Afghan airbridge trial
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Just south of the Keevil gap.
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Afghan airbridge trial
Not sure if this has already been covered. I'm sure many of you will have views on it. I shall refrain from comment.
Great idea, though will translate into days on end at AKT whilst the entire Tristar fleet sits leaking oil all over the pan, watching crews poke off to the beach as you await the arrival of a C130 to finish your journey home.
No, Im sure it will all run on rails.
No, Im sure it will all run on rails.
Extending the flight time???? It was long enough already!
I wouldn't mind if we had some nice trolly-dollies to look at / talk to, tasty tuck, comfy seats and decent in flight entertainment. But now you tell me I have to spend a cummulative extra 4.5 hrs watching Brian, a steward from the rough end of the Blue Oyster bar struggling with a trolly full of butty boxes and still no in flight entertainment other than listening to the Colonel in the row in front droning on about Main Gates and what General Freddie was discussing last week.
Please, no, it's almost inhuman. At least let me take my pistol on with me if I have to spend the extra time on board!
I wouldn't mind if we had some nice trolly-dollies to look at / talk to, tasty tuck, comfy seats and decent in flight entertainment. But now you tell me I have to spend a cummulative extra 4.5 hrs watching Brian, a steward from the rough end of the Blue Oyster bar struggling with a trolly full of butty boxes and still no in flight entertainment other than listening to the Colonel in the row in front droning on about Main Gates and what General Freddie was discussing last week.
Please, no, it's almost inhuman. At least let me take my pistol on with me if I have to spend the extra time on board!
The boys and girls want and need is an aircraft that turns up at the specified time and takes them home, in the shortest order possible.
This doesn't strike me as a forward move.
Ryanair manage it everyday on a fraction of the budget. Maybe we should ask Michael O Leary if he fancies some reservist work?
Cue laughing and expletives down the phone.
This doesn't strike me as a forward move.
Ryanair manage it everyday on a fraction of the budget. Maybe we should ask Michael O Leary if he fancies some reservist work?
Cue laughing and expletives down the phone.
To be fair, it seems as if the lads and lasses involved in the air-bridge have identified a number of problems and are specifically designing the "trial-bridge" around them. For example the classic line over on the green forum is "There we were, somewhere hot and sandy getting shot at, got our 2 week R&R, and lost a day of it because the RAF aircrew prats said they'd worked a long day, and the hour's delay on the ground meant they would have worked too hard". Kudos to finding a possible solution although doubtless this method will have a few snags of its own.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 58
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pooh - pure Pooh. Having suffered the long flights and waits attributable to AT, it is horrendous. Last flight home was packed and no mention of weight limit - It was chocker and with body armour and gonk bag - wedged in.
Another sham with just crew benefits - and I'm aircrew!!! so G only knows what the real workers think
Another sham with just crew benefits - and I'm aircrew!!! so G only knows what the real workers think
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: In the Ether
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another sham with just crew benefits
Crew benefits? I'm not a Tri-motor walla, but i'm pretty sure they'd rather stick with their current deal with one crew in Muscat rather than now having 33% more crews away from home. OK, so it's not in the desert (and thus, of course, clearly just a jolly
), but that's not the crews' fault, is it?
The boys and girls want and need is an aircraft that turns up at the specified time and takes them home, in the shortest order possible.
- Flex in Crew Duty Time to mean that any delays don't necessarily push the whole route into a delay - we don't write the rules, but they are there and are already streched too regularly (if not routinely) to get the job done. There are many unpredictable things that can delay a flight, this will enlarge the window for fixing those delays and still completing the task, with the same crew, within that day.
- Flex in load. That reduced fuel load per leg translates into an overall increased capacity. No Gnd, it might not always appear that way, but what you see in the upper cabin, on your particular flight is a small fraction of the overall picture. Roughly, my guess gives each flight 25-30 tonnes more load from reduced fuel. For a RiP, that makes a lot of sense.
