AAR Then & Now ...
Just another erk
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Germany
Age: 77
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was part of the flight test team on the first Tri-Star, ZD 950, later did the GAF A310, and then the boom demonstrator and the Aussie A330, in Madrid, the 330 is the best for me.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sussex By The Sea
Age: 79
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Further to TTN's post, I saw this on Wiki when researching the Meteor
12 hours in a Meteor F3 .... he deserved a medal for that alone. 
On 7 August 1949, Meteor III, EE397, on loan from the RAF and flown by Flight Refuelling Ltd (FRL) test pilot Patrick Hornidge, took off from Tarrant Rushton and, refuelled 10 times by the Lancaster tanker, remained airborne for 12 hours and 3 minutes, receiving 2,352 gallons of fuel from the tanker in ten tanker contacts and flying an overall distance of 3,600 miles (5,800 km), achieving a new jet endurance record.
The impression we were given was that the MSO was considered only to be required when there is a need to operate the refuelling equipment and receiver surveillance system, with everything else being done by the pilots.
Whereas in contrast, in the A310MRTT the ARO is a full third of the 3-person crew and is the primary AAR mission manager. He/she is far more than just some food-powered pump attendant.
The RCAF and Luftwaffe have different intra-crew SOPs, but both understand the need for the ARO/FRS to be a full member of the crew during any AAR sortie.
Whereas in contrast, in the A310MRTT the ARO is a full third of the 3-person crew and is the primary AAR mission manager. He/she is far more than just some food-powered pump attendant.
The RCAF and Luftwaffe have different intra-crew SOPs, but both understand the need for the ARO/FRS to be a full member of the crew during any AAR sortie.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Far far away
Age: 53
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're right Arthur, it should be in service. But it isn't.
That is, the Aussie A330 is in service, but their boom still isn't.
That is, the Aussie A330 is in service, but their boom still isn't.
Last edited by D-IFF_ident; 20th Oct 2014 at 11:30. Reason: Accuracy
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: South Africa
Age: 87
Posts: 1,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Today, SWMBO came across my old pocket notebook from when I was on 214 Sqdn in the early days of RAF AAR.
It includes the 'radar fit' for each a/c on the Sqdn including the on trial Rebecca/Eureka Mk X.
Because XD869 is not included, I must have started it after the unfortunate crash in Sept 1959. XD 871, the replacement a/c was added, but out of sequence.
Anyone aware if the section and reference and ARI numbers of vintage radar kit is subject to the Official Secrets Act?
It includes the 'radar fit' for each a/c on the Sqdn including the on trial Rebecca/Eureka Mk X.
Because XD869 is not included, I must have started it after the unfortunate crash in Sept 1959. XD 871, the replacement a/c was added, but out of sequence.
Anyone aware if the section and reference and ARI numbers of vintage radar kit is subject to the Official Secrets Act?
So if you're doing AAR you have an MSO on the flightdeck. If you're not doing AAR you don't.
I'm probably being a bit thick, but what's the issue? The poor fella would get a bit bored looking at those screens on a 9 HR AT trip wouldn't he?
Unless there's a video in socket I guess.
I'm probably being a bit thick, but what's the issue? The poor fella would get a bit bored looking at those screens on a 9 HR AT trip wouldn't he?
Unless there's a video in socket I guess.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Far far away
Age: 53
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not that it's being considered, but what an interesting experiment it would be should the RAF ever introduce a Boom into service.
The future of the truly multi-role tanker might be a 3-crew member flight deck. With 2 people facing forwards (Pilots) and 1 backwards (Mission Systems Operator).
On operational flights, outside of actual AAR, one person flies the jet (PF), responsible for navigation and all the stuff the PF does now, including maintaining formation position with other tankers when relevant. 2nd person (PNF), in the other pilot seat, is responsible for some communications, including radios, CPDLC, ACARS, Datalink systems, SatComm, etc, monitors aircraft systems and backs-up the PF and MSO, including any mission systems in use. While the 3rd person, the MSO, shares the communications workload with the PNF, but focusses more on the mission systems, timings, fuel plans etc and plans ahead, maintaining crew SA on the mission as a whole. The lead-tanker MSO might also be responsible for some traditionally C2 work, such as allocating receivers to tankers based on requirements, location, tanker saturation and fuel available.
