More proof the FemiNazi's are taking over Washinton

[Jack Mehoff]

More proof the FemiNazi's and Bull Dikes
are taking over Washington

FEMALE head of DOT
FEMALE head of FAA
FEMALE Regional Administrators

No White Males in site or being run off

Further weakening of America and Government continues
under the veil of Politically Correct tyranny

Remember, WOMEN were running the FAA during 9/11

Just a little food for thought

My-O-My

President Bush has chosen Mary Peters, a former federal
highway administrator, to succeed Norman Mineta as secretary
of transportation, a senior administration official said
Tuesday.

Peters spent three years directing the Arizona Department of
Transportation where she worked her way up through the ranks
during a 16-year career there. Since November, Peters has
been national director for transportation policy and
consulting in the Phoenix office of Omaha-based
architectural, engineering and consulting firm HDR Inc.

[Bob Gardner]

How about recognition that we have been ignoring the contributions of women
until recently, just as we ignored the contributions of African-Americans
until recently? Every human being, without regard to ethnicity or gender,
has an intellect...how that intellect is used is both nature and nurture,
but it can't simply be ignored.

Bob Gardner

"Jack Mehoff" > wrote in message
.. .
> More proof the FemiNazi's and Bull Dikes
> are taking over Washington
>
> FEMALE head of DOT
> FEMALE head of FAA
> FEMALE Regional Administrators
>
> No White Males in site or being run off
>
> Further weakening of America and Government continues
> under the veil of Politically Correct tyranny
>
> Remember, WOMEN were running the FAA during 9/11
>
> Just a little food for thought
>
> My-O-My
>
> President Bush has chosen Mary Peters, a former federal highway
> administrator, to succeed Norman Mineta as secretary of transportation, a
> senior administration official said Tuesday.
>
> Peters spent three years directing the Arizona Department of
> Transportation where she worked her way up through the ranks during a
> 16-year career there. Since November, Peters has been national director
> for transportation policy and consulting in the Phoenix office of
> Omaha-based architectural, engineering and consulting firm HDR Inc.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Bob Gardner" > wrote:

> How about recognition that we have been ignoring the contributions of women
> until recently, just as we ignored the contributions of African-Americans
> until recently? Every human being, without regard to ethnicity or gender,
> has an intellect...how that intellect is used is both nature and nurture,
> but it can't simply be ignored.

please don't feed the trolls.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Gardner ]
> Posted At: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 3:05 PM
> Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
> Conversation: More proof the FemiNazi's are taking over Washinton
> Subject: Re: More proof the FemiNazi's are taking over Washinton
>
> How about recognition that we have been ignoring the contributions of
> women
> until recently, just as we ignored the contributions of
African-Americans
> until recently? Every human being, without regard to ethnicity or
gender,
> has an intellect...how that intellect is used is both nature and
nurture,
> but it can't simply be ignored.
>
> Bob Gardner
>
Bob, do you suspect this jerk is aka John Wayne, FUBAR, and that other
illiterate that is so sure the FAA is at fault for LEX? Same rhetoric,
same style -- aren't free email account wonderful?

I'm beginning to wonder if not only was he written up by a female and
lost his license, his wife probably left and his mother denies every
having him.

[A1A]

Jim Carter wrote:
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Bob Gardner ]
>>Posted At: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 3:05 PM
>>Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
>>Conversation: More proof the FemiNazi's are taking over Washinton
>>Subject: Re: More proof the FemiNazi's are taking over Washinton
>>
>>How about recognition that we have been ignoring the contributions of
>>women
>>until recently, just as we ignored the contributions of
>
> African-Americans
>
>>until recently? Every human being, without regard to ethnicity or
>
> gender,
>
>>has an intellect...how that intellect is used is both nature and
>
> nurture,
>
>>but it can't simply be ignored.
>>
>>Bob Gardner
>>
>
> Bob, do you suspect this jerk is aka John Wayne, FUBAR, and that other
> illiterate that is so sure the FAA is at fault for LEX? Same rhetoric,
> same style -- aren't free email account wonderful?
>
> I'm beginning to wonder if not only was he written up by a female and
> lost his license, his wife probably left and his mother denies every
> having him.
>

