Air Refueling

[magnetfreezer]

8.6.3.5.1. Boom operators will:

8.6.3.5.1.1. <snip>

8.6.3.5.1.2. Prior to fuel offload, get receiver aircraft’s tail number (use interplane radio,

boom interphone, or visually if open communication would compromise the mission during

clandestine or covert operations or threaten safety of flight). When refueling the same

receiver multiple times on a single mission, enter a separate line on the DD791 for each

AR. NOTE: EMCON 2 or 3 training does not disqualify inter-plane radio to obtain or verify

AR data. DO NOT use inter-plane radios during actual EMCON 2, 3, or 4 to obtain or

verify AR data unless specifically authorized by the mission directive. Consider HAVE

QUICK II and secure voice if visual conditions make the tail number too difficult to read.

8.6.3.5.1.3. Do not use “known/suspected” aircraft serial number that belongs to unit

being fueled, but not necessarily the actual aircraft getting fuel. Auditors compare receiver

unit aircraft serial numbers with fuel load reports at home station. If “known/suspected”

aircraft tail number billed is incorrect (down for maintenance/unable to fly), the auditor

will reject the fuel bill and the tanker unit is liable for the cost of the fuel transferred.

Not a tanker guy, but would some similar process to this satisfy both parties (enabling change to 8.6.3.5.1.2):

1. Boom writes down callsign and amount of fuel, etc transferred

2. ARMS or whoever maintains your refueling database periodically sends a spreadsheet to the receiver ARMS folks with callsigns/dates/etc.

3. Receiver ARMS retrieves tail #s for appropriate sorties and emails back to tanker guys

4. Receivers are happy since they don't have to pass tail numbers in the clear/go skulls down at night, bean counters are happy since they have their tail numbers, and tanker guys are happy since they didn't get billed for the fuel.

[Guest]

I think they get that, but realize it can't change with the snap of their fingers, so in the interim they ask to please pass your tail number.

Read the responses to what I posted and you might see they actually don't get it.

As for not being able to change it with a snap of the fingers, I get that.

Just a tip, bitching about how you expect others to actively try to make your life easier will most likely not result in you getting what you want. But if your goal is just to have something to bitch about, I suppose your present strategy works.

Uh, ###### you. I'm not bitching about it. I'm saying take a look at what everyone agrees is a bullshit process and work to change it..

Not a tanker guy, but would some similar process to this satisfy both parties (enabling change to 8.6.3.5.1.2):

1. Boom writes down callsign and amount of fuel, etc transferred

2. ARMS or whoever maintains your refueling database periodically sends a spreadsheet to the receiver ARMS folks with callsigns/dates/etc.

3. Receiver ARMS retrieves tail #s for appropriate sorties and emails back to tanker guys

4. Receivers are happy since they don't have to pass tail numbers in the clear/go skulls down at night, bean counters are happy since they have their tail numbers, and tanker guys are happy since they didn't get billed for the fuel.

Now we're talkin'!

8.6.3.5.1.3. Do not use “known/suspected” aircraft serial number that belongs to unit

being fueled, but not necessarily the actual aircraft getting fuel. Auditors compare receiver

unit aircraft serial numbers with fuel load reports at home station. If “known/suspected”

aircraft tail number billed is incorrect (down for maintenance/unable to fly), the auditor

will reject the fuel bill and the tanker unit is liable for the cost of the fuel transferred.

Oops. Sorry guys but I have lied my ass off approx 69,000 times about my tail number since I always just made one up that sounded good. I guess you ate those bills.

I once observed an herbivore outrunning a Thunderbolt II.....Can't name the species for obvious reasons.

Is there a species of herbivore that cannot outrun an A-10?

[Guest]

Dude,

First off...it is not our "bullshit requirement", every piece of iron in the inventory (AF, Army, Marines, Navy, Coast Guard) has a number that the fuel gets charged to. Do you think when your crew chief fuels your jet on your ramp that he doesn't have to account for the fuel just as we do? We could personally give a fat rats ass which tail number you are flying, but we are held accountable to make sure the paperwork gets done. In fact, when the Boom who gives you (and maybe a dozen other guys)gas over Azcrackistan finally gets back to the Deid after his 10 hour sortie, processes back through customs, turns in the secrets and all the other crap, he has to look your tail number up in a giant spreadsheet to get the FP number, unit, base and state and then type all that shit into what could be the most idotic and frustrating computer program ever. How about you just shut up and color and pass your tail number like every other guy since the beginning of air refueling?

