RAAF to Copenhagen [Archive]

Old Fella

6th Dec 2009, 09:08

L J R, the link should be obvious. The Globe Trotting Comrade Krudd will be being transported in a RAAF B737, flown by RAAF pilots. The Cabin Crew will be RAAF personnel and if there is a more appropriate place on PPRuNe to comment on military aircraft operations I would like to be informed. BTW, if you have never been involved in such operations I guess you could be forgiven for not knowing anything about them. Comrade Krudd spends a great deal of time telling all how he wants to save the planet yet his use of RAAF transportation since being installed as PM has made a very considerable contribution to "Global Warming Emissions". I would be very interested to know how many tonnes of jet fuel have been burnt by the RAAF B737's on trips for Mr Rudd.

herkman

6th Dec 2009, 09:33

The problem is that our government speaks with a forked tongue.

They have been known when times were bad to put their hands into the servicemans super fund and never replace it. Then they play silly buggers with things like the Matthews report. If you or I did it we would be had up for stealing funds that are in trust for servicemen and their families.

Then there is the VIP fleet which costs a small fortune each year, so our aces can travel in luxery. There is the cost of modifying these aircraft to suit the needs of the government.

Then there is the stealing of two of our five tankers and spending I think A$45M to bring them to VIP standard. So affectively we loose 40% of our tanker force.

Well you may what has this got to do with p prune, simple our government for their own selfish reasons is down grading the efficiency of our Air Force.

Regards

Col

L J R

6th Dec 2009, 17:46

Thanks Old Fella - That is Obvious to me (being RAAF and all..!)........

But the environmental aspects of RAAF Wagga don't bother me either, as far as this forum is concerned anyway.

..crack on, you will likely get a lively debate...:ok:

alisoncc

6th Dec 2009, 20:46

Then there is the VIP fleet which costs a small fortune each year, so our aces can travel in luxery.

As ex-RAF groundcrew, ARB licenced eng, CPL qualified and now Oz citizen, I was appalled to read that Rudd's aircraft broke down in Washington and again in Hawaii recently. Whilst the press made a song and dance about Rudd blowing his top over the breakfast he was served on a previous flight, if a so-called VIP crew can't even organise the Prime Minister of the country a vegetarian meal as requested, then any resemblance to it being a "VIP Flight" is in name only.

Perhaps he should fly commercial, at least he would be treated properly and even stand a chance of getting to his destination on time.

Alison

FoxtrotAlpha18

6th Dec 2009, 22:20

Whilst the press made a song and dance about Rudd blowing his top over the breakfast he was served on a previous flight, if a so-called VIP crew can't even organise the Prime Minister of the country a vegetarian meal as requested, then any resemblance to it being a "VIP Flight" is in name only.

Just a bit of perspective on this episode for the ill-informed...

In that particular case, the PM's staff had phoned ahead to the aircraft's captain to inform him that the PM's party had already eaten and that they would be sleeping on the flight from POM to SYD, and therefore NO MEALS would be required apart from a light breakfast on approach to SYD. Thus, no evening meals were ordered or prepared :ok:

Unfortunately, the PM's staff neglected to inform the PM they had done this, and of course, he subsequently decided he was hungry after all when he got on board.:uhoh:

:hmm:

The PM

6th Dec 2009, 22:47

Old Fella,

would you care to comment on the previous PM, Lil Johnny, residing in Sydney instead of The Lodge in Canberra and using the VIP fleet to commute most days when Parliament was sitting?

Old Fella

6th Dec 2009, 23:59

alisoncc As one with such a comprehensive background in aviation you should not be surprised that an aircraft, of any type, can suffer a defect which precludes it being flown. Does not have to be a major failure, as any perusal of the MEL for an aircraft will show, just a critical item. BTW, commercial flights are not immune to technical delays and, of course, have inflexible schedules. To PM, I cannot condone what John Howard did, however he was not seeking to be the Saviour of the Planet as Mr Rudd is, nor do I believe that he commuted back and forth most days as you claim.

ozleckie

7th Dec 2009, 00:29

My newspaper today says that he is taking 90 bureaucrats compared with 38 for the UK. He must feel that there is safety in numbers and likes to be surrounded by "yesmen" :hmm:

Flyingblind

7th Dec 2009, 01:37

Our last dear great leader Little Johnnie (Shrub) commuted from Sydney to Canberra via a RAAF Challenger or RAAF 737 Monday to Thursdays often with only him, his advisors and various ego's on board.

Would like to see the comparison between Rudd and Howard for their trip costs to the tax payer so far.

Old Fella

7th Dec 2009, 02:30

I too would like to see a comparison of travel costs between the two, but to get back to my original point, Mr Rudd believes there is a desperate need to introduce a tax on emissions and at the same time is making a very significant contribution of emissions through his use of RAAF VIP aircraft as he struts the world stage. Just a little hypocricical maybe?

