oh dear
Registered User **
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: LONDON
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Red Flag, February this year, Tommy T lands at McCarron to take us home but is subsequently u/s. Somehow, members of the crew happened to have tickets for the Aerosmith concert that just so happened to be on in Vegas that very night - tickets that had sold out a week prior to the concert!
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Anywhere and Everywhere
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The C17 is capable of flying from India to UK directly, so why was it necessary for two night stops on the way, a waste of fuel, time and money?
What was the cargo weight?
What MTOW do the runway length/strength/departure obstacles at Agra allow?
Do dip clearances allow the most direct route?
What is the wind factor heading west from India?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had not wanted to get involved in this discussion/slanging match as there are no easy answers to the problems involved, with fault lying in many different areas. However, as an AT captain on 2 different fleets (and 2 different airforces) for 14 yrs I feel I have to say something about the number of veiled accusations being bandied around on this thread. The problems being discussed do exist and I accept things must be done to improve the service we offer to our customers, and they are customers and the reason, usually, we are there. However, I am getting pissed off with people making thinly veiled accusations about the actions of crews, effectively amounting to fraud by engineering nightstops in certain locations. In all my time I have never, nor do I know of anyone, falsely declaring an aircraft u/s to gain a nice night somewhere or to b**gg** around the pax. By all means carry on the debate about customer service but IF YOU HAVE EVIDENCE OF A CREW FALSELY DECLARING AN AIRCRAFT U/S THEN REPORT IT TO THE AUTHORITIES, IF NOT THEN SHUT THE F*** UP and get back to discussing the issues at hand rather than slagging people off and making false accusation.
Rant Off
Rant Off
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: South of the Great Divide and West of the Greenwich Meridian
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Banggearo,
Spot on
. Saves me from typing
. As I have said before - a little knowledge is dangerous . As a pax if you are unhappy then report this to the chap nominated as Senior Pax or whatever they call him this week. I wrote a long letter, with issues concerning a contracted flight, that was forwarded to Andover and received a reply that mirrored my concerns in several areas.
Spot on
. Saves me from typing . As I have said before - a little knowledge is dangerous . As a pax if you are unhappy then report this to the chap nominated as Senior Pax or whatever they call him this week. I wrote a long letter, with issues concerning a contracted flight, that was forwarded to Andover and received a reply that mirrored my concerns in several areas.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Usually Somewhere Else
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"A Tri* was used to trail 6 F3's back to UK via Al Dhafra and Akrotiri. Why the Tri* could had to go to Abu Dhabi Intl and Rhodes for the night stops is difficult to explain. I believe the Tri* did get back to UK more or less on time which was good news..."
Reach, well put in response to the above post.
Now for the defence of the Tri*.
Abu Dhabi and Rhodes are uses on middle east trails because they allow more fuel to be lifted, and have the appropriate handling facilities. A Tri* is not a truck; you don't fill the tanks with fuel and drive off into the sunset I'm afraid. CastleView, you really are giving us too much credit for being able to control our own destiny.
As Reach then pointed out re the C17. Are you C17 qualified Castle?ie. Are you qualified to mkae that statement that a C17 can make India-UK direct? I'll hold the rest of my reply until I find out.
The point about spares etc for the chicks is also highly relevant.
Banggearo, Well put Sir. I am trying to get that message across: ie that contrary to popular belief, that we are in general professional!
Reach, well put in response to the above post.
Now for the defence of the Tri*.
Abu Dhabi and Rhodes are uses on middle east trails because they allow more fuel to be lifted, and have the appropriate handling facilities. A Tri* is not a truck; you don't fill the tanks with fuel and drive off into the sunset I'm afraid. CastleView, you really are giving us too much credit for being able to control our own destiny.
As Reach then pointed out re the C17. Are you C17 qualified Castle?ie. Are you qualified to mkae that statement that a C17 can make India-UK direct? I'll hold the rest of my reply until I find out.
The point about spares etc for the chicks is also highly relevant.
Banggearo, Well put Sir. I am trying to get that message across: ie that contrary to popular belief, that we are in general professional!
Last edited by flyboy007; 22nd Oct 2006 at 17:29.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Overseas, mostly
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am perplexed by the number of people jumping to conclusions on this subject when they are blatantly unaware of all the facts. Two sides to every story, anyone?
The post from one of the characters on the Movers' site makes illuminating reading:
"the aircraft to take them home was chartered with a payload of 14K. When the capt told the movers he would only take 11K"
So around 90 mins before chocks the Movers' realistic plan becomes worthless as they have lost 20% of available payload. A radical solution was borne of necessity. Yes, Charter Coord in DTMA could have been contacted to request them to liaise with the charter company (via the broker), but this would all take time, extending the delay. In my experience some aircraft captains can be rather obstinate, irrespective of the logic placed in front of them! I suggest that Charter Coord will be examining the suitability of using this particular company in the future, but I suspect that they are cheap! I am surprised that the pax were not informed of the reasons necessitating the abrupt change of plan, but as stated above, AKT Movers may have a different recollection of events! I will hasten to add that the alleged attitude of the AKT Mover towards shift change, and the decision to de-segregate the bags, are indefensible. So I assume that all you critics are perfect, and your judgement has never lapsed?
