RNZAF Boeing 757 breaks down when carrying PM. RNZAF must have an atrocious dispatch reliability figure.

Forums › Off topic › RNZAF Boeing 757 breaks down when carrying PM. RNZAF must have an atrocious dispatch reliability figure.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1658048 26-Oct-2016 11:38

amiga500:

Does NZ really need cargo aircraft at all? If we want to deliver emergency supplies to islands in the Pacific just charter some cargo aircraft or send a naval ship. Maybe all the RNZAF should have is some maritime patrol capability, & helicopters for general use. Pilots could train in the USA and transition onto the P3 Orions. What are we really going to do with 2 C17s at $600 million - try to deploy the friggin' LAVs to somewhere in the Pacific? They would probably get shot down with shoulder launched SAMs on approach to the airport.

The Army takes more than just LAVs when they deploy. Generators, IT equipment, Comms, Earthmoving, accommodation, food, water, medical supplies, personal arms and equipment, soldiers and so on. Emergencies and unrest don't conveniently occur where nice commercial runways exist. Commercial airlines don't really enjoy putting the fleet and staff in harms way and their insurance companies get a tad irritated.

Intravix

110 posts

Master Geek

#1658080 26-Oct-2016 12:17

MikeB4:

amiga500:

Does NZ really need cargo aircraft at all? If we want to deliver emergency supplies to islands in the Pacific just charter some cargo aircraft or send a naval ship. Maybe all the RNZAF should have is some maritime patrol capability, & helicopters for general use. Pilots could train in the USA and transition onto the P3 Orions. What are we really going to do with 2 C17s at $600 million - try to deploy the friggin' LAVs to somewhere in the Pacific? They would probably get shot down with shoulder launched SAMs on approach to the airport.

The Army takes more than just LAVs when they deploy. Generators, IT equipment, Comms, Earthmoving, accommodation, food, water, medical supplies, personal arms and equipment, soldiers and so on. Emergencies and unrest don't conveniently occur where nice commercial runways exist. Commercial airlines don't really enjoy putting the fleet and staff in harms way and their insurance companies get a tad irritated.

"We don't have any aircraft spare at the moment and none that can fly to that remote part of the country, how about a flight next Tuesday to a city hours away on an aircraft that can't carry that cargo? Can the disaster ravaged region wait another week to get support?"

frankv

5680 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1658082 26-Oct-2016 12:22

MikeB4:

frankv:

flying over the Pacific when the C130 had multiple engine failure, the aircraft was put into a gradual decline descent until the pilots managed to restart the engines,

Actual engine failures are so rare that multiple simultaneous "engine failures" are much more likely to be a cockpit issue than an engine issue, and fuel management is most common. It would be unlikely that an engine that failed for some kind of mechanical or electrical reason could be restarted.

where ever the fault was made no difference to him.

I'm sure. But labelling it as an aircraft failure rather than a crew failure is misleading in the context of a discussion about aircraft reliability.

Maybe the "technical failure" with the 757 was that the crew got on the turps with their mates at Townsville and were too blotto to takeoff?

Pumpedd

1759 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1658086 26-Oct-2016 12:28

The primary use of the 2 Boeing 757's is as troop carriers!!

Usually when the PM uses them it is with a delegation of NZ business folk plus the media...so the size needs to be decent.

The Aussie PM uses a 737.

networkn

Networkn
32350 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1658087 26-Oct-2016 12:29

Pumpedd:

The primary use of the 2 Boeing 757's is as troop carriers!!

Usually when the PM uses them it is with a delegation of NZ business folk plus the media...so the size needs to be decent.

The Aussie PM uses a 737.

Who owns/operates/maintains the 737?

Boeingflyer

643 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#1658097 26-Oct-2016 12:38

networkn:
Pumpedd:

The primary use of the 2 Boeing 757's is as troop carriers!!

Usually when the PM uses them it is with a delegation of NZ business folk plus the media...so the size needs to be decent.

