T
TSPO
Guest
Oh come now, bunky. Did you have to be so mean to me? Let me pull my tail out from between my legs and attempt to compose a reply to your incredibly insightful comments. Let me begin by stating that I do, in fact, have wings. The nice Southwest Airlines captain gave them to me when I was 10 years old. No, they're not gold, but I wear them everywhere. In fact, now that I have my Commercial cert., I actually feel entitled to them. When I complete UPT, I think I'll trade them in for the dull, lead looking ones the Air Force gives out.
Now, it's interesting to me that you claim that only people who have completed a military pilot training program are aviators, and that only they can have a valid opinion on the quality of the training program. It seems that you assume that I'm not a commissioned officer, or that I haven't been accepted to UPT. Once again, your ignorance comes shining through. Does the arrogance of Naval Aviatiors know no bounds? I'll give you this much, you are correct in assuming that I haven't yet completed the training. Let me take this opportunity to enlighten you so that you won't have to display your ignorance with your completely unfounded assumptions in the future. I am an aviator, I do not have my Air Force wings, yet. I am a commissioned officer, I have been accepted to UPT. We'll talk about that in a few months. Anyway, back to my point, your post says "Is Air Force UPT training more structured and rigid? I might agree with you if you were a commissioned officer that had been accepted to Air Force UPT, completed it, and earned your wings." What part of that statement has any validity to it at all? Is it necessary to have completed the UPT program to see the obvious difference in the training regimens? As you must realize, there are a myriad of UPT journals out there, and they make it easy for anybody to see the difference between the training programs. It is obvious that the Air Force is more structured, by the book, and rigid. With that said, it just doesn't make any sense that you would only agree with me if I had first hand knowledge. What is your logic supporting that statement? I made a statement of fact, just because I don't have first hand experience doesn't change that. Your statement is kind of like saying "yeah, that car may be worth more than this one, but I'll only agree with you if you are a car dealer, not some avg Joe off the street."
But that's not all! You then proceed to contradict even your fellow Naval Aviator, Mr Wink! You see, in his post, he states "BTW, wings are not wings! Only an AF guy would state that because it puts him in the same league as the Navy and Marines (ok Coasties too)." Now, as an AF guy, I feel that it is my duty to uphold our end of the interservice rivalry, so I pointed out his error in judging the value of wings by how shiny they are. You then proceed to chime in with your opinion that I am a wannabe and therefore am not entitled to an opinion (God, I still can't get over the arrogance of the Naval Aviators, and then to call me arrogant!). But, you didn't leave it at that. Your next statement "Neither of the flight training programs are superior to the other" completely contradicts what your fellow Naval Aviator, Mr. Wink, said. Now, unless I am mistaken, NFO is a backseater, right? So, just how is it that Mr. Wink, who is also not a military pilot and has not been to either pilot training program can have an opinion, based upon your statements? Sure, he is a winged Naval Aviator, but his wings don't produce quite enough lift to actually fly the plane; he also has no first hand knowledge of the pilot training, but you don't seem to mind that he comments on it.
You know what? I don't really care if you are amazed that someone would have the audacity to post an opinion contradictory to yours. I agree with you on one point, both branches produce highly trained pilots. I never said otherwise, but I still hate your uniform, I still know that Air Force UPT is more structured, and I still know that the worth of a pilot is not measured by the shininess of his/her wings. Say what you will, but only the most arrogant of people would imply that being a winged aviator is a prerequisite for contributing to an interservice rivalry.
Now, it's interesting to me that you claim that only people who have completed a military pilot training program are aviators, and that only they can have a valid opinion on the quality of the training program. It seems that you assume that I'm not a commissioned officer, or that I haven't been accepted to UPT. Once again, your ignorance comes shining through. Does the arrogance of Naval Aviatiors know no bounds? I'll give you this much, you are correct in assuming that I haven't yet completed the training. Let me take this opportunity to enlighten you so that you won't have to display your ignorance with your completely unfounded assumptions in the future. I am an aviator, I do not have my Air Force wings, yet. I am a commissioned officer, I have been accepted to UPT. We'll talk about that in a few months. Anyway, back to my point, your post says "Is Air Force UPT training more structured and rigid? I might agree with you if you were a commissioned officer that had been accepted to Air Force UPT, completed it, and earned your wings." What part of that statement has any validity to it at all? Is it necessary to have completed the UPT program to see the obvious difference in the training regimens? As you must realize, there are a myriad of UPT journals out there, and they make it easy for anybody to see the difference between the training programs. It is obvious that the Air Force is more structured, by the book, and rigid. With that said, it just doesn't make any sense that you would only agree with me if I had first hand knowledge. What is your logic supporting that statement? I made a statement of fact, just because I don't have first hand experience doesn't change that. Your statement is kind of like saying "yeah, that car may be worth more than this one, but I'll only agree with you if you are a car dealer, not some avg Joe off the street."
But that's not all! You then proceed to contradict even your fellow Naval Aviator, Mr Wink! You see, in his post, he states "BTW, wings are not wings! Only an AF guy would state that because it puts him in the same league as the Navy and Marines (ok Coasties too)." Now, as an AF guy, I feel that it is my duty to uphold our end of the interservice rivalry, so I pointed out his error in judging the value of wings by how shiny they are. You then proceed to chime in with your opinion that I am a wannabe and therefore am not entitled to an opinion (God, I still can't get over the arrogance of the Naval Aviators, and then to call me arrogant!). But, you didn't leave it at that. Your next statement "Neither of the flight training programs are superior to the other" completely contradicts what your fellow Naval Aviator, Mr. Wink, said. Now, unless I am mistaken, NFO is a backseater, right? So, just how is it that Mr. Wink, who is also not a military pilot and has not been to either pilot training program can have an opinion, based upon your statements? Sure, he is a winged Naval Aviator, but his wings don't produce quite enough lift to actually fly the plane; he also has no first hand knowledge of the pilot training, but you don't seem to mind that he comments on it.
You know what? I don't really care if you are amazed that someone would have the audacity to post an opinion contradictory to yours. I agree with you on one point, both branches produce highly trained pilots. I never said otherwise, but I still hate your uniform, I still know that Air Force UPT is more structured, and I still know that the worth of a pilot is not measured by the shininess of his/her wings. Say what you will, but only the most arrogant of people would imply that being a winged aviator is a prerequisite for contributing to an interservice rivalry.