Tristars grounded again? [Archive]

RAFBadger

21st Dec 2010, 09:22

An Aging aircraft
flying 'Unusual' operational flight profiles
Unserviceability on one aircraft being serious enough to
Necessitate fleet checks
That find more damage
That Ground all four of the aircraft at Brize
Until we get spares
Which we don't have
Which come from our 'supplier' in Canada
Which takes time on a good day
But much longer when most of the airfields in the UK are shut!

Rest assured that the boys and girls at 216 are doing everything that they can to get the aircraft serviceable especially at this time of year.

ALM In Waiting

21st Dec 2010, 10:46

Badger, thanks for the info. Nothing but dubious rumours this end.

BEagle

21st Dec 2010, 16:36

You do have to wonder at the naivety of the London Airport people who apparently asked whether the Covert Oxonian Aerodrome could accept some civil passenger flights during the recent snowstorms!

From the Witney Gazette:

Base could not help
3:08pm Tuesday 21st December 2010
HEATHROW airport bosses asked RAF Brize Norton if it could take some passenger flights during the snow storms.

The base turned down an official request from Heathrow Airport on Saturday, because it needed to concentrate on its military efforts.

Last night, teams were still trying to defrost planes and clear the base of snow in preparation for the return of hundreds of troops for Christmas.

Group Captain Dom Stamp said the base had to refuse the request.

He said: “We were not able to take any from them, because we simply would not have the ability to park them and to handle them, and obviously our output was what was crucial to us, our military output, providing the air bridge (link to Afghanistan), so we had to concentrate on that.”

There are about 23 vehicles and 20 staff keeping the runways clear, and the base has 80,000 litres of de-icer in reserve.

Staff cannot use grit or rock salt because of the damage it could cause to aircraft engines.

RAF Brize Norton uses its on-site weather station, which gives round-the-clock updates on air and runway temperatures, wind speeds, and visibility Gp Capt Stamp added: “Every single person at Brize Norton understands the crucial support that we provide to operations, and in particular the need to pull out all the stops to bring back personnel who are looking forward so much to spending Christmas with their families and loved ones."

“As the RAF’s busiest airport, it was absolutely vital we were well prepared."

“This preparation, and the excellent job that my people have undertaken, has proven to be vital in overcoming the severe weather conditions experienced so far this winter.”

The TriStar problem, plus the recent bad weather, will no doubt be stretching everyone's efforts to get as many people home for Christmas as they can. Attempting to handle civil aircraft at very short notice would clearly have been impossible; one wonders whether the 'Heathrow Airport bosses' have the slightest clue about the differences between military and civil aerodrome facilities or infrastructure.

Hope the TriStars are soon cleared to resume flights!

Sgt.Slabber

21st Dec 2010, 17:12

Vintage VC10 pressed into service with RAF's transport fleet - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/8217143/Vintage-VC10-pressed-into-service-with-RAFs-transport-fleet.html) :\

valveclosed

21st Dec 2010, 17:21

The comment of them being past there sell by date!
Errr whats the sell by date of an aircraft? it was 2016 ish then they have changed it to 2013
When the FSTA comes in to service, how long before its past its sell by date?
2 years? 5 Years? 10 years?
fwiw the sqn fleeet leader has half the hours that most of the civvies one had when they went out of service.
Make a comparison, all the Quantas 380's were grounded coz of a suspect fleet prob, does that make em past there sell by date now?

Keep working on em fellas lets get the herrick back on track

Ivan Rogov

21st Dec 2010, 17:39

I hate to be old fashioned but .............

OPSEC :ugh:

cessnapete

21st Dec 2010, 17:43

The avionics upgrade will probably be binned now with these ongoing airframe fatigue issues, after a shedload of money spent at Marshalls.
No Sim or training devices are yet available, so all training would need to be carried out on real expensive a/c when not u/s.
Dedicated crews needed for this one Tanker a/c as presumably unable to 'two type' due to many glass/cockpit flightdeck differences with unmodified a/c.
A330 will be coming into service by the time any others upgraded. (two years or so so far on first upgrade a/c, and still not in service.)

Arty Fufkin

21st Dec 2010, 17:47

That telegraph article was a right load of hoop. Makes you wonder where they find their "RAF Sources", public bar of the Beehive I shouldn't wonder!
Still, I share everyones hopes that it all gets back on track soon, our brethren on Aarse are making the most of it I see.

Chris Griffin

21st Dec 2010, 17:51

Ivan - OPSEC??

a. Its in a broadsheet with sanctioned comments by the hierarchy.

b. Absolutely everyone is aware of the problem due to the very high profile that such issues create.

As for the VC10 carrying pax again, the hypocrisy is astounding.

Daysleeper

21st Dec 2010, 18:02

An RAF source said the ground proximity issue was “mitigated” by having another crewman in the cockpit as an “extra pair of eyes to keep a look out”.

Yeah cos that worked reaaallly well in the civil world. :ugh:

Bubblewindow

21st Dec 2010, 18:11

As for the VC10 carrying pax again

Does this mean that all the VC-10
Captains are getting their jobs back, after learning of their
losses a few weeks ago?

BW

Justanopinion

21st Dec 2010, 18:39

As for the VC10 carrying pax again, the hypocrisy is astounding.

The VC10 fleet has been carrying duty pax for months - if they are part of the 'exercise traffic you are moving' or operationally essential. If you were not 'part' of the move, even if you are military, you were not allowed to fly.

Permission was requested for a Comp C to fly back from west coast of the USA to the UK a few months ago and denied because of this rule. The bloke, a mover, flew home civvy. Rules is rules apparently.

moggiee

22nd Dec 2010, 10:03

Blacksheep

22nd Dec 2010, 10:24

In the olden days our "Ground Proximity Warning System" (GPWS) was called "Terrain Following Radar" (TFR) ;)

Meanwhile, our civvy B757s are still not past their sell-by date. They're only just coming up to 87,000 hours/29,000 cycles. They'll be catching up with your VC10s before long. (Ducks to avoid flak...)

Out Of Trim

22nd Dec 2010, 15:03

Rather fly in the the good old VC-10 than a Tri* anyday! :)

Daysleeper

22nd Dec 2010, 15:51

I carried many thousands of passengers on 10 Sqn without "ground proximity warning sytems" and never killed anyone. This crap about GPWS etc is just nonsense - operate to your LIMITS and you will be safe. When it comes to carrying passengers around, safety isn't a matter of equipment, it's a state of mind.

If you can't see at DA, go-around. It's very simple.

Ever been radar vectored into a hillside...given a confusing clearance, had a misprinted chart. :ugh:

With the odd, very rare, exception TAWS has pretty much finished the CFIT accidents that were killing hundreds if not thousands of people every year on civil airliners.

VinRouge

22nd Dec 2010, 17:46

Plus they dont nag, expect tea and coffee and certainly dont stink of 2 week old p*ss!

cazatou

22nd Dec 2010, 18:05

Daysleeper

"killing hundreds if not thousands of people every year on civil airliners"

How many were killed each year by RAF transport aircraft engaged on routine passenger flights?

Redcarpet

22nd Dec 2010, 19:10

Rather fly in the the good old Tri* than a VC-10 anyday!:O

Dengue_Dude

22nd Dec 2010, 19:20

I hate to be old fashioned but .............

OPSEC

If you're interested in that - what the f are you doing on this site?

For Christ's sake don't go and read Wikileaks then, you'll have a seizure - that stuff really IS classified.

The bonus is it's really embarrassing the bunches of lying bastards in governments various.

No surprises, but reassuring nevertheless.

Frustrated....

22nd Dec 2010, 19:49

It would appear that we, the RAF and the Regulators are becoming too risk averse.

GPWS were surely mandated to mitigate for twin crew cockpits in the more modern airliners. The VC10 has a four crew cockpit on the C1 and the NAV and/or the Eng are the GPWS.

As an Ex-VC10 operator, it is a team effort not to fly into the ground and the additional 2 flight deck crew surely make up for no GPWS.

After all, the VC10 has been operated for a long time now with no CFIT.

Frustrated....

Daysleeper

22nd Dec 2010, 20:45

Dear lord preserve us from old fools

Extra crew members are no defence against CFIT, DC-10 ANZ Mt Erebus anyone, or 727 Dan Air in Tenerife or L1011 Eastern in the Florida everglades
and so on and so on...

The causes of CFIT are multitude and like all accidents usually have a chain of events leading up to it. TAWS intervenes to break that chain, successfully. It is not always perfect, a determined crew can still ignore the voice and the kit can break, but in the vast vast majority of cases it prevents accidents.

Ask yourself whether it would be acceptable to lose a "routine" trooping flight to a preventible accident cause.

Seems the decision to stop the VC-10 doing routine pax flights is quite sensible. I just hope the Tristar has a proper database driven TAWS fitted (either EGPWS or T2/3 CAS) and not an old GPWS set.

BEagle

22nd Dec 2010, 20:47

Frustrated - correct!

GPWS was introduced to try and prevent idiots killing themselves - particularly in 2-person flight decks with some wet-behind-the-ears sprog in the RHS.

Irrelevant in the VC10, but you try and persuade the yellowcoat culture of today!

Even a GPWS didn't stop the 'Terrain, Terrain, Pull up' command to an Avianca 747 being acknowledged by 'Yeah...yeah' from the Captain and no action 15 sec before he killed everyone on board by flying into a mountain near Madrid in 1984.

The value of the old cushion-dampeners ;) at the back of the VC10 flight deck shouldn't be underestimated - just remember how it was they survived to become that old!

Dear Lord, protect us from those without sufficient airmanship and experience to cope without an electric nanny telling them when it's time to pee.

Daysleeper

22nd Dec 2010, 21:16

GPWS was invented to alert good people to mistakes, it reduced the fatal CFIT rate initially, when enhanced with a terrain database and positional information it has almost eliminated the CFIT rate.

It has nothing to do with experience or being "wet behind the ears" and everything to do with being human.
Bluntly you are living in a dream world if you think you were or are proof against mistakes, yours or other peoples and multiple crew members do not prevent CFIT accidents, there are thousands of dead as evidence for that.

I already said you can't prevent every single accident, but you can reduce the rate to almost nothing and that has been achieved, now ask why you would NOT want to do that.

Again the question is - is the loss of 150 British military personnel to CFIT acceptable? If the answer is no then operate aircraft with a modern TAWS.

Not really a "yellow coat" culture, but how about a safety culture? As in operating in a way that minimises the risks while maximising the benefit, or from a military perspective it would take the Taliban about 18 months to kill as many people of our people as a VC-10 could in one accident.

By the way...

Dan Air Tenerife Commander 15,000 hrs, FO 3,500 hrs FE 3,500 hrs not exactly wet behind the ears. I could go on but it's late and you seem to be stuck in the 1960's

Specaircrew

22nd Dec 2010, 21:26

Ah yes GPWS, that wonderful safety device that used to scream 'On Taxiway, On Taxiway' during the take off roll so that you missed the V1 call!!!!

Rigga

22nd Dec 2010, 23:04

Of course, its not just that those decrepit vc10s are old - it's that they are no longer fully airways equipped, being minus TCAS/TAWS, RVSM and I doubt not even FM Immune. Nor do they comply with civil noise standards for civil airports. Nor do they comply with 25 year old PAX lighting rules - apparently just short of 1970's african airline standards - but seemingly okay for todays RAF?

The BZN Fleets have been ignored to their death and the -10's only revived with a sticking-plaster policy because the ignored -11's have past their best before date by a mere 20 years.

- must be bed-time...

uncle peter

22nd Dec 2010, 23:22

Rigga

Even a cursory google could have told you that the vc10 has TCAS, is RVSM approved and the civil noise issue being an urban myth.

An old stude of mine still flies them and confirmed the floor lighting issue combined with lack of GPWS meant that pax carrying was too risky for ministers in the light of Haddon-Cave.

Too risky right until they're needed again. Either they can or they can't - seems like no one has the kahunas to stand by their decision.

Would appear that the RAF is broken.

TBM-Legend

22nd Dec 2010, 23:53

lease a few A330's for trooping only...

Tourist

23rd Dec 2010, 07:06

BEagle is arrogant enough to think he knows better than the people who have researched the safety case for these things. He thinks he can chose which instruments are inportant and which can be ignored. To be honest, I find his attitude a cause for concern. If he was on my sqn I would have him grounded.

pma 32dd

23rd Dec 2010, 07:26

Then there was the VC10 that flew a simulated 2 eng approach at Brize and the crew forgot the gear....only a well observed call from ATC prvented a wheels up - GPWS wouldve stopped it. Not forgetting that ac was flown by Trg Flt staff.

I flew and loved the VC10 for 12 years, it provided endless adventures, but the 4 man flightdeck is safer argument is I'm afraid one from the dinosaurs.

Now back to my Airbus and it's faults! :)

Justanopinion

23rd Dec 2010, 07:37

Tourist

Beagle is entitled to his opinion like anyone else and although he is no longer flying the VC10, he was one of the best operators of his generation, and with a few thousand hours on the VC10 flight deck, he has a fair idea of what procedures are in place.

