JoeCanuck
Topic Author
Posts: 3939
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

C5M Working Well In Service...

Wed Sep 01, 2010 7:54 pm

Sometimes they actually get things right. Upgrades and improvements don't always pan out but so far, it seems like the USAF is actually getting its moneys worth out of the C5M program.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...4/usaf-invests-in-c-5-upgrade.html

Quote:
Since its debut, the new fleet of pre-production C-5M models has quickly made a favourable impression among pilots and maintenance crews, even as it has added a new layer of complexity to the USAF's calculations for determining the appropriate size and mix of strategic airlifters in the future.

Some new aircraft designs wait years to begin operations in combat zones despite being declared ready for service. The C-5M has received no such luxury. Within its first year of operations, the C-5M has completed a single sortie that broke 41 aviation records and participated in two real-world surges of equipment and troops into Afghanistan, with the latest airlift spike ending a month ago.
What the...?
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: C5M Working Well In Service...

Thu Sep 02, 2010 1:45 pm

It is good to see the C-5M program is doing well.
 
keesje
Posts: 8608
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: C5M Working Well In Service...

Thu Sep 02, 2010 2:39 pm

Sounds good. Maybe the number of hired An124 flights can be brought back.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
ebj1248650
Posts: 1517
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 6:17 am

RE: C5M Working Well In Service...

Mon Sep 06, 2010 2:23 am

Don't you know the Reserve and Guard units flying C-5s wish they had this model!
Dare to dream; dream big!
 
Spacepope
Posts: 3140
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

RE: C5M Working Well In Service...

Mon Sep 06, 2010 3:58 pm

Quoting keesje (Reply 2):
Sounds good. Maybe the number of hired An124 flights can be brought back.

A lot of that lift has to be on Russian metal now, part of the deal of allowing US military supply flights over Russian airspace. In any case, let the Ruslans keep doing transatlantic ferry flights, eat up someone else's airframe hours.
The last of the famous international playboys
 
Oroka
Posts: 1071
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:37 am

RE: C5M Working Well In Service...

Mon Sep 06, 2010 10:35 pm

Quoting Spacepope (Reply 4):
A lot of that lift has to be on Russian metal now, part of the deal of allowing US military supply flights over Russian airspace. In any case, let the Ruslans keep doing transatlantic ferry flights, eat up someone else's airframe hours.

What is the point of buying your own metal if you are going to use someone else's? That is like buying a Mercedes, then taking the bus everywhere cause it can drive in the commuter lane.
 
BladeLWS
Posts: 358
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 12:41 pm

RE: C5M Working Well In Service...

Mon Sep 06, 2010 10:55 pm

Because its cheaper!
 
Spacepope
Posts: 3140
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

RE: C5M Working Well In Service...

Tue Sep 07, 2010 2:26 am

Quoting Oroka (Reply 5):
What is the point of buying your own metal if you are going to use someone else's? That is like buying a Mercedes, then taking the bus everywhere cause it can drive in the commuter lane.

Try doing an assault landing onto an unpaved strip in a warzone with someone else's metal. The C-5 still has uses, but schlepping MRAPs transatlantic isn't one of them.
The last of the famous international playboys
 
Flighty
Posts: 7651
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: C5M Working Well In Service...

Tue Sep 07, 2010 3:54 am

Quoting Oroka (Reply 5):
What is the point of buying your own metal if you are going to use someone else's? That is like buying a Mercedes, then taking the bus everywhere cause it can drive in the commuter lane.

If we want to fly over Russia then maybe we need to give them a bone.

Plus if you want your mercedes C-5 to last 75 years, you need to garage it and only bring it out for special occasions like WWIII.
 
Galaxy5007
Posts: 637
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:06 pm

RE: C5M Working Well In Service...

