Kinloss........Whats Going on?
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not suggesting that mods can be carried out overnight. But with regards to the mods that you mentioned there was a programme to introduce them to the fleet. What I believe is being stated in earlier postings is that for some reason only selected a/c are modified.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Lincs
Posts: 695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DV,
I am sorry old bean, but you are completely wrong in your statement there. The days when we had 45 jets on the line is about the time when I was on the fleet, and they were certainly NOT all serviceable to the same standard, or indeed had the same mod state. There are various degrees of serviceability, and often that does not cause a problem. Clearly if you are going out on a mission that needs a radar search of an area, it would be pointless to take a jet that has a u/s Searchwater wouldn't it? But if you were going out on a pure SAR mission or radar only trip, then I would suggest to you that having a u/s sonobuoy launcher for example isn't a show stopper. However, your comment about some frames having some mods that others don't have is perfectly correct. So an ac may be S for some trips, but not others.
MightyHunter AGE
"So what you are saying is that the line and engops are incapable of looking at the flypro sheet and gleaning the information of what specific task that flight is going to require and then allocating an appropriate airframe, do me a favour will you?!" Yep, thats absolutely right which is why, certainly during my days on the fleet, the crew execs (Captain, Eng, AEO and both leads) would speak with eng ops to check out which airframe they would 'prefer' the day before or whatever. Now thats not a dig at the guys in eng ops or on the line, it is just common sense really. At the end of the day, the Crew execs are the guys who will decide how best to conduct and execute the mission - NOT the boys and girls in eng ops or on the line. Endex Matey!
Kind regards
TSM
I am sorry old bean, but you are completely wrong in your statement there. The days when we had 45 jets on the line is about the time when I was on the fleet, and they were certainly NOT all serviceable to the same standard, or indeed had the same mod state. There are various degrees of serviceability, and often that does not cause a problem. Clearly if you are going out on a mission that needs a radar search of an area, it would be pointless to take a jet that has a u/s Searchwater wouldn't it? But if you were going out on a pure SAR mission or radar only trip, then I would suggest to you that having a u/s sonobuoy launcher for example isn't a show stopper. However, your comment about some frames having some mods that others don't have is perfectly correct. So an ac may be S for some trips, but not others.
MightyHunter AGE
"So what you are saying is that the line and engops are incapable of looking at the flypro sheet and gleaning the information of what specific task that flight is going to require and then allocating an appropriate airframe, do me a favour will you?!" Yep, thats absolutely right which is why, certainly during my days on the fleet, the crew execs (Captain, Eng, AEO and both leads) would speak with eng ops to check out which airframe they would 'prefer' the day before or whatever. Now thats not a dig at the guys in eng ops or on the line, it is just common sense really. At the end of the day, the Crew execs are the guys who will decide how best to conduct and execute the mission - NOT the boys and girls in eng ops or on the line. Endex Matey!
Kind regards
TSM
Yep, thats absolutely right which is why, certainly during my days on the fleet, the crew execs (Captain, Eng, AEO and both leads) would speak with eng ops to check out which airframe they would 'prefer' the day before or whatever. Now thats not a dig at the guys in eng ops or on the line, it is just common sense really. At the end of the day, the Crew execs are the guys who will decide how best to conduct and execute the mission - NOT the boys and girls in eng ops or on the line. Endex Matey!
Essentially, there were good lines of communication then?
Something we used to do quite a lot of in the RAF. Now we just seem to send emails, make assumptions, and have meetings instead of just bimbling over to speak or picking up the ruddy phone.
Not hard is it?
Essentially, there were good lines of communication then?
Something we used to do quite a lot of in the RAF. Now we just seem to send emails, make assumptions, and have meetings instead of just bimbling over to speak or picking up the ruddy phone.
Not hard is it?
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 81
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a purple meeting Wednesday. There will be a dinner. They want to know numbers today.
Only problem is they have not sent the email requesting this information to us. Nor have they said where the dinner is to be. As I am not overly bothered I shall await the fallout.
There is certainly a tendency to fire off an email, possibly atthe last minute, in the blind hope that it will arrive in time. In them olden days, with the pony express, you allowed sufficient time for snail mail and then followed through with a face to face or a phone call. No longer.