HUMPS

"Dude", STFU.

I'm not the one that keeps squawking about some stupid spreadsheet. That's HOSS. I think the spreadsheet idea is stupid and unrealistic, too.

You get zero points for total loss of SA and for having a small picture.

[Karl Hungus]

Passing the tail number is a nonsense requirement that creates extra radio buffoonery. The tanker guys are in the best position to change the process since it is their bullshit requirement.

You've all heard that fighter guys don't like doing it. One of you herbivores could be a hero if you changed the process. Instead you stay fixated on the fact that "passing tail numbers is procedure and how hard can it be anyway" while ignoring the opportunity to improve it.

Not sure why the tanker guys can't get that.

Since this thread won't die....

Re: Radio buffoonery, you might want to run that by most of the fighters we refueled on a recent deployment. Most of the receivers were more than happy to bullshit with the tanker crew, and that almost always was initiated by the fighters. "Where you guys from back home? You out of the 'Deid? How much does it suck there vs. the rumors we've heard? Is that chick boom in your squadron actually hot? What about the chick pilot? How long are your missions? This is what we're supporting tonight. Do you know so-and-so? They fly for JetBlue or United or who-gives-a-###### with me, blah blah blah blah". And yet somehow, the war managed to go on. And if anything, the Hawgs are the best (worst?) at this. The Navy/Marines were the same. The only fighter types that really practiced radio discipline were the F-15Es out of a certain location, and even then they had no problem passing tail numbers. Keep in mind this was all fighter-initiated... the only conversation we would initiate would be "thanks for letting us work in so-and-so before they were bingo, how much do you need, and where do you need to be dropped off?" Stunning with all that radio buffoonery the war still churns on.

[Guest]

Re: Radio buffoonery, you might want to run that by most of the fighters we refueled on a recent deployment....Stunning with all that radio buffoonery the war still churns on.

I will not argue that point at all nor will I defend it. I will also say they are absolutely wrong for doing it.

FWIW, you put them into a situation where there really is metal in the air during major combat operations and 99% of that goes away.

I see no reason to have more or less comm discipline based on the "scenrio" or perceived threat level. It should be the same every sortie and it should be proper. Period.

FWIW, I never once passed my tail number in major combat operations and no one ever asked me for one.

[Guest midtown]

Here's a thought to get rid of all this bitching... Just have all the CAS/"air-to-ground" attacks carried out by UAVs (since fighters are the first going that way anyway), who don't refuel and who are probably more accurate than traditional methods, and keep the tankers around for the C17s, C130s, C5s, B52s, B1s, B2s etc... etc... that are actually doing something day-in and day-out in these deployed locations... Run-on sentence? Yes... Serious? No, not really; just adding fuel to the fire... Carry on.

[Guest midtown]

Hence the term SNAP. It ain't Burger King.

Hence the term SNAP. It ain't Burger King.

Just curious how a bubba putting T-1s/T-44s or a heavy out of T-38s makes someone a SNAP? Times have changed, fighters/bombers don't do what they used to. Some people don't want to spend hours in a vault studying something they will never see or fight only to go fly a 1.5 (albeit very demanding and cool flying), live in the middle of nowhere and fear getting non-voled to UAVs. I'm not saying that what you do isn't cool or that tons of people would die to do it (just like tons of people would die to fly), just saying that times are a changing.

[Guest whatever]

As highlighted, it’s both annoying and potentially dangerous because it’s usually a matter of lobster-eyeing my kneeboard and the boom at the same time, (and also having to ask my 3 wingmen on interflight what theirs are).

Then, you're doing it wrong. You have their number on your lineup card (i know, you don't have the 6-digit tail number from the placard). But even if you did, I can't imagine it's that tough on you to say four tail numbers. And if you're doing it while on the boom or in pre-contact, you're doing that wrong, too. Have you ever thought to just have everyone say their own tail numbers, in sequence, after you say yours? Same amount of talking on the radio, just less time fumbling around for everyones tail number.

If you can write a stinking 9-line down at 2000' agl in the hold, I'm hopeful that you can handle knowing exactly where to look for your tail numbers, and when to do it, being a 4-ship and all...

Edit: I read the rest of your post, and you covered some things I mentioned. BL: be a stinking pilot and make it work. It's simply not that big of a f'ing deal.

