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.

They were probably asking LBA for assistance...

When using the RAT you are no longer meeting the noise regulations :=
Not a solution to cross the pond.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....20e94af414.jpg
https://www.radarbox24.com/data/regi...336#1089433533

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

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.

Here's a lead for Germany on a late model VIP aircraft for sale, you can see it on the ground in VCV.




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

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....a69778bbcd.jpg
https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....07db55fff1.jpg
https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....f6a3b0b774.jpg



Photos by Alejandro Cegarra

Isn't the Mexican one of the very early 787s with performance issues, that wouldn't ever see airline service for that reason?

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.

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.

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.

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.