Heritage of the Hercules

By Roger Thiedeman

A few months ago, a chapter in the history of Sri Lankan aviation closed. When the last of the SriLankan Airlines (Air Lanka) L-1011 TriStars left the airline, it signalled the end of an on-again-off-again relationship, reaching back 44 years, between Lockheed as builders of the TriStar and aviation in Sri Lanka.

From 1956 to 1961, Air Ceylon operated international services in collaboration with KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, using a succession of Lockheed products: a 749 Constellation named Mahadevi, the 1049G Super Constellation Somadevi, and a Model 188 Electra turboprop.

Then, in 1980, the fledgling Air Lanka became a Lockheed user when it leased two L-1011 TriStars from Air Canada. They were the first of 16 TriStars the national carrier would either lease or purchase over the next 20 years, although never operating more than five or six L-1011s at any one time.

But just as one chapter linking Sri Lanka and Lockheed was closing earlier this year, a new one was about to open. On March 15, the Sri Lanka Air Force (SLAF) took delivery of the first of a pair of Lockheed C-130K Hercules transport aircraft bought from surplus Royal Air Force (RAF) stocks.

The C-130 Hercules is easily one of the best known and most successful products of the Lockheed company.

Beginning with the prototype which first flew at Burbank, California in August 1954, over 2,100 examples of this rugged, reliable airplane have been, and are still being, produced for air forces and even a few civilian operators all over the world. Apart from the United States Air Force in the homeland of the 'Herk', a list of C-130 users reads like a Who's Who of the world's air arms: Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chad, Egypt, Greece, Iran, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Oman, Pakistan, Portugal, Singapore and the United Kingdom, just to name a few.

The C-130 Hercules owes much of its success to the versatility of its design. In dimensions and appearance, the 'Herk' is comparable to the Soviet-built Antonov An-12, used by private cargo operators like Sky Cabs in Sri Lanka, and its Chinese counterpart the Shaanxi Y-8, operated by the SLAF. But a huge plus factor for the 'Herk' is its four powerful and dependable Allison T56A-15 turboprop engines, each churning out over 4,500 horsepower.

This outstanding airframe/engine combination has allowed the C-130 to be adapted to a multitude of tasks.

It has been aptly described as the "do-it-all airlifter in service with a myriad nations and in a massive variety of roles". Essentially a transport aircraft for carrying military personnel, materiel and vehicles, the rear loading cargo doors of the Hercules also lend themselves to paradropping of supplies and soldiers.

During the Vietnam War the 'Herk' grew fangs, not just teeth. Designated the AC-130H, the Hercules was converted into a potent gunship. Equipped with a formidable array of guns, cannon, Howitzers and other weapons bristling out of its sides (hence the nickname "Flying Porcupine"), the Hercules gunships flew in circles over Viet Cong territory, just out of reach of enemy ground fire, raining death and destruction on the foe below. So effective were the AC-130Hs, they also earned the sobriquet "The Fabulous Four-Engined Fighter".

In both wartime and peacetime, the Hercules has proved itself capable of operating from most types of surfaces. It is equally at home on the prepared runways of conventional airports, or dirt and gravel airstrips at remote outback locations. Even snow and ice hold no terrors for the robust go-anywhere 'Herk'. The United States Navy regularly fly their special ski-landing-gear equipped LC-130R Hercules airplanes to and from American bases at Antarctica.

Perhaps the most celebrated use of the C-130 Hercules has been its rescue of 103 Jewish hostages from Uganda on July 4, 1976. A few days earlier, Air France flight 139 from Athens to Paris was hijacked by terrorists sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. The Airbus A300 and its complement of terrified passengers eventually landed at Entebbe airport in Uganda, a country then under the control of psychotic despot Idi Amin. Passengers were herded off the Airbus and into the old terminal building, far from the gaze of other airport users.

When some hostages were released, it became clear that those still being held were adherents of the Jewish faith and/or Israeli nationals. Immediately, the Israeli government and its military top brass began planning and rehearsing a clandestine rescue operation codenamed "Operation Thunderbolt". This culminated, a few nights later, in four Hercules aircraft of the Israeli Air Force slipping into Entebbe under cover of darkness, before airport authorities discovered their arrival.

With amazing swiftness and precision, highly-trained Israeli commandos cut down the hijackers in a blaze of gunfire, then hustled the bewildered hostages into the 'Herks' waiting with engines running, ready to fly them out of captivity to the safety of Israel.

Daring and brilliantly executed, "Operation Thunderbolt" has passed into the stuff of legend, spawning at least two movies and several books. But part of its success is directly attributable to the Lockheed Hercules. The C-130's relatively quiet engines and ability to land and stop within a short distance gave the Israeli commandos precious extra minutes to stealthily and effectively launch their rescue mission before detection.

In more peaceful usage, the Hercules has shown other examples of its usefulness. In 1989, Australia's domestic airlines were crippled by a pilots' strike that lasted for several months. To fill the void left by the grounded fleets of Ansett Airlines and Australian Airlines, a motley collection of foreign airliners and crews were chartered from different parts of the world. The Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) also helped out with aircraft from their VIP and Transport Wings, including a number of C-130 Hercules.

But the Aussie military 'Herk' was no comfortable airliner. Seats were little more than hard aluminium benches lining each side of the cabin, with passengers sitting side-saddle fashion and backs to the wall, so to speak.

