BRAC and Fort Rucker

[BamaJohn]

Anyone have any information on how they feel Fort Rucker will fare in
the next round of Base Realignment and Closure. What are its strenths
and what are in weaknesses, and what are its major threats? Any
information is appreciated.

[Tom Swift]

Sell!
"BamaJohn" > wrote in message
om...
> Anyone have any information on how they feel Fort Rucker will fare in
> the next round of Base Realignment and Closure. What are its strenths
> and what are in weaknesses, and what are its major threats? Any
> information is appreciated.

[Fuzzy Footie]

BamaJohn wrote:

> Anyone have any information on how they feel Fort Rucker will fare in
> the next round of Base Realignment and Closure. What are its strenths
> and what are in weaknesses, and what are its major threats? Any
> information is appreciated.

Fort Rucker will probably survive this round due to politics. (Yes, I
know the BRAC is supposed to be non-political.)

If the location of the Army Flight Training Center were to be made on a
strictly military needs basis, the Aviation Center would be moved to
Fort Irwin. Between the NTC and Edwards AFB, there are about 950,000
acres of desert and mountains for maneuver.

--
Fuzz

[Kevin Brooks]

"Fuzzy Footie" > wrote in message
...
> BamaJohn wrote:
>
> > Anyone have any information on how they feel Fort Rucker will fare in
> > the next round of Base Realignment and Closure. What are its strenths
> > and what are in weaknesses, and what are its major threats? Any
> > information is appreciated.
>
> Fort Rucker will probably survive this round due to politics. (Yes, I
> know the BRAC is supposed to be non-political.)
>
> If the location of the Army Flight Training Center were to be made on a
> strictly military needs basis, the Aviation Center would be moved to
> Fort Irwin. Between the NTC and Edwards AFB, there are about 950,000
> acres of desert and mountains for maneuver.

Is putting new trainee pilots into a high/hot situation from the outset
really advisable? Not to mention the folks running the NTC would probably
just as soon not have to worry about all of those TH-67's whirling around
while they are trying to do serious work like running a BLUEFOR BCT through
the wringer...

Brooks

>
> --
> Fuzz

[Fuzzy Footie]

Kevin Brooks wrote:

> "Fuzzy Footie" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>BamaJohn wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Anyone have any information on how they feel Fort Rucker will fare in
>>>the next round of Base Realignment and Closure. What are its strenths
>>>and what are in weaknesses, and what are its major threats? Any
>>>information is appreciated.
>>
>>Fort Rucker will probably survive this round due to politics. (Yes, I
>>know the BRAC is supposed to be non-political.)
>>
>>If the location of the Army Flight Training Center were to be made on a
>>strictly military needs basis, the Aviation Center would be moved to
>>Fort Irwin. Between the NTC and Edwards AFB, there are about 950,000
>>acres of desert and mountains for maneuver.
>
>
> Is putting new trainee pilots into a high/hot situation from the outset
> really advisable? Not to mention the folks running the NTC would probably
> just as soon not have to worry about all of those TH-67's whirling around
> while they are trying to do serious work like running a BLUEFOR BCT through
> the wringer...
>
> Brooks
>
>
>>--
>>Fuzz
>

Hey! Evolution in action. While Fort Irwin is probably not the best
climate or altitude to learn, for the foreseeable future that's the
climate they will be flying in. There is enough acreage that they could
keep to propeller heads away from the maneuver forces.

Of course, Forts Campbell, Bragg or Benning have much more 'back' post
area for flight training without flying trainees over civilian
neighborhoods.