Only problem is they have not sent the email requesting this information to us. Nor have they said where the dinner is to be. As I am not overly bothered I shall await the fallout.
There is certainly a tendency to fire off an email, possibly atthe last minute, in the blind hope that it will arrive in time. In them olden days, with the pony express, you allowed sufficient time for snail mail and then followed through with a face to face or a phone call. No longer.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Lincs
Posts: 695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jobza,
well maybe we did have better lines of comms, but essentially due to the nature of the mission, you had to go and see what frame was available or being allocated and check that it was what you needed to achieve the mission. Hence my comment about different frames for different missions.
I just want to assure the guys on the line and in eng ops that I am in no way having a dig at you fellas. But its not your call as to whether a frame is suitable or not (unless its for a trip to bash the circuit maybe) Unless you have the same level of knowledge and expertise as the crew execs and have been privvy to the exact requirements of the mission, then you simply are not in a position to make that call.
Delighted to hear that things look as though they are on the up at ISK, great news and well done to all, especially the groundcrew who appear to hjave been working like trojans! well done to guys and girls.
TSM
well maybe we did have better lines of comms, but essentially due to the nature of the mission, you had to go and see what frame was available or being allocated and check that it was what you needed to achieve the mission. Hence my comment about different frames for different missions.
I just want to assure the guys on the line and in eng ops that I am in no way having a dig at you fellas. But its not your call as to whether a frame is suitable or not (unless its for a trip to bash the circuit maybe) Unless you have the same level of knowledge and expertise as the crew execs and have been privvy to the exact requirements of the mission, then you simply are not in a position to make that call.
Delighted to hear that things look as though they are on the up at ISK, great news and well done to all, especially the groundcrew who appear to hjave been working like trojans! well done to guys and girls.
TSM
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Kinloss
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote TSM: which is why, certainly during my days on the fleet, the crew execs (Captain, Eng, AEO and both leads) would speak with eng ops to check out which airframe they would 'prefer' the day before or whatever.
TSM I am afraid times have changed from your days on the fleet as the days of you "preferring" an airframe are long gone.
You either get what you are given (to a certain extent) or dont fly at the moment and this is the reason why most guys are running out of currency.
The point I was making in my earlier post was the planners have not let the engineers (who after all know how to do our job and prioritize manpower and resources) do this correctly due to interference and constant changing priorities. Once again I will reiterate, we know things change, but moving manpower from one jet to another half way through a major time consuming job only makes the job last twice as long as it should. in this time of dwindling numbers these things should be getting taken into consideration but are not.
Fingers in holes springs to mind...............trouble is there aren't enough fingers at the moment.
TSM I am afraid times have changed from your days on the fleet as the days of you "preferring" an airframe are long gone.
You either get what you are given (to a certain extent) or dont fly at the moment and this is the reason why most guys are running out of currency.
The point I was making in my earlier post was the planners have not let the engineers (who after all know how to do our job and prioritize manpower and resources) do this correctly due to interference and constant changing priorities. Once again I will reiterate, we know things change, but moving manpower from one jet to another half way through a major time consuming job only makes the job last twice as long as it should. in this time of dwindling numbers these things should be getting taken into consideration but are not.
Fingers in holes springs to mind...............trouble is there aren't enough fingers at the moment.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Lincs
Posts: 695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MightyHunter AGE
Yes, I can see where you are coming from, and obviously the lack of frames to begin with only compounds the problem. I am not trying to teach any of you chaps how to suck eggs - I woudn't dream of it, and I have no idea what the current operations involve these days, but does the 'normal' flypro not come to you a couple of weeks in advance anymore?
I appreciate things will always change, and you guys will always get screwed around, but in my time you at least had an idea of trips a week or so in advance. Obviously as things 'popped up' (literally!!) then the flypro went out the window, but is the problem today just down to a pure lack of frames?
I genuingly sypathise with you all at ISK, and I do hope sincerely that things get better very soon, but like you, I feel that until you all get a large influx in cash, then things won't get better. Even then, if you have no frames to fix, you're up that old creek without any paddles! Good luck
TSM
Yes, I can see where you are coming from, and obviously the lack of frames to begin with only compounds the problem. I am not trying to teach any of you chaps how to suck eggs - I woudn't dream of it, and I have no idea what the current operations involve these days, but does the 'normal' flypro not come to you a couple of weeks in advance anymore?
