Airtanker

[airborne_artist]

Er, can they stipulate a maximum age limit of 55 years? Is that not illegal - after all, I now face years of languishing in the RHS as a result of the major carrier having to can compulsory retirement at 55!

HMG has exemption from age discrimination. The para about Sponsored Reserve service says there is a max age on entry of 55, but does not mention the max age for service, ie the age at which you will or can be compulsorily discharged. Google has not yet produced the answer.

Does the TRE really need to go into harm's way, or even go into uniform?

[Tay Cough]

Does the TRE really need to go into harm's way, or even go into uniform?

You make a good point. However, when any new fleet comes into being, there is an element of work up. How this will manifest itself in this crossover civ/mil world, I don't know but I can't imagine for a second that a TRE would not be fully operational.

From the bean-counters point of view, if they are paying the TRE £150k (which they'll have to if they want a civvy one), I have no doubt they'll insist on getting their pound of flesh - purely to justify the fact they'll be paying him a similar sum to the PM (that should cause a stir in itself) - including sending him on ops. The airlines certainly do (and rightly so).

[BEagle]

I wonder whether the ATr business model ever countenanced having to pay its mercenaries roughly 3 times the best salary an RAF 'training captain' could ever receive?

Does the TRE really need to go into harm's way, or even go into uniform?

If the job specification doesn't make that clear, then it's a poorly drafted specification. Not the mark of a quality operation.....

There are plenty of RAF VC10/TriStar QFIs who could be re-trained to instruct on the A330. After all, that's what happened when the RAF first started operating the VC10K and TriStar tankers - the added value being that a significant number also had a strong AAR background.

It's only because of this whole PFI thing that the company seems to need its own trainers. Under conventional acquisition, the RAF would have sent its first aircrew to Toulouse for their initial TRs, then run all subsequent training courses themselves.

The benefits of PFI, eh?

[Trim Stab]

There are plenty of RAF VC10/TriStar QFIs who could be re-trained to instruct on the A330

There is a chicken & egg situation here. To instruct within the strictures of an FTO, they would first have to qualify as a TRI, meaning they would need 700 hours on the A330 (or 200 if they held an FI(A) - QFI does not count).

[BEagle]

That would only be true if the RAF ran its flying training under civilian ATO requirements. Which presently it doesn't - most pilot qualifications are entirely competency-based, rather than requiring a set number of (largely rather valueless) flying hours watching the AFS driving a people tube from A-to-B and back again.....

However, with the increasing cancer of contractorisation and the ridiculous MFTS nonsense, the RAF seems to be getting the worst of all worlds on the false premise of cost saving... If MFTS has to follow EASA diktat, then the future difficulties of finding qualified training staff will be enormous.

It'll end in tears - doomed we are, Capt Mainwaring!

[Trim Stab]

That would only be true if the RAF ran its flying training under civilian ATO requirements. Which presently it doesn't - most pilot qualifications are entirely competency-based, rather than requiring a set number of (largely rather valueless)

Aha -now I understand - you still think the whole programme should be entirely run by the RAF. If that was the case, the aircraft would never have arrived as there would never have been a budget for them. The aircraft are there, on time, within budget, because of the PFI.

flying hours watching the AFS driving a people tube from A-to-B and back again....

Well since you started up that irrelevant argument again, at least if civ pilots fly the A330s the taxi drivers around Brize need not fear getting beaten up by an A330 wanting to "scare the **** out of him", and there'll be a reasonable chance that some of them succeed in landing with their gear down

[BEagle]

You did say you were 'ex-Diplomatic Service', didn't you?



The "I've got more hours than you" nonsense only applies where such flight time is of quality. 1000 hours of pond-crossings is arguably of far less quality than 1000 hours of European short haul time. However, no-one would conceivably embark upon an ETOPS pond-crossing without any additional training, irrespective of how many flying hours on other routes they had.

[airborne_artist]

However, when any new fleet comes into being, there is an element of work up. How this will manifest itself in this crossover civ/mil world, I don't know but I can't imagine for a second that a TRE would not be fully operational.

If the TRE's JD has been written correctly, along with other senior staff, then is there a need for the TRE to leave the civilian bubble? Ensure that there is a QxI who can instruct on the military aspects, as these do not need to be done to civilian licensing/regulatory standards.

You could even get to the stage where the TRE was provided on contract from another A330 operator.

[Art Field]

Trim Stab.

You are very kind to all those organisations involved to say that the FSTA is being delivered on time. The first proposal was raised in December 2000. Thanks first to MOD and subsequently to others, a modified version of the proposal has been produced in 2011. 11 years to write a contract for and convert a standard model airfame. It is only on time for the last date the providers put on it. Let us hope it can finally fill a gaping hole in the fleet.

[deltahotel]

ETOPS pond crossing probably needs a half day groundschool followed by 2 sectors of training and a 2 sector ETOPS ck - not a big deal.

[Roland Pulfrew]

Aha -now I understand - you still think the whole programme should be entirely run by the RAF. If that was the case, the aircraft would never have arrived as there would never have been a budget for them. The aircraft are there, on time, within budget, because of the PFI.

