Bush Piloted National Guard Trainers Shortly Before He Stopped Flying (AP pimping for Kerry)

AP ^ | Friday, September 10, 2004 | By Matt Kelley Associated Press Writer

[JohnHuang2]

Yeah, but check out post #11 for the real Smoking Gun against Bush!

[Rome2000]

Don't forget about how Bush FAILED TO ACT FOR 7 MINUTES on 9/11.

[JohnHuang2]

OMG!! That's right! That does it -- gonna hafta vote for Kerry...;-)

[CalRepublican]

The AP must teach it's journalists obfuscation in orientation--

They write an article that is about 90% devoted to covering the forgery scandal, but slip in 10% about something completely random and write up a title that applies to 10%.

You'd get an F in elementary school if you drafted a composition with these problems. Why should someone be paid for this?

[JohnHuang2]

They write an article that is about 90% devoted to covering the forgery scandal, but slip in 10% about something completely random and write up a title that applies to 10%.

Editors burying the lead.

[XHogPilot]

Bush did multiple approaches in 1972? Call out the fire trucks, break out the marshmallows, he's gonna crash, oh my g-d, he's gonna crash...

< /sarcasm>

[Hillarys Gate Cult]

Why use a trainer instead of an F-102 for these flights? Simple. The pilot gets his required hours in using less fuel, something that was a;ways at a premium for all units.
Libs are making much dog doo about nothing over this.

I and others made some posts here that marveled at the courage it took to fly "Century Series" planes in those days. They had a fuel/engine quirk where they were known to explode for "no reason". Designers eventually worked it out on later planes.

One thing I never saw posted before was the status of these planes. Today you will see all ANG/Reserve fighter units with either F-15's or F-16's. Most units got them new. In the days when President Bush flew, that wasn't the case. Almost all planes the Guard/Reserve had were nearing the end of their service life and hand me downs from the regular Air Force. They weren't in the best shape when units received them. Think of a rental car that the company has replaced, but it's still drivable. It took Herculean efforts by the maintenance crews to keep them flying. Am I inferring that the pilots were flying death traps. No. I'm declaring it. It took guts to fly those planes even once.

[Wristpin]

Isn't the purpose of the simulator ride also to expose the pilot to emergency situations which are far to dangerous to attempt inflight?

[wiley]

"Bush could have flown T-33s so many times because his unit did not have enough F-102A jets available that week, for example, said retired Maj. Gen. Don Shepperd a former head of the Air National Guard. Another former Air National Guard chief, retired Maj. Gen. Paul A. Weaver, said he saw nothing unusual about Bush making more than one landing attempt. "

From my observations while a ground pounder in an active duty F-14 squadron in 1977-1980 I can attest to the fact that even a fighter pilot would fly a C-1 (old vintage prop) if that were the only plane available to fly. Logging hours in the air is a professional pilot's greatest high and they'll do it in any aircraft available. If trainers were the only aircraft available to Bush at the time, he would have been happy to get the time in. Any pilot would.

[Hillarys Gate Cult]

Yes. In those days simulator time was also at a premium as there were less of them. They may have been only running a couple of sims that could simulate an F-102 in the entire US at that time, if they were even still supporting that aircraft.

[Dahoser]

The records also show Bush required two passes to land an F-102A fighter on March 12 and April 10, 1972.

Is Hollyweird also remaking The Running Man? Because this sounds like the laundry list of bogus charges Richard Dawson read before sending Arnie and company down the tube.

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

They had both the F-102 and the TF-102.
The TF-102 was a 2 seat version of the F-102.
The TF-102 was a very dangerous plane.
They made about 100 of the TF-102 and these
Trainer planes had a much higher accident
rate then the F-102.
If a person had to bail out of a TF-102, his
survival rate was less then 50%.

[Criminal Number 18F]

Aeronaut, please ping the list if you hain't yet.

Archangelsk, check this out for your howl of the day.

I'm afraid I just can't vote for Bush after this... I mean, it's OK for girls to do a go-around, but real men put it down regardless. I've never, ever, made a go-around, (and no, you can't look in my logbook), not even at Christmastime in Cambodia when I plugged my Mac and Laserwriter into the jungle telegraph and wrote CYA memos in Microsoft Word. I flew with a fighter pilot who said I was the best he ever saw. I'm sorry, he can't be named. He's a document examiner with CBS News now.

I dunno about you, but my instructor taught me, "if an approach looks dodgy just force that damn thing on there. Gravity is on your side, and nothing much bad ever came of landing short, or long, or too fast, or skidding it around the base-final turn with the rudder." He was a great instructor and everybody loved him. You should have seen all the people at the memorial service!

