PDA

View Full Version : RAF Tanker Deal


fantaman
20th May 2006, 15:57
Hello All,

As part of my prep for OASC I’m looking into the new tanker deal that’s being put out to tender. I’m to try and raise this subject when they ask about the RAF and what new aircraft we’re getting. I’m already serving and so I’ve been asking around the office to see what other opinions are and I just wanted to see if anyone else had any opinions or information on it!

One question I cant find the answer to is on the whole chartering it out to BA etc when its not in use by us. Do the engineers that work on it have to have a civilian qualification if it is going to be used by fare paying pax? I’m talking about a JAR qualification? Will all maintenance be carried out by civvies technicians therefore making hundreds of RAF technicians redundant?

Should the RAF look at purchasing more Tri-Stars? Buying used DC-10’s/MD-11’s? Should be contract an airline/company like Omega Air who already has a contract with the US Navy? Any info or opinions (especially from the AT guys) would be appreciated!

Fantaman :ok:

Fargoo
20th May 2006, 16:12
One question I cant find the answer to is on the whole chartering it out to BA etc when its not in use by us. Do the engineers that work on it have to have a civilian qualification if it is going to be used by fare paying pax? I’m talking about a JAR qualification? Will all maintenance be carried out by civvies technicians therefore making hundreds of RAF technicians redundant?

If it's used by an airline for passenger services it'll need to be maintained by an EASA 145 approved maintenance organisation. There's no reason the RAF couldn't apply for this status though provided it's Engineers are EASA Pt 66 Licenced, this can be achieved fairly quickly for experienced engineers.
Can't see this happening though and i would expect this whole tanker/passenger hybrid thing will die a death before it gets off the ground.

LFFC
20th May 2006, 16:41
If it's used by an airline for passenger services it'll need to be maintained by an EASA 145 approved maintenance organisation. There's no reason the RAF couldn't apply for this status though provided it's Engineers are EASA Pt 66 Licenced, this can be achieved fairly quickly for experienced engineers.

I suspect that the RAF won't need to - AirTanker will probably provide that organisation and more than likely employ a proportion of licenced RAF engineers for use on military deployments.

r supwoods
20th May 2006, 16:55
Do you not think that if the RAF trained their Engineers to be Pt 66 compliant and gave them a Licence ... we wouldn't see them for dust?

The RAF are looking to support their aircraft using a parallel system to the EASA regs .... to be known as MAOS ... rhymes with CHAOS.

The Helpful Stacker
20th May 2006, 17:12
Do you not think that if the RAF trained their Engineers to be Pt 66 compliant and gave them a Licence ... we wouldn't see them for dust?

There's a parallel to this in the humble world of stackers. Civilian and military personnel attend exactly the same dangerous goods course at Halton but civilians attain an IATA/ICAO DG qualification whereas the military personnel attain just a Q-Sup-DG qualification.

Wouldn't want all us uniformed stackers PVRing to take up much better paid DG positions in the civilian sector now would they?

LFFC
20th May 2006, 17:14
Do you not think that if the RAF trained their Engineers to be Pt 66 compliant and gave them a Licence ... we wouldn't see them for dust?

Yeah - it's a problem isn't it! And yet it's MOD policy to ensure full accreditation of skills and knowledge that have an equivalence in the civilian world. Apparently it's retention positive. :rolleyes:

Perhaps that's all the more reason for the RAF to have different terms of service than the Army and RN. That way we can compete with the civilian world to retain the people we need.

nigegilb
20th May 2006, 17:25
Does anyone know the cost of this programme? And will the non military status of some of the workforce affect where the tankers will be able to deploy to?

LFFC
20th May 2006, 17:35
I have no idea about the cost, but from what I've heard, the presence of military personnel across the board will allow FSTA to be deployed in the same way that VC10 or TriStar can be now.

BEagle
20th May 2006, 18:25
Try looking at: http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/FactSheets/FutureStrategicTankerAircraft.htm

LFFC
20th May 2006, 18:43
Thanks BEagle, I hadn't seen that before, but it backs up what I've been told about FSTA.

