Is it REALLY the RAFs?
I notice the airforce-technology.com website talks about a "refuelling officer's station" behind the pilots' seats. Anyone know what aircrew category that will be, or are all single brevet aircrew WSOs these days, irrespective of whether or not they are operating weapons systems? Will we still have flight engineers?
Genuine question, I'm very out of date on this sort of thing.
Also anyone know what the fuel transfer rate is going to be from the pods? If a number of them are only going to be two-pointers I hope it's faster than the 2000lb/min we used to manage with the old Mk 20b pods.
Genuine question, I'm very out of date on this sort of thing.
Also anyone know what the fuel transfer rate is going to be from the pods? If a number of them are only going to be two-pointers I hope it's faster than the 2000lb/min we used to manage with the old Mk 20b pods.
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
It will not work without Loadmasters
The only way this aircraft will work is if you put loadmasters on it!!!!
Stand back and wait for the Flak
Mole Man
The only way this aircraft will work is if you put loadmasters on it!!!!
Stand back and wait for the Flak
Mole Man
Loadmasters are only employed to raise and lower the ramp. Any fule kno that.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TTN, given the very commercial nature of this service, I would expect there to be a choice of flow rates depending on how much you are prepared to pay.
On getting a bra for the tanker you would be asked what rate you are paying, and that will dictate which pod they line you up with.
Obviously there will be queues forming as some Typhoon drivers struggle to work out if the extra fuel burn during a protracted transfer is better value than paying the higher rate to get all 4 tons in a short burst.
On getting a bra for the tanker you would be asked what rate you are paying, and that will dictate which pod they line you up with.
Obviously there will be queues forming as some Typhoon drivers struggle to work out if the extra fuel burn during a protracted transfer is better value than paying the higher rate to get all 4 tons in a short burst.
There is an interesting book about the VC10, weird concepts were on the drawing boards
Correction to my earlier post - it's not a CAA C of A at all...these are not "State Aircraft" so they will all have an EASA AC with an ARC.
So, if required, it's definately a CAA investigation into any incident or accident. MOD beware.
So, if required, it's definately a CAA investigation into any incident or accident. MOD beware.
Rigga:
OK, I really am confused now. Why would the UK CAA investigate an Air Accident? Is that not the AAIB's job, or are the goal posts on the move yet again?
So, if required, it's definately a CAA investigation into any incident or accident. MOD beware.
OK, much relief! Thanks Rigga. Having held up the AAIB as an example for the MAAIB, ie separate and independent of both operators and regulator, I was fearful that some Treasury inspired rearranging had occurred. So much relieved that I can go on demanding a similarly independent MAA and MAAIB, of the MOD and of each other of course. Which reminds me:-
Self Regulation Never Works and in Aviation it Kills!
Self Regulation Never Works and in Aviation it Kills!
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is a Service provided to the MOD paid for by the taxpayer.
The FSTA Contract « AirTanker
The FSTA Contract « AirTanker
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Here and there
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MAAIB
Rig, Chug,
Some good news....
Aircraft likely to be split across 2 registers (G reg and mil reg). Those aircraft on mil reg = MAA regulation = MAAIB.
Still some issues with respect to G reg as CAA definition of state aircraft has changed (now mil type 'activity' vice mil type 'aircraft').
CAA oversight only of Part 145/21J/G through leaflet 1-16 arrangements for ZZ aircraft.
Some good news....
Aircraft likely to be split across 2 registers (G reg and mil reg). Those aircraft on mil reg = MAA regulation = MAAIB.
Still some issues with respect to G reg as CAA definition of state aircraft has changed (now mil type 'activity' vice mil type 'aircraft').
CAA oversight only of Part 145/21J/G through leaflet 1-16 arrangements for ZZ aircraft.
Doh! Now I'm confused again 
Not sure how it's good news if half the fleet is going to be subject to MAA Regulation and MAAIB Investigation, but hopefully you can explain, MOA. Good news would be if all UK Military Aircraft were to come under the auspices of an independent MAA and MAAIB, separated entirely from the MOD and each other, with full authority to exercise their respective remits. The words water and bridge come to mind....
Not sure how it's good news if half the fleet is going to be subject to MAA Regulation and MAAIB Investigation, but hopefully you can explain, MOA. Good news would be if all UK Military Aircraft were to come under the auspices of an independent MAA and MAAIB, separated entirely from the MOD and each other, with full authority to exercise their respective remits. The words water and bridge come to mind....
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Tennessee - Smoky Mountains
Age: 55
Posts: 1,602
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
About the civil use when the RAF don't require the aircraft -
It wouldn't make sense to have a military painted aircraft with military bits on it taking the Joneses to Orlando to go and see Mickey. Not to mention a potential diplomatic incident in some places, landing a military aircraft. The implication is that some of the aircraft will be nothing more than civil airliners, pure and simple, including paint job and markings, and lack of mil addons. The further implication of that is that the RAF will have somewhat less than 14 aircraft to do "military tasks", and for benign tasks such as trooping flights to Canada, they will be handled by the "bucket and spade" aircraft.
Have I got this right? How many frames will be in the "bucket and spade" role?
It wouldn't make sense to have a military painted aircraft with military bits on it taking the Joneses to Orlando to go and see Mickey. Not to mention a potential diplomatic incident in some places, landing a military aircraft. The implication is that some of the aircraft will be nothing more than civil airliners, pure and simple, including paint job and markings, and lack of mil addons. The further implication of that is that the RAF will have somewhat less than 14 aircraft to do "military tasks", and for benign tasks such as trooping flights to Canada, they will be handled by the "bucket and spade" aircraft.
Have I got this right? How many frames will be in the "bucket and spade" role?
Purely from the maintenance aspect, if you've ever heard of Human Factors - splitting a single operator's fleet over two registers and two different Regulation sets is going to prove it does(n't) work.
I suppose they could get away with it if the civil and military sides don't touch, but it will be confusing if/when they do.
If anyone has operated an ETOPS fleet within a non-ETOPS fleet you might know what I mean...
I suppose they could get away with it if the civil and military sides don't touch, but it will be confusing if/when they do.
If anyone has operated an ETOPS fleet within a non-ETOPS fleet you might know what I mean...
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So if 5 of these things at any one time are going to be transporting tattooed feckwit sun readers about how on earth could any sane thinking person think that we the military own them 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Here and there
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chug,
I should have put 'good news' into inverted commas. I was not trying to imply the MAA in its current guise is a satisfactory solution, just pointing out the buggers muddle that is around the corner.
Must brush up on my irony....
I should have put 'good news' into inverted commas. I was not trying to imply the MAA in its current guise is a satisfactory solution, just pointing out the buggers muddle that is around the corner.
Must brush up on my irony....