--
Fuzz

[John Hart]

"Fuzzy Footie" > wrote in message
...
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
>
> > "Fuzzy Footie" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>BamaJohn wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Anyone have any information on how they feel Fort Rucker will fare in
> >>>the next round of Base Realignment and Closure. What are its strenths
> >>>and what are in weaknesses, and what are its major threats? Any
> >>>information is appreciated.
> >>
> >>Fort Rucker will probably survive this round due to politics. (Yes, I
> >>know the BRAC is supposed to be non-political.)
> >>
> >>If the location of the Army Flight Training Center were to be made on a
> >>strictly military needs basis, the Aviation Center would be moved to
> >>Fort Irwin. Between the NTC and Edwards AFB, there are about 950,000
> >>acres of desert and mountains for maneuver.
> >
> >
> > Is putting new trainee pilots into a high/hot situation from the outset
> > really advisable? Not to mention the folks running the NTC would
probably
> > just as soon not have to worry about all of those TH-67's whirling
around
> > while they are trying to do serious work like running a BLUEFOR BCT
through
> > the wringer...
> >
> > Brooks
> >
> >
> >>--
> >>Fuzz
> >
>
> Hey! Evolution in action. While Fort Irwin is probably not the best
> climate or altitude to learn, for the foreseeable future that's the
> climate they will be flying in. There is enough acreage that they could
> keep to propeller heads away from the maneuver forces.
>
> Of course, Forts Campbell, Bragg or Benning have much more 'back' post
> area for flight training without flying trainees over civilian
> neighborhoods.
>
> --
> Fuzz
>
>
>

I see you've never been trained as a pilot. Hell, Texas ain't big enough to
train pilots in! Been there and done that, got the T-shirt, and wore it out
completely!

[Fuzzy Footie]

John Hart wrote:
> "Fuzzy Footie" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Kevin Brooks wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Fuzzy Footie" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>BamaJohn wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Anyone have any information on how they feel Fort Rucker will fare in
>>>>>the next round of Base Realignment and Closure. What are its strenths
>>>>>and what are in weaknesses, and what are its major threats? Any
>>>>>information is appreciated.
>>>>
>>>>Fort Rucker will probably survive this round due to politics. (Yes, I
>>>>know the BRAC is supposed to be non-political.)
>>>>
>>>>If the location of the Army Flight Training Center were to be made on a
>>>>strictly military needs basis, the Aviation Center would be moved to
>>>>Fort Irwin. Between the NTC and Edwards AFB, there are about 950,000
>>>>acres of desert and mountains for maneuver.
>>>
>>>
>>>Is putting new trainee pilots into a high/hot situation from the outset
>>>really advisable? Not to mention the folks running the NTC would
>
> probably
>
>>>just as soon not have to worry about all of those TH-67's whirling
>
> around
>
>>>while they are trying to do serious work like running a BLUEFOR BCT
>
> through
>
>>>the wringer...
>>>
>>>Brooks
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>--
>>>>Fuzz
>>>
>>Hey! Evolution in action. While Fort Irwin is probably not the best
>>climate or altitude to learn, for the foreseeable future that's the
>>climate they will be flying in. There is enough acreage that they could
>>keep to propeller heads away from the maneuver forces.
>>
>>Of course, Forts Campbell, Bragg or Benning have much more 'back' post
>>area for flight training without flying trainees over civilian
>>neighborhoods.
>>
>>--
>>Fuzz
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> I see you've never been trained as a pilot. Hell, Texas ain't big enough to
> train pilots in! Been there and done that, got the T-shirt, and wore it out
> completely!
>
>

Glad to hear it, but what's that got to do with the small on post flight
area for first phase trainees at Fort Rucker? The post has worked for
years in trying to gain more restricted air space for training.

--
Fuzz

[John Carrier]

"BamaJohn" > wrote in message
om...
> Anyone have any information on how they feel Fort Rucker will fare in
> the next round of Base Realignment and Closure. What are its strenths
> and what are in weaknesses, and what are its major threats? Any
> information is appreciated.

My bet would be on relocating Navy Helo training to Rucker. Consolidate the
primary Helo training and reflect the "joint" world. In the past, the Navy
has had a number of arguments against such a concept, but the wind ain't
blowin' in that direction no mo'.

