Formation lead changes

[StopStart]

An odd question perhaps but I can't find the answer in AP3456....

If, on a training sortie (a 2 ship), you brief a lead change half way round a low level route, would you then renumber the formation from that point or would you continue the rest of the sortie with "XXX 2" in the lead position? Similarly, as an ATC'er receiving a 2 ship for a stream landing, would you expect callsign "XXX 2" to land before or after "XXX 1"?

[L J R]

Rule number one in Formation. - NEVER Change Callsigns...! ....actually there are a lot of rule #1's when it comes to formation operations....


It is easier to 'explain' why number 2 is landing first than have two number ones pitch into the circuit...

A good ATC knows that #2 can often actually lead..

[Pontius Navigator]

And when lead crashed. And leader landed safetly at Leuchars. Eventually Mrs Lead told us when we rang, "I know." How? "He rang me on his mobile."

True.

Took us 30 minutes sorting out who had crashed and who had landed when his wife knew half an hour before. And they hadn't swapped callsigns.

[BEagle]

If I recall correctly, it was only Learning Command who insisted on renumbering.

The Grown Up RAF didn't.

[Notmyreallogin]

Fortunately now beaten out of Parent and Toddler Command, too.

[OCCWMF]

For simplicity renumber.....

[PPRuNeUser0211]

Never renumber... (unless you were formerly known as Parent and Toddler Command.. in which case, renumber to 22 (Trg) Group)...

[kharmael]

I know from a reliable source that EFT Formations and METs formations still renumber during lead change, much to the disgust of both stude and QFI!

[tu chan go]

AAAAAARRRRGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!!

Why, why, why???????

:ugh::ugh::ugh:

[BEagle]

Dinosaur logic?

"'tis the way we did things on the Tiger Moth and Oxford!"

[Take That]

A positive radio call of 'Callsign, you have the lead' with an acknowledgement. If you're in a 3 ship or larger, you will have already nominated a deputy lead anyway.

Never change callsigns or renumber from what has been entered in the Auth Sheets.

If you need to tell ATC what is going on, just do so.

[BrakingStop]

Never change number.

"Callsign break land in the order 2, 1, 3."

It's not difficult!

[Al-Berr]

EFT formations do not renumber. We used to, about a year ago, but no longer.:ok:

[H Peacock]

Some interesting views. I suspect most of the "don't renumber" brigade have probably never led some of the complex formation teaches at BFT. I accept that for a front-line 2/4 ship with very little close manouvring and rarely actually operating as a single unit, renumbering is inappropriate; however, having witnessed first-hand the confusion when not renumbering a dedicated close formation 3-ship exercise I don't accept that rigidly not renumbering is correct either.

I can't believe in this day-and-age that when 'Sabik 3' fails to return from a dedicated 3-ship close-formation sortie they simply look at the briefing slides before marching off to 'Sabik 3's' NOK to tell them the bad news. I do know it has happened before, but Kinforming has been tightened up considerably.

I can recount many a 3-ship where even experienced QFIs, having not renumberred, begin to adopt the callsign for their actual position in the formation and not their original callsign. Last guy in a tailchase will often by default call 'Sabik 3 out', but if he's not renumberred should perhaps still be Sabik 1.- Mayhem!!! "Sabik 3 out lost visual". Lead thinks - now was he at the back? Oh no, we are in the order 1,3 & 2 :ugh:

[advocatusDIABOLI]

H Peacock,

Words Fail Me! What, actually is hard about 'flying' in the No2 Pos, but responding "3"? Particularly, if you've just had the benefit of a 4.5 hour CFS brief!!!

Maybe the standard was a little low at your time eh?

But you are correct, I've never led a formation teach at BFT, however, at Valley, things seemed to be easier.

PS: Why did 'Sabik 2/3' fall out of a tail chase, if he was so exerienced? Wasn't taught BFM by you was he?? !!!!!!

Only 'avin a laff!

Advo

[artyhug]

Oh my word Mr Peacock did you really mean to say what you just did!

I sincerely hope to bejesus that BFT has moved on from the renumbering goatfu!k of a decade or so ago and to hide behind oh me oh my who can remember what order we were tailchasing in perhaps you'd like to join in a similar type 2v2 BFM setup and keep track of who your wingman is....

