USAFA Fleet Grounded Again

Shawn Curry wrote:

...operate a $25 million dollar jet aircraft in the defense of our national objectives.

WTF? You don't mean 757s do you?

No Shawn. Actually, I was trying to make an estimate of the cost of
an F-16 ($26.9 million FY98).
I am not aware of any 757s in the U.S. Air Force inventory (yet).

If your remark is a slight about an Academy grad leaving the Air Force
after honorable serving out his training commitment and applying his
learned skill to an airline job:

1. How is that any different than ROTC grad engineer type doing the
same and mustering out to a job at a Denver Construction firm?
(It's not.)

2. What's wrong with it?
(Nothing--taxpayers paid are back in full for the educational
expenditure. BTW, the payback is over 10 years of active duty service
now--much of the time living forward deployed in tent cities in
hostile foreign environments in wartime conditions.)

3. And why is it any business of yours?
(It damn sure ain't.)

4. And what does all this have to do with recreational soaring?
(Nothing. But your now two egregious statements against Air Force
Academy Cadets/Graduates begs retort. I would not have been compelled
to get involved if only you would have exercised some discretion and
not made a snide, unrelated, and untrue comment about Cadets ripping
the wings off of aircraft. Let's just stick to the script, shall we.)

Do you mean "In defense of our nation from all foes foreign and
domestic" or something like that, maybe defense of the Constitution?

As opposed to teaching underpriviledged kids to read by strafing them?
As opposed to increasing the GDP by transporting chocolat bars to
Afganistan?
Yes, of course I meant in defense of our nation--which has always been
the prime national objective.
Yes, indeed--silly you!

RD

rjciii wrote:

Shawn Curry wrote:


...operate a $25 million dollar jet aircraft in the defense of our national objectives.

WTF? You don't mean 757s do you?


No Shawn. Actually, I was trying to make an estimate of the cost of
an F-16 ($26.9 million FY98).
I am not aware of any 757s in the U.S. Air Force inventory (yet).

If your remark is a slight about an Academy grad leaving the Air Force
after honorable serving out his training commitment and applying his
learned skill to an airline job:

Wow! How can you get off the ground with that chip on your shoulder. I
didn't even allude to such a spectacular twisting of my words.
Didn't know you flew 757s. Cool with me. (Is the green showing through
:-) )
1) My first breath was in a military hospital.
2) My father would be a Vietnam vet if he had survived the war (and I
respect him and ALL vets, war or not)
3) I grew up in the Springs going to Graduations and riding my bike
around the base. I didn't pursue the USAFA when I was a kid because
back then, if you didn't have 20/20 vision, there was no chance to fly
F-16s.


3. And why is it any business of yours?
(It damn sure ain't.)\

Right, and frankly Ray I don't need you to tell me now.

4. And what does all this have to do with recreational soaring?
(Nothing. But your now two egregious statements against Air Force
Academy Cadets/Graduates begs retort.

No, not cadets (OK one, who shouldn't have pulled so aggressively above
Va), not the Grads. The staff/command that can't keep the program in
the air.

I would not have been compelled
to get involved if only you would have exercised some discretion and
not made a snide, unrelated, and untrue comment about Cadets ripping
the wings off of aircraft. Let's just stick to the script, shall we.)

Here's a snip from the report I read:

3. AVIATION CLASS A MISHAPS UNDER INVESTIGATION:
3.1. TG-10D, 18 OCT 02
THE MISHAP PILOT (MP) (CADET) WAS CONDUCTING A SOLO TRANSITION SORTIE
FOR QUALIFICATION TRAINING PURPOSES. THE PROFILE WAS TO CONSIST
PRIMARILY OF SPIN TRAINING. AFTER COMPLETING THE SPIN ACTIVITY THE MP
INITIATED A HIGH-SPEED PASS IN PREPARATION/PRACTICE FOR A STADIUM
FLYOVER TO BE ACCOMPLISHED THE FOLLOWING DAY. THE MP PUSHED THE NOSE
OVER AND ACCELERATED TO APPROXIMATELY 100 KNOTS. HE THEN PULLED AN
ESTIMATED 3 G'S TO RECOVER FROM THE DIVE. AS THE MP RELAXED BACK
PRESSURE TOWARDS THE NEUTRAL POSITION, APPROXIMATELY 6 FEET OF THE LEFT
WING FOLDED OVER THE TOP OF THE WING.
Told ya so :-P
TG-10D = L-33 Solo. That's what it has to do with recreational soaring.

