Tanker PFI announced...after many years.
8 receivers? On just 2 hoses?
That would be a difficult plan indeed.
Sorry - I don't have enough data to answer your question.
Years ago some Airship thought that, just because a TriStar held 3 times as much fuel as a Victor, it could trail 6 receivers where a Victor could only trail 2. The fact that it only had one hose available didn't affect his thinking......
The A330 MRTT does not have an upper cargo floor or door - because it doesn't need one. There is an enormous amount of space in the underfloor cargo area - and no additional tanks are needed for the AAR role.
Whereas the A310 MRTT, when fitted with 4 additional center tanks, has restricted underfloor cargo space, hence needs an upper cargo door and cargo floor.
As for the 767, it falls somewhere between the 2. It doesn't have the wide body of either the A310 or A330 (both of which have an identical fuselage cross section) and thus cannot carry normal LD3 bins in pairs. It may be fitted with an extended center tank, if that's what the customer wants, or indeed an upper deck cargo door. In fact, the customer can even ask for passenger windows and proper airline seating, which are of course standard in the A310 and A330.
That would be a difficult plan indeed.
Sorry - I don't have enough data to answer your question.
Years ago some Airship thought that, just because a TriStar held 3 times as much fuel as a Victor, it could trail 6 receivers where a Victor could only trail 2. The fact that it only had one hose available didn't affect his thinking......
The A330 MRTT does not have an upper cargo floor or door - because it doesn't need one. There is an enormous amount of space in the underfloor cargo area - and no additional tanks are needed for the AAR role.
Whereas the A310 MRTT, when fitted with 4 additional center tanks, has restricted underfloor cargo space, hence needs an upper cargo door and cargo floor.
As for the 767, it falls somewhere between the 2. It doesn't have the wide body of either the A310 or A330 (both of which have an identical fuselage cross section) and thus cannot carry normal LD3 bins in pairs. It may be fitted with an extended center tank, if that's what the customer wants, or indeed an upper deck cargo door. In fact, the customer can even ask for passenger windows and proper airline seating, which are of course standard in the A310 and A330.
Last edited by BEagle; 23rd Jun 2007 at 12:48.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Far far away
Age: 53
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beags,
What are the chances of Airbus "match[ing] Boeing's tanker expertise - not least its established aerial refuelling system, which enables jets to fly side-by-side with the tanker while filling up"?
Jets flying side-by-side with the tanker while filling up? Imagine that!
Any idea who that particular 'Defence expert' was? Coz I reckon I could become an expert too if that's the standard one has to attain....
What are the chances of Airbus "match[ing] Boeing's tanker expertise - not least its established aerial refuelling system, which enables jets to fly side-by-side with the tanker while filling up"?
Jets flying side-by-side with the tanker while filling up? Imagine that!
Any idea who that particular 'Defence expert' was? Coz I reckon I could become an expert too if that's the standard one has to attain....
I sincerely hope that Airbus' tanker expertise won't be contaminated by old school Boeing thinking!
Perhaps the journo was thinking of this:
Perhaps the journo was thinking of this:
How on earth did they do that? Like hedgehogs $hagging, I guess - carefully!
By the way, are you guys really using that daft "Reform" call nowadays?
By the way, are you guys really using that daft "Reform" call nowadays?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Far far away
Age: 53
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not that I'd have much knowledge of US procedures of course.... 
But I have a mate out there who suggests that they are mostly still using their old procedures. Rumour has it that the aircrew manuals all change on Monday though, so be interesting to see how they cope then. Meanwhile, I think the USN may be to blame for some of the less popular phrases currently in use.
But I have a mate out there who suggests that they are mostly still using their old procedures. Rumour has it that the aircrew manuals all change on Monday though, so be interesting to see how they cope then. Meanwhile, I think the USN may be to blame for some of the less popular phrases currently in use.
Who mentioned US procedures, mon vieux?
I can well imagine that the SAC tanker mafia would be happy to blame the latest nonsense on the USN!
Those new ATP-56B RT calls of "Observation" and "Reform" are, in my considered opinion, utter bolleaux. What RT calls are you supposed to make when directing receivers who wish to swap hoses for training? Neither 'Observation' nor 'Reform' (by their own definitions) suit that case.
