˙˙˙˙LIST˙˙˙˙nt><˙˙˙˙/a><˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙t si˙˙˙˙1 fa˙˙˙˙imes˙˙˙˙ Rom˙˙˙˙b> R˙˙˙˙ to ˙˙˙˙ Reg˙˙˙˙ng t˙˙˙˙Mess˙˙˙˙/fon˙˙˙˙b><˙˙˙˙
<˙˙˙˙ siz˙˙˙˙ fac˙˙˙˙mes ˙˙˙˙Roma˙˙˙˙> Re˙˙˙˙to S˙˙˙˙R Re˙˙˙˙ing ˙˙˙˙ Mes˙˙˙˙<˙˙˙˙/td>˙˙˙˙>
˙˙˙˙ble>˙˙˙˙
˙˙˙˙
<˙˙˙˙e bo˙˙˙˙="0"˙˙˙˙lpad˙˙˙˙="0"˙˙˙˙lspa˙˙˙˙="0"˙˙˙˙th="˙˙˙˙"><˙˙˙˙ont ˙˙˙˙=3 f˙˙˙˙"tim˙˙˙˙ew r˙˙˙˙, ti˙˙˙˙ col˙˙˙˙#000˙˙˙˙>Tim˙˙˙˙/td>˙˙˙˙widt˙˙˙˙5%" ˙˙˙˙n="l˙˙˙˙><˙˙˙˙>06:˙˙˙˙7 AM˙˙˙˙ US<˙˙˙˙/b><˙˙˙˙t>˙˙˙˙ble>˙˙˙˙le b˙˙˙˙r="0˙˙˙˙llpa˙˙˙˙g="0˙˙˙˙llsp˙˙˙˙g="0˙˙˙˙dth=˙˙˙˙%"><˙˙˙˙td w˙˙˙˙="15˙˙˙˙lign˙˙˙˙ft">˙˙˙˙t si˙˙˙˙ fac˙˙˙˙imes˙˙˙˙ rom˙˙˙˙time˙˙˙˙olor˙˙˙˙0000˙˙˙˙b>Su˙˙˙˙t: <˙˙˙˙/td>˙˙˙˙widt˙˙˙˙5%" ˙˙˙˙n="l˙˙˙˙>˙˙˙˙b>˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙>˙˙˙˙Moza˙˙˙˙lt;<˙˙˙˙ef="˙˙˙˙to:s˙˙˙˙on@h˙˙˙˙s.ne˙˙˙˙dalt˙˙˙˙ughe˙˙˙˙t ˙˙˙˙
˙˙˙˙ ˙˙˙˙ys,
˙˙˙˙
˙˙˙˙ I w˙˙˙˙n't ˙˙˙˙too ˙˙˙˙ted ˙˙˙˙ thi˙˙˙˙oto.˙˙˙˙ ˙˙˙˙ ˙˙˙˙ the˙˙˙˙t wi˙˙˙˙n on˙˙˙˙orma˙˙˙˙ acr˙˙˙˙am a˙˙˙˙ave ˙˙˙˙n (b˙˙˙˙ot n˙˙˙˙y en˙˙˙˙
˙˙˙˙imes˙˙˙˙atch˙˙˙˙ vid˙˙˙˙f on˙˙˙˙ our˙˙˙˙form˙˙˙˙s wh˙˙˙˙it l˙˙˙˙d li˙˙˙˙ ˙˙˙˙did ˙˙˙˙ty g˙˙˙˙ We were all smiles.
Then somebody shows us some photos of our flight and we look like crap. One (or
more) of us is wide, sucked, misaligned, etc. The photo just gives a picture
of what your formation looks like for .000001 seconds, when in actuality, your
formation looked pretty good in real life. Yeah, somebody flinched, turned
their head for a nanosecond, one guy lifted off 1/10 of a second early, etc.
But, in real time (or on a video) you just don't see these tiny glitches.
Let's get back to MMO, flight suits, missing man formations, guns and politics!
:D
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=215308#215308
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Emailing: DSC_1427-A[1].JPG |
Thanks, Steve.
As the wingman in the photo I have to say, with absolute certainty, that we
were both (lead and I) or opposite sides of a very wide runway. I fly often
with this lead.
A picture is a thousand words. 990 of them are utter bullshit but the total
comes to a thousand for sure.
Phil 'Shortbus' Cogan
Nanchang CJ6A
N21740
SB-Stamp
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mozam
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 9:01 AM
Subject: Yak-List: Re: Emailing: DSC_1427-A[1].JPG
Guys,
I wouldn't get too excited over this photo.
I am the left wingman on a formation acro team and have often (but not
nearly enough times!) watched a video of one of our performances where it
looked like we did pretty good. We were all smiles.
Then somebody shows us some photos of our flight and we look like crap. One
(or more) of us is wide, sucked, misaligned, etc. The photo just gives a
picture of what your formation looks like for .000001 seconds, when in
actuality, your formation looked pretty good in real life. Yeah, somebody
flinched, turned their head for a nanosecond, one guy lifted off 1/10 of a
second early, etc. But, in real time (or on a video) you just don't see
these tiny glitches.
Let's get back to MMO, flight suits, missing man formations, guns and
politics!
:D
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=215308#215308
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Emailing: DSC_1427-A[1].JPG |
9 of the last 10 are why did they waste film on a CJ when there were Yaks to
be shot?
Haha.. Right on the point Steve
Cheers
David
On 11/20/08 9:33 AM, "Phil" <n21740@embarqmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks, Steve.
>
> As the wingman in the photo I have to say, with absolute certainty, that we
> were both (lead and I) or opposite sides of a very wide runway. I fly often
> with this lead.
>
> A picture is a thousand words. 990 of them are utter bullshit but the total
> comes to a thousand for sure.
>
> Phil 'Shortbus' Cogan
> Nanchang CJ6A
> N21740
> SB-Stamp
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mozam
> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 9:01 AM
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Yak-List: Re: Emailing: DSC_1427-A[1].JPG
>
>
> Guys,
>
> I wouldn't get too excited over this photo.
>
> I am the left wingman on a formation acro team and have often (but not
> nearly enough times!) watched a video of one of our performances where it
> looked like we did pretty good. We were all smiles.
>
> Then somebody shows us some photos of our flight and we look like crap. One
> (or more) of us is wide, sucked, misaligned, etc. The photo just gives a
> picture of what your formation looks like for .000001 seconds, when in
> actuality, your formation looked pretty good in real life. Yeah, somebody
> flinched, turned their head for a nanosecond, one guy lifted off 1/10 of a
> second early, etc. But, in real time (or on a video) you just don't see
> these tiny glitches.
>
> Let's get back to MMO, flight suits, missing man formations, guns and
> politics!
> :D
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=215308#215308
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Back to flying and fighting it is. Being a conn0isseur of making things go
bang check out this video on a Viper dropping a 1000lb wake up call on the
Taliban..well for some, guess it was a go to your virgins now call!
http://shock.military.com/Shock/videos.do?displayContent=176899
<http://shock.military.com/Shock/videos.do?displayContent=176899&page=8&ESRC
=army.nl&ESRC=airforce-a.nl> &page=8&ESRC=army.nl&ESRC=airforce-a.nl
Doc
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Emailing: DSC_1427-A[1].JPG |
Sorry Doc, I gotta disagree BIG time with this statement;
If lead aborts, 2 aborts. The flight usually
will abort as an element unless lead aborts at rotation
If lead aborts, the worse thing -2 can do is abort as well. We agree that near
rotation -2 goes flying. My point is -2 ALWAYS goes flying. Near rotation is
too subjective. I dont want my wingman guessing about our speed and then making
a decision. That takes too long. Make it easy for him. If I abort after
we apply takeoff power, you go flying.
