Tiny U.S. planes spy as GIs avoid danger, by Danica Kirka ASSOCIATED PRESS
Brooke Rowe
PRESS
(EXCERPT) SKOPJE, Macedonia -- With his miniature spy planes at 16,000
feet and guided by remote control, U.S. Army Capt. Daniel Dittenber's
pilots camped on the ground aren't exactly in any danger. That's just
the way the Bush administration likes it. Putting hardware instead of
humans into harm's way is especially appealing to Washington as the
United States joins NATO's newest foray into the Balkans, a mission to
disarm ethnic Albanian rebels in Macedonia. NATO's ruling council was
exp...
U.S. and friendly nation laws prohibit fully reproducing
copyrighted material. In abidance with our laws this report
cannot be provided in its entirety. However, you can read it
in full today, 22 Aug 2001, at the following URL. (COMBINE
the following lines into your web browser.) The
subject/content of this report is not necessarily the
viewpoint of the distributing Library. This report is provided
for your information.
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20010822-3448950.htm
---------------------------
Brooke Rowe
Associate Librarian
The American War Library
http://www.americanwarlibrary.com
Bob White
to think the Pentagon requires a rated officer to fly the damn thing.
Sorry Colonel, a God Damned SSgt is good enough, and he doesn't
even need a fucking leather jacket.
When I went as staff to Washington, we briefed all the Senators
that we would insist that all UAV be assigned to the Army. The
reason we gave that briefing is the USAF just doesn't get it.
The Army on the other hand, knows how to deploy pilots in both
tanks, fixed air, and helo, without having to fight the fighter mafia.
They do it with professionals who cost a fraction of the USAF outlays.
Most of the Senators were agreeable, and even the Secretary of
Defense nodded his head when we showed how the savings in
leather jackets alone would save 300 million $US annually.
"Brooke Rowe" <us-nationa...@pacbell.net> wrote
Tarver Engineering
:)
A tank driver with direct control of his own CAS; what a concept.
"Bob White" <bobwh...@home.com> wrote in message
news:tATg7.44239$c8.17...@news1.denver1.co.home.com...
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
Check out our new Unlimited Server. No Download or Time Limits!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! ==-----
Bob White
they'd have rated officers with leather jackets in them.
Of course the UAV mission better be over, when the tanks merge
with the enemy.
Out at the range we practiced artillery shots with the UAV, and I'm
almost convinced that tanks are obsolete. The gunners just walked
their rounds onto the enemy forces (command tanks and HQ vehicles).
Course, on the run, the tank is superior, as artillery can't hit a moving
target. In just about every battle we wiped out the command element
and the tanks had to go chase and kill the enemy tanks which were in
full retreat. After about 10 of these exercises, we pretty much can
find the command elements in less than an hour. Well before the
battle.
We had the Border Patrol out with us earlier this summer, and they
plan to adapt these into some of their border patrol missions, with
the Army and Marines doing the flying, and the B.P. doing the
camera and sensor management. A good way to train UAV pilots
and get good use of the sensors (mostly at night, as each pilot needs
one night landing a week +/- to stay current).
"Tarver Engineering" <jta...@sierratel.com> wrote
Tarver Engineering
> What I meant was, that if the USAF was in charge of M-1 tanks,
> they'd have rated officers with leather jackets in them.
>
> Of course the UAV mission better be over, when the tanks merge
> with the enemy.
>
> Out at the range we practiced artillery shots with the UAV, and I'm
> almost convinced that tanks are obsolete. The gunners just walked
> their rounds onto the enemy forces (command tanks and HQ vehicles).
> Course, on the run, the tank is superior, as artillery can't hit a moving
> target. In just about every battle we wiped out the command element
> and the tanks had to go chase and kill the enemy tanks which were in
> full retreat. After about 10 of these exercises, we pretty much can
> find the command elements in less than an hour. Well before the
> battle.
>
> We had the Border Patrol out with us earlier this summer, and they
> plan to adapt these into some of their border patrol missions, with
> the Army and Marines doing the flying, and the B.P. doing the
> camera and sensor management. A good way to train UAV pilots
> and get good use of the sensors (mostly at night, as each pilot needs
> one night landing a week +/- to stay current).
Excellent.
John
> "Tarver Engineering" <jta...@sierratel.com> wrote
> > Bob, your observations must have made you very popular with the USAF
elite.
> > :)
> >
> > A tank driver with direct control of his own CAS; what a concept.
>
>
>
Ed Rasimus
>What I meant was, that if the USAF was in charge of M-1 tanks,
>they'd have rated officers with leather jackets in them.
Sounds like you're envious of the jacket. Seriously, they are grossly
over-rated as combat gear. Too stiff, too hot, too uncomfortable.
And, no, they probably wouldn't put rated officers in M-1 tanks. The
fact that both the USN and USAF have set education and commission
requirements for cockpit jobs is indicative of what experience has
shown is effective to get those jobs done. The fact that the Army
succeeds quite well with placing lower rank NCO's in command of M-1s
and Bradleys shows that they have had good success with that policy.
For UAV's there is a good chance that the operation would be handled
quite readily by technicians and no need for pilots. Initial
development might be done by rated folks, but that would be simply a
factor related to familiarity with three dimensional maneuver and air
tactics. Once UAVs moved into high production and operational status,
expect enlisted operators. (Refer to Buffalo Hunter drone ops in SEA
for an example.)
>
Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (ret)
***Computer Edge Magazine
***http://www.computeredge.com
Bob White
rated pilots operating the drones. Even rated navigators couldn't get
into drone ops. Maybe that changed overseas.
I was only 17 when that war ended, so you are the authority on all that.
"Ed Rasimus" <thund...@earthlink.net> wrote
>
> [snip]
Guy Alcala
> "Bob White" <bobwh...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >What I meant was, that if the USAF was in charge of M-1 tanks,
> >they'd have rated officers with leather jackets in them.
>
> Sounds like you're envious of the jacket. Seriously, they are grossly
> over-rated as combat gear. Too stiff, too hot, too uncomfortable.
>
> And, no, they probably wouldn't put rated officers in M-1 tanks. The
> fact that both the USN and USAF have set education and commission
> requirements for cockpit jobs is indicative of what experience has
> shown is effective to get those jobs done.
Ed, I guess then that it must really be true that the Jews _are_ smarter
than the rest of us, because the IAF doesn't require their aircrew to
have degrees - in fact, they take them right into aircrew training at 18
after high school, which means that they have four more years of
effective piloting available to them compared to our aircrew. Most never
get degrees, before or after their service. I grant you that a high
school diploma in Israel may well be equivalent (or better) to a college
degree here, given the sad state of our public education system and the
tendency to have credentials for the sake of having credentials, but it
does beg the question of what's really necessary to do the job, vs. what
keeps the fun jobs for the frat boys (and sorority girls now). Since
your own degrees could hardly be further from being piloting-related, I'm
curious: What knowledge or skills did your going to college give you that
were essential or even useful in being a pilot, that you didn't already
have and couldn't have acquired in some other way?
> The fact that the Army
> succeeds quite well with placing lower rank NCO's in command of M-1s
> and Bradleys shows that they have had good success with that policy.
>
> For UAV's there is a good chance that the operation would be handled
> quite readily by technicians and no need for pilots. Initial
> development might be done by rated folks, but that would be simply a
> factor related to familiarity with three dimensional maneuver and air
> tactics. Once UAVs moved into high production and operational status,
> expect enlisted operators. (Refer to Buffalo Hunter drone ops in SEA
> for an example.)
I have this vague memory of reading an article recently, maybe in AvLeak
or Air & Space, that rated pilots were flying UAVs, with guarantees for
their next assignment to make it more attractive. Don't hold me to it,
though: I might have dreamed the whole thing;-)
Guy
Bob White
navigators a year wash out of UPT. It's not about degrees,
it's mostly a skill-set. Those that don't get washed-out succeed.
Doctorates, Masters, and Undergraduates all fail at the same
rate.
While I think the USAF should go back to a warrant grade for
piloting the heavies, I still think the Generals need a place to
grow, and the only thing I can think of is Tactical Air and Strategic
Air. Mobility and Recce and Tankers, are all excellent positions
for Warrants. Warrants cost about 1/8th a rated officer pilot.
But having graduated the American public education system, I
think it no more prepares people for changing money, than it does
flying airplanes, or driving ships. My own education in Oregon
was substandard. When I went to college I had four semesters
of remedial math and English just to be considered for the first
year. I sent my own kids to the Community College as soon as
they were eligible. They were required to get a GED before
the school would degree them, but they got their Associate
degree in the same time as it would have taken them to graduate
high school (mostly because my kids are slackers and liked
having fun over homework).
"Guy Alcala" <g_al...@postoffice.pacbell.net> wrote
Ed Rasimus
>Ed, I guess then that it must really be true that the Jews _are_ smarter
>than the rest of us, because the IAF doesn't require their aircrew to
>have degrees - in fact, they take them right into aircrew training at 18
>after high school, which means that they have four more years of
>effective piloting available to them compared to our aircrew.
It works for them, but then they operate primarily in a single mission
mode, from the home station, in predominantly VFR conditions.
I suspect that, as you indicate, it may be a function of the quality
of their educational system. One aspect that I fully agree with (and
which is being considered now--finally!) by the USAF is elimination of
the "up or out" policy and acceptance of the concept of career
aviators.
> Most never
>get degrees, before or after their service. I grant you that a high
>school diploma in Israel may well be equivalent (or better) to a college
>degree here, given the sad state of our public education system and the
>tendency to have credentials for the sake of having credentials, but it
>does beg the question of what's really necessary to do the job, vs. what
>keeps the fun jobs for the frat boys (and sorority girls now). Since
>your own degrees could hardly be further from being piloting-related, I'm
>curious: What knowledge or skills did your going to college give you that
>were essential or even useful in being a pilot, that you didn't already
>have and couldn't have acquired in some other way?
I still support the idea of a college degree for pilot training. I did
the instructor job, both flight line and academics in UPT as well as
both student and instructor training in LIFT, so I'd like to think
that I know what it takes. Now, I'm teaching high school grads at the
local community college and I see what their capabilities are at the
18 year old level. "There ain't no way" these kids could be ready for
military flying in a high tech system.
I'd like to think that being able to read and write competently are
the very essence of education. Ability to start and complete a complex
program requiring commitment, dedication and self-motivation is the
essential element of a four year college requirement.
Admittedly my political science background doesn't translate directly
into aviation related skills, but I had a long history of self-study
of airplanes, did my own light plane flying and was highly motivated.
Regardless, it took a lot of effort to begin to comprehend the
dynamics of nuclear weapons delivery on blind offset radar targets
with solution anticipation for low angle droque releases. Navigation,
engineering, weapons delivery parameters, etc. all require a wee bit
of study.
And, BTW, I weren't no "frat boy." I was a commuter student in my
undergraduate years.
>
>I have this vague memory of reading an article recently, maybe in AvLeak
>or Air & Space, that rated pilots were flying UAVs, with guarantees for
>their next assignment to make it more attractive. Don't hold me to it,
>though: I might have dreamed the whole thing;-)
I don't thinks so, but you could be right. My recollection,
particularly when I was at ATC Hq, as "personnel staff officer" for
rated assignments out of pilot/nav training, was that we were way too
short of rated pilots during the war years to stuff them into console
ops. Now, we might have reverted during the post-war draw-down where
the concept of stock-piling pilots in the "rated supplement" was in
action.
Buescher Family
Guy Alcala wrote:
> <snip>
>
>
> I have this vague memory of reading an article recently, maybe in AvLeak
> or Air & Space, that rated pilots were flying UAVs, with guarantees for
> their next assignment to make it more attractive. Don't hold me to it,
> though: I might have dreamed the whole thing;-)
>
> Guy
Yeah, it was in Air & Space a couple issues ago. Talked about having big
problems getting drivers for Predator, because nobody wants to leave actual
flying for flying from the ground (they also interviewed one pilot whose
manned aircraft habits lead him to "check left" before banking the UAV--he
looks at the wall before realizing it doesn't do any good). Bored
pilots...great. Makes sense to me to get them from somewhere else, it can't
take so much training as to require a rated pilot, and the image analysts
(and I'm sure the engineering people) were ALL excited about it--I bet some
of them would like to learn to fly it, too. Don't have the magazine anymore,
so can't check on what the Air Force's rationale for rated pilots was.
Geoffrey
Daniel Kekäläinen
officer gets all excited about UAV operations and looks forward to his
own "pilot scarf"...
/Daniel
Matt Clonfero
<thund...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>"Bob White" <bobwh...@home.com> wrote:
>
>>What I meant was, that if the USAF was in charge of M-1 tanks,
>>they'd have rated officers with leather jackets in them.
>And, no, they probably wouldn't put rated officers in M-1 tanks. The
>fact that both the USN and USAF have set education and commission
>requirements for cockpit jobs is indicative of what experience has
>shown is effective to get those jobs done. The fact that the Army
>succeeds quite well with placing lower rank NCO's in command of M-1s
>and Bradleys shows that they have had good success with that policy.
Almost a sure-fire way to wind up a pilot in the RAF is to say "if you
were in the army, you'd be a Sergeant". IIRC, the Army Air Corps assigns
enlisted men to fly attach helicopters...
Aetherem Vincere
Matt
--
To err is human
To forgive is not
Air Force Policy
Guy Alcala
Ed Rasimus wrote:
> Guy Alcala <g_al...@postoffice.pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >Ed, I guess then that it must really be true that the Jews _are_
> smarter
> >than the rest of us, because the IAF doesn't require their aircrew to
>
> >have degrees - in fact, they take them right into aircrew training at
> 18
> >after high school, which means that they have four more years of
> >effective piloting available to them compared to our aircrew.
>
> It works for them, but then they operate primarily in a single mission
>
> mode, from the home station, in predominantly VFR conditions.
I believe they have primary missions as we do, but everyone in a fighter
is supposed to be both A/A and A/G qualified. The training split may be
70/30 or so one way or the other, or maybe more even. Prior to the
advent of the A-4 and F-4, everyone was assumed to be multi-role,
although obviously those a/c best suited for each mission tended to be
used for them when possible. They can and do operate from other than
their normal bases, but the distances between bases tend to be a lot
shorter and there's a lot less need for A/A refueling. Since they've
started to do a lot of training in Turkey, they may have become more
flexible.
> I suspect that, as you indicate, it may be a function of the quality
> of their educational system. One aspect that I fully agree with (and
> which is being considered now--finally!) by the USAF is elimination of
>
> the "up or out" policy and acceptance of the concept of career
> aviators.
Seems like the LDO-Aviator idea comes in cycles, whenever the services
have managed to cause too many of their pilots to vote with their feet.
I have an ex-navy acquaintance who got out in the '80s, the last time
the navy did away with billets for pilots who wanted to fly and weren't
looking to wear stars on their shoulders.
The average one, I quite agree, having taken classes at CCs on and off.
But that's painting the entire group as identical, and that doesn't hold
up. Are you suggesting that Army W.O. helo pilots aren't highly
motivated, and they _all_ lack the necessary skills/knowledge to be
fighter jocks?
> I'd like to think that being able to read and write competently are
> the very essence of education. Ability to start and complete a complex
>
> program requiring commitment, dedication and self-motivation is the
> essential element of a four year college requirement.
Considering that our current President and Dan Quayle are examples of
the commitment, dedication and motivation you ascribe as the essential
elements of a four-year college requirement, and we've seen numerous
examples of their ability to express themselves competently, you'll
excuse me if I'm not impressed (not bashing the Republicans, just can't
think offhand of any Demo Pols whose intellectual 'achievements' are of
the same caliber). If George Bush Jr. can qualify to fly military a/c
based on his academic record, the bar can't be set all that high,
although if the main requirement is how well you can sit AT a Bar our
Prez may be well qualified. But let's look at a few pilots who never
went to college, and yet somehow still managed to be able to deal with
the requirements of military jet flying (and combat): Yeager, John
Glenn, and Scott Carpenter. Who would you rather have in the cockpit?
The idea that ONLY people who have 4 year degrees have the above traits
which you mention, is patently untrue. Here's another example:
A young man who grew up farming, decided that he wanted more than
anything to fly. At 18 he was inducted, and served in a ground capacity
as an enlisted man during the war his country was then engaged in.
Applying for flight training, he was rejected for one of those obscure
heart problems that are the bane of pilots (like Deke Slayton).
Deciding that he didn't want to spend the rest of his military service
peeling potatoes or in some safe ground job, he asked for transfer to
the paratroops, which was approved. As it happened, he was examined by
the same doctor who had previously ruled him unfit to fly. Not
recognizing him, the doctor ruled him fit. After checking his records,
the doctor realized he'd boobed, and tried to rescind his letter of
approval. The applicant refused to return it, and was accepted into the
paratroops. He made 495 jumps, probably saw combat (unclear) and was a
member of the Army's parachute demo team.
Leaving active duty at the end of his conscript period, he went back to
farming for three years, but still wanted to fly. He re-applied, even
though he was now 24, and of course lacked a degree. He faced many of
the same medical hurdles, but medical science had advanced, plus he knew
people in the military who could help him now, and he was finally passed
as fit to enter flying training. He did quite well in his flight
training, but shortly before he was due to get his wings he found he was
being assigned to the helicopter pipeline. When he asked why, he was
informed that the doctor who had given his okay had done so with the
proviso that he could only fly helos. Somehow his medical file was sent
to a respected cardiologist in another country who was able to convince
his own country's air force medical bureaucracy that he was fit to fly
fast jets. While all this was going on, though, he reported to the helo
squadron to begin training there. About two months later, he ran into a
senior officer who knew him, and who asked how he was doing. He
explained the situation, and was sent to see an even more senior
officer. When he met him, he said "I don't care what you do, I'll sit
in your waiting room until you send me to fighter training." The senior
officer said "Okay, go home and let me think about it." The next day,
in a phone call, the officer he'd spoken to told him to report to the
Fighter OTU.
Now, you tell me; who is showing more determination and drive: this guy,
who spent about 8 years trying to get into a fighter cockpit, or someone
like our President who apparently got into Yale because his father was a
rich alum (it sure as hell wasn't because of intellectual attainments),
and then partied his way through school on his way to a 'C' average
while occasionally picking up such fascinating facts as 'Greece is
inhabited by the Grecians', before landing a coveted and highly-desired
spot in the Texas ANG through, I'm sure, a selection process as rigorous
as the one Yale applied.
> Admittedly my political science background doesn't translate directly
> into aviation related skills, but I had a long history of self-study
> of airplanes, did my own light plane flying and was highly motivated.
> Regardless, it took a lot of effort to begin to comprehend the
> dynamics of nuclear weapons delivery on blind offset radar targets
> with solution anticipation for low angle droque releases. Navigation,
> engineering, weapons delivery parameters, etc. all require a wee bit
> of study.
Sure. But you could have equally well learned that without going to
college. I've got a buddy who dropped out of high school at 14 and went
to a local CC so he could take more advanced classes _in the subjects
that interested him_, mainly math and science. He eventually enlisted
in the navy as a guaranteed nuclear power operator, provided he passed
the required schools all of which were directly relevant to the field,
and graduated from nuke school in Florida (six months doing hours of
Calculus 5 days a week, plus lots of homework). He didn't mind, as it
was essential to do the job.
He was medically discharged (reinjured old football knee injury), and
has been an Air Traffic Controller for the last 11 years or so, working
in Oakland Center. Many of his colleagues are former military aircrew,
and yet their dedication and abilities seem no stronger than his are
(less so in many cases), despite his lack of a bachelor's degree. No
one else seems to think his lack of same makes him inferior to others
who do have degrees, because he's actually judged on his skill and
ability to do the job, not what initials he may have after his name.
He's currently part of the group (FAA, pilots, airline reps)
re-designing the airspace in the western U.S.
>And, BTW, I weren't no "frat boy." I was a commuter student in my
undergraduate years.
Wasn't implying you were, but frat boy behavior is not exactly uncommon
among the fighter pilot 'fraternity,' I think you'd agree. We've
certainly had some rather embarassing public examples of it, among
aircrew who are a hell of a lot older than 18-22. Robert Duvall's role
in "The Great Santini" seems to have been a pretty accurate, indeed
restrained portrayal, compared to say Tailhook.
Guy
Ed Rasimus
>Sorry I'm only replying to this now.
>
>Ed Rasimus wrote:
>
>>
>> I still support the idea of a college degree for pilot training. I did
>> the instructor job, both flight line and academics in UPT as well as
>> both student and instructor training in LIFT, so I'd like to think
>> that I know what it takes. Now, I'm teaching high school grads at the
>> local community college and I see what their capabilities are at the
>> 18 year old level. "There ain't no way" these kids could be ready for
>> military flying in a high tech system.
>
>The average one, I quite agree, having taken classes at CCs on and off.
>But that's painting the entire group as identical, and that doesn't hold
>up. Are you suggesting that Army W.O. helo pilots aren't highly
>motivated, and they _all_ lack the necessary skills/knowledge to be
>fighter jocks?
Unfortunately policies are established and requirements developed
based on the "average" and not the exception. It's simply a
bureaucratic necessity to set a fixed standard and, as long as it is
effective, to maintain it.
No, I'm not suggesting Army aviation types aren't highly motivated. I
don't want to wake up and find a Claymore in the middle of my driveway
and be able to read "this side toward enemy" on it's face (why do you
suppose they do that?--OH, it's because of the somewhat lower
admission standards for infantry...) No, Army W/O's are definitely
motivated and it would be ludicrous to imply that they "all" lack the
capability to be fighter drivers. Certainly many could succeed. No
doubt about it.
