AIRTANKER

[TOWTEAMBASE]

Any updates on the arrival of the A330 to BZZ yet, last expected end of Oct ?

[PotentialPilot]

Currently doing AAR trials with Typhoon

[StopStart]

There's been one knocking around Brize for the last month or so.

[AnglianAV8R]

It was around Marham this week, apparently after getting it on with a GR4

[ALM In Waiting]

Any details about the MSO/Loadie position yet?

[Could be the last?]

Seemingly they are drafting in WSO(Nav)s to fix the problems with the MSO station!! We are told they are the only ones with the relevant experience.......

Let's see what empire they can create:mad:

[VinRouge]

lets hope there are enough pilots coming across with glass cockpit to experience to religate said nav to pushing fuel around and making the brews.If they try to integrate the nav into any form of navigation function they will be making a stupid mistake. still stuck as to why they need ex nav experience when the jet gives a max offload figure in order to rtb with minimums straight from the FMS!

[Art Field]

I know the world has moved on a fair bit since I was in the Tanking game but beware total reliance on electronic wizardry, the best Tanker crews add to their effectiveness by keeping a touch on all that is going on around them and being at least one jump ahead. Fly safe Voyager crews and continue to provide the level of service of your predecessor

[FJ2ME]

Here's an idea, instead of drafting in an unnecessary and obsolete crew member to fix a piece of kit that the massed air forces of the world seem to do without (the MSO kit) we could just bin it and operate 2-pilot crew like everyone else... This project is going to take an entirely predictable tangent into preserving the careers of the second-rate, rather than being a world-class AAR provider in my view. So close, yet so far... Hell, why not make them captain and bump their hours up a bit...:ugh:

[Pontius Navigator]

I think I would trust Art's input over what appears to be a simple diatribe.

[FJ2ME]

That may be so PN, but if you check out all the to-ing on fro-ing on these forums and other similar outlets about the Air France A330 loss, then the decision to buy Airbus has already led to 'complete reliance on electronic wizardry'. When the chips are down, I don't see what intimate knowledge of the Dalton computer will bring to the party frankly. Or which navigators with previous modern glass cockpit wide-body flight deck ops did you have in mind? If integrating the MSO systems is stalling the aircraft's progress to usefulness, why are we bothering?

[The B Word]

Or which navigators with previous modern glass cockpit wide-body flight deck ops did you have in mind?

E-3D?

:confused:

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/middle/5/1/7/1649715.jpg

[Green Flash]

Oh, with that roll of trusty bodge tape on the tea boys(!:E;)) desk surely this is crying out for a quick caption comp?:)

[Lima Juliet]

It's there for the FE to gag the co-pilot - squeal piggy squeal!

http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2009/5/21/128874464056319086.jpg

http://img.myconfinedspace.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/squeal-240.jpg

[Kreuger flap]

modern glass cockpit

E-3D?

http://th249.photobucket.com/albums/gg230/pegould/th_LaughingSmiley.gif

[Bert Angel]

There are a lot of dials in that

modern glass cockpit

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Pontius Navigator]

keeping a touch on all that is going on around them and being at least one jump ahead

Knowing the give away is one thing and following the plan another, but when the plan goes to R-S or there are numerous options then wizardy may help but not anticipate.

Two pilots might manage but 3 people might manage better.

As the Airbus has such a wonderful computer, does it automatically go home when it has no more to give? :)

[D-IFF_ident]

As long as the Navigator / WSO doesn't put anything other than coffee, white, one, in my mug, then they're welcome on my jet anyday.

They could even help out when we hit turbulence, offload only a partial transfer, and are required to re-calculate abort points, while still keeping one pair of hands near the sidestick and thrust-levers (PF), one pair of hands to operate the ACARS/Nav-log/FMS Flt-Plan/Radios etc (PNF) and one pair of hands to press the 'partial offload' button on the MPS at the MSO console (MSO).

I don't care if they're former Navs, WSOs, FEs, ALMs, AEOPs or FCs, as long as they speak AAR and aviation, and stand their round at the bar. I also don't care what you call them.

Still, what would I know. :ok:

[Mach Two]

D-IFF. Good point. Well made!

[Winco]

Gentlemen,

Could I ask those 'in the know' if the new Voyager aircraft will have any form of ESM/ECM suite fitted to it? or indeed any other type of counter measures (assuming that's not classified at all)

Surely such a high value asset as this could have at least something for the WSOps or WSOs to play with during their times on the tow-line (other than making tea and coffee for the flight deck!)

It would seem to be an ideal platform to soak up lots of 'wiggly amps' stuff and, even without perhaps any on board analysis, it would be a valuable tool to have in the box. Any thoughts given to this?

Many thanks
Winco

[Biggus]

Gentlemen, let me offer the following input - as a still serving Nav. The trade of Nav/WSO is dead, the school has been closed, and all that remains is a few in the system trying to find gainful employment until they retire.

To consider the employment of Navs/WSOs on any NEW system, whether the argument for doing so is valid or not (and that's a whole different debate), is a MISTAKE! You will have to replace them with another trade at some point, as the pool of Navs is finite and shrinking, so why not start out with that trade from day 1 and save yourself a lot of trouble in the long term....

That's my own perspective, feel free to disagree, after all, that's what these forums are all about.......








Edited to add - as an aside, why are we preserving Navs/WSOs as MPA seedcorn? In a few years time we won't have a realistic pool of Navs/WSOs to man any MPA fleet we might acquire (in your dreams?), or a means of replacing the few we do have left in the long term (unless we recruit directly off the high street and put people through the RN observer training course?)

