End of a distinguished career?

[dragon166]

Heard a sad rumour today - The Vickers funbus is to end passenger flights and become tanker only! Any gen? If true, then even more of the defence budget will have to be spent on leasing.

[D-IFF_ident]

But even less of the Defence Budget will have to be spent on keeping an obsolete airframe airworthy.

[Runaway Gun]

That's a pretty harsh response to passenger complaints about the inflight meals...

[Arty Fufkin]

All true I'm affraid. Concerns about airworthyness apparently. VC10 passenger A/T tasking will go to charter or 216 (in the unlikely event that a Tristar is available.)

[Finnpog]

This is perhaps an odd position to question - but will not chartering not provide a more modern and fuel efficient service to get pax between two points?

Will this not also strengthen the resilience of air refueling assests prior to the PFI (Pay For it Indefinitely) contract?

Those almost seem to be good things.

I suppose this all assists with THE war regardless of any future scenarios which might come our way.

[lastmanstanding]

Not over quite yet. To be reviewed next week. More a case of worries about lack of kit as opposed to "airworthiness".

As usual until final decision made there will be over-speculation and conjecture threads here:ugh:

[Stanley Eevil]

Not so much an `airworthiness` issue, but more to do with the lack of `safety` features fitted that are mandatory on commercial passenger carrying ac such as:
GPWS
FDR
CVR
Lack of emergency floor lighting to assist egress in dense smoke
etc etc...
Has been mitigated for at Platform Safety meetings previously, but it now appears that the `appetite for risk` at ministerial level has been withdrawn.
A crying shame really.

[Arty Fufkin]

Airworthyness, saftey, whatever......It's a shed.

[lastmanstanding]

Crying shame indeed. :(

[Rigga]

"...the lack of `safety` features fitted that are mandatory on commercial passenger carrying ac such as:
GPWS
FDR
CVR
Lack of emergency floor lighting to assist egress in dense smoke
etc etc..."

That list would put any civil aircraft off line for quite some time - and looks and sounds like a lack of "airworthiness" to me! Just like the lack of hush kits stops them from using many civil airports.

And most of those items are also required on freighters too!

Seems like the long term lack of investment in modern flying equipment and standards has finally caught up with the old dears.

[Could be the last?]

If it's not fit to fly, then it shouldn't regardless of role!:ok:

[vecvechookattack]

It is fit to fly but it would appear that it does not meet civilian Passenger carrying regs. A bit of a shame but try and imagine the outcry should the funbus suffer a similar fate as the 737 at Manchester Airport....Not nice and consequently the MOD cannot afford the risk to our servicemen.

[minigundiplomat]

Airworthyness, saftey, whatever......It's a shed.


Seconded. It has been a shed for a number of years.

[brit bus driver]

At last!!

Absolute travesty that the thing was being used to haul pax....110(ish) pax for a fuel burn of 7T an hour and could just about reach the east coast of N America.

Leasing may be cheaper, but surely there must now be a case for dry (or perhaps moist) leasing some 330s to backfill the AT. After all, we are talking another 5 years before FSTA is online. 330 course = 3 months. IOC by late summer...job done.:hmm:

[tommee_hawk]

She might be long in the tooth, but she gets to the US a lot faster than a Herc and a lot more reliably than a 3*.

To know her (properly) is to love her......

[acmech1954]

