UP!
Posted on 06/13/2012 3:41:24 PM PDT by kingattax
I am grateful for your comment.
Thank you.
UP!
No, she said “keep out of MY kitchen.”
As in HER kitchen.
Not THE kitchen, not OUR kitchen ... “MY” kitchen.
“If you try to pull inside you could pull up to 9g’s ....”
No, you wouldn’t. You’d go into an accelerated stall. The 260 goes into the accelerated stall buffet around 5.0. If you were a pilot, you’d know that.
I thought this thread was “dead.”
Anyway, “I personally know many women who served in the military honorably and professionally who were very competent”
We all do.
“I just don’t like the direction this thread has taken with many people berating all female service members.”
I don’t recall such a sweeping attack. The focus is on women in the Rangers and if it is a wise decision or not, given the obvious physical, mental and emotional differences between men and women.
“The demonstrated cross-wind landing of a Cessna 152 is 12kts. That’s not to say it could land at a CW of 15 or more. It’s what’s demonstrated.”
Demonstrated crosswind landings are the manufacturer’s lawyer statement of what they have demonstrated the MINIMUM landing capability to be. Pilots routinely exceed that value. If I had to stick to landing a Cessna to 15kts crosswind I’d never be able to land many days out here.
It is obvious that if you have any flying background at all it is just with PC based simulators, certainly not with flying actual airplanes.
“tight turn”?
“Start tunneling”?
“safety pilot”?
My friend, Sky Dancer, you have to admit those phrases/terms are adorable.
Seriously, not to be insulting but they are, as no fighter pilot in the world would ever say those things.
And what is a “safety pilot?”
Did they teach you the anti-G straining maneuver while at that school?
;-)
“You’d tunnel out long before that because even being a dumb blond I know you need a g-suit.”
A “dumb blonde”. . .hehe. . .
Don’t “need” a G-suite. . .but it helps a lot. . .
I guess the school didn’t teach you the anti-G straining maneuver like the M-1 or L-1.
“Tunneling” that’s when your vision blacks out on the sides of your periphery and all you see is basically a circle of vision straight ahead. The safety pilot you have with you is the backup, he, or she, can tell when you’re getting into some situation you might not have experience with. Again, this is with a company called Air Combat USA where they teach you ACM. Those are the terms they use to teach with before you go up. There’s an hour of ground school on ACM before you fly. This is not, repeat not, a military flight school as some people here think. And yes, they taught the anti-straining maneuver. Go here and learn: http://aircombat.com/
It does not say you couldn’t land in a 15kt x-wind. It’s just saying that’s what they did to qualify it. I’ll put up my flying ability against yours any day, any time.
Geeze-louise I wish you guys would read .....
Okay, so when you guys need help ....
Okay, so when you guys need help .... Oh, sorry, you’re too macho to ask for it ....
Whoa. . .hold on there Pilgrim.
I was commenting on how adorable it is to here those terms from a civilian that probably had the time of his. . .er. . .HER life flying a simulated A/A engagement.
I guess when I was flying my single-seat A-10 the “safety pilot” was in the travel pod. . .
;-)
So, you were given terms to use to help you understand the game, as it were.
Understood.
Maybe you're him as a retread.
Problem is, like most replies, people haven’t read, read, read. Hope you’re happy in your rants and maybe kicking the furniture or a cat or puppy or two ....
I think you may know this on some level, but may not want to accept it. I understand why, and don’t think any less of you because of it, but what follows is the truth. (I apologize for the football analogy, but it fits perfectly)
There is a fatal problem with “let them attend Ranger School”. Hulka (who does engender a degree of authenticity on this thread, unlike some others who post here) illustrated this clearly in his post at #271.
This desire to have women attend Ranger School is not in any way, shape or form about maintaining or improving the qualities or capabilities of one of our military units.
The issue is completely and totally societal, cultural and political.
If this were the NFL, and people were agitating to have women play in the NFL, I would, without reservation, support giving them the chance.
The NFL is a merit based system in which steely-eyed capitalists will make decisions on who makes the team based on how competitive it makes their team and if it will improve their chances of winning a Super Bowl championship. Because cold, hard money is the bottom line, I have no expectation that someone will make a decision based on whether it is good or bad to have women playing NFL football, but instead on whether it makes the team better, and as a result, more profitable.
I would have no problem with this, because I know that the people responsible for making that decision would choose on the basis of merit, not diversity, political correctness, or because the NFL somehow decided that the lack of women in football stunts the career growth of women who work at non-athletic support jobs around the league.
But hulka knows, I know, and most people who look at this openly know, the process of having women attend Ranger School is not going to be merit based. There WILL be women who WILL attend Ranger School and will be passed ahead of men who will be more capable. THAT is the reality of the situation.
And I want the best. Not the best men and the best women, but the best. And that is not what will happen. I may be willing to accept that for some things, but when the outcome of the lives of our people and our country are on the line, I am not willing to compromise.
And that is only the issue of the physical capability of a given woman and whether that woman will be admitted ahead of a man on the basis of only her sex.
I also have serious logistical, cultural and sexual related issues which I have outlined in previous posts on this.
You run across one or two or three women and then you group them all into one of your ideals of what we are. Pity. I’ve been on Skype with about five people here and we had great fun chatting about this back and forth. They understand where I was coming from. Apparently you don’t.
Okay, saw your profile page. I apologize. You’re the best!
I get the distinct impression you don’t believe Sgt. Bradley Kasal really exists; you think he’s a character in a movie or a video game.
You don’t believe he could have 50 entry wounds, and an unknown number of exit wounds, and not be “Dead Right There”.
You don’t want to admit that fighting a war can be absolutely barbaric, unspeakably ghastly, unlike the videos you see on CNN.
Rangers (and the other special-ops units) have to be able to operate absolutely flat-out for an extended period of time, because anything less guarantees catastrophic destruction of the entire unit, with unknown cascading effects (For want of a nail, the shoe was lost...). By “absolutely flat out” I mean “beyond the capabilities of any woman on the planet, except maybe the genetic mutant steroid-marinated women of the East German swim teams”.
You don’t want to admit all that because once you do you also have to admit that Ranger school is not just the initiation rite to a really cool, exclusive club, and that women have no place in it.
And the idea of admitting that curdles the very marrow of your bones.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.