Page 1 of 2

Hey First Shirt: 848 had a Boo-Boo

Posted: Wed Aug 12, 2015 11:39 pm
by randy
Fortunately no one seriously hurt:

From the Air Force Association daily e-mail:
During initial takeoff from Offutt AFB, Neb. on April 30, a leak in the high pressure oxygen system in the rear cabin of a RC-135V Rivet Joint assigned to the 343rd Reconnaissance Squadron led to a fire that burned a hole through the aircraft's upper fuselage, according to a newly released Air Combat Command Accident Investigation Board report. The pilot immediately aborted the mission, and evacuated the aircraft on the ground as fire crews arrived. The fire, which occurred during a routine training mission in support of an Air Force Special Operations Command exercise, burned through the rear galley area of the aircraft, damaging both the aircraft's structure and its control and mission systems (repair costs are estimated at $62.4 million, according to the AIB findings). According to the report, failure by the contractor depot maintenance personnel from L3 Communications to properly tighten a retaining nut connecting a metal oxygen tube to a fitting above the galley caused the oxygen leak, which led to a "highly flammable oxygen rich environment that ignited." The fire then melted the retaining nut, leading the tubing to detach, which fed more oxygen into the fire, causing "severe damage" to the galley area. Four crewmembers received treatment for minor smoke inhalation. (Full report here, PDF file).
The linked report includes internal pictures (only ones I have, probably will ever have, of one of those birds)
Kinda scary given where I often sat as a JAFO, including on that particular bird.

Re: Hey First Shirt: 848 had a Boo-Boo

Posted: Thu Aug 13, 2015 2:33 am
by mekender

Re: Hey First Shirt: 848 had a Boo-Boo

Posted: Thu Aug 13, 2015 4:55 am
by evan price
If that AF Times picture is the exterior fuse after the landed, they should count lucky stars they landed at all.

Re: Hey First Shirt: 848 had a Boo-Boo

Posted: Thu Aug 13, 2015 6:30 am
by Jericho941
It's not that big of a hole.

Re: Hey First Shirt: 848 had a Boo-Boo

Posted: Thu Aug 13, 2015 11:01 am
by Denis
Inspection of the fittings removed from the MA revealed that the B-nuts at Junction #4, Junction #5 and Junction #11 were all finger tight...
Sounds like some mechanic, who forgot his torque wrench, can now look forward to spending many years learning about its proper care and feeding at a cold, cold airbase in the Arctic.

Maybe these guys will be flown up by Southwest to keep him company there:
A Southwest Airlines Boeing 737 was being moved from a passenger gate to a maintenance hangar shortly after 10 p.m. Tuesday when it went off a taxiway and ended up nose-down in a grassy area, authorities said.

The jet's nose gear collapsed and an engine got stuck in the ground, according to the Federal Aviation Authority. That forced crews to use a crane to lift it back up.

Two mechanics were the only people on board during the taxiing ...

Re: Hey First Shirt: 848 had a Boo-Boo

Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2015 7:07 pm
by First Shirt
That's gonna be tough to buff out!

Re: Hey First Shirt: 848 had a Boo-Boo

Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2015 7:17 pm
by skb12172
$62.4M for repairs? Wouldn't it be cheaper to just scrap it?

Re: Hey First Shirt: 848 had a Boo-Boo

Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2015 9:30 pm
by mekender
skb12172 wrote:$62.4M for repairs? Wouldn't it be cheaper to just scrap it?

Maybe... I found an article that said in 1999, converting a single C-135 to a RC-135V cost $90m... So that plus the airframe cost puts it at $130m+, in 1999 dollars... I think the better question would be, is the repair worth it rather than just reducing the fleet of 15 down to 14?

Re: Hey First Shirt: 848 had a Boo-Boo

Posted: Sun Aug 16, 2015 1:37 am
by First Shirt
Even back in the late 70s, the airframe was the cheapest part of the package.

And I still think there are better collection platforms, that are cheaper to operate. But the zipper-suited sun gods won't ever give up the manned platform.

Re: Hey First Shirt: 848 had a Boo-Boo

Posted: Sun Aug 16, 2015 2:34 am
by randy
mekender wrote:Maybe... I found an article that said in 1999, converting a single C-135 to a RC-135V cost $90m... So that plus the airframe cost puts it at $130m+, in 1999 dollars...
The Brits just bought 3 (new conversions from KC-135's) for £650 Million, so £216 Million (so about $334 Million each?) each. That may be high for the airframe portion as I don't know if that cost includes things like the ground data handling system and other support items in additon to airframe cost and conversion.
I think the better question would be, is the repair worth it rather than just reducing the fleet of 15 down to 14?
Given the high usage/demand rates I seen for this platform over the past few years, that would probably be a less than optimal solution, especially since some airframes are in phase/depot maintenance at any given time.

And according to the latest AFA Magazine, the air frame gets a major overhaul every few years (including swapping out the mission packages inside), so you might look at it as simply rescheduling the expense rather than a new expense.