|
|
Post by phil on Jul 2, 2012 13:33:10 GMT 12
RIMPAC includes Japanese forces. Only our ships are banned so does that suggest Japanese ships and aircraft are welcome in Pearl Harbour - certain irony there. Apparently President Roosevelts 'A date which will live in infamy' speech has been forgotten  Well to be fair, the Japs have been there before... |
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jun 28, 2012 18:20:53 GMT 12
Perhaps the introduction of the trade as part of the classification was post war?
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jun 28, 2012 18:03:19 GMT 12
I'm not sure what it was like in WW2, but navy ranks/classifications are a bit different to Air and Army, in that they include their trade.
In the air force you are an LAC, or a CPL, but in the Navy you are a LWTR for example (Leading Writer) or perhaps a AET (Able Electronics Technician). It would be a bit like the air force having LACS&S as a seperate classification to a LACAV or somesuch.
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jun 27, 2012 22:53:07 GMT 12
No, they have Decklock. Which would need to be fitted to the Is.
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jun 19, 2012 13:42:12 GMT 12
From what has been discussed here, and not wanting to get into trouble by divolving s.e.c.r.e.t info, the PC9, T6, K50, PC7, Tucano...etc etc type aircraft is a replacement for the Macchi MB339... not the CT4, and not the KA-B200. Initial purchase may be qty 6. Thoughts are, that if they are successful, perhaps another 6 will join them, to then replace the CT4. If it was the T-6, it would be the B (US Navy) version.. no major changes, excepting radios.... Back in March, there was talk of there being a bunch of these T6B's sitting in a hangar in the USA just waiting for a customer...ie. us. I asked the Hawker-Beechcraft rep about this, and they flatly said no way. The production line is busy and all are accounted for by sale. Sometimes they add an aircraft in the production line that is not sold, for contingencies, and by the time it gets to flying, they are sold!! So any aircraft we get will be from a production line. And as for ejection seats - yes all aircraft on the possibles list, have a 'different' mark of Martin-Baker seat, and since I gave a presentation about my private civvie ejection seat business back in November to the DCAM team at OH, I have given the Project team my experience and possibilities/potential and suggestion that a contractor can successfully look after 14 seats, 6 canopies initially and double that later ..... The Armament trade had to remove the escape system syllabus in 2002 from training and the work face.! So there is enough work here for a contractor, but to bring these back into the blue uniform for a training platform and the morale of armourers seems out of step with the overall servicing ethos!..... And as for the King Air B-200's if this has not already been mentioned.. - presently on base will finish their contract on June 30. The Airmotive chaps have been made redundant from that date. The new aircraft are five B200 corprate models, all the same... under contract with Hawker Beechcraft.... who have been interviewing new engineering staff recently....so interesting times ahead. Lol, nothing like a bit of conflict of interest, the guy with the ejection seat servicing company advising that they could/should be serviced by a contractor. The training syllabus is nothing more than a red herring. Even when it had escape systems included, it was nothing more than names of components and order of operations - nothing to equip you to bay service them, you learnt that in the bay with OJT. The syllabus I was trained under never included a mention of Helicopter Rescue Hoists and that didn't stop me running the hoist bay and being the RNZAFs SME on hoists. You don't need to learn specific systems at GTW, you learn concepts and skills to apply to whatever systems you work on. It would be as easy to argue for retaining the servicings in house as it would to argue they should be contracted out. There is plenty of corporate knowledge left and that escape systems is no longer taught at GTW is irrelevant. |
|
|
|
Post by phil on May 28, 2012 19:14:58 GMT 12
Yes. At least I think they are both still around.
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on May 26, 2012 19:16:07 GMT 12
I don't suppose anyone has the full version of that documentary anywhere? I was on 75 as a mech when it was made and recall watching it when it screened on TV (Tuesday Documentary I think?) But I've never seen it again.
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on May 22, 2012 19:12:32 GMT 12
It sounds more line USN, but still had me laughing.