What was wrong with the simple, unambiguous 'echelon' call?
Is that too 'French' for our Cousins? Or do they have difficulty in pronouncing it?
Or is it too easily confused with a certain organisation which allegedly monitors.....uh-oh, black Omegas outside!!
I can well imagine that the SAC tanker mafia would be happy to blame the latest nonsense on the USN!
Those new ATP-56B RT calls of "Observation" and "Reform" are, in my considered opinion, utter bolleaux. What RT calls are you supposed to make when directing receivers who wish to swap hoses for training? Neither 'Observation' nor 'Reform' (by their own definitions) suit that case.
What was wrong with the simple, unambiguous 'echelon' call?
Is that too 'French' for our Cousins? Or do they have difficulty in pronouncing it?
Or is it too easily confused with a certain organisation which allegedly monitors.....uh-oh, black Omegas outside!!
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Meanwhile the world's only 21st Century tanker-transport, the well-established A310 MRTT, put on a nice display at Le Bourget, I understand.
. It's a 20th century aircraft with 21st century kit surely ??
I saw the (Luftwaffe) A-310-MRTT display au Bourget. It did a couple of flypasts with hoses streamed, and a third while they wound them in. It might have been nice to have had a couple of Tornados in position (as at RIAT with an A-330 a couple of years ago), even if the receivers were not allowed to be actually plugged in, but that didn't happen, on the trade days at least.
But having that in the air, with the A-330 MRTT in RAAF colours on the ground, was quite a good combination - although I understand from 'a source close to the project' that the A-330 was not really anywhere near being in full working order. Good to see it though.
airsound
But having that in the air, with the A-330 MRTT in RAAF colours on the ground, was quite a good combination - although I understand from 'a source close to the project' that the A-330 was not really anywhere near being in full working order. Good to see it though.
airsound
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Far far away
Age: 53
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Observation / Reform
I understand there have been a lot of questions regarding Observation / Reform and how tanker crews on Trails / Coronets or training sorties can move receivers around. Pprune may not be the best place to discuss this, but I know that everybody likely to express an opinion reads the forum.
There are 2 parts to this story - Why not use 'Echelon', and how to control receivers that are not just arriving, taking fuel, departing the tanker?
Part 1 - Observation and Reform were not, I believe, the first choice of the authors, but it may be possible that at least one organisation that it was hoped would sign-up to ATP 56(B) would not agree to use anything else. Perhaps the authors initially put those words in to appease the recalcitrant organisation and then, when the other 27 organisations got to read the document nobody complained. Also, it got through the NATO ratification procedure without any complaints. To change the document now would take a proposal from a National representative to NATO. Any National Reps reading will know how to do that. Anyone else should take a look at - http://www.arsaginc.com/dnn/Resource...9/Default.aspx.
Part 2 - A 'ahem' friend of mine who occasionally works with the US was asked this question numerous times in April. Eventually my 'friend' contacted the authors directly to clarify. The authors expressed a desire to have been allowed just one extra paragraph toward the front of the document - it would have read something like this:
"Notwithstanding the regulatory and procedural nature of this document, users are expected to employ common sense and good airmanship throughout all employment of AAR. Plain english, for example, is still a recognised format for RT transmissions in all countries that are signatories to ATP 56(B)."
The explanation that my 'friend' fed back to crews that had asked the question was accepted by the authors as correct and went something like this (N.B. this question applies in a limited way to boom AAR, and is more relevant to multi-point probe and drogue):
2 fast jet receivers cleared to join (let's call them F-18s so everyone can relate). Tanker says 'XXX Clear Join'. No need to say observation - that is implicit in the command 'clear join'.
The recievers should know whether the tanker has an observer or not, but let's say, for arguments sake, that although qualified to take fuel from this tanker they have forgotten. Common sense should dictate that they assume there is no observer and join on the tanker such that the pilot can see them. (There is currently always a pilot - he can tell the observer that the receivers have arrived).
"XXX1 clear astern right, XXX2 clear astern left".
