"Overhead to the initial", say what?

[hindsight2020]

My brother was telling me that they got a letter on it. Not sure if it’s a facility letter or region letter. Basically said, you got a flight of 4 coming inbound for individual IAPs. When they split them they have to confirm with lead, like “Blade11, confirm MARSA with Blade14?” If in the affirmative, then “Blade 14, detach the flight, turn...”

It is a bit gray in that you’ve got an IFR aircraft, that’s no longer in the flight, with less than IFR sep. That’s part of the problem though. There's no phraseology in the .65 in how to split up a flight and none of the MARSA examples pertain to it. We had basic guidelines in our SOP but nothing concrete. My technique:
“Blade11, confirm 11 thru 14 in that order?”

“Affirm Blade11.”

“Roger, Blade 14 detach the flight, turn right heading 360, decend and maintain 3,000.” Once 14 acknowledges and you’ve got him typed into ARTS (the scope), then “Blade14, squawk 4501.” Squawk observed, “Blade14, radar contact on the split, change to my frequency 311.6.” Then Blade 13,12 in order.

I guess my question is, in what instance would a 4-ship inbound for a field and asking for 3 additional clearances ever not be MARSA before the multiple clearances are requested in the first place? That's the part I find redundant about the whole "confirm MARSA". This isn't a dissimilar tanker/receiver combo coming off the end of an AR track, and even in that circumstance the answer would still be redundant, as ATC wouldn't have cleared either team INTO the track 30 minutes ago, without the players declaring MARSA as a preface.

So again, splitting formations up and requesting a "MARSA confirmation" comm seems redundant. Btw, *I* clear elements off my formation, not ATC. At any rate, whatever keeps the ATC critters legally happy. After all, even when they are responsible for separation, it's still my @ss when we collide with someone else.

 

[Velocity173]

I guess my question is, in what instance would a 4-ship inbound for a field and asking for 3 additional clearances ever not be MARSA before the multiple clearances are requested in the first place? That's the part I find redundant about the whole "confirm MARSA". This isn't a dissimilar tanker/receiver combo coming off the end of an AR track, and even in that circumstance the answer would still be redundant, as ATC wouldn't have cleared either team INTO the track 30 minutes ago, without the players declaring MARSA as a preface.

So again, splitting formations up and requesting a "MARSA confirmation" comm seems redundant. Btw, *I* clear elements off my formation, not ATC. At any rate, whatever keeps the ATC critters legally happy. After all, even when they are responsible for separation, it's still my @ss when we collide with someone else.

I don’t even consider a flight as being MARSA. It’s just a flight operating IFR. Although rare, nothing preventing a civilian flight from flying IFR either. That’s not referred to as CARSA.

I think some FAA dude that keeps a chair warm at region, decided hey, we’ve got IFR aircraft that are separating from a flight and are now singles with less than the appropriate IFR sep and we need to confirm that they’re MARSA in the split. It’s just a formation flight transitioning to singles and sep is on them until standard sep is achieved. MARSA doesn’t apply. Only examples in the .65 are refueling tracks, IR routes and SUA. Only time I’ve used it was joining up a flight with a tanker. In that case it makes sense. You’ve got an IFR tanker and 4 IFR F-18s. You gotta get confirmation of MARSA before them being joined.

It’s not uncommon though to misinterpret MARSA. In Afghanistan our Brigade came down with a policy (not signed by tower) allowing us to depart SVFR by using MARSA. Completely an inappropriate application of MARSA and when I called tower about it, they were completely dumbfounded by the policy. As if they’d just let us depart with less than appropriate sep with an IFR / SVFR because I declare MARSA.

 

[Velocity173]

and @hindsight2020

My guess is it's something local, somebody's 'interpretation' about how they think something should be done. The current 7110.65, that's x with change 3, is clear about MARSA and is no different than it has been for many, many moons.

