Tristars grounded again?
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: n/a
Posts: 1,425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An RAF source said the ground proximity issue was “mitigated” by having another crewman in the cockpit as an “extra pair of eyes to keep a look out”.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Midlands
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As for the VC10 carrying pax again, the hypocrisy is astounding.
Permission was requested for a Comp C to fly back from west coast of the USA to the UK a few months ago and denied because of this rule. The bloke, a mover, flew home civvy. Rules is rules apparently.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hunched over a keyboard
Posts: 1,193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I carried many thousands of passengers on 10 Sqn without "ground proximity warning sytems" and never killed anyone. This crap about GPWS etc is just nonsense - operate to your LIMITS and you will be safe. When it comes to carrying passengers around, safety isn't a matter of equipment, it's a state of mind.
If you can't see at DA, go-around. It's very simple.
If you can't see at DA, go-around. It's very simple.
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the olden days our "Ground Proximity Warning System" (GPWS) was called "Terrain Following Radar" (TFR) 
Meanwhile, our civvy B757s are still not past their sell-by date. They're only just coming up to 87,000 hours/29,000 cycles. They'll be catching up with your VC10s before long. (Ducks to avoid flak...)
Meanwhile, our civvy B757s are still not past their sell-by date. They're only just coming up to 87,000 hours/29,000 cycles. They'll be catching up with your VC10s before long. (Ducks to avoid flak...)
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Horsham, England, UK. ---o--O--o---
Posts: 1,185
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
Rather fly in the the good old VC-10 than a Tri* anyday! 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: n/a
Posts: 1,425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I carried many thousands of passengers on 10 Sqn without "ground proximity warning sytems" and never killed anyone. This crap about GPWS etc is just nonsense - operate to your LIMITS and you will be safe. When it comes to carrying passengers around, safety isn't a matter of equipment, it's a state of mind.
If you can't see at DA, go-around. It's very simple.
If you can't see at DA, go-around. It's very simple.
With the odd, very rare, exception TAWS has pretty much finished the CFIT accidents that were killing hundreds if not thousands of people every year on civil airliners.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Daysleeper
"killing hundreds if not thousands of people every year on civil airliners"
How many were killed each year by RAF transport aircraft engaged on routine passenger flights?
"killing hundreds if not thousands of people every year on civil airliners"
How many were killed each year by RAF transport aircraft engaged on routine passenger flights?
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Erehwon
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hate to be old fashioned but .............
OPSEC
OPSEC
For Christ's sake don't go and read Wikileaks then, you'll have a seizure - that stuff really IS classified.
The bonus is it's really embarrassing the bunches of lying bastards in governments various.
No surprises, but reassuring nevertheless.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would appear that we, the RAF and the Regulators are becoming too risk averse.
GPWS were surely mandated to mitigate for twin crew cockpits in the more modern airliners. The VC10 has a four crew cockpit on the C1 and the NAV and/or the Eng are the GPWS.
As an Ex-VC10 operator, it is a team effort not to fly into the ground and the additional 2 flight deck crew surely make up for no GPWS.
After all, the VC10 has been operated for a long time now with no CFIT.
Frustrated....
GPWS were surely mandated to mitigate for twin crew cockpits in the more modern airliners. The VC10 has a four crew cockpit on the C1 and the NAV and/or the Eng are the GPWS.
As an Ex-VC10 operator, it is a team effort not to fly into the ground and the additional 2 flight deck crew surely make up for no GPWS.
After all, the VC10 has been operated for a long time now with no CFIT.
Frustrated....
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: n/a
Posts: 1,425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear lord preserve us from old fools
Extra crew members are no defence against CFIT, DC-10 ANZ Mt Erebus anyone, or 727 Dan Air in Tenerife or L1011 Eastern in the Florida everglades
and so on and so on...
The causes of CFIT are multitude and like all accidents usually have a chain of events leading up to it. TAWS intervenes to break that chain, successfully. It is not always perfect, a determined crew can still ignore the voice and the kit can break, but in the vast vast majority of cases it prevents accidents.
Ask yourself whether it would be acceptable to lose a "routine" trooping flight to a preventible accident cause.
Seems the decision to stop the VC-10 doing routine pax flights is quite sensible. I just hope the Tristar has a proper database driven TAWS fitted (either EGPWS or T2/3 CAS) and not an old GPWS set.
Extra crew members are no defence against CFIT, DC-10 ANZ Mt Erebus anyone, or 727 Dan Air in Tenerife or L1011 Eastern in the Florida everglades
and so on and so on...
The causes of CFIT are multitude and like all accidents usually have a chain of events leading up to it. TAWS intervenes to break that chain, successfully. It is not always perfect, a determined crew can still ignore the voice and the kit can break, but in the vast vast majority of cases it prevents accidents.
Ask yourself whether it would be acceptable to lose a "routine" trooping flight to a preventible accident cause.
Seems the decision to stop the VC-10 doing routine pax flights is quite sensible. I just hope the Tristar has a proper database driven TAWS fitted (either EGPWS or T2/3 CAS) and not an old GPWS set.
Frustrated - correct!
GPWS was introduced to try and prevent idiots killing themselves - particularly in 2-person flight decks with some wet-behind-the-ears sprog in the RHS.
