Aircrews are at the end of their tether
Thread Starter
Aircrews are at the end of their tether
For the benefit of those who do not read the Daily Telegraph, the following letter to the editor was published today in the prime spot:
Aircrews are at the end of their tether.
SIR- While answering allegations that British troops are poorly equipped for the Afghan winter, the Prime Mininster stated on Wednesday that our forces are among the best trained and equipped in the world.
The aircrews operating over Afghanistan lauded in your report "Britain's flying tankers hailed as a godsend" (report. Nov 10), are accommodated in tents on an airport about 50 yards from an active runway. Tents are shared between 16, and the runway is in use 24 hours a day.
Although modern aircraft are relatively quiet machines, the converted airliners of yesteryear that our crews have to make do with are amongst the noisiest in service, and the tents are not noted for their sound-deadening qualities. These conditions, while occaiasionally necessary when working in the field, are unacceptable when suitable accommodation is available nearby.
Flying an airliner is, at times, a highly skilled and deamnding job, which is why commercial airlines accommodate their crews in rooms well insulated from both sound and light, a small price to pay in view of the possible consequences. The effects of fatigue on flight safety have been well researched; indeed they should be clear to anyone who has tried to complete an effective day's work after a night of fitful rest. |The demands and stresses involved in operating an ageing converted airliner, leading large formations of aircraft around an exceedingly busy piece of sky, are obvious. All this is done while regularly being shot at. Given the fatigue built up over days and weeks without a decent night's sleep, the potential for disaster may be easily imagined.
So far we have been lucky. The Taliban have been unable to shoot down any of our aircraft, and low-level, fatigue-related incidents have not yet resulted in accidents, though I hear there have been a few close calls. Should the unthinkable happen in the ensuing weeks and months, I fear it will not come from enemy fire, but from an accidednt of the worst kind: one that we saw coming, could have prevented and did nothing about.
Aircrews are at the end of their tether.
SIR- While answering allegations that British troops are poorly equipped for the Afghan winter, the Prime Mininster stated on Wednesday that our forces are among the best trained and equipped in the world.
The aircrews operating over Afghanistan lauded in your report "Britain's flying tankers hailed as a godsend" (report. Nov 10), are accommodated in tents on an airport about 50 yards from an active runway. Tents are shared between 16, and the runway is in use 24 hours a day.
Although modern aircraft are relatively quiet machines, the converted airliners of yesteryear that our crews have to make do with are amongst the noisiest in service, and the tents are not noted for their sound-deadening qualities. These conditions, while occaiasionally necessary when working in the field, are unacceptable when suitable accommodation is available nearby.
Flying an airliner is, at times, a highly skilled and deamnding job, which is why commercial airlines accommodate their crews in rooms well insulated from both sound and light, a small price to pay in view of the possible consequences. The effects of fatigue on flight safety have been well researched; indeed they should be clear to anyone who has tried to complete an effective day's work after a night of fitful rest. |The demands and stresses involved in operating an ageing converted airliner, leading large formations of aircraft around an exceedingly busy piece of sky, are obvious. All this is done while regularly being shot at. Given the fatigue built up over days and weeks without a decent night's sleep, the potential for disaster may be easily imagined.
So far we have been lucky. The Taliban have been unable to shoot down any of our aircraft, and low-level, fatigue-related incidents have not yet resulted in accidents, though I hear there have been a few close calls. Should the unthinkable happen in the ensuing weeks and months, I fear it will not come from enemy fire, but from an accidednt of the worst kind: one that we saw coming, could have prevented and did nothing about.
Every time I read something like this my first thought is how glad I am I left after my 20-odd years, even with the downturn in civil aviation - my job is currently classified "at risk".
However, my second thought is invariably sympathy for those who still serve and have to put up with such penny-pinching nonsense. Isn't there an Airship anywhere with the backbone to stand up to the bloody beancounters?
DW - who wrote the letter?
However, my second thought is invariably sympathy for those who still serve and have to put up with such penny-pinching nonsense. Isn't there an Airship anywhere with the backbone to stand up to the bloody beancounters?
