Afghan airbridge trial
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm always amazed how some members of the military community (and I'm genuinely not aiming this at anyone here or in reference to any posts on this thread) think that AT crews somehow enjoy not getting the job done and that they revel in holding up the whole process. That they are in some way unprofessional to the extent that they rejoice when jets break / tools are downed at the crew duty limit ?
Do people really think that's the attitude of those that fly our transporters ?
These guys and girls spend their working week away from home, in ADDITION to the operational deployments they man. You think they want to spend more time away ?
Good on 216 for being proactive enough to trial this. It's easy to sit back and bitch how it's broken.
Seems that they get slagged off for doing something new, and slagged off for staying the same.
Do people really think that's the attitude of those that fly our transporters ?
These guys and girls spend their working week away from home, in ADDITION to the operational deployments they man. You think they want to spend more time away ?
Good on 216 for being proactive enough to trial this. It's easy to sit back and bitch how it's broken.
Seems that they get slagged off for doing something new, and slagged off for staying the same.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In Hyperspace...
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As for crew duty, the crew need to think who's in the audience when they pull that card
If you want a comparison, look up Civil operator's FTL limits, and see just how hard WE are allowed to work compared to them.
It wasn't so long ago, IIRC, that Tri* crews, when augmented with a couple of extra bodies, were flying 24hr crew duty days (standing by to be corrected) - is this still the case?
For those of you still whingeing about it, I'd like to see you attempt to successfully fly a complex instrument approach, in the dark, in **** weather, at the end of a 16-18hr day, with 200-plus people's lives at stake if you get it wrong. Just to give you a feel for what it's like, I suggest you do the following: Pack 200 of your mates into a very large bus, get yourself completely ****faced (to simulate the fatigue - it's a good comparison, believe me) and then drive said bus round the M25 in thick fog at 130mph.
Do the above, and you will finally understand why the 'crew duty card' needs to be 'pulled' every now and then....
For those of you still whingeing about it, I'd like to see you attempt to successfully fly a complex instrument approach, in the dark, in **** weather, at the end of a 16-18hr day, with 200-plus people's lives at stake if you get it wrong. Just to give you a feel for what it's like, I suggest you do the following: Pack 200 of your mates into a very large bus, get yourself completely ****faced (to simulate the fatigue - it's a good comparison, believe me) and then drive said bus round the M25 in thick fog at 130mph
You are not alone in exeriencing fatigue my friend. Try flying a 20 Tonne helicopter with 40 troops on board into a hostile DC at 100' on NVD in low light levels, and with several people taking pot shots at you, all at the end of a 16 hour day. No food, and only warm bottles of water for refreshment and vibration that makes your teeth chatter.
We do that regularly, and we do it happlily in the knowledge that despite any discomfort we may feel, it is minimal to the discomfort/danger experienced by the troops on the ground we are supporting.
Yes, it raises some fatigue management concerns, and yes it would be nice to be able to turn it off sometimes.
Could you look the survivors of an overrun patrol base in the eye and say 'we wanted to bring you the ammo you desperately needed, but our DA said no'?
Im not saying this applicable to the T* fleet, but do not lecture the wider military community on fatigue. It may very well be an issue, but it is not yours alone.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 58
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, I loose - going to get out of my dusty hole and back into my armchair now.
It is sad that a trial, that shows no logic to the masses, can arouse so much venom from the few. I am appalled that you even thought, let alone printed, that I have anything less than the highest regard for the AT crews and proves to me (and many silent onlookers I would guess) that you constantly go on the defensive rather than engage - if you are even at all involved with the AT world.
Good luck with the trial and I hope you get what you want out of it.
I personally believe that the pain will not be worth the gain and apologise if I give you a hard time next time you delay me - will be quite soon I am thinking.
It is sad that a trial, that shows no logic to the masses, can arouse so much venom from the few. I am appalled that you even thought, let alone printed, that I have anything less than the highest regard for the AT crews and proves to me (and many silent onlookers I would guess) that you constantly go on the defensive rather than engage - if you are even at all involved with the AT world.
Good luck with the trial and I hope you get what you want out of it.