R / John

[Lone Haranguer]

©Old Sarge®° wrote:

> While assigned to HQ Sixth Army at the Presidio of San Francisco, I was
> responsible for the reassignment of our officers and I had to request their
> orders. Well we had one officer that was being reassigned to the U.S. Army
> Aviation Center and School, Ft Rucker, AL and I requested his orders.
> Later that day the officer came in and called my attention to his orders
> which read "Ft ****er, AL". Oh ****. I ran back to the orders section and
> told them the orders needed to be amended immediately and distribution
> halted on the old copies. Well, distribution had already been made, and an
> amendment was out of the question. Why? Because an amendment would have
> directly called attention to the mistake. Instead they revoked the orders
> and re-cut them. I think that was the best laugh we had there in my three
> years there. A damn good assignment too.
>
They called it "Camp ****ed Up" when I was there in '54-'55. Hq Co was
the most ****ed up of all.
LZ

[Lone Haranguer]

©Old Sarge®° wrote:

> "Lone Haranguer" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>They called it "Camp ****ed Up" when I was there in '54-'55. Hq Co was
>>the most ****ed up of all.
>>LZ
>>
>
>
> Damn Linus, while you were there I was learning how to drive. First car I
> ever drove was a new 55 Chevy, stick. Bad experience, but I got better and
> in 1957 I got my first car - a 46 Ford Club Coupe. You ARE an old fart.
>
I was a member of the virgins club that opened the weather station there
when Army Aviation was hatched. They had a few clunker fixed wing and
ancient choppers they brought from Ft. Sill. The control tower was a
barrel on a telephone post. No furnace or heat in the barracks, so no
hot water. Coal burning stoves in the weather station and operations
and even the mess hall. Towns around there were stuck in the 1920s.

Got married there, turned 21 and made SSgt before volunteering to open
up another weather station at Hurlburt Field in May of '55. I'd only
been in the weather service a year and I was sent off to open a station
all by myself with 60 days to get it up and running. They sent me a 2nd
Lt. and 2 warm bodies a few days before we opened for business.
LZ

[John Hart]

"Fuzzy Footie" > wrote in message
...
> John Hart wrote:
> > "Fuzzy Footie" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Kevin Brooks wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Fuzzy Footie" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>BamaJohn wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Anyone have any information on how they feel Fort Rucker will fare in
> >>>>>the next round of Base Realignment and Closure. What are its strenths
> >>>>>and what are in weaknesses, and what are its major threats? Any
> >>>>>information is appreciated.
> >>>>
> >>>>Fort Rucker will probably survive this round due to politics. (Yes, I
> >>>>know the BRAC is supposed to be non-political.)
> >>>>
> >>>>If the location of the Army Flight Training Center were to be made on
a
> >>>>strictly military needs basis, the Aviation Center would be moved to
> >>>>Fort Irwin. Between the NTC and Edwards AFB, there are about 950,000
> >>>>acres of desert and mountains for maneuver.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Is putting new trainee pilots into a high/hot situation from the outset
> >>>really advisable? Not to mention the folks running the NTC would
> >
> > probably
> >
> >>>just as soon not have to worry about all of those TH-67's whirling
> >
> > around
> >
> >>>while they are trying to do serious work like running a BLUEFOR BCT
> >
> > through
> >
> >>>the wringer...
> >>>
> >>>Brooks
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>--
> >>>>Fuzz
> >>>
> >>Hey! Evolution in action. While Fort Irwin is probably not the best
> >>climate or altitude to learn, for the foreseeable future that's the
> >>climate they will be flying in. There is enough acreage that they could
> >>keep to propeller heads away from the maneuver forces.
> >>
> >>Of course, Forts Campbell, Bragg or Benning have much more 'back' post
> >>area for flight training without flying trainees over civilian
> >>neighborhoods.
> >>
> >>--
> >>Fuzz
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > I see you've never been trained as a pilot. Hell, Texas ain't big
enough to
> > train pilots in! Been there and done that, got the T-shirt, and wore it
out
> > completely!
> >
> >
>
> Glad to hear it, but what's that got to do with the small on post flight
> area for first phase trainees at Fort Rucker? The post has worked for
> years in trying to gain more restricted air space for training.
>
> --
> Fuzz

