flynsail said:Yes it did change. Think the order came from the previous TW-5 Commodore. Not allowed to 'gouge' up the PCL either.
Wow, teh ghey.
Gouge up your PCL? Who the hell was doing that?
flynsail said:Yes it did change. Think the order came from the previous TW-5 Commodore. Not allowed to 'gouge' up the PCL either.
Fly Navy said:Gouge up your PCL? Who the hell was doing that?
squeeze said:I've scribbled several things in my PCL such as landing considerations, systems lost considerations, or whatever. Nothing wrong with it so long as it doesn't violate NATOPS.
Yeah, cause nobody in the fleet ever does that.Fly Navy said:Wow, teh ghey.
Gouge up your PCL? Who the hell was doing that?
Brett327 said:Yeah, cause nobody in the fleet ever does that.
Brett
This upsets me. When you operate your aircraft, you are responsible to NATOPS and other various directives. If you chose to include a multitude of gouge items in your kneeboard (as I do), God bless. We (collectively) had better make damn sure that our sh!t is all in one sock and that every photocopy of a PCL, or TACAID, Etc is legal and up to date when we walk on a jet. As soon as you abdicate your personal responsibility, you doom the rest of us!gatordev said:Just because someone w/ oak leaves types something up doesn't make it official. And this doesn't just have to pertain to NATOPS. The reason it matters is because NATOPS is a controlled document. There's a HUGE system in place to make sure everyone gets the changes and everything is standardized. This applies to things like SOPs as well. Even though it's not printed by NAVAIR, it's still a controlled document, and when changes are needed, the different wings usually get together and agree (there's usually a core portion of wing SOP, and then items are added for the particular region that wing operates in). This greatly helps when you do flights w/ other squadrons from other coasts, and everyone is on the same page.
Now, can a squadron make up their own blue brains? Sure. We had a tactical BB that was actually supposed to be controlled as well. Plus you can have your own BB w/ your own personal gouge. But the overall intent of NATOPS (whether it's CV/LHA, NWP42/3-01 or whatever it's called now, NAMP/4790, 3710, Instrument manual, or aircraft specific) is to ensure that everyone has the same info and doesn't end up bending a plane or killing someone.
And really, that's when it's going to matter the most. The mishap board is going to look at what you were using, and if it was in accordance w/ procedures. In the TW5 case, it looks like they (or the commodore or both) felt like they weren't using published procedures.
kmac said:In the COD, we have a laminated checklist for each aircraft (which is official, btw) and blue brains material for normal operations (cheat sheets for calculating critical field length, refusal speed, catapult endspeed, etc.) which saves quite a bit of time especially when taxiing up to the cat. Really we only practically use the PCL for emergencies.