AAR Overland

[Wyler]

A couple of weeks ago we were working some USAFE aircraft over East Anglia. They were due to tank on Towline 8 midway through the exercise (routine PI's). They requested the tanker move south to expedite the join. It then preceeded to tank overland (inc Norwich) for the next 30 minutes. I queried this with ATC because my understanding is that overland AAR (UK) is only to be conducted on a designated towline, by promulgation for a major exercise or in extreme operational circumstances (UK AARNI). Even then, densely populated areas are to be avoided. ATC were not concerned and said it was up to the tanker Captain. We phoned the tanker operating authority and they were not 'familiar' with any UK rules. I am not aware of any special dispensation for Americans.
Now, it s quite possible I am missing something obvious here but would appreciate the thoughts, clarification and comments of the tanking community, or any other interested parties.

Wyler
Master Controller (FC), CRC Boulmer.

[Art Field]

I see you have dug out ATP56a, the AAR bible, at Boulmer. It is available on line at www.raf.mod.uk/downloads/documents/Prelim/atp56apt1.pdf. Chap 6, para604b is quite specific in relation to probe and drogue whereas there are no rules for boom. The para on boom does however mention possible damage if the approach is botched which then seems to me to come under the same airmanship rules as doing aeros over a town. Obviously the USAF in the States must do overland refuelling but is it not only in designated areas clear of populations?.

[BEagle]

Wyler, whilst what my erstwhile mentor Art Field states is undoubtedly true for generic overland AAR, I consider that the additional restrictions stated in 'UK Air-to-Air Refuelling Instructions' (Chapter 2 para 15 unless things have changed) clearly applied in the situation you describe.

Unless 'compelling operational or flight safety reasons' applied, routine AAR training such as you describe was indeed contrary to UK AARNIs - which are most certainly distributed to both HQ USAFE and all US tanker bases in the UK.

[Wyler]

Beagle,
Many thanks. There were no compelling circumstances other than to save time. It should, IMHO, have been set up in the Wash ATA, south of Y70 as there was no other activity in there at that time of night. I will follow this up with Mildenhall next week as we work with them regularly.

[BEagle]

Of course, any contituent of Norwich (North) could always e-mail Dr Ian Gibson, the MP for the constituency, requesting him to write on their behalf to his right honourable friend, Rt Hon Dr John Reid MP, Secretary of State for Defence, to explain why this activity took place...

Perhaps a bit OTT at this stage?

[Wyler]

A tad methinks. I am more surprised by the individual at ATC for seemingly not being aware of the rules.

[D-IFF_ident]

Are UK AARNIs available online?

Or could somebody send me some?

[whowhenwhy]

I'd be surprised if the girls and boys at London didn't know it was a bad idea to tank overland. The only thing is that if the crews have said that that is what they want to do, aside from a quick "confirm you wish to tank over land?" there's not much else that they can do. Not wishing to invite quotes about the flt prevention branch, but how many aircrew would be happy if ATC started 'telling them off' on freq? We tend to try and assume that if you guys are doing something then it's for a reason.

[Viper55]

Wyler, whilst what my erstwhile mentor Art Field states is undoubtedly true for generic overland AAR, I consider that the additional restrictions stated in 'UK Air-to-Air Refuelling Instructions' (Chapter 2 para 15 unless things have changed) clearly applied in the situation you describe.

Unless 'compelling operational or flight safety reasons' applied, routine AAR training such as you describe was indeed contrary to UK AARNIs - which are most certainly distributed to both HQ USAFE and all US tanker bases in the UK.

No, the reg quoted above you is specific to Probe and Drogue ops. There are reasons there are different rules for each as each system has different limitations.

And no, the US does not have a requirement to "avoid major population areas" when AAR. The parts/million by the time the fuel reaches the ground is incredibly small when dispersed at 25K+ depending on the track. We routinely AAR over DC because there is no threat to the ground.

[Wyler]

www
On this occasion, the individual did not seem aware, which surprised me. Valid point about irritating the aircrew but, in the case of the USAFE, sometimes they are new and it is 'helpful' to point out some of the finer points. We regularly have to remind their FJ crews that, in the UK, you cannot just 'move Civil Traffic out of the way' (sadly.....!).

Viper
Point taken but the UK rules are specific and do not give any dispensation at all to USAF Ops.

[BEagle]

Wyler - quite so.

What the USAF does over USA is not necessarily acceptable over other countries - national rules may well be more restrictive.

Viper55, if you read my post more carefully, you would note that I agreed with Art Field's quote from ATP-56(A). However, my quote was from UK AARNIs - have a look around your squadron for your copy.

