Airtanker

[pma 32dd]

Oh dear, the RAF wants 330 pilots on the cheap now.

A330 Pilots - 1401088628 - Flight Jobs (http://www.flightglobal.com/jobs/job/a330-pilots-united-kingdom-1401088628.htm)

I wonder if they realise there are minimal bus rated guys out there who'll do this for below market value - or is the remuneration/package "market leading"?

How about paying for some current military pilots to convert, perhaps Nimrod, Dominie or Harrier? Sorry probably not in the business plan.

:ugh:

[BEagle]

You might obtain a clearer view of the available vacancies, including the 'Sponsored Reservist' requirements, at Jobs AirTanker (http://www.airtanker.co.uk/jobs) .

Clearly it makes sense to adertise for some existing A330 aircrew to join the company and pass on their experience, although from what I've heard the vast majority of pilots will be drawn from within the RAF's current AAR fleets. Assuming, that is, they don't all leg it to the airlines.....:\

When the VC10K fleet first started, all the captains were either ex-Victor/Vulcan AAR or ex-VC10. Some were both. The first co-pilots came from a variety of backgrounds, although it was a couple of years before the first ab-initios arrived. The synergy of this mix led to a sound operational method being evolved, without a legacy of "We always did it this way on the...." dominating. The A330MRTT fleet will probably adopt a similar strategy.

[just another jocky]

32dd - just for the sake of accuracy, it's "wubble", a common mistake.

See here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQr24qVt7f4), minute 3:53 and again at 4:04. :ok:

apols for off thread.

[Fareastdriver]

An A330 training captain will not be cheap. In China he would expect married accompanied plus allowances totaling US18,000/month tax free.

[Mister Geezer]

Salaries in China can reach that value for a very good reason - no bugger would go there otherwise! Comparing working in China to the UK is like comparing apples and oranges.

On the topic of Airtanker, I am not 330 rated, so don't get a look in but I would be interested to hear what the Ts and Cs will be.

[NutLoose]

When the VC10K fleet first started, all the captains were either ex-Victor/Vulcan AAR or ex-VC10. Some were both. The first co-pilots came from a variety of backgrounds, although it was a couple of years before the first ab-initios arrived. The synergy of this mix led to a sound operational method being evolved, without a legacy of "We always did it this way on the...." dominating. The A330MRTT fleet will probably adopt a similar strategy.

Weren't the VC10 C1 pilots all Sqn Ldrs as well to stop them defecting to the darkside where the pay was greater for those under Sqn Ldr rank, and that only ceased when the Civilian world got rid of them and sold them to the RAF, then you started getting lower ranks flying them.

I wonder if this will happen again with the A330, as a young RAF pilot converted onto type with a few hours under his belt must look a good bet on the civilian airline fleets if things ever pick up.

[VinRouge]

but I would be interested to hear what the Ts and Cs will be.

Dont expect Incidentals.

Exchange your usual hotel room for a tent with U/S air con

Expect to be treated like you have commited fraud each time you claim for food expenses don route.

and you might start to get close.

:ugh:

[Ken Scott]

Out of curiosity I hit the 'Apply Now' button & got a 'the URL is not valid' response! Is the software so high tech it can detect that I'm not actually A330 type rated?!

[Mister Geezer]

VinRouge

Sounds just like what I am after! Thank you.

[FFP]

Salaries in China can reach that value for a very good reason - no bugger would go there otherwise!

Good point. You'd have to pay me lots of money to work in a dirty, over crowded country ...... ( wait for it..........)

Which is why I hopefully won't work in the UK again :D

Haven't seen the pay scales. Would imagine the package Vs quake desired don't match up.

[Trim Stab]

I was out sailing a few days ago with a couple of A330 mates with VA and BA (the latter also ex FJ) and their view was that it would be difficult for Airtanker to recruit experienced A330 captains, as most would be reluctant to lose their LIFO seniority, not to mention trading staying in 5* hotels in places like Sydney, with staying in the mess at MPA or Kandahar. However, their view was that the possibly quicker route to command might appeal to some FOs, faced with a fifteen year wait for the LHS on the legacy airlines.

[uncle peter]

Not one 330 rated friend (Capt and FO) will consider the job. Admittedly, several are ex-RAF and have stated they have no desire to return to work alongside those in a dying service. The remuneration package would have to be significantly better than current packages in order for most to even consider the move.

The time to command on other fleets may provoke interest in some, but obviously only for a short term stint in which hours building would be key. From what I understand the opportunities for quick hours building will be negligible.

As for the source of service pilots I understand they are only going to draw around 25% from the current AAR fleets. Those remaining in from those fleets who don't have a coveted 330 slot will have serious decisions to make come 2013. Those on "sabbaticals" will probably have the priority for slots on frames which require people. In a ground tour you may go down to 50% or no flying pay by the end of it or PVR with no flying pay. As is probably the requirement at the moment, they are forcing people to take their options. I predict a healthy FRI by 2014.

[Dan Winterland]

''An A330 training captain will not be cheap. In China he would expect married accompanied plus allowances totaling US18,000/month tax free''.

And the rest!

I've no idea what Airtanker's Ts and Cs are, but to attract the pilots they need, they will have to be competitive. And with none of the thinking that they can get ex-service pilots for less because they have a pension.

[Art Field]

NutLoose.
The VC10 Tanker captains never got automatic Sqn Ldr rank and around the time 101 was reformed several of the shiny 10 captains indeed went back down to Flt Lt as they were only holding acting rank. The 101 crews like to think that ( quite rightly in my opinion) they brought new thinking in VC10 operating to an already very safe fleet which has enabled it to continue so effectively for so long.

[Shell Management]

What is not really clear is wether the current RAF crews will be able to hack glass cockpits and modern systems were clockwork experience will count for nought.

The arogance of expecting to cope with the glass Tristars with no simulator gives an indication of how little the hurdle is understood.

[Biggus]

Are not C-17, C-130J already glass cockpit?

Even the C-130K had some digital displays put in I believe...?

[Shell Management]

I was thinking VC10 and Tristar. Yes it will be easier to convert from the C130J and C17.

Training will be a major control in managing the main operational hazard of "deviation from intended safe flight path".

[Biggus]

What do the FJ world do in terms of taking pilots from Hawk, which I believe is still a conventional type cockpit, onto a glass cockpit like Typhoon?

Surely there should already be some RAF corporate knowledge on this issue which can be applied...?

[Shell Management]

It is much simpler taking a new pilot through that transition than one who has built their habits around conventional controls.

Plus remember that the FJ accident rate is much higher and that conceals the cases when the tranistion was not successful.

[Biggus]

Fine, thanks for the repy - just asking.


Presumably this was an issue that would have had to be faced by the MPA world, in terms of going from the clockwork MR2 to glass cockpit MRA4....

I don't know if they had done any work on it, on the basis the first MRA4 OCU had just about started when the aircraft was cancelled, which could be read across....

[Shell Management]

This is an area where the civil world is well in advance of the military and as the civil regulations will take precedence it should be sorted out by AirTanker really well as it will no doubt be well defined in their Safety Case. The failure rate of ex RAF pilots may just be a bit higher though.

[LFFC]

SM

I understand that 45(R) Sqn have been giving glass-cockpit upgrade training on their Proline 21 equipped Kingairs. Admittedly they are not fly-by-wire aircraft, but I bet that training is a gift to anyone wanting to step up from conventional cockpits.

I would imagine that, if the RAF has any sense, it will spread that training out to the AAR crews about to move over to the A330.

I would also imagine that any prospective civilian pilots about to join Airtanker would be quite concerned about the impact of the government's new distaste for PFI projects (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/8290292/Force-firms-to-repay-ghastly-PFI-profits-says-minister.html). Would their contracts be secure?

[Ken Scott]

What is not really clear is wether the current RAF crews will be able to hack glass cockpits and modern systems were clockwork experience will count for nought.

The arogance of expecting to cope with the glass Tristars with no simulator gives an indication of how little the hurdle is understood.

Are you serious? Do all civvy pilots start on glass cockpit advanced light aircraft, or do they fly on dials & then convert? I flew clockwork C130Ks before converting to Js, it wasn't a big problem & the crews I train on the J OCU seem to cope once they've got used to it, but that's why there is a progressive training course to ease the crews into the new systems.

I could equally state some guff about how civvy crews won't be able to cope with the AAR environment & thinking in the tactical sphere when all they're used to is flying from A to B on a jetplan, but that would be (equally) crass as they'll just learn & get used to it.

This shouldn't be a Mil/ Civ p***ing contest, the crews will all have to work together. The Ts & Cs for the reservists is a much greater factor & will probably put off the experienced A330 operators AirTanker are hoping to attract in favour of less experienced, less desirable ones.

[Dan Winterland]

''What is not really clear is wether the current RAF crews will be able to hack glass cockpits and modern systems were clockwork experience will count for nought''.

Glass instrumentation is easy - easier than clockwork systems. I converted from the VC10 to the B747-400 and it was a piece of p!ss. One of the easiest courses I've ever done. When I subsequently went back to the 747 Classic, I found that my conventional scanning skills had gone and I found hard to readjust.

Airbusses are easy to operate. My company takes 200 hour cadets straight onto the A330. They were designed with the philosophy of taking someone straight off an integrated course and putting them in the seat to operate safely. My main concern is the tanking job which does take time to learn to operate effectively.