The issue of calls home could easily be solved; however, in the current financial climate who pays? HQ LAND? HQ STC, as it their aircraft that fell over? A decision for the adults and bean counters, certainly not the Movers.
Do any of you honestly think that Movers deliberately attempt to mislead pax by providing inaccurate or incomplete briefs? Aircrew, Engineers, Ops and Movers are all involved in the process, and slick comms between all parties is essential. Chugalug2’s comments at #107 (page 6) provides one of the few glimpses of common sense seen on this thread.
Check-in times are consistently a contentious issue; 4 hrs prior to chocks does appear excessive, but without the full facts (eg availability of transport to move troops to APOD, security implications of moving in daylight etc) I would be reluctant to criticise further. However, the check-in time is not always stipulated by the Movers. Within the last 18 months, a GR4 Sqn was recovering from a North American Ex. As it had been agreed mutually that bags would be checked-in the night prior to departure, the SEngO and FS Eng were offered a 1-hr check-in for all pax; they looked at each other, mumbled something about needing greater time to ensure that all the Techies were accounted for, and stated that a 2-hr check-in would be just fine!
Another anecdote to finish, just to provide evidence that, just occasionally, aircrew do not always play by the rules. When Leeming’s F3 Sqns deployed to N American Exs in the late-90s they were regularly supported by 2 Hercs, and their TRANSOPS always included a flag at Keflavik. Upon arrival in North Yorkshire the crews attempted consistently to shut off (essential) freight, so that they could overfly and proceed direct to Newfoundland. Sound familiar? “Tail” “wag” and “dog” spring to mind!
Yes, if you haven’t guessed by now I am a Movs Officer (Supply Officer with the Movs annotation), and I am bl00dy proud of the hard work and can-do attitude displayed by the vast majority of the Movs Trade! If you are dissatisfied with the standard of service received from Movs Staff then please seek out the chain of command and let them know; attitude readjustment can them commence! After all we are all on the same side….aren’t we?
The post from one of the characters on the Movers' site makes illuminating reading:
"the aircraft to take them home was chartered with a payload of 14K. When the capt told the movers he would only take 11K"
So around 90 mins before chocks the Movers' realistic plan becomes worthless as they have lost 20% of available payload. A radical solution was borne of necessity. Yes, Charter Coord in DTMA could have been contacted to request them to liaise with the charter company (via the broker), but this would all take time, extending the delay. In my experience some aircraft captains can be rather obstinate, irrespective of the logic placed in front of them! I suggest that Charter Coord will be examining the suitability of using this particular company in the future, but I suspect that they are cheap! I am surprised that the pax were not informed of the reasons necessitating the abrupt change of plan, but as stated above, AKT Movers may have a different recollection of events! I will hasten to add that the alleged attitude of the AKT Mover towards shift change, and the decision to de-segregate the bags, are indefensible. So I assume that all you critics are perfect, and your judgement has never lapsed?
The issue of calls home could easily be solved; however, in the current financial climate who pays? HQ LAND? HQ STC, as it their aircraft that fell over? A decision for the adults and bean counters, certainly not the Movers.
Do any of you honestly think that Movers deliberately attempt to mislead pax by providing inaccurate or incomplete briefs? Aircrew, Engineers, Ops and Movers are all involved in the process, and slick comms between all parties is essential. Chugalug2’s comments at #107 (page 6) provides one of the few glimpses of common sense seen on this thread.
Check-in times are consistently a contentious issue; 4 hrs prior to chocks does appear excessive, but without the full facts (eg availability of transport to move troops to APOD, security implications of moving in daylight etc) I would be reluctant to criticise further. However, the check-in time is not always stipulated by the Movers. Within the last 18 months, a GR4 Sqn was recovering from a North American Ex. As it had been agreed mutually that bags would be checked-in the night prior to departure, the SEngO and FS Eng were offered a 1-hr check-in for all pax; they looked at each other, mumbled something about needing greater time to ensure that all the Techies were accounted for, and stated that a 2-hr check-in would be just fine!
Another anecdote to finish, just to provide evidence that, just occasionally, aircrew do not always play by the rules. When Leeming’s F3 Sqns deployed to N American Exs in the late-90s they were regularly supported by 2 Hercs, and their TRANSOPS always included a flag at Keflavik. Upon arrival in North Yorkshire the crews attempted consistently to shut off (essential) freight, so that they could overfly and proceed direct to Newfoundland. Sound familiar? “Tail” “wag” and “dog” spring to mind!
