Kinloss........Whats Going on?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: bristol
Age: 56
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pprune mentioned in house of commons
Hi all.
Just read in the "Prune mentioned in the house of commons" thread that the Minister of state, Ministry of Defence. Mr Adam Ingram has stated that there are typically nine aircraft ready for front line use daily!
weh heh, that's plenty of airframes for you at ISK surely.
Can't see what you are all moaning about. After all, Mr Ingram would surely have checked his fact's first, wouldn't he. And there's no way one of our glorious politicians (who love our military so much) would speak any untruth's IS THERE?
Sorry, stupid mode set back to OFF.
Do any of you guy's and girl's remember, that when speaking of the R.A.F. The FEW meant the pilot's, and not the aircraft.
Just read in the "Prune mentioned in the house of commons" thread that the Minister of state, Ministry of Defence. Mr Adam Ingram has stated that there are typically nine aircraft ready for front line use daily!
weh heh, that's plenty of airframes for you at ISK surely.
Can't see what you are all moaning about. After all, Mr Ingram would surely have checked his fact's first, wouldn't he. And there's no way one of our glorious politicians (who love our military so much) would speak any untruth's IS THERE?
Sorry, stupid mode set back to OFF.
Do any of you guy's and girl's remember, that when speaking of the R.A.F. The FEW meant the pilot's, and not the aircraft.
Jacko
The R1 might have 'bags of life left', I wouldn't know...... but what are the costs of maintaining it going to be once the MR2s have gone? I heard that the cost might be prohibitive, so the option of replacing 'early' with an MRA4 airframe was considered.
'Considering' the option in advance strikes me as being merely prudent, rather than waiting until the R1 replacement requirement is on top of us with insufficient time to come up with a viable solution - leading to the retention of an airframe past it's planned life. That seems to be how we normally do things in MoD!!!
As to what the outcome of those 'considerations' was, well talk of a contract to refurbish the R1s, which I believe I read on another pprune thread, would seem to answer that question!
The R1 might have 'bags of life left', I wouldn't know...... but what are the costs of maintaining it going to be once the MR2s have gone? I heard that the cost might be prohibitive, so the option of replacing 'early' with an MRA4 airframe was considered.
'Considering' the option in advance strikes me as being merely prudent, rather than waiting until the R1 replacement requirement is on top of us with insufficient time to come up with a viable solution - leading to the retention of an airframe past it's planned life. That seems to be how we normally do things in MoD!!!
As to what the outcome of those 'considerations' was, well talk of a contract to refurbish the R1s, which I believe I read on another pprune thread, would seem to answer that question!
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Scotland
Age: 49
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MoD accused of cost-cutting on crash plane
Sunday times article today http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle1687498.ece
Mick Smith keeping up the pressure
Mick Smith keeping up the pressure
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Kinloss
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, well.
Just received a briefing to the effect that:
"The planners will now not be getting involved in the week to week running of the flypro and the line in conjunction with engops will have control over what frame does what and how the priorities are accorded manpower and spares wise"
Good on the Staishy is what I say to that.
Along with the re-org of the station structure we might actually get back to the way the station was run (before whoever it was who needed a project to get promoted get their hands on it) and get back to the days of 'S' airframes for the aviators to train with.
Along with the extra manpower the line has been afforded and the mini Maver about to be conducted we may actually get some guys to work on the jets.
Things are looking up gents, it may not be obvious now but hopefully in the near future things are going to change for the better.
Watch this space...................
Just received a briefing to the effect that:
"The planners will now not be getting involved in the week to week running of the flypro and the line in conjunction with engops will have control over what frame does what and how the priorities are accorded manpower and spares wise"
Good on the Staishy is what I say to that.
Along with the re-org of the station structure we might actually get back to the way the station was run (before whoever it was who needed a project to get promoted get their hands on it) and get back to the days of 'S' airframes for the aviators to train with.
Along with the extra manpower the line has been afforded and the mini Maver about to be conducted we may actually get some guys to work on the jets.
Things are looking up gents, it may not be obvious now but hopefully in the near future things are going to change for the better.
Watch this space...................
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great news "Might Hunter". Perhaps all the comments being made in the press, pprune and House of Commons is finally getting through to someone at the top. As a member of the old school, I will watch your space in the months ahead, just to see if Kinloss turns 180 degs and goes back to the system that use to work.
DV
DV
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can't believe the uninformed drivel I just read about aircrew/aircraft ratios!
Good to read the other comments; though nothing seems to have changed since September! 
Aircrew away for 6 months every year, SAR and secondary duties results in over stretched underpaid drones!
Good to read the other comments; though nothing seems to have changed since September! Aircrew away for 6 months every year, SAR and secondary duties results in over stretched underpaid drones!
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: N Scotland
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mightyhunter, I'm afraid that you're misunderstanding the nature of the task. It is too simplistic to say that from now on, eng ops and the Line will determine which jets will fly. As you know, we have fleets within fleets and if the crew need to fly in a specific role, there is is no point in preparing a jet that doesn't meet that need. It is for that very reason that the ops planners directed the line to work on specific jets. You guys cannot choose which jets to fix and thus direct which tasks we carry out. The task dictates the direction we all go in.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OC Ovee: In other words we have degrees of serviceability. 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.
DV
DV
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Deepest, darkest Oxon
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Serviceable Jets
In order to balance the argument a little - it does appear that things have improved hugely over the last couple of weeks. There have been more jets available to fulfil the flypro (and yes they have got airborne!). Thanks must be due to the groundgrew - well done chaps (not said insincerely). I have flown the Hunter 3 times this week and have a renewed confidence in the airframe.
Long may it continue.
