Senior Pilot and Command pilot ratings

[Wally Samuelson]

What are the requirements for Senior Pilot and Command pilot these days?.
USAF that is.
Wally

[Les Matheson]

Senior Pilot/Navigator is seven years of rated time after recieving wings
(actually measured in months). Command Pilot/Master Navigator is fifteen
years (also in months).
--
Les
F-4C(WW),D,E,G(WW)/AC-130A/MC-130E EWO (ret)


"Wally Samuelson" > wrote in message
news:MLw5b.345236$o%2.158562@sccrnsc02...
> What are the requirements for Senior Pilot and Command pilot these days?.
> USAF that is.
> Wally
>
>

[Phineas Pinkham]

"Les Matheson" < wrote in message
> Senior Pilot/Navigator is seven years of rated time after recieving wings
> (actually measured in months). Command Pilot/Master Navigator is fifteen
> years (also in months).
> --
> Les
> > What are the requirements for Senior Pilot and Command pilot these
days?.
> > USAF that is.
> > Wally

Wot! No Total Flying Hour Requirement?

[Les Matheson]

Not anymore.

--
Les
F-4C(WW),D,E,G(WW)/AC-130A/MC-130E EWO (ret)


"Phineas Pinkham" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>
> "Les Matheson" < wrote in message
> > Senior Pilot/Navigator is seven years of rated time after recieving
wings
> > (actually measured in months). Command Pilot/Master Navigator is
fifteen
> > years (also in months).
> > --
> > Les
> > > What are the requirements for Senior Pilot and Command pilot these
> days?.
> > > USAF that is.
> > > Wally
>
> Wot! No Total Flying Hour Requirement?
>
>

[Mark]

Yes... That went out when the "flying gates" were established (as I recall
in the mid-80s)

Mark

"Phineas Pinkham" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>
> "Les Matheson" < wrote in message
> > Senior Pilot/Navigator is seven years of rated time after recieving
wings
> > (actually measured in months). Command Pilot/Master Navigator is
fifteen
> > years (also in months).
> > --
> > Les
> > > What are the requirements for Senior Pilot and Command pilot these
> days?.
> > > USAF that is.
> > > Wally
>
> Wot! No Total Flying Hour Requirement?
>
>

[Phineas Pinkham]

"Mark" > wrote in message
m...
> Yes... That went out when the "flying gates" were established (as I recall
> in the mid-80s)
>
> Mark
>
> "Phineas Pinkham" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> >
> > "Les Matheson" < wrote in message
> > > Senior Pilot/Navigator is seven years of rated time after recieving
> wings
> > > (actually measured in months). Command Pilot/Master Navigator is
> fifteen
> > > years (also in months).
> > > --
> > > Les
> > > > What are the requirements for Senior Pilot and Command pilot these
> > days?.
> > > > USAF that is.
> > > > Wally
> >
> > Wot! No Total Flying Hour Requirement?
Doesn't really matter. They all wear Aviation Badges anyway. Look like
Coxey's Army. Can't tell the Pilots without a Program!
> >
> >
>
>

[Mike Marron]

>"Phineas Pinkham" > wrote:

>Doesn't really matter. They all wear Aviation Badges anyway. Look like
>Coxey's Army. Can't tell the Pilots without a Program!

USAF Command Pilot wings are much larger in size (rightfully so!)
than other aviation badges. I don't think it's no accident that I
haven't lost Dad's Command Pilot wings but I did (regrettably)
somehow manage to lose his medals back when I was a young
kid. The silver wings have tarnished a bit over the years but that's
OK since you can clearly see the imprint where he used his thumb
to pin the wings onto his dress blues.

-Mike Marron

[Les Matheson]

Nope, badges come in two sizes. One for the ClassA blouse (large) and one
for the blue shirt (small). My Navigator wings are just the same size as a
pilots wings.
--
Les
F-4C(WW),D,E,G(WW)/AC-130A/MC-130E EWO (ret)


"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
> >"Phineas Pinkham" > wrote:
>
> >Doesn't really matter. They all wear Aviation Badges anyway. Look like
> >Coxey's Army. Can't tell the Pilots without a Program!
>
> USAF Command Pilot wings are much larger in size (rightfully so!)
> than other aviation badges. I don't think it's no accident that I
> haven't lost Dad's Command Pilot wings but I did (regrettably)
> somehow manage to lose his medals back when I was a young
> kid. The silver wings have tarnished a bit over the years but that's
> OK since you can clearly see the imprint where he used his thumb
> to pin the wings onto his dress blues.
>
> -Mike Marron
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Ed Rasimus]

Mike Marron > wrote:

>>"Phineas Pinkham" > wrote:
>
>>Doesn't really matter. They all wear Aviation Badges anyway. Look like
>>Coxey's Army. Can't tell the Pilots without a Program!
>
>USAF Command Pilot wings are much larger in size (rightfully so!)
>than other aviation badges. I don't think it's no accident that I
>haven't lost Dad's Command Pilot wings but I did (regrettably)
>somehow manage to lose his medals back when I was a young
>kid. The silver wings have tarnished a bit over the years but that's
>OK since you can clearly see the imprint where he used his thumb
>to pin the wings onto his dress blues.
>
>-Mike Marron

Sorry, Mike, but, unless things have changed drastically, the wing
size remains the same with the exception that Senior Pilot has the
star affixed to the shield and Command Pilot adds the wreath around
the star. Otherwise, the wings are the same size.

Use to be--2000 hours total rated time or 1300 first pilot to get
senior pilot rating, plus seven years rated and 3000 hours or 2300
first pilot and 15 years rated to get command pilot. The first pilot
time requirements reflect a recognition of the difference between
small airplanes where an aviator is flying and multi-place airplanes
where an aviator is observing.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (ret)
***"When Thunder Rolled:
*** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam"
*** from Smithsonian Books
ISBN: 1588341038

[Mike Marron]

>Ed Rasimus > wrote:
>Mike Marron > wrote:

>>USAF Command Pilot wings are much larger in size (rightfully so!)
>>than other aviation badges. I don't think it's no accident that I
>>haven't lost Dad's Command Pilot wings but I did (regrettably)
>>somehow manage to lose his medals back when I was a young
>>kid. The silver wings have tarnished a bit over the years but that's
>>OK since you can clearly see the imprint where he used his thumb
>>to pin the wings onto his dress blues.

>Sorry, Mike, but, unless things have changed drastically, the wing
>size remains the same with the exception that Senior Pilot has the
>star affixed to the shield and Command Pilot adds the wreath around
>the star. Otherwise, the wings are the same size.

I was simply comparing the size of USAF Command Pilot wings to the
size of wings of other wings worn by various military personnel
(paratrooper wings, for example).

I could be wrong, but when I visually compare Command Pilot wings
to any other wings -- Command Pilot wings soar above the rest WRT
size, no?

>Use to be--2000 hours total rated time or 1300 first pilot to get
>senior pilot rating, plus seven years rated and 3000 hours or 2300
>first pilot and 15 years rated to get command pilot. The first pilot
>time requirements reflect a recognition of the difference between
>small airplanes where an aviator is flying and multi-place airplanes
>where an aviator is observing.