2−1−11. USE OF MARSAA.
a. MARSA may only be applied to military operations specified in a letter of agreement or other appropriate FAA or military document.
NOTE−Application of MARSA is a military command prerogative. It will not be invoked indiscriminately by individual units or pilots. It will be used only for IFR operations requiring its use. Commands authorizing MARSA will ensure that its implementation and terms of use are documented and coordinated with the control agency having jurisdiction over the area in which the operations are conducted. Term sof use will assign responsibility and provide for separation among participating aircraft.

b. ATC facilities do not invoke or deny MARSA. Their sole responsibility concerning the use of MARSA is to provide separation between military aircraft engaged in MARSA operations and othe rnonparticipating IFR aircraft.

c.DOD must ensure that military pilots requesting special use airspace/ATCAAs have coordinated with the scheduling agency, have obtained approval for entry, and are familiar with the appropriate MARSA procedures. ATC is not responsible for determining which military aircraft are authorized to enter special use airspace/ATCAAs.

REFERENCE−FAA Order JO 7110.65, Para 9−2−14, Military Aerial Refueling.

It's still a command prerogative and ATC still does not invoke it.

It's clear that separation during the breakup is pilots responsibility.

2−1−13. FORMATION FLIGHTS
Control formation flights as a single aircraft.Separation responsibility between aircraft within the formation rests with the flight leader and the pilots of the other aircraft in the flight. This includes transition periods when aircraft within the formation are maneuvering to attain separation from each other to effect individual control during join−up and break away.

The controllers responsibility is to issue clearances to the individual elements that will result in approved separation. Until that result is achieved, it's on the pilots. Once it is achieved it's now on the controller.

d. When formation break−up is requested, issue control instructions and/or clearances which will result in approved separation through the lead or directly to the requesting aircraft in the formation.
EXAMPLE−“N5871S requesting flight break−up with N731K. N731K is changing destination to PHL.” “N731K squawk 5432, turn right, fly heading zero−seven−zero.
“Center, BAMA21. BAMA23 is requesting to RTB.” “BAMA21 have BAMA23 squawk 5544, descend and maintain flight level one−niner−zero and change to my frequency.”
“Center, BAMA21. BAMA23 is requesting to RTB.” “BAMA23 squawk 5544. BAMA23 Radar contact(position if required). Cleared to SSC via direct. Descendand maintain flight level one−niner−zero.”

I always thought that if it's being done horizontally, a minimum divergence of 30 degrees should be required until standard separation is achieved. That was a local rule of ours at Lemoore, at least 30 degrees when your peeling them off

We always used a min of 15 degrees divergence. Someone thought that’s the best way IAW “passing and diverging.” Of course it’s not really passing and diverging though.

 

[luvflyin]

I guess my question is, in what instance would a 4-ship inbound for a field and asking for 3 additional clearances ever not be MARSA before the multiple clearances are requested in the first place? That's the part I find redundant about the whole "confirm MARSA". This isn't a dissimilar tanker/receiver combo coming off the end of an AR track, and even in that circumstance the answer would still be redundant, as ATC wouldn't have cleared either team INTO the track 30 minutes ago, without the players declaring MARSA as a preface.

So again, splitting formations up and requesting a "MARSA confirmation" comm seems redundant. Btw, *I* clear elements off my formation, not ATC. At any rate, whatever keeps the ATC critters legally happy. After all, even when they are responsible for separation, it's still my @ss when we collide with someone else.

That’s not MARSA. It’s a formation operating as a flight. No different than some RV’s, Cessnas or whatever being a flight. Operating in an AR track and in ALTRV’s is the common use of MARSA. It’s not so much a ‘flight’ as some airplanes working together on a common mission. Give us a chunk of airspace and we’ll take care of ourselves.

 

[Hacker]

Yes, I think the mil guys understand what MARSA is *supposed* to be, but he's saying that some controllers (when breaking up an existing formation) ask to "confirm MARSA" before giving out the individual clearances for the flight members.

 

[hindsight2020]

Yes, I think the mil guys understand what MARSA is *supposed* to be, but he's saying that some controllers (when breaking up an existing formation) ask to "confirm MARSA" before giving out the individual clearances for the flight members.

Bingo. IOW, the people who need to read the aforementioned lecturing about MARSA are the controllers asking "confirm MARSA", not us.

ETA: I've had instances where due to those dumb presidential TFRs, SS harangued ATC and the latter said they needed everyone on a separate IFR clearance to go anywhere in the airspace. So then, -1 and -2 depart on separate clearances (single ship filed, like herbivore clowns), -1 gets cleared to the MOA area whatever. -2, by virtue of being on its own separate clearance, now has to declare "MARSA" in order to be allowed into the same MOA assignment. That weird circumstance btw, is essentially what tankers and receivers do every day as a matter of course, and why MARSA is so ubiquitous to air refueling operations, and not to formation flights who then decide to split up.