Receivers procede to take their fuel. And here's where the confusion could set in. When they have their fuel should they be cleared 'reform' or 'observation'? By definition observation is the initial formation position and reform is the position where receivers reform upon completion of AAR. For a trail or a coronet mission, unless the refuel was in the final bracket, the receivers have not completed AAR. Therefore, although not striclty to the letter of the Lexicon Part 2 of ATP 56(B), the appropriate words of command for the tanker crews would be "XXX1 / 2, go observation left / right" as appropriate.
The tanker crew can continue to command the receivers to the observation position on either side as required through as many brackets as they need or to cross receivers over for ease of neck ache, sun glare, or for training purposes, until the final refuelling, when it would become appropriate, on completion of the final refuel, to direct the receivers "XXX1 / 2 go reform". After the tanker has obtained ATC clearance for the receivers the appropriate post AAR message should be passed, followed by "XXX Clear to leave".
These procedures assume that there was no prior briefing between the crews and a plan was not agreed beforehand on where the receivers would like to position themselves while in the enroute portions, nor were any of the crews willing to speak in plain English over a discrete frequency while in the cruise. Should the crews involved invoke the unwritten paragraph then it becomes much easier for everyone involved.... "Hey Tanker Johnny, it's XXX1, can I go over to the right after this plug, the sun's in my eyes on the left?" - "Willco, just n/b. that XXX2 is gonna be on that side too."
If there is no RT then things change of course, but one would hope that there would be a much more involved face-to-face briefing before launch, especially considering the likelihood and reasons behind a trail / coronet in EMCON 3/4.
This explanation has been generally accepted by friends of friends who may or may not be involved in the business of AAR. Personally, I agree with Beagle, and don't like the terms 'observation' and 'reform'. I'd much rather 'Echelon', and I hope that somebody approriate requests a change in time for Change 2 (it's too late for Change 1). There will probably be a 'fight' with the organisation who demanded the current terms though - Lord knows there's been enough discussion over more widely accepted terms that individuals want changed.
And I'm spent.
There are 2 parts to this story - Why not use 'Echelon', and how to control receivers that are not just arriving, taking fuel, departing the tanker?
Part 1 - Observation and Reform were not, I believe, the first choice of the authors, but it may be possible that at least one organisation that it was hoped would sign-up to ATP 56(B) would not agree to use anything else. Perhaps the authors initially put those words in to appease the recalcitrant organisation and then, when the other 27 organisations got to read the document nobody complained. Also, it got through the NATO ratification procedure without any complaints. To change the document now would take a proposal from a National representative to NATO. Any National Reps reading will know how to do that. Anyone else should take a look at - http://www.arsaginc.com/dnn/Resource...9/Default.aspx.
Part 2 - A 'ahem' friend of mine who occasionally works with the US was asked this question numerous times in April. Eventually my 'friend' contacted the authors directly to clarify. The authors expressed a desire to have been allowed just one extra paragraph toward the front of the document - it would have read something like this:
"Notwithstanding the regulatory and procedural nature of this document, users are expected to employ common sense and good airmanship throughout all employment of AAR. Plain english, for example, is still a recognised format for RT transmissions in all countries that are signatories to ATP 56(B)."
The explanation that my 'friend' fed back to crews that had asked the question was accepted by the authors as correct and went something like this (N.B. this question applies in a limited way to boom AAR, and is more relevant to multi-point probe and drogue):
2 fast jet receivers cleared to join (let's call them F-18s so everyone can relate). Tanker says 'XXX Clear Join'. No need to say observation - that is implicit in the command 'clear join'.
The recievers should know whether the tanker has an observer or not, but let's say, for arguments sake, that although qualified to take fuel from this tanker they have forgotten. Common sense should dictate that they assume there is no observer and join on the tanker such that the pilot can see them. (There is currently always a pilot - he can tell the observer that the receivers have arrived).
"XXX1 clear astern right, XXX2 clear astern left".
Receivers procede to take their fuel. And here's where the confusion could set in. When they have their fuel should they be cleared 'reform' or 'observation'? By definition observation is the initial formation position and reform is the position where receivers reform upon completion of AAR. For a trail or a coronet mission, unless the refuel was in the final bracket, the receivers have not completed AAR. Therefore, although not striclty to the letter of the Lexicon Part 2 of ATP 56(B), the appropriate words of command for the tanker crews would be "XXX1 / 2, go observation left / right" as appropriate.