-Mike Marron

[Tarver Engineering]

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
> >Ed Rasimus > wrote:
> >Mike Marron > wrote:
>
> >>USAF Command Pilot wings are much larger in size (rightfully so!)
> >>than other aviation badges. I don't think it's no accident that I
> >>haven't lost Dad's Command Pilot wings but I did (regrettably)
> >>somehow manage to lose his medals back when I was a young
> >>kid. The silver wings have tarnished a bit over the years but that's
> >>OK since you can clearly see the imprint where he used his thumb
> >>to pin the wings onto his dress blues.
>
> >Sorry, Mike, but, unless things have changed drastically, the wing
> >size remains the same with the exception that Senior Pilot has the
> >star affixed to the shield and Command Pilot adds the wreath around
> >the star. Otherwise, the wings are the same size.
>
> I was simply comparing the size of USAF Command Pilot wings to the
> size of wings of other wings worn by various military personnel
> (paratrooper wings, for example).

Sure. :)

[Tarver Engineering]

"Phineas Pinkham" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ed Rasimus" <wrote in message
>
> The first pilot
> > time requirements reflect a recognition of the difference between
> > small airplanes where an aviator is flying and multi-place airplanes
> > where an aviator is observing.

> What a childish comment from an immature arschloch.
> Reflects the mentality of single seat numb-nuts versus the
professionalism
> of multi-engine Pilots.

Man in the loop, right side monitor.

[Ed Rasimus]

Mike Marron > wrote:

>>Ed Rasimus > wrote:
>>Mike Marron > wrote:
>
>>>USAF Command Pilot wings are much larger in size (rightfully so!)
>>>than other aviation badges.
>
>>Sorry, Mike, but, unless things have changed drastically, the wing
>>size remains the same with the exception that Senior Pilot has the
>>star affixed to the shield and Command Pilot adds the wreath around
>>the star. Otherwise, the wings are the same size.
>
>I was simply comparing the size of USAF Command Pilot wings to the
>size of wings of other wings worn by various military personnel
>(paratrooper wings, for example).
>
>I could be wrong, but when I visually compare Command Pilot wings
>to any other wings -- Command Pilot wings soar above the rest WRT
>size, no?

Size is often in the view of the beholder. If that matters....


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (ret)
***"When Thunder Rolled:
*** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam"
*** from Smithsonian Books
ISBN: 1588341038

[Tarver Engineering]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> Mike Marron > wrote:
>
> >>Ed Rasimus > wrote:
> >>Mike Marron > wrote:
> >
> >>>USAF Command Pilot wings are much larger in size (rightfully so!)
> >>>than other aviation badges.
> >
> >>Sorry, Mike, but, unless things have changed drastically, the wing
> >>size remains the same with the exception that Senior Pilot has the
> >>star affixed to the shield and Command Pilot adds the wreath around
> >>the star. Otherwise, the wings are the same size.
> >
> >I was simply comparing the size of USAF Command Pilot wings to the
> >size of wings of other wings worn by various military personnel
> >(paratrooper wings, for example).
> >
> >I could be wrong, but when I visually compare Command Pilot wings
> >to any other wings -- Command Pilot wings soar above the rest WRT
> >size, no?
>
> Size is often in the view of the beholder. If that matters....

You two need to get a room.

[Ed Rasimus]

"Phineas Pinkham" > wrote:

>
>"Ed Rasimus" <wrote in message
>
> The first pilot
>> time requirements reflect a recognition of the difference between
>> small airplanes where an aviator is flying and multi-place airplanes
>> where an aviator is observing.
>>
>>
>> Ed Rasimus
>
> What a childish comment from an immature arschloch.
> Reflects the mentality of single seat numb-nuts versus the professionalism
>of multi-engine Pilots.
>

I guess the difference in time requirement 2000 vs 1300 and 3000 vs
2300 was an adjustment for the delays built in waiting for the
assistant pilot to respond to those checklist challenges.

Here's an excerpt from book 2, in draft, regarding my time in droning
airplanes with passengers in back--checking out in the T-29 at
Randolph AFB while assigned to Hq.:

"Check-out in the airplane was a disaster. It started with a local
orientation flight. Half a dozen staff types loaded onto an airplane
and over a four-hour flight we sat in the airline-style seats reading
magazines and waiting for a chance to take the controls for a period
ranging from fifteen minutes to an hour. I was eventually called to
the cockpit where I was directed into the left seat. The view was
pretty good, but the big steering wheel was clearly converting flying
into an unnatural act. The throttle quadrant was between the seats,
requiring power control with the wrong hand, and there were a
profusion of knobs and levers on the quadrant that implied the
airplane had a lot more than the two engines I knew were out there on
the wing. Trim wasn't through an electrical thumb switch, but rather
with a large wheel mounted vertically on the side of the throttle
pedestal. My first attempt at a slight turn met with no result. It
quickly became apparent that the fingertip flying of high performance
jets wasn't the mode of operation for reciprocating engine trash
haulers. It took considerable muscling to get the airplane to move out
of straight and level. Control pressures weren't the solution, brute
force manipulation of the wheel was.

After the chuckles of the instructor pilot and flight mechanic over my
control technique subsided, we entered the traffic pattern. "We're
going to do a couple of visual touch-and-goes," the IP said. "Call for
the before landing checklist."

"OK" I responded. Nothing happened.

"Call for the before landing checklist," he repeated.

"Right. Give it to me," I tried again. Still nothing.

"You have to say the words," he scolded. "You have to say, 'before
landing checklist.'"

"You're kidding aren't you? OK, before landing checklist," I intoned.

"Props?" The flight mechanic opened his greasy yellow checklist and
began reading. I looked quizzically at the IP. He pointed to two of
the knobs at the top of the throttle quadrant. Then held them down for
about eight seconds until the RPM of the engines magically, without
moving the throttles, moved to 2400. "That sets the props to proper
pitch," the mech explained. "You're supposed to do that and then say,
'2400, set.'"

"Flaps," the flight mechanic continued then looked expectantly at me
again.

I looked out the window on my side of the cockpit and determined that
I couldn't see any flaps. Without a clue about what was needed, I
said, "OK, set them."

"No," the mech warned, "You're supposed to say fifteen degrees."

I'm nothing if not a quick study. "That sounds right. OK, set the
flaps." Nothing happened.

The IP was now beginning to glare a bit impatiently. "You have to say,
"fifteen degrees, then the copilot will set them while you fly the
airplane."

Determined to play the game, I say, "fifteen degrees." Now there's
action from the IP who fiddles with a little lever and leans
myopically forward to stare at the flap position indicator setting it
to exactly fifteen, not fourteen, not sixteen, but precisely fifteen.
He's gotten where he is today by being precise.

The flight mech continues down the list. "Mixture?" I ask what the
proper response is. The IP says to set the red levers to full forward
or rich. I ask who is authorized to do that and the IP motions to the
flight mechanic sitting between us and hovering over the throttles. I
tell him to go ahead.

"Sir, I can't do it unless you say 'full rich,' then I move the
levers." The enlisted mechanic is frustrated by my manifest
incompetence.

I'm in an airplane that barely responds to control inputs, that
requires some sort of Gilbert and Sullivan duet to get anything done
and which apparently is dependent upon an exaggerated "simon says"
game before anything happens. Frustrated, I ask the IP "why, if
everyone here but me knows the answer, do we have to ask the
questions? If I ask for the before landing checklist, and now you know
that's what I want, why don't you just do it?" He shakes his head at
the ignorance of this former single-seat, single-engine fighter pilot
who is now adrift on his many-motored, trash-hauling turf. It begins
to dawn on me that I'm dead meat in this game of aeronautical
one-upmanship. I'm learning about something called crew coordination."


