Near MidAir at Austin-Bergstrom Intl - Hornet vs Citation
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 18 окт 2023
- Mover and Gonky discuss a recent incident involving a near midair between a USMC F/A-18C and a Cessna Citation at KAUS Austin-Bergstrom International Airport. Every Monday at 8PM ET, Mover (F-16, F/A-18, T-38, 737, helicopter pilot, author, cop, and wanna be race car driver) and Gonky (F/A-18, T-38, A320, dirt bike racer, author, and awesome dad) discuss everything from aviation to racing to life and anything in between.
ABSOLUTE VENGEANCE is only $0.99 for the month of October! www.amazon.com/Absolute-Venge...
Send your voice message for the show: podcasters.spotify.com/pod/sh...
Looking for a good book? www.cwlemoine.com
The appearance of U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) visual information does not imply or constitute DoD endorsement.
Views presented are my own and do not represent the views of DoD or its Components.
"...and I said, and FURTHERMORE!" We need a whole episode devoted to Gonky setting ATC straight. 😂
Navy air traffic controller for 20 years and commercial pilot. No, civilian controllers will not understand the difference between the "carrier break" and the overhead. Look into FAAO 7110.65 for the prescribed phraseology and rules. I do find that naval aviation particularly has very little respect for the other pilots out there. Share the National Airspace System responsibly and remember that the C182 driver may have several thousand hours more than you do.
As an Air Force guy, the Navy regularly shows up in the airspace we scheduled/booked and theyll just be in our airspace and not on freq and not talking to anyone. It's rude and poor form.
But Im sure they have their gripes about us too!
When I worked Showtime (controlling the Lemoore MOA), the Navy hornets were hardly ever on time. Often they would no-show and not call the radar room. FANG, though, the Air National Guard F16s out of Fresno would cross the inbound fix at the exact time they'd scheduled the airspace for. @@MattH-wg7ou
Fighter pilots in general think they own the sky. I mean just listen to how defensive these two get when called out for their mistakes.
@@MattH-wg7ou like overuse of “Air Force common” 243.0 aka 122.8
@@jimallen8186 haha valid! 😄
As a former KC10 bubba, I always hated the fighters talking on UHF to ATC. I've seen numerous incidents where communications were jammed up because someone was talking on VHF to the controller while they were talking to the fighters on UHF. Mad respect for the fighter community, but if you don't want to listen for SA to the civilian side of the comms, don't fly near civilian airports. I really do think it presents a safety issue.
One day piloting a passenger jet into Boise, tower notified us that there would be two F15s flying over us and joining the overhead to the break. We were on a visual backed up by the ILS and they flew 500ft over us but we still received the TCAS RAs. It wasn't a big deal because tower told us that they had us in sight and we could see the vertical separation keeping steady on TCAS. It was cool seeing the break from behind at altitude.
As a local yokel who flies 182s around Miramar, (and before that Edwards, Lewis, WPAFB, etc, etc) I prefer to hear military on VHF. I develop my mental picture based on both ATC and what other pilots are saying...because sometimes the controller doesn't say what I need to know.
For whatever it's worth, (Miramar-based V-22 guy here who also flies 172s on the side out of Montgomery) I make it a point to talk on VHF at primarily civilian fields and UHF at military fields. Yes it's annoying as shit to hear the long-winded calls and "any traffic please advise" nonsense, but I'd rather that than not hear someone position reporting and run into them.
@@UpAndReady Nice, Ospreys are so cool. I’m a +1 member out of MYF as well.
*For legal reasons, strafing civilian airliners is a joke 😂
As a pretend Navy pilot, I had never thought about the idea that the reason for the overhead/ break pattern is partly related to over the nose visibility being worse at landing speeds/alpha. Makes a lot of sense. I had thought it was mostly just to look cool and professional, and to optimize carrier ops.
