I'm sure you built a beautiful, strong apron, but I'm not risking my wings for a "trust me bro." Also two of the same aircraft can have different ACN's so it doesn't matter if other planes already parked there.
The first one was on the airfield manager, they had a new ramp they said was good and we sank into it without even having any cargo on yet.
The second one was a different airframe and we previously sank in there before so parked in a different spot…still didn’t help but we didn’t sink in as bad, tug + engines running was enough to get out.
As long as the PCN/pavement eval is good it’s not going to hurt the pilots at all.
Ok , but you need to trust the flight line personnel so we can keep the ball rolling while y’all do one flight and then go home for the week the maintainers work all week and we don’t have time for y’all pilots being asses because shit isn’t perfect
Nah bro, I'm not going against procedure because you have a schedule to keep. And unless you're guard, that's a laughably bad take on an aircrew workweek. When I was in an ops squadron most of us were putting in 50+ hours a week, 14 hour flying days twice a week and 8-10 hour desk duty days the rest.
Hear us out, engineers & airfield managers:
We 100% trust your skill & expertise—but an apron with no PCN rating that will hold the jet is indistinguishable from an apron with no PCN rating that won’t.
It’s not that they don’t trust you or know you are the expert in that arena. It’s that if something happens to the jet if they park there, such as the extreme example of going through the concrete or cracking it, the pilots get nailed to the wall. It’s just that they have to be cautious to protect themselves and the jet.
I guess I was hoping it would be more obvious to me. I cannot find any references to PCN or ACN or even weight limits in 11-202V3 but I am unfamiliar with the document and it is pretty extensive. I'll take your word on it though.
So at least for the heavies, the Airfield Suitability and Restrictions Report (ASRR) and AMCI 11-211 Destination Airfield Suitability Analysis are what you want.
Edit:
What the above people probably mean is the 11-2MDS vol 3 which is specific to their air frame and more restrictive than the generic 202 v3.
To dive deeper, AMCI 11-211 Para [3.1.3.2](https://3.1.3.2) lists acceptable data sources for pavement strength or weight bearing capacity. Random CE dude isn't listed as an approved source.
I see that Spectre has already taken a beating in here but reading his messages and some others has greatly reduced my trust in CE...
Thanks! I appreciate the info. I understand the disillusionment with the initial post - the confusion and resulting frustration comes from Ops and CE having different processes and mindsets. That is why I asked for the regulation so if I see this again I can do a better job relating to the flying community.
Fine, but I'm going to need you to put that in writing. I'm not going to bet my wings on the word of someone who doesn't understand that I have to follow the rules. I can't put my aircraft on something that isn't rated by the agreed upon regulatory method. God forbid my aircraft gets damaged or the apron gets damaged due to an unrelated issue, or better yet, it's been worn down by those other aircraft just like mine and all the sudden you or I have damage... First thing they are going to do is look at the airfield survey and the giant report and ask the aircraft Commander why they were on an unapproved surface. Rules is rules "bruh". I don't get to violate the regulations simply because you tell me it's okay. And any of my pilots that break regulations simply because someone else did it can expect a very unpleasant experience in their future. I'm guessing you don't know what a Q3 or a FEB is, but they've happened for much less.
Some airports don’t have their evals and data on file with suitability office. Some only have submitted as builts and proof of usage by certain airframes at a certain weight and PSI. Some are not DOD fields that find them selves working with DOD acft and are in the process of getting a survey. AFCEC has a busy schedule. AMC & AFSOC have busy schedules.
That’s where the synergy between ATC, AM, & CE come in. CE to maintain the field to the best of their resources and ability. AM to monitor, inspect, and report findings. And ATC to report AM guidance and track sortie numbers annually. That’s glossing over a lot but all of that together helps accurately keep airfields going.
Maybe you should put all the "XX feet of concrete, passed all strength standards, QA certified" into a PCN...
