<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
    <channel>
        <title>Comments for A pilot&apos;s perspective (FWIW)</title>
        <description>We&apos;re the Military and Airpower Guys of Jonah Goldberg of National Review Online + a stray we found wandering around looking lost.  All original material JHD, BHD, JR, WT,  and KA 2003-2010</description>
        <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/02/a_pilots_perspe.html</link>
        <atom:link href="http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/02/a_pilots_perspe_rss.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />

        <lastBuildDate>Sat, 24 Mar 2012 15:22:33 Z</lastBuildDate>
        <generator>Movable Type 4.12</generator>
        <language>en</language>
        <copyright>Copyright 2012</copyright>
        <docs>http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification</docs>

        <item>
            <title>A pilot&apos;s perspective (FWIW)</title>
            <description>My thoughts on the first two comments to my previous post...
</description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/02/a_pilots_perspe.html</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/02/a_pilots_perspe.html</guid>
            <pubDate>Fri, 06 Feb 2009 11:22:38 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>

        
        <item>
            <title>Comment from Attila of Argghhh! on 2009-02-07</title>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[Virgil,<br />
<br />
I was talking about personal callsigns. Operational callsigns, IN&nbsp;THE&nbsp;CONUS and IN&nbsp;PEACETIME are assigned to individual Wings by the FAA&nbsp;and deconflicted appropriately to avoid duplication. These lists, organized by squadron, are&nbsp;individually doled out to individual pilots once they become qualified flight leads. In wartime, callsigns are assigned to individual flights IAW the Air Tasking Order and are unit-specific...<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bolo" rel="nofollow"><u><strong>which is why Robin Olds was able to catch so many NVA&nbsp;pilots with their pants down</strong></u></a>.<br />
<br />
Rivrdog,<br />
<br />
The only way you can get a bomb to go straight down is to drop it from a 90-degree dive. Can be done but isn't because it doesn't have to be. That said, high-angle deliveries DO&nbsp;decrease bomb range (the horizontal distance traveled over the flight time of the bomb) which increases accuracy unless the release altitudes are very high. Now, there ARE&nbsp;munitions that approximate a vertical trajectory, but it takes some special mods of the munition and has as much to do with impact angles that contribute to better target penetration, as it has with how fast the thing is traveling when it hits. <br />
<br />
Then there's elementary physics...horizontal distance traveled is fairly independent of vertical speed. Two bullets, one fired from a rifle, the other dropped from the same height at the same instant, will hit the ground at the same time...one just goes farther down range before it hits. You can <em>propel</em> a bomb in a vertical direction and get it to the ground faster but then it's not really a bomb. For all intents and purposes it's a missile. Then there's all the drops I've witnessed from &quot;B&quot; design series airplanes...they do it from level flight, making &quot;straight down&quot;&nbsp;an impossibility.<br />
<br />
And THIS&nbsp;response tells you how much time I have on my hands today...]]>
            </description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/02/a_pilots_perspe.html#comment-84019</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/02/a_pilots_perspe.html#comment-84019</guid>
            <pubDate>Sat, 07 Feb 2009 19:25:04 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
        <item>
            <title>Comment from Josh on 2009-02-06</title>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[<em>That would be, &quot;Whiskey, Tango, Foxtrot, Over,&quot;  Correct? </em><br />
<br />
There's a pretty cranky guy in the tower at KOPF that I sometimes want to say that to...<br />
<br />
<em>Unlike the fighter jocks, we believe the best trajectory for the weapon to the target is straight down. The weapon gets there sooner...</em><br />
<br />
Then why don't you fly dive bombers anymore, huh?<br />]]>
            </description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/02/a_pilots_perspe.html#comment-84002</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/02/a_pilots_perspe.html#comment-84002</guid>
            <pubDate>Fri, 06 Feb 2009 22:51:03 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
        <item>
            <title>Comment from virgil xenophon on 2009-02-06</title>
            <description>
                In the old Air Force I was in (Vietnam era) we didn&apos;t have personal call signs--nor individual aircraft assigned. We flew whatever tail # was avail. Very few had individual nicknames--and of those who did, most were self-assigned.  And individual call signs (other than Sq./msn assigned ones) were forbidden. Different times, different culture, different operational realities.

