What will the RAF do with it's Flight Engineers?
Champagne anyone...?
And in the meantime, those of us operating busy two person flightdecks will continue to not fall out of the sky at the first sign of any workload over and above driving and looking out the window 
Which is all fine and dandy when you're on your little pie-eating ownsome or operating in a SKE package.....
I'm talking about the situation with, for example, LHS pilot head down wrestling with Marcel Le Bus' electronic tea tray to obtain basic information when the RHS pilot starts a left turn. No-one available to check that the pair in loose echelon left....sorry, 'observation'
left are turning with the tanker.....
The current obsession with gucci displays for airliners and trash haulers must have a prudent limit when the aeroplane will be operating with half a dozen receivers in close proximity. The simplest way is to make sufficient information available to the MSO so that he can support the safe operation of the aeroplane.
I'm talking about the situation with, for example, LHS pilot head down wrestling with Marcel Le Bus' electronic tea tray to obtain basic information when the RHS pilot starts a left turn. No-one available to check that the pair in loose echelon left....sorry, 'observation'
left are turning with the tanker.....The current obsession with gucci displays for airliners and trash haulers must have a prudent limit when the aeroplane will be operating with half a dozen receivers in close proximity. The simplest way is to make sufficient information available to the MSO so that he can support the safe operation of the aeroplane.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beags,
Just because you think you would lack the capacity to cope does not mean that Stoppers and the like couldn't manage quite nicely indeed, and I have no doubt's that they could
Just because you think you would lack the capacity to cope does not mean that Stoppers and the like couldn't manage quite nicely indeed, and I have no doubt's that they could
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
SFFP, so age and experience gives way to computers. There is a very active discussion about over reliance on computers in a benign civil aviation environment with just the weather as a factor.
The point is that the design must allow even the most distinctly 'average' crew to operate the thing safely, both by day and night. I don't give a toss about whether above average or exceptional pilots could cope, I consider that primarily the lowest common denominator on a black wet night should be considered - both in the tanker and in the receivers......
If Stoppers is actually l00king out of the window these days, then I must have taught him at least something those 20 years ago!
As for 'MSO' crewing? Whether ex-Air Engineer or ex-Navigator matters not a jot if the aeroplane has been correctly designed. But whether a certain antipodean air force still thinks that C cat loadmasters would be suitable, I look forward to finding out with much interest.
If Stoppers is actually l00king out of the window these days, then I must have taught him at least something those 20 years ago!
As for 'MSO' crewing? Whether ex-Air Engineer or ex-Navigator matters not a jot if the aeroplane has been correctly designed. But whether a certain antipodean air force still thinks that C cat loadmasters would be suitable, I look forward to finding out with much interest.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Witney UK
Posts: 616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my, not inconsiderable, experience albeit now some time ago, there was no doubt that the crews that provided the best AAR service were the ones that had a bit of spare capacity, were able to combine as a team to provide a full understanding of the task and had a strong sense of spacial awareness. A computer may help with the number crunching but it does not help a receiver on his first sortie or a trail guy who can not make contact or a sudden rush of customers. To my mind the absolute minimum experienced crew for a tanker sortie is three, it is a serious business and should be treated as such.
Nice photo! Saw the arrival on Sky News earlier this afternoon - welcome home to the Harrier mates!
No doubt the trail was conducted with traditional 101 Sqn efficiency and I hope you all had a good trip!
I've just realised that it's 20 years since I did the first ever 'plastic' Harrier trail - a week in Dubai after trailing the GR5 to the Dubai Air Show with ZA142, one of 101's first K2s. It was hell...
Then we brought it (there was only 1!) back to Wittering on 6 Feb 1989 after an epic nightstop in Akrotiri!
Art Field has, of course, a very sage view - what he doesn't know about AAR isn't worth knowing. But my point is that the workload on a 3-person flight deck must be sensibly balanced. As it certainly is in the A310MRTT and the CC150T. But from what I saw at ARSAG, I'm not convinced that they've got it right for the A330MRTT.....
No doubt the trail was conducted with traditional 101 Sqn efficiency and I hope you all had a good trip!
