The Right Stuff?
-
Oh, so suddenly you've pulled your nose out of a pile of papers and because of one conversation, now you're the authority of the view from ground level?
That's pretty convenient, isn't it?
If you paratrooper mate wants to post any opinions on the issues with jumping, fine - if he's been there and done that, I'll accord his opinion with its deserving credence. Your opinion, on the other hand, doesn't. Then again, hiding behind someone else is right in tune with your weasel ways. -
Wouldn't the infantry boys who butt is on the line know better about the true risk of things? People like many of my friends? Having trained more then you in CAS, they would be the ones who know if they should trust or doubt the pilots or not.Originally posted by NathanG5:to sum it all up issue..seriously i have no problem agreeing with from the start..
the numbers sound logical..but numbers are numbers..
but on seeing 1st hand on the various incident myself..i seriously doubt our young local pilots capability..[/quote]
Well, it's time to face your doubts... are they based on actual hard facts or more of the inherent distaste of the needless death of hit by friendly bombs? If it's the latter, from which you can agree, since you agree the numbers tally up, you should work on rationalizing your doubts so you can focus on the real question.
Consider shark attacks, nobody likes the idea of it but is the risk of getting attacked by a shark anywhere near as bad as it appears to us? We can watch documentries on the topic, get survivor accounts and the like and consider these proof of the apparent "big" threat of shark attack, but in the end, do not far more people die from other means they don't even consider a big threat to their lives? Like bee stings or getting struck by lightning.
Also, with an unmoderated approach to the precieved risks based on our irrational doubts, are we doing the pilots any justice? As much as I hate being bombed by friendlies, it's better for us to locate the real reason, eliminate it, instead of doubting our pilots. Because our survival will almost certainly be dependent on them in war as well.
If we doubt them based on our prespective on incidents without truly sizing them up for what they are, we will not use them to the fullest, and men will get torn up and bleed for that.
we dun have transponders..we dun have much high tech equipment to prevent any FF..look thru our post on the FF issue..the American have the most high tech equipment in the world..
look at us again..we are just beginning to harness our technology knowledge..
Don't be too depressed, we do have some tricks up our sleeve for preventing FF, and there are probably some stuff that we would not know about up Mindef's sleeve. However, the key still lies in proper intelligence gathering and communication, all the technology in the world won't save us if we mess this up.my base still uses AR-15...n some others old age equipment..
im defending an airbase..so i know my butt will be in a safe place..
cant help to think whats gona happen to our infantry boys..
If grunts especially those in combat did not trust the flyboys... then why do they still call down CAS even after well hyped friendly fire incidents?
Seems their main worry is not CAS, but arty misfire, save some disgrunted PARAmilitary personnel...
[quote]im not typing nonsense..
wana know the latest incident that happen?
2 F-16(variant unknown) land with two damage..
one with a scratch belly..one with a bended fin(what u call it? the tail fin?)
y it happen? they did a unwarrant stunt..
yes..they are good enough to land safely..but to me they are not competent enough not to do it( the stunt)
Brain dead incidents like these do happen, the thing is, if it does, these guys are no longer driving the planes anymore, the RSAF will not tolerate anybody fooling around or misdriving their precious aircraft.
Often these incidents also happen when agressior training goes wrong or when a slight miscalculation turns bad... many of the times, the pilots are not deliberately trying to be stupid but are placed into a situtation where their better discretion failed them.
So these guys are out.
In the end, the demographic of the pilots in our force will not be young people who love doing stupid things, who won't be around for too long, but professionals with a job and are willing to carry it out to the end. It's easy to fall for the movie sterotype of pilots or other elite outfits as a bunch of gunslingers, but is that true? Could our pilots do a Manverick and buzz the control tower at supersonic speed like in Top Gun? They have a lot to answer for.
That's why you should be very careful about the helicopter joyride stories you have heard, esp. when they come from the excited infantryman, we know how "precise" their information can be. If these incidents really happened as said, the pilots would have been court martialed out of a job, and maybe even end up with some time on their hands to think out their nice little stunts... -
Oh, good one, ST - why don't you go find a quote where I've even mentioned CAS and arty at the same go, much less talk about worry or comparison?
You're full of it.
