New 3710.7U

[loadtoad]

The issue is that it's really the only medical issue that the Navy is basically saying to the CO, "Ok, we trust your judgment in this medical issue over the FS." If they're going to do it with pregnancy, if I go med down with a sinus infection, should the CO say when he thinks my sinuses have cleared? I get that in the end it's always the CO's decision, but there is significant potential for abuse with the current policy.

100% of the women I have known who have had babies had trouble managing their emotions and seem to lose their marbles rather quickly. Let the skipper decide if he trusts you.

Potential for abuse how?

 

[squeeze]

Easy solution, don't get knocked up in a flying status.

But hey, I'm pragmatic.

 

[ghost]

NoooooO! They took away the two-column format! It was so much easier to read & visually scan it that way... bummer.

I agree. And why did they take a step backwards and use a fixed width font. I don't think they needed to pad the page count.

 

[Recovering LSO]

Easy solution, don't get knocked up in a flying status.

But hey, I'm pragmatic.

Shore duty dude.

Let's not open this can of worms again ----> http://www.airwarriors.com/forum/showthread.php?t=151910&highlight=court+martial+pregnant <----- follow this thread for some of the most ignorant and short sighted posts this site has ever seen.

 

[nittany03]

That's the problem with a site that continually gets a fresh turnover of non-searching newbies. The worms aren't in cans anymore, so much as Ziploc containers which occasionally get knocked over and spilled on the way to the bait store. :icon_tong

Back to your regularly scheduled sleeping pill upgrade discussion . . . (gentle Mod hint)

 

[Beans]

I agree. And why did they take a step backwards and use a fixed width font. I don't think they needed to pad the page count.

"When I'm at the conference some day." Is a term I find myself saying more and more as I find myself in more and more different pubs. In general, I find the older ones are easier to read, despite the many tools we have at our disposal now.

Before I am dogpiled by many a conference-attending or pub-writing NA/NFO with ten times my hours, I don't discount the very difficult job of maintaining these pubs. I'm sure many guys and gals assume the task concurrently with a handful of other responsibilities, and despite their best efforts, errors survive multiple revisions. I simply look forward to the day when I can contribute.

 

[Pags]

I just got word that OPNAV 3710.7U is out and official. It can be found here. Might earn you a few extra bonus points in the briefing spaces.

A thrilling read I assure you.

Not so much bonus points as mandatory. Can't be using info from outdated pubs.

The new info on crew rest (read: time for normal shit at end of day + 8 hours of uninterrupted sleep) is gonna draw a lot of sea-lawyers. Luckily crew-rest is a should, not a shall....

How is crew rest a should? If you bust 18hrs of crew day, you SHALL have 15hrs off. I was always told that shoulds in the 3710 are pretty much shalls unless there's a really good reason.* In the event that something goes wrong, you need to have a better reason than "well, it was a should".

*a really good reason doesn't include that the rule was a nuisance.

 

[picklesuit]

While the 3710 does apply to all aviators, I think the intent was more for operational crews than VT's in this regard. Not that I have EVER taken a tactical DNIF to avoid flying with one of the Stan-Eval douches at the 71st OSS...but crew rest DOES become important on multiple day ops with short turnarounds and wierd hours...

The AF regs have had "opportunity for uninterrupted sleep etc" for a while. The main area I've heard of it coming up so far is calls (if a senior leadership type is in crew rest, his deputy/etc will take any official calls to his cell instead, or an alarm being set off and the building/security custodian being called up for a couple hours the morning before a morning flight to take care of it). I think the kind of people that would abuse that are already abusing the existing regs - had a few people in the VTs try to pull BS crew rest excuses when they weren't ready for a brief (squirrels fighting outside bedroom windows, etc) but were smacked down by the chain of command.

One of my favorite little SOP's for the 12th Aviation Brigade down here at Rucker. Rated Army Aviators shall.... yadda yadda... x number of hours to not be exceeded... yadda yadda.... Oh and the little asterick at the end, Flight Students do not qualify as rated Army Aviators....

So yeah IP's can only work so many hours in the day, but the guy at the controls for 90% of the flight... well hey F that guy.

 

[Lawman]

Pickle the problem we seem to have is the whole Operate under a set given rule, unless its easier not to and then do it that way till it bites us in the ass. Its not the whole "I dont want to fly today because Ill get a B instead of an A since its the first day of morning flightline" excuse. Yeah the guy that went out during the work week and got blitzed while playing COD all night deserves to get his nuts stomped by his IP. My problem is the operational tempo we have down here at Rucker is unnecessary and we change the rules to make it legal. The state of Ohio said I couldnt carry a gun if I worked 16 hours without an 8 hour uninterrupted break in duty, and that was not to include the time taken to transit from my work to my residence (though that was fudged plenty). They based this fact on the idea that I would be too mentally exhausted to be in the state of mind needed for that kind of work. The same type of rule applies to IPs because we know its unneccesarily dangerous to put them in that kind of work tempo doing something as inherently risky as teaching students to fly what is desperately trying to become a multimillion dollar one time use back hoe. However any time a student even brings up the words "crew rest requirements" its immediately smacked down with "suck it up pussy this is easier than what you'll do in the sandbox" or something similar. In that case if we arent aircrew members than technically you're operating all our aircraft single pilot, and that gets into its own relm of rules (Single Pilot IFR anyone?).

 

[usmarinemike]

Sounds like things are a lot different there than at Whiting, Lawman. There is pretty much no risk taken concerning crew day and crew rest in our squadron with students and everybody likes it that way. We're not moving people or earth out in Alabama anywhere (in fact, doing our damnedest not to move earth), and we're still finishing students on time (according to the command).

Speaking of NASWF...Anybody know if I can exchange my Tango for the new one at book issue any time soon?

 

[Kycntryboy]

Some squadrons do a better job than others. I've been to some that went out of their way to make sure it didn't happen... even if it was on the schedule. Some squadrons will just go "without a debrief" or "debrief in the jet".

 

[zippy]

The issue is that it's really the only medical issue that the Navy is basically saying to the CO, "Ok, we trust your judgment in this medical issue over the FS." If they're going to do it with pregnancy, if I go med down with a sinus infection, should the CO say when he thinks my sinuses have cleared? I get that in the end it's always the CO's decision, but there is significant potential for abuse with the current policy.

You seem to be under the impression that it's unfair that a CO can deny to a waiver request to fly while pregnant if she wishes to do so (I've met some who do, and some who don't)... There is a lot involved that makes it more then a black and white issue. While a woman might be ok to fly an uneventful flight without any pregnancy complications- what about when something goes wrong (in flight fire, ejection, mishap etc)? There are generally discussions between the Flight doc, CO and the pilot in question to come up with a game plan, but ultimately it is up to the CO to chose what level of risk he is willing to accept with his pilots.

Example: I asked one of the pregnant pilots I knew why she decided she didn't want to continue flying during her pregnancy... her answer was length of P-3 mission flights and comfort sitting down for long periods of time, as well as the risk of a Fire Of Unkown Origin (FOUO) in flight. A short time after that I experienced a FOUO where several members experienced ill effects from a relatively short period of exposure to the fumes of whatever was burning up... her argument made a lot of sense to me after that. Her CO happened to support the decision she made.

 

[Lawman]

To give you some idea this was a typical day for me on morning flightline in IERW

0340- wake up
0430- catch the bus to Cairns AAF (the AF gets to park their but not enough for the Army apparently and its our damn airfield)
0530- Initial Brief and morning Table Talk
0630- Aircraft issue, preflight, flight, debrief
1130- Earliest bus back to parking lot
1300- Academics
1830- academics over go home/tech lab

Rince repeat and continue for about 6 months. To add insult to injury we rotate weekly from morning to afternoon schedules which totally F's your sleep cycles up so the first about two days of Morning flightline get real interesting some times. My question was really simple, if you cant make the IP work/fly the same hours because of both his union contract and legal requirements how the hell are they making us do it.

 

[Recovering LSO]

You seem to be under the impression that it's unfair that a CO can deny to a waiver request to fly while pregnant if she wishes to do so (I've met some who do, and some who don't)... There is a lot involved that makes it more then a black and white issue. While a woman might be ok to fly an uneventful flight without any pregnancy complications- what about when something goes wrong (in flight fire, ejection, mishap etc)? There are generally discussions between the Flight doc, CO and the pilot in question to come up with a game plan, but ultimately it is up to the CO to chose what level of risk he is willing to accept with his pilots.

Women who operate ejection seat equipped aircraft are grounded as soon as they become aware of their pregnancy.

 

[zippy]

Women who operate ejection seat equipped aircraft are grounded as soon as they become aware of their pregnancy.

That makes sense...Is the grounding waiverable until a certain point of the pregnancy like it is with non-ejection seat aircraft?