Formations, as noted already, have only one clearance. This puts the wingmen in IFR limbo when flight splits are desired. That's the part I note as redundant. I'm always responsible for deconfliction from my wingmen until they get their individual IFR clearance. So this "confirm MARSA" requirement from ATC is ill-placed. But like I suggested already, ATC in my neck of the woods is not behaving that way. So perhaps this is a case of different ATC making their own s---t up again, which isn't unheard of. Hell, the FAA itself can't get a consistent answer from 5 different FSDOs on anything.

 

[luvflyin]

Yes, I think the mil guys understand what MARSA is *supposed* to be, but he's saying that some controllers (when breaking up an existing formation) ask to "confirm MARSA" before giving out the individual clearances for the flight members.

Yeah. Gotcha. Read my post #200 down where it says d. Formation breakup. I’ve worked with many controllers who can’t accept the rules on this. What they see is that they turn Dash 2, or whoever, off the flight and a few seconds later they have two airplanes just a mile apart when ‘separation’ is 3. They cannot get it into their head that their requirement is to issue instructions that will ‘RESULT’ in separation and until that result is achieved, separation is pilots responsibility. This is the type of thinking that will lead to someone to thinking the solution to their problem, not the problem, their problem, is to invoke marsa, in the generic sense, not [quot]MARSA[unquote]. Sometimes they rise far enough in the food chain to actually write a letter telling others to do it.[/quote]

 

[Velocity173]

The big thing with MARSA is you need an LOA or similar document detailing what operations are MARSA. That document needs to be signed by the ATC facility and the squadrons allowed to conduct it. It’s not something that’s done with an ATC facility and some out of town fighters. Therefore, ATC requiring MARSA to be declared with aircraft not in the LOA would be absurd. Not to mention, I and most controllers with half a brain, don’t consider a flight to be operating under MARSA anyway.

Even the whole SVFR vs IFR MARSA that I observed in the Army is completely inappropriate. Not only was there no LOA with all the players involved, MARSA is only IFR vs IFR. SVFR doesn’t apply. But, some Army SP yahoo who went thru the IE course thinks that they found a loophole in the system and devised a letter for it.

 

[Velocity173]

Yes, I think the mil guys understand what MARSA is *supposed* to be, but he's saying that some controllers (when breaking up an existing formation) ask to "confirm MARSA" before giving out the individual clearances for the flight members.

Another technique that I observed was that some controllers would tell lead the direction that they planned to split the flight. That way they can position their wingman accordingly. Does it really matter for you all? Say you’re echelon left and they split you right, any issues, even in the clouds?

 

[RhinoDrvr]

Another technique that I observed was that some controllers would tell lead the direction that they planned to split the flight. That way they can position their wingman accordingly. Does it really matter for you all? Say you’re echelon left and they split you right, any issues, even in the clouds?

In section I don’t care; -2 can cross under as they depart. In division, a heads up would be nice, although, I probably wouldn’t want to be doing too much reshuffling in IMC. Last time I had to bring a division down IMC, we split into 2 sections and did section approaches to avoid clobbering the PAR with 4 jets.

 

[RhinoDrvr]

So your point is, what? Civilian pilots should do their overhead breaks at aircraft carriers?

I’m late back to the party, but I think the points were;

1. Thousands of overhead breaks have been safely executed without positive ATC/Radio comm, and in fact that is the standard method of doing business in the Navy. Find your interval by looking out the window and break to follow them. Check out the “Case I pattern” sometime and then consider it’s all done totally comm out. I get that it’s a different environment, but your point that .mil pilots use the radio as a crutch is false. We look out the window.

2. I would argue it’s easier to spot downwind traffic prior to the break than it is on the 45 entry or straight in. I’ve certainly had to spin it for traffic while entering on the 45, whereas the overhead I can just extend upwind to follow.

 

[Velocity173]

Cool overhead story at 6:40. Good channel by the way. All of the Phantom Productions have fascinating stories.

 

[Hacker]

Last time I had to bring a division down IMC, we split into 2 sections and did section approaches to avoid clobbering the PAR with 4 jets.

This is the typical way to break up a USAF 4-ship, too.