Edited March 18, 2010 by whatever

[BlackKnight]

Just curious how a bubba putting T-1s/T-44s or a heavy out of T-38s makes someone a SNAP? Times have changed, fighters/bombers don't do what they used to. Some people don't want to spend hours in a vault studying something they will never see or fight only to go fly a 1.5 (albeit very demanding and cool flying), live in the middle of nowhere and fear getting non-voled to UAVs. I'm not saying that what you do isn't cool or that tons of people would die to do it (just like tons of people would die to fly), just saying that times are a changing.

You unknowingly answered your own question. If I have to explain why, you seriously don't get it.

And if "times are a changing", what says they won't change back/sideways? For example, they made the F-4 without an internal gun. The F-22 has one.

[BlackKnight]

Here's a thought to get rid of all this bitching... Just have all the CAS/"air-to-ground" attacks carried out by UAVs (since fighters are the first going that way anyway), who don't refuel and who are probably more accurate than traditional methods, and keep the tankers around for the C17s, C130s, C5s, B52s, B1s, B2s etc... etc... that are actually doing something day-in and day-out in these deployed locations... Run-on sentence? Yes... Serious? No, not really; just adding fuel to the fire... Carry on.

Got it. Useless post. Thanks.

Either there is a point/truth or somewhat seriousness to this ramble or there isn't. Which is it?

"who don't refuel"? Check yourself. http://www.defencetalk.com/uavs-can-perform-automated-aerial-refueling-13955/

[Muscle2002]

Just curious how a bubba putting T-1s/T-44s or a heavy out of T-38s makes someone a SNAP? Times have changed, fighters/bombers don't do what they used to. Some people don't want to spend hours in a vault studying something they will never see or fight only to go fly a 1.5 (albeit very demanding and cool flying), live in the middle of nowhere and fear getting non-voled to UAVs. I'm not saying that what you do isn't cool or that tons of people would die to do it (just like tons of people would die to fly), just saying that times are a changing.

Ahh, crap...you mean I might actually have to do some work flying fighter/bombers (and any MDS, for that matter)? Your post above sounds like someone looking for a flying club. Let me guess, you also strongly support training days every Tuesday and Thursday and cannot fathom taking less than a 1.5 hr lunch.

[JP84U2]

I've got $20 on 4 more pages of nonsense and "You suck; no, you do..." back and forth.

Any takers?

Thats a sucker bet.....oh, btw...you suck.

HUMPS

[DFRESH]

The most myopic, SNAP post I'll prolly ever post:

Why exactly are Air Force Refueling squadrons having to bill Air Force Fighter/Bomber/Whatever Receivers? I mean.... it's not like I can AR in my 172.... so not a lot of chances for somebody not on the same team to 'steal' the gas... So big picture-wise, how is it worth the extra asspain (shitty computer system to keep up, 69000 spreadsheets and databases, hours of extra time spent by the crews to track it all)?

[Vertigo]

Why does AMC bill for moving cargo and pax?

Why does Services charge for meals for single troops?

Why does one function charge another?

Probably because these things aren't being produced by the AF (i.e. fuel) so they have to purchase from outside agencies. I think they would like to be reimbursed to buy more of that item rather than not being able to supply any more of once their stock is depleted.

If you're talking that ALL of the AF should fall under one big pot o' money, well then it would be hard to spot waste wouldn't it?

Edited March 18, 2010 by Vertigo

[snafu]

Why couldn't the crew chiefs just paint the number on the nose of every bird? It would alleviate comms and satisfy the boomers requirement.

Edited March 18, 2010 by snafu

[skinny]

Why couldn't the crew chiefs just paint the number on the nose of every bird? It would alleviate comms and satisfy the boomers requirement.

In the interest of keeping the retardation to a minimum in this thread, please take the time to actually read the previous pages of the thread in which you are reading as opposed to re-hashing what's already been discussed at great and painful lengths.

[JP84U2]

In the interest of keeping the retardation to a minimum in this thread, please take the time to actually read the previous pages of the thread in which you are reading as opposed to re-hashing what's already been discussed at great and painful lengths.

Were way past that don't you think?

HUMPS

[skinny]

I guess I should have said "In the interest of avoiding FURTHER RETARDATION blah blah blah...."

[pawnman]

Why does AMC bill for moving cargo and pax?