Those who say the FAA is not at fault at LEX are idiots

LEXINGTON, Kentucky — Nearly two years before the fatal
crash of Comair Flight 5191,
a control tower supervisor at the Lexington airport reported
staff shortages that "can cost lives."
According to a safety memo filed in September 2004 and
obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press,
the supervisor reported the airport's radar system was not
working properly but that the
air traffic manager refused to call in a mechanical
specialist because it would mean paying
two hours of overtime.The memo went on to complain that
staffing in Lexington
was a "low priority to the powers above us (WOMEN BULL DIKES
RUNNING THE FAA) who were more focused on solving problems
at larger airports,(AND DIVERSITY AND KISSING THE BLACK ASS)
such as Louisville and Cincinnati."Those types of poorly
thought out decisions can cost lives,"
said the supervisor, who made the report anonymously
through a NASA system used by tower operators
and pilots to list safety concerns, which are ultimately
relayed to the Federal Aviation Administration.


Poor ******* had to send in his "safety" concerns about KLEX
"Anonymously". Now that the FAA is spending millions on
Diversity and Gay Pride Celebrations and sending Black FAA
employees to SPA RESORTS on the
American tax dime, who has the time for staffing critical
functions like technicians and controllers?

Kissing the Black and Female and Homosexual Ass must come
first in the new Diversity brainwashed "Get rid of white
males" FAA

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,212341,00.html

Here is some more of your FAA tax money at work
The FAA "Paid for this" with YOUR Tax money

http://www.nbcfae.org/2006AnnualTraining.htm


But, the FAA can't afford to adequately staff
control towers.

I wonder why??

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: A1A ]
> Posted At: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 12:50 AM
> Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
> Conversation: More proof the FemiNazi's are taking over Washinton
> Subject: Re: More proof the FemiNazi's are taking over Washinton
>
....
>
> Those who say the FAA is not at fault at LEX are idiots
>
> LEXINGTON, Kentucky - Nearly two years before the fatal
> crash of Comair Flight 5191,
> a control tower supervisor at the Lexington airport reported
> staff shortages that "can cost lives."
> According to a safety memo filed in September 2004 and
> obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press,
> the supervisor reported the airport's radar system was not
> working properly but that the
> air traffic manager refused to call in a mechanical
> specialist because it would mean paying
> two hours of overtime.The memo went on to complain that
> staffing in Lexington
> was a "low priority to the powers above us (WOMEN BULL DIKES
> RUNNING THE FAA) who were more focused on solving problems
> at larger airports,(AND DIVERSITY AND KISSING THE BLACK ASS)
> such as Louisville and Cincinnati."Those types of poorly
> thought out decisions can cost lives,"
> said the supervisor, who made the report anonymously
> through a NASA system used by tower operators
> and pilots to list safety concerns, which are ultimately
> relayed to the Federal Aviation Administration.
>
>
> Poor ******* had to send in his "safety" concerns about KLEX
> "Anonymously". Now that the FAA is spending millions on
> Diversity and Gay Pride Celebrations and sending Black FAA
> employees to SPA RESORTS on the
> American tax dime, who has the time for staffing critical
> functions like technicians and controllers?
>
> Kissing the Black and Female and Homosexual Ass must come
> first in the new Diversity brainwashed "Get rid of white
> males" FAA
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,212341,00.html
>
> Here is some more of your FAA tax money at work
> The FAA "Paid for this" with YOUR Tax money
>
> http://www.nbcfae.org/2006AnnualTraining.htm
>
>
> But, the FAA can't afford to adequately staff
> control towers.
>
> I wonder why??

Sure the FAA is short staffed on controllers - no one is arguing that
issue. But people with their shorts in a knot about short staffing
should not confuse pilot error as somehow being caused by that short
staffing or FAA staffing issues as being the cause of this accident.

