SFFP,

Go back and re-read the debate from where TRSS issued a claim that he thinks the RAF could have a fleet of 10 modern commercial jets in AT service within 9-Months. He based that claim on having seen airlines achieve similar feats.

I said that 2-years would even be a outside bet because, amongst other things, the RAF does not operate any similar types and has a very limited pool of experience with modern, 2-crew, EFIS twin-jets to draw-on (and I mean all of these characteristics together on one aircraft type). I did not say that introduction of a new type was impossible, but was disagreeing with TRSS's ambitious timeframe. I used the C-17 as an example of how a new type can be quickly and successfully brought to FOC, but also highlighted aspects of it's operation that were favourable to achieving such a smooth introduction.

You appear to have taken the 2-crew, EFIS aspect of my point in isolation and are offering the C-130J as counter-argument. In many ways the introduction of the J reflects what I am saying; it wasn't as easy and quick as some people expected. I absolutely agree that Hercules pilots do have relevant experience with glass, and many of them would have to be stripped away at very short notice to help setup the kind of operation that TRSS proposes. Could Lyneham afford such a loss right now?

Even if Lyneham, 99 Sqn and Astor were plundered there would still be no aircrew or groundcrew experience with Boeing or Airbus commercial airplanes. Again, I re-iterate that this would not be an insurmountable problem, but it is certainly one of reasons why, unlike an airline, the RAF could not have a new fleet of 10 modern twin-jets at FOC within 9-months.

Brain

With a buoyant market for pilots right now, why not either opt for a civvy crew and/or sign-up willing volunteers to the RAuxAF? With the exception of some added tactical stuff, they shouldn't need to do much more than fly a familiar type between A, B and C, should they?

Ditto servicing - apart from fitting DAS, what else do we need for purely pax trips around the world? A temporary solution to a temporary(...ish) problem doesn't necessarily have be 'we always do it that way', does it?

Dallas,

A fair point, but if you think about it the MoD already does an extensive amount of business that way by simply chartering, with the added bonus of no ownership or training costs.

Could the MoD hire civilians to fly RAF aircraft into theatre? I suppose so, but you are entering into a whole new debate about mercenaries. Type-experienced pilots could certainly be signed on as Reservists if they had previous military service. Either way, could enough personnel be sourced to make procurement of an interim type a viable project before FSTA arrives? Doubtful, but even if it was deemed worthwhile I just don't believe that 10 aircraft in 9 months is in any way possible.

I have a feeling that an unsolicited bid for an interim aircraft was made about 18-months ago. It was studied (by staff work and not by internet hearsay) and rejected as too difficult to implement and not offering value-for-money with the imminent (in MoD terms) arrival of FSTA.

If government policy continues to dictate that AT aircraft must have DAS to operate into theatre, then I cannot see how any solution that it not simply traditionally-procured and RAF-operated could proceed in any way that doesn't end-up looking exactly like FSTA (which does include type-experienced reservists). Any new direction will have to replicate the years of staffwork and contractual negotiations that have already been accomplished. The contract has been signed and FSTA is coming, but if it is cut-off at the knees right now a replacement programme will not be on the ramp at Kandahar any sooner.

Lets talk numbers..bums on seats!

Suppose we were able to fly a 6 day a week shed into theatre with some modern, reliable, properly equipped 250 seat class strat airlifters.

That's 1500 bods a week.

Say we had 10,000 bods in theatre (a figure banded about recently in the media as possible in the near future)

It would take 7 weeks to rotate everyone once, allowing for a bit of flex for WX and snags. Another 7 weeks to give everyone an R&R break and another 7 weeks to rotate out the replacements giving a min 21 week tour.

To run such a schedule needs at least two of these 250 seat a/c plus a reserve to ensure against tech snags. Two crews for each return flight (min) so a manning to cover leave/sickies/training/JPA of at least 3 and possibly 4 crews per jet.

So that 3 frames for just one schedule. Same again if we support two theatres and some extra for EX and training, plus the crews to make it so.

The thing is we need this NOW! Not in 5-10 years! I don't care who makes 'em as long as they can do the job and be delivered by monday!

To paraphrase the guy in the filum "We were Soldiers"
"If the planes stop coming...we all die!":\

A TP

Er - isn't that 216 Sqn and their Tristars various?

3 C2s for the main pax schedule - Tankers and PCF for the rest?

:ok:

Pity is you can't get 250 in a C2 on that shed and we are lucky to have even one C2 servicable some weeks!

As I said, we need reliable frames, not withstanding or decrying the near heroic efforts of 216 aircrew and eng dets on a very punishing schedule, the decision to replace the Tristar was 10 years too late.

That is PRECISELY what holds the RAF back: staff work.

Regulated thinking, a failure to look beyond the next posting or career move.

Too difficult to implement? 9 months, I can have 10 widebodies transporting your troops and freight around the world - easy.

At a push, 6.

TRSS...I hear you fella, I really do. But DSCOM have widebodies trucking the troops aroundthe world...to the tune of about £250 million a year on charter.

That doesn't fix the inter-theatre airlift problems, nor could you in 9 months.

The biggest issue is the DAS; unless there is a sea-change in the goverment's appetite for risk, this will continue to be the Achilles' heel of the AT force. It's an A4 (or A6) problem which has to be dealt with by 2 Gp, Brize Norton and, ultimately of course, the boys & girls of 216 who are - as everyone has acknowledged - doing a sterling job.

Too little, too late..as ever.

Sorry but the actual numbers don't support your conclusions:

In the final six months of 2008 (July - December) the three C2's operated 501 flights (1787 flight hours). In the 184 days one C2 flew 179 times.

I used to be reflexely suspicious of officers who claimed to 'staff' something, as opposed to 'work on it', as well as SNCOs who referred to themselves as 'senior NCOs' rather than 'Sneks' - as an unscientific rule of thumb it proved to be surprisingly good w@nker AEW.

"It's being staffed" actually means "I've buried it at the bottom of my in-tray and hope it won't rise to the top before I'm posted".
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a3...rnet/zxzxz.jpg

The only way things are done quickly is through a UOR (if it's still called that). But later various shiny ar$es will float to the surface and announce that the UOR 'wasn't intended for long term sustainability'....:ugh:

The sort of dross :8 who used to fill obscure corners of the Wyton gin palace, for example.

Hear hear BEags.

Brit Bus............on the face of it 9 months is easy.

Buy 6 more J's, find somewhere friendly and close to the Stan, then adopt the method currently used for the other sandy place and voila.........

How difficul to put that into practice is another matter :(

Last 4/5 posts
 

...so on the money it hurts to read.....IMO:ok:

Surely once the troops pull out of Iraq that would free up the Telic C130's to do the Charter-Tac airlift from a friendly Middle east base into Afg.

As SFFP said, this all worked well for Telic so with that headache gone hopefully by Jul09, cant it be switched to support Herrick from then.

Or is that all too simple!!!!

Out of interest, and I ask because I don't know the answer(!), how long does it take to convert to a different type for our civil brethren?

..... couple of weeks for ground school, ten simulator sessions (say 2 weeks with days off) day for circuits, day to get all the paperwork sorted then line training.

Call it 5-7 weeks before starting to make money for the company.

Then anything from 20 - 50 sectors line training (but done on revenue flights) with a trainer.

Depending on the type of operation line training can be done in 3 - 6 weeks.

So 10-12 weeks till fully released.

Depending on type might be a day or two more or less.

As Daysleeper says for an experienced Captain on another type / experienced FO staying in their seats 3 months.

Experienced FO on another type moving to LHS new type up to 4 months.

Ab initio cadet FO on first commercial job up to 5 months.

EFIS Training time
 

Last year I went from the B738 to the A320, from the start of the course to the end of line training was 10 weeks.

As the core course was an Airbus "generic" rather than a company course it took about two weeks longer than a company specific course, So If the trainning used the company SOP,s from the start the course time would be nearer eight weeks.