So of course I'm "splitting hairs" with you - somebody's got to keep you honest. -
Often these incidents also happen when agressior training goes wrong or when a slight miscalculation turns bad... many of the times, the pilots are not deliberately trying to be stupid but are placed into a situtation where their better discretion failed them.
no..they are just given warning..thats all..
So these guys are out.
weeding out the black sheep? -
Then there must be a good reason why whatever happened, happened, besides the story of the "unwarranted stunt" that we most likely hear from the third, fourth hand.Originally posted by NathanG5:no..they are just given warning..thats all..
weeding out the black sheep?
We don't have exactly that many Falcons to waste anyway, 2 will be a big loss. Even slight damage is something the RSAF isn't keen on, after all, it could take many time the pilot's annual salary to repair.
A better indicator of what really happened is to see what happened to the pilot in the end, especially in the case of fast jet accidents. If they get away with just a warning, then it's probably not as gung-ho or senseless as we would see it to be from outside.
By the way, heard this case of the F-16 tailpipe assembly falling off after the pilot took off some years back? Amazingly he got the plane on the deck again... guys in maintaince in for some trouble... -
It's better to be "full" of something, then have nothing to contribute, and then split hairs, or grab at straws in order to stay afloat. Something you have been quite adept at doing.Originally posted by Gedanken:Oh, good one, ST - why don't you go find a quote where I've even mentioned CAS and arty at the same go, much less talk about worry or comparison?[/quote]
That would also lie in your problem with being able to decern who I am addressing in my posts, but unlike you, I do not try to trottle you, drag it off onto seventy different posts, nor make it my obession here.
[quote]You're full of it.
So of course I'm "splitting hairs" with you - somebody's got to keep you honest.
And of course, if your penchant for avoiding the issue and focusing on the hairs while the scalp of your case has been shot away is anything to go by, and one that I'm unable to ignore even though I have tried my best to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are not blind, or dumb, nor in any way mentally impaired, your intellectual intergity is the one that really needs to be questioned here.
However the blatantly hypocritical self-annointed title of honesty superhero vigilante here does provide for some good comic value, if there is anything that you are doing here that's of basal worth. -
nope..its 1st hand..n i guarantee that plus chop..Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Then there must be a good reason why whatever happened, happened, besides the story of the "unwarranted stunt" that we most likely hear from the third, fourth hand.
We don't have exactly that many Falcons to waste anyway, 2 will be a big loss. Even slight damage is something the RSAF isn't keen on, after all, it could take many time the pilot's annual salary to repair.
A better indicator of what really happened is to see what happened to the pilot in the end, especially in the case of fast jet accidents. If they get away with just a warning, then it's probably not as gung-ho or senseless as we would see it to be from outside.
By the way, heard this case of the F-16 tailpipe assembly falling off after the pilot took off some years back? Amazingly he got the plane on the deck again... guys in maintaince in for some trouble... -
I would like to thank Geddy, Local dino and Nat for contributing so much to my thread. Kinda like a WWE triple threat match but pretty interesting and informative posts. Good points of view all round.
Pse, do continue.
-
Right, so just accept that you're full of it and that you can't address the clear evidence presented already that you make sweeping statements, fail to back them up, and then try to cover your failings in a smoke trail.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:It's better to be "full" of something, then have nothing to contribute, and then split hairs, or grab at straws in order to stay afloat. Something you have been quite adept at doing.
By the same measure, then, your self-anointed title of dictator of issues is pathetic, especially with your laughably pretentious attempts at describing an inability to handle simple detail as "having the big picture".Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:And of course, if your penchant for avoiding the issue and focusing on the hairs while the scalp of your case has been shot away is anything to go by, and one that I'm unable to ignore even though I have tried my best to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are not blind, or dumb, nor in any way mentally impaired, your intellectual intergity is the one that really needs to be questioned here.
However the blatantly hypocritical self-annointed title of honesty superhero vigilante here does provide for some good comic value, if there is anything that you are doing here that's of basal worth.
Laplace, I do apologise for having taken your thread off-topic - trading shots with our extinct friend (perhaps made so because of his denial?) is way too much fun, especially since neither one of us is showing any signs of giving way!
