F-16 Encounters in MOA

[three-eight-hotel]

Admittedly, I didn't exhaust all search strings to find this topic
discussed in these forums, but I didn't see any hits, on my first few
attempts...

I am interested in hearing thoughts on the encounters that are linked
off of the AvWeb site:

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/ListenAndWatch_AsGAAircraftF16Interact_198261-1.html


http://www.avweb.com/podcast/podcast/197492-1.html

My initial thoughts are that the military owns those airspaces, and
VFR pilots assume the responsibility for seeing and avoiding aircraft,
even while on flight following. However, it seems as though there
should be some documented rules of engagement (and perhaps there are),
so that pilots flying VFR through an MOA can know what they should
expect.

I have always "assumed" that if I had flight following, and was
traversing through an MOA, just as if I had been cleared to fly
through class Bravo, that there would be some communication or
understanding between ATC and the military controllers of my
intentions. I wouldn't expect to be engaged by an F-16, simply
because I was avoiding a 50+ mile detour to skirt around an MOA, when
I could simple fly through it with the assistance of ATC. I
understand that ATC is simply a courtesy service, but until hearing of
this incident I would have assumed that communicating with them to fly
through a MOA was similar to getting a clearance to fly through class
Bravo.

I'm reserving judgement on the right to fly through an active MOA
altogether, but if I clearly knew that, even while talking to ATC, a
military aircraft could have fun with me, to the point of me feeling
like I would have to take evasive actions, I would probably add the
extra time to my flight plan and just fly around the active MOA's.

Just curious on the thoughts of others?

Best Regards,
Todd

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

three-eight-hotel wrote:
>
> Admittedly, I didn't exhaust all search strings to find this topic
> discussed in these forums, but I didn't see any hits, on my first few
> attempts...
>
> I am interested in hearing thoughts on the encounters that are linked
> off of the AvWeb site:
>
> http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/ListenAndWatch_AsGAAircraftF16Interact_198261-1.html
>
>
> http://www.avweb.com/podcast/podcast/197492-1.html
>
> My initial thoughts are that the military owns those airspaces, and
> VFR pilots assume the responsibility for seeing and avoiding aircraft,
> even while on flight following. However, it seems as though there
> should be some documented rules of engagement (and perhaps there are),
> so that pilots flying VFR through an MOA can know what they should
> expect.
>

The military doesn't own MOAs. MOAs are established to separate certain
military training activities from IFR traffic. They also serve to alert VFR
traffic of the activity but VFR aircraft are free to enter a MOA. Even
nonparticipating IFR traffic may be cleared through a MOA if IFR separation
can be provided by ATC.


>
> I have always "assumed" that if I had flight following, and was
> traversing through an MOA, just as if I had been cleared to fly
> through class Bravo, that there would be some communication or
> understanding between ATC and the military controllers of my
> intentions.
>

There may not be any military controllers working the aircraft using the
MOA.


>
> I wouldn't expect to be engaged by an F-16, simply
> because I was avoiding a 50+ mile detour to skirt around an MOA, when
> I could simple fly through it with the assistance of ATC. I
> understand that ATC is simply a courtesy service, but until hearing of
> this incident I would have assumed that communicating with them to fly
> through a MOA was similar to getting a clearance to fly through class
> Bravo.
>

Not so. In Class B airspace you're separated from other traffic. In a MOA
you're simply provided advisories of observed traffic.


>
> I'm reserving judgement on the right to fly through an active MOA
> altogether, but if I clearly knew that, even while talking to ATC, a
> military aircraft could have fun with me, to the point of me feeling
> like I would have to take evasive actions, I would probably add the
> extra time to my flight plan and just fly around the active MOA's.
>

A military aircraft shouldn't be doing that.

[Robert M. Gary]

Its simple really. Rogue F-16 pilot decided to play with some civilian
pilots. F-16 pilot was reported to have been punished for breaking
both FAA and military rules. Military says its taken steps to ensure
it doesn't happen again. I assume F-16 pilots now know where the xmit
button is in their plane and can use that to ask pilots if they'd like
to smell Jet-A exhaust rather than just jump them. BTW: I know a lot
of East coast pilots will ask why anyone would want to fly in a hot
MOA. If you haven't flown in the SW you don't know. If 90% of the East
coast was MOA and restricted airspace you'd feel different.

-Robert

[Marty Shapiro]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in news:30bb7f75-97ae-47e2-a6c4-
:

> Its simple really. Rogue F-16 pilot decided to play with some civilian
> pilots. F-16 pilot was reported to have been punished for breaking
> both FAA and military rules. Military says its taken steps to ensure
> it doesn't happen again. I assume F-16 pilots now know where the xmit
> button is in their plane and can use that to ask pilots if they'd like
> to smell Jet-A exhaust rather than just jump them. BTW: I know a lot
> of East coast pilots will ask why anyone would want to fly in a hot
> MOA. If you haven't flown in the SW you don't know. If 90% of the East
> coast was MOA and restricted airspace you'd feel different.
>
> -Robert
>

Do all F-16's now have VHF radios? At a Wings safety seminar sevaral
years ago I was told that most only have UHF and thus can't directly
communicate with GA aircraft.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Mxsmanic]

Marty Shapiro writes:

> Do all F-16's now have VHF radios? At a Wings safety seminar sevaral
> years ago I was told that most only have UHF and thus can't directly
> communicate with GA aircraft.

If they cannot communicate with GA aircraft, that's all the more reason not to
harass GA aircraft.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jul 11, 3:41*pm, Marty Shapiro >
wrote:

> Do all F-16's now have VHF radios? *At a Wings safety seminar sevaral
> years ago I was told that most only have UHF and thus can't directly
> communicate with GA aircraft.

ATC has freq for both VHF and UHF. The civilian pilots were in contact
with ATC, the F-16 pilot elected to not be in contact with ATC.

-Robert

[Buster Hymen]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Marty Shapiro writes:
>
>> Do all F-16's now have VHF radios? At a Wings safety seminar sevaral
>> years ago I was told that most only have UHF and thus can't directly
>> communicate with GA aircraft.
>
> If they cannot communicate with GA aircraft, that's all the more
> reason not to harass GA aircraft.
>

Your a ****ing moron

[Mike[_22_]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
...
> three-eight-hotel wrote:
>>
>> Admittedly, I didn't exhaust all search strings to find this topic
>> discussed in these forums, but I didn't see any hits, on my first few
>> attempts...
>>
>> I am interested in hearing thoughts on the encounters that are linked
>> off of the AvWeb site:
>>
>> http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/ListenAndWatch_AsGAAircraftF16Interact_198261-1.html
>>
>>
>> http://www.avweb.com/podcast/podcast/197492-1.html
>>
>> My initial thoughts are that the military owns those airspaces, and
>> VFR pilots assume the responsibility for seeing and avoiding aircraft,
>> even while on flight following. However, it seems as though there
>> should be some documented rules of engagement (and perhaps there are),
>> so that pilots flying VFR through an MOA can know what they should
>> expect.
>>
>
> The military doesn't own MOAs. MOAs are established to separate certain
> military training activities from IFR traffic. They also serve to alert
> VFR traffic of the activity but VFR aircraft are free to enter a MOA.
> Even nonparticipating IFR traffic may be cleared through a MOA if IFR
> separation can be provided by ATC.
>
>
>>
>> I have always "assumed" that if I had flight following, and was
>> traversing through an MOA, just as if I had been cleared to fly
>> through class Bravo, that there would be some communication or
>> understanding between ATC and the military controllers of my
>> intentions.
>>
>
> There may not be any military controllers working the aircraft using the
> MOA.
>
>
>>
>> I wouldn't expect to be engaged by an F-16, simply
>> because I was avoiding a 50+ mile detour to skirt around an MOA, when
>> I could simple fly through it with the assistance of ATC. I
>> understand that ATC is simply a courtesy service, but until hearing of
>> this incident I would have assumed that communicating with them to fly
>> through a MOA was similar to getting a clearance to fly through class
>> Bravo.
>>
>
> Not so. In Class B airspace you're separated from other traffic. In a
> MOA you're simply provided advisories of observed traffic.

Yes, but not really. Check the separation standards for small VFR aircraft
in class bravo. It's practically non-existent. You get half the IFR/IFR
separation, but only if the other aircraft is > 19,000 lbs. For smaller
aircraft the standard is target resolution which means you could practically
reach out and touch one another. In ATC lingo it's called
"green-in-between".

>>
>> I'm reserving judgement on the right to fly through an active MOA
>> altogether, but if I clearly knew that, even while talking to ATC, a
>> military aircraft could have fun with me, to the point of me feeling
>> like I would have to take evasive actions, I would probably add the
>> extra time to my flight plan and just fly around the active MOA's.
>>
>
> A military aircraft shouldn't be doing that.

They certainly shouldn't, but it does happen quite often. Military fly-boys
love to buzz other aircraft. Usually they get away with it because few
people complain and if the complaining aircraft isn't at least on flight
following, it's very difficult to track them down.

