PDA

View Full Version : A fresh A400M woe....or is it a French AF woe?


KenV
9th Apr 2015, 16:46
A capability shortfall in the Airbus A400M tactical airlifter has left France facing the potential inability to refuel military helicopters, a requirement that French defense procurement agency DGA says the aircraft may never fulfill.



However, the DGA said April 3 it is continuing to work with A400M prime contractor Airbus Defense and Space to find a solution to the capability gap, and it has no plans to purchase Lockheed Martin C-130Js from the U.S. “Our priority is to get the full capacity of the A400M,” the DGA said, adding that it “denies that it is trying to buy American C-130J aircraft to fill the gap” as reported in an April 2 article in French aerospace journal Air & Cosmos that claimed the DGA planned to buy five of the airlifters.


According to the DGA, the Airbus-built A400M turboprop engines create excessive turbulence when refueling French helicopters. A June 2013 test involving Airbus EC725 Caracal helicopters was successful only after extending the A400M’s refueling cable, a solution the DGA found unacceptable. “The refueling capacity is one of the specifications of the A400M,” Airbus said in an April 3 statement. “Nothing today allows us to announce that the customer has given up on this capacity. Nothing seems to justify the purchase of numbers of tactical American aircraft for this reason only.”

Lonewolf_50
9th Apr 2015, 17:35
According to the DGA, the Airbus-built A400M turboprop engines create excessive turbulence when refueling French helicopters. A June 2013 test involving Airbus EC725 Caracal helicopters was successful only after extending the A400M’s refueling cable, a solution the DGA found unacceptable.
one wonders: extending it how much?
one wonders: why was such extension found to be unacceptable? (Guessing limits of size on a reel inside the A400M, but there could be other reasons). Nothing seems to justify the purchase of numbers of tactical American aircraft for this reason only.” On its own this statement is sensible. That said, one also hopes that the 40 pound brains working for Airbus find a way to solve their problem, as lack of this capability makes the market for A400M shrink for other potential customers who will want the refueling capability to be real rather than paper.

Davef68
10th Apr 2015, 09:17
Won't affect the RAF then............

bvcu
10th Apr 2015, 10:43
seems like a storm in a tea cup ! A. how many operators actually regularly do IFR with helicopters that are likely to buy?
B. doesn't common sense tell you its going to be marginal at best on a really big turboprop ?

Davef68
10th Apr 2015, 12:35
It's important to the French....

HeliHenri
10th Apr 2015, 12:54
Lonewolf_50
for other potential customers who will want the refueling capability to be real rather than paper.

The refueling capability is real except for less than 10 French helicopters.

Lonewolf_50
10th Apr 2015, 12:57
Lonewolf_50


The refueling capability is real except for less than 10 French helicopters.Thanks for clearing that up: one particular helicopter model could not manage it? I seem to have misread the item.

HeliHenri
10th Apr 2015, 13:06
Sorry Lonewolf, I misspoke.
I mean that no customer except the French (with their poor eight 725) wants the helicopter refueling capability.

Out Of Trim
10th Apr 2015, 13:48
Solution....

Shut down the two inboard engines during Helicopter refuelling with a Hose Drum unit through the back door.. Job Done! :ok:

Trumpet_trousers
10th Apr 2015, 14:02
A June 2013 test involving Airbus EC725 Caracal helicopters was successful only after extending the A400M’s refueling cable

Nice to see the DGA know what they're talking about.....:ugh:

BEagle
10th Apr 2015, 14:37
Enjoying the noodles, T_t?

Fine aircraft that the A400M is, I always wondered how well helicopter AAR was going to work. The original brochure talked of flying the A400M 'at the widely acceptable speed margin of 5 knots above the stall', with 25º of flap extended. No doubt that would mean rather high drag and consequently a high thrust requirement? When we did low-speed drogue work for the C-130 with the VC10K with flap/slat extended, the drag was so high that the fuel burn was colossal - something like 10 tonne/hr.

So waffling along in the A400M on a hot day with a jousting Puma GTi sniffing at the drogue would no doubt be rather exciting for all involved. At 5 KIAS above the stall, turns at greater than 15º AoB might be rather....interesting?