Why does Services charge for meals for single troops?

Why does one function charge another?

Probably because these things aren't being produced by the AF (i.e. fuel) so they have to purchase from outside agencies. I think they would like to be reimbursed to buy more of that item rather than not being able to supply any more of once their stock is depleted.

If you're talking that ALL of the AF should fall under one big pot o' money, well then it would be hard to spot waste wouldn't it?

True, but I could also have a printer that works instead of waiting for end of year funds and hoping that my boss doesn't buy 6 more Smartboards we won't use. Or maybe parts for my jet instead of GPS watches for everyone in the squadron.

[Guest]

You have their number on your lineup card (i know, you don't have the 6-digit tail number from the placard). But even if you did, I can't imagine it's that tough on you to say four tail numbers.

...and clobber the freq with useless comm.

Have you ever thought to just have everyone say their own tail numbers, in sequence, after you say yours? Same amount of talking on the radio, just less time fumbling around for everyones tail number.

...and clobber the freq with useless comm.

If you can write a stinking 9-line down at 2000' agl in the hold, I'm hopeful that you can handle knowing exactly where to look for your tail numbers, and when to do it, being a 4-ship and all...

FWIW, I never wrote down everyone's tail numbers because it was useless information. Even if I did, I never had the part of a lineup card visible in flight since it was nothing but admin.

BL: be a stinking pilot and make it work. It's simply not that big of a f'ing deal.

I think some folks are talking about something bigger here. Much bigger than refueling.

Here's some perspective on your "be a stinking pilot and make it work" comment.

Not wanting to do something because you don't like doing it is part of what defines a SNAP. Not wanting to puttin in the effort to change something because it is too difficult or not your job also defines a SNAP. I'm not calling you a SNAP, I'm just saying those are a couple things that define a SNAP.

Just doing something without analyzing it because it is "simply not that big of a f'ing deal" is a personal failure, IMHBAO.

Everything a person does in the jet should both have a purpose and be on purpose. It is your job as a pilot and an officer to always be looking at ways to do things better.

You should ask yourself these questions about every single thing you do in the jet:

1. Should I do this?

2. Can I do this?

3. Do I have to do this?

4. Do I have to do it this way?

5. Why am I doing this?

6. What value is being added by me doing this?

7. Is there a better way to do this?

8. What can I do to make this better?

9. Who do I need to talk to that can validate what I'm thinking and/or give me input?

10. Who do I need to talk to to change this?

In the jet you follow the rules. Period. However, if you are not asking these questions during mission planning and debrief you are short changing yourself, your squadron mates and your country. It is your job and your duty.

So I'll throw your own words right back to you..."be a stinking pilot and make it work. It's simply not that big of a f'ing deal."

Technique only.

[Guest midtown]

Ahh, crap...you mean I might actually have to do some work flying fighter/bombers (and any MDS, for that matter)? Your post above sounds like someone looking for a flying club. Let me guess, you also strongly support training days every Tuesday and Thursday and cannot fathom taking less than a 1.5 hr lunch.

No I'm just saying the role of fighter pilot doesn't have the same stigma or appeal it once did - part of the reason being the threat (or perceived threat) that once was there is no longer. I'm not saying the flying isn't cool, the community isn't unique or that it takes a lot work to become a fighter pilot (as it does to become a pilot of any MWS). To stay ahead of the "threat" curve and train for what could one day be a reality is important. I just don't see what makes someone - especially a top guy or girl - who puts something other than fighters a SNAP, unless I am missing the definition of SNAP (sensitive new age pilot, correct?)

There is a definite need for CAS in areas, but there is an even bigger need for the guys on the ground to get what they need to fight or keep order. These days, it's become commonplace to find a 26-27 year old mission commander in a heavy asset, given a mission with multiple airdrops/refuelings/stops over hostile areas. Sometimes the mission tasking comes down from TACC two days prior to scheduled takeoff (giving the crew little to no notice) and it launches out of the U.S. and is scheduled to fly an augmented duty day from the U.S. downrange with one (or maybe no) stops with some AR along the way. Sure, the MP will have a co-pilot along with them, and hopefully an experienced enlisted crew, but it's not always the case. This pilot isn't only worried about flying his or her mission, he or she has to make sure all the mission planning (from airdrops to AR), DIPS, flightplans, dealing with TACC as well as the crew (which can sometimes exceed 10 people) are all taken care of and in order.

