Afghan airbridge trial [Archive]

Melchett01

30th Jun 2008, 11:39

Extending the flight time???? It was long enough already!

I wouldn't mind if we had some nice trolly-dollies to look at / talk to, tasty tuck, comfy seats and decent in flight entertainment. But now you tell me I have to spend a cummulative extra 4.5 hrs watching Brian, a steward from the rough end of the Blue Oyster bar struggling with a trolly full of butty boxes and still no in flight entertainment other than listening to the Colonel in the row in front droning on about Main Gates and what General Freddie was discussing last week.

Please, no, it's almost inhuman. At least let me take my pistol on with me if I have to spend the extra time on board! :E

Green Flash

30th Jun 2008, 11:43

Or use C-17's so we can curl up and sleep!

Redcarpet

30th Jun 2008, 13:27

Green Flash, Careful what you wish for. Watch this space.;)

minigundiplomat

30th Jun 2008, 16:01

The boys and girls want and need is an aircraft that turns up at the specified time and takes them home, in the shortest order possible.

This doesn't strike me as a forward move.

Ryanair manage it everyday on a fraction of the budget. Maybe we should ask Michael O Leary if he fancies some reservist work?

Cue laughing and expletives down the phone.

PPRuNeUser0211

30th Jun 2008, 16:14

To be fair, it seems as if the lads and lasses involved in the air-bridge have identified a number of problems and are specifically designing the "trial-bridge" around them. For example the classic line over on the green forum is "There we were, somewhere hot and sandy getting shot at, got our 2 week R&R, and lost a day of it because the RAF aircrew prats said they'd worked a long day, and the hour's delay on the ground meant they would have worked too hard". Kudos to finding a possible solution although doubtless this method will have a few snags of its own.

Gnd

30th Jun 2008, 17:53

Pooh - pure Pooh. Having suffered the long flights and waits attributable to AT, it is horrendous. Last flight home was packed and no mention of weight limit - It was chocker and with body armour and gonk bag - wedged in.

Another sham with just crew benefits - and I'm aircrew!!! so G only knows what the real workers think :hmm:

Uncle Ginsters

30th Jun 2008, 19:19

Another sham with just crew benefits

Hardly - the whole point of the trial, as i see it, is to increase capacity by reducing the required fuel burn per leg.

Crew benefits? I'm not a Tri-motor walla, but i'm pretty sure they'd rather stick with their current deal with one crew in Muscat rather than now having 33% more crews away from home. OK, so it's not in the desert (and thus, of course, clearly just a jolly :=), but that's not the crews' fault, is it?

The boys and girls want and need is an aircraft that turns up at the specified time and takes them home, in the shortest order possible.

Of course they do! And if this trial wasn't planned to produce such gains, then why would it even be considered? The airbridge is as stretched as any of the components that make up the HERRICK/TELIC commitment, and any flex that can be added to that can only be a good thing:

- Flex in Crew Duty Time to mean that any delays don't necessarily push the whole route into a delay - we don't write the rules, but they are there and are already streched too regularly (if not routinely) to get the job done. There are many unpredictable things that can delay a flight, this will enlarge the window for fixing those delays and still completing the task, with the same crew, within that day.

- Flex in load. That reduced fuel load per leg translates into an overall increased capacity. No Gnd, it might not always appear that way, but what you see in the upper cabin, on your particular flight is a small fraction of the overall picture. Roughly, my guess gives each flight 25-30 tonnes more load from reduced fuel. For a RiP, that makes a lot of sense.

Uncle G

Green Flash

30th Jun 2008, 19:33

Red C - bring it on! I've had MUCH better trips on 17's than jammed into a Timmy. Best kip I had was atop a load of mortar bombs! True, the only windows (down the back!) are at the para doors but most of the time you are deep inside the green worm. They work(!), go like snot, you can wander up the front for a proper brew - I love 'em!

minigundiplomat

30th Jun 2008, 19:46

Roughly, my guess gives each flight 25-30 tonnes more load from reduced fuel.

That sounds very, very optimistic.

Rough Figures MAUW 225,000 KG

Av Fuel Burn 2680 US Gall/hr (from tinters) x 3.785 for Litres, allowing for SPG working out at roughly 7 tonnes an hour.

If the old route was roughly 7 hrs BZZ-KDH and 3 to next refuel = 10 hrs, and you are planning to save 30 tonnes, then you are telling us that AKT-KDH-AKT will come in at just under 6 hours.

And why is it that a walk to the BX at KAF regularly takes you past civil charters, yet this seems to be beyond us.

Im not having a dig here, I am genuinely interested.

Uncle Ginsters

30th Jun 2008, 20:02

That sounds very, very optimistic.

Not really:

BZZ-MCT (as is now) ~ 7:30 to 8:00

BZZ-AKT ~ 4:30
AKT-MCT ~ 4:00 (if used)
MCT-KDH ~ 2:00 (4:00 for round-trip fuel to MCT)

Some approximate speculation from C17 & VC10 figures (Tri* mates...help me out here!!:}):
In fuel terms, you're now around 3:30 lighter. An hourly burn of 8 tons (accurate figures, anyone?) would give a 28 ton saving in max wt.

I don't think that that's overly optimistic.

As for the charters, all to do with £££s and risk assesment (charters with DAS?) is my best guess.

Uncle G:ok:

EDIT: MGD, your figures give a Specific Gravity of 69%....usually F-34 would be 77.5%-84% under ISA conditions(i.e. ~8t/hr). It's not about the total time for the full journey, but lowering the individual leg times as far as practicable to allow the fuel/load trade-off. Of course, unless you know the exact routings and combination of flag-stops then it's all just speculation:rolleyes:, but i can see how this could work...let's wait for the trial to see. Hopefully the results will become available.

chinnyrationcarrier

30th Jun 2008, 22:20

I would like to point out that this idea of reducing the fuel load so that you can take more people would be a good idea if the a/c wasn't 180yrs old.

The problem with this plan is that due to the reduced endurance and the extra planned stop this is exactly the time when something will break. So far, I have had 4 separate occasions where the a/c has gone t*ts up. These planes are great if you can start them up and keep running, it's when you stop that you get the problems.

Fuel them up and keep them going I say.

As for crew duty, the crew need to think who's in the audience when they pull that card as the last lot I encountered had nearly twice the crew rest period before turning up for work the next day. This, after skipping down the pan to the awaiting taxi for the hotel without the Captain even uttering a word to his weary self loading freight!!!! :=

Gnd

30th Jun 2008, 22:21

The thing that most annoys me about these speculations is the defensive nature of the argument. Let’s all think straight and admit that it isn't our faults it's the equipment. An RAF 747 with full DAS would suit our needs perfectly - quick, reliable and big.

It is the system and its financial irregularities or peculiarities that cause the gripes and I have no wish to deride the AT fleet. Who has a real answer to the real and present problem, not me.

The Civ Servants (ironic - servants) have the key and until we can persuade them, it's 3 hrs extra on my all too frequent trips!!! Oh how I love the way I earn a crust - and it ain't much better when I board my chariot in theatre either!!!!

Brain Potter

30th Jun 2008, 23:11

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.

dessert_flyer

1st Jul 2008, 00:44

If we had modern aircraft that didnt keep breaking down, enough manpower in every location to load and unload aircraft, enough technicians to keep the aircraft going and a european community that would give us priority slot times, then i dont think crew duty would be an issue and you would all get there on time. As it is we dont have any of the above, and i dont think its the men and women who do those jobs who are at fault, if you are to blame anybody, blame the government who dont give us the correct tools to do the job.

BEagle

1st Jul 2008, 06:50

chinnyrationcarrier made the valid point:

Fuel them up and keep them going I say.

Maybe time to dust off those AAR probes again? Although I can't remember whether they were ever fitted to the C Mk 2.

But that would require a few serviceable tankers with centreline hoses...... Not to mention the training / currency cost.

Gnd

1st Jul 2008, 07:42

Brain,

Not in the slightest, I have delt with crashes that have been caused by overweight aircraft. My point was in reply to an earlier comment that it is a weight issue that is having the changes looked at; it is not as they use the max weight they can take. There may be pay-off issues with sectors 'v's fuel load which means that sector times are manipulated - a fair assumption.

As for the poor crews - I have very little sympathy with the lack of moral, we are all in the same boat and believe me; people using that argument against the misery the troops are suffering is crass and smacks of blinkered selfishness.

A back slapping pis***g match helps no one and as for the aircraft type - it is irrelevant what it is called just that it is capable of doing the job safely and in a timely fashion. The airframe needs to be large enough to do the job and fully fitted. I made no mention of charter, I did however intimate that the RAF (by definition - military) got a suitable airframe to do the job for their selves; are you suggesting that RAF AT pilots couldn't handle a 747 (just a for instance) if it were taken into military service. I would presume not. Agreed, the Civ Servants would baulk at the cost

If we had larger, newer and correctly fitted aircraft this would again, become a non rant. :E

PPRuNeUser0211

1st Jul 2008, 08:32

Another thought. Would this proposed re-route allow for cross-decking to a civ-air charter in AKT? Could be a way to free up a timmy from half the flying?

Brain Potter

1st Jul 2008, 10:41

Gnd,

Ok, now I think understand your point of view. Your last flight home was on a TriStar that was full and therefore the aircraft must've operated at max weight. On this basis you are rejecting the stated purpose of this trial, which is to allow generally higher payloads and greater crew flexibility and have drawn your own conclusion that this is a smokescreen to cover the real intention of giving crews more time off in Cyprus. Am I correct?

You have made too big an assumption from being onboard an aircraft that appeared to be full. The temperature, barometric pressure, prevailing wind and sector length all have a significant effect on the payload available. It may have been that conditions allowed a particularly good payload that day - what time of year was it? Moreover, you said that this was the homebound flight which would have been 2 or 3 sectors, giving a perfect example of how shorter sector lengths allow the aircraft to be more heavily laden. The payload penalties suffered on the long outbound sector, whilst carrying the fuel for the second leg have already been explained and it is probably this part of the airbridge that will see the biggest gains in capacity.

The MoD is already spending billions on a controversial project to replace the TriStar. Yes, the airbridge would be better served by a squadron of DAS equipped 747-400s, but that would cost hundreds of millions of pounds and would probably arrive in service no sooner than the A330s that are going to take on the role.

I did not say that the "poor crews" had low morale (although "lack of moral" (sic) might be true :}) and certainly did not compare their situation to that of the troops. In response to the accusation that this trial has been conceived for purely selfish reasons I simply ask, even if it were remotely possible to manipulate this plot for "crew benefit", why anyone involved in AT would want to spend more time in Cyprus rather than at home?

216 Sqn and 2 Gp have identified a way of achieving higher payloads with greater crew-duty flexibility. They have also realised that penalties will include longer flying times, more crews deployed and a higher chance of pax being stranded at intermediate locations. They have recognized the inconvenience caused to individual passengers and have taken a fairly unprecedented step of explaining the trial on the MoD website. Can't you just accept that this is the truth?

Mr C Hinecap

1st Jul 2008, 10:56

Another thought. Would this proposed re-route allow for cross-decking to a civ-air charter in AKT? Could be a way to free up a timmy from half the flying?

