Airtanker
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: retirementland
Age: 79
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is an area where the civil world is well in advance of the military and as the civil regulations will take precedence it should be sorted out by AirTanker really well as it will no doubt be well defined in their Safety Case. The failure rate of ex RAF pilots may just be a bit higher though.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SM
I understand that 45(R) Sqn have been giving glass-cockpit upgrade training on their Proline 21 equipped Kingairs. Admittedly they are not fly-by-wire aircraft, but I bet that training is a gift to anyone wanting to step up from conventional cockpits.
I would imagine that, if the RAF has any sense, it will spread that training out to the AAR crews about to move over to the A330.
I would also imagine that any prospective civilian pilots about to join Airtanker would be quite concerned about the impact of the government's new distaste for PFI projects. Would their contracts be secure?
I understand that 45(R) Sqn have been giving glass-cockpit upgrade training on their Proline 21 equipped Kingairs. Admittedly they are not fly-by-wire aircraft, but I bet that training is a gift to anyone wanting to step up from conventional cockpits.
I would imagine that, if the RAF has any sense, it will spread that training out to the AAR crews about to move over to the A330.
I would also imagine that any prospective civilian pilots about to join Airtanker would be quite concerned about the impact of the government's new distaste for PFI projects. Would their contracts be secure?
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 146 Likes
on
28 Posts
What is not really clear is wether the current RAF crews will be able to hack glass cockpits and modern systems were clockwork experience will count for nought.
The arogance of expecting to cope with the glass Tristars with no simulator gives an indication of how little the hurdle is understood.
The arogance of expecting to cope with the glass Tristars with no simulator gives an indication of how little the hurdle is understood.
I could equally state some guff about how civvy crews won't be able to cope with the AAR environment & thinking in the tactical sphere when all they're used to is flying from A to B on a jetplan, but that would be (equally) crass as they'll just learn & get used to it.
This shouldn't be a Mil/ Civ p***ing contest, the crews will all have to work together. The Ts & Cs for the reservists is a much greater factor & will probably put off the experienced A330 operators AirTanker are hoping to attract in favour of less experienced, less desirable ones.
''What is not really clear is wether the current RAF crews will be able to hack glass cockpits and modern systems were clockwork experience will count for nought''.
Glass instrumentation is easy - easier than clockwork systems. I converted from the VC10 to the B747-400 and it was a piece of p!ss. One of the easiest courses I've ever done. When I subsequently went back to the 747 Classic, I found that my conventional scanning skills had gone and I found hard to readjust.
Airbusses are easy to operate. My company takes 200 hour cadets straight onto the A330. They were designed with the philosophy of taking someone straight off an integrated course and putting them in the seat to operate safely. My main concern is the tanking job which does take time to learn to operate effectively.
Glass instrumentation is easy - easier than clockwork systems. I converted from the VC10 to the B747-400 and it was a piece of p!ss. One of the easiest courses I've ever done. When I subsequently went back to the 747 Classic, I found that my conventional scanning skills had gone and I found hard to readjust.
Airbusses are easy to operate. My company takes 200 hour cadets straight onto the A330. They were designed with the philosophy of taking someone straight off an integrated course and putting them in the seat to operate safely. My main concern is the tanking job which does take time to learn to operate effectively.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glass cockpits...
Shell Management what utter twaddle you spout. Most of the coal face aircrew are of a generation who grew up with Playstations, iPods, iPhones and SatNavs, and as such have been crying out to fly something at least built in this century, rather than when we still thought steam trains were efficient! Please do not confuse us with the sort of person who still finds it difficult to watch one programme on tv while recording another-those are our Dads, and sadly our bosses...
Just for the record, I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the RAF will cock this up. As they have started by allegedly only using 25% of the personnel they have already trained and payed for, rather than highly expensive rejects from the airline world, then I can guess the goat is out and running... It also made me cringe to imagine the sort of person who would apply for a position as worded in the advert-that TA prick from The Office springs to mind...
Just for the record, I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the RAF will cock this up. As they have started by allegedly only using 25% of the personnel they have already trained and payed for, rather than highly expensive rejects from the airline world, then I can guess the goat is out and running... It also made me cringe to imagine the sort of person who would apply for a position as worded in the advert-that TA prick from The Office springs to mind...
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 45 yards from a tropical beach
Posts: 1,103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Converting from clockwork to glass is not a problem. The Civvy mates, however, will need a good 20 hours of formation flying training in smaller aircraft before trying to prod the Airbus.
I don't think the RAF version will be receiver capable. But they will eventually have to do snake climbs/cell departures, cell and some formation. This will be a problem.
Weren't the VC10 C1 pilots all Sqn Ldrs as well to stop them defecting to the darkside where the pay was greater for those under Sqn Ldr rank, and that only ceased when the Civilian world got rid of them and sold them to the RAF, then you started getting lower ranks flying them.
