Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

More KC-46A woes....

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

More KC-46A woes....

Old 15th Sep 2019, 22:24
  #961 (permalink)  
c52
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,198
“We stand ready to implement any actions as quickly as possible,” Boeing said. “The safety of the KC-46 aircraft and crew is our top priority.”
As a potential future passenger I'm a bit worried that getting the 737max right is no longer Boeing's top priority.
c52 is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2019, 23:34
  #962 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: aus
Posts: 39
Originally Posted by tdracer View Post
All KC-46s are built in Everett, so that pretty much blows that argument (both major assembly and tanker conversion work). I don't believe there is any meaningful KC-46 content from NC.
KC-46's are a 767 based airplanes, charlotte only building 787. When a major airline refuses to accept planes built by a specific plant then I think thats an indicator that something is not quite right

https://www.scmp.com/news/world/unit...north-carolina
rattman is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2019, 04:52
  #963 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 845
Originally Posted by Mk 1 View Post
Seems to be working pretty well here in Australia.
Lets not forget history.
The A330MRTT was a disaster zone for the first few years. Was on the Projects of Concern.
The boom was lost on 2 occasions. There as a couple of years delay in deliveries, and then more problems.
Airbus worked through these and now the aircraft is reportedly performing well.
This all sounds similar to what the KC-46 is going through now. There seems no doubt Boeing will do what Airbus did, and eventually work the problems out.

Last edited by rjtjrt; 16th Sep 2019 at 05:12.
rjtjrt is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2019, 11:09
  #964 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Southampton
Posts: 664
Originally Posted by rjtjrt View Post
This all sounds similar to what the KC-46 is going through now. There seems no doubt Boeing will do what Airbus did, and eventually work the problems out.
Similar?

I think not.

Yes, Boeing will eventually sort out the problems, but not before they spend an awful lot of money doing so.

Airbus was never in that position.
Saintsman is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2019, 11:22
  #965 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: wales
Posts: 446
Cargo restraint issue isn't really a major Boeing design problem , don't know actual detail but normally customer specified as there are lots of different options on cargo systems. So guessing its something new that was not in use before so finding the problems now . Anyone have any info on which company supplies it ?
bvcu is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2019, 12:45
  #966 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 845
Originally Posted by Saintsman View Post
Similar?

I think not.

Yes, Boeing will eventually sort out the problems, but not before they spend an awful lot of money doing so.

Airbus was never in that position.
Please enlighten us with the way it is dissimilar.
rjtjrt is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2019, 13:15
  #967 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: England
Posts: 0
Originally Posted by rjtjrt View Post

Please enlighten us with the way it is dissimilar.
there have been two significant incidents for the A330MRTT: (from wiki)

1) On 19 January 2011, an air refuelling accident occurred between a boom equipped A330 MRTT and a Portuguese Air Force F-16 over the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Portugal. Early reports indicate that the boom broke off at the aft end of the boom near the F-16's receptacle which caused the boom to recoil into the underside of the A330 MRTT. The boom then became uncontrollable and oscillated until it broke off the boom assembly at the pivot point. Both aircraft were damaged, but landed safely. The A330 MRTT involved was an Airbus test aircraft destined for the RAAF; the air arm issued a statement that the aircraft was operated by an Airbus crew with no Australian personnel on board. At the time of the incident, Airbus had not begun deliveries.

2: On 10 September 2012 at approximately 19:30 (CEST), an A330 MRTT's refuelling boom became detached in flight at an altitude of 27,000 ft in Spanish airspace. The boom separated cleanly at a mechanical joint and fell to the ground, while the aircraft landed safely in Getafe. There were no injuries caused by the malfunction. The incident was the result of a conflict between the backup boom hoist (fitted to the UAE-destined A330 MRTTs) and the primary boom retraction mechanism, and was attributable to the testing being conducted. Airbus later explained that the malfunction was not possible under ordinary operating conditions, and that procedures had been designed to avoid similar incidents in the future. Following the incident, INTA, the Spanish regulatory authority, issued precautionary restrictions to other users of boom-equipped A330s.

So, the first was part of the development and testing of the platform, the second was again, an Airbus test of new customer requested system see full report here

In neither of these incidents were the aircraft in customer hands.

Last edited by Scuffers; 16th Sep 2019 at 13:28.
Scuffers is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2019, 15:18
  #968 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Here
Posts: 1,213
In reality this is only going to cost Boeing $$$$$ - I don't see them cancelling KC-46, and it's probably still the only candidate for KC-Y
Davef68 is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2019, 15:45
  #969 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: London
Posts: 295
Originally Posted by Davef68 View Post
In reality this is only going to cost Boeing $$$$$ - I don't see them cancelling KC-46, and it's probably still the only candidate for KC-Y

Airbus and LM bidding together for KC-Y
Mil-26Man is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2019, 16:01
  #970 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Southampton
Posts: 664
Originally Posted by rjtjrt View Post

Please enlighten us with the way it is dissimilar.
Whist there were a few issues with the Airbus, a quick check of Wiki will show all the issues associated with the design and delays of the KC-46. The A330 MRTT entry is somewhat shorter...