Not really. You'd need twice as many Movers to do the job and twice the paperwork and take up hours and hours of effort to unload, de-stuff tins, re-stuff tins, re-load and send on the way. Increasing the chance of a cock-up, especially moving everyone and everything from one airframe to another. They are a Trade rather over-tasked and haven't got the manpower to carry out what would be a fools errand.

PPRuNeUser0211

1st Jul 2008, 12:22

Fair one Hinecap (anything to stop them chartering movers also?;))

ArthurR

1st Jul 2008, 12:42

Can not understand why you still have no flight entertainment on the Tri-Stars, I was involved in the flight testing of ZD 950 and the aircraft arrived at Marshalls with PES fitted, although some of it was removed. Could have been an RAF request to remove it all, :mad:

airborne_artist

1st Jul 2008, 12:47

Can not understand why you still have no flight entertainment on the Tri-Stars

The troops are not on their holidays, you know. Plus, imagine the rental costs on all those films.

Suppose they could show information films about the clap etc.

ArthurR

1st Jul 2008, 12:51

"The troops are not on their holidays, you know"......There may be no sea, but its one hell of a beach :E

minigundiplomat

1st Jul 2008, 13:12

The answer to the charter Q could be quite simple. Dry lease a few wide body jets from GECAS, slap on a few DAS boxes and off we go. The lease would cover the gap until the A400M etc actually enter productive service.

Too simplistic? thought so!

Mr C Hinecap

1st Jul 2008, 13:33

pba - quite a few posts are 'chartered' around the Movs world - but it isn't the unskilled humping and dumping you'd love to believe. As a Trade, they have been undermanned for the tasks asked of them for quite some time. There isn't a civvy answer to that one.

Brain Potter

1st Jul 2008, 15:13

mgd,

To take leased civilian-owned aircraft into front-line military use is not that easy. There are complex regulatory, airworthiness and maintenance issues to overcome. For example you cannot just "slap-on" DAS boxes to an aircraft owned by someone else without their agreement. Their agreement would be heavily dependent on the airworthiness authorities (FAA/CAA) whose approval would be necessary to allow the subsequent return of the ac to revenue service with an airline.

Your idea is actually not that far away from what lies behind the concept of FSTA. The difficulties faced by the FSTA programme have principally been centred on such contractual wrangling rather than the customary procurement delays caused by technological and production issues.

FSTA will be the primary means of modernizing the equipment used to mount the Herrick airbridge and until that time the TriStar will have to soldier-on.

taxydual

1st Jul 2008, 15:38

How about civair or leased civair to Akrotiri, then RAF Tristar to theatre and vice versa? Would that work?

Gnd

1st Jul 2008, 16:56

Brain,

Para 1 - No but apparently the pax are going to get some. This is a double coin as some will de-compress there so it is a 50/50 thing.

Para 2 - Thanks for the information but as an A2 - I know.

Now para 3 - that is music to my ears and I would just question the necessity of a trial if there is a solution in the pipe line. Let’s be fair the new routine will have a minimal impact on pax numbers and maximum revulsion from the customers - no flannel will appease them?

I am convinced that you are correct that crews would be better at home, we all wish that for every one. My point is really that everyone wants to get home and more time, regardless of amount, will not be seen as good. Messing people around will never catch on.

216 Sqn and 2 Gp are fine chaps and I have absolutely no axe to grind but publish and be dammed comes to mind. I am not convinced the maths works and why stir up a hornets’ nest, bad time to start a trial in midsummer - hot frustrated people - you do the psychoanalytical thing?

Not at all promising in my book and I never accept things on face value. Remember Napoleon said 'do not disturb your enemy when they are making mistakes', I would be glad if someone questioned me and added some depth to my assumptions, I could be wrong???

Uncle Ginsters

1st Jul 2008, 18:14

bad time to start a trial in midsummer

That's exactly the point! But as an A2, you know that, right?:ugh:

At this time of year, the WAT limit and other perf factors are at their most limiting.

Despite your experience, on the current schedule, the Tristar is severely perfomance limited. By reducing leg length and thus fuel load, the freight (self-loading or otherwise) can be increased and thus more task achieved

Now, where did I leave those 4 coloured pens???:}

Ali Barber

1st Jul 2008, 19:14

Or base 216 Sqn in Akrotiri - just a thought and no involvement with the Sqn.

Green Flash

1st Jul 2008, 19:55

RAF AT to be based in the Gulf and then charter home. Just about everyone else does it in some shape or form. Why not us?

Gnd

1st Jul 2008, 20:22

Sorry Ginster, I thought there might be a reason they took off in the cool of the night - I didn't think it was to hide their IR signature!!!

Let’s not lower it too much hey??? I was more concerned with the troop in the palatial hosting centres afforded to them/us by the forces. :suspect:

Uncle Ginsters

1st Jul 2008, 20:38

No snags...but it is a real issue for the 3*, even in the relative cool of night, and the subsequent daytime heat of MCT, hence the additional stop in AKT

I was chatting to a 216 Sqn mate today and it appears that they're almost certain that this will improve their total throughput. They're the experts in this so i'll go with that...:ok:

Mr Grim

1st Jul 2008, 21:15

Sorry for the thread drift, but don't they hand out A2s to every Tom, Dick and Harry who manages to tolerate 3 years of being a QFI? It's been a while since I met someone who wasn't an A2. :}

Its like boasting that you are a pairs lead, isn't it (although obviously much less tactical)?

14greens

1st Jul 2008, 21:29

What people seem to be missing here, is this is a trial!!! to see if the lift can be increased! and the service improved ie more bodies in and out on each trip, is that not what its all about?

