Great shot of the Thunderbird F-16 Ejection

[Jay Honeck]

Over on "alt.binaries.pictures.aviation" someone has posted a terrific, high
resolution, nearly head-on shot of the Air Force Thunderbird F-16 ejection
sequence from the crash in Idaho a few months ago. It REALLY shows how
close the pilot came to hitting the deck before ejecting.

It turns out the pilot didn't convert his altitude from MSL to AGL
correctly, and thus started the split-S maneuver some 800 feet too low.

For those interested in the accident report, here it is:
************************************************** ***********

Thunderbird accident report released [Updated]
Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 09:10 PM

A pilot's error caused a Thunderbirds F-16C to crash shortly after
takeoff during a September airshow at Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho.
The pilot ejected just before the aircraft impacted the ground.

On Wednesday, the Air Force Accident Investigation Board held a news
conference at the home of the Thunderbirds - Nellis Air Force Base - to
announce what caused an F-16 to crash last September.

According to the accident investigation board report the pilot,
31-year-old Captain Chris Stricklin, misinterpreted the altitude required to
complete the "Split S" maneuver. He made his calculation based on an
incorrect mean-sea-level altitude of the airfield. The pilot incorrectly
climbed to 1,670 feet above ground level instead of 2,500 feet before
initiating the pull down to the Split S maneuver.

When he realized something was wrong, the pilot put maximum back stick
pressure and rolled slightly left to ensure the aircraft would impact away
from the crowd should he have to eject. He ejected when the aircraft was 140
feet above ground - just 0.8 seconds prior to impact. He sustained only
minor injuries from the ejection. There was no other damage to military or
civilian property.

The aircraft, valued at about $20.4 million, was destroyed.

The difference in altitudes at Nellis and Mountain Home may have
contributed to the pilot's error. The airfield at Nellis is at 2,000 feet
whereas the one at Mountain Home is at 3,000 feet. It appears that the pilot
reverted back to his Nellis habit pattern for s aplit second. Thunderbird
commander Lt. Col. Richard McSpadden said Stricklin had performed the stunt
around 200 times, at different altitudes during his year as a Thunderbird
pilot.

McSpadden says Stricklin is an exceptional officer. "He is an
extremely talented pilot. He came in here and made an honest mistake," says
Lt. Col. McSpadden. But that mistake has cost Stricklin his prestigious spot
on the Thunderbird team. "He's assigned to Washington D.C.," says McSpadden.
"He's working in the Pentagon there in one of the agencies."

The maneuver the pilot was trying to complete is called the "Split S
Maneuver." The stunt requires that the pilot climb to 2,500 feet.
Investigators say Stricklin only climbed to 1,670 feet before he went into
the spinning roll.

The board determined other factors substantially contributed to
creating the opportunity for the error including the requirement to convert
sea level altitude information from the F-16 instruments - to their altitude
above ground and call out that information to a safety operator below.

But the Air Force has now changed that as a result of the crash.
Thunderbird pilots will now call out the MSL (mean-sea-level) altitudes as
opposed to the AGL (above-ground-level) altitudes.

Thunderbird pilots will now also climb an extra 1000 feet before
performing the Split S Maneuver to prevent another mistake like the one on
Sep.14, 2003 from happening again.

Captain Chris Stricklin has been in the Air Force since 1994 and flew
with the Thunderbirds since their first season. He has logged a total of
15,000+ flight hours and has received numerous awards. He served as a flight
examiner, flight instructor and flight commander.

The Thunderbirds will again take to the skies this year. They have 65
air shows scheduled.

The September crash was the second involving a Thunderbirds jet since
the team began using F-16s in 1983.

Pilot error was blamed for a Feb. 14, 1994, training crash involving
in a maneuver called a spiral descent at the Indian Springs Auxiliary
Airfield, northwest of Las Vegas. The pilot survived, but the maneuver was
discontinued.

The worst crash in Thunderbird history, dubbed the "Diamond Crash,"
came when four pilots crashed Jan. 18, 1982, during training at Indian
Springs. A malfunction in the lead plane was blamed.
************************************************** ***********
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jim]

Ok, somebody smarter than me tell me why they wouldn't set their altimeter's
to 0 before take off to prevent something like that.
--
Jim Burns III

Remove "nospam" to reply

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:5igQb.131182$I06.1149412@attbi_s01...
> Over on "alt.binaries.pictures.aviation" someone has posted a terrific,
high
> resolution, nearly head-on shot of the Air Force Thunderbird F-16 ejection
> sequence from the crash in Idaho a few months ago. It REALLY shows how
> close the pilot came to hitting the deck before ejecting.
>
> It turns out the pilot didn't convert his altitude from MSL to AGL
> correctly, and thus started the split-S maneuver some 800 feet too low.
>
> For those interested in the accident report, here it is:
> ************************************************** ***********
>
> Thunderbird accident report released [Updated]
> Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 09:10 PM
>
> A pilot's error caused a Thunderbirds F-16C to crash shortly after
> takeoff during a September airshow at Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho.
> The pilot ejected just before the aircraft impacted the ground.
>
> On Wednesday, the Air Force Accident Investigation Board held a news
> conference at the home of the Thunderbirds - Nellis Air Force Base - to
> announce what caused an F-16 to crash last September.
>
> According to the accident investigation board report the pilot,
> 31-year-old Captain Chris Stricklin, misinterpreted the altitude required
to
> complete the "Split S" maneuver. He made his calculation based on an
> incorrect mean-sea-level altitude of the airfield. The pilot incorrectly
> climbed to 1,670 feet above ground level instead of 2,500 feet before
> initiating the pull down to the Split S maneuver.
>
> When he realized something was wrong, the pilot put maximum back
stick
> pressure and rolled slightly left to ensure the aircraft would impact away
> from the crowd should he have to eject. He ejected when the aircraft was
140
> feet above ground - just 0.8 seconds prior to impact. He sustained only
> minor injuries from the ejection. There was no other damage to military or
> civilian property.
>
> The aircraft, valued at about $20.4 million, was destroyed.
>
> The difference in altitudes at Nellis and Mountain Home may have
> contributed to the pilot's error. The airfield at Nellis is at 2,000 feet
> whereas the one at Mountain Home is at 3,000 feet. It appears that the
pilot
> reverted back to his Nellis habit pattern for s aplit second. Thunderbird
> commander Lt. Col. Richard McSpadden said Stricklin had performed the
stunt
> around 200 times, at different altitudes during his year as a Thunderbird
> pilot.
>
> McSpadden says Stricklin is an exceptional officer. "He is an
> extremely talented pilot. He came in here and made an honest mistake,"
says
> Lt. Col. McSpadden. But that mistake has cost Stricklin his prestigious
spot
> on the Thunderbird team. "He's assigned to Washington D.C.," says
McSpadden.
> "He's working in the Pentagon there in one of the agencies."
>
> The maneuver the pilot was trying to complete is called the "Split S
> Maneuver." The stunt requires that the pilot climb to 2,500 feet.
> Investigators say Stricklin only climbed to 1,670 feet before he went into
> the spinning roll.
>
> The board determined other factors substantially contributed to
> creating the opportunity for the error including the requirement to
convert
> sea level altitude information from the F-16 instruments - to their
altitude
> above ground and call out that information to a safety operator below.
>
> But the Air Force has now changed that as a result of the crash.
> Thunderbird pilots will now call out the MSL (mean-sea-level) altitudes as
> opposed to the AGL (above-ground-level) altitudes.
>
> Thunderbird pilots will now also climb an extra 1000 feet before
> performing the Split S Maneuver to prevent another mistake like the one on
> Sep.14, 2003 from happening again.
>
> Captain Chris Stricklin has been in the Air Force since 1994 and
flew
> with the Thunderbirds since their first season. He has logged a total of
> 15,000+ flight hours and has received numerous awards. He served as a
flight
> examiner, flight instructor and flight commander.
>
> The Thunderbirds will again take to the skies this year. They have
65
> air shows scheduled.
>
> The September crash was the second involving a Thunderbirds jet
since
> the team began using F-16s in 1983.
>
> Pilot error was blamed for a Feb. 14, 1994, training crash involving
> in a maneuver called a spiral descent at the Indian Springs Auxiliary
> Airfield, northwest of Las Vegas. The pilot survived, but the maneuver was
> discontinued.
>
> The worst crash in Thunderbird history, dubbed the "Diamond Crash,"
> came when four pilots crashed Jan. 18, 1982, during training at Indian
> Springs. A malfunction in the lead plane was blamed.
> ************************************************** ***********
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

[Robert Moore]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote

> Over on "alt.binaries.pictures.aviation" someone has posted a terrific,
> high resolution, nearly head-on shot of the Air Force Thunderbird F-16
> ejection sequence from the crash in Idaho a few months ago. It REALLY
> shows how close the pilot came to hitting the deck before ejecting.

Jay, ever since "Photoshop", I believe very little of what I see in
these sensational pictures. Although this photo may be genuine, the
first thing that I asked myself was "where was the photographer standing
and why he hadn't dropped his camera and run?"

> Captain Chris Stricklin has been in the Air Force since 1994 and flew
> with the Thunderbirds since their first season.

Hardly....The Thunderbirds have been around long before 1994. Perhaps
they meant to say "since the first of THIS season.


> He has logged a total of 15,000+ flight hours

I find that REAL hard to believe.

