Off-station refueling, including in-flight

[Guest]

You receive gas, pass your tail number to the guys that need it. Lose the attitude, you have zero risk in this transaction.

No SA comment, you receive zero points.

If you want to make your own contact, perhaps you should have joined the navy.

If you wanted to try to tell pilots what to do you should've joined ATC. Or become a pilot.

I never fucked up a jet or a boom making my own contact. I cannot count the number of times boom operators trashed airplanes. By trashed I mean put holes in them or cracked canopies. Maybe because they didn't like my tail number. Maybe because they just sucked.

Once again, well played sir.

Ha ha ha, it was so funny passing fake tail numbers back in 1987 or whatever. Luckily, these days over the AOR, all of these our different airframes actually try to cooperate with each other to get the job done instead of shitting on each others' efforts for cheap laughs and ego-stroking.

Ha ha ha, it is so funny to say someone fucked everyone in the AOR over because he didn't give a tail number because he was stroking his ego.

Lose the chip, Chip.

If a Hog doesn't pass it because he's only on the boom for 2m and he's busy talking on the radio, the boom knows where to look. If the number isn't in the system, assign the gas to somebody else in the same Sq.

Shack.

I haven't heard any 79000069 numbers yet, but that's probably because all of Rainman's disciples have retired by now.

Not even close.

Since you're re-writing the reg, can you fix it so the transactions are accounted for by WG-to-WG (or at worst, SQ-to-SQ), instead of tail # -to- tail #? I've grown tired of having discussions with the WRDCO where he tries to tell me that the receiver tail # I put in AMCART either doesn't exist or wasn't flying that day, when I read the number right off the fucking aircraft (and confirmed it with the receiver pilot) during the mission in question... or worse, when he tried to tell me the tanker tail # I put into AMCART (yes, the tail # of the very aircraft I was flying on) didn't fly that day.

Please take note, this is the solution.

[Guest]

Although I do believe the process could be improved mostly I'm busting balls because it is so easy to get boomers riled up about tail numbers...to the point that they are willing to make personal attacks.

I'll stop now.

[Majestik Møøse]

Alright, enough of the back-and-forth; here are my questions:

Can Daddy Mac tell us why we have to do things this way? What can we do to streamline this shit in the near-term? How do these fuel bills get paid? Why do we have to get a tail number for each receiver instead of just their EOG/EFS? Right now it looks like we bill gas to the fighter's home unit instead of the deployed one - that doesn't make any sense at all. Do units turn bills away because the tail number and ARCT doesn't match their records?

[Champ Kind]

How about a QR code IVO the receptacle and the boomer can just capture it with his iPhone QR scanner.

Done.

[JarheadBoom]

If a receiver doesn't pass it because he's only on the boom for 2m and he's busy talking on the radio, the boom knows where to look. If the number isn't in the system, assign the gas to somebody else in the same Sq.

Did this a few times this past deployment, and never heard a word about it...

[skinny]

I vote an RFID tag near the receptacle that sends all pertinent aircraft information straight to the tanker. Cheap, simple and effective.

[Notch]

As a tanker pilot, the tail number is the easiest way for me to keep track of who i give gas too....Even if Rainman give me a BS tail number, guess what...I can look outside and see it and most of the time they are painted by the receptacle, so the boom can relay it to the Co...That's why we rarely ask for them...Wing to Wing would be a pain in the ass since now I would actually have to talk to you.

BTW - your post AR report (gas, freq to call, etc) is relayed by the Co up front not the boom.

[Majestik Møøse]

Did this a few times this past deployment, and never heard a word about it...

Most handy with foreign guys. Assuming that we bill them - how does that even work? Do they get cheaper Treasury Bills in return?

I vote an RFID tag near the receptacle that sends all pertinent aircraft information straight to the tanker. Cheap, simple and effective.

I vote no, it would be an uncontrolled emitter broadcasting tail numbers.

As a tanker pilot, the tail number is the easiest way for me to keep track of who i give gas too....Even if Rainman give me a BS tail number, guess what...I can look outside and see it and most of the time they are painted by the receptacle, so the boom can relay it to the Co...That's why we rarely ask for them...Wing to Wing would be a pain in the ass since now I would actually have to talk to you. BTW - your post AR report (gas, freq to call, etc) is relayed by the Co up front not the boom.

