AAR Then & Now ...

[CoffmanStarter]

Our good friend Dragartist recently sent me a copy of the Air Reserve Gazette dated June 1947. Inside was a double page spread that I thought other Members (especially BEagle) might appreciate :ok:

http://i1004.photobucket.com/albums/af162/CoffmanStarter/ARG_06_47_FC_zpsa0fa3913.jpg

Image Credit : Air Reserve Gazette : Front Cover June 1947

Just for background ... The ARG was the forerunner to Air Pictorial which then became Aviation News.

http://i1004.photobucket.com/albums/af162/CoffmanStarter/AARLanc1947_zpsf9cef308.png

Image Credit : Air Reserve Gazette June 1947.

I particularly liked the pic of the 'First Woman Refuelling Operator' ... a Miss W. B. Greest. Clearly her Refuelling Desk was very spartan back then compared with the Voyager of today (see below).

http://i1004.photobucket.com/albums/af162/CoffmanStarter/IMG_0879_zps055ca30a.jpg

Image Credit : AirTanker 2014

A pictorial curiosity really showing how far the art of AAR has progressed over the last 67 years (yes, I do appreciate there were earlier experiments).

Best regards ...

Coff.

[Tankertrashnav]

Thanks for posting, Coff - very interesting.

I've just given a talk at St Mawgan on the history of AAR in the UK - wish I'd had those pictures then. During the talk I explained that the first successful "probe and drogue" contact was in 1949 when a Meteor successfully made contact with a Lincoln.

Here's a great clip of the system that Sir Alan Cobham's Flight Refuelling company devised for the Empire Flying Boat (one of the earlier experiments you referred to). I love the blokes in their smart flying suits and caps winding the hose in like crazy!

In-flight refueling of the Empire Flying Boat - YouTube

I like the Voyager's refuelling station - never mind the Lancaster, it's a lot more impressive than the one in the Victor. I've still got a bad back from bending over that damn rear-view periscope!

[Onceapilot]

There's progress, a complete AAR operator station, bigger than the complete FE station of previous RAF tankers, remote from the flightdeck, but, in reality, an extra crewmember. :=
Anyone like to say who precisely had it in for Flight Engineers?:ooh:

OAP

[Just This Once...]

Two cup holders.

Nice.

[Lima Juliet]

Here you o Coff, 15 or so years earlier... :ok:

http://www.largemodelassociation.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/77.jpg

[Fareastdriver]

I've still got a bad back from bending over that damn rear-view periscope!

My Nav Rads used to dream about periscopes.

[BEagle]

That Voyager MSO's station is an utter triumph of style over substance.

Absurdly over-engineered and yet it still lacks significant core mission functionality requirements ....:mad:

Spot any moving map or TACAN display? Or even a fuel graph?

[Herod]

Two points from the film clip.

1. If the tanker moves too far ahead of the receiver, the hose will foul the tailplane.

2. Those guys were transferring PETROL :eek:

[Roland Pulfrew]

remote from the flightdeck

Hardly. Last Voyager I flew on had it right behind the pilots!

As for Anyone like to say who precisely had it in for Flight Engineers? well it wasn't the two winged brethren? :E

[dragartist]

JTO,
you beat me to it. I noted the double cup holder.
When I was involved in rack layouts for the R the position of the cup holder took preference over the roller ball. We had some rather nice double cup holders. Not suitable for the big insulated cups. Only the small white paper ones.

No ashtray?


On a serious note, Thanks for sharing this stuff Coff. I knew other Pruners would be interested. I quite liked the article on the flying saucers. 1947 - ten years before we were born.


Drag

[NutLoose]

http://www.lzdzonline.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/Hover-Refuelling.png

http://www.lzdzonline.co.uk/hover-refuelling-with-tsw/

:p

[D-IFF_ident]

4 big tv screens, how does the MEL read? 4 fitted, X required....

How did the VC10 FE ever cope:

http://www.aeroresource.co.uk/articles/2013/vc10-za148/images/Chris-Willetts_Flight-Deck_002.jpg

Photo Credit: Chris Willetts, Aero resource.