Say lead aborts. The first thing that happens is -2 blows past him/her. Thats
for a high or slow speed abort! The last thing you expect from the lead is idle
power and brakes. You simply cannot react quickly enough. Now lead not only
has to deal with whatever issue caused the abort but now he/she has to figure
out where -2 is.
Now I'm only aborting for something catastrophic, i.e., the engine coming apart
or a major gear/directional control issue. The best thing -2 can do is go flying
and get off my runway, the same thing I'll do if he calls aborting as my
wingman.
I don't know you. But your call sign says Air Force. In the Navy we had a agreement
in ALL formation take offs -NO SYMPATHETIC ABORTS! Its too easy to turn
a simple indicator problem into an ugly aircraft pile near the end of the runway.
Mike
Looking forward to your response.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=215332#215332
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Missing Man Formation |
Good for you Floyd. Mark send a list of the complainers so that we may
apologize. This was yak stuff - FUN STUFF- YOU REMEMBER flying??? That Is on
subject.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dale
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 11:53 AM
Subject: Yak-List: Re: Missing Man Formation
Interesting Mark.
I don't see how this is related to rock and roll , who the hell is running
for president, my mother or what beer I drink. It looked to me like
formation flying and I was in a Yak. I take exception to your statement as
not being a related subject. Have a nice Veterans Day!!
Dale
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=215018#215018
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | FW: Promotion Ceremony |
Thought all you Yak guys (Except Mark) would enjoy reading about Flying Yaks
as opposed to pontificating on-line everyday about how broke they are. It
was a great weekend.
We wish almost all of you could attend. Don't get me wrong,
I learn a lot on-line with y'all, but you know sometimes you've got to fire
it up and just go fly.
Please don't correct my spelling, or whine, flying is why we own them.
Bill
_____
From: Mark Davis [mailto:mark@pld.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 3:07 PM
Murray; Ray K. Davis; Randy Davis; Keith "Flipper" Harbour; Joe "Felix"
Wilkins; Jeff Davis; J j; Gus Grissom; David Payne; Dave Hilker; Dale
Matuska; Bob "Kilo" Watts; Bill Royer; Bill "Dawg" Geipel; Allen "Raid"
Tinnes
Subject: Fw: Promotion Ceremony
The Lamar Clinic made the Air Force Times. Just a shame it couldn't have
made a better publication like the NAVY TIMES! : )
http://www.airforcetimes.com/offduty/technology/military_yakpak_111008od/
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Missing Man Formation |
We are discussing technique, not if it is appropriate. Complainers need a
life.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bitterlich, Mark G
CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 10:29 AM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Missing Man Formation
MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
I thought we all agreed to drop this subject?
Mark Bitterlich
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
KingCJ6@aol.com
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 8:23 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Missing Man Formation
Yesterday, I talked to Maj. Tim Decker, former F-117 pilot and a current
U-2 Squad Commander at Beale AFB. His input:
"After a healthy vertical pull up, #3 turns towards the briefed join-up
area, rather that away because -
1) this expedites the join-up and
2) there is less chance of loosing visual on the main flight, thus it's
safer"
Dave
In a message dated 11/17/2008 12:19:34 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
byronmfox@aol.com writes:
Here's what a USAF active-duty F-15E pilot has to say on the
subject:
Blitz,
I looked into it at work today and this is what I found. I know
you guys fly using a lot of Navy formation stuff, so it may be a little
different. I'm afraid I can only speak from an Air Force reg
perspective. The standard Air Force 4-ship formation has #2 on the left
with #3 and #4 on the right. Therefore for in the Air Force missing man
North to South run, #3 will split west over #4. The only other thing I
could find was that missing man formations are flown South to North if
able (Weather, terrain, ceremony permitting) with #3 executing either
the vertical pull or west-ward break over #1 and #2.
It must have been a moving experience to be a part of. I wish I
could have seen you guys executing it. Hope all is well!
Brent
--
Byron M. Fox
TDA Investment Group
1214 Donnelly Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010
650-343-6333
650-343-0858 Fax
://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics.com/
Navigator?Yak-List
.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
________________________________
?redir=http://toolbar.aol.com/moviefone/download.html?ncid=emlcntusdown0
0000001">Get the Moviefone Toolbar. Showtimes, theaters, movie news &
more!
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Emailing: DSC_1427-A[1].JPG |
An important consideration regarding any gear, tire issues, We do not have
real good directional control when it is a gear issue. Hopefully the runway
is real wide, and 2 maintained an almost line abreast position so that he
can get ahead and out of the way. I have been through tire failures during
takeoff and landings in Yaks and L-29. You are at best, a passenger.
Just a thought. Fly it like you brief it.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of N642K
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 8:39 AM
Subject: Yak-List: Re: Emailing: DSC_1427-A[1].JPG
Sorry Doc, I gotta disagree BIG time with this statement;
If lead aborts, 2 aborts. The flight usually
will abort as an element unless lead aborts at rotation
If lead aborts, the worse thing -2 can do is abort as well. We agree that
near rotation -2 goes flying. My point is -2 ALWAYS goes flying. Near
rotation is too subjective. I dont want my wingman guessing about our speed
and then making a decision. That takes too long. Make it easy for him. If
I abort after we apply takeoff power, you go flying.
Say lead aborts. The first thing that happens is -2 blows past him/her.
Thats for a high or slow speed abort! The last thing you expect from the
lead is idle power and brakes. You simply cannot react quickly enough. Now
lead not only has to deal with whatever issue caused the abort but now
he/she has to figure out where -2 is.
Now I'm only aborting for something catastrophic, i.e., the engine coming
apart or a major gear/directional control issue. The best thing -2 can do
is go flying and get off my runway, the same thing I'll do if he calls
aborting as my wingman.
I don't know you. But your call sign says Air Force. In the Navy we had a
agreement in ALL formation take offs -NO SYMPATHETIC ABORTS! Its too easy
to turn a simple indicator problem into an ugly aircraft pile near the end
of the runway.
Mike
Looking forward to your response.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=215332#215332
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Chute Packing extended |
Effective December 19th 2008 the packing interval for parachutes is extended
from 120 days to 180 days.
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/E8-27459.htm
That's nice. I guess that means don't get your chute repacked until after
the 19th.
Pete
__|__
__|__ ----=(*)=----
__|__ ----=(*)=----
__|__ ----=(*)=----
----=(*)=----
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Chute Packing extended |
Arrrrggggg!
I dropped mine off to be repacked last weekend!
--
Kurt Howerton
N923YK
http://cj6.scitechsys.com
Peter K. Van Staagen wrote:
>
> Effective December 19^th 2008 the packing interval for parachutes is
> extended from 120 days to 180 days.
>
> http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/E8-27459.htm
>
> Thats nice. I guess that means dont get your chute repacked until
> after the 19^th .
>
> Pete
>
>
>
> __|__
>
> __|__ ----=(_*_)=----
>
> __|__ ----=(_*_)=----
> __|__ ----=(_*_)=----
> ----=(_*_)=----
>
>
>
>
>
> *
> *
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Emailing: DSC_1427-A[1].JPG |
Mike,
You are absolutely correct. What I wrote was poorly worded for brevity. No
excuse.
