Afghan airbridge trial
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: England
Posts: 488
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gnd,
Ok, now I think understand your point of view. Your last flight home was on a TriStar that was full and therefore the aircraft must've operated at max weight. On this basis you are rejecting the stated purpose of this trial, which is to allow generally higher payloads and greater crew flexibility and have drawn your own conclusion that this is a smokescreen to cover the real intention of giving crews more time off in Cyprus. Am I correct?
You have made too big an assumption from being onboard an aircraft that appeared to be full. The temperature, barometric pressure, prevailing wind and sector length all have a significant effect on the payload available. It may have been that conditions allowed a particularly good payload that day - what time of year was it? Moreover, you said that this was the homebound flight which would have been 2 or 3 sectors, giving a perfect example of how shorter sector lengths allow the aircraft to be more heavily laden. The payload penalties suffered on the long outbound sector, whilst carrying the fuel for the second leg have already been explained and it is probably this part of the airbridge that will see the biggest gains in capacity.
The MoD is already spending billions on a controversial project to replace the TriStar. Yes, the airbridge would be better served by a squadron of DAS equipped 747-400s, but that would cost hundreds of millions of pounds and would probably arrive in service no sooner than the A330s that are going to take on the role.
I did not say that the "poor crews" had low morale (although "lack of moral" (sic) might be true
) and certainly did not compare their situation to that of the troops. In response to the accusation that this trial has been conceived for purely selfish reasons I simply ask, even if it were remotely possible to manipulate this plot for "crew benefit", why anyone involved in AT would want to spend more time in Cyprus rather than at home?
216 Sqn and 2 Gp have identified a way of achieving higher payloads with greater crew-duty flexibility. They have also realised that penalties will include longer flying times, more crews deployed and a higher chance of pax being stranded at intermediate locations. They have recognized the inconvenience caused to individual passengers and have taken a fairly unprecedented step of explaining the trial on the MoD website. Can't you just accept that this is the truth?
Ok, now I think understand your point of view. Your last flight home was on a TriStar that was full and therefore the aircraft must've operated at max weight. On this basis you are rejecting the stated purpose of this trial, which is to allow generally higher payloads and greater crew flexibility and have drawn your own conclusion that this is a smokescreen to cover the real intention of giving crews more time off in Cyprus. Am I correct?
You have made too big an assumption from being onboard an aircraft that appeared to be full. The temperature, barometric pressure, prevailing wind and sector length all have a significant effect on the payload available. It may have been that conditions allowed a particularly good payload that day - what time of year was it? Moreover, you said that this was the homebound flight which would have been 2 or 3 sectors, giving a perfect example of how shorter sector lengths allow the aircraft to be more heavily laden. The payload penalties suffered on the long outbound sector, whilst carrying the fuel for the second leg have already been explained and it is probably this part of the airbridge that will see the biggest gains in capacity.
The MoD is already spending billions on a controversial project to replace the TriStar. Yes, the airbridge would be better served by a squadron of DAS equipped 747-400s, but that would cost hundreds of millions of pounds and would probably arrive in service no sooner than the A330s that are going to take on the role.
I did not say that the "poor crews" had low morale (although "lack of moral" (sic) might be true
) and certainly did not compare their situation to that of the troops. In response to the accusation that this trial has been conceived for purely selfish reasons I simply ask, even if it were remotely possible to manipulate this plot for "crew benefit", why anyone involved in AT would want to spend more time in Cyprus rather than at home?216 Sqn and 2 Gp have identified a way of achieving higher payloads with greater crew-duty flexibility. They have also realised that penalties will include longer flying times, more crews deployed and a higher chance of pax being stranded at intermediate locations. They have recognized the inconvenience caused to individual passengers and have taken a fairly unprecedented step of explaining the trial on the MoD website. Can't you just accept that this is the truth?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: in my combat underpants
Age: 53
Posts: 1,065
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another thought. Would this proposed re-route allow for cross-decking to a civ-air charter in AKT? Could be a way to free up a timmy from half the flying?
)
Just another erk
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Germany
Age: 77
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can not understand why you still have no flight entertainment on the Tri-Stars, I was involved in the flight testing of ZD 950 and the aircraft arrived at Marshalls with PES fitted, although some of it was removed. Could have been an RAF request to remove it all, 
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Can not understand why you still have no flight entertainment on the Tri-Stars
Suppose they could show information films about the clap etc.
The answer to the charter Q could be quite simple. Dry lease a few wide body jets from GECAS, slap on a few DAS boxes and off we go. The lease would cover the gap until the A400M etc actually enter productive service.
Too simplistic? thought so!
