'AirTanker aims to solve European tanker shortage'
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London Town
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.Thread Starter
'Flying replacement tyres out from the UK on the next available aircraft was the quickest solution available.'
Mind you, didn't something similar happen to a TriStar in the early 1980s at Dulles? Needed a tyre replacement, plenty available locally but MoD refused and sent a Herc with the tyre....
Last edited by BEagle; 31st Jul 2013 at 07:00.
Sad but nothing new.
Falklands, 2001, radar goes U/S on one of the mountain sites. Chief Tech says job will take 15 minutes as it is only a board change.
Due to 'Warranty' issues we had to wait 10 days as a Civilian Tech had to be sent from the UK to carry out the repair on behalf of the Company.
Fair play to him, he did it in 10 minutes..............................
Falklands, 2001, radar goes U/S on one of the mountain sites. Chief Tech says job will take 15 minutes as it is only a board change.
Due to 'Warranty' issues we had to wait 10 days as a Civilian Tech had to be sent from the UK to carry out the repair on behalf of the Company.
Fair play to him, he did it in 10 minutes..............................
Beags
It certainly happened in the early 90s at Denver. The starring part of the episode was the sending of the Herc to Colorado not Denver which added another 3 hours to the already lengthy parts delivery fiasco.
It certainly happened in the early 90s at Denver. The starring part of the episode was the sending of the Herc to Colorado not Denver which added another 3 hours to the already lengthy parts delivery fiasco.
I can't believe AirTanker don't have an agreement to use Airline pooled spares..
In that part of the world Emirates would have had it up and running in a few hours.
Unbelievable lack of planning!
In that part of the world Emirates would have had it up and running in a few hours.
Unbelievable lack of planning!
All this from the rag that gave you back-flipping tornadoes!
Look through a host of threads on this rumour network and you will rightly see the Daily Mail identified as a peddler of illinformed, under-researched, sensationalistic codswallop.
I am curious as to why in this instance the band wagon is groaning under the weight of otherwise rational folk who are now treating it as a bastion of informed comment.
Fact is, like it or not, the Voyager team (mil and civ) are achieving dispatch rates that would make your average airline blush.
So lighten up ladies !!
Look through a host of threads on this rumour network and you will rightly see the Daily Mail identified as a peddler of illinformed, under-researched, sensationalistic codswallop.
I am curious as to why in this instance the band wagon is groaning under the weight of otherwise rational folk who are now treating it as a bastion of informed comment.
Fact is, like it or not, the Voyager team (mil and civ) are achieving dispatch rates that would make your average airline blush.
So lighten up ladies !!
Last edited by Arty Fufkin; 31st Jul 2013 at 22:14.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Sneaking up on the Runway and leaping out to grab it unawares
Age: 61
Posts: 684
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fact is, like it or not, the Voyager team (mil and civ) are achieving dispatch rates that would make your average airline blush.
Last edited by ExAscoteer; 31st Jul 2013 at 22:50.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Up High
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fact is, like it or not, the Voyager team (mil and civ) are achieving dispatch rates that would make your average airline blush.
That's a big claim. Almost as credible as a Daily Mail statement.
That's a big claim. Almost as credible as a Daily Mail statement.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 764
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air Tanker Reliability?
Your claim not backed up by fact. Provide examples and data please.
Personally I think what happened was a complete disgrace and Air Tanker Management shameless self serving oafs.
Personally I think what happened was a complete disgrace and Air Tanker Management shameless self serving oafs.
Thought police antagonist
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 1,371
Received 106 Likes
on
75 Posts
" A check of the stricken £150million transport plane revealed the collision had punctured a tyre - which was replaced with a spare carried on board.
However, during the emergency landing a second tyre was damaged and needed to be replaced before the plane could take off"
The article is a classical piece of Mail histrionics, orientated towards those who actually believe the contents of the rag to be accurate, irrespective of the context. As always, note the word stricken..implies seconds from death etc, and the inclusion of a price tag...invariably the same with the value of a house when reporting about an accused.
However, with the above, seemingly, an aborted take-off has now become....an emergency landing !....which also leads to further confusion as to the facts, albeit common place in any Mail article.
If, after the abort, inspection revealed a damaged wheel assy, no drama and they do carry a spare...so far, so normal..but then, it seems, a second wheel assy. was also found to be damaged....again, hardly unknown after an aborted T/O.
Thereafter comes the intriguing bit. I find it hard to believe that no spares pooling agreements are in place..these are basic operational practices in the airline world after all, and, whilst the Voyager is being operated by the R.A.F, in one sense it remains a commercial aircraft.
Which leads to the possibility that, due to the fact of whom the operator is, i.e. Mil, there may well have been a reticence shall we say, on the part of airlines to loan a spare wheel assy.
No doubt the facts may well emerge in time, obviously not in the Mail, but as always, you can't help thinking there is an entirely different and hence factual account of what happened and why.
It's easy to slam the blame on the M.o,D / Air Tanker,,and you might as well include next doors cat for that matter, but would it not be prudent to wait a short while, rather than react to a Mail article that is, lets face it, designed to produce as much moral outrage as possible.....seems to have worked as well given some of the responses on here.
