T6-c aircraft at valley

[reach1]

I’ve heard today the reason none have been flying is that there MTC has not been released yet,anybody else heard the same.
Sounds like the delays we had when the first arc-135s arrived.

[Mike]

What is "MTC" and what are "arc-135s"?

[Agent K]

MTC, “there”, arc-135???

[Tiger 1]

MTC might be their...

Military Type Certificate

don't know what the arc 135s is... not heard that before.

T1

[Tiger 1]

Got it... he means RC135s I think... the new Airseeker.

T1

[mudcity]

I believe the issue allegedly is that the crew cannot wear the standard RAF immersion suit ( which they have to wear when the surrounding water is below a set temperature ) and use the ejection seats .......

[Bluerigger1]

Aye, heard that rumour as well. Believe there are also problems concerning the number and qualifications of the engineers recruited to operate the aircraft. Apart from that it's going swimmingly

[lowlevelRAF]

Only trouble when its an aircraft that solely uses US flight safety equipment, for all the flight suits, helmets, harnesses, as well as the ejector seat. Alot of change from the norm at Valley. They are hoping to swap the seat for a 5 point harness, same as most other ejector seats in use within RAF aircraft, however they will still have to use US flight kit in the aircraft.

Will be interesting to see how they get on at Valley, with the landing cross wind limit being lower than the current Tucano..

Got explanation on this video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taLsCgT-2Yg

[toom317]

Wow, from that vid it doesn't look like much thought was given to how the RAF operate their aircraft. Still, it was cheap.

[Evergreen 44]

Agreed. Interesting video. Sounds like they are expecting some issues with the type. Once they have strong and gusting South-Westerlies combined with wet runway to lower the cross-wind landing limit they may need to consider a diversion airfield.
The narrower track undercarriage and smaller diameter/thinner tyres do not lend themselves to cross-wind tolerance.
It will be interesting to see how they get on with the weather, especially with an early solo student if the weather deteriorates during the flight.
Sounds like more of a challenge than the Tucano ...

[Agent K]

I would have thought (hoped!) that the performance expectations of the chosen type (crosswind/weather/field performance etc.) would have been part of the specification and RFP/tendering process, surely? as indeed should the equipment fit have been?

[tommc]

As to the original post questioning why the T-6s haven't been flying.

Well, Tucano OSD isn't until towards the end of 2019, so they will still be training students at Linton up until then.

The T-6 instructors will start getting trained up at Valley early in 2019, so you should start seeing more flying in the Spring. There is no requirement to train students at Valley until Linton has started winding up.

[turmo]

I would have thought (hoped!) that the performance expectations of the chosen type (crosswind/weather/field performance etc.) would have been part of the specification and RFP/tendering process, surely? as indeed should the equipment fit have been?

There was no direct tender for the aircraft type from the MoD, the overall MFTS tender was issued by Ascent ( the MoD's training partner ) and type selection was the responsibility of the bidding parties and Ascent.

The only direct MoD mandate was that the Hawk T.Mk.2 was to form the fast-jet element.

So no surprise that there are 'hiccups' give that the RAF is at least four rungs down the procurement ladder.

[Agent K]

Mmmmm.... yes I wasn't sure of the complete process but hoped/assumed that the RAF and those with experience would have enough influence on the contract schedules and clauses to the extent such issues wouldn't happen.

[TAFFEVANS]

Agreed. Interesting video. Sounds like they are expecting some issues with the type. Once they have strong and gusting South-Westerlies combined with wet runway to lower the cross-wind landing limit they may need to consider a diversion airfield.
The narrower track undercarriage and smaller diameter/thinner tyres do not lend themselves to cross-wind tolerance.
It will be interesting to see how they get on with the weather, especially with an early solo student if the weather deteriorates during the flight.
Sounds like more of a challenge than the Tucano ...

6 miles down the road from Valley you have the RLG at Mona R22/04 so SW’lies shouldn’t be an issue. Diversion wise if Mona’s weather deteriorates you have Hawarden/Chester, again R22/04. Valley tend to use it on a regular basis.

[Evergreen 44]

Agreed. Interesting video. Sounds like they are expecting some issues with the type. Once they have strong and gusting South-Westerlies combined with wet runway to lower the cross-wind landing limit they may need to consider a diversion airfield.
The narrower track undercarriage and smaller diameter/thinner tyres do not lend themselves to cross-wind tolerance.
It will be interesting to see how they get on with the weather, especially with an early solo student if the weather deteriorates during the flight.
Sounds like more of a challenge than the Tucano ...

6 miles down the road from Valley you have the RLG at Mona R22/04 so SW’lies shouldn’t be an issue. Diversion wise if Mona’s weather deteriorates you have Hawarden/Chester, again R22/04. Valley tend to use it on a regular basis.

Thanks Taff. From the runway orientation at Valley SW looked to be the problem wind direction. I was not sure if Mona was still in use. Diversion fuel would determine which airfields are available and generally they would plan with two alternatives in mind.
It has been a good 20 years since I have been to Valley so a return visit long overdue.
Best regards,
Paul

[TAFFEVANS]

Thanks Taff. From the runway orientation at Valley SW looked to be the problem wind direction. I was not sure if Mona was still in use. Diversion fuel would determine which airfields are available and generally they would plan with two alternatives in mind.
It has been a good 20 years since I have been to Valley so a return visit long overdue.
Best regards,
Paul
[/quote]
No probs, logic would suggest that maybe the Texans launch from Valley in the morning and land after the sortie at Mona & fly local sorties from there before finally landing back at Valley post the last sortie and use the circuit at Mona with the Hawks utilising the Valley circuit hence you wouldn't have dissimilar types in the same circuit at the same time. I stress though that I'm applying logic and common sense which these days isn't that common! Ref visiting Valley I would think April/May next Year should hopefully see the Texans operational here. Taff

[Evergreen 44]

[/quote]
No probs, logic would suggest that maybe the Texans launch from Valley in the morning and land after the sortie at Mona & fly local sorties from there before finally landing back at Valley post the last sortie and use the circuit at Mona with the Hawks utilising the Valley circuit hence you wouldn't have dissimilar types in the same circuit at the same time. I stress though that I'm applying logic and common sense which these days isn't that common! Ref visiting Valley I would think April/May next Year should hopefully see the Texans operational here. Taff
[/quote]

Thanks Taff
Good thinking. And thanks for the tip for next year. Might just do that
Best regards,
Paul

[nickowen]

In its heyday, RAF Finningley operated 6 different types (a mix of piston, turboprop, jet, fast jet and rotary), happily integrating all on a single runway. To assist in identification, each of the aeroplanes had a different callsign suffix and headlight pattern.

[3Greens]

I can't see that its been covered but in any Procurement utilising Public Funds it has to be the responsibility of the buyer that they are accurately procuring and ultimately receiving 'what is required' by their end user.... "fit for purpose" is an expression that comes to mind. The RAF (MOD) is the end user and nominated and duly paid a contractor (buyer) to come forward with a proposal to satisfy its' preliminary flying training needs - if they short deliver on that requirement by not meeting the specification (for whatever reason) then the buck stops with the buyer to make it right. Well that I think is how its suppose to work