Sun Sep 12, 2010 5:12 pm

I love how the USAF is "fudging" the numbers a bit to make the C-5M look like its this "wonder plane" after all the years of crap its been through being known as FRED. In reality; RERP, although it has improved the aircraft significantly, doesn't fix alot of legacy problems that we had with the A and B models. Hydraulic leaks are just as common as they were before, Dewar problems are just as bad, Flap and slat issues are the same; and the sheet metal work on the plane is actually worsened since RERP because of skin cracks and hitting birds and what not because the jet moves faster than it did before. Not to mention the hundreds of fuel leaks that keep showing up (some attribute that to being in testing for so long, others that fly the plane think the new engines are pushing the wings to the limit now...). I just think they are making it seem like a dream upgrade so the public sees it and agrees that our tax dollars should go toward it.

I'm all for the C-5M program; I'm just sayin...lol

Quoting ebj1248650 (Reply 3):
Don't you know the Reserve and Guard units flying C-5s wish they had this model!

Westover will get them...After Dover and Travis; but they will get them.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: C5M Working Well In Service...

Sun Sep 12, 2010 9:53 pm

Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 9):
Galaxy5007

Sounds like some engineering and design failures. When the KC-135A was reengined, there were thousands of engineering changes to the drawings, plus it was really the first major modification program done with CAD/CAM.
 
JohnM
Posts: 379
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2001 12:35 pm

RE: C5M Working Well In Service...

Sun Sep 12, 2010 10:43 pm

The -135 is a very basic and simple aircraft compaired to the C-5. Some of the long term difficult and unreliable systems of the C-5 were ignored for upgrade. The KC-135 had very high FMC rates before re engine, so they were starting with a good product in the beginning. The C-5 has never enjoyed that situation. Besides, the -135 didn't have an avionics mod that threw it's entire com/nav/afcs/instruments (and more) systems out the window did it?
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: C5M Working Well In Service...

Mon Sep 13, 2010 2:12 pm

Quoting JohnM (Reply 11):
JohnM

Actually, the KC-135 did receive many aviaonics upgrades at about the same time, but each was a seperate program from the reengining. They received;

Digital autopilot
FASAS/CAS
Digital fuel panel and controls
New comm suite including a new HF and VHF radios, as well as Have Quick UHF radio.
INS/DNS
Strobe lights
AFSATCOMM
Digital radar (later replaced by a new color digital weather radar)
Boom Trim System
Fin mounted refueling flood lights and new air refueling pod instrument panel
Delete the LOX and replace it with an additional gasious O2 system.
Some airplanes got a new cargo loading floor and cargo loading system
Replace the Solar or Air Research APU with a new duel APU (part of the KC-135R mod)
5 rotor brakes (all airplanes)
New landing gear (KC-135E/R/T)
Smart Tanker mod
 
Galaxy5007
Posts: 637
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:06 pm

RE: C5M Working Well In Service...

Mon Sep 13, 2010 6:02 pm

Quoting JohnM (Reply 11):
Some of the long term difficult and unreliable systems of the C-5 were ignored for upgrade

John is right here; thats the problem with the C-5M; is some of the horribly unreliable systems were ignored. The hydraulic system wasn't completely ignored, new suction lines and fittings (in fact I think all the lines from the wing root to the engines were replaced) were replace, and all of the flight control actuators and manifolds are being replaced with rebuilt ones (of course I've always been saying, rebuilt isn't going to go too far, new is what it needs). They replace the manifolds on a scheduled basis now as well (have been for quite some time) which has helped alot with failures in the system or even on the flightline. They are working some of the other issues in different TCTOs, but they aren't included in RERP. Several of the initial upgrades with the three protoype aircraft were also dropped for the production aircraft due to the cost over-runs. On top of that, they had clearance issues on 9024 which delayed the progress of that jet by nearly 6 months, and probably contributed to the decision to leave the A models out of RERP.

John; do you know if they are going to have a delivery ceremony for 3285 before it goes to Westover for ISO? I am getting conflicting reports on what they are doing with it...
 
JohnM
Posts: 379
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2001 12:35 pm

RE: C5M Working Well In Service...

Mon Sep 13, 2010 8:26 pm

Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 13):
John; do you know if they are going to have a delivery ceremony for 3285 before it goes to Westover for ISO? I am getting conflicting reports on what they are doing with it...

No, I haven't heard any word on that.

I'd like to be a fly on the wall when the Boys get it in ISO, it will be quite a shock.... Probably can't even crack cowl doors in the "legacy" ISO stands.
 
