A330 MRTT Certification Video

[ORAC]

Two comments.

1. The baskets look remarkably stable.

2. That's the first time I've seen simultaneous contacts. What happened to holding one astern the hose until the other was in the basket?

A330 MRTT Certification Video (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3af4ca0bf3-7a8d-428d-aa54-e7c558ec71e3&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)

[bumba]

It is true they lost a boom in flight a couple of weeks ago?

[BEagle]

That's the first time I've seen simultaneous contacts. What happened to holding one astern the hose until the other was in the basket?

That's just one of the 'ideas' I've heard which seem to have come from those without much experience in the tanker role - although if it was a deliberate flight test item to check the impact on the AAR systems, that would be a different issue, of course.

Another 'bright idea' I heard was to allow the receivers to make contact whilst the tanker was rolling in or out of a turn.... Say good-bye to the probe tip, chaps!

But the worst was "Just turn the red lights out and let the receivers do what they want......."

As Art Field will probably confirm, the well-proven rules of AAR were learned over many, many years. They might seem conservative to some, but they are SAFE!

[Flyt3est]

It is true they lost a boom in flight a couple of weeks ago?

Can't say I've heard that one, I'm pretty sure it was a refuelling probe from one of the F-18's that broke off.

Another 'bright idea' I heard was to allow the receivers to make contact whilst the tanker was rolling in or out of a turn.... Say good-bye to the probe tip, chaps!
Tanking in a banking dangerous?? Tell that to the people writing the Mil requirements:ugh:

[BEagle]

No, it's absolutely fine to make contact in a steady turn...

If you read what I wrote, my criticism was aimed at those who thinks it's safe to attempt an approach to contact whilst rolling into or out of a turn. Which it most certainly is NOT!

What on earth is a 'banking'?

And :ugh: to you too......

[D-IFF_ident]

Simultaneous contacts for P&D tankers is allowed iaw ATP-56(B) (para 106g):

"Individual Clearance to Contact. Normally, the tanker is only able to safely monitor one receiver at a time. Consequently, receivers will be cleared (verbally and/or by light signals) to make contact one at a time. Where the tanker is able to monitor both receivers, simultaneous contacts may be approved."

Contacts during tanker attitude changes are captured under Safety Procedures, specifically para 404e:

"(5) Prohibited Contacts/Disconnects. Contacts/disconnects are not to be permitted during tanker attitude changes."

Although there should probably be a "Caution" attached to that - I'll get me pen...

Steady turns, as Beagle suggests, are fair game, except for some CONVEX activities (same para as above):

"(6) Contacts/Disconnects – CONVEX. Some nations require that, during receiver CONVEX, tankers will order all contacts/disconnects in straight and level flight unless the receiver supervisory pilot requests otherwise for training purposes."

The whole book is available here:

RAF - Air to Air Refuelling - ATP-56(B) (http://www.raf.mod.uk/downloads/airtoair56b.cfm)

Not heard about a Boom being lost either - but I take Beag's point about it being naiive to assume simultaneous contacts are safe, I'm not convinced the previous ban on doing so was only due to lack of visibility of receivers from the tanker.

And anyone suggesting just turning off the lights needs a smacked bottom.:=

Oh, and the video is very sexy - I wonder when we'll see the KC767 equivalent (i.e. fully functional Boom and Pods)?

[rolandpull]

I thought this was a video thread about a Spanish registered tanker showing what it can do, or was it just a cover to talk about the ATP-56(B)?

[BEagle]

Hi D-IFF!

One ARO simply CANNOT monitor 2 receivers simultaneously and provide the essential crew interphone commentary with the necessary level of safety - and 2 AROs talking at once would be utterly confusing. In any case, what would it save - 30 sec or so?

Whoever came up with such a dangerous idea?

The video shows a test airframe doing something which is generally considered to be unsafe.

[Flyt3est]

Beagle - "Banking" just a little play on words..

and the:ugh: wasn't aimed at you, albeit I did misunderstand your post.. perils of speed reading :O

Apologies for the misunderstooding!!

FT.

[D-IFF_ident]

Happy Christmas BEagle old mate, and Art if he's lingering without posting.

I'm not sure when or how that change snuck-in, although I think it came from a suggestion referencing new tanker optical systems. Perhaps a request for review of that particular policy, with a focus on safety, could be made in the New Year?

It does look good in the test sequence though!

And the hoses do look very stable; they also appear to absorb the sine-wave extremely well, perhaps because of their length?

[BEagle]

And to you, mate! Hope the heat isn't too much for you - spare a thought for us with all this snow and freezing fog whilst you toss another prawn on the barbi'....:\

Regarding simultaneous contacts, the old ATP-56(A) rule was:

The rear viewing system of most multi-point tankers can only monitor the approach path to one wing hose at a time; therefore, for simultaneous AAR one receiver is to be in contact (with fuel flowing if wet)before the second receiver may be cleared for contact.

whereas in the current document, the rule is:

Normally, the tanker is only able to safely monitor one receiver at a time. Consequently, receivers will be cleared (verbally and/or by light signals) to make contact one at a time. Where the tanker is able to monitor both receivers, simultaneous contacts may be approved.

I don't know who insisted on the change (although I have some suspicions ;) ), but it seems very unwise to me and an avoidable hazard; if I were you, I'd try to get the original wording restored.

Flyt3est - blond genug!

[Art Field]

Time to put my oar in. While it is certainly relevant that you can not safely visually control simultaneous contacts there is and always was another reason for caution. Should one of the receivers make a horlicks of his contact and immediately break or even make violent contact then the tanker will react affecting the stability of the other hose. Therefore single contact, check first receiver is stable, clear second. Can not see any reason other than desperate fuel shortage to change that rule. I realise some might argue that modern autopilots can cope with the effect but it's not worth the risk.

And a Happy and safe Christmas to all Tanker People and and their customers.

Art

[BEagle]

And to you too, Art!

[Flyt3est]

Art,

the latest pods have a pretty impressive hose response system, long since improved from the days of the spring loaded tensators.The hose will respond and damp out the compression wave in 0.3 of a second, The Pilot would need to stuff up the contact pretty badly for the Hose response control system not to cope.. that said.. The F-18 incident is probably an example of "When in doubt, Apply Murphy's law" ;)

[BEagle]

That's assuming the pilot makes a normal, if slightly fast contact!

Some receiver pilots are not quite as gentle - plus there's always the chance of the motor torque not responding as it should.

The approved technique is to establish the correct references in the pre-contact position astern the drogue and trim. Then add a small amount of thrust and adjust to achieve a 'confident fast walking pace' overtake speed, ignoring the drogue and following the references.

That's what's supposed to happen. Some receiver pilots adopt their own rather different technique of passing rapidly through the pre-contact position without pausing to trim - then frantically chasing the basket, ending with an optimistic lunge. The tender loving style of a nuclear submarine sailor meeting his girlfriend up against the dockyard wall after 6 months under the polar ice cap.... Somewhere I have a photo of a non-UK Tornado with an impressive S-bend in the hose - and the roll spoiler almost fully up on one wing....:eek:

I maintain quite firmly that simultaneous prodding is an unacceptable and wholly avoidable hazard, irrespective of the quality of the tanker video system.

The hose response system of the 900-series pods is indeed excellent and is rather better than the 'technik durch four springs' of the Mk32. But a hard hose is still possible......