[Mxsmanic]

Robert M. Gary writes:

> ATC has freq for both VHF and UHF. The civilian pilots were in contact
> with ATC, the F-16 pilot elected to not be in contact with ATC.

Maybe the Air Force should elect to retire that pilot.

[Buster Hymen]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Robert M. Gary writes:
>
>> ATC has freq for both VHF and UHF. The civilian pilots were in contact
>> with ATC, the F-16 pilot elected to not be in contact with ATC.
>
> Maybe the Air Force should elect to retire that pilot.
>

You are a fukcing moron. Maybe the Air Force should use you for bombing
practice. That will both put you out of your misery and significantly
increse the total IQ of the human race.

[Viperdoc[_4_]]

Let's all remember that Anthony doesn't fly and never has. He has never
encountered the situation described, and certainly knows nothing about
flying procedures, let alone the military and their responsibilities.

If he were as smart as he thinks he is, he would be able to find a regular
job.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

Mike wrote:
>>
>> Not so. In Class B airspace you're separated from other traffic. In a
>> MOA you're simply provided advisories of observed traffic.
>>
>
> Yes, but not really. Check the separation standards for small VFR
> aircraft in class bravo. It's practically non-existent. You get
> half the IFR/IFR separation, but only if the other aircraft is >
> 19,000 lbs. For smaller aircraft the standard is target resolution
> which means you could practically reach out and touch one another. In ATC
> lingo it's called "green-in-between".
>

Actually it's just "green between" in ATC lingo, but that's still
separation.

[john smith]

Let's all remember that the first guy that got bounced kept his mouth
shut until the second one, a lawyer, complained and said that he wanted
to file a complaint. Only then did the first pilot meekly chimed in that
he would also like to file a complaint.

If it wasn't for the people in the military, we wouldn't even have the
privilage or right to even be in the sky.

As long as there isn't a mid-air, fly the airplane and shut up.

[[email protected]]

On Jul 12, 7:31*am, "Viperdoc" > wrote:
> Let's all remember that Anthony doesn't fly and never has. He has never
> encountered the situation described, and certainly knows nothing about
> flying procedures, let alone the military and their responsibilities.
>
> If he were as smart as he thinks he is, he would be able to find a regular
> job.

None the less, formation flying with someone not skilled in the
discipline is not a good idea. If such procedures in joint use
airspace are sanctioned by higher authorities in the air force their
judgment has to be questioned. If the USAF pilot did this on his own
his judgment is in question, isn't it?

Simply because the jet jock has the skills to do something like that
safely does NOT mean he has the right to do it.

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 05:42:16 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

>On Jul 12, 7:31*am, "Viperdoc" > wrote:
>> Let's all remember that Anthony doesn't fly and never has. He has never
>> encountered the situation described, and certainly knows nothing about
>> flying procedures, let alone the military and their responsibilities.
>>
>> If he were as smart as he thinks he is, he would be able to find a regular
>> job.
>
>None the less, formation flying with someone not skilled in the
>discipline is not a good idea. If such procedures in joint use
>airspace are sanctioned by higher authorities in the air force their
>judgment has to be questioned. If the USAF pilot did this on his own
>his judgment is in question, isn't it?
>
>Simply because the jet jock has the skills to do something like that
>safely does NOT mean he has the right to do it.

yeah but where is your sense of humour.

I recall the story of the mil formation popping out in a cloud break
to see a civil bonanza up ahead. the story is that they rolled
inverted and went past the guy, vanishing into the wall of cloud
ahead. (whereupon they rolled back upright)
in the moments following there was a string of expletives over the
radio from the bonanza pilot as, thinking he was disoriented, he
rolled inverted only to see all the floor dust rise past him to the
windscreen above.

if that is more than an urban legend there is opportunity for truely
funny flypasts :-)

Stealth Pilot

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Robert M. Gary writes:
>
>> ATC has freq for both VHF and UHF. The civilian pilots were in contact
>> with ATC, the F-16 pilot elected to not be in contact with ATC.
>
> Maybe the Air Force should elect to retire that pilot.
>

And put him on a desktop sim?


Bertie

[Viperdoc[_4_]]

They did not fly formation with the civilian pilot- it is not the normal
intercept procedure, and the differences in airspeed make it difficult.

The usual intent is to get the other pilot's attention, while the wingman
provides support and maintains visual contact. The civilian pilot has an
equal responsibility to see and avoid, and probably should be even more
attentive in an active MOA.

[[email protected]]

On Jul 12, 10:12*am, "Viperdoc" > wrote:
> They did not fly formation with the civilian pilot- it is not the normal
> intercept procedure, and the differences in airspeed make it difficult.
>
> The usual intent is to get the other pilot's attention, while the wingman
> provides support and maintains visual contact. The civilian pilot has an
> equal responsibility to see and avoid, and probably should be even more
> attentive in an active MOA.

I submit the difference in airspeed and detection equipment puts the
tin can at a substantial disadvantage. If it's as the thread suggests,
the jet jock was playing games he should not have been. Sometimes USAF
pilots display inappropriate airmanship: this seems to be such a case.
Even good guys make mistakes: excepte me.

[Bob Fry]

>>>>> "JS" == John Smith > writes:

JS> If it wasn't for the people in the military, we wouldn't even
JS> have the privilage or right to even be in the sky.

JS> As long as there isn't a mid-air, fly the airplane and shut
JS> up.

A good Tory you would have been in 1776.

I would have been the first to complain. Patriots don't shut up and
they don't worship the military or any other damn thing.
--
If you are ever skydiving, and your parachute fails, and your
friends are all watching youu fall, I think a good gag would be
to pretend you're swimming.
- Jack Handey

[Viperdoc[_3_]]

The pilot may well have made a bad decision- however, it is highly unlikely
that they were flying in formation with the civilian plane. As far as I
know, both pilots have an equal responsibility for see and avoid.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

Viperdoc wrote:
>
> The pilot may well have made a bad decision- however, it is highly
> unlikely that they were flying in formation with the civilian plane.
> As far as I know, both pilots have an equal responsibility for see
> and avoid.

Do you think the F-16 pilot met that responsibility?

[john smith]

In article >,
Bob Fry > wrote:

> A good Tory you would have been in 1776.
> I would have been the first to complain. Patriots don't shut up and
> they don't worship the military or any other damn thing.

It's not worship, it's respect.
Perhaps I should have written, "Fly the airplane, enjoy the show, and
shut up."

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

Viperdoc wrote:
>>
>> Do you think the F-16 pilot met that responsibility?
>>
>
> I don't know, wasn't there, never saw the HUD tape or radar track.
> Since no harm or damage occurred, I doubt anything punitive happened
> to the F-16 pilot as well. Did the FSDO do an investigation? I doubt
> it.
> In the absence of any confirmatory evidence I can't imagine that
> there would be much of a case, regardless.
>
> If the flight did do an intercept on a civilian plane that was
> appropriately in the MOA, perhaps even as practice, then maybe they
> made an error in judgement, but that's all.
>

Are F-16 pilots not expected to use sound judgment?

[[email protected]]

On Jul 12, 12:42*pm, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
wrote:
> Viperdoc wrote:
>
> >> Do you think the F-16 pilot met that responsibility?
>
> > I don't know, wasn't there, never saw the HUD tape or radar track.
> > Since no harm or damage occurred, I doubt anything punitive happened
> > to the F-16 pilot as well. Did the FSDO do an investigation? I doubt
> > it.
> > In the absence of any confirmatory evidence I can't imagine that
> > there would be much of a case, regardless.
>
> > If the flight did do an intercept on a civilian plane that was
> > appropriately in the MOA, perhaps even as practice, then maybe they
> > made an error in judgement, but that's all.
>
> Are F-16 pilots not expected to use sound judgment?

Not just sound judgment, it goes somewhat faster than that.

[Dallas]

On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 08:38:15 -0400, John Smith wrote:

> Let's all remember that the first guy that got bounced kept his mouth
> shut until the second one, a lawyer, complained and said that he wanted
> to file a complaint.

If I remember the tape correctly, the one that wanted to file a complaint
said he was forced to violate airspace. The complaint would be a pretty
good tool to help him cover his ass.


--
Dallas

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jul 12, 5:38*am, John Smith > wrote:
> Let's all remember that the first guy that got bounced kept his mouth
> shut until the second one, a lawyer, complained and said that he wanted
> to file a complaint. Only then did the first pilot meekly chimed in that
> he would also like to file a complaint.

Are you suggesting the 2nd pilot knew the other guy was a lawyer. Did
you hear him anounce such on the recording? You can bet that if an
F-16 put my life and the lives of my kids in the back in danger I
would be on the phone with my congressman's office before I left the
airport. There are risks that military pilots necessarily take as part
of their missions. Civilian pilots do not sign up for that level of
risks.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jul 12, 11:13*am, Dallas > wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 08:38:15 -0400, John Smith wrote:
> > Let's all remember that the first guy that got bounced kept his mouth
> > shut until the second one, a lawyer, complained and said that he wanted
> > to file a complaint.
>
> If I remember the tape correctly, the one that wanted to file a complaint
> said he was forced to violate airspace. *The complaint would be a pretty
> good tool to help him cover his ass.