Training will be a major control in managing the main operational hazard of "deviation from intended safe flight path".
In one wide-body tanker, it's a case of go to HDG/SEL and turn towards the chick. Get him onto frequency, give him the A/A TAC and DF frequencies, then decide whether you'll go for Bravo or a Charlie...or trust ATC to manage an Alfa, all whilst head-to-head at 14 miles per minute. Control the RV, call the turn when the receiver calls 'visual', lead him back to the AAR anchor - use NAV or HDG/SEL mode as required - but get him in contact rather than fart about refining the magenta line to the nth degree! Stick his details into the mission system scratchpad if you're pressed for time, otherwise add him to the receiver list and regenerate the plan to obtain an accurate spare fuel update.
Quite simple for anyone flexible enough to want to learn and professionally rewarding when done efficiently. 'Children of the magenta God' might find this more difficult to assimilate than some 'clockwork dinosaur' who just needs to become accustomed to PFD/ND/ECAM methodology. And, as has been said, that's pretty straightforward these days.
However, as DW and other ex-mil airliner-drivers have indicated, Ts & Cs would have to be pretty good to tempt people to abandon their airliner flight decks. Not forgetting that anyone who hasn't been in the military in the last 10 years would have the faintest idea what becoming a 'sponsored reservist' would mean. Finally, I would suggest that anyone considering such a post should check their life assurance policy carefully. All of which I flagged up over 10 years ago.....
For pre-planned RVs, absolutely! By far and away the best.
But for a no-notice heading-based, snap towards, achieve a 180x0, turn on cue free airspace manoeuvre, an RV Delta isn't as effective. That's why there is such a range of RV types - use the type which suits the conditions/receiver type!
But for a no-notice heading-based, snap towards, achieve a 180x0, turn on cue free airspace manoeuvre, an RV Delta isn't as effective. That's why there is such a range of RV types - use the type which suits the conditions/receiver type!
You are all falling for that tosser called Shell Management. He has a history of stirring it up with rubbishy inputs that started with the West African thread in Rotorheads. On Rotorheads we have had some peace for the last month or so. Don't encourage it to start again.
F.E.D. Agreed - SM seems to use all of Shell's Airbus and Boeing experience in these forums? Can't rememeber how many they operate now...
I would, however, like to point out that A330's are not VC-10s or Tristars, nor are they hercs , Phantoms, Buccs, Vics or anything else that you used to use for AAR ops.
They are unlikly to swerve around like the aformentioned because they aren't the same. A330s have computers that may prevent that sort of stressful flying. the A330s will require NEW ops and "prodding" techniques and you may not even have the option of doing a "quick 120" and shouting Bingo! for whatever reason.
Just because its supposed to sing the same song doesn't necessarily mean it will do the notes in the right order.
...My apologies to Eric Morecambe.
I would, however, like to point out that A330's are not VC-10s or Tristars, nor are they hercs , Phantoms, Buccs, Vics or anything else that you used to use for AAR ops.
They are unlikly to swerve around like the aformentioned because they aren't the same. A330s have computers that may prevent that sort of stressful flying. the A330s will require NEW ops and "prodding" techniques and you may not even have the option of doing a "quick 120" and shouting Bingo! for whatever reason.
Just because its supposed to sing the same song doesn't necessarily mean it will do the notes in the right order.
...My apologies to Eric Morecambe.
Rigga, the A330 is entirely capable of all the same manoeuvres as a VC10K and has the added benefit of flight envelope protection. It will take an A330 flying at 300KIAS at FL250 turning at 25° AoB precisely the same time to turn 120° left to set up an urgent RV as any other aircraft at the same speed/height/AoB.... ATP-56B RV manoeuvres are not tanker type specific.
'Bingo' is a receiver call referring to a pre-briefed fuel state. It is not some 'shout'....
180x0 refers to a no-displacement approach with 180° angle between headings. Obviously not co-altitude.
If an A330 was unable to conduct the basic manoeuvre to which I referred, which certainly does not involve any 'swerving around' and is entirely non-stressful, it wouldn't even be suitable as an airliner.
'Bingo' is a receiver call referring to a pre-briefed fuel state. It is not some 'shout'....
180x0 refers to a no-displacement approach with 180° angle between headings. Obviously not co-altitude.
If an A330 was unable to conduct the basic manoeuvre to which I referred, which certainly does not involve any 'swerving around' and is entirely non-stressful, it wouldn't even be suitable as an airliner.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Puken
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEags,
you would think a 180x0 wouldn't be co-alt wouldn't you?!
Not the EA6 drivers!! They'd go for a 180x0 co-alt almost every time in Telic I!
Used to get a bit twitchy whenever I'd see the Tacan counting down at 800Kts or so!!
