sherpa

Let's not get over dramatic over this. I say we go "Old Testament" on him. A little smiting is in order.

It was completed as I said it would be. http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/military/sd-me-sky-penis-20171130-story.html Convened a Field Naval Aviation Evaluation Board. No loss of wings. Lot's of apologies. Lot's of senseless, wasted training time. The guy who did it already had orders to the training command as an instructor. Not career desirable. He'll be out in a year and a half. End of stupid story.

1981.

Simple. They asked us to. That isn't unusual at all when allied ships are in the same operating area. Flying a landing pattern to a go around is not landing on it. I believe Melbourne had a wooden deck. The A7 would go right through it if you ever touched down. We did one flyby, one landing pattern to a go around, then rejoined for a low, close formation flyby so their sailors could get their pics.

If you do make up that story, don't use the phrase "Navy flyer." Use "Naval Aviator." That's what we call ourselves. Anything else would be suspicious. "Flyer" would be fatal. Best wishes. A7. They invited us via message, and we were in contact with them. Great flyby. As my wingman said, you know its a great flyby when you're at three miles astern and they ask you where you are. They were looking up and we below flight deck level right at mach, so they couldn't hear us. I took the left side and he the right. We went by on both sides at 90 degrees bank, so all they saw was our bellies. Then we joined up and flew the approach, as I mentioned.

Harriers don't deploy anywhere near deployed US Navy carriers, so it doesn't matter. On this subject, we were once invited to fly near the Australian carrier, HMS Melbourne. Gave them the best flyby ever, then flew a landing pattern towards their deck. They waived us off at 500', but I continued to about 50'. Good guys. Good sense of humor.

There is no "generally" about the issue. It simply would never be done. Landing on an aircraft carrier is extremely complicated. Not possible.

That's a weird question, but I have significant carrier experience. The answer is that you would never "crash land," intentionally, on any carrier, your's or otherwise. You would get close by and eject, and let the search and rescue forces pluck you out of the water. You don't, one day, land on a carrier. Most planes aren't equipped for it, and unless trained extensively, it isn't possible. That includes the US Air Force. Simply not possible, and the damage would far exceed a simple "give it back to the taxpayer" ejection.

And as the frog sits, the water gets warmer.

Easy. I flew planes my entire career, and I still root for the same football team. One provided a pretty good life, the other has been "troublesome."

Don't worry about it. It's union leverage after a major internal IT failure.

And in a post-Madonna world. That's gotta be rough.

They don't "land." They crash.

Two losers.

I was completely amazed at how horrible Alex Smith was. Not seeing open guys, and there were plenty. Missing open guys. Checking down way too early. Reacting to minor pressure far too early. Horrible decisions on who to throw to. I thought the guy was atrocious.

I liquid brined for a couple years, but it's too much work and takes up too much space. For the last few, including this year, I've dry brined. Takes more time, but much easier, and great results.

Pretty hot. I've done them at 325 and 350 in my Primo. I cook to temp as well, but just wondering what the planned time was. Now that I know the temp, I can pretty much guess.

Which kamado, and what temp and planning time are you going to use?

No, you didn't call them figureheads. Someone else did, and I wanted to respond to it because it isn't true.

You live in your fantasy world. No problem here. Those relieved would be screaming like pigs if there was something afoot, and they weren't "taken offline." Further, CO's and XO's, on Navy combatants are far, far more than "figureheads."

I do. Given the fact that the commanding officers and others have been relieved, I think the facts are in.

Ya they do, but the normal process to remove wings is to convene a Field Naval Aviation Evaluation Board, made up of Naval Aviators, and that hasn't been done yet. Awfully silly to throw away over a million dollars + in training, (close to 1.5m if the other individual was an NFO), over something as silly as this. But....There's a wildcard. The entire Pacific fleet has been under scrutiny since the occurrence of these idiotic ship to ship collisions. Scott Swift, who is now commander of the Pacific Fleet, and was the the odds on favorite to be named PACOM, the head of the entire, (multi-service), military in the Pacific, just announced his retirement as he was told he would not get the PACOM position. In all probability, because of these collisions. These high visibility, stupid, though meaningless, mistakes have a way of causing over reactions. So....Who knows?

A senior chief is not going to have any say in that decision. They aren't players in such things. A bullet to the head, career wise, for sure, but not worthy of wing pulling. It was an electronic warfare squadron airplane. They are always a bit odd. Really odd.

I'm not saying that it was designed to only be a freighter. It was developed with a thought that it would have to have cargo only capability, if supersonic travel eliminated subsonic, long range airliners. thus the hinge-able nose. At the time, side loading double deck airplanes was not possible, so the the hinged nose would allow front loading. All that has changed, and now side loading is possible. Still, the design acknowledges that issue, as there was no other reason to put the flight deck on a different level.