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

Barnacles found on Tristar C2?

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.

Barnacles found on Tristar C2?

Old 9th Jan 2007, 17:54
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wiltshire, UK
Age: 63
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Barnacles found on Tristar C2?

Nothing heard yet about the recent tail scrape. Come on you professional pilots what happened?
CommonSenseApproach is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2007, 17:58
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Oxfordshire
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Tristar co-pilot had to run down the back on rotate and rescue the Brize Norton AT imprest which was full of all the excessive rates and hotel expenses that, supposedly, all AT crews get every time they're away!!!!!
Antique Driver is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2007, 18:15
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"Tristar co-pilot had to run down the back on rotate and rescue the Brize Norton AT imprest which was full of all the excessive rates and hotel expenses that, supposedly, all AT crews get every time they're away!!!!"

It is the ALM who deals with the imprest on 216 sqn. At least they do something for their money.........

Heard it was a tail scrape on landing somewhere hot and dusty.
A bit heavy on the flares there Mr Travolta!!!
Cannonfodder is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2007, 07:31
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Bedfordshire
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Isn't it interesting that there is very little comment/apportioning of blame etc on this incident. Had it been a Mover who dinked the Tristar with steps/loader etc, these pages would be awash with vitriolic accusations against the individual concerned and the Movs trade as a whole. Does this not demonstrate the 'one rule for one, another rule for the others'?

Standing by for incoming.
Combine Harvester is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2007, 07:42
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: these mist covered mountains are a home now for me.
Posts: 1,783
Received 29 Likes on 12 Posts
Are you suggesting they allow Movers to land aircraft now?
Runaway Gun is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2007, 07:44
  #6 (permalink)  
mbga9pgf
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by Combine Harvester
Isn't it interesting that there is very little comment/apportioning of blame etc on this incident. Had it been a Mover who dinked the Tristar with steps/loader etc, these pages would be awash with vitriolic accusations against the individual concerned and the Movs trade as a whole. Does this not demonstrate the 'one rule for one, another rule for the others'?
Standing by for incoming.
Bloody movers. Bet they loaded it a bit taily didnt they?
 
Old 10th Jan 2007, 07:47
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Angel N1
Posts: 372
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Move steps to aircraft door - level of difficulty 1- so simple that even I have done that.
Land 225,000 kg or so of thundering beast thats gotta be much harder, at least level 5 on the same scale.
Aeronut is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2007, 07:54
  #8 (permalink)  
London Mil
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by Aeronut
Move steps to aircraft door - level of difficulty 1- so simple that even I have done that.
Land 225,000 kg or so of thundering beast thats gotta be much harder, at least level 5 on the same scale.

Not if you use the autoland.





Ooops, I forgot, they did that a few years back.
 
Old 10th Jan 2007, 08:46
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Angel N1
Posts: 372
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by London Mil
Not if you use the autoland.
Ooops, I forgot, they did that a few years back.

Aircraft steps have autoland now?
Aeronut is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2007, 08:57
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Aeronut
Move steps to aircraft door - level of difficulty 1- so simple that even I have done that.
Land 225,000 kg or so of thundering beast thats gotta be much harder, at least level 5 on the same scale.
Surely the three holer drivers have some sort of reference point (written/visual) that says 'dont pull back any more' when they try to land (one hopes) lot lighter than 225K. Prob level 3-4.

Dont forget that to put the steps on, the recomended position for the operator is to pull the steps onto the aircraft looking above and behind you to get the door and steps sills level. Defo level 2-3 IMHO.
rolandpull is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2007, 09:45
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Angel N1
Posts: 372
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by rolandpull
Dont forget that to put the steps on, the recomended position for the operator is to pull the steps onto the aircraft looking above and behind you to get the door and steps sills level. Defo level 2-3 IMHO.
Yes I do remember, thanks so much for reminding me of that demanding moment in my life. Defo level 1, if that.
Aeronut is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2007, 10:02
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Nigit
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by rolandpull
Surely the three holer drivers have some sort of reference point (written/visual) that says 'dont pull back any more' when they try to land (one hopes) lot lighter than 225K. Prob level 3-4.
Dont forget that to put the steps on, the recomended position for the operator is to pull the steps onto the aircraft looking above and behind you to get the door and steps sills level. Defo level 2-3 IMHO.
So, landing Timmy at high AUW = 5
Landing Timmy <MAUW = 3-4
Driving steps up to Timmy* = 2-3
* - Insert aircraft type here as necessary

So by your reckoning Roland, driving steps is, at it's easiest, 40-60% as difficult as driving a Timmy and at it's most difficult, 66-100% as difficult.

Thanks for the clarification Roland. I'm sure that we'll now have a great deal more sympathy with the movers next time we're stuck in some toilet or other waiting for the aircraft to be fixed post a Muppet driving another set of steps into it.

Is driving the baggage loading thingy into the aircraft a different OCU, and if so, what's the return of service that entails?