[BEagle]

You have to remember that the A330 was designed as a 2-pilot aeroplane and is certified as such. It usually flies in 100% controlled airspace and is very reliable if flown correctly. Nothing much changes in flight, apart from the occasional departure delay.

However, a tanker flies outside controlled airspace in close formation with other aircraft and it is virtually certain that the planned flight will include changes to the original plan!

Hence the 2-pilot tanker crew will have additional workload compared to their trash-hauling colleagues. For AAR deployments, a 'trail brief' will need to be prepared and subsequently modified in flight for tanker, receiver, route or aerodrome availability events. In the coal-powered VC10 / TriStar era, a simplistic, inaccurate and mathematically non-rigorous system known as 'RAPS' is used to allow for such events - except that it cannot cope with significant route changes, changes to the availability of abort aerodromes etc. If a 2-hose tanker goes single hose, the replanning necessary can be time consuming and is error-prone, so has to be cross-checked by another crew member.

Voyager is capable of taking more receivers further than a VC10 or TriStar - which therefore means that the likelihood of single hose reversion, loss of an en-route abort aerodrome or a significant ATC re-route is greater due to the larger distances / times involved.

This was taken into account for the A310MRTT / CC-150T whose Mission Computer System does all the necessary number crunching. Before a trail bracket, receiver fuels are updated and any asociated plan revision 'accepted' by the operator - who can also relocate the 'automatic' brackets manually. Relocate a bracket and all susbsequent brackets are also replanned. After the bracket, before the hoses are rewound, receiver fuels are again updated. So there's no need to waste fuel by holding a receiver in contact to the geographic bracket end point as the MCS will simply recompute the susbsequent brackets from the 'update point'. Single hose re-planning takes 2 keystrokes and less than 10 seconds! The MCS permits much more accurate fuel calculations than current VC10 / TriStar planning - this is of enormous value when the TT part of MRTT is considered as accurate fuel planning leads to greater payload potential. None of the 'fill it up' nonsense of earlier years ('the plan says 62 tonnes but we'll take 70')!

However, any computer system is prone to Gi-Go error. So the A310 MCS advises, but does not dominate the crew. Shut it down completely and you can still refuel.

One is given to understand that the A330 MPS might perhaps not yet be quite as mature as one would like to think....:\ So it might indeed be temporarily necessary to use a navigator with his/her paper maps, pencils, dividers, ruler, protractor, bits of string, primitive RAPS guide, rabbit's foot, crystal ball, quadrant staff, lodestone and astrolabe to enable the Voyager to fly AAR trails until the MPS is fit for use. Even when it is, someone with a seasoned 'TLAR' eye will need to operate it until sufficient confidence has been gained to trust it. This may, of course, take time.....:sad:
As the Airbus has such a wonderful computer, does it automatically go home when it has no more to give?I don't know about the A330, but in the A310 setting the 'Min Off Task Fuel' value will cause the pod valves to close when that value is reached, so that the crew shouldn't be able to run the tanker out of fuel. The MOTF value is calculated by the MCS but can be amended by the pilots if required. 'Spare fuel' is continuously computed taking into account the planned off task fuel and the MOTF as well as the difference between planned and actual fuel state. Simples!!

[APG63]

Totally agree. Two man ops, fine for a big comfy bus. The AAR task ranges from dead simple to outrageously complex and (as BEgles says) rapidly changing. A good management system is of great assistance, but is not the solution. An extra brain will do nicely!

[EESDL]

Tea, Coffee, Squash?
AirTanker recruiting I see......

[Art Field]

It is very difficult to define the required attributes of this possible third person in this imaginary crew, numerical ability would be useful, a good pair of eyes likewise, be great if they can cook, be helpful if they had some technical knowledge, but above all they should have airmanship coming out their ears. Difficult because some navs had it, as did some AEOs,Engs and loadies but not all, how do you select for it?, how do you train for it?, what do you call them. I do not know but you know their value when you have one on your crew.

[APG63]

Hang on. You're talking about Carol Vorderman, aren't you?

[A and C]

This thread started as a simple question about the location of the aircraft and yet within six or so posts we have the tanker mafia telling us how no one but them is fit to fly the aircraft on task.

It would seem to me that you are all lacking in self confidence to have to put all of that on an Internet forum.

[Tankertrashnav]

In the coal-powered VC10 / TriStar era,


Blimey, what does that make the Victor - a wood-burner? Enjoyed my days sitting behind Art Field and others, doing the RVs and dishing out the Avtur in the days when there was still a seat for me. Seems I'm as obsolete as a Hansom Cab driver now - ah well :(

Just a thought - wonder how a two seat tanker would have coped with Black Buck when it all went pear-shaped and the guys down the back had to plan and execute a new RV several hundred miles from Ascension with no radar back up in order to avoid a long swim home?

[cessnapete]

You just enter the position of the new RV into your triple FMS system fed by a triple GPS data feed, press ENTER, and and it will take you there within an accuracy of a few feet!!
Oh, and then it will take you home and land with 0 DH/100m RVR, perhaps not though, as the Voyager will be Cat 1 minima in RAF use presumably.

[Pontius Navigator]

some navs had it, as did some AEOs,Engs and loadies but not all, how do you select for it?, how do you train for it?, what do you call them. I do not know but you know their value when you have one on your crew.

Not forgetting that not all pilots have it either.

The Vulcan was often called a 4-engined Jet Provost and I believe the C130 was also used to bring on young pilots. Many went on to become respected captains but not all.

It is inevitable that there will be some multi pilots that are posted to the Voyager as P2 but don't cut the mustard. Until such time as they get up to speed or get out would mean P1 would be carrying the whole load.

BEagle,

My point about the tanker going home was well answered, thank you, however I was thinking of the one before TTNs time. Unlike its predecessor it could give away ALL its fuel. Now you could actually have imagined a cold war scenario where the choices were go home leaving the fighter to go home too while the bandits followed you in, or give all your fuel to the fighter in the hope that the fight got the bandit.

[vascodegama]

I guess the full story has not yet got out. The problem is that the automated system does not work yet and in order to provide some experience to the new fleet one Nav has been posted to 10 sqn. The long-term aim is I believe a mix of Loadies and Air Engs. There is not and never was any intention to have anything other than a 2-pilot flight deck for AT ops.

[Fareastdriver]

Have Airtanker hired anybody to fly it yet?

[Tankertrashnav]

You just enter the position of the new RV


That was sort of my point - does your system work out where the RV is going to be for you? Getting there is the easy bit. Dont forget, in the scenario I'm describing the tanker deliberately gave away so much fuel as to make an RTB impossible without a successful refuelling - would the new computerised system permit that - if not could it be overridden? Mind you, I'm quite prepared to be told it will do all that, but bearing in mind the "Rubbish In, Rubbish Out" principle, I'm hoping that whoever is entering the criteria knows what he/she is doing.

[D-IFF_ident]

Crumbs - sounds like all the former AAR STANEVAL, CFIs, FIs, IPs and EPs (of various nations) on here are almost in agreement on the role of the 3rd person!

Concur with Biggus too - to make any current trade group/branch the sole source for MSOs, and therefore make MSOs members of the chosen trade group/branch would be unsuitable. But, as the RAAF have already found with their boom operators, it's also difficult to form a new mustering for what will amount to less than 30 aircrew. Perhaps an alternative would be to broaden the role of an existing mustering?

[BEagle]

Dont forget, in the scenario I'm describing the tanker deliberately gave away so much fuel as to make an RTB impossible without a successful refuelling - would the new computerised system permit that - if not could it be overridden? Well, hopefully future planners will use ODM values and not rubbish spouted by Caligula - who used Vulcan training weight figures rather than the correct ODM values including high AUW and ISA dev....

Neither Voyager nor A310MRTT can operate in the receiver role; however, KC-30A can as can. So your scenario is highly unlikely for future RAF operations.

Again, I don't know about the A330 system, but in the A310 if you attempt a plan for which there is insufficient fuel, the system displays a message and the plan cannot be generated. But that wouldn't stop you doing whatever dying hero AAR you wished....

As for snap RVs, it's not just a question of designating a point as cessnapete intimated. You have to be there at the right time at the right speed and going the right way - as has the other aircraft. Then conduct the appropriate manoeuvre.

The A310MRTT MCS has a 'DDRMI' page. Next to the moving map displaying your current position and planned route, a panel displays a digital distance and RMI display with heading and track, plus DF and TACAN information - and it also continuously computes the correct ATP-56B turning range (and offset value for the RV'D') for the current TAS:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/DDRMI.jpg

To conduct a snap RV'B', call the receiver and note the DF indication (DF receiver covers Tac FM, VHF Air, VHF Marine, UHF and PLB frequency bands). Turn onto the head of the needle and advise the receiver to turn onto the 'tail'. Repeat as oft as ye shall have need until you've achieved the correct 180x0 geometry. Note the TACAN range and roll into the turn so that you start the turn at the computed split. As the TACAN is in BCN INV, the receiver should see a TACAN bearing and distance. Fly the normal manoeuvre and the receiver should end up behind the tanker at the correct range. Crews who've used it say it really is dead simple. No faffing with entering data into the FMS; in fact once the correct DF and TACAN frequencies are set, the only thing you need to touch is the transmit key - all other data is displayed either on the pilots' DDRMIs or on the ARO's MCS display. Either pilot or the ARO can run the manoeuvre, depending upon national SOP.

This is an example of a 'computer assisted' device which does the calculations and eases crew workload, rather than some 'computer dominated' geekish piece of boffinology designed by unfettered engineers which requires pilots to peck away at the FMS or other keypad like demented woodpeckers when they should be concentrating on flying as accurately as possible and managing the event.

[Tankertrashnav]

Thanks Beagle, very interesting. Didn't know that about Voyager not being able to act as a receiver.

I guess nobody likes the idea of being replaced by a computer, but it's happening in all spheres of life so no reason why navs should be any different I suppose.


So your scenario is highly unlikely for future RAF operations.



Quite possibly, but I am reminded of an ancient Scottish AEO on 214 who used to say whenever he heard the expression "it is not envisaged that..." he was reminded that in the first major battle of recorded history, the siege of Jericho, it was not envisaged that the main assault would be carried out by musicians!

[Mach Two]

Good explanation, BEagle. Thank you. As you say, aircrew-friendly kit for a change. This clearly Looks after the tanker's fuel plan, give-away, navigation, etc, but looking after the chicks on a trail and re-planning for their needs in changing situations is where the extra head comes in. Or will it do that too?

As for flying accurately, that's easy. Either practice more or use the auto-pilot!

What's the galley like?

[BEagle]

Good explanation, BEagle. Thank you. As you say, aircrew-friendly kit for a change. This clearly looks after the tanker's fuel plan, give-away, navigation, etc......

The A310 MCS looks after the mission fuel plan, not just the tanker's! It also records the off-loads and gives the ARO navigational situational awareness; however, primary navigation is the role of the FMS.