[FJ2ME]

Shell Management what utter twaddle you spout. Most of the coal face aircrew are of a generation who grew up with Playstations, iPods, iPhones and SatNavs, and as such have been crying out to fly something at least built in this century, rather than when we still thought steam trains were efficient! Please do not confuse us with the sort of person who still finds it difficult to watch one programme on tv while recording another-those are our Dads, and sadly our bosses...

Just for the record, I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the RAF will cock this up. As they have started by allegedly only using 25% of the personnel they have already trained and payed for, rather than highly expensive rejects from the airline world, then I can guess the goat is out and running... It also made me cringe to imagine the sort of person who would apply for a position as worded in the advert-that TA prick from The Office springs to mind...

[Neptunus Rex]

Converting from clockwork to glass is not a problem. The Civvy mates, however, will need a good 20 hours of formation flying training in smaller aircraft before trying to prod the Airbus.

[Dan Winterland]

I don't think the RAF version will be receiver capable. But they will eventually have to do snake climbs/cell departures, cell and some formation. This will be a problem.

[brakedwell]

Weren't the VC10 C1 pilots all Sqn Ldrs as well to stop them defecting to the darkside where the pay was greater for those under Sqn Ldr rank, and that only ceased when the Civilian world got rid of them and sold them to the RAF, then you started getting lower ranks flying them.

Not quite true. A lot of Transport Command captains were very senior flight lieutenants who performed their duties away from base and out of sight of their CO. They had virtually no chance of getting their scraper. By comparision fighter command pilots on tight knit squadrons, always in close contact with their boss,had a very good chance of promotion ay an early age. After lengthy negotiations the bean counters agreed to a fixed number of captains on the strategic transport fleet holding the rank of acting squadron leader while in post. The C in C Transport Command, AM Sir Thomas Pricket, allocated all the acting Sqn Ldr posts to 10 and 216 sqn. The acting scraper became known as the Prickett ring of confidence. A lot of hairy old Britannia and Belfast captains were not amused.

[BEagle]

Training will be a major control in managing the main operational hazard of "deviation from intended safe flight path".

Indeed - because deviation from the originally intended flight path is often an essential requirement for a good AAR crew! If you suddenly need to snap 120 left to set up an RV for an 'on-call' (we used to call it 'bootleg', Arters) receiver who is close to bingo, best you know instinctively how to do that without going head-down to spend 5 minutes re-programming the FMS....

In one wide-body tanker, it's a case of go to HDG/SEL and turn towards the chick. Get him onto frequency, give him the A/A TAC and DF frequencies, then decide whether you'll go for Bravo or a Charlie...or trust ATC to manage an Alfa, all whilst head-to-head at 14 miles per minute. Control the RV, call the turn when the receiver calls 'visual', lead him back to the AAR anchor - use NAV or HDG/SEL mode as required - but get him in contact rather than fart about refining the magenta line to the nth degree! Stick his details into the mission system scratchpad if you're pressed for time, otherwise add him to the receiver list and regenerate the plan to obtain an accurate spare fuel update.

Quite simple for anyone flexible enough to want to learn and professionally rewarding when done efficiently. 'Children of the magenta God' might find this more difficult to assimilate than some 'clockwork dinosaur' who just needs to become accustomed to PFD/ND/ECAM methodology. And, as has been said, that's pretty straightforward these days.

However, as DW and other ex-mil airliner-drivers have indicated, Ts & Cs would have to be pretty good to tempt people to abandon their airliner flight decks. Not forgetting that anyone who hasn't been in the military in the last 10 years would have the faintest idea what becoming a 'sponsored reservist' would mean. Finally, I would suggest that anyone considering such a post should check their life assurance policy carefully. All of which I flagged up over 10 years ago.....:hmm:

[Canadian Break]

Beags

RV Deltas is the way forward!
CB

[BEagle]

For pre-planned RVs, absolutely! By far and away the best.

But for a no-notice heading-based, snap towards, achieve a 180x0, turn on cue free airspace manoeuvre, an RV Delta isn't as effective. That's why there is such a range of RV types - use the type which suits the conditions/receiver type!

[Fareastdriver]

You are all falling for that tosser called Shell Management. He has a history of stirring it up with rubbishy inputs that started with the West African thread in Rotorheads. On Rotorheads we have had some peace for the last month or so. Don't encourage it to start again.

[Rigga]

F.E.D. Agreed - SM seems to use all of Shell's Airbus and Boeing experience in these forums? Can't rememeber how many they operate now...

I would, however, like to point out that A330's are not VC-10s or Tristars, nor are they hercs , Phantoms, Buccs, Vics or anything else that you used to use for AAR ops.

They are unlikly to swerve around like the aformentioned because they aren't the same. A330s have computers that may prevent that sort of stressful flying. the A330s will require NEW ops and "prodding" techniques and you may not even have the option of doing a "quick 120" and shouting Bingo! for whatever reason.

Just because its supposed to sing the same song doesn't necessarily mean it will do the notes in the right order.

...My apologies to Eric Morecambe.

[BEagle]

Rigga, the A330 is entirely capable of all the same manoeuvres as a VC10K and has the added benefit of flight envelope protection. It will take an A330 flying at 300KIAS at FL250 turning at 25° AoB precisely the same time to turn 120° left to set up an urgent RV as any other aircraft at the same speed/height/AoB.... ATP-56B RV manoeuvres are not tanker type specific.

'Bingo' is a receiver call referring to a pre-briefed fuel state. It is not some 'shout'....

180x0 refers to a no-displacement approach with 180° angle between headings. Obviously not co-altitude.

If an A330 was unable to conduct the basic manoeuvre to which I referred, which certainly does not involve any 'swerving around' and is entirely non-stressful, it wouldn't even be suitable as an airliner.

[Farfrompuken]

BEags,

you would think a 180x0 wouldn't be co-alt wouldn't you?!

Not the EA6 drivers!! They'd go for a 180x0 co-alt almost every time in Telic I!

Used to get a bit twitchy whenever I'd see the Tacan counting down at 800Kts or so!!

As for SM... I think he's high on drugs or something; certainly not in the real world at any rate!

[BEagle]

Farfrompuken, I can only surmise that a number of ex-weasels were flying those EA6s!

Only near misses I have had were with Wild Weasels not sticking to SOPs. Back during OPC, the USAF air commander finally got so fed up with their non-SOP behaviour that he sent some of them home in disgrace.

Yes, we know they were brave and good at what they did. But that's no excuse for ignoring the ACO!

Anyway, back to the thread. The A330 will prove to be a superb tanker and the RAF are very fortunate to be able to build upon many years of AAR expertise with their first ever tanker that won't have been someone else's cast-off. The experience of A330 aircrew from elsewhere will provide AirTanker with considerable synergy.

[Shell Management]

The A330 will prove to be a superb tanker and the RAF are very fortunate to be able to build upon many years of AAR expertise with their first ever tanker that won't have been someone else's cast-off. The experience of A330 aircrew from elsewhere will provide AirTanker with considerable synergy.

Well said.

Indeed - because deviation from the originally intended flight path is often an essential requirement for a good AAR crew!

You confuse operational re-direction with a key hazard of a Safety Case.

[D-IFF_ident]

Reservists will be doing AT; BZN to MPA and back, maybe one towline per year for currency. No formation trg required, very basic ATP-56 procedures only.

Full-timers will be doing anchor AR (sic) over the North Sea or flying the sim, with maybe a trail or two for a handful of the CO's best mates each year; all planning provided by the Jeppesen-powered Ops team.

As for conversion to glass cockpit and FBW - if it was difficult then wouldn't the aircraft manufacturers build steam-powered analogue systems still, and wouldn't all the major airlines be flying VC10s?
:}

[cessnapete]

What a load of tosh ref the basic conversion to glass cockpit airliners.
I and many other in my old company went from clockwork cockpit 747 Classics to 747-400 in a little over 3 months from last flight in one to first revenue flight in the -400. All with no previous glass cockpit experience.

Its called a Conversion Course!!

Although it will be a steep step change of thinking for some. An experienced RAF AT driver I met last year could not believe that the first time most of us flew the 747-400 for real, was a revenue flight (under supervision of course) full of passengers, with no base training.

Basic TriStar/VC10 to A330 conversion would pose no problems, other than the lack of currency and the low amount of varied routes and sectors being experienced by some present RAF Transport crews.

Tactical training add ons, obviously will take longer.

PS
I am assuming in the above, that to get the fleet up and running ,initial A330 AT pilots will be drawn from experienced ex TriStar/VC10 crews. Ab Initio pilots ex King Air would obviously need a longer course with base training included.

[BEagle]

...all planning provided by the Jeppesen-powered Ops team...I wonder whether Jeppesen will actually show something of their alleged MilPlanner AAR product at ARSAG2011, or continue to hide behind Uncle Spam's convenient ITAR excuse-wall?

[brit bus driver]

a couple of A330 mates with VA and BA

I'm afraid BA has no A330s....

The failure rate of ex RAF pilots may just be a bit higher though.

SM - what a load of old tosh you spout. As a few have said on here, going from a 'legacy' flight deck to a modern EFIS environment is indeed a piece of pi$$. Going back is not quite so straightforward though!

[Justanopinion]

I wonder whether Jeppesen will actually show something of their alleged MilPlanner AAR product at ARSAG2011, or continue to hide behind Uncle Spam's convenient ITAR excuse-wall?