Or the chaps on the Victor, with a periscope:

http://www.vforcereunion.co.uk/images/victor4.jpg

Photo Credit: Dave Robinson, Victor Reunion

The MSO has great SA on where the receivers are, once they're in close formation, no SA on where they are themselves or where the receivers are before they join the formation unless the pilots tell them. That's not entirely true though, they could have great SA beyond the vision system once all available avionics/mission systems are cleared for use.

[Tankertrashnav]

Thanks for posting the pic D-IFF-IDENT - it brings back memories. That's the periscope I was talking about above which my lower back still reminds me about! The photo was taken when the crew were on a Western ranger to Offutt, and the USAF colonel who wrote the article from which it's taken says some nice things about the Victor. Here's the full article.

V-Force Reunion - Victor Tankers In The RAF (http://www.vforcereunion.co.uk/article1.html)

I see Geoff "the ref" Armitage is wearing his 214 and One Ton Budgie badges - still got mine in a drawer somewhere. The whole set up looks like something out of the ark compared with the Voyager, but it worked well.

[Fareastdriver]

Before that all the NavRad/refuelling operator had was dial that showed how far the hose was run out. He only knew the receiver had made contact when the hose started moving. He managed to refuel Vulcans to Australia, Javelins to Singapore via Pakistan or India and Lightnings to Cyprus and Bahrain with this.

http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/ee224/fareastdriver/img005_zpsde76a521.jpg (http://s229.photobucket.com/user/fareastdriver/media/img005_zpsde76a521.jpg.html)

[Tankertrashnav]

Still, at least he could stand up without his head banging on the roof ;)

[smujsmith]

It's worth noting that PA474 was once part of the Flight Refuelling Ltd set up, that pioneered AAR way back. I discovered this when detailed as team leader for the refurbishment of the aircrafts mainplanes at Abingdon many moons ago. I suspect that techniques have changed a lot since 474 was trialling techniques. But nice to know that the aircraft also represents technological progress and not just bombing.

The aircrafts history from the MOD site says ;

"On return to the United Kingdom, PA474 was loaned to Flight Refuelling Ltd at Tarrant Rushton to be used as a pilotless drone, an uncertain future, which would likely have led to her loss. Fortunately, however, before the conversion started, the Air Ministry decided to use a different type of aircraft for the drone programme (a Lincoln) and PA474 was reprieved. She was then transferred to the Royal College of Aeronautics at Cranfield where she was used as a trial platform for the testing of various experimental aerofoil sections between 1954 and 1964; the trial wings being mounted vertically on the upper rear fuselage."

Thank goodness the drone trials were not followed through.

Smudge:ok:

[Saintsman]

Slight thread drift on the subject of cup holders.

I once went for a design review at Warton during the MRA4 days. Waste-of-space were quite chuffed that a swing-out cup holder could also be used to hang the operator's head-set on when he wasn't wearing it.

Mind you it was no good if it had a cup in it. Probably why they cancelled it...

[BEagle]

D-IFF_ident wrote:
The MSO has great SA on where the receivers are, once they're in close formation, no SA on where they are themselves or where the receivers are before they join the formation unless the pilots tell them. That's not entirely true though, they could have great SA beyond the vision system once all available avionics/mission systems are cleared for use.

Whereas, in contrast, the A310MRTT systems provide the Air Refuelling Operator with a moving map, a TACAN BHDI (with continuous automatic RV turn range calculation), a simple fuel system synoptic display, a fuel vs. UTC or fuel vs. Distance to Destination display, automatic offload logging, continuous flight plan updating and the ability to manage refuelling plans as necessary.

Why does the A310MRTT have all this but the A330MRTT doesn't? Because the A310MRTT designers used AAR SMEs whereas the A330MRTT designers (certainly those who have comprehensively failed to deliver a working mission system) didn't - they relied primarily on engineers who had no experience of the role whatsoever or ex-USAF boom operators...:rolleyes: Neither would they accept many offers of assistance from the A310MRTT team....

An ATr suit dared to tell me that "The Voyager is a 2+1 crew aircraft - it only needs the MSO during tanking". Which meant that he had absolutely no understanding of basic tanker CRM.....:ugh:

[3engnever]

.........has it been 2 months already!!

[Compass Call]

The book to read is 'In Cobham's Company' by Colin Cruddas
ISBN 0952448807

Excellent reading and plentiful photos & diagrams.

