This redirect 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.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
This redirect is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Hi, I have tried several times to correct the write up on this accident. I was the safety officer at VP-30 (P-3 RAG) at the time of this accident and we received a through brief on it. Here is the correct sequence of events. During climb out the #1 engine separated from the the aircraft (passing up and over the wing). The Navy claims, (disputed by Lockheed) that this was due to a "whirl mode" event previously seen in several L-188 (the civilian ancestor to the P-3) accidents. This weakened the wing structure causing the piece outboard of that location to fold up and and in, thus separating. This piece struck the port horizontal stabilizer, which sheared off. The aircraft due to aerodynamic force pitched nose down, then violently nose up with such force that the 3 remaining engines were flung down off the aircraft. Without the weight of engine #3 and #4 to counteract the lift force of the wing, that starboard wing broke off at the wing root. The body of the aircraft (with the inboard port wing section and starboard horizontal and vertical tail sections rolled inverted and impacted the ground, killing everyone. This is consistent with the reference provided in your text which is why I haven't added anything. Neal P. Hesser Aeronautical Engineer, P-3 Instructor Pilot, USN LCDR Ret.
I remember the L-188 Electra incidents you describe from news reports at the time and from subsequent active duty with naval aviation units. Although I left active duty before you did, I was under the impression the Navy had concluded (both through prototype acceptance and subsequent service experience) the L-188 whirl mode failures had been satisfactorily addressed by structural improvements incorporated into the P-3 design. The event sequence appears to be: wing-tank over-pressurization -> #1 engine separation -> wing failure. During staffing reductions of the post-Vietnam war era, I remember accident reports were sometimes prepared to deflect blame away from procedural errors by surviving personnel. Can you provide a substitute reference citation for the one you removed in your objection to fuel tank over-pressurization as a contributing cause of wing weakness allowing the engine separation and subsequent wing failure you describe? Thewellman (talk) 18:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was the VP-8 duty officer that day- evidence was found of anti-lock fluid having been used on the engine mount bolts not only on that aircraft but on several others that had been through NARF Jax around the same time as 152757. There was message traffic that circulated the VP community documenting those inspection discoveries around the Navy. That antilock fluid apparently contributed to at least one of the engine mount bolts to have loosened thus in effect only leaving 3 engine mount bolts holding on the engine which was similar to the L-188 engine whirl mode events.This was the explanation provided to our squadron during a briefing-probably early 1979. Lee Smith, CDR USN RET 100.36.131.229 (talk) 02:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
