Air Refueling

[Hacker]

I've talked to the head British RAF guy who helped write ATP-56B. He doesn't give a shit if people like the reg or not and it's hear to stay. Sorta like when it came out and the -3 (135) and -33 (-10) went away and we were using "astern" instead of "precontact."

That's kind of unusual for an RAF dude. They're usually less "reg" focused and more "get the job done" focused. Is he a pilot?

[Guest Crew Report]

That's kind of unusual for an RAF dude. They're usually less "reg" focused and more "get the job done" focused. Is he a pilot?

Yeah, I was thinking that too. He is a Pilot, he's actually an RAF exchange officer up at AMC/HQ.

[Guest]

Yeah, I was thinking that too. He is a Pilot, he's actually an RAF exchange officer up at AMC/HQ.

I don't give a shit is not what we should be looking for in a staff officer. He should be willing to make changes based on common sense and improved process. Staff OPRs should be eager to find ways to make things better and easier while reducing comm.

I'm curious, is the passing tail numbers now a NATO requirement for billing the fuel?

[Guest Crew Report]

I don't give a shit is not what we should be looking for in a staff officer. He should be willing to make changes based on common sense and improved process. Staff OPRs should be eager to find ways to make things better and easier while reducing comm.

I'm curious, is the passing tail numbers now a NATO requirement for billing the fuel?

If only more Staff Officers were like that mentality, more people would stay in the AF.

It always was. Foreign receivers pass their tails also. The only difference is their data has to be input manually into the AMCART system/AF Form 791 instead of it already being in the system like Air Force, Navy, and Marines.

[Guest whatever]

Copy kill. Roll your squawk, RTB and do a straight in.

haha

[Murph]

This brings up a good point. I'm not talking about this specific instance, but a common dilemma. On one hand, "it's a war" and we have to do our best to get bombs on target, even if it means bending or breaking the rules sometimes. On the other hand, if the tanker pilot gets caught breaking rules and gets in trouble, it's his ass, and his alone.

The receiver just wants his gas; he doesn't give a shit about what happens with the tanker or its crew after the offload is complete. Since the tanker is the only one looking out for the tanker, he'll do what he has to do. I guess the best thing a receiver can do is to impress upon his tanker that it's a life and death or urgent situation that requires continuing below 5k. This puts the tanker pilot a much better position to make a more favorable decision.

Criticize the situation I've outlined here all you want, but I'm more interested in providing useful solutions, rather than bitching.

I hear ya dude, you gotta look out for yourself. It sucks that your leadership won't back you up if you deviated from the -29.

But again, for the guys like Bergman who arent afraid to refuel super slow while tobogganing past the recommended altitude, I appreciate it and I know the user does too.

[Muscle2002]

Found this on the Edwards website...apparently the jet will tell the tanker it's identifying information

Automatic Receiver Aircraft Identification

[Guest]

It always was. Foreign receivers pass their tails also. The only difference is their data has to be input manually into the AMCART system/AF Form 791 instead of it already being in the system like Air Force, Navy, and Marines.

Never say always. FWIW, it hasn't always been that way in NATO. Back in the day the 1COs passed all the info direct from the ops desk to the tanker unit.

[JarheadBoom]

Found this on the Edwards website...apparently the jet will tell the tanker it's identifying information

Automatic Receiver Aircraft Identification

That would be nice... but I'll bet we never see it fleet-wide, because the cost/benefit ratio won't be good enough in the short-term (i.e. one promotion cycle) to satisfy the beancounters.

[skinny]

That would be nice... but I'll bet we never see it fleet-wide, because the cost/benefit ratio won't be good enough in the short-term (i.e. one promotion cycle) to satisfy the beancounters.

RFID tags are incredibly cheap, around the $0.50 mark. They use them in some racing organizations for timing and scoring. The costs would more than likely come from the receiving equipment on the tanker and all the associated support systems to gather and compile the data. Interesting nonetheless.

I'm curious, is the passing tail numbers now a NATO requirement for billing the fuel?

If they've signed off on ATP-56, I would assume so. Even before ATP-56 we got tail numbers from NATO receivers but that's a completely different billing process, FMS case codes and whatnot.