Back to the point - the VC10 flies all over the world (right now) carrying exercise and operational pax. It sometimes carries these pax with a couple of fast jets attached to its backside, whilst discharging lots of fuel at quite high speeds..... not exactly civilian SOP.

Risk assessment i get, changing the rules as to what is acceptable today, is not tomorrow, oh, but we need it to do this task so its ok again the day after... is a pain in the ass.

ORAC

23rd Dec 2010, 07:37

Torygraph: James Blunt misses Afghanistan concert (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/8219520/James-Blunt-misses-Afghanistan-concert.html)

It was meant to be a morale-boosting trip to cheer up hundreds of troops spending Christmas in Afghanistan.

Instead, international superstars James Blunt and Katherine Jenkins got a taste of the kind of problems faced by soldiers heading to and from the battlefield as they found themselves stranded for 15 hours at East Midlands airport.

The gaffes lead Mr Blunt, a former officer in the Life Guards, to tell friends that it “bad organisation, verging on incompetence” that led to the cancellation. Fortunately neither singer was aware that the antique VC10 aircraft they had boarded had been banned from taking passengers bar in exceptional circumstances because of safety fears over its ageing equipment.

The two singers joined 160 soldiers at East Midlands airport for a 7am flight on Tuesday to fly out to Helmand for a two-show tour. Mr Blunt was particularly keen to get out to Afghanistan after aircraft problems prevented him travelling last year.

An initial 90 minute delay was caused by the RAF failing to have the right equipment to load the meals on board. Once this was cleared the crew boarded only to discover that the 50-year-old aeroplane’s airborne radar system was malfunctioning. But they had to wait eight hours before they got clearance from RAF chiefs to fly without the problem fixed.

The passengers were then allowed to board shortly after 4pm but the RAF ground movers miscounted the passengers and enforced another delay because they believed they had an extra person on board.

As a result they missed their re-scheduled take-off slot for shortly after 5pm.

But the previous hold-ups meant that the aircrew were outside their duty hours and needed an enforced rest and the aircraft could not fly on its new take-off slot.

The plane had to be emptied but it took almost five hours to get everyone off as no buses could be found to off-load the troops. They were not allowed to walk to the terminal just 75 yards away.

No replacement aircrew could be found and the entire flight was cancelled.

A friend of James Blunt told The Daily Telegraph that the blunders were down to “bad organization, verging on incompetence within the structure of the RAF”.............

ZH875

23rd Dec 2010, 07:57

If I was on the front line, NOT having James Blunt trying to sing, would be the better morale booster than having him there..

Ivan Rogov

23rd Dec 2010, 08:01

at last a bit of good news..............

RAF save UK troops in Afghanistan from being forced to listen to diminutive squeeky one hit wonder!

cazatou

23rd Dec 2010, 08:06

Having woken up in pedantic nit picker mode - it is my understanding that the VC10 CMk1 entered RAF service in July 1966 and commenced regular route flights on 4 April 1967.

ShyTorque

23rd Dec 2010, 08:19

You mean it's suddenly unsafe to fly without GPWS?

Not sure how I'll cope from now on. Especially this single pilot IFR stuff.

If today's RAF transport crews need GPWS to tell them when to round out over the runway (!), we should all be very concerned. Perhaps the least of our worries should be the age of the airframes?

P.S. If the VC10 is that bad, I demand my money back for all that highly risky backwards flying they made me do. Thinking about it, they never gave me a hi-vis vest to wear, either. How bad was that?

I'm completely traumatised, just before Christmas, too. Where do I claim..... :E

BEagle

23rd Dec 2010, 08:45

Justanopinion, thanks for the comment - where should I send the cheque?

To say that the VC10 is no longer safe to carry passengers because it doesn't have exit floor lighting or GPWS is a bit like saying it isn't safe to carry passengers in a 20 year old car which has neither airbags nor rear seatbelts. It might not be as 'wrapped in cotton wool' safe as a modern aircraft, but it isn't 'unsafe'.

I don't know whether the CCWR has been upgraded from the orange porridge Ecko 190 the VC10 had when I flew them, but I would have far sooner had a modern radar system than a GPWS.

And yes, GPWS Mode 4A would possibly have stopped that C-130 wheels-up landing.

I don't know when that alleged 2-engine wheels-up approach was flown, but most of us had a 'personal' gear/flap/clearance check at '1000 ft'. But if it is true, then well spotted that ATC person!

When conducting instructor training, I would contrive to get the student instructor into a potential gear up situation, but only after secretly briefing the whole crew first. I would play the Bloggs pilot bit, querying the specific route of the visual circuit for long enough to reach the base turn, then call out 'flap - approach' and fly as normal - when the gear horn went off, the student FI was expected to take control and sort matters out. I expected him to go around onto the deadside, then we would discuss how easy it was to be lulled into such a situation. This ensured that the student FI would probably NEVER get into the same situation with a real student!

No, in the VC10, GPWS would be a 'nice to have', but I do not consider it essential given the presence of 2 well-trained rear crew on the flight deck.

moggiee

23rd Dec 2010, 08:55

Ever been radar vectored into a hillside...given a confusing clearance, had a misprinted chart. :ugh:

Yes - and maintaining crew situational awareness has mitigated the risks to an acceptable degree. I would be quite happy to return to the VC10 and fly the aeroplane as it stands.

GPWS, like so many other pieces of kit on an aeroplane, is there in part to enhance safety and in part to covers the @rses of aircrew who are not doing their job properly.

It will help to make an operation more safe but its absence does not necessarily make the operation UNsafe.

Then there was the VC10 that flew a simulated 2 eng approach at Brize and the crew forgot the gear....only a well observed call from ATC prvented a wheels up - GPWS wouldve stopped it. Not forgetting that ac was flown by Trg Flt staff.

OK, a close call perhaps - although I've never heard of that incident before - but maybe also one that makes the point that "Management" or "Training" staff crews are the ones most likely to screw it up (remember the 8 Sqn Shackelton crash in 1990 and the 216 "broken spar" incident c1985?). I'm not complacent - I recognise that GPWS, TCAS etc. have a benefit but their absence does not make an aeroplane unsafe to fly. 80% of civil airliner accidents are caused by people and quite often because they ignore GPWS (Flying Tigers 747F in Kuala Lumpur) or TCAS (Tu154 that hit the DHL 757). The Flying Tigers crew were flying an NDB approach without the plates in front of them, descending to 400' when cleared to 2400' QNH and ignored GPWS instructions for almost 30 secs. There were numerous opportunities there for a more professional approach to operations to have saved their lives.

Blacksheep

23rd Dec 2010, 08:58

GPWS was introduced to try and prevent idiots killing themselves - You cannot prevent idiots killing themselves and their companions. There have been cases where two crew aircraft have flown into the ground with the GPWS screaming "PULL UP!!!" and the crew shouting "SHUT-UP!!"
particularly in 2-person flight decks with some wet-behind-the-ears sprog in the RHS.No. The accidents that led up to its introduction all occurred on three-crew aircraft. GPWS has probably been the most useful innovation in avionics during my 46 years as an avionics engineer.

moggiee

23rd Dec 2010, 08:59

If I was on the front line, NOT having James Blunt trying to sing, would be the better morale booster than having him there..
However, the appearance of Katherine Jenkins would certainly boost MY morale (if I may call it that!).

D O Guerrero

23rd Dec 2010, 09:00

BEagle, so you stand by your statement about wet behind the ears pilots and idiots?
That's precisely the attitude that leads to CFIT accidents - "It won't happen to me". Pathetic.

cazatou

23rd Dec 2010, 09:18

Blacksheep is quite correct.

Nothing is Foolproof - because Fools are too ingenious.

timzsta

23rd Dec 2010, 09:23

James Blunt - the only man to be his own cockney rhyming slang

Exascot

23rd Dec 2010, 09:43

Who are James Blunt and Katherine Jenkins anyway? Don't think I ever flew them on 10 Sqn.

BEagle

23rd Dec 2010, 09:50

The other problem with GPWS is that of unintended consequences. In the early days of A310 MRTT crew training, the GPWS suddenly issued an alert whilst we were conducting AAR on Saxon anchor.... The reason was that one of the receivers had crossed a bit too close underneath the back of the jet and the GPWS had found itself a 'glass mountain'. But what concerned me was the way both pilots looked at each other in confusion, without knowing what to do. Fortunately the wise head in the jump seat told them "It's spurious, carry on with your tanking!" We were also concerned that an electric nanny might also call out "Retard, retard" if the receivers got within 30ft of the rad alt, so a note to this effect is now included in the relevant FCOM section.

CRM? I was always amused by RFK's comment about that: "CRM? That's for poofs!".

The 'wet-behind-the-ears' comment was to infer that that GPWS is supposed to make flying 2-pilot people-tubes safe no matter how inexperienced the crew are - that's all.

BEagle

23rd Dec 2010, 10:16

DAMO's fault. Bloody Movers.

If you read the article, it looks like 'yellow coat' elfin safety nonsense - the passengers weren't allowed to walk 75 yards to the terminal.

Exascot

23rd Dec 2010, 10:25

Oh, please Kreuger flap. I was feeling quite cheerful about a nice quiet Christmas and then you depressed me with the mention of ‘Movers’. I still have nightmares about them 17 years on. Leave them alone, at the end of the day they are ‘blanket stackers’. Who decided to give them this role in the first place? Now, this is a classic example of a sub-branch that should be contracted out to civilians. I never thought that I would ever suggest this of any part of the Royal Air Force but this is a desperate case. Of course civilian ground handlers screw up occasionally but RAF movers specialise in it.

Jumping_Jack

23rd Dec 2010, 10:32

EXascot fraid you are showing your ignorance. Movers are just that, not suppliers. Only the Orificers are Loggies with a mover tick. :rolleyes:

moggiee

23rd Dec 2010, 10:43

EXascot fraid you are showing your ignorance. Movers are just that, not suppliers. Only the Orificers are Loggies with a mover tick. :rolleyes:
And it's the officers that cause the trouble, in my experience.

TheWizard

23rd Dec 2010, 10:55

However, the appearance of Katherine Jenkins would certainly boost MY morale (if I may call it that!).

The in-flight service seems to have changed since last month!!
Video: Katherine Jenkins sings to troops on plane after Afghan trip cancelled - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newsvideo/celebrity-news-video/8219335/Katherine-Jenkins-sings-to-troops-on-plane-after-Afghan-trip-cancelled.html?)

and this also proves that unless things have REALLY improved, that is NOT a VC10!!:ugh:

(Nice to see the ATSY are still enforcing the 'no mobile phones to be taken into theatre' rule!!)

brakedwell

23rd Dec 2010, 11:13

If the movers can't count up to 160, what will happen when the A330's arrive? :(

Top Bunk Tester

23rd Dec 2010, 13:31

Is that clever laser, as in technology, or clever loser, as in Mover? :oh:

pma 32dd

23rd Dec 2010, 13:42

Thinks of Brian Hanrahan (RIP)

I cannot say how many people were on the VC10but I counted them all out and then counted some extra when they came back again

Agatha

23rd Dec 2010, 13:42

On 19 Dec, Brize Norton and most UK airports experienced some of the most severe pre-Christmas weather for decades.

The task faced by all airports is similar - get passengers moving on time – but as the UK end of the Afghanistan Airbridge, the task facing Brize Norton was more personal – get TROOPS home for R&R at Christmas.

Working in temperatures of -15C to get and keep the airfield clear of the 15cm of snow, Brize Norton opened 7 hours earlier than most international airports
Off-duty shifts were called in and leave was been cancelled in all but the most exceptional circumstances.
Facing a backlog of almost 600 soldiers, sailors and airmen the Station rescheduled almost a dozen flights to produce a plan that should get all the troops home for Christmas.
The last passengers from Afghanistan will be in the UK on the afternoon of Christmas Eve.
Regrettably, many people have been delayed but the Movements Team in Afghanistan has prioritised travel on a case by case basis. R&R passengers have been put at the front of the list and shorter-term ‘visitors’ will be recovered on the later flights.
While keeping the Airbridge open, the personnel at Brize Norton have also:
Recovered almost 100 troops conducting vital pre-deployment training overseas.
Maintained support to the UK’s quick reaction alert.
Mounted an AeroMed flight which involved the civilian police escorting one of the surgeons to the aircraft.
Personally I think that's pretty good!!!! :D

Nomorefreetime

23rd Dec 2010, 14:55

Having not been at EMA to witness the Movers first hand. I would take a guess there was not as much free hand control afforded to the RAF. Has no one experianced the problems of getting pax to flight, from Hotel when down route (EMA might as well be classed as that, Anyone actually worked threre, Security is aBIG word there and it takes a while to get anything and keep it airside). We seem to forget how lucky we are when operating from home ports. How many extra security checks do you undergo just to get airside at your normal work place. As for Pax counts, the ALM also does a head count and that would not impose a massive delay if wrong (you only have to count the empty seats!).

