Talk:List of C-130 Hercules crashes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AVIATION This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Aviation Portal
List This article has been rated as List-Class on the quality scale.

I find the opening statement a little odd, since the RAF wrote off 9 C-130s, even if it is their most reliable aircraft, that is a very poor record. Civilian aircraft often make it to over 100,000 hours. With the RAF "safe" record, it means one out of every 2.5 airliner would be written before reaching that number. Hudicourt 17:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Not all of the RAF losses were down to reliability issues. Some 'may' have crashed due to pilot error. One was shot down in Iraq and I think one hit a mine on a airstrip in Afghanistan. Talskiddy 20:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The definition given is: "...lost or badly damaged in accidents that happened after the aircrew had taken responsibility for the aircraft. They include accidents during military operations, but exclude aircraft losses caused by 'hostile action'.", and it excludes "accidents to aircraft on MOD Defence Procurement Agency charge" [which I believe means leased or not yet taken into service]. So it looks like any accidents on the ground when the aircraft wasn't in use are discounted, as well as any hostile activity.
the raw data; it predates the 2006 and 2007 losses, doesn't count the 2005 shootdown - which is fair, as it's not indicative of a problem with the aircraft - has the 1999 crash and the 1993 one, and four from before 1974 - we list a 1973, 1972, 1971 & 1969. So the data seems consistent, but we'd presumably see a slightly worse rate if we extended the data to cover all flying hours to date.
As to the high accident rate... well, yes. Military aircraft tend to have a higher accidental loss rate; they're driven harder and often closer to their limits than civilian ones are, simply by the nature of their activity; a lower reliability rate strikes me as not too surprising. Shimgray | talk | 14:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Hear - hear! Well said! Mark Sublette (talk) 05:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 05:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It is apples and oranges. Civilian aircraft don't evade enemy fire, fly 300 feet off the ground, perform night refueling missions and then land on unimproved airfields. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.215.209.140 (talk) 18:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this page should be renamed. There is a huge difference between a crash and a shootdown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.215.209.140 (talk) 18:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree - what this page is REALLY all about is active attrition of the Hercules airframe. Having logged a majority of the incidents, I can tell you that I had to use a sliding scale as to what qualified. Obviously, airframes that were retired or withdrawn after useful operational lives were excluded. I count ANY accident, whether a crash landing, a shoot-down, or the five cases of Hercules fratricide when they crashed into each other, as a "CRASH". A judgement call I left in was the Royal Saudi Air Force C-130H that burned on the ground with an air conditioner fire, later restored for museum exhibit. Was not this "crash"-worthy? Let's not get caught up in splitting journalistic hairs - the point of the Wiki is accuracy and accessibility. Mark Sublette (talk) 06:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 06:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed the reference: July 2007 : A Royal Australian Air Force C-130J-30 Hercules sustained damage whilst landing in Afghanistan. The damage was discovered by the crew and had not been caused by enemy fire. Initial repairs and inspection were undertaken, but now the aircraft has moved to Australia for further repairs. [42] This aircraft did not sustain overly significant damage, was not written off and is currently serviceable. As suchthe airframe should not listed as crashed.58.109.39.252 (talk) 10:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)