# CF-18's make emergency landing in Shannon, Ireland



## Sheerin (9 Oct 2004)

Five Canadian fighter jets forced to land at Shannon 
  
  
  
  14:35 Saturday October 9th 2004 
  


Five Canadian Air Force fighter jets have been forced to land at Shannon Airport after experiencing technical problems while refuelling over the Atlantic.
The five F-18s were en route from Saragossa in Spain to an Air Force base in Canada and were due to refuel in mid air from a KC 130 tanker.

However, the refuelling drone on the back of the tanker failed to deploy and was unable to dock with the planes.

All five landed at Shannon shortly before 1.00pm for refuelling.

It is as yet unclear if they would continue their journey.

This incident comes just days after a Canadian submarine got into difficulties of the coast of Donegal, when one sailor died and two others were injured following a fire on board the vessel.


Found this in the Irish Independant today http://www.unison.ie/breakingnews/index.php3?ca=9&si=62169, i'm not sure if the link will work or not...


----------



## canuck101 (9 Oct 2004)

the link did not work for me but this one may: http://212.2.162.45/news/story.asp?j=120207090&p=yzxzx7796&n=120207850

Scary hope things do not come in three's.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (9 Oct 2004)

Sounds like a problem on the refueler and not on our end.   The link doesn't seem to work either.


----------



## Inch (9 Oct 2004)

Have you heard whether or not it was one of our tankers? If it was, yet another problem with the Hercs.   :


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (9 Oct 2004)

Your right about 3's.   The new link does work.   There is a live fire ex in Wainrght and I hope it doesn't happen there (or anywhere).


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (9 Oct 2004)

Well I guess I'm stupid here but I didn't know we had refuelers.


----------



## Inch (9 Oct 2004)

Yep, I'm pretty sure we converted a few Hercs to do the job until we get the Airbuses back.


----------



## Inch (9 Oct 2004)

I found a pic for ya.


----------



## Cloud Cover (10 Oct 2004)

I think there are 5 KC130H based out of Winnipeg. Note the paint job on the herc in Inch's pic. It seems we have abandoned this scheme in favour of a "golf course green" paint scheme on all C130's. Anybody know why?


----------



## Sheerin (10 Oct 2004)

Thanks for posting that link (Found it after I searched google news); not surprised my link didn't work, my father pays for a subscription and does newises are pretty good at preventing 'theft'.


I could have sworn I read/saw else where that it was an American KC-135 that was supposed to refuel them, guess I was wrong.   Although the press release I found on the airforce website (re our involvement in the exercise) didn't mention anything about a herc going over.   http://www.airforce.forces.ca/3wing/news/releases_e.asp?cat=20&id=560

This was also the second story on the CTV national news tonight, and the third was about how the CH-149's are costing the Military 3 million extra/year for mamaintenance


----------



## loyalcana (10 Oct 2004)

Sheerin said:
			
		

> Thanks for posting that link (Found it after I searched google news); not surprised my link didn't work, my father pays for a subscription and does newises are pretty good at preventing 'theft'.
> 
> 
> I could have sworn I read/saw else where that it was an American KC-135 that was supposed to refuel them, guess I was wrong.   Although the press release I found on the airforce website (re our involvement in the exercise) didn't mention anything about a herc going over.   http://www.airforce.forces.ca/3wing/news/releases_e.asp?cat=20&id=560
> ...



I heard the same thing here too, I think your right.


----------



## Storm (10 Oct 2004)

Sheerin said:
			
		

> This was also the second story on the CTV national news tonight, and the third was about how the CH-149's are costing the Military 3 million extra/year for mamaintenance



Hmm... missed that one. Out of curiosity, $3 Million extra compared to what? The Labs? Above what was predicted?


----------



## Sheerin (10 Oct 2004)

What they were saying about the Cormorants was that instead of being in the shop 7 hours for every hour of flight time they're in for (and i think this what they said) 22 hours.   And because of this the maintenance budget had to be increased by 3 million a year.   It was a very short piece that lasted no more than 45 seconds, and on top of that, i wasn't really paying attention (my bad ).

heres the CTV story about the cormorants http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1097353345082_10/?hub=Canada


----------



## Inch (10 Oct 2004)

In all fairness, helos are pretty complex machines, lots of moving parts and lots of things to fix. 22 hours though sounds a little much, considering the latest number for the Sea King is 30hrs and I think the Lab was in the same range as the Sea King. 

Also, keep in mind it's not like we go flying for an hour followed by 30 hrs of maintenance, I'm pretty sure that's a cumulative average over the course of a year or so, the maintenance follows a schedule and every so many hours it goes in for inspections. I'm not too in tune with the maintenance side of the house, I just drive the bus.  I'm also not sure if it takes into account the number of techs working on the aircraft, ie. 2 techs work for 15 hrs = 30 hours of maintenance. 

