My Natops is smaller than your Natops...

[AJTranny]

We didn't even get a NATOPS manual here. They cost money so we just got a cd.

Any gouge out there on how to effectively use jumps?

Specific mission planning? Get with an experienced pilot/WSO or get in touch an SFTI at the weps school. Not sure about the left coast but there were some great civvies to call at the east coast weapons school for administrator/MX issues. Bottom line, the manuals tend to suck for everyday users.

BTW, I'm assuming you meant JMPS

 

[ea6bflyr]

Normally the "trons are notional" on our syllabus hops.

Just like HVVAP is notional for us.

Prowlers are probably somewhere in the middle.

Brett

Back on track: If you compared BOTH of the Prowler's NATOPS Manuals with others, I think the we'd would rank up there on the top.

-ea6bflyr

 

[zipmartin]

The first time I shot a SHRIKE -- I found out about it the night before -- literally 'read the book' the night before ....

Must have been ops normal back in the day....sitting at the bar at the club in Rosey one night during an airwing weps det (same det I experienced my runway departure), WTO and Ops O come up to me and inform me my number was drawn and I get to shoot a shrike the next morning. Scramble back to my room and read the yellow manual....pictures here:
http://www.airwarriors.com/forum/showpost.php?p=554440&postcount=2356

 

[Brett327]

Just like HVVAP is notional for us.



Back on track: If you compared BOTH of the Prowler's NATOPS Manuals with others, I think the we'd would rank up there on the top.

-ea6bflyr

Both???

Brett

 

[SteveG75]

Both???

Brett

Both???

When I was a RAG instructor, we had separate manuals for Block 82/89 and Block 89A aircraft. Had to know both since the RAG had all 3 variants. Around 2003, they came out with one 82/89/89A NATOPS. That was more useful.

I assume ea6bflyr is refering to a separate ICAP III NATOPS. ???

As for masters of trivial knowledge, ever fly with "Jelly" Gamache at the RAG? He has forgotten more than most JO's will ever know.

 

[nittany03]

I assume ea6bflyr is refering to a separate ICAP III NATOPS. ???

As for masters of trivial knowledge, ever fly with "Jelly" Gamache at the RAG? He has forgotten more than most JO's will ever know.

Or perhaps the WSOM? And the Velvet Hammer is alive and well in Prowlerland; Student ECMOs still quake in fear . . .:icon_tong

 

[Brett327]

Both???

When I was a RAG instructor, we had separate manuals for Block 82/89 and Block 89A aircraft. Had to know both since the RAG had all 3 variants. Around 2003, they came out with one 82/89/89A NATOPS. That was more useful.

I assume ea6bflyr is refering to a separate ICAP III NATOPS. ???

As for masters of trivial knowledge, ever fly with "Jelly" Gamache at the RAG? He has forgotten more than most JO's will ever know.

Yeah, not so much anymore. Everything is 89A and most people don't have to worry about ICAP III.

Brett

 

[Pugs]

As for masters of trivial knowledge, ever fly with "Jelly" Gamache at the RAG? He has forgotten more than most JO's will ever know.

Yep, Good guy and when Jelly was a RAG evaluator he'd come out to 209 to the unit eval and pretty much found we didn't play the trivia game and after he gave it up we got along well. The joys of being a Reserve guy with a squadron full of 2000+ hour guys.

 

[Brett327]

Yep, Good guy and when Jelly was a RAG evaluator he'd come out to 209 to the unit eval and pretty much found we didn't play the trivia game and after he gave it up we got along well. The joys of being a Reserve guy with a squadron full of 2000+ hour guys.

The good news is they're making him a G instructor too.

Brett

 

[ea6bflyr]

Sorry, I meant the WSOM & NATOPS when referring to "BOTH".

-ea6bflyr

 

[A4sForever]

Sorry, I meant the WSOM & NATOPS when referring to "BOTH".

-ea6bflyr

'WSOM' ... ???

Que' ?? ... Que' ?? ... Que' ??

Weapon(s) System ... something (operating?) ... manual ???

 

[e6bflyer]

I am actually surprised that nobody has mentioned the E-6 NATOPS. It is actually given as an example at safety school as the most ridiculously long NATOPS manual. The back end also has their own NATOPS which is also rotund. For a while, we were required to carry two full volumes of the NATOPS 000 with us while we were undergoing a modification. It had to fit in two separate binders, and we usually assigned our FETUS to carry it in a giant nav bag so that the pilots could just bring the one for the plane we were flying.
Thankfully, most of the folks in my community aren't systems nazis. I think we probably strike a balance somewhere in between the P-3 community and the tacair community. My personal take on it is that if it cannot possibly help you, be read by you, or be changed by you, then there is no reason to know it. I would much rather my 3P learn the crap that is going to matter than to rack his brain memorizing a bunch of trivia.

 

[SteveG75]

Thankfully, most of the folks in my community aren't systems nazis. I think we probably strike a balance somewhere in between the P-3 community and the tacair community.

This struck me as really funny since we have two TACAMO pilots in my TACRON squadron. My assitant Training Officer is an outstanding laidback guy, prior enlisted, STA-21, awaiting his DH screen. My CO on the other hand is is a former TACAMO DH and if we had NATOPS, we would be having to memorize it. We had to stand up a "NATOPS" department even though we have no aircraft because the majority of the unit are AC's and they also get flight physicals. PM me if you can't guess the name.

 

[Crowbar]

Around 2003, they came out with one 82/89/89A NATOPS. That was more useful.

We've made the switch from 89A to ICAP II NATOPS and PCLs. The PCL is the top flip variety instead of the "old" Prowler PCL. Where the 89A PCLs had Before T/O, T/O, Climb, Descent, and Landing checks all on one page, now they take up four pages. The one page EP index now takes six or eight pages. The day I got mine I found a typo in it. Refer to page E-79? But I'm already on E-79. How can I refer to a page I'm already on? I MUST BE AT THE NEXUS OF THE UNIVERSE!

In short, the new PCLs suck.

 

[ea6bflyr]

In short, the new PCLs suck.

Yes, the new AIR FORCE STYLE flip books suck!

-ea6bflyr