It’s actually a legacy from radial engines which were even worse for seeing over the nose as is the entire oval pattern though it does still enable fastest overall recovery times of multiple aircraft.
I learnt in a PA28 on a UK military base with A LOT of heavies and occasional pointy nose (inc one declaring an emergency in the area while I was on my first solo), the ATC where always on point. A great environment to learn in
I’m a retired controller and a pilot. First off, civilian controllers are not familiar with military ops. I know that’s a problem but it’s been like this forever. And the split frequencies create a communications gap in a business that absolutely must have good communication. That also has been forever. Lastly, the FAA is reactionary and only makes changes when people die. That too has been forever. IMHO, and this is blasphemy for an ex-ATC, the whole system should be run by computers, which would do a better job and do it safely.
I think ultimately ADS-B is going to improve to that point.
But the FAA is making major steps backward with these Camera Remote Towers.
I am a pilot and a network professional. I recently had a discussion with a person about computers and self driving vehicles (planes/trains/automobiles) that are networked together. Mentioned to them that we could get the spacing to a point that the computer thinks is ridiculously inefficient, but the human passengers onboard would still all die from a heart attacks due to their perception of the lack of spacing involved. Something does need to change for sure.
(I also have some knowledge of ATC- passed the test and was on my way to school when Senators Gramm and Rudman killed all funding- still pissed at them for that.)
Computers already flag “events” that neither the pilots nor controllers involved saw as eventful. Ask me this is a bit of a problem. Computers are great at following rules but don’t do so well adapting to circumstance.
"That's not a joke." "Well the gun part... we don't do that here."😂😂🤣🤣😂😂
I like sticking to the grass in my C170B, hardly ever do I leave tire marks on the hard pack. spent a lot of time around fentress in the mid 80`s and I can assure you, that was not a lot of fun.
One of the issues with this incident may be that it's a Navy/Marine jet instead of Air Force. We get a lot of AF trainers (T-38's mainly) out of San Antonio, but not so many Navy jets (at least that I've seen), so the difference in breaks may have caught ATC by surprise.
The AUS controllers will talk to military on UHF and civil on VHF, so you only hear one side. I was out there one day with my daughter (the family viewing area is just east of 18L at Golf). There was a local couple who's son was doing a cross country in a T-38. I had my radio out, so we could follow along - sort of. ATC had the T-38 approach on 18R first, then flip runways to do the flybys on 18L. Cool thing was there were a couple photographers who sent the couple shots of their son.
Thank you, Mover and Gonky for explaining what happened with the Hornet vs Citation.
Except they didn’t EXPLAIN a damn thing!
Sorry you feel this way, I think they gave us a clear insight what might have happened. @@glenwoodriverresidentsgrou136
@@glenwoodriverresidentsgrou136 they often don’t. Instead they often report happenings which gets misperceived as explanation or analysis. Same with Ward Carroll.
While AUS has problems, an overhead is a standard type of pattern entry. I've been controlling for 15+ years on the Navy and Civilian side. If the pilot didn't SPECIFICALLY ASK for a Carrier Break, and descended to 800, thats on the pilot. If he DID and the controller approved it not knowing what was going to occur, thats on the Controller. Regardless... If the pattern / traffic saturation was too much for an Overhead / Carrier, it should have been denied to begin with. If traffic was as a level that that form of pattern entry was workable theres no real reason to deny it. And don't forget a LOT of controllers are Veterans.
Isn’t an overhead actually a good way to resolve high traffic density? Isn’t that why the military kept it after the end of the radial engine?
@jimallen8186 like any Pattern Entry tool in our toolbox, it's situational. Without the Falcon Replay, there's no way to know exactly what the situation was, but generally speaking, mixing slow movers with fast movers is the absolute most difficult part of the Towers job. The Hornet driver requested "altitude and and airspeed at my discretion before the break", if the controller approved some light Top Gunnery and near mid air or TCAS resolution occurred, that's on the Tower.
