AIRTANKER
I like the look of the DDRMI page. Will it help stop tanker crews using TCAS to 'assist' the join, which usually results in a late turn towards the receiver and a 180 by zero pass? 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Easy Street, its not usually TCAS that causes that, more that it rescues it after a completely botched RV using the A-A Tacan range, which jumps about like a good'un. Also the tanker is often late on the turn due to some bad maths by someone too....often the fellow with the calculator and all the time in the world, but frequently the less-than-alert stick monkey too. And perish the thought that the receivers might up their speed from the assumed joining IAS in their haste to 'assist' the join....
All factors that a computer-driven mission system can far more accurately analyse than the human brain, no matter what brevet it wears.
An earlier poster makes a very valid point about deciding to crew MSO with a dying branch. Throughout the 27-year life of Voyager, where are the next MSOs gonna come from when all the Navs have departed to be no more? Can't see many pilots wanting the third seat, unless it comes with Captain's hours of course, and then you're in to the territory of saying that all trails have to have at least an RI or FI on the flightdeck. This MSO thing is the road to hell gentlemen, mark my words!
All factors that a computer-driven mission system can far more accurately analyse than the human brain, no matter what brevet it wears.
An earlier poster makes a very valid point about deciding to crew MSO with a dying branch. Throughout the 27-year life of Voyager, where are the next MSOs gonna come from when all the Navs have departed to be no more? Can't see many pilots wanting the third seat, unless it comes with Captain's hours of course, and then you're in to the territory of saying that all trails have to have at least an RI or FI on the flightdeck. This MSO thing is the road to hell gentlemen, mark my words!
Using ETCAS for an RV is fraught with error, because azimuth accuracy is insufficient! I was aghast when I heard that the USAF had been trying to use it for RV purposes....
Link16 could be used, but DF/TACAN is the simplest and safest method if the EMCON state permits.
FJ2ME, if A/A TACAN range is jumping, try using Y channels as they should suffer less from interference. Also check the AGC setting? Maybe even resort to stopwatch ranging as a back up?
Another refinement which could be added to the A310 MCS would be a Link16 SRAP overlay on the moving map....
Link16 could be used, but DF/TACAN is the simplest and safest method if the EMCON state permits.
FJ2ME, if A/A TACAN range is jumping, try using Y channels as they should suffer less from interference. Also check the AGC setting? Maybe even resort to stopwatch ranging as a back up?
Another refinement which could be added to the A310 MCS would be a Link16 SRAP overlay on the moving map....
RVs usuing Link 16 worked very well on the few VC10s which used to have it fitted. We thought it was the dogs danglies and assumed it was the way ahead and that all RVs would be done that way by the year 2000.
Indeed, Dan. However, the L16 SRAP will only show tracks which have been supplied to the network - there is a complementary need for ETCAS to provide safety against others. Certain controllers have permitted receivers to descend through tanker levels at very close range without warning and protection from such crass stupidity is essential.
RVs between tracks with PPLIs should certainly be accurate, but unless the refresh rate of non-PPLI tracks is adequate, range information against head sector inbound traffic may not be sufficiently accurate if closing speeds are high.
RVs between tracks with PPLIs should certainly be accurate, but unless the refresh rate of non-PPLI tracks is adequate, range information against head sector inbound traffic may not be sufficiently accurate if closing speeds are high.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Oxford
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3rd Pilot?
In the American C-17 world during high workload missions, the third seat if you like is occupied by another pilot who has access to a mission computer keyboard. Not only does this spread the workload, allowing the operating pilots to fly heads out, whilst significant changes to "the plan" are inputted by the spare, it means that those longer missions requiring an augment are satisfied along with all the other advantages of having a third pilot. It could also act as an apprenticeship for new co-pilots on the fleet to learn the trade, thereby negating the current requirement to be AAR experienced before you get a sniff at the job.
I am not suggesting for a minute the extra pilot would be required for routine AT stuff, that would be ridiculous, but if the workload of a tanking mission in a modern glass cockpit aircraft is so high than this would be surely be the sensible option.
I do however find this hard to believe, and there is a real sense of "jobs for the boys" surrounding these decisions.
I am not suggesting for a minute the extra pilot would be required for routine AT stuff, that would be ridiculous, but if the workload of a tanking mission in a modern glass cockpit aircraft is so high than this would be surely be the sensible option.
I do however find this hard to believe, and there is a real sense of "jobs for the boys" surrounding these decisions.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: South West
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Voyager flight deck I saw has four positions - two facing forward (guess what ones they are) and two facing aft looking at a console of HD tv tabs and controls. Exterior is covered in cameras, aerials, sensors and other stuff.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,068
Received 2,939 Likes
on
1,252 Posts
Article i read said the Australians instigated the two aft facing fuelling operator positions during the design phase as to give built in redundancy and simplify training requirements. It delayed the programme about 6 months (Novembers Air International)
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10 Sqn MSO's
The way I understand how 10 Sqn is set up at the moment:
MSO Staneval-Air Engineer
MSO Lead FI-Loadmaster
MSO Ldr-Loadmaster.
With up to 30 WSOps (ie Non Commissioned Aircrew) to follow.
Navs are only there to iron out initial computer glitches and will not feature in the Sqn's long term manning.
MSO Staneval-Air Engineer
MSO Lead FI-Loadmaster
MSO Ldr-Loadmaster.
With up to 30 WSOps (ie Non Commissioned Aircrew) to follow.
Navs are only there to iron out initial computer glitches and will not feature in the Sqn's long term manning.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Stockport
Age: 67
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
is that fixed wing loadies or EW? According to the EW poster there are no EW WSOps going to Voyager.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KC30, Flying airways and in circles at great height. Occasionally connecting to other aircraft.
"2 pilots can't cope"
C130J: Low Flying, Airdrop, Para, Natural Surface, occasionally connecting to other aircraft, all of the above on NVGs.
"2 pilots is fine"
Both are FMS.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"30 WSOps to follow" - is that fixed wing loadies or EW? According to the EW poster there are no EW WSOps going to Voyager.
Then again what he says and what he does are not the same thing.....
Then again what he says and what he does are not the same thing.....
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Runaway Gun, that's an almost female level of reading into things which aren't there!
If two pilots can operate the J, then why not the KC30 which seemingly does less?
Also, if you want some FJ banter:
courtesy of the internet
If two pilots can operate the J, then why not the KC30 which seemingly does less?
Also, if you want some FJ banter:
courtesy of the internet
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suppose the Loadies spend enough time up on the Flight Deck on the J to be counted as flight deck crew...
Nobody would be required to operate the non-existant boom system on the Voyager as Probe-and-Drogue mostly sorts itself out...
Nobody would be required to operate the non-existant boom system on the Voyager as Probe-and-Drogue mostly sorts itself out...
Stuff the Typhoon conversion course, I'm applying for J model Hercs just so I can listen to Super K man tell me how bloody great he is at everything (on NVG's too). But of course I'll have to lift the undercarriage lever for him...
When did the Pissing Contest start?
When did the Pissing Contest start?
Last edited by Runaway Gun; 25th Nov 2011 at 01:10. Reason: Speling