The payload is limited by the fuel required for diversion and max landing weight at destination, expected fuel overhead assumes that you do not burn the loaded contingency fuel which is calculated as a % of total fuel load
Do the maths, if you half the flight time then the fuel load goes down, less fuel, less contingency required, which means less assumed fuel overhead, this can be given over to payload and still get to destination with sufficient fuel to make diversion if needed!

Having a slip crew in Theatre would make no difference to having to flag on way home either, pretty sure its summat that has been considered but work it out, with the hourly fuel burn, 8 hrs home! think logistics

Brain Potter

1st Jul 2008, 22:24

Gnd,

You may be an A2, but I'm afraid that I have considerable difficulty in understanding both your English and the thrust of your argument.

You began by describing this trial as:

Pooh - pure Pooh and Another sham with just crew benefits

But you have offered no reason as to why this trial is a sham and have not been able to define the "crew benefits".

216 Sqn and 2Gp have calculated the payload benefits using TriStar performance documents. DSCOM and PJHQ have been briefed on the options and have decided that, on a trial basis, the short-sector method is worth a go in an attempt minimize the impact of high summer on the payloads into theatre.

However, the team tasked with finding a way to improve the summer payload was clearly missing vital advice from someone trained on a totally different type, who has been a passenger a few times. Such a person could've warned them bad time to start a trial in midsummerand they could then have really focussed on improving summer payload during the winter. This advisor could also add value to the TriStar performance data by statingI am not convinced the maths works which would carry even more gravitas if he hadn't seen the calculations or been trained in interpreting RTOTs.

Gnd, I'm afraid that you are a prime example of what I meant when I wrote earlier:

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.

You have probably suffered bad experiences during AT many times and for that you have my sympathy. We all seem to be agreed that the airbridge needs modern aircraft and for that reason the FSTA programme needs to be regarded as a priority. However, it will be at least 3 more years before any of these new jets are in service. In the meanwhile the armchair critics need to realise that people with much greater (ie at least some) expertise in this area are constantly examining every possible way of making the airbridge more efficient, more reliable and more comfortable. They may not succeed but shouldn't be blamed for trying, at least not with such fatuous arguments as "it's bound to be only for the benefit of the crew".

Regards to all on 216.

FFP

2nd Jul 2008, 04:23

I'm always amazed how some members of the military community (and I'm genuinely not aiming this at anyone here or in reference to any posts on this thread) think that AT crews somehow enjoy not getting the job done and that they revel in holding up the whole process. That they are in some way unprofessional to the extent that they rejoice when jets break / tools are downed at the crew duty limit ?

Do people really think that's the attitude of those that fly our transporters ?

These guys and girls spend their working week away from home, in ADDITION to the operational deployments they man. You think they want to spend more time away ?

Good on 216 for being proactive enough to trial this. It's easy to sit back and bitch how it's broken.

Seems that they get slagged off for doing something new, and slagged off for staying the same.

TheInquisitor

2nd Jul 2008, 05:56

As for crew duty, the crew need to think who's in the audience when they pull that card

'Who is in the audience' is irrelevant. The rules do not change according to who is listening! Crew Duty Rules exist for a reason - it has been my experience, as an AT driver, and as a planner and supervisor, that crews, when on an Operational task, wil quite happily fly themselves to exhaustion in order to 'get the job done'. On 99% of occasions it is NOT the crew that 'pulls the card', it is quite rightly their auth / supervisor, usually somebody not directly involved in operating the flight who can stand back and assess the risks, free from the press-on-itis we ALL tend to suffer when in the seat. Don't forget that these crews have to mix it in Civil controlled airspace to get you home, and no-one will thank them if they f^^k-up and kill people (either their own or others they share the airspace with) because they were knackered.

If you want a comparison, look up Civil operator's FTL limits, and see just how hard WE are allowed to work compared to them.

It wasn't so long ago, IIRC, that Tri* crews, when augmented with a couple of extra bodies, were flying 24hr crew duty days (standing by to be corrected) - is this still the case?

For those of you still whingeing about it, I'd like to see you attempt to successfully fly a complex instrument approach, in the dark, in **** weather, at the end of a 16-18hr day, with 200-plus people's lives at stake if you get it wrong. Just to give you a feel for what it's like, I suggest you do the following: Pack 200 of your mates into a very large bus, get yourself completely ****faced (to simulate the fatigue - it's a good comparison, believe me) and then drive said bus round the M25 in thick fog at 130mph.

Do the above, and you will finally understand why the 'crew duty card' needs to be 'pulled' every now and then....

minigundiplomat

2nd Jul 2008, 08:08

For those of you still whingeing about it, I'd like to see you attempt to successfully fly a complex instrument approach, in the dark, in **** weather, at the end of a 16-18hr day, with 200-plus people's lives at stake if you get it wrong. Just to give you a feel for what it's like, I suggest you do the following: Pack 200 of your mates into a very large bus, get yourself completely ****faced (to simulate the fatigue - it's a good comparison, believe me) and then drive said bus round the M25 in thick fog at 130mph

Whilst there is some whinging, some are genuinely interested in the rationale behind the trial.

You are not alone in exeriencing fatigue my friend. Try flying a 20 Tonne helicopter with 40 troops on board into a hostile DC at 100' on NVD in low light levels, and with several people taking pot shots at you, all at the end of a 16 hour day. No food, and only warm bottles of water for refreshment and vibration that makes your teeth chatter.
We do that regularly, and we do it happlily in the knowledge that despite any discomfort we may feel, it is minimal to the discomfort/danger experienced by the troops on the ground we are supporting.
Yes, it raises some fatigue management concerns, and yes it would be nice to be able to turn it off sometimes.
Could you look the survivors of an overrun patrol base in the eye and say 'we wanted to bring you the ammo you desperately needed, but our DA said no'?
Im not saying this applicable to the T* fleet, but do not lecture the wider military community on fatigue. It may very well be an issue, but it is not yours alone.

