Air Transport Mounting Arrangements
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Ken, when your secret base, soon to become a housing estate, gets a shed load of helicopters instead of fixed wing trucks, will that make a difference?
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Viz, given Ken's knowledge of FW and a Secret air base I anticipated, possibly wrongly, that he was at a base soon to become a RW base.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: GONE BY 2012
Age: 51
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fellas
As an AT operator it all boils down to best use of airframes from MOB's with full organic support. I have been to many airfields to collect pax and freight and on more than one occasion been delayed due to u/s loading equipment at airheads not used to large AT moves.
Lack of engineering support has also led to tasks being delayed as we don't have the specialised trade cover or personnel at outlying airbases to fix snags that would possibly be dealt with at Lye or Brize. In the good old days there even used to be spare airframes that you could crossdeck onto and still get the job done!!!
Not to mention airfield opening hours,crash cats,ACN/PCN,GSE and movements support.
We would love to come to you and get you home quicker but in the current climate it ain't gonna happen!!
As an AT operator it all boils down to best use of airframes from MOB's with full organic support. I have been to many airfields to collect pax and freight and on more than one occasion been delayed due to u/s loading equipment at airheads not used to large AT moves.
Lack of engineering support has also led to tasks being delayed as we don't have the specialised trade cover or personnel at outlying airbases to fix snags that would possibly be dealt with at Lye or Brize. In the good old days there even used to be spare airframes that you could crossdeck onto and still get the job done!!!
Not to mention airfield opening hours,crash cats,ACN/PCN,GSE and movements support.
We would love to come to you and get you home quicker but in the current climate it ain't gonna happen!!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Truckkie (and others) you are being a bit disingenuous when you say 'Not to mention airfield opening hours,crash cats,ACN/PCN,GSE and movements support.' True there is not a lot that can be done about ACN?PCN, but I don't think there are many MOBs certainly FW that can't take a large aircraft, in my experience moving Fast Jets around the world on fairly major (including operational) deployments most loads tend to bulk out rather than weight out. Airfield opening hours WILL be changed if the staish decides it will be so and the Ops staff (much maligned) have been known to cut all sorts of deals to get an extra crash wagon in place. By not practicing moves at units then it is not surprising that movements sections are rusty at the final handling point- bit of a self fulfilling policy there. As for Been There 'Because it costs money to keep an airfield open for large aircraft operations eg taxiways have to be repaired and kept FOD clear.' that rather begs a question as to how you think aircraft operate on airfields.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 146 Likes
on
28 Posts
Pontius: Maybe I should change my location description, events may overtake the housing estate proposal!
However I doubt it would much change how things currently operate, except it would be a shorter road move for the helicopters if they were prep'd at home base, or a short flight to Bzn to be done there. Would be a tad ironic if we ended up flying backto Lyn to load up!
However I doubt it would much change how things currently operate, except it would be a shorter road move for the helicopters if they were prep'd at home base, or a short flight to Bzn to be done there. Would be a tad ironic if we ended up flying backto Lyn to load up!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: in my combat underpants
Age: 53
Posts: 1,065
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kitbag - if you can find any rusty movers out there, I'll be damned impressed! They are all rotating through ops rather frequently where they can practice their arts. Also - having spoken to many MSFs recently, I can tell you they are pretty switched on cookies. Oh - most freight now goes by surface means - so the more of them who practice that, the better it is really.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr C, I apologise if I have upset any of the movers, that was most certainly not my intention having worked with some good guys in the past. I was rather trying to rebut the assertions of Truckie et al as far as the availability of station support for AT was concerned.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Wilts
Age: 53
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As for Been There 'Because it costs money to keep an airfield open for large aircraft operations eg taxiways have to be repaired and kept FOD clear.' that rather begs a question as to how you think aircraft operate on airfields.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Wilts
Age: 53
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shouldn't affect the RW assets but because the AT asset will now be blocking the active runway, the airfield will be black to FW assets.