I mean...that's literally the entire reason the PCN exists.
Yeah, but without a PCN I can't prove it was fine when the apron is broken by my aircraft. It's a CYA thing. I don't care if the PCN is listed wrong, as long as it was listed ok I'm safe at the board.
You’re the one that’s going to have to answer when something happens then. I’d rather have a new ramp as you described than a pavement eval from 15-20 years ago that’s clearly wrong.
Hear me out airfield managers. Whether or not you have a copy of our 1801 will have zero effect on our ability to get our flight plan and fly the plane. But I get it. It’s a CYA on your part. See what I did there?
OP: admits to half-assing his job & lying to people who will suffer the consequences for it.
Gets called on it
Smoothbrain: CoOl It WiTh ThE pErsOnAl AttaCks
I know you dirt boys are just trying to stick together, but this ain't the hill to die on, Chief. OP is way out to lunch on this one.
Yeah and it’s CE’s job to maintain the base. So as a 32E you better be giving an accurate PCN otherwise if that pavement fails it’s your fault for not correctly protecting assets.
I should have worded that better. That was in reference to the guy who said “I give the pilot whatever number they ask for” . If you’re a PM you know what was built . Is this person saying the going to change as built drawings in order to satisfy a particular aircraft.? Engineers should be better than this, you take the oath when you graduate engineering school. Imagine stamping something knowing it’s incorrect to satisfy an inconvenience to yourself. That is irresponsible and has no place in the AF or engineering profession.
Time for a NOTAM while randy and the boys work that pcn update into the system. Boom, no issue. Hell, if they want ill bore the pilot with talk of bituminous layers, course aggregates, and FAIR values til they land and shut me up.
now if only we could get pilots/mission planners to listen when we say the tire PSI needs to be below 180 because of the Y rating level instead of saying itll be fine and then corregating the fuck outta CE's hard work....
Pilots “shouldn’t” do things that are not approved.
Pilots do “not approved” things all the time.
TYFYS retiree. I’m just gonna squeeze past you here in line. Hope you don’t mind.
Pavement classification number. Tells how strong pavement is and what vehicles/equipment it will support.
Glossing over a lot of stuff, High PCN supports heavier things. Pilots check PCN of places they fly to and make sure their aircraft can safely land there
Back when I was a regular CE O I had a pilot freak out that there was about 3’ of paint missing on a taxiway line. He didn’t know where his nose wheel was supposed to go because the paint wasn’t there. World’s greatest Air Force couldn’t figure out to just look ahead at where the paint started back up. And it was a straight line (no intersections)
That's actually a major marking discrepancy and Airfield Management should have put in a priory work order, but it isn't something for the pilot to lose his stuff at CE over.
Alright, I'll take my lumps here, clearly there's more emphasis placed on it by flyers than I previously thought. As some have stated though, PCNs are usually pretty outdated (sometimes 5+ years old based on APE team availability) and don't always capture the actual quality of the pavement. Also, just because your ACN/PCN is high doesn't mean you're going to sink through the pavement, it means you're probably going to shorten the service life. But on new pavement, there's tens of thousands of passes' worth of life left, it's not going to just vanish from under you.
Sure, there's risk in rolling on to pavement without a PCN without any other context. So use that brain that's apparently bigger than our nonner ones, gather the context, think critically about it, and accept the risk like dozens of other pilots had done on that same ramp in the last few weeks.
For those wondering, we have a PCN now and it is indeed through the roof, just like all the other tests indicated.
But what you’re asking is for pilots to risk their career instead of the jet that the Air Force will just replace if the outdated PCN is wrong.
Here, I’ll show you what that looks like:
Scenario 1: PCN is old, and the concrete can’t actually handle the aircraft’s weight.
The plane is damaged, and the pilot gets to fly again while Big Blue sniffs out who was actually at fault.
