Off-station refueling, including in-flight

[Guest]

Oh No !!!? are you OK? need an ambulance? maybe a wrecker? Yet to continue posting thru such an ordeal

.......................and through it all he e-mailed......................

WTFO?

[Guest]

Any objection to looking up tail numbers afterwards? Tails are needed to uniquely identify a certain jet. Callsigns on a specific day do the same.

1. Boom writes down 20k @ time X to Mudhen69, 10k to Viper69, etc, etc. along with whatever tails him or the copilots can deduce on some type of daily flight log. Completes A/R without needing to clog up radio asking for tail numbers.

2. Hands log to ARMS with rest of paperwork on landing, ARMS calls receiver ARMS and says "what tail flew Viper69 on this day"?

3. Tanker ARMS sends log with tails and fuels to WRDCO. Big Blue can track fuel flow by tail # and everyone is happy.

The BO doesn't always know which callsign within a flight is on the boom, the flight lead decides that and often doesn't tell the BO what the refueling order will be because it doesn't matter and it would just be extraneous comm. As long as we don't go overboard with worrying about which tail in a flight took which offload this might work.

All this and the tail numbers are painted next to the recepticle. The BO DEMANDS it be said over the radio before he even knows whether he will be able to see it when the jet pulls up to the boom.

You guys look at this picture and see if you can see the tail number on the A-10 (look carefully, it's REALLY difficult to see) and tell me if passing the tail number over the radio is more important than staying out of the wx so we don't ice up the maverick seekers.

[JP84U2]

The BO doesn't always know which callsign within a flight is on the boom, the flight lead decides that and often doesn't tell the BO what the refueling order will be because it doesn't matter and it would just be extraneous comm. As long as we don't go overboard with worrying about which tail in a flight took which offload this might work.

All this and the tail numbers are painted next to the recepticle. The BO DEMANDS it be said over the radio before he even knows whether he will be able to see it when the jet pulls up to the boom.

You guys look at this picture and see if you can see the tail number on the A-10 (look carefully, it's REALLY difficult to see) and tell me if passing the tail number over the radio is more important than staying out of the wx so we don't ice up the maverick seekers.

Rainman,

We get it, really, we do, you hate ever having to say your tail #. And yes the tail # on that particular Hog is clearly visable and unambiguous, (82-000656) and yes, any boom worth two squirts of piss should not ask for this tail number. However, the numbers are not always clearly read-able and not always painted in the same last year digit/tail format. How about cutting us some ######ing slack.

JP8

[Guest Daddy Mac]

Any objection to looking up tail numbers afterwards? Tails are needed to uniquely identify a certain jet. Callsigns on a specific day do the same.

Not at all - works for me, although it sounds like there might be other objections

.

The only ARMS I know of the is the system that tracks your currencies. Obviously, you're talking about something else.

The BO doesn't always know which callsign within a flight is on the boom, the flight lead decides that and often doesn't tell the BO what the refueling order will be because it doesn't matter and it would just be extraneous comm. As long as we don't go overboard with worrying about which tail in a flight took which offload this might work.

Rainman (et al.), if you had to relay either your TN# or your callsign to the BO, which would it be? I already know that you don't want to do either, but which is the lesser of the two evils? Because tracking which tail in a flight took which offload is the goal.

edit = rewording

Edited December 22, 2011 by Daddy Mac

[Guest]

Rainman,

We get it, really, we do, you hate ever having to say your tail #. And yes the tail # on that particular Hog is clearly visable and unambiguous, (82-000656) and yes, any boom worth two squirts of piss should not ask for this tail number.

That's standard for the Hog. I didn't just happen to get lucky and find an A-10 picture on the internet that had the tail number obnoxiously smeared all over the front of the jet in plain sight of the fucking BO. Go ahead, look for yourself.

If your two squirts of piss comment is true than I have always and will continue to cut you all the slack in the world. Good job and thanks.

However, the numbers are not always clearly read-able and not always painted in the same last year digit/tail format. How about cutting us some ######ing slack.

JP8

Take a quick swing around the internet and see how many pic you finde where you can't read it. I'll show you one and guess why you can't read it, because the fucking BO has scraped scraped it off.

