Airbus Tanker loses boom during refueling

[AWwrgwy]

Then Boeing gave some chick a job from the gov and the contract was pulled.

Some chick on the Pentagon's procurement staff for Air Tankers....

    


wrongway

[rpm]

One report says "part of the boom", the other says in more detail that it lost stabilizing fins which are technically part of the boom.
I think the Boeing fans are playing up the incident just a smidge.

[Vulcan]

yeah google reveals boom incidents are not that uncommon, boeing included.

[Yossarian]

http://www.cluteinstitute-onlinejournals.com/PDFs/1594.pdf

^ Interesting article, if you're interested in the Boeing vs Airbus debate, read from the page labelled 125.

[RufusLeaking]

One report says "part of the boom", the other says in more detail that it lost stabilizing fins which are technically part of the boom.
I think the Boeing fans are playing up the incident just a smidge.

The fins on a boom are large enough to take out an F-16.  I would estimate a 3 foot span and a 1 foot chord for one fin.  A chunk of aluminum (or composite, these days) zipping past the canopy will get the receiver’s attention.  The adverse effect on control of the boom would also present a danger to both aircraft. 

If anything, this is being played down by the Airbus camp. Boeing has worked out the bugs over the last 70 years.

*** DISCALIMER***
I was an instructor pilot in the KC-135A and the KC-135R.  I am a hard core Boeing fan.

[Reschke]

yeah google reveals boom incidents are not that uncommon, boeing included.

I have a good friend who has a son that actually does flying of the booms on KC-135 tankers and yes boom failures of some type or even drogue failures happen all the time.

As for the information on the jobs that would be created by the acceptance of the Northrop/EADS proposal....check their website. http://www.northropgrumman.com/review/001-us-air-force-kc-x-tanker-replacement-program.html

The KC-30 industrial team is committed to delivering an American military aircraft program, with KC-30 Tanker assembly and production taking in place in Mobile, Alabama and creating over 1,000 highly-paid, highly skilled jobs. Hundreds of American partners and suppliers will provide more than 50 percent of the aircraft’s subsystems and support, in-sourcing approximately 25,000 U.S. aerospace jobs. Additionally, the new KC-30 assembly and modification center will expand the Gulf Coast’s aerospace corridor east to Mobile, while creating much-needed economic recovery in the region.

As for what Boeing does...its only assembly for them as well since similar numbers their component suppliers are OUTSIDE of the United States as well. The difference is that the country will actually benefit from a huge increase over the next couple of years as these jobs come online. Its honestly just about politics and which region of the country has the biggest lobbying firms in the Pentagon and in Congress. Now I am done before we get this thread closed for political talk.

[RTHolmes]

http://www.cluteinstitute-onlinejournals.com/PDFs/1594.pdf

^ Interesting article, if you're interested in the Boeing vs Airbus debate, read from the page labelled 125.

come on, you're not really suggesting we should base our opinions on real facts and data are you? 

[RufusLeaking]

I have a good friend who has a son that actually does flying of the booms on KC-135 tankers and yes boom failures of some type or even drogue failures happen all the time.

I flew tankers for seven years, and never heard of parts falling off of the boom.  This does not "happen all the time."  I do not recall any discussion of structural boom failures. The only issue I can recall with the boom was the signal coil, which "signals" that the nozzle is in the receptacle and allows the pumps to be turned on.  That would fail due to wear, tear and abuse as the point of contact.

Drogues are Navy.  KC-10s were McDonnel Douglas, which was not Boeing at the time.

To be fair, I'll have to take the time to google it.  Also, out of fairness, Airbus might have been doing some acceptance testing at the edge of the envelope.

Still haven't lost my bias for the BMAC 717.

[Denholm]

While I realize this is far more political than it is a consideration of safety, I prefer Boeing for one small reason. Airbus has a reputation of hiring non-pilot programmers to program pilot error out of the cockpit. In some instances this can be useful, in others, it could be deadly. While this A/P (auto pilot) system can be disabled, it's far more difficult than disabling a Boeing A/P system.

As a quick comparison (please correct me if I'm wrong, as I haven't seen too many airbuses), Airbus requires pilots disable 4 levels of A/P before regaining full control of their airplane. This is accomplished by reaching above your head and disabling the systems one by one. On the other hand, Boeing has a "Disengage" handle you can pull and it's directly in front of the first-officer. Upon pulling the handle, the A/P is immediately disengaged and you regain full control of your aircraft.

In my opinion, a quick A/P disengage is life-saving when the A/P is no longer assisting in safe flight. While I understand A/P failures or mess-ups are extremely rare, they do happen.

[Golfer]

While I realize this is far more political than it is a consideration of safety, I prefer Boeing for one small reason. Airbus has a reputation of hiring non-pilot programmers to program pilot error out of the cockpit (Fly by Wire). In some instances this can be useful, in others, it could be deadly. While this A/P (auto pilot) system can be disabled, it's far more difficult than disabling a Boeing A/P system.

As a quick comparison (please correct me if I'm wrong, as I haven't seen too many airbuses), Airbus requires pilots disable 4 levels of A/P before regaining full control of their airplane. This is accomplished by reaching above your head and disabling the systems one by one. On the other hand, Boeing has a "Disengage" handle you can pull and it's directly in front of the first-officer. Upon pulling the handle, the A/P is immediately disengaged and you regain full control of your aircraft.

In my opinion, a quick A/P disengage is life-saving when the A/P is no longer assisting in safe flight. While I understand A/P failures or mess-ups are extremely rare, they do happen.

