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 Air Logistics Center in Georgia — 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.
{ 211 comments… read them below or add one }
Well someone got shit canned.
Looks like someone's gona be on the unemployment line real shortly
So who foots the $25 million bill?
no one, they're retiring her.
Taxpayers…
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…..
If the government messes up, companies are more than happy to jump in their face. Return fire.
Well Kurt come on down and double check right along side those wacky DCMA inspectors that missed the plug also. If its not any better why has the wing received 11 zero defect aircraft back from the same plant. Maybe your just not looking hard enough.
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….
Depends union shop or non union shop. Union shop no one gets canned. Non union shop the idiot gets ****canned.
Or he gets promoted so he can't screw up anymore aircraft…
Privatization wins again!
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.
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.
That had nothing to do with the fuel system… it was cabin a cabin pressure test.
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.
I'd be willing to bet the maintainer was prior service at some point. So what are you saying?
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.
That was the first thing I thought of too. It's mentioned in Chuck Yeager's biography.
What was Quality control doing ? Sleeping ?
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.
Here's the photo for the 2001 c-141 accident in Memphis: http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA—Air/Lockheed…
Looks pretty scary…
Good grief, scrap it!!!
It reminds me of the early 747s (see Plane Truth)
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)
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…
scrap this aircraft, when they can change the wing faster then repairing the damage.
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.
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.
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.
Sounds like an interesting deal. Do they send the old engines to their military clients after refurbishing?
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.
That's what happens when you pay for 2 wars and nationbuild 3rd world countries. Less money for new toys.
Hallelujah! I was patiently waiting for someone to tell us the moral of the story, thank you so much for sharing.
LOL! Right on, Bill. God save us from all the moral scolds on the internet.
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.
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..
No, this was the result of a mechanic not being careful about following procedures. If MD-80 airframes had been used, we could be armchair quarterbacking about some entirely different contractor screw up.
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!
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.
You're the anti-straw man to half the internet's straw man arguments.
Bless the crew and the people who put the rivets into that a/c….
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.
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.
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.
We can't even replace old airframes for airlift.
There are quite a few JSTARS with the F108's I believe, out of Offutt.
Kinda wierd, seeing as how they are only stationed at Robins, in Georgia…
Okay, so I was thinking of the Rivet Joints, so you had to give me a thumbs down? Noob.
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!
Time to fire bad Crew Chiefs and who screwed up the plane.
A contracted maintenance tech screwed up, not the crew chief.
Reading the articles your posting comments on is hard.
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.
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.
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.
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.
why do you think a Crew chief done this, more likely it was left in there from fuel maintenance, you must be a pilot
It wasnt the crew chief. It was the civilian contractor.
and that's why the USAF needs UAVs like the Global Hawk, you don't risk 20 human lives when something goes wrong
That would be true, but the Global Hawk doesn't fly… It just sits on the ground and breaks.
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
ye, only nobody was complaining when it clocked 20k+ flight hours in Iraq.
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?
UAV's can't cover the large scale that JSTARS can. One plane can see more than several UAV's.
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.
This crew should be on their knees thanking God for saving them.
….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
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.
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.
Actually the cause is well known, the plug left in the relief valve, not rusty aluminum.
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.
OH please!!
Aluminim dosent rust dude. That brown stuff is CPC (Corrosion Preventative Compund) Get a clue before you start playing technician on something you have no idea about DERP.
Sorry Billy Bob its not CPC its EFC 100 tank sealant. you cant CPC the inside of a tank. Just Sayin…………….
Aluminum most certainly rusts….its called oxidation. In fact, anodizing is a controlled form of aluminum "rusting."
Actually, rust is only on carbon steel. Aluminum corrodes…oxidation is a form of corrosion.
rusting aluminum is NOT brown.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
that's not rust , it's sealant , were you ever arou
nd an aircraft before……………….
If it's not Boeing I'am not going.
Rust is not an issue in aircraft. The fuselage and support structures are ALUMINUM!
But fuel tank over-pressure is.
That would be corrosion inhibiting compound jackass, not rust. Stick to what you know.
welcome to america
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.
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.
I think duke thought of the price consideration when he mentioned race horses, but stud animals are often worth flying rather than risking death.
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.
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.
