-
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
Commercial Gear/Study Aids for Primary
- Thread starter mjmiller05
- Start date
The story goes that a stud and an IP were at some field, and they taxied off the runway. Apparently the stud was using a blue brains when he didn't turn on the Landing lights. As a student, I used Blue Brains at TW-5, as well, and I never understood why. It's not NATOPS. After coming back through, I've learned that the basic reason is because it's "easier" for brand new guys to understand what's going on w/ the script instead of just "Seats, belts, pedals, mirrors...ADJUSTED" that's in the PCL.
When you get to the fleet, everything is out of the PCL, at least on the rotary side. Legally, that's the way it should be anyway.
When you get to the fleet, everything is out of the PCL, at least on the rotary side. Legally, that's the way it should be anyway.
Fly, you might have selected by the time that happened, but I distinctly remember being in RIs when that order came down. The one complaint I had about the PCL is when flipping through it to do the checklists, it wasn't secured to anything and thus was easy to drop as you fiddled with switches/throttles/knobs.
As for the legality of checklists, I was under the impression that as long as the paper checklists were approved by higher authority, they were fine. TRAWING 1 has an official paper checklist that we use instead of the PCL. And in the Letter of Promulgation in my NATOPS, it says "Checklists and other pertinent extracts from this publication necessary for normal operations and training should be made and carried for use in naval aircraft." Or is the PCL the only "pertinent extract?"
As for the legality of checklists, I was under the impression that as long as the paper checklists were approved by higher authority, they were fine. TRAWING 1 has an official paper checklist that we use instead of the PCL. And in the Letter of Promulgation in my NATOPS, it says "Checklists and other pertinent extracts from this publication necessary for normal operations and training should be made and carried for use in naval aircraft." Or is the PCL the only "pertinent extract?"
It sounds like TW1 covered themselves and therefore makes their checklist legal. But that's just me talking. I don't know the details. I'm guessing the part of the problem w/ the TW5 checklist was that it wasn't exactly an instruction. I'd have to pull mine out to look, but it's really just a packet. Then again, the real issue is may just be that it was reactive instead of proactive.
We had a similiar setup down in Kingsville, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't approved. My roommate recreated the startup, pre-takeoff, etc. checklist onto a single page that was much easier to read and better adapted for the cockpit. What is the problem with that since it is the same wording and order as NATOPS. And although NATOPS PCL is the official publication, remember that it may not be the BEST organized document. 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.
The blue brains in Corpus were issued by TW4, and they came out with changes and everything. So I'm pretty sure they were official. Had all the radio freqs for the UHF, some course rules info, stuff like that. Really handy to have.
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.
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.
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:
Brett
kmac said:
Ditto for the Rhino...
In TW-6, we had 'blue brains' checklists for the T-6 and the T-2 which were approved by the Commodore, but that was pretty much because (especially in the T-2), there was a whole bunch of stuff we just couldn't do or verify from the back seat, so SNFOs got their own consolidated checklists.