AirTanker First Officers

[CoffmanStarter]

I noticed this today ... I'm a little confused (no change there then :uhoh:) so could someone kindly explain how this is all going to work ...

AirTanker : First Officers (http://www.airtanker.co.uk/our-people/working-at-airtanker/current-vacancies/2014/05/02/first-officer)

I mistakenly thought that RAF Voyager Tasking (Trooping, Tanking and AeroMed) would be crewed entirely by Military Crews. I appreciate some Sponsored Reservist Pilots have been recruited ... But does this mean that civilian "First Officers" will now participate in Mil Tasks ?

Just genuinely curious ...

Best ...

Coff.

[Onceapilot]

It is the "private raf" smoke and mirrors. Tell me again how much this contract costs us? :eek:

OAP

[kharmael]

If you read carefully, those things you quoted are the goals of the FSTA programme, which Airtanker deliver with/ alongside the RAF. It doesn't mention the breakdown of who does what, but I doubt a civilian FO would be expected to fly a Voyager that doesn't have an Airtanker logo on the tail.

[Willard Whyte]

They might at least have had the decency to wait until some raf co-pilots had finished a tour, and had time to PVR, before placing an ad for the job.

[ShotOne]

I'm intrigued that some seem upset at the prospect of sponsored reservist pilots, heaven forbid, being involved in trooping flights when so many such flights have, for years, been carried out by civilian airlines. Indeed over the years many of these contracts have been handed to foreign airlines and crews without anyone here appearing bothered.

[SFCC]

At the rumoured salary levels, I'd not get too excited about an influx of civvies

[AutoBit]

ShotOne

I don't think the issue is one of civilian pilots flying the military around, but far simpler. With the ever reducing number of aircraft in the military I suspect there are quite a few mil pilots currently in ground tours who would leap at the chance to fly an A330.

[Arty Fufkin]

Regarding the influx of civvies, I dunno. Have a look at some of the threads on Terms and Endearments. A permanent contract flying long haul out of the Cotswolds might appeal to a fair few. Can't say I had many complaints when I was doing it.

As for pay, well this is a rumour site.

[A and C]

I'm sure more than a few of the military pilots doing ground tours would jump at the chance of an A330 type rating, it has to be the quickest way to a well paid job in the airlines.

[servodyne]

Does anyone know who's filling the RARO positions? Civvies or Blue?


Just curious.

[sbdorset]

Just another example of criticism of a contract that few understand. The AirTanker deal was for a service delivery, with a fairly wide scope, including delivery of aircraft, training, engineering, simulation,etc. All I ever hear is the aircraft was too expensive (contract price divided by aircraft numbers) and that it all could have been done better by the military. Remember there was NO money yet an urgent need - therefore you get a PFI for a complete service delivered reasonably efficiently. Alternative was no change. Old aircraft costing a fortune to run and increasingly difficult to support.

[Onceapilot]

"Just another example of criticism of a contract that few understand." You are correct sb! :ok:

OAP

[CoffmanStarter]

Just to be clear ... My OP posed a genuine question ... I'm well aware that other posts on the topic of the AirTanker PFI contract have generated significant heated debate in the past ... The RAF is now operating this contract so my question is more about the here and now/future ... not the past/other solutions.

I was just wondering why the RAF couldn't provide Mil Co-pilots just out of training under the auspices of the deal ? With young Civilian FO Cadets coming out of places like Jerez and then effectively gaining their Air Bus Type Rating/ATPL "on-the-job-while-doing-the-job" ... then is there an opportunity to build like experience within the RAF by adopting a similar approach with graduates coming from MTES and doing likewise ? I appreciate that "retention" will need some thinking about ... perhaps some form of "indenture" mechanic that could be written down over time ?

Without a clear line of sight on career progression ... seeing an advert for Civilian FO's seemed odd ... That's all ;)

[Roland Pulfrew]

Remember there was NO money yet an urgent need - therefore you get a PFI for a complete service delivered reasonably efficiently.Well of course there are several elements in that statement which aren't strictly true or which might be open to interpretation.

[ShotOne]

"No money", "urgent need" surely both beyond debate? "Service delivered reasonably efficiently" ? Dispatch reliability has compared extremely well with other types. And if it didn't, the taxpayer has legal comeback. The only major interruption was because of a serious incident that was in no way the fault of Air tanker. Which element are you saying is untrue?...or are you just kicking off yet another tedious snipe-fest?

[Onceapilot]

No "snipe-fest" here shoty. The truth is, the FSTA PFI is a disaster for the RAF. Of course, if operated and equipped correctly, the airframe can do the job. However, the aircraft appears unable to perform all of its roles correctly, the whole project seems pondorous and lacking the agility required of a responsive military capability, it is devisive-critical elements of front line military responsibility have been effectively civilianised and it is HUGELY expensive-other core capabilities have been allowed to go to the wall to pay for this!:oh: It did not have to be this way, someone allowed it to happen.

OAP

[sbdorset]

OAP, I don't see any of your comments backed up by facts, just emotion. As I said previously, you need to look at the entirety of the Programme to gauge VFM and measure the performance against the contract metrics. Having been a Board member of one of the owning companies I can say that a huge amount of effort went into providing a solution to the RAF requirement and I am sure is ongoing to deliver it. This was not an ill thought out Programme designed to privatise anything or anyone. When the mil choose to operate the aircraft they do. The hiring of co-pilots, the issue that started this thread, was always planned and accepted by the RAF.

[Roland Pulfrew]

ShotOne

No I'm not. Your statement about no money for a traditional/alternative procurement is wrong; the money was there. The PFI was not confirmed until it was proven that it would realise VFM, something I'm not sure was ever achieved. As for urgent need, well again that's not strictly true. It became an urgent need because the PFI kept slipping to the right. When the FSTA programme started there was a need but it was not urgent. I'm not disputing current dispatch reliability (one would bl**dy well hope so for a brand new aircraft) but considering that nations pursuing a standard procurement started later and received their (more capable?) A330 tankers earlier than the RAF did, I would hardly call it reasonably efficient either! FSTA was supposed to overlap with VC10 and Tristar - it only did because the RAF were forced to run on the VC10 and it only just delivered before the Tristar went out of service. In my opinion that's hardly a model for a PFI.

[Onceapilot]

So, come on FSTA PFI apologists, tell us why this incredibly expensive contract and "private raf" is cheaper and better for the RAF than the alternatives?

OAP

[Lionel Lion]

I'd love to see a contract for this one regarding disruption, rosters etc like those of us have in an airline...no doubt it would very much remind me of why I left!

[pr00ne]

So, come on you advocates of obsolete, orphan fleet, crushingly expensive and unreliable Tristars, tell us why this contract that provides 14 state of the art tanker transports, along with new hangars, offices, simulators, training, deep maintenance, 14 civilian sponsored aircrew and about 40 civilian groundcrew for the RAF aircrew and groundcrew at Brize Norton to operate is somehow worse than what went before?

[Onceapilot]

No pr00ne, "Ex-RAF FJ driver turned lawyer", I invited YOU to make your case.:ok: Bear in mind, most specifics are :=.

OAP

[pr00ne]

Onceapilot,

Who the F*** put you in charge?

I don't have a beef about the RAF Voyager fleet, so why should I make a case, you are the one bleating on endlessly about it, you make a case!

[vascodegama]

My personal gripe is whether the PFI is better than the other procurement option. The other point I would make is that having been driven down the PFI route we were limited in the ac configuration. All the other customers of A330 tanker elected for the MRTT which I would advocate gives a better range of options. Just remind me what the Aussies said PFI stands for?

[Onceapilot]

Thanks pr00ne, nice use of the vernacular mate. The TriStar fleet was the most efficient cost/capability widebody fleet the RAF will ever have, almost constantly on Ops and always under-resourced and under-rated.:oh: What was wrong with the proposed fleet/life enhancement and the FTRS manning that could have provided a cheap medium term solution at a fraction of the cost?

OAP

[cessnapete]

Airtanker salaries apparently £90ish Capt £60+ P 2

Rumored that a future Voyager delivery is a second civil version and leased to charter outfit, Thompson? Based ex Brize, Glasgow mentioned. Airtanker flight crew, civvy cabin crew. Hence requirement for more F/O. Presumably they are ok for Capts. (Hopefully in airline colours!)

[CoffmanStarter]

I'm beginning to think that I have a forlorn hope in anyone answering my OP ... Also expanded at #13 :(

[Onceapilot]

Coff, you are right to ask when pay rates seem approx 50% higher for civies doing half of the job!

OAP

[BEagle]

vascodegama wrote: Just remind me what the Aussies said PFI stands for?

My recollection is that 'Hither' said that it stood for "Poms are F***ing Idiots"!

[Roadster280]

"NO Money" is an interesting phrase.

Of course there is no money, so long as a PSBR exists (or whatever the PSBR is called this week). If the government has to borrow money to operate, it is self evident that there is "NO Money".

However, the UK government still manages to spend money on various initiatives, whether from income or borrowing, to the tune of 720bn last year.

There is certainly money to spend, and FSTA would have been small beer in comparison with the overall budget had it been bought outright say over 5 years.

The PFI is just another way to borrow the money. It takes the borrowing "off balance sheet" and allows the "on balance sheet" expenditure to be put against things that people will vote for.

Politics.

[CoffmanStarter]

Thanks to a PM, my OP question has been answered ... Many thanks again ... I'm outta here :ok:

[Jwscud]

£90k is seriously low for Widebody command. Less than most EZY skippers get. £60k for a right seat job sounds attractive - I would be applying just out of interest if I had a bus rating.

[ShotOne]

It's clearly high enough to have triggered resentment in some quarters, jw; "...50% higher for civies (sic) doing half the job". Is this mean-spirited but revealing comment perhaps a pointer to what lies behind the negativity towards ATrS??

Considering those civvies (or civies) have shouldered their full training risk -and paid for every penny of it themselves, plus tax, one could say those pay rates, far from being justification for (predicted) sniping, represent excellent value for money.

