Jump to content
Baseops Forums


Supreme User
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Mark1 last won the day on August 14 2018

Mark1 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

91 Excellent

About Mark1

  • Rank
    Flight Lead

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. There's a little bit of discussion on it in this thread from back when the episode originally aired if you're interested: http://www.flyingsquadron.com/forums/topic/1825-b-1-bone-questions/?page=7 Would be a true statement, except that you can't conduct CAS from a box at Creech. At least not yet. That is assuming you mean high quality, effective, CAS.
  2. What in the holy hell are you on about? I pity you. No reasonable person could read what I wrote and receive it as a politically motivated statement. The mentality you move through life with must be exhausting. I made a comment on the role of a special counsel (any special counsel in any case) and the fact that they don't determine guilt or innocence. That's not their role. And so it would be foolish to assume/claim that they had adjudicated a case as they do not have to power to do so. It was not a comment on Trump or his guilt/innocence. It was a comment on the judicial system, period. That's why Trump wasn't mentioned or hinted at in any way. I don't honestly care what Trump did or didn't do. I don't need legal proceedings against him to tell me he's an embarrassment to the nation and a self-centered, self-serving, pompous, incompetent fool who would break the law whenever and wherever it suits him for personal gain. Disclaimer for all you overzealous political watchdogs: the above statement is not an insinuation he collaborated with the Russians, it is merely a comment on his general character. Helpful? But I assume you'll take that to mean that I'm upset I was robbed of the opportunity to wear my matching pantsuit to Hillary's inauguration. For the record, I'm leaps and bounds further right on the political spectrum than you are, so save your catchy, passive-aggressive, pet nicknames for the real lefty and Dem enemies. I'd suggest you check out https://www.amazon.com/Them-Hate-Each-Other-Heal-ebook/dp/B079YL56S3 except I haven't read it and know nothing about it or its author other than the fact that the title is applicable for you. But it's probably just a pinko commie rag, am I right? BTW, you got ripped if you paid a nickel for that law degree. Maybe you should track down The Juice and see if he'd spare part of his $2M/yr pension to get you a real degree.
  3. Wut? Mueller conducted an investigation and summarized his findings in a report, he didn't adjudicate the case. When a district attorney declines to bring murder charges against someone because they don't think they have evidence to meet burden of proof you thought that meant the state was declaring the individual innocent? You need to fire your criminal justice teacher. And for the record, if you go to trial and the verdict is "not guilty" that's not a declaration of innocence either.
  4. Can anybody who's familiar with this guy tell me where he went to college (or PM me his FB page would work as well, I suppose)? I remember hearing the story back when it happened, but never connected with the name. Seeing it now, I think I may have known him back in college. The guy I'm thinking of had the same name and he tracked BUFFs, but we weren't friends so I lost track of him at that point. Fairly common name so I suppose it could be another person. Would just like to know out of morbid curiosity.
  5. If you actually go back and read what I said, I wasn't referring to the crash location as unpopulated. In fact, you'll see I chose my words quite carefully, referring it it as "underpopulated". The "unpopulated" area being Olympic National Park, which he headed towards before being steered back by approach because they wanted him within radio range. Since you're intimately familiar with the area, tell me what the population density is on Sentinel Peak, and then let me know if it meets a reasonable definition of "unpopulated"...that's what I thought. Stop pretending that having missiles tipped with high explosives flying around a highly populated area riddled with child daycares, followed by an aircraft with jammed flight controls careening uncontrolled towards said daycare facilities doesn't also constitute a risk.
  6. What more could he have done to demonstrate a threat? He could have started by plowing into downtown Seattle before any scramble even had time to reach the jets. Instead he headed towards an unpopulated area before (generally) complying with instructions to turn back towards Sea-Tac in order to stay within radio range of approach. Then he verbally expressed his desire not to hurt anyone and voluntarily posted up over the water for his aerobatics. Based on his behavior and flight track, this was not dumb luck. It was a conscious decision on his part to do what he was going to do in a "safe" location. I can imagine more threatening scenarios. FYI, he didn't crash into the water but given the underpopulated area he had chosen, nobody on the ground was affected.
  7. I have no first hand experience flying with him, but Norty was one of the test pilots on the YMC-130 program. If I had to guess, given the high profile of the mission and my assumption that the mission pilots would be selected from the group of test pilots, he along with all the other guys on that test program were probably well respected and accomplished pilots in their respective communities. That's a lot of assumptions though.
  8. Right on brother! Also, we should have airborne DCA up over every TFR in the country ready to blast NORDO Cessna 150s out of the sky the moment they cross the line. Actually on second thought, DCA with blanket clearance to Fox 3 based on predictive path of any aircraft that approach the restriction. I assume for consistency's sake when it comes to your risk aversion that you rate preflight walkaround as extreme risk on your ORM worksheet?
  9. I'm going to assume that you're responding to the voice inside you're head because none of this is related in any way to anything I had to say. And yet, from a statistical perspective, they're still saving lives over traditional vehicles. So what's your point. That they can improve? Sure, great. Doesn't change the fact that they're objectively safer in their current state. If you'd like, for funsies, I can point you to a video of a man burning alive inside his gasoline powered car after a mild impact which he survived but which deformed the frame of the vehicle to the point that he couldn't exit the vehicle, and cracked the fuel tank. Or are we all tuckered out on anecdotal evidence and hypotheticals that do nothing to change the statistics? Statistics that don't require 20 million sales to be relevant. There are very well established methods for determining how much of a sample size is required for meaningful statistical conclusions. Those analyses are presented right alongside the results showing the disparity in safety record. Yes, and? You take issue with objective truths? Also, not sure how you interpreted my comments to be support for Musk in any way. I recall showing support for the science of probability and statistics, and then pointing out the inevitable failure of Tesla's business model. I don't recall raising Musk up to deity status. For your sake I hope Musk's next project is a charity focused on adult literacy programs.
