|
|
 Up |
|
  |
Author: Jack LinthicumJack Linthicum Date: Sep 15, 2008 12:05
On Sep 14, 9:15 pm, "John Weiss" nospamattglobal.net> wrote:> "Jack Linthicum" earthlink.net> wrote...>>>> Neither you or Leadfoot seem to be able to separate a statement I made
>>>> "I presume you have never seen a senior officer during the flight that
>>>> qualifies him for flight duty. Sitting in the left seat is the major
>>>> qualification." from the belief that it applies to McCain.
>>> Nope. You made no such distinction, so we could infer none. You did not
>>> change the subject line, so we could only assume you're still talking
>>> about McCain.
>
>>> If you want to "separate" the statement from the subject, then make a
>>> clear statement including its separate context AND its relevance to the
>>> discussion.
>> Well, I was wrong, he had to qualify in an A-7.
>
> It's good to know you can admit when you're wrong.
>
> OTOH, that also implies that your "belief" regarding "the left seat"
> originally applied to McCain, despite your previous denials.
> ...
|
| Show full article (1.51Kb) |
|
| | 27 Comments |
|
|
Author: LeadfootLeadfoot Date: Sep 15, 2008 12:35
"Jack Linthicum" earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:fecc50fd-5519-42c9-a169-fa0c4f463636@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 14, 9:15 pm, "John Weiss" nospamattglobal.net> wrote:> "Jack Linthicum" earthlink.net> wrote...>>>> Neither you or Leadfoot seem to be able to separate a statement I made
>>>> "I presume you have never seen a senior officer during the flight that
>>>> qualifies him for flight duty. Sitting in the left seat is the major
>>>> qualification." from the belief that it applies to McCain.
>>> Nope. You made no such distinction, so we could infer none. You did not
>>> change the subject line, so we could only assume you're still talking
>>> about McCain.
>
>>> If you want to "separate" the statement from the subject, then make a
>>> clear statement including its separate context AND its relevance to the
>>> discussion.
>> Well, I was wrong, he had to qualify in an A-7.
>
> It's good to know you can admit when you're wrong.
>
> OTOH, that also implies that your "belief" regarding "the left seat" ...
|
| Show full article (1.75Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: Jack LinthicumJack Linthicum Date: Sep 15, 2008 12:44
On Sep 15, 6:35 am, "Leadfoot" leadfoot.net> wrote:> "Jack Linthicum" earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> news:fecc50fd-5519-42c9-a169-fa0c4f463636@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 14, 9:15 pm, "John Weiss" nospamattglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>>> "Jack Linthicum" earthlink.net> wrote...>>>>> Neither you or Leadfoot seem to be able to separate a statement I made
>>>>> "I presume you have never seen a senior officer during the flight that
>>>>> qualifies him for flight duty. Sitting in the left seat is the major
>>>>> qualification." from the belief that it applies to McCain.
>>>> Nope. You made no such distinction, so we could infer none. You did not
>>>> change the subject line, so we could only assume you're still talking
>>>> about McCain.
>
>>>> If you want to "separate" the statement from the subject, then make a
>>>> clear statement including its separate context AND its relevance to the
>>>> discussion. ...
|
| Show full article (2.61Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Ed RasimusEd Rasimus Date: Sep 15, 2008 14:32
On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 03:05:04 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
earthlink.net> wrote:>
>Damn, you clowns hang on to YOUR interpetation of what I wrote. The
>statement was that senior officers very seldom qualify in a single
>seat aircraft.
Wrong at several levels. First, an O-5 is not a "senior officer", but
that is the rank of most squadron commanders.
A squadron commander ALWAYS is qualified in the unit equipment.
Squadrons with single seat aircraft be default have squadron
commanders qualified in the aircraft. Typically there will also be a
leadership cadre in the next higher level of command with qualified
more senior officers at O-6 rank.
Today with wing commanders in the AF often at O-7 level (Brig.
General), there are large numbers of BGs flying single seat.
And, if you skim through "Every Man a Tiger" by Chuck Horner (and Tom
Clancy) you will note that he flew combat missions in Desert Storm in
an F-16C (single seat) as a Lt. Gen (three-star.)
|
| Show full article (1.35Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: VincentVincent Date: Sep 15, 2008 15:22
Ed Rasimus wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 03:05:04 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
> earthlink.net> wrote:>> Damn, you clowns hang on to YOUR interpetation of what I wrote. The
>> statement was that senior officers very seldom qualify in a single
>> seat aircraft.
