|
Post by ngatimozart on Nov 28, 2012 14:41:53 GMT 12
The same story is on Stuff. Would love to see a copy of that leaked internal report. From what the newsies say, it's pretty damning on both the current govt and the preceding govts. IMHO, again based upon what the newsies say, it clearly points to the impact cots cutting has had on training, skills and safety, in this case the lose of an aircraft with three fatalities and one survivour with serious injuries. Sure some blame can be sheeted home to 3 Sqn attitude but that is only one part. To me the major cause is lack of resources as in funding, training and knowledge updating, with funding the main resource.
|
|
|
Post by mowgli on Nov 28, 2012 15:35:28 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by ngatimozart on Nov 28, 2012 16:14:17 GMT 12
If anybody can't get the report PM me and I'll email it to you.
|
|
|
Post by lesterpk on Nov 28, 2012 16:58:06 GMT 12
You need to take the .dixs out of the original link on the RNZAF page. Good one, the external website links to a file within the NZDF internal network that you cant access.
|
|
|
Post by davel on Nov 28, 2012 17:05:02 GMT 12
Its a bit silly to blame the accident on the decision not to overnight in Wellington. A simple pre dawn flight down the coast to Wellington from Ohakea should have been well within the capability of any RNZAF crew.
People are affraid to say it but ultimetly the accident boils down to poor pilot decision making. Any one of the 6 pilots on board those 3 aircraft should have recognised much earlier that the weather conditions were beyond limits and made the call to turn back or land..
|
|
|
Post by JDK on Nov 28, 2012 18:26:55 GMT 12
It's all in the words baron, if he is 'freelance' or 'contracting' he does not work for the paper, but does get paid for writing articles they use. Weasel words. Minor point in the context, but just to clarify, I agree they are being disingenuous, but it's not 'weasel words' it is an important difference. If you are a freelance, you aren't an employee of the organisation. So what you do for them (writing) they are responsible for the quality of, however they are not responsible for you or your employment beyond the specific job. So they aren't employing him as a staff, but they certainly remain responsible for the quality and accuracy of his work, as he is as well. Just a few thoughts from a freelance writer, back to the important stuff. Regards,
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Nov 28, 2012 22:02:50 GMT 12
I am confused here. I have not looked too deeply into this crash case, so someone may be able to enlighten me please. I just saw a report on 3 News where Labour Defence spokesman Iain Lees-Galloway alleges this Iroquois crashed in darkness because the RNZAF did not want to pay for accommodation at Wellington for the crews, because of the budget cuts.
Now this implies that under ordinary circumstances the Iroquois helicopters would not be flown in darkness. Yet we had an Iroquois do a flypast in pitch black at ANZAC Day Dawn Service a few years ago in Cambridge, it was so dark you could only see the lights and hear the awesome sound in the still of the night.
And I also remember well that the Iroquois crews did oodles of night flying training in all hours of darkness at Hobsonville when I lived there, as I have said before they used to hover above or near our barracks and no-one could sleep. That was over 20 years ago.
So is the Labour MP implying that the budget cuts have seen the crews lose their night vision technology? Or is it that budget retraints have seen their night training cut?? I don't really understand where he is coming from.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Nov 28, 2012 22:04:43 GMT 12
Also, do they still have the night sun lights that can be fitted for night flying?
|
|
|
Post by Radialicious on Nov 28, 2012 23:16:48 GMT 12
Personally, I think a Labour politician should wait a generation or three before having a go at any government for its defence spending/policy From what I have read, the crew of the third helicopter reported seeing a night sun searchlight suddenly illuminate in the cloud ahead of them. This was reported as a technique that crews use to determine if their NVG image degradation is due to cloud or precipitation.
|
|
|
Post by mowgli on Nov 29, 2012 5:06:11 GMT 12
So is the Labour MP implying that the budget cuts have seen the crews lose their night vision technology? Or is it that budget retraints have seen their night training cut?? I don't really understand where he is coming from. I noticed two things. First the task was ordered with certain risk mitigations and the squadron countermanded the order without adequately addressing those risks (rnzaf view) Secondly the want to save cost was symptomatic of general under resourcing which contributed to the sorry state of orders, training, manuals, crew readiness, etc. (Lees Galloway view) I think Iain hit the nail on the head with his assertion that government has been constraining defence spending while demanding the same level of outputs.
|
|
|
Post by nige on Nov 29, 2012 6:39:04 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Nov 29, 2012 7:09:34 GMT 12
Labour has a very short memory!
