If yiu didn't fight in WW II.....

"Mike Marron" wrote in message
...
"Mike Marron" wrote:

Yet you appear to blame them for not doing so.

Bullroar. I'm going to give you and sergeant dan and anyone else
who thinks like y'all do the exact same advice I often give my ab
initio students when they try reading the FAR's. When you read these
postings Keith, simply ignore the white parts and just concentrate on
the black parts (thems called "words.") Don't read into things that
"appear" to be there cos' they really aren't there. Again, just focus
on the black parts (e.g: the "words") exactly as they're written and
forget about the white spaces in between and you won't confuse
yourself. OK?

Throughtout this, and the previous thread, you fail to call the 'government'
to task for not ordering your 'preemptive airstrikes'. You do, however, call
the Air Force to task for not conducting those strikes.

When asked "What could the Air Force have done differently?", you introduce
the idea of preemptive strikes. The USAF is not in the business of
conducting unilateral preemptive strikes. Thay are in the business of
conducting whatever the administration asks for.

You also repeatedly use the term "on 9/11".

As in:
"Let's just hope and pray the USAF never ever "functions" again like it
did back on Sept 11, 2001."

"The USAF, in addition to the USN, Army and Marine
Corps along with the various civilian intelligence and national
security agencies completely and totally failed to defend the
good ol' U.S. of A. on 11 Sept, 2001."

"my contention is simply that the USAF, along with the
various civilian U.S. intelligence agencies, dropped the ball BIG time
on 9/11."

There would seem to be two different environments for action. 'Pre-9/11'
(intel, and your presumed 'preemptive strikes'), and 'on 9/11' (as events
were happening). The two are not the same.

The above statements (by you) seem to point to a failing during the latter.

True?

Pete
Sscreech, ignore, or respond in a rational manner. Your choice.

Mike Marron wrote:
"George Z. Bush" wrote:
"Mike Marron" wrote:

Shows how much YOU know about professional aviation (try flight
instructing someday and enjoy having roadkill for dinner every night).
But hey, as bad as it was (and occassionally still is) flying damn
sure beats working for a living!

Funny you should say that. I know a guy who thought that way for the 15 ks a
year or so that he made flying those checks around in all kinds of wx. After
his accident, he kind of developed a different attitude about it. One of the
reasons was that he pretty much had to find some other way to buy the
groceries because he was devoted to eating, could no longer pass his flight
physical, and he couldn't get his folks to foot that kind of bill for him.

So now he's an RN and, aside from the seamier aspects of his job, like
wiping an occasional behind or two for patients who're too sick to do it for
themselves, he works twice as hard as he ever did when he was a heroic and
adventurous flyboy and earns three times as much and then some.

Not only that, but he sometimes mentions that his Mom and Dad still look on
him as a hero even though he no longer displays that "wild blue yonder"
stare that we old farts all tried to copy from the recruiting posters during
those days when our hearts were young and gay (in the old fashioned
non-sexual sense). (*-*)))

My wife happens to be an ICU/CCU nurse but you couldn't pay me enough
$$$ to do what *she* does for a living (urk!)

Great story George )

Thanks. Sometimes, I get on a roll and enjoy seeing what I am thinking appear
in print on my bubble machine. It's even better when somebody else also says
that they enjoy it as well. Thanks again.

George Z.

From: "Mike Marron"
"Keith Willshaw" wrote:
"Mike Marron" wrote:

Lack of enforcement and apprehension is one thing, lack of airstrikes
against Taliban and Al-Quida training camps is an entirely different
thing.

Those decisions are made by the Government not the USAF,

The government relys in part on Air Force intelligence resources to
make those decisions.

Those resources are directed outside of the Air Force as to what
to gather. Going beyond those directions would get them slapped
down as surely as not going as far.

You can continue to blame 9/11 on everyone BUT the Air Force if you wish,

I don't. I don't blame the Navy, Marines, Army or Coast Guard either.
Which is not to say I blame the, oh, Indiana State Police or the
Center for Disease Control.

but that's like blaming everyone BUT the Army Air Corp for Dec 7, 1941.

I don't blame them either. The blame lies fully above their pay grade.

blame the President and his advisers if you feel there were grounds for
such airstrikes but I dont recall any clamour from you on the
subject before Sept 11 2001

You might not recall them, but I certainly castigated Bill for the lack.

The gathering and processing of intelligence never was a part of my
job.

Naw, you don't say...