That's the point. It ain't all done in a small area in the first phase. I
went through rotary wing primary training in Ft Woters, TX myself, then
after my first tour in 'Nam, I worked there three years as a primary flight
instructor. To handle 200 or 300 primary students, a helicopter primary
school uses up a hell of a lot more airspace than is available at any post
with an active arty impact area. Got to keep'em clear of the GT line, out
of the impact area, and completely away from such things as parachute drops,
not to mention out of commercial air traffic, and seperated from each other.
Might be able to do all that if you draw a 250 - 300 mile radius around a
given place, and can control ALL the airspace from the surface upward.

[Fuzzy Footie]

John Hart wrote:
> "Fuzzy Footie" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>>Glad to hear it, but what's that got to do with the small on post flight
>>area for first phase trainees at Fort Rucker? The post has worked for
>>years in trying to gain more restricted air space for training.
>>
>>--
>>Fuzz
>
>
> That's the point. It ain't all done in a small area in the first phase. I
> went through rotary wing primary training in Ft Woters, TX myself, then
> after my first tour in 'Nam, I worked there three years as a primary flight
> instructor. To handle 200 or 300 primary students, a helicopter primary
> school uses up a hell of a lot more airspace than is available at any post
> with an active arty impact area. Got to keep'em clear of the GT line, out
> of the impact area, and completely away from such things as parachute drops,
> not to mention out of commercial air traffic, and seperated from each other.
> Might be able to do all that if you draw a 250 - 300 mile radius around a
> given place, and can control ALL the airspace from the surface upward.
>
>

Understood. It sounds like Fort Irwin is the place. Of course, all
those new WO's and Eltees would hate it being so far from Barstow. Of
course, they could make thunder runs to Las Vegas on the weekends.

It is clear there is no easy answer. Therefore, as the government is
wont to do, primary rotor wing training will stay at Rucker, probably
until the end of time.

--
Fuzz

[John Hairell]

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 23:55:06 GMT, "John Hart"
> wrote:

>That's the point. It ain't all done in a small area in the first phase. I
>went through rotary wing primary training in Ft Woters, TX myself, then
>after my first tour in 'Nam, I worked there three years as a primary flight
>instructor. To handle 200 or 300 primary students, a helicopter primary
>school uses up a hell of a lot more airspace than is available at any post
>with an active arty impact area. Got to keep'em clear of the GT line, out
>of the impact area, and completely away from such things as parachute drops,
>not to mention out of commercial air traffic, and seperated from each other.
>Might be able to do all that if you draw a 250 - 300 mile radius around a
>given place, and can control ALL the airspace from the surface upward.
>

I should hope you would be able to keep them separated - a cylindrical
airspace block 3 miles high and 600 miles across contains 848,230
cubic miles of airspace and then some. That comes out to 2800+ cubic
miles of airspace per student at a student load of 300, assuming one
student per aircraft. Think that's enough separation?

BTW, where in the U.S. do you think that you are going to be able to
obtain an area of low-altitude airspace that is 500-600 miles in
diameter and get full control of it? Sounds like a primary flight
instructor's wet dream but it probably ain't gonna happen.

John Hairell )
former Army ATCS (Rucker, Hood, Korea)

[Lone Haranguer]

Fuzzy Footie wrote:

