|
|
Post by kiwithrottlejockey on Aug 28, 2011 6:35:31 GMT 12
Navy battles with Seasprite upkeepBy MICHAEL FIELD - Sunday Star-Times | Sunday, 28 August 2011 SPARES HEADACHE: A navy Seasprite helicopter is prepared for flight aboard HMNZS Te Kaha
in Perseverance Harbour, Campbell Island. — Photo: MICHAEL FIELD/Fairfax Media.THE NAVY's five helicopters, worth $350 million, are sometimes incapable of flying as the Defence Force struggles to maintain them in the face of rust and vibration damage.
A Ministry of Defence report says three Kaman SH-2G (NZ) Seasprite anti-submarine helicopters have to be flying at any one time. But last October only one could get in the air and earlier this year just two serviceable Seasprites were available.
The air force services the five machines with navy pilots and crew. But with No6 Squadron struggling to keep them flying, the number of hours the government requires them to fly has been slashed by a third.
New Zealand has the only particular model still flying, although Egypt has a land version and Poland's navy a similar version. That leaves New Zealand with helicopters expected to last another 10 to 15 years but without easily available parts.
Defence Minister Wayne Mapp labelled the Seasprites "an orphan fleet" when on the opposition benches, but last week said they were safe.
"The aircraft are regarded by the air force and navy as very capable," he said. "I am confident, based on the assurances I have received, that safety is not the issue here."
When the helicopter deal was signed in 1999 it was touted as a "steal". US manufacturer Kaman had stored their airframes in the Arizona desert before fitting them out for New Zealand. Soon after the deal the US Navy, which developed them in the 1950s, ditched Seasprites and scrapped its flight simulator, leaving New Zealand struggling to train pilots.
A report by the ministry's evaluation division says because of compounding problems and the need to keep the helicopters flying, the military is constantly deferring "operational level maintenance". The report said while each individual deferral might be valid on its own, they were creating a "bow-wave of deferred maintenance".
"A significant number of deferrals related to the repair of corrosion or vibration damage discovered during checks," the report said. While cumulative deferral might be considered safe, the report said it was reasonable to assume the "damage will worsen the longer it is left".
Damage was "being found in areas where such corrosion or damage has not been seen before", the report said. "Panels and structure not previously removed have to come off, uncovering new and unknown corrosion and vibration damage."
The air force said increasing work was a "major problem with the Seasprite" and corrosion a significant factor.
"There are strong and varied views about why the Seasprites are suffering increasing amounts of corrosion damage," it said, probably caused by a lack of awareness by staff, and training deficiencies.
The report said it was hard to get staff to go with the helicopters when posted at sea for six to eight months.
"This unwillingness to serve at sea results in No6 Squadron having difficulty retaining people with deep knowledge of the Seasprites."
Seasprites were ordered for the frigates Te Kaha and Te Mana, and also operate from the amphibious support ship Canterbury. The two offshore patrol ships, Otago and Wellington, can also operate them.
Air Vice-Marshall Peter Stockwell said the Seasprites were "absolutely safe to fly". The issue, he said, was managing the maintenance programmes when New Zealand had the only five operational machines in the air.
They were strong and safe aircraft and ideally suited for their naval role. Deferring maintenance was tightly controlled, and airworthiness was reviewed constantly. He said deferment was often necessary when the aircraft were on frigates at sea. "It is very carefully managed."www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-times/news/5518986/Navy-battles-with-Seasprite-upkeep
|
|
|
|
Post by ngatimozart on Oct 12, 2012 20:18:28 GMT 12
Has anybody heard anything about the possible SH2G(I) Seasprite buy? It's all gone quiet for the last few months and I realise that it takes time to make a decision one way or the other. Am just slightly curious. ;D ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Oct 12, 2012 20:25:26 GMT 12
tweet DotCom, he'll probably know..
|
|
|
|
Post by ngatimozart on Oct 12, 2012 20:47:13 GMT 12
tweet DotCom, he'll probably know.. I did and he said ask John Banks. |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Oct 13, 2012 8:58:04 GMT 12
It has probably "all gone quiet" because the know it alls here have been discussing military deals and secrets online and in the public, and those actually in the know are not at all keen to have their ongoing dealings discussed by people on a forum who have nothing to do with NZDF purchases!!
