|
Post by lesterpk on Mar 3, 2008 22:03:02 GMT 12
Looked after properly by the aircrew, anything up to 5 years or so is likely, some crap out after a couple or so but usually down to poor donning/doffing techniques.
|
|
|
Post by lesterpk on Mar 3, 2008 21:40:53 GMT 12
I too have seen the HUD video of the ejection and also the helmet from the guy in the back. Looking at it its no wonder he suffered back injuries. I work with these helmets every day and have had to destroy a few scrapped ones, the effort and forces required to do what I saw are just unbelievable. 3 concentric rings in the top of the helmet from the crush forces against the canopy. Les.
|
|
|
Post by lesterpk on Feb 14, 2008 18:47:33 GMT 12
The photos weren't taken by me, the second one is RNZAF official, the rest were taken by various Sqn aircrew would be my guess.
Yes, the Sprite is capable of carrying a Maverick on either side, or both at once. The one pictured is a training round only which is the norm. They did do a live firing years ago in the US to stores clear the weapon and there were rumours of another one soon maybe, will have to wait and see on that I think.
There are more photos I'll post later.
Les.
|
|
|
Post by lesterpk on Feb 12, 2008 20:41:41 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by lesterpk on Feb 12, 2008 19:53:36 GMT 12
No, it was 'fixed' last night. Departed north to try and catch up with the ship and promptly broke again and is now at Whangarei airport. Gearbox change this time. Probably take a couple of days.
|
|
|
Post by lesterpk on Jan 19, 2008 19:23:36 GMT 12
Yep, thats Hobsonville. If you took that pic now the tower is gone and there would be a big white boat building shed behind the helo. Les.
|
|
|
Post by lesterpk on Jan 7, 2008 22:04:31 GMT 12
Beagle, Greuber came back as an O4 Sgt last year, and Jonesy is back too, but I think he got O2 or thereabouts. Definitely shorty of Cpls, mines leaving in a couple of months and no one to replace him. Of course, you would need to shift out of lovely old Rolleston...
|
|
|
Post by lesterpk on Dec 22, 2007 9:03:16 GMT 12
The new hangars are similar to what the Aussie Navy built in Nowra. Each helo will have an individual bay and then there would be a dedicated phase bay with the appropriate tooling and stands for in depth maintenance. Should a fire break out each having the helos separated would prevent the loss of more than one. Each bay has to be quite big as you need to be able to turn rotors within it.
|
|
|
Post by lesterpk on Dec 21, 2007 13:56:01 GMT 12
I agree with Don and Ostinato that a terminal building is an unnessessary extravagance. Unless they plan to operate airliners again out of there regularly soon. I dont know about that. Imagine a 757 full of troops complete with families to wish them goodbye in a terminal that has about 40 seats and is about 10x10 metres square.
|
|
|
Post by lesterpk on Nov 27, 2007 20:29:48 GMT 12
You going to put a tender in then Beags?
|
|
|
Post by lesterpk on Nov 27, 2007 19:00:15 GMT 12
Title : Government Gives Green Light For Air Force To Replace Advanced Training Aircraft Type : Press Release By Line : New Zealand Government
Cabinet has given the New Zealand Defence Force the green light to begin the acquisition process for advanced pilot training aircraft for the Royal New Zealand Air Force, Defence Minister Phil Goff announced today.
"A tender is being prepared for release next year seeking submissions from industry to supply aircraft, a training package – including a simulator and other modern training devices – and maintenance and support," Phil Goff said.
"The project aims to find a suitable replacement for the air force's leased 1980s B200 Kingair aircraft. At this stage no decision has been made as to the number and type of aircraft required and the project cost will depend on the option chosen.
"A wide range of potential options for providing the required capability has been considered and the Government has directed that the capability be provided through a training system managed and run by the NZDF rather than through outsourcing training to other military forces or civilian training organisations.
"This will ensure that we continue to provide the right number of pilots, at the right time, trained to the right level and provide a flexible and cost-effective solution, Phil Goff said.