>
>> I'd like to think that being able to read and write competently are
>> the very essence of education. Ability to start and complete a complex
>> program requiring commitment, dedication and self-motivation is the
>> essential element of a four year college requirement.
>
>Considering that our current President and Dan Quayle are examples of
>the commitment, dedication and motivation you ascribe as the essential
>elements of a four-year college requirement, and we've seen numerous
>examples of their ability to express themselves competently, you'll
>excuse me if I'm not impressed (not bashing the Republicans, just can't
>think offhand of any Demo Pols whose intellectual 'achievements' are of
>the same caliber).
You seem to have fallen victim of a bit of orchestrated propaganda.
Lemme see, who has the greater intellectual capacity, the guy who
graduated from Yale then got a Harvard MBA or the guy who washed out
of divinity school? Seriously, you're speaking anecdotally here and it
doesn't relate very well to your argument.
If we wish to speak of academic achievement, I'll list my own. I
washed out of college at the end of my sophomore year where I achieved
a 0.77 GPA for a 21 semester hour term as a chemistry major. I changed
to political science and managed to graduate in 8 semesters with a
2.01 GPA on a four point scale--2.0 was the minimum required to
graduate--it the minimum weren't good enough it wouldn't be the
minimum.
Thirteen years later I entered grad school, older, wiser and a bit
more mature. I finished two Master's programs and but for one course,
got straight A's. The one B was a course on the "art of war" and I got
a B because I wasn't conservative enough for the non-combatant twit
who taught the course.
The relationship between GPA and military pilot success is tenuous at
best, but the requirement to complete a degree program has seemed to
work well. If we can't fill the slots with that requirement, maybe
we'll reduce it, but so far there isn't any problem.
> If George Bush Jr. can qualify to fly military a/c
>based on his academic record, the bar can't be set all that high,
>although if the main requirement is how well you can sit AT a Bar our
>Prez may be well qualified. But let's look at a few pilots who never
>went to college, and yet somehow still managed to be able to deal with
>the requirements of military jet flying (and combat): Yeager, John
>Glenn, and Scott Carpenter. Who would you rather have in the cockpit?
>The idea that ONLY people who have 4 year degrees have the above traits
>which you mention, is patently untrue.
Again, let me note that George W. completed UPT and operational
training and served several years in the TANG. His erstwhile opponent
OTOH, despite an arguable capacity for leadership and responsibility
chose to be a private, went to war with a bodyguard and spent only 151
days of a full year tour in SEA.
Yeager did well in combat in a simpler time. He grew into leadership
and certainly demonstrated considerable skill, intellect and
capability. But, that's anecdotal again and couldn't be used as a
criteria for admission.
Glenn is and was a careerist of the highest order. I wouldn't spit on
him.
---anecdotal Horatio Alger tale snipped--
>Now, you tell me; who is showing more determination and drive: this guy,
>who spent about 8 years trying to get into a fighter cockpit, or someone
>like our President who apparently got into Yale because his father was a
>rich alum (it sure as hell wasn't because of intellectual attainments),
>and then partied his way through school on his way to a 'C' average
>while occasionally picking up such fascinating facts as 'Greece is
>inhabited by the Grecians', before landing a coveted and highly-desired
>spot in the Texas ANG through, I'm sure, a selection process as rigorous
>as the one Yale applied.
Again, that is anecdotal. During the period of SEA, many people chose
National Guard service rather than accepting the draft. Many others
developed alternative ways of avoiding a military obligation (I shall
not bring up the name of "he who shall remain nameless".)
>
>
>> Admittedly my political science background doesn't translate directly
>> into aviation related skills, but I had a long history of self-study
>> of airplanes, did my own light plane flying and was highly motivated.
>> Regardless, it took a lot of effort to begin to comprehend the
>> dynamics of nuclear weapons delivery on blind offset radar targets
>> with solution anticipation for low angle droque releases. Navigation,
>> engineering, weapons delivery parameters, etc. all require a wee bit
>> of study.
>
>Sure. But you could have equally well learned that without going to
>college.
Possibly, but it was certainly easier to learn the complexities of
aviation with the tools and discipline that I gained in college.
Recall that in WW II, there was no college requirement, but there was
a great need, systems were relatively simple and there was a chain of
lesser tasks that washouts could be funnelled into. By Korea and until
1960, there were Aviation Cadets that required only two years of
college. Pilot cadets ended in '60 and navigator cadets ended in '64
when the requirement was raised to a full four-year degree. I don't
think that the policy was changed simply to be elitist.
>>And, BTW, I weren't no "frat boy." I was a commuter student in my
>undergraduate years.
>
>Wasn't implying you were, but frat boy behavior is not exactly uncommon
>among the fighter pilot 'fraternity,' I think you'd agree. We've
>certainly had some rather embarassing public examples of it, among
>aircrew who are a hell of a lot older than 18-22. Robert Duvall's role
>in "The Great Santini" seems to have been a pretty accurate, indeed
>restrained portrayal, compared to say Tailhook.
People who work in occupations in which death is a constant companion
have a tendency to party a bit harder than shoe clerks.
As for Tailhook, there is much to be learned that was not fully
covered in the somewhat liberal, "I loathe the military" press.
Urban Fredriksson
Guy Alcala <g_al...@junkpacbell.net> wrote:
>Now, you tell me; who is showing more determination and drive: this guy,
>who spent about 8 years trying to get into a fighter cockpit, [...]
Here in Sweden, trying to get into a fighter cockpit has
not been one of the requirements since at least the
1960's. For one reason or another, most of those selected
for pilot training have applied "because I was curious if
I'd make it", "well, I accompanied a couple of friends to
the capital and got a free ticked because of this" and the
like and in at least one more recent case "had planned to
become an airline pilot, but they suggested I try the
air force instead".
--
Urban Fredriksson http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/
To get rid of an enemy, make him a friend.
Guy Alcala
> Guy Alcala <g_al...@postoffice.pacbell.net> wrote:
<snip>
> >The average one, I quite agree, having taken classes at CCs on and off.
> >But that's painting the entire group as identical, and that doesn't hold
> >up. Are you suggesting that Army W.O. helo pilots aren't highly
> >motivated, and they _all_ lack the necessary skills/knowledge to be
> >fighter jocks?
>
> Unfortunately policies are established and requirements developed
> based on the "average" and not the exception. It's simply a
> bureaucratic necessity to set a fixed standard and, as long as it is
> effective, to maintain it.
I have no problem with a fixed standard. What I DO have a problem with is a
standard that isn't based on measured ability to perform the job, but is
instead purely arbitrary. If getting the best qualified candidates is the
aim, then the standard should be based on that, not on some wholly artificial
barrier. Here's another one, the vision requirements. Unless it's been
changed, a pilot is required to have 20/20 or better vision when he/she gets
their wings, but for the rest of their service there is little or no
requirement for vision to remain on flight status. They are certainly
allowed to fly provided that their vision is 20/20 or better corrected, i.e.
wearing glasses, and judging by several accounts many flew without wearing
their glasses, which seems far more dangerous to me. So, if they are safe
and effective pilots while wearing glasses later in their career, why is
uncorrected 20/20 at the start even a requirement? If uncorrected 20/20
vision is really essential to being an effective combat pilot, then it should
apply throughout someone's flying career, not just at the start, with no
exceptions.
> No, I'm not suggesting Army aviation types aren't highly motivated. I
> don't want to wake up and find a Claymore in the middle of my driveway
> and be able to read "this side toward enemy" on it's face (why do you
> suppose they do that?--OH, it's because of the somewhat lower
> admission standards for infantry...)
That, and the much shorter training period, plus the much higher and more
sustained fatigue level typical in ground combat.
> No, Army W/O's are definitely
> motivated and it would be ludicrous to imply that they "all" lack the
> capability to be fighter drivers. Certainly many could succeed. No
> doubt about it.
Then you have agreed with my point, which is that the requirement for a
college degree for jet pilot training is a wholly arbitrary one, and that the
main consequences of requiring a college degree for jet training are that it
reduces the pool of qualified applicants, and increases the cost to the
nation as a whole of employing them (since enlisted or NCOs are paid less.
> >> I'd like to think that being able to read and write competently are
> >> the very essence of education. Ability to start and complete a complex
> >> program requiring commitment, dedication and self-motivation is the
> >> essential element of a four year college requirement.
> >
> >Considering that our current President and Dan Quayle are examples of
> >the commitment, dedication and motivation you ascribe as the essential
> >elements of a four-year college requirement, and we've seen numerous
> >examples of their ability to express themselves competently, you'll
> >excuse me if I'm not impressed (not bashing the Republicans, just can't
> >think offhand of any Demo Pols whose intellectual 'achievements' are of
> >the same caliber).
>
> You seem to have fallen victim of a bit of orchestrated propaganda.
> Lemme see, who has the greater intellectual capacity, the guy who
> graduated from Yale then got a Harvard MBA or the guy who washed out
> of divinity school? Seriously, you're speaking anecdotally here and it
> doesn't relate very well to your argument.
No, I'm making a point that an individual's motivation and drive can vary
widely during their lives. Are you seriously suggesting that prior to his
time in the TANG, George Bush was required to demonstrate much if anything in
the way of academic discipline? Or that if his application to Yale (and
probably Harvard) had been judged on merit and not his father's connections,
that he would have been admitted? As to the quality or lack thereof of our
most recent crop of major party presidential nominees, let me ask you: Did
you ever find yourself during the campaign saying to yourself, "is this the
best America can do.? did you ever find yourself wishing that the names on
the top and bottoms of both tickets had been reversed (we'll ignore the VP's
heart problems)? Did you find the Presidential or Vice Presidential debates
more representatitve of what you'd hope American politics would be?
>If we wish to speak of academic achievement, I'll list my own. I
> washed out of college at the end of my sophomore year where I achieved
> a 0.77 GPA for a 21 semester hour term as a chemistry major. I changed
> to political science and managed to graduate in 8 semesters with a
> 2.01 GPA on a four point scale--2.0 was the minimum required to
> graduate--it the minimum weren't good enough it wouldn't be the
> minimum.
Seems to me you could have spent your time far more productively learning to
be a fighter pilot, as you clearly had little interest at that time in going
to college. Would have been cheaper for the country as well, if you were in
ROTC and receiving a scholarship.
> Thirteen years later I entered grad school, older, wiser and a bit
> more mature. I finished two Master's programs and but for one course,
> got straight A's. The one B was a course on the "art of war" and I got
> a B because I wasn't conservative enough for the non-combatant twit
> who taught the course.
Uh huh, because your own motivation and determination had changed, and you
could see the point for your career, which now potentially extended beyond
just flying fighters. Seems to me like your earlier time in college was
almost completely wasted, while your later time wasn't because you were
self-motivated. You've still not given any evidence that going to college is
essential to being a successful fighter pilot, indeed you explictly agreed
that it wasn't necessary when you stated that many W/Os could make it. So
why require the waste of time and money.
> The relationship between GPA and military pilot success is tenuous at
> best, but the requirement to complete a degree program has seemed to
> work well.
Ah, a perfect example for my contention. Tell me, if you had been told that
you would be allowed to fly, provided you took courses that you could see
were directly relevant to the job, would you be more or less likely to have
completed them earlier? Did you have any need whatever as a pilot for
whatever knowledge of chemistry you picked up, or Political Science? Which
classes were essential to your becoming a pilot, and which couldn't you have
gained the knowledge in any other way?
> If we can't fill the slots with that requirement, maybe
> we'll reduce it, but so far there isn't any problem.
Which is another admission that the requirement is an arbitrary one, Ed.
BTW, we seem to be having considerable difficulty filling the slots at the
moment, or at least keeping them filled. Do you suppose that enlisted pilots
who were allowed to fly, with the possibility of being promoted to officers
if they wished, would be more or less likely to stay in and make the military
a career? Would the cost to the country be lower? Do we want the best, or
the best credentialed?
> > If George Bush Jr. can qualify to fly military a/c
> >based on his academic record, the bar can't be set all that high,
> >although if the main requirement is how well you can sit AT a Bar our
> >Prez may be well qualified. But let's look at a few pilots who never
> >went to college, and yet somehow still managed to be able to deal with
> >the requirements of military jet flying (and combat): Yeager, John
> >Glenn, and Scott Carpenter. Who would you rather have in the cockpit?
> >The idea that ONLY people who have 4 year degrees have the above traits
> >which you mention, is patently untrue.
>
> Again, let me note that George W. completed UPT and operational
> training and served several years in the TANG. His erstwhile opponent
> OTOH, despite an arguable capacity for leadership and responsibility
> chose to be a private, went to war with a bodyguard and spent only 151
> days of a full year tour in SEA.
I'm not making comparisons of the military careers of the respective
candidates to score politcal points; I don't care. I am pointing out that
George Bush Jr.'s college career seems to have no bearing whatsoever on his
ability to become a pilot. You've agreed that a college career isn't
necessary, so where's the argument?
> Yeager did well in combat in a simpler time. He grew into leadership
> and certainly demonstrated considerable skill, intellect and
> capability. But, that's anecdotal again and couldn't be used as a
> criteria for admission.
Why not? If he could do the job without a college degree, then clearly it's
not necessary. Or is it your contetion that at some point in the last say 30
or 40 years, flying fighters became so complex that only those with
college-trained intellects (like the President) are capable of handling the
job?
> Glenn is and was a careerist of the highest order. I wouldn't spit on
> him.
Are you saying that because you believe he was a careerist (I presume you
haven't met him, so your opinion is as anecdotal as you accuse mine of being
above), he wasn't fully qualified to be a jet fighter pilot (with three
kills) and an astronaut? That the selection process for him as both a pilot
(without a politically powerful father) and an astronaut was less rigorous
than that faced by someone like Bush (please understand, I'm not jumping on
Bush as a pilot as dumb or even a bad pilot, as I have no way of judging
that. I merely use him to represent the average or even the low end of
what's acceptable).
> ---anecdotal Horatio Alger tale snipped--
>
> >Now, you tell me; who is showing more determination and drive: this guy,
> >who spent about 8 years trying to get into a fighter cockpit, or someone
> >like our President who apparently got into Yale because his father was a
> >rich alum (it sure as hell wasn't because of intellectual attainments),
> >and then partied his way through school on his way to a 'C' average
> >while occasionally picking up such fascinating facts as 'Greece is
> >inhabited by the Grecians', before landing a coveted and highly-desired
> >spot in the Texas ANG through, I'm sure, a selection process as rigorous
> >as the one Yale applied.
>
> Again, that is anecdotal. During the period of SEA, many people chose
> National Guard service rather than accepting the draft. Many others
> developed alternative ways of avoiding a military obligation (I shall
> not bring up the name of "he who shall remain nameless".)
Who, Newt Gingrich? ;-) Doesn't matter to me if you mention the Harlem
celebrity, because I consider the man's morals and character to be based on
nothing more than expediency and self-interest, but you're probably right: we
don't want to get some of our more rabid partisans into an unnecessary froth.
> >> Admittedly my political science background doesn't translate directly
> >> into aviation related skills, but I had a long history of self-study
> >> of airplanes, did my own light plane flying and was highly motivated.
> >> Regardless, it took a lot of effort to begin to comprehend the
> >> dynamics of nuclear weapons delivery on blind offset radar targets
> >> with solution anticipation for low angle droque releases. Navigation,
> >> engineering, weapons delivery parameters, etc. all require a wee bit
> >> of study.
> >
> >Sure. But you could have equally well learned that without going to
> >college.
>
> Possibly, but it was certainly easier to learn the complexities of
> aviation with the tools and discipline that I gained in college.
> Recall that in WW II, there was no college requirement, but there was
> a great need, systems were relatively simple and there was a chain of
> lesser tasks that washouts could be funnelled into. By Korea and until
> 1960, there were Aviation Cadets that required only two years of
> college. Pilot cadets ended in '60 and navigator cadets ended in '64
> when the requirement was raised to a full four-year degree. I don't
> think that the policy was changed simply to be elitist.
Considering that early in WW2, the NCO pilots of VF-2 ("The Chiefs") were all
given either commisioned or warrant ranks purely so that all navy pilots
would be officers, I'd have to disagree. The requirements were raised
because the need for numbers of aviatirs decreased, and requiring a degree
was just one way of artificially limiting the number of applicants,
regardless of ability. Rather similar to racial segregation of the major
leagues, in fact.
> >>And, BTW, I weren't no "frat boy." I was a commuter student in my
> >undergraduate years.
> >
> >Wasn't implying you were, but frat boy behavior is not exactly uncommon
> >among the fighter pilot 'fraternity,' I think you'd agree. We've
> >certainly had some rather embarassing public examples of it, among
> >aircrew who are a hell of a lot older than 18-22. Robert Duvall's role
> >in "The Great Santini" seems to have been a pretty accurate, indeed
> >restrained portrayal, compared to say Tailhook.
>
> People who work in occupations in which death is a constant companion
> have a tendency to party a bit harder than shoe clerks.
Which bothers me not at all.
> As for Tailhook, there is much to be learned that was not fully
> covered in the somewhat liberal, "I loathe the military" press.
Certainly. However, I read widely and I'm quite capable of detecting bias
from that side or the other, nor do I suffer from the "I hate the military"
bias any more than I suffer from the "anyone who's against more military is a
bleeding-heart liberal of questionable loyalty" bias. Personally, it bothers
me not at all if pilots of whatever gender want to have a private party
involving whatever diversions they find salutary. Being a firm libertarian,
I'm in total agreement that they 'can do whatever they want, as long as it
doesn't frighten the horses.' It may be immature, but it doesn't affect me.
If the married Secretary of the Navy decides to perform oral sex on a
prostitute in a room full of other people, that's no skin off my nose (the
eye-witness testimony to that occurrence is from Robert Lawson, the long-time
editor of the Tailhook Association's magazine "The Hook," not exactly a
member of the "I loathe the military" press). But, when it spills out and
involves individuals who have no wish to participate it's crossed way over
the line, and it's the atmosphere of the frat house that encourages that
behavior.
Guy
ArtKramr
>standard that isn't based on measured ability to perform the job, but is
>instead purely arbitrary. If getting the best qualified candidates is the
>aim, then the standard should be based on that, not on some wholly artificial
>barrier.
In my experience in WW II standards were never arbitrary. To become a
bombardier you had to shack a specific number your bomb runs and you had to
finish your training with a certain minimum circle of error (CE) to graduate
or you were washed out. In navigation trianng you had to meet certain standards
for ETA and course accuracy or wou were washed out. Back then,almost no one had
a college degree. But to meet celestial navigation standards you needed
spherical trig. We were all high school graduates and only had basic physics,
plane geometry, plane trig and some algebra. They sent us to school (CTD) and
gave us crash courses in the math and science we needed, We would have been
much better off had we all been college graduates with BS degrees. It would
have been a much better airforce had that been the case. Arbitrary standards?
Never. Everything was deadly pragmatic..
Arthur Kramer
Las Vegas NV
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
Ed Rasimus
>Ed Rasimus wrote:
>> Unfortunately policies are established and requirements developed
>> based on the "average" and not the exception. It's simply a
>> bureaucratic necessity to set a fixed standard and, as long as it is
>> effective, to maintain it.
>
>I have no problem with a fixed standard. What I DO have a problem with is a
>standard that isn't based on measured ability to perform the job, but is
>instead purely arbitrary. If getting the best qualified candidates is the
>aim, then the standard should be based on that, not on some wholly artificial
>barrier.
You make a leap from a standard with which you don't agree to
declaring it totally arbitrary. It has been in effect for USAF pilots
for forty years now, and it has been satisfactory in determining what
qualifications are necessary to enter training. The goal is to provide
an input with a high probability of success.
I spent a lot of time while working at Northrop on F-23, working in
the training system development shop. One of the major issues both for
ATF and for company input to the SUPT syllabus was the question of how
to predict pilot success. What we learned (this was in 1987-88) was
that as of that period, there were NO guaranteed predictors of
aviation excellence. Not the various aptitude tests, not the SAT, not
college GPA, not physical exercises or coordination measures. Nothing
existed that demonstrated a high correlation between a score and pilot
training success. Nada.
> Here's another one, the vision requirements. Unless it's been
>changed, a pilot is required to have 20/20 or better vision when he/she gets
>their wings, but for the rest of their service there is little or no
>requirement for vision to remain on flight status. They are certainly
>allowed to fly provided that their vision is 20/20 or better corrected, i.e.
>wearing glasses, and judging by several accounts many flew without wearing
>their glasses, which seems far more dangerous to me. So, if they are safe
>and effective pilots while wearing glasses later in their career, why is
>uncorrected 20/20 at the start even a requirement? If uncorrected 20/20
>vision is really essential to being an effective combat pilot, then it should
>apply throughout someone's flying career, not just at the start, with no
>exceptions.
Visual acuity is a valuable combat asset. Read Yeager for his comments
regarding his own excellent eyesight and the relationship to combat
success. The requirement is for program entry. For many, if not most,
visual acuity remains fairly constant for an entire career, with the
inevitable descent into reading glasses as one nears fifty years of
age the only deterioration. I held at 20/20 for my entire career.
Some experience a bit of deterioration as they age and while they are
still actively flying. For those, after an investment of several
million dollars in training, it isn't unreasonable to extend their
usable aviation life by allowing glasses.
>
>> No, Army W/O's are definitely
>> motivated and it would be ludicrous to imply that they "all" lack the
>> capability to be fighter drivers. Certainly many could succeed. No
>> doubt about it.
