End of a distinguished career?
 

Heard a sad rumour today - The Vickers funbus is to end passenger flights and become tanker only! Any gen? If true, then even more of the defence budget will have to be spent on leasing.

But even less of the Defence Budget will have to be spent on keeping an obsolete airframe airworthy.

That's a pretty harsh response to passenger complaints about the inflight meals...

All true I'm affraid. Concerns about airworthyness apparently. VC10 passenger A/T tasking will go to charter or 216 (in the unlikely event that a Tristar is available.)

This is perhaps an odd position to question - but will not chartering not provide a more modern and fuel efficient service to get pax between two points?

Will this not also strengthen the resilience of air refueling assests prior to the PFI (Pay For it Indefinitely) contract?

Those almost seem to be good things.

I suppose this all assists with THE war regardless of any future scenarios which might come our way.

Not over quite yet. To be reviewed next week. More a case of worries about lack of kit as opposed to "airworthiness".

As usual until final decision made there will be over-speculation and conjecture threads here:ugh:

Not so much an `airworthiness` issue, but more to do with the lack of `safety` features fitted that are mandatory on commercial passenger carrying ac such as:
GPWS
FDR
CVR
Lack of emergency floor lighting to assist egress in dense smoke
etc etc...
Has been mitigated for at Platform Safety meetings previously, but it now appears that the `appetite for risk` at ministerial level has been withdrawn.
A crying shame really.

Airworthyness, saftey, whatever......It's a shed.

Crying shame indeed. :(

"...the lack of `safety` features fitted that are mandatory on commercial passenger carrying ac such as:
GPWS
FDR
CVR
Lack of emergency floor lighting to assist egress in dense smoke
etc etc..."

That list would put any civil aircraft off line for quite some time - and looks and sounds like a lack of "airworthiness" to me! Just like the lack of hush kits stops them from using many civil airports.

And most of those items are also required on freighters too!

Seems like the long term lack of investment in modern flying equipment and standards has finally caught up with the old dears.

If it's not fit to fly, then it shouldn't regardless of role!:ok:

It is fit to fly but it would appear that it does not meet civilian Passenger carrying regs. A bit of a shame but try and imagine the outcry should the funbus suffer a similar fate as the 737 at Manchester Airport....Not nice and consequently the MOD cannot afford the risk to our servicemen.

Seconded. It has been a shed for a number of years.

At last!!

Absolute travesty that the thing was being used to haul pax....110(ish) pax for a fuel burn of 7T an hour and could just about reach the east coast of N America.

Leasing may be cheaper, but surely there must now be a case for dry (or perhaps moist) leasing some 330s to backfill the AT. After all, we are talking another 5 years before FSTA is online. 330 course = 3 months. IOC by late summer...job done.:hmm:

Poor old girl
 

She might be long in the tooth, but she gets to the US a lot faster than a Herc and a lot more reliably than a 3*.

To know her (properly) is to love her......

Having been in the biggest hangar in Oxfordshire for some years in the mid 80s, my opinion of the 'funbus' was well past its prime then. The 'C' was under used and under funded, and falling to bits, the spares situation was critical and robbing was daily musical parts. Problems reported were diluted at each upward step of the chain so by the time it got to the people at the top of the tree, the VC10 had no problems!!
BA must have been over joyed when the MoD said that they would BUY all their old VC10s that they had lying about waiting to be scrapped, I would think that the person who offered them that still has a strained wrist from that handshake. Leaving them parked up for a few years was a good idea , gave the airframes time to continue rotting away before they got converted.
The cost of refurbishment and conversion of the 'K's must have been astronomic and only partial, as the amount of corrosion that was found on primary and secondary structures during the first majors was to prove.
The supply system did not help at all. We would order short supply items for green line entries, for them to be provisioned for the next servicing, usually giving them 12 months to source the spares, but after 6 months if spares were not chased they got cancelled, so officially we had no spares problem, but we did have 4 or 5 grounded jets awaiting servicing, to pick a bit from, if they were all not robbed already.
It got to the stage where even a minor could take months instead of weeks and the majors where a joke. Manpower was also an issue, when I arrived I had 15 Cpl's and below when I escaped the madhouse 3 1/2 years later, I had 6, and we were only part of a whole team.
When aircraft finally got released back to the sguadrons they were handed 2 700s, 1 for every day use and 1 for green lines. I vowed then that I would never fly on a VC10 from then on, and I never have.

Would have been better spending the money updating the Victor :ok:

Just let go. It's a machine. Sadly falling to bits.

Someone needs to get a sense of proportion. It wasn't that long ago that the FunBus was carrying royalty around the world....

So it doesn't meet current EASA passenger carrying requirements. But don't forget those assume a 2 person flight deck, whereas the FunBus still carries a couple of cushion-dampeners on the flight deck. The navigator, in terminal areas, effectively becomes a food-powered GPWS, for instance.

One concern I always had was at the woeful weather radar. That really isn't good enough for the 21st century; many of us experienced lightning strikes with no threats showing on the weather radar, for example.

The huggy-fluffies would probably take a dim view of the passengers sharing the same compartment as palletised freight, but for heaven's sake, flying passengers in a C-130 is infinitely more hazardous than in the VC10.

Beagle, are you serious? A navigator is not a substitute for EGPWS, not even slightly. Let it continue as a tanker, a job for which it is more suited. It's just a shame they scrapped all those Ks!!

Beagle-I will admit that the 'C's were in better condition than the 'K's but there were still issues that you would never has seen unless you were with us on the shop floor. The main problem was the age of the Aluminum used for spars and primary structure and not a fatigue problem.
Generally the frames that carried HRH would have been the freshest off a major, for obvious reasons, with all lifed items replaced at around half life (IIRC) as required, so they would be flying in the best frame available.
I would imagine that the amount of money spent on that fleet in the 10 years after I left far out weighed it's value. The hangar at Saints supposably built for the majors, the centre wing box rebuilds plus all the other work that should not have been required from a recently 'refurbished ' aircraft.

I stand to be corrected but they are also non-RVSM as well which causes issues in congested airspace above FL290 as well.

Yes, I had many hours looking at the state of the aircraft at Scrapheap Challenge St. Athan as well as a good look at the 'refurbishment' of the ex-ba Supers into K4s at Filton!

The metallurgical issues were explained at Wyton during a FSTA meeting and the imperative that FSTA must not be delayed was clearly explained to all industry participants. But of course, since then, FSTA has slipped by many years.....

Although some measures were taken to reduce cyclic fatigue (such as changes to the aileron upset regime) and a revised 'allowable flight envelope' which was extraordinarily punitive for the K2, anno domini effects on the structure were unlikely to become any easier.

However, if there are any concerns that the structural integrity is now too great a risk for passenger flying (which frankly I doubt), then the same risk applies to the aircraft flying at all!

And Arty Fufkin, a good navigator is certainly an effective alternative to a robot designed to stop incompetent 2-person airliner-drivers from ramming the ground.

Widger, wrong indeed. The VC10 and VC10K are most certainly RVSM-compliant. When the revised altimetry system was fitted, every single VC10K2, K3 and K4 flew Strumble HMU runs to achieve RVSM compliance approval and the VC10C1K was given fleet approval after a few sample aircraft achieved virtually identical results.

How I just love people harking on about how things were 20 odd years ago and then using supposition to add their tuppence to the current state of things. If you’re not currently involved, a 20 year old anecdote is not really relevant today.

At the start of the 90's, the RAF acknowledged there was a problem with the VC10 and the major maintenance was taken over by RAF Abingdon and eventually RAF (DARA) St Athan and a whole lot of money was thrown at the jet. This improved the state of the aircraft immensely and a huge amount of time, effort and money was spent addressing the corrosion issue acmech 1957 alluded to. Whatever the argument about cost, the simple fact is the government would not pay to replace the aircraft.

Widger - The aircraft is RVSM compliant

I love my VC10 - even if I now become a freight dog!

All good things come to and end, whether VC10's or Vulcans...

Remember the good times and move on.

Beagle, sorry chap, but your disdain of the EGPWS "robot" and faith in "navigators" is woefully misplaced. The FAA mandated Terrain Awareness and Alerting Systems (TAWS) in 1997 following a crash (admittedly, of a 2 man flightdecked aircraft) in Columbia. Since than, there have been no CFIT accidents involving aircraft fitted with TAWS. None. How many 3 or 4 man flightdecked aircraft have bimbled into mountains in the mean time? I can't say for sure, but I bet it's more than none! Even a great navigator (and all things are relative here) can have bad days, "robots" do not (at least not with a greater likelyhood of 10 to the -6.)
The VC10 has no FDR, no CVR and an escape slide system that would give today's certification authorites a heart attack. It does not meet modern certification requirements and should not be flying pax around just because it happens to be a state aircraft. All this is aside from it's airworthiness from an engineering standpoint.
Just a personal opinion though.

Whereas the C-130 has no passenger seats which would meet EU-OPS requirements, no passenger oxygen, nowhere even to wash your hands after using the 'facilities'.......

Yes, the VC10 is well overdue for replacement. But has passenger carrying in the C-130 (apart from half-one-way trips for meat bombs) been stopped as well?

What a shame the RAF didn't take up the offer of a couple of dozen A310MRTTs when they were on offer about 20 years ago......

Sorry 12 Twists, really couldn't resist it.:)

Never looked inside a J then Beagle, plenty of Emergency O2 systems for the passengers sitting on their, admittedly, excuse for a seat.

I haven’t said this very often, but I have to agree with Beagle. The VC 10 is a tremendous aircraft, put the sentimentality aside, four eating, breathing aircrew on the flight deck that can and are encouraged to contribute in all situations along with incredible operating procedures, without being too restrictive, and training make it truly a flexible and great aircraft. It will indeed be a very sad day for the Air Force and aviation in general when the mighty 10 flies no more.



4 x Crew = 4 x Airmanship. 2 x Crew and some boxes… I don’t think so.

The same can happen with these new "software enhanced" radars, it's all in the interpretation and experience.

Being from down under, the VC-10's "footprint" never ceased to amaze me on my visits to family near Brize. Long live the 10, even if on the ground.

Yes, the VC10 is obsolete and expensive-to-run as a transport aircraft. There is no doubt that she would have been retired years ago if AT was her only purpose. However, the aircraft is the backbone of the UK's AAR capability and for several years now it only really performed the AT role because it was already in the inventory and it could. A fleet of AAR aircraft is a capability that is vital when needed, but sits around doing very little when not engaged in ongoing operations. Utilization of the VC10 in the AT role at least allowed the RAF to keep the axe away from the tanker fleet and the dreaded 'capability holiday'. I'm sure that the real impact of the end of VC10 AT will be a reduction in the RAF's ability to generate tankers if required. As this will not affect the current war then there is an obvious case for slicing the capability, but this moves the UK forces one step closer to being configured only for Afghanistan.

As for the safety issue, the VC10 has a quite remarkable record in 40-plus years sevice as a military transport aircraft. In that time her and her crews haven't come close to killing anyone. Which is more than can be said for some of their close neighbours.

Well, she's had a long and distinguished service in the pax role.

What isn't yet clear is the true reasoning.

Is this decision a precursor to scrapping the C1Ks to save money?

If it's airworthiness or equipment as has been grasped by some on here, then why is it OK to fly a Tanker (with 20-odd seats too) in GA airspace without that kit, but not the pax jets - are our crews that expendable?

My guess is the former is true - when the appropriate sums are added up, charters are cheaper than the C1K fleet.

The possible retirement of the dear old VC10 as a people mover once again brings up the two man crewing debate. Technology has provided us with improved collision warning, better on board planning and all knowing receivers but it can not replace a sick or unable to cope co-pilot. I can think of a significant number of occasions when a co has just stopped functioning when under pressure and a rear crew member has had to provide back-up. Statistically, an insignificant event but not insignificant when it happens to you and definitely a flight safety hazard.

A-F

Not sure how you think this brings up the 2 man flightdeck discussion again? I've seen young/inexperienced copilots struggle in high workload conditions, but I seem to recall I did the same at times, until I stopped being young/inexperienced (ok, still happens at times...). And with the ergonomic design of modern aircraft, and the move, with modern fms, to 'operating' rather than pure 'piloting', our 2 man flightdecks seem to have proven more than capable. And yes, I've got VC10 time in the book, but we always preferred tanking to SLF anyway!

Brain Potter:
"As for the safety issue, the VC10 has a quite remarkable record in 40-plus years sevice as a military transport aircraft. In that time her and her crews haven't come close to killing anyone. Which is more than can be said for some of their close neighbours."


Just substitute "VC10" for "Nimrod" in there and.....

Art Field

Oh FFS....so the nav steps in and saves the day...

Or maybe the skipper - or the co if the situation is reversed - simply lands the aircraft at the nearest suitable. If the co cannot cope, chop him/her on the OCU.

We went through the machinations(sp?) of the appropriate guys/gals to send to the 2-man flt decks out of METS and the higher achievers were deemed to be the better candidates. As it happens, the legacy platforms produced more issues than the modern platforms; candidates not up to the job, or having to deal with 3 egos rather than one...discuss..

I beggar anyone to justify the use of the VC10 in a passenger-carrying role in the modern Royal Air Force. You cannot. In terms of manpower (let's have a loadie, or was it a steward, on the headset calling abort duringthe take-off roll), efficiency (see my earlier post) or cost savings (annual VC10 maintenance budget is how many millions?) the arguments simply do not stack up.

Time to put away the rose-tinted spectacles of yesteryear and embrace today's challenge: namely, equipping an organic AT fleet rather than simply chartering everything.

I thought the Nav was there to counteract the weight of the Airloadmaster down the back end............

When I came off the in the late 80's we were seriously struggling for spares them, then the place, the name of which escapes me, burnt down which held a lot of the spares.
So we had to rob the hulks at Abingdon, what a place to store them, not exactly Arizona is it.. then they put them in bags with no dehumidifiers, ( though I believe one Engineering officer kept pushing it and told them they needed them) that helps all that moisture in, I was even more amazed when they decided to refurb them and flew them out of there having seen the spars sitting in their own swimming pools........... Jeez those crew earned their money...............

One of the best aircraft I ever worked on and was always a pleasure to fly in......... but they must be seriously suffering these days, fuel consumption, noise, lack of budget and age...

I still cannot see why the RAF do not simply lease some of the 737-900's that are parked up at Lasham from airlines that have gone bust in the short term.... I just hope some of the 10's find a loving home other than a scrapyard.

Well if the VC10 is no longer fit for pax duties then we must also apply the same to the C130 fleet.

That will cause a few issues in-theatre and around the world.:mad:

Just a word to explain what I said about co-pilot inability. This was extreme situations when the co, one with severe migraine and others who just shut down completely, were of no use at all. Very rare I admit but one hell of an one arm paper hangers game if it happens on a busy tanker sortie. Yes some of them should have gone at the OCU stage but!!!.