As for the GW1 assertions... total lies! In the end the Saudi's/Kuwaiti's paid for everything (fuel, weapons, accommodation, etc) for all participants. We had plenty of weapons to take to the party, but would have just used what was already in theater (AIM-9Ls, AGM-65s, LGBs, etc.). We would have been based alongside the Kuwait A-4KUs to share logistics. The route to get the A-4s there was all planned and didn't require tanker support (but would have used it if some was available from coalition partners - this would have shortened the route and meant less refuelling stops). This was in 1991. Project Kahu was brand new and was the most capable CAS avionics/weapons system flying. Not sending the Skyhawks was a HUGE lost opportunity for the RNZAF and New Zealand.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Nov 29, 2012 7:48:16 GMT 12
My impression of it was the Labour Prime Minister at the time, Geoffrey Palmer, made the decision to stand down No. 75 Squadron, not the RNZAF who were all ready to go. I recall hearing through the RNZAF grapevine that the squadron members has all had their jabs and stabs, so they were very close to deploying. Lees-Galloway sounds like just another typical lying Labour wanker.
Furthermore there was an audit done a few years ago when Labour was still in power which stated that the RNZAF had been run down so badly by Government budget cuts, that it could ciontinue to do training OR continue to fly operationally, but NOT both as there was not enough money to cover both. Now that we find that operational flying is suffering badly due to the lack of training, the responsibility comes home to roost squarely on the shoulders of the past incompetent Labour Defence Ministers, especially Mark Burton.
I am no fan of Jonathon Coleman at all, but I think it is really sick that his Labour counterpart is now trying to use a tragedy to score political points against him when the background of the tragedy rests with his own party.
|
|
|
Post by mowgli on Nov 30, 2012 9:13:31 GMT 12
Another article in today's Herald. m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10850744It's not the poli's at fault here. They set the resource level. It's nzdf who decide how it should be applied. For too long there has been too much focus on outputs at the expense of good housekeeping. Senior commanders more concerned with saving face than being brave and declaring that outputs must reduce if funding levels remain constrained.
|
|
|
Post by ngatimozart on Nov 30, 2012 11:39:19 GMT 12
Another article in today's Herald. m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10850744It's not the poli's at fault here. They set the resource level. It's nzdf who decide how it should be applied. For too long there has been too much focus on outputs at the expense of good housekeeping. Senior commanders more concerned with saving face than being brave and declaring that outputs must reduce if funding levels remain constrained. Strongly disagree. It's the pollies who set the budget and each minister puts a case to cabinet for the departmental budget. NZDF can only do with what they are given. Since 1990 defence funding has been run down in real terms. Defence is run out of the nineth floor of the beehive and until there is a major seachange in political attitudes to defence resourcing we are going to have continual situtaion where lack of resources results in increased inability of NZDF to do its basic job. It's an exponential failure curve and at some point NZDF will implode because of lack of resources. From 2025 - 30 all bar 1 vessel in the RNZNs fleet (11 vessels) will have to be replaced plus extra capability introduced*. At the same time the P3K2 and naval helo replacement is due. Also around then I would think the NZLAV replacement is also due. So given the current attitudes what do you thinks going to happen in the years 2020 - 35 when we may have soemthink like $6 - 8+ billion of capital expenditure due? In NZ there is no long term defence outlook by the pollies. So in the third decade of the 21st Century NZDF is going to implode, based on current pollitical attitudes. And I totally agree with Daves comment about the "Labour wanker". *Given projected security strategic situations in Asia & Pacific, plus MCM, ASW and Littoral Warfare capability upgrades and methodological changes.
|
|
|
Post by mowgli on Nov 30, 2012 16:07:46 GMT 12
I accept your argument and acknowledge my limited knowledge about the defence budgeting process. I am surprised that the CAF wouldn't have control over allocation and prioritisation. Does he not decide how many personnel will be posted to safety and airworthiness functions? Does he not have considerable sway over the prioritisaiton of minor project funding?
