AirTanker First Officers
The purpose of the 85% component at the planning stage was to give a buffer so that the AARC did not have to manually replan things at the last minute. In terms of feasibility of leg length this is unlikely to be an issue for Voyager. As far cherry picking both systems, unless I have missed something, both have 2 weaknesses which I think should have been addressed long ago. The systems seem only to deal with the accompanied portion and the bracket selection process needs adjustment to place the final bracket in the optimum position.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: all over
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I get the 'buffer' offered by the stat met percentage, my point is that it doesn't really matter whether it is 85% or 82% or 75%, it is only a planning figure enhancing the chance of not having to change the plan on the day.
Getting an accurate diversion ETA is a bit late when you have already initiated it, especially as a back up to an AP position, however, I do acknowledge that in the emergency case it is a very useful tool.
As to where we go from here. Airbus DS have now delivered and certified and qualified system which the RAF will take into service. Once the simulator upgrades have been put in place and the aircraft SBs have been delivered, the team will begin to roll the system out to the RAF crews, developing operating procedures together to ensure that the system is utilised in the best possible way.
The problem with only dealing with the accompanied stage is a change in the way we do business, but there are ways of planning that deal with this issue and when the legs are accompanied from departure to landing, the problem goes away.
There are undoubtedly hurdles, and maybe if we had our time again we would have spent more time specifying the exact requirements of the system better, maybe even doing a bit of solutionising. It is disappointing that the system wasn't developed jointly with operational and technical specialists, but we now have to get the best out of the system we have.
I am sorry the an initial question about ATrS First Officers has turned into an MPS debate, but I think it is good to ensure that there is a balanced arguement out there. Can't let Beags have it all his own way ;-)
Getting an accurate diversion ETA is a bit late when you have already initiated it, especially as a back up to an AP position, however, I do acknowledge that in the emergency case it is a very useful tool.
As to where we go from here. Airbus DS have now delivered and certified and qualified system which the RAF will take into service. Once the simulator upgrades have been put in place and the aircraft SBs have been delivered, the team will begin to roll the system out to the RAF crews, developing operating procedures together to ensure that the system is utilised in the best possible way.
The problem with only dealing with the accompanied stage is a change in the way we do business, but there are ways of planning that deal with this issue and when the legs are accompanied from departure to landing, the problem goes away.
There are undoubtedly hurdles, and maybe if we had our time again we would have spent more time specifying the exact requirements of the system better, maybe even doing a bit of solutionising. It is disappointing that the system wasn't developed jointly with operational and technical specialists, but we now have to get the best out of the system we have.
I am sorry the an initial question about ATrS First Officers has turned into an MPS debate, but I think it is good to ensure that there is a balanced arguement out there. Can't let Beags have it all his own way ;-)
vascodegama wrote:
Nope, that isn't true for the A310 system!
The A310 MCS has 3 basic options for trails (in all cases the accompanied segments are calculated using burn rates, on-load rate and fuel capacity for each receiver type):
Planning only the accompanied segment is a very limiting methodology. Right from the start it was a requirement that the A310 MCS must be able to compute end-to-end planning for certain receiver types / configurations - the delay in including this was purely down to the time it took to obtain the performance databases from approved sources.
Brackets are planned by default (as you helped to define some years ago!) either for 2-hose or single hose operation - the planner can then drag and drop brackets (or sub-brackets only, if preferred) on the map - or can do so by changing the 'waypoint minus' figures in the RB table.
It has come a very long way since the version you saw all those years ago!
beardy, that's interesting. And cessnapete, the Thos.Cook 'moist lease' operations will be civil only, so probably won't be as infrequent as you suggest. Which will doubtless impress the RAF crews...
3engnever wrote:
You must be a staff officer to write things like that - do I win my £5?
That last sentence is a huge criticism of the Voyager MPS . It was acknowledged on day one that the A310 system had to be developed jointly with operational and technical specialists - and that's why it's been so successful!