Gnd

2nd Jul 2008, 08:36

OK, I loose - going to get out of my dusty hole and back into my armchair now.

It is sad that a trial, that shows no logic to the masses, can arouse so much venom from the few. I am appalled that you even thought, let alone printed, that I have anything less than the highest regard for the AT crews and proves to me (and many silent onlookers I would guess) that you constantly go on the defensive rather than engage - if you are even at all involved with the AT world.

Good luck with the trial and I hope you get what you want out of it.

I personally believe that the pain will not be worth the gain and apologise if I give you a hard time next time you delay me - will be quite soon I am thinking.

blogger

2nd Jul 2008, 08:54

Why not feed the troops prior to take off at BN.Land in Cyprus take troops off into lounge and feed them.Take off then land in Afgan.Return trip fed before departure.Land at Cyprus troops fed and take on board beer for the troops.Land at BN and wait 4 to 5 hours for MT to turn up because they are useless.No requirement for on flight food at all.Anyhow one of the reasons for landing in Cyprus is to allow the troops posted there and then detached to Afgan to get off at Cyprus.So what will happen about the stop off in Germany (Hannover). Or is this really going to be:BNHannoverCyprusAfgan.

dallas

2nd Jul 2008, 10:02

When I first heard there was going to be a schedule direct to HERRICK I was surprised it didn't route via AKT. It's a friendly base (depending on your definition), would allow greater flexibility on loads and crew duty because it's a shorter hop to theatre, and there are normally multiple outlets in and out of AKT if the original plan goes wrong. Apparently the decision to route direct to HERRICK was Army-inspired, when they more or less taunted the RAF to provide airlift directly to their war - as a result payloads have always been restricted. An AKT slip isn't going to help dramatically for each route - don't expect double payloads - but it will seemingly show results in the longer term.

I agree with 2 other posters; firstly there would seem to be little reason to routinely operate the Tristar between AKT and the UK - they're precious enough without sending them on legs that they're not needed, and a 216 Det at AKT, capable of turning the jets on pure HERRICK missions, makes sense in many ways. I'm sure it's been considered...

The other point that I think has merit is to feed people at every opportunity. Our 'customers' tend to be very poorly treated, but a good feed is one thing we can provide relatively easily.

Notwithstanding 'armchair generals' et al, I think it's a trial worth giving a go, in an attempt to compensate for the limited and ageing equipment we've got on hand to do the job. And next time you're stuck somewhere crap you may wish to reflect on who exactly provides us with obsolete airliners to do their bidding with.

minigundiplomat

2nd Jul 2008, 10:16

they more or less taunted the RAF to provide airlift directly to their war

There lieth the problem.

Gnd

2nd Jul 2008, 10:53

OUT OFF ARMCHAIR

Do not even think of blaming the green for this and starting another pointless, and frankly upsetting, pi**ing match. We all take the shilling and do the bidding of a broken master.

The troops do not 'volunteer' to get killed and a trivial thing like RAF pride, or preference, is so far down the list that I am upset that I ever got goaded into this miniscule spat!!! Is it so wrong to want to minimise the discomfort of anyone, adding hours of waiting????

If you really think that you are better than any other member of the forces, you are so wrong! PVR is the logical option if you do not like it.

FFP

2nd Jul 2008, 11:50

Land at Cyprus troops fed and take on board beer for the troops

That sounds like a great idea.......

minigundiplomat

2nd Jul 2008, 11:54

I have to agree with Gnd. The use of the phrase 'their war' provides an interesting insight into the AT fleet mindset.

dallas

2nd Jul 2008, 12:08

Oh FFS - the point I was making was the Army just see our lot as a bus service to their war and we're the awkward inconvenience they have to negotiate to get there. I'm not sure if gnd is having a go at me for some sort of superiority complex, but if so the point is lost as that's nowhere even close to the message I was writing.

A little more 'same boat' mentality would not go amiss from 'green', as well as an attempt to understand that one big white/grey plane can't necessarily do the same as the one next to it - I've heard a comparison to Landrovers mentioned before.

Hey, I know we're all in it together - sans paddle.

Gnd

2nd Jul 2008, 12:23

Apparently the decision to route direct to HERRICK was Army-inspired, when they more or less taunted the RAF to provide airlift directly to their war - as a result payloads have always been restricted.
How is that ambiguous?

It was the use of 'they' and 'their' that I object too and have obviously misinterpreted. If you mean 'our war' then I apologise and think that you have some good points.

Green Flash

2nd Jul 2008, 12:38

After 14 years of SLF activity I have developed the mindset that you are home WHEN YOU ARE HOME. Statement of the bleedin obvious, yes, but I've seen too many people think that the door of the pax terminal is their own front door. Could I suggest that we all just learn to turn our brains off, engage SLF drive and accept that sometimes sh!t happens? No one wants any delays but they occur and that's all part of the Game. We ALL want to get home as fast as possible. Nothings perfect in this world - if it was, we probably wouldn't have a job. The production of much heat and sound will not get the jet fixed any quicker. It's difficult - but it is also a mark of someones maturity, leadership and self discipline - but ffs just CHILL.. You might be stuck at Akrotiri being rained on - there are some stuck at an FOB being rained on by 107's.

dallas

2nd Jul 2008, 12:49

If you mean 'our war' then I apologise and think that you have some good points.
Indeed I do mean our war and the AT fleet are, for the most part, very much in the thick of it.