> John Hart wrote:
>
>> "Fuzzy Footie" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>
>>> Glad to hear it, but what's that got to do with the small on post flight
>>> area for first phase trainees at Fort Rucker? The post has worked for
>>> years in trying to gain more restricted air space for training.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Fuzz
>>
>>
>>
>> That's the point. It ain't all done in a small area in the first
>> phase. I
>> went through rotary wing primary training in Ft Woters, TX myself, then
>> after my first tour in 'Nam, I worked there three years as a primary
>> flight
>> instructor. To handle 200 or 300 primary students, a helicopter primary
>> school uses up a hell of a lot more airspace than is available at any
>> post
>> with an active arty impact area. Got to keep'em clear of the GT line,
>> out
>> of the impact area, and completely away from such things as parachute
>> drops,
>> not to mention out of commercial air traffic, and seperated from each
>> other.
>> Might be able to do all that if you draw a 250 - 300 mile radius around a
>> given place, and can control ALL the airspace from the surface upward.
>>
>>
>
> Understood. It sounds like Fort Irwin is the place. Of course, all
> those new WO's and Eltees would hate it being so far from Barstow. Of
> course, they could make thunder runs to Las Vegas on the weekends.
>
> It is clear there is no easy answer. Therefore, as the government is
> wont to do, primary rotor wing training will stay at Rucker, probably
> until the end of time.
>
> --
> Fuzz

I hear Yuma Proving Ground is on the closing list. Lots of room there
for flight training. A little toasty in summer. :)
LZ

[John Hart]

Well, don't know what the hotshots are going to do, but I suspect it has a
lot more to do with "pork" than suitability of a particular geographical
area. A geographical area has little influence on primary flight training,
actually. The so-called "dangers" to a civilian populace attributed to
flight training is virtually non-existent. Certainly, once in a while, a
student pilot will be involved in some sort of a mishap thet scares the
bejesus out of some civilians, but in actuality, very, very few are actually
injured or killed.


> >
> >
>
> Understood. It sounds like Fort Irwin is the place. Of course, all
> those new WO's and Eltees would hate it being so far from Barstow. Of
> course, they could make thunder runs to Las Vegas on the weekends.
>
> It is clear there is no easy answer. Therefore, as the government is
> wont to do, primary rotor wing training will stay at Rucker, probably
> until the end of time.
>
> --
> Fuzz

[John Hart]

"Lone Haranguer" > wrote in message
...
> Fuzzy Footie wrote:
>
> > John Hart wrote:
> >
> >> "Fuzzy Footie" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Glad to hear it, but what's that got to do with the small on post
flight
> >>> area for first phase trainees at Fort Rucker? The post has worked for
> >>> years in trying to gain more restricted air space for training.
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Fuzz
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> That's the point. It ain't all done in a small area in the first
> >> phase. I
> >> went through rotary wing primary training in Ft Woters, TX myself, then
> >> after my first tour in 'Nam, I worked there three years as a primary
> >> flight
> >> instructor. To handle 200 or 300 primary students, a helicopter
primary
> >> school uses up a hell of a lot more airspace than is available at any
> >> post
> >> with an active arty impact area. Got to keep'em clear of the GT line,
> >> out
> >> of the impact area, and completely away from such things as parachute
> >> drops,
> >> not to mention out of commercial air traffic, and seperated from each
> >> other.
> >> Might be able to do all that if you draw a 250 - 300 mile radius around
a
> >> given place, and can control ALL the airspace from the surface upward.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Understood. It sounds like Fort Irwin is the place. Of course, all
> > those new WO's and Eltees would hate it being so far from Barstow. Of
> > course, they could make thunder runs to Las Vegas on the weekends.
> >
> > It is clear there is no easy answer. Therefore, as the government is
> > wont to do, primary rotor wing training will stay at Rucker, probably
> > until the end of time.
> >
> > --
> > Fuzz
>
> I hear Yuma Proving Ground is on the closing list. Lots of room there
> for flight training. A little toasty in summer. :)
> LZ
>

Yes. However, it's a little too close to the southern international
boundry. Might give rise to an international incident or two, should a
student pilot inadvertantly meander to the south of the line!

[Kevin Brooks]

"John Hart" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Lone Haranguer" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Fuzzy Footie wrote:
> >
> > > John Hart wrote:
> > >
> > >> "Fuzzy Footie" > wrote in message
> > >> ...
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> Glad to hear it, but what's that got to do with the small on post
> flight
> > >>> area for first phase trainees at Fort Rucker? The post has worked
for
> > >>> years in trying to gain more restricted air space for training.
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>> Fuzz
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> That's the point. It ain't all done in a small area in the first
> > >> phase. I
> > >> went through rotary wing primary training in Ft Woters, TX myself,
then
> > >> after my first tour in 'Nam, I worked there three years as a primary
> > >> flight
> > >> instructor. To handle 200 or 300 primary students, a helicopter
> primary
> > >> school uses up a hell of a lot more airspace than is available at any
> > >> post
> > >> with an active arty impact area. Got to keep'em clear of the GT
line,
> > >> out
> > >> of the impact area, and completely away from such things as parachute
> > >> drops,
> > >> not to mention out of commercial air traffic, and seperated from each
> > >> other.
> > >> Might be able to do all that if you draw a 250 - 300 mile radius
around
> a
> > >> given place, and can control ALL the airspace from the surface
upward.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > > Understood. It sounds like Fort Irwin is the place. Of course, all
> > > those new WO's and Eltees would hate it being so far from Barstow. Of
> > > course, they could make thunder runs to Las Vegas on the weekends.
> > >
> > > It is clear there is no easy answer. Therefore, as the government is
> > > wont to do, primary rotor wing training will stay at Rucker, probably
> > > until the end of time.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Fuzz
> >
> > I hear Yuma Proving Ground is on the closing list. Lots of room there
> > for flight training. A little toasty in summer. :)
> > LZ
> >
>
> Yes. However, it's a little too close to the southern international
> boundry. Might give rise to an international incident or two, should a
> student pilot inadvertantly meander to the south of the line!

I recall my brother relating a story of one of his classmates (this would
have been about 1970) getting a bit turned around on a flight and finally
landing his TH-55 and walking to a nearby farmhouse to ask where the heck he
was; he supposedly did so still wearing his helmet with the visor down...one
can only wonder what the lady's reaction to that sight was.

Brooks
>
>

[Lone Haranguer]

Kevin Brooks wrote:

> "John Hart" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
>>"Lone Haranguer" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>Fuzzy Footie wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>John Hart wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Fuzzy Footie" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Glad to hear it, but what's that got to do with the small on post
>>
>>flight
>>
>>>>>>area for first phase trainees at Fort Rucker? The post has worked
>
> for
>
>>>>>>years in trying to gain more restricted air space for training.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>--
>>>>>>Fuzz
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>That's the point. It ain't all done in a small area in the first
>>>>>phase. I
>>>>>went through rotary wing primary training in Ft Woters, TX myself,
>
> then
>
>>>>>after my first tour in 'Nam, I worked there three years as a primary
>>>>>flight
>>>>>instructor. To handle 200 or 300 primary students, a helicopter
>>
>>primary
>>
>>>>>school uses up a hell of a lot more airspace than is available at any
>>>>>post
>>>>>with an active arty impact area. Got to keep'em clear of the GT
>
> line,
>
>>>>>out
>>>>>of the impact area, and completely away from such things as parachute
>>>>>drops,
>>>>>not to mention out of commercial air traffic, and seperated from each
>>>>>other.
>>>>>Might be able to do all that if you draw a 250 - 300 mile radius
>
> around
>
>>a
>>
>>>>>given place, and can control ALL the airspace from the surface
>
> upward.
>
>>>>>
>>>>Understood. It sounds like Fort Irwin is the place. Of course, all
>>>>those new WO's and Eltees would hate it being so far from Barstow. Of
>>>>course, they could make thunder runs to Las Vegas on the weekends.
>>>>
>>>>It is clear there is no easy answer. Therefore, as the government is
>>>>wont to do, primary rotor wing training will stay at Rucker, probably
>>>>until the end of time.
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>Fuzz
>>>
>>>I hear Yuma Proving Ground is on the closing list. Lots of room there
>>>for flight training. A little toasty in summer. :)
>>>LZ
>>>
>>
>>Yes. However, it's a little too close to the southern international
>>boundry. Might give rise to an international incident or two, should a
>>student pilot inadvertantly meander to the south of the line!
>
>
> I recall my brother relating a story of one of his classmates (this would
> have been about 1970) getting a bit turned around on a flight and finally
> landing his TH-55 and walking to a nearby farmhouse to ask where the heck he
> was; he supposedly did so still wearing his helmet with the visor down...one
> can only wonder what the lady's reaction to that sight was.
>
> Brooks
>
In Germany the Army pilots used "roadmap navigation". They just got low
enough to read the name of the town posted on the outskirts.

