F-14 Natops Manual

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Jack Off said:
As long as you are in the mood to chastize random airplane nuts on the internet, why don't you straighten up that gig line, march into Colonel Lanham's office over at MCAS Beaufort and ask him why in the hell he thinks it is OK to post the Hornet Pocket Checklist on the internet? Go chew his ass good, buddy.

https://www.beaufort.usmc.mil/Safet...PCL-500/FA18 PCL_500 dtd 01 November 2004.pdf
Click to expand...

Well it appears that the bar has been set high for first posts by drooling retard donkeydicks. Perhaps timshatz idea of a hall of shame is not such a bad idea afterall. And his forum name is spot on. I nominate Mr. Jack Off to lead the thread. Well done, cur.
 
Matt308 said:
Well it appears that the bar has been set high for first posts by drooling retard donkeydicks.
Click to expand...

Thank you, kind Sir.

The board is welcome to ban me. But the purpose of the board is to share information about airplanes. And into that mix, a long time poster on the site, holding himself out in his official capacity as an officer in the Naval Service, threatens another poster that he will "involve the JAG" in a matter of a civilan posting information on the internet.

Mr. Kloby further alleges that people who make this information available to the public are "really doing a disservice to their country." In other words, Kloby is concerned that the posting of this information is providing information to the enemy. And I am pointing out that two very fine officers, Colonel Lanham, CO of Fightertown, and Colonel Beydler, CO of MAG-31, have elected to post this information publicly on the internet.

By that logic, if Kukov has done a disservice to our Country, then, by implication, MAG-31 has done the same disservice. In fact, the official disservice is even greater, because the Beaufort information includes current updates to the NATOPS. On the other hand, if the Marines have decided to post this stuff publicly, why can't Kukov publish his outdated version here?
 
Jack Off said:
Thank you, kind Sir.

The board is welcome to ban me. But the purpose of the board is to share information about airplanes. And into that mix, a long time poster on the site, holding himself out in his official capacity as an officer in the Naval Service, threatens another poster that he will "involve the JAG" in a matter of a civilan posting information on the internet.

Mr. Kloby further alleges that people who make this information available to the public are "really doing a disservice to their country." In other words, Kloby is concerned that the posting of this information is providing information to the enemy. And I am pointing out that two very fine officers, Colonel Lanham, CO of Fightertown, and Colonel Beydler, CO of MAG-31, have elected to post this information publicly on the internet.

By that logic, if Kukov has done a disservice to our Country, then, by implication, MAG-31 has done the same disservice. In fact, the official disservice is even greater, because the Beaufort information includes current updates to the NATOPS. On the other hand, if the Marines have decided to post this stuff publicly, why can't Kukov publish his outdated version here?
Click to expand...

Sir,
I do not appreciate the insinuation that I have implied that any officers at MCAS Beaufort violated any directives. I'm not sure if you read my post above, regarding the DoD's directive on the distribution of technical documents. Distribution Statement C is covered in full in my post, taken directly from the document istelf. The distribution can be expanded with approval from a competent authority - which I am sure is what was granted in order to allow the command at MCAS Beaufort to post the document in a public domain. That is a wholly separate document than a Tomcat NATOPS, and also an F/A-18E/F NATOPS. Distribution of these documents without approval of the controlling authority of these other two specific operating manuals is directly in violation of DoD directives. Please take take the time to read them (5230.24 5230.25). This is exactly the type of action that the directive seeks to combat.

Here's another quote from DoD directive 5230.25

"4.2. Because public disclosure of technical data subject to this Directive is
tantamount to providing uncontrolled foreign access, withholding such data from public disclosure, unless approved, authorized, or licensed in accordance with export control laws, is necessary and in the national interest. Unclassified technical data that are not governed by this Directive, unless otherwise restricted, shall continue to be made available to the public as well as to State and local governments."

Here is further information taken from the US Navy regarding NATOPS:

"This document contains technical data whose export is restricted by the Arms Export Control Act (Title 22, U.S.C., Sec 2751, et seq.) or the Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended, Title 50, U.S.C., App 2401 et seq. Violations of these laws are subject to severe criminal penalties. Dissemination in accordance with provisions of DoD Directive 5230.25."
 
I will be honest, when it was said that I had done a disservice to this country, I was taken aback. Again, I had ABSOLUTELY NO INTENTION of doing anything of that sort, and did not even realize it. It would be extremely simple for a civillian to not think anything of it, partly due to the fact that many of these manuals have similar messages of restriction on them. Of course, I hope I made it clear it was simply an honest mistake (I hadn't even really looked at the document closely enough, just thought I'd be glad to share the information, not realizing how much trouble it caused). I am not sure how others view that. But despite that, I do respect the fact that this information could be dangerous if made more accessible, which is why I gladly complied with not attempting to upload any more. Anyway, this is just my input on a subject that I thought was pretty much dead.
-Kukov
 
Ok, reality check here......who is flying the F-14 today...Ok so its the 'A' model with Iranian jury rigging........

Also who approved the banned individual's handle in the first place?


on a lighter note I have the F. Mk 2 and F. Mk 6 Lighting performance manuals that I am pdf'ing....wonder if there is a 'D' notice on them?

I also have a T-33 -1.

I also have the ultimate WWII dogfighter....F8F models -1 and -2.
 
krieghund said:
Ok, reality check here......who is flying the F-14 today...Ok so its the 'A' model with Iranian jury rigging........

Also who approved the banned individual's handle in the first place?
Click to expand...
With the BTAF confiscating F-14s from museums, we don't want any trouble on this site, that's the reason for all the fuss.

No one "approves" a handle here. If some one joins with an inappropriate handle the moderators here will take care of it - we'll either ask the member to change it or we ban them.

krieghund said:
on a lighter note I have the F. Mk 2 and F. Mk 6 Lighting performance manuals that I am pdf'ing....wonder if there is a 'D' notice on them?
Click to expand...
No D notice on them - they're from the UK, would love to have them posted.
krieghund said:
I also have a T-33 -1.

I also have the ultimate WWII dogfighter....F8F models -1 and -2.
Click to expand...
We welcome them all.
 
FLYBOYJ said:
They were going around and confiscating museum F-14s fearing that components could be sold to Iran. They have done similar things to civilian Cobra operators....
Click to expand...

You just gotta love those knee-jerk reactions to an issue like that from a government!! :( :werecomingforyou: :werecomingforyou:
 
Good luck getting any sort of government investigation started on any of this, on eleven separate occasions, DoD has been ordered by Federal courts to cease and desist suggesting that there is some sort of "classified" unclassified information. If there were any legitimate, legally justifiable reason for the F-14 or F-18 manuals to be classified, they would be. Besides, both of these aircraft have been provided to foreign countries under assorted military assistance programs. I find it supremely offensive to suggest that foreign nationals should have access to technical information regarding these aircraft, yet the American taxpayer, who paid for their design, development, and construction should not. What's more both these manuals along with many others are available on Public Intelligence.org for the asking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

M
Boeing F8B Pilot's Manual
Replies
0
Views
550
MIflyer
M
M
P-51H PIlot's Manual
Replies
3
Views
686
MIflyer
M
MiTasol
Avro Tutor Manual
Replies
1
Views
792
Griffon65
Griffon65
MiTasol
Supermarine Southampton manuals
Replies
2
Views
794
Thomas Robert
T
M
Public NASA 1970s Apollo Program and early space shuttle partial historical old manuals from museums
Replies
0
Views
299
m13katyusa2020
M
Back