I know you're not a fan of the concept (to say the least), but from what I can see, the A330 will make an excellent tanker. I also understand that if you ever personally get to see it on operations, you'll note that it will be in RAF colours, on the military register, operated by a military crew and serviced by military personnel. Mercenaries don't enter into the equation - unless you class reservists in uniform as mercenaries, but I don't think you really mean that.

The Helpful Stacker
20th May 2006, 18:48
The current fleet is reaching the end of its useful life. Current plans involve its replacement during the first half of the decade.

Which decade?:rolleyes:

fantaman
20th May 2006, 18:58
So does that mean all the RAF technicians will be trained to the appropriate civillian level, ie JAR.

I can see what will happen when the first bunch of technicians get their qualifications through the post, 202 CV's all wing their way to BA! :}

SirToppamHat
20th May 2006, 19:10
Despite all the modern apprentiships, NVQ and IIP hoops that are foisted on us, IMHO, we are better at training our people (and always have been) than most equivalent civilian organisations.

I understand that civilian certification can be expensive, especially when there is a lot of effort required to prove that a Service course meets all the same requirements as the civilian equivalent, but when mil and civ personnel do the SAME course, surely there can be no reasonable explanation for the mil guys not getting the civ quals (though there may be something in r supwoods' comments!).

The military ATCOs at ScATCC are now controlling all of the medium level civilian transits on the Aberdeen-Newcastle link route, because the civvies have refused to provide RAS in Class G airspace, yet if the mil guys apply to ATC for jobs (in the same ops room?), previous experience counts for nothing.

Sorry, as usual I got carried away there. Back to the thread. I think the plan to share mil assets with the civvies is barking. I am not convinced it will be cheaper either.

STH

LFFC
20th May 2006, 19:27
but when mil and civ personnel do the SAME course, surely there can be no reasonable explanation for the mil guys not getting the civ quals
Correct! In fact, under MOD policy, the course sponsor is obliged to ensure that, under those circumstances, civilian accreditation is available. However, the catch is that it's down to the individual to submit the paperwork and pay the cheque to the civilian accreditation body.

The Helpful Stacker
20th May 2006, 19:33
Correct! In fact, under MOD policy, the course sponsor is obliged to ensure that, under those circumstances, civilian accreditation is available. However, the catch is that it's down to the individual to submit the paperwork and pay the cheque to the civilian accreditation body.

In my case (with the DG course) we pestered the course instructors and the STW at Halton for details on how we could gain the same accreditation as our civilian colleagues and were flatly told this wasn't available for service personnel.

LFFC
20th May 2006, 19:59
In my case (with the DG course) we pestered the course instructors and the STW at Halton for details on how we could gain the same accreditation as our civilian colleagues and were flatly told this wasn't available for service personnel.
I wouldn't take no for an answer if I were you. Sadly, that sort of situation is still widespread. You probably won't be popular for pushing the issue, and you'll have to be thick skinned, but correct accreditation can be achieved. I'm told that it took years of hard work for military pilot training to eventually become accredited by the CAA.

Rigga
20th May 2006, 21:47
Hi Gents,

I saw this thread and couldn't resist sticking my oar in.

FYI This subject has already been debated on www.e-goat.co.uk and www.airmech.co.uk with mainly the ground-eye view of how it could go.

There, the assumption seems this contract could probably go to another european country - to someone who can manage these assets as an EU-wide rentable item and by-pass the UK legislation on maintenance. Foreign Company and foreign engineers and for

I think the rather quaint notion of having RAF engineers doing for you, is out of the window.
The reason being that another EU country's NAA may be able to waive the EU and ICAO Rules of Maintenance Licensing for MOD, but I believe the UK CAA would collapse the UK's Market of UK Aircraft Engineers' hard fought Licences if it changed their own licensing rules for one contract. (Though, we still have to see how stupid this government really is!)

These aircraft will most likely be maintained to an EASA Part 145 approved AMP - even if they do have "additional operational equipment" such as Air to Air Refueling (as they would under existing UK rules of COMR or Police Ops aircraft).

