The loss of Hercules XV298
I have just read with interest the above article in the August edition of your magazine (Touch and go in Syria, p74- 77) and have to take issue with the text box regarding RAF Hercules losses.
My main point is the erroneous attribution of the cause of the crash of XV298. The investigation into this incident clearly identified insufficient take-off distance as the cause. There is no mention of the load moving, which would point to serious derogation of duty by the movements team responsible. Indeed, photographs of the burnt-out shell clearly showed the load still securely restrained to the floor.
I also find the assertion that the A400M and C-17 are not used for such “dangerous” tasks because of their high price compared with a ‘Herc’ to be naive at best. Graham Langfield
Serbian SAM system identified
On page 64 of the September issue of AFM, the upper left caption gives the SA-6 NATO codename as Guideline. This is incorrect: Guideline is the name attached to the SA-2, whereas the SA-6 is known as Gainful.
Chris Dierkes Stratford, Connecticut
Indonesian C-130H with Skuadron Udara 33
I am writing from Papua, the eastern-most part of Indonesia, where I was lucky enough to photograph…
