AirTanker First Officers
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Sussex UK
Age: 66
Posts: 6,995
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Thanks BEagle 
Seems a "No Brainer" to me in terms of using the Next Gen A310 MRTT AAR Mission System based on what you describe ... however, I'd be a little uneasy with the USB data transfer architecture you describe (professional experience). Far more secure to use a "Locked Down" Toughbook for pre-flight planning then take it to the aircraft to upload the planned mission to the on-board computers via a secure cable data link ... which is certainly not a show stopper to implement quickly
Coff.
Seems a "No Brainer" to me in terms of using the Next Gen A310 MRTT AAR Mission System based on what you describe ... however, I'd be a little uneasy with the USB data transfer architecture you describe (professional experience). Far more secure to use a "Locked Down" Toughbook for pre-flight planning then take it to the aircraft to upload the planned mission to the on-board computers via a secure cable data link ... which is certainly not a show stopper to implement quickly
Coff.
Last edited by CoffmanStarter; 31st Aug 2014 at 18:40.
Perish the thought that the UK would ever go down the inefficient USAF route - as you well know, D-IFF_ident (it was you who told me!), they'll use 3 tankers where the RAF would only need 1!
USB nerd-paranoia apart, the mission file can also be loaded from the laptop to the on-board system by Ethernet cable.
USB pen drives used with the system are never to be used for other purposes - and the planning laptops aren't Internet enabled.
Anyway, if the system became corrupted, the crew still has a 'paper plan' they can use.
USB nerd-paranoia apart, the mission file can also be loaded from the laptop to the on-board system by Ethernet cable.
USB pen drives used with the system are never to be used for other purposes - and the planning laptops aren't Internet enabled.
Anyway, if the system became corrupted, the crew still has a 'paper plan' they can use.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nerd-paranoia
BEagle,
Don't disparage nerd-paranoia, after all, it's that which has given warriors in their tribe more than a sharpened stick.
In any case, you have reminded me, via your last response, that we old f-f-fogies should stick to topics we (might) remember something about and not delude ourselves, or allow others to mislead us (your case I suspect), that our past experiences and understanding have much relevance in a fast-paced technological world.
In other words, you should stick to discussing the passing of fuel and I should stop taking you off-topic.
Regards, Tanimbar
Don't disparage nerd-paranoia, after all, it's that which has given warriors in their tribe more than a sharpened stick.
In any case, you have reminded me, via your last response, that we old f-f-fogies should stick to topics we (might) remember something about and not delude ourselves, or allow others to mislead us (your case I suspect), that our past experiences and understanding have much relevance in a fast-paced technological world.
In other words, you should stick to discussing the passing of fuel and I should stop taking you off-topic.
Regards, Tanimbar
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: all over
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is the design assurance level of the A310 MPS?
Also, previous users of the 310 MPS do not share the same view as Beagle. I know a couple of guys who used it with the RCAF and they don't have too many good words to say. In fact the most recent chap was teaching RAPS to the aforementioned Air Force.
So I think it is unfair to say that the 310 MPS is the way to go, whilst I also agree the state of the Voyager system is far from ideal.
However, the system software is now Certified and Qualified and we await the final roll out in the near future.
Oh, and that nasty manual calculation thing called RAPS worked very well for a number of years, the idea of going to the USAF way really worries me. They divert many more trails due to fuel shortages, but have the airfields and tankers worldwide to operate such an inefficient system.
Also, previous users of the 310 MPS do not share the same view as Beagle. I know a couple of guys who used it with the RCAF and they don't have too many good words to say. In fact the most recent chap was teaching RAPS to the aforementioned Air Force.
So I think it is unfair to say that the 310 MPS is the way to go, whilst I also agree the state of the Voyager system is far from ideal.
However, the system software is now Certified and Qualified and we await the final roll out in the near future.
Oh, and that nasty manual calculation thing called RAPS worked very well for a number of years, the idea of going to the USAF way really worries me. They divert many more trails due to fuel shortages, but have the airfields and tankers worldwide to operate such an inefficient system.
3engnever wrote:
What was that saying abooot workmen and their tools....eh?
If you have a significant turn round of people and don't train to use the system in accordance with the manual, you can't really expect to get the best out of it, can you?
Teaching that primitive rubbish known as RAPS has merely caused confusion. It would have been much better if the RCAF had spoken with the Luftwaffe, who certainly do like the system - as they most definitely know how to use it properly.
I know a couple of guys who used it with the RCAF and they don't have too many good words to say. In fact the most recent chap was teaching RAPS to the aforementioned Air Force.