Under COMR - Piloting and OPs Planning may belong to the military, but you can bet that Maintenance and Maintenance Planning (and Financial planning too) will be from a civil contractor, from whichever country that may be (France is my bet).

See FBS at Shawbury for a small form of confirmation of these regulations. There are no RAF engineers there (1) and they are audited by the CAA primarily, then by the RAF.

(1: Except for an engineering contract auditor, maybe.)

nigegilb
20th May 2006, 21:50
Eng det in kandahar?

LFFC
25th May 2006, 08:30
In my case (with the DG course) we pestered the course instructors and the STW at Halton for details on how we could gain the same accreditation as our civilian colleagues and were flatly told this wasn't available for service personnel.
Sorry if this is a bit off-topic, but I found the new "Defence Policy for the Accreditation of Education, Training and Experience". It was re-issued 2 months ago and is available on the intranet to all personnel in the Armed Services and MOD Civil Service. Look for Defence Instructions and Notices, reference "2006DIN06-058". I think you'll find it very interesting!

SASless
25th May 2006, 10:06
Mothballed airliners looking for a new home....bargain prices too I bet.

http://perljam.net/google-satellite-maps/id/1586/United_States/California/Mojave/Mojave_airplane_boneyard

Lord_Flashheart
25th May 2006, 10:23
fantaman,

If you do manage to find out how FSTA is going to work in practice, be a good chap and tell MoD Main Building - they haven't the foggiest either.....

haltonapp
25th May 2006, 10:52
If the FSTA is maintained by civilian engineers it certainly wont need a SENGO, JENGO, BENGO, WO (i/c passes, duties freedom of .. parades) TM's SAGE (senior GE) GE's, chiefs, Sgts, Cpls, J/T's, assorted mechs, suppliers and others I am sure I have forgotten! Big saving then!

Saintsman
26th May 2006, 07:00
Why is it that if you give people licences you think they will all leave? Have you thought that people join up because they want to be in the RAF. Sure it'll be handy once they leave, but I expect the majority will stay in (there's always the exception).

In order for the aircraft to be operated in the civil role it must be maintained under EASA regulations. FSTA engineers will operate under Part 66 regs as will the RAF engineers .

Pontius Navigator
26th May 2006, 07:04
Saintsman, it doesn't work like that. We civilianise a task AND we make the troops leave. With licences at least you are ready when they open the door.

fightingchickenplumb
26th May 2006, 10:18
Why is it that if you give people licences you think they will all leave? Have you thought that people join up because they want to be in the RAF. Sure it'll be handy once they leave, but I expect the majority will stay in (there's always the exception).

In order for the aircraft to be operated in the civil role it must be maintained under EASA regulations. FSTA engineers will operate under Part 66 regs as will the RAF engineers .

saintsman I commend your belief in the RAF, but I have a mate in a AT sqn, when the IPT asked for a show of hands of the sqn on who would stay after getting there JAR66 out of 60 present 8 put there hands up, and most of them were angling for there pension

are you serving saintsman? just curious like

the reason people leave is simple, you can earn more working in civvie street 20-30000 compared with 21500 which is my current salary, second you usally do 37-40 hours a week , the rest is over time, something the RAF doesnt give ( yes we get a X-factor of 13%, which if you take that off makes the wages 19500 for myself) and you have no trips to hot dusty countries which last for four months out of every 18. Am talking from a techies perspective but am sure the aircrew and the rest of the RAF are in the same boat

And in reply to anyone who says , if you dont like it leave, my PVR is in 38 working days to go lol. Am not out to bash the RAF either I loved it and I have made friends for life and travelled around getting upto drunken japes at the countries expense, but it is dishearting to see the writting that the RAF high ups and the ministry of dunces (MoD) have written for us. Warfighter first and all that as my management keep reminding us

Saintsman
26th May 2006, 12:51
I did my time although it was a few years ago.