Irrelevant in the VC10, but you try and persuade the yellowcoat culture of today!
Even a GPWS didn't stop the 'Terrain, Terrain, Pull up' command to an Avianca 747 being acknowledged by 'Yeah...yeah' from the Captain and no action 15 sec before he killed everyone on board by flying into a mountain near Madrid in 1984.
The value of the old cushion-dampeners at the back of the VC10 flight deck shouldn't be underestimated - just remember how it was they survived to become that old!
Dear Lord, protect us from those without sufficient airmanship and experience to cope without an electric nanny telling them when it's time to pee.
GPWS was introduced to try and prevent idiots killing themselves - particularly in 2-person flight decks with some wet-behind-the-ears sprog in the RHS.
Irrelevant in the VC10, but you try and persuade the yellowcoat culture of today!
Even a GPWS didn't stop the 'Terrain, Terrain, Pull up' command to an Avianca 747 being acknowledged by 'Yeah...yeah' from the Captain and no action 15 sec before he killed everyone on board by flying into a mountain near Madrid in 1984.
The value of the old cushion-dampeners
at the back of the VC10 flight deck shouldn't be underestimated - just remember how it was they survived to become that old!Dear Lord, protect us from those without sufficient airmanship and experience to cope without an electric nanny telling them when it's time to pee.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: n/a
Posts: 1,425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GPWS was invented to alert good people to mistakes, it reduced the fatal CFIT rate initially, when enhanced with a terrain database and positional information it has almost eliminated the CFIT rate.
It has nothing to do with experience or being "wet behind the ears" and everything to do with being human.
Bluntly you are living in a dream world if you think you were or are proof against mistakes, yours or other peoples and multiple crew members do not prevent CFIT accidents, there are thousands of dead as evidence for that.
I already said you can't prevent every single accident, but you can reduce the rate to almost nothing and that has been achieved, now ask why you would NOT want to do that.
Again the question is - is the loss of 150 British military personnel to CFIT acceptable? If the answer is no then operate aircraft with a modern TAWS.
Not really a "yellow coat" culture, but how about a safety culture? As in operating in a way that minimises the risks while maximising the benefit, or from a military perspective it would take the Taliban about 18 months to kill as many people of our people as a VC-10 could in one accident.
By the way...
Dan Air Tenerife Commander 15,000 hrs, FO 3,500 hrs FE 3,500 hrs not exactly wet behind the ears. I could go on but it's late and you seem to be stuck in the 1960's
It has nothing to do with experience or being "wet behind the ears" and everything to do with being human.
Bluntly you are living in a dream world if you think you were or are proof against mistakes, yours or other peoples and multiple crew members do not prevent CFIT accidents, there are thousands of dead as evidence for that.
I already said you can't prevent every single accident, but you can reduce the rate to almost nothing and that has been achieved, now ask why you would NOT want to do that.
Again the question is - is the loss of 150 British military personnel to CFIT acceptable? If the answer is no then operate aircraft with a modern TAWS.
Not really a "yellow coat" culture, but how about a safety culture? As in operating in a way that minimises the risks while maximising the benefit, or from a military perspective it would take the Taliban about 18 months to kill as many people of our people as a VC-10 could in one accident.
By the way...
Dan Air Tenerife Commander 15,000 hrs, FO 3,500 hrs FE 3,500 hrs not exactly wet behind the ears. I could go on but it's late and you seem to be stuck in the 1960's
Of course, its not just that those decrepit vc10s are old - it's that they are no longer fully airways equipped, being minus TCAS/TAWS, RVSM and I doubt not even FM Immune. Nor do they comply with civil noise standards for civil airports. Nor do they comply with 25 year old PAX lighting rules - apparently just short of 1970's african airline standards - but seemingly okay for todays RAF?
The BZN Fleets have been ignored to their death and the -10's only revived with a sticking-plaster policy because the ignored -11's have past their best before date by a mere 20 years.
- must be bed-time...
The BZN Fleets have been ignored to their death and the -10's only revived with a sticking-plaster policy because the ignored -11's have past their best before date by a mere 20 years.
- must be bed-time...
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: landan
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rigga
Even a cursory google could have told you that the vc10 has TCAS, is RVSM approved and the civil noise issue being an urban myth.
An old stude of mine still flies them and confirmed the floor lighting issue combined with lack of GPWS meant that pax carrying was too risky for ministers in the light of Haddon-Cave.
Too risky right until they're needed again. Either they can or they can't - seems like no one has the kahunas to stand by their decision.
Would appear that the RAF is broken.
Even a cursory google could have told you that the vc10 has TCAS, is RVSM approved and the civil noise issue being an urban myth.
An old stude of mine still flies them and confirmed the floor lighting issue combined with lack of GPWS meant that pax carrying was too risky for ministers in the light of Haddon-Cave.
Too risky right until they're needed again. Either they can or they can't - seems like no one has the kahunas to stand by their decision.
Would appear that the RAF is broken.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle is arrogant enough to think he knows better than the people who have researched the safety case for these things. He thinks he can chose which instruments are inportant and which can be ignored. To be honest, I find his attitude a cause for concern. If he was on my sqn I would have him grounded.