I've just realised that it's 20 years since I did the first ever 'plastic' Harrier trail - a week in Dubai after trailing the GR5 to the Dubai Air Show with ZA142, one of 101's first K2s. It was hell...
Then we brought it (there was only 1!) back to Wittering on 6 Feb 1989 after an epic nightstop in Akrotiri!Art Field has, of course, a very sage view - what he doesn't know about AAR isn't worth knowing. But my point is that the workload on a 3-person flight deck must be sensibly balanced. As it certainly is in the A310MRTT and the CC150T. But from what I saw at ARSAG, I'm not convinced that they've got it right for the A330MRTT.....
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: sydney
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I was still operating the throttles for the two winged master race on the 10 the Sqn boss at the time was adamant that the new tanker would have mission specialist on board and that the obvious choice would be an ex tanker Engineer.
No doubt his vision has been lost over the last 4 years.
No doubt his vision has been lost over the last 4 years.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is also worthy of note that the current training in a certain Big Airline is to underline the potential loss of SA that the modern glass cockpit operator has over a traditional dials and gauges pilot and how to combat these issues. The reason being that with dials and gauges the pilot has to build their own mental model of the world, with glass cockpit a model is presented to you. This is fine if the computer model is accurate - which it generally is, until things start changing rapidly and the FMC/FMGC needs to be changed - fine in a low workload environment, not so good in a highly dynamic one.
The computer generated displays and interfaces can be compelling, as BEagle pointed out there are periods in a flight when heads in is not conducive to a safe operation, yet you still see guys playing with the computer below SA, in a hilly environment, in cloud.
The computer generated displays and interfaces can be compelling, as BEagle pointed out there are periods in a flight when heads in is not conducive to a safe operation, yet you still see guys playing with the computer below SA, in a hilly environment, in cloud.
Champagne anyone...?
At the risk of meandering the thread even further away from the original topic....
As long as the crew members are trained properly and thoroughly in the use of their FMS and understand how and why errors can occur in it then "fiddling about" with an FMS is no more capacity sapping than, say, retuning an ILS.
I've seen people changing radio freqs, looking up ILS plates, checking charts, balancing fuel panels etc etc all whilst below SA, near hills, in cloud without an dramas. These are all things that sometimes have to be in those conditions. As is "playing" with the computer. I'm not suggesting one would do any of these things without a radar service or without being on a published or recognised procedure but there is no reason at all why the FMS should sap all your capacity in these situations or be an excuse for cock ups. General Airmanship trumps all other cards here.
BEags - your what-if example of the maxxed out copilot heads-in battling the FMS whilst the LHS gently rolls into one of the receivers would perhaps be an issue if the co-pilot was inadequately trained in FMS usage and the captain couldn't manage his 2-person flightdeck properly. The alternate scenario is the receivers request extra gas, the non-flying pilot flicks straight to the correct FMS page and reads out the appropriate, accurate, dynamic figure in a matter of seconds. If during this fantastic fingerwork the captain decides it's time to turn right then the co is redirected away from the FMS task to the more important safety issue of lookout.
I've been operating a 2 person FMS based flightdeck now for about 7 years and I do find it a tad tiresome having to trot out the same old mantra to the non-believers. The run-of-the-mill flying I (and many other crews at the secret Wiltshire airbase) do and teach is not flight level nosebleed to Akrotiri or autopilot coupled SKE at FL100 but instead low-level, NVG, 2-ship airdrop and TALO in -10 mlx and barely legal weather. This is achieved with two blokes at the front working in concert to make the FMS and computers work FOR them whilst at the same time maintaining lookout, SA and general good airmanship. A well managed 2-person flightdeck can be as (if not more) safe and efficient than a 3,4 or 5 person one. The key is education, simple as that. The only people that fear the FMS etc are those that do not understand it.
PS. Juan, why is heads-in, in a cloud "playing" with the FMS dangerous? There's certainly nothing to see out the window. It's just as "dangerous" as retuning and identing the ILS. You can quite happily keep monitoring the aircraft flightpath etc whilst doing what you need to do on the FMS. Unless of course the individual concerned hits the capacity buffers at strapping in AND breathing at the same time in which case perhaps he or she shouldn't be doing the job.....