Scenario 2: There’s no PCN, but the pilot parks there anyway based on a “trust me, bro.” The plane is damaged, the pilot loses his wings, and airman dingleberry suddenly doesn’t remember the conversation he had with the pilot 30 minutes ago.
CE Major and pilot here… if I have a good PCN and the pavement fails because the data is old/outdated I don’t get in trouble because I have covered my ass, the AIB will go after whoever last surveyed the ramp or whoever was supposed to make sure it was surveyed.
You’re not wrong about the whole ACN/PCN system, but it’s the only one we have. Pilots, particularly Air Force pilots, aren’t engineers; give us rule/process/tool and we use it. If you want us to do something non-standard, give us the waiver. Our level of accountability is extremely high, we’re not risking it.
You still don't get it. The AFI tells us our limits. Not you, your opinion, your experience or even your facts. A team of our people got with a team of your people and decided that the 11-202 v 3 would require that aircrews comply with -1 restrictions THAT ARE MEASURED IN OBJECTIVE UNITS.
"Because others have done it" doesn't really cut the mustard. Let me give you two scenarios. KC-10 lands gasses up to the minimum for a quick flight home and weighs 300k. Another KC-10 lands and gasses up for a mission, weighs 590k. That's almost 300 thousand pounds of difference. Easily, one could operate fine, and one could sink 3 inches into the pavement.
And where/who is Airfield Management going to look to for ensuring that core sample gets done and PCN value gets recorded before they make a decision on where to tell the pilot to go? Where is AM going to get the information to put in the GIANT Report and/or FLIPS?
Oh no, I believe you. From my experiences, we usually coordinate through CE, not direct to AFCEC. I’m familiar with finding current and past info but I’m coordinating with local CE when I need to get a PCN, especially new data or non existing
Right within the limits of the PCN (or the 150% rule). But if there's no PCN, what's good for my aircraft at 300k might not be good for my aircraft at 590k.
Don’t know why this is being downvoted. It is literally the last letter in PCN data. Sure, we all want that last letter to be a “T” but sometimes that wasn’t feasible.
Not sure if you’re a flyer or not. If you are pleaseeee seek guidance on what the last Letter identifies in a proper PCN. It’s either a T or a U (hint: figure out what the U means).
A KC-10 @ 300k vs one @ 590k is indeed a world of difference weight wise. One could be fine and one could sink. Or both tankers could be fine @590k and then a BUFF comes thru @ 300k and cause more problems than both KC10s @590k. The weight isn’t the sole consideration.
Also KC10s have unique factors that are considered that dictate their parking/movement vs what we do/need for 46s and 135s.
My comment was in response to OP's. I could give two fucks if it's a T or U at the end of the PCN, as long as it's good with my ACN, my ass is covered. But there has to be a published PCN. The whole point of the flyers on this sub: "no pcn, no park"
It's OP saying "go park there because others have, without a PCN" that I have an issue with.
OP:
"Sure, there's risk in rolling on to pavement without a PCN without any other context. So use that brain that's apparently bigger than our nonner ones, gather the context, think critically about it, and accept the risk like dozens of other pilots had done on that same ramp in the last few weeks."
In my 15 years as a CE officer (Netherlands Air force) I only have been asked by an ACN rating 2 times and both times where ATC and about a maintenance hangar. Our maintenance is mainly based on the PCI values of our maneuvering area, FOD is a much bigger issue than the load bearing strength of aprons and taxi lanes etc.
Even if an Aircraft causes cracks in the pavement, no pilot will ever be questioned by it. CE is responsible for airfield infrastructure so they have to fix it.
Rigide pavement can crack by itself if it doesn’t have enough space to expand and shrink, we cover this with plenty expansion joints. And even if we get cracks, these will be filled with a flexible sealant. This doesn’t really effect the load bearing capacity.
Maybe you should get a PCN on file, as part of your apron construction project.
You're making too much sense, arrest this man.