When an AAR event occurs the MSO would operate the AAR systems (Boom or Pods) and control receiver aircraft in formation. The PNF would take over control of mission systems, timings, fuel plans etc. The PF still controls the Tanker, navigates, communicates with other receivers joining, maintains formation position with other tankers etc.
The key ingredient to this operating model is synergy, which is facilitated by CRM, training and SOPs developed to include the crew operating as a team. Each person would need to have a good understanding of each of the other positions' roles and know what other members are doing at all times.
When the Multi-role aircraft is being used for other tasks, the flight deck composition might depend on the complexity of that task. For 'simple' AT (is it, ever?) the MSO might not be required. But, if the aircraft is being operated with minimum support, as military operations often are; without the type of infrastructure enjoyed by a commercial airline, flying familiar routes on a regular basis. The MSO might take on some of the roles of load control, movements staff, the Loadmaster, Purser, Flight Despatch, Planning Staff, Performance Engineer etc. The Captain would still do the traditional captain work and the PNF would integrate somewhere between the 2. With a suitably trained and qualified MSO they could provide a lot of support to the AT role and increase efficiency while reducing some costs associated with handling support. (Noting that Crew Duty may be affected should the MSO be required to accomplish a lot of work on the ground.)
Current and future operators might take a mission-oriented approach to operating policies and procedures and carefully avoid a 'how we used to do it' approach, or a 'I've only ever operated tanker X so therefore Procedure X is the only way to do things.'
Capturing this 'synergetic' tanker-crew operating policy in writing might be a challenge. Detailing a fluid, 3-dimensional, multi-layered operating concept in a 2-dimensional set of orders and instructions could require some effort. Training it might take months. Convincing old-heads might be almost impossible.
I'll get me coat.
The future of the truly multi-role tanker might be a 3-crew member flight deck. With 2 people facing forwards (Pilots) and 1 backwards (Mission Systems Operator).
On operational flights, outside of actual AAR, one person flies the jet (PF), responsible for navigation and all the stuff the PF does now, including maintaining formation position with other tankers when relevant. 2nd person (PNF), in the other pilot seat, is responsible for some communications, including radios, CPDLC, ACARS, Datalink systems, SatComm, etc, monitors aircraft systems and backs-up the PF and MSO, including any mission systems in use. While the 3rd person, the MSO, shares the communications workload with the PNF, but focusses more on the mission systems, timings, fuel plans etc and plans ahead, maintaining crew SA on the mission as a whole. The lead-tanker MSO might also be responsible for some traditionally C2 work, such as allocating receivers to tankers based on requirements, location, tanker saturation and fuel available.
When an AAR event occurs the MSO would operate the AAR systems (Boom or Pods) and control receiver aircraft in formation. The PNF would take over control of mission systems, timings, fuel plans etc. The PF still controls the Tanker, navigates, communicates with other receivers joining, maintains formation position with other tankers etc.
The key ingredient to this operating model is synergy, which is facilitated by CRM, training and SOPs developed to include the crew operating as a team. Each person would need to have a good understanding of each of the other positions' roles and know what other members are doing at all times.
When the Multi-role aircraft is being used for other tasks, the flight deck composition might depend on the complexity of that task. For 'simple' AT (is it, ever?) the MSO might not be required. But, if the aircraft is being operated with minimum support, as military operations often are; without the type of infrastructure enjoyed by a commercial airline, flying familiar routes on a regular basis. The MSO might take on some of the roles of load control, movements staff, the Loadmaster, Purser, Flight Despatch, Planning Staff, Performance Engineer etc. The Captain would still do the traditional captain work and the PNF would integrate somewhere between the 2. With a suitably trained and qualified MSO they could provide a lot of support to the AT role and increase efficiency while reducing some costs associated with handling support. (Noting that Crew Duty may be affected should the MSO be required to accomplish a lot of work on the ground.)