I'm AF (ANG).
During the brief, Motherhood will have covered when and if the element will
abort together. Generally that is if the element is mission critical for
training and the abort occurs leaving the chocks, in EOR, or as the flight
starts TO roll. Everything is talked about on the radio if possible, but
maybe not. If lead breaks one third, halfway down the runway, at rotation or
at some point past loss of nose wheel steering, 2 is going flying to get out
of lead's way. In the TO roll if two still had nose wheel steering, it is a
judgment call. Nothing is embedded in concrete. We'll talk about it in the
debrief. You are correct, the last thing we need is for two a/c to be in the
barrier at the same time.
Well since we don't have hooks and barriers, that one was a moot point. We
are talking about round motors and it is a judgment call but me personally,
if I'm two and lead has a bad day, aborts, then I'm going flying any way. We
do this for fun and there is nothing mission critical in what we do.
The point with the two pictures of the YAKs and the CJ's doing formation
T.O.s was that Two is now the flight lead. He rotated and went flying before
lead. For two now to stay in position with lead, he/she is going to have to
pull back on the power, look down at lead, and possibly unintentionally roll
into him while trying to maintain station. The other risk is since lead is
at Vrot not quite flying with two now flying two can pull too much power and
stall while trying to stay in position. Those were the safety issue I was
trying to point out. Two at that point needs to become lead and fly his jet.
Lead becomes two and joins on the new accidental flight lead. They can work
it out on departure, in the area or in debrief.
Talon, you are absolutely correct a picture is what is happening at that
nanosecond in time. But it is worth a 1000 words when it shows something of
interest. The "I fly with this lead all the time and we do it this way"
because we are comfortable with each other is not a warm fuzzy for me that
is. It is an invitation for bent metal and heartache. Sorry, I may be seeing
it all wrong and maybe it is me that is missing the point here. But, I just
had my DO in the office a few minutes ago and showed him the pictures. His
reaction was Holly SHIT! Nuff said does not matter how big the @#$%^& runway
is. We can go to the bar, drink beer, pat each other on the ass, scratch
each other's backs and this was still not recognized as poor technique and
not entirely safe. Two is trying to fly form on lead who is still on the
ground.
Here are two nanosecond shots of it being done right. Well the #2 Scooter is
just a little bit sucked since we are splitting hairs.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Doc
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of N642K
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 9:39 AM
Subject: Yak-List: Re: Emailing: DSC_1427-A[1].JPG
Sorry Doc, I gotta disagree BIG time with this statement;
If lead aborts, 2 aborts. The flight usually
will abort as an element unless lead aborts at rotation
If lead aborts, the worse thing -2 can do is abort as well. We agree that
near rotation -2 goes flying. My point is -2 ALWAYS goes flying. Near
rotation is too subjective. I dont want my wingman guessing about our speed
and then making a decision. That takes too long. Make it easy for him. If
I abort after we apply takeoff power, you go flying.
Say lead aborts. The first thing that happens is -2 blows past him/her.
Thats for a high or slow speed abort! The last thing you expect from the
lead is idle power and brakes. You simply cannot react quickly enough. Now
lead not only has to deal with whatever issue caused the abort but now
he/she has to figure out where -2 is.
Now I'm only aborting for something catastrophic, i.e., the engine coming
apart or a major gear/directional control issue. The best thing -2 can do
is go flying and get off my runway, the same thing I'll do if he calls
aborting as my wingman.
I don't know you. But your call sign says Air Force. In the Navy we had a
agreement in ALL formation take offs -NO SYMPATHETIC ABORTS! Its too easy
to turn a simple indicator problem into an ugly aircraft pile near the end
of the runway.
Mike
Looking forward to your response.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=215332#215332
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Chute Packing extended |
In a message dated 11/20/08 8:13:26 AM, petervs@knology.net writes:
>
> Effective December 19th 2008 the packing interval for parachutes is extended
> from 120 days to 180 days.
> http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/E8-27459.htm
>
>
We can thank Alan Silver of Silver Parachute Sales in Hayward, CA for his
hard work on this. Alan has been an RPA supporter for years, and routinely
repacks our NorCal chutes. ...Blitz
**************
One site has it all. Your email
accounts, your social networks, and the things you love. Try the new AOL.com
)
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Emailing: DSC_1427-A[1].JPG |
If the aborting aircraft calls over the radio "abort, abort, abort" then the other
aircraft knows to stay in full blower and go, I can't imagine sacrificing
aircraft control to stay in position...
--- On Wed, 11/19/08, Roger Kemp MD <viperdoc@mindspring.com> wrote:
> From: Roger Kemp MD <viperdoc@mindspring.com>
> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Emailing: DSC_1427-A[1].JPG
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Date: Wednesday, November 19, 2008, 10:57 PM
> <viperdoc@mindspring.com>
>
> No, I disagree, it is not safe but not necessarily
> dangerous. 2 just took
> off before One. 2 is now flight lead. 150, 100, or 80 foot
> wide runway or
> not, 2 is airborne first and is now flight lead.
> Now the reason it is not safe is the tendency of 2 (who is
> now airborne) to
> look down at lead and attempt to slow to match lead's
> airspeed. 2
> unconsciously can roll to the right or left as he/she is
> looking down on
> lead depending on which side lead is on during the take
> off. Two is doing
> this in an attempt to maintain position with lead.
> If 2 becomes airborne ahead of lead, he/she is now the new
> flight lead or 2
> will find himself hanging closer to a stall than he/she
> really wants to be
> as well as turning into lead as he/she attempts to stay in
> formation.
> Passed these pictures around the squadron today, all pretty
> much said the
> same thing. It is 2's responsibility to maintain
> station on lead and go
> flying when lead goes flying. If lead aborts, 2 aborts. The
> flight usually
> will abort as an element unless lead aborts at rotation and
> is taking the
> barrier. If that happens, 2 goes flying and lead ends up in
> the barrier. Two
> flies his jet and forgets about lead until he has
> established a positive
> rate of climb and stabilized flight.
> Doc
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Nigel Willson
> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 9:33 AM
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Emailing: DSC_1427-A[1].JPG
>
> Willson" <nigel@yakdisplay.com>
>
> If it's a form takeoff it's safe (lead sticks to
> ground longest to ensure
> safe flying speed for whole formation), if it's a form
> landing, it's not...
> normally on form landings, wing men make sure they touch
> down fractionally
> BEFORE the lead....
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Roger Kemp MD
> Sent: 19 November 2008 15:12
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Yak-List: Emailing: DSC_1427-A[1].JPG
>
> Here is another one. Is a form landing or is a TO? Is it
> safe?
> Doc
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Emailing: DSC_1427-A[1].JPG |
Just if you care to have a look ...
http://yakitiyakps.free.fr/Photos/picture.php?cat=36&image_id=1293
http://yakitiyakps.free.fr/Photos/picture.php?cat=36&image_id=1272
http://users.skynet.be/B747/photogallery/Etienne%20G-CBSS/NW14_127.jpg
http://users.skynet.be/B747/photogallery/Etienne%20G-CBSS/NW14_129.jpg
http://www.patricksaviation.com/photos/giel/13754/
http://myaviation.net/search/photo_search.php?id=01386259&size=large
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2e8f7_1ohQ
...... waiting for better weather to go flying.
