TriStars to fly again?

[BEagle]

Tempus Applied Solutions has finalised its acquisition of the TriStars held in storage at Bruntingthorpe - see: https://www.tempus-as.com/media-press-release-L1011.php

:hmm:

[ShyTorque]

Tempus Applied Solutions has finalised its acquisition of the TriStars held in storage at Bruntingthorpe - see: https://www.tempus-as.com/media-press-release-L1011.php

:hmm:

This is good to read especially as it seems to have taken an extremely long time. Every time I flew over Bruntingthorpe in the last year or so I thought the deal must have fallen through.

[NutLoose]

Cool, it might be cheaper for the RAF to contract to use them instead of the voyagers, wouldn't that be ironic.

[Brian W May]

Still my favourite aircraft after all these years (mil and civ).

[cargosales]

Just reading the press release from Tempus (see post #1) about this ..

Am I being thick or can someone who understands more than I about corporate purchases explain something please. Who exactly is the Seller (presumably MoD?) of these a/c and if that's right, why are they being paid with Tempus shares, not cash?

CS

[Onceapilot]

Be good to see the L1011 operating again but I won't hold my breath. Always thought they'd be difficult to service as they became older.
Anyone know if the autoland in those is disabled?

Guess they might possibly do a bit of AAR for a US contract? Still think most likely they will be scrapped at Bruntingthorpe. :sad:
Autoland was an integrated subsystem in the APFDS. Was never "disabled".

OAP

[eckhard]

411A must be smiling!

[Onceapilot]

411A must be smiling!

Yes, I hope! :ok: However, capable though the TriStar K/KC tanker is, I think that these airframes are now in the hands of minimal capital operators. The chances that they will land a contract sufficient to support their further use sound slim to me..?

OAP

[Basil]

Guess they might possibly do a bit of AAR for a US contract? Still think most likely they will be scrapped at Bruntingthorpe. :sad:
Autoland was an integrated subsystem in the APFDS. Was never "disabled".

OAP
There was a little misunderstanding by the RAF about how to use the L1011 autoland resulting in a hard landing and, ISTR, that some restrictions on it's use were (unnecessarily) introduced.

[Rhino power]

Just reading the press release from Tempus (see post #1) about this ..

Am I being thick or can someone who understands more than I about corporate purchases explain something please. Who exactly is the Seller (presumably MoD?) of these a/c and if that's right, why are they being paid with Tempus shares, not cash?

CS

ME Aviation Services own them, nothing to do with the MOD, they divested themselves of them in 2014.

-RP

[Onceapilot]

There was a little misunderstanding by the RAF about how to use the L1011 autoland resulting in a hard landing and, ISTR, that some restrictions on it's use were (unnecessarily) introduced.

Basil, incorrect handling of the APFDS caused an accident in the early days of RAF TriStar operation. The accident probably tainted the view of Autoland and, crews were not kept qualified for full A/L use. The Autoland system was used for ILS approaches but, CAT1 limits were used with manual landing. This was purely a restriction applied by higher command.

OAP

[Fareastdriver]

This was purely a restriction applied by higher command.

In 1971 a Royal Air Force Puma had the captains cockpit door fall off whilst returning to Odiham. There was no reason found except the suspicion that the jettison system may have been fiddled with whilst the aircraft was being looked after by army personnel beforehand. As a result of this it was decreed that the cockpit doors be locked permanently and the crew would have to crawl through the cabin to get to the cockpit. Locking the doors would have made no difference to the result if the initial suspicions were correct.

In 1978 a civil Puma had the pilot's door fall off as a result of a massive nav bag being jammed between the seat and the door which migrated forward and pushed the jettison handle and released the door.

Since then Pumas of various marks have flown millions of hours around the world with unlocked doors that have been used for what they were designed for; to enable the pilots to enter the cockpit.

Except the Royal Air Force, who still fly around with their doors locked.

[Brian W May]

Cool, it might be cheaper for the RAF to contract to use them instead of the voyagers, wouldn't that be ironic.


Despite SnottyGilbert response. yes it would.

When you look at the costs of Voyager, you've got to wonder if the projected costs for Tristar wouldn't have been much cheaper.

At least its AAR worked . . .

[RAFEngO74to09]

Just reading the press release from Tempus (see post #1) about this ..

Am I being thick or can someone who understands more than I about corporate purchases explain something please. Who exactly is the Seller (presumably MoD?) of these a/c and if that's right, why are they being paid with Tempus shares, not cash?

CS

The seller was ME Aviation Services and the buyer was Tempus Applied Solutions Holding Inc. Tempus is an US Over The Counter (OTC) "Penny Stock" (definition: price less than $5) company - ticker symbol TMPS. OTC stocks are public companies with limited cash resources. They create shares which can be used to purchase assets and to trade publicly.

Since immigrating to the USA, I've self-taught myself to be a top-tier penny stock trader - anyone with national / theatre level ops room experience who can monitor a wide range and enormous volume of screen presented data, spot changes instantly and make mental calculations and decisions rapidly can be very good at it - so I was very interested in this PR.

Shares are often used to complete acquisitions with the seller getting a discounted price [although that didn't happen in this case]. Then, using a combination of PRs and "other means" [which I won't give away here], stocks get "run up" periodically. Members of the public see the move and buy shares at ever increasing prices propelling the price even higher. Along the way, the recipient of the shares [the seller of the Tristars in this instance] can sell the shares and bank a profit if they wish.

Experienced penny stock traders like me will aim to piggy back this move and then sell before the "sell off" - which can be by stealth on the much higher ask / offer price or dramatic and obvious on the lower bid price. Whoever is still holding the shares when the music stops becomes a "bag holder" and has to wait for the price to go higher than the price they bought at while the aircraft seller and the top traders walk away with a nice profit.

Per the 12 March 2018 PR, the aircraft were acquired for 6.730769 M common shares (ie tradable immediately with no time embargo) at a value of $0.52 per share [so for a notional $3.5M]. The seller only gets $3.5M if they wait for share price to get to $0.52 [or much more if they wait for it to go much higher - which is likely].

Also, per the same PR, storage costs between the start of negotiations and completion of the purchase after inspections etc were paid for with 833K shares at a share value $0.18 [$150K].

On the day of the PR, the share price had already been "moved" to $0.1820 and traded 903,379 shares [300 x the previous day's volume] in the range $0.1820 > $0.3799.

On the next day, a further 407,185 shares were traded in the range $0.3499 > $0.177 - so more than enough volume for the seller to offload all 833K shares for considerably more than $0.18 and for penny stock traders to get in on the action as well for up to a 110% profit in minutes / hours.

I saw this move on my scanner but didn't buy in because my area of expertise is in the $0.0001 > $0.0050 range where it is much easier to make greater profits more quickly. However, I did then see the original purchase deal and - noting that the price has never been up to $0.52 - I'm now starting to "scale in" with some small buys around $0.2 as impatient bag holders from 12/13 March sell for a loss.

At some point, the company will obviously be trying to get a USN AAR contract - for instance to support routine AAR requalification sorties - freeing up operational assets to be used on deployments. They already have a 5-year / $25M contract with the USN for EW / threat simulation / target towing using Learjet 35A and Learjet 60.

https://www.tempus-as.com/media-press-release-7.php

Nothing sums up the US penny stock market - for traders and the companies that get their start through it - better than the title of this 80s classic !

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAD6Obi7Cag

[Basil]

Basil, incorrect handling of the APFDS caused an accident in the early days of RAF TriStar operation. The accident probably tainted the view of Autoland and, crews were not kept qualified for full A/L use. The Autoland system was used for ILS approaches but, CAT1 limits were used with manual landing. This was purely a restriction applied by higher command.

OAP
Starting to emerge from the mists of time but wasn't it a failure to arm FLARE and also note the absence of the FLARE ARMED caption?
I've no idea why the RAF didn't just accept that there had been an error and train to ensure it wasn't repeated.
It WAS actually a brilliant autoland system which worked better than I did :rolleyes:

[NutLoose]

In 1971 a Royal Air Force Puma had the captains cockpit door fall off whilst returning to Odiham. There was no reason found except the suspicion that the jettison system may have been fiddled with whilst the aircraft was being looked after by army personnel beforehand. As a result of this it was decreed that the cockpit doors be locked permanently and the crew would have to crawl through the cabin to get to the cockpit. Locking the doors would have made no difference to the result if the initial suspicions were correct.