However, as has been alluded to above, using the deployed airfield isn't the major issue. It is the lack of assets generally; AHE, airframes, crews. Also as has been stated above, most crews would rather go to 'home base' to pick or drop off personnel/equipment as most of them have been pax themselves, but we now longer have the assets to pre-position an aircraft the day before and load it there. Most aircraft come back from a route, get unloaded, prepped and then reloaded overnight for the following days trip. To preposition means losing a days flying which we can't afford at the moment.
Another point which has sort of been touched on is that the costs for deployment from a home base lie with the user unit/HQ. If they have have to up the crash cat, bring in extra staff, pay for HOTAC for the crew and movers/engineers/support personnel, those costs lie with deploying unit/HQ. Most of the time they would rather pay c*ck all and ship people by bus to the airheads. Sorry but that is the way the bean counters work as they have no concept of the morale!
However, as has been alluded to above, using the deployed airfield isn't the major issue. It is the lack of assets generally; AHE, airframes, crews. Also as has been stated above, most crews would rather go to 'home base' to pick or drop off personnel/equipment as most of them have been pax themselves, but we now longer have the assets to pre-position an aircraft the day before and load it there. Most aircraft come back from a route, get unloaded, prepped and then reloaded overnight for the following days trip. To preposition means losing a days flying which we can't afford at the moment.
Another point which has sort of been touched on is that the costs for deployment from a home base lie with the user unit/HQ. If they have have to up the crash cat, bring in extra staff, pay for HOTAC for the crew and movers/engineers/support personnel, those costs lie with deploying unit/HQ. Most of the time they would rather pay c*ck all and ship people by bus to the airheads. Sorry but that is the way the bean counters work as they have no concept of the morale!
Kitbag: "...use of an ORP by AT at a RW base shouldn't cause too much hassle to other users should it?"
No hassle at all whenever it's been done at Wattisham.
At Wattisham the taxiway LCGs and widths are OK for larger aircraft. They are also maintained to a good standard and swept regularly, as is the runway.
Unfortunately a new hangar was built after the RAF left which makes access on to the main apron a bit tight for anything larger than a C130, hence the use of the ORPs for parking larger aircraft.
No hassle at all whenever it's been done at Wattisham.
At Wattisham the taxiway LCGs and widths are OK for larger aircraft. They are also maintained to a good standard and swept regularly, as is the runway.
Unfortunately a new hangar was built after the RAF left which makes access on to the main apron a bit tight for anything larger than a C130, hence the use of the ORPs for parking larger aircraft.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BT all points raised seem valid, except...
blacking a RW airfield for a day to FW is how important or how inconvenient?
and 'Another point which has sort of been touched on is that the costs for deployment from a home base lie with the user unit/HQ. If they have have to up the crash cat, bring in extra staff, pay for HOTAC for the crew and movers/engineers/support personnel, those costs lie with deploying unit/HQ. Most of the time they would rather pay c*ck all and ship people by bus to the airheads. Sorry but that is the way the bean counters work as they have no concept of the morale' Is there really a need for HOTAC?
As I said earlier and I think you agreed, if the Staish is prepared to make it happen for whatever reason a lot of the Station based objections go.
Note, not trying to pick a fight here, just questioning assertions made. It seems that in reality the lack of AT is the crux, not the will or ability to make it happen.
blacking a RW airfield for a day to FW is how important or how inconvenient?
and 'Another point which has sort of been touched on is that the costs for deployment from a home base lie with the user unit/HQ. If they have have to up the crash cat, bring in extra staff, pay for HOTAC for the crew and movers/engineers/support personnel, those costs lie with deploying unit/HQ. Most of the time they would rather pay c*ck all and ship people by bus to the airheads. Sorry but that is the way the bean counters work as they have no concept of the morale' Is there really a need for HOTAC?
As I said earlier and I think you agreed, if the Staish is prepared to make it happen for whatever reason a lot of the Station based objections go.