Peter-RB

23rd Dec 2010, 15:25

My youngest son lost three days of his leave due to the Tri-Stars going tech in Cyprus, he and about 300 hundred others were camped on the perim of Kandahar, with the RAF totally knackered seems a total load of Boll.ks to run aircraft of that age( are they ex Freddie Laker) when the nation needs to keep an airbridge working every hour of every everyday to bring back more serious people. Then they are told Pilots need to rest after flying in from Cyprus, what sort of plonkers are running that side of the AF

the Yanks always seem to do it right for their Military, when we are supposed to boast of the finest fighting force in the World, has someone at the head sheds house, forgotten we need better busses, If we as a Nation cannot do any better, then we should withdraw from all theatres and have a Boarder Defence force only to work entirely from and within our Country, stop all this wetdream stuff for the Polititians, or better still send those political morons to sort it out with their mouths, and keep our underequipped miltary at home.
Shambolic is the word to describe all this..!

Peter R-B

Peter-RB

23rd Dec 2010, 15:34

Agatha, makes the comment that R&R people were put to the front of the list, that is a total load of ****e the RAF regiment who were going home for good, took priority on the one A/C that landed in kandahar despite being asked if they would swop for Infantry already late and eating time from their R&R, booking in and seat numbers were sorted out by two Army Majors and 3 Captains, who listed long hand everyone who was a priority and wrote out the loading lists, the sort of crap being fed back to you Agatha is WRONG.

Peter R-B

Dengue_Dude

23rd Dec 2010, 15:56

But that nice Mr Cameron said everything would be alright and our Forces have lost none of their capability.

Makes ME wonder who he thinks believe him or a word any other politician says.

Look at Wikileaks again, there is a lot of invertebrate literature there too.

WE992

23rd Dec 2010, 16:24

I see everybody is very quick at blaming the RAF for this latest debacle!

There is only one culprit and that a succession of governments that the British tax payer has voted into power which have repeatedly under funded the military.

Its time the British public realised how badly the government is letting its troops down.

Some of the billions we waste on overseas aid would be better spent at home.

BEagle

23rd Dec 2010, 16:37

Procurement creep, surely?

I recall a confident announcement in 1996, when were told by MoD that the VC10 and TriStar would be out of service "in the next 10 years", to be replaced by some 25-30 'MRTT' aircraft (A310MRTT or B767-200ER were the favourites).

Mind you, we were also told that the in-service date for 25 x 'FLA' (which became A400M) was 2004....:\

Now 14 years later, the poor old VC10s and TriStars are still struggling on, there are no A400Ms in service yet (and their numbers have been cut), the '25-30' MRTT have become 14, of which only 9 will be in regular use....

And we thought that it was bad when they binned 99 and 511 all those years ago...

Hope the poor buggers in the Great Sandpit get home for Christmas!

PTC REMF

23rd Dec 2010, 17:17

Do we still have a crew at KAF as part of the slip pattern to take the outbound aircraft?

Cockney Geezer

23rd Dec 2010, 17:37

PTC - REMF - Yep.

PTC REMF

23rd Dec 2010, 17:52

Then they are told Pilots need to rest after flying in from Cyprus, what sort of plonkers are running that side of the AF

Just curious, if they are the off going crew and there was a crew to take the aircraft back , why would the pax be told that the crew needed rest? Surely they would go straight into crew rest handing over the aircraft to the crew who had been at Kandahar?

SammySu

23rd Dec 2010, 17:58

The last 2 times I've been on a trooper into East Midlands we taxied straight to the cargo terminal, walked off the aircraft, straight onto
MT coaches at the bottom of the steps and swept out of the airfield gates for a quick journey home. No sign of any movers or customs or security checks or H&S knobbers.

Mind you this was courtesy of the French Air Force and their excellent AT squadron and their Airbuses various.

Embarkation on one of these flights was being held up by the UK Rozzers we had to have with us, doing a bag check. FAF Captain strolls up, "they are all military yes?" er yes, "then get out of the way and let them on my aircraft so we can get moving".

Comfortable. Efficient. Crew and cabin staff in smart uniforms not overstretched growbags. Fine food for all. No one dicking about pretending to be LHR security through their own deluded sense of self importance. On time, fully serviceable, and not covered in bits of dayglo with the details of whatever ADF the broken bit of cabin was snagged as. A very model of military AT that we could do much to aspire to.

general all rounder

23rd Dec 2010, 18:17

Peter RB,

The US does better than the UK because it spends 4% of its much larger GDP on Defence. In fact the US spends more on Defence than the next 25 largest spenders put together. The RAF still has ageing Air Transport jets because the last government did not increase Defence spending at a time of war. The Services could not afford the additional costs of the War in Afghanistan and modernise its forces at the same time. Finally, the Treasury has always insisted that defence contracts go to UK or European Comapnies even when there is a cheaper alternative somewhere else.

The RAF people you keep having a pop at have worked bl**dy hard over the last week to overcome technical and weather problems that nobody else would have overcome. If you represent all the thanks that they get - I doubt they'll bother again. Fortunately, most sensible troops do recognise the problems and the effort expended and will be grateful when in the end they get home for Christmas.

higthepig

23rd Dec 2010, 19:13

Flew back after 6 months in the desert last week, thank you for getting me home, even landed about 10 minutes early. Shame all the money in the 80s was spent on tanks, that is why they are still flogging around in old airliners, doing a good job in my opinion, for what it is worth:).

RumPunch

23rd Dec 2010, 19:44

Yeah I have to say the last 2 posts are spot on. People work damm hard to do the best with what they have got and some jumped up arse like David Blunt criticises.
Yet again the story has just made the RAF look unproffesional as usual thats the more damaging, Joe public dont care about underfunding and political **** ups, they just hear the troops have been let down by the RAF.

Mighty Quercus

23rd Dec 2010, 20:13

I totally agree the RAF made out as scapegoats. This was a civilian charter operating out of a civilian airport handled by a civilian ground handler. There would only have been one or two movers probably RLC to assist with escorting the pax from BZZ and getting weapons and baggage through the very strict airport security. So Mr Blunt if you want to blame someone speak to the CEO of the airline operating that leg not the RAF!!!

SRENNAPS

23rd Dec 2010, 21:22

Not one complimentary comment for Katherine – just goes to show the half glass empty mentality. How sad.:(:(

Seldomfitforpurpose

23rd Dec 2010, 22:13

Not one complimentary comment for Katherine – just goes to show the half glass empty mentality. How sad.:(:(

Love or loath either of them they were both going sausage side at Xmas to try and do something good for folk stuck in a bad place at this time of year, some of the "it's only banter" sad ***** commenting in here really do need to get a life :=

valveclosed

23rd Dec 2010, 22:13

Has anybod read the thread on here from the American on his way home?

Headcounts? movers cant count up to 160?
Luckily at the moment unlike lots of others I am sat on my sofa at home, just watched a programme about a well established airline that makes lots of money, one of the stories, a delay for head count issue.
There was an interesting comment from the CEO of that company, nobody every remembers the flight that goes without a hitch.

looking forward to hearing Mt Blunt comment on every other ailine in the world that suffers the same problems without all the issues of flying in to a conflict zone added to it

Sonorguy

24th Dec 2010, 12:01

Nomorefreetime

24th Dec 2010, 12:08

Has anyone experianced a turnaround at EMA. One way usually is a smooth event and pre-planned due to a flow clash / locality of pax home base.

BEagle

24th Dec 2010, 12:11

Really annoyed, I've arranged a special delivery from Santa for you tonight:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/Santa1.jpg

And Bah, Humbug to you!!

Shell Management

24th Dec 2010, 13:40

If only the MOD had been as keen to sign the FTSA deal as they had for the aircraft carriers the A330s would be in service now.

TEEEJ

24th Dec 2010, 13:50

GjdnZEV12xY

Boarding the McDonnell Douglas DC-10 and video of Katherine singing and having photographs taken with troops. Well done Katherine! :ok:

ySTPt8Zc4hA

The Air Charters are open source. You'll also find the Air Charter companies mentioned in UK Parliament questions and answers.

http://www.ukmams.co.uk/TeamBrief/TeamBrief/Movs%20Mags/RAF%20Movements%20summer%2007%20low%20res%20.pdf

TJ

BEagle

24th Dec 2010, 14:13

Thanks, TJ - isn't she such a little star!

Not in the same league, but I remember flying back to the UK with Lufthansa in Dec 2003. As I was at the front of the cabin, I could hear all sorts of mysterious girlish giggles going on in the front galley....

As we were taxying in, after the usual "Welcome to Birmingham" arrival brief, there was a nervous giggle followed by the purserette and her 2 female flight attendant colleagues singing "Ve vish you a Merry Christmas und a Happy New Year!"

TEEEJ

24th Dec 2010, 14:48

No problem, Beags. Katherine certainly is a star!

TJ

glhcarl

24th Dec 2010, 15:33

Will I have read all the posts and have yet to read that the TriStar fleet is in fact grounded? If they are "why". Or is this just another round of the TriStar haters spreading hate discontent?

glhcarl

24th Dec 2010, 19:57

Farfrompuken,

Thanks for the information.

However, I fail to see how "all" the aileron (inboard and/or outboard) bushings on "all" the TriStar fleet could fatigue at the same time and how do bearings fatigue?

glhcarl

24th Dec 2010, 22:46

Farfrompuken,

I wasn't trying to "kill the messenger" but I still have a special place in my heart for the RAF TriStars, I was the Lockheed "on-site-represenative" several years ago and have been hearing what bad shape the TriStars are in since before I even got to Brize Norton. The people of he 216 Squadron do a great job of taking care of the day to day problems, but having to relay on Marshall and Gamco (or what ever they call themselves now) for the heavy maintenance just takes too much time and money.

IMHO you have hit upon the reason the RAF has so many problems with the TriStars is that they don't use them as they were intended. Far too time much sitting on the ground and not in the air.

Cheers!

RumPunch

25th Dec 2010, 01:42

glhcarl its the same as Nimrod.

The good will of a nation has now gone **** off Mr Cameron

411A

25th Dec 2010, 06:04

Our small company operate two -500's and a couple of -250's (between two companies) so...if any expertise is desired by the MoD, just have 'em send me a private message.
IE; It's not really that difficult provided one knows what one is actually...doing.:rolleyes:

GlobalTravellerAT

25th Dec 2010, 07:42

Further to your rather incorrect comments, any delays out of theatre for our brave boys and girls is now not lost leave but is now tagged onto their r&r. Facts straight!! People like you frustrate me no end, people work bloody hard to ensure boys and girls get to where they need to be and for when with limited funding and equipment.

Merry Christmas.

GTAT

moggiee

25th Dec 2010, 08:24

GTAT: was it not the case until recently that any delay leaving theatre WAS lost from R&R time and not tagged onto the end?

RE: Tristars. I recall an interview in Flight International some years back where the top neddy at Cathay Pacific was asked if his "old" Tristars caused problems for the company. His replay was that there was no such thing as an "old" aeroplane, just those that became increasingly expensive to keep young!

The procurement bods at MoD would do well to heed those words - there are only two real choices: either buy the spares that are needed or replace the aeroplanes with new ones.

In the past, of course, the RAF has benefited from BA operating aeroplanes that were older and had more hours than the military versions. The VC10 was a great example: when something broke on a BA one, the RAF got advance notice.

valveclosed

25th Dec 2010, 15:17

There is one good side to the DC1o delay story!!

at least it was KJ that got up front to sing for the passengers they were not forced to listen to that Blunt fella! Was he sat at the front sulking or summat?

Throttle Pusher

26th Dec 2010, 14:54

Tri Star seen airbourne over Brize today!

1.3VStall

26th Dec 2010, 19:27

valveclosed,

You are right - I would go throught any inconvenience for the chance to see KJ sing in the flesh! She is gooooooooooooorgeous!

Peter-RB

27th Dec 2010, 10:48

Good morning,

If any RAF top brass are ever looking in to Pprune, do they ever listen or read and take in whats being written and spoken, this morning we have C17 gone tech, pilots with not enough hours and troops being placed in hotels, or accomodation for 24 hours due the lack or A/frames and /or Pilots who have a clean Tacho, what in Gods name is happening to the men on the ground whilst this shambolic fiasco is being allowed to continue, we that is the UK must look like a third rate African State to those who look in from the outside.

How can other Countrys ever have faith in the words of the Government of the UK when we cant get our troops out or back, God help the lads on the ground if something really serious goes wrong in their world.

