A330 Tanker Boom Loss---AGAIN

[krieghund]

For the second time a A330 MRTT tanker has lost its boom during in flight refueling. This happened to a UAE MRTT while on a production flight over Spain. It was reported it was not refueling at the time. The previous failure occured to a RAAF KC30 while refueling a Portuguese F-16 (19 Jan 2011). Both aircraft sustained damage in that incident but landed safely.

The manufacturer has published recommended retrictions to all operators not to use the boom at this time..........OOPS!!! Give me a Boeing KC-135 anytime.

This comes on the heals of the A400M repeat engine/propeller issues (what ever they may be) causing it to cancel its Farnborough airshow appearance. AN-70 anyone?

 

[vikingBerserker]

Wow, that's a tad on the scary side!

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Hmmm, pretty terrible. Wonder what is causing it to fail and break off.

 

[krieghund]

Hmmm, pretty terrible. Wonder what is causing it to fail and break off.

Not being a fan of Airbus products I need to try to stay unbiased...however compare the refueling probe housing from the A330 MRTT with the KC-135 or KC-10 and the difference should be apparent.

Many pilot owes his life to being "TOWED" by a KC135 or KC-10. Can the A330 do it.............?

Here is just such a story as related by cmjohnson on F16.net

My father had an experience in this category once. He flew KC-135s, starting in the transitional crews when the type was just being introduced and continuing until about '68, at which time he switched to RC-135s for the rest of his career.

He was escorting a group of F104s across the ocean when one of the Starfighters had a flameout. Its pilot wasn't able to relight the engine, but WAS able to light the AFTERBURNER. However, it was obvious that this would constitute a fuel emergency...and over the ocean, of all places. My father pushed his RC-135 to the redline, about .95 mach, and the Starfighter was able to accomplish a hookup by use of the airbrake and afterburner at the same time. In that configuration, that was about the slowest speed the 104 was able to obtain. The 104 burned every drop as fast as it came down the pipe but they did make it to land where the 104 made an emergency landing safely after being escorted, still on the boom, by the 135 well into the final approach. Even though it was being tanked almost all the way to the skidmarks, it still landed on vapors
and dead sticked anyway because you DON'T try to land a 104 in full AB, obviously!

Records that my father has kept indicate that he passed something like 44,000 pounds of fuel to the 104 in this event.

My father received a commendation for his actions, and the 104 pilot got a DFC for his.

Excellent airmanship on both sides of the boom, I'd say!

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Very interesting story. Thanks for sharing that.

I don't have a problem with Airbus products. The airliners they put out are top notch, but then again I also love Boeing as well.

As for the tankers, I don't really care either. I do hope they get this problem fixed before someone dies however.

 

[Capt. Vick]

Awesome story! Thanks for posting!