The tanker crew can continue to command the receivers to the observation position on either side as required through as many brackets as they need or to cross receivers over for ease of neck ache, sun glare, or for training purposes, until the final refuelling, when it would become appropriate, on completion of the final refuel, to direct the receivers "XXX1 / 2 go reform". After the tanker has obtained ATC clearance for the receivers the appropriate post AAR message should be passed, followed by "XXX Clear to leave".
These procedures assume that there was no prior briefing between the crews and a plan was not agreed beforehand on where the receivers would like to position themselves while in the enroute portions, nor were any of the crews willing to speak in plain English over a discrete frequency while in the cruise. Should the crews involved invoke the unwritten paragraph then it becomes much easier for everyone involved.... "Hey Tanker Johnny, it's XXX1, can I go over to the right after this plug, the sun's in my eyes on the left?" - "Willco, just n/b. that XXX2 is gonna be on that side too."
If there is no RT then things change of course, but one would hope that there would be a much more involved face-to-face briefing before launch, especially considering the likelihood and reasons behind a trail / coronet in EMCON 3/4.
This explanation has been generally accepted by friends of friends who may or may not be involved in the business of AAR. Personally, I agree with Beagle, and don't like the terms 'observation' and 'reform'. I'd much rather 'Echelon', and I hope that somebody approriate requests a change in time for Change 2 (it's too late for Change 1). There will probably be a 'fight' with the organisation who demanded the current terms though - Lord knows there's been enough discussion over more widely accepted terms that individuals want changed.
And I'm spent.
Last edited by D-IFF_ident; 24th Jun 2007 at 19:39. Reason: Speling
D-IFFers, the SOP has to allow for no pre-flight face-to-face and simple standard minimum necessary RT. No people bleating their life stories away on the air-to-air frequency either - particularly boom operators! How many times over Iraq during Op Warden did we hear "Yeah, OK, well we'll givya as much as ya want on this plug, 'n y'all let us know if ya want more" and similar crap on the 'minimum comms' AAR frequencies?
The changes I continue to advocate are:
1. Unless the tanker has an operational need to direct otherwise, receivers given the 'clear join' call shall always join on the left. But if the tanker commander requires otherwise, he/she should be empowered to order 'clear join, echelon right'.
2. Fast jet receivers should always join where the pilots can see them, then stabilise (or stabilize) and call 'echelon' when ready to move astern. None of the 'if the tanker is known to carry rear facing observers' caveat to waive this- it should be a one rule fits all requirement. How is a receiver to know? Is the ALM/ARO in the KDC-10 a 'rearward facing observer'? Or in the RAAF 707? And what if he/she's busy with other receivers at the time? The only exception should be boom-only AAR with large receivers.
3. Any moves from one side to the other etc should only use 'echelon' and 'astern' as required. All moves to be directed by the tanker commander - although I understand that the boom mafia think that's their job in some forces....
4. Receivers should depart from 'echelon' (right) when 'clear to leave' is ordered.
'Reform' and 'Observation' should be $hitcanned! Immediately!!
Incidentally, none of this is new. It's what we used to do before 1990 (although back then it was 'depart' rather than 'leave') and worked fine then, so why not now?
But hey, I don't do it any more - just teach it on the ground. But I hate having to teach garbage!!
And back to the thread - yes, the A310 is indeed a mature design. But it makes a very efficient and affordable tanker tranpsort! There are things I would change if I could - fitting a fifth ACT, another TACAN, Link 16 and increasing the MTOW to 164 tonnes for example.
The changes I continue to advocate are:
1. Unless the tanker has an operational need to direct otherwise, receivers given the 'clear join' call shall always join on the left. But if the tanker commander requires otherwise, he/she should be empowered to order 'clear join, echelon right'.
2. Fast jet receivers should always join where the pilots can see them, then stabilise (or stabilize) and call 'echelon' when ready to move astern. None of the 'if the tanker is known to carry rear facing observers' caveat to waive this- it should be a one rule fits all requirement. How is a receiver to know? Is the ALM/ARO in the KDC-10 a 'rearward facing observer'? Or in the RAAF 707? And what if he/she's busy with other receivers at the time? The only exception should be boom-only AAR with large receivers.
