AirTanker First Officers
3eng, sorry if I've used an inappropriate reference and I have no personal animosity towards you - neither do I have any criticism of AirTanker or the Voyager team. Please rest assured of that. If you've managed to improve MPS so that it might actually be fit for purpose now, then well done indeed!
But I am critical of the way AD&S has developed the MPS. Incidentally, are you really sure that RB start points can be moved manually now? If so, that's a major change since last AMUG when we were told that it couldn't be done.
But I am critical of the way AD&S has developed the MPS. Incidentally, are you really sure that RB start points can be moved manually now? If so, that's a major change since last AMUG when we were told that it couldn't be done.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: all over
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beags,
As I said earlier, we have made significant progress with the new version, some of which was pushing the contractual boundaries. Whilst I agree that the ADS method of not engaging with the operator was flawed, unfortunately they were trying to protect against requirement creep. Unfortunately that led to a system design that is sub optimal and required a lot of work to get anywhere close to meeting the requirements of the end user (not always the same as the contractual requirements!) We can definitely move the bracket set positions now by defining a start point using the distance from a geographic waypoint, a bit like we did with AARWIN. Again, not perfect but usable and something we can work on with future versions.
As I said earlier, we have made significant progress with the new version, some of which was pushing the contractual boundaries. Whilst I agree that the ADS method of not engaging with the operator was flawed, unfortunately they were trying to protect against requirement creep. Unfortunately that led to a system design that is sub optimal and required a lot of work to get anywhere close to meeting the requirements of the end user (not always the same as the contractual requirements!) We can definitely move the bracket set positions now by defining a start point using the distance from a geographic waypoint, a bit like we did with AARWIN. Again, not perfect but usable and something we can work on with future versions.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Far far away
Age: 53
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've found the A330 MPS to be useable enough, and not nearly as bad as I expected it to be, but if there's one thing that really bothers me about it, it is that it is a tanker-centric system. I get that I might have to tell a system the entry point fuel for receivers but at the other end of the accompanied portion I want to enter the receivers' destination and the point where the accompanied portion ends.
I want the system to optimise the refuel plan and tell me how much fuel each receiver will have on board at that end point, to meet their minimum overhead requirements.
Otherwise, without suitable cross-checking, an inexperienced operator might accidentally enter the receivers' minimum overhead destination fuel requirement at the exit point, some 500 miles short of the destination.
I want the system to optimise the refuel plan and tell me how much fuel each receiver will have on board at that end point, to meet their minimum overhead requirements.
Otherwise, without suitable cross-checking, an inexperienced operator might accidentally enter the receivers' minimum overhead destination fuel requirement at the exit point, some 500 miles short of the destination.
D-IFF_ident wrote:
Surely you need the receivers' route, level and cruising speed to their destinations from the end of the accompanied segment?
That's what the A310 MCS uses....
...at the other end of the accompanied portion I want to enter the receivers' destination and the point where the accompanied portion ends.
That's what the A310 MCS uses....
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Far far away
Age: 53
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For sure BEags,
I don't want to have to pore over the receiver ODM and work out their burn from the exit point to their destination myself. I want the system to calculate back from overhead destination to the exit point and tell me how much fuel the receivers need at the exit point.
The answer to the trail conundrum lies in how much fuel the receivers need at the AAR exit point and how to get them there. If I have to tell the MPS the receiver exit point fuel myself then it's not an MPS, it's a calculator.
I don't want to have to pore over the receiver ODM and work out their burn from the exit point to their destination myself. I want the system to calculate back from overhead destination to the exit point and tell me how much fuel the receivers need at the exit point.
The answer to the trail conundrum lies in how much fuel the receivers need at the AAR exit point and how to get them there. If I have to tell the MPS the receiver exit point fuel myself then it's not an MPS, it's a calculator.
D-IFF_ident wrote:
Mate - that's such a fundamental requirement that any system which cannot perform such a calculation must be pretty well unfit for purpose.
If the system includes a digitised 'AAR envelope' receiver performance database (as does the A310 MCS), there'd be no need to pore over a receiver ODM.....
