Rumsfeld and flying

Yes it was strange they were justifying moving tour flights into part 135 as
a
safety measure, when the crashed listed as reasons ,were all part 135
already.

Evidently you haven't read the feds proposal? We're talking about
eliminating the grand old American tradition of commercial pilots
giving airplane rides in everything from Curtiss Jennys to Cessna
172's from their hometown airports under Part 91. You know,
eliminating the apple pie and U.S.A. stuff that brave Americans like
my Dad fought and died for. Most tour flights are conducted under
Part 91 NOT Part 135. This proposal, if passed, is just more post 9/11
nail in the coffin for GA.

Read it: http://nationalairtours.org/sight.html


Yes, I just didnt state clearly what I meant.

I used to do part 91 tour flying in Hawaii. But the FAA wants to make it all
under part 135 it sounds like. I think it is bogus and the reasoning they are
using is rather faulty.
Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)

"Ron" wrote in message
...
Yes it was strange they were justifying moving tour flights into part
135 as
a
safety measure, when the crashed listed as reasons ,were all part 135
already.

Evidently you haven't read the feds proposal? We're talking about
eliminating the grand old American tradition of commercial pilots
giving airplane rides in everything from Curtiss Jennys to Cessna
172's from their hometown airports under Part 91. You know,
eliminating the apple pie and U.S.A. stuff that brave Americans like
my Dad fought and died for. Most tour flights are conducted under
Part 91 NOT Part 135. This proposal, if passed, is just more post 9/11
nail in the coffin for GA.

Read it: http://nationalairtours.org/sight.html


Yes, I just didnt state clearly what I meant.

I used to do part 91 tour flying in Hawaii. But the FAA wants to make it
all
under part 135 it sounds like. I think it is bogus and the reasoning they
are
using is rather faulty.

The safest airplane is on that is parked.

"Stephen Harding" wrote in message
...
Ed Rasimus wrote:

On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 10:22:38 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Cub Driver" wrote in message
. ..

On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 18:37:53 -0500, Stephen Harding
wrote:

IIRC, the average age of the Vietnam grunt was quite young

25 WWII
21 Korea
19 Vietnam


Might I direct you to "Stolen Valor" as well. Burkett effectively
debunks the legend of the 19 year old average for Vietnam. He's got
the numbers in print.

Average warrior age in Vietnam was a lot closer to 22.

Is this average over all or just grunts, as I was referring?

I would assume that if you include aviators and specialty
personnel, you'd up the average, even though there wouldn't
be as many of them.

From the same work that Ed cited: "The average age of men killed in Vietnam
was 22.8 years, or almost twenty-three years old. This probably understaes
the average age of those in ietnam by several months, because those who
faced the enmy in combat roles typically were the younger, healthy veterans,
not the older career soldiers. While the *average* (emphasis in original)
age of those killed was 22.8, more twenty year olds were killed than any
other age, followed by twenty-one year olds, then nineteen year olds." I
don't know of any reputable database that actually has the ages of all of
those who *served* in Vietnam, and Burkett's analysis based upon the ages of
those who died seems to be logical. His conclusion is that the average age
of the soldiers who served in Vietnam was not significantly different from
that of WWII.

He goes on to point out some other common misconceptions, like: enlisted
personnel suffered a disproportionat share of the casualty burden (false--in
actuality, 13.5 percent of fatalities were from the officer side, which only
accounted for 12.5 percent of those who served in theater, with the Army
losing a higher ratio of officers in Vietnam than it did during WWII,
including no less than 12 general officers); draftees accounted for most of
those KIA (false--77 percent of the KIA were volunteers, with the percentage
being even higher for the eighteen and nineteen year old age brackets at 97%
and 86% respectively); thousands of eighteen year old draftees died
(false--only 101 draftees in that age group died in Vietnam); young black
draftees died at a greater rate than others (false--of those eighteen year
old draftees killed, only *seven* were black); and Vietnam was the first
unpopular US war (false, at least in an arguable sense; he points out that a
1937 poll indicated that fully 64% of Americans considered our entry into
WWI as being a blunder, and two years after WWII 25% of Americans thought
our participation in *that* war had been a misguided); and lastly (Art
should really LOVE this one), contrary to popular belief, the percentage of
draftees in the service during the Vietnam era was MUCH lower than during
WWII (one-third versus two-thirds).