You are confusing several different systems and combining them as an "autopilot".

In either airplane you have one press of a button to kick off the automation and get back to stick and rudder flying.

There is no autopilot disengage handle and sure as heck no 4 buttons or systems or levers or handles or passwords to manipulate, enter, move, touch or say to disengage the autopilot in an Airbus.  Just one push of a button that is mounted on the stick.

[Yossarian]

come on, you're not really suggesting we should base our opinions on real facts and data are you? 

Nah, I would never do such a thing

[Golfer]

Den,

Fly-By-Wire technology is proven.  There are other aircraft manufacturers that produce FBW airplanes as well and while I haven't spent a career flying them I did fly one such airplane for about 1000 hours in airline service.

It seems you're confusing multiple autopilots (as required for CAT III approaches that aren't hand flown via HUD or Heads Up Display) and adding in flight control laws, flight control computers and flight control disconnects to the mix as well.

Multiple autopilots still kick off with the little red button that you push with your thumb when you ask "what's it doing now?"

Flight control laws are built into the flight control computers and apply based on various levels of failures in the system.  This generally speaking provides stall protection, overstress protection, overspeed protection and roll protection in an Airbus.  They do more but that isn't really important.  These can be disabled but the only reason you'd ever need to in normal service would be if you wanted to do a roll in your airliner.  Since you don't want to do that, you leave em alone.  As systems fail or are load shed in an abnormal or emergency situation some of these control laws and their protections degrade or revert to lower levels until you're left with what amounts to raw data going to the FCU's.

Flight control computers, flight control units, actuators and such are all part of the flight control system and turn what the pilot inputs with the stick into movement and allows the airplane to fly in a conventional manner.  You don't really need to mess with it and if you do the airplane does it for you.

Flight control disconnects (Aileron, Elevator and Rudder) are common and depending on the type of certification the airplane was subjected to required to be installed.  The airplane I currently fly has Aileron and Elevator disconnects which enable the left and right sides to operate independently of one another in the event of a jam.  It's happened and these are honest to goodness levers that you pull to disconnect the interconnect between the yokes in the case of an elevator control jam.  This separates them and whichever sides cables are the ones that are stuck you can still manipulate the split elevator with the free side.  You have less control authority but you also don't die because you can't control the airplane which is a positive.  Roll disconnect in the same airplane take the aileron cables completely out of the loop and you steer the airplane with the pilot side yoke which has a built in RVDT (Rotary Variable Differential Transformer...aka Joystick Pot basically) which controls the left and right spoilers to give you roll control.  It's actuated by flipping a mechanical switch on the pilots yoke in the event of a jam and it enables the yoke to turn freely without engaging the clutch that actually moves the cables.

In other airplanes they can work similarly or differently (real deep, right?) but the end result is the same.  I've sat in the jumpseat of Boeing and Airbus airplanes enough to know that there isn't anything ceremonious about turning off the autopilot.  Click a button and she's gone with the aural announcement that the autopilot is off (required for certification after Eastern put their airplane into the Everglades when nobody knew the AP kicked off) which can be any number of voice messages of alert bells/chimes.  Once you click that button you're hand flying like you would any old airplane.

[flight17]

As for what Boeing does...its only assembly for them as well since similar numbers their component suppliers are OUTSIDE of the United States as well. The difference is that the country will actually benefit from a huge increase over the next couple of years as these jobs come online. Its honestly just about politics and which region of the country has the biggest lobbying firms in the Pentagon and in Congress. Now I am done before we get this thread closed for political talk.

the only thing im going to say about jobs further as its getting off topic...

In all honesty, i don’t trust any numbers Airbus publish as they have a very long history of embellishing numbers to make them sound as the better. Just ask them what is the best selling airliner… However, say they do create 25000 jobs. for the sake of this argument, i went through a years worth of press releases from Boeing in which they publish that had specific numbers of jobs that would be created through the number of suppliers for each state. I counted 34,290 jobs that would be directly created in 22 states. Boeing in one report claims that 50000 jobs would be directly sustained from this contract which would mean there are currently about 16000 jobs tied in the 767 as is which seems about right.

So with the KC-45, we are "Creating" 25000 "new" jobs but are loosing 16000 jobs from the closure of the 767 line. Meaning the country is only gaining 9000 "new" jobs.

Now with the KC-767 we are creating over 34000 new jobs in at least 22 different states that previously never existed plus sustaining a further 16000 jobs already held.

So if you want to talk job creations, then the KC-767 is more important to our economy than the KC-45 is. However, i see you’re from that region and i believe this could be why you prefer the KC-45, which i can’t blame you for. My home town is loosing 160 jobs this march because some richass greedy people from Texas came in and bought the plant's parent company and they are now closing the plant that has been here for over 107 years because "its location" isn’t the greatest for them. Meanwhile our plant is profitable and is meeting all the shareholder demands. My dad has worked there for 39 years and it’s the only job he ever had.


Now back to the RFP. I thought i read a few weeks ago that an announcement has been postponed and no schedule was set for an award of contract?

[Babalonian]

operated normally? you (and a coupla others here) appear to have much more info about the incident to hand than the news agencies have been given by the RAAF. didnt realise there were so many spooks on this forum 

No, I just love smacking down AB when Boeing is involved to a less than practical level usually.  And its not that I wish AB didn't exist or would cease to exist, the competition is a good thing.

[flight17]

yes it is... plus there is that saying...

Every Airbus once flew on a Boeing

literally