Warning issued over Tongan aircraft

[27/09]

Warning issued over Tongan aircraft - National - NZ Herald News (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10910972)

Are these aircraft really that bad or is this just political posturing. I note that there is no mention where the MA60 is built. Could be so as to not to upset the Chinese any more than necessary.

I suspect part of the reason for the high number of accidents is because of where and who have been operating the MA60.

[TheExpatPilot]

Agreed. I have not come across an MA60 incident that involved the aircraft itself being the problem.

[Rotor Work]

Xian MA60 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MA60)

Good old Wiki :ok:

[Metro man]

If this aircraft was being operated and maintained by reputable airlines using well trained pilots, flying into suitable airports then I doubt there would be any problems.

Poorly maintained with inadequately trained crew, operating into marginal airports ? We are seeing the results.

[DeltaT]

The reason it is not certified in NZ is that no one uses it here.

Have a read of this thread (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/519006-b787-ma60.html)

[training wheels]

The MA60 may be made in China, but it has the standard components that western aircraft use, such as Pratt and Whittney PW127 engines (same as the ATR72), Hamilton Standard props, standard Collins avionics and radios, Universal UNS-1K FMS coupled to the autopilot. The aircraft's airframe design however is based on the Antonov AN26 which is a real pity as it's not as aerodynamically clean as the ATR72 and thus a little slower in the cruise despite being of a similar weight and having the same engines.

There are actually quite a number of Australian pilots currently flying the MA60 in Asia, each of them with thousands of hours on type and none with any record of accidents nor incidents on the type.

[43Inches]

It's actually based on the Chinese Y-7 which is a copy of the An-24. The An-26 is a military transport with rear ramps etc. Engines are PW127J which is more powerful than the ATR-72 PW127M or F however as mentioned the aircraft is slower and has less capacity. However apples and oranges as the MA60 is designed to operate from rough strips like the An24.

[Sqwark2000]

The Chinese gifted the MA60 to the Tongan government, as well as a Y12?and then promptly said they would start their own state owned airline to compete with Chatham Pacific, who was contracted via the government to provide domestic/regional air services for Tonga.

Chats then pulled out of scheduled air services pretty promptly saying it was uneconomic to provide scheduled services in a competitive environment when the competition wouldn't normally be in a financial position to start an airline if they had purchased the aircraft themselves.

Because the Chinese aircraft hadn't arrived yet, the Government then immediately chartered Chat Pacific to continue services til their own machines arrived.

[TheExpatPilot]

Clearly the NZ government is taking action in protecting it's own countries interest in the area, and using this particular aircraft as a scapegoat for it's attacks in the global arena. Let Tonga deal with it's own affairs. They want to start a national airline (again) and do things on their own, then let them... If anything, brand spanking new plane, latest avionics and monster PW127J engines (one of the most reliable), compared to a 50 year old Convair and a DC3? Clearly this is political. Don't be a hatin' the trusty rice burner peeps!

[Metro man]

Taiwan has attempted to bribe small countries into recognising it at the UN, a few 100 000 into the bank account of the president of a tiny island or landlocked desert goes a long way.

Chinese aid is to prevent recognition of Taiwan or to allow them to exploit natural resources, it's not given in the spirit of human fellowship.:rolleyes:

[John Hill]

Neither is the NZ government's actions prompted by concerns for the safety of the travelling public.

[27/09]

I wonder if Mr McCully knows he's spouting untruths or at least is being very economical with the truth. I wonder who is advising him.

Plenty of accidents, Yes.

Not certified in New Zealand, Yes.

The accidents are not related in any way to the certification or lack there of which is what is being suggested. While some might argue he has stuck to the "facts" these "facts" have been presented in such a way as to mislead the public.

The MA60 isn't certified in NZ for one simple reason, no one is using them in New Zealand.

The 787 hasn't exactly covered it self in glory and isn't certified in NZ, yet we're not hearing warnings about travelling with China Southern when they start bringing the 787 here in a couple of months.

The R22 has a poor accident record too but you don't hear anyone trying to correlate the accident record to its certification.

[Wingman09]

Think some of you guys missing the point why the travel warning has been issued.

I think the Swiss cheese is aligning for an accident with this machine in Tonga. Real Tonga is a mirror image of all the operators who have had accidents with these aircraft. Metro Man hit the nail on the head. These guys have no senior people, no check and training pilots, no chief pilot. They have a couple of Y-12 drivers that were flying Air Van's machine, that thing nearly stacked it a couple times in its short time in Tonga. Full load of white people on board going on holiday little did they no old capt silver back has nearly killed them less than 2 minutes into the flight.

The majority of Tourists traveling to Tonga are Kiwis and Aussies, i think they deserve to know the risks involved. At least with Chathams Pacific they were operating to the rules and regulations, had experienced crew and engineers. The convair and Dc3 i think have proven themselves a bit better than the MA60. These Real Tongan guys have just fired this thing up and puting fare paying pax on it.

[27/09]

Think some of you guys missing the point why the travel warning has been issued.

Not missing the point at all.

The warning was based around the aircraft having bad record and not being certified in NZ, the inference being the aircraft wasn't safe.

There was no mention of any deficiencies in the crewing of the aircraft, which is the real reason. Why didn't the warning give the real reason?

[27/09]

Wingman09They have a couple of Y-12 drivers that were flying Air Van's machine, that thing nearly stacked it a couple times in its short time in Tonga. Full load of white people on board going on holiday little did they no old capt silver back has nearly killed them less than 2 minutes into the flight.

Perhaps you might like to expand on this some more.

[Wingman09]

27/09

Im sure the NZ & Aussie High commissioners will be well aware of whats going on over there. Anyhow you just hope that its not a case of i told ya so later on down the track.

Regards the Y-12 that paticular example - Using half the grass cross vector at Fua'amotu takeoff with a full load and a tailwind to rotate with meters to spare then waffle out over the trees looking like its about to drop a wing a number of times. Then to spend 5 minutes doing a 180 degree turn to head back the opposite way he took off, all in the name of being too lazy or stupid or poorly trained to spend an extra 2 minutes to back track or taxi for the main runway.