>
>Then you have agreed with my point, which is that the requirement for a
>college degree for jet pilot training is a wholly arbitrary one, and that the
>main consequences of requiring a college degree for jet training are that it
>reduces the pool of qualified applicants, and increases the cost to the
>nation as a whole of employing them (since enlisted or NCOs are paid less.
Requiring a college degree for USAF/USN flying training doesn't
increase the cost to the nation. If you are discussing pay grades,
then what you are questioning is the commissioned officer aspect, not
the educational requirement.
Actually, you could make a strong alternative case, that allowing
input with lesser educational levels would increase attrition and
thereby increase program costs.
>
>> You seem to have fallen victim of a bit of orchestrated propaganda.
>> Lemme see, who has the greater intellectual capacity, the guy who
>> graduated from Yale then got a Harvard MBA or the guy who washed out
>> of divinity school? Seriously, you're speaking anecdotally here and it
>> doesn't relate very well to your argument.
>
>No, I'm making a point that an individual's motivation and drive can vary
>widely during their lives. Are you seriously suggesting that prior to his
>time in the TANG, George Bush was required to demonstrate much if anything in
>the way of academic discipline? Or that if his application to Yale (and
>probably Harvard) had been judged on merit and not his father's connections,
>that he would have been admitted? As to the quality or lack thereof of our
>most recent crop of major party presidential nominees, let me ask you: Did
>you ever find yourself during the campaign saying to yourself, "is this the
>best America can do.? did you ever find yourself wishing that the names on
>the top and bottoms of both tickets had been reversed (we'll ignore the VP's
>heart problems)? Did you find the Presidential or Vice Presidential debates
>more representatitve of what you'd hope American politics would be?
The practice of children of alumni gaining admission to prestige
schools is widespread. However, I'm still sufficiently Pollyann-ish to
think that the reputation of schools like Yale and Harvard is
maintained by rigorous application of academic standards.
As for the most recent election, I am continually more disappointed by
the level of involvement and understanding of the discourse by the
American people and their sustaining media.
>
>Seems to me you could have spent your time far more productively learning to
>be a fighter pilot, as you clearly had little interest at that time in going
>to college. Would have been cheaper for the country as well, if you were in
>ROTC and receiving a scholarship.
I was in ROTC, but the extent of scholarship for AFROTC in those days
was a $50/month stipend during the junior and senior years. Tuition,
books, expenses, etc. were totally self-funded.
As for the value of my education over time, I'm perpetually grateful
for the advantages that my undergraduate liberal arts schooling
provided.
>
>
>Uh huh, because your own motivation and determination had changed, and you
>could see the point for your career, which now potentially extended beyond
>just flying fighters. Seems to me like your earlier time in college was
>almost completely wasted, while your later time wasn't because you were
>self-motivated. You've still not given any evidence that going to college is
>essential to being a successful fighter pilot, indeed you explictly agreed
>that it wasn't necessary when you stated that many W/Os could make it. So
>why require the waste of time and money.
Sorry, I said that "not all" would be unqualified. That's different
than saying "many could make it."
>
>> If we can't fill the slots with that requirement, maybe
>> we'll reduce it, but so far there isn't any problem.
>
>Which is another admission that the requirement is an arbitrary one, Ed.
>BTW, we seem to be having considerable difficulty filling the slots at the
>moment, or at least keeping them filled.
We've got, again this year, more USAFA grads qualified and wanting to
be pilots than slots to put them in. We've got plenty of qualified
ROTC candidates that we aren't accepting, and we've not had to run the
OTS pipeline at all for many years. There doesn't seem to by any
problem with input. As for the exodus of experience, that is more
sociological than educational.
> Do you suppose that enlisted pilots
>who were allowed to fly, with the possibility of being promoted to officers
>if they wished, would be more or less likely to stay in and make the military
>a career? Would the cost to the country be lower? Do we want the best, or
>the best credentialed?
We get the best now, and they appear to be sufficiently credentialed
to move into advanced leadership positions. Staying or leaving doesn't
deal with rank so much as motivation and opportunity. The airlines are
experiencing shortfalls as well and the exodus of 60+ year olds in the
next few years will tighten the belt considerably.
>
>> Again, let me note that George W. completed UPT and operational
>> training and served several years in the TANG. His erstwhile opponent
>> OTOH, despite an arguable capacity for leadership and responsibility
>> chose to be a private, went to war with a bodyguard and spent only 151
>> days of a full year tour in SEA.
>
>I'm not making comparisons of the military careers of the respective
>candidates to score politcal points; I don't care. I am pointing out that
>George Bush Jr.'s college career seems to have no bearing whatsoever on his
>ability to become a pilot. You've agreed that a college career isn't
>necessary, so where's the argument?
I never said that a college career was unnecessary. I simply stated
that it is a requirement that seems to be effective and hasn't
resulted in shortfalls. I acknowledge that some exceptional
individuals right out of high school might have the intellectual
capacity and maturity to do the job, but most can't.
>
>> Yeager did well in combat in a simpler time. He grew into leadership
>> and certainly demonstrated considerable skill, intellect and
>> capability. But, that's anecdotal again and couldn't be used as a
>> criteria for admission.
>
>Why not? If he could do the job without a college degree, then clearly it's
>not necessary. Or is it your contetion that at some point in the last say 30
>or 40 years, flying fighters became so complex that only those with
>college-trained intellects (like the President) are capable of handling the
>job?
How do you spot a Yeager beforehand? Do you put a hundred high school
grads into training and then after spending half a million each, throw
out 99 and keep the Yeager? That's not cost-effective.
And, yes, if pressed, I am saying that at some point in the last 30 or
40 years flying fighters became so complex that a college education
and exceptional physical condition became pre-requisites of success.
>
>> Glenn is and was a careerist of the highest order. I wouldn't spit on
>> him.
>
>Are you saying that because you believe he was a careerist (I presume you
>haven't met him, so your opinion is as anecdotal as you accuse mine of being
>above), he wasn't fully qualified to be a jet fighter pilot (with three
>kills) and an astronaut? That the selection process for him as both a pilot
>(without a politically powerful father) and an astronaut was less rigorous
>than that faced by someone like Bush (please understand, I'm not jumping on
>Bush as a pilot as dumb or even a bad pilot, as I have no way of judging
>that. I merely use him to represent the average or even the low end of
>what's acceptable).
I've never met Glenn, but I've met enough people who have to feel
comfortable in my distaste for the gentleman.
If you have no evidence to indicate that Bush is a "dumb or even a bad
pilot" how do you justify using him to represent "the average or even
the low end of what's acceptable"?
We've been circulating a picture in one of my fighter pilot ass'n list
servers of Bush, coming out from behind the rope line at a rally to
shake the hand and embrace Tom Lockhart who was George W's IP in pilot
training. Without coaching or pre-arrangement he recognized and
remembered Tom and reached out as a friend, not as a political
candidate. Lockhart was a Lt. with me in 105s at Korat and if Tom
trained the president, I can only believe that he would be at the
higher end of what is acceptable. I'll argue that my evidence of
presidential pilot capability is as good or better than yours.
>
>Considering that early in WW2, the NCO pilots of VF-2 ("The Chiefs") were all
>given either commisioned or warrant ranks purely so that all navy pilots
>would be officers, I'd have to disagree. The requirements were raised
>because the need for numbers of aviatirs decreased, and requiring a degree
>was just one way of artificially limiting the number of applicants,
>regardless of ability. Rather similar to racial segregation of the major
>leagues, in fact.
The requirements were raised after WW II, because the high attrition
rates that were acceptable during the war could not be justified in
peacetime. Your assumption that the educational criteria are
"artificially limiting" isn't supportable. Your linking it to racial
segregation is unworthy of you.
Gord Beaman
--cut--
> So, if they are safe
>and effective pilots while wearing glasses later in their career, why is
>uncorrected 20/20 at the start even a requirement? If uncorrected 20/20
>vision is really essential to being an effective combat pilot, then it should
>apply throughout someone's flying career, not just at the start, with no
>exceptions.
>
>
Because uncorrected 20/20 is a STANDARD...if they allowed
corrected 20/20 at the start then the candidate's eyesight might
be extremely poor without correction and the correction might be
the maximum possible so that if the candidate has any further
deterioration then he falls below the 20/20 benchmark, whereas if
he starts out at 20/20 uncorrected then he'd have a lot of
deterioration to do to fall below 20/20 corrected...sounds
prudent to me.
--
Gord Beaman
PEI, Canada
Shawn D. Gahring
BUT...
They have to define a standard at some point. While you may not
agree with the standards they've chosen, at least they have put
some thought behind what those standards are. In the cases you've
laid out (vision standards and commissioned officers), there is
a logic behind it.
The vision standard is 20/50, correctable to 20/20. It always
has been that standard (as opposed to the 20/20 uncorrected you've
cited). If your vision doesn't meet that standard at the start of
training (to include the requisite glasses for those less than
20/20 but correctable to that point), then you don't meet the
physical qualifications. As Ed pointed out, if your vision becomes
worse over time, the prudent thing to do is to provide glasses
rather than throw away the training dollars. They had to make a
cut line somewhere. They determined that 20/50 was acceptable
provided it could be corrected. As an aside, there is a point
at which uncorrected vision is a grounding issue. They aren't
flying guys with 20/100 vision just because they spent the
money training them. If your vision isn't at least 20/50,
correctable to 20/20, you require a waiver from the surgeon
general to continue flying, because you don't meet Class II
physical standards.
The Air Force and Navy use commissioned officers as pilots for
a few reasons. For one, a college degree indicates a willingness
to stick to, and meet the standards for, a course of academics.
A high school diploma doesn't necessarily demonstrate the ability
to start and complete such a program. Are there NCOs out there
that could and do meet that standard? Yes. But once again, they
had to draw a line. Furthermore, the nature of how Air Force and
Navy pilots are used lends itself to having an officer in charge.
Even the Army has officer pilots. The nature of how pilots are
used in the air and on the ground (additional duties, campaign
planning, the level of responsibility) are more in line with
the use of commissioned officers. For the Air Force, at least,
the application and employment of airpower is, in effect, the
purpose for existing as a separate service. You need people in
charge of the Air Force who actually have performed the mission.
The breeding ground for those people is to fly in the ranks
along the way. The Navy doesn't have room aboard ships for both
the person in charge and a pilot, so they've combined them. Can
enlisted troops perform the actual flying duties? Yes. But
the commissioned officer has the responsibilities of and to
command.
Now, whether or not you agree with those bits of reasoning (and
there are other reasons as well), they have been set as a standard
with forethought. What smaller nations do with smaller air forces
doesn't necessarily lend itself to scaling upwards. The problems
associated with changing to what you assume to be a cheaper course
have been weighed, and the costs outweigh the benefits as perceived
by those who made the decisions.
S. Gahring
BTW, I have to second Ed on the issue of ROTC cadets as well.
I never was on scholarship, and didn't even receive the stipend
due to an adminstrative "opportunity".
D.E. Hobbs
commissioned is the educational background provides a better candidate able
to learn the material in the time required. Almost anyone could do what I
do given enough time to train them. The material at UNT wasn't all that
difficult, it was learning all the material in the short time provided that
made it a very difficult challenge. In college, the main thing I learned
was how to learn. As a prior enlisted type, I definitely wouldn't have been
able to make it through UNT right out of American high school. I've heard,
though I can't verify the veracity of it, is when the AF started sending
enlisted people to the Air Weapons Director course at Tyndall a few years
ago the washout rate skyrocketed.
Secondly, you can't argue that all manner of officers are needed in the
AF. One of the biggest lures to get people to become AF officers is a
chance to fly. I think back on my AFROTC days and the majority of people
wanted to fly. Along the way, many changed their mind or couldn't get a
flying slot for whatever reason, but still decided they wanted to serve as
an officer. I served as intel officer for three years before getting to go
to UNT. Without the initial lure of flying, the AF would have a far more
shallow pool of applicants for its officer corps. Besides, flying is
somewhat of a reward in our system for sticking to and having the motivation
to go to university in the first place.
That being said, I had several German classmates at UNT who were 19-20
and they did just fine. As I understand it though, their primary education
was much more rigorous than the US and more akin to our college experience.
PBAR
Bone WSO
Gord Beaman
>Far be it from me to wade into this (well, obviously not too far),
>BUT...
>
>They have to define a standard at some point. While you may not
>agree with the standards they've chosen, at least they have put
>some thought behind what those standards are. In the cases you've
>laid out (vision standards and commissioned officers), there is
>a logic behind it.
>
>The vision standard is 20/50, correctable to 20/20. It always
>has been that standard (as opposed to the 20/20 uncorrected you've
>cited).
Shawn, you DO mean 20/50 (uncorrected) correctable to 20/20
right?...I'm merely pinning it down because stating '20/50
correctable to 20/20' leaves a loophole imo.
Shawn D. Gahring
> Shawn, you DO mean 20/50 (uncorrected) correctable to 20/20
> right?...I'm merely pinning it down because stating '20/50
> correctable to 20/20' leaves a loophole imo.
You are correct. 20/50 uncorrected, provided it is correctable
to 20/20 is the standard (actually one of several vision
standards). Thanks for pointing that out.
S. Gahring
Scott Rose
rebuild early F-16's into UAV attack aircraft?
Scott
Steve Sampson
damned missionaries and suspected drug runners down there.
"Scott Rose" <warb...@warbirdsresourcegroup.org> wrote
Guy Alcala
Ed, my dictionary defines arbitrary as "based on one's preference,
notion or
whim." You state that there is no statistically significant correlation
between
SAT scores or college GPA and pilot training success. We can't compare
college/no college as a
control in this period, obviously, but the above certainly implies that
a college
degree wouldn't be a determinant either. That being the case, requiring
one sure
meets the definition of arbitrary to me.
> > Here's another one, the vision requirements. Unless it's been
> >changed, a pilot is required to have 20/20 or better vision when he/she gets
> >their wings, but for the rest of their service there is little or no
> >requirement for vision to remain on flight status. They are certainly
> >allowed to fly provided that their vision is 20/20 or better corrected, i.e.
> >wearing glasses, and judging by several accounts many flew without wearing
> >their glasses, which seems far more dangerous to me. So, if they are safe
> >and effective pilots while wearing glasses later in their career, why is
> >uncorrected 20/20 at the start even a requirement? If uncorrected 20/20
> >vision is really essential to being an effective combat pilot, then it should
> >apply throughout someone's flying career, not just at the start, with no
> >exceptions.
>
> Visual acuity is a valuable combat asset. Read Yeager for his comments
> regarding his own excellent eyesight and the relationship to combat
> success.
No argument.
> The requirement is for program entry.
As I said.
> For many, if not most,
> visual acuity remains fairly constant for an entire career, with the
> inevitable descent into reading glasses as one nears fifty years of
> age the only deterioration. I held at 20/20 for my entire career.
>
> Some experience a bit of deterioration as they age and while they are
> still actively flying. For those, after an investment of several
> million dollars in training, it isn't unreasonable to extend their
> usable aviation life by allowing glasses.
But if they're competent aviators with glasses later in their careers,
then they'd
be competent with same earlier on, albeit less experienced. Most pilots
get out
at the end of their first commitment regardless. Hell, I was 20/15 with
glasses
in my 20s, 20/20 with slight astigmatism now in my early 40s. Of
course, without
them I'm 20/500 or worse. I repeat, if these people are competent to
fly needing
glasses late in their careers, then there is absolutely no justification
other
than limiting the size of the applicant pool for requiring them to have
perfect
vision at the start of their careers. They're either safe and capable
of doing
the job, or they're not. If not, then they shouldn't be flying
regardless of
their age.
> >
> >> No, Army W/O's are definitely
> >> motivated and it would be ludicrous to imply that they "all" lack the
> >> capability to be fighter drivers. Certainly many could succeed. No
> >> doubt about it.
> >
> >Then you have agreed with my point, which is that the requirement for a
> >college degree for jet pilot training is a wholly arbitrary one, and that the
> >main consequences of requiring a college degree for jet training are that it
> >reduces the pool of qualified applicants, and increases the cost to the
> >nation as a whole of employing them (since enlisted or NCOs are paid less.
>
> Requiring a college degree for USAF/USN flying training doesn't
> increase the cost to the nation. If you are discussing pay grades,
> then what you are questioning is the commissioned officer aspect, not
> the educational requirement.
Quite so. Of course, that also leads the related topic of why
commissioned
officers need to have degrees, but let's concentrate on the main subject
for now.
> Actually, you could make a strong alternative case, that allowing
> input with lesser educational levels would increase attrition and
> thereby increase program costs.
As soon as you have statistical evidence to support that, please give
it. A few
paragraphs above you specifically denied that any such correlation
exists as far
as GPA or SAT scores. And please define 'educational level' - does that
mean
someone who's gone to school for a requisite number of years, or someone
who's
actually gotten an education?
<snip>
Well, I'll leave that without comment except to say that, for ordinary
people, the
standards are fairly rigorous. A friend's sister went to Yale about 20
years ago,
and she certainly has a lot on the ball and got in on merit. Unless of
course she
was let in as a female who's 1/4 black, 1/4 Aboriginal American and 1/2
white, but
let's not get into affirmative action quotas right now. In her case,
she would have qualified academically regardless.
> As for the most recent election, I am continually more disappointed by
> the level of involvement and understanding of the discourse by the
> American people and their sustaining media.
When the level of discourse by the candidates is so low, what do you
expect? The
VP debate showed it doesn't have to be that way.
> >Seems to me you could have spent your time far more productively learning to
> >be a fighter pilot, as you clearly had little interest at that time in going
> >to college. Would have been cheaper for the country as well, if you were in
> >ROTC and receiving a scholarship.
>
> I was in ROTC, but the extent of scholarship for AFROTC in those days
> was a $50/month stipend during the junior and senior years. Tuition,
> books, expenses, etc. were totally self-funded.
Now multiply that $50/month by however many potential flight students
were in AFROTC/NROTC across the
country. And again, ask if there is any proven correlation between a
college
degree and success in UPT. You've quoted the results of statistical
analysis that
strongly indicate the answer is no.
>As for the value of my education over time, I'm perpetually grateful
> for the advantages that my undergraduate liberal arts schooling
> provided.
And I'm grateful for my grammar school education which gave me the tools
I needed
to educate myself, including taking college classes when I found them
interesting/useful. But dropping out of school in the 8th grade allowed
me to
educate myself in the things I found most important to me, including
giving
me far more time to read than many of my contemporaries who stayed in
high school
doing nothing more than warming a seat. I'm not knocking getting a
liberal arts education,
or for that matter any kind of education, just pointing out that doing
it through college
is by no means the only or even necessarily the best way of doing so.
> >Uh huh, because your own motivation and determination had changed, and you
> >could see the point for your career, which now potentially extended beyond
> >just flying fighters. Seems to me like your earlier time in college was
> >almost completely wasted, while your later time wasn't because you were
> >self-motivated. You've still not given any evidence that going to college is
> >essential to being a successful fighter pilot, indeed you explictly agreed
> >that it wasn't necessary when you stated that many W/Os could make it. So
> >why require the waste of time and money.
>
> Sorry, I said that "not all" would be unqualified. That's different
> than saying "many could make it."
Quote from your previous message:
> No, Army W/O's are definitely
> motivated and it would be ludicrous to imply that they "all" lack the
> capability to be fighter drivers. Certainly many could succeed. No
> doubt about it.
I don't know about you, but I fail to see any meaningful difference
between "many
could make it" and "Certainly many could succeed. No doubt about it"
;-)
> >> If we can't fill the slots with that requirement, maybe
> >> we'll reduce it, but so far there isn't any problem.
> >
> >Which is another admission that the requirement is an arbitrary one, Ed.
> >BTW, we seem to be having considerable difficulty filling the slots at the
> >moment, or at least keeping them filled.
>
> We've got, again this year, more USAFA grads qualified and wanting to
> be pilots than slots to put them in. We've got plenty of qualified
> ROTC candidates that we aren't accepting, and we've not had to run the
> OTS pipeline at all for many years. There doesn't seem to by any
> problem with input. As for the exodus of experience, that is more
> sociological than educational.
>
> > Do you suppose that enlisted pilots
> >who were allowed to fly, with the possibility of being promoted to officers
> >if they wished, would be more or less likely to stay in and make the military
> >a career? Would the cost to the country be lower? Do we want the best, or
> >the best credentialed?
>
> We get the best now, and they appear to be sufficiently credentialed
> to move into advanced leadership positions. Staying or leaving doesn't
> deal with rank so much as motivation and opportunity. The airlines are
> experiencing shortfalls as well and the exodus of 60+ year olds in the
> next few years will tighten the belt considerably.
Which begs the question, if they can bail to the airlines, how many will
stick
around? Certainly an enlisted or warrant pilot who's motivated enough
to wish
to become an officer (and has his commitment extended as a consequence)
is fr more likely going
to be around longer than someone who's just in to fulfill their
commitment
until they can get that high paying airline job.
> >> Again, let me note that George W. completed UPT and operational
> >> training and served several years in the TANG. His erstwhile opponent
> >> OTOH, despite an arguable capacity for leadership and responsibility
> >> chose to be a private, went to war with a bodyguard and spent only 151
> >> days of a full year tour in SEA.
> >
> >I'm not making comparisons of the military careers of the respective
> >candidates to score politcal points; I don't care. I am pointing out that
> >George Bush Jr.'s college career seems to have no bearing whatsoever on his
> >ability to become a pilot. You've agreed that a college career isn't
> >necessary, so where's the argument?