As I have said before I am not at all happy with threads that discuss Defence purchases and proposed purchases whilst they are in progress unless it is based on officially released material from NZDF, as every armchair expert and rumour monger out there feels they have to chip in with their usually uninformed say.
Not only does public discussion of such deals jeopardise the deals themselves if they go public, it simply looks bad to the rest of the aviation community, and those involved in the defence purchases will i'm sure not be impressed. I do not like it when people take it upon themselves to make the forum look bad. Believe me, I met about 200 forum members over the Mosquito weekend and a very large number of them said to me that the forum is great apart from all the johnny-come-lately armchair experts and people with no actual aviation experience apart from other rumours they have read on other forums, talking about proposed defence purchases and theoretical purchases as if they are an expert on the inside of NZDF.
I have felt that this kind of discussion makes the forum look bad for some time but I have let it slide as i thought I was alone in this, but now knowing that a lot of people out there feel the same way - people who are actually active in aviation and are the types we want here, not the johnny know alls - something has to be said. I have been trying since to think of a way to shut down such threads without causing upset - it's not bloody easy being a moderator. I think we may have to introduce a new law to quell the discussion of rumours related to Defence purchases in progress, and the leaking of information about them, and all the varying opinions such threads generate. I think a lot of you have no idea who else reads this forum - people from EVERY sector of NZ aviation do, including people working in Defence. They see all that is written and argued here. how would you like your business dealings discussed in public?
Why can people not simply leave it to the experts, wait till official announcements are made and not have to poke their oar in? After all, the experts are not going to read your opinion based on what you read on Defence Talk forum or in Air Forces Monthly or heard in a bar, or saw on a Flight Sim forum and suddenly change their entire opinion of what NZDF needs to do, are they? So such discussions are pointless. Whether it's about new trainers, Hercules replacements, Orion replacements, new boats for the navy, or new helicopters to replace the Seasprites, this applies to all.
Any of those forum members out there who spoke to me about this or who feel the same way, please make your voice heard so I do not appear alone in all this.
|
|
|
|
Post by phil82 on Oct 13, 2012 9:26:20 GMT 12
Dave, I have said, more than once, that there is a lot of uninformed opinion, rumour and speculation on various procurements in posts on these threads, so I agree entirely with your stance!
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Oct 13, 2012 9:58:25 GMT 12
Thanks Mike, that is a valid way of looking at it, but it's not so much the impression that the NZDF and their contractors gain from these types of threads that worries me the most, it is the longtime, respected members of this forum - that are actual aviators out there doing real things in all areas of real aviation and who have contributed a lot to the forum - telling me that the forum nowadays has a "lot of idiots" (a word used so often by various people when they have approached the subject) and their imaginary and theoretical posts.
Most people have come here for what the forum is actually about - history and current news. They are not interested in wild opinionated theory on which aircraft or ship should be purchased in 20 years time, etc. And nor am I.
We are genuinely under threat of losing good members because of these discussions. They cannot be bothered reading through the tripe any more, I am told.
|
|
|
|
Post by lumpy on Oct 13, 2012 14:21:15 GMT 12
I personally dont have a problem with people voicing their opinions , or even speculating a little - so long as its clear thats what it is . ( and kept to a reasonable level ) . For me , I dont mind hearing what other people think , even if it is only their own opinions , I find it interesting . Of course everybody reads this forum for their own ( and slightly different ) reasons but as the saying goes " you cant please all of the people all of the time " . I think this forum does pretty good ,and better than most ( but thats just my opinion )  |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Oct 13, 2012 14:51:22 GMT 12
But what good are opinions if they are based purely on fantasy, speculation, rumours and wishful thinking?