As far cherry picking both systems, unless I have missed something, both have 2 weaknesses which I think should have been addressed long ago. The systems seem only to deal with the accompanied portion and the bracket selection process needs adjustment to place the final bracket in the optimum position.
The A310 MCS has 3 basic options for trails (in all cases the accompanied segments are calculated using burn rates, on-load rate and fuel capacity for each receiver type):
- End-to-end planning using the embedded receiver performance database.
- End-to-end planning using fuel/dist/time values provided by the receiver unit for the unaccompanied segments.
- Planning from RV to Split Point only, with fuel at RVIP and split point as provided by the receiver unit.
Planning only the accompanied segment is a very limiting methodology. Right from the start it was a requirement that the A310 MCS must be able to compute end-to-end planning for certain receiver types / configurations - the delay in including this was purely down to the time it took to obtain the performance databases from approved sources.
Brackets are planned by default (as you helped to define some years ago!) either for 2-hose or single hose operation - the planner can then drag and drop brackets (or sub-brackets only, if preferred) on the map - or can do so by changing the 'waypoint minus' figures in the RB table.
It has come a very long way since the version you saw all those years ago!
beardy, that's interesting. And cessnapete, the Thos.Cook 'moist lease' operations will be civil only, so probably won't be as infrequent as you suggest. Which will doubtless impress the RAF crews...
3engnever wrote:
The problem with only dealing with the accompanied stage is a change in the way we do business, but there are ways of planning that deal with this issue and when the legs are accompanied from departure to landing, the problem goes away.
There are undoubtedly hurdles, and maybe if we had our time again we would have spent more time specifying the exact requirements of the system better, maybe even doing a bit of solutionising. It is disappointing that the system wasn't developed jointly with operational and technical specialists, but we now have to get the best out of the system we have.
There are undoubtedly hurdles, and maybe if we had our time again we would have spent more time specifying the exact requirements of the system better, maybe even doing a bit of solutionising. It is disappointing that the system wasn't developed jointly with operational and technical specialists, but we now have to get the best out of the system we have.
That last sentence is a huge criticism of the Voyager MPS . It was acknowledged on day one that the A310 system had to be developed jointly with operational and technical specialists - and that's why it's been so successful!
Last edited by BEagle; 2nd Sep 2014 at 09:59. Reason: 3engnever comments
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Sussex UK
Age: 66
Posts: 6,995
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Thanks 3engnever 
Don't worry about thread drift ... as it was me that drifted my own thread
You make a very valid point/observation about ... "getting the requirements right at the beginning" ... which is still a major problem for some with other notable complex IT System deliveries in industry ... not just Mil Aerospace.
Still a topic of future interest and discussion ... I'm sure
Don't worry about thread drift ... as it was me that drifted my own thread
You make a very valid point/observation about ... "getting the requirements right at the beginning" ... which is still a major problem for some with other notable complex IT System deliveries in industry ... not just Mil Aerospace.
Still a topic of future interest and discussion ... I'm sure
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: oxford
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I get the 'buffer' offered by the stat met percentage, my point is that it doesn't really matter whether it is 85% or 82% or 75%, it is only a planning figure enhancing the chance of not having to change the plan on the day.
BEags-I can't see why one would ever use the other 2 options for rx fuel planning but granted it is a better situation than the A330 system. Still don't think your final bracket is as automated or optimized as it could be but once again better than the Spanish product.
3Eng-so what you are saying is that the RAF has to change its procedures (for the worse) to cover a gaping hole in the capability of the new system. Not only that but the final bracket position is just wrong on the A330 system . Bit of a tail wagging the dog IMO.
LJ -I have also been there on a total replan on the day-hopefully now the tanker will be more reliable. My expectation of a planning system is that it should take the met of the day fully into account and optimize the plan at both pre flight and in flight.