[smujsmith]

I'm sure that as long as the contract includes operational activities, then it is likely a good deal in this day and age. And, if these aircrew are signed up to provide such operational service, then they are equally worthy of whatever emolument they may accrue. Lets not forget, the only reason that service pilots are paid less, is their inability to voice their objection to lower pay. Credit where it's due chaps, these boys are doing the governments bidding, and being paid for their support.

Smudge:ok:

[Onceapilot]

Unfortunately, the FSTA PFI exists like a Lamprey. Air Tanker could not profit within the normal airline industry, the appalling VFM is obvious and will cost the RAF dearly in the future. Whatever the merits of the contracted personnel, they will join/not join out of choice.:rolleyes:

OAP

[ShotOne]

"Join/not join out of choice??" Whereas you were clubbed and dragged in by press-gang? Thank you at least for revealing the true reason behind the bitterness towards ATrS; and if that had been in doubt I would cite the general lack of interest in the unusual and expensive lease-purchase arrangement for the C17.

"Cost the RAF dearly in future".. being as your plan involved refurbishing (read spraying with platinum) a few very tired 1970's ex-airliners (didn't they actually upgrade one to an EFIS flt deck -how did that go?) then running the sole fleet in existence, excuse us if we treat your views with a pinch of salt.

[Arty Fufkin]

Yeah, right on OAP

And they're unkind to animals too.

Gits

[Onceapilot]

Ladies and Gentlemen, I am not quite sure why opinions about the poor VFM of the FSTA PFI and the financial profit basis of of the Air Tanker company should make one a target for abuse?:= Whatever, The PFI will doubtless turn and bite the RAF on the bum:eek: (Some might say it already has?). Over the next quarter of a century either: the government will decide to buy-out the contract or, the RAF (government) will need big changes to the contract that will cost even more money or, Air Tanker will negotiate even greater charges or even, go bust and drop the whole thing. I give it five years before this sort of major change. Just my opinion.

OAP

[Willard Whyte]

Question (for pr00ne): How much would it have cost for the raf/MoD to buy and operate 14 Airbus Voyager aircraft over 30 years compared to the £10.5Bn deal currently in place?

If more then the deal is a good one.

If less...


No more nonsense about the money was unavailable, it was available but was spent elswhere. To buy votes.

[A and C]

It is only by going over the PFI contract with a very sharp eye will you discover if it is or is not a good deal for UK PLC ( RAF).

I would think that those on this forum are not equipped with enough of the "small print" in the contract to make that call.

To give a small example of this RAF pilots have not had to put their hands in their pockets for their training, in fact they have been paid to do it.

The civilian pilots have had to find the money for training and to finance the cost of living while doing so. The civilian is paid more than the military pilot but which is the most cost effective way to fill that seat over 25 years ?

The truth of the matter is I don't know the answer but these are the sort of questions that have to be asked when deciding if this PFI is good value for money......... Or not !

[airborne_artist]

It's not even that easy though A and C. An RAF officer has been trained to be more than a stick monkey. What is the value to the RAF of that wider capability?

[A and C]

You exactly make my point that without considering all the issues you can't decide if the PFI is good value for money.............. I had omitted the leadership and other training that is part of being an RAF officer, but on the other hand a sick monkey ( your words ) will do the job just fine 99% of the time.

The whole PFI debate will be littered with these questions of value for money and quality of personnel but the latter is very subjective, it is only the hard money issues that can be proved without doubt and it will take 25-30 years to prove this one way or the other.

However I personally have flown with at least three of the civilian guys that AT have recruited and all of them are very good pilots and have demonstrated officer qualities, if these guys are an example of the quality of the recruits then I think the RAF should have no worries over the AT recruitment policy.

My personal opinion is that PFI is a mistake and the military should run the tanker fleet as a totally military operation, I don't think PFI is a good idea largely because very few military officers understand the ways of sharp business practice and weasel word lawyers and can counter such people, this results in the contractor gaining the upper hand and telling the RAF what to do.......... I have seen this in another PFI contract.

[airborne_artist]

on the other hand a sick monkey* ( your words ) will do the job just fine 99% of the timeAnd the other 1%? That's the difference between wearing a white shirt to work and a grow-bag, and paying for your flight-training and being selected for it.

Provision of the rolling airframes under PFI is one thing, what we have now is something very different.

*I hope the monkey isn't sick. Stick monkey is of course pure banter ;)

[Arty Fufkin]

I was under the impression that the FOs in question are only going to be flying the civilian aircraft for AirTanker the airline under their AOC.

As such, I guess they won't need to cope with the extra demands of flying an aircraft that has ROYAL AIR FORCE painted down the side. Obviously that can only be done by people who have endured the rigours of 120 hrs flying on 45sqn, not to mention the hugely important skills gained by completing IOT ( the efficacy of which is clearly demonstrated by the adminers and ops support dudes who set the world on fire daily....although only accidentally!)

Anyway, It doesn't really mater what their wider military worth is: They won't work for the military.

Lucky them.

[beardy]

Should they succeed in their bid Airtanker will be using subsidised crew and aircraft to undercut long haul charter airline costs next year thus distorting the market. That'll be popular.

[VinRouge]

Could get interesting, especially if MoD are using the subbed airline for civvie pax charter...

[ShotOne]

We could debate endlessly the intangible benefits, or otherwise, of completing RAF officer training. Having done so AND having considerable commercial experience I feel it ought to qualify me for especially generous financial treatment!::)

But what about the TANGIBLE cost of operating a given fleet in-house versus contracted out? The alleged high relative cost of the Air Tanker contract is the cornerstone of the "anti's" argument, but relative to what? ATrS, whether you love or hate them, have placed their financial cards on the table from the outset. So why can't anyone tell us how much it would cost the RAF to fulfil the terms of this contract?

[VinRouge]

To civilian engineering standards or what we do at the moment?

[BEagle]

According to Flight, Thomas Cook will be operating a 'surge' Voyager under 'damp lease' from AirTanker from May 2015. That's a Voyager KC2, not just a standard A330. It will be put back into transport configuration, but with a grockle-fit 323 seat cabin and will be painted in Thomas Cook's colours, rather than the normal John Major grey. See: Thomas Cook to lease A330 from AirTanker - 6/24/2014 - Flight Global (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/thomas-cook-to-lease-a330-from-airtanker-400698/)

Part of the deal includes 10 Thomas Cook pilots being 'seconded' to AirTanker to 'assist' with ATr's schedules to the South Atlantic.

:hmm:

ATr consider that the risk of MoD putting its 90-day recall requirement for surge aircraft into effect to be 'low'...... I recall that we had an MoD briefing about this graduated TTW requirement; when I queried this flight of fancy by reminding the speaker that, for every single recent war they've wanted 100% of the tankers on Day One, there was a shuffling of feet and rapid change of subject.....:rolleyes:

[Onceapilot]

Beags, thanks for posting. Is there any "watering-down" of the declared crewing policy for ATr crewed Ops/airframes here?
As far as "surge" goes, you either have it on day one or it is not worth counting. Seems more like a strange way of having a "reserve", one that is not crewed or actually available. Hmmm, 90 days?... "Yes Minister, we will have them back, repainted and on the line for day 91. Of course, there may be some minor charges to satisfy.:rolleyes:". Good job that there will be loads of combat ready crews available...

OAP

[BEagle]

OaP asked: Is there any "watering-down" of the declared crewing policy for ATr crewed Ops/airframes here?

Sorry, I have no information about that.

[Trumpet_trousers]

However, due to the Voyager modification’s use of some restricted US content, the aircraft will not be permitted to visit some locations, including Cuba.

Could be interesting if there's a need for immediate diversion - a suitable airfield suddenly becomes unsuitable due to the above!

[ShotOne]

Far from being the negative that some feel determined to find in any Air Tanker story, the ability to offset the cost with airline sub-charters was, from the very start, a major selling point of the contract. If it were needed in a national emergency it's never more than 12 hrs away, another 25 minutes to put "RAF" stickers over the logos, yes a full repaint takes longer, so what?

Cuba would in any case be a last choice for any unsched div. as a bureaucratic nightmare -in any aircraft. But if it was a life-or-death emergency, well, land then argue the toss later.

[StopStart]

This sort of thing was one of the original fundamentals of ATr's business model so I'm glad to see them closing this deal.
I must admit however that I find it odd that they're leasing out a tanker airframe. I thought it would've been one of the pure pax/cargo aircraft? Admittedly UK Plc probably has little or no use for the original number of tankers planned but I would've thought a tanker variant wouldn't make a particularly tempting option for a commercial operator. Whilst the KC2 doesn't have a fuselage refuel point surely there is a fair bit of associated plumping etc that, for a civilian operator, is just dead, revenue-stealing weight. Or can it all be easily removed?

[vascodegama]

Shot One It would take a lot longer to put the ac back into the AAR fit-a drawback BEags has already pointed out.

Stop Start -which Pax /Cargo ac are you referring to ;the ones not yet built or the only Green ac which is used for the run South?

[Roland Pulfrew]

If it were needed in a national emergency it's never more than 12 hrs away, another 25 minutes to put "RAF" stickers over the logos, yes a full repaint takes longer, so what?


No digs at the Company from me, but..

Never more than 12 hours away assumes there is a slip crew immediately available to bring the jet back - not necessarily true.

25 minutes is pure dreamland, particularly as the aircraft will have to move from the civil register to the military register for all sorts of legal reasons. That was estimated to take days, if not weeks, and certainly not minutes (unless they have found a way of speeding the process up - either way it's not going to be 25 minutes).

A full repaint won't be required, unless some fool has allowed the "green aircraft" to be painted in a charter air line's colour scheme (aren't all Voyagers being delivered in a proper military paint scheme?).

[ShotOne]

Roland, in the airline world there's ALWAYS a crew waiting to take it back. Our aircraft don't ever sit idle on sunkissed aprons! If only! Perhaps in the good old days.