The Aussie PM uses a 737.

Who owns/operates/maintains the 737?

Qantas i think

Oblivian

7296 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#1658103 26-Oct-2016 12:46

Fabian:
networkn:

Pumpedd:

The primary use of the 2 Boeing 757's is as troop carriers!!

Usually when the PM uses them it is with a delegation of NZ business folk plus the media...so the size needs to be decent.

The Aussie PM uses a 737.

Who owns/operates/maintains the 737?

Qantas i think

Yep. Qantas Defence Services. Still only a 30/36 passenger capability despite the range

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

PolicyGuy

1726 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#1658108 26-Oct-2016 12:51

networkn:

Pumpedd:

The primary use of the 2 Boeing 757's is as troop carriers!!

Usually when the PM uses them it is with a delegation of NZ business folk plus the media...so the size needs to be decent.

The Aussie PM uses a 737.

Who owns/operates/maintains the 737?

The BBJ / B737 is owned (or maybe leased) by the RAAF
Maintenance used to be by QANTAS, but they sold that division to ?Rockwell?
This Boeing is too small and too short-ranged to carry a delegation like the one accompanying John Key at the moment.
It is due to be replaced, one of the two RAAF A330MRTT (Multi-Role Tanker Transport) aircraft currently being converted from Passenger to Passenger/Tanker will be given an 'Executive' interior so it can be used as VVIP transport, but still revert to tanker duties if the brown stuff hits the whirly thing. These two aircraft are ex-QANTAS and came off the production line at the same time as the five existing RAAF A330MRTT aircraft so are almost identical.

networkn

Networkn
32350 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1658112 26-Oct-2016 13:01

PolicyGuy:

networkn:

Pumpedd:

The primary use of the 2 Boeing 757's is as troop carriers!!

Usually when the PM uses them it is with a delegation of NZ business folk plus the media...so the size needs to be decent.

The Aussie PM uses a 737.

Who owns/operates/maintains the 737?

The BBJ / B737 is owned (or maybe leased) by the RAAF
Maintenance used to be by QANTAS, but they sold that division to ?Rockwell?
This Boeing is too small and too short-ranged to carry a delegation like the one accompanying John Key at the moment.
It is due to be replaced, one of the two RAAF A330MRTT (Multi-Role Tanker Transport) aircraft currently being converted from Passenger to Passenger/Tanker will be given an 'Executive' interior so it can be used as VVIP transport, but still revert to tanker duties if the brown stuff hits the whirly thing. These two aircraft are ex-QANTAS and came off the production line at the same time as the five existing RAAF A330MRTT aircraft so are almost identical.

Maybe we could sublease from them, a suitable transport. I have heard really good things about the 757 though, so perhaps we just need to find more use for it.

Maybe have one sitting around, one on active deployment and rotate them monthly?

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1658118 26-Oct-2016 13:05

frankv:

I'm sure. But labelling it as an aircraft failure rather than a crew failure is misleading in the context of a discussion about aircraft reliability.

Maybe the "technical failure" with the 757 was that the crew got on the turps with their mates at Townsville and were too blotto to takeoff?

You were on the flight ? wow cool

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1658120 26-Oct-2016 13:13

Intravix:

"We don't have any aircraft spare at the moment and none that can fly to that remote part of the country, how about a flight next Tuesday to a city hours away on an aircraft that can't carry that cargo? Can the disaster ravaged region wait another week to get support?"

We currently have 2 757's , 6 P-3K Orions, 5 C130's so capability exists for the roles required.