--------
http://www.pilotmarket.com/exams/Freelance_Flight_Instructors/listing-2904-11202.html
http://www.aerobatics.org.uk/photos/profile.php?uid=84
http://www.pilotlist.org/tagazous/gcbss.htm
http://www.airshowactionphotography.com/san07/page1.html
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=215412#215412
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Missing Man Formation |
I never said any such thing.
End of discussion.
Mark Bitterlich
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Geipel
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 10:58
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Re: Missing Man Formation
Good for you Floyd. Mark send a list of the complainers so that we may
apologize. This was yak stuff - FUN STUFF- YOU REMEMBER flying??? That
Is on subject.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dale
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 11:53 AM
Subject: Yak-List: Re: Missing Man Formation
Interesting Mark.
I don't see how this is related to rock and roll , who the hell is
running for president, my mother or what beer I drink. It looked to me
like formation flying and I was in a Yak. I take exception to your
statement as not being a related subject. Have a nice Veterans Day!!
Dale
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=215018#215018
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Missing Man Formation |
Bill, let's you and I meet someplace. I live in New Bern North
Carolina. Is it possible that you and I could fly to a common location
and have lunch?
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Geipel
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 10:58
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Missing Man Formation
We are discussing technique, not if it is appropriate. Complainers need
a life.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bitterlich,
Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 10:29 AM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Missing Man Formation
--> Point,
MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
I thought we all agreed to drop this subject?
Mark Bitterlich
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
KingCJ6@aol.com
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 8:23 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Missing Man Formation
Yesterday, I talked to Maj. Tim Decker, former F-117 pilot and a current
U-2 Squad Commander at Beale AFB. His input:
"After a healthy vertical pull up, #3 turns towards the briefed join-up
area, rather that away because -
1) this expedites the join-up and
2) there is less chance of loosing visual on the main flight, thus it's
safer"
Dave
In a message dated 11/17/2008 12:19:34 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
byronmfox@aol.com writes:
Here's what a USAF active-duty F-15E pilot has to say on the
subject:
Blitz,
I looked into it at work today and this is what I found. I know
you guys fly using a lot of Navy formation stuff, so it may be a little
different. I'm afraid I can only speak from an Air Force reg
perspective. The standard Air Force 4-ship formation has #2 on the left
with #3 and #4 on the right. Therefore for in the Air Force missing man
North to South run, #3 will split west over #4. The only other thing I
could find was that missing man formations are flown South to North if
able (Weather, terrain, ceremony permitting) with #3 executing either
the vertical pull or west-ward break over #1 and #2.
It must have been a moving experience to be a part of. I wish I
could have seen you guys executing it. Hope all is well!
Brent
--
Byron M. Fox
TDA Investment Group
1214 Donnelly Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010
650-343-6333
650-343-0858 Fax
://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics.com/
Navigator?Yak-List
.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
________________________________
?redir=http://toolbar.aol.com/moviefone/download.html?ncid=emlcntusdown0
0000001">Get the Moviefone Toolbar. Showtimes, theaters, movie news &
more!
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Emailing: DSC_1427-A[1].JPG |
Doc, I have flown a good deal of dissimilar aircraft formation with me
being in the aircraft with more performance and a much shorter take-off
roll than the other guy. That said, I have made the mistake you are
talking about. In this case, a formation take-off with me in a YAK-50
and the other fellow flying lead in a souped up Cessna 180. I am off
the deck long before he is, and what you are saying is exactly what
happened. I am looking down on lead. He is partially obscured by the
wing. I have to pull to keep from over-taking him. I slow to near
stall speed. It was easy to pick up a little drift, since there was a
cross-wind situation. I am looking at an airplane on the deck that is
not flying, yet I am in the air and have "keeping it flying" issues
happening. It was bad ju-ju. Lead, a retired USMC C-130 pilot and
ex-EA-6B ECMO chewed my ass and rightly so. He was right, I was wrong,
it was a stupid thing to do. Of course in this case a freeze frame
picture is hard to judge. The situation for THEM might have been just
milliseconds. I have no idea. However, as a point of discussion for
formation flying between two aircraft, there is no question that it is a
bad idea to have your wingman rotate and start flying before lead. I
say this as just a regular ole Pilot who does not have a FAST card from
the RPA, and could of course be wrong.
Mark Bitterlich
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Roger Kemp MD
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 13:47
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Re: Emailing: DSC_1427-A[1].JPG
Mike,
You are absolutely correct. What I wrote was poorly worded for brevity.
No excuse.
I'm AF (ANG).
During the brief, Motherhood will have covered when and if the element
will abort together. Generally that is if the element is mission
critical for training and the abort occurs leaving the chocks, in EOR,
or as the flight starts TO roll. Everything is talked about on the radio
if possible, but maybe not. If lead breaks one third, halfway down the
runway, at rotation or at some point past loss of nose wheel steering, 2
is going flying to get out of lead's way. In the TO roll if two still
had nose wheel steering, it is a judgment call. Nothing is embedded in
concrete. We'll talk about it in the debrief. You are correct, the last
thing we need is for two a/c to be in the barrier at the same time.
Well since we don't have hooks and barriers, that one was a moot point.
We are talking about round motors and it is a judgment call but me
personally, if I'm two and lead has a bad day, aborts, then I'm going
flying any way. We do this for fun and there is nothing mission critical
in what we do.
The point with the two pictures of the YAKs and the CJ's doing formation
T.O.s was that Two is now the flight lead. He rotated and went flying
before lead. For two now to stay in position with lead, he/she is going
to have to pull back on the power, look down at lead, and possibly
unintentionally roll into him while trying to maintain station. The
other risk is since lead is at Vrot not quite flying with two now flying
two can pull too much power and stall while trying to stay in position.
Those were the safety issue I was trying to point out. Two at that point
needs to become lead and fly his jet.
Lead becomes two and joins on the new accidental flight lead. They can
work it out on departure, in the area or in debrief.
Talon, you are absolutely correct a picture is what is happening at that
nanosecond in time. But it is worth a 1000 words when it shows something
of interest. The "I fly with this lead all the time and we do it this
way"
because we are comfortable with each other is not a warm fuzzy for me
that is. It is an invitation for bent metal and heartache. Sorry, I may
be seeing it all wrong and maybe it is me that is missing the point
here. But, I just had my DO in the office a few minutes ago and showed
him the pictures. His reaction was Holly SHIT! Nuff said does not matter
how big the @#$%^& runway is. We can go to the bar, drink beer, pat each
other on the ass, scratch each other's backs and this was still not
recognized as poor technique and not entirely safe. Two is trying to fly
form on lead who is still on the ground.
Here are two nanosecond shots of it being done right. Well the #2
Scooter is just a little bit sucked since we are splitting hairs.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Doc
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of N642K
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 9:39 AM
Subject: Yak-List: Re: Emailing: DSC_1427-A[1].JPG
Sorry Doc, I gotta disagree BIG time with this statement;
If lead aborts, 2 aborts. The flight usually will abort as an element
unless lead aborts at rotation
If lead aborts, the worse thing -2 can do is abort as well. We agree
that near rotation -2 goes flying. My point is -2 ALWAYS goes flying.
Near rotation is too subjective. I dont want my wingman guessing about
our speed and then making a decision. That takes too long. Make it
easy for him. If I abort after we apply takeoff power, you go flying.
Say lead aborts. The first thing that happens is -2 blows past him/her.
Thats for a high or slow speed abort! The last thing you expect from the
lead is idle power and brakes. You simply cannot react quickly enough.
Now lead not only has to deal with whatever issue caused the abort but
now he/she has to figure out where -2 is.
