USAF F-16 Instructor Discusses Flying Into MOAs

On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 13:27:51 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
:


In the same vein, why did you state that the tapes are normally
retained for 45 days when you knew it was not pertinent to this
discussion?


Because you said tapes were retained for 15 days. Had you read what you
posted you'd have known THAT was not pertinent to this discussion.


Oh, I believe the 15-day tape retention is pertinent. If it were
something less, the tapes wouldn't have been available to FAA
investigators.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 13:27:51 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
:


In the same vein, why did you state that the tapes are normally
retained for 45 days when you knew it was not pertinent to this
discussion?


Because you said tapes were retained for 15 days. Had you read what you
posted you'd have known THAT was not pertinent to this discussion.


Oh, I believe the 15-day tape retention is pertinent. If it were
something less, the tapes wouldn't have been available to FAA
investigators.


What had you believed the tape retention period to be?

Mxsmanic wrote:
Gig 601Xl Builder writes:

From what the AF has said and say they have tapes to back up there was
no violation of the FARs.

I'll believe that when the AF releases the tapes.


Not that I care what you believe but the Platypus driver doesn't have
any tapes to prove what he said. So, given the word of an Air Force
Officer and the word of someone I have no idea who he is I'll go with
the AF.

On Apr 22, 12:43*pm, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:

Not that I care what you believe but the Platypus driver doesn't have
any tapes to prove what he said. So, given the word of an Air Force
Officer and the word of someone I have no idea who he is I'll go with
the AF.

Plus the word of the Bizjet pilot. So two different pilots reported
the same situation to ATC.

-Robert

On Apr 23, 7:43*am, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:
Gig 601Xl Builder writes:

From what the AF has said and say they have tapes to back up there was
no violation of the FARs.

I'll believe that when the AF releases the tapes.

Not that I care what you believe but the Platypus driver doesn't have
any tapes to prove what he said. So, given the word of an Air Force
Officer and the word of someone I have no idea who he is I'll go with
the AF.

Being an airforce pilot does not automatically imply honesty when his
ass is on the line.

Cheers

On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 12:56:54 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps
wrote in
:

Being an airforce pilot does not automatically imply honesty when his
ass is on the line.

Oh, you mean like the US pilot(s) who suppressed evidence in the fatal
European funicular strike.

On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 12:48:52 -0700 (PDT), "Robert M. Gary"
wrote in
:

On Apr 22, 12:43*pm, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:

Not that I care what you believe but the Platypus driver doesn't have
any tapes to prove what he said. So, given the word of an Air Force
Officer and the word of someone I have no idea who he is I'll go with
the AF.

Plus the word of the Bizjet pilot. So two different pilots reported
the same situation to ATC.


I'm hoping the ATC radar tapes are of sufficient resolution to
conclusively prove that the distance between the F-16 and the GA
aircraft was closer than 600' as the USAF claims.

On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:43:20 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote in
:

the Platypus driver doesn't have any tapes to prove what he said.

Apparently the FAA has voice and radar tapes. Unfortunately they,
like the USAF, are both part of the same organization: US government.
But, not to worry. There won't be any conflict of interest. :-)

"Viperdoc" wrote in message
...

I can't answer that since I wasn't there, but was simply making the point
that the military is usually responsible for separation in a MOA, so FARs
regarding spacing, proximity, etc. don't apply.


What is it you can't answer because you were not there?

If you include a bit of the message you're responding to your own message
might make some sense.

On Apr 22, 1:47*pm, "Viperdoc" wrote:
Larry:

Are you also suggesting by bringing up the topic that the Air Force pilots
were using amphetamines? Do you have some evidence to support this, or are
you like Anthony in trying to stir the pot and get yourself some attention?

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/a...97/cornum.html

"The policies concerning stimulants ultimately evolved into Air Force
Regulation (AFR) 161--33/TAC Supplement 1. TAC sanctioned the use of
amphetamine because single--seat pilots are particularly susceptible
to the effects of boredom and fatigue during deployments overseas and
during extended combat air patrols. Maj David Caskey, an Air Force
F--15 pilot, reported using “go” pills routinely when flying from the
United States to Germany, Japan, or Thailand. He recounted that some
pilots refused to take them, saying they didn't need them; however, he
pointed out that one time, an entire flight diverted to a base in
England because some pilots simply couldn't stay awake en route to
their destination in Germany.13 "

-Robert