>
> I never said that a college career was unnecessary. I simply stated
> that it is a requirement that seems to be effective and hasn't
> resulted in shortfalls. I acknowledge that some exceptional
> individuals right out of high school might have the intellectual
> capacity and maturity to do the job, but most can't.
So why aren't we taking the applicants who can, rather than rejecting
them out of
hand?
> >> Yeager did well in combat in a simpler time. He grew into leadership
> >> and certainly demonstrated considerable skill, intellect and
> >> capability. But, that's anecdotal again and couldn't be used as a
> >> criteria for admission.
> >
> >Why not? If he could do the job without a college degree, then clearly it's
> >not necessary. Or is it your contetion that at some point in the last say 30
> >or 40 years, flying fighters became so complex that only those with
> >college-trained intellects (like the President) are capable of handling the
> >job?
>
> How do you spot a Yeager beforehand? Do you put a hundred high school
> grads into training and then after spending half a million each, throw
> out 99 and keep the Yeager? That's not cost-effective.
Who says it takes half a million apiece? You've already stated that
there is no
way to identify who will be successful and who won't in UPT. In an
earlier
message you said:
> >> I'd like to think that being able to read and write competently are
> >> the very essence of education.
Okay, put me up against Dan Quayle and President Bush, and ask each of
us to write
an essay on a topic of your choice. Using your own standard, which of
us do you think will demonstrate a greater quantity of "the very essence
of education?" Who knows, maybe the President is really a guy who can
clearly articulate his ideas on paper, but just has trouble speaking in
public. Quayle, OTOH;-)
Total cost essentially zilch, since this is or should be part of the
ASVAB. It certainly is part of the high school competency exam, which
unlike a diploma proves you actually have some knowledge/skills, minimal
though they may be. Provided we actually institute passing a
standardized test to get a diploma, that may change.
>Ability to start and complete a
>complex
> >> program requiring commitment, dedication and self-motivation is the
> >> essential element of a four year college requirement.
The question is, does college provide the only means of demonstrating
that? And if
so, why do the Israelis not find it necessary? Clearly, they have found
other
methods of acquiring commitment, dedication, and self motivation, and
doing it at
a younger age than we do. This is beside the educational differences we
agree
probably exist between the two countries' school systems and cultures.
> And, yes, if pressed, I am saying that at some point in the last 30 or
> 40 years flying fighters became so complex that a college education
> and exceptional physical condition became pre-requisites of success.
I believe you've previously mentioned that you, despite your not being
in anywhere
near as good shape as younger pilots, were usually able to wax them
easily in BFM
and DACT, because your experience allowed you to out-think and out fly
them. I've
usually found that to be the case in sports where brain and physical
ability can be used in
varying amounts - In such sports I often beat people 20 years younger
than I am, who have
greater physical talents, because I won't let them play their game and
make them play mine. Of course, when you run across one of those
youngsters who not only has far better physical talents but the smarts
of someone much older, it's time to call a time-out and remember an
appointment you just have to keep;-)
Certainly the ability to sustain high Gs can be important, but it's
rarely a
substitute for skill and knowledge. And with all angle HMS-cued "I see
you,
you're dead" missiles becoming more widely available, I suspect mental
rather than
physical skills will become even more predominant. Why grunt and strain
when your
missile can make a 180 or even 360 while you blow on through? Your 9 or
10g just
isn't going to be significant against a missile that can pull 50g, and
sustain
20-30g for longer than you can.
> >> Glenn is and was a careerist of the highest order. I wouldn't spit on
> >> him.
> >
> >Are you saying that because you believe he was a careerist (I presume you
> >haven't met him, so your opinion is as anecdotal as you accuse mine of being
> >above), he wasn't fully qualified to be a jet fighter pilot (with three
> >kills) and an astronaut? That the selection process for him as both a pilot
> >(without a politically powerful father) and an astronaut was less rigorous
> >than that faced by someone like Bush (please understand, I'm not jumping on
> >Bush as a pilot as dumb or even a bad pilot, as I have no way of judging
> >that. I merely use him to represent the average or even the low end of
> >what's acceptable).
>
> I've never met Glenn, but I've met enough people who have to feel
> comfortable in my distaste for the gentleman.
Yeah, not cheating on your wife at every opportunity must be an awful
black mark
among many of his peers - it certainly got the other members of the
Mercury 7 pissed at
him when he suggested they should knock off the extra-marital screwing,
for PR
reasons if nothing else. But then, as alan shepard strongly implied at
the time, what's marital fidelity got to do with their ability to do
their jobs? Oh, wait, maybe we'd better not get into that;-)
> If you have no evidence to indicate that Bush is a "dumb or even a bad
> pilot" how do you justify using him to represent "the average or even
> the low end of what's acceptable"?
I give him the benefit of the doubt as to his being verbally
inarticulate; many
people have trouble speaking off the cuff in public without being dumb,
although
it would seem to be a considerable handicap for a politician. It does
at least indicate a
lack of ability to think on his feet, which would seem to be an
important
requirement for a fighter pilot. George Bush Sr. was equally
inarticulate, but I never got the impression he
was uneducated, lacking in knowledge, or dumb. I can't say the same for
the son.
By Junior's own admission he didn't set the world on fire academically,
and nothing he says when he opens his mouth and speaks extemporaneously
indicates any great intellectual ability or knowledge; as to the last
item, the public evidence indicates exactly the opposite. Since you
have described the commitment required to get a four year degree as
important, and Jr. clearly coasted his way through, he's definitely not
among the most motivated on that score. So, by your own criterion I
feel perfectly justified describing him
as average or even the low end of what's acceptable, as far as his
college education applies. Does your impression of him indicate he's
likely to be at the top end?
> We've been circulating a picture in one of my fighter pilot ass'n list
> servers of Bush, coming out from behind the rope line at a rally to
> shake the hand and embrace Tom Lockhart who was George W's IP in pilot
> training. Without coaching or pre-arrangement he recognized and
> remembered Tom and reached out as a friend, not as a political
> candidate. Lockhart was a Lt. with me in 105s at Korat and if Tom
> trained the president, I can only believe that he would be at the
> higher end of what is acceptable. I'll argue that my evidence of
> presidential pilot capability is as good or better than yours.
Well, hell, why don't you ask Tom Lockhart directly as to what part of
the spectrum he fell in?
Of course, even if he was a good pilot, that would just tend to throw
even more water on the theory that
commitment etc. in college was important to his success as a FP, as
demonstrated in his (and your) case. You were clearly capable of far
more commitment in your under grad years than you in fact gave, as is
demonstrated by your grad career, so we know the cause in your case
wasn't an intellectual handicap.
> >Considering that early in WW2, the NCO pilots of VF-2 ("The Chiefs") were all
> >given either commisioned or warrant ranks purely so that all navy pilots
> >would be officers, I'd have to disagree. The requirements were raised
> >because the need for numbers of aviatirs decreased, and requiring a degree
> >was just one way of artificially limiting the number of applicants,
> >regardless of ability. Rather similar to racial segregation of the major
> >leagues, in fact.
>
> The requirements were raised after WW II, because the high attrition
> rates that were acceptable during the war could not be justified in
> peacetime.
And the pre-war requirement that only candidates with perfect teeth
(i.e. not even a single cavity) would be allowed to apply for navy
flight training, was based on objective statistics that showed that
pilots with dental caries washed out at a higher rate and suffered much
higher accident rates? Right.
> Your assumption that the educational criteria are
> "artificially limiting" isn't supportable.
Show me a statistic that indicates that WW2 pilots without degrees had
more accidents than those with them, with all other variables like age,
experience level, flight position, condition of the a/c (senior officers
usually got their pick of a/c), etc. controlled for. Certainly the
ex-chiefs were far better trained and much more experienced than the
nugget ensigns coming into the fleet as replacements. If your
contention is accurate, then such statistical evidence should be
available, and would show that a pilot like George
Bush Sr., who got his wings at the age of 18 years and some months, was
statistically more likely to have an accident than a college educated
pilot of the same age (well, that would be a very small or non-existent
group, but you see the principle) and flight time etc.
Ed, your own cite above about your experience at Northrop indicates that
the
educational criteria as a determinant of pilot qualification isn't
supportable.
> Your linking it to racial
> segregation is unworthy of you.
You misunderstood me, and after sending that message out I thought the
point I was
making could be misconstrued. I wasn't implying that the intent of
racial
segregation was the same as the requirement that pilots be officers with
degrees,
as clearly that's not the case (we don't need to discuss racial
segregation in the military),
I was talking about the practical effect. Disqualifying people from
playing in the major leagues purely on account of their race, i.e.
regardless of
their ability, is exactly analogous to disqualifying people from
entering flight
training without a degree, also regardless of their ability. It
artificially
decreases the size of the potential pool of applicants. Unless there is
statistical correlation to link the action and the intended effect (and
you
denied that there is), or unquestionable need, it is an artificial
limit.
Guy
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
"Gord Beaman" <gbe...@islandtelecom.com> wrote in message
news:3b89b432....@news1.islandtelecom.com...
> Because uncorrected 20/20 is a STANDARD...if they allowed
> corrected 20/20 at the start then the candidate's eyesight might
> be extremely poor without correction and the correction might be
> the maximum possible so that if the candidate has any further
> deterioration then he falls below the 20/20 benchmark, whereas if
> he starts out at 20/20 uncorrected then he'd have a lot of
> deterioration to do to fall below 20/20 corrected...sounds
> prudent to me.
Sounds like a stretch to me. My eyesight deteriorated when I was a child. It
remained pretty constant until my mid-40s.... so now I wear bifocals. I remain
20/200 uncorrected and 20/20 corrected. My eyeglasses are NOT coke bottles....
yet.
--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mo...@mortimerschnerd.com.nospam
http://www.mortimerschnerd.com
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
"ArtKramr" <artk...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010826174836...@mb-cp.aol.com...
> In my experience in WW II standards were never arbitrary. To become a
> bombardier you had to shack a specific number your bomb runs and you had to
> finish your training with a certain minimum circle of error (CE) to graduate
> or you were washed out. In navigation trianng you had to meet certain
standards
> for ETA and course accuracy or wou were washed out. Back then,almost no one
had
> a college degree. But to meet celestial navigation standards you needed
> spherical trig. We were all high school graduates and only had basic
physics,
> plane geometry, plane trig and some algebra. They sent us to school (CTD)
and
> gave us crash courses in the math and science we needed, We would have been
> much better off had we all been college graduates with BS degrees. It would
> have been a much better airforce had that been the case. Arbitrary standards?
> Never. Everything was deadly pragmatic..
Not exactly, Art. My eyesight is 20/200 but corrects to 20/20. I never would
have been allowed to fly in the military and yet I have 2600 hours PIC. Was my
eyesight an impediment to my flying?
So the military requires 20/20 vision to become a pilot. What happens to the
majors and light colonels who start to need eyeglasses? Are they removed from
flying status?
ArtKramr
>would
>have been allowed to fly in the military and yet I have 2600 hours PIC. Was
>my
>eyesight an impediment to my flying?
Suppose under conditions of combat you broke your glasses?
Steve Sampson
problems, are the ones with hemorrhoids. They usually opt for a nice tanker
or recce bird with cushion seats to spend their remaining years, before
staff work additional duties bore them to death, and they retire.
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
> >Not exactly, Art. My eyesight is 20/200 but corrects to 20/20. I never
> >would
> >have been allowed to fly in the military and yet I have 2600 hours PIC. Was
> >my
> >eyesight an impediment to my flying?
>
> Suppose under conditions of combat you broke your glasses?
I'd thank them for saving my eyesight. I cannot count the number of times my
eyeglasses has saved me from getting an eyeful of blood, emesis, or urine at
work.
As for flying without glasses, I once lost mine on a scuba trip. I happened to
have an airline captain with me, but he hadn't ever flown a Cherokee Six. I
could read the instruments; I could see the ground and obstacles; what I could
not do was see traffic. He called the traffic out for me, and we made it home
safe and sound on an IFR flight plan (in mixed VFR/IFR weather).
I have never lost my eyeglasses off my head while flying.... even during
aerobatics or thunderstorm penetration. I have, however, damn near shit my
pants, but that's another story.
Cecil Turner
Flying a modern fighter/attack aircraft requires targeting air and ground targets that
are usually acquired as tiny dots, growing to slightly larger dots as weapons are
employed. Many highly successful fighter/attack pilots credit superior eyesight
(20:10-15) as a main determinant of their success (especially during acquisition). Guys
who are "correctable to 20:20" are at a disadvantage. Airline piloting is a whole lot
less demanding of visual acuity.
That said, the main reason for the policy is because there is a surplus of applicants
and, as a group, the folks with better eyesight are viewed as having greater potential
for success. So it's used as a weeding-out criterion. (One more example that life
ain't fair.)
rgds,
KTF
Gord Beaman
--cut--
>
>So the military requires 20/20 vision to become a pilot. What happens to the
>majors and light colonels who start to need eyeglasses? Are they removed from
>flying status?
>--
>Mortimer Schnerd, RN
>
Not to agree with you about your understanding of the vision
requirements to 'become' a pilot but they're likely much
different than the requirements to 'remain' a pilot...at least
this is certainly true in the Canadian Forces of other medical
benchmarks like hearing ability. My hearing had deteriorated
drastically over my service career and I was told many times that
I'd never have been accepted at my present level but could remain
employed at it.
Gord Beaman
I'd be interested in why you find the above a stretch...most
people's eyes deteriorate with age, so doesn't it stand to reason
that if they can barely attain minimum standards by correction
then that any further deterioration would put them under the
minimum?. I'm told that the minimum is 20/50 uncorrected and
correctable to 20/20 to be accepted into the Canadian Armed
Forces as pilots.
BTW, what have Coke bottles to do with the subject at hand?.
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
> >Sounds like a stretch to me. My eyesight deteriorated when I was a child.
It
> >remained pretty constant until my mid-40s.... so now I wear bifocals. I
remain
> >20/200 uncorrected and 20/20 corrected. My eyeglasses are NOT coke
bottles....
> >yet.
>
> people's eyes deteriorate with age, so doesn't it stand to reason
> that if they can barely attain minimum standards by correction
> then that any further deterioration would put them under the
> minimum?. I'm told that the minimum is 20/50 uncorrected and
> correctable to 20/20 to be accepted into the Canadian Armed
> Forces as pilots.
Well, I guess you're right. My eyesight was actually 20/200 as a youth,
correctable to 20/15. Now that I'm 47, it has deteriorated to 20/20 corrected.
Does this mean I couldn't contribute my services as a pilot? Besides, what
percentage of pilots stay in the service until their eyesight starts to change?
I thought the services (at least in the US) were having a problem with
retention.
>
> BTW, what have Coke bottles to do with the subject at hand?.
>
Because it's common to refer to thick glasses as "coke bottle".... as in the
thickness of the glass at the bottom of the bottle.
Haven't you folks got bottles in Canada?
Drew Johnson
> As for flying without glasses, I once lost mine on a scuba trip. I happened to
> have an airline captain with me, but he hadn't ever flown a Cherokee Six. I
> could read the instruments; I could see the ground and obstacles; what I could
> not do was see traffic. He called the traffic out for me, and we made it home
> safe and sound on an IFR flight plan (in mixed VFR/IFR weather).
>
Be interesting to hear from any FAA examiners who might be lurking here if you were in violation of
FAR’s on that one.
Have a sneaking suspicion . . but, would like to hear from an expert.
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
"Drew Johnson" <capt...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:3B8BF77E...@flash.net...
They'd probably burn my ass if they could. However, since this happened
approximately 17 years ago, I suspect the statute of limitations has expired. I
know my medical has....
So what are they gonna do? Make me work in a hospital dumping bedpans and
sticking needles into 80 year old asses?
Hell, if you want to talk about violation of FARs, we could talk about my check
courier days. Every day was a new adventure back then.
Guy Alcala
> "Gord Beaman" <gbe...@islandtelecom.com> wrote in message
> news:3b8bd988...@news1.islandtelecom.com...
> > >Sounds like a stretch to me. My eyesight deteriorated when I was a child.
> It
> > >remained pretty constant until my mid-40s.... so now I wear bifocals. I
> remain
> > >20/200 uncorrected and 20/20 corrected. My eyeglasses are NOT coke
> bottles....
> > >yet.
> >
> > I'd be interested in why you find the above a stretch...most
> > people's eyes deteriorate with age, so doesn't it stand to reason
> > that if they can barely attain minimum standards by correction
> > then that any further deterioration would put them under the
> > minimum?. I'm told that the minimum is 20/50 uncorrected and
> > correctable to 20/20 to be accepted into the Canadian Armed
> > Forces as pilots.
>
> Well, I guess you're right. My eyesight was actually 20/200 as a youth,
> correctable to 20/15. Now that I'm 47, it has deteriorated to 20/20 corrected.
> Does this mean I couldn't contribute my services as a pilot? Besides, what
> percentage of pilots stay in the service until their eyesight starts to change?
I believe that's the standard pattern with Myopia - a fast initial deterioration in
your youth, then stabilizing and a very slow deterioration over many years. It
certainly has been the case with me and everyone I know who's myopic. My vision
started deteriorating rapidly around 8 or 9, had stabilized by my early or
mid-teens, and has only slightly deteriorated since. Like you, I was 20/15
corrected (although 20/450 uncorrected then), decreasing to 20/20 corrected (20/500
or so) in the last 5-10 years, and am a week short of 42. In fact, I've just tried
on a pair of glasses that I got in 1977, and I find that they're just slightly less
sharp than my current pair, which are at least five years old and sharper than the
contacts I normally wear. Unless you've got some kind of degenerative eye disease,
that seems to be the normal pattern with myopia. My dad, who's 85, maintained his
(slightly myopic) vision stable until a few years ago, when he had corneal lens
replacement due to cataracts. Since having that done, he has 20/15 in one eye,
20/19 in the other, _uncorrected_. He now needs glasses to read, though;-)
Guy
Guy Alcala
> "ArtKramr" <artk...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20010828091148...@mb-ma.aol.com...
> > >Not exactly, Art. My eyesight is 20/200 but corrects to 20/20. I never
> > >would
> > >have been allowed to fly in the military and yet I have 2600 hours PIC. Was
> > >my
> > >eyesight an impediment to my flying?
> >
> > Suppose under conditions of combat you broke your glasses?
>
> I'd thank them for saving my eyesight. I cannot count the number of times my
> eyeglasses has saved me from getting an eyeful of blood, emesis, or urine at
> work.
Ditto for me. Over the years my glasses have taken numerous impacts that would
otherwise have injured my eye, from rocks while bicycling to various things falling
on me. Broke my nose as well as my glasses on one occasion when a heavy box fell
and hit me in just the right spot, but the glasses frame took the impact of the box
corner and spread it out, saving my eye. Of course, being legally blind without
glasses, and having everything beyond 6 inches or so out of focus, I _always_ have
a backup pair available when driving, flying or any other activity where their loss
would be important/critical. I may be an idiot, but I'm no fool;-)
> As for flying without glasses, I once lost mine on a scuba trip. I happened to
> have an airline captain with me, but he hadn't ever flown a Cherokee Six. I
> could read the instruments; I could see the ground and obstacles; what I could
> not do was see traffic. He called the traffic out for me, and we made it home
> safe and sound on an IFR flight plan (in mixed VFR/IFR weather).
>
> I have never lost my eyeglasses off my head while flying.... even during
> aerobatics or thunderstorm penetration. I have, however, damn near shit my
> pants, but that's another story.
Yeah, you'd have to wonder what the likelihood of that kind of cockpit damage is,
weighed against various other risks. For instance, I don't smoke, and my night
vision is undoubtedly better than many individuals who don't wear glasses but who
do smoke. Since a majority of our combat missions seem to be done in darkness now,
do we ban smokers from applying for flight training, or remaining on flight
status? Or do we rather test them individually, to see if they have adequate night
vision for the job? Or does it even matter, since we increasingly use NVGs with
diopter correction capability built in?
Guy
Gord Beaman
>
>"Gord Beaman" <gbe...@islandtelecom.com> wrote in message
>news:3b8bd988...@news1.islandtelecom.com...
>> >Sounds like a stretch to me. My eyesight deteriorated when I was a child.
>It
>> >remained pretty constant until my mid-40s.... so now I wear bifocals. I
>remain
>> >20/200 uncorrected and 20/20 corrected. My eyeglasses are NOT coke
>bottles....
>> >yet.
>>
>> I'd be interested in why you find the above a stretch...most
>> people's eyes deteriorate with age, so doesn't it stand to reason
>> that if they can barely attain minimum standards by correction
>> then that any further deterioration would put them under the
>> minimum?. I'm told that the minimum is 20/50 uncorrected and
>> correctable to 20/20 to be accepted into the Canadian Armed
>> Forces as pilots.
>
>Well, I guess you're right. My eyesight was actually 20/200 as a youth,
>correctable to 20/15. Now that I'm 47, it has deteriorated to 20/20 corrected.
>Does this mean I couldn't contribute my services as a pilot?
Yes it does, you must be 20/50 uncorrected (or better) AND be
correctable to 20/20 (or better) to be accepted for pilot
training in Canada's Military, so your 20/200 uncorrected would
fail you immediately.
> Besides, what
>percentage of pilots stay in the service until their eyesight starts to change?
>
I have no idea at all...
>I thought the services (at least in the US) were having a problem with
>retention.
