KC-30 Boom comes off.

[Mick.B]

From Defence Media

An in-flight incident occurred during a training flight for Airbus Military staff, involving an Australian KC-30A Multi-Role Tanker Transport (MRTT) aircraft and a Portuguese Air Force F-16 fighter aircraft.

The aircraft was being operated by Airbus Military Corporation. No Australian personnel were on board the MRTT at the time of the incident.

The incident resulted in the detachment and partial loss of the refuelling boom from the MRTT, which fell into the sea.

Both aircraft suffered some damage but returned safely to their home airfields.

Project AIR 5402 will supply five MRTT aircraft to the Australian Defence Force. Design, development and testing of the prototype aircraft is being undertaken by Airbus Military at its facilities in Madrid, Spain.

Airbus Military and the relevant European military airworthiness authorities will have the lead responsibility for investigating the incident.

Australian Defence experts will participate in the investigation process.

[BEagle]

More information here: Boom or bust! – RAAF KC-30 loses boom | Australian Aviation Magazine (http://australianaviation.com.au/2011/01/boom-or-bust-raaf-kc-30-loses-boom/)

Sources say preliminary reports suggest the boom's probe snapped off near the F-16's receptacle, causing the boom to spring up and strike the underside of the KC-30, possibly snapping off one of its two guiding fins and causing it to oscillate wildly until it snapped off at the pivot point.

The boom departed the aircraft and fell to the ocean below.

:eek:

Fortunately both aircraft recovered safely and no-one was injured.

[ORAC]

Well that could bugger the KC-X bid. Boeing will be all over Washington with the news....

[Jabba_TG12]

Sounds like a bit of a lucky escape, particularly for the F16. Thank heaven there was no injuries.

ORAC I think has a point though. Boeing will be all over this like a rash. :rolleyes:

[Zeke]

For clarification the complete boom did not fall off, it was near the receiver. This has happened on a number of other tankers before normally caused at night by incorrect closing speed.

Also for clarification, the KC-767 also has had a partial boom loss when one aircraft was unable to retract the boom in flight and had to land with the boom extended.

[trap one]

And at least one US E3 was damaged when it pulled the Boom off of a KC135

[Neptunus Rex]

The article is badly written. As I understand it, the initial fault lay with the American built F16, which precipitated the fracture on the tanker's bit of kit. It has happened many times before, and will doubtless happen again.

It's one very good reason why most tanker 'Tracks' are conducted over the high seas.

[bvcu]

one problem we wont have to worry about..........

[BEagle]

Zeke, incorrect. I understand that after the initial failure, the KC-30A boom became uncontrollable, struck the rear of the tanker, detached completely, then fell into the sea.

[Zeke]

BEagle, that was a "possibility" or "speculation" put forward by the magazine "Australian Aviation" in their article.

All they have confirmed, which is exactly what their source, the Australian DoD confirmed, is that they boom had a partial failure, and it was that part that failed and departed.

EADS has the whole incident on video, and both aircraft landed safely.

[BEagle]

Well, I'm sure the truth will eventually emerge. However, I think you'll find that the boom certainly did strike the tanker and became completely detached after the Portuguese F-16 moved clear - although the intial failure was the loss of the boom nozzle.

[Evanelpus]

the initial fault lay with the American built F16,

Another one throwing fuel onto an 'a' versus 'b' argument, pathetic!

[ORAC]

Out of interest, is the boom desgned with a frangible tip to ensure separation in an emergency?

[BEagle]

Portuguese.

I don't the answer to the boom nozzle question you pose, ORAC.


.

[Green Flash]

completely detached after the Portuguese F-16 moved clear

I would imagine that once the F-16 driver saw the boom about to go AWOL he would have the heater full on and the g meter off the scale.:eek: Not what you want to have in close formation with you and I bet he's glad he's back in the mess bar!:ok:

[Art Field]

Most unfortunate but could happen now and again. As I sit in my study I see on a shelf a probe tip obtained from a customer many moons ago. After all the procedure, boom or drogue, is a deliberate (one hopes) controlled high speed collision between two aircraft with all the momentum that that involves. Even the strongest system will be tried beyond the limit sometime.