Galaxy5007
Posts: 637
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:06 pm

RE: C5M Working Well In Service...

Mon Sep 13, 2010 9:10 pm

Quoting JohnM (Reply 14):
Probably can't even crack cowl doors in the "legacy" ISO stands

I forget how they did it on 6013 and 6025 when they came through Dover in 2007. You all still had the old stands then; but I dunno if any work was actually done on the engines since they were still Lockheed birds and the flight testing was just a few months old.

Thanks
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: C5M Working Well In Service...

Mon Oct 04, 2010 2:46 pm

Update. The USAF is quite happy with the C5M program and they are now considering the C-5A for the same upgrades, based on the performance of the lone C-5A that was converted to an "M".
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...0Upgrading%20C-5As&channel=defense

Quote:
“As the aircraft proves itself, we are talking to the Air Force about the benefits of a single fleet,” says Lorraine Martin, Lockheed Martin vice president for C-5 programs. The upgrade extends service life to at least 2040.

The three C-5Ms already in Air Force service, the former RERP development aircraft, include a single upgraded C-5A. This is achieving the same performance and reliability as the two modified C-5Bs, according to Lockheed Martin.

Re-engining the C-5 increases thrust by 22%, payload by 27% and range by 20%, says Jeffrey Armentrout, business development manager for strategic airlift programs. He adds that the mission-capable rate is exceeding the 75% target.

The company has a $6-billion fixed-price production contract to upgrade 49 aircraft, including two C-5Cs, for a total of 52 C-5Ms. The Air Force also operates 59 C-5As, but plans to retire 22 in 2011-12 because of excess strategic airlift capacity.
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: C5M Working Well In Service...

Mon Oct 04, 2010 3:09 pm

The story goes onto talking about upgrading the C-5As for a possible use as a CRAF aircraft. IIRC, the C-5A already has an FAA certification, but not in a C-5M configueration. If this goes through, and LM finds a CRAF airline that will do this (UPS would be my guess), would they still be air refuelable?
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: C5M Working Well In Service...

Mon Oct 04, 2010 3:48 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 17):
The story goes onto talking about upgrading the C-5As for a possible use as a CRAF aircraft. IIRC, the C-5A already has an FAA certification, but not in a C-5M configueration. If this goes through, and LM finds a CRAF airline that will do this (UPS would be my guess), would they still be air refuelable?

The C-5A is "not" FAA certified.
 
JohnM
Posts: 379
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2001 12:35 pm

RE: C5M Working Well In Service...

Mon Oct 04, 2010 9:40 pm

A civilian carrier operating C-5s....bankruptcy. No operator would touch the C-17 with a 10 foot pole. What operator would take one of the most maintenance intensive airframes in the world?

747s are cheap, parts are worldwide, and they fly the wings off them.
 
Galaxy5007
Posts: 637
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:06 pm

RE: C5M Working Well In Service...

Mon Oct 04, 2010 10:14 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 17):
would they still be air refuelable?

Its built in to the plane, so, there really is no reason to take it out.

Quoting JohnM (Reply 19):
A civilian carrier operating C-5s....bankruptcy. No operator would touch the C-17 with a 10 foot pole. What operator would take one of the most maintenance intensive airframes in the world?

747s are cheap, parts are worldwide, and they fly the wings off them

I agree here. Plus, the new 747-8F will be ramping up production soon, you have to figure...is a civillian airline going to want a brand new plane with current technology, or a 40 year old plane with some newer parts thrown in and STILL have major maintenance issues that plague the C-5M.

Lockheed doesn't like the idea that the USAF is going to retire another 19-22 jets. Whats interesting to me, is that the majority of the original cost over runs were caused by the A model RERP prototype. Sure the end result was good for 9024, but I still don't see it happening. It would be somewhat nice to see the remaining A models in the USAF after the retirements get RERPed, but I don't think that decision is going to come around until Dover has a full fleet of C-5Ms to judge off of. Wright-Patterson is supposed to start retiring jets any time now, so if Lockheed is going to save them, they better tell the USAF to mothball them and not take parts off the jet while its sitting at AMARG! Last rumor I heard...0446 was a top get the heck out of the fleet jet...lol
 
cmb56
Posts: 209
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:30 pm

RE: C5M Working Well In Service...

