Reconnaissance
LB, TARWI went on every Misrep ( auto spell just put that in as misrepresentation!) and IF Rep, so if it never made it back to the forecasters it wasn’t the crew’s fault.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,068
Received 2,938 Likes
on
1,252 Posts
Spitfire Mk 19 was unarmed and carried two belly cameras plus an oblique one in the door behind the cockpit, it could also have a fit where the main wing tank was, not being a fighter it also had single control cables, the fighter variant had double control cables to allow for redundancy in case of battle damage. Bet you didn’t know that.
I have a few old colleagues to consult and will report back if I draw blood.
LB,
I supported the Harrier force as one of the Stn Int at Laarbruch 1995-1998. I deployed to GDC at least 3 times and on each MISREP, I can assure you the TARWI was fastidiously included and faxed back to Vicenza. What happened after that I don't know...But, as far as i am aware, the same procedure was conducted daily at Laarbruch as well.
I supported the Harrier force as one of the Stn Int at Laarbruch 1995-1998. I deployed to GDC at least 3 times and on each MISREP, I can assure you the TARWI was fastidiously included and faxed back to Vicenza. What happened after that I don't know...But, as far as i am aware, the same procedure was conducted daily at Laarbruch as well.
Thank you. I need to ask myself "who was TARWI for?". Regardless of fine intentions, was it perceived as not necessarily very useful to Met?
Going back many years, at Nicosia, Leeming and Topcliffe in my days as a baby forecaster, the "weather-ship" flight information rarely got back to me. Even asking for a cloud base on the climb out [often different from the airfield] was like getting blood out of a stone, ATC being "busy".
In later years S Met O Stanley had the same struggles. In retrospect we did not get a good briefing on station roles on arrival, and the aircrew were not always aware of how helpful they could have been.
I have known a few dialogues where a request for inflight was met by "its your job to tell us".
Not a perfect world but there were many rewarding days and postings which far far outweighed a lack of feedback. I have never heard a "metperson" regret their association with the best Air Force in the world.
Going back many years, at Nicosia, Leeming and Topcliffe in my days as a baby forecaster, the "weather-ship" flight information rarely got back to me. Even asking for a cloud base on the climb out [often different from the airfield] was like getting blood out of a stone, ATC being "busy".
In later years S Met O Stanley had the same struggles. In retrospect we did not get a good briefing on station roles on arrival, and the aircrew were not always aware of how helpful they could have been.
I have known a few dialogues where a request for inflight was met by "its your job to tell us".
Not a perfect world but there were many rewarding days and postings which far far outweighed a lack of feedback. I have never heard a "metperson" regret their association with the best Air Force in the world.
As a postscript, the Met hunger for observations is infinite. At Finningley in the 1970s we were very glad indeed of two strange beasts: AUTOBS and MOWOBS. These came from AA patrols and motorway maintenance supervisors.
They were nominally on the hour primarily around dawn and were plain language from a simple menu. Location, Time, then e.g. : "Cloudy good dry" = weather, visibility, road surface.
We were well served sitting where we were, with several arterial roads close by. These supplementaries came along as the official network began to shrink, so were doubly welcome
They were nominally on the hour primarily around dawn and were plain language from a simple menu. Location, Time, then e.g. : "Cloudy good dry" = weather, visibility, road surface.
We were well served sitting where we were, with several arterial roads close by. These supplementaries came along as the official network began to shrink, so were doubly welcome
