Army route checks the RAF
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not at home
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Army route checks the RAF
I've just heard that the Army are in the process of 'route checking' all AT routes, to make sure we're doing what it says on the tin.
We have enough to worry about, without an Army Colonel demanding to know why you were 20 minutes late departing.
Good? Bad?
We have enough to worry about, without an Army Colonel demanding to know why you were 20 minutes late departing.
Good? Bad?
Perhaps the "customer" is wanting his money's worth? You reckon they might suggest contracting out passenger hauls to more capable operations could follow from this?
So it's a sort of 'Customer Service Survey' as SASless rightly states?
Not a bad idea - if it's conducted in the right spirit.
We used to have to submit an entry in the aircraft diary if we were more than 20 min late off blocks - I never did learn what happened to all that data though. There must have been quite a lot of it, judging by all the paperwork delays, cocked up head counts and unreasonably tight planned turn round times I saw in my brief experience of AT.
Although "We were late because we had to recover a passenger life vest stolen by some thieving squaddie" might not go down too well with Woopert of the Wedgiment.... It happened to me once after a Turnhouse to Hannover trip; the movers had worked hard in the hot weather to get the jet unloaded and loaded in the turn round time, but the ALM found that one of the pax life vests was on its way to some squaddie barracks or other - the bus was stopped by the MPs and the life vest returned.
Not the fault of the RAF, that particular delay!
Not a bad idea - if it's conducted in the right spirit.
We used to have to submit an entry in the aircraft diary if we were more than 20 min late off blocks - I never did learn what happened to all that data though. There must have been quite a lot of it, judging by all the paperwork delays, cocked up head counts and unreasonably tight planned turn round times I saw in my brief experience of AT.
Although "We were late because we had to recover a passenger life vest stolen by some thieving squaddie" might not go down too well with Woopert of the Wedgiment.... It happened to me once after a Turnhouse to Hannover trip; the movers had worked hard in the hot weather to get the jet unloaded and loaded in the turn round time, but the ALM found that one of the pax life vests was on its way to some squaddie barracks or other - the bus was stopped by the MPs and the life vest returned.
Not the fault of the RAF, that particular delay!
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Close to ABIW
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I heard about this yesterday and it's true - consequence of the TA MP tirade. What worries the guys on the ground is that the said 'inquisitive' pongo will head straight for the youngest airman with white knees and grill him about what is happening with the turnround.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 1,360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blakey,
"What worries the guys on the ground is that the said 'inquisitive' pongo will head straight for the youngest airman with white knees and grill him about what is happening with the turnround."
As the young airman with white knees is almost certainly going to be a mover, and as movers as we all know to our cost are the main reason for AT being delayed what you allude to seems perfectly reasonable to me
"What worries the guys on the ground is that the said 'inquisitive' pongo will head straight for the youngest airman with white knees and grill him about what is happening with the turnround."
As the young airman with white knees is almost certainly going to be a mover, and as movers as we all know to our cost are the main reason for AT being delayed what you allude to seems perfectly reasonable to me
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Close to ABIW
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ABIW - Always causing mischief and it must hurt to be so right all the time. Your comment is of course not true but you must get in your 5 bleats a day.... What is worrying is that a lot of young airmen are now being deployed who are straight out of training but lack experience and sometimes still don't have all the ticks in the boxes because of manpower shortages. I believe a large percentage of the RAuxAF sqn are also on the Detachments and some theatres like the Balkans are now fully manned by them. it'll be interesting to see what the Army trapper discovers! It's also amazing that one third of the JHSU who support SH are also movers but they never get slagged off - must be a fixed wing J Loadie thing only?
Roll on 2012
Roll on 2012
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 1,360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blakey,
I think you will find that it's all to do with the units name. It's the Joint Helicopter SUPPORT Unit and in my 3 Puma tours I can vouch for the fact that SUPPORT is exactly what they do
Only wish the "S" in UK MAMS or the new AMS moniker stood for support
I think you will find that it's all to do with the units name. It's the Joint Helicopter SUPPORT Unit and in my 3 Puma tours I can vouch for the fact that SUPPORT is exactly what they do
Only wish the "S" in UK MAMS or the new AMS moniker stood for support
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 1,360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ratty,
"Are you suggesting that the RAF is not training its Movers to a sufficient standard to be deployed safely?"
Did the RAF ever train it's movers to a sufficient standard, especially with regards to motorised vehicels, to be safely deployed anywhere
"Are you suggesting that the RAF is not training its Movers to a sufficient standard to be deployed safely?"
Did the RAF ever train it's movers to a sufficient standard, especially with regards to motorised vehicels, to be safely deployed anywhere
Last edited by Always_broken_in_wilts; 22nd Jan 2007 at 16:26.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Close to ABIW
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ratty - No they are trained to operate safely but some only have the basic skills and so cannot operate all the support equipment. This in turn puts pressure on the others or sadly compels the supervisor sometimes to operate the kit himself losing total control as he is operating a piece of ACHE (Air Cargo Handling Equipment) - Does that clarify?
Roll on 2012
Roll on 2012
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Close to ABIW
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OMG!! - RTFQ! if you are a Supervisor you should not be operating any equipment otherwise someone else is telling you what to do. He/She didn't lose control of a piece of ACHE.....
Roll on 2012
Roll on 2012
Join Date: May 2000
Location: door or ramp, don't mind.
Posts: 961
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The army effectively "route checks" the AT continuously and to date AT has been found "wanting"!
I guess by giving some warning of a particular "check" it will give a chance to improve things and achieve an acceptable service.
The plane no longer departing when intended will now leave...........
I guess by giving some warning of a particular "check" it will give a chance to improve things and achieve an acceptable service.
The plane no longer departing when intended will now leave...........
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts