Of course only the MOD would know the reason why and may be someone on site who was refused, but Krystal, above. may have the size of it. The commercial organisation may have political reasons to refuse to supply a foreign military organisation.

Oh dear, an overly-defensive response from HQ Air M&C.
The majority of the first statement is entirely correct; M&C must have been so shocked by this comparitive accuracy (coming from the Mail) that they had to resort to a cheap spin trick by hanging the reference to "a row" on it so they could say it was incorrect. Sounds like more PPRuNe grammar triv, but what it actually is is an attempt to bluster away an embarrassing story of which the essence has (unbelievably) been accurately reported by the Mail. Recovering somewhat from that shock, it does the MOD no favours to come out with tripe like

without any further rebuttal, because anyone with the slightest bit of nous about them would immediately ask WHY? :confused::confused: This major engineering organisation less than 20 miles away would have a significant quantity of A330 wheels on hand - and given the friendly nature of UK-UAE relations, it would have been very straightforward for the UAE government to provide a suitable cloak into which to supply the part to avoid embarrassing the airline. We take fuel from civilian airports in the Gulf, do we not - this is standard business for Defence Attache staff. Airbridge operations through Minhad are not secret; if OPSEC is wheeled out as a reason then we really are going mad. One presumes that food and water for the Minhad staff are locally sourced; why not commercially-available aircraft parts?

The Sun?
 

It would have been interesting to know whether any story about this incident was reported in 'Our Boys Favourite Paper', The Sun - but from today Murdoch has erected yet another paywall....

I can understand the odd person paying to read The Times, but would anyone really bother to pay for The Sun???

I doubt whether many of 'Our Boys' will.....:\

The Ministry of Truth's response simply raises more questions than answers...:(

So why not pre-position some appropriate equipment, wheels and other "no-go" items at the regular used location, as we used to do with VC10, Tristar, C-130, etc!!!! For heavens sake, can nobody think sensibly anymore or do they have to go up to Director ( Air*anker ) or AC level still to make a decision!!! We have been flying into Minehead, as called GW1, for many years and likely for many more in the future!!!

Minehead?


"..not much fun in Stalingrad!"

And now back to the thread!

I still can't believe the huge waste of taxpayers money over a couple of spare standard A330 wheels.
The Voyager is joint mil/civilian registered and there are many spares and suitable qualified personnel in the immediate area to fit them. You don't need your own military engineers to do the work.
If BA flew a Hercules to the Gulf every time an aircraft tyre burst!!!

In addition, MOD does not keep stockpiles of tyres at air bases because it is not cost-effective to maintain the specialist storage conditions required to meet aviation safety standards :ugh:

So there are no C17 or C130 tyres at that location then, becouse it's not cost effective..Bet there are, and I know they wont fit on the airbus, but if it's cost effective and correct storage for them, why not add a few more for Air Tanker. It has got to be more cost effective than flying then route on each trip, that's just extra payload on a standard route

Looking on the bright side, it might have given the returning lads and lasses some rare "decompression time". Having a good drip about "bloody Crabair" might be therapeutic.

Daily Mail Readership.
 

Thank you for the expert analysis of the all the facts presented by such a wonderful newspaper. :ugh

So long as they don't start thumping young airmen as they did in the Falklands after delays caused by TriStar problems in spring 86.

Of course the wonders of PFI were supposed to have started delivering an AAR service some 7 years ago.

One hears whispers that the on-board spares were also somewhat beyond their use-by date.....:rolleyes: Perhaps they were procured to meet the original PFI delivery date....:\ ??

Hopefully the in-flight catering provided on board Voyager flights isn't out of date as well?

Oops - whadda mistakea to makea...:mad:

Clearly they would have been better placed on the TriStar!!

When Airtanker start leasing spare flight hours to civil operations,as is their stated intention.
Will a Hercules with RAF maintenance team and MOD spares be dispatched for example to Palma, when operating a bucket and spade charter, when a Voyager goes u/s?

cessnapete

:D Superb question! Anyone from 2 Gp prepared to roll that hand grenade into the next command group?

More to the point... Why stop for a bird strike.

Stopping for bird strikes is apparently written into the PFI contract. Just there to make more money charging the RAF for tyres I guess......

Now where did I put that Bacofoil hat?

cessnapete,

The chances of AirTanker selling spare hours to civilian operators are precisely nil - and will remain so throughout this ludicrously expensive contract. Also, forget about the similarly risible idea of leasing out Voyager airframes to civilian airlines; that will simply not happen.

Has AirTanker yet got ETOPS clearance????:ugh:

1.3VS

ETOPS 180 granted on 28 Jun. I assume the rest of your post is similarly well informed.

You're missing the point Cessnapete

The spares were flown out on the next scheduled flight form Brize to that location, and fitted by the engineers on board the stricken jet, so no taxpayers money was wasted at all. How much would spares from a local airport cost?

Not that I'm supporting the operation, but if your going to be outraged, then fight the right battles. The only taxpayers money wasted was on carrying around out of date spares!!!