>
Hell yes and so are we, I'm hearing rumours of a 20% pay hike to
improve the odds here of keeping pilots and an even bigger hike
for the technical trades.
>>
>> BTW, what have Coke bottles to do with the subject at hand?.
>>
>
>Because it's common to refer to thick glasses as "coke bottle".... as in the
>thickness of the glass at the bottom of the bottle.
>Haven't you folks got bottles in Canada?
>
Gee...it seems that you have no good answer doesn't it? (else why
resort to insults?)...do you really suppose that I didn't know
what 'coke bottle glasses' referred to?...please try to present
yourself as the intelligent person that you quite probably are
when in public like this sir.
Your countrymen are watching (and judging) after all.
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
> "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <Mo...@mortimerschnerd.com.nospam> wrote:
>> Well, I guess you're right. My eyesight was
>> actually 20/200 as a youth, correctable to 20/15.
>> Now that I'm 47, it has deteriorated to 20/20
>> corrected. Does this mean I couldn't contribute
>> my services as a pilot?
>
> Yes it does, you must be 20/50 uncorrected (or
> better) AND be correctable to 20/20 (or better) to
> be accepted for pilot training in Canada's Military,
> so your 20/200 uncorrected would fail you
> immediately.
And my point is that my eyesight appeared to be adequate for me to manage 2600
hours of PIC time for me. I would have gladly done my flying for the military
if they'd have me. As it was, I did the flying anyway, yet they're crying for
pilots. Is there something wrong with this picture?
>> I thought the services (at least in the US) were
>> having a problem with retention.
>
> Hell yes and so are we, I'm hearing rumours of a
> 20% pay hike to improve the odds here of
> keeping pilots and an even bigger hike for the
> technical trades.
So perhaps this degradation of sight becomes even less of a factor. Who cares
if it slips from 20/15 corrected to 20/20 corrected if the pilot no longer flies
for the USAF but has taken up with USAirways instead?
> Gee...it seems that you have no good answer
> doesn't it? (else why resort to insults?)...do you
> really suppose that I didn't know what 'coke bottle
> glasses' referred to?...please try to present
> yourself as the intelligent person that you quite
> probably are when in public like this sir.
Sorry about that.... it was force of habit. I have several Canadian friends
here that I work and play with; we customarily trade barbs continuously. I can
pick out a Canadian instantly in March: they're the only ones in the water at
Myrtle Beach. Eh?
Guy alcala
server and Netscape Communicator seem to be celebrating 2001 by
emulating HAL 9000, and didn't show me about a day's worth of
messages. This sort of thing isn't all that unusual from
Communicator, as it occasionally downloads a bunch of new messages and
then refuses to display them or even acknowledge they exist, but at
least I'm aware that there ARE messages, and can wait for them to be
posted on deja. This time, I didn't even get that much.
artk...@aol.com (ArtKramr) wrote in message news:<20010826174836...@mb-cp.aol.com>...
> >What I DO have a problem with is a
> >standard that isn't based on measured ability to perform the job, but is
> >instead purely arbitrary. If getting the best qualified candidates is the
> >aim, then the standard should be based on that, not on some wholly artificial
> >barrier.
>
> In my experience in WW II standards were never arbitrary. To become a
> bombardier you had to shack a specific number your bomb runs and you had to
> finish your training with a certain minimum circle of error (CE) to graduate
> or you were washed out. In navigation trianng you had to meet certain standards
> for ETA and course accuracy or wou were washed out. Back then,almost no one had
> a college degree. But to meet celestial navigation standards you needed
> spherical trig. We were all high school graduates and only had basic physics,
> plane geometry, plane trig and some algebra.
They sent us to school (CTD) and
> gave us crash courses in the math and science we needed,
Yes, and that's exactly what I mean. In WW2, they couldn't _afford_
arbitrary standards. IIRR, you've said in the past that you were 19
when you first saw combat. Assuming that you were 18 when inducted,
that means the AAF was able to teach you the necessary skills to do
your job in something under two years, and get you into combat. If
you'd been required to have a college degree (which obviously wasn't
necessary to do the job, as you demonstrate), then you wouldn't even
have started your training until you were 21, missing the war
completely.
We would have been
> much better off had we all been college graduates with BS degrees.
Why? Most of you would still need crash courses in spherical trig and
any other required math; certainly many if not most Liberal Arts
Majors nowadays haven't even had as much math as you did in high
school. Hell, many have barely taken plane geometry and algebra.
> It would
> have been a much better airforce had that been the case.
Again, why? What would you learn in college that was essential to
your being able to drop bombs accurately on the enemy. Familiarity
with Medieval French Romantic Poetry? The ability to have long
discussions on Cartesian Dualism? I'm reminded of IAF chief Ezer
Weizman's reply, when his hand-picked successor Mordechai Hod's lack
of educational background was raised as a handicap. Weizman said:
"He may not be able to quote Shakespeare or [a Jewish author whose
name I've forgotten], but he'll screw the Arabs in plain Hebrew and
without much sophistication."
Hod commanded the IAF from 1966 to early 1973, the period which
included the Six Day War and War of Attrition. Judge for yourself
whether Hod was well-qualified for the job.
> Arbitrary standards?
> Never. Everything was deadly pragmatic..
Because it had to be, and the arbitrary standards were dropped because
we had to go with what worked no matter which exclusive clubs were
broken open. Do you think you would even have been allowed to enter
bombardier/navigator training prior to the war, Art, if you didn't
have a college degree? Not a chance. Do you think you could after
the war? AFAIK, the answer is the same. Now, either you weren't
capable of doing the job, or you were. The photos you've posted
indicate that you were.
Guy
Guy alcala
<snip>
> Flying a modern fighter/attack aircraft requires targeting air and ground targets that
> are usually acquired as tiny dots, growing to slightly larger dots as weapons are
> employed. Many highly successful fighter/attack pilots credit superior eyesight
> (20:10-15) as a main determinant of their success (especially during acquisition). Guys
> who are "correctable to 20:20" are at a disadvantage. Airline piloting is a whole lot
> less demanding of visual acuity.
> That said, the main reason for the policy is because there is a surplus of applicants
> and, as a group, the folks with better eyesight are viewed as having greater potential
> for success. So it's used as a weeding-out criterion. (One more example that life
> ain't fair.)
Of course, following the above logic, since both "Mortimer" and I were
correctable to 20/15 at the time we were of the appropriate age, then
we clearly had greater potential for success than those people who
only had 20/20, uncorrected or not, unless the former group could be
corrected to 20/15 or better. If they could, why weren't they only
allowed to fly wearing glasses, since this extra visual acuity is so
vital in combat? That would follow, if the original requirement were
based on logic.
Guy
Keith Willshaw
"Guy alcala" <g_al...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7b887ead.01082...@posting.google.com...
> > It would
> > have been a much better airforce had that been the case.
>
> Again, why? What would you learn in college that was essential to
> your being able to drop bombs accurately on the enemy. Familiarity
> with Medieval French Romantic Poetry? The ability to have long
> discussions on Cartesian Dualism? I'm reminded of IAF chief Ezer
> Weizman's reply, when his hand-picked successor Mordechai Hod's lack
> of educational background was raised as a handicap. Weizman said:
> "He may not be able to quote Shakespeare or [a Jewish author whose
> name I've forgotten], but he'll screw the Arabs in plain Hebrew and
> without much sophistication."
>
> Hod commanded the IAF from 1966 to early 1973, the period which
> included the Six Day War and War of Attrition. Judge for yourself
> whether Hod was well-qualified for the job.
>
Its interesting to note the requirements of the RAF
for entrants to pilot training
AGE LIMITS : 17.5-23
MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS :
2 A-levels or 3 Scottish Highers passes, plus 5 GCSEs/SCEs (Grade C/3)
including English Language and Maths.
This is broadly simliar to the qualifications needed
to get accepted by a University as an undergraduate
and I guess is equivalent to a High School graduate in the US
The qualifications are the same for Navigators and lower
for Air Electronis Operators and Loadmasters. They
could have left school at 16 and still qualify
Keith
Keith
Guy alcala
> Far be it from me to wade into this (well, obviously not too far),
> BUT...
>
> They have to define a standard at some point. While you may not
> agree with the standards they've chosen, at least they have put
> some thought behind what those standards are. In the cases you've
> laid out (vision standards and commissioned officers), there is
> a logic behind it.
>
> The vision standard is 20/50, correctable to 20/20. It always
> has been that standard (as opposed to the 20/20 uncorrected you've
> cited).
Thank you for the correction. I'm familiar with FAA standards (for
one thing, they prevented me from ever getting a commercial or ATP
license, because I don't meet the uncorrected vision requirements for
a Class 1 or 2 medical). I was under the impression that the military
standard was higher.
> If your vision doesn't meet that standard at the start of
> training (to include the requisite glasses for those less than
> 20/20 but correctable to that point), then you don't meet the
> physical qualifications. As Ed pointed out, if your vision becomes
> worse over time, the prudent thing to do is to provide glasses
> rather than throw away the training dollars. They had to make a
> cut line somewhere. They determined that 20/50 was acceptable
> provided it could be corrected. As an aside, there is a point
> at which uncorrected vision is a grounding issue. They aren't
> flying guys with 20/100 vision just because they spent the
> money training them. If your vision isn't at least 20/50,
> correctable to 20/20, you require a waiver from the surgeon
> general to continue flying, because you don't meet Class II
> physical standards.
And what I question is the justification for the standard, not the
need for a standard. Why is 20/50 uncorrected OK, and 20/100 with a
waiver? Except in the fairly unlikely event that your glasses are
destroyed and your backups are as well, what difference does your
uncorrected vision make? My corrected vision was sharper than 20/20,
so why are the people with "only" 20/20 more qualified than I am? I
had better effective vision than they did, and my (corrected) vision
was virtually guaranteed to suffer only slight deterioration over the
course of a flying career.
> The Air Force and Navy use commissioned officers as pilots for
> a few reasons. For one, a college degree indicates a willingness
> to stick to, and meet the standards for, a course of academics.
> A high school diploma doesn't necessarily demonstrate the ability
> to start and complete such a program. Are there NCOs out there
> that could and do meet that standard? Yes. But once again, they
> had to draw a line.
And I've got no argument that there is a required standard. I'm
merely saying that drawing a line treating people purely as members of
a group instead of as individuals with widely varying capabilities and
knowledge, is an arbitrary limit of the applicant pool, and is just
wrong. If anyone suggested that only blue-eyed males of Lithuanian
descent would be accepted for flight training, because as a group they
tend to have a higher success rate in training, it would rightly be
denounced as ridiculous discrimination as well as giving a lower
average standard of pilot. Unless, that is, someone can prove that
EVERY blue-eyed Lithuanian male will unquestionably be superior as a
pilot to ANY member of any other group. Seems to me at least one
country had that sort of thing as a basic tenet, and it doesn't seem
to have proved out too well in practice.
> Furthermore, the nature of how Air Force and
> Navy pilots are used lends itself to having an officer in charge.
> Even the Army has officer pilots. The nature of how pilots are
> used in the air and on the ground (additional duties, campaign
> planning, the level of responsibility) are more in line with
> the use of commissioned officers. For the Air Force, at least,
> the application and employment of airpower is, in effect, the
> purpose for existing as a separate service. You need people in
> charge of the Air Force who actually have performed the mission.
> The breeding ground for those people is to fly in the ranks
> along the way. The Navy doesn't have room aboard ships for both
> the person in charge and a pilot, so they've combined them. Can
> enlisted troops perform the actual flying duties? Yes. But
> the commissioned officer has the responsibilities of and to
> command.
So what's the problem? The majority of Commonwealth, German,
Japanese, and I believe Russian and French pilots in WW2 were NCOs,
and in command of their a/c if multi-crew, and yet somehow the
commissioned officers still managed to get the experience they needed
along the way for command. And of course, many of those NCOs were
promoted and eventually reached high command rank, because of their
_demonstrated ability_ to do the job. Does it make any difference
whatsoever if the all those pilots are made commissioned officers, or
for that matter buck privates, with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs
given the rank of First Sergeant? Those are just titles - what's
important is whether you can do the job. Did the former petty officer
pilots of VF-2 who were all given warrant or commissioned rank in 1942
instantly become better flyers upon being promoted? Did their
education, knowledge, leadership skills etc. likewise automatically
increase? Or were they the same persons with a different title? They
may have been given more responsibility as officers, but they could
have been given the exact same responsibility as NCO pilots;
conversely, they could have been given no command responsibilities
whatsoever as officers, and just flew.
> Now, whether or not you agree with those bits of reasoning (and
> there are other reasons as well), they have been set as a standard
> with forethought. What smaller nations do with smaller air forces
> doesn't necessarily lend itself to scaling upwards. The problems
> associated with changing to what you assume to be a cheaper course
> have been weighed, and the costs outweigh the benefits as perceived
> by those who made the decisions.
See above.
Guy
Guy alcala
> From my experience one reason pilots/navigators in the USAF are
> commissioned is the educational background provides a better candidate able
> to learn the material in the time required. Almost anyone could do what I
> do given enough time to train them.
>
> The material at UNT wasn't all that
> difficult, it was learning all the material in the short time provided that
> made it a very difficult challenge. In college, the main thing I learned
> was how to learn. As a prior enlisted type, I definitely wouldn't have been
> able to make it through UNT right out of American high school. I've heard,
> though I can't verify the veracity of it, is when the AF started sending
> enlisted people to the Air Weapons Director course at Tyndall a few years
> ago the washout rate skyrocketed.
Which implies that the air force didn't bother to screen the enlisted
people to see if they had the ability before sending them. Okay, so
we've got two choices; we can send everyone to college for four years,
so that they can learn to learn material faster. This presumes that
anyone who hasn't gone to college can't do so, which is patently
false. Art and his generation seem to have managed just fine, and in
any case we shouldn't be worried about what groups of people may be
capable of, but rather what individuals are capable of.
Or, we can just train people at a slower pace but still finish in less
time than the four years they would otherwise spend in college.
> Secondly, you can't argue that all manner of officers are needed in the
> AF. One of the biggest lures to get people to become AF officers is a
> chance to fly. I think back on my AFROTC days and the majority of people
> wanted to fly. Along the way, many changed their mind or couldn't get a
> flying slot for whatever reason, but still decided they wanted to serve as
> an officer. I served as intel officer for three years before getting to go
> to UNT. Without the initial lure of flying, the AF would have a far more
> shallow pool of applicants for its officer corps. Besides, flying is
> somewhat of a reward in our system for sticking to and having the motivation
> to go to university in the first place.
Who says you've got to be officers? Would you have any less of an
urge to fly if you were going to be an NCO or enlisted? Here's an
idea; why don't we require all officers to have graduate degrees?
After all, if only a bachelor's will do to be able to handle the study
required to master flight training, then clearly we should limit
officer pilot candidates to those having a master's or doctorate.
Let's make all the regular pilots NCOs, maybe Corporals, upon
graduating flight school. After all, what matters is the skills
required and learned, not the title, right?
> That being said, I had several German classmates at UNT who were 19-20
> and they did just fine. As I understand it though, their primary education
> was much more rigorous than the US and more akin to our college experience.
Certainly highly likely. And maybe they selected their applicants
more carefully; their air force is probably far smaller than ours in
proportion to population. And of course, we know that the EVERY
German 19 or 20 year old is superior in academic achievement,
determination, etc., to EVERY U.S. 19 or 20 year old, with no
exceptions. There is absolutely no individual variation within a
group; Every U.S. child's primary/secondary education was inferior to
that of every German, or Israeli, or Singaporean child's: individual
circumstances and intellect are irrelevant. Your capabilities are
infallibly determined by your group identity, and there is no need to
test to see if you are capable of doing the job.
At least, that seems to be the philosophy behind college-only and
similar requirements.
Guy
Cecil Turner
snip
>
> Of course, following the above logic, since both "Mortimer" and I were
> correctable to 20/15 at the time we were of the appropriate age, then
> we clearly had greater potential for success than those people who
> only had 20/20, uncorrected or not, unless the former group could be
> corrected to 20/15 or better. If they could, why weren't they only
> allowed to fly wearing glasses, since this extra visual acuity is so
> vital in combat? That would follow, if the original requirement were
> based on logic.
>
> Guy
I'm not sure how you can claim the requirement is not based on logic. Arbitrary yes
(as most standards are), but adequate vision is clearly a requirement for a pilot.
There are BuMed beancounters going over the standards every year, with occasional
modifications. I suspect they have given the matter as much thought as you have.
And glasses aren't an unmitigated benefit. I suspect that when you pull 4 g's or so,
they slip a bit and your visual acuity drops off to something less than 20/20. And they
don't fit terribly well under the helmet, and conflict with NVGs. I had to wear 'em for
the last couple of years of my military career and they were a hindrance.
OBTW, the standard (at least 20 some years ago) to begin Navy flight training was
20/20 uncorrected, with additional tests for depth perception and color blindness.
(Continuation standards were lower and it may have changed since.)
rgds,
KTF
Gord Beaman
>
>"Gord Beaman" <gbe...@islandtelecom.com> wrote in message
>news:3b8c652f...@news1.islandtelecom.com...
>> "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <Mo...@mortimerschnerd.com.nospam> wrote:
>>> Well, I guess you're right. My eyesight was
>>> actually 20/200 as a youth, correctable to 20/15.
>>> Now that I'm 47, it has deteriorated to 20/20
>>> corrected. Does this mean I couldn't contribute
>>> my services as a pilot?
>>
>
>> Yes it does, you must be 20/50 uncorrected (or
>> better) AND be correctable to 20/20 (or better) to
>> be accepted for pilot training in Canada's Military,
>> so your 20/200 uncorrected would fail you
>> immediately.
>
>
>And my point is that my eyesight appeared to be adequate for me to manage 2600
>hours of PIC time for me. I would have gladly done my flying for the military
>if they'd have me. As it was, I did the flying anyway, yet they're crying for
>pilots. Is there something wrong with this picture?
>
>
Not that I can see, your eyesight didn't measure up to the
military's minimum so they couldn't use you. If it had then
they'd have been glad to use you I'd say. I see nothing wrong
here. The fact that you flew 2600 hours as PIC means nothing
except that you did it less safely than the military demanded
that's all. Hell, lot's of construction engineers walk around a
construction site with no helmet on and no steel toe'd boots on
too. They likely get the job done just as well as those who are
equipped as the unions etc demand, but they're not as safe are
they?. What's the difference here?.
>>> I thought the services (at least in the US) were
>>> having a problem with retention.
>>
>> Hell yes and so are we, I'm hearing rumours of a
>> 20% pay hike to improve the odds here of
>> keeping pilots and an even bigger hike for the
>> technical trades.
>
>
>So perhaps this degradation of sight becomes even less of a factor. Who cares
>if it slips from 20/15 corrected to 20/20 corrected if the pilot no longer flies
>for the USAF but has taken up with USAirways instead?
>
>
>> Gee...it seems that you have no good answer
>> doesn't it? (else why resort to insults?)...do you
>> really suppose that I didn't know what 'coke bottle
>> glasses' referred to?...please try to present
>> yourself as the intelligent person that you quite
>> probably are when in public like this sir.
>
>
>Sorry about that.... it was force of habit. I have several Canadian friends
>here that I work and play with; we customarily trade barbs continuously. I can
>pick out a Canadian instantly in March: they're the only ones in the water at
>Myrtle Beach. Eh?
>
>
>--
>Mortimer Schnerd, RN
>
>mo...@mortimerschnerd.com.nospam
>http://www.mortimerschnerd.com
>
>
>
--
Gord Beaman
PEI, Canada
ArtKramr
>training was
>20/20 uncorrected, with additional tests for depth perception and color
>blindness.
20/20 uncorrected is normal Normalcy is neither unreasonable nor is it
arbitrary. But demanding that abnormal eyesight be accepted is both
unreasonable and arbitrary.
Paul J. Adam
<artk...@aol.com> writes
>20/20 uncorrected is normal Normalcy is neither unreasonable nor is it
>arbitrary. But demanding that abnormal eyesight be accepted is both
>unreasonable and arbitrary.
My eyes were good enough for me to be an infantryman, even in
peacetime... and they're the eyes I was born with, unmodified and
unchanged, and I don't qualify for any sort of disability payment for
being a bizarre mutant, therefore they are apparently both natural and
normal.
The fact that I currently put thin discs of hydrated polymer on them so
I can see with 20/20 vision or better for a week at a time (a month at a
time if my optician succeeds in persuading me to try some new type from
Bausch & Lomb) might be called "abnormal", but the alternative would
practically require me to carry a white cane.
And again, if eyeglasses / contact lenses were acceptable for the muddy
rough-and-tumble of ground combat (with complications like having to
hastily mask up against gas attack) then if the will was there, it could
be solved for air environments.
The reality seems to be that requiring good uncorrected vision at entry
quickly reduces the tidal wave of applicants to a managable number, and
when the flood becomes a mere stream the standard is relaxed a little:
while once a pilot has been trained, the investment involved justifies
relaxation to prevent expensive wastage just because a pilot's eyeglass
prescription slips a little.
Certainly it isn't a vital issue: if it was, it would be maintained at
the required level from entry through a flying career. It's a convenient
hurdle to use to reduce the applicant numbers... but if it *mattered*,
it would never be reduced or waivered.
--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill
Paul J. Adam ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
> "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <Mo...@mortimerschnerd.com.nospam> wrote:
> Not that I can see, your eyesight didn't measure up to the
> military's minimum so they couldn't use you. If it had then
> they'd have been glad to use you I'd say. I see nothing wrong
> here. The fact that you flew 2600 hours as PIC means nothing
> except that you did it less safely than the military demanded
> that's all.
