On 3/8/04 3:55 PM, in article ,
"Ed Rasimus" wrote:

On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 12:11:29 -0800, "Mike Kanze"
wrote:
SNIP
I realize the importance, but it was probably more a case of envy of
the "simple life." I, at the time, was an F-4 squadron Ops Officer. My
life revolved around getting all those front and back seaters to fill
all of those squares every six months. Contrasting the complexities of
home squadron life with a board that measured nothing but landing
grades was a confusing picture.


I have a hunch that the Navy OPSO's of the time tracked that stuff (if at
all) only on some spreadsheet (if at all) that they shared with the Skipper.
The tendency on cruise (especially then) was to gaff off readiness on cruise
because of the lack of training assets (ranges/bombs/training fuel on max
conserve cyclic ops).

These days, valid shot boards, valid release boards, SFWT syllabi, and
readiness tracking via SHARPS are the rule of the day. The Navy is
desperately trying to emulate the USAF's ops/admin.

Of course that was also confused by the fact that I flew the very same
airplane (except for model number) as the host squadron on the boat,
not one single piece of my flight gear was compatible. My torso
harness was different. My G-suit zipped from top to bottom while yours
zipped from bottom to top. My Koch fittings were female to match with
male fittings on the seat, while the Navy harness held male fittings
and female on the M-B seat pack. Helmet was totally incompatible as
well.

Gotta say that it wasn't because one method was inherently superior to
the other.....


Amen... Except that I prefer not to have to drag a 'chute around with me.
I've grown accustomed to the torso harness.

--Woody