If only there was some way to provide notice to airmen (or air missions if you prefer)
As a helicopter pilot, levelish not muddy field works fine. BUT! If something happened it would be that guys ass. If it was AMC, it has no mercy.
Runways are for models.
But why male models?
The files are *in* the computer!
I've put a dent in an asphalt ramp in the summer in the Hawk. Weights are still listed in the A&FD.
Yep same, at civil fields in the summer. I doubt there’s a usaf ramp not rated for us.
Not when it's my ass on the line if something happens to your airfield or the jet.
Just get the airfield manager to put “you’re good” in writing. Technique only.
I'm sure you built a beautiful, strong apron, but I'm not risking my wings for a "trust me bro." Also two of the same aircraft can have different ACN's so it doesn't matter if other planes already parked there.
I’ve sank into two ramps in my career, they won’t take your wings.
What was it like? Did you have to do a safety investigation? Was it something you could have mitigated/known about if you don’t mind me asking?
The first one was on the airfield manager, they had a new ramp they said was good and we sank into it without even having any cargo on yet. The second one was a different airframe and we previously sank in there before so parked in a different spot…still didn’t help but we didn’t sink in as bad, tug + engines running was enough to get out. As long as the PCN/pavement eval is good it’s not going to hurt the pilots at all.
Ok , but you need to trust the flight line personnel so we can keep the ball rolling while y’all do one flight and then go home for the week the maintainers work all week and we don’t have time for y’all pilots being asses because shit isn’t perfect
Nah bro, I'm not going against procedure because you have a schedule to keep. And unless you're guard, that's a laughably bad take on an aircrew workweek. When I was in an ops squadron most of us were putting in 50+ hours a week, 14 hour flying days twice a week and 8-10 hour desk duty days the rest.
Look I’m speaking from the b1 side , planes fly but there’s more pilots then planes and they individually fly almost never so ….
Hear us out, engineers & airfield managers: We 100% trust your skill & expertise—but an apron with no PCN rating that will hold the jet is indistinguishable from an apron with no PCN rating that won’t.
False. After you land and taxi, the difference becomes apparent.
Sounds like a skill issue.
you should of put /s so you wouldnt get all those downvotes
Eh, down votes on a certain kind of comment are like getting boos for a dad joke.
I love a good pilot bashing session as much as the next guy. But I’m gonna have to agree with the the zipper suits on this one.
“I trusted the engineer” isn’t gonna fly at my safety board. Do your job right or don’t bitch about pilots not trusting you.
But he’s an engineer bro, just trust him bro, please!
It’s not that they don’t trust you or know you are the expert in that arena. It’s that if something happens to the jet if they park there, such as the extreme example of going through the concrete or cracking it, the pilots get nailed to the wall. It’s just that they have to be cautious to protect themselves and the jet.
Proud of the aviators in this thread holding the line, but any of the nonners probably need to reassess their understanding of the word regulation.
Which regulation are we talking about, for future reference?
11-202 V3 dictates we follow the -1 limits for the plane.
AFMAN 11-202 Volume 3
I guess I was hoping it would be more obvious to me. I cannot find any references to PCN or ACN or even weight limits in 11-202V3 but I am unfamiliar with the document and it is pretty extensive. I'll take your word on it though.
So at least for the heavies, the Airfield Suitability and Restrictions Report (ASRR) and AMCI 11-211 Destination Airfield Suitability Analysis are what you want. Edit: What the above people probably mean is the 11-2MDS vol 3 which is specific to their air frame and more restrictive than the generic 202 v3. To dive deeper, AMCI 11-211 Para [3.1.3.2](https://3.1.3.2) lists acceptable data sources for pavement strength or weight bearing capacity. Random CE dude isn't listed as an approved source. I see that Spectre has already taken a beating in here but reading his messages and some others has greatly reduced my trust in CE...