If, after safety and airworthiness obligations are met, there remains insufficient capacity to deliver outputs then there's a compelling argument for govt to loosen the purse strings or accept a reduced capability.
What appears to have been happening is that Command have used a kiwi can do approach to figure out a way to deliver the same outputs with ever diminishing funding. Safety, supervision and airworthiness functions suffered death by a thousand cuts. The fence at the top of the cliff was broken and the ambulance at the bottom hadn't yet returned from dealing with the last accident.
|
|
|
Post by ngatimozart on Nov 30, 2012 19:02:23 GMT 12
From what Ministry and NZDF are given the budget and it is split between them. Yes the CDF and the service chiefs do have a say how the allocation is spent, but it still comes down to how much Vote: Defence is given by cabinet. When Vote: Defence is allocated meagre resources they can only go so far because they are finite, so things suffer. Plus Defence is, by 2015, to put aside $400 million each year to fund future capital expenditure. From memory thats around 20% of their current budget.
|
|
|
Post by phil82 on Nov 30, 2012 20:08:18 GMT 12
It's all in the words baron, if he is 'freelance' or 'contracting' he does not work for the paper, but does get paid for writing articles they use. Weasel words. Minor point in the context, but just to clarify, I agree they are being disingenuous, but it's not 'weasel words' it is an important difference. If you are a freelance, you aren't an employee of the organisation. So what you do for them (writing) they are responsible for the quality of, however they are not responsible for you or your employment beyond the specific job. So they aren't employing him as a staff, but they certainly remain responsible for the quality and accuracy of his work, as he is as well. Just a few thoughts from a freelance writer, back to the important stuff. Regards, Hi JDK we met briefly at the Subritsky event. Hmm...yeah...well, I read his latest article, and it seems to me that he's run out of material on the ANZAC Day crash and is resorting to publishing "facts" as sensational in order to continue his employment. He claims for example the cost of a hotel in Wellington as being a contributory factor, when in fact that is a total red herring. Ohakea is a mere 90 miles north of Wellington, and to my knowledge setting up crews in a Wellington Hotel the night before has NEVER taken place, so to suggest it as a factor in the accident is totally misleading, not to mention mischievous!
|
|
|
Post by JDK on Dec 2, 2012 13:53:11 GMT 12
Hi JDK we met briefly at the Subritsky event. I *think* I remember! Remind me by PM, perhaps? Certainly I'm not impressed by the journalist in question's achievements as reported here, but I was only commenting on the status of a freelance - something rather important to me! Regards
|
|
Pusser
Leading Aircraftman
Posts: 2
|
Post by Pusser on Jan 27, 2013 9:46:01 GMT 12
I see that the surviving crew member is suing CDF and NZDF. It was on 3 News, One News and Stuff.I think there needs to be correct information sorted before anyone can correct voice their opinions. As a Ex NZDF person I have followed this with interest, I signed on to die for my country in an operational area, not to be killed or injured in NZ for something that was not life of death. After reading various articles in different newspapers over this there seems to be confusion, is he suing CDF/NZDF or is he prosecuting them? He cannot sue as he is still a current serving member of the NZDF, he can prosecute them for breaches of the Health and Safety Act. Have the NZDF/Air Force looked after him, so far there has been no public interview with him over the COI out come, no interview about what he did on the hill after the crash, or even how his recovery is going. I presume that things have not/are not going to good for him, otherwise the NZDF would be using him to recruit. This is just my tupence worth but would be interested if anyone knows how he is doing and if he has been looked after?
|
|