Peter R-B

411A

28th Dec 2010, 02:18

...due the lack or A/frames
Pity.
We have two TriStar 250's and one -500 available now, for charter.
All it takes is....cash.
No checks, please.;)

Kengineer-130

28th Dec 2010, 05:56

I take it the DAS suites are fully operational on them then 411?:}

thegypsy

28th Dec 2010, 07:52

411A No cheques please and confirm these Tristars of yours are up to date with their checks!!??:{

Kitsune

28th Dec 2010, 10:57

...and the all the engine MADs have been done by authorised maintenance personnel, and you can fly in EU airspace and... etc. etc. etc. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

411a everything that is wrong with aviation today :yuk::yuk::yuk:

411A

28th Dec 2010, 16:08

...and confirm these Tristars of yours are up to date with their checks!!??
Indeed they are....and several well known aviation authorities looked very carefully....including one in the EU.
Other than inadequate funding, there really can be no other reason why the RAF can't keep their TriStars (well, some of 'em anyway) totally serviceable.
These types are an older design and are rather easily maintained, provided a practical outlook is maintained....all it takes is knowledgeable expertise.
And, a little luck...;)

Peter-RB

29th Dec 2010, 10:47

411A,

Bring em on,
Drop a note, or E mail to our New Prime Minister,( [email protected] ) I am sure he would take some notice. ( but then would be talked out of it, due to the word OLD KIT) sadly the RAF no longer want involvement on older a/c, thats why our battle wary Infantary are held up for days on end parked under canvas in Kandahar

Also its nice to see comments that make sense re the looking after of older birds, that possibly is the prime mover or reason why our RAF have seemingly no ability to keep what we have fully serviced and available, for they would rather service new £80m per pop A/frames that need computer whizzo's to service rather than the actual hands on types..!

PeterR-B

minigundiplomat

29th Dec 2010, 11:08

RB

Battle Wary, and Battle Weary are two very seperate descriptions.

I was delayed just before xmas, for 5 days, in the circumstances you describe. I made it home mainly due to the valiant efforts of 99 Sqn (which is RAF) going above and beyond. I am sure the battle wary troops to which you refer did too.

Rather than persistant whinging about the RAF, over delays that were largely caused by a civil charter aircraft and weather, why not thank 99 Sqn for their efforts.

Or does that not suit your agenda. As one of the people who was severely held up and spent 2 days at her majesty's pleasure at Minhad, I just wish you'd put a frickin sock in it.

Arty Fufkin

29th Dec 2010, 11:33

Peter,

You appear to be labouring under the misconception that the RAF /216 Sqn are just not trying hard enough to keep the air bridge running. This is just plain wrong, and you do a disservice to the men and women who work tirelessly to maintain what is the number one priority for RAF AT.

Your main source of information on, indeed single connection with, the Afghan air bridge is understandably biased to see the whole thing as a failure. But please bear in mind that for the last five years, the Tristar air bridge been running with a success rate of well above 90% despite a raft of technical and operational challenges of which you have no idea or indeed, any place knowing.

The letters of thanks and commendation that I have seen regarding the performance of the air bridge during the last RIP bear testament to successes of all those concerned. So please be careful before you start casting aspersions, people like you only note the occasions when it all goes wrong, and are ignorant of the usual pattern of daily success.

Things will soon be back to normal, but I doubt that you'll notice.

Arty

Peter-RB

29th Dec 2010, 11:41

MiniGun

I dont have any agenda, I donate almost monthly to the charities connected with the RAF ( re huge family connections), and I give as much as I can to the Help the Heros cause, our family has lost members in conflicts past, so I am not Anti Armed Forces and I believe that a greater percent of the UKs GDP should be spent on the armed services. But we are approaching the point of no return with the RAF due to total lack of input from the Government past and sadly present, and whilst you all put up with it ,...George Osbourne will do nothing

I am also a UK tax payer, and last time I looked Free speech was still allowed even in context with the Armed Forces.

Even the dimmest of people realise the RAF has had Old Duffers running the place who have not stood hard too and protected the force, hence we see the debacle that even you refer to.

I apologise for my bad typing and missing a letter from a word, but you certainly understood what I was trying to say, and get thru.

PeterR-B

blaireau

29th Dec 2010, 12:32

Battle Wary, and Battle Weary are two very seperate descriptions

As are bottle scarred and battle scared!

minigundiplomat

29th Dec 2010, 12:40

I am also a UK tax payer, and last time I looked Free speech was still allowed

True, though I'm not sure that legally you need to pay tax to enjoy the right to free speech...otherwise it wouldnt be free!

You've made a number of posts regarding No 3 sons late arrival. Looks like youve got your moneys worth now. Either stop banging the same drum or find a new thread...please.

baffman

29th Dec 2010, 18:19

Further to your rather incorrect comments, any delays out of theatre for our brave boys and girls is now not lost leave but is now tagged onto their r&r. Facts straight!! ....Agreed that lost R&R days now get added to Post Tour Operational Leave, which is indeed a welcome improvement introduced under the present government, and I salute the efforts made by RAF personnel to minimise the delays within the resources provided. But let's not kid ourselves that you ever get back time lost from that precious mid tour R&R.

valveclosed

29th Dec 2010, 21:01

411a

so how come we have never seen any of yr jets on the charter circuit at brize

411A

30th Dec 2010, 07:24

so how come we have never seen any of yr jets on the charter circuit at brize
Perhaps because we have never been invited?:}
If our services are truly needed, have one of the senior chaps drop me a PM and I will pass the invite along to our marketing manager...who was, at one time, Sir Freddie's marketing guy at Laker Airways...yes, that long ago.

valveclosed

30th Dec 2010, 11:07

Right I will pop along and have a quick word with Mr Cameron, he will get one of his chaps to ring one of yr chaps.
Your marketing manager waits for folk to ring him!! interesting approach.

If you read the thread, think you will see the latest fault was a fleet issue, nothing that could have been done even with yr expert advice you could have offered with yr one -500

Contrary to popular belief the airbridge actually has a pretty good success rate. Its just unfortunate when it does go wrong its not that easy just to put another jet (if available) on the route, any delay around the route for whatever reason has knock on effect that forces a 24hr delay. Yes its bloody frustrating for guys and girls getting home for any reason but untill the unbreakable machine is built its sadly going to happen.

Redcarpet

30th Dec 2010, 18:28

" the airbridge actually has a pretty good success rate"

Is this the very same airbridge !? Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics.......

Uncle Ginsters

30th Dec 2010, 21:32

any delay around the route for whatever reason has knock on effect that forces a 24hr delay

That's not really true - a major reason that the airbridge takes the form that it does is to allow for slight delays without having to delay 24hrs. Of course, there's always a point where a crew will run out of CDT but we try to make that as far away as possible. Sadly though, whenever tasks are planned close to a max Crew Duty Day, it means that there is little or no fat for delays, and that happens all too regularly.

411A

31st Dec 2010, 02:08

Sadly though, whenever tasks are planned close to a max Crew Duty Day, it means that there is little or no fat for delays, and that happens all too regularly.

Reason enough to turn it over to civvy ops so that it can be planned and operated accordingly...with better success.:rolleyes:

Kitsune

31st Dec 2010, 09:47

Just one last try at getting you to answer the question 411a...

Do your tatty old wrecks have the nav fit to fly legally in the EU... yes or no?

ORAC

31st Dec 2010, 10:26

Rollins Air/Privilege Jet (http://www.pprune.org/freight-dogs/413835-new-l1011-thread.html#post5672697)

Roger D'Erassoff

31st Dec 2010, 11:57

Just one last try at getting you to answer the question 411a...

Do your tatty old wrecks have the nav fit to fly legally in the EU... yes or no?

Which as Kengineer-130 pointed out, is all a moot point if you don't have DAS. Many clapped out old jalopies fly to theatre every week carrying our freight, and many could take pax, but without a working DAS you just ain't going to get a look in.

thegypsy

31st Dec 2010, 14:52

Kitsune

That is not very nice calling 411A a tatty old wreck even if he is one:E

Redcarpet

1st Jan 2011, 01:03

Is this relevant ? BBC News - Flight disruption 'like hearing you are ill', academics claim (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-12099563)

411A

1st Jan 2011, 05:45

...have the nav fit to fly legally in the EU... yes or no?
Yes, both of them.
Next question?:hmm:

...but without a working DAS you just ain't going to get a look in.

Then...the UK guys will just have to sit and wait in theatre, for the RAF kit that might be indefinitely delayed.
Fine by me, but...I wonder how they feel?
The US DoD long ago found out that civvy air transport was they way to go, in most cases.

moggiee

1st Jan 2011, 06:31

The US DoD long ago found out that civvy air transport was they way to go, in most cases.
Yes - in MOST CASES.. But how do they get people into and out of Afghanistan?

411A

1st Jan 2011, 08:45

But how do they get people into and out of Afghanistan?
In many cases, with these folks...https://www.omniairintl.com/ one of the largest DoD airline contractors.
Omni is privately owned, and has been completing DoD flights for many years.

hello1

1st Jan 2011, 15:58

The only reason that we persevere with the TriStar is because of the military modifications that it has. If we want chater (and we do - buckets of it for both freight and pax) then we go to the market and get the cheapest deal that falls into the 'vaguely reliable' bracket. Recent events suggest that safe and competent operation of the aircraft is optional for freight charter.

Strangely, we don't start from the premise that we must have another old knackered TriStar to supplement our fleet of knackered TriStars when they don't work and then trawl the market accordingly. So 411, doubt whether any of our senior blokes want to talk to your sales chappie unless you are also doing a nice line in something a bit newer.:ok:

Andy H

1st Jan 2011, 16:02

Flew Omni Air to MPA a couple of times. Very professional even if the DC10s were cla***ed

411A

1st Jan 2011, 18:56

So 411, doubt whether any of our senior blokes want to talk to your sales chappie unless you are also doing a nice line in something a bit newer.

Fine.
Then let your chaps sit and wait in theatre for air transportation that might be severely delayed...or never arrive at all.
Must be the 'British way', stiff upper lip and all.:p

EGT Redline

1st Jan 2011, 19:20

411A's L1011 wouldn't be much use anyway. With all the spares he has to carry to cater for the continual AOG's there is no space left in the freight holds. I bet his flying spanner makes some serious $$$ in overtime!

411A

2nd Jan 2011, 03:20

I bet his flying spanner makes some serious $$$ in overtime!
You would lose that bet, big time.
And, as for AOG situations, this seems to be the exclusive bailiwick of the RAF with their TriStars, as we don't have many AOG situations.
Just finished 200 hours of continual flying...on time, every time.

sled dog

2nd Jan 2011, 09:45

So is 411A, U.S.A PR Representative to Pprune ..........:p

valveclosed

2nd Jan 2011, 19:30

Interesting comment from 411a turn the abridge over to civvie charter so it could be operated with greater success
Hmm now I do believe Mr blunts flight was on a civvie charter that err 1. had a tech snag 2. pax headcount 3. Ran out of crew duty, please explain how this is any better than any other set up.

411A

3rd Jan 2011, 02:48

Ran out of crew duty, please explain how this is any better than any other set up.

Wrong charter company, IE: you get what you pay for.:}

fergineer

3rd Jan 2011, 09:11

411A Air Luxor tried it and it became a bit of a nightmare for them.....they operated two -500's which were in pretty good shape but still found it difficult......unless you are operating to outer Mongolian bus tables life will become difficult operating only two aircraft.

valveclosed

3rd Jan 2011, 12:27

411a
So are you trying to say yr outfit could run the schedule with a guarantee that you would not have any delays? Funny old thing I don't know any airline in the world that can do that, how come you only run 3 trimotors and are not running a national airline?

Out Of Trim

3rd Jan 2011, 18:43

Brain Potter

4th Jan 2011, 10:04

411A,

You seem to make a habit of popping-up to criticize the RAF TriStar operation and boasting about how your outfit could do things so much better. Here are a few facts that you might not have considered:

1. Many of the ongoing problems with the RAF TriStars are airworthiness management issues. The RAF TriStars are military aircraft and are fitted with equipment that would preclude them from obtaining a Certificate of Airworthiness. They have to be managed and maintained under the military airworthiness system. This regulatory framework is not necessarily optimized for airliner-type aircraft and consequently some of the engineering practices may be a little more restrictive than found in commercial operations. This limitation is not exclusive to the the UK and could just as easily be found when comparing an airline DC-10 operation to that of the KC-10 by the USAF. Moreover, the Design Authority for the RAF TriStar rests with Marshall of Cambridge and not with Lockheed. Experience of the L-1011 operating under (insert name of country) civilian regulations does not necessarily mean that you understand the operation of the TriStar K1, KC1 or C2 as a UK military aircraft.

2. As a direct consequence of HM Government policy, RAF TriStars are primarily engaged on a task that cannot be performed by civilian charter. Regardless of whether it is a tiny company like yours or the might of British Airways - they are not equipped to perform the task. Delays and inconvinience to the individual service personnel as a result of this policy are regrettable, but the policy would only be changed if the operational commander reported that the airbridge is failing to meet his need. Other nations do things differently, but that is for them to decide how they want to balance risk, use of assets and cost.

3. The UK spends millions of pounds every year on chartering air transport. To re-iterate these operations do not perform the same task as the TriStar - they cannot. However, the MoD does understand what it wants and what it is willing to pay. Usually, this is the lowest bid from a reputable operator. Interestingly, the DC-10 still appears to going strong in this market but the L-1011 has died out. Maybe there are none left with operators that the MoD regards as acceptable?

4. Please don't think that any association with UN military work is going to gain your company any crediblity.

One last point:

L1011 lower deck stowage...unsurpassed

Except by A300, A330, A340, B747......

A2QFI

4th Jan 2011, 17:00

"They have to be managed and maintained under the military airworthiness system." A rather discredited and inefficient system so far as one can see, don't you think? See M of K thread for an exhaustive discussion.

411A

4th Jan 2011, 18:32

Many of the ongoing problems with the RAF TriStars are airworthiness management issues. The RAF TriStars are military aircraft and are fitted with equipment that would preclude them from obtaining a Certificate of Airworthiness
Nevertheless, they were originally designed as a civilian airliner, and suffer some of the same problems, and have many of the advantages of their civvy counterparts.
In addition, no TriStar operator that I have ever heard about (after flying the type for over thirty years) has had a problem of worn out or corroded aileron hinges.:uhoh:

Moreover, the Design Authority for the RAF TriStar rests with Marshall of Cambridge and not with Lockheed.
That I expect is one of the biggest problems.
Having delivered/accepted several TriStars at Marshalls', I can say with certainty that the aircraft is always delayed, and most times, over budget.

However, the tea in their office cafeteria ain't bad.:}

"They have to be managed and maintained under the military airworthiness system." A rather discredited and inefficient system so far as one can see, don't you think?

Opps...:rolleyes:

glhcarl

4th Jan 2011, 19:50

Moreover, the Design Authority for the RAF TriStar rests with Marshall of Cambridge and not with Lockheed.

Marshall does not have design authority for the RAF and any L-1011 Tristar, that is still held by Lockheed Martin.

From the Marshall web site: Marshall has full technical support and Conversion Design Authority for the Royal Air Force’s L-1011 Tristar Tanker....

So Marshall only has design authority over those portions of the TriStar modified my them. The won (under bid) Lockheed Martin for the technical support contract in 2005.

Nomorefreetime

4th Jan 2011, 20:27

Guys.
If you really love the Tristar, get in touch with our top brass and put an offer in. They will be surplus to the RAF's requirements sometime this decade and you might be able to pick them up at a reasonable price if you bid now.

valveclosed

4th Jan 2011, 22:50

Quote "Marshall Aerospace is the Sister Design Authority for the Royal Air Force fleet of Lockheed L10-11 TriStar Tanker/Freighter aircraft which Marshall converted to these roles."
Taken from the company web site

And where is the lower deck stowage on the RAF K models??

411 good to hear yr happy to fly around the world with double crew on board, have you installed bunks on yr -500 as well

411A

4th Jan 2011, 22:58

411 good to hear yr happy to fly around the world with double crew on board, have you installed bunks on yr -500 as well
Don't need bunks, FD crew are supplied with F/C leathered covered seats, that fully recline.
This is called...dozing for Dollars.
The only way to fly....:}

glhcarl

5th Jan 2011, 01:28

Quote "Marshall Aerospace is the Sister Design Authority for the Royal Air Force fleet of Lockheed L10-11 TriStar Tanker/Freighter aircraft which Marshall converted to these roles."

Which means Marshall has "Design Authority" over the converted parts of the tanker/freighters, not entire airframe.

I worked with Mashall for 20 plus years on the TriStar. If fact when I retired, Marshall and the RAF, each gave me a retirement gift. Which is more than I can say for Lockheed.

Biggus

5th Jan 2011, 07:02

When I retire I will have worked for the RAF for 34 years. The only retirement gift I am expecting from the RAF is my pension.... :)

barnstormer1968

5th Jan 2011, 07:56

This thread is starting to turn into a childish rant from some quarters.

Lets not keep arguing with 411A. It is obvious that his airline is the best at what it does (despite having aged, maintenance hungry and fuel inefficient aircraft in tiny numbers), and so may be in great demand in the future for work that the RAF Tristars are currently doing.

Although it is obvious to almost everyone here that his airline CANNOT do the role now, and would be uninsurable for the purpose, that is not to say that if:

His company get an 'end user' certificate to buy DAS equipment; they they put their aircraft in for deep maintenance to have DAS equipment (of suitable quality, and with total loss of revenue during this period) to all their aircraft; they employ extra staff and engineers to be able to service and overhaul the DAS gear; they train their crews on how to operate the gear; they obtain full insurance for this new 'in theatre' type role; their crew can also get suitable insurance; they get MOD/DOD permission for their crews to be 'eyes on' with secret MOD equipment (a hurdle for many carriers).

Then they will be on a level playing field, and the massive extra costs involved in this move will no doubt make them more expensive than the RAF, due to their tiny size.

Just my two penneth. I am of course happy to be corrected that 411A's friends are all DAS trained and experienced, and suitably insured for combat/in theatre type operations rather than airline operations.

A2QFI

5th Jan 2011, 15:52

No gratuity Biggus - or have the rules changed?

NURSE

5th Jan 2011, 18:08

wonder if we'd be having this debate is FSTA had been a straight buy instead of this PFI B0ll0x?

Biggus

5th Jan 2011, 18:54

A2QFI,

I consider the gratuity to be part and parcel of the pension deal, rather than a separate entity in itself... :)

A2QFI

5th Jan 2011, 19:33

OK! I haven't been in your position since 1974 so my perception is perhaps a bit skewed!

411A

5th Jan 2011, 20:16

Perhaps the 'best' option for the RAF to use their TriStars to Kaubl (or Bagram AFB) and then thereafter...civvy air transprt out of theatre, directly to the UK.
With our ops, no delays, guarenteed. Double crews (always) solved the duty time 'delay' difficulities.

IE: it is surprising (maybe not:}) that that the RAF is knee deep in 'problems'..:rolleyes:
IE: when will they ever learn?...:ugh:

Grabbers

5th Jan 2011, 20:24

Guarenteed? Quick, sign them up. :ugh::ugh::ugh:

majorthunderstorms

5th Jan 2011, 21:46

411A...

Sacrifice your ample lower hold space with FTIS?
Routing: UK to theatre direct? theatre to where before UK?
Augmented crews been done. No longer done for good reason.

I Admire your commercially charged optimism.

3engnever

5th Jan 2011, 22:27

If there is no delay then why worry about the extra crew. No airline in the world can say no delays, utter nonsense!!

This thread has turned to utter hoop!!!

411A

6th Jan 2011, 05:04

There is a reason why everyone else has given up operating these aircraft, bar a few characters in the desert or Africa.

Or...the RAF.:\

NURSE

6th Jan 2011, 07:52

seam to remember why we got them in the first place we needed modern long haul aircraft for the Airbridge to port stanley, BA had mothballed them because of the recession and the DC10 had such a poor reputation "Not the nine o'clock news" were running DC10 jokes almost weekly!

YouTube - NOT THE NINE O'CLOCK NEWS I BELIEVE SONG (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7eCUEfb7U0)

and like most transport aircraft the RAF have pushed them beyond what they were expected to do because transport aircraft come some way down their airships list of priories slightly above transport helecopters.

Climebear

6th Jan 2011, 08:02

411A

Perhaps the 'best' option for the RAF to use their TriStars to Kaubl (or Bagram AFB) and then thereafter...civvy air transprt out of theatre, directly to the UK.

Please read the earlier posts. It is UK (not RAF) policy that all flights in Afghanistan (intra and inter) that carry UK military passengers are undertaken in aircraft equipped with DAS. It doesn't matter where these land (KAF, Bastion, Kabul, Bagram, MAS....). Therefore, if a civilian company was to do this job it would need DAS equipped aircraft and DAS equipped crews.

Now it would be different if we took your suggestion and used civilian air to transport personnel to an airport in a nearby country and then move them into Afg in a DAS equipped aircraft. Perhaps then the MOD (not the RAF) could charter civilian airlines to do the leg between the UK and a regional country. You may wish to contact the MOD (not the RAF) and suggest such a thing.

411A

6th Jan 2011, 08:12

You may wish to contact the MOD (not the RAF) and suggest such a thing.
Our marketing manager (ex-Laker) has done just that...just yesterday, in fact.

Alex Whittingham

6th Jan 2011, 10:58

The TriStars were originally bought to fulfil a requirement to tank a C130 down to Stanley, for it to fail to get in, and tank it back. That requirement very quickly disappeared when MPA was built and the political climate improved but no-one wanted to admit it in case the purchase was binned. That is why the freight bay was filled up with nearly useless fuel tanks by Marshalls. Most of 216 at the time would have preferred the -500s to stay in their full civvy fit with 300 odd passenger seats and a usable freight bay.

This sort of incompetence was not confined to the military, though. The rumour in BA in the early 80's was that the TriStar was judged too expensive to operate by the accountants. They had looked at the fuel flow per engine compared to the B747, amongst other things, to work out the costs per seat mile. Allegedly, once the sale to the RAF had been agreed, someone pointed out that multiplying the fuel flow by 4 was always going to make the TriStar compare badly to the Boeing.

bspatz

6th Jan 2011, 11:38

Alex you are right about BA getting its sums wrong, I was the POC in MOD for the initial Tristar operations and worked closely with BA on crewing, catering etc when we were hiring BA crews. Interestingly the BA Tristar 500s had been upgraded by Lockheed with active flying controls and other mods as they would not achieve the stated payload/range which was based on the London Vancouver sector. They were therefore probably the longest range Tristars ever built and we put them into use on sectors such as BZZ-Nairobi and BZZ-Calgary as well as the ASI and then FI run where they were capable of moving 300 pax. The savings achieved were significant as we could replace 2 VC10s operating over 2 days with a single Tristar taking one day moving more pax. As a result I started the campaign to retain at least one unmodified Tristar for pax as a cost savings measure which was ultimately successful. I believe that BA also rued the decision to get rid of these aircraft as within a few months of selling them to the RAF they were chartering less capable Air Lanka Tristars to operate some of their South American routes.

NutLoose

6th Jan 2011, 11:56

Blacksheep

6th Jan 2011, 12:10

No airline in the world can say no delays, of course, but we're operating to a 98% despatch reliablity with aircraft running an average utilisation of 16 hours per day (includes all maintenance down time). That's pretty typical for most commercial airlines. (And no, not new aircraft. We're talking about aircraft with 80,000+ hours and 25,000+ cycles)

Sideshow Bob

6th Jan 2011, 12:44

411A,

Please explain how you will lift from Kabul in a Tristar with enough fuel to make the UK with any meaningful load whilst still operating to Perf A?

(been there, done it :ugh:)

Cpt_Pugwash

6th Jan 2011, 16:40

Returning from Swindon this afternoon, it was nice to see a Tri* turning over Devizes @ 1535Z, and then heading north over Melksham towards Lyneham.

Grabbers

6th Jan 2011, 18:15

That Tri* sounds it was in one of Brize director's better patterns.
:E

411A

6th Jan 2011, 21:15

Please explain how you will lift from Kabul in a Tristar with enough fuel to make the UK with any meaningful load whilst still operating to Perf A?

Very simple, Sideshow Bob, it requires a tech stop for refueling.
Done all the time with all of the UN flights, ex-ROB.
It really is an easy exercise, perhaps the RAF...don't know how?:rolleyes:

NB. This really rather basic question leads me to believe that some folks...haven't a clue.
No surprise...:ugh:

VinRouge

6th Jan 2011, 21:35

Within a UK CAA CAP371 regulated crew duty day 411?

Lockstock

6th Jan 2011, 21:49

Within a UK CAA CAP371 regulated crew duty day 411?

Yes, and easy if you use crew positioning.

But I'm sure 411 will give you the patronising, smart-a$$ answer. :hmm:

3engnever

6th Jan 2011, 22:07

Black Sheep,

With our ops, no delays, guarenteed. Double crews (always) solved the duty time 'delay' difficulities.

So how do you explain this comment. Sick of this crap being used to belittle the RAF AT system.

glhcarl

6th Jan 2011, 22:26

of course, but we're operating to a 98% despatch reliablity with aircraft running an average utilisation of 16 hours per day (includes all maintenance down time). That's pretty typical for most commercial airlines. (And no, not new aircraft. We're talking about aircraft with 80,000+ hours and 25,000+ cycles)

The sad thing is that the RAF TriStars have less than half the hours and cycles you quoted.

VinRouge

6th Jan 2011, 22:55

For all the waxing lyrical 411 comes out with, he seems to spend an awful lot of time on pprune.

Walter Mitty wind up merchant perchance? :rolleyes:

411A

7th Jan 2011, 01:10

Within a UK CAA CAP371 regulated crew duty day 411?
Yes, with a crew change at the refueling stop.
Augmented (preferred) or double crew sent to the Afghan end to cater for possible loading/cargo/fuel delays, which by the way, are the charter customer responsibilities.
Sick of this crap being used to belittle the RAF AT system.
Nevertheless, the RAF 'performance' is what it is, and if it was better, this thread would not likely be here.:rolleyes:

Blacksheep

7th Jan 2011, 07:05

The sad thing is that the RAF TriStars have less than half the hours and cycles you quoted.Which begs the question, why were they prematurely retired by the original operator and why were there so many stored out in the desert?