|
|
|
|
Post by lumpy on Oct 13, 2012 15:17:11 GMT 12
Why do they have to be any good ? Arent people supposed to have an opinion , or have wishes ( aviation related ) that others may find interesting ? I do see your piont , however I suspect some threads would be very short and dull without a little opinion thrown into the mix ( it seems as though everybody has an opinion on the Skyhawk sale - as a example )
|
|
|
|
Post by mumbles on Oct 13, 2012 18:34:12 GMT 12
Why do they have to be any good ? Arent people supposed to have an opinion , or have wishes ( aviation related ) that others may find interesting ? I do see your piont , however I suspect some threads would be very short and dull without a little opinion thrown into the mix ( it seems as though everybody has an opinion on the Skyhawk sale - as a example ) Everyone may have an opinion, but I think the idea that all are equally valid just because they exist is a bit of a myth. Opinions do "have to be good", since treating all opinions equally gives many a validity they don't deserve, when only informed opinions should count. This piece from the Herald earlier this week sums it up nicely: www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10839232In short, if you genuinely know what you are talking about and are entitled/cleared to, spout away. Otherwise keep schtum (or at least acknowledge your lack of subject matter expertise when offering your opinion). |
|
|
|
Post by Parrotfish on Oct 13, 2012 23:39:20 GMT 12
Forums by their very nature attract those who wish to be part of a community and offer both informed and uninformed comment. To belittle the so called uninformed opinion is fair enough if you are fair enough with the belittlement. There are numerous threads on here with posting from established members who I suspect would be considered good members which would fall into the uninformed (veiled political opinion springs to mind along with the odd mention of wider social issues) but have not always been corrected for being uninformed. Let people speculate. It is human nature and frequently nothing more than peoples wishes being expressed. I am sure no harm is intended.
Or Dave, it is your form. Simply impose rules as you see fit, even if that creates a forum of a well informed aviation elite. This forum is nowhere near as bad as other aviation and military forums (we all can name one or two I am sure) for strident opining as fact. What is really wrong with the way things are? I don't really post anymore, but I read the forum every day. If I don't like a thread I simply move onto another.
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Post by tfly on Oct 14, 2012 3:11:31 GMT 12
For pity's sake stop trying to stifle freedom of speech!
What does it matter if someone simply speculates or makes an uninformed comment? Those who are better informed have the right of reply and this allows for healthy debate.
Just like the other forms of printed word if you aren't interested in the subject matter (or comments) then do what the rest of us do.....move on!
|
|
|
|
Post by htbrst on Oct 14, 2012 6:18:11 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by corsairarm on Oct 14, 2012 6:42:39 GMT 12
How about just having a check box at each entry on a thread that simply says "Fact" or "Opinion"
I like reading most threads but I would like to know what is fact and what is not as some of the entries go way to long.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Oct 14, 2012 10:39:08 GMT 12
Come on guys, this was never an attempt to alienate or oust members. Everyone is welcome here. I felt I had to raise this issue on the forum because so many members raised it in private with me. There was an overwhelming theme of uneasiness among members. However almost none of them have come forward to add their views here so I guess we might as well forget the whole thing as it is obviously not as important to them as I was led to believe. I thought it was fair that as there was a genuine and clearly widely felt issue it should be raised and discussed. It has been, no-one seems to want change.
So we'll stick with the staus quo, as seems to be the desired course from most of those who've taken the time to post.
