Confirmed as two NH-90's here: More NH90s arrive as faults tackled | Stuff.co.nz
No other useful information in the article though.
Royal New Zealand Air Force
- Thread starter Lucasnz
- Start date
No other useful information in the article though.
kiwi in exile
Active Member
Reports into RNZAF safety culture
There are 3 article in the NZ herald this AM about an internal report into the RNZAFs operational safety following the investigation into the ANZAC day helo crash.
They are pretty grim reading and suggests a systemic problem rather than isolated incidents. The articles also state that civilian lives have been put at risk by the RNZAF. The report hasn't been made public (yet?)
I'm not sure you can brush this off as another ill informed mainstream media beat up.
Air force danger cargo sent on Air NZ jet - National - NZ Herald News
Safety issues repeatedly ignored: report - Defence - NZ Herald News
There are 3 article in the NZ herald this AM about an internal report into the RNZAFs operational safety following the investigation into the ANZAC day helo crash.
They are pretty grim reading and suggests a systemic problem rather than isolated incidents. The articles also state that civilian lives have been put at risk by the RNZAF. The report hasn't been made public (yet?)
I'm not sure you can brush this off as another ill informed mainstream media beat up.
Air force danger cargo sent on Air NZ jet - National - NZ Herald News
Safety issues repeatedly ignored: report - Defence - NZ Herald News
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
These articles do raise a questioning eyebrow. One of the first questions which come to mind, with respect to the first article about the RNZAF shipping potentially hazardous material via Air NZ, just what the article is talking about. From the article, the oxygen generators where shipped on an international flight from Vancouver to Auckland. Unless that is some sort of error or typo, it looks to me like the RNZAF would have ordered oxygen generator equipment from a supplier in Vancouver, BC Canada. I admit I do not know what sort of purchase/shipping arrangements get made with all military purchases, but in many circumstances when ordering components and supplies, the purchaser chooses the type of shipping (air freight, ground/sea transport, etc) and the seller is responsible for arranging the actual shipment and retains product ownership until delivery. If that was the case here, then unless the RNZAF took delivery of the generators in Canada and/or arranged shipment via Air NZ, the RNZAF would not have been the responsible party.
Further, the US oxygen generator accident occurred aboard Valujet Flight 592 in 1996, not in 1995 like the NZ Herald article mentioned. Going even further with that, the oxygen generators in that incident were improperly packaged, and improperly labeled, for transport. Now, if RNZAF personnel were the ones who packaged the oxygen generators to be loaded onto an Air NZ flight in Canada, or if they provided inaccurate information for the shipping label/manifest, then I could see it being an RNZAF issue. However, AFAIK the RNZAF does not maintain a contingent in BC, Canada...
In short, there are parts to the Air NZ shipping story which do not add up, and other parts are missing. Enough IMO to question whether the RNZAF is being blamed for something it is not responsible for, or outside its scope of control.
As for the second article, several questions come to mind. The first being out of the 81 safety recommendations put of over a 5 year period, what was the relative importance for the different recommendations? It has been noted within US aviation, that safety recommendations are frequently made for different aircraft, as well as for airports and flight paths. Most of these are just that, recommendations, not requirements. Critical safety issues are typically required to have some sort of mitigation work done to make them compliant. If there were only 12 (or less) critical safety recommendations identified, and those were the dozen recommendations put into effect... Now, if some of the safety recommendations were not "critical" but of major importance, and those were not acted upon, then I could see a potential problem.
Now, a question I have regarding a specific incident (this is a rhetorical question, I doubt any here could provide an actual answer) is concerning the following:
What were the circumstances of this incident? What type of RNZAF aircraft did the incident occur on, and what sort of flight was it? Was the RNZAF aircraft supposed to be providing oxygen via mask or pressurized cockpit/cabin? If there was no pressurized cockpit/cabin, or a oxygen mask, was the aircraft being flown under conditions where there should have been additional oxygen? Was there some sort of onboard fire/smoke, which could have displaced oxygen, and/or been inhaled by the civilian?
What was the civilian doing aboard the RNZAF aircraft, and what was their medical condition immediately prior to the flight?
As a rule, if someone suffers a loss of consciousness and becomes apneic (not breathing) this is either due to a trauma or a medical issue. Unless there was some sort of aircraft equipment failure, or unsafe flying on the part of the pilots... It again becomes an incident which the RNZAF is held responsible for, yet is outside of RNZAF control. Again, we lack the specific details regarding this incident, but what at first glance does seem quite damning for the RNZAF, becomes far less clear cut on further examination.
-Cheers
kiwi in exile
Active Member
Good points. There is a bit of fuzziness around the details.
"The Accident Analysis Report was written by the air force's most experienced accident investigator, Squadron Leader Russell Kennedy."