Having been in the biggest hangar in Oxfordshire for some years in the mid 80s, my opinion of the 'funbus' was well past its prime then. The 'C' was under used and under funded, and falling to bits, the spares situation was critical and robbing was daily musical parts. Problems reported were diluted at each upward step of the chain so by the time it got to the people at the top of the tree, the VC10 had no problems!!
BA must have been over joyed when the MoD said that they would BUY all their old VC10s that they had lying about waiting to be scrapped, I would think that the person who offered them that still has a strained wrist from that handshake. Leaving them parked up for a few years was a good idea , gave the airframes time to continue rotting away before they got converted.
The cost of refurbishment and conversion of the 'K's must have been astronomic and only partial, as the amount of corrosion that was found on primary and secondary structures during the first majors was to prove.
The supply system did not help at all. We would order short supply items for green line entries, for them to be provisioned for the next servicing, usually giving them 12 months to source the spares, but after 6 months if spares were not chased they got cancelled, so officially we had no spares problem, but we did have 4 or 5 grounded jets awaiting servicing, to pick a bit from, if they were all not robbed already.
It got to the stage where even a minor could take months instead of weeks and the majors where a joke. Manpower was also an issue, when I arrived I had 15 Cpl's and below when I escaped the madhouse 3 1/2 years later, I had 6, and we were only part of a whole team.
When aircraft finally got released back to the sguadrons they were handed 2 700s, 1 for every day use and 1 for green lines. I vowed then that I would never fly on a VC10 from then on, and I never have.

Would have been better spending the money updating the Victor :ok:

[On_The_Top_Bunk]

She might be long in the tooth, but she gets to the US a lot faster than a Herc and a lot more reliably than a 3*.

To know her (properly) is to love her......

Just let go. It's a machine. Sadly falling to bits.

[BEagle]

Someone needs to get a sense of proportion. It wasn't that long ago that the FunBus was carrying royalty around the world....

So it doesn't meet current EASA passenger carrying requirements. But don't forget those assume a 2 person flight deck, whereas the FunBus still carries a couple of cushion-dampeners on the flight deck. The navigator, in terminal areas, effectively becomes a food-powered GPWS, for instance.

One concern I always had was at the woeful weather radar. That really isn't good enough for the 21st century; many of us experienced lightning strikes with no threats showing on the weather radar, for example.

The huggy-fluffies would probably take a dim view of the passengers sharing the same compartment as palletised freight, but for heaven's sake, flying passengers in a C-130 is infinitely more hazardous than in the VC10.

[Arty Fufkin]

Beagle, are you serious? A navigator is not a substitute for EGPWS, not even slightly. Let it continue as a tanker, a job for which it is more suited. It's just a shame they scrapped all those Ks!!

[acmech1954]

Beagle-I will admit that the 'C's were in better condition than the 'K's but there were still issues that you would never has seen unless you were with us on the shop floor. The main problem was the age of the Aluminum used for spars and primary structure and not a fatigue problem.
Generally the frames that carried HRH would have been the freshest off a major, for obvious reasons, with all lifed items replaced at around half life (IIRC) as required, so they would be flying in the best frame available.
I would imagine that the amount of money spent on that fleet in the 10 years after I left far out weighed it's value. The hangar at Saints supposably built for the majors, the centre wing box rebuilds plus all the other work that should not have been required from a recently 'refurbished ' aircraft.

[Widger]

I stand to be corrected but they are also non-RVSM as well which causes issues in congested airspace above FL290 as well.

[BEagle]

Yes, I had many hours looking at the state of the aircraft at Scrapheap Challenge St. Athan as well as a good look at the 'refurbishment' of the ex-ba Supers into K4s at Filton!

The metallurgical issues were explained at Wyton during a FSTA meeting and the imperative that FSTA must not be delayed was clearly explained to all industry participants. But of course, since then, FSTA has slipped by many years.....

Although some measures were taken to reduce cyclic fatigue (such as changes to the aileron upset regime) and a revised 'allowable flight envelope' which was extraordinarily punitive for the K2, anno domini effects on the structure were unlikely to become any easier.

However, if there are any concerns that the structural integrity is now too great a risk for passenger flying (which frankly I doubt), then the same risk applies to the aircraft flying at all!

And Arty Fufkin, a good navigator is certainly an effective alternative to a robot designed to stop incompetent 2-person airliner-drivers from ramming the ground.

