AirTanker First Officers
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The thing is, beagle, I agree with some of your underlying point about PFI; in a perfect world every branch of our forces would have all the very best kit, lots of it, paid for with cash on the nail. Is that likely?
How can you claim to be speaking for the (very few) youngsters trying to start RAF careers when you have only contemptuous cat-calls for those youngsters earning a living with ATrS -and TCX, come to that, without whom we'd be unable to deploy more than a small% of our forces.
How can you claim to be speaking for the (very few) youngsters trying to start RAF careers when you have only contemptuous cat-calls for those youngsters earning a living with ATrS -and TCX, come to that, without whom we'd be unable to deploy more than a small% of our forces.
You do seem to want to make a mountain out of a molehill, ShotOne.
I don't have any beef at all with ATrS or Thos Cook - if people want to fly civilian aircraft in civilian operation with them, very good luck to them.
It's the civilian-in-uniform concept with which I do take exception - the so-called 'full time reservist' policy. Not with the individuals themselves, of course, but with the concept of using civilians for military aircrew tasks.
The UK would be able to deploy its personnel without ATrS or Thos Cook involvement - it would just be rather more expensive.
And if PFI / FTRS is such a smart idea, why do no other NATO members adopt it?
I don't have any beef at all with ATrS or Thos Cook - if people want to fly civilian aircraft in civilian operation with them, very good luck to them.
It's the civilian-in-uniform concept with which I do take exception - the so-called 'full time reservist' policy. Not with the individuals themselves, of course, but with the concept of using civilians for military aircrew tasks.
The UK would be able to deploy its personnel without ATrS or Thos Cook involvement - it would just be rather more expensive.
And if PFI / FTRS is such a smart idea, why do no other NATO members adopt it?
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: all over
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Xercules, it is good to see that somebody understands the PFI and 3PR rules. ShotOne, I hope this explained why the 3PR will no longer help the taxpayer.
Oh, and I don't see the issue with the reservists. The RAF have had reservists in a number of roles, including aircrew for years so how this is any different I do not know. When the guys are flying mil tasks they are activated and are therefore part of the uniformed services just like any other of the aircrew out there.
Oh, and I don't see the issue with the reservists. The RAF have had reservists in a number of roles, including aircrew for years so how this is any different I do not know. When the guys are flying mil tasks they are activated and are therefore part of the uniformed services just like any other of the aircrew out there.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Sussex UK
Age: 66
Posts: 6,995
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
BEagle ...
Apologies for the interlude (holiday this end) ... But I'd like to follow-up on your Post @ #132 if I may ...
So that naturally begs the question ... How is Op AAR Mission Planning undertaken (both pre/in-flight) on our Voyagers currently ? Surely not manual number crunching ... Is that a HMSO Note Pad along with a Mk1 Casio I spy in the picture I posted @#130 
Seriously ... Is it a system integration problem for the AAR Mission Kit with the Airbus A330 MRTT yet to be resolved or is the chosen AAR Mission Kit simply NFFP ?
Seems a pretty fundamental "End User Requirement" that is absent ...
I apologise if I've misunderstood or over simplified ... but my background in the field of complex systems delivery is driving my genuine curiosity
Coff.
Apologies for the interlude (holiday this end) ... But I'd like to follow-up on your Post @ #132 if I may ...
Originally Posted by BEagle
And it still doesn't include an AAR Mission System which actually works.
Seriously ... Is it a system integration problem for the AAR Mission Kit with the Airbus A330 MRTT yet to be resolved or is the chosen AAR Mission Kit simply NFFP ?
Seems a pretty fundamental "End User Requirement" that is absent ...
I apologise if I've misunderstood or over simplified ... but my background in the field of complex systems delivery is driving my genuine curiosity
Coff.
3PR
Of course AirTankers' 3PR could also come from AAR to other nations' aircraft assuming clearances etc. That, of course, would also depend on the Contract and the Tasking - if it was MoD tasked and within the contracted hours etc it presumably would seem not to be 3PR. This area could get very confusing. If it were a 3PR task who would fly the aircraft? I assume then that nobody could consider this to be the mercenaries "stealing" from the purely RAF crews - or would they? It would also seem that the "mercenaries" would need to gain an AAR qualification and maintain currency. Once they have done that, why not use them on the core task?
CoffmanStarter wrote:
The latter - 'Hecho en España = ¡No funciona!'. The Eespaneesh alleged engineers have been faffing with their worthless PoS for ages now, as they were too arrogant to use the A310 system which has been in operational service for several years, is combat-proven (Libya and Mali) and is about to become even better in a few weeks time when additional expeditionary functionality is included to increase mission flexibility yet further.
Indeed - so now they're currently reliant upon inefficient, mathematically non-rigorous 'legacy methods' including Dalton whizz-wheels and bits of string, or so I gather from a very senior Airbus chap....