....but looking after the chicks on a trail and re-planning for their needs in changing situations is where the extra head comes in. Or will it do that too?

Of course.

Mind you, I don't know what functionality the A330MRTT system will provide - my knowledge is limited to the A310MRTT.

As for flying accurately, that's easy. Either practice more or use the auto-pilot!

Making the small, frequent heading changes needed for refining RV geometry takes precise, accurate flying. Even 'using the autopilot' to best effect is less simple than it might sound.

[Mach Two]

Thanks, BEagle.

Point 1: Good to know.

Point 2: Really Good.

Point 3: I wasn't being serious, but I take your point.

[NutLoose]

I read an interesting article on the Aussie version, they named it the KC-30B as they fervently believed the USA would buy the type and call it the KC-30A, they renamed it to The KC-30A after Boeing got their way.

[Easy Street]

I like the look of the DDRMI page. Will it help stop tanker crews using TCAS to 'assist' the join, which usually results in a late turn towards the receiver and a 180 by zero pass? ;)

[FJ2ME]

Easy Street, its not usually TCAS that causes that, more that it rescues it after a completely botched RV using the A-A Tacan range, which jumps about like a good'un. Also the tanker is often late on the turn due to some bad maths by someone too....often the fellow with the calculator and all the time in the world, but frequently the less-than-alert stick monkey too. And perish the thought that the receivers might up their speed from the assumed joining IAS in their haste to 'assist' the join....

All factors that a computer-driven mission system can far more accurately analyse than the human brain, no matter what brevet it wears.

An earlier poster makes a very valid point about deciding to crew MSO with a dying branch. Throughout the 27-year life of Voyager, where are the next MSOs gonna come from when all the Navs have departed to be no more? Can't see many pilots wanting the third seat, unless it comes with Captain's hours of course, and then you're in to the territory of saying that all trails have to have at least an RI or FI on the flightdeck. This MSO thing is the road to hell gentlemen, mark my words!

[BEagle]

Using ETCAS for an RV is fraught with error, because azimuth accuracy is insufficient! I was aghast when I heard that the USAF had been trying to use it for RV purposes....:eek:

Link16 could be used, but DF/TACAN is the simplest and safest method if the EMCON state permits.

FJ2ME, if A/A TACAN range is jumping, try using Y channels as they should suffer less from interference. Also check the AGC setting? Maybe even resort to stopwatch ranging as a back up?

Another refinement which could be added to the A310 MCS would be a Link16 SRAP overlay on the moving map....:ok:

[Dan Winterland]

RVs usuing Link 16 worked very well on the few VC10s which used to have it fitted. We thought it was the dogs danglies and assumed it was the way ahead and that all RVs would be done that way by the year 2000.

[BEagle]

Indeed, Dan. However, the L16 SRAP will only show tracks which have been supplied to the network - there is a complementary need for ETCAS to provide safety against others. Certain controllers have permitted receivers to descend through tanker levels at very close range without warning and protection from such crass stupidity is essential.

RVs between tracks with PPLIs should certainly be accurate, but unless the refresh rate of non-PPLI tracks is adequate, range information against head sector inbound traffic may not be sufficiently accurate if closing speeds are high.

[ShangriLa]

In the American C-17 world during high workload missions, the third seat if you like is occupied by another pilot who has access to a mission computer keyboard. Not only does this spread the workload, allowing the operating pilots to fly heads out, whilst significant changes to "the plan" are inputted by the spare, it means that those longer missions requiring an augment are satisfied along with all the other advantages of having a third pilot. It could also act as an apprenticeship for new co-pilots on the fleet to learn the trade, thereby negating the current requirement to be AAR experienced before you get a sniff at the job.

I am not suggesting for a minute the extra pilot would be required for routine AT stuff, that would be ridiculous, but if the workload of a tanking mission in a modern glass cockpit aircraft is so high than this would be surely be the sensible option.

I do however find this hard to believe, and there is a real sense of "jobs for the boys" surrounding these decisions.

[Sonic Bam]

Voyager flight deck I saw has four positions - two facing forward (guess what ones they are) and two facing aft looking at a console of HD tv tabs and controls. Exterior is covered in cameras, aerials, sensors and other stuff.

[NutLoose]

Article i read said the Australians instigated the two aft facing fuelling operator positions during the design phase as to give built in redundancy and simplify training requirements. It delayed the programme about 6 months (Novembers Air International)

[D-IFF_ident]

RAAF KC-30A - 4 seats: Capt, Co, MCO and ARO (boom operator) - the aircraft has a flying boom.

RAF Voyager - 3 seats: Capt, Co, MSO - no ARO, no flying boom.

:8

[Cannonfodder]

The way I understand how 10 Sqn is set up at the moment:

MSO Staneval-Air Engineer
MSO Lead FI-Loadmaster
MSO Ldr-Loadmaster.

With up to 30 WSOps (ie Non Commissioned Aircrew) to follow.

Navs are only there to iron out initial computer glitches and will not feature in the Sqn's long term manning.

[Kreuger flap]

is that fixed wing loadies or EW? According to the EW poster there are no EW WSOps going to Voyager.

I am guessing that they will be from the Tristar fleet as there will be loads of them needing a job. I would have thought an AEOp would be a little over qualified to be a cabin purser or are you that desperate for a job?

[FJ2ME]

Thank you cannonfodder for setting the record straight. At least someone seems to have seen sense.

[Shell Management]

Part of the AirTanker ethos has been to eliminate the overmanning that the military would have suffered if they had run the service.