[Thelma Viaduct]

Isn't even attempting to deliver fuel more than Boeing has achieved so far??

Hardly gives them bragging rights when a freak event occurs. :}:}:}

[con-pilot]

Well, at least the front didn't fall off.

[ShyTorque]

Did it fall fast enough to become a sonic boom?

[Justanopinion]

It's one very good reason why most tanker 'Tracks' are conducted over the high seas

NR

Think you'll find the majority of the French and USA refuelling tracks are over land..............

[BEagle]

Of the 92 AAR anchor areas in the US, the overwhelming majority are over the land.

As are most of the AAR tracks. See AP/1B 5.3.

[BatOutaHell]

"Also for clarification, the KC-767 also has had a partial boom loss when one aircraft was unable to retract the boom in flight and had to land with the boom extended."

Boeing did have an aircraft with the boom extended, however no parts came off of it. The same boom was repaired and is in active service now with the JASDF.

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

that was a "possibility" or "speculation" put forward by the magazine "Australian Aviation" in their article.

Incorrect. The article states...

Sources say preliminary reports suggest the boom’s probe snapped off near the F-16’s receptacle, causing the boom to spring up and strike the underside of the KC-30, possibly snapping off one of its two guiding fins and causing it to oscillate wildly until it snapped off at the pivot point.

This is not speculation on the magazine's part, it is relating information from a source. This is the same as what I have heard through my 'sources', and it seems BEagle might have similar gouge!

[Zeke]

Boeing did have an aircraft with the boom extended, however no parts came off of it.

If Boeing had one as well, it was a different event to what I was referring to. The emergency that I was referring to was when the aircraft was with the JASDF.

It was the JASDF that released details of the incident, including landing with the boom extended and the small fire that resulted.

More details on this link KC-767J damaged in emergency landing - The DEW Line (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2008/12/kc-767j-damaged-in-emergency-l.html)

This is not speculation on the magazine's part, it is relating information from a source.

Their source was the Australian DoD media release, everything after the word possibly in that sentance is their speculation.

[greenhornet]

Zeke wants to pretend it's a non event, but I'm keen to see pictures when they surface. This is likely to be a major event that the crew were lucky to survive.

[BEagle]

Foxtrot Alpha 18 and greenhornet, the account published in the magazine article is correct.

I don't know why Zeke wishes to cast doubt on the incident; the fact is that the entire boom assembly did violently separate from the KC-30A before falling into the sea.

Boeing's KC-767J uses a different boom design to their paper-plane 767NoGo tanker; the Airbus KC-30A has been flying for quite some time now and has transferred a lot of fuel through the boom. Investigation of the incident may well lead to some modifications; nonetheless, as far as the KC-X contest is concerned, the Airbus contender is at a far more advanced stage of development than Boeing's.

[BEagle]

PPRuNe's maximum image size is 850x850.

Here is your (somewhat out of date) image re-sized to 850:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/air-refueling-tracks.jpg

Please edit as appropriate.

The latest version I have is from the 18 Nov 2010 - 13 Jan 2011 edition of the AP/1B and is dated 30 Aug 07.

[Zeke]

I don't know why Zeke wishes to cast doubt on the incident; the fact is that the entire boom assembly did violently separate from the KC-30A before falling into the sea.

Because that article is not consistent with the Australian DOD statement on the incident, they said “The incident resulted in the detachment and partial loss of the refuelling boom from the MRTT, which fell into the sea.”

The Australian DOD statement was the basis for that article.

I am aware of a number of other such incidents with F-16s on the KC-135, the boom normally fails near the UARRSI.

