HF,
Don't knock something you haven't tried - besides it was legal outside the 12 mile limit!
AC,
Haven't heard from you for a while - thought they must have done away with your airwing!
GAGS
E86

Yeah, E86, still got a job!

Defence procurement has stood on their d1cks before this when buying helicopters.

1960s, buying Iroquois from the US. Machine comes fitted with ADF and Tacan. Oz intellectuals decide that because Oz is so big and there were only 8 Tacan stations in the whole country at the time, that the choppers wouldn't be able to use it anyway, being out of range. So, having already paid for the Tacan set, they then paid more to have them taken out. Oops, a cg problem arising. No worries, just bolt a slab of lead in the battery bay to make up for it. Fortunately, they left the rest of the aircraft as per the manufacturer, so it is still around today.

1970s, buying the Chinooks. Early teething problems with engines meant that engineless hulls were scattered around Amberley, making the place look like a caravan park. Sell the 12 C models, buy 6 D models, halving the operational capacity. Doesn't save money, though, because the Ds were more than twice the cost of the Cs.

1970s/1980s, looking for a training helo replacement for the grounded B model Hueys. Decide on the AS350 Squirrel, but insist on getting a throttle twist grip - unique in the world. Pay buckets to get it invented and certified, pay more for the fixes needed when the system kept fouling up.

1980s, buying Blackhawks. Remembering that Oz is a big country, insist on getting the wings with fuel tanks. Use them almost continuously, then notice the cracks in the wings. Contact the makers - "Oh, they are just for transit flights, not for continuous use." Or words to that effect.

It is hard to think of a project that hasn't been fouled up by putting unique requirements on Oz aircraft instead of buying it off the shelf, or by not allowing for the extreme climatic environment. Maybe the Caribou was one project we didn't interfere with too much, and it is still going strong.

ascend charlie,

i am glad they got the bugs out of the squirell throttle as i got to fly a couple of machines with it and it had some good points.

those machines were a steal when they went on the public market. the taxpayer took a bath when the government got rid of them.:=

This probably sums up the Seasprite debacle
 

Clarke, Dawe and defence

Reporter:

KERRY O'BRIEN: Time now for John Clarke and Bryan Dawe on a day in the life of a defence minister.

(John Clarke plays Brendan Nelson and Bryan Dawe plays the interviewer)

INTERVIEWER: Brendan Nelson, thank you for your time.

BRENDAN NELSON: Good evening, Bryan. A great pleasure to be with you.

INTERVIEWER: Minister, can you explain this business with the Sea sprite helicopters?

BRENDAN NELSON: Certainly I can, Bryan. Obviously you're aware of what a helicopter is?

INTERVIEWER: Yes, it flies vertically.

BRENDAN NELSON: Well, no, these are Sea sprites.

INTERVIEWER: It has a propeller up there?

BRENDAN NELSON: It has a propeller, Bryan, but the Sea sprites are not used for flying.

INTERVIEWER: They don't fly?

BRENDAN NELSON: Well...

INTERVIEWER: I mean, I thought a helicopter was a kind of plane?

BRENDAN NELSON: We're talking about Sea... You want to ask about helicopters, Bryan, or the ones we bought?

INTERVIEWER: The ones we bought. Didn't we buy $1 billion worth of Sea sprite helicopters?

BRENDAN NELSON: No, we didn't do that, Bryan.

INTERVIEWER: It says here we paid $1 billion, minister, for Sea sprite helicopters.

BRENDAN NELSON: Yeah, we did that. I see, Bryan, there's your mistake. You're confusing what we paid for something with its actual value.

INTERVIEWER: What are you saying - they're not worth $1 billion?

BRENDAN NELSON: Bryan, can I just point out at this point I wasn't in the job at the time the purchase went through.

INTERVIEWER: Minister, that's not the point. My question to you was, did these helicopters cost us $1 billion?

BRENDAN NELSON: Yes, they did, they did cost us $1 billion.

INTERVIEWER: Well, my next remark is, why aren't they still worth $1 billion?

BRENDAN NELSON: Well, I don't know what they're worth, Bryan. They might be worth $1 billion. Metal prices are going through the roof.

INTERVIEWER: Metal prices?

BRENDAN NELSON: Yeah, huge demand for metal out of China and India mainly, as I understand it. I don't know what they're worth - they could be worth $1 billion.