Widger, wrong indeed. The VC10 and VC10K are most certainly RVSM-compliant. When the revised altimetry system was fitted, every single VC10K2, K3 and K4 flew Strumble HMU runs to achieve RVSM compliance approval and the VC10C1K was given fleet approval after a few sample aircraft achieved virtually identical results.

[12 twists per inch]

How I just love people harking on about how things were 20 odd years ago and then using supposition to add their tuppence to the current state of things. If you’re not currently involved, a 20 year old anecdote is not really relevant today.

At the start of the 90's, the RAF acknowledged there was a problem with the VC10 and the major maintenance was taken over by RAF Abingdon and eventually RAF (DARA) St Athan and a whole lot of money was thrown at the jet. This improved the state of the aircraft immensely and a huge amount of time, effort and money was spent addressing the corrosion issue acmech 1957 alluded to. Whatever the argument about cost, the simple fact is the government would not pay to replace the aircraft.

Widger - The aircraft is RVSM compliant

I love my VC10 - even if I now become a freight dog!

[P6 Driver]

All good things come to and end, whether VC10's or Vulcans...

Remember the good times and move on.

[Arty Fufkin]

Beagle, sorry chap, but your disdain of the EGPWS "robot" and faith in "navigators" is woefully misplaced. The FAA mandated Terrain Awareness and Alerting Systems (TAWS) in 1997 following a crash (admittedly, of a 2 man flightdecked aircraft) in Columbia. Since than, there have been no CFIT accidents involving aircraft fitted with TAWS. None. How many 3 or 4 man flightdecked aircraft have bimbled into mountains in the mean time? I can't say for sure, but I bet it's more than none! Even a great navigator (and all things are relative here) can have bad days, "robots" do not (at least not with a greater likelyhood of 10 to the -6.)
The VC10 has no FDR, no CVR and an escape slide system that would give today's certification authorites a heart attack. It does not meet modern certification requirements and should not be flying pax around just because it happens to be a state aircraft. All this is aside from it's airworthiness from an engineering standpoint.
Just a personal opinion though.

[BEagle]

The VC10 has no FDR, no CVR and an escape slide system that would give today's certification authorites a heart attack. It does not meet modern certification requirements and should not be flying pax around just because it happens to be a state aircraft.

Whereas the C-130 has no passenger seats which would meet EU-OPS requirements, no passenger oxygen, nowhere even to wash your hands after using the 'facilities'.......

Yes, the VC10 is well overdue for replacement. But has passenger carrying in the C-130 (apart from half-one-way trips for meat bombs) been stopped as well?

What a shame the RAF didn't take up the offer of a couple of dozen A310MRTTs when they were on offer about 20 years ago......

[Gainesy]

a 20 year old anecdote is not really relevant today.

At the start of the 90's

Sorry 12 Twists, really couldn't resist it.:)

[ZH875]

Whereas the C-130 has no passenger seats which would meet EU-OPS requirements, no passenger oxygen,

Never looked inside a J then Beagle, plenty of Emergency O2 systems for the passengers sitting on their, admittedly, excuse for a seat.

[2footlong]

I haven’t said this very often, but I have to agree with Beagle. The VC 10 is a tremendous aircraft, put the sentimentality aside, four eating, breathing aircrew on the flight deck that can and are encouraged to contribute in all situations along with incredible operating procedures, without being too restrictive, and training make it truly a flexible and great aircraft. It will indeed be a very sad day for the Air Force and aviation in general when the mighty 10 flies no more.



4 x Crew = 4 x Airmanship. 2 x Crew and some boxes… I don’t think so.

[Pedalz]

One concern I always had was at the woeful weather radar. That really isn't good enough for the 21st century; many of us experienced lightning strikes with no threats showing on the weather radar, for example.


The same can happen with these new "software enhanced" radars, it's all in the interpretation and experience.

Being from down under, the VC-10's "footprint" never ceased to amaze me on my visits to family near Brize. Long live the 10, even if on the ground.