Today, the USAF seems to be tending more toward the Navy model, but it seems sporadic and localized-- command-wise--as far as I can tell...
            </description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/02/a_pilots_perspe.html#comment-84001</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/02/a_pilots_perspe.html#comment-84001</guid>
            <pubDate>Fri, 06 Feb 2009 21:32:24 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
        <item>
            <title>Comment from Rivrdog on 2009-02-06</title>
            <description>
                Re: the callsign rule: maybe that&apos;s the reason the bomber guys don&apos;t use them.

Unlike the fighter jocks, we believe the best trajectory for the weapon to the target is straight down. The weapon gets there sooner...
            </description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/02/a_pilots_perspe.html#comment-84000</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/02/a_pilots_perspe.html#comment-84000</guid>
            <pubDate>Fri, 06 Feb 2009 19:52:53 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
        <item>
            <title>Comment from Oldloadr on 2009-02-06</title>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[Thank you for that enlightenment.&nbsp; The F-16 guys I worked for led me to believe the opposite...]]>
            </description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/02/a_pilots_perspe.html#comment-83992</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/02/a_pilots_perspe.html#comment-83992</guid>
            <pubDate>Fri, 06 Feb 2009 14:10:20 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
        <item>
            <title>Comment from Attila of Argghhh! on 2009-02-06</title>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[Au contraire...the callsign, theoretically at least, MUST present a barrier to getting laid, hence, &quot;Booger,&quot; &quot;Scrote,&quot; &quot;Bater&quot;&nbsp;(guy's last name was Omasta), etc. This establishes the necessary challenge mandatory to fighter/attack pick-up lines.]]>
            </description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/02/a_pilots_perspe.html#comment-83989</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/02/a_pilots_perspe.html#comment-83989</guid>
            <pubDate>Fri, 06 Feb 2009 13:21:00 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
        <item>
            <title>Comment from Oldloadr on 2009-02-06</title>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[BTW - Conan the Librarian is the&nbsp;funniest callsign I have ever heard.&nbsp; However, did that meet the reqirement about the callsign can't be an inhibiter to getting laid?&nbsp; Just wondering...]]>
            </description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/02/a_pilots_perspe.html#comment-83987</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/02/a_pilots_perspe.html#comment-83987</guid>
            <pubDate>Fri, 06 Feb 2009 12:49:20 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
        <item>
            <title>Comment from Justthisguy on 2009-02-06</title>
            <description>
                Hey, it&apos;s the old Quaker aphorism: &quot;Let your words be few.&quot;
            </description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/02/a_pilots_perspe.html#comment-83986</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/02/a_pilots_perspe.html#comment-83986</guid>
            <pubDate>Fri, 06 Feb 2009 12:43:02 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
        <item>
            <title>Comment from Oldloadr on 2009-02-06</title>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[Dusty - Your answer to John above about the guy in Korea may explain why, when I was active duty, we would rather get frostbite or heatstroke (depending on where we were at the time) than not give ops the jets on the next schedule.&nbsp; I guess you could call it trickle down discipline.&nbsp; How could we give up and fall short when we are providing aircraft to these guys (and now, gals)?]]>
            </description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/02/a_pilots_perspe.html#comment-83985</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/02/a_pilots_perspe.html#comment-83985</guid>
            <pubDate>Fri, 06 Feb 2009 12:39:08 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
        <item>
            <title>Comment from Oldloadr on 2009-02-06</title>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[That would be, &quot;Whiskey, Tango, Foxtrot, Over,&quot;&nbsp; Correct?]]>
            </description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/02/a_pilots_perspe.html#comment-83982</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/02/a_pilots_perspe.html#comment-83982</guid>
            <pubDate>Fri, 06 Feb 2009 12:19:18 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
        <item>
            <title>Comment from 11B40 on 2009-02-06</title>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[Greetings:<br />
<br />
Back in helicopter school, we were taught that if and when one communicates a &quot;What the F**k&quot; to be sure to include &quot;over&quot;.&nbsp;]]>
            </description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/02/a_pilots_perspe.html#comment-83981</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/02/a_pilots_perspe.html#comment-83981</guid>
