View Poll Results: Is the C130J a Strat only aircraft
Strat only aircraft
7
7.95%
Should be used for both Strat and Tac
40
45.45%
Should be tac only as other aircraft are better for Strat
19
21.59%
Who cares, it\'s just one big computer game with motion!
22
25.00%
Voters: 88. This poll is closed
C130J just a strat aircraft?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For all you experienced J model types out there:
Does the different position of the refuel probe cause any issues in the turn at low level?
It looks like its slightly lower down the fuselage than the k model probe,so wonder if it gets in the way?
Likewise how is the cross cockpit visibility?
From my experience, NVG ops at low level in marginal weather and mountainous terrain require two pilots to be looking out, especially in the turn, so wonder how you would cope with entering re-routes etc.
For all you helo/fast jet NVG operators, the herc cockpit is so wide that you can't physically see where you are turning towards, which requires considerable trust in the non handling pilot!
Heard lots of good things about the J model, just hope it gets the right kit thrown at it.
Does the different position of the refuel probe cause any issues in the turn at low level?
It looks like its slightly lower down the fuselage than the k model probe,so wonder if it gets in the way?
Likewise how is the cross cockpit visibility?
From my experience, NVG ops at low level in marginal weather and mountainous terrain require two pilots to be looking out, especially in the turn, so wonder how you would cope with entering re-routes etc.
For all you helo/fast jet NVG operators, the herc cockpit is so wide that you can't physically see where you are turning towards, which requires considerable trust in the non handling pilot!
Heard lots of good things about the J model, just hope it gets the right kit thrown at it.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good Mikey
You are quite correct we should have got the fully spammed J, but its called smart procurement. We will of course eventually get the extras, if Ext Tanks can be called an extra. Most of the add ons are provided for and will be easy to reto-fit, at a huge cost of course.
As for night ops, a first look trial in the sim has produced good results with the HUD being particularly good when combined with NVGs. The sybology can reduce the Pilot Flying workload to less than that in a K, particularly in the approach or airdrop phase.
The comments of others reference the ALM participation is interesting. Most missions will be capable of being flown by a 2 pilot crew, including night LL. Some specialist roles may require an additional pilot. Of course the ALMs primary duties will be in the frt bay. However, when he is not required there why not use him in the front as another pair of eyes etc. On the K we sometimes used ALM and GEs in secondary roles.
You are quite correct we should have got the fully spammed J, but its called smart procurement. We will of course eventually get the extras, if Ext Tanks can be called an extra. Most of the add ons are provided for and will be easy to reto-fit, at a huge cost of course.
As for night ops, a first look trial in the sim has produced good results with the HUD being particularly good when combined with NVGs. The sybology can reduce the Pilot Flying workload to less than that in a K, particularly in the approach or airdrop phase.
The comments of others reference the ALM participation is interesting. Most missions will be capable of being flown by a 2 pilot crew, including night LL. Some specialist roles may require an additional pilot. Of course the ALMs primary duties will be in the frt bay. However, when he is not required there why not use him in the front as another pair of eyes etc. On the K we sometimes used ALM and GEs in secondary roles.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: States sometimes
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rudekid,
your quite right, the probe does obscure the view slightly, in a left hand turn at low level. However, contrary to popular belief, the PNF (pilot not flying) is not constantly heads down during low level and you would be pleasantly surprised at how much more relaxed and quiet a J model flight deck is at low level compared to a K flight deck.
Bassett,
I couldn't agree more! Why not get the most out of ALM's, they are a much underated asset and are more than capable of fullfilling certain flight deck duties. Again, I agree with you when you say their primary role is 'down the back' but J model ALM's have learnt to develop their work cycle such that they are in the right place at the right time ie. down the back for a drop (p-40 etc.) and up the front for other 2hrs of the mission. Makes no sense to allow them to fall asleep during the low level phase which is what most K ALM's do.
your quite right, the probe does obscure the view slightly, in a left hand turn at low level. However, contrary to popular belief, the PNF (pilot not flying) is not constantly heads down during low level and you would be pleasantly surprised at how much more relaxed and quiet a J model flight deck is at low level compared to a K flight deck.
Bassett,
I couldn't agree more! Why not get the most out of ALM's, they are a much underated asset and are more than capable of fullfilling certain flight deck duties. Again, I agree with you when you say their primary role is 'down the back' but J model ALM's have learnt to develop their work cycle such that they are in the right place at the right time ie. down the back for a drop (p-40 etc.) and up the front for other 2hrs of the mission. Makes no sense to allow them to fall asleep during the low level phase which is what most K ALM's do.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An interesting point.
