Tristars grounded again?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just one last try at getting you to answer the question 411a...
Do your tatty old wrecks have the nav fit to fly legally in the EU... yes or no?
Do your tatty old wrecks have the nav fit to fly legally in the EU... yes or no?
Last edited by Roger D'Erassoff; 31st Dec 2010 at 15:33.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: London Village
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is this relevant ? BBC News - Flight disruption 'like hearing you are ill', academics claim
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...have the nav fit to fly legally in the EU... yes or no?
Next question?
...but without a working DAS you just ain't going to get a look in.
Fine by me, but...I wonder how they feel?
The US DoD long ago found out that civvy air transport was they way to go, in most cases.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hunched over a keyboard
Posts: 1,193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But how do they get people into and out of Afghanistan?
Omni is privately owned, and has been completing DoD flights for many years.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The World
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only reason that we persevere with the TriStar is because of the military modifications that it has. If we want chater (and we do - buckets of it for both freight and pax) then we go to the market and get the cheapest deal that falls into the 'vaguely reliable' bracket. Recent events suggest that safe and competent operation of the aircraft is optional for freight charter.
Strangely, we don't start from the premise that we must have another old knackered TriStar to supplement our fleet of knackered TriStars when they don't work and then trawl the market accordingly. So 411, doubt whether any of our senior blokes want to talk to your sales chappie unless you are also doing a nice line in something a bit newer.
Strangely, we don't start from the premise that we must have another old knackered TriStar to supplement our fleet of knackered TriStars when they don't work and then trawl the market accordingly. So 411, doubt whether any of our senior blokes want to talk to your sales chappie unless you are also doing a nice line in something a bit newer.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So 411, doubt whether any of our senior blokes want to talk to your sales chappie unless you are also doing a nice line in something a bit newer.
Then let your chaps sit and wait in theatre for air transportation that might be severely delayed...or never arrive at all.
Must be the 'British way', stiff upper lip and all.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411A's L1011 wouldn't be much use anyway. With all the spares he has to carry to cater for the continual AOG's there is no space left in the freight holds. I bet his flying spanner makes some serious $$$ in overtime!
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I bet his flying spanner makes some serious $$$ in overtime!
And, as for AOG situations, this seems to be the exclusive bailiwick of the RAF with their TriStars, as we don't have many AOG situations.
Just finished 200 hours of continual flying...on time, every time.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: wiltshire
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting comment from 411a turn the abridge over to civvie charter so it could be operated with greater success
Hmm now I do believe Mr blunts flight was on a civvie charter that err 1. had a tech snag 2. pax headcount 3. Ran out of crew duty, please explain how this is any better than any other set up.
Hmm now I do believe Mr blunts flight was on a civvie charter that err 1. had a tech snag 2. pax headcount 3. Ran out of crew duty, please explain how this is any better than any other set up.
411A Air Luxor tried it and it became a bit of a nightmare for them.....they operated two -500's which were in pretty good shape but still found it difficult......unless you are operating to outer Mongolian bus tables life will become difficult operating only two aircraft.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: wiltshire
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411a
So are you trying to say yr outfit could run the schedule with a guarantee that you would not have any delays? Funny old thing I don't know any airline in the world that can do that, how come you only run 3 trimotors and are not running a national airline?
So are you trying to say yr outfit could run the schedule with a guarantee that you would not have any delays? Funny old thing I don't know any airline in the world that can do that, how come you only run 3 trimotors and are not running a national airline?
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Horsham, England, UK. ---o--O--o---
Posts: 1,185
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
411a
So are you trying to say yr outfit could run the schedule with a guarantee that you would not have any delays? Funny old thing I don't know any airline in the world that can do that, how come you only run 3 trimotors and are not running a national airline?
So are you trying to say yr outfit could run the schedule with a guarantee that you would not have any delays? Funny old thing I don't know any airline in the world that can do that, how come you only run 3 trimotors and are not running a national airline?
Nah. 411A doesn't know what a DAS is!
