Voyager: AT Aircraft Only??

[Roland Pulfrew]

Bearing in mind this is from "The Current Bun", how could Cobbam have got this so wrong?

£10bn refuel planes don’t work for RAF | The Sun |News (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4239864/10bn-refuel-planes-dont-work-for-RAF.html)

Maybe the Ten will make its 50th yet :suspect::E

[NoFaultFound]

Amazed it has taken this long to make it into the press!

NFF:ugh:

[lj101]

Mmmmm

There are rumours that there are issues with it as an AT asset too apparently, anyone wondered why it's still sat in a hanger.

[Courtney Mil]

The Tornado fuel system has always made it a slow receiver. Tanking from US assets has always required them to turn of one of the transfer pumps in not to exceed the maximum flow rate and pressure. That design 'feature' very nearly made it into a slightly newer jet.

[bakseetblatherer]

Maybe that's why it never made it to Ohakea!

[pr00ne]

lj101,


"...issues with it an an AT asset too...."


The A330 is one of the most popular and efficient airliners in production in the world today. How on earth can the MoD manage to have "issues" with it?

[Pontius Navigator]

pr00ne, are you joking? I have no idea what the issues may be but just watching how the RAF handle aircraft and Civvies handle them I am sure the RAF can find better ways of doing things.

Ways that will cost more, take longer, and be less efficient.

[ArthurR]

Does anybody know what type of POD they are using, I was involved with the testing of both the GAF A310, and the Australian A330, we never encountered any real problems with the PODS.

[BEagle]

The Voyager and KC-30A both use the Cobham 905E pod.

The Luftwaffe A310MRTT and RCAF Polaris CC-150T both use the Cobham 907E pod.

pr00ne and Pontius Navigator, the Voyager is not a plain vanilla A330. It includes system modifications (even when the AAR systems are removed) which do not form part of the basic A330. These include structural modifications and software changes, all of which must nowadays pass MAA scrutiny regardless of the OEM's own certification work.

[ICM]

Why would MOD be liable for circa £1m per week or, indeed, any other sum? Is liability at this stage not with Air Tanker or one of its constituent companies?

[collbar]

so is this a pod problem or a tornado problem!!

[lj101]

Typhoon trials failed too.

[Dengue_Dude]

. . . but APART from that, what did the Romans ever do for us?

[opsjockey]

FAILED....?

I understood trials were still ongoing to iron out a few technical aspects...

[ArthurR]

lj101, Typhoon had no problems with the pods on the Aussie aircraft..

[opsjockey]

....and the Typhoon and Tornado have both taken fuel from Voyager without leakage...... an intermittant problem me thinks... (basket?)

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Why would MOD be liable for circa £1m per week or, indeed, any other sum? Is liability at this stage not with Air Tanker or one of its constituent companies?


Depends, I believe, on whether the aircraft has been accepted into service. Presumably there is a lot of political pressure on the RAF to accept Voyager, even if it has one or two 'quirks' to be addressed...

[BEagle]

lj101, 'twas just a hunch as I couldn't see what else could possibly prevent the aircraft being flown in the AT role.

ArthurR, did you work with Elbeflugzeugwerke at Dresden? A very proactive team. It would be interesting to know whether the Typhoon trial test points using the KC-30A were the same as those for the Voyager trials.

opsjockey, if the alleged problem is intermittent, that'll be the very devil to sort out. It's one thing to know that "It always does this when he does that", but an entirely different thing if one day it's fine and the next it isn't - even though the conditions were identical on both occasions.

I hope the chaps and chapesses on 10 Sqn aren't getting too fed up with all this though....:hmm:

[opsjockey]

Maybe I should have written 'Intermittant pending permanent resolution'....

[Pontius Navigator]

BEagle, I was not imputting anything about your inestiamble project but your clients propensity for producing a sow's ear from a silk purse.

[BEagle]

In English please?

I am not connected in any way with any aspect of the A330MRTT programme.

[ArthurR]

Yes Beag's, I was at EFW, working with the Flight Test Team from Bremen, and at Getafe first with the boom demonstrator (lots of problems), then on the A330. Never had anything to do with the voyager though, and have now retired.

[collbar]

I am sorry but i dont understand the AT problems!!.. If the aircraft has been cleared for flight under CASA in Spain under EASA 145 rules it is surely cleared for flight within any 145 organisation. I thought this was the whole point of the RAF lads and lasses being civil quailified... how does the MAA come into operating the type in the AT role????

[Pontius Navigator]

I got it wrong about you and in English "you got it wrong."

[BEagle]

PN, sorry but you continue to talk in riddles. I regret that I really do not have a clue about what you're trying to say.

[cessnapete]

RAF lads and lasses are not being given civvie licences to fly the Voyager. Only AirTanker civil pilots will have that, from previous employment.

On another tack, as the aircraft are to have both RAF and Civil certification, how will EASA certify a civil aircrtaft with refuelling pods and in flight refuelling capability?!!

[Courtney Mil]

I really do not have a clue

BEags, I really think you're being too hard on yourself. I've always considered you to be very well informed.

But I agree about the riddles.

[Alber Ratman]

Air Tanker will hold a Supplementary Type Certificate for the modifications to airframe and systems on their A330s.. Exactly like GAMA have for the King Airs.

[BEagle]

You little bugger Courtney - good banter, old chum!

By the way, I hope your abode is reasonably distant from the HS2 route? I use the god-forsaken A421 'twixt Finmere and PRMK now and again and note that the line will pass close by if it ever gets approval.....

Albert, while that's true for their own civil operations, the MAA holds sway over approval for RAF military operations. And quite reasonably so too!

[ArthurR]

Cessnapete: On another tack, as the aircraft are to have both RAF and Civil certification, how will EASA certify a civil aircrtaft with refuelling pods and in flight refuelling capability?!!

I was talking to a member of the LBA (Luftfahrtbundesamt, German civvy authority ) and asked him the very same question. The answer was "They are not interested in the refuelling capabilities of the aircraft, but want to see how the extra weight and equipment (Pods and Fuel Tanks) effect the handling and flight caracteristics".
We flew lots of flutter and in the A330 (Spain) stall flights.

No doubt Beag's could add more to that than I.

[Alber Ratman]

Yes Beagle. UK MAA will hold sway over the aircraft in operator use, but EASA and their regulations must also be abided to as well. Third party PART 145 MROs will be maintaining the things for heavy checks. The STC is fairly important for them to be able to maintain them!

[Dengue_Dude]

Sounds like it's one of those Rolling Goat F***s - ho hum, how many years have we got left with our venerable Trimotors and VC10s?

[BEagle]

cessnapete, the aircraft received EASA civil certification in July 2011 and INTA military certification in September 2011.

I suspect the problem could be rather more deep-rooted than simple Part 145 maintenance and repair organisation compliance.

[Pontius Navigator]

BEagle, I did reply but the computer hiccupped. Essentially I was saying the RAF can cockup a perfectly good setup and create issues where possibly none existed.

[Courtney Mil]

the HS2 route

Straight through our estate, mate. Still, it'll be fun watching the trains go by like I did when I was a nipper. Fortunately it won't touch the airfield at RAF Finmere.

[lj101]

Denge

The VC10's next year (I think) and they are looking at trying to extend the Tristars. Since Ellemy, the VC fleet has been culled by a further 5 frames (happy to be corrected) and the system is scoping the use of other countries AAR assets to fill the capability gap if required.

[Admin_Guru]

the system is scoping the use of other countries AAR assets to fill the capability gap if required.

That is becoming the phrase of the decade, and I wish I had a fiver for every time I heard it, though sometimes AAR, sometimes SAR, sometimes MPA, sometimes AT,..etc etc

[Alber Ratman]

Yeah, somebody, somewhere didn't write a accurate specification for the AAR system, covering everthing the Voyager had to refuel. Tornado fuel system being a poor reciever, not surprised in the slightest.

[Rigga]

Although Airbus issued a Form 52 to deliver the aircraft; EASA issued its Airworthiness Certificate (and accompanying initial ARC) counting all those different sticky-out bits as the "customers Role Equipment" and making sure that fuel/electrical/stress safety designs and processes are adhered to and that the aircraft handled as intended. After assessing the CoG movements from the Mods and doing formal Flight Tests, more paperwork is raised and calculations are made to assure performance parameters are not too affected by those pesky bits sticking into the airflows and that the physical and theoretical handling qualities are not out of the expected envelopes.

Whether the role equpment works or not is not part of the EASA certification survey. EASA is only concerned that the crate can move around and get back down relatively safely and under control.
It's up to the MAA to accept the status of the aircraft's role equipment - whether that is politically or correctly? - depends on who's on watch today I suppose.

In my experience - some aircraft I was accepting didn't work to the full spec - I (we) held back a few millions from payment until it was resolved - some two years later!
I didn't make any manufacturing mates in that move - but the crates are still working, and 'they' know my M.O. now.

[BEagle]

...some aircraft I was accepting didn't work to the full spec...

Reminds me of the Hawk compass system. When the Hawk was first introduced into service, it had an almost useless compass system. After a couple of hard turns, you were supposed to fly straight and level whilst trying to re-synch the damn thing, until the orange light went out. It would often need re-synching every 10-15 min even on a simple navex....

The Learning Command Crash Comic of the day had an article which said something like "The deficiences of the Hawk compass system were well known before the aircraft entered service"

So why did it enter service in such a state?

Anyway, at great expense the Hawk was retrofitted with the AHARS system which, I'm told, solved all the problems.

ArthurR, my involvement at EFW was some early Luftwaffe / RCAF crew training and some trial work involving the Mission Computer System (which works just fine....). But as I was also writing stuff for the FCOM, we had a few meetings with the EFW Design/Build Team as well.

The FTI was very impressive though - and watching / listening to some of the recordings in the portakabin was.......shall we say, 'interesting'...:\

Courtney, hope the HS2 won't actually prove too disrupting - it seems to follow the line of the old LNER line through the region?