My job was to simply fly checks, federal bank notes, nuclear
medicine stuff etc. in Cessna 210's.

Must be your fault for not reporting the lack of security then.

"George Z. Bush" wrote:

Funny you should say that. I know a guy who thought that way for the 15 ks a
year or so that he made flying those checks around in all kinds of wx. After
his accident, he kind of developed a different attitude about it. One of the
reasons was that he pretty much had to find some other way to buy the
groceries because he was devoted to eating, could no longer pass his flight
physical, and he couldn't get his folks to foot that kind of bill for him.

So now he's an RN and, aside from the seamier aspects of his job, like
wiping an occasional behind or two for patients who're too sick to do it for
themselves, he works twice as hard as he ever did when he was a heroic and
adventurous flyboy and earns three times as much and then some.

Not only that, but he sometimes mentions that his Mom and Dad still look on
him as a hero even though he no longer displays that "wild blue yonder"
stare that we old farts all tried to copy from the recruiting posters during
those days when our hearts were young and gay (in the old fashioned
non-sexual sense). (*-*)))



George Z.

Actually, you know his Mom & Dad rather well, don't you?

Bob McKellar

From: Mike Marron


(B2431) wrote:

Marron has no idea how the Air Force functions or what its mission is.

Ooops, I thought you wanted to play nice? Guess not huh sarge?
You didn't even know that Air Force Intelligence, Surveillance, and
Reconnaissance (ISR) specialists EXISTED, much less that they were
heavily involved in counterterrorist ops. With regards to how the Air
Force functions or what its mission is, obviously to YOU its function
was to simply provide you with three hots and and a cot until you put
in your time so that you could kick back in the Florida sunshine for
the remainder of your pathetic existance.
Once again you resort to personal attacks.

As for intel and recon neither the USAF nor any other branch is permitted to do
this contrary to U.S. policy. The military does NOT make this policy. Any
commander who had his men violate said policy was subject to discipline.

As for knowing what "specialists existed" all I ever had to do was read USAF
publications which I did. Photo recon and its derivatice AFSCs has never been
classified.

I made no personal attack, it is evident you don't understand how the USAF
works, so please act like a mature adult.

As for how I wound up in Florida I was assigned to special ops for the last 14
years I was in. Think Hurlburt, Duke and Eglin. As for those "counterterrorist
ops" I was there and you weren't.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"Mike Marron" wrote in message
...
"Mike Marron" wrote:
"Keith Willshaw" wrote:

Personally I'd be extremely concerned if some branch of the armed
services started taking military action without orders from the
Government.

Straw man argument. Nobody said some branch of the armed services
should commence military action w/o orders from the government. Nice
try, though. )

Yet you appear to blame them for not doing so.

Bullroar. I'm going to give you and sergeant dan and anyone else
who thinks like y'all do the exact same advice I often give my ab
initio students when they try reading the FAR's. When you read these
postings Keith, simply ignore the white parts and just concentrate on
the black parts (thems called "words.") Don't read into things that
"appear" to be there cos' they really aren't there. Again, just focus
on the black parts (e.g: the "words") exactly as they're written and
forget about the white spaces in between and you won't confuse
yourself. OK?


So you are keen on words , lets review some of YOURS.
When asked WHY the USAF was culpable you replied

"Lack of enforcement and apprehension is one thing, lack of airstrikes
against Taliban and Al-Quida training camps is an entirely different
thing."

These are the black parts you typed stating that the USAF
should have taken military action. If they had orders
from the Government to do so and failed they would be derelict.
In the absence of such orders they are not.

Keith

Mike Marron wrote:

"Mike Marron" wrote:

"Keith Willshaw" wrote:

Personally I'd be extremely concerned if some branch of the armed
services started taking military action without orders from the
Government.

Straw man argument. Nobody said some branch of the armed services
should commence military action w/o orders from the government. Nice
try, though. )

Yet you appear to blame them for not doing so.

Bullroar. I'm going to give you and sergeant dan and anyone else
who thinks like y'all do the exact same advice I often give my ab
initio students when they try reading the FAR's. When you read these
postings Keith, simply ignore the white parts and just concentrate on
the black parts (thems called "words.") Don't read into things that
"appear" to be there cos' they really aren't there. Again, just focus
on the black parts (e.g: the "words") exactly as they're written and
forget about the white spaces in between and you won't confuse
yourself. OK?

Well I confess to being in the same boat of confusion over
what you've written.

