Barnacles found on Tristar C2?
 

Nothing heard yet about the recent tail scrape. Come on you professional pilots what happened? :D

Tristar co-pilot had to run down the back on rotate and rescue the Brize Norton AT imprest which was full of all the excessive rates and hotel expenses that, supposedly, all AT crews get every time they're away!!!!!:ok:

"Tristar co-pilot had to run down the back on rotate and rescue the Brize Norton AT imprest which was full of all the excessive rates and hotel expenses that, supposedly, all AT crews get every time they're away!!!!"

It is the ALM who deals with the imprest on 216 sqn. At least they do something for their money.........

Heard it was a tail scrape on landing somewhere hot and dusty.
A bit heavy on the flares there Mr Travolta!!!

Isn't it interesting that there is very little comment/apportioning of blame etc on this incident. Had it been a Mover who dinked the Tristar with steps/loader etc, these pages would be awash with vitriolic accusations against the individual concerned and the Movs trade as a whole. Does this not demonstrate the 'one rule for one, another rule for the others'?

Standing by for incoming.

Are you suggesting they allow Movers to land aircraft now? ;)

Bloody movers. Bet they loaded it a bit taily didnt they? :ok:

Move steps to aircraft door - level of difficulty 1- so simple that even I have done that.
Land 225,000 kg or so of thundering beast thats gotta be much harder, at least level 5 on the same scale.

Not if you use the autoland.





Ooops, I forgot, they did that a few years back.

Aircraft steps have autoland now?

Surely the three holer drivers have some sort of reference point (written/visual) that says 'dont pull back any more' when they try to land (one hopes) lot lighter than 225K. Prob level 3-4.

Dont forget that to put the steps on, the recomended position for the operator is to pull the steps onto the aircraft looking above and behind you to get the door and steps sills level. Defo level 2-3 IMHO.

Yes I do remember, thanks so much for reminding me of that demanding moment in my life. Defo level 1, if that.

So, landing Timmy at high AUW = 5
Landing Timmy <MAUW = 3-4
Driving steps up to Timmy* = 2-3
* - Insert aircraft type here as necessary

So by your reckoning Roland, driving steps is, at it's easiest, 40-60% as difficult as driving a Timmy and at it's most difficult, 66-100% as difficult.

Thanks for the clarification Roland. :D I'm sure that we'll now have a great deal more sympathy with the movers next time we're stuck in some toilet or other waiting for the aircraft to be fixed post a Muppet driving another set of steps into it.

Is driving the baggage loading thingy into the aircraft a different OCU, and if so, what's the return of service that entails?

Before this turns into another muppet-bashing thread and it gets locked by the mods, I'm sure the Timmy driver was trying his best and just made a simple old mistake. As any highly skilled operator of technical machinery (such as a mover) will tell you, mistakes are just a fact of life and shouldn't automatically instigate a witch-hunt.

Not really. It demonstrates that Pilots make mistakes too.

I thought you'd be able to differentiate between a dynamically moving plane - in pitch, roll, yaw and speed - and a set of steps which go forward and backwards - rather slowly - and stop when you let go of the trigger.

Of course, aas groundcrew, it is our duty to milk it for all it's worth!

Glum,

You have missed my point. It was not a question of who was at fault, but the speed at which the airborne brigade are ready to criticise ground trades for accidents and mistakes compared to the retiscence to pass judgement on the pilot in this case. Reticence is an unfamiliar trait on these pages and I was merely highlighting the difference in attitude in this case.

Combine, I thought the "all the officers are to$$ers and the pilots are even worse" website was E-Goat.

And why would 16 Air Assault Bde want to pass comment?

Combine Harvester
 

You allowed all of 2 posts to the original, both of which were jokey replies, before you started you bleat of ''why aren't you all slinging mud at the pilot?'' What's your problem??

Maybe it's because the majority of people on here would rather know the true facts before any conclusions are drawn. Whatever, I hope you wallow in your schadenfraude alone... :{

Combine,

The main differance is as follows:-

The pilot is working in a highly dynamic environment that is changing by the second due to a multitude of internal and external variations, weather, light levels and threat to name but a few and whilst there is rarely an excuse when Pilot error is the cause lets wait and see what exactly happened with this one:=

On the other hand the mover who dinks an aircraft has quite simply contravened a set of orders that he/she sign's for on, normally, an annual basis. The orders have been written by trade specialists who have risk assesed each scenario and have put in place clear and precise procedures that WILL prevent exactly the incident that said mover has caused provided procedures are folowed:ugh:

The perception that the average muppet is sufficiently IQ challenged to be unable to adhere to a simple set of orders is rather sadly clear for all to see on a regular basis:eek:

......but only when an aircrew mate is involved. With everyone else why let the facts get in the way roasting the movers. :hmm:

TTFN

Smudge

Once again horribly one sided old chap. A mover controlling an Atlas is also in a 'dynamic & moving environment'. If a mechanical failure occurs then this would not be a case of contravening orders, however, the 2 winged master race will immediately jump to the conclusion that it was the individuals fault. You can't have it both ways.

Interesting to hear that the crew of the Timmy slept on the ac last night....were they worrying about the lynch mob outside waiting to insert garden tools and flaming torches?