Bob Moore

[Robert Moore]

"Jim" > wrote

> Ok, somebody smarter than me tell me why they wouldn't set their
> altimeter's to 0 before take off to prevent something like that.

I'm with you....that way every show would be exactly the same.

Bob Moore

[David Brooks]

"Jim" > wrote in message
...
> Ok, somebody smarter than me tell me why they wouldn't set their
altimeter's
> to 0 before take off to prevent something like that.

Because KMUO is at 2996 feet, and Air Force planes' altimeters won't go down
to 26.92? Much the same reason that we don't have the convenience of setting
QFE around an airport, which is routine in flat old England.

-- David Brooks

[Chuck]

"Robert Moore" > wrote in message
. 7...
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote
>

<snip>

> > Captain Chris Stricklin has been in the Air Force since 1994 and flew
> > with the Thunderbirds since their first season.
>
> Hardly....The Thunderbirds have been around long before 1994. Perhaps
> they meant to say "since the first of THIS season.

<snip>

The pilot that flies the #1 Thunderbird plane came out and talked with us at
A&P school. If I remember correctly, he said that they fly 2 (or 3 ?) years
with the T-Birds, no longer.

The T-Birds have been flying since the mid 50's. First planes were F-84's

Also, wasn't it about 1994 when they started flying again? Remember, they
had a crash and they stopped flying for several years.

[Newps]

> "Jim" > wrote
>
>
>>Ok, somebody smarter than me tell me why they wouldn't set their
>>altimeter's to 0 before take off to prevent something like that.

Because you can't.

[BTIZ]

because the MSL altitude of the ground is to high above sea level and it
can't be turned down that far to "zero"..

we have the same problem with flat land sail plane pilots.. if I set my
local altimeter to zero.. which I can't because it's to far to go.. beyond
the adjustment range of the altimeter.. then how do I know I'm high enough
to clear the local mountains.. or if my landing airport is still 2500ft
above the airport I take off from.. I have to do the mental math calculation
to know my AGL altitude.


BT

"Jim" > wrote in message
...
> Ok, somebody smarter than me tell me why they wouldn't set their
altimeter's
> to 0 before take off to prevent something like that.
> --
> Jim Burns III
>
> Remove "nospam" to reply
>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:5igQb.131182$I06.1149412@attbi_s01...
> > Over on "alt.binaries.pictures.aviation" someone has posted a terrific,
> high
> > resolution, nearly head-on shot of the Air Force Thunderbird F-16
ejection
> > sequence from the crash in Idaho a few months ago. It REALLY shows how
> > close the pilot came to hitting the deck before ejecting.
> >
> > It turns out the pilot didn't convert his altitude from MSL to AGL
> > correctly, and thus started the split-S maneuver some 800 feet too low.
> >
> > For those interested in the accident report, here it is:
> > ************************************************** ***********
> >
> > Thunderbird accident report released [Updated]
> > Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 09:10 PM
> >
> > A pilot's error caused a Thunderbirds F-16C to crash shortly after
> > takeoff during a September airshow at Mountain Home Air Force Base,
Idaho.
> > The pilot ejected just before the aircraft impacted the ground.
> >
> > On Wednesday, the Air Force Accident Investigation Board held a
news
> > conference at the home of the Thunderbirds - Nellis Air Force Base - to
> > announce what caused an F-16 to crash last September.
> >
> > According to the accident investigation board report the pilot,
> > 31-year-old Captain Chris Stricklin, misinterpreted the altitude
required
> to
> > complete the "Split S" maneuver. He made his calculation based on an
> > incorrect mean-sea-level altitude of the airfield. The pilot incorrectly
> > climbed to 1,670 feet above ground level instead of 2,500 feet before
> > initiating the pull down to the Split S maneuver.
> >
> > When he realized something was wrong, the pilot put maximum back
> stick
> > pressure and rolled slightly left to ensure the aircraft would impact
away
> > from the crowd should he have to eject. He ejected when the aircraft was
> 140
> > feet above ground - just 0.8 seconds prior to impact. He sustained only
> > minor injuries from the ejection. There was no other damage to military
or
> > civilian property.
> >
> > The aircraft, valued at about $20.4 million, was destroyed.
> >
> > The difference in altitudes at Nellis and Mountain Home may have
> > contributed to the pilot's error. The airfield at Nellis is at 2,000
feet
> > whereas the one at Mountain Home is at 3,000 feet. It appears that the
> pilot
> > reverted back to his Nellis habit pattern for s aplit second.
Thunderbird
> > commander Lt. Col. Richard McSpadden said Stricklin had performed the
> stunt
> > around 200 times, at different altitudes during his year as a
Thunderbird
> > pilot.
> >
> > McSpadden says Stricklin is an exceptional officer. "He is an
> > extremely talented pilot. He came in here and made an honest mistake,"
> says
> > Lt. Col. McSpadden. But that mistake has cost Stricklin his prestigious
> spot
> > on the Thunderbird team. "He's assigned to Washington D.C.," says
> McSpadden.
> > "He's working in the Pentagon there in one of the agencies."
> >
> > The maneuver the pilot was trying to complete is called the "Split
S
> > Maneuver." The stunt requires that the pilot climb to 2,500 feet.
> > Investigators say Stricklin only climbed to 1,670 feet before he went
into
> > the spinning roll.
> >
> > The board determined other factors substantially contributed to
> > creating the opportunity for the error including the requirement to
> convert
> > sea level altitude information from the F-16 instruments - to their
> altitude
> > above ground and call out that information to a safety operator below.
> >
> > But the Air Force has now changed that as a result of the crash.
> > Thunderbird pilots will now call out the MSL (mean-sea-level) altitudes
as
> > opposed to the AGL (above-ground-level) altitudes.
> >
> > Thunderbird pilots will now also climb an extra 1000 feet before
> > performing the Split S Maneuver to prevent another mistake like the one
on
> > Sep.14, 2003 from happening again.
> >
> > Captain Chris Stricklin has been in the Air Force since 1994 and
> flew
> > with the Thunderbirds since their first season. He has logged a total of
> > 15,000+ flight hours and has received numerous awards. He served as a
> flight
> > examiner, flight instructor and flight commander.
> >
> > The Thunderbirds will again take to the skies this year. They have
> 65
> > air shows scheduled.
> >
> > The September crash was the second involving a Thunderbirds jet
> since
> > the team began using F-16s in 1983.
> >
> > Pilot error was blamed for a Feb. 14, 1994, training crash
involving
> > in a maneuver called a spiral descent at the Indian Springs Auxiliary
> > Airfield, northwest of Las Vegas. The pilot survived, but the maneuver
was
> > discontinued.
> >
> > The worst crash in Thunderbird history, dubbed the "Diamond
Crash,"
> > came when four pilots crashed Jan. 18, 1982, during training at Indian
> > Springs. A malfunction in the lead plane was blamed.
> > ************************************************** ***********
> > --
> > Jay Honeck
> > Iowa City, IA
> > Pathfinder N56993
> > www.AlexisParkInn.com
> > "Your Aviation Destination"
> >
> >
>
>

[Jay Beckman]

"Robert Moore" > wrote in message
. 7...
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote
>
> > Over on "alt.binaries.pictures.aviation" someone has posted a terrific,
> > high resolution, nearly head-on shot of the Air Force Thunderbird F-16
> > ejection sequence from the crash in Idaho a few months ago. It REALLY
> > shows how close the pilot came to hitting the deck before ejecting.
>
> Jay, ever since "Photoshop", I believe very little of what I see in
> these sensational pictures. Although this photo may be genuine, the
> first thing that I asked myself was "where was the photographer standing
> and why he hadn't dropped his camera and run?"
>

<Snip>

IIRC,

Per the images I saw on the local TV station's website (which had been
collected from air show patrons) the jet went down along a line near the
base of the tower:

http://www.borinquenrc.com/images/tb-crash/tb6-4.jpg

I'd be willing to bet that there was a photographer working from the tower.
Possibly either a team photographer or one for a vendor/supplier/civilian
contractor.

I think the angle of the photo looks right. Someone with a very big piece
of glass (400-600mm owing to the amount of compression), and he/she nailed a
once in a lifetime "Money Shot."

Over on alt.binaries.pictures.aviation, one of the folks who posted the
picture claims he got it in a very large size (3000+ x ???) from someone at
Boeing. People have been imploring him to post the original.

Boeing (until selling the operation to BF Goodrich) manufactured the ACES II
seat used in the F16.

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/1999/news_release_991103n.htm

Just my hunch...

Jay In AZ

[BTIZ]

isn't it amazing how a long telephoto lens can kill the depth perception and
make you think you are right there..

BT

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:5igQb.131182$I06.1149412@attbi_s01...
> Over on "alt.binaries.pictures.aviation" someone has posted a terrific,
high
> resolution, nearly head-on shot of the Air Force Thunderbird F-16 ejection
> sequence from the crash in Idaho a few months ago. It REALLY shows how
> close the pilot came to hitting the deck before ejecting.
>
> It turns out the pilot didn't convert his altitude from MSL to AGL
> correctly, and thus started the split-S maneuver some 800 feet too low.
>
> For those interested in the accident report, here it is:
> ************************************************** ***********
>
> Thunderbird accident report released [Updated]
> Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 09:10 PM
>
> A pilot's error caused a Thunderbirds F-16C to crash shortly after
> takeoff during a September airshow at Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho.
> The pilot ejected just before the aircraft impacted the ground.
>
> On Wednesday, the Air Force Accident Investigation Board held a news
> conference at the home of the Thunderbirds - Nellis Air Force Base - to
> announce what caused an F-16 to crash last September.
>
> According to the accident investigation board report the pilot,
> 31-year-old Captain Chris Stricklin, misinterpreted the altitude required
to
> complete the "Split S" maneuver. He made his calculation based on an
> incorrect mean-sea-level altitude of the airfield. The pilot incorrectly
> climbed to 1,670 feet above ground level instead of 2,500 feet before
> initiating the pull down to the Split S maneuver.
>
> When he realized something was wrong, the pilot put maximum back
stick
> pressure and rolled slightly left to ensure the aircraft would impact away
> from the crowd should he have to eject. He ejected when the aircraft was
140
> feet above ground - just 0.8 seconds prior to impact. He sustained only
> minor injuries from the ejection. There was no other damage to military or
> civilian property.
>
> The aircraft, valued at about $20.4 million, was destroyed.
>
> The difference in altitudes at Nellis and Mountain Home may have
> contributed to the pilot's error. The airfield at Nellis is at 2,000 feet
> whereas the one at Mountain Home is at 3,000 feet. It appears that the
pilot
> reverted back to his Nellis habit pattern for s aplit second. Thunderbird
> commander Lt. Col. Richard McSpadden said Stricklin had performed the
stunt
> around 200 times, at different altitudes during his year as a Thunderbird
> pilot.
>
> McSpadden says Stricklin is an exceptional officer. "He is an
> extremely talented pilot. He came in here and made an honest mistake,"
says
> Lt. Col. McSpadden. But that mistake has cost Stricklin his prestigious
spot
> on the Thunderbird team. "He's assigned to Washington D.C.," says
McSpadden.
> "He's working in the Pentagon there in one of the agencies."
>
> The maneuver the pilot was trying to complete is called the "Split S
> Maneuver." The stunt requires that the pilot climb to 2,500 feet.
> Investigators say Stricklin only climbed to 1,670 feet before he went into
> the spinning roll.
>
> The board determined other factors substantially contributed to
> creating the opportunity for the error including the requirement to
convert
> sea level altitude information from the F-16 instruments - to their
altitude
> above ground and call out that information to a safety operator below.
>
> But the Air Force has now changed that as a result of the crash.
> Thunderbird pilots will now call out the MSL (mean-sea-level) altitudes as
> opposed to the AGL (above-ground-level) altitudes.
>
> Thunderbird pilots will now also climb an extra 1000 feet before
> performing the Split S Maneuver to prevent another mistake like the one on
> Sep.14, 2003 from happening again.
>
> Captain Chris Stricklin has been in the Air Force since 1994 and
flew
> with the Thunderbirds since their first season. He has logged a total of
> 15,000+ flight hours and has received numerous awards. He served as a
flight
> examiner, flight instructor and flight commander.
>
> The Thunderbirds will again take to the skies this year. They have
65
> air shows scheduled.
>
> The September crash was the second involving a Thunderbirds jet
since
> the team began using F-16s in 1983.
>
> Pilot error was blamed for a Feb. 14, 1994, training crash involving
> in a maneuver called a spiral descent at the Indian Springs Auxiliary
> Airfield, northwest of Las Vegas. The pilot survived, but the maneuver was
> discontinued.
>
> The worst crash in Thunderbird history, dubbed the "Diamond Crash,"
> came when four pilots crashed Jan. 18, 1982, during training at Indian
> Springs. A malfunction in the lead plane was blamed.
> ************************************************** ***********
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

[Dale]

In article <vViQb.58525$zs4.35677@fed1read01>,
"BTIZ" > wrote:

> because the MSL altitude of the ground is to high above sea level and it
> can't be turned down that far to "zero"..
>
> we have the same problem with flat land sail plane pilots.. if I set my
> local altimeter to zero.. which I can't because it's to far to go.. beyond
> the adjustment range of the altimeter.. then how do I know I'm high enough
> to clear the local mountains.. or if my landing airport is still 2500ft
> above the airport I take off from.. I have to do the mental math calculation
> to know my AGL altitude.


He's talking about doing acro over the field...not making a
cross-country.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[BTIZ]

>
> He's talking about doing acro over the field...not making a
> cross-country.
>
> --
> Dale L. Falk

regardless.. you still can't turn the altimeter adjustment that far to get
to zero.. and if the local pilots want to fly at zero.. it sets bad habit
patterns for when they do go cross country

BT

[Pilot Bob \(I am just a great guy!!\)]

"BTIZ" > wrote in message
news:FvxQb.59482$zs4.11458@fed1read01...
> >
> > He's talking about doing acro over the field...not making a
> > cross-country.
> >
> > --
> > Dale L. Falk
>
> regardless.. you still can't turn the altimeter adjustment that far to get
> to zero.. and if the local pilots want to fly at zero.. it sets bad habit
> patterns for when they do go cross country

Well maybe someone ought to think outside the box (or, in this case - inside
the box). It makes sense to have an adjustable altimeter for aerobatics than
can be zero'ed through at least 10,000 MSL.

[Mark S Conway]

Hey gang... just wondering if anyone's been here.
The wife and i want to do an overnighter in the city
and was wondering how the services and security are?
I went to Airnav.Com and checked out some comments.
Some good, some bad...
Any help is greatly appreciated.

Mark, N3165P, Apache Driver

[G.R. Patterson III]

"Pilot Bob (I am just a great guy!!)" wrote:
>
> It makes sense to have an adjustable altimeter for aerobatics than
> can be zero'ed through at least 10,000 MSL.

And you're going to put this *where* in an F-16?

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, said:
>"Pilot Bob (I am just a great guy!!)" wrote:
>>
>> It makes sense to have an adjustable altimeter for aerobatics than
>> can be zero'ed through at least 10,000 MSL.
>
>And you're going to put this *where* in an F-16?

On an F-16, it will probably be a software patch. They don't call it the
Electric Jet for nothin.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Please say this was followed by a very serious discussion on Right and
Wrong involving a blow torch, 220V, a cobra and three East Germans
named Georg... -- Robert Uhl

[Judah]

I haven't been there since all the snow started, but I have been there
several times over the last year or so. There is a group of really nice
guys who split time between Bader and two or three other south Jersey
fields. Someone is generally there 9-5, but not every day, so you can
call them to find out their schedule (the number is on AirNav or AOPA -
South Jersey Air). The runways get swept for debris (dropped by seagulls)
once a week, and so if you get there the right day, they are very clean.

They charge a small landing fee ($5 for a 172) when they are there, but
they're not always there...

The field is fenced in, but last time I was there, you could walk in and
out any time. I had heard there was a vandalism problem a few years back,
when the FBO wasn't servicing the place. But now that they are back, it
seems to have been resolved. (I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't
sponsored by their previous Mayor who had a bug up his ass for GA). I
have left a plane there overnight without any problem.

There are cabs that listen to the CTAF, so if you request it on callup
they will meet you there... "Bader Unicom, Cessna is 10 miles to the
north, inbound, for advisories. Will need a taxi after we land." (It's
not FAA language, but if you keep it short no one seems to mind - it's
done all the time!) In fact, the last time I was there, a cab was waiting
even though I hand't asked for it!

Even if you land and there is no cab waiting for you outside the gate,
they have phone numbers posted on the trailer on the field so you can
call one if your cell is charged. If not, you have to walk a bit to the
brown building to the left of the baseball field, where they also have
offices (and bathrooms)... Or you can walk straight out to the McDonalds
or other restaurants on Black Horse Pike. It's not bad when it's not -7F!

The cab ride to the casinos is quick and cheap. As far as staying there,
I haven't done it - I fly to Bader because I do business with the
newspaper there... I'm not sure of your (or your wife's) tastes vs. your
budget, but you can get a clean and comfortable bed for $69 or so with
(IIRC) a free shuttle at a place like the Ramada Inn if you don't want to
stay right in the casino. You can even see the airport from your room if
you are on the right side of the building! :)

Good luck!

"Mark S Conway" > wrote in news:H6BQb.110271
$Rc4.794519@attbi_s54:

> Hey gang... just wondering if anyone's been here.
> The wife and i want to do an overnighter in the city
> and was wondering how the services and security are?
> I went to Airnav.Com and checked out some comments.
> Some good, some bad...
> Any help is greatly appreciated.
>
> Mark, N3165P, Apache Driver
>
>
>

[EDR]

In article <5igQb.131182$I06.1149412@attbi_s01>, Jay Honeck
> wrote:
> McSpadden says Stricklin is an exceptional officer. "He is an
> extremely talented pilot. He came in here and made an honest mistake," says
> Lt. Col. McSpadden. But that mistake has cost Stricklin his prestigious spot
> on the Thunderbird team. "He's assigned to Washington D.C.," says McSpadden.
> "He's working in the Pentagon there in one of the agencies."

Yep, have an aviation accident in the military and your two choices for
your next duty station are:

a. training command

b. the Pentagon

Go figure?

[Robert Moore]

"BTIZ" > wrote

> regardless.. you still can't turn the altimeter adjustment
> that far to get to zero..

