-
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
No-notice checkride?
- Thread starter webmaster
- Start date
MasterBates
Well-Known Member
If said checkride was memory EPs, limits, etc, not a problem.
If it was a "what relay moves when you move this switch, in what electrical junction box on what bus, and how many microns is the filter that that light says is bypassing" then that would suck.
I can do memory EPs in the 45 no problem, but if you are going to ask me some inanane limit, like the airspeed limit for store X, I will have a blank look on my face. However, the jet won't just grow a MER in flight, so if I get one at Mantenance Control with a MER, I can whip out the limits section real quick to make sure nothing I am about to do needs to change.
If it was a "what relay moves when you move this switch, in what electrical junction box on what bus, and how many microns is the filter that that light says is bypassing" then that would suck.
I can do memory EPs in the 45 no problem, but if you are going to ask me some inanane limit, like the airspeed limit for store X, I will have a blank look on my face. However, the jet won't just grow a MER in flight, so if I get one at Mantenance Control with a MER, I can whip out the limits section real quick to make sure nothing I am about to do needs to change.
MasterBates
Well-Known Member
I voted "yeah, I heard of it" and "horrible idea" looking at it thru a HSL tinted lens. The way they do NATOPS checks and get into the weeds on unimportant crap, (and a lot of it is just that) this would not go well. Only the NATOPS officer, senior DHs and guys that do nothing but spend their free time reading NATOPS would do well if it was run like a normal HSL NATOPS check.
The "checks" I have done in the Jet VTs have been much less "get into the weeds on system X" and more on the lines of "do you know how to use this aircraft, use it safely and not break it".
I'm comparing VT(j) vs VT(prop) and HTs for that comparison.
The "checks" I have done in the Jet VTs have been much less "get into the weeds on system X" and more on the lines of "do you know how to use this aircraft, use it safely and not break it".
I'm comparing VT(j) vs VT(prop) and HTs for that comparison.
phrogpilot73
Well-Known Member
No, thank god.Never flew a P-3 eh?
And to compare HMM to HSL/P-3 (I hear two of the worst in the Navy) - our quiz fucks are along the lines of "Why do you move that switch in the EP", or "Why is the limit that?" It gets us thinking outside of the NATOPS box, when/if the time occurs that we have to deviate because of our systems knowledge.
Ok... so I'm a retard voter... Never had one, even though my vote says i did.
Not a fan of it. There's that one NATOPS checker that will ask you the absolute most obscure question. One that the only way you'd know it is if you'd been reading NATOPS cover to cover and memorizing the whole thing...
I've gotten the types of questions phrog is speaking of... I think those are good to have randomly thrown at you every now and then for just the reason phrog states.
Not a fan of it. There's that one NATOPS checker that will ask you the absolute most obscure question. One that the only way you'd know it is if you'd been reading NATOPS cover to cover and memorizing the whole thing...
I've gotten the types of questions phrog is speaking of... I think those are good to have randomly thrown at you every now and then for just the reason phrog states.
Just like it's never "just a flight" with the Skipper?
To all new guys out there, if you think you're not being judged, you're kidding yourself.
I think it is a decent idea, but I am afraid if it was implemented that communities like VP it would turn in to another very painful thing to do. I can't tell you how many times I heard PPC/IP's get into minutae that really had little to do with actually flying and fighting the plane, it was a point of pride among VQ pilots that they did not get in the weeds that much.
So like many things; NMCI, GMT, ORM, it is a good idea that would likely be mangled into something that causes great pain to everyone involved. Maybe it could be a critical component of TRA?
I've been the candidate (sheep to the wolves?) for squadron annual NATOPS check inspections with less than a weeks notice in two platforms, H-60B's and P-3.
Admittedly, I don't get into obscure circuit breakers so you can imagine how that went over on the VP hop. Having a LT with 800 hrs maybe, yelling at me (an NFO) about some prop sync circuit breaker, was...interesting.