No, the other way around. He announced that he was going to violate
airspace several times before he actually did. He made ATC we aware of
his situation before he entered class A. The argument that he filed
the complaint after discovering his violated airspace is insulting to
reason and totally contrary to the recording.

-Robert

[More_Flaps]

On Jul 13, 6:13*am, Dallas > wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 08:38:15 -0400, John Smith wrote:
> > Let's all remember that the first guy that got bounced kept his mouth
> > shut until the second one, a lawyer, complained and said that he wanted
> > to file a complaint.
>
> If I remember the tape correctly, the one that wanted to file a complaint
> said he was forced to violate airspace. *The complaint would be a pretty
> good tool to help him cover his ass.
>

He had to on a TCAS advisory -did you listen to the tape?

Cheers

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

Dallas wrote:
>
> If I remember the tape correctly, the one that wanted to file a
> complaint said he was forced to violate airspace. The complaint
> would be a pretty good tool to help him cover his ass.
>

Forced to violate a MOA? Just how is that done?

[BT]

he was in the MOA and was forced up into Class A above the MOA

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
...
> Dallas wrote:
>>
>> If I remember the tape correctly, the one that wanted to file a
>> complaint said he was forced to violate airspace. The complaint
>> would be a pretty good tool to help him cover his ass.
>>
>
> Forced to violate a MOA? Just how is that done?
>

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

BT wrote:
>
> he was in the MOA and was forced up into Class A above the MOA
>

Forced by what?

[Mxsmanic]

John Smith writes:

> Let's all remember that the first guy that got bounced kept his mouth
> shut until the second one, a lawyer, complained and said that he wanted
> to file a complaint. Only then did the first pilot meekly chimed in that
> he would also like to file a complaint.

The first guy was a coward, the second was not.

> If it wasn't for the people in the military, we wouldn't even have the
> privilage or right to even be in the sky.

The military serves civilians, not the other way around.

[Mxsmanic]

John Smith writes:

> It's not worship, it's respect.

It's worship. Tolerating dangerous and irresponsible behavior on the part of
the military (or anyone else) is not respect, it's cowardice.

> Perhaps I should have written, "Fly the airplane, enjoy the show, and
> shut up."

What show? A show of incompetence, recklessness, arrogance, and ignorance?
Is that the kind of military that the nation needs?

[BT]

Trying to avoid the F-16 moving in below him, he is obligated to follow the
RA commands form his TCAS to avoid traffic conflicts.

BT

"Clark" > wrote in message
...
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
> m:
>
>> BT wrote:
>>>
>>> he was in the MOA and was forced up into Class A above the MOA
>>>
>>
>> Forced by what?
>>
> So you're posting while drunk again McNicoll. So sad to see. Do get help
> before this carries over into your work...
>
>
>
> --
> ---
> there should be a "sig" here

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> John Smith writes:

> > It's not worship, it's respect.

> It's worship. Tolerating dangerous and irresponsible behavior on the part of
> the military (or anyone else) is not respect, it's cowardice.

> > Perhaps I should have written, "Fly the airplane, enjoy the show, and
> > shut up."

> What show? A show of incompetence, recklessness, arrogance, and ignorance?
> Is that the kind of military that the nation needs?

Oh the horror!

Oh the humanity!

Only an adolescent, arrogant, idiot would use such extreme language for
an incident where not even a fingernail was broken, much less anyone
hurt.

Or maybe a troll looking to start a big flame contest.

For the more rationale reader, i.e. everyone who is not mxsmanic, I
doubt there is anyone in the world who has not at one time or another
done something that was less then "appropriate".

BFD.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Buster Hymen]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> John Smith writes:
>
>> Let's all remember that the first guy that got bounced kept his mouth
>> shut until the second one, a lawyer, complained and said that he
>> wanted to file a complaint. Only then did the first pilot meekly
>> chimed in that he would also like to file a complaint.
>
> The first guy was a coward, the second was not.
>
>> If it wasn't for the people in the military, we wouldn't even have
>> the privilage or right to even be in the sky.
>
> The military serves civilians, not the other way around.
>

Anthony, you don't know diddly squat about what you are talking about.
You're so dumb you don't even rate being called a moron.

[Buster Hymen]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> John Smith writes:
>
>> It's not worship, it's respect.
>
> It's worship. Tolerating dangerous and irresponsible behavior on the
> part of the military (or anyone else) is not respect, it's cowardice.
>
>> Perhaps I should have written, "Fly the airplane, enjoy the show, and
>> shut up."
>
> What show? A show of incompetence, recklessness, arrogance, and
> ignorance? Is that the kind of military that the nation needs?
>

The only coward here is you, Anthony. If you possesed one shred of
courage, you wouldn't be hiding in a Paris tenement begging others to give
you things.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:

> The first guy was a coward, the second was not.

What would you know about either cowardice or bravery living in what
amounts to a cave in France afraid of any interaction with the real
world; i.e. anything that isn't simulated?

BTW, how is the job search going?

Probably lots of offers...


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Benjamin Dover]

wrote in :

> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> John Smith writes:
>
>> > It's not worship, it's respect.
>
>> It's worship. Tolerating dangerous and irresponsible behavior on the
>> part of the military (or anyone else) is not respect, it's cowardice.
>
>> > Perhaps I should have written, "Fly the airplane, enjoy the show,
>> > and shut up."
>
>> What show? A show of incompetence, recklessness, arrogance, and
>> ignorance? Is that the kind of military that the nation needs?
>
> Oh the horror!
>
> Oh the humanity!
>
> Only an adolescent, arrogant, idiot would use such extreme language
> for an incident where not even a fingernail was broken, much less
> anyone hurt.
>
> Or maybe a troll looking to start a big flame contest.
>
> For the more rationale reader, i.e. everyone who is not mxsmanic, I
> doubt there is anyone in the world who has not at one time or another
> done something that was less then "appropriate".
>
> BFD.
>
>

We all know that Anthony has never, ever done anything which was even
remotely appropriate!

[Benjamin Dover]

wrote in :

> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
>> The first guy was a coward, the second was not.
>
> What would you know about either cowardice or bravery living in what
> amounts to a cave in France afraid of any interaction with the real
> world; i.e. anything that isn't simulated?
>
> BTW, how is the job search going?
>
> Probably lots of offers...
>
>

If Anthony wasn't so craven, he would move to where he could get a
well paying job with his skills. He could simumlate living in Paris until
he earned enough to move back or established a reputation that would let
him get and hold a job in Paris that would let him live there in the style
he wanted.

Of course, if he's been lying all along about his abilities, then he
will just continue to be a worthless **** pot on the internet.

[[email protected]]

Benjamin Dover > wrote:

> We all know that Anthony has never, ever done anything which was even
> remotely appropriate!

Oh, I don't know.

Since he is obviously incompetent at everything in the real world, it
is appropriate that he just hide in his hovel and never come out.

Much like a vampire that can't be exposed to sunlight, Anthony hides
in the dark in a simulated world.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Benjamin Dover > wrote:
> wrote in :

> > Mxsmanic > wrote:
> >
> >> The first guy was a coward, the second was not.
> >
> > What would you know about either cowardice or bravery living in what
> > amounts to a cave in France afraid of any interaction with the real
> > world; i.e. anything that isn't simulated?
> >
> > BTW, how is the job search going?
> >
> > Probably lots of offers...
> >
> >

> If Anthony wasn't so craven, he would move to where he could get a
> well paying job with his skills. He could simumlate living in Paris until
> he earned enough to move back or established a reputation that would let
> him get and hold a job in Paris that would let him live there in the style
> he wanted.

> Of course, if he's been lying all along about his abilities, then he
> will just continue to be a worthless **** pot on the internet.

If he had the skills he claims to have, he could find work anywhere in
the world.

His lack of employment serves as testimony that he is actually totally
useless.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> For the more rationale reader, i.e. everyone who is not mxsmanic, I
> doubt there is anyone in the world who has not at one time or another
> done something that was less then "appropriate".
>
> BFD.

Most people do not do inappropriate things in safety-of-life situations.
Those who do are often dead.

[Viperdoc[_3_]]

Since Anthony has never flown in a MOA or anything other than his chair, his
comments on flyers and their reactions are meaningless.

Let's move on.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> For the more rationale reader, i.e. everyone who is not mxsmanic, I
>> doubt there is anyone in the world who has not at one time or another
>> done something that was less then "appropriate".
>>
>> BFD.
>
> Most people do not do inappropriate things in safety-of-life situations.
> Those who do are often dead.
>

You are an idiot


Bertie

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > For the more rationale reader, i.e. everyone who is not mxsmanic, I
> > doubt there is anyone in the world who has not at one time or another
> > done something that was less then "appropriate".
> >
> > BFD.

