AAR and the FCR
-
I’m getting nit-picky here, but in the RW when the receiver advised us (the tanker) that it was 1/2 mile in trail, I (the boomer) had to perform a communications check to insure I could talk to him, too, as well as my pilots and navigator. Included, when necessary, was vocal confirmation that the ‘Check Nose Cold’ step in the checklist (Aerial Refueling: Before Precontact: 7. Sensors (FCR) . . . Check Nose Cold (STBY)) had been accomplished.
Could something like this be added to the AAR communications protocols in a future update?
For example:
(Fighter Callsign) Flight, 1/2 mile, nose cold.
(Tanker Callsign) roger, cleared to precontact.My suggestion is in the interest of realism . . . nothing more. It’s only a reminder to the fighter driver to ‘shut down’ the radar.
-
You’d have to update the voice sets and as far as I know, that’s a painfully long process.
Besides, virtual boom operators can’t get cancer anyway.
-
Slightly OT: Wouldn’t the guys in the tanker be sterilized already when your RADAR is still on at 1/2NM? Our squadron SOP, which is based in part on real BAF data (in turn compliant with NATO procedures), is to go cold no later than 10NM from tanker, so as to avoid giving the (virtual) boomer fruitless loins.
-
Slightly OT: Wouldn’t the guys in the tanker be sterilized already when your RADAR is still on at 1/2NM? Our squadron SOP, which is based in part on real BAF data (in turn compliant with NATO procedures), is to go cold no later than 10NM from tanker, so as to avoid giving the (virtual) boomer fruitless loins.
10NM is an awfully long distance for a radiation hazard. What about when you are dogfighting for training, flying in trail, or even passing behind the lead aircraft?
HERP (hazards of elecmag radiation to personnel) on the APG 66 is only 50 feet or so I believe. Most modern radars are under 150’. If I was to guess I would say fuel vapour is more a concern for the RADHAZ when AAR rather than personnel.
-
10NM is an awfully long distance for a radiation hazard. What about when you are dogfighting for training, flying in trail, or even passing behind the lead aircraft?
I would expect there’s a big difference in exposure between those generally brief training/flight moments you mentioned and a boomer receiving dozens of aircraft during his shift?
Then again, I’m no expert. For all I know, it might very well be that the 10NM is some artefact of older times that was never updated, or perhaps that it’s easier to do it at 10NM than at 1/2NM, or to make sure that there is appropriate buffer in case a pilot somehow forgot, or …
-
Well the minimum safe distances in the dash one are similarly short as well, and those are applicable to ground crew who spend long periods working in the vicinity. Id say 10 NM is a long way as a minimum. Chances are good that its like you suggested, that there is another purpose for doing it so early. Possibly because inside 10 NM you will be transitioning to WVR fighter turn on, and should be heads up at that point? Looking back heads down to mess with switches… makes sense to set switches appropriately before you start looking for the tanker, I think.
-
10NM is an awfully long distance for a radiation hazard. What about when you are dogfighting for training, flying in trail, or even passing behind the lead aircraft?
HERP (hazards of elecmag radiation to personnel) on the APG 66 is only 50 feet or so I believe. Most modern radars are under 150’. If I was to guess I would say fuel vapour is more a concern for the RADHAZ when AAR rather than personnel.
You’ve got it…partially. The main concern is not RADHAZ, but static discharge from the receiver to the boom, or vise versa. If I had to guess based on a really weird incident I saw with an F-15 radome once, going nose cold at 10 would be to insure that the radome/aircraft are neutral prior to contact. Forget about formation flying, dogfighting, etc. Those practices don’t apply to refueling ops.
The “weird” thing I witnessed many years ago was a radome which continued to hold charge - and recharge - even after it had been grounded and removed from the jet. Two airmen touched it and received second degree burns up their arms - one with it on the jet, and one once it had been removed - before the thing was roped off and quarantined; then we spent the afternoon watching it charge back up once we’d grounded and supposedly discharged it. I never did hear what came out of that in the end and I’ve never heard of anything like it since, but I do know that far more care is given to postflight grounding of both the jet and canopy in the years since.
Stevie
-
You’ve got it…partially. The main concern is not RADHAZ, but static discharge from the receiver to the boom, or vise versa.
Actually, this happens not to be the case. Much more often than not I’d see a one to two inch spark jump between the boom nozzle and receptacle during night refuelings, due to a difference in the electrical potential between our two aircraft. There was no fire hazard because when not in contact, the boom nozzle and receptacle are sealed by spring loaded ‘valves.’
-
Historically it has been a tricky thing to change AI radio communications phrases. We are getting better at that lately though. I wonder if this is the only thing in a tanker/receiver dialogue that is missing – are there not other things that could/should be added if we’re breaking into this to change things?? That said, the AAR AI state machine is ungodly complicated code already…adding much more would be…daunting.
–
Cheers,Mark.
-
<grin>How 'bout tanker/receiver dialogue that is deliberately missing?
During the latter half of the 80s we frequently used minimal communications during AR, especially during Red Flag ARs. I’d perform a radio check at 1/2 mile then go ‘zip lip’ except for emergencies. I’d ‘communicate’ via the PDI lights once the receiver was stabilized in the precontact position. There were a number of visual signals I could use to update the receiver pilot(s).</grin>
-
Actually, this happens not to be the case. Much more often than not I’d see a one to two inch spark jump between the boom nozzle and receptacle during night refuelings, due to a difference in the electrical potential between our two aircraft. There was no fire hazard because when not in contact, the boom nozzle and receptacle are sealed by spring loaded ‘valves.’
I can believe that…but how much worse do you think that might get if the receiver didn’t go nose cold at ten and the radome were carrying an even higher potential at contact? And even if there isn’t a specific “danger” of igniting the fuel during transfer because of the sparks you’ve wittenssed, there is still a possibility of damage to avionics on each platform from the current surge. All the practices work, so I have to be pretty confident somebody knows what they are doing and why. Someplace…
I guess I also have to add that I’m more familiar with probe and drogue refueling than with the boom, specifically…it’s not uncommon doing it the Navy way for fuel to spray down an inlet and/or over the cockpit at disconnect - or to rip the probe off the jet because the receiver hit the basket too hard and set up a whip in the hose…seen the aftermath of that. If you reeeally needed gas…
