HuggyU2

I would have, too. But it turns out that it is "statute". The reason, I'm guessing is that 50 statute miles (264,000 feet), or ~80 kilometers, is the US standard for being an astronaut. The international standard, set by the Federation Aeronautique Internationale (FAI) and used by everyone else, is 100 kilometers, or 328,000 feet. If you remember the Space Ship One flight a couple of years ago, that aircraft's registration was N328KF, as in 328 thousand feet, which was their goal.

Nope, note even close.

A couple more for you. Here's Napa Valley and the Grand Canyon:

If you only knew. They had those pencil holders in the old C-models "back in the day". There are some things they originally put in the cockpit, and are still there, that just make you scratch your noggin'. It's downright comical. When I was new at the whole pressure-suit-thing, I had a sortie where I dropped 5 of the 6 pencils I had in the jet. Isn't that when you'd yell "Winchester" in a fighter?? You're out of 30mm, and I'm out of pencils. The pencil is mightier than,..... nevermind. Most folks now carry those long, metal, flexible things with the claws on the end, so you can get stuff off the cockpit floor, and they work great. We're finally putting the pencil holders on the glare shield. What I'd really like is something like the A-10 saddle bags, or whatever y'all called them. The cockpit is an F-104 cockpit widened about 10" and made about 8" deeper. The yoke is a C-130 yoke. Do you Herc guys have those pencil holders? Yes, that's a Garmin. We attach one (we now use the color 296 or 396) to the left mirror with a rubber band. Works great. This is an old shot (about 3 years), and the old display on the right has been replaced with another 6x8 display, i.e. we now have three 6x8 displays. The moving map is a piece of FOD, but works for what we're using it for. The moving map I've flown with in the Cirrus is a heck of a lot nicer. Overall, though, the displays are nice. There's a small 3x3 backup display on the emergency bus that will get you back should you lose your main MFD's. It provides attitude, heading, altitude, speed, mach, and ILS/LOC capability. Overall, though, 52 years of U-2 tradition, unhampered by progress. Gotta love it.

This is sort of a big week in U-2 history. On 1 Aug 1955, the U-2 taxi test at Groom Lake (Area 51) got airborne, making it the first "unofficial" flight in the Deuce. On 4 Aug (today) 1955, the first "official" flight took place, again with Tony LeVier at the controls. Not sure, but I think 8 Aug 1955 was the " 'official' official first flight", with VIP's in attendance to witness it. Also, coincidently enough, Gary Powers died on 1 Aug 1977 in a helicopter accident. I met a few former U-2 drivers at Oshkosh last week that knew him. They said he was a real gentleman, and all spoke highly of the man. Here's a shot over NE Afghanistan.

No argument there, Rainman,... you're right. I think you and I mean the same thing ---- 90% of the time anyways,---- it's just "semantics" or the way we type things out on the keyboard. You tend to be a bit more "hardcore" on this type of thing than I do: not that that's good or bad, just different, and probably a function of our aviation upbringing. Like I said, after re-reading this, I think we just word it differently.

Yes, I can: that rumor is false. As for PIT, we send a few pilots to PIT each year. For others, we do a local IPUG using the ACC IPUG syllabus. Depends on their background.

Merriam-Webster: "buffoonery": foolish or playful behavior or practice. If these guys did an unbriefed maneuver, and one that is generally prohibited at Oshkosh, then that's foolish, and it's a flight discipline issue. Now, I don't know this is the case, so don't assume I do. However, I've got enough tailwheel time to know that you can do your best, and still have things get away from you on the runway. If that happens with another aircraft in close proximity, folks will get hurt and fabric will get torn. Did #1 drift in front of #2 on this landing? It's hard to tell from the video, and I don't know the answer. As for "excusing pilot error", that's bit of a misnomer. We've been down this path before, but the bottom line is that many pilots have died, and those of us still alive have had the luxury of sitting back and saying "If they only would have done it this way, it would have been ok." I've seen jets get bent and folks hurt --- and so have you ---- in situations where I wouldn't call it "buffoonery". Other times, it occured when pilots did things that were not very smart: I suppose you could call it "buffoonery". Me, I do excuse pilot error, at least with professional pilots. I don't "make excuses". I recognize that God didn't make me, my mobile, or my wingman perfect,... and that they will err. We debrief it, learn, and move on. To not "excuse it" implies that I take it personally. Unless it's someone doing something unprofessional and undisciplined, I'll let it go after it's debriefed. However, if it's a flight discipline issue, then the story just begins to develop.

Not true: ACC is not getting the C-model.

It was a TBM Avenger and an RV-6. There's probably a bit more to it than that.

Anyone here going? If so, look for the guy wearing the "Huggy" nametag, and say hi. After hours, try Fratello's, Acey Deucey, or Charcoal Pit.

Halleluiah!!! Reopen the A-10 production line!!! The phrase is "champing at the bit": I was corrected by a good friend on this very matter about 2 months ago. But whether it is "champing" or "chomping", I'd be doing both.

A little known commercial from last year, from IWC Swiss watches. And, yes, that's John Malkovich... His quote about why the guys aren't real pilots is classic. https://www.iwc.com/messepopup_2006/pilotmo..._mov_big-en.asp

Not a tough choice. I'll take the 1.5 solo in the airplane. Everytime.

Pretty good stuff, I also thought. I've been speaking with the President of FAST for about 18 months. I'll hopefully get the full story at Oshkosh, but it seems there was a push from many folks to get away from the T34 Manual, and do what the bulk of military pilots do. These organizations that sign on as signatories to FAST (there are about 15 of them) need more pilots with your kind of background, Hacker. Definitely look into it when your time allows. I hope more jet guys get involved: although there's a lot to learn about flying formation in these smaller, high performance prop planes, military-trained pilots can really be an asset to these organizations.