Too simplistic? thought so!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: in my combat underpants
Age: 53
Posts: 1,065
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pba - quite a few posts are 'chartered' around the Movs world - but it isn't the unskilled humping and dumping you'd love to believe. As a Trade, they have been undermanned for the tasks asked of them for quite some time. There isn't a civvy answer to that one.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: England
Posts: 488
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mgd,
To take leased civilian-owned aircraft into front-line military use is not that easy. There are complex regulatory, airworthiness and maintenance issues to overcome. For example you cannot just "slap-on" DAS boxes to an aircraft owned by someone else without their agreement. Their agreement would be heavily dependent on the airworthiness authorities (FAA/CAA) whose approval would be necessary to allow the subsequent return of the ac to revenue service with an airline.
Your idea is actually not that far away from what lies behind the concept of FSTA. The difficulties faced by the FSTA programme have principally been centred on such contractual wrangling rather than the customary procurement delays caused by technological and production issues.
FSTA will be the primary means of modernizing the equipment used to mount the Herrick airbridge and until that time the TriStar will have to soldier-on.
To take leased civilian-owned aircraft into front-line military use is not that easy. There are complex regulatory, airworthiness and maintenance issues to overcome. For example you cannot just "slap-on" DAS boxes to an aircraft owned by someone else without their agreement. Their agreement would be heavily dependent on the airworthiness authorities (FAA/CAA) whose approval would be necessary to allow the subsequent return of the ac to revenue service with an airline.
Your idea is actually not that far away from what lies behind the concept of FSTA. The difficulties faced by the FSTA programme have principally been centred on such contractual wrangling rather than the customary procurement delays caused by technological and production issues.
FSTA will be the primary means of modernizing the equipment used to mount the Herrick airbridge and until that time the TriStar will have to soldier-on.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 58
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brain,
Para 1 - No but apparently the pax are going to get some. This is a double coin as some will de-compress there so it is a 50/50 thing.
Para 2 - Thanks for the information but as an A2 - I know.
Now para 3 - that is music to my ears and I would just question the necessity of a trial if there is a solution in the pipe line. Let’s be fair the new routine will have a minimal impact on pax numbers and maximum revulsion from the customers - no flannel will appease them?
I am convinced that you are correct that crews would be better at home, we all wish that for every one. My point is really that everyone wants to get home and more time, regardless of amount, will not be seen as good. Messing people around will never catch on.
216 Sqn and 2 Gp are fine chaps and I have absolutely no axe to grind but publish and be dammed comes to mind. I am not convinced the maths works and why stir up a hornets’ nest, bad time to start a trial in midsummer - hot frustrated people - you do the psychoanalytical thing?
Not at all promising in my book and I never accept things on face value. Remember Napoleon said 'do not disturb your enemy when they are making mistakes', I would be glad if someone questioned me and added some depth to my assumptions, I could be wrong???
Para 1 - No but apparently the pax are going to get some. This is a double coin as some will de-compress there so it is a 50/50 thing.
Para 2 - Thanks for the information but as an A2 - I know.
Now para 3 - that is music to my ears and I would just question the necessity of a trial if there is a solution in the pipe line. Let’s be fair the new routine will have a minimal impact on pax numbers and maximum revulsion from the customers - no flannel will appease them?
I am convinced that you are correct that crews would be better at home, we all wish that for every one. My point is really that everyone wants to get home and more time, regardless of amount, will not be seen as good. Messing people around will never catch on.
216 Sqn and 2 Gp are fine chaps and I have absolutely no axe to grind but publish and be dammed comes to mind. I am not convinced the maths works and why stir up a hornets’ nest, bad time to start a trial in midsummer - hot frustrated people - you do the psychoanalytical thing?
Not at all promising in my book and I never accept things on face value. Remember Napoleon said 'do not disturb your enemy when they are making mistakes', I would be glad if someone questioned me and added some depth to my assumptions, I could be wrong???
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: In the Ether
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bad time to start a trial in midsummer
At this time of year, the WAT limit and other perf factors are at their most limiting.
Despite your experience, on the current schedule, the Tristar is severely perfomance limited. By reducing leg length and thus fuel load, the freight (self-loading or otherwise) can be increased and thus more task achieved
Now, where did I leave those 4 coloured pens???
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 58
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Ginster, I thought there might be a reason they took off in the cool of the night - I didn't think it was to hide their IR signature!!!
Let’s not lower it too much hey??? I was more concerned with the troop in the palatial hosting centres afforded to them/us by the forces.