And Naki, don't you dear stop posting. You're definitely one of the good members.
|
|
|
|
Post by lumpy on Oct 14, 2012 12:12:39 GMT 12
Why do they have to be any good ? Arent people supposed to have an opinion , or have wishes ( aviation related ) that others may find interesting ? I do see your piont , however I suspect some threads would be very short and dull without a little opinion thrown into the mix ( it seems as though everybody has an opinion on the Skyhawk sale - as a example ) Everyone may have an opinion, but I think the idea that all are equally valid just because they exist is a bit of a myth. Opinions do "have to be good", since treating all opinions equally gives many a validity they don't deserve, when only informed opinions should count. Actually I disagree , as two people with the same information can easily come up with totally different opinions . I would say however there is a huge difference between a " valid " opinion , and a " valued " opinion . Good choice on retaining the status quo Dave - in my opinion . |
|
|
|
Post by ngatimozart on Oct 14, 2012 15:35:50 GMT 12
Thanks mate. I was in two minds as to which thread - maybe signs of old age and senility ;D |
|
|
|
Post by ngatimozart on Oct 14, 2012 16:30:30 GMT 12
It has probably "all gone quiet" because the know it alls here have been discussing military deals and secrets online and in the public, and those actually in the know are not at all keen to have their ongoing dealings discussed by people on a forum who have nothing to do with NZDF purchases!! As I have said before I am not at all happy with threads that discuss Defence purchases and proposed purchases whilst they are in progress unless it is based on officially released material from NZDF, as every armchair expert and rumour monger out there feels they have to chip in with their usually uninformed say. Not only does public discussion of such deals jeopardise the deals themselves if they go public, it simply looks bad to the rest of the aviation community, and those involved in the defence purchases will i'm sure not be impressed. I do not like it when people take it upon themselves to make the forum look bad. Believe me, I met about 200 forum members over the Mosquito weekend and a very large number of them said to me that the forum is great apart from all the johnny-come-lately armchair experts and people with no actual aviation experience apart from other rumours they have read on other forums, talking about proposed defence purchases and theoretical purchases as if they are an expert on the inside of NZDF. I have felt that this kind of discussion makes the forum look bad for some time but I have let it slide as i thought I was alone in this, but now knowing that a lot of people out there feel the same way - people who are actually active in aviation and are the types we want here, not the johnny know alls - something has to be said. I have been trying since to think of a way to shut down such threads without causing upset - it's not bloody easy being a moderator. I think we may have to introduce a new law to quell the discussion of rumours related to Defence purchases in progress, and the leaking of information about them, and all the varying opinions such threads generate. I think a lot of you have no idea who else reads this forum - people from EVERY sector of NZ aviation do, including people working in Defence. They see all that is written and argued here. how would you like your business dealings discussed in public? Why can people not simply leave it to the experts, wait till official announcements are made and not have to poke their oar in? After all, the experts are not going to read your opinion based on what you read on Defence Talk forum or in Air Forces Monthly or heard in a bar, or saw on a Flight Sim forum and suddenly change their entire opinion of what NZDF needs to do, are they? So such discussions are pointless. Whether it's about new trainers, Hercules replacements, Orion replacements, new boats for the navy, or new helicopters to replace the Seasprites, this applies to all. Any of those forum members out there who spoke to me about this or who feel the same way, please make your voice heard so I do not appear alone in all this. I'm going to answer this as it appears that my my question sparked it and I am aware of Daves post today about keeeping the status quo. It appears that some think that I am uniformed and make claims without knowledge or evidence. Well I try very hard not too and have sources for claims I make. I research what I am interested in and read widely amongst the aviation and military and security open literature. This habit comes from my training but I am always open to fair critique and I will endeavour to better differentiate what is fact and what is my opinion. I most certainly do not know it all and have never claimed such and am always willing to learn. Like all people I do have opinions and in particular I am passionate about NZDF. I have over time suggested what I think the eauipment or capabilities NZDF should have and they are based around the planned JATF and where CDF wants NZDF to be in 2035. I am fully aware of the funding issues and am aware of the politics of defence in NZ. My own belief is that the pollies are an inherent danger to NZDF BUT they are the political masters and set policy and funding levels for Defence. Forums are by definition about discussions regarding a particular topic or field. Therefore it is important that the discourses be unimpeded unless they are