Agree about the Boldface EP's type ride, but I'm afraid some communities would defnitely find a way to make it absurd. Especially those that, shall we say, aren't flying so much these days.
Admittedly, I don't get into obscure circuit breakers so you can imagine how that went over on the VP hop. Having a LT with 800 hrs maybe, yelling at me (an NFO) about some prop sync circuit breaker, was...interesting.
Agree about the Boldface EP's type ride, but I'm afraid some communities would defnitely find a way to make it absurd. Especially those that, shall we say, aren't flying so much these days.
This might apply to P-3's especially as I suspect many of your checks devolve into minutia ... but it works for every aircraft I've flown. The thought process behind how you move into emergency/abnormals procedures when they occur is what I mean ...
I always taught my airline STUDs (and I practiced what I preached, at least in this case) to learn cockpit circuit breaker panels and any "significant" breakers that might be placed throughout the aircraft. My rationale (and it proved out in practice) was : most of the CB boards are layed out according to system -- in fact, many of them ARE a system schematic, of sorts. Soooooooooo ... if you have problems (especially those that are not/cannot be listed as steps on a checklist), troubleshooting and massaging the system back into life becomes much more do-able if you have a healthy knowledge of CBs, at least where the respective systems are depicted on the panels.
But: WHENEVER something happens ... always check lights, switches, and circuit breakers BEFORE you move into the more traditional "identify the problem and do the procedure" mentality. The by product of this will be a greater UNDERSTANDING of aircraft systems and therefore a greater ability to solve problems in the air when most guys' school learnin', rote memories go right out the hatch ...
I have found many, many times over that an aircraft "problem" could be solved by referencing lights, switches, and CB's before moving ahead. That's the real world, and I tried to duplicate it as much as possible in the simulator. It works ... because it's real.
ADDENDUM: Sorry for being so long-winded on both posts, it's just that I've been doing this for a lo-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-ong time and my "databases" are very full .... of something.
I always taught my airline STUDs (and I practiced what I preached, at least in this case) to learn cockpit circuit breaker panels and any "significant" breakers that might be placed throughout the aircraft. My rationale (and it proved out in practice) was : most of the CB boards are layed out according to system -- in fact, many of them ARE a system schematic, of sorts. Soooooooooo ... if you have problems (especially those that are not/cannot be listed as steps on a checklist), troubleshooting and massaging the system back into life becomes much more do-able if you have a healthy knowledge of CBs, at least where the respective systems are depicted on the panels.
But: WHENEVER something happens ... always check lights, switches, and circuit breakers BEFORE you move into the more traditional "identify the problem and do the procedure" mentality. The by product of this will be a greater UNDERSTANDING of aircraft systems and therefore a greater ability to solve problems in the air when most guys' school learnin', rote memories go right out the hatch ...
I have found many, many times over that an aircraft "problem" could be solved by referencing lights, switches, and CB's before moving ahead. That's the real world, and I tried to duplicate it as much as possible in the simulator. It works ... because it's real.
ADDENDUM: Sorry for being so long-winded on both posts, it's just that I've been doing this for a lo-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-ong time and my "databases" are very full .... of something.
So much wisdom in this statement!!!
Uh... I will have to get back to you on that one. He is a Warrant, and basically flies all the time, and recently got FCF rated, so from what I understand he is on the hook for his troop's FCFs. I honestly do not know what his other jobs entail. Their attitude regarding the no-notice check seemed much more laid back than what we would probably expect in the VP world!
Sir,
I beg of you to realize that my true identity is not the one of which you speak. I merely checked a box in error, and thus fueled my meager attempts at reconciliation.
Regards,
Bubba
Just as the soft rains fill the streams,
pour into the rivers and join together in the oceans,
so may the power of every moment of your goodness
flow forth to awaken and heal all beings,
Those here now, those gone before, those yet to come .... traditional Buddhist blessing
You are pardoned. Bless you.
For those of you that don't know, every flight with the Skipper and XO is a checkride.....in one form or another.
-ea6bflyr