Now I'm only aborting for something catastrophic, i.e., the engine
coming apart or a major gear/directional control issue. The best thing
-2 can do is go flying and get off my runway, the same thing I'll do if
he calls aborting as my wingman.
I don't know you. But your call sign says Air Force. In the Navy we had
a agreement in ALL formation take offs -NO SYMPATHETIC ABORTS! Its too
easy to turn a simple indicator problem into an ugly aircraft pile near
the end of the runway.
Mike
Looking forward to your response.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=215332#215332
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: OFF TOPIC: Missing Man Formation |
Well, let's see.
Doc Kemp, Tim Gagnon, and myself are three of the either active or
formally active and now retired (that means 20 or more years served Bill
and in my case 38 years of DOD service) who feel that the Missing Man
Formation flight is something that was invented by the military to
essentially honor other military airmen who died while IN those very
same aircraft in service to their country. I have a list of other
people NOT on the YAK List who also sent me email agreeing that Missing
Man Formations, like certain other military honors should be reserved
for the military and not copied by civilians to honor other civilians
who happen to fly Cessna 150's, or even 747's, or in some cases were not
even a pilot at all. THAT list includes one former 3 star General, one
Bird Colonel, and every Commanding Officer and aircrew present here at
Cherry Point that I bothered to ask.
So you will not misquote me.... Again..... Every one of them, including
myself, never said that you, or anyone else should be PROHIBITED from
doing what you want to do, including Missing Man Formations! Every one
of them, including myself, felt that every one of you who feel
otherwise, should be allowed to fly any kind of formation flight that
you want to.
No one ever said you should be grounded, shot, whipped, flayed, or
neutered. No one ever said one bad thing about you or anyone else who
did not share our viewpoint. What they said was: "We feel such a flight
is disrespectful to service members and our traditions". The reason
they feel that way Bill..and everyone else......is because even though a
lot of us were active duty military AND aircrew, when we die we do not
rate a Missing Man Formation flight by the military and therefore do not
want one by anyone else since basically it would be disrespectful of
those that DID die in aircraft in service and/or defense of their
country. That is OUR way of seeing it Bill. That is the MILITARY'S way
of seeing it Bill, and that aspect is simply not open for debate.
But I concur: It is not YOUR way of seeing it and a lot of other people
agree with you! So OK! FINE! NO PROBLEM! DO WHATEVER YOU WANT TO DO!
NO ONE IS STOPPING YOU! NO ONE EVEN WANTS TO, let alone try to.
But please, none of you has the right to imply that those of us who feel
as we do are wrong-headed, misguided, or are otherwise incorrect. We
respect your point of view. Try giving us the same courtesy. Or is
that just too hard to do?
That said: There is another list of complainers. Those are the people
that complained to the LIST OWNER MATT Dralle for our CONTINUED debate
about this topic. The impression I got from Matt's message was that he
preferred for us to stop debating this issue, and he specifically
mentioned that he had received numerous complaints about it. If you
want a copy of THAT list, please sent a message to Matt, and I am sure
he would be happy to talk to you about it. His address is:
Matt Dralle <dralle@matronics.com> Give him a shout.
Now are we DONE, or do you have to go into this whole mess SOME MORE?
Jesus... Enough already! Let's get back to fixing airplanes. Your
input to that subject being ??????
M. Bitterlich
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Geipel
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 10:58
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Re: Missing Man Formation
Good for you Floyd. Mark send a list of the complainers so that we may
apologize. This was yak stuff - FUN STUFF- YOU REMEMBER flying??? That
Is on subject.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dale
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 11:53 AM
Subject: Yak-List: Re: Missing Man Formation
Interesting Mark.
I don't see how this is related to rock and roll , who the hell is
running for president, my mother or what beer I drink. It looked to me
like formation flying and I was in a Yak. I take exception to your
statement as not being a related subject. Have a nice Veterans Day!!
Dale
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=215018#215018
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Formation takeoff |
Guys,
This serves as a good review of the formation training manual....
>If lead aborts, 2 aborts. The flight usually will abort as an element
unless lead aborts at rotation >and is taking the barrier. If that
happens, 2 goes flying and lead ends up in the barrier. Two flies >his
jet and forgets about lead until he has established a positive rate of
climb and stabilized flight.
That may be the case for military jets, but we don't have barriers to
contend with. And if lead aborts on take off, what is the proper procedure
in our aircraft?
Also, not to pick nits, but 2 does not become lead if he is airborne
premature of lead. Granted, not the best technique, but there is no
passing of the lead. Need to keep doctrine straight for the uninitiated
or uninformed.
A LOT of time and effort has gone into our training pubs, and it is
incumbent upon all of us to review and know the manual...not knowing and
adhering to the procedures in the manual has a more significant potential
for impact on safety than an early liftoff by -2.
Bdog
--
Barry Hancock
Worldwide Warbirds, Inc.
office (909) 606-4444
cell (949) 300-5510
www.worldwidewarbirds.com
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | More gas money... |
Just picked this up off of the EAA's e-hotline. Good news!
FAA ADDS 60 DAYS TO PARACHUTE REPACK INTERVAL
EAA, IAC Support Change
The FAA has extended the time period for mandatory inspection and
repacking of
reserve and emergency parachutes from 120 to 180 days. The final rule,
which goes
into effect on December 19, 2008, affects reserve parachutes worn by
skydivers and
smokejumpers as well as emergency parachutes worn by pilots flying aerobatic
aircraft or gliders, test pilots, and others.
--
Barry Hancock
Worldwide Warbirds, Inc.
office (909) 606-4444
cell (949) 300-5510
www.worldwidewarbirds.com
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Emailing: DSC_1427-A[1].JPG |
Mark,
You are dead on in what your experience was and what your reaction was to
the fact you (2) are airborne and 1 is not. I talked with my DO today, my
safety officer, Squadron CC, OPS officer and 2 of the 4 flight leads then
took the picture to our 2 newly minted FNG's just out of F-16 RTU. They are
the consummate virgin wing men! The response was unanimous! They all said
they would chew 2's ass for his lack of SA and aircraft management.
Fuck them, they do not get it and they are going to kill somebody.
I am a "FAST" card carrier and it is BS because these clowns do not have a
clue. They are more worried about the patches they wear on their flight
suits and the wings they pin on. Incidentally, the vast majority did not
earn any of them but they look good and feel good patting each other on the
back and scatching each other's ass!
Let kill themselves thinking they are safe. They are not. I can attest to
that from a number of times that I have made the mistake of joining in a 4
ship with some of these clowns.
So, FUCK them if they can not admit that what they are seeing in that
nanosecond picture was not safe.
Doc
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bitterlich, Mark G
CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 5:51 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Re: Emailing: DSC_1427-A[1].JPG
MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
Doc, I have flown a good deal of dissimilar aircraft formation with me
being in the aircraft with more performance and a much shorter take-off
roll than the other guy. That said, I have made the mistake you are
talking about. In this case, a formation take-off with me in a YAK-50
and the other fellow flying lead in a souped up Cessna 180. I am off
the deck long before he is, and what you are saying is exactly what
happened. I am looking down on lead. He is partially obscured by the
wing. I have to pull to keep from over-taking him. I slow to near
stall speed. It was easy to pick up a little drift, since there was a
cross-wind situation. I am looking at an airplane on the deck that is
not flying, yet I am in the air and have "keeping it flying" issues
happening. It was bad ju-ju. Lead, a retired USMC C-130 pilot and
ex-EA-6B ECMO chewed my ass and rightly so. He was right, I was wrong,
it was a stupid thing to do. Of course in this case a freeze frame
picture is hard to judge. The situation for THEM might have been just
milliseconds. I have no idea. However, as a point of discussion for
formation flying between two aircraft, there is no question that it is a
bad idea to have your wingman rotate and start flying before lead. I
say this as just a regular ole Pilot who does not have a FAST card from
the RPA, and could of course be wrong.
