Formation lead changes
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?
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?
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Not a huge sand box but very nice winters anymore
Age: 57
Posts: 548
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by saudipc-9; 22nd May 2009 at 14:49. Reason: Incorrect spelling of "despite"
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Way East
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Saudi PC-9 :
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....
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....
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Not a huge sand box but very nice winters anymore
Age: 57
Posts: 548
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
you can change formation positions but not the leader
"
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: England
Posts: 362
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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!
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!
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
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 :
I'm not sure that I agree.
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:
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!
Now, as for :
Absolutely correct. You are not allowed to change the formation leader..... you can change formation positions but not the leader
The Form Ld is always that pilot who signed the auth sheets for the FORM
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?
