• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

A New Philosophy for Canada's Air Force

Elwood

Member
Inactive
Reaction score
0
Points
260
I saw last week on the Air Force site that Major Don Barnby and Captain Tim Rawlings recieved a CAD Commander's Commendation, but they didn't really explain why. I just saw this article now, and it seems pretty interesting. I definitely want to get my hands on a copy of the Canadian Air Force Journal and read about the whole thing.

The words “philosophy” and “Air Force” aren’t used together very often, but Major Don Barnby, standards flight commander at the 17 Wing Winnipeg’s Central Flying School, and Captain Tim Rawlings, a pilot instructor with 17 Wing’s CF Air Navigation School, are hoping to change that. The two pilots have worked together since 2003 to create the “1 Canadian Air Division Automation Philosophy”, a guiding direction for how the Air Force will operate its modern automated aircraft.

“Operating automated aircraft requires a different set of skills and procedures that many of us in the Air Force are not familiar with,” says Maj Barnby. “Technology in aircraft has advanced so much in my generation of flying that new piloting skills are now required in addition to the traditional skills.”

The automation philosophy is the first of four main steps to creating a detailed and modern Air Force automation strategy that will ultimately change the way military aircraft are flown.

“The second step is to identify policies that support the philosophy, with the assistance of a consultant,” Maj Barnby says. “The third step is to provide the procedures to operate these advanced technology airplanes, and the fourth step is the ongoing review and refinement of those procedures. A constant review of procedures and practices is required given that the technology is always changing in these airplanes, with both software and hardware modifications.”

Maj Barnby and Capt Rawlings saw the need to improve automation operating procedures after they both left the Air Force and flew for a commercial airline before returning to uniform in 2003.

“During our time away, we were exposed to highly automated airplanes,” says Maj Barnby. “We saw different training methodologies and different operating procedures that didn’t exist in the Air Force.”

Both pilots decided to use what they learned to see if they could assist in creating an Air Force automation operating strategy. “The biggest cultural challenge was to convince people to take an honest look at it,” says Capt Rawlings. “We were sort of seen by some people as outsiders because we had returned from an airline.”

The two pilots worked together on a service paper and submitted it through their own separate chains of command. They credit Lieutenant-Colonel Ed Haskins, former commandant of Central Flying School, as the first senior officer to understand the importance of the initiative. He provided them with the support and encouragement to continue with their project, and was able to engage senior Air Force leadership to make it a “top down” project.

“It speaks very highly of the Air Force that two captains that see a requirement for change can have such a wide-reaching influence for the entire Air Force,” says Maj Barnby. “But if you have a vision, through persistence and proper channels, the message can get out.”

“LCol Colin Keiver [current director of Air Force transport readiness] was also a great help,” Capt Rawlings says. “We discovered that he had lived through the same experience during his time in an officer exchange program within the US Marine Corps…it was refreshing to engage someone from our organization who completely understood the vision but who could also predict the challenges to be faced. LCol Keiver is now the automation project authority managing the contract and work of the consultants hired to assist the Air Force during this transition.”

“It means a lot to work for an organization that believes in our vision and is committed to seeing this through,” says Capt Rawlings. “It’s important to have an environment where people can speak up at every level – all successful organizations have an engaged workforce.”

For more information, please read “The Challenge of the Automated Flight Deck”, by Capt Tim Rawlings, in the spring 2008 issue of the Canadian Air Force Journal.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/Community/mapleleaf/article_e.asp?id=4557

 
Elwood said:
. I definitely want to get my hands on a copy of the Canadian Air Force Journal and read about the whole thing.

Its been sitting on my desk for weeks, maybe i should actualy read it.
 
In a nutshell, making training and operations catch up to capitalize on the progress that systems automation (read: computerized systems) provides on newer aircraft.  As the same time, the implicit caution is that one doesn't let 'automation' drive the boat.  It is intended to let operators (and maintainers) focus on doing their business more effectively, but sometimes there is a danger in additional complexity that may in fact not improve the situation.  In the end, ensuring that advances in technology are channeled to let people work the systems more effectively (and by association, safely) while providing the most capability possible.

G2G
 
Good2Golf said:
In a nutshell, making training and operations catch up to capitalize on the progress that systems automation (read: computerized systems) provides on newer aircraft.  As the same time, the implicit caution is that one doesn't let 'automation' drive the boat.  It is intended to let operators (and maintainers) focus on doing their business more effectively, but sometimes there is a danger in additional complexity that may in fact not improve the situation.  In the end, ensuring that advances in technology are channeled to let people work the systems more effectively (and by association, safely) while providing the most capability possible.

G2G
0
Wow.  Umm, can you dumb that down a bit please?  Your 12 lb brain just blew my mind away.  ;D  (Kidding!)
 
I read it....took 3 days but i read it !!!

Those guys came to our Sqn for a few days so i figured i should know a little bit about what they do. More to follow i guess with the arrival of the glass cockpit to our aircraft and all the automated tactical systems for the back end.
 
Strike said:
0
Wow.  Umm, can you dumb that down a bit please?  Your 12 lb brain just blew my mind away.  ;D  (Kidding!)

Pull the AMS CB and bring out the old map and grease pencil!  ;D
 
What they did was make pilot training far more relevent and applicable to what we are operating with these days.

Spending hours doing twizzles under "the bag", partial panel PARs and point to point to the hold entry using an precessing DRMI and a pencil are no longer useful.  It's time to start teaching brand new student pilots things like GNSS approaches, FMS manipulation, FMS SIDS and STARS etc ...  It's time to teach them about the various levels of automation instead of turning everything off and making these guys hand-fly raw data instrument approaches.

Granted that sort of thing does have its place, but it should no longer be the prime "subject matter" like it was during our day - it is time to make the emphasis of basic, undergraduate training more applicable to today's modern equipment and machinery.

I am, of course, only speaking from my own myopic world of ME FW aviation.  Duey and Strike may have something different to add in terms of RW aviation.

 
I believe the lack of understanding of these new-fangled systems was reported to be a bit of an issue when the Cormorant came in.  So yes, it does affect the RW world somewhat.
 
Studs here at 3CFFTS are having automation in their new syllabus.  FMS IRT's out here involve a raw data NP approach, uncoupled FD precision approach followed by a fully coupled RNAV approach flown by the FMS.  We're teaching the premise that flying a NP approach to the MAP is not really ideal in the world of big jets - with the FMS, we can set up the continuous descent and have the plane fly right to the VDP (@MDA) and then command the G/A if nothing seen.  Should be an interesting change from the steam gauges on the Buff to this new system.
 
I just finished the SGE (Small Group Evaluation) for the new helo syllabus.

25 Hours on the 206, followed by 70(plus) hours on the B412CF and approximately 60 hours in the sim. We used the FMS doing STARs and SIDs. Our ticket ride was a hand flown full procedure (NDB in my case) followed by 2 coupled approaches using the FD. We used the FD/FMS while on airways as well.

When the course goes steady state, there will also be 10 hours of NVG built into the syllabus.

As an aside, the only Aircraft that I have flown in the CF have have not been glass cockpits are the 206, and now the Sea King. ;)
 
Back
Top