Uncle G
Last edited by Uncle Ginsters; 30th Jun 2008 at 19:34.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Red C - bring it on! I've had MUCH better trips on 17's than jammed into a Timmy. Best kip I had was atop a load of mortar bombs! True, the only windows (down the back!) are at the para doors but most of the time you are deep inside the green worm. They work(!), go like snot, you can wander up the front for a proper brew - I love 'em!
Roughly, my guess gives each flight 25-30 tonnes more load from reduced fuel.
Rough Figures MAUW 225,000 KG
Av Fuel Burn 2680 US Gall/hr (from tinters) x 3.785 for Litres, allowing for SPG working out at roughly 7 tonnes an hour.
If the old route was roughly 7 hrs BZZ-KDH and 3 to next refuel = 10 hrs, and you are planning to save 30 tonnes, then you are telling us that AKT-KDH-AKT will come in at just under 6 hours.
And why is it that a walk to the BX at KAF regularly takes you past civil charters, yet this seems to be beyond us.
Im not having a dig here, I am genuinely interested.
Last edited by minigundiplomat; 30th Jun 2008 at 19:58.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: In the Ether
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That sounds very, very optimistic.
BZZ-MCT (as is now) ~ 7:30 to 8:00
BZZ-AKT ~ 4:30
AKT-MCT ~ 4:00 (if used)
MCT-KDH ~ 2:00 (4:00 for round-trip fuel to MCT)
Some approximate speculation from C17 & VC10 figures (Tri* mates...help me out here!!
): In fuel terms, you're now around 3:30 lighter. An hourly burn of 8 tons (accurate figures, anyone?) would give a 28 ton saving in max wt.
I don't think that that's overly optimistic.
As for the charters, all to do with £££s and risk assesment (charters with DAS?) is my best guess.
Uncle G
EDIT: MGD, your figures give a Specific Gravity of 69%....usually F-34 would be 77.5%-84% under ISA conditions(i.e. ~8t/hr). It's not about the total time for the full journey, but lowering the individual leg times as far as practicable to allow the fuel/load trade-off. Of course, unless you know the exact routings and combination of flag-stops then it's all just speculation
, but i can see how this could work...let's wait for the trial to see. Hopefully the results will become available.
Last edited by Uncle Ginsters; 30th Jun 2008 at 21:44. Reason: Crap maths!
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: RAF
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However, think of it this way!
I would like to point out that this idea of reducing the fuel load so that you can take more people would be a good idea if the a/c wasn't 180yrs old.
The problem with this plan is that due to the reduced endurance and the extra planned stop this is exactly the time when something will break. So far, I have had 4 separate occasions where the a/c has gone t*ts up. These planes are great if you can start them up and keep running, it's when you stop that you get the problems.
Fuel them up and keep them going I say.
As for crew duty, the crew need to think who's in the audience when they pull that card as the last lot I encountered had nearly twice the crew rest period before turning up for work the next day. This, after skipping down the pan to the awaiting taxi for the hotel without the Captain even uttering a word to his weary self loading freight!!!!
The problem with this plan is that due to the reduced endurance and the extra planned stop this is exactly the time when something will break. So far, I have had 4 separate occasions where the a/c has gone t*ts up. These planes are great if you can start them up and keep running, it's when you stop that you get the problems.
Fuel them up and keep them going I say.
As for crew duty, the crew need to think who's in the audience when they pull that card as the last lot I encountered had nearly twice the crew rest period before turning up for work the next day. This, after skipping down the pan to the awaiting taxi for the hotel without the Captain even uttering a word to his weary self loading freight!!!!
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 58
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The thing that most annoys me about these speculations is the defensive nature of the argument. Let’s all think straight and admit that it isn't our faults it's the equipment. An RAF 747 with full DAS would suit our needs perfectly - quick, reliable and big.
