AIRTANKER
Gentlemen, let me offer the following input - as a still serving Nav. The trade of Nav/WSO is dead, the school has been closed, and all that remains is a few in the system trying to find gainful employment until they retire.
To consider the employment of Navs/WSOs on any NEW system, whether the argument for doing so is valid or not (and that's a whole different debate), is a MISTAKE! You will have to replace them with another trade at some point, as the pool of Navs is finite and shrinking, so why not start out with that trade from day 1 and save yourself a lot of trouble in the long term....
That's my own perspective, feel free to disagree, after all, that's what these forums are all about.......
Edited to add - as an aside, why are we preserving Navs/WSOs as MPA seedcorn? In a few years time we won't have a realistic pool of Navs/WSOs to man any MPA fleet we might acquire (in your dreams?), or a means of replacing the few we do have left in the long term (unless we recruit directly off the high street and put people through the RN observer training course?)
To consider the employment of Navs/WSOs on any NEW system, whether the argument for doing so is valid or not (and that's a whole different debate), is a MISTAKE! You will have to replace them with another trade at some point, as the pool of Navs is finite and shrinking, so why not start out with that trade from day 1 and save yourself a lot of trouble in the long term....
That's my own perspective, feel free to disagree, after all, that's what these forums are all about.......
Edited to add - as an aside, why are we preserving Navs/WSOs as MPA seedcorn? In a few years time we won't have a realistic pool of Navs/WSOs to man any MPA fleet we might acquire (in your dreams?), or a means of replacing the few we do have left in the long term (unless we recruit directly off the high street and put people through the RN observer training course?)
Last edited by Biggus; 21st Nov 2011 at 09:52.
You have to remember that the A330 was designed as a 2-pilot aeroplane and is certified as such. It usually flies in 100% controlled airspace and is very reliable if flown correctly. Nothing much changes in flight, apart from the occasional departure delay.
However, a tanker flies outside controlled airspace in close formation with other aircraft and it is virtually certain that the planned flight will include changes to the original plan!
Hence the 2-pilot tanker crew will have additional workload compared to their trash-hauling colleagues. For AAR deployments, a 'trail brief' will need to be prepared and subsequently modified in flight for tanker, receiver, route or aerodrome availability events. In the coal-powered VC10 / TriStar era, a simplistic, inaccurate and mathematically non-rigorous system known as 'RAPS' is used to allow for such events - except that it cannot cope with significant route changes, changes to the availability of abort aerodromes etc. If a 2-hose tanker goes single hose, the replanning necessary can be time consuming and is error-prone, so has to be cross-checked by another crew member.
Voyager is capable of taking more receivers further than a VC10 or TriStar - which therefore means that the likelihood of single hose reversion, loss of an en-route abort aerodrome or a significant ATC re-route is greater due to the larger distances / times involved.
This was taken into account for the A310MRTT / CC-150T whose Mission Computer System does all the necessary number crunching. Before a trail bracket, receiver fuels are updated and any asociated plan revision 'accepted' by the operator - who can also relocate the 'automatic' brackets manually. Relocate a bracket and all susbsequent brackets are also replanned. After the bracket, before the hoses are rewound, receiver fuels are again updated. So there's no need to waste fuel by holding a receiver in contact to the geographic bracket end point as the MCS will simply recompute the susbsequent brackets from the 'update point'. Single hose re-planning takes 2 keystrokes and less than 10 seconds! The MCS permits much more accurate fuel calculations than current VC10 / TriStar planning - this is of enormous value when the TT part of MRTT is considered as accurate fuel planning leads to greater payload potential. None of the 'fill it up' nonsense of earlier years ('the plan says 62 tonnes but we'll take 70')!
However, any computer system is prone to Gi-Go error. So the A310 MCS advises, but does not dominate the crew. Shut it down completely and you can still refuel.
One is given to understand that the A330 MPS might perhaps not yet be quite as mature as one would like to think....
So it might indeed be temporarily necessary to use a navigator with his/her paper maps, pencils, dividers, ruler, protractor, bits of string, primitive RAPS guide, rabbit's foot, crystal ball, quadrant staff, lodestone and astrolabe to enable the Voyager to fly AAR trails until the MPS is fit for use. Even when it is, someone with a seasoned 'TLAR' eye will need to operate it until sufficient confidence has been gained to trust it. This may, of course, take time.....
I don't know about the A330, but in the A310 setting the 'Min Off Task Fuel' value will cause the pod valves to close when that value is reached, so that the crew shouldn't be able to run the tanker out of fuel. The MOTF value is calculated by the MCS but can be amended by the pilots if required. 'Spare fuel' is continuously computed taking into account the planned off task fuel and the MOTF as well as the difference between planned and actual fuel state. Simples!!
However, a tanker flies outside controlled airspace in close formation with other aircraft and it is virtually certain that the planned flight will include changes to the original plan!