Some may argue this is much more difficult - and more fun/rewarding - work than sitting in a vault studying a threat you may never see, and then going out and flying a 1.5 (again, albeit very cool flying, followed by shots of Weed and crud tournaments; sorry I had to, not serious). Some won't; it's what makes people fly what they do proud to do so and makes them good at doing so. Not to mention a lot of the heavy guys are so tasked that they have almost no manning at home and are gone (deployed/TDY) over half the year.

In a not-so polished way, this thread just seems like it has turned into a "I'm a fighter pilot, I'm therefore better than you and know better than you, so I'm going to tell you what you should do and then call you incompetent when you don't do it." While passing a callsign to a tanker, or having the tanker run the show, may be a huge deal to a fighter guy who is flying a certain type of mission, to other crews it may be the last thing they want to have to argue about because they are dealing with so many other issues.

There is incompetency in all MWS' (from not setting the correct altimeter setting, to shooting friendlies, to flying a formation of fighters over Europe without a proper flightplan and DIP clearances, to forgetting to lower to the gear on a heavy and causing a class A to screwing up AR). AMC guys may not agree with some of the policies outlined in certain regs (like passing tail #s over radios) - but at the same time when you're only home half the year, don't know half the people in your squadron and never see your family, sometimes trying to fix the "inconsequential" items, such as passing tail numbers over radios so that the right squadron gets billed, falls to the back burner.

[Guest whatever]

...and clobber the freq with useless comm.

...and clobber the freq with useless comm.

FWIW, I never wrote down everyone's tail numbers because it was useless information. Even if I did, I never had the part of a lineup card visible in flight since it was nothing but admin.

I think some folks are talking about something bigger here. Much bigger than refueling.

Here's some perspective on your "be a stinking pilot and make it work" comment.

Not wanting to do something because you don't like doing it is part of what defines a SNAP. Not wanting to puttin in the effort to change something because it is too difficult or not your job also defines a SNAP. I'm not calling you a SNAP, I'm just saying those are a couple things that define a SNAP.

Just doing something without analyzing it because it is "simply not that big of a f'ing deal" is a personal failure, IMHBAO.

Everything a person does in the jet should both have a purpose and be on purpose. It is your job as a pilot and an officer to always be looking at ways to do things better.

You should ask yourself these questions about every single thing you do in the jet:

1. Should I do this?

2. Can I do this?

3. Do I have to do this?

4. Do I have to do it this way?

5. Why am I doing this?

6. What value is being added by me doing this?

7. Is there a better way to do this?

8. What can I do to make this better?

9. Who do I need to talk to that can validate what I'm thinking and/or give me input?

10. Who do I need to talk to to change this?

In the jet you follow the rules. Period. However, if you are not asking these questions during mission planning and debrief you are short changing yourself, your squadron mates and your country. It is your job and your duty.

So I'll throw your own words right back to you..."be a stinking pilot and make it work. It's simply not that big of a f'ing deal."

Technique only.

Rainman,

Thanks for your post. I hope you aren't presuming to know who I am/what type of pilot I am based on a few of my posts that you have read. I would never consider it a "personal failure" on my part because I choose to just say my tail number on the discrete boom freq, rather than fight the man. I have enough going on after my debrief to not give a ###### about rewriting the AAR procedures. Sorry. Its cool with me that you didn't write your tail numbers down. I do. Big deal, right?

As far as your ten lines of preaching, thanks. Its good stuff, but not necessary for me. There are always battles to fight. This one just doesn't interest me.

Cheers

[Hacker]

the threat (or perceived threat) that once was there is no longer.

So, double-digit SAMs and Flankers are a figment of my imagination?

[Guest midtown]

So, double-digit SAMs and Flankers are a figment of my imagination?

I'm talking about the air-to-air "Topgun" stuff. SAMs and Flankers are a threat to everyone operating in the AOR (especially down low and slow), regardless of airframe. Yes, there is a definite need for air-to-ground fighters to destroy these, but what I was getting at was that the air-to-air dogfight is no longer there and really isn't an immediate threat.

[Guest CharlieDontSurf]

not really that hard to pass a tail number jocking a 155k aircraft through the bow wave with four egg beaters forcing me to opposite control the beast just to keep it in precontact..and coordinating toboggan procedures with the throttles firewalled...just saying.