Civil vs. Military aviation

[wink]

One former F16 pilot asserts task saturation in the F16 cockpit is so bad that it is "unsafe" to fly approaches at unfamiliar airfields. On the surface, this seems like an absurd statement, but his explanation makes sense.

Bull shit

There is some disagreement on what turn "immediately" really means. I know if I heard that, I'd be going to max AOB if it was VFR. However, one reader (another former USAF pilot) asserts military pilots perhaps don't necessarily respect controllers' vectors because the pilots are commissioned and the military controllers they know are enlisted. In my little experience, I think this one is a pretty long stretch.

Bull shit

A civilian airline pilot suggests that former military pilots in his line of work are arrogant and feel that they are infallible.

Bull shit

Also, for those who know, how accurate is the claim that F-16's can't fly slower than 300kts? Is than an air start thing? It sounds like bullshit.

Yup, Bull shit

Apparantley in civilian land IFR in VMC is a thing, although I've never heard of it.

Bull shit

You know, I've come around. It must have been then poor visual lookout that caused this mishap.

Learning has occured.

Bull shit

 

[Flash]

...I'm glad you think I'm blatently stupid, but I've never spoken for you...so I think the butt hurt is kinda ridiculous....Maybe when can browse around and find out about the next AMDO board.

Throttle back there junior, take a break and drink a few....it is a Friday evening after all.

 

[squorch2]

Throttle back there junior, take a break and drink a few....it is a Friday evening after all.

I'm jealous to say that wink is ahead of the curve here

 

[wink]

I'm jealous to say that wink is ahead of the curve here

No shit, that picture inspired me. Got up from the desk after previous post, grabbed a Negra Modelo and am using the laptop on the patio listening to a desert thunderstorm.

 

[jtmedli]

A civilian airline pilot suggests that former military pilots in his line of work are arrogant and feel that they are infallible. I have not seen this to be the case in my experience. In fact, throughout flight school, my very experienced instructors always said "I can kill you, just as much as you can kill me. If something isn't right, voice it."

That's because he's one individual who's butthurt about how he didn't get to fly an F15 or his small dick or some shit. Military Aviation and our aviators are, for the most part, MUCH safer and MUCH more competent than what this type of comment would insinuate.

 

[MGoBrew11]

That's because he's one individual who's butthurt about how he didn't get to fly an F15 or his small dick or some shit. Military Aviation and our aviators are, for the most part, MUCH safer and MUCH more competent than what this type of comment would insinuate.

I tend to agree. That guy's comments in particular came off as sour grapes.

 

[ryan1234]

Whoever was writing the "F-16 Safety Officer" piece was more than likely not a fighter pilot. Those comments are asinine. I can't speak in depth about the F-16 community, but as far as F-15s go... we're perfectly happy flying 200-250 knots prior to configuring and then around 170-200 knots. I can't imagine they are too far off, but who knows. Also, the supposed F-16 dude says the incident squadron was primarily an air to air squadron....Last time we worked with those guys they were HARM shooters. The ATC enlisted thing is complete crap, if a dude gives us a vector... we're going to honor it. WTF does AWACS have to do with anything?

 

[MIDNJAC]

I'm not particularly excited to fly low and slow in a Viper, but it doesn't fall out of the sky at <250 knots. Of note, there is no normal flap extension switch in the F-16 (they come down with the gear handle), so you can't just throw in a notch of flaps and hold the gear to comfortably fly slower, like you can in the Hornet, or I would imagine the F-15.

 

[wink]

I'm not particularly excited to fly low and slow in a Viper, but it doesn't fall out of the sky at <250 knots. Of note, there is no normal flap extension switch in the F-16 (they come down with the gear handle), so you can't just throw in a notch of flaps and hold the gear to comfortably fly slower, like you can in the Hornet, or I would imagine the F-15.

And yet we get an argument about oh how task saturated you are on approach in a single seat single engine fighter with a HUD no less. Cry me a river. Airliners and, say P-3s, may have four eyes and four hands, but there is a lot more going on up there with multiple flap setting to run through, maybe a couple extra levers like for props, no AOA indexer, twice to four times the engines to monitor, FAs to coordinate with, a check list at least twice to three times as long, and no HUD to provide you some of the more useful info so you can LOOK OUT THE WINDOW! Not faulting the Viper guy in this incident. Don't know all the facts. But I get tired of people that fly very high performance but actually very simple aircraft beating their breasts about how tough it is.

 

[MIDNJAC]

And yet we get an argument about oh how task saturated you are on approach in a single seat single engine fighter with a HUD no less.

You certainly won't hear that argument from me. Not sure who would say that, but my guess is that they haven't done a whole lot of them.

 

[Swanee]

Also, for those who know, how accurate is the claim that F-16's can't fly slower than 300kts? Is than an air start thing? It sounds like bullshit.

They can fly slower than 300, but they don't want to. It's in their Dash-1 (AF NATOPS) that min safe airspeed is 300 kts. It does have to do with airborne restarts and the whole single engine thing. Source: My old man is a retired Viper dude, I asked him.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

They can fly slower than 300, but they don't want to. It's in their Dash-1 (AF NATOPS) that min safe airspeed is 300 kts. It does have to do with airborne restarts and the whole single engine thing. Source: My old man is a retired Viper dude, I asked him.

That's what I assumed. Same airspeed for air start for harriers but I've never flown 300kts on downwind. I'm with the previous poster who seriously questions whether the supposed F-16 safety officer is legit.

 

[Brett327]

Given the way that USAF does staffing, I would posit that a "F-16 safety officer" probably isn't a rated officer, I.E. not a pilot.

 

[Farva01]

They can fly slower than 300, but they don't want to. It's in their Dash-1 (AF NATOPS) that min safe airspeed is 300 kts. It does have to do with airborne restarts and the whole single engine thing. Source: My old man is a retired Viper dude, I asked him.

300 knots is good, but we are mixing apples and oranges slightly. 300 knots is the recommended airspeed for a FA-18 as well, maneuverability being the key. If I am in a GCA box pattern 300 knots isn't going to do me much good in an F-16. Glide speed for 1 for 1 is 200 knots depending on weight and configuration. If I lose my engine at 1500' AGL I would need a bunch more knots to get myself into some sort of position to land. I would rather be at 250 knots on downwind and approach speed on final (150ish depending on weight) because that is what the controller is expecting and is giving me vectors on that basis.
The jet flies perfectly at those airspeeds and it gives me plenty of time to look outside (through my HUD no less!)

 

[wink]

Even if you have speed for an air start you ain't gonna do that in the pattern. No one has mentioned how long it takes to get a good air start. As mentioned above, just no time for that below a couple thousand feet. And Dash-1 eject guidance? The air start argument is BS.