KenV
10th Apr 2015, 18:23
McD studied helicopter refueling using C-17 and had a similar problem. Too much dirty air behind the aircraft. The solution was to move the hose/drogue reel to the top of the T-tail. Really clean air up there. But no one bought the tanker version of the C-17 so the solution was mooted. Maybe Airbus could try the same approach with the A400M. This assumes of course there is room for the hose drogue reel up there. The C-17 tail is signifcantly bigger than A400M.

VX275
10th Apr 2015, 21:39
Maybe Probe and Drogue AAR just isn't for Helos - Can you really afford a basket or hose through the rotor disc?
Anyone considered combining HIFR with the way Alan Cobham did AAR before P&D? ie using a graple on the helos winch cable to snag the hose and then lift it up to the HIFR point. This has the benefit of the Helo being above the tanker wake and a broken cable or hose will be well clear of the rotor disc (the cable rebounding into the disc may need some thought).

barnstormer1968
10th Apr 2015, 21:57
It seems to work well enough for the Americans.
They simply (if AAR can ever be simple) use extending probes to clear the disc diameter.

Davef68
10th Apr 2015, 22:00
Americans have been doing it for years.

They do have the odd mishap.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAdpKpppZiA



http://theaviationist.com/2013/04/15/video-shows-how-difficult-helicopter-air-to-air-refueling-can-be/

Ian Corrigible
2nd Nov 2015, 11:21
Further to the DGA's comment from April: A400M helicopter aerial refueling now a research project (http://aviationweek.com/defense/a400m-helicopter-aerial-refueling-now-research-project)

"It is a case of separating the helicopter from the wake of the A400M,” explained Fernando Alonso, head of Airbus Defense and Space’s military aircraft division (and part-time F1 racer). "Right now we have 90 ft. hoses. Are we able to build 120-150 foot hoses? Are we able to stabilise it? So it is really a research activity and we are embarking with research organisations in order to develop this capability so we at least know whether it is possible or not."

I/C

GlobalNav
2nd Nov 2015, 17:47
I suppose a KC-46 is out of the question. :rolleyes:

tdracer
2nd Nov 2015, 18:26
Apologies for the thread drift, but has anyone heard when the accident report for the A400 crash in Spain is expected?
This is more than idle curiosity on my part - several (commercial) operators came to Boeing in the aftermath of the crash, wanting to know how we protect from a similar FADEC s/w problem.
It's rather hard to answer that question when you don't know the root cause :rolleyes:

KenV
5th Nov 2015, 20:44
Some positive news about the A400 after the tragedy.

Regarding the paratrooper "crossover problem", C-17 had the exact same problem. MDC resolved it with a combination of airspeed, deck angle, air deflector angle, and air deflector hole pattern. C-17 also had the dirty air problem for refueling helicopters. MDC's solution was to move the hose to the top of the vertical tail. But no one bought the tanker version of the C-17.


Airbus Hopeful of Turning Around A400M Program
Aviation Week & Space Technology 11/05/2015

Airbus believes that it may finally be turning around its long-troubled A400M program.

While the loss of MSN23 in May created ripple effects for the company’s delivery, manufacturing and capability testing of the airlifter, a new management team has stabilized the industrial layout. The changes pave the way for increased rates of production-—and will allow Airbus to focus on the tactical capabilities demanded by customer nations, ideally bringing them into service in 2016.

Company officials are even bullish about the A400M’s export prospects.

“Even if we are having difficulties industrializing the aircraft [and] in developing the capabilities we have committed to with the nations, I think we are lucky that we have a fantastic platform,” says Fernando Alonso, head of Airbus Defense and Space’s military aircraft division. “The air forces are frustrated and eager to get those capabilities.”

But there are still details to be resolved. Airbus must renegotiate with the Organization for Joint Armament Cooperation (Occar)—the European defense agency representing the seven partner nations—about the time line for how and when those capabilities are to be delivered. The company has dropped its plans for a staggered introduction of capabilities based on Standard Operating Clearances. Instead, airlifters will be delivered with tactical capabilities as and when they are ready, while a full common standard aircraft with all capabilities installed is scheduled be delivered in 2018.