> Most people do not do inappropriate things in safety-of-life situations.
> Those who do are often dead.

Yet another holier than thou, know nothing pronouncement from the cave
dweller totally terrified by and divorced from the realities of life.

People drive way too fast, run red lights and stop signs every day.

People walk across the middle of busy streets every day.

People tailgate at 70 MPH every day.

People plug more things than they should into electrical outlets every
day.

People smoke in bed every day.

People run with scissors every day.

Yet the bodies don't seem to be piling up anywhere.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

On Jul 13, 1:05*pm, wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > writes:
> > > For the more rationale reader, i.e. everyone who is not mxsmanic, I
> > > doubt there is anyone in the world who has not at one time or another
> > > done something that was less then "appropriate".
>
> > > BFD.
> > Most people do not do inappropriate things in safety-of-life situations..
> > Those who do are often dead.
>
> Yet another holier than thou, know nothing pronouncement from the cave
> dweller totally terrified by and divorced from the realities of life.
>
> People drive way too fast, run red lights and stop signs every day.
>
> People walk across the middle of busy streets every day.
>
> People tailgate at 70 MPH every day.
>
> People plug more things than they should into electrical outlets every
> day.
>
> People smoke in bed every day.
>
> People run with scissors every day.
>
> Yet the bodies don't seem to be piling up anywhere.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Those are not airbags around M Anthony's chair protecting him from a
fall should he have to eject from his sim, those are pillows.

He does have several self inflected unsafe practices, doesn't he? He
by his own admission is overweight, he does eat a bad diet, he clearly
does not drink enough, and he inspires violence against himself from
otherwise normal people.

But he is holier (seemingly having taken a vow of poverty), smarter
(just ask him) and more rational than the rest of us (he does live in
Paris, after all).

Oh well, in the face of such obvious superiority. . . I'll continue to
enjoy his pontifications. he is a hoot!

[Buster Hymen]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> For the more rationale reader, i.e. everyone who is not mxsmanic, I
>> doubt there is anyone in the world who has not at one time or another
>> done something that was less then "appropriate".
>>
>> BFD.
>
> Most people do not do inappropriate things in safety-of-life situations.
> Those who do are often dead.
>

Then why are you still alive, asshole?

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> People drive way too fast, run red lights and stop signs every day.

And many of them die in the process.

> Yet the bodies don't seem to be piling up anywhere.

Most of the bodies are the bodies of people who take these foolish risks.
It's natural selection at work.

[Viperdoc[_3_]]

Natural selection obviously hasn't worked in your case...or perhaps it has.

[Buster Hymen]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> People drive way too fast, run red lights and stop signs every day.
>
> And many of them die in the process.
>
>> Yet the bodies don't seem to be piling up anywhere.
>
> Most of the bodies are the bodies of people who take these foolish risks.
> It's natural selection at work.
>

Then how to you explain your miserable existence? You're a total moron.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > People drive way too fast, run red lights and stop signs every day.

> And many of them die in the process.

> > Yet the bodies don't seem to be piling up anywhere.

> Most of the bodies are the bodies of people who take these foolish risks.
> It's natural selection at work.

Oh the horror, oh the bodies strewn everywhere you look!

Blah, blah, blah; more pontificating nonsense from the terrified of life,
jobless loser hiding in his hovel looking to justify his retched existance.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Oh the horror, oh the bodies strewn everywhere you look!

One doesn't see them piled up in a single location, but tens of thousands of
people die through recklessness every year. Those who refuse to learn from
this reality often become a victim of it.

[Buster Hymen]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Oh the horror, oh the bodies strewn everywhere you look!
>
> One doesn't see them piled up in a single location, but tens of
> thousands of people die through recklessness every year. Those who
> refuse to learn from this reality often become a victim of it.
>

Another recklessly moronic post by Anthony, certified internet asshole.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > Oh the horror, oh the bodies strewn everywhere you look!

> One doesn't see them piled up in a single location, but tens of thousands of
> people die through recklessness every year. Those who refuse to learn from
> this reality often become a victim of it.

Oh the horror!! Bodies scattered everywhere!!!

Yet more meaningless pontification from the poster boy for agraphobia.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Oh the horror, oh the bodies strewn everywhere you look!
>
> One doesn't see them piled up in a single location, but tens of
> thousands of people die through recklessness every year.




And millions waste their lives ..


Bertie

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Buster Hymen wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
>> Marty Shapiro writes:
>>
>>> Do all F-16's now have VHF radios? At a Wings safety seminar sevaral
>>> years ago I was told that most only have UHF and thus can't directly
>>> communicate with GA aircraft.
>> If they cannot communicate with GA aircraft, that's all the more
>> reason not to harass GA aircraft.
>>
>
> Your a ****ing moron
>

While I agree that Anthony is a ****ing moron. He is right in this case.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Viperdoc wrote:
> They did not fly formation with the civilian pilot- it is not the normal
> intercept procedure, and the differences in airspeed make it difficult.
>
> The usual intent is to get the other pilot's attention, while the wingman
> provides support and maintains visual contact. The civilian pilot has an
> equal responsibility to see and avoid, and probably should be even more
> attentive in an active MOA.
>
>

I'm hardly a military basher but in this case the civilian pilot did try
to see an avoid and that is what caused the problem. He was listening to
his TCAS and doing what it said. The F16 pilot should have realized this
when the civilian started maneuvering and broken off the intercept.

It seems the USAF agrees with this and hence are spanking the F16 pilot
and changing training methods.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Viperdoc wrote:
> The pilot may well have made a bad decision- however, it is highly unlikely
> that they were flying in formation with the civilian plane. As far as I
> know, both pilots have an equal responsibility for see and avoid.
>
>
>

At first I thought this was all a case of a civilian pilot overreacting.
After listening to the audio and watching the radar video I've come to
the decsicion and has the USAF that the F-16 pilot screwed up.

To say a civilian pilot that is intercepted from the rear by a radar
carrying F-16 has the same see and avoid responsibility is absurd.
Though in this case the civilian did try to avoid (via TCAS) and F-16
wouldn't let it.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

John Smith wrote:
> Let's all remember that the first guy that got bounced kept his mouth
> shut until the second one, a lawyer, complained and said that he wanted
> to file a complaint. Only then did the first pilot meekly chimed in that
> he would also like to file a complaint.
>
> If it wasn't for the people in the military, we wouldn't even have the
> privilage or right to even be in the sky.
>
> As long as there isn't a mid-air, fly the airplane and shut up.

Bull ****. Then I suppose you won't mind if the Army sends a squad out
to do target practice with M-16s in your back yard as long as they don't
hit your house.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> BT wrote:
>> he was in the MOA and was forced up into Class A above the MOA
>>
>
> Forced by what?
>
>

The TCAS telling him that if he didn't he was going to have a midair
collision.

[Steve Foley]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

>
> The first guy was a coward, the second was not.
>

People blowing smoke simply become emotional and resort to personal
attacks.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jul 14, 7:49*am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
wrote:

> I'm hardly a military basher but in this case the civilian pilot did try
> to see an avoid and that is what caused the problem. He was listening to
> his TCAS and doing what it said. The F16 pilot should have realized this
> when the civilian started maneuvering and broken off the intercept.

Yea, it would seem that the only see-and-avoid you can fault the
civilian pilot with is not having the capability to out perform the
F-16 as he tried to escape the collision alert.

-Robert

[john smith]

In article
>,
"Robert M. Gary" > wrote:

> On Jul 14, 7:49*am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
> wrote:
>
> > I'm hardly a military basher but in this case the civilian pilot did try
> > to see an avoid and that is what caused the problem. He was listening to
> > his TCAS and doing what it said. The F16 pilot should have realized this
> > when the civilian started maneuvering and broken off the intercept.
>
> Yea, it would seem that the only see-and-avoid you can fault the
> civilian pilot with is not having the capability to out perform the
> F-16 as he tried to escape the collision alert.

I fail to see how a 90-degree clearing turn would not have brought the
threat into view and provided an escape to resolve the TCAS warning.

[Mxsmanic]

Steve Foley writes:

> People blowing smoke simply become emotional and resort to personal
> attacks.

That depends on their personality, but this is often true.

[Mxsmanic]

John Smith writes:

> I fail to see how a 90-degree clearing turn would not have brought the
> threat into view and provided an escape to resolve the TCAS warning.

Civilian pilots are not normally taught how to recognize and evade "threats."

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Steve Foley writes:
>
>> People blowing smoke simply become emotional and resort to personal
>> attacks.
>
> That depends on their personality, but this is often true.

Yeah, you're always blowing smoke, but you don't, do ya?

