C-17. Is it really that good?
DCI 53/97 - but it may have been replaced by now. I cannot quote directly from it here as it is Restricted.
Any move of aircrew back from any location where 'feasible alternatives' such as civil air passage are available (not necessarily 'cheap' civil air) probably contravenes this DCI. Such as flying people back from Incirlik on a trash hauler when plentiful flights are available using civil air passage from Adana?
Any move of aircrew back from any location where 'feasible alternatives' such as civil air passage are available (not necessarily 'cheap' civil air) probably contravenes this DCI. Such as flying people back from Incirlik on a trash hauler when plentiful flights are available using civil air passage from Adana?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: South of the Fens again!
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst DCIs are supposed to only be valid for 1 year & this one would (presumably) have been replaced, it could well still be in force. I suspect that it may have been superceded by DCI JS 65/99 (which should also have been updated, but hasn't), but I will check tomorrow. 
My copy of this 1997 DCI was provided by a Gp Capt who was content for it to be quoted in a 1999 letter to RAF News on the subject. He also stated that it was still valid at the time even though DCIs should be updated as you state.
Fine intra theatre tactical airlifter that it undoubtedly is, the C130 (whether J or K model) does NOT meet current international legislative requirements for the carriage of passengers. Where, for instance, is the passenger oxygen equipment? Where are the lavatories and hand washing facilities? Does the passenger seating comply with JAR 25.785? If not, why not??
That a freight aircraft with such woefully inadequate passenger facilities is mis-employed as a strategic passenger aircraft is scandalous in this day and age.
[ 29 November 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]
Fine intra theatre tactical airlifter that it undoubtedly is, the C130 (whether J or K model) does NOT meet current international legislative requirements for the carriage of passengers. Where, for instance, is the passenger oxygen equipment? Where are the lavatories and hand washing facilities? Does the passenger seating comply with JAR 25.785? If not, why not??
That a freight aircraft with such woefully inadequate passenger facilities is mis-employed as a strategic passenger aircraft is scandalous in this day and age.
[ 29 November 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Time for a reality check on this thread. The C17 is a strategic military airlifter with tactical capability. It carries (excuse me 99 boys if I am wrong) some 179 000 lb of freight. This tactical capability comes at some significant expense; irrespective of our lease contract, Mr Boeing will ask somewhere in the region of $225 million per copy if you want one - and the State Department will let them sell you one. For that reason alone, each C17 is a high-value strategic asset to the UK; just as we do not fly our Sentry's at 250 ft MSD, we do not need to be flying our C17s at low level - the USAF are getting a total of 120, they can afford to. The aircraft offers us outstanding capability and we should use it for what it was bought for, not tooling around in the UKLFS with a couple of MSPs. However, when the C17 was in development, it was beset with a multitude of problems which took a lot more cash to fix than has been spent on the C130J.
On to our other new military airlifter. BEagle, the troop oxygen lives in the roof and will drop on your head if the crew or the Mission Computer tells it to. As for JAR 25 issues, I understand and agree with your comments. However, we bought the C130J as a tactical military aircraft, not as an airliner. We were under no illusions about what was fitted in the back when we paid the relatively small sum of £34.2 million per aircraft. Sometimes we need to accept that we are a military organisation and that there is a balance between system integrity/safety and military capability.
So, onto the subject of the C130J tactical capability. I won't mention the C17's small HUD, lack of digital map or radar cursor. I won't mention the fact that the C130J radar provides a better ground mapping picture than any other radar in the UK military inventory (from a GR4 nav) - oops don't know what the Apache is like. Admittedly, both aircraft can do IMC, hands-off formation flight. The aircraft does drop troops and they don't hit the side of the aircraft as reported in the Torygraph.
I happen to know some of the boys currently living in appalling conditions in Atlanta doing the C130J tactical workload trial with the Block 5.3 software. They are seeing some outstanding results and the aircraft is very rarely more than 10 sec off TOT despite 10 min rolex calls from AWACS, numerous threat calls (another new one for the C130K) and run-in changes of 90 deg passed at 6 min from the target. The aircraft is operating reliably in mountainous terrain up to 7000 ft which the antique aircraft would not cope with. The aircraft is also looking like it can provide a true IMC drop capability - in the same way as the USAF AWADS aircraft do. Allegedly the procedures are spot on and the fact that the aircraft is operated by only 3 people is not a factor.