 

[Velocity173]

In section I don’t care; -2 can cross under as they depart. In division, a heads up would be nice, although, I probably wouldn’t want to be doing too much reshuffling in IMC. Last time I had to bring a division down IMC, we split into 2 sections and did section approaches to avoid clobbering the PAR with 4 jets.

Yep. It makes things easier for ATC to split in 2 sections vs 4 singles. Sep (5 miles) is greater for the flights but you’re still not using as much airspace and not having to type in 3 different tags into the computer.

 

[dtuuri]

...your point that .mil pilots use the radio as a crutch is false. We look out the window.

Not "exactly" my point. At an aircraft carrier or some land airbases where all concerned know and comply with the overhead pattern, that's fine. At airbases and civilian airports where there's a different standard pattern, tower controllers keep planes separated no matter how good your eyesight. Somewhere in this forum I've cited the limitations of "see and be seen" reported in the "Morris Study". It's dry reading, but illustrates how unreliable the eyes are when converging at near head-on angles and high closure rates.

2. I would argue it’s easier to spot downwind traffic prior to the break than it is on the 45 entry or straight in. I’ve certainly had to spin it for traffic while entering on the 45, whereas the overhead I can just extend upwind to follow.

See the Morris Study, please, (don't simply look at information on traffic patterns—collision factors elsewhere are every bit as pertinent).

 

[Cooter]

It's dry reading, but illustrates how unreliable the eyes are when converging at near head-on angles and high closure rates.

I’m starting to think military pilots are really exceptional. The somehow learn to set a 500’ high aspect/high closure pass after only a few hours instruction.

 

[dtuuri]

I’m starting to think military pilots are really exceptional. The somehow learn to set a 500’ high aspect/high closure pass after only a few hours instruction.

Try not to injure yourself patting your back.

 

[hindsight2020]

I’m starting to think military pilots are really exceptional. The somehow learn to set a 500’ high aspect/high closure pass after only a few hours instruction.

To be fair, the TACAIR/CAF population as a % of the military population, which in itself is a % of the total US pilot population, objectively qualifies under the numerical definition of exceptional.

 

[luvflyin]

In section I don’t care; -2 can cross under as they depart. In division, a heads up would be nice, although, I probably wouldn’t want to be doing too much reshuffling in IMC. Last time I had to bring a division down IMC, we split into 2 sections and did section approaches to avoid clobbering the PAR with 4 jets.

A pilot explained that to me once, that they can send them out of formation in any order regardless of the direction used to do the break up or their position in the formation. He called to complain about something I had done. There was a lot of other traffic and the most efficient way to get the most planes on the ground in the shortest time was to take the first plane out of the formation and then vector him around behind the other one and fill that hole with another plane that was out there but not part of his formation. He said if your not going to land us in the order of the break up, let us know what your going to do before you start the break up.

 

[Velocity173]

I’m starting to think military pilots are really exceptional. The somehow learn to set a 500’ high aspect/high closure pass after only a few hours instruction.

No, truly exceptional military flying would be a section PAR to mins in helicopters...with no gyro vectors.

 

[Witmo]

...At airbases and civilian airports where there's a different standard pattern, tower controllers keep planes separated no matter how good your eyesight. Somewhere in this forum I've cited the limitations of "see and be seen" reported in the "Morris Study". It's dry reading, but illustrates how unreliable the eyes are when converging at near head-on angles and high closure rates.


See the Morris Study, please, (don't simply look at information on traffic patterns—collision factors elsewhere are every bit as pertinent).

This may be a fine point but I don't believe tower controllers are responsible for separation, they sequence aircraft under their control but separation is primarily the pilots' responsibility under VFR unless you are in Class B airspace. Even under IFR, pilots are responsible for separation from other aircraft operating in visual conditions--controllers are only responsible for separating aircraft flying under IFR in controlled airspace. By sequencing aircraft, pilots mistakenly think they are being separated from traffic and in a sense, they are, but the tower controller is aiding separation, not responsible for it. Any controllers wish to comment?

 

[Velocity173]

This may be a fine point but I don't believe tower controllers are responsible for separation, they sequence aircraft under their control but separation is primarily the pilots' responsibility under VFR unless you are in Class B airspace. Even under IFR, pilots are responsible for separation from other aircraft operating in visual conditions--controllers are only responsible for separating aircraft flying under IFR in controlled airspace. By sequencing aircraft, pilots mistakenly think they are being separated from traffic and in a sense, they are, but the tower controller is aiding separation, not responsible for it. Any controllers wish to comment?

