If I remember correctly, the infamous QinetiQ Nimrod report made it clear that similar problems in VC10 were discovered before Nimrod - around 1996 I think. Action was taken on VC10, but not Nimrod.

Perhaps this explains the "early" decision - other fleets may take longer but information on VC10 is reasonably up to date. I'd say, well done to that project team. Difficult decision.

The UK Ministry of Defence has clarified its position with regard to the restrictions imposed on some passenger operations with the Royal Air Force's Vickers VC10s, and says the type "remains safe to fly".
"Passengers are still being flown on VC10s on defence business, including pre-deployment exercises, such as to Kenya," the MoD says.
Updating an earlier statement in which it had said that all passenger-carrying activities with the almost 50-year-old type had been halted because of an ongoing airworthiness review, it now says: "We have temporarily stopped using VC10s for a small number of flights while we review the basis on which passengers fly on the aircraft in roles equivalent to commercial flights."

It adds: "The VC10 remains safe to fly, and continues to do so in support of operations over Afghanistan, with air-to-air refuelling of RAF [Panavia] Tornado GR4s and other coalition aircraft on request."

seems it's not good enough to carry woman and children to Cyprus anymore then. But safe enough for Jo Pongo to go to Kenya ?
So if its safe why not carry familes ?

Is the VC10 safe?

It seems...

Not quite safe enough for families and civilians, but absolutely fine for aircrew and serving personnel.

Nice.

It is safe to fly military passengers but not safe to meet civilian passenger regulations.

So what does that mean in reality? What is the '10 going to fulfill in the AT role? Trails with servicemen to/from a Tornado det?

Is this purely a restriction to carrying civilians? Or any pax other than GEs/support crew.

After surviving for twice as long as it's design life, it is a tribute to the origonal design and strength, but eventually there has got to be some reservations about it's stuctural integrity. So instead of flying civilians, where if an 'incident' were to occur, the outcry and compensation claims would be a serious black mark, just use it for military purposes where the 'compo' claims would be limited by MoD 'rules'.

Just as a matter of interest, when was the last loss of a 'Transport Command' aircraft with family/civilian passengers on board ?

VC10, no more pax!
 

The VC10 is an outstanding aircraft, serving the armed forces to the very best of her abillity but hey, if this aircraft is no longer safe for what ever reason, then stop flying it NOW! :ok:

Not at all. It is perfectly safe for flying servicemen but it doesn't adhere to civilian passenger regulations. It complies fully with Military passenger flying regulations.

Is it not all a question of degree of risk? The aircraft is perfectly safe. In fact it's combination of structural integrity and its primary/secondary flying controls interoperation and power supplies are second to none. What it lacks is the safety features deemed necessary in a modern aircraft - floor lighting as an example. In the same way that modern cars all have airbags for instance, would you let your family go for a trip in a car that didn't have them? I suspect most of us would, acknowledging that the risk factor increase is limited. The military accepts the increased risk factor, in the same way that it accepts that troops in the back of a four tonner have no seat belts or airbags. Please don't think the old girl is unsafe, in many ways she is better off than many newer aircraft!

Getting more than a little fed up with sofa experts pontificating about whether the old girl is airworthy or not.

The issue is apparently regulatory not safety.

I have an old stude on the fleet who says it is all about strip lighting and gpws for carrying civilian pax rather than the airworthiness of the aircraft.

Mil pax can be dispensated against - civvies are a little more difficult in the post Nimrod climate.

If all you armchair experts can come up with is a nav error in the last 50 yrs of operating the VC10 then that surely says something for the safety record of the old girl.

The other question is why are you all so keen to see an aircraft and Sqn which picks up tasks from a lot of the newer fleets due serviceability talked down? From what I understand, the VC10, despite her age, picks up unfulfilled tasking from the quarter past 2's and the skips on a regular basis.

There are undoubtedly a great deal of our compatriots who are more than a little worried about job security, how about a little respect for them and a little recognition for a job well done in the current climate.

Some of you should be ashamed of yourselves.

Respond if you must, I wont be reading. Out.

I’d fly in her tomorrow if I had the chance. Without any hesitation.

Maybe, just maybe, somebody here, on this site, could organise one last flight for me. After 30 years in, worked on the aircraft, and flown lots, it would be a real treat......just asking??

I'm a little confused by the "If it's not safe enough for 'women and children' then it's not safe enough for our servicemen" argument.

Where would you draw the line? E.g. Indulgence pax are not allowed to travel when their are certain classes of DAC onboard, but duty pax are. Should the RAF find a way of remotely controlling ac carrying DAC and not putting any crew or duty pax on?

So what we are saying is that the fun bus is giving up the Akrotiri Schedule? Something it has had off and on for a while, sharing it with the Tri motor and various other airlines. No change then, 101 will go on as before flying around the world safely but at a huge cost per 'military' passenger and per ton of fuel dispensed. It should of been replaced years ago, not on safety grounds but on the fact that it is an inefficient and expensive asset. I for one would certainly fly in the old girl, i have no worries at all about its safety, just reservations about how much it costs, and its not cheap!

VC-10 passenger experience
 

Could someone who has flown on the VC-10s give a quick summary of the differences that a passenger would notice?

I've read about the strip lighting .. but what about the level of noise, and the room, etc. In what ways is it different from the Boeings and Airbus today?


thanks

(Quote)Could someone who has flown on the VC-10s give a quick summary of the differences that a passenger would notice?(/Quote)

Well, as a former pax, the fact you sit facing the blunt end is certainly something the pax should notice (unless they imbibed in rather too much kockers in Cyprus).

Pete

Huckleberry T-tail
 

So, to paraphrase some writer, are the reports of the VC10's demise an exaggeration?

Very much so:ok:

Enough of the sentimentality ladies. If it is not fit to fly under current civilian regulations then it is probably not fit to fly our troops around the world. What would Mrs Pongo say if a jet stoofed in? 'Oh well, it's alright, it was cleared to fly military pax!'
I doubt it. Get a grip and wake up to the fact that this edition of scrap heap challenge is actually quite serious.

Redcarpet

If you ever go to China, make sure you never step into a spanking brand new Boeing or Airbus that is operated by a Chinese internal airline. They are not required to have everything that we are talking about. The lack of aisle lights etc, would obviously terrify you.