Ageing air transport aircraft....

[cessnapete]

2 man crews

You do not need a bunch of previosly EFIS experienced crews to man the A330 it is all part of the Conversion Course. This includes Cat 111 operations, all part of the course in civieland. I was amazed to learn the TriStar is a Cat 1 operation in the RAF the same a/c were no DH/100 metres RVR with BA.
The first few crews could do their line training with a civil operator ie BM who operate the same type.
The AAR could be done at the end of the Course with RAF instructors.
Hopefully the RAF will be liasing fully with the RAAF who will have done the same thing a year or two earlier with the same a/c.

[highveldtdrifter]

2 Pilot Flight Decks

'You appear to have taken the 2-crew, EFIS aspect of my point in isolation and are offering the C-130J as counter-argument. In many ways the introduction of the J reflects what I am saying; it wasn't as easy and quick as some people expected. I absolutely agree that Hercules pilots do have relevant experience with glass, and many of them would have to be stripped away at very short notice to help setup the kind of operation that TRSS proposes. Could Lyneham afford such a loss right now? '

The delay in getting the C130J in to useful service was nothing to do with the training and transition to a modern cockpit, but rather some shabby initial software loads. It also took along time to accrue the various RtoS clearances, due in part to perhaps QQs unfamiliarity with the new way of doing things.

The C130J schoolhouse system is an outstanding model which hopefully will be followed if/when the A400 comes along. Few Ab Initios or retreads had any real problems, and the crew build up was as predicted once we allowed to start training. After all Airbus, Lockheed and Boeing have invested a lot in EFIS/HUDS and, in Airbus's case the side stick, all of which of course make the pilots task easier. With the C130J we had the luxury of an RAF driven and designed course, tailored to our needs. FSTA could be different if all they get is the basic Airbus civvy oriented TR course. For a new operator with no corporate experience on the jet, top up training may be needed.

[Brain Potter]

HVD,

Earlier in in this thread I mentioned that lack of corporate experience with 2-crew, EFIS, ETOPS jets was one - just one - of the reasons why a fleet of 10 interim transport jets couldn't possibly be operating in support of the Herrick airbridge within a timescale of 9-months as claimed by some contributors. The subsequent debate then seemed to have focused on the 2-crew and EFIS aspects, and has not ventured into the whole framework required to get a new aircraft into service, including issues like regulatory responsibility, which some seem to regard as just MoD foot-dragging.

I am not personally familiar with the introduction of the J, but my point wasn't so much about it's flight-deck but about the fact that it was originally seen as an easy step to take because of the deep corporate knowledge with the airframe. As you have said, ironing out issues with equipment and clearances for it's military functions took longer than had been expected. To perform it's military function any 'quick-solution' jet will also have to be fitted with a significant amount of new equipment and the whole platform will have to be cleared to operate under a MAR.

There is a debate running over on Arrse, featuring a very frustrated staff officer, whose job is dealing with this exact topic. I'll post of few of his quotes. Apologies for the the length, but I feel that this guys passionate postings really do show that there are guys in MoD working their guts out on these issues. If anything he shows that they aren't all quite the oily political toads that some like to believe they are:

There was time when I would have joined in any Crab bashing thread. But now, as it's my job to see the detail and try and find solutions, from a 'Defence' perspective of course, I have investigated almost every avenue and, I am afraid that the old story of operate within Defence Assumptions and 'Budgetary constraints' comes to mind (if any politician happens to be watching).

The ATF has been underfunded for 50-60 years. Why are we so surprised that it is so 'on the cusp' of failure now? Is that the fault of the Government? Or the RAF?

Do any of them have crystal balls?

We weren't truly 'expeditionary' (in today's terms) until many years after the Berlin Wall came down - how many of you saw the end of the Cold War?

Have you no idea how MOD (or any other part of Government) works? I write a paper outlining the requirement and making recommendations. It gets staffed at desk level, then 1, 2, 3 and ultimately 4* level (for AT amongst other things, tomorrow actually).

4* grownups come to a decision.

Advice given to Ministers.

Ministers are convinced. Or not.

Treasury is convinced. Or not.

If HMT smiles, then C17s et al appear as if by magic. If they don't then tough s*it, carry on normal jogging. Don't hold your breath given the credit crunch.

We have come up with numerous options, believe you me.

It takes time.

Only in your world could you justify the requirement, get the finance, get the aircraft, modify them to TES, train the crews and engineers and get them into service in a few short weeks.

It takes years FFS and it costs a fortune.

Of your taxes and mine.

If you want to know why it takes a long time, talk to the politicians that fund Defence, don't criticise me, and many other military officers (and civil servants, I might add) that spend all the hours that God sends trying to make things better as if we're some kind of conspiracy. Precisely what you are doing in this respect eludes me, apart from sniping from the sidelines.

