Expecting an update very soon; looks like there may be a “reach out” to other external providers in order to enhance flying / gliding options.
I won’t hold my breath until it’s on paper and approved by he who must be obeyed.
I’m led to believe that “he” has already had input - this course of direction seems as “solid” as can be expected - & bear in mind that 2022 = Cinderella time for a variety of resources…
By the time it all gets up and running he will be out of the organisation … someone elses problem then!!
Cinderella time?
As mentioned previously in this thread:
"The main sticking point may be that the current aircraft and support contract is in place until 2022 or 23. In a year or two as the final Tutor EFT winds down that will solely be for the provision of UAS and AEF. "
Look up Affinity & the G120TP “Prefect” - training is changing.
1 Like
I meant more why is it called Cinderella time…
Turning into a pumpkin if no Prince Charming comes to the rescue! 
1 Like
I believe there is already a big project underway for the enduring run on of the UAS/AEF aircraft service beyond the current contract. I would be amazed if the Tutor wasn’t a front runner to continue as they’re just arent large scale light aircraft manufacturing options out there.
Is that ran by the same people in charge of the No.8 replacement, implementation of PTS or the CFC; then send for Coco the Clown
3 Likes
6 FTS run all Tutor operations and contracts
It matters not a jot who runs it, if they can’t get pilots to fly the bloody things and then ensure all the periphery bits are in place 100% of the time.
I heard through a couple of mates, 5 AEF binned flying as apparently a warning light on a fire engine wouldn’t go out, probably the irritating engine light that comes on in car, and it rendered the fire engine u/s. It strikes me if there was any initiative in the people running 5 AEF, try and borrow one from somewhere else for the day.
I drive my car with that light on, as my mechanic mate said if it was catastrophic the car would stop or go into ‘limp home mode’ and eventually goes out, as I find it does. He said 99% of the time it’s a component that fails to respond in millionths of a second, but is still working perfectly, but gets recorded as a fault and unlike your computer which when you turn it off and on again does see the fault, car electronics do. I’ve taken it into him and he’s plugged in his laptop with all the engine diagnostics etc on and cancelled it. He has said he knows garages who charge £25 just to do that and then try and get an unnecessary job costing £100s done.
Regardless of source, most likely that the Fire Section advised Air Traffic / 5AEF that the fire truck was INOP = no fire cover. No fire cover = no flying.
“Try and borrow one from somewhere else for the day”? You do realise the logistics involved? It’s hardly a domestic fire-engine that can just be casually driven 50miles cross country.
And anyway, it wouldn’t be anyone on 5AEF’s decision.
He doesn’t, he’s being a troll. Just let him be.
Everything’s difficult if you let it. Imagine what squadrons would be like if we just rolled over because it was difficult?
I would have thought, aircraft and pilots ready to go, cadets coming along with staff giving up part of their weekend, it should have been worth a try.
It’s a vehicle for God’s sake and its not like it’s an abnormal load needing escorts etc, it’s a fire engine.
Aren’t they licensed for road travel?
Plus unless you ask you don’t get and as for 5 AEF decision or not is irrelevant, they should be asking the questions.
It’s a specialist vehicle, with capabilities / equipment that a normal “civilian” fire truck doesn’t have (e.g. foam capability). Therefore, sourcing one, especially at short notice, probably wan’t going to be viable. The timescale, just to drive one across from whatever RAF unit that had one spare, would probably have eaten away most (if not all) of the flying “window.” Cranditz would probably have been AEF flying = no chance to source one from there. Coningsby - fire crew would have been needed to drive one across - depletion of their staff for normal domestic cover if over a weekend.
There are, of course, different size / type fire trucks; no idea of any “compatibility” for FMT600 requirements.
Whilst I would one of the first to have a legitimate “pop” at anything that placed any unnecessary hurdles in the way of getting cadets flying ( had a whinge about it in Wg HQ yesterday!), for this situation, emergency equipment fail = nothing really that could be done to alleviate it.
Whilst a commercial flight (all the pax had been out of their seats, getting baggage down, prior to the aircraft stopping!), when you need the fire services, you don’t want delays or something that might not work!
Yes, but it would take about 3 hours to arrive and does about 7gallons per mile, and over any distance they’ll be put on a low-loader IIRC. A bit like moving tanks.
As for the AEF, they’d probably be out of the decision loop completely as it would be an Ops Sqn issue.