However, during the emergency landing a second tyre was damaged and needed to be replaced before the plane could take off"
The article is a classical piece of Mail histrionics, orientated towards those who actually believe the contents of the rag to be accurate, irrespective of the context. As always, note the word stricken..implies seconds from death etc, and the inclusion of a price tag...invariably the same with the value of a house when reporting about an accused.
However, with the above, seemingly, an aborted take-off has now become....an emergency landing !....which also leads to further confusion as to the facts, albeit common place in any Mail article.
If, after the abort, inspection revealed a damaged wheel assy, no drama and they do carry a spare...so far, so normal..but then, it seems, a second wheel assy. was also found to be damaged....again, hardly unknown after an aborted T/O.
Thereafter comes the intriguing bit. I find it hard to believe that no spares pooling agreements are in place..these are basic operational practices in the airline world after all, and, whilst the Voyager is being operated by the R.A.F, in one sense it remains a commercial aircraft.
Which leads to the possibility that, due to the fact of whom the operator is, i.e. Mil, there may well have been a reticence shall we say, on the part of airlines to loan a spare wheel assy.
No doubt the facts may well emerge in time, obviously not in the Mail, but as always, you can't help thinking there is an entirely different and hence factual account of what happened and why.
It's easy to slam the blame on the M.o,D / Air Tanker,,and you might as well include next doors cat for that matter, but would it not be prudent to wait a short while, rather than react to a Mail article that is, lets face it, designed to produce as much moral outrage as possible.....seems to have worked as well given some of the responses on here.
Thread Starter
From defencenews, official news blog of the UK MoD:
Hmm...'Sourcing replacement parts, including tyres, from the local area is not as straightforward as it may appear and it was not possible to use a tyre from a nearby commercial airport.'
Why not?
RAF Voyager tyre replacement
The Daily Mail reports that a 'row' over replacing a punctured tyre on an RAF Voyager caused by a bird strike as the aircraft was taking off led to military personnel on their way home from Afghanistan being delayed for 48 hours at a Middle East airport.
The Mail claims that a replacement tyre could not be sourced locally as this would breach a private finance deal and that under the terms of the contract both a new tyre and engineers to fit it had to be flown out from the UK.
These statements are factually incorrect as there are no clauses in the terms of the contract which require the use of certain tyres or engineers. In addition, RAF Voyagers carry a spare tyre and the necessary engineers to replace damaged tyres as a matter of course.
In this instance, after the bird strike, a safety inspection found that the combination of the heat and pressure caused by halting the take-off meant a second tyre was no longer airworthy and needed to be changed as a precaution. It is standard MOD operating procedure to dispatch replacement parts using existing flights and flying out a replacement tyre on the next available aircraft from the UK was the quickest resupply solution.
Sourcing replacement parts, including tyres, from the local area is not as straightforward as it may appear and it was not possible to use a tyre from a nearby commercial airport. In addition, MOD does not keep stockpiles of tyres at air bases because it is not cost-effective to maintain the specialist storage conditions required to meet aviation safety standards. In this case, the engineers on board the Voyager replaced both tyres as quickly as possible, allowing the aircraft to return to the UK.
We understand how much the chance to be reunited with loved ones means to our Armed Forces personnel and that is why any leave lost will be given back in line with standard policy. While we of course try to get Service personnel home from theatre as quickly as possible, unforeseen circumstances can cause delays, and safety has to be a priority.
The Daily Mail reports that a 'row' over replacing a punctured tyre on an RAF Voyager caused by a bird strike as the aircraft was taking off led to military personnel on their way home from Afghanistan being delayed for 48 hours at a Middle East airport.
The Mail claims that a replacement tyre could not be sourced locally as this would breach a private finance deal and that under the terms of the contract both a new tyre and engineers to fit it had to be flown out from the UK.
These statements are factually incorrect as there are no clauses in the terms of the contract which require the use of certain tyres or engineers. In addition, RAF Voyagers carry a spare tyre and the necessary engineers to replace damaged tyres as a matter of course.
In this instance, after the bird strike, a safety inspection found that the combination of the heat and pressure caused by halting the take-off meant a second tyre was no longer airworthy and needed to be changed as a precaution. It is standard MOD operating procedure to dispatch replacement parts using existing flights and flying out a replacement tyre on the next available aircraft from the UK was the quickest resupply solution.
Sourcing replacement parts, including tyres, from the local area is not as straightforward as it may appear and it was not possible to use a tyre from a nearby commercial airport. In addition, MOD does not keep stockpiles of tyres at air bases because it is not cost-effective to maintain the specialist storage conditions required to meet aviation safety standards. In this case, the engineers on board the Voyager replaced both tyres as quickly as possible, allowing the aircraft to return to the UK.
We understand how much the chance to be reunited with loved ones means to our Armed Forces personnel and that is why any leave lost will be given back in line with standard policy. While we of course try to get Service personnel home from theatre as quickly as possible, unforeseen circumstances can cause delays, and safety has to be a priority.
Why not?