MRH-90 crash Australia
Hmmm?
Any significant findings from the investigation would have been shared with the Kiwis.
The Aust MRHs were grounded for ‘airworthiness issues’ yet the Kiwis returned to flying fairly quickly.
So what’s different between the Aust and Kiwi MRH?
I heard the Kiwis don’t use Topowl. Can anyone confirm this?
Considering the crash occurred at night you have to wonder if there is any link.
Any significant findings from the investigation would have been shared with the Kiwis.
The Aust MRHs were grounded for ‘airworthiness issues’ yet the Kiwis returned to flying fairly quickly.
So what’s different between the Aust and Kiwi MRH?
I heard the Kiwis don’t use Topowl. Can anyone confirm this?
Considering the crash occurred at night you have to wonder if there is any link.
Hmmm?
Any significant findings from the investigation would have been shared with the Kiwis.
The Aust MRHs were grounded for ‘airworthiness issues’ yet the Kiwis returned to flying fairly quickly.
So what’s different between the Aust and Kiwi MRH?
I heard the Kiwis don’t use Topowl. Can anyone confirm this?
Considering the crash occurred at night you have to wonder if there is any link.
Any significant findings from the investigation would have been shared with the Kiwis.
The Aust MRHs were grounded for ‘airworthiness issues’ yet the Kiwis returned to flying fairly quickly.
So what’s different between the Aust and Kiwi MRH?
I heard the Kiwis don’t use Topowl. Can anyone confirm this?
Considering the crash occurred at night you have to wonder if there is any link.
There has never been a single peep of concern raised in the mainstream NZ media, or in the forums I frequent, about the availability or reliability of the RNZAF MH-90s.
There's certainly been no hint whatsoever of safety concerns.
You've got to wonder what is actually going on in Australia, presumably at the ADF senior leadership and/or political level.
Thread Starter
Question is what are kiwis doing that everyone else isn't. The issues are worldwide Norway, Sweden, australia have all axed them. Even germany and france (who are part owners of airbus) there has been public questions about their reliability / safety. Its probably a moot question now as people are ditching the aircraft
Post crash a statement was issued that the MRH was airworthy.
Investigation takes place which is reported as being more secretive than normal.
MRH grounded because of known airworthiness issues.
What did the investigation uncover? Beginning to look like it might be a question of how airworthiness was managed. Or maybe my tinfoil hat is one size too small.
Question is what are kiwis doing that everyone else isn't. The issues are worldwide Norway, Sweden, australia have all axed them. Even germany and france (who are part owners of airbus) there has been public questions about their reliability / safety. Its probably a moot question now as people are ditching the aircraft
https://www.aviacionline.com/2023/05...pters-by-2038/
I can't see the NH90 being far behind
https://www.flightglobal.com/defence...147121.article
Germany’s fleets of NH Industries (NHI) NH90s and Airbus Helicopters Tigers are again the subject of stinging criticism for their poor operational availability, with their performance branded as “unsatisfactory”.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,579
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
RAN/Oz ARMY don't have a great track record of buying worthwhile helicopters lately (remember the SeaSprite - gone to RNZN). Anyhoo:
NH Industries stresses NH90 safety despite Australian Taipan cull By Dominic Perry 30 September 2023 "NH Industries (NHI) insists that its NH90 transport helicopter remains safe to fly, despite Australia’s early retirement of the type in the wake of a fatal crash in July...." https://www.flightglobal.com/helicop...155175.article
NH Industries stresses NH90 safety despite Australian Taipan cull By Dominic Perry 30 September 2023 "NH Industries (NHI) insists that its NH90 transport helicopter remains safe to fly, despite Australia’s early retirement of the type in the wake of a fatal crash in July...." https://www.flightglobal.com/helicop...155175.article
Safety? Not at all. About one of the safest type on German and French Roster.
This here smells like a potilical decision. Well, hmm, smelling is probably an understatement.
Reliability/availability (and especially costs): Yes, that is a significant issue with the type. Across almost all users.
Safety? Not at all. About one of the safest type on German and French Roster.
This here smells like a potilical decision. Well, hmm, smelling is probably an understatement.
Safety? Not at all. About one of the safest type on German and French Roster.
This here smells like a potilical decision. Well, hmm, smelling is probably an understatement.
Back on topic: spare parts availability impacts helicopter readiness in (IMO) a more profound way than fixed wing, given that (1) there are more parts and (2) the vibrations and operating environments often find subtle ways to degrade a variety of parts in unique ways...then add in the maritime environment...
Is the problem with the NH-90 rooted in the spare parts flow?