CC

[ian16th]

The book to read is 'In Cobham's Company' by Colin Cruddas

Agreed, but it is not perfect, he does confuse 214 Sqdn with 90 Sqdn.

[ArthurR]

I was part of the flight test team on the first Tri-Star, ZD 950, later did the GAF A310, and then the boom demonstrator and the Aussie A330, in Madrid, the 330 is the best for me.

[nimbev]

Further to TTN's post, I saw this on Wiki when researching the Meteor

On 7 August 1949, Meteor III, EE397, on loan from the RAF and flown by Flight Refuelling Ltd (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_Refuelling_Ltd) (FRL) test pilot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_pilot) Patrick Hornidge, took off from Tarrant Rushton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Tarrant_Rushton) and, refuelled 10 times by the Lancaster tanker, remained airborne for 12 hours and 3 minutes, receiving 2,352 gallons of fuel from the tanker in ten tanker contacts and flying an overall distance of 3,600 miles (5,800 km), achieving a new jet endurance record.12 hours in a Meteor F3 .... he deserved a medal for that alone. :D

[D-IFF_ident]

the boom demonstrator and the Aussie A330

Here's hoping the Aussie A330 gets beyond merely demonstrating the Boom soon. :cool:

[ArthurR]

The boom demonstrator was an A310, and the Aussie A330 should have finished flight test and be in service.

[Arty Fufkin]

Sorry Beagle, I don't understand. Why is an MSO needed when not conducting AAR? Genuinely interested on what CRM issues you refer to.

[BEagle]

The impression we were given was that the MSO was considered only to be required when there is a need to operate the refuelling equipment and receiver surveillance system, with everything else being done by the pilots.

Whereas in contrast, in the A310MRTT the ARO is a full third of the 3-person crew and is the primary AAR mission manager. He/she is far more than just some food-powered pump attendant.

The RCAF and Luftwaffe have different intra-crew SOPs, but both understand the need for the ARO/FRS to be a full member of the crew during any AAR sortie.

[D-IFF_ident]

You're right Arthur, it should be in service. But it isn't.

That is, the Aussie A330 is in service, but their boom still isn't.

[ian16th]

Today, SWMBO came across my old pocket notebook from when I was on 214 Sqdn in the early days of RAF AAR.

It includes the 'radar fit' for each a/c on the Sqdn including the on trial Rebecca/Eureka Mk X.

Because XD869 is not included, I must have started it after the unfortunate crash in Sept 1959. XD 871, the replacement a/c was added, but out of sequence.

Anyone aware if the section and reference and ARI numbers of vintage radar kit is subject to the Official Secrets Act?:ugh:

[Top West 50]

A 2 + 1 crew concept must, by definition, require 2 sets of crew behaviour. At best, this could be confusing but, at worst, downright dangerous!

[Arty Fufkin]

So if you're doing AAR you have an MSO on the flightdeck. If you're not doing AAR you don't.
I'm probably being a bit thick, but what's the issue? The poor fella would get a bit bored looking at those screens on a 9 HR AT trip wouldn't he?
Unless there's a video in socket I guess.

[Tankertrashnav]

He/she is far more than just some food-powered pump attendant.

Tut! As a former Victor tanker nav radar I resent the implications of that remark!

;)

[D-IFF_ident]

Not that it's being considered, but what an interesting experiment it would be should the RAF ever introduce a Boom into service.

The future of the truly multi-role tanker might be a 3-crew member flight deck. With 2 people facing forwards (Pilots) and 1 backwards (Mission Systems Operator).

On operational flights, outside of actual AAR, one person flies the jet (PF), responsible for navigation and all the stuff the PF does now, including maintaining formation position with other tankers when relevant. 2nd person (PNF), in the other pilot seat, is responsible for some communications, including radios, CPDLC, ACARS, Datalink systems, SatComm, etc, monitors aircraft systems and backs-up the PF and MSO, including any mission systems in use. While the 3rd person, the MSO, shares the communications workload with the PNF, but focusses more on the mission systems, timings, fuel plans etc and plans ahead, maintaining crew SA on the mission as a whole. The lead-tanker MSO might also be responsible for some traditionally C2 work, such as allocating receivers to tankers based on requirements, location, tanker saturation and fuel available.

