Lost stories here

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...
So of like the "no **** story" I heard some years ago. Navigator says
"change course 1 degree to port". Pilot says "I can't change course 1
degree". Navigator says "change course 5 degrees to starboard", and
pilot
complies. Then the navigator immediately says "change course 6 degrees
to
port".

That's they way they did radar vectors in the old days (still??) when the
adjustment was only a degree or two.

--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO (MTJ)


Yeah, I was always taught that you couldn't (shouldn't) give a one degree
turn on a PAR or ASR. Rather turn three degrees one way and two back.

When I asked why I was told the stick actuator couldn't do it or it was
easier for him.

Always thought that was BS.

Either because it wasn't up to me to decide what he was capable of doing or
if it really was easier he'd already know that and do it on his own to get
to the assigned heading.

Then there were always the issues of whether the hold-on heading really was
just one degree off or whether the guy could fly within one degree in the
first place. The old measuring with a micrometer and cutting with a
chainsaw thing.

But if you want to pass your rating eval you stick to the conventional
wisdom (at least until you're working on your own ticket ;-)

"nmg175" wrote in message
. ..

"Danny Deger" wrote in message
...

"Danny Deger" wrote in message
...
Post your lost story here, so we can all laugh at them.


Here is my second lost story:

. Man did I feel stupid.

Danny Deger

"Feel"?


OK. Let's be nice :-)

Danny Deger

Speaking of flameouts - we nuggets were trying out our brand new North
American FJ-3D Furys out of Barbers Point NAS when the Hawaii Air National
Guard jumped us. While they were demonstrating how to turn and burn in swept
wing fighters one of us (who shall remain unnamed) flames out. But his fuel
gage still showed 600 lb fuel. Tried three air restarts while proceeding to
the high key over Barbers Point. No luck.

By this time everybody in the air was giving advice on how to get on the
ground in one piece. Nevertheless, the letdown, touchdown, and rollout were
exemplary (naturally). Said pilot was a hero for all of five minutes until
the ops officer crawled into the cockpit to check the fuel switch setting.
Yes there was 600 lb. of fuel on board but it was all in the aft tank and
the aft tank had NOT been hooked up when the tail had been reinstalled after
an engine check. With the fuel switch set on sump only instead of sump and
aft our intrepid aviator would have known when it was time of head for the
barn.

Barrier crash story later

WDA
CDR USN Ret.
InFamous Fury Flyer

end

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 8 Jan 2007 13:51:39 -0700, "Jeff Crowell"
wrote:


Didn't happen to me, but to a friend while we were in Basic
Jet in Kingsville, TX. Late in the Fam series, one each student
and IP in a Tango Two, IP in the back. There was a dingus
back there which let the IP slew the directional gyro in order to
test the S.A. of the stud up front. Approaching the end of the
hop, said IP applied said dingus, and said "let's go home."


I've often commented on the "every German goes to Zippers" program
that was ongoing at Willy Air Patch when I was a student.

We had one of the less gifted Luftwaffe types--a 1/Lt and therefore
class commander of his section. On an area solo in the T-37, late in
the afternoon he was doing prescribed acro and maneuvers. When it came
time to come home, his DG had precessed about 30 degrees. He headed
back on compass heading into the setting Arizona sun.

When he started looking for the turn point to head north to the San
Tan mountains and the pattern entry point, he had flown past Coolidge
AZ and mis-identified Casa Grande as the town. Shortly thereafter when
he didn't find the mountains, he went back to start over. Getting
darker by this time.

Finally he admitted being lost and called up Phoenix FSS for a
"practice DF steer"--something that had been demo'ed for him the week
before. (T-37s did not have transponders in those days.) The FSS tell
him they don't do night practice DFs. He says, "give me one of the
other kind."

Successive DF cuts and an obvious compass error finally gets the DF
controller to head him properly north. Now fuel is becoming a factor
and the sun has set. Really dark out. We hadn't yet reached the night
flying phase of training.

"What do you see?" the controller asks.

"Lots of lights"--i.e. Phoenix.

"Head slightly right of the lights. Tell me what you see."

"Now I see a green and split-white beacon." (A military airfield.)

"That's Williams. Head that way. Contact Williams tower."

Tower sees his lights.He sees the base. Fuel is 75 pounds. Wing DO is
on the radio. DO says "bottom your seat and stow lose equipment."

Student complies, then reality dawns and he says, "it's not yet time
for bailing out, it's time for SFO" (simulated flame-out landing
pattern)

We students in the flight room have heard of Artur's plight, so we run
out onto the flightline. Pitch dark. A flashing beacon and nav lights
appear overhead--no engine noise. A weird whistling of wind over metal
wings, usually masked by the howl of two J-69-T-25 Continentals.

He circles and lands out of an ACTUAL flameout pattern. Logs 2 hours
and 27 minutes of flying time--usual mission duration is about an hour
less.

Research of his gradebook shows previous attempts at 13 SFOs with only
one accomplished successfully. Record of actual flameouts is 100%.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 1257 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!

"mad8" wrote in message
ps.com...

Danny Deger wrote:
Post your lost story here, so we can all laugh at them.

what's annoying is that rec.aviation.stories is (almost) completely
empty because of moderation...


It was empty for a long time for lack of a moderator. But, that problem has
been recently rectified. I was thinking myself that that is where this
thread should have been.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

With the fuel switch set on sump only instead of sump and
aft our intrepid aviator would have known when it was time of head for the
barn.