The PM

7th Dec 2009, 03:03

Old Fella no not at all, every other world leader attending is also flying in for the event.Until such time as video conferencing technology advances significantly to be on a par with actually attending, this is the only option.This is of global significance and I would expect the current Australian PM, regardless of their party or leaning to attend.If we do not turn up to have our say, we can hardly complain WHEN the world moves on and leaves us behind.

Regardless of an individuals thoughts on the veracity of the global warming arguments, the world is heading towards a future of cleaner and "greener" industry, if for nothing else for a more pleasant local environment.Watch India and China over the next few years with their growing and cashed up middle classes who are starting to realise that you don't have to live in your neighbours sewerage, breathe the toxic output of heavy industry or have children who think it is a novelty to see blue sky! Now, whether this cleaner future involves gas fired powerplants, thermal,solar, wind, nuclear or the darling of the coal industry, the so called "clean" coal fired power stations, technology WILL and IS changing and this costs money.

People also need to remember that the previous Howard Government was also proposing an ETS that was remarkably similiar to what the Rudd govt is proposing.And lets not forget that Howard also travelled extensively overseas as PM, as you would expect a PM to do in representing Australia and Australian interests.

Old Fella

7th Dec 2009, 03:30

John Howard: 78 trips in 11 years. Kevin Rudd: 15 trips in first year. Probably at least as many in his second year.

StallBoy

7th Dec 2009, 03:35

Is it true that all new aircraft built after 2010 will by law have a CO2 capture and storage system fitted to their engines, :ok:it makes as much sense as clean coal and carbon capture and storage on powerstations.
At present estimates it would take at least 40% of the power stations output to run this system. Anyone see the problem here!!!!!:ugh::ugh::ugh:

rjtjrt

8th Dec 2009, 08:05

Quote "As ex-RAF groundcrew, ARB licenced eng, CPL qualified and now Oz citizen, I was appalled to read that Rudd's aircraft broke down in Washington and again in Hawaii recently. Whilst the press made a song and dance about Rudd blowing his top over the breakfast he was served on a previous flight, if a so-called VIP crew can't even organise the Prime Minister of the country a vegetarian meal as requested, then any resemblance to it being a "VIP Flight" is in name only.

Perhaps he should fly commercial, at least he would be treated properly and even stand a chance of getting to his destination on time.

Alison"

Well done Alison. You must feel so superior. The RAF would have it all so much better organised.
John

parabellum

8th Dec 2009, 09:25

You have to remember that Little Kevin and his crew have been kept away from the toys of office for eleven years so it is a bit like letting kids loose in a sweet or toy shop, they just can't control themselves.

When the ALP's term of office in government is over you can expect it to leave behind statistics that will be nearly identical to their previous efforts at government, all the money in the chest given away, huge debts generated and a huge mess for the coalition to clear up, nothing unusual there.

alisoncc

8th Dec 2009, 10:05

rjtjrt wrote:

Well done Alison. You must feel so superior. The RAF would have it all so much better organised.
John

I would suggest that even the vaguest probability of any reliability in aircraft availability went out the window when some bean counter came up with the concept of "If it ain't broke don't fix it". In the process doing away with most aspects of aircraft maintenance. If you wait until something breaks before you examine it, then sod's law says it will break at the most inconvenient time.

I am quite sure there will be "statistics" that say reliability has improved by not having maintenance personnel strip an aircraft at major services, but then again one would have to look at the quality of the maintenance personnel's training to gain any reasonable comparison. The couple of Virgin aircraft here that have suffered broken wheel axles recently is probably a good indication of the downside of "Not fixing it until it breaks". I suspect the RAAF is no different.

Captain Sand Dune

8th Dec 2009, 19:22

Slezy9

8th Dec 2009, 19:30

Do you think the RAAF (and the rest of Defence for that matter) didn't try to tell the (Labour!) government of the day that when they initiated "civilianisation" of "non-core activities"? Trouble is "non-core activities" have gradually expanded to include more things than was originally intended.
The only military element of 34SQN are the crews. But of course it's much cheaper doing it that way, and that's more important isn't it!?

Oh woe is me, the Labour government is responsible for everything bad in the world. :ugh:

The ground crew have been non-military for a lot longer than the Labour government has been around. I think you would find it was the Liberals who brought in civi maintenance.

Captain Sand Dune

8th Dec 2009, 21:34

Oh woe is me, the Labour government is responsible for everything bad in the world. Correct!!:}
I remember the early/mid 80's when the commercial support program (CSP) was unvieled. Actually it could have been when Fraser was in power.
In any case I think that many in defence (especially the RAAF) would consider it has gone too far.