KC-10 booms generally relay the offload in the desert. The checklist says the AC is supposed to, but that just adds another guy comm-jamming, so most don't really do it that way. It's just quicker for the boom to transmit the offload when receiver is cleared off.

[ThreeHoler]

I vote no, it would be an uncontrolled emitter broadcasting tail numbers.

Most RFID is passive. RFID chips cannot emit without being activated by a scanner as they have no internal power source. You can also design them to have a certain range by designing an appropriate antenna/scanner system.

[BB Stacker]

Most handy with foreign guys. Assuming that we bill them - how does that even work? Do they get cheaper Treasury Bills in return?

I can't speak with certainty as far as billing for in the air, but for servicing on the ground (fuel, ammo, etc.) it's generally either an FMS case or an ACSA (Acquisition and Cross Servicing Agreement.) It's an AF to AF level thing (the U.S. side is run out of the SAF/IA office), and my limited experience with it has led me to believe that the paperwork just changes hands enough times until people don't care about it anymore and forget about it; there may or may not be an actual exchange of money that goes along with the shuffling of paperwork.

[Guest]

The refueling needs to be done w/o comm if possible. The fact that guys are talking in the AOR the same as they talk int the MOA/AR track back home is contrary to combat operations. EMCON 3 or 4 should be standard.

Receivers don't care about the amount of the offload unless it is not enough. There must be a way the tanker can just handle recording of the transaction. Honestly by the time the fighter guys get home the last thing on their minds is how much fuel they took on during the sortie. They've got several hours of debriefing, some of which (intel) has to be done w/in a specific time period to meet CAOC requirements and some of which is direct to the guys stepping.

I know the fuel tracking is important to the USAF but a process where the tankers manage it would really be best.

[ThreeHoler]

The refueling needs to be done w/o comm if possible. The fact that guys are talking in the AOR the same as they talk int the MOA/AR track back home is contrary to combat operations. EMCON 3 or 4 should be standard.

Dude, KC-135s can't even do EMCON 2 right stateside. Beyond that, the problem with this "war" is that it is now "every day ops" and for the most part no one gives a shit (reference the whole shitshow of "it's just a 1g maneuver" in the thread about the MC-12 Star Fox).

Receivers don't care about the amount of the offload unless it is not enough. There must be a way the tanker can just handle recording of the transaction. Honestly by the time the fighter guys get home the last thing on their minds is how much fuel they took on during the sortie. They've got several hours of debriefing, some of which (intel) has to be done w/in a specific time period to meet CAOC requirements and some of which is direct to the guys stepping.

I know the fuel tracking is important to the USAF but a process where the tankers manage it would really be best.

Yes, this is the best way, as long as the tankers have the correct info. That means the tanker needs the correct tail numbers, for two reasons: 1) fuel tracking for $$$ shoe-clerk bean counters; 2) fuel tracking for contaminated fuel (not terribly likely, but it has happened).

That said, the order of precedence on my crew is:

a) AC or CP read it off the side of the jets on the wing before they come in for gas.

a) BO reads the tail number off the receiver.

c) If the BO can't read it, he asks for it over interphone.

d) Over the radio is the last resort and should rarely be used.

Just remember, you can't have it both ways (sts). If you want the tankers to track the fuel, you have to pass tail numbers. If you don't want to pass tail numbers, then you need to make receivers track the fuel.

[Guest]

If you don't want to pass tail numbers, then you need to make receivers track the fuel.

OK.

Yeah....no, the boom runs the A/R. He tells receiver pilots what to do.

You just keep believing that.

[Notch]

Dude, KC-135s can't even do EMCON 2 right stateside. Beyond that, the problem with this "war" is that it is now "every day ops" and for the most part no one gives a shit (reference the whole shitshow of "it's just a 1g maneuver" in the thread about the MC-12 Star Fox).

Yes, this is the best way, as long as the tankers have the correct info. That means the tanker needs the correct tail numbers, for two reasons: 1) fuel tracking for $$$ shoe-clerk bean counters; 2) fuel tracking for contaminated fuel (not terribly likely, but it has happened).

