I believe for Wittering the “spare” would normally come from Marham.
And in no way would this possibly be bad in an emergency vehicle.
2 Likes
IIRC there are only 2 spare crash trucks in the country. 1 is on permanent sby at Brize, the other is on war Sby i.e. if another frontline unit requires it then thats where it goes.
We had this issue last year when the gearbox failed on our crash truck. It too about 6-8 weeks t repair and was taken away on a low loader as the 100 mile trip would have taken too long.
We were flabbergasted that there weren’t more sby crash trucks but budget cuts and all that.
Having a crash truck even having a warning light on is a big no no as it may fail when responding to a call out.
Everyone with a braincell knows that last bit Scrounger, it’s just some posters like to moan in every single post regardless of how much of an idiot they come across as.
2 Likes
Warning lights can be checked in seconds and 99% just cancelled with no detrimental effect as per what I’ve been told, unless the garage wants to cane you for dosh.
Yawn. Yawn. Yawn. Yawn. Yawn. Yawn.
2 Likes
Forgive me in this I’m ex Army now ATC so my knowledge of flying other than easyjet is none. Surely noone is proposing we treat a warning light on a car same as in a plane ?? The safety of our cadets must be first if that means no flying untill plane is checked so be it. As an adult I’m happy to get in to my car with petrol light on and take chance I don’t run out of petrol . But to ask a child to do so in a plane with as much knowledge as I have of serving plane’s etc has to be a no
Solo. The suggestion is that a warning light came on in a fire engine, not an aircraft.
Even so, the fire crew provide a critical safety function. If they’re not happy that their equipment is serviceable then they have quite rightly raised the issue.
As already stated, if the warning light were to have been ignored and the fire truck broken down on route to an aircraft fire, people could die…!
Teflon needs to behave himself I think…??
3 Likes
There’s a shock NOT!
1 Like
All I was suggesting was a bit of initiative, but it seems it’s a rare commodity and it’s far better to disappoint and waste people’s time.
So what would happen in an emergency, everything’s been fine and when engine fires up the light comes on? Sorry we can’t do anything or just do it?
Great in principle, but not viable for the circumstances.
That is very different from a pre-known fault.
1 Like
Seriously? Clearly drive the engine to the scene of the accident, hope that it works properly and then once the emergency is over, declare the engine U/S and suspend operations until it’s fixed.
1 Like
[quote=“Teflon, post:1756, topic:1152, full:true”]So what would happen in an emergency, everything’s been fine and when engine fires up the light comes on? Sorry we can’t do anything or just do it?
[/quote]
I believe they’re checked fairly regularly through the day, so it would be a horrid bit of luck for a “double failure”. If they do go u/s during the day then if required aircraft airborne would divert.
Um… The VGSs (remember them?) had a small trailer that went behind one of their Land Rovers; on it was a foam extinguisher and some other useful stuff, but not much. Whilst a Vigilant isn’t quite as big as a Tutor it is still a two seat light aircraft with a petrol engine and a petrol tank and a battery that is very nearly as big and made of the same materials (in the same factory). VGS staff were given a half hour course in how to use it.
The same equipment and staff was considered adequate to cover visiting aircraft including, er, Tutors.
The fire appliance needed for light aircraft operation is not specialist item.
Incorrect
The small fire extinguisher is not deemed suitable for Tutor operations nor are the staff.
The Tutor is made from carbon composite materials which needs specialist equipment whereas the Vigilant is made of GRP
Perhaps not, but depending on number / type of aircraft, if the relevant Flying Orders state that Category XX fire covet is required, & this is coveted by YY fire truck(s) with ZZ foam capacity, etc, then any tech issue with fire truck(s) lowers the fire category = reduction or cessation of flying.
So, rules then? The same rules do not apply to civil operations which I would presume you would consider dangerous?
On the subject of carbon versus glass fibre aircraft, again no difference in the civil world; it is presumably the resin that burns rather than the fibre, anyway.
For civil aviation, yes they do. Fire category is very specific. THIS is a typical outline of category levels.
Also, if some / all of the fire trucks are attending an incident, airport operations might have to stop temporarily or the number of aircraft movements minimised. Had this a few years ago when a pax terminal had to be evacuated at Leeds after a fire alarm; we had to hold overhead for about 30 mins until the fire services were no longer required to attend that incident. It actually made it quite interesting as the Air Traffic tower adjoins the terminal, so they had to evacuate too!
As an aircraft commander, it is something I have to be very aware about - although I do have the dispensation to operate (once in flight) with lesser than normal category if I consider it safer than diverting.
Nail, head. Fire equipment is a red herring. If I have an accident on or near the airfield with someone’s son or daughter next to me, I want dedicated, properly trained and competent, well equipped people on hand to deal with it (and it’s not just about fire). The CAA requirement for a licensed airfield for flying training was dropped a few years ago but flying training operations still have to demonstrate adequate fire and emergency and emergency cover provision relevant to the size of operation and movements.
OK, let’s start with me saying that as an aircraft commander and an AOC holder I also am aware of the rules as they apply to airliners. A Tutor is not an airliner, it is a light aircraft. You also use the word “Airport” in your post, which is not relevant to a Tutor operation from an RAF airfield.
The dispensation of which you speak refers to a statement made some years ago containing the words “A reduction in fire category does not, in itself, make a flight more dangerous”. I too have landed legally after fire cover has reduced below that required for the operation when the reduction has occurred after take off.
The Civil rules that apply to light aircraft operations (including light aircraft operating public transport flights to an AOC) do certainly allow a suitably equipped Land Rover to be the fire cover.
It has been a mystery to me for some time how the RAF manage to operate civil registered aircraft (Tutor) on what are almost certainly public transport flights (as not all (any?) of the aircraft commanders hold civil instructor’s ratings), without an AOC or civil professional licences. What the RAF do with a military aircraft is up to them, what they do with a civil aircraft surely comes under the CAA rules?