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: England
Posts: 488
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411A,
You seem to make a habit of popping-up to criticize the RAF TriStar operation and boasting about how your outfit could do things so much better. Here are a few facts that you might not have considered:
1. Many of the ongoing problems with the RAF TriStars are airworthiness management issues. The RAF TriStars are military aircraft and are fitted with equipment that would preclude them from obtaining a Certificate of Airworthiness. They have to be managed and maintained under the military airworthiness system. This regulatory framework is not necessarily optimized for airliner-type aircraft and consequently some of the engineering practices may be a little more restrictive than found in commercial operations. This limitation is not exclusive to the the UK and could just as easily be found when comparing an airline DC-10 operation to that of the KC-10 by the USAF. Moreover, the Design Authority for the RAF TriStar rests with Marshall of Cambridge and not with Lockheed. Experience of the L-1011 operating under (insert name of country) civilian regulations does not necessarily mean that you understand the operation of the TriStar K1, KC1 or C2 as a UK military aircraft.
2. As a direct consequence of HM Government policy, RAF TriStars are primarily engaged on a task that cannot be performed by civilian charter. Regardless of whether it is a tiny company like yours or the might of British Airways - they are not equipped to perform the task. Delays and inconvinience to the individual service personnel as a result of this policy are regrettable, but the policy would only be changed if the operational commander reported that the airbridge is failing to meet his need. Other nations do things differently, but that is for them to decide how they want to balance risk, use of assets and cost.
3. The UK spends millions of pounds every year on chartering air transport. To re-iterate these operations do not perform the same task as the TriStar - they cannot. However, the MoD does understand what it wants and what it is willing to pay. Usually, this is the lowest bid from a reputable operator. Interestingly, the DC-10 still appears to going strong in this market but the L-1011 has died out. Maybe there are none left with operators that the MoD regards as acceptable?
4. Please don't think that any association with UN military work is going to gain your company any crediblity.
One last point:
Except by A300, A330, A340, B747......
You seem to make a habit of popping-up to criticize the RAF TriStar operation and boasting about how your outfit could do things so much better. Here are a few facts that you might not have considered:
1. Many of the ongoing problems with the RAF TriStars are airworthiness management issues. The RAF TriStars are military aircraft and are fitted with equipment that would preclude them from obtaining a Certificate of Airworthiness. They have to be managed and maintained under the military airworthiness system. This regulatory framework is not necessarily optimized for airliner-type aircraft and consequently some of the engineering practices may be a little more restrictive than found in commercial operations. This limitation is not exclusive to the the UK and could just as easily be found when comparing an airline DC-10 operation to that of the KC-10 by the USAF. Moreover, the Design Authority for the RAF TriStar rests with Marshall of Cambridge and not with Lockheed. Experience of the L-1011 operating under (insert name of country) civilian regulations does not necessarily mean that you understand the operation of the TriStar K1, KC1 or C2 as a UK military aircraft.
2. As a direct consequence of HM Government policy, RAF TriStars are primarily engaged on a task that cannot be performed by civilian charter. Regardless of whether it is a tiny company like yours or the might of British Airways - they are not equipped to perform the task. Delays and inconvinience to the individual service personnel as a result of this policy are regrettable, but the policy would only be changed if the operational commander reported that the airbridge is failing to meet his need. Other nations do things differently, but that is for them to decide how they want to balance risk, use of assets and cost.
3. The UK spends millions of pounds every year on chartering air transport. To re-iterate these operations do not perform the same task as the TriStar - they cannot. However, the MoD does understand what it wants and what it is willing to pay. Usually, this is the lowest bid from a reputable operator. Interestingly, the DC-10 still appears to going strong in this market but the L-1011 has died out. Maybe there are none left with operators that the MoD regards as acceptable?
4. Please don't think that any association with UN military work is going to gain your company any crediblity.
One last point:
L1011 lower deck stowage...unsurpassed
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: East Midlands
Age: 84
Posts: 1,511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"They have to be managed and maintained under the military airworthiness system." A rather discredited and inefficient system so far as one can see, don't you think? See M of K thread for an exhaustive discussion.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many of the ongoing problems with the RAF TriStars are airworthiness management issues. The RAF TriStars are military aircraft and are fitted with equipment that would preclude them from obtaining a Certificate of Airworthiness
In addition, no TriStar operator that I have ever heard about (after flying the type for over thirty years) has had a problem of worn out or corroded aileron hinges.
Moreover, the Design Authority for the RAF TriStar rests with Marshall of Cambridge and not with Lockheed.
Having delivered/accepted several TriStars at Marshalls', I can say with certainty that the aircraft is always delayed, and most times, over budget.
However, the tea in their office cafeteria ain't bad.
"They have to be managed and maintained under the military airworthiness system." A rather discredited and inefficient system so far as one can see, don't you think?