The elephant in the room is still being ignored.

[D-IFF_ident]

McDonalds napkins and crayons - the planning system of the future.

[BEagle]

At least that might work - and wouldn't generate a "Computer says No" message and associated AAR refusal......:rolleyes:

[Dan Winterland]

"Children of the magenta god'' need not apply. The tracks on an Airbus ND are green and the the magenta crowd will have the wrong rating!

[Deeply Concerned]

Please excuse a civil pilot on your military forum. As an A330 captain firmly in the civil world, I might actually be interested in swopping my 4star hotel for a tent in Kandahar to actually do something a little more interesting. Hours of routine flying on the Atlantic can be a little uninspiring after a while.

Can anyone advise, is the requirement for full time crew, or can you be a part time reservist? Maybe I'm missunderstanding 'sonsored reservist'.

Also, could someone clarify what is ITAR, and what is meant by 'children of a magenta god' please?

PS I can't see anyone having any difficulty converting analog to glass/fly by wire, not an issue.

[Art Field]

Tanker Captains Prayer. Whatever the problem is, I need an answer which is darned close but I need it NOW!

[Trim Stab]

'children of a magenta god' please


You are obviously an Airbus pilot! On just about any other civvy glass cockpit, as is generally known here, the aeroplane flies itself entirely without human input along the purple line between chocks off to chocks on. Unless, of course, it goes tech then it is blind panic stations for us civvy pilots as we have to actually fly by hand until we can get it to work again.

I think it is a different colour on Airbi, but same principle.

If you want to understand better the "sponsored reservist" commitment, there is plenty of information about the commitment on the Air Tanker website. It is a bit like being in the TA/RNR/RMR/RAuxAF except that it is contractually compulsory. So you might, in extremis, have to accept "orders".

Having said that, can anybody explain why Air Tanker reservists will not simply become part of the RAuxAF - was there some legal impediment to this route?

[Arty Fufkin]

Dear Deeply Concerned,

I should hereby like to formally accept your kind offer to swap accommodation. In fact, there's no reason why it should stop there. Please PM me a picture of your wife and we can talk further.

Yours,

A Fufkin

[Tourist]

Arty.

Thank you for making the first funny post on Pprune in far too long!:D

[Justanopinion]

Deeply concerned welcome to the military forum

ITAR - ITAR regulations dictate that information and material pertaining to defense and military related technologies (for items listed on the U.S. Munitions List) may only be shared with U.S. Persons unless authorization from the Department of State is received or a special exemption is used. U.S. Persons (including organizations) can face heavy fines if they have, without authorization or the use of an exemption, provided foreign (non-US) persons with access to ITAR-protected defense articles, services or technical data.


May be worth ringing Air Tanker and visiting Brize Norton to speak to the regular tanker crews for info on day to day life. The company has a few ex RAF working for them

[Trim Stab]

Arty Fufkin does indirectly raise another valid point -

experienced, keen, civvy A330 pilots like DC are possibly more valuable to Air Tanker and the RAF than trying to convert jaded, hacked off ex AT RAF pilots to the A330...

[Cpt_Pugwash]

Deeply C

Just for completeness,.. ITAR - International Traffic in Arms Regulations.

[Lockstock]

experienced, keen, civvy A330 pilots like DC are possibly more valuable to Air Tanker and the RAF than trying to convert jaded, hacked off ex AT RAF pilots to the A330...

Or conversely, the RAF might be better converting healthy, experienced AT pilots with a strong military ethos and buckets of airmanship, rather than Air Tanker recruiting unfit, military wannabees with nothing more than a few years spent flying down an airway on autopilot.

[Trim Stab]

unfit


LOL!

Are you trying to pretend that the average RAF AT pilot, in his skintight piss-soaked growbag, is "fit"?

Air Tanker have a good plan - attract the experience of civvy A330 pilots, and mix with the experience of military AAR pilots. Seems like a good ethos to me.

But as you admit, there are fat, useless, cynical, jaded pilots in both worlds.

[Lockstock]

But as you admit, there are fat, useless, cynical, jaded pilots in both worlds.

Errr no, I don't recall admitting that.

But if you recognise it in your world...? :confused:

[LFFC]

Deeply Concerned

When it was described to me, the concept of Sponsored Reserve was as follows: You would be a full-time employee of Airtanker, flying their aircraft in peacetime wearing civilian uniform and operating on the civilian register for civilian or benign military tasks. However, in wartime you would be "called up" and operate the same aircraft on the military register for risky military tasks.

Not sure if that's still the plan, but someone will probably correct me if I'm wrong.

[BEagle]

For those with minimal Internet search skills:

Sponsored Reservists AirTanker (http://www.airtanker.co.uk/jobs/what-we-look-for/sponsored-reservists)

You will note Sponsored Reservists (SRs) are legally obliged to undertake regular military training*
*minimum of 27 days per year

Hmmm......:hmm:

[cessnapete]

To get pilots from the Airlines I would think you would have to pay at least double the RAF F/Lt salary.
That will make for a good atmosphere on the flight deck ie ''Why are you getting paid twice as much as me for the same job?'' !!

[LFFC]

Interesting to see the age restrictions in that advert. I know that the military are exempt from age discrimination regulations, but Airtanker are a civilian organisation.

[Trim Stab]

But if you recognise it in your world...? http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/confused.gif


I don't, but as an ex-Para, now civvy pilot, I recognise it in your world....

[Lockstock]

Hey good banter..! :ok:

Back to the theme; you are obviously after a Reservist job with someone like AT. Go ahead and apply but somehow I don't think you'd get it - no offence mate, but you come across as a bit of a stroker..

[Justanopinion]

Lockstock

Trim stab forgot to mention TA Officer after the ex para bit....

No shame in that eh trimstab?

[cargosales]

Lockstock

Trim stab forgot to mention

Quote:
TA Officer

after the ex para bit....

No shame in that eh trimstab?


Justanopinion,

Overly personal and not even very funny, old chap. Especially with the number of very, very capable TA personnel serving in sandy places right now :=

Now please play nicely otherwise I'll have to bore everyone with my Dad's war stories from when he was OC xx Para (TA) if only to point out the value of the part-timers in the military of old, let alone the emasculated one of today.

If you'd prefer, I could start a bit earlier .. perhaps from when he was a regular and the youngest subaltern / Adjutant in the Middle East, running around in hot and sandy places doing daring pongo things. And go from there?

No? thought not.

CS

Note: aviation content warning: I do have quite a number of his photographs from the 60s showing lots of perfectly servicable aircraft in the sky with rather a large number of idiots jumping out of them for no apparant reason. One day I'll get round to scanning them and posting somewhere on here.

[Army Mover]

Trim stab forgot to mention ......

The clue is in his Pprune identity; every time he posts he tells you of his TA background; mind you though, I didn't know he was a droopertrooper - respect. :ok:

[Art Field]

Real Tanker aviators do not squabble and bitch, they just get on with the job.

[Justanopinion]

Overly personal and not even very funny, old chap. Especially with the number of very, very capable TA personnel serving in sandy places right now :=

Precisely my point - nothing to be ashamed of - so why not mention it.....

[Trim Stab]

respect. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif


From an Army Mover? There's something wrong with you. Go and see a doctor.

[Army Mover]

LOL - don't push your luck Stab, you'll have to leave your luggage unattended at some stage. :E

[Dan Winterland]

''Dear Deeply Concerned,

I should hereby like to formally accept your kind offer to swap accommodation. In fact, there's no reason why it should stop there. Please PM me a picture of your wife and we can talk further.

Yours,

A Fufkin''

Hey Art! You must have been on Victor tankers at Marham in the mid 80s!

[BEagle]

The 'OMO' era, eh Dan?

:ooh:

[Shell Management]

Great news!

16:42 GMT, February 4, 2011 GETAFE, Spain | Cobham’s new 805E hose and drogue Fuselage Refuelling Unit (FRU), has successfully passed fuel from an Airbus A330 MRTT (Multi role Tanker Transport) to receiver aircraft for the first time.

In a three hour, 10 minute sortie from Getafe near Madrid on 21 January, the Future Strategic Transport Aircraft (FSTA) variant for the UK Royal Air Force conducted a series of “wet contacts” with two F-18 fighters of the Spanish Air Force. Both fighter aircraft received fuel at an altitude of around 15,000ft and at speeds from 250 knots to 325 knots.

“Cobham has led this field for more than 50 years, and the digital-electric 805E Fuselage Refuelling Unit shares its systems architecture with our wing-mounted 905E pod,” said Cobham Mission Equipment Vice President, Iain Gibson.

“This has allowed us to reach an advanced state of maturity quickly, as shown by the successful fuel transfer test on last month.”

The Cobham FRU 805E will be fitted in the rear fuselage of five of the 14 FSTA aircraft, and is capable of transferring fuel at a rate of 600 US gallons per minute (compared to the wing-pod’s 420 US gallons per minute), allowing faster refuelling of large aircraft such as the Airbus A400M military transport.

Cobham also supplies two wing-mounted 905E pods for each FSTA aircraft, which completed similar testing and certification in 2010.

[moggiee]

My 2p worth:

Having gone from analogue to glass, back to analogue and then back to glass again it really is a non-issue. I would imagine that being in possession of some military flying hours would be more relevant.