But then again, what would you know about personality, you've never had one.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> John Smith writes:
>
>> I fail to see how a 90-degree clearing turn would not have brought the
>> threat into view and provided an escape to resolve the TCAS warning.
>
> Civilian pilots are not normally taught how to recognize and evade
> "threats."

Like you would know ANYTHING about civilian pilots, dumb ass.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jul 14, 11:50*am, John Smith > wrote:

> I fail to see how a 90-degree clearing turn would not have brought the
> threat into view and provided an escape to resolve the TCAS warning.

Because if my TCAS is saying something behind me is going to hit me
the last thing a reasonable person would do it turn around to look at
it. Civilian pilots aren't trained to engage threats, we're trained to
avoid them.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jul 14, 8:04*am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
wrote:

> Bull ****. Then I suppose you won't mind if the Army sends a squad out
> to do target practice with M-16s in your back yard as long as they don't
> hit your house.

Similarly I wonder what the military would think if I entered a MOA
and started chasing their Hueys around with my Mooney. Hey, its non
hazardous right? What's the big deal?

-Robert

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

John Smith wrote:
> In article
> >,
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>
>> On Jul 14, 7:49 am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm hardly a military basher but in this case the civilian pilot did try
>>> to see an avoid and that is what caused the problem. He was listening to
>>> his TCAS and doing what it said. The F16 pilot should have realized this
>>> when the civilian started maneuvering and broken off the intercept.
>> Yea, it would seem that the only see-and-avoid you can fault the
>> civilian pilot with is not having the capability to out perform the
>> F-16 as he tried to escape the collision alert.
>
> I fail to see how a 90-degree clearing turn would not have brought the
> threat into view and provided an escape to resolve the TCAS warning.

I've not flown with a TCAS so if I'm wrong somebody please tell me.

But it's my understanding that if the TCAS give a Climb alert you are
supposed to climb.

In this case in particular a 90 deg turn might have put him right dead
center in front of a much faster jet and caused an collision.

I don't have a problem with fighters practicing intercepts with civilian
aircraft in an MOA but the pilot in question didn't show the good since
to see that his actions were causing the civilian plane to respond and
he didn't break off the intercept. I wonder if this Lt. even knew that
some civilian aircraft had things like TCAS in them.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> John Smith writes:
>
>> I fail to see how a 90-degree clearing turn would not have brought the
>> threat into view and provided an escape to resolve the TCAS warning.
>
> Civilian pilots are not normally taught how to recognize and evade "threats."

See there you go Antony. I even took up for you up thread and then you
say something stupid like this.

Civilian pilots from the newest student pilot to the guys flying 747s
are taught to and evade threats.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

John Smith wrote:
> In article
> >,
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>
>> On Jul 14, 7:49 am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm hardly a military basher but in this case the civilian pilot
>>> did try to see an avoid and that is what caused the problem. He was
>>> listening to his TCAS and doing what it said. The F16 pilot should
>>> have realized this when the civilian started maneuvering and broken
>>> off the intercept.
>>
>> Yea, it would seem that the only see-and-avoid you can fault the
>> civilian pilot with is not having the capability to out perform the
>> F-16 as he tried to escape the collision alert.
>
> I fail to see how a 90-degree clearing turn would not have brought the
> threat into view and provided an escape to resolve the TCAS warning.
>

How often do you do 90 degree clearing turns while enroute?

[john smith]

> On Jul 14, 11:50*am, John Smith > wrote:
> > I fail to see how a 90-degree clearing turn would not have brought the
> > threat into view and provided an escape to resolve the TCAS warning.

> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
> Because if my TCAS is saying something behind me is going to hit me
> the last thing a reasonable person would do it turn around to look at
> it. Civilian pilots aren't trained to engage threats, we're trained to
> avoid them.

Both targeted aircraft were traveling in excess of 240kts/4nmpm.
The TA/RA provided by the TCAS provides sufficient time to maneuver and
provides directional cues in advance of a calculated collision to
escape.

If you maneuver and are still receiving a TA/RA, you are most likely
being tracked and no maneuvering you can do will resolve the TA/RA.
Unless you are being tracked by a missile with a transponder (it must
have a transponder for the system to work) or a pilot with a death wish,
you are not in danger.

[Steve Foley]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
news:bd044db7-1f45-4a7d-817b-

>Similarly I wonder what the military would think if I entered a MOA
>and started chasing their Hueys around with my Mooney.

Sounds like a lose-lose proposition to me <g>

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jul 14, 12:52*pm, John Smith > wrote:

> Both targeted aircraft were traveling in excess of 240kts/4nmpm.
> The TA/RA provided by the TCAS provides sufficient time to maneuver and
> provides directional cues in advance of a calculated collision to
> escape.

What did you say the closure rate was?

> If you maneuver and are still receiving a TA/RA, you are most likely
> being tracked and no maneuvering you can do will resolve the TA/RA.
> Unless you are being tracked by a missile with a transponder (it must
> have a transponder for the system to work) or a pilot with a death wish,
> you are not in danger.

I still find your proposition unreasonable. The civilian pilot was not
expecting to be chased so he's not thinking he'll just ignore the
warning and hope its a friendly just playing with him. A collision
alarm is not the time to sit around and think about the pro/cons of
ignoring the alarm and assuming someone is just playing with you at
the expense of your life.

-robert

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jul 14, 12:41*pm, Gig 601Xl Builder >
wrote:

> I don't have a problem with fighters practicing intercepts with civilian
> aircraft in an MOA but the pilot in question didn't show the good since
> to see that his actions were causing the civilian plane to respond and
> he didn't break off the intercept. I wonder if this Lt. even knew that
> some civilian aircraft had things like TCAS in them.

You would also expect he would first *ask* if the civilian pilot
wanted to play this game. Military flying is very dangerous compared
to civilian flying and I suspect that most of us are not willing to
accept a military level of risk while flying around with friends and
family in the back.

-Robert

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601Xl Builder writes:

> Civilian pilots from the newest student pilot to the guys flying 747s
> are taught to and evade threats.

Hazards, not threats.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote:

> I'm hardly a military basher but in this case the civilian pilot did try
> to see an avoid and that is what caused the problem. He was listening to
> his TCAS and doing what it said. The F16 pilot should have realized this
> when the civilian started maneuvering and broken off the intercept.
>
> It seems the USAF agrees with this and hence are spanking the F16 pilot
> and changing training methods.

I would have thought the circa 1998 intercept of an airliner off the NJ coast,
with the resulting RAs and complaints, would have resulted in appropriate
training wrt airplanes with TCAS.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Mxsmanic]

Bob Noel writes:

> I would have thought the circa 1998 intercept of an airliner off the NJ coast,
> with the resulting RAs and complaints, would have resulted in appropriate
> training wrt airplanes with TCAS.

I'm sure people pretended that things would change then, too.

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> John Smith writes:
>
>> I fail to see how a 90-degree clearing turn would not have brought
>> the threat into view and provided an escape to resolve the TCAS
>> warning.
>
> Civilian pilots are not normally taught how to recognize and evade
> "threats."

Bull ****. You don't know anything about aviation, Anthony. You're an
idiot.

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Gig 601Xl Builder writes:
>
>> Civilian pilots from the newest student pilot to the guys flying 747s
>> are taught to and evade threats.
>
> Hazards, not threats.
>

Anthony, you are very determined to demonstrate to the world that you are a
moron.

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Bob Noel writes:
>
>> I would have thought the circa 1998 intercept of an airliner off the
>> NJ coast, with the resulting RAs and complaints, would have resulted
>> in appropriate training wrt airplanes with TCAS.
>
> I'm sure people pretended that things would change then, too.
>

Just like you Anthony.

You pretend you are a pilot.

You pretend you have a life.

You pretend you are a memeber of the human race.

You pretend you possess a scintilla of intelligence.

In reality, Anthony, you're just a ****ing asshole.

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Steve Foley writes:
>
>> People blowing smoke simply become emotional and resort to personal
>> attacks.
>
> That depends on their personality, but this is often true.
>

The only personality you are familiar with Anthony is that of an asshole,
which is all you are and all you ever will be.

[john smith]

In article >,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> How often do you do 90 degree clearing turns while enroute?

Actually, more than you might think! :-))

It can be interesting to learn what is coming up behind you when you
don't suspect it.

[john smith]

In article >,
Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote:

> But it's my understanding that if the TCAS give a Climb alert you are
> supposed to climb.
>
> In this case in particular a 90 deg turn might have put him right dead
> center in front of a much faster jet and caused an collision.

TCAS can give right/left/up/down commands and combinations, not just
up/down.

We do not know which flavor of TCAS the Pilatus and Premier I had
onboard. If it was TCAS I, then the pilots would have received only
Traffic Alerts (TA's).

TCAS II provides the more decisive Resolution Alerts (RA's) which pride
directional instructions.

Since TCAS I is what is generally found on general aviation aircraft, a
Traffic Alert (direction and altitude from the target aircraft) is
probably what the pilots were seeing. That being the case, the
complaining pilots really could have done whatever they wanted to avoid
the conflict.