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (ret)
***"When Thunder Rolled:
*** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam"
*** from Smithsonian Books
ISBN: 1588341038

[Mike Marron]

>Ed Rasimus > wrote:
>>Mike Marron > wrote:

>>I was simply comparing the size of USAF Command Pilot wings to the
>>size of wings of other wings worn by various military personnel
>>(paratrooper wings, for example).

>>I could be wrong, but when I visually compare Command Pilot wings
>>to any other wings -- Command Pilot wings soar above the rest WRT
>>size, no?

>Size is often in the view of the beholder. If that matters....

OK, whose got the biggest ahh, WINGS of all?

-Mike (pass me them calipers) Marron

[[email protected]]

Ed Rasimus > wrote:

>
>Size is often in the view of the beholder. If that matters....
>
> Ed Rasimus

I had a girlfriend like that at one time...great for the ego.
--

-Gord.

[Phineas Pinkham]

"Ed Rasimus" < wrote in message ...
> "Phineas Pinkham" <wrote:
>
> >
> >"Ed Rasimus" <wrote in message
> > What a childish comment from an immature arschloch.
> > Reflects the mentality of single seat numb-nuts versus the
professionalism
> >of multi-engine Pilots.
> >
>
You should get a ghost writer and collaborate on a book.

[Walt BJ]

"Phineas Pinkham" <wrote:
SNIP:Reflects the mentality of single seat numb-nuts versus the
> professionalism
> > >of multi-engine Pilots.
SNIP:

You write from ignorance, old man. It takes a lot of sorties to rack
up 1300 and 3000 hours in single-seat single-engine jets at 1:30 per
sortie. A lot of my classmates had to go TDY to the AEW 121s to get
enough time to qualify. I was lucky; I made it the hard way. As for
professionalism, a single-seat pilot has to do everything a multi crew
does - by himself. When I was picking up tired aging fighters from the
ANG for the Boneyard and taking the ANG new ones from North American
(LAX) I was operating in high density IFR areas - LAX, of course, and
then up in the New England area. No one changed my radio channels for
me, no one copied clearances for me, no one navigated for me or
figured out new ETAs for me when my route was changed by ATC. No one
backed me up on an IFR approach to a strange field. Oh, by the way our
minimums for these flights were USAF minimums. And nope, I didn't have
an autopilot.
Professionalism? Try night dive bombing or a night low level. By
yourself. Try a 5-minute scramble to a night low altitude intercept a
hundred miles out over the ocean on an unknown bogie running
blacked-out. Fly 250 miles north of Thule on a single engine. And how
often have multi-engine crews ever flown their airplane to its design
operational limits? How many times have they ever fought vertigo? One
'hood' ride to show proficiency in the 'unusual attitude' instrument
recoveries would turn most (not all) multi pilots' hair stark white.
(I knew a few who went from B52s to F4s and loved it.) Quite a bit
different from a canned computerized flight plan, a nice leisurely
takeoff and an autopilot cruise at a fixed altitude to a destination
with never a bank over 30 degrees, if that. Coffee at hand, you can
get up and walk around, doze while the other guy 'flies' the
autopilot, and even have a meal! And most multi crews have basically
only one mission - in the F4 we had air defense, air superiority, nuke
strike, close air support and interdiction. Oh, yes, refueling day and
night, not to mention side lines like formation flying in night and
weather (flying wing at night in the weather is one long battle with
vertigo!), missile/gunnery target tow, and for a few lucky ones test
hops. Now and then a nice long deployment where you could log lots of
hours between takeoff and landing.
Professionalism is easy to profess - the proof is in how well you do a
complex job. Now, which job is more complex?
Walt BJ

[Phineas Pinkham]

You win!
"Walt BJ" > wrote in message
om...
> "Phineas Pinkham" <wrote:
> SNIP:Reflects the mentality of single seat numb-nuts versus the
> > professionalism
> > > >of multi-engine Pilots.
> SNIP:
>
> You write from ignorance, old man. It takes a lot of sorties to rack
> up 1300 and 3000 hours in single-seat single-engine jets at 1:30 per
> sortie. A lot of my classmates had to go TDY to the AEW 121s to get
> enough time to qualify. I was lucky; I made it the hard way. As for
> professionalism, a single-seat pilot has to do everything a multi crew
> does - by himself. When I was picking up tired aging fighters from the
> ANG for the Boneyard and taking the ANG new ones from North American
> (LAX) I was operating in high density IFR areas - LAX, of course, and
> then up in the New England area. No one changed my radio channels for
> me, no one copied clearances for me, no one navigated for me or
> figured out new ETAs for me when my route was changed by ATC. No one
> backed me up on an IFR approach to a strange field. Oh, by the way our
> minimums for these flights were USAF minimums. And nope, I didn't have
> an autopilot.
> Professionalism? Try night dive bombing or a night low level. By
> yourself. Try a 5-minute scramble to a night low altitude intercept a
> hundred miles out over the ocean on an unknown bogie running
> blacked-out. Fly 250 miles north of Thule on a single engine. And how
> often have multi-engine crews ever flown their airplane to its design
> operational limits? How many times have they ever fought vertigo? One
> 'hood' ride to show proficiency in the 'unusual attitude' instrument
> recoveries would turn most (not all) multi pilots' hair stark white.
> (I knew a few who went from B52s to F4s and loved it.) Quite a bit
> different from a canned computerized flight plan, a nice leisurely
> takeoff and an autopilot cruise at a fixed altitude to a destination
> with never a bank over 30 degrees, if that. Coffee at hand, you can
> get up and walk around, doze while the other guy 'flies' the
> autopilot, and even have a meal! And most multi crews have basically
> only one mission - in the F4 we had air defense, air superiority, nuke
> strike, close air support and interdiction. Oh, yes, refueling day and
> night, not to mention side lines like formation flying in night and
> weather (flying wing at night in the weather is one long battle with
> vertigo!), missile/gunnery target tow, and for a few lucky ones test
> hops. Now and then a nice long deployment where you could log lots of
> hours between takeoff and landing.
> Professionalism is easy to profess - the proof is in how well you do a
> complex job. Now, which job is more complex?
> Walt BJ

[BUFDRVR]

>Try night dive bombing or a night low level. By
>yourself.

Try your 4th A/R at night 28 hours into a 33.5 hour mission, in the weather,
with no divert options....

No matter how many pilots on board, the above scenario would challenge anyone.

>Try a 5-minute scramble to a night low altitude intercept a
>hundred miles out over the ocean on an unknown bogie running
>blacked-out.

Try night 3-ship Harpoon training (involves flying at 500' ASL for hours at a
time, deconflicting yourself with 2 other bombers while copying targeting
messages and programming weapons)....

>And how
>often have multi-engine crews ever flown their airplane to its design
>operational limits?

Damn near every BUFF guy, or at a minimum the B-52 Weapons School Grads.

>How many times have they ever fought vertigo?

Several, and what I learned in a jet with two pilots, if one guys got it,
chances are the second guy has it, or will develop it shortly after taking
control...