Yes, if you haven’t guessed by now I am a Movs Officer (Supply Officer with the Movs annotation), and I am bl00dy proud of the hard work and can-do attitude displayed by the vast majority of the Movs Trade! If you are dissatisfied with the standard of service received from Movs Staff then please seek out the chain of command and let them know; attitude readjustment can them commence! After all we are all on the same side….aren’t we?
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ratty/Reach,
Regarding a C17 flying back direct to UK from India; one of the plans was for the aircraft (not that the crew were aware) earlier in the week, to fly direct from Delhi to BZN/LEU. Dip clear was not a problem. I would also have thought that the F3 techies would have been on the Tristar, and indeed the only F3 techies on the C17 were not Sqn lineys but OEU guys.
Even if headwinds/ cargo weight etc prevented the aircraft flying direct to UK, two night stops is excessive.
Again, I thank the crew for getting us back on time and for trying to get us back into Waddington, rather than us having to endure the MT journey from BZN.
Y _G
Regarding a C17 flying back direct to UK from India; one of the plans was for the aircraft (not that the crew were aware) earlier in the week, to fly direct from Delhi to BZN/LEU. Dip clear was not a problem. I would also have thought that the F3 techies would have been on the Tristar, and indeed the only F3 techies on the C17 were not Sqn lineys but OEU guys.
Even if headwinds/ cargo weight etc prevented the aircraft flying direct to UK, two night stops is excessive.
Again, I thank the crew for getting us back on time and for trying to get us back into Waddington, rather than us having to endure the MT journey from BZN.
Y _G
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Usually Somewhere Else
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite right, 2 night stops is excessive, if it was for no reason. If however if they were the "sweeper", then they would follow the trail. I wasn't on that trail so I don't know. What I find staggering, is that people think it's us (the crews) engineering these night stops! Really? C17 and Tri* are valuable assets at the moment, and I can't see the crew being allowed 2 nightstops just for giggles. In fact, the notion is completely laughable. It's hard enough sometimes getting min crew rest!
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flyboy,
My point exactly, the Tri* and C17 followed similar routes and timings all the way back. Surely it should have been possible for one of them (C17) to fly a more direct and quicker route back.
As it was, one F3 did not get out of India, and a second was left at Al Dhafra. Not sure how may left Akrotiri.
Y_G
My point exactly, the Tri* and C17 followed similar routes and timings all the way back. Surely it should have been possible for one of them (C17) to fly a more direct and quicker route back.
As it was, one F3 did not get out of India, and a second was left at Al Dhafra. Not sure how may left Akrotiri.
Y_G
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Usually Somewhere Else
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that is possibly well above my payscale to answer that one. I have long given up trying to fathom the itineries that el taskers come up with.
My only guess is that the C17 had freight which could not be taken on the Tri*, and was needed to sweep. Often the Tri* used on trails are K1 which have no cargo door, therefore the sweeping herc or C17(?) will carry the spares and freight. Just a guess.
My only guess is that the C17 had freight which could not be taken on the Tri*, and was needed to sweep. Often the Tri* used on trails are K1 which have no cargo door, therefore the sweeping herc or C17(?) will carry the spares and freight. Just a guess.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Anywhere and Everywhere
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeller - you obviously have first hand experience of this mission that I don't, and I've never been to Delhi. I asked the questions because they seemed a more likely reason for the stops than crew entertainment. If you or Castle know better then I'll stand corrected.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 60
Posts: 2,051
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes
on
6 Posts
My last post was pages back, but I would like to confirm that my gripe was not with the aircrews. All of my incidents (many many) involved the movements staff. I thought as I got promoted it would get better but the only difference between me being a JT and later a Sqn Ldr was that I got to use a different bar at the gateway. I can't ever remember being treated as a valued customer, always as an inconvenience.
People will always be hacked off if delayed or cancelled, but they get really p***ed off when people lie to them or abandon them. Tell the truth about delays!! Why blame Air Traffic if a jet has gone tech??
People will always be hacked off if delayed or cancelled, but they get really p***ed off when people lie to them or abandon them. Tell the truth about delays!! Why blame Air Traffic if a jet has gone tech??
"People will always be hacked off if delayed or cancelled, but they get really p***ed off when people lie to them or abandon them. Tell the truth about delays!! Why blame Air Traffic if a jet has gone tech??"
That virtually sums up most of the previous few pages of posts. Never lie, you will always be caught out - and rightly so too!
The lazy, self-interested TriShaw crew who left an aircraft load of passengers to the pax liasion officer to sort out at some South American airport in the middle of the night typify the worst of the AT world. Little did they know that the pax liaison officer was the new MPA Sqn Ldr Air. Big mistake....BIG! As OC twenty one and sixpence soon found out.