Cheers


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (10 Oct 2004)

Thanks for the pics.


----------



## Zoomie (10 Oct 2004)

It was most likely a KC-135 of USAF ownership.  Our KC-130's (aka Hercules) do not conduct strategic refueling.  This is the only reason why we are adapting our Polaris (aka Airbus) into strategic refuelers.  The Hercules also has two refuelling pods on its wings (as seen in Inch's photo) - the KC-135 only has one large boom that retracts/extends from below the tail.

http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=110

When we lost the old Boeing 707's, Canada lost its only method of refuelling her Fighters on long hauls - like crossing the Atlantic.  We have been piggy-backing off the USAF ever since.


----------



## Scott (10 Oct 2004)

Inch said:
			
		

> In all fairness, helos are pretty complex machines, lots of moving parts and lots of things to fix. 22 hours though sounds a little much, considering the latest number for the Sea King is 30hrs and I think the Lab was in the same range as the Sea King.
> 
> Also, keep in mind it's not like we go flying for an hour followed by 30 hrs of maintenance, I'm pretty sure that's a cumulative average over the course of a year or so, the maintenance follows a schedule and every so many hours it goes in for inspections. I'm not too in tune with the maintenance side of the house, I just drive the bus.   I'm also not sure if it takes into account the number of techs working on the aircraft, ie. 2 techs work for 15 hrs = 30 hours of maintenance.
> 
> Cheers



I was informed by an aircraft mechanic that when they state things like one hour in flight equals 30 hours fixin' that it is nothing more than political spin. Those numbers are based on a number of tech's working on the same craft which is normal and also on the hourly required mmaintenance'sthat your machine must go through. Inch, what are these hourly requirements on the Sea King. I mean, you have every so many hours for this, that and the other thing. Any help?


----------



## Sheerin (11 Oct 2004)

Are KC-135's booms compatable with our CF-18 receptacles?


----------



## Inch (11 Oct 2004)

It's true, they do go in for routine maintenance. I don't know off hand what the maintenance schedule is for the Sea King.   As a general rule, on most aircraft you've got minor inspections every 50hrs, sometimes 100hrs, the major inspections are 500hrs. The Griffon for example I know has a tail rotor inspection every 12.5 hrs, nothing major but still a consideration. There's also what we call "snags", snags are things that happen when we go to start or during flight, for example: Say during the start you notice one of your tachs isn't working, you shut down and enter a snag in the books and the techs will go fix the problem. Sometimes they can fix it while you wait with the machine running, sometimes you have to shut 'er down. 

Yeah, the number of hours for maintenance is definitely made up for the politicians and public. If you've got 5 techs on the machine, 30hrs worth of work can be done in 6hrs, it's all how you look at it. Where the number of hours required tends creeps up is when unanticipated things start breaking, ie. it goes in for a routine inspection and you notice a problem. One recent one we had on the Sea King, IIRC, was a problem with the drive shafts lining up, they replaced one of the drive shafts (the tail rotor has a long multi section drive shaft driven by the main gear box) and the bloody thing wouldn't line up, everytime they fixed a problem, a new one came up. That just eats up the time, having to fix problem after problem, most of which you didn't know about until you fix the first one.

Does that clarify it somewhat?

Cheers

Sheerin, you answered while I was typing.  The KC135s have both, the probe and the basket. I found a pic of a KC-135 refueling a Jaguar.


----------



## Sheerin (11 Oct 2004)

Thanks, Inch!

damn you're a good resource to have   

It would make sense for the KC-135's to have both...


----------



## Inch (11 Oct 2004)

Thanks mate.

I read on the USAF website that their tankers do stategic refueling for the USAF, USN, Marines as well as foreign allies, so yeah, having both makes perfect sense.  

Cheers


----------



## Scott (11 Oct 2004)

Inch, 

I was thinking along the same lines of what you posted and those increments for the hourly's helped a bunch, thanks.

So, unless you have stuff cratering on you then these numbers are just routine. I mean, how can they possibly make forward looking statements on what the average downtime is going to be? Has anyone compared the numbers between aircraft? I think it's obvious that our new choppers are not going to require near the time to maintain them that our more senior ones do, just the way things are built now sort of dictates that. I'll say this, so much time spent turning wrenches when you could be flying is not much good, but running choppers that are older than the men flying them sort of says that this will be a reality, no?

I had a 1974 Roper lawnmower once, thing went like snot and turned on a dime. Loved that machine. But the last two years that I had the Beast it was costing me a fortune to maintain. Parts hard to come by, get out and mow half the lawn then the thing grenades, on and on, does anyone see where I am going here?