The aircraft went through an exhaustive flight test program run jointly with Lockheed, USAF, RAAF and RAF test crews prior to its arrival into RAF service. This was intended to avoid the situation we now find ourselves in.
Why then are we now undergoing another set of trials and all the associated delays and additional costs.
In the past there had always been a very close working relationship between the RAF and MOD PE. However, I think it would wise to re-evaluate our relationship with QinetiQ. What concerns me is that QinetiQ have, in addition to ensuring that the aircraft do what they are supposed to do, an interest in remaining financially viable.
Are we paying twice? I’m sure the joint Lockheed/USAF/RAAF/RAF test program cost us money and now we are covering much of the same ground (with some of the same people being involved) with QinetiQ. Why do QinetiQ find fault with so much of the original joint test program?
The aircraft went through an exhaustive flight test program run jointly with Lockheed, USAF, RAAF and RAF test crews prior to its arrival into RAF service. This was intended to avoid the situation we now find ourselves in.
Why then are we now undergoing another set of trials and all the associated delays and additional costs.
In the past there had always been a very close working relationship between the RAF and MOD PE. However, I think it would wise to re-evaluate our relationship with QinetiQ. What concerns me is that QinetiQ have, in addition to ensuring that the aircraft do what they are supposed to do, an interest in remaining financially viable.
Are we paying twice? I’m sure the joint Lockheed/USAF/RAAF/RAF test program cost us money and now we are covering much of the same ground (with some of the same people being involved) with QinetiQ. Why do QinetiQ find fault with so much of the original joint test program?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Robo well said.
There are of course a lot of good lads down at Boscombe, civies and military. However, how long must the RAF put up with this drawn out and costly way of doing business. Legally we must use QinetiQ to get MAR advice, but this could be obtained more efficiently if the system was streamilned by using more Service expertise. Why for instance do they need their own airfield, they could send the boffins/TPs to the trials aircraft base and conduct work there. Also, do we still need the anachronistic idea of using non-specialsit TPs conducting trials on aircraft types they have never flown before. We just end up re-inventing the wheel later on. Still maybe they will go bankrupt and the system will have to change.
Quote from another thread "the C17 has had the most successful introduction to service of any aircraft". There's a b****y good reason for that!
There are of course a lot of good lads down at Boscombe, civies and military. However, how long must the RAF put up with this drawn out and costly way of doing business. Legally we must use QinetiQ to get MAR advice, but this could be obtained more efficiently if the system was streamilned by using more Service expertise. Why for instance do they need their own airfield, they could send the boffins/TPs to the trials aircraft base and conduct work there. Also, do we still need the anachronistic idea of using non-specialsit TPs conducting trials on aircraft types they have never flown before. We just end up re-inventing the wheel later on. Still maybe they will go bankrupt and the system will have to change.
Quote from another thread "the C17 has had the most successful introduction to service of any aircraft". There's a b****y good reason for that!
I'm sure that there are indeed some good people down at Boscombe - but the KwintyKwoo nonsense is making things quite ridiculous. People are going to great lengths to find let out ways of bypassing the KwintyKwoo system in order to get the job done.
Perhaps those mainstream service pilots qualified to conduct Full Air Tests should be given clearance to fly trials personnel on equipment trials which have no bearing on aircraft or systems handling? All that should be needed is a day's briefing on how to cope with daft boffins and their weird ways and some basic trials procedures briefing?
Once upon a time, a new piece of kit was installed in a Vickers Funbus. True to form, DERA had to provide the 'trials crew', but on the contracted day, their captain was sick and the only other available pilot was insuffciently experienced on the ac to act as captain. The contractors were ready, the other players were ready, the sqn had several pilots sitting around who could help out. So some very high level elephant mating took place and finally agreement was reached for me to fly as captain in the RHS with the DERA crew. But technically I had to be 'loaned' to DERA for the flight to keep the political feathers smoothed! Hence the trial took place, the kit worked and I learned about the inept ways of boffins. NOTHING in that trial required the so-called 'expertise' that KwintyKwoo think that they provide; the sooner this sacred cow is put out to grass the better!
Perhaps those mainstream service pilots qualified to conduct Full Air Tests should be given clearance to fly trials personnel on equipment trials which have no bearing on aircraft or systems handling? All that should be needed is a day's briefing on how to cope with daft boffins and their weird ways and some basic trials procedures briefing?