[kharmael]

:rolleyes:

KC30, Flying airways and in circles at great height. Occasionally connecting to other aircraft.

"2 pilots can't cope"

C130J: Low Flying, Airdrop, Para, Natural Surface, occasionally connecting to other aircraft, all of the above on NVGs.

"2 pilots is fine"

Both are FMS.

:rolleyes:

[grousehunter]

"30 WSOps to follow" - is that fixed wing loadies or EW? According to the EW poster there are no EW WSOps going to Voyager.

Then again what he says and what he does are not the same thing.....:ugh:

[kharmael]

Runaway Gun, that's an almost female level of reading into things which aren't there!

If two pilots can operate the J, then why not the KC30 which seemingly does less?

Also, if you want some FJ banter:

http://i.imgur.com/6eoCzl.jpg

courtesy of the internet :ok:

[D-IFF_ident]

Kharmael - are you proposing removing the loadmasters from the KC-130J?

And which KC30 pilot would you have fly the boom?

[kharmael]

I suppose the Loadies spend enough time up on the Flight Deck on the J to be counted as flight deck crew...

Nobody would be required to operate the non-existant boom system on the Voyager as Probe-and-Drogue mostly sorts itself out...

[VinRouge]

rg, you can lift it up. just dont forget to put it down now will you?:E

Not sure you would enjoy the lack of airshows and time in KAF.

[Runaway Gun]

Stuff the Typhoon conversion course, I'm applying for J model Hercs just so I can listen to Super K man tell me how bloody great he is at everything (on NVG's too). But of course I'll have to lift the undercarriage lever for him...

When did the Pissing Contest start?

[Bert Angel]

Runaway Gun:

But of course I'll have to lift the undercarriage lever for him...

That was, of course, an incident involving a K model Hercules (I know, they all look the same......) which, rather interestingly given the discussion of this topic, had a 4 person flight deck. The extra 2 people didn't prevent the front pair from landing with the wheels up but a modern GCAS system, of the type found on 2 man flight decks, normally does.

[APG63]

Mask up!! Take cover!!

[Runaway Gun]

Don't worry, I'm not a Fighter Jock, I was simply illustrating that just because you might know your own job and can easily brag about how great you are at it, doesn't mean that you know how much more difficult it is to do than someone else's. I'm sure you make your job look easy and produce terrific results, just as the tanker boys do.

[D-IFF_ident]

Just to clarify - the KC30 does have a boom; the Voyager does not.

[kharmael]

D-IFF,

Vocab failure on my part! I was using KC30 and Voyager interchangeably. I of course was referring to Voyager the whole time. :8

Runaway Gun,

I think you've got me all wrong. I am in no way trying to big up J-pilots or their respective skills or egos or demean any other aircrew. :ouch:

The fact that both Voyager and J pilots would come from the same pool of people illustrates my point that perhaps 2 pilots would be able to operate the aircraft without the need for extra flight deck crew, based on the example I gave.

We're all friends here! :ok:

[TOWTEAMBASE]

did she arrive this week ?

[CONSTELLATION1]

Still not here. Latest from Airtanker website says New Year 2012. As this is still 2011, any time in 2012 will be in the New Year.

[Mighty Quercus]

According to vacancies for Dispatchers and Cabin Crew plus other roles on their website its looking like April 2012. Won't hold my breath though i'm sure the Tristars can hold out for longer!!

[Spit the Dog]

But can the 'Ten' ?

[Rigga]

According to E-Goat - one arrived today! And is keeping warm in one of the new hangars.


Just passing on the gossip...

[Shell Management]

Great news!

[BEagle]

Arrival of a Voyager at Brize Norton on the last working day of 2011 would be somewhat reminiscent of the desperation of the Soviet Union when it managed to rush the Tu-144 into the air on 31 Dec 1968 'the year before Concorde'....

I suppose it'd allow ATr to claim that the aircraft was delivered 'on time' at Brize - i.e. in late 2011...:hmm:

But as to whether or not the RAF has accepted it from ATr; well, that would be a somewhat different question!

When the first VC10Ks arrived at Brize in 1983, they too were pristine - and stayed that way for quite some time before they had the usual grubby handprints in the cabin and DMS shoe scrapes all over the exterior fleet embodied by lazy lineys. Which was a great shame as the first 101 Sqn GEs used to keep 'their' aircraft looking immaculate inside and out.

Perhaps ATr will insist on higher standards of aircraft husbandry than the usual RAF filth, grime and bodge tape standard.

[Lima Juliet]

Beags

That supposes that there are actually any of those lazy lineys left - a bit thin on the ground these days (lazy or not)! :(

Anyway, won't they be lazy EASA145 fitters? :ok:

LJ

[Megaton]

Beagle

.Perhaps ATr will insist on higher standards of aircraft husbandry than the usual RAF filth, grime and bodge tape standard.

That's a cheap shot. Whilst SEngO on my last Sqn I recall coming in to the hangar at the weekend to find some of the lineys carrying out aircraft husbandry for no reason other than professional pride. No- one had told them to come in and they expected no recognition. I concur that this might not be representative but do not tar all ground crew with the same brush.

[jack schidt]

I flew the VC10 on 101 in the early 90s for a number of years. I have flown the A330 for 10 years + and to be honest I don't see any major problems with the 2 man crew concept regarding fuel offload and navigation "outside of controlled airspace". The only puzzling thing now might be that RAS and RIS terminology has changed!

