Latest on Skyhawk Sale

[corsair67]

Stick it to 'em, Don.

I'm going to fire a letter off to the Christchurch Press this week, so fingers crossed that they publish it.

[skyhawkdon]

OK here is my own "Press Release". Feel free to quote from it, or cut and paste what you want for your own letters!

SKYHAWK SALE CONTINUES TO EMBARRASS GOV'T

Five years after the Government announced its decision to scrap the Air Force's Air Combat Force, the Skyhawk and Aermacchi fleets remain unsold and are an irritating reminder to the Government of a decision that remains as controversial today as it was when announced in May 2001.

Out of the blue just before the last election, the then Defence Minister Mark Burton triumphantly announced that both aircraft fleets had been sold to US based pilot training company Tactical Air Services, for NZ$155m. Twelve months on and the deal looks dead in the water. The aircraft remain in New Zealand, still in storage at Ohakea and Woodbourne Air Force Bases. No money has changed hands and no work has even started on getting the Skyhawks back into airworthy condition - a job that sources say could take up to 3 years and cost tens of millions of dollars to complete. Not only has the purchaser not paid a deposit, but he hasn't even been to New Zealand yet to inspect the aircraft.

Former Air Force engineer Don Simms, who was closely involved with the Skyhawks until being made redundant in 2001, doubts whether a real deal ever existed. "At the time the sale was announced no one had ever heard of Tactical Air Services - the Government announcement caught everyone by surprise. Not even those working on the aircraft at Ohakea and Woodbourne knew anything about it, which was very odd. We had heard of Hoss Pearson from one of his previous Skyhawk ventures (Advanced Training Systems International), but when we tried to find out anything about this new company we hit a brick wall. Mr Pearson had been quoted as saying the aircraft would be used for military pilot training in the US, but people in the industry in the United States had never heard of his new company and weren't aware of any military pilot training contracts in the offering."

At the time questions were also asked about who would lend a company that only appeared to exist on paper NZ$155m to purchase 34 fighter aircraft when they didn't have a physical address, had no staff, and most significantly no contracts with which to use the jets? "It just didn't sound right... and still doesn't" says Mr Simms.

Mr Simms now believes the time has come for the Government to come clean and admit the whole process has been a very expensive mistake (a $130,000 a month mistake and counting). Prior to being made redundant from the Air Force he argued (unsuccessfully) that the Skyhawks should be given to the Air Force's Ground Training Wing at Woodbourne to be looked after prior to any sale. That way it wouldn't have cost the taxpayer a cent to maintain them in a fully serviceable condition and as a bonus the Air Force could have used them to train their up-and-coming Engineers.

Mr Simms believes that this is still the logical place for the Skyhawks to end their days - now that a sale appears unlikely. "Currently the Air Force uses old Devon and Strikemaster aircraft as instructional airframes at Woodbourne. They are quite unsuitable for the job, as they are of 1950's British origin - the RNZAF hasn't operated British aircraft for many years. It is pointless training engineers on these old British aircraft. As soon as they get out to the operational Squadrons they have to be retrained on the American way of doing things.

Mr Simms believes the Skyhawk would make a perfect instructional aircraft. "It is very small, so a number could be fitted in the available space in the GTW hangar at Woodbourne. It also has relatively sophisticated Avionics systems - certainly much more modern and comprehensive than the Devons and Strikemasters have. There is also a very large stockholding of spare parts and support equipment which could keep the aircraft going in the ground training role for many years to come." Importantly all of the trade and system training courses and publications are in place. In fact the Skyhawk had the most comprehensive maintenance publication suite of any RNZAF aircraft at the time of its retirement. All good reasons for keeping them as instructional airframes you would think.

Mr Simms believes that any surplus aircraft not needed by GTW should be offered to Museums in NZ and Australia. "The Skyhawk has a significant place in Australian and NZ aviation history - 32 years of RNZAF service is no mean feat. It would be a tragedy if they end their days cut up for scrap."

As for the Macchi's - unofficially the Air Force would love to be able to use them again for advanced pilot training at Ohakea - the main reason they were purchased in 1990. "But I'm sure the current crop of Labour politicians won't let that happen no matter how compelling the argument is for it." says Mr Simms. "They would rather spend millions storing them in the vane hope that one day they will be gone from the conscience of all New Zealanders. It is time for some common sense to prevail." he says.

[phil]

Good on you Don, at least you are in a position to speak out! Not like those of us still here who have to bite our tongues.

[Dave Homewood]

Don, that's a very good article. I'm sure the poor Blunties don't like being called 1950's aircraft whe they're younger than the Skyhawks by several years and of a younger design vintage, but I'll let that slide.

I love the dig about the RNZAF still wanting to use the Macchis for the role they were intended, pilot training. It makes no sense to have them just sitting there. To think we used to train among the best military pilots in the world.

I reckon that SAFE Air must be making a huge packet from all this from the hugely overpriced storage they're charging. Am I right in thinking SAFE is still owned by Air New Zealand, which is in turn owned by the NZ Government as major shareholders? Sounds dodgy if I have my facts straight.

[skyhawkdon]

The Strikemaster and Jet Provost was based on the 1950's designed piston engined Provost trainer. Yes our Blunties were built in the early 1970's but their design predated that (ask anyone who worked on them!).

Yes Safe Air is 100% owned by Air NZ. You can't blame them for trying to make a dollar out of the whole shambles.

[corsair67]

Rather a NZ based company make some money out of this fiasco than an overseas owned entity.

Ernst and Young have certainly taken a fair cut out of this deal, and most of that's going offshore. They must be laughing all the way to the NYSE!

The Strikemaster and Jet Provost was based on the 1950's designed piston engined Provost trainer. Yes our Blunties were built in the early 1970's but their design predated that (ask anyone who worked on them!).