As long as the crew members are trained properly and thoroughly in the use of their FMS and understand how and why errors can occur in it then "fiddling about" with an FMS is no more capacity sapping than, say, retuning an ILS.
heads in is not conducive to a safe operation, yet you still see guys playing with the computer below SA, in a hilly environment, in cloud.
BEags - your what-if example of the maxxed out copilot heads-in battling the FMS whilst the LHS gently rolls into one of the receivers would perhaps be an issue if the co-pilot was inadequately trained in FMS usage and the captain couldn't manage his 2-person flightdeck properly. The alternate scenario is the receivers request extra gas, the non-flying pilot flicks straight to the correct FMS page and reads out the appropriate, accurate, dynamic figure in a matter of seconds. If during this fantastic fingerwork the captain decides it's time to turn right then the co is redirected away from the FMS task to the more important safety issue of lookout.
I've been operating a 2 person FMS based flightdeck now for about 7 years and I do find it a tad tiresome having to trot out the same old mantra to the non-believers. The run-of-the-mill flying I (and many other crews at the secret Wiltshire airbase) do and teach is not flight level nosebleed to Akrotiri or autopilot coupled SKE at FL100 but instead low-level, NVG, 2-ship airdrop and TALO in -10 mlx and barely legal weather. This is achieved with two blokes at the front working in concert to make the FMS and computers work FOR them whilst at the same time maintaining lookout, SA and general good airmanship. A well managed 2-person flightdeck can be as (if not more) safe and efficient than a 3,4 or 5 person one. The key is education, simple as that. The only people that fear the FMS etc are those that do not understand it.
PS. Juan, why is heads-in, in a cloud "playing" with the FMS dangerous? There's certainly nothing to see out the window. It's just as "dangerous" as retuning and identing the ILS. You can quite happily keep monitoring the aircraft flightpath etc whilst doing what you need to do on the FMS. Unless of course the individual concerned hits the capacity buffers at strapping in AND breathing at the same time in which case perhaps he or she shouldn't be doing the job.....
Stoppers, whilst much of what you say is true, the problem isn't one of using existing FMS, ECAM multi-screen displays (no head up display though), it's a problem of even more displays and terminals being added to an existing 2-person AAR flight deck.
There will be 3rd occupant on the future tanker; the problem I foresee is that although this Mission Specialist will always be carried on AAR flights, he may not be provided with the SA systems he needs (he might not have even heading and height, for example) - so he could end up being nothing more than an irritating pump attendant whilst CM1 and CM2 work their butts off.
Why irritating? Because the poor chap will have to keep pestering his pilots in order to be kept fully in the loop.
My preference is for a better balance of flight deck workload which maximises pilots' head-out time - not to cast any doubt on routine 2-person flight deck operation.
The A310MRTT and CC150T already achieve this; from what I saw at ARSAG2009, I'm not convinced that this concept is being applied to the FSTA.
There will be 3rd occupant on the future tanker; the problem I foresee is that although this Mission Specialist will always be carried on AAR flights, he may not be provided with the SA systems he needs (he might not have even heading and height, for example) - so he could end up being nothing more than an irritating pump attendant whilst CM1 and CM2 work their butts off.
Why irritating? Because the poor chap will have to keep pestering his pilots in order to be kept fully in the loop.
My preference is for a better balance of flight deck workload which maximises pilots' head-out time - not to cast any doubt on routine 2-person flight deck operation.
The A310MRTT and CC150T already achieve this; from what I saw at ARSAG2009, I'm not convinced that this concept is being applied to the FSTA.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: WILTS
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Given a little basic navigation training, any good Air Engineer would make a good AAR Mission System Operator. But he will need to be given commensurate levels of SA if the aeroplane is to be operated safely in the AAR environment."
Beags! interesting comment
What the heck do you think the TriMotor 3 man loop involves?
commensurate levels of SA!!!! bit of a cheek, any violation that occurs on any flight deck i am on, then i am deemed to be as responsible as the 2 winged master race sat in front of me!