Surely the Voyager system includes such databases for Eurofighter and Tornado GR4?
I want the system to calculate back from overhead destination to the exit point and tell me how much fuel the receivers need at the exit point.
If the system includes a digitised 'AAR envelope' receiver performance database (as does the A310 MCS), there'd be no need to pore over a receiver ODM.....
Surely the Voyager system includes such databases for Eurofighter and Tornado GR4?
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: all over
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DIFF Ident,
You are, of course, absolutely right. The problem is that the 330 MPS is a tanker MPS not a receiver one. This very simple difference has bought about all of the issues you raise. Unfortunately there is little we can do in this version to change that and I fear the underlying structure of the system will prohibit it in the future.
Thank you for some positive comments though, rarely heard on PPRuNe. The plan now is to get using it ASAP and then see what really needs changing. Both I and ADS are aware of the operators shopping list, I have come up with most of it. We now need to prioritise and see what is essential and what we can live with. Like any new system, the operator needs time to adjust, analyse and then put forward the proposed changes. As Beags has indicated throughout, the 310 MPS was not perfect at the start, however, over time changes have been made, new functionality added and now the system is much improved. Having seen both systems there are benefits of each and I think learning from each other would be the way forward if only we could get industry to be so accommodating!!
You are, of course, absolutely right. The problem is that the 330 MPS is a tanker MPS not a receiver one. This very simple difference has bought about all of the issues you raise. Unfortunately there is little we can do in this version to change that and I fear the underlying structure of the system will prohibit it in the future.
Thank you for some positive comments though, rarely heard on PPRuNe. The plan now is to get using it ASAP and then see what really needs changing. Both I and ADS are aware of the operators shopping list, I have come up with most of it. We now need to prioritise and see what is essential and what we can live with. Like any new system, the operator needs time to adjust, analyse and then put forward the proposed changes. As Beags has indicated throughout, the 310 MPS was not perfect at the start, however, over time changes have been made, new functionality added and now the system is much improved. Having seen both systems there are benefits of each and I think learning from each other would be the way forward if only we could get industry to be so accommodating!!
3eng
I look forward to seeing exactly what the system will give but I am with Diff and BEags on the issue of the exit fuel. Who will have the job of working it out and where is the safety case? Finally since this is such a change in procedures, when can we expect a rewrite of the Op Order and whatever we call AARNIs these days?
I look forward to seeing exactly what the system will give but I am with Diff and BEags on the issue of the exit fuel. Who will have the job of working it out and where is the safety case? Finally since this is such a change in procedures, when can we expect a rewrite of the Op Order and whatever we call AARNIs these days?
3engnever, repeated offers were made to the RAF, Airbus (Spain) and AirTanker to come and play with the A310 system in the AARTrax proc. trainer down by Lake Constance as a 'no obligation' observation of what else was already in service. We repeated the offer over and over again, but no-one took it up...
Some RAF AARCs and planners did at least see a very early version, but the RAF couldn't find a travel budget to send an assessment crew for a few days to play with the system at a later date....
Airbus (Spain) saw it in use, but didn't really understand the operational concepts as they sent engineers to watch, not operators.
AirTanker didn't even have the courtesy to reply to e-mails.....
It isn't that unreasonable to have a 'tanker centric system', really. With fewer but larger capacity tankers in service, the old Victor-era notion of the tankers always going where the receivers wanted them to go is a bit dated. It's actually more efficient in terms of tanker fleet utilisation to find a compromise - just as it was when (was it you, vasco?) worked out the savings involved in VC10s releasing F3s to Akrotiri, at somewhere like TOSKA but landing in Souda / Iraklion to await the return trail, rather than continuing on to Akrotiri. The only drawback was the need for reliable comms - which was a bit awkward before the RAF issued AARCs with cellphones, was it not
?
MCCE are keen to utilise spare capacity - for example a tanker releasing receivers at the Split Point, before transiting back to base, could be allocated some en-route receivers on the return leg for an opportunity training prod or so for a few 000 kg. Equally, there's no reason why a tanker shouldn't do a little towline work first, then RV with some receivers for a trail. The forthcoming A310 MCS update is quite capable of planning such missions.