Do applicants require a valid civil licence? Unfortunately my recent medical problem will rule me out (the airtanker website appears to be down so I can't check the requirements).

[f/spninx]

Has anybody been offered a flight deck position? and if so what is the package?

[Trim Stab]

and if so what is the package?


I suspect that if that is your main concern, then it might not be the job for you.


Do applicants require a valid civil licence? Unfortunately my recent medical problem will rule me out


Yes, min frozen ATPL with Class 1 medical, plus ability to pass the RAF "fitness test".

[brit bus driver]

I suspect that if that is your main concern, then it might not be the job for you.

Meaning what? Having secured arguably the most lucrative PFI in living history, Air Tanker are now looking at paying peanuts? Or that they expect qualified, gainfully employed 330 drivers to kick it into touch for the delights of MPA and AKT?

I happen to think it's a very reasonable question. All that has been revealed thus far is 'competetive salary' or some such guff.

[VinRouge]

employed 330 drivers to kick it into touch for the delights of MPA and AKT?

Mate, you need to get back in your F*cking box. For many of us, MPA and AKT are pretty much the only places we get to go outside of theatre.

[f/spninx]

brit bus driver cheers!
I also thought it was a civil question.
trim tab
Why the attitude. It was sensible question.

[Charley]

It is very much a sensible question. Neither of the two type-rated A330 guys I know would consider a job that paid below the market rate. There are plenty of pilots on the job market at the moment, but not quite so many type-rated A330 guys. And certainly not many that would meet the RAF fitness test, I'd wager...

The RAF contingent of the Air Tanker crews can presumably be posted onto the unit, so no factor for them. The civil contingent, meanwhile, will need to be 'attracted' -- why would anybody expect different?

If Air Tanker propose a weak package, there'll be limited take-up. Simples.

On the other hand, let's assume that the package does turn out to be uncompetitive due to the pervasive view that 'if it matters that much to someone, they're not the type we want'. If any civvie (ex-mil or not) applies despite a poor package based on the notion that it is some kind of 'noble cause' or that they are somehow 'doing their bit for Queen and country', consider this; isn't it the case that only 'some' of the AT assets will be at the RAF's disposal at any one time? Presumably, the rest of the time will be spent flying civilian charters. How would one of these 'noble few' feel after spending some* of their time flying normal, hum-drum civilian charters in competition with guys getting paid lots* more for the same work? Not very noble any more, I'd suspect...

* = speculative guesses, for the sake of making an example

[Rigga]

Nicely put Charley.

It's going to be the same with maintenance staff - If the conditions aren't right they'll walk at the first oportunity and the RAF will have to put more blokes into it or lose the AOC and/or 145/M Approvals.

In the end it will be another RAF maintenance drain by paying extra for the use of the aircraft and losing more and more manpower to the scheme.

If the pay AND conditions aint right the blokes wont move. Talk to anyone, inside or out, there's no "vocational" reason to do this, in these economically sensitive times, anymore.

There will never be a shortage of RAF volunteers as they will always see it a a way to earn a ticket and move to civvy street, like many of the pilots.

[On_The_Top_Bunk]

Nicely put Charley.

It's going to be the same with maintenance staff - If the conditions aren't right they'll walk at the first oportunity and the RAF will have to put more blokes into it or lose the AOC and/or 145/M Approvals.



Pass the course, get the licence, fail the fitness test, get kicked out. Thanks & bye.

Standards for fitness must be maintained and just because the RAF spends 18 months training engineers they cannot set a precedent by keeping them in.

Can't imagine any unscrupulous people working a ticket like this can you?

[Dan Winterland]

The cost of getting these guys up to standard in the AAR role will be huge if they keep leaving for better paid jobs once they get peed off with the RAF BS.


I did ask (out of interest I'm not really considering the job) what the Ts and Cs are. The silence is ominous. I suspect Air Tanker are seeing who/how many apply before pitching the offer. This accountant driven policy will cost them in the long run.

[Uncle Ginsters]

I suspect Air Tanker are seeing who/how many apply before pitching the offer

Aaaaah, the Chicken & Egg philosophy!

Who's going to apply for a job when all they really know is that they're signing up for MoD BS?

I'd wager that more would apply if even meagre Ts & Cs were laid out for all to see...:confused:

[Dominus]

As an ex Tanker dude and an ex Mil QFI, current Airbus 330 TRI I called them to ask about the package. I basically received a "please apply through the usual channels" answer and all I wanted was a brief terms and conditions package briefing. On that note I asked them what was the application rate like and the answer was about 3 a day, but almost all from eastern European countries and was told that the majority of appplicants will not even be asked to interview due to non Airbus!

In the current role a civvy TRI will earn perhaps in the region of Group Captain to Air Commodore salary! Air Tanker have little hope of recruiting the right people unless they open up their secretive shroud around the package as it appears they don't want to advertise it in the event NO ONE will apply!

The next concern is that the most suitable applicants will be in their early to mid 40's and the 55 age limit to end the contract is a real negative for possible future employment elsewhere. Oh, and of course all of us fat civvy guys need to get to the gym to pass the bleep test (wasn't that one of the reason's I left?)

So I will be very interested to see if they are honest and advertise the package and if not, see what quality of applicants they get?

[Nomorefreetime]

We know whats on or not on offer to the drivers, what's the plan for the rear staff, ALM, Stewards?

[Arty Fufkin]

Not much in the way of job satisfaction either if all they can expect is 25 years of BZZ-ASI-MPA-ASI-BZZ. There's only so much Castle Lager the body can take, believe me, I have pushed the boundaries of human physiology in this respect. :\

[Rigga]

Quote:

Originally Posted by OTTB
"Pass the course, get the licence, fail the fitness test, get kicked out. Thanks & bye.

Standards for fitness must be maintained and just because the RAF spends 18 months training engineers they cannot set a precedent by keeping them in.

Can't imagine any unscrupulous people working a ticket like this can you?"

Well, that shows how long ago I left and how synical I have not yet become! I didnt think that way, but I suppose it will be done, by someone.

FYI a decent LAE with types is on £45K-£60K living in his own flat/house and driving a decent car with a steady bonk in tow.
He probably has share options, a decent pension, travel discounts and is able to plan his life for quite some months ahead. He possibly plays a decent game of Golf and/or goes to most of his teams matches. In his normal working day the most hassle he has is with security "staff" and their latest dreamed-up method of searching for nail clippers.

And you want to tempt him away from that ...with...erm, what?

[vikena]

A fair bit of emphasis seems to have been attracted by the medical/fitness aspect.

If you are working for a civilian company, albeit contracted to the military, surely a JAA class1 suffices. Surely the whole point of civilian contracting to the military is to minimize admin, costs and military imposed constraints.

I think difficulty will arise in contractual terms. If there is a waiver where a contract of employment can be replaced at the behest of a Queen then there simply isn't any point in a contract at the first instance.

This gig, and little seems to be known about it, would have to attract large cash for A330 p1s nevermind the right ones amongst them.

[BEagle]

Interestingly, I made all the above points to the FSTA IPT long before anyone was selected as preferred bidder....

I asked a few civil airline pilots; most asked about medical cover, life insurance excess when flying as a mercenary.....oops, sorry, 'sponsored reservist' :rolleyes:, loss of licence cover, pay and allowances. "£100K to get me out of my 747-400 to fly to the b£oody Falklands and live in a tip" was a typical answer some 10+ years ago.

I briefed the civil serpents about this, but it was news they didn't want to hear...:ugh:

[vikena]

Beagle,

This job and operation seems like a poorly thought out affair and maybe that's the intention. I suspect that this job has to be seen to be advertised.

It gets to Type rate a few RAF lads before they go civvy. They go onto a widebody in Thompson or Monarch as a DEC.

Then the RAF lads don't have to go to a mickey mouse small airline narrowbody operator when they enter civvy world.

[EGT Redline]

FYI a decent LAE with types is on £45K-£60K living in his own flat/house and driving a decent car with a steady bonk in tow.
He probably has share options, a decent pension, travel discounts and is able to plan his life for quite some months ahead. He possibly plays a decent game of Golf and/or goes to most of his teams matches. In his normal working day the most hassle he has is with security "staff" and their latest dreamed-up method of searching for nail clippers.

And you want to tempt him away from that ...with...erm, what?

£44k + shift + SR payment if the current AirTanker advert for Licensed Engineers is anything to go by. Wouldn't open my toolbox for that and I'm almost certain most of my multi-type rated colleagues on a good screw wouldn't either. Let me see, give up the round the world charters as flying spanner or trips to man our line outstations in the Maldives, Goa, Canaries and Balearics for a tent in the Middle East or portacabin down the Falklands. Give up the 4 on 4 off shift pattern where you can plan your life one year in advance. Give up the chance to go home to my family every day after work to live out of a suitcase in digs at Brize wishing my life away for days off. The list goes on and on. Now if they were looking for contractors and paying £6k a month take home (the going rate for a contract LAE) working a one week on one week off shift pattern I might be tempted.....

Worthy of note is the fact that the RAF recently put a load of guys through civil maintenance licence courses at great expense for the King Air project. On completion they then sent them out to industry for 12 months to get the required experience for type rating application. These individuals (who now have qualifications and experience that are transferrable to the civil sector) are currently leaving in their droves after working the return of service. FSTA will be no different and engineers and pilots will use it as a stepping stone to go onto bigger and better things.

[Blighter Pilot]

All we'll get are under-par civil pilots who can't get a job elsewhere and will happily fly for Air Tanker until they have sufficient hours to bugger off back to the civil airline world.

RAF pilots will see this as an ATPL type rating oppurtunity and leave as soon as the civvie market picks up.

I see the FSTA (sorry, Voyager KC2/KC3) being undermanned by inexperienced Mil pilots and second-rate Civil pilots.

FRIs all round in 2014!:mad:

[BEagle]

Voyager KC2 / KC3?

So what is/was Voyager Mk 1? Apart, that is, from this:

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

[Saintsman]

Companies like SERCO have been paying low rates for years but still have managed to carry out their contracts. I remember Airworks paying peanuts but they still managed to recruit.

AirTanker may have to put up with a high turnover, but I'm sure that they will find takers for the jobs on offer.

Besides, with the RAF having hardly any aircraft left, they won't be visiting those nasty places that often, so maybe not that bad a life after all.

[Trim Stab]

55 age limit to end the contract is a real negative for possible future employment elsewhere


Is that really the case? I think it unlikely that AirTanker PLC, as a civilian company, could have exemption from civilian employment law. Or is that a condition of "sponsored reservist" status?

[Rigga]

Sainstman said:
"Companies like SERCO have been paying low rates for years but still have managed to carry out their contracts. I remember Airworks paying peanuts but they still managed to recruit.

AirTanker may have to put up with a high turnover, but I'm sure that they will find takers for the jobs on offer.

Besides, with the RAF having hardly any aircraft left, they won't be visiting those nasty places that often, so maybe not that bad a life after all."

SERCO don't do many civil market jobs though do they? I wonder why?
Airworks went bust in UK due to very poor standards (F3 rivet removals) That pair don't even get a look in for civil aviation standards. The saying about monkeys and peanuts comes to mind...

So - the RAF/AirTanker are prepared to lose their manpower through constantly training future LAE's? - Dream on...

EASA Regs state that at least 50% of the manpower must be permanent staff to maintain stability on type experience. You can't maintain stability by replacing all your staff over a couple of years. The CAA (and not the in-house maleable MAA) are used to that trick, believe me.

After two years the CAA could pull the AOC or 145 due to a lack of driver or mechanic stability.
Their findings will be based upon the phrase "Fix it or go bust".

Simples!

[T.R Haychemu]

Reading the AirTanker Diaries for the "RAF Engineers" it does raise a few questions.

So they have picked some Cpl/Sgts, sending them to COBC college for a Part66 Licence course, then 12months in Industry (A330, so BMI/ThomasCook/Virgin?), and then expect these guys to work on the Air Tanker fleet for Cpl/Sgts pay? (Whats that? £30k?).

Yet the other "LAEs" who are civvy reservists, are on £44k+shift+SR payment etc, doing exactly the same job in the same Hangar?

Can't see that going down too well? Your equals being on > £15k a year more.

Also, after 12months in industry 'networking', a B1/B2 licence and an A330 type rating....I can't see too many of those guys staying 'in' for a moment longer than they need to.

[Rigga]

...on the other hand...who says the civil aircraft will be UK registered?

The DCAA, DGAC, LBA, ENAC or even the "EU" register may come into play and they may be able to "accomodate" MAA/AirTanker needs more than the UK CAA might???

[vikena]

Fair point Rigga,

The irish for example would licence any piece of crap a bit like panama for ships.

A paddy registered aircraft facilitating a british( american) war. It's all falling into place now.

Hehe

V

[Hueymeister]

This is a snowballing problem. Rumour mill reports that the lack of suitable candidates is causing some alarm, whilst ex-mil types involved are trying to recruit ex-muckers thereby turning it into a nepa-fest.

[kenparry]

It gets to Type rate a few RAF lads before they go civvy. They go onto a widebody in Thompson or Monarch as a DEC.

Well, an A330 type rating would not be much good for Thomson - none there or ordered, and the A320 fleet is reducing. And, the days of DEC in any airline with a seniority-related command promotion system are long gone, as they all have plenty of well-qualified and experienced FOs ready and waiting for their command courses.

[vikena]

Chris Thompson is a man I know who owns a private A330.

You're thinking of Thomson the uk airline I assume.

[Rigga]

"This is a snowballing problem. Rumour mill reports that the lack of suitable candidates is causing some alarm, whilst ex-mil types involved are trying to recruit ex-muckers thereby turning it into a nepa-fest."

Aye, and there's the rub, Mr Mainwaring!

All Mil and no Civ does not an AOC/145/M.G. make.

[MyRIVETisJOINT]

I understand the new RIVET JOINT is boom AAR only. Can we have an itsy-bitsy small requirement change on AIRTANKER and FIT A BOOM please?:ugh:

[indie cent]

RAAF, which operates both types of receiver is ordering the outright military purchase of the KC30A: capable of refuelling Probe and Boom. Adaptable!

RAF, which (in a couple of years!) will operate Typhoon and C130J (2types, probe); and E3D, Rivet Joint and C17 (3 types, Boom refuel only) orders wait for it...

A330MRTT, Drogue and probe only, under a PFI which involves complex bilateral agreements and recruitment of experienced commercial training captains who must sign up as junior officer reservist pilots for the thing to work.

Mental...! Unless of course I am dreaming this.

[servodyne]

Inde cent
I see where you are coming from but one minor correction The E-3D is a dual refuelling equipped aircraft

[indie cent]

Thank you servodyne,

Good spot and thank-you for keeping it factually correct.
I suspect the faster refuel rate may mean the boom is preferable for E3 ops. (any experts out there...?)

However, I see where you are coming from, but for one minor correction: it's "indie"...

[binsleepen]

Indie,

You are right in that KC-135/KC-10 boom system can transfer fuel at about 6000lbs/min which is about double that of probe + drogue. However, the RAF P+D crews were far more flexible in their operations which allowed (generally) a muck quicker join up over USAF and ANG crews.

Put together and you are on a winner. I never understood why we didn't order a boom system as well (cost obviously) as we operate with so many coalition partners who only have boom systems.

Regards

[NURSE]

Yes the USAF use Flying boom bu doesn't that cause isues when they refuel USN/USMC aircraft who are probe and drogue?
Which is the most predominant system across the world? and since the UK will be continually working in coalition type ops shouldn't we go for the most used system?

[indie cent]

...or both; perhaps...!??!

[BEagle]

The USAF has now recognised a need for more KC-135s to be fitted with wing AAR pods.....

Perhaps the EC-135 Rivet Joint could also have the same multiple AAR systems as the E-3D? I'm sure the high-priced talent would have looked at this.....??

[indie cent]

Perhaps the EC-135 Rivet Joint could also have the same multiple AAR systems as the E-3D? I'm sure the high-priced talent would have looked at this.....??


Beags,

With respect, why would we adapt one legacy airframe to fit the RAF version of the KC30 instead of adapting our order of the new KC30 (proven a la Aussies) to fit multiple multinational receiver types with a greater refuel rate???

Pplease educate me... I've given up guessing!

[Art Field]

I am sure the problem of not having a boom system could b e solved quickly enough if the aircraft was RAF owned but with the crazy PFI system that we are stuck with for 20 odd years, well!!!!

[BEagle]

3 Rivet Joints to have probes, or some 9 Voyagers to have booms - do the sums!

The greater onload rate is only significant for very large receivers. As a boom can only do one fighter at a time, the offload rate of a boom becomes less significant once multiple receivers need refuelling due to the time needed for formation management and contact / disconnect procedures. The cycle time of 4 Tornados needing 4000 kg each is probably quicker than 4 F-15s needing 8800 lb each.

It seems that the USN thought that 'large receivers couldn't use probes', so they specified the P-8 with just a receptacle.....:rolleyes:

Fitting a boom to the Voyager would be a significant and expensive undertaking; it would also have both inital and recurrent training burdens.

[Uncle Ginsters]

RAF, which (in a couple of years!) will operate Typhoon and C130J (2types, probe); and E3D, Rivet Joint and C17 (3 types, Boom refuel only) orders wait for it...

As for the other heavies, the answer's simple - along with with so many other things these days - We don't need it now, so we don't need it.

E3D, C130J and C17 all seem to do their thing pretty well without them (with the odd exception for E3D vs USAF tankers, but that's more out of convenience).

[brit bus driver]

Quote:
employed 330 drivers to kick it into touch for the delights of MPA and AKT?

Mate, you need to get back in your F*cking box. For many of us, MPA and AKT are pretty much the only places we get to go outside of theatre.

I think that, given the general concensus that MPA and AKT are not exactly the nirvana you paint them to be (unless they have changed radically since last I was there), perhaps it is you who should return to their box.

As a wise man once said, if you don't like it, leave. Having been out for 3 years, I've grown rather fond of hot & cold running water in my hotel room rather than a hike across the bondu.....You may not like that attitude, but I suspect I'm not alone.

Now, back to the issue of how much AT plan on paying to tempt my fellow commercial pilots away from their boxes.

