RAF Rivet Joint
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK East Anglia
Age: 66
Posts: 678
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the RJ is anything like the R we had a Rear Crew Trainer (RCT) it was set up just like the real thing. (Apart from not having an automatic hot pie dispenser!)The boxes were interchangeable with those on the aircraft. Some of the rack assembles were also made to aircraft standard at one time. (Up to the early 90s) As far as the back end was concerned it was like having a forth aircraft.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
now what do they do about training?
51 Squadron Personnel Reach 20,000 Operational Flying Hours | The Insight Online
Less than two years since their first aircrew members graduated from the training school at Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska, 51 Squadron is celebrating a milestone achievement, with 20,000 operational flying hours on the USAF RC-135 RIVET JOINT aircraft.
http://www.offutt.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123371162
Upon graduation, RAF aircrews are allowed to fly on U.S. Rivet Joints as part of a co-manning agreement. Their first operational mission flown on June 21, 2011, and since then RAF crews have flown more than more than 1,800 sorties and achieved in excess of 32,000 flying hours with the Fightin' Fifty-Fifth.
LFH
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst a decent number of hours have been clicked up by RAF crew, have RJ missions been flown by totally RAF crews, possibly with a USAF observer? Team dynamics.....
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wellll there always has to be a moment when there are NO USAF personnel on board
TBH this is just allowing creeping acceptance - we fly it at a few airshows so the GB Public see it , and no doubt lots of pics in the papers, we are ready to use it in action "immediately if needed" and no doubt we'll see a gradual buildup in "necessary training"
I'm willing to bet that no-one will ever sign off a full release but they will just work round it a little here, a little there
TBH this is just allowing creeping acceptance - we fly it at a few airshows so the GB Public see it , and no doubt lots of pics in the papers, we are ready to use it in action "immediately if needed" and no doubt we'll see a gradual buildup in "necessary training"
I'm willing to bet that no-one will ever sign off a full release but they will just work round it a little here, a little there
HH:-
...and therein lies the irony. If military airworthiness provision had remained unmolested by RAF VSOs almost 30 years ago all this hiatus would have been avoided. You would have experienced fully trained airworthiness engineers in post who would have simply turned to the established procedures and regulations to provide a solution for this aircraft to go into service, whether for training, displaying, or for war. You can't even call these unexpected consequences, for they were predicted at the time by the very people being given the order of the boot, ie those who refused to suborn the regulations and strove to the very last to enforce them.
The creeping introduction of this aircraft into RAF service, no doubt correctly predicted here, would be as cynical and potentially disastrous as was the illegal RTS issued to a knowingly grossly unairworthy Chinook Mk2.
Chickens are coming home to roost now, and the MOD has to face up at last to the consequences of subverting Haddon-Cave and consequently the MAA. It can only get out of this situation of its own making by admitting the past, and reforming Military Air Safety. That means an independent MAA and MAAIB, both of the MOD and of each other. That means some people's collars being felt.
Or, on the other hand, the avoidable accidents and pointless deaths can simply continue...
I'm willing to bet that no-one will ever sign off a full release but they will just work round it a little here, a little there
The creeping introduction of this aircraft into RAF service, no doubt correctly predicted here, would be as cynical and potentially disastrous as was the illegal RTS issued to a knowingly grossly unairworthy Chinook Mk2.
Chickens are coming home to roost now, and the MOD has to face up at last to the consequences of subverting Haddon-Cave and consequently the MAA. It can only get out of this situation of its own making by admitting the past, and reforming Military Air Safety. That means an independent MAA and MAAIB, both of the MOD and of each other. That means some people's collars being felt.
Or, on the other hand, the avoidable accidents and pointless deaths can simply continue...
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Vienna, Virginia
Age: 74
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAF on USAF RJ Ops
Response to previous posts:
No. I am sure there are no all RAF crew ops flying a USAF aircraft. Why? To quote a rather disastrous recent Sec State: "What difference does it make anyway."
Please, I beg you guys, give UP on this ridiculous circle target shooting on the matter of RJ operations.
The RJs have been flying since the 70s. They have all gone through numerous modifications at Greenville. They have ALL gone through extensive flight systems testing at Greenville. They have ALL gone through extensive backend equipment upgrades and certifications. And, the RAF RJs are just the same as the USAF RJs. They are all considered ONE FLEET.