People always think the grass is greener but in reality life in British civil aviation is not as rosy as it used to be. There are not loads of vacancies for engineers. The MROs are closing and moving out to the Far East or Eastern Europe because you can pay people peanuts and they don't worry about H&S etc. The airlines are also cutting down on in-house maintenance because its cheaper to send their aircraft abroad. We don't make aircraft in this country any more either. Some companies don't pay overtime either and operate a banked hours policy with time off in lieu. The summer's not a busy time at MROs because airlines need all their aircraft ferrying people on their hols.

Yes you may have a licence but where do you get your Boeing and Airbus experience in the RAF? Of course their are some jobs out there but the oportunites for big money are few and far between. There is money on the contractors circuit but then you are away from home - just like being in the RAF then.

FrogPrince
26th May 2006, 14:23
Just thinking aloud here....

In my twenty plus years in the TA I have encountered a significant proportion of ex-Regulars who left HM Armed Forces due to economic / family presssures but who missed being 'in the system' so much they signed back on in the Reserves.

Maybe our recruiting, training and retention system should be robust enough to offer portable qualifications, but in return for getting an EASA chit or whatever, said technician agrees to serve 28 days a year for five years in the Reserves.

Currency on type would be a problem but at least his/her experience wouldn't be lost to the military forever. (This is the model that applies to pilots in 7 Regt AAC(V)).

At the minute, the RAuxAF appears to offer very few trades aside from Gunner, FP [aka STO] and certainly none in Engineering.

Of course, this assumes that the Reserves are not mis-used as Regulars-on-the-cheap.....

FP

Rigga
27th May 2006, 22:16
So, Just how many aircraft engineers are there in the TA/Reserves?
I don't see it being quite as well manned as the USAF Reserve somehow!

Pontius Navigator
28th May 2006, 18:50
I think all regulars, on retirement, have a committment of 3 years (maybe 5) in the reserves. This is a hang over of the CW and in practice was rarely (ever?) used. You left, you moved, and they lost touch.

When the CW hotted up in the 80s there were thoughts of making the committment a bit firmer but I am not aware that anything happened. Essentially it was a paper tiger with no money for the reservists and no money to administer it.

To make the committment a hard one would require a significant amount of funding. Given a strength of 42000 and an average service life of say 14 years we would have a turnover of 3000 per year. For 3 years that is a reserve committment of 9000 x 28 days or the equivalent of 850 men. They would cost IRO £200k (minimum) and probably nearer £500k when you add in admin support and integration costs.

If you are in a redundant trade you could only do an odds and sods job. If you moved into one of th egrey suit jobs it would simly mean donning greens for 4 weeks per year and probably being paid 3 times (pension, job, reserve) and doing your present job.

Then how would the national economy like it as 9000 RAF, 6000 RN and 20000 Army all down tools, don uniforms, and go off to play? And that on top of the current boys in the sandpit.

RonO
28th May 2006, 18:52
Apologies if already posted:

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/05/28/Navigation/177/206926/RAF+to+have+just+nine+A330s+in+core+FSTA+tanker+fleet.html

dallas
28th May 2006, 19:22
9 to replace 28, yeah makes sense - it's not as if we're busy or anything...

Trumpet_trousers
28th May 2006, 21:57
I think all regulars, on retirement, have a committment of 3 years (maybe 5) in the reserves
Not so: Left last year after 28 years - no reserve commitment at all. :ok:

BEagle
29th May 2006, 13:02
That's because you work for a non-UK company, TT!

There are quite a few folk around - particularly those who PVR'd - who haven't a clue what their recall or call-out liabilities are under the Reserve Forces Act. That never used to matter - until Bliar's government called-out non-volunteer reservists for GW2. The first time that'd happened since Suez in 1956.....

The increasing reliance on an increasingly reluctant number of reservists is yet another of those crazy MoD decisions which will soon come home to roost. 'Total Force'.......or total farce?

As for 9 plus 6 A330Ks - well, just hope that they don't need to be in 2 places at once.

24 x A310MRTT would have been a much, much better option. Too late now though. OK - 71 tonne of fuel rather than 111 tonne, but at one stage they would have been available for 1/3 of the cost.

