Formation lead changes
 

An odd question perhaps but I can't find the answer in AP3456....

If, on a training sortie (a 2 ship), you brief a lead change half way round a low level route, would you then renumber the formation from that point or would you continue the rest of the sortie with "XXX 2" in the lead position? Similarly, as an ATC'er receiving a 2 ship for a stream landing, would you expect callsign "XXX 2" to land before or after "XXX 1"?

Fundamental
 

Rule number one in Formation. - NEVER Change Callsigns...! ....actually there are a lot of rule #1's when it comes to formation operations....


It is easier to 'explain' why number 2 is landing first than have two number ones pitch into the circuit...

A good ATC knows that #2 can often actually lead..

And when lead crashed. And leader landed safetly at Leuchars. Eventually Mrs Lead told us when we rang, "I know." How? "He rang me on his mobile."

True.

Took us 30 minutes sorting out who had crashed and who had landed when his wife knew half an hour before. And they hadn't swapped callsigns.

If I recall correctly, it was only Learning Command who insisted on renumbering.

The Grown Up RAF didn't.

Fortunately now beaten out of Parent and Toddler Command, too.

For simplicity renumber.....

Never renumber... (unless you were formerly known as Parent and Toddler Command.. in which case, renumber to 22 (Trg) Group)...

I know from a reliable source that EFT Formations and METs formations still renumber during lead change, much to the disgust of both stude and QFI!

AAAAAARRRRGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!!

Why, why, why???????

:ugh::ugh::ugh:

Dinosaur logic?

"'tis the way we did things on the Tiger Moth and Oxford!"

A positive radio call of 'Callsign, you have the lead' with an acknowledgement. If you're in a 3 ship or larger, you will have already nominated a deputy lead anyway.

Never change callsigns or renumber from what has been entered in the Auth Sheets.

If you need to tell ATC what is going on, just do so.

Never change number.

"Callsign break land in the order 2, 1, 3."

It's not difficult!

EFT formations do not renumber. We used to, about a year ago, but no longer.:ok:

Some interesting views. I suspect most of the "don't renumber" brigade have probably never led some of the complex formation teaches at BFT. I accept that for a front-line 2/4 ship with very little close manouvring and rarely actually operating as a single unit, renumbering is inappropriate; however, having witnessed first-hand the confusion when not renumbering a dedicated close formation 3-ship exercise I don't accept that rigidly not renumbering is correct either.

I can't believe in this day-and-age that when 'Sabik 3' fails to return from a dedicated 3-ship close-formation sortie they simply look at the briefing slides before marching off to 'Sabik 3's' NOK to tell them the bad news. I do know it has happened before, but Kinforming has been tightened up considerably.

I can recount many a 3-ship where even experienced QFIs, having not renumberred, begin to adopt the callsign for their actual position in the formation and not their original callsign. Last guy in a tailchase will often by default call 'Sabik 3 out', but if he's not renumberred should perhaps still be Sabik 1.- Mayhem!!! "Sabik 3 out lost visual". Lead thinks - now was he at the back? Oh no, we are in the order 1,3 & 2 :ugh:

H Peacock,

Words Fail Me! What, actually is hard about 'flying' in the No2 Pos, but responding "3"? Particularly, if you've just had the benefit of a 4.5 hour CFS brief!!!

Maybe the standard was a little low at your time eh?

But you are correct, I've never led a formation teach at BFT, however, at Valley, things seemed to be easier.

PS: Why did 'Sabik 2/3' fall out of a tail chase, if he was so exerienced? Wasn't taught BFM by you was he?? !!!!!!

Only 'avin a laff!

Advo

Oh my word Mr Peacock did you really mean to say what you just did!

I sincerely hope to bejesus that BFT has moved on from the renumbering goatfu!k of a decade or so ago and to hide behind oh me oh my who can remember what order we were tailchasing in perhaps you'd like to join in a similar type 2v2 BFM setup and keep track of who your wingman is....

Then again I was only an A2 QFI so what would I know.....

This thread has brought back some memories..... A certain Jaguar squadron were going to do an 8-ship and yes it did happen and wasn't a hysterical fantasy!:ok: Their sortie callsign would be Boxer 1-8 (oops, have I just given away the identity of the miscreant Sqn?), but they would be made up of 2, 4-ships, Turbo 1-4 and Havoc 1-4 (yes I know that was a 54 callsign but google has unusually not been kind enough to prompt my memory).

Unfortunately, this was not confusing enough, because Turbo 1&2 would be Boxer 3&4, whilst Havoc 1&2 would be Boxer 1&2, Turbo 3&4 would be Bozer 7&8 etc etc. Can you guess what happened next readers?:E

Any flying training system should (for the benefit of the students) emulate the rules and procedures used by the front line, as far as possible. Front line FJ formation renumbering is a no-no, so the training system needs to mirror this.

If this happens to tax the formation leader then I recommend the advice so often issued to students in the debrief: listen to the brief and pay attention!

It is a basic requirement that the leader knows the locations of his wingmen - he/she has briefed it! Low SA on the part of a formation leader would throw doubt on their ability to safely lead that type of sortie - something that reinforces the requirement to assess a potential leader's SA during the formation-lead check-ride.

In my experience the students cope quite well with sticking to their callsign wherever they sit in the formation - it is the QFIs that sometimes struggle!

6 of the aircraft went U/S on startup, and 1 aircraft had a double engine surge on takeoff, leaving a singleton. ?:O

Or, another formation member looked across at an adjacent aircraft in a nine ship trailing smoke, called "Number five, you're on fire...Eject, Eject!" and there were three parachutes shortly afterwards?