Mark Bitterlich
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Roger Kemp MD
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 13:47
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Re: Emailing: DSC_1427-A[1].JPG
Mike,
You are absolutely correct. What I wrote was poorly worded for brevity.
No excuse.
I'm AF (ANG).
During the brief, Motherhood will have covered when and if the element
will abort together. Generally that is if the element is mission
critical for training and the abort occurs leaving the chocks, in EOR,
or as the flight starts TO roll. Everything is talked about on the radio
if possible, but maybe not. If lead breaks one third, halfway down the
runway, at rotation or at some point past loss of nose wheel steering, 2
is going flying to get out of lead's way. In the TO roll if two still
had nose wheel steering, it is a judgment call. Nothing is embedded in
concrete. We'll talk about it in the debrief. You are correct, the last
thing we need is for two a/c to be in the barrier at the same time.
Well since we don't have hooks and barriers, that one was a moot point.
We are talking about round motors and it is a judgment call but me
personally, if I'm two and lead has a bad day, aborts, then I'm going
flying any way. We do this for fun and there is nothing mission critical
in what we do.
The point with the two pictures of the YAKs and the CJ's doing formation
T.O.s was that Two is now the flight lead. He rotated and went flying
before lead. For two now to stay in position with lead, he/she is going
to have to pull back on the power, look down at lead, and possibly
unintentionally roll into him while trying to maintain station. The
other risk is since lead is at Vrot not quite flying with two now flying
two can pull too much power and stall while trying to stay in position.
Those were the safety issue I was trying to point out. Two at that point
needs to become lead and fly his jet.
Lead becomes two and joins on the new accidental flight lead. They can
work it out on departure, in the area or in debrief.
Talon, you are absolutely correct a picture is what is happening at that
nanosecond in time. But it is worth a 1000 words when it shows something
of interest. The "I fly with this lead all the time and we do it this
way"
because we are comfortable with each other is not a warm fuzzy for me
that is. It is an invitation for bent metal and heartache. Sorry, I may
be seeing it all wrong and maybe it is me that is missing the point
here. But, I just had my DO in the office a few minutes ago and showed
him the pictures. His reaction was Holly SHIT! Nuff said does not matter
how big the @#$%^& runway is. We can go to the bar, drink beer, pat each
other on the ass, scratch each other's backs and this was still not
recognized as poor technique and not entirely safe. Two is trying to fly
form on lead who is still on the ground.
Here are two nanosecond shots of it being done right. Well the #2
Scooter is just a little bit sucked since we are splitting hairs.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Doc
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of N642K
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 9:39 AM
Subject: Yak-List: Re: Emailing: DSC_1427-A[1].JPG
Sorry Doc, I gotta disagree BIG time with this statement;
If lead aborts, 2 aborts. The flight usually will abort as an element
unless lead aborts at rotation
If lead aborts, the worse thing -2 can do is abort as well. We agree
that near rotation -2 goes flying. My point is -2 ALWAYS goes flying.
Near rotation is too subjective. I dont want my wingman guessing about
our speed and then making a decision. That takes too long. Make it
easy for him. If I abort after we apply takeoff power, you go flying.
Say lead aborts. The first thing that happens is -2 blows past him/her.
Thats for a high or slow speed abort! The last thing you expect from the
lead is idle power and brakes. You simply cannot react quickly enough.
Now lead not only has to deal with whatever issue caused the abort but
now he/she has to figure out where -2 is.
Now I'm only aborting for something catastrophic, i.e., the engine
coming apart or a major gear/directional control issue. The best thing
-2 can do is go flying and get off my runway, the same thing I'll do if
he calls aborting as my wingman.
I don't know you. But your call sign says Air Force. In the Navy we had
a agreement in ALL formation take offs -NO SYMPATHETIC ABORTS! Its too
easy to turn a simple indicator problem into an ugly aircraft pile near
the end of the runway.
Mike
Looking forward to your response.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=215332#215332
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | BUY COOLING TURBINE |
I urgently need cooling turbine 586110-7, anybody who have pls contact me by email
tanyanfang(at)fy-ic.com[/b]
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=215458#215458
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I urgently buy cooling turbine 586110-7, anybody who have pls contact me by email:
tanyanfang(at)fy-ic.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=215459#215459
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Off Subject- Speeding |
I GOT STOPPED FOR SPEEDING YESTERDAY.
I THOUGHT I COULD TALK
MY WAY OUT OF IT UNTIL THE OFFICER LOOKED AT
MY DOG IN THE BACK SEAT
cid:448F10D77AD44D149B9DF91B7F316B8F@D3SGWL81
Well guys,
After our heated debates over the last few days on various off topic
subjects, I figured we all needed a good laugh.
Enjoy.
Doc
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Emailing: DSC_1427-A[1].JPG |
There should be a rule about posting under the influence..... [Shocked] :D
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=215464#215464
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Emailing: DSC_1427-A[1].JPG |
WOW? Your right, if I were you I would turn in my FAST card and not ever fly
with these clowns. They don't deserve you.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Roger Kemp MD
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 8:03 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Re: Emailing: DSC_1427-A[1].JPG
Mark,
You are dead on in what your experience was and what your reaction was to
the fact you (2) are airborne and 1 is not. I talked with my DO today, my
safety officer, Squadron CC, OPS officer and 2 of the 4 flight leads then
took the picture to our 2 newly minted FNG's just out of F-16 RTU. They are
the consummate virgin wing men! The response was unanimous! They all said
they would chew 2's ass for his lack of SA and aircraft management.
Fuck them, they do not get it and they are going to kill somebody.
I am a "FAST" card carrier and it is BS because these clowns do not have a
clue. They are more worried about the patches they wear on their flight
suits and the wings they pin on. Incidentally, the vast majority did not
earn any of them but they look good and feel good patting each other on the
back and scatching each other's ass!
Let kill themselves thinking they are safe. They are not. I can attest to
that from a number of times that I have made the mistake of joining in a 4
ship with some of these clowns.
So, FUCK them if they can not admit that what they are seeing in that
nanosecond picture was not safe.
Doc
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bitterlich, Mark G
CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 5:51 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Re: Emailing: DSC_1427-A[1].JPG
MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
Doc, I have flown a good deal of dissimilar aircraft formation with me
being in the aircraft with more performance and a much shorter take-off
roll than the other guy. That said, I have made the mistake you are
talking about. In this case, a formation take-off with me in a YAK-50
and the other fellow flying lead in a souped up Cessna 180. I am off
the deck long before he is, and what you are saying is exactly what
happened. I am looking down on lead. He is partially obscured by the
wing. I have to pull to keep from over-taking him. I slow to near
stall speed. It was easy to pick up a little drift, since there was a
cross-wind situation. I am looking at an airplane on the deck that is
not flying, yet I am in the air and have "keeping it flying" issues
happening. It was bad ju-ju. Lead, a retired USMC C-130 pilot and
ex-EA-6B ECMO chewed my ass and rightly so. He was right, I was wrong,
it was a stupid thing to do. Of course in this case a freeze frame
picture is hard to judge. The situation for THEM might have been just
milliseconds. I have no idea. However, as a point of discussion for
formation flying between two aircraft, there is no question that it is a
bad idea to have your wingman rotate and start flying before lead. I
say this as just a regular ole Pilot who does not have a FAST card from
the RPA, and could of course be wrong.
