Flanker vs F-15

"monkey" wrote...

That does not mean that CAS can never fail and that alone causes your
training to be unsafe for that case. Unless of course you mean that you do
not fly the hornet and never have. Much like a Turkish 757 pilot with
static port problems thinking the pitot static system is based on pitot
tubes and the airspeed can't be doing what it is; right into the drink.

you know what dude, I'm tired of you and your pigheaded opinions - I
don't see why you have this need to continually act like an ass and
try to condescend people - I have absolutely NO need to justify myself
to you - I notice that you make a lot of posts, so I guess your "job"
doesn't keep you busy enough. The only reason I can think for your
argumentative nature is this forum helps you out with your "small
rocket' syndrome - see ya, clown.

Bummer... You fell into the tarverbot trap...

You'll find he's not worth getting ****ed off; he claims to know a lot about
airplanes, but every person who's been here a while has discovered the abundance
of BS he spews.

The bottom line is that he gets off on ****ing people off. A good approach is
to ignore him unless you want to debunk one of his spews.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote...


The FAA, US Military and I agree that a simulator is a substitute for real
flight training. In fact I have no knowlege of anywhere that would not
require simulator time as part of training.

....which displays your ignorance of the subject.

There is NO simulator requirement as part of training for any FAA pilot
certificate short of the ATP. Simulator training is ALLOWED, but not required.


Well you know what, as a systems engineer it is my job. All those
instruction on how to operate are written by engineers.

Nope. You are wrong again.

Many of the instruction[s] and procedures in Dash-1s, NATOPS, and FHBs are
written by non-engineers.

From: "John Weiss"


"Tarver Engineering" wrote...


The FAA, US Military and I agree that a simulator is a substitute for real
flight training. In fact I have no knowlege of anywhere that would not
require simulator time as part of training.

...which displays your ignorance of the subject.

There is NO simulator requirement as part of training for any FAA pilot
certificate short of the ATP. Simulator training is ALLOWED, but not
required.


Well you know what, as a systems engineer it is my job. All those
instruction on how to operate are written by engineers.

Nope. You are wrong again.

Many of the instruction[s] and procedures in Dash-1s, NATOPS, and FHBs are
written by non-engineers.

Good thing too, can you imagine a procedure written by tarver? It would be an
asset to the enemy.

Actually tech writers translate engineerese into a known language.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"John Weiss" wrote in message
...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote...


The FAA, US Military and I agree that a simulator is a substitute for
real
flight training. In fact I have no knowlege of anywhere that would not
require simulator time as part of training.

...which displays your ignorance of the subject.

There is NO simulator requirement as part of training for any FAA pilot
certificate short of the ATP. Simulator training is ALLOWED, but not
required.

Do you like this better?

In fact I have no knowlege of anywhere that would not
require simulator time as part of *military* training.

Allowed refutes the monkey sock's cluelessness too, Johnny.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ...
"John Weiss" wrote in message
...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote...


The FAA, US Military and I agree that a simulator is a substitute for
real
flight training. In fact I have no knowlege of anywhere that would not
require simulator time as part of training.

...which displays your ignorance of the subject.

There is NO simulator requirement as part of training for any FAA pilot
certificate short of the ATP. Simulator training is ALLOWED, but not
required.

Do you like this better?

In fact I have no knowlege of anywhere that would not
require simulator time as part of *military* training.

Allowed refutes the monkey sock's cluelessness too, Johnny.
I wouldn't speak for the US Military or the FAA if I were you Tarver.
You're so full of crap. NO military would ever admit that sims are a
substitute for flying - what they are are nice complements to a flying
program, great for procedures and emergency practice. I totally
understand your perspective though-it's basically identical to that of
every geek I've met who have bags of hours in the sim but have never
flown in a real jet, and as a result have no perspective on the
limitations of a sim. Let's face it Tarver - if you've got no time on
the pole of a real airplane your perspective is going to be a little
lacking. I'm tired of your constant rhetoric and insults to team
minded aviation professionals - I don't really care about what you say
about me - I'm a relatively new military pilot (just under 2000
hours)so i'm used to taking criticism, but I know a LOT of experienced
guys who would kick your ass over your ****ty attitude. You as a
support person need to remember you're working FOR the guys flying
these airplanes in war. If you can't deal with their opinions maybe
you shoule be doing something else. So you've flown a sim around a
bit. So what. So have I and to be honest I find that boring and
unrepresentative of real aircraft performance.If these sims you are
talking about are so great, screw it - let's just get rid of all of
the flying except for in war. Oh wait, no, lets clone a bunch of
tarvers, then we won't even need pilots at all - Bottom line- air
forces are run by military people like some of the brothers on this
forum. More specifically they are run by officers and pilots like me.
So, everyone, no matter who Tarver thinks he is, rest assured that he
is NOT making policy decisions for the military - he is just another
contractor providing services for us. So Tarver, thanks for your
insight...but how about you stick to your sims and let the military
people do the flying. Sorry if you take offense to this, but I'm sure
that I'll hear about it anyway from my boss thru CINCNORAD about my
negative attitude on this forum, since from the way you talk you must
be pretty tight with military policy makers. Actually isn't it you who
makes defense policy?I didn't think so. Keep up the good work...
contractor. Hopefully I'll get to fly one of your sims soon. Unless
the companies find a better company to do their work, which will
probably happen sooner rather than later if you keep trying to do
everyone else's job but your own.

