Nato change callsigns

Snafu · Post by **Snafu** » 08 Jun 2011, 16:23

I was tipped off by one of the Forum members on Fighter Control that NATO was unhappy with the likes of Live ATC giving us such wonderful access to Operation Unified Protector. As a result in the time I've been away from listening new callsigns have crept in. They are now using "OUP" and a 3 digit number to identify the aircraft.For example OUP 915 is an E-8C and UOP 652 is an AWACS.

Tankers at the minute still using Mobil....will monitor to see if all aircraft fall into the new pattern.

Arjan · Post by **Arjan** » 08 Jun 2011, 19:39

If so, maybe you should consider it not to post anything then. If the NATO really thinks this endangers their operations?

Snafu · Post by **Snafu** » 08 Jun 2011, 20:37

If I can hear it then I'm sure the Libyan's can and if NATO thought Live ATC was such a threat to security they'd shut it down. Question is why take this action after 81 days?

Arjan · Post by **Arjan** » 08 Jun 2011, 20:58

It is not so much as who is being able to hear them but about giving them insight in information that might help them plot flights or look to concurrences. The same reasons why our friends from Aviano refuse to post logs.
And why it takes so long...no idea...but maybe because they are in fact civil servants that has to work over a lot of different levels.

AK01 · Post by **AK01** » 08 Jun 2011, 21:09

Arjan,
Do you mean that we do a better job then Lybian intel services?
If they realy want they certainly have more technology available then our Live ATC.
They can listen direct to the Awacs and fighters in there area, they must have people available to monitor live atc 24 hours a day if they want to, so i doubt if we have more info then the Libyans themselves.
Anyway, i guess the Live ATC guys will have to shut down if the US or Malta governement tells them to do so, so i'd say continue untill they shut it down, but perhaps just post the logs with a delay of 2 or 3 hours.
Best regards Pieter

Arjan · Post by **Arjan** » 08 Jun 2011, 21:14

My only opinion in this is that I can understand that such a case might indeed be sensitive to the NATO and since it is in our best interest to maintain the more friendly and co-operative spirit they have towards aircraft spotting, it might not be such a bad idea if this works the best from two directions.

Scramble Messageboard