[Brain Potter]

Yes, the VC10 is obsolete and expensive-to-run as a transport aircraft. There is no doubt that she would have been retired years ago if AT was her only purpose. However, the aircraft is the backbone of the UK's AAR capability and for several years now it only really performed the AT role because it was already in the inventory and it could. A fleet of AAR aircraft is a capability that is vital when needed, but sits around doing very little when not engaged in ongoing operations. Utilization of the VC10 in the AT role at least allowed the RAF to keep the axe away from the tanker fleet and the dreaded 'capability holiday'. I'm sure that the real impact of the end of VC10 AT will be a reduction in the RAF's ability to generate tankers if required. As this will not affect the current war then there is an obvious case for slicing the capability, but this moves the UK forces one step closer to being configured only for Afghanistan.

As for the safety issue, the VC10 has a quite remarkable record in 40-plus years sevice as a military transport aircraft. In that time her and her crews haven't come close to killing anyone. Which is more than can be said for some of their close neighbours.

[Uncle Ginsters]

Well, she's had a long and distinguished service in the pax role.

What isn't yet clear is the true reasoning.

Is this decision a precursor to scrapping the C1Ks to save money?

If it's airworthiness or equipment as has been grasped by some on here, then why is it OK to fly a Tanker (with 20-odd seats too) in GA airspace without that kit, but not the pax jets - are our crews that expendable?

My guess is the former is true - when the appropriate sums are added up, charters are cheaper than the C1K fleet.

[Art Field]

The possible retirement of the dear old VC10 as a people mover once again brings up the two man crewing debate. Technology has provided us with improved collision warning, better on board planning and all knowing receivers but it can not replace a sick or unable to cope co-pilot. I can think of a significant number of occasions when a co has just stopped functioning when under pressure and a rear crew member has had to provide back-up. Statistically, an insignificant event but not insignificant when it happens to you and definitely a flight safety hazard.

[isaneng]

A-F

Not sure how you think this brings up the 2 man flightdeck discussion again? I've seen young/inexperienced copilots struggle in high workload conditions, but I seem to recall I did the same at times, until I stopped being young/inexperienced (ok, still happens at times...). And with the ergonomic design of modern aircraft, and the move, with modern fms, to 'operating' rather than pure 'piloting', our 2 man flightdecks seem to have proven more than capable. And yes, I've got VC10 time in the book, but we always preferred tanking to SLF anyway!

[Rigga]

Brain Potter:
"As for the safety issue, the VC10 has a quite remarkable record in 40-plus years sevice as a military transport aircraft. In that time her and her crews haven't come close to killing anyone. Which is more than can be said for some of their close neighbours."


Just substitute "VC10" for "Nimrod" in there and.....

[brit bus driver]

Art Field

Technology has provided us with improved collision warning, better on board planning and all knowing receivers but it can not replace a sick or unable to cope co-pilot.

Oh FFS....so the nav steps in and saves the day...

Or maybe the skipper - or the co if the situation is reversed - simply lands the aircraft at the nearest suitable. If the co cannot cope, chop him/her on the OCU.

We went through the machinations(sp?) of the appropriate guys/gals to send to the 2-man flt decks out of METS and the higher achievers were deemed to be the better candidates. As it happens, the legacy platforms produced more issues than the modern platforms; candidates not up to the job, or having to deal with 3 egos rather than one...discuss..

I beggar anyone to justify the use of the VC10 in a passenger-carrying role in the modern Royal Air Force. You cannot. In terms of manpower (let's have a loadie, or was it a steward, on the headset calling abort duringthe take-off roll), efficiency (see my earlier post) or cost savings (annual VC10 maintenance budget is how many millions?) the arguments simply do not stack up.

Time to put away the rose-tinted spectacles of yesteryear and embrace today's challenge: namely, equipping an organic AT fleet rather than simply chartering everything.

[NutLoose]

Beagle, are you serious? A navigator is not a substitute for EGPWS, not even slightly. Let it continue as a tanker, a job for which it is more suited. It's just a shame they scrapped all those Ks!!