TTFN

Smudge

HAHAHAHAHA> Someone stop me laughing, it's beginning to hurt!
Tell you what Combine. Hows about, you visit the Tristar Simulator for a landing, and I'll come and drive some steps. You have to land safely, and I have to get said steps in without ripping off a pitot tube!
The reason there maybe calls for pistols at dawn whenever a Mover jousts the side of a jet, is that it happens tooooooooo often. When was the last time a Tristar had a tail strike? And, on that note. When was the last time a Ground Engineer dinged a jet when driving the steps in? Hasn't happened while I have been around, and they operate the steps a lot downroute etc. Perhaps it's because they would be dragged across the coals if they didn't lower the steps before driving away and hit the aileron?

It has has happened before, it will happen again, but not with the same regularity that jets suffer 'Step Rash'. It's not a good thing to have happened, and yup, it shouldn't have happened. No one can deny that.

When a pilot suffers a tailstrike, there can be MANY factors in play, ranging from pilot error through technical problems right through to weather or runway / strip conditions.

When a mover drives a piece of GSE into an aircraft, there is only ONE factor in play - STUPIDITY.

Now if he'd said "NAVIGATOR controlling an Atlas" that WOULD have been an oxymoron.:E

Might be taking it to the Officers Mess to burn it.

But Navigators don't drive.

That' s why they sit at the back...:sad:

MOG

Shouldn't discussions about GHE accidents be posted in the "Stepdrivers and tea drinkers" forum? :confused:

BTW, Maybe they should get a longer undercarriage or a tailwheel for dat pilot.

Shouldn't your post be in the 'complaints about posts that are in the military forum but shouldn't be' forum.

;)

Somewhat ironic that the only pics I have found of this are on the Movers site.
To their credit, no sign of any childish banter whatsoever, just some "at least they can't blame us this time" comments.

[QUOTE=ProfessionalStudent;3060523] I'm sure that we'll now have a great deal more sympathy with the movers next time we're stuck in some toilet or other waiting for the aircraft to be fixed post a Muppet driving another set of steps into it.]
Seems the muppets were having to wait for the muppet that signed for the jet in this case.

:)
For Flyboy007
Last TriStar tailscrape was probably 1997 to EI-COL as a result of a lbs/kgs cockup that required quite a bit of extra pitch on finals

I would suspect tha last "rash" was considerably later than that


Doc C

The mover brought the freightdoor down on the high loader, the pilot brought Timmy down at max land weight, at night, at a unfamiliar airfield. Same result, damaged Aircraft. One avoidable, one an incident waiting to happen. Both bad judgement. A brave crew have moved Timmy to be fixed under great pressure from above. Last tail strike I have read of, the pressure bulkhead was damaged. :ugh: Will it be fixed properly? We'll see.

Left or right seat landing?

Anyone know?

Considering where the 'injured' Timmy is now, I doubt it. :mad:

Here's the evidence that our lords and masters require to prove that our AT fleet is overstretched.

Not enough airframes with the right kit=same airframes being hammered in and out of theatres
Not enough airframes for training=crews deploying/flying into theatres without the right work-up sorties
Not enough airframes for currencies=crews barely legal for the jobs the are expected to do
Not enough aircrew=same guys/gals rotating through dets - lowest average is 5 months away per year in high -tempo operational theatres for some fleets=fatigue
Inexperienced leadership=poor decisions by the chain of command who don't understand the problems of the coal face
Poor government policies=involvement in conflicts that continue to stretch our underfunded and undermanned services
Useless procurement and servicing programmes=airframes being extended past their out of service dates, airframes carrying fatigue problems and over-priced, ineffective replacement platforms that are always late and arrive without the right equipment.

Night landing in a heavy aircraft at an unfamiliar airfield in a hostile environment? Not easy - incidents happen, it's called OPERATIONAL RISK!

Now, a muppet driving into the airframe at his peacetime UK base with only the pressure of making his tea-break on time=UNACCEPTABLE!

Give the guys a break - they're working hard on minimum turn-rounds, flying a dwindling, aged and over-strteched AT fleet.

19 August 2003
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/factor200447.pdf
Turned out to be avionics defect.

Ref reply #29, excuse my ignorance but where's the Movers site?

When did 'Marge' do her TriStar course? Seems to be quite opinionated.

Antiques - Give the Movers a break. "No pressure in Uk apart from making their tea break". If only...... Sometimes lots of pressure in UK to load the frame which was finally made serviceable very late to ETD and warning of "If we don't meet the chock time we will lose our Dip Clearance and it will be a 24 hour delay and 260+ Pax to placate!!" Absolutely no pressure then?
Roll on 2012....

Lots to go on here.

Driver Airframe dinks a jet as reported above, will there be a Human Factors element to the enquiry? Some comments with regard to stretch, minimum quals etc (also above somewhere) should give rise to concerns about the wider implications.

Mover dinks jet, again there should be an enquiry which should also take HF into account - how long on shift, trained, supervised, briefed etc etc etc.

Its the baddies job to dink the jets - not ours. (paraphrased from CAS HF brief).

'We' are now working our people harder, for longer periods, under greater pressure - both intrinsic (self imposed) and extrinsic (imposed by others) - than we have for many years. The risks we run are assessed and should be accepted at an appropriate level. Is once a year often enough to 'sign' for orders?

Should we not be looking for solutions and remedies rather than blame and disgruntlement?

Lets not do the enemies job for them.

What fun, watching the 'elite' of the British aviation military slag each other off in public.

More please. :hmm: