RAF Tanker Deal

[fantaman]

Hello All,

As part of my prep for OASC I’m looking into the new tanker deal that’s being put out to tender. I’m to try and raise this subject when they ask about the RAF and what new aircraft we’re getting. I’m already serving and so I’ve been asking around the office to see what other opinions are and I just wanted to see if anyone else had any opinions or information on it!

One question I cant find the answer to is on the whole chartering it out to BA etc when its not in use by us. Do the engineers that work on it have to have a civilian qualification if it is going to be used by fare paying pax? I’m talking about a JAR qualification? Will all maintenance be carried out by civvies technicians therefore making hundreds of RAF technicians redundant?

Should the RAF look at purchasing more Tri-Stars? Buying used DC-10’s/MD-11’s? Should be contract an airline/company like Omega Air who already has a contract with the US Navy? Any info or opinions (especially from the AT guys) would be appreciated!

Fantaman

[Fargoo]

One question I cant find the answer to is on the whole chartering it out to BA etc when its not in use by us. Do the engineers that work on it have to have a civilian qualification if it is going to be used by fare paying pax? I’m talking about a JAR qualification? Will all maintenance be carried out by civvies technicians therefore making hundreds of RAF technicians redundant?

If it's used by an airline for passenger services it'll need to be maintained by an EASA 145 approved maintenance organisation. There's no reason the RAF couldn't apply for this status though provided it's Engineers are EASA Pt 66 Licenced, this can be achieved fairly quickly for experienced engineers.
Can't see this happening though and i would expect this whole tanker/passenger hybrid thing will die a death before it gets off the ground.

[LFFC]

If it's used by an airline for passenger services it'll need to be maintained by an EASA 145 approved maintenance organisation. There's no reason the RAF couldn't apply for this status though provided it's Engineers are EASA Pt 66 Licenced, this can be achieved fairly quickly for experienced engineers.

I suspect that the RAF won't need to - AirTanker will probably provide that organisation and more than likely employ a proportion of licenced RAF engineers for use on military deployments.

[r supwoods]

RAF Tanker

Do you not think that if the RAF trained their Engineers to be Pt 66 compliant and gave them a Licence ... we wouldn't see them for dust?

The RAF are looking to support their aircraft using a parallel system to the EASA regs .... to be known as MAOS ... rhymes with CHAOS.

[The Helpful Stacker]

Originally Posted by r supwoods

Do you not think that if the RAF trained their Engineers to be Pt 66 compliant and gave them a Licence ... we wouldn't see them for dust?

There's a parallel to this in the humble world of stackers. Civilian and military personnel attend exactly the same dangerous goods course at Halton but civilians attain an IATA/ICAO DG qualification whereas the military personnel attain just a Q-Sup-DG qualification.

Wouldn't want all us uniformed stackers PVRing to take up much better paid DG positions in the civilian sector now would they?

[LFFC]

Do you not think that if the RAF trained their Engineers to be Pt 66 compliant and gave them a Licence ... we wouldn't see them for dust?

Yeah - it's a problem isn't it! And yet it's MOD policy to ensure full accreditation of skills and knowledge that have an equivalence in the civilian world. Apparently it's retention positive.

Perhaps that's all the more reason for the RAF to have different terms of service than the Army and RN. That way we can compete with the civilian world to retain the people we need.

[nigegilb]

Does anyone know the cost of this programme? And will the non military status of some of the workforce affect where the tankers will be able to deploy to?

[LFFC]

I have no idea about the cost, but from what I've heard, the presence of military personnel across the board will allow FSTA to be deployed in the same way that VC10 or TriStar can be now.

[BEagle]

Try looking at: http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/Fa...erAircraft.htm

[LFFC]

Thanks BEagle, I hadn't seen that before, but it backs up what I've been told about FSTA.

I know you're not a fan of the concept (to say the least), but from what I can see, the A330 will make an excellent tanker. I also understand that if you ever personally get to see it on operations, you'll note that it will be in RAF colours, on the military register, operated by a military crew and serviced by military personnel. Mercenaries don't enter into the equation - unless you class reservists in uniform as mercenaries, but I don't think you really mean that.

[The Helpful Stacker]

Originally Posted by BEagles source

The current fleet is reaching the end of its useful life. Current plans involve its replacement during the first half of the decade.

Which decade?

[fantaman]

Thanks for the Info!

So does that mean all the RAF technicians will be trained to the appropriate civillian level, ie JAR.

