For those times when an IC is running a small mission and is mobile, do any wings have a special set of tactical call signs that are designated for the IC on duty? If the IC uses his wing issued call sign that won't necessarily ID him as the IC. I'm wondering if there is something that would be standard, sort of like the Wing CC being xx1 etc.
Just curious.
our IC's have wing designated callsigns. We know who the boss is....
If you're signed into the mission, on a sortie, you should know who the IC is and how to get ahold of them.
That's part of the briefing because launching.
That's what functional callsigns are for and if your CUL is on his/her game it will be addressed in the comms plan. "Mobile Command" or something similar works just as well as fancy tactikewl callsigns.
Since there is only one IC at any mission base, I would suggest that "Incident Commander" would be a good tactical call sign. If you are using HF between mission bases in an area command exercise, I would suggest "Mission Base X Incident Commander" and "Mission Base Y Incident Commander". Not really original but it works. Unless I am completely misunderstanding the question.
Galactica Actual
On the last few missions I've participated in, having a mission base, the IC has spent little time operating a radio. That's the MRO's job. If there's a message for the IC, the MRO passes it on, and the IC takes the needed action.
Quote from: SarDragon on September 08, 2013, 04:55:39 AM
On the last few missions I've participated in, having a mission base, the IC has spent little time operating a radio. That's the MRO's job. If there's a message for the IC, the MRO passes it on, and the IC takes the needed action.
WISHING CAPTALK HAD A "LIKE" BUTTON!!!!
CAP is authorized to use "functional designators" under some circumstances and subject to some limitations. It's all spelled out in CAPR 100-3 para 1-9.
A few highlights:
Functional designators must make clear the function of the station and may not obscure the function. If OPSEC is required, use your normal Air Force Voice Call Sign (AFVCS). Geographic references can be used as well. Note that the examples in the regulation combine geo reference AND function.
CAP aircraft must use CAP### or "high bird" on CAP frequencies. Other functional designators are not permitted.
Even with functional designators, CAP fixed stations still must identify with their AFVCS periodically. Mobile or portable stations using functional designators must I.D. with their AFVCS under circumstances detailed in the regulation.
Anyone thinking about using any call signs other than the assigned AFVCS should read and be fully coversant with the relevant regulation. BTW: these rules apply when we use CAP frequencies, ISR's, and even FRS for non-ES activities. (CAPR 100-1 para 9-13). The rules do not go out the window because we aren't on CAP channels. CAP activity = CAP rules.
When I CUL the functional designators are spelled out in the comm plan and lots of copies provided to the briefing staff. The base is often similar to "BFE ICP" with periodic broadcast of the AFVCS (each instance is noted in the comm log). Remote bases are something like "BFE Base." After that its pretty much "ground team#," and "CAP###" on CAP freqs. Depending on the mission base layout we sometimes we throw ISRs at other staff positions, so "flight line" can call "air ops," or "comm" can relay a message to "IC." And so on.
Small mission with no comm unit? Use your discretion, but if its that small chances are the IC had a personal conversation with each deployed resource and told them what call sign to use.
Big mission or small, proceed as briefed.
"IC" or "Incident Commander" seems to work just fine.
I tried the "actual" a few times during encampment - the comm guys got their thongs bunched because they were concerned
"someone" on the channel might think it was a real mission. I pointed out that "someone" could think whatever they wanted,
but unless they were part of the activity, they needed to mind their own business, however, you know "comm guys"...
In all but overnight ELT hunts, the IC shouldn't be on the radio, anyway.
Quote from: RiverAux on September 08, 2013, 04:38:16 AM
Galactica Actual
"Petticoat Junction Actual" here :clap:
Quote from: Eclipse on September 08, 2013, 09:16:02 PM
"IC" or "Incident Commander" seems to work just fine.
I tried the "actual" a few times during encampment - the comm guys got their thongs bunched because they were concerned
"someone" on the channel might think it was a real mission. I pointed out that "someone" could think whatever they wanted,
but unless they were part of the activity, they needed to mind their own business, however, you know "comm guys"...
In all but overnight ELT hunts, the IC shouldn't be on the radio, anyway.
+1
"IC this is Planning One (the head PSC guy) need you at the office asap"
This goes for just about any position.
"Flight Line Super this is Martialer Three.....we need gas on N12345, over"
"PIO is requested to conatact Chaplain via land line"
Those are tactical call signs.
If you have mutiople mission bases and your "IC" is actually a strike group commander, or some such........North Vegas One.....or North Vegas Actually is not outside of the wrelm of possibitiy. As has been pointed out it is up the CUL to develope the comm plan that includes tactial call signs.
Quote from: lordmonar on September 09, 2013, 12:21:34 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on September 08, 2013, 09:16:02 PM
"IC" or "Incident Commander" seems to work just fine.
I tried the "actual" a few times during encampment - the comm guys got their thongs bunched because they were concerned
"someone" on the channel might think it was a real mission. I pointed out that "someone" could think whatever they wanted,
but unless they were part of the activity, they needed to mind their own business, however, you know "comm guys"...
In all but overnight ELT hunts, the IC shouldn't be on the radio, anyway.