And... oooh, he flew the T-33. That's another thing I remember hearing. "That T-33, that's a girly-man plane, why it will just barely kill you. Them eee-jection seats, well on the T-bird they are just a decoration, you don't never need 'em." (Hint: check out any memorial to NASA astronauts. I bet at least one croaked in a T-bird).

Why, a pilot ain't hardly worth his chest hair if he does sissy stuff like go-arounds. I bet if they really look into it someone caught him pre-flighting the plane, or using a (gasp) checklist. What a fairy!

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

[snooker]

You know, I lived right by a Air Force training field (Keesler AFB) as a kid, we used to go sit by the runway and watch the T-33s do touch and go landings. The hard part, as my dad would say was getting the wheels on the runway, not under it, not over it.

It was a key piece of flying to control the plane on the landing phase of flight, probably the hardest to master.

These dims can just shove it.

[Criminal Number 18F]

Almost all planes the Guard/Reserve had were nearing the end of their service life and hand me downs from the regular Air Force.

Yep. As Bush was flying F-102A and TF-102A in Texas, hundreds of them were at AMARC, Davis Monthan, where they were destined to be made into drones and shot down by pilots of newer planes, or cut up for scrap metal.

They weren't in the best shape when units received them. Think of a rental car that the company has replaced, but it's still drivable. It took Herculean efforts by the maintenance crews to keep them flying.

Yep. The achilles' heel of the QF-102 drone problem was the damn 102s... they were more often unavailable.

This might also explain why sometimes he flew a T-33. Also, at that time the USAF on active side had trainers (T-33 or T-37) available that pilots could just check out and go fly for proficiency, go visit relatives, whatever, if they weren't on the roster. Also, you have to fly a certain amount to get flight pay, although it looks like Bush had that covered, as long as he was flying at all.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

[Publius6961]

The logs do not explain why Bush was flying T-33s or why he twice needed multiple approaches to make landings.

If Matt Kelley is typical, he is probably totally and permanently ignorant of anything related to technology. Obviously, he has never flown or been near people who do fly.
Unless one flies daily, it is quite common to abort landings. He is unaware of this, obviously. Flying a T-33 is worlds different than flying an F-102. It takes a few hours to become totally acclimated to a different aircraft.

Again, this dork has no clue whatsoever. And the pathetic thing is that this doofus does not have the sense to know that he is ignorant and to make the small effort to talk to a flyer. They are all over the place.
Once upon time there were editors who made sure the less competent did not publish crap, but it sure looks like those days are long gone.

[Publius6961]

Isn't the purpose of the simulator ride also to expose the pilot to emergency situations which are far to dangerous to attempt inflight?

Well, yes. Assuming there is a simulator on base, and within limits. It would be criminally negligent to expect pilots to fly simulators exclusively, unless going on a "real" mission. Another serious error born of ignorance.

In the final anlysis, nothing is a substitute for flying the real thing in the (infinitely variable) real world.

[Defender2]

Matt Kelley and Associated Press should have done their homework before posting this trashpiece!!!!

Air Defense Command, Later Aerospace Defense Command Fighter Interceptor Squadrons maintained Fighter types(in this case such as the 111th F.I.S.'s F-102As'{plural of F-102A, etc.}) and Trainer types. Again in the 111th's case, TF-102As' and T-33As'.

The Squadrons TF-102As'(two seat, side by side seating in the TF-102A) were used for initial and continuation training for the F-102As'(single seat interceptor). They were also used for radar intercept and navigation training.

The 111th's (as in all other F.I.S.s' at the time) T-33As' served a Dual Purpose!!!!

1.)Initial and Follow on jet training.

2.)Many T-33As' were fitted with a pair of underwing pylons and racks. These were used to carry ECM (electronic countermeasures) pods and chaff dispensors. They were used fitted as such in the Agressor role simulating Bad Guys for the Interceptor Pilots(in the 111th's case at the time, F-102A and later F-101B and still later F-4C aircraft.) to train against with simulated weaponry!!!!

Lt. Bush must have been a good pilot for he as many of his squadronmates were triple aircraft qualified(F-102A, TF-102A and the T-33A)!!!!

In addition to explain the go around and landing. Again the inept and uneducated(or overeducated) media, in this case AP, did not do their homework, again. Go arounds prior to landing is a standard training procedure for the pilots to sharpen their skills in their final approaches to the runway prior to landing. This is a standard training procedure. Sometimes touch and go's are incorporated into this training. Also Aircraft go around sometimes to burn off excessive fuel so as to not land exceedingly heavy which would be hard on the airframes.

Very Best FReegards All,

Defender2

P.S.(Admin Moderator, I pinged you to this for your historical interest as well, enjoy!!!!)

[Defender2]

Ping to the article and my post #38!!!!!!!!!!

[Defender2]

Ping to this AP trash article and my very extensive rebuttal post #38!!!!