I don't doubt the truth of what you say about legal process but if we're talking about a national emergency, hopefully the neddies would have some volts applied.

Vasco, your issue re. AAR fit isn't really swayed by it being an airline contract. It would take the same amount of time if it was away trooping Squaddies for MoD.

[vascodegama]

Shot One -not true. If the ac was left in the Voyager fit ( as opposed to the refit that is going to happen) it would be available as soon as it returned to BZN. Don't forget this is one of the original 9 ac we are talking about. I have no issue with a dual role ac but this is pushing it a bit.

[Arty Fufkin]

Don't forget.....you're wrong.

[XR219]

A full repaint won't be required, unless some fool has allowed the "green aircraft" to be painted in a charter air line's colour scheme (aren't all Voyagers being delivered in a proper military paint scheme?).
According to the Flight article, that's exactly what some fool has done:
Unlike the eight Voyager tanker/transports already in use with the RAF’s 10 and 101 squadrons and AirTanker’s G-VYGG, the new aircraft will be painted white and receive Thomas Cook livery
There's an artist's impression of the livery in the article.

[ShotOne]

Why is that foolish? ...or would you have us pay to have it painted grey, knowing tht a few days later we'd have to pay someone else to strip that paint off then pay again for it to be put in airline livery? Wouldn't that be the most moronic waste of taxpayers money?

[Roland Pulfrew]

It would be if the taxpayer was paying (mind you, given the way that Defence has been stitched up by this contract, maybe we are) but surely the lessee should be paying to paint it in their colours and then paying for it to be returned to camo grey when it's returned to its primary military role?

[StopStart]

vasgodegama which Pax /Cargo ac are you referring to ;the ones not yet built or the only Green ac which is used for the run South?

Your sarcasm aside, it's actually irrelevant which one/s I was referring to; I was querying the concept.

If they only have one pax ("Green" :rolleyes: ) aircraft then I would've thought it would make sense to wait until they had more before they started derigging tankers to lease. That said, they're a commercial enterprise with an eye on the bottom line. Someone will have done the maths.

[BEagle]

I think you'll find that, due to the lengthy time it took to get Voyager into service, ATr acquired a 'green', plain vanilla non-Voyager A330 for military contract passenger / freight work, so at least they could garner some revenue at the time.

All ATr A330s will be Voyagers; I gather than the non-Voyager A330 will eventually be returned to Airbus.

The aircraft which Thomas Cook will operate is one of the 5 'surge' fleet aircraft - if I recall correctly, the RAF will operate 9 x Voyagers and the others will, like the TC aircraft, be leased out for third party revenue generation. However, I suspect that one significant benefit of the deal for ATr is the availability of more civilian aircrew to augment those flying their A330. Plus more cabin crew who actually want to be cabin crew.....:hmm:

But if the poo hits the fan and there is an urgent need to generate all 14 aircraft as tankers, I suspect that the engineering work will be less of a problem than generating CR AAR crews - including the required training to bring the 'sponsored reservist' mercenaries up to speed.

Although quite what 14 tankers would be refuelling in today's pale shadow of an air force, is difficult to imagine. NATO interoperability would at least be much improved if, say, 3 x Voyagers were delivered with 2 pods and a boom...

I note that AiM are to fly an 'enhanced' A330MRTT in 2 years' time. Perhaps by then they might have a mission system which actually works....:uhoh:

[Trumpet_trousers]

I note that AiM are to fly an 'enhanced' A330MRTT in 2 years' time

...Beagle, old chap, DO keep up...it's now Airbus Defence and Space.. :rolleyes:

[BEagle]

You're right - it is indeed, T² !!

[Blacksheep]

The thin edge of the wedge?

I remember Milo Mindbender and his contract to bomb his own airfield. :suspect:

[Onceapilot]

Minderbinder?!:ok:

OAP

[Al R]

Scratch the surface and Thomas Cook Air Force is probably still in a greater financial predicament that the real one, so of course it can't afford its own resprays. What happens if it goes bust, like it almost did a year or two back?

[beardy]

You are not even "probably" wrong about Thomas Cook's finances.

Your argument is fallacious, to extrapolate a conditional statement "probably" into a fact "of course" is the symptom of a bigoted opinion. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

What relevance is your comment to the title of the thread concerning First Officers, you don't say?

[Al R]

Harriet Green did a great job of saving the Group. In terms of the longer term future, we'll agree to differ. For the record, I bought (very modestly) into what she was doing (literally) - it's a hold with me but as a buy, I think it's over valued and would have my doubts. The recovery that she oversaw has been spectacular but is more than priced in - and this contract demonstrates how it sees future growth being derived. The debate commercially, is whether her new infrastructure can deliver - how is it placed? I like the way she is fleet of foot, but she is caught short if the market generally, does well.

Thomas Cook is still, in my eyes, the subordinate partner to the Crown. Thats my brief opinion for you. I don't intend to get into a bunfight about it - peace out.

[ORAC]

The aircraft which Thomas Cook will operate is one of the 5 'surge' fleet aircraft - if I recall correctly, the RAF will operate 9 x Voyagers and the others will, like the TC aircraft, be leased out for third party revenue generation. However, I suspect that one significant benefit of the deal for ATr is the availability of more civilian aircrew to augment those flying their A330.

AW&ST: ...........The deal, announced on June 24, will also see 10 pilots, six captains and four first officers, transition from Thomas Cook to AirTanker. They will then fly AirTanker’s single civilian registered A330 on military charters such as those to the Falkland Islands. By transitioning the crews, AirTanker does not have to recruit many pilots, at least during the course of the three-year deal........

[beardy]

AL R
You are of course entitled to your opinion of the direction Thomas Cook is taking. You seem to confuse one of the 4 airlines with the whole group and to concentrate on one of many leases to the detriment of the larger picture. Still, it's your money to gamble with as you wish.

I still don't see what relevance your comments are to the 'Air Tanker First Officers', the title of the thread. And now, of course, to contracted captains (as well as first officers) from Thomas Cook.

[ShotOne]

You may be entitled to your opinion, Al but how would you feel about erroneous internet posts that your IFA business was in a financial predicament or going bust?

Irrespective of who was paying, how could anyone think it's a good idea to insist on an extra and entirely pointless repainting exercise?

[Al R]

I certainly don't want to get into a scrap about it. I have three businesses, send me your contact details - under the right circumstances, you're quite welcome to take a look at any of them so that your opinion will be informed and reliable - not erroneous. I didn't say TC was about to go bust. I said "what if?". It's a fair minded question, especially given TC's well documented turbulent commercial roller coaster of a history. I'm sure someone has considered it, but if there are a dozen aircrew or so, all funded by Harriet Green, do you really think JV partners will be at the top of the list of any administrators concerns?

I liked TC because at the time, there was only one way up for it, and a feisty and spicy boss was about to be parachuted in. I invested a very modest part of my play fund.. doing so served the purposes of said fund as a bit of something to provide alpha/volatility. Nothing more, nothing less. Would I buy it now to achieve same? If I had different objectives, I would look at the stock in a different light. I wouldn't ask if we had a surplus of footy fans looking for somewhere warm to drown their sorrows. I'd look at how much its fuel hedging was (at the time I looked I recall, only 90% or so but the oil price was going south, is it still?), and why it's cost saving, selling and consolidating (wasn't there an issue at Bristol recently, when there was no cover for an ill pilot?) all over the place.

I look at TC in the same light. I (as in my opinion) don't think it IS well placed to capitalise on an upswing, I think it might be exposed too if the price of oil soars (didn't it have to levy a fuel subsidy a few years ago?) - that is my personal opinion, it does not make it erroneous. I think TC suffers from the British malaise of generally, under capitalisation, it's always running hot, there never seems to be much meat on the bone. That doesn't make it bad.. for someone who might have different objectives and priorities, it will look different and attractive - Green has been superb at paying down the debt. I think that it is being geared towards a sell off; if that view floats your boat, you might take a long term position.

I really like Thomas Cook.. having a couple of commercial analyst mates living a few miles away and working in Peterborough has certainly helped. By contrast, today I'm researching a UK based company for me, one which is well placed to be a preferred supplier in French DIY chains just as the French government introduces legislation to cancel domestic home insurance if a smoke detector isn't fitted. It has appeal for my play fund but/and as a long term placing, you have to ask if we will one day have similar legislation..? If so, should I put a little less (if that is possible!) in? Finally, you're right - repainting is pointless so let it remain lo-viz grey. Lots of kudos for Harriet to be associated with the RAF. Apols for the thread drift. Pax, out.

[Arty Fufkin]

Regarding the repainting or other wise: I can't see the great unwashed revelling in the "kudos" of going on their hols in a grey aeroplane. Quite the opposite. I would assume that in the event of surge aircraft being recalled to military service it would be more a case of removing or painting over company logos and flying them in a predominantly white colour scheme.
Not really the end of the world, after all we used to operate a fleet of white, wide body MRTTs did we not?
The leasing deal does make a lot of sense to me, as it should to the many on here who base their opinions on this website on perceived value for money issues. If you want 14 tankers in time of crisis but only need 8/9 the rest of the time it sort of makes sense given the alternative of parking 1/3 of your fleet.that said, having a large number of aircraft but only flying a small portion of them has always been in vogue in the RAF.

[BEagle]

Arty Fufkin wrote:
Not really the end of the world, after all we used to operate a fleet of white, wide body MRTTs did we not?

Yes, the RAF did indeed operate such aircraft. But the 2 which went to KKIA in 1991 had first to be repainted in desert pink to reduce their visibility. I did a quick check and found that the pink pigs reflected about half the light of the white whales.

Later, all TriShaws (except for ZD949, which spent years at Marshalls, only to be scrapped as soon as the flight trials had been completed, wasting several £M in the process...:mad:) were repainted in battleship grey. Not just because, with so few ships left in the RN, that there are warehouses full of 'paint, grey, war canoes for the use of' - but for tone down reasons.