Tue Oct 12, 2010 9:46 pm

You might get someone to bite on a small batch of say 5 or less if the AF basically give you the aircraft but you pay for the upgrade. Along with that enough guaranteed CRAF business to at least breakeven. That would make a business case. But a fleet of 20-30 will just sit around more or less as they do now. 747Fs fly everyday as many hours as you can get business for. That is how they make money. Military transports were not designed to make money they are designed to move heavy stuff in a war time situation. Economics of operation are not high on the list.
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: C5M Working Well In Service...

Tue Oct 12, 2010 10:15 pm

Quoting CMB56 (Reply 21):
You might get someone to bite on a small batch of say 5 or less if the AF basically give you the aircraft but you pay for the upgrade. Along with that enough guaranteed CRAF business to at least breakeven.


CARF means Civil Air Reserve Fleet. There is no such thing as guaranteed CARF business. The CARF are civilian aircraft (passenger and cargo) that the Air Mobility Command (AMC) can call upon in times of "emergency" when the military fleet can not meet the requirements.

No airline is going to have 4 or 5 C-5's sitting around waiting for an "emergency" to happen.

I think you are getting the CARF confused with AMC charter flights.
 
zanl188
Posts: 3436
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:05 pm

RE: C5M Working Well In Service...

Tue Oct 12, 2010 10:25 pm

Quoting 474218 (Reply 22):
CARF means Civil Air Reserve Fleet.

No such thing... Civil Reserve Air Fleet. Although participating in CRAF does not guarantee DoD business, CRAF carriers do get preferential treatment...
Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: C5M Working Well In Service...

Tue Oct 12, 2010 10:45 pm

Quoting 474218 (Reply 22):
No such thing... Civil Reserve Air Fleet. Although participating in CRAF does not guarantee DoD business, CRAF carriers do get preferential treatment...


Hay I am "dyslexic"

With either name you can read all about it here it has only been used twice:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL33692.pdf
 
cmb56
Posts: 209
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:30 pm

RE: C5M Working Well In Service...

Wed Oct 13, 2010 8:53 pm

From the Wikipedia definition: In 1952, after aircraft were commandeered for the Berlin Airlift, CRAF was created as a more orderly way of serving emergency military needs.

The Fleet has three main segments: international, national and aeromedical evacuation. The international segment is further divided into the long-range and short-range sections and the national segment into the domestic and Alaskan sections. Assignment of aircraft to a segment depends on the nature of the requirement and the performance characteristics needed.

The long-range international section consists of passenger and cargo aircraft capable of transoceanic operations. The role of these aircraft is to augment the Air Mobility Command's long-range intertheater C-5s and C-17s during periods of increased airlift needs, from minor contingencies up through full national defense emergencies


UPS flies CRAF charters nearly weekly so there is some basis to having a C-5 be part of a civilian fleet and be supported by a government contract to carry military loads. Supplement that with outsized special loads and you might be able to turn a profit but in order to do it you will put a lot more hours on the airframe that the AF does now. In the commercial world dispatch reliability below 90% is consider poor. I doubt the C-5 can ever hold reliability at that level. The magic number for a minimum fleet size is usually about 5 aircraft. Less than that is not worth the training and maintenance program costs.
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: C5M Working Well In Service...

Thu Oct 14, 2010 12:48 am

Quoting CMB56 (Reply 25):
From the Wikipedia definition: In 1952, after aircraft were commandeered for the Berlin Airlift, CRAF was created as a more orderly way of serving emergency military needs.

The Fleet has three main segments: international, national and aeromedical evacuation. The international segment is further divided into the long-range and short-range sections and the national segment into the domestic and Alaskan sections. Assignment of aircraft to a segment depends on the nature of the requirement and the performance characteristics needed.