Oh well back to your cynical trash - wish I was in Georgia with the Boys drinking Guinness.
[ 30 November 2001: Message edited by: backpocket.com ]
On to our other new military airlifter. BEagle, the troop oxygen lives in the roof and will drop on your head if the crew or the Mission Computer tells it to. As for JAR 25 issues, I understand and agree with your comments. However, we bought the C130J as a tactical military aircraft, not as an airliner. We were under no illusions about what was fitted in the back when we paid the relatively small sum of £34.2 million per aircraft. Sometimes we need to accept that we are a military organisation and that there is a balance between system integrity/safety and military capability.
So, onto the subject of the C130J tactical capability. I won't mention the C17's small HUD, lack of digital map or radar cursor. I won't mention the fact that the C130J radar provides a better ground mapping picture than any other radar in the UK military inventory (from a GR4 nav) - oops don't know what the Apache is like. Admittedly, both aircraft can do IMC, hands-off formation flight. The aircraft does drop troops and they don't hit the side of the aircraft as reported in the Torygraph.
I happen to know some of the boys currently living in appalling conditions in Atlanta doing the C130J tactical workload trial with the Block 5.3 software. They are seeing some outstanding results and the aircraft is very rarely more than 10 sec off TOT despite 10 min rolex calls from AWACS, numerous threat calls (another new one for the C130K) and run-in changes of 90 deg passed at 6 min from the target. The aircraft is operating reliably in mountainous terrain up to 7000 ft which the antique aircraft would not cope with. The aircraft is also looking like it can provide a true IMC drop capability - in the same way as the USAF AWADS aircraft do. Allegedly the procedures are spot on and the fact that the aircraft is operated by only 3 people is not a factor.
Oh well back to your cynical trash - wish I was in Georgia with the Boys drinking Guinness.
[ 30 November 2001: Message edited by: backpocket.com ]
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh, and another thing, the whole cockpit goes NVIS compatible with a single switch selection. As long as we can keep the LPO for Cyalumes for the ladies then the boys will be happy.
The previous 2 replies sponsored by Guinness.
The previous 2 replies sponsored by Guinness.
backpocket.com - as I said, the C130 is a fine intra-theatre tactical aircraft; an 'airliner' it most certainly is not. So, other than for tactical military requirements such as troop dropping, we should surely not be using it as such? What gives anyone the right to deny passengers JAR 25 safety? But at least the C130J would appear to have emergency passenger oxygen - does the -K? If not, then surely passenger carrying above 750 mb must stop immediately?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: South of the Fens again!
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle, I checked the DCI today & had the Gp policy guys see if (despite its +4 years shelf-life) it was indeed still current. Much to my surprise, it has not been superceded. However, there my good news ends, as your recollection would appear to be flawed.
As your stated (and quite correct) reason for not quoting from it was owing to its RESTRICTED classification I will assume that you have (or can get) a copy. I refer you to para 11 where in relation to the carriage of Sevice personnel it uses the word 'unrestricted'. The subsequent 'feasible alternatives' passage that you have latched on to only applies to 'administrative moves'. Having talked with the policy boys I found that this was based on a risk management decision (before that became a buzzword) to achive a military capability with existing assets within a public budget and hence the passage that lays down different rules for civvies.
Taking the same definition that appears in the DCI, I then got someone to search all 2 Gp/DTMA tasked flights since Aug 99 to see if there had been any admin moves and got 2 'hits' (a year apart and something for which I doubt you were involved in), but when I then examined the circumstances of those flights, I found that the only other possible Service solution would have been buses that could not have met the timelines laid down. The only 'feasible' military option was therefore the C-130. For reasons that I cannot go in to here, a civilian charter option would not have been feasible. Therefore, I was unable to find a single occaision in the past 2+ years where 2 Gp/DTMA have contravened the DCI.