@@rakkiswolfstar4358 Thank you for highlighting the importance of Context with implicit Trust your Experts. This is something that seems missing in regulation and within the public and general aviation persons. Situational! So true. Part of what Fffflats was trying to say in Sometimes the Contrarian Aviator Turns Right. With that, we should all learn a little John Boyd, a little Dave Snowden and Cynefin, listen to Gary Klein, read and watch Sydney Dekker.
@@rakkiswolfstar4358 another thought, didn’t we used to strangle squawk at the initial for reasons…
So I do not know Aircraft but I am from Austin so I see more local news. Basically the Austin traffic controllers have been short staffed and overworked for years and it is becoming a very significant issue. they are operating at about 75% of needed staff and 30% of shifts are understaffed which means they have exploded overtime and its causing problems.
Austin Bergstrom in the news again.
late pickup on this one. danged youtube!
I've flown into Austin Bergstrom many times in the airliner ... and a few times in the Hawg (yeah yeah, calendar/all) ...
I've also flown into Austin Mueller (when it existed) in the airliner ... and in GA aircraft.
something happened to the Austin TRACON after the move to Bergstrom ... and it didn't improve. I've filed several ASAPs operating in/out of Austin. The SWA/FEDEX incident did not surprise me at all. I think part of it is the traffic volume grew faster than they were prepared to accept. I've flown trips out of AUS to Latin America/back. That's a far cry from the "DFW/ATL Satellite" it had long been with AA and DA.
It's gotta be an ATC training problem, too. The facility/aerodrome is certainly suitable ... but those folks in the tower and TRACON have a history of struggles.
if the tower guy didn't know the carrier break was gonna be at 350, that's on him. It was requested and approved. Perhaps a query to the pilot would have been in order, but yeah, separation of aircraft with varying speed is a thing. I thought all fighters had 300KIAS for the overhead pattern anyway. I know the T38 did/does.
nice recap of this incursion.
I like to to do the overhead in my RV8 mainly because it's fun. I also wear a flight suit, so I admit I'm a wannabe poser. 😘 Anyway, I don't do it when there is other traffic around, since I know many have no idea what it is, or what I'll be doing. Hopefully over time more GA pilots will learn about it, and it will be less controversial.
Keep up the good work, gentlemen!
It is in the AIM; they don’t have a leg to stand on in their ignorance. It is actually a nice way to sequence in with traffic. Overhead breaks and even mere up winds to crosswind are much better than the FAA “preferred” nonsense of 45 to downwind particularly their teardrop if crossing over the field.
The Overhead Break is in the AIM!!!!
And it isn’t just for fighters. Flying into Reid Hillview in my lowly RV-6, I was directed by tower to the initial for an overhead break… a left hand brake side step for the right runway at this mind you. Meanwhile I’ve also been in trouble in my Hornet at San Jose in a tower cleared right hand break at that mere 350 per NATOPS with no traffic issues but apparently excessive noise that scared neighbors. You can find that one in the San Jose Mercury Sun June 9, 2010. They don’t realize slower is actually louder higher on power on the back side while at AOA so noise makers pointing down. And as you said, you need a little faster for forward visibility with the book even saying specifically speeds up to 350 may be necessary for safety. The T-45 does the same up to 300 and I needed that descending through and then below the Phoenix Bravo in order to not be at idle with a student wingman hanging on in descent for Scottsdale. Slowest we were able to safely get given the held high subsequent descent was 280 though we did subsequently accelerate for the overhead but our overhead was stepped up per Scottsdale prescribed noise procedure… Thing that most got me is doing the overhead in the uncontrolled Inyokern airport to which most pilots are military or military affiliated with China Lake again in the RV and some old fart tries to tell me that isn’t allowed. Separate topic and problem with both the FAA and Air Force, don’t give me nonsense about approvals and authorizations, work in restrictions and prohibitions.. meaning I don’t care about something specifically being allowed, I care about it being denied, but anyway, turns out old fart is a retired marine who sure knew what an overhead is but he didn’t seem to know it is in the FAA’s Airman Information Manual.