[john smith]

In article >,
John Smith > wrote:

> In article >,
> Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote:
>
> > But it's my understanding that if the TCAS give a Climb alert you are
> > supposed to climb.
> >
> > In this case in particular a 90 deg turn might have put him right dead
> > center in front of a much faster jet and caused an collision.
>
> TCAS can give right/left/up/down commands and combinations, not just
> up/down.

Correction, TCAS II provides only vertical commands.

> We do not know which flavor of TCAS the Pilatus and Premier I had
> onboard. If it was TCAS I, then the pilots would have received only
> Traffic Alerts (TA's).
>
> TCAS II provides the more decisive Resolution Alerts (RA's) which pride
> directional instructions.
>
> Since TCAS I is what is generally found on general aviation aircraft, a
> Traffic Alert (direction and altitude from the target aircraft) is
> probably what the pilots were seeing. That being the case, the
> complaining pilots really could have done whatever they wanted to avoid
> the conflict.

Traffic Advisories are issued with a 45-second threshhold.
Resolution Advisories are issued with a 30-second threshhold.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jul 14, 4:22*pm, John Smith > wrote:
> In article >,
> *"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>
> > How often do you do 90 degree clearing turns while enroute?
>
> Actually, more than you might think! *:-))
>
> It can be interesting to learn what is coming up behind you when you
> don't suspect it.

Are the people following you green and glow in the dark?

-Robert

[john smith]

In article
>,
"Robert M. Gary" > wrote:

> Are the people following you green and glow in the dark?

Nope, neurotypicals, just like you I would guess. :-))

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> John Smith writes:

> > I fail to see how a 90-degree clearing turn would not have brought the
> > threat into view and provided an escape to resolve the TCAS warning.

> Civilian pilots are not normally taught how to recognize and evade "threats."

Pontificating nonsense.

Unless by "threats" you meant a squadron of Japanese Zeros, in which
case it is babbling, pontificating nonsense.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

John Smith wrote:
> In article >,
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>
>> How often do you do 90 degree clearing turns while enroute?
>
> Actually, more than you might think! :-))
>

No doubt.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Pontificating nonsense.
>
> Unless by "threats" you meant a squadron of Japanese Zeros, in which
> case it is babbling, pontificating nonsense.

By threats, I mean things intercepting fighter jets. Dogfights are not part
of the normal private pilot curriculum.

[Mxsmanic]

John Smith writes:

> TCAS can give right/left/up/down commands and combinations, not just
> up/down.

Currently TCAS only recommends changes in altitude and climb rates. It does
not recommend turns.

TCAS III would provide lateral direction but it is not currently implemented.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jul 14, 5:45*pm, wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > John Smith writes:
> > > I fail to see how a 90-degree clearing turn would not have brought the
> > > threat into view and provided an escape to resolve the TCAS warning.
> > Civilian pilots are not normally taught how to recognize and evade "threats."
>
> Pontificating nonsense.
>
> Unless by "threats" you meant a squadron of Japanese Zeros, in which
> case it is babbling, pontificating nonsense.

Do you consider an non-identified airborne target closing on you with
a collision alarm going off a threat to your safety?

-Robert

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > Pontificating nonsense.
> >
> > Unless by "threats" you meant a squadron of Japanese Zeros, in which
> > case it is babbling, pontificating nonsense.

> By threats, I mean things intercepting fighter jets. Dogfights are not part
> of the normal private pilot curriculum.

Like I said, babbling, pontificating nonsense.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Pontificating nonsense.
>>
>> Unless by "threats" you meant a squadron of Japanese Zeros, in which
>> case it is babbling, pontificating nonsense.
>
> By threats, I mean things intercepting fighter jets. Dogfights are
> not part of the normal private pilot curriculum.
>

Slither, slither, slither.
Slither, slither, slither.
Slither, slither, slither.
Slither, slither, slither.
Slither, slither, slither.
Slither, slither, slither.
Slither, slither, slither.
Slither, slither, slither.

[Benjamin Dover]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
:

> On Jul 14, 5:45*pm, wrote:
>> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> > John Smith writes:
>> > > I fail to see how a 90-degree clearing turn would not have
>> > > brought th
> e
>> > > threat into view and provided an escape to resolve the TCAS
>> > > warning.
>> > Civilian pilots are not normally taught how to recognize and evade
>> > "thr
> eats."
>>
>> Pontificating nonsense.
>>
>> Unless by "threats" you meant a squadron of Japanese Zeros, in which
>> case it is babbling, pontificating nonsense.
>
> Do you consider an non-identified airborne target closing on you with
> a collision alarm going off a threat to your safety?
>
> -Robert
>

Anthony considers anything not incluced in MSFS a threat to his safety.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Gig 601Xl Builder writes:
>
>> Civilian pilots from the newest student pilot to the guys flying 747s
>> are taught to and evade threats.
>
> Hazards, not threats.

#1 Anthony method of not being wrong: Make up his own definitions of words.

threat (thrĕt) n.
1. An expression of an intention to inflict pain, injury, evil, or
punishment.
2. An indication of impending danger or harm.
3. One that is regarded as a possible danger; a menace.

haz·ard (hăz'ərd) n.
1. A chance; an accident.
2. A chance of being injured or harmed; danger: Space travel is full of
hazards.
3. A possible source of danger: a fire hazard.
4. Games. A dice game similar to craps.
5. Sports. An obstacle, such as a sand trap, found on a golf course.

[Mxsmanic]

Nomen Nescio writes:

> You sure have a high failure rate when it comes to expressing your
> thoughts (and I use that term loosely) clearly.

Actually, people with whom I communicate have a high rate of failure to
understand.

> It seems to take you many tries to write what you actually mean.

I must often illustrate concepts in many different ways before others
understand.

[Viperdoc[_3_]]

>
> Actually, people with whom I communicate have a high rate of failure to
> understand.
>
>> It seems to take you many tries to write what you actually mean.
>
> I must often illustrate concepts in many different ways before others
> understand.

The above difficulties in your ability to communicate arise from the fact
that you are an idiot and no one cares what you're trying to say. However,
the point is moot, since you also have nothing to contribute since you don't
fly and never have.

[gatt[_5_]]

>
>>ATC has freq for both VHF and UHF. The civilian pilots were in contact
>>with ATC, the F-16 pilot elected to not be in contact with ATC.
>
> Maybe the Air Force should elect to retire that pilot.


F-16 pilots are worth a hell of a lot more to national security, and
represent a much greater taxpayer investment, than the average
bugsmasher jokey.

-c

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Nomen Nescio writes:
>
>> You sure have a high failure rate when it comes to expressing your
>> thoughts (and I use that term loosely) clearly.
>
> Actually, people with whom I communicate have a high rate of failure to
> understand.
>
>> It seems to take you many tries to write what you actually mean.
>
> I must often illustrate concepts in many different ways before others
> understand.
>

Slither, slither, slither.
Slither, slither, slither.
Slither, slither, slither.
Slither, slither, slither.
Slither, slither, slither.
Slither, slither, slither.
Slither, slither, slither.
Slither, slither, slither.

[Viperdoc[_3_]]

F-16 pilots are worth a hell of a lot more to national security, and
> represent a much greater taxpayer investment, than the average bugsmasher
> jokey.
>


The average ant has more value to society than Anthony, who is basically a
waste of resources.

[Mxsmanic]

gatt writes:

> F-16 pilots are worth a hell of a lot more to national security, and
> represent a much greater taxpayer investment, than the average
> bugsmasher jokey.

The military serves civilians, not the other way around. If a F-16 pilot
cannot behave, it's time for him to retire.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> gatt writes:
>
>> F-16 pilots are worth a hell of a lot more to national security, and
>> represent a much greater taxpayer investment, than the average
>> bugsmasher jokey.
>
> The military serves civilians, not the other way around. If a F-16 pilot
> cannot behave, it's time for him to retire.
>

~You are an idiot


Bertie

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> gatt writes:
>
>> F-16 pilots are worth a hell of a lot more to national security, and
>> represent a much greater taxpayer investment, than the average
>> bugsmasher jokey.
>
> The military serves civilians, not the other way around. If a F-16 pilot
> cannot behave, it's time for him to retire.
>

Anthony, you are a ****ing idiot.

Get out of the **** hole you live in and you might have 1 chance in a
million of understanding life.

You are so stupid, I doubt it.

Why don't you wise up and die Anthony? You will finally accomplish
something positive in your miserable life.

[Steve Foley]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> If a F-16 pilot cannot behave, it's time for him to retire.

If an F-16 pilot 'starts' to behave, it's time for him to retire.