I flew in and out of IFR equipped airports in the friendly skies of America
while the military was dodging bullets and missiles over the somewhat less
friendly skies of Iraq and landing on the tiny pitching decks of aircraft
carriers and you say they flew more safely than I?
Since there were relatively few SAM sites in North Carolina, I was able to avoid
the high-g maneuvers you fellows insist will cause me to lose my glasses.
Somehow I managed to avoid the SAMs, despite my relative blindness.
Shawn D. Gahring
> And what I question is the justification for the standard, not the
> need for a standard. Why is 20/50 uncorrected OK, and 20/100 with a
> waiver? Except in the fairly unlikely event that your glasses are
> destroyed and your backups are as well, what difference does your
> uncorrected vision make? My corrected vision was sharper than 20/20,
> so why are the people with "only" 20/20 more qualified than I am? I
> had better effective vision than they did, and my (corrected) vision
> was virtually guaranteed to suffer only slight deterioration over the
> course of a flying career.
Okay, try this one on for size: Your vision, at the time your met
the applicable age window, had already deteriorated to a point that
your visual acuity was less than some level deemed acceptable. While
it was correctable to an acceptable level, it had already demonstrated
a propensity toward degeneration, whereas those with 20/20 or 20/50
uncorrected but correctable to 20/20 had not shown that same extreme
in degeneration. Most people's eyesight continues to get worse over
time. Among other things, thise will require the use of increasingly
more powerful optical corrections (read that as thicker lenses). Now,
when they are selecting people for pilot training, they don't know
whether or not they will be selected for heavies or fighters, so they
don't know the g-environment they will be subjected to. Because
thicker lenses weigh more, they really weigh more in a high-g
environment,
to the degree that at some point, they will be incredibly uncomfortable.
While you could restrict those with vision beyond a certain acuity from
flying fighters, you've now removed some of the flexibility in your
training pipeline because you're eating up a fixed number of slots with
people who can't go either route. So, now you've got only a snapshot
of a, say 20 y/o, to evaluate his fitness for entry into a very
expensive training program. If he displays at this age, a degeneration
in eyesight beyond a certain limit (selected as 20/50), why should
they risk that on someone who's vision is already bad and likely to
get worse, rather than someone who's yet to demonstrate _any_ propensity
toward degeneration.
> And I've got no argument that there is a required standard. I'm
> merely saying that drawing a line treating people purely as members of
> a group instead of as individuals with widely varying capabilities and
> knowledge, is an arbitrary limit of the applicant pool, and is just
> wrong. If anyone suggested that only blue-eyed males of Lithuanian
> descent would be accepted for flight training, because as a group they
> tend to have a higher success rate in training, it would rightly be
> denounced as ridiculous discrimination as well as giving a lower
> average standard of pilot. Unless, that is, someone can prove that
> EVERY blue-eyed Lithuanian male will unquestionably be superior as a
> pilot to ANY member of any other group. Seems to me at least one
> country had that sort of thing as a basic tenet, and it doesn't seem
> to have proved out too well in practice.
But by taking only people who've already completed college, they are
selecting from a pool that has already demonstrated the ability to
live up to a more rigorous testing standard. There are enlisted
commissioning programs for those troops who've demonstrated the
capacity to excel in a more rigorous environment, and who've
demonstrated an interest in taking on additional responsiblity that
comes with a commission. The standard isn't arbitrary.
> So what's the problem? The majority of Commonwealth, German,
> Japanese, and I believe Russian and French pilots in WW2 were NCOs,
> and in command of their a/c if multi-crew, and yet somehow the
> commissioned officers still managed to get the experience they needed
> along the way for command. And of course, many of those NCOs were
> promoted and eventually reached high command rank, because of their
> _demonstrated ability_ to do the job. Does it make any difference
> whatsoever if the all those pilots are made commissioned officers, or
> for that matter buck privates, with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs
> given the rank of First Sergeant? Those are just titles - what's
> important is whether you can do the job. Did the former petty officer
> pilots of VF-2 who were all given warrant or commissioned rank in 1942
> instantly become better flyers upon being promoted? Did their
> education, knowledge, leadership skills etc. likewise automatically
> increase? Or were they the same persons with a different title? They
> may have been given more responsibility as officers, but they could
> have been given the exact same responsibility as NCO pilots;
> conversely, they could have been given no command responsibilities
> whatsoever as officers, and just flew.
World War II is not the same environment as today. We couldn't take
the loss rates they sustained and still function. They were throwing
guys into a meat grinder, so their selectivity became less. However,
if you read up on the subject of training during WWII, they still
had a good deal higher attrition rate in training (guys who couldn't
pass the tests). Money was not an object then. It is now. We
can't afford to throw that much money at a group of guys and see who
makes it through. We have to look at what we plan to use people for
and who, traditionally, excels in the program. The academic
environment of UPT is very competitive. If there's a guy with a 90%
academic average in a class, he's usually looked on as the class
idiot. Given the complexity of weapons employment and aircraft
handling, coupled with the command assignments pilots are expected
to fill, commissioned officers makes sense. The Army's leaders are
drawn from their traditional combat arms because that is the focus
of their mission. The Air Force's leaders will come from the pilot
corps (among others) because that is _their_ mission focus.
S. Gahring
Paul J. Adam
<joh...@hom.net> writes
>Okay, try this one on for size: Your vision, at the time your met
>the applicable age window, had already deteriorated to a point that
>your visual acuity was less than some level deemed acceptable. While
>it was correctable to an acceptable level, it had already demonstrated
>a propensity toward degeneration, whereas those with 20/20 or 20/50
>uncorrected but correctable to 20/20 had not shown that same extreme
>in degeneration.
My prescription, fourteen years ago, was around four diopters of
correction in each eye. Ten years before that, my parents were just
beginning to notice that I seemed to struggle with seeing distant
detail. Now, I need five dioptres of correction.
Myopia tends to level off in mid-late teens.
>Now,
>when they are selecting people for pilot training, they don't know
>whether or not they will be selected for heavies or fighters, so they
>don't know the g-environment they will be subjected to.
On the other hand, the USAF was confident that in the late 1960s and
early 1970s it could take transport, tanker and other "heavy" pilots and
quickly turn them into tactical fighter pilots. Why is the reverse
grossly untrue?
In ground combat terms, a mechanic or logistician or truck driver has a
lower standard (of physical fitness) to meet than a paratrooper or other
special-forces-elite type trooper: but the Army does not set admission
standards based on the highest minority, it doesn't even set infantry
soldier standards on that level.
Why not set a basic standard for _entry_ to pilot training, and then
select for various streams based on aptitude, demonstrated skill,
physical limitations, enthusiasm, cadet's preference, and so on? Why
constrain the _entire pilot intake_ by requiring them all to be high-G
fighter pilots, when there are candidates who would have been content to
drive C-130s?
> Because
>thicker lenses weigh more, they really weigh more in a high-g
>environment,
By this argument, tactical fighter pilots had better never wear NVGs in
combat.
>So, now you've got only a snapshot
>of a, say 20 y/o, to evaluate his fitness for entry into a very
>expensive training program. If he displays at this age, a degeneration
>in eyesight beyond a certain limit (selected as 20/50), why should
>they risk that on someone who's vision is already bad and likely to
>get worse, rather than someone who's yet to demonstrate _any_ propensity
>toward degeneration.
_Everyone's_ eyesight gets worse, the only question is how much.
If the standard matters. then set it at 20/20 or 20/50 and _fix it_. If
your uncorrected eyesight is worse, Thou Shalt Not Fly No Matter What.
If the standard is just a convenient hurdle to keep applicant numbers
down to a manageable level, then by all means vary it and issue waivers.
But, sadly, it's a binary argument: one or the other.
>But by taking only people who've already completed college, they are
>selecting from a pool that has already demonstrated the ability to
>live up to a more rigorous testing standard.
You obviously went to a different university to me.
As an engineering graduate, I'm fond of the graffiti that points at the
toilet paper dispenser and says "Media Studies degrees - please take
one". There's much to criticise about US higher education, but making
the student responsible for the cost of it does focus the mind.
> There are enlisted
>commissioning programs for those troops who've demonstrated the
>capacity to excel in a more rigorous environment, and who've
>demonstrated an interest in taking on additional responsiblity that
>comes with a commission. The standard isn't arbitrary.
Depends. I failed my commissioning board. Formally, it was because "I
was a loner" (on the Saturday of the weekend of my TCB I went to the
cinema by myself instead of following the herd to the nearest bar - I
knew Nottingham fairly well and preferred the Showcase Cinema to a
Chilwell pub and getting drunk with strangers with a hard Sunday's work
ahead). Oh, and because I "relied too much on subordinates" - that one
was a fair cop, though I'd been spoiled by working with some excellent
retired RN CPOs who deferred to me for signatures and official
paperwork; but otherwise expected to be told what to do and when to do
it by and to be left to make it happen on time without interference.
Informally, it was simply that at the time I applied there were already
more reservist officer-candidates awaiting commissioning than there were
places to train them (a serious shortage of both reservist and regular
junior officers, but the training pipeline was the problem) and so most
of my cohort were failed to avoid further overcrowding the queue for
Sandhurst TACC: efforts to make more training places available hadn't
yet borne fruit. That explanation, I try to be suspicious of, if only
because it shifts the burden of failure off me so well... but it fits
the observed facts, which is that selection is (has to be, to be honest)
rather arbitrary based on needs versus recruits with the width of the
training pipeline a vital factor.
I'm not too bitter about it - as it turned out, not long after that
rejection I got promoted into a new job that involved working sixty-hour
weeks. This would have made me a pretty useless junior TA officer, not
that anyone expected this at the time - but it does make me sceptical of
most selection standards. They are always based on supply versus demand.
If you separated "fast jets" from "heavies" in pilot selection, how
stringent an eyesight requirement could and should you apply to either?
But I'd apply for both, probably be rapidly rejected for fast-movers (G-
force will probably pull contact lenses around on your eyeball in a
nasty way and I *hate* spectacles)... but why should I be rejected as a
transport or AWACS or tanker pilot? If I can swarm over assault courses,
and fight through live-fire section attacks, and be battle-ready for all
forms of ground combat, with my vision needing artificial correction,
why is a C-130 a more demanding environment than an infantryman's world?
>World War II is not the same environment as today. We couldn't take
>the loss rates they sustained and still function.
In a _serious_ war you'd have to, and find replacements and train them
faster than you were losing folk in combat.
The US won because it was able to do so, the Japanese lost in some small
part because they kept the bar too high and failed to recognise that
four "competent" pilots could beat two "excellent" ones.
> They were throwing
>guys into a meat grinder, so their selectivity became less.
'Scuse me, but a decade ago one of my duties was to be available to be
hastily commissioned and sent out to a unit that had lost a junior
officer... mostly, I think, so that the NCO who had been running things
in the interim survived, being more valuable than a baby Rupert. (Two
lessons of infantry combat... junior commissioned officers get hit most
often, and the side with the best and most experienced NCOs tends to
win)
We (as officer-cadets or as potential subalterns) were definitely
expendable (if trained for the procedures of combat and at least able to
do a "bags of smoke and straight up the middle" attack), while
experienced soldiers were not: but it's the platoon commander who has to
stick his head up to look and do his "combat appreciation", then has to
host the O-group, who leads the assault, who has a signaller with a very
visible PRC-351 following him closely, and who shouts the most orders.
Guess who makes the best target and gets killed first?
Why waste good experienced NCOs by bumping them up to 2Lt, when you have
officer-cadets ready to fill the breach?
(And again, I did know this at the time... I'm just profoundly glad that
I, personally, terrified the Red Horde into collapse so none of this
happened while I was likely to be called on to carry it out.
Look at the history: I enlist in the British Army, and the Soviet Union
promptly collapses. QED. I personally ended the Cold War. Ain't I such a
scary guy? :) )
> However,
>if you read up on the subject of training during WWII, they still
>had a good deal higher attrition rate in training (guys who couldn't
>pass the tests). Money was not an object then.
Remained true through the 1950s. And while accident rates went down,
some blame that for problems experienced in Vietnam (a huge and complex
subject, but a small part of it is fighter pilots being taught to "fly
safe" rather than learn to get the best out of themselves and their
aircraft.
No quick and easy answers to these questions.
>It is now. We
>can't afford to throw that much money at a group of guys and see who
>makes it through. We have to look at what we plan to use people for
>and who, traditionally, excels in the program. The academic
>environment of UPT is very competitive. If there's a guy with a 90%
>academic average in a class, he's usually looked on as the class
>idiot.
Then your classes are way too easy. For the Master's I'm working on, the
pass mark is at 50% and a Distinction is 70% (and damn hard to get even
for a single exam or assignmnent, let alone overall).
It's just statistics. With the right marking scheme and moderation, you
can fail 99 out of 100 applicants even if the pass mark is only 10%, or
you can make a 90% result into a pathetic failure and reject all those
useless losers who "only" got 99%.
Performance in the field is what matters: if it didn't, then amateur
pilots like me would get their PPLs after classroom exams and MTQ2 would
automatically qualify you for commissioning.
> Given the complexity of weapons employment and aircraft
>handling, coupled with the command assignments pilots are expected
>to fill, commissioned officers makes sense.
Only if there's an ample supply. The recruitment / retention problems
would suggest that this is not the case.
Having been reprimanded by some very capable NCOs (who could make the
word 'sir' into the most barbed and venomous expletive imaginable, since
they were addressing an officer-cadet), I'd suggest that if they were
able to have been Battery-Sergeant-Major of an artillery unit or CSM in
the Royal Green Jackets, with all the responsibility and duties thus
entailed, then they might have the intelligence and ability to handle an
aircraft. If they could handle over a hundred infantrymen and their
attendant vehicles and logistics, they could probably deal with one
aircraft. Meanwhile, I've met (not many, but some) commissioned officers
whose ability to tie their own shoelaces unaided I doubted.
Indeed, the RAF seems to do quite well by recruiting pilot candidates at
age 18. One thing I could never forgive... a friend of mine who worked
through double maths with me, and not only got into the RAF (thanks to
perfect eyesight and decent academics) but got a "guaranteed offer" of
fast jets (means less than it says, just the chance to try for them, but
still...) at age 18. What did he do? Turn them down flat and go off to
learn to be a bank manager for the National Westminster instead, because
he thinks that's a better career.
Just because a candidate has decent academic results (I totally blew him
away at A-level...) and good eyesight, does not guarantee they'll be a
good pilot. I'd have been a much better buy for that offer... except the
RAF and FAA couldn't see past my uncorrected eyesight.
I have no objection at all to selection standards when they make sense.
But they need to have some sensible rationale behind them.
Andrew Chaplin
> 20/20 uncorrected is normal Normalcy is neither unreasonable nor is it
> arbitrary. But demanding that abnormal eyesight be accepted is both
> unreasonable and arbitrary.
[Oh, Arthur; that's "normality" or "normal". "Normalcy" is an
illiteracy coined by President Harding.]
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
ArtKramr
>
>> 20/20 uncorrected is normal Normalcy is neither unreasonable nor is it
>> arbitrary. But demanding that abnormal eyesight be accepted is both
>> unreasonable and arbitrary.
>
>[Oh, Arthur; that's "normality" or "normal". "Normalcy" is an
>illiteracy coined by President Harding.]
>--
>Andrew Chaplin
Sorry. I meant to say normalocity. Or at least normaleosis. (grin)
Gord Beaman
>
>"Gord Beaman" <gbe...@islandtelecom.com> wrote in message
>news:3b8d3d79...@news1.islandtelecom.com...
>> "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <Mo...@mortimerschnerd.com.nospam> wrote:
>> Not that I can see, your eyesight didn't measure up to the
>> military's minimum so they couldn't use you. If it had then
>> they'd have been glad to use you I'd say. I see nothing wrong
>> here. The fact that you flew 2600 hours as PIC means nothing
>> except that you did it less safely than the military demanded
>> that's all.
>
>I flew in and out of IFR equipped airports in the friendly skies of America
>while the military was dodging bullets and missiles over the somewhat less
>friendly skies of Iraq and landing on the tiny pitching decks of aircraft
>carriers and you say they flew more safely than I?
>
Well, I didn't think that I'd need to spell it out but yes, imo
they did it more safely than if you had been accepted to do it,
right?...you're talking apples and oranges here aren't you?.
I'm really not trying to make light of your less capable
eyesight nor to denigrate it in any way but just to point out my
interpretation of why the vision requirements are specified as
they are. Mind you, I'm certainly not a military doctor, this is
just my take on why the rules are as they are. YMMV.
>Since there were relatively few SAM sites in North Carolina, I was able to avoid
>the high-g maneuvers you fellows insist will cause me to lose my glasses.
>Somehow I managed to avoid the SAMs, despite my relative blindness.
I don't know whether 'losing your specs' plays a part in the
specifications or not, I'd think not a lot.
Michael Williamson
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
> In ground combat terms, a mechanic or logistician or truck driver has a
> lower standard (of physical fitness) to meet than a paratrooper or other
> special-forces-elite type trooper: but the Army does not set admission
> standards based on the highest minority, it doesn't even set infantry
> soldier standards on that level.
>
> Why not set a basic standard for _entry_ to pilot training, and then
> select for various streams based on aptitude, demonstrated skill,
> physical limitations, enthusiasm, cadet's preference, and so on? Why
> constrain the _entire pilot intake_ by requiring them all to be high-G
> fighter pilots, when there are candidates who would have been content to
> drive C-130s?
Actually, they do, to a certain extent. Centrifuge training is done for
pilots
only if posted to an aircraft requiring it (F-16 or F-15, for example).
There
have been pilots who could not make the required G and went on to be
'heavy' pilots, requiring a normal max of say, 2 to 3 G only. But everyone
has to be able to handle the G in pilot training for the Tweet, T-6 (new), or
T-34 (Navy, and VERY old).
> >So, now you've got only a snapshot
> >of a, say 20 y/o, to evaluate his fitness for entry into a very
> >expensive training program. If he displays at this age, a degeneration
> >in eyesight beyond a certain limit (selected as 20/50), why should
> >they risk that on someone who's vision is already bad and likely to
> >get worse, rather than someone who's yet to demonstrate _any_ propensity
> >toward degeneration.
>
> _Everyone's_ eyesight gets worse, the only question is how much.
The point being that if your eyes are poor to begin with, then they have
less
margin for later deterioration. BTW, there are other factors than just pure
20/xx measurement.
> >... We
> >can't afford to throw that much money at a group of guys and see who
> >makes it through. We have to look at what we plan to use people for
> >and who, traditionally, excels in the program. The academic
> >environment of UPT is very competitive. If there's a guy with a 90%
> >academic average in a class, he's usually looked on as the class
> >idiot.
>
> Then your classes are way too easy. For the Master's I'm working on, the
> pass mark is at 50% and a Distinction is 70% (and damn hard to get even
> for a single exam or assignmnent, let alone overall).
>
Pilot training academic classes aren't (for the most part) about working
problems and doing a lot of math, nor are they about 'an understanding of
the concepts'. They are about rote memorization of regulations and
procedures. A score of 85% was the minimum passing grade when
I went through. The tests were actually fairly easy, being essentially
multiple choice right out of the tested material. It was when you went
to the aircraft and began applying that knowledge that the tough stuff
began.
> > Given the complexity of weapons employment and aircraft
> >handling, coupled with the command assignments pilots are expected
> >to fill, commissioned officers makes sense.
>
> Only if there's an ample supply. The recruitment / retention problems
> would suggest that this is not the case.
At the moment the USAF is able to fill all of its pilot training classes.
This
being the case, there is an ample supply of fliers. The fact that pilots
were
not staying in as long as they had in the past was the problem, as well as
the fact that the number of students the pipeline was producing had been
reduced after we decided that the world 'was a safe place to be, now that
the cold war has ended.' Increasing the supply of pilots was a function of
how quickly you could increase the capacity of the training system, not
a supply of applicants. As such, there is no real need to change the system,
as it works satisfactorily.
Mike Williamson
John Keeney
Come on guys, I'm near sighted too and you gents are ignoring the
spherical distortions (unavoidable in simple lens), reduced perphrial
vision around the edges of the glasses and numerous other little things
that reduce our visual sense compared to those with "normal" vision
or even far sightedness when it comes to distant objects.
I wanted to fly jets just like everyone else, but I know my eyesight
was not up to picking up inbound missiles ect to the degree that I
would have had the edge.
But hey, I can read the micro print around the portraits on new money.
Guy alcala
> Guy alcala wrote:
> snip
> >
> > Of course, following the above logic, since both "Mortimer" and I were
> > correctable to 20/15 at the time we were of the appropriate age, then
> > we clearly had greater potential for success than those people who
> > only had 20/20, uncorrected or not, unless the former group could be
> > corrected to 20/15 or better. If they could, why weren't they only
> > allowed to fly wearing glasses, since this extra visual acuity is so
> > vital in combat? That would follow, if the original requirement were
> > based on logic.
> >
> > Guy
>
> I'm not sure how you can claim the requirement is not based on logic. Arbitrary yes
> (as most standards are), but adequate vision is clearly a requirement for a pilot.
> There are BuMed beancounters going over the standards every year, with occasional
> modifications. I suspect they have given the matter as much thought as you have.
> And glasses aren't an unmitigated benefit. I suspect that when you pull 4 g's or so,
> they slip a bit and your visual acuity drops off to something less than 20/20.