Seriously ... Is it a system integration problem for the AAR Mission Kit with the Airbus A330 MRTT yet to be resolved or is the chosen AAR Mission Kit simply NFFP.
Seems a pretty fundamental "End User Requirement" that is absent ...
Last edited by BEagle; 28th Aug 2014 at 19:07.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Sussex UK
Age: 66
Posts: 6,995
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Many thanks BEagle ... All understood
In which case it sounds like the Programme Director/Exec responsible needs to show some commercial leadership PDQ ... and focus on integrating legacy proven AAR Mission Kit rather than "burning" money on reinventing the wheel ... It's that simple
I'm sure there must be a high degree of commonality at the data interface level between the A310 MRTT and the A330 MRTT to do this relatively simply ... or certainly at lower cost than "replicating" functionality that's already available (ignoring corporate arrogance/politics that is).
I wonder what "weight" the ultimate End User, the RAF, has in forcing what it wants rather than merely accepting what the "suppliers" (both aircraft manufacturer and service provider) provide ... meanwhile our crews seemingly need to continue to wear out their Daltons.
Any idea on when a FFP solution is expected ?
Coff.
In which case it sounds like the Programme Director/Exec responsible needs to show some commercial leadership PDQ ... and focus on integrating legacy proven AAR Mission Kit rather than "burning" money on reinventing the wheel ... It's that simple
I'm sure there must be a high degree of commonality at the data interface level between the A310 MRTT and the A330 MRTT to do this relatively simply ... or certainly at lower cost than "replicating" functionality that's already available (ignoring corporate arrogance/politics that is).
I wonder what "weight" the ultimate End User, the RAF, has in forcing what it wants rather than merely accepting what the "suppliers" (both aircraft manufacturer and service provider) provide ... meanwhile our crews seemingly need to continue to wear out their Daltons.
Any idea on when a FFP solution is expected ?
Coff.
Last edited by CoffmanStarter; 31st Aug 2014 at 18:39.
CoffmanStarter wrote:
No idea mate - but the last I heard from rumour control was 'possibly something by the end of the year....'
But which year....
Mañana is, it seems, too urgent a concept for some......
Any idea on when a FFP solution is expected?
But which year....
Mañana is, it seems, too urgent a concept for some......
Technology has moved a long way since the A310 Mission system was finalized. For what is needed on trails ( an automated method of ensuring receiver safety in terms of fuel plan) I would have thought that a GPS enabled I PAD would do the trick.
Incidentally I have not seen a single Dalton in use on Voyager trail training.
Incidentally I have not seen a single Dalton in use on Voyager trail training.
I presume you mean the A330 mission system, vascodegama?
The problem with a 'GPS enabled iPad' is that, unless it had inputs from other aircraft systems (e.g. fuel quantity, air data, nav system), it would require manual updating - which is error prone unless the entry is cross-checked by another crew member (a bit like Oceanic waypoint insertion checking) - which increases workload.
But it's a cheapo option which could be provided very quickly - the current A310 mission software works fine in 'planning mode' on a Win8.1u1 platform and adding a GPS card / app plus a manual fuel entry window for in-flight use wouldn't be difficult.
Incidentally, the version of the A310 system you saw all those years ago was really quite basic compared with the latest system.
(The 'Dalton and bits of string' quote came from someone we both know well!).
The problem with a 'GPS enabled iPad' is that, unless it had inputs from other aircraft systems (e.g. fuel quantity, air data, nav system), it would require manual updating - which is error prone unless the entry is cross-checked by another crew member (a bit like Oceanic waypoint insertion checking) - which increases workload.
But it's a cheapo option which could be provided very quickly - the current A310 mission software works fine in 'planning mode' on a Win8.1u1 platform and adding a GPS card / app plus a manual fuel entry window for in-flight use wouldn't be difficult.
Incidentally, the version of the A310 system you saw all those years ago was really quite basic compared with the latest system.
(The 'Dalton and bits of string' quote came from someone we both know well!).
No string and I did mean A310.
I don't believe that the system needs all the inputs you suggest BEags. Agreed that route input would be an additional work load but the rest of it is simple stuff.
I don't believe that the system needs all the inputs you suggest BEags. Agreed that route input would be an additional work load but the rest of it is simple stuff.
Well, I'm not sure how you know what the A310 mission system technical spec. actually is, vascodegama.... It has moved on considerably since the version you saw.
Manual route entry, editing and manual fuel on board inputs are all error prone - the air refuelling operator shouldn't be required to enter 5 or 6 digit values at whatever granularity would be required to maintain an accurate fuel plan. Way back in Vulcan bomber days, we did a half-hourly fuel check to maintain the howgozit, whereas in the A310 it is done automatically at 1 Hz.
