Senior Pilot and Command pilot ratings

On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 18:38:13 GMT, Gene Storey wrote:

Smart man. His Pa probably told him about the "cattle" regimes of
SAC alert, and TAC mobility, and he was smart to pick an organization
that knows how to treat aircrew like mature adult men: MAC

SAC? TAC? MAC? Who dat?

-Jeff B. (who got out in '94)
yeff at erols dot com

"PosterBoy" wrote:


Not to change topice, but, out of curiousity, gord....
How many of those 13M were pilot-in-command?

Thanks, and
Cheers.


Ah, none were...why do you ask?.
--

-Gord.

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: Senior Pilot and Command pilot ratings
From: "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
Date: 9/6/03 10:34 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

Phineas Pinkham wrote:
"ArtKramr" wrote in message
Unless you flew more missions than Ed did, shut your stupid face.

"Bite me!"

Now ladies... be nice.

Mortimer Schnerd, RN


http://www.mortimerschnerd.com

I am being nice.

I thought so and I am being nice, by just watching Art work; instead of
helping.

Ed Rasimus wrote:


But, we didn't go through the "mother may I" routine that I described
in the excerpt. We were "standardized" for sure, but we weren't
ritualized.

Cut me a bit of slack please.


Ed Rasimus

Of course...and I fully realize that your post was meant to show
up the humour in the situation (and was quite well done too).

Also I can readily understand how a pilot and a WSO who fly
together constantly on an a/c designed to be quite intuitively
flown could develop a working scenario where minimum chatter is
involved. But when a PIC and a Co-pilot are picked at random to
fly a large passenger airliner then procedures need to be
standardized so that everyone is using the same songbook. Toss in
a third crewman as used to be the case and you have a lot of
chances for disaster if they're not all on the same page. It may
sound silly but there's a really good reason for standardization.

Hell, most flying establishments have a whole section devoted to
'standards' alone.

Large airlines (and the military) don't pump millions into a
theory just for the hell of it.

Millions and millions of dollars are at stake, Airlines just
cannot take the same chances that the military can...Look at
TWA...one crash and the company bites the dust. The
'...whole...damned...company...' mind you, there's the matter of
some 230 people dying as well. And this one wasn't a matter of
'standards' but it's certainly possible that 'unstandard
operation' could (and has) cause just as disastrous a result.

Anyway, perhaps I shouldn't be trying to teach you anything but
you must admit that with all the possibilities that exist in a
large modern airliner's cockpit for misunderstanding that
anything that will lessen the possibilities is a good thing. You
must also admit that I have much more experience with this aspect
of flying than you do.
--

-Gord.

"Gord Beaman" ) wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote:

Cut me a bit of slack please.


Of course...and I fully realize that your post was meant to show
up the humour in the situation (and was quite well done too).

Ahh, then my work here is nearly done.

Also I can readily understand how a pilot and a WSO who fly
together constantly on an a/c designed to be quite intuitively
flown could develop a working scenario where minimum chatter is
involved. But when a PIC and a Co-pilot are picked at random to
fly a large passenger airliner then procedures need to be
standardized so that everyone is using the same songbook. Toss in
a third crewman as used to be the case and you have a lot of
chances for disaster if they're not all on the same page. It may
sound silly but there's a really good reason for standardization.

I don't think standardization is in the slightest degree silly. Just
as you assemble random crews from the pool in the airline business, so
also is there random assemblages of fighter crews into flights of
four, elements of two and in multi-place tac aircraft in the same
airplane. It's an absolute that all the players do things the same
way.

Anyway, perhaps I shouldn't be trying to teach you anything but
you must admit that with all the possibilities that exist in a
large modern airliner's cockpit for misunderstanding that
anything that will lessen the possibilities is a good thing. You
must also admit that I have much more experience with this aspect
of flying than you do.

And, except for the big paycheck, I don't envy you in the slightest. I
never had the desire to go into that business, although I know lots of
my peers that had or have a second career in the airlines.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (ret)
***"When Thunder Rolled:
*** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam"
*** from Smithsonian Books
ISBN: 1588341038

"Gord Beaman" wrote

Hell, most flying establishments have a whole section devoted to
'standards' alone.

"Stan-Evil"

I had a bad day once, where I got a safety write-up, and the guy
wanted to bust my eval. We met in the Commanders office, where
the "evil" guy went on and on about my write-ups (If they get one good
one, they throw in the whole nit-noid).

Then the Commander asked him:

"Was the mission successful?" Yes
"Did the number of landings equal the number of take-offs?" Yes
"Did anyone die?" No.
"Did we lose any aircraft?" No

"If no-one died, and the ramp has the same number of aircraft, and
the mission was successful, then I consider that a good days work.
Thanks for your evaluation, but we'll just mark it down as additional
training required."

After the "evil" one left, he only said one thing: "In the Air Force we
RIF people who don't look good on paper. Kapish?" Yes Sir.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote

I think the crash of TWA 800 was a result of a lack of engineering
standardization. (ie wire routing)

I know for a fact they were killed over the particle-beam
weapon test range. As were a few other famous disasters since.

"Ed Rasimus" wrote

And, except for the big paycheck, I don't envy you in the slightest. I
never had the desire to go into that business, although I know lots of
my peers that had or have a second career in the airlines.

Why anyone would want to operate a modern airline, other than money,
is completely foreign to me. I get bored just thinking about it. Now
flying night cargo in a DC-3 over the mountains, yea baby!

"Sir, there's a passenger in 189C who's family is complaining about the
turbulence."

Right! Tell them we are coordinating with God to see about a smoother
ride.

"Gene Storey" wrote in message
.. .
"Tarver Engineering" wrote

I think the crash of TWA 800 was a result of a lack of engineering
standardization. (ie wire routing)

I know for a fact they were killed over the particle-beam
weapon test range. As were a few other famous disasters since.

I'm going to stick with upper deck galley wiring in the lower deck ceiling.
Especially sine the telephone installers wanted me to do the same to the
other three TWA adds.

Gene Storey wrote:
"Ed Rasimus" wrote

And, except for the big paycheck, I don't envy you in the slightest. I
never had the desire to go into that business, although I know lots of
my peers that had or have a second career in the airlines.

Why anyone would want to operate a modern airline, other than money,
is completely foreign to me. I get bored just thinking about it. Now
flying night cargo in a DC-3 over the mountains, yea baby!

"Sir, there's a passenger in 189C who's family is complaining about the
turbulence."


The first time I glanced at this I thought you'd written that a passenger was
complaining about the flatulence. I guess that shows where my mind is. G



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN


http://www.mortimerschnerd.com