Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!ns-mx!iowasp.physics.uiowa.edu!ceres.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!news.cs.indiana.edu!att!cbnews!cbnews!military From: news@newcastle.ac.uk Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Message-ID: <1991Feb26.013213.7930@cbnews.att.com> Date: 26 Feb 91 01:32:13 GMT Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 82 Approved: military@att.att.com From: news@newcastle.ac.uk Newsgroups: sci.military Path: turing!n01qu >From: A.G.Poole@newcastle.ac.uk (Ford (Alex Poole)) Subject: Re: Aircraft turnaround and maintenance Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU Message-ID: <1991Feb22.155648.9288@newcastle.ac.uk> Sender: news@newcastle.ac.uk Date: Fri, 22 Feb 1991 15:56:48 GMT References: <1991Feb20.054628.2890@cbnews.att.com> paj@gec-mrc.co.uk (paj) writes: >From: paj >A.G.Poole@newcastle.ac.uk (Alex Poole) writes about aircraft in the Gulf >having only one pilot/navigator team. I am puzzled, having seen on UK >TV news programs that the planes have about 3 or 4 teams each, and are >being turned round and sent out with a fresh team as fast as they can >be refuelled, bombed up and checked over. There was even one shot of >the fresh team greeting the returning team before getting in the plane. >Maybe a bit of arithmetic: we are at about 2,000 sorties/day, with >(from memory, Mr Moderator please correct me) 600 aircraft. That means >about 4 hours per sortie average, which in turn implies a pretty fast >turnaround. Hmmm... 2000 sorties, 600 a/c... i make that 8 hours per sortie. Oh well... I looked up the latest figures I have for a/c in the Gulf region, and I make it in excess of 1300 fixed wing, essentially fast jet planes. That's excluding refuellers, helicopters, Sentries etc. So, that makes about 2 sorties per day maximum for any crew... sorry, a/c. Each plane has a fairly rigorous check before each flight. The shot of crews swapping over (a running change in RAF-speak) is somewhat unlikely. We do that, but we only ever stress our Bulldog's (don't laugh, they're lovely little planes..) to about 5-g, we only fly for about an hour maximum (if longer, there's a shutdown and full check done), and we still have to do full internal checks (and some externals). Each Tornado etc has to be refueld, re-armed, and so on, and this takes time. As their recent recruitment ad said, "drop that little lot and you'll ruin someones entire day" (refering to a missile of some kind, I think a Sidewinder). i.e they are very careful! So, the crew change was almost certainly staged for the tv crew. >From RAF documents and talking to Tornado pilots, the impression has always been that they have a dedicated a/c. Bear in mind a squadron has 24 aircrew and 12 planes... so why double up? The seats are built especially for you, i think mainly from a comfort point of view (if you're on an 8-hour sortie, you want to be able to reach the pedals properly, and to be able to see over the dashboard), but also for safety; if the seat is badly positioned, you could do yourself a great deal of damage (not as bad as the Lightening, on which the dashboard stuck out too far into the cockpit, and would automatically remove your kneecaps for you when you banged out...). The other reasons I mentioned before are trivial (about handling differences). Although noticable, a good pilot wouldn't have too much trouble. I've been trying to confirm this set-up, but I haven't been able to get a coherent answer out of anybody yet. Anyone else out there know for sure? What may be happening is that the ground crews spend, say, 2 hours checking / refitting the plane, during which the crew rest, then the *same* crew go out again. this seems unlikely tho' as fatigue on these missions is pretty high. Incidentally, soem of the F-3 crews came home for christmas, leaving their planes there, so there were actually more planes than pilots for a while. Which makes sense in case a plane goes u/s (or 'tits-up' for any Americans out there) but seems a bit of a waste of hanger space... If any of this is wrong, I'd appreciate being told. I'll try to confirm it all from this end too, and I'll post any revisions. Alex ----- Oh screw the computer, I hope it gets plug rot. -- Douglas Adams Mail to A.G.Poole@uk.ac.newcastle or n01qu@uk.ac.ncl.turing