I personally believe that the pain will not be worth the gain and apologise if I give you a hard time next time you delay me - will be quite soon I am thinking.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why not feed the troops prior to take off at BN.Land in Cyprus take troops off into lounge and feed them.Take off then land in Afgan.Return trip fed before departure.Land at Cyprus troops fed and take on board beer for the troops.Land at BN and wait 4 to 5 hours for MT to turn up because they are useless.No requirement for on flight food at all.Anyhow one of the reasons for landing in Cyprus is to allow the troops posted there and then detached to Afgan to get off at Cyprus.So what will happen about the stop off in Germany (Hannover). Or is this really going to be:BNHannoverCyprusAfgan.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I first heard there was going to be a schedule direct to HERRICK I was surprised it didn't route via AKT. It's a friendly base (depending on your definition), would allow greater flexibility on loads and crew duty because it's a shorter hop to theatre, and there are normally multiple outlets in and out of AKT if the original plan goes wrong. Apparently the decision to route direct to HERRICK was Army-inspired, when they more or less taunted the RAF to provide airlift directly to their war - as a result payloads have always been restricted. An AKT slip isn't going to help dramatically for each route - don't expect double payloads - but it will seemingly show results in the longer term.
I agree with 2 other posters; firstly there would seem to be little reason to routinely operate the Tristar between AKT and the UK - they're precious enough without sending them on legs that they're not needed, and a 216 Det at AKT, capable of turning the jets on pure HERRICK missions, makes sense in many ways. I'm sure it's been considered...
The other point that I think has merit is to feed people at every opportunity. Our 'customers' tend to be very poorly treated, but a good feed is one thing we can provide relatively easily.
Notwithstanding 'armchair generals' et al, I think it's a trial worth giving a go, in an attempt to compensate for the limited and ageing equipment we've got on hand to do the job. And next time you're stuck somewhere crap you may wish to reflect on who exactly provides us with obsolete airliners to do their bidding with.
I agree with 2 other posters; firstly there would seem to be little reason to routinely operate the Tristar between AKT and the UK - they're precious enough without sending them on legs that they're not needed, and a 216 Det at AKT, capable of turning the jets on pure HERRICK missions, makes sense in many ways. I'm sure it's been considered...
The other point that I think has merit is to feed people at every opportunity. Our 'customers' tend to be very poorly treated, but a good feed is one thing we can provide relatively easily.
Notwithstanding 'armchair generals' et al, I think it's a trial worth giving a go, in an attempt to compensate for the limited and ageing equipment we've got on hand to do the job. And next time you're stuck somewhere crap you may wish to reflect on who exactly provides us with obsolete airliners to do their bidding with.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 58
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
THEIR war - You!!!!!
OUT OFF ARMCHAIR
Do not even think of blaming the green for this and starting another pointless, and frankly upsetting, pi**ing match. We all take the shilling and do the bidding of a broken master.
The troops do not 'volunteer' to get killed and a trivial thing like RAF pride, or preference, is so far down the list that I am upset that I ever got goaded into this miniscule spat!!! Is it so wrong to want to minimise the discomfort of anyone, adding hours of waiting????
If you really think that you are better than any other member of the forces, you are so wrong! PVR is the logical option if you do not like it.
Do not even think of blaming the green for this and starting another pointless, and frankly upsetting, pi**ing match. We all take the shilling and do the bidding of a broken master.
The troops do not 'volunteer' to get killed and a trivial thing like RAF pride, or preference, is so far down the list that I am upset that I ever got goaded into this miniscule spat!!! Is it so wrong to want to minimise the discomfort of anyone, adding hours of waiting????
If you really think that you are better than any other member of the forces, you are so wrong! PVR is the logical option if you do not like it.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh FFS - the point I was making was the Army just see our lot as a bus service to their war and we're the awkward inconvenience they have to negotiate to get there. I'm not sure if gnd is having a go at me for some sort of superiority complex, but if so the point is lost as that's nowhere even close to the message I was writing.
A little more 'same boat' mentality would not go amiss from 'green', as well as an attempt to understand that one big white/grey plane can't necessarily do the same as the one next to it - I've heard a comparison to Landrovers mentioned before.
Hey, I know we're all in it together - sans paddle.
A little more 'same boat' mentality would not go amiss from 'green', as well as an attempt to understand that one big white/grey plane can't necessarily do the same as the one next to it - I've heard a comparison to Landrovers mentioned before.
Hey, I know we're all in it together - sans paddle.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 58
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apparently the decision to route direct to HERRICK was Army-inspired, when they more or less taunted the RAF to provide airlift directly to their war - as a result payloads have always been restricted.
How is that ambiguous?
It was the use of 'they' and 'their' that I object too and have obviously misinterpreted. If you mean 'our war' then I apologise and think that you have some good points.