  10. Tesla doesn't sell self driving cars. Negligent drivers in Tesla vehicles did all those things. Also, do you have numbers on how many BMWs, Hondas, and Fords were involved in crashes involving parked vehicles and highway barriers over the same period of time...normalized by the relative number of cars of course? That would help make your point that Teslas are rolling death traps. Oh wait, the numbers show that Teslas are significantly safer than a traditional vehicle? And that's with contribution of any battery issues and scrap parts rolled in? Damn, so much for that. As a fun side project, you should look up cases of "spontaneous" combustion in traditional cars vs. Teslas...you might be surprised to find that the national news isn't being so genuine when they highlight every incident of a Tesla burning to the ground while neglecting the order of magnitude more traditional cars that do the same on a daily basis. Statistically, your life insurance company should gift you a Tesla with known battery and manufacturing defects. Having said that, I wouldn't go anywhere near Tesla stock. People seem to have this impression that Tesla is doing something that none of the other car manufacturers have the skills to do. That's not the case at all. Up until now Musk has been willing to operate at a loss in a long term effort to corner an emerging market, but it's foolish to think he can do so. The traditional auto manufacturers won't enter the autonomous EV market in earnest until it's favorable economically over internal combustion engine vehicles, which isn't yet the case. However, when they choose to shift their engineering and manufacturing efforts it will take no time for them to flood the market with comparable EVs with their logos on them, and the halo that Tesla has been operating under will disappear in short order. They'll probably be left as a legitimate, but very small player in the car business. Their stock reflects none of that reality.
  11. Do what you can to get a true picture of what the MC-130 does if you're going vector hard towards it. In no way am I trying to steer you way from it, but my impression of what the MC-130H did when I was in your position was nothing but terrain following low level, threat penetration, high speed airdrop of clandestine forces, and that seemed pretty cool to me. Turns out, although those may be capabilities, they're rarely exercised and 95% of the time the MCs aren't doing anything a slick -130 doesn't do (excluding HAR/TAR as my impression is the crews don't consider it especially enjoyable). There's nothing wrong with "slick missions", but it may not be what you expect from the MCs. I had a strong desire to end up in MCs initially, but by dumb luck ended up elsewhere in AFSOC and wouldn't have taken an offer to cross-train into MCs after I had seen their reality from up close. Again, not to discourage you. If that's what you want, go for it. Just do what you can to be sure you understand what you're working towards.
  12. You know what happens after something peaks, literally by definition? It declines. That's why I said the decline started in 2015, which you can see if you look at year over year viewership numbers by week rather than an entire season. Regardless, if you use the seasonal numbers they still indicate the decline began with the 2016 season. Interesting that you glossed over that in order to point out where I'm wrong because it doesn't fit into your story. IF there's no movement on widespread state sanctioned gambling on NFL games in the next 4 months then we'll be able to test your theory. Ratings will be back at historical highs for the 2018 season as all the people who abandoned the games over Anthem protests (including the clairvoyant ones who stopped watching 2 years early) return in droves to the game they love so dearly, but sacrificed on principle. Either that, or it will become clear that the declines in NFL viewership are predominantly explained by the same forces that have caused a general decline in viewership across all major sports (don't bother pointing to outliers; it doesn't change this fact). My gut tells me that even if the gambling variable is developed before the 2018 season, it won't overcome the downward pressure. However on that issue, and that issue alone, I'm guessing and could be wrong.
  13. If you want to assert a cause-effect relationship you're going to have to explain why the marked decline in NFL viewership began in 2015, before any of this nonsense, and why there was no statistically significant change to the rate of decline surrounding the referenced anthem displays. Clairvoyant fans who saw it coming 2 years ahead of time? I started to turn this into a 2-page response with charts and numbers and shit, but it's just not worth my time. When you can show a meaningful relationship between the two with p-values and confidence intervals, let me know. Until then I'm going to draw obvious conclusions from actual data as opposed to an ardent campaign on the part of Fox News to spark outrage, thus driving their ratings and ad revenue up, by shoehorning a tired narrative onto a target of opportunity under the guise of "news".
  14. I believe it was something along the lines of "And the ratings sure as hell aren't down because of anything to do with players making fools of themselves while 'disrespecting' the National Anthem"...but I could be wrong. What does your link have to do with ratings, again? I read the story and didn't see any mention of it, so then I searched the page for the term "rating" just in case you were referencing something in the toxic wasteland that is the comments section. That returned nothing. Very confusing. But I'll go ahead and admit that you certainly nailed me with that one. Well done.
  15. You shouldn't have hedged. It's absolutely their "fault". It's one of two things: 1. Attention whoring / seeking recognition 2. Akin to a Colonel jumping to the front of the chow line in front of all his troops that just came in from the field. Yes, he can exploit his status for personal benefit, but it's a detestable trait. A few months ago I watched a guy argue with a gate agent because early boarding was only for active military in uniform. He made it known that since he was a retiree with 20yrs service he had sacrificed more than anybody who was still active. I was embarrassed to be in the room for it even though nobody around could have known I used to belong to the same fraternity as that guy.
  • Create New...