What's Life Like on Atlas?

[vim_fuego]

Any blue suiters out there spanner on Atlas? What's it like? fun? nause? a frame to apply for?

Not after state secrets...just some good old fashioned liney thoughts.

 

[Yandards]

Bit late but without a shadow of a doubt the worst place I've ever worked, in every aspect you can think of.

Whoever thought MRP 145 was the way forward needs taking outside and shooting, but my inner cynic suggests that fixed price engineering is what the MOD really want anyway..

 

[Rugby-Jock-Lad]

MRP145?? Contract speak?

Just interested! Contracts ruling the roost and no back-up from the Officer Corp?

 

[Spearmint]

MRP145?? Contract speak?

Just interested! Contracts ruling the roost and no back-up from the Officer Corp?

Military Regulatory Part 145 - it's more or less a mirror (with caveats for the fact you don't have the likes of SleazyJet carrying bombs) of EASA 145.

 

[Cat Techie]

Military Regulatory Part 145 - it's more or less a mirror (with caveats for the fact you don't have the likes of SleazyJet carrying bombs) of EASA

Have to ask my mate whom is on them. Part 145 is not an issue really bar the interpretation of it. And it will be CAA Part 145 that the MAA aligns to now. MRA 145 I do believe does have many holes in it as it allows EngOs to have a say on policy and you will have the get outs for warry things. Had the discussion with a training SO2 on a visit to Tossford before the pandemic on such.

 

[Rigga]

Speaking as someone that was hired to implement Mil Part M to a certain fighter fleet - all of the main maintenance regs Def-Stan 05-130 were complete rubbish translations of the EASA regs and further corrupted and twisted into the MRP by top staff, who wanted to revert to AP whateveritwas before 2010, while appearing to follow Haddon-Caves recommendations (which they haven't!). This wasn't the original authors fault btw - but MOD (DE&S) 'edited' the def-stans prior to publication to remove the use of a new MOD Form 1 (Formally a revised F731 with a CRS statement)

And yes, except for monitoring Leave passes and shift rosters, "the whole EngO thing" is entirely redundant up to Group Captain levels in a proper 145 set-up and 'they' (junior and very senior officers) were the most put out during its development. "If a Cpl can sign off Reds and Greens - What do we do?" (Like the NHS - Its these admin types that cost MOD lots of dosh).

If you didn't know, the reason part 145 is applied to the A400 is because it's built to Civil Aviation standards (EASA CS-25 and it has a Civvy Type Rating). Though I don't know any civil organisation that has felt bad/sad enough to buy one of these poor performers yet.

N.B. The MAA still aligns to the EMA's (European Military Airworthiness Regulations - EMAR) regulations not to the CAA - into the Euro Army by stealth...

 

[Talk Wrench]

If you didn't know, the reason part 145 is applied to the A400 is because it's built to Civil Aviation standards (EASA CS-25 and it has a Civvy Type Rating). Though I don't know any civil organisation that has felt bad/sad enough to buy one of these poor performers yet.

N.B. The MAA still aligns to the EMA's (European Military Airworthiness Regulations - EMAR) regulations not to the CAA - into the Euro Army by stealth...

And that is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

 

[Yandards]

The civvy type rating for Atlas isn't worth the paper EASA printed it on for actual use of the aircraft - its only cleared for 2 pilots. Any further clearances require individual operators to produce their own RTS.

Part 145 stuff is, as already mentioned, an effort to copy and paste CAA/EASA approved operating models for an engineering organisation. Its where the RA4800 series of regs came from which is now what governs all engineering.

Reds and greens are not the same as RAF run ones, the B certificate level qualified Cpls and Sgts can only ADF/LIM IAW a list of approved stuff which also sets time limits. Proper reds and greens do exists but are a relatively recent addition.

There is still armed stuff as flares fall into that bracket, but as it all lives under the MAAs regulation the rules for that already exist.

I'd love to know what system P8 and Wedgetail are being run under, my guess is it's not this hybrid stuff.

To continue to be cynical you don't have to justify your regulations to a court if you've copy and pasted the civvy ones...

 

[Cat Techie]

And yes, except for monitoring Leave passes and shift rosters, "the whole EngO thing" is entirely redundant up to Group Captain levels in a proper 145 set-up and 'they' (junior and very senior officers) were the most put out during its development. "If a Cpl can sign off Reds and Greens - What do we

As said, it was discussed with a BEngO training officer on the reasons on what Service LAEs could and could not do in the MAA world.

If you didn't know, the reason part 145 is applied to the A400 is because it's built to Civil Aviation standards (EASA CS-25 and it has a Civvy Type Rating). Though I don't know any civil organisation that has felt bad/sad enough to buy one of these poor performers yet.

N.B. The MAA still aligns to the EMA's (European Military Airworthiness Regulations - EMAR) regulations not to the CAA - into the Euro Army by stealth...

Makes sense if it is PART 21 TC. Airbus continue to look for B1 civvies to work on them at BZN. As for the MAA, had nothing to do with military airworthiness regs since 2008 so I would say I certainly am not an expert on were they are at now.

 

[foxOneFive]

LITS was enough for me, glad I'm well gone. Whats it actually like to spanner on it hands on?

 

[Cat Techie]

The civvy type rating for Atlas isn't worth the paper EASA printed it on for actual use of the aircraft - its only cleared for 2 pilots. Any further clearances require individual operators to produce their own RTS.

Part 145 stuff is, as already mentioned, an effort to copy and paste CAA/EASA approved operating models for an engineering organisation. Its where the RA4800 series of regs came from which is now what governs all engineering.

Reds and greens are not the same as RAF run ones, the B certificate level qualified Cpls and Sgts can only ADF/LIM IAW a list of approved stuff which also sets time limits. Proper reds and greens do exists but are a relatively recent addition.

There is still armed stuff as flares fall into that bracket, but as it all lives under the MAAs regulation the rules for that already exist.

I'd love to know what system P8 and Wedgetail are being run under, my guess is it's not this hybrid stuff.

To continue to be cynical you don't have to justify your regulations to a court if you've copy and pasted the civvy ones...

The Airbus MMEL being the B ticketed source document then, plus anything the Management will allow. As a LAE on a civvy org, I do have the options of raising the ADDs (your ADFs) for the non airworthiness defects. The bang I assume is STC mods etc as would be in the civvy world but under MAA as it is military bang? OPSEC and PERSEC does apply to any answers. Is it a place to avoid due to the plane or the people?

 

[Yandards]

Cat Techie it all lives under the MAA but the MAA approval for the organisation via the MOE still has to comply with all the MAA regs - which don't really contain any significant differences between an MMO(mil maint org, think classic squadrons) and an AMO (approved maint org, much the same as BAE depth, Marshalls etc).

It's 8 years in service this year and theres a multitude of reasons why it's failing compared to both C130 and C17 - predominantly structural or organisational level from where I'm sitting.

Coupled with the fact that the general mentality from Airbus is that the RAF contractors (which is what we are) don't know anything or have any clue how to run a tac airlifter it's not great.

There is pretty much standard level reds and greens deferral stuff available which doesn't play nice with civilian model and includes deferring stuff that has an airworthiness impact - the old mission capable versus serviceable arguement.

A lot can be fixed relatively easily but it's going to cost money and personnel to do it.

Its not a Voyager so applying that mentality to it does not work, austere locations do not have the same access to support GSE as international airports!

As a final point it's worth mentioning that the Germans and French have a joint C130-J SF squadron setup after A400 came into service..

 

[Cat Techie]

Cat Techie it all lives under the MAA but the MAA approval for the organisation via the MOE still has to comply with all the MAA regs - which don't really contain any significant differences between an MMO(mil maint org, think classic squadrons) and an AMO (approved maint org, much the same as BAE depth, Marshalls etc).

It's 8 years in service this year and theres a multitude of reasons why it's failing compared to both C130 and C17 - predominantly structural or organisational level from where I'm sitting.

Coupled with the fact that the general mentality from Airbus is that the RAF contractors (which is what we are) don't know anything or have any clue how to run a tac airlifter it's not great.

There is pretty much standard level reds and greens deferral stuff available which doesn't play nice with civilian model and includes deferring stuff that has an airworthiness impact - the old mission capable versus serviceable arguement.

A lot can be fixed relatively easily but it's going to cost money and personnel to do it.

Its not a Voyager so applying that mentality to it does not work, austere locations do not have the same access to support GSE as international airports!

As a final point it's worth mentioning that the Germans and French have a joint C130-J SF squadron setup after A400 came into service..

Get the drift mate.

 

[Rigga]

Coupled with the fact that the general mentality from Airbus is that the RAF contractors (which is what we are) don't know anything or have any clue how to run a tac airlifter it's not great.

