mgd,
You also need to appreciate how much extra fuel is consumed by carrying fuel. As I understand it, the Herrick airbridge tankers fuel into theatre to minimize the uplift for the next leg. The fuel load for the leg out of theatre also has to include a sizeable amount of final reserve fuel as the alternates for MCT are not close-by. All this fuel has to be carried from the UK at considerable cost in fuel burn. As a guide, the aircraft type that I currently fly burns about an extra 300kg for every 1000kg increase in TOW over a 10-hour sector. The TriStar would be similar, so around 20-30% more extra fuel is needed just to carry this fuel from the UK. Shorter sector lengths reduce the impact of carrying the extra fuel.
Civil Charter/DAS is a very high-level policy.
All types of flying have their own particular nuances and long-haul trucking is no different. However, it often seems the RAF has lots of armchair experts on Strategic Air Transport with opinions that are based on the simplistic assumption that the role must be the same as any "transit" flying they have done own in their own aircraft type.
Gnd - You are very naive if you think that assets as valuable and scarce as the TriStar, or massively high-profile tasks like the Herrick Airbridge could be manipulated solely for "crew benefit". Even if 216 Sqn wanted to change the way it operated for reasons of harmony do you really think that anyone involved with AT would have their morale improved by being told that they were going to be spending more time in Cyprus? I don't understand your comment about the weight-limit. Are you suggesting that you thought the aircraft was overloaded? It sounds as if you are objecting to the aircraft being filled to capacity - should it have departed with empty seats to improve your comfort?
Crews don't "pull a crew duty card". They have a set of regulations that they are not allowed to break without permission from higher authority. It is frustrating for people coming home from theatre who have seen other rules flexed for operational reasons, but whoever is taking the decision to operate outside any set of established rules has to ask why? Is it a life and death situation? Is it for reasons of operational expediency? Or might it be it just for convenience? I would suggest the latter is not really a valid reason to routinely bust what are already fairly "task-orientated" regulations. Don't forget that the aircraft operating authority also owes a duty of care to the other airport/airspace users be they in Oman, Cyprus or the London TMA.
The aircraft will still break-down and crews will still run out of duty time, but at least give 2Gp and 216 Sqn some credit for trying to be flexible and innovative in an attempt to improve the efficiency of this task. I would guess that AKT manning and opening hours were the biggest hurdle.
Last edited by Brain Potter; 30th Jun 2008 at 23:34.