The NTSB taxied another Comair bird out to both 22 and 26 on Monday
during the dark to observe exactly what the aircrew saw. They haven't
announced those findings yet and probably won't for a while, but they
couldn't help but notice that there were no lights on runway 26 and
there were on runway 22.

Turns out the co-pilot had approx 3500 hours in type as a 1st officer
(kind of high not to be captain isn't it?) and the captain had only been
in to LEX six times in the preceding 24 months -- last time was in June
this year.

The aircrew wasn't having a good day to start with: they started
pre-flighting the wrong aircraft and the maintenance crew had to point
them to the one they were to fly.

No evidence of an airport diagram available in the cockpit at the time
of the accident and they departed on an unlit runway. Captain taxied to
the runway and 1st officer executed the takeoff.

Somehow, I don't think it is the FAA's lack of staffing or controllers'
long work hours that caused this accident.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying controllers are not in short supply
or not overworked. I am saying that those making arguments about the two
issues being the cause of the LEX accident are doing a disservice to the
controllers --

BTW, reading the Fox article which did not contain the inflammatory or
bigoted comments offered by A1A pointed out that the article was
triggered by inoperative approach radar that the manager refused to have
repaired until regular working hours. To have it repaired when it failed
would have resulted in 2 hours of overtime. We don't know all the
factors bearing on the manager's decision, but traffic load and weather
surely could have been two. It was also reported that the LEX approach
control radar is not located in the tower cab, so even if there had been
two controllers on duty, would both have been upstairs?

No one on the net seems to be shining the light on Comair (the FAA is
more fun to hate I guess), but shouldn't the LEX Comair workers have
been alerted when the aircrew couldn't find the right aircraft?
Shouldn't the dispatcher in LEX have checked and supplied an airport
diagram if needed? Knowing the captain hadn't been into LEX in the last
60 days, and only 6 times in the preceding 24 months, shouldn't the
dispatcher have been very thorough in providing information. Knowing
that airport construction had recently taken place (since the captain
had last been to LEX), shouldn't the dispatcher and aircrew have been
even more sensitized to safety items?

Sure, the FAA will probably be listed as a contributing factor, but
let's face it. The pilot in command screwed up and the 1st officer
didn't catch it. Those two individuals were the ones pushing on the
go-fast levers.

The AOPA's current safety seminars are focused on the chain of events
leading up to an accident. There is rarely a single factor or incident
that can be blamed for the event. That is the case here at LEX. Let's
quit trying to blame the accident at LEX on the FAA. It seems to me they
are way down the list of culpable suspects who all share the blame.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"A1A" > wrote in message
...
>
> Those who say the FAA is not at fault at LEX are idiots
>

I say the FAA is not at fault at LEX. Explain why I'm an idiot.

[Robert M. Gary]

A1A wrote:

> Those who say the FAA is not at fault at LEX are idiots

I say the FAA is not at fault and that the captain was PIC at the time,
not the tower controller.

-Robert, CFII

[Robert Chambers]

Was the local controller taxiing and performing the takeoff via remote
control from the cab? No I didn't think so.

And if this was a non-towered field or the tower was closed, who would
you blame then? the Mayor? The guy that owned the property beyond the
runway that the jet crashed into?

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> A1A wrote:
>
>
>>Those who say the FAA is not at fault at LEX are idiots
>
>
> I say the FAA is not at fault and that the captain was PIC at the time,
> not the tower controller.
>
> -Robert, CFII
>

[Newps]

Jim Carter wrote:

> The aircrew wasn't having a good day to start with: they started
> pre-flighting the wrong aircraft and the maintenance crew had to point
> them to the one they were to fly.

When there are two identical aircraft sitting on the ramp next to each
other how do you know which one your supposed to take?

[Newps]

Jim Carter wrote:


>
> BTW, reading the Fox article which did not contain the inflammatory or
> bigoted comments offered by A1A pointed out that the article was
> triggered by inoperative approach radar that the manager refused to have
> repaired until regular working hours. To have it repaired when it failed
> would have resulted in 2 hours of overtime. We don't know all the
> factors bearing on the manager's decision, but traffic load and weather
> surely could have been two.