This staggered process means aircraft will have to be retrofit at least once, and in some cases twice, to bring them up to full specification, says new program head Kurt Rossner.

He says an intense test program for the capabilities is ongoing, and many tactical capabilities including delivery of loads and paratroopers, aerial refueling and operations from unpaved surfaces have already been proven, and would be certified in 2016.

Late delivery of the A400M’s tactical capabilities has been the bugbear of some partner nations. At the beginning of the year, the German government was highly critical of the slow progress. This resulted in Domingo Urena-Raso being summarily replaced by Alonso, while Rossner took over for Rafael Tentor as A400M program head.

“We had to do a clean-up [on the development of capabilities]” said Alonso, speaking to journalists in Seville on Oct. 26. “When I arrived it was sort of ambiguous, it looked like there were a lot of missing capabilities, but in fact there are not that many.

“There are some discrete areas where we have problems,” he added. “We have identified them and we are tackling them one after the other.”

But the flight-test program’s biggest disappointment may prove to be the discovery that the A400M, at least in its current configuration, will not be able to refuel helicopters because of challenges associated with turbulence off the back of the airlifter.

“It’s physically not possible given the length of the hoses, given the wake of the aircraft, and the power of the helicopters that are going to be refueled,” said Alonso.

Tests with Airbus Helicopters H225M Caracals demonstrated that the rotorcraft could maneuver into the precontact position, but holding it for the refueling process proved difficult for pilots. Another concern was that crews were unable to see the horizontal tail plane of the A400M while in the refueling position, an issue Alonso describes as a dangerous situation.

“It is a case of separating the helicopter from the wake of the A400M,” explains Alonso. “Right now we have 90-ft. hoses. Are we able to build 120-150-ft. hoses? Are we able to stabilize it? It is really a research activity and we are embarking with research organizations in order to develop this capability, so we at least know whether it is possible.”

Airbus engineers are also trying to resolve what they call a “crossover issue” which is preventing simultaneous dropping of paratroopers from the doors on each side of the rear fuselage. The aerodynamics involved drag paratroopers around behind the aircraft; simulations suggest that if two paratroopers jump at the same time there is a risk of them colliding.

The issue mainly affects large groups of paratroopers. The aircraft could potentially drop a stick of 114 paratroopers, with 57 going through each door. The company is working with the British and French defense ministries to resolve the anomaly, and will carry out more flight trials the first half of 2016.

But both of these are relatively minor matters, and the helicopter refueling issue only impacts France at the moment. Earlier this year, French defense officials revealed that options had been discussed to either purchase and convert secondhand C-130 Hercules or its newly built KC-130Js from Lockheed Martin to gap the A400M’s shortfall. Airbus may be hoping to fill this hole itself with the development of a helicopter refueling capability for its C295 twin-turboprop transport.

Spain’s Technical Research Committee on Military Aircraft Accidents is expected to deliver its report on the cause of the May 9 crash by the year-end. Repercussions from the incident, which killed four flight-test personnel, are still being felt.

Airbus has been unable to ramp up production to its 2015 goal. The grounding of production aircraft meant that A400Ms were stuck in the handover process. The company had planned on delivering at least 23 aircraft to customers this year; it currently expects to hand over 13-17.

But the final tally is dependent on the speed of customer acceptance processes. Airbus hopes to ramp production back up to 23 aircraft in 2016.

Five air forces are now operating the A400M, with the U.K. Royal Air Force the fleet leader in flight hours and experience. The entire five-nation fleet had achieved more than 4,500 flight hours by the end of September.

The company has also begun negotiations on the shape of its planned Global Support Model to provide in-service support to the fleet in the coming years.

Despite a number of nations saying they plan to cut the number of A400Ms they plan to buy-—most notably Germany and Spain—Rossner says there has been “no discussion on the number of aircraft uptake,” with Occar. Turkey wants an additional aircraft to replace the lost MSN23. Rossner says he hopes to replace the airframe as soon as possible and was in contact with the nation to find a delivery slot.

