Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Ageing air transport aircraft....

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Ageing air transport aircraft....

Old 19th Feb 2009, 13:59
  #21 (permalink)  
Posts: n/a
Well got to agree with Dr Cruces on this one , we have to make do with what we have , there is no spare money in the pot,there is no other way to put it. its wrong and I agree with all but this is the same throughout the air force and at ISK its no different.
Old 19th Feb 2009, 17:02
  #22 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Mostly here, but often there
Posts: 545

I agree that the train set is seriously broken, other than at the FJ ponity end of course, but apathy is our greatest enemy. To simply 'make do' is not right. Frankly, this needs the PM to have some bloody balls and make the funds available.

Btw, what is the latest figure from DSCOM for the annual charter budget?

And the annual maintenance cost per VC10?

If there is nothing to be done but accept the status quo, please have SecState take out a full page ad in every national paper explaining the situation, such that Mrs Miggins is at least given the heads up that there is no plan to improve the chances of her son getting home on time for the next five years. Out of interest, I wonder what he promised at today's meeting in Krakow.

This shouldn't bother me any more, but somehow it does.
brit bus driver is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2009, 18:50
  #23 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: UK
Age: 47
Posts: 18
Thanks for doing the sums, I've always wondered how much it cost to do a run to Calgary. As for the extras etc it truly is shocking, I was always suspicious of the up front drivers when we always seemed to break down in Washington on the way back from Belize and actually on the tarmac at Calgary.

That Calgary breakdown cost the MOD a fortune in hotels, Pay per view movies, food etc but for some reason they insisted on flying the spares from Brize on another T* rather than paying $10,000 Canadian for the part from a maintenance company across the runway.
Skilly is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2009, 19:18
  #24 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: WILTS
Posts: 143
Been mentioned in an earlier post so not saying anything out of order, but both events were caused by DAS problems rather than Aircraft issues! its high profile so it will get mentioned, you would have same problems with any platform with a DAS bolted on as an afterthought!!! So kicks the Ageing jet theory in to touch in this case, as its the newest bit of kit on the jet thats had the problem! the frames do have problems, but any frame does! of course the C17 never breaks down! or is it when it does it does not get mentioned or does not effect so many people in 1 go like a full TriMotor

Why turn back when it has a fault? bloody obvious the answer to that.

Why not hub and spoke as was always the plan in the past, send the multi mover to a safe airfield and then swap platform and spoke in to theatre and direct to where they need to go, or close anyhow, that way need or DAS on the people mover would not be as critical!!!
And would not have to be Akronelli,
14greens is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2009, 22:21
  #25 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: The Deep South (Sussex)
Posts: 776
Some months ago a Government Minister was rabbiting on about the pollution caused by civil aviation. Being an ex trucker who flew your C130's back in the 60's I felt obliged to write to the Times.

I pointed out that he was effectively on the board of the most polluting airline in the West. The fact that it was called the transport fleet of the RAF was hardly an excuse and he should put his own house in order before criticising the civvies.

The suggestion to grab some of the spare 757/767's and put them into service would seem to solve his problem.

The airlines could run the training course at minimum cost and time.
Lou Scannon is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2009, 22:23
  #26 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 23
Brit Bus Driver:

The following is a few years old and all approximate figures, however, it gives you an idea.

Costs in thousands per Flying hour:
Tristar: c 16K
VC-10: c 23K
C-17: c 40K

Major Servicing: VC10= several million!!!!! I heard 3-4 M be willing to be corrected on this.

TRI, rumoured to be in the 0.75-1.25 Million dependant on whom you are talking to.

C-17 I do not know!

On the above figures, you have to ask what does the VC10 bring to the party to justify the above costs? Surely the money saved from scrapping them immediately could be put into the A310/330 option mentioned previously?

Using the C17 on pax runs (even short hops) is a waste of valuable hours/cycles given its operationg costs?

As 14 Greens alludes to, there is no need to use AKT. The extra fuel in getting to/from AKT uses valuable resources in theatre. Use non DASS equipped jets to get the troops as close to theatre as poss, then use DASS equipped jets for the final leg to theatre?