Would the great unwashed worry about the colour of their charter flight transport aeroplane? I doubt it very much - the only issue which would concern them would be the price of the flight. It's perhaps more likely that some foreign airports wouldn't be too keen to be seen to be accepting 'military' aircraft? But, in reality, is there much of a risk of the RAF actually needing 14 x tankers in this day and age?

With 8 x C-17s, 24 x C-130Js, 22 x Atlas and 9 x Voyagers, not to mention around 60 Chinooks, the RAF will soon have a very considerable AT fleet to support operations....but where?

[Just This Once...]

Not sure that it will be 24xC130J and 22xAtlas.

[BEagle]

Isn't the OSD for the C-130J still 2022?

Mind you, they must be getting fairly 'well-used' by now, after all their work in Iraq and Afghanistan....:sad:

[ShotOne]

From an airline perspective I can say that when pitching up to take folk on their jollies, military camouflage would be an absolute and total deal-breaker. On the other hand, provided correct insignia is carried, does it really matter the other way round? White and grey were the RAF "in colours" for many years, after all. I'm sure the fuel would taste the same.

[Arty Fufkin]

Of course one option not yet explored is the option to completely civilianise all strat AT and air to air refuelling. It seems to work for the Royal Fleet Auxiliary.

[Arty Fufkin]

Ok, I'll admit, that was a fishing exped!
At least the bit about the AAR was, the pax AT stuff however........

[Roland Pulfrew]

ShotOne

white and grey right up until you start adding certain types of defensive aids systems. There really isn't much point in trying to defend your jet if the entire jet and paint scheme adds to the signature!:=

civilianised AT can't see many operators wanting to fly their nice shiny jets into Basra or Bastion. Also can't see many civil operators meeting the military DAS requirement:=

[VinRouge]

can't see many operators wanting to fly their nice shiny jets into Basra or Bastion. Also can't see many civil operators meeting the military DAS requirement:=

Check out FlyDubai or Emirates websites!

[Arty Fufkin]

In most trouble spots around the place, painting yourself grey is a good way to attract unwanted attention, not avoid it.

[3engnever]

I would be surprised if they are going to allow the Voyager KC2 to fly for the civvies airline, especially as it doesn't have a civilian TC!! I would imagine they will convert the aircraft back into the Civvy TC variant of the FSTA i.e. military mods removed, just some of the pipe work left intact. As for the 'Green' aircraft, that was bought into service for the benefit of the RAF and ATr and will be returned to Airbus DS (no longer AiM) to be converted into another FSTA.

Lots of rubbish on here and not too many facts!!

[Al R]

No need for either side to get precious, maybe El Al has neatly trod the middle ground. :hmm:

http://www.jaunted.com/files/97904/upbyelal.jpeg

[Onceapilot]

Quote 3eng,
"Lots of rubbish on here and not too many facts!!"

Could you be more specific?

OAP

[ShotOne]

"Civilianised AT?" A bit late for that debate -much of it was civilianised years ago. Even the most ardent Air Tanker hater must surely prefer them to sending our boys in aircraft from the Seychelles or Angola!

[3engnever]

OAP, possibly, what do you want to know?

[3engnever]

Oh, and I think that you will find that Voyager is pretty efficient in both roles. Burns less and carries more than Tristar and VC10, Offloads more gas than Tristar and VC10, has two hoses, therefore more efficient for the receiver formation than Tristar, Greater serviceability than Tristar and credits to the RAF when the service fails to deliver....

Surge fleet crewing....thats the point of the SR crews!

90 Days recall, yes it will be expensive, but that is what you pay for the versatility of the service, better than paying for 14 ac when you only need 9. However, you only pay when you need it. Will they deliver on time? They will be hit very hard finically if not!

Voyager KC2 and 3 will not be used on the civilian register, mainly because they don't have a civilian TC due to the mil equipment.

Will they be painted differently for charter work, probably yes, but to be honest that is a quick job for the turnaround.

And that is only a small part of the risk that the company carry if they fail to deliver.

Is it a perfect solution, probably not, have they delivered everything? No. Is it all their fault? Definitely not. Are we good a requirement definition? No, hence the issues. Will things change over the next 25 years? You can bet your life on it!!

Like I say, let me know what you need to make your case.

[BEagle]

3engnever, the aircraft which will be 'moist-leased' to Thomas Cook will be a Voyager KC2 in air transport configuration, but with a 323-seat 'sell 'em cheap, stack 'em tight' grockle-fit cabin configuration. It will not be a plain-vanilla A330.

It will painted in white, with Thomas Cook logos.

Depending on ZFW, the A330MRTT is supposedly able to carry 111 tonnes of fuel, whereas the TriStar (IIRC) could carry up to 136 tonnes - but had a higher burn rate.

[vascodegama]

To achieve that fuel figure the TRI would need a ZFW of 109T (about 10T too low in the K1/KC1) not only that but it would need a longer runway than BZN (or a very high QNH and/or strong headwind).

[3engnever]

Beags,

Sorry, but you are wrong on this. The aircraft will not be a vanilla A330, true, but it will not be a Voyager KC2 either as it does not have a civilian TC. This is why the conversion takes the time it does. The leased aircraft will be a part modified A330 operating under an STC.

[ShotOne]

"323 seat sell-em cheap, stack-em tight.." Really? Monarch fly this type with 358 seats, other operators with 363. Most folk will find the space and comfort on a 330 stands well above that of any previous RAF type...although some may still miss the "working-men's-club" whiff of the '10's urinals.

[BEagle]

3engnever, I only have the Flight article to go on - no doubt you have more info.

Flight stated:

Following its conversion into a two-point tanker at Airbus Defence & Space’s Getafe site near Madrid, Spain, the new A330 will be flown to AirTanker’s facilities at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire in February 2015 to be prepared for civilian operation. This will involve the removal of military systems and the reconfiguration of its cabin from the Voyager’s 291-seat configuration into an all-economy, 323-seat layout.

ShotOne, not being familiar with such places, I must bow to your knowledge of working mens' clubs..:\ But I agree that the VC10C urinals were pretty darn awful....:eek: Perhaps not quite as bad as anything in a C-130K though.

[CoffmanStarter]

For those interested ... some new footage released on Vimeo today ...

RAF Voyager AAR with Tornado, Typhoon and C-130J

RAF Voyager: Tornado, Typhoon & C-130 AAR on Vimeo

[3engnever]

Beags,

Indeed. The article does not say that the aircraft will be a KC2, in fact the 323 seat fit doesn't feature as a config for the KC2. The article, quite rightly says that the aircraft will be delivered to Bzz where it will be converted into the civilian variant. The KC2 and 3 are military versions only, the civilian variants has to hold a civ TC and hence the need for the conversion work.

The important reason for this difference is who holds responsibility for airworthiness. For the mil jet (KC2 and 3) the military TAA has responsibility. For the civil variant of FSTA the military has no airworthiness role, this is purely down to the AOC holder and the civilian authorities.

[BEagle]

3engnever, the article states: Following its conversion into a two-point tanker...

So if that isn't a KC2, what is it? The flight deck will still have the MSO's station, the tanker military wiring and plumbing will still be present, as presumably will certain antennae... Clearly the AAR equipment will be removed, but will items such as fixed (inoperative) DASS sensors be removed? Sufficient 'military' equipment will still be present to preclude the aeroplane being flown to Cuba in Thomas Cook use, so it clearly is not a straight A330.

The A330MRTT received a civil Type Certificate some time ago.

[vascodegama]

The actual situation is somewhere between the 2 BEags and nev3. The MSO station is removed along with a lot of other stuff . The ARCs are disabled so the ac fuel handling is like a true A330. Not sure about things like the extra TRs.

[Onceapilot]

Hi 3eng, sorry, I think you must have read too much of the ATr blurb? :oh: Getting away from the pi$$ing contest...why do FSTA supporters always claim "it is better, carries more fuel, got wing pods, shinier.. better than VC10 and TriStar... etc"? Well, it all depends on the circumstances! The VC10 was the best in some circumstances! The officially quoted RAF view is that the FSTA has a "similar" capability to TriStar so, why all the catcalling?:hmm:

Getting back to the issue (you will notice that I do not mention, outside these brackets, that TriStar K did routinely lift over 125t of fuel and that serviceability levels were at the level chosen by the RAF!), of course you love your new shiny fleet (if you are really part of it?) the issue is..the RAF has scrapped a perfectly adequate fleet and, at HUGE EXPENSE hired another on the never-never!:ugh:

OAP

[beardy]

OAP,
The issue, as headlined in the title of this particular thread, would appear to be Air Tanker First Officers. Now, when you get back to it, would you like to give us your offerings?

[Onceapilot]

Hello beardy!

OAP

[3engnever]

Beags,

The article says, following it's conversion ATr will prepare it for civilian operation, i.e remove all military mods that are NOT covered by the civilian TC and convert it back to a modified A330 NOT at KC2. The military equipment will be removed, including the MSO panel, mil radio fit etc etc. Some mods will be eft, but these will be mainly pipework and electrical looms that are pretty much impossible to remove.

For someone who is constantly picking holes in this service, your knowledge is disappointing, I thought you had more awareness of the contract!!

[BEagle]

3engnever, the intemperate tone of your second paragraph is quite unreasonable.

I do not support the concept of PFIs and 'sponsored reservists' mercenaries; however, the RAF squadrons will continue to provide as good an AT/AAR service as they always have.

[3engnever]

OAP,

TriStar routinely lifted more than 125T of fuel? Really, well not when I was tasking them! Rarely did we have the runway length and met conditions to lift that amount of gas. Even when we did, the single hose limited how many receivers we could take as we ran out of airspace due to divs etc. This is only one of the reasons why I think Voyager is more capable. Serviceability level chosen by the RAF. Yes I cn imagine CAS asking 216 Sqn not to make it too serviceable.:D

Anyway, clearly you have more than this to moan about, so as I said before, what do you want to know!