Hence the 2-pilot tanker crew will have additional workload compared to their trash-hauling colleagues. For AAR deployments, a 'trail brief' will need to be prepared and subsequently modified in flight for tanker, receiver, route or aerodrome availability events. In the coal-powered VC10 / TriStar era, a simplistic, inaccurate and mathematically non-rigorous system known as 'RAPS' is used to allow for such events - except that it cannot cope with significant route changes, changes to the availability of abort aerodromes etc. If a 2-hose tanker goes single hose, the replanning necessary can be time consuming and is error-prone, so has to be cross-checked by another crew member.
Voyager is capable of taking more receivers further than a VC10 or TriStar - which therefore means that the likelihood of single hose reversion, loss of an en-route abort aerodrome or a significant ATC re-route is greater due to the larger distances / times involved.
This was taken into account for the A310MRTT / CC-150T whose Mission Computer System does all the necessary number crunching. Before a trail bracket, receiver fuels are updated and any asociated plan revision 'accepted' by the operator - who can also relocate the 'automatic' brackets manually. Relocate a bracket and all susbsequent brackets are also replanned. After the bracket, before the hoses are rewound, receiver fuels are again updated. So there's no need to waste fuel by holding a receiver in contact to the geographic bracket end point as the MCS will simply recompute the susbsequent brackets from the 'update point'. Single hose re-planning takes 2 keystrokes and less than 10 seconds! The MCS permits much more accurate fuel calculations than current VC10 / TriStar planning - this is of enormous value when the TT part of MRTT is considered as accurate fuel planning leads to greater payload potential. None of the 'fill it up' nonsense of earlier years ('the plan says 62 tonnes but we'll take 70')!
However, any computer system is prone to Gi-Go error. So the A310 MCS advises, but does not dominate the crew. Shut it down completely and you can still refuel.
One is given to understand that the A330 MPS might perhaps not yet be quite as mature as one would like to think....
So it might indeed be temporarily necessary to use a navigator with his/her paper maps, pencils, dividers, ruler, protractor, bits of string, primitive RAPS guide, rabbit's foot, crystal ball, quadrant staff, lodestone and astrolabe to enable the Voyager to fly AAR trails until the MPS is fit for use. Even when it is, someone with a seasoned 'TLAR' eye will need to operate it until sufficient confidence has been gained to trust it. This may, of course, take time.....
As the Airbus has such a wonderful computer, does it automatically go home when it has no more to give?
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Totally agree. Two man ops, fine for a big comfy bus. The AAR task ranges from dead simple to outrageously complex and (as BEgles says) rapidly changing. A good management system is of great assistance, but is not the solution. An extra brain will do nicely!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Witney UK
Posts: 616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is very difficult to define the required attributes of this possible third person in this imaginary crew, numerical ability would be useful, a good pair of eyes likewise, be great if they can cook, be helpful if they had some technical knowledge, but above all they should have airmanship coming out their ears. Difficult because some navs had it, as did some AEOs,Engs and loadies but not all, how do you select for it?, how do you train for it?, what do you call them. I do not know but you know their value when you have one on your crew.
Last edited by Art Field; 21st Nov 2011 at 18:57.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread started as a simple question about the location of the aircraft and yet within six or so posts we have the tanker mafia telling us how no one but them is fit to fly the aircraft on task.
It would seem to me that you are all lacking in self confidence to have to put all of that on an Internet forum.
It would seem to me that you are all lacking in self confidence to have to put all of that on an Internet forum.
In the coal-powered VC10 / TriStar era,
Just a thought - wonder how a two seat tanker would have coped with Black Buck when it all went pear-shaped and the guys down the back had to plan and execute a new RV several hundred miles from Ascension with no radar back up in order to avoid a long swim home?
TTnav
You just enter the position of the new RV into your triple FMS system fed by a triple GPS data feed, press ENTER, and and it will take you there within an accuracy of a few feet!!
Oh, and then it will take you home and land with 0 DH/100m RVR, perhaps not though, as the Voyager will be Cat 1 minima in RAF use presumably.
Oh, and then it will take you home and land with 0 DH/100m RVR, perhaps not though, as the Voyager will be Cat 1 minima in RAF use presumably.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
The Vulcan was often called a 4-engined Jet Provost and I believe the C130 was also used to bring on young pilots. Many went on to become respected captains but not all.
It is inevitable that there will be some multi pilots that are posted to the Voyager as P2 but don't cut the mustard. Until such time as they get up to speed or get out would mean P1 would be carrying the whole load.
BEagle,
My point about the tanker going home was well answered, thank you, however I was thinking of the one before TTNs time. Unlike its predecessor it could give away ALL its fuel. Now you could actually have imagined a cold war scenario where the choices were go home leaving the fighter to go home too while the bandits followed you in, or give all your fuel to the fighter in the hope that the fight got the bandit.
MSO
I guess the full story has not yet got out. The problem is that the automated system does not work yet and in order to provide some experience to the new fleet one Nav has been posted to 10 sqn. The long-term aim is I believe a mix of Loadies and Air Engs. There is not and never was any intention to have anything other than a 2-pilot flight deck for AT ops.