Although the goal of achieving an export contract for the aircraft this year is looking less likely, Antonio Barberan, Airbus military aircraft’s head of sales says the environmental conditions in the market that led him to believe a first customer would be signed on in 2015 were still viable.

The company says it has made proposals to nine customers and that serious negotiations are underway. Airbus believes it can sell more than 300 aircraft over 30 years, and 50 in the next five.

Barberan refused to comment, however, on reports out of Spain that Egypt had signed up to buy the aircraft.

An Andalucian newspaper reported Oct. 5 that senior managers had told factory staff that Egypt wanted the aircraft as soon as possible. No numbers were cited, but it is likely Egypt will want the aircraft to replace its existing fleet of C-130H Hercules.

Barberan confirmed that the aircraft had also been demonstrated to Saudi Arabian and Algerian armed forces. Three Latin American countries have also been presented with proposals.

“This aircraft will have success,” says Alonso, “I am confident that within the next 24 months we will start getting contracts with other nations.

“I hope I will be right,” he adds.

bobward
6th Nov 2015, 15:46
Aren't these supposed to be AAR capable/
If so, what are we planning to use to refuel them?

Kitsune
16th Nov 2015, 16:16
Funny, there's a hot rumour doing the rounds that the 400s are being returned to Airbus with a 'thanks, but no thanks' as they simply cannot fulfil their expected roles, particularly the para role...:cool:

KenV
16th Nov 2015, 16:41
I've heard that the A400 has a cross under problem for parachutists exiting the side doors. But I would think that could be easily resolved based on the fact that the C-17 had the same problem. The C-17 solved it with the right combination of airspeed, deck angle, flap setting, and air deflector angle. On the other hand, the A400's props may create a very different airflow around the A400 compared to the C-17's turbofans which may require more extreme measures to resolve. What have you heard concerning the A400's paratroop problem?

Ken Scott
16th Nov 2015, 17:21
Funny, there's a hot rumour doing the rounds that the 400s are being returned to Airbus with a 'thanks, but no thanks' as they simply cannot fulfil their expected roles, particularly the para role...


Given the investment in the project, both by government & the RAF, I would consider that to be a little unlikely. Everything that can be done to make it work will be.....but an extension to the OSD of the C130J to cover the TAC & SF roles seems likely.

VX275
16th Nov 2015, 17:28
Cross over can be controlled by correct adherance to exit cadance, one of the jobs of the PJI despatchers. However, it is easy for this cadance control to breakdown, especially with long sticks. Two solutions are to reduce the drop speed (for some reason this is unpopular) or to stagger the paradoors, one exit at the rear, one at the forward end (you just need to avoid the inboard engine as you exit).
The A400 isn't unique in suffering these problems I remember a similar discussion when the J model Herc arrived that solved the cadance problem with two interlinked turnstiles in the paradoors (it had the added benefit of releasing the seats used by the PJI to additonal paratroops. Still think it would have worked.

melmothtw
16th Nov 2015, 17:54
Funny, there's a hot rumour doing the rounds that the 400s are being returned to Airbus with a 'thanks, but no thanks' as they simply cannot fulfil their expected roles, particularly the para role...

Well, if it's true I'd be keen to know where they're storing them as they're not at the final assembly line in Seville. At least they weren't a few weeks back when I was there.

KenV
16th Nov 2015, 18:00
Controlling cadence was not an option on the C-17. USAF demanded that troop exit be safe independent of cadence. Another solution successfully used on the C-17 was a 10 ft static line extension. At first this resulted in a pissing contest between USAF and US Army. The Army owned the parachutes and wanted them to all be identical independent of the aircraft they were jumping out of, so they wanted USAF to own (and pay for) the extensions which were only required for the C-17. USAF refused. The solution was for everyone's parachute static lines to be permanently 10 ft longer, with USAF paying for the mod. I would think this solution would work for A400 also. But if that is the chosen solution, Airbus might be on the hook to pay for the extensions. These things get complicated and nasty pretty fast.