Brooks



SMH

362436 (Ron) wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:

Evidently you haven't read the feds proposal? We're talking about
eliminating the grand old American tradition of commercial pilots
giving airplane rides in everything from Curtiss Jennys to Cessna
172's from their hometown airports under Part 91. You know,
eliminating the apple pie and U.S.A. stuff that brave Americans like
my Dad fought and died for. Most tour flights are conducted under
Part 91 NOT Part 135. This proposal, if passed, is just more post 9/11
nail in the coffin for GA.

Read it: http://nationalairtours.org/sight.html

Yes, I just didnt state clearly what I meant.

I used to do part 91 tour flying in Hawaii. But the FAA wants to make it all
under part 135 it sounds like.

Exactly. This is one of the most draconian proposals since 1997, when
the FAA "modified" FAR Part 61 pilot training regulations.

I think it is bogus and the reasoning they are using is rather faulty.

Changing the sightseeing rules is not necessary and would not
enhance safety. Everyone will be effected by this rule, INCLUDING
military pilots. Why? Because most military pilots are also FAA
certified pilots and the more people whom are discouraged from
becoming pilots, the less military flying clubs there will be, less
flight instructors, fewer students, fewer airplanes sold (making each
one more expensive,) less insurance available (and, again, more
expensive,) fewer aviation accessories sold (like radios and GPS's
that warbirds use not to mention that neato TCAS unit in your 50-year
old DC-4) and more politicians and developers who want to sub-divide
"under-utilized airports." If you think it's bogus, don't hesitate to
tell the FAA but do it before the deadline on APRIL 19.

Once again, here is the link: http://nationalairtours.org/sight.html

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

"Stephen Harding" wrote in message
...
Ed Rasimus wrote:

On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 10:22:38 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Cub Driver" wrote in message
. ..

On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 18:37:53 -0500, Stephen Harding
wrote:

IIRC, the average age of the Vietnam grunt was quite young

25 WWII
21 Korea
19 Vietnam


Might I direct you to "Stolen Valor" as well. Burkett effectively
debunks the legend of the 19 year old average for Vietnam. He's got
the numbers in print.

Average warrior age in Vietnam was a lot closer to 22.

Is this average over all or just grunts, as I was referring?

I would assume that if you include aviators and specialty
personnel, you'd up the average, even though there wouldn't
be as many of them.

From the same work that Ed cited: "The average age of men killed in
Vietnam
was 22.8 years, or almost twenty-three years old.

I was only counting combat soldiers, like the thread title.

Ed may very well be correct for some different criterion.

Kevin Brooks wrote:
"Stephen Harding" wrote in message
...
Ed Rasimus wrote:

On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 10:22:38 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 18:37:53 -0500, Stephen Harding
wrote:

IIRC, the average age of the Vietnam grunt was quite young

25 WWII
21 Korea
19 Vietnam


Might I direct you to "Stolen Valor" as well. Burkett effectively
debunks the legend of the 19 year old average for Vietnam. He's got
the numbers in print.

Average warrior age in Vietnam was a lot closer to 22.

Is this average over all or just grunts, as I was referring?

I would assume that if you include aviators and specialty
personnel, you'd up the average, even though there wouldn't
be as many of them.

From the same work that Ed cited: "The average age of men killed in Vietnam
was 22.8 years, or almost twenty-three years old. This probably understaes
the average age of those in ietnam by several months, because those who
faced the enmy in combat roles typically were the younger, healthy veterans,
not the older career soldiers. While the *average* (emphasis in original)
age of those killed was 22.8, more twenty year olds were killed than any
other age, followed by twenty-one year olds, then nineteen year olds." I
don't know of any reputable database that actually has the ages of all of
those who *served* in Vietnam, and Burkett's analysis based upon the ages of
those who died seems to be logical. His conclusion is that the average age
of the soldiers who served in Vietnam was not significantly different from
that of WWII.

