L-188 From United States, joined Jul 1999, 28562 posts, RR: 72 Posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1341 times:
The USCG cracked up a HC-130 from Air Station Kodiak on St. Paul Island Alaska yesterday. None of the nine crewmembers where injured.
The Coast Guard is only saying that the aircraft was on a "Logistics Mission". St Paul is home to a Loran Station and is often used to support operations on the Bering Sea Patrol.
The aircraft departed the runway during the landing and came to a rest some 50 yards off of it. There is reports of right wing damage and a "seperated propellor.
KC135TopBoom From United States, joined Jan 2005, 7444 posts, RR: 50 Reply 1, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1188 times:
The USCG cannot afford to loose the service of a HC-130 for to long. They keep those airplanes very busy. Do we know if the airplane is a write-off, or is it repairable?
Quoting L-188 (Thread starter): There is reports of right wing damage and a "seperated propellor.
FlyUSCG From United States, joined Jun 2006, 656 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1184 times:
Well my dad just sent me about 40 pictures of the aircraft (since he is a Commander in the USCG and all) and I would say it is most likely not a write-off. Some pretty good damage in a couple areas that I'm sure would take awhile to repair, but nevertheless, it could be repaired. I'd like to be able to show you the pictures but they haven't (and I assume, wont be) released to the public.
L-188 From United States, joined Jul 1999, 28562 posts, RR: 72 Reply 3, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1177 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 1): That still doesn't tell me much about the damage.
C-130's have that narrow landing gear track, so I am guessing that when it ran off the runway-which if I remember sits proud of the surroning tundra it tipped, tapped a wing on the ground and caused the outboard prop on that side to make contact, and it broke apart.
I would be curious to see if FlyUSCG's photos confirm that.
Any word what aircraft it was....I was out in CDB in 1996 when 1700 had the lighting strike-the first time.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
FlyUSCG From United States, joined Jun 2006, 656 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1170 times:
Quoting L-188 (Reply 3): C-130's have that narrow landing gear track, so I am guessing that when it ran off the runway-which if I remember sits proud of the surrounding tundra it tipped, tapped a wing on the ground and caused the outboard prop on that side to make contact, and it broke apart.
As my dad said, I am not allowed to "confirm" *wink wink* or release any of the pictures he sent me so I cant say for sure that what you said is what happened. And what are you talking about when you say "broke apart"?
FlyUSCG From United States, joined Jun 2006, 656 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1145 times:
Quoting 474218 (Reply 5): If the pictures are not to be released to the public and your dad the "USCG Commander" passed them to you, he should be COURT-MARTIALED.
If this was the case, we would have almost no military due to all the "leaked" info that is out there. (and I mean that in terms of small stuff like this that isn't a national security threat or anything). Plus I have also received pics from a friend of a friend from NTSB investigations that weren't released to the public. Yet I have them on my computer right now. So do we fire everyone who has ever leaked less than critical info in that org. too? Good-bye NTSB.
(Plus it's my DAD releasing it to his 21 year old SON who is also in the process of applying to the Coast Guard and whom he can trust to not pass the info on without his permission)
Halls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1144 times:
Quoting FlyUSCG (Reply 6): If this was the case, we would have almost no military due to all the "leaked" info that is out there. (and I mean that in terms of small stuff like this that isn't a national security threat or anything). Plus I have also received pics from a friend of a friend from NTSB investigations that weren't released to the public. Yet I have them on my computer right now. So do we fire everyone who has ever leaked less than critical info in that org. too? Good-bye NTSB.
(Plus it's my DAD releasing it to his 21 year old SON who is also in the process of applying to the Coast Guard and whom he can trust to not pass the info on without his permission)
I hate to burst your bubble, but speaking as a retired Coast Guard lawyer, if the pictures can't be released to the public, then that includes you. You are at most a dependent, and if they aren't releasable to the public, that includes YOU.
FlyUSCG From United States, joined Jun 2006, 656 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1124 times:
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 7): I hate to burst your bubble, but speaking as a retired Coast Guard lawyer, if the pictures can't be released to the public, then that includes you. You are at most a dependent, and if they aren't releasable to the public, that includes YOU.