Once upon a time, a new piece of kit was installed in a Vickers Funbus. True to form, DERA had to provide the 'trials crew', but on the contracted day, their captain was sick and the only other available pilot was insuffciently experienced on the ac to act as captain. The contractors were ready, the other players were ready, the sqn had several pilots sitting around who could help out. So some very high level elephant mating took place and finally agreement was reached for me to fly as captain in the RHS with the DERA crew. But technically I had to be 'loaned' to DERA for the flight to keep the political feathers smoothed! Hence the trial took place, the kit worked and I learned about the inept ways of boffins. NOTHING in that trial required the so-called 'expertise' that KwintyKwoo think that they provide; the sooner this sacred cow is put out to grass the better!
Last edited by BEagle; 14th Jul 2002 at 15:50.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: States sometimes
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There seems to be a consesus of opinion here - a rare bird indeed! It might just indicate that perhaps QinetiQ is a complete waste of time and money and that any development/trials should be conducted by the real experts ie. those aircrew who are current on type and who understand modern requirements. However, we wouldn't want to hijack this thread by using it to slag off QinetiQ now would we?
Why not? They deserve it!
Another 2 examples:
1. It took a KwintyKwoo crew to take a Vickers Funbus over to the USA - just to do the C130J receiver trials. Fair enough for a TP or 2 on the C130J crew to be there to conduct handling assessments - but why in the tanker, for foxtrot's sake?
2. Boeing wanted to borrow back a 767 from BA to do fighter proximity trials as part of the FSTA programme. But then they needed some FJs to manoeuvre behind the 767. KwintyKwoo wanted to charge the earth to requalify les girls de Boscum to prod off a tanker (even though there was no prodding involved), to put their precious TPs on the 767 and to run the trial. Boeing and BA, quite reasonably, told them to $od off. So the jet was flown over to Pax River, the USN did the various trials and the tanker perspective was overseen by an experienced RAF AAR captain - at vastly less cost than KwintyKwoo had wanted to charge!
PS - Can't remember whether it was still DEARer then, or whether they'd become KwintyKwoo - but the rip-off principle was just the same!
Back to the thread - following that expensive trial, how often is the 130J doing AAR receiver work nowadays?
Another 2 examples:
1. It took a KwintyKwoo crew to take a Vickers Funbus over to the USA - just to do the C130J receiver trials. Fair enough for a TP or 2 on the C130J crew to be there to conduct handling assessments - but why in the tanker, for foxtrot's sake?
2. Boeing wanted to borrow back a 767 from BA to do fighter proximity trials as part of the FSTA programme. But then they needed some FJs to manoeuvre behind the 767. KwintyKwoo wanted to charge the earth to requalify les girls de Boscum to prod off a tanker (even though there was no prodding involved), to put their precious TPs on the 767 and to run the trial. Boeing and BA, quite reasonably, told them to $od off. So the jet was flown over to Pax River, the USN did the various trials and the tanker perspective was overseen by an experienced RAF AAR captain - at vastly less cost than KwintyKwoo had wanted to charge!
PS - Can't remember whether it was still DEARer then, or whether they'd become KwintyKwoo - but the rip-off principle was just the same!
Back to the thread - following that expensive trial, how often is the 130J doing AAR receiver work nowadays?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: States sometimes
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beagle,
none, since they had a major trim runaway when the J was astern the tanker. The trim runaway is also the reason why TMAR phase 1 has given a clearance to fly low level not below 2000'!!?
none, since they had a major trim runaway when the J was astern the tanker. The trim runaway is also the reason why TMAR phase 1 has given a clearance to fly low level not below 2000'!!?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: secret airbase in wiltshire
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am impelled to say that I have not heard so much B*ll*cks coming from one ill informed person , Mike RO, in a long time!..... and I've heard a lot of B*ll*cks in my time!!!!!
Mike - please get a life and stop slagging off what you clearly don't understand.
The boys are doing a good job at finding their feet in this new environment and it would be nice for people to show a little support rather that just slag them off.
please get your facts right and atleast speak to the boys (and girls - sorry!) whom are doing the lifts each night.
.... and as for the comment that "the K mates are better drinkers" I wish to draw your attention to the excellent recent bikini party in the TaliBar where everyone in the DOB had a great time. I would like to think that we could drink WITH the 'K boys' and have a good time together as truckies rather than squabbling about "my plane's better than your plane!"
Who needs Taliban and AQ when we have colleagues like you? I thought we were all on the same side?
Sorry everybody - rant over
Fast Albert
Happiness is 4 props, a HUD and a Hob-Nob!
Mike - please get a life and stop slagging off what you clearly don't understand.