Quoting the report, a third article states: "The RNZAF does not have the appropriate and effective processes to adequately and reliably ensure safe and effective military air operations."
Now if thats actually what the report is stating, it's a pretty worrying situation.
Air force's failures 'put civilian lives at great risk' - National - NZ Herald News
"The Accident Analysis Report was written by the air force's most experienced accident investigator, Squadron Leader Russell Kennedy."
Quoting the report, a third article states: "The RNZAF does not have the appropriate and effective processes to adequately and reliably ensure safe and effective military air operations."
Now if thats actually what the report is stating, it's a pretty worrying situation.
Air force's failures 'put civilian lives at great risk' - National - NZ Herald News
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
In the linked article, now it is stating that the Air NZ was heading to Vancouver, not from it like in one of the prior linked articles. Until the actual report comes out, I would recommend holding off on any sort of judgement. Given the contradictory reporting from the Herald, it is starting to feel more like a beat up piece which may have some basis in fact, but again, until the actual report comes out it is getting harder to tell what the Herald is reporting correctly.
-Cheers
Notice that the linked article has with it a photo and in that photo is the PM. Of the thousands of the file photos available to the Herald - you have to question why it was chosen. Well of course it is a desperate and ongoing media BS attempt jn trying to caste the PM within this negative story. The half facts reported so far and the placement of this photo within this context tend to give the game away.
You are right Tod - there is the whiff of beat up about this. Not surprised given that the Herald - once the nations serious flagship newspaper is now nothing more than a trash tabloid rag staffed with pompous latte swilling hacks who are only interested in their further advocacy for leftist "social justice" causes, second rate celebrities (including wealthy fat german internet con artists with silly names wanted abroad), and their frequent anti-defence, anti-police garbage.
kiwi in exile
Active Member
I don't think we can discount the content of the report based on how it's been presented in the media (whatever the bias, actual or percieved). No matter what slant the Herald may have taken, the issues raised by the articles are pretty concerning. Otherwise, until the actual report is released (if it ever is), thats pretty much all thet can be said. In the meantime, lets stick to discussing RNZAF related matters and not the ongoing leftist media conspiracy and the decline of journalistic standards.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
You seem to sort have missed my point. I am all for going over the report in detail, if/whenever portions of it get released to the public.
What I do not think advisable is to automatically assume that the report, as presented to the public so far in the Herald, is as damning as the journos have made it out to be.
I do not doubt that there are issues within the RNZAF (in my experience, that is the case within any organization with 3+ people...) and certainly believe that the shoestring budget which the NZDF has been forced to operate with capable of exacerbating potential safety issues.
A safety related question is how often has RNZAF equipment (and other NZDF kit for that matter...) have had maintenance and upgrades deferred or delayed either due to a lack of sufficient funding, and/or a lack of capable replacement kit, to cover maintenance and upgrade cycles?
IIRC during the coup d'etat in Thailand in 2006, the RNZAF was unable to airlift Kiwis in Thailand out, because there was only a single C-130 transport operational in NZ at the time, and when it was sent out, it suffered a malfunction and had to return to base.
So, until the Herald starts putting out the whole facts behind some of the reported incidents, and/or the report is available, I recommend not making judgements based off what has appeared in the Herald, because it does still seem like a beatup piece.
-Cheers
Hmmm, reduction in airframes by 1. The grapevine suggests the B200's engines had been thrashed due to high utilisation, so hopefully Hawker Pacific will be pretty sharp on engine maintenance.
Makes sense that there is a slight reduction as it will essentially be a MEPT aircraft. Wings course numbers in the interim will suffice with the four B200's until the advanced trainers (eventually) arrive. The engine and airframe thrashing was not just due to the hours put on them it was also due to what was been asked of them.
Ok if they are going to be basically a MEPT aircraft. Why have they been given transport aircraft numbers instead of training aircraft numbers? That implies the RNZAF see these aircraft primarily in a transport role. The aircraft have the serials NZ7121 - 24. the old King Airs were NZ1881 - 85, which were in the training serial number series.
Will there perhaps be smaller sized courses going forward?
AFAIK there's probably 2 years yet before any APT comes on stream, so in that time B200's will provide APT & presumably some MEPT. That's a fair bit of work for 4 airframes so I would've expected frames to hold at 5 with 1 to be ditched once APT are on stream, but I guess with careful management of maintenance etc...
Anyone aware of any talk re: synthetic training device(s) being looked at for the B200's!?!
Interesting - so would serials NZ7121 - 24 mean the B200's are now considered operational a/c rather than training a/c (and 42sqn likewise!)?
If the serials allocated do indicate operational status then one has to assume it is a clear signal that RNZAF will keep these 4 as the MEPT fleet, which will then also undertake some light transport & short-range MPA/SAR taskings - as per defence white paper - no surprises there!
