Delivery varies.

Some are ferried by the branch of service receiving the aircraft, others are ferried by "hired companies", by the manufacturer's pilots or a combination.

IN the KC-46, USAF and Company pilots have been involved in the shakedown/testing as well as delivery.

The "acceptance inspection" is typically done by the receiving branch/command. It can be a lengthy inspection and functional checks, and often a lot of things are written up and corrected before they are put in service. (especially for aircraft with combat mission capability and weapon systems that are not "certified" by manufactures, but must be accomplished at military branch/command level procedure)

Spoke with a USAF reserve colonel who was previously commander of a KC 135 Squadron this morning about this.

Internally, the AF brass is being asked: "Hey, since this was flown by the squadron commander, is he going to face an inquiry or discipline for violating approach procedure? 'Cause if you don't write him up, you better not write me up. Or are there two sets of standards?"

This is going to be interesting to follow. I bet the SC flying the bird is relieved.

quote:

Originally posted by Sigmund:


By Allen Cone
June 18, 2019

(UPI) -- As the U.S. Air Force continues to find foreign objects in its new KC-46A Pegasus in-flight refueling tankers, a "fix" is months away, the branch's acquisition leader said.

Tools, rubbish and left-over parts, including loose nuts, are still being discovered since Boeing first delivered the refuelers in January and revamped its inspection process.

"It's a cultural issue," Will Roper, assistant secretary of the Air Force for acquisition, technology and logistics, told reporters Monday at the Paris Air Show in Le Bourget. "We are having those cultural dialogues with Boeing. This is not something you fix by sending out a memo, and then there's no foreign object debris in the airplanes."

Oh bullshit. You tell those guys putting the planes together to clean up their shit or find another job, it's a simple as that.

WTF is this PC mumbo-jumbo about "cultural issues"?

quote:

Originally posted by SOTAR:


Since someone mentioned F4's... Here are a few refueling and a nice role.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVHXv1lPxG4

Now that brought back a lot of memories!! It is a lot more exciting when refueling at night during a lightning/rain storm.....heavy "pucker power" from time to time.

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:

Oh bullshit. You tell those guys putting the planes together to clean up their shit or find another job, it's a simple as that.

WTF is this PC mumbo-jumbo about "cultural issues"?

Yeah, bad move by Boeing. They are basically saying "We ALWAYS leave crap in our airframes and don't do good quality control. What's the big deal?"

And then the union says "fire one of our guys and we shut you down." It goes both ways.

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:

quote:

Originally posted by Sigmund:


By Allen Cone
June 18, 2019

(UPI) -- As the U.S. Air Force continues to find foreign objects in its new KC-46A Pegasus in-flight refueling tankers, a "fix" is months away, the branch's acquisition leader said.

Tools, rubbish and left-over parts, including loose nuts, are still being discovered since Boeing first delivered the refuelers in January and revamped its inspection process.

"It's a cultural issue," Will Roper, assistant secretary of the Air Force for acquisition, technology and logistics, told reporters Monday at the Paris Air Show in Le Bourget. "We are having those cultural dialogues with Boeing. This is not something you fix by sending out a memo, and then there's no foreign object debris in the airplanes."

Oh bullshit. You tell those guys putting the planes together to clean up their shit or find another job, it's a simple as that.

WTF is this PC mumbo-jumbo about "cultural issues"?

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
And then the union says "fire one of our guys and we shut you down." It goes both ways.

Not remotely so. It doesn't work like that at all.

They can force any dispute into arbitration and drag it out. With a union involved, they company very much just can't fire anyone they want.

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
And then the union says "fire one of our guys and we shut you down." It goes both ways.

Not remotely so. It doesn't work like that at all.

First, that depends on whether the employee is represented, and by whom. It also depends on the authority under which the representation is convened (railway labor act, etc). It also depends on whether the company is an at-will employer, and the location of employment.

It also depends on the actions of the employee and the nature of the violation or cause, to say nothing of the climate between the operator and the representation group. It very much depends on the contract that exists between the two, and how the employee and employer actions are governed by that agreement.

I say that as both a business agent and steward who has been part of negotiating committees, arbitration, settlement meetings, grievance settlements and has represented numerous employees in disciplinary or termination matters over the years. There's a sense that union involvement automatically means one is untouchable, and that's absolutely untrue.

That said, the notion that if a problem exists, firing employees will motivate change, is wildly uninformed and far outside the operational philosophy of most businesses today. Particularly those involving various efficiency and safety efforts that combine Sigma Six or other management practices.

The statement that failure to remove items from structures is cultural is apt. When identified as coming from a safety culture problem, it means the problem isn't isolated to a few people; it's a failing from the top down. That's what the allegation of a "cultural" problem means. Bad safety culture. It means that an overhaul is needed in the way supervision and oversight is done, which points not only to the workers on the line, but the management that oversees that work, the inspection system, etc. A tool left in an aircraft isn't just the fault of a single mechanic. It's a problem with the tool control, inspection, double-inspection, certification, and management, too, and it points to needed changes to prevent such events from recurring again.

In an airplane, debris left behind in a compartment can cause nicks which become stress risers from which cracks and corrosion develop; this can also wear against wiring and cause interference problems with controls passing through those compartments. Production cleanliness is essential, especially in aerospace applications. Foreign object contamination, whether it's production debris or actual tools or items, is a very serious matter, and it is very much cultural; it's not an indictment against a single worker, but against the safety and production culture that let it happen, and points to a much bigger problem that needs to be addressed, from the top down.