Royal New Zealand Air Force

[ASSAIL]

Looks like it landed on the grass next to a taxiway with no power on or just slid off the taxiway. should be limited damage. As the tarmac area looks a bit narrow and has no centre line markings it does not appear to be the runway.

I understand it’s standard procedure for light aircraft to carry out an emergency no wheels landing on the grass.
A Mallard amphibian owned by a pearling company I once worked for did just that with little damage. Normally it would land on water to sort the problem but got its wheels stuck half way, not good for water landings!

 

[old faithful]

I understand it’s standard procedure for light aircraft to carry out an emergency no wheels landing on the grass.
A Mallard amphibian owned by a pearling company I once worked for did just that with little damage. Normally it would land on water to sort the problem but got its wheels stuck half way, not good for water landings!

I remember that one well, paspaley.

 

[SpazSinbad]

Looks like it landed on the grass next to a taxiway with no power on or just slid off the taxiway. should be limited damage. As the tarmac area looks a bit narrow and has no centre line markings it does not appear to be the runway.

Don't know why you would think a military aircraft AT NIGHT would land wheels up on a taxiway. Especially as the news report says it stayed on the runway overnight. TELEphoto lens photos can be very misleading with foreground/background compaction. Much like KIWI SHEEP DAGS one can imagine.

An USN TEXAN T-6 carried out a wheelsup 20 Nov 2010 at NAS Pensacola both crew OK - cause? Dunno.

"20 November 2010 Two people were taken to Pensacola Naval Hospital for evaluation after landing a USAF Beechcraft T-6 Texan II with the landing gear up. The names of the two crew members were not released after the 1300 hrs. incident, Pensacola Naval Air Station Public Affairs Officer Harry White said. Both people safely exited the plane, which landed at Forrest Sherman Field at the air station, White said. The aircraft and crew are assigned to the U.S. Air Force's 455th Flying Training Squadron at NAS Pensacola. The incident is being investigated by a board of officers, a NAS Pensacola news release said. List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2010–present) - Wikipedia

 

[SpazSinbad]

USAF 'how to fly' T-6 Advice 2016:
http://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/aetc/publication/aetcman11-248/aetcman11-248.pdf (4.2Mb)

Read about WHEEL emergencies in the USN T-6B NATOPS 2009: http://www.grayskies.info/DOWNLOADS/NAVY/T-6B_NATOPS_NFM_CH-3_w_IC6.pdf (26Mb)

 

[Rob c]

I understand it’s standard procedure for light aircraft to carry out an emergency no wheels landing on the grass.
A Mallard amphibian owned by a pearling company I once worked for did just that with little damage. Normally it would land on water to sort the problem but got its wheels stuck half way, not good for water landings!

Not necessarily, depends on the aircraft and the hardness of the ground. If the ground is not "very" hard the aircraft can dig in and this can be very damaging to the aircraft and crew. you only have to see WW2 films of fighter aircraft doing wheels up landings to see this affect . In the early 1960s at Ohakea a Vampire did a wheels up on the grass and was a right off. Just before I was posted there a Vampire T 11 did a wheels up on the main runway and was returned to service within a month.

 

[Rob c]

Don't know why you would think a military aircraft AT NIGHT would land wheels up on a taxiway. Especially as the news report says it stayed on the runway overnight. TELEphoto lens photos can be very misleading with foreground/background compaction. Much like KIWI SHEEP DAGS one can imagine.

I was only putting this as a possibility as it is not unusual to use wider taxiways for emergency runways and this would ensure that the runway was not blocked to other aircraft. The later main runway taxiway at Ohakea is reasonably wide and could serve this purpose. and at AIA the taxiway is the emergency runway. The wider photo in my paper was not definitive either. My memory of my many years at Ohakea has faded somewhat over the years and i have not been fully able to locate the location of the photo in my mind. The best I can come up with is that it appears to be at the eastern end of the main runway facing the ranges.
Relooking at the wider angel shot in the paper again I will change my assessment to the aircraft being on the edge of the runway as I can see the runway distance marker and the taxiway in that photo.

 

[kiwipatriot69]

I was only putting this as a possibility as it is not unusual to use wider taxiways for emergency runways and this would ensure that the runway was not blocked to other aircraft. The later main runway taxiway at Ohakea is reasonably wide and could serve this purpose. and at AIA the taxiway is the emergency runway. The wider photo in the paper was not definitive either. My memory of my many years at Ohakea has faded somewhat over the years and i have not been fully able to locate the location of the photo in my mind.

 

[kiwipatriot69]

Yes, was this purchase a Labour or National one? With all the Budget surpluses the country has had over the years, and the current one is 5.5 Billion! And we skimp on spares.

 

[SpazSinbad]

Not necessarily, depends on the aircraft and the hardness of the ground. If the ground is not "very" hard the aircraft can dig in and this can be very damaging to the aircraft and crew. you only have to see WW2 films of fighter aircraft doing wheels up landings to see this affect . In the early 1960s at Ohakea a Vampire did a wheels up on the grass and was a right off. Just before I was posted there a Vampire T 11 did a wheels up on the main runway and was returned to service within a month.

