C130 flights in Ops work to a different rule book, When working in the routine role, there is control of who actually is allowed on them.
VC10 carries Families, Civilians, thats where the policy makers are getting cold feet. As a kid growing up a mile from LHR I have memories of the BOAC 10's flying over my house, long before the thought of working with them came along. Its a shame that they are coming to the end of their life.
Gate Guard for Brize. A 10 would look great on the sports pitch opposite MT.

Beags,

The J has pax oxy modules.

Just because it is a smelly hercules dont discount it. I would rather risk my bacon on albert than the vickers funbus any day as pax.

I worked on the VC 10 many years ago. They were dogs then fer christ sake! Can't imagine what they're like now. There are much cheaper to operate types now available that would get you to where you want to go with the added advantage that you would not have to go to museums to get spares and you could spend less time on the ground without replacing half of the airframe every C check. You could also take off without setting off every car alarm in a 20 mile radius of the runway. Imagine having a type rating on an aircraft still in production? Just counting the number of inflight meals eaten by the 2 spare seat cushion heaters in the flight deck would save the MOD enough to buy at least one A330!
I don't think even Tefal would be interested in buying the old airframes.
Sorry but they have had their time. Hell, they were past it years ago.

I first flew on a VC10 in 1968 when my dad was posted out to Penang. 10 years later I was working on them as a young JT engineman.

I have no idea how many hours I have spent flying in them but with all my air teats in that first 3 years and all my subsequent detachments in the Tonka world it must be loads.

I have fond memories of the beautiful aircraft and it is a shame that it is on the way out. But sadly it is time.

A glorious aircraft of which I have fond memories up front and down the back. I guess we all hit our retirement date, but I hope somebody will feel as sad for me as I shall feel for the 10

If I understand this correctly, it is only losing its pax role, something which was always going to happen soon. The sound of the vickers 'whisper Jet' will still be heard over the Oxfordshire countryside for a couple more years, something to keep all its fans happy.
Have spent many a happy hour in the aforementioned aircraft, but everybody knows its days are numbered. It is just too expensive to run, and in an era where everything is being cut to the bone, it was inevitably going to be a casualty. I am quite surprised that we haven't gone for the capability holiday and retired the old girl completely, although i dare say there is time for that.
For now, I still love seeing it around the skies, it looks good and sounds good but costs that bit too much.

TC

As a very young Air Cadet many years ago, I had my first ever flight in a VC10. I was quite surprised on subsequent flights with differing airlines to find their seats were the wrong way round!! I didn't realise it was just the RAF who had people sitting facing the blunt end.

As others have said, its sad to see the old girl not carrying pax to exotic locations anymore (Belize and Cyprus twice in my case) but I suppose old age comes to us all. I hope they continue to fly in the very necessary in flight refuelling role, but I suppose days are numbered in that role as well.

Lets just hope that at least one of the RAF's pax carrying variety is preserved somewhere where future generations can admire her in all her glory.

Pete

All very sad, but at least I will have time for compulsory PT.......... and after all these years I even know what Compulsory means without looking it up :hmm::rolleyes:

NFF :ugh:

Ah, the big white gozomebird. Leaving those far flung outposts but still looking back at them. Bliss.

Although the FunBus is indeed 'somdeel stape in age', as its birth contemporary Geoffrey Chaucer might well have observed, it is not the fact that the aircraft is being retired which grates, it is the fact that a 4-person flight deck aircraft flown professionally and safely is now being regulated by cover-my-arse idiots as though it was some bottom-feeders' lo-co 737 being flown by the cheapest crew who can be dredged out of the gutters of the airline world.

Sure it's an old jet well overdue for replacement. If this policy is some clever Airships' ploy to protect the FSTA and A400M programmes, there might be some merit in it. But I fear that 'clever Airship' is nowadays an oxymoron....

Compulsory PT
 

NFF,

Don't knock compulsory PT - dynamic, short-notice, medium-term asset management decisions like that are exactly the kind of go-getting, get it done spirit on which careers are built ..... :=

I applaud the encouragement of under-used gymnasium, err....usage.:D Just don't go breaking yourself....:ugh:

Anybody know how many USAF KC 135s are still soldiering on?

Ref the KC-135's. If you have ever been to Tinker AFB and look into the refurb hangers. To see a bare metal KC-135 awaiting a complete make over including new engines, is a sight worth seeing. And its not only one aircraft. Not knowing what goes on in Cambridge, when was the last time any of our AT got that treatment.
Biggest differance is the US will spend the money to get the most out of their A/C (C-5M, B-52H)

Usually, yes. But there was the one many years ago that became very lost going towards Washington DC, through a nav error I believe, and allegedly was hundreds of mile off track.

kenparry, do you mean this one?

Navigation error!
 

But there was the one many years ago that became very lost going towards Washington DC, through a nav error I believe, and allegedly was hundreds of mile off track.

Kenparry,

It's a bit of a stretch to find a 40 plus year old major navigation screw-up, then compare it to current VC10 ops - but maybe that's not what you're trying to suggest....?

While everyone can make mistakes, surely it's an indication of the continued professional, safe operation of the VC10's 4-man cockpit that the only VC10 story like this is the thick end of 50 years old?:)

At the risk of getting back to the thread, isn't the fact that the incident was so long ago part of the issue? We still have these venerable old birds on our books.

Anyway, my understanding is that, by the time the nav had done his sums, the star shot told you where you had been half an hour ago. Plenty of time to stray off track in the meantime.

Is the same airframe still in service? That might shed light on the scale of the age problem.

My thoughts
 

I think the VC10 will soon continue to fly it's core mission of providing worldwide AT & AAR until a phased introduction of the A330 FSTA begins in 2011.

I don't blame the minister for making the instant decision he felt he had to, given the evidence he had at the time. 'Covering his six maybe', but ultimately it was the safest option until a review could be made.

Clearly the VC10 will not be the only ac in the military inventory to be reviewed in the wake of the Nimrod enquiry (standby C130K fleet). It is slightly disappointing to go from being OK to 'no passenger flying' overnight, but once presented with the evidence that has been gathered in response to this, I'd expect a favourable decision when weighing up the true risk involved in VC10 AT ops.

It seems that the worry here is more the risk to 'civilian pax' carried i.e. family movements (AKT schedule), fun flights, indulgees, charity event flights etc.

Cost and age aside, it's quite likely (in my opinion) that an agreement will soon be reached to continue it's AT missions for military personnel only; which is of course the majority of the AT task.

Let's wait and see. Maybe the sudden and large bill for charter will give ministers a shock in itself!

Personally, I think that the 'fail safe' fatigue life design of the VC10 together with it's excellent safety record and proven operating procedures make it a far safer platform than most outsiders might presume. Long live the VC10.

Fair point. Post edited.