I take it that your apology to
will be as public as your accusation.
As your stated (and quite correct) reason for not quoting from it was owing to its RESTRICTED classification I will assume that you have (or can get) a copy. I refer you to para 11 where in relation to the carriage of Sevice personnel it uses the word 'unrestricted'. The subsequent 'feasible alternatives' passage that you have latched on to only applies to 'administrative moves'. Having talked with the policy boys I found that this was based on a risk management decision (before that became a buzzword) to achive a military capability with existing assets within a public budget and hence the passage that lays down different rules for civvies.
Taking the same definition that appears in the DCI, I then got someone to search all 2 Gp/DTMA tasked flights since Aug 99 to see if there had been any admin moves and got 2 'hits' (a year apart and something for which I doubt you were involved in), but when I then examined the circumstances of those flights, I found that the only other possible Service solution would have been buses that could not have met the timelines laid down. The only 'feasible' military option was therefore the C-130. For reasons that I cannot go in to here, a civilian charter option would not have been feasible. Therefore, I was unable to find a single occaision in the past 2+ years where 2 Gp/DTMA have contravened the DCI.
I take it that your apology to
...the bean counters at 2Gp and/or DTMA who constantly break this regulation.
No.
The idea of moving anyone in an aeroplane which fails to meet international certification requirements is totally unacceptable in this day and age. What gives you the right to move passengers anywhere in an aircraft which doesn't meet JAR 25 requirements? You do know about JARs, don't you?
To draw distinctions between Service personnel and others is also questionable. Whether we liked it or not, we had to change the way we treated homosexuals to come into line with contemporary legislation - and it's time we treated passengers with the same respect that even the cheapest airline is required to.
These penny-pinching bean counters are hiding behind their own definition of 'administrative moves'; 'getting round the rules' was the way it was described at one FSTA briefing by some suit from DTMA when asked why the overwhelming majority of his passenger 'schedules' were flown in his so-called 'intra-theatre' tactical aeroplane rather than in a TriStar or VC10, much to the astonishment of the industry people present. But I preferred the description given by some media personality who, when offered a flight from London to Lyneham in a wretched C130K, declined to do so and described conditions as 'barbaric' in the freight hold......
Now please explain why you think that we should ever move passengers anywhere without passenger oxygen systems - enabling the aircraft to continue to a diversion in the event of either smoke and fumes in the freight bay or decompression, both of which would require flight at much lower levels if we were to avoid killing our passengers?
The idea of moving anyone in an aeroplane which fails to meet international certification requirements is totally unacceptable in this day and age. What gives you the right to move passengers anywhere in an aircraft which doesn't meet JAR 25 requirements? You do know about JARs, don't you?
To draw distinctions between Service personnel and others is also questionable. Whether we liked it or not, we had to change the way we treated homosexuals to come into line with contemporary legislation - and it's time we treated passengers with the same respect that even the cheapest airline is required to.
These penny-pinching bean counters are hiding behind their own definition of 'administrative moves'; 'getting round the rules' was the way it was described at one FSTA briefing by some suit from DTMA when asked why the overwhelming majority of his passenger 'schedules' were flown in his so-called 'intra-theatre' tactical aeroplane rather than in a TriStar or VC10, much to the astonishment of the industry people present. But I preferred the description given by some media personality who, when offered a flight from London to Lyneham in a wretched C130K, declined to do so and described conditions as 'barbaric' in the freight hold......
Now please explain why you think that we should ever move passengers anywhere without passenger oxygen systems - enabling the aircraft to continue to a diversion in the event of either smoke and fumes in the freight bay or decompression, both of which would require flight at much lower levels if we were to avoid killing our passengers?
Fine pitch - you can find the construction and equipment requirements for large aeroplanes at the JAA website. There is nothing precluding the carriage of passengers so long as the aeroplane is compliant with the relevant parts of JAR 25.
To fly in formation, all that is legally required is the consent of the aeroplane commanders.
