Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7
13580 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6364

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1658048 26-Oct-2016 11:38
Send private message

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. 





Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 Mac user, Windows curser, Chrome OS desired.

 

The great divide is the lies from both sides.

 

 


32 posts

Geek
+1 received by user: 10


  Reply # 1658080 26-Oct-2016 12:17
One person supports this post
Send private message

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?"


 
 
 
 


2545 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1238

Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1658082 26-Oct-2016 12:22
Send private message

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?

 

 


1759 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 900


  Reply # 1658086 26-Oct-2016 12:28
Send private message

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.


18736 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5375

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1658087 26-Oct-2016 12:29
Send private message

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?

 

 


576 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 82

Trusted

  Reply # 1658097 26-Oct-2016 12:38
Send private message

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

2895 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 311


  Reply # 1658103 26-Oct-2016 12:46
Send private message

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


214 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 92

Subscriber

  Reply # 1658108 26-Oct-2016 12:51
Send private message

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.


18736 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5375

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1658112 26-Oct-2016 13:01
Send private message

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?

 

 


13580 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6364

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1658118 26-Oct-2016 13:05
Send private message

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





Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 Mac user, Windows curser, Chrome OS desired.

 

The great divide is the lies from both sides.

 

 


13580 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6364

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1658120 26-Oct-2016 13:13
Send private message

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





Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 Mac user, Windows curser, Chrome OS desired.

 

The great divide is the lies from both sides.

 

 


5289 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2145


  Reply # 1658144 26-Oct-2016 13:41
Send private message

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

783 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 476


  Reply # 1658211 26-Oct-2016 14:42
One person supports this post
Send private message

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?


2876 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 503


  Reply # 1658248 26-Oct-2016 15:25
Send private message

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 X running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS 
Samsung Galaxy Tab S3
Nokia N1
Dell Inspiron 14z i5


706 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 256


  Reply # 1658253 26-Oct-2016 15:28
Send private message

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


1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic



Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.