I cannot imagine anyone being daft enough to want to be a mercenary on the FSTA - unless the fringe terms are pretty spanking good!

The Gorilla
29th May 2006, 14:01
Beagle

Your are right, a lot of people are not aware of what they signed up to when they PVR'd especially those who haven't completed a pensionable term.
The good news is that the nice Mr Bliar has already stated that any reservist failing to respond to a call out will NOT be jailed.

In my particular case I have absolutely nothing to worry about! :} I also left after 28 years with no reserve commitment. :ok:

LFFC
29th May 2006, 14:07
There are quite a few folk around - particularly those who PVR'd - who haven't a clue what their recall or call-out liabilities are under the Reserve Forces Act. That never used to matter - until Bliar's government called-out non-volunteer reservists for GW2.

The NAO Report into Reserve Forces (http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/nao_reports/05-06/0506964.pdf) issued a couple of months ago makes interesting reading (if you've got the time). There is an implicit suggestion that very many ex-regulars don't know or care about their liability for reserve service.

19 The Department’s requirement for Army Regular Reserves on a large-scale operation assumes a higher success rate in mobilising Regular Reservists than has previously been achieved.

Recommendation 9: The Department should develop robust systems to manage those Regular Reservists it is most likely to require and to ensure that their training is up to date. Informing valuable personnel of their ongoing liability as Regular Reservists will be of key importance in ensuring that they can be mobilised when necessary.
It would be interesting to know just how many ex-regulars didn't bother to answer their call-up papers, or even couldn't be located!

The document also defines "Sponsored Reservists" - (BEagle's mercenaries).
Sponsored Reserves
Some services which are provided in peacetime by a civilian contractor are provided on operations
by staff drawn from the contractor’s workforce who are members of the Reserve Forces, and have
been mobilised. Individuals in this category are known as Sponsored Reserves. There are currently
253 Sponsored Reserves associated with a range of contracts including crews for the roll-on roll-off ships, drivers for the Army’s Heavy Equipment Transporters and engineers supporting 32 (The Royal) Squadron.

MarkD
29th May 2006, 17:32
The article mentions 28 VC10/Tri* - are all 28 still in use or are some "notionally on strength" but really being scavenged (public domain only obviously).

Even 14 into 28 seems like a stretch. One would at least expect one of the PFI 332s to be Brown Force 1 if not already committed (the other fella will be gone by then right? Right?) rather than a BA or even RAF 777 with all the needless duplication the latter would entail.

Tonkenna
30th May 2006, 07:57
9 A330s to replace the VC10/Tristar tankers :rolleyes:

Of course there will also be 5 further ac made available to 3rd-party use and held at "short-notice readiness":confused: Ummmmmmmmm:hmm:

Well Adam Ingram did promise to buy me a new jet the other day when we took him on a VC10.... so one of those nine is mine!!!

Tonks:rolleyes:

Rigga
30th May 2006, 13:44
I hope you enjoy your rental period - If you don't see Endex prior to it's Entry Into Service.
Back to the Reserves thing; If I could leave in 1999 after 24 years and I had no Reserve commitment, and TT left last year after 28 years and he (assumption) had no Reserve commitment; Exactly who DID have some Reserve commitment?

The Gorilla
30th May 2006, 16:02
Rigga

Exactly who DID have some Reserve commitment?

Usually those who have left before the 22-year point. It is assumed that all ex servicemen who are in receipt of a service pension can be recalled to active service up to (correct me if I am wrong) I think age 60.

However in order for that to actually happen we would need a general mobilisation for war not seen since 1939 and AIUI we would ALL need to be recalled not just cherry picking individual trades as now. As Pontius quite rightly said the cost of such an exercise would have G Brown going purple!

It used to be that if you served nine or twelve years you had a reserve commitment of three years so it was always quoted as 9 + 3. I believe that so far the only reservists to be called up have been those in the TA or the RAuxF and a very few "specialists" in the +3 category (mostly medical). Any one know different?