With just GPS, you would only have ground speed and track, plus geo altitude. Somewhat limiting, to my mind.
Party Animal, yes, the A310 system could certainly be operated and interpreted by a commissioned fuse-changer.
Manual route entry, editing and manual fuel on board inputs are all error prone - the air refuelling operator shouldn't be required to enter 5 or 6 digit values at whatever granularity would be required to maintain an accurate fuel plan. Way back in Vulcan bomber days, we did a half-hourly fuel check to maintain the howgozit, whereas in the A310 it is done automatically at 1 Hz.
With just GPS, you would only have ground speed and track, plus geo altitude. Somewhat limiting, to my mind.
Party Animal, yes, the A310 system could certainly be operated and interpreted by a commissioned fuse-changer.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Sussex UK
Age: 66
Posts: 6,995
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
BEagle ...
Again ... my interest is purely with the "solution" approach here
I'd been wondering why this approach hadn't been adopted for the A330 MRTT AAR Mission System requirement
A fully "integrated" system is a given in terms of sourcing aircraft systems data as BEagle states ... however the "computation" of that data doesn't need to be done on an integral/bespoke computer which is part of the aircraft infrastructure. Far better to have a common Data Interface/Output that sources the required variables (fuel states, air data, nav system) from the aircraft and then use a detachable Toughbook (e.g. like the Panasonic ... but not exclusively) to AAR Mission Plan. Note that the design of the Data Interface would need to prevent any possibility of the AAR Mission System corrupting critical aircraft systems (Data Pull only).
As a "tactical" solution (the software development meaning of 'tactical" ... not military), this could be quickly and relatively cheaply done ... but no iPAD's please !
A "strategic" solution could then follow once the Data Interface had been delivered.
The benefits ...
(1) Almost immediately the End User gains a credible/proven AAR Mission Planning capability.
(2) The Data Interface becomes a common delivery feature ... like with the A400M ... thus achieving standardisation in AAR operations.
(3) The detachable Tougbook could then be used for pre-flight planning away from the aircraft and then plugged in to run the mission. Ideally you would use two devices, one as a back-up.
Interestingly Benefit (3) isn't that far removed from the solution used by a certain A320 civilian operator in orange livery that use Touhbooks in the cockpit for a variety of legacy paper based tasks ... Weight & Balance, Route Planning and Fuel Burn calcs ... albeit I believe, as yet, on a standalone basis.
An interesting debate
Coff.
Originally Posted by BEagle
The current A310 mission software works fine in 'planning mode' on a Win8.1u1 platform and adding a GPS card / app plus a manual fuel entry window for in-flight use wouldn't be difficult ...
I'd been wondering why this approach hadn't been adopted for the A330 MRTT AAR Mission System requirement
A fully "integrated" system is a given in terms of sourcing aircraft systems data as BEagle states ... however the "computation" of that data doesn't need to be done on an integral/bespoke computer which is part of the aircraft infrastructure. Far better to have a common Data Interface/Output that sources the required variables (fuel states, air data, nav system) from the aircraft and then use a detachable Toughbook (e.g. like the Panasonic ... but not exclusively) to AAR Mission Plan. Note that the design of the Data Interface would need to prevent any possibility of the AAR Mission System corrupting critical aircraft systems (Data Pull only).
As a "tactical" solution (the software development meaning of 'tactical" ... not military), this could be quickly and relatively cheaply done ... but no iPAD's please !
A "strategic" solution could then follow once the Data Interface had been delivered.
The benefits ...
(1) Almost immediately the End User gains a credible/proven AAR Mission Planning capability.
(2) The Data Interface becomes a common delivery feature ... like with the A400M ... thus achieving standardisation in AAR operations.
(3) The detachable Tougbook could then be used for pre-flight planning away from the aircraft and then plugged in to run the mission. Ideally you would use two devices, one as a back-up.
Interestingly Benefit (3) isn't that far removed from the solution used by a certain A320 civilian operator in orange livery that use Touhbooks in the cockpit for a variety of legacy paper based tasks ... Weight & Balance, Route Planning and Fuel Burn calcs ... albeit I believe, as yet, on a standalone basis.
An interesting debate
Coff.
Last edited by CoffmanStarter; 29th Aug 2014 at 16:19.
Well, CoffmanStarter, in fact the A310 system architecture is much as you describe - it receives ('pulls') information from the aircraft systems which is processed by an on-board PC (with another on 'hot standby' for redundancy) rather than by a Toughbook (although that was considered instead of 1 PC, but later rejected). The input device is a keyboard with track ball, the display is on a screen which can also be switched to the receiver surveillance system, should that system's identical display screen fail. The only potential single point of failure would be the keyboard, but a spare is always carried....
