Airtanker reservist pilots

[Torque Tonight]

Beags,

Pythonesque, yes very funny. Fortunately we can take a joke (and have a good laugh whenever we see Easyjet).

TT, I've no doubt that the piloting and engineering at Ryanair are quite fine. But working for a company whose actual product is of such a nature must surely throw some doubt on the motives of those prepared to work for it?

I think your questioning my motives is a bit naughty. When I was 'in', I was very much Queen & Country, duty first. I, like everyone else, tolerated a lot of s--t in the RAF, made a lot of sacrifices and did my duty to the best of my ability with a smile on my face. Sometimes it felt like a bit of a one way relationship. Now that I have left my motivation is a duty to No1 and a desire to carve out a satisfactory lifestyle. In my first year in the evil empire I already take home not far short of Gp Capt pay, I get more flying hours and I get more time off. I haven't once been called to salute an ensign at 0630 on a drizzly Sunday morning and have spent zero months in a sandy tent full of camel spiders. I don't feel too bad for the passengers because they vote with their wallets and keep coming back. Can't be that bad then. I think my motives are quite honourable.

[Torque Tonight]

Incidentally, for about the last year I too have regularly checked the AirTanker site, as doing a flying job of strategic importance (rather than flying bucket and spaders to the costas) was always something of great interest. Howver, the more I think about it, the more I suspect that being a civvy reservist in the military role will probably be the worst of both worlds, not the best of both.

[Whippersnapper]

TT, don't be daft. If you'd care to read my last with your brain engaged the point I was trying to make was that because Mr Mikey has bought new jets he has downscaled the maintenance costs - what happens when he needs the resource that isnt there? you know, the spanner wielding ones

Of course a new jet TENDS to be a safer jet than some knackered old heap but when you fly the arse off it and only do the minimum maintenance required it stays safe for how long??

Flight Safety does not belong in the hands of the finance dept. Let me put it this way - I don't care whether the jet is new or old, I care that it is safe. I don't care whether the pilot is mil or civ - I care the pilot is correctly trained, briefed, authed and in good health with the right amount of sleep.

I care if the pilot hates his oppo (or her) or has a huge ego that makes CRM impossible, I care if the pilot will fess up rather than hide it and is man enough to ask for help.


I also judge who I trust my life to on some other factors - thats why Ryanair, sleezy and a few others (and there are big boys there too) including Virgin (until the pilots resolve their arguments with Dickie!)

And I won't be flying BA again either.

In summary - I'm not just out to get Mikey, I have concerns about a lot of things - now does anyone have a yacht for sale?

You really do have no idea of what goes on within the individual airlines, do you? I can promise you that the public perceptions of which are well run and which are gash from an operational and maintenance perspective are entirely wrong. Some companies have fantastic PR departments and are poor at everything else, while some are very good at all the technical stuff but have poor PR and patchy customer service. You have to be in the companies or have close friends who have moved around a lot to know which is which, so impenetrable are their facades.

[sp6]

This is a great thread - more convuluted than MoD purchasing policy. Is the following too simplistic?

AirTanker Crew Permutations

QSP with Tanker Experience Deployed ok, Civvy contracting no
JAR CPL with A330 time Deployed no, civvy contracting ok
QSP with JAR CPL All working for Virgin & Emirates
65 yrs + QSP & ATPL Needs a younger co-pilot

or a new category, JAR CPL, not QSP but RAF Reserves or RAuxAF. Deployed ok if crewed with a QSP, Civvy ok?

[Whippersnapper]

From the ANO*:

Quote:
Flight crew licence requirement – Exception for members of HM Forces

58. 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, the person is acting in the course of his or her duty as a member of any of Her Majesty’s naval, military or air forces.
TT, I've no doubt that the piloting and engineering at Ryanair are quite fine. But working for a company whose actual product is of such a nature must surely throw some doubt on the motives of those prepared to work for it?

Yes. That motive would be paying my mortgage and keeping my kids in school. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the concept of duty and responsibility, Beagle, but most parents would take a job they hate if it provides well for their family.

Regarding maintenance, with new aircraft Ryanair has the huge advantage of being on the plateau of the maintainability bucket curve - whereas most RAF ME aircraft are now crawling up the right hand side....

I'm not sure what side of the argument you're siding with this, but for those that seem to think that RYR buy new aircraft because they are unable to maintain them, then you ought to know that RYR maintenance is all in-house (except if an aircraft goes tech as a non-base destination) using its own hangars at Prestwick, Stansted and Dublin with its own, mostly ex-RAF and FAA engineers. They sell them off before going through the heavy C checks or D checks because by that age, their resale values start dropping. That may be about to change, though, as the last 50 aircraft are to be delivered soon and there are no more existing follow ups to continue replacing the older fleet members.

With over Eu3bn in the bank and a net profit last year of over Eu270m, despite the fuel price and volcano issues, the company does not need to cut corners on maintenance. Sadly, the same cannot be said of the Forces, whose budgets have been slashed year after year by incompetent and uncaring politicians who force the Services to mend and make do with worn out, defunct relics and a lack of spares and maintenance budget. It's testament to the Services' engineers abilities that they can keep such old equipment going on such a shoe string.

[Whippersnapper]

From what I understand of the manning of ATrs the mil/civ split would enable the experienced mil staff to train the civ staff to the right standards under a sort of in-house TRTO arrangement. In return the civ staff will teach the mil staff how to fly large airliner types properly.

This interchange of training could also enable some of the lesser qualified mil staff to volunteer for ATrs and get qualified for a future career - in the same way that all the inexperienced military maintenance and engineering staff will be/are being given specific (and Bonded) training and qualifications to enable their work on this fleet - but they will be overseen by better qualified and more experienced civil maintenance and engineering staff and will work to civ rules at all times- even when it means restricting or denying flights due to MEL limits.

that's more of the positive attitude I had hoped to see - civil and military crew members learning from each other and creating a sum larger than its parts. We all have some things to contribute and some things to learn.

I had been under the impression, from what I have been able to find about the company plans on the web, that Airtanker were planning to operate a common fleet of aircraft, but that some would be military registered and other civil registered, with the respective crew operating their split domains. I got the impression, though only through hazy inference, that the civilians would not be conducting AAR, so i can only assume that the civil registered aircraft may have a ghost miltiary registration or that they could be operated under the quoted ANO directive allowing non-JAA licensed HM crews to operate CAA registered aircraft in the interests of the country.

I also got the impression that the aircraft would be configured to receive as well as deliver fuel, and that there may be a mix of centre line station fits of probe and drogue and flying boom (the latter for the F35, perhaps, but I'd have expected the B and C models to have retractable probes to be used in conjunction with USN carrier-borne F18 with tanker pods.

[Roland Pulfrew]

SFFP

It's called banter, sorry.

Whippersnapper

I had been under the impression, from what I have been able to find about the company plans on the web, that Airtanker were planning to operate a common fleet of aircraft, but that some would be military registered and other civil registered, with the respective crew operating their split domains. I got the impression, though only through hazy inference, that the civilians would not be conducting AAR, so i can only assume that the civil registered aircraft may have a ghost miltiary registration or that they could be operated under the quoted ANO directive allowing non-JAA licensed HM crews to operate CAA registered aircraft in the interests of the country.

It is my undertanding that ALL FSTA will be dual registered. When doing a military task they will be flown by military crews on the military register.

When they are being flown for a civilian task ie with a partner airline or on a 3PR flight for ATr they will be flown by partner company or ATr crews on the civilian register.

Civilain crews will not be doing AAR, but "sponsored reservist" ATr pilots may as they will need to retain currency - I assume they will need to be "activated" for that task.

Regarding the ANO I understand that one of the reasons the RAF King Air fleet is gaining military registrations is that a number of nations complained about aircraft flying over their territory, on civilian registrations, with military markings and flown by "unlicensed" pilots - contrary to the Chicago Convention (but stand to be corrected on that one).

I also got the impression that the aircraft would be configured to receive as well as deliver fuel, and that there may be a mix of centre line station fits of probe and drogue and flying boom (the latter for the F35, perhaps, but I'd have expected the B and C models to have retractable probes to be used in conjunction with USN carrier-borne F18 with tanker pods.

FSTA is not configured to receive fuel in flight nor will it come with a boom system; some FSTAs (but not all) will come with a centreline hose. More sensible nations, that are buying their KA-330s/KC-30s, are getting them with booms and centreline hoses and the ability to receive fuel from other tankers.

[BEagle]

A bucket curve is one whose slope initially decreases at a high rate, then follows a plateau, then rises steeply again. Like a 'U' with a flattened bottom.

If maintenance cost is expressed on the Y-axis and time on the X-axis, you have a situation where initial cost might be high due to delivery snags, bedding-in issues etc, but then it ramps down to an on-going low level before rising again as parts wear out, corrosion takes hold and critical items become scarce.

Ryanair is fortunate enough to be on the flat bit - just regular maintenance costs to meet. Whereas HM's ancient beasts are mostly climbing up the right hand side of the curve, being long past their 'Best before' dates.

TT:

However, the more I think about it, the more I suspect that being a civvy reservist in the military role will probably be the worst of both worlds, not the best of both.

You may well be right. We tend to remember the better times - and how the service was 'back in our day'. Much will have changed since then; whether for good or bad may not be immediately obvious.

By the way, don't forget that the 'Gp Capt' will also end up with a nice pension - I hope that you're able to salt away some of your new-found wealth for your latter years.

[Torque Tonight]

And that is, of course, a valid point. Cheers Beags.