Old Fella

9th Dec 2009, 08:26

It is 28 years since I left the RAAF and I therefore know nothing of the current maintenance practices. What I do know is that the first thing to wear out on some aircraft on which I worked during the years I was a ground engineer, before going aloft as a F/E, one of the first things to wear was the Dzus fasteners or Camloc fasteners. The ridiculous system of weekly and monthly servicing, irrespective of hours flown, was often a complete waste of man-hours. Likewise, changing of components purely because they had been in service for "X" number of hours was not always worthwhile in terms of reliability or cost effectiveness. Progressive maintenance where components are properly checked by competent engineering staff and changed only when evidence is found to support such changes does make sense. I think the suggestion of alisoncc that maintenance is only carried out "after it breaks" is not entirely correct. I know that during my life as a civil F/E technical delays were very rare and the quality of aircraft maintenance was very good.

alisoncc

9th Dec 2009, 19:46

Old Fella wrote:

The ridiculous system of weekly and monthly servicing, irrespective of hours flown, was often a complete waste of man-hours. Likewise, changing of components purely because they had been in service for "X" number of hours was not always worthwhile in terms of reliability or cost effectiveness

To the best of my recollections it was NEVER weekly and monthly servicing, irrespective of hours flown. On our Vulcan Sqdn, the aircraft's Form 700 gave hours flown and noted any excessive airframe stress applied. Often major and minor service scheduling was based on an intelligent assessment of both time since last carried out in conjunction with hours flown.

It was standard practise that the Crew Chief always flew on the first test flight following any major service, and I understand that on aircraft where more seating was available, all signatories to the Form 700 got to fly on the first test flight. Doing so wonderfully focussed the mind on producing the best outcome.

My comparison wasn't on the RAF v RAAF, but on Now and Then. Then accountability and discipline were paramount. There were no "Legal team - driven" appeals against a months jankers and loss of pay for even a minor failing in following correct procedures. Greater failings could be punished by demotions, significantly affecting the rest of one's service career. There were no "if's" and "but's", end of story. Imagine the furore if some civvy tech was sentenced to a month in jail and a UKP3,000 fine (todays equivalent) for failing to fully tighten a connector on some piece of avionics equipment as happened to an associate then.

Whilst there have been massive improvements in equipment reliability, I firmly believe that servicing standards have dropped more than sufficient to offset this improvement. And irrespective of one's political leanings, if the country's Prime Minister flying to and from a meeting with the President of the US to discuss troop deployments cannot be assured of actually making it, then it's an incredibly poor show. Said troop deployments taking place in an operational theatre, so yes it was a "war" critical mission that Kevin Rudd undertook. But then again we used to take our wars seriously.

Old Fella

10th Dec 2009, 08:04

alisoncc. I spent 23 years in the RAAF, about 11 in total in the Engine trade. I trained as a C130A Flight Engineer and thereafter spent the rest of my RAAF career in the F/E role before joining the civil airline industry. I also spent almost four years as a ground engineer at a joint RAF/RAAF facility where we operated a mix of RAF and RAAF aircraft, all under the RAAF maintenance system. I can assure you that weekly "A" servicing and monthly "C" service's were, at times, carried out on aircraft which may not have flown at all and in most cases had flown few hours. During my ten years on the C130 aircraft I was responsible, as were all Squadron F/E's, for any maintenance required away base short of major component changes such as an engine or prop change. We very rarely had the luxury of any ground crew assistance. As for your comments regarding the inability of being "assured of actually making it, then it is an incredibly poor show" , I'm sorry to say, is a nonsense. No aircraft, of which I am aware, which can be assured of never suffering a defect has yet been produced. As for the taking of "war" seriously, I think both our countries of birth have earned the right to hold our heads high in terms of military worth. But then what would I know, I'm a mere Colonial.

herkman

10th Dec 2009, 20:20

And Tony they were the best maintained C130A's in the world, giving much higher hours between failures than our USAF friends.

The fact that one of them is the only C130A in original configeration still flying 50 years on says a lot for the deligence of the servicing crews of the RAAF.

I know that several times Lockheed had nice things to say about how "their" aircraft were looked after by the RAAF.

Just goes to show that as aircraft have got more reliable, so the schedules can safely be amended.

People who think they have the important job, would do well to remember that with out out techo's the ramp would just be a large aircraft parking lot.

Regards

Col

Old Fella

11th Dec 2009, 02:40

Hi Col. Yes mate, our aircraft were and likely still are among the best maintained aircraft worldwide and operated by people who know what they are about. Over fifty years of C130 operations and, thankfully, not one written off in an accident. Need I say more. All the best for Christmas and 2010 mate. Cheers Tony.

alisoncc

12th Dec 2009, 05:02

Interesting story to tell about an RAAF C130.