That said, the order of precedence on my crew is:

a) AC or CP read it off the side of the jets on the wing before they come in for gas.

a) BO reads the tail number off the receiver.

c) If the BO can't read it, he asks for it over interphone.

d) Over the radio is the last resort and should rarely be used.

Just remember, you can't have it both ways (sts). If you want the tankers to track the fuel, you have to pass tail numbers. If you don't want to pass tail numbers, then you need to make receivers track the fuel.

- Judging by your profile pic...I'm going to step out on a limb and say you are a holier than thou KC-10 driver...just quit the attacks...last time I flew a coronet with a KC-10 the AC couldn't fly lead with a -135 since she wasn't qualified...that made for an interesting mission...You guys are far from perfect...but thats not the point of this thread....

- I know from experience that most of the FMS sales (at least in Europe) paperwork needs to be correct (to include the tails)...Most of the military controllers that we deal with (Germany, Norway, and a few others) ask for our total offload before we depart the airspace and also ask the individual flights

how much gas they took...

- A lot of the talk here has been about fighter refueling...lets not forget about heavy's....There is no way for me to find out a tail number without asking....Some big jets do have a tail number painted up front but not all of them. How do we deal with heavy traffic?

[ThreeHoler]

- Judging by your profile pic...I'm going to step out on a limb and say you are a holier than thou KC-10 driver...just quit the attacks...last time I flew a coronet with a KC-10 the AC couldn't fly lead with a -135 since she wasn't qualified...that made for an interesting mission...You guys are far from perfect...but thats not the point of this thread....

I knew someone would take the bait. Thanks!

[magnetfreezer]

Dude, KC-135s can't even do EMCON 2 right stateside. Beyond that, the problem with this "war" is that it is now "every day ops" and for the most part no one gives a shit (reference the whole shitshow of "it's just a 1g maneuver" in the thread about the MC-12 Star Fox).

Yes, this is the best way, as long as the tankers have the correct info. That means the tanker needs the correct tail numbers, for two reasons: 1) fuel tracking for $$$ shoe-clerk bean counters; 2) fuel tracking for contaminated fuel (not terribly likely, but it has happened).

That said, the order of precedence on my crew is:

a) AC or CP read it off the side of the jets on the wing before they come in for gas.

a) BO reads the tail number off the receiver.

c) If the BO can't read it, he asks for it over interphone.

d) Over the radio is the last resort and should rarely be used.

Just remember, you can't have it both ways (sts). If you want the tankers to track the fuel, you have to pass tail numbers. If you don't want to pass tail numbers, then you need to make receivers track the fuel.

Why not track by callsign since you already know it (if you have contaminated fuel, call the ops desk associated with that callsign and tell them you need to let xxx call know about the fuel). If the bean counters really need it, they can call the receiver ARMS and ask for the tail # that flew on a certain date/callsign.

[Majestik Møøse]

- Judging by your profile pic...I'm going to step out on a limb and say you are a holier than thou KC-10 driver...just quit the attacks...last time I flew a coronet with a KC-10 the AC couldn't fly lead with a -135 since she wasn't qualified...that made for an interesting mission...You guys are far from perfect...but thats not the point of this thread....

Did she also happen to be a Gp/Wg exec? Just curious...

Otherwise, we fly nearly every local as a formation and try to make it a large-cell, MX permitting. We feel like we're pretty proficient, and if somebody is unable on an actual mission, that's a fail.

[Notch]

I knew someone would take the bait. Thanks!

Not cool.

Did she also happen to be a Gp/Wg exec? Just curious...

Otherwise, we fly nearly every local as a formation and try to make it a large-cell, MX permitting. We feel like we're pretty proficient, and if somebody is unable on an actual mission, that's a fail.

No idea. Didn't ask. I'm just a -135 guy so I'm not sure what the issue was exactly..some sort of bean for flying dissimilar form with me. It wasn't a dig on the -10 community. I was simply pointing out that there are things we all can do better.

edit - grammar..

Edited December 18, 2011 by grm77

[WABoom]

BTW - your post AR report (gas, freq to call, etc) is relayed by the Co up front not the boom.

A good BO will relay this because they have SA and probably Comm 3 up. Not hard to do.

