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

End of a distinguished career?

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.

End of a distinguished career?

Old 15th Jan 2010, 23:25
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: uk
Age: 72
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
End of a distinguished career?

Heard a sad rumour today - The Vickers funbus is to end passenger flights and become tanker only! Any gen? If true, then even more of the defence budget will have to be spent on leasing.
dragon166 is offline  
Old 16th Jan 2010, 06:25
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Far far away
Age: 53
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
But even less of the Defence Budget will have to be spent on keeping an obsolete airframe airworthy.
D-IFF_ident is offline  
Old 16th Jan 2010, 07:46
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: these mist covered mountains are a home now for me.
Posts: 1,783
Received 29 Likes on 12 Posts
That's a pretty harsh response to passenger complaints about the inflight meals...
Runaway Gun is offline  
Old 16th Jan 2010, 09:39
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: On the edge
Posts: 237
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
All true I'm affraid. Concerns about airworthyness apparently. VC10 passenger A/T tasking will go to charter or 216 (in the unlikely event that a Tristar is available.)

Last edited by Arty Fufkin; 16th Jan 2010 at 09:57.
Arty Fufkin is offline  
Old 16th Jan 2010, 10:49
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Waiting to return to the Loire.
Age: 54
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
This is perhaps an odd position to question - but will not chartering not provide a more modern and fuel efficient service to get pax between two points?

Will this not also strengthen the resilience of air refueling assests prior to the PFI (Pay For it Indefinitely) contract?

Those almost seem to be good things.

I suppose this all assists with THE war regardless of any future scenarios which might come our way.
Finnpog is offline  
Old 16th Jan 2010, 11:23
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: on a big flight deck
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Not over quite yet. To be reviewed next week. More a case of worries about lack of kit as opposed to "airworthiness".

As usual until final decision made there will be over-speculation and conjecture threads here
lastmanstanding is offline  
Old 16th Jan 2010, 11:32
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: England
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Not so much an `airworthiness` issue, but more to do with the lack of `safety` features fitted that are mandatory on commercial passenger carrying ac such as:
GPWS
FDR
CVR
Lack of emergency floor lighting to assist egress in dense smoke
etc etc...
Has been mitigated for at Platform Safety meetings previously, but it now appears that the `appetite for risk` at ministerial level has been withdrawn.
A crying shame really.
Stanley Eevil is offline  
Old 16th Jan 2010, 11:45
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: On the edge
Posts: 237
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Airworthyness, saftey, whatever......It's a shed.
Arty Fufkin is offline  
Old 16th Jan 2010, 11:46
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: on a big flight deck
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Crying shame indeed.
lastmanstanding is offline  
Old 16th Jan 2010, 13:50
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Anglia
Posts: 2,076
Received 6 Likes on 5 Posts
"...the lack of `safety` features fitted that are mandatory on commercial passenger carrying ac such as:
GPWS
FDR
CVR
Lack of emergency floor lighting to assist egress in dense smoke
etc etc..."

That list would put any civil aircraft off line for quite some time - and looks and sounds like a lack of "airworthiness" to me! Just like the lack of hush kits stops them from using many civil airports.

And most of those items are also required on freighters too!

Seems like the long term lack of investment in modern flying equipment and standards has finally caught up with the old dears.
Rigga is offline  
Old 16th Jan 2010, 16:14
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 633
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
If it's not fit to fly, then it shouldn't regardless of role!
Could be the last? is offline  
Old 16th Jan 2010, 16:32
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It is fit to fly but it would appear that it does not meet civilian Passenger carrying regs. A bit of a shame but try and imagine the outcry should the funbus suffer a similar fate as the 737 at Manchester Airport....Not nice and consequently the MOD cannot afford the risk to our servicemen.
vecvechookattack is offline  
Old 16th Jan 2010, 16:36
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: GMT
Age: 53
Posts: 2,053
Received 175 Likes on 62 Posts
Airworthyness, saftey, whatever......It's a shed.
Seconded. It has been a shed for a number of years.
minigundiplomat is offline  
Old 16th Jan 2010, 21:41
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Mostly here, but often there
Posts: 542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
At last!!

Absolute travesty that the thing was being used to haul pax....110(ish) pax for a fuel burn of 7T an hour and could just about reach the east coast of N America.