Mark Bitterlich
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Roger Kemp MD
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 13:47
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Re: Emailing: DSC_1427-A[1].JPG
Mike,
You are absolutely correct. What I wrote was poorly worded for brevity.
No excuse.
I'm AF (ANG).
During the brief, Motherhood will have covered when and if the element
will abort together. Generally that is if the element is mission
critical for training and the abort occurs leaving the chocks, in EOR,
or as the flight starts TO roll. Everything is talked about on the radio
if possible, but maybe not. If lead breaks one third, halfway down the
runway, at rotation or at some point past loss of nose wheel steering, 2
is going flying to get out of lead's way. In the TO roll if two still
had nose wheel steering, it is a judgment call. Nothing is embedded in
concrete. We'll talk about it in the debrief. You are correct, the last
thing we need is for two a/c to be in the barrier at the same time.
Well since we don't have hooks and barriers, that one was a moot point.
We are talking about round motors and it is a judgment call but me
personally, if I'm two and lead has a bad day, aborts, then I'm going
flying any way. We do this for fun and there is nothing mission critical
in what we do.
The point with the two pictures of the YAKs and the CJ's doing formation
T.O.s was that Two is now the flight lead. He rotated and went flying
before lead. For two now to stay in position with lead, he/she is going
to have to pull back on the power, look down at lead, and possibly
unintentionally roll into him while trying to maintain station. The
other risk is since lead is at Vrot not quite flying with two now flying
two can pull too much power and stall while trying to stay in position.
Those were the safety issue I was trying to point out. Two at that point
needs to become lead and fly his jet.
Lead becomes two and joins on the new accidental flight lead. They can
work it out on departure, in the area or in debrief.
Talon, you are absolutely correct a picture is what is happening at that
nanosecond in time. But it is worth a 1000 words when it shows something
of interest. The "I fly with this lead all the time and we do it this
way"
because we are comfortable with each other is not a warm fuzzy for me
that is. It is an invitation for bent metal and heartache. Sorry, I may
be seeing it all wrong and maybe it is me that is missing the point
here. But, I just had my DO in the office a few minutes ago and showed
him the pictures. His reaction was Holly SHIT! Nuff said does not matter
how big the @#$%^& runway is. We can go to the bar, drink beer, pat each
other on the ass, scratch each other's backs and this was still not
recognized as poor technique and not entirely safe. Two is trying to fly
form on lead who is still on the ground.
Here are two nanosecond shots of it being done right. Well the #2
Scooter is just a little bit sucked since we are splitting hairs.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Doc
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of N642K
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 9:39 AM
Subject: Yak-List: Re: Emailing: DSC_1427-A[1].JPG
Sorry Doc, I gotta disagree BIG time with this statement;
If lead aborts, 2 aborts. The flight usually will abort as an element
unless lead aborts at rotation
If lead aborts, the worse thing -2 can do is abort as well. We agree
that near rotation -2 goes flying. My point is -2 ALWAYS goes flying.
Near rotation is too subjective. I dont want my wingman guessing about
our speed and then making a decision. That takes too long. Make it
easy for him. If I abort after we apply takeoff power, you go flying.
Say lead aborts. The first thing that happens is -2 blows past him/her.
Thats for a high or slow speed abort! The last thing you expect from the
lead is idle power and brakes. You simply cannot react quickly enough.
Now lead not only has to deal with whatever issue caused the abort but
now he/she has to figure out where -2 is.
Now I'm only aborting for something catastrophic, i.e., the engine
coming apart or a major gear/directional control issue. The best thing
-2 can do is go flying and get off my runway, the same thing I'll do if
he calls aborting as my wingman.
I don't know you. But your call sign says Air Force. In the Navy we had
a agreement in ALL formation take offs -NO SYMPATHETIC ABORTS! Its too
easy to turn a simple indicator problem into an ugly aircraft pile near
the end of the runway.
Mike
Looking forward to your response.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=215332#215332
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Missing Man Formation |
Dale,
I've read his stuff. My time in the military doesn't count unless I here
bullets zipping by my ears.
I still will talk about flying, I still will tell and listen to anything
about flying and Yaks, and I would still fly when and where I choose. Mark
gave me that freedom. I don't lose sleep over any of this.
Bill
Have you flown the TW yet?
-----Original Message-----
From: Dale Matuska [mailto:dale@frii.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 6:41 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Re: Missing Man Formation
HI Bill
Before you meet this guy you might want to read what he has to say to me off
line.
Start at the bottom ( first message ) and read up the list.
Floyd
>
>
> Are you a vet?
>
> Have you fought in any wars? When was the last time you heard a round
> from the bad guy go zipping by your ears?
>
> Do you care how some Vet's feel about this issue or is your loyalty to
> them only lip service and otherwise, please shut up I do not want to
> hear it except on Veterans Day, and even then only in a parade?
>
> Matt Dralle owns this list server. Not you. Your freedom here is not
> promised by being a member of this country, but by the money that is
> raised to support the hardware on this system. It is not yours, nor was
> it given to you. It is a privilege to use and not your RIGHT to use.
> Your freedom of speech is not an issue on this list server. You do not
> have the right to scream FIRE FIRE FIRE in a theatre no more than you
> have the right to say anything you feel like here.
>
> I know what I am saying and have defended YOUR right to say it directly
> for over 38 years now. No, I am not Hitler.
>
> Please don't direct profanity towards me. If you insist on doing so,
> please have the courage to do so to my face. Otherwise, I deem you a
> coward who's courage comes directly in proportion to the distance he is
> away from the person being talked to.
>
> Thank you for your point of view.
>
> Mark Bitterlich
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dale Matuska [mailto:hdinamic@qwestoffice.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 16:31
> To: Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Re: Missing Man Formation
>
> Raise hate and discontent ?
>
> I fly in the RPA to honor the generations of military pilots that
> protected my freedom and those around the world.
>
> I fly in the RPA to keep the tradition alive for future generation to
> see.
>
> I fly at the Veterans events to honor our veterans and the service to
> this country so they know we care.
>
> I don't fly for Matt Dralle who in charge of "your" freedoms. No one
> owns my freedom of speech.
>
> My god man have you stopped to think about what your saying.
>
> When we toppled Hitler in WW2 " someone was angry "
>
> So What. Life is what you make it. Don't shit in your food pan.
>
> Enjoy the ride.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E"
> <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
> To: <hdinamic@qwest.net>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 10:52 AM
> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Re: Missing Man Formation
>
>
> It is related to what I referred to in my letter because all are topics
> that raise hate and discontent and can never be solved or answered to
> the satisfaction of everyone. Someone ALWAYS ends up angry.
>
> The Missing Man Formation topic falls into that same category.
>
> Some think it is just fine for civilians to be flying for their buddies.
> Others think it should be reserved for the military. Regardless of who
> is right or who is wrong, bringing it up is a bad idea because feelings
> about it are strongly held.
>
> This is why Matt Dralle suggested it might not be a good topic for the
> YAK list.
>
> Mark
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dale
> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 1:53 PM
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Yak-List: Re: Missing Man Formation
>
>
> Interesting Mark.
