From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V8 #17 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 Monday, March 8 1999 Volume 08 : Number 017 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: EA-6 Accident Re: EA-6 Accident in Italy Numbers extracted from aviation video FWD: (SW/UASR) Re: Biefield-Brown nonsense FWD: (FT) SubOrbtal Passenger Aircraft Re: Numbers extracted from aviation video Re: FWD: (FT) SubOrbtal Passenger Aircraft Re: FWD: (SW/UASR) Re: Biefield-Brown nonsense My red face re resolution Lockheed Stealth model Re: EA-6 Accident *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 06 Mar 1999 13:14:52 -0500 From: Jim Rotramel Subject: Re: EA-6 Accident I spent roughly six years running the program to ensure two F-111 wings (first the 48th at Lakenheath, then the 27th at Cannon) trained our aircrew how to plan to fly and fight at low altitudes safely. The objective was to BLOW S*** UP and live to fight another day (not necessarily in that order). I have quite a bit of practical experience with the challenges of working with often inadequate charts in both Europe and the US. (And the charts for countries surrounding the Mediterranean are uniformly AWFUL.) The wings I was in went to great lengths to let everyone know where the obstructions were. At Cannon, we even sent light airplanes out to fly the low level corridors periodically to make sure we had all the towers more than 100 feet high properly located (the normal charts only show them if they're 200 feet or higher). We liked to have them plotted within 60 feet so we could also use them for radar offsets too, but that's another story... One thing I never heard about during this trial was whether or not the CHart Update Manual (CHUM) gave any information about the gondola. We expended great effort to plot all the CHUM information on mylar, then had clear acetate overlays made for each squadron that they could lay over an uncorrected chart so aircrew could quickly add any obstructions before they went to fly. The CHUM covers the world, with a section for every chart. Today, the Air Force has a computerized e-CHUM that allows the crew to enter their route of flight and have all obstructions within 10 nm show up on screen. This is available to the USN and USMC as well, but I don't know how widely used it is or whether it was available when this incident occurred. A story: An F-111F cut a power line strung over a dam in Turkey in about 1984. They didn't realize it until they swept the wings forward to land and noticed the right slat was damaged (the jet flew fine). Then came the reports of a town near the dam losing its electricity. Oops. The line wasn't plotted on the chart, so it was added to the CHUM. About five years later a couple of Lawn Darts from a different wing (you guessed it) cut the same power line. Because they hadn't CHUMed their charts, they were privileged to go to EVERY fighter squadron in USAFE to brief the importance of CHUMing charts before going to fly. (Public humiliation is a wonderful learning tool, especially for Thunderbird wannabes.) My point is that ultimately it is the crew's responsibility to have the relevant obstructions plotted and fly the mission in accordance with the rules of the route. However, because flying at low altitude is dangerous enough, the PROFESSIONAL wings I was associated with made every effort from the supervisory level to make sure the crews DID know what was expected of them. In addition to the steps outlined above, items like periodically restricted 'floors' on a low level would have shown up as a part of the Flight Crew Information File (FCIF) which all aircrew had to read and initial before going to fly. From what little relevant information the news media published about this trial, it looks like there were poor lines of communication between the USAF host unit and the transient units. A good host would have prevented the transient units from "turning a wheel" until satisfied they would conduct themselves professionally. After all, it's the host unit that has to answer to the host country. I'm pretty sure the low level speed limit in Italy is 450 KCAS and, if memory serves, 1,000 feet AGL was the baseline floor. From what I've been told, to get an EA-6B up to 540 KCAS pretty much requires the pilot to hold the throttle forward with his (or her) foot. Any pilot who is qualified to fly low level should know without looking at an altimeter if they're at "about 1,000 feet" or "about 500 feet." At 2,000 feet (where they should have