5:30 would’ve been a great spot for a Michael Scott “shut it” lmao
Greetings from malaysia...mover...gonky...
Would the CAK tower controller understand what a carrier break pattern is? Why other than the awesomeness of the jet would you want to do such a maneuver at a backwater civilian airport?
CAK is not a backwater airport. They have a Hilton Garden Inn.
@@laurab.9318And a military museum next door.
@@laurab.9318 A good RON?
Overhead breaks at civilian airports are abnormal patterns for all the civilians. They just shouldn’t be done when mixing in with general aviation traffic. This includes warbirds.
Not necessarily true as the overhead maneuver is described in the AIM as a valid pattern entry procedure.
Cept when civy airports are part of and air national guard base!
@@SJKRoberts accepted exception in that case. Everyone operating out of such locations receive info on the abnormal operations and for them, it becomes normal. But most other places it bewilders the ga folks in an environment where you don’t want folks bewildered.
Yah sorry, I didn't mean anything by it. @@MichaelSmith-il3wm
Overhead at a civilian towered airport is completely fine, but ATC should be honest when they aren't sure what exactly the maneuver entails. I have experience authorizing the overhead at smaller commercial airports and quite a large and busy one. I wouldn't clear an aircraft for a break (much less a carrier break) unless I fully understand what is about to follow. It's a large disconnect between normal civil ops and military operations, and not all controllers are given proper training or have experience with some of the more "unorthodox" maneuvers that military aircraft use regularly.
The image is bit confusing: the Hornet is in a right bank and what seems to be both ailerons are up….
Speedbrake function
Seems like talking on different freqs in the same pattern is kind of like aligning a few holes in the slices of the Swiss cheese accident causation model. But I'm not a pilot, so wtf do I know 😂
Swiss cheese accident causation model…….?
@@xprettylightsxGoogle it, I guess. It's a metaphor for how accidents happen. Many layers of protection from accidents exist (slices of cheese on top of each other), and each has its own vulnerabilities (holes in Swiss cheese). Sometimes these holes line up with one another and accidents are able to slip through. It seems like different rules for different traffic at civilian airports creates some obvious holes in the standard protective measures taken to ensure safety. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me that the military folks think they should be exempt from certain rules in domestic airspace during peacetime operations.
"Hole-ier Than Thou" causation model
The odds are not on our side. We’re rapidly heading towards a major air disaster that the US hasn’t experienced in a long time. Lots of new, inexperienced aviators up there right now.
Good info, thanks
But that is distinctly different than this non-issue “event” being discussed.
§ 91.117 Aircraft speed.
(a) Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, no person may operate an aircraft below 10,000 feet MSL at an indicated airspeed of more than 250 knots (288 m.p.h.).
It is a reasonable conclusion that Gonky had authorization as he was cleared for the "Carrier Break", as was the Marine pilot in Austin due to his being cleared for the "overhead". I really liked the discussion of the differences. Thank you.
Does not apply to military aircraft with Dash 1 or NATOPS exceptions.
Thanks for the clarification. My civilian experience is showing through. Again, I liked the discussion. I learned something new today.
@@CWLemoine still doesn't mean the skipper didn't do the right thing when he cracked down on "fast break Fridays" when I was a controller at Lemoore.
The Hornet and Viper are mushy below 200 knots, but just think back to the high wing loading F-104's and F-105's. My Thuds (F-105) would take off anywhere from 190 to 210 knots, and accelerate from there. We had an F-105 taking off from George AFB back around 1974, off the main 10,000 ft runway, he lost Water injection (2000 lb thrust less) and had to drop the wing (fuel) tanks to take off, as that high wing loading needs speed to fly. Looked like a napalm strike on the end of the runway, with tumbling 450 gal tanks! Fighter jets, by design, fly way beyond 'transportation' (civilian) norms.