Well technically B,C and TRSA provide sep but even then, it’s mostly gonna be targets don’t touch or 500 ft vertical. That’s essentially applied to a overhead even in a D simply because of the built in 500 ft above conventional pattern. Example, an aircraft is in a D and on the go for closed traffic for a 1,000 ft agl pattern. The overhead is overtaking them but it’s no factor because the break is designated at 1,500 ft. The tower controller simply says to the closed traffic “Navy Lima Lima 12, follow the two F-18s passing overhead for the break, downwind approved.” Done.

There does have to be some logical preventative separation applied when you’ve got say an IFR departing in front of an overhead. If there’s no room to break the flight by the approach end, then either the flight will get restricted to a higher altitude or the IFR to a lower until crossing the departure end. Even in towered airspace (E / D) that doesn’t provide separation for VFR vs VFR / IFR, you really can’t just send an overhead doing 400 kts up the butt of an IFR departure climbing thru their altitude doing half their speed. A traffic call ain’t gonna cut it in that situation.

So yeah, to get to your point, there maybe some separation being applied or not depending on the facility. For the most part it’s just traffic being issued by tower just like any other VFR arrival. I think having the tower issue traffic helps an uninitiated pilot with a mental picture of the overhead. But, even at a non towered field, if you’re aware of someone doing the maneuver and you’re familiar with it, it shouldn’t be confusing. Simply look out the window and try and picture the sequence just like any other pattern entry.

 

[Piperonca]

No, truly exceptional military flying would be a section PAR to mins in helicopters...with no gyro vectors.

It's been a long time since I did this stuff but do remember no gyro approaches -- but what's a "section" PAR?

 

[Velocity173]

It's been a long time since I did this stuff but do remember no gyro approaches -- but what's a "section" PAR?

Section-flight of two. Don’t think I ever referred to it as a section in Army parlance but I think it’s more common in other branches. In ATC it was common.

Of course I was joking about going to mins as a helo flight though. While not wholly prohibited when I was in, it was just common sense that you don’t fly IFR as a flight. Done PARs as a flight of 2 VMC though. Once had final controller asked us twice to confirm we were a flight because he only had a single target. I was tight!

 

[Piperonca]

Did a lot of instrument work when the Army transitioned from "Tac tickets" to "Standard Card" ratings post-RVN. Before we got everybody trained up, there were many accidents. I was at Hood when a Huey pilot got trapped on top, and was not confident enough for a PAR. One of the senior instrument examiners went up, found him, and tried to get him to fly formation down through the clouds. Dude broke off several times, and finally didn't make it. Really brave on the IFE's part to attempt that, when an unsteady set of rotor blades could bring everyone down.

 

[Hacker]

but what's a "section" PAR?

Navy-speak for 2-ship formation.

 

[Piperonca]

Navy-speak for 2-ship formation.

Thanks. There's always something to learn. Navy has its own language of course.

 

[RhinoDrvr]

Thanks. There's always something to learn. Navy has its own language of course.

Yep, doing exercises with the AF highlights this...usually takes us Navy types a few days to learn the new terminology for everything

 

[Pugs]

Yep, doing exercises with the AF highlights this...usually takes us Navy types a few days to learn the new terminology for everything

And it's better than it used to be. All these years of joint ops has merged at least some of the language. My first Red Flag circa 1988 all the USAF speak might as well have been Swahili. I still don't get the no pointing thing or crud though.

 

[Rgbeard]

So, this morning, I used what I learned from this thread. I did an overhead pattern. Not just for showboating, and liberally using the words, Break, Initial, Goose and Ball. I had a specific reason and it worked well.

Coming in to KSDM from the East, you are over a reasonably high mountain ridge with the runway well below you just five miles ahead.

Tower cleared me for straight-in Rwy 26R. Yeah, whatever. I still have a lot of altitude to lose, and passengers that don't want to experience a gliding-manhole-cover slip maneuver.

