Talk:Boom operator (military)

I have been wanting to do this article for a long time and finally got around to doing it. This is only a bare framework for others to build on. Of course I think the article scope should go beyond training, but I just spent 2.5 hours on this and my eyes are ready to explode. alphabet 04:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Boom operator

Your article looks good so far, but a few suggestions, if I might: there's a lot of info but no sourcing. Since you're gettng the info somewhere, make sure you include footnoted references. Also, the words "boom operator" gets bolded in the first line only, all other uses are supposed to be non-bolded. Good luck on the rest of the article! Akradecki 05:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, I have been doing casual quality control to articles for a while but this is the first time I have tried to create a new article. As for citing my sources...I guess I am my own source, it is my job. I am not even close to being done with this article though, I just got too tired to do any more. alphabet 06:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Be real careful with using yourself as a source (see WP:OR). I'm sure there's training manuals, etc, that refer to most of this stuff, no? Oh, and I forgot to mention in my first note, WP:FN has more info on using the ref tags for the footnotes. Akradecki 06:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

As a fellow Boom, I have to thank you for adding this page. It's great to see some recognition for the field. I'm a KC-10 Boom, and as far as adding info with references, it isn't gonna come from KC-10 manuals. Our electronic pubs are only kept on the "highside." Most of what you are going to find on Booms with references is going to be very generic. The good stuff is only gonna come from Booms themselves. Cheers!

Here is some info that could be useful if someone is willing to dissect it -- http://usmilitary.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.e%2Dpublishing.af.mil/pubfiles/af/cfetp/cfetp1a0x1/cfetp1a0x1.pdf

I am a maintainer on the KC-135 and we always call you guys "boomer or boomers", didn't realize you guys like just "boom" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.131.229.180 (talk) 11:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Italian aircraft

I don't know if you've been following the discussion over on the KC-135's talk page, but there's some uncertainty as to whether the four tankers Italy is operating right now 'til their KC-767s arrive are actual KC-135s or modified 707s. Have you seen anything in the tanker world that talks about these planes, and where Italy got them? Akradecki 06:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about Italy, but the Brazilian Air Force has modified B707s called KC-137. --rogerd 06:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

There are actually quite a few different tankers out there, however my experience is only with the KC-135. Other tankers are based off of the 707 (several countries), 747 (Iran), DC-10 (Dutch as the KDC-10), the British use the VC-10 as tanker platform however it does not have a boom. The US Navy even has its own tankers in the form of S-3s and F/A-18E/F. However I feel the focus of this article should be the United States KC-135/KC-10 since the title of "boom operator" is being applied to an enlisted US Air Force person. Of course it would be expanded when the KC-X comes around to include the duties on that aircraft.alphabet 16:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I've solved the Italian mystery, details at Talk:KC-135 Stratotanker. Akradecki 22:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Japanese Booms

Here's a link to how Japanese Booms are training in preparation for their KC767J's. http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123030630 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.55.121.15 (talk) 23:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC).