Guardian Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 Yes I read the Saftey privileged AIB as well. I know that your oversimplification of the findings wasn't everything found. Weird, AIB's aren't privileged information. Sounds like someone needs to be educated by their safety shop. Deflect deflect deflect. Just admit fault and move on dude.
Jaded Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 Are you ashamed of your airframe? Is that why you won't post it? 1
Guardian Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 Nope. I'm comfortable knowing that it takes more skill to fly what I do than the 135. Not belittling anyone just stating fact. That is all. If you choose to get emotional about the facts of your vocation then perhaps you should look internally instead of blaming me.
Jaded Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 I'm a fighter guy, and I love giving tanker guys a hard time, but expressing a belief that the 135 is easy to fly sounds like something an ignorant finance officer might say if he wandered into the wrong corner of the internet. Did someone let scoobs change his username again? 6
Guardian Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 Just repeating what other guys I know who have been fighter, bomber, or RPA pilots who have also flown the tanker have told me. In all cases those individuals have said that those airframes are much more challenging than the tanker. If you don't like it then maybe you should talk to some individuals like that and ask yourself. Or better yet go strap one on and get some first hand knowledge. Might be something smart to do instead of getting emotional about skills required to do something or not. Your argument isn't grounded in anything but emotion. Having fun with assumptions yet jaded or are you ready to throw some more unfounded BS out? 1
Lord Ratner Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 1 hour ago, Guardian said: Copy. Not harder than any other airplane and has normal problems that trained pilots are trained to deal with. You strike me as either a troll or an idiot, but in any case, having flown a few different planes now, and a few more in their simulators, the tanker (135) is probably the second hardest to land in the AF. I haven't flown a fighter, but I have yet to meet anyone who has flown both fighters and stratotankers and thought the fighter harder to land.
Guardian Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 Copy. Not harder than any other airplane and has normal problems that trained pilots are trained to deal with. You strike me as either a troll or an idiot, but in any case, having flown a few different planes now, and a few more in their simulators, the tanker (135) is probably the second hardest to land in the AF. I haven't flown a fighter, but I have yet to meet anyone who has flown both fighters and stratotankers and thought the fighter harder to land. Sure it may be harder to land. Fine. You can have that. What other avenues of difficulty make it more challenging to employ than any other airplane? On the average, the tanker as a whole is one of the easiest airplanes in the Air Force inventory to fly. That is my argument and I have yet to hear anyone disagree.
Guardian Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 Copy. Not harder than any other airplane and has normal problems that trained pilots are trained to deal with. You strike me as either a troll or an idiot, but in any case, having flown a few different planes now, and a few more in their simulators, the tanker (135) is probably the second hardest to land in the AF. I haven't flown a fighter, but I have yet to meet anyone who has flown both fighters and stratotankers and thought the fighter harder to land. Sure it may be harder to land. Fine. You can have that. What other avenues of difficulty make it more challenging to employ than any other airplane? On the average, the tanker as a whole is one of the easiest airplanes in the Air Force inventory to fly. That is my argument and I have yet to hear anyone disagree. So please, stop taking my argument out of context or attacking one little thing while missing the big picture. I am not emotional about this nor have I been. It is characteristic of those who can't form a logical argument or who have nothing left to provide on a topic to get emotional and start bringing up ill conceived thoughts like using the dead as an example how the tanker is harder to fly than other platforms in the inventory. Also 2nd hardest to land in the inventory or your personal platforms flown? Qualify your position.
Guardian Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 Oh and did everyone miss that I apologized several posts ago if I offended anyone?
Lord Ratner Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 1 minute ago, Guardian said: So please, stop taking my argument out of context or attacking one little thing while missing the big picture. I am not emotional about this nor have I been. It is characteristic of those who can't form a logical argument or who have nothing left to provide on a topic to get emotional and start bringing up ill conceived thoughts like using the dead as an example how the tanker is harder to fly than other platforms in the inventory. Also 2nd hardest to land in the inventory or your personal platforms flown? Qualify your position. UAVs. Those are easier to fly, are often even lower in the UPT class distribution than AWACS and KC-135s to McConnell, and fit the rest of your criteria. As for qualifying my position, I've been a T-6 FAIP, MC-12 MC, Tanker pilot, flown a couple civilian puddle jumper planes, and some seat time in the C-17, A-10, and KC-10 simulators flying patterns. I've also had my three carnival rides in the U-2, which would have gone much better had I done the interview after 500 hours in the -135. So far you've been wrong about Shell 77, obnoxious in your fervor and posting rate, and unwilling to clearly state your flying history, so until those conditions change, I'll go back to lurking. BREAK BREAK I posted in the promotions thread, but it's relevant here. Allegedly, all six school selects at Lakenheath had declined school. Since school is a similar commitment as taking the bonus, this is another bad sign for retention, with the notable difference that these six are ostensibly the top six dudes according to the AF. If the promise of an easier path to O-6 isn't enough to keep them, I doubt an extra 10K will change the tide. 2
Guardian Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 I know tanker pilots that would disagree with your assessment of RPAs being easier to fly. Some of which who have crashed an RPA or screwed up a strike and never had one problem in the tanker. Also I don't need to qualify my flying history for my arguments to be valid. I don't need to thump my chest to make an argument. As for those and other assertions you make, we'll agree to disagree then and change the topic. As for the Cols. I agree with your comment on the take. I think that the extra 10k is only going to convince those on the fence which is likely to be a small percentage. Which it seems would only be the equivalent to throwing a slightly larger stone into a lake with the hopes of making larger waves instead of a ripple.
