PaddyPilot

I recently had an episode of Vasovagal Syncope and I don't know what the implications of that are. Is there a number or an email address for an air force medical examiner? Also, I searched the forum and only found one thread about this. Has anyone had any similar experience?

Why don't we just give the guy a medal and call it a day? What is this country coming to? :rainbow: :rainbow:

Have a good flight guys.

CAP: We've been waiting for you.

Yea, no offense, but Sunny Beach > North Dakota any day. Don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against cold climates, I live in one, but the prospect of living near a beach as opposed to a windswept tundra of snow and coldness is just too attractive. Plus there's the fact that ERAU has an excellent AE program.

Hey no offense taken PortDog. I do already know that Aerospace Engineering will be a hard course, but is it harder than mechanical engineering for example? Any engineers have an opinion on this? yes, some engineers have a distinctive funky scent. no offense guys, but it wouldn't hurt to splash around in some water every once in a while. i can say that because some of my friends are well on their way to becoming good engineers in more ways than one.

I'm actually not concerned with the quality of ERAU's pilots or its AS program, I'd rather do the rest of my flight training at some FBO anyway. The Aeronautical Engineering program is what I'm going for. Sorry, I should have clarified.

Hey, I plan on going to ERAU in the fall of next year and I just wanted some honest opinions. I've heard a lot of mixed things about it, so if you have any legit gripes, let me know now. Thanks. Carry on.

What I meant is that the specific goal of a battle is to eliminate the enemy. Why else would you need a battle? The overall strategic goal is why the battle is being fought, but the point of the battle is to eliminate the enemy. That's just imho, I guess it's just how you look at it.

Just an update, in a debate about a prospective war with Iran he says: Any modern battle will always take place to achieve one side's strategic goal, and very rarely is that goal to kill people. I told him he was thinking of an operation, not a battle. It just sounds stupid to me that the strategic goal of a battle is something other than killing the enemy. The goal of the overall operation might be to capture an objective, but battles are quite frankly for killing people in order to pave the way to the objective. If I'm wrong, please set me straight.

Here's his latest post: Why are you talking about conventional warfare? My point was that air power isn't decisive no matter what the type of warfare, conventional or assymetrical. Why don't battles matter? Because a battle is an inherently tactical affair. Whether you win the battle i.e. whether you defeat the enemy has rather little to do with whether you've attained any strategic objective. Since Vietnam is such a hot topic, consider the Tet Offensive, which contains most of the few pitched battles of the war. The United States consistently won tactical victories, but the North ended it in a far better position than they started it. Who won? Enough about WW2, it has absolutely nothing to do with modern warfare. Stalingrad is absolutely relevant to modern warfare. It demonstrated that a blitzkrieg (which is essentially what we used in Iraq) can by completely stymied by drawing the enemy into unfamiliar, intricate, dangerous terrain. Like a city. Or, in previous wars, mountains and jungles. Are you saying that Iran doesn't rely on its infrastructure? How can a nation with such a relatively large conventional military not rely on infrastructure? How do they continue to exist? Did I say that? I said that " A war with Iran would not be a war where infastructure carries a great influence. " Whether Iran has an infastructure, and whether it would be important in a potential war, are different things. There are ways of conducting a war without an infastructure, and not all of them involve guerilla tactics. Regarding cities, would you consider it a sound tactical or strategic decision to move tank divisions into a city populated with your own people? Large numbers of infantry? You've just brought down the wrath of one of the largest nations on earth to one of the central hubs of your country. Bombing the * out of a city is not usually part of a limited war. It's the problem with trying to have actual justifications for your wars: all those pesky civilians.

So the other day I was talking to this guy, he's one of those guys who reads wikipedia in his basement all day, and he said that the importance of air power is a myth. I completely disagreed with him, but due to my lacking knowledge of war in terms of air power, I couldn't really give him any concrete evidence against his view. This is the link to the thread where he's arguing with some people about it. I was just wondering if anyone has anything to throw into the discussion. *Edit* His name on that forum is uebernerd.

right, the air itself is the treadmill, not anything interacting with the wheels.

The plane would still fly because the speed of the wheels has no relation to the plane's TAS. The propeller is creating thrust using the AIR, not through the wheels. So no matter what the speed of the wheels, the propeller creates airspeed, which in this case with no wind, is translated into groundspeed. The point with walking on a treadmill that matches your speed doesn't apply here because while a plane with no thrust could be compared to that, a plane with a propeller though, would be like you walking on the treadmill, but then someone else pulls you off with a rope. In relation to treadmills, if you had a headwind that matched your airspeed, then your groundspeed would be zero, but you could still takeoff. That's where the treadmill problem would work.

(kagc) ATC: N##### Advise motorcycle on taxiway later that year we're downwind for 28 and these alarms start going off on the atc frequency and some random hillbilly pilot keys his mike and just starts screaming. it was the funniest thing i ever heard.

I just read that "Iranian Navy" ships in the Persian Gulf were threatening a cruiser, destroyer, and a frigate with boxes over the weekend. Not a very intelligent course of action on the Iranian's part considering the firepower of any one of those ships compared to their "boats." The two events are most likely not related because HST wasn't involved, but I just thought I'd throw that in there.

because that's a clip from a video of an A-10 driver getting a ride from the t-birds. i think it was supposed to be funny because in all the clips there is FOD everywhere.

yea i think he's an A-10 pilot

Here's a short clip of the tbirds flying super sabres

well i dont know whether it was a passenger or not, but that is my new favorite song "Well the hardest part was the ILS, cause I thought about your mom and I ended up well off track. Yea, slightly above glide slope and climbin'."

you all make good points, i have to agree with most of you, as a pilot, the t-birds are always a good show. the blues have some pr skills granted, but as far as airmanship goes, the t-birds are better imho. *edit* this is my favorite movie of all time, hands down. i thought the part where the crap is flying around in the cockpit and the tbird pilot just reaches up and puts it away while completing his maneuver was pretty sweet. http://youtube.com/watch?v=y8LF0xp53W0 p.s. what do you think of the red arrows?

This is a question that I do not have the experience to answer and I was wondering what other people thought about it. As far as demonstrations teams go, are the Blue Angels more skilled than the Thunderbirds or the other way around? I've seen the Thunderbirds perform a couple of times and I got to say they are pretty tight

I thought that Chuck Yeager's autobiography was pretty tight. Just all the stuff he did that would have gotten him (nowadays) busted down to scraping bird crap off some obscure airstrip is amazing. Plus it was some pretty original stuff, I'm not sure if this one was, but he threw a handfull of .50 cal ammo into the pot belly stove of his squadron. Then again, everyone here has probably already read it. Black Hawk Down was another good book, it put a really personal twist on the story from a grunt's perspective. I'm not sure if the book I'm refering to is the same as the one pawnman is talking about, but the whole thing was just a big collection of personal accounts.