You can't even handle someone agreeing with you, ya pathetic dolt. Good grief.
I suspect that if I posted a period, you'd argue with that, too.
You apparently don't, from what you've posted. No question about that. Wasn't it you that said 80% of the time you attack the head? That's something one expects of a first year tanker co-pilot, not an experienced hand. I don't know you; all I can go by are your words, but apparently they hang you. You should probably stop speaking them.
Endanger me or my aircraft? As opposed to flying into a fire?
Endanger me compared to what?
Is severe turbulence common over a fire? Yes, without question. How is severe turbulence defined? According to the Aeronautical Information Manual, severe turbulence is defined as:
"Turbulence that causes large, abrupt changes in altitude and/or attitude. It usually causes large variations in indicated airspeed. . Aircraft may be momentarily out of control. Occupants are forced violently against seat belts or shoulder straps. Unsecured objects are tossed about."
If you don't understand that, you don't understand flying over a fire, period. The bigger and heavier, the better the ride over the fire, to be sure...but it can be rough overhead no matter how you slice it. I was on a fire last summer in which an aircraft returned with retardant all over the top of the aircraft. Figure out how that happened.
Does extreme turbulence also occur over the fire? Yes. It's defined as "Turbulence in which the aircraft is violently tossed about and is practically impossible to control. It may cause structural damage. " It does occur. Two years ago two airplanes broke up over fires...not necessarily due to turbulence over the fires, because that wasn't the case. But those aircraft had been exposed to more than ample turbulence over the previous years. I know, because I was in them.
Last summer I made the first IA run on a fire. A lead showed up behind me, asked for my assessment. I stated that no aircraft should be put on the fire; I made the run and decided that it was too dangerous. The lead made the run, doubting what I said, and immediately came out with a broken headset, and a direction for all aircraft to return and hold. I'd call that severe to extreme. Three times I made the call that it was unsafe, and to ground air assets last year, and three times it was done.
I don't wear a helmet because it looks cool, and I don't wear a helmet because I'm afraid of crashing an airplane. I wear the helmet because it's regulatory, and because it keeps my head from bouncing off the canopy. T-u-r-b-u-l-e-n-c-e. Get it?
Thank heavens. You had overloaded me with your whit and insight.
I suspect that if I posted a period, you'd argue with that, too.
You apparently don't, from what you've posted. No question about that. Wasn't it you that said 80% of the time you attack the head? That's something one expects of a first year tanker co-pilot, not an experienced hand. I don't know you; all I can go by are your words, but apparently they hang you. You should probably stop speaking them.
Endanger me or my aircraft? As opposed to flying into a fire?
Endanger me compared to what? Is severe turbulence common over a fire? Yes, without question. How is severe turbulence defined? According to the Aeronautical Information Manual, severe turbulence is defined as:
"Turbulence that causes large, abrupt changes in altitude and/or attitude. It usually causes large variations in indicated airspeed. . Aircraft may be momentarily out of control. Occupants are forced violently against seat belts or shoulder straps. Unsecured objects are tossed about."
If you don't understand that, you don't understand flying over a fire, period. The bigger and heavier, the better the ride over the fire, to be sure...but it can be rough overhead no matter how you slice it. I was on a fire last summer in which an aircraft returned with retardant all over the top of the aircraft. Figure out how that happened.
Does extreme turbulence also occur over the fire? Yes. It's defined as "Turbulence in which the aircraft is violently tossed about and is practically impossible to control. It may cause structural damage. " It does occur. Two years ago two airplanes broke up over fires...not necessarily due to turbulence over the fires, because that wasn't the case. But those aircraft had been exposed to more than ample turbulence over the previous years. I know, because I was in them.
Last summer I made the first IA run on a fire. A lead showed up behind me, asked for my assessment. I stated that no aircraft should be put on the fire; I made the run and decided that it was too dangerous. The lead made the run, doubting what I said, and immediately came out with a broken headset, and a direction for all aircraft to return and hold. I'd call that severe to extreme. Three times I made the call that it was unsafe, and to ground air assets last year, and three times it was done.
I don't wear a helmet because it looks cool, and I don't wear a helmet because I'm afraid of crashing an airplane. I wear the helmet because it's regulatory, and because it keeps my head from bouncing off the canopy. T-u-r-b-u-l-e-n-c-e. Get it?
Thank heavens. You had overloaded me with your whit and insight.