Anyway, back to the plot. According to the Press Association article at The Press Association: RAF tests reveal refuelling leaks (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5iqqZc5DldcPaGyTNUFKCZvHnpnpw?docId=N013545133362201722 4A:)

The Voyager aircraft was cleared for training and service on its transport and medical flight purposes on Wednesday, the Ministry of Defence confirmed.

In a statement, Assistant Chief of the Air Staff, Air Vice-Marshal Baz North, said: "Voyager was released to service with the RAF in its transport and aeromedical roles on 4 April 2012. Once the ongoing refuelling trials are successfully completed, RAF air-to-air refuelling training will begin. In total, nine fully operational aircraft are due to enter service within the next two years and achievement of the current in service date remains on track to be achieved, as planned, in mid-2014. There should be no capability gap as a result."

The MoD later confirmed that the issue would also affect Eurofighter Typhoon jets.

[Courtney Mil]

That's much more balanced article, BEags, thanks for the post. I can only imagine the snag is either a pressure issue or the conection between the probe tip and the drogue - neither should be that hard to fix. Anyone heard anything about the nature of the fault?

The AHARS fit on the Hawk made a massive difference. I flew the old system in training and it was adequate, but not great. I'm sure it would have been worth delaying its release for, especially comparing it with anything else that was around at the time - apart from INs, obviously.

The HS2 route is going to follow the old line a lot of the way. Maybe AirTanker should have looked at the old route a bit more carefully in the design phase.

Courtney

[ICM]

BEagle: Thanks too for the link to the PA article. It suggests that 10 Sqn's chaps and chapesses may now be able to get to work in one major role, and I'm sure there will be some relief at unit level about that.

[Alexander.Yakovlev]

I suggest that those quick to slander Voyager as another PFI waste of money do some more extensive reading before throwing their two pence in the pot. Things are not as bad as they seem. From your responses so far we are damned if we do and damned if we don't in terms of providing this new airframe!

Out.

[VinRouge]

Just out of interest, what is the wet cost per hour charged under PFI for air tanker compared to say, wet price on lease for a standard A330?

[SammySu]

So can you use the toilets whilst receivers are astern yet? And can those receivers close at enough knots to make anything other than a soft contact that won't properly mate and therefore leaks fuel?

[NutLoose]

Just out of interest but can they not use them at the moment for pax work?

[peter we]

Remember folks, we do not 'own' these new tankers, we just pay for the privilege of using them.

If they don't work, surely we won't be paying to use them by the hour?

[Daysleeper]

If they don't work, surely we won't be paying to use them by the hour?

Surely that depends on what the contract says...:hmm:

[Fareastdriver]

Have they got anybody to fly them yet? There were rumours that what they were offering to TRE,s was laughable.

[OafOrfUxAche]

So can you use the toilets whilst receivers are astern yet? And can those receivers close at enough knots to make anything other than a soft contact that won't properly mate and therefore leaks fuel?


If there was a problem, yo I'll solve it
Check out the hook while the DJ revolves it...:oh:

[Mach Two]

From what I understand, the problems aren't too big and the feeling is that it can be sorted PDQ. I just want to see this beast in service. Hungry for the capability, which will, by all acounts, be worth having.

[SammySu]

Oaf, very good, you win the prize.

Not sure what Jedward have to do with problems with the toilets.
Unless you mean the original artist......:D.

[Mach Two]

Close at enough knots?

If you mean what I think you mean, Tornado and Typhoon can both smack the basket right in the middle as hard as you like. That is not the problem.

[Willard Whyte]

It's like buying a washer dryer for £10,000 that rinses and drys, but doesn't wash.

[Art Field]

If I remember correctly the Tornado was restricted to 50psi maximum refuel pressure, could the problem be that simple with other aircraft but not the Typhoon having higher limits and therefore less susceptical to tanker equipment outputing at up to 50psi?

[Dengue_Dude]

It's not just pressure, it's flow rate. Offloading into an E3 from the Trimotor, we put on up to 8 electric pumps and the 2 Carters and still didn't get anywhere near the pressure limit.

Tornado, irrespective of variant was always a pain getting the last tonne onboard. They'd burn loads of our fuel with one in reheat to stay in contact 'topping up'.

No surprises with the Voyager I'm afraid, I've been following it, for professional reasons, this capability just keeps moving to the right.

SNAFU

[Mighty Quercus]

Whilst they use one of the frames to sort the tanking issues out is there any reason why the one currently at Brize can't do pax/freight runs and start earning its keep. Got to be better than moving it around the pan at Brize from bay to bay then back to the hangar etc....?

[Shell Management]

Clearly many people are not in the know with the master plan. ;)

The recent progress made by AirTanker is absolutely outstanding and a testimonial to the hard work of all their team and their specialist advisors. :)

[Wander00]

There's a master plan - that's new

[lj101]

The recent progress made by AirTanker is absolutely outstanding and a testimonial to the hard work of all their team and their specialist advisors

Er, such as having better lawyers than the MoD? Just asking, don't flash.

[Redcarpet]

Master plan? Really? Ha ha ha ha ha.:D

[Out Of Trim]

Just get the bloody thing airborne and working! That's all we want! Damn it!

:confused:

[airborne_artist]

The recent progress made by AirTanker is absolutely outstanding and a testimonial to the hard work of all their team and their specialist advisors. Which would explain why AT struggled (and is still struggling?) to recruit a TRI/TRE on the wages of an SFO. They had a plan, but it was not cunning.

[NutLoose]

I bet even the in flight movies will be in Japanese such is the MOD's procurement schemes.

[Willard Whyte]

I could go for that.

Bloody sexy was the Jap commentary during my Budapest coach tour.

Didn't understand a word mind.

[Dengue_Dude]

As I said earlier . . . FUBAR (cousin of SNAFU) ;)

[just another jocky]

Tornado, irrespective of variant was always a pain getting the last tonne onboard. They'd burn loads of our fuel with one in reheat to stay in contact 'topping up'.


I suspect that is because the pilot had selected the Fin fuel tank to refill as well. Notoriously very slow to refill 440kg and as you say, with one in blower, the overall top-up rate was very low, and the extra fuel not usually needed.

Just ask 'em to turn Fin Fuel off.

[Cows getting bigger]

What has Finland got to do with this? :}

Coat on, out the door.....

[Exascot]

....is there any reason why the one currently at Brize can't do pax/freight runs and start earning its keep....

Bring back the 10 Sqn Dulles schedule, I'll come out of retirement :ok:

Reminds me of an Easter Day Sunday brunch there. Well, I remember some of it :confused:

[TheWizard]

SHE FLIES!!

ZZ330 currently airborne from Brize and heading SW over Cornwall

Edit: Now on approach to land back at BZN

[FlapJackMuncher]

How will I know when the first one comes in to land here in the Near East?
I can tell Tri*'s etc from their noise profile. It will be a shame if Voyager is all nice and quiet.

[Castles in the sky]

Indeed congratulations to all at AirTanker!

[BrakingStop]

It would have worked with the GR9...;)

[Fareastdriver]

Shell Management

The troll returns. He has been quiet for quite a long time; spelling is getting better too.

[mr snow]

ZZ330 mate.

[Throttle Pusher]

So 10 Sqn crews have been sat around since last year waiting to fly, and the first chance they get is on a Bank Holiday weekend!!!! Made me smile.

[VinRouge]

sounds a bit political to me. especially soon after a news piece on the jet.

[Squirrel 41]

JaJ wrote....

I suspect that is because the pilot had selected the Fin fuel tank to refill as well. Notoriously very slow to refill 440kg and as you say, with one in blower, the overall top-up rate was very low, and the extra fuel not usually needed.

Just ask 'em to turn Fin Fuel off.

Sorry to be slow at the back, but I always understood that Tonkas (F3s at least) couldn't refill the fin tank during AAR. Have I missed something?

S41

[Easy Street]

GRs can, but only if the stores fit is not too rear-heavy.

[cyrilranch]

she fly's with no wing refueling pods

Airbus A330 MRTT Voyager ZZ330 8th April 2012 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwqrZCkrcnU&feature=youtu.be:D)

[Dengue_Dude]

Ah, so APART from no wing pods and no centre HDU (or whatever name they're calling it now), it's the RAF's canine's gonads when it comes to Tanking.

Makes you proud doesn't it?

MOD(PE) lives!

[pr00ne]

Dengue_Dude,


It also has an AT role, arguably more important and relevant at the moment.

[D-IFF_ident]

Nice landing, can't have been Potter then!

[FlapJackMuncher]

Your plane?
Pretty plane.:cool:

[StopStart]

D-IFF he probably got one of the grown ups to do it for him I imagine :ok:

[Dengue_Dude]

Dengue_Dude,


It also has an AT role, arguably more important and relevant at the moment.

You know, I could have sworn that I'd jump seated on an A330 back from Florida about 10 years ago.

They don't seem to be in a hurry to use it in the AT role thus relieve the pressure on the venerable (now) Trimotor.

I realise that's probably naive, but we are SO good at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

[opsjockey]

quote / she fly's with no wing refueling pods

Airbus A330 MRTT Voyager ZZ330 8th April 2012 - YouTube / unquote



Why would she fly with wing pods if she's not doing an AR mission? pods are taken off / added as per the mission

I understand that the current AT charters (Monarch etc) will need some sort of cancellation period before Voyager can get going with any real AT work... just seen her blast off from Brize heading North, another crew training sortie i'd guess

[cessnapete]

Shouldnt need much of that to enter service in the Transport role. In the civil world modern Level D simulators allow crews to progress from Sim to Line Training with no Base flying required. (Applies to pilots previously qaulified on jets, as presumably the initial Voyager crews are experienced ex Tri/VC10 etc.)

