A400M - Yes/No/maybe?
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: rourkes drift
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flip,
The MIDS shhould be compatible with anyone on the L16 net. The initial talk of an additional flight deck crew member was assumed by some nations, mainly the larger customers. This is partly because of a lack of knowledge of modern ac (and the benefits of a fully integrated system), and partly down to a job creation scheme from some quarters. The RAF has been through all these arguments with the J, and despite the sceptics, we have proved the 2 pilot Tac AT concept. The A400M takes the level of automation one step further, during a Tac mission the primary mode of operation will be with auto pilot/auto thrust engaged - so both pilots have plenty of spare capacity. From a CRM point of view, the addition of an additional crew member on 5% of sorties would be a nightmare.
As for clearances, it is still unclear, but it is probable that the bulk of the airdrop work will have to be done post delivery. Well we do insist on using different parachutes from the rest of the western world.
And no we are not getting the cargo bay camera.
HVD
The MIDS shhould be compatible with anyone on the L16 net. The initial talk of an additional flight deck crew member was assumed by some nations, mainly the larger customers. This is partly because of a lack of knowledge of modern ac (and the benefits of a fully integrated system), and partly down to a job creation scheme from some quarters. The RAF has been through all these arguments with the J, and despite the sceptics, we have proved the 2 pilot Tac AT concept. The A400M takes the level of automation one step further, during a Tac mission the primary mode of operation will be with auto pilot/auto thrust engaged - so both pilots have plenty of spare capacity. From a CRM point of view, the addition of an additional crew member on 5% of sorties would be a nightmare.
As for clearances, it is still unclear, but it is probable that the bulk of the airdrop work will have to be done post delivery. Well we do insist on using different parachutes from the rest of the western world.
And no we are not getting the cargo bay camera.
HVD
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks HVD
Yes, the Army's predeliction to use their old chutes/eqpt can be a problem. However, while their 'bits of string and bodge tape' approach is a bit antiquated, it works VERY well for the 'end user' requirements!
That is why it is so important to get the back end of the A400 sorted for the job in hand (Air Drop). In the past, the 'end users' have not accepted a small loss of capability, even as an short-term, interim measure - the users are all-powerful and usually get their way and I can't say I blame them either!!
Either the A400 comes with all the clearnces for the esoteric jobs or we will have a re-run of J AD clerance delays (money mainly the prob). As a result we will have another shambles! You heard it here first!
BTW, I think you'll find the 'only 2 FD crew needed' is perhaps a myth. Having spoken at length to those 'doing the business' in theatre on the J, there are certainly times when some of them have admitted they would have liked a third pair of hands/eyes/half a brain in the cockpit, not down the back at P-40/20/10! They wouldn't have cared what kind of flavour it was either - WSOp/WSO or even another pilot.
In 95% of sorties the SA of 2 people are fine, it just that when things get difficult, the 'SA bubble' of everyone shrinks, despite all the 'SA enhancers' of modern AT ac. If that wasn't the case, all the 2-person FD pilots would be flying Harriers or in the Red Arrows......but we aren't!
Having flown the best part of 1500 hrs in an all-glass, 2-person cockpit (no HUD and route-queening it, admittedly), I can see the advantages of not having two extra 'talking, walking nav and systems displays' on the FD - when all is ok. However, information overload can be a problem with even the the most up-to-date kit - especially when things start going 'ping'.
Furthermore, there is a propensity for pilots to fiddle with their knobs (ooer) and press buttons. Despite all the best SOP/CRM trg in the world, lookout and SA suffers. Additionally, as the J doesn't yet have RWR/Chaff/FLIR nor JTIDs and 'extra comms', a direct read across from J to the A400 is maybe a bit thin at the moment?
What people should be asking is how would your average Herc/VC10-type truckie/tanker pilot cope with all the demands of today's DAS/JTIDS/C3I/LL in a hostile environment, together with the possibility of formation leading/following AND dealing with 3 radios AND a tech malfunction or 3 (they rarely come in ones)?? This sort of scenaro is no longer the sole domain of SF.
'People' shouldn't be afraid to come clean and admit their wish for a third person - if even in a very small number of sorties. Its just that their bosses/2Gp don't want to be first to alert PMA to even a small undermanning of pilots (c'est la vie).
But to lose a valuable ac, crew and their pax because the crew lost SA due info overload, would be a criminal waste. Are we saving 'pence' only to have the potential to lose 'millions of pounds' of eqpt and men sometime in the future?