BTIZ..or whatever your name is...I found this posted over at
rec.aviation.naval by Dudley Henriques who seems to have a lot
of experience in this field.

Bob Moore

I've been back channeling for two days now with friends who are
ex-Thunderbirds and professional pilots in other professions. Most of us
are
puzzled by the report although not at all puzzled by the results of
Stricklin's mistake!
There's something about this report some of us don't quite get, and it
concerns the zero set on the altimeters. The TB fly a zero set altimeter
for
a show. It's not only basic for low altitude acro work, but it's specified
in the regulations for the Thunderbird mission and procedures. (the old
regulation anyway. haven't seen the revised one yet)
My guys however, were on the T38 team, and the TB regulation for practice
might have been changed since then. However, none of us believe that
Stricklin took off with the altimeter set for the elevation at Mountain
Home, which is 2996 feet ASL. That leaves only one scenario; that the
present Viper team must be using a MSL base at Nellis for practice because
of the mountains at Indian Springs. If this is true, then we still can't
figure out why Stricklin would reverse on the roof of his maneuver with a
target altitude of 1600 feet which is basically what happened. It just
doesn't make sense to us. If the team is using a MSL base at Nellis, and
Stricklin was using that base in his mind when he reversed; the elevation
at
Nellis is 2000 feet. That would have put his reverse at 4500 feet for the
Viper instead of the 1600 plus he used. 1600 is way low for the Viper even
for a zero set altimeter reference It's very puzzling!!!
Also, there's been a lot of talk about not being able to zero altimeters at
some high elevation airports. This is puzzling also. The Kollsman range,
which is also the basic baro range in the Viper's CADC which drives the
Viper's altimeter in both ELECT and PNEU backup, is aprox 22.00 inches on
the low side and 32.00 inches on the high side. (I had to check this out
with some buddies of mine, as I'd forgotten the range in the Kollsman
myself!! :-)
This gives you, even figuring the 1 inch per thousand rule, an elevation
reset capability to a zero reset before takeoff of 10, 000 feet. This
basically allows a zero reset anywhere in the U.S. at least, allowing for a
standard atmosphere. I don't think I'm missing anything here, but I might
have.....getting older you know!! :-) I just can't remember a zero set
being
any problem for me during my tenure as a demonstration pilot.
The Thunderbird's are locked up tighter than a drum right now, and answers
from the present team are not easy to get; so the bottom line so far for us
old timers trying to figure this out is that the team indeed does use a MSL
reference at Nellis because of the mountains, but resets to a zero
altimeter
set before takeoff at the show site. If this is the case, it's
understandable to me how Chris Stricklin could have made the mistake he
did.
I'll tell you up front. I can sympathize with Chris Stricklin, or anyone
else for that matter who has to work low altitude acro this way. If there's
one thing that will kill you doing low work it's non-standardization. If
the
Birds have to use a MSL calculation for their roof target altitudes at
Nellis for a vertical plane maneuver because of the mountains, then revert
to a zero set when doing a show; that in my opinion is bad news! It's only
a
matter of time when things like this catch up to you when doing low work in
high performance airplanes.
Chris Stricklin is a damn good pilot. He's also a damn lucky pilot!
What happened to Stricklin has happened to a lot of very good pilots who do
low work. If all this reporting is true, he was simply bitten by non
standardization! I understand the situation's being looked at closely by
the
Air Force. That's one good thing anyway, although I don't see how they're
going to change anything unless they can take the mountains at Nellis out
of
the Thunderbird equation.
Frankly, the whole damn thing is puzzling to us; us being myself and a few
ex-Thunderbirds. I know I'll probably pick up the straight scoop sooner or
later through my grapevine, but for right now, this report, and putting it
together for a clear picture of what happened to Stricklin is one large
puzzle in progress.
Dudley Henriques

[David Brooks]

"Robert Moore" > wrote in message
. 6...
> "BTIZ" > wrote

> Also, there's been a lot of talk about not being able to zero altimeters
at
> some high elevation airports. This is puzzling also. The Kollsman range,
> which is also the basic baro range in the Viper's CADC which drives the
> Viper's altimeter in both ELECT and PNEU backup, is aprox 22.00 inches on
> the low side and 32.00 inches on the high side. (I had to check this out
> with some buddies of mine, as I'd forgotten the range in the Kollsman
> myself!! :-)

Wow. OK, I was dead wrong on that (so were many others, but I think I was
the first :-) ).

-- David Brooks

[Darrel]

You can already set the "electronic" system altitude to zero. But then you
have the analog "steam gauge" which won't match and F-16 pilots don't like
conflicting readings. And if you set the "electronic" system altitude to
zero, it would throw off the delta altitude values for all of the reference
steerpoint settings unless you adjusted them also. Too much room for error.

Darrel

Paul Tomblin wrote:

> In a previous article, said:
> >"Pilot Bob (I am just a great guy!!)" wrote:
> >>
> >> It makes sense to have an adjustable altimeter for aerobatics than
> >> can be zero'ed through at least 10,000 MSL.
> >
> >And you're going to put this *where* in an F-16?
>
> On an F-16, it will probably be a software patch. They don't call it the
> Electric Jet for nothin.
>
> --
> Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
> Please say this was followed by a very serious discussion on Right and
> Wrong involving a blow torch, 220V, a cobra and three East Germans
> named Georg... -- Robert Uhl

[Paul Sengupta]

Blimey. That would pay for 2/5 of an indoor rainforest.

Paul

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:5igQb.131182$I06.1149412@attbi_s01...
> The aircraft, valued at about $20.4 million, was destroyed.

[David Kinsell]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:5igQb.131182$I06.1149412@attbi_s01...
> Over on "alt.binaries.pictures.aviation" someone has posted a terrific, high
> resolution, nearly head-on shot of the Air Force Thunderbird F-16 ejection
> sequence from the crash in Idaho a few months ago. It REALLY shows how
> close the pilot came to hitting the deck before ejecting.

What appears to be cockpit video of the incident can be found at:

http://s91499480.onlinehome.us/vids/

No background info given, but it sure seems to be genuine. 4 meg download.
There's also the classic video of the moron giving himself helicopter lessons.

[Jay Honeck]

> No background info given, but it sure seems to be genuine. 4 meg
download.
> There's also the classic video of the moron giving himself helicopter
lessons.

If you like this kind of stuff, I've collected a fair number of aviation
videos here:

http://alexisparkinn.com/aviation_videos.htm
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[David Kinsell]

"David Kinsell" > wrote in message news:wuGRb.129024$Rc4.997383@attbi_s54...
>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:5igQb.131182$I06.1149412@attbi_s01...
> > Over on "alt.binaries.pictures.aviation" someone has posted a terrific, high
> > resolution, nearly head-on shot of the Air Force Thunderbird F-16 ejection
> > sequence from the crash in Idaho a few months ago. It REALLY shows how
> > close the pilot came to hitting the deck before ejecting.
>
> What appears to be cockpit video of the incident can be found at:
>
> http://s91499480.onlinehome.us/vids/
>
> No background info given, but it sure seems to be genuine. 4 meg download.
> There's also the classic video of the moron giving himself helicopter lessons.
>

Wow, no one has accused this of being phoney video? No one has asked why
the T-Birds would be flying with a camera trained on the pilot? No one has asked
how the tape survived the fireball? No one asked how this video showed up on
a strange little website without explanation? This group is starting to disappoint me . . .

[Jay Honeck]

> Wow, no one has accused this of being phoney video? No one has asked why
> the T-Birds would be flying with a camera trained on the pilot? No one
has asked
> how the tape survived the fireball? No one asked how this video showed up
on
> a strange little website without explanation? This group is starting to
disappoint me . . .

No one did all that because the tape has been available since right after
the crash.

We all questioned it then, and someone (I forget who -- Big John? Dudley?)
here verified that it was authentic.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dudley Henriques]

"David Kinsell" > wrote in message
news:Tq8Sb.137505$5V2.701525@attbi_s53...
>
> "David Kinsell" > wrote in message
news:wuGRb.129024$Rc4.997383@attbi_s54...
> >
> > "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:5igQb.131182$I06.1149412@attbi_s01...
> > > Over on "alt.binaries.pictures.aviation" someone has posted a
terrific, high
> > > resolution, nearly head-on shot of the Air Force Thunderbird F-16
ejection
> > > sequence from the crash in Idaho a few months ago. It REALLY shows
how
> > > close the pilot came to hitting the deck before ejecting.
> >
> > What appears to be cockpit video of the incident can be found at:
> >
> > http://s91499480.onlinehome.us/vids/
> >
> > No background info given, but it sure seems to be genuine. 4 meg
download.
> > There's also the classic video of the moron giving himself helicopter
lessons.
> >
>
> Wow, no one has accused this of being phoney video? No one has asked why
> the T-Birds would be flying with a camera trained on the pilot? No one
has asked
> how the tape survived the fireball? No one asked how this video showed up
on
> a strange little website without explanation? This group is starting to
disappoint me . . .