It is the system and its financial irregularities or peculiarities that cause the gripes and I have no wish to deride the AT fleet. Who has a real answer to the real and present problem, not me.
The Civ Servants (ironic - servants) have the key and until we can persuade them, it's 3 hrs extra on my all too frequent trips!!! Oh how I love the way I earn a crust - and it ain't much better when I board my chariot in theatre either!!!!
It is the system and its financial irregularities or peculiarities that cause the gripes and I have no wish to deride the AT fleet. Who has a real answer to the real and present problem, not me.
The Civ Servants (ironic - servants) have the key and until we can persuade them, it's 3 hrs extra on my all too frequent trips!!! Oh how I love the way I earn a crust - and it ain't much better when I board my chariot in theatre either!!!!
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: England
Posts: 488
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mgd,
You also need to appreciate how much extra fuel is consumed by carrying fuel. As I understand it, the Herrick airbridge tankers fuel into theatre to minimize the uplift for the next leg. The fuel load for the leg out of theatre also has to include a sizeable amount of final reserve fuel as the alternates for MCT are not close-by. All this fuel has to be carried from the UK at considerable cost in fuel burn. As a guide, the aircraft type that I currently fly burns about an extra 300kg for every 1000kg increase in TOW over a 10-hour sector. The TriStar would be similar, so around 20-30% more extra fuel is needed just to carry this fuel from the UK. Shorter sector lengths reduce the impact of carrying the extra fuel.
Civil Charter/DAS is a very high-level policy.
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.
Gnd - You are very naive if you think that assets as valuable and scarce as the TriStar, or massively high-profile tasks like the Herrick Airbridge could be manipulated solely for "crew benefit". Even if 216 Sqn wanted to change the way it operated for reasons of harmony do you really think that anyone involved with AT would have their morale improved by being told that they were going to be spending more time in Cyprus? I don't understand your comment about the weight-limit. Are you suggesting that you thought the aircraft was overloaded? It sounds as if you are objecting to the aircraft being filled to capacity - should it have departed with empty seats to improve your comfort?
Crews don't "pull a crew duty card". They have a set of regulations that they are not allowed to break without permission from higher authority. It is frustrating for people coming home from theatre who have seen other rules flexed for operational reasons, but whoever is taking the decision to operate outside any set of established rules has to ask why? Is it a life and death situation? Is it for reasons of operational expediency? Or might it be it just for convenience? I would suggest the latter is not really a valid reason to routinely bust what are already fairly "task-orientated" regulations. Don't forget that the aircraft operating authority also owes a duty of care to the other airport/airspace users be they in Oman, Cyprus or the London TMA.
The aircraft will still break-down and crews will still run out of duty time, but at least give 2Gp and 216 Sqn some credit for trying to be flexible and innovative in an attempt to improve the efficiency of this task. I would guess that AKT manning and opening hours were the biggest hurdle.
You also need to appreciate how much extra fuel is consumed by carrying fuel. As I understand it, the Herrick airbridge tankers fuel into theatre to minimize the uplift for the next leg. The fuel load for the leg out of theatre also has to include a sizeable amount of final reserve fuel as the alternates for MCT are not close-by. All this fuel has to be carried from the UK at considerable cost in fuel burn. As a guide, the aircraft type that I currently fly burns about an extra 300kg for every 1000kg increase in TOW over a 10-hour sector. The TriStar would be similar, so around 20-30% more extra fuel is needed just to carry this fuel from the UK. Shorter sector lengths reduce the impact of carrying the extra fuel.
Civil Charter/DAS is a very high-level policy.
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.
Gnd - You are very naive if you think that assets as valuable and scarce as the TriStar, or massively high-profile tasks like the Herrick Airbridge could be manipulated solely for "crew benefit". Even if 216 Sqn wanted to change the way it operated for reasons of harmony do you really think that anyone involved with AT would have their morale improved by being told that they were going to be spending more time in Cyprus? I don't understand your comment about the weight-limit. Are you suggesting that you thought the aircraft was overloaded? It sounds as if you are objecting to the aircraft being filled to capacity - should it have departed with empty seats to improve your comfort?