FWIW, it's a little uncomfortable when you guys are smacking the shit out of the jet a couple inches from our craniums. And loud.

If it is a format issue, then ask for a different or standard format. We paint those fucking numbers there for you and only for you. It's nice you want to bitch about it though.

Look, visual is assumed. If you can't see the fucking tail number, as obnoxious as it is on the jet, then think about asking. However, I find it hard to believe you can't make this happen, the last three as a minimum. Seriously, Helen Keller could figure this out. Not sure why you're asking for slack on this, you seem to be proud of being good at your job and I'm sure you are.

Rainman (et al.), if you had to relay either your TN# or your callsign to the BO, which would it be? I already know that you don't want to do either, but which is the lesser of the two evils? Because tracking which tail in a flight took which offload is the goal.

I'm sticking with neither. See above and tell me you find it easy to believe the BO can't figure out what an A-10s tail number might be.

[Guest one]

I can't really see in any tail numbers on youtube videos of A-10s refueling. Is this normal? Edited December 23, 2011 by one

[ThreeHoler]

Looks like something something 073 to me.

[Ramathorn]

I'm sticking with neither. See above and tell me you find it easy to believe the BO can't figure out what an A-10s tail number might be.

The TN on the F-16 is nowhere near the receptacle, or forward facing at all, so maybe it would be better if Daddy Mac asked "for the jets that don't have painfully obvious tail numbers like the A-10, which would be easier, callsign or TN's?"

Edited December 23, 2011 by Ramathorn

[brabus]

I'd prefer not to say shit, but if it had to be one or the other, how about I pass the refueling order and we call it good? You already know the flight callsign from check-in, then when I say, "request 1 to pre-contact, refueling order 3,2,4" we're done talking...now the BO has the refueling order of Viper flight and once on the ground, whoever needs to do it can contact Viper XX's squadron and find out from the SARMs which tail Viper 1, 2, 3, and 4 were in. Seeing the tail number may or may not work...and like Ramathorn pointed out, the BO is not going to see a tail number on a Viper. Maybe it works for 99% of A-10s, but it works for about 2% of Vipers...I'd imagine more aircraft than not do not have a tail number that can be read by the BO.

Bottom line, I've got shit going on within my cockpit and on other radios that I don't want to waste time trying to give the BO every tail in the flight, especially with a year tacked onto the front. However, giving the order will take 1.69 sec and I'd rather do that then waste a whole lot more time giving 5 digit tail numbers.

Edited December 23, 2011 by brabus

[discus]

Don't see what the problem is y'all. Just have the Engineer pass the tail #, and who cares if it's off +- 1000K when you are taking 90K?

[WABoom]

The BO doesn't always know which callsign within a flight is on the boom, the flight lead decides that and often doesn't tell the BO what the refueling order will be because it doesn't matter and it would just be extraneous comm. As long as we don't go overboard with worrying about which tail in a flight took which offload this might work.

All this and the tail numbers are painted next to the recepticle. The BO DEMANDS it be said over the radio before he even knows whether he will be able to see it when the jet pulls up to the boom.

You guys look at this picture and see if you can see the tail number on the A-10 (look carefully, it's REALLY difficult to see) and tell me if passing the tail number over the radio is more important than staying out of the wx so we don't ice up the maverick seekers.

Really? Not any one of my students at the school house or during training at FAFB. I ALWAYS waited until the receiver was in contact or at Astern and relayed the Tail #'s to the co-pilot. Most of the time the flight lead would check in and immediately give all the tail #'s before I even asked and when they pulled up I just told the co who was on the boom so he could keep track. Why so angry about this Rainman???

BTW-If the receiver has Boom Interphone capability (F-16) that's how I asked for TN's.

[mjk5401]

Since you're taking requests...don't slow dow, just descend down to ~5k AGL so the Hogs don't have to climb up to get gas.

A10s need to become more special like the 130s (AC/MC) and then maybe.

[Magnum]

Solution:

Put a bar code below the receptacle and a bar code scanner on the boom. No more passing tails, no more missed bills.