When the 330 eventually appears as a tanker in the RAF will the boys from Boscombe want to play with it or will it be certified within the current civil envelope?An ex-boscombe friend told me that they discovered a lot more about the Tristar than Lockheed knew at the time when he and his colleagues got hold of it.
It may be interesting what Boscombe find.I wonder if they would give a 320 a going over?

2 man crews
 

You do not need a bunch of previosly EFIS experienced crews to man the A330 it is all part of the Conversion Course. This includes Cat 111 operations, all part of the course in civieland. I was amazed to learn the TriStar is a Cat 1 operation in the RAF the same a/c were no DH/100 metres RVR with BA.
The first few crews could do their line training with a civil operator ie BM who operate the same type.
The AAR could be done at the end of the Course with RAF instructors.
Hopefully the RAF will be liasing fully with the RAAF who will have done the same thing a year or two earlier with the same a/c.

2 Pilot Flight Decks
 

'You appear to have taken the 2-crew, EFIS aspect of my point in isolation and are offering the C-130J as counter-argument. In many ways the introduction of the J reflects what I am saying; it wasn't as easy and quick as some people expected. I absolutely agree that Hercules pilots do have relevant experience with glass, and many of them would have to be stripped away at very short notice to help setup the kind of operation that TRSS proposes. Could Lyneham afford such a loss right now? '

The delay in getting the C130J in to useful service was nothing to do with the training and transition to a modern cockpit, but rather some shabby initial software loads. It also took along time to accrue the various RtoS clearances, due in part to perhaps QQs unfamiliarity with the new way of doing things.

The C130J schoolhouse system is an outstanding model which hopefully will be followed if/when the A400 comes along. Few Ab Initios or retreads had any real problems, and the crew build up was as predicted once we allowed to start training. After all Airbus, Lockheed and Boeing have invested a lot in EFIS/HUDS and, in Airbus's case the side stick, all of which of course make the pilots task easier. With the C130J we had the luxury of an RAF driven and designed course, tailored to our needs. FSTA could be different if all they get is the basic Airbus civvy oriented TR course. For a new operator with no corporate experience on the jet, top up training may be needed.

HVD,

Earlier in in this thread I mentioned that lack of corporate experience with 2-crew, EFIS, ETOPS jets was one - just one - of the reasons why a fleet of 10 interim transport jets couldn't possibly be operating in support of the Herrick airbridge within a timescale of 9-months as claimed by some contributors. The subsequent debate then seemed to have focused on the 2-crew and EFIS aspects, and has not ventured into the whole framework required to get a new aircraft into service, including issues like regulatory responsibility, which some seem to regard as just MoD foot-dragging.

I am not personally familiar with the introduction of the J, but my point wasn't so much about it's flight-deck but about the fact that it was originally seen as an easy step to take because of the deep corporate knowledge with the airframe. As you have said, ironing out issues with equipment and clearances for it's military functions took longer than had been expected. To perform it's military function any 'quick-solution' jet will also have to be fitted with a significant amount of new equipment and the whole platform will have to be cleared to operate under a MAR.

There is a debate running over on Arrse, featuring a very frustrated staff officer, whose job is dealing with this exact topic. I'll post of few of his quotes. Apologies for the the length, but I feel that this guys passionate postings really do show that there are guys in MoD working their guts out on these issues. If anything he shows that they aren't all quite the oily political toads that some like to believe they are:

Some interesting points, but might I suggest he stops reading AARSE for the sake of his blood pressure?

What is this acronym TES?

And MAR??

TES = Theatre Entry Standard.

Thanks for the steer to the Arrse thread - a good read with good context provided.

At the end of the day, if the Country through the Government / Treasury do not want to provide the additional funding needed then there is no way that the equipment / airframes can be bought.

This is a symptom of political decisions rather than an inadequacy of the RAF who are trying to do their best whilst wearing the financial straightjacket that they have been forced into.

MAR = Military Aircraft Release, replaced by the Release To Service (RTS) these days. It's the big book of airworthiness limitations that the aircraft must be operated within.

K

Yeah cos you see you buy modern airliners without any limitations , no really the manufacturer provide nothing and every airline has to make them up for themselves...:ugh:

Daysleeper,

The RAF is not an airline. It operates aircraft under the authority of the MoD, not the CAA/JAA. As such the MoD is responsible for the airworthiness of the basic aircraft, as well as any military modifications however small. The MAR (or RTS) does not just mean how fast, how high etc - it covers all aspects of the platform and it's equipment.

As a simplistic illustration, let's say a bolt-on military IFF transponder catches fire in-flight, the subsequent damage causes failure of flight controls and the aircraft crashes on London. Who would then be responsible for standing up in court and saying that the aircraft was airworthy?

The CAA/JAA would have no authority or interest in approving such modifications. The MoD could not say that the equipment was safe in isolation without considering it's impact on the rest of the aircraft and therefore must take responsibility for the whole platform.

Just think of the fall-out from Nimrod, Hercules and Chinook airworthiness issues and then imagine the complexity of some sort of joint civil/military regulatory framework.

I think you'll find that any Airbus design will be certificated to civil standards, although when operating under 'miitary conditions', military certification will apply.

The definition of 'military conditions' will be something for various folk to exercise their minds over, however. But, for example, if flying passengers from A to B (outside a high threat area), there is no reason whatsoever why a military operated transport aircraft should not be required to meet civil certification standards.

Which might also include the nonsense of fitting an armoured flight deck door.....:ugh:

Certification and operating standards are apples and pears.

The aircraft, Airbus, Boeing or Lockheed or Vickers, will originally be a civil aircraft, certified to comply with the national requirements - now EU Ops within contracting nations or FAA in the US.

Any modification from the type approval will have to be submitted to the Authorty for acceptance: hence if you bolt wing pods on to an A330 that mod, together with any other mods required for military operation e.g a freight door, would require Authority approval.

The Operational aspects fall under EU Ops: however, the first paragraphs of EU Ops specify the limits on the applicability, which excludes military aircraft. My interpretation, which may be at variance with BEag's, or anyone else's, is that the applicability caveat relates to aircraft which hold a military registration and fall within the remit of Military Flying Regulations or JSP 318 ( as it was in my day).

If the aircraft has a civilian registration it will be bound by EU Ops: if a military reg by JSP 318.

If it is civil registered the crews will need ATPLs / CPLs and be bound by EU Ops. If military registered they would have to be Reservists, or have some other affiliation to the Crown.

Opinions and comments please.

Who will hold the AOC for "Commercial Air Transport"? Or will they be bolted-on to a current AOC holder with the type already on the AOC.

Redline

Absolutely agree.

The FSTA project is for civil registered aircraft, I believe.

The use of civil registered aircraft does not fall within the remit of TES or MAR, hence bolt ons, whilst they may be desirable, are not essential.

FSTA civil ops
 

I beleive the FSTA program will be bound by civil pt-66 maint regs. Which is why airtanker are going to train our RAF engineers to proper civil standards with type ratings.

Interestingly only engineers with hands on experience will be able to make airworthiness calls, making JEngOs and SEngOs surplus to requirements(look at the savings there!).

The minimum CAT IIIB RVR was 75M for the TriStar, 100M was used for the B747. We always maintained the TriStar should be released to at least CAT II limits (DH100ft Radio/300M RVR) when it entered service. There is a cost, though, to maintaining aircraft and training crews to CAT II and III standards which their Airships were unwilling to pay. I mean, how often are you going to get fog at BZN?

Cat II III
 

Alex I stand corrected I was a 747 -400 man!
I always assumed that BZN as the RAF Transport Base would have at least a Cat II or III ILS as all new A330's/Boeings etc. come equiped as standard out of the factory. Would save a lot of diversions, with Birmingham littered with C17's and TriStars with low viz at BZN as happens at the moment.

When RAF engineers get a maintenance licence with an A330 rating on it just wait at General Office to see the queue for PVR forms!! I wish I was paid per hour what our licensed engineers get!