[6foottanker]

Kc-10s are all equipped with booms and centreline drogues, so they retain the flexibility to refuel any aircraft as required. There is a difference is the tasking, which matches receivers with the most suitable tanker at the planning stage, leaving less ad-hoc aar as the RAF do. Aircraft are fitted with wing pods when tasked to support offloads with more probe equipped receivers than UARRSI equipped jets.
Transfer rates from the boom are varied by the number of fuel pumps used by the tanker: less for fighters, more for eg C5. This is no different to a VC10 refuelling using the centreline hose, which also requires careful use of pumps dependent on the receiver.

[Trim Stab]

Mate, you need to get back in your F*cking box. For many of us, MPA and AKT are pretty much the only places we get to go outside of theatre.


I suspect that if AirTanker A330MRTs were available now, they would have been FCOs first call (instead of Astraeus Airline 757s) for charter to Tripoli for citizen evacuations.

[Algy]

...and/or A400M.:ok:

[Uncle Ginsters]

It's a bit irrelevant what you have in your inventory if no-one in power will make the 'go' decision:ugh:

We have capable aircraft now, they just haven't been so tasked.

[Trim Stab]

...and/or A400M.http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif


Except that RAF A400Ms could be misconstrued in this rather unusual circumstance as being overtly aggressive. The possible advantage of AirTanker in these circumstances is that they are civilian aircraft, and so are less likely to incite political opposition than a military aircraft. They would fulfill the role that BA used to fulfill when they were still a "flag carrier" airline, rather than just a long-haul version of ReazyJair.

[Uncle Ginsters]

Looks pretty similar in paint-scheme to our other AT assets to me...no more or less aggressive, just identical!
http://i55.tinypic.com/dpflm1.jpg

[NURSE]

Would the Airtanker aircraft be available to go and repatriate British citizens if a scenario like we have unfolding now in Libyia when they are in service?

[Trim Stab]

Would the Airtanker aircraft be available to go and repatriate British citizens if a scenario like we have unfolding now in Libyia when they are in service?


Until the Bush administration, if flown by civilian crew, under ICAO regulations, with an AOC, it would have been entirely practical compared to flying in under military regulations with a military aircrew, in a military aircraft.

Nowadays, the distinction is blurred - you reap what you sow.

[GreenKnight121]

It seems that the USN thought that 'large receivers couldn't use probes', so they specified the P-8 with just a receptacle.....:rolleyes:

Possibly because the only "hose/probe-only" tankers the US has are the USMC KC-130R/Js?

Which are few and slow, and thus not a very good match for the P-8?

Which means that there was already a 90%+ probability that a USAF jet tanker would be normally used anyway... so why not go with the higher-flow, shorter-time refueling option from the start?

[BEagle]

Nope, according to sources with whom I've spoken, it was simply that the USN didn't realise that a probe-equipped large aircraft (even something as small as a P-8) was feasible....:hmm:

[Art Field]

What have we been doing since around 1959 then, just putting long things on large aircraft noses for them to look pretty?

[BEagle]

Arters, since when did anyone in the US know anything about any other nations' aircraft?

The 'pink Hinds' in GW1 which were actually Pumas

The 'Nimrod' on the wing of a Bear, which was actually a VC10K.

The 'Airliner' on the wing of a Bear, which was actually a TriStar.

Mind you, the aircraft recognition skills of some of our crews were pretty poor. In GW1 one lot cleared a USN aircraft to make contact on a wing pod one night. "What type", they asked. "EA3" came the reply. They had no idea what it was, but cleared it anyway..... Given that the EA3 has a wingspan of almost exactly half that of a VC10, it must have been rather interesting!

[spectre150]

I had always thought the EA-3 looked a tad on the large side for carrier ops but the the F-14's wingspan was only 6 feet less with the wings forward (which I assume they were when launching and tanking). But then again 6' is probably quite a lot in terms of space on a busy flight deck or when tucked in behind a wing-mounted pod trailing a hose. Can't have been many of them left flying in '91. Back to my spotters mag....

[Art Field]

Had a ride in an Ea3 to the 'USS Forrestal' and back in 1978. It was a roomy beast, one felt there was room in to go for a walk. No bang seats so for the launch from the carrier the canopy was left open. Apologies for the subject drift.

[BEagle]

I see that AirTanker are looking for an A330 Training Captain - it doesn't state whether applicants will need to be mercen...'sponsored reservists':

Training Captain | AirTanker Careers (http://www.airtankerjobsearch.co.uk/details/3890)

I wonder how many will apply..........:\

The last paragraph in the job description is interesting.

[Wander00]

Picking you nose and scratching your crutch are out then!

[Fareastdriver]

along with details of your current salary and benefits package

There is a rate for that job; not a little bit more than you are getting now.

Starting a new operation like that is a minimum of £120.000/annum plus lots of freebees.

[ShortFatOne]

Unless I'm mistaken (which happens quite a lot I'll grant you), surely the only way you could have gained "previous experience on the Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft" is through the application of time travel?

:confused:

[Dan Winterland]

If the Ts and Cs for this job are in line with the rest of the jobs they have advertised then I guess they aren't going to get a lot of interest from people who have the neccessary qualifications. But as they're advertising at this late stage, I suspect they're desperate and the suitable candidate will be able to negotiate.




PS. I wouldn't do it for as little as 120K!

[ORAC]

PS. I wouldn't do it for as little as 120K! Hmm, sounds like the old tanker nickname "gravy boat" might come back into use..... :)

[Capt Scribble]

As a current A330 Capt, ex mil FJ, I emailed Airtanker HR expressing an interest and asking for more details of the package. They did not have the decency to reply. Now there aren't that many 330s in UK so I suspect that they know that they will not be able to recruit from the civil world with the package offered. They could fund a few 330 ratings and cover the cost by paying Captains - Flt Lt wages! Simples..

[brit bus driver]

I find it incredible that AT have not felt it necessary to publish their salary scales; every other operator does. It smacks of 'how little can we gat away with....'. Someone asked me today if I had thought about it (ex tanker, current Airbus (albeit the 'ickle one)). I wouldn't/haven't but that thought is galvanised by the sheer bloody-minded refusal to publish their pay scales.

Also, given the 'Person Specifications' (sic):

1. Must be an Airbus A330 Type Rating Instructor and Type Rating Examiner or have previous FSTA experience

Are there many pilots out there with previous FSTA experience (ffs).:ugh:

[Dan Winterland]

''PS. I wouldn't do it for as little as 120K!

Hmm, sounds like the old tanker nickname "gravy boat" might come back into use..... '''

Line captains in some airlines can earn more than 120K (GBP) PA. TIREs will get more than this. Check some of the contract sites for an idea. Widebody TIREs can easily make US$20K a month. That's the going rate for the job - and you also have to take into account UK tax and all the BS which will go with the FTRS.




I too (out of curiosity - wasn't interested in the job) asked about the CoS. All I got was an offer to apply on line for the position. They're hiding something!

[BEagle]

So it'll need to be about £150K plus free private medical cover, pension and 27 days' mercenary pay as an absolute minimum then?

Dream on......

[Trim Stab]

I'm a bit disappointed by some of the comments on this thread. What has happened to the ethos of pride in public service in Britain? Is everybody - even ex-mil - a total "me-first" mercenary these days?

I'm ex-Army, ex-Diplomatic service, and now a commercial pilot in the bizjet sector. I love flying, but miss the satisfaction of working in public service. I'd join Air Tanker in a flash if my qualifications were of interest to them but with no heavy jet experience, let alone A330 experience, I have no chance. Those of you who have the right qualifications should think yourself blessed with good fortune instead of moaning about the ts&cs.

[Rigga]

TS - I really think you mean what you write, but, unless you are a devoted batchelor who has only just left the services, you should really think about that again...starting with basic Pros and Cons.

[lj101]

There seems to be a general assumption by (presumably) serving members of the RAF on this forum that the general public owes them a living, and that the RAF should be allowed to spend public money ad nausea for the thinly justified existence of QRA and RAFAT.

I fully admit that I have a very different perspective from many of you on this forum. When I fly as a civilian pilot, every minute of our flights we are trying to save fuel by negotiating with controllers for short cuts, juggling winds and flight levels for best efficiency, taking visual approaches whenever possible to save a few minutes, and constantly calculating where it is cheapest to upload fuel. All that is motivated by trying to keep our jobs, to keep the company afloat, because of the taxes we pay! And where do those taxes go? I don't mind paying tax to support the old, the sick, the weak, and the defence of our country, particularly the latter as I am a TA volunteer.

I would just like to see the RAF take the same cuts as the RN and Army. RAFAT and air-defence (which are loosely linked) are disproportionately expensive. RAFAT in particular gives the impression that the RAF are not taking the current political and economical situation seriously - they write off £5m of my taxes attempting pointless stunts, burning more fuel in 20 mins than I save in a year of parsimonious flying (not to mention the raw diesel they into the atmosphere at the same time).

I fully support the RAF - but just give the funds to the hard-core front line guys - SH, RAF Reg, Medics, AT etc - and relegate the AD FJ and RAFAT to REMF status that they deserve.


Trimstab - seriously? You really want to join us with your views of the Air defence fast jet boys and girls as above? Change of heart?

[brit bus driver]

Trim Stab

I'm sorry old son, I think your spectacles have become alittle too rose-tinted. If you think that Air Tanker are in this for anything other than to make money, you're either very naive or a bit doo-lally. We've all done our bit for 20-odd years and have now moved on. Let's not confuse the admirable stance of the boys & girls in blue or green with the apparent desire to recruit airline pilots for the lowest possible remuneration. If the package were half decent, Air Tanker would declare it rather than all the 'you show me yours and I'll show you mine' malarky. To be honest, if the future work force have any nouse, they'll push for BALPA recognition in order to avoid being screwed in the future. (Not that it did the Virgin boys any good!!)