A key factor in what Nathan and ST have been talking about is situational awareness. SA covers the tracking of all objects within a three-dimensional space, not only of the position of the object but of its nature (e.g. friend or foe). The USS Vincennes incident is a classic example of SA failure, where all the correct data was collected, but was interpreted using the wrong framework - an Airbus on the radar was therefore misidentified as an enemy aircraft.
A few ways of testing SA have been designed, such as WOMBAT - however, these tests still require a lot of development and their progress follows research that defines measurable elements of SA.
If you want to look into SA more, I'd recommend Mica Endsley's work - her writing is very clear and makes for a good introduction. I have some copies of her articles, but unfortunately I've left them in Melbourne. -
Situational awareness...
That's the thingy that all pilots and dangerous job workers must have ennit?
It's like when a flyboy straps himself, he must know who he is, what he is supposed to do and what is going on around him ennit? It's all about quick reflexes, sharp minds and swift decision-making ennit?
Yeah I hear that before.
Question; is S.A. an inherent, natural born gift from God thingy that only certain people possess or can someone without natural S.A. be cultivated to develope one? I'm placing my bet on the former, but I wanna hear your opinion. -
Originally posted by Gedanken:
Right, so just accept that you're full of it and that you can't address the clear evidence presented already that you make sweeping statements, fail to back them up, and then try to cover your failings in a smoke trail.
AHEM... *looks around* I believe that you are the one whose crate is shot up and on fire...
The "smoke trail" you are hoping to see as a sign of me trying to cover my failings is more an effect of the smoke streaming from your own tailpipe after taking too many hits, which prevents you for seeing the truth as it's really is, reaching for grandose conspiracy theories of coverups and wild weaseling.
Ahem, if you try to maybe apply a little bit of logic or good sense in taking in my points, you'll realize they are anything but sweeping. As many here have apparently been able to do... oddly, somehow this ability has escaped you.By the same measure, then, your self-anointed title of dictator of issues is pathetic, especially with your laughably pretentious attempts at describing an inability to handle simple detail as "having the big picture".
See above rebuttal. Sieg Hiel!
If you see my debating here as self-annointed dictatorship, I'm afraid there's no such thing... it's just the distortion of things you are seeing now having been apparently floored and dazed by the sheer weight of a case you are unable to get around.
Laplace, I do apologise for having taken your thread off-topic - trading shots with our extinct friend (perhaps made so because of his denial?) is way too much fun, especially since neither one of us is showing any signs of giving way!
Resorting to anlaysing forum and character assination nicks now are we? It appears the bottom of the barrel has been scraped, or has it? Thank you, but I must decline in accepting your call to the dreded flame-to-flame combat as I am pretty much comfortable in the case I have created here in which you repeatedly bash your head against and then blame me for trying to cover my tail with smoke when in fact it's the smoke of your own burning position that is getting into your eyes.
If anything has weaseled out of your way, it's logic for you my friend.
If you do want to trade shots for the sake of fun, I suggest you find a better firebase or bunker to shoot from rather then from your current burning ammo crate floating in the middle of The Singapore River. At the very least your return barbs, as impotent as they may be, could contain some educational value in -
Aw, ST, you're not giving up already, are you? Even more importantly, you're not taking any of this seriously, are you?
-
Well, SA is not a single, unitary ability, and is made up of various factors, some of which can be influenced by training.Originally posted by Laplace:Situational awareness...
That's the thingy that all pilots and dangerous job workers must have ennit?
It's like when a flyboy straps himself, he must know who he is, what he is supposed to do and what is going on around him ennit? It's all about quick reflexes, sharp minds and swift decision-making ennit?
Yeah I hear that before.
Question; is S.A. an inherent, natural born gift from God thingy that only certain people possess or can someone without natural S.A. be cultivated to develope one? I'm placing my bet on the former, but I wanna hear your opinion.
Some of the inherent factors in SA include cognitive processing speed, memory capacity and visuospatial ability.
On the other hand, there are other factors such as attentional narrowing. As stress levels increase, the individual has a tendency to focus upon some of the salient (obvious) features of the situation, ignoring some of the less obvious but nonetheless important it of information. While itÂ’s a part of the natural fight-or-flight response, it can be attenuated by training.
