Voyager: AT Aircraft Only??
Just another erk
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Germany
Age: 77
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes Beag's, I was at EFW, working with the Flight Test Team from Bremen, and at Getafe first with the boom demonstrator (lots of problems), then on the A330. Never had anything to do with the voyager though, and have now retired.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: gloucester
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am sorry but i dont understand the AT problems!!.. If the aircraft has been cleared for flight under CASA in Spain under EASA 145 rules it is surely cleared for flight within any 145 organisation. I thought this was the whole point of the RAF lads and lasses being civil quailified... how does the MAA come into operating the type in the AT role????
collbar
RAF lads and lasses are not being given civvie licences to fly the Voyager. Only AirTanker civil pilots will have that, from previous employment.
On another tack, as the aircraft are to have both RAF and Civil certification, how will EASA certify a civil aircrtaft with refuelling pods and in flight refuelling capability?!!
On another tack, as the aircraft are to have both RAF and Civil certification, how will EASA certify a civil aircrtaft with refuelling pods and in flight refuelling capability?!!
Originally Posted by BEagle
I really do not have a clue
But I agree about the riddles.
You little bugger Courtney - good banter, old chum!
By the way, I hope your abode is reasonably distant from the HS2 route? I use the god-forsaken A421 'twixt Finmere and PRMK now and again and note that the line will pass close by if it ever gets approval.....
Albert, while that's true for their own civil operations, the MAA holds sway over approval for RAF military operations. And quite reasonably so too!
By the way, I hope your abode is reasonably distant from the HS2 route? I use the god-forsaken A421 'twixt Finmere and PRMK now and again and note that the line will pass close by if it ever gets approval.....
Albert, while that's true for their own civil operations, the MAA holds sway over approval for RAF military operations. And quite reasonably so too!
Just another erk
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Germany
Age: 77
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cessnapete:
I was talking to a member of the LBA (Luftfahrtbundesamt, German civvy authority ) and asked him the very same question. The answer was "They are not interested in the refuelling capabilities of the aircraft, but want to see how the extra weight and equipment (Pods and Fuel Tanks) effect the handling and flight caracteristics".
We flew lots of flutter and in the A330 (Spain) stall flights.
No doubt Beag's could add more to that than I.
On another tack, as the aircraft are to have both RAF and Civil certification, how will EASA certify a civil aircrtaft with refuelling pods and in flight refuelling capability?!!
I was talking to a member of the LBA (Luftfahrtbundesamt, German civvy authority ) and asked him the very same question. The answer was "They are not interested in the refuelling capabilities of the aircraft, but want to see how the extra weight and equipment (Pods and Fuel Tanks) effect the handling and flight caracteristics".
We flew lots of flutter and in the A330 (Spain) stall flights.
No doubt Beag's could add more to that than I.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Away from home Rat
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes Beagle. UK MAA will hold sway over the aircraft in operator use, but EASA and their regulations must also be abided to as well. Third party PART 145 MROs will be maintaining the things for heavy checks. The STC is fairly important for them to be able to maintain them!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Erehwon
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds like it's one of those Rolling Goat F***s - ho hum, how many years have we got left with our venerable Trimotors and VC10s?
Last edited by Dengue_Dude; 5th Apr 2012 at 20:35. Reason: 'Cos I'm a moron . . .
cessnapete, the aircraft received EASA civil certification in July 2011 and INTA military certification in September 2011.
I suspect the problem could be rather more deep-rooted than simple Part 145 maintenance and repair organisation compliance.
I suspect the problem could be rather more deep-rooted than simple Part 145 maintenance and repair organisation compliance.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
BEagle, I did reply but the computer hiccupped. Essentially I was saying the RAF can cockup a perfectly good setup and create issues where possibly none existed.
Originally Posted by BEagle
the HS2 route
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: oxford
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Denge
The VC10's next year (I think) and they are looking at trying to extend the Tristars. Since Ellemy, the VC fleet has been culled by a further 5 frames (happy to be corrected) and the system is scoping the use of other countries AAR assets to fill the capability gap if required.