He goes on to point out some other common misconceptions, like: enlisted
personnel suffered a disproportionat share of the casualty burden (false--in
actuality, 13.5 percent of fatalities were from the officer side, which only
accounted for 12.5 percent of those who served in theater, with the Army
losing a higher ratio of officers in Vietnam than it did during WWII,
including no less than 12 general officers); draftees accounted for most of
those KIA (false--77 percent of the KIA were volunteers, with the percentage
being even higher for the eighteen and nineteen year old age brackets at 97%
and 86% respectively); thousands of eighteen year old draftees died
(false--only 101 draftees in that age group died in Vietnam); young black
draftees died at a greater rate than others (false--of those eighteen year
old draftees killed, only *seven* were black); and Vietnam was the first
unpopular US war (false, at least in an arguable sense; he points out that a
1937 poll indicated that fully 64% of Americans considered our entry into
WWI as being a blunder, and two years after WWII 25% of Americans thought
our participation in *that* war had been a misguided); and lastly (Art
should really LOVE this one), contrary to popular belief, the percentage of
draftees in the service during the Vietnam era was MUCH lower than during
WWII (one-third versus two-thirds).

Brooks

We certainly can count on our statisticians to breath life and interest into any
subject that catches their eye. (^-^)))

Zzzzzzzzzzzzz...snort!!! Did I miss anything? (^-^)))

George Z.

Ron W wrote:
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...
After my time. I was there from '51 through '55. I was with the 344th
TCS, a tenant outfit flying C-46s. The rest of my outfit were at Brady,
down near Fukuoka (Kyushu). We moved up to Tachi in Dec. '51, when the
124s were all grounded due to inflight generator fires. For a while, our
46s and the 54 squadron were all there was available for intra-theater
traffic in and out of Tachi. The 344th deactivated in '55 and became a
Flying Training Squadron which eventually turned our aircraft over to the
Japan Air Self Defense Force. We had the distinction of being among the
very few AF people in the world who ever flew airplanes with the Rising
Sun insignia on them

Hello George. I was right down ther road from you at Yokota flying
WB-29's and Wb-50's from 1954 to 55, when I was grounded for a
bad eye! Also checked out in our C-54. I learned how to land it
the Berlin Air Lift way: 800 ft final, nose touching the runway, cut
power, full flaps & cowls, gear and nose down. Flare and land on the
stripes. It took a while to get one's courage!

How could we forget you guys at Yokota? Every time you were getting ready to
drop some iron on NK, the preflight noise would start up at about midnight or
so, and there was no way to hide it, and we'd be waiting for the news later in
the day praying that you hadn't had to leave any behind up there.


They certainly were. Originally (before my time), the entire TCWg at Tachi
was a C-54 unit. I think they replaced three 54 squadrons with two 124
units, obviously with no loss of airlift capability.

I was on base at the time one of the 124s crashed on the outskirts of the
base, with a loss of 129 souls. It was the worst air disaster in Japanese
history up till then. Did you ever hear anything about that one?

I think I remember that one. Didn't the farmers riot against the Base?
I think it was weeks before we could use the road to Tokyo.

Yeah, and I never understood what it was that got their undies in an uproar. It
wasn't like it was anything that we wanted to have happen. Maybe they were just
****ed because we were occupying space that they'd rather have had available to
them for more paddies. Tough! If that was the only price they had to pay for
losing the war, they got off scot free.

...When I
was leaving Larson AFB in Dec 53 for flying school, a 124 crashed after take
off. The control lock were still on. I was an RO
in the 56th FIS then.

I once flew a gooney bird from Naples to Nice, France with an aileron lock still
on. No harm done, but it sure was an uncordinated flight experience.

Were you there when a Tachi staffer landed the C-47 on the top of
Mt. Fuji?

I think the word was, when I heard about it, that that was one of those rare
gooney bird landings that nobody walked away from. Actually, one of the guys in
my squadron turned north at one of those islands in Tokyo Bay that had those
strong magnetic anomelies on it thinking he was at the Oshima beacon, and ended
up leaving about ten feet of C-46 wing near the top of Fuji, but he was able to
get back to base without further damage. I still remember his name, but I don't
think I want to give it to you because he (or his family) might suffer some
embarrassment from it. All I will say is that he was a Sergeant in the NYC
Police Department who had been recalled to AD with my AFRes outfit, and he never
lived it down as long as he was with us.

......The first time I pulled AO, another Tachi staffer landed at
Yokota rather than Tachi, and even pulled up to base ops. He said he
thought the building looked different. We had a number of touch
and go's. since, as you re-call, the runways were 3mi(?) apart and
in line.

George Z.

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...
Kevin Brooks wrote:
"Stephen Harding" wrote in message
...
Ed Rasimus wrote:

On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 10:22:38 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 18:37:53 -0500, Stephen Harding
wrote:

IIRC, the average age of the Vietnam grunt was quite young

25 WWII
21 Korea
19 Vietnam


Might I direct you to "Stolen Valor" as well. Burkett effectively
debunks the legend of the 19 year old average for Vietnam. He's got
the numbers in print.

