Public release on Dover C-5 crash

[AdlerDriver]

But if any of these guys go to interview for a major, are they a mil super pilot top gun "known quantity"?

Dude - they crashed an aircraft. I'd say their "quantity" is about zero. Just because someone gets the chance to get high quality training, doesn't mean they'll end up high quality. Obviously they have a better shot with better training, but there's always the 1%.

 

[dojetdriver]

Dude - they crashed an aircraft. I'd say their "quantity" is about zero. Just because someone gets the chance to get high quality training, doesn't mean they'll end up high quality. Obviously they have a better shot with better training, but there's always the 1%.

Exactly the point I was making. Just because they were mil doesn't mean they are exempt from fcuking up. Contrary to what alot of guys think about mil pilots being so surperior.

 

[PreContact]

CHQ is right. As a flight safety officer I've seen the report and there's much more in it than the general public can see. Also, on my plane, the KC-10, the FE always reads ALL checklists, normal and emergency.

 

[Beertini]

4. Use some CRM

You mean like these guys?

http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Safety_Issues/others/PinnacleCRJ2.html

Is there a reason you have a chip on your shoulder about the military?

Beertini

 

[dojetdriver]

You mean like these guys?

http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Safety_Issues/others/PinnacleCRJ2.html

Is there a reason you have a chip on your shoulder about the military?

Beertini

1. I guess you didn't read post #36 very well
2. Is there a reason you have a chip on your shoulder when somebody points
out a fact and in this case happens to be about a military accident?

 

[Beertini]

1. I guess you didn't read post #36 very well

Actually I did read post #36. One of the things you said was:

Everybofy screws up, myself included.

I assume that when you refer to 'Everybofy' you are referring to both civilian and military types. I couldn't agree more as I firmly believe that accident potential (and the cause for accidents for that matter) is mutually exclusive of one's training background.

2. Is there a reason you have a chip on your shoulder when somebody points out a fact and in this case happens to be about a military accident?

Technically I don't have a 'chip on my shoulder.' According to dictionary.com:

chip on (one's) shoulder A habitually hostile or combative attitude.

I have read and re-read all (472 at last count) of your previous posts and I would think that you fit the dictionary.com definition perfectly. You have the habit of coming across in a combative manner on many subjects not exclusive to military pilots quite frequently. I don't think that you can say the same for me. My point was merely that you might have issues with military pilots. Let's reference a portion of post #36 again, shall we?

True. But a few (notice I said a few) mil type guys walk around with their chests stuck out, bragging about how great the military training is compared to the civilian training and that only the top gun-best of the best-super pilots can cut it in the military. And how good they are compared to civ pilots, how with a mil pilot you getting a "known quantity" blah blah blah.

I would say that that statement could be construed as both combative and hostile toward pilots with a military background. I would also argue that many of your 400-odd posts have 'habitual' tones that are both hostile and combative. Maybe I should have been more general and just stated that you seem to have a chip on your shoulder, regardless of your post's military or civilian commentary.

Good day,
Beertini

 

[dojetdriver]

Actually I did read post #36. One of the things you said was:

I assume that when you refer to 'Everybofy' you are referring to both civilian and military types. I couldn't agree more as I firmly believe that accident potential (and the cause for accidents for that matter) is mutually exclusive of one's training background.

Technically I don't have a 'chip on my shoulder.' According to dictionary.com:

I have read and re-read all (472 at last count) of your previous posts and I would think that you fit the dictionary.com definition perfectly. You have the habit of coming across in a combative manner on many subjects not exclusive to military pilots quite frequently. I don't think that you can say the same for me. My point was merely that you might have issues with military pilots. Let's reference a portion of post #36 again, shall we?



I would say that that statement could be construed as both combative and hostile toward pilots with a military background. I would also argue that many of your 400-odd posts have 'habitual' tones that are both hostile and combative. Maybe I should have been more general and just stated that you seem to have a chip on your shoulder, regardless of your post's military or civilian commentary.

Good day,
Beertini

Wow, did you really read all 472 of my posts? Seriously, it that what you did before making this response? I didn't say all, I said some. Look at how many posts are written by some of the mil guys towards civ guys that could be taken as hostile, combatitive, or just plain condescending.

 

[Deuce130]

According to the article there was an instructor and more than one FE. What did these people do during this flight? How about using them to read the checklists and going to the manuals finding the right pages, and being an extra set of eyes. The released article just screams poor CRM (or is that a concept the airforce doesn't know about yet?).

I've been trained on CRM twice a year every year since I've been in the AF. Lots of us are CRM instructors. I'd bet money that the the military has done more to flesh out and improve CRM than any other entity out there. Your sarcastic observation is unwarranted and just shows your ignorance about the military. Do you think it'd be fair to point out any other airplane accident and follow it up with "or is that a concept the <insert anything here> doesn't know about yet?"

 

[kevdog]

Actually I did read post #36. One of the things you said was:

I assume that when you refer to 'Everybofy' you are referring to both civilian and military types. I couldn't agree more as I firmly believe that accident potential (and the cause for accidents for that matter) is mutually exclusive of one's training background.

Technically I don't have a 'chip on my shoulder.' According to dictionary.com:

I have read and re-read all (472 at last count) of your previous posts and I would think that you fit the dictionary.com definition perfectly. You have the habit of coming across in a combative manner on many subjects not exclusive to military pilots quite frequently. I don't think that you can say the same for me. My point was merely that you might have issues with military pilots. Let's reference a portion of post #36 again, shall we?



I would say that that statement could be construed as both combative and hostile toward pilots with a military background. I would also argue that many of your 400-odd posts have 'habitual' tones that are both hostile and combative. Maybe I should have been more general and just stated that you seem to have a chip on your shoulder, regardless of your post's military or civilian commentary.

Good day,
Beertini

You have way too much time on your hands my friend. And I thought I had a message board addiction. Jesus.

 

[Beertini]

You have way too much time on your hands my friend. And I thought I had a message board addiction. Jesus.

C'mon kev--who has the 800+ posts? Besides, what else am I supposed to do on a layover in Mumbai?

(Also, I firmly believe in doing your homework before making a personal accusation. I know that flies in the face of the FI "way," but have you ever been to Mumbai?).

Beertini