Royal New Zealand Air Force

[htbrst]

Yes true, VERY different times ahead, and very exciting! Can't wait to see the new look Red Checkers!

I wound'nt bet all my chips on seeing them in Red Checkers colours as that's the flight schools aerobatic team (?)

Perhaps instead the 14 Sqns aerobatic team could make a return: Black Falcons - New Zealand Aerobatic Display Team

Certainly ties in with the T-6's being painted black :fly

 

[Gibbo]

I wound'nt bet all my chips on seeing them in Red Checkers colours as that's the flight schools aerobatic team (?)

Perhaps instead the 14 Sqns aerobatic team could make a return: Black Falcons - New Zealand Aerobatic Display Team

Certainly ties in with the T-6's being painted black :fly

Yes true, although I prefer the Red Checkers name with their long history. The Red Checkers are the QFI's & they'll be heavily involved with 14sqn going forward.

Mind you either way, the T6 will add another dimension to the display team. I find at airshows these days the Red Checkers tend to be the time I take the young fellas for a wizz & food - that's not due to the outstanding flying by the guys but more the limited appeal of the good old 'rat' in the display role! I know - treasonable to admit that!

 

[ngatimozart]

Yes true, although I prefer the Red Checkers name with their long history. The Red Checkers are the QFI's & they'll be heavily involved with 14sqn going forward.

Mind you either way, the T6 will add another dimension to the display team. I find at airshows these days the Red Checkers tend to be the time I take the young fellas for a wizz & food - that's not due to the outstanding flying by the guys but more the limited appeal of the good old 'rat' in the display role! I know - treasonable to admit that!

Never liked the CT4. I was in when it was introduced and we nicknamed them "plastic mice". The T6 looks like a proper military aircraft. I know semantics and ascetics, but a jolly in a CT4 was a quite a let down after jollies in Harvard's.

 

[MrConservative]

Yes the sims and computer training aids are new, but the curriculum wasn't bought. That is being changed by the RNZAF. It still doesn't address the main query being made by myself regarding MEPT. A lot can be done in the simulator but the trainees still have to have real world experience and hours to qualify. Can't do that in a single engined aircraft or a rotary wing for fixed wing aircraft. No matter how much you rework the curriculum that real time / life experience in a multiengine fixed wing aircraft is paramount for the trainees.

Bought as in independent outside advice and opinion was and still is being sought to assist the RNZAF through the transition and that includes the curriculum development and best practice. It is not just Beechcraft and the RNZAF that are involved in developing this project.

There is no need for the RNZAF to overegg the pudding. They have MEPT covered until the lease runs out in 2018. No one has said that a MEPT aircraft or an aircraft that will do MEPT complementary with another role is not going to be eventually part of this training system at a later phase and no one is arguing or suggesting otherwise.

 

[MrConservative]

I wound'nt bet all my chips on seeing them in Red Checkers colours as that's the flight schools aerobatic team (?)

Perhaps instead the 14 Sqns aerobatic team could make a return: Black Falcons - New Zealand Aerobatic Display Team

Certainly ties in with the T-6's being painted black :fly

That would make sense. Alternatively Black Diamonds. Certain it will have a greater wow factor than the RC's.

 

[MrConservative]

A further 3 airframes in 2018 are still on the cards as of early last year when I last asked, however it has to get through the next Defence White Paper evaluation. Long term with the present 5 LUH models there are not enough airframes to task pilot training and crew training as well as do the LUH taskings that the AW109LUH is capable of. With 8 in the inventory of which 3 would likely be vanilla OTS Power variants purely for pilot training along with the simulator, it would mean that HCT and the light utility taskings could be also achieved using the Mako at a far less operational cost than NH-90 / Sprites. Only having 5 airframes at present is evidently not a great concern as there are still enough to conduct RoPT and HCT roles, however as tasking pressure points emerge, including the possibility of more pilots and crew to be trained and to get the most out of the platform, extra training AW109s are noted to be a very cost effective way of getting a more efficient output out of the rotary fleet as a whole.

My view is that eventually a 4th 109 Power version should be sort rather than the mooted 3 as well as an extra LUH. I also would see sense in those ten airframes splitting away from 3 Sqd and forming their own new Squadron. Sort of a rotary mirror image of 42 (training / light / local roles) and 40 Sqds (the big stuff / deployment).