Average warrior age in Vietnam was a lot closer to 22.

Is this average over all or just grunts, as I was referring?

I would assume that if you include aviators and specialty
personnel, you'd up the average, even though there wouldn't
be as many of them.

From the same work that Ed cited: "The average age of men killed in
Vietnam
was 22.8 years, or almost twenty-three years old. This probably
understaes
the average age of those in ietnam by several months, because those who
faced the enmy in combat roles typically were the younger, healthy
veterans,
not the older career soldiers. While the *average* (emphasis in
original)
age of those killed was 22.8, more twenty year olds were killed than any
other age, followed by twenty-one year olds, then nineteen year olds." I
don't know of any reputable database that actually has the ages of all
of
those who *served* in Vietnam, and Burkett's analysis based upon the
ages of
those who died seems to be logical. His conclusion is that the average
age
of the soldiers who served in Vietnam was not significantly different
from
that of WWII.

He goes on to point out some other common misconceptions, like: enlisted
personnel suffered a disproportionat share of the casualty burden
(false--in
actuality, 13.5 percent of fatalities were from the officer side, which
only
accounted for 12.5 percent of those who served in theater, with the Army
losing a higher ratio of officers in Vietnam than it did during WWII,
including no less than 12 general officers); draftees accounted for most
of
those KIA (false--77 percent of the KIA were volunteers, with the
percentage
being even higher for the eighteen and nineteen year old age brackets at
97%
and 86% respectively); thousands of eighteen year old draftees died
(false--only 101 draftees in that age group died in Vietnam); young
black
draftees died at a greater rate than others (false--of those eighteen
year
old draftees killed, only *seven* were black); and Vietnam was the first
unpopular US war (false, at least in an arguable sense; he points out
that a
1937 poll indicated that fully 64% of Americans considered our entry
into
WWI as being a blunder, and two years after WWII 25% of Americans
thought
our participation in *that* war had been a misguided); and lastly (Art
should really LOVE this one), contrary to popular belief, the percentage
of
draftees in the service during the Vietnam era was MUCH lower than
during
WWII (one-third versus two-thirds).

Brooks

We certainly can count on our statisticians to breath life and interest
into any
subject that catches their eye. (^-^)))

Zzzzzzzzzzzzz...snort!!! Did I miss anything? (^-^)))

Yeah, you did--a lot of typical misguided preconceived notions about Vietnam
veterans getting blown out of the water. Burkett does an even more admirable
job on your personal favorite, that "sworn" WSI testimony you keep muttering
about. You have two choices here, George--go check the book out from your
local library and give it a read, or continue to march with your cherished
myths--which will it be?

Brooks


George Z.

In article , "Jeff Crowell"
wrote:

Mike Marron wrote:
Yeah yeah yeah. Spare us your whining, sniveling, poor,
poor, downtrodden Vietnam vet don't-get-no-respect crapola.

Well Mike, I'm glad your Dad didn't catch any grief. But
it did happen, even post-VN. I joined in '77 and caught
far more grief than this green 18-yo country boy expected
or was prepared to receive, this in DC and Maryland.
Especially in airports, when traveling in uniform. Particularly
the first couple of years.

Never had a hint of trouble west of there.


Funny how USENET leads to flashbacks. I remember being in Washington
National Airport when some uniformed troops, disembarking into our gate
area, and a few protesters indeed started to scream and spit.

There wasn't a word said, but I'd guess 20 people, including me, got up
and formed a human wall between the returnees and the demonstrators.
Again without a word, most of us made eye contact with the
demonstrators, and then turned our backs on them.

Not everything was so dramatic at National, though. I cherish the memory
of one nubile young solicitor -- could have been a Moonie, could have
been LaRouche -- who tried to pin a flower on me and get a donation. I
smiled cheerfully at her as I munched on the flower, offering her a
bite, commenting it was delicious, and encouraging her to tell me more
about her cause.

For some reason, she ran away, dropping leaflets and making strange
noises. Her loss...white carnations don't taste half bad...

Cub Driver wrote in message . ..
Hanoi emphatically rejected the idea of Soviet or Chinese troops
landing in North Vietnam -

About 320,000 Chinese served in Vietnam during the "American War"


Yeah, but not all at once. I know they got bombed in the North and Laos.