+1
"IC this is Planning One (the head PSC guy) need you at the office asap"
This goes for just about any position.
"Flight Line Super this is Martialer Three.....we need gas on N12345, over"
"PIO is requested to conatact Chaplain via land line"
Those are tactical call signs.
If you have mutiople mission bases and your "IC" is actually a strike group commander, or some such........North Vegas One.....or North Vegas Actually is not outside of the wrelm of possibitiy. As has been pointed out it is up the CUL to develope the comm plan that includes tactial call signs.
Axtually, those are functional call signs. Tactical call signs are the identifier assigned to your wing and the call number you are assigned by the the licensing officer. For instance, in IL it would be Redfox XX.
Thanks for all of the replies. While most of the time during a mission the IC will not be on the radio, there have been a small handful of cases in my experience, in which the IC is operating remotely (and solo) and so might want to contact an aircrew by radio. I was just thinking that a standard tactical callsign (like xx60) would be easily recognizable, rather than using a wing issued personal call sign that might not be recognized.
Thanks again for all of the replies. This forum is a great resource.
Quote from: disamuel on September 09, 2013, 10:42:36 PM
Thanks for all of the replies. While most of the time during a mission the IC will not be on the radio, there have been a small handful of cases in my experience, in which the IC is operating remotely (and solo) and so might want to contact an aircrew by radio. I was just thinking that a standard tactical callsign (like xx60) would be easily recognizable, rather than using a wing issued personal call sign that might not be recognized.
Thanks again for all of the replies. This forum is a great resource.
Not only would I think that was a good idea...I would not let anyone use their assigned voice call signs on and ES mission because of the recognition issue.
Just a quick question....why would the IC ever want to contact an aircraft direct?
Because the IC launched the aircraft and is the solo person at the "base", at 0200 for an ELT mission in the city.
Quote from: a2capt on September 10, 2013, 12:20:31 AM
Because the IC launched the aircraft and is the solo person at the "base", at 0200 for an ELT mission in the city.
Oh....then he is also wearing the OSC and AOBD hats.....so he is not calling the aircraft as an IC...but as and AOBD.
Remember you can give several jobs to one guy.....but you should not combine the jobs. :)
Quote from: lordmonar on September 09, 2013, 11:24:23 PM
Just a quick question....why would the IC ever want to contact an aircraft direct?
Primarily because sometimes that ELT search is just the IC in his home office on the phone with the AFRCC and the Aircrew or GT/UDF Team.
Quote from: lordmonar on September 09, 2013, 11:24:23 PM
Not only would I think that was a good idea...I would not let anyone use their assigned voice call signs on and ES mission because of the recognition issue.
Those using functional callsigns must still ID with their tactical callsign IAW CAPR 100-3.
Quote from: lordmonar on September 09, 2013, 11:24:23 PMNot only would I think that was a good idea...I would not let anyone use their assigned voice call signs on and ES mission because of the recognition issue.
Just a quick question....why would the IC ever want to contact an aircraft direct?
a2capt answered the Q.
As for AFVCS use, part of the briefing before launching is the specific ID of the IC, and his call sign. On all the remote launches I've done, I've never had issues with who the IC is, or how to contact him.
Quote from: SARDOC on September 10, 2013, 12:36:04 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on September 09, 2013, 11:24:23 PM
Just a quick question....why would the IC ever want to contact an aircraft direct?
Primarily because sometimes that ELT search is just the IC in his home office underwear at the kithchen table at 0230 on the phone with the AFRCC and the Aircrew or GT/UDF Team.
FTFY ;D
Quote from: Al Sayre on September 10, 2013, 11:48:42 AM
Quote from: SARDOC on September 10, 2013, 12:36:04 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on September 09, 2013, 11:24:23 PM
Just a quick question....why would the IC ever want to contact an aircraft direct?
Primarily because sometimes that ELT search is just the IC in his home office underwear at the kithchen table at 0230 on the phone with the AFRCC and the Aircrew or GT/UDF Team.
FTFY ;D
Wait, I thought you had to be in uniform to be on a mission...is there a specific IC uniform in 39-1 now? >:D
Not even two pages long and this thread degenerated into a uniform thread like all of them!
:-\
Flyer
Quote from: flyer333555 on September 10, 2013, 12:24:46 PM
Not even two pages long and this thread degenerated into a uniform thread like all of them!
:-\
Flyer
It's a corollary to Godwin's Law.
Quote from: JeffDG on September 10, 2013, 12:01:31 PM
Quote from: Al Sayre on September 10, 2013, 11:48:42 AM
Quote from: SARDOC on September 10, 2013, 12:36:04 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on September 09, 2013, 11:24:23 PM
Just a quick question....why would the IC ever want to contact an aircraft direct?
Primarily because sometimes that ELT search is just the IC in his home office underwear at the kithchen table at 0230 on the phone with the AFRCC and the Aircrew or GT/UDF Team.
FTFY ;D
Wait, I thought you had to be in uniform to be on a mission...is there a specific IC uniform in 39-1 now? >:D
See CAPM 39-1 Table 2-1 Item 18 ;D