The boom also has a lot of drag on it, with its own mass and a low CG, the idea that a boom could “spring up” with all that drag and mass does not seem plausible to me.

[BEagle]

Zeke, accept that you're wrong.

Those who know, know..... This was a violent and total boom failure, resulting in the entire boom assembly detaching from the tanker.

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

The Australian DOD statement was the basis for that article.

:ugh:

Incorrect...again! The DoD release was NOT the basis for that article. The article referred to "sources" in one instance, and the the DoD release in another.

I have it on first hand authority that the magazine had undertaken to sit on the information from the "sources" until the DoD and/or Airbus issued their official release/s, and that the "sources" are irrefutable.

[Zeke]

This was a violent and total boom failure, resulting in the entire boom assembly detaching from the tanker.

Even the Australian Aviation article says it was only a partial loss, "partial loss of its air-to-air refuelling boom", and you are saying it was the entire boom ?

The DoD release was NOT the basis for that article. The article referred to "sources" in one instance, and the DoD release in another.


I read that article to say they have two sources, the Australian DoD and Airbus Military. Both of those sources are credible however I do not think either would have come out and made such a statement so early.

Still no one can give me a explanation of the physics of how an extended boom in flight can "spring up" and hit the underside of the tanker taking into the account the drag and mass of the boom.

[ftrplt]

Still no one can give me a explanation of the physics of how an extended boom in flight can "spring up" and hit the underside of the tanker taking into the account the drag and mass of the boom.

Flying surfaces - incorrect inputs &/or response - boom flys up (when it wasnt meant to or expected to)

Its not the first time this boom has gone the wrong / unexpected way!!

[greenhornet]

It's not rocket science to understand that a boom can fly upwards, perhaps at a rapid rate if some event caused that? A boom would need to be quite dynamic to prevent damaging the aircraft it's trying to refuel. It should be a design consideration that contact with the fuselage is not a catastrophic event though? Shouldn't it......

[Saintsman]

It seems that the 'incident' was not so bad after all.

Airbus Military details 'limited damage' to A330 tanker after boom mishap (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/01/26/352366/airbus-military-details-limited-damage-to-a330-tanker-after-boom.html)

[Zeke]

BEagle, FoxtrotAlpha18, greenhornet ...

"Those who know, know..... " seems Flight Global has presented some balance, care to amend some previous claims made such as "a violent and total boom failure, resulting in the entire boom assembly detaching from the tanker."

Or are you three going to edit and delete your posts to change the content again ?

[TBM-Legend]

Zeke, this is a "rumour" network. Time always gives up more "facts"....:ok:

Here, like "real life" stories abound.:=

[BEagle]

Zeke, the article states:

"The boom detached at the root of the structural mast," says Airbus Military, responding to questions from Flightglobal. "There is no damage to the boom attachment, nor is there any significant damage to the [aircraft's] fuselage," it adds.

However, the company is assessing the likely duration of limited repairs required, which it says are "in the non-pressurised area of the tail cone and auxiliary power unit area (structure)".

So,

1. The boom detached at the pivot - fact.
2. There is damage to the tanker's fuselage - fact.
3. The 'non-pressurised area of the tail cone and APU (structure)' occasioned damage - fact.

And those of us who know, still know. What has been posted (apart from your comments) has been accurate. It's good that Airbus have spoken up about this as it avoids a Chernobyl-style denial which would do more harm than good.

[Zeke]

BEagle,

The boom and the structural mast are not one in the same. The boom telescopes from the mast and transfers fuel to the receiver, as well as providing two way communications.

Read that paragraph you have quoted again.

[greenhornet]

So what did happen Zeke, you suggest you are one of 'those who know, know' perhaps? The boom departing at 'the root of the structural mast' would be........pretty much the whole boom? You must be an Airbus shareholder? :)

[EW73]

It may have been "limited damage" to the boom components as a result of this incident, but also consider, should this have happened during a real-time in-service environment, maybe they would have also lost several fighters/C-130s/AEW&C airplanes or whatever, as a direct result of running out of fuel!

