If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#151
|
|||
|
|||
"Mike Marron" wrote in message ... "Mike Marron" wrote: Yet you appear to blame them for not doing so. Bullroar. I'm going to give you and sergeant dan and anyone else who thinks like y'all do the exact same advice I often give my ab initio students when they try reading the FAR's. When you read these postings Keith, simply ignore the white parts and just concentrate on the black parts (thems called "words.") Don't read into things that "appear" to be there cos' they really aren't there. Again, just focus on the black parts (e.g: the "words") exactly as they're written and forget about the white spaces in between and you won't confuse yourself. OK? Throughtout this, and the previous thread, you fail to call the 'government' to task for not ordering your 'preemptive airstrikes'. You do, however, call the Air Force to task for not conducting those strikes. When asked "What could the Air Force have done differently?", you introduce the idea of preemptive strikes. The USAF is not in the business of conducting unilateral preemptive strikes. Thay are in the business of conducting whatever the administration asks for. You also repeatedly use the term "on 9/11". As in: "Let's just hope and pray the USAF never ever "functions" again like it did back on Sept 11, 2001." "The USAF, in addition to the USN, Army and Marine Corps along with the various civilian intelligence and national security agencies completely and totally failed to defend the good ol' U.S. of A. on 11 Sept, 2001." "my contention is simply that the USAF, along with the various civilian U.S. intelligence agencies, dropped the ball BIG time on 9/11." There would seem to be two different environments for action. 'Pre-9/11' (intel, and your presumed 'preemptive strikes'), and 'on 9/11' (as events were happening). The two are not the same. The above statements (by you) seem to point to a failing during the latter. True? Pete Sscreech, ignore, or respond in a rational manner. Your choice. |
#152
|
|||
|
|||
Mike Marron wrote:
"George Z. Bush" wrote: "Mike Marron" wrote: Shows how much YOU know about professional aviation (try flight instructing someday and enjoy having roadkill for dinner every night). But hey, as bad as it was (and occassionally still is) flying damn sure beats working for a living! Funny you should say that. I know a guy who thought that way for the 15 ks a year or so that he made flying those checks around in all kinds of wx. After his accident, he kind of developed a different attitude about it. One of the reasons was that he pretty much had to find some other way to buy the groceries because he was devoted to eating, could no longer pass his flight physical, and he couldn't get his folks to foot that kind of bill for him. So now he's an RN and, aside from the seamier aspects of his job, like wiping an occasional behind or two for patients who're too sick to do it for themselves, he works twice as hard as he ever did when he was a heroic and adventurous flyboy and earns three times as much and then some. Not only that, but he sometimes mentions that his Mom and Dad still look on him as a hero even though he no longer displays that "wild blue yonder" stare that we old farts all tried to copy from the recruiting posters during those days when our hearts were young and gay (in the old fashioned non-sexual sense). (*-*))) My wife happens to be an ICU/CCU nurse but you couldn't pay me enough $$$ to do what *she* does for a living (urk!) Great story George ) Thanks. Sometimes, I get on a roll and enjoy seeing what I am thinking appear in print on my bubble machine. It's even better when somebody else also says that they enjoy it as well. Thanks again. George Z. |
#153
|
|||
|
|||
From: "Mike Marron"
"Keith Willshaw" wrote: "Mike Marron" wrote: Lack of enforcement and apprehension is one thing, lack of airstrikes against Taliban and Al-Quida training camps is an entirely different thing. Those decisions are made by the Government not the USAF, The government relys in part on Air Force intelligence resources to make those decisions. Those resources are directed outside of the Air Force as to what to gather. Going beyond those directions would get them slapped down as surely as not going as far. You can continue to blame 9/11 on everyone BUT the Air Force if you wish, I don't. I don't blame the Navy, Marines, Army or Coast Guard either. Which is not to say I blame the, oh, Indiana State Police or the Center for Disease Control. but that's like blaming everyone BUT the Army Air Corp for Dec 7, 1941. I don't blame them either. The blame lies fully above their pay grade. blame the President and his advisers if you feel there were grounds for such airstrikes but I dont recall any clamour from you on the subject before Sept 11 2001 You might not recall them, but I certainly castigated Bill for the lack. The gathering and processing of intelligence never was a part of my job. Naw, you don't say... My job was to simply fly checks, federal bank notes, nuclear medicine stuff etc. in Cessna 210's. Must be your fault for not reporting the lack of security then. |
#154
|
|||
|
|||
"George Z. Bush" wrote: Funny you should say that. I know a guy who thought that way for the 15 ks a year or so that he made flying those checks around in all kinds of wx. After his accident, he kind of developed a different attitude about it. One of the reasons was that he pretty much had to find some other way to buy the groceries because he was devoted to eating, could no longer pass his flight physical, and he couldn't get his folks to foot that kind of bill for him. So now he's an RN and, aside from the seamier aspects of his job, like wiping an occasional behind or two for patients who're too sick to do it for themselves, he works twice as hard as he ever did when he was a heroic and adventurous flyboy and earns three times as much and then some. Not only that, but he sometimes mentions that his Mom and Dad still look on him as a hero even though he no longer displays that "wild blue yonder" stare that we old farts all tried to copy from the recruiting posters during those days when our hearts were young and gay (in the old fashioned non-sexual sense). (*-*))) George Z. Actually, you know his Mom & Dad rather well, don't you? Bob McKellar |