Edit: Shit, I should save this for AFSO 21...

Edited December 23, 2011 by Magnum

[Guest one]

I am a little ignorant about this whole issue but I am fukcing amazed that with all the technology at Air Force's finger tips there is no better way to do this. The exxon speedpass is more efficient than anything the Air Force can come up with.

Edited December 23, 2011 by one

[guineapigfury]

I always thought we tracked the tail numbers so we could charge the right wing/group for the gas. Maybe it makes more sense to just paint the wing/group number next to the receptacle and be done with it.

[Guest]

A10s need to become more special like the 130s (AC/MC) and then maybe.

I'm not talking about that, which BTW, we never have to pass tail numbers to.

[Prosuper]

So are Navy and USMC bureau numbers used or do they use their sq number in front of the jet.?

[Guest]

Really? Not any one of my students at the school house or during training at FAFB. I ALWAYS waited until the receiver was in contact or at Astern and relayed the Tail #'s to the co-pilot. Most of the time the flight lead would check in and immediately give all the tail #'s before I even asked and when they pulled up I just told the co who was on the boom so he could keep track. Why so angry about this Rainman???

BTW-If the receiver has Boom Interphone capability (F-16) that's how I asked for TN's.

I'm not angry, I'm with you. I am simply resisting the idea that tail numbers must be passed. In fact, I believe you should be doing EMCON 3/4 unless a boom operator is in training.

I think many BOs just wait to get it until they can see it or ask for it over the intercom for night/NVG refeuling. I am only talking to the guys who get fired up and adamant about how they run the refueling and the rcvr must pass the tail #s no matter what because that's the way it must be done.

IIt is really this simple. 'm sayng passing tails is excess comm, especially at night and when there's other shit going happening on the radio. The only place I ever had the tail number written down was on my lineup card and it was only the last three and the lineup card was normally in my g-suit pocket because I didn't use it for anything after I stepped.

[Homestar]

The only place I ever had the tail number written down was on my lineup card

That's good info to know. I think most tanker pilots assume your tail number is placarded on the glareshield somewhere and easily/quickly accessed.

Agree with EMCON in the AOR. EMCON 2 should the standard at the very least.

[ThreeHoler]

Good luck with that. Most tanker crews in both airplanes don't know the difference between EMCON 1 and 2. At least EMCON 3 is easy: don't talk on the radio.

[Guest]

Good luck with that. Most tanker crews in both airplanes don't know the difference between EMCON 1 and 2.

And isn't that a foul?

At least EMCON 3 is easy: don't talk on the radio.

Which is exactly why it should be (and can be argued is supposed to be) standard.

[stract]

Good luck with that. Most tanker crews in both airplanes don't know the difference between EMCON 1 and 2. At least EMCON 3 is easy: don't talk on the radio.

EMCON 2 is our standard, only b/c we don't pre-brief an altimeter setting. If not for that one tidbit of info passed, we'd be EMCON 3.

[jrobe]

Three Holer--I hope you are kidding

Edited December 24, 2011 by jrobe

[Hammer]

And I have yet to have a single mission where the entire offload went as planned according to the ATO. There has always been last minute adds, receiver cancels, token offloads (4k to some Mud Hens...WTF guys), or top offs.

And you never will.

Do booms have a fuel flow gauge? Is it accurate?

No. Copilots do and it is INOP. It is a decoration.

[magnetfreezer]

Not at all - works for me, although it sounds like there might be other objections

.

The only ARMS I know of the is the system that tracks your currencies. Obviously, you're talking about something else.

Rainman (et al.), if you had to relay either your TN# or your callsign to the BO, which would it be? I already know that you don't want to do either, but which is the lesser of the two evils? Because tracking which tail in a flight took which offload is the goal.

edit = rewording

ARMS is the enlisted career field that updates the system you mentioned. They work at the ops desks in the SQs so they track the AFTO781/other misc record keeping paperwork.

For callsigns, either use Brabus's suggestion, or just divide it equally. If a 4-ship shows up on the boom, just divide the total offload by 4 - like others have said, 8k vs 10k is probably within the margin of error of both the tanker and receiver fuel gauges anyway.