When an AAR event occurs the MSO would operate the AAR systems (Boom or Pods) and control receiver aircraft in formation. The PNF would take over control of mission systems, timings, fuel plans etc. The PF still controls the Tanker, navigates, communicates with other receivers joining, maintains formation position with other tankers etc.

The key ingredient to this operating model is synergy, which is facilitated by CRM, training and SOPs developed to include the crew operating as a team. Each person would need to have a good understanding of each of the other positions' roles and know what other members are doing at all times.

When the Multi-role aircraft is being used for other tasks, the flight deck composition might depend on the complexity of that task. For 'simple' AT (is it, ever?) the MSO might not be required. But, if the aircraft is being operated with minimum support, as military operations often are; without the type of infrastructure enjoyed by a commercial airline, flying familiar routes on a regular basis. The MSO might take on some of the roles of load control, movements staff, the Loadmaster, Purser, Flight Despatch, Planning Staff, Performance Engineer etc. The Captain would still do the traditional captain work and the PNF would integrate somewhere between the 2. With a suitably trained and qualified MSO they could provide a lot of support to the AT role and increase efficiency while reducing some costs associated with handling support. (Noting that Crew Duty may be affected should the MSO be required to accomplish a lot of work on the ground.)

Current and future operators might take a mission-oriented approach to operating policies and procedures and carefully avoid a 'how we used to do it' approach, or a 'I've only ever operated tanker X so therefore Procedure X is the only way to do things.'

Capturing this 'synergetic' tanker-crew operating policy in writing might be a challenge. Detailing a fluid, 3-dimensional, multi-layered operating concept in a 2-dimensional set of orders and instructions could require some effort. Training it might take months. Convincing old-heads might be almost impossible.

I'll get me coat.

[BEagle]

D-IFF_ident wrote: When an AAR event occurs the MSO would operate the AAR systems (Boom or Pods) and control receiver aircraft in formation. The PNF would take over control of mission systems, timings, fuel plans etc.

If the Mission System is properly designed (as it is in the A310MRTT / CC-150T), there would be no need for the PNF to take over control in that way. Offloads are recorded automatically and their effect on the fuel plan can easily be seen on the Mission System fuel vs. time or fuel vs. DTD graphs (updated at 1 Hz). Crew SOP is that the Mission System is updated with receiver fuel on board 15 min before a bracket and the plan amended if necessary. 5 min after the bracket, the system is again updated (this allows time for receiver fuel gauging to settle, receiver fuel issues such as drop tank transfer failure to come to light) and the plan is again amended if required. But actually during an AAR event, there shouldn't be any need to change anything, for the obvious reason that the effect of the ongoing AAR event cannot be taken fully into account until it is complete.

Normally the ARO/FRS would use a 'fail-safe' plan which caters for single hose failure at any point in the trail, so there is no need to switch to a single hose plan (with revised single hose bracket positions, timings and offloads) until the ongoing AAR event is complete. Having changed to the single hose plan, the ARO/FRS can, in consultation with the Tanker Commander, elect to move brackets to earlier points if required.

The system caters for up to 8 trail receivers, all of which could have different configurations, departure aerodromes, RVIPs, Split Points and destination aerodromes if required - and of course it calculates the receiver fuel required at the Split Point (unless the receiver mission planner has defined a specific fuel state requirement at the Split Point).

[D-IFF_ident]

BEags, I agree that getting fuel into receivers during an accompanied deployment takes priority over any longer-term planning issues. But I wasn't talking specifically about a trail/accompanied deployment, or about P&D AAR; I was talking more generally. And I was including Boom AAR - if the A310MRTT / CC-150T had a boom then there might be a case for considering transferring control of the MCS to somebody else when the MSO has their hands full.

Either way the AAR Mission System is just one component of the tanker system as a whole. Other components (which might be integrated into the mission system) could include datalink / C2 systems that the operator might require to be monitored during anchor-type AAR operations, when the tanker could be tasked for on-call AAR for example. Information systems usually monitored by the MSO might be monitored by the PNF during an AAR event, in preparation for moving the tanker to expedite the next RV, to monitor bigger-picture operations or to receive secure tasking messages etc.

