IdleBoards

Yes, the Litening has a SPI symbol, but its not modeled in DCS.

With TAD as SOI, slew the cursor over the bridge and take an Offset Mark with TMS Right Short. Hook the new Markpoint symbol with TMS Forward Short. Make SPI with TMS Forward Long. Slave All (if desired).

There are plenty of things we can do better over here; I'm not blinded by pride. By the same token, ICAO/JAA isn't perfect either. My point about setting the bar, is that we fill the skies with 30,000 flights totaling 1.5 million flight hours every day - far more than anyone else. Yet, despite our allegedly "poor" standards, we have an impeccable safety record. I can't recite accident rates per 100,000 flight hours, but I think we're doing well above average. When another individual country can put 30,000 flights in the air everyday for decades and keep a comparable accident rate, I will be suitably impressed. I love Europe, and I enjoyed a lovely vacation there, but why do you Euro guys always feel compelled to try and point out our flaws? We're perfectly aware that there's a world outside the US; we're not neanderthals. It just so happens that I instruct airline pilots who are governed by JAA and CAA rules, thus I have to comply with all of the JAA/CAA training requirements and criteria. I have some perspective on this.

You're awfully righteous. I think you should take your own advice.

One more time: The proper, approved, legal, expected, appropriate, regulatory term in the US is AFFIRMATIVE. Read that sentence again. ICAO is not the governing body in the US, so you're wrong. I guess 99.9% is good enough in your line of work. I wonder how you would sit down and pre-brief SOP when you're in the CAS stack and the JTAC expects you to know what you're doing? If you'd use the brevity as designed, you wouldn't require any briefing. Which, for the tenth time, is the entire point of brevity.

So when I say that using nonstandard brevity in combat is dangerous, you tell me that I'm overreacting and "don't worry" because "99.9% of the time its no big deal". Then, when I say that I use the expected FAA-approved regulatory phrase "affirmative", you tell me that I'm "dangeous". Do I have that right? You don't see anything contradictory there? This is an excercise in futility... Maybe you should take your own advice and stop sharing your "knowledge" with us mere mortals.

I use AFFIRMATIVE because that is the approved and expected phraseology in the US. You don't seem to understand that. The US has, by far, the the most air traffic movements in the world, and we have an unmatched safety record. So I'm not sure where you're going with this idea that we have poor standards. We kinda set the bar. As for the rest of it... ugh. Edit to add: The really bad accident you keep referring to is probably Tenerife. You know, the one where the KLM 747 decided to takeoff without clearance and hit a Pan Am 747 on the runway. So much for ICAO and the Netherlands maintaining such "high standards". If only that Dutch pilot spoke better English...

LOL..."Fiver".

AFFIRMATIVE is the correct phraseology in the US, and in the US armed forces. Also, AFFIRM means AFFIRMATIVE, so... no ambiguity there. The tactics used by the Air Force rely in the abilty to send and receive vast amounts of infirmation in a dense - possibly jammed/degraded - comm environment. Brevity is the vehicle used ti accomplish that task. The US Air Force (and the other forces too, I'm sure) spends an exorbitant amount of time learning, teaching, practicing, and perfecting the use of brevity in a training environment, so that it comes naturally during combat. For some reason Robert laughs off the importance of brevity, and suggests that its okay to use brevity terms in nonstandard ways. Clearly, that's not compatible with the stated purpose of brevity. I dont know how else to say it.

I don't understand what you're saying. Are you saying that you can use incorrect brevity in combat and NOT endanger lives? I have a hard time believing that a military aviator could make such an argument. I also have no idea what you're trying to say about "affirmative". You are aware that the three brevity terms I listed are unique, and mean different things, right? You think AFFIRMATIVE was banned? And you're a pilot? You're pulling my leg, right?

A handful of brevity words are added, deleted, or updated in the "3-1.1" each year to keep up with current technology and tactics. Of the current set of brevity words, 95% of them are the same as they were two decades ago. Specifcally, SPIKE, NAILS, MUD, and SINGER have been the same since long before Desert Storm. The idea that different units have different intrrpretations of brevity words is, well, preposterous. The ENTIRE point of brevity is to allow pilots to speak a common language, and to communicate voluminous information with far fewer words. You simply CANNOT have different units using terms in a manner not prescribed in the book. People will die. This is a fundamental truth that every (combat) pilot is taught. ROGER is not AFFIRMATIVE is not WILCO. You can't use these terms interchangeably, just like you can't use any of the other terms interchangeably.

The brevity terms being discussed haven't changed in decades.

Hi Robert, Perhaps your country's/service's usage of the term is different, but the US Air Force does indeed use the terminology "FENCE in", and "FENCE out". The FENCE in checks are done when entering the combat area; FENCE out checks are done on the way out. It's taught that way right from day one at IFF.