Guest
Posts: n/a
After 14 years of SLF activity I have developed the mindset that you are home WHEN YOU ARE HOME. Statement of the bleedin obvious, yes, but I've seen too many people think that the door of the pax terminal is their own front door. Could I suggest that we all just learn to turn our brains off, engage SLF drive and accept that sometimes sh!t happens? No one wants any delays but they occur and that's all part of the Game. We ALL want to get home as fast as possible. Nothings perfect in this world - if it was, we probably wouldn't have a job. The production of much heat and sound will not get the jet fixed any quicker. It's difficult - but it is also a mark of someones maturity, leadership and self discipline - but ffs just CHILL.. You might be stuck at Akrotiri being rained on - there are some stuck at an FOB being rained on by 107's.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you mean 'our war' then I apologise and think that you have some good points.
As for my ambiguity, I don't think I was either. The story I heard was the Army wanted a direct flight and were disinterested in the arguments about reduced payload. I wasn't there so can't say if this is true or not (nb. this is a rumour forum), but I can believe that, rightly or wrongly, the Army vote beat the RAF one when it came to practicalities of the operation of aircraft versus a 4-ish more hour journey to HERRICK. With the exception of RIPs, AFAIK, capacity is generally not the issue, although this could simply be a result of users evolving their troop flow around the seats they're given. (I'm ever the optimist)
I still believe the Army, for the most part, lack an understanding of the scarcity of AT assets and I don't imagine many of them consider payload limitations, not least because majority of the RAF know nothing about them either! Add to that their primary task of fighting and supporting fighting and I can see why they may care little about all but the most emotive aspects of RAF performance - getting home - in the same way that I have interest in the performance of ships and tanks.
I suspected you and mgd had got the wrong end of the stick and I accept your gracious apology.
I suspected you and mgd had got the wrong end of the stick and I accept your gracious apology.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: WILTS
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Minigundip
Nobody denies that fact that the rotary fleet and the poor sods that are in theatre do a totally different job, and nobody is saying that the the whole fatigue thing is the driver behind this, FWIW Tri* crews have been operating augmented crew when needed, by augmented that means an extra Capt and extra A eng, this can take the duty day to 24hrs
I think what are lot of people are trying to save is, how are you gonna feel after doing yr time in theatre doing what you do, then when ya get on yr flight home with 150 others it ends in a smoking tail in the undershoot because its the end of a 24 hr crew day, the push on itsish has kicked in, weather sh*t at destination, no approach aids! If it happened god forbid just think 150 or more in one go!!!! trust me that would change UK foreign policy.
the A/T fleet want to get the job done safely! and on time if at all possible, the crew duty thing is down to what the rules say, if a crew ignores it and an incident happens, nobody is going to say good job lads and lasses, its there for a reason.
The ideal for in theatre would be direct there and direct home, but then there is the decomp requirements!!! so thats why cyprus on way home, why Muscat! its Logistics simple answer, see how the trial goes, if it results in longer flight but better payload! then the decsion makers in power will decide on the priority
Nobody denies that fact that the rotary fleet and the poor sods that are in theatre do a totally different job, and nobody is saying that the the whole fatigue thing is the driver behind this, FWIW Tri* crews have been operating augmented crew when needed, by augmented that means an extra Capt and extra A eng, this can take the duty day to 24hrs
I think what are lot of people are trying to save is, how are you gonna feel after doing yr time in theatre doing what you do, then when ya get on yr flight home with 150 others it ends in a smoking tail in the undershoot because its the end of a 24 hr crew day, the push on itsish has kicked in, weather sh*t at destination, no approach aids! If it happened god forbid just think 150 or more in one go!!!! trust me that would change UK foreign policy.
the A/T fleet want to get the job done safely! and on time if at all possible, the crew duty thing is down to what the rules say, if a crew ignores it and an incident happens, nobody is going to say good job lads and lasses, its there for a reason.
The ideal for in theatre would be direct there and direct home, but then there is the decomp requirements!!! so thats why cyprus on way home, why Muscat! its Logistics simple answer, see how the trial goes, if it results in longer flight but better payload! then the decsion makers in power will decide on the priority
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: England
Posts: 488
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gnd,
I would say that the AT people are being far from defensive. They have made a positive effort to find a way to improve the airbridge capacity within all the various constraints. They have taken a very inclusive step of publicly explaining their actions and reasoning, together with the positive and negative effects on the passengers. At the top of this thread there was some debate on feasibility of the quoted improvements in payload. Those who actually work in the arena of long-haul AT were all agreed that the figures quoted are realistic. Some contributors have given quite detailed explanations of fuel burn and tankering to those who persist in their scepticism.
Despite these explanations you were the one who called the plan "pooh" and "a sham with only crew benefit". This language is hardly consistent with a desire for reasoned engagement. I'm sorry you took such offence at being labelled an armchair expert, but what else can one say about statements such as "I am not convinced the maths works" as a response to figures that have been carefully calculated from the TriStar ODM, RTOTs and the Jeppesen Historical Database?