If you have a significant turn round of people and don't train to use the system in accordance with the manual, you can't really expect to get the best out of it, can you?
Teaching that primitive rubbish known as RAPS has merely caused confusion. It would have been much better if the RCAF had spoken with the Luftwaffe, who certainly do like the system - as they most definitely know how to use it properly.
Last edited by BEagle; 30th Aug 2014 at 19:03.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: all over
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am sure the RCAF will appreciate that stand Beags.
Also, I remain unsure how that have built their safety case around the no DAL system, it is certainly an issue the RAF is not able to overcome easily.
I am not saying that your 310 system is not good, that is just the feedback I have heard from the operators. My concern is that you have not even seen or used the current version of the system you have so much disdain for and yet you continue to belittle it at every opportunity.
Also, I remain unsure how that have built their safety case around the no DAL system, it is certainly an issue the RAF is not able to overcome easily.
I am not saying that your 310 system is not good, that is just the feedback I have heard from the operators. My concern is that you have not even seen or used the current version of the system you have so much disdain for and yet you continue to belittle it at every opportunity.
3engnever, as it is 'read only', there was no formal requirement for a DAL for the A310 system. However, it has been proven to meet DAL D.
I have received considerable feedback concerning the current A330 system - and all has been emphatically negative. Please believe me - I'm not making that up.
I have received considerable feedback concerning the current A330 system - and all has been emphatically negative. Please believe me - I'm not making that up.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: all over
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beags,
I'm sure you have, all I would say is that each nation has it's own version and so I doubt very much you have feedback on the current RAF version.
Maybe it is that workmen and tools thing again...
Proven to meet DAL D (presumably not certified as such though-one would question why not?) is all well and good, unfortunately the RAF need at least DAL C to make it a standalone flight safety critical system.
I'm sure you have, all I would say is that each nation has it's own version and so I doubt very much you have feedback on the current RAF version.
Maybe it is that workmen and tools thing again...
Proven to meet DAL D (presumably not certified as such though-one would question why not?) is all well and good, unfortunately the RAF need at least DAL C to make it a standalone flight safety critical system.
3engnever, sorry, but my feedback is from all users...
The DAL 'C' required of the Voyager MPS is for reasons other than AAR planning / management, because it is used for other purposes for which legacy methods are used by A310 operators.
The requirement for the A310 MCS was that it would never be required to be a 'standalone flight safety critical item'..... Mission critical, perhaps - but flight safety critical, not required. In the highly unlikely event of it failing in flight (which could only be as the result of a 'double failure' of hardware, there being no single point failure risk), that wouldn't stop any AAR.
As for not requiring fully independent DAL certification, that was customer-driven to save time and money. In the same way that they didn't expect an electronic calculator to demonstrate a DAL....
The DAL 'C' required of the Voyager MPS is for reasons other than AAR planning / management, because it is used for other purposes for which legacy methods are used by A310 operators.
The requirement for the A310 MCS was that it would never be required to be a 'standalone flight safety critical item'..... Mission critical, perhaps - but flight safety critical, not required. In the highly unlikely event of it failing in flight (which could only be as the result of a 'double failure' of hardware, there being no single point failure risk), that wouldn't stop any AAR.
As for not requiring fully independent DAL certification, that was customer-driven to save time and money. In the same way that they didn't expect an electronic calculator to demonstrate a DAL....
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: all over
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So with the 310 MPS, who is responsible for the receiver fuel state and position of the AAR Bkts and associated APs. If it is the tanker and the reliance is on the MPS output for the info, then surely this is flight safety critical for the receiver crew? I know the receiver captain is technically always responsible for his own fuel state and safety, but if you apply that principal on the position of AAR Bkts and APs then you may as well go down the US way of trails and get rid of the MPS altogether.
The initial trail plan is no more nor less liable to planning error than AARWIN - and a lot more accurate.
In flight the receiver fuel states are updated 15 min before the next bracket. Any significant change to the initial plan is down to mathematical calculation in the same way as it would be if an electronic calculator had been used. This includes amended APs, of course.
5 min after the RB, receiver fuel is again checked (that allows time for any receiver transfer issues, gauging settling etc) and the plan updated for the next RB. Exactly as it would be if it was an AARC sitting there with a laptop, but with the added bonus of continuous aircraft data being provided automatically.
Anyway, the level of assurance satisfied the Airbus engineering and airworthiness people - who have very demanding standards. They agree that it is not flight critical, merely mission critical.