So, Bergman,... what did you end up doing? Probably just like me and decided to keep renting!? If still interested, try a Great Lakes. If you can get to Phoenix, Chander Air Service gives dual in theirs. https://www.aerobatics.com/aerobatics.html A bit pricey by comparison, but they have a good reputation.

Currently flying with a Garmin 296 and Pilot III, in both military and civilian applications. Love both. The 296 is nice, but having the 396/496/whatever it's called would be huge: on cross-countries, having that near-real-time WX picture would be money. I flew with one back in Oct, and it made a big difference WRT weather.

Hacker, That is no longer correct... but the change is very recent. They used to use the T-34 Association's Formation Manual (not the USN's, but it is heavily influence in that direction), but have since developed their own, as a result of many outside influences. Their formation manual is about 90% USAF, with a sprinkling of USN and civililan in there. I did a proof read of it, and found it to be pretty good. They literally copied word-for-word many of the things that are found in the USAF T-37/T-6/T-38 manuals. The new visual signal are due to be published any day now (or might have been, but I can't find them yet), and will mirror USAF much more than the T-34 manual did. Attached is an example of their Chapter 3. Ch3_M_9Apr1200.pdf

Volunteer for the Civil Air Patrol. It can be painful getting involved initially, but states like CA, TX and AZ have a very robust search-and-rescue mission. I flew a C-206 with them for a while: if you have your private pilot license, that can be a benefit.

What's "the OPS community" in your opinion? Does it include MX? Intel? The admin staff in your flying squadron? Just curious how you delineate. Retarded salutes? Your opinion is noted, but irrelevant. Either abide by customs-and-courtesies, as they are done throughout the US military, or admit you won't 'cause you "think it's gay". If American POW's can show the professional respect to their captors in a POW camp by saluting officers that outrank them, then I'll salute those that outrank me. How about saluting a Sergeant? Is that ok? I did that once when I met him outdoors and he was wearing the Medal of Honor. I know that many officers now refer to their 1-striper Airman as "dude", and "homey", and by their first name. I see it all the time. Change of culture, I suppose. And I guess part of that culture is to get a skin as thin as rice paper, and an "it's all about me" attitude. That's what this is all about, isn't it? "I don't want to salute [pick your category] because it's retarded/gay/dumb." "It's all about what I want." Oh,... the earlier comment about how they wouldn't salute a 1Lt, unless he had wings: YGBSM.

Guess not: while 2Lt's have probably saluted with indifference for years, it's certainly no tradition that I'm aware of. Maybe, in the Age of SNAPs, revisionist history took over, and all the things that these folks wanted to have changed were suddently "tradition". I swear, some of you make it sound like rendering a salute is just downright painful, or causes you to feel low self-esteem. I just don't get it. If the salute is appropriate, render it. I've seen a 4-star get saluted by a 3-star. And they are pretty good buds. So why is it that I shouldn't have saluted a 1Lt when I was a 2Lt? If it eats you up this much to have to salute a 1Lt, then go join IBM. No saluting required there. I know. I worked there.

Fair enough, Stifler. But, you know the situation: you're walking to lunch, and approaching an enlisted airman. You know he'll salute you, and he's waiting until the last second. Let's just get it over with, puulleeessse. I just don't want to walk up, cocked and ready, waiting to return his salute (which I'm obliged to do) when he's good-and-ready to deliver it. So, I just initiate the process and get it out of the way. I'm not worked up by it,... I just want to go to lunch, say high to a fellow airman, and push through the formalities. And my crew chiefs usually get a kick out of it when I salute them first. If you think that's gay, then don't go to lunch with me. And, assuming you're a Captain, why would it bother you if a 1Lt saluted you?

When I was a 2Lt, I saluted 1Lt's. Was it a big deal. No. It is a military courtesy, and simply a military greeting. Did it hurt me? No. When I was a 1Lt, if I didn't get saluted by a 2Lt, I didn't say anything. I really didn't care. Now days, when walking toward enlisted, it seems the new, young airmen are taught to salute within some super close proximity to me. Screw that: when I figure out they're enlisted, and I'm at the range when would say "hey", I give them a salute. It's usually good for a laugh.

BrewMaster, I'm not mad/upset with you. You asked a legit question after seeing what happened, and I think you're enlightened. I appreciate you being open minded to this subject. As you can see, many military pilots are pretty sensitive to this. I'm also a member of AOPA. I support them most times, but one area I don't is their constant fight to stop DoD from opening new Special Use Airspace. When the military tries to change a MOA to a restricted area, AOPA usually fights and wins. As a result, it remains a MOA, and you are legal to fly through it VFR. I don't know if you've got kids, but for the sake of my kids, I appreciate it when the G.A. aircraft avoid the MOA's: when I die, I'd like an open-casket funeral. If I encounter a -172 at 400 knots, that's not going to happen.

The FAA is looking at a major revamp of Part 61 of the FARs. They listed those changes via an NPRM, and the public comment period ended on 8 May. Of interest to us here is that they want to change the process for military instructor pilots to get their CFI certificate. In summary, it will simplify the process to basically a mil competency test, and a few other minor hoops to jump through. The FAA guy running this hopes to have it published by the end of the year. I spoke to the folks at NAFI, and they said their was a lot of support for this in the comment period, and that they expect it will go through. It's not a done deal, but looks very promising. I've stopped my CFI training for now, and will wait it out (and hopefully save a few thousand $$ in the process).