Author Topic: On Standards as applied to Air Intercept Control (AIC)  (Read 738 times)

Blu3wolf

  • Administrator
  • Newbie
  • *****
  • Posts: 40
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Blu3wolf.com
On Standards as applied to Air Intercept Control (AIC)
« on: September 06, 2016, 12:07:08 PM »
We could use a little discussion on how best to conduct AIC services for BMS MP events. There are different approaches and methods, though often the same basic techniques are applied.

Page 559, Section A1.6 Air to Air Communication Standards (here: http://falcon.blu3wolf.com/Docs/Basic-Employment-Manual-F-16C.pdf )

This document details the basic sets of communications between AIC and pilot, mostly as used by the F4 community (although with some minor, and some not so minor, differences).

Page 299, Chapter 16 Advanced Intercepts  ( here: http://falcon.blu3wolf.com/Docs/P-825.pdf )

This one shows the basic intercept process in some detail, although the specifics are a little different, owing to the documents nature as a USN training doc rather than a joint standards doc.

At present, the paradigm in operation at Falcon Online prevents the effective use of the Air to Air communication standards being applied by the AIC operator, due to the intercept technique by the pilots being essentially random, and there being essentially no set standard of communication - rendering any attempt at using the standards above simply an exercise in confusing the pilot, who will no doubt be less than grateful to AIC afterwards.

As I see it, the options are:

1) Develop a much simpler standard, or modify another existing one, define it in detail, and promulgate it at appropriate MP events in the future. Ensure it is simple enough that 'weekend warrior' type pilots can still use it effectively without much effort.

2) Apply the standards above, ensuring a training program is put in place for both pilots and AIC operators, to be able to certify graduates as competent - directly aiding the promulgation of the above standards across future MP events. No effort is made towards simplification or ease of access by those disinclined to put effort into their flying.

3) Dismiss the need for a standard of AIC, letting each controller communicate as they see fit, so long as they remain loosely aligned with the most basic brevity usage.

Personally Im attached to the second option, or some variant of it.
8OSS/CC
8VFW Wolfpack

b.s.

  • Administrator
  • Newbie
  • *****
  • Posts: 33
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile
Re: On Standards as applied to Air Intercept Control (AIC)
« Reply #1 on: September 18, 2016, 09:28:13 PM »
As a point of general discussion, I think the real questions we need to answer are:

1.  What does our customer (pilots flying falcon4) want and need from us?
2.  What do we, falcon controllers, want and need from doing this?

These things should drive standards and employment.

In short, to question 1, my answer would be something like:
SA enhancer (what's going on outside of your RADAR FOV)
Threat warning (what's about to shoot you)
Tactical Direction (get me to my engagement // commit me to something beyond my sensor range and give me some directions on how to get there)(intercept geometry)  This could also include getting me to a tanker, or even back to my airbase (or the nearest friendly airbase)
There might be cases where falconc2 could provide force accountability and timing, but that's probably not going to be the case for falcon pilots logging into a standard 24/7 MP campaign

FalconC2 should be doing things that the AI AWACS isn't doing...  (that it really can't do, honestly...  it takes a human to analyze a situation and provide relevant input to a specific recipient)


Blu3wolf

  • Administrator
  • Newbie
  • *****
  • Posts: 40
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Blu3wolf.com
Re: On Standards as applied to Air Intercept Control (AIC)
« Reply #2 on: September 19, 2016, 01:29:04 PM »
Well, I certainly cannot comprehensively answer 2. The answer to 1. varies depending on a few things too... As I think I alluded to above.

Threat warning comms is something we can lift wholesale from the standards above, with no changes I suspect.
Cold comms (SA enhancer) will work quite well, but pilots would need to understand intercept flow to make effective use of the information.
For some limited missions (CAPs come to mind), existing comm formats apply well to giving direction to flights.
8OSS/CC
8VFW Wolfpack

snipercan

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 22
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: On Standards as applied to Air Intercept Control (AIC)
« Reply #3 on: September 21, 2016, 10:59:07 PM »
I think we can create levels of AIC like level-1 to level-3:
     * Level-1 being the most simple level of AIC so that a AIC trained weekend flier at least can control single flight of max 2 aircraft to an engagement. Using simple brevity.
    * Level-2 is the middle level controller able to control max 2 flights but DCA and one engagement at a time.
    * Level-3 is the top level controller without limits yet deciding his own limits.

Of course this needs to be more detailed and standardized but this way we can also train people to simple standards. The more AICs we have the more community understands that realism is multiplied with human controllers.

This might create a bit of pressure on BMS team to create a nice AWACS interface hopefully with our support.

Blu3wolf

  • Administrator
  • Newbie
  • *****
  • Posts: 40
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Blu3wolf.com
Re: On Standards as applied to Air Intercept Control (AIC)
« Reply #4 on: September 22, 2016, 02:54:06 PM »
If we are to train to multiple levels of competency, I suggest theybe complementary - so that the procedures involved are the same, just with more capabilities on more qualified controllers, and those controllers able to handle a more complex airspace.

Before we look at that though, I think we need to first firmly nail down what we need to provide as AIC, and to define what that service in action should look like. Again, I submit as a starting point, the procedures found in both the BEM linked above, and the CNATRA AWI doc above. When Im at my computer again Ill create a post which overviews what Im proposing in detail, although you can read it in detail in those documents.
8OSS/CC
8VFW Wolfpack

snipercan

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 22
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: On Standards as applied to Air Intercept Control (AIC)
« Reply #5 on: September 22, 2016, 09:41:05 PM »
I think we need to first firmly nail down what we need to provide as AIC, and to define what that service in action should look like.
Agree but do you have something in mind?
 I made my proposal levels thinking that most of our students (!) will be falcon fiers and they wont spend that much time in AIC. So we will have to narrow things really down.

Again, I submit as a starting point, the procedures found in both the BEM linked above, and the CNATRA AWI doc above.
Both documents are actually for pilots and hundreds of pages long. I know we will not use most of it but I think we still have to simplyfy it.

Blu3wolf

  • Administrator
  • Newbie
  • *****
  • Posts: 40
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Blu3wolf.com
Re: On Standards as applied to Air Intercept Control (AIC)
« Reply #6 on: September 26, 2016, 01:50:05 AM »
Well fortunately, the attachment to the BEM is the part I would draw your attention to, which is much shorter (maybe 40 pages?) - as well as the section radar attacks chapter of the AWI manual, which again is not hundreds of pages.

Both documents are for pilots, but that is hardly an issue for what we are looking at doing. They detail what the pilot expects to hear for a given scenario. Thats pretty easy to arrange. Our lines are in the script, the pilots lines are in the script.
8OSS/CC
8VFW Wolfpack