DW - who wrote the letter?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A well reasoned and heartfelt letter from someone directly affected by this woefully underfunded operation. The Airships, when confronted about the conditions, allegedly muttered about "not being blackmailed over flight safety issues"- a fairly despicable standpoint that will hopefully not come home to roost. This seems to be penny pinching for penny pinching's sake. As stated, hotac IS readily available- indeed, many of those non-aircrew deployed in the op currently reside in hotels. God forbid any major flight safety issues occur, but the current conditions are obviously hastening us down the path towards mishap.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This topic has been brought to the attention of Gp and IFS since the initial exercise started, and what is it with this 16 to a tent, I have shared with 37. I believe the record is 40 to an MFOT, with crews working around the clock shifts and managing up to 120 hours in 21 days. Gps answer to the crew hitting the 28 day hours buffer, was to offer an extension to 150 hours, I believe the crew declined. Whils't we all accept that for operational reasons, we must accept reduced accommodation standards, it is no excuse for driving a coach and horses through the normal peacetime regulations.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Far far away
Age: 53
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.dailytelegraph.co.uk/dt?a...1/23/dt04.html
Apalled - especially to hear that support staff are accommodated in air conditioned hotac. I don't doubt that the last straw is looming fast, and I hope it won't be a tragic loss that opens the eyes of the penny-pinchers.
Apalled - especially to hear that support staff are accommodated in air conditioned hotac. I don't doubt that the last straw is looming fast, and I hope it won't be a tragic loss that opens the eyes of the penny-pinchers.
Goldcup, just to clarify, the writer of the letter is now no longer a serviceman - he left the RAF sometime ago. However, his spouse IS still with the RAF and will have been able to tell him about this setup.......as will many of his former service colleagues.
And for the author of the letter:
Good on yer Tony! Lets see the bastards answer this one!
And for the author of the letter:
Good on yer Tony! Lets see the bastards answer this one!
Indeed, Vasco! Gross Negligence is a phrase which must be haunting him right now!
When the airlines start recruiting again (as they no doubt will very soon if current indications are to be believed), how many people will wait to be treated so badly again in the future!
Well done Tony - let's see what rebuttal comes from The Faceless Ones!
When the airlines start recruiting again (as they no doubt will very soon if current indications are to be believed), how many people will wait to be treated so badly again in the future!
Well done Tony - let's see what rebuttal comes from The Faceless Ones!
Pilot Officer PPRuNe
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting letter, and so true I am sure. Like the last time this sort of complaint found its way into the paper I have no doubt little (Nothing) will be done.
At least I will not get the blame this time
Tonks
At least I will not get the blame this time
Tonks
Another interesting letter in today's Torygraph:
<< SIR - Unlike President Bush, Tony Blair has not, since September 11, made any significant move towards increasing defence spending.
Yet the account of life for aircrews involved in RAF air tanking operations over Afghanistan highlights the potential dangers from under-resourcing air power.
The Ministry of Defence has already admitted that crews are pushing close to their safety limits of 120 hours flying every 28 days. Normally, aircrew could expect to fly around 250 to 350 hours a year.
A report in the current edition of RAF News claims that the new C-17 heavy lift transport aircraft "is currently operating at 170 per cent of its original RAF authorised flying tasking".
The partial privatisation of the tanking force that is going forward is a policy largely dictated by the Treasury. It is doubtful whether flying these kinds of hours would be possible under a private contract.
It is currently intended to have a smaller overall fleet of dedicated tankers under the privatisation plans. This is despite the growing evidence that air tanking is one of the most essential elements in today's globally mobile fighting forces. Although the awaited tankers will be much welcomed to replace the ageing VC-10s, more, rather than fewer, will be needed if the Government's enthusiasm for "expeditionary operations" continues.
The RAF deserves the best equipment to do the job. Political posturing is not enough. >>
No - I didn't write it!!
[ 24 November 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]
<< SIR - Unlike President Bush, Tony Blair has not, since September 11, made any significant move towards increasing defence spending.