 

[RegR]

The aircraft serial type is important because it denotes the aircrafts prime role. Secondly, CFS & PTS have been an important part of the RNZAF training structure for probably 70 years, so if they are disestablishing them and concentrating all pilot training within 14 Sqn, then that is a major philosophical and structural change within the RNZAF training systems. There is multi use of aircraft within the RNZAF ergo B200, but one cannot do MEPT on a single engined aircraft. Buying a second hand civilian aircraft is not the ideal solution either. I strongly believe there is still more to be announced. I do note that the USAF & USN use the T6 for an inito through to advanced pilot training.

Well its easier to have an operational serial to include a training role rather than a training serial to include a operational role otherwise you are automatically limiting their outputs from the start. The more senior output should have priority regardless of major focus that way you can cover off everything if and when needed, you can drop down a step from operational but not from training.

Again why would they be disestablishing PTS or CFS just because they are calling it 14 Sqn? 40 Sqn is not called Heavy lift Squadron but we all know what they do, will be no different with 14 Sqn(PTS/CFS), these will just be the core roles of this particular Sqn. Squadrons/units/camps/bases are established, dis-established, amalgamated, renamed, re-designated, re-located all the time, some of the pitfalls of change but again its only a title and the job will still get done in some form or another and hopefully better even.

I do not think any one here believes the T6 will cover off MEPT as that is not even possible but more the media was just quoting the AC specific life/lease spans in the current training regime as a whole. The T6 is replacing the CT4 one for one with the added role of advanced phase so actually along with the sim why would there be a great change in curriculum? It should be more a case of just moving 'advanced' flight hours from B200 back to T6 now that there is a more appropriate platform and just tweaking training to suit, yes there will be change but no need to re-write entire courses from scratch.

With advanced hours coming back from the king airs this may free up hours(above primary MEPT hours of course) for the touted inshore MP in them or better yet their hopefully more suitably equipped replacements.

 

[chis73]

I guess the most puzzling part of this decision for me is the 30-year support contract. Why such a long time? RNZAF training aircraft have historically failed to serve that long, generally developing structural problems after about twenty years service. The only trainer I can think of that made it to 30 was the original T-6 Harvard (1941-1977, where about 10% of an original 200-odd made it to the end). Let's see: Tiger Moth - no, CT/4A - no, CT4/E - no, Strikemaster - no, Aermacchi - no. I understand that there will be lot more simulator training, but still.

Which brings me to my second point - if these aircraft are expected to serve 30 years, and do everything from elementary to advanced - are we getting enough aircraft? The Irish Air Corps uses the PC-9M the same way we intend to use the T-6C, so let's look at their system. They bought 8 PC-9M (in service 2004-ish, now down to 7) with an expectation of graduating 3-6 pilots per year (plus a few QFIs I imagine). See the link below. We, according to the Defence Minister's press release, are aiming for 15 pilots & 12 QFIs per year from only 11 aircraft - for 30 years. That's a fairly worrying discrepancy in my mind (we intend to work these aircraft 3 times as hard as the Irish, yet expect them to serve 10 years longer than most previous trainers). Is there enough allowance for depot-level maintenance and/or attrition?

New Wings for the Irish Air Corps

I have no major worries with the aircraft chosen (except that a lower-powered machine might have been better).

Chis73

 

[Gibbo]

I guess the most puzzling part of this decision for me is the 30-year support contract. Why such a long time? RNZAF training aircraft have historically failed to serve that long, generally developing structural problems after about twenty years service. The only trainer I can think of that made it to 30 was the original T-6 Harvard (1941-1977, where about 10% of an original 200-odd made it to the end). Let's see: Tiger Moth - no, CT/4A - no, CT4/E - no, Strikemaster - no, Aermacchi - no. I understand that there will be lot more simulator training, but still.

Which brings me to my second point - if these aircraft are expected to serve 30 years, and do everything from elementary to advanced - are we getting enough aircraft? The Irish Air Corps uses the PC-9M the same way we intend to use the T-6C, so let's look at their system. They bought 8 PC-9M (in service 2004-ish, now down to 7) with an expectation of graduating 3-6 pilots per year (plus a few QFIs I imagine). See the link below. We, according to the Defence Minister's press release, are aiming for 15 pilots & 12 QFIs per year from only 11 aircraft - for 30 years. That's a fairly worrying discrepancy in my mind (we intend to work these aircraft 3 times as hard as the Irish, yet expect them to serve 10 years longer than most previous trainers). Is there enough allowance for depot-level maintenance and/or attrition?