Toilet facilities were basic too. Only a single, portable chemical loo, with a temporary curtain for privacy, provided an answer to the call of nature.

Not surprisingly, most passengers either sat with their legs tightly crossed for the duration of the flight, or 'went before they went', to put it politely! Happily, strike-affected travellers on the RAAF 'Herks' good-naturedly endured these privations, grateful for anything with wings to get them to their destinations safely.

The vast bulk and carrying capacity of the Lockheed Hercules has also seen it used as an aerial tanker. In 1982, when Britain and Argentina were engaged in the Falklands War, a number of specially-converted C-130K Hercules of the RAF were used as air-to-air refuelling platforms for British fighter and bomber aircraft operating over the South Atlantic Ocean.

Indeed, the pair of SLAF C-130s are former 'K' model Hercules tankers pensioned off by the RAF. Retrieved from storage at the Marshall Aerospace engineering complex in Cambridge, England, the two 'Herks' were returned to normal, non-tanker configuration while being extensively refurbished for service with the SLAF.

Although its basic design is over 45 years old, the Lockheed C-130 Hercules continues to serve with distinction, safety and reliability around the globe. With care and a modicum of good luck, there is no reason why the two Sri Lankan C-130s couldn't do the same, providing a much-needed fillip to the transport capability of the Sri Lanka Air Force.

Law and Citizen

To whom does the child belong?

By Dr. C. Ananda Grero

The custody of minor children living with their parents, lies with the parents. Both the father and the mother should look after the interests and the welfare of their children. It is a parental duty to do so.

In situations where a child is handed over to some other person to be brought up, he or she remains in the custody of this person. At a later stage if the parents seek to get back the child and the custody of the child is not given back to them, what legal remedy is available to the parents? Can the party in whose custody the child remains, resist such legal remedy? Or can the party concerned refuse to hand over the child to the parent? This article will discuss these issues.

Citizen Alwis married citizen Asilin and they lived together for ten years. During this period they had three children, all girls. When the eldest daughter, Kamala was just ten years, citizen Alwis left them. Asilin did not have a job and the whole family depended on Alwis's income for their sustenance. They lived in a rented house. After Alwis left, Asilin stayed in the house for two months, and then left as she was unable to pay the rent. She also handed over Kamala to a couple Mr. and Mrs. de Silva to bring her up as their child.

When the child was handed over to the couple, there was an oral agreement arrived at that Asilin, would not to claim the child. Kamala was brought up by Mr. and Mrs. Silva as their own child. She was looked after very well, sent to school and all comforts were given to her. However no adoption order was taken by Mr. and Mrs. Silva. Two years later, Asilin visited the house of citizen Silva and requested him to give the child back to her during the school vacation. Mr. and Mrs. Silva did not agree to her request and neither did Kamala want to leave them. They reminded Asilin of the verbal agreement she had made when the child was handed over to them, but Asilin insisted that her daughter be given back to her. The couple refused to do so.

With the assistance of her father, Asilin filed a Habeas Corpus application in the Court of Appeal and claimed the custody of Kamala. She cited Mr. and Mrs. Silva as the first two respondents, and Kamala as the third respondent. The Court of Appeal referred this matter to the magistrate of Galle requesting him to report to court as early as possible. The Magistrate on the receipt of the application, noticed the petitioner as well as the respondents and directed the first and second respondents to bring the third respondent Kamala to Court. All parties appeared before the Magistrate and the first to third respondents were represented by a lawyer who moved for time to file objections. Three weeks were granted, and on the due date the objections were filed. The inquiry took place on the due date and the Magistrate made his findings after considering the evidence of both sides. As the child should have the companionship of her mother, sister and grand-parents, he recommended that the petitioner's mother Asilin, should get the child and sent the record to the Court of Appeal.

A similar matter came up for consideration in the Supreme Court (at that time writ jurisdiction was with Supreme Court) in the case of M. Frugtniet V. Edwin Fernando and two others, and was reported in 74 New Law Reports on page 442.

Justice Samarawickrama before whom the matter came up, after considering the Magistrate's report and the submissions made by both Attorneys-at-Law observed that under Roman Dutch Law both the father and the mother are entitled to custody of their children. Though the father has a preferential right, in a case like this where the father fails or neglects to concern himself with the care of the children, there is no reason why the petitioner (like Asilin) should not be entitled to obtain custody, if she can make out a case for such custody.

But after analysing the evidence led in the case and the Magistrate's observations, Justice Samarawickrama said: The petitioner (like Asilin) has been described by the Magistrate as a foolish, illiterate and garrulous woman who appears to be absent-minded. It is clear that she is unable to support her children. The report is clear that two respondents (like Mr. and Mrs. Silva) are fond of the child and the child is equally fond of her foster-parents. Evidence of the child shows that she is happy and contended to be with her foster-parents.

He further held, that in a case like this, the welfare and happiness of the child is the paramount consideration and to this consideration all others yield. He finally held that in the interests of the child, she should remain with the first and second respondents. In her interests she (like Kamala) should not be handed back to her mother. It appears that her welfare and happiness would be best served by the respondents who are treating her as a child of their own. He refused the petitioner's application. However, the mother was allowed to visit the child as agreed upon by both parties.

(Names are fictitious)

More Plus

Return to Plus Contents