>
> I don't see how this is related to rock and roll , who the hell is
> running for president, my mother or what beer I drink. It looked to me
> like formation flying and I was in a Yak. I take exception to your
> statement as not being a related subject. Have a nice Veterans Day!!
>
>
> Dale
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=215018#215018
>
>
>
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Emailing: DSC_1427-A[1].JPG |
Copy, 8 hours bottle to keyboard. *:>)) hic*^
Doc
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of N642K
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 9:28 PM
Subject: Yak-List: Re: Emailing: DSC_1427-A[1].JPG
There should be a rule about posting under the influence..... [Shocked] :D
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=215464#215464
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Emailing: DSC_1427-A[1].JPG |
Mark,
I was intending to stay out of this one but I have to say that you are
absolutely correct. As you noted the photo is a micro-second image that
generally could not tell the whole story. In this case however I believe it
does, whether it is a take-off or landing situation.
It is obviously a take-off and is clearly unsafe since #2 is airborne before
the lead with all the difficulties and potential dangers you have noted.
Very bad form.
If it were a landing situation it would be far worse than bad form and I
would remind everyone of the recent P51 disaster at Oshkosh.
Some may say this is different as the Mustangs were not in formation but the
photo of the CJ's (for that micro second at least) shows two aircraft in
close proximity but NOT in controlled formation.
In a formation take-off formation flight begins when lead nods his head and
releases the brakes.
The wingman's job from that moment is; 1. Maintain wing tip clearance in
the event that lead has to abort. 2. Maintain position during the take-off
roll with judicious use of power to lift off after the lead. 3. Use leads
cue for gear (and flap if used) retraction. 4. Maintain position.
The formation landing begins and ends with #4 above. Gear and flap extension
of course on the leads signal and maintain adequate wingtip clearance.
Other than that the mission is to fly formation and maintain the correct
position. Touchdown will be before the lead You will have done this
without looking at the runway. That is the leads job.
Walt
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E"
<mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 3:51 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Re: Emailing: DSC_1427-A[1].JPG
> MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
>
> Doc, I have flown a good deal of dissimilar aircraft formation with me
> being in the aircraft with more performance and a much shorter take-off
> roll than the other guy. That said, I have made the mistake you are
> talking about. In this case, a formation take-off with me in a YAK-50
> and the other fellow flying lead in a souped up Cessna 180. I am off
> the deck long before he is, and what you are saying is exactly what
> happened. I am looking down on lead. He is partially obscured by the
> wing. I have to pull to keep from over-taking him. I slow to near
> stall speed. It was easy to pick up a little drift, since there was a
> cross-wind situation. I am looking at an airplane on the deck that is
> not flying, yet I am in the air and have "keeping it flying" issues
> happening. It was bad ju-ju. Lead, a retired USMC C-130 pilot and
> ex-EA-6B ECMO chewed my ass and rightly so. He was right, I was wrong,
> it was a stupid thing to do. Of course in this case a freeze frame
> picture is hard to judge. The situation for THEM might have been just
> milliseconds. I have no idea. However, as a point of discussion for
> formation flying between two aircraft, there is no question that it is a
> bad idea to have your wingman rotate and start flying before lead. I
> say this as just a regular ole Pilot who does not have a FAST card from
> the RPA, and could of course be wrong.
>
> Mark Bitterlich
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Roger Kemp MD
> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 13:47
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Re: Emailing: DSC_1427-A[1].JPG
>
> Mike,
> You are absolutely correct. What I wrote was poorly worded for brevity.
> No excuse.
> I'm AF (ANG).
> During the brief, Motherhood will have covered when and if the element
> will abort together. Generally that is if the element is mission
> critical for training and the abort occurs leaving the chocks, in EOR,
> or as the flight starts TO roll. Everything is talked about on the radio
> if possible, but maybe not. If lead breaks one third, halfway down the
> runway, at rotation or at some point past loss of nose wheel steering, 2
> is going flying to get out of lead's way. In the TO roll if two still
> had nose wheel steering, it is a judgment call. Nothing is embedded in
> concrete. We'll talk about it in the debrief. You are correct, the last
> thing we need is for two a/c to be in the barrier at the same time.
> Well since we don't have hooks and barriers, that one was a moot point.
> We are talking about round motors and it is a judgment call but me
> personally, if I'm two and lead has a bad day, aborts, then I'm going
> flying any way. We do this for fun and there is nothing mission critical
> in what we do.
> The point with the two pictures of the YAKs and the CJ's doing formation
> T.O.s was that Two is now the flight lead. He rotated and went flying
> before lead. For two now to stay in position with lead, he/she is going
> to have to pull back on the power, look down at lead, and possibly
> unintentionally roll into him while trying to maintain station. The
> other risk is since lead is at Vrot not quite flying with two now flying
> two can pull too much power and stall while trying to stay in position.
> Those were the safety issue I was trying to point out. Two at that point
> needs to become lead and fly his jet.
> Lead becomes two and joins on the new accidental flight lead. They can
> work it out on departure, in the area or in debrief.
> Talon, you are absolutely correct a picture is what is happening at that
> nanosecond in time. But it is worth a 1000 words when it shows something
> of interest. The "I fly with this lead all the time and we do it this
> way"
> because we are comfortable with each other is not a warm fuzzy for me
> that is. It is an invitation for bent metal and heartache. Sorry, I may
> be seeing it all wrong and maybe it is me that is missing the point
> here. But, I just had my DO in the office a few minutes ago and showed
> him the pictures. His reaction was Holly SHIT! Nuff said does not matter
> how big the @#$%^& runway is. We can go to the bar, drink beer, pat each
> other on the ass, scratch each other's backs and this was still not
> recognized as poor technique and not entirely safe. Two is trying to fly
> form on lead who is still on the ground.
> Here are two nanosecond shots of it being done right. Well the #2
> Scooter is just a little bit sucked since we are splitting hairs.
> That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
> Doc
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of N642K
> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 9:39 AM
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Yak-List: Re: Emailing: DSC_1427-A[1].JPG
>
>
> Sorry Doc, I gotta disagree BIG time with this statement;
>
> If lead aborts, 2 aborts. The flight usually will abort as an element
> unless lead aborts at rotation
>
> If lead aborts, the worse thing -2 can do is abort as well. We agree
> that near rotation -2 goes flying. My point is -2 ALWAYS goes flying.
> Near rotation is too subjective. I dont want my wingman guessing about
> our speed and then making a decision. That takes too long. Make it
> easy for him. If I abort after we apply takeoff power, you go flying.
>
> Say lead aborts. The first thing that happens is -2 blows past him/her.
> Thats for a high or slow speed abort! The last thing you expect from the
> lead is idle power and brakes. You simply cannot react quickly enough.
> Now lead not only has to deal with whatever issue caused the abort but
> now he/she has to figure out where -2 is.
>
> Now I'm only aborting for something catastrophic, i.e., the engine
> coming apart or a major gear/directional control issue. The best thing
> -2 can do is go flying and get off my runway, the same thing I'll do if
> he calls aborting as my wingman.
>
> I don't know you. But your call sign says Air Force. In the Navy we had
> a agreement in ALL formation take offs -NO SYMPATHETIC ABORTS! Its too
> easy to turn a simple indicator problem into an ugly aircraft pile near
> the end of the runway.
>
> Mike
>
> Looking forward to your response.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=215332#215332
>
>
>
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Shock and Awe |
Then he or she, bingo'ed and RTB'ed. ;)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=215498#215498
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|
| 