Someone in the MoD should 'man-up', make the RTS decision, tell everyone else to concentrate on brand new aircraft procurement under the "new" rules and put the RJ into operations ASAP.
No. I am sure there are no all RAF crew ops flying a USAF aircraft. Why? To quote a rather disastrous recent Sec State: "What difference does it make anyway."
Please, I beg you guys, give UP on this ridiculous circle target shooting on the matter of RJ operations.
The RJs have been flying since the 70s. They have all gone through numerous modifications at Greenville. They have ALL gone through extensive flight systems testing at Greenville. They have ALL gone through extensive backend equipment upgrades and certifications. And, the RAF RJs are just the same as the USAF RJs. They are all considered ONE FLEET.
Someone in the MoD should 'man-up', make the RTS decision, tell everyone else to concentrate on brand new aircraft procurement under the "new" rules and put the RJ into operations ASAP.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: 180INS500
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NoVANav
Funny, you could have said something like that about XV230, (replace Greenville with BAE) however it didn't make it airworthy..
You still refuse to give any definitive information about Boeing model numbers, block numbers , type design designation for the US and UK RJs? If they are all the same then surely it should be simple to back up your assertion?
SS
The RJs have been flying since the 70s. They have all gone through numerous modifications at Greenville. They have ALL gone through extensive flight systems testing at Greenville. They have ALL gone through extensive backend equipment upgrades and certifications. And, the RAF RJs are just the same as the USAF RJs.
You still refuse to give any definitive information about Boeing model numbers, block numbers , type design designation for the US and UK RJs? If they are all the same then surely it should be simple to back up your assertion?
SS
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chugalug
I suspect that everyone involved at the top has decided the damn things will fly in service come what may
no-one will put this in writing and by "phasing" full time ops they think they can extend the time frame for some (possible) dreadful accident out beyond their time in service/retirement from the Civil Service/next election
what gets up my nose is that if we said "Fly them anyway" then everyone would know we're taking a risk and could probably monitor things carefully
As it is creeping acceptance means that there will be little or no formal extra monitoring allowed/paid for/listened to
Worst of both worlds IMHO
I suspect that everyone involved at the top has decided the damn things will fly in service come what may
no-one will put this in writing and by "phasing" full time ops they think they can extend the time frame for some (possible) dreadful accident out beyond their time in service/retirement from the Civil Service/next election
what gets up my nose is that if we said "Fly them anyway" then everyone would know we're taking a risk and could probably monitor things carefully
As it is creeping acceptance means that there will be little or no formal extra monitoring allowed/paid for/listened to
Worst of both worlds IMHO
HH:-
In other words exactly the same mind set that triggered these three decades of needless waste of both life and materiel. Your summary perfectly illustrates why Air Safety is not safe in MOD hands and has to be removed from them forthwith.
If this a/c goes into squadron service without an RTS that signifies it to be airworthy, where does that leave the MAA as presently constituted? What is the point of the MAA as presently constituted?
they think they can extend the time frame for some (possible) dreadful accident out beyond their time in service/retirement from the Civil Service/next election
If this a/c goes into squadron service without an RTS that signifies it to be airworthy, where does that leave the MAA as presently constituted? What is the point of the MAA as presently constituted?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 68
Posts: 5,563
Likes: 0
Received 45 Likes
on
30 Posts
"The RJs have been flying since the 70s. They have all gone through numerous modifications at Greenville. They have ALL gone through extensive flight systems testing at Greenville. They have ALL gone through extensive backend equipment upgrades and certifications. And, the RAF RJs are just the same as the USAF RJs. They are all considered ONE FLEET".
Like the E-3Ds you mean? Seven aircraft built in the same factory at the same time. One of the frames has different wings (believe from RC 135 with no specific routing for ESM/coms cables which were just passed through the ribs as and where - no surprize that HF comms had an affect on ESM performance). One aircraft had been hit by a vehicle during construction - the bent pressure hull was "beaten out" and declared serviceable. On insistence of QA, the aircraft tail was removed and a replacement from further down the line bolted on. There is no sign of the old bent tail which could have been fitted to a later aircraft. I could go on.....especially with an area below the floor which was full of swarf on one aircraft.