On second thoughts, are you one of these barking mad civilian opportunists that email me with suggestions as to how they can solve our AT problems at a stroke (now that the financial pressure's on and you're finding it tough to find work for your airframes) and then, when I fcuk you off because you have no earthly chance of meeting the requirement, threaten to write to the Daily Telegraph/your MP?

We originally asked for 8 x C17.

We got 4.

Now, very slowly, and due to commitments (and mainly due to the work of the very MOD staff officers that you love to slag off) we have 6. and perhaps, only perhaps, we may have 8.

But of course, it will all be down to 'people' (and I use the term very loosely) like you and all the others out there who have no responsibility and no accountability.

I think not.

Any increase in our capability is all down to serving officers and men in squadrons and guys in theatre who see what's required, busy staff officers in PJHQ who support it, and more busy guys and gals (military and civilian) in the centre who push it through.

I do this every fcuking day. You just toy with it on a temporary basis with little or no accurate knowledge but a whole sh1tload of 'opinion'.

It is immensely frustrating but it's important and the outside perception needs to be dealt with. I am simply continuously gobsmacked by the one-eyed perception of almost everyone.

Still, now that I have 'proof' that almost all Tristar delays are caused by weather or DAS problems............................

I very nearly didn't answer as it really isn't in my interest to resurrect the thread either but - feel free to reproduce my words on PPrune or anywhere else. I don't care - they're the truth and I shall stand by them.

It's not a process issue - it's a finance issue, simple as. Your point about civvie carriers is tosh. They might be able to get the planes but they can't meet TES and never will.

And as for 'doing different' it's the use of commercial business practice that has got us into many of these problems in the first place!

Well, that all depends on who think my colleagues are. The FSTA PFI deal was done some time ago, probably before the whole Iraq/Afghanistan campaigns kicked off - I don't know. As was A400M.

Unlike your fantasy world, where you can simply order aircraft that miraculously meet the required standard in no time at all and there are lines of fully trained air and ground crew crying out to man them I work in a world where I have to do the best with what I have.

And - do you know what? It's made a lot easier when I'm not doing it with the background noise of people who clearly don't have a clue what they are talking about. This may not be your fault as you may not have access to the details of the requirement. That's fair enough, but I'm afraid it is the constant sniping that tends to make me drive my fist through the PC screen both at work and in my flat.

Oh, and you mentioned earlier that you hadn't criticized me and others in MOD about the airbridge?

You have - every time you say we aren't relevant, that we have no impact or effect, that we aren't in touch, you criticize me.

I know what I'm talking about and it would seem that you don't, apart from saying that somehow UK plc should shift to a Total War footing.

It would of course, be nice if we did. But at the end of the day, the audit of war will say that actually we suffered minimally in blood and perhaps more in treasure (for what is a different matter). If you want the HMT response to that to change (and your taxes to increase) then speak to politicians -don't get on Arrse and hit the very people who are trying to do their best.

[glum]

Some interesting points, but might I suggest he stops reading AARSE for the sake of his blood pressure?

[The Real Slim Shady]

What is this acronym TES?

And MAR??

[Finnpog]

TES = Theatre Entry Standard.

Thanks for the steer to the Arrse thread - a good read with good context provided.

At the end of the day, if the Country through the Government / Treasury do not want to provide the additional funding needed then there is no way that the equipment / airframes can be bought.

This is a symptom of political decisions rather than an inadequacy of the RAF who are trying to do their best whilst wearing the financial straightjacket that they have been forced into.

[Kaveman]

MAR = Military Aircraft Release, replaced by the Release To Service (RTS) these days. It's the big book of airworthiness limitations that the aircraft must be operated within.

K

[Daysleeper]

and the whole platform will have to be cleared to operate under a MAR.

It's the big book of airworthiness limitations that the aircraft must be operated within.

Yeah cos you see you buy modern airliners without any limitations , no really the manufacturer provide nothing and every airline has to make them up for themselves...

[Brain Potter]

Daysleeper,

The RAF is not an airline. It operates aircraft under the authority of the MoD, not the CAA/JAA. As such the MoD is responsible for the airworthiness of the basic aircraft, as well as any military modifications however small. The MAR (or RTS) does not just mean how fast, how high etc - it covers all aspects of the platform and it's equipment.

As a simplistic illustration, let's say a bolt-on military IFF transponder catches fire in-flight, the subsequent damage causes failure of flight controls and the aircraft crashes on London. Who would then be responsible for standing up in court and saying that the aircraft was airworthy?

The CAA/JAA would have no authority or interest in approving such modifications. The MoD could not say that the equipment was safe in isolation without considering it's impact on the rest of the aircraft and therefore must take responsibility for the whole platform.