If a double failure should ever cause the entire MCS to throw in the towel, the last known plan update (which should have been printed out) can be used if neither MCS processor can be rebooted. Any subsequent receiver issue would of course be rather more difficult to resolve, but the users are happy that the likelihood of both MCS processors failing is so remote that, should that happen and a receiver then has a subsequent fuel problem, a diversion to the abort aerodrome would be the preferred option.
A lot of time and thought went into the system and if used correctly, it is very effective. If users encounter problems, then there is a fault reporting system specifically set up for resolving such issues. But if they don't bother, then how can the issue ever be properly addressed? Was it caused by operator error, software bugs, aircraft interface (e.g bent connector pins, pinched cabling) or what?
In flight the receiver fuel states are updated 15 min before the next bracket. Any significant change to the initial plan is down to mathematical calculation in the same way as it would be if an electronic calculator had been used. This includes amended APs, of course.
5 min after the RB, receiver fuel is again checked (that allows time for any receiver transfer issues, gauging settling etc) and the plan updated for the next RB. Exactly as it would be if it was an AARC sitting there with a laptop, but with the added bonus of continuous aircraft data being provided automatically.
Anyway, the level of assurance satisfied the Airbus engineering and airworthiness people - who have very demanding standards. They agree that it is not flight critical, merely mission critical.
If a double failure should ever cause the entire MCS to throw in the towel, the last known plan update (which should have been printed out) can be used if neither MCS processor can be rebooted. Any subsequent receiver issue would of course be rather more difficult to resolve, but the users are happy that the likelihood of both MCS processors failing is so remote that, should that happen and a receiver then has a subsequent fuel problem, a diversion to the abort aerodrome would be the preferred option.
A lot of time and thought went into the system and if used correctly, it is very effective. If users encounter problems, then there is a fault reporting system specifically set up for resolving such issues. But if they don't bother, then how can the issue ever be properly addressed? Was it caused by operator error, software bugs, aircraft interface (e.g bent connector pins, pinched cabling) or what?
Last edited by BEagle; 1st Sep 2014 at 11:36.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: all over
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beags,
Thank you for the info.
Airbus will never see it a flight safety critical as the FMS looks after the tanker not the MPS. Airbus does not provide the flight safety case for the receiver. If the MPS algorithm is corrupted in any way then the resulting AP would be incorrect and may cause the receiver to fly to an AP and then divert without enough fuel, hence the flight safety issue. Any system below DAL C cannot be used to satisfy that requirement, certainly for the RAF, and so it would be interesting should we ever want the A310 to trail our aircraft using their MPS, one for the DH chain to consider maybe.
Whilst you could argue the DAL case against the cheap Casio calculators used by the crew, at least 3 are being used and cross checked for errors which therefore satisfies the safety case. As I am sure you know, the AARWIN plan is checked pre flight by the receivers to confirm that it is correct, admittedly a late notice change is harder to confirm as they do not carry their normal computerised planning aid, however, all endeavours are made to cross check the plan by another means and not just rely on the single source when outside of the stat met.
Like I have said above, I am sure your system is very good, however, it would not meet the flight safety demands of the RAF and so we could not just bin the A330 version and buy yours.
Thank you for the info.
Airbus will never see it a flight safety critical as the FMS looks after the tanker not the MPS. Airbus does not provide the flight safety case for the receiver. If the MPS algorithm is corrupted in any way then the resulting AP would be incorrect and may cause the receiver to fly to an AP and then divert without enough fuel, hence the flight safety issue. Any system below DAL C cannot be used to satisfy that requirement, certainly for the RAF, and so it would be interesting should we ever want the A310 to trail our aircraft using their MPS, one for the DH chain to consider maybe.
Whilst you could argue the DAL case against the cheap Casio calculators used by the crew, at least 3 are being used and cross checked for errors which therefore satisfies the safety case. As I am sure you know, the AARWIN plan is checked pre flight by the receivers to confirm that it is correct, admittedly a late notice change is harder to confirm as they do not carry their normal computerised planning aid, however, all endeavours are made to cross check the plan by another means and not just rely on the single source when outside of the stat met.
Like I have said above, I am sure your system is very good, however, it would not meet the flight safety demands of the RAF and so we could not just bin the A330 version and buy yours.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Far far away
Age: 53
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A 'Friend' did a trail last week using an A330 MPS ground plan, then RAPS in flight and his iPhone calculator (in flight mode) coz he lost his DAL E Casio.
What is available other than either the A310 MCS or A330 MPS?
Jepp (undeveloped since the JDF got the first copy)?
PFPS?
AARWIN?