Note, not trying to pick a fight here, just questioning assertions made. It seems that in reality the lack of AT is the crux, not the will or ability to make it happen.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One thing all of you who seek the lay any of the blame for this home base crock at the feet of the AT crews need to understand is that PILOTS LOVE TO FLY! If you can get your head round that simple concept you will soon realise that the "blame", for want of a better descriptor for the home base policy lies firmly at the feet of the bean counters 
Ask any AT drivers if they would like to increase their P1 time, quicken their time from Co to Captain, hasten their ATPL point etc etc and they will bite your hand off. Never mind the enjoyment they get from going somewhere different, flying new approaches/departures more take off's and landings etc etc. Pilots love to fly and given the chance thats what they would do pretty much most days of the year. So next time your on a bus for 12 hours heading to/from Lyn/Bzn and chuntering about feckin Albert/Shiney crews trust me it's not their fault
Ask any AT drivers if they would like to increase their P1 time, quicken their time from Co to Captain, hasten their ATPL point etc etc and they will bite your hand off. Never mind the enjoyment they get from going somewhere different, flying new approaches/departures more take off's and landings etc etc. Pilots love to fly and given the chance thats what they would do pretty much most days of the year. So next time your on a bus for 12 hours heading to/from Lyn/Bzn and chuntering about feckin Albert/Shiney crews trust me it's not their fault
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 81
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SFFP, very true and also, oddly, for navs too who far rather land at a base they did not take off from. Pilots, OTOH, really don't mind if they only land at the base they took off from as long as the take-off is not too long after the landing.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LXGB "Unfortunately a new hangar was built after the RAF left which makes access on to the main apron a bit tight for anything larger than a C130, hence the use of the ORPs for parking larger aircraft."
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
LFFC, the same team perhaps that put the F4 hush house on the lazy runway at Coningsby which put a bit of a damper on BBMF using the runway.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Back in the USSR
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Kitbag
I apologise if I have upset any of the movers, that was most certainly not my intention having worked with some good guys in the past.
CC
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the opinions,
It seems that this all lends itself to the AT having a hub in Cyprus and then both other ends could be serviced the same way, pick up and drop off where convenient.
It still amazes me that when Apache are changed over in theatre, with C17 parking about 100 metres from the Apache servicing hub, we cant drop one and pick one up at the same place, if not two at a time. With the bill that delivery and recovery from Brize attracts does anyone look at the overall impact to all parties rather than just the AT impact?
I dont pretend this is a panacea but where appropriate that it should not be discounted when other MOD issues are taken into the equation.
Wattisham: Runway, ILS, PAR, ORP parking, C130 can get on the apron etc. Also a plan discussed, but awaiting funding, to demolish a HAS site and establish a purpose built AT apron in support of 16X. Now there would be a capability, the largest Bde not having to troop through SC to BN taking god knows how long and arriving wherever they are going fit for f*** all. All when they are the lead Bde for rapid response!
Not to mention having a Bde Para Sqn for jumping that has bugger all to do for the foreseeable future.
HEDP
It seems that this all lends itself to the AT having a hub in Cyprus and then both other ends could be serviced the same way, pick up and drop off where convenient.
It still amazes me that when Apache are changed over in theatre, with C17 parking about 100 metres from the Apache servicing hub, we cant drop one and pick one up at the same place, if not two at a time. With the bill that delivery and recovery from Brize attracts does anyone look at the overall impact to all parties rather than just the AT impact?
I dont pretend this is a panacea but where appropriate that it should not be discounted when other MOD issues are taken into the equation.
Wattisham: Runway, ILS, PAR, ORP parking, C130 can get on the apron etc. Also a plan discussed, but awaiting funding, to demolish a HAS site and establish a purpose built AT apron in support of 16X. Now there would be a capability, the largest Bde not having to troop through SC to BN taking god knows how long and arriving wherever they are going fit for f*** all. All when they are the lead Bde for rapid response!
Not to mention having a Bde Para Sqn for jumping that has bugger all to do for the foreseeable future.
HEDP