Thats typical of many holier-than-thou design and production organisations - BAES also have very little knowledge of maintenance or maintenance techniques - Tornado "Maintenance" at CMU was more a case of re-manufacturing rather than maintenance. I once had a very heated discussion about 20+ years lack of research and development of the Tonka Maintenance Programme with the so-called IPT (a bunch of unqualified wasters) who later resolved the issue by giving the maintenance programme to the experts at Marham (indirectly under Warton's control). Reliability improved from then....

 

[Talk Wrench]

Someone has been blabbing, or overheard in a pub or reported something via a mate of a mate.

A highly speculative article written by someone with very little aircraft knowledge, especially when trying to compare the alleged corrosion issue in the A400M with an entirely different issue related to paint adhesion on carbon fibre structure.

The Airbus A400M Is Creating Issues for the RAF & Personnel Are Not Enjoying It...

The Airbus A400M is creating issues for the Royal Air Force, with one member approaching AviationSource to discuss some of its issues.

aviationsourcenews.com

 

[vim_fuego]

Someone has been blabbing, or overheard in a pub or reported something via a mate of a mate.

A highly speculative article written by someone with very little aircraft knowledge, especially when trying to compare the alleged corrosion issue in the A400M with an entirely different issue related to paint adhesion on carbon fibre structure.

The Airbus A400M Is Creating Issues for the RAF & Personnel Are Not Enjoying It...

The Airbus A400M is creating issues for the Royal Air Force, with one member approaching AviationSource to discuss some of its issues.

aviationsourcenews.com

It reads like the author’s first language isn’t English, or it’s some kind of authoring sorftware.

 

[Max Reheat]

Speaking as someone that was hired to implement Mil Part M to a certain fighter fleet - all of the main maintenance regs Def-Stan 05-130 were complete rubbish translations of the EASA regs and further corrupted and twisted into the MRP by top staff, who wanted to revert to AP whateveritwas before 2010, while appearing to follow Haddon-Caves recommendations (which they haven't!). This wasn't the original authors fault btw - but MOD (DE&S) 'edited' the def-stans prior to publication to remove the use of a new MOD Form 1 (Formally a revised F731 with a CRS statement)

And yes, except for monitoring Leave passes and shift rosters, "the whole EngO thing" is entirely redundant up to Group Captain levels in a proper 145 set-up and 'they' (junior and very senior officers) were the most put out during its development. "If a Cpl can sign off Reds and Greens - What do we do?" (Like the NHS - Its these admin types that cost MOD lots of dosh).

If you didn't know, the reason part 145 is applied to the A400 is because it's built to Civil Aviation standards (EASA CS-25 and it has a Civvy Type Rating). Though I don't know any civil organisation that has felt bad/sad enough to buy one of these poor performers yet.

N.B. The MAA still aligns to the EMA's (European Military Airworthiness Regulations - EMAR) regulations not to the CAA - into the Euro Army by stealth...

I’m having to change my IAA license back to CAA from October because the MAA are no longer recognising EASA licenses, so I’m told. Company pays for it so I’ll just do as they say.

 

[Max Reheat]

LITS was enough for me, glad I'm well gone. Whats it actually like to spanner on it hands on?

In some cases it’s well thought out, others are thoroughly baffling. It’s a challenging beast, everything just seems to take a lot longer than on other platforms and If you weren’t a fan of LITS you’d be begging to go back to it after MDS. We are hamstrung by Airbus on what we can and can’t do as a civvy 145, we don’t even have full access to the manuals because of ITAR. We have two 145’s working together alongside the RAF, if we all came under one umbrella life would be so much easier for everyone. That said, I actually enjoy working on it, there is always something different that pops up, even in base maintenance.

 

[Max Reheat]

Someone has been blabbing, or overheard in a pub or reported something via a mate of a mate.

A highly speculative article written by someone with very little aircraft knowledge, especially when trying to compare the alleged corrosion issue in the A400M with an entirely different issue related to paint adhesion on carbon fibre structure.

The Airbus A400M Is Creating Issues for the RAF & Personnel Are Not Enjoying It...

The Airbus A400M is creating issues for the Royal Air Force, with one member approaching AviationSource to discuss some of its issues.

aviationsourcenews.com

That article is so far wide of the mark it’s unbelievable.

 

[Rigga]

I’m having to change my IAA license back to CAA from October because the MAA are no longer recognising EASA licenses, so I’m told. Company pays for it so I’ll just do as they say.

Same everywhere else in UK if you work on UK aircraft and in the EU if you work on EU aircraft.