3Eng-so what you are saying is that the RAF has to change its procedures (for the worse) to cover a gaping hole in the capability of the new system. Not only that but the final bracket position is just wrong on the A330 system . Bit of a tail wagging the dog IMO.
LJ -I have also been there on a total replan on the day-hopefully now the tanker will be more reliable. My expectation of a planning system is that it should take the met of the day fully into account and optimize the plan at both pre flight and in flight.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: all over
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LJ101, having done the job, I know full well the issues of a full replan, my point is that 85% is exactly that, it is not always going to work. We frequently had to drop the % at the planning stage to get the plan to work but nobody knew, we just accepted there was a higher risk the weather might catch us out. TBH though, the risk of a replan was higher was from aircraft unservicability.
Working with paper charts etc, the burden is increased due to the replanning workload of redrawing maps, recalculating limiting fuels etc. The beauty of the integrated computerised system is that you don't have any of that, you just press replan and get on with it. You can even print out the charts for the receivers!
Beags, you can collect your £5, but you had better be quick!!
Working with paper charts etc, the burden is increased due to the replanning workload of redrawing maps, recalculating limiting fuels etc. The beauty of the integrated computerised system is that you don't have any of that, you just press replan and get on with it. You can even print out the charts for the receivers!
Beags, you can collect your £5, but you had better be quick!!
Because it is determined by distance to the abort point and will almost inevitably be later than is necessary. It needs another algorithm to position the final bracket at the earliest point such that a receiver that is full at the end of that bracket will reach destination with the appropriate reserves. Also am I not right in thinking that the crew cannot drop and drag (or move by any other method) the bracket.
vascodegama, with the A310 MCS the postioning of the final RB has now been altered to provide a more logical plan. Another tweak is the 'fail-safe' option which, if a single hose plan is actually possible, will automatically plan the RBs so that there's no real drama if a hose fails to trail, for example. Most of the users create such a plan manually at present, the update automates the process.
Also 'wind of the day' can be entered on the day very quickly indeed, to further refine matters.
Typical senarios for using 'receiver fuel at RVIP' specified by the receivers would be when they arrive back for post-strike refuelling - "We'll be back at the tanker with 2500 kg", for example. Or "We need to leave you with 6000 kg at the Split Point" when off to do some air-to-sand work.
Typical scenarios using receiver provided fuel/dist/time figures for the unaccompanied segments would be if the receiver type / config. isn't in the perf database - or the receiver unit isn't happy to provide a full perf ODM for the type.
I couldn't agree more about the 'tail wagging the dog' description - that sounds like a staff-weasel desperate to avoid a serious contractual non-compliance issue! "Shut up, you don't know the Big Picture, so use some imagineering six-sigma solutionising - and a chinagraph". This time last year, the views about the situation were pretty clear - so why no-one has grasped the nettle and demanded anything better is somewhat beyond me.
A310 MCS works fine, but unlike an AARC, you can't have a beer with it. Although at least it doesn't ding hire cars!
vasco also wrote:
To quote a certain tennis-playing brat: "You canNOT be serious!". What if the system has planned RBs right through the middle of the ITCZ, for example? Presumably it will also cope with route changes and replan the RBs for such events? Won't it??
beardy, it was my understanding that the Thos.Cook 'moist lease' will employ the Voyager in non-military configuration as the airline requires. The crews will also support AirTanker's own air transport activity, whether to the sun-drenched South Atlantic, Cyprus or wherever. But to Part-CAT 'civil' regulations. Hence my term 'civil', which I grant you was probably a bit vague.
Also 'wind of the day' can be entered on the day very quickly indeed, to further refine matters.
Typical senarios for using 'receiver fuel at RVIP' specified by the receivers would be when they arrive back for post-strike refuelling - "We'll be back at the tanker with 2500 kg", for example. Or "We need to leave you with 6000 kg at the Split Point" when off to do some air-to-sand work.