been), someone in the cockpit should have had a nose bleed from excessive altitude. In short, a lot of people should be answering some very pointed questions about this fiasco. Jim Rotramel ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 06 Mar 99 19:12:45 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: EA-6 Accident in Italy On 3/5/99 11:09PM, in message <3.0.1.32.19990305230939.0078107c@e-z.net>, patrick wrote: > 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: > > > ~~~~snip~~~~~ > > Thanks for sharing your incisive thoughts. Although I don't understand > your comment regarding my fears. Pat, That's what's called stupidity on my part. I was combining comments from two posts into one, and by coincidence both of those posts were from a gentleman named Pat. The part I overlooked was that the other Pat was posting on a different list, so neither you nor anyone else on this list saw what I was responding to. A major goof on my part. For the record, the part of Pat II's post I was addressing regarding that Pat's fears was: "Those of you (from our earlier discussion) who might be thinking that this was a victory ought to think again. Instead of just affecting those two pilots (who have no doubt lost their careers anyway), it will now cost us all far more. - - Millions in compensation to the families. - - Millions in "PR" moves in Italy. - - Reduced military presence around the world. - - Severe restrictions on training. - - No recognition of the existing, ongoing "flat-heading" problem. (Meaning it could all happen again.) Such a shame, and so much easier had it been found that the man was simply hot-dogging it, as the evidence so clearly seemed to show." Those were the fears I was referring to. Sorry. Fortunately for me, the post I used here can be applied over there, and since I'm a lazy (as well as lousy) typist, I can cheat a bit over there. Art "Gotta Pay More Attention" Hanley ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 07 Mar 1999 23:29:26 -0500 From: "Thomas, Margaret, and James Lipscomb" Subject: Numbers extracted from aviation video Rarely it is possible to get numbers out of a video when the target is a tiny, fuzzy blob. It could be a skunky aircraft, and anyway we are engineers, we like numbers, so I hope this is the right crowd. We appreciate aviation video better when we know the dimensions, velocities, and forces. See directly http://www.multiweb.force9.co.uk/ufoscotland/videos/ufocrash.mpg Do yourself a favor and skip the speculation on the referencing page: http://wkweb5.cableinet.co.uk/dledger/video.htm about 1/2 of the way down under, “MPEG. This amazing piece of footage ....”. SUBJECTIVE VIEW 1) A tiny white blob leaving a white trail descends rapidly in a shallow dive to the desert floor. Video quality varies from terrible to worse. 2) It seems to be pulling positive gees, trying to avoid the ground, although this might be a trick of perspective as the object travels less towards the camera and more at right angles to the view direction. 3) It hits the ground just out of sight with terrific force, a white flash, and a puff of dirt. 4) It bounces up in a shallow climb almost equaling the shallow dive in angle and speed. 5) It travels up and back down in a symmetrical arc still leaving the same white trail as before. 6) It appears to be stable, not tumbling, longer than it is wide with a suggestion of a shadow underneath. 7) It impacts the ground again in another shallow dive at terrific speed. 8) On this impact it apparently disintegrates as white spots scatter forward with little if any smoke. Debris radiates from the impact point maintaining some forward momentum. NUMBERS EXTRACTED FROM VIDEO Some of these values are a lot more accurate than others. These events are numbered as above. 1-2) -2.0 seconds: -0.3 miles. White object in 26-degree dive presumably at just over 550 mph descending at 260 mph pulling 3 gees upward. 3) 0 seconds, 0 miles: The object hits the ground in a 17-degree dive, descending at 175 mph. It bounces 120 mph upwards in a 12-degree climb continuing at about 550 mph airspeed sustaining perhaps 50 gees on impact. 5) 5.6 seconds, 0.8 miles: The object is at the highest point in the arc having risen 500 feet in 0.8 mile. 6) The object can be seen more clearly now as less than 30 feet thick and about 65 feet long. 7) 11.2 seconds, 1.6 miles: The object hits the ground again in a 12-degree dive still going about 550 mph (120 mph down). 8) Debris radiates with some of it angling upwards at 30 degrees with a vertