In English please?

I am not connected in any way with any aspect of the A330MRTT programme.

Yes Beag's, I was at EFW, working with the Flight Test Team from Bremen, and at Getafe first with the boom demonstrator (lots of problems), then on the A330. Never had anything to do with the voyager though, and have now retired.

I am sorry but i dont understand the AT problems!!.. If the aircraft has been cleared for flight under CASA in Spain under EASA 145 rules it is surely cleared for flight within any 145 organisation. I thought this was the whole point of the RAF lads and lasses being civil quailified... how does the MAA come into operating the type in the AT role????

I got it wrong about you and in English "you got it wrong."

PN, sorry but you continue to talk in riddles. I regret that I really do not have a clue about what you're trying to say.

collbar
 

RAF lads and lasses are not being given civvie licences to fly the Voyager. Only AirTanker civil pilots will have that, from previous employment.

On another tack, as the aircraft are to have both RAF and Civil certification, how will EASA certify a civil aircrtaft with refuelling pods and in flight refuelling capability?!!

BEags, I really think you're being too hard on yourself. I've always considered you to be very well informed.

But I agree about the riddles.

Air Tanker will hold a Supplementary Type Certificate for the modifications to airframe and systems on their A330s.. Exactly like GAMA have for the King Airs.

You little bugger Courtney - good banter, old chum!

By the way, I hope your abode is reasonably distant from the HS2 route? I use the god-forsaken A421 'twixt Finmere and PRMK now and again and note that the line will pass close by if it ever gets approval.....

Albert, while that's true for their own civil operations, the MAA holds sway over approval for RAF military operations. And quite reasonably so too!

Cessnapete:

Quote:

---

On another tack, as the aircraft are to have both RAF and Civil certification, how will EASA certify a civil aircrtaft with refuelling pods and in flight refuelling capability?!!

---

I was talking to a member of the LBA (Luftfahrtbundesamt, German civvy authority ) and asked him the very same question. The answer was "They are not interested in the refuelling capabilities of the aircraft, but want to see how the extra weight and equipment (Pods and Fuel Tanks) effect the handling and flight caracteristics".
We flew lots of flutter and in the A330 (Spain) stall flights.

No doubt Beag's could add more to that than I.

Yes Beagle. UK MAA will hold sway over the aircraft in operator use, but EASA and their regulations must also be abided to as well. Third party PART 145 MROs will be maintaining the things for heavy checks. The STC is fairly important for them to be able to maintain them!

Sounds like it's one of those Rolling Goat F***s - ho hum, how many years have we got left with our venerable Trimotors and VC10s?

cessnapete, the aircraft received EASA civil certification in July 2011 and INTA military certification in September 2011.

I suspect the problem could be rather more deep-rooted than simple Part 145 maintenance and repair organisation compliance.

BEagle, I did reply but the computer hiccupped. Essentially I was saying the RAF can cockup a perfectly good setup and create issues where possibly none existed.

Straight through our estate, mate. Still, it'll be fun watching the trains go by like I did when I was a nipper. Fortunately it won't touch the airfield at RAF Finmere.

Denge

The VC10's next year (I think) and they are looking at trying to extend the Tristars. Since Ellemy, the VC fleet has been culled by a further 5 frames (happy to be corrected) and the system is scoping the use of other countries AAR assets to fill the capability gap if required.

That is becoming the phrase of the decade, and I wish I had a fiver for every time I heard it, though sometimes AAR, sometimes SAR, sometimes MPA, sometimes AT,..etc etc

Yeah, somebody, somewhere didn't write a accurate specification for the AAR system, covering everthing the Voyager had to refuel. Tornado fuel system being a poor reciever, not surprised in the slightest.

Although Airbus issued a Form 52 to deliver the aircraft; EASA issued its Airworthiness Certificate (and accompanying initial ARC) counting all those different sticky-out bits as the "customers Role Equipment" and making sure that fuel/electrical/stress safety designs and processes are adhered to and that the aircraft handled as intended. After assessing the CoG movements from the Mods and doing formal Flight Tests, more paperwork is raised and calculations are made to assure performance parameters are not too affected by those pesky bits sticking into the airflows and that the physical and theoretical handling qualities are not out of the expected envelopes.

Whether the role equpment works or not is not part of the EASA certification survey. EASA is only concerned that the crate can move around and get back down relatively safely and under control.
It's up to the MAA to accept the status of the aircraft's role equipment - whether that is politically or correctly? - depends on who's on watch today I suppose.

In my experience - some aircraft I was accepting didn't work to the full spec - I (we) held back a few millions from payment until it was resolved - some two years later!
I didn't make any manufacturing mates in that move - but the crates are still working, and 'they' know my M.O. now.

Reminds me of the Hawk compass system. When the Hawk was first introduced into service, it had an almost useless compass system. After a couple of hard turns, you were supposed to fly straight and level whilst trying to re-synch the damn thing, until the orange light went out. It would often need re-synching every 10-15 min even on a simple navex....

The Learning Command Crash Comic of the day had an article which said something like "The deficiences of the Hawk compass system were well known before the aircraft entered service"

So why did it enter service in such a state?

Anyway, at great expense the Hawk was retrofitted with the AHARS system which, I'm told, solved all the problems.

ArthurR, my involvement at EFW was some early Luftwaffe / RCAF crew training and some trial work involving the Mission Computer System (which works just fine....). But as I was also writing stuff for the FCOM, we had a few meetings with the EFW Design/Build Team as well.

The FTI was very impressive though - and watching / listening to some of the recordings in the portakabin was.......shall we say, 'interesting'...:\

Courtney, hope the HS2 won't actually prove too disrupting - it seems to follow the line of the old LNER line through the region?

Anyway, back to the plot. According to the Press Association article at The Press Association: RAF tests reveal refuelling leaks