I know there will be a few posters who will willy-wave and bluster in reply, harping on about how 2-person FDs are so much better (I am inclined to agree with them for most route/tac ops). But before they engage the Keyboard-Screen-Interface, I ask them to cogitate a little. Imagine the following scenario:
Leading a 2 or 4 ship beyond the FEBA, at LL, at night, to air-drop/air-land in mountainous terrain, bad weather, lowish Millilux, on NVGs. The ALM is down the back, there are multiple radios in use (formation i/p, AWACs/DZ/LZ and secure etc), turbulence is moderate. In the last 48 hrs, you have had little sleep in hot, crappy accommodation, missed lunch, then you planned and replanned for hours to eventually, launch at 0300hrs local with awful in-flight rations. JPA hasn't paid your family this month, PMA want an answer on your exit point decision but you couldn't get through to tell them to 'swivel'. The captain has his own problems and, just to put the icing on the cake, he has just farted 3 times! There is lots of AAA and SA fire about, but thankfully mainly undirected as yet, and now..... you get a small but annoying and repetitive tech or nav systems fault that requires attention very soon and the DZ/LZ/AWACs all call you ate the same time?
Unlikely? Possible? Who knows but is it remotely possible that a third person on the FD may be of help (if only to stop you throttling the captain or shoving his SA80 up his @rse)?
Now add another secure radio input/RWR/chaff/DIRCM pooh-moving warnings or false alarms, JTIDS/HFI/laser warners and possible use of FLIR and/or capt's HUD failures! Maybe you notice a fuel leak, as you have been hit by SA but the wing didn't explode because had ESF/inerting systems!
Thinking of you all......not!
Flip
Yes, the Army's predeliction to use their old chutes/eqpt can be a problem. However, while their 'bits of string and bodge tape' approach is a bit antiquated, it works VERY well for the 'end user' requirements!
That is why it is so important to get the back end of the A400 sorted for the job in hand (Air Drop). In the past, the 'end users' have not accepted a small loss of capability, even as an short-term, interim measure - the users are all-powerful and usually get their way and I can't say I blame them either!!
Either the A400 comes with all the clearnces for the esoteric jobs or we will have a re-run of J AD clerance delays (money mainly the prob). As a result we will have another shambles! You heard it here first!
BTW, I think you'll find the 'only 2 FD crew needed' is perhaps a myth. Having spoken at length to those 'doing the business' in theatre on the J, there are certainly times when some of them have admitted they would have liked a third pair of hands/eyes/half a brain in the cockpit, not down the back at P-40/20/10! They wouldn't have cared what kind of flavour it was either - WSOp/WSO or even another pilot.
In 95% of sorties the SA of 2 people are fine, it just that when things get difficult, the 'SA bubble' of everyone shrinks, despite all the 'SA enhancers' of modern AT ac. If that wasn't the case, all the 2-person FD pilots would be flying Harriers or in the Red Arrows......but we aren't!
Having flown the best part of 1500 hrs in an all-glass, 2-person cockpit (no HUD and route-queening it, admittedly), I can see the advantages of not having two extra 'talking, walking nav and systems displays' on the FD - when all is ok. However, information overload can be a problem with even the the most up-to-date kit - especially when things start going 'ping'.
Furthermore, there is a propensity for pilots to fiddle with their knobs (ooer) and press buttons. Despite all the best SOP/CRM trg in the world, lookout and SA suffers. Additionally, as the J doesn't yet have RWR/Chaff/FLIR nor JTIDs and 'extra comms', a direct read across from J to the A400 is maybe a bit thin at the moment?
What people should be asking is how would your average Herc/VC10-type truckie/tanker pilot cope with all the demands of today's DAS/JTIDS/C3I/LL in a hostile environment, together with the possibility of formation leading/following AND dealing with 3 radios AND a tech malfunction or 3 (they rarely come in ones)?? This sort of scenaro is no longer the sole domain of SF.
'People' shouldn't be afraid to come clean and admit their wish for a third person - if even in a very small number of sorties. Its just that their bosses/2Gp don't want to be first to alert PMA to even a small undermanning of pilots (c'est la vie).
But to lose a valuable ac, crew and their pax because the crew lost SA due info overload, would be a criminal waste. Are we saving 'pence' only to have the potential to lose 'millions of pounds' of eqpt and men sometime in the future?
I know there will be a few posters who will willy-wave and bluster in reply, harping on about how 2-person FDs are so much better (I am inclined to agree with them for most route/tac ops). But before they engage the Keyboard-Screen-Interface, I ask them to cogitate a little. Imagine the following scenario:
Leading a 2 or 4 ship beyond the FEBA, at LL, at night, to air-drop/air-land in mountainous terrain, bad weather, lowish Millilux, on NVGs. The ALM is down the back, there are multiple radios in use (formation i/p, AWACs/DZ/LZ and secure etc), turbulence is moderate. In the last 48 hrs, you have had little sleep in hot, crappy accommodation, missed lunch, then you planned and replanned for hours to eventually, launch at 0300hrs local with awful in-flight rations. JPA hasn't paid your family this month, PMA want an answer on your exit point decision but you couldn't get through to tell them to 'swivel'. The captain has his own problems and, just to put the icing on the cake, he has just farted 3 times! There is lots of AAA and SA fire about, but thankfully mainly undirected as yet, and now..... you get a small but annoying and repetitive tech or nav systems fault that requires attention very soon and the DZ/LZ/AWACs all call you ate the same time?