Typical scenarios using receiver provided fuel/dist/time figures for the unaccompanied segments would be if the receiver type / config. isn't in the perf database - or the receiver unit isn't happy to provide a full perf ODM for the type.
I couldn't agree more about the 'tail wagging the dog' description - that sounds like a staff-weasel desperate to avoid a serious contractual non-compliance issue! "Shut up, you don't know the Big Picture, so use some imagineering six-sigma solutionising - and a chinagraph". This time last year, the views about the situation were pretty clear - so why no-one has grasped the nettle and demanded anything better is somewhat beyond me.
A310 MCS works fine, but unlike an AARC, you can't have a beer with it. Although at least it doesn't ding hire cars!
vasco also wrote:
Also am I not right in thinking that the crew cannot drop and drag (or move by any other method) the bracket.
beardy, it was my understanding that the Thos.Cook 'moist lease' will employ the Voyager in non-military configuration as the airline requires. The crews will also support AirTanker's own air transport activity, whether to the sun-drenched South Atlantic, Cyprus or wherever. But to Part-CAT 'civil' regulations. Hence my term 'civil', which I grant you was probably a bit vague.
Last edited by BEagle; 2nd Sep 2014 at 11:52.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: all over
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vasco,
Sorry but you are wrong. The crew can move the AAR Bkts as required, therefore the final bracket can be positioned at either the earliest or latest position possible.
I can't remember off hand what the default position is as it is something we have played with, but eitherway, the bkt position can be user defined.
Sorry but you are wrong. The crew can move the AAR Bkts as required, therefore the final bracket can be positioned at either the earliest or latest position possible.
I can't remember off hand what the default position is as it is something we have played with, but eitherway, the bkt position can be user defined.
3 eng -my understanding from the brief was that the crew can adjust the distance to the abort point and thereby the bracket. What I am suggesting is missing is the automatic positioning of the final bracket in the optimum position .
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: all over
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vasco,
I am just saying the the planning philosophy needs to change to take into account that the system is not a receiver planning tool but a tanker planning tool and so does not plan end to end sortie profiles for the receiver. It is not difficult to adjust to this methodology and I am sure in a few years time we will not even think about it.
Clearly the commercial and contractual elements are well understood here, and obviously Beagle is fully versed in the Voyager contract. What I would say is that, whether we like it or not, ADS have supplied a certified and qualified product, ie it meets all of the qualifying criteria.
I have acknowledged above that we probably didn't help ourselves at the negotiation stage by not defining well enough what was required of the system, but now we have to get on with it and use the system, we will not get our money back, so what do we do, just give up and pay for something else without even trying to make it work.
As I have also said, the A310 MPS does not meet requirement either and so we would have to completely start from scratch, spending yet more money and probably taking another 5 years of development. Surely that cannot be the way forward!
Beags, I am sure the 310 MPS is amazing now, and that those RCAF crews who have voiced concern were just poor workmen, however, you must see that the RAF could not just buy the product off the shelf due to the shortfalls I have described in my posts above. Oh, and you can plan a reroute if required in the 330 MPS.
I am just saying the the planning philosophy needs to change to take into account that the system is not a receiver planning tool but a tanker planning tool and so does not plan end to end sortie profiles for the receiver. It is not difficult to adjust to this methodology and I am sure in a few years time we will not even think about it.
Clearly the commercial and contractual elements are well understood here, and obviously Beagle is fully versed in the Voyager contract. What I would say is that, whether we like it or not, ADS have supplied a certified and qualified product, ie it meets all of the qualifying criteria.
I have acknowledged above that we probably didn't help ourselves at the negotiation stage by not defining well enough what was required of the system, but now we have to get on with it and use the system, we will not get our money back, so what do we do, just give up and pay for something else without even trying to make it work.
As I have also said, the A310 MPS does not meet requirement either and so we would have to completely start from scratch, spending yet more money and probably taking another 5 years of development. Surely that cannot be the way forward!