While I worked at Boeing a 707 airframe was indeed scrapped because it had way to much corrosion from transporting cattle for them to clean up and use. The fuselage sat on the ramp for some time while they rehab'd another airframe to use for the project (JSTARS).
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.
B-52's may be a joke, but they can still move an awful lot of mud…
It Might not be your grandfather’s airforce, but it very well might be his B-52!
Granted, but so would a modern modified 747. But it would carry more; have better range and be much more fuel efficient.
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.
I believe Dale Brown's publisher would like a word with you regarding copyright infringement…
I thought that they upgraded the engines on all the currently flying B-52s.
Literally everything you said is dead wrong… and there is nothing wrong with B-52s…
Don't make fun unless you have flown on it! It is a Mack Truck, near indestructible, and will be around a long time. Think "Works Great and Lasts a Long Time." I have several hours as a B-52 crew member.
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?!?
I imagine we're going to have one very sad contracting firm soon.
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.
Contractor calls lobbyist.
Lobbyist calls Congressmen on house and senate ASC.
All is forgiven.
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.
Negative. Thier was NO tool accountability.
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.
Borescope? This isn't a engine, this is a fuel tank which people (I used to be one), crawl through.
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.
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
Just remember, the government loves to go with the lowest bidder. You get what you pay for.
"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…
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"
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
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.
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)
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.
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…)
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
By your definition the J-Star is a Spy Plane.
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.
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!!!
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.
Thank you, SMSgt.
more like the clear disregard of attention to the article from ur comment is rubbing ppl off the wrong way.
you are free to express opinion one way or the other, but at least make it look like u read the article.
So… yes?
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.
Lance, tone it down; just because most people don't agree with you doesn't give you an excuse to trash everyone else; just ask Black Owl…..
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.
Lol. Slide rule precision so they added in a fudge factor to make sure things worked
Spot on jkm. composite wing would not have taken that!
As they say in the biking world, composite is strong and light, but when it fails, it fails catastrophically.
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?
The AF uses alot of fuel, more than anyone. It costs alot too. Contiuous work is done on these structures/fuel tanks.
That program was canx due to $$. They will continue to fly the E-6, another 707. They are currently undergoing Service life extension program at Tinker
Generals in the AF who used to be fighter pilots run the AF…they prefer F-22s and F-35s over spending $$$ on heavies…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You know what the Northrop salute is don't you? Arms crossed pointing fingers at the people on either side! :)
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.
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.
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.
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.
One person took the hit to prevent the airforce from persuing the company.
You want cheap…you got cheap and ruined.
Which Jet Tail # was this?
93-0597
Tail # 69
Hi All – I was actually THERE when this happened. However I am very much enjoying the rhetoric that is being flung about in this forum. Oh and who took the initial fotos? This guy. Who was the first to inspect the damage BEFORE QA came out? This guy. Who was the first to inspect the remaining acft for replicated dmg? This guy? FYI: The depot maint was NOT performed at Robins. NO there has NOT been any cleaning of the house. NO there had NOT been any compensation made to the USAF for the dmg. And YES last I checked the acft is still on the same spot we towed it to. Also, there were not 20 or so crew. There were 31 crew members on board at the time of incident. Bring the Rain!
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.
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.
The Boom Operator was lying on his couch? This was one of the poorest written articles I've ever read.
This had nothing to do with the crew chief, the air crew or anyone else besides the people who worked on them. It wasn't rust, it wasn't lack of training. It was simply a mechanics' lack of awareness during maintenance. There wouldn't be any write-ups for this because you can't fly an aircraft with this installed. And not only did the mechanic not get fired, the quality personnel (that obviously didn't do their job) were not fired either. The crew was orginally to blame by investigators until they opened up and found this plug in the bottom of the tank. And no, don't thank God for their safe return, thank their skilled pilot that did as he was trained to do. And it didn't happen at Warner Robins. Tools are controlled there with etched numbers. This was done elsewhere.
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.
The Employee did get fired
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.
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?
We don't have "Forms" in the Depot. No 781's, just work cards or "WCD's" as their known.
My question with the JSTARS is why are we still using a 707 for it? I would hope that they may try to modernize the small fleet of them using a 737 if it can fit the equipment.
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.
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.