The VC10's next year (I think) and they are looking at trying to extend the Tristars. Since Ellemy, the VC fleet has been culled by a further 5 frames (happy to be corrected) and the system is scoping the use of other countries AAR assets to fill the capability gap if required.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: England formerly Great Britain
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the system is scoping the use of other countries AAR assets to fill the capability gap if required.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Away from home Rat
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah, somebody, somewhere didn't write a accurate specification for the AAR system, covering everthing the Voyager had to refuel. Tornado fuel system being a poor reciever, not surprised in the slightest.
Although Airbus issued a Form 52 to deliver the aircraft; EASA issued its Airworthiness Certificate (and accompanying initial ARC) counting all those different sticky-out bits as the "customers Role Equipment" and making sure that fuel/electrical/stress safety designs and processes are adhered to and that the aircraft handled as intended. After assessing the CoG movements from the Mods and doing formal Flight Tests, more paperwork is raised and calculations are made to assure performance parameters are not too affected by those pesky bits sticking into the airflows and that the physical and theoretical handling qualities are not out of the expected envelopes.
Whether the role equpment works or not is not part of the EASA certification survey. EASA is only concerned that the crate can move around and get back down relatively safely and under control.
It's up to the MAA to accept the status of the aircraft's role equipment - whether that is politically or correctly? - depends on who's on watch today I suppose.
In my experience - some aircraft I was accepting didn't work to the full spec - I (we) held back a few millions from payment until it was resolved - some two years later!
I didn't make any manufacturing mates in that move - but the crates are still working, and 'they' know my M.O. now.
Whether the role equpment works or not is not part of the EASA certification survey. EASA is only concerned that the crate can move around and get back down relatively safely and under control.
It's up to the MAA to accept the status of the aircraft's role equipment - whether that is politically or correctly? - depends on who's on watch today I suppose.
In my experience - some aircraft I was accepting didn't work to the full spec - I (we) held back a few millions from payment until it was resolved - some two years later!
I didn't make any manufacturing mates in that move - but the crates are still working, and 'they' know my M.O. now.
...some aircraft I was accepting didn't work to the full spec...
The Learning Command Crash Comic of the day had an article which said something like "The deficiences of the Hawk compass system were well known before the aircraft entered service"
So why did it enter service in such a state?
Anyway, at great expense the Hawk was retrofitted with the AHARS system which, I'm told, solved all the problems.
ArthurR, my involvement at EFW was some early Luftwaffe / RCAF crew training and some trial work involving the Mission Computer System (which works just fine....). But as I was also writing stuff for the FCOM, we had a few meetings with the EFW Design/Build Team as well.
The FTI was very impressive though - and watching / listening to some of the recordings in the portakabin was.......shall we say, 'interesting'...
Courtney, hope the HS2 won't actually prove too disrupting - it seems to follow the line of the old LNER line through the region?
Anyway, back to the plot. According to the Press Association article at The Press Association: RAF tests reveal refuelling leaks
The Voyager aircraft was cleared for training and service on its transport and medical flight purposes on Wednesday, the Ministry of Defence confirmed.
In a statement, Assistant Chief of the Air Staff, Air Vice-Marshal Baz North, said: "Voyager was released to service with the RAF in its transport and aeromedical roles on 4 April 2012. Once the ongoing refuelling trials are successfully completed, RAF air-to-air refuelling training will begin. In total, nine fully operational aircraft are due to enter service within the next two years and achievement of the current in service date remains on track to be achieved, as planned, in mid-2014. There should be no capability gap as a result."
The MoD later confirmed that the issue would also affect Eurofighter Typhoon jets.
In a statement, Assistant Chief of the Air Staff, Air Vice-Marshal Baz North, said: "Voyager was released to service with the RAF in its transport and aeromedical roles on 4 April 2012. Once the ongoing refuelling trials are successfully completed, RAF air-to-air refuelling training will begin. In total, nine fully operational aircraft are due to enter service within the next two years and achievement of the current in service date remains on track to be achieved, as planned, in mid-2014. There should be no capability gap as a result."
The MoD later confirmed that the issue would also affect Eurofighter Typhoon jets.
Last edited by BEagle; 6th Apr 2012 at 08:09.