For training purposes, yes. And it must include a landing. If you fly 300 miles away, turn around and land at your original airport, that wouldn’t count as cross country time if you were training as a student pilot.
The point of course being to introduce the newbie pilot to circumstances different from just tooling around their home airport traffic pattern and the airport’s immediate environment.
50 miles is arbitrary, but it’s far enough that new experiences are guaranteed. But at the same time given typical lightplane speeds & fuel endurances, even getting lost along the way isn’t an immediate crisis as long as the student doesn’t keep working diligently to get loster.
This can’t have been fun:
For the pilots? The actual pilots can answer that, but I assume it was a lot more work for them.
For the passengers? They mostly wouldn’t even have noticed anything was wrong if the crew hadn’t told them. The worst part for them would have been the inconvenience of having their trip disrupted.
Yep. So when I was flying maritime surveillance flights in a Dash 8 with the same departure and destination airport they were technically not “cross country”, despite covering about 1400 nautical miles.
Rescue in Antarctica. Remember it’s winter there and they have to land and take-off upside down. 
Refueling with the engines running would truly suck. I suppose they have serious cold weather gear but still.
Where are the (re)fueling points on a C-130? Wings? Fuselage? Single point? Multiple points?
Depends on whose C-130.
US Hercules use a boom receptacle on the dorsal surface behind the cockpit. (At least, I’m sure USAF C-130s do. Marines and Navy traditionally favored the probe and drogue system mentioned below, but I can’t find any examples of USMC or USN Hercules being tanked, so I don’t know.)
Allied nations (in this example, the Royal Air Force) use probe and drogue systems.
Eh. I just realized you meant ground refueling.
Page 10:
The aircraft is normally fueled and defueled from the SPR [Single Point Refueling] adaptor in the right aft wheel well fairing. On the ground, any or all tanks can be filled or emptied as needed through the SPR receptacle and associated manifolds, and fuel can also be transferred from tank to tank.
In this picture, the ground crew has the SPR panel open to transfer fuel from the C-130 to another aircraft on the ground.
https://media.defense.gov/2021/Sep/22/2002859412/2000/2000/0/210825-F-PB262-0146.jpg
Thanks for the quick answer(s). Single point refueling must entail some pretty amazing plumbing.
Pretty much all modern airplanes bigger than lightplanes have SPR. The flow rates of a sealed system like that can be vastly higher than a nozzle loosely stuffed into an opening as is done on cars, trucks, and light planes. Much less opportunity for contamination to get in too.
What’s handy about the C-130 (and most military airlifters) is they put the connector and the control panel down near ground level where no ladders are needed. In most jets it’s somewhere on the underside of the wing. In @gnoitall’s second pic in their second post (the one that didn’t preview) at the extreme right edge you can see a curved panel protruding into the view. That’s the extreme aft end of the right main landing gear door. The aft main wheels are just out of sight farther to our right.
As to plumbing… It’s not so bad as all that and simplifying a bit …
The consumption side consists of electric pumps in each tank, and a single line that runs all the way across the airplane from outboard-most tank on the left to outboard most tank on the right. Each tank/pump output connects to that line through a one-way check valve. Each engine (and the APU) receive fuel through a connection from that common line. There’s a single “crossfeed” valve in the center that’s normally kept closed, isolating the left side fuel to the left engine(s) and the right side fuel to the right engine(s). It’s opened only if the left/right fuel distribution becomes significantly imbalanced during consumption. Fuel will be preferentially burned from the heavy side until balance is restored then the valve closed again.
On the fueling side, there’s a similar manifold line that runs nearly wingtip to wingtip. With inputs into each tank through check valves and electrically controlled valves. With one (or two on really big jets) stubs off it that lead to the fueling connections. For a wing mounted SPR connector, that stub might only be a foot long. The C-130’s is 15-20 feet long to reach up to the leading edge of the wing where it meets the spanwise manifold.
The fueler connects their hose(s) to the airplane receptacle(s), turns on the truck’s pump(s) to pressurize fuel into the airplane’s fueling manifold. Then they flip switches on the airplane’s control panel to open the tank inlet valves to admit fuel to each tank needing fuel. And switch them each back off when each tank has filled to its target amount. Typically there’s some simple automation there where they can simply dial in a target fuel load and the plane’s automation takes care of ensuring each tank is filled properly, and closing all the tanks’ inlet valves when the total is reached. Which is the fueler’s cue to turn off the truck pumps and disconnect the hoses.
More complicated than a car, but not nutty complicated.
To bring it back around to the original news article, hot-fueling a Hercules is not a death sentence, since the SPR point is well inboard from even the inboard starboard engine. You’ll get propwash from the idling engine, but as fast as a Hercules can take on fuel, it should only be in the ballpark of half an hour.
The prop blades can be put in flat pitch where there’s no “propwash”. It’s just a spinning disk. And it’s too far off the ground for anyone to walk into. It’s noisy work, but that goes with the territory of being a ground crewman.
What gets dicey is hot-refueling (and hot re-arming) an F-16 or A-6 or similar. Lotta ways to get hurt around those things; of necessity you’re very close to inlets and exhausts no matter where you are.
Thanks, LSLGuy. Great explanation. (And this would be why I love the Straight Dope… )
Hear, hear!
Seems like there are a few different variants, but none of them scream “totally safe”.
C-130J, for instance:
But it might be as high as 6’7" for the inner prop:
Or as low as 5’1":
Inboard Propeller Ground Clearance 60.6 in
The -A model, the -B through -H, and the -J each had very different propellers; 3, 4, and 6 blades respectively. Not surprising they each advertise different ground clearance.
I admit I’m surprised it’s that low on any of them; if you’d have asked I’d have said around 8 feet. It’s been a long time, but I rode on them and wandered around them a lot back in the day. I’m a bit less than 6 feet but it sure seemed like I had well more than a foot of clearance to the prop arc.
The other minor wrinkle specific to the news story is the change to prop clearance because the A/C is on ice skids, not landing gear wheels.
Still, ground ops around active A/C systems is standard business. It would take regrettable carelessness or inattention to even approach the prop zone.
Try an A7 on a carrier deck sometime. The A6 was bitch if you were a hook runner (which I was for a while), but the A7 scared the shit out of me no matter what I was doing.