As for my ambiguity, I don't think I was either. The story I heard was the Army wanted a direct flight and were disinterested in the arguments about reduced payload. I wasn't there so can't say if this is true or not (nb. this is a rumour forum), but I can believe that, rightly or wrongly, the Army vote beat the RAF one when it came to practicalities of the operation of aircraft versus a 4-ish more hour journey to HERRICK. With the exception of RIPs, AFAIK, capacity is generally not the issue, although this could simply be a result of users evolving their troop flow around the seats they're given. (I'm ever the optimist)

I still believe the Army, for the most part, lack an understanding of the scarcity of AT assets and I don't imagine many of them consider payload limitations, not least because majority of the RAF know nothing about them either! Add to that their primary task of fighting and supporting fighting and I can see why they may care little about all but the most emotive aspects of RAF performance - getting home - in the same way that I have interest in the performance of ships and tanks.

I suspected you and mgd had got the wrong end of the stick and I accept your gracious apology.

mystic_meg

2nd Jul 2008, 13:08

The use of the phrase 'their war' provides an interesting insight into the AT fleet mindset.

You either need a bigger brush, or some more tar :mad:

minigundiplomat

2nd Jul 2008, 13:10

I suspected you and mgd had got the wrong end of the stick and I accept your gracious apology.

You can kiss my rear. Gnd may have aplogised, but I know exactly what you meant, in which ever context you care to retrospectively frame it in.

14greens

2nd Jul 2008, 13:56

Minigundip

Nobody denies that fact that the rotary fleet and the poor sods that are in theatre do a totally different job, and nobody is saying that the the whole fatigue thing is the driver behind this, FWIW Tri* crews have been operating augmented crew when needed, by augmented that means an extra Capt and extra A eng, this can take the duty day to 24hrs

I think what are lot of people are trying to save is, how are you gonna feel after doing yr time in theatre doing what you do, then when ya get on yr flight home with 150 others it ends in a smoking tail in the undershoot because its the end of a 24 hr crew day, the push on itsish has kicked in, weather sh*t at destination, no approach aids! If it happened god forbid just think 150 or more in one go!!!! trust me that would change UK foreign policy.

the A/T fleet want to get the job done safely! and on time if at all possible, the crew duty thing is down to what the rules say, if a crew ignores it and an incident happens, nobody is going to say good job lads and lasses, its there for a reason.

The ideal for in theatre would be direct there and direct home, but then there is the decomp requirements!!! so thats why cyprus on way home, why Muscat! its Logistics simple answer, see how the trial goes, if it results in longer flight but better payload! then the decsion makers in power will decide on the priority

Brain Potter

2nd Jul 2008, 14:49

Gnd,

I would say that the AT people are being far from defensive. They have made a positive effort to find a way to improve the airbridge capacity within all the various constraints. They have taken a very inclusive step of publicly explaining their actions and reasoning, together with the positive and negative effects on the passengers. At the top of this thread there was some debate on feasibility of the quoted improvements in payload. Those who actually work in the arena of long-haul AT were all agreed that the figures quoted are realistic. Some contributors have given quite detailed explanations of fuel burn and tankering to those who persist in their scepticism.

Despite these explanations you were the one who called the plan "pooh" and "a sham with only crew benefit". This language is hardly consistent with a desire for reasoned engagement. I'm sorry you took such offence at being labelled an armchair expert, but what else can one say about statements such as "I am not convinced the maths works" as a response to figures that have been carefully calculated from the TriStar ODM, RTOTs and the Jeppesen Historical Database?

I continue to be puzzled over your interpretation of other peoples points of view. You dismissed this trial out-of-hand as a "sham" and yet I am the one who is displaying "venom" by advocating that those who understand TriStar performance have conceived this scheme purely for reasons of capacity and efficiency. As to your assertion that I "constantly go on the defensive rather than engage" - I would contest that I have offered logical reasons that support a new and innovative proposal. Yes, I did descend into sarcasm in the face of repeated inexpert comment but I cannot find any evidence of a reference to the regard in which you personally hold the AT crews.

I accept that those of you who have to use the airbridge regularly are going to find the extra journey time something of an aggravation. However, please bear in mind that it is DSCOM (tri-service) and PJHQ who actually have ownership of how the airbridge is constructed. 216 Sqn and 2 Gp have offered a method by which capacity could be increased - but it is the purple organizations that have actually decided they would prefer to have that extra capacity and are prepared to pay the price in increased journey time for the passengers. The crews themselves have no say as to the methodology, so you would be rather mis-directed if you give the crews: a hard time next time you delay me

It would appear that no matter what figures, expert opinion or official policies are offered in this forum there are always going to be sceptics who will continue believe that the AT organization is intransigent. I suggest that those contributors who are convinced that this trial will be too disruptive should, as a response to the announcement on the MoD website, put their views in writing to DSCOM. At least you will then feel that you have registered an official protest at the added inconvenience, rather than just have vented your spleen with defensive AT crews on here.

Gnd

2nd Jul 2008, 17:06

Brain,

Thank you and you are correct; I also took up the opposing argument without thinking. I will 'hold' my judgment and let events prove one of us correct. I am still sceptical about adding time to a long journey but if it is less in delays (at the point of entry!!) then there may be a payback - I don't know so shall stop spouting opinions.

I did not overly mean to 'diss' AT personnel and that was wrong but I do think we still pick the lesser arguments and should focus on the benefits 'v's profits - my opinion and not an intentional hit.

14greens

2nd Jul 2008, 17:15

as for taking on beer for the troops
The sqn did have a stock of free beer that was given by a couple of the makers of such beverage as a thank you to the troops coming home! This was offered out during the flight, and quite surprisingly declined by a high percentage.

Brain Potter

2nd Jul 2008, 17:27

Gnd,

I am glad that we managed to reach something of a peaceful conclusion. May your future journeys to and from theatre, by whatever route, be as painless as possible.