Trim Stab

I think you are falling for the Company and MOD spin machines. The aircraft was supposed to have its ITS (Introduction To Service - IIRC deemed as one aircraft, cleared to refuel a Tornado, in Service with the RAF) in 2007. It's now 2011 and we might just classify that as having occurred. FSD (Full Service Delivery - defined as all aircraft delivered and cleared to refuel all in service RAF aircraft requiring AAR) in 2011. Somehow I don't think we can classify it as "on time".

As to the budget. The budget was there and it should have been ring-fenced until the PFI had proven "value for money". Unfortunately some bright spark took the money for something else and that effectively forced us into going with the PFI regardless of VFM. Note the RAAF have received their conventionally procurred KC-30/KC-330/KC-45 (or whatever title they currently have) ahead of us, despite starting their programme later than us.

[BEagle]

KC-30A, Roly!

It also helped that when the Australian observer returned to Oz, after witnessing the writhing of the civil serpents at the Brizzle Waterworld, allegedly summed it up by announcing "PFI? Poms are F***ing Idiots! Don't even go there!"

"This programme will not slip" - I remember that touchingly naive comment from one of the more senior civil serpents.........

[brit bus driver]

2007....holy cr@p. When a chap I know pottered off to Canada to fly the A310 (CC150 Polaris - now a fully operational tanker) in 1999, his desk officer muttered words along the lines of 'get some Airbus time and be on one of the first FSTA courses when you come back...'

[Chris Griffin]

Is this the same chap who thought F@&£ it and joined the Canadians post exchange. If so, is bloody good bloke and a huge loss to us apart from being a 215.5 product. ;-)

[brit bus driver]

No. He went in 2002.

[Tallsar]

Under the original Smart Aquisition pilot IPT in 1999, the VC10 was regarded as economically unsupportable and to be gone by 2005! The complexities of seeing an appropriate way through to deliver a workable PFI solution has added 5-7 years to the FSTA programme, and from reading the issues highlighted above, it would appear there is still considerable scope for yet more inefficient delay! When you look at the £Bns wasted over the last 10 years on dead or dying MOD air projects, you can't help but weep over how much better it would have been to use it for conventional purchases, or at least in FSTA's case, emulate the C17 lease and build on that.

[Xercules]

Into Service Timing

The title of this thread (Airtanker) can be a bit misleading in the light of some of the comments.

Roland Pulfrew wrote "I think you are falling for the Company and MOD spin machines. ......... Somehow I don't think we can classify it as "on time"."

Art Field then wrote "You are very kind to all those organisations involved to say that the FSTA is being delivered on time. "

There are 2 different timescales involved:

First is the MoD/DPA/DE&S planning for which the times quoted are correct and it would be quite right to measue MoD etc against those. However, Airtanker as the contractor can do nothing about any of the delays at this stage. These are all internally or Treasury created largely by arguments about and the changing, not just, the goal posts of PFI. Added together these all meant that it took a very long time for Airtanker to get its contract.

Airtanker then did a lot of work whilst waiting but you could not expect it to take on enormous financial commitments (nor would its bankers have let them) until they had a contract. To add to the risk here, Airtanker gets no revenue at all until it starts delivering a service. Once Airtanker had a contract, the Airtanker programme has run to time and it is delivering against its promises.

Airtanker is not spinning when it says the Programme is on time - and no, I do not work for Airtanker.

[lj101]

Xercules


... But dont you work for airbus?

[D-IFF_ident]

There are plenty of RAF VC10/TriStar QFIs who could be re-trained to instruct on the A330. After all, that's what happened when the RAF first started operating the VC10K and TriStar tankers - the added value being that a significant number also had a strong AAR background.

Beags - as any QFI would tell you, you don't need an operational background to instruct; you need to do a course on a single-engine prop trainer and an understanding of 'keywords', 'instructional technique' and which colour whiteboard markers to use! An A330 endorsement for any current RAF QFI would surely make them ready to teach ab-initio students how to lead a North Atlantic accompanied deployment.

As for contracts with civilian companies - you only ever get what's in the contract. There's no reason for them to provide anything more, that would be financially unsound business practice.

[BEagle]

No, I didn't mean that a QFI from another background could start instructing on the A330MRTT without a fair amount of time on the jet first! That would be rather a silly thing to try. For example, even an experienced ex-Victor A2 QFI took quite a while to get up to speed on the VC10K before being permitted to instruct on it!

Using a simulator or the aircraft itself to instruct basic AAR is a very expensive and inefficient option - getting crew, aircraft, weather and receivers available at the same time can rarely be guaranteed. The cost of running a FFS is high, both in acquisition and operating costs, plus safety teams and console operators.

Hence the attraction of AAR CPTs - you can train crews very effectively for a fraction of the cost of using a FFS. But only if someone with considerable AAR experience has had a hand in the system design, so that the instructor can spend as much time as possible actually instructing and monitoring, rather than fiddling with the CPT operator's console.