I can't account for why the group would be disappointing you, but the
Thunderbirds tape every show and every practice without fail, for review and
criticism in the post flight debrief.
The in-plane camera and the HUD camera are designed to survive the crash.
The ejection shot came from a controller on the ledge of the tower at
Mountain Home and would usually become a part of the AF investigation team's
evidence. Normally, something like this would remain in house, but the
shot's release to the public is no big surprise to anyone.
Anything else you need to know, just ask. There's a fairly good chance that
someone in this group that seems to be disappointing you so much will have
the correct answer.
:-)))
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

[Aardvark]

Dudley Henriques wrote:

> "David Kinsell" > wrote in message
> news:Tq8Sb.137505$5V2.701525@attbi_s53...
>
>>"David Kinsell" > wrote in message
>
> news:wuGRb.129024$Rc4.997383@attbi_s54...
>
>>>"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
>
> news:5igQb.131182$I06.1149412@attbi_s01...
>
>>>>Over on "alt.binaries.pictures.aviation" someone has posted a
>
> terrific, high
>
>>>>resolution, nearly head-on shot of the Air Force Thunderbird F-16
>
> ejection
>
>>>>sequence from the crash in Idaho a few months ago. It REALLY shows
>
> how
>
>>>>close the pilot came to hitting the deck before ejecting.
>>>
>>>What appears to be cockpit video of the incident can be found at:
>>>
>>> http://s91499480.onlinehome.us/vids/
>>>
>>>No background info given, but it sure seems to be genuine. 4 meg
>
> download.
>

I got that vid from this group, It was first posted by Dean Wilkinson
on Dec 12th.
Google link to the start of the thread "EJECT!"
http://makeashorterlink.com/?H2B322C37

WW

[John Clear]

In article <Tq8Sb.137505$5V2.701525@attbi_s53>,
David Kinsell > wrote:
>
>
>Wow, no one has accused this of being phoney video? No one has asked why
>the T-Birds would be flying with a camera trained on the pilot? No one has asked
>how the tape survived the fireball? No one asked how this video showed up on
>a strange little website without explanation? This group is starting to disappoint me . . .

The Thunderbirds put live in cockpit video up on a 'Jumbotron' at
some (all?) of their shows. They don't show all the in cockpit
cameras at once, obviously, and it makes sense that they would tape
them all for later review. Since the tapes were on the ground,
they weren't involved in the crash.

The only mystery is who released the video, but that is minor.

John
--
John Clear - http://www.panix.com/~jac

[G.R. Patterson III]

John Clear wrote:
>
> The only mystery is who released the video, but that is minor.

IIRC, it showed up on a news feed the next day.

George Patterson
Love, n.: A form of temporary insanity afflicting the young. It is curable
either by marriage or by removal of the afflicted from the circumstances
under which he incurred the condition. It is sometimes fatal, but more
often to the physician than to the patient.

[Big John]

Dudley

I've been tryng to contact you off News Group with no joy. What am I
doing wrong?

Big John

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 17:17:04 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> wrote:

>
>"David Kinsell" > wrote in message
>news:Tq8Sb.137505$5V2.701525@attbi_s53...
>>
>> "David Kinsell" > wrote in message
>news:wuGRb.129024$Rc4.997383@attbi_s54...
>> >
>> > "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
>news:5igQb.131182$I06.1149412@attbi_s01...
>> > > Over on "alt.binaries.pictures.aviation" someone has posted a
>terrific, high
>> > > resolution, nearly head-on shot of the Air Force Thunderbird F-16
>ejection
>> > > sequence from the crash in Idaho a few months ago. It REALLY shows
>how
>> > > close the pilot came to hitting the deck before ejecting.
>> >
>> > What appears to be cockpit video of the incident can be found at:
>> >
>> > http://s91499480.onlinehome.us/vids/
>> >
>> > No background info given, but it sure seems to be genuine. 4 meg
>download.
>> > There's also the classic video of the moron giving himself helicopter
>lessons.
>> >
>>
>> Wow, no one has accused this of being phoney video? No one has asked why
>> the T-Birds would be flying with a camera trained on the pilot? No one
>has asked
>> how the tape survived the fireball? No one asked how this video showed up
>on
>> a strange little website without explanation? This group is starting to
>disappoint me . . .
>
>I can't account for why the group would be disappointing you, but the
>Thunderbirds tape every show and every practice without fail, for review and
>criticism in the post flight debrief.
>The in-plane camera and the HUD camera are designed to survive the crash.
>The ejection shot came from a controller on the ledge of the tower at
>Mountain Home and would usually become a part of the AF investigation team's
>evidence. Normally, something like this would remain in house, but the
>shot's release to the public is no big surprise to anyone.
>Anything else you need to know, just ask. There's a fairly good chance that
>someone in this group that seems to be disappointing you so much will have
>the correct answer.
>:-)))
>Dudley Henriques
>International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
>Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
>For personal email, please replace
>the z's with e's.
>dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt
>

[Pat Thronson]

Big John,

He is using a Spoofed e-mail when you auto reply. Look at his address. Just
manually enter his address into your address book. "For personal email,
please replace the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt"
You guys better not be talking flying secretly :)

Pat Thronson

"Big John" > wrote in message
...
> Dudley
>
> I've been tryng to contact you off News Group with no joy. What am I
> doing wrong?
>
> Big John
>
> On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 17:17:04 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> > wrote:
>
<Snipage>

> >I can't account for why the group would be disappointing you, but the
> >Thunderbirds tape every show and every practice without fail, for review
and
> >criticism in the post flight debrief.
> >The in-plane camera and the HUD camera are designed to survive the crash.
> >The ejection shot came from a controller on the ledge of the tower at
> >Mountain Home and would usually become a part of the AF investigation
team's
> >evidence. Normally, something like this would remain in house, but the
> >shot's release to the public is no big surprise to anyone.
> >Anything else you need to know, just ask. There's a fairly good chance
that
> >someone in this group that seems to be disappointing you so much will
have
> >the correct answer.
> >:-)))
> >Dudley Henriques
> >International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
> >Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
> >For personal email, please replace
> >the z's with e's.
> >dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt
> >
>

[Dudley Henriques]

I wrote to you back channel with no joy as well. Something's amiss for sure.
I'll try again. My email address is munged at the bottom of my signature tag
attached to this message. Just make a sensible link out of it and it should
come through ok.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired

For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's and use the normal (@) and (.)

dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt


"Big John" > wrote in message
...
> Dudley
>
> I've been tryng to contact you off News Group with no joy. What am I
> doing wrong?
>
> Big John
>
> On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 17:17:04 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"David Kinsell" > wrote in message
> >news:Tq8Sb.137505$5V2.701525@attbi_s53...
> >>
> >> "David Kinsell" > wrote in message
> >news:wuGRb.129024$Rc4.997383@attbi_s54...
> >> >
> >> > "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> >news:5igQb.131182$I06.1149412@attbi_s01...
> >> > > Over on "alt.binaries.pictures.aviation" someone has posted a
> >terrific, high
> >> > > resolution, nearly head-on shot of the Air Force Thunderbird F-16
> >ejection
> >> > > sequence from the crash in Idaho a few months ago. It REALLY shows
> >how
> >> > > close the pilot came to hitting the deck before ejecting.
> >> >
> >> > What appears to be cockpit video of the incident can be found at:
> >> >
> >> > http://s91499480.onlinehome.us/vids/
> >> >
> >> > No background info given, but it sure seems to be genuine. 4 meg
> >download.
> >> > There's also the classic video of the moron giving himself helicopter
> >lessons.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Wow, no one has accused this of being phoney video? No one has asked
why
> >> the T-Birds would be flying with a camera trained on the pilot? No one
> >has asked
> >> how the tape survived the fireball? No one asked how this video showed
up
> >on
> >> a strange little website without explanation? This group is starting
to
> >disappoint me . . .
> >
> >I can't account for why the group would be disappointing you, but the
> >Thunderbirds tape every show and every practice without fail, for review
and
> >criticism in the post flight debrief.
> >The in-plane camera and the HUD camera are designed to survive the crash.
> >The ejection shot came from a controller on the ledge of the tower at
> >Mountain Home and would usually become a part of the AF investigation
team's
> >evidence. Normally, something like this would remain in house, but the
> >shot's release to the public is no big surprise to anyone.
> >Anything else you need to know, just ask. There's a fairly good chance
that
> >someone in this group that seems to be disappointing you so much will
have
> >the correct answer.
> >:-)))
> >Dudley Henriques
> >International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
> >Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
> >For personal email, please replace
> >the z's with e's.
> >dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt
> >
>

[Big John]

Pat

I sent to his corrected address at end of post and he apparently got
my e-mail and replied to it. Guess he didn't look at the address I was
using and sent to another location?

Maybe this time?

And, yes it's all about flying <G> I have told so many War Stories on
rah that people are getting tired of my hairy/scary stuff :o(

Dudley will enjoy some of them about Willie I know.

Light rain tonight. First night of free celebration down town for
Super Bowl. We at least have a retractable roof for the game.

All the best.