As for SM... I think he's high on drugs or something; certainly not in the real world at any rate!
you would think a 180x0 wouldn't be co-alt wouldn't you?!
Not the EA6 drivers!! They'd go for a 180x0 co-alt almost every time in Telic I!
Used to get a bit twitchy whenever I'd see the Tacan counting down at 800Kts or so!!
As for SM... I think he's high on drugs or something; certainly not in the real world at any rate!
Farfrompuken, I can only surmise that a number of ex-weasels were flying those EA6s!
Only near misses I have had were with Wild Weasels not sticking to SOPs. Back during OPC, the USAF air commander finally got so fed up with their non-SOP behaviour that he sent some of them home in disgrace.
Yes, we know they were brave and good at what they did. But that's no excuse for ignoring the ACO!
Anyway, back to the thread. The A330 will prove to be a superb tanker and the RAF are very fortunate to be able to build upon many years of AAR expertise with their first ever tanker that won't have been someone else's cast-off. The experience of A330 aircrew from elsewhere will provide AirTanker with considerable synergy.
Only near misses I have had were with Wild Weasels not sticking to SOPs. Back during OPC, the USAF air commander finally got so fed up with their non-SOP behaviour that he sent some of them home in disgrace.
Yes, we know they were brave and good at what they did. But that's no excuse for ignoring the ACO!
Anyway, back to the thread. The A330 will prove to be a superb tanker and the RAF are very fortunate to be able to build upon many years of AAR expertise with their first ever tanker that won't have been someone else's cast-off. The experience of A330 aircrew from elsewhere will provide AirTanker with considerable synergy.
Last edited by BEagle; 30th Jan 2011 at 20:51.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: retirementland
Age: 79
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The A330 will prove to be a superb tanker and the RAF are very fortunate to be able to build upon many years of AAR expertise with their first ever tanker that won't have been someone else's cast-off. The experience of A330 aircrew from elsewhere will provide AirTanker with considerable synergy.
Indeed - because deviation from the originally intended flight path is often an essential requirement for a good AAR crew!
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Far far away
Age: 53
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reservists will be doing AT; BZN to MPA and back, maybe one towline per year for currency. No formation trg required, very basic ATP-56 procedures only.
Full-timers will be doing anchor AR (sic) over the North Sea or flying the sim, with maybe a trail or two for a handful of the CO's best mates each year; all planning provided by the Jeppesen-powered Ops team.
As for conversion to glass cockpit and FBW - if it was difficult then wouldn't the aircraft manufacturers build steam-powered analogue systems still, and wouldn't all the major airlines be flying VC10s?
Full-timers will be doing anchor AR (sic) over the North Sea or flying the sim, with maybe a trail or two for a handful of the CO's best mates each year; all planning provided by the Jeppesen-powered Ops team.
As for conversion to glass cockpit and FBW - if it was difficult then wouldn't the aircraft manufacturers build steam-powered analogue systems still, and wouldn't all the major airlines be flying VC10s?
Shell Management
What a load of tosh ref the basic conversion to glass cockpit airliners.
I and many other in my old company went from clockwork cockpit 747 Classics to 747-400 in a little over 3 months from last flight in one to first revenue flight in the -400. All with no previous glass cockpit experience.
Its called a Conversion Course!!
Although it will be a steep step change of thinking for some. An experienced RAF AT driver I met last year could not believe that the first time most of us flew the 747-400 for real, was a revenue flight (under supervision of course) full of passengers, with no base training.
Basic TriStar/VC10 to A330 conversion would pose no problems, other than the lack of currency and the low amount of varied routes and sectors being experienced by some present RAF Transport crews.
Tactical training add ons, obviously will take longer.
PS
I am assuming in the above, that to get the fleet up and running ,initial A330 AT pilots will be drawn from experienced ex TriStar/VC10 crews. Ab Initio pilots ex King Air would obviously need a longer course with base training included.
I and many other in my old company went from clockwork cockpit 747 Classics to 747-400 in a little over 3 months from last flight in one to first revenue flight in the -400. All with no previous glass cockpit experience.
Its called a Conversion Course!!
Although it will be a steep step change of thinking for some. An experienced RAF AT driver I met last year could not believe that the first time most of us flew the 747-400 for real, was a revenue flight (under supervision of course) full of passengers, with no base training.
Basic TriStar/VC10 to A330 conversion would pose no problems, other than the lack of currency and the low amount of varied routes and sectors being experienced by some present RAF Transport crews.
Tactical training add ons, obviously will take longer.
PS
I am assuming in the above, that to get the fleet up and running ,initial A330 AT pilots will be drawn from experienced ex TriStar/VC10 crews. Ab Initio pilots ex King Air would obviously need a longer course with base training included.
Last edited by cessnapete; 31st Jan 2011 at 16:47.
...all planning provided by the Jeppesen-powered Ops team...