The long-range international section consists of passenger and cargo aircraft capable of transoceanic operations. The role of these aircraft is to augment the Air Mobility Command's long-range intertheater C-5s and C-17s during periods of increased airlift needs, from minor contingencies up through full national defense emergencies


UPS flies CRAF charters nearly weekly so there is some basis to having a C-5 be part of a civilian fleet and be supported by a government contract to carry military loads. Supplement that with outsized special loads and you might be able to turn a profit but in order to do it you will put a lot more hours on the airframe that the AF does now. In the commercial world dispatch reliability below 90% is consider poor. I doubt the C-5 can ever hold reliability at that level. The magic number for a minimum fleet size is usually about 5 aircraft. Less than that is not worth the training and maintenance program costs.



Suggest you read the reference site: The CRAF has been activated only twice, during Operation Desert Shield (passenger and cargo aircraft) and Operation Iraqi Freedom (passenger aircraft only).

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL33692.pdf

The first page on page three (3) provides the details.

An additional reference is:

http://www.amc.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet_print.asp?fsID=234&page=1

I think you are confusing AMC contract flights, which are used all the time, with CRAF which is only used in emergencies.

[Edited 2010-10-13 18:24:49]
 
zanl188
Posts: 3436
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:05 pm

RE: C5M Working Well In Service...

Thu Oct 14, 2010 10:41 pm

Quoting 474218 (Reply 26):
I think you are confusing AMC contract flights, which are used all the time, with CRAF which is only used in emergencies.

As I pointed out earlier, carriers that participate in CRAF are given preferential treatment when it comes to DoD airlift contracts. So it's quite likely that a CRAF carrier will also be doing day to day flying for DoD regardless if CRAF is activated or not. Not always true but quite often...
Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
 
cmb56
Posts: 209
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:30 pm

RE: C5M Working Well In Service...

Thu Oct 14, 2010 10:42 pm

The generic term used within the industry is CRAF. Whether it is formally activated or not that is the term people who make the contracts and flight plans use. I have never heard them refered to as AMC flights by the people who actually are flying them. Since the military loads require a different lay out of the cargo restraint system there is a conversion work package to flip the aircraft between civilian and millitay pallets. I have seen that defined as the CRAF conversion. It take maintenance about one shift to do the conversion to convert an MD-11 about the same for a 747-400 depending on how may mechanics are assigned.
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: C5M Working Well In Service...

Thu Oct 14, 2010 11:10 pm

Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 27):
As I pointed out earlier, carriers that participate in CRAF are given preferential treatment when it comes to DoD airlift contracts. So it's quite likely that a CRAF carrier will also be doing day to day flying for DoD regardless if CRAF is activated or not. Not always true but quite often...

True!

Quoting CMB56 (Reply 28):
The generic term used within the industry is CRAF.

Not true!!
 
zanl188
Posts: 3436
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:05 pm

RE: C5M Working Well In Service...

Thu Oct 14, 2010 11:11 pm

Quoting 474218 (Reply 26):
I think you are confusing AMC contract flights, which are used all the time, with CRAF which is only used in emergencies.

Check this quote from the second link you provided:

"The airlines contractually pledge aircraft to the various segments of CRAF, ready for activation when needed. To provide incentives for civil carriers to commit aircraft to the CRAF program and to assure the United States of adequate airlift reserves, the government makes peacetime DOD airlift business available to civilian airlines that offer aircraft to the CRAF. DoD offers business through the International Airlift Services Contract. For fiscal 2007, the guaranteed portion of the contract is $379 million. AMC estimates that throughout fiscal 2007 it will also award more than $2.1 billion in additional business that is not guaranteed"

Not all carriers that participate in CRAF want the peacetime business though... In the '80s Pan Am modified many of it's CRAF 747s with side cargo doors, that it never intended to use itself or in peacetime AMC cargo business, for DoD . In return DoD provided preference to Pan Am for the peacetime contracts that Pan Am was able to transfer to other carriers thru teaming arrangements. N747PA was one of the aircraft so converted...


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Marc Lehmann

Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: C5M Working Well In Service...

Fri Oct 15, 2010 1:01 am

Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 30):
Check this quote from the second link you provided:


Exactly what I said CRAF and MAC contract flights are two different things. Why is that so hard to understand?
 
zanl188
Posts: 3436
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:05 pm

RE: C5M Working Well In Service...