Another aspect that can be influenced by training is group SA – the SA shared by teams of people, such as flight crews. In such cases, everybody must have the same understanding of the situation so that they do not end up working at odds with each other in a tight situation. An ex-RAAF psychologist I worked under has gone and set up a consultancy in France, dealing with aircraft-related human factors issues including group SA.
In a nutshell, the jury is still out on whether one needs to specifically select for SA, or whether training can bring candidates up to an acceptable standard. For the moment, though, SA tests such as WOMBAT are often being used in the selection process.
IÂ’ll have to riffle through my files to see if I have a softcopy of my report for the RAAF. If I can find it, I can get back to you with a more detailed answer. -
Well, I'm taking it as seriously as you are, if there's any indication, as you can see I am entirely sporting enough to engage you on your level of banter, no matter how infantile you may be.Originally posted by Gedanken:Aw, ST, you're not giving up already, are you?[/quote]
Heh, if anything, I think my intention to push my case as it is pretty obvious here.
[quote]Even more importantly, you're not taking any of this seriously, are you?
Though if you would like to jest, it would be good to jest with some educational value rather then well, jest like the jester you are. -
Well, that's good then, just so long as you know that it's all in good fun. When I jest, I do like going all out. Besides, you've already demonstrated that you can't handle the simple issue of correcting your blatant error - what's the point of trying to educate you?
-
Not surprisngly, I entertain the same sentiments about you. And I do think that it's immediately apparent that any "error" on my part is more then sufficently "corrected", in which case you have demostrated your abject inability to reconize it.Originally posted by Gedanken:Well, that's good then, just so long as you know that it's all in good fun. When I jest, I do like going all out. Besides, you've already demonstrated that you can't handle the simple issue of correcting your blatant error - what's the point of trying to educate you?
I do not dare to as pretentious as to educate you, but I just let your inability to carry itself out to the bizzare extreme, which is more then enough to prove my case. After all, when one has to resort to scraping the bottom of the barrel, the entire issue already speaks for itself, and unfortunately, not greatly in your favour at all. -
i have to disagree..i did say that i very much wana agree with u..the fact wat i see in real life..contradict every single numbers u shown..Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Not surprisngly, I entertain the same sentiments about you. And I do think that it's immediately apparent that any "error" on my part is more then sufficently "corrected", in which case you have demostrated your abject inability to reconize it.
I do not dare to as pretentious as to educate you, but I just let your inability to carry itself out to the bizzare extreme, which is more then enough to prove my case. After all, when one has to resort to scraping the bottom of the barrel, the entire issue already speaks for itself, and unfortunately, not greatly in your favour at all.
numbers n reality cant co-exist.. -
Why raise the issue of education then? If you, in your Pharisee-like humility, claim that you do not intend to be the educator, and at the same time make claims about my inability, what is the point? It is just another useless issue that you have raised.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:I do not dare to as pretentious as to educate you, but I just let your inability to carry itself out to the bizzare extreme, which is more then enough to prove my case. After all, when one has to resort to scraping the bottom of the barrel, the entire issue already speaks for itself, and unfortunately, not greatly in your favour at all.
Fortunately for you, I'm past being surprised by your ineptitude. -
It is your pride that makes you regard this as a matter of education, when it was just a run of the mill forum interaction, unless of course, you found some of the stuff in here educative, in which case you got an education though not by my intention. The claims on your inability to apply reason and logic goes beyond claims, they are blatantly self-evident. And one of which you have just proven with another iteration of your jejune and vapid post.Originally posted by Gedanken:Why raise the issue of education then? If you, in your Pharisee-like humility, claim that you do not intend to be the educator, and at the same time make claims about my inability, what is the point? It is just another useless issue that you have raised.
Fortunately for you, I'm past being surprised by your ineptitude.
And of course, there is hardly any issue to drag, let alone useless ones had you even been basally sensible to see beyond the classic Rennenkampf/Samsonov trap you have dug yourself into. Believe me, I am not even making an effort to drag any issue, you do the job well enough on your own.