The boys are doing a good job at finding their feet in this new environment and it would be nice for people to show a little support rather that just slag them off.
please get your facts right and atleast speak to the boys (and girls - sorry!) whom are doing the lifts each night.
.... and as for the comment that "the K mates are better drinkers" I wish to draw your attention to the excellent recent bikini party in the TaliBar where everyone in the DOB had a great time. I would like to think that we could drink WITH the 'K boys' and have a good time together as truckies rather than squabbling about "my plane's better than your plane!"
Who needs Taliban and AQ when we have colleagues like you? I thought we were all on the same side?
Sorry everybody - rant over
Fast Albert
Happiness is 4 props, a HUD and a Hob-Nob!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: South Central UK
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The criticism of QinetiQ and the MOD Boscombe Down organisation in previous posts raises some 'old chestnuts' that have been debated for decades, and probably even longer, about relevant experience when carrying out flight assessments. The tps are assessing whatever against the capabilities of the 'average' pilot'. Hence, it would be unwise to use specialist pilots who are very experienced in the role/task as they would be likely to cope with a difficult task without much problem. Whereas 'joe average' may struggle or even get into trouble.
However, many of the perceived faults with the system raised by previous posters are down to the requirements of the flying regulatory system under which the MOD Boscombe Down organisation operates. Namely, that of Director of Flying DPA and not the usual 'Service Regulated' flying environment that regulates 'normal' military flying. The D/Fg system allows aircraft to be operated beyond current MAR/RTS limitations, which must happen to provide the assessment results to extend the current limitations/approvals. Sensibly, such events are carefully supervised and all risks fully assessed. The rules and procedures developed over many years of practical test/assessment flying may appear restrictive at first sight but they have passed the test of time. Hence, within the test/assessment flying environment many of the options raised by previous posters are not readily usable even when common sense indicates relaxing a rule/procedure in a particular situation could be beneficial.
The question of costs etc that accrue from QQs commercial status is a different subject but government policy produced the beast and the situation is not far removed from the full cost accounting processes rapidly taking over all military activity.
lm
However, many of the perceived faults with the system raised by previous posters are down to the requirements of the flying regulatory system under which the MOD Boscombe Down organisation operates. Namely, that of Director of Flying DPA and not the usual 'Service Regulated' flying environment that regulates 'normal' military flying. The D/Fg system allows aircraft to be operated beyond current MAR/RTS limitations, which must happen to provide the assessment results to extend the current limitations/approvals. Sensibly, such events are carefully supervised and all risks fully assessed. The rules and procedures developed over many years of practical test/assessment flying may appear restrictive at first sight but they have passed the test of time. Hence, within the test/assessment flying environment many of the options raised by previous posters are not readily usable even when common sense indicates relaxing a rule/procedure in a particular situation could be beneficial.
The question of costs etc that accrue from QQs commercial status is a different subject but government policy produced the beast and the situation is not far removed from the full cost accounting processes rapidly taking over all military activity.
lm
Ba££$! Why does it need a KwintyKwoo bunch to trail the centre-line hose of a VC10K in front of a C130J when the latter is the only ac involved in the 'trial'?
Back when the VC10K3 was entering service, it only had clearance to refuel Nimrods and F4s. Other trials had been successfully completed, but, as ever, Les Girls de Boscum were months behind with the paperwork.
One day we were involved in acting as tanker (in a K3) to another K3 as Les Girls were doing yet another trial. Funny old thing - we were allowed to fly the 'trials' tanker - presumably because the trial was taking place over Devon and not the USA!!
Trial completed - along comes a Boscum Buccaneer after some fuel. "Err - we're not qualified to act as tanker" quoth Les Girls, "Can you give the Bucc some fuel?".
Whereupon I had great pleasure in replying "We know that a Buccaneer can refuel safely from a K3 and we don't doubt that its pilot is properly qualified. But despite the time which has passed since the trial took place, regrettably A Certain Trials Organisation still hasn't progressed the paperwork to give us the appropriate release to service, so sorry, but no we won't!"
Funny old thing - within a day or two the clearance was received. Boss thought it was hilarious!!
Back when the VC10K3 was entering service, it only had clearance to refuel Nimrods and F4s. Other trials had been successfully completed, but, as ever, Les Girls de Boscum were months behind with the paperwork.
One day we were involved in acting as tanker (in a K3) to another K3 as Les Girls were doing yet another trial. Funny old thing - we were allowed to fly the 'trials' tanker - presumably because the trial was taking place over Devon and not the USA!!
Trial completed - along comes a Boscum Buccaneer after some fuel. "Err - we're not qualified to act as tanker" quoth Les Girls, "Can you give the Bucc some fuel?".