Sorry, I don't want any lame-ass chiuken-**** pilots defending my country.
France has the monopoly on that. I want some guys with balls in those jets.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Steve Foley" > wrote in
news:Z0lfk.292$av4.259@trnddc04:

> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> If a F-16 pilot cannot behave, it's time for him to retire.
>
> If an F-16 pilot 'starts' to behave, it's time for him to retire.
>
> Sorry, I don't want any lame-ass chiuken-**** pilots defending my
> country. France has the monopoly on that. I want some guys with balls
> in those jets.
>
>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CjHe_OTlwg



Bertie

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> "Steve Foley" > wrote in
> news:Z0lfk.292$av4.259@trnddc04:
>
>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> If a F-16 pilot cannot behave, it's time for him to retire.
>>
>> If an F-16 pilot 'starts' to behave, it's time for him to retire.
>>
>> Sorry, I don't want any lame-ass chiuken-**** pilots defending my
>> country. France has the monopoly on that. I want some guys with balls
>> in those jets.
>>
>>
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CjHe_OTlwg
>

Cross posting troll alert!

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:6rmfk.20629$%q.3278
@newsfe24.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Steve Foley" > wrote in
>> news:Z0lfk.292$av4.259@trnddc04:
>>
>>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> If a F-16 pilot cannot behave, it's time for him to retire.
>>>
>>> If an F-16 pilot 'starts' to behave, it's time for him to retire.
>>>
>>> Sorry, I don't want any lame-ass chiuken-**** pilots defending my
>>> country. France has the monopoly on that. I want some guys with balls
>>> in those jets.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CjHe_OTlwg
>>
>
> Cross posting troll alert!
>
>
>

Really? Where was teh x-paost, fjukktard?



Bertie

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
>
> Really? Where was teh x-paost, fjukktard?
>
>
>
> Bertie

Are you still drunk from last night?

You're no fun, come back when you pull your head out.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:uxmfk.20631$%q.4605
@newsfe24.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Really? Where was teh x-paost, fjukktard?
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Are you still drunk from last night?

Nope.
>

Are you stil beating your wife/dog? Or is that wife-dog?


> You're no fun, come back when you pull your head out.


I'll be here.

Foerver and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever
and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever
and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever
and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever
and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever
and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever
and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever
and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and

Bertie

>

[Mxsmanic]

Steve Foley writes:

> Sorry, I don't want any lame-ass chiuken-**** pilots defending my country.

Wisdom is not the same as cowardice. Hot-shot pilots start wars.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Steve Foley writes:
>
>> Sorry, I don't want any lame-ass chiuken-**** pilots defending my
>> country.
>
> Wisdom is not the same as cowardice. Hot-shot pilots start wars.

An obvious attempt at a troll.

The only thing everyone here agrees on, it that you are totally full of
****.

So why do you continue to do so? Do you enjoy getting the on-line ****
kicked out of you?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:Rlrfk.20650$%q.18341
@newsfe24.lga:

>
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Steve Foley writes:
>>
>>> Sorry, I don't want any lame-ass chiuken-**** pilots defending my
>>> country.
>>
>> Wisdom is not the same as cowardice. Hot-shot pilots start wars.
>
> An obvious attempt at a troll.
>


An obvious fish on the line.


Bertie

[Steve Foley]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

> Wisdom is not the same as cowardice.

As you keep demonstrating.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:Rlrfk.20650$%q.18341
> @newsfe24.lga:
>
>>
>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Steve Foley writes:
>>>
>>>> Sorry, I don't want any lame-ass chiuken-**** pilots defending my
>>>> country.
>>>
>>> Wisdom is not the same as cowardice. Hot-shot pilots start wars.
>>
>> An obvious attempt at a troll.
>>
>
>
> An obvious fish on the line.
>

Yes, you are, dip ****.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:tGrfk.20652$%q.16006
@newsfe24.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:Rlrfk.20650$%q.18341
>> @newsfe24.lga:
>>
>>>
>>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Steve Foley writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, I don't want any lame-ass chiuken-**** pilots defending my
>>>>> country.
>>>>
>>>> Wisdom is not the same as cowardice. Hot-shot pilots start wars.
>>>
>>> An obvious attempt at a troll.
>>>
>>
>>
>> An obvious fish on the line.
>>
>
> Yes, you are, dip ****.
>
>
>
>
>
Oooow! More IKYABWAI poastss!

You Sooooooo got me there



Bertie

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Steve Foley writes:

> > Sorry, I don't want any lame-ass chiuken-**** pilots defending my country.

> Wisdom is not the same as cowardice. Hot-shot pilots start wars.

I guess we can add wisdon, cowardice, and war to the list of things
you pontificate on but know nothing about.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Steve Foley]

> wrote in message
...

> I guess we can add wisdon, cowardice, and war to the list of things
> you pontificate on but know nothing about.
>

I think the guy who ran away from his country, and refuses to leave his
apartment can be considered an expert on cowardice.

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Steve Foley writes:
>
>> Sorry, I don't want any lame-ass chiuken-**** pilots defending my
>> country.
>
> Wisdom is not the same as cowardice. Hot-shot pilots start wars.
>

Wrong again, moron.

[Rocky Stevens]

On Jul 16, 7:34*am, "Steve Foley" > wrote:
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > If a F-16 pilot cannot behave, it's time for him to retire.
>
> If an F-16 pilot 'starts' to behave, it's time for him to retire.
>
> Sorry, I don't want any lame-ass chiuken-**** pilots defending my country..
> France has the monopoly on that. I want some guys with balls in those jets.

Yeah, it takes a lot of "balls" to harrass a GA pilot. I'm sure that
anyone who takes issue with the F-16 pilot's behavior "hates
freedom"....

[Jon Woellhaf[_2_]]

I think it'd be cool to be jumped by an F-16 -- if it was in fun, of course.
<g>

[Mxsmanic]

Jon Woellhaf writes:

> I think it'd be cool to be jumped by an F-16 -- if it was in fun, of course.

In this case, the F-16 pilot didn't ask if the civilians wanted to play.

[gatt[_5_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Those who do are often dead.

LOL "Often dead."

"How's Bill?"
"Dead."
"Really? Is he dead often?"
"No, only on special occasions and flights in MOAs."

-c

[Benjamin Dover]

gatt > wrote in
:

> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>> Those who do are often dead.
>
> LOL "Often dead."
>
> "How's Bill?"
> "Dead."
> "Really? Is he dead often?"
> "No, only on special occasions and flights in MOAs."
>
> -c
>

Anthony is often dead. His brain never functions when he goes to post in
an aviation news group.

[gatt[_5_]]

>>
>>Civilian pilots are not normally taught how to recognize and evade
>>"threats."


Whoever wrote that is either not a pilot, needs to have his license
revoked, or is just talking out of his ass. I don't even need to guess
who wrote it.

"See and Avoid" procedures are one of the "special emphasis areas" in
flight instruction.

-c

[gatt[_5_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Nomen Nescio writes:
>
>>You sure have a high failure rate when it comes to expressing your
>>thoughts (and I use that term loosely) clearly.
>
> Actually, people with whom I communicate have a high rate of failure to
> understand.


Holy cow. The ENTIRE WORLD has a problem understanding Anthony. It
MUST be the ENTIRE WORLD that's totally clueless.


> I must often illustrate concepts in many different ways before others
> understand.

In other words, he fails often.



-c

[[email protected]]

On Jul 21, 12:15*pm, gatt > wrote:
> >>Civilian pilots are not normally taught how to recognize and evade
> >>"threats."
>
> Whoever wrote that is either not a pilot, needs to have his license
> revoked, or is just talking out of his ass. *I don't even need to guess
> who wrote it.
>
> "See and Avoid" procedures are one of the "special emphasis areas" in
> flight instruction.
>
> -c

Anthony is the Bill Clinton of the group -- the words mean whatever he
wants them to mean.

[Morgans[_2_]]

> wrote

>Anthony is the Bill Clinton of the group -- the
> words mean whatever he wants them to mean.

Nah. Bill was very precise in choosing his words, and knew exactly what the
legal definition of those choices would (or could) be.

Anthony only chooses what words he uses, and tells you later on what they
meant when he was proven to be wrong.

Which is always.
--
Jim in NC

[Benjamin Dover]

"Morgans" > wrote in
:

>
> > wrote
>
>>Anthony is the Bill Clinton of the group -- the
>> words mean whatever he wants them to mean.
>
> Nah. Bill was very precise in choosing his words, and knew exactly
> what the legal definition of those choices would (or could) be.
>
> Anthony only chooses what words he uses, and tells you later on what
> they meant when he was proven to be wrong.
>
> Which is always.

Anthony needs to be able to slither. He's existence depends on it.

[Benjamin Dover]

gatt > wrote in
:

> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> Nomen Nescio writes:
>>
>>>You sure have a high failure rate when it comes to expressing your
>>>thoughts (and I use that term loosely) clearly.
>>
>> Actually, people with whom I communicate have a high rate of failure to
>> understand.
>
>
> Holy cow. The ENTIRE WORLD has a problem understanding Anthony. It
> MUST be the ENTIRE WORLD that's totally clueless.
>
>
>> I must often illustrate concepts in many different ways before others
>> understand.
>
> In other words, he fails often.
>
>
>
> -c
>

One has to wonder how long it will take Anthony to realize that the reason
he needs to issulustrate concepts in many different ways before others
understands is directly relateted to his abject inability to communicate in
a coherent manner.