[BEagle]

Only if the operators were stupid enough to risk a 'tanker dependent' deployment trail..... Which would be contrary to ATP-56B, but - hey, the top wheels in a certain air force think that's acceptable.....:eek:

[Shell Management]

The boom failed at its root, ie at the end of the mast, as it should when overloaded.

[greenhornet]

So, if you cut the tip off a plant in your garden,, that is the root??

[Zeke]

Only if the operators were stupid enough to risk a 'tanker dependent' deployment trail..... Which would be contrary to ATP-56B, but - hey, the top wheels in a certain air force think that's acceptable.....

Been a number of changes to ATP-56 recently as well to bring that operator more in line with NATO.

There have been lots of incidents with receivers taking more than just fuel from a tanker. It came to a point where the USAF would no longer allow the USN to train off the KC-135 BDA as more and more of them took the BDA with them. Now Omega provides tankers for training the USN with a fuselage unit.

So, if you cut the tip off a plant in your garden,, that is the root??

Just need to go back to the sailing terminology, not biology. The mast on boat is connected to the vessel, and the boom is connected to the mast.

[Trojan1981]

So an aircraft in development suffered a non-critical structural failure during testing. This is hardly the end of the world. That is why the development phase is so lengthy, for any new system, Boeing or Airbus.
The problem will be fixed, the aircraft will enter service (late, but name one that isn't), no big deal.

Enough of the "I'm in the know" "No, I'm in the know" bollocks, please. If any photos surface they would be interesting to have a look at. :ok:

[ozbiggles]

I wouldn't use a DOD release for any accuracy.
The last one I read about an aircraft was for a Caribou that had a 'heavy landing' in PNG.
The remains of that aircraft came home underneath various helicopters and in small aircraft loads.

[D-IFF_ident]

I wouldn't mind seeing a list of those changes Zeke, parts 1 and 2 on the official website (RAF - Air to Air Refuelling - ATP-56(B) (http://www.raf.mod.uk/downloads/airtoair56b.cfm)) still show 14 Dec 2008 as the most recent update. :hmm:

[BEagle]

D-IFF Ident, Change 3 is due mid-2011....

One hopes they've $hit-canned the 'observation' and 'reform' bolleaux?

Some National Annexes were updated last year; the document still includes the Part 5, Annex ZC for the KC-45A as being 'TBD'...and, of course, there's still no entry in the Italian annex for the KC-767I :\

[greenhornet]

Zeke, on a boat the mast is fixed, the boom is not necessarily, as with some booms used in construction. The 'boom' in this case is mounted to the fuselage and pivots about a joint by movement of the flight control fins. I hope whatever you are smoking allows you to focus on the pictures when they come out ;)

[D-IFF_ident]

Thanks BEagle. I wonder who is drafting Change 3?
:cool:

[Zeke]

D-IFF Ident, Change 3 is due mid-2011....

They say that every year !!

Some National Annexes were updated last year;

Correct

on a boat the mast is fixed

How does a boat get under a fixed bridge ... they fold the mast.

pictures when they come out

The pictures are already about, if you have not seen them already, you probably will never will. That goes for the tanker and receiver.

I cannot recall ever seeing photos of any tanker incident on public website legitimately. That includes last years KC-767J fire.

[greenhornet]

Rather than pursue a meaningful conversation with Zeke, I'll settle that Zeke says the boom did not depart the KC-30. I think he may be wrong, despite some sailing boats being able to fold their mast :hmm:. Which is as relevant as the color of monkey ****?

I'll revisit when the truth gets past the airbus censors, which will be not long after they lose KC-X. :{

[D-IFF_ident]

OK - I'll buy that Zeke might be "a genuine middle class good-guy" who clearly has a stack of AAR experience, and contacts in interesting places. Otherwise, I'll await a formal report.