Your absolutely right, but i'm just trying to say that if the military court-martialed every single person who leaked info we would be hurting for officers. I am a dependent, but i'm not just some random friend he is showing them too. And in the e-mail I got, it was stated that the photos were released for review and initial salvage planning purposes. So it's not like they are completely under lock and key. So hopefully we can end this part of the discussion here as it's detracting from that main issue.
Halls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1109 times:
Quoting FlyUSCG (Reply 8): Your absolutely right, but i'm just trying to say that if the military court-martialed every single person who leaked info we would be hurting for officers. I am a dependent, but i'm not just some random friend he is showing them too. And in the e-mail I got, it was stated that the photos were released for review and initial salvage planning purposes. So it's not like they are completely under lock and key. So hopefully we can end this part of the discussion here as it's detracting from that main issue.
The photos are either released for public dissemination, or they aren't. There is no middle ground.
No one is saying that your father should be court martialed. But if the photos haven't been released, he shouldn't be showing them to anyone who isn't in the Coast Guard, and then only to those that have a reason to see them.
FlyUSCG From United States, joined Jun 2006, 656 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1102 times:
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 9): No one is saying that your father should be court martialed
Quoting 474218 (Reply 5): If the pictures are not to be released to the public and your dad the "USCG Commander" passed them to you, he should be COURT-MARTIALED.
Well this guy is and apparently he is very adamant about it.
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 9): But if the photos haven't been released, he shouldn't be showing them to anyone who isn't in the Coast Guard, and then only to those that have a reason to see them.
That's the thing though, he has nothing to do with the crash or CG aviation in anyway, but he still got them from his Captain. So while they haven't been released to the public (hopefully there is a "yet" in there), they have been released around the CG to non-"necessary" personnel. I'm sure right now it's just one those things that he's being cautious and doesn't want me passing them out until he knows more. So all in all, I'd say were all right and wrong here because although everything should be black and white, there are often gray areas.
KC135TopBoom From United States, joined Jan 2005, 7444 posts, RR: 50 Reply 11, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1079 times:
I think we are really talking about two different things, here. Official photos taken by the USCG, or the CG Crash Investigation team, are generally not releasable. However, unless there were orders given to other military personnel in the area, not to take pictures of the wreckage, those pictures remain private property.
Quoting FlyUSCG (Reply 6): Plus I have also received pics from a friend of a friend from NTSB investigations that weren't released to the public.
Generally the NTSB does not get involved with military airplane crashes, unless invited by that service, or some technical skills or knowledge is needed, like metal analisis. Even then the NTSB can only take a support role and does not conduct the investigation into the conclusions or causes.
L-188 From United States, joined Jul 1999, 28562 posts, RR: 72 Reply 12, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1069 times:
Quoting FlyUSCG (Reply 10): So while they haven't been released to the public (hopefully there is a "yet" in there), they have been released around the CG to non-"necessary" personnel
IF they are private pictures he can do what the hell he wants with them. Probably everybody on St. Paul went down to the airport to see the white whale off the side of the runway and has video.
The odds of any classification of these is highly unlikely.
I have shots of 1700 at CDB after that lightning strike. If they had told me not to take pictures I would have told them to pound sand....they where on my airport.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
FlyUSCG From United States, joined Jun 2006, 656 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1064 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11): Generally the NTSB does not get involved with military airplane crashes, unless invited by that service, or some technical skills or knowledge is needed, like metal analisis. Even then the NTSB can only take a support role and does not conduct the investigation into the conclusions or causes.
When I said I had pictures from the NTSB, I meant from 2 other, unrelated crashes/incidents. I was just pointing out the fact that if we fired everyone that leaked small tid-bits we would have a skeleton crew running our armed forces and govt. agencies.
KC135TopBoom From United States, joined Jan 2005, 7444 posts, RR: 50 Reply 14, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1061 times:
Quoting FlyUSCG (Reply 13): When I said I had pictures from the NTSB, I meant from 2 other, unrelated crashes/incidents.