>
> Wrong at several levels. First, an O-5 is not a "senior officer", but
> that is the rank of most squadron commanders.
>
> A squadron commander ALWAYS is qualified in the unit equipment.
>
> Squadrons with single seat aircraft be default have squadron
> commanders qualified in the aircraft. Typically there will also be a
> leadership cadre in the next higher level of command with qualified
> more senior officers at O-6 rank.
>
> Today with wing commanders in the AF often at O-7 level (Brig.
> General), there are large numbers of BGs flying single seat.
> ...
|
| Show full article (1.91Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Ed RasimusEd Rasimus Date: Sep 15, 2008 16:30
On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 13:22:45 GMT, Vincent wrote:
>
>I'm sure its true but it certainly indicates either "rank
>inflation/medal grabbing" or ego tripping (Rank inflation is sending a
>person of higher rank than the task requires so that person gets the
>ticket punched). I have no problem at all in his being "qualified" in
>the aircraft. But what kind of "command" can a general officer exercise
>from a single seat fighter? What makes them of so little value that
>anyone would let them take such a silly risk?
>
>Vince
I will certainly agree with the rank inflation statement if applied to
Wing Commanders as B/Gs. I only had one in my career and that was in a
pilot training wing which was a pretty large organization.
The discussion has been about John McCain and he was an O-5 when in
his command billet.
|
| Show full article (1.71Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: DanDan Date: Sep 15, 2008 17:01
Ed Rasimus wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 13:22:45 GMT, Vincent wrote:
>
>> I'm sure its true but it certainly indicates either "rank
>> inflation/medal grabbing" or ego tripping (Rank inflation is sending a
>> person of higher rank than the task requires so that person gets the
>> ticket punched). I have no problem at all in his being "qualified" in
>> the aircraft. But what kind of "command" can a general officer exercise
>>from a single seat fighter? What makes them of so little value that
>> anyone would let them take such a silly risk?
>>
>> Vince
>
> I will certainly agree with the rank inflation statement if applied to
> Wing Commanders as B/Gs. I only had one in my career and that was in a
> pilot training wing which was a pretty large organization.
>
> The discussion has been about John McCain and he was an O-5 when in
> his command billet.
> ...
|
| Show full article (2.29Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Richard CasadyRichard Casady Date: Sep 15, 2008 17:45
On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 14:30:11 GMT, Ed Rasimus
verizon.net> wrote:
> Leaders lead from the front. Seldom does a general officer
>need to lead a tactical strike, but a wing commander most assuredly
>should be a regular participant. That was what Robin Olds did to
>resurrect the 8th Wing during Rolling Thunder. The previous incumbent
>had logged less than a dozen combat missions during his tenure. Robin
>led.
The fact that he personally knocked off four MiG's is beside the
point. He was a WWII ace, incidently.
Casady
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Richard CasadyRichard Casady Date: Sep 15, 2008 17:52
On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 10:01:54 -0500, Dan aol.com> wrote:
>If the general officer really is current all will be well, but
>how many really are? He has to be able to fend for himself in a pinch
>without being mothered. A dead general officer isn't of much value no
>matter how much data he has collected. It brings to mind taking civilian
>engineers into the field to study how his equipment functions. He
>requires a crew of babysitters.
When Charles Lindburgh was a tech rep for Republic, he flew a number
of combat mission against the Japanese, shooting down two of them.
When higher authority found out, they hustled him back to the States,
muy pronto.
Casady
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Jack LinthicumJack Linthicum Date: Sep 15, 2008 18:36
On Sep 15, 11:52 am, richardcas...@ earthlink.net (Richard Casady)
wrote: > On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 10:01:54 -0500, Dan aol.com> wrote:>>If the general officer really is current all will be well, but
>>how many really are? He has to be able to fend for himself in a pinch
>>without being mothered. A dead general officer isn't of much value no
>>matter how much data he has collected. It brings to mind taking civilian
>>engineers into the field to study how his equipment functions. He
>>requires a crew of babysitters.
>
> When Charles Lindburgh was a tech rep for Republic, he flew a number
> of combat mission against the Japanese, shooting down two of them.
> When higher authority found out, they hustled him back to the States,
> muy pronto.
>
> Casady
Unable to take on an active military role, Lindbergh approached a
number of aviation companies, offering his services as a consultant.
As a technical adviser with Ford in 1942, he was heavily involved...
|
| Show full article (2.63Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