It was not the Air Traffic managers responsibility. That is another
department completely and not under his control. If overtime were
required it wouldn't come out of his budget. Somebody got their facts
wrong on that.

[Mark Hansen]

On 09/06/06 11:49, Newps wrote:
>
> Jim Carter wrote:
>
>> The aircrew wasn't having a good day to start with: they started
>> pre-flighting the wrong aircraft and the maintenance crew had to point
>> them to the one they were to fly.
>
> When there are two identical aircraft sitting on the ramp next to each
> other how do you know which one your supposed to take?

Don't they still have tail numbers?

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
...
>
> Don't they still have tail numbers?
>

Certainly. Are flight crews assigned by flight number or by tail number?

[Mark Hansen]

On 09/06/06 12:11, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Don't they still have tail numbers?
>>
>
> Certainly. Are flight crews assigned by flight number or by tail number?
>
>

I assumed their paperwork would include the tail number. After all, how
else would they know which airplane to take ;-)

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
...
>
> I assumed their paperwork would include the tail number. After all, how
> else would they know which airplane to take ;-)
>

By the gate assignment?

[Jay Beckman]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> I assumed their paperwork would include the tail number. After all, how
>> else would they know which airplane to take ;-)
>>
>
> By the gate assignment?
>

What about when there is a line of say three aircraft that are parked some
yards off the actual terminal building ?

Jay B

[Newps]

Mark Hansen wrote:
> On 09/06/06 11:49, Newps wrote:
>
>>Jim Carter wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The aircrew wasn't having a good day to start with: they started
>>>pre-flighting the wrong aircraft and the maintenance crew had to point
>>>them to the one they were to fly.
>>
>>When there are two identical aircraft sitting on the ramp next to each
>>other how do you know which one your supposed to take?
>
>
> Don't they still have tail numbers?

They've got N numbers of course. But you are assuming the crew takes
the same plane out that they brought in. Bad assumption.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Jay Beckman" > wrote in message
news:hkGLg.18783$RD.9409@fed1read08...
>
> What about when there is a line of say three aircraft that are parked some
> yards off the actual terminal building ?
>

I've seen that. They're towed to a gate as they become available well
before they taxi for departure and probably before the crew arrives.

[Mark Hansen]

On 09/06/06 13:51, Newps wrote:
>
> Mark Hansen wrote:
>> On 09/06/06 11:49, Newps wrote:
>>
>>>Jim Carter wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>The aircrew wasn't having a good day to start with: they started
>>>>pre-flighting the wrong aircraft and the maintenance crew had to point
>>>>them to the one they were to fly.
>>>
>>>When there are two identical aircraft sitting on the ramp next to each
>>>other how do you know which one your supposed to take?
>>
>>
>> Don't they still have tail numbers?
>
> They've got N numbers of course. But you are assuming the crew takes
> the same plane out that they brought in. Bad assumption.

I'm not assuming anything of the sort. What I assumed what that the tail
number was part of the flight crew's paperwork and that they looked at
that.

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steven P. McNicoll ]
> Posted At: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 3:52 PM
> Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
> Conversation: More proof the FemiNazi's are taking over Washinton
> Subject: Re: More proof the FemiNazi's are taking over Washinton
>
....
> I've seen that. They're towed to a gate as they become available well
> before they taxi for departure and probably before the crew arrives.

Not necessarily - in STL the passengers are walked across the ramp to
the waiting ATRs

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Hansen ]
> Posted At: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 4:07 PM
> Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
> Conversation: More proof the FemiNazi's are taking over Washinton
> Subject: Re: More proof the FemiNazi's are taking over Washinton
>
> On 09/06/06 13:51, Newps wrote:
> >
....
>
> I'm not assuming anything of the sort. What I assumed what that the
tail
> number was part of the flight crew's paperwork and that they looked at
> that.