But carrying passengers in the bowels of a time-expired trash hauler which doesn't even carry the required emergency equipment or meet certification standards is totally against these requirements. If we have to provide proper seating for office typists, then why should we not provide proper seating for aircraft passengers?
The secret of passenger flying in the VC10K4 is known to but a few - it has seats pitched at the maximum value permitted which gives even more leg room than in the VC10C1K!!
[ 01 December 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]
To fly in formation, all that is legally required is the consent of the aeroplane commanders.
But carrying passengers in the bowels of a time-expired trash hauler which doesn't even carry the required emergency equipment or meet certification standards is totally against these requirements. If we have to provide proper seating for office typists, then why should we not provide proper seating for aircraft passengers?
The secret of passenger flying in the VC10K4 is known to but a few - it has seats pitched at the maximum value permitted which gives even more leg room than in the VC10C1K!!
[ 01 December 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Detached (again!)
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, thanks Fine Pitch for turning a couple of fairly tongue-in-cheeck but fair comments into personal abuse, but hey, if that's your bag...
I think you'll find my comments on the C17 are well founded, and that some small comforts for those of us that spend a lot of time down the back make a real difference. (and if you read my original post again, you'll find I was complimenting the C-17, not whinging about the C-130)
I did not comment on the tactical excellence of the C-130, but have flown around at 150' in one at Nellis on more than one occasion and was hugely impressed by both the airframe and the crews' abilities to operate in that environment. However, to pick up on BEagle's point - it doesn't exactly make a lot of sense to use a tactical intra-theatre asset as long-haul/strat AT, does it?
You obviously took my comments as a direct attack on the C-130 - which they are not, no matter how you read them. I have flown many times in each aircraft type of the RAF's current AT fleet and frankly, find your attitude at odds with many of your compatriots who are usually pretty friendly with the Pax. I also don't know what your beef is with the OS Branch, but you'll find some of us have opinions about flying that might actually be valid, for all that we might not wear a brevet! In fact, there are some that do...
For your information, I am now back in the desert having spent 10hrs down the back in a C-130J which had an excellent cockpit but was pretty uncomfortable in the hold due to the vibration. But at least it was faster than a K model!
CV
I think you'll find my comments on the C17 are well founded, and that some small comforts for those of us that spend a lot of time down the back make a real difference. (and if you read my original post again, you'll find I was complimenting the C-17, not whinging about the C-130)
I did not comment on the tactical excellence of the C-130, but have flown around at 150' in one at Nellis on more than one occasion and was hugely impressed by both the airframe and the crews' abilities to operate in that environment. However, to pick up on BEagle's point - it doesn't exactly make a lot of sense to use a tactical intra-theatre asset as long-haul/strat AT, does it?
You obviously took my comments as a direct attack on the C-130 - which they are not, no matter how you read them. I have flown many times in each aircraft type of the RAF's current AT fleet and frankly, find your attitude at odds with many of your compatriots who are usually pretty friendly with the Pax. I also don't know what your beef is with the OS Branch, but you'll find some of us have opinions about flying that might actually be valid, for all that we might not wear a brevet! In fact, there are some that do...
For your information, I am now back in the desert having spent 10hrs down the back in a C-130J which had an excellent cockpit but was pretty uncomfortable in the hold due to the vibration. But at least it was faster than a K model!
CV
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Trumpville; On the edge
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C-17. Is it really that good?
In a word: YES
The size of your HUD is pretty much irrelevant. What does matter is that the 'business end' (ie aft of the flightdeck) has been fairly well optimised for user-friendliness by someone who took the trouble to sit down and think about it before they cut metal.
Conversely......nice to see that the J has a couple of ICS boxes down the back, but can someone please explain why you would want to inhibit the Tx facility?
IMHO the J is no better off, (back-end wise) than the K, and is perhaps worse. (no 88.5 width pallets, reduced vertical clearance in the wheelwell due to oxy. boxes, heavier para doors, vibration.....need I go on?)
BEagle: fully concur re: punters and seating. Ask the Canadians what it's like to be sitting in one of these PARATROOP seats when the ac crashes......