FrogPrince
30th May 2006, 16:27
FTR, I wasn't suggesting that the Regular Reserve commitment should be made into 'compulsory service' in some way. Rather, there does not appear to be an avenue for a technician who had to leave the Regulars for family reasons, say, to continue his trade and make use of his skills, qualifications and experience within the Volunteer RAuXAF.

BEagle
30th May 2006, 16:38
A considerable number of RAFResA and some RAFResO were called-out for GW2. Many had PVR'd and some were married and had new names. But since some bright spark had stopped giving them their annual £25 to keep Binnsworth informed of their whereabouts, actually finding them wasn't easy and a considerable number of call-out notices were returned 'gone away'....

Trades needed were typically Med Admin, Med Assistants, Drivers, Chefs - all the trades, in fact, which had been contractorised.

A tiny handful didn't respond to their call-out (less than a dozen) - and mostly because someone (wife, mother, lover) had signed for their papers but they themselves were away on overseas business etc. When someone decide to consider sending in the heavy mob to get one of them, I pointed out that Binnsworth hadn't actually kept copies of the call-out papers which had been stamped and dated - so nothing could be proved if 'chummy' decided to contest things...:rolleyes: Any cheap lawyer would have made mincemeat of any attempted prosecution - particularly when even cabinet ministers were resigning over Bliar's lies.

My army colleague was all for sending in the Gestapo with rubber truncheons in the middle of the night to grab recalcitrant folk - he was very soon advised to explore all other avenues first.

There are differing degrees of liability for 'call-out' under the RFA as compared to 'recall'. But very little is understood by about 95% of ex-service personnel concerning their liability - a scruffy piece of photocopied paper written in blunty-speak being all that most received. There should be a clear "You may be liable to 'call-out' until (date) or 're-call' until (date)" - plus a clear explanation of the circumstances under which either would apply including the precise definitions. I understood it all at the time as I was dealing with it on a daily basis - but not now.

MrBernoulli
31st May 2006, 07:55
Reserve liabilities? I'm sorry, I'm busy elsewhere doing something else ....... and being paid comfortably for it. I can't be bothered with Bliar and his overseas nonsense. Ram it!

BEagle
11th Jun 2006, 11:34
Besides, with such a miniscule AAR force (or rather, flight?) of a mere 9 A330 tankers, who would ever need any reservists?

9 regular use aircraft. Just nine. With another 5 bucket-and-spading for third part revenue. Looking back at my notes of the 1996 AT-AAR seminar, it seems that they were talking of '25-30' future tankers back then.

Now, I thought that the TypHoon had both rather a small internal fuel capacity and a very slow onload rate. So how will so few hoses in the sky be able to cope, should there ever be a real need?

The ever-imploding RAF. In 1963 there were 22 squadrons of V-bombers alone, plus an entire Command of air transport aircraft. Soon, it seems, when the VC10s finally retire not long before their 50th birthdays in RAF service, the entire AT-AAR force will fit on just one aerodrome.......

dallas
11th Jun 2006, 12:10
The ever-imploding RAF. In 1963 there were 22 squadrons of V-bombers alone, plus an entire Command of air transport aircraft. Soon, it seems, when the VC10s finally retire not long before their 50th birthdays in RAF service, the entire AT-AAR force will fit on just one aerodrome.......

Yeah but in the 1960s we had stuff going on all over the world.....erm, a bit like now. If we still insist on trying to be a world power, I wish we'd fcuking well resource it...

BEagle
11th Jun 2006, 12:18
And the people who flew the 'stuff going on all over the world' didn't live in 'temporary tented accommodation' all the time either!

dallas
11th Jun 2006, 14:33
...actually BEagle, I think you'll find they did.

They also used to slowly walk towards the enemy in a line, wearing bright red tunics, occupied places like Shaibah and Kabul and had no clear mission or exit strategy.

BEagle
11th Jun 2006, 15:25
Apart, that is, from those with two pencils up their noses, underpants on their heads and a vocabularly limited to one word....




















"Wibble"