[airsound]

To add to cyrilranch's vid (thanks for that), here's Airbus' official photo

http://www.pprune.org/[IMG]http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j134/airsound/RAFfirstFlt.jpghttp://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j134/airsound/RAFfirstFlt.jpg

And here's what Airbus says about it

The Airbus Military A330 Multi Role Tanker Transport has made its maiden flight in service with the UK Royal Air Force yesterday April 8th.
Known as the Voyager in RAF service, the aircraft took off from RAF Brize Norton for a training sortie around the United Kingdom to allow the AirTanker crew to familiarise themselves with the aircraft and achieve the first part of the Voyager crew training schedule.
The Voyager aircraft was delivered by Airbus Military to AirTanker, the company formed to operate and support the Voyager for the UK Ministry of Defence under the Future Strategic Transport Aircraft programme, at the end of last year.
The Voyager aircraft represents a new standard in tanker/transport technology and will provide the RAF with the world ́s most advanced air-to-air refueling, passenger transport and aeromedical capability. As a modern and efficient aircraft, the Voyager is quieter and more fuel-efficient than any other aircraft currently based at RAF Brize Norton – the RAF ́s primary transport/tanker base.
Airbus Military has to deliver 14 converted aircraft to AirTanker, of which two have already been converted from the basic A330-200 in Getafe and another two are in conversion at Cobham facilities in the UK. The Voyager has military and civil certification and the service will operate aircraft on both the military and civilian registers.
Antonio Caramazana, Programme Director Airbus Military Derivatives, said: “It is a proud day for everyone involved with the A330 MRTT programme to see the Voyager in service with the RAF. We look forward to many years of successful operation of the aircraft by AirTanker.”
Phil Blundell, Chief Executive of AirTanker said: “The aircraft is a magnificent airframe which combines efficiency, effective tasking capability and reliability. The programme brings together the best of the civilian aviation industry with military operational expertise and will offer an innovative and multi-functional capability to meet the demands of the 21st Century.”

About the A330 MRTT
The Airbus Military A330 MRTT is the only new generation strategic tanker/transport aircraft flying and available today. The large 111 tonnes/ 245,000 lb basic fuel capacity of the successful A330- 200 airliner, from which it is derived, enables the A330 MRTT to excel in Air-to-Air Refuelling missions without the need for any additional fuel tank. The A330 MRTT is offered with a choice of proven air-to-air refuelling systems including an advanced Airbus Military Aerial Refuelling Boom System, and/or a pair of under-wing hose and drogue pods, and/or a Fuselage Refuelling Unit.
Thanks to its true wide-body fuselage, the A330 MRTT can also be used as a pure transport aircraft able to carry 300 troops, or a payload of up to 45 tonnes/99,000 lb. It can also easily be converted to accommodate up to 130 stretchers for Medical Evacuation (MEDEVAC). To-date, a total of 28 A330 MRTTs have been ordered by four customers (Australia, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and the United Kingdom), with one (Saudi Arabia) having already placed a repeat order.Offered without comment.
airsound

[Fareastdriver]

I noticed that it was using its G-reg callsign.

[XV277]

Am I a cynic for thinking that this first flight in service takes place after the start of the financial year?

[opsjockey]

fareast driver.. the aircraft was using an Ascot callsign (92 something) and the reg is zz330. dont believe all you see on planeplotter / sbs-1

[Type1106]

XV 277

Good point - but why on Easter Sunday or any other Sunday come to that? The new FY started on Friday anyway. I know - it was to prove to the inmates of Cartoon town how quiet it is. Not that they'd notice over the drone of another 6 hour Herc engine run!

1106

[Dengue_Dude]

Matter of interest, if the pods can be shucked when not needed, is there a software fix for the outer ailerons or some other way of achieving the same wing relief as with pods?

Or is it the other way around, WITH pods the flight controls software is tweaked?

Must change all the performance data too, LRC with pods would be quite significantly different without, I'd suspect etc etc

Oh my head is so full of Ess aitch eye tee . . .

[VinRouge]

Stab in the dark here dengue, but on modern FMS there is usually a drag index/additive value which can be modified. Baseline jet with no extras (aerials, panels removed, no pods) will be 0, with additives for each variation from standard.

[Dengue_Dude]

Danke Herr Kokinelli,

I appreciate the input, just raises questions in my head.

Erroneously, it appears, I assumed the 'fit' would remain the same whatever role it was being used in.

In my extreme ignorance, I'm wondering where all my taxes are going . . .

[giblets]

Why would she fly with wing pods if she's not doing an AR mission? pods are taken off / added as per the mission

What's the time penalty to add/ remove the pods? I fully appreciate the fuel/ performance aspects, though assumed it was a difficult job?

[dragon166]

If it can be re-roled for freight and stretchers why no Freight door? After all, we spent a lot of money fitting them to the Tristar.

[Rigga]

Normally, "Freight" on an airliner goes into the "Hold" - normally under the floor through a large cargo door, or two, each big enough to accept normal freight pallets.

Freight does not normally get onto the Passenger Deck.

Normal Cargo Doors are normally mounted on the Left (Port) side for normal airline loading/unloading operations.

Tristars were only normal to begin with but were modified to not being normal by being capable of outsized freight movement - and C17's can do that now.

I would imagine that the big doors and the passenger decks were only used as a normal routine because they were there and someone had paid for the equipment to lift things up and put things through the door.

Most the "Freight" I saw carried on Tristar Decks could have fitted into baggage holds but the equipment to load them effectively didnt appear to be available at all stops?

[wheezykid]

1. AAR Pods don't work = Pods removed = no use in AAR role

2. DAS not fitted = no use in theatre AT role

1 + 2 = no use at all except on 'charter' type tasks = £10.7 bn toy

Annual charter bill approx £100m so (£10.7bn / £100m) gives 107 years before we make our money back

:D wtf...

[cyrilranch]

2. DAS not fitted = no use in theatre AT role-


if you look closely below the cockpit window and behind near the tail there are antenna fit which are part of a DAS system.

p.s the contact is /was not to make money to payback, but to hide the fact the Government(Brown/Blair} of the day ,did not want to spend any money up front:ugh:

[WE992]

Rigga

Not sure where you are going to put freight downstairs on the Tristar K 1 or KC 1 as the lower holds have additional fuel tanks in them.

Nor do I understand why you think outsize freight can go through the main floor cargo door on the KC 1. All fright has to travel on standard size 108 x 88 inch pallets. There is the capability to link 2 pallets accross the width of the a/c though and thats how the majority of JP233's were moved to theatre during GRANBY - oh that seems a long time ago!

[Rigga]

WE,
Thanks for the corrections. My memories are from times before yours and I didn't know about the Fuel Tanks.

[wheezykid]

I'm aware that DAS can be fitted and that airframe modifications exist to facilitate this. What I was getting at was whether it is currently in a useable state... :rolleyes:

[dragon166]

Rigga

The reason I asked about freight doors (for passenger deck) was due to the statement in the Airbus quote re: passengers/freight/stretchers, all of which suggests that the seats can be removed for freight/stretchers as per the VC10 and Tristar. The freight door of the VC10 enable pallettes etc to be loaded (in the passenger compartment), as with Tristar, and for other bulky objects such as specialist stretchers (Iron Lung or equivilent )to be emplaned/deplaned. Whilst we now have the C17 there will only be 8 of them so the additional cargo capacity of the Voyager would have been useful. One other question is: do the seats face to the rear as in other RAF a/c?

[cyrilranch]

agreed Wheezykid

what I would like to know is what happen to the new DAS kit the MRA4 was fitted with.
Did it go back to the OEM? there was at least 9 systems worth aquired.:hmm:

[cessnapete]

I am told by a local mate that DAS is not yet fitted so no use yet for trips into sandy places.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

what happen to the new DAS kit the MRA4 was fitted with.
Did it go back to the OEM? there was at least 9 systems worth aquired


Yeah, but did it work?

[cyrilranch]

Not sure as they the planes got smash up:rolleyes:

[Arty Fufkin]

They the planes aren't the only ones it would appear.:uhoh:

[NutLoose]

Early freight on the Tristar used to go in the cabin in specially made freight containers that were full width but were the depth of the pax door, they looked like someone had taken a salami slicer to a standard freight container...

One of the Voyagers visited us today at EGNX, nice to see.

[WE992]

Nut Loose - Correct, but only on the K1 of which there is still one flying in that role.

Voyager 330 actualy flew at Brize today! Perrhaps all the bad PR in the press is finaly making things happen!

[Courtney Mil]

One of the Voyagers visited us today at EGNX, nice to see.

Well at least we know it can make it as far as Midlands. That's not a bad start. I think we're on our way :ok:

[Dengue_Dude]

Not sure where you are going to put freight downstairs on the Tristar K 1 or KC 1 as the lower holds have additional fuel tanks in them.

Ah, those would be they that b*ggered up perfectly good freight compartments and couldn't be filled to capacity because they exceeded the maximum bending moments of the aircraft then . . .

Makes you proud to be British doesn't it?

[Neptunus Rex]

Having flown a number of 'Medevac' cases on RPT A330 flights, I can say that there is no problem. IIRC, three x two seats were folded down (rather than removed) and the medical stretcher, which was quite a sturdy piece of kit, was secured, very strongly, in place.

The attending Doctor and Nurse(s) were seated across the aisle in two or three adjacent aisle seats, with additional oxygen bottles and requisite medical supplies secured close by. The medical staff and the cabin crew were briefed to call me in the event of any problems. It never happened; all went very smoothly and the patient was tenderly wheeled to an ambulance, by way of an hydraulic lift, after the other passengers had disembarked.

[Dengue_Dude]

Well good on them for that at least.

CASEVACs need all the help they can get, just a bloody shame we need them.

[collbar]

Maybe the defence system is not required untill a later point in the contract. If the wiring is in place its only a few hours to fit the external bits surely!!
I notice that the full air to air in service capability isnt due untill late 2014 would be interesting to know what the contact actually says about the introducion phase.

[Dengue_Dude]

would be interesting to know what the contact actually says about the introducion phase

I think Eric van Lustbader, or Patrick O'Brian are 'interesting' Collbar, that or you need to get out more, that's nearly as sad as the rest of us :confused:

[NutLoose]

BMI BA news

"A330s cease flying end of summer season"

Now there would possibly be a cheap short term stop gap for the pax capability shortages if they were available..