Davef68
16th Nov 2015, 20:55
U.K. Royal Air Force the fleet leader in flight hours and experience

Interesting considering we weren't the first to receive them by some time.

Kitsune
17th Nov 2015, 09:05
Apparently even les grenouilles are less than happy/impressed with the Belfast replacement as well....

As for the safety and effectiveness of troops relying on cadence, that's fine in carefully orchestrated peacetime manoeuvres, but less so in actual combat I suggest..

VX275
17th Nov 2015, 13:40
In combat any casualties due to collisions will be just that casualties. Likewise any combat hang-ups wouldn't be treated to HUPRA or a recovery winch, just bolt crop the anchor cable to clear the hang-up, shut the door and make for home.

KenV
17th Nov 2015, 14:01
In combat any casualties due to collisions will be just that casualties.

Two comments:

1. Is accepting preventable casualties during combat really acceptable? Past history would suggest not.
2. If one exercises like one fights, then these casualties will be present during exercises. Is that acceptable? Past history would suggest not.

ancientaviator62
18th Nov 2015, 07:53
VX275,
I am intrigued by your comment about turnstiles on the para doors on the 'J'. Can you add a little more information ?. I did 30 years on the 'K' and para crossover was a problem that was never solved. In theory staggering the exits would seem to be the correct solution but in the real world of the organised mayhem that is an operational para drop it des not work. Once the 'train ' starts it is very difficult to control as the paras only ambition is to get out of the 'honk box' and to get the weight off his legs. Any form of staggering slows up the rate of exit from the a/c so you need bigger DZs especially with door bundles and Wedge At the conferences I attended I always got the impression that it concerned the RAF far more than the army who regarded it as a reasonable risk taken as an overall part of para ops.

VX275
18th Nov 2015, 08:28
The turnstile idea was nothing more than a tea bar discussion in the Aerial Delivery Section at A&AEE. Although every time crossover came up we would look at each other and say "We should have built the turnstile".
Staggering the paradoors doesn't need to be as severe as one at the front, one at the back such as the Horsa, the C-46 and the Hastings had exits staggered by only a few frames and crossover was less of a problem, mind you the lower drop speeds also helped.

a1bill
18th Nov 2015, 09:44
I think it's going to be a real issue for the French. I read they are buying 4 x c130's to do the A2A refueling for the choppers.

ancientaviator62
18th Nov 2015, 10:03
VX,
thanks for the clarification. On the Hastings the para doors were indeed staggered with the starboard door being further forward. As I understood it this for for structural reasons and any para benefit was a bonus. We used to drop below safety speed with the inboards throttled back and as soon as 'Troops gone' was called the inboards were banged up making manual bag retrieval a very physical job.
Sorry about the thread drift but it does show that the A400M problem is not unique and there are no easy solutions.

MACH2NUMBER
18th Nov 2015, 17:00
I believe that the MOD Air Staff AT branch were not too enamoured by the A400M as far back as 1996, when it was to be a tanker, strategic and tactical transport. Could it be that they were right all along?! Surely not.

KenV
2nd Feb 2016, 17:46
It's beginning to look official, France has given up on trying to use the A400M for helicopter refueling, even though that is a contract requirement. Interestingly, they also bought two non-tanker C-130Js. Since the A400 was optimized for tactical aerial delivery, why do they need C-130Js to do the same thing?