[3engnever]

Beags,

Apologies, by service I mean the AirTanker service, not that of the serving members, I know you way better than that!!:O

[ShotOne]

"Mercenaries?" So you worked for free? Whatever your views on the PFI concept, what makes you feel entitled to repeatedly ladle abuse on the guys doing the job?

[Onceapilot]

3eng, there you go, round in catcalling circles...:zzz:. Run out of divs? You don't plan on single hose?:=

OAP

[3engnever]

OAP,

No, not always. If you have 2 hoses and need them to get the chicks across then plan for success. You can always divert if need be. Depends on the circumstances of course. I presume you are an ex-AARC?

[3engnever]

Oh, and by the way, I am not on the Voyager fleet before you ask! I am however ex AT/AAR and very proud of the aircraft I used to fly. It was a joy to operate and extremely capable, however, we really must look to the future, and in doing so recognise that the legacy fleets, however good they were, could not continue forever and did not provide the capability that can be achieved by Voyager.

[Onceapilot]

No, 3eng, and I will not taunt you further. I know the TriStar did not lift 125t from BZZ but, it could and did routinely in the right circumstances. FSTA capabilities are good but, it is not so good that the RAF should have binned TriStar and sacrificed other core capabilities to afford its rip-off price tag. Just my opinion. ;)

OAP

[3engnever]

OAP,

I don't feel taunted. It is an expensive project, there is no doubt. But tech comes at a cost. I don't always agree with the PFI and there are times I see it not working well at all. The big test for those involved is not really about the aircraft, Voyager will be an incredible step forward (given time and opportunity), the hard work comes for those trying to provide and uphold the 'service'. If that part fails then the PFI fails. It is not equipment based, it is the wider service provision. Much of that rests in the hands of ATrS and not ATr or Airbus DS. It is there that we will see this project either pass of fail. In my own opinion, the key to success is to let the worker bees get on with it and make it work, just like a traditional sqn, rather than letting the commercial depts argue over a contract that could cripple both the companies and the service. Things have moved on since 2007 and those responsible for upholding the contract must understand that.

I know not all will see the benefit, and I am not trying to convince anyone, I am merely trying to state fact.

3EN

[BEagle]

One learns that Tommy's Cock pilots aren't exactly falling over themselves to do so.......

:confused:

[beardy]

A little learning is a dangerous thing.

No term and conditions have been offered yet, so why, exactly, should any 'fall over themselves'? There are some who may be interested to fill the slots available should the Ts & Cs be acceptable and, domestically, preferable to their current situation.

[BEagle]

beardy wrote: A little learning is a dangerous thing.

I'm sure it is - but you should know.

Anyway, first hand opinion from Tommy's Cock pilots is "Wouldn't touch it with a barge pole! A few might think it's an easy way to gain a 330 TR and then leg it, but the Ts&Cs are worse than the Hajj...."

Good old PFI.....:rolleyes:

[beardy]

Ts & Cs have not been offered to anybody in Thomas Cook, so they cannot be known to be worse than the Hajj. Your informant has misled you. There has been an invitation to express interest which has, for the most, been ignored. This is because the company has not yet consulted BALPA, which it is obliged to do and may yet.

That said more than is required have expressed an interest.

There has, as yet, been no invitation to bid for the posts.

I was advising you that you had learned a little, a little is a dangerous thing especially when it bolsters your own opinion. There is much more about this that you don't know, nor should it concern you, it is a Thomas Cook matter, not Air Tanker nor anything to do with PFI.

[BEagle]

beardy wrote: There is much more about this that you don't know, nor should it concern you, it is a Thomas Cook matter, not Air Tanker nor anything to do with PFI.

Well pardon me for living. What are you - some management suit or what?

The nonsense of PFI includes the notion that non-core assets can be offered out for 3PR. Such as the 'moist lease' being negotiated between AirTanker and Thomas Cook. But, as reported elsewhere, the significant difference as compared to a normal leasing deal is that TC crews are intended to support ATr's own non-military A330 operation rather than just the TC-leased Voyager.

[beardy]

Thomas Cook has negotiated similar, but not identical, deals in the past, they are not that unusual and are not unique to ATr.

Well pardon me for living. What are you - some management suit or what?

No. But Thomas Cook internal politics are no concern of yours. They neither support nor contradict your stance on PFI. I also don't like it when you misinterpret the half of a tale that you heard to support your opinion.

[Jackass101]

Hit the nail on the head Beardy!;)

[Courtney Mil]

Thomas Cook internal politics are no concern of yours.

I think that's way out of line and I don't think you are in any position to try to dictate to members here what their interests should be or what they can discuss here. Just saying.

Play nicely now.

Courtney

[beardy]

I don't agree Courtney. TCX recruitment, secondment, etc. has no place in this discussion and has no bearing on Beagle's fixation with PFI. It is between TCX pilots and management.

[BEagle]

I agree, Courtney old chap. This is a rumour network after all's said and done - and the first-hand info. I had substantiated my comment that no-one is particularly interested in flying for the 'moist-lease' deal Thomas Cook seemingly has with ATr.

If the deal was contingent on there being sufficient pilots volunteering to be seconded to ATr and it turns out that actually no-one does so, then it will be interesting to note the effect on the 3PR needed to support the PFI nonsense.

Sort of like ensuring you have the assets before you make the commitment?

Yes, the Aussies were right about the meaning of PFI!

[Sandy Parts]

however - it will have a bearing on the title of this thread. Therefore we are free to discuss it at will (especially as this is a Rumour forum). As a taxpayer - how the PFI funded AirTanker operate affects me directly. If they are recruiting other airlines spare capacity, I hope the taxpayer will get value for money.

[Courtney Mil]

TCX recruitment, secondment, etc. has no place in this discussion and has no bearing on Beagle's fixation with PFI. It is between TCX pilots and management.

It is not for any of us to tell folk what they can and cannot discuss or consider. I don't think any of us understand your hostility towards anyone mentioning TCX, but sounds like personal problem to me. But now you've attempted to place it off limits, I'm suddenly quite interested in their "internal politics." I shall enquire of my friends. Perhaps you might like to expand on your reasons.

Rest assured that BEags will conduct his discussion as he sees fit. As shall we all, without any personal abuse.

:ok:

[Onceapilot]

Sandy mate! As taxpayers, every single working person in the country should be up in arms. The FSTA saga is like, Eddie Stobbart is given the exclusive contract to drive all the troops around the country in hired Rolls-Royces!:hmm:

OAP

[beardy]

For whoever may be interested:

Within hours of the pilots of TCX being asked to express, through a non-binding bid, an interest in a secondment to ATr, 13 did so. Some have withdrawn that interest, others have not expressed interest at the request of BALPA. The company management have not consulted BALPA, as they are obliged to. It is BALPA's hope that a scarcity of interest will encourage consultation. BEAGLE your friend will be able to confirm those numbers from the company standing bid.

The only Ts & Cs details we have at the moment are that seconded pilots will be paid by TCX, but will operate ATr's AOC. There are no details on disturbance allowance, HOTAC nor on the return to TCX after a 3 year secondment, in short there are no real details of what the secondment will entail. This is what will turn interest into bids.

We have Captains who are demoted and displaced from their normal operating base, we have displaced Captains and First Officers. These are, for the most part, the pilots who have expressed an interest.

At a guess I think that there may be enough to fill all 10 slots, but it is a guess.

Most of us would rather see the work stay in-house, and it may well yet.

The internal machinations really are just that, internal.

Courtney, my hostility comes from a wilful misrepresentation of my company and the attitude of the pilots in it and also the integrity of Aibus design to support Beagle's personal vendetta against ATr and PFI.

And then of course there was this infamous quote from him concerning the ATr A330 excursion:

Well, given the rumours that the autopilot wouldn't disconnect, I would strongly suspect a problem in the left hand sidestick system. But surely there's redundancy built in to the sidestick design? Or is that supposed to be achieved by having 2 sidesticks?

As for blaming the crew, if anyone was stupid enough to try that they'd soon wish they hadn't.....


The autopilot was already disconnected and the event was pilot induced, but don't let that stop him knocking ATr and Airbus.

Addendum:

TCX recruitment, secondment, etc. has no place in this discussion and has no bearing on Beagle's fixation with PFI

The emphasis should be on THIS discussion, feel free to discuss it elsewhere if that's what floats your boat.

[CoffmanStarter]

Presumably Tornado support over Sinjar will be Voyagers first operational AAR tasking ?

BBC Video ...

BBC News - BBC on board RAF reconnaissance mission in Iraq (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-28807139)

[BEagle]

Could well be, CS - and without any bucket-and-spade airline drivers or PFI mercenaries on the flight deck either...:ok:

Just the RAF doing what it does best - responding with consummate professionalism!

[CoffmanStarter]

Thanks BEagle ... That AAR "Desk" looks interesting :8

http://i1004.photobucket.com/albums/af162/CoffmanStarter/imagejpg1_zpsc4159596.jpg

[3engnever]

If someone could tell me how the 3PR contract with Thomas Cook or any other operator would effect the taxpayer I would be interested to hear?

[BEagle]

CS - that 'AAR desk' is absurdly overcomplicated, thanks to the Spanish engineers.

And it still doesn't include an AAR Mission System which actually works.

But, bolleaux of PFI notwithstanding, at least the Voyager is now in operational service along with other Airbus tankers which have been so for several years now.

Unlike ol' Bubba's KC-46A 'Pig's arse' Frankentanker which hasn't even flown yet!

[brakedwell]

Do I sense bias from the non Boeing expert :E

[BEagle]

Bias? Moi?? Only against the absurd KC-46A programme! I'm sure ol' Bubba Boeing's people tubes are fine and dandy, if (7-late-7 aside), rather last century :E

The Pig'sArse isn't now due to fly until Q1 2015.... There are now doubts in Congress as to whether it will still meet its OT&E deadline. And as for the cost overrun....:rolleyes:

Whereas the A310MRTT, CC-150T, A330MRTT, KC-30A and Voyager are now all in operational service - although some key requirements (such as the mission planning/management system) for the A330 family have yet to be delivered.

