.. from props to tf-33's (JT3Ds)… if they had 108s

Reply

Tom March 28, 2012 at 10:03 pm

Air Force Times reported 85 AD personnel would come off the books due to loss of 0597.

Reply

USAF Veteran Retired March 29, 2012 at 1:19 am

Thanks Old Crew Dawg, for the info. I do have a question though. They surely performed a functional check flight (FCF) after this ac came out of depot. Then, to get from the CONUS to Qatar with this plug still in place? Would it not have been refuled in-flight while enroute? I don't think the article said, but was this the first mission sortie after depot?

Reply

Anonymous Guest August 17, 2012 at 4:03 pm

The Company tech operating the aircraft – named Royce? He was (is?) a GREAT pilot!

Reply

Current Crewmember March 5, 2013 at 10:01 pm

Absolutely true. I am a mid level manager at the wing and a bunch of positions were lost. Northrup Grumann has never apologized to the crew. They made no effort to repair the airplane. I flew on the aircraft two days prior and we came back before refueling due to an unrelated maintenance problem.

Reply

C130Dr May 16, 2014 at 7:41 am

Wreaks should be wrecks. whether, you're, you're, you're, run on sentence, sometimes is one word, can happen. a Navy deck crew that accidentally pushed a plane off the deck.

Yeah, for someone to come and call others incompetent you sure as hell don't have any sort of reasonable grasp on the English language. And no…a contractor and a crew chief are NOT the same thing. Especially when you're dealing with fuel tank. Idiot.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: