Career Reflections by Pickle

[Flash]

Having lived in the [E]P-3 and Tacair worlds I would argue that the vast majority of the 'fun' that the P-3 folks subject themselves to is self-inflicted. The best was one Whidbey VP squadron that made their guys get a 3P qual, complete with board. Having had the benefit of being a part of the P-3 community that took itself slightly less seriously, in a good way, than the VP guys showed me that there was a better way to do business than some of the silliness that the pilots in 'straight-stick' P-3s seemed to subject themselves too. This was displayed in stark relief when we had two former P-3 IPs show up while I was in the squadron. Their attitude towards 2P and AC quals were much different than the IPs who were born and bred in VQ (or not, most of the DHs in my squadron were transitions) and who frankly I thought were much more realistic, focused more on mission than minutiae. When the former VP IPs tried to bring their VP IP 'fun and games' into the squadron they were quickly quashed. Flying the same basic airframe and yet we still got the job done without a lot of the stupidity.

The excuse that a lack of flight hours nowadays is a cause of this is making the current situation fit what makes little sense to begin with, it was the same fun and games when they had twice the flight hours. So why do things that way? Why make it a more difficult process than it needs to be? This was the subject of many a ready room and O Club discussion when I was in the squadron. The conclusion was that since it was difficult to differentiate the good pilots from the not-so-good pilots just by stick skills in the P-3 and that systems knowledge, no matter how inane or useless it may be, was the how you picked the good from the bad. Several former and and current VP guys have said the same when it was discussed and debated. I also think that since VP doesn't have to play with the other parts of naval aviation very often they don't get contaminated by the common sense that prevails in other parts of naval aviation. The fact that the primary mission, ASW, so dramatically declined after the end of the Cold War doesn't help either.

I am not so sure that things will change with the P-8 coming into service, a former VP pilot knows one of the P-8 test pilots helping write the book and it doesn't sound good.

 

[Gatordev]

I'm with Flash. I'm not buying the flight hour excuse.

That said, it's not always just VP. While a lot of stuff has improved, I recently took a closed book in the real world of HSL...ahem, excuse me, HSM. I may have missed a number or two on limits, but I'm pretty sure all my procedures were correct. However, my test was bleeding with all the "-1/2" or "-1" because I refuse to memorize steps verbatim (things like "As Required" versus "Jettison, as required"). Whatever makes them feel like their doing their job.

The flight, on the other hand, was quite fair and after about an hour of our 2 hour flight, we ran out of things to do and did some local area fam stuff...as it should be.

 

[PropStop]

I don't really buy the flight hours excuse either. I think the trivia came from many hours of boredom really. When all we did was ASW and we were really good at it (and our targets were nowhere near as sophisticated as they are today), we had a lot of down time in remote places, standing the ready. What better way to pass the time than to read the digests and play stump the chump... which evolved into the excessive trivia memorization the community became known for. That's my theory anyhow.

I remember my onwing in primary quizzing me on all kinds of useless limits and numbers for the T-34. If i'd taken the time I spent memorizing those details and focuses it on the actual syllabus, maybe I would have scored a higher NSS.

 

[picklesuit]

I definitely see what the jet/helo guys are saying,
I had an interesting discussion with some of the aggressor forces F-18 bubbas from Oceana (I think) during the last JTFEX down in NASNI...the discussion started with them asking if I "really had to memorize NATOPS", and why...They went on to explain that most of their malfunctions are dealt with a "follow-your-own-adventure" PCL that will ultimately fix the problem or end with a quick ride up the rails. After a pitcher and some verbal parring about the veracity of said statements (and some fun to be had at my expense) we came to the general conclusion that they were right...We basically take a NATOPS and expect our guys to memorize it. As in "Lights, Limits, Power sources" which is above and beyond the standard "Bold Face EP's" that was expected early on in the pipeline. I couldn't come to a really good defense of why we do business this way...but the following are some of the reasons I have had given to me...not saying I agree with these, just some I have had heard:

1. The P-3 has a complex electrical system, and knowledge of said system will greatly assist you in an emergency.
2. You need to know where the CB's for all of your Min Energized Equipment is because your observer will likely have only 30 days of training and will be unable to find the CB's for your ECA in a real FOUO...even with a CB book.
3 You will not have time to reference NATOPS in a real emergency...(but make sure you reference NATOPS in an emergency).
4. You signed for the plane, you should know everything about it.
5. If you don't know more than your FE, he will lead you down the wrong road.

While parts of these explanations may have some truth to them, I have a hard time explaining to a nugget why he really needs to know "the wedge" or the time a full cycle of the Prop de-ice system takes, or believeing that said knowldge is neccesary.

What I DO believe in, and what I think is the RIGHT reason to know NATOPS, has come to me from our senior pilot. He is a big knowledge guy, a very in-depth knowledge guy, but his reason isn't "stump the chump" but knowing the "why" behind all of our procedures. If you know WHY we have the procedure written a certain way, it will help to fight the malfunctions that aren't specifically covered in NATOPS, or to ensure you understand WHY you are flipping the dull switch.

I wish I had been armed with that sort of response when I had talked to those guys this October, but I am not the most eloquent guy. I do think we can pare some of our knowledge requirements back...I can really give two shits what the output of Prop Pump 1 versus Prop Pump 2 is, so long as it works. If it has a gauge, I want to know where the needle should be...if you don't give me a gauge, I don't want to know the number. Within reason.

But I still expect a guy to know what to do when we depressurize at 20000 feet or the cockpit starts filling with smoke.

Pickle

 

[Pags]

I think a lot of the differences comes down to the age of the platform. P-3s are 50+yrs old and come from a different mentality about aircraft and their intrinsic reliability and complexity. The P-3 is notoriously un-reliable, with lots of parts breaking, failing, and malfunctioning. The aircraft itself was also manufactured under a different mentality, one that always a lot of "user interaction" with the systems. Meaning that the "automated" systems are expected to break and that the aircraft is manned to allow for the fixing of systems in the air or on the ground when operating away from Mom. FEs and IFTs have more or less gone the way of the dinosaur in other platforms yet are retained in the P-3 world.

Newer aircraft tend to have a lot less interaction and have more reliable and automated systems that are actually automatic. P-3s are from a world where there were a lot of shades of grey, more modern aircraft tend to be more binary; either they work or they don't. You can see similar distinctions between H-46s and H-53s and the H-60. The H-60 is a generation newer than the H-53 and almost two generations newer than the H-46. The older helicopters had the mentality that the aircraft could be fixed or serviced in the air/road by the crew. Not many H-60 communities have this same notion. For instance, 53 guys will always talk about how awesome it was to have a hydraulic system that could be serviced in flight. H-60 guys can't imagine why such a thing would be necessary due to the increased reliability of their hydraulic systems. Same could be said for the motors in the H-60. If my motors had the reliability of the P-3's or the H-46's, then I'd want to know all about them. But there's only so much I can do to the H-60's T-700s in flight and it basically boils down to they're either working or they're not. I couldn't tell you what power source is driving most things in my cockpit. Maybe part of that is the simplicity of the H-60's bus system, or maybe it has to do with the fact that I generally either have power to my cockpit or I don't.

It will be interesting to see how the P-8 changes the community with increased reliability. The need to know every little detail will probably become less necessary as it becomes evident that it doesn't matter as much.

As aircraft reliability and overall complexity has increased and with it an inability for the flightcrew to troubleshoot as much the in depth knowledge of systems has become less important and NATOPS has migrated to a more operator based mentality vice a technician mentality. I've heard that the Hornet's NATOPS is very operator oriented, leaving the troubleshooting to the maintainers. The H-60 community has been trying to figure out which direction it wants to go. NATOPS purists from the old HC and HSL community seem to want as much technical information as possible. HS and HSC guys seem to want to keep the technical info to a minimum and focus on what a flightcrew actually needs to be able to fight the aircraft. As with a lot of discussions on this board, experience has dictated that this mentality can work either way. There are communities that are at both ends of the spectrum and all communities still seem to manage to accomplish their mission. Which allows you to draw your own conclusion from this.

 

[NavAir42]

What I DO believe in, and what I think is the RIGHT reason to know NATOPS, has come to me from our senior pilot. He is a big knowledge guy, a very in-depth knowledge guy, but his reason isn't "stump the chump" but knowing the "why" behind all of our procedures. If you know WHY we have the procedure written a certain way, it will help to fight the malfunctions that aren't specifically covered in NATOPS, or to ensure you understand WHY you are flipping the dull switch.

I wish I had been armed with that sort of response when I had talked to those guys this October, but I am not the most eloquent guy. I do think we can pare some of our knowledge requirements back...I can really give two shits what the output of Prop Pump 1 versus Prop Pump 2 is, so long as it works. If it has a gauge, I want to know where the needle should be...if you don't give me a gauge, I don't want to know the number. Within reason.

But I still expect a guy to know what to do when we depressurize at 20000 feet or the cockpit starts filling with smoke.

Pickle

This was the litmus test we were using for 2P boards. Lights, limits, and procedures with an emphasis on why we do what we do during them. After that if it couldn't be measured in flight, it wasn't a limit. If you knew it, great, but you weren't going to pass a board because you knew the capacity of the windshield wiper fluid reservoir when you couldn't spit out stall recovery procedures. I can't say all the minutia BS went by the wayside but we did our best to reduce the load.

 

[PropStop]

This was the litmus test we were using for 2P boards. Lights, limits, and procedures with an emphasis on why we do what we do during them. After that if it couldn't be measured in flight, it wasn't a limit. If you knew it, great, but you weren't going to pass a board because you knew the capacity of the windshield wiper fluid reservoir when you couldn't spit out stall recovery procedures. I can't say all the minutia BS went by the wayside but we did our best to reduce the load.

That's good to hear. Our pilots need to focus more on the employment tactics of the plane. You have two crew members (the FEs) whose sole purpose in life is to keep the plane healthy. I trusted my senior FEs because I knew they would not pass a junior guy if he didn't meet their stringent standards. With the knowledge that the plane's health was in good hands I could focus on the tactical situation and ensure I maintained the "big picture" while the TACCO and the tube rats got down in the weeds and figured out where the sub was and what he was doing. Usually I handled the comms with other a/c working a tactical problem with us and I would position them as necessary. If i was constantly focused on the nitnoid aspects fo the plane, i wouldn't have had the spare brain power to maintain SA on those other a/c or surface ships working the problem.

The senior pilot should be in sync with his tactical crew, be directing the other pilot where to position the plane (and hopefully they'll understand enough to get the plane there without much prompting), and maintaining overall SA of the problem. You can't do that if you spend all of your time on the deck with your nose in NATOPS trying to maintain a ridiculous level of trivial knowledge and not in the TACMAN or discussing tactical problems with your crew. My philosophy, let the FEs do their job, don't get in their chili unless you have to (you do need to keep an eye on the gages, but don't soak up a lot of brain power on that), let the guys in the back do their job, don't get in their chili unless you have to, your job as the PPC is to maintain the "big picture" and maintain safety of flight (airspeed, altitude!).

 

[HAL Pilot]

My 2 cents for what it is worth after not seeing the inside of a P-3 or a VP squadron since 1996.

The P-3 world, especially pilots, has always had a thing for NATOPS trivia. Much of it comes from the age of the aircraft and the philosophy when they were built. Back then, the thought was to try and "rebuild" as much of the plane as possible when something broke. We did the same thing in the civilian world with the planes that had FEs. As a DC-10 FE, I knew a hell of a lot more about the plane/systems then I know as a B-767 pilot. In the civilian world, when the FE went away, so did the "rebuild" philosophy. Now it became "isolate the problem and work with what you have left". For example, where in the DC-10 we might have tried to salvage either the AC or DC side of a misbehaving electrical bus (DC powered by TRs from the AC) by closing or opening various bus tie switches to reroute the available trons, in the B-767 we just accept the whole bus (both AC & DC sides) are gone. Same philiosophical difference between the 727 (FE) and 737 (no FE) when I flew those. I believe that our pointy nose and rotor head brethern (flying generally newer planes) follow the "it's gone" philiosophy whereas the P-3, C-130 & E-6 guys (flying older planes) follow the "rebuild" philosphy. Hence more NATOPS trivia for the guys with FEs.

As far as P-3 NFOs go, well we played NATOPS trivia because the pilots and FEs did. They outnumbered us and we were assimulated.....

 

[picklesuit]

The senior pilot should be in sync with his tactical crew, be directing the other pilot where to position the plane (and hopefully they'll understand enough to get the plane there without much prompting), and maintaining overall SA of the problem. You can't do that if you spend all of your time on the deck with your nose in NATOPS trying to maintain a ridiculous level of trivial knowledge and not in the TACMAN or discussing tactical problems with your crew. My philosophy, let the FEs do their job, don't get in their chili unless you have to (you do need to keep an eye on the gages, but don't soak up a lot of brain power on that), let the guys in the back do their job, don't get in their chili unless you have to, your job as the PPC is to maintain the "big picture" and maintain safety of flight (airspeed, altitude!).

This should be on the designation letter for PPC's...

 

[PropStop]

This should be on the designation letter for PPC's...

I am pretty much the Sun Tzu of the MPRA.

 

[Jim123]

I am pretty much the Sun Tzu of the MPRA.

Nitnoid knowledge without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without nitnoid knowledge is the noise before getting a pink sheet.

Know your nitnoid knowledge and yourself; in a hundred checkrides you will never be in peril.

The supreme art of nitnoid knowledge is to subdue your checker in the brief without asking a single question.

 

[Recovering LSO]

Nitnoid knowledge without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without nitnoid knowledge is the noise before getting a pink sheet.

Know your nitnoid knowledge and yourself; in a hundred checkrides you will never be in peril.

The supreme art of nitnoid knowledge is to subdue your checker in the brief without asking a single question.

We may have identified the problem.......?

 

[KBayDog]

The supreme art of nitnoid knowledge is to subdue your checker in the brief without asking a single question.

Thank you, Jim Szu, but I have to disagree with you:

Being a good bullshitter, and poking fun at your checker's Canuck roots, is the key to subduing your checker in the brief and flight.

And then you win.

 

[Jim123]

Thank you, Jim Szu, but I have to disagree with you:

Being a good bullshitter, and poking fun at your checker's Canuck roots, is the key to subduing your checker in the brief and flight.

And then you win.

The acumen of skill (or something like that...)

 

[picklesuit]

Thank you, Jim Szu, but I have to disagree with you:

Being a good bullshitter, and poking fun at your checker's Canuck roots, is the key to subduing your checker in the brief and flight.

And then you win.

Making fun of a Canadian is like laughing at a retarded kid...at the end of the day they are still Canadian...