Carrier SOPs

[Neil Willis]

That looks pretty good. I'd substitute ICLS for CLS, but that's all.

Good job done I think. Thanks Alan.

[Paul(Dragon)0043]

Yep, I agree, looks OK, Alan, nice job.

[Richard Rodgers]

That Alan is spot on from what I can see. It ties in nicely with the various videos I have watched and makes total sense to me.

Not that I can get the darn kite on the deck from a correct circuit. Straight in approach is not an issue though so I may well have a fuel emergency everytime I head to the carrier

[Neil Willis]

I think we ought to call you Case 3 then Richard.

[fly_george]

now we just have to do case 3 patterns and not all die

[Neil Willis]

Indeed. That's got to be the next logical step in our training before we get a more complete arsenal for the Hornet.

[Flyco]

I'm with Richard - I will pray for continuous overcast at 1000 ft. I too find Case 3 a doddle compared to visual circuits.

Case 3 SOPs available shortly.

[Neil Willis]

I have opened a thread for Case 3 and added some links and initial notes for you Alan. Please feel free to rip them apart.

[Flyco]

Having now got a copy of the carrier NATOPS manual for the Goshawk, I have re-visited the F/A-18C SOPs.

I have attached the first section, based on the Goshawk, but with departure speeds increased from 300 to 350 kias, and with a few changes to cater for our specific needs and the Goshawk's physical aircraft. I would welcome any comments.

I will move on to the Routine In Flight SOPs, which I anticipate will be fairly routine, and which I will circulate in due course. This will include the FPAS, Bingo and diversion procedures.

I suspect that the Recovery SOPs will be rather more problematic, particularly since I want to incorporate Alerax's LSO procedures in them, and at the moment I think they have some way to go to maturity. In the interim I will publish a one-sheet guide to its use - once I have been able to test and confirm it!! Standby for requests for volunteers to fly the Alerax formation recoveries with me!!!

[Neil Willis]

That looks good. I would suggest we use 74X for the Stennis TACAN, as that is the vessel number too? It has been adopted by the majority of mission writers I believe.