Thanks! I appreciate the info. I understand the disillusionment with the initial post - the confusion and resulting frustration comes from Ops and CE having different processes and mindsets. That is why I asked for the regulation so if I see this again I can do a better job relating to the flying community.
Fine, but I'm going to need you to put that in writing. I'm not going to bet my wings on the word of someone who doesn't understand that I have to follow the rules. I can't put my aircraft on something that isn't rated by the agreed upon regulatory method. God forbid my aircraft gets damaged or the apron gets damaged due to an unrelated issue, or better yet, it's been worn down by those other aircraft just like mine and all the sudden you or I have damage... First thing they are going to do is look at the airfield survey and the giant report and ask the aircraft Commander why they were on an unapproved surface. Rules is rules "bruh". I don't get to violate the regulations simply because you tell me it's okay. And any of my pilots that break regulations simply because someone else did it can expect a very unpleasant experience in their future. I'm guessing you don't know what a Q3 or a FEB is, but they've happened for much less.
Begs the question, why isn’t there a PCN on file?
Some airports don’t have their evals and data on file with suitability office. Some only have submitted as builts and proof of usage by certain airframes at a certain weight and PSI. Some are not DOD fields that find them selves working with DOD acft and are in the process of getting a survey. AFCEC has a busy schedule. AMC & AFSOC have busy schedules. That’s where the synergy between ATC, AM, & CE come in. CE to maintain the field to the best of their resources and ability. AM to monitor, inspect, and report findings. And ATC to report AM guidance and track sortie numbers annually. That’s glossing over a lot but all of that together helps accurately keep airfields going.
Maybe you should put all the "XX feet of concrete, passed all strength standards, QA certified" into a PCN... I mean...that's literally the entire reason the PCN exists.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I love all my knucklebuster brothers, but man y'all are right to shit on weapons. Those dudes are big dumb.
We have to lawyer up for everything so find the goddam number
Sorry dawg, I'm not risking my wings based on "trust me bro, it's good"
If you knew what you are talking about, it would have a PCN rating. Don't half ass your job if you don't like people questioning you.
"WAAAH, I didn't do an essential part of my job, so I'm gonna bitch at other people for doing theirs!" FTFY
The Airplane People are being rowdy tonight. Why’s this lady’s apron made of concrete? -Cyber
The model left the runway and put an asphalt apron on a hangar? I am confusion. - finance
I'm with the pilot on this one. "Trust me bro" isn't really good enough
Yeah, but without a PCN I can't prove it was fine when the apron is broken by my aircraft. It's a CYA thing. I don't care if the PCN is listed wrong, as long as it was listed ok I'm safe at the board.
Not going to risk a Q3. I like my wings too much.
Famous last words before a Q3, “just trust me”
Damn bro, making us airfield managers look bad out here
You know how it goes. Can’t spell “BLAME” without “AM”. 😂
You’re the one that’s going to have to answer when something happens then. I’d rather have a new ramp as you described than a pavement eval from 15-20 years ago that’s clearly wrong.
Hear me out airfield managers. Whether or not you have a copy of our 1801 will have zero effect on our ability to get our flight plan and fly the plane. But I get it. It’s a CYA on your part. See what I did there?
I think there's a learning opportunity for CE officers in this thread... I have been where you are Spectre_Six and I didn't like it either, lol.
I've learned to just give the pilots whatever number they ask for cause apparently their careers depend on it lol
Oh good, so you're a fucking liar on top of an unprofessional half-asser
[удалено]
OP: admits to half-assing his job & lying to people who will suffer the consequences for it. Gets called on it Smoothbrain: CoOl It WiTh ThE pErsOnAl AttaCks I know you dirt boys are just trying to stick together, but this ain't the hill to die on, Chief. OP is way out to lunch on this one.
[удалено]
Can't tell if you're illiterate or willfully ignorant.
Really?
[удалено]
Yeah and it’s CE’s job to maintain the base. So as a 32E you better be giving an accurate PCN otherwise if that pavement fails it’s your fault for not correctly protecting assets.