Fair comment 44 years ago and leading up to Mt Erubus. I'd like to think matters have improved. But the official reaction to the accident, falsification of the CVR transcript and systematic cover-up at all levels including government, is still the official line.
I thought Justice Mahon’s inquiry resolved that?
The Privy Council ruled that Mahon had acted 'in breach of natural justice', so the official line remains in conflict with many of his key points. He died in 1986, and his legal fight against the Court of Appeal and Council with him. There's a number of interesting books on the subject, some taking advantage of Mahon's death by making claims he of course cannot reply to. But the most interesting papers are independent assessments of the CVR transcripts, which show beyond any doubt they were doctored.
seeing as you asked…
White Island
Anzac Day 2010 Iroquois
Pike River
A few examples from the Christchurch Eathquakes
A4 Crash in Nowra
day to day driving in NZ….
There is no one I’d want more on my side than an angry Kiwi, but I wouldn’t want to be paying the insurance premiums.
to keep it all on topic, I do not know the decision process behind the Taipan but I suspect a big part of it will be risk management…and wether that has been slow or an over reaction here…..I don’t know
White Island
Anzac Day 2010 Iroquois
Pike River
A few examples from the Christchurch Eathquakes
A4 Crash in Nowra
day to day driving in NZ….
There is no one I’d want more on my side than an angry Kiwi, but I wouldn’t want to be paying the insurance premiums.
to keep it all on topic, I do not know the decision process behind the Taipan but I suspect a big part of it will be risk management…and wether that has been slow or an over reaction here…..I don’t know
Thread Starter
Agree its much the point why bother paying to keep something flying that we are dumping in 12-18 months. I know guys who fly these, haven't talked to them since just a bit after the nowra accident. But even then they were talking about phased wind down and removal from service and pilots starting to notifications of transfers to other airframes
???
You do understand the difference between safety and availability?
The NH90 has a dismal record of availability in almost all Countries where it is used. But it has few accidents and very few of them due to technical issues. The extremely few fatals so far all were for operational causes.
There are good reasons to re- think the usage of NH90 (and several countries are doing so or have doe so) but this permanent grounding for puported safety reasons has some strange odor to it.
You do understand the difference between safety and availability?
The NH90 has a dismal record of availability in almost all Countries where it is used. But it has few accidents and very few of them due to technical issues. The extremely few fatals so far all were for operational causes.
There are good reasons to re- think the usage of NH90 (and several countries are doing so or have doe so) but this permanent grounding for puported safety reasons has some strange odor to it.
What I heard is an unfortunate combination of Flight Hour based maintenance and time based maintenance combined with long waiting times for parts. When the parts finally arrive and are installed the time to the next time based maintenance is almost consumed. Since most Countries which operate the NH90 were not really preparing for war (piece dividend) many operators also reduced their Military Maintenance capacities and Spare Parts stocks, often reliying on the capability of the industry to provide parts when needed. This does not seem to work well at all with the NH90. This is exacerbated by Factory upgrades being done on the fleet also taking long and adding to this schedule trap.
I don't know how the Kiwis do it but having a big pile of Spare Parts on Stock appears to be a good way to improve availabilty and escape the above describe issues.
In general I get the impression the ship was deigned a tad to sophisticated trying to achieve some performance gains over the old trusty ones. It seems to have started from the Special operation requirements (FBW, aerobatics capability, low weight construction, avionics) and deriving the 'bus' from the racecar. This sophistication unfortunately may not have been the best idea for a 'lorry'/'bus'.
I don't know how the Kiwis do it but having a big pile of Spare Parts on Stock appears to be a good way to improve availabilty and escape the above describe issues.
In general I get the impression the ship was deigned a tad to sophisticated trying to achieve some performance gains over the old trusty ones. It seems to have started from the Special operation requirements (FBW, aerobatics capability, low weight construction, avionics) and deriving the 'bus' from the racecar. This sophistication unfortunately may not have been the best idea for a 'lorry'/'bus'.
Last edited by henra; 3rd Oct 2023 at 08:18.
???
You do understand the difference between safety and availability?
The NH90 has a dismal record of availability in almost all Countries where it is used. But it has few accidents and very few of them due to technical issues. The extremely few fatals so far all were for operational causes.
There are good reasons to re- think the usage of NH90 (and several countries are doing so or have doe so) but this permanent grounding for puported safety reasons has some strange odor to it.
You do understand the difference between safety and availability?
The NH90 has a dismal record of availability in almost all Countries where it is used. But it has few accidents and very few of them due to technical issues. The extremely few fatals so far all were for operational causes.
There are good reasons to re- think the usage of NH90 (and several countries are doing so or have doe so) but this permanent grounding for puported safety reasons has some strange odor to it.