Kinloss........Whats Going on?
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 960
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Errr.....where did you say those P3s were parked again ??
"Two's clear...start #2"
"air drop....rotation....rotation indicated....fuel flow....light-off....etc...etc"
they work very well, and work for a long time.....
Cheers FD
"Two's clear...start #2"
"air drop....rotation....rotation indicated....fuel flow....light-off....etc...etc"
they work very well, and work for a long time.....
Cheers FD
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: ISK
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Flight Detent
"air drop....rotation....rotation indicated....fuel flow....light-off....etc...etc"
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Just down the road from ISK
Posts: 328
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Zhivago
Nimrod aircrew manning levels are still pre Options for change let alone Front line First. Oh but what about the squadron disbandments I hear you say.. well what exactly did that achieve on the aircrew manning levels? Can anyone say exactly how many where made redundant?. ....Not many...and not to the same extent as the rest of the RAF. It was nothing more than a transparent personell move to the other Squadrons.
It doesn't take a brain surgeon to work it out.
It doesn't take a brain surgeon to work it out.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 960
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"reddeathdrinker"
....and your point is....
Don't get me started on the complexities of British-made airplanes,
I used to use 'em, but no more !!!
The American-made product is so much easier to operate/understand, and, dare I say it, reliable.
and you have just reinforced that point!!!
Cheers FD
....and your point is....
Don't get me started on the complexities of British-made airplanes,
I used to use 'em, but no more !!!
The American-made product is so much easier to operate/understand, and, dare I say it, reliable.
and you have just reinforced that point!!!
Cheers FD
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mighty Hunter: I refer to your post # 81, dated 31st March.
I can not believe that the line no longer has control over the aircraft it generates to meet the fying programme. How times have change.
In the past, it was a case of the squadrons (or ops cell) specifying the daily requirement, in terms of sorties and fits, but the line then determined which tail numbers filled those slots. (Flying hours being taken into consideration). It's the only way. No wonder you have so many failed sorties.
Also, your comments regarding robberies, have always been true. In the end you usually end up with damaged equipment and two U/S aircraft.
DV
I can not believe that the line no longer has control over the aircraft it generates to meet the fying programme. How times have change.
In the past, it was a case of the squadrons (or ops cell) specifying the daily requirement, in terms of sorties and fits, but the line then determined which tail numbers filled those slots. (Flying hours being taken into consideration). It's the only way. No wonder you have so many failed sorties.
Also, your comments regarding robberies, have always been true. In the end you usually end up with damaged equipment and two U/S aircraft.
DV
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Shed
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The answer is 'yes' DV - almost full Nim cover from start to finish with a wee gap in between. Good effort from all crews (inc helos) and especially NLS - well done lads, we appreciate it.
Obviously our thoughts are with those who didn't make it. RIP.
Obviously our thoughts are with those who didn't make it. RIP.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Exiled in England
Age: 48
Posts: 1,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yet again when the bell rings and the midden hath hit the windmill, the RAF manages to be there.
Excellent effort from all involved.
RIP to those lost
Excellent effort from all involved.
RIP to those lost
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 60
Posts: 2,051
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes
on
6 Posts
I have had a message from a journalist who wants to do a story about this 'important' issue. I have no personal knowledge of the happenings up there so would not comment. However, it is important to remind everyone that these pages are read and the rumours are quoted as 'exclusive truths' by the world press. I said on an earlier post, that the only way to get something done with this government is to use the thing they fear the most... The media. Be careful just how much you say...... Nobody expects the spanish inquisition!!
"I have had a message from a journalist who wants to do a story about this 'important' issue"
££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££ ££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££ £
Best call in the Royal Navy Press Liaison Team.
££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££ ££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££ £
Best call in the Royal Navy Press Liaison Team.
You'd get a very skewed vision of the issue from what's on PPRuNe, though as always it provides some useful insights into how some people feel about the issue.
The issues of serviceability and availability are especially interesting, and are far more complex than they might at first appear.
I'd assumed that BAE Systems were failing to meet their obligations under NISC - since the Press Releases seemed to suggest that the company should be delivering ten aircraft available on the line every day.
But that's not what the contract says.
The only obligation is to provide ten aircraft (as air vehicles, the light blue are still responsible for mission equipment, etc.) out of depth, available to forward.
Now I don't know whether they're achieving that, or not, but they could be, and the availability rate might still be appalling.
It all depends on what is keeping the aircraft out of the air.
The issues of serviceability and availability are especially interesting, and are far more complex than they might at first appear.
I'd assumed that BAE Systems were failing to meet their obligations under NISC - since the Press Releases seemed to suggest that the company should be delivering ten aircraft available on the line every day.