I appreciate things will always change, and you guys will always get screwed around, but in my time you at least had an idea of trips a week or so in advance. Obviously as things 'popped up' (literally!!) then the flypro went out the window, but is the problem today just down to a pure lack of frames?
I genuingly sypathise with you all at ISK, and I do hope sincerely that things get better very soon, but like you, I feel that until you all get a large influx in cash, then things won't get better. Even then, if you have no frames to fix, you're up that old creek without any paddles! Good luck
TSM
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Lincs
Posts: 695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
letsgoandfly
It was always fairly chaotic on the squadron, but I agree entirely with all your points.
I guess the inevitable is finally happening.... you simply just cannot keep going on forever without adequate funding for the groundcrew, the aircraft and spares et al. This was predicted a long long time ago, and I suppose it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone with half a brain cell.
Well done to the groundcrew who have battled on relentlessly. I'm not sure I could have stayed as long as many of them have. They are the unsung heroes here. Well done again to them all.
Where did it all go wrong?? How very sad.
TSM
It was always fairly chaotic on the squadron, but I agree entirely with all your points.
I guess the inevitable is finally happening.... you simply just cannot keep going on forever without adequate funding for the groundcrew, the aircraft and spares et al. This was predicted a long long time ago, and I suppose it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone with half a brain cell.
Well done to the groundcrew who have battled on relentlessly. I'm not sure I could have stayed as long as many of them have. They are the unsung heroes here. Well done again to them all.
Where did it all go wrong?? How very sad.
TSM
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Scotland
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MRA 4 at Kinloss
I can confirm that the MRA4 is indeed at Kinloss today. It is sat just outside Ops and mighty pretty it looks too! Just a shame that even the test pilots don't like to fly it because of the stability problems!!
Will this be the last time we ever see it at Kinloss??
Are the MOD under some sort of pressure to hold off on announcing any further delay tothew project? Something to do with the local and MSP elections up here by any chance?
Will this be the last time we ever see it at Kinloss??
Are the MOD under some sort of pressure to hold off on announcing any further delay tothew project? Something to do with the local and MSP elections up here by any chance?
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Here and there
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nav A,
Is that really what the TPs said? I think your info is a little off the mark. Making sweeping statements like that on this site always damages a project (even the poor MRA4) and should be thought through thoroughly before posting.
MOA
Is that really what the TPs said? I think your info is a little off the mark. Making sweeping statements like that on this site always damages a project (even the poor MRA4) and should be thought through thoroughly before posting.
MOA
Last edited by MOA; 26th Apr 2007 at 20:01. Reason: v poor english...
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Here and there
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets go,
Again not true. PA3 (aircraft at Kinloss) is to cease flying soon and start some ground trials. It has nothing to do with the stability problem and the aircraft is certainly not being grounded due to the lack of embodiment of the stability system. Unfortunately it is not envisaged that PA3 will rejoin the flight test programme (no money
) prior to being converted into a production standard MRA4.
MOA
Again not true. PA3 (aircraft at Kinloss) is to cease flying soon and start some ground trials. It has nothing to do with the stability problem and the aircraft is certainly not being grounded due to the lack of embodiment of the stability system. Unfortunately it is not envisaged that PA3 will rejoin the flight test programme (no money
) prior to being converted into a production standard MRA4.MOA
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bridgwater Somerset
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the House of Lords
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Will he comment on reports that the refurbished fleet of Nimrods in Afghanistan will have the same fuel system as caused the disaster with the loss of 14 personnel last year?
Lord Drayson: My Lords, the noble Baroness will understand that I am not able to comment on that because the board of inquiry into the loss of the Nimrod has not reported; of course, I will be able to once that has taken place
I have posted this before but its worth repeating
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Will he comment on reports that the refurbished fleet of Nimrods in Afghanistan will have the same fuel system as caused the disaster with the loss of 14 personnel last year?
Lord Drayson: My Lords, the noble Baroness will understand that I am not able to comment on that because the board of inquiry into the loss of the Nimrod has not reported; of course, I will be able to once that has taken place
I have posted this before but its worth repeating
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: N/A
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, but that makes a couple of newspapers and now one question in the House of Lords that have referred to a "refurbished fleet of Nimrods". Does anyone know what these people are talking about? MR2s that happen to have recently left major servicing? MRA4s?
