From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V8 #16 Reply-To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Sender: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Errors-To: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Precedence: bulk skunk-works-digest Saturday, March 6 1999 Volume 08 : Number 016 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: Satellite resolution Re: Satellite resolution Re: Satellite resolution Re: Satellite resolution Re: Satellite resolution Re: Satellite resolution Re: Satellite resolution Re: Satellite resolution Re: Satellite resolution Re: Satellite resolution Re: Satellite resolution Air Force announces force structure changes EA-6 Accident in Italy Fuel for the U-2 Re: Air Force announces force structure changes RE: Satellite resolution Re: EA-6 Accident in Italy Re: EA-6 Accident in Italy *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 04 Mar 1999 13:44:29 EST From: INFORMATION RESTRICTED Subject: Re: Satellite resolution See? There is the confusion! Mission Control asked them to count rivets and leaves on weeds growing in cracks on the tarmac, not blades of grass! I don't know what they REALLY had, or if they were even telling the truth, I only know that this is what they said over NASA Select for the public to hear. Having seen several photos from your average weather sat to high resolution color photos from DoD satellites, this is hardly unreasonable. Kurt Amateur Radio Stations KC7VDG/KK7RC Monitor Station Registry KCA6ABB Based In Nevada, United States Of America In use: Kenwood: TM-251A/E, TS-570d, Yaesu: FT-8100R, FT-2500M, FT50rd, Realistic: DX-394, Icom: IC-706MKII, Uniden: BC-200xlt, BC-760xlt, Whistler: CO403DC scanning video reciever 55-806 MHz On Thu, 4 Mar 1999 11:14:00 EST MELUMAN@aol.com writes: >Hasn't anyone heard of Dawes Limit? Optical resolution is limited by >aperture, once the refracting and/or reflecting surfaces are >perfected. It >IS possible to resolve certain features of an image (such as lines, >etc.) >beyond the Dawes limit. But blades of grass? Wait a minute. That's >folklore. > ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Mar 1999 13:44:29 EST From: INFORMATION RESTRICTED Subject: Re: Satellite resolution Iwon't tell you anything of the sort, I am merely telling you what NASA and the Shuttle crew said. I have no idea as to the specifics of their system. However, if their lens magnifies things to the point that an man in space can count rivets, in other words a 1/4" rivet is now 2 inches wide at 125 miles, then the grain of the film is a moot point. Kurt Amateur Radio Stations KC7VDG/KK7RC Monitor Station Registry KCA6ABB Based In Nevada, United States Of America In use: Kenwood: TM-251A/E, TS-570d, Yaesu: FT-8100R, FT-2500M, FT50rd, Realistic: DX-394, Icom: IC-706MKII, Uniden: BC-200xlt, BC-760xlt, Whistler: CO403DC scanning video reciever 55-806 MHz On Thu, 04 Mar 1999 02:50:51 -0800 patrick writes: >At 09:18 PM 3/3/99 EST,Kurt wrote: >>This sounds very low-res to me too. I remember in '90 or '91 >listening >>to Atlantis takl with ground crews while testing some optics. AT the >>time they were flying over an old WWII airbase on an island. The >ground >>crew asked the man on Atlantis to look at the base. The Shuttle crew >>reported seeing small weeds growing in cracks on the runway, counted >>leaves on the weeds, and petals on the flowers, and counted rivets on >a >>peice of sheet metal lying on the ground. The ground crew mentioned >they >>were using a 1,000 mm telephoto on a 35 mm camera! This is what I >heard. >> >The grain structure of film, especially in such a physically small >sized >negative as 35 mm would not be able to give you the resolution to do >the >above. What happens is the items are smaller than the grains of >chemicals >that give you the light/dark differences on the film. Similar to >pixels if >you will. They get only so small and that limits their resolution. >And >don't tell me its a super secret spy film developed by Kodak! > >patrick > ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 11:16:18 -0800 From: Dan Zinngrabe Subject: Re: Satellite resolution >See? There is the confusion! Mission Control asked them to count rivets >and leaves on weeds growing in cracks on the tarmac, not blades of grass! > I don't know what they REALLY had, or if they were even telling the >truth, I only know that this is what they said over NASA Select for the >public to hear. Having seen several photos from your average weather sat >to high resolution color photos from DoD satellites, this is hardly >unreasonable. > >Kurt Actually, it's quite unreasonable, as it violates just about every law of optics there is. A few years back there was an Air & Space article that dissected the whole "reading newspapers from space" folklore by going over, step by step, the physics involved. It boiled down to the smallest object a spy sat launched by STS or Titan IV could resolve would be 2.5 inches across- so a license plate, maybe rivets defintely not. And that's a 15' diameter spy satellite, not a telephoto lens. Chances are the NASA controllers were joking around. Dan _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ The software you were born with helps you write code into the wee small hours, find the bugs in your competitors' products, and create fake demos for the first six months of a project. It deserves the operating system designed to work with it: the MacOS. _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 15:56:26 EST From: MELUMAN@aol.com Subject: Re: Satellite resolution >....2.5 inches across- so a license plate, maybe - rivets defintely not. >And that's a 15' diameter spy satellite, not a telephoto lens. >Chances are the NASA controllers were joking around. >Dan Not to run this resolution business into the ground, but: If the Keyhole mirror is 2 meters in diameter, and the satellite is at 200 mile LEO, then the max theoretical resolution would be about 9.2 inches. THAT'S MAX ! So I guess we're in the same ballpark. Dawes limit = 4.5/a (in seconds of arc) where a = diameter of the objective in inches. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 15:57:51 -0600 (Central Standard Time) From: Donald H Portch Subject: Re: Satellite resolution More on satellite resolution. : An acquaintance with an SOF background tells of locating a particularly notorious female terrorist at a training camp in Libya some years back by satellite imagery. Seems this woman was extemely buxom, to the point that she was identifiable in satellite photos. He swears it's true, I just pass it on as a matter of interest. Don P. Keep the Blue Side Up! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 16:11:46 -0600 From: "Ben Williams" Subject: Re: Satellite resolution More on satellite resolution. : An acquaintance with an SOF background tells of locating a particularly notorious female terrorist at a training camp in Libya some years back by satellite imagery. Seems this woman was extemely buxom, to the point that she was identifiable in satellite photos. He swears it's true, I just pass it on as a matter of interest. - ------------->>>>Sounds like 'Patriot Games' to me.... Ben ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 16:38:41 -0800 From: Dan Zinngrabe Subject: Re: Satellite resolution >More on satellite resolution. : An acquaintance with an SOF >background tells of locating a particularly notorious female terrorist >at a training camp in Libya some years back by satellite imagery. >Seems this woman was extemely buxom, to the point that she was >identifiable in satellite photos. He swears it's true, I just pass it >on as a matter of interest. > >Don P. >Keep the Blue Side Up! Hate to dissapoint, but that was from Patriot Games :) Dan _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ The software you were born with helps you outthink Marketing (while making less money), induce migraines at Microsoft, and create animated, stereo, 3-D , interactive About Boxes.It deservess the operating system designed to work with it: the MacOS. _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 17:51:43 -0800 (PST) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: Re: Satellite resolution On Thu, 4 Mar 1999, Lee wrote: > believe and not anywhere as bad as the government will admit. I always > wonder who cares about reading a license plate that is mounted on the top > of a car or wired to the top of the trunk lid. Maybe I just have the wrong > idea about what the world looks like from above. You have to look the world in three dimension. You don't necesary need to looks things 90 degree down, can you do it in another angle, so, you can look the lincense plates of vehicles... This is importance e.g.: the russian can be keep tracking of how many times Monica's car has been in the parking lot of the white house... ;) May the Force be with you Wei-Jen Su E-mail: wsu@cco.caltech.edu "Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour. Sit with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute. That's relativity." Albert Einstein ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 02:48:27 +0000 From: John Szalay Subject: Re: Satellite resolution At 03:57 PM 3/4/99 -0600, you wrote: >More on satellite resolution. : An acquaintance with an SOF >background tells of locating a particularly notorious female terrorist >at a training camp in Libya some years back by satellite imagery. >Seems this woman was extemely buxom, to the point that she was >identifiable in satellite photos. He swears it's true, I just pass it >on as a matter of interest. > >Don P. > Reality and fiction.... that plot was part of Tom Clancy's novel "Patriot Games" ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 00:02:30 -0500 From: Jeff Clark Subject: Re: Satellite resolution On Thu, 4 Mar 1999 15:56:26 EST MELUMAN@aol.com writes: >Not to run this resolution business into the ground, but: > >If the Keyhole mirror is 2 meters in diameter, and the satellite is at 200 >mile LEO, then the max theoretical resolution would be about 9.2 >inches. THAT'S MAX ! > >So I guess we're in the same ballpark. Dawes limit = 4.5/a (in >seconds of arc) where a = diameter of the objective in inches. Nobody's mentioned this yet, but isn't part of getting this maximum resolution also dependent on having good focus and keeping the target still in the lens? At the rate the ground would be sweeping by at orbital speed, I doubt an unaided person could keep a camera aligned perfectly to take pictures of blades of grass. You'd either have to have a real fast shutter speed or real fast film (which at least for 35mm film, larger film grain = lower resolution). ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 05 Mar 1999 07:13:09 -0800 From: patrick Subject: Re: Satellite resolution Not to crucify Kurt, but to put things in better perspective.....focus? He did say the blades of grass were "seen" by the shuttle crew, not photographed. In otherwords they were viewed thru the camera and lens. Now the camera would have been a NASA'ized Nikon F4. Basically refininshed to a matte black, sans white logo and given a much lower viscosity lubricant. The lens may have been a Nikon 1000mm F/11 Reflex mirror lens. These have a depth of focus of only 30 or 40 feet. A serious drawback to an otherwise interesting design. Or it might have been a "Questar" type astronomy type lens which is probably no faster. The movement of the spacecraft over the ground is the important speed to condsider. If the shuttle is orbiting at 25k mph its speed over the surface of the earth is less due the earth rotating in the same direction and the fact the surface is closer to the center of rotation vs the shuttle. You work the math. (I haven't a clue.....about the math I mean!) So now they are viewing thru a port and 200 miles of atmosphere. The can "follow focus" on the airfield or rotate their view around it as they keep it centered in the viewfinder. But a 1000 mm lens cuts an angle of view of 2 and 1/2 degrees. Once again, work the math. A arc of this amount at a 200 mile distance will provide such a large enough field of view that given all the other factors to be negligible the resolution would be too low to differentiate rivets or blades of grass. (The argument was made that a telescope could be made to "focus in" on blades of grass but that is not what was originally stated.) If Keyhole satellites and U-2's and SR-71's can't do it then this simple scenario would not come even close. And we didn't even have to talk film which I mistakenly entered into the equation. patrick ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 16:25:38 +0100 From: "Stefan Dornbusch" Subject: Air Force announces force structure changes Whiteman AFB, Missouri -- The 325th Bomb Squadron will gain two B-2 aircraft resulting in an increase of 179 military authorizations. The 509th BW will receive 39 military positions as part of the implementation of the EAF concept. Additionally, the 509th BW will gain one more training T-38 without any additional manpower. Other base support actions will also result in a loss of nine military and one civilian position. Collectively, these actions will increase manpower authorizations by 209 military with a loss of one civilian authorization. Does this mean, they reopen the production line? Source: AF News ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 05 Mar 1999 07:25:57 -0800 From: patrick Subject: EA-6 Accident in Italy Now that the trial has ended and the pilot found not guilty does any one with some useful information care to comment on this. I at first assumed it was another "hotdog" pilot showing off. Especially after the Marine Corps so vehemently tried to prosecute all 4 crew members and then just the pilot and navigator. And add in the fact he is still accused of destroying a video tape of the flight. But the prosecution provided his chart which has no indication whatever of the gondola being there and he had a partial instrument failure. Why this omision on the aerial chart is odd. The gondola had been there for many years. On the flip side he was 650 feet below his minimum altitude of 1000 feet above the ground. But his mission was to evade enemy aircraft while retreating through the hills and valleys on a nape of the earth type flight. patrick ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 05 Mar 1999 07:35:40 -0800 From: patrick Subject: Fuel for the U-2 For you petro-chemical freaks...... 990342. Air Force Research Laboratory additive could revolutionize jet fuel by 1st Lt. Serena Mosley-Day Aeronautical Systems Center Public Affairs WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, Ohio (AFPN) -- The Air Force Research Laboratory fuels branch here is trying to reduce the freeze point of JP-8 fuel through the use of additives. JP-8 is the jet fuel that powers all Air Force aircraft except the U-2 reconnaissance aircraft. The fuel has already been made more effective by the use of one additive package, called +100. The package raises the temperature at which the fuel remains thermally stable. Motivation of this effort, which began in early February, stems primarily from a desire to replace JP-TS (TS for thermally stable) -- the fuel for the high-altitude U-2 reconnaissance plane -- with the more economical JP-8. The U-2 has the freeze-point requirements because of the higher altitudes at which the plane flies. The freezing point of JP-8 is minus 53 degrees while JP-TS freezes at minus 64 degrees. The thermal stability of JP-8 +100 is similar to that of JP-TS and the +100 package raised the temperature range of fuel on the high temperature end. The successful implementation of JP-8+100 is what prompted the question of expanding the temperature range at the lower end. Cost is also a motivation of the research. The cost of JP-8, at 80 cents a gallon, is roughly one-third the cost of JP-TS, which is $2.50 a gallon. Using JP-8+100, the thermal stability requirements are met for the U-2, but it falls short of the JP-TS low temperature capabilities. Officials estimate that if the use of additives proves successful, the package will cost only pennies a gallon, resulting in savings of at least $1.50 a gallon. Working with the University of Dayton Research Institute, the fuels branch will evaluate additives with the goal of developing an additive to allow the fuel to flow readily below its nominal freeze point, extending its useful operational temperature range. Other nations whose aircraft encounter extreme low-temperatures conditions have become interested in the fuel additive program. Commercial airlines also have expressed interest, since they are flying more transpolar and Siberian flights across Asia, and the use of the additives could make a greater range of grades -- and prices -- of petroleum available for their use. The range of temperatures over which commercial jet fuel must remain stable currently requires jet fuel be made from the highest grade of petroleum -- the top 10 percent of any given barrel of oil -- which is also the most expensive. But if the additives can extend the temperature range of a lower grade of fuel, the fuel used by commercial airlines can be expanded and their operating costs can be reduced significantly. If this feasibility program has promising results and further research is pursued, it will be five to seven years of testing and development until the fuel is used operationally. A decision on whether to continue the search past the feasibility study is expected by midyear. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 05 Mar 1999 08:17:26 -0800 From: patrick Subject: Re: Air Force announces force structure changes At 04:25 PM 3/5/99 +0100, you wrote: >Whiteman AFB, Missouri -- The 325th Bomb Squadron >will gain two B-2 aircraft resulting in an increase of 179 >military authorizations. The 509th BW will receive 39 >military positions as part of the implementation of the >EAF concept. Additionally, the 509th BW will gain one >more training T-38 without any additional manpower. >Other base support actions will also result in a loss of >nine military and one civilian position. Collectively, >these actions will increase manpower authorizations >by 209 military with a loss of one civilian authorization. > >Does this mean, they reopen the production line? > Not really. They rebudget each base every year I believe. They add or subtract manpower/assets (airplanes!!!) to each base depending on whatever missions change, new policies or procedures implemented, etc. These are just reassignments within the overall authorized budgeted amounts that are authorized by law per the Congressional budgeting process. This particular change as you noted is part of the Expeditionary Air Wing concept of developing 10 equal EAW's capable of rotating in and out of overseas service. So they are reallocating money and planes to balance out the wings capabilities. Some other squadron will announce it has "lost" 2 B-2's and like number of support personnel. patrick ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 13:37:51 -0600 From: "Mark Patterson (s)" Subject: RE: Satellite resolution Ok, so now we are looking at an angle to see the license plates. That just adds to the distance from the target, and the depth of the atmosphere's distorting effects. If the satellite has an angle of deflection of 30 degrees (and that is being generous to get a readable figure from that angle) and we are using the height of 200 miles above the surface, we now have 231 miles of atmosphere to look through to get our image. The calculation of distance for more realistic angles is left as an exercise for the reader. Mark Patterson The College of American Pathologists Ph:847-832-7481 fax:847-832-8481 mpatter@cap.org > -----Original Message----- > From: Wei-Jen Su [SMTP:wsu@its.caltech.edu] > Sent: Thursday, March 04, 1999 7:52 PM > To: Skunk Works > Subject: Re: Satellite resolution > > > You have to look the world in three dimension. You don't necesary > need to looks things 90 degree down, can you do it in another angle, so, > you can look the lincense plates of vehicles... This is importance e.g.: > the russian can be keep tracking of how many times Monica's car has been > in the parking lot of the white house... ;) > > ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 06 Mar 99 04:22:33 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: EA-6 Accident in Italy On 3/5/99 7:25AM, in message <3.0.1.32.19990305072557.00768620@e-z.net>, patrick wrote: > Now that the trial has ended and the pilot found not guilty does any one > with some useful information care to comment on this. > > I at first assumed it was another "hotdog" pilot showing off. Especially > after the Marine Corps so vehemently tried to prosecute all 4 crew members > and then just the pilot and navigator. And add in the fact he is still > accused of destroying a video tape of the flight. > > But the prosecution provided his chart which has no indication whatever of > the gondola being there and he had a partial instrument failure. Why this > omision on the aerial chart is odd. The gondola had been there for many > years. > > On the flip side he was 650 feet below his minimum altitude of 1000 feet > above the ground. But his mission was to evade enemy aircraft while > retreating through the hills and valleys on a nape of the earth type flight. > > patrick > OK,IMHO, I for one have kept silent on this until they reached a verdict because before that would really be blowing smoke. I've got to give the Marines credit, this was a courageous verdict and it would have been very easy for them to cave in to political pressure. The other services would have. At first I thought this was a case of flat-hatting, something that does go on, based on media reports. In fact, most military forums that I've seen or been involved with had little sympathy for the pilot, feeling that, "O.K.,You were doing what some others have done, but you got caught. Life's not fair, now take your lumps". However, keeping in mind that the most of the media has their conclusion made up first an then adjust data to fit a deeper look indicates this may have well been a politically pushed prosecution. One indication was the move to initially try the back seaters, who had no way of affecting anything that happened. The verdict does not mean there was a cover-up. In fact, what the verdict means is that the Marine Corps is saying, "The accident was our, not his, fault". In order for him to be acquitted the judges would have to feel he proved his contentions, and by doing so accepting that the Marine Corps organization made the mistakes. His defense was first, the cable was not on the charts. There was a lot of obfuscation about this by officialdom at the beginning, you might recall, but basically the easiest way to determine the accuracy was to look at the chart he was using, not what is in some NATO repository miles away. They looked at his chart and he was right. However this was his weakest defense since if he had been at the right altitude, even if he wasn't looking for the cage he would have missed it. Second, he contended that due to deferred maintenance, the radar altimeter wasn't functioning properly, so he didn't get any warning of his descent. The radar altimeter was pulled and tested right after the accident. It consistently failed to go off when descended through the annunciation altitude, and gave height readings that were too high. In fact, when the altimeter was tested at a simulated zero feet, it read 650ft. AGL. His radar altimeter was set at 800ft. and based on what the independent testing showed, would have not warned him and would have told him that he was higher than he was. At the altitude and speed he was going, height deviations of hundreds of feet are not uncommon since the mountainous terrain does not give good indications of attitude and ascent/descent. Third, he contended that sufficient training wasn't being provided nor was there enough flying hours being funded to maintain the kind of proficiency needed for this kind of operation. The fourth defense was introduced later. This was that the EA-6B lacked a HUD, and so it's necessary to fly via reference to the horizon. He locked on to a false horizon which gave him an erroneous sight picture. In an attempt to provide a visual demonstration of what flying in that valley was like, the court had a helicopter go out film his route at a time of day that had the same lighting in which the tragedy occurred, so they could show it in court. Even though going much slower, the helicopter ended up fixating on a false horizon as well and descended. This prosecution demonstration was then introduced as a defense. It was admitted that the Prowler was going faster than specified, but this had no bearing on the accident. Traveling at the specified speed would not have avoided cutting the cable. The court weighed the evidence and apparently reached the conclusion that what he said about the above was the truth, and therefore he wasn't negligent. This doesn't absolve the Marine Corps or the US of any responsibility. It was our plane, and the tragedy happened. It was an innocent accident, but people died and we (and the chart makers) are responsible. This verdict only means that the Crew wasn't acting negligently. There was intense pressure to hang