The size of your HUD is pretty much irrelevant. What does matter is that the 'business end' (ie aft of the flightdeck) has been fairly well optimised for user-friendliness by someone who took the trouble to sit down and think about it before they cut metal.
Conversely......nice to see that the J has a couple of ICS boxes down the back, but can someone please explain why you would want to inhibit the Tx facility?
IMHO the J is no better off, (back-end wise) than the K, and is perhaps worse. (no 88.5 width pallets, reduced vertical clearance in the wheelwell due to oxy. boxes, heavier para doors, vibration.....need I go on?)
BEagle: fully concur re: punters and seating. Ask the Canadians what it's like to be sitting in one of these PARATROOP seats when the ac crashes......
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Trumpville; On the edge
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ABIW:
Are these wafer thin pax then? Or do you just increase the diff. to get the extra width for the seats in the 108 pallet width? Surely you don't let the poor old pax sit at an angle by fixing the seatlegs to the -4A beams? Or do you?
BTW: Nice article in the Times yesterday re: spelling on CVs - not suggesting for a moment that you need to change jobs, merely that it has some relevance regarding the impact of written work to the reader if it is riddled with spelling mistakes.....just a thought.
(Oh hang on, you appear to have found your sp%ll ch#ck$r!)
ICS boxes......no tangible benefit over the K then?
Vertical Clearance......no tangible benefit over the K then?
(Could/would cause clearance problems for MSPs)
Vibration.......I wonder if the K fleet has to get Gp authority to fit full seats? No, thought not........no tangible benefit over the K then?
Oh, they fixed the door problem.......hooray!
(Yawn)
BTW: Nice article in the Times yesterday re: spelling on CVs - not suggesting for a moment that you need to change jobs, merely that it has some relevance regarding the impact of written work to the reader if it is riddled with spelling mistakes.....just a thought.
(Oh hang on, you appear to have found your sp%ll ch#ck$r!)ICS boxes......no tangible benefit over the K then?
Vertical Clearance......no tangible benefit over the K then?
(Could/would cause clearance problems for MSPs)
Vibration.......I wonder if the K fleet has to get Gp authority to fit full seats? No, thought not........no tangible benefit over the K then?
Oh, they fixed the door problem.......hooray!
(Yawn)
Last edited by Trumpet_trousers; 19th Mar 2003 at 19:50.
You Lyneham boys and your "J vs K" arguements do go on and on! No doubt my fault for looking at the thread in the first place, but I thought it was about the C-17!!! I look at it this way, the J is here to stay, the K is soldiering on but will eventually depart. That sums it up for the rest of the military, as to which is better, IT DOESN'T MATTER! At least not to most of us, only to those of you at Lyneham with egos to bruise/protect.
Your arguements are just/boring repetitive, and I won't visit this thread again!! Just get on with your jobs to the best of your ability, and get us there as quickly/safely as you can please. (But given the choice I would still rather go civy, club class please!!)
Edited because I can't spell, because I am thick - not due to alcohol, "df" or otherwise!!
Your arguements are just/boring repetitive, and I won't visit this thread again!! Just get on with your jobs to the best of your ability, and get us there as quickly/safely as you can please. (But given the choice I would still rather go civy, club class please!!)
Edited because I can't spell, because I am thick - not due to alcohol, "df" or otherwise!!
Last edited by Biggus; 19th Mar 2003 at 20:30.
Post deleted.Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Trumpville; On the edge
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ABIW:
You seem to have taken my observations as some sort of personal slight - couldn't be further from the truth.
All I was trying to allude to is that whilst the 'Drivers, Airframes' have all the bells/whistles/gucci kit upstairs on your machine, nobody seems to have given very much thought to the poor old guy/gal down the back.
The C17 is arguably a lesson on what can be achieved downstairs if a little thought went into it.
All I was trying to allude to is that whilst the 'Drivers, Airframes' have all the bells/whistles/gucci kit upstairs on your machine, nobody seems to have given very much thought to the poor old guy/gal down the back.
The C17 is arguably a lesson on what can be achieved downstairs if a little thought went into it.
Probably best ignored.