INTERVIEWER: What is the matter with the helicopters?

BRENDAN NELSON: There's nothing the matter with the helicopters at all, Bryan. I mean, provided you don't try and fly them I reckon they're probably as safe as a church.

INTERVIEWER: Are they new?

BRENDAN NELSON: No, they're not new, but it was apparently a very sound purchase, Bryan. They'd been used only for light tasks, they'd only been driven a tiny bit.

INTERVIEWER: What, to the shops or something?

BRENDAN NELSON: To the shops, on a Sunday.

INTERVIEWER: Little jobs?

BRENDAN NELSON: Light work, light work, yeah.

INTERVIEWER: Where did we get them from?

BRENDAN NELSON: We bought them on eBay, Bryan.

INTERVIEWER: eBay?

BRENDAN NELSON: That's apparently where the ordinance experts are selling stuff and we were quietly confident.

INTERVIEWER: What are they for?

BRENDAN NELSON: Well, they are part of Australia's burgeoning defence capability, Bryan.

INTERVIEWER: On the ground?

BRENDAN NELSON: As it happens, they are used for patrolling the hangars they're stored in.

INTERVIEWER: They keep that hangar safe?

BRENDAN NELSON: They do. You'd have to be an absolute idiot to go in there and try and nick one of those, Bryan.

INTERVIEWER: Why is that?

BRENDAN NELSON: Well, they don't fly. Only a moron would want one, Bryan.

INTERVIEWER: So they're useless, Minister?

BRENDAN NELSON: No, no, I wouldn't say they're useless, Bryan.

INTERVIEWER: They're just not helicopters?

BRENDAN NELSON: That's right, they're just not helicopters.

INTERVIEWER: Well, we might find some other use for them, I assume?

BRENDAN NELSON: We're going to have to, Bryan, we can't put them in the air.

INTERVIEWER: Like what?

BRENDAN NELSON: I mean, let's think about this rationally. Plenty of uses I can think of. You're reading a newspaper on a very windy day for example, the pages keep blowing away.

INTERVIEWER: What, hold them down with a helicopter?

BRENDAN NELSON: Chopper them on the corner, just chopper them lightly, the page will stay where it is, you'll be able to finish the Sudoku. Plenty of tasks. I can think of lots. Have you got a boat? You'll need a mooring.

INTERVIEWER: What, a Sea sprite?

BRENDAN NELSON: Extra reliability in a Sea sprite.

INTERVIEWER: Thanks for your time.

Buy one we'll give you one free, Bryan. Call now, get yourself a Sea sprite, we've got tonnes of them.


http://http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/co...6/s1642114.htm

I think that the twist grip throttle should have been standard right from the first AS350, you have an engine that has an emergency overide for the FCU so in the event of a governing failure you take it out of the flight detent and corellate it manually. Has to be a lot easier than swapping one hand from the collective to the throttle. The only trap with the twist grip is if the system is not rigged correctly, the pilot on the LHS can easily set the twist grip in the flight detent but the FCU goes into the low side of the manual control. That design fault and not being able to quickly remove / install the duals can only be blamed on the aeronautical engineers who were given the job of designing or approving it.

http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200605/r86622_255112.asx
Video link to the above 'tongue in cheek' interview, sadly, almost accurate.

Squirrel twistgrip
 

Apart from the obvious training exercises, has anyone had, or does anyone know of a Squirrel governor failure that required the use of the apparently expensive twistgrip?

STL

7.30 Report also had an item a few days ago about $1billion worth of ammunition being declared "unservicable". Not much bang for the buck there then. Angus looked as though he might have been seriously considering retirement or applying for another job when being grilled about the disc in the QANTAS lounge computer. Have to feel sorry for the man. As for sprite, isnt that a drink?

"we bought them on ebay..." - great !

Angus has unfairly taken a bath on the Kovco issue. It's not as if the problems that happened are systemic. I have it on good authority that the repatriation did not follow standing SOPs which were bullet-proof, and someone leaving a CD in a computer, well, that's just a case of $hit happens...nothing more.

I'd love to get my hands on the w@nker who found the CD and then handed it to the human headline, Derryn Hinch! Not only did it cause grief for DEFMIN and CDF, but also for the Kovco family.