@@WrongwayMPT it means the commies won.
hahah Gonky literally had the controller saying "YOU SNOT NOSED JOCKEY JUST DID A FLYBY ON MY TOWER AT OVER 300 KNOTS...!"
Gonky never mentioned if the controller said he wanted his butt.
Coffee spilled on shirt
What? No SHB's on Sundays?
**FOR LEGAL REASONS, THIS IS A JOKE** fucking killed me. 😂😂😂
The "I was not joking" part had me in stitches more.
Must've got that setup on a hotkey!
Quick question, you keep saying 350 knots and it wont fly under 300. In the F18, I didn't think you could lower your gear until you slow down to 250 and landing somewhere in the 150(ish) mark?
Didn't say it won't fly under 300.
"I have all the cautions"😂
A Sierra Hotel pilot can make an average ATC look like a hero. Be the former.
Out of curiosity, why do fighter aircraft operate into civilian airfields. Are FBO's equiped with the equipment and training to handle fast jets (Pins, crew ladders etc - security)?
Short answer: Yes, certain FBOs have the Government contract to sell fuel to DoD aircraft.
For something like a hornet, it has a built-in ladder and the flight crew (pilot, NFO, WSO) would put in any required pins, pitot covers etc.
A good example is Amarillo, TX. They get T-38s from Laughlin, Sheppard and Vance on student XC flights.
The FBO has the ladders and huffer carts to accommodate the T-38 because they have been doing it for years.
@@Stepclimb I was wondering who on the ramp inserts the pins etc when a Hornet rocks up.....and who does the reverse on departure. Are FBO rampies trained for this. Not to mention post/pre flight line maintenance. Hope they are secured aprons too.
@@Ozgrade3 When we sent a jet cross country we'd send the pins in a bag with the pilot. The main pins to worry about were gear pins as well as seat pins (if required), and the crew knew where all of those went, and then pulled them on startup.
There are A LOT of Navy aircraft of all flavors that routinely operate out of Pensacola Air Center on the weekends {FBO at KPNS). Whiting closes down on the weekends and T-6s from TW5 come to PNS to conduct weekend ops. I'll often see T-45s from Corpus come in as well. There are usually a dozen Navy aircraft parked on the ramp during the weekends or more. And, oftentimes, the tower controllers will deny the overhead.
@@WrongwayMPT oftentimes will deny the overhead… and yet many other times approve and even approve carrier. They’ll also do those weird Low Key and High Key things too.
Do they normally have military crews at civilian airfields that can fuel up a fast mover? Or do just the regular gas man do it?
FBO linemen can do it.
But they better watch out, one wrong step and BAM! "smoking hole!" OH yeah, just kidding.
I bet that’s ended poorly a few times, thanks the the lineman lol
I fly out of KSDL and we routinely get F18s and the occasional F35 almost every weekend. Typically they fly in Friday/Saturday and depart on Sunday. I imagine the social scene in SDL is far better than Lemoore, thus the weekend layovers. While most of us GA pilots love seeing the hornets, Im curious why they dont just use the Air Force base 20 miles away (Luke) and avoid the potential for the type of conflicts Gonky & Mover are describing.
A lot of but not all, military bases airfields are closed on Saturdays and open back up on Sunday afternoons, that’s why you see a lot of military cross country’s at a civilian airfields on the weekends, Our base here, the airfield closes at 1800 on Friday and reopens at 14-1500 Sunday, that’s why our reserve guys will fly out of our local airport over the weekend.
There’s also great low levels making a butterfly pattern generally around Phoenix. It’s either Scottsdale or Willy Gateway aka Mesa Gateway as location for temporarily basing to fly these. That’s why you’ll also get a lot of T-45s on four day “weekends” as they get training done on the way to and from El Centro.
Just wait untill you here a UAS over frequency.