Crews don't "pull a crew duty card". They have a set of regulations that they are not allowed to break without permission from higher authority. It is frustrating for people coming home from theatre who have seen other rules flexed for operational reasons, but whoever is taking the decision to operate outside any set of established rules has to ask why? Is it a life and death situation? Is it for reasons of operational expediency? Or might it be it just for convenience? I would suggest the latter is not really a valid reason to routinely bust what are already fairly "task-orientated" regulations. Don't forget that the aircraft operating authority also owes a duty of care to the other airport/airspace users be they in Oman, Cyprus or the London TMA.
The aircraft will still break-down and crews will still run out of duty time, but at least give 2Gp and 216 Sqn some credit for trying to be flexible and innovative in an attempt to improve the efficiency of this task. I would guess that AKT manning and opening hours were the biggest hurdle.
Last edited by Brain Potter; 30th Jun 2008 at 23:34.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Oxon
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If we had modern aircraft that didnt keep breaking down, enough manpower in every location to load and unload aircraft, enough technicians to keep the aircraft going and a european community that would give us priority slot times, then i dont think crew duty would be an issue and you would all get there on time. As it is we dont have any of the above, and i dont think its the men and women who do those jobs who are at fault, if you are to blame anybody, blame the government who dont give us the correct tools to do the job.
chinnyrationcarrier made the valid point:
Maybe time to dust off those AAR probes again? Although I can't remember whether they were ever fitted to the C Mk 2.
But that would require a few serviceable tankers with centreline hoses...... Not to mention the training / currency cost.
Fuel them up and keep them going I say.
But that would require a few serviceable tankers with centreline hoses...... Not to mention the training / currency cost.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 58
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brain,
Not in the slightest, I have delt with crashes that have been caused by overweight aircraft. My point was in reply to an earlier comment that it is a weight issue that is having the changes looked at; it is not as they use the max weight they can take. There may be pay-off issues with sectors 'v's fuel load which means that sector times are manipulated - a fair assumption.
As for the poor crews - I have very little sympathy with the lack of moral, we are all in the same boat and believe me; people using that argument against the misery the troops are suffering is crass and smacks of blinkered selfishness.
A back slapping pis***g match helps no one and as for the aircraft type - it is irrelevant what it is called just that it is capable of doing the job safely and in a timely fashion. The airframe needs to be large enough to do the job and fully fitted. I made no mention of charter, I did however intimate that the RAF (by definition - military) got a suitable airframe to do the job for their selves; are you suggesting that RAF AT pilots couldn't handle a 747 (just a for instance) if it were taken into military service. I would presume not. Agreed, the Civ Servants would baulk at the cost
If we had larger, newer and correctly fitted aircraft this would again, become a non rant.
Not in the slightest, I have delt with crashes that have been caused by overweight aircraft. My point was in reply to an earlier comment that it is a weight issue that is having the changes looked at; it is not as they use the max weight they can take. There may be pay-off issues with sectors 'v's fuel load which means that sector times are manipulated - a fair assumption.
As for the poor crews - I have very little sympathy with the lack of moral, we are all in the same boat and believe me; people using that argument against the misery the troops are suffering is crass and smacks of blinkered selfishness.
A back slapping pis***g match helps no one and as for the aircraft type - it is irrelevant what it is called just that it is capable of doing the job safely and in a timely fashion. The airframe needs to be large enough to do the job and fully fitted. I made no mention of charter, I did however intimate that the RAF (by definition - military) got a suitable airframe to do the job for their selves; are you suggesting that RAF AT pilots couldn't handle a 747 (just a for instance) if it were taken into military service. I would presume not. Agreed, the Civ Servants would baulk at the cost
If we had larger, newer and correctly fitted aircraft this would again, become a non rant.