I understand there have been a lot of questions regarding Observation / Reform and how tanker crews on Trails / Coronets or training sorties can move receivers around. Pprune may not be the best place to discuss this, but I know that everybody likely to express an opinion reads the forum.
There are 2 parts to this story - Why not use 'Echelon', and how to control receivers that are not just arriving, taking fuel, departing the tanker?
Part 1 - Observation and Reform were not, I believe, the first choice of the authors, but it may be possible that at least one organisation that it was hoped would sign-up to ATP 56(B) would not agree to use anything else. Perhaps the authors initially put those words in to appease the recalcitrant organisation and then, when the other 27 organisations got to read the document nobody complained. Also, it got through the NATO ratification procedure without any complaints. To change the document now would take a proposal from a National representative to NATO. Any National Reps reading will know how to do that. Anyone else should take a look at -
http://www.arsaginc.com/dnn/Resource...9/Default.aspx.
Part 2 - A 'ahem' friend of mine who occasionally works with the US was asked this question numerous times in April. Eventually my 'friend' contacted the authors directly to clarify. The authors expressed a desire to have been allowed just one extra paragraph toward the front of the document - it would have read something like this:
"Notwithstanding the regulatory and procedural nature of this document, users are expected to employ common sense and good airmanship throughout all employment of AAR. Plain english, for example, is still a recognised format for RT transmissions in all countries that are signatories to ATP 56(B)."
The explanation that my 'friend' fed back to crews that had asked the question was accepted by the authors as correct and went something like this (N.B. this question applies in a limited way to boom AAR, and is more relevant to multi-point probe and drogue):
2 fast jet receivers cleared to join (let's call them F-18s so everyone can relate). Tanker says 'XXX Clear Join'. No need to say observation - that is implicit in the command 'clear join'.
The recievers should know whether the tanker has an observer or not, but let's say, for arguments sake, that although qualified to take fuel from this tanker they have forgotten. Common sense should dictate that they assume there is no observer and join on the tanker such that the pilot can see them. (There is currently always a pilot - he can tell the observer that the receivers have arrived).
"XXX1 clear astern right, XXX2 clear astern left".
Receivers procede to take their fuel. And here's where the confusion could set in. When they have their fuel should they be cleared 'reform' or 'observation'? By definition observation is the initial formation position and reform is the position where receivers reform upon completion of AAR. For a trail or a coronet mission, unless the refuel was in the final bracket, the receivers have not completed AAR. Therefore, although not striclty to the letter of the Lexicon Part 2 of ATP 56(B), the appropriate words of command for the tanker crews would be "XXX1 / 2, go observation left / right" as appropriate.
The tanker crew can continue to command the receivers to the observation position on either side as required through as many brackets as they need or to cross receivers over for ease of neck ache, sun glare, or for training purposes, until the final refuelling, when it would become appropriate, on completion of the final refuel, to direct the receivers "XXX1 / 2 go reform". After the tanker has obtained ATC clearance for the receivers the appropriate post AAR message should be passed, followed by "XXX Clear to leave".
These procedures assume that there was no prior briefing between the crews and a plan was not agreed beforehand on where the receivers would like to position themselves while in the enroute portions, nor were any of the crews willing to speak in plain English over a discrete frequency while in the cruise. Should the crews involved invoke the unwritten paragraph then it becomes much easier for everyone involved.... "Hey Tanker Johnny, it's XXX1, can I go over to the right after this plug, the sun's in my eyes on the left?" - "Willco, just n/b. that XXX2 is gonna be on that side too."
If there is no RT then things change of course, but one would hope that there would be a much more involved face-to-face briefing before launch, especially considering the likelihood and reasons behind a trail / coronet in EMCON 3/4.
This explanation has been generally accepted by friends of friends who may or may not be involved in the business of AAR. Personally, I agree with Beagle, and don't like the terms 'observation' and 'reform'. I'd much rather 'Echelon', and I hope that somebody approriate requests a change in time for Change 2 (it's too late for Change 1). There will probably be a 'fight' with the organisation who demanded the current terms though - Lord knows there's been enough discussion over more widely accepted terms that individuals want changed.
And I'm spent.