New Wings for the Irish Air Corps

I have no major worries with the aircraft chosen (except that a lower-powered machine might have been better).

Chis73

I'm no expert but from what I understand that in general simulator time can be quite extensive if need be & save quite a substantial amount of actual airframe time - I'm not speaking specifically about the RNZAF T6 scenario but simply from a casual conversation from an airline pilot some time back, so I'm happy to be corrected.

And as for a 30 year contract... the 30 year thing is probably more about keeping treasury happy. It'll leave treasury thinking they've spent money well on a type that are in for the long haul, whereas in reality the a/c may well only last 20 years, at which point everyone's moved on & no-one in treasury cares anymore that they didn't last 30.

It's common with transport contracts - you sign up for say 10 years, but after 5 the freight flow dries-up & the customer simply walks away stating that they no longer need the services & the transport company simply has to roll with it. It's not breaking the contract as-such in that scenario. All service contracts tend to have 'wriggle room'.

In the RNZAF T6 context it probably means if the aircraft last 30 years then SAFE Air have a right to provide those services 'if required' for 30 years - so long as they meet their side of the contract. If the aircraft don't last that long & their services are no longer needed, they could potentially terminate the contract on agreed terms. There is likely to be some penalty clause if RNZAF walks away early, but that will whittle away the further into the 30 years they get, and will be mainly about protecting SAFE Airs initial outlay investment in tooling-up etc.

What I'm trying to say in all this rambling is that a 30 year contract does not specifically mean the aircraft will last that long. The other side of the coin is of course, if SAFE Air meet their obligations & do a good job, the aircraft may just well end up lasting that long.

 

[RegR]

To be fair the NZDF has been known to use equipment well past their life of type especially if the financial snake bites so a 30 year stint may not be as crazy as it sounds, sad but not crazy. Not uncommon for NZ military gear to come off operational duty on a Monday and be in the museum display by Tuesday. I guess treasury thinks value for money and obsolescence goes hand in hand.

 

[swankerme]

Hello everyone. I hope this is an appropriate place to post; perhaps someone here has some insight for me? I am currently serving in the USAF (10 years) and, having learned that the RNZAF accepts "overseas applicants", am very interested in joining.

How often does this happen? Are there many former-Americans serving in the RNZAF (or the NZDF for that matter)? Being unfamiliar with NZ culture, would this be a difficult transition (would I be seen as "different" or "less")?

 

[MrConservative]

Hello everyone. I hope this is an appropriate place to post; perhaps someone here has some insight for me? I am currently serving in the USAF (10 years) and, having learned that the RNZAF accepts "overseas applicants", am very interested in joining.

How often does this happen? Are there many former-Americans serving in the RNZAF (or the NZDF for that matter)? Being unfamiliar with NZ culture, would this be a difficult transition (would I be seen as "different" or "less")?

You probably have seen this link, but I will post in nevertheless:

Re-enlist & Overseas | Defence Careers

I understand that they have not been so active in seeking overseas applicants at present compared to a few of years ago or so - it exists and can be done though their is no big push. They have in the recent past and may again in the future actively seek ex foreign service personnel from the US, UK, and Aust. A lot of the quietness in this regard is due to the recent civilianisation process, which shook things up big time. Generally, even when they are activity recruiting from overseas it also depends on ones trade and experience and how that can translate into current shortages with the services - it is a very small force and thus even that can be fluid. I am not sure about how many ex US personnel have made the transition, though to be honest ex UK and Oz may find it easier - in many ways - this is to do with the military-cultural heritage of being ''Royal'' establishments and familiarity with how things are done Commonwealth style. Maori cultural affinity is also an underlining aspect in the traditions of the NZ services, particularly in the NZ Army as their have been long connections between Maori and the NZ Army. That said the big question they will ask first is - Why? If the RNZAF is your port of call the follow up question to that would be why on earth would you want to live in Bulls?

Cheers MrC

 

[Sea Toby]

If the RNZAF is your port of call the follow up question to that would be why on earth would you want to live in Bulls?

