|
|
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 mikek on Oct 13, 2012 9:38:08 GMT 12
I agree Dave that there is plenty of stuff put onto the forum as 'fact' around future capability/purchases when I know full well that it is completely wrong. Obviously people who actually know whats happening aren't going to be posting on an open forum like this or any other similar one out there...
I don't think that it really makes the forum look bad. People involved in the process know that people will speculate and they will ignore it, just as the contractors involved will also. Personally I think many of them would have a quiet chuckle at some of the things that end up here and just go about the business of doing proper analysis with all the facts. I've seen nothing 'secret' on here and if someone who knew any real details and posted them, the person responsible would find out pretty quickly about it!
So my personal opinion is if people want to speculate, let them, just keep it to threads for that, don't bring it into other factual threads... There's plenty of idle speculation in the crew room at work when we don't have all the facts! The real decision makers will just move on and get on with their job!
Well thats my 2 cents worth...!
|
|
|
|
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 mikek on Oct 13, 2012 10:19:43 GMT 12
In that case, make any rule you wish! It's your forum!
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