I continue to be puzzled over your interpretation of other peoples points of view. You dismissed this trial out-of-hand as a "sham" and yet I am the one who is displaying "venom" by advocating that those who understand TriStar performance have conceived this scheme purely for reasons of capacity and efficiency. As to your assertion that I "constantly go on the defensive rather than engage" - I would contest that I have offered logical reasons that support a new and innovative proposal. Yes, I did descend into sarcasm in the face of repeated inexpert comment but I cannot find any evidence of a reference to the regard in which you personally hold the AT crews.
I accept that those of you who have to use the airbridge regularly are going to find the extra journey time something of an aggravation. However, please bear in mind that it is DSCOM (tri-service) and PJHQ who actually have ownership of how the airbridge is constructed. 216 Sqn and 2 Gp have offered a method by which capacity could be increased - but it is the purple organizations that have actually decided they would prefer to have that extra capacity and are prepared to pay the price in increased journey time for the passengers. The crews themselves have no say as to the methodology, so you would be rather mis-directed if you give the crews:
It would appear that no matter what figures, expert opinion or official policies are offered in this forum there are always going to be sceptics who will continue believe that the AT organization is intransigent. I suggest that those contributors who are convinced that this trial will be too disruptive should, as a response to the announcement on the MoD website, put their views in writing to DSCOM. At least you will then feel that you have registered an official protest at the added inconvenience, rather than just have vented your spleen with defensive AT crews on here.
I would say that the AT people are being far from defensive. They have made a positive effort to find a way to improve the airbridge capacity within all the various constraints. They have taken a very inclusive step of publicly explaining their actions and reasoning, together with the positive and negative effects on the passengers. At the top of this thread there was some debate on feasibility of the quoted improvements in payload. Those who actually work in the arena of long-haul AT were all agreed that the figures quoted are realistic. Some contributors have given quite detailed explanations of fuel burn and tankering to those who persist in their scepticism.
Despite these explanations you were the one who called the plan "pooh" and "a sham with only crew benefit". This language is hardly consistent with a desire for reasoned engagement. I'm sorry you took such offence at being labelled an armchair expert, but what else can one say about statements such as "I am not convinced the maths works" as a response to figures that have been carefully calculated from the TriStar ODM, RTOTs and the Jeppesen Historical Database?
I continue to be puzzled over your interpretation of other peoples points of view. You dismissed this trial out-of-hand as a "sham" and yet I am the one who is displaying "venom" by advocating that those who understand TriStar performance have conceived this scheme purely for reasons of capacity and efficiency. As to your assertion that I "constantly go on the defensive rather than engage" - I would contest that I have offered logical reasons that support a new and innovative proposal. Yes, I did descend into sarcasm in the face of repeated inexpert comment but I cannot find any evidence of a reference to the regard in which you personally hold the AT crews.
I accept that those of you who have to use the airbridge regularly are going to find the extra journey time something of an aggravation. However, please bear in mind that it is DSCOM (tri-service) and PJHQ who actually have ownership of how the airbridge is constructed. 216 Sqn and 2 Gp have offered a method by which capacity could be increased - but it is the purple organizations that have actually decided they would prefer to have that extra capacity and are prepared to pay the price in increased journey time for the passengers. The crews themselves have no say as to the methodology, so you would be rather mis-directed if you give the crews:
a hard time next time you delay me
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 58
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brain,
Thank you and you are correct; I also took up the opposing argument without thinking. I will 'hold' my judgment and let events prove one of us correct. I am still sceptical about adding time to a long journey but if it is less in delays (at the point of entry!!) then there may be a payback - I don't know so shall stop spouting opinions.
I did not overly mean to 'diss' AT personnel and that was wrong but I do think we still pick the lesser arguments and should focus on the benefits 'v's profits - my opinion and not an intentional hit.
Thank you and you are correct; I also took up the opposing argument without thinking. I will 'hold' my judgment and let events prove one of us correct. I am still sceptical about adding time to a long journey but if it is less in delays (at the point of entry!!) then there may be a payback - I don't know so shall stop spouting opinions.
I did not overly mean to 'diss' AT personnel and that was wrong but I do think we still pick the lesser arguments and should focus on the benefits 'v's profits - my opinion and not an intentional hit.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: WILTS
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
as for taking on beer for the troops
The sqn did have a stock of free beer that was given by a couple of the makers of such beverage as a thank you to the troops coming home! This was offered out during the flight, and quite surprisingly declined by a high percentage.
The sqn did have a stock of free beer that was given by a couple of the makers of such beverage as a thank you to the troops coming home! This was offered out during the flight, and quite surprisingly declined by a high percentage.