[MrBernoulli]

Viper55

The risk isn't fuel spillage, it is falling bits of refuelling hardware. Aircraft 'mating' in the sky have been known to shed metal when it's gone a bit wrong. That is why the rule exists .... for UK operators certainly.

I guess the USAF 'own' their airspace more than the RAF do which is why the folks below come second to the tactical job. However, as BEagle says "What the USAF does over USA is not necessarily acceptable over other countries." Unfortunately, this does tend to be a problem.

[speeddial]

All of what you say makes sense until you look at where the Flamborough track goes.

[Onan the Clumsy]

The parts/million by the time the fuel reaches the ground is incredibly small when dispersed at 25K+ depending on the track. We routinely AAR over DC because there is no threat to the ground. (http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/Heli_refueling_accident.mpeg)

[whowhenwhy]

Wyler. Believe me I know all about USAFE and their 'familiarity' with UK rules and regs, hence my quotes on the RT phraseology thread. :)

[Viper55]

Gents

Few points after reading through.

1) The USAF (USAFE) is not bound by UK regs and rules - to include UK AARNI or other notes. The USAF flies off their own regs which may or may not include host nation rules.

2) I'm not a tanker guy so I can't comment if the above discussion is in their rules. Sounds like it isn't from the initial comments OR a unknowlegeable person answered the phone when querried.

3) The USAF tries hard to follow host nation guidelines as much as possible. This could be the case of an unfamiliar crew or person responding to the phone OR perhaps there was an operational necessity. None of us were in the cockpits of either the Tanker or the recievers. Given a large exercise, young wingman frequently run themselves low on gas or the Flight Lead did it to his flight. Or any number of other reasons.

4) If in the wrong and an operational necessity did not exist and the guys need to learn something, then there are feedback channels through Mildenhall or Lakenheath to help the USAF interact more effectively with the host country. Given the comment that this was a large exercise, it was probably also joint UK-US + whomever else. There was a UK exercise host that would appreciate and would be the appropriate person to provide the feedback for all involved to learn and improve their operations.

5) Finally, I don't remember but don't think time of day nor undercast conditions were mentioned. C models and certainly tankers don't have a moving map display like many of the Tornado's.

[Wyler]

Viper55
This was not a larger exercise as such. Two routine intercept sorties, one overland (4 Ship under Boulmer Control) and one over the sea East of Bacton with a listening watch from ATC. It was 2000 at night, weather was clear and there was no problem with fuel shortage. The lead in our sortie requested the move south purely so he did not have to waste time in the transit to and from TL8. The other sortie then made use of the new 'Tactical Towline'.
I am surprised the USAF are allowed to apply their own rules, especially as our airspace is so small, busy and heavily regulated. I would have thought that, if there was a conflict between host nation rules and National, the most stringent would apply, purely for safety. The USAF is named in the UK AARNI and, therefore, I assumed they had signed up.
I'm not out to finger point or score points here. I was just uneasy at what appeared to be a breach of the rules for no good reason. Had the Tanker been under our control we would have asked the captain why he wanted to tank overland, suggested a 'feet wet' option and checked he was at least aware of the Host Nation procedures.

Wyler

[ImageGear]

Summer of 2001, lay flat on my back with dozens of others beside the Uffingham white horse watching a tri- tanking FJ's from North to South, right above. I suppose it may have been during GW1?

Imagegear

[BEagle]

2001? A bit late for GW1 - about 10 years.

The South West AARA can be activated for specific purposes, but overland refuelling outside an AARA is very unlikely. Are you sure they were actually in contact?

[lightningmate]

It is interesting to relate the concerns expressed for overland AAR activities, and the possibility of 'hard bits' becoming detached and falling on the world below, to air display activities of the past. It was a regular occurrence for a Tanker plus 2 chicks in contact (well that was the intent) to fly along the display line of prestigious Air Display venues.

Around 1970, Paris was the place, and a Victor plus a Lightning and a Buccaneer were the team. The descent was apparently interesting, IMC all the way down and lumpy. The end result of the activity was a fly-by with the Lightning in contact and the Buccaneer, some way back on the approach, a twisted, burning wreck on the ground. The crew ejected safely and, to the best of my recollection, nobody on the ground was hurt.

I think that was the last time such an event was flown.

lm

[D-IFF_ident]

From my limited knowledge of US and UK AR/AAR procedures I understand that RAF tanking generally takes place over the sea, and that the USAF tanks over land or sea and doesn't have regs regarding populated areas.

But, the USAF regs don't restrict AR overland - see here (enter 'air refueling' in the long title search): http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/

They are required to carry ATP 56(A), but not so UK AARNIs. So I doubt if many USAF tanker pilots would be aware that the RAF doesn't routinely refuel overland.

How many pieces of hardware fall from tankers and receivers during an average year anyway?

[Art Field]

Lightningmate. You are correct in that it was the last time the flyby was attempted in contact although further flyby's with receivers just behind the hoses were carried out. The weather was dreadful that day but a certain senior officer put very heavy pressure on the formation to go through Le Bourget in contact and the Bucc was attempting to make contact on a flailing hose when he probably caught the Victors wing vortex and lost control. How do I know ?, I was the captain of the spare Victor and we were right behind the lead until the final run in with our receiver pair also working like one armed wallpaperers. A classic case of pressure from on high which then tried to blame the operators at the subsequent witchhunt.

[vascodegama]

So what other UK rules does the USAF feel do not apply? I would have thought that one should apply the more limiting set! As for a lack of moving map display-simple use the folding type.

[trap one]

The reason that very very few bits have fallen on the ground and that the RAF practise AAR only in AUTHORISED Overland areas is that too many ac have been thrown away during or as a result of AAR. It is a crowded Isle beneath the even more crowded airspace. AAR should not be conducted by any nation except as authorised and if needs be both Boulmer and ATC can and should have told the Tanker and Chicks (That includes those just sitting in the pre-contact osition) that they are to move over the sea or into the authorised area.

[RayDarr]

OK guys, I think we get the idea. Tanking sortie allowed over UK city because ATC controller either dosen't know the rules, or the rules are too vague. Senior officer at other radar unit sees this and has to ask Pprune if this is a good idea.
Should we perhaps see this followed up officially so that correct rules are put in place, and correctly applied. We don't need a witch hunt, just some common sense to prevent a potentially hazardous situation happening again.
Come on old boy! Master Controller!! The average Fighter Allocator would have sorted this out in my day.
Oh Wyler. If before 1 March 06 you can come up to me and say "You are RayDarr, and I claim the prize" I will buy you a beer, maybe two.

[airborne_artist]

The weather was dreadful that day but a certain senior officer put very heavy pressure on the formation to go through Le Bourget in contact and the Bucc was attempting to make contact on a flailing hose when he probably caught the Victors wing vortex and lost control.

A first-hand account from the nav. here (http://www.aircrew-saltire.org/lib048.htm).

[Wyler]

Ray

Happy New Year. Nice to see you are your usual cheery self. It has been followed up officially. I just wanted to see if the level of confusion was more widespread.

Trap One.

Class G airspace and a Radar Information Service. If the Captain does not want to move, and thinks he is in the right, he won't. ATC/FC can only pass information and request a move. We would have but ATC, in this instance, did not see the need to force the issue.

[London Mil]

ATC probably didn't worry about it because their orders do not prohibit AAR outside of the AARAs. Indeed, there are overland tac towlines specifically established for when the sea state gets a little too uncomfortable for the Americans.

is that too many ac have been thrown away during or as a result of AAR.

Pray tell me, when did this last happen?

Finally, I think RayDarr has it about right.

[Art Field]

trap one, you state:

"The reason that very very few bits have fallen on the ground and that the RAF practise AAR only in AUTHORISED Overland areas is that too many ac have been thrown away during or as a result of AAR."

I am not sure what you mean by that. As far as I am aware the only RAF receiver lost as the result of carrying out AAR is the Bucc and that was in unusual circumstances. Sadly a Victor was lost as the result of being hit by a Bucc during a conversion sortie but overall the RAF has an exceptional safety record as far as AAR is concerned.

London Mil, you just beat me to it.

[trap one]

Yes the Bucc is the only Air Hit that I know of but I can recall at least 1 F3 that FODed himself after spoking the basket then ejected and I believe an F4 did it but recovered on a single engine (not sure on date or base) also I have experience of F18 ripping out hose and basket in Afganistan and also a US E3 taking the boom off of a KC135. Also there is enough history of hose's booms striking teh aircraft and bits being knocked off (pannels and acquisition rounds. Finally there is a well known vid of a Pave Low taking 1/3 of the hose off a KC130.

Wyler
Yes know the rules but the WC or ATCO would be the one giving the Tanker and chicks permission to conduct AAR in that location. If not happy then tell them to move or withdraw the permission. If the Captain of the Tanker and or Pilot of Chicks wants to argue the safety/permission issue, then terminate the service. I hate to say it but if the worse had happened, (touch wood) then you and London Mil Sup's would have probably been in the dock with a hefty legal bill. As per the poor lad at LU ATC.

[London Mil]

Trap One, I'm afraid you're taliking bollox. The responsibility for safety of tanking remains with the aircrew. If any individual (controller) told them that they could not do it outside CAS then they could easily be told to 'go away'.
If we're talking mid-air events, I think you will find that there have been a greater number of 'random events' that there have been from tanking.
PS. what on earth has this got to do with the Leuchars controller and the 2 F15s that rammed Ben McDui?