[Mxsmanic]

gatt writes:

> Whoever wrote that is either not a pilot, needs to have his license
> revoked, or is just talking out of his ass. I don't even need to guess
> who wrote it.
>
> "See and Avoid" procedures are one of the "special emphasis areas" in
> flight instruction.

Seeing and avoiding applies to hazards, not threats. The assumption is that
other aircraft will not actively attempt to endanger your flight (a threat).

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> gatt writes:

> > Whoever wrote that is either not a pilot, needs to have his license
> > revoked, or is just talking out of his ass. I don't even need to guess
> > who wrote it.
> >
> > "See and Avoid" procedures are one of the "special emphasis areas" in
> > flight instruction.

> Seeing and avoiding applies to hazards, not threats. The assumption is that
> other aircraft will not actively attempt to endanger your flight (a threat).

Wrong again.

The assumption is that you have no guarantee what any other aircraft is
doing or is about to do and ALL other aircraft are a potential threat.

It doesn't matter if the other pilot is aware of your presence or not
or intends to do whatever they do that makes them a threat, the results
are the same.

In real life you can have a hazy sky suddenly light up and spell
"GOODYEAR" directly in front of you.

Is that in any of your simulators?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Buster Hymen]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> gatt writes:
>
>> Whoever wrote that is either not a pilot, needs to have his license
>> revoked, or is just talking out of his ass. I don't even need to
>> guess who wrote it.
>>
>> "See and Avoid" procedures are one of the "special emphasis areas" in
>> flight instruction.
>
> Seeing and avoiding applies to hazards, not threats. The assumption
> is that other aircraft will not actively attempt to endanger your
> flight (a threat).
>

Slither. Slither. Slither.

A hazard is a threat to your flight, you moron.

Slither. Slither. Slither.

[gatt[_5_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> gatt writes:
>
>
>>Whoever wrote that is either not a pilot, needs to have his license
>>revoked, or is just talking out of his ass. I don't even need to guess
>>who wrote it.
>>
>>"See and Avoid" procedures are one of the "special emphasis areas" in
>>flight instruction.
>
> Seeing and avoiding applies to hazards, not threats.


Don't tell me what "Seeing and Avoiding" means, smacktard. You're not a
pilot, ground instructor or representative of the FAA and if you had any
sort of training at all, you're a washout.



-c

[Mxsmanic]

gatt writes:

> Don't tell me what "Seeing and Avoiding" means, smacktard.

Or else what?

[Buster Hymen]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> gatt writes:
>
>> Don't tell me what "Seeing and Avoiding" means, smacktard.
>
> Or else what?

You'll find out. You won't like it. Fjuktjard.

[gatt[_5_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> gatt writes:
>
>>Don't tell me what "Seeing and Avoiding" means, smacktard.
>
> Or else what?

I'll point out what everybody else is saying, which is that you're a
clueless fraud pretending to be some kind of credible and knowledgable
aviation enthusiast.

I'll remain convinced that your questions to instructors and aviators
here are really just trolling after all, because in your own chairborne
mind you think you already know everything about everything anyway.

You don't. You just read information that other people spoonfeed you
and then cherry pick which information suits your fantasy.

I'll remind you that this is why you have absolutely no friends or
allies among all of the aviators and instructors here.

That's what.

-c

[Mxsmanic]

gatt writes:

> I'll point out what everybody else is saying, which is that you're a
> clueless fraud pretending to be some kind of credible and knowledgable
> aviation enthusiast.
>
> I'll remain convinced that your questions to instructors and aviators
> here are really just trolling after all, because in your own chairborne
> mind you think you already know everything about everything anyway.
>
> You don't. You just read information that other people spoonfeed you
> and then cherry pick which information suits your fantasy.
>
> I'll remind you that this is why you have absolutely no friends or
> allies among all of the aviators and instructors here.
>
> That's what.

I'll continue to post, anyway, thanks.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> gatt writes:

> > I'll point out what everybody else is saying, which is that you're a
> > clueless fraud pretending to be some kind of credible and knowledgable
> > aviation enthusiast.
> >
> > I'll remain convinced that your questions to instructors and aviators
> > here are really just trolling after all, because in your own chairborne
> > mind you think you already know everything about everything anyway.
> >
> > You don't. You just read information that other people spoonfeed you
> > and then cherry pick which information suits your fantasy.
> >
> > I'll remind you that this is why you have absolutely no friends or
> > allies among all of the aviators and instructors here.
> >
> > That's what.

> I'll continue to post, anyway, thanks.

I'm sure everyone would miss your pontificating nonsense if you stopped.

Hey, here's an idea, why don't you learn to cook and become a hero
on rec.food.recipes with your superior knowledge?

Nah, never work 'cause then you would have to buy expensive stuff
you can't afford like flour, salt and eggs.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> gatt writes:
>
>> Don't tell me what "Seeing and Avoiding" means, smacktard.
>
> Or else what?
>

Bwawhahwhahwhhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhah!


Bertie

[george]

On Jul 23, 3:45 pm, wrote:

> I'm sure everyone would miss your pontificating nonsense if you stopped.
>
> Hey, here's an idea, why don't you learn to cook and become a hero
> on rec.food.recipes with your superior knowledge?
>

And change your name to Borgia

[gatt[_5_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> gatt writes:
>>
>>I'll remind you that this is why you have absolutely no friends or
>>allies among all of the aviators and instructors here.
>>
>>That's what.
>
>
> I'll continue to post, anyway, thanks.

Of course you will. You need the attention. We've all gone over this
countless times.

See, this way you can tell your buddies that you hang out with aviators.

-c

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 08:15:32 -0700 (PDT), three-eight-hotel
> wrote:

>Admittedly, I didn't exhaust all search strings to find this topic
>discussed in these forums, but I didn't see any hits, on my first few
>attempts...
>
>I am interested in hearing thoughts on the encounters that are linked
>off of the AvWeb site:
>
>http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/ListenAndWatch_AsGAAircraftF16Interact_198261-1.html

They only said flying in close formation which depends greatly on the
pilot's definition of close formation. "In the old days" I used to
regularly fly near an MOA and it was not at all uncommon to have a
pair of f-16s pass me (one on either side) about 200 yards out.

Were I to find one sliding up along side I'd probably just wave. Now
were it another private plane that might be a different matter. I'm
fussy about who gets close, but I figure the guy flying the f-16 has
the skill to be there.

Roger (K8RI) ARRL Life Member
N833R (World's oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Were I to find one sliding up along side I'd probably just wave. Now
> were it another private plane that might be a different matter. I'm
> fussy about who gets close, but I figure the guy flying the f-16 has
> the skill to be there.

What kind of wake turbulence does he have?

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > Were I to find one sliding up along side I'd probably just wave. Now
> > were it another private plane that might be a different matter. I'm
> > fussy about who gets close, but I figure the guy flying the f-16 has
> > the skill to be there.

> What kind of wake turbulence does he have?

The same as any other airplane of that size flying at that speed.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Buster Hymen]

wrote in :

> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> writes:
>
>> > Were I to find one sliding up along side I'd probably just wave. Now
>> > were it another private plane that might be a different matter. I'm
>> > fussy about who gets close, but I figure the guy flying the f-16 has
>> > the skill to be there.
>
>> What kind of wake turbulence does he have?
>
> The same as any other airplane of that size flying at that speed.
>
>

Another subject about which Anthony doesn't know **** from shinola.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> The same as any other airplane of that size flying at that speed.

Size and weight.

It's irresponsible to fly as he did. Time for a new career.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > The same as any other airplane of that size flying at that speed.

> Size and weight.

If you knew, why did you ask other than to start more crap?

> It's irresponsible to fly as he did. Time for a new career.

You don't know **** from shinola about responsibity, flying, or
careers.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[romeomike]

wrote:
"In the old days" I used to
> regularly fly near an MOA and it was not at all uncommon to have a
> pair of f-16s pass me (one on either side) about 200 yards out.
>


In another time and place, while flying along the shore of Lake
Michigan, I had a similar experience with A-10s. I noticed one creeping
up along side me on the left less than 50 yards away. Knowing that where
there is one, there's another, I looked off to the right to see his
wingman. It was a pleasure to see them. Of course the situation with the
OP F-16 encounter was different. (To MX: no wake turbulence; look up
what conditions and aircraft cause WT)

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Were I to find one sliding up along side I'd probably just wave. Now
>> were it another private plane that might be a different matter. I'm
>> fussy about who gets close, but I figure the guy flying the f-16 has
>> the skill to be there.
>
> What kind of wake turbulence does he have?
>

What does it matter to you? You'll never fly.

Ever.

Bertie