derogatory, defamatory or false. It is natural justice that all sides of an argument be heard. It is also natural justice that no judgement be made about an individual, group of individuals, or claims without fair investigation. It is healthy for a forum to have wide and varied discourses and just because they are about areas of public policy they should not be precluded. With regard to the public face of a forum, if it shows a wide and varied range of discourses that are actively debated by an informed membership, then it is a healthy forum. There are professionals within this forum and they appear to be from a broad spectrum of professions. There are also many enthusiasts who also have a broad range of knowledge that must not be discounted. It is this mixture of knowledges and how they are debated and disseminated that determine how a forum is evaluated and judged. My personal opinion is that WONZ is a high calibre forum having a very wide knowledge base with an willingness to share that knowledge through healthy, informed and sometimes quite lively debate. Finally with regard to experts. There are good experts and not good experts. If anyone is following the F35 debate in Australia they will be aware of a particular group vehemently opposed to the Australian F35 purchase and at various times this group has made submissions to the Australian Senate during hearings on the F35. This group consist of professionals and "experts" and unfortunately the evidence the group submits in support of their submissions is of low quality. My point being is that not all experts are good experts or experts at all. |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Oct 14, 2012 17:34:53 GMT 12
The problem here is here have een a few people making bold statements presented as facts, but they are failing to give any reference to where those facts came from, who they are quoting, or how they get the inside knowledge - particularly on defence deals. If what you're writing is indeed true but you are not able to give a reference to the evidence and sources due to its sensitive nature then it's obvious you're not supposed to actually be talking about it publicly, and your source probably isn't either. So it should not be written here, at all, end of story.
And this applies not just to NZDF matters - stuff you see, photograph and hear in a hangar about a warbird or a commercial operation or anything else should not be openly discussed here unless you have the permission to do so from the source - this is one of the fundamental rules of this forum, to protect the people and deals being discussed and to protect you from being sued, and me getting a lot of grief.
Some here think that I'm talking hooey, well I am not - on several occasions I have actually removed posts at the request of senior NZDF officers because people are writing stuff or posting photos that they shouldn't. It is not nice to receive a stern email telling me off for something someone else has done. It has also happened regarding airshows and other topics.
And over the past few years I have also removed several posts made by people who've heard a rumour about a warbird and simply posted it - without giving any consideration as to whether or not the information is meant to be public - and I have known it was not for public consumption so it has been swiftly removed and the guilty person told, and told why. There is so much going on behind the scenes that you, the average enthusiast, has no idea about and the people involved in a lot of those activities simply don't want you to know about it till the time comes for them to release the information through their own press launches. They don't like it when some random person posts their secret business on the most read aviation forum in the southern hemisphere, believe me.
The moral is THINK BEFORE YOU POST.
Free speech does not mean you can simply post whatever you want, when you want. There are still still rules, and freedom of speech is only good when you are talking sense and you have the right to do so without breaking others' confidences, rules and copyrights.
Personally I think that members here get a very good deal in terms of speaking freely, compared with most forums. We are generally laid back about most things, inclusive and encouraging. There is much less moderation and censoring done here than any other forum I belong to, and the pretty large community here are generally great and work hard to keep things civil, friendly and legal. Usually when I have to do some moderation for the problems being discussed it is because another forum reader who's an insider brings it to my attention. I am not sitting there trying to find fault with people's posts.
Further to the above, there are also occasionally people who simply write complete crap without ever checking on the evidence but because they heard or misheard it somewhere it must be true. Yet the same people will gleefully lambast the media for doing the same thing. this does become frustrating.
As I said, status quo but for the sake of the whole forum, think before you post. Is your post going to affect someone or something or someone's business or club adversely? If it might, don't post it. If you are quoting insider defence matters ensure you have the right to actually post it and don't go ahead anyway just to be a smarty pants, and also reference the source so people don't think you're talking crap. If you're just not sure on anything, run it by me offline first and we'll work together to see if it is appropriate.
|
|