[6foottanker]

E-mail from a friend also saying Emirates are replacing their A330s with B777s in the very near future. Perhaps the possibility of KC-30B ....

[Chris Griffin]

6ft - you home yet?

[cyrilranch]

LONDON — The first of 14 new A330 transport and inflight refueling tanker planes has been released for operational service with Britain’s Royal Air Force.

AirTanker Services, the EADS-led consortium providing the aircraft, said the jet conducted its first training sortie under the command of its own crew April 8 to “signal the commencement of the Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft [FSTA] service to the RAF.” AirTanker is providing the aircraft to the RAF as part of a 24-year private finance initiative deal.

The deal will see a mix of AirTanker and RAF crews provide passenger, cargo and inflight refueling service using a core fleet of A330 aircraft, with a further five aircraft leased out to the third-party market and available for recall in an emergency.

The aircraft, known in RAF service as the Voyager, is scheduled to start passenger and cargo services later this year before becoming fully operational with inflight refueling capabilities in 2014.

Based at the RAF base at Brize Norton, England, the Voyager service being provided by AirTanker includes the provision of infrastructure, crew and engineer training, maintenance and ground support.

Voyager will be unable to perform the highest threat missions until its directional infrared countermeasure systems are increased from the current two units to three, after the U.K. Ministry of Defence mandated a late upgrade of defensive capabilities.

The first five aircraft will be delivered with two systems, and the first machine with three countermeasure kits is not expected to be available until mid-2013.

A second Voyager is scheduled to be delivered for operations later this year, followed by a further five next year. The nine core aircraft are scheduled for delivery by May 2014, and all 14 A330s will be available by 2016.

The new aircraft will replace the RAF’s fleet of aging Lockheed Tristars and Vickers VC-10s.

Work on resolving problems with the inflight refueling system is ongoing, and is not expected to affect the start of inflight refueling operations.

1st Voyager Takes Flight With Royal Air Force | Defense News | defensenews.com (http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120410/DEFREG01/304100005/1st-Voyager-Takes-Flight-Royal-Air-Force?odyssey=mod|nextstory)

[6foottanker]

Chris - Home from the desert yes. Home to Blighty, not til Jun/Jul next year, unless someone very kind finds me a nice Voyager slot sooner!

BTW, that sounded distinctly like OC 10 I heard on the video of last week's flight. Maybe the only one 'current' to fly it?

[Chris Griffin]

Currant? More like coconut.

Can't get me now Dan - and it was me that changed the photo!!!

[The Gafa]

Been out at Amberley this week. The RAAF KC-30A has been flying, with pods and boom attached nearly every day. Lots of Super Hornet flying too, and C-17 and Wedgetail. There's been an Omega Tanker 707 there all week too. Anyone know why they would be there now the KC is operational?

[BEagle]

There's been an Omega Tanker 707 there all week too. Anyone know why they would be there now the KC is operational?

Presumably because the KC-30A isn't yet 'operational'?

[Udonkey]

Griffin, that made me spit my breakfast all over the puter screen!!

[Trim Stab]

BTW, that sounded distinctly like OC 10 I heard on the video of last week's flight. Maybe the only one 'current' to fly it?


Heard a rumour that out of eight VC10 drivers sent to Dubai for the TR course, only one passed!

[Chris Griffin]

Trim Stab - wow - what utter hoop you feel empowered to anonymously suggest.

It wasn't Dubai.

8 people were not on the cse.

They all passed.

Not all were VC10 drivers - only one but out of QoS currency by over 3 years.

Apart from that a fully informed and correct post. Blend

[iko wapi choo]

Spoke to the crew when it was at Prestwick last week. The only guys flying at the mo are the Civvie / Sponsored Reservists. 10Sqn not flying yet.

[Lyneham Lad]

Seems like there could be some added tasking (http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/04/20/uk-cameron-airbus-idUKBRE83J1E520120420):-

(Reuters) - Senior British politicians and royals might consider making foreign visits in converted air force refuelling jets after a row over the use of a rented Boeing for a trade mission to tout European-made Airbus planes.

Britain's aerospace industry lobby group said proposals were being drawn up by the industry that could allow Prime Minister David Cameron and even the Queen to use modified Airbus jetliners that double as refuelling planes.

The proposals follow a British media storm after Cameron led a business delegation to Indonesia in a chartered Boeing 747 to oversee the sale of jetliners worth $2.5 billion (1.5 billion pounds) supplied by Boeing's European arch-rival Airbus.

Robin Southwell, head of the UK aerospace industry's lobbying association and also head of Airbus parent EADS in Britain, said he would propose the alternative use of the Royal Air Force jets when not needed for refuelling missions.

He compared the choice of airliner for Indonesia to a luxury car salesman turning up in a used Jaguar.

"If you are trying to sell a new Aston Martin to someone and you turn up in a used Jag and say the Aston Martin is the best thing since sliced bread and then drive off in the Jag, it isn't as smart as turning up in the model you tried to sell."

The RAF is leasing 14 Airbus-built Voyager jets which can refuel fighters or carry troops or medical evacuees in a normal cabin. When not needed they can be chartered out and the wing pods removed, leaving a normal-looking jetliner in RAF colours.

A Downing Street spokeswoman said the government always considered various civil and military options when planning travel depending on the size of the group, cost and security.

"If it meets our needs and doesn't conflict with military operations, we would of course look at it, but it is just one of the options," she said.

An EADS spokesman said the same option would be available to Britain's royal family, depending on requirements and protocol.

A Buckingham Palace spokesman said it was too speculative to comment on whether the royal family would consider the plans.

Southwell said using the aircraft would not add any cost.

[sprucemoose]

The Voyager now at Brize will start conducting pax flights after returning from C-check in Manchester late this month. Flight International article also details the factors behind the fuel venting issue, and steps to fix it:
IN FOCUS: Shared Voyager delivers the RAF's new tanker/transport (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/in-focus-shared-voyager-delivers-the-rafs-new-tankertransport-370777/)

[lj101]

So the reason the AAR system does not work is that the pilots don't hit the basket fast enough. Right.

This issue has been on going for months and we are getting AAR critical in terms of tanker availability. No one is denying the fact that when it works it will be a very capable aircraft, it's just disappointing that as our VC10's are culled and the Tristar fleet remains on its knees, we have a capability gap looming that will mean depending on other nations assets. We have to support the Falklands, Q and Op Herrick before we even look at local AAR and exercise deployments. Red Flag early next year will be interesting with a rumoured 2 Sqns expecting to deploy. It took nearly 4 weeks to deploy just one Sqn with 2 tankers and no spares support this year and we will be at least 3? more tankers down by then.

Still, as it's allegedly the pilots and BAE's fault ( as they didn't provide 2 GR4's for the trials),then air tanker i assume will have no penalty to pay. Lucky them.

[NutLoose]

Collbar Maybe the defence system is not required untill a later point in the contract. If the wiring is in place its only a few hours to fit the external bits surely!!


Whilst I applaud your thinking, and I don't know, but if it is anything like the VC10 farce, one would wonder..

Apparently when the VC10 fleet was rewired at EGNX, (from there it went down to Bournemouth to have the tanker pods installed), common sense (and it was offered to be done free of charge rumour has it) would have been to put all the tanker wiring through all the disturbed pressure bulkhead seals during the rewiring phase, then it was a simple job of routing and connecting up, however that was a different contract, so when the tankers arrived for the refueling fit all the pressure bulkhead seals had to be split open again to allow the tanker wiring to be addded to the looms....

[sprucemoose]

Hi lj101,
Yes, it did strike me that the RAF is going to be looking a bit AAR-light if the VC10s are gone by March 2013 and the TriStars by the end of the same year. But I think that the way the PFI is written, AirTanker won't get paid for any AAR services until the new aircraft are actually delivering them. And they didn't set the dates for the transition from the current types; I believe that was another "benefit" of SDSR ;)

[Uncle Ginsters]

So, it's flying. Any words on how long until it's actually flying AT?

I'm intrigued at the numbers the Sqn is working to; as i understand it, at the moment, a single route would strip the sqn down to execs and anything as wild as a slip pattern would involve 100% (of the RAF side) deploying.

Of course, some of that would be split with the civvy side but i'm still intrigued as to how the day-to-day side of route flying will evolve logistically on 10 Sqn?

Standing by for corrections, but i believe that when Brize's last new sqn, 99 Sqn stood up in 2001, the jets arrived and were out on Ops (Kosovo) on Day 2 of their RAF service.:ok:

[StopStart]

I suspect that 99 were able to do that because they bought/leased everything from the USA - from flying suits, publications and training through to the aircraft themselves.
By cutting out the every present ogre of RAF-Fannying-About-With-Things 99 were, I imagine, able to just crack on and do their job. :hmm:

[cessnapete]

How come they have so few crews? The RAF must be awash with ex VC10/Nimrod pilots. It should only takes 6-8weeks to train crews up to the route training phase with modern sims and training aids.

[BBadanov]

StopStart: I suspect that 99 were able to do that because they bought/leased everything from the USA - from flying suits, publications and training through to the aircraft themselves. By cutting out the every present ogre of RAF-Fannying-About-With-Things 99 were, I imagine, able to just crack on and do their job.

It was same here in Oz with 36 SQN receiving the C-17A. Very quick FMS acquisition, plus we got a sim as well fairly quickly. These FMS puchases, same as F/A-18F Superbug, with no customising (or very little), are the way to go - if there is a cab on the rank which meets requirements.

But there was no existing cab for our AEW&C and for AAR. The 2 SQN Wedgetail (built on the 737-700) was the first of type and very risky buying off the drawing board. However, it is performing ok, probably to 80% now and work will continue thru its life of type - way of the world these days with computer aircraft.

And there was no tanker - Boeing stuffed around for years with 767 for Italy and Japan, and I don't know if its right yet (and even then only drogues). Years off for the USAF. Our 33 SQN KC-30A (based on A330-200) is perfoming well with drogues only at this stage, boom (fitted but not cleared) not too far off. It will be the benchmark for France, Saudi, UAE, etc.