France Orders New C-130s From U.S. Air Force
PARIS – French defense procurement agency DGA has
ordered four new Lockheed Martin C-130J Hercules
airlifters from the U.S. Air Force in an effort to make
up for capabilities shortfalls and delayed deliveries of
the Airbus A400M.
Signed on Jan. 29, the Foreign Military Sale (FMS) agreement
calls for two of the four aircraft to be sold to the French air force
in the KC-130J configuration, which is capable of inflight refueling
of aircraft and helicopters. The latter, a requirement stipulated
in the Airbus A400M contract, is one that company officials have
said may never be met.
In a Feb. 1 announcement, DGA said French Defense Minister
Jean-Yves Le Drian approved the purchase last Dec. 15, after a midyear
update of the nation’s multi-year defense budget that included
an increase of €330 million ($357 million) to pay for the new aircraft.
As a key measure in the budget increase, the C-130J purchase
was concluded in a very short time, DGA said. France had also
considered buying modernized secondhand C-130 aircraft.
Under the terms of the agreement, the first two C-130Js will
be delivered in late 2017 and early 2018, respectively, while the
two KC-130J refuelers will be delivered in 2019.
DGA said the aircraft will strengthen the middle segment of
France’s tactical transport fleet, which currently comprises C-160
Transall and C-130H Hercules airlifters, with the latter undergoing
a midlife upgrade.
“These aircraft are in particularly high demand now and are
facing challenges given the difficult environmental conditions
in which they operate,” DGA said in the statement, referring to
French operations in Africa and the Middle East.
In November, the U.S. Defense Security Cooperation Agency,
which manages FMS sales, said the cost of major defense equipment
under the agreement is valued at $355 million, though the
total value – including items such as electronic countermeasures
and missile warning systems and other non-defense equipment –
is $650 million.

Courtney Mil
2nd Feb 2016, 20:42
les grenouilles

Nice! Very nice! :=

Lyneham Lad
27th Jul 2016, 14:06
24m hose replaced by 36.5m one...

From Flight Global:-
French aerospace laboratory details A400M refuelling tests (https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/french-aerospace-laboratory-details-a400m-refuelling-427792/)

KenV
27th Jul 2016, 18:21
From the linked article:
Earlier flight tests had demonstrated that the intended 24m (80ft) hose was unstable due to the vortices generated by the need to deploy the A400M’s spoilers to achieve the low speeds required of around 108-130kt (200-240km/h), Onera says.Wait, what? "Deploy the spoilers to achieve the low speeds required...." Certainly this is an error. Could the author have meant "deploy the flaps?"

Rengineer
31st Jul 2016, 15:50
From the linked article:
Wait, what? "Deploy the spoilers to achieve the low speeds required...." Certainly this is an error. Could the author have meant "deploy the flaps?"

I'd think they do both: spoilers for aerobraking and flaps for maximum lift. Certainly the spoilers would create extremely turbulent airflow in their wake (their main function is to mess up the airflow). I assume they can't just throttle the engines further down for some reason, but that's just my armchair reasoning.

KenV
1st Aug 2016, 12:58
I'd think they do both: spoilers for aerobraking and flaps for maximum lift.I'm not following the reasoning. If you want to slow down, you back off the throttle. But go too slow and you stop flying. So to go slower without falling out of the sky, you deploy the flaps which produce more lift at low speeds. Of course this also increases drag so you have to carry more power to go slower. There's no need for spoilers to fly slow.

And yes, modern aircraft use a combination of spoiler and flap as an aerobrake to slow down. But NOT to fly slowly at a constant airspeed.

Trumpet_trousers
1st Aug 2016, 19:16
The C-17 solved it with the right combination of airspeed, deck angle, flap setting, and air deflector angle. .... Anything else there Ken, independent from the aircraft, by any chance? I think we need to know, don't you?

riff_raff
2nd Aug 2016, 05:15
I don't think the new C-130J aircraft were actually purchased from the USAF. Instead the French purchased them through the US Dept of Defense.

KenV
2nd Aug 2016, 13:07
... Anything else there Ken, independent from the aircraft, by any chance? I think we need to know, don't you? Say what?!? This is not a new problem and was previously solved without resort to a sequencer that precludes jumpers going out both doors simultaneously. The data is out there. It's neither classified nor proprietary.