Big John

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 01:42:16 GMT, "Pat Thronson"
> wrote:

>Big John,
>
>He is using a Spoofed e-mail when you auto reply. Look at his address. Just
>manually enter his address into your address book. "For personal email,
>please replace the z's with e's.
>dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt"
>You guys better not be talking flying secretly :)
>
>Pat Thronson
>
>"Big John" > wrote in message
...
>> Dudley
>>
>> I've been tryng to contact you off News Group with no joy. What am I
>> doing wrong?
>>
>> Big John
>>
>> On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 17:17:04 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
>> > wrote:
>>
><Snipage>
>
>> >I can't account for why the group would be disappointing you, but the
>> >Thunderbirds tape every show and every practice without fail, for review
>and
>> >criticism in the post flight debrief.
>> >The in-plane camera and the HUD camera are designed to survive the crash.
>> >The ejection shot came from a controller on the ledge of the tower at
>> >Mountain Home and would usually become a part of the AF investigation
>team's
>> >evidence. Normally, something like this would remain in house, but the
>> >shot's release to the public is no big surprise to anyone.
>> >Anything else you need to know, just ask. There's a fairly good chance
>that
>> >someone in this group that seems to be disappointing you so much will
>have
>> >the correct answer.
>> >:-)))
>> >Dudley Henriques
>> >International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
>> >Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
>> >For personal email, please replace
>> >the z's with e's.
>> >dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt
>> >
>>
>

[Dudley Henriques]

John; I haven't gotten anything from you except what I've seen here. I've
been hitting the reply to sender button here and I guess that is going to
the hotmail.com address.
Dudley
"Big John" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Pat
>
> I sent to his corrected address at end of post and he apparently got
> my e-mail and replied to it. Guess he didn't look at the address I was
> using and sent to another location?
>
> Maybe this time?
>
> And, yes it's all about flying <G> I have told so many War Stories on
> rah that people are getting tired of my hairy/scary stuff :o(
>
> Dudley will enjoy some of them about Willie I know.
>
> Light rain tonight. First night of free celebration down town for
> Super Bowl. We at least have a retractable roof for the game.
>
> All the best.
>
> Big John
>
> On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 01:42:16 GMT, "Pat Thronson"
> > wrote:
>
> >Big John,
> >
> >He is using a Spoofed e-mail when you auto reply. Look at his address.
Just
> >manually enter his address into your address book. "For personal email,
> >please replace the z's with e's.
> >dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt"
> >You guys better not be talking flying secretly :)
> >
> >Pat Thronson
> >
> >"Big John" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Dudley
> >>
> >> I've been tryng to contact you off News Group with no joy. What am I
> >> doing wrong?
> >>
> >> Big John
> >>
> >> On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 17:17:04 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> ><Snipage>
> >
> >> >I can't account for why the group would be disappointing you, but the
> >> >Thunderbirds tape every show and every practice without fail, for
review
> >and
> >> >criticism in the post flight debrief.
> >> >The in-plane camera and the HUD camera are designed to survive the
crash.
> >> >The ejection shot came from a controller on the ledge of the tower at
> >> >Mountain Home and would usually become a part of the AF investigation
> >team's
> >> >evidence. Normally, something like this would remain in house, but the
> >> >shot's release to the public is no big surprise to anyone.
> >> >Anything else you need to know, just ask. There's a fairly good chance
> >that
> >> >someone in this group that seems to be disappointing you so much will
> >have
> >> >the correct answer.
> >> >:-)))
> >> >Dudley Henriques
> >> >International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
> >> >Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
> >> >For personal email, please replace
> >> >the z's with e's.
> >> >dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt
> >> >
> >>
> >
>

[Big John]

Dudley

OK. Here's an address I set up. > Try it.

In mean time, a story about the "Captive Air" trainer at Willie.

The F-80A/B both had the little engine (3850-4000 lb thrust) and fuel
control was manual.

The fuel valve was like a water valve (90 degrees from off to full
open) and connected directly to the throttle. The fuel boost pump was
the I-16 (prior use as main fuel pump in Bell P-59) that pulled
something like 15-20 amps when running.

Starting engine you had to manually move throttle between idle and
idle cut off to keep engine running (fire burning) and temperature
with in limits.

With the manual fuel control, it took 21 seconds to go from idle to
full throttle. If you moved faster, you overtemped the engine or blew
the fire out.

With this little back ground, back to the "Captive Air". This was a
F-80 mounted on steel posts in a flat attitude (same as you sat on the
ground on the gear.)

The mounting posts were long enough that the wheels cleared the ground
so the gear could be retracted.

Student studied procedures and after deemed ready was put in the
"Captive Air" for a start and simulated flight. Instructor stood on
wing to talk the student through start, simulated take off, gear
retract, throttle acceleration, gear down, simulated land and
simulated go around, etc.

After we used up (crashed) all the F-80A/B's we went to all T-33's and
they tore the "Captive Air" down :o(

The only significant difference between the 'A' and 'B' was the 'B'
had a ejection seat. When I first got to Willie they had the ejection
seats deactivated as they were scared students couldn't handle them.
Shortly later the word came down from on high. If the bird has a
ejection seat, activate it. All the T-33's had ejection seats so
students were exposed to them prior to going on to the F-84 or F-86
and Korea.

More "War Stories" later <G>

Big John
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ``````````````````````````````````````````````


On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 04:15:28 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> wrote:

>John; I haven't gotten anything from you except what I've seen here. I've
>been hitting the reply to sender button here and I guess that is going to
>the hotmail.com address.
>Dudley
>"Big John" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>
>> Pat
>>
>> I sent to his corrected address at end of post and he apparently got
>> my e-mail and replied to it. Guess he didn't look at the address I was
>> using and sent to another location?
>>
>> Maybe this time?
>>
>> And, yes it's all about flying <G> I have told so many War Stories on
>> rah that people are getting tired of my hairy/scary stuff :o(
>>
>> Dudley will enjoy some of them about Willie I know.
>>
>> Light rain tonight. First night of free celebration down town for
>> Super Bowl. We at least have a retractable roof for the game.
>>
>> All the best.
>>
>> Big John
>>
>> On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 01:42:16 GMT, "Pat Thronson"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >Big John,
>> >
>> >He is using a Spoofed e-mail when you auto reply. Look at his address.
>Just
>> >manually enter his address into your address book. "For personal email,
>> >please replace the z's with e's.
>> >dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt"
>> >You guys better not be talking flying secretly :)
>> >
>> >Pat Thronson
>> >
>> >"Big John" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> Dudley
>> >>
>> >> I've been tryng to contact you off News Group with no joy. What am I
>> >> doing wrong?
>> >>
>> >> Big John
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 17:17:04 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
>> >> > wrote:
>> >>
>> ><Snipage>
>> >
>> >> >I can't account for why the group would be disappointing you, but the
>> >> >Thunderbirds tape every show and every practice without fail, for
>review
>> >and
>> >> >criticism in the post flight debrief.
>> >> >The in-plane camera and the HUD camera are designed to survive the
>crash.
>> >> >The ejection shot came from a controller on the ledge of the tower at
>> >> >Mountain Home and would usually become a part of the AF investigation
>> >team's
>> >> >evidence. Normally, something like this would remain in house, but the
>> >> >shot's release to the public is no big surprise to anyone.
>> >> >Anything else you need to know, just ask. There's a fairly good chance
>> >that
>> >> >someone in this group that seems to be disappointing you so much will
>> >have
>> >> >the correct answer.
>> >> >:-)))
>> >> >Dudley Henriques
>> >> >International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
>> >> >Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
>> >> >For personal email, please replace
>> >> >the z's with e's.
>> >> >dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>>
>

[Dudley Henriques]