Beags, I am sure the 310 MPS is amazing now, and that those RCAF crews who have voiced concern were just poor workmen, however, you must see that the RAF could not just buy the product off the shelf due to the shortfalls I have described in my posts above. Oh, and you can plan a reroute if required in the 330 MPS.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: all over
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vasco, that is not what you said, you indicated that the crew could not move the bkt by any means, reread your post! What is the ideal position, surely that depends on a whole manner of things, AP Airfields, Weather, Land Masses, ATC, the list goes on. The MPS cannot account for all of these and so has an automatic function that positions the bkt, I believe (although without looking at it again I can't remember atm) in the latest possible position, and then allows the crews to alter as required through the manual planning facility. It is not always best to fill to full either, if you think of the Tonka, which has to use burner when approaching full, the most fuel efficient way of planning the trail is to partial transfer on the final bkt to negate the need to plug in the burner, it also gives you more options should you have a trapped fuel issue.
3eng, sorry if you feel a little miffed.
However, vasco has it 100% when he refers to a 'tail wagging the dog' situation.
Amending an RB location by the indirect method of working backwards from an amended start-to-AP distance (or time) seems bizarre - is the AP then recalculated for the changed time in contact for a larger RB, if it is moved to an earlier point. With the A310 system, you simply drag the start point (or end point if that's the preference) and the system recomputes the RBs and associated APs.
However, vasco has it 100% when he refers to a 'tail wagging the dog' situation.
Amending an RB location by the indirect method of working backwards from an amended start-to-AP distance (or time) seems bizarre - is the AP then recalculated for the changed time in contact for a larger RB, if it is moved to an earlier point. With the A310 system, you simply drag the start point (or end point if that's the preference) and the system recomputes the RBs and associated APs.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: all over
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beags,
I just think that you are bang out of order with your assessment of my position. I have worked very hard to make this system better, and push for significant changes to make it better. If you think that we have just sat back and allowed ADS to get away with it, you are very much mistaken, we have made a lot of changes in the last year to get to where we are today.
In terms of working backwards, it is exactly the same as we did with AARWIN. I am pretty sure that we can now define a bkt start point now and then the system works out the AP, so effectively dragging and dropping.
We can also use user defined wind components for both enroute and diversion leg planning, we can change the AP Airfield in flight without having to conduct a complete replan, obviously we can use stat and real time met for both planning and replanning purposes as well as a number of additional FMS MPS upgrades.
The system has moved on, it is not perfect as I have said numerous times, however, I believe that it is now in a positions where we can use it.
I know that this will not change your position on ATr, ADS, the MPS or the Voyager Service for that matter, however, I do take offence at being personally criticised on a public forum when there really is no need or justification. If you want to go down that line I would be more than happy to discuss face to face (in a non aggressive way over a beer maybe!)
I just think that you are bang out of order with your assessment of my position. I have worked very hard to make this system better, and push for significant changes to make it better. If you think that we have just sat back and allowed ADS to get away with it, you are very much mistaken, we have made a lot of changes in the last year to get to where we are today.
In terms of working backwards, it is exactly the same as we did with AARWIN. I am pretty sure that we can now define a bkt start point now and then the system works out the AP, so effectively dragging and dropping.
We can also use user defined wind components for both enroute and diversion leg planning, we can change the AP Airfield in flight without having to conduct a complete replan, obviously we can use stat and real time met for both planning and replanning purposes as well as a number of additional FMS MPS upgrades.
The system has moved on, it is not perfect as I have said numerous times, however, I believe that it is now in a positions where we can use it.
I know that this will not change your position on ATr, ADS, the MPS or the Voyager Service for that matter, however, I do take offence at being personally criticised on a public forum when there really is no need or justification. If you want to go down that line I would be more than happy to discuss face to face (in a non aggressive way over a beer maybe!)