Unlikely? Possible? Who knows but is it remotely possible that a third person on the FD may be of help (if only to stop you throttling the captain or shoving his SA80 up his @rse)?
Now add another secure radio input/RWR/chaff/DIRCM pooh-moving warnings or false alarms, JTIDS/HFI/laser warners and possible use of FLIR and/or capt's HUD failures! Maybe you notice a fuel leak, as you have been hit by SA but the wing didn't explode because had ESF/inerting systems!
Thinking of you all......not!
Flip
Last edited by flipster; 26th Oct 2006 at 11:37.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: States sometimes
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flip,
what you've just described is a typical mission from the UK Tac Workload Trials held in Marietta approx 4yrs ago. the results/final report is freely available but in case you didn't get chance to read it, get this...................the plastic heap of sh**e with the big donks passed with flying colours.
HVD,
interesting info re clearances, I think I'll wait a while before considering a move.
GM
what you've just described is a typical mission from the UK Tac Workload Trials held in Marietta approx 4yrs ago. the results/final report is freely available but in case you didn't get chance to read it, get this...................the plastic heap of sh**e with the big donks passed with flying colours.
HVD,
interesting info re clearances, I think I'll wait a while before considering a move.
GM
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 1,360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Top post Frozzo, apart from the Ashes thing which you lot have no hope of regaining as they will be coming home with us again this winter
K:
It does not matter how many times you tell some folk something the likes of Flip etc will never really get it
Despite having no time on type and probably never even been up the flight deck steps of a J let alone flown on a TAC trip/mission they presume they can tell those with several years and 1000hrs plus of J experience what is best for them......it's all rather embarrassing really
Even when K guys from the strat/tac and SF worlds who have made the transition to the J disagree with them they still fail to listen I am never sure what emotion it is that makes them, in the face of so much informed opinion, wish to appear so foolish but foolish they are
all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced
K: It does not matter how many times you tell some folk something the likes of Flip etc will never really get it
Despite having no time on type and probably never even been up the flight deck steps of a J let alone flown on a TAC trip/mission they presume they can tell those with several years and 1000hrs plus of J experience what is best for them......it's all rather embarrassing really
Even when K guys from the strat/tac and SF worlds who have made the transition to the J disagree with them they still fail to listen
I am never sure what emotion it is that makes them, in the face of so much informed opinion, wish to appear so foolish but foolish they are all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boys,
"......there will be a few posters who will willy-wave and bluster in reply....."
Yours is so much bigger than mine, you must be sooooo superior!
You are quite right, I have not flown a J in the tac role, so I have no right to tell people what's what. That is why (if you re-read the post more thoroughly) I was asking, in light of conversations I have had over the years, if others also believed that a third person on the FD might be of use - on occasion. I was not thinking solely of the J anyway (mindful to avoid a JvK vitriol session) - I was looking to all 2-person flight decks - both now and in the future.
Never mind, thank you for your help in this matter - your views to the contrary are duly noted (if a little predictable). However, more considered replies would be appreciated.
Flip
ps The references to heat stress/fatigue/long crew duty at anti-social hours/distractions/bad weather/turbukence etc are all well-known pre-determinents to a loss in SA and CRM. So is your 'gung-ho' and 'never-mind-that-its for-cissies' attitude. It may be worth reflecting upon that?
By the way, the Ashes will always reamain where they rightly belong...........at Lords!!
Good Mickey - i have always had niggling doubts about the tac workload trials - if only because the people who did it were exceptional pilots, very experienced operators (mostly ex SF) and products of a different training system. I'm sure they tried very hard to minimise any undue influence but human nature decrees that it was always highly unlikely that the trial would be failure, thereby doing the trialists out of a future job. I dont think a copy is available in 'unclassified' form so I cannot comment further.
"......there will be a few posters who will willy-wave and bluster in reply....."
Yours is so much bigger than mine, you must be sooooo superior!
You are quite right, I have not flown a J in the tac role, so I have no right to tell people what's what. That is why (if you re-read the post more thoroughly) I was asking, in light of conversations I have had over the years, if others also believed that a third person on the FD might be of use - on occasion. I was not thinking solely of the J anyway (mindful to avoid a JvK vitriol session) - I was looking to all 2-person flight decks - both now and in the future.
Never mind, thank you for your help in this matter - your views to the contrary are duly noted (if a little predictable). However, more considered replies would be appreciated.