VAT
Long may it continue.
VAT
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
I believe AC Ovee said 'fleets within fleets'. I don't know the specifics here but I believe it refers not to serviceable or partially or unserviceable airframes, but to airframes that have had specific role modifications incorporated.
For various reasons, need, money, airframe availability etc, only some of the aircraft may incoroporate say MOD-X. If Mod X is a mission specific tool that a particular crew needs for training then it follows they must be allocated an aircraft with that capability.
If they are 'fobbed' off with another aircraft they would achieve the usual incremental chinagraph creeping line but not meet their training need.
In the early days Mk 1 Nimrods were all to a fleet standard. As improvements are incorporated so that standard inevitably gets varied.
On a different type it was often that we would have 2 or 3 sorties prepared and have to keep swapping our mission plan to match the airframe - X had no low level hours (pulls out high level navex) - Y needs ECM monitor run (pulls out Scotish navex) - Z has practice bombs (replans mission). Quite normal.
As the numbers reduce to single figures this will become the norm, frustrating but inevitable.
For various reasons, need, money, airframe availability etc, only some of the aircraft may incoroporate say MOD-X. If Mod X is a mission specific tool that a particular crew needs for training then it follows they must be allocated an aircraft with that capability.
If they are 'fobbed' off with another aircraft they would achieve the usual incremental chinagraph creeping line but not meet their training need.
In the early days Mk 1 Nimrods were all to a fleet standard. As improvements are incorporated so that standard inevitably gets varied.
On a different type it was often that we would have 2 or 3 sorties prepared and have to keep swapping our mission plan to match the airframe - X had no low level hours (pulls out high level navex) - Y needs ECM monitor run (pulls out Scotish navex) - Z has practice bombs (replans mission). Quite normal.
As the numbers reduce to single figures this will become the norm, frustrating but inevitable.
But as numbers reduce, configuration control should become easier, and it should be easier to avoid 'fleets within fleets'.
Moreover, once NISC enters its third phase (once due this month, now due "later in the year") BAE will become responsible for the delivery of serviceable jets as virtually complete weapons systems (some specific kit will remain the responsibility of the RAF and other OEMs) rather than as air vehicles.
Moreover, once NISC enters its third phase (once due this month, now due "later in the year") BAE will become responsible for the delivery of serviceable jets as virtually complete weapons systems (some specific kit will remain the responsibility of the RAF and other OEMs) rather than as air vehicles.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PN. I fully appreciate the point you are making, and as an engineer I accept that the flying programme has to be driven by the needs of the squadrons - that's why the aircraft are there. What I do not agree with is "As improvements are incorporated the standard inveribly gets varried". This should not be the case for a small fleet, and tends to suggest that due to cost cutting the same improvements can not be afforded to all aircraft. If it could be achieved in the early days with a large fleet, it should be much easier to achieve it today. Variations in mod standards not only causes problems for aircrews, but ground crews as well. It leads to mistakes being made.
I understand the need to move specialist equipment, which could be in short numbers, from a/c to a/c, but to have a/c at different mod standards is foolish. Not to worry, when MRA 4 appears, all 9 (or 12) will be to the same standard.
I understand the need to move specialist equipment, which could be in short numbers, from a/c to a/c, but to have a/c at different mod standards is foolish. Not to worry, when MRA 4 appears, all 9 (or 12) will be to the same standard.
Registered User **
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What I do not agree with is "As improvements are incorporated the standard inveribly gets varried". This should not be the case for a small fleet, and tends to suggest that due to cost cutting the same improvements can not be afforded to all aircraft.
S_H
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Kinloss
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[Quote Ac OVee] It is for that very reason that the ops planners directed the line to work on specific jets. You guys cannot choose which jets to fix and thus direct which tasks we carry out. The task dictates the direction we all go in.
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?!
What you are saying then is that we are stupid? and unaware that when the flypro says "Blah blah essential" then we will allocate an aircraft that doesn't have "Blah" fitted.
Obviously we should all go back to school then.............
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?!
What you are saying then is that we are stupid? and unaware that when the flypro says "Blah blah essential" then we will allocate an aircraft that doesn't have "Blah" fitted.
Obviously we should all go back to school then.............
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SH. The picture I paint is the way it was, it is not a figment of the mind. All aircraft (45 at one time) were kept to the same standard. They were all capable of being configured for the various roles. I understand about cables etc, and that you can not simply move equipment round unless the basics are installed. But for such a small fleet there shouid be standardization in order to give the greatest amount flexibility. That's why you have your problems. How many fleets do you have within a fleet of 15?
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 81
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DV, it was untrue that all 46 aircraft were kept to the same standard.
It was the aim to keep them to the same standard but it takes time to schedule modifications. True, some, like the TAC Nav software could be done in a surge over a weekend but the fitting of the TacNav in-flight software facility was not done over night.
Not all aircraft received the Marine band VHF mod at the same time so specific aircraft were allocated to the Tapestry missions.
Similarly the secure comms fit was initially a lashup rig.
I also seem to recall that there was more than one RATT fit on the go for some time.
I would suggest that MOD programme management is quite complex and may be even more of even greater complexity in a smaller fleet.
It was the aim to keep them to the same standard but it takes time to schedule modifications. True, some, like the TAC Nav software could be done in a surge over a weekend but the fitting of the TacNav in-flight software facility was not done over night.
Not all aircraft received the Marine band VHF mod at the same time so specific aircraft were allocated to the Tapestry missions.
Similarly the secure comms fit was initially a lashup rig.
I also seem to recall that there was more than one RATT fit on the go for some time.
I would suggest that MOD programme management is quite complex and may be even more of even greater complexity in a smaller fleet.