I'm sure RN would also use 'Call to hands, call to hands, wakey, wakey, wakey' and that damn whistle. The one thing I absolutely do not miss about being on a ship. Especially after being at flying stations half the night and not starting until 1200.
|
|
|
|
NZ6218
May 21, 2012 10:53:40 GMT 12
Post by phil on May 21, 2012 10:53:40 GMT 12
I recall the functionals for the TGM involved putting up the U/C handle.
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on May 19, 2012 16:40:44 GMT 12
Where you measure it? It's sides are parallel!
That polish one is nothing like ours.
The I (ok A) model one though, looks exactly the same width. A good comparison point is the manual release lever panel for the Aux tanks (at the very bottom of the image) and the panel next to it, with the park brake and FLOT pack ARM and MANUAL DEPLOY Switches. I've just compared the image posted above with a photo I have taken of almost exactly the same view on an (NZ) and those two are identical panels to ours.
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on May 18, 2012 20:26:22 GMT 12
From memory didn't we have two painted in this scheme? 05 or 06 might have been the other. It didn't take long for the tail number to appear in black on the NLG door I think it was. They were the initial trial for the all over green scheme. The whole scheme was soon changed to black markings and the rest of the fleet painted.
I don't really get what they mean by 'composite sqn'? I know in 1997 this aircraft was on 75 SQN because I worked on it in this scheme, in 1997.
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on May 16, 2012 0:46:20 GMT 12
They were A-4K.
The only ones re-designated were the ex-RAN Gs, which were also Ks after the mod.
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on May 16, 2012 0:44:25 GMT 12
Does anyone know where the two SH-2G's for Ecuador are coming (or have come) from?- are these SH-2G(I)s leaving 9 available for us or mothballed ex- USN ones ?? I'd be putting money a little closer to home perhaps. But who knows.
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on May 16, 2012 0:41:51 GMT 12
With the Navy on the News last night saying they will be only able to crew two of the new in shore patrol boats....and the fact they struggle to crew the current Seasprites is there really any point in buying these lemons....personally mothball two of the current Seasprites for parts and keep flying them until they fall out of the sky. And then what? No maritime helicopter capability. Yeah, good plan that. |
|
|
|
Post by phil on May 15, 2012 0:35:54 GMT 12
Dave, a suggestion. Why not move this thread to the main RNZN page because that IMHO is it's more logical home. This thread is more about the RN Fleet Air and other foreign naval air arms per se. Arm etc. I did a Google search of the forum for a Seasprite thread before I started the thread in teh RNZAF page and this never came up. Just a thought. NM. How much more explicit does the description on the board have to be? I quote: "New Zealanders in the Fleet Air Arm and other Naval Air Services - This board is for the discussion of NZ Fleet Air Arm units such as the Wasps of No. 3 Squadron, the Seasprites of No. 6 Squadron, New Zealanders who flew or served in either the Royal Navy Air Service or the Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm, and flyers with the US Navy and other air arms of the naval services thoughout history."That description has been there ever since the board was created. This board is for naval aviation, the other board is for ships and wider navy politics. Simple enough, isn't it?? I don't know anyone who serves in a naval air service. I don't serve in the Fleet Air Arm. We serve in the RNZAF. 6 SQN Operates the Seasprites, TAA and OAA rests with the RNZAF, so to say they belong to the Navy, while technically correct some of the time is a bit of a simplified way of looking at it. |
|
|
|
Post by phil on May 12, 2012 16:43:41 GMT 12
Steve has been known to post on these forums.
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on May 10, 2012 18:33:05 GMT 12
What branch were you looking to join as?
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on May 2, 2012 17:29:00 GMT 12
Not much polishing brass any more (We didn't even do that 16 years ago) and they have duvets now, so no more bedpacks. Shoes come shiny, not much to be gained by spit polising them, actually it probably ruins them.
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Apr 25, 2012 13:10:39 GMT 12
My great Uncle's name is on the Feilding war memorial, from WW2. He was killed over Germany on a bombing raid.
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Apr 23, 2012 18:34:12 GMT 12
So you don't think we are seriously looking at the I models?
|
|