Then again I was only an A2 QFI so what would I know.....

[whowhenwhy]

This thread has brought back some memories..... A certain Jaguar squadron were going to do an 8-ship and yes it did happen and wasn't a hysterical fantasy!:ok: Their sortie callsign would be Boxer 1-8 (oops, have I just given away the identity of the miscreant Sqn?), but they would be made up of 2, 4-ships, Turbo 1-4 and Havoc 1-4 (yes I know that was a 54 callsign but google has unusually not been kind enough to prompt my memory).

Unfortunately, this was not confusing enough, because Turbo 1&2 would be Boxer 3&4, whilst Havoc 1&2 would be Boxer 1&2, Turbo 3&4 would be Bozer 7&8 etc etc. Can you guess what happened next readers?:E

[Badass]

Any flying training system should (for the benefit of the students) emulate the rules and procedures used by the front line, as far as possible. Front line FJ formation renumbering is a no-no, so the training system needs to mirror this.

If this happens to tax the formation leader then I recommend the advice so often issued to students in the debrief: listen to the brief and pay attention!

It is a basic requirement that the leader knows the locations of his wingmen - he/she has briefed it! Low SA on the part of a formation leader would throw doubt on their ability to safely lead that type of sortie - something that reinforces the requirement to assess a potential leader's SA during the formation-lead check-ride.

In my experience the students cope quite well with sticking to their callsign wherever they sit in the formation - it is the QFIs that sometimes struggle!

[ZH875]

Can you guess what happened next readers?:E

6 of the aircraft went U/S on startup, and 1 aircraft had a double engine surge on takeoff, leaving a singleton. ?:O

[ShyTorque]

Or, another formation member looked across at an adjacent aircraft in a nine ship trailing smoke, called "Number five, you're on fire...Eject, Eject!" and there were three parachutes shortly afterwards?

[Gainesy]

Can you guess what happened next readers?

"Nicknames, nicknames GO?":)

[5 Forward 6 Back]

I seem to remember being told that BFJT formations renumbered because the students were being taught how to operate as -2 and -3, not just how to fly echelon left and right. I can't remember what the implications were, but teaching line astern from both -2 and -3 was one of them; necessitating the invention of "reverse line astern" in the order 1-3-2 when renumbering was dropped.

Teaching basic 3-ship stuff did become a bit more awkward when you spent half the sortie in vic and the other half in reverse vic, it seemed easier just to say "by the way, we only renumber to let you practice being -2 and -3, you'll never do this on the front line."

I appreciate why a complicated, large front line formation might prefer not to renumber, but the only issue I could think of with renumbering a Tucano 3-ship or similar is what you'd do if one of them crashed. But what's wrong with saying the individual callsign if they're trying to identify the crew, or saying in clear what line they were in the auth sheets, or what number they were at the start, or waiting for the other 2 to land and seeing who's missing?

[saudipc-9]

I can see both sides to this argument and both sides are correct wrt what are they trying to achieve.If training at the basic level requiring multiple position changes especially with a three or four ship then renumbering decreases confusion. If training for front line ops without multiple formation changes then not renumbering is the way to go. The crux of this is that what is the aim of the formation! Common sense should prevail and just because one community does it this way does not mean that another community is doing it wrong.
The important issue is that dEspite a renumber there still is only one leader of the formation regardless of where that person is in the formation.

[Craven Moorhed]

Splendid banter chap but.....
Glad to hear your formation SA is that good these days that you know who you are and which radio to Tx it on......
Oh, BTW, Mrs Head says you're spelling despite rongly.....

No one has mentioned Tac Lead yet ??
The Form Ld is always that pilot who signed the auth sheets for the FORM
The Tac Ld is the given the Ld by the FORM lead for woteva purpose....

[advocatusDIABOLI]

Perhaps in this modern age of non-confrontational, 'everyone gets to win' pc / ethnic / sexual liberation, we should change the whole process.

I suggest that everyone is number 1 / Leader.

Thereby, nobody feels they are worse or at any disadvantage to other formation members. Everyone will lead, but only from their perspective, and without any undue disress or inconvenience to others, obviously taking into account other formation members personal wishes, and if appropriate, lifestyle choices (Although, these should never be commented on or transmitted on open frequencies).