"Big John" > wrote in message
...
> Dudley
>
> OK. Here's an address I set up. > Try it.
>
> In mean time, a story about the "Captive Air" trainer at Willie.
>
> The F-80A/B both had the little engine (3850-4000 lb thrust) and fuel
> control was manual.
>
> The fuel valve was like a water valve (90 degrees from off to full
> open) and connected directly to the throttle. The fuel boost pump was
> the I-16 (prior use as main fuel pump in Bell P-59) that pulled
> something like 15-20 amps when running.
>
> Starting engine you had to manually move throttle between idle and
> idle cut off to keep engine running (fire burning) and temperature
> with in limits.
>
> With the manual fuel control, it took 21 seconds to go from idle to
> full throttle. If you moved faster, you overtemped the engine or blew
> the fire out.
>
> With this little back ground, back to the "Captive Air". This was a
> F-80 mounted on steel posts in a flat attitude (same as you sat on the
> ground on the gear.)
>
> The mounting posts were long enough that the wheels cleared the ground
> so the gear could be retracted.
>
> Student studied procedures and after deemed ready was put in the
> "Captive Air" for a start and simulated flight. Instructor stood on
> wing to talk the student through start, simulated take off, gear
> retract, throttle acceleration, gear down, simulated land and
> simulated go around, etc.
>
> After we used up (crashed) all the F-80A/B's we went to all T-33's and
> they tore the "Captive Air" down :o(
>
> The only significant difference between the 'A' and 'B' was the 'B'
> had a ejection seat. When I first got to Willie they had the ejection
> seats deactivated as they were scared students couldn't handle them.
> Shortly later the word came down from on high. If the bird has a
> ejection seat, activate it. All the T-33's had ejection seats so
> students were exposed to them prior to going on to the F-84 or F-86
> and Korea.
>
> More "War Stories" later <G>
>
> Big John
>
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ``````````````````````````
````````````````````
>
>
> On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 04:15:28 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> > wrote:
>
> >John; I haven't gotten anything from you except what I've seen here. I've
> >been hitting the reply to sender button here and I guess that is going to
> >the hotmail.com address.

Don't have too much time in the T-Bird; a few hours up in Canada. Some in
the F86 which was a blast to fly; then into T38's and finally the F14 for
some test work. Did an evaluation of the Snowbirds Tutors that was fun; A
ton of time in prop fighters; all as a civilian BTW! :-)
I remember the T-Bird simulator though. I believe it was called the C11B;
you probably remember it ; the zero reader eight ball and all that! Much
better than the old Link ANT18 yellow and blue monster we learned on.
The T38 would seem like greased lightning to someone after flying the T33
:-) Just the start procedure would drive a T Bird driver nuts looking for
something to do during spool up!!! It's mostly automatic.
You push the start buttons and watch the clocks. Easy!!
And you don't have those big 230 gal. centerlines hanging out there either
which is nice!! Then there's the ultimate. You can take a 38 out to about .9
and max deflect the ailerons. This will bounce the helmet of the back seat
guy right off the canopy! :-)
Lord, I miss the fun times!! :-)
Dudley

[Big John]

Dudley

We can stay here vs e-mail but may get 'OT'?

"Boots" is a classmate of mine.

About 650 hours in the P/F-51D/K. My bird (Kathie Kay) was a 'K' (Aero
Products Prop). 8 FG, 35 Sq. Itazukie, Ashyia, Miho.

Participated in some of the service testing on T-28A at Edwards.

F-94C (super sonic bird same as F-86). Without tip tanks would 'whup'
'86. Best bird I ever flew. You couldn't tear it up no matter what you
did except fly into the ground.

We had one bird at Hamilton that dropped the tips when you pulled the
gear up :o( We flew the bird clean while Lockheed tried to figure out
problem. 30 minute flight and then a 'practice' forced landing
approach to field :o)

Year with Navy tail hook Sq in F2H3 (twin engine T- bird performance).

WADF Project Officer on F-89J and F-101B (Atomic Interceptors).

Was a great life in a wondrous age from Jennies (first bird I can
remember) to the 101B last supersonic bird I flew.

Not just sure where you were in the test flying program? Virg Givins
was also a classmate of mine.

Worked with the Canuks in Air Defense (ADC/NORAD).

Glad when Super Bowl over here in Houston and can get back to normal
:o(

Big John
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` `````````````````````````````````````````````````` `

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 16:06:19 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> wrote:

----clip----
..
>
>Don't have too much time in the T-Bird; a few hours up in Canada. Some in
>the F86 which was a blast to fly; then into T38's and finally the F14 for
>some test work. Did an evaluation of the Snowbirds Tutors that was fun; A
>ton of time in prop fighters; all as a civilian BTW! :-)

>I remember the T-Bird simulator though. I believe it was called the C11B;
>you probably remember it the zero reader eight ball and all that! Much
>better than the old Link ANT18 yellow and blue monster we learned on.

`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ````````````````````````````````````
The Zero Reader was one of the best instruments I flew (in F-94C) Why
they didn't continue using it I don't know?
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ``````````````````````````````````````

>The T38 would seem like greased lightning to someone after flying the T33
>:-) Just the start procedure would drive a T Bird driver nuts looking for
>something to do during spool up!!! It's mostly automatic.
>You push the start buttons and watch the clocks. Easy!!
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ````````````````````````````````````````
The F-94C had an auto start. You could put the throttle in A/B and hit
start switches and engine would start, wind up to 100% and go into
burner without any further action on your part.

Engine was a J-48 centrifugal. Only other centrifugal than the J-33 in
T-33.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ``````````````````````````````````````````

>And you don't have those big 230 gal. centerlines hanging out there either
>which is nice!! Then there's the ultimate. You can take a 38 out to about .9
>and max deflect the ailerons. This will bounce the helmet of the back seat
>guy right off the canopy! :-)

`````````````````````````````````````````````````` `````````````````````````````````````````````````` `
One of my play maneuvers in T- bird was to pick up a little speed and
then pull the nose up to about 45 degrees and lay stick full over.
Bird would roll up and over top and I would let continue to about a 45
degree dive and 'whap' stop. After stopping roll, the passenger would
end up with his head cocked over against the canopy due to inner ear.
I'd tell him to straighten head up and he would shake his head yes but
not straighten up. Would take 4-5 minutes before he could sit straight
again in cockpit <G>
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ```````````````````````````````````````````````
>Lord, I miss the fun times!! :-)
>Dudley
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ``````````````````````````````````````
Know what you mean. Never again will anyone have the opportunity to do
things like happened in the past century.

BJ

[Dudley Henriques]

Group; sorry for the OT stuff. Trying to sort it out now.

John; we must be having trouble with private email for some reason. I've
sent several to you back channel, both using the hotmail and the new address
you listed in a prior post here. I've received nothing from you in return.
The mails however didn't bounce back to me. Have no idea what it could be.
All other email is coming through just fine. You're the only one. Have you
received anything from me at all? Have you tried to email me at all?
D
"Big John" > wrote in message
...
> Dudley
>
> We can stay here vs e-mail but may get 'OT'?
>
> "Boots" is a classmate of mine.
>
> About 650 hours in the P/F-51D/K. My bird (Kathie Kay) was a 'K' (Aero
> Products Prop). 8 FG, 35 Sq. Itazukie, Ashyia, Miho.
>
> Participated in some of the service testing on T-28A at Edwards.
>
> F-94C (super sonic bird same as F-86). Without tip tanks would 'whup'
> '86. Best bird I ever flew. You couldn't tear it up no matter what you
> did except fly into the ground.
>
> We had one bird at Hamilton that dropped the tips when you pulled the
> gear up :o( We flew the bird clean while Lockheed tried to figure out
> problem. 30 minute flight and then a 'practice' forced landing
> approach to field :o)
>
> Year with Navy tail hook Sq in F2H3 (twin engine T- bird performance).
>
> WADF Project Officer on F-89J and F-101B (Atomic Interceptors).
>
> Was a great life in a wondrous age from Jennies (first bird I can
> remember) to the 101B last supersonic bird I flew.
>
> Not just sure where you were in the test flying program? Virg Givins
> was also a classmate of mine.
>
> Worked with the Canuks in Air Defense (ADC/NORAD).
>
> Glad when Super Bowl over here in Houston and can get back to normal
> :o(
>
> Big John
>
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ``````````````````````````
`````````````````````````
>
> On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 16:06:19 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> > wrote:
>
> ----clip----
> .
> >
> >Don't have too much time in the T-Bird; a few hours up in Canada. Some in
> >the F86 which was a blast to fly; then into T38's and finally the F14 for
> >some test work. Did an evaluation of the Snowbirds Tutors that was fun; A
> >ton of time in prop fighters; all as a civilian BTW! :-)
>
> >I remember the T-Bird simulator though. I believe it was called the C11B;
> >you probably remember it the zero reader eight ball and all that! Much
> >better than the old Link ANT18 yellow and blue monster we learned on.
>
>
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ``````````````````````````
``````````
> The Zero Reader was one of the best instruments I flew (in F-94C) Why
> they didn't continue using it I don't know?
>
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ``````````````````````````
````````````
>
> >The T38 would seem like greased lightning to someone after flying the T33
> >:-) Just the start procedure would drive a T Bird driver nuts looking for
> >something to do during spool up!!! It's mostly automatic.
> >You push the start buttons and watch the clocks. Easy!!
>
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ``````````````````````````
``````````````
> The F-94C had an auto start. You could put the throttle in A/B and hit
> start switches and engine would start, wind up to 100% and go into
> burner without any further action on your part.
>
> Engine was a J-48 centrifugal. Only other centrifugal than the J-33 in
> T-33.
>
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ``````````````````````````
````````````````
>
> >And you don't have those big 230 gal. centerlines hanging out there
either
> >which is nice!! Then there's the ultimate. You can take a 38 out to about
..9
> >and max deflect the ailerons. This will bounce the helmet of the back
seat
> >guy right off the canopy! :-)
>
>
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ``````````````````````````
`````````````````````````
> One of my play maneuvers in T- bird was to pick up a little speed and
> then pull the nose up to about 45 degrees and lay stick full over.
> Bird would roll up and over top and I would let continue to about a 45
> degree dive and 'whap' stop. After stopping roll, the passenger would
> end up with his head cocked over against the canopy due to inner ear.
> I'd tell him to straighten head up and he would shake his head yes but
> not straighten up. Would take 4-5 minutes before he could sit straight
> again in cockpit <G>
>
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ``````````````````````````
`````````````````````
> >Lord, I miss the fun times!! :-)
> >Dudley
>
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ``````````````````````````
````````````
> Know what you mean. Never again will anyone have the opportunity to do
> things like happened in the past century.
>
> BJ

[Pat Thronson]

Dudley Henriques,



OT stuff?? and down loading music and Kerry stuff are? lol

Question for you older military pilots... Back in 1975 my high school,
guidance counselor said I could not fly (pilot) in the military because I
wore glasses, but I sure see now there were quit a few who did. What would
be a rough % of pilots who wore glasses?



Pat Thronson



"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> Group; sorry for the OT stuff. Trying to sort it out now.
>
> John; we must be having trouble with private email for some reason. I've
> sent several to you back channel, both using the hotmail and the new
address
> you listed in a prior post here. I've received nothing from you in return.
> The mails however didn't bounce back to me. Have no idea what it could be.
> All other email is coming through just fine. You're the only one. Have you
> received anything from me at all? Have you tried to email me at all?
> D


<On topic aviation piloting snipage>

[Big John]

Dudlely

I have sent several e-mail to you. They didn't bounce, just
dissapeared into the sunset :o(

Have not received any e-mail from you???