Good call. A couple of RAN FAA Vampires did wheels up landings on runway (no drop tanks) to be returned to service quickly. Of course A4Gs often had drop tanks as emergency undercarriage (having a hook for short field arrest helped also).

 

[Rob c]

Of course A4Gs often had drop tanks as emergency undercarriage (having a hook for short field arrest helped also).

The emergency undercarriage lowering ( the handle lower RH on the instrument panel ) helped to save dop tanks too. This had to be used in exercise Spanish Dollar 1975 at Townsville when our Yank exchange pilot had a total hydraulic failure in both systems plus other problems leading to a wild ride to get the aircraft back. He got the AFC for that and for the rest of his time with the RNZAF removed all his USAF medals including his Vietnam service medals from his uniform and only wore the AFC. His comment was " I earned this one" and he did.

 

[KiwiRob]

I found this post on another forum, interesting if true.

According to the answer of the German government to a parliamentary question, several nations showed interest in aquiring A400Ms (from Airbus, not from Germany) as of July 2018: Indonesia (3), Saudi Arabia (14), Peru (3), New Zealand (2).
http://dip21.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/19/036/1903609.pdf


If anyone can read German. We only showed an interest in 2, which I guess would suggest we would also be looking at several smaller air lifters as well?

 

[ngatimozart]

Nice find Rob and recent too. I've just ran the document through Google Translate and it appears that the Luftwaffe has a problem with oil fumes entering the cockpit. It also appears that in June out of 15 A400M the Luftwaffe had on average 8 available for ops.

So two A400M. I think that's one not enough given that aircraft have been known to fall over at the most inconvenient of times. I would have thought that the pollies and Treasury would have got past that false economy road block by now. Having said that, it will work well on OP DEEP FREEZE and I think that they will find that with that and other taskings a third A400M will be needed, much like nations who have C-17s found when they first acquired them and started using the full set of capabilities. Maybe a A400M / C-130J combination.

 

[MrConservative]

So two A400M. I think that's one not enough given that aircraft have been known to fall over at the most inconvenient of times. I would have thought that the pollies and Treasury would have got past that false economy road block by now. Having said that, it will work well on OP DEEP FREEZE and I think that they will find that with that and other taskings a third A400M will be needed, much like nations who have C-17s found when they first acquired them and started using the full set of capabilities. Maybe a A400M / C-130J combination.

Two A400M seems a direct replacement of the B757 role in both annual hours (1300) and likely role output (strategic). Though I agree three airframes would be better. At least that can be addressed later.

Yes it would indicate a fair assumption that a C-130J variant(s) would cover the tactical airlift taskings and other envisaged capability sets (SAR/A2A) regarded as desirable-essential as per the FAMC / FASC.

One thing though, even with two A400M's there is a considerable amount of infrastructure which will be required to support the aircraft, though Airbus NZ at WB would factor into it on the depot side. GBTS for example or will they simply send crew to Brize Norton for sim time?

 

[ngatimozart]

Two A400M seems a direct replacement of the B757 role in both annual hours (1300) and likely role output (strategic). Though I agree three airframes would be better. At least that can be addressed later.

Yes it would indicate a fair assumption that a C-130J variant(s) would cover the tactical airlift taskings and other envisaged capability sets (SAR/A2A) regarded as desirable-essential as per the FAMC / FASC.

One thing though, even with two A400M's there is a considerable amount of infrastructure which will be required to support the aircraft, though Airbus NZ at WB would factor into it on the depot side. GBTS for example or will they simply send crew to Brize Norton for sim time?

I think that they are finding that sending crews overseas for sim training is proving to be an expensive option and they may see a feasible option of buying a sim for pilot, loadmaster and maintenance training. They could also hire out time to the RMAF, who IIRC already use the A109 sim, Indonesia, and the Peruvians if they acquire the A400M. Regarding infrastructure, the soon to be vacant 5 Sqn hangars at WP could be replaced (I think they are quite old) on a similar or slightly larger footprint. I think they had to cut the slot in the 40 sqn hangar for the 757 tail. I think 6 Sqn got the only new hangar built at WP probably since WW2. Don't quote me on that a I am quoting from memory.

If a C-17 can get in an out of WB without any issues whatsoever, so can a A400M. That being the case, then there is no reason why Airbus at WB cannot undertake full depot level maintenance. To take it one step further, that could be an earner for NZ if the Airbus saw that it was to its advantage for its WB facility becoming the Indo - Pacific region A400M major depot servicing hub. Unless Airbus already have an ironclad agreement in place with PTI in Indonesia, this should be something that the NZG actively pushes for as an offset. I am sure that funding from the Regional Development Fund could be found for such a venture. WB does have it's advantages being in the middle of a world class wine growing area etc.