"The Government recognises the need to modernise and upgrade the air force's training capability in order to provide appropriately trained pilots for the new and upgraded aircraft that will enter service with the NZDF in the next few years. These include the upgraded C-130 Hercules, the Boeing 757, the NH90 helicopters and the P-3 Orions."
Today's Advanced Pilot Training Capability announcement follows the recent announcement of the preferred tenderer for the Training and Light Utility Helicopter replacement and a $50 million to $60 million project to upgrade the Anzac frigates, and is another significant step in the Labour-led Government's Defence Long-Term Development Plan to rebuild and re-equip the NZDF, Phil Goff said.
ENDS
|
|
|
Post by lesterpk on Nov 12, 2007 21:06:15 GMT 12
Many stories are floating around of the differences on Recruit Course then and now.
Not long after I did mine we saw the course in running shoes rather than boots most of the time as apparently the boots hurt their feet. Gone now are the bedpacks, replaced by duvets and also we hear of monthly happy hours. No wonder the new guys coming through dont know shite.
Although we were never really yelled at or anyone physically hurt or anything like that there were hard and fast lines and we knew who was the boss and what would happen if we erred. I remember turning up for PT still wearing my watch (a no-no) and having it confiscated for a week. A polite please and a packet of biscuits on the right desk and all sorted and I never forgot to take it off again. Now you'd get sued for removing their human right to know the time or something like that.
A lot of the stuff we did at the time I could see no reason for it but looking back now I realise they were getting us into various habits and self discipline which has been bloody great if you ask me.
Rant over......Les.
|
|
|
Post by lesterpk on Nov 8, 2007 21:19:41 GMT 12
The Sprites don't go through the bird bath. Engines are given compressor washes after over water flights or at the end of each day, not entirely sure, not my department but it does happen a lot. The airframes are washed by hand every 28 or 56 day servicing I think, once again not my area but about once a week a frame heads down for a wash. I'm also fairly sure they get a wash down before being hangared on the frigates.
|
|
|
Post by lesterpk on Sept 14, 2007 20:56:13 GMT 12
And the answers from Goff...
[Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing.]
10. HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) to the Minister of Defence: What will the net return to the New Zealand taxpayer be, as at today, under the terms of the current sale offer when all *Skyhawk and *Aermacchi aircraft and ancillary equipment are sold, after all expenses including fixed, variable and cost-of-sales items are taken into account?
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) : A heads of agreement* was signed with Tactical Air Services** for the sale of the aircraft in September 2005, conditional on the approval of the United States Department of State*. For reasons not attributable to nor under the control of New Zealand, Tactical Air Services has not yet received that approval. Unless and until that occurs it is not possible to calculate the net return.
Heather Roy: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The question asked what the net return would be as at today, with costs being calculated today. It was a very specific question. The Minister has had a good deal of time to investigate the answer. Any Minister worth his or her salt would have a business plan that would look at that before—
Madam SPEAKER: As the member well knows, members cannot require specific answers to questions. Ministers have to address the question, and in this instance the Minister did actually address the question.
Heather Roy: When he responded to *question for written answer No. 8841 in 2006 by saying that the Skyhawks would be kept at a level to enable operational regeneration by the purchaser, did he mean that all required aircraft consumables and rotables would be fitted to the aircraft; and did the previous Minister of Defence Mr Burton go so far as to sign up to provide additional spares for the fleet as well; if so, is not the cost of this almost as much as the entire sale price?
Hon PHIL GOFF: I am not sure that the member's question made a lot of sense. The spares do have an accounting value of nil, and, obviously, all the spares would be sold with the aircraft, which are being turned over once a year but are not being kept in a flying state.
H V Ross Robertson: Can the Minister tell the House what the cost was of operating the *air combat wing and what the cost would have been of retaining it?
