Jump to content

The old grey mare (the prime ministerial A310) is a little banged up

dagger

By dagger
in Airline Aviation Forum

Recommended Posts

Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, dagger said:

Like 24 Sussex, we hate to do things right when it comes to housing or transporting politicians.

 

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/en/flight-safety/article-template-flight-safety.page?doc=cc15001-airbus-from-the-investigator/k35u6unt&fbclid=IwAR3tqCk3lsx8SDfdrbeJ9NU06KYL6XM_kmTdxtZJ_C_36S1FIWq8wwg

 

 

If our transportation is for the PM , our Monarch and the GG, then we should buy the best. If it is for other MPs, then whenever possible they should fly commercial.  As far as housing, we should bite the bullet and immediately either renovate 24 Sussex or demolish it and build a replacement.  I am in favour of renovation as it is a Heritage site.  

Jul 24, 2019 - ... days since a Canadian prime minister has lived at 24 Sussex Drive. ... of the landscape of Canadian history," regardless of who lives there.
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Maverick

Maverick

Posted
Posted
20 hours ago, dagger said:

Like 24 Sussex, we hate to do things right when it comes to housing or transporting politicians.

 

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/en/flight-safety/article-template-flight-safety.page?doc=cc15001-airbus-from-the-investigator/k35u6unt&fbclid=IwAR3tqCk3lsx8SDfdrbeJ9NU06KYL6XM_kmTdxtZJ_C_36S1FIWq8wwg

 

 

There's so many holes in that report it's almost comical. 

That's got be close to write-off...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Maverick said:

There's so many holes in that report it's almost comical. 

That's got be close to write-off...

Rather than going for a repair, perhaps a replacement would be cheaper in the long run?  (we could do the PM at the same time)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Seeker

Seeker

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Maverick said:

There's so many holes in that report it's almost comical. 

That's got be close to write-off...

Yeah.  The tow crew had the aircraft stopped, chocked and park brake set.  Then they noticed the aircraft was moving fast enough to jump the chocks, defeat the park brake and sustain major damage all within the space of one hangar length.  Something doesn't add up

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, seeker said:

Yeah.  The tow crew had the aircraft stopped, chocked and park brake set.  Then they noticed the aircraft was moving fast enough to jump the chocks, defeat the park brake and sustain major damage all within the space of one hangar length.  Something doesn't add up

Downhill?   ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Super 80

Super 80

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Maverick said:

There's so many holes in that report it's almost comical. 

That's got be close to write-off...

An American A330 (N288AY) that was hit by a catering truck and suffered similar damage was repaired, but it was also only a couple years old at the time of the incident.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Maverick

Maverick

Posted
Posted

The damage itself is probably not a show stopper but that aircraft is over 30 years old. It would be throwing good money after bad but that's what governments do...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
anonymous

anonymous

Posted
Posted

I wonder if this is the airframe that jumped the chocks in YVR many years ago when CAI AMEs were responsible for maintenance after DND purchased them ... the ground crew were doing some trouble shooting during an engine run...they pulled some CBs and the engines transitioned from ground idle to flight idle, jumped the chocks and hit some buildings and did some damage....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
boestar

boestar

Posted
Posted

That aircraft isnt even close to a write off.

The airframe may be 30 years old but how many hours and cycles are on it.  It doesn't really fly that much so it likey hasn't accumulate much time since it was taken on by the government.

You would be amazed at what can be repaired on an aircraft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, boestar said:

That aircraft isnt even close to a write off.

The airframe may be 30 years old but how many hours and cycles are on it.  It doesn't really fly that much so it likey hasn't accumulate much time since it was taken on by the government.

You would be amazed at what can be repaired on an aircraft.

It's not the question of if it can be repaired, the question is at what cost and after that the life expectancy of the aircraft vs purchase of a new one.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
conehead

conehead

Posted
Posted

Well, since they’ve been operating the CF-18 for about 35 years, I’d say they got their money’s worth out of that fleet. Also, probably the Aurora, and the old Hercs... and the 707 fleet was well utilized... the Sea Kings... probably some more...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tango Niner

Tango Niner

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, conehead said:

Well, since they’ve been operating the CF-18 for about 35 years, I’d say they got their money’s worth out of that fleet. Also, probably the Aurora, and the old Hercs... and the 707 fleet was well utilized... the Sea Kings... probably some more...

I'd add the CT-114 Tutor to that list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fido

Fido

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Marshall said:

the question is at what cost and after that the life expectancy of the aircraft vs purchase of a new one

But this is government.

Repair is regular business no matter the cost but replace is fraught with bids and proposals and lots of mandarins sticking their noses in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kip Powick

Kip Powick

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, Kip Powick said:

Trivia...............

The RCAF/CF only got their money's worth out of two aircraft types  they ever had in their inventory...

Answers are based on cost/lifespan/maintenance costs etc.

Guesses ????

While I understand some of the rationale upon which your guesses are based , the fact is that the "life" of an aircraft type is, for the most part, relevant to the purchase price and the on gong maintenance costs of the aircraft type,...... not how long it is held on inventory.. Also taken into account  is the usefulness  that a particular aircraft type has provided to the RCAF/CF and Canadian Government.There are many times that the life of an aircraft is extended, by the Fed,s even though keeping that aircraft  on inventory and the cost associated with keeping it serviceable far exceed the the original costs and exceed what it would have cost  to purchase  new equipment..

My source, as of 3 years ago,  indicated   that the overall cost effectiveness  which includes "usefulness"  is only 2 aircraft....

(1) C-47 (DC- 3)

(2) C -130

Every "whiz-bang" aircraft type Canada has had , including the post war, (WW II  F-86) was bleeding red ink when their role with the RCAF/CF was terminated. however in the interest of appeasing those that felt ,  we needed fighters to protect the second largest geographical country in the world, Canada kept,, (keeps),, on buying them.. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
st27

st27

Posted
Posted

More bad publicity for the government fleet...after being chastised by Trump for not spending enough on defence...one of Trudeau’s rides has a high profile snag:

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/more-plane-troubles-for-the-pm-replacement-sent-to-fly-nato-delegation-home-1.4715154
 

This in addition to the woes of the aging Challengers, two of which aren’t RVSM  and won’t be able to fly in US airspace due to ADS requirements in 2020.

https://theairlinewebsite.com/topic/529057-rcaf-may-need-to-replace-2-of-4-challenger-jets/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
boestar

boestar

Posted
Posted

I just love the article talking about running extension cords because the airplane is antiquated.  With some investment the aircraft could easily be fitted with receptacles to plug in to as well as other upgrades to the interior. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

One report (Ottawa Citizen)  says the accident happened while the aircraft was being towed by contracted maintenance personnel.  If so I wonder who pays, insurance claim?  

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/vip-aircraft-used-for-prime-minister-damaged-out-of-service-until-august-2020

On Oct. 19, 2019 while being towed into a hangar at 8 Wing Trenton by contracted maintenance personnel,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing


×
×
  • Create New...