I couldn't find ground beef in the Sierra NATOPS but Motorboating" is still in there.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
USN Junk in NATOPS
- Thread starter AircraftGeek513
- Start date
I had forgotten about that one; it was something to do with frequency pairs in the back (ch 15?), right?
Ground beef was something that got in there during an early superhawk and was one of the warnings associated with flying over livestock with an external load. It didn't offend me as a pilot or officer but as a comedian.
Jeez man...I just hit my 20 in the IRR, did the last ever flight in a Navy 46 back in 2005, and now you want to play stump the chump? I'm lucky if I get my shoes on the correct feet these days.
Just kidding...that does ring a bell, but I honestly can't remember. I do remember that you fly a little nose right & tail left on engine failure procedures. Fun fact...the H-46 NATOPS is available on line but I'm not paying to find out I'm wrong.
Bruce would never have accepted that kind of weakness, but I guess it's acceptable for the other half of LF-59. Maybe a week of SDO in khakis will help you strengthen your NATOPS knowledge. ?
Yup. Though some believed they were dumping fuel to shorten the flight.
OldNavy
Registered User
Been a long, long time (1984 ish) but I seem to remember the procedure for a hung data link antennae in the SH-2F was to attempt to land over an open manhole cover to avoid damaging the antenna. The text read "Penetration, however slight, shall constitute the act"
Also, the illustration showing the use of the 3 man troop seat showed the 3 PAX as "See no evil, speak no evil and hear no evil"
Also, the illustration showing the use of the 3 man troop seat showed the 3 PAX as "See no evil, speak no evil and hear no evil"
SH-2F AKT-22 EP . . . . . . I remember it well
"A flashlight shall be used while conducting the external inspections [at night]."
01-110HCG-1
Thanks, Huey NATOPS.
Thanks.
01-110HCG-1
Thanks, Huey NATOPS.
Thanks.
AircraftGeek513
Member
Nah, I think I'll preflight by candle light. More romantic.
my favorite in the A-6 NATOPS was the section on the pilot's CRT display. it discussed the resolution of the display and the number of "rasters" per inch.
in the glossary, under "width of a raster" it says "one RCH"
also in the glossary, under "RCH" is says "the width of one raster"
in the glossary, under "width of a raster" it says "one RCH"
also in the glossary, under "RCH" is says "the width of one raster"
No, that's what you use to check for fuel leaks.
I can't imagine being a fly on the wall during the conference when they decided to put those exact words in your manual. I would have wanted to poke all 4,000 of my eyes out with a tiny sharp object.
I haven't flown the UH-60M, but the A/L -10 doesn't hold a candle to our NATOPS when it comes to EPs. Each engine EP is its own set of CMIs (there is no EMIF), so you're identifying malfunctions as you fall out of sky. I always felt like the Army 60 manual had barely changed in 40 years.
OTOH, the -10s I've seen have much better systems descriptions and diagrams than our NATOPS. Contrary to some opinions here, I think systems knowledge is what most pilots need on a day-to-day basis when making go/no-go decisions. EPs are great for HAC boards and the one time you need them, but don't forget about the high-probability/low-severity risks of everyday flying.
OTOH, the -10s I've seen have much better systems descriptions and diagrams than our NATOPS. Contrary to some opinions here, I think systems knowledge is what most pilots need on a day-to-day basis when making go/no-go decisions. EPs are great for HAC boards and the one time you need them, but don't forget about the high-probability/low-severity risks of everyday flying.
