fosterbeer
New member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2002
- Posts
- 2
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
Going to keep a Journal
- Thread starter Vandal
- Start date
- Watchers 7
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
Toro
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2001
- Posts
- 138
LearLove - you missed the point
Originally posted by LearLove
LearLove, you completely missed the point of what AlbieF15 was saying. Mr Irrelevant said that you can't just say a guy is better because he flies military - absolutely true. He also said that a 500 hour military pilot won't be better than a civilian pilot with 500 approaches down to mins. Here's where Albie differs, and I agree.
You can't just throw a blanket statement down and say "I fly jets, I must be better, " and likewise you can't counter that with "I have more hours, I must be better". You're talking apples and oranges, and you're probably not going to get an agreement from all parties.
Let me back Albie's point with an example. Takeoff and landings are important at UPT - they generally spend about 1/4 of the brief and debrief discussing these portions of the flight. You know how much time we spend in an operational unit talking about them? About 6.9 seconds. The tactical portion of the mission is the complicated part of our sortie - we study, implement, and brief tactics and weapons systems that not even the smartest guys in the squadron know everything about. As long as a dude can safely take off and land, I don't really care about the details. I want to know how his formation position was as we ingressed to a target at 500 feet and 540 knots. I want to know if his parameters were within limits as he pickled off a 2000-lb laser guided bomb, and did he perform the proper maneuvers to allow his WSO to guide it in? When we engaged hostile aircraft, how did his radio comm contribute or deteriorate from the engagement, and did he maneuver his aircraft in manner to kill the hostiles and get us out of their safely?
If you want to say that you're a better pilot because of how many approaches you've flown to mins, I'll say this - take your Cessna that flies (guessing) 80-100 knots on final. I have broken out more than once at my 200 foot min ceiling doing 170-ish knots. T-38 students at Columbus (known for terrible weather) will almost certainly fly to their IPs 300 foot mins at some point while they are there, in a jet where the minimum approach speed is 155 knots. Does this make any one better than the other? Not as far as I'm concerned; it's a different kind of flying. Is one more difficult than the other? Yes - there is absolutely no way you can tell me that flying light aircraft is more challenging than employing a multi-million dollar fighter aircraft. Does that make one pilot better than the other? Not necessarily.
Originally posted by LearLove
LearLove, you completely missed the point of what AlbieF15 was saying. Mr Irrelevant said that you can't just say a guy is better because he flies military - absolutely true. He also said that a 500 hour military pilot won't be better than a civilian pilot with 500 approaches down to mins. Here's where Albie differs, and I agree.
You can't just throw a blanket statement down and say "I fly jets, I must be better, " and likewise you can't counter that with "I have more hours, I must be better". You're talking apples and oranges, and you're probably not going to get an agreement from all parties.
Let me back Albie's point with an example. Takeoff and landings are important at UPT - they generally spend about 1/4 of the brief and debrief discussing these portions of the flight. You know how much time we spend in an operational unit talking about them? About 6.9 seconds. The tactical portion of the mission is the complicated part of our sortie - we study, implement, and brief tactics and weapons systems that not even the smartest guys in the squadron know everything about. As long as a dude can safely take off and land, I don't really care about the details. I want to know how his formation position was as we ingressed to a target at 500 feet and 540 knots. I want to know if his parameters were within limits as he pickled off a 2000-lb laser guided bomb, and did he perform the proper maneuvers to allow his WSO to guide it in? When we engaged hostile aircraft, how did his radio comm contribute or deteriorate from the engagement, and did he maneuver his aircraft in manner to kill the hostiles and get us out of their safely?
If you want to say that you're a better pilot because of how many approaches you've flown to mins, I'll say this - take your Cessna that flies (guessing) 80-100 knots on final. I have broken out more than once at my 200 foot min ceiling doing 170-ish knots. T-38 students at Columbus (known for terrible weather) will almost certainly fly to their IPs 300 foot mins at some point while they are there, in a jet where the minimum approach speed is 155 knots. Does this make any one better than the other? Not as far as I'm concerned; it's a different kind of flying. Is one more difficult than the other? Yes - there is absolutely no way you can tell me that flying light aircraft is more challenging than employing a multi-million dollar fighter aircraft. Does that make one pilot better than the other? Not necessarily.
Let me say it this way: the statemant he made makes it sound like the hardest thing in movin people and stuff day in and out is an approach to mins. Well guess what, its not. Understand now?
See we get guys all the time like this, we call them "shiney tacs". Seems these guys have a habit of telling some people how it is (ranging from fueling advice to how they do at the mainline, we wont go there but my boyz know)
It has nothing to do with civ/mil.
Outta here for Sun n Fun then Key West, O vacation sweet vacation.
See we get guys all the time like this, we call them "shiney tacs". Seems these guys have a habit of telling some people how it is (ranging from fueling advice to how they do at the mainline, we wont go there but my boyz know)
It has nothing to do with civ/mil.
Outta here for Sun n Fun then Key West, O vacation sweet vacation.
Last edited:
If I didn't know better, I'd say this thread was turning into a military vs. civi flying thread. I know it's not, right?