But that's not what the contract says.
The only obligation is to provide ten aircraft (as air vehicles, the light blue are still responsible for mission equipment, etc.) out of depth, available to forward.
Now I don't know whether they're achieving that, or not, but they could be, and the availability rate might still be appalling.
It all depends on what is keeping the aircraft out of the air.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Emptying the litter bin
Age: 65
Posts: 409
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Best call in the Royal Navy Press Liaison Team.
Max Clifford is on holiday in Spain
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jackonicko, if BAe are only required to provide 10 aircrtaft as air vehicles, why are civilians being recruited, thru MPI Ltd, for the avionics trade at 1st line? By the way, I note the pay rate has been increased from £10.96 per hour to £13.
DV
DV
Last edited by Distant Voice; 15th Apr 2007 at 22:02.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Forres
Age: 59
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MPI
"So, £10.96 per hour for 40 hours....
That's £438.40 per week, or, for a (52-4) week year, £21043.20.
I'm sure there'll be qualified applicants falling over themselves to work for such a salary......on a 'temporary' contract
"
It's actually around 24K plus overtime..... and they are being employed as we type! What's wrong with having more airmen? Surely that's cheaper and at least the RAF has an asset to use elsewhere!!
As for Nimmage's comments, keep them coming mate. Somebody just might develope a spine and do something about the state of the jets, spares, manpower, grumbling aircrew, over-worked G-crew, PVR rate and oh yes, a new carpark behind OPS would be nice!
As for the comment about 30 being unsafe to fly on that dreadful day, who or what do you think you are saying that???
You ought to be ashamed!
It's a truely uncomfortable position to be in, sitting back and watching what has happened at Kinloss over a very short period of time, listening to both aircrew and groundcrew bemoaning almost everything that they were once proud to be a part of. The stuffing has well and truely been knocked out of everyone and I for one am glad to be away from it.
Something has to happen to improve things or there will be nobody left in the RAF at Kinloss.......or maybe that's the overall agenda here?
That's £438.40 per week, or, for a (52-4) week year, £21043.20.
I'm sure there'll be qualified applicants falling over themselves to work for such a salary......on a 'temporary' contract
"It's actually around 24K plus overtime..... and they are being employed as we type! What's wrong with having more airmen? Surely that's cheaper and at least the RAF has an asset to use elsewhere!!
As for Nimmage's comments, keep them coming mate. Somebody just might develope a spine and do something about the state of the jets, spares, manpower, grumbling aircrew, over-worked G-crew, PVR rate and oh yes, a new carpark behind OPS would be nice!
As for the comment about 30 being unsafe to fly on that dreadful day, who or what do you think you are saying that???
You ought to be ashamed!It's a truely uncomfortable position to be in, sitting back and watching what has happened at Kinloss over a very short period of time, listening to both aircrew and groundcrew bemoaning almost everything that they were once proud to be a part of. The stuffing has well and truely been knocked out of everyone and I for one am glad to be away from it.
Something has to happen to improve things or there will be nobody left in the RAF at Kinloss.......or maybe that's the overall agenda here?
Distant,
As I understand it (and I would urge anyone who knows different to correct me and make me look like even more of a tit) the partial civilianisation of Forward to which you refer is entirely separate from BAE's NISC contract.
Letsgo,
Less than one year ago, the current IPT leader went on the record to explicitely de-link the MRA4 and the R1, which has bags of life remaining, and which does not need to be replaced in anything like the same timeframe.
As I understand it (and I would urge anyone who knows different to correct me and make me look like even more of a tit) the partial civilianisation of Forward to which you refer is entirely separate from BAE's NISC contract.
Letsgo,
Less than one year ago, the current IPT leader went on the record to explicitely de-link the MRA4 and the R1, which has bags of life remaining, and which does not need to be replaced in anything like the same timeframe.
It went from 21 conversions plus three development aircraft to 18 plus the three development aircraft to be brought to the same standard to 12 plus three and now nine plus the three.
The requirement is now for 12 jets, and though conversion of the three development aircraft isn't yet on contract it is expected to be.
The three were never expected to be going to Waddington.
His post No.68:
"Flight developement of Nimrod MRA4 programme continues and the formal production contract was received in July for nine aircraft with the option for the conversion of the three aicraft currently in flight developement to production standard."
The requirement is now for 12 jets, and though conversion of the three development aircraft isn't yet on contract it is expected to be.
The three were never expected to be going to Waddington.
His post No.68:
"Flight developement of Nimrod MRA4 programme continues and the formal production contract was received in July for nine aircraft with the option for the conversion of the three aicraft currently in flight developement to production standard."