I can see what will happen when the first bunch of technicians get their qualifications through the post, 202 CV's all wing their way to BA!

[SirToppamHat]

Despite all the modern apprentiships, NVQ and IIP hoops that are foisted on us, IMHO, we are better at training our people (and always have been) than most equivalent civilian organisations.

I understand that civilian certification can be expensive, especially when there is a lot of effort required to prove that a Service course meets all the same requirements as the civilian equivalent, but when mil and civ personnel do the SAME course, surely there can be no reasonable explanation for the mil guys not getting the civ quals (though there may be something in r supwoods' comments!).

The military ATCOs at ScATCC are now controlling all of the medium level civilian transits on the Aberdeen-Newcastle link route, because the civvies have refused to provide RAS in Class G airspace, yet if the mil guys apply to ATC for jobs (in the same ops room?), previous experience counts for nothing.

Sorry, as usual I got carried away there. Back to the thread. I think the plan to share mil assets with the civvies is barking. I am not convinced it will be cheaper either.

STH

[LFFC]

but when mil and civ personnel do the SAME course, surely there can be no reasonable explanation for the mil guys not getting the civ quals

Correct! In fact, under MOD policy, the course sponsor is obliged to ensure that, under those circumstances, civilian accreditation is available. However, the catch is that it's down to the individual to submit the paperwork and pay the cheque to the civilian accreditation body.

[The Helpful Stacker]

Originally Posted by LFFC

Correct! In fact, under MOD policy, the course sponsor is obliged to ensure that, under those circumstances, civilian accreditation is available. However, the catch is that it's down to the individual to submit the paperwork and pay the cheque to the civilian accreditation body.

In my case (with the DG course) we pestered the course instructors and the STW at Halton for details on how we could gain the same accreditation as our civilian colleagues and were flatly told this wasn't available for service personnel.

[LFFC]

In my case (with the DG course) we pestered the course instructors and the STW at Halton for details on how we could gain the same accreditation as our civilian colleagues and were flatly told this wasn't available for service personnel.

I wouldn't take no for an answer if I were you. Sadly, that sort of situation is still widespread. You probably won't be popular for pushing the issue, and you'll have to be thick skinned, but correct accreditation can be achieved. I'm told that it took years of hard work for military pilot training to eventually become accredited by the CAA.

[Rigga]

Hi Gents,

I saw this thread and couldn't resist sticking my oar in.

FYI This subject has already been debated on www.e-goat.co.uk and www.airmech.co.uk with mainly the ground-eye view of how it could go.

There, the assumption seems this contract could probably go to another european country - to someone who can manage these assets as an EU-wide rentable item and by-pass the UK legislation on maintenance. Foreign Company and foreign engineers and for

I think the rather quaint notion of having RAF engineers doing for you, is out of the window.
The reason being that another EU country's NAA may be able to waive the EU and ICAO Rules of Maintenance Licensing for MOD, but I believe the UK CAA would collapse the UK's Market of UK Aircraft Engineers' hard fought Licences if it changed their own licensing rules for one contract. (Though, we still have to see how stupid this government really is!)

These aircraft will most likely be maintained to an EASA Part 145 approved AMP - even if they do have "additional operational equipment" such as Air to Air Refueling (as they would under existing UK rules of COMR or Police Ops aircraft).

Under COMR - Piloting and OPs Planning may belong to the military, but you can bet that Maintenance and Maintenance Planning (and Financial planning too) will be from a civil contractor, from whichever country that may be (France is my bet).

See FBS at Shawbury for a small form of confirmation of these regulations. There are no RAF engineers there (1) and they are audited by the CAA primarily, then by the RAF.

(1: Except for an engineering contract auditor, maybe.)

[nigegilb]

Eng det in kandahar?

[LFFC]

Accreditation

Originally Posted by The Helpful Stacker

In my case (with the DG course) we pestered the course instructors and the STW at Halton for details on how we could gain the same accreditation as our civilian colleagues and were flatly told this wasn't available for service personnel.

Sorry if this is a bit off-topic, but I found the new "Defence Policy for the Accreditation of Education, Training and Experience". It was re-issued 2 months ago and is available on the intranet to all personnel in the Armed Services and MOD Civil Service. Look for Defence Instructions and Notices, reference "2006DIN06-058". I think you'll find it very interesting!

[SASless]

Mothballed airliners looking for a new home....bargain prices too I bet.

http://perljam.net/google-satellite-...plane_boneyard