Callsigns would be easily remembered and in the event of a mishap, proper KINFORMING could commence as soon as the relevant forensic tests had been completed and ofcourse checked by an independent and suitably qualified 3rd party. This way, there would be absolutely no chance of the 'wrong' relative being informed.

Overall, I think this modern and 'Blue Sky' approach, is much more in line with the modern flexible type of expeditionally air dommie-power which so much better defines the modern RAF (Logo). Full integration of the broader aspects of social and ethnic diversity should be implemented in full, throughout the gammut of air operations, with the important caveat, that any proposed integration meets with present and any future health and safety leglislation, as defined in UK, or any other nation state's statute. Clearly, these important and well defined changes will be met within existing budgets, minus the standard 15% which must be handed back. It is also hoped, that these sensible proposals can be brought in, in a totally carbon neutral sense, with due respect being shown for other earth-based life forms.

There you go...... Sorted.

Advo

[NickGooseBrady]

Advo,

Absolutely brilliant!!! Were you in the meeting at Fleet yesterday????

NGB

[spheroid]

Absolutely correct. You are not allowed to change the formation leader..... you can change formation positions but not the leader

[saudipc-9]

you can change formation positions but not the leader

That's exactly what I told Mrs PC-9. "Lets change positions but I'm still the leader:E"

[Monty77]

There are both sides.

What if formation lead goes u/s on start? Or gets shot down?

Depending on what you are doing, it is vital that a/c no,1/2/3 does the job that it is supposed to do.

I know that BFJTS formation teaches sometimes resemble square dancing, but it is for a reason: the stude must see and practice the required positions.

Get to the front-line, and I agree, Afghan 1 takes off as him (or herself) as Afghan 1, and the landing order is explained to ATC.

So. The renumbering is OK for teaching purposes in order to achieve the aim, but leave it behind when you get operational.

Can I be an MP now? Pension's better and I won't claim to have my moat polished.

Ladies, my moat is never-ending, moist and slippery. Oink. Fnaar.

[5 Forward 6 Back]

Monty's right. It's important for the poor stude to see what it's like as -2 and -3, so he knows where he fits into the sequence for formation changes and the like. If he crashes, then refer to him by his individual callsign, as per the slides and the auth sheets, to avoid any ambiguity.

The front line would be mad to renumber, but a basic 3-ship teach is something else entirely. I applaud front line practice filtering down to the training system, but doing away with renumbering at BFJT "because the front line don't do it" stuck me as a bit silly. The front line don't do it, but they're not teaching basic, academic formation!

[Badass]

Bearing in mind that the training system is imparting the skills and knowledge to be used for the rest of the aviator's career why should we over-complicate it by having one set of rules during training followed by a new set when that training is put into practise?

You can certainly teach the handling skills for any position in the formation despite the number attached to your callsign. Again, the students generally cope very well with this, as do most creamies and FJ mates who've returned from the front line. Its not hard to understand what 'reverse vic' means.

Of course the student needs to see all formation positions and as many situations as possible but don't confuse this with a desire for No2 to always sit on the right - No2 can go wherever the leader decides! Let's make the training relevant to the end task!

[H Peacock]

Well, following my earlier post of accepting that there were times when renumberring was appropriate and times when it wasn't, I was a bit taken aback by the posts of a few of the usual Prune 'extremists' with their hard-over response that renumbering was simply incorrect; full stop; the end! Thankfully a few of the more experienced aviators have added to the debate by confirming that there is indeed a place for renumberring. Glad we sorted that.

Now, as for : Absolutely correct. You are not allowed to change the formation leader..... you can change formation positions but not the leader

I'm not sure that I agree.

The Form Ld is always that pilot who signed the auth sheets for the FORM

Again, not sure where that comes from. Each ac captain must sign out, and the auth may well be on the gnd all day and play no part in the airex.

Also:

Bearing in mind that the training system is imparting the skills and knowledge to be used for the rest of the aviator's career why should we over-complicate it by having one set of rules during training followed by a new set when that training is put into practise?

Does this imply we need just a single set of RAF SOPs?. Should we add 'Wing Sweep' to the Tucano Pre-landing checks?? Or 'Nozzle' position in the after landers??? Oops, now I've gone a bit too extreme!