3. Any moves from one side to the other etc should only use 'echelon' and 'astern' as required. All moves to be directed by the tanker commander - although I understand that the boom mafia think that's their job in some forces....
4. Receivers should depart from 'echelon' (right) when 'clear to leave' is ordered.
'Reform' and 'Observation' should be $hitcanned! Immediately!!
Incidentally, none of this is new. It's what we used to do before 1990 (although back then it was 'depart' rather than 'leave') and worked fine then, so why not now?
But hey, I don't do it any more - just teach it on the ground. But I hate having to teach garbage!!
And back to the thread - yes, the A310 is indeed a mature design. But it makes a very efficient and affordable tanker tranpsort! There are things I would change if I could - fitting a fifth ACT, another TACAN, Link 16 and increasing the MTOW to 164 tonnes for example.
Last edited by BEagle; 24th Jun 2007 at 20:43.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just another erk
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Germany
Age: 77
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Saintsman, It looks like the RAT, but I will go and have a look at the aircraft in a minute....never noticed it in the photo till you pointed it out.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Witney UK
Posts: 616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since I am now a few years removed from the sharp end I would normally refrain from commenting on procedure changes but the introduction of "reform" and "observation" into AAR can not go unchallenged. I am entirely with Beags on this. Over the 30 years I spent as an AAR pilot there was never a need to complicate procedures and calls around the Tanker, indeed just the opposite. I assume the Tanker captain [A/C?] is still the formation leader [ATP56 does not appear to state that specifically] therefore the join should always finish in his view. Once close to the Tanker, receivers are either in echelon or astern, positioned by the leader using conventional formation control wording, I have not heard the Arrows going to "observation".
The fact that nobody objected to these changes could well be due to lack of AAR experience at staff level in many of the Nato countries. Do we still have a Command Air to Air Instructor [CAARI] ?.
The fact that nobody objected to these changes could well be due to lack of AAR experience at staff level in many of the Nato countries. Do we still have a Command Air to Air Instructor [CAARI] ?.
Arters, I think the real problem is that the changes were not seen by those who had the relevant experience to challenge them until it was far too late. Also, the staff officers seem more interested in process than product and don't like to be told that their new baby is damn ugly.
Your explanation of the need for simple, conventional calls around the tanker was a model of clarity!
I can't see many RAF tanker pilots saying "Go buddy cruise"
when they just want the receivers to widen between brackets!
Personally I consider the ATP-56(B) formation calls to represent a potential Flight Safety hazard. For example, "Reform" can be misheard as "..frm" - Was that "Reform", "Affirm" or "Confirm"?
Your explanation of the need for simple, conventional calls around the tanker was a model of clarity!
I can't see many RAF tanker pilots saying "Go buddy cruise"
when they just want the receivers to widen between brackets!Personally I consider the ATP-56(B) formation calls to represent a potential Flight Safety hazard. For example, "Reform" can be misheard as "..frm" - Was that "Reform", "Affirm" or "Confirm"?
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“The A330MRTT is clearly far more capable than the KC-767A according to my estimates.”
Sure, Mr B, the A330 is a much more capable tanker if you judge capability solely by how much fuel it can carry. But surely if it carries 20t more than you need, it’s too big. Which means you can’t buy as many of them for your budget.
D-IFF ident – Don’t have the figures to hand right now, but it was most of them. If the large US tanker to which you refer is the larger of their two mainstays, it does have an extra undercarriage leg which reduces the pavement loading considerably. Big aircraft + lots of wheels = lower runway strength required:
A330 ACN at MTOW = 66 (and 20 t too much fuel)
B767 ACN at MTOW = 58
Sure, Mr B, the A330 is a much more capable tanker if you judge capability solely by how much fuel it can carry. But surely if it carries 20t more than you need, it’s too big. Which means you can’t buy as many of them for your budget.
D-IFF ident – Don’t have the figures to hand right now, but it was most of them. If the large US tanker to which you refer is the larger of their two mainstays, it does have an extra undercarriage leg which reduces the pavement loading considerably. Big aircraft + lots of wheels = lower runway strength required:
A330 ACN at MTOW = 66 (and 20 t too much fuel)
B767 ACN at MTOW = 58