They are currently reviewing the C130 fleet and looking for a replacement aircraft, the C-17 is one option along with the C130J, A400M

MikeAqua

7773 posts

Uber Geek

#1658144 26-Oct-2016 13:41

Intravix:

MikeB4:

amiga500:

Does NZ really need cargo aircraft at all? If we want to deliver emergency supplies to islands in the Pacific just charter some cargo aircraft or send a naval ship. Maybe all the RNZAF should have is some maritime patrol capability, & helicopters for general use. Pilots could train in the USA and transition onto the P3 Orions. What are we really going to do with 2 C17s at $600 million - try to deploy the friggin' LAVs to somewhere in the Pacific? They would probably get shot down with shoulder launched SAMs on approach to the airport.

The Army takes more than just LAVs when they deploy. Generators, IT equipment, Comms, Earthmoving, accommodation, food, water, medical supplies, personal arms and equipment, soldiers and so on. Emergencies and unrest don't conveniently occur where nice commercial runways exist. Commercial airlines don't really enjoy putting the fleet and staff in harms way and their insurance companies get a tad irritated.

"We don't have any aircraft spare at the moment and none that can fly to that remote part of the country, how about a flight next Tuesday to a city hours away on an aircraft that can't carry that cargo? Can the disaster ravaged region wait another week to get support?"

This - incidentally sometimes the disaster ravaged region is in NZ. Quite nice to have your own planes when that happens.

Mike

tripper1000

1617 posts

Uber Geek

#1658211 26-Oct-2016 14:42

The only reason this is in the news is because there are a bunch of jurno's stuck in Townsville, trying the justify their existence (and bar tab). I note that despite being there, on the ground, and having unfetter access to the maintenance team, none of the journo's understand the problem well enough to try and explain it to the NZ public.

I would caution against measuring and extolling the dispatch success figures of airlines. Commercial pressures to fly aircraft which are not quite up to scratch are enormous, and erodes air safety. Passengers who abuse airline staff when a flight is delayed due to a technical glitch are the stupid people in our society. Who in their right mind would want to fly on a deficient aircraft? Who in their right mind would encourage airlines (through abuse) to withhold the truth? Smart people would feel reassured that their chosen airline has the integrity and moral fortitude to admit when their aircraft has a deficiency.

In this vain the RNZAF is not subject to commercial pressures, and does not fly suspect aircraft - even more so when there is a Head of State aboard.

It should be noted that the average age of the RNZAF fleet is 300% to 400% older than Air New Zealand and serviceability is correspondingly worse. The 757's are the youngest large aircraft that the RNZAF has, and they were built in 1994. That makes them 22 years old. The C130's were built in 1964 - 66. Who would expect a 1966 truck to be reliable? So why expect a 1966 plane to be reliable?

Technofreak

6530 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1658248 26-Oct-2016 15:25

tripper1000:

The C130's were built in 1964 - 66. Who would expect a 1966 truck to be reliable? So why expect a 1966 plane to be reliable?

I do expect a 1966 aircraft to be reliable.

I think you'll find a 1966 aircraft like the C130 will have been maintained and upgraded to the extent it should be as reliable as a new aircraft.

No doubt you'll recognise the Orion P3 by it's original name - Lockheed Electra. When were they built? The Electra was first flown back in 1957.

Take a look at the B 52 and see how old that will be by the time it is retired. It entered service in 1955 and is expected to remain in service till the 2040's.

Aircraft aren't like trucks and cars. Fashions may change but the laws of physics and aerodynamics don't change. Changing the shape of an aircraft to suit the whims of fashion doesn't work. If the airframe works now it will work well into the future. Major technological developments such as carbon fibre etc can bring advantages that may make an old airframe less attractive.

The engines will be updated with newer tech engines and the avionics will be upgraded to the latest spec. It's still an old airframe but has all the advantages of new technology.

P.S. Why does everyone keep referring to a woodworking tool (plane) instead of an aircraft?

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

elpenguino

3419 posts

Uber Geek

#1658253 26-Oct-2016 15:28

it's short for aeroplane. just like we don't say motorcar any more. we just don't have the time :-)

Most of the posters in this thread are just like chimpanzees on MDMA, full of feelings of bonhomie, joy, and optimism. Fred99 8/4/21

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7