More importantly, I fervently hope that all of you engaged in the operational theatres stay safe whilst continuing to do the outstanding job that we all know you are doing.

Regards

BP

Green Flash

2nd Jul 2008, 17:35

and quite surprisingly declined by a high percentage.

Not by the Cloggy sat next to me!

collbar

3rd Jul 2008, 09:17

If memory serves me right C-17's have always stopped on the way in and out of theater, and that was waaaaay before tristars even knew where afganistan was!!! Give me C-17s anyday my last trip got us home in 11.20hrs! was most impressed.

Specaircrew

3rd Jul 2008, 10:44

Which is about the same time as a Tri* takes on its current routing (give or take a bit for head/tail wind). I know this because I've deadheaded back countless times and believe me it seems much longer when you've been on the aircraft for 24 hours!

FlapJackMuncher

3rd Jul 2008, 16:13

chumbleywarner

3rd Jul 2008, 18:54

It's a shame so many people are against what we on 216 Sqn are trying to achieve. It's only going to last till mid Aug. and then we revert back to the usual routing. I'll be honest we do struggle with aircraft and manning to try and do everything that is asked of us, but remember we are flying 25-30 year old aircraft, and i don't often see Tri*'s being operated by anybody else.

It this new routing does not work then people on higher pay scales than me will not go for it.
Also, some of us on the fleet have done other types before coming onto the Trimotor. I have very fond memories of sleeping on sofas etc at Y453 in my youth.
Oh, and listen to what 14 greens says, I know i do.
Fly safe to all those out in the big bad world. :):)

BubblesBarker

3rd Jul 2008, 21:42

Think about it chaps - it's not just 216 that have driven this. It's been modelled (ad infinitum). All stakeholders have been involved, and I mean all. CJO has given his support, as has CFA (Graeme Lamb, and if you want to argue with him, be my guest). They've both been personally briefed by ACDS (Log Ops) and PJHQ.

If it works - great!

If it doesn't - try again.

Sideshow Bob

3rd Jul 2008, 23:22

As one of the people involved in this, I thought I'd let you know why we are having to go down this route. We were told to plan to carry an extra 125 people per week. To achieve this we can no longer augment the crews (as discussed earlier in this thread), as there is now no seats available for crew rest. Any delay of more than 3 hours on the old route puts the crew out of crew duty (no more augmented 24 hr crew duty days). To use a more direct route would involve a slip in Eastern Europe, don't think that will ever happen. So to make sure the that the task can be carried out without augmenting, crews will be positioned around a route, using Seeb and Akrotiri (can't lift enough fuel out of Akrotiri and Kandahar to make it back to Akrotiri). Most crews will spend about two weeks at a time going around the route before getting back to the UK, mainly on camp at Akrotiri. Hope this answers a few questions.

14greens

4th Jul 2008, 00:34

Just to clear up what side show bob mentioned!

On order to Augment and increase to 24 hrs "fat Boy" seats were fitted in the jet to allow the augmentees to rest when not operating, the seats are as everybody is aware in the main cabin and not seperated in any way or even curtained off, the civvies when operating this way have crew beds in a separate part of the cabin (in the aft area of the cabin in the base of the tail plane for example) In the civvie world this is legislated!

Crews on 216 have been augmenting for a fair while now in order to achieve the task (not complaining) and not suggesting that we should have beds fitted (the C17 does have a bunk by the way) there could be better ways to seat augmented crews to allow better rest but thats not the issue!
This trial is not about crew rest or reducing the need for augmented crews it is purely about trying to increase the available payload in and out of theatre!

As for crews down route, 216 sqn will do what is required, being on base in Akt is no pain when compaired to where they could be and everybody knows that Block 101 is a palace when it could be a tent!
Lets hope the trial achieves its aim in getting more people home when they need to be

pigsinspace

4th Jul 2008, 05:46

And the mess is only a short stagger away.

m2mob

4th Jul 2008, 09:51

Flapjackmuncher

Akrotiri inflt is still alive and well - but it has been civilianized! If the guys and girls in Akrotiri read this - Thanks very much for looking after us:D (Albert) and the troops a couple of weeks ago (sorry about the 3 am starts).

M2MOB
To those in the sand pits - stay safe.
216 hope the trial goes well - see you in a few weeks.............again

BEagle

4th Jul 2008, 10:25

To use a more direct route would involve a slip in Eastern Europe, don't think that will ever happen.

And why on earth not?

flipster

4th Jul 2008, 11:50

Beags

Slip patterns, as you know, are very labour intensive (our Kabul Slip took 3-4 crews per ac) but the pattern gets ac and their load to the destination (and back) in an more efficient manner than 1 crew per ac 'down route'.

Back in 2002/3/4, we only acheived the Kabul Slip because we had no ac with which to do anything else, certainly very little meaningful training!

Despite this, HQ 2 Gp and PMA came up with a reduced crew-to-ac manning ratio (definitely for Hercs and, also I think, for other AT ac as well but can't be sure about Tri*) that meant slip patterns would almost definitely become a thing of the past, unless 'in extremis'.

Everyone could see this and even Harry Staish agreed by writing to 'Grope' about the folly of their ways - Harry even 'purloined' my original letter to my boss, who had already changed the signature block once!

dessert_flyer

4th Jul 2008, 12:08

I think the short answer to Beags question is the one that is causing this problem, Money and the lack of it! With more movers/engineers/crews, and modern Aircraft the problem would not be there. To hotac 200+ passengers in an eastern european country, when the a/c suffers a defect is an expensive buissness, far easier in tents etc in Akt and Seeb. And break down they do, (as i believe the latest has). So in conclusion, give us more money and the problem will go away.