Fri Oct 15, 2010 2:19 am

Quoting 474218 (Reply 31):
Exactly what I said CRAF and MAC contract flights are two different things.

But they're not. 1. MAC is long gone. 2. Want a peacetime AMC contract? Participate in CRAF or team with another carrier who does. 3. When CRAF is activated aircraft/crews are pulled out of commercial service and put on AMC contract, the same AMC contract the peacetime flying was done on. CRAF is just an additional pool of aircraft/crews AMC can pull from.

Wether peacetime guaranteed flying, peacetime expansion flying, or contingency flying it's all the same contract.

I think you're confusing the type of flying with the means by which AMC sourced the aircraft. For example an aircraft and crew, activated under CRAF, might assume the peacetime flying duties previously done by another aircraft. The second aircraft might move from peacetime flying to contingency flying. If the second aircraft goes tech, the two aircraft could be swapped again. When CRAF shuts down the first aircraft goes back to commercial service. AMC doesn't necessarily need to activate CRAF to do all three types of commercial flying... AMC requests CRAF activation when it has a surge and needs additional aircraft and crews to meet the need.

Put in commercial terms what you're saying is a scheduled DL flight with a leased 747-451 is different than a scheduled DL flight with an owned 747-451. Which is not true, how DL sourced the aircraft is irrelevant to the operation of the flight and the same goes for AMC.
Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: C5M Working Well In Service...

Fri Oct 15, 2010 1:23 pm

Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 32):
But they're not. 1. MAC is long gone. 2. Want a peacetime AMC contract? Participate in CRAF or team with another carrier who does. 3. When CRAF is activated aircraft/crews are pulled out of commercial service and put on AMC contract, the same AMC contract the peacetime flying was done on. CRAF is just an additional pool of aircraft/crews AMC can pull from.



I suggest you read the two references I provided.

From: http://www.amc.af.mil/library/factsh...actsheet_print.asp?fsID=234&page=1

"Carriers with aircraft whose performance does not meet minimum CRAF requirements are issued a certificate of technical ineligibility so they can still compete for government airlift business".

AMC contracted flights can and are done by "non-CRAF" aircraft, crews and operators. When the CRAF is activated only "certified aircraft, crews and operators" can be used.

From: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL33692.pdf

"CRAF has been formally activated on two separate occasions over the program's 54 year history".

You may want to rewrite history and say the the AMC contracted flight that take place almost daily are CRAF flights but it is not true.
 
cmb56
Posts: 209
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:30 pm

RE: C5M Working Well In Service...

Fri Oct 15, 2010 3:01 pm

For example: UPS is a member of the Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) and ... aircraft may be requested by the Air Mobility Command (AMC) for military charter operations. During CRAF operations...

My point being that within commercial airlines themselves these operations may generically be refered to as CRAF flights.

What the most correct legal or historical term should be was not my point.
 
Galaxy5007
Posts: 637
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:06 pm

RE: C5M Working Well In Service...

Fri Oct 15, 2010 9:59 pm

Quoting 474218 (Reply 33):
You may want to rewrite history and say the the AMC contracted flight that take place almost daily are CRAF flights but it is not true.

I agree...its not like Evergreen, Kallitta and Atlas Air have their entire company in the CRAF; they are all contracted out by AMC; just like the AN-124s. They are clearly not in the CRAF! AMC Charter flights happen every day by civillian contract. Heck, Even Southwest has been contracted out a few times with hauling troops in and out of KPOB. They are NOT part of the CRAF. I'm just looking at this from an outside point of view, and it seems like the arguement here is that all AMC contract flights are done by CRAF aircraft, which isn't the case by any means. To be honest, I've never heard of the CRAF until Lockheed proposed the idea with the C-5As that are going to end up in AMARG.
 
srbmod
Posts: 15446
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2001 1:32 pm

RE: C5M Working Well In Service...

Sat Oct 16, 2010 12:42 am

This discussion has veered well off-topic and will be locked. The merits and history of the CRAF is not directly relevant to the C-5M in service and is better suited to its' own thread.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 11 guests