Posted on 09/10/2004 12:11:25 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
Edited on 09/11/2004 7:31:29 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Done!
Shall read this while I get over crying over Sept. 11 - for the umpteenth time... (sorry, I live in Australia now, and we get Sept 11 on OUR Sept 11, and again on our Sept 12, because of the time difference...)
I saw a comic tonight that said "Stopping smoking is easier than beginning flossing."
We really appreciate the Aussie "brotherhood".
So far away. Yet so "close" to one another!
What's your take on the firing of the two NWA pilots who landed at the AFB outside Rapid City?
Has it happened before in your knowledge?
BTTT!!!!!!
I think they probably deserved to be fired. They were flying under part 121 (Airline Transportation) of the FARs (Federal Aviation Regulations), which require them to make the approach using the ILS System. Had they tuned the proper frequency and identified the station, and flown the ILS, they could not have landed at the wrong airport.
When the landing occured the local news said it was about the third time it had happened.
<< Neither was John McCain! >>
The essential difference being that the admirable McCain WAS featherbedded through Naval Aviator training although everyday and in every way demonstrating a lack of talent and ability not matched until Lt jg Holtgreen came down the pike -- with similarly disastrous consequnces when the rubber eventually hit the road!
The 'RATS' psychopathological projection and attempted impugning of President Bush's record, in fact, reads as if copied from Holtgreen's records.
Or FRom McCain's!
Best ones -- B A
Cheers.
KaJac (of a Royal Australian Air Force family, in an RAAF town, hearing F-111s overhead as we speak).
<< A pilot in a trainer is occasionally told to do a "go-around" as a maneuver to avoid (or to practice avoiding) a conflict on the runway. It makes the pilot go through some mental gymnastics to get out of the routine landing mode and deal with a whole new set of circumstances. I do that to five-thousand hour pilots during flight reviews. >>
If, with now more than thirty-three and a half thousand hours TT, I could have a Hundred Bucks for every time I've either elected to and/or been directed to "go 'round" I'd be off the Hawaii for the next month.
[Except -- having seen way too many of the McCain and Holtgreen-like pilot-costumed cardboard cutouts hired these days to give the paying public the impression the pilots' seats are being used by other than other passengers [Unless related to Air France Concorde ops -- or SQ's Boeings -- the accident reports make no such errors] -- I hate to fly as a pasenger!]
Best ones -- B A
The best living singer (Farnham) and the two greatest living guitarists (Emmanuel/Marvin) live down under.
You have more than 'roos down there.
This whole situation is too funny.
Don't I know it! The screen-name is an injoke with a Freeper who has passed on... (see my profile)
I read. Bless ya!
As an Air Force Air Traffic Controller for 20 years this is an area I know a lot about.
Unlike civil aviation (specifically the airlines) the military practices all types of landing manuevers resulting in low approaches and touch and go landings. Quite often a go around will be directed by ATC and just as often it will be pilot initiated.
During the approach phase of entering the terminal environment the pilot will request the type landing if other than a full stop. Sequencing and seperation by ATC is based on the (known) type landing ie LA, T&G or FS. If for any reason: lack of anticipated seperation between arrivals, slow departure, clear runway (when required), wake turbulence, another aircraft with a Declared Emergency and any number of other variables makes a landing unsafe..."Go Around"!
From an ATC viewpoint a pilot initiated go around is interesting in that it suddenly places a new, and unexpected, player in the unfolding dynamic that comprises the terminal environment. One other thing I forgot to mention...many aircraft will take off and enter the local pattern and make multiple LAs and T&Gs for training or proficiency purposes.
The MSM and the dim libs seem to always make much ado about nothing when it comes to trying to find fault with Dubya. Maybe they should try to correct their vision and thinking about why he is so obviously popular with most of the people in this country.
God bless the 'Strines. We sold them that beastly thing, and they're still standing firm with us. That's loyalty above and beyond the call.
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
They should have asked Campenni, but earlier in the war (about 1965) they actually tried it. They discovered that it didn't work worth a rat's rump, which is like discovering that a hammer makes a lousy screwdriver or vice versa.
Strange as it may seem, the F-102A actually did fly some close-support missions over the South, even though the aircraft was totally unsuited for this role. These operations started in 1965 at Tan Son Nhut using the 405 FW alert detachment. Operating under the code-name "Project Stovepipe", they used their heat sinking Falcon missiles to lock onto heat sources over the Ho Chi Minh trail at night, often Viet Cong campfires. This was more of a harassment tactic than it was serious assault. They would even fire their radar-guided missiles if their radars managed to lock onto something. The pilots were never sure if they actually hit anything, but they would sometimes observe secondary explosions.The F-102s soon switched to a day role, firing the 12 unguided FFAR rockets from the missile bays, using the optical sight. 618 day sorties were flown, the last one being flown at the end of 1965. One F-102A was downed by ground fire during one of these rocket attacks.
There were some later missions flown, especially in Mayday emergencies when the 102's were the fastest response available in the South (2 1/2 minutes over the fence, far faster than the F-4).
(Source: Joe Baugher's authoritative history of the F-102A).
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
I interviewed for it, but Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf and some clown from the Boston Globe beat me on experience.
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
PS Future home of Dan Rather: http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/weblog/C30/
Air defense weapons systems - and their operators, including GW - bump.
I happen to think they kick ass, and I have the results of a number of biannual bilateral military "exercises" to prove it.
In fact, I have it from a highly-placed USAF source that they regret selling off all those F-111's... with the avionics upgrades they have had in recent years, they are still a keen mean fighting machine, and one I am proud to salute each time one comes within visual range.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.