A scenario I've just tested is an A310 departing Sicily conducting an RV with carrier-based receivers, trailing them to a cast-off point north of Cyprus, loitering for an hour to support some receivers on CAP, then conducting a post-strike RV with the carrier jets before trailing them back to their carrier (which would have moved to a different station), then landing in Crete. All planned and managed using the MCS - because that's the sort of mission we anticipate our end-users might well need to support in the future.
Some RAF AARCs and planners did at least see a very early version, but the RAF couldn't find a travel budget to send an assessment crew for a few days to play with the system at a later date....
Airbus (Spain) saw it in use, but didn't really understand the operational concepts as they sent engineers to watch, not operators.
AirTanker didn't even have the courtesy to reply to e-mails.....
It isn't that unreasonable to have a 'tanker centric system', really. With fewer but larger capacity tankers in service, the old Victor-era notion of the tankers always going where the receivers wanted them to go is a bit dated. It's actually more efficient in terms of tanker fleet utilisation to find a compromise - just as it was when (was it you, vasco?) worked out the savings involved in VC10s releasing F3s to Akrotiri, at somewhere like TOSKA but landing in Souda / Iraklion to await the return trail, rather than continuing on to Akrotiri. The only drawback was the need for reliable comms - which was a bit awkward before the RAF issued AARCs with cellphones, was it not
?MCCE are keen to utilise spare capacity - for example a tanker releasing receivers at the Split Point, before transiting back to base, could be allocated some en-route receivers on the return leg for an opportunity training prod or so for a few 000 kg. Equally, there's no reason why a tanker shouldn't do a little towline work first, then RV with some receivers for a trail. The forthcoming A310 MCS update is quite capable of planning such missions.
A scenario I've just tested is an A310 departing Sicily conducting an RV with carrier-based receivers, trailing them to a cast-off point north of Cyprus, loitering for an hour to support some receivers on CAP, then conducting a post-strike RV with the carrier jets before trailing them back to their carrier (which would have moved to a different station), then landing in Crete. All planned and managed using the MCS - because that's the sort of mission we anticipate our end-users might well need to support in the future.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: all over
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The exit fuel is something we want to look at after a bit of operational use. It isn't an issue if the tanker and receiver are going to the same location as you set the exit point at TOD and then work the fuels from there, exactly as we did for AARWIN. Remember, AARWIN only worked to the overhead and didn't automatically account for descent and approach. It shouldn't be too hard to work out the transit fuel when not co-located either, let's face it, it's just a speed distance time calculation to TOD.
But as I have said, it may be something that we change in the future if the need arises. What we need to do is get on with using it and see how we go.
Beags, I am as frustrated as you that the industry partners didn't get involved, especially ATr as only they really had the power to change the design philosophy behind the MPS, but unfortunately not many of the board had any AAR planning experience.
But as I have said, it may be something that we change in the future if the need arises. What we need to do is get on with using it and see how we go.
Beags, I am as frustrated as you that the industry partners didn't get involved, especially ATr as only they really had the power to change the design philosophy behind the MPS, but unfortunately not many of the board had any AAR planning experience.
3eng, while I understand your desire to get the MPS into service 'warts and all', then try to use it, the danger with that approach is that any subsequent updates will be at the mercy of AD&S, probably slow to come and undoubtedly costly. It might have been better to reject it completely, until features such as those which both D-IFF_Ident and vasco have clearly indicated are necessary, were included?
What really gripped me about ATr was that (at high level), they said both in person and by e-mail that they really wanted to talk. I offered to provide a presentation and to give a demonstration of the system, but that offer and follow up e-mails were ignored - not even the courtesy of an acknowledgement. Which is hardly a good way to do business, so I can only conclude that they were swayed by false promises from Spain? Nevertheless, a 'thanks, but no thanks' would have been polite.