#156
|
|||
|
|||
"Mike Marron" wrote in message ... "Mike Marron" wrote: "Keith Willshaw" wrote: Personally I'd be extremely concerned if some branch of the armed services started taking military action without orders from the Government. Straw man argument. Nobody said some branch of the armed services should commence military action w/o orders from the government. Nice try, though. ) Yet you appear to blame them for not doing so. Bullroar. I'm going to give you and sergeant dan and anyone else who thinks like y'all do the exact same advice I often give my ab initio students when they try reading the FAR's. When you read these postings Keith, simply ignore the white parts and just concentrate on the black parts (thems called "words.") Don't read into things that "appear" to be there cos' they really aren't there. Again, just focus on the black parts (e.g: the "words") exactly as they're written and forget about the white spaces in between and you won't confuse yourself. OK? So you are keen on words , lets review some of YOURS. When asked WHY the USAF was culpable you replied "Lack of enforcement and apprehension is one thing, lack of airstrikes against Taliban and Al-Quida training camps is an entirely different thing." These are the black parts you typed stating that the USAF should have taken military action. If they had orders from the Government to do so and failed they would be derelict. In the absence of such orders they are not. Keith |
#157
|
|||
|
|||
Mike Marron wrote:
"Mike Marron" wrote: "Keith Willshaw" wrote: Personally I'd be extremely concerned if some branch of the armed services started taking military action without orders from the Government. Straw man argument. Nobody said some branch of the armed services should commence military action w/o orders from the government. Nice try, though. ) Yet you appear to blame them for not doing so. Bullroar. I'm going to give you and sergeant dan and anyone else who thinks like y'all do the exact same advice I often give my ab initio students when they try reading the FAR's. When you read these postings Keith, simply ignore the white parts and just concentrate on the black parts (thems called "words.") Don't read into things that "appear" to be there cos' they really aren't there. Again, just focus on the black parts (e.g: the "words") exactly as they're written and forget about the white spaces in between and you won't confuse yourself. OK? Well I confess to being in the same boat of confusion over what you've written. Perhaps if I don't read the black parts of the sentence along with the white, it will all begin to make sense. SMH |
#158
|
|||
|
|||
Which qualifies you to do what exactly (beside comment on the difficulties
of living the life of a bottom feeder in the realm of professional aviation)? I will have to take exception with classifying freight dogs as bottom feeders. While it doesnt have the pay of major airliner flying, nor any of the other benefits and nice aircraft, they are still pilots nonetheless, who are usually working hard to move up into other aspects of aviation. "Bottom feeder" gives somewhat of a parasitic, or low class characterization of them. That attitude is what reinforces stereotypes of big iron pilots as thinking they are better than other pilots, and just too good to be sullied by being around pilots of lesser aircraft. Fact is, I would put the IFR skills and knowledge of a check flying freight dog, against any big iron pilot, and the small box freight pilot is going to come out on top. I do not think it serves anyones purposes to belittle the guys who are up all night, or day flying the small freight around the country. They certainly work a lot harder than the guys who fly the big iron, and if they have a gripe, they are certainly going to have a lot more reason to do so. I think all professional pilots should treat each other as professionals and collegues, regardless of aircraft size. Ron Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4) |
#159
|
|||
|
|||
Ron wrote:
Fact is, I would put the IFR skills and knowledge of a check flying freight dog, against any big iron pilot, and the small box freight pilot is going to come out on top. Ditto. As a former freight dog/courier pilot/charter pilot, I was expected to fly every day, Monday-Friday regardless of weather. I was also flying at times aircraft that were the state of the art the year I was born. There was no climbing out of weather; you were in it for the entire flight... unlike heavy iron pilots who often log one or two tenths on each end of a leg in IFR but spend the majority of the flight in clear air. No auto pilot or copilot either... you were PIC and if you didn't do it, it didn't get done. I developed some pretty outstanding IFR skills. I also flew about 2500 of my 2600 hours as pilot in command. I have a buddy who flies jets for a commuter. He's got more time than me now but almost all of his time is either as a primary instructor or as a copilot. He keeps looking for the next job rather than sticking around long enough to make captain. I think he's gotten too comfortable allowing somebody else to make his decisions for him, but I digress. I believe you'll find most freight pilots are working towards a goal. Flying freight ain't it. But you can't buy the skills developed flying freight with cash.... -- Mortimer Schnerd, RN http://www.mortimerschnerd.com |
#160
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Air Force getting Fit to Fight | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 9 | January 11th 04 01:52 PM |
Aleutian air war only WWII fight waged on North American soil | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 1 | July 29th 03 01:57 AM |
If you are looking for a fight... | ArtKramr | Military Aviation | 63 | July 25th 03 12:24 AM |
Not everybody wants to fight | Chris Mark | Military Aviation | 5 | July 9th 03 04:36 PM |
Marines fight for $48 billion high-tech air fleet | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | July 7th 03 11:02 PM |