I'm not sure what this means.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Dan wrote:

Dave Kearton wrote:
Crash Lander wrote:
"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
I had an old friend who had been a UPT student of mine, come through
Holloman for a fast jet requal after a staff job. He'd been a
**Raven** and was generally **crazy**, but a good aviator.
Sorry, but I can't resist. Does this make him a "Raven lunatic"?
Oz/Crash Lander



No, but if a nun starts sleepwalking, she's a roamin' Catholic.



The pope says it's OK to kiss nuns as long as you don't get into the habit.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Thank you for coming to amateur comedy night and don't forget to tip
your waitress.

On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 17:13:36 -0500, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" The Sea
Hawk at wow way d0t com wrote in
:

"mad8" wrote in message
ups.com...

Danny Deger wrote:
Post your lost story here, so we can all laugh at them.

what's annoying is that rec.aviation.stories is (almost) completely
empty because of moderation...


It was empty for a long time for lack of a moderator. But, that problem has
been recently rectified. I was thinking myself that that is where this
thread should have been.

The rec.aviation.stories newsgroup is not for follow up discussion, so
it may not have been the right forum for this thread depending on what
the OP had in mind when he started this message thread.

Here's some information about the rec.aviation.stories newsgroup as
written by the late Mr. Geoff Peck creator of the rec.aviation.*
newsgroup hierarchy:

CHARTER
-------
rec.aviation.stories (MODERATED)
A home for one of the greatest strengths of rec.aviation --
longer postings of stories and experiences, including
descriptions of cross-country trips, "I learned about flying from
that", airshow reports, and so on. The moderator will reject
shorter articles and subjects which aren't appropriate to the
group, and will ensure that articles meet minimum readability
standards (i.e., line lengths).

Follow-ups will be directed to other groups. It is expected that
this group will typically contain only one or two articles a
week.

Articles for anonymous posting will be accepted.

....

rec.aviation.stories
A number of netters brought up this group as a very strong desire
at Oshkosh. People felt that one of the greatest strengths of
the net was the "I was there" stories -- stories which are very
different from the semi-sanitized accounts one sees in commercial
magazines. The desire was to have a forum for these longer
stories, one in which (a) it could be ensured that they'd be
easily found, (b) they wouldn't be intermixed with other stuff,
and (c) they wouldn't get drowned out by follow-ups.

A moderated newsgroup makes sense in this case, and also will
allow a final formatting check to be done to ensure that the
articles are easy to read (line lengths, etc.).

....

Q: "Why _three_ moderated groups?"

A: The three groups serve quite distinct purposes. Most readers
will probably place .announce near the top of their reading
lists, since it will be low-volume and will contain short
articles. Readers will accord .stories a special place, since
they'll want to take the time to sit down and enjoy the few
articles which are posted to that group. And readers will want
to consult .answers when they have a particular question which
they may guess has been asked before -- or when they wish to
start exploring a new area.

Q: "Why aren't there more moderated groups?"

A: I believe that on the most part that we have a really good
group of individuals on the net, and trust them to post
appropriately. Sometimes, this doesn't happen, but this is
relatively rare. In my opinion, a group should be moderated only
when the group's charter inherently requires careful filtering of
content -- announcements (i.e., rec.aviation.events), automated
dissemination (rec.aviation.answers), editing
(rec.aviation.digest), or editorial style control
(rec.aviation.stories). Ideally, a moderated group would
should [sic] sufficiently low traffic that most readers are happy
to read it first -- before any unmoderated groups.

An alternative philosophy to group moderation is to use it as a
mechanism to reduce "noisy" posts. One caveat here is that one's
person signal may be another person's noise. If a group which is
created by this re-organization turns out to be "noisy", an
RFD/CFV can be done to convert that troup [sic] to moderated. I
suggest that it's preferable to try most groups as an unmoderated
group first and see if (a) moderation is _really_ necessary and
(b) a moderator volunteers.
....

Larry Dighera wrote:
The rec.aviation.stories newsgroup is not for follow up discussion, so
it may not have been the right forum for this thread depending on what
the OP had in mind when he started this message thread.

You can of course modify the charter or try experimental (i.e. temporary)
changes to the charter if you feel it would be useful. As moderator you
pretty much "own" the group.

The stories group appears to have been dormant many years before the
original moderator died. Perhaps allowing follow-ups might be useful - in
this case the thread itself was a call for stories and it appears most of
them would have been appropriate to that group. IMHO I suspect the original
r.a.s charter was flawed - shorter stories should have been allowed as well
as follow-ups.

I've heard of a few airplanes lost in Canada that still haven't been
recovered, and there are many in the US and Canada in the rockies that
have been found... but are so inaccesible that they will never be
brought back.

On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 00:31:32 -0000, Jim Logajan wrote in :

Larry Dighera wrote:
The rec.aviation.stories newsgroup is not for follow up discussion, so
it may not have been the right forum for this thread depending on what
the OP had in mind when he started this message thread.

You can of course modify the charter or try experimental (i.e. temporary)
changes to the charter if you feel it would be useful. As moderator you
pretty much "own" the group.

The stories group appears to have been dormant many years before the
original moderator died. Perhaps allowing follow-ups might be useful - in
this case the thread itself was a call for stories and it appears most of
them would have been appropriate to that group. IMHO I suspect the original
r.a.s charter was flawed - shorter stories should have been allowed as well
as follow-ups.

Jim is a longtime Usenet moderator. He knows more
about this stuff than I do.

He's 100% right.

You're free to modify the policies of the group
as time goes on.

See what works.

A newsgroup with no news is no fun. (

Marty
--
Big-8 newsgroups: humanities.*, misc.*, news.*, rec.*, sci.*, soc.*, talk.*
See http://www.big-8.org for info on how to add or remove newsgroups.