Before this turns into another muppet-bashing thread and it gets locked by the mods, I'm sure the Timmy driver was trying his best and just made a simple old mistake. As any highly skilled operator of technical machinery (such as a mover) will tell you, mistakes are just a fact of life and shouldn't automatically instigate a witch-hunt.
ProfessionalStudent is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2007, 11:48
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Oxfordshire
Age: 54
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Combine Harvester
Isn't it interesting that there is very little comment/apportioning of blame etc on this incident. Had it been a Mover who dinked the Tristar with steps/loader etc, these pages would be awash with vitriolic accusations against the individual concerned and the Movs trade as a whole. Does this not demonstrate the 'one rule for one, another rule for the others'?
Standing by for incoming.
Not really. It demonstrates that Pilots make mistakes too.

I thought you'd be able to differentiate between a dynamically moving plane - in pitch, roll, yaw and speed - and a set of steps which go forward and backwards - rather slowly - and stop when you let go of the trigger.

Of course, aas groundcrew, it is our duty to milk it for all it's worth!
glum is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2007, 13:32
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Bedfordshire
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Glum,

You have missed my point. It was not a question of who was at fault, but the speed at which the airborne brigade are ready to criticise ground trades for accidents and mistakes compared to the retiscence to pass judgement on the pilot in this case. Reticence is an unfamiliar trait on these pages and I was merely highlighting the difference in attitude in this case.
Combine Harvester is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2007, 14:14
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Nigit
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Combine Harvester
Glum,
You have missed my point. It was not a question of who was at fault, but the speed at which the airborne brigade are ready to criticise ground trades for accidents and mistakes compared to the retiscence to pass judgement on the pilot in this case. Reticence is an unfamiliar trait on these pages and I was merely highlighting the difference in attitude in this case.
Combine, I thought the "all the officers are to$$ers and the pilots are even worse" website was E-Goat.

And why would 16 Air Assault Bde want to pass comment?
ProfessionalStudent is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2007, 14:38
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Combine Harvester

You allowed all of 2 posts to the original, both of which were jokey replies, before you started you bleat of ''why aren't you all slinging mud at the pilot?'' What's your problem??

Maybe it's because the majority of people on here would rather know the true facts before any conclusions are drawn. Whatever, I hope you wallow in your schadenfraude alone...
Twopack is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2007, 14:38
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 1,360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Combine,

The main differance is as follows:-

The pilot is working in a highly dynamic environment that is changing by the second due to a multitude of internal and external variations, weather, light levels and threat to name but a few and whilst there is rarely an excuse when Pilot error is the cause lets wait and see what exactly happened with this one

On the other hand the mover who dinks an aircraft has quite simply contravened a set of orders that he/she sign's for on, normally, an annual basis. The orders have been written by trade specialists who have risk assesed each scenario and have put in place clear and precise procedures that WILL prevent exactly the incident that said mover has caused provided procedures are folowed

The perception that the average muppet is sufficiently IQ challenged to be unable to adhere to a simple set of orders is rather sadly clear for all to see on a regular basis
Always_broken_in_wilts is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2007, 15:36
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Here & There
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Twopack
Maybe it's because the majority of people on here would rather know the true facts before any conclusions are drawn. Whatever, I hope you wallow in your schadenfraude alone...
......but only when an aircrew mate is involved. With everyone else why let the facts get in the way roasting the movers.

TTFN

Smudge
Smudger552 is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2007, 15:42
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Here & There
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Always_broken_in_wilts
On the other hand the mover who dinks an aircraft has quite simply contravened a set of orders that he/she sign's for on, normally, an annual basis.
Once again horribly one sided old chap. A mover controlling an Atlas is also in a 'dynamic & moving environment'. If a mechanical failure occurs then this would not be a case of contravening orders, however, the 2 winged master race will immediately jump to the conclusion that it was the individuals fault. You can't have it both ways.

Interesting to hear that the crew of the Timmy slept on the ac last night....were they worrying about the lynch mob outside waiting to insert garden tools and flaming torches?

TTFN

Smudge
Smudger552 is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2007, 20:00
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Usually Somewhere Else
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
HAHAHAHAHA> Someone stop me laughing, it's beginning to hurt!
Tell you what Combine. Hows about, you visit the Tristar Simulator for a landing, and I'll come and drive some steps. You have to land safely, and I have to get said steps in without ripping off a pitot tube!
The reason there maybe calls for pistols at dawn whenever a Mover jousts the side of a jet, is that it happens tooooooooo often. When was the last time a Tristar had a tail strike? And, on that note. When was the last time a Ground Engineer dinged a jet when driving the steps in? Hasn't happened while I have been around, and they operate the steps a lot downroute etc. Perhaps it's because they would be dragged across the coals if they didn't lower the steps before driving away and hit the aileron?

It has has happened before, it will happen again, but not with the same regularity that jets suffer 'Step Rash'. It's not a good thing to have happened, and yup, it shouldn't have happened. No one can deny that.

Last edited by flyboy007; 10th Jan 2007 at 20:23.
flyboy007 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

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.