            <pubDate>Fri, 06 Feb 2009 12:16:18 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
        <item>
            <title>Comment from Attila of Argghhh! on 2009-02-06</title>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[Oldloadr,<br />
<br />
Thanks! A good example of that kinda guy is Gen John Corley, smart a a whip and a bad@$$&nbsp;reputation as a lethal F-15 jock. He looks like Harvey Milquetoast but in a jet he's King Kong. Hence his callsign:<br />
<br />
Conan the Librarian.&nbsp;]]>
            </description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/02/a_pilots_perspe.html#comment-83980</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/02/a_pilots_perspe.html#comment-83980</guid>
            <pubDate>Fri, 06 Feb 2009 12:15:18 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
        <item>
            <title>Comment from Oldloadr on 2009-02-06</title>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[John -&nbsp; another thought: We aircraft maintainers make fun of the &quot;Zipper Suited Sun-Gods&quot; for their cockiness, however, they are, collectively, a living paradox.&nbsp; They may come off as full of themselves at a party, but on the job, they are, for the most part, the most humble, mission focused, support appreciating officers I have ever met.&nbsp; Therefore, of course Dusty says what he says as a matter of fact the way they should do business, because, that is their standard that they hold themselves to...]]>
            </description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/02/a_pilots_perspe.html#comment-83979</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/02/a_pilots_perspe.html#comment-83979</guid>
            <pubDate>Fri, 06 Feb 2009 12:09:16 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
        <item>
            <title>Comment from Attila of Argghhh! on 2009-02-06</title>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[John,<br />
<br />
True enough...but I've found while I'm operating a piece of equipment that takes concentration to keep from killing myself I&nbsp;just don't have the ability to go postal. Weird. Maybe it's just me, but using a jet, for example, as a weapon, involves both immediate control workload (to keep from crashing, losing control, having a midair with a wingman, dodging hostile fire, etc.) and application of the machine as a tool of warfare. Plus, when I mash the mike, I'm doing it for a specific reason (impart information/direction) and all my concentration is getting out the RIGHT&nbsp;thing. Calling out bandits, for example, requires specific data--position, altitude, aspect, angle-off, predicted move, etc.<br />
<br />
Of course, I did hear one story about a guy in Korea screaming on the radio that he couldn't shake off the MiG on his tail. A deep, disgusted voice came on saying, &quot;Shut up and die like a man.&quot; So I guess you're right about the culture, we'd literally rather die than look/sound bad.&nbsp;]]>
            </description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/02/a_pilots_perspe.html#comment-83978</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/02/a_pilots_perspe.html#comment-83978</guid>
            <pubDate>Fri, 06 Feb 2009 12:07:01 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
        <item>
            <title>Comment from Oldloadr on 2009-02-06</title>
            <description>
                John - me, too...
            </description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/02/a_pilots_perspe.html#comment-83976</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/02/a_pilots_perspe.html#comment-83976</guid>
            <pubDate>Fri, 06 Feb 2009 11:58:16 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
        <item>
            <title>Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-02-06</title>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[Dusty - I understand your comments about good radio discipline - but that's a result of training, practice, and *culture*.<br />
<br />
I've been on radio nets in times of trouble when people (who shouldn't be) are losing it - and there is extraneous chatter.<br />
<br />
Don't slight yourself.]]>
            </description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/02/a_pilots_perspe.html#comment-83975</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/02/a_pilots_perspe.html#comment-83975</guid>
            <pubDate>Fri, 06 Feb 2009 11:54:22 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
        <item>
            <title>Comment from Oldloadr on 2009-02-06</title>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[Dusty - Thank you for that detailed, expert analysis.&nbsp; Being a weapons guy, I couldn't get an airline job (except maybe baggage loader) when I retired, so my after AF jobs have still been military-centric.&nbsp; However, since I, and my family, do fly on commercial aircraft more than most, less than some, I do apreciate your views and perspective.]]>
            </description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/02/a_pilots_perspe.html#comment-83973</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/02/a_pilots_perspe.html#comment-83973</guid>
            <pubDate>Fri, 06 Feb 2009 11:50:04 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
    </channel>
</rss>