What's the design assurance level of the current RAF/USAF/FAF/CAF/GAF etc system?
Bring on the Linux BEagle.....
What is available other than either the A310 MCS or A330 MPS?
Jepp (undeveloped since the JDF got the first copy)?
PFPS?
AARWIN?
What's the design assurance level of the current RAF/USAF/FAF/CAF/GAF etc system?
Bring on the Linux BEagle.....
D-IFF_ident, MCS could certainly use Linux, I've been assured.
I've used it with WinXP, WinXP-embedded, Win7.1 and even Win8.1u1 (planning only). No issue.
3engnever, your concerns were raised and addressed years ago before the MCS was signed off.
The pre-flight trail plan is copied to the receivers; if they're not happy with it then it won't be used until they are. Stat Met? You can choose anything from 35-99% NOAA values, still-air or user-defined if preferred. Brg, dist and ETA from present position to an abort aerodrome at current groundspeed (or anywhere else, for that matter) can be checked by putting the cursor over the target and reading off the values. Subtract from current time, multiply by TCR and you can roughly (obviously) check receiver fuel burn needed to overhead the abort aerodrome if you want to cross check - or plot it on a paper chart, measure it and use long multiplication if you're really concerned about 'DAL'.
MCS is not 'mine' to 'sell', incidentally.
D-IFF_ident, yes, I saw that Jeppesen product for the KC-767J at ARSAG. Really basic and not easy to use. When I spoke to the Jepp chap, he told me that I was "...rather more polite about it than the last RAF person who'd seen it". Eh, vascodegama ??
I've used it with WinXP, WinXP-embedded, Win7.1 and even Win8.1u1 (planning only). No issue.
3engnever, your concerns were raised and addressed years ago before the MCS was signed off.
The pre-flight trail plan is copied to the receivers; if they're not happy with it then it won't be used until they are. Stat Met? You can choose anything from 35-99% NOAA values, still-air or user-defined if preferred. Brg, dist and ETA from present position to an abort aerodrome at current groundspeed (or anywhere else, for that matter) can be checked by putting the cursor over the target and reading off the values. Subtract from current time, multiply by TCR and you can roughly (obviously) check receiver fuel burn needed to overhead the abort aerodrome if you want to cross check - or plot it on a paper chart, measure it and use long multiplication if you're really concerned about 'DAL'.
MCS is not 'mine' to 'sell', incidentally.
D-IFF_ident, yes, I saw that Jeppesen product for the KC-767J at ARSAG. Really basic and not easy to use. When I spoke to the Jepp chap, he told me that I was "...rather more polite about it than the last RAF person who'd seen it". Eh, vascodegama
??
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: all over
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stat met percentage is irrevelant really, it is just a planning figure.
Out of interest, when you hover over the 'target' and get your dist and ETA, what wind does it use? Current wind component or current wind speed? Does it take into account the possibility of a wind change enroute to the div?
WHilst you can measure and then check the AP manually, doesn't this defeat the object of having a computer do it for you, the whole idea is to reduce the workload. If you are having to manually calculate to cross check you may as well use RAPS. Also, as the modern systems are more accurate than the manual crosscheck, the AP will always be different for the 2 cases, which one do you use, what difference really counts?
All issues that both system have encountered so don't think I am only picking holes in the 310 version, the 330 will have the same problems.
Out of interest, when you hover over the 'target' and get your dist and ETA, what wind does it use? Current wind component or current wind speed? Does it take into account the possibility of a wind change enroute to the div?
WHilst you can measure and then check the AP manually, doesn't this defeat the object of having a computer do it for you, the whole idea is to reduce the workload. If you are having to manually calculate to cross check you may as well use RAPS. Also, as the modern systems are more accurate than the manual crosscheck, the AP will always be different for the 2 cases, which one do you use, what difference really counts?
All issues that both system have encountered so don't think I am only picking holes in the 310 version, the 330 will have the same problems.
The 'hover over target' uses current GS for a ROM estimate. Originally put in for the situation where a receiver needs to divert due to an aircraft emergency (not the AP defined for the segment), to provide pigeons and an ETA at current GS. The map shows all aerodromes with the defined RW length or greater - so if, for example, you select 1830m (6000 ft), it won't show Little-Piddle-on-the-Gusset 600m farm strip.
Checking the AP is not taught in this way - the conventional RB summary tab has all the details, but if you feel you really want to cross-check, you can use it in this way if you wish.