Unfortunately, I am hardly surprised by your preditable, but yet sadly dead wrong response. I'm afraid in this case, the hinge factor of defeat lies in your very own ineptitude. -
I beg to differ:
It is blatantly obvious from the above that you made first mention of education here - by means of tracing backwards, you will see that I had hitherto made no mention of education. Then again, when hoisted on your own petard, it is typically cowardly of you to deny it, even in the face of clear evidence. Instead, you project it on to me, claiming that I regard this as a matter of education. Freud would have had a field day with you and with all the insecurities that you are displaying.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur at 02 February 2004, 08:47 PM:Though if you would like to jest, it would be good to jest with some educational value rather then well, jest like the jester you are.
In fact, by requesting that I "jest with some educational value", the implication here is that you are asking me for an education. I will have to politely decline, I'm afraid. My time is better spent on individuals with intellectual fortitude. -
Originally posted by Gedanken:
ouch!
I beg to differ:
It is blatantly obvious from the above that you made first mention of education here - by means of tracing backwards, you will see that I had hitherto made no mention of education. Then again, when hoisted on your own petard, it is typically cowardly of you to deny it, even in the face of clear evidence. Instead, you project it on to me, claiming that I regard this as a matter of education. Freud would have had a field day with you and with all the insecurities that you are displaying.
In fact, by requesting that [b]I "jest with some educational value", the implication here is that you are asking me for an education. I will have to politely decline, I'm afraid. My time is better spent on individuals with intellectual fortitude.[/b] -
Originally posted by Gedanken:
It's amazing how you can mix and mash the two together. But I expected no less from a person who places so much emphasis on his own "intellectual" fortitude when it comes to interacting here.
I beg to differ:
It is blatantly obvious from the above that you made first mention of education here - by means of tracing backwards, you will see that I had hitherto made no mention of education. Then again, when hoisted on your own petard, it is typically cowardly of you to deny it, even in the face of clear evidence. Instead, you project it on to me, claiming that I regard this as a matter of education. Freud would have had a field day with you and with all the insecurities that you are displaying.
In fact, by requesting that [b]I "jest with some educational value", the implication here is that you are asking me for an education. I will have to politely decline, I'm afraid. My time is better spent on individuals with intellectual fortitude.[/b]
Ironically you attempts to pick a point here falls flat on its face when it becomes apparent that my main gripe with you is not with you trying to educate people, but rather how the blatant lack of "educational" value your innane focus on forum intellecutal "intergity" here. A matter of which you have yet to adress, but have covered up with much "You're not worth my time." smokescreen, of which irony is all the more apparent considering you have not failed to respond.
In which case, which you have apparently, and not surprisingly not grasped my point all along, which of course, nor do I expect you to ever grasp it, contuining along in your fantasy of wordplay and victorian intellectualism... that your focus on intellectual here, and your attempts to educate people on the ways of your intellectual superiority are sadly counterproductive in getting anything done here.
By some freak of nature, or prehaps a malformed mind, you have taken me to say that I am asking you for an education.
Of course, once, again you have missed the point entirely, taken my post in the personal context to aquire faulty ammunition to fight your crusade. The "implications" you draw from my points are a dramatic demostration of your uncanny ability to blithely apply Beattie- style logic to my posts demostrate one thing. Your own incompetence in reading and comprehension. I'm not sure about Freud, but I think some people with even basic logic would have a field day with you.
In which case, given your amazing ability to misread posts here and jump into conclusions which always invariability somehow always falls back to focus on your own intellectual fortitude, a large part of which is greatly fictitious. You belittle the massive credientials you sandbag to protect your delicate intellectual position. -
Apparently your delusions of self-importance are reaching all time highs are you consider this even a projection of anykind. If anybody should even consider this an issue to be raised, let alone haggled over in the first place should a person like you have had any common sense. But sadly no.Originally posted by Gedanken:
[bThen again, when hoisted on your own petard, it is typically cowardly of you to deny it, even in the face of clear evidence.[/b][/quote]
Ahem? Cowardly denying anything? Please, I beg of you to take more time to find a better retort, even if you are scrabbling carelessly for one. It's your own reckless disregard for clear facts and issues raised, picking posts in the context you would like to see them as, and then, quote "projecting", it on me as my onus to defend from your flawed attacks. If anybody has been weaseling, in denial and cowardly, it would be you my friend.