What made me laugh was that I called them up over a year ago, I told them I was ex RAF tankers, QFI, current A330 and TRI, they said please just apply through the online site and we will review your application. Well that was the last time I spoke to them and I won't be calling back ;-D

The HUGE amount of fuel and ability of the A330 compared to the VC10 will make the die hards one day realise that the new age of tanking is here and new technology will allow 2 crew to do it just as well. What makes me laugh is that the A330 is now "becoming" an old aeroplane in the civil world and as usual the RAF buy into "new" metal as it starts to become the old hack in the airliner fleets. You gotta laugh!!

[SirToppamHat]

EGoat Link to Voyager at Brize Norton. (http://www.e-goat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?37512-New-RAFVoyager-arrives-in-the-UK/page2)

Not sure exactly when it arrived though - I thought I saw some guff earlier in 2011 of it at BZ - perhaps it was just a photo op?

STH

[Rigga]

"What makes me laugh is that the A330 is now "becoming" an old aeroplane in the civil world and as usual the RAF buy into "new" metal as it starts to become the old hack in the airliner fleets. You gotta laugh!! "

The way of the MOD Procurement "Systems" I fear. Buy Old 'bargains' and keep 'em going well beyond the rest of the world's economic write-off criterea.

[dmanton300]

" What makes me laugh is that the A330 is now "becoming" an old aeroplane in the civil world and as usual the RAF buy into "new" metal as it starts to become the old hack in the airliner fleets. You gotta laugh!!"

KC-46 anyone? Seems we're in good company. . . .

[Fosters]

"Not sure exactly when it arrived though - I thought I saw some guff earlier in 2011 of it at BZ - perhaps it was just a photo op?"

It arrived on the afternoon of 21st December.

[SirToppamHat]

I was pretty sure I hadn't imagined it:

AirTanker welcomes the Voyager aircraft to RAF Brize Norton « AirTanker (http://www.airtanker.co.uk/uncategorized/airtanker-welcomes-the-voyager-aircraft-to-raf-brize-norton)

I guess this was just a flying visit then?

ISTR also seeing it on the MoD Web Site.

STH

[Extg3]

I was under the impression the A330 whilst not selling as a passenger jet, there is a lot of lif left in the design as a freighter. Hence Airbus wanting to setup a factory in the US to build all versions of the A330 not just USAF tankers.

[Avionker]

A total of 61 orders for A330 freighters according to Airbus figures.

[Bongodog1964]

Airbus have around 350 outstanding A330 orders, production rates have been increased in order to meet demand. Airlines ordered 97 gross (83 net) from Jan - Nov last year.

Whilst it is true that the A350 is on the horizon, it would be a few more years before a tanker version could ever be developed and supplied. I'm sure the RAF have reached the point that the VC10's can't be kept in the air for much longer.

Look on the bright side, its the 1st time that the RAF have ever operated a new tanker, all the predecessors have been other peoples cast offs.

[Nomorefreetime]

Look on the bright side, its the 1st time that the RAF have ever operated a new tanker, all the predecessors have been other peoples cast off.

Where did the VC10 C come from ?????? XV101 etc

[hulahoop7]

Can anyone tell me what increase in capabilities the new aircraft will bring?
The RAF demonstrated a long range strike capability during recent operations over Libya. I'm sure in part this was designed to demonstrate to certain parties the UKs 'reach'. So if we take it to the extreme, does Airtanker allow the RAF to put a package of 4 GR4s with 2 Stormshadow each over the Falklands. Could it manage this with 1 - 2 tankers instead of the large number required for Black Buck?

Cheers

[typhootea]

What makes me laugh is that the A330 is now "becoming" an old aeroplane in the civil world and as usual the RAF buy into "new" metal as it starts to become the old hack in the airliner fleets. You gotta laugh!!

Seems we're not alone then, what with Australia, Saudi Arabia and the UAE all believing in the capabilities of the '330.

TT

[Redcarpet]

Look on the bright side, its the 1st time that the RAF have ever operated a new tanker, all the predecessors have been other peoples cast off.

Don't recall the Trimotor being a tanker prior to the RAF either! :ugh:

[ZeBedie]

I fly 330s for a UK airline and I don't know of anyone going to Airtanker (because the deal is unappealing) so where are the drivers coming from?

[Tay Cough]

I asked a similar question a few months ago. No TRE would leave an airline for the apparent (due to lack of detail) package on offer. A previous post of mine refers but your typical widebody TRE will need a salary approaching that of David Cameron just to break even.

I can't see that happening frankly.

[Dan Winterland]

''Look on the bright side, its the 1st time that the RAF have ever operated a new tanker, all the predecessors have been other peoples cast off.''



''Where did the VC10 C come from ?????? XV101 etc''


Don't forget the C1Ks were C1s for the first twenty years of their life and only made into less capable (than the K2/K3/K4) tankers as an afterthought. So not a new tanker at all.

The A330 may have been around for a while and the A350 derivative is a replacement, but it's still a bestseller and in current production. My company has several on order.

[Dan Winterland]

As for the package, I asked several times (out of interest - I wasn't particualrly interested in going back into uniform and going to the Falklands for weeks at a time) and got nothing but invitations to apply. I pointed out I wasn't going to consider applying until I knew what was on offer, but got silence.

Which spoke volumes!




I Still curious. Anyone have details?

[Trim Stab]

A friend of mine who was on the A340 fleet at ViA did a TR conversion to the A330 to improve his chances of getting out of VA (morale not good there apparently). He applied to AT, and was disappointed to find the Captain salary was about what an FO makes at VA. He's gone to a major Asian carrier now (based in Australia), with a salary about 30% better than Virgin.