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TSM. Before we loose the thread completely with regards to mods states, serviceability and "preferred" airframes, I would like to clarify and/or correct some of the earlier postings.
(1) It was never suggested that the whole Nimrod fleet was at the same "S" state at any given time.That would be too ridiculous to imagine. Some were ready to fly, some had just returned from a mission, others were in deep servicing etc.
(2) When mods were introduced, they were for the fleet. Naturally, it took time to introduce any given mod to all 45 aicraft, so at any given time there were a/c at different mod standards. But there was never a deliberate programme to create fleets within the fleet, and that is what we are talking about at present.
(3) The ground engineers (Flight line and Eng Co-ord) determined which a/c would be presented for the following days programme, based on the specified needs of the squadrons. Of course if you needed ESM or Radar or ......, then the ground force would only offer you an a/c (and a back up) that had those items of equipment in a GO condition. Ops (flying) did not specify "preferred" airframes. If a/c xyz met the requirements, no one ever came back and said it should be a/c abc. You should always remember that it is not just the flying programme that has to be accommodated, but also the maintenance programme. Little point in having a bunch of a/c awaiting deep servicing simply because the squadrons had "preferred" airframes.
Now you can talk about it until you are blue in the face, but that is the way it was because I was there, and I generated aircraft. Unfortunately, somewhere along the line things got changed, and the way I read MH's, postings he would like to return to the ways they were.
DV
(1) It was never suggested that the whole Nimrod fleet was at the same "S" state at any given time.That would be too ridiculous to imagine. Some were ready to fly, some had just returned from a mission, others were in deep servicing etc.
(2) When mods were introduced, they were for the fleet. Naturally, it took time to introduce any given mod to all 45 aicraft, so at any given time there were a/c at different mod standards. But there was never a deliberate programme to create fleets within the fleet, and that is what we are talking about at present.
(3) The ground engineers (Flight line and Eng Co-ord) determined which a/c would be presented for the following days programme, based on the specified needs of the squadrons. Of course if you needed ESM or Radar or ......, then the ground force would only offer you an a/c (and a back up) that had those items of equipment in a GO condition. Ops (flying) did not specify "preferred" airframes. If a/c xyz met the requirements, no one ever came back and said it should be a/c abc. You should always remember that it is not just the flying programme that has to be accommodated, but also the maintenance programme. Little point in having a bunch of a/c awaiting deep servicing simply because the squadrons had "preferred" airframes.
Now you can talk about it until you are blue in the face, but that is the way it was because I was there, and I generated aircraft. Unfortunately, somewhere along the line things got changed, and the way I read MH's, postings he would like to return to the ways they were.
DV
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Davey Boy: They are probably referring to the new self defence system and new comms suite for the back end. Nothing to do with improved fuel systems, I suspect.
DV
DV
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: N/A
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was wondering whether that's what the press have got hold of too.
I can see why that would be a difficult question for the MDP to answer; it almost suffers from not being a very well informed question in the first place. Obviously the MDP couldn't comment on whether anything was the "same fuel system that caused the disaster" because until the BOI report there is no official line on what exactly caused the disaster. It's a shame that he couldn't just say "there isn't a refurbished fleet of nimrods flying around so of course the fuel system hasn't changed", but you could argue that every airframe has been refurbished countless times over its service life, and several pipes have changed over the last few months.
I guess the bottom line is that it's difficult to give a clear answer to that question without either sounding a bit shifty, or going into exhaustive detail.
I can see why that would be a difficult question for the MDP to answer; it almost suffers from not being a very well informed question in the first place. Obviously the MDP couldn't comment on whether anything was the "same fuel system that caused the disaster" because until the BOI report there is no official line on what exactly caused the disaster. It's a shame that he couldn't just say "there isn't a refurbished fleet of nimrods flying around so of course the fuel system hasn't changed", but you could argue that every airframe has been refurbished countless times over its service life, and several pipes have changed over the last few months.
I guess the bottom line is that it's difficult to give a clear answer to that question without either sounding a bit shifty, or going into exhaustive detail.