Leasing may be cheaper, but surely there must now be a case for dry (or perhaps moist) leasing some 330s to backfill the AT. After all, we are talking another 5 years before FSTA is online. 330 course = 3 months. IOC by late summer...job done.
brit bus driver is offline  
Old 16th Jan 2010, 22:15
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Poor old girl

She might be long in the tooth, but she gets to the US a lot faster than a Herc and a lot more reliably than a 3*.

To know her (properly) is to love her......
tommee_hawk is offline  
Old 16th Jan 2010, 22:16
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: norfolk
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Having been in the biggest hangar in Oxfordshire for some years in the mid 80s, my opinion of the 'funbus' was well past its prime then. The 'C' was under used and under funded, and falling to bits, the spares situation was critical and robbing was daily musical parts. Problems reported were diluted at each upward step of the chain so by the time it got to the people at the top of the tree, the VC10 had no problems!!
BA must have been over joyed when the MoD said that they would BUY all their old VC10s that they had lying about waiting to be scrapped, I would think that the person who offered them that still has a strained wrist from that handshake. Leaving them parked up for a few years was a good idea , gave the airframes time to continue rotting away before they got converted.
The cost of refurbishment and conversion of the 'K's must have been astronomic and only partial, as the amount of corrosion that was found on primary and secondary structures during the first majors was to prove.
The supply system did not help at all. We would order short supply items for green line entries, for them to be provisioned for the next servicing, usually giving them 12 months to source the spares, but after 6 months if spares were not chased they got cancelled, so officially we had no spares problem, but we did have 4 or 5 grounded jets awaiting servicing, to pick a bit from, if they were all not robbed already.
It got to the stage where even a minor could take months instead of weeks and the majors where a joke. Manpower was also an issue, when I arrived I had 15 Cpl's and below when I escaped the madhouse 3 1/2 years later, I had 6, and we were only part of a whole team.
When aircraft finally got released back to the sguadrons they were handed 2 700s, 1 for every day use and 1 for green lines. I vowed then that I would never fly on a VC10 from then on, and I never have.

Would have been better spending the money updating the Victor
acmech1954 is offline  
Old 16th Jan 2010, 22:51
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Turks and Cacos
Posts: 323
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by tommee_hawk
She might be long in the tooth, but she gets to the US a lot faster than a Herc and a lot more reliably than a 3*.

To know her (properly) is to love her......
Just let go. It's a machine. Sadly falling to bits.
On_The_Top_Bunk is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2010, 07:43
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 26,783
Received 257 Likes on 103 Posts
Someone needs to get a sense of proportion. It wasn't that long ago that the FunBus was carrying royalty around the world....

So it doesn't meet current EASA passenger carrying requirements. But don't forget those assume a 2 person flight deck, whereas the FunBus still carries a couple of cushion-dampeners on the flight deck. The navigator, in terminal areas, effectively becomes a food-powered GPWS, for instance.

One concern I always had was at the woeful weather radar. That really isn't good enough for the 21st century; many of us experienced lightning strikes with no threats showing on the weather radar, for example.

The huggy-fluffies would probably take a dim view of the passengers sharing the same compartment as palletised freight, but for heaven's sake, flying passengers in a C-130 is infinitely more hazardous than in the VC10.
BEagle is online now  
Old 17th Jan 2010, 08:16
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: On the edge
Posts: 237
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Beagle, are you serious? A navigator is not a substitute for EGPWS, not even slightly. Let it continue as a tanker, a job for which it is more suited. It's just a shame they scrapped all those Ks!!
Arty Fufkin is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2010, 08:52
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: norfolk
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Beagle-I will admit that the 'C's were in better condition than the 'K's but there were still issues that you would never has seen unless you were with us on the shop floor. The main problem was the age of the Aluminum used for spars and primary structure and not a fatigue problem.
Generally the frames that carried HRH would have been the freshest off a major, for obvious reasons, with all lifed items replaced at around half life (IIRC) as required, so they would be flying in the best frame available.
I would imagine that the amount of money spent on that fleet in the 10 years after I left far out weighed it's value. The hangar at Saints supposably built for the majors, the centre wing box rebuilds plus all the other work that should not have been required from a recently 'refurbished ' aircraft.
acmech1954 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.