In 1978 a civil Puma had the pilot's door fall off as a result of a massive nav bag being jammed between the seat and the door which migrated forward and pushed the jettison handle and released the door.

Since then Pumas of various marks have flown millions of hours around the world with unlocked doors that have been used for what they were designed for; to enable the pilots to enter the cockpit.

Except the Royal Air Force, who still fly around with their doors locked.

And especially ironic after the spate of cabin doors falling off that sadly took some crews with them.

[NutLoose]

ME Aviation Services own them, nothing to do with the MOD, they divested themselves of them in 2014.

-RP

I thought Lockheed cancelled the design authority when the last ones were retired, it will be interesting to see how that and spares for them pans out.

Last year was probably the last flight and a ferry one at that

https://www.airlinereporter.com/2017/07/rare-lockheed-l-1011-tristar-returns-skies/

[jack11111]

A fine ride, quiet, modern. Often quite smokey engine start first thing in the morning. If it had come to market on time, maybe a different outcome. I remember both UK and USA had to bailout Rolls Royce.

[DirtyProp]

Shares are often used to complete acquisitions with the seller getting a discounted price [although that didn't happen in this case]. Then, using a combination of PRs and "other means" [which I won't give away here], stocks get "run up" periodically. Members of the public see the move and buy shares at ever increasing prices propelling the price even higher. Along the way, the recipient of the shares [the seller of the Tristars in this instance] can sell the shares and bank a profit if they wish.



AKA "Pump and dump".
I'm glad to see a fellow trader being profitable, esp. with such volatile instruments.
For me penny stocks are just too "dangerous" and I wouldn't touch them with a barge pole.

[vascodegama]

There is of course the small point of the exclusivity clause in the contract.

Mind you last time I heard the Voyager was doing AAR!

Despite SnottyGilbert response. yes it would.

When you look at the costs of Voyager, you've got to wonder if the projected costs for Tristar wouldn't have been much cheaper.

At least its AAR worked . . .

[Onceapilot]

Starting to emerge from the mists of time but wasn't it a failure to arm FLARE and also note the absence of the FLARE ARMED caption?
I've no idea why the RAF didn't just accept that there had been an error and train to ensure it wasn't repeated.
It WAS actually a brilliant autoland system which worked better than I did :rolleyes:

Ultimately, it did not flare. Without trawling for the report, the Captain was doing a "senior officer" demo/training flight, the A/L selection was made close to the airfield and A/L functionality was never fully achieved or indicated. However, the aircraft was allowed to fly hands off to impact, on a CAT1 only ILS! :rolleyes: Left wing false spar cracked, aircraft bounced/rolled into a non standard gear-down fully configured visual circuit and lost 4t fuel before landing. :uhoh:

OAP

[esscee]

Remember that happening and then looking at the damage the next week in Base hangar. You could put your fist through the "mark of Zorro" damage to the left rear spar! Then looked at the RH rear spar to find that that had a repair giving the indication of a previous "carrier" landing at some time in its Pan Am history.

[H Peacock]

Wasn't the majority of the damage to the 'autoland Tristar' inflicted during the second impact from the bounce rather than the initial impact? The crew incorrectly pushed the yoke forward during the bounce which told the DLC to deploy the spoilers, dramatically increasing the RoD! The whole event was all very embarrassing; whatever did BA think about our gross mishandling of their old frames?

Who were the unfortunate crew that day?

[BEagle]

Our SEngO told me that he'd felt the impact in his office. The loss of fuel in the subsequent circuit included some which fell on a chap doing some welding on an industrial estate - he wisely stopped!

I saw the photos which were taken of the damage - quite horrifying. And yes, evidence of a previous repair was also uncovered.

On the Flying Supervisors' Course, we were given a detailed account of the incident, including CVR transcript. Which IIRC included the comment "It shouldn't have done that"....

Then there was the RAF TriStar which was being used by boffins to test IR jammers for a Royal trip to the Middle East for HM with ba. I was having tea in the Brize OM with a 216 chap and we heard an engine being wound up to max chat, followed by a very loud thudding noise as it surged. "That sounded expensive", my colleague said - and indeed it was.

But nothing like as expensive as the damage caused when someone held in a circuit breaker which kept tripping, whereupon the electrical circuit acted as a large and expensive fuse for the CB. That took months to repair...