So AT captain salary would appear to be about 50% of what the Asian carriers are paying to Australia-based ex-pat crew - and they are struggling to recruit experienced captains too.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Now that the first aircraft has arrived at Brize, how soon can we expect to see it enter productive service? And will it be able to serve as both tanker and transport straight away, or just the latter?

[airborne_artist]

TS - see my post(s) (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/441090-airtanker-8.html#post6635402) on the previous thread on this subject. This has the hallmarks of a %^&* up.

[Bongodog1964]

Quote:
Look on the bright side, its the 1st time that the RAF have ever operated a new tanker, all the predecessors have been other peoples cast off.
Don't recall the Trimotor being a tanker prior to the RAF either! :ugh:

The trimotors were all ex BA or Pan Am, so definitely cast offs before the RAF got their hands on them. :ooh::ok::hmm:.

Victor - cast off bomber
Vulcan ditto
Hercules - hurriedly converted freighter
VC10 - mixture of converted civilian airliners and conversion of RAF freighter
Tristar - Converted ex BA and Pan Am airliners

Voyager - Brand new pax/tanker with no previous owners. :ugh::ugh:

[Trim Stab]

Does anybody know how many hours per year AT crews will be expected to fly? If they offer a reasonable roster, then they could conceivably attract experienced (but knackered) civvy A330 captains who have seen their annual hours workloads rocket within the last three or four years.

So approx how many hours per year does an RAF Tristar aircraft captain currently fly?

[D-IFF_ident]

Has anyone checked-up on BEagle recently? Is he MIA?

[Courtney Mil]

BEgs last seen a couple of days ago on QRA and Helo threads. Maybe recovering from NYE. If you need him here quickly, just post something factually flawed about tanker joins. :cool:

[cessnapete]

One I met last year flew less than 200 hrs. Mainly I think because the tasks were cancelled so often due a/c unserviceability.

[Ken Scott]

As no civvy pilots seem to want to take the 'low' wages at AT how about this - employ all the RAF pilots who are already AAR qualified to fly them! Bond them for 5 years for their type rating & have them fly the shiny new military tanker.

I might even go for it myself....

[1.3VStall]

Courtney, the quickest way to get Beags on to a thread is to mention Ms York!;)

[Courtney Mil]

Ah, of course. The lovely Susannah, I presume. Let's see if it works.

BEags, Susannah York. What do you think?

[BEagle]

I say Courtney, do you mean:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/SY05.jpg

Ooooh yes..:ok:

Greetings everyone! Happy New Year to one and all! Having been away in darkest Yorkshire visiting relatives, my vile cold and I are now back in the soft saarf after a quick blast down the Fosse Way in the teutonic tourer this morning. Saw a Typhoon zotting along at low level in Yorkshire earlier today, which was nice! Lucky blighter!

The thing one has to remember is that ATrS will be providing the Voyager to the RAF on a power-by-the-hour basis. The RAF thus still has never 'bought' a new tanker as they will only be renting the Voyager.

One wonders how ATrS' business case will work, now that there are no Harriers, SHARs, Tornado F3s or Nimrod MRA4s. There are fewer Tornados and Typhoons than were originally anticipated - so how often will the crews be flying the Voyager in the AAR role? Will there really be a Voyager sitting out in the open (it won't fit in the Timmy hangar) at RAF Mount Pleasant, flying a tiny number of hours per month? How much AT work will the Voyager do otherwise, given that the north-west frontier war won't go on for ever....hopefully?

Still, the A330 is jolly nice and will make an excellent tanker......eventually :E !

Oh - and always end with the 'pack shot':

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/sy_d.jpg

[Courtney Mil]

38 minutes, 1.3VStall. Not bad!

[BEagle]

Yes, sorry for the delay, but I had to get some more Kleenex first...

...for my cold, that is!

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/SYork03.jpg

:E

[Saintsman]

The thing one has to remember is that ATrS will be providing the Voyager to the RAF on a power-by-the-hour basis.

True, but I understand that there is a guaranteed minimum requirement. The RAF pays if they don't use them and pays more if they require over and above the minimum.

A good deal for ATr (if they can get pilots).

However, the penalties are quite severe if they can't come up with the goods.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Saintsman,

Bet there is a very clever little clause in there somewhere that counters that penalty option :ok:

[Rigga]

"Will there really be a Voyager sitting out in the open (it won't fit in the Timmy hangar) at RAF Mount Pleasant,"

Why would "they" want to put it in a hangar overnight, when the thing is designed to last for years outside?

Hangars (for "Commercial" aircraft - and that is what these are) are only for working in, not for parking in overnight because it gets cold out. Coats are cheaper.

...I'll just get mine...

[winkle]

ATr can get pilots, just depends if they really need them.

[brakedwell]

Where those photographs taken at Akrotiri? :O

[Kengineer-130]

Rigga, to be instantly ready for "Q" duties, without having to mess around for hours sweeping snow off the wings before de-iceing etc.. Also gets pretty miserable doing long jobs outside at -15°!

The VC10 was often in the hanger during my 6 month stint darrn saarf (some might allude to the fact that it was U/S more often than not :ok:) when the weather was set to be or was suitably offensive.

[BEagle]

Can anyone tell me what increase in capabilities the new aircraft will bring?
The RAF demonstrated a long range strike capability during recent operations over Libya. I'm sure in part this was designed to demonstrate to certain parties the UKs 'reach'. So if we take it to the extreme, does Airtanker allow the RAF to put a package of 4 GR4s with 2 Stormshadow each over the Falklands. Could it manage this with 1 - 2 tankers instead of the large number required for Black Buck?