If true, the same would apply to any pilot wearing them. So, if 20/20
uncorrected is a necessary requirement, then it should be the
requirement, period, with no allowance for age. Personally, I've
never had a problem on roller coasters or while flying with them
slipping down, when wearing a retaining strap, and rarely when I'm
not. Seems to me it would just be part of the fence check to pull the
strap tight, and put up with any slight discomfort.
> And they
> don't fit terribly well under the helmet, and conflict with NVGs.
And if those are signficant problems, then pilots shouldn't be allowed
to fly as soon as they need glasses to correct their vision to 20/20,
period. It can't be a problem for those with stronger prescriptions,
and not a problem for those with weaker ones.
> I had to wear 'em for
> the last couple of years of my military career and they were a hindrance.
> OBTW, the standard (at least 20 some years ago) to begin Navy flight training was
> 20/20 uncorrected, with additional tests for depth perception and color blindness.
> (Continuation standards were lower and it may have changed since.)
Cecil, this just demonstrates that the standards are not based on
demonstrable need.
Guy
Guy alcala
<snip>
> The reality seems to be that requiring good uncorrected vision at entry
> quickly reduces the tidal wave of applicants to a managable number, and
> when the flood becomes a mere stream the standard is relaxed a little:
> while once a pilot has been trained, the investment involved justifies
> relaxation to prevent expensive wastage just because a pilot's eyeglass
> prescription slips a little.
>
>
> Certainly it isn't a vital issue: if it was, it would be maintained at
> the required level from entry through a flying career. It's a convenient
> hurdle to use to reduce the applicant numbers... but if it *mattered*,
> it would never be reduced or waivered.
Quite so.
Guy
Guy alcala
<snip>
> > Of course, following the above logic, since both "Mortimer" and I were
> > correctable to 20/15 at the time we were of the appropriate age, then
> > we clearly had greater potential for success than those people who
> > only had 20/20, uncorrected or not, unless the former group could be
> > corrected to 20/15 or better. If they could, why weren't they only
> > allowed to fly wearing glasses, since this extra visual acuity is so
> > vital in combat? That would follow, if the original requirement were
> > based on logic.
>
> Come on guys, I'm near sighted too and you gents are ignoring the
> spherical distortions (unavoidable in simple lens), reduced perphrial
> vision around the edges of the glasses and numerous other little things
> that reduce our visual sense compared to those with "normal" vision
> or even far sightedness when it comes to distant objects.
> I wanted to fly jets just like everyone else, but I know my eyesight
> was not up to picking up inbound missiles ect to the degree that I
> would have had the edge.
I'm not ignoring these factors, just pointing out that they aren't
absolutes. I may well not have the same peripheral vision as someone
who doesn't wear glasses. But then, neither does a pilot who is 20/50
uncorrected, and they let him fly with glasses, negating the validity
of that argument. I may well have relatively deficient vision at the
edges, but I may be far better at other aspects that are required to
be a fighter pilot. The question is how does the whole package work -
after all, Mick Mannock was blind in one eye, but he had great SA and
was obviously successful.
Oh, and just so no one thinks this is just sour grapes on my part, let
me point out that I know damned well I don't have what it takes to be
a fighter pilot in other areas - for one thing, I have a very low
threshold for distraction, and don't multi-task well. I also lack the
typical fighter pilot psychological profile. I'm not making the
argument out of any sense of "I wuz robbed."
Guy
Guy alcala
<snip>
> Its interesting to note the requirements of the RAF
> for entrants to pilot training
>
> AGE LIMITS : 17.5-23
> MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS :
> 2 A-levels or 3 Scottish Highers passes, plus 5 GCSEs/SCEs (Grade C/3)
> including English Language and Maths.
>
> This is broadly simliar to the qualifications needed
> to get accepted by a University as an undergraduate
> and I guess is equivalent to a High School graduate in the US
>
> The qualifications are the same for Navigators and lower
> for Air Electronis Operators and Loadmasters. They
> could have left school at 16 and still qualify
Thanks for the info, Keith. So, we now have the Israelis, the
Germans, and the English at a minimum not finding it necessary for
their pilots to have a Bachelor's degree to handle the academic load,
instead apparently testing individuals to see if they had the
skills/knowledge to do the job. Now _there's _a concept:-) And I'm
informed (thanks, Mary) that during the Vietnam War, the USMC accepted
pilot trainees with only AA degrees, i.e. two years. So it seems that
the academic load couldn't have been that tough in the '60s-'70s, if
someone with _only_ an AA degree from a U.S. junior college could
handle it.
Guy
Guy alcala
<snip>
> The point being that if your eyes are poor to begin with, then they have
> less
> margin for later deterioration.
As several of us with Myopia have pointed out, your eyesight doesn't
deteriorate in that fashion.
BTW, there are other factors than just pure
> 20/xx measurement.
Of course there are. And besides vision, there are other factors,
like SA, hand-eye coordination, determination, judgement, etc. If any
of these requirments are absolute, there should be no waivers of any
of them, ever. Otherwise, they are arbitrary.
<snip>
> Pilot training academic classes aren't (for the most part) about working
> problems and doing a lot of math, nor are they about 'an understanding of
> the concepts'. They are about rote memorization of regulations and
> procedures. A score of 85% was the minimum passing grade when
> I went through. The tests were actually fairly easy, being essentially
> multiple choice right out of the tested material. It was when you went
> to the aircraft and began applying that knowledge that the tough stuff
> began.
I was taught rote memorization when I learned the Pledge of Allegiance
and the multiplication tables. Someone has to go to college for this?
<snip>
> At the moment the USAF is able to fill all of its pilot training classes.
> This
> being the case, there is an ample supply of fliers. The fact that pilots
> were
> not staying in as long as they had in the past was the problem, as well as
> the fact that the number of students the pipeline was producing had been
> reduced after we decided that the world 'was a safe place to be, now that
> the cold war has ended.' Increasing the supply of pilots was a function of
> how quickly you could increase the capacity of the training system, not
> a supply of applicants. As such, there is no real need to change the system,
> as it works satisfactorily.
The issue isn't whether it works satisfactorily, the issue is are the
best people being allowed to try out, and is this accomplished at the
least cost to the country? On both those standards, the answer is
almost certainly no. We know that at least three other countries with
high pilot quality (Israel, Germany, and Britain) don't require
college degrees to enter pilot training, and it doesn't seem to
handicap them. The issue has been raised that these countries'
schools are better on average, and I wouldn't disagree. But to
require a 4-year degree of U.S. pilot applicants implies that this
educational inferiority applies across the board in every instance,
and that clearly isn't true.
Replying to Ed in an earlier message, I gave a short bio of a man
lacking a college degree who tried desperately to enter pilot training
despite being repeatedly refused. I then compared him to George Bush
Jr. and asked Ed which man, in his opinion, had demonstrated more
determination etc. Ed skillfully ducked replying to my question, but
I'm not letting him get away with it;-) So, here's the further career
of that man, after he was finally allowed to become a fighter pilot:
http://www.iaf.org.il/iaf/doa_iis.dll/Serve/level/English/1.3.2.3.2.html
By U.S. standards, this man wouldn't even be allowed to enter pilot
training. Does _anyone_ here think that disqualifying this man from
even entering pilot training because he lacks a degree, would result
in our being able to select pilots from the best possible applicant
pool? Anyone?
Guy
ArtKramr
>training. Does _anyone_ here think that disqualifying this man from
>even entering pilot training because he lacks a degree, would result
>in our being able to select pilots from the best possible applicant
>pool? Anyone?
>
>Guy
>
I think the answer to tha question is obvious. In peacetime the service is
looking for career officers who have the ability and education to move up in
experience and rank and eventualy gain senior rank. This means that in time
these pilots and aircrew may be selected to attend the War College and
eventually wear stars. This also means those selected must be the best and the
brightest and must be very well educated., have a desire for higher learning
and will eventually become high ranking cadre to lead the Air Force in time of
war. A person who decides to truncate his/her education lacks the motivation
for higher learning. may well have less of a self image and an image of
unlimited acheivement. In war they need everyone who can sucessfully pilot a
plane. In peace they need those who can become leaders to establish a solid
foundation for when war comes. And only the best and the brightest need apply.
Keith Willshaw
"ArtKramr" <artk...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010901080455...@mb-fg.aol.com...
The RAF have a different angle on this.
Heres an excerpt from their recruitment web site
<Quote>
What do you dream of?
Training to be an RAF pilot or navigator?
Graduating from a world class university?
Doing both at the same time - but don't think it's possible?
Well, now it is. The RAF and the Open University (OU) have combined forces
to bring you The Best of Both Worlds.
Join up with the RAF as soon as you leave school and we'll teach you to fly.
And, while you're learning to conquer the skies, you'll be earning points
towards a degree. It's as simple as that.
So, why sit in the library behind a desk when you can sit in the cockpit
behind the controls, and still get your degree?
</Quote>
Ed Rasimus
>Thanks for the info, Keith. So, we now have the Israelis, the
>Germans, and the English at a minimum not finding it necessary for
>their pilots to have a Bachelor's degree to handle the academic load,
>instead apparently testing individuals to see if they had the
>skills/knowledge to do the job. Now _there's _a concept:-) And I'm
>informed (thanks, Mary) that during the Vietnam War, the USMC accepted
>pilot trainees with only AA degrees, i.e. two years. So it seems that
>the academic load couldn't have been that tough in the '60s-'70s, if
>someone with _only_ an AA degree from a U.S. junior college could
>handle it.
At one brief interlude in my otherwise indistinguished career, I was
posted to the "rated supplement" at Hq ATC, Randolph AFB. The
assignment lasted two years, and had George B. Simler not elected to
try a roll on take-off in his personal T-38 enroute to assuming
command of MAC and gaining his fourth star, I might have had a
sponsor.
Regardless, during that period I was the OPR for "personnel, student
officer, rated, assignments." That meant I was the guy in charge of
routing input to pilot/nav/helo training, survival courses, and follow
on nav schools as well as developing assignment policies and routings
for graduates of ATC's undergraduate rating programs.
One of the things we did was maintain detailed statistics of attrition
by cause. The classification of causes were: flying deficiency,
academic deficiency, medical, FOF (fear of flying), MOA (manifestation
of apprehension--chronic airsickness), and SIE (self-initiated
elimination--pussying out.) Over the twenty years of stats that we
had, the percentage of academic deficiency washouts showed a
remarkable decline at the point where aviation cadets had been
eliminated and full four year degree requirements established. During
the late '60s, early '70s, academic deficiency as cause of elimination
was virtually unknown. Coincidence? I think not.
Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (ret)
***Computer Edge Magazine
***http://www.computeredge.com
RobbelothE
>From: "Keith Willshaw" ke...@kwillshaw.nospam.demon.co.uk
>Date: 9/1/2001 9:31 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <999351072.27389.0...@news.demon.co.uk>
Differing approaches to problem solving. IIRC, the Brits offer a two-track
system. As you progress in rank, you can opt to stay in the cockpit (with the
understanding that there is a rank ceiling and you'll never get past it) or you
can opt for the staff track, fly a lot less but have the potential for more
promotions. (A working example of the Peter Principle????)
The US has a single track system. Rated officers are expected to be equally
competent at flying and staff work. As all of us support officer types
realize, pilots are merely computer-assisted heavy equipment operators with
good eyesight and no more capable of good staff work than the rest of us
non-rated slugs. (That's a JOKE! Well, at least I think it is. Well....it
could be a joke. Hmmmm. Now I'M not sure.)
Ed
"'Twas a woman who drove me to drink,
and I never had the courtesy to thank her for it."
W. C. Fields
(Delete SPAM-OUT for e-mail reply.)
Jim Hale
that we need a rated millionaire (okay I'm exaggerating, but
pilots make more money than anyone else, even if they
don't have a flying billet) as a main force.
Education? Sure, I would not reduce the undergraduate
degree requirement. The U.S. elementary school diploma
is shit. We might as well sell them, as they are worthless
to prove you can read, write, or change money.
The UAV pilots, and utility/recce pilots should all be Warrants,
and that leaves bombers, fighters, and near-space to Officers.
Since we still have nuclear weapons, I want these guys and
gals to have a commission. It also gives a place for future
Generals to grow, on the Ops side of the house.
We need to terminate the fighter mafia, which has driven us to
do stupid things like build a Super-Hornet and a piece of
shit called the F-22. Any logistics officer can see the error,
but the mafia can't be fought for fear of death (being fired).
"Ed Rasimus" <thund...@earthlink.net> wrote
Zaprass
> >From: "Keith Willshaw" ke...@kwillshaw.nospam.demon.co.uk
> >a
> >> plane. In peace they need those who can become leaders to establish a
> >solid
> >> foundation for when war comes. And only the best and the brightest need
> >apply.
But does anyone seriously believe that obtaining any masters degree
with any GPA and completing ACSC, without regard to any other
qualifications, combat experience, or flying ability, qualifies one as
being the "best and brightest" officer?
Yet without those two squares, regardless of other qualifications, one
has a statisitcal chance of promotion to O-5 of 0.0%.
There's nothing wrong with allowing all to compete for promotion, its
just that our priorities in the USAF have tilted increasingly out of
whack. What once were likely intended as simple all-else-being-equal
discriminators, have slowly evolved into impassable prerequisites.
Perhaps its because those doing the promoting today, were promoted
themselves with out of whack priorities?
Its the old three phases of USAF policy making... first, senseless
policy makes people angry, after a while its begrudgingly accepted,
and not long thereafter people actually start defending it.
Ed Rasimus
>My point, is that we need to change the service mindset,
>that we need a rated millionaire (okay I'm exaggerating, but
>pilots make more money than anyone else, even if they
>don't have a flying billet) as a main force.
Well, yes, pilots do make more money than non-rated officers. They
also incur a longer service commitment, endure more remote tours, get
tapped for a lot more TDY, and (drum roll please) die more often in
the performance of their routine duties. Simple expenses like alimony
for one or two wives, increased insurance premiums, outrageous bar
bills and upkeep on a flashy car make the extra pay necessary.
>
>We need to terminate the fighter mafia, which has driven us to
>do stupid things like build a Super-Hornet and a piece of
>shit called the F-22. Any logistics officer can see the error,
>but the mafia can't be fought for fear of death (being fired).
Once again we see the sort of slip-shod thinking that American
politics has driven us to. Don't like a presidential candidate, then
label him as dumb. Don't agree with a tactical staff officer's
position? Then start calling them "mafia."
The fighter mafia was the title hung on a small group of aviators in
the pentagon that argued for an update of the USAF, shaped to the
anticipated world threat. They opposed the continual drain on the
military budget caused by ICBM and strategic bomber forces that,
despite performing a valuable cold war mission, weren't about to be
employed in regional conflicts. Tactical aircraft and support for
those operations were the uses that they saw for the USAF. Hence, they
supported the "hi-lo mix" of fighters to replace the aging F-4 fleet.
They result was the buy of F15s and -16 and modernization of the
force.
The mafia, arguably led to the operational concepts that Gen. Chuck
Horner applied in the Gulf War leading to a swift victory and
remarkably low losses.
The "fighter mafia" wasn't responsible for the Super Hornet--that was
a Navy issue. And, hanging "piece of shit" on the F-22 from a distance
doesn't make it so. As for logistics officers seeing the truth of
combat operations that pilots don't, I've got to count the number of
logistics officer casulties and POWs from recent conflicts....ohhh,
they don't fight, they just gripe?
Ed Rasimus
>As all of us support officer types
>realize, pilots are merely computer-assisted heavy equipment operators with
>good eyesight and no more capable of good staff work than the rest of us
>non-rated slugs. (That's a JOKE! Well, at least I think it is. Well....it
>could be a joke. Hmmmm. Now I'M not sure.)
Well, surely. Pilots are no more, AND NO LESS, capable of good staff
work than support officers. And, conversely, staff officers are no
less capable of going into aerial combat, fighting and dying than
pilots. The major difference, however, is that in the USAF, they
don't.
That being said (remember the starting disclaimer--"that's a JOKE!),
can we acknowledge that experience in combat can (but admittedly
sometimes doesn't) qualify someone for leadership in future conflicts?
Should we have war fighting decisions made by those who do/did or by
those who couldn't/didn't?
We've had Chiefs of Staff in the USAF with no combat experience--Gen.
Lew Allen comes to mind. And, we've had combat proven aviators take
control, very effectively of non-flying major commands, Gen Bernard
Schriever, for instance. Personally, I wish I'd had a warrior in
charge during SEA rather than Allen, but that's just my personal bias.
Paul J. Adam
<artk...@aol.com> writes
>I think the answer to tha question is obvious. In peacetime the service is
>looking for career officers who have the ability and education to move up in
>experience and rank and eventualy gain senior rank.
Disagree. How many recruits will actually be able to rise that far,
whatever their talents? Don't you want a solid core of skilled pilots
rather than a corps of careerists?
And is the purpose of the service to gain rank - or to fly aeroplanes?
Which skill is more important for the Air Force?
ArtKramr
>Which skill is more important for the Air Force?
>
It is to form a cadre of officers capable of both flying skills and
leadership. And that is the way it is and should be. And everything else being
equal educated is better than uneducated.
>Don't you want a solid core of skilled pilots
>rather than a corps of careerists?
Training pilots who leave for cushy airline jobs doesn't further US military
capabilities. We need dedicated officers interested in Air Force careers as a
lifetime commtment. We need men who are both skilled pilots and careerists. it
is not a matter of either/ or. It is a matter of both.
Drew Johnson
> Training pilots who leave for cushy airline jobs doesn't further US military
> capabilities. We need dedicated officers interested in Air Force careers as a
> lifetime commtment. We need men who are both skilled pilots and careerists. it
> is not a matter of either/ or. It is a matter of both.
Sorry Art. .have to disagree with you on that one.
Who did they call up for the Korean Conflict?
Who were the vast majority of pilots who served in the Viet Nam conflict?
Year after year. .which squadrons win most of the annual competitions?
Reservists. . part time pilots.
Part of the problem with today’s military (since before TailHook) are the f****ing “careerist”
politicians, who are only concerned about their next star!
Just like we ought to go back to the practice of “normal” people, who serve a couple of terms in
Congress, and then go back to their business, classroom, medical practice, et al. . by the same
token it is the “careerists” who are screwing up the military
ArtKramr
serve a
>couple of terms in
>Congress, and then go back to their business, classroom, medical practice, et
>al. . by the same
>token it is the “careerists” who are screwing up the military
You mean careerists like Doolittle, Arnold Spaatz, Eisenhower, Marshall and
Patton and guys like that who led the USAAC to victory in WW II? Are those the
guys you claim screwed up the military? We would have been dead without their
experience and commiitment that came out of a lifetime of dedication. Reservist
are fine when called up. But that doesn't make a cadre. And we can't build a
military without professional leardership and experience.
Drew Johnson
> >Just like we ought to go back to the practice of “normalâ€* people, who
> serve a
> >couple of terms in
> >Congress, and then go back to their business, classroom, medical practice, et
> >al. . by the same
> >token it is the “careeristsâ€* who are screwing up the military
>
> You mean careerists like Doolittle, Arnold Spaatz, Eisenhower, Marshall and
> Patton and guys like that who led the USAAC to victory in WW II? Are those the
> guys you claim screwed up the military?
Art. .I really don’t want to get into a pissing contest with you . .BUT. . .were “Doolittle,
Arnold Spaatz, Eisenhower, Marshall and Patton” on Active Duty around the era of TailHook?
We are talking about a WHOLE different generation of military “leaders” here. We don’t have that
caliber of individuals in the military any longer. Anyone who could have put up with 8 years of
Klinton is not worthy of command, in my view.
Zaprass
>
> >As all of us support officer types
> >realize, pilots are merely computer-assisted heavy equipment operators with
> >good eyesight and no more capable of good staff work than the rest of us
> >non-rated slugs. (That's a JOKE! Well, at least I think it is. Well....it
> >could be a joke. Hmmmm. Now I'M not sure.)
>
> Well, surely. Pilots are no more, AND NO LESS, capable of good staff
> work than support officers. And, conversely, staff officers are no
> less capable of going into aerial combat, fighting and dying than
> pilots. The major difference, however, is that in the USAF, they
> don't.
Well, I see what you are getting at, but there is a big difference...
We're requiring pilots to actually do staff work equally well, we
aren't requiring support officers to fly equally well.
Guy Alcala
Art, did you read the link? Epstein wound up as a Col., after having spent time in
Sq.command at least as well as Hq. staff. Since the IAF doesn't require College
degrees for their pilots (it normally takes them at age 18) and yet still manages
to find the best and brightest with more than enough education to do the job, have
excellent self-image, become leaders, etc. etc., I fail to see how you reach the
above conclusion. It would be hard to imagine someone who is less likely to have
problems in the area of "an image of unlimited self-achievement." And I suspect it
would be damn near impossible to find someone who was more of an inspiration to
young fighter pilots than guys like Epstein, Iftach Spector, or Amir Nahumi. A
quick synopsis of Nahumi's career: After serving as a tank commander in the '67
war, he applied for pilot training (again, no college). As a member of Spector's
107 sq., he scored four kills on his first combat mission on the first day of the
Yom Kippur War. He made ace in both the F-4 and F-16, commanded the 2nd IAF F-16
Sq. (110 Sq.), scored the first jet kill in an F-16, was the first (and maybe only)
F-16 ace, and led the second flight of four on the Osirak raid. As of four years
ago or so, he was a Brig. Gen., who would either be commanding a Base, or else be
senior staff at Headquarters. I don't know if he's been promoted since or retired,
but then the IAF's CinC is only a Maj. Gen, and there are only a few of them at any
one time. If these guys _need_ any extra education, they normally acquire it
during their careers. Seems like the best and brightest to me.