Even so, rather better than ol' Bubba's paper plane!

USA - you should have stuck with the vastly superior KC-45A, which you selected over 6 years ago now!

[ShotOne]

"How the contract with Thomas Cook would affect the taxpayer..." Simples, 3eng, it brings in a load of money to the treasury for an expensive asset during for periods in which it isn't being used.

"Thomas Cook pilots wouldn't touch it with a barge pole...?" You've asked them all have you, beagle? BALPA have a thoroughly sensible policy of discouraging pilots from volunteering to do extra services for nowt. Nothing to do wth rights and wrongs of PFI, just plain common sense. It's very likely they'll get the numbers needed, just not for nothing!

[BEagle]

BALPA have a thoroughly sensible policy of discouraging pilots from volunteering to do extra services for nowt. Nothing to do wth rights and wrongs of PFI, just plain common sense. It's very likely they'll get the numbers needed, just not for nothing!

A commendable BALPA stance, I would agree.

But if you don't have you assets in place, how can you build your business case?

And just how would this 'load of money' benefit the Treasury?

[3engnever]

Shot one, are you sure about that? How do the finances work for the 3PR fleet? What are the breakdowns in 3PR between ATR and the MoD?

[Xercules]

MoD will already have had its benefit from AirTanker's 3PR. One of the necessary features of a PFI is that the contractor takes a "demand risk". This means that the pricing of the Contract is based on an assumption that the Contractor will make some of its income outside the contract with MoD. That theoretically comes from 3rd Party use of the asset. It could partly come, in this case, from MoD's use of the assets beyond the contract or from, in this case apparently, Thomas Cook' use. Unless the Contract stipulates a sharing mechanism, revenue from Thomas Cook would be all AirTankers. Unless the Treasury rules have changed markedly since I was last involved with PFIs, a sharing mechanism would seem to flout the rules of a PFI. The concept is meant to be that the expectation of 3PR lowers the price to the Government organisation.

You can believe that or not!

[ShotOne]

Third party use of these aircraft has, from the very start, been a key part of this deal 3eng. I confess I didn't think it would be attractive to commercial operators so am pleased to have been proved wrong on this. Clearly some, like beagle, have always been implacably against the entire concept to the extent there's little point attempting a reasoned debate. I'm not sure though, why he feels it necessary to be so derisive about those he dubs "mercenaries" who are actually now doing the job. Did you fly for free, beagle?

[BEagle]

Yes, I'm certainly against PFIs and the use of FTRS mercenaries for military tasks, when there are youngsters still trying to start out on their RAF careers.

But I'm happy to discuss it on here if you wish.

3PR was always an expectation, although in the FSTA concept phase most of us considered that the likelihood of significant 3PR was rather unlikely.

[ShotOne]

The thing is, beagle, I agree with some of your underlying point about PFI; in a perfect world every branch of our forces would have all the very best kit, lots of it, paid for with cash on the nail. Is that likely?

How can you claim to be speaking for the (very few) youngsters trying to start RAF careers when you have only contemptuous cat-calls for those youngsters earning a living with ATrS -and TCX, come to that, without whom we'd be unable to deploy more than a small% of our forces.

[BEagle]

You do seem to want to make a mountain out of a molehill, ShotOne.

I don't have any beef at all with ATrS or Thos Cook - if people want to fly civilian aircraft in civilian operation with them, very good luck to them.

It's the civilian-in-uniform concept with which I do take exception - the so-called 'full time reservist' policy. Not with the individuals themselves, of course, but with the concept of using civilians for military aircrew tasks.

The UK would be able to deploy its personnel without ATrS or Thos Cook involvement - it would just be rather more expensive.

And if PFI / FTRS is such a smart idea, why do no other NATO members adopt it?

[3engnever]

Xercules, it is good to see that somebody understands the PFI and 3PR rules. ShotOne, I hope this explained why the 3PR will no longer help the taxpayer.

Oh, and I don't see the issue with the reservists. The RAF have had reservists in a number of roles, including aircrew for years so how this is any different I do not know. When the guys are flying mil tasks they are activated and are therefore part of the uniformed services just like any other of the aircrew out there.

[CoffmanStarter]

BEagle ...

Apologies for the interlude (holiday this end) ... But I'd like to follow-up on your Post @ #132 if I may ...

And it still doesn't include an AAR Mission System which actually works.

So that naturally begs the question ... How is Op AAR Mission Planning undertaken (both pre/in-flight) on our Voyagers currently ? Surely not manual number crunching ... Is that a HMSO Note Pad along with a Mk1 Casio I spy in the picture I posted @#130 :eek:

Seriously ... Is it a system integration problem for the AAR Mission Kit with the Airbus A330 MRTT yet to be resolved or is the chosen AAR Mission Kit simply NFFP ?

Seems a pretty fundamental "End User Requirement" that is absent ...

I apologise if I've misunderstood or over simplified ... but my background in the field of complex systems delivery is driving my genuine curiosity :ok:

Coff.

[Xercules]

Of course AirTankers' 3PR could also come from AAR to other nations' aircraft assuming clearances etc. That, of course, would also depend on the Contract and the Tasking - if it was MoD tasked and within the contracted hours etc it presumably would seem not to be 3PR. This area could get very confusing. If it were a 3PR task who would fly the aircraft? I assume then that nobody could consider this to be the mercenaries "stealing" from the purely RAF crews - or would they? It would also seem that the "mercenaries" would need to gain an AAR qualification and maintain currency. Once they have done that, why not use them on the core task?

[BEagle]

CoffmanStarter wrote:

Seriously ... Is it a system integration problem for the AAR Mission Kit with the Airbus A330 MRTT yet to be resolved or is the chosen AAR Mission Kit simply NFFP.

The latter - 'Hecho en España = ¡No funciona!'. The Eespaneesh alleged engineers have been faffing with their worthless PoS for ages now, as they were too arrogant to use the A310 system which has been in operational service for several years, is combat-proven (Libya and Mali) and is about to become even better in a few weeks time when additional expeditionary functionality is included to increase mission flexibility yet further.

:rolleyes:


Seems a pretty fundamental "End User Requirement" that is absent ...

Indeed - so now they're currently reliant upon inefficient, mathematically non-rigorous 'legacy methods' including Dalton whizz-wheels and bits of string, or so I gather from a very senior Airbus chap....:\

[CoffmanStarter]

Many thanks BEagle ... All understood :ok:

In which case it sounds like the Programme Director/Exec responsible needs to show some commercial leadership PDQ ... and focus on integrating legacy proven AAR Mission Kit rather than "burning" money on reinventing the wheel ... It's that simple :rolleyes:

I'm sure there must be a high degree of commonality at the data interface level between the A310 MRTT and the A330 MRTT to do this relatively simply ... or certainly at lower cost than "replicating" functionality that's already available (ignoring corporate arrogance/politics that is).

I wonder what "weight" the ultimate End User, the RAF, has in forcing what it wants rather than merely accepting what the "suppliers" (both aircraft manufacturer and service provider) provide ... meanwhile our crews seemingly need to continue to wear out their Daltons.

Any idea on when a FFP solution is expected ?

Coff.

[BEagle]

CoffmanStarter wrote: Any idea on when a FFP solution is expected?

No idea mate - but the last I heard from rumour control was 'possibly something by the end of the year....'

But which year....:confused:

Mañana is, it seems, too urgent a concept for some......:uhoh:

[vascodegama]

Technology has moved a long way since the A310 Mission system was finalized. For what is needed on trails ( an automated method of ensuring receiver safety in terms of fuel plan) I would have thought that a GPS enabled I PAD would do the trick.

Incidentally I have not seen a single Dalton in use on Voyager trail training.

[BEagle]

I presume you mean the A330 mission system, vascodegama?

The problem with a 'GPS enabled iPad' is that, unless it had inputs from other aircraft systems (e.g. fuel quantity, air data, nav system), it would require manual updating - which is error prone unless the entry is cross-checked by another crew member (a bit like Oceanic waypoint insertion checking) - which increases workload.

But it's a cheapo option which could be provided very quickly - the current A310 mission software works fine in 'planning mode' on a Win8.1u1 platform and adding a GPS card / app plus a manual fuel entry window for in-flight use wouldn't be difficult.

Incidentally, the version of the A310 system you saw all those years ago was really quite basic compared with the latest system.

(The 'Dalton and bits of string' quote came from someone we both know well!).

[Party Animal]

Incidentally I have not seen a single Dalton in use on Voyager trail training.


How about 'bits of string' vasco? ;)

[vascodegama]

No string and I did mean A310.

I don't believe that the system needs all the inputs you suggest BEags. Agreed that route input would be an additional work load but the rest of it is simple stuff.

[Party Animal]

but the rest of it is simple stuff.


Sounds like a job for an Air Electronics Officer!

For those of us who remember them.....

[BEagle]

Well, I'm not sure how you know what the A310 mission system technical spec. actually is, vascodegama.... It has moved on considerably since the version you saw.

Manual route entry, editing and manual fuel on board inputs are all error prone - the air refuelling operator shouldn't be required to enter 5 or 6 digit values at whatever granularity would be required to maintain an accurate fuel plan. Way back in Vulcan bomber days, we did a half-hourly fuel check to maintain the howgozit, whereas in the A310 it is done automatically at 1 Hz.

With just GPS, you would only have ground speed and track, plus geo altitude. Somewhat limiting, to my mind.

Party Animal, yes, the A310 system could certainly be operated and interpreted by a commissioned fuse-changer.

[CoffmanStarter]

BEagle ...

The current A310 mission software works fine in 'planning mode' on a Win8.1u1 platform and adding a GPS card / app plus a manual fuel entry window for in-flight use wouldn't be difficult ...

