RAF Rivet Joint
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Martin, is your point that it's okay to break OPSEC here because others do on other sites?
Why is it okay at all, anywhere?
I suppose it depends on perspective. If you are safely on the ground and know about timings because you are close to the program, or know someone who is (and you want to impress the hell out of everyone), then you might be inclined to post with a certain abandon. Dr Pepper, and all that.
However, if you are sat in the jet, you will be disinclined to publicly post your operating times, (or, say, if you have family in the jet).
Anybody know any interesting stories about people in the job posting things up that they shouldn't?
I do, it wasn't a happy outcome.
Sorry to be all doom and gloom, just making a point of order.
TM
Why is it okay at all, anywhere?
I suppose it depends on perspective. If you are safely on the ground and know about timings because you are close to the program, or know someone who is (and you want to impress the hell out of everyone), then you might be inclined to post with a certain abandon. Dr Pepper, and all that.
However, if you are sat in the jet, you will be disinclined to publicly post your operating times, (or, say, if you have family in the jet).
Anybody know any interesting stories about people in the job posting things up that they shouldn't?
I do, it wasn't a happy outcome.
Sorry to be all doom and gloom, just making a point of order.
TM
Chugalug
Good reply. IIRC from the evidence to Phillip the FADEC was not allowed in the aircraft either which is a hell of a constraint when you want to start up engines!
Good reply. IIRC from the evidence to Phillip the FADEC was not allowed in the aircraft either which is a hell of a constraint when you want to start up engines!
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Martin, is your point that it's okay to break OPSEC here because others do on other sites?
Why is it okay at all, anywhere?
I suppose it depends on perspective. If you are safely on the ground and know about timings because you are close to the program, or know someone who is (and you want to impress the hell out of everyone), then you might be inclined to post with a certain abandon. Dr Pepper, and all that.
Why is it okay at all, anywhere?
I suppose it depends on perspective. If you are safely on the ground and know about timings because you are close to the program, or know someone who is (and you want to impress the hell out of everyone), then you might be inclined to post with a certain abandon. Dr Pepper, and all that.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
Lumpy
Sneaky
Sneaky
Squirrel 41
I believe that E-3D is CFM56-2A and RJ is CFM56-2B. The E-3D has thrust reversers but the RJ doesn't. Also E-3D's CFMs create more thrust but weigh more (due to reversers)
LJ
I believe that E-3D is CFM56-2A and RJ is CFM56-2B. The E-3D has thrust reversers but the RJ doesn't. Also E-3D's CFMs create more thrust but weigh more (due to reversers)
LJ
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Willard and Just This Once.....u seem to be trying to be clever, but you have missed the point. The spotters spotted the plane as it came in, having been (disappointingly) forewarned. The press release was after it landed.
OPSEC was broken when the landing time and refuelling point was posted at @0220. Do try to follow the story.
Let's be clear, though, you long time posters think this is okay, right?
It's an interesting debate no?
Do you think it's okay to post timings like this?
Are you military? Good debate, eh?
TM
OPSEC was broken when the landing time and refuelling point was posted at @0220. Do try to follow the story.
Let's be clear, though, you long time posters think this is okay, right?
It's an interesting debate no?
Do you think it's okay to post timings like this?
Are you military? Good debate, eh?
TM
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 68
Posts: 5,563
Likes: 0
Received 45 Likes
on
30 Posts
Pretty short debate as the flightplan is published at the scary classification level of 'unclassified' and is sent to numerous FIRs. In equal regard the flight details are broadcast free-to-air.
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The debate worked out fine. You obviously have no real appreciation of OPSEC. Flight Plans are 'free to air', but finding them (and any other info) is so much easier when people in the know helpfully post up accurate routes and timings. The last person I know who, (using his position in the RAF), released timings in this manner to a spotters site got a formal warning. I recall MP's went through that person's PC hard drive. That's not open to any debate whatsoever, it's a fact. That flight was flightplanned, and it wasn't that long ago...
I'm astonished that some (military, or ex military) people take this careless, 'what's the point' attitude. It's an attitude I would expected from someone who doesn't give a damn about the safety of the people on board, and, to a lesser extent, the job they are trying to do.
Well, some people do still care about both.
TM
I'm astonished that some (military, or ex military) people take this careless, 'what's the point' attitude. It's an attitude I would expected from someone who doesn't give a damn about the safety of the people on board, and, to a lesser extent, the job they are trying to do.
Well, some people do still care about both.
TM
You obviously have no real appreciation of OPSEC
In this case, how exactly do you percieve the safety of those on board was compromised by a bunch of spotters discussing the arrival time? Likewise, how does it impact on the job the crew were trying to do, i.e, deliver an aircraft from A to B?
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Vienna, Virginia
Age: 74
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is a NON-operation delivery! No OPSEC needed!
OPSEC is defined as "Operations Security". Since this is a factory delivery and "operations" will not begin officially until next year then the flight does not meet the definition.
BTW, when we deployed from the US to the UK we had an air-refueling over Maine, flying non-stop. Not sure why they would stop except the RAF aircrew are not qualified for boom A/R.
BTW, when we deployed from the US to the UK we had an air-refueling over Maine, flying non-stop. Not sure why they would stop except the RAF aircrew are not qualified for boom A/R.
OafOrfUxAche,
I have no idea? I just posted the You Tube link and it accepted my post.
Some nice images of ZZ664 at following links.
Photos: Boeing RC-135W (717-158) Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net
Photos: Boeing RC-135W (717-158) Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net
Photos: Boeing RC-135W (717-158) Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net
I have no idea? I just posted the You Tube link and it accepted my post.
Some nice images of ZZ664 at following links.
Photos: Boeing RC-135W (717-158) Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net
Photos: Boeing RC-135W (717-158) Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net
Photos: Boeing RC-135W (717-158) Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net