Journo's getting it right
 

An oxymoron surely? Especially when the article talks about Nimrod, and shows a picture of a VC 10.......:sad:

:D:D:D Bravo!

Other defence companies should take note - delivered on time, in budget and to the agreed spec! :ok:

LJ

LJ,

With no RTS the latter aspect remains to be seen.

EG

Chug

Could I ask you to clarify where in UK Law it legislates military RTS? I'm just curious what deemed it illegal.

LJ

EG

I guess we'll wait and see...

LJ

LJ:-
It's Military Law not to make a false written statement or certification. That applies to all that are subject to Military Law, in particular it applied to ACAS. He received a CAR from Controller Aircraft that granted "Switch on Only" clearance for the Chinook HC2. Apart from being an almost useless Controller Aircraft Release, and possibly unique, it made the aircraft effectively inoperable other than for ground training purposes only. You could switch on the comms/nav suite but not use it let alone rely on it.
Despite that, ACAS signed an RTS and the aircraft went into Sqn service, even though it was still undergoing the BD testing regime, who as we now know grounded their aircraft because it was "positively dangerous" and urged the RAF to do the same. The very next day ZD576 crashed, killing all 29 on board.
I believe that the RTS procedure is now different and under the auspices of the MAA. The above arrangement was supposed to be foolproof, as both men (CA and ACAS) had to sign together that the aircraft type was airworthy and fit for service. It would seem that the system, the men and the aircraft all failed that test. The system has been altered but is still compromised in that the operator (MOD) issues its own RTS's (via the MAA). Neither the accident nor the actions of ACAS have yet been properly investigated, despite evidence being supplied to Haddon-Cave, Lord Philip, and the Provost Marshal.

TroutMaster, I assume you have never frequented sites such as FighterControl or UKAR, or even FlightRadar 24.

Martin, is your point that it's okay to break OPSEC here because others do on other sites?

Why is it okay at all, anywhere?

I suppose it depends on perspective. If you are safely on the ground and know about timings because you are close to the program, or know someone who is (and you want to impress the hell out of everyone), then you might be inclined to post with a certain abandon. Dr Pepper, and all that.

However, if you are sat in the jet, you will be disinclined to publicly post your operating times, (or, say, if you have family in the jet).

Anybody know any interesting stories about people in the job posting things up that they shouldn't?

I do, it wasn't a happy outcome.

Sorry to be all doom and gloom, just making a point of order.

TM

Chugalug

Good reply. IIRC from the evidence to Phillip the FADEC was not allowed in the aircraft either which is a hell of a constraint when you want to start up engines!

TEEEJ,

How did you manage to subvert the 'minimum 10 characters in a post' rule? Do tell!

As a result of our free and capitalistic society members of the public have ready access to watches and cameras, amongst other things. Pretty sure some spotter watching from the provided area just off the A15 (N53 10'33 W 0 30'45) could just as easily post the info. Tough job making a 'plane the size of an RJ invisible in broad daylight and good weather.

Ugly



.

Best get rid of it then.

Lumpy


Sneaky

Dumb question time.

Are the engines / engines + pylons interchangeable with the E-3Ds?

S41

Squirrel 41

I believe that E-3D is CFM56-2A and RJ is CFM56-2B. The E-3D has thrust reversers but the RJ doesn't. Also E-3D's CFMs create more thrust but weigh more (due to reversers)

LJ

Willard and Just This Once.....u seem to be trying to be clever, but you have missed the point. The spotters spotted the plane as it came in, having been (disappointingly) forewarned. The press release was after it landed.

OPSEC was broken when the landing time and refuelling point was posted at @0220. Do try to follow the story.

Let's be clear, though, you long time posters think this is okay, right?

It's an interesting debate no?

Do you think it's okay to post timings like this?

Are you military? Good debate, eh?

TM

Much like all the operations over the Balkans back in the 1990s then!

Like This you mean

I suppose he used the same method as my previous post. Simples!

The debate worked out fine. You obviously have no real appreciation of OPSEC. Flight Plans are 'free to air', but finding them (and any other info) is so much easier when people in the know helpfully post up accurate routes and timings. The last person I know who, (using his position in the RAF), released timings in this manner to a spotters site got a formal warning. I recall MP's went through that person's PC hard drive. That's not open to any debate whatsoever, it's a fact. That flight was flightplanned, and it wasn't that long ago...