Guy
Jim Hale
other organizations. That term is "Mission Ready".
Mission Ready is a status. It says you have done all the
things required/prerequisite for the quarter. Those things
include say "buffer zone training" when we used to fly near
the Soviet captured part of Germany. Things like number
of sorties, number of night landings, etc.
In my field, command and control radar aircraft, we had
all sorts of real stuff that needed to be mastered on a
quarterly basis. Fire fighting, hanging harness, etc, etc.
Then you go to a ground outfit and they are so unprofessional,
that you can't get them to feed track data to your TADIL
network, or their JTIDS never seems to work because they
can't remember how to change the battery in the crypto keyer,
etc. Then some shithead gets on the radio that sounds like a
fucking CB'er on a Kenworth truck in Nevada.
I just noticed an Airman I flew with got his Pilots Wings after
serving for 10 years as an enlisted radar troop. He was more
apt to succeed than any ground pounder I have ever met. Mainly
because flying on an E-3 provided him with a professional
syllabus, a professional proficiency requirement, and 50% of
what all pilots do anyway in regards to aviation. All he had to
do was learn to fly and navigate, he's already mastered the rest.
In that 10 years he got a college degree, and that's the way it
ought to be. He won't ever fly fighters, but he'll be quite an
asset to those serving in multi-engine transports and recce birds.
The difference between Ops raised folks and non-Ops types, is
an atmosphere of can-do, professional thinking, rather than a
sand-bag mentality (fortress, whatever) of everyone else.
Here's a true story. I was across the yellow line having a cigarette
while a C-141 in As Salaam, Iraq was doing an engine start. They
just loaded-up all the body bags of the Army guys who got blown
up in the friendly fire incident when all the cluster bombs blew up,
after they bulldozed them into a pile. The #2 engine caught on fire.
The crew chief wasn't even looking at the engine. I ran to the
front of the airplane and giving the cut signal, and yelled to the
Crew Chief that #2 was on fire. He dropped the fire extinguisher
and ran to the sand bag bunker. I couldn't believe it. Meanwhile
I noticed a ladder being thrown out of the front door, followed
by the Flight Engineer who ran and put the ladder by the cowling.
He confirmed the fire was out, so we got to opening the doors on
the engine, and another engineer climbed up with a screw driver to
start looking what might have caught on fire.
I attributed this to Ops-Think. We can still succeed with 3 engines,
but if the whole ship burns down we are fucking lost. That was the
Crew Chief--Let it burn was his vote as he ran.
"Ed Rasimus" <thund...@earthlink.net> wrote
Guy Alcala
Which begs the question, was this because the education level was actualy
higher in this period, or were unnecessary standards relaxed because the
military needed to fill cockpits, so no one got washed out for relatively
trivial reasons? Given the average quality of a high school education in
our schools, taking anyone just because they have a diploma certainly won't
prove anything, since it means next to nothing. In many cases, the college
degree doesn't mean much more - I've known many people whose high school
education (usually private) required far more of them and left them far
better educated than most people with the average college education.
That's not to say that they didn't go on to college after; I'm just
comparing them at 18 to the average person at 21-22 with a four year
degree. The question is, is a college degree the only or best way to test
academic ability and determination? And how critical is that academic
ability? According to at least one pilot who's commented here, not much,
as it's mainly rote memorization ("one ten . . . chop . . . drop . . .
prop). If whatever academic ability that is actually required, as well as
determination, can be tested in other ways and most of those incapable of
staying the course weeded out early (other countries seem to manage doing
this just fine), then requiring a four year degree is not only unnecessary,
but wasteful of several years of flying time.
Guy
Guy Alcala
> >Just like we ought to go back to the practice of “normal” people, who
> serve a
> >couple of terms in
> >Congress, and then go back to their business, classroom, medical practice, et
> >al. . by the same
> >token it is the “careerists” who are screwing up the military
>
> You mean careerists like Doolittle, Arnold Spaatz, Eisenhower, Marshall and
> Patton and guys like that who led the USAAC to victory in WW II?
Doolittle was exactly the sort of person that Drew's referring to. After enlisting
in 1917 in the Army reserve and training pilots in WW1, he became a regular in 1920
(1st Lt.). The Army sent him to MIT, where IIRR he earned a degree in Aeronautical
Engineering. He left the military in 1929 or so, either as a 1st Lt. or Capt.,
raced for several years, then went to work for Shell in the '30s. He was either
called up or volunteered before Pearl Harbor as a Major, promoted to Lt. Col. and
given command of the Raid without ever having gone through the intermediate stages,
promoted to B.Gen immediately after, and after commanding in North Africa and Italy
was given Command of 8th AF in 1944 as either a Maj. Gen. or Lt. Gen., I forget
which. Not exactly a career man.
> Are those the
> guys you claim screwed up the military? We would have been dead without their
> experience and commiitment that came out of a lifetime of dedication. Reservist
> are fine when called up. But that doesn't make a cadre. And we can't build a
> military without professional leardership and experience.
And no one's suggesting that we should do so. The question is whether it makes
sense to treat every pilot as if they are someday going to be CoS, or as if they
wish to be. There's unlikely to be a shortage anytime soon of people who want to
wear stars on their shoulders; there will always be people ambitious to do so.
Guy
ArtKramr
I get your point. Using your examples I think we should be very suspicious of
anyone with a good education. And just to be safe we should bar them from Air
Force service. We know from your examples that the less you know the better.
That is your point isn't it? (sheesh)
Drew Johnson
> Given the average quality of a high school education in
> our schools, taking anyone just because they have a diploma certainly won't
> prove anything, since it means next to nothing. In many cases, the college
> degree doesn't mean much more - I've known many people whose high school
> education (usually private) required far more of them and left them far
> better educated than most people with the average college education.
Guy,
If ANYONE has ANY doubts that the Government Schools have intentionally “Dumbed Down” our populace
over the last Century, check out the following 8th Grade test that kids had to pass in 1895.
Uhmmm... I'd a likely flunked it!
Subject: 8th Grade Test in 1895
Remember when our grandparents, great-grandparents, and such stated that they only had an 8th
grade education? Well, check this out.
Could any of us have passed the 8th grade in 1895?
This is the eighth-grade final exam from 1895 in Salina, KS. USA. It was taken from the original
document on file at the Smokey Valley Genealogical Society and Library in Salina, KS and
reprinted the Salina Journal.
Grammar (Time, one hour)
1. Give nine rules for the use of Capital Letters.
2. Name the Parts of Speech and define those that have no modifications.
3. Define Verse, Stanza and Paragraph.
4. What are the Principal Parts of a verb? Give Principal Parts of do, lie, lay and run.
5. Define Case, Illustrate each Case.
6. What is Punctuation? Give rules for principal marks of Punctuation.
7 - 10. Write a composition of about 150 words and show therein that you understand the practical
use of the rules of grammar.
Arithmetic (Time, 1.25 hours)
1. Name and define the Fundamental Rules of Arithmetic.
2. A wagon box is 2 ft. deep, 10 feet long, and 3ft. wide. How many bushels of wheat will it hold?
3. If a load of wheat weighs 3942 lbs., what is it worth at 50 cts./ bushel, deducting 1050 lbs. for
tare?
4. District No. 33 has a valuation of $35,000. What is the necessary levy to carry on a school
seven months at $50 per month, and have $104 for incidentals?
5. Find cost of 6720 lbs. coal at $6.00 per ton.
6. Find the interest of $512.60 for 8 months and18 days at 7 percent.
7. What is the cost of 40 boards 12 inches wide and 16 ft. long at $20 per metre?
8. Find bank discount on $300 for 90 days (no grace) at 10 percent.
9. What is the cost of a square farm at $15 per acre, the distance around which is 640 rods?
10. Write a Bank Check, a Promissory Note, and a Receipt.
U.S. History (Time, 45 minutes)
1. Give the epochs into which U.S. History is divided.
2. Give an account of the discovery of America byColumbus.
3. Relate the causes and results of theRevolutionary War.
4. Show the territorial growth of the United States.
5. Tell what you can of the history of Kansas.
6. Describe three of the most prominent battles of the Rebellion.
7. Who were the following: Morse, Whitney, Fulton, Bell, Lincoln, Penn, and Howe?
8. Name events connected with the following dates: 1607 ?1620- 1800 ?1849-1865.
Orthography (Time, one hour)
1. What is meant by the following: Alphabet, phonetic, orthography, etymology, syllabication?
2. What are elementary sounds? How classified?
3.What are the following, and give examples of each: Trigraph, subvocals, diphthong, cognate
letters, linguals?
4. Give four substitutes for caret 'u'.
5. Give two rules for spelling words with final 'e'. Name two exceptions under each rule.
6. Give two uses of silent letters in spelling. Illustrate each.
7. Define the following prefixes and use in connection with a word: Bi, dis, mis, pre, semi, post,
non, inter, mono, sup.
8. Mark diacritically and divide into syllables the following, and name the sign that indicates
the sound: Card, ball, mercy, sir, odd, cell, rise, blood, fare, last.
9. Use the following correctly in sentences, cite, site, sight, fane, fain, feign, vane, vain,
vein, raze, raise, rays.
10. Write 10 words frequently mispronounced and indicate pronunciation by use of diacritical
marks and by syllabication.
Geography (Time, one hour)
1. What is climate? Upon what does climate depend?
2. How do you account for the extremes of climate in Kansas?
3. Of what use are rivers? Of what use is the ocean?
4. Describe the mountains of North America.
5. Name and describe the following: Monrovia, Odessa, Denver, Manitoba, Hecla, Yukon, St. Helena,
Juan Fernandez, Aspinwall and Orinoco.
6. Name and locate the principal trade centers of the U.S.
7.Name all the republics of Europe and give capital of each.
8. Why is the Atlantic Coast colder than the Pacific in the same latitude?
9.Describe the process by which the water of the ocean returns to the sources of rivers.
10. Describe the movements of the earth. Give inclination of the earth.
EndX
Keith Willshaw > The RAF have a different angle on this.
>
> Heres an excerpt from their recruitment web site
>
> <Quote>
> What do you dream of?
>
> Training to be an RAF pilot or navigator?
> Graduating from a world class university?
> Doing both at the same time - but don't think it's possible?
>
> Well, now it is. The RAF and the Open University (OU) have combined forces
> to bring you The Best of Both Worlds.
>
> Join up with the RAF as soon as you leave school and we'll teach you to
fly.
> And, while you're learning to conquer the skies, you'll be earning points
> towards a degree. It's as simple as that.
>
> So, why sit in the library behind a desk when you can sit in the cockpit
> behind the controls, and still get your degree?
> </Quote>
I agree,
all the UK Armed Services have the same stance, you *dont* have to have a
degree to become an officer. why would you? some people are better at
learning the practical way and can do their job, ie fighter pilot, logistics
officer, infantry platoon commander perfectly well without a degree. Okay,
some might go on to one, but some may not. Does a having a zoology degree
make you a better infantry officer than someone who doesnt have a degree a
t all, who went to sandhurst after finishing their a levels at secondary
school? Personally, i dont see the big deal about having a degree and
becoming an officer. some discipleines require one, eg enineering, most
dont.
my 0.02 ? worth, before the exchange rate drops too much..
EndX
Zaprass
I think his point is that we (the USAF) are, effectively, barring
anyone from command that doesn't have any masters degree with any
GPA. That make any sense at all?
ArtKramr
I think that everyone should be as educated as possible. To decry the poor
state of education in the US then trash higher learning brings into question
simple applications of logic.
John Keeney
Guy alcala <g_al...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7b887ead.01083...@posting.google.com...
> I'm not ignoring these factors, just pointing out that they aren't
> absolutes. I may well not have the same peripheral vision as someone
> who doesn't wear glasses. But then, neither does a pilot who is 20/50
> uncorrected, and they let him fly with glasses, negating the validity
> of that argument. I may well have relatively deficient vision at the
Not at all. With the pilot who's vision deteriates after being winged
it is simply a matter of not wasting the money spent training him.
He can still be "OK", just not the best.
That is for their good, not the pilot's.
Zaprass
> We need to terminate the fighter mafia, which has driven us to
> do stupid things like build a Super-Hornet and a piece of
> shit called the F-22. Any logistics officer can see the error,
> but the mafia can't be fought for fear of death (being fired).
Hmmmm, what is it about the F-22 that you don't find indespensable?
The F-22 gets it mostly right, with the exception of inertial A/G
"precision" weapons, thats a big mistake IMO. Not uncorrectable,
though.
There are several threads here that beg the above titled question to
be asked, what should be required of tomorrow's modern fighter?
A few thought provokers...
- Does the emphasis on "cobra" type maneuvers show a lack of s/a on
the part of Russian a/c designers, are they still designing to
WWII era requirements?
- Should continued role consolidation be persued? Should a 5th gen
consolidate OCA/DCA, precision strike, SEAD/DEAD (or negate the need
via stealth), FAC-A, etc? Does the ultimate 5th gen design build a
complete 4th gen strike package into each and every 2-ship?
My answers to all of the above--yes. So as I indicated, IMO the
F-22 fits the bill quite well.
Zaprass
Its a moot point anyway, I see a lot better with contacts than than I
ever saw naturally, even when I was young and 20/20.
(Now 20/100 or so uncorrected. 20/15 or better with contacts, which
is just plain wonderful for air to air)
Zaprass
> >> I get your point. Using your examples I think we should be very suspicious
> >of
> >> anyone with a good education. And just to be safe we should bar them from
> >Air
> >> Force service. We know from your examples that the less you know the
> >better.
> >> That is your point isn't it? (sheesh)
> >
> >I think his point is that we (the USAF) are, effectively, barring
> >anyone from command that doesn't have any masters degree with any
> >GPA. That make any sense at all?
>
> I think that everyone should be as educated as possible. To decry the poor
> state of education in the US then trash higher learning brings into question
> simple applications of logic.
Which again begs the question, what's more enlightening with
regard to a USAF career... any masters degree from anywhere in any
field with any GPA, or say, actual combat experience?
Lets not forget, time is not unlimited, the two may very well be
mutually exclusive options. Lots of pilots are logging combat time as
we speak. Is it fair, or smart, to force our senior flight leads into
generic masters classes when they land, or kick them out of the force?
Currently, no generic masters without regard to GPA; no promotion.
Combat experience is admittedly a plus, but if you consider the
opportunity cost of that experience, I'll bet its actually a minus.
Jim Hale
The replacement requiring a stealth capability.
Both missed the boat in my opinion, as they are both the
size of a B-17 bomber. Wouldn't it be easier to apply
stealth to a smaller aircraft, is the question.
The F-22 is a gas hog. It can only exist if we send tankers
up to the battle with it. For example, the F-15 had to have a
tanker up in the Baghdad area with it to effectively kill the
fighters escaping to Iran.
The 5th Generation fighter should be able to leave the tankers
behind the FEBA.
The 5th Generation fighter should be fighter size, not bomber
size.
The 5th Generation fighter should have better gas mileage than
the plane it replaces.
The 5th Generation fighter should do more than carry A/A
weapons and a cannon. ESM, SAR (radar) and photo should
be part of every tail.
"Zaprass" <Zap...@nospam.com> wrote
PB
wrote:
>The F-22/F-23 were proposals for the F-15 replacement.
>The replacement requiring a stealth capability.
>
>Both missed the boat in my opinion, as they are both the
>size of a B-17 bomber. Wouldn't it be easier to apply
>stealth to a smaller aircraft, is the question.
Nope, that's not how stealth works. Size makes no real difference -
what will hide a 7' model will hide a 70' one.
Other comments seem valid though ...
pete
John Cook
wrote:
Hmmm your about 1/5 right there's Visual stealth, Infrared Stealth,
Acoustic stealth, and in Radio theres the longer wavelengths which
might not be so non scale critical..
cheers
>Other comments seem valid though ...
>
>pete
John Cook
Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.
Email Address :- Jwc...@ozemail.com.au
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter.pso-online.com/
ArtKramr
>Combat experience is admittedly a plus, but if you consider the
>opportunity cost of that experience, I'll bet its actually a minus.
Combat experience comes first above all other things. But a man with combat
experience and who is educated is to be preferred over a man with combat
experiience who is uneducated when it comes to building an Air Force. The
science that most applies to war operations is Chaos Theory. This is an upper
level course of study for those who pursue both math and physics, or a new
category of scientist known as the mathematical physicist. And it innnvolves a
branch of mathematics known as Fractals. Chaos theory is studied at West Point,
Annapolis and the Air Force Academy as well as in Russian and Chinese military
schools.. And while an ordinary pilot need not know it, the men who will
command the military at upper levels must know it, And When it is combined
with battle experience we get a man far more valuable than one who is ignorant
of this course of study. Ignorance is never an advantage no matter how hard the
ignorant try to convince us of that.
Keith Willshaw
"Zaprass" <Zap...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3B917615.MD-...@nospam.com...
> Jim Hale <jimh...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > We need to terminate the fighter mafia, which has driven us to
> > do stupid things like build a Super-Hornet and a piece of
> > shit called the F-22. Any logistics officer can see the error,
> > but the mafia can't be fought for fear of death (being fired).
>
> Hmmmm, what is it about the F-22 that you don't find indespensable?
>
Cost
Keith
Zaprass
> The F-22/F-23 were proposals for the F-15 replacement.
> The replacement requiring a stealth capability.
>
> Both missed the boat in my opinion, as they are both the
> size of a B-17 bomber. Wouldn't it be easier to apply
> stealth to a smaller aircraft, is the question.
You really can't judge the RADAR cross section of a jet by noting its
size. I have no idea what the rcs of the F-22 might be, but if it was
the "steathiest" aircraft ever fielded, would that be good enough for
you?
Ever seen an Eagle on RADAR?
> The F-22 is a gas hog. It can only exist if we send tankers
> up to the battle with it. For example, the F-15 had to have a
> tanker up in the Baghdad area with it to effectively kill the
> fighters escaping to Iran.
Thats reality, unfortunately. Even if a 5th gen design had the
theoretical range to do a certain cap mission without a tanker, guess
what, you'd still cap with a tanker to commit with a full load of
fuel. And you'd still use tankers to top off strikers. Tankers
aren't going away with any design.
> The 5th Generation fighter should be able to leave the tankers
> behind the FEBA.
Well sure, and all fighters do that, even today.
> The 5th Generation fighter should be fighter size, not bomber
> size.
You mean like F-16 bomber size? :^)
> The 5th Generation fighter should have better gas mileage than
> the plane it replaces.
Are you comparing supercruise to subsonic cruise? Better range,
probably. Still though, its not so cut and dry in my book.
> The 5th Generation fighter should do more than carry A/A
> weapons and a cannon. ESM, SAR (radar) and photo should
> be part of every tail.
The F-22 will indeed be a strike asset, not just a combat support
asset like the F-15C. At least thats my understanding of the big
picture plan.
Zaprass
Value matter?
IOWS, if a 2-ship of 5th gen F-22s can do (more safely) what would
have previously required a 20-ship 4th gen strike package, is that
expensive?
Keith Willshaw
> Keith Willshaw <ke...@kwillshaw.nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > "Zaprass" <Zap...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:3B917615.MD-...@nospam.com...
> > > Jim Hale <jimh...@home.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > We need to terminate the fighter mafia, which has driven us to
> > > > do stupid things like build a Super-Hornet and a piece of
> > > > shit called the F-22. Any logistics officer can see the error,
> > > > but the mafia can't be fought for fear of death (being fired).
> > >
> > > Hmmmm, what is it about the F-22 that you don't find indespensable?
> > >
> >
> > Cost
>
> Value matter?
>
Sure it does. Trouble is the cost of the F-22 is so high
that the number bought has shrunk to a point that is
starting to look somewhat inadequate
> IOWS, if a 2-ship of 5th gen F-22s can do (more safely) what would
> have previously required a 20-ship 4th gen strike package, is that
> expensive?
It is if all you can afford is 385 to cover all the US requirements
world wide.
Keith
PB
wrote:
>On Sun, 02 Sep 2001 10:19:10 GMT, p...@theboyalls.freeserve.co.uk (PB)
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 02 Sep 2001 06:23:09 GMT, "Jim Hale" <jimh...@home.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>The F-22/F-23 were proposals for the F-15 replacement.
>>>The replacement requiring a stealth capability.
>>>
>>>Both missed the boat in my opinion, as they are both the
>>>size of a B-17 bomber. Wouldn't it be easier to apply
>>>stealth to a smaller aircraft, is the question.
>>Nope, that's not how stealth works. Size makes no real difference -
>>what will hide a 7' model will hide a 70' one.
>>
>
>Hmmm your about 1/5 right there's Visual stealth, Infrared Stealth,
>Acoustic stealth, and in Radio theres the longer wavelengths which
>might not be so non scale critical..
>
Sorry - I was only thinking Radar, kinda forget the other work you
need to do - but it was first thing in the morning :-)
I will happily admit it's a lot easier to hide a 7' than a 70'
visually! And Sonic Booms do have this habit of giving you away when
you're supersonic (did they ever work out that [unclassified] design
that was supposed to attenuate the shockwave? Or the [unclassified]
plasma effect design?)
I guess really though IR is the other biggie - and anything with
afterburners (or even just designed for decent performance) is going
to quite hard to hide anyway. Especially if it's coming in at a high
Mach number ...
pete