Early RAF days with the TriShaw were indeed....interesting!

[Bonkey]

Our SEngO told me that he'd felt the impact in his office. The loss of fuel in the subsequent circuit included some which fell on a chap doing some welding on an industrial estate - he wisely stopped!

I saw the photos which were taken of the damage - quite horrifying. And yes, evidence of a previous repair was also uncovered.


What was the serial # of the TriStar involved in this incident? ZE704?

[NutLoose]

Yep, I stood there in total disbelief looking at the damage on both of them.

[Onceapilot]

Wasn't the majority of the damage to the 'autoland Tristar' inflicted during the second impact from the bounce rather than the initial impact? The crew incorrectly pushed the yoke forward during the bounce which told the DLC to deploy the spoilers, dramatically increasing the RoD! The whole event was all very embarrassing; whatever did BA think about our gross mishandling of their old frames?


It could be, at MNLW and below, the TriStar could withstand a 600ft/min RoD at touchdown, which is pretty much a 3 degree descent with a bit of headwind. Certainly, bounced landings and inept handling do incur severe consequences.
As far as "what BA thought" goes, I have no idea. However, the training I received with them was excellent. In later years, we did the conversion in house. I do remember that some BA trainers were envious of the amount of CT we were able to do compared to their airline ration.
Overall, we treated the airframes with care and skill. They were well liked by virtually all who actually worked with them but, misunderstood by the many who did not.:)

OAP

[Fokkerwokker]

>>However, the aircraft was allowed to fly hands off to impact, on a CAT1 only ILS! <<

I was a F/O on the first Tristar course with Goofair in the mid-70s.

ISTR it was standard practice, at the time, for us to use Cat 1 ILS runways on our network to work up the number of Autolands prior to being granted Cat 2 then ultimately Cat 3 status. I think we merely transmitted the request to ATC that we would like to perform an A/L although I don’t recollect what particular protections were put in place for our arrival.

A/Ls were a non event as far as my feeble memory recalls!

We certainly didn’t encounter any ‘Brize-type’ events!

Perhaps Basil would care to comment?

FW

[Onceapilot]

>>However, the aircraft was allowed to fly hands off to impact, on a CAT1 only ILS! <<

I was a F/O on the first Tristar course with Goofair in the mid-70s.

ISTR it was standard practice, at the time, for us to use Cat 1 ILS runways on our network to work up the number of Autolands prior to being granted Cat 2 then ultimately Cat 3 status. I think we merely transmitted the request to ATC that we would like to perform an A/L although I don’t recollect what particular protections were put in place for our arrival.

A/Ls were a non event as far as my feeble memory recalls!

We certainly didn’t encounter any ‘Brize-type’ events!

Perhaps Basil would care to comment?

FW

FW, do you mind if I comment? :)

The ILS installation should be compliant with the requirements for Autoland to be used for the landing. Things like centreline alignment are obvious problems for A/L. However, the A/L mode could be used for an ILS approach and manual landing and that is the method that was regularly used by the RAF for CAT1 approaches. Yes, A/L is straightforward if you capture it correctly and there are no failures. The complexity lies more in being trained to monitor A/L modes and annunciations and for actions in case of system failures. AFAIK in the BZN accident, the APFDS and annunciations were not found to have had any failures.
Cheers

OAP

[esscee]

It was ZE705, an ex PanAm aircraft. Yes, the 2nd bounce was not good however the main mistake was going round again. Also, as said earlier, the A/P system was checked afterwards and found to be "S". When engaging an A/P, make sure you are above minimum height for selection of the system.

[Brian W May]

Aircrew manual warned against pushing the stick forward on a bounced landing - this is what the skipper did, all that did (with full flap) was stick the the spoilers further up (DLC) and much of the lift was dumped. The impact was horrendous.

I looked at that aircraft a few days later and, standing on the MLG tyre managed to put my whole arm in the cracked spar - hence the loss of so much fuel.

The aircraft was not set up correctly for autoland so flew straight into the ground as FLARE certainly wasn't armed as they'd done just about everything wrong.

Lord protect us from senior officers flying (standing by for incoming). Skipper was court-marshalled but the rest of the operating crew sat there and watched it happen - in my book, they were culpable too.