Isn't that typical of so much British aviation/automotive engineering - why design something completely new when you can just modify something from over 20 years before? ;D

[Dave Homewood]

Percival Provost's maiden flight 1950
McDonnell Douglas Skyhawk's maiden flight, 1954
Hunting Jet Provost maiden flight, 1954
BAC Strikemaster's first flight, 1967

The lineage of the first three on the list are squarely in the same era, but you're fully correct that the Skyhawk was leaps ahead in design concepts. I was just joshing you a little by calling our younger Blunties old, that's all mate. It's almost like saying they're clapped out! ;D

It's interesting that the Skyhawk's designer Ed Heinemann also designed the Dauntless, Invader, Boston/Havoc and Skyraider. Some more great designs, some of which have been almost as long-lived in service.

[corsair67]

Ah, the Skyraider is one beautiful machine!

The "Spads" and their pilots certainly saved a few dude's butts in Korea and Vietnam.

I have to admit that I do have a soft spot for the Strikemaster too though.

[tibor]

skyhawkdon said:

Currently the Air Force uses old Devon and Strikemaster aircraft as instructional airframes at Woodbourne. They are quite unsuitable for the job, as they are of 1950's British origin - the RNZAF hasn't operated British aircraft for many years. It is pointless training engineers on these old British aircraft. As soon as they get out to the operational Squadrons they have to be retrained on the American way of doing things.

I'm not convinced that this statement is entirely correct. The Devons are used to teach mechs/techs general trade practices rather than type-specific training. The fact that they are British is irrelevant - the correct method for torqueing bolts, lock wiring, getting progressive inspections etc are the same regardless of aircraft type. Even if trainees used an A-4 to train on, we would still have to beat that mentality out of them when they arrived on a squadron ;^)

The books (athough it has been a number of years since I was at the school) are type-specific and the format is slightly different to the American publications, but they give trainees the same information as American books would. In any case, the publications for each aircraft type are different anyway and in my experience (18 years and 5 operational types) all have their idiosyncrasies. Each time you change type, you need to re-learn how to best use the books.

Also, trainees get experience in "the American way of doing things" during the engines phase, where they get to work on T-53's and J-52's.

To say that training on Devons/Blunties is pointless is a little sensationalistic in my opinion, as I think they still serve their purpose well and they are suitable for their job of teaching best trade practices. I do agree however that having a couple of A-4's in the school certainly wouldn't hurt, although I'm not sure where they would put them now they've wedged the 727 in the hangar...

Just my $0.02 worth.

[phil82]

It's the British way to muddle through don'tcha know!

The last all-British designed and built aircraft was the Hawk, entering RAF service in 1976. Everything since has been design collaboration.

[Dave Homewood]

Wow, the 727 is inside? That must be the first time in it's long career it's had a permanent roof over its head. Good to hear.

I see your points Tibor that the two British types are still useful training tools. Very true, the basics of lockwiring and marshalling, etc can be learned on them still. I also agree that the addition of some A-4's would be a benefit to the GTW school though. They'd be more useful all around than they are now.

And I applaud Don for offering a different solution and new thinking on the fate of he Skyhawks.

I wonder what the US State Department's angle in all this is and how they view Labour, who seem to purport that they are the only ones stalling an otherwise perfect sale. The US will no full well if there's no real company making the purchase, no money from Aermacchi, no flying training contracts, and no future for this whole deal. Yet Labour states publically it's the US stalling things. A statement on Close Up from the US Ambassador would be interesting.

[rnzafhusband]

Hey guys, fascinating topic this one...with plenty of twists and turns yet to unfold.... not sure if this is related, but when I googled "Tactical Air Services" it came up with a US based training company called ATSI (is this who is now buying the Kiwi A4's?) if not, thats ok, have a look at the site, by the look of it, they use A4's extensively, so perhaps there not "clapped out" afterall eh?

[skyhawkdon]

I agree with the point about the aircraft type not being important for teaching the basics of aircraft maintenance, but given that the Air Force will soon have upgraded Hercs, Orions and B757's and eventually new NH-90's, all fitted with pretty high tech Avionics, there is a need for a step change in the technology being used and taught at GTW. Blunties and Devons might do the job for the Framies, but they just don't cut the mustard for Avionics and haven't for many years. The A-4's would bridge the technology gap from the Blunties and Devon's to the NH-90 era. The Kahu system is very integrated (much more so than the Macchi) and the upgraded Herc and P-3 Avionics will be the same (just a whole lot newer and smarter than the A-4's).

Understanding "1's and 0's" is going to become pretty important for all the RNZAF technical trades once the NH-90 arrives. The F-16 would have presented a similar challenge to the Framies but the need for a step change in training was deferred by the decision to cancel that deal. The NH-90 will be a big change for the RNZAF, but one that I'm sure everyone is looking forward to.

I agree parts of my "Press Release" is sensational but that is how politics works and is what the media want to see to run a story. Hopefully the message gets through without the messenger getting shot down!

Yes the 727 is in the hangar but part of the tail needed to be removed to get it in. See the shots below.
Its good to see that the RNZAF kept one aircraft and I remember seeing in a magazine that the other was sold for only $28000. I didnt miss any zeros either and I dont think the magazine got it wroong but someone might be able to correct that figure if its wrong but I think its right.
Might was well have parked it outside the RNZAF museum

[Dave Homewood]

Something I read at the time the Boeings were retired is that one WAS going to Wigram for the museum. I doubted it at the time as it would cost a fortune to truck in from Harewood and it'd be too dangerous to land one there. It's good to know one has been retained though.

Neat photos. Who's F-27 is that? And what's the other wing from?