“I’m not IMPLYING anything.
I’m not even second-guessing the pilot. Maybe it flew further than he thought it was going to after he ejected.
I simply made a statement about how things used to be when I was growing up near a Naval Air Station.”
Bullsh!t. You’re doing nothing BUT second-guessing the pilot through implication. And your implications are not only unfair and cruel, but also far from “simple” - they are several layers deep and carefully calculated to impune the character and integrity of not only the pilot, but every Naval aviator. And as if that’s not enough, you’re refusing to take any responsibility for the true substance of your comments, hitting and running like a thief in the night after denying everything and throwing dust in everyone’s eyes.
Specifically:
1. By “making a simple statement” about your supposed past “experience” without drawing any conclusions, your statement is utterly meaningless and not even worth posting unless - and only unless - it is used to: draw implications.
2. Your “statement” is in fact dismissable on it’s face by your own admittance, as it consists merely of living “near” a NAS, mostly as a child. Well good for you - and about thirty million other people in the country! I guess that means you’re automatically a freaking expert on emergency fighter flying skills, and how they have changed across decades of high-performance aircraft flight characteristic developments, right?
3. And just in case you want to claim that you have a right to an opinion without having to be an expert on flying, let me point out the extremely advanced concepts several FReepers on this thread made, about planes getting heavier, wings getting smaller, and no direct cables left to pull on in a final moment of courage once the power goes out to the computerized flight controls. In other words: what part of a dropping dead rock don’t you quite understand? You do know that the people on the ground said that the plane came out of the sky in eerie silence, with no engine power, right?
4. And then there is the fact that you not only direct your subversion towards the pilot in this tragedy, but to all Naval aviators today, when you use the phrase: “there was a day.” This is just a flat-out cheap shot and you well know it. It is deliberate psychological sabotage towards the way people think about the modern military.
5. Finally, when you reply to postings on this thread you not only refuse to acknowledge the slightest flaw in your statements, but go on to state a brazen lie about it’s obvious implicatory structure, and then try to pose yourself as victimized.
In sum (and I am not IMPLYING the following statement), your posts here have been lying, cheap-shot, hit-and-runs which try to take advantage of this terrible accident in order to impune all of modern Naval aviation.
To unfairly generalize against the military is subversive, and deserves exposure. But to take advantage of a tragedy to do so is revolting, and deserves contempt.
1. I will draw an implication...there were technical problems well prior to this aircraft just suddenly dropping out of the sky. Yet the pilot chose to or was instructed to fly over a heavily populated area when another base was available without flying over a heavily populated area.
2. After an investigation it is possible that this pilot could be found to be responsible for saving his own skin at the expense of 2 dead children. Maybe not, we will have to see.
3. So, there were no technical problems at all as a warning? The plane just dropped suddenly like a rock with no warning at all? Not what has been reported.
4. To criticize any member of the military for any action is subverting the entire military? Perhaps there was more this pilot could have done to avoid this tragedy. A very valid question, and one that deserves an answer. The ultimate answer could be “no”. This should come out in time.
5. Perhaps you should admit to some of the flaws of your argument.
woa there, don’t you think you’re jumping to a lot of conclusions?
plenty of reasonable folks always wonder if a pilot could have done more to avert civvie casualties and that is not an indictment of the military or the pilot or being subversive.
we would like to think our pilots would try to avoid killing innocents even if it meant sacrificing themselves.....
and yes, it’s hard to tell if he had that chance...lots of questions....how close did he eject would be a pertinent one for starters
see the crash site pic above .
if he did bail early then he has some explaining to do but then again if the bird had no controls then not much one can do is there?
I’d like to have more info myself
I actually did NOTHING that you accuse me of. My father was a 28 year Navy man and I have NOTHING but respect for those who serve in our armed services (even the ones who make mistakes). You can check my posting history if you do not believe me.
YOU, on the other hand, are a raving, ranting horse’e ass, and I cirdially invite you to GFY.
PS - The F18 still has cables. They are hydraulically assisted, but it still has cables.
The F-16 does not.
How’s that for “advanced” concepts, you arrogant jackass?