Sideshow Bob

4th Jul 2008, 14:56

MarkD

4th Jul 2008, 16:20

I can understand that pre $100+/bbl oil the boom in the aviation sector meant civair mightn't exactly have been champing at the bit to offer capability to the mil sector but now that aircraft are being grounded maybe the cost/benefit to a civilian UK-Cyprus leg might have shifted, even when accounting for the extra personnel required to crossdeck from the civ to the mil aircraft and optimising the best use of differently sized aircraft.

After all, aren't military contracts about the only way you can justify subsidising the continued existence of G-reg airlines these days? They'd only be getting back what Gorn Broon is taking from their civilian customers...

mystic_meg

5th Jul 2008, 11:13

Land at Cyprus troops fed and take on board beer for the troops - or better still, let them go here: BBC NEWS | UK | Bar owner 'beaten by UK soldiers' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7490184.stm) After all, what could possibly go wrong, they are ambassadors for the UK aren't they?

BEagle

5th Jul 2008, 11:38

There's also the small matter of the last time a Tristar diverted into one of these countries, the Captain was marched away (some small problem with 200+ soldiers arriving unannounced) and the locals insisted on payment in cash, preferably Euros.

Not the first time a Captain has had to face the wrath of some local handling agent, due to the MoD failing to pay its bills on time......:ugh:

One co-pilot even received a somewhat threatening letter from American Express after the bean counters hadn't paid his corporate bill within the specified period. At my suggestion he then wrote to Amex to point out that this was a corporate card and to ask them to confirm that his personal credit rating wouldn't be affected in any way....:hmm:

glum

16th Jul 2008, 08:09

Is the trial working then?

Redcarpet

16th Jul 2008, 17:24

Never mind the trial for the TriStar airbridge, how will we all cope with the new FSI rules ;)

Uncle Ginsters

16th Jul 2008, 17:47

Luckily, it's just been delayed another month - apparently the correct paperwork was not ready!

The way it's seen by most my Sqn, with the new system you may as well not bother with an FSI and use a credit card for your spending - at least that way you get the benefits offered by most cards (airmiles etc) without needing to duplicate paperwork in the FSI and then on JPA.

Another JPA-induced increase in admin for the individual :sad:

Truckkie

17th Jul 2008, 06:30

Must be nice to fly a route task that requires an FSI!:ok:

My sqn have realised over the last 5 years that you don't need an FSI for 7 months a year in-theatre.

Perhaps the AT fleet just needs to realise that we are the only people still getting 'rates' (if thats what you can call the new allowances:mad:)

The rest of the Armed Forces put everything through JPA - getting an advance and claiming on your return isn't too much of a hardship is it?

Perhaps if you didn't stay downtown in Muscat when there is a perfectly acceptable RAF DOB then you wouldn't need an FSI at all:ok:

Good luck with the trial - see you all very soon (again):mad:

glum

17th Jul 2008, 07:56

"The rest of the Armed Forces put everything through JPA - getting an advance and claiming on your return isn't too much of a hardship is it?"

When you spend over six months a year away, it is a right royal pain yes! I'd rather not spend my limited time at home standing in a queue at allowances, or sat in front of a PC screen thanks.

If the system was user friendly and fast it might not be such a problem, but it isn't is it?

Anyway, back on thread, is the trial making things better for the punters / freight loads?

cheesedoff

17th Jul 2008, 09:27

With a little bit of luck, the trial might go some way to stopping or alleviating the 'Brize experience'

Anything to put our Service in a better light as seen by other Arms will be welcome.

Arty Fufkin

17th Jul 2008, 11:26

Truckie,

That's the attitude mate!
K:mad:bjockey!

FFP

17th Jul 2008, 23:28

Just erased my long-winded post that I'd written. Decided restraint is the best course.

I would suggest Truckkie that life is not as bad as you think it is, and one man's misfortune is another's good deal. What goes around comes around, except when you moan about it constantly, and then it doesn't come round at all.

Spoke to an Army guy last week at a DOB who'd just spent 15 mths in Baghdad and was makinh his way home minus a few friends. Spoke for 20 mins or so and didn't hear him bitch once during our chat, despite him having a much better case than you to do so. If he heard the child-like bickering from those who claim to be military personnel in the throws of combat operations, I think he'd hang his head in despair.

No matter how many operational dets I do,how many cans I'm allowed at the DOB, how much my rates get cut down route, how many F540's or aircraft visits I get given to do, how many times I get stuck away, I thank my lucky stars that the job I do is, in the grand scheme of things, very cushy.

It's all about perspective.....

Runaway Gun

18th Jul 2008, 16:17

Thanks FFP. Could be worse. I guess I could be flying with Americans... :)

Pure Pursuit

18th Jul 2008, 18:32

I flew out of Herrick 10/11 of this month & it was a nightmare. 27 hours in total with 12 hours on the tri* before getting off at the first planned stop!

Despite the crap trip, I have to say that the crews worked their bollox off to get us home (2 urgent casevacs onboard) and they impressed me immensely... shame about the airframe!

The casevacs were on their way home on a C17 with a superb team of medics, which was diverted quick time in order to minimise delay & as we watched them fly off, another Tri* appeared to take the R&R guys home (priority). I was not gutted at all, honest...:{

Original jet was fixed & the rest of us flew home with a row of seats each. We routed via Cyprus & the delay there was less that 2 hours. No issues with it at all. We beat the R&R guys home too, quite a nice feeling after the banter they threw at us as the walked out to the jet!;)

If this airbridge works, it will shorten the rip by 2 weeks later this year. If the trial fails, it will be at no fault of the aircrew & groundcrew.

216 Sqn,

thanks for the massive effort guys.