I thought the Nav was there to counteract the weight of the Airloadmaster down the back end............

When I came off the in the late 80's we were seriously struggling for spares them, then the place, the name of which escapes me, burnt down which held a lot of the spares.
So we had to rob the hulks at Abingdon, what a place to store them, not exactly Arizona is it.. then they put them in bags with no dehumidifiers, ( though I believe one Engineering officer kept pushing it and told them they needed them) that helps all that moisture in, I was even more amazed when they decided to refurb them and flew them out of there having seen the spars sitting in their own swimming pools........... Jeez those crew earned their money...............

One of the best aircraft I ever worked on and was always a pleasure to fly in......... but they must be seriously suffering these days, fuel consumption, noise, lack of budget and age...

I still cannot see why the RAF do not simply lease some of the 737-900's that are parked up at Lasham from airlines that have gone bust in the short term.... I just hope some of the 10's find a loving home other than a scrapyard.

[Blighter Pilot]

Well if the VC10 is no longer fit for pax duties then we must also apply the same to the C130 fleet.

That will cause a few issues in-theatre and around the world.:mad:

[Art Field]

Just a word to explain what I said about co-pilot inability. This was extreme situations when the co, one with severe migraine and others who just shut down completely, were of no use at all. Very rare I admit but one hell of an one arm paper hangers game if it happens on a busy tanker sortie. Yes some of them should have gone at the OCU stage but!!!.

[Nomorefreetime]

C130 flights in Ops work to a different rule book, When working in the routine role, there is control of who actually is allowed on them.
VC10 carries Families, Civilians, thats where the policy makers are getting cold feet. As a kid growing up a mile from LHR I have memories of the BOAC 10's flying over my house, long before the thought of working with them came along. Its a shame that they are coming to the end of their life.
Gate Guard for Brize. A 10 would look great on the sports pitch opposite MT.

[VinRouge]

Beags,

The J has pax oxy modules.

Just because it is a smelly hercules dont discount it. I would rather risk my bacon on albert than the vickers funbus any day as pax.

[fastener]

I worked on the VC 10 many years ago. They were dogs then fer christ sake! Can't imagine what they're like now. There are much cheaper to operate types now available that would get you to where you want to go with the added advantage that you would not have to go to museums to get spares and you could spend less time on the ground without replacing half of the airframe every C check. You could also take off without setting off every car alarm in a 20 mile radius of the runway. Imagine having a type rating on an aircraft still in production? Just counting the number of inflight meals eaten by the 2 spare seat cushion heaters in the flight deck would save the MOD enough to buy at least one A330!
I don't think even Tefal would be interested in buying the old airframes.
Sorry but they have had their time. Hell, they were past it years ago.

[SRENNAPS]

I first flew on a VC10 in 1968 when my dad was posted out to Penang. 10 years later I was working on them as a young JT engineman.

I have no idea how many hours I have spent flying in them but with all my air teats in that first 3 years and all my subsequent detachments in the Tonka world it must be loads.

I have fond memories of the beautiful aircraft and it is a shame that it is on the way out. But sadly it is time.

[FrustratedFormerFlie]

A glorious aircraft of which I have fond memories up front and down the back. I guess we all hit our retirement date, but I hope somebody will feel as sad for me as I shall feel for the 10

[top_cover]

If I understand this correctly, it is only losing its pax role, something which was always going to happen soon. The sound of the vickers 'whisper Jet' will still be heard over the Oxfordshire countryside for a couple more years, something to keep all its fans happy.
Have spent many a happy hour in the aforementioned aircraft, but everybody knows its days are numbered. It is just too expensive to run, and in an era where everything is being cut to the bone, it was inevitably going to be a casualty. I am quite surprised that we haven't gone for the capability holiday and retired the old girl completely, although i dare say there is time for that.
For now, I still love seeing it around the skies, it looks good and sounds good but costs that bit too much.