Again ... my interest is purely with the "solution" approach here :ok:

I'd been wondering why this approach hadn't been adopted for the A330 MRTT AAR Mission System requirement :confused:

A fully "integrated" system is a given in terms of sourcing aircraft systems data as BEagle states ... however the "computation" of that data doesn't need to be done on an integral/bespoke computer which is part of the aircraft infrastructure. Far better to have a common Data Interface/Output that sources the required variables (fuel states, air data, nav system) from the aircraft and then use a detachable Toughbook (e.g. like the Panasonic ... but not exclusively) to AAR Mission Plan. Note that the design of the Data Interface would need to prevent any possibility of the AAR Mission System corrupting critical aircraft systems (Data Pull only).

As a "tactical" solution (the software development meaning of 'tactical" ... not military), this could be quickly and relatively cheaply done ... but no iPAD's please !

A "strategic" solution could then follow once the Data Interface had been delivered.

The benefits ...

(1) Almost immediately the End User gains a credible/proven AAR Mission Planning capability.

(2) The Data Interface becomes a common delivery feature ... like with the A400M ... thus achieving standardisation in AAR operations.

(3) The detachable Tougbook could then be used for pre-flight planning away from the aircraft and then plugged in to run the mission. Ideally you would use two devices, one as a back-up.

Interestingly Benefit (3) isn't that far removed from the solution used by a certain A320 civilian operator in orange livery that use Touhbooks in the cockpit for a variety of legacy paper based tasks ... Weight & Balance, Route Planning and Fuel Burn calcs ... albeit I believe, as yet, on a standalone basis.

An interesting debate :ok:

Coff.

[BEagle]

Well, CoffmanStarter, in fact the A310 system architecture is much as you describe - it receives ('pulls') information from the aircraft systems which is processed by an on-board PC (with another on 'hot standby' for redundancy) rather than by a Toughbook (although that was considered instead of 1 PC, but later rejected). The input device is a keyboard with track ball, the display is on a screen which can also be switched to the receiver surveillance system, should that system's identical display screen fail. The only potential single point of failure would be the keyboard, but a spare is always carried....

On-board software is the same as off-board, so a mission is normally planned off-board on any normal laptop with the application software, then transferred by USB pen drive to the on-board system - which cannot corrupt any aircraft system as it is read-only. Although there is an output to a flight deck printer as the pilots don't have their own display, so need to review any mission changes in printed form.

The application software is modular by design, in addition to the core application programme, it includes various databases including those for the 'host platform' aircraft performance and for certain receiver types' AAR performance - plus magvar, navigation and world-wide stat met, as well as about 160 different AARA locations in US and Europe. So tailoring the system for use in other aircraft would, in engineering terms, be quite simple.

And it works very well indeed!

One tweak which has recently been added is a system to calculate alternate fuel requirements, using a simple 'y=mx+c' experienced-based empirical rule for up to 100nm alternates, then FCOM values for greater distances. But rather than being restricted to optimistic 'best level' calculations and default final reserve values, the user can (if required) specify landing fuel requirement, holding fuel requirement, approach fuel required at the alternate, transit levels and (if >200 nm) met corrections to better suit his needs. Something which would be quite useful for airline use as it performs the whole FCOM calculation process in rather less than the bat of an eyelid! So if you were facing a chaotic mass diversion due to Spanish ATC ineptitude in mid-summer, you could specify a diversion at, say, FL100 rather than using the FL310 figure - and perhaps a higher final reserve......and let the box do the sums!

[Courtney Mil]

Good description, BEags. Very useful for we uninitiated :ok:

[tanimbar]

BEagle says, "transferred by USB pen drive to the on-board system - which cannot corrupt any aircraft system as it is read-only" but that is not true, never was.

See, Opinion : An Evil USB Drive Could Take Over Your PC Undetectably (http://uk.pcmag.com/opinion/34756/an-evil-usb-drive-could-take-over-your-pc-undetect). The ubiquitous USB isn't safe at all.

And don't forget that some people supposedly loaded stuxnet onto a USB, dropped it near an Iranian nuclear facility where some unwitting individual then picked it up, carried it inside and then plugged it into the facility's network: centrifuges ruined, job done!

Assumptions of safety are just that.

Regards, Tanimbar

[Onceapilot]

This whole situation is an utter, utter..... f...arse! The whole proud history of RAF AAR capability is being dragged through the gutters. The rot started with the (out-of-control since last century) FSTA saga, was further manipulated by companies keen to make money out of flashy computer real-time management systems and the complete mess has been mis-managed by very senior officers working without knowledge, foresight or even...a plan!
So, here we are with manual data entry into a system that cannot be validated in real time. I would like to have a seat in the BOI when that system drops an F35 in the drink!
Someone (DC?) really needs to get a grip. Just my opinion;)

OAP

[D-IFF_ident]

I vote we all switch to the 'USAF system' and let the receivers sort their fuel requirements out for themselves. The tanker carries the offload as booked by the receiver unit and the lead receiver pilot is in charge. Who's in?

[CoffmanStarter]

Thanks BEagle :ok:

Seems a "No Brainer" to me in terms of using the Next Gen A310 MRTT AAR Mission System based on what you describe ... however, I'd be a little uneasy with the USB data transfer architecture you describe (professional experience). Far more secure to use a "Locked Down" Toughbook for pre-flight planning then take it to the aircraft to upload the planned mission to the on-board computers via a secure cable data link ... which is certainly not a show stopper to implement quickly ;)

Coff.

[BEagle]

Perish the thought that the UK would ever go down the inefficient USAF route - as you well know, D-IFF_ident (it was you who told me!), they'll use 3 tankers where the RAF would only need 1!

USB nerd-paranoia apart, the mission file can also be loaded from the laptop to the on-board system by Ethernet cable.

USB pen drives used with the system are never to be used for other purposes - and the planning laptops aren't Internet enabled.

Anyway, if the system became corrupted, the crew still has a 'paper plan' they can use.

[tanimbar]

BEagle,

Don't disparage nerd-paranoia, after all, it's that which has given warriors in their tribe more than a sharpened stick.

In any case, you have reminded me, via your last response, that we old f-f-fogies should stick to topics we (might) remember something about and not delude ourselves, or allow others to mislead us (your case I suspect), that our past experiences and understanding have much relevance in a fast-paced technological world.

In other words, you should stick to discussing the passing of fuel and I should stop taking you off-topic.

Regards, Tanimbar

[CoffmanStarter]

A good debate Gents ... Many thanks all :ok:

Coff.

[3engnever]

What is the design assurance level of the A310 MPS?

Also, previous users of the 310 MPS do not share the same view as Beagle. I know a couple of guys who used it with the RCAF and they don't have too many good words to say. In fact the most recent chap was teaching RAPS to the aforementioned Air Force.

So I think it is unfair to say that the 310 MPS is the way to go, whilst I also agree the state of the Voyager system is far from ideal.

However, the system software is now Certified and Qualified and we await the final roll out in the near future.

Oh, and that nasty manual calculation thing called RAPS worked very well for a number of years, the idea of going to the USAF way really worries me. They divert many more trails due to fuel shortages, but have the airfields and tankers worldwide to operate such an inefficient system.

[BEagle]

3engnever wrote: I know a couple of guys who used it with the RCAF and they don't have too many good words to say. In fact the most recent chap was teaching RAPS to the aforementioned Air Force.

What was that saying abooot workmen and their tools....eh?

If you have a significant turn round of people and don't train to use the system in accordance with the manual, you can't really expect to get the best out of it, can you?

Teaching that primitive rubbish known as RAPS has merely caused confusion. It would have been much better if the RCAF had spoken with the Luftwaffe, who certainly do like the system - as they most definitely know how to use it properly.

[3engnever]

I am sure the RCAF will appreciate that stand Beags.

Also, I remain unsure how that have built their safety case around the no DAL system, it is certainly an issue the RAF is not able to overcome easily.

I am not saying that your 310 system is not good, that is just the feedback I have heard from the operators. My concern is that you have not even seen or used the current version of the system you have so much disdain for and yet you continue to belittle it at every opportunity.

[BEagle]

3engnever, as it is 'read only', there was no formal requirement for a DAL for the A310 system. However, it has been proven to meet DAL D.

I have received considerable feedback concerning the current A330 system - and all has been emphatically negative. Please believe me - I'm not making that up.

[3engnever]

Beags,

I'm sure you have, all I would say is that each nation has it's own version and so I doubt very much you have feedback on the current RAF version.

Maybe it is that workmen and tools thing again...

Proven to meet DAL D (presumably not certified as such though-one would question why not?) is all well and good, unfortunately the RAF need at least DAL C to make it a standalone flight safety critical system.

[BEagle]

3engnever, sorry, but my feedback is from all users...

The DAL 'C' required of the Voyager MPS is for reasons other than AAR planning / management, because it is used for other purposes for which legacy methods are used by A310 operators.

The requirement for the A310 MCS was that it would never be required to be a 'standalone flight safety critical item'..... Mission critical, perhaps - but flight safety critical, not required. In the highly unlikely event of it failing in flight (which could only be as the result of a 'double failure' of hardware, there being no single point failure risk), that wouldn't stop any AAR.

As for not requiring fully independent DAL certification, that was customer-driven to save time and money. In the same way that they didn't expect an electronic calculator to demonstrate a DAL....

[3engnever]

So with the 310 MPS, who is responsible for the receiver fuel state and position of the AAR Bkts and associated APs. If it is the tanker and the reliance is on the MPS output for the info, then surely this is flight safety critical for the receiver crew? I know the receiver captain is technically always responsible for his own fuel state and safety, but if you apply that principal on the position of AAR Bkts and APs then you may as well go down the US way of trails and get rid of the MPS altogether.

[BEagle]

The initial trail plan is no more nor less liable to planning error than AARWIN - and a lot more accurate.