They didn't have water towers like ours.
LZ

[John Hart]

"Lone Haranguer" > wrote in message
...
> In Germany the Army pilots used "roadmap navigation". They just got low
> enough to read the name of the town posted on the outskirts.
>
> They didn't have water towers like ours.
> LZ
>

Not only in Germany, but all over the world where I have been stationed and
flew helicopters. Nothing like having a positive fix on your location.
John Hart

[OXMORON1]

John Hart wrote in response to:

> In Germany the Army pilots used "roadmap navigation". They just got low
>> enough to read the name of the town posted on the outskirts.

the following:
>Not only in Germany, but all over the world where I have been stationed and
>flew helicopters. Nothing like having a positive fix on your location.

Doesn't work well in the central US, especially the Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas,
Oklahoma. All the small towns are named "Co-Op"

"Hang a right at the big tombstone on top of the cemetary hill, your target is
the warehouse one block north of the Dairy Queen. Exit the target area over the
baseball diamond...."
honest to Gawd quote from a TacEval briefing, circa 1969, of course their chart
and flight plan were outstanding

oxmoron1
MFE

[Kevin Brooks]

"OXMORON1" > wrote in message
...
> John Hart wrote in response to:
>
> > In Germany the Army pilots used "roadmap navigation". They just got low
> >> enough to read the name of the town posted on the outskirts.
>
> the following:
> >Not only in Germany, but all over the world where I have been stationed
and
> >flew helicopters. Nothing like having a positive fix on your location.
>
> Doesn't work well in the central US, especially the Dakotas, Nebraska,
Kansas,
> Oklahoma. All the small towns are named "Co-Op"
>
> "Hang a right at the big tombstone on top of the cemetary hill, your
target is
> the warehouse one block north of the Dairy Queen. Exit the target area
over the
> baseball diamond...."
> honest to Gawd quote from a TacEval briefing, circa 1969, of course their
chart
> and flight plan were outstanding

Didn't always work too well in Honduras, either. One of TWA's (Teenie Weenie
Airlines, as we referred to the four aircraft UH-1H detachment supporting
our operation in 87-88) missed the base camp on a flight back from what is
now known as Soto Cano and kept happily flying eastward. The FUSA aviation
advisor who was on-hand shook his head and told me if they had not run short
of fuel and had to set down, they'd have made the Nicaraguan border in about
another ten to twenty miles--and 1988 was not a good time for that kind of
thing to happen.

Brooks

>
> oxmoron1
> MFE
>
>

[John Hairell]

On 22 Jun 2004 13:49:10 GMT, (OXMORON1) wrote:

>John Hart wrote in response to:
>
>> In Germany the Army pilots used "roadmap navigation". They just got low
>>> enough to read the name of the town posted on the outskirts.
>
>the following:
>>Not only in Germany, but all over the world where I have been stationed and
>>flew helicopters. Nothing like having a positive fix on your location.
>
>Doesn't work well in the central US, especially the Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas,
>Oklahoma. All the small towns are named "Co-Op"
>
>"Hang a right at the big tombstone on top of the cemetary hill, your target is
>the warehouse one block north of the Dairy Queen. Exit the target area over the
>baseball diamond...."
>honest to Gawd quote from a TacEval briefing, circa 1969, of course their chart
>and flight plan were outstanding
>

IFR = "I Follow Roads".

John Hairell )