TC

[Pete268]

As a very young Air Cadet many years ago, I had my first ever flight in a VC10. I was quite surprised on subsequent flights with differing airlines to find their seats were the wrong way round!! I didn't realise it was just the RAF who had people sitting facing the blunt end.

As others have said, its sad to see the old girl not carrying pax to exotic locations anymore (Belize and Cyprus twice in my case) but I suppose old age comes to us all. I hope they continue to fly in the very necessary in flight refuelling role, but I suppose days are numbered in that role as well.

Lets just hope that at least one of the RAF's pax carrying variety is preserved somewhere where future generations can admire her in all her glory.

Pete

[NoFaultFound]

All very sad, but at least I will have time for compulsory PT.......... and after all these years I even know what Compulsory means without looking it up :hmm::rolleyes:

NFF :ugh:

[octavian]

Ah, the big white gozomebird. Leaving those far flung outposts but still looking back at them. Bliss.

[BEagle]

Although the FunBus is indeed 'somdeel stape in age', as its birth contemporary Geoffrey Chaucer might well have observed, it is not the fact that the aircraft is being retired which grates, it is the fact that a 4-person flight deck aircraft flown professionally and safely is now being regulated by cover-my-arse idiots as though it was some bottom-feeders' lo-co 737 being flown by the cheapest crew who can be dredged out of the gutters of the airline world.

Sure it's an old jet well overdue for replacement. If this policy is some clever Airships' ploy to protect the FSTA and A400M programmes, there might be some merit in it. But I fear that 'clever Airship' is nowadays an oxymoron....

[tommee_hawk]

NFF,

Don't knock compulsory PT - dynamic, short-notice, medium-term asset management decisions like that are exactly the kind of go-getting, get it done spirit on which careers are built ..... :=

I applaud the encouragement of under-used gymnasium, err....usage.:D Just don't go breaking yourself....:ugh:

[Fareastdriver]

Sure it's an old jet well overdue for replacement.

Anybody know how many USAF KC 135s are still soldiering on?

[Nomorefreetime]

Ref the KC-135's. If you have ever been to Tinker AFB and look into the refurb hangers. To see a bare metal KC-135 awaiting a complete make over including new engines, is a sight worth seeing. And its not only one aircraft. Not knowing what goes on in Cambridge, when was the last time any of our AT got that treatment.
Biggest differance is the US will spend the money to get the most out of their A/C (C-5M, B-52H)

[kenparry]

it is the fact that a 4-person flight deck aircraft flown professionally and safely

Usually, yes. But there was the one many years ago that became very lost going towards Washington DC, through a nav error I believe, and allegedly was hundreds of mile off track.

[Jhieminga]

kenparry, do you mean this one (http://www.vc10.net/History/incidents_and_accidents.html#Navigation_error_over_the_North _Atlantic)?

[tommee_hawk]

But there was the one many years ago that became very lost going towards Washington DC, through a nav error I believe, and allegedly was hundreds of mile off track.

Kenparry,

It's a bit of a stretch to find a 40 plus year old major navigation screw-up, then compare it to current VC10 ops - but maybe that's not what you're trying to suggest....?

While everyone can make mistakes, surely it's an indication of the continued professional, safe operation of the VC10's 4-man cockpit that the only VC10 story like this is the thick end of 50 years old?:)

[orgASMic]

At the risk of getting back to the thread, isn't the fact that the incident was so long ago part of the issue? We still have these venerable old birds on our books.

Anyway, my understanding is that, by the time the nav had done his sums, the star shot told you where you had been half an hour ago. Plenty of time to stray off track in the meantime.

Is the same airframe still in service? That might shed light on the scale of the age problem.

[radio-silent]

I think the VC10 will soon continue to fly it's core mission of providing worldwide AT & AAR until a phased introduction of the A330 FSTA begins in 2011.

I don't blame the minister for making the instant decision he felt he had to, given the evidence he had at the time. 'Covering his six maybe', but ultimately it was the safest option until a review could be made.