In flight the receiver fuel states are updated 15 min before the next bracket. Any significant change to the initial plan is down to mathematical calculation in the same way as it would be if an electronic calculator had been used. This includes amended APs, of course.

5 min after the RB, receiver fuel is again checked (that allows time for any receiver transfer issues, gauging settling etc) and the plan updated for the next RB. Exactly as it would be if it was an AARC sitting there with a laptop, but with the added bonus of continuous aircraft data being provided automatically.

Anyway, the level of assurance satisfied the Airbus engineering and airworthiness people - who have very demanding standards. They agree that it is not flight critical, merely mission critical.

If a double failure should ever cause the entire MCS to throw in the towel, the last known plan update (which should have been printed out) can be used if neither MCS processor can be rebooted. Any subsequent receiver issue would of course be rather more difficult to resolve, but the users are happy that the likelihood of both MCS processors failing is so remote that, should that happen and a receiver then has a subsequent fuel problem, a diversion to the abort aerodrome would be the preferred option.

A lot of time and thought went into the system and if used correctly, it is very effective. If users encounter problems, then there is a fault reporting system specifically set up for resolving such issues. But if they don't bother, then how can the issue ever be properly addressed? Was it caused by operator error, software bugs, aircraft interface (e.g bent connector pins, pinched cabling) or what?

[3engnever]

Beags,

Thank you for the info.

Airbus will never see it a flight safety critical as the FMS looks after the tanker not the MPS. Airbus does not provide the flight safety case for the receiver. If the MPS algorithm is corrupted in any way then the resulting AP would be incorrect and may cause the receiver to fly to an AP and then divert without enough fuel, hence the flight safety issue. Any system below DAL C cannot be used to satisfy that requirement, certainly for the RAF, and so it would be interesting should we ever want the A310 to trail our aircraft using their MPS, one for the DH chain to consider maybe.

Whilst you could argue the DAL case against the cheap Casio calculators used by the crew, at least 3 are being used and cross checked for errors which therefore satisfies the safety case. As I am sure you know, the AARWIN plan is checked pre flight by the receivers to confirm that it is correct, admittedly a late notice change is harder to confirm as they do not carry their normal computerised planning aid, however, all endeavours are made to cross check the plan by another means and not just rely on the single source when outside of the stat met.

Like I have said above, I am sure your system is very good, however, it would not meet the flight safety demands of the RAF and so we could not just bin the A330 version and buy yours.

[D-IFF_ident]

A 'Friend' did a trail last week using an A330 MPS ground plan, then RAPS in flight and his iPhone calculator (in flight mode) coz he lost his DAL E Casio.

What is available other than either the A310 MCS or A330 MPS?

Jepp (undeveloped since the JDF got the first copy)?

PFPS?

AARWIN?

What's the design assurance level of the current RAF/USAF/FAF/CAF/GAF etc system?

Bring on the Linux BEagle.....

[BEagle]

D-IFF_ident, MCS could certainly use Linux, I've been assured.

I've used it with WinXP, WinXP-embedded, Win7.1 and even Win8.1u1 (planning only). No issue.

3engnever, your concerns were raised and addressed years ago before the MCS was signed off.

The pre-flight trail plan is copied to the receivers; if they're not happy with it then it won't be used until they are. Stat Met? You can choose anything from 35-99% NOAA values, still-air or user-defined if preferred. Brg, dist and ETA from present position to an abort aerodrome at current groundspeed (or anywhere else, for that matter) can be checked by putting the cursor over the target and reading off the values. Subtract from current time, multiply by TCR and you can roughly (obviously) check receiver fuel burn needed to overhead the abort aerodrome if you want to cross check - or plot it on a paper chart, measure it and use long multiplication if you're really concerned about 'DAL'.

MCS is not 'mine' to 'sell', incidentally.

D-IFF_ident, yes, I saw that Jeppesen product for the KC-767J at ARSAG. Really basic and not easy to use. When I spoke to the Jepp chap, he told me that I was "...rather more polite about it than the last RAF person who'd seen it". Eh, vascodegama ;) ??

[3engnever]

Stat met percentage is irrevelant really, it is just a planning figure.

Out of interest, when you hover over the 'target' and get your dist and ETA, what wind does it use? Current wind component or current wind speed? Does it take into account the possibility of a wind change enroute to the div?

WHilst you can measure and then check the AP manually, doesn't this defeat the object of having a computer do it for you, the whole idea is to reduce the workload. If you are having to manually calculate to cross check you may as well use RAPS. Also, as the modern systems are more accurate than the manual crosscheck, the AP will always be different for the 2 cases, which one do you use, what difference really counts?

All issues that both system have encountered so don't think I am only picking holes in the 310 version, the 330 will have the same problems.

[BEagle]

The 'hover over target' uses current GS for a ROM estimate. Originally put in for the situation where a receiver needs to divert due to an aircraft emergency (not the AP defined for the segment), to provide pigeons and an ETA at current GS. The map shows all aerodromes with the defined RW length or greater - so if, for example, you select 1830m (6000 ft), it won't show Little-Piddle-on-the-Gusset 600m farm strip.

Checking the AP is not taught in this way - the conventional RB summary tab has all the details, but if you feel you really want to cross-check, you can use it in this way if you wish.

For example, I'm currently testing a trans-USA trail plan. The next RB starts in 6 minutes and the AP is 9 min after that (as I deliberately used the automatically calculated start point, rather than moving the RB to an earlier location). The AP is 120°M/117 from the route; however if the aircraft diverted there right now, it would need to head 171°M for 131 nm and would be there in 18 min at the current 436 knot GS.

Stat Met isn't an irrelevance. The advantage of being able to select the % stat met value is that if, for example, you find that you cannot run a tight trail using 85%, you can try it at a lower value in a few seconds. Thus a trail requiring a minimum tanker fuel value of 60225 kg at 85% can be completely recalculated for 70% in 10 sec - that includes everything such as the fuel graph and RBs - generating a minimum tanker fuel value of 58532 kg.

[3engnever]

I didn't mean stat met is irrelevant, just what percentage you are using is irrelevant. What matters is can you make the plan work and how risky is it?

An ETA using current GS is not useful, especially if you are turning into a 100kt wind, I am surprised it doesn't use the current wind vector. What does it use to calculate the AP?

It would be good in the future to get both systems side by side to develop a single MPS using the advantages of each system to arrive at a single product for all users. Chances of that happening are remote though!

[BEagle]

3engnever wrote: What does it use to calculate the AP?

By default, the winds specified for the trail. If preferred, the user can enter a mean wind velocity to be used for the track to each abort aerodrome.

The 'ETA at current GS' on-chart tool is only really of use for quick ROM estimates for emergency diversions. But it can be used for other purposes as required. It is not a formal part of mission planning. As for the 100kt wind, well, as soon as the formation is heading towards the target the revised GS will of course provide a more accurate ETA. Originally it only provided brg and dist, but an ex-AARC suggested inclusion of the ETA at current GS feature. I stress, it is a very minor part of the system and isn't often used.

The A310 system has been in operational service for over 5 years now. The primary users are well satisfied with it and will no doubt be even happier with the additional functionality the forthcoming upgrade will provide for them.

[CoffmanStarter]

BEagle, 3engnever

The technicalities discussed above by you guys remain very interesting ...

But what happens next ? What is it going to take for the RAF to get what it clearly needs ? Does the RAF twiddle it's thumbs until Mil AirBus deliver/give up and adopt an off-the-shelf AAR MPS solution ... what's AirTankers stance ? Are they actively pressing Mil AirBus as the PFI Service Provider ?

It all seems very frustrating and highly inefficient :oh:

[vascodegama]

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.

[beardy]

One learns that Tommy's Cock pilots aren't exactly falling over themselves to do so.......

Last count over 30 have expressed interest.

Sorry for thread drift

[cessnapete]

Beards, hope they will enjoy very few trips a month, a roster that changes daily. And flying empty aircraft around Europe for training and recency!!

[3engnever]

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 ;-)

[BEagle]

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!

[beardy]

the Thos.Cook 'moist lease' operations will be civil only

Does that include ASI and Mount Pleasant?

[CoffmanStarter]

Thanks 3engnever :ok:

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 :)

[lj101]

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.

It did matter on Atlantic trails - can you imagine the carnage of a 10 x GR4 accompanied 3 tanker trail that needed a full replan the morning of take off when one of your tankers is u/s, the 100kt head wind has appeared, and the booked airspace is time limited due to a jobs worth at ATC. Plan for a 95% stat met and then weep when its worse than that. We wept a lot. (Silent tears).

[vascodegama]

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.

[3engnever]

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!! :ok:

[3engnever]

Why is the final bracket wrong on the Voyager MPS?

[vascodegama]

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.

[BEagle]

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: Also am I not right in thinking that the crew cannot drop and drag (or move by any other method) the bracket.

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.

[3engnever]

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.

[3engnever]

Oh and Beags, sorry, but am I the 'Staff Weasel' you describe. If so, a little out of order I feel!

[vascodegama]

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 .

[3engnever]

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.

[3engnever]

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.

[BEagle]

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.

[3engnever]

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!)

[BEagle]

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.

[3engnever]

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.

[D-IFF_ident]

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.

[BEagle]

D-IFF_ident wrote: ...at the other end of the accompanied portion I want to enter the receivers' destination and the point where the accompanied portion ends.

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....

[D-IFF_ident]

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.

[BEagle]

D-IFF_ident wrote: 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.

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?

[3engnever]

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!!

[vascodegama]

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?

[BEagle]

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....:rolleyes:

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.

[3engnever]

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.

[BEagle]

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.

[3engnever]

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.

[D-IFF_ident]

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. :E

[BEagle]

3engnever wrote:
To say that the 310 system was rolled out significantly differently is disingenuous otherwise you would not still be making changes and upgrades now.

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......:E

[3engnever]

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.

[BEagle]

3engnever wrote: ....don't forget we have some senior representation in ADS from former members of the service.

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.