NATOPS check vs. "Safe for Solo"...

[scoober78]

So, for your TRACOM smart guys...when, in the fleet, you take an open and closed book NATOPS exam and then have an inflight evaluation, you call it a NATOPS check. How is this different than an initial "safe for solo" check?

It seems to me, that in order to "solo" an aircraft, you must be NATOPS qualified in type, and yet, the word on the street is that this is not the case.

 

[MasterBates]

There is more OCF and such in a IUT NATOPS check vice a Safe for Solo.

It's been 5 years since my last T-34 NATOPS check, but there were a few IP only things on the checkride that a Safe For Solo SNA didn't do.

You're probably in that weird spot where I was a few years ago, when there was some debate on giving me a NATOPS check vice a standard SNA style check.

Sent from my PH44100 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Jim123]

^^^

What Master said. A solo flight profile ("solo" in the broadest sense of the word- first pattern solo, aerobatic solo, cross-country solo, etc.) is pretty narrowly defined in terms of allowable maneuvers, weather, perhaps including a few possible contingencies, etc., rather than a complete checkout on everything that the aircraft is designed to do.

 

[Gatordev]

^^^

What Master said. A solo flight profile ("solo" in the broadest sense of the word- first pattern solo, aerobatic solo, cross-country solo, etc.) is pretty narrowly defined in terms of allowable maneuvers, weather, perhaps including a few possible contingencies, etc., rather than a complete checkout on everything that the aircraft is designed to do.

To add to that, it also depends on the T/M/S. As MB and Jim are saying, the T-34 Natops check has some extra stuff that isn't (and shouldn't be) on the SfS check. Much of that is due to how "they" design the NATOPS for that T/M/S. Being a TRACOM aircraft (and I'm guessing it's not specific to the T-34), the TRACOM engineered their NATOPS to fit with the syllabus.

To put it in perspective, you can't "solo" in a -60 (and yes, there is such a thing) until you're a HAC. Again, because NATOPS says so.

 

[KBayDog]

A solo flight profile ("solo" in the broadest sense of the word- first pattern solo, aerobatic solo, cross-country solo, etc.) is pretty narrowly defined in terms of allowable maneuvers, weather, perhaps including a few possible contingencies, etc., rather than a complete checkout on everything that the aircraft is designed to do.

Wait a minute, wait a minute (stop the execution!)...

You mean to tell me that if you had given me a safe-for-solo check, vice a NATOPS check, I could have done aerobatics?

 

[Gatordev]

You mean to tell me that if you had given me a safe-for-solo check, vice a NATOPS check, I could have done aerobatics?

But you could have always done that. Just increase your AOB to 61 degrees. I'm sure you've never over-banked before, so it would be the first time....ever.

 

[scoober78]

So anywho...the answer seems to be that there is no NATOPS check in a TRACOM aircraft unless you are an instructor?

 

[KBayDog]

So anywho...the answer seems to be that there is no NATOPS check in a TRACOM aircraft unless you are an instructor?

 

[Jim123]

So anywho...the answer seems to be that there is no NATOPS check in a TRACOM aircraft unless you are an instructor?

If you badly want the qual, you could compare the "Indoctrination" section in the NATOPS manual to your Transition syllabus and present a case for yourself with your command... which might be a lot of work to probably just get "no" for an answer- the additional NATOPS-only/non-solo stuff might involve some syllabus flights (NATOPS syllabus and/or IUT/Transition syllabi, but probably not SNA syllabus). So... not telling you that you can't, but this all might help you figure out what approach to take and what are the "right" questions to ask.

Disclaimer- I'm not familiar with your training T/M/S or your particular syllabus

(BTW- having SNAs write the same open and closed book tests as the IPs write is simply a case of working smarter/not harder.)

 

[Recovering LSO]

I guess I'm confused why an SNA (of any flavor) would want a NATOPS check in the Goshawk?

 

[squorch2]

In the 57, you have to do tail-rotor malfunctions and boost-off approaches to a landing, both of which are prohibited for students to perform, much less practice. Yeah, no NATOPS check ever gonna happen for students there.

 

[Jim123]

I'm pretty sure Scoober is a pilot-pilot transition guy, which changes things (but only a little).

 

[MIDNJAC]

Your annual NATOPS/Inst checks will be in the sim in the Hornet community FYI. I don't know specifically for the Growler, but I'd guess it is the same deal. As for T-45 safe for solo vs fleet/FRS NATOPS qual, I think the difference is in semantics, as you essentially prove the same thing in either, but the outcome is different I guess. FWIW you will get your initial F-18 NATOPS qual very early in the FRS.

 

[Gatordev]

As for T-45 safe for solo vs fleet/FRS NATOPS qual, I think the difference is in semantics,

Disclaimer: I don't know the T-45 NATOPS. That said, I would guess the above is not correct. You perform different (yes, different, not just additional) maneuvers in the -57 and the -34 than you do as a "true" SNA, so I wouldn't be surprised if there's something additional for the T-45 NATOPS. If I'm wrong, so be it, but there's a reason why IPs get additional stuff (thus covered in a NATOPS check) than the studs do.

So anywho...the answer seems to be that there is no NATOPS check in a TRACOM aircraft unless you are an instructor?

The second part of that question is: why do you need to? And I'm not trying to be a smart ass. Generally, there isn't any real need to, so I'm curious why it would be "necessary" other than getting one more qual (which isn't a bad thing).

 

[MasterBates]

I did it for the one more qual, in the Weiner it was one extra flight and we needed to burn hours, so it was an easy sell.

Sent from my PH44100 using Tapatalk 2