Is that a real diagram, and if so, which NATOPS?
Is that a real diagram, and if so, which NATOPS?
Yeah, it's like turning the volume up to 11. :icon_winkMV-22B.
380° is better than 360°. Believe it, and stake your career on it.
I got a pop-up saying the errors in the document were too numerous to count.
The spelling and grammar in Navy publications is also outstanding. I was going through a Word document copy of the stores loading manual awhile ago and I wound up hitting spell-check for some reason. I got a pop-up saying the errors in the document were too numerous to count.
I think the tech writers need only have a 6th grade edumacation(SP) to be hired. I applied once and was over qualified; what the f*%# does that mean?<chuckle>
Better yet, what reading/writing grade level did it rate on the "Flesch-Kincaid" scale? (Yes folks, spelling & grammar check tells you that too.)
The spelling and grammar in Navy publications is also outstanding. I was going through a Word document copy of the stores loading manual awhile ago and I wound up hitting spell-check for some reason. I got a pop-up saying the errors in the document were too numerous to count.
The Superhawk NATOPS is rife with incorrect use of apostrophes in regards to acronyms. For instance, instead of EGIs or NVDs, it has EGI's and NVD's, yet neither the EGIs or the NVDs own anything. Oh well.
That's not just Superhawk NATOPS, but also almost all O-4/O-5 emails I get.:icon_wink
Also, using the incorrect homophone and incorrectly using "myself". :icon_tong