Mission Standardization

[maggsy]

In 3(F) we have implimented a Comms ladder to organise our presets as part of our SOP's
Both for Uniform and Victor we set up the presets in the same way everytime, if we start using a standard template this is how we would request ours to be implimented
for VHF if 3(F) were allocated the VHF freq 123.0 123.1 123.2 123.4 , UZI always used 124.0 124.1 124.3 124.4 so on and so forth ( this is only an example of a freq band obviously it would have to be clear an not used for any other purpose before allocation and then ring fenced for that squadron only.

Sounds complex but the reality is it is only a single A/c per squadron that needs to be setup and then just duplicated as many times as required for the mission being planned.



I cannot take any credit for the Coms Ladder, this is entirely the work of Sharpe, who has created a fantastic training programme for 3(F)Squadron of which coms are a key part.

[Chris]

I'll be starting a template for each map for 1 (F) Sqn. I will incorporate 3 (F) Sqn AC requirements and will liaise for your preferred tanker & AWAC parameters. Will be in touch soon.

Any other Squadron wishing to be included please contact me.

[Mad dog]

How about putting an Aux freq on the rooms names in TS, so for example "XI Sqn flight channel 363.000MHz". Any aircraft in that channel then select 363.000 for their in flight comms and then we only use the airfield comms channels for the airfield.

[Richard Rodgers]

Having standardised comms for all can only be a good thing. If this is incorporated into a base mission format as well so that whoever is writing can simply copy & paste aircraft at will, should speed up the basic layout before they get into adding all the bells and whistles of triggers and enemy forces. Seems like Chris has got things in hand re the setup.

Steve's Comms Ladder seems good. Should enable us all to become more organised for basic comms frequencies.

Good work lads.

Sounds like that's another bloody round of drinks I have to put behind the bar!!

[Father Cool]

How about putting an Aux freq on the rooms names in TS, so for example "XI Sqn flight channel 363.000MHz". Any aircraft in that channel then select 363.000 for their in flight comms and then we only use the airfield comms channels for the airfield.

In the cat we only have two radios. I would have the 159 set to AWACs always (this is then good for inter flight comms also) and the 182 set to airfield when taxi'ing, departing and arriving back at the airfield and at all other times the 182 should be our standard frequency for 11th squadron for intra flight comms.

[Neil Willis]

Pre set comms ladders are a good way to standardise comms. They follow a logic sequence, for example, stud 1 - ground, stud 2 - tower, stud 3 - approach, stud 4 - tac 1, etc.

There is a logic to their order, as you progress through each rung of the ladder on departure. Naturally, recovery is simply the reverse.

You can further divide across the 2 or 3 radio sets to give support channels.

With a little familiarisation it gives a simple, logical system, and incorporates the ability to use live ATC when available.

[Flyco]

The proposed channel layout and sequence is fine - pretty much as would be at a normal RAF Unit. However, in practice, most ac will not go through the full channel sequence.

Typically:

An ac which intended to remain in the circuit, would halt at the marshalling point (on Grd Freq), call changing to Tower frequency, and then call on Tower - "Kutaisi Tower - R-33 - Take-Off - remaining" (i.e. remaining in the visual circuit pattern). He would then be given the QFE for the circuit and given take of clearance.

An aircraft (or Formation) which intended to (say) depart LL to the South, would halt at the marshalling point and call changing to Departure, Zone, or as you propose Tactical. He would then typically Call "Kutaisi Tactical - Dodge take-of departing VMC to the South, below 400 ft". Kutaisi ground would have told tactical that the formation was "coming to them" and the formation details. Tactical, would have cleared the take-of with any other traffic controller, and would give take-off and departure clearance, possibly adding details of any known traffic in the departure route area. In this case QNH would normally be passed rather than QFE (actually 'Regional' rather than 'QNH', but in DCS they are almost always the same)

Departure/Approach (often different controllers at busy airfields), would deal with standard departures and arrivals. For example at Kutaisi this would often be via the standard reporting points e.g "ENTRY/EXIT EAST, as published on the Arr/Dep chart for Kutaisi - We do all carry one - don't we?

This is not to go counter to your proposal, but given the amount of traffic, it could be greatly simplified. It also eases matters greatly, for, say, a low-level flight. Going through 4 or 5 channel changes during the form-up and entry to low-level is a daunting task, not made easier by the need to use Track-IR or VR to find the channel switch, moving the cursor to change the channel, and then re-checking that you are on the right frequency/channel.

As an ex-procedural flyer, I am all for doing it "accordance with the book", but I think it might be overdoing the realism for DCS.

In summary, standardise channels by all means, and your layout is sound, but do not get tied up in procedure - Rule 1 "Fly the Aircraft". You also need to take account of the existing frequencies for the DCS ATC - they generally seem to be all whole numbers, and it would probably be best to avoid those.

It would be nice to know what DCS's long-term proposal is for ATC - they seem to have grandiose plans for the Super-Carrier, and their current ATC is definitely 'broke'.

[Neil Willis]

Agreed Flyco, we could all too easily get bogged down in over complicating things.

It is a very pressurising situation having to deal with too much when our aim is to have fun.

My feeling is that we ramp up to the level we all find a little challenging, but still manageable.

If we plan for stuff but don’t need it, all is good. If we don’t plan for it, and end up having to change and cause more work, we have a recipe for chaos. On the other hand, skipping past a freq would be a pain too. Perhaps, adding a new rung on the ladder would be possible if we leave sufficient place holders? I suspect we could have up to 99 channels on some aircraft, but far less on others? So would blocks, such as 1-10 ATC, 11-20 - tactical, 21-30 support would be unworkable?

[Father Cool]

I am still wondering what is wrong with one channel for AWACs and all flight comms and one channel set to a squadron frequency for each flight in a group.

Give each flight a decimal 1 to 9 and pop that on the end of their airfield frequency.

So leaving Kutaisi set radio to 134.0 for ATC - all aircraft at or on approach/leaving Kutaisi is then aware of all airfield movements, once say 30 miles clear of Kutaisi switch to say 134.1 (or any number allocated upto 9 excluding 0) and communicate in flight on that frequency until recovery where on approach say 30 miles out the aircraft switch back to 134.0 for airfield picture and to inform aircraft on the ground or already in pattern that you are intending to land.

Does it need to be more complex than this?

[Neil Willis]

Ideally, no, but we ought to try and emulate real world practice as much as practically possible.

That isn't to say you can fly with a simpler system, but we are striving to achieve realistic OCU conditions, and make the training feel real.