Last edited by DaveyBoy; 27th Apr 2007 at 18:59.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Lincs
Posts: 695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DV
Can I just remind you of what you wrote:
"I remember the days when "S" meant fully "S" to perform most roles. The line, and eng co-ord (as it was known) decided which aircraft to fly. This was usually determined by flying hours to the next in-depth servicing, and/or the speed of recovery. I beleive that is what "Mighty Hunter" is calling for. Ops decide on the mission, and the engineers should decide which airframe is offered for the task. It's not rocket science it's KISS"
Now, in your latest contribution you say:
para 1 says that you were not suggesting they were all 'S'
para 2 says that it took time to 'mod' all 45 airframes
and Your para 3 says that I should 'always remember that it is not just the flying programme that has to be accommodated, but also the maintenance programme'
So I guess I was right then when I said that all of the jets were NOT all serviceable to the same standard, or were at the same mod state?
As for remembering the maintenance programme, I can't agree with you there either I'm afraid. Why should I be involved in that as a flyer? Isn't that your job? One of the things that you guys always bleated on about when I was on the fleet was that the jets were neverf on the ground long enough for you to fix all the snags. I agree with you on that entirely, so put the jet u/s, end of story or out of hours. Whats the problem?
Please don't blame the squadrons for the flying programme (certainly not in the 70' and 80's anyway) Tasking was almost always decided by group, NOT the squadrons. Yes, we would occasionally ask for a trip if we needed some specific training etc, but you make it out as though we all sat in the crew room and dictated the flypro every day. If you were in ops or on the line then you should remember that, certainly I do.
I was there too Sir, and whilst I am grateful to you for generating aircraft for me and my crew, please don't think that the generation was done at the request of myself or any other aircrew. And as for your comment about 'preffered' airframes, you belittle yourself with comments like that. You and I both know that is just plain silly.
TSM
ps rafmatt, you're a spoof right? You're not for real are you?
Can I just remind you of what you wrote:
"I remember the days when "S" meant fully "S" to perform most roles. The line, and eng co-ord (as it was known) decided which aircraft to fly. This was usually determined by flying hours to the next in-depth servicing, and/or the speed of recovery. I beleive that is what "Mighty Hunter" is calling for. Ops decide on the mission, and the engineers should decide which airframe is offered for the task. It's not rocket science it's KISS"
Now, in your latest contribution you say:
para 1 says that you were not suggesting they were all 'S'
para 2 says that it took time to 'mod' all 45 airframes
and Your para 3 says that I should 'always remember that it is not just the flying programme that has to be accommodated, but also the maintenance programme'
So I guess I was right then when I said that all of the jets were NOT all serviceable to the same standard, or were at the same mod state?
As for remembering the maintenance programme, I can't agree with you there either I'm afraid. Why should I be involved in that as a flyer? Isn't that your job? One of the things that you guys always bleated on about when I was on the fleet was that the jets were neverf on the ground long enough for you to fix all the snags. I agree with you on that entirely, so put the jet u/s, end of story or out of hours. Whats the problem?
Please don't blame the squadrons for the flying programme (certainly not in the 70' and 80's anyway) Tasking was almost always decided by group, NOT the squadrons. Yes, we would occasionally ask for a trip if we needed some specific training etc, but you make it out as though we all sat in the crew room and dictated the flypro every day. If you were in ops or on the line then you should remember that, certainly I do.
I was there too Sir, and whilst I am grateful to you for generating aircraft for me and my crew, please don't think that the generation was done at the request of myself or any other aircrew. And as for your comment about 'preffered' airframes, you belittle yourself with comments like that. You and I both know that is just plain silly.
TSM
ps rafmatt, you're a spoof right? You're not for real are you?
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: ooop north
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I dont think that rafmatt is spoofing tbh. The painter trade were made redundant in large numbers then told that they were to be held at her majesty's pleasure until they had completed various ooa, and sod the resettlement that they are deserving. Also the air eng trade has been partly (or completely) knackered by the poor situation at ISK, but what the hell, train some more eh?
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TSM. With all due respect, I really do not know where your ramblings are supposed to be leading. You have lost the thread completely. We were talking about today's fleets within a fleet, and how that can lead to problems when it comes to deciding what to fly. As for "preferred" airframes, you are the one that raised this issue.
DV
DV