Me: May I possibly do a 360 here to continue my descent?
SDM: You may do that, or you could overfly the runway and then join a right downwind.
Me: That kinda sounds like an overheat pattern. But I've never done one.
SDM: They're simple. Just overfly the runway at 2,000 then make a right turn down to pattern altitude (1,500). You'll be on a right downwind and then it's business-as-usual.
Me: Let's go for it.

Easy Peasy - Lemon Squeezy! Thanks to those that contributed meaningful information in this thread.

 

[PaulS]

I’m starting to think military pilots are really exceptional. The somehow learn to set a 500’ high aspect/high closure pass after only a few hours instruction.

I would agree with that, my neighbor's kid is down in Pensacola learning to fly in a really cool airplane with the Navy, he is an exceptional kid.

 

[Velocity173]

So, this morning, I used what I learned from this thread. I did an overhead pattern. Not just for showboating, and liberally using the words, Break, Initial, Goose and Ball. I had a specific reason and it worked well.

Coming in to KSDM from the East, you are over a reasonably high mountain ridge with the runway well below you just five miles ahead.

Tower cleared me for straight-in Rwy 26R. Yeah, whatever. I still have a lot of altitude to lose, and passengers that don't want to experience a gliding-manhole-cover slip maneuver.

Me: May I possibly do a 360 here to continue my descent?
SDM: You may do that, or you could overfly the runway and then join a right downwind.
Me: That kinda sounds like an overheat pattern. But I've never done one.
SDM: They're simple. Just overfly the runway at 2,000 then make a right turn down to pattern altitude (1,500). You'll be on a right downwind and then it's business-as-usual.
Me: Let's go for it.

Easy Peasy - Lemon Squeezy! Thanks to those that contributed meaningful information in this thread.

Up the road KSEE is big on overheads as well. Large contingent of RVs and CJs there.

 

[Timbeck2]

Thanks to those that contributed meaningful information in this thread.

You're welcome!

 

[luvflyin]

So, this morning, I used what I learned from this thread. I did an overhead pattern. Not just for showboating, and liberally using the words, Break, Initial, Goose and Ball. I had a specific reason and it worked well.

Coming in to KSDM from the East, you are over a reasonably high mountain ridge with the runway well below you just five miles ahead.

Tower cleared me for straight-in Rwy 26R. Yeah, whatever. I still have a lot of altitude to lose, and passengers that don't want to experience a gliding-manhole-cover slip maneuver.

Me: May I possibly do a 360 here to continue my descent?
SDM: You may do that, or you could overfly the runway and then join a right downwind.
Me: That kinda sounds like an overheat pattern. But I've never done one.
SDM: They're simple. Just overfly the runway at 2,000 then make a right turn down to pattern altitude (1,500). You'll be on a right downwind and then it's business-as-usual.
Me: Let's go for it.

Easy Peasy - Lemon Squeezy! Thanks to those that contributed meaningful information in this thread.

Cool. Next time if ya wanna have some fun along with all the Goose and Ball stuff say this when your abeam the numbers, “ace at the base [call sign], one eighty, slats, flaps and shoulder straps, three in the green, give me the nod and I’ll hit the sod.”

 

[35 AoA]

Thanks. There's always something to learn. Navy has its own language of course.

....or the AF has it's own language.....we were flying planes before they were after all, ya know

 

[EvilEagle]

....or the AF has it's own language.....we were flying planes before they were after all, ya know

Yep, you guys were first... we just perfected it.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

....or the AF has it's own language.....we were flying planes before they were after all, ya know

And it all started with Army Aviation.

 

[35 AoA]

And it all started with Army Aviation.

I had to dig deep, but Army Signal Corps aviation did predate Eugene Ely's first carrier landing by a couple/three years (1907 vs 1910). Duly noted I've heard they also have more boats than we do

 

[35 AoA]

Yep, you guys were first... we just made it perfectly confusing.

Fixed it for ya

 

[Velocity173]

I had to dig deep, but Army Signal Corps aviation did predate Eugene Ely's first carrier landing by a couple/three years (1907 vs 1910). Duly noted I've heard they also have more boats than we do

Yeah but the Army counts anything that floats. Bunch of unnamed tugs, barges and patrol boats shouldn’t count. It is a lesser known MOS in the Army though. Some of the warrants I saw wash out from flight school became “boat drivers.”

Used to have more fixed wing out of any branch because they had such a crap load of Liason / Utility airframes. I think in the 80s they officially lost that title to the AF.