As for a little basic navigation! take as much part in calculating: joins, timings etc etc etc same as the 2 blokes (or girls) in the front, so think you will find Air engs already operate in that role quite happily
As for the first thread question, pah, dont worry they will extend the 10 for another 15 years yet
Beags! interesting comment
What the heck do you think the TriMotor 3 man loop involves?
commensurate levels of SA!!!! bit of a cheek, any violation that occurs on any flight deck i am on, then i am deemed to be as responsible as the 2 winged master race sat in front of me!
As for a little basic navigation! take as much part in calculating: joins, timings etc etc etc same as the 2 blokes (or girls) in the front, so think you will find Air engs already operate in that role quite happily
As for the first thread question, pah, dont worry they will extend the 10 for another 15 years yet
The TriShaw flight deck is not directly comparable, because it still has a number of aeroplane systems monitoring and control requirements allocated to an Air Engineer.
Take a TriStar flight deck and re-allocate all 'aircraft systems' except the AAR system to pilot ECAM monitoring and you have already increased pilot workload slightly - although the architecture will have been designed with this in mind and the aeroplane will undoubtedly be more reliable, being from a later generation. The Air Engineer is now a pump attendant.
Add automated AAR mission planning and management, particularly for multi-hose trails. If you lump this onto the pilots, the workload increases considerably. Particularly if the mission management system is embedded in yet another system, rather than within the FMS. The Air Engineer cannot contribute to mission management effectively - forget about primitive methods such as 'RAPS' - without having the relevant data available with which to work. Any 'assistance' to busy pilots will simply be a distraction, so the Air Engineer will become a food-powered pod control panel.
Instead, locate the automated mission planning and management system to the 'Air Engineer'. He now becomes a mission specialist and substantially reduces pilot workload. The tanker commander still makes the decisions and directs the overall mission, but the mission specialist provides the precise information upon which the tanker commander can make such decisions. That's the way the new German and Canadian tanker crews work and it is an extremely effective solution. The mission specialist needs some navigation knowledge not for calculating turn ranges etc (the mission computer does that automatically for the RV B, C and D), but so that he can be aware if there's a garbage in-garbage out solution from the computer. Has 10W been entered instead of 10E - and is that obvious, for example.
Having spent 6 years developing crew SOPs and the Mission Computer System for the A310 - and having heard all the pros and cons, plus end user requirements, my conclusion is very much that you will need a Mission Specialist in the back seat of the FSTA, not a pump attendant.
Take a TriStar flight deck and re-allocate all 'aircraft systems' except the AAR system to pilot ECAM monitoring and you have already increased pilot workload slightly - although the architecture will have been designed with this in mind and the aeroplane will undoubtedly be more reliable, being from a later generation. The Air Engineer is now a pump attendant.
Add automated AAR mission planning and management, particularly for multi-hose trails. If you lump this onto the pilots, the workload increases considerably. Particularly if the mission management system is embedded in yet another system, rather than within the FMS. The Air Engineer cannot contribute to mission management effectively - forget about primitive methods such as 'RAPS' - without having the relevant data available with which to work. Any 'assistance' to busy pilots will simply be a distraction, so the Air Engineer will become a food-powered pod control panel.
Instead, locate the automated mission planning and management system to the 'Air Engineer'. He now becomes a mission specialist and substantially reduces pilot workload. The tanker commander still makes the decisions and directs the overall mission, but the mission specialist provides the precise information upon which the tanker commander can make such decisions. That's the way the new German and Canadian tanker crews work and it is an extremely effective solution. The mission specialist needs some navigation knowledge not for calculating turn ranges etc (the mission computer does that automatically for the RV B, C and D), but so that he can be aware if there's a garbage in-garbage out solution from the computer. Has 10W been entered instead of 10E - and is that obvious, for example.
Having spent 6 years developing crew SOPs and the Mission Computer System for the A310 - and having heard all the pros and cons, plus end user requirements, my conclusion is very much that you will need a Mission Specialist in the back seat of the FSTA, not a pump attendant.
No need to carry the Mission Specialist on basic pax-and-trash trips, so the cabin crew staffing level will merely need to meet JAR-OPS requirements...
Not necessarily. In all Future Tanker work I was ever involved with since 1994, the term 'Support Panel Operator' or 'Mission System Operator' was used quite deliberately to avoid any presumption about the preferred aircraft manning requirements. Or womanning, Loretta...