Perhaps if I don't read the black parts of the sentence along
with the white, it will all begin to make sense.


SMH

Which qualifies you to do what exactly (beside comment on the difficulties
of living the life of a bottom feeder in the realm of professional
aviation)?


I will have to take exception with classifying freight dogs as bottom feeders.
While it doesnt have the pay of major airliner flying, nor any of the other
benefits and nice aircraft, they are still pilots nonetheless, who are usually
working hard to move up into other aspects of aviation. "Bottom feeder" gives
somewhat of a parasitic, or low class characterization of them. That attitude
is what reinforces stereotypes of big iron pilots as thinking they are better
than other pilots, and just too good to be sullied by being around pilots of
lesser aircraft.

Fact is, I would put the IFR skills and knowledge of a check flying freight
dog, against any big iron pilot, and the small box freight pilot is going to
come out on top.

I do not think it serves anyones purposes to belittle the guys who are up all
night, or day flying the small freight around the country. They certainly work
a lot harder than the guys who fly the big iron, and if they have a gripe, they
are certainly going to have a lot more reason to do so. I think all
professional pilots should treat each other as professionals and collegues,
regardless of aircraft size.


Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)

Ron wrote:
Fact is, I would put the IFR skills and knowledge of a check flying freight
dog, against any big iron pilot, and the small box freight pilot is going to
come out on top.


Ditto. As a former freight dog/courier pilot/charter pilot, I was expected to
fly every day, Monday-Friday regardless of weather. I was also flying at times
aircraft that were the state of the art the year I was born. There was no
climbing out of weather; you were in it for the entire flight... unlike heavy
iron pilots who often log one or two tenths on each end of a leg in IFR but
spend the majority of the flight in clear air. No auto pilot or copilot
either... you were PIC and if you didn't do it, it didn't get done.

I developed some pretty outstanding IFR skills. I also flew about 2500 of my
2600 hours as pilot in command. I have a buddy who flies jets for a commuter.
He's got more time than me now but almost all of his time is either as a primary
instructor or as a copilot. He keeps looking for the next job rather than
sticking around long enough to make captain. I think he's gotten too
comfortable allowing somebody else to make his decisions for him, but I digress.

I believe you'll find most freight pilots are working towards a goal. Flying
freight ain't it. But you can't buy the skills developed flying freight with
cash....



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN


http://www.mortimerschnerd.com

362436 (Ron) wrote:

I will have to take exception with classifying freight dogs as bottom feeders.
While it doesnt have the pay of major airliner flying, nor any of the other
benefits and nice aircraft, they are still pilots nonetheless, who are usually
working hard to move up into other aspects of aviation. "Bottom feeder" gives
somewhat of a parasitic, or low class characterization of them. That attitude
is what reinforces stereotypes of big iron pilots as thinking they are better
than other pilots, and just too good to be sullied by being around pilots of
lesser aircraft.

Fact is, I would put the IFR skills and knowledge of a check flying freight
dog, against any big iron pilot, and the small box freight pilot is going to
come out on top.

I do not think it serves anyones purposes to belittle the guys who are up all
night, or day flying the small freight around the country. They certainly work
a lot harder than the guys who fly the big iron, and if they have a gripe, they
are certainly going to have a lot more reason to do so. I think all
professional pilots should treat each other as professionals and collegues,
regardless of aircraft size.

I'm no longer a freight dog, but as you know I still fly trikes --the
Great Equalizers. In other words, any talented person with no prior
flight experience can learn to fly a trike and effortlessly outfly
pilots with thousands of hours in "big iron" and "fast jets" flying
the same.

Two years ago I flat out refused to train Bob Wall, a retired Lt. Col.
and former F-100 jock because of his "holier than thou" attitude. He
then attempted to train himself and predictably died on his very first
flight.

Last year another former jock (F-15) and AF test pilot school grad I
knew also killed himself in a trike. The previous year I attended Sun
'N Fun with "Witch" and his buddy whom had flown down together
to learn more about trikes. Two minutes after meeting the guy I could
tell that the guy was an accident just waiting to happen. Well, it did
happen and "Witch" left behind a wife and three young sons.

The bottom line is that not only would I put the IFR skills and
knowledge of a check flying freight dog up against any "big iron"
pilot, but I'd also put the motor skills, sheer "seat-of-the-pants"
flying skills and lightning quick reflexes of a good trike pilot up
against any "fast jet" pilot.