I'm not belittling the RAF AT operation - I was part of it myself once. I'm questioning the choice of equipment provided for the task. Sideshow Bob has hinted that the Tristar can't operate to maximum load out of Kabul which may be a clue as to why the Tristars were prematurely retired from civilian service.

tridriver

7th Jan 2011, 07:07

411A

Please continue with your suggestions and comments-they bring a smile to my face and are a joy to us all.

Clearly, Blacksheep you have never operated a 'heavy' out Kabul in the warm months. You may want to dust off your ATPL Perf note and do the maths.

PS

216 Sqn up and running; business as usual.

Sook

7th Jan 2011, 07:45

When was the last time an RAF Tristar flew into Kabul anyway? Not being a pilot, I would have thought that the lower altitude at Kandahar would mean more of a performance margin allowing greater loads to be carried.

valveclosed

7th Jan 2011, 08:21

Blacksheep

you question the choice of equipment! you obviously have no clue how aircraft work
Runway length! Airfield elevation! Pressure altitude! OAT! obstacles! it affects every type of aircraft!

411A
Damn you must pay yr crews pennies the number of them you can commit to one schedule and still operate at a profit, slip crews double or augmented crews, gobsmacked you still only have 3 airplanes if yr ops are so good

Sideshow Bob

7th Jan 2011, 08:57

Very simple, Sideshow Bob, it requires a tech stop for refueling.
Done all the time with all of the UN flights, ex-ROB.
It really is an easy exercise, perhaps the RAF...don't know how?

NB. This really rather basic question leads me to believe that some folks...haven't a clue.
No surprise...

Well that's not direct then is it and is something the RAF have been doing for a number of years. What do you think we do just stop off somewhere and park up for the night?

You seam to think we are a bunch of amateurs, try working to our rules and regulations with the restrictions placed on us from above and deliver the same result day in day out for 9 years you sanctimonious tw@t.

411A

7th Jan 2011, 11:02

What do you think we do just stop off somewhere and park up for the night?

You're not paying attention, Sideshow Bob, the tech stop for refueling also has a crew change, and in addition, catering uplift for the passengers (you do feed 'em in the RAF yes?), because... it would be operated as an airline operation not some off the wall military ops without adequate forethought.
The military is very good at what they were designed for, fighting, however, it would appear that the transport of personel could be greatly enhanced by adopting proven commercial airline ops, and at an expected lower overall cost.
One wonders...is the MoD up to the task?

Juan Tugoh

7th Jan 2011, 11:14

How many crews per frame are you running?

Same question for the 216 guys

411A

7th Jan 2011, 11:35

How many crews per frame are you running?

It very much depends on the customer rotational schedule.
As an ad-hoc operator, we call 'em in as needed.
When they work, they are paid well, when not working, they sit by their pools sipping marguaritas.
Recent flying was a good example.
One augmented crew only needed initially (with two or three day slips at each end, as scheduled), however, extra turns were requested, so another crew was brought in on very short notice.

Juan Tugoh

7th Jan 2011, 12:06

Still waiting for the military guys to reply but crewing was always the weak point on mil ops. In the 90's 216 were running at 2 crews per frame plus maybe an additional crew scratched form execs and standards. This was based on 8 frames and always caused delays and hold ups. Crewing at this ratio is insufficient to really support any extended slip patterns and other tasks. This meant that, except for a few slip patterns, most tasks involved the aircraft night-stopping along with the crew.

Considering the limitations that the RAF AT set up has imposed upon it by both the MOD and the treasury they do an excellent job. However, if one was setting up a company to do this type of operation exclusively for the RAF I doubt whether the L1011 would be the type of choice, nor would the crewing ratios be so poor and the engineers would have access to a large and readily available spares set.

Blacksheep

7th Jan 2011, 12:09

Clearly, Blacksheep you have never operated a 'heavy' out Kabul in the warm months. ...you question the choice of equipment! you obviously have no clue how aircraft work
Runway length! Airfield elevation! Pressure altitude! OAT! obstacles! it affects every type of aircraft!So, one chap says they are and others are saying they are not performance limited in hot /high conditions? I'm puzzled by the disagreement with my questioning the suitability of the Tristar for the current military requirement. Whatever; the airlines operating them dropped them from their fleets when aircraft better suited to their operational needs arrived on the scene - even though they were low hour machines - and military air transport needs are not that different from the civilian environment.

minigundiplomat

7th Jan 2011, 13:04

There seems to be a lot of needless bickering on this thread. As has already been stated, the RAF AT fleet does a fantastic job with the hand it has been dealt (ie regulation, aging fleet, DAS requirements), but I have to agree that it could learn from the civil aviation industry.

Increased use of charter aircraft could give 216 a bit of breathing space, and ease the (significant) burden on 99 Sqn when things do go wrong. I speak as someone who returned home the best part of a week late immediately before Christmas, but can still appreciate the impossible task gifted to Brize when the Tristar was grounded.

Having said that, I think the use of charters needs to be more elegantly sourced. OAG or whatever they are called had good service, but it did seem that they needed a few stones thrown their way to get them airborne and on task.

There are several solutions to this conundrum. Firstly, the RAF bites the bullet and leases until the A330 enters service (and possibly beyond, as I am not completely convinced that the numbers they are quoting have the critical mass of capacity and flexibility to replace the Tristar and VC10). I am sure GECAS would love to hear from them.

The leased/charter aircraft could operate to and from a MOB in the ME (ie Minhad) freeing up the Tristar to shuttle to/from KAF. C130/C17 could also provide throughput into the strat system if required.

This solves the DAS problem, though if I had the time/money I would be looking very closely at developing a DAS equipped lease/charter fleet (other uses are UN work, extra capacity for El Al etc - there would not be a shortage of work).

Failing this, the RAF needs to source a reliable, yet cheap, charter partner and give them preferred status and a regular dripfeed of tasking. Their problems seem to come when they scrabble around at short notice looking for capacity.

Yes, all of this costs money. However, if we send our servicepeople into harms way, we owe it to them to get them home within a prescribed time period. They also need to have faith in this principle - and at present they don't. Getting people home on time should not be a matter of luck.

As a final point, none of this should detract from the fine work done by the RAF AT fleet. Your fleet are knackered, over regulated and your margin for error far to fine - but despite this, you have done a fantastic job for approaching 10 years (including Iraq).

411A is bombastic, and is trying to sell you something. Therefore anything he says needs a hefty pinch of salt. But you shouldnt dismiss everything he says because of it. Some, not all, of his points have merit.

cessnapete

7th Jan 2011, 13:17

BA have a number of 747-400 a/c stored in USA that would be eminently suitable for ME trips, with onward conections to theatre with RAF DAS equiped aircraft.
Crews are not a problem.
I operated to the Falklands after the war on BA 747 charters and wondered why they did not continue. Probably more expensive than the knackered old aircraft the MOD presently charter.

ACSfirstfail

7th Jan 2011, 13:22

Minigun

:D Eloquently Put. Let's hope that's the end.

Nomorefreetime

7th Jan 2011, 14:37

Now the cricket has finished, I look forward to waking up and reading the posts from over the pond, then all the replys from this side. It makes my morning read over coffee more amusing. (Just before I get the calls from pax telling me they are delayed). I have daily dealings with the Airbridge and although there are delays(most are minor), 216 are doing a fantastic job

Evanelpus

7th Jan 2011, 15:49

Yes, all of this costs money. However, if we send our servicepeople into harms way, we owe it to them to get them home within a prescribed time period. They also need to have faith in this principle - and at present they don't. Getting people home on time should not be a matter of luck.

A very important fact that probably doesn't enter the heads of those making decisions. S'pose that's the difference between them and us.

valveclosed

7th Jan 2011, 18:35

Quote! "You're not paying attention, Sideshow Bob, the tech stop for refueling also has a crew change, and in addition, catering uplift for the passengers (you do feed 'em in the RAF yes?), because... it would be operated as an airline operation not some off the wall military ops without adequate forethought.
The military is very good at what they were designed for, fighting, however, it would appear that the transport of personel could be greatly enhanced by adopting proven commercial airline ops, and at an expected lower overall cost.
One wonders...is the MoD up to the task?" Unquote

Now then 411A you really are showing yr ignorance! spookily enough we have pretty much got to grips with running a slip pattern around a route, with tech stops for fuel and crew change
We even have "in flight meals" we even have proper tray lay ups with forks and everything, ooh and scarily we have cabin crew that serve it with tea and coffee damn they even use the same trolleys as you lot.
Even had cabin crew from civvie airline compliment the catering as compaired to the very well astablished company she worked for.
Believe it or not we even provide steps and things for passengers to get on and off the airplane at either end.
Strewth we have even got to grips with cleaning the toilets on flag stops as well
Frightening really, very similar to any airline operation! And before you ask yes I have done an airline operation.

What do you think the RAF AT fleet has been doing quite succesfully for an awful long time, stumbling round the world giving the passengers a mars bar!?

valveclosed

7th Jan 2011, 18:44

just a few experiences of civilian flying this year for myself and a few other folk I know
Long haul! 13 hr flight! national airline! NO CATERING, NO HOT DRINKS

Long haul 12 hr flight National airline Delayed 3 hrs tech for lightening strike, lost half the toilets mid flight for 6 hrs

Short haul schedule flight delayed 9 hrs due to tech fault flight eventually carried out by replacement charter from another company.

Short haul budget airline cancelled due fog

8 flights 4 delays, a mixture of reasons a mixture of airline standards, lesson!? its the nature of the airline business. Just watch airline and Stellios with his outfit, the flights that go on time dont make for good TV but a lot of em get round on time. They just dont show that on tv

411A

7th Jan 2011, 21:22

Quote:
What do you think the RAF AT fleet has been doing quite succesfully for an awful long time, stumbling round the world giving the passengers a mars bar!?

Don't know about the 'mars bars', however, this thread started with the thought that the RAF L1011's were...AOG, did it not?

Previous comments here on this forum seems to indicate that the RAF 'service' (such as it is/was) provided was somehow deficient/delayed etc.

The USDoD long ago decided that civvy operators could provide superior/reliable air transport service, for US service personnel.

Perhaps it's time for the UKMoD to actually...wake up?
OMG...shock/horror:uhoh:
I will repeat, civvy operators, properly chosen, are successful.
Omni International is one such airline, with their old (but reliable) DC-10's.

Also, when the last L1011 was retired at Delta, a senior VP there admitted to me, face to face that, and I quote..." the L1011's Delta operated (69 in total, as I recall) were the most reliable and generated the most profits than any other type that Delta has ever operated, to date.'

The L1011 gets a bad rap from...those operators that simply don't know how (hello...RAF) to maintain and crew the type, on a reliable basis, for the long term.
BA?
These folks were fools, operating the type...they costed it that same as the fuel consumed was equivilent to a B747.
Nope, not true.
Seat for seat, the L1011 250/500 are more economical, on a seat mile basis.
A proven fact.

Now, having said all this, some B767-200ER's (and 300ER's) are now coming available, with reduced operating costs.
However, the upfront purchase/lease costs are certainly more.
A LOT more expensive...and certainly more costly for the ...RAF.
A330?
Lots of luck with this type.:ugh:

Seldomfitforpurpose

7th Jan 2011, 23:46

411A,

Just a thought but if you guys are so good which implies you must all be V busy how come you have time to post on here on an almost hourly basis..........:confused:

Lockstock

8th Jan 2011, 00:23

...maybe it's all in the hands of his Marketing Manager who is ex-Laker, you know.

Remind me what year Laker went bankrupt...? :cool:

valveclosed

8th Jan 2011, 08:17

Omni air dc10? which company was it that had James Blunt on Board, looked a bit like a DC10 to me, errrr it had a tech snag

We would all like a new car every year most of us cant afford it
The Raf would benefit from being able to update its AT fleet when it wanted, unfortunatly the country cannot afford it! Thats basically what it boils down to, if it was the case the VC10 would still not be flying. If we had bought DC10's many years ago we would still be having the same discussion, if we had bought 747-200's folf would be saying why have we not got 400's
THE COMPANY ----- UK PLC!!!! cannot afford to update its AT fleet as often as it would like, so 411A a bit like you! we operate an oldish airplane.
We DO run it very much like an airline as I said before, schedules are NOT like an airline due to the work we do.
Contrary to popular belief the stats for the herrick are not that bad, sadly for those folk that get delayed for whatever reason because of the nature of the way the military work (R&R time at home is not recovered) it causes bad feeling. When folk get there and back on time though they dont post on here to say so, and lots of people do get there and back on time.
The fleet problem has been sorted and the schedule is back on track, coping with all the issues we have on a day to day basis

JFZ90

8th Jan 2011, 09:32

411A is clearly a wind up merchant.