Clearly the VC10 will not be the only ac in the military inventory to be reviewed in the wake of the Nimrod enquiry (standby C130K fleet). It is slightly disappointing to go from being OK to 'no passenger flying' overnight, but once presented with the evidence that has been gathered in response to this, I'd expect a favourable decision when weighing up the true risk involved in VC10 AT ops.

It seems that the worry here is more the risk to 'civilian pax' carried i.e. family movements (AKT schedule), fun flights, indulgees, charity event flights etc.

Cost and age aside, it's quite likely (in my opinion) that an agreement will soon be reached to continue it's AT missions for military personnel only; which is of course the majority of the AT task.

Let's wait and see. Maybe the sudden and large bill for charter will give ministers a shock in itself!

Personally, I think that the 'fail safe' fatigue life design of the VC10 together with it's excellent safety record and proven operating procedures make it a far safer platform than most outsiders might presume. Long live the VC10.

[radio-silent]

Fair point. Post edited.

[tucumseh]

Clearly the VC10 will not be the only ac in the military inventory to be reviewed in the wake of the Nimrod enquiry (standby C130K fleet).

If I remember correctly, the infamous QinetiQ Nimrod report made it clear that similar problems in VC10 were discovered before Nimrod - around 1996 I think. Action was taken on VC10, but not Nimrod.

Perhaps this explains the "early" decision - other fleets may take longer but information on VC10 is reasonably up to date. I'd say, well done to that project team. Difficult decision.

[vecvechookattack]

The UK Ministry of Defence has clarified its position with regard to the restrictions imposed on some passenger operations with the Royal Air Force's Vickers VC10s, and says the type "remains safe to fly".
"Passengers are still being flown on VC10s on defence business, including pre-deployment exercises, such as to Kenya," the MoD says.
Updating an earlier statement in which it had said that all passenger-carrying activities with the almost 50-year-old type had been halted because of an ongoing airworthiness review, it now says: "We have temporarily stopped using VC10s for a small number of flights while we review the basis on which passengers fly on the aircraft in roles equivalent to commercial flights."

It adds: "The VC10 remains safe to fly, and continues to do so in support of operations over Afghanistan, with air-to-air refuelling of RAF [Panavia] Tornado GR4s and other coalition aircraft on request."

[Blue Bottle]

seems it's not good enough to carry woman and children to Cyprus anymore then. But safe enough for Jo Pongo to go to Kenya ?
So if its safe why not carry familes ?

[indie cent]

Is the VC10 safe?

It seems...

Not quite safe enough for families and civilians, but absolutely fine for aircrew and serving personnel.

Nice.

[vecvechookattack]

It is safe to fly military passengers but not safe to meet civilian passenger regulations.

[Ninj43]

So what does that mean in reality? What is the '10 going to fulfill in the AT role? Trails with servicemen to/from a Tornado det?

Is this purely a restriction to carrying civilians? Or any pax other than GEs/support crew.

[acmech1954]

After surviving for twice as long as it's design life, it is a tribute to the origonal design and strength, but eventually there has got to be some reservations about it's stuctural integrity. So instead of flying civilians, where if an 'incident' were to occur, the outcry and compensation claims would be a serious black mark, just use it for military purposes where the 'compo' claims would be limited by MoD 'rules'.

Just as a matter of interest, when was the last loss of a 'Transport Command' aircraft with family/civilian passengers on board ?

[Shagmiester7]

The VC10 is an outstanding aircraft, serving the armed forces to the very best of her abillity but hey, if this aircraft is no longer safe for what ever reason, then stop flying it NOW! :ok:

[vecvechookattack]

Not at all. It is perfectly safe for flying servicemen but it doesn't adhere to civilian passenger regulations. It complies fully with Military passenger flying regulations.