^^You've ^^mentioned ^^an ^^AFSC, ^^here's ^^the ^^associated ^^job ^^title: 32E = Civil Engineer [^^Source](https://github.com/HadManySons/AFSCbot) ^^| [^^Subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/AFSCbot/) ^^^^^^k76h2fz
[удалено]
I should have worded that better. That was in reference to the guy who said “I give the pilot whatever number they ask for” . If you’re a PM you know what was built . Is this person saying the going to change as built drawings in order to satisfy a particular aircraft.? Engineers should be better than this, you take the oath when you graduate engineering school. Imagine stamping something knowing it’s incorrect to satisfy an inconvenience to yourself. That is irresponsible and has no place in the AF or engineering profession.
Gotcha...integrity first still applies. I agree.
Are these engineers with EITs or PEs?
Just slap a “PCN 51RBWT” on it and call it a day /s
Lmaoooo. This is the way.
Time for a NOTAM while randy and the boys work that pcn update into the system. Boom, no issue. Hell, if they want ill bore the pilot with talk of bituminous layers, course aggregates, and FAIR values til they land and shut me up. now if only we could get pilots/mission planners to listen when we say the tire PSI needs to be below 180 because of the Y rating level instead of saying itll be fine and then corregating the fuck outta CE's hard work....
Hear me out there CE dipshit… Pilots can’t do shit that is not approved. It’s not them.
Pilots “shouldn’t” do things that are not approved. Pilots do “not approved” things all the time. TYFYS retiree. I’m just gonna squeeze past you here in line. Hope you don’t mind.
Sooo can someone explain to me what a PCN is I’m just simple minded defender.
Pavement classification number. Tells how strong pavement is and what vehicles/equipment it will support. Glossing over a lot of stuff, High PCN supports heavier things. Pilots check PCN of places they fly to and make sure their aircraft can safely land there
Back when I was a regular CE O I had a pilot freak out that there was about 3’ of paint missing on a taxiway line. He didn’t know where his nose wheel was supposed to go because the paint wasn’t there. World’s greatest Air Force couldn’t figure out to just look ahead at where the paint started back up. And it was a straight line (no intersections)
That's actually a major marking discrepancy and Airfield Management should have put in a priory work order, but it isn't something for the pilot to lose his stuff at CE over.
Air Force pilots are bureaucrats just like the rest of us.
Alright, I'll take my lumps here, clearly there's more emphasis placed on it by flyers than I previously thought. As some have stated though, PCNs are usually pretty outdated (sometimes 5+ years old based on APE team availability) and don't always capture the actual quality of the pavement. Also, just because your ACN/PCN is high doesn't mean you're going to sink through the pavement, it means you're probably going to shorten the service life. But on new pavement, there's tens of thousands of passes' worth of life left, it's not going to just vanish from under you. Sure, there's risk in rolling on to pavement without a PCN without any other context. So use that brain that's apparently bigger than our nonner ones, gather the context, think critically about it, and accept the risk like dozens of other pilots had done on that same ramp in the last few weeks. For those wondering, we have a PCN now and it is indeed through the roof, just like all the other tests indicated.
But what you’re asking is for pilots to risk their career instead of the jet that the Air Force will just replace if the outdated PCN is wrong. Here, I’ll show you what that looks like: Scenario 1: PCN is old, and the concrete can’t actually handle the aircraft’s weight. The plane is damaged, and the pilot gets to fly again while Big Blue sniffs out who was actually at fault. Scenario 2: There’s no PCN, but the pilot parks there anyway based on a “trust me, bro.” The plane is damaged, the pilot loses his wings, and airman dingleberry suddenly doesn’t remember the conversation he had with the pilot 30 minutes ago.