----------



## Gunnerlove (11 Oct 2004)

Time is money. In the Civi world Techs bill out for between $75 and $100 and hour plus parts and materials. Good maint costs good money.


----------



## Inch (11 Oct 2004)

Scott, I'm picking up what you're putting down.

The routine maintenance can be pretty close to estimates, especially after you do half a dozen inspections, you tend to know how long it takes to do the different inspections. We both agree that when stuff starts breaking like older machines tend to do, the time required can go up and up, and as you said, you can't estimate the time in those instances.

I'm sure there's a publication out there comparing the different airframes in the military, I just don't know where to find it.

Cheers


----------



## Scott (11 Oct 2004)

Inch, I'll see what I can do from my end. I have a number of friends flying in the oilfield here and they have to have someone turn wrenches on their machines.


----------



## Gunnerlove (12 Oct 2004)

To play devils advocate, if Seakings were maint intensive and overly expensive why are they used by so many private companies? 

To quote an owner of a large AMO counseling a pilot who was upset over his maintenance bill "If you can't afford the maintenance you can't afford the aircraft" 

Another one I loved

Boss "all you control cables need to be replaced"

Owner "how far can I fly before they fail"

Boss "at least to the site of the crash" 

Owner "what crash site.........?"


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (12 Oct 2004)

Perhaps the Seakings in the service do more flying.


----------



## Inch (12 Oct 2004)

Gunnerlove said:
			
		

> To play devils advocate, if Seakings were maint intensive and overly expensive why are they used by so many private companies?



I never said all Sea Kings were labour intensive, just ours.  Most other ones flying in the world right now are 20-30 years old, also, not all of them are Sikorsky Sea Kings. Westland made a bunch under contract 10-15 years after Sikorsky started their production line.  I'm not sure what kind of wear and tear deck landings cause, but I'd hazard a guess that it's a little harder on the airframe than landing at an airport or on an oil rig. Plus, in Canada, if we need 28 aircraft, we get 28 aircraft. Most other countries buy extras for rotation so that your aircraft last longer and you're not using the same ones all the time. The problem isn't the Sea King, it's the way we've used and abused it.

Cheers


----------



## Storm (20 Oct 2004)

Speaking of extras, didn't we originally havea tad more than 28 Sea Kings, and just happened to lose a few along the way? I'm kind of curious as to whether an actual study of potential loss of airframes was done or whether someone said "well, you have 28 now and seem to be doing ok, so we'll only give you money for 28 new ones" I just have this nagging pessimism that if any are lost the fleet is going to be a bit thin for demands placed on it. Anyone know if 28 actually will be enough?


----------



## Inch (20 Oct 2004)

It's true, we did have more. I'm not sure the exact number. 28 will be fine, keep in mind when we bought the Sea Kings, we still had an aircraft carrier and a few more ships.  At present, we have 12 Frigates, 3 Destroyers and 2 tankers. If every ship was at sea with an air det embarked, we'd need 17 Helos, that leaves 11 to be in servicing and training. Since we never send every ship to sea, it shouldn't be a problem, not to mention that we don't have the yearly flying hours avail or the crews to man 17 detachments anyway.

Cheers


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (20 Oct 2004)

Well really if all the ships had their full Sea King numbers embarked you would have:
CPF(12)-1X12=12
280s (3)-2x3=6
AORs (2)-3X2=6
For a grand total of 24....not that the 280s or tankers carry that many but they were designed for those numbers in mind.


----------



## Inch (20 Oct 2004)

You are correct.    In either case 28 seems to be enough provided the entire fleet isn't at sea!


----------



## Sam69 (20 Oct 2004)

Originally we purchased 41 Sea Kings. We are now down to 28 remaining airframes.  However, the number of remaining airframes was not the determinant of how many new aircraft we should buy. The total number for MHP was determined through analysis of the number required to support operations (IIRC it was 2x Naval TGs at 7 aircraft per TG, plus aircraft for training and maintenance and four attrition birds = 28).

The maintenance hours per Sea King differs from that of the civvy operators for a number of reasons including: we operate them in a much harsher operational environment, ours have a great deal of specialized equipment in them, and we account for our maintenance in a different way than them. Although the advertised number for the CH-124 Sea King is 30 hours of maintenance per hour of flying. The reality is a bit different, as Inch explained, maintenance hours are really man hours and are the total number of hours of maintenance accrued divided by the amount of flying. That means that routine maintenance as well as second line maintenance and time spent on mods all count as maintenance time. The latter measure was a big factor in the past ten years as the Sea King has gone through countless mods to try and keep it safe and (reasonably) economical to operate.

Sam


----------