Yet the account of life for aircrews involved in RAF air tanking operations over Afghanistan highlights the potential dangers from under-resourcing air power.
The Ministry of Defence has already admitted that crews are pushing close to their safety limits of 120 hours flying every 28 days. Normally, aircrew could expect to fly around 250 to 350 hours a year.
A report in the current edition of RAF News claims that the new C-17 heavy lift transport aircraft "is currently operating at 170 per cent of its original RAF authorised flying tasking".
The partial privatisation of the tanking force that is going forward is a policy largely dictated by the Treasury. It is doubtful whether flying these kinds of hours would be possible under a private contract.
It is currently intended to have a smaller overall fleet of dedicated tankers under the privatisation plans. This is despite the growing evidence that air tanking is one of the most essential elements in today's globally mobile fighting forces. Although the awaited tankers will be much welcomed to replace the ageing VC-10s, more, rather than fewer, will be needed if the Government's enthusiasm for "expeditionary operations" continues.
The RAF deserves the best equipment to do the job. Political posturing is not enough. >>
No - I didn't write it!!
[ 24 November 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Here and there
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heard about crews having a stab at getting into hotels for 3 nights during a heavy flying schedule(39hrs flying with 24hrs off in total!) but were turned down! The officer involved seemed to be in a bit of a hurry to get away.......
Found out that Group Captains and above were all accomodated in hotels and would not let any crews stay in hotels whatever the reason.
Found out that Group Captains and above were all accomodated in hotels and would not let any crews stay in hotels whatever the reason.
.......and how much operational flying have 'Group captains and above' actually done in the Afghanistani Theatre? Or is this just another RHIP thing?
Personally I'd give every senior officer PONTI visitor the $hittiest billet I could find....
Personally I'd give every senior officer PONTI visitor the $hittiest billet I could find....
The bottom line truth about this fiasco is that their airships really don't give a monkeys about anything that may actually bring a glimmer of reality into their perception of how thing are.
It has ever been thus and will remain so.
Doc C.
It has ever been thus and will remain so.
Doc C.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Recaptured & serving time @ ISK
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It begs the question, why are we not in Hotac, could it be money perchance? 
It is a sorry state of affairs when purse strings are more important than flight safety.
I know I've said it before, Royal Accounts & Admin Force, you know it makes sense.
It is a sorry state of affairs when purse strings are more important than flight safety.
I know I've said it before, Royal Accounts & Admin Force, you know it makes sense.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Far far away
Age: 53
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'War on terror blows £500m hole in MoD budget' Says the Guardianunlimited website.
'RAF's Three Largest Bases Face the Axe' Reads the Mail on Sunday.
'The MoD and the 'missing' £33m...' Suggests Silicon.com
'Don't forget that there are 4 fighter types, a maritime thingy and a 3 point airborne gas station doing burger all down in the Malvenas' Reminds Mr Proach - at a cost of?
'It's Tommy this and Tommy that' Quoth Rudyard kipling.
Thank goodness there are Agencies and Executives to account for every penny spent.
Still, Stephen Byers gave the go-ahead to the proposed £2.5bn fifth terminal at Heathrow airport this week. An obvious sign that the treasury expects the airline industry to overcome its problems. The same treasury who are considering the retention problems of our aircrew...
'RAF's Three Largest Bases Face the Axe' Reads the Mail on Sunday.
'The MoD and the 'missing' £33m...' Suggests Silicon.com
'Don't forget that there are 4 fighter types, a maritime thingy and a 3 point airborne gas station doing burger all down in the Malvenas' Reminds Mr Proach - at a cost of?
'It's Tommy this and Tommy that' Quoth Rudyard kipling.
Thank goodness there are Agencies and Executives to account for every penny spent.
Still, Stephen Byers gave the go-ahead to the proposed £2.5bn fifth terminal at Heathrow airport this week. An obvious sign that the treasury expects the airline industry to overcome its problems. The same treasury who are considering the retention problems of our aircrew...