Never had a problem getting tail #'s on any mission where I passed gas. Common sense can go a long way too. If for some reason we didn't get the correct numbers I always jotted down the unit and was able to narrow it down that way. This part of my job is a small pain, but not as big a deal as some make it out to be. I always try to read the numbers for the co-pilot without asking the receiver pilot. I am a firm believer in the less radio chatter the better.

Funny/douche moment from a B-2 pilot when I was a baby boom; ol boy actually gave me shit for asking for his "tail #", he stated that he obviously did not have a tail and that he would give me his aircraft #. He didn't say it in a joking manner, but I relay it as a funny story for obvious lack of SA on my part.

I would love to see a time where this bickering over passing tail #'s is over. Let's focus on some real issues.

[skinny]

[Guest]

He asked for input.

He has received input. Some of it has been quite good.

Some small minded folks want to keep things the way they are because that's the way they've always done it.

Many people have offered excellent suggestions, which the small minded people reject out of hand.

There is a difference between beating a dead horse and looking for ways to improve a process.

[ExBoneOSO]

I vote an RFID tag near the receptacle that sends all pertinent aircraft information straight to the tanker. Cheap, simple and effective.

Did anything ever come of this test, or did it just go away?

The Edwards Air Force Base in California is in the process of testing an RFID-enabled aircraft identification system that is said to make air-to-air refueling more efficient and economical.

A form of inventory control, the test involved a KC-135 fuel tanker and an F-16 Fighting Falcon equipped with RFID tags. Antennas from fuel tanker scan the F-16 to see if it recognizes it and to accurately gauge the amount of fuel transferred.

Currently, when an airplane approaches a tanker for refueling, the boom operator manually records the receiver aircraft’s information. Information for the receiving plane, such as the tail number and squadron, must be visually identified or communicated by radio.

This process will allow the boom operator to focus on safely refueling the aircraft, rather than administrative tasks, and is especially useful during night operations and radio silence situations.

https://www.rfidnews....ling-efficiency

[skinny]

The beating of the dead horse was in reference to the passing of tail numbers via comms. Good on the guy for looking for better ways to do business.

As for the RFID test, I've emailed some bros back at EDW to see what came of it. Will update.

[Guest Daddy Mac]

Don't take this the wrong way but, how did you as a "cyber operator" get tagged to write an AFI regarding the billing for any type of aircraft refueling?

I have asked myself the same question more than once...that's what happens when you're the new guy. I have learned more about aviation fuel than I EVER wanted to know, and the more I learn, the more I realize just how jacked up the entire process is.

For those who have asked how the fuel funding works, I will try to make this a short & sweet as possible:

The only AD wings who still pay their own fuel bill are wings who fly TWCF missions (e.g. C-5s, C-17s). Both fuel and ground servicing gets paid by the wing's TWCF budget. Fuel bills for other airframes are paid from a centralized office at Wright-Pat with O&M $$, unless its an ANG or AFR jet. ANG and AFR units manage their own O&M $$ and pay for their own fuel - and those tanker units really feel the pinch when they can't get reimbursed for the fuel they dispense. If a tanker refueling a TWCF mission doesn't get reimbursed, at that point it becomes misappropriation of funds - O&M $$ (the tanker's fuel) being used to pay for a TWCF mission.

Every unit uses its own O&M $$ to pay any ground servicing charges from a mission - except for TWCF missions, which use TWCF funding.

The Air Force buys all of its fuel - every last drop - from DLA. Even when you land at a commerical airport and hand over the AIR Card on your jet, DLA pays the fuel portion of the bill, then charges the Air Force for the fuel. DLA uses tail numbers to track fuel purchases and bill the appropriate party.

[Guest Daddy Mac]

I cannot speak to mission planning and cargo routing - from what I read on this forum, improving those two things would help us save fuel. However, I can say that we as a service do a very poor job accounting for the fuel that we buy and burn - and we have to change that. Part of that change will be all pilots recording and accounting for the fuel that they take during in-flights. That's why I'm asking how fighters record the fuel that they get during ARs.

Why do tankers need tail numbers? Because the DLA-owned system into which they enter their off-loads requires tail numbers.

EDIT = fixed typos

That is a brilliant pic - and an excellent commentary on life here in the five-sided fun house.

Edited December 19, 2011 by Daddy Mac