Yes, of course I meant in defense of our nation--which has always been
the prime national objective.

Let me quote a few more lines from the federal government.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
common defense, ..."
Looks like defense is #4

Don't know where "Common offense" comes in. W is fixing that I guess.
The parallel between W and Hitler and the early Nazi Party is frightening.
There can I invoke Godwin's and we'll call it a day?

Shawn

Shawn Curry wrote:

Wow! How can you get off the ground with that chip on your shoulder.

Hey, I'm not the one that "coulda, woulda, shoulda" and takes cheap
shots at those who did.

Perhaps one might now realize that there is at least one person
perusing this public forum that will not let tactless jabs against the
U.S. Air Force Academy, its soaring program, its Cadets, or its
graduates go unchecked. The Academy's soaring program is generally a
good, safe operation (especially considering the fleet count, number
of sorties, and variation in flying) that, by far, cranks out more new
glider pilots and potential long term participants in the sport than
any other program in this country and most probably in the world.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
common defense [sic], ..."
Looks like defense is #4

The use of commas to separate items in series does not denote any
weighting or degree of importance as to any one item's placement
within the series. The commas used in such a series can be
interpreted as "and".
Use of semicolons would denote a greater degree of separation to
convey the idea of an order of precedence or importance.

If your logic held true, then defence [the British variation of the
word as it is spelled in the preamble] would take priority over
promoting the general Welfare and securing the Blessings of Liberty.

I must therefore respectfully disagree with your assumption that
providing for the defense of our nation is any more or less important
that any other Constitutional directive.

My apology to those international users of this forum for the
tangential domestic politico-philosophical discussion.

RD

rjciii wrote:
Hey, I'm not the one that "coulda, woulda, shoulda" and takes cheap
shots at those who did.

Coulda woulda? I was 15. Girls came on the radar screen real fast
around then. F-16? Does it have breasts? No? Whatever man, where are
the girls?

Shawn

Shawn Curry wrote:

F-16? Does it have breasts?

No, but when you finally get to fly one of those pointy-nosed things
you can get all the breasts you want!
The ends justifies the four year drought at the Zoo.

RD

rjciii wrote:
Shawn Curry wrote:


F-16? Does it have breasts?


No, but when you finally get to fly one of those pointy-nosed things
you can get all the breasts you want!
The ends justifies the four year drought at the Zoo.

Sounds like the cadets have been doing just fine without leaving the
grounds.

(rjciii) wrote in message . com...

No, but when you finally get to fly one of those pointy-nosed things
you can get all the breasts you want!
The ends justifies the four year drought at the Zoo.


What four year drought? When I went to the Zoo (back when the Earth
was still cooling) they used to bus girls from the local women's
colleges to dances at the Academy; and even in those Vietnam-era days
there were a lot of women who liked a man in uniform!

I remember the pride we took in the fact that the Zoo was the only
service academy to make it into a list of party schools - sure we
couldn't compete with ASU but we made up in quality what we lacked in
quantity.

And we got to fly jets!

Kirk
Class of 74

(Kirk Stant) wrote:

What four year drought? ...they used to bus girls from the local women's
colleges to dances...

Cattle calls notwithstanding...

RD

rjciii wrote:
(Kirk Stant) wrote:


What four year drought? ...they used to bus girls from the local women's
colleges to dances...


Cattle calls notwithstanding...

Cattle? Damn man, I'm really sorry. At CU we had women.

Shawn Curry wrote:

rjciii wrote:

(Kirk Stant) wrote:


What four year drought? ...they used to bus girls from the local women's
colleges to dances...



Cattle calls notwithstanding...


Cattle? Damn man, I'm really sorry. At CU we had women.

Well, now that I think about it we had wymyn too. Hmm, tough call.
:-)