>One
>'hood' ride to show proficiency in the 'unusual attitude' instrument
>recoveries would turn most (not all) multi pilots' hair stark white.

Why?

>Quite a bit
>different from a canned computerized flight plan

That may be up to 4 pages long.....

>a nice leisurely takeoff

At 1200 RVR with the single seat fighter guys behind them taxiing back to the
chocks....


>and an autopilot cruise at a fixed altitude to a destination
>with never a bank over 30 degrees

For 30 + hours with 4 or 5 A/Rs.....

> Coffee at hand, you can
>get up and walk around

Like the Hunchback of Notre Dame...

>doze while the other guy 'flies' the
>autopilot

Or hand "flies" for 20 + hours because your autopilot gave up after 3 hours....

>and even have a meal

Yeah, the same one the fighter guys eating...

>And most multi crews have basically
>only one mission

Glad you said you "most", although I'd argue that is true now a days for only
tankers...

>Oh, yes, refueling day and
>night

Uhh, *every* multi-place aircraft does this......

>Now and then a nice long deployment where you could log lots of
>hours between takeoff and landing.

You're kidding right? We've got AWACS crews flying 12 hour VULs and BUFF crews
flying 17 hour sorties *every day* since OCT 01. Not to mention the cargo guys
flying from one end of the Arabian Gulf to the other....on the same day.

>Professionalism is easy to profess - the proof is in how well you do a
>complex job. Now, which job is more complex?

This is a ridiculous thread........


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Phineas Pinkham]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
> This is a ridiculous thread........
>
>
> BUFDRVR
>
The children have been allowed to stay up too late again.

Jealousy has reared it's ugly head.

[[email protected]]

"Phineas Pinkham" > wrote:

>
>"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
>> This is a ridiculous thread........
>>
>>
>> BUFDRVR
>>
>The children have been allowed to stay up too late again.
>
>Jealousy has reared it's ugly head.
>

More like 'lack of knowledge by fighter jocks' has reared it's
ugly head I'd say...

It's quite amazing to me that a supposedly intelligent pilot like
Ed would show his bare ass so badly in public .

Can he really not know the excellent reason for all that "Crew
Cooperation" that he so scornfully knocks has it's rightful place
in the cockpit of a machine that's carrying maybe 400 or 500
innocent humans at ~600 MPH and several miles above the earth?.

Let me tell you Ed, there's an excellent reason.

It's called SAFETY.

Catch some clues mister.
--

-Gord.

[Chris Mark]

>there's an excellent reason for all that >"Crew
>Cooperation."
>It's called SAFETY.

The old adage is: Don't communicate so you can be understood--communicate so
that it is impossible to be misunderstood.



Chris Mark

[[email protected]]

(Chris Mark) wrote:

>>there's an excellent reason for all that >"Crew
>>Cooperation."
>>It's called SAFETY.
>
>The old adage is: Don't communicate so you can be understood--communicate so
>that it is impossible to be misunderstood.
>
>Chris Mark

Excellent advice Mark, I hadn't heard that but it sure makes
sense...
--

-Gord.

[Mike Marron]

>"Gord Beaman" ) wrote:

>More like 'lack of knowledge by fighter jocks' has reared it's
>ugly head I'd say...

Say what you will, but one thing's for sure is that Ed certainly isn't
lacking in the "knowledge"department.

>It's quite amazing to me that a supposedly intelligent pilot like
>Ed would show his bare ass so badly in public .

Oh don't be such a wet blanket Gord. Jeezus, anyone with a
*functioning* sense of humor thought Ed's "fighter pilot perspective"
WRT multi-engine flying and the concept of CRM was actually pretty
damn funny.

>Can he really not know the excellent reason for all that "Crew
>Cooperation" that he so scornfully knocks has it's rightful place
>in the cockpit of a machine that's carrying maybe 400 or 500
>innocent humans at ~600 MPH and several miles above the earth?.

Of course he knows that (see above). Granted, there are some
instances when CRM and multiple hands on deck has saved the
day (the DC-10 that crash landed in Sioux City back in 1989, for
example). But let's face it, the vast majority of co-pilots (pilots
too, for that matter!) are simply eye-candy for the unwashed
masses and needed only in extreme emergency situations.
(You've heard all those jokes about dogs in the cockpit to keep
the pilots from touching the controls, no?)

>Let me tell you Ed, there's an excellent reason.

>It's called SAFETY.

As a former Part 135 single-pilot IFR jockey, rather than
enhancing safety I can tell you that having an extra guy
(or gal) in the cockpit mucking up the works can, and has,
lead to disaster instead of adding to safety. Too many cooks
spoil the soup and all that and if a PIC has his authority diluted
and/or is over-dependant on a co-pilot reading off a checklist
by rote it can be a formula for disaster.

>Catch some clues mister.

Perhaps you should take your own advice and catch a sense
of humor. In your haste to put Ed "in his place" you've taken
what he wrote completely out of context and failed to see the
humor that he was obviously attempting to convey. Besides,
you're preaching to the best of the best and no offense, but I'd
feel infinitely safer flying with Ed (or most any other fighter
pilot) in control of *any* airplane than I would flying with YOU.


-Mike Marron

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Senior Pilot and Command pilot ratings
>From: (Walt BJ)
>Date: 9/4/03 10:41 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>"Phineas Pinkham" <wrote:
>SNIP:Reflects the mentality of single seat numb-nuts versus the
>> professionalism
>> > >of multi-engine Pilots.
>SNIP:
>
>You write from ignorance, old man. It takes a lot of sorties to rack
>up 1300 and 3000 hours in single-seat single-engine jets at 1:30 per
>sortie. A lot of my classmates had to go TDY to the AEW 121s to get
>enough time to qualify. I was lucky; I made it the hard way. As for
>professionalism, a single-seat pilot has to do everything a multi crew
>does - by himself. When I was picking up tired aging fighters from the
>ANG for the Boneyard and taking the ANG new ones from North American
>(LAX) I was operating in high density IFR areas - LAX, of course, and
>then up in the New England area. No one changed my radio channels for
>me, no one copied clearances for me, no one navigated for me or
>figured out new ETAs for me when my route was changed by ATC. No one
>backed me up on an IFR approach to a strange field. Oh, by the way our
>minimums for these flights were USAF minimums. And nope, I didn't have
>an autopilot.
>Professionalism? Try night dive bombing or a night low level. By
>yourself. Try a 5-minute scramble to a night low altitude intercept a
>hundred miles out over the ocean on an unknown bogie running
>blacked-out. Fly 250 miles north of Thule on a single engine. And how
>often have multi-engine crews ever flown their airplane to its design
>operational limits? How many times have they ever fought vertigo? One
>'hood' ride to show proficiency in the 'unusual attitude' instrument
>recoveries would turn most (not all) multi pilots' hair stark white.
>(I knew a few who went from B52s to F4s and loved it.) Quite a bit
>different from a canned computerized flight plan, a nice leisurely
>takeoff and an autopilot cruise at a fixed altitude to a destination
>with never a bank over 30 degrees, if that. Coffee at hand, you can
>get up and walk around, doze while the other guy 'flies' the
>autopilot, and even have a meal! And most multi crews have basically
>only one mission - in the F4 we had air defense, air superiority, nuke
>strike, close air support and interdiction. Oh, yes, refueling day and
>night, not to mention side lines like formation flying in night and
>weather (flying wing at night in the weather is one long battle with
>vertigo!), missile/gunnery target tow, and for a few lucky ones test
>hops. Now and then a nice long deployment where you could log lots of
>hours between takeoff and landing.
>Professionalism is easy to profess - the proof is in how well you do a
>complex job. Now, which job is more complex?
>Walt BJ


GREAT POST. REALITY AT LAST. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.



Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Jim Thomas]

To all:

You know, after reading most of this stuff about who did more, or who
was best, or whether fighter jocks were better than multi-engine pukes,
I got these thoughts:

Most of my USAF and subsequent contractor flying career was in single
place aircraft (or trainers with me in the back seat). I always thought
that this was the easy job. I didn't have to coordinate my decisions
with anyone else in my aircraft (I never flew an aircraft with a WSO).
My decision was final. I was in total control of the situation. I lived
or died on my call, and (except for instructing, or in formation) didn't
have to worry about anyone's ass but mine.

I believe that, because of the USAF selection process, the best pilots
mostly get assigned to fighters. That's a good thing. But I'll tell you
what: I have nothing but respect for the many-engine guys (and gals) who
have to put up with crew coordination and whatever else makes good
things happen to big airplanes. This is a big job.

I don't understand their job. But my hat is off to them.

Jim Thomas

[PosterBoy]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> Mike Marron > wrote:
>
> >
> >Perhaps you should take your own advice and catch a sense
> >of humor. In your haste to put Ed "in his place" you've taken
> >what he wrote completely out of context and failed to see the
> >humor that he was obviously attempting to convey. Besides,
> >you're preaching to the best of the best and no offense, but I'd
> >feel infinitely safer flying with Ed (or most any other fighter
> >pilot) in control of *any* airplane than I would flying with YOU.
> >
> >
> >-Mike Marron
>
> Of course I see the humour Mike...he writes very well, my point
> was to let the unwashed, as you call them, know that there's a
> damned good reason for all that 'standardization' and 'rote' when
> dealing with cockpit communications.
>
> As Chris M. mentioned ~'Make damned sure that everyone knows
> what's going on'. And I'll even forgive you for knocking CRM
> (because it's comparatively new) the biggest addition overall to
> a/c safety that's happened in a long time. That opinion has been
> gleaned from having logged about 13 thousand hours in multi
> engined - multi place a/c

Not to change topice, but, out of curiousity, gord....
How many of those 13M were pilot-in-command?

Thanks, and
Cheers.

> for over 25 years plus the strong
> opinion of the NTSB and the AIB in Canada and the UK.
>
> To argue against 'those' is merely to show _your_ bare ass in
> public sir.
> --
>
> -Gord.

[Phineas Pinkham]

"ArtKramr" <wrote in message
> >Subject: Re: Senior Pilot and Command pilot ratings
>
> GREAT POST. REALITY AT LAST. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
> Arthur Kramer
Might have expected this from a bomb aimer, who believes Compass Deviation
is always found at the bottom of an Aeronautical Chart! :-)

[Tarver Engineering]

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
> >Jim Thomas > wrote:
>
> >To all:
>
> >You know, after reading most of this stuff about who did more, or who
> >was best, or whether fighter jocks were better than multi-engine pukes,
> >I got these thoughts:
>
> >Most of my USAF and subsequent contractor flying career was in single
> >place aircraft (or trainers with me in the back seat). I always thought
> >that this was the easy job. I didn't have to coordinate my decisions
> >with anyone else in my aircraft (I never flew an aircraft with a WSO).
> >My decision was final. I was in total control of the situation. I lived
> >or died on my call, and (except for instructing, or in formation) didn't
> >have to worry about anyone's ass but mine.
>
> >I believe that, because of the USAF selection process, the best pilots
> >mostly get assigned to fighters. That's a good thing. But I'll tell you
> >what: I have nothing but respect for the many-engine guys (and gals) who
> >have to put up with crew coordination and whatever else makes good
> >things happen to big airplanes. This is a big job.
>
> >I don't understand their job. But my hat is off to them.
>
> >Jim Thomas
>
> Some of my of former CFI buds are now airline pukes so there's
> nothing mysterious about their jobs as far as I'm concerned. All
> you need is a squeaky clean "Boy Scout" background and impress
> some personnel weenie during the initial interview and eat a lot of
> crow so as to "fit in" and you're set for life (as long as you don't
> get furloughed while the whining crybabies in the pilot union
> negotiate yet another undeserved pay increase). Aptitude isn't
> important -- a brown-nosin' attitude is.

Just coat your head with mazola and go on in. :)

I worked with some Ryan Airlines pilots who made a cock sucking pantomine to
indicate pilot/management interaction.

[Mike Marron]

>Ed Rasimus wrote:
>>Gord Beaman wrote:

>>Catch some clues mister.

>Let me offer one of the clues that I've gleaned. I spent four times as
>many hours in a multi-place tactical aircraft as I did in a
>single-seater. I spent half again as many hours in combat in a two-man
>airplane as I did alone. I logged ten time as many hours in two seat
>airplanes as I did by myself.

>During that time, I was dependent upon the other crew-member, just as
>he was dependent upon me. We coordinated, you might even say we
>"managed" the crew duties.

>But, we didn't go through the "mother may I" routine that I described
>in the excerpt. We were "standardized" for sure, but we weren't
>ritualized.

C'mon Ed, don't be so coy. You know full well that nose-gunners
could fare quite happily w/o the GIB:

F-101B BEFORE LANDING CHECKLIST (RIO TO PILOT)

Prior to Entering Traffic Pattern

1) Zero delay lanyard -- CHECK ATTACHED (CALL)
2) Fuel quantity -- CHECK & ON -- No. 2 (CALL)
3) Armament safety check -- COMPLETE (CALL)
4) Hydraulic pressure -- WITHIN LIMITS (CALL)
5) MCSL engage switch -- OFF (CALL)
6) Pusher switch -- OFF (CALL)
7) AFCS engage switch -- STAND-BY (CALL)
8) Safety belt and harness -- SECURE (CALL)
9) Radar master switch -- AS REQUIRED (RIO)

;)

-Mike (here's my standard brief: Get on, Strap in, Hold Tight) Marron

[Phineas Pinkham]

"Ed Rasimus" < wrote in message
> "Gord Beaman"wrote:
>
> >"Phineas Pinkham" wrote:
> >>>
> >>The children have been allowed to stay up too late again.
> >>
> >>Jealousy has reared it's ugly head.
> >>
> >
> >More like 'lack of knowledge by fighter jocks' has reared it's
> >ugly head I'd say...
> >
> >It's quite amazing to me that a supposedly intelligent pilot like
> >Ed would show his bare ass so badly in public .
>
> There's an image that makes even the brave quake.


> Cut me a bit of slack please.
>
>
> Ed Rasimus

Did we hurt the tender feelings of our local expert on everything?