On Caledonian we autolanded Tristar and it was dead accurate, time after time.

[Basil]

>>However, the aircraft was allowed to fly hands off to impact, on a CAT1 only ILS! <<

I was a F/O on the first Tristar course with Goofair in the mid-70s.

ISTR it was standard practice, at the time, for us to use Cat 1 ILS runways on our network to work up the number of Autolands prior to being granted Cat 2 then ultimately Cat 3 status. I think we merely transmitted the request to ATC that we would like to perform an A/L although I don’t recollect what particular protections were put in place for our arrival.

A/Ls were a non event as far as my feeble memory recalls!

We certainly didn’t encounter any ‘Brize-type’ events!

Perhaps Basil would care to comment?

FW
Concur.
Having come off (and then went on to), aircraft with almost zero or small touchdown bank limits, the TriStar a/l align procedure with the into-wind wing down sideslipping the rest of the approach was impressive.
I believe Lockheed employed some ex Trident designers which accounted for the amazing a/l.

One design weakness, which one of our GF colleagues demonstrated, was that an uncontained failure of #2 could take out multiple hyd systems. He certainly made the right decision that day or he'd have been up in the sky with only D Sys pressurised :uhoh:

[Onceapilot]

Concur.

One design weakness, which one of our GF colleagues demonstrated, was that an uncontained failure of #2 could take out multiple hyd systems. He certainly made the right decision that day or he'd have been up in the sky with only D Sys pressurised :uhoh:

Hi Basil, I feel that you are being a little harsh here! Certainly, the DC10 came with this hyd routing vulnerability but, from the start, the L1011 system routing in the vulnerable areas was positioned to minimise co-lateral damage risk. As far as D system hyd goes, well, that was one more system than the DC10 had! :ok: Remember, the TriStar could continue flight to land on any single one of the four hyd systems and, the back-up system permutations were considerable, with 4xEDP, 2xATM, 2xPTU, 1xRAT and 2xelectric pumps (continuously rated on later mod).
Mr Lockheed knew how to build an airplane! :)

OAP

[Fokkerwokker]

And if I remember correctly if you were down to D system it was only the F/O that had control?

[Onceapilot]

And if I remember correctly if you were down to D system it was only the F/O that had control?

Yes, due to Roll disconnect. :)

OAP

[RAFEngO74to09]

Now that I'm a US Citizen and full-time share trader from home, I've been taking a keen interest in Tempus Applied Solutions (TMPS) after it acquired the ex-RAF Tristars.

Once it has recruited the requisite aircrew and groundcrew, TMPS should have no problem getting a DoD contract to provide "probe and drogue" refueling capacity. With the ongoing KC-46 entry to service delays - and the entire USN / USMC KC-130T fleet grounded after the mid-air break up accident in 2017 - anything that can be done to relieve the burden on the USAF of providing "probe and drogue" refueling with primarily "flying boom" assets is likely to be taken up. TMPS's only competitor is Omega who has had no problem getting ongoing contracts continuously since 2008 worth over $266M so far. Omega has less capacity than TMPS and there is clearly room in the sector for both.

TMPS already has DoD contracts for special mission support (ISR, EW training and C2 comms relay) https://www.tempus-as.com/fly-bespoke-services.php

It will therefore already be known to USAF / USN military retirees as an employment option. However, if the former US military personnel all decide to go the airlines that might open up the possibility of an EB-3 Visa for ex-RAF Tristar personnel if the company offers employment on the basis that suitably skilled US workers could not be sourced in the required timescale. The EB-3 confers Permanent Resident status which can be upgraded to US Citizenship after the requisite timescale.
https://www.uscis.gov/working-united-states/permanent-workers/employment-based-immigration-third-preference-eb-3

Interestingly, some ex-RAF groundcrew recently enquired about employment on Facebook and got a positive response. Here is the exchange:
[groundcrew 1] "Are you looking for ex RAF personnel with extensive knowledge of working on these aircraft. Ten years plus myself and plenty of other ex 216 Sqn members about."
[TMPS POC] "Yes ! Please e-mail me your information to [email protected] "
[groundcrew 1] "Will do"
[groundcrew 2] "I have 9 years as a rigger. Take me too ! I was part of the team that took them to Bruntingthorpe"

As an extremely happy expat living the dream, I just thought I would put the possibility out there for anyone who is interested in the US lifestyle and the role rather than the money.