 

[Novascotiaboy]

A400 again. Well if this were to materialize I really hope its three airframes at a minimum not the two stated.

The capability of the aircraft has never been a concern for me as it is impressive. Maybe the years of delays and the in service record of the RAF and other users have shown that it can be a relied upon asset. With three as we all know that should be the minimum fleet size.

Agreed these are definitely B757 replacements but what about the timing? Are these aircraft available in the near future or in the time frame that suits the RNZAF replacement plans of 2025ish?

Or could the interest being shown reflect an opportunity by the Pollies to acquire these two A400s plus a fleet of C295W to cover the remainder of the fleet all with AIRBUS product along with an A321 Neo as the VIP component? Just being devils advocate and the jaded guy I am.

 

[MrConservative]

Or could the interest being shown reflect an opportunity by the Pollies to acquire these two A400s plus a fleet of C295W to cover the remainder of the fleet all with AIRBUS product along with an A321 Neo as the VIP component? Just being devils advocate and the jaded guy I am.

The FAMC RFI was clear in that the C-130H replacement would at a minimum provide for no less than the current equivalent capability. The C-295W is simply not capable of delivering the essential tasking outputs that even the 53 year old H models currently do.

 

[MrConservative]

I think that they are finding that sending crews overseas for sim training is proving to be an expensive option and they may see a feasible option of buying a sim for pilot, loadmaster and maintenance training.

The RAF's initial simulator system plus support from Thales was £50m and the full cost of their training centre for all GBT at Brize Norton was £226m. That is one hell of an expensive investment to train crew for just 2 aircraft.

If Airbus wanted to invest into their own commercial Indo-Pacific training centre based in NZ for regional A400M customers that would be up to them but near on half a billion for full training centre is something Treasury would have kittens about.

 

[Novascotiaboy]

With all due respect MrC

The FAMC requirements says no less than current capability. It doesnt say individual aircraft capability. Interpretation is open to discussion.

Two A400M each have a max payload of 81600 pounds . Add in six C295W with 20000 pounds each of payload plus an A321 Neo and thats a total of 340000 pounds. Compared to the current 220000 for the Hercules plus 120000 pounds for the two Boeings and its an even replacement at 340000.

So if two A400M plus five C130Js are acquired the total load is slightly more but three less airframes than an all Airbus fleet could provide.

Using a hub and spoke program the A400s would fly into the islands loaded and offload into the C295Ws to deliver aid to the hard hit areas using its size to great advantage. One A400M bringing four loads for a single C295W. This is doable .Its just not how things have been done by NZ up to this point.

Two A400M and six C295W plus the Neo equals about US $1 billion. Nine aircraft that provide lots of options to government.

Ive never been an A400M fan because of its extended teething problems but it may be coming around and would provide a needed capability.

Im not trying to stir the pot just pointing out my interpretation of the official requirements.

 

[t68]

Cargo capacity is only one factor, range and endurance I believe is a more critical component of the FAMC program, there’s nothing to say that C130 can carry the full load capacity of C295 but can do so for a further distance with a more variety of cargo such as smaller plant or light vehicles (Hawkie?)

 

[Todjaeger]

Cargo capacity is only one factor, range and endurance I believe is a more critical component of the FAMC program, there’s nothing to say that C130 can carry the full load capacity of C295 but can do so for a further distance with a more variety of cargo such as smaller plant or light vehicles (Hawkie?)

If the RNZAF were to adopt a three tiered airlift model, then I could see a possible place for aircraft like the CN-235, C-295, or C-27J, covering the lowest tier the light/short-ranged tactical airlift requirement.

Given the distance of NZ from everything, a C-295 would have trouble reaching an island nation as part of a HADR operation with any amount of cargo. That in turn would mean flying mostly empty to whatever sort of FOB would be used, then operating from there with cargo being brought to the FOB by A400M aircraft or other means. A likely side effect of trying to utilize a hub-and-spoke type arrangement as indicated, is that the two aircraft suitable for supplying the hubs (the A400M's) would likely be insufficient for the task. More aircraft would be needed.

If the C-295's were to be utilized as a 'local' airlifter around NZ, similar to how the Andover's were used at times, that would be different. From my POV the viable choices for the tactical airlift role for NZ is either the C-130J, or possibly the A400M. The other contenders most frequently mentioned are IMO either too small and short-legged, or will not be ready and available for NZ in time.

The question then becomes what the strategic airlifter might be, which could be the A400M if the C-130J is selected as the tactical aircraft, or it might 2nd hand C-17's, or perhaps civilian airliners which are converted.

Again, IMO the purchase of a civilian airliner for use as a VIP transport does not make sense for NZ. The main capability it would provide NZ which would not be available via other transportation methods would be to stroke the ego of the VIP. After all, how often do NZ personnel attend diplomatic conferences or engage in trade negotiations where NZ has to send 100+ personnel to participate? Also having a fleet size of just a single aircraft is also practically begging for mission failures to occur, and/or missions to be aborted.