Those of us who had other backgrounds before joining the AT/AAR world always seemed to me to be more interested in looking after our passengers than the dyed-in-the-wool route queens or Dulles dinosaurs. Whether that meant phone-patching Wattisham MT control abeam Dakar to get the fighter mates' bus rolling or whatever, we were always keen to do that bit extra. I don't know whether that's because we'd all suffered ourselves in the past or whether we were basically more interested (and capable) than stereotypical 'truckies', but our pax were always thankful.....
That virtually sums up most of the previous few pages of posts. Never lie, you will always be caught out - and rightly so too!
The lazy, self-interested TriShaw crew who left an aircraft load of passengers to the pax liasion officer to sort out at some South American airport in the middle of the night typify the worst of the AT world. Little did they know that the pax liaison officer was the new MPA Sqn Ldr Air. Big mistake....BIG! As OC twenty one and sixpence soon found out.
Those of us who had other backgrounds before joining the AT/AAR world always seemed to me to be more interested in looking after our passengers than the dyed-in-the-wool route queens or Dulles dinosaurs. Whether that meant phone-patching Wattisham MT control abeam Dakar to get the fighter mates' bus rolling or whatever, we were always keen to do that bit extra. I don't know whether that's because we'd all suffered ourselves in the past or whether we were basically more interested (and capable) than stereotypical 'truckies', but our pax were always thankful.....
Join Date: May 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"People will always be hacked off if delayed or cancelled, but they get really p***ed off when people lie to them or abandon them. Tell the truth about delays!! Why blame Air Traffic if a jet has gone tech??"
That virtually sums up most of the previous few pages of posts. Never lie, you will always be caught out - and rightly so too!
The lazy, self-interested TriShaw crew who left an aircraft load of passengers to the pax liasion officer to sort out at some South American airport in the middle of the night typify the worst of the AT world. Little did they know that the pax liaison officer was the new MPA Sqn Ldr Air. Big mistake....BIG! As OC twenty one and sixpence soon found out.
Those of us who had other backgrounds before joining the AT/AAR world always seemed to me to be more interested in looking after our passengers than the dyed-in-the-wool route queens or Dulles dinosaurs. Whether that meant phone-patching Wattisham MT control abeam Dakar to get the fighter mates' bus rolling or whatever, we were always keen to do that bit extra. I don't know whether that's because we'd all suffered ourselves in the past or whether we were basically more interested (and capable) than stereotypical 'truckies', but our pax were always thankful.....
That virtually sums up most of the previous few pages of posts. Never lie, you will always be caught out - and rightly so too!
The lazy, self-interested TriShaw crew who left an aircraft load of passengers to the pax liasion officer to sort out at some South American airport in the middle of the night typify the worst of the AT world. Little did they know that the pax liaison officer was the new MPA Sqn Ldr Air. Big mistake....BIG! As OC twenty one and sixpence soon found out.
Those of us who had other backgrounds before joining the AT/AAR world always seemed to me to be more interested in looking after our passengers than the dyed-in-the-wool route queens or Dulles dinosaurs. Whether that meant phone-patching Wattisham MT control abeam Dakar to get the fighter mates' bus rolling or whatever, we were always keen to do that bit extra. I don't know whether that's because we'd all suffered ourselves in the past or whether we were basically more interested (and capable) than stereotypical 'truckies', but our pax were always thankful.....
That's pretty rich from someone who has a reputation of being the biggest dinosaur of the lot.
More interested (and capable) - you pompous old buffoon.
Oh really, idiotchild?
If you wish to hurl personal abuse, go ahead. You'll only make yourself look rather pathetic.
Would I sooner have a chopped Valley AFTS Hawk pilot as a co-pilot or some idle, underachieving trucky who never made it that far? Your guess....
If you wish to hurl personal abuse, go ahead. You'll only make yourself look rather pathetic.
Would I sooner have a chopped Valley AFTS Hawk pilot as a co-pilot or some idle, underachieving trucky who never made it that far? Your guess....
Registered User **
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: LONDON
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ding ding in the RED CORNER we have BEagle and in the BLUE CORNER we have........whats your name kid? ah yes Rudekid. Now lets keep this fight clean and no scratching like big girls..
Away you go
Away you go
Join Date: May 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But impugning the reputation of 75% of the multi-engine flying world because they haven't been to Valley is okay is it?
I just love your supercilious assertion that you were a more thoughtful and interested Captain because you'd flown the Hunter.
I just love your supercilious assertion that you were a more thoughtful and interested Captain because you'd flown the Hunter.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: South of the Great Divide and West of the Greenwich Meridian
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beagle - another name for b125 Bulldog isn't. I seem to remember that beagle company went bust. Not that I am drawing any similarities with the recent thread.