ASI to MPA is about 3500nm, which is several times further than UK-Mediterranean! Furthermore, there are very few en-route diversion aerodromes, meaning that to maintain even a 4-bag Tornado above its abort fuel state would require probably 5 refuelling brackets. My guess is that it might be possible to deploy 2, maybe 3, 4-baggers from ASI-MPA at typical AAR trail speed / height with a Voyager using the usual tanker alternate for MPA and would take about 9 hours.

brakedwell, no - Almeria, I think.

[Abbey Road]

Beags, and you have perhaps been there to lovingly touch the very rock upon which she sat? ;)

[Trim Stab]

If we could get over the pprune viagra-substitute digression, could anybody answer my question about how many hours per year a current RAF tanker crew would typically fly?

If AT salaries are less than the norm for long-haul A330 captains, they could perhaps still offer attractive terms if the annual hours target is more reasonable. Do RAF long-haul crews do approaching 900 hours per year?

[brakedwell]

I'm sure I saw that shapely rear in the Akrotiri ascot transit block :E

[1.3VStall]

brakedwell, I wish...............!

[Chris Griffin]

Trim Stab:

Tanker crews don't get anywhere near 900 hrs / year.

In the past 12 months I got circa 500 hrs which included 60 Ellamy missions.

I reckon both Tri* and VC10 crews get in the region of 350 - 450 hrs / year

[Trim Stab]

Thanks Chris - If AT fly about the same those would probably be quite attractive terms to most long-haul pilots these days. Admittedly they presumably won't have so many SD's as regulars though.

[charlies angel]

A MFF Airbus Captain in Charter world would be (fag packet) @500 hrs pa.
For this there is a salary @£110k+, PHI, 8x salary death in service, co pension of @15-20%, nice hotels and plenty of time off per year and per month.
If I was said Captain:O my choice would be to go half time at the airline and still earn more than an Airtanker crew:ok:
As has been said previously in this thread, the package needs to be extraordinary to winkle out Civvy pilots from their comfort zone.

[FJ2ME]

Just a little caution with regard to hours comparisons advised I think. If you think that the fewer hours flown by RAF crews would therefore mean either more home time or perhaps the possibility of another low-hours job on another airline, you must not forget that those 300-400 years come with additional 'free' umpteen hours on q at Brize or Falklands, another something-teen weeks away each year on det, typically 3-4 weeks at a time for circa 20-30 hours flying...(Let's not include the Ellamy surge). So to summarise, the leisurely appearance of 3-400 hrs/year is more like the work hours of 900 a year once you factor in the legendary Ascot efficiency. Oh, and those who have left, forgotten and considering returning, don't forget that your schedule/roster will change 3-4times per day and if you're not in the vicinity of the desk 24hours a day then you life will be f@c£Ed about from pillar to post and you won't even know what you're doing next week reliably never mind in x-months time for your daughters/fathers/sisters christening/birthday/wedding etc...

[Just This Once...]

Yep, for an airline chap those 100's of hours flying sounds like going to work. For those in the military those 100's of hours flying feels more like getting away from work. In the military it's the hours not flying that are the painful ones.

[cessnapete]

Other than for training, why are AirTanker/MOD trying to crew with expensive civilian pilots (Probably well in excess of £100k needed to tempt a current airline pilot) when they can crew with RAF pilots for half the cost?
I hear from the Gulf that initial senior RAF pilots on A330 conversion course finding it tough going!!

[D-IFF_ident]

A330 conversion - how hard can it be?

[Tay Cough]

Just a little caution with regard to hours comparisons advised I think. If you think that the fewer hours flown by RAF crews would therefore mean either more home time or perhaps the possibility of another low-hours job on another airline, you must not forget that those 300-400 years come with additional 'free' umpteen hours on q at Brize or Falklands, another something-teen weeks away each year on det, typically 3-4 weeks at a time for circa 20-30 hours flying...(Let's not include the Ellamy surge). So to summarise, the leisurely appearance of 3-400 hrs/year is more like the work hours of 900 a year once you factor in the legendary Ascot efficiency. Oh, and those who have left, forgotten and considering returning, don't forget that your schedule/roster will change 3-4times per day and if you're not in the vicinity of the desk 24hours a day then you life will be f@c£Ed about from pillar to post and you won't even know what you're doing next week reliably never mind in x-months time for your daughters/fathers/sisters christening/birthday/wedding etc...

The trouble is that if this is an AOC operation (which to a certain extent it will have to be if the pilots are operating with civvy licences), all of the above counts as duty time one way or another. The current limits are 2000 hours duty time in twelve months and 900 flying hours. Either is restricting so "Q" will probably end up in flight time terms as "airport standby". :\

[Lockstock]

I hear from the Gulf that initial senior RAF pilots on A330 conversion course finding it tough going!!

Who told you that rubbish? The 'senior' RAF pilots I have spoken to who have recently done an Airbus conversion have had no problems at all.

[FJ2ME]

"senior" in flying hours and experience or "senior" in rank I wonder...The 2 are not necessarily coexistent...

[brit bus driver]

A330 conversion - how hard can it be?

Obviously, not very....:ok:

Trust all's well.

[StopStart]

"senior" in flying hours and experience or "senior" in rank I wonder...The 2 are not necessarily coexistent...
Experience would suggest the two are now more often mutually exclusive than not.

No one struggled with TR cse but it was apparently something a culture shock compared to the standard 6 month RAF OCU.....

[brakedwell]

That reminds me of the Britannia course at Filton. RAF - 9 months from start to finish. Laker - Two weeks!