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Senior Pilot and Command pilot ratings
>From: "Phineas Pinkham"
>Date: 9/6/03 8:03 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"Ed Rasimus" < wrote in message
>> "Gord Beaman"wrote:
>>
>> >"Phineas Pinkham" wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>The children have been allowed to stay up too late again.
>> >>
>> >>Jealousy has reared it's ugly head.
>> >>
>> >
>> >More like 'lack of knowledge by fighter jocks' has reared it's
>> >ugly head I'd say...
>> >
>> >It's quite amazing to me that a supposedly intelligent pilot like
>> >Ed would show his bare ass so badly in public .
>>
>> There's an image that makes even the brave quake.
>
>
>> Cut me a bit of slack please.
>>
>>
>> Ed Rasimus
>
>Did we hurt the tender feelings of our local expert on everything?
>
>
>

Unless you flew more missions than Ed did, shut your stupid face.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Ed Rasimus]

Mike Marron > wrote:

>>Ed Rasimus wrote:
>>But, we didn't go through the "mother may I" routine that I described
>>in the excerpt. We were "standardized" for sure, but we weren't
>>ritualized.
>
>C'mon Ed, don't be so coy. You know full well that nose-gunners
>could fare quite happily w/o the GIB:

Those who flew the F-4 that indicate that they could have been happier
with an extra 200 pounds of fuel in place of the WSO are in the
distinct minority. A good GIB was worth more than his weight in gold.
>
>F-101B BEFORE LANDING CHECKLIST (RIO TO PILOT)
>

While that may be what the dog-earred yellow pages say, it wasn't what
went on in the airplane, not even when riding with a stan/eval type.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (ret)
***"When Thunder Rolled:
*** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam"
*** from Smithsonian Books
ISBN: 1588341038

[Phineas Pinkham]

"ArtKramr" <wrote in message
> Unless you flew more missions than Ed did, shut your stupid face.
>
"Bite me!"

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Phineas Pinkham wrote:
> "ArtKramr" <wrote in message
>> Unless you flew more missions than Ed did, shut your stupid face.
>>
> "Bite me!"



Now ladies... be nice.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN


http://www.mortimerschnerd.com

[BUFDRVR]

>I believe that, because of the USAF selection process, the best pilots
>mostly get assigned to fighters.

Depends. from 1987 (I think?) until 1997, UPT grads picked their own
assignments. I watched the #1 guy in a class take a C-20. In addition, from
1990-1994 there was the dreaded "banked pilot". Literally hundereds of
guys/gals got "banked" fighter assignments when they finished at the bottom of
their class, because top grads were taking the immediate flying jobs, which
often included bombers and heavies. Now, the requalification process weeded out
many of these "lower grad" fighter pilots, but not all.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Gene Storey]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote
>
> ... I watched the #1 guy in a class take a C-20.

Smart man. His Pa probably told him about the "cattle" regimes of
SAC alert, and TAC mobility, and he was smart to pick an organization
that knows how to treat aircrew like mature adult men: MAC

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Senior Pilot and Command pilot ratings
>From: "Gene Storey"
>Date: 9/6/03 11:38 AM Pacific

>he was smart to pick an organization
>that knows how to treat aircrew like mature adult men: MAC

Our aircrew averaged 19 years old. (grin)


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Yeff]

On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 18:38:13 GMT, Gene Storey wrote:

> Smart man. His Pa probably told him about the "cattle" regimes of
> SAC alert, and TAC mobility, and he was smart to pick an organization
> that knows how to treat aircrew like mature adult men: MAC

SAC? TAC? MAC? Who dat?

-Jeff B. (who got out in '94)
yeff at erols dot com

[[email protected]]

"PosterBoy" > wrote:

>
> Not to change topice, but, out of curiousity, gord....
> How many of those 13M were pilot-in-command?
>
>Thanks, and
>Cheers.
>

Ah, none were...why do you ask?.
--

-Gord.

[Tarver Engineering]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: Senior Pilot and Command pilot ratings
> >From: "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
> >Date: 9/6/03 10:34 AM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >Phineas Pinkham wrote:
> >> "ArtKramr" <wrote in message
> >>> Unless you flew more missions than Ed did, shut your stupid face.
> >>>
> >> "Bite me!"

> >Now ladies... be nice.

> >Mortimer Schnerd, RN
> >
>
> >http://www.mortimerschnerd.com

> I am being nice.

I thought so and I am being nice, by just watching Art work; instead of
helping.

[[email protected]]

Ed Rasimus > wrote:

>
>But, we didn't go through the "mother may I" routine that I described
>in the excerpt. We were "standardized" for sure, but we weren't
>ritualized.
>
>Cut me a bit of slack please.
>
>
> Ed Rasimus

Of course...and I fully realize that your post was meant to show
up the humour in the situation (and was quite well done too).

Also I can readily understand how a pilot and a WSO who fly
together constantly on an a/c designed to be quite intuitively
flown could develop a working scenario where minimum chatter is
involved. But when a PIC and a Co-pilot are picked at random to
fly a large passenger airliner then procedures need to be
standardized so that everyone is using the same songbook. Toss in
a third crewman as used to be the case and you have a lot of
chances for disaster if they're not all on the same page. It may
sound silly but there's a really good reason for standardization.

Hell, most flying establishments have a whole section devoted to
'standards' alone.

Large airlines (and the military) don't pump millions into a
theory just for the hell of it.

Millions and millions of dollars are at stake, Airlines just
cannot take the same chances that the military can...Look at
TWA...one crash and the company bites the dust. The
'...whole...damned...company...' mind you, there's the matter of
some 230 people dying as well. And this one wasn't a matter of
'standards' but it's certainly possible that 'unstandard
operation' could (and has) cause just as disastrous a result.

Anyway, perhaps I shouldn't be trying to teach you anything but
you must admit that with all the possibilities that exist in a
large modern airliner's cockpit for misunderstanding that
anything that will lessen the possibilities is a good thing. You
must also admit that I have much more experience with this aspect
of flying than you do.
--

-Gord.

[Ed Rasimus]

"Gord Beaman" ) wrote:

>Ed Rasimus > wrote:
>
>>Cut me a bit of slack please.

>
>Of course...and I fully realize that your post was meant to show
>up the humour in the situation (and was quite well done too).

Ahh, then my work here is nearly done.
>
>Also I can readily understand how a pilot and a WSO who fly
>together constantly on an a/c designed to be quite intuitively
>flown could develop a working scenario where minimum chatter is
>involved. But when a PIC and a Co-pilot are picked at random to
>fly a large passenger airliner then procedures need to be
>standardized so that everyone is using the same songbook. Toss in
>a third crewman as used to be the case and you have a lot of
>chances for disaster if they're not all on the same page. It may
>sound silly but there's a really good reason for standardization.

I don't think standardization is in the slightest degree silly. Just
as you assemble random crews from the pool in the airline business, so
also is there random assemblages of fighter crews into flights of
four, elements of two and in multi-place tac aircraft in the same
airplane. It's an absolute that all the players do things the same
way.

>Anyway, perhaps I shouldn't be trying to teach you anything but
>you must admit that with all the possibilities that exist in a
>large modern airliner's cockpit for misunderstanding that
>anything that will lessen the possibilities is a good thing. You
>must also admit that I have much more experience with this aspect
>of flying than you do.

And, except for the big paycheck, I don't envy you in the slightest. I
never had the desire to go into that business, although I know lots of
my peers that had or have a second career in the airlines.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (ret)
***"When Thunder Rolled:
*** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam"
*** from Smithsonian Books
ISBN: 1588341038

[Gene Storey]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote
>
> Hell, most flying establishments have a whole section devoted to
> 'standards' alone.

"Stan-Evil"

I had a bad day once, where I got a safety write-up, and the guy
wanted to bust my eval. We met in the Commanders office, where
the "evil" guy went on and on about my write-ups (If they get one good
one, they throw in the whole nit-noid).

Then the Commander asked him:

"Was the mission successful?" Yes
"Did the number of landings equal the number of take-offs?" Yes
"Did anyone die?" No.
"Did we lose any aircraft?" No

"If no-one died, and the ramp has the same number of aircraft, and
the mission was successful, then I consider that a good days work.
Thanks for your evaluation, but we'll just mark it down as additional
training required."

After the "evil" one left, he only said one thing: "In the Air Force we
RIF people who don't look good on paper. Kapish?" Yes Sir.

[Gene Storey]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote
>
> I think the crash of TWA 800 was a result of a lack of engineering
> standardization. (ie wire routing)

I know for a fact they were killed over the particle-beam
weapon test range. As were a few other famous disasters since.

[Gene Storey]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote
>
> And, except for the big paycheck, I don't envy you in the slightest. I
> never had the desire to go into that business, although I know lots of
> my peers that had or have a second career in the airlines.

Why anyone would want to operate a modern airline, other than money,
is completely foreign to me. I get bored just thinking about it. Now
flying night cargo in a DC-3 over the mountains, yea baby!

"Sir, there's a passenger in 189C who's family is complaining about the
turbulence."

Right! Tell them we are coordinating with God to see about a smoother
ride.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Gene Storey" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote
> >
> > I think the crash of TWA 800 was a result of a lack of engineering
> > standardization. (ie wire routing)
>
> I know for a fact they were killed over the particle-beam
> weapon test range. As were a few other famous disasters since.

I'm going to stick with upper deck galley wiring in the lower deck ceiling.
Especially sine the telephone installers wanted me to do the same to the
other three TWA adds.

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Gene Storey wrote:
> "Ed Rasimus" > wrote
>>
>> And, except for the big paycheck, I don't envy you in the slightest. I
>> never had the desire to go into that business, although I know lots of
>> my peers that had or have a second career in the airlines.
>
> Why anyone would want to operate a modern airline, other than money,
> is completely foreign to me. I get bored just thinking about it. Now
> flying night cargo in a DC-3 over the mountains, yea baby!
>
> "Sir, there's a passenger in 189C who's family is complaining about the
> turbulence."


The first time I glanced at this I thought you'd written that a passenger was
complaining about the flatulence. I guess that shows where my mind is. <G>



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN


http://www.mortimerschnerd.com

[Andrew Chaplin]

Gene Storey wrote:

> Then I went to the "Black Hole" in Egypt, got off a 141, and a MAC
> Colonel was standing at the BBQ with his shirt off, and wearing his
> shower trunks and a golf hat with bird insignia, asking if we wanted one
> or two pieces of chicken... When I replied I could kill for a beer with
> that, he kicked open a foot-locker packed in ice and had probably 200
> cans of Falstaff... We all fainted.
>
> He got more work out of me in 30 days, then TAC got out of me
> in 14 years.

Ah, the Principles of War in use:

1. Selection and Maintenance of the Aim,
2. Maintenance of Morale,...
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Darrell]

Les Matheson wrote:
> Nope, badges come in two sizes. One for the ClassA blouse (large)
> and one for the blue shirt (small). My Navigator wings are just the
> same size as a pilots wings.
>
> "Mike Marron" > wrote in message
> ...
>>> "Phineas Pinkham" > wrote:
>>
>>> Doesn't really matter. They all wear Aviation Badges anyway. Look
>>> like Coxey's Army. Can't tell the Pilots without a Program!
>>
>> USAF Command Pilot wings are much larger in size (rightfully so!)
>> than other aviation badges. I don't think it's no accident that I
>> haven't lost Dad's Command Pilot wings but I did (regrettably)
>> somehow manage to lose his medals back when I was a young
>> kid. The silver wings have tarnished a bit over the years but that's
>> OK since you can clearly see the imprint where he used his thumb
>> to pin the wings onto his dress blues.
>>
>> -Mike Marron

I just got an email from a friend who just made LtCol. I remarked that now
he could wear the wheel hat with the "farts & darts" (clouds with lightning
bolts) on the visor. He replied that the Air Force no longer uses the wheel
hat. When did that start?

--

Darrell R. Schmidt

B-58 Hustler History: http://members.cox.net/dschmidt1/

[Darrell]

Ed Rasimus wrote:
> Mike Marron > wrote:
>
>>> Ed Rasimus > wrote:
>>> Mike Marron > wrote:
>>
>>>> USAF Command Pilot wings are much larger in size (rightfully so!)
>>>> than other aviation badges.
>>
>>> Sorry, Mike, but, unless things have changed drastically, the wing
>>> size remains the same with the exception that Senior Pilot has the
>>> star affixed to the shield and Command Pilot adds the wreath around
>>> the star. Otherwise, the wings are the same size.
>>
>> I was simply comparing the size of USAF Command Pilot wings to the
>> size of wings of other wings worn by various military personnel
>> (paratrooper wings, for example).
>>
>> I could be wrong, but when I visually compare Command Pilot wings
>> to any other wings -- Command Pilot wings soar above the rest WRT
>> size, no?
>
> Size is often in the view of the beholder. If that matters....
>
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (ret)
> ***"When Thunder Rolled:
> *** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam"
> *** from Smithsonian Books
> ISBN: 1588341038

Close, Ed. Actually it's the beerholder!

--

Darrell R. Schmidt

B-58 Hustler History: http://members.cox.net/dschmidt1/

[Gene Storey]

"Darrell" > wrote
>
> I just got an email from a friend who just made LtCol. I remarked that now
> he could wear the wheel hat with the "farts & darts" (clouds with lightning
> bolts) on the visor. He replied that the Air Force no longer uses the wheel
> hat. When did that start?

People stopped wearing them in about 1975, and I think they stopped being
issued in 1993. Probably in concert with the McPeak uniform change.

[Tex Houston]

"Darrell" > wrote in message
news:bPM6b.13690$QT5.13568@fed1read02...
> I just got an email from a friend who just made LtCol. I remarked that
now
> he could wear the wheel hat with the "farts & darts" (clouds with
lightning
> bolts) on the visor. He replied that the Air Force no longer uses the
wheel
> hat. When did that start?
>
> --
>
> Darrell R. Schmidt

Not only is it not true but now majors can wear the decorated ones like
field grade officers in other services.

Tex Houston

[BUFDRVR]

>Not only is it not true but now majors can wear the decorated ones like
>field grade officers in other services.
>
>Tex Houston
>

Hmm Tex, I'm not sure where you got that info from. The wheel hat was removed
as a mandatory uniform item for everyone around 1996. A few years later it was
reinstated as a uniform item for special duty officers (I'm just guessing those
that work overseas or for POTUS support) and certain enlisted AFSCs (some of
whom never really got rid of them like honor guards). Bottom line, I don't have
one, and am not required to have one.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Gene Storey]

"ArtKramr" > wrote
>
> Anyone knows that pretty hats make for tighter bomb patterns.

Fat chicks dig wheel hats.