[BEagle]

Link messages and re-tasking messages could be received / acknowledged by one of the pilots, I agree. But no significant mission plan changes should be decided without the full involvement of the primary mission specialist.

The A310MRTT system was designed from the outset to provide sufficient information during a towline (or 'anchor') mission to facilitate a flexible change of plan. Rather than the pilots WAGing the solution, the MCS provides precise, accurate information upon which the re-plan can be formulated - and does so very quickly without the need to hunt through a complicated menu structure.

Once a TLAR approximate plan change has been agreed, the ARO/FRS can edit the active plan as necessary to provide precise timings and the fuel plan without the need for pilots to go 'head-in' to peck away at their MCDUs - something which should be actively discouraged if there are receivers in the vicinity.

On call AAR availability is easily assessed due to the active fuel graphs and 'spare fuel' display - and there is no need to enter anything at all into the MCS if a receiver suddenly appears without warning on the wing needing fuel - there's no "Computer says no"! If you know there's spare fuel, just put him in contact - the details can be quickly typed into the mission log (as soon as it's clicked, it notes lat/long and UTC) when there's time. But normally there is sufficient time to use the basic 'add receiver' entry fields.

[Tankertrashnav]

I must say as someone whose experience of AAR is nearer to Alan Cobham than the Voyager I am finding the discussion on the way it is done these days very interesting, although I am having to do a bit of head scratching to work out some of the abbreviations being bandied about, which are obviously no problem to those familiar with current practice.

I'm just about keeping up, but "WAGing the solution"? Oh, and D - IFF_ident, is "an AAR event" what we used to call "AAR"? ;)

Fascinating stuff though - thanks.

[BEagle]

WAGing = making a Wild Assed Guess.

[3engnever]

On the A310 system, who has viz of the plan. Do all 3 operators have the plan displayed in front of them?

[BEagle]

The 'plan' is of course briefed pre-flight. For a trail mission, the pre-flight trail plan would be printed off-aircraft (or on-aircraft if time is tight) for crew review. Any significant in-flight change of plan can be printed on the cockpit printer in flight, so that the pilots do not need to gaze at any specific screen at the time - they can review the agreed plan change at their leisure, should they so wish.

In any case, inter-crew SOPs are such that the AAR mission can continue seamlessly even in the unlikely event of a double hardware failure denying the crew the use of the Mission System.

It would be perfectly possible to add a flight deck repeater display for the Mission System as the video system has ample spare connectivity; however, it simply hasn't proven necessary over the many years that the system has been in operational service.

When do you start your Voyager course, 3engnever?

[3engnever]

Beags,

Thanks for the response, I couldn't remember whether all crew had a repeater or not. Whilst I see that the plan can be continuously printed off as it updates until you run out of paper or ink, it seems a shame not to present realtime graphic information to all those on the flight deck if only for SA. I presume the 310 system doesn't overlay JTIDS either?

Clearly the A330 system is still in the roll out period, and I know your thoughts about the system; you have been telling me for the last 5 years! We are now beginning to work out the SOPs for system utilisation. I feel this stage will be critical to how we can optimise the system we have. Like any, it has limitations, and yes it should have been here years ago, but it will be interesting to compare to the 310 system in years to come using real evidence from the user community rather than rumour and hearsay (I know the we are on a rumour site before someone starts!!)

Starting soon hopefully and looking forward to stepping into the 21st Century! Really need to stop being one of those staff weasels:}

3Eng

[BEagle]

The A310 system could certainly overlay Link information and the processors have always had spare capacity with that in mind. The screen layout has also been designed with Link data field areas as a future option. However, the end users are currently looking at an alternative, less elegant solution.

I haven't seen whether the crew actually use the cockpit ACARS printer for plan updates - or if they do, how often. At least one nation seems to expect the ARO/FRS just to get on with the job and to spoon feed the pilots with anything they need to know - which at least ensures that they look out of the windows for most of the time!

Although Airbus tried to lay down the AAR techniques in the early days, the end users decided that they would use the synergy of their own views and other AAR operators' experience instead. So the system design was heavily influenced by experienced operators rather than by civil airliner engineers!

Enjoy brushing off the dust of the Brizzle Waterworks and getting airborne again!

Maybe see you in Spain if we ever get a reply.....