this on the crew, especially because of defenses two and three. There has been a lot of discussion and warnings about maintenance, training,proficiency and readiness suffering because so much is being bled off for all these UN fiascoes we're involved with all over the place. Unless this terrible event can be hung on the crew, this horrific accident tends to confirm this. Therefore, in the interests of Political Correctness and because the policy can't be wrong, blame the crew. (Besides, the current in-crown knows that military folks are just expendable stooges anyway) This isn't unique. Remember that Air Force is refusing to accept the words of its own test crews on the Slingsby T-3. The Edwards AFB test force wrung it out after the accidents and said it is a great plane, but the problem is that USAF isn't training its instructors properly in how to fly it. This answer is unacceptable, because it implies that the policy is wrong. Therefore, the Air Force has grounded the fleet and is going to spend beaucoup bucks to modify them to correct perceived problems that apparently didn't cause the crashes. Pat, All those consequences you fear would or wouldn't occur regardless of which verdict was rendered. It was a US plane. Even if the crew had been 100% guilty, the US Government wouldn't have been able to say, "So sorry. It was the fault of that guy. Take it up with him when he gets out of prison in 20 years". Ranting Art ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 05 Mar 1999 23:09:39 -0800 From: patrick Subject: Re: EA-6 Accident in Italy At 04:22 AM 3/6/99 GMT, you wrote: >On 3/5/99 7:25AM, in message <3.0.1.32.19990305072557.00768620@e-z.net>, patrick > wrote: > >> Now that the trial has ended and the pilot found not guilty does any one >> with some useful information care to comment on this. >> >> I at first assumed it was another "hotdog" pilot showing off. ~~~~snip~~~~~ > Pat, > > All those consequences you fear would or wouldn't occur regardless of which >verdict was rendered. It was a US plane. Even if the crew had been 100% guilty, >the US Government wouldn't have been able to say, "So sorry. It was the fault of >that guy. Take it up with him when he gets out of prison in 20 years". > > > Ranting Art Thanks for sharing your incisive thoughts. Although I don't understand your comment regarding my fears. I originally feared a pilot flying with reckless abandon, in fact purposefully trying to fly under the cables. Such stunts do happen. But the pilot seen in the video's just didn't look the type. I then later saw a shot of the supposed chart and there is no indication of anything in that location such as the gondola. This fact alone might be the "get out of jail free" card he needed. But one doesen't know how familiar the squadron was with the location, eg: had they used it before, was he given a heads up at a pre flight briefing, etc. The altitude thing is difficult for us civvies to get a grip on. 1,000 foot minimum is easy to understand. But I do understand that it would be impossible to maintain while operating a military jet thru terrain as he did. Thus I am convinced after the pilots defense that he is innocent of any wilful negligence. Therefore it was an unavoidable accident. And then the responsibility falls on to the Corps (US govt.) to step forward and accept responsibility for the incident. They are responsible for ordering the mission, for ownership of the incident, and for fair restitution of the victims. I do not accept the victims complaint that the pilot showed no remorse or apology for his actions. He was found to be innocent. How he deals with killing civilians is his problem and not one I envy. He must now convince himself to get back into the cockpit and fly his next mission like nothing ever happened. He may not be able to do this. Or the Corps may pressure him out of its service. My only fear was the NIS would once again attempt a crucifiction. I hope and assume "Fornicating Bill" will whip out his....check book and do the right thing. Unfortunately "stuff happens". patrick ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V8 #16 ******************************** To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command: subscribe in the body of a message to "majordomo@netwrx1.com". If you want to subscribe something other than the account the mail is coming from, such as a local redistribution list, then append that address to the "subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe "local-skunk-works": subscribe local-skunk-works@your.domain.net To unsubscribe, send mail to the same address, with the command: unsubscribe in the body. Administrative requests, problems, and other non-list mail can be sent to georgek@netwrx1.com. A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "skunk-works-digest" in the commands above with "skunk-works". Back issues are available for viewing by a www interface located at: http://www.netwrx1.com/skunk-works If you have any questions or problems please contact me at: georgek@netwrx1.com Thanks, George R. Kasica Listowner