So these have been expensive programs as the lead customer, but all should work out well. It is interesting, when we get aircraft like these about to enter service, pilots go off to QANTAS on the 737 or A330 for route training on scheduled passenger-hauling routes, wearing QANTAS uniform. I don't think RAF does that.

[rab-k]

BBC News - RAF accused over multi-billion Voyager contract (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18020809)

[wokkamate]

No surprise there then, really. Another excellent piece of Defence procurement. Unbelievable. :ugh:

[BEagle]

The Voyager planes are designed and made by Air Tanker

I don't think so.......

As for leasing being more expensive than outright purchase, of course it is! But if you can't afford a new car, you might need to rent one. That'll be quite cheap to start with, but not after a few weeks / years.

We always knew that PFI would prove more expensive in the long run....

See BBC iPlayer - Newsnight: 10/05/2012 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01hhd8j/Newsnight_10_05_2012/) for the next 7 days.

Rather a simplistic account - the chief point of argument appears to be the capital cost ATr paid for the aircraft. Evidence put to the Public Accounts Committee in 2010 by senior MoD officials suggested 150 million (I assume pounds - the speaker didn't state the currency...), which included all the AAR and military modifications, whereas the BBC claim that a fleet of 14 'green' A330 would have cost £40 million each, plus, as confirmed by OmegaAir, around another £10 million for AAR upgrade, certification etc. Hence the BBC conclude that for the cost of leasing one Voyager for 27 years, the MoD could have bought its own fleet of 14. Conveniently, they didn't mention all the infrastructure costs, simulator, training, aircrew and groundcrew pay etc etc...

But they did say that it'll be at least another year before the Voyager is 'fit for purpose' in the AAR role.

It would be interesting to calculate the cost of the A310MRTT modification programme, divided by 6 (4 x A310MRTT, 2 x CC150T) added to the cost of a green A330.......:hmm:

[D-IFF_ident]

Wikipedia (source of all knowledge) lists a "green" A330-200 at €195M (£156M) - and Conversion costs are probably more than £10M. Thus I must condemn the BBC report to the bin of bolleaux.

And ATr have very little to do with design, conversion and certification, and the cost to the tax payer should consider through-life-support as well as the cost, in fact instead of the cost, per airframe. The RAF aren't buying any aircraft, so there is no massive initial investment in assets, but a known annual outlay that will remain relatively unchanged for 25 budgets.

Non-story on a slow news day.

[The Helpful Stacker]

Of course the title of the BBC piece....

RAF accused over multi-billion Voyager contract

....seems to imply that the RAF made the call on this deal. I seem to recall that the RAF were very much against a PFI deal, rather it was one of Gordon Brown's 'great ideas' for pushing big numbers out of sight until they became somebody else's problem.

[Willard Whyte]

a single route would strip the sqn down to execsCan't have that, the place would be in chaos when the crews returned.

Probably all get a ballocking for not doing secondary* duties whilst away, too.

*The 'lords and masters' may like to call them something else but, in my never humble opinion, chiseling about on a mess committee is most certainly of secondary importance to flying.

[green granite]

Also in the Torygraph:
Defence Secretary to re-examine air tankers contract over £100m overspend claims - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9259179/Defence-Secretary-to-re-examine-air-tankers-contract-over-100m-overspend-claims.html)

[BEagle]

The story is also being run in the local meeja:

Vow to re-examine RAF refuelling planes contract (From Witney Gazette) (http://www.witneygazette.co.uk/news/9702518.Vow_to_re_examine_RAF_refuelling_planes_contract/)

Interesting that after his somehwat dismissive, nanny-knows-best-dear, attitude on Newsnight, Hammond has now said “I will go back to the MoD and look personally at what is being done around this PFI contract.”
:uhoh:

They also seem to have forgotten that PFI was a Tory invention in the first place....

[StopStart]

I wonder how much it cost to run the VC10 fleet for 25 years (including purchase, conversion, infrastructure, training, maintenance, etc etc)?
A well worded FOI request might provide interesting comparison for the headline figures of the ATr PFI....
:hmm:

[Squirrel 41]

It's a terrible deal. It's never going to be value for money, and everyone I've ever spoken to who knows anything about it knows it - but this was accompanied by a shrug of the shoulders along with "it was this or nothing".

IIRC, the techie financial answer is that when the credit arrangements become cheaper, the MoD intended to buy the deal out. But when will the money be available?

Dreadful, dreadful decision. And that's before we get into the actual spec that we've purchased (no receiver capability, no boom despite C-17, E-3, RC-135 etc etc.)

Another triumph!

S41

[cessnapete]

Spokesperson says still on track for A330 2014 intro!!! How can it take that long and cost so much.
Bog standard A330 cost about half the Air Tanker price. Most of aerodynamics stress etc. must be the same and already done on Australian aircraft. Avionics fitting can be done by any company. Aircrew can be trained to route flying stage in six to eight weeks for basic airline type trips.
Been at Brize for months and still not doing the non theatre trips, no DAS required for them????

[LFFC]

Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft (FSTA) (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/FactSheets/ProjectFactsheets/FutureStrategicTankerAircraftfsta.htm)

MOD will pay for the provision of the AAR/AT capability on the basis of availability and usage, and payment will only be made when the service is delivered to a satisfactory standard.


So I guess that AirTanker can't have made much money from the MOD as yet - which is reassuring for me as a taxpayer.

[TMK1]

Seems to be flying routes to me.

Malta 13th May, 2012 ... RAF DAY :) (http://www.fightercontrol.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=58150)

[FJ2ME]

nice pics, but also looks to me like refuelling pods not fitted/removed. Obviously given up trying to make them work ;-) now that is good value...

[TMK1]

According to this article the other aircraft still with Airbus is being used for the AAR trials.

AAR - A400M gets up close and personal with Voyager tanker - The DEW Line (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2012/05/aar---a400m-gets-up-close-and.html)

[Could be the last?]

It's amazing what you can do with Photoshop these days.........!:E

[cessnapete]

Rather good looking female Capt on the TriStar !!

[scudpilot]

Something the RAF are not telling us about the aircrafts max altitude?

:)

Taken from the RAF website btw.."

http://i562.photobucket.com/albums/ss70/thatone1967/feceb63d.jpg

[Blue Bottle]

So has it flown an AT route, with customers on yet ?

[mr snow]

Yes, several times in the last two weeks.

[collbar]

surely they can manage one a day! how many is several!

[BEagle]

One a day? Is there really a need to move 1500 servicemen out and back every week?

[Blue Bottle]

Good news its being used after so long, lets hope it serves us well

[FlapJackMuncher]

Just seen ZZ330 (nice code) on the pan.
Very precious cargo if indeed it is working today.

[cessnapete]

Mates at Brize tell me the Voyager has not in fact carried out "fare paying " military trips. All flight crew/cabin crew training so far. No ETOPS so can't do trips across the pond, and not equipped for trips into" Theatre". VIP Fit for Mr Cameron etc. not available for at least a year

[Blue Bottle]

So the RAF have got a plane that is not yet carrying passengers, can not fly to the states or meet entry requriments for Operations, or carry out air to air refueling, but apart from that the cabin crew training is going well then !

[StopStart]

So the RAF have got a plane that is not yet carrying passengers...blah....witter....

How about flight deck crew training and all the other things that go on when a new type comes into service? I appreciate that the Tornado GR1 was bombing the Falklands 2 years after coming into service and that since the end of 2003 the Typhoon has been a constant sight in the skies of Afghanistan however I think you should give ATr/10 Sqn more than 4 or 5 months to get up to speed. They are only truckies after all. :hmm:

It's like reading the bloody Daily Mail in here sometimes.....

[Blue Bottle]

No fair comment Stop Start, if British Airways or Virgin take 4 -5 months to get up to speed with a new type, so should the RAF.

[opsjockey]

Cessnapete... It would appear 'your mate at Brize' is wrong.... Voyager has indeed carried out Transop'd military tasking, along with with various amounts of crew training. Non ETOPS does not mean voyager cannot fly across the pond, It just means it has to go the long way round (60 min rules routing Iceland, Greenland etc..)....

[StopStart]

BB. Really? I assume then that you have absolutely no experience of anything to do with the RAF? You're comparing apples and spanners.

New type, new business model, new conversions to said new aircraft, new MAA that to sign off on all aspects of said new aircraft? This is the RAF not BA - get real. Integration of DAS, tanker trials, SOP writing, teaching the RAF how efficiently an AT operation can be run: all these things take time. A lot more time than just buying a few 787s off the shelf and training some crews.

BA et al have the luxury of being able to buy an aircraft off the shelf and then operating it as the maker intended. The RAF do not (and even they did they'd insist on yet another rewrite of the Laws of Physics before it was allowed to fly). The introduction of the Airbus into service will take time. It always does and in the modern risk-averse RAF it will take even longer.

[lj101]

Non ETOPS does not mean voyager cannot fly across the pond, It just means it has to go the long way round (60 min rules routing Iceland, Greenland etc..)....

Opsjockey

Not much good for AAR trails then as the boys and girls cannot go that way due sea temperature and survivability time ... unless we change the rules of course as there are plenty of SAR assets that way, oh er, hang on a minute.

Ps Falklands rotation/reinforcement?

[Squirrel 41]

Why isn't it ETOPS certified? It's an A330 with Trents - there are plenty out there that are doing ETOPS, so why not ArT?

S41

[Rigga]

The aircraft may already be ETOPS capable - but is the spares, maintenance, flight planning and the crew? and is the CAA/EASA impressed enough to give an ETOPS approval or not?

[salad-dodger]

Not much good for AAR trails then as the boys and girls cannot go that way due sea temperature and survivability time ... unless we change the rules of course as there are plenty of SAR assets that way, oh er, hang on a minute.
slightly more significantly, it's not cleared to deliver gas either

S-D

[D-IFF_ident]

Could anyone point me in the right direction of a source document for ETOPS regulations wrt AAR trails?