As for the Seapsprites...we should tell Kaman to get the things right or we'll ditch them, won't pay another cent, and get something else. It's not like the budget surplus can't cover it and was going to be spent on anything worthwhile anyway (man, I'm getting cynical in my old age!). Anyway, whether we have a legal case or not, it's now in Kaman's interest to get them right and, judging by their media statements in the past couple of days, they seem to think they're this [thumb and forefinger held about 2cm apart] close to it.

In the meantime, file the Seasprite debacle away in the 'what NOT to do next time' draw, and get on with life!

Magoo

Eagle 86,

I guess the UH-1N's the USN and USMC operate out of sight of land don't count?

Or perhaps all the 205's, 212/412's that have operated to seismic survey boats either?

SASless
Personal dig at HF - nothing more.
GAGS
E86

The AS350's were bought as a training helo in the early 80's to replace the UH1-B's, the AS 350 was selected to apease the french as the RAAF was about to choose the F/A 18 to replace the Mirage 111 and the Blackhawk to replace the UH1-H, with no french a/c being chosen the french said if we didn't buy something off them spares parts supply for the remaining years of the Mirage would be a problem!!!!, (sound familiar with french company's!!), so the AS350 was chosen (I was told the RAAF wanted MD500E's, training ,spec ops etc ie: Little birds). So the AS350 was modified to suit the Australian requirement, the twist grip , was designed by a RAAF Engineer to be incorperated onto the AS350 as the UH1-H was still the primary utility Helo in Australian and as it had a twistgrip as well the B206B-1 Kiowa it was easier to train a pilot to suit several types in emergency procedures , the twist grip was then patended by the french (the RAAF forgot to!!!) and was used as the throttle design in latter AS350's (if you see a twist grip from a AS350 B3 in pieces its a very close copy of the Australian designed one in the old ex RAAF machines).
The stories with ineptitude and interferiance in Australian helicopter selection criteria you could fill a book with,
eg, useless sideways facing seating in the Blackhawks, only Blackhawks in world with that seating -makes getting to injured pilots hard as pilots seats will not drop right back, guns will not swing in as they hit gunners seat, no access to cargo hook in cabin, and all this for $1 M extra per a/c for development , design and manufacture , UH60's don't have these problems, the S70A-9 was the forerunner of the UH60-L as the A-9 was the first to run the -701A engine and uprated Xmissn, all at Australias cost for the R&D.
I was on Blackhawks from day one , when we wanted to get rid of the sideways seating and replace with fore/aft UH60 seating we were told no as to much time and money had been spent on them despite the fact the sideways facing seating degrades the operational capabilities of the A/C (if you see a S70 A-9 now they run a mix of both seats but they will never get full UH60 setup. We had 5 of the first 6 a/c delivered to Amberly in the late 80's fitted with UH60 seats before being told to revert back to the inadequate side seats.)

B9,
Re the choice of AS350 to replace UH-1B - you talk crap son - myself and an Air Force Squadron Leader were hauled before a high level RAAF/RAN committee to fend off a late bid by Bell with Kiowas to replace the Huey - 500's were never in the hunt - AS 350 was a mile in front! Having done two out of three tours at 5 Sqn and ADF Helo School instructing on AS350 there is yet to be produced a better basic trainer (except for the UH1B!).
GAGS
E86

E86
The tale of the AS350 selection was a story I heard at 5 in the early 80's and also from guys in the fighter world at willitown.
And true the AS350 was a good trainer, if too easy to fly, when pilots going onto the Huey and Kiowa had to relearn to fly 2 bladed/underpowered machines, I always believed pilots who learned on the B model then went to H models then Blackhawks etc had much less difficulty flying and flew the aircraft better (not the auto pilot) than pilots who went from AS350 to Blackhawk then the Huey's or 206's.

B9,
Mate, not to belabour a point - but I learnt to fly on a TH13M/H34 then went on to fly:
uh1b/d/h
wessex
sk50
kiowa
as350
ww7/9
as355
sa365c/n
jet/long ranger
a119/109
Never had to really unlearn anything nor, in my experience, did any of the studs I taught to fly machines after they'd learnt on the uh1b or as350.
gags
E86

Eagle 86 said "Never had to really unlearn anything nor, in my experience, did any of the studs I taught to fly machines after they'd learnt on the uh1b or as350."