<bracing for Rainman's reply>

[Guest whatever]

Never say always. FWIW, it hasn't always been that way in NATO. Back in the day the 1COs passed all the info direct from the ops desk to the tanker unit.

bla bla bla, if only you were still in...everything would be a-ok.

[JarheadBoom]

RFID tags are incredibly cheap, around the $0.50 mark. They use them in some racing organizations for timing and scoring. The costs would more than likely come from the receiving equipment on the tanker and all the associated support systems to gather and compile the data. Interesting nonetheless.

Precisely what I was thinking.

[Gas Man]

bla bla bla, if only you were still in...everything would be a-ok.

FYI comments like that aren't received very well around here FNG. Just because Rainman is slow and dangerous behind the wheel doesn't mean he can't still serve a purpose. His posts, while blunt, usually carry a lot of wisdom. Usually.

[Guest whatever]

FYI comments like that aren't received very well around here FNG. Just because Rainman is slow and dangerous behind the wheel doesn't mean he can't still serve a purpose. His posts, while blunt, usually carry a lot of wisdom. Usually.

Copy. Comments like that aren't received well around here, unless its from rainman.

Edited April 12, 2010 by whatever

[Gas Man]

Copy. Comments like that aren't received well around here, unless its from rainman, dork.

Yep, that about covers it.

[Guest]

bla bla bla, if only you were still in...everything would be a-ok.

So this is why you were PMing me asking if I was still in? You doing your own credibility check?

Look, you already capitulated on this topic. Coming back for a reattack and doing a "I'm just curious" PM makes you a cunt.

[Guest whatever]

So this is why you were PMing me asking if I was still in? You doing your own credibility check?

Look, you already capitulated on this topic. Coming back for a reattack and doing a "I'm just curious" PM makes you a ######.

Calling you a c-u-n-t for constantly talking shit won't do any good. You feel cool coming on here and acting like a jerkoff. You should be a sim instructor. UPT students would eat your bullshit up.

Edited April 12, 2010 by whatever

[busdriver]

I have a great idea, let's throw shit at one another like a bunch of fucking monkeys.

In this thread we've discovered that the tail number requirement is stupid due the billing being done to the wing not the aircraft itself, and that info came from a tanker guy no less. The system says we have to pass you guys tail numbers, fine I've got a co-pilot no big deal, doesn't change the fact that we've invented a process that makes everyone's lives more difficult for no good reason. Do we drive on with a stupid system, or do we fix the process to make it better?

Don't get me started on comm in tanking....

[Guest]

Calling you a c-u-n-t for constantly talking shit won't do any good. You feel cool coming on here and acting like a jerkoff. You should be a sim instructor. UPT students would eat your bullshit up.

I have no idea what you're talking about. You're incoherent. I do know this, you sent me another whining PM so that make's you a double-cunt.

[PasserOGas]

What is this thread about? I'm new here.

[itsokimapilot]

What is this thread about? I'm new here.

Spider monkeys throwing feces at each other over queep.

[Guest whatever]

I have no idea what you're talking about. You're incoherent. I do know this, you sent me another whining PM so that make's you a double-######.

Copy, fading. Why don't you post that PM I sent you, I don't care. Triple-cunnt back to you for trying to tell on me! haha, dude.

Spider monkeys throwing feces at each other over queep.

It's about yelling.

[Whitman]

Copy, fading.

Copy, fading. Why don't you post that PM I sent you, I don't care. Triple-cunnt back to you for trying to tell on me! haha, dude.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, Whatever. Quick, someone call the homosexual awareness SME!

[Hacker]

This is the most moronic thread I've read on BaseOps in quite some time. whatever, YAAFM.

[Guest Crew Report]

RFID tags are incredibly cheap, around the $0.50 mark. They use them in some racing organizations for timing and scoring. The costs would more than likely come from the receiving equipment on the tanker and all the associated support systems to gather and compile the data. Interesting nonetheless.

If they've signed off on ATP-56, I would assume so. Even before ATP-56 we got tail numbers from NATO receivers but that's a completely different billing process, FMS case codes and whatnot.

<bracing for Rainman's reply>

Looks like the AF is testing the RFID tags.

https://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123199398