Actually, all they usually have to look at is the nose gear door. The
a/c number is usually marked in conspicuous places.

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Newps ]
> Posted At: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 1:52 PM
> Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
> Conversation: More proof the FemiNazi's are taking over Washinton
> Subject: Re: More proof the FemiNazi's are taking over Washinton
>
....
>
> It was not the Air Traffic managers responsibility. That is another
> department completely and not under his control. If overtime were
> required it wouldn't come out of his budget. Somebody got their facts
> wrong on that.

And Jim wrote (tongue in cheek): Really? Are you sure that Fox News
would get something wrong? Certainly A1A wouldn't skew the facts to make
them fit his version of reality, would he?

[Robert M. Gary]

The FAA said that they chose to operate with just one controller vs.
closing the tower. I'm sure it would have been much safer with the
tower closed vs. one guy in the tower. ;)

-Robert

Robert Chambers wrote:
> Was the local controller taxiing and performing the takeoff via remote
> control from the cab? No I didn't think so.
>
> And if this was a non-towered field or the tower was closed, who would
> you blame then? the Mayor? The guy that owned the property beyond the
> runway that the jet crashed into?

[Matt Barrow]

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>
>
> Jim Carter wrote:
>
>> The aircrew wasn't having a good day to start with: they started
>> pre-flighting the wrong aircraft and the maintenance crew had to point
>> them to the one they were to fly.
>
> When there are two identical aircraft sitting on the ramp next to each
> other how do you know which one your supposed to take?

Nose art?

[Sam Spade]

Mark Hansen wrote:

> On 09/06/06 12:11, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
>>"Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>Don't they still have tail numbers?
>>>
>>
>>Certainly. Are flight crews assigned by flight number or by tail number?
>>
>>
>
>
> I assumed their paperwork would include the tail number. After all, how
> else would they know which airplane to take ;-)

Most, if not all, air carrier aircraft have a company aircraft number,
in addition to the FAA N number. They are usually similar, but not the
same. Often, the company number is painted on both sides of the nose,
as well as on a plaque inside the cockpit.~

The dispatch release has to contain the aicraft's number.

To preflight the wrong aircraft you have to have your head up your butt.

[Sam Spade]

Robert M. Gary wrote:

> The FAA said that they chose to operate with just one controller vs.
> closing the tower. I'm sure it would have been much safer with the
> tower closed vs. one guy in the tower. ;)
>
It *might* have been safer if the commuter air carrier industry paid as
well as FAA pays controllers. Most commuter co-pilots qualify for food
stamps.

[Judah]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in news:%
t:

>
> "A1A" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Those who say the FAA is not at fault at LEX are idiots
>>
>
> I say the FAA is not at fault at LEX. Explain why I'm an idiot.

Because you continue to feed this troll, even after it has clearly stopped
being fun.

:)

[Robert M. Gary]

Sam Spade wrote:

> It *might* have been safer if the commuter air carrier industry paid as
> well as FAA pays controllers. Most commuter co-pilots qualify for food
> stamps.

You're saying more qualified first officers (you said co-pilot, not
sure what that term means but I'm guessing you meant "first officer")
are working in non-aviation careers because of the pay? That is totally
in contrast to what I see. Young commuter first officers are trying to
build up hours to move up, the guys with more hours are going after the
bigger jobs.

-Robert

[Sam Spade]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> Sam Spade wrote:
>
>
>>It *might* have been safer if the commuter air carrier industry paid as
>>well as FAA pays controllers. Most commuter co-pilots qualify for food
>>stamps.
>
>
> You're saying more qualified first officers (you said co-pilot, not
> sure what that term means but I'm guessing you meant "first officer")
> are working in non-aviation careers because of the pay? That is totally
> in contrast to what I see. Young commuter first officers are trying to
> build up hours to move up, the guys with more hours are going after the
> bigger jobs.
>
> -Robert
>
First officer and co-pilot are interchangable terms.