Unable to track one down with Google or Wikipedia...:E

[lj101]

slightly more significantly, it's not cleared to deliver gas either

I know Salad, but thanks anyway.

Just letting Opsjockey understand the significance of his statement. The aircraft are not ETOPS cleared due to the modifications.

[airsound]

The aircraft are not ETOPS cleared due to the modifications.So will they get ETOPS clearance, lj101? And if not, isn't that a show-stopper?

airsound

[opsjockey]

Good job AAR is a little way off then, I dont think it was ever scheduled to start before 2013... Im sure the ETOPS qualification will all be in order by the time the AAR and the MPA are due to start... no dramas

[D-IFF_ident]

Why would an aircraft operated under a MAA require ETOPS certification? METOPS anyone? Cue Beags - what do the GAF and CAF do?

[opsjockey]

I think that due to the Civ / Mil crossover, a lot of things are based on best practice.. sure, It could fly across across the pond on the MAA but best practice denotes ETOPS quals and checks (ops / eng)

[opsjockey]

CC is easily upgraded for a small fee or with Prior Notice..

[Roland Pulfrew]

I dont think it was ever scheduled to start before 2013

As long as you exclude the original Introduction To Service date of 2007 and AAR In Service Date of 2008 :ugh:

The military can "ignore" ETOPS requirements if they choose to (as long as you have a clearly defined and researched safety case). Problem is with a PFI where the aircraft have to be maintained to JAR standards so that they can flip-flop between civil and military registers and be chartered to civil operators when not required by the military, they can't.

[BEagle]

Hi, D-IFF_ident!

The A310MRTT has far more extensive modifications to the fuel system than has the A330MRTT. So, until in-service experience had proved it safe, the A310MRTT's existing ETOPS approval was initially removed.

However, I think that it has now been restored?

Unless things have changed, 'civil conditions' used to apply until a receiver was astern a hose. Then 'military conditions' applied until the receiver was complete and out of contact astern the hose. This meant that all normal civil certification requirements had to be met (even on a trail) except for those occasions when 'military conditions' applied. No reason why not, really.

I see no reason to exempt the Voyager from ETOPS requirements during trails - and would be surprised if anyone would take such a risk, given the current risk-averse attitudes prevailing. And why should they?

About a million years ago when I was FSTA liaison officer, I raised the issue of ETOPS and the associated requirements with 't management, but was assured that it had all been considered.....:hmm:

As many will understand, it's not just the aircraft which must meet ETOPS standards, it's the whole organisation which operates and maintains the aircraft.

As long as you exclude the original Introduction To Service date of 2007 and AAR In Service Date of 2008:ugh:

Roly, back in 1996 we were assured that the TriStar and VC10 / VC10K would all be replaced by 36 'FSTA' aircraft within the following 10 years....:hmm:

Remember when Simon the Civil Serpent confidently announced "The FSTA programme will NOT slip!"......:\

[kluge]

it's not just the aircraft which must meet ETOPS standards, it's the whole organisation which operates and maintains the aircraft.

Hence, Engines Turning Or People Swimming :uhoh:

[lj101]

CC is easily upgraded for a small fee or with Prior Notice..

Perhaps Opsjockey, you should ring airtanker and let them know it's not a problem as its easy to resolve.

Beags, I am reliably informed that the ETOPS validation will be given once the second aircraft comes on line but apparently airtanker want to wait a few months so they can prove their own engines etc.

[Art Field]

Back in the days of Victor and early VC10 trails there was no consideration of ETOPS and pure diversion (Alternate for the younger folks) capability ruled on an Atlantic crossing. This requiement however was only for the receivers, the Tankers had to look after there own safety needs and often had problems allowing for greater than planned fuel transfers after receiver departure adventures. It is difficult to understand how ETOPS can be ignored during the bracket.

[Old Bus Driver]

Art Field,
There wouldn't be any ETOPS considerations for a Victor or VC10 as they are not twin engine. ETOPS stands for Extended-range Twin-engine Operational Performance Standards.

Beagle,

You are correct wrt A310 MRTT ETOPS (at least for the CF, can't speak for the GAF). Initially it was lost when the airframes were converted. It was regained last year after the two airframes were deemed to have demonstrated ETOPS in service and the CF engineers had sufficient data from Airbus to properly quantify the risk levels associated with the modified fuel systems.

[StopStart]

The FAA consider ETOPS to be Extended Ops.

EU-OPS SubPart D still define ETOPS as

(b) ETOPS (Extended range operations for two engine aeroplanes). ETOPS operations are those with two engine aeroplanes
approved by the Authority (ETOPS approval), to operate beyond the threshold distance determined in accordance with
OPS 1.245 (a) from an Adequate Aerodrome.

EASA AMC 20-6 rev. 2 (Extended Range Operation with Two-Engine Aeroplanes ETOPS Certification and Operation) 2010 is also a cracking read. (By "cracking" I do of course mean "dull")

The UK CAA also refer to ETOPS as Extended Range Twin Operations.

[opsjockey]

QUOTE: Perhaps Opsjockey, you should ring airtanker and let them know it's not a problem as its easy to resolve.



Whys that, you seem to be the one making it an issue... and Im sure they already know as its pretty basic stuff.

If Air Tanker need the aircraft to be flown across the pond, using non-etops for an Air Transport duty then it is perfectly achievable. You mention Crash Cats, Sondrestrom and Fro-Bay (assuming these are the ones that would be used) are both upgradable to Cat 8 with prior noticifation and a samll fee (less than Eur1000)... just a long way round.. (and thats coming from my own experience of 15 years in ops / dispatch for both etops and non-etops operators, from 737's to 747's - used to fly non etops from Europe to Winnipeg regularly). It's not worth getting your knickers in a twist over AAR as that duty is not due to be undertaken at this stage, Im sure by the time AAR is due, all of the necessary items will be in place..

Dont know why these guys get such a bashing... new type, new crews - training is required. The aircraft is undertaking Military duties so it's doing what It should be doing. The aircraft can get pretty far using non - etops rules until they (the company) are qualified (USA / Canada). AAR isnt worth mentioning yet as they arnt due to undertake any for a while so it gives enough time to iron out any teething problems.... Id worry if these issues are still ocurring after the delivery of aircraft 3 or 4, not during these early stages when theres a lot of paperwork to be done...

[Art Field]

Old Bus Driver.

Grateful thanks for bringing me up to date (I think) on ETOPS. Perhaps we should have got AirTanker to buy the 4 engined Airbus to avoid all this fuss but I am not sure where we could hang the pods.

[lj101]

OpsJ,


Me thinks you work for Airtanker. Good for you.

Have you ever been in the military? The replacement tanker aircraft will be a very capable asset when it works I agree.

Let's hope it's soon to fill that capability gap.

[opsjockey]

Quote: me thinks you work for Air Tanker

Then you would be thinking wrong.. Im currently based at LHR, I just have a keen interest in all things Aeronautical, was in the Military for my National Service and thats about it..

I agree about Voyager will be a very capable aircraft once the niggles have been ironed out....

[Justanopinion]

over AAR as that duty is not due to be undertaken at this stage, Im sure by the time AAR is due, all of the necessary items will be in place

AAR isnt worth mentioning yet as they arnt due to undertake any for a while

So is it now ok and accepted that this new product, under the name Airtanker, is unable to provide Airtanking?

Will this lack/delay of capability lead to extensions in service to the current tanker fleet?

[opsjockey]

It will eventually provide Air Tanking - Looking at their Website the Air to Air refuelling in service date is planned to be 2014 so theres no delay on capability and a bit of time to 'iron out the niggles'

[D-IFF_ident]

The aircraft is delivered with the "Airtanking" systems certified. The boffins at Boscombe need to run their science experiments before it can be used in routine operations. AAR clearance campaigns take time, doesn't necessarily mean there's anything wrong with the tanker.

[Roland Pulfrew]

It will eventually provide Air Tanking - Looking at their Website the Air to Air refuelling in service date is planned to be 2014 so theres no delay on capability and a bit of time to 'iron out the niggles' :hmm:

opsjockey. I bet you believe everything that's written in the the newspapers as well, don't you? This is the AirTanker website you are talking about, so it wouldn't have any pro-company propaganda on it, would it? Trust me on this one, the original AAR in service date was supposed to be 2008, NOT 2014! := So it's late, not Nimrod 2000 late, but it's getting there.

[opsjockey]

But Air Tanker / FTSA / Military contract was only signed in 2008.... thats a pretty swift lead-in time to have it all up and running in the same year...


AirTanker Services Ltd was established in 2008 to deliver the Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft (FSTA) service to the Ministry of Defence over 24 years (from the arrival of the first aircraft). Using 14 new, converted aircraft based on the A330-200 commercial airliner, the programme will provide the Royal Air Force with a safe, reliable and efficient air transport and air to air refuelling service.

The first aircraft is due to arrive at RAF Brize Norton on schedule towards the end of 2011


You are wrong

[opsjockey]

NOT FROM THE AIR TANKER WEBSITE....

PFI takes to the sky
23 January 2009

Outline of the details and progress of the largest ever defence PFI project

On 27th March 2008, the Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft (FSTA) contract was signed by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) and AirTanker Limited. With a potential value of up to £13bn, the FSTA contract is the world's largest defence PFI contract and will deliver a 24-year service that provides comprehensive, worldwide air-to-air refuelling (AAR) and air transport (AT) capabilities to the Royal Air Force, using new FSTA A330-200 aircraft converted into tanker transports.

The contract's fully integrated turnkey service will encompass fleet management and maintenance, ground operations, flight management and crew training. Purpose-built facilities at RAF Brize Norton will support the flexibility and quality required by the contract, providing a superb environment for 500 employees, including RAF personnel, embedded within AirTanker Services.

Current programme status
Since contract signature, AirTanker has been engaged in the delivery of the key infrastructure and the detailed planning of the FSTA service. This has meant a recruitment drive to build up the AirTanker Services team with experienced personnel, and a move from AirTanker Services' base in Bristol to Carterton, Oxfordshire, on the doorstep of RAF Brize Norton.