What about Tristars doing UK-Gulf states, no need for DASS, therefore, allowing more DASS spares for other assets in theatre?
Lord Elpus is offline  
Old 20th Feb 2009, 01:42
  #27 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Yorks UK
Posts: 59
currently civilian jets from up north go from BZZ to gulf states on PAX runs. Ok only able to carry about 200 and a bit. they fly beyond GWII land and could comfortably reach the Stan just not allowed to.
plasticAF is offline  
Old 20th Feb 2009, 09:36
  #28 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Area 51
Posts: 250
I was one of the pax who was delayed four days. I did not see anyone give either the crew or the movers a hard time. This was despite many returning on 14 days R and R or on end of tour who had family friends awaiting their return. It was frustrating reporting in for the same jet even though nobody had tried to fix it in the interim but that aside we understood the position.
Regie Mental is offline  
Old 20th Feb 2009, 14:49
  #29 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 734
To be fair Regie, the airbridge aircraft are top priority, so any inaction would be a result of not having the necessary spares or perhaps expertise (in theatre) to hand. The difficulty is always somewhere in between briefing the pax in a timely manner, yet waiting long enough to provide a reasonable new report time before everyone bomb bursts - there's nothing more frustrating that stacking the pax for the day, to then find out it's only a 3hr fix.
dallas is offline  
Old 20th Feb 2009, 18:10
  #30 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bury St. Edmunds
Age: 60
Posts: 539

With the state of the RAF's AT fleet and the lack of in-theatre "spokes" even C47 Dakotas would be useful additions.

Basler conversions with PT6's, modern commas and nav kit, DASS and you've got the fixed wing equivalent of a CH47 (ok it can't hover or VL) but they were built like trucks and could still be a useful asset at a fraction of the cost of a helo/C27/C130. If it's worth building new Twotters it could be worth starting with a few new DC3's/C47's........

You ought to get 4 sqns of Daks for the same cost as one sqn of Chinooks. Just think what flexibility that might offer......
Madbob is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2009, 01:32
  #31 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,575
Costs in thousands per Flying hour:
Tristar: c 16K
Exclusive of fuel and handling charges, our small airline charges $5600/hr for the 'ole Lockheed trimotor.
It can be maintained properly, and have superb dispatch reliability...all you have to have is folks who know how.

Good grief, is there not a Lockheed rep with the RAF now?
IF so, is he not listened to?

Sorry to barge into the military forum folks, but the 'ole trimotor is a fine aeroplane, IF maintained by folks who have a dedication to the job.

Tin hat on, awaiting incoming...
411A is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2009, 06:07
  #32 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 1,912
Good grief, is there not a Lockheed rep with the RAF now?
IF so, is he not listened to?
From what I understand about such things (very little I'll freely admit) aren't 'modern' (and I'm including the Tristar in this) passenger aircraft designed to be operated almost constantly? As in, fly, land, disembark pax, fuel, embark pax, take-off, fly, etc, with minimal serious servicing required outside of minors/majors?

Isn't part of the problem with the RAF Tristar fleet the fact that even though they are used a hell of a lot they aren't operated at anything like the frequency that they were designed to be operated at by civil airlines, with the periods of relative idleness being what causes problems to appear?

Oh and yes, I'm aware that the recent instances of Tristars going U/S is down to the UOR kit rather than the airframes themselves, its just a shame some others haven't read the whole thread.
The Helpful Stacker is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2009, 07:41
  #33 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 734
I got chatting with a bloke a little while ago who was telling me he worked on 216 - I think he said he was a sooty. When I suggested it must be frustrating working with such a temperamental fleet, he said actually no, the majority of the techies loved working on the jet, and did their utmost to turn it for HERRICK trips.

Just as I was thinking what a perfect bloke he was to be working on 216 - or any RAF sqn - he said '...but I've PVRd and am out in 6 months'. Gobsmacked, I asked him why, and he said that, over the years, the RAF has expanded its engineering hierarchy to a point where the jet is over-serviced, particularly because IPTs and other special interest groups are constantly changing the rules, both to keep themselves in a job and/or simply appear to be doing something! He was leaving because he was fed-up being told to over-service the jet by people who didn't know the aircraft.

In some ways this makes sense - home base policy for a RAF Tristar requires the engineers to be given the jet for 8 hours between tasks, and that doesn't include any re-roles or Mover activity. It also confirms what I've thought for the past few years - the lack of any one person with an obvious plan has led to the dilution of frontline staff - by that I mean techies with dirty hands etc - in favour of more desks, policy writers, bureaucracy and current favourite study groups, many of whom only exacerbate the pinch by their absence from anything useful, while adding to the hurdles.
dallas is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2009, 17:55
  #34 (permalink)  
Posts: n/a
The C-17 is NOT a passenger aircraft. Yes it is capable of doing so but is categorically NOT a passenger aircraft.

