Could it possibly be a legal help for the SNA in the case of a mishap? Seems it would be pretty easy to explain why you crashed an airplane you aren't qualified to fly.
-
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
NATOPS check vs. "Safe for Solo"...
- Thread starter scoober78
- Start date
There was a little tongue in cheek, but I was mostly being serious. Any jet that you can land 6 different ways with or without water injection ought ot take longer to get a qual in.
I'm not disagreeing with you about that. In the spirit of this thread, I think it's interesting that there are two separate approaches to a similar situation. Harrier students are deemed "safe for solo" and fly the vast majority of their flights that way after fams. It goes back to the question of what does that really mean, compared to someone who is "NATOPS qual'd". Neither student is capable of fully employing the aircraft after fams, and both have much to learn.
Yeah they loved the shit out of me as I firewalled the throttle and started overtaking everyone en route to Jackson. So much for the "yeah lets go as fast as we can" agreement down in flight E.
Harrier Dude
Living the dream
No, it has to do with the model manager decades ago deciding that the NATOPS check needed to include a tactical portion. Since FAM students haven't learned the tactical portion yet, obviously they can't do that.
Every model manager since has tried to change it only to be told that they can't (by the skipper) because that's not the way we've always done it.
It is just beaurocratic inertia. Don't let the way other communities do it or the actual NATOPS verbiage confuse the situation.