I have landed at Austin
Sounds like ATC at this airport needs to be retrained.
Pretty simple, do military stuff at military airfields and civilian stuff at civilian airfields.
How are there so many ATC personnel who are clueless about military aircraft performance? Haven't they ever seen an airshow?
ATC personnel are typically not trained on the differences between a break, a carrier break, and the differences between branches on how that procedure is flown. Unless you work at an airport that frequently sees navy tailhook AC, then the chances of you seeing a carrier break are extremely low.
That may be the problem- have you seen what happens in a 21st century airshow?
@@joshh2705 Austin fits this notion of regularly seeing Navy aircraft.
Fighters are maneuverable, so stay out of the way at a civilian airport.
That's not how this works.
When I can go do touch and goes on the military field of my choice, we can talk. Heck, make it an aircraft carrier while we're at it.@@CWLemoine
Love the sense of entitlement.
Need Ai to take over ATC, LOL!!🤣
Marine fighters are having alot of issues lately...ejecting in charleston, close calls, etc. Concerning.
Read your Kahneman. Natural statistics are not homogenous. There’s variation, clumping, vacuum.
@@jimallen8186 the nobel prize guy? What does he have to do with marines being overly involved in concerning incidents while flying?
@@smokinC5 first off, you’re assuming this Austin story to be an incident. Doesn’t seem like it was to me. But when you read the book, look to the tyranny of small numbers and seeing patterns when patterns don’t actually exist. Look to the example of the Israeli squadron with excessive losses relative to the other squadrons. And look to what Kahneman had to say when tasked to investigate this misfortunate squadron. Look at how “the healthiest people live in rural areas” yet “the unhealthiest people live in rural areas.” Same same small schools being highest performers and yet small schools being worst performers. And look at the night sky noting the stars are not uniformly distributed. You’re thinking the marines have issue as “there’s been several events lately,” but no, they don’t really have any issue while some of the ‘events’ are non-events.
@@jimallen8186 i dont kniw what you are on about, but movers video and itwms presented are certainly concerning and an incident. Not a crash no. Ejecting over my house and then losing your plane is also an incident. Is it coincidence they were both marine aircraft? Maybe maybe not.
@@smokinC5 what they said concerning Austin was overhead break carrier break this is standard. Standard meaning cannot be an incident. Standard meaning normal. Standard meaning works this day every day. The east coast case, I wouldn’t be looking at marine or not, I’d be looking at F-35 as issue. Austin, no issue.
7:43 " If I had rounds in the gun he would have been a smoking hole... " referring to a U.S. passenger plane.
I wouldn't be surprised to hear that a pilot in a brand new military jet has better air picture than ATC does
It was my fault…🤔 a little bit 😂
Closest you will EVER get an admission from those guys, props to him for the massive growth that took.
A good analogy for this would be if a state cop radioed in to the local sheriff and asked if he could cruise through downtown and the sheriff says "Sure" ....... then the statie blows through downtown at 90mph. and says "Whuh? that's how fast i go when i'm chasing people on the highway."
No. 350 KIAS is how the break is *supposed* to be flown by fighters. Controller should not approve a fighter to do a break if he doesn't know what it is.
ya don't know what an analogy is, do ya?
@@Jester-uh9xg
@@briancooney9952 you don't. Cop driving through town at 90 mph without an emergency is not analogous to a fighter performing a standard break.
@@Jester-uh9xg It is, though. It's a perfect example of people doing things where they're not appropriate, based on some perceived superiority. Civilian airspace has rules. They're there for a reason. At no point was the fighter pilot authorized to break the airspace rules, regardless of whether a specific maneuver calls for it.
@@briancooney9952 overheads are in fact authorized in civilian airspace, as is 350 knots in fighter aircraft.
Sounds like it’s time to teach those ATC newbs what a SHB is!
That’s an “expedited recovery” to you sir… ;)
The marines again? Come on fellas.
This comment presumes the marines made an error; the point of the video is they did not. It also fails to understand statistics in that things are not evenly spread when randomly distributed. Kahneman Thinking Fast and Slow, good book.
military dudes that do breaks on civy airfields need to assess their basic IQ - I mean seriously - why? Yeah I was a military jet pilot
Because you’re bringing in a division with three more divisions in a total span of less than twelve miles behind you.
Same reason we like ‘em in the military, only four elements not sixteen. And just like in the military, they’re far easier to sequence into the flow via overhead break.
Long time listener and for the first time - pretty disappointed. You are a pilot and I am a pilot... I respect you but I got the feeling that most of us are just a giant pain in the butt to you - no respect back to us. You had a great opportunity to create an education moment here and yet you felt the need to crack jokes about people sharing the air space with you or the controllers trying to keep us all safe. You can do better than that.
Don't be so sensitive. Lighten up or move on.
He was switching the cassette tape to side b. As now we can all see the need for on board cassette tape players. So gay, he was probably rocking Justin Bieber.
Useless. No actual review of what happened. No explanation of Navy break, carrier break, Air Force brake, nothing but arrogant banter demeaning civilian controllers.
We actually did describe all of those breaks, and included a video. What were you watching? Perhaps you should pay attention, because we didn't demean controllers either.
@@CWLemoine you described the patterns as a single jet would fly but you never really covered Why the patterns. You didn’t discuss how such makes sequencing easier as a controller isn’t trying to fit a jet into a spot between jets rather telling the jet to essentially fly upwind and self sequence. You didn’t explain how multiple aircraft can be treated as a unitary or singular element by the controller and how this is easier than two, three, or four aircraft. You did mention the faster speed for safety through visibility but never discussed how the carrier break leads to a lower downwind altitude therefore flatter base turn thus necessitating more power which means the turbines are spooled up and more responsive making the landing pattern safer. In this you didn’t discuss the alternative of higher downwind with idle being the resultant necessity and how dangerous this can become (which could tie readily to the F-35C in the SCS video) though would need to explain higher here is analogous to faster there (whole PE KE thing for which the FAA is now trying to better educate).
@@jimallen8186 I don't need to cover every detail of it. This wasn't about giving academics on the overhead.
@@CWLemoine had you, you wouldn’t catch all this heat in the comments. What’s your goal here? Heat in the comments to generate more comments and ratings? Or to actually analyze and explain what happened, why it happened, and why it wasn’t actually a thing? These are mutually exclusive goals. And only one would have societal merit.
@@jimallen8186 one comment = all this heat? 🤣 The entitlement is strong here.
Wow, that’s some awesome disdain for regular folks, those old farts with Southern accents, “local yokels” as you call them. I understand why guys like you are the people defending our country, and I thank you. Seriously. But please, have a little respect for the poor ordinary souls you’re protecting. Or perhaps I’m just not in the mood, having watched the news within the last few hours.
You should probably just come back when you’re in a better mood. Nothing you just said is correct.
@@CWLemoine Uh… read your own transcript?
@@patrickunderwood5662 I’m aware of what was said. There is no disdain for regular folks. I have spent my entire life in the South. We were making fun of GA pilots that tend to want to jam up the frequency telling their life story. Your last sentence was correct - you’re obviously in a bad mood and easily triggered, because this is far too sensitive. Relax.
@@CWLemoine Sir, I respect what you do, and I enjoy your videos. Good advice. Relaxing now. Seriously… so much bad news lately, yes, I’m pissed. Shouldn’t have taken it out on you. Carry on.
@@patrickunderwood5662 I think the point here is that there was no actual news. What’s that Shakespeare thing, Much Ado About Nothing? That’s the real point, there was no near midair. Only a misperception of such and subsequent reaction to the misperception such as all the comments being critical of carrier and overhead breaks.
Just wait until DEI takes full control at ATC….