The infrastructure building programme at RAF Brize Norton commenced in May 2008. A number of existing airport facilities are located within the confines of the proposed AirTanker facility and the new two-bay hangar construction site. Under the FSTA contract, AirTanker Services will reprovide these facilities in agreed new locations elsewhere on the RAF Brize Norton camp.

The first delivery milestone in the contract was achieved on schedule in mid-November 2008, when AirTanker handed back to the RAF the reprovided facilities, which included:
• Bulk diesel and waste fuel tanks;
• Airside motor transport parking;
• Wash pan drainage facilities;
• Petrol oil and lubricants store.

AirTanker Services has transformed these pre-1960 RAF amenities into modern, updated facilities. The next stage of the FSTA service infrastructure is the construction of a two-bay hangar and associated workshops. Backing on to the hangar, on four floors, will be the office accommodation for the RAF's two FSTA Squadrons, the MoD's Integrated Project Team and AirTanker personnel. A training building with a simulator hall for an A330-200 flight simulator will also be built.

A modern, cost-effective and fully integrated solution
The FSTA A330 tanker is an extremely capable force multiplier and force extender. It provides approximately twice the fuel capacity of the VC-10. Of the 14 aircraft to be provided under the FSTA contract, seven will have two wing refuelling pods while the other seven will have a three-point refuelling capability, with the addition of a fuselage mounted refuelling unit.

Services are a major part of the FSTA programme and AirTanker will provide three fully integrated services: an aircraft service, a crewing service and a training service.

RAF personnel will be embedded in AirTanker to deploy aircraft to any operational environment to achieve effective and direct communication of requirements, ensuring that a highly effective partnership is maintained.

A complex contract
In June 2007, the UK Government approved the PFI solution as the most cost-effective means of replacing the RAF's fleet of VC-10 and TriStar aircraft. From that date, the MoD and AirTanker worked together towards financial and contractual close. Together they approached the city to raise the necessary private sector funding and, despite the current turbulence in the world's financial markets, this was successfully secured, with £2.4bn raised for investment in the fleet, a modern, new operational base and associated infrastructure. Today, a group of 24 international banks continue supporting the landmark transaction.

When the contract was signed, the then Minister for Defence Equipment and Support, Baroness Taylor, said: "This deal represents great news for the Royal Air Force and great news for British industry and jobs. The A330s will provide a state-of-the-art air-to-air tanker and passenger aircraft, supporting operations around the world and delivering British forces to operational theatres.

"Achieving a satisfactory outcome to this complex, high-value PFI deal has been challenging, particularly given the factors currently affecting the financial markets, I congratulate all those involved in securing this cost-effective deal."

Programme is on schedule
Handing over the reprovided facilities on time in the middle of November was an important step in the FSTA programme. Dave Mitchard, Managing Director of Airtanker Services, commented: "I am delighted to be able to hand over this first stage of the reprovided facilities to the RAF and it is particularly pleasing to note that they are being delivered on schedule and also meeting the extremely high specifications demanded by the MoD. The rest of the service aspects, including IT development, recruitment, planning and training are running to schedule."

Turning to the FSTA aircraft, the A330-200 is a well-proven commercial platform that is being modified for military purposes. The design and development phase is on programme, and conversion of a standard A330 to an air refuelling aircraft is scheduled to follow by some 18 months.

The first aircraft is planned to arrive at RAF Brize Norton in October 2011. The next two aircraft arrive in 2012 and thereafter there is a gradual build-up, with all 14 aircraft delivered by early 2016.

The importance of the relationship between the MoD and the contractor
The MoD and industry are constantly working together to develop their relationships, particularly since the publication of the Defence Industrial Strategy in 2005, to foster a spirit of mutual understanding, transparency and respect.

This is crucial on a programme such as FSTA, where MoD, RAF and AirTanker staff are working so closely together, and where RAF personnel will even be embedded within AirTanker. The relationship framework is already established, with regular formal and informal meetings and briefings between all stakeholders and much face-to-face time spent between the MoD's Integrated Project Team members, RAF Brize Norton personnel and the AirTanker team. Additionally, AirTanker is becoming involved in the life of the RAF Station at Brize Norton and intends to combine RAF ethos with commercial best practice to deliver a world-class service.

Key benefits: skills/training
Training is a key part of the FSTA programme. AirTanker is responsible for all training and will provide a dedicated facility with full flight simulator, which will be the home for flight and ground crew training.

AirTanker training will qualify RAF pilots to fly the FSTA aircraft, based on the A330 syllabus customised to include the unique air-to-air refuelling role. AirTanker also trains RAF maintenance ground crew.

The RAF will be able to call up AirTanker's Sponsored Reservist Aircrew to provide a surge capability. When not called up, these aircrew will fly civilian flights for AirTanker and undergo regular training with the RAF

[Roland Pulfrew]

Thanks Mate :hmm:, but I think I know a bit more about the programme than that. You are just quoting stuff put out by the MOD/AirTanker spin machines. :rolleyes:

If Air Tanker was only formed in 2008 then the AirTanker team (and the Boeing backed "Tanker and Transport Services Company" (TTSC)) must have been a figment of my imagination back in 2000 when both Consortia visited Brize Norton.

In 2000 the FSTA IPT stated that there would be 3 years of negotiations/D&D, followed by 4 years of service transition with an introduction to service (ITS) date target of 2007, an AAR in service date ISD of 2008, full service delivery (FSD) 4 years after ITS and then 20 years of FSD. That would be why the original VC10 out of service date is now in the past (and with any luck it will make its 50th birthday).

In 2002 I was at a NATO Meeting where both Boeing and Airbus stated that they would have fully operational tankers being delivered within 3 years of contract a signature. Neither have come anywhere close.

Now I may be getting old and my short-term memory failing, but just which bit have I got wrong? As I said, don't believe everything you read - particularly when the Govt spin machine has a handle on it.

And just in case here is a link to what was being discussed on these very forums in 2001 http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/1742-ba-sell-21-767s.html

[Heathrow Harry]

But the IPT was a MinDef FORECAST - and thuis subject to real world events

Most of the delays were contractual negotiations

Anyway - every IPT is always hideously optimistic - if they were accurate no-one would ever agree to do anything

[BEagle]

opsjockey, I can assure you that Roly does indeed know what he's talking about.

The '3 years from contract signature' is interesting, Roly - earlier I'd been told that from the moment of saying "Want that one" it would be a minimum of 4 years before the first one flew as a tanker....

I see how pro-Boeing I was back in 2001 before I realised the limitations on RW performance and cargo capability of the ex-ba 767s - and the spin being spun by snake oil salesmen! However, although the A330 now has an AFS which overcomes my 'split axis' concerns and other aspects have also been proved satisfactory, it hasn't yet been cleared for AAR work. The potential to carry 111 tonnes of fuel, but look at the size of the RAF now compared to the size it was when FSTA was first proposed. Will the RAF ever operate the Voyager at anything like its maximum capability....??? Probably yes in the AT+AAR trail role now and again - but in the AAR role alone?

But Boeing's 767 hasn't exactly been the world's best tanker. The KC-767I suffered buffet and flutter problems and was years late, although the boom-only KC-767J has had a much better ITS with the JASDF. However, the Frankentanker KC-46A program is looking somewhat rocky and the cost is constantly escalating...

Meanwhile, the A310MRTT and CC-150T are going from strength to strength, with the later having proved itself to be an outstandingly reliable and flexible AAR platform in the recent Libyan conflict.

A real shame the RAF didn't buy those 24 A310MRTTs 15 years ago when they were on offer.

[Shell Management]

Its funny how now the Voyager is successfully in service no one seems interested in it at all.

[downsizer]

Is it "successfully" in service being that it isn't tanking or flying into theatre? Probably not successful really....:hmm:

[Shell Management]

Is it "successfully" in service

Yes. Only a pity it wasn't in last weeks fly past in lieu of the Dak.

[lj101]

Shell

Is airtanker currently used by the RAF as a tanker?

No.

Is it flying beyond Europe

If it is, then where and when? Just asking.

[Shell Management]

Priority has been given to reliably flying passengers in enhanced comfort and safety:)

[lj101]

You should be in politics, nice spin.

[Justanopinion]

In 2000 the FSTA IPT stated that there would be 3 years of negotiations/D&D, followed by 4 years of service transition with an introduction to service (ITS) date target of 2007, an AAR in service date ISD of 2008

Now 5 years late on its ITS and unable to tank still. A fine definition of "successfully in service".

[Shell Management]

All down to a late contract signature by the customer. Roll on defence reform.:ok:

[Justanopinion]

Again, how is it successfully in service?

[Shell Management]

Its doing a valuable service and getting our brave boys out of tired 1970s aircraft into modern, safer aircraft. Do you not think that is a good thing?

[downsizer]

Most of the tasking it is picking up was largely done by charter. It is not flying troops in and out of theatre, therefore the brave boys you speak of are still in a 1970s aircraft in and out of theatre. And it still can't tank. So no, it is not successfully in service yet.....

[Ivan Rogov]

Shell Management, are you on crack or just trying to wind us up?
Its funny how now the Voyager is successfully in service no one seems interested in it at all.

No it is not funny or successful, until it is doing all the jobs currently done by VC-10 and Tristar our 'brave boys' (men and women actually) are having to operate 'tired 1970s aircraft' in the most demanding environments. Many of us want it to achieve this ASAP, but it hasn't yet! Oh, and it cost far too much :mad:

[Shell Management]

Just think of the saving on expensive civil charter fees.

[cessnapete]

And no VIP/'Cameron' cabin fit availability for a year (???), an AirTanker employee told me recently.

[Shell Management]

MAA Red Tape.

[Shell Management]

Read in order.

I was referring to the the VVIP fit (red carpet red tape as it were)

[6foottanker]

Will the RAF ever operate the Voyager at anything like its maximum capability....??? Probably yes in the AT+AAR trail role now and again - but in the AAR role alone?

