Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

German Chancellor's A-340 Diverts to CGN enroute G-20

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

German Chancellor's A-340 Diverts to CGN enroute G-20

Old 1st Dec 2018, 04:38
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: what U.S. calls ´old Europe´
Posts: 934
the failed box is called "transformer rectifier unit".
The Geram joke about this device called "Gleichrichter", is "gleich riecht er", meaning soon it will start to smell (burned...)
These devices are from the stone age of solid state technology and not known for their superior reliability. Anyway such a failure should not kill all communication busses.
I wonder how much additional electric load all the additional governmental communication devices put on those busses.

around the Wolfsburg/Hannover area.
They were probably asking LBA for assistance...

I thought Airbus fitted a RAT in order to solve the electrics
When using the RAT you are no longer meeting the noise regulations
Not a solution to cross the pond.
Volume is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2018, 05:09
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: btw SAMAR and TOSPA
Posts: 565
TRU

Can somebody tell how a single TRU failure can wipe out all comms and fuel dumping? Why couldn't they shed loads and switch between busses? What's wrong with this design?
threemiles is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2018, 06:29
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: France
Age: 52
Posts: 58
Originally Posted by threemiles View Post
Can somebody tell how a single TRU failure can wipe out all comms and fuel dumping? Why couldn't they shed loads and switch between busses? What's wrong with this design?
A single TRU failure would not result in loss of all comms. Please don’t believe all theories from PPRuNe “experts”.
Big Bad D is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2018, 17:30
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: It used to be an island...
Posts: 225
Originally Posted by judebrad View Post
Not exactly the greenest of airliners, you would have thought they would have had some A330's in the fleet.
Assuming you want this aircraft ready to go with the VIP traffic when you want it at fairly short notice, utilisation is going to be low. So is it greener to burn a bit more fuel on the occasional trip in this aircraft, or to use a lot of energy making a new aircraft that sits around doing nothing much of the time? Not to say the difference between cap-ex and op-ex, where if the buyer (in this case the government) has to put up the capital cost of a new aircraft when they buy it, they loose the opportunity to do something else with that money - maybe even something "Green".

They won't "borrow money to buy it", finance or similar, the Germans think borrowing money is wrong. Cost of a new aircraft on lease might well be higher than cost of purchase of an old one and operating costs for the low utilisation.

It's not always greener on the other side.
nicolai is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2018, 18:07
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 86
Originally Posted by Big Bad D View Post
A single TRU failure would not result in loss of all comms. Please don’t believe all theories from PPRuNe “experts”.
So what does result in the loss of all comms, plus fuel dumping for good measure? And what else would they have lost on top of this, which wasn't reported?
Joe_K is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2018, 21:26
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Isla Grande
Posts: 918
Originally Posted by Joe_K View Post
So what does result in the loss of all comms, plus fuel dumping for good measure? And what else would they have lost on top of this, which wasn't reported?
A340 is more than 25 years ago for me, so I can only guess.

DC BUS failure?
gearlever is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2018, 23:38
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: EU
Posts: 610
I wonder if an ad-hoc operator could ever meet ETOPS requirements and so is more or less bound to use 3 or 4 engined aircraft if they want to fly point to point in oceanic and remote continental airspace..
golfyankeesierra is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2018, 23:43
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: EU
Posts: 610
Originally Posted by gearlever View Post
A340 is more than 25 years ago for me, so I can only guess.

DC BUS failure?
you are probably unaware of what a TR unit does
golfyankeesierra is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2018, 01:26
  #49 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,669
Originally Posted by golfyankeesierra View Post
I wonder if an ad-hoc operator could ever meet ETOPS requirements and so is more or less bound to use 3 or 4 engined aircraft if they want to fly point to point in oceanic and remote continental airspace..
I don't believe military passenger aircraft are required to meet civil ETOPS requirements. Twins like Gulfstreams, 737's and DC-9's have been used across the pond for VIP transport for many years in the U.S. Many countries, e.g. Canada and the UK, use twins to take their heads of state overseas on oceanic routes.
Airbubba is online now  
Old 2nd Dec 2018, 20:04
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Home
Posts: 934
Originally Posted by Airbubba View Post
I don't believe military passenger aircraft are required to meet civil ETOPS requirements. Twins like Gulfstreams, 737's and DC-9's have been used across the pond for VIP transport for many years in the U.S. Many countries, e.g. Canada and the UK, use twins to take their heads of state overseas on oceanic routes.

Perhaps in the spirit of Brexit we can loan her Mrs Mays nearly new RAF A330 VIP Voyager! Just back from on time trip to Argentina.
cessnapete is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2018, 20:25
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: EU
Posts: 610
I have no idea what regulations apply for military pax twin ops but I don’t think UK-AUS would require ETOPS, nor UK-Canada which would be approximately along blue spruce route.
golfyankeesierra is offline  
Old 3rd Dec 2018, 01:31
  #52 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,669
Originally Posted by golfyankeesierra View Post
I have no idea what regulations apply for military pax twin ops but I don’t think UK-AUS would require ETOPS, nor UK-Canada which would be approximately along blue spruce route.
Maybe there is a way to island hop and all like that but they definitely don't normally do it with the VIP twins from what I see.

Here's Teresa May's route home from the G-20 conference in her rented Airbus A330 tanker ZZ336:


https://www.radarbox24.com/data/regi...336#1089433533

The French president departed EZE in a twin as well, F-RARF, another A330.