Current and future operators might take a mission-oriented approach to operating policies and procedures and carefully avoid a 'how we used to do it' approach, or a 'I've only ever operated tanker X so therefore Procedure X is the only way to do things.'
Capturing this 'synergetic' tanker-crew operating policy in writing might be a challenge. Detailing a fluid, 3-dimensional, multi-layered operating concept in a 2-dimensional set of orders and instructions could require some effort. Training it might take months. Convincing old-heads might be almost impossible.
I'll get me coat.
D-IFF_ident wrote:
If the Mission System is properly designed (as it is in the A310MRTT / CC-150T), there would be no need for the PNF to take over control in that way. Offloads are recorded automatically and their effect on the fuel plan can easily be seen on the Mission System fuel vs. time or fuel vs. DTD graphs (updated at 1 Hz). Crew SOP is that the Mission System is updated with receiver fuel on board 15 min before a bracket and the plan amended if necessary. 5 min after the bracket, the system is again updated (this allows time for receiver fuel gauging to settle, receiver fuel issues such as drop tank transfer failure to come to light) and the plan is again amended if required. But actually during an AAR event, there shouldn't be any need to change anything, for the obvious reason that the effect of the ongoing AAR event cannot be taken fully into account until it is complete.
Normally the ARO/FRS would use a 'fail-safe' plan which caters for single hose failure at any point in the trail, so there is no need to switch to a single hose plan (with revised single hose bracket positions, timings and offloads) until the ongoing AAR event is complete. Having changed to the single hose plan, the ARO/FRS can, in consultation with the Tanker Commander, elect to move brackets to earlier points if required.
The system caters for up to 8 trail receivers, all of which could have different configurations, departure aerodromes, RVIPs, Split Points and destination aerodromes if required - and of course it calculates the receiver fuel required at the Split Point (unless the receiver mission planner has defined a specific fuel state requirement at the Split Point).
When an AAR event occurs the MSO would operate the AAR systems (Boom or Pods) and control receiver aircraft in formation. The PNF would take over control of mission systems, timings, fuel plans etc.
Normally the ARO/FRS would use a 'fail-safe' plan which caters for single hose failure at any point in the trail, so there is no need to switch to a single hose plan (with revised single hose bracket positions, timings and offloads) until the ongoing AAR event is complete. Having changed to the single hose plan, the ARO/FRS can, in consultation with the Tanker Commander, elect to move brackets to earlier points if required.
The system caters for up to 8 trail receivers, all of which could have different configurations, departure aerodromes, RVIPs, Split Points and destination aerodromes if required - and of course it calculates the receiver fuel required at the Split Point (unless the receiver mission planner has defined a specific fuel state requirement at the Split Point).
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Far far away
Age: 53
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEags, I agree that getting fuel into receivers during an accompanied deployment takes priority over any longer-term planning issues. But I wasn't talking specifically about a trail/accompanied deployment, or about P&D AAR; I was talking more generally. And I was including Boom AAR - if the A310MRTT / CC-150T had a boom then there might be a case for considering transferring control of the MCS to somebody else when the MSO has their hands full.
Either way the AAR Mission System is just one component of the tanker system as a whole. Other components (which might be integrated into the mission system) could include datalink / C2 systems that the operator might require to be monitored during anchor-type AAR operations, when the tanker could be tasked for on-call AAR for example. Information systems usually monitored by the MSO might be monitored by the PNF during an AAR event, in preparation for moving the tanker to expedite the next RV, to monitor bigger-picture operations or to receive secure tasking messages etc.
Either way the AAR Mission System is just one component of the tanker system as a whole. Other components (which might be integrated into the mission system) could include datalink / C2 systems that the operator might require to be monitored during anchor-type AAR operations, when the tanker could be tasked for on-call AAR for example. Information systems usually monitored by the MSO might be monitored by the PNF during an AAR event, in preparation for moving the tanker to expedite the next RV, to monitor bigger-picture operations or to receive secure tasking messages etc.