On-board software is the same as off-board, so a mission is normally planned off-board on any normal laptop with the application software, then transferred by USB pen drive to the on-board system - which cannot corrupt any aircraft system as it is read-only. Although there is an output to a flight deck printer as the pilots don't have their own display, so need to review any mission changes in printed form.
The application software is modular by design, in addition to the core application programme, it includes various databases including those for the 'host platform' aircraft performance and for certain receiver types' AAR performance - plus magvar, navigation and world-wide stat met, as well as about 160 different AARA locations in US and Europe. So tailoring the system for use in other aircraft would, in engineering terms, be quite simple.
And it works very well indeed!
One tweak which has recently been added is a system to calculate alternate fuel requirements, using a simple 'y=mx+c' experienced-based empirical rule for up to 100nm alternates, then FCOM values for greater distances. But rather than being restricted to optimistic 'best level' calculations and default final reserve values, the user can (if required) specify landing fuel requirement, holding fuel requirement, approach fuel required at the alternate, transit levels and (if >200 nm) met corrections to better suit his needs. Something which would be quite useful for airline use as it performs the whole FCOM calculation process in rather less than the bat of an eyelid! So if you were facing a chaotic mass diversion due to Spanish ATC ineptitude in mid-summer, you could specify a diversion at, say, FL100 rather than using the FL310 figure - and perhaps a higher final reserve......and let the box do the sums!
On-board software is the same as off-board, so a mission is normally planned off-board on any normal laptop with the application software, then transferred by USB pen drive to the on-board system - which cannot corrupt any aircraft system as it is read-only. Although there is an output to a flight deck printer as the pilots don't have their own display, so need to review any mission changes in printed form.
The application software is modular by design, in addition to the core application programme, it includes various databases including those for the 'host platform' aircraft performance and for certain receiver types' AAR performance - plus magvar, navigation and world-wide stat met, as well as about 160 different AARA locations in US and Europe. So tailoring the system for use in other aircraft would, in engineering terms, be quite simple.
And it works very well indeed!
One tweak which has recently been added is a system to calculate alternate fuel requirements, using a simple 'y=mx+c' experienced-based empirical rule for up to 100nm alternates, then FCOM values for greater distances. But rather than being restricted to optimistic 'best level' calculations and default final reserve values, the user can (if required) specify landing fuel requirement, holding fuel requirement, approach fuel required at the alternate, transit levels and (if >200 nm) met corrections to better suit his needs. Something which would be quite useful for airline use as it performs the whole FCOM calculation process in rather less than the bat of an eyelid! So if you were facing a chaotic mass diversion due to Spanish ATC ineptitude in mid-summer, you could specify a diversion at, say, FL100 rather than using the FL310 figure - and perhaps a higher final reserve......and let the box do the sums!
Last edited by BEagle; 29th Aug 2014 at 09:58.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"cannot corrupt"
BEagle says, "transferred by USB pen drive to the on-board system - which cannot corrupt any aircraft system as it is read-only" but that is not true, never was.
See, Opinion : An Evil USB Drive Could Take Over Your PC Undetectably. The ubiquitous USB isn't safe at all.
And don't forget that some people supposedly loaded stuxnet onto a USB, dropped it near an Iranian nuclear facility where some unwitting individual then picked it up, carried it inside and then plugged it into the facility's network: centrifuges ruined, job done!
Assumptions of safety are just that.
Regards, Tanimbar
See, Opinion : An Evil USB Drive Could Take Over Your PC Undetectably. The ubiquitous USB isn't safe at all.
And don't forget that some people supposedly loaded stuxnet onto a USB, dropped it near an Iranian nuclear facility where some unwitting individual then picked it up, carried it inside and then plugged it into the facility's network: centrifuges ruined, job done!
Assumptions of safety are just that.
Regards, Tanimbar
This whole situation is an utter, utter..... f...arse! The whole proud history of RAF AAR capability is being dragged through the gutters. The rot started with the (out-of-control since last century) FSTA saga, was further manipulated by companies keen to make money out of flashy computer real-time management systems and the complete mess has been mis-managed by very senior officers working without knowledge, foresight or even...a plan!
So, here we are with manual data entry into a system that cannot be validated in real time. I would like to have a seat in the BOI when that system drops an F35 in the drink!
Someone (DC?) really needs to get a grip. Just my opinion
OAP
So, here we are with manual data entry into a system that cannot be validated in real time. I would like to have a seat in the BOI when that system drops an F35 in the drink!
Someone (DC?) really needs to get a grip. Just my opinion
OAP
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Far far away
Age: 53
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I vote we all switch to the 'USAF system' and let the receivers sort their fuel requirements out for themselves. The tanker carries the offload as booked by the receiver unit and the lead receiver pilot is in charge. Who's in?