Saintsman is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2019, 20:42
  #971 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: The Alps
Posts: 2,075
Originally Posted by Mil-26Man View Post
Airbus and LM bidding together for KC-Y
Not quite look at my post #942 its more for contracting out tanking services simialr to what Omega does. Also speaking to Travis crews at both J-B Andrews and Fairford few months back, they siad KC-10 will not be extinct / on the chopping block once Pegasus starts replacing the 135. Might be way down the line

cheers

https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/pres...-air-show.html
chopper2004 is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2019, 22:43
  #972 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 15,984
The U.S. Air Force has identified a potential new design flaw with the KC-46A tanker and banned the fleet from carrying cargo or passengers until a solution is found and delivered. Multiple cargo locks embedded in the floor of the aircraft released inadvertently during a recent operational test and evaluation flight, according to a statement by Air Mobility Command (AMC). Air Force and Boeing officials are working to identify a solution to the problem, AMC says.
https://aviationweek.com/defense/usa...46-design-flaw
NutLoose is online now  
Old 18th Sep 2019, 12:29
  #973 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Just behind the back of beyond....
Posts: 3,923



Even the test team seem to be aware of the Frankentanker nature of the KC-46
Jackonicko is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2019, 14:32
  #974 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Northumberland
Posts: 4,403
Originally Posted by bvcu View Post
Cargo restraint issue isn't really a major Boeing design problem , don't know actual detail but normally customer specified as there are lots of different options on cargo systems. So guessing its something new that was not in use before so finding the problems now . Anyone have any info on which company supplies it ?
From Flight Global:

The company believes the cargo restraints, manufactured by Ancara Cargo, are well made and designed, but interact in an unexpected way with the track on the aircraft deck. It is considering a secondary lock to hold the first lock in place, but it is concerned an additional mechanism might slow loading and unloading speeds. Each pallet is clamped to the cargo floor via four restraints – one on each side.
From the same article:
As Boeing looks for a solution to the KC-46As cargo lock problem, General Arnold Bunch, commander of the US Air Force Materiel Command, says the last tanker the service received was free of foreign object debris (FOD). The service previously criticized the company’s “culture” for allowing aircraft to be delivered with tools, rubbish and left-over parts such as loose nuts inside the airframe.

Boeing KC-46A programme director James Burgess says culture issues stemmed from letting its best practices lapse, such as requiring tool check in and check out. “We've made a bunch of improvements in terms of our procedures, training, adherence to existing procedures,” he says. “We've really put an emphasis all the way through the production system around cleaning as you go.”
Boeing eyes KC-46A cargo fix as FOD issue dissipates
SWBKCB is online now  
Old 18th Sep 2019, 15:07
  #975 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Greater Aldergrove
Age: 48
Posts: 780
"Boeing KC-46A programme director James Burgess says culture issues stemmed from letting its best practices lapse, such as requiring tool check in and check out. “We've made a bunch of improvements in terms of our procedures, training, adherence to existing procedures,” he says. “We've really put an emphasis all the way through the production system around cleaning as you go.”

Hopefully a sign that Boeing is taking it's culture issues seriously...good culture costs money, but they're finding that bad culture costs even more!
NWSRG is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2019, 19:34
  #976 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Scotland
Age: 49
Posts: 147
"letting its best practices lapse, such as requiring tool check in and check out"

Such fundamental issues really are scraping far, far below the bottom of the barrel - for an aircraft manufacturer this is just beyond bizarre......
Thrust Augmentation is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2019, 21:37
  #977 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: West Country
Posts: 10
But he says they made a 'bunch' of improvements. Not a very precise term I suggest.
Blossy is offline  
Old 19th Sep 2019, 17:37
  #978 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,012
https://www.defensenews.com/digital-...ress-on-kc-46/

AMC commander: Boeing has not made progress on KC-46

ORAC is online now  
Old 20th Sep 2019, 09:47
  #979 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Here
Posts: 1,213
I wonder how they check for FOD in inaccessible areas? Xray? Test fly it, bunt and listen for the rattle?
Davef68 is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2019, 20:48
  #980 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: leftcoast
Posts: 2
and now we have

Air Force Says It Will Be Years Before Boeing's Faulty New Tankers Are Fully Operational

Problems with the boom operator's vision system and the boom itself persist and a recently disclosed issue prevents the aircraft from carrying cargo.
By Joseph Trevithick September 19, 2019
The U.S. Air Force has admitted that it will not be able to deploy its new KC-46A Pegasus aerial refueling tankers on operational missions for at least another three to four years, due to persistent technical and quality control problems. This comes as the service continues to take delivery of the aircraft, which have hundreds of issues still left to fix, and that appear to have extremely limited utility in the interim. The mounting delays could have cascading impacts on its plans to retire older KC-135 and KC-10 tankers in the coming years.
Grebe is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.