"monkey" wrote in message
om...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message

Allowed refutes the monkey sock's cluelessness too, Johnny.

I wouldn't speak for the US Military or the FAA if I were you Tarver.

Why is that?

Anyway, before monkey sock so rudely interupted, I was discussing the 20#
stick breakout for the F/A-18. Something anyone who ever flew the airplane
would know as part of their training. I suspect "an additional 33#" of
stick force added to the regular pull of the SU 27 directly into one's
crotch would be less than fun. I'd go with flicking the switch.

snip of monkey offering additional proof that he is no pilot

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"monkey" wrote in message
om...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message

Allowed refutes the monkey sock's cluelessness too, Johnny.

I wouldn't speak for the US Military or the FAA if I were you Tarver.

Why is that?

Anyway, before monkey sock so rudely interupted, I was discussing the 20#
stick breakout for the F/A-18. Something anyone who ever flew the
airplane
would know as part of their training. I suspect "an additional 33#" of
stick force added to the regular pull of the SU 27 directly into one's
crotch would be less than fun. I'd go with flicking the switch.

Fair point. Don't you think in combat, the pull-through might be more actual
use?

John

"John Mullen" wrote in message
...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"monkey" wrote in message
om...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message

Allowed refutes the monkey sock's cluelessness too, Johnny.

I wouldn't speak for the US Military or the FAA if I were you Tarver.

Why is that?

Anyway, before monkey sock so rudely interupted, I was discussing the
20#
stick breakout for the F/A-18. Something anyone who ever flew the
airplane
would know as part of their training. I suspect "an additional 33#" of
stick force added to the regular pull of the SU 27 directly into one's
crotch would be less than fun. I'd go with flicking the switch.

Fair point. Don't you think in combat, the pull-through might be more
actual
use?

I don't believe the cobra is a viable combat manouver, but I suppose the use
of the pull through might be useful where the operator is scared ****less.
I expect that during a dog fight where your competetor is colsing for a shot
fear would be part of the equation.

Tarver Engineering wrote:

The FAA, US Military and I agree that a simulator is a substitute for

real

flight training. In fact I have no knowlege of anywhere that would not
require simulator time as part of training.

...which displays your ignorance of the subject.

There is NO simulator requirement as part of training for any FAA pilot
certificate short of the ATP. Simulator training is ALLOWED, but not

required.

Do you like this better?

In fact I have no knowlege of anywhere that would not
require simulator time as part of *military* training.

Allowed refutes the monkey sock's cluelessness too, Johnny.


Well, there is the U.S. Air Force- Sheppard AFB, as I recall, has
no simulators and manages to graduate a fair number of pilots who
have no simulator time. (They do have Partial Task trainers, I
believe).

Mike

"Mike Williamson" wrote in message
...
Tarver Engineering wrote:

The FAA, US Military and I agree that a simulator is a substitute for

real

flight training. In fact I have no knowlege of anywhere that would not
require simulator time as part of training.

...which displays your ignorance of the subject.

There is NO simulator requirement as part of training for any FAA pilot
certificate short of the ATP. Simulator training is ALLOWED, but not

required.

Do you like this better?

In fact I have no knowlege of anywhere that would not
require simulator time as part of *military* training.

Allowed refutes the monkey sock's cluelessness too, Johnny.


Well, there is the U.S. Air Force- Sheppard AFB, as I recall, has
no simulators and manages to graduate a fair number of pilots who
have no simulator time. (They do have Partial Task trainers, I
believe).

Sounds like a simulator to me.

How are you, Mike?