[airborne_artist]

I have spent the last twenty years headhunting - not for pilots, but for guys earning the same or more in most cases, and my clients needed specific skills and experience which very often reduced the candidate base to single figures. The task was then to tease out who would move and what for. Budgets were not unlimited, but they were still generous.

The idea of not replying to emails, or telling someone to fill in an online application without revealing the ball-park compensation figure is staggering. If I got wind of a genuinely interested candidate I'd jump in a car or on a flight to go and meet them and attempt to get them to agree to meet my client.

Looking at 1. Must be an Airbus A330 Type Rating Instructor and Type Rating Examiner or have previous FSTA experience it's pretty clear that there won't be many who fit the professional requirements, and the citizenship/residency req., and will take on the sponsored reserve req etc. - and I can't imagine it's too hard to work out where these guys are, either, given the aircraft type, and thus who they are. Airtanker head sheds - if you are reading this, wake up and smell the coffee :E

[BEagle]

Many years ago, I asked the 'other' consortium, TTSC, where they thought that their pilots and in particular, their instructors would come from.

The said that they considered that it wouldn't be any problem; however, I then told them the results of a few questions posed around various civil airline pilots. Typically, they said that to attract them away from ba or Virgin Atlantic would need significantly better Ts and Cs than their airlines offered, to compensate them for the dull routes and general military niff-naff. They were rather....surprised :rolleyes:

And that was before the days of expecting their pilots to fly as mercenaries for a minimum of 27 days per year....

As airborne artist says, if you want to attract the best of the best, you won't do that by directing them to on-line application forms or by failing to reply to e-mails.

"No bucks, no Buck Rogers!"

[Art Field]

I am curious to find out what they mean by FSTA experience. Since a strict interpretation of that would only count the test pilots of Toulouse and Boscombe can they mean ex VC10 and Tristar pilots who have held squadron QFI, OCU or Staneval posts. If I was not so ancient and clapped out, could of had a chance then!

[airborne_artist]

What AirTanker don't seem to have considered is the cost of not getting the right person in post on time. Reckon it'd be a few bob more than the headhunter's fee and the salary to attract the right candidate.

[Dan Winterland]

''So it'll need to be about £150K plus free private medical cover, pension and 27 days' mercenary pay as an absolute minimum then?

Dream on...... ''

Forget the dreaming. It sounds roughly what a widebody TIRE will be earning on a contract with PARC or Risworth for one of the majors. And to attract the right calibre of candidate, this is what they should be considering ................. except of course they won't!

As for dreaming, also forget the starry eyed notion that people will want to do the job because of loyalty and love for the nation. Most of us gave up that idea when we left military service. And don't forget the employer for this job is Airtanker - not the RAF. Anything they save in wages will go to the company and not the defence budget!

[BEagle]

Ah, but Dan, you didn't NB the deliberate ambiguity in my post.....;)

If that's what an A330 TRE can expect with a major, anyone expecting to lure him away with the prospect of routes to the sun-washed jewel of the South Atlantic, or the delights of the 5-star Block 101 in Cyprus or the equivalent in Afghanistan - with a minimum of a month's mercenary service (which presumably includes all the guns, gas and gym time to go with it..:hmm:) is indeed 'dreaming' if they think that £150K would be sufficient.

Of course things would be a lot different if the MoD had decided to acquire the A330MRTT conventionally. But at least the crews won't be working from dilapidated ex-WW2 buildings which should have been condemned 25 years ago!

[Dan Winterland]

Now you just spoiled it! Block 101, Chris Kebab, Kokkinelli........

.......I'll do that!

[lj101]

There is also the 'small' issue of passing the military aircrew medical, it seems that quite a few have not.

Anyone care to enlighten me as to the difference in standard between civil and military?

[BEagle]

Certain medical conditions rule out RAF service. Applications will be rejected if you suffer or have suffered from asthma in the last four years. However, if you have been diagnosed previously as suffering from asthma but have remained symptom-free for a continuous four-year period, you may be considered for RAF ground service but not aircrew.

In addition, if you are male you must have HUGE gonads....;)

[I'm Off!]

If only so that when Manning or JPA kicks you in them they can be sure it will REALLY hurt...!!

[Army Mover]

I'd love to see the "default" definitions of this contract; someone can really get their fingers burnt here. :ouch:

[LFFC]

I still think that one of the bigger disincentives to joining Airtanker as a pilot is their maximum age limit of 55 years.

Sponsored Reservists (http://www.airtanker.co.uk/jobs/what-we-look-for/sponsored-reservists)

I wonder what the Airtanker plan is for one of their Sponsored Reserve pilots when he/she gets to 55 years old? Do they get the push?

[airborne_artist]

I can just hear the harrumphing when the TRE discovers this:

"As well as the potential to be deployed on operations, when working as a Sponsored Reservist you will be required to:

wear military uniform
be under military command
be subject to the Service Discipline Act
undertake additional duties (e.g. Guard)" :E

[D-IFF_ident]

Could I be based in Cyprus?

If so, I'm in.

[brit bus driver]

Er, can they stipulate a maximum age limit of 55 years? Is that not illegal - after all, I now face years of languishing in the RHS as a result of the major carrier having to can compulsory retirement at 55!!:p

And still no word from ATr as to the 'package'....

[Tay Cough]

I'm ex-Army, ex-Diplomatic service, and now a commercial pilot in the bizjet sector. I love flying, but miss the satisfaction of working in public service. I'd join Air Tanker in a flash if my qualifications were of interest to them but with no heavy jet experience, let alone A330 experience, I have no chance. Those of you who have the right qualifications should think yourself blessed with good fortune instead of moaning about the ts&cs.I'm close to the right qualifications but fall short. In any case, I'd be extremely reluctant to move from my current position (which pays the mortgage) and provides both decent job security and a decent pension to a position where neither the ability to pay the mortgage nor the equivalent job security, nor a mention of the type or quality of pension scheme is guaranteed - or in fact, detailed.

At the very least, I would need my current package to be matched. In practice, given the "into harm's way" requirements, significantly more would be required. Widebody Training Captains in my outfit earn north of £140k basic, additional training pay, allowances and a FSS pension. In all seriousness, you would need to be paying getting on for £200k plus pension to get experienced Training Captains to cover the "harm's way" aspects. Not beyond the realms of possibility if they're really desperate but not especially likely IMHO. If I were a betting man, I'd say their requirement will change.

To quote BEagle (and others):

No bucks, no Buck Rogers.


Edit: Regarding "other duties", if this is an AOC operation then a FTL scheme will be required in which case, "duties at the behest of the operator" need to be taken into account when calculating FDPs.

[airborne_artist]

Er, can they stipulate a maximum age limit of 55 years? Is that not illegal - after all, I now face years of languishing in the RHS as a result of the major carrier having to can compulsory retirement at 55!

HMG has exemption from age discrimination. The para about Sponsored Reserve service says there is a max age on entry of 55, but does not mention the max age for service, ie the age at which you will or can be compulsorily discharged. Google has not yet produced the answer.

Does the TRE really need to go into harm's way, or even go into uniform?

[Tay Cough]

Does the TRE really need to go into harm's way, or even go into uniform?

You make a good point. However, when any new fleet comes into being, there is an element of work up. How this will manifest itself in this crossover civ/mil world, I don't know but I can't imagine for a second that a TRE would not be fully operational.

From the bean-counters point of view, if they are paying the TRE £150k (which they'll have to if they want a civvy one), I have no doubt they'll insist on getting their pound of flesh - purely to justify the fact they'll be paying him a similar sum to the PM (that should cause a stir in itself) - including sending him on ops. The airlines certainly do (and rightly so).

[BEagle]

I wonder whether the ATr business model ever countenanced having to pay its mercenaries roughly 3 times the best salary an RAF 'training captain' could ever receive?

Does the TRE really need to go into harm's way, or even go into uniform?

If the job specification doesn't make that clear, then it's a poorly drafted specification. Not the mark of a quality operation.....

There are plenty of RAF VC10/TriStar QFIs who could be re-trained to instruct on the A330. After all, that's what happened when the RAF first started operating the VC10K and TriStar tankers - the added value being that a significant number also had a strong AAR background.

It's only because of this whole PFI thing that the company seems to need its own trainers. Under conventional acquisition, the RAF would have sent its first aircrew to Toulouse for their initial TRs, then run all subsequent training courses themselves.

The benefits of PFI, eh?

[Trim Stab]

There are plenty of RAF VC10/TriStar QFIs who could be re-trained to instruct on the A330


There is a chicken & egg situation here. To instruct within the strictures of an FTO, they would first have to qualify as a TRI, meaning they would need 700 hours on the A330 (or 200 if they held an FI(A) - QFI does not count).

[BEagle]

That would only be true if the RAF ran its flying training under civilian ATO requirements. Which presently it doesn't - most pilot qualifications are entirely competency-based, rather than requiring a set number of (largely rather valueless) flying hours watching the AFS driving a people tube from A-to-B and back again.....:rolleyes:

However, with the increasing cancer of contractorisation and the ridiculous MFTS nonsense, the RAF seems to be getting the worst of all worlds on the false premise of cost saving...:uhoh: If MFTS has to follow EASA diktat, then the future difficulties of finding qualified training staff will be enormous.