Whereupon I had great pleasure in replying "We know that a Buccaneer can refuel safely from a K3 and we don't doubt that its pilot is properly qualified. But despite the time which has passed since the trial took place, regrettably A Certain Trials Organisation still hasn't progressed the paperwork to give us the appropriate release to service, so sorry, but no we won't!"
Funny old thing - within a day or two the clearance was received. Boss thought it was hilarious!!
C-130J etc.
So,Beagle will you now please tell us all what this "trial" was.I presume you now want "tp" after your name,and obviously you are capable of running trials after a days brief and sorting a few boffins out.Actually there are perhaps very few "boffins" at A&AEE,most used to reside in the RAE.Notwithstanding that "there`s nothin` like a good boffin`," and I would suggest that you might be in line for one -from a trials "J" if you don`t wash your mouth out! There are lots of flight test engineers and test pilots who are doing the best the can to provide you and everyone else who wears HM uniform-the system they operate under may not be the best now,but I can only judge from afar,but it certainly provided aircraft for your "average" pilot that would not fail and could be used fully.Now ,if as it seems you can do it all better/cheaper/etc,put -up or.....It would be much better if you were ever to be involved in any future to speak to the TP`s at BD,NICELY ,and try to work as a team.It is the Service you are working for,not against..Go to the chippy`s shop and reshape your shoulders!And I used to think we used to get a good tanker service from"somewhere near"..
Whilst I've always got on very well with the TPs I've converted onto type (except for the one who wanted to do his own unbriefed handling assessment during a routine conversion flight!), we also agreed that much of the system itself was a complete feat of ar$e. Trials which weren't, time wasted on jollies when the job could easily have been completed in a fraction of the time....
Another example. New paint scheme required a thermal load trial. So where did they go? Nellis, funny old thing. A couple of weeks at HM's expense when any meteorologist could have warned them that the temp wasn't going to be particularly extreme in that part of the world at that time of year. However, it would have been in Oman - but they declined the offer.....
But I have to say that some of the weird boffins I've met are simply barking.......
KwintyKwoo has its place - but it is currently seen as an expensive irrelevance by many. Much of its work most certainly does NOT require a TP! Nice chaps though they might be.....
Another example. New paint scheme required a thermal load trial. So where did they go? Nellis, funny old thing. A couple of weeks at HM's expense when any meteorologist could have warned them that the temp wasn't going to be particularly extreme in that part of the world at that time of year. However, it would have been in Oman - but they declined the offer.....
But I have to say that some of the weird boffins I've met are simply barking.......
KwintyKwoo has its place - but it is currently seen as an expensive irrelevance by many. Much of its work most certainly does NOT require a TP! Nice chaps though they might be.....
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pay no attention to Beagle's name calling Sycamore.
The issue isn't the test crews involved but rather the system that sees to have us running identical trials on an ac that has already undergone a fairly rigorous test program. Are we not paying twice in an effort to get an ac into service? If the first trials where deemed so unsatisfactory why was this not hammered out then with Lockheed. After all our blokes were actually sat there with the Lockheed guys during the initial certification.
Fast Albert - don't let them catch you eating the NCOs biscuits!
The issue isn't the test crews involved but rather the system that sees to have us running identical trials on an ac that has already undergone a fairly rigorous test program. Are we not paying twice in an effort to get an ac into service? If the first trials where deemed so unsatisfactory why was this not hammered out then with Lockheed. After all our blokes were actually sat there with the Lockheed guys during the initial certification.
Fast Albert - don't let them catch you eating the NCOs biscuits!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good Mickey are you sure?
Perhaps you have enjoyed, as I have, the erudite piece of work by Prof Arnold Spunkmiester, published in a recent edition of the Beano, on the little known clinical disorder ‘Turetts' Syndrome of the thumb’.
Perhaps you have enjoyed, as I have, the erudite piece of work by Prof Arnold Spunkmiester, published in a recent edition of the Beano, on the little known clinical disorder ‘Turetts' Syndrome of the thumb’.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: States sometimes
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RoboAlbert,
yes your probably right. Mine was the official explanation!
As far as ****iCue is concerned, I'm convinced that if we'd have procured real J's and adopted the USAF airdrop system in toto and kept ****iCue at arms length we would have a significant airdrop capability already.
yes your probably right. Mine was the official explanation!
As far as ****iCue is concerned, I'm convinced that if we'd have procured real J's and adopted the USAF airdrop system in toto and kept ****iCue at arms length we would have a significant airdrop capability already.