Like the E-3Ds you mean? Seven aircraft built in the same factory at the same time. One of the frames has different wings (believe from RC 135 with no specific routing for ESM/coms cables which were just passed through the ribs as and where - no surprize that HF comms had an affect on ESM performance). One aircraft had been hit by a vehicle during construction - the bent pressure hull was "beaten out" and declared serviceable. On insistence of QA, the aircraft tail was removed and a replacement from further down the line bolted on. There is no sign of the old bent tail which could have been fitted to a later aircraft. I could go on.....especially with an area below the floor which was full of swarf on one aircraft.
Like the E-3Ds you mean? Seven aircraft built in the same factory at the same time. One of the frames has different wings (believe from RC 135 with no specific routing for ESM/coms cables which were just passed through the ribs as and where - no surprize that HF comms had an affect on ESM performance).
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Vienna, Virginia
Age: 74
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What Are You Talking About?
Wensleydale,
I have no idea what you are talking about?
The RC-135s have absolutely nothing in common with the E-3Ds. The E-3s are an entirely different aircraft. The fuselage is different the wings are different. What do you not understand about DIFFERENT?
As to the original "Block" numbers hash of questions from an earlier poster. Minor block number changes in the manufacture of aircraft make no difference in service. Any additional equipment or modifications on the line are incorporated in all the earlier aircraft. I never saw any reference to manufacturer block number differences in any of the KC-135s or RC-135s I flew in. Once accepted into service a particular MDS designated aircraft was just like any other in the same MDS, unless modified for a special mission equipment fit.
Since the RJs have all been maintained by E-Systems/Raytheon/L-3 folks at Greenville, TX, under the Big Safari Program, for over forty years, the changes between aircraft (Vs, Ws, Us, Ss) are all well understood and documented.
Please, I beg you blokes, give it up, fly the aircraft, re-enter the world of airborne SIGINT collection, and take on the Germans/Spanish/et al over the Typhoon.
Besides, you can re-open this whole argument when the first Boeing P-8As Poseidons are delivered to the RAF.
I have no idea what you are talking about?
The RC-135s have absolutely nothing in common with the E-3Ds. The E-3s are an entirely different aircraft. The fuselage is different the wings are different. What do you not understand about DIFFERENT?
As to the original "Block" numbers hash of questions from an earlier poster. Minor block number changes in the manufacture of aircraft make no difference in service. Any additional equipment or modifications on the line are incorporated in all the earlier aircraft. I never saw any reference to manufacturer block number differences in any of the KC-135s or RC-135s I flew in. Once accepted into service a particular MDS designated aircraft was just like any other in the same MDS, unless modified for a special mission equipment fit.
Since the RJs have all been maintained by E-Systems/Raytheon/L-3 folks at Greenville, TX, under the Big Safari Program, for over forty years, the changes between aircraft (Vs, Ws, Us, Ss) are all well understood and documented.
Please, I beg you blokes, give it up, fly the aircraft, re-enter the world of airborne SIGINT collection, and take on the Germans/Spanish/et al over the Typhoon.
Besides, you can re-open this whole argument when the first Boeing P-8As Poseidons are delivered to the RAF.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 68
Posts: 5,563
Likes: 0
Received 45 Likes
on
30 Posts
"The RC-135s have absolutely nothing in common with the E-3Ds. The E-3s are an entirely different aircraft. The fuselage is different the wings are different. What do you not understand about DIFFERENT?"
Exactly my point - one of the E-3Ds has the wrong wings on!! It may be that they are 135 type wings and from an E-8 or similar, but they are the wrong wings which do not have the correct wiring runs etc! It is presumed that there was a set of "spare" wings in the factory and they were used up rather than building a new set. I know that this seems far fetched, but it is correct!
Exactly my point - one of the E-3Ds has the wrong wings on!! It may be that they are 135 type wings and from an E-8 or similar, but they are the wrong wings which do not have the correct wiring runs etc! It is presumed that there was a set of "spare" wings in the factory and they were used up rather than building a new set. I know that this seems far fetched, but it is correct!