Bummer though it doesn't mean the B350, although I guess that could come down the track! There was never any public confirmation AFAIK that the short-range MPA/SAR platform would have sensors etc, so one assumes the role will be done using the old MK1 eyeball turret! Anyhow with NZDF up against the proverbial with budgets it's damned hard to see where any sensors would be funded from. I guess at least they ought to be a modular enough fit to be retro-fitted at a later date!?!
Last edited:
No the serial numbers do not indicate whether an aircraft is operational or not it indicates the basic taskings or mission fo the aircraft. This explains it.
I said essentially - not basically. Yes there will be a proportion of output hours for non MEPT ops viz VIP etc and the decision to go with 71 serials reflects this. However they are still essentially for MEPT.
Here's a few bits of news and updates:
Tenders for training aircraft to replace the CT-4 and Kingair are due out next week:
New Air Force training aircraft to be sought - National - NZ Herald News
RNZAF have purchased time to use simulators in the Netherlands which are similar to the upgraded C-130's
CAE wins military contracts valued at more than $70 million - MarketWatch
A sudden storm, probably a tornado, scooted the edges of Whenuapai Air Force base yesterday. There were 3 fatalities on a construction site for a school nearby and lots of houses are uninhabitable including much defence housing. No aircraft were damaged, but the prime minister said a C-130 was pushed sideways when giving an example of the strength of the wind.
It will be interesting to see the full requirements of the training system - glad to see a simulator is part of the requirement
Tenders for training aircraft to replace the CT-4 and Kingair are due out next week:
New Air Force training aircraft to be sought - National - NZ Herald News
RNZAF have purchased time to use simulators in the Netherlands which are similar to the upgraded C-130's
CAE wins military contracts valued at more than $70 million - MarketWatch
A sudden storm, probably a tornado, scooted the edges of Whenuapai Air Force base yesterday. There were 3 fatalities on a construction site for a school nearby and lots of houses are uninhabitable including much defence housing. No aircraft were damaged, but the prime minister said a C-130 was pushed sideways when giving an example of the strength of the wind.
It will be interesting to see the full requirements of the training system - glad to see a simulator is part of the requirement
I'm not normally one who jumps on the "Lets combine the RAAF and RNZAF" bandwagon, but this is one area where potential savings and gains could be made for both Airforces.
E.g. combining the training units could result in a reduced aircraft buy(lease?), reduced simulator buy, reduced infrastructure spending, reduced bureaucracy, reduced support costs. Significant too would be a reduced number of QFI's required reducing the drain on qualified pilots from frontline types for both services.
Problem areas could come in that I imagine the RNZAF would probably have different syllabus needs due to their different plaforms they are trying to graduate their pilots too (RAAF primarily aiming for FJ level single pilot graduates, not sure what RNZAF aims for but I imagine it is aimed towards crew operations) and I imagine the RNZAF would want some aircraft based in NZ which may make it not as financially viable..
Anyone know if this has been looked at between the two forces even at an informal level?
E.g. combining the training units could result in a reduced aircraft buy(lease?), reduced simulator buy, reduced infrastructure spending, reduced bureaucracy, reduced support costs. Significant too would be a reduced number of QFI's required reducing the drain on qualified pilots from frontline types for both services.
Problem areas could come in that I imagine the RNZAF would probably have different syllabus needs due to their different plaforms they are trying to graduate their pilots too (RAAF primarily aiming for FJ level single pilot graduates, not sure what RNZAF aims for but I imagine it is aimed towards crew operations) and I imagine the RNZAF would want some aircraft based in NZ which may make it not as financially viable..
Anyone know if this has been looked at between the two forces even at an informal level?
Maybe locate crew operations training in NZ for both airforces, split it in the way that makes most sense, basic and FJ in Aus, screening is done by a contractor so why not in NZ etc.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
As I understand it, some of the NZ flight training is already done in Australia. IIRC the navigation portion is done this way, with RNZAF personnel attending the RAAF Nav school.
While the notion that even more such training be done jointly to minimize costs/maximize joint operations, I have to wonder whether this would really be feasible or not. AFAIK the only sort of training where this would work is in basic training/basic flight training, and perhaps basic multi-engine. Everything else becomes too dependent on which specific platform one is being trained to work on/with, console layout, systems/subsystems capabilities, conops, etc. Since I am not a pilot (nor ever likely to be one...) certainly could be wrong about this.
In terms of basic flight training, IIRC the RAAF has this contracted out to an outside flight training company. Unless the RAAF made the decision to bring such training back 'in-house' and/or the RNZAF basic flight training establishment was significantly augmented to handle the ADF pilot training demands... I do not see how this could be efficiciently done.
I could see that there might be more efficient ways for the RNZAF to get pilots with basic flight proficiency, given their comparatively small numbers, but I cannot really see a good way for Australia to outsource that training offshore.
-Cheers