[cornish-stormrider]

Yeah, but Beags pension is in Groats, Sheckles and old Boots

[Top West 50]

Beagle. I think your point about CAA exemption to fly a civilian aircraft is meant to cover one-off or emergency situations ie military aircrew recovering a civilian aircraft. I think if this loophole were to be used to allow military aircrew to routinely operate civilian registered aircraft, then the Authority would probably change the ANO.

[Pontius Navigator]

NATO E3 at Geilenkirchen are registered in Luxemburg. The have the prefix LX; the civil aircraft register also uses LX. The E3 are therefore technically registered with a civil registration.

[BEagle]

I think your point about CAA exemption to fly a civilian aircraft is meant to cover one-off or emergency situations ie military aircrew recovering a civilian aircraft.

As a legal document, the ANO is not open to interpretation.

However, the exception was indeed probably never intended to include military operation of civil-registered aircraft in military roles.

[F.O.D]

Top west 50,

The Grob Tutors used by the RAF for UAS and AEF training are civilian registered and are routinely flown by Qualified Service Pilots most of whom don't have a civil qualification.

F.O.D

[Roland Pulfrew]

FOD

In UK airspace only, though.

[Trim Stab]

Abo pilots coming through training will not have enough hours for a CPL let alone an ATPL.

If ATr is run to airline standards, I can't see them accepting inexperienced Abo RAF pilots (even if they have proven their superior ability by tracing a wiggly line on a rotating drum, and interpreting upside-down stick men). I don't know of any A330 operators that take RHS pilots with less than 2000 hours jet time - and for good reason too.

[Dengue_Dude]

God this hurts . . . I have to agree with BEags again.

Having spent over 10 years flying with perfectly adequate airliner captains, only a few of them would have been any good when dealing with a trail that's suddenly gone to rat****.

A relative numpty could do race tracks until someone pitches up to make them lighter, but the AAR skipper/crew on a trail is a different animal.

Once again, experience and ability will be diluted. There will be tears before bedtime and NO, 'they' never learn.

Evenin' BEags - I promise not to agree with you too often - it would be much too boring.

[Roland Pulfrew]

Trim Stab

Sorry chap. The requirement was for military pilots straight from the training system to be routed through the posting system to any type in the RAF's inventory. That means Abos going straight to A330.

What ATr do for their company pilots is a different matter, but the majority of FSTA pilots will be regular RAF, and that means they will have to accept abos or the fleet will die.

One of the bigger challenges, that certain of our more senior brethren have yet to cotton on to, is that the RAF will soon be in a position that it won't need average "group 2" pilots (group 2 being streamed multi-engine from the training system). The challenges of operating 2-man flight deck, complex aircraft, in a tactical environment (C130J, C17, Nimrod MRA4, A400 and FSTA) particularly on low hours straight from the training system, means the standard/quality will have to rise. There will soon be no "soft options" available to the lower average pilot from training.

[BEagle]

D_D, you bitch!

If you have a decent Mission Computer System which has been designed to be used by aircrew who do not have extensive role experience, in-flight AAR trail re-planning can be achieved far more quickly and accurately than by use of the primitive, inaccurate and mathematically dubious 'RAPS' methodology....

For example, a 6 receiver trail across Australia. Just before the first bracket, one hose fails to trail.... Effort and time required to re-plan a single hose trail?

With the MCS as now flying in the A310MRTT, 2 keystrokes and less than a second.

You can also drag and drop the brackets to earlier positions if you wish - the abort points are automatically re-calculated for every bracket. The single hose plan also assumes that you will keep the hose trailed for the whole trip until the end of the last bracket and recalculates the tanker burn accordingly. After each bracket, the receiver fuel states are entered and the subsequent brackets are all adjusted. So good-bye to the wasteful technique of keeping receivers in contact until the geographical end-of-bracket point.

Have you got the same degree of simplicity in your big new jet, my Oz PPRuNe-ing chum?

Hmmm...

The A310MRTT MCS is a bit like an AARC-in-a-box. Except that it works considerably faster, doesn't trash hire cars in Palermo, have blonde moments or get itself banned from Atlanta....

[Rigga]

Someone said:
"....then they will be operated under EASA."

Operated? maybe, Maintained... Definately!

Once these aircraft are maintained under Military rules they will need all the work conducted re-done to bring the aircraft back into the "Controlled Environment" of EASA rules. Also under EASA rules each aircraft will be maintained under its own unique Approved Maintenance Programme - not some cobbled together set of jobs good for all aircraft in whatever conditions, like the RAF does.

To transfer between AMPs means conducting a maintenance check to bridge between the two programmes.


To belay another Myth appearing on this thread - there is no such thing as DUAL regstration!

Any aircraft can only appear on one register at any time and to change registers is not done at the flick of a switch but takes at least three weeks of admin and transfer work between Reguators and maintenance staff. It is for this reason that some (if any) aircraft may be permanently military registered to keep a minimum mil fleet available..

Amused at the ramblings on here...