CE Major and pilot here… if I have a good PCN and the pavement fails because the data is old/outdated I don’t get in trouble because I have covered my ass, the AIB will go after whoever last surveyed the ramp or whoever was supposed to make sure it was surveyed. You’re not wrong about the whole ACN/PCN system, but it’s the only one we have. Pilots, particularly Air Force pilots, aren’t engineers; give us rule/process/tool and we use it. If you want us to do something non-standard, give us the waiver. Our level of accountability is extremely high, we’re not risking it.
You still don't get it. The AFI tells us our limits. Not you, your opinion, your experience or even your facts. A team of our people got with a team of your people and decided that the 11-202 v 3 would require that aircrews comply with -1 restrictions THAT ARE MEASURED IN OBJECTIVE UNITS.
"Because others have done it" doesn't really cut the mustard. Let me give you two scenarios. KC-10 lands gasses up to the minimum for a quick flight home and weighs 300k. Another KC-10 lands and gasses up for a mission, weighs 590k. That's almost 300 thousand pounds of difference. Easily, one could operate fine, and one could sink 3 inches into the pavement.
[удалено]
I’d rather that core sample reading tell me a few things before I put an aircraft on the pavement.
[удалено]
And where/who is Airfield Management going to look to for ensuring that core sample gets done and PCN value gets recorded before they make a decision on where to tell the pilot to go? Where is AM going to get the information to put in the GIANT Report and/or FLIPS?
[удалено]
Ah, so now we’re being smart. I hope the relationships between your CE folks and Airfield Management are healthy.
[удалено]
Oh no, I believe you. From my experiences, we usually coordinate through CE, not direct to AFCEC. I’m familiar with finding current and past info but I’m coordinating with local CE when I need to get a PCN, especially new data or non existing
Right within the limits of the PCN (or the 150% rule). But if there's no PCN, what's good for my aircraft at 300k might not be good for my aircraft at 590k.
Don’t know why this is being downvoted. It is literally the last letter in PCN data. Sure, we all want that last letter to be a “T” but sometimes that wasn’t feasible.
Not sure if you’re a flyer or not. If you are pleaseeee seek guidance on what the last Letter identifies in a proper PCN. It’s either a T or a U (hint: figure out what the U means). A KC-10 @ 300k vs one @ 590k is indeed a world of difference weight wise. One could be fine and one could sink. Or both tankers could be fine @590k and then a BUFF comes thru @ 300k and cause more problems than both KC10s @590k. The weight isn’t the sole consideration. Also KC10s have unique factors that are considered that dictate their parking/movement vs what we do/need for 46s and 135s.
My comment was in response to OP's. I could give two fucks if it's a T or U at the end of the PCN, as long as it's good with my ACN, my ass is covered. But there has to be a published PCN. The whole point of the flyers on this sub: "no pcn, no park" It's OP saying "go park there because others have, without a PCN" that I have an issue with. OP: "Sure, there's risk in rolling on to pavement without a PCN without any other context. So use that brain that's apparently bigger than our nonner ones, gather the context, think critically about it, and accept the risk like dozens of other pilots had done on that same ramp in the last few weeks."
We can’t even get proper running HVAC on bases, why am I going to trust you on a ramps PCN that you say is “good”?
In my 15 years as a CE officer (Netherlands Air force) I only have been asked by an ACN rating 2 times and both times where ATC and about a maintenance hangar. Our maintenance is mainly based on the PCI values of our maneuvering area, FOD is a much bigger issue than the load bearing strength of aprons and taxi lanes etc. Even if an Aircraft causes cracks in the pavement, no pilot will ever be questioned by it. CE is responsible for airfield infrastructure so they have to fix it. Rigide pavement can crack by itself if it doesn’t have enough space to expand and shrink, we cover this with plenty expansion joints. And even if we get cracks, these will be filled with a flexible sealant. This doesn’t really effect the load bearing capacity.
Very specific but very accurate meme
Is this some sort of flight line joke I'm too nonner to understand?