Flip
ps The references to heat stress/fatigue/long crew duty at anti-social hours/distractions/bad weather/turbukence etc are all well-known pre-determinents to a loss in SA and CRM. So is your 'gung-ho' and 'never-mind-that-its for-cissies' attitude. It may be worth reflecting upon that?
By the way, the Ashes will always reamain where they rightly belong...........at Lords!!
Good Mickey - i have always had niggling doubts about the tac workload trials - if only because the people who did it were exceptional pilots, very experienced operators (mostly ex SF) and products of a different training system. I'm sure they tried very hard to minimise any undue influence but human nature decrees that it was always highly unlikely that the trial would be failure, thereby doing the trialists out of a future job. I dont think a copy is available in 'unclassified' form so I cannot comment further.
Last edited by flipster; 28th Oct 2006 at 01:00.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: States sometimes
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flip,
an outrageous suggestion that the trial was never going to fail. Take it from me, there were lots of personnel involved with the trial (uniform and non uniform) that made it their mission to prove a 2 person FD was not feasible!! Thankfully they were proved woefully wrong.
Sensible comments only please if you don't mind flipster - theres a good chap!
GM
an outrageous suggestion that the trial was never going to fail. Take it from me, there were lots of personnel involved with the trial (uniform and non uniform) that made it their mission to prove a 2 person FD was not feasible!! Thankfully they were proved woefully wrong.
Sensible comments only please if you don't mind flipster - theres a good chap!
GM
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GM
It wasn't a suggestion, just a niggling doubt (and I'm sure you can see why such doubts might occur to those people who were not involved the trial). But thank you for putting us straight on that issue. I really didn't know that there were so many people involved in the trial who were actually determined to see the 2 person Tac FD fail.
That really does underline the exceptional quality of those pilots who flew the ac in the trial.
Not withstanding the trial, I am surprised that no-one can imagine a time or scenario when an average 2-person AT FD gets overloaded. Even if a scenario similiar to the one I suggested is 'bread and butter' to J/C17/A400 crews, I would be interested to hear at what stage crews might envisage themselves falling foul of 'information overload' or losing SA, if even for a short-time?
It wasn't a suggestion, just a niggling doubt (and I'm sure you can see why such doubts might occur to those people who were not involved the trial). But thank you for putting us straight on that issue. I really didn't know that there were so many people involved in the trial who were actually determined to see the 2 person Tac FD fail.
That really does underline the exceptional quality of those pilots who flew the ac in the trial.
Not withstanding the trial, I am surprised that no-one can imagine a time or scenario when an average 2-person AT FD gets overloaded. Even if a scenario similiar to the one I suggested is 'bread and butter' to J/C17/A400 crews, I would be interested to hear at what stage crews might envisage themselves falling foul of 'information overload' or losing SA, if even for a short-time?
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Wilts
Age: 53
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airdrop clearances
That is why it is so important to get the back end of the A400 sorted for the job in hand (Air Drop). In the past, the 'end users' have not accepted a small loss of capability, even as an short-term, interim measure - the users are all-powerful and usually get their way and I can't say I blame them either!!
Either the A400 comes with all the clearnces for the esoteric jobs or we will have a re-run of J AD clerance delays (money mainly the prob). As a result we will have another shambles! You heard it here first!
Either the A400 comes with all the clearnces for the esoteric jobs or we will have a re-run of J AD clerance delays (money mainly the prob). As a result we will have another shambles! You heard it here first!
Flip, the problem is that this is a 6 nation clearance and that all the nations have to decide what will be cleared. When the contract was signed, that clearance was to be one stores type drop, one LL para type drop, one high SL & one high FF para type drop, one parawedge type drop and thats about it. These are the ones which will be qualified.
We will be working with some of the other nations to get combined airdrop testing done but Airbus are only contracted to provide the above information. They have to prove that the rest of the equipment is safe ie certified but not necessarily qualified ie fit for purpose. This is something that the UK IPT are fully aware of and are doing their best to fit it into the programme.
The big issue with any new platform is that you cannot expect it to arrive on the front-line with all the clearances in place from day 1. There needs to be, and will continue to be, a staged 'arrival' process. Most people now realise that when the A400M arrives in the UK (not necessarily the same as arriving on the sqn), it will not be cleared to do everything that is in the sales brochure.
People cite the C-17 as being an example of how things should be done, but that wasn't a new aircraft when it arrived in the RAF. The problem with the J was the misconception that this was a C-130K with a glass cockpit and different engines and any clearances for the K could be read straight across. How wrong was that?!
Those at Boscombe who are involved in the certification and qualification programme do not want another repeat of the problems which shadowed the J's arrival and are trying our damnest to stop a repeat.
Last edited by Been There...; 29th Oct 2006 at 07:34.
