Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

MoD states Tristar pax problem is not a problem

Wikiposts
Search
Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

MoD states Tristar pax problem is not a problem

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 8th Dec 2006, 16:19
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Devon, England
Posts: 816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
MoD states Tristar pax problem is not a problem

from MoD:-
Availability of RAF passenger aircraft
A newspaper report claims that the RAF's Tristar passenger jets are overworked, leaving only one to ferry British troops to and from Afghanistan and Iraq. The same report claims that many of the Tristars are either not fitted with the right anti-missile defensive equipment, or are unserviceable.

We maintain our aircraft to the highest standards and priority is always given to those aircraft involved in or supporting operations. There are nine Tristar Aircraft: three carry out Air Transport and six carry out both Air Transport and Air-to-Air Refuelling role. Five of these nine aircraft are fitted with Defensive Aids suitable for carriage of passengers on operations. Of these five, two are required to be available for transport of passengers on operations. Three aircraft are available today, so the bottom line is that the RAF is fulfilling its operational passenger transport commitments.


What about tomorrow then? or next week...
Razor61 is offline  
Old 8th Dec 2006, 16:35
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Flew in to Basrah Airport on a Tri-star a few years ago after the war.

No defensive equipment fitted in those days, All the RAF could do was turn all the lights out on the Aircraft and fly in hoping for the best.

What a joke it was I had a window seat looking out of the window below us were the flames from the oil fields GREAT big orange flames.

So this great big White Tri-star became a great big Orange target in the sky. All of the aircraft was bright orange.

Guess as luck would have it we landed safe. But had we been hit just think how many lives 300+ would have been lost.

I ask those in power HOW CAN YOU DECIDE TO TAKE RISKS LIKE THIS ?

No wonder my PVR is in and I am getting out of the RAF you can stuff the job, the pay, my life is worth more than that. days to do getting few.

Blair how do you sleep at night ?
blogger is offline  
Old 8th Dec 2006, 17:13
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: uk(occasionally)
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Not happy then?
NoseGunner is offline  
Old 8th Dec 2006, 18:07
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Brize-Kabul/Kandahar Tristar route over the past ten days include long delays caused by non-pressurisation of cabin (at take-off), stuck door, fuel leak (x 2), crew hours expired, ground handling at Kandahar.

Only one Tristar available for inaugural Kandahar flight (one down for deep maintainence, other u/s for unspecified problem.

Add in bad weather delays and it is currently taking up to three days for people to get back for one week R and R.

Main problems are niggly. Sensors, hydraulics etc, caused by age and the aircraft forced to fly 17 hours a day.

MoD says it has other tanker Tristars which can carry pax - but that's only half the pax-only L1011s. And the US Navy isn't likely to release them while there are guys on the ground in need of CAS.

REAL credit then to the boys in blue who are busting their balls to meet requirements with the crap they are given by this pathetic MoD, whose PR department puts out viciously-insulting half-truths and lies like this.

I take my hat off to the men and women of 216 et al !!
bombedup6 is offline  
Old 8th Dec 2006, 19:22
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 26,821
Received 271 Likes on 110 Posts
That's not another quote from that yes-man prick Trevor, is it?

How can the reality of the cr@p state of the RAF's AT/AAR fleet be defended by such d*ckheads at the Ministry of Truth?

Last edited by BEagle; 8th Dec 2006 at 19:33.
BEagle is online now  
Old 8th Dec 2006, 19:38
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
wg13_dummy is offline  
Old 9th Dec 2006, 06:50
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Usually Somewhere Else
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The MOD Spokesman is correct, it's not a problem....for them. It's only a problem for those of us that fly them, and those of you that have to travel on them.

Blogger: "No wonder my PVR is in and I am getting out of the RAF you can stuff the job, the pay, my life is worth more than that. days to do getting few."

Blogger, I'll see you in civvy street.

Take care all, have a safe and timely Chrimbo.
flyboy007 is offline  
Old 9th Dec 2006, 17:41
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: western europe
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
As a matter of interest what aircraft do the USAF use for AT? ....
(aircraft fitted with Defensive Aids)
hobie is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.