Fly Boy ?????

Subject: Fly Boy ?????
From: "Steven P. McNicoll"
Date: 10/24/03 11:59 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id: t


"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

Anyway, since I started this thread with an innocent question, in
recognition of
the **** storm it generated, I'm going to claim author's rights to revise
my
question. AIR, we were talking about ditching characteristics, and I
asked what
the manufacturer had to say on the subject.

In those days, before an aircraft hit the inventory, the only people who
knew
how it was going to behave were the manufacturer and his test pilots.
Before
they turned the aircraft over to the military for their acceptance
testing, they
sat down and wrote a flight manual, which contained everything the
operator
needed to know about how to make the bird go up and come back down in one
piece.
Before the first of that model actually ditched in the water somewhere,
its crew
should have familiarized themselves with every bit of the information in
that
manual, including how it was going to behave when it hit the water and
recommendations on how best to make initial contact with the water.


Unless the manufacturer actually ditched the aircraft whatever was written
in the manual was theory.



Of course once the crew ditched the aircraft threory became practice pretty
friggin fast. Or hadn't that occured to you?
..

"Autocollimator" wrote in message
...

Of course once the crew ditched the aircraft threory became practice
pretty
friggin fast. Or hadn't that occured to you?


That's a possibility, not a surety. It's also possible the manufacturer's
theory was proven wrong. Why didn't that possibility occur to you?

Subject: Fly Boy ?????
From: "Steven P. McNicoll"
Date: 10/24/03 12:34 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id: t


"Autocollimator" wrote in message
...

Of course once the crew ditched the aircraft threory became practice
pretty
friggin fast. Or hadn't that occured to you?


That's a possibility, not a surety. It's also possible the manufacturer's
theory was proven wrong. Why didn't that possibility occur to you?


No a surety, not just a possibility. Have you ever gotten off the ground in a
miliatry aircraft? I think not.

"Autocollimator" wrote in message
...

No a surety, not just a possibility.


Nonsense. If aircraft always behaved as predicted there'd be no need to
test them.



Have you ever gotten off the ground in a miliatry aircraft?


Irrelevant.



I think not.


It's becoming increasingly obvious you don't think at all.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
. net...

"Autocollimator" wrote in message
...

No a surety, not just a possibility.


Nonsense. If aircraft always behaved as predicted there'd be no need to
test them.



Have you ever gotten off the ground in a miliatry aircraft?


Irrelevant.

I think it is relevant. If you had flown for one of the military services, a
lot of the things we're talking to you about would be things that you'd
experienced. Maybe it never occurred to you, never having experienced it, that
military flight manuals are constantly being updated as new information
regarding the aircraft is received, either from the manufacturer or from the
field. I flew I don't remember how many different kinds of aircraft, and I knew
how to ditch every one of them, and I learned how best to do it from constant
study of the flight manuals, which provided me with the most current data
available I needed in order to make good decisions.

I flew about 4,000 hours in my military career. I never ditched an airplane,
never bailed out of one, and walked away from every landing without even a
slight limp. Those are my credentials. There are guys who frequent this NG
with a helluva lot more than that, and they have my attention and respect. I
doubt that you're one of them.

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

I think it is relevant.


You're free to think that, but it's still irrelevant.



If you had flown for one of the military services, a
lot of the things we're talking to you about would be things that you'd
experienced. Maybe it never occurred to you, never having experienced it,
that
military flight manuals are constantly being updated as new information
regarding the aircraft is received, either from the manufacturer or from
the
field.


Updated with new information from the field? How can that be? You've taken
the position that the manufacturer's theories trump actual experience from
the field.



I flew I don't remember how many different kinds of aircraft, and I knew
how to ditch every one of them, and I learned how best to do it from
constant
study of the flight manuals, which provided me with the most current data
available I needed in order to make good decisions.

I flew about 4,000 hours in my military career. I never ditched an
airplane,
never bailed out of one, and walked away from every landing without even a
slight limp. Those are my credentials. There are guys who frequent this
NG
with a helluva lot more than that, and they have my attention and respect.
I
doubt that you're one of them.


I think if you review your messages in this thread a few days from now
you'll see that you've taken a completely illogical position.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
k.net...

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

I think it is relevant.


You're free to think that, but it's still irrelevant.



If you had flown for one of the military services, a
lot of the things we're talking to you about would be things that you'd
experienced. Maybe it never occurred to you, never having experienced it,
that
military flight manuals are constantly being updated as new information
regarding the aircraft is received, either from the manufacturer or from
the
field.


Updated with new information from the field? How can that be? ......

I don't imagine that you've ever heard of specific unit using certain aircraft
conducting certain kinds of field tests on their equipment. I could give you
examples of what I am talking about, but it would only serve to continue your
ongoing arguing about the subject. You disparage information from the
manufacturer, but you now are questioning the existence of pireps where you just
finished saying that they were the only reliable information available to the
aircrews. It would help if you made up your mind which source of information
for pilots you wish to endorse.

.....You've taken the position that the manufacturer's theories trump actual
experience from
the field.

Now you're putting words in my mouth. I said nothing of the sort. I'm trying
to get across to you that the body of knowledge has input from more than one
source.





I flew I don't remember how many different kinds of aircraft, and I knew
how to ditch every one of them, and I learned how best to do it from
constant
study of the flight manuals, which provided me with the most current data
available I needed in order to make good decisions.

I flew about 4,000 hours in my military career. I never ditched an
airplane,
never bailed out of one, and walked away from every landing without even a
slight limp. Those are my credentials. There are guys who frequent this
NG
with a helluva lot more than that, and they have my attention and respect.
I
doubt that you're one of them.


I think if you review your messages in this thread a few days from now
you'll see that you've taken a completely illogical position.

Well, if you say so, but I don't see too many people here agreeing with you.

George Z.

Subject: Fly Boy ?????
From: "Steven P. McNicoll"
Date: 10/24/03 2:45 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id: t

I think it is relevant.


You're free to think that, but it's still irrelevant.

Irrelevant means no.