Take a look at the Trimotor (dare I write its name!) for how the RAF uses a large tanker for 'normal ops'. It has a good fuel capacity, though way too much to justify just a north sea towline when full. It is, however, very useful on Ops/trails (that is, of course, if you can get the bl00dy thing to work). In these times of fuel savings, the days of filling up your tanker and coming back half full are gone.

The KC10 also rarely makes use of its full fuel capacity when operating on local sorties, and similarly only for trails/coronets or on ops does the capability of carrying so much fuel really get used to the full.

Unfortunately, Voyager still won't be able to drag fighters much further than we do now, due to the engine requirements and crew duty limitations of the little jets. We should be able to take more jets per trail though (hotel rooms in Bermuda permitting :ok:). And should Voyager ever get clearance to participate on ops, it means flying round in circles for longer, or further away from your hotel, and since consolidation is no longer an option, this extra loiter capability becomes a useful feature due to the limited number of tankers we have procured.

[Ivan Rogov]

Just think of the saving on expensive civil charter fees.

I would be interested in seeing just how 'expensive' those civil charter aircraft were, ISTR an old thread that actually had some official figures showing they were very reasonable and think it actually worked out cheaper per flying hour than RAF AT. Obviously they can only carry out certain tasks, but the whole point of Voyager is to be able to do the high end military tasks, not just those that any airliner can do :ugh:

[BEagle]

Well, an...or rather, the RAF Voyager has just flown past BEagle Towers yet again.

And still no AAR pods fitted......

Wasn't the AAR service supposed to be delivered last year?

Any bets as to whether we'll see it in the AAR role soon?

[Duplo]

isn't it supposed to have refuelling pods as standard? What's wrong with the pods then?

[cyrilranch]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rx4viVOooeg&feature=youtube_gdata_player

also a Tornado
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ai8SZQWe5tU&feature=player_embedded

more info on https://twitter.com/airtanker

[BEagle]

With the recent focus of attention on Astute ( 'Slow, leaky, rusty'), how long before someone asks "How's the Voyager programme going?"......:sad:

Still, at least it doesn't have a boom, eh Oz mates?

No doubt the MoD is busy buying up all the speed tape and black bodge tape it can get its hands on, to keep the ageing Vickers FunBus and TriShaw fleets staggering on....and on....and on.

But for how much longer?

[Onceapilot]

The big point is that the TriStar has great capabilities that the RAF did not always use properly.
The Airbus replacement is late and way over the top in price and hype, much like the RAF it is joining.

OAP

[cessnapete]

No AAR
No ETOPS
No VIP fit
No ops into hostile areas (ie most of current ops ex BZZ.)

Good for crew training, employing expensive redundant ex arline pilots, (at the expense of fully trained more cost effective multi-role RAF officers) Airshows, and airline type trips. (The long way around over the Atlantic)
May get 4 airframes in service total, by end 2013

TriStar struggles on with flight/ground crews continually effected by multiple delays and planning changes, trying to cope with unserviceability problems with the ageing airframe.

[vascodegama]

Once

Which capabilities are we talking about?

[D-IFF_ident]

I know this is a rumour network, but could someone post a link to bona-fide references confirming the non-AAR, non-ETOPS etc?

I can't find any trustworthy sources of such information.

[Art Field]

D-IFF

Perhaps there aint none.

[NutLoose]

One of the BMI A330's that was built in 2001 I believe is now going for breaking as spares... Do not seem to have longevity in the Civil world

[Rigga]

Quite stunned that this 330 is not ETOPS?

Anyone know why? Cheaper systems/spare parts fitted or...?

[BEagle]

Quite stunned that this 330 is not ETOPS?

It's not just the aircraft which has to have ETOPS Type Approval, the operator must also meet ETOPS Operational Certification. Operational certification requires all aircrew and engineering staff to be fully trained and qualified to ETOPS standards. For an organisation which has never operated an ETOPS aircraft before, obtaining this certification will not be a quick process....

The legacy culture of bodge tape, in-line crimps and FBA adjusts must be also be canned!

[Just This Once...]

Take your point BEagle, especially as the certification requirements are enduring and monitored, but for pure military ops no ETOPS is required - we can drive our aircraft anywhere we like.

Not entirely sure we are wise in doing so, but it is what we do.

[BEagle]

.....for pure military ops no ETOPS is required - we can drive our aircraft anywhere we like.

Quite who would agree to that in these risk-averse MAA days? Except, perhaps, in TTW.

Anyway, the Voyager is not 'your' aircraft - it belongs to ATr.

[lj101]

Voyager requires ETOPS.

[Just This Once...]

Quite who would agree to that in these risk-averse MAA days?

GASOs.

Strange, isn't it. As we stand ETOPS will only apply to Voyager due to the ATr requirements.

[Rigga]

Beags:"For an organisation which has never operated an ETOPS aircraft before, obtaining this certification will not be a quick process...."

In my experience it would have been introduced at very the start to meet fully trained staff. However, I'm pleased that its not the aircraft (and probably not the LAE and flight crew contractors) that're holding up the procedure - assuming that someone has actually applied for ETOPS approval?
...or is that another project milestone for the distant future?

[haltonapp]

And would Air Tanker want to obtain a Cat III a,b or c approval?

[cessnapete]

Probably not. An A330 is CatIII out of the box when purchased.
The TriStar was Cat IIIc when bought by the Mod, but BZZ and the aircraft still only CatI.
Try explaining that to the Ex Afganistan troops this week who had to endure their Leave trip home, Via Cyprus- Hannover-Brize divert Newcastle, and then bused back to Brize after long delay again at Newcastle!!

Many UK civil airports are now routinely CATIII/II and the equipment and maintenance expertise could easily be contracted out by the MoD to upgrade BZZ. Probably not cost effective in the past with no low viz capable Military capability. But with a looming large A330 fleet plus most civil airliners using BZZ so equipped, the requirement makes more sense.
Military mindset and lack of money?

[RetiredBA/BY]

Just what in hell is happening in the RAF today. If I am correct ALL the RAF's tanker and transport assets now are located on a SINGLE runway at BZZ and it doesn't even have cat 111 ! And an A330 without ETOPS, perhaps the CAT 111 equipment (which isn't very extensive, or at least it wasn't on 767s) has been removed, too, ! Beggars belief.

High time CAS, Air Commander and MOD mandarins got a grip on reality and came into the 21st century and learned in detail about all weather and long range operation of large modern aircraft. Perhaps someone could or should point out to them that Cat 111 has been routine in civil aviation for many, many years and is done not as a technical exercise but as a means of improving efficiency, enhancing safety and reducing costs , surely things which are as relevant to the RAF as they are to the airlines.

At least the RAF is, at long last, getting a decent tanker with considerable capability. Makes my old Victor BK1 look positively puny !

[Onceapilot]

Retired.

The RAF has got two very decent tanker types, one with considerable capability.
It is a pity how the bandwagon has been allowed to snowball with the new project. Reminds me of the situation with married quarters and Annington homes!

OAP

[RetiredBA/BY]

Yes, I have no doubt that the VC10 (always thought it would make a good tanker when I flew it in the 70s) and TriStar (and the crews who fly them) have given excellent service but neither were state of the art when introduced. What I meant is that it's great to see the RAF getting new build, state of the art aircraft with tremendous capability, though still without the fuel capacity of the 1011 or kc10.

[airsound]

not cost effective in the past with no low viz capable Military capability.Au contraire, cessnapete. The Belfast, which was stationed at Brize, and which was discarded by a careless government in 1976, had the Cat III Smiths Autoland system. (Same one as the HS Trident).

airsound
(who had the honour of being the last Flt Cdr Ops on 53, the one and only Belfast Sqn)

[lj101]

tremendous capability

Maybe one day.....

[deltahotel]

ETOPS for new type to a company is pefectly possible but does require the project manager to get the regulatory and training ducks in a row at an early stage. Likewise LVPs.

[StopStart]

Cat III? LVPs? The recently relaid Brize runway doesn't even have stop bars.... :(

If they're going to concentrate all the AT assets on one runway (especially one prone to fog) then common sense would dictate that you do everything you can to ensure you can maintain continuous ops. I'm 99% certain the A330 will get Cat III certification but the RAF need to Brize up to spec with Cat III ILS, proper lighting and LVPs. The C130J is Cat II capable but the RAF never bothered certifying it. I assume the A400 will come with a Cat III certification......?

:rolleyes:

[lj101]

Wx stats here;

Climate Brize Norton - Historical weather records (http://www.tutiempo.net/en/Climate/Brize_Norton/36490.htm)


Climate Lyneham - Historical weather records (http://www.tutiempo.net/en/Climate/Lyneham/37400.htm)

[StopStart]

Point being?

[haltonapp]

Even if Brize could never achieve CatIII standard without spending lots of dosh, that the RAF does't have, surely it would still be useful to have the crews trained and the maintenance practises in place, so that the full capability of the aircraft could be used when necessary! The only currency we had was the requirement to do an LVP take off and autoland (with faults) in the sim every six months. The aircraft was required to do an autoland, I think every three months, MOC monitored this using the tech log where all autolands were recorded!

[Saintsman]

without spending lots of dosh, that the RAF does't have

Seems like a good opportunity for a PFI....

[glum]

The maintenance burden is huge. Every time any part of the autopilot / land system fails that requires a rectification / box-swap the groundcrew have to carry out a full autopilot functional check with full autoland. That's about 8 hours work...

This of course includes the ILS and RADALT systems.

Not to mention keeping a log of all the boxes status after every flight, so that any spurious fault trends can be monitorerd.

I seriously doubt they have the manpower for that...

[wiggy]

The maintenance burden is huge.

Is it these days on the likes of a A330? I'm not being flippant BTW, that's a serious question.

"My" airline isn't exactly overwhelmed with spare engineering manpower but even so you rarely see our CAT 3 equipped types being downgraded to "CAT 2" or "No Autoland" due to Autoflight defects.