MSO training can easily include relevant navigation training as required. And don't forget that one of the RAF's longest serving AARCs was an Air Engineer by profession.
Sounds to me like the navs have got the FSTA thing sown up.
MSO training can easily include relevant navigation training as required. And don't forget that one of the RAF's longest serving AARCs was an Air Engineer by profession.
Fair enough. Just seems to make sense to have the third crewmember able to run the cabin on those days when AT is required not AAR. Loadies fulfill the task at the moment. It would seem to be more efficient to have one Wsop section on the squadron with all of them able to fly any of the Sqn's tasks rather than loadies for AT and a nav/eng hybrid (horrible thought) on days when AAR is needed. Furhtermore, they could help out with the service by doing a round with a trolley every now and again.
The thought of some of the navs / engs I've flown with over the years doing a tea service to 200 pax......priceless!!
The thought of some of the navs / engs I've flown with over the years doing a tea service to 200 pax......priceless!!
Crew manning levels will be interesting, I agree.
You can't just have a small pool of MSOs who are only required for AAR sorties as you will always need to have enough to meet TTW AAR needs.
I'm not sure why an ALM would be required on any basic pax-and-bags flight, wouldn't a Sgt steward be equally suitable as an 'In Charge'? ALM skills are rather greater than the skills needed by airline cabin crews, in my opinion. I once delivered some Army DAC (in a box smaller than a cabin-compatible suitcase) to Calgary - we were treated like lepers by both Keflavik and Calgary and I was very glad indeed to have the ALM's expertise of rules and regs on that particular occasion.
During early FSTA work, I asked an ALM (it wasn't 'Tac Loadie!') to tell me which specific in-flight activities required an ALM's skills rather than a Sgt steward's skills. Checking the security of freight loading and lashing and completing the load distribution and trim sheet were pre-despatch tasks, he couldn't really come up with a specific in-flight item. Except, of course, that where an aircraft can be used for more than basic pax-and-bags transport, ALM skills are probably needed, so it makes sense to use ALMs on any AT flight rather than duplicating manning effort.
As for carrying any DAC on a civil-owned, military operated flight - well, that'll be fun for AirTanker to resolve....
Carrying a small number of pax on an FSTA could be awkward if the full JAR-OPS requirements have to be met. The aircraft has something like 225 seats, so with a single passenger you would need 5 cabin staff under JAR-OPS. I suppose the rear cabin could be blocked off under such circumstances?
Could an ALM be used as MSO? Well, the Dutch KDC-10 flies with a boom operator / loadmaster, so with sufficient training, would an ALM be capable of fulfilling the role of MSO?
You can't just have a small pool of MSOs who are only required for AAR sorties as you will always need to have enough to meet TTW AAR needs.
I'm not sure why an ALM would be required on any basic pax-and-bags flight, wouldn't a Sgt steward be equally suitable as an 'In Charge'? ALM skills are rather greater than the skills needed by airline cabin crews, in my opinion. I once delivered some Army DAC (in a box smaller than a cabin-compatible suitcase) to Calgary - we were treated like lepers by both Keflavik and Calgary and I was very glad indeed to have the ALM's expertise of rules and regs on that particular occasion.
During early FSTA work, I asked an ALM (it wasn't 'Tac Loadie!') to tell me which specific in-flight activities required an ALM's skills rather than a Sgt steward's skills. Checking the security of freight loading and lashing and completing the load distribution and trim sheet were pre-despatch tasks, he couldn't really come up with a specific in-flight item. Except, of course, that where an aircraft can be used for more than basic pax-and-bags transport, ALM skills are probably needed, so it makes sense to use ALMs on any AT flight rather than duplicating manning effort.
As for carrying any DAC on a civil-owned, military operated flight - well, that'll be fun for AirTanker to resolve....
Carrying a small number of pax on an FSTA could be awkward if the full JAR-OPS requirements have to be met. The aircraft has something like 225 seats, so with a single passenger you would need 5 cabin staff under JAR-OPS. I suppose the rear cabin could be blocked off under such circumstances?
Could an ALM be used as MSO? Well, the Dutch KDC-10 flies with a boom operator / loadmaster, so with sufficient training, would an ALM be capable of fulfilling the role of MSO?