Incidentally, the A310 MCS was never released in an immature state to the end users. The first version was 'towline only', then the trail functionality was included, followed by versions with additional features (such as the ability to relocate either all sub-brackets in an RB or just individual sub-brackets). Any bugs which subsequently came to light were checked and 'workarounds' identified - but they were very minor. It was always a requirement to make the system as independent as possible - the only significant external data requirement being for a source of 'on the day' met.
As I pointed out, with the fuel capacity of modern fast jets and the longer legs of the Voyager, it could well be quite some distance from the 'split point' (I think you call it an 'exit point'?) to the receivers' destination, so I think that it could be rather more than just a 'speed distance time calculation to TOD' for routine planning - particularly if there's a late notice change?
A310 MCS, unlike AARWIN, does account for receiver descent and approach - it also accounts for any receiver en-route climbs from the split point to TOD and/or from take-off to the RV.
What really gripped me about ATr was that (at high level), they said both in person and by e-mail that they really wanted to talk. I offered to provide a presentation and to give a demonstration of the system, but that offer and follow up e-mails were ignored - not even the courtesy of an acknowledgement. Which is hardly a good way to do business, so I can only conclude that they were swayed by false promises from Spain? Nevertheless, a 'thanks, but no thanks' would have been polite.
Incidentally, the A310 MCS was never released in an immature state to the end users. The first version was 'towline only', then the trail functionality was included, followed by versions with additional features (such as the ability to relocate either all sub-brackets in an RB or just individual sub-brackets). Any bugs which subsequently came to light were checked and 'workarounds' identified - but they were very minor. It was always a requirement to make the system as independent as possible - the only significant external data requirement being for a source of 'on the day' met.
As I pointed out, with the fuel capacity of modern fast jets and the longer legs of the Voyager, it could well be quite some distance from the 'split point' (I think you call it an 'exit point'?) to the receivers' destination, so I think that it could be rather more than just a 'speed distance time calculation to TOD' for routine planning - particularly if there's a late notice change?
A310 MCS, unlike AARWIN, does account for receiver descent and approach - it also accounts for any receiver en-route climbs from the split point to TOD and/or from take-off to the RV.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: all over
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beags,
We rejected it numerous times until they became contractually compliant. We couldn't continue to reject it beyond this point because we had no commercial ground to stand on.
The system is not immature, it is fully functional and does what we asked them to do. Hence my frustration with the way the requirement was worded both by the RAF and by the contract. What we are proposing is, a bit like your system, we conduct a staged roll out, towline then trail, and then see what needs to be added or changed to make it better. No doubt these changes will come at a cost, but it is better to spend a little money and get it right second time than try to make the changes now at cost and subsequently miss out on an opportunity that we have not yet identified.
To say that the 310 system was rolled out significantly differently is disingenuous otherwise you would not still be making changes and upgrades now. You must understand that the ADS have delivered exactly what we contracted for and a bit extra after our continuous push back over the last 18 months, we cannot expect them to continue to deliver changes to the specification for free. Maybe this is why they hid away and developed the system, they protected themselves from the constant flow from the good ideas club! Just a shame they didn't have 1 operator in the room with the programmers.
In terms of an AARNI's and Op O rewrite, AARNIS no longer exist, it is now a National Annex in ATP 3.3.4.2 which will be updated. I believe the Op O is currently being rewritten, but I am not sure.
We rejected it numerous times until they became contractually compliant. We couldn't continue to reject it beyond this point because we had no commercial ground to stand on.
The system is not immature, it is fully functional and does what we asked them to do. Hence my frustration with the way the requirement was worded both by the RAF and by the contract. What we are proposing is, a bit like your system, we conduct a staged roll out, towline then trail, and then see what needs to be added or changed to make it better. No doubt these changes will come at a cost, but it is better to spend a little money and get it right second time than try to make the changes now at cost and subsequently miss out on an opportunity that we have not yet identified.
To say that the 310 system was rolled out significantly differently is disingenuous otherwise you would not still be making changes and upgrades now. You must understand that the ADS have delivered exactly what we contracted for and a bit extra after our continuous push back over the last 18 months, we cannot expect them to continue to deliver changes to the specification for free. Maybe this is why they hid away and developed the system, they protected themselves from the constant flow from the good ideas club! Just a shame they didn't have 1 operator in the room with the programmers.
