A330 Tanker loses the boom...

[Almansur]

https://www.aviationw..._v0qrE.facebook Edited September 13, 2012 by Almansur

[StoleIt]

[JarheadBoom]

Oooops...

[MichaelBuckle]

Oooops...

Very much so!!

[Bullet]

Second time this has happened to the A330 this year. Got to tour one on a ramp in Australia earlier this year as well. Wonder if the Aussies are still gung-ho on the whole "boomer in the cockpit refueling remotely via TV cameras" concept?

[BQZip01]

Isn't there some irony over a tanker losing an appendage and only having baskets to "catch" aircraft (three at once!)?

[Snooter]

Second time this has happened to the A330 this year. Got to tour one on a ramp in Australia earlier this year as well. Wonder if the Aussies are still gung-ho on the whole "boomer in the cockpit refueling remotely via TV cameras" concept?

I don't know but the system in the KC-67 will be similar, boomer in cockpit...

[Prozac]

Second time this has happened to the A330 this year. Got to tour one on a ramp in Australia earlier this year as well. Wonder if the Aussies are still gung-ho on the whole "boomer in the cockpit refueling remotely via TV cameras" concept?

Not sure it's a boom-operator-up-front issue as much as it is a structural one. I've seen the boom on the 135 take lots of abuse and 50 yrs on, they're still not falling off the jet.

[Guest]

Not sure it's a boom-operator-up-front issue as much as it is a structural one.

If the boomer is in the back he can snag that thing if it falls off and just keep going as long as he has the tail numbers for all the receivers written down already. If not, then you're SOL.

"Nice grab boom, can you finish the AR or no?"

[guineapigfury]

Not sure it's a boom-operator-up-front issue as much as it is a structural one. I've seen the boom on the 135 take lots of abuse and 50 yrs on, they're still not falling off the jet.

It's still a bad idea. There is now more stuff that can go wrong. I don't think I ever saw a code 3 window in the back of a 135. This is a classic example of ignoring the principle of "if it's not broke, don't fix it".

[Breckey]

Except for the engineering cost to add a huge window to the pressure hull of the aircraft. With both Boeing and Airbus going trying to bottom out their bids, the cost of either of them adding the window would have most likely lost them the contract. Not saying it's smart, but it's reality

[ThreeHoler]

It's still a bad idea. There is now more stuff that can go wrong. I don't think I ever saw a code 3 window in the back of a 135. This is a classic example of ignoring the principle of "if it's not broke, don't fix it".

It has worked fine for the Dutch for years.

[B52gator]

It has worked fine for the Dutch for years.

[Prozac]

Except for the engineering cost to add a huge window to the pressure hull of the aircraft. With both Boeing and Airbus going trying to bottom out their bids, the cost of either of them adding the window would have most likely lost them the contract. Not saying it's smart, but it's reality

This.

I'd rather have the boom operator in the back, most of B.O.s would rather be there, and I'd be willing to bet most receivers want them looking out the window instead of through a camera. However, neither Boeing or Airbus are going to start cutting more holes in their airplanes unless the AF mandates it, which it hasn't. For the record, I doubt that the virtual boom station (or whatever you want to call it) has anything to do with booms falling off airplanes. Airbus tends to design airplanes to be only as robust as required. Boeing over-designs them. Every so often someone underestimates the operational stresses that the end product will see. Guess whose airplanes fare better when that happens?