3 Ship on Tartan 31
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Witney UK
Posts: 616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Last edited by Art Field; 29th Feb 2008 at 15:36.
Pilot Officer PPRuNe
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Tonks
Tonks
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Far far away
Age: 53
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
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.
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.
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?
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?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Hampshire physically; Perthshire and Pembrokeshire mentally.
Posts: 1,611
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Far far away
Age: 53
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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).
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).
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Mostly here, but often there
Posts: 542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Far far away
Age: 53
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 
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?
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?