Have just sent two test msgs via a third ISP to both of your addrsses
given on news group. (earthlink.net and nowhere.net)

Only problem I am having with e-mail is yours????

Will see if these two go.

Big John


On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 02:40:31 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> wrote:

>
>Group; sorry for the OT stuff. Trying to sort it out now.
>
>John; we must be having trouble with private email for some reason. I've
>sent several to you back channel, both using the hotmail and the new address
>you listed in a prior post here. I've received nothing from you in return.
>The mails however didn't bounce back to me. Have no idea what it could be.
>All other email is coming through just fine. You're the only one. Have you
>received anything from me at all? Have you tried to email me at all?


----clip----

[Dudley Henriques]

"Pat Thronson" > wrote in message
. net...
> Dudley Henriques,
>
>
>
> OT stuff?? and down loading music and Kerry stuff are? lol
>
> Question for you older military pilots... Back in 1975 my high school,
> guidance counselor said I could not fly (pilot) in the military because I
> wore glasses, but I sure see now there were quit a few who did. What would
> be a rough % of pilots who wore glasses?
>
>
>
> Pat Thronson

The actual percentage for this kind of stat might or might not be in the
database, I'm not sure. Perhaps some of the statistics guys out here will
have this information.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

[Dudley Henriques]

Got your last one on the broadband.
D
"Big John" > wrote in message
...
> Dudlely
>
> I have sent several e-mail to you. They didn't bounce, just
> dissapeared into the sunset :o(
>
> Have not received any e-mail from you???
>
> Have just sent two test msgs via a third ISP to both of your addrsses
> given on news group. (earthlink.net and nowhere.net)
>
> Only problem I am having with e-mail is yours????
>
> Will see if these two go.
>
> Big John
>
>
> On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 02:40:31 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >Group; sorry for the OT stuff. Trying to sort it out now.
> >
> >John; we must be having trouble with private email for some reason. I've
> >sent several to you back channel, both using the hotmail and the new
address
> >you listed in a prior post here. I've received nothing from you in
return.
> >The mails however didn't bounce back to me. Have no idea what it could
be.
> >All other email is coming through just fine. You're the only one. Have
you
> >received anything from me at all? Have you tried to email me at all?
>
>
> ----clip----

[Big John]

Pat

Many pilots wear glases. More as they get older.

Basic rule was that you needed 20/20 to get in pilot training. After
you graduated and if your eyes then started going down like all do but
could be corrected to 20/20 with glasses you could continue to fly.
After all they had spent a fortune to train you.

Think they felt if you started with bad eys and they then went down
you wouldn't be able to get corrective lens to see???

When I started I could see 20/20 to 20/15 depending on the day and
time of day tested. I now wear glasses that only correct to 20/20 -
20/30 :o(.

Believe these are the genral rules and why.


Big John

On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 03:21:28 GMT, "Pat Thronson"
> wrote:

>Dudley Henriques,
>
>
>
>OT stuff?? and down loading music and Kerry stuff are? lol
>
>Question for you older military pilots... Back in 1975 my high school,
>guidance counselor said I could not fly (pilot) in the military because I
>wore glasses, but I sure see now there were quit a few who did. What would
>be a rough % of pilots who wore glasses?
>
>
>
>Pat Thronson
>
>
>
>"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>>
>> Group; sorry for the OT stuff. Trying to sort it out now.
>>
>> John; we must be having trouble with private email for some reason. I've
>> sent several to you back channel, both using the hotmail and the new
>address
>> you listed in a prior post here. I've received nothing from you in return.
>> The mails however didn't bounce back to me. Have no idea what it could be.
>> All other email is coming through just fine. You're the only one. Have you
>> received anything from me at all? Have you tried to email me at all?
>> D
>
>
><On topic aviation piloting snipage>
>

[Jay Honeck]

> Basic rule was that you needed 20/20 to get in pilot training.

And what a crap rule that is. It ended my chances for a military career,
and it's now ending my 13 year old son's chances -- despite the fact that he
is corrected to better than 20/20. (As was I.)

When I tried to enlist (late 70s) they told me they just used the vision
rule as a way to prune the list down, since there were 10 applicants for
every pilot position. Nowadays, with modern optics and/or Lasik surgery, it
is possible to correct nearly anyone to 20/20 or better.

Oh well. With reenlistment supposedly plummeting, maybe they'll have to
allow lasik before my kid comes of age, just to keep enough pilots?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"
"Big John" > wrote in message
...
> Pat
>
> Many pilots wear glases. More as they get older.
>
>
> Think they felt if you started with bad eys and they then went down
> you wouldn't be able to get corrective lens to see???
>
> When I started I could see 20/20 to 20/15 depending on the day and
> time of day tested. I now wear glasses that only correct to 20/20 -
> 20/30 :o(.
>
> Believe these are the genral rules and why.
>
>
> Big John
>
> On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 03:21:28 GMT, "Pat Thronson"
> > wrote:
>
> >Dudley Henriques,
> >
> >
> >
> >OT stuff?? and down loading music and Kerry stuff are? lol
> >
> >Question for you older military pilots... Back in 1975 my high school,
> >guidance counselor said I could not fly (pilot) in the military because I
> >wore glasses, but I sure see now there were quit a few who did. What
would
> >be a rough % of pilots who wore glasses?
> >
> >
> >
> >Pat Thronson
> >
> >
> >
> >"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >>
> >> Group; sorry for the OT stuff. Trying to sort it out now.
> >>
> >> John; we must be having trouble with private email for some reason.
I've
> >> sent several to you back channel, both using the hotmail and the new
> >address
> >> you listed in a prior post here. I've received nothing from you in
return.
> >> The mails however didn't bounce back to me. Have no idea what it could
be.
> >> All other email is coming through just fine. You're the only one. Have
you
> >> received anything from me at all? Have you tried to email me at all?
> >> D
> >
> >
> ><On topic aviation piloting snipage>
> >
>

[G.R. Patterson III]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> Oh well. With reenlistment supposedly plummeting, maybe they'll have to
> allow lasik before my kid comes of age, just to keep enough pilots?

Pilots are not enlisted men. As officers, the rules for dropping out of the
service are somewhat different.

George Patterson
Love, n.: A form of temporary insanity afflicting the young. It is curable
either by marriage or by removal of the afflicted from the circumstances
under which he incurred the condition. It is sometimes fatal, but more
often to the physician than to the patient.

[Big John]

Jay

Lots of rules. Know of pro athletes who couldn't pass military
physical standards

Big John

On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 14:07:17 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>> Basic rule was that you needed 20/20 to get in pilot training.
>
>And what a crap rule that is. It ended my chances for a military career,
>and it's now ending my 13 year old son's chances -- despite the fact that he
>is corrected to better than 20/20. (As was I.)
>
>When I tried to enlist (late 70s) they told me they just used the vision
>rule as a way to prune the list down, since there were 10 applicants for
>every pilot position. Nowadays, with modern optics and/or Lasik surgery, it
>is possible to correct nearly anyone to 20/20 or better.
>
>Oh well. With reenlistment supposedly plummeting, maybe they'll have to
>allow lasik before my kid comes of age, just to keep enough pilots?

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:pK7Tb.203524$na.334722@attbi_s04...
> > Basic rule was that you needed 20/20 to get in pilot training.
>
> And what a crap rule that is. It ended my chances for a military career,
> and it's now ending my 13 year old son's chances -- despite the fact that
he
> is corrected to better than 20/20. (As was I.)
>
> When I tried to enlist (late 70s) they told me they just used the vision
> rule as a way to prune the list down, since there were 10 applicants for
> every pilot position. Nowadays, with modern optics and/or Lasik surgery,
it
> is possible to correct nearly anyone to 20/20 or better.
>
> Oh well. With reenlistment supposedly plummeting, maybe they'll have to
> allow lasik before my kid comes of age, just to keep enough pilots?

In the late 60's the Army lowered the vision requirements for helicopter
pilots to something like 20/80 uncorrected if correctable to 20/20. They
also (IIRC) lowered the education requirements to a high school graduate. I
believe this was due to the high attrition rates they were experiencing.

I got there six months too late, with 20/60, the HS diploma, and all the
test scores. :~(

[Jay Honeck]

> In the late 60's the Army lowered the vision requirements for helicopter
> pilots to something like 20/80 uncorrected if correctable to 20/20. They
> also (IIRC) lowered the education requirements to a high school graduate.
I
> believe this was due to the high attrition rates they were experiencing.

Yeah, they had that when I looked into it, too.

Didn't have 20/80 uncorrected, sadly.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Aardvark]

Story, 4 photos and 2 movies on avweb.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/192-full.html#186633

[Paul Sengupta]

"Big John" > wrote in message
...

> Basic rule was that you needed 20/20 to get in pilot training.

The RAF have pretty much the same rule I believe. The answer
was given by someone on television...you try pulling +9/-3g in
combat while wearing glasses or contact lenses wearing a hot
flight suit and gear, under other sweaty conditions and see where
the things end up! While easy to get around using prescription
goggles or something like that, normal glasses just bounce around
too much, and contact lenses are dangerous as they migrate/come
out. This is what they said anyway.

Paul

[Big John]

Here is another photo of the ejection.

Shows much more than the TV pictures.

<http://www.af.mil/stories/story.asp?storyID=123006871>

Big John