[isaneng]

Is it not all a question of degree of risk? The aircraft is perfectly safe. In fact it's combination of structural integrity and its primary/secondary flying controls interoperation and power supplies are second to none. What it lacks is the safety features deemed necessary in a modern aircraft - floor lighting as an example. In the same way that modern cars all have airbags for instance, would you let your family go for a trip in a car that didn't have them? I suspect most of us would, acknowledging that the risk factor increase is limited. The military accepts the increased risk factor, in the same way that it accepts that troops in the back of a four tonner have no seat belts or airbags. Please don't think the old girl is unsafe, in many ways she is better off than many newer aircraft!

[Chris Griffin]

Getting more than a little fed up with sofa experts pontificating about whether the old girl is airworthy or not.

The issue is apparently regulatory not safety.

I have an old stude on the fleet who says it is all about strip lighting and gpws for carrying civilian pax rather than the airworthiness of the aircraft.

Mil pax can be dispensated against - civvies are a little more difficult in the post Nimrod climate.

If all you armchair experts can come up with is a nav error in the last 50 yrs of operating the VC10 then that surely says something for the safety record of the old girl.

The other question is why are you all so keen to see an aircraft and Sqn which picks up tasks from a lot of the newer fleets due serviceability talked down? From what I understand, the VC10, despite her age, picks up unfulfilled tasking from the quarter past 2's and the skips on a regular basis.

There are undoubtedly a great deal of our compatriots who are more than a little worried about job security, how about a little respect for them and a little recognition for a job well done in the current climate.

Some of you should be ashamed of yourselves.

Respond if you must, I wont be reading. Out.

[SRENNAPS]

I’d fly in her tomorrow if I had the chance. Without any hesitation.

Maybe, just maybe, somebody here, on this site, could organise one last flight for me. After 30 years in, worked on the aircraft, and flown lots, it would be a real treat......just asking??

[D-IFF_ident]

I'm a little confused by the "If it's not safe enough for 'women and children' then it's not safe enough for our servicemen" argument.

Where would you draw the line? E.g. Indulgence pax are not allowed to travel when their are certain classes of DAC onboard, but duty pax are. Should the RAF find a way of remotely controlling ac carrying DAC and not putting any crew or duty pax on?

[top_cover]

So what we are saying is that the fun bus is giving up the Akrotiri Schedule? Something it has had off and on for a while, sharing it with the Tri motor and various other airlines. No change then, 101 will go on as before flying around the world safely but at a huge cost per 'military' passenger and per ton of fuel dispensed. It should of been replaced years ago, not on safety grounds but on the fact that it is an inefficient and expensive asset. I for one would certainly fly in the old girl, i have no worries at all about its safety, just reservations about how much it costs, and its not cheap!

[Tom Laxey]

Could someone who has flown on the VC-10s give a quick summary of the differences that a passenger would notice?

I've read about the strip lighting .. but what about the level of noise, and the room, etc. In what ways is it different from the Boeings and Airbus today?


thanks

[Pete268]

(Quote)Could someone who has flown on the VC-10s give a quick summary of the differences that a passenger would notice?(/Quote)

Well, as a former pax, the fact you sit facing the blunt end is certainly something the pax should notice (unless they imbibed in rather too much kockers in Cyprus).

Pete

[Dr Schlong]

So, to paraphrase some writer, are the reports of the VC10's demise an exaggeration?

[NoFaultFound]

Very much so:ok:

[Redcarpet]

Enough of the sentimentality ladies. If it is not fit to fly under current civilian regulations then it is probably not fit to fly our troops around the world. What would Mrs Pongo say if a jet stoofed in? 'Oh well, it's alright, it was cleared to fly military pax!'
I doubt it. Get a grip and wake up to the fact that this edition of scrap heap challenge is actually quite serious.

[Fareastdriver]

Redcarpet

If you ever go to China, make sure you never step into a spanking brand new Boeing or Airbus that is operated by a Chinese internal airline. They are not required to have everything that we are talking about. The lack of aisle lights etc, would obviously terrify you.