I'm astonished that some (military, or ex military) people take this careless, 'what's the point' attitude. It's an attitude I would expected from someone who doesn't give a damn about the safety of the people on board, and, to a lesser extent, the job they are trying to do.

Well, some people do still care about both.


TM

Actually Trouters, I'm not sure you do! Aircraft details and timings should not be advertised when they are related to 'operational' events. The delivery of a brand new aircraft that has been widely advertised in a variety of media outlets has no more risk attached to it than any typical airshow weekend where the display timings are advertised well in advance. Similarly, it is probably safe to say that a Typhoon will be flying at Coningsby tomorrow. That is not restricted information and even less rocket science or OPSEC breaking.

In this case, how exactly do you percieve the safety of those on board was compromised by a bunch of spotters discussing the arrival time? Likewise, how does it impact on the job the crew were trying to do, i.e, deliver an aircraft from A to B?

Well said PA.

TM, get a life. Oh, and stop trying to be so patronising - it makes you come across as a bit of a c0ck.

This is a NON-operation delivery! No OPSEC needed!
 

OPSEC is defined as "Operations Security". Since this is a factory delivery and "operations" will not begin officially until next year then the flight does not meet the definition.

BTW, when we deployed from the US to the UK we had an air-refueling over Maine, flying non-stop. Not sure why they would stop except the RAF aircrew are not qualified for boom A/R.

OafOrfUxAche,

I have no idea? I just posted the You Tube link and it accepted my post.

Some nice images of ZZ664 at following links.

Photos: Boeing RC-135W (717-158) Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net

Photos: Boeing RC-135W (717-158) Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net

Photos: Boeing RC-135W (717-158) Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net

Leon - many thanks!

D notice
 

Did Fly Fisher manage to get his D Notice placed?
Do we know what paperwork was used to this fly this jet into the secret airbase near Lincoln and when are we going to reap the benefit by flying the thing?

Are we going to rename thm ?

"Rivet Join" is so......... non RAF -

surely we should call it "Campania" or similar

Or get the tabloids in a frenzy by calling it "Duchess"

That statement implies that he/she knows a bit about something... not a complete c0ck then!

HH,

If the navy can have a ship called DUNCAN how about Nigel or Trevor!


I still think SENILE fits in with SENTINEL and SENTRY.

"Steptoe" perhaps................

The only problem with BCE is they are so anti aviation that doesn't belong to them that being a lodger is totally useless and far to much trouble, ask those that have left ( and those that are trying to use it?):confused:

Crew training
 

X referring to the thread on the training pipeline being clogged got me wondering about crewing the back end in future years when all the Nimrod guys have retired. Is it necessary that the folks that sit down the back are actually in the RAF? I think I saw on here that there was some seedcorn activity going on with our US partners. Not to be confused with the MPA Seed corners.

If it's not classified can someone say if there is a "4th Aircraft" RCT for training as part of the AirSeeker "system"

DA, sent you a PM.

Reply to dragartist
 

Backend crew on the RJs need to be military. Various international laws and military regs make it difficult to fly "other-than-military" on a military mission. If you have 'civilians' on a reconnaissance flight then you could be considered a "spy" vs. "reconnaissance" mission. Very BIG differences on how that is treated under international law. (One reason you never see "spy" used to officially describe any reconnaissance platform-U-2, SR-71, RC-135s, etc. Only the sensationalist press uses "spy plane" in this context). You can fly members of other services to fill the backend seats if you need the experience, but they need training on the system and equipment. I don't see how that ameliorates the training problem.
RJ crewmembers also undergo all the usual aircrew training: altitude chamber, egress training, etc.

Bottom line: Plan to train the crewmembers you need to accomplish the mission. Having enough linguists in the more esoteric languages, who can be aircrew, is always a problem. In that case you fly with a less than full-up crew.

Surely that excludes the RAF from crewing the RJ at all?:confused:

That was a very quick respray after it landed! (Ref links in Post #360).

I heard it's already known as the 'Airsneaker'.

Sounds likely!

Why would you stick labels on the aircraft? When will it fly again. Surely the longer it is left on the ground the more it will deteriorate?