Mistakes like this have nothing to do with the age of the airframe.
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.
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.
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.
All components were doing thier job, on both aircrafts. The Problem is the the "air" in the tank had no where to vent
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.
WE DONT DEAL WITH FUEL TANKS, FUEL SHOP DOES!
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.
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
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.
we're pointing fingers cause if that had been any active duty member that made the same mistake theyd be in levinworth right now. us at robins are under the idea that the only change at lake charles was tool accountability. Speaking as a maintainer the crime does not fit the punishment if no one was fired and grummen wont fit the bill for a chop job or rebuild for their mistake. Even though mother AF wants its pilots and mechanics to be perfect we know we're not, we just try our best to not get anyone hurt and do our jobs the best we can
1. why are we using a 50 year old airplane in the military?
2. why are we converting RETIRED commuter jets into military aircraft that will be SHOT at :(
3. why in the hell did we sink 244mil into a 50 year old airplane?
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.
Its funny that all people really say on here is how the airplanes are old and need to be updated. Do you people understand that this incident has nothing to do with the age of the aircraft? Vent plugs are installed for troubleshooting reasons when you need to pressurize the fuel tanks to isolate a leak location. Anytime you install a vent plug it must be written in the forms on a red x with a warning also written in red pen. Somone said that it was a personal tool. How many people have there own personal vent plugs? I dont know about you but i wouldnt purchase a 500 dollar vent plug for personal use. This was simply ignorance or somone who was drunk or somone who was not qualified to do this type of work. Oh also this is not the first time a vent plug has been left in leading to overpressurization google it.
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.
So where is a pic of the offending plug?
Low Bid Contractors strike again! Geez!
As Andrew Dice Clay would say: "Those STUPID, F____in' IDIOTS!!!!"
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?!
The real issue here is not the age of the aircraft, the problem was negligence on part of the contractor and the person clearing the Red X in the forms and the person who didn't do a comprehensive inspection before closing out the tank.
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!
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
Shades of Palomares! We lost a B52 AND a KC135 there, and nukes. Google it.
Dan
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?
these test plugs can be as simple as a plastic cap placed in the vent line to allow for pressurization of the tank by ground support personnel. The J-Star aircraft were chosen because they were 300 series cargo convertible aircraft and could allow for moving equipment on and off through the cargo door without redesigning this issue. The Newer B757 aircraft were looked at but availability and cost (somewhere south of $40 million dollars helped make the decision to go with these commercial B707's. Their initial cost was to be somewhere around $28 million per aircraft. During the first airframe structure repairs it was obvious that it was going to cost more somewhere around $90 million dollars as the result of carrying animals on the original configuration caused major corrosion in the lower keel beam area of the aircraft. We had to get replacements from retired aircraft stored in Arizona. We ex military aircraft tech's questioned the "why of this" many times in heated contractor/government meetings. We did our best to send the best configured aircraft to the users. I to suspect a history of hard landings as being involved. This being if this type of incident had not happened before. During a PDM on the KC135 program while doing a cabin pressurization test the aircraft began to shudder and I noticed that the fuel totalizators were unwinding for the aft fuel tank, at this time we recieved a call form the ground that fuel was coming out of the aft vents. The Company tech operating the aircraft went into immediate emergency procedures to depressurize the aircraft and engine shut down. His skill is the only reason that I can penn this note today An investigation noted that a plastic cap was left in the vent system in the aft fuel tank and caused it to over pressurize during the test. This was at a point way before the pre-test we were working on. I don't remember who payed what in this incident, but there is a part of the contract where even if the contractor is found at fault they only have limited liability. Hence the BP issue??? Thank God that all returned to their duty stations to fly another day. Honestly you folks need to get a life. S$$T happens and mostly it's the competence of all involved that we get the job down each day.
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
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.
Except in this case it wasn't the service men who were at fault. They did their job.
You didn't read the article, instead you opened your mouth when you should of kept it shut, attacked our men and women in uniform and said "Time to fire bad Crew Chiefs and who screwed up the plane."
Then when pointed out how wrong you were, you resorted to personal attacks. Calling other people "stupid" and filled with "hate".
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?
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.
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
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.
They did.. from props to tf-33's (JT3Ds)… if they had 108s