His Freddy Laker marketing manager was also probably involved with the Ford Edsel and New Coke - only right that he should now be trying to convince the world to fly on his Tristars.

These slip crews that spend all their time sipping drinks by the pool - how current are they on the few remaining tristars? Doesn't sound like they get much practice!

Dengue_Dude

8th Jan 2011, 10:01

Having operated both the L1011 civvy and RAF, and the DC10 in both short range and long range pax and freight, I feel qualified to comment.

In short, the TriStar was a far nicer aircraft to operate and Caledonian found that it made lots of money for them. It only went out of service when Caledonian amalgamated and the new company wished to change their image.

However, its nemesis was it was far too complicated for its time. The DC10 was far simpler and frankly the better aircraft - I disliked the FE panel as it was dis-organised in comparison to the TriStar.

But behind the panel, the systems were robust and well designed. Technically, the TriStar having 4 hyd systems vs DC10 3 might have looked better but the Sioux City deal would have taken the 4th system out as well, had it been a TriStar. That DC10 crew were also exceptional when it came to that 'test'.

Maintenance is everything though. BA maintained their aircraft very well and they were very popular with both crews, cabin crew and passengers. It was simply the bean-counters that missed the clue-in-the-name. Once their error was discovered, BA attempted to buy them back, but the RAF had those bloody useless underfloor fuel tanks fitted. When they were full they put the aircraft beyond its bending moments. They could have kept a fully functioning freight compartment and got around the stupidity of loading baggage through 1L.

BA operated both types and it's interesting to note that the BA DC10s lasted a lot longer than my greatest love, the TriStar (especially the 500).

I enjoyed my time on the RAF TriStars and they were great aircraft, that said, they have been asked to go way beyond the original planned life, so I wonder how many of the problems were due to lack of investment in spares and so on, because the aircraft was always 'going to be replaced soon'.

Best of luck 216, I loved flying with you.

BEagle

8th Jan 2011, 12:59

Well, there've certainly been a number of TriShaws rumbling past BEagle Towers during the past few days, so I guess 21s 6d are busy again!

411A

8th Jan 2011, 15:20

Well, there've certainly been a number of TriShaws rumbling past BEagle Towers during the past few days, so I guess 21s 6d are busy again!

I expect in a short while that situation will change...the RAF has never been noted to be able to keep them flying for very long, without major snags.
Their operational record (such as it is) speaks for itself.

Technically, the TriStar having 4 hyd systems vs DC10 3 might have looked better but the Sioux City deal would have taken the 4th system out as well, had it been a TriStar.

Don't know much about the TriStar, do you?
Due to specific number two engine placement, loss of all hydraulics in a Souix City type of situation is highly unlikely.

Gnd

8th Jan 2011, 16:10

What we need to do is up the fare and if the RAF becomes profitable they can buy the A380 (should fit on the new strip??)
If we charged ooh lets say £30 x per day x (2 RIPs + IA) = £PA lots, that might be enough – you would get free food on board. :8

BEagle

8th Jan 2011, 16:16

Their operational record (such as it is) speaks for itself.

Indeed - an excellent operational record during Gulf War 1, the Balkan conflict and beyond...

Top Bunk Tester

8th Jan 2011, 16:51

411A

Is it me or are you not making a lot of friends here? :=

Dengue_Dude

8th Jan 2011, 21:10

Don't know much about the TriStar, do you?

Certainly not as much as I used to when I operated it, since then I've had to learn:

DC10 3 variants
A300B4
Tornado 2 variants
Hawk 6 variants

So memory isn't as good as when I operated and taught/wrote about one type at a time.

There again, if 5% of what I said is wrong, it means 95% is right.

You stick to your "world of 5%", the rest of us will concentrate on the 95%.

Have a nice day . . .

411A

8th Jan 2011, 22:29

Quote:
So memory isn't as good as when I operated and taught/wrote about one type at a time.

It ain't, make no mistake.
One should remember...the TriStar, amongst all early generation widebody aircraft is the only one that has not crashed due to an aircraft/engine system malfunction..(and the Rollers are superb engines, and history has proven this...except QANTAS with their...bloted A380 POS).

TriStar...made in AMERICA, with proper British RB.211 engines.
In my thirty one years of flying the type in Command (16,000 hours plus), the 'ole girl has never ever let us down.
Ever.

The RAF has a fine aircraft alright, it (however) remains to be seen if they (the RAF) can keep in airbourne, within the bounds of their MoD budget.
Useless lower hold fuel tanks...included.

Don't hold your breath.
Having said this, I wish 'em well.:E

stumpey

9th Jan 2011, 05:54

Pete268

9th Jan 2011, 08:18

Please, PLEASE. Before this thread disappears, will some one explain to me what DAS is? (Apologies if I've missed it earlier. Looked all through thread and couldn't see an explanation any where).
Thunderbirds are GO!:ok:

Here's your answer:

Wiki : Defensive aids system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_aids_system)

or the 3rd word could be substituted as 'suite' depending which side of the pond you are apparently (according to my neighbour anyway)

Having spent an entertaining hour or so reading through this thread, it is great to see the Tri* are still flying (even if past their sell by date).

My last ever Tri* flight being on ZE705 - front right strecher bay!.

Peter

Justanopinion

9th Jan 2011, 08:23

DAS

Zeus integrated Defensive Aids Suite (DAS) (United Kingdom) - Jane's Radar And Electronic Warfare Systems (http://www.janes.com/articles/Janes-Radar-and-Electronic-Warfare-Systems/Zeus-integrated-Defensive-Aids-Suite-DAS-United-Kingdom.html)

BEagle

9th Jan 2011, 09:12

I suggest that no further details of the DAS fitted to aircraft operating in theatre are posted here - those who Need to Know will know; those like you and I who have no need won't and will simply have to STFU!

However, knowledge of the likely threat and suitable detection and/or countermeasures available is vital.....

Years ago we had 2 x VC10Ks and 2 crews based at Antalya in the summer. The crews flew on alternate days; the rest of the time we lounged around the Sheraton pool - it was hell, I tell you. We had one K2 which had very poor 2-blower air conditioning and a knackered fridge pack but which had been fitted with a Radar Warning Receiver for Gulf War 1 and one K4 which had superb 4-blower air conditioning, fully serviceable cooling - but no RWR. It was pure luck which meant that one crew sweated their nuts off in the old K2, whilst the other stayed cool in the comfort of the K4....:ok: Then one of the jets went tech for a day, so the 'hot' crew looked forward to flying in comfort for once now that the sequence had altered in their favour.

But they'd reckoned without the leadership skills of the DetCo who, to preserve his anonymity, I shall merely refer to as 'Daisy'...:\ Now Daisy, being something of a thrusting tw@, had discovered that it was some terrorist anniversary on the date in question, so ordered that due to increased likelihood of tension, the crew were to fly the K2 instead due to the fact that it had the 'extra protection'...:(

When I later asked Daisy what use a radar warning receiver was against terrorist infra-red SAM-7s, he didn't really have much of an answer....:hmm: Prat!

DAS is tailored against specific threats. What those might be and how it achieves defence is something you will only find out if you are actively involved in operations. If not, don't ask as you won't be told!

glhcarl

9th Jan 2011, 15:11

I would like to comment on some people's put down of the RAF's catering: Let me tell you there catering was first rate. When I was there they put the left over meals in the squadron day room and were free for the taking. If I got there fast enough I could score a "steak and kidney pie or bangers and mash". I kept a small ice chest in my office to keep them frozen til I got home.

411A

9th Jan 2011, 16:32

Let me tell you there catering was first rate.
Duly noted.
Now, if the RAF maintenance, funding and operation of their TriStars could be brought to par with other operators (past and present), considering that the RAF aircraft are low cycles/hours, as compared with others...the RAF just might be able to keep'em flying.
Maybe.:hmm:

stumpey

9th Jan 2011, 19:10

Thanks for your answers Pete268 and Justanopinion. Thats all I needed to know. So many alphabet soups, just couldn't work out this one.

As to you BEagle, I take great exception to your comments! You seem to be telling me to STFU for asking a question! A simple question about something thats been mentioned many, many times in this thread. I mealy asked what DAS stud for, not details about how it worked, pulse repartition rates, how many frequencies could be jammed simultaneously or what freqs the IR pulse could TX at! As far as I knew DAS could stand for Digital Avionics Suite, or be some kind of fuel management system as were basically talking airliners.
I, and I believe you, both did our bit to keep democracy free. A freedom were ANY ONE can ask ANY QUESTION at ANY TIME. What answer one gets is another matter of course, but I believe both answers came from public sauces which make your comments seem evan more antagonistic. So don't tell me to STFU for just asking a question!:mad:

bluepilot

9th Jan 2011, 19:27

411A, although you have very good knowlege of the L1011 you know dilddly squat of F$£K all about RAF maintenance and procedures! Because there are no comercial pressures maintenance is generally to a far higher standard, also crew will not accept the defects that civil operators will, The L1011 beautiful looking as it is is a maintenance nightmare, BA when they operated them always had snag lists as long as your arm! The reason why the L1011 died an early commercial death is not only would it not carry the payloads of its competitors (DC10) its despatch reliability was (and still is) appalling in comparison.

BEagle

9th Jan 2011, 19:28

Stumpey, my response was not aimed at you in particular.

But if the cap fits, then feel free to wear it.

MechGov

9th Jan 2011, 19:39

There are too many pages of this drivel and too many trying to out cock each other. Please make it stop...

411A

9th Jan 2011, 19:42

The L1011 beautiful looking as it is is a maintenance nightmare, BA when they operated them always had snag lists as long as your arm! The reason why the L1011 died an early comercial death is not only would it not carry the payloads of its competitors (DC10) its despatch reliability was (and still is) appalling in comparison.

BA (when they operated the type) clearly had no idea about proper maintenance...as DAL, the largest operator (69 aircraft, as I recall) had superb reliability with the type....and made a big profit with them as well.
CX? The same, operated the type for many years and made handsome profits.
TWA? Likewise.

About says it all for the RAF operation...day late, dollar short.
Just like BA.
Perhaps the RAF should have stuck with the VC-10...:yuk:

bluepilot

9th Jan 2011, 19:49

411A, as i said, you know diddly squat of F£$K all, and it seems you will defend the indefensible. The L1011 despatch and reliability record speaks for itself, (and i speak of all operators present and past) It was (is) in an unreliable heap of s$%T, looks great....but just couldnt cut it in the real world.

411A

9th Jan 2011, 19:57

It was (is) in an unreliable heap of s$%T, looks great....but just couldnt cut it in the real world.
Then why, one might ask, did the RAF acquire them, especially as BA could not maintain the type properly?:}

bluepilot

9th Jan 2011, 20:05

411A

9th Jan 2011, 20:51

If as you say, bluepilot, then the RAF is right and truly up the creek.
Saddled with an airplane that they did not desire, cannot maintain (properly, even though other airlines did so with complete success:}) so...press on to do the best they can.

NB.
You might be interested in knowing...SaudiArabian operated 16 of the type (-200's) for many years, and when I was there, the dispatch rate was...98+ percent, year after year.
The reason was quite simple.
Adequate spares holding, TWA-trained ground engineers, and...using the FIRM code method of reporting snags....this saved huge amounts of time and ensured dispatch reliability.
And...operating the fine Lockheed airplane, by the Lockheed book, not some off the wall dreamed-up Brit (RAF or otherwise) total nonsense.:rolleyes:

bluepilot

9th Jan 2011, 23:45

As many people have said before and will continue to say in the future....411A you talk utter crap....dont let the FACTS get in the way of a good story.
The aircraft was a disaster for Lockheed, it was unreliable, underperformed, and worse still despite alleged bribing of govts, a financial disaster for the company due to poor sales. This lead to production ceasing in 1983 after the sale of only 250 units of all variants and lockheed pulling out of civil airliner production. The basis of the aircraft was sound with many advances in technology being pioneered by the aircraft, (dark cockpit concept being one). But it simply did not shape up to the competition as well as being too fragile. The DC10 was in comparison damn right agricultural! but....it worked, sure it had its problems too that have been well documented over the years, but from a reliability and performance front the L1011 never came close.

We all know how much you hate the "limeys" 411A but dont blame us for the failings of the Tristar (apart from the engines lol).

411A

10th Jan 2011, 00:06

Just look at the title of the thread, bluepilot, and see why many quite clearly ascertain that the RAF simply cannot do the job for which they have been charged.
That situation is unlikely to change in the near term....:{

bluepilot

10th Jan 2011, 01:45

Pathetic 411A, as i said before and many will say in the future, you talk crap and spout bile, facts are facts and cannot be changed, bigotry and ignorance are inherited or programed.....that can be changed if there is the will....but that i very much doubt....nite nite.