Okay, I thought you were talking about this accident.
SlamClick From United States, joined Nov 2003, 9996 posts, RR: 78 Reply 15, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1037 times:
Quoting FlyUSCG (Reply 8): Your absolutely right, but i'm just trying to say that if the military court-martialed every single person who leaked info we would be hurting for officers.
Well that is one way of looking at it.
Another is that they would be grooming a cadre of officers who have respect for the laws under which they operate.
My wife still does not know what I did in Vietnam more than thirty years ago. It may have been declassified but no one has officially so informed me. Accordingly I keep my mouth shut. This despite the fact that I have seen some photos of the operations on the internet and seen certain words in print that I had never head spoken aloud outside one room or aboard our mission aircraft.
Title 18 USC if I remember right.
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
MigFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1028 times:
What about the plain issue of information security?
Those pictures reside on a computer, and are subject to the security of that machine. Chances are the computer is running Windows, most likely XP, but hopefully not ME or 98. These "not for release" photos are not as secure as their new host. What if that machine was hacked?
The act of bypassing USCG regulation comprimises the security of the information by placing it on an unregulated computer. one does not have to be a real Internet guru to comprimise a machine and gain access to unsolicitied information.
SlamClick From United States, joined Nov 2003, 9996 posts, RR: 78 Reply 17, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1017 times:
Quoting MigFan (Reply 16): What about the plain issue of information security?
Exactly! As a veteran who recently had God-knows-what personal information compromised by some moron permitting such data to be taken off the property by half-smart employees I am pretty sensitive to such stuff.
Offering to make information from the USCG photos available to a total stranger on the internet does nothing to change my mind and in fact sort of underscores why these issues need to be reinforced with a court-martial from time to time.
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
JarheadK5 From United States, joined Nov 2005, 189 posts, RR: 1 Reply 19, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 938 times:
Quoting SlamClick (Reply 17): As a veteran who recently had God-knows-what personal information compromised by some moron permitting such data to be taken off the property by half-smart employees I am pretty sensitive to such stuff.
x2.
Big surprise - the FBI says "nothing was accessed or compromised" from that laptop. I guess that will be the justification when the Gov't. denies claims for identity theft from vets...
L-188 From United States, joined Jul 1999, 28562 posts, RR: 72 Reply 20, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 923 times:
Can we please get off the subject of if it is a breech of national security that there are photos of a USCG aircraft at a public airport.
Quoting FlyUSCG (Reply 4): And what are you talking about when you say "broke apart"?
I mean the prop hit the ground while still spinning and disassembled itself to the compent level without the benfit of tools. In that situation I could see pieces of it ending up in the cabin and out in the tundra.
BTW: here is a photo of the airport it happened at.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
FlyUSCG From United States, joined Jun 2006, 656 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 902 times:
Quoting L-188 (Reply 20): I mean the prop hit the ground while still spinning and disassembled itself to the compent level without the benfit of tools. In that situation I could see pieces of it ending up in the cabin and out in the tundra.
Ok, thought so. I was just making sure you didn't mean the whole aircraft.
Quoting L-188 (Thread starter): There is reports of right wing damage and a "seperated propellor.
The propeller did separate (engine still attached) and the right wing tip did suffer damage. So that's just confirming what the press release said.
Pope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 22, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 847 times:
Quoting FlyUSCG (Reply 8): Your absolutely right, but i'm just trying to say that if the military court-martialed every single person who leaked info we would be hurting for officers. I am a dependent, but i'm not just some random friend he is showing them too. And in the e-mail I got, it was stated that the photos were released for review and initial salvage planning purposes. So it's not like they are completely under lock and key. So hopefully we can end this part of the discussion here as it's detracting from that main issue.
Dude are you really willing to risk your father's career based upon what you think? Be a man - keep your mouth shut and stop posting "my daddy told me..." posts on a message board accessible to anyone with a computer and an internet connection.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States, joined Jul 1999, 28562 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
Exactly...
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