Airbubba is online now  
Old 3rd Dec 2018, 05:37
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Home
Posts: 934
The 14 RAF A330 Voyager Tanker/ Transports, are owned by Air Tanker a civilian Company, and leased to the Military. Some are also on Lease to UK airlines (Thomas Cook and Jet2) and are able to be reconfigured as Tankers at relativity short notice if required. They are ETOPs approved at build. So no problems with routings when the VIP configured aircraft is used, for example, direct UK Argentina.
cessnapete is offline  
Old 3rd Dec 2018, 20:27
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Germany
Age: 42
Posts: 112
Originally Posted by BRE View Post
Then why continue out to the sea? Were they hoping to dump only to discover that the pumps were also done in?
Just imagine sitting at the front end, levelling off at FL300, and discovering that no one is talking to you. Maybe a couple of warnings ringing at you. How long would you think it would take to find out the satphone is working? And then: who will you call? And after you might have found a number: the guy on the other side will have to find someone who can help you. The one who can help you might not be the one who owns the airspace you´re currently in. There might be other traffic around you in busy airspace. All while travelling eight miles a minute. Might not have been such a bad job by everyone.
eagleflyer is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2018, 03:10
  #55 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,669
Here's a lead for Germany on a late model VIP aircraft for sale, you can see it on the ground in VCV.


The presidential aircraft was put on sale by Andrés Manuel López Obrador, near the end of his first day as president of Mexico.

The Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner TP-01 “José María Morelos y Pavón” of the Fuerza Aèrea Mexicana, was put on sale by the new President of Mexico, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, at the Benito Juárez International Airport in Mexico City, Mexico.

On Sunday, Dec. 2, Carlos Urzua, the new Minister of Finance, called a press conference in Mexico City during which, media representatives could observe the Presidential Boeing 787 not only from the outside but also from the inside, in order to get a glimpse at the VIP configuration: along with the official government seals, the aircraft interiors feature flat-screen monitors in executive meeting rooms, a presidential bedroom and what appeared to be a marble-clad bathroom.

“We are selling all the planes and helicopters that were used by corrupt politicians, the new President said at a rally in Xalapa, Veracruz, near the end of his first day as president of Mexico,
France24 reported. Indeed, the sale of the TP-01 was one of the populist promises of Obrador during his campaign as a candidate and, later, as a president-elect.

The aircraft, considered to be “an offense to the people” and a national symbol “opulent and ridiculous,” was procured at the end of 2012 at an approximate cost of 370M USD. It will be sold (along with the rest of the 60 government airplanes and 70 helicopters), in agreement with Boeing: according to the reports, the aircraft will be sent to Victorville in Southern California, while waiting for a new owner, on Dec. 3.

Interestingly, the Mexican Government posted a sort-of auction on their FB page with photos and a text that roughly translates as follows: “It goes to California and is put on sale! Type of plane: Presidential, Type: Boeing 787 Dreamliner; Almost new; Very Luxurious.”



https://theaviationist.com/2018/12/0...head-of-state/







Photos by Alejandro Cegarra
Airbubba is online now  
Old 4th Dec 2018, 10:19
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: London
Posts: 180
Isn't the Mexican one of the very early 787s with performance issues, that wouldn't ever see airline service for that reason?
Lord Bracken is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2018, 12:59
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,072
I don't think the german government will buy a non-EU build aircraft for their fleet, except in cases where there is no other choice. Which one could of course argue was the reason for procuring four Global 5000. Not to mention of course, that buying from Lufthansa, let it be refurbished by Lufthansa and maintained by Lufthansa props up their precious "national champion" as well.
Denti is online now  
Old 4th Dec 2018, 13:34
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA
Age: 74
Posts: 116
Remember here in the USA the president is still flying one of the few 2 generation old 747-200s still in the air with a nearly identical backup. Still for many of the trips a 757 is used because they are to airports that can't handle a 747. This is for a country that gives money to the military industrial complex like it is Monopoly money. Reason given is that the 747s are filled with high tech communication equipment when all presidential communication is done with an open network iPhone on Twitter. I really don't have a problem with having a presidential jet that can be recognized anywhere but one wonders how long a country so adept at military spending (yes, Air Force One is part of the military fleet) can keep growing debt while agitating the prime owners of that debt outside the USA - China.
NWA SLF is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2018, 14:49
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: EDDM
Posts: 104
Originally Posted by Denti View Post
I don't think the german government will buy a non-EU build aircraft for their fleet, except in cases where there is no other choice. Which one could of course argue was the reason for procuring four Global 5000. Not to mention of course, that buying from Lufthansa, let it be refurbished by Lufthansa and maintained by Lufthansa props up their precious "national champion" as well.
I doubt that LH needs such a prop, but back in 2010 the A343 was going very cheap. Their heads of state retrofit shop in HAM was filled with Qatari and other gulf orders at the time.
oliver2002 is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2018, 14:52
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: EDDM
Posts: 104
Originally Posted by NWA SLF View Post
Remember here in the USA the president is still flying one of the few 2 generation old 747-200s still in the air with a nearly identical backup. [...]. I really don't have a problem with having a presidential jet that can be recognized anywhere but one wonders how long a country so adept at military spending (yes, Air Force One is part of the military fleet) can keep growing debt while agitating the prime owners of that debt outside the USA - China.
DT squeezed Boeing into giving further discounts for some more B748 to replace the VC20. I'm sure they just charged the discount to another defence order but still...

AFAIK only France bought their Presidential Jet fresh from the Airbus factory. The UK bought the A330 as part of a MRTT deal. The Queen started flying commercial in the early 2000s.
oliver2002 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

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