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Come on guys. Sleeping in a tent is not a flight safety hazard - it's not very pleasant but it's not a flight safety hazard. Multi-engine crews are just too used to hotels to cope when there isn't a bidet in the bathroom and a few porn channels to blow their rates on.
However, kipping next to the runway - that needs to be sorted.
Here endeth today's sermon.
However, kipping next to the runway - that needs to be sorted.
Here endeth today's sermon.
Hengist - you're partly right. I lived in relative luxury compared with the cr@p of IOT field living when I shared a tent in Germany as a holding officer with the Harrier force many years ago. But the big difference then was that there was a sound reason to live in our 'cammed-up' world and also everyone worked pretty well the same hours. We'd all get woken up at first light as the genny started and the lights came on, at CoP we'd bog off to a nearby army place for a shower and then repair to a schnellie for some bratties und Bier before crashing out for the night.
That's a whole bunch different to the reports I've been hearing of people coming and going at all hours waking most of the others up, camp beds virtually touching eachother and dozens all crammed into the same tent close to the active runway. Some of those coming home have displayed the symptoms of exhaustion and gross fatigue. There's no excuse for such an existence - it's all down to the miserable bean counters! There wasn't any alternative to field living when we were camped out by the Harriers, so tentage was quite appropriate (and plentiful, reasonably comfortable and relatively capacious). There clearly is - just as there was in the Gulf War - a readily available alternative to field conditions at an international airport; the only thing stopping it being used is loss of face by the bean counters who would have to admit defeat.
[ 25 November 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]
That's a whole bunch different to the reports I've been hearing of people coming and going at all hours waking most of the others up, camp beds virtually touching eachother and dozens all crammed into the same tent close to the active runway. Some of those coming home have displayed the symptoms of exhaustion and gross fatigue. There's no excuse for such an existence - it's all down to the miserable bean counters! There wasn't any alternative to field living when we were camped out by the Harriers, so tentage was quite appropriate (and plentiful, reasonably comfortable and relatively capacious). There clearly is - just as there was in the Gulf War - a readily available alternative to field conditions at an international airport; the only thing stopping it being used is loss of face by the bean counters who would have to admit defeat.
[ 25 November 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not long out of the Service, but often used to get flack from helo people (mostly brownjobs) about why we stayed in hotels. Answer: (cos we can, and any fool can be uncomfortable.)
I have in the past (Cold war era - Tirstrup, Denmark) spent many weeks on exercise living in tents, and it was ok if there was not noise through your sleep hours.
This issue is not about tents versus hotels per se, it is about being able to get some sleep when off duty. It's not about being soft or mollycoddled, it is about flight safety, and making your people feel valued.
I am appalled to hear that while hotac is available, it is being refused to crews who are obviously unable to achieve adequate rest.
There are times in the military when you just have to grin and bear it (at some great risk), but this is not one of them.
And what example is being shown by the senior officers out there? If I was one of them, I would insist on being billeted in the same accom as the guys doing the job. Then I could experience the problems and start making a noise in the right places. But there again, this is partly why I'm no longer "in". The tenets of good leadership ingrained in me at IOT were often at odds with the culture I experienced in higher echelons.
I have in the past (Cold war era - Tirstrup, Denmark) spent many weeks on exercise living in tents, and it was ok if there was not noise through your sleep hours.
This issue is not about tents versus hotels per se, it is about being able to get some sleep when off duty. It's not about being soft or mollycoddled, it is about flight safety, and making your people feel valued.
I am appalled to hear that while hotac is available, it is being refused to crews who are obviously unable to achieve adequate rest.
There are times in the military when you just have to grin and bear it (at some great risk), but this is not one of them.
And what example is being shown by the senior officers out there? If I was one of them, I would insist on being billeted in the same accom as the guys doing the job. Then I could experience the problems and start making a noise in the right places. But there again, this is partly why I'm no longer "in". The tenets of good leadership ingrained in me at IOT were often at odds with the culture I experienced in higher echelons.