In March 1967, after visiting family in Brisbane got a lift on a RAAF Herc out of Amberley heading for Butterworth via Darwin. Whilst loading at Darwin, another RAAF Herc taxied on to the next pan, and was rapidly surrounded by medics and ambulances. It was the first Australian Casevac out of Vietnam. Photo below of us enroute Butterworth. I think it was out of Amberley, may have been Richmond.

http://alisoncc.com/images/C130_1967.jpg

Chatting to the crew after leaving Darwin I mentioned that I was heading for RAF Changi. A very obliging pilot said “no probs” and called Changi Tower requesting approval to do a practice landing and taxi, which was given. Half way around the perimeter track they stopped and kicked me out, then continued on their way.

Whereupon I wandered across to Customs with suitcase in hand requesting admittance. Besides being an RAF camp Changi was also an international airport. So entry wasn’t so easy as passengers didn’t normally turn up that side without suitable documentation and normal procedures. Ended up with them ringing the tower and enquiring as to whether an Australian military aircraft had recently landed and deposited anyone on the airfield. The tower replied that they hadn’t seen anyone get out, but it wouldn’t surprise them. So Customs let me through. The Herc crew were a pretty good bunch of guys.

All the best Old Fella.

Alison

Wiley

12th Dec 2009, 05:50

Alison,
I see you learned the first rule of paxing in a C130A - "sleep high". On the 'A', the circulation of the aircon was put in the wrong way round, so that after six hours, you always ended up with freezing feet and a boiling noggin.

Old Fella

12th Dec 2009, 07:18

alisoncc. Thanks for the "plug" for my old Squadron and your good wishes. Likewise, all the best to you. Wiley there are some advantages in not having under-floor heating on the C130A. Anywhere aft of the ramp hinge was pretty cold-soaked after a few hours in the cruise and the design of the rear cargo door provided a great place to keep a carton cold and any frozen barramundi or prawns etc from thawing. And at 124200 lbs MTOW the "A" was a GO machine. Paxing was not the most pleasant experience however, and neither was having to sleep down the back on overnight turn-arounds on such tasks as evacuating Darwin after Cyclone Tracy.

Wiley

14th Dec 2009, 20:45

Old Fella, ahhhh, your comments bring back some fond memories.

Who could forget, on a PNG trainer, everyone sweaty in the extreme, and immediately after the final landing of the day at God only knows where, the Loadie climbing up into the duck's bum, dragging out the Esky that had sat there since not long after dawn, and the sound of the SP greenies being popped and passed up to the cockpit at about the same time as the two outboards were caged...

The practice would bring on massed courts martial in today's PC world, but that first sip from the frosted greenie can tasted really, really good as you taxied in and completed the paperwork prior to buttoning the old girl up for the night.

The wrong way round heating ducts might have been great for the Esky in the tail, but they were still a real punish for any poor bloody pax who scored a long flight on an 'A' rather than with that other mob across the road. Stepping down onto the cargo compartment floor, for the lucky ones who'd scored a high perch to sleep on, was like dipping your feet into a pool of very, very cold water.

Like the MG range, the 'A' was the last of the sports cars... As I recall, the saying was "'A' for go, 'E' for show".

Now, back to the subject of the thread. Where were we? Lambasting 24/7 Kev for his oversized carbon footprint, I believe.

Old Fella

27th Dec 2009, 01:05

Wiley, the days when PNG trainers were in vogue were indeed good days. Nights spent in places like Goroka, Mt Hagen, Wewak, Lae, Madang etc were not wasted. The flying in the Highlands was "character building" to say the least and there was never a more apt saying than "There are no Old Bold pilots in PNG". Those who were too bold adorned the mountains mostly. Your recollection of "A's for GO, E's for SHOW" is spot on and also very true. A lot of healthy rivalry between 36 and 37 existed over the whole time I was on C130's (A-E-H's) at Richmond (1968-1978). Happy landings.

tinpis

27th Dec 2009, 02:58

Any you old PNG Herc blokes know where "Ozzy" Osbourne is?

alisoncc

27th Dec 2009, 07:54

Old Fella wrote:
Wiley, the days when PNG trainers were in vogue were indeed good days. Nights spent in places like Goroka, Mt Hagen, Wewak, Lae, Madang etc were not wasted

Don't know about PNG trainers, but was there when it was TPNG - early seventies. Spent many hours digging BN2A's out of the mud at Kiunga and Nigerum when they dug themselves in on landing. We used to supply the Kennecott survey teams when they were assessing the potential of what later became Ok Tedi. Did my first solo nav into Tapini.

The bar at SPAC was a good place to be after a week away. Moresby had two pubs, top pub and bottom pub, being each end of the main drag.