That is all.
Old 21st Feb 2009, 21:36
  #35 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 3
I was in Kandahar at the time the T* was U/S. It wasnt DAS related, it was a big engineering fault though and it took quite a while to fix (even when the spare part did arrive.)

The Hub and spoke idea is a good one, except we dont have enought tac AT to do it. Its also extremely costly and manpower intensive, The americans do it at the moment - but hey guess what they have the ac. The MOD cant get passenger charter ac to go to kandahar direct. At the moment the T* is the best we have.

The best idea would be to follow the basic plan of the C17. They were bought as a stopgap between the present day and the A400M. Lets buy or lease 4 A330's, slap DAS on them (but get it done properly like on the C17) and use them. Retire the 10's and use the Tanker T* for AAR. The 3 remaining T* C2 should be able to manage the cyprus flights...... shouldnt they......

Also, isnt there two civvy T*'s sat at marshalls waiting for the MOD to buy them? Just a thought.
airfarce1 is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2009, 21:38
  #36 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,575
home base policy for a RAF Tristar requires the engineers to be given the jet for 8 hours between tasks...
If this were the case at the mob I work for, we certainly would absolutely not make a profit.
Looks like more than a few ah...less qualified, at the RAF airplane maintenance department.
Good grief...
411A is offline  
Old 22nd Feb 2009, 01:44
  #37 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 455
Good grief, is there not a Lockheed rep with the RAF now?
IF so, is he not listened to?
Lockheed lost the TriStar support contract to Marshall in 2005.

I know when I was at Brize I had a real good rapport with both the engineering and maintenance staff.

One problem I did see when I was with the RAF was that they would not ulitized the rep away from Brize. I think it was an insurance problem with the RAF, not Lockheed as we had many reps in hot areas. If here was a problem away from Brize there was no hands on support, you had trouble shoot by faxes and phone calls.
glhcarl is offline  
Old 22nd Feb 2009, 02:33
  #38 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: WILTS
Posts: 143
Yep there was a TriStar at U/s in Kandahar last week, that was not wht the BBC repoting was about
Look at the airbidge! How often have you seen the jet sat on the ground bust in theatre, not often!
the issue discussed on this thread was the jet that turned round twice due to other issues!
The on on the ground did have a tech issue that requiered spares, and then fixing including all ath associated indies due to the snag! and its the sort of snag all aircraft have irrelevent of age

One day you never know we might see the positive reports of how many trips actually get out on time and not talking just about the TriMotor, oops thats not news is it? so what would be the point.
its annoying and yes upsetting for those that are effected but the crews and the techies on all the fleets have a pride in what they do and do all they can to get the job done
14greens is offline  
Old 22nd Feb 2009, 09:44
  #39 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 73
Posts: 1,745
Back in 1969 I was in a crew returning from a 3 week VIP tour of the Carribean when we went U/S in Bermuda with an inoperative fire warning on the Stbd Engine. BOAC signalled UK with the part number and the time of that evening's BOAC VC10 departure from Heathrow to Bermuda. We had the groundcrew to replace and test the system and would be able depart on schedule.

We were there for 5 days and departed 2 hrs after the 4th firewire sent out actually arrived. One of the missing firewires reappeared in S America some years later.
cazatou is offline  
Old 22nd Feb 2009, 11:51
  #40 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,583
Tales of the wrong bits of HM's shagged-out old jets being sent to the wrong parts of the world probably merit their own thread.....

I was once told that a Victor crew needed some bit to be sent to Offutt, where they were quietly enjoying life in whatever-the-Bellevue-Ramada-was-currently-called.

Eventually a large box turned up - when the crew chief opened it, he was amazed to find that it actually contained.......a Bedford 4-tonner crankshaft!

No idea if it's a shaggy dog story, but I also experienced lots of bits being sent late, or to the wrong place - or the wrong bit altogether, despite the GE's very clear description.

But hey.....CHING..!!!

As for the numpty in Eng Ops who refused to do anything unless he received a signal; well, thanks for the extra day the 15 of us had on full rates whilst we tracked down a fax machine..
BEagle is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.