Hon PHIL GOFF: The monthly cost of operating the air combat wing was approximately $16 million, or around $200 million a year. It might interest the House to know that the total value of the aircraft is much less than the cost of operating them for 1 year. The cost of retaining an air combat wing would have required a capital investment of over a billion dollars, and to operate them would have required an increase in the operating baseline costs of about $1.2 billion over 10 years. That is probably why the National Party has done a total *flip-flop and now reversed its position of wanting to retain an air combat wing. Its unreconstructed branch in the *ACT party, however, still has that funny delusion.
Dr Wayne Mapp: What progress has the Minister made since his visit to the United States in May of this year—where he apparently has very good relationships—towards getting State Department approval for the sale, or will this just go on, and on and will it be the case that, as the Prime Minister says, the aircraft will be simply of interest to "the odd collector", which she stated last month?
Hon PHIL GOFF: The progress that was made was that I was able to draw to the attention of both the *State Department and the *Department of Defense the fact that there was a problem. They were able to give an explanation and an expression of regret. The failure to give approval had nothing to do with New Zealand but everything to do with matters between it and Tactical Air Services. In respect of the Prime Minister's comment, the *A4s—the Skyhawks—are, of course, very old aircraft with a limited value. The Aermacchi*, however, do have a greater actual value, and if this deal does not go through—and the deal involves the sale of both sets of aircraft—then the Aermacchi would probably be sold separately. They are in flying order.
Heather Roy: How much longer must the *air force suffer loss of operational budget by having to maintain the Skyhawks and Aermacchis, and when the sale finally goes through, as he insists it will, can the air force expect fair and reasonable recompense for its *interest-free lending to the Government for this bungled sale?
Hon PHIL GOFF: I do not know where to begin answering the total misstatements, inaccuracies, and untruths in that statement. Let me remind the member of what I said before. It costs about $130,000 a month to maintain these aircraft. When they were operating we were spending $16 million a month. The ACT party apparently wants to spend several billion dollars on an air combat wing but promises to halve the tax people are paying, and ACT has never explained the discrepancy in those two stances, which are totally inconsistent.
Dr Wayne Mapp: I seek leave to table a statement in the Dominion Post of August this year, where the Prime Minister says—
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes, there is objection.
ENDS
|
|
|
Post by lesterpk on Sept 13, 2007 17:36:07 GMT 12
From todays parliamentary questions. Should be good to see the reply to this one.
10. HEATHER ROY to the Minister of Defence: What will the net return to the New Zealand taxpayer be, as at today, under the terms of the current sale offer when all Skyhawk and Aermacchi aircraft and ancillary equipment are sold, after all expenses including fixed, variable and cost-of-sales items are taken into account?
|
|
|
Post by lesterpk on Sept 8, 2007 20:18:31 GMT 12
Some basic facts wrong in the story and Nationals press release. The helicopter thats been the hangar queen for the last 3 yrs and 4 months was the one damaged by ground resonance, not by the heavy landing. That one has been back in action for ages.
|
|
|
Post by lesterpk on Nov 5, 2007 18:55:13 GMT 12
But true.
FYI - The GSH's name was Bill, was still working at Whenuapai until very recently retiring to spend more time fishing.
Les.
|
|
|
Post by lesterpk on Aug 22, 2007 21:44:18 GMT 12
They sure are, there's two of them parked about 3m outside my office for the last few days. I have to duck under the elevator on the way to get my coffee ;-) Les.
|
|
|
Post by lesterpk on Aug 21, 2007 22:50:04 GMT 12
Its something to do with slowing the airflow on that side of the boom, to create a bit of lift from the boom itself to give the tail rotor more authority. I believe it was first trialled in either the Solomons or East Timor and the hot conditions meant tail rotor authority was marginal. Les.
|
|
|
Post by lesterpk on Aug 9, 2007 21:41:08 GMT 12
Jeez Mike, I had forgotten about that patch. Benny and I did the bulk of it I think. I'll have to dig around my drawers somewhere and see if I can find my one now. I converted that Kiwi Blue one to a patch for them as well, I'll try and grab one of the samples tomorrow and scan it. Les.
|
|