Link messages and re-tasking messages could be received / acknowledged by one of the pilots, I agree. But no significant mission plan changes should be decided without the full involvement of the primary mission specialist.
The A310MRTT system was designed from the outset to provide sufficient information during a towline (or 'anchor') mission to facilitate a flexible change of plan. Rather than the pilots WAGing the solution, the MCS provides precise, accurate information upon which the re-plan can be formulated - and does so very quickly without the need to hunt through a complicated menu structure.
Once a TLAR approximate plan change has been agreed, the ARO/FRS can edit the active plan as necessary to provide precise timings and the fuel plan without the need for pilots to go 'head-in' to peck away at their MCDUs - something which should be actively discouraged if there are receivers in the vicinity.
On call AAR availability is easily assessed due to the active fuel graphs and 'spare fuel' display - and there is no need to enter anything at all into the MCS if a receiver suddenly appears without warning on the wing needing fuel - there's no "Computer says no"! If you know there's spare fuel, just put him in contact - the details can be quickly typed into the mission log (as soon as it's clicked, it notes lat/long and UTC) when there's time. But normally there is sufficient time to use the basic 'add receiver' entry fields.
The A310MRTT system was designed from the outset to provide sufficient information during a towline (or 'anchor') mission to facilitate a flexible change of plan. Rather than the pilots WAGing the solution, the MCS provides precise, accurate information upon which the re-plan can be formulated - and does so very quickly without the need to hunt through a complicated menu structure.
Once a TLAR approximate plan change has been agreed, the ARO/FRS can edit the active plan as necessary to provide precise timings and the fuel plan without the need for pilots to go 'head-in' to peck away at their MCDUs - something which should be actively discouraged if there are receivers in the vicinity.
On call AAR availability is easily assessed due to the active fuel graphs and 'spare fuel' display - and there is no need to enter anything at all into the MCS if a receiver suddenly appears without warning on the wing needing fuel - there's no "Computer says no"! If you know there's spare fuel, just put him in contact - the details can be quickly typed into the mission log (as soon as it's clicked, it notes lat/long and UTC) when there's time. But normally there is sufficient time to use the basic 'add receiver' entry fields.
Last edited by BEagle; 21st Oct 2014 at 13:45.
I must say as someone whose experience of AAR is nearer to Alan Cobham than the Voyager I am finding the discussion on the way it is done these days very interesting, although I am having to do a bit of head scratching to work out some of the abbreviations being bandied about, which are obviously no problem to those familiar with current practice.
I'm just about keeping up, but "WAGing the solution"? Oh, and D - IFF_ident, is "an AAR event" what we used to call "AAR"?
Fascinating stuff though - thanks.
I'm just about keeping up, but "WAGing the solution"? Oh, and D - IFF_ident, is "an AAR event" what we used to call "AAR"?
Fascinating stuff though - thanks.
The 'plan' is of course briefed pre-flight. For a trail mission, the pre-flight trail plan would be printed off-aircraft (or on-aircraft if time is tight) for crew review. Any significant in-flight change of plan can be printed on the cockpit printer in flight, so that the pilots do not need to gaze at any specific screen at the time - they can review the agreed plan change at their leisure, should they so wish.
In any case, inter-crew SOPs are such that the AAR mission can continue seamlessly even in the unlikely event of a double hardware failure denying the crew the use of the Mission System.
It would be perfectly possible to add a flight deck repeater display for the Mission System as the video system has ample spare connectivity; however, it simply hasn't proven necessary over the many years that the system has been in operational service.
When do you start your Voyager course, 3engnever?
In any case, inter-crew SOPs are such that the AAR mission can continue seamlessly even in the unlikely event of a double hardware failure denying the crew the use of the Mission System.
It would be perfectly possible to add a flight deck repeater display for the Mission System as the video system has ample spare connectivity; however, it simply hasn't proven necessary over the many years that the system has been in operational service.
When do you start your Voyager course, 3engnever?