For example, I'm currently testing a trans-USA trail plan. The next RB starts in 6 minutes and the AP is 9 min after that (as I deliberately used the automatically calculated start point, rather than moving the RB to an earlier location). The AP is 120°M/117 from the route; however if the aircraft diverted there right now, it would need to head 171°M for 131 nm and would be there in 18 min at the current 436 knot GS.
Stat Met isn't an irrelevance. The advantage of being able to select the % stat met value is that if, for example, you find that you cannot run a tight trail using 85%, you can try it at a lower value in a few seconds. Thus a trail requiring a minimum tanker fuel value of 60225 kg at 85% can be completely recalculated for 70% in 10 sec - that includes everything such as the fuel graph and RBs - generating a minimum tanker fuel value of 58532 kg.
Checking the AP is not taught in this way - the conventional RB summary tab has all the details, but if you feel you really want to cross-check, you can use it in this way if you wish.
For example, I'm currently testing a trans-USA trail plan. The next RB starts in 6 minutes and the AP is 9 min after that (as I deliberately used the automatically calculated start point, rather than moving the RB to an earlier location). The AP is 120°M/117 from the route; however if the aircraft diverted there right now, it would need to head 171°M for 131 nm and would be there in 18 min at the current 436 knot GS.
Stat Met isn't an irrelevance. The advantage of being able to select the % stat met value is that if, for example, you find that you cannot run a tight trail using 85%, you can try it at a lower value in a few seconds. Thus a trail requiring a minimum tanker fuel value of 60225 kg at 85% can be completely recalculated for 70% in 10 sec - that includes everything such as the fuel graph and RBs - generating a minimum tanker fuel value of 58532 kg.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: all over
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I didn't mean stat met is irrelevant, just what percentage you are using is irrelevant. What matters is can you make the plan work and how risky is it?
An ETA using current GS is not useful, especially if you are turning into a 100kt wind, I am surprised it doesn't use the current wind vector. What does it use to calculate the AP?
It would be good in the future to get both systems side by side to develop a single MPS using the advantages of each system to arrive at a single product for all users. Chances of that happening are remote though!
An ETA using current GS is not useful, especially if you are turning into a 100kt wind, I am surprised it doesn't use the current wind vector. What does it use to calculate the AP?
It would be good in the future to get both systems side by side to develop a single MPS using the advantages of each system to arrive at a single product for all users. Chances of that happening are remote though!
3engnever wrote:
By default, the winds specified for the trail. If preferred, the user can enter a mean wind velocity to be used for the track to each abort aerodrome.
The 'ETA at current GS' on-chart tool is only really of use for quick ROM estimates for emergency diversions. But it can be used for other purposes as required. It is not a formal part of mission planning. As for the 100kt wind, well, as soon as the formation is heading towards the target the revised GS will of course provide a more accurate ETA. Originally it only provided brg and dist, but an ex-AARC suggested inclusion of the ETA at current GS feature. I stress, it is a very minor part of the system and isn't often used.
The A310 system has been in operational service for over 5 years now. The primary users are well satisfied with it and will no doubt be even happier with the additional functionality the forthcoming upgrade will provide for them.
What does it use to calculate the AP?
The 'ETA at current GS' on-chart tool is only really of use for quick ROM estimates for emergency diversions. But it can be used for other purposes as required. It is not a formal part of mission planning. As for the 100kt wind, well, as soon as the formation is heading towards the target the revised GS will of course provide a more accurate ETA. Originally it only provided brg and dist, but an ex-AARC suggested inclusion of the ETA at current GS feature. I stress, it is a very minor part of the system and isn't often used.
The A310 system has been in operational service for over 5 years now. The primary users are well satisfied with it and will no doubt be even happier with the additional functionality the forthcoming upgrade will provide for them.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Sussex UK
Age: 66
Posts: 6,995
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
BEagle, 3engnever
The technicalities discussed above by you guys remain very interesting ...
But what happens next ? What is it going to take for the RAF to get what it clearly needs ? Does the RAF twiddle it's thumbs until Mil AirBus deliver/give up and adopt an off-the-shelf AAR MPS solution ... what's AirTankers stance ? Are they actively pressing Mil AirBus as the PFI Service Provider ?
It all seems very frustrating and highly inefficient
The technicalities discussed above by you guys remain very interesting ...
But what happens next ? What is it going to take for the RAF to get what it clearly needs ? Does the RAF twiddle it's thumbs until Mil AirBus deliver/give up and adopt an off-the-shelf AAR MPS solution ... what's AirTankers stance ? Are they actively pressing Mil AirBus as the PFI Service Provider ?
It all seems very frustrating and highly inefficient