Your observation of the commuter industry is valid some of the time, but
often it is not. Have you read the transcript of the CJ that crashed in
Missouri when it had the dual flame-out on a ferry flight? It sounded
like Beavis and Butthead.

[Robert M. Gary]

Sam Spade wrote:
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
> First officer and co-pilot are interchangable terms.

Really, can you find any professional references to the term
"co-pilot"? The only place I've heard the term "co-pilot" is in places
like USA Today. I've never heard the term used by anyone in the airline
or aviation industry before.

-Robert

[Bob Moore]

Robert M. Gary wrote
> You're saying more qualified first officers (you said co-pilot, not
> sure what that term means but I'm guessing you meant "first officer")

I am reposting a discussion from a year or two ago.

> Manuel W. wrote:
>> On airliners, you often hear that the F/O actually acts as PIC
>> (I suppose this is for training purposes). Just a quick (and
>> maybe stupid) question: where does this "F/O acting as PIC"
>> pilot sit in the cockpit? In the left seat, because he's acting
>> as PIC, or still in the right seat, because he's a F/O? Maybe
>> modern cockpits are symmetric, so it wouldn't make any
>> difference where you are seated...

Dave S wrote
> What you are describing is "Pilot Flying" and "Pilot Not Flying"
> when it comes to who is doing what. The PIC is still the PIC,
> the F/O is still the F/O. They are both required to be there,
> but one flies the plane, the other does all the other stuff (or
> however their employer has designated that CRM/resource
> management will occur). PIC sits on the left (generally) and F/O
> sits on the right (generally). They dont swap seats for
> different legs.

Bob Moore wrote:

You guys have touched on one of my pet peeves in aviation. Pilots
not knowing who or what they are. :-)

At the fundamental level, there is the "PILOT" as defined in my
"Webster's" as being "the person who operates an aircraft or
spacecraft" and the "COPILOT" as being "one who assists the pilot
in operating an aircraft". Actually, in the case of more than one
pilot, perhaps they both should be "CO-PILOTS" since the prefix "co"
simply means together.

Then came the FAA (or rather its predessor) who insisted that
somebody (preferably one of the pilots) really be in charge of the
whole operation. Thus the "PILOT-IN-COMMAND" concept came about. If
the pilots were equally qualified, the FAA required that the Air
Carrier designate one of them as PILOT-IN-COMMAND (PIC). This left
"SECOND-IN-COMMAND" for the other pilot.

Note....that to this point, PILOT and CO-PILOT go together and PIC
and SIC share context. The CFR for multi-pilot aircraft use the
terms PIC and SIC.....not Pilot and Co-pilot.

Then aircarriers (probably my old carrier PanAm) started flying large
flying boats into foreign ports and in an attempt to gain the
same level of respect for the flightcrews that the crews of visiting
ships received, the concept of flightcrew officers with rank and
title was born. Following the nautical tradition, the PICs were
given the rank and title of "CAPTAIN", but differing somewhat from
shipboard terminology, instead of "First Mate" for the second ranking
officer, he was given the rank and title of "FIRST OFFICER". The
Flight Engineer became the "FLIGHT ENGINEERING OFFICER" much the same
as a ship's Engineering Officer.

When aircarriers started employing pilots to train and serve as
Flight Engineers, even though they held a Flight Engineer
Certificate, they were in many cases given the rank and title of
"SECOND OFFICER". In addition to these and the "RADIO OFFICER", it
was not uncommon on those early flying boats to have a Fifth or Sixth
Officer.

What purpose did "rank and title" serve? First....rank served to
specify the level of responsibility and authority of ones position
within the flightcrew, and second, the title served as a means of
showing respect when addressing one of the aircraft's officers.
After all...in proper society, we are all entitled :-) to the title
Mr./Mrs./Miss if no other title has been bestowed upon us. One does
not bestow a title upon himself nor use his title when referring to
himself. Being PIC of an aircraft does not automatically confer the
rank and title of "CAPTAIN". At PanAm, all of our copilots held ATPs
and Type Ratings for the aircraft that they flew and in the eyes of
the FAA, they were fully qualified to fly as PICs outside of an
aircarrier environment, but the rank and title of "CAPTAIN" was not
bestowed until they had completed the FAA required Initial Operating
Experience (IOE) for PICs and an Initial Command Check.

