3 Ship on Tartan 31

[Tonkenna]

Don't usually stick pics up on prune, but thought the chaps who were in the jets might like to see the shot as it was an unusual opportunity...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v166/andytownshend/3ship-small.jpg

... and one of the Typhoon leaving:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v166/andytownshend/Burner-small.jpg

Tonks :cool:

[brit bus driver]

Nice pics.....bang goes your anonimity though!:}

[FFP]

Think wearing a name badge with your PPRuNe name does that for you anyway though.....;)

(From an adoring stalker fan many miles away.......)

[brit bus driver]

So it's true.....I do need to get out more....;)

[BYALPHAINDIA]

Excellent Tonkenna, It would look nice framed.:ok:

BTW it might be one of the last chances of seeing a 'mixed' 3 ship formation - If Mr Incapable Brown gets his way.:*

Cheers.:ok:

[Wrathmonk]

it might be one of the last chances of seeing a 'mixed' 3 ship formation - If Mr Incapable Brown gets his way

Why - are we ditching the Typhoon already?:E

[BYALPHAINDIA]

I don't really know, But Mr Brown & his entourage seem to think we don't need an Air Force.:*

[mutleyfour]

I don't really know, But Mr Brown & his entourage seem to think we don't need an Air Force.

Soon , the only thing available to intercept the passing of a russian bear will be the Royal Flight.

[peterperfect]

Great photo: nice to see the aircraft fairly well 'tooled up' too.

[GPMG]

Please excuse my ignorance but why does the Tornado have it's refueling probe extended? Was it just for effect?

[Roland Pulfrew]

GPMG

Not a silly question but I think you will find that the callsign in question belongs to a VC10 tanker.

Tonks

Nice picture!:ok:

Mutley

I don't think the Royal Flight have anything fast enough to keep up with let alone catch a Bear:(

[Dan D'air]

But Mr Brown & his entourage seem to think we don't need an Air Force.

So do the Army & the Royal Navy.

[BEagle]

But all 3 know that they certainly don't want Incapability Brown and his entourage!

[anotherthing]

BEagle -

Wash out your mouth - he evidently has his finger on the pulse with the really important issues

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7270358.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7270358.stm)

[D-IFF_ident]

Roly, perhaps GPMG was right to question the reason for the probe.... The tonka appears to be on the right of the tanker, which suggests that AAR was complete, if using standard procedures.

I'll get me anorak.

[artyhug]

Afraid not old bean, we are all singing from the same songsheet now and left has become right and vicky verca....

[D-IFF_ident]

Arty, quite - Join on the left now, depart from the right. Hence, when on the right, AAR would be complete. See ATP 56(B) Part 1 Annex 1A.... :}

[artyhug]

Doh... Can anyone tell I haven't flown for 9 months. I really should go to work one day soon.

[Roland Pulfrew]

DIFF

Has it changed again? I've been away too long!!:(

[D-IFF_ident]

I'm sure there's at least one person in an office somewhere in Illinois who will be suggesting joins to the basket before change 1 is ratified - and that you can't call it 'astern' of course!

[Art Field]

Oh lordy me and deja vu, this was agreed at a RAF/USAF meeting I went to in 1992, taken a bit of time to get in the books has it not? Or is it like the ops room door and has been there and back a few times as CAARI/The Boss changes. Interesting thing was that we agreed it at Staneval level whereas USAF had to refer it back to the Pentagon at star level. I assume ATP56 is still under RAF control. Great pic though Tonkenna.

[Tonkenna]

Thanks for the comments guys... the Tor was a bootleg and had to make room for the planned trade... he asked if he could go back in after the GR7 and Typh, that's why his probe is out and on the right:ok:

Tonks :)

[D-IFF_ident]

Crumbs, how did you clear him from that position? "Clear go reform echelon observation astern"? Or did you try the common-sense approach "clear astern left"? Or, perhaps, just turn the anti-colls off?

[Phil_R]

But... "Tartan"?

[Roland Pulfrew]

But... "Tartan"?

Yes! What happened to the proper squadron callsigns? What idiot reinstigated that daft station callsign.

[Tim McLelland]

Tartan has been their callsign for ages but it seems its last reincarnation was with the TWU at Brawdy, from Hunters to VC10's - must have associations with vintage jets...

[Roland Pulfrew]

Tim

Thanks I am aware of that (6 years on the country's premier tanker squadron), just there are more appropriate squadron callsigns available and I wondered why they had stopped using them.

[BEagle]

Yes, how are you guys getting on with that total abortion called ATP-56(B)?

Instead of the Tornado being in echelon right, with the TypHoon and Harrier in echelon right outside ready to leave, these days the Tornado is in 'Right Observation' and the TypHoon and Harrier in 'Reform'?

I blame a certain RAF exchange officer for not telling another, more senior but far less experienced-in-the-AAR Role, RAF exchange officer that his document was an utter crock, eh D-IFF_ident?

And do you say 'widen for HF' on trails, sorry, 'deployments' still - or adopt the stupidity of 'go buddy cruise', followed by 'clear join' again?

[Wingswinger]

What is this "echelon right" nonsense? It's echelon starboard!

The only one I haven't flown is the one in the middle. Well, sort of, if you count GR1 and GR3 versions!

Nice pix. I too have been "Tartan" many times - 79 sqn at Brawdy.

[D-IFF_ident]

Wingswinger, if it was so then you'd think everyone would be happy. Alas, however, I fear nobody would be happy. It's kind of ironic really to think that the USN may have been behind the Observation and Reform positions; they would allegedly not accept left and right, or port and starboard. Personally, I don't much care what words are used to describe the positions, as long as everybody does the same thing. Prior to ATP 56(B) there were organisations who joined on the left and others who joined on the right; I also have about 15 different versions to hand of what different receiver types would do in the event of losing visual contact with the tanker - a mixed bag of fighters all going lost leader could have been very interesting if it had ever happened....

The process for ratifying procedures throughout 30 different countries and organisations is, in my opinion, too drawn out and open to debate, and, as Beagle kind of suggests, a less diplomatic approach would yield simpler results. It would also lead to a number of the countries and organisations currently signatory to ATP 56(B) to return to their old procedures however. An often heard comment a year ago was 'the USAF do 80% of the world's AR, so why doesn't everyone else do it our way?' - one can find other forums where USAF AAR crews debated boycotting the ATP; rumour has it that it was somewhat of a challenge to get European views taken into account at all. The good news is that the document involved is a work in progress and a regression to the norm will erode some of the less favourable parts (I hope). :zzz:

[brit bus driver]

Bovvered......:}

FWIW I think a certain RAF wg cdr deserves a bloody medal for pushing the changes through the USAF system. Lord only knows what'll happen once he's gone as we have no suitably qualified drivers to replace him.

[D-IFF_ident]

BBB - well they haven't found anyone suitable to replace him for the last 3 years at least.... And when they tried to send a Navigator to the post :ugh:

I'd take the job - the only part of the spec I'm missing is rank.

Oh, I do like Pprune when tankers get good coverage. All we need now is Harry to mention our plight and I'd almost consider staying-in.

BTW - I'm a huge fan of the Wg Cdr in question, and I kinda like BEagle too - does that make me unique? :}

[BEagle]

Bitch!















:p