You just enter the position of the new RV
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Far far away
Age: 53
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crumbs - sounds like all the former AAR STANEVAL, CFIs, FIs, IPs and EPs (of various nations) on here are almost in agreement on the role of the 3rd person!
Concur with Biggus too - to make any current trade group/branch the sole source for MSOs, and therefore make MSOs members of the chosen trade group/branch would be unsuitable. But, as the RAAF have already found with their boom operators, it's also difficult to form a new mustering for what will amount to less than 30 aircrew. Perhaps an alternative would be to broaden the role of an existing mustering?
Concur with Biggus too - to make any current trade group/branch the sole source for MSOs, and therefore make MSOs members of the chosen trade group/branch would be unsuitable. But, as the RAAF have already found with their boom operators, it's also difficult to form a new mustering for what will amount to less than 30 aircrew. Perhaps an alternative would be to broaden the role of an existing mustering?
Dont forget, in the scenario I'm describing the tanker deliberately gave away so much fuel as to make an RTB impossible without a successful refuelling - would the new computerised system permit that - if not could it be overridden?
Neither Voyager nor A310MRTT can operate in the receiver role; however, KC-30A can as can. So your scenario is highly unlikely for future RAF operations.
Again, I don't know about the A330 system, but in the A310 if you attempt a plan for which there is insufficient fuel, the system displays a message and the plan cannot be generated. But that wouldn't stop you doing whatever dying hero AAR you wished....
As for snap RVs, it's not just a question of designating a point as cessnapete intimated. You have to be there at the right time at the right speed and going the right way - as has the other aircraft. Then conduct the appropriate manoeuvre.
The A310MRTT MCS has a 'DDRMI' page. Next to the moving map displaying your current position and planned route, a panel displays a digital distance and RMI display with heading and track, plus DF and TACAN information - and it also continuously computes the correct ATP-56B turning range (and offset value for the RV'D') for the current TAS:
To conduct a snap RV'B', call the receiver and note the DF indication (DF receiver covers Tac FM, VHF Air, VHF Marine, UHF and PLB frequency bands). Turn onto the head of the needle and advise the receiver to turn onto the 'tail'. Repeat as oft as ye shall have need until you've achieved the correct 180x0 geometry. Note the TACAN range and roll into the turn so that you start the turn at the computed split. As the TACAN is in BCN INV, the receiver should see a TACAN bearing and distance. Fly the normal manoeuvre and the receiver should end up behind the tanker at the correct range. Crews who've used it say it really is dead simple. No faffing with entering data into the FMS; in fact once the correct DF and TACAN frequencies are set, the only thing you need to touch is the transmit key - all other data is displayed either on the pilots' DDRMIs or on the ARO's MCS display. Either pilot or the ARO can run the manoeuvre, depending upon national SOP.
This is an example of a 'computer assisted' device which does the calculations and eases crew workload, rather than some 'computer dominated' geekish piece of boffinology designed by unfettered engineers which requires pilots to peck away at the FMS or other keypad like demented woodpeckers when they should be concentrating on flying as accurately as possible and managing the event.
Last edited by BEagle; 22nd Nov 2011 at 08:19.
Thanks Beagle, very interesting. Didn't know that about Voyager not being able to act as a receiver.
I guess nobody likes the idea of being replaced by a computer, but it's happening in all spheres of life so no reason why navs should be any different I suppose.
Quite possibly, but I am reminded of an ancient Scottish AEO on 214 who used to say whenever he heard the expression "it is not envisaged that..." he was reminded that in the first major battle of recorded history, the siege of Jericho, it was not envisaged that the main assault would be carried out by musicians!
I guess nobody likes the idea of being replaced by a computer, but it's happening in all spheres of life so no reason why navs should be any different I suppose.
So your scenario is highly unlikely for future RAF operations.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK and where I'm sent!
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good explanation, BEagle. Thank you. As you say, aircrew-friendly kit for a change. This clearly Looks after the tanker's fuel plan, give-away, navigation, etc, but looking after the chicks on a trail and re-planning for their needs in changing situations is where the extra head comes in. Or will it do that too?
As for flying accurately, that's easy. Either practice more or use the auto-pilot!
What's the galley like?
As for flying accurately, that's easy. Either practice more or use the auto-pilot!
What's the galley like?
Good explanation, BEagle. Thank you. As you say, aircrew-friendly kit for a change. This clearly looks after the tanker's fuel plan, give-away, navigation, etc......
....but looking after the chicks on a trail and re-planning for their needs in changing situations is where the extra head comes in. Or will it do that too?
Mind you, I don't know what functionality the A330MRTT system will provide - my knowledge is limited to the A310MRTT.
As for flying accurately, that's easy. Either practice more or use the auto-pilot!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,073
Received 2,940 Likes
on
1,252 Posts
I read an interesting article on the Aussie version, they named it the KC-30B as they fervently believed the USA would buy the type and call it the KC-30A, they renamed it to The KC-30A after Boeing got their way.