So now, we have three sets of words used to describe the two people
up front in an airplane. Pilot/Copilot, PIC/SIC, and Captain/First
Officer. These word pairs should be used in the same context. I am
constantly amused by those who write " I was Captain of flight XXX
and my copilot was....... It seems that once a pilot is told that he
is "A Captain", he will never again refer to himself as mearly a
pilot, but First Officer Smith is still just a copilot.

Rank and titles should not be used as stand-alone nouns but rather as
intended, as a title prefaced before a persons proper name.
At least at PanAm, the Flight Attendants got it right in their pre-
takeoff announcements, "Commanding FltXXX today is Captain Xxx Xxxx",
and then Captain Xxx Xxxxx would blow it with his PA announcement by
starting with "Good morning, this is your captain speaking."
Yes, I know that many of you work, or have worked for companies in
whose manuals the terms "Captain" and "First Officer" are used to
describe positions rather than rank and title. My own company, PanAm
did that too, but I also knew the Director of Flight Operations who
prepared the manual and I fully understood that he was no student of
the English language and whose ego would never again allow himself to
be referred to as a "lowly" pilot. How about all those ads in
aviation magazines that offer "Airline First Officer Training"?
Don't they really mean co-pilot training? Notice that the more
professional of the schools do not use this terminology.

How many of you pilots renew your FAA Medical Certificate with one of
your local doctors? I don't. I get mine from a physician.... more
specifically from an Aviation Medical Examiner (AME). I honor his
education, training, and position in life with the title "Doctor".
Some will say, "Well, what about a ship's "captain"? Actually, a
merchant ship has a "MASTER" with the rank and title of "Captain". A
U.S. Naval ship has a "COMMANDING OFFICER", again with the title of
"Captain" regardless of his actual Naval rank.

Ah well....no one ever said that we had to be proficient in language
skills in order to fly airplanes or write TV shows. :-)

Bob Moore

[Judah]

Bob Moore > wrote in
22:

> How many of you pilots renew your FAA Medical Certificate with one of
> your local doctors? I don't. I get mine from a physician.... more
> specifically from an Aviation Medical Examiner (AME). I honor his
> education, training, and position in life with the title "Doctor".
> Some will say, "Well, what about a ship's "captain"? Actually, a
> merchant ship has a "MASTER" with the rank and title of "Captain". A
> U.S. Naval ship has a "COMMANDING OFFICER", again with the title of
> "Captain" regardless of his actual Naval rank.
>
> Ah well....no one ever said that we had to be proficient in language
> skills in order to fly airplanes or write TV shows. :-)
>
> Bob Moore

I don't think it's uncommon for people in general to do the same thing,
even in other industries / title relationships, and even in the industries
that you mentioned...


"The Captain goes down with the ship."

"4 out of 5 Doctors recommend the purple pill over the blue pill."

"Hey Mister! Where are you going?"

"Excuse me Sir, can you tell me how to get to Sesame Street?"

"My complements to the Chef!"

"Here comes the Judge!"

It's not uncommon, apparently, to refer to someone by their title, even
without their name. I can't offhand think of any title that doesn't have
it happen to them, but then I'm not spending a whole lot of time on this
one. ;)

[Sam Spade]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> Sam Spade wrote:
>
>>Robert M. Gary wrote:
>>First officer and co-pilot are interchangable terms.
>
>
> Really, can you find any professional references to the term
> "co-pilot"? The only place I've heard the term "co-pilot" is in places
> like USA Today. I've never heard the term used by anyone in the airline
> or aviation industry before.
>
> -Robert
>
Well, you have now. My ratings include DC-9, B-727, B-767/757, L-1011.
27 years with a major carrier.

The fact you would pick such a nit doesn't speak well for you.