[D-IFF_ident]

I don't think it's just the Americans that don't like to refuel over a rough sea - is it above sea state 2 when the one-man liferafts get too unstable?

I don't think there is a real risk of bits dropping off and, therefore, AAR (AR) overland is not inherently dangerous - it's practised everyday over the sand and everyday over the CONUS. However, there is generally a lot of wilderness under the refuelling (refueling) aircraft in both situations. The AARAs around the UK were designed to limit the minimal risk of bits falling to the ground in populated areas, which makes sense. But, and this is what I think happens regularly, the Americans base most of their procedures on boom AR, where bits very very rarely drop off and they don't have to think about hose/basket/probe detachment; when they start using the hoses they probably don't consider the slightly elevated risk of bits dropping off.

[trap one]

Tanker Captain asks for permission via flight plan to go to where he wants, yes I know about dispensation of Mil flights but Tankers are booked into each AARA. If you as a controller need to change Flight plan or AARA you do. If they or in this case the chicks ask to operate in another area then you as a WC or ATCO give your permission for that to happen. If you are not happy about the new location for what ever reason you tell them why and get them to move to a location you are happy with.
Giving a RIS /RAS call about strangers is different to giving permission for an event. For example you would not (I hope) give permission for Clear Range proceedures to be used overland or over an Oil Rig Field for Air-To-Air Gunnery. There is a difference between safety of the aircraft and obeying the rules. For an example going supersonic overland at FL350 is safe and within the rules of many NATO countries but not in the UK.
Whilst the ultimate safety of the Aircraft and the formation rests with the Pilot or leader of that formation. You can as in the case of the LU ATCO be sent to the cleaners in these days for the slightest possible supposed transgression. All be it that the books state that the pilot or captain is the responsible person.
As for the AAR method whilst the Boom might be safer there have been incidences (few) where that is not the case and bits have been knocked off.
Therefore if you as a ATCO or WC are not happy then tell the crews to do as you ask or Terminate the service.

[London Mil]

If you are not happy about the new location for what ever reason you tell them why and get them to move to a location you are happy with.


........ and requesting to tank overland would not make me 'not happy'.

[ORAC]

So, have they depopulated the South-West, or is there some magic force field under the AARA.....

[Bigears]

Lightningmate/Art Field ,
You may be interested in this photo (poor quality, sorry), taken at Leuchars BoB Day 2nd Sept '78.
http://x11.putfile.com/2/3716113682.jpg

[Widger]

I must say that despite "LONDON MIL's" handle, his comments do not reflect MoD policy and he is NOT an official spokesperson for London Air Traffic Control Centre (Military).

[lightningmate]

Bigears,

Thanks for posting the piccie. As you say, quality is not great but looking at the visible hose lengths, I do not think the Lightnings are actually 'in-contact'.

lm

[Art Field]

Bigears, I am with Lightning Mate. I am pretty sure they are very close behind the baskets but not actually in contact. I will stand corrected should one of the pilots contradict but my recollection is that contacts were banned for flypasts after the Paris incident. Given ideal conditions there is no problem with making contact at low level, indeed throttle and control response are at their best but any low level turbulence changes that very quickly. Interesting pic though, thanks.

[London Mil]

Trappy, I presume that this evening's Spyder towline is a figment of my imagination?

[Bigears]

Lightningmate/Art Field,
Thanks for the comments guys- their obvious intention to fool the crowd worked- for the past 27 years I've thought they were 'tanking' :{

[Inspector Dreyfuss]

RayDarr
I thought you might have been an ex-FC turned reservist called Robin V**-XXXX. Worked with him on the FS Foch a few years ago. However, he didn't seem at all bitter and twisted, so I've ruled that one out!
Regards,

[Art Field]

Bigears. Some of the Lightning guys were so good at AAR [they needed to be] they could have held station inside the drogue without making contact. It helped that the probe was mounted on the wing, no bow wave to affect it.

[Bigears]

Lightningmate/Art Field,
The first result from a Google (http://www.google.co.uk/) search on 'XL512' (only) will give a pic of (presumably) the same formation on the same day doing a 'simulated refuel'.
I'd post a direct link, but suspect its against the rules.
I'd love to hear Lightning 'stories', but have hijacked/sidetracked this thread too far already (with apologies to the original thread starter).
Maybe you'd like to start a 'Did you fly the Lightning' thread? (please) :)

[trap one]

"Tanking Overland" if not in accordance with the rules it made me very unhappy. As for the Spyder towline I'm no longer in as have only just left the mob. But as it had a Name I suspect that it was part of an Ex or some other preplanned event, and clear of any "built up area".