Lyneham Lad
2nd Aug 2016, 16:16
From an article on Flight Global (https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/airbus-takes-fresh-1bn-charge-against-a400m-427909/?cmpid=NLC%7CFGFG%7CFGFIN-2016-0802-GLOB&sfid=70120000000taAh):-
Airbus’s continued difficulties with producing and delivering the A400M tactical transport have led it to announce a fresh charge of just over €1 billion ($1.1 billion) against the programme.

chopper2004
24th Feb 2017, 14:11
https://aviationvoice.com/airbus-announces-63-drop-in-profit-for-2016-a400m-to-blame-201702231051/

VX275
24th Feb 2017, 14:33
I have no sympathy for Airbus as they created the delays themselves. I was frustrated at the CQ meetings I attended when their excuse why no progress had been made with the design of the cargo hold was that "the management have taken the engineers away to work on the A350 and A380 freighter". At the time Airbus had orders for over 150 A400M and zero for the A350 and A380F. Did they ever get an order for the A380F?

chopper2004
24th Feb 2017, 15:01
I have no sympathy for Airbus as they created the delays themselves. I was frustrated at the CQ meetings I attended when their excuse why no progress had been made with the design of the cargo hold was that "the management have taken the engineers away to work on the A350 and A380 freighter". At the time Airbus had orders for over 150 A400M and zero for the A350 and A380F. Did they ever get an order for the A380F?
VX,

Hmmm, also I heard from a former Luftwaffe buddy of mine in his humble opinion - one flaw in the A400M program from the start was Airbus applying their way of airliner design and production methodology to a military program....would you say this is a factor?

cheers

VX275
24th Feb 2017, 19:59
Yes it was run the Civil Cert route (as was the J Herc before it). However this was the choice of the customer nations as it has some perceived advantages. The problem is the Civil authority's dislike of redundant capability (ie Military stuff) within a system. The one that mystifies me was the Oxygen supply, the Specification/Contract for the A400M called for it to be able to depressurise and fly around at altitude with the ramp and cargo door open to allow member of the Regiment to keep their para wings. The Oxygen system that allows crew and pax to do this would not pass Civil Cert, so for initial certification the aircraft was fitted with a civil O2 system. For Military Cert that system had to be removed and replaced with a military system which was capable of doing all that the civvies required as well as the military needs. Why do a job once when you can do it twice and charge more?:ugh:

Rhino power
25th Feb 2017, 02:30
Did they ever get an order for the A380F?

Yes, 27 (up until it all went boobies north), from FedEx, UPS, ILFC and Emirates...

-RP

tdracer
25th Feb 2017, 22:38
Apologies for the slight thread drift, but was there ever an official report on the A400M that crashed due to improper FADEC software?
I know that in the immediate aftermath, Boeing received several operator enquires as to how me make sure something like this doesn't on a Boeing aircraft (and it was even raised as a potential safety council subject).
We basically deflected the questions by saying we don't know how that could happen (any known ways would result in an "ENGINE CONTROL" EICAS message), but that until there was an official report of the exact cause we couldn't fully evaluate if there was a susceptibility.

Lordflasheart
26th Feb 2017, 10:09
TD .................. From wiki -

"On 14 May 2015, the Spanish Defense Ministry confirmed that Spain's military air crash investigation agency, CITAAM, had taken charge of the investigation of the crash. The Spanish government had initially charged a civilian team, made up of experts from the transport and defense ministries, with the task, but the civilian team "took the decision to withdraw because they understood that the plane has specific characteristics due to its military configuration which they were unfamiliar with," according to a Defense Ministry spokesman.[25] " (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Seville_Airbus_A400M_Atlas_crash#cite_note-Defense_News-25)
I can't find anything. It may be that CITAAM do not publish.

EAP86
26th Feb 2017, 13:07
The Spanish (CITAAM?) report for the 2 seater Typhoon which crashed in Spain was only released on a very restricted circulation. I guess publication of the A400 report is pretty unlikely although I'd imagine the PT will have access.

EAP

tdracer
27th Feb 2017, 05:05
If it's true that they don't publish or limit distribution to 'need to know', they may well be responsible for the next crash due to FADEC s/w problem
I'm probably preaching to the choir here, but FADEC s/w isn't exactly exclusive to the military. Having worked (commercial) FADECs for 30 years, it's almost unimaginable to me how what was reported to have happened could have happened. So it's critical for aviation safety that they release some sort of report of how they messed up.
As I noted earlier, several commercial operators - and the FAA - have asked how we make sure this couldn't happen on to us. It's pretty hard to answer that question if the way it happened to them is intentionally covered up...