[Dave Kearton]

"Gene Storey" > wrote in message
.. .
> "ArtKramr" > wrote
> >
> > Anyone knows that pretty hats make for tighter bomb patterns.
>
> Fat chicks dig wheel hats.
>
>



Fat chicks are like mopeds,

They're great to ride, until your friends find out !




On that "somebody had to say it" note , can somebody clue me in on what a
'wheel hat' is ?


Is that the beanie with the propeller on top ?



Cheers

Dave Kearton (but seriously)

[Gene Storey]

"Dave Kearton" > wrote
>
> On that "somebody had to say it" note , can somebody clue me in on what a
> 'wheel hat' is ?
>
>
> Is that the beanie with the propeller on top ?

Close. The wheel hat is a circular shaped affair, popularized by bus drivers,
and sanitation engineers. I think the airline pilots still like them as well, but
they almost always wear them with clip-on ties, which completes the "dork"
look to a tee... Curtis LeMay loved the hat:

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/afp/afp0198.htm

[Ed Rasimus]

(ArtKramr) wrote:

>
>Anyone knows that pretty hats make for tighter bomb patterns.
>
>Arthur Kramer
>344th BG 494th BS

Wasn't it Col. Cathcart that established that?


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (ret)
***"When Thunder Rolled:
*** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam"
*** from Smithsonian Books
ISBN: 1588341038

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Senior Pilot and Command pilot ratings
>From: Ed Rasimus
>Date: 9/8/03 7:04 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
(ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>>
>>Anyone knows that pretty hats make for tighter bomb patterns.
>>
>>Arthur Kramer
>>344th BG 494th BS
>
>Wasn't it Col. Cathcart that established that?
>
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (ret)
> ***"When Thunder Rolled:
> *** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam"
> *** from Smithsonian Books
> ISBN: 1588341038
>


ROFL. Yeah. That was the guy. (grin)




Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Alan Minyard]

On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 15:03:03 GMT, "Phineas Pinkham" >
wrote:

>
>"Ed Rasimus" < wrote in message
>> "Gord Beaman"wrote:
>>
>> >"Phineas Pinkham" wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>The children have been allowed to stay up too late again.
>> >>
>> >>Jealousy has reared it's ugly head.
>> >>
>> >
>> >More like 'lack of knowledge by fighter jocks' has reared it's
>> >ugly head I'd say...
>> >
>> >It's quite amazing to me that a supposedly intelligent pilot like
>> >Ed would show his bare ass so badly in public .
>>
>> There's an image that makes even the brave quake.
>
>
>> Cut me a bit of slack please.
>>
>>
>> Ed Rasimus
>
>Did we hurt the tender feelings of our local expert on everything?
>
>
You are an ass, Pinkham. Ed, and several others on this group, have
years of experience, much of it "white knuckle" time. What are your
qualifications? Have you ever been in a cockpit?

Either learn some respect or go away.

Al Minyard

[Alan Minyard]

On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 20:26:25 GMT, "Gene Storey" >
wrote:

>"ArtKramr" > wrote
>>
>> >he was smart to pick an organization
>> >that knows how to treat aircrew like mature adult men: MAC
>>
>> Our aircrew averaged 19 years old. (grin)
>
>I was in an outfit where even LtCol's had to be instructed (and maintain)
>currency in tying their shoes, and reporting to TAC HQ when deviations
>were found (bean count). 40 year old "kids!"
>
>Then I went to the "Black Hole" in Egypt, got off a 141, and a MAC
>Colonel was standing at the BBQ with his shirt off, and wearing his
>shower trunks and a golf hat with bird insignia, asking if we wanted one
>or two pieces of chicken... When I replied I could kill for a beer with
>that, he kicked open a foot-locker packed in ice and had probably 200
>cans of Falstaff... We all fainted.
>
>He got more work out of me in 30 days, then TAC got out of me
>in 14 years.
>
Isn't it amazing how much more work a guy can get by treating his
troops decently?

Al Minyard

[Alan Minyard]

On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 21:30:30 GMT, "Gord Beaman" )
wrote:

>Ed Rasimus > wrote:
>
>>
>>But, we didn't go through the "mother may I" routine that I described
>>in the excerpt. We were "standardized" for sure, but we weren't
>>ritualized.
>>
>>Cut me a bit of slack please.
>>
>>
>> Ed Rasimus
>
>Of course...and I fully realize that your post was meant to show
>up the humour in the situation (and was quite well done too).
>
>Also I can readily understand how a pilot and a WSO who fly
>together constantly on an a/c designed to be quite intuitively
>flown could develop a working scenario where minimum chatter is
>involved. But when a PIC and a Co-pilot are picked at random to
>fly a large passenger airliner then procedures need to be
>standardized so that everyone is using the same songbook. Toss in
>a third crewman as used to be the case and you have a lot of
>chances for disaster if they're not all on the same page. It may
>sound silly but there's a really good reason for standardization.
>
>Hell, most flying establishments have a whole section devoted to
>'standards' alone.
>
>Large airlines (and the military) don't pump millions into a
>theory just for the hell of it.
>
>Millions and millions of dollars are at stake, Airlines just
>cannot take the same chances that the military can...Look at
>TWA...one crash and the company bites the dust. The
>'...whole...damned...company...' mind you, there's the matter of
>some 230 people dying as well. And this one wasn't a matter of
>'standards' but it's certainly possible that 'unstandard
>operation' could (and has) cause just as disastrous a result.
>
>Anyway, perhaps I shouldn't be trying to teach you anything but
>you must admit that with all the possibilities that exist in a
>large modern airliner's cockpit for misunderstanding that
>anything that will lessen the possibilities is a good thing. You
>must also admit that I have much more experience with this aspect
>of flying than you do.

Try NATOPS. That will show you the correct procedure for taking a dump
:-)

Al Minyard

[Phineas Pinkham]

"Eat me, AL!"

I have more time on my back at 35,000', than you have in the Chow Line!


"Alan Minyard" <wrote in message >>
You are an ass, Pinkham. Ed, and several others on this group, have
> years of experience, much of it "white knuckle" time. What are your
> qualifications? Have you ever been in a cockpit?
>
> Either learn some respect or go away.
>
> Al Minyard

[Ed Rasimus]

"Phineas Pinkham" > wrote:

>"Eat me, AL!"
>
>I have more time on my back at 35,000', than you have in the Chow Line!
>

Yeah, I can see you, racked out in that bunk reading aviation dime
novels and looking for a pseudonym. You certainly don't mean that
large, airplane was upside down. You'd spill the fruit cup on your
flight lunch.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (ret)
***"When Thunder Rolled:
*** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam"
*** from Smithsonian Books
ISBN: 1588341038

[Phineas Pinkham]

"Ed Rasimus" < wrote in message

> Yeah, I can see you, racked out in that bunk reading aviation dime
> novels and looking for a pseudonym. You certainly don't mean that
> large, airplane was upside down. You'd spill the fruit cup on your
> flight lunch.

> Ed Rasimus

The jealous hack responds!~ What a treat.

Say hello to Jessica and her ghost for us.

Maybe they'll take you to lunch at the Brown Palace on her Book Tour?
But no job in the TV version or the Movie!

You mean you are using your real name on this NG?

Phineas Pinkham
Boonetown, Iowa
12th Ftr Wg
Ftr Pilot (never Ret'd.)
*** Italian Vamoose by Ghost Writer Joe Archibald