I beg to differ, fortunately for you, your lofty self-aspirations are sustained by my long sufferance and refusal to follow your style of hitting below the belt. I understand that my refusal to engage in your style of hotshot forum commando raid warfare further pushes you into your delusions of self-granduer, if you recent posts are anything to go by, but I suppose better the one of us then both.[quote]Instead, you project it on to me, claiming that I regard this as a matter of education.
Yes any informational forum topic is a matter of education. And generally to anybody with even basic common courtesy, but with your Saddamish delusions of self-worth, you can't seem to avoid weaving every single point in with uptight, self-seeking intellectualism. Should there even be a term for that, should you consider yourself the person of intellecual fortitude that you are, you wouldn't have posted most of your irrevelant posts.
But then, I can already predict your response to this post, which is unfortunately, going to be obsessed with self-grandeur and shooting blanks way off the mark, which alreadly started at the ceasation of your last rational post a few pages back.
Pull your head out of the sand Rambo, this isn't vietnam anymore. Your intellecual commando antics are making you quite the William Hung here. -
Again you fail to address the facts. You brought up the issue of education, and you try to make it look like the issue came from me. The quote is right there for one and all to see, and still you try to throw a whole lot of smoke to deny the blatantly obvious. I don't have to say anything else, because it's clear as day that you prattle away on your keyboard with wanton disregard for the validity of anything you say. Your ducking and weaving to absolve yourself of the need to back up what you say shows exactly what you are: nothing but an empty sock puppet regurgitating what somebody else has said, and completely unable to answer any challenges to your inane second-hand-information ramblings.
As for the rest of your amusing but sad claims, it might hurt if it came from somebody who has actually been there and done that. Fortunately, from the low trajectory of your armchair, it hardly counts as a spitball.
William who? -
What? You do not know? Everybody, no matter how infantile, deserves to be entertained by this: http://www.williamhung.netOriginally posted by Gedanken:Again you fail to address the facts. You brought up the issue of education, and you try to make it look like the issue came from me.[/quote]
Oh my goodness, how can you still deny it at this juncture? Take a closer look into the "issue" of education, and you will see what lies so obviously there.
This issue, would not be the issue it was, if it wasn't for the misinterpretation of the issue on your part dude. And here you sit shooting tons of ammo in my direction on a misdirected idea... but aiyah what to do? But at this point it is starting to become apparent to me that your incredible responses are probably stemming less from an irrational desire to win a "debate" at any cost to be more of just sheer inability on your part to make sense of your surroundings, so I am less inclined to blame you.The quote is right there for one and all to see, and still you try to throw a whole lot of smoke to deny the blatantly obvious. I don't have to say anything else, because it's clear as day that you prattle away on your keyboard with wanton disregard for the validity of anything you say.
If you can still think that I'm throwing down smoke, it's apparent that you are the one who is hanging onto a morsel of information apparently in your favour and dodging the rest, more out of sheer inaptitude then malicious intent as nobody would take malicious intent to that ridiculus extreme.
I'm not denying the quite dude, you can quote it again, highlight it in bold and red 100 times for all you like but what dosen't change what it actually means. And what does it all mean in the end? That you misquoted boyo...Your ducking and weaving to absolve yourself of the need to back up what you say shows exactly what you are: nothing but an empty sock puppet regurgitating what somebody else has said, and completely unable to answer any challenges to your inane second-hand-information ramblings.
I believe that if you really understood what was going on, most of the ducking and weaving I believe, is from your side. But prehaps your ducking and weaving is more Mr. Magoo then Neo doing bullettime. And I think my points are more then well backed up enough. If anything, I'm afraid one of us here has been arguing from paper thin positions taken to their extremes, and the last post I checked, it wasn't me.As for the rest of your amusing but sad claims, it might hurt if it came from somebody who has actually been there and done that. Fortunately, from the low trajectory of your armchair, it hardly counts as a spitball.
A colourful and creative graphical anthology, but sadly off the mark. But if you think that I'm trying to hurt you, or take this as a slugfest then you are sadly misguided. A bad anthology remains as that, a bad one.
Though this crayon-scribble provides interesting insight into the workings of your mind which should prove useful in allowing me to help you.
[quote]William who?