Probably because of the superb training you gave us, 86.

UNLEARN training? Urban myth. You step into a different helo, and the checks for that particular type slot into their respective brain cells, and away you go. Unless you are flying 5 different types in a day, not a problem. In one day, I strap on an S76, a UH-1H, and a B47 and back into the 76 and there is never any mental conflict with types or techniques or critical speeds or such.

Only time I almost made a mistake between types was going from a Chieftain to a Baron - cockpits almost identical, but the flaps and gear levers were interposed. Went to raise the flaps of the Baron after landing, and stopped when the feel of the round wheel-thing on the lever wasn't the same as the square thing on the flap lever. But that's planky stuff...:yuk:

B9 said:What makes you believe this thesis B9?

As for the collective mounted throttle (of which I am a big fan), it is of most benefit when there is a decent arc between idle and fully open - as per the Huey 212 and 412. Having a tiny arc such as the Aussie mil AS350, the B206 and the EC120 is good, but misses the full potential of the system by being too sensitive to easliy play with in emergency scenarios.

SASless, personal digs aside, the US forces hardly operated the UH-1 series off "small boats". A marinized, large shoal aircraft they aint.

And can you imagine trying to overcome the urges aroused by finding a small boat full of bearded rivet examiners pass through your gunsight when returning for the day?
No, E86 is right. We couldn't hack it for a day. The toss up between having to ditch at sea with no fuel versus letting such a rich and irresistable target go unmolested would send any Huey gunship crew crazy in the first week.
:8

Always remember - there is nothing safer than a parked aircraft! :8

Kaman Issues Statement Regarding Its Australian SH-2GA Helicopter Program

(Space Daily Via Thomson Dialog NewsEdge)Kaman has issued a statement regarding its Australian SH-2G(A) helicopter program. Over the past several years, the company has reported extensively on its SH-2G(A) helicopter program for the Royal Australian Navy (RAN), a USD 611 million fixed-price contract for 11 aircraft featuring a new technology- advancing Integrated Tactical Avionics System (ITAS).

While the basic aircraft have been completed for several years and nine have been provisionally accepted by the Commonwealth, they have lacked the full ITAS system. The company has reported on the substantial charges it has taken to provide the funding to complete the program, and has reported its progress toward the ITAS completion in its quarterly releases and public filings.

Kaman has been working closely with the RAN and believes the program is close to completion. In May 2006, the company finished the last of approximately 400 pre-qualification software tests of the ITAS software, and is in preparation for the final qualification testing to be witnessed by the Commonwealth. This process is expected to be followed by acceptance of the fully capable helicopters.

In its press release of May 2, 2006, the company reported that the Royal Australian Navy had encountered an anomalous flight condition on one of its training aircraft that was attributed to the aircraft's airspeed sensor. This anomaly, involving a small component from a supplier, is not impacting the development process for the ITAS. The company also reported that the Australian Navy's Operations Airworthiness Authority had suspended flying operations pending resolution and that final acceptance of the aircraft would not occur until the issue had been resolved. The company believes that it has determined the cause of the anomaly and has a plan for resolution of the issue.

Paul Kuhn, Chairman, President and CEO said, "Early this week, articles appeared in the Australian media that are critical of the program. At least one article questioned the safety of the aircraft. In fact, there is a significant history of safe operations for this aircraft type with the U.S. Navy and currently with several other naval services including the Royal New Zealand Navy. We are confident that the same will be the case for the Australian aircraft, and believe that working through the remaining technical issues is the most timely and cost-effective route to fulfilling the RAN's mission requirements. We look forward to the introduction of the fully- capable SH-2G(A) helicopters into service with the Royal Australian Navy.

Apples vs Lemons
 

Paul Kuhn, Chairman, President and CEO said, "... In fact, there is a significant history of safe operations for this aircraft type with the U.S. Navy and currently with several other naval services including the Royal New Zealand Navy."

Now that's just plain naughty. The USN, RNZN (and Egyptian & Polish) SH-2s are distinctly different machines to the SH-2G(A). :=

Among other things, the SH-2G(A) has a digital flight stabalisation system where all the others were analogue ie. software has a significantly greater flight critical role.

Happy with drawing the 'rich heritage' bow, provided significant differences are given their due weight.