It'll end in tears - doomed we are, Capt Mainwaring!

[Trim Stab]

That would only be true if the RAF ran its flying training under civilian ATO requirements. Which presently it doesn't - most pilot qualifications are entirely competency-based, rather than requiring a set number of (largely rather valueless)

Aha -now I understand - you still think the whole programme should be entirely run by the RAF. If that was the case, the aircraft would never have arrived as there would never have been a budget for them. The aircraft are there, on time, within budget, because of the PFI.


flying hours watching the AFS driving a people tube from A-to-B and back again....

Well since you started up that irrelevant argument again, at least if civ pilots fly the A330s the taxi drivers around Brize need not fear getting beaten up by an A330 wanting to "scare the **** out of him", and there'll be a reasonable chance that some of them succeed in landing with their gear down:rolleyes:

[BEagle]

You did say you were 'ex-Diplomatic Service', didn't you?

:\

The "I've got more hours than you" nonsense only applies where such flight time is of quality. 1000 hours of pond-crossings is arguably of far less quality than 1000 hours of European short haul time. However, no-one would conceivably embark upon an ETOPS pond-crossing without any additional training, irrespective of how many flying hours on other routes they had.

[airborne_artist]

However, when any new fleet comes into being, there is an element of work up. How this will manifest itself in this crossover civ/mil world, I don't know but I can't imagine for a second that a TRE would not be fully operational.

If the TRE's JD has been written correctly, along with other senior staff, then is there a need for the TRE to leave the civilian bubble? Ensure that there is a QxI who can instruct on the military aspects, as these do not need to be done to civilian licensing/regulatory standards.

You could even get to the stage where the TRE was provided on contract from another A330 operator.

[Art Field]

Trim Stab.

You are very kind to all those organisations involved to say that the FSTA is being delivered on time. The first proposal was raised in December 2000. Thanks first to MOD and subsequently to others, a modified version of the proposal has been produced in 2011. 11 years to write a contract for and convert a standard model airfame. It is only on time for the last date the providers put on it. Let us hope it can finally fill a gaping hole in the fleet.

[deltahotel]

ETOPS pond crossing probably needs a half day groundschool followed by 2 sectors of training and a 2 sector ETOPS ck - not a big deal.

[Roland Pulfrew]

Aha -now I understand - you still think the whole programme should be entirely run by the RAF. If that was the case, the aircraft would never have arrived as there would never have been a budget for them. The aircraft are there, on time, within budget, because of the PFI.

Trim Stab

I think you are falling for the Company and MOD spin machines. The aircraft was supposed to have its ITS (Introduction To Service - IIRC deemed as one aircraft, cleared to refuel a Tornado, in Service with the RAF) in 2007. It's now 2011 and we might just classify that as having occurred. FSD (Full Service Delivery - defined as all aircraft delivered and cleared to refuel all in service RAF aircraft requiring AAR) in 2011. Somehow I don't think we can classify it as "on time".

As to the budget. The budget was there and it should have been ring-fenced until the PFI had proven "value for money". Unfortunately some bright spark took the money for something else and that effectively forced us into going with the PFI regardless of VFM. Note the RAAF have received their conventionally procurred KC-30/KC-330/KC-45 (or whatever title they currently have) ahead of us, despite starting their programme later than us.

[BEagle]

KC-30A, Roly!

It also helped that when the Australian observer returned to Oz, after witnessing the writhing of the civil serpents at the Brizzle Waterworld, allegedly summed it up by announcing "PFI? Poms are F***ing Idiots! Don't even go there!"

"This programme will not slip" - I remember that touchingly naive comment from one of the more senior civil serpents.........:uhoh:

[brit bus driver]

2007....holy cr@p. When a chap I know pottered off to Canada to fly the A310 (CC150 Polaris - now a fully operational tanker) in 1999, his desk officer muttered words along the lines of 'get some Airbus time and be on one of the first FSTA courses when you come back...'

:ugh:

[Chris Griffin]

Is this the same chap who thought F@&£ it and joined the Canadians post exchange. If so, is bloody good bloke and a huge loss to us apart from being a 215.5 product. ;-)

[brit bus driver]

No. He went in 2002.

:cool:

[Tallsar]

Under the original Smart Aquisition pilot IPT in 1999, the VC10 was regarded as economically unsupportable and to be gone by 2005! The complexities of seeing an appropriate way through to deliver a workable PFI solution has added 5-7 years to the FSTA programme, and from reading the issues highlighted above, it would appear there is still considerable scope for yet more inefficient delay! When you look at the £Bns wasted over the last 10 years on dead or dying MOD air projects, you can't help but weep over how much better it would have been to use it for conventional purchases, or at least in FSTA's case, emulate the C17 lease and build on that.:hmm::ooh::confused:

[Xercules]

The title of this thread (Airtanker) can be a bit misleading in the light of some of the comments.

Roland Pulfrew wrote "I think you are falling for the Company and MOD spin machines. ......... Somehow I don't think we can classify it as "on time"."

Art Field then wrote "You are very kind to all those organisations involved to say that the FSTA is being delivered on time. "

There are 2 different timescales involved:

First is the MoD/DPA/DE&S planning for which the times quoted are correct and it would be quite right to measue MoD etc against those. However, Airtanker as the contractor can do nothing about any of the delays at this stage. These are all internally or Treasury created largely by arguments about and the changing, not just, the goal posts of PFI. Added together these all meant that it took a very long time for Airtanker to get its contract.

Airtanker then did a lot of work whilst waiting but you could not expect it to take on enormous financial commitments (nor would its bankers have let them) until they had a contract. To add to the risk here, Airtanker gets no revenue at all until it starts delivering a service. Once Airtanker had a contract, the Airtanker programme has run to time and it is delivering against its promises.

Airtanker is not spinning when it says the Programme is on time - and no, I do not work for Airtanker.

[lj101]

Xercules


... But dont you work for airbus?

[D-IFF_ident]

There are plenty of RAF VC10/TriStar QFIs who could be re-trained to instruct on the A330. After all, that's what happened when the RAF first started operating the VC10K and TriStar tankers - the added value being that a significant number also had a strong AAR background.

Beags - as any QFI would tell you, you don't need an operational background to instruct; you need to do a course on a single-engine prop trainer and an understanding of 'keywords', 'instructional technique' and which colour whiteboard markers to use! An A330 endorsement for any current RAF QFI would surely make them ready to teach ab-initio students how to lead a North Atlantic accompanied deployment. :cool:

As for contracts with civilian companies - you only ever get what's in the contract. There's no reason for them to provide anything more, that would be financially unsound business practice. :}

[BEagle]

No, I didn't mean that a QFI from another background could start instructing on the A330MRTT without a fair amount of time on the jet first! That would be rather a silly thing to try. For example, even an experienced ex-Victor A2 QFI took quite a while to get up to speed on the VC10K before being permitted to instruct on it!

Using a simulator or the aircraft itself to instruct basic AAR is a very expensive and inefficient option - getting crew, aircraft, weather and receivers available at the same time can rarely be guaranteed. The cost of running a FFS is high, both in acquisition and operating costs, plus safety teams and console operators.

Hence the attraction of AAR CPTs - you can train crews very effectively for a fraction of the cost of using a FFS. But only if someone with considerable AAR experience has had a hand in the system design, so that the instructor can spend as much time as possible actually instructing and monitoring, rather than fiddling with the CPT operator's console.

[Art Field]

Thanks Beags, I was that Ex Victor QFI and I did find the aircraft management side of the VC10 was very different to the Victor although this was not appreciated by all at the time. I had to become comfortable in the Funbus before I felt confident to instruct the handling although I could have coped with the role tuition but they are interlinked. I am only guessing of course but to change from a 10 or Trimotor to a 330 may be less of a cultural jump than from the Victor.

[ORAC]

DefenseNews: Jets Delivered for Conversion Into U.K. Refuelers (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=7569358&c=EUR&s=AIR)

LONDON - Airbus Military has delivered the first of 12 A330-200 airliners due to be converted into in-flight refueling planes for the British Royal Air Force by Cobham Aviation Services. The aircraft, part of an order of 14 jets, will be modified with aerial refueling pods and other equipment at Cobham's newly refurbished facility in Bournemouth, England. The first two aircraft have already been converted by Airbus in Spain.

The multirole tanker aircraft are being provided to the RAF under a private finance initiative service deal led by Airbus parent EADS.

Seven of the planes will be operated full time by the RAF. The remainder will be available for lease in the third-party market, with the proviso that they can be returned to British military service to meet any surge in demand. All of the aircraft, to be known as the Voyager in RAF service, will be fitted with two wing-mounted refueling pods, while half the fleet will also be fitted for, but not necessarily with, a center-line mounted unit. The refueling units are being supplied by Cobham.

The first aircraft will become operational in a passenger and freight transport role by the end of this year to start relieving pressure on the RAF's hard-pressed assets.

Despite the increasing fragility of current RAF in-flight refueling operations, the new capability is not contracted to start being used in this role until 2015. All 14 Voyagers are scheduled to be available for RAF operations by the middle of the decade. The A330 will replace the increasingly ancient Tristar and VC-10 refuelers now in service.