vascodegama wrote:
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.
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):
- 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.
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!