411A

10th Jan 2011, 04:05

...facts are facts and cannot be changed
Indeed so...and precisely why the RAF falls on its pratt so many times whilst trying to operate their Lockheed tri-motors.
Nite nite.;)

kiwi grey

10th Jan 2011, 06:29

Bluepilot, just add "411A" to your 'Ignore List' - it will be good for your blood pressure. I did, and I feel much better now! :ok:

If you don't know how, it's easy:
Just click on his name, select 'View Public Profile', then on the profile screen click on 'Add 411A to your Ignore List' and follow the instructions. Bingo, his messages are now hidden from your view. It's bliss! ;)

BEagle

10th Jan 2011, 11:02

Meanwhile, it seems that Marshall Aerospace has finally delivered the first glass cockpit TriStar to the RAF.....

Marshall Aerospace Completes Tristar Upgrade : AINonline (http://www.ainonline.com/news/single-news-page/article/marshall-aerospace-completes-tristar-upgrade-28164/)

When the last one has been upgraded, for just how many weeks will it actually be in service before being scrapped, I wonder.....

valveclosed

10th Jan 2011, 11:48

This thread is soo sooo funny

But a couple of final words before i ignore it
Comments re the RAF falling on its butt all the time, have a look at the stats! actually its pretty good %ratio of the jet getting round within a reasonable time (no more than 180mins delayed) Problem is when any trip is delayed the folk on board remember that one!
The crew ratio is not an issue, we prioritise the "theatre runs" and just like any airline! we do have slip crews, we have tried stby crew, we have tried augmented crew! with the limitations we have on routing, slot times, WAT limits.
As for comments about useless fuel tanks in the hold on the K1 and KC!, there are a lot of fast jet folks out there who during all the conflicts we have been involved in over the last 20 years who have been very pleased that we had the capacity!! The useless fuel tanks funny old thing did the job they were designed for, provided lots of fuel in the air!!!

The big difference with the RAF attitude to operating there AT fleet and ANY civvie operator, we are not MONEY driven, take from that what you will

Neptunus Rex

10th Jan 2011, 13:55

As one of my old Maritime Squadron Commanders (Bunter, for those that knew and loved him) famously said:

"The Air Force is not in the business of making money; we are in the business of spending it!"

andyy

10th Jan 2011, 14:32

politics etc, L1011s were "moved" to the RAF before BA privatisation, at the time certainly NOT the RAF's choice! Harold Wilsons govs allegedly bribed to place the order....Maggie Thatchers govt trimming BA to become a privatisation wonder, now if you were to have an airline with an virtually new fleet bought and paid for, property worth billions and a clean new balance sheet with no debts plus a monopoly on many routes you would be very profitable! but thats a subject for another thread

A former BCal senior engineer told that, in the process BCal was deliberately sent bust as they were lined up to sell their DC10s to the RAF thus providing the cash they needed to stay afloat/ invest etc. No BCal, no competitor for BA.

Juan Tugoh

10th Jan 2011, 15:20

As for comments about useless fuel tanks in the hold on the K1 and KC!, there are a lot of fast jet folks out there who during all the conflicts we have been involved in over the last 20 years who have been very pleased that we had the capacity!! The useless fuel tanks funny old thing did the job they were designed for, provided lots of fuel in the air!!!

Have they upped the MTOW and Max Airborne weight for the old girl then?

The K1 and KC1 had an MTOW of 245 Tonnes and an empty weight of approx 117 Tonnes when I flew them. The max I ever uplifted on a tanking sortie was 128 tonnes of gas to take off at MTOW we had plenty of unusable tank space onboard. They had tank space for 144 Tonnes of gas onboard, so unless things have changed significantly or the laws of Physics have changed there most definitely IS useless tank space on the RAF TriStar tankers.

The RAF would be better served with the rear hold returned to a traditional hold, particularly on the K1. This would provide them with a far more flexible asset. Comments about giving away gas you cannot carry are a little pointless. In general ops the TriStar hardly ever gets airborne at max weight with no freight of any kind using the tank space it can for fuel.

The gold plated solution would be modular system allowing the extra tanks to be fitted in the holds when a pure tanking mission was required and allowing it to be used as hold space the rest of the time. I doubt the AAR lobby would allow that, but if that cannot be done at least get the tanks out of the rear hold

minigundiplomat

10th Jan 2011, 15:51

Valve,

Damn lies and statistics. I have no doubt that you are correct and most jets arrive within the 180 min timeframe. I do question your choice of metrics old chap.

The Trimotor may well taxi in at BZZ with 250 pax exactly on time, but how many pax are backed up at BZZ/KAF because of earlier problems. That is the faith/trust issue that colours perceptions of the airbridge and that is what needs to be addressed.
Weather/Serviceability/Crewing/Rocket attacks all cause bumps in the road. 216 are working exceptionally hard, and the Trimotor may be a great aircraft, but we do not have the flexibility of capacity within the fleet to cope when things, as they often do, go wrong.

As much fun as p1ssing matches are, the spotlight needs to fall on whether we are equipped to complete the task with the assets we have. I don't think we are, and it follows that a full and frank debate is needed. I will concede that this is not the forum for that, and wild claims from across the pond are not always welcome, or needed.

BEagle

10th Jan 2011, 16:20

The gold plated solution would be modular system allowing the extra tanks to be fitted in the holds when a pure tanking mission was required and allowing it to be used as hold space the rest of the time.

Which, of course, is precisely the option available with the Airbus A310MRTT! The 4 x 7200 litre Additional Centre Tanks are removed when not in Tanker configuration and may be replaced by normal LD3 cargo containers.

Nomorefreetime

10th Jan 2011, 16:30

As there is no money to do the Mods, we are speculating. If the tanks came out of the rear hold, what would happen to the HDU? I assume it also lives in the back hold somewhere.

glhcarl

10th Jan 2011, 17:08

Have they upped the MTOW and Max Airborne weight for the old girl then?
The Tanker/Freighters and Tankers have a GTOW of 540,000 lbs, up from 514,000 lbs for civilian -500's.

Sook

10th Jan 2011, 17:10

Also, if you took the rear tanks out you may run into stability problems as you won't be able to transfer fuel fore and aft to maintain the CG within limits.

Juan Tugoh

10th Jan 2011, 17:47

Thanks ghlcarl but I meant from the upped weights of the civilian -500's. 540,000lbs is 245 Tonnes as it was when I flew them for 216.

Justanopinion

10th Jan 2011, 20:23

Akrotiri

+20 zero wind Q 1013 Max take off weight 212T ....

+25 zero wind Q 1013 Max take off weight 205T ....

+30 zero wind Q 1013 Max take off weight 201T ....

All REDUCED by 0.4 for every 1mb below 1013

411A

10th Jan 2011, 22:36

Hmmm, hold fuel tanks not all that serviceable, considering the mission as it's defined today...personnel transport.
No surprise that the RAF has fked-up a perfectably reliable/dependable... jet transport airplane.
Deplorable.

Sideshow Bob

11th Jan 2011, 09:57

411A,

The more you post, the more you show your ignorance of the RAF Tristar Fleet.

If you knew what you are talking about, you would know why this statement

Hmmm, hold fuel tanks not all that serviceable, considering the mission as it's defined today...personnel transport.

is just so dumb.

Please only comment on things you actually know about. You fly a civilian unmodified version of the aircraft, we have a mixed fleet of 3 (4 if you split the C2 and C2A) versions (try google) of the L1011-500, all quite different. It may help you to know that most delays are for equipment not fitted on standard civilian aircraft, if you discount these delays the dispatch rate goes up quite markedly.

411A

11th Jan 2011, 11:59

It may help you to know that most delays are for equipment not fitted on standard civilian aircraft, if you discount these delays the dispatch rate goes up quite markedly.
Precisely my point.
The RAF has taken a good product and steadfastly made it into an inferior one.
Certainly no surprise.

Top Bunk Tester

11th Jan 2011, 12:44

411A
The RAF has taken a good product and steadfastly made it into an inferior one.

You really do spout some utter hoop. If you had any sense at all you'd know exactly what Sideshow Bob was referring to. Without said equipment even your miraculous frames, that never go u/s, never run out of crew hours and have spares positioned at every airfield in the world would still not be allowed sausage side.

Why don't you just leave it to your marketing director to liase with MoD, and just hope that he is better recieved there than you ever could be here. Until then if you persist you will continue to reap the whirlwind of malcontent that is undoubtably building toward you and as this forum is read by some of those who make grown up decisions may backfire right in your company's face. :ugh:

valveclosed

11th Jan 2011, 12:47

411A inferior in what way?

The KC1 and K1 aircraft were modified to be tanker/freighter aircraft which was the requirement of the MOD at the time. Yes the K1 cargo system is poor, thats why they tend not to be used to many times in a freight role, put them up as a flying fuel station or on a trail then funny thing they do exactly what they were designed for.
The KC1, pretty damn capable in all the roles its needed to do.

The C2/C2a mods are required for the job we do, but essentially very little difference between them and the civvie version, The powers that be have decided that to do the job we do! we have to have that protection provided by those mods, this has not made it inferior? It has made it safer in the environment that we work in, why because the UK Govt do not want to take the risk, you might be happy to ask yr crews to do it, but we have a duty of care to the passengers down the back

So please stop talking utter tosh mate!

valveclosed

11th Jan 2011, 12:52

And!! we still have a tanker commitment so taking tanks out would be a bit daft

just another jocky

11th Jan 2011, 14:42

Hmmmm, looks like a troll, posts like a troll.....:rolleyes:

mole man

11th Jan 2011, 14:52

As one of those who was in the trimotor that took fuel from a VC10, Why Not Tank the timmy all the way.

Mile Man:ok:

411A

11th Jan 2011, 16:49

The C2/C2a mods are required for the job we do, but essentially very little difference between them and the civvie version, The powers that be have decided that to do the job we do! we have to have that protection provided by those mods, this has not made it inferior? It has made it safer in the environment that we work in, why because the UK Govt do not want to take the risk, you might be happy to ask yr crews to do it, but we have a duty of care to the passengers down the back

All well and good, valveclosed, however the fact remains that the RAF TriStar fleet appears to suffer far more delays and AOG problems than any other TriStar operator ever did, large or small.
I find it very hard to believe this is simply due to the added equipment the MoD requires.
IE: doesn't pass the smell test.

Nomorefreetime

11th Jan 2011, 17:00

The RAF have the LARGEST fleet of tristars anywhere left in the world. Not 3 but 9, we have done fairly well with them over the last 25 years. How many of the remaining jets have been with the same operator that long ?. 411A how long has your company 'Owned' their jets ?

Top Bunk Tester

11th Jan 2011, 17:03

Well I can smell something coming from 411As direction ........

Sheep ......... No

Pigs ............ No

Cows ........... No

Bull ............. that's it, that's it, it's all bullsh1t coming from across the pond :yuk:

moggiee

11th Jan 2011, 18:04

The RAF has taken a good product and steadfastly made it into an inferior one.
Certainly no surprise.

I suspect that it would be f*** all use as a tanker if it hadn't been modified (with the attendant increase in complexity and servicing requirements). Not to mention DAS etc.

It's quite a different aeroplane from the ones sold to the RAF by Pan Am and BA.

The same applies to RAF VC10s vs civil ones, RAF Hercs vs L100s etc.

JFZ90

11th Jan 2011, 19:57

Was it ever confirmed that 411As Tristars are registered in Honduras to avoid having to maintain them to FAA standards?

I recall someone had evidence that alledged that they were flying with tired LLPs that wouldn't be tolerated under FAA standards?

Maybe this is why they have less downtime - they employ a time saving "fingers crossed" maintenance regime!

Their website certainly shouts - "technically competent slick outfit" - :eek:

rollinsair.com (http://www.rollinsair.com/)

AVIATION SAFETY OVERSIGHT: The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has assessed the Government of Honduras Civil Aviation Authority as not being in compliance with International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) aviation safety standards for the oversight of Honduras’ air carrier operations.

411A

11th Jan 2011, 21:20

Quote:
AVIATION SAFETY OVERSIGHT: The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has assessed the Government of Honduras Civil Aviation Authority as not being in compliance with International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) aviation safety standards for the oversight of Honduras’ air carrier operations.

Indeed so, and that is precisely why our company is actively training Honduran Aviation Safety Inspectors, to allow Honduras to once again obtain Category One status.

Lets review.
At one very small airline where I worked, with a fleet of Lockheed TriStars, several leased on a long term agreement with BA (good airplanes, all -200's) the dispatch reliability was 98%, plus.
Why?
Lockheed first hand assistance, direct from the manufacturer.
Perhaps...the RAF is behind the eight ball with their ops, relying on Marshall's (such as they are) for their 'support'.
Bob T (an absolutely first rate LOCKHEED tech rep, as they ALL were) showed up on a semi-annual basis to advise, and keep the fleet of seven fully operational.

It positively can be done, however I fear that the RAF simply does not know how...or...cannot fund their TriStar fleet properly.
Again, no surprise.:{

NB.
At this one small airline mentioned above, the daily utilisation of each TriStar was (at the time) 14+ hours, day in and day out.
All maintained in-house, except for heavy checks, and these heavy checks were done by GAMCO.

The RAF operation is clearly deficient...reliability-wise.
How very sad...:{