Just This Once...
27th Feb 2017, 06:01
Does seem odd given the various conventions on this. It is an EASA certified aircraft so it would not be unreasonable to ask them to publish the report.

EAP86
27th Feb 2017, 14:03
I believe that as a State aircraft the ICAO/EASA conventions (ICAO Annex 13?) don't necessarily apply - the Chicago Convention excludes State aircraft. There could however be a moral imperative on the operator's part to address the safety of civil types which may be similarly affected. It could be inferred that the authorities had evidence that the FADEC issue didn't apply to civil types. In any case, I strongly suspect Airbus would have known enough to act as required if necessary and an Airworthiness Directive would have been forthcoming.

As an aside I'd wonder if the A400 is truly an "EASA certified aircraft" in the legal sense. While the aircraft certainly experienced an EASA certification inspection process for the CS25 parts of the design and some form of type certificate was issued, does that mean Federal Express or some other cargo operator could turn up at EASA's door with an 'A400C', say, and demand a Certificate of Airworthiness? Somehow I doubt it.

EAP

Just This Once...
27th Feb 2017, 14:14
The declaration of State is not applicable as the aircraft operator was Airbus with an Airbus test crew. The A400M has an EASA issued type certification and EASA featured heavily in the aircraft's certification process.

EAP86
27th Feb 2017, 21:52
JTO. The real question is was it military or civil registered at the time? If mil registered, then its a State a/c.

I agree that EASA may have figured strongly in the process (according to the PT, taking 20% of the allocated time to do 80% of the certification work) but I believe EASA's charter doesn't allow them to certificate military types. I'd suspect that OCCAR collated the civil and military certification evidence on behalf of the nations (5 full + 2 associate) and passed it to the nations to complete their national military certification and registration.

A mate used to chair the OCCAR cert and qual group on behalf of the UK and while he may have explained the relevant details to me, I can't say that I listened to them as carefully as I should have :-) FWIW I do remember that at the time he said that the OCCAR cert and qual processes were available on their website. Whether they're there now, I've no idea.

EAP

Lyneham Lad
19th Jun 2017, 16:15
Flight Global - Airbus on track to resolve A400M gearbox and contract issues. (https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/airbus-on-track-to-resolve-a400m-gearbox-and-contrac-438229/)
After testing a beach landing capability with a Royal Air Force A400M earlier this month, Airbus Defence & Space says it is on track to qualify a redesigned helicopter refuelling system, roll-out a final solution to a power gearbox problem and resolve a dispute over penalties caused by delivery delays.

"Things are going very, very well," Airbus head of military aircraft Fernando Alonso said on 9 June, adding: "In five to 10 years from now, this will be a reference for logistical transport airplanes."

Some might consider that the last sentence redefines optimism... :hmm:

Rosevidney1
19th Jun 2017, 19:54
Anyone putting out statements like that is a hostage to fortune.

Nauticalcampus
20th Jun 2017, 07:01
The one thing Airbus AD&S at Brize needs is stability,what with PGB issues, a very poor performing logistics division, low availabilityof serviceable aircraft on a daily basis, add into the mix of recent staffissues (pay-outs to make their problems go away!!:=) and the added ability to retain people arejust adding to woes of the programme there.

c130jbloke
20th Jun 2017, 14:24
Wiki says there is 174 units on order to the usual suspects plus a few here and there. Are they realistically ever going to sell more than 200 airframes ?

theloudone
20th Jun 2017, 19:44
Viewing the current woes Airbus bosses are suffering with this airframe, add into the fact of how much Airbus is losing on the A400M, I doubt anyone would want to go near it until reliability settles.
Also sounds like things at Brize Norton are pointing to an unhappy situation?

Dundiggin'
21st Jun 2017, 19:01
theloudone....

What's that all about at Brize?

theloudone
21st Jun 2017, 20:58
Just sent you a PM

Lyneham Lad
22nd Jun 2017, 11:18
Paris 2017 - A400M display validation flight (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kv70B5z_mOA)

jolihokistix
23rd Jun 2017, 03:06
Cool-looking plane. Wishing it luck.