Gliding "paused"


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.


I believe for Wittering the “spare” would normally come from Marham.


And in no way would this possibly be bad in an emergency vehicle.


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.


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.


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…??


There’s a shock NOT!


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.


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.


[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?

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.



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.