Brevity code help.

[Chic]

"Engage AAA at bullseye 029 for 19"

"Passing way pt 4 at 5000"

"On station at bulls 019 for 20 at 5000"

Thank you.

[Sabre-TLA]

"Engage AAA at bullseye 029 for 19"

 

This an order to engage Anti Aircraft Artillery also known as Triple-A at bearing 029 from the bullseye at a range of 19 nautical miles.

 

The bullseye is a fixed reference point from which a pilot can determine his or her position and the position of other planes.

 

A bullseye call, used to communicate your position, is done in the following format. Bearing from bullseye, Range to bullseye, Altitude.

 

The acronym BRA can be used to remember this. Bearing, Range, Altitude.

 

"Passing way pt 4 at 5000"

 

This is a position report of an aircraft or helo passing waypoint 4 in the flight route at an altitude of 5000 (could be feet or meters depending on the nationality of the aircraft).

 

"On station at bulls 019 for 20 at 5000"

 

This is a situation report indicating that said flight is at it's required position and ready for the next order or mission task. It is at a bearing of 019 from the bullseye at a range of 20 nautical miles and at an altitude of 5000 (could be feet or meters depending on the nationality of the aircraft).

 

Here is a good explanation about bullseye:

 

[Chic]

Thank you Sabre for getting me started.

I got some homework to do.

Much obliged.

[Sabre-TLA]

Glad I could help.

 

Here is a link to a summary of Operational Brevity Codes.

[PFunk1606688187]

As I understand it, DCS is wrong with respect to the "bulls" call:

 

AFTTP 3-1.1, Change 1, 23 November 2001 ATTACHMENT 1

A1.6.2. (U) Communications Fundamentals.

A1.6.2.3. (U) BRAA or Bullseye. BRAA, BULLSEYE, or assigned ACO code name for

BULLSEYE will accompany all calls to reduce or eliminate ambiguity. BULLSEYE will

not be truncated to "bull" to avoid it being interpreted as BRAA in heavy comm situations.

[Chic]

Thanks for follow up guys.

Another thing bout DCS. I fly Huey exclusively. Finding that at least on the "Rebel" mission that some of the radio chatter (ex: see my thread origin) as it pertains to position of A/C, ground objects, and engagements doesn't correlate with what I'm seeing on the f-10 cheat map.

Not sure if the chatter is just for show or if it is supposed to accurately reflect the situation and I'm just not interpreting correctly.

Edited February 8, 2015 by Chic
"guys" Ooops! apologies if not so.

[159th_Falcon]

As I understand it, DCS is wrong with respect to the "bulls" call:

 

AFTTP 3-1.1, Change 1, 23 November 2001 ATTACHMENT 1

A1.6.2. (U) Communications Fundamentals.

 

 

Only if it says to operate under the quoted document.;)

 

Nitpicking aside, it doesn't really matter all that much for what we use it for.

It's not like actual lives depend on it.

 

As for the units of measurement used in DCS, no idea would like to know if it is dependent on server settings. (metric or imperial)

Nationality your flying for or the airframe your in?

(in multiplayer that is)

[PFunk1606688187]

Well maybe one day DCS will be robust enough to host 50+ guys flying a hardcore Red Flag type event and if they use something like Aries with voice degradation and a human AWACS the thing at stake will be your fun, which is about as important to a digital person as a life ought to be, right? :P

[NeilWillis]

With 50+ guys, why would you bother with AI at all? That would solve the problem of non-conformal Voice procedure anyway.

 

Our server at RAF Air is very high end, and I have never had any reports of large crowds degrading it's performance, so maybe the 50+ ideal is already practical - with the right equipment.

 

As for the brevity codes, there are a few very good booklets available here already if you do a search. We at RAF Air have condensed the available info into our own brevity document, which can be found on our website - if you sign up for membership you'll have access to that, and many more items that will prove very useful to any Hog jockey.

[PFunk1606688187]

With 50+ guys, why would you bother with AI at all? That would solve the problem of non-conformal Voice procedure anyway.

 

I said human AWACS, but the idea is that people infer the incorrect brevity by observing the sim thinking that its correct. That statement was itself posted in response to the notion is that it doesn't matter because its not real life, a notion which I tried to raise my nose at. ;)