ned1 Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 Yes it is time to double Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk
Duck Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 Guardian. Glad it takes so much skill to fly whatever it is you don't want to tell us you fly. Unless it is the U-2, it isn't harder to land than the 135. The KC-135 mission is by far one of the, if not the easiest flying missions in the Air Force. I can say that as a prior KC-135 guy. I spent 3 years flying as an associate with a KC-135 ANG unit which had airline guys who came to us from the Viper, Eagle, Hawg, Harrier and Hornet. Their previous missions were undoubtedly more complex than anything we did, however every single one of them took a considerable amount of time to figure out how to land the bitch. It takes new co-pilots on average a year to land consistently. Believe it or not, your Evaluator experience and hard fought CFI doesn't directly translate to every plane in the Air Force inventory. Unless you have flown the tanker you have no credibility to talk bro. Just like I have no credibility to tell you how easy it is to airdrop or do a 2v2 or fly the president or whatever you claim to do. 3
Guardian Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 Thanks duck. I appreciate your points and think they have been the best stated so far. You're right. I have never been a tanker pilot. And I don't disagree that it is probably one of the hardest planes to land. It sounds terrible. And I'm not trying to belittle landing her or flying her at all. Just repeating what I have been told about the tanker being easier overall and I didn't see the need for anyone to have a problem with and FTU instructor showing up with 0 IP time. Thanks again for your comments and I aspire to be able to present facts in a succinct matter of fact way without hitting other people's emotional response buttons. I hope this is dead unless you guys want to beat up on me some more. 1
Duck Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 Thanks Guardian. I hated the Tanker by the way. Was thrown into it out of T-38s back in '08 so I am just thankful I got a plane back in the day where we were overmanned in fighters (lol). But yeah, the plane's terrible. The guard was fun, lots of Pacific AEs flying nurses from Travis to Hickam and partying on the beach. That was the hardest part of flying the tanker, picking one nurse to go back to the hotel with... I jest, I jest... Or do I? 1
ILoveScotch Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 My penis is bigger than all of yours. Because I fly a ______. Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk 2
herkbum Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 Guardian- stop asking other folks to qualify their positions or state their airframe when you refuse to do so yourself. RPAs are not hard to "fly". 1
Guardian Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 So I can't ask someone to qualify their position in a disagreement? And I stated my current qualifications. I also apologized if I offended anyone. I was asked for my qualifications before I asked anyone else remember? To monitor and get from point A to point B I bet you are right they are not hard to fly. But to provide timely support and kinetic effects without killing anyone else is in my tanker buddies who went RPAs words much harder than giving gas autopilot off. If you don't like that I want to know the sources behind others assertions that are sans references them I would suggest you stop reading my posts. I like to know where data comes from. Thanks for your opinion hurkbum.
di1630 Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 STFU everyone...you arguing about landing for F-cks sake. JTFC, you aren't doing combat night traps on a carrier in bad wx. If you find landing your aircraft tough, the rest of the flying must be pretty damn lame. Nobody cares. Back to ACP discussions please. 8
Guardian Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 I think you misunderstand the definition of STFU and SNAP herkbum. Could you please qualify your position?
herkbum Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 My position is that you need to STFU and listen to the advice folks on here are giving you. One position of mine is that I am a Baseops Moderator and have noticed that you are very lippy and seem to have a comment on just about everything. Over 100 posts in a month. 11
ned1 Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 STFU everyone...you arguing about landing for F-cks sake. JTFC, you aren't doing combat night traps on a carrier in bad wx. If you find landing your aircraft tough, the rest of the flying must be pretty damn lame. Nobody cares. Back to ACP discussions please. Yes let's talk dollar bills, and how there should be more Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 1
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now