Barnacles found on Tristar C2?

[CommonSenseApproach]

Nothing heard yet about the recent tail scrape. Come on you professional pilots what happened?

[Antique Driver]

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!!!!!

[Cannonfodder]

"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!!!

[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.

[Runaway Gun]

Are you suggesting they allow Movers to land aircraft now?

[mbga9pgf]

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?

[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.

[London Mil]

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.

[Aeronut]

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?

[rolandpull]

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.

[Aeronut]

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.

[ProfessionalStudent]

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.

[glum]

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!

[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.

[ProfessionalStudent]

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?

[Twopack]

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...

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

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

[Smudger552]

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]

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

[flyboy007]

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.