In terms of an AARNI's and Op O rewrite, AARNIS no longer exist, it is now a National Annex in ATP 3.3.4.2 which will be updated. I believe the Op O is currently being rewritten, but I am not sure.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Far far away
Age: 53
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've flown about a dozen trails with the 330 MPS now, and lost count of how many Eng Test benches, Test rigs, Emulators and Sims I endured. Drop me a PM if you want to discuss offline.
Not you BEagle.
Not you BEagle.
Last edited by D-IFF_ident; 3rd Sep 2014 at 11:55. Reason: Spelling and comedy
3engnever wrote:
Not quite so. The current upgrades are to include additional functionality, the reasons for which stem both from recent operational experience and anticipated new future requirements which weren't in existence when the original requirement was written. Back then, 'Tornadoes to Goose' was seen as the primary requirement, but we've moved on from that era. Another added functionality requirement was for the ability to plan and manage a trail from A to B, supporting receivers from C to D plus others from E to F with different RVs and Split Points, up to a maximum total of 8 trail receivers.
But the opportunity is also being taken to tweak some of the HMI.
AD&S were offered specialist operator advice; it's a shame they didn't accept the offer. Non-involvement of any operator was emphatically a big mistake, I certainly agree.
Sadly, I fear that more than 'a little' money will be needed to 'get it right the second time' - AD&S will have the RAF over a barrel.
D-IFF_ident, I'm sure they accepted all your debrief points from all those trials, didn't they......
To say that the 310 system was rolled out significantly differently is disingenuous otherwise you would not still be making changes and upgrades now.
But the opportunity is also being taken to tweak some of the HMI.
AD&S were offered specialist operator advice; it's a shame they didn't accept the offer. Non-involvement of any operator was emphatically a big mistake, I certainly agree.
Sadly, I fear that more than 'a little' money will be needed to 'get it right the second time' - AD&S will have the RAF over a barrel.
D-IFF_ident, I'm sure they accepted all your debrief points from all those trials, didn't they......
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: all over
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
D-IFF,
I am hoping that all your time wasn't wasted and the changes we have made due to those trials will create a better system.
Beags,
I think ADS need us as much as we need them. I think (at least I hope) they have at last realised that the operator input is invaluable. They need the recommendations from the RAF to aid future sales of the system and so I would hope there is a little respect for that, don't forget we have some senior representation in ADS from former members of the service. If not, we have a system we can use and so we will look at the benefits vs cost case to see if we want to be part of the upgrade programme.
I am hoping that all your time wasn't wasted and the changes we have made due to those trials will create a better system.
Beags,
I think ADS need us as much as we need them. I think (at least I hope) they have at last realised that the operator input is invaluable. They need the recommendations from the RAF to aid future sales of the system and so I would hope there is a little respect for that, don't forget we have some senior representation in ADS from former members of the service. If not, we have a system we can use and so we will look at the benefits vs cost case to see if we want to be part of the upgrade programme.
3engnever wrote:
Yes, I've know him well for over 30 years!
Incidentally, it was never our intention to try and tell the Spanish what they should or should not be doing - all we proposed was to show them how we'd tackled the task and offer any help if they didn't quite understand the reasoning.
But, as one of your predecessors described it, the Spanish had a 'cultural attitude' towards such offers which went beyond 'not invented here' syndrome.
Anyway, you've clearly done the best you can with what was available within the constraints you had - let's just hope that it turns out to have been sufficient for the system to be usable.
....don't forget we have some senior representation in ADS from former members of the service.
Incidentally, it was never our intention to try and tell the Spanish what they should or should not be doing - all we proposed was to show them how we'd tackled the task and offer any help if they didn't quite understand the reasoning.
But, as one of your predecessors described it, the Spanish had a 'cultural attitude' towards such offers which went beyond 'not invented here' syndrome.
Anyway, you've clearly done the best you can with what was available within the constraints you had - let's just hope that it turns out to have been sufficient for the system to be usable.