Let’s not lower it too much hey??? I was more concerned with the troop in the palatial hosting centres afforded to them/us by the forces.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: In the Ether
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No snags...but it is a real issue for the 3*, even in the relative cool of night, and the subsequent daytime heat of MCT, hence the additional stop in AKT
I was chatting to a 216 Sqn mate today and it appears that they're almost certain that this will improve their total throughput. They're the experts in this so i'll go with that...
I was chatting to a 216 Sqn mate today and it appears that they're almost certain that this will improve their total throughput. They're the experts in this so i'll go with that...
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: The Meadows
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry for the thread drift, but don't they hand out A2s to every Tom, Dick and Harry who manages to tolerate 3 years of being a QFI? It's been a while since I met someone who wasn't an A2.
Its like boasting that you are a pairs lead, isn't it (although obviously much less tactical)?
Its like boasting that you are a pairs lead, isn't it (although obviously much less tactical)?
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: WILTS
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What people seem to be missing here, is this is a trial!!! to see if the lift can be increased! and the service improved ie more bodies in and out on each trip, is that not what its all about?
The payload is limited by the fuel required for diversion and max landing weight at destination, expected fuel overhead assumes that you do not burn the loaded contingency fuel which is calculated as a % of total fuel load
Do the maths, if you half the flight time then the fuel load goes down, less fuel, less contingency required, which means less assumed fuel overhead, this can be given over to payload and still get to destination with sufficient fuel to make diversion if needed!
Having a slip crew in Theatre would make no difference to having to flag on way home either, pretty sure its summat that has been considered but work it out, with the hourly fuel burn, 8 hrs home! think logistics
The payload is limited by the fuel required for diversion and max landing weight at destination, expected fuel overhead assumes that you do not burn the loaded contingency fuel which is calculated as a % of total fuel load
Do the maths, if you half the flight time then the fuel load goes down, less fuel, less contingency required, which means less assumed fuel overhead, this can be given over to payload and still get to destination with sufficient fuel to make diversion if needed!
Having a slip crew in Theatre would make no difference to having to flag on way home either, pretty sure its summat that has been considered but work it out, with the hourly fuel burn, 8 hrs home! think logistics
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: England
Posts: 488
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gnd,
You may be an A2, but I'm afraid that I have considerable difficulty in understanding both your English and the thrust of your argument.
You began by describing this trial as:
and
But you have offered no reason as to why this trial is a sham and have not been able to define the "crew benefits".
216 Sqn and 2Gp have calculated the payload benefits using TriStar performance documents. DSCOM and PJHQ have been briefed on the options and have decided that, on a trial basis, the short-sector method is worth a go in an attempt minimize the impact of high summer on the payloads into theatre.
However, the team tasked with finding a way to improve the summer payload was clearly missing vital advice from someone trained on a totally different type, who has been a passenger a few times. Such a person could've warned them
and they could then have really focussed on improving summer payload during the winter. This advisor could also add value to the TriStar performance data by stating
which would carry even more gravitas if he hadn't seen the calculations or been trained in interpreting RTOTs.
Gnd, I'm afraid that you are a prime example of what I meant when I wrote earlier:
You have probably suffered bad experiences during AT many times and for that you have my sympathy. We all seem to be agreed that the airbridge needs modern aircraft and for that reason the FSTA programme needs to be regarded as a priority. However, it will be at least 3 more years before any of these new jets are in service. In the meanwhile the armchair critics need to realise that people with much greater (ie at least some) expertise in this area are constantly examining every possible way of making the airbridge more efficient, more reliable and more comfortable. They may not succeed but shouldn't be blamed for trying, at least not with such fatuous arguments as "it's bound to be only for the benefit of the crew".
Regards to all on 216.
You may be an A2, but I'm afraid that I have considerable difficulty in understanding both your English and the thrust of your argument.
You began by describing this trial as:
Pooh - pure Pooh
Another sham with just crew benefits
216 Sqn and 2Gp have calculated the payload benefits using TriStar performance documents. DSCOM and PJHQ have been briefed on the options and have decided that, on a trial basis, the short-sector method is worth a go in an attempt minimize the impact of high summer on the payloads into theatre.
However, the team tasked with finding a way to improve the summer payload was clearly missing vital advice from someone trained on a totally different type, who has been a passenger a few times. Such a person could've warned them
bad time to start a trial in midsummer
I am not convinced the maths works
Gnd, I'm afraid that you are a prime example of what I meant when I wrote earlier:
All types of flying have their own particular nuances and long-haul trucking is no different. However, it often seems the RAF has lots of armchair experts on Strategic Air Transport with opinions that are based on the simplistic assumption that the role must be the same as any "transit" flying they have done own in their own aircraft type.
Regards to all on 216.