Anybody who flies turbine, be it a Caravan or an F-22, is a likely a good pilot, and can make their particular aircraft do things the rest of us can't (that's why we train, instead of just saying, "Oh, you're a Blue Angel, huh? Well then, you can just skip training, we KNOW you're good"). Almost all of us could jump into each others' planes and fly them and land them to very basic standards. Isn't that good enough?
To all of those who are flying in support of the war, good job so far, and keep it up. I guarantee the guy who pickles Sadam will be considered by all of us to be an outstanding aviator (if it didn't already happen).
Anybody who flies turbine, be it a Caravan or an F-22, is a likely a good pilot, and can make their particular aircraft do things the rest of us can't (that's why we train, instead of just saying, "Oh, you're a Blue Angel, huh? Well then, you can just skip training, we KNOW you're good"). Almost all of us could jump into each others' planes and fly them and land them to very basic standards. Isn't that good enough?
To all of those who are flying in support of the war, good job so far, and keep it up. I guarantee the guy who pickles Sadam will be considered by all of us to be an outstanding aviator (if it didn't already happen).
talondriver
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2002
- Posts
- 330
Sounds like LearLove needs to look at another message board. Apparently the "Military" board frustrates him. There are guys who frequent this board that are ready to go into the military soon. Albie (and others) are giving "military/aviation" advice to these dudes. Maybe he should have prefaced it with "those wanting to go to military pilot training, read on...all others-don't because you'll develop a huge chip on your shoulder"
LearLove: Who's T-34B did you fly?
Mr. Irrelevant: I've seen both of students with prior civilian time. Some are awesome...some are not so awesome. Usually, studs with prior time excel in the tweet phase but start equalling out towards the end. Once in awhile we'll have a commuter captain go through (guard/reserve). Most are awesome...but sometimes you'll get one that really sucks. The issue is "conforming".
For those going to SUPT soon-Congratulations!! Work hard, play hard. Not many get the chance.
LearLove: Who's T-34B did you fly?
Mr. Irrelevant: I've seen both of students with prior civilian time. Some are awesome...some are not so awesome. Usually, studs with prior time excel in the tweet phase but start equalling out towards the end. Once in awhile we'll have a commuter captain go through (guard/reserve). Most are awesome...but sometimes you'll get one that really sucks. The issue is "conforming".
For those going to SUPT soon-Congratulations!! Work hard, play hard. Not many get the chance.
I think it's a courageous thing he did. It appears that he was honest with himself, and by resigning now instead of later he has saved valuable resources. Military flying isn't for everbody and sometimes desire, no matter how heartfelt, is not enough.
However, having said that, for those of you preparing to attend UPT, it is not THAT bad. Hundreds of folks get through the program all the time. The AF wants you to make it through. Work and study hard, but take things as they come, and try to have fun. The fact of the matter is that as a student you will be doing the best flying of your career-If you screw up at UPT the worse that can happen is you get a bust and then press on-If you screw up operationally you could be court-martialled at best or kill somebody at worst. In other words, you really have very little responsibility during UPT other than to yourself. Another thing that is fun about UPT is the fact that for 1 year you will live, breath, eat, think, and sh?t nothing but flying and there are no other distractions like what job you have in the squadron or worrying about your next OPR (Officer Performance Report). Now you may have some personal distractions but those are up to YOU to handle
So, good luck to those of you that have been selected to attend UPT. I know I had a blast (But my memory is fading )
However, having said that, for those of you preparing to attend UPT, it is not THAT bad. Hundreds of folks get through the program all the time. The AF wants you to make it through. Work and study hard, but take things as they come, and try to have fun. The fact of the matter is that as a student you will be doing the best flying of your career-If you screw up at UPT the worse that can happen is you get a bust and then press on-If you screw up operationally you could be court-martialled at best or kill somebody at worst. In other words, you really have very little responsibility during UPT other than to yourself. Another thing that is fun about UPT is the fact that for 1 year you will live, breath, eat, think, and sh?t nothing but flying and there are no other distractions like what job you have in the squadron or worrying about your next OPR (Officer Performance Report). Now you may have some personal distractions but those are up to YOU to handle
So, good luck to those of you that have been selected to attend UPT. I know I had a blast (But my memory is fading
)Zulu... it made no sense to me either.
Toro... you said: "Does this make any one better than the other? Not as far as I'm concerned; it's a different kind of flying. Is one more difficult than the other? Yes - there is absolutely no way you can tell me that flying light aircraft is more challenging than employing a multi-million dollar fighter aircraft. Does that make one pilot better than the other? Not necessarily."
This is about the best way I can think of to phrase what I was saying eariler. In my humble opinion, I would replace "light" with "civil". I may be totally wrong, but it just seems logical to me that the whole realm of military aviation is very different and, generally speaking, more difficult.
Skyward80
Toro... you said: "Does this make any one better than the other? Not as far as I'm concerned; it's a different kind of flying. Is one more difficult than the other? Yes - there is absolutely no way you can tell me that flying light aircraft is more challenging than employing a multi-million dollar fighter aircraft. Does that make one pilot better than the other? Not necessarily."
This is about the best way I can think of to phrase what I was saying eariler. In my humble opinion, I would replace "light" with "civil". I may be totally wrong, but it just seems logical to me that the whole realm of military aviation is very different and, generally speaking, more difficult.
Skyward80
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
