AirTanker First Officers
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Sussex UK
Age: 66
Posts: 6,995
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
AirTanker First Officers
I noticed this today ... I'm a little confused (no change there then 
) so could someone kindly explain how this is all going to work ...
AirTanker : First Officers
I mistakenly thought that RAF Voyager Tasking (Trooping, Tanking and AeroMed) would be crewed entirely by Military Crews. I appreciate some Sponsored Reservist Pilots have been recruited ... But does this mean that civilian "First Officers" will now participate in Mil Tasks ?
Just genuinely curious ...
Best ...
Coff.
) so could someone kindly explain how this is all going to work ...AirTanker : First Officers
I mistakenly thought that RAF Voyager Tasking (Trooping, Tanking and AeroMed) would be crewed entirely by Military Crews. I appreciate some Sponsored Reservist Pilots have been recruited ... But does this mean that civilian "First Officers" will now participate in Mil Tasks ?
Just genuinely curious ...
Best ...
Coff.
Last edited by CoffmanStarter; 14th May 2014 at 19:25.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you read carefully, those things you quoted are the goals of the FSTA programme, which Airtanker deliver with/ alongside the RAF. It doesn't mention the breakdown of who does what, but I doubt a civilian FO would be expected to fly a Voyager that doesn't have an Airtanker logo on the tail.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm intrigued that some seem upset at the prospect of sponsored reservist pilots, heaven forbid, being involved in trooping flights when so many such flights have, for years, been carried out by civilian airlines. Indeed over the years many of these contracts have been handed to foreign airlines and crews without anyone here appearing bothered.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: the earth
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ShotOne
I don't think the issue is one of civilian pilots flying the military around, but far simpler. With the ever reducing number of aircraft in the military I suspect there are quite a few mil pilots currently in ground tours who would leap at the chance to fly an A330.
I don't think the issue is one of civilian pilots flying the military around, but far simpler. With the ever reducing number of aircraft in the military I suspect there are quite a few mil pilots currently in ground tours who would leap at the chance to fly an A330.
Regarding the influx of civvies, I dunno. Have a look at some of the threads on Terms and Endearments. A permanent contract flying long haul out of the Cotswolds might appeal to a fair few. Can't say I had many complaints when I was doing it.
As for pay, well this is a rumour site.
As for pay, well this is a rumour site.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Autobit
I'm sure more than a few of the military pilots doing ground tours would jump at the chance of an A330 type rating, it has to be the quickest way to a well paid job in the airlines.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Somerset
Age: 67
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Value?
Just another example of criticism of a contract that few understand. The AirTanker deal was for a service delivery, with a fairly wide scope, including delivery of aircraft, training, engineering, simulation,etc. All I ever hear is the aircraft was too expensive (contract price divided by aircraft numbers) and that it all could have been done better by the military. Remember there was NO money yet an urgent need - therefore you get a PFI for a complete service delivered reasonably efficiently. Alternative was no change. Old aircraft costing a fortune to run and increasingly difficult to support.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Sussex UK
Age: 66
Posts: 6,995
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Just to be clear ... My OP posed a genuine question ... I'm well aware that other posts on the topic of the AirTanker PFI contract have generated significant heated debate in the past ... The RAF is now operating this contract so my question is more about the here and now/future ... not the past/other solutions.
I was just wondering why the RAF couldn't provide Mil Co-pilots just out of training under the auspices of the deal ? With young Civilian FO Cadets coming out of places like Jerez and then effectively gaining their Air Bus Type Rating/ATPL "on-the-job-while-doing-the-job" ... then is there an opportunity to build like experience within the RAF by adopting a similar approach with graduates coming from MTES and doing likewise ? I appreciate that "retention" will need some thinking about ... perhaps some form of "indenture" mechanic that could be written down over time ?
Without a clear line of sight on career progression ... seeing an advert for Civilian FO's seemed odd ... That's all
I was just wondering why the RAF couldn't provide Mil Co-pilots just out of training under the auspices of the deal ? With young Civilian FO Cadets coming out of places like Jerez and then effectively gaining their Air Bus Type Rating/ATPL "on-the-job-while-doing-the-job" ... then is there an opportunity to build like experience within the RAF by adopting a similar approach with graduates coming from MTES and doing likewise ? I appreciate that "retention" will need some thinking about ... perhaps some form of "indenture" mechanic that could be written down over time ?
Without a clear line of sight on career progression ... seeing an advert for Civilian FO's seemed odd ... That's all
Remember there was NO money yet an urgent need - therefore you get a PFI for a complete service delivered reasonably efficiently.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"No money", "urgent need" surely both beyond debate? "Service delivered reasonably efficiently" ? Dispatch reliability has compared extremely well with other types. And if it didn't, the taxpayer has legal comeback. The only major interruption was because of a serious incident that was in no way the fault of Air tanker. Which element are you saying is untrue?...or are you just kicking off yet another tedious snipe-fest?
No "snipe-fest" here shoty. The truth is, the FSTA PFI is a disaster for the RAF. Of course, if operated and equipped correctly, the airframe can do the job. However, the aircraft appears unable to perform all of its roles correctly, the whole project seems pondorous and lacking the agility required of a responsive military capability, it is devisive-critical elements of front line military responsibility have been effectively civilianised and it is HUGELY expensive-other core capabilities have been allowed to go to the wall to pay for this!
It did not have to be this way, someone allowed it to happen.
OAP
It did not have to be this way, someone allowed it to happen.OAP
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Somerset
Age: 67
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OAP, I don't see any of your comments backed up by facts, just emotion. As I said previously, you need to look at the entirety of the Programme to gauge VFM and measure the performance against the contract metrics. Having been a Board member of one of the owning companies I can say that a huge amount of effort went into providing a solution to the RAF requirement and I am sure is ongoing to deliver it. This was not an ill thought out Programme designed to privatise anything or anyone. When the mil choose to operate the aircraft they do. The hiring of co-pilots, the issue that started this thread, was always planned and accepted by the RAF.
ShotOne
No I'm not. Your statement about no money for a traditional/alternative procurement is wrong; the money was there. The PFI was not confirmed until it was proven that it would realise VFM, something I'm not sure was ever achieved. As for urgent need, well again that's not strictly true. It became an urgent need because the PFI kept slipping to the right. When the FSTA programme started there was a need but it was not urgent. I'm not disputing current dispatch reliability (one would bl**dy well hope so for a brand new aircraft) but considering that nations pursuing a standard procurement started later and received their (more capable?) A330 tankers earlier than the RAF did, I would hardly call it reasonably efficient either! FSTA was supposed to overlap with VC10 and Tristar - it only did because the RAF were forced to run on the VC10 and it only just delivered before the Tristar went out of service. In my opinion that's hardly a model for a PFI.
No I'm not. Your statement about no money for a traditional/alternative procurement is wrong; the money was there. The PFI was not confirmed until it was proven that it would realise VFM, something I'm not sure was ever achieved. As for urgent need, well again that's not strictly true. It became an urgent need because the PFI kept slipping to the right. When the FSTA programme started there was a need but it was not urgent. I'm not disputing current dispatch reliability (one would bl**dy well hope so for a brand new aircraft) but considering that nations pursuing a standard procurement started later and received their (more capable?) A330 tankers earlier than the RAF did, I would hardly call it reasonably efficient either! FSTA was supposed to overlap with VC10 and Tristar - it only did because the RAF were forced to run on the VC10 and it only just delivered before the Tristar went out of service. In my opinion that's hardly a model for a PFI.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: neither here nor there
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd love to see a contract for this one regarding disruption, rosters etc like those of us have in an airline...no doubt it would very much remind me of why I left!