Cheers MrC

While I understand Bulls is not the largest city in the country, it is less than two hours away from Wellington. Wellington is a very nice sized city suitable for the government circle, it should be good enough for airmen and airwomen. For your information that isn't a large difference than driving from the west side of Fort Worth to the east side of Dallas which takes about an hour freeway driving, and longer during rush hour. Plus Bulls isn't too far from the coast. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with living in a small rural community not too far from a large city. In my opinion that is the best of two worlds, rural and urban.

 

[MrConservative]

While I understand Bulls is not the largest city in the country, it is less than two hours away from Wellington. Wellington is a very nice sized city suitable for the government circle, it should be good enough for airmen and airwomen. For your information that isn't a large difference than driving from the west side of Fort Worth to the east side of Dallas which takes about an hour freeway driving, and longer during rush hour. Plus Bulls isn't too far from the coast. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with living in a small rural community not too far from a large city. In my opinion that is the best of two worlds, rural and urban.

Toby. Have you ever been to NZ, sounds like you have? Bulls, that charming metropolis with art galleries, cafes, theatres and most reminiscent of Cotswolds or Martha's Vineyard. Yes the beaches of the Manawatu region are just like the Gold Coast but with better weather, never overcast and cold, never a breath of wind. Bulls, the young airmans nirvana.

 

[swankerme]

That said the big question they will ask first is - Why? If the RNZAF is your port of call the follow up question to that would be why on earth would you want to live in Bulls?

Cheers MrC

Thanks for the response. There are many reasons why...the American AF is breaking down when it comes to budget issues. Job security/stability is lacking. I currently serve on a a temp-full time position. The honest fact is I simply want to make the Air Force my full-time lifelong career, and I am being denied that in America right now. I am open to new cultures and would have no problem working for NZ and learning to be a "Kiwi".

I looked up Bulls, and it seems to be a charming, quiet, rural area with lots of country and views. My kind of area.

 

[swankerme]

That said the big question they will ask first is - Why? If the RNZAF is your port of call the follow up question to that would be why on earth would you want to live in Bulls?

Cheers MrC

Thanks for the response. There are many reasons why...the American AF is breaking down when it comes to budget issues. Job security/stability is lacking. I currently serve on a a temp-full time position. The honest fact is I simply want to make the Air Force my full-time lifelong career, and I am being denied that in America right now. I am open to new cultures and would have no problem working for NZ and learning to be a "Kiwi".

I looked up Bulls, and it seems to be a charming, quiet, rural area with lots of country and views. My kind of area.

 

[swerve]

Toby. Have you ever been to NZ, sounds like you have? Bulls, that charming metropolis with art galleries, cafes, theatres and most reminiscent of Cotswolds or Martha's Vineyard. Yes the beaches of the Manawatu region are just like the Gold Coast but with better weather, never overcast and cold, never a breath of wind. Bulls, the young airmans nirvana.

Not exactly a long way from Palmerston North, which as a university town I'd expect to have a bit of life & culture.

Before you complain about the weather, the beaches, or the distance from civilisation, visit Lossiemouth.

 

[STURM]

Can anyone here confirm that the tail rotor assembly on the A-109 required an inspection after every 75 hours of flight? Sorry, instead of posting the question in a new thread I decided to do it here.

Also, has the RNZAF revealed what NVGs have been acquired for its A-109 crews?

 

[ngatimozart]

Toby. Have you ever been to NZ, sounds like you have? Bulls, that charming metropolis with art galleries, cafes, theatres and most reminiscent of Cotswolds or Martha's Vineyard. Yes the beaches of the Manawatu region are just like the Gold Coast but with better weather, never overcast and cold, never a breath of wind. Bulls, the young airmans nirvana.

Safer beaches too. No stingers (jellyfish), sharks, snakes, venomous spiders etc., that can be deleterious to ones life expectancy. Nor are they over run by hordes of loopies (tourists). Perfect surfing beaches.

 

[ngatimozart]

Can anyone here confirm that the tail rotor assembly on the A-109 required an inspection after every 75 hours of flight? Sorry, instead of posting the question in a new thread I decided to do it here.

Also, has the RNZAF revealed what NVGs have been acquired for its A-109 crews?

Regarding A109 tail rotor assys it depends upon the assembly part number. This is the FAA notice Federal Register, Volume 78 Issue 186 (Wednesday, September 25, 2013)
I haven't found anything on the RNZAF NVG for the A109s yet.