Feel free to PM me about US versus UK living generally, major cost differences, lifestyle, taxes etc.

Other PPRruNers will be more qualified than I to point out the hoops that would have to be jumped through regarding licensing etc . On the groundcrew side, I don't imagine there is a queue around the block of spare L-1011 engineers in the US.

[NutLoose]

Are they carrying out anti det runs at Brunty on them? I watched a near mint 767 with freshly overhauled engines rot away in the UK climate until the best they could do for the old girl was to chop her up.

[Rhino power]

I watched a near mint 767 with freshly overhauled engines rot away in the UK climate until the best they could do for the old girl was to chop her up.

I remember that one, the one abandoned at EMA by the shoddy outfit that flew it after they folded? Totally wrong aircraft for the route they laughingly 'operated' and one of the oldest 767-200s around, and to think they nearly acquired a second one!

-RP

[NutLoose]

I remember that one, the one abandoned at EMA by the shoddy outfit that flew it after they folded? Totally wrong aircraft for the route they laughingly 'operated' and one of the oldest 767-200s around, and to think they nearly acquired a second one!

-RP

Yep and it didn't help it having a more or less one off RB211 version on it that no one uses anymore....

http://i536.photobucket.com/albums/ff321/taylortony/767noseremains.jpg

[NutLoose]

http://i536.photobucket.com/albums/ff321/taylortony/TAIL7672.jpg

[Rhino power]

It didn't have RB211s, it had JT9Ds... ;) From what I remember, EMA seized it with a view to selling it on to recoup unpaid airport charges but, once it became apparent it was not going to fly again it was scrapped in situ as your images show, both engines were saved and kept in open storage which essentially scuppered what little chance there was of actually selling them on!

-RP

[Badger3434]

Ultimately, it did not flare. Without trawling for the report, the Captain was doing a "senior officer" demo/training flight, the A/L selection was made close to the airfield and A/L functionality was never fully achieved or indicated. However, the aircraft was allowed to fly hands off to impact, on a CAT1 only ILS! :rolleyes: Left wing false spar cracked, aircraft bounced/rolled into a non standard gear-down fully configured visual circuit and lost 4t fuel before landing. :uhoh:

OAP

Does anyone have a link to the accident report? I assume there was one...

[Juan Tugoh]

Aircrew manual warned against pushing the stick forward on a bounced landing - this is what the skipper did, all that did (with full flap) was stick the the spoilers further up (DLC) and much of the lift was dumped. The impact was horrendous.

I looked at that aircraft a few days later and, standing on the MLG tyre managed to put my whole arm in the cracked spar - hence the loss of so much fuel.

The aircraft was not set up correctly for autoland so flew straight into the ground as FLARE certainly wasn't armed as they'd done just about everything wrong.

Lord protect us from senior officers flying (standing by for incoming). Skipper was court-marshalled but the rest of the operating crew sat there and watched it happen - in my book, they were culpable too.

On Caledonian we autolanded Tristar and it was dead accurate, time after time.

Part of the problem, from what I recall, was a lack of knowledge, or understanding of some of the subtleties of the AFCS. The ex BA jets had an analogue display for the FCU, whereas the ex PanAm jets, of which 705 was one, had a digital FCU. The crews were trained by BA and did their training using BA sims with the analogue system. In this version of the autopilot, when AL was selected, it had two active AFCS modes, LOC and GS, the FLARE, LAND and ROLLOUT modes were only armed. All this was shown on the Modes panel. In the Digital version, when AL was selected the difference was that the last three noes, FLARE LAND and ROLLOUT only armed below 1500’ radio and after 30 seconds on the GS. The attempted auto land was carried out from a circuit and so the required conditions for an auto land were never achieved. The aircraft did exactly what it was asked to do and flew down the autoapprocah till it hit the runway at c700fpm. This, as mentioned was bad but the bounce and subsequent mishandling causing the second and more significant impact were caused by a check forward of the control column and no increase in power to cushion the landing, probably as a result of the autothrust still being engaged and in an approach alpha mode, again doing as asked.

NB, all from dim distant memory.