Just think of the fall-out from Nimrod, Hercules and Chinook airworthiness issues and then imagine the complexity of some sort of joint civil/military regulatory framework.

[BEagle]

I think you'll find that any Airbus design will be certificated to civil standards, although when operating under 'miitary conditions', military certification will apply.

The definition of 'military conditions' will be something for various folk to exercise their minds over, however. But, for example, if flying passengers from A to B (outside a high threat area), there is no reason whatsoever why a military operated transport aircraft should not be required to meet civil certification standards.

Which might also include the nonsense of fitting an armoured flight deck door.....

[The Real Slim Shady]

Certification and operating standards are apples and pears.

The aircraft, Airbus, Boeing or Lockheed or Vickers, will originally be a civil aircraft, certified to comply with the national requirements - now EU Ops within contracting nations or FAA in the US.

Any modification from the type approval will have to be submitted to the Authorty for acceptance: hence if you bolt wing pods on to an A330 that mod, together with any other mods required for military operation e.g a freight door, would require Authority approval.

The Operational aspects fall under EU Ops: however, the first paragraphs of EU Ops specify the limits on the applicability, which excludes military aircraft. My interpretation, which may be at variance with BEag's, or anyone else's, is that the applicability caveat relates to aircraft which hold a military registration and fall within the remit of Military Flying Regulations or JSP 318 ( as it was in my day).

If the aircraft has a civilian registration it will be bound by EU Ops: if a military reg by JSP 318.

If it is civil registered the crews will need ATPLs / CPLs and be bound by EU Ops. If military registered they would have to be Reservists, or have some other affiliation to the Crown.

Opinions and comments please.

[aw ditor]

Who will hold the AOC for "Commercial Air Transport"? Or will they be bolted-on to a current AOC holder with the type already on the AOC.

[EGT Redline]

If it is civil registered the crews will need ATPLs / CPLs and be bound by EU Ops. If military registered they would have to be Reservists, or have some other affiliation to the Crown.

In addition, if the aircraft are to be operated on the civil register there will be a requirement to maintain them under civil regulations. Whilst the military to civilian crossover for aircrew is relatively straightforward (as some have stated on here), the transition for maintenance staff and policy is not so easy. All maintenance activities on civil registered aircraft need to be certified by a suitably qualified person - a Licensed Aircraft Engineer (LAE) holding the relevant type rating and company approval. The RAF does not utilise LAE's or hold a Part-145 maintenance approval, thus there would be a requirement to employ the services of a civilian maintenance and repair organisation (MRO) under contract.

[The Real Slim Shady]

Redline

Absolutely agree.

The FSTA project is for civil registered aircraft, I believe.

The use of civil registered aircraft does not fall within the remit of TES or MAR, hence bolt ons, whilst they may be desirable, are not essential.

[collbar]

FSTA civil ops

I beleive the FSTA program will be bound by civil pt-66 maint regs. Which is why airtanker are going to train our RAF engineers to proper civil standards with type ratings.

Interestingly only engineers with hands on experience will be able to make airworthiness calls, making JEngOs and SEngOs surplus to requirements(look at the savings there!).

[Alex Whittingham]

the same a/c were no DH/100 metres RVR with BA

The minimum CAT IIIB RVR was 75M for the TriStar, 100M was used for the B747. We always maintained the TriStar should be released to at least CAT II limits (DH100ft Radio/300M RVR) when it entered service. There is a cost, though, to maintaining aircraft and training crews to CAT II and III standards which their Airships were unwilling to pay. I mean, how often are you going to get fog at BZN?

[cessnapete]

Cat II III

Alex I stand corrected I was a 747 -400 man!
I always assumed that BZN as the RAF Transport Base would have at least a Cat II or III ILS as all new A330's/Boeings etc. come equiped as standard out of the factory. Would save a lot of diversions, with Birmingham littered with C17's and TriStars with low viz at BZN as happens at the moment.

[haltonapp]

When RAF engineers get a maintenance licence with an A330 rating on it just wait at General Office to see the queue for PVR forms!! I wish I was paid per hour what our licensed engineers get!

[Sideshow Bob]

The Real Slim Shady

From the ANO (The Air Navigation Order 2005)

Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a person may act as a member of the flight crew of an aircraft registered in the United Kingdom without being the holder of an appropriate licence if, in so doing, he is acting in the course of his duty as a member of any of Her Majesty's naval, military or air forces.

So no need for any flight crew licences as long as the aircraft are on the UK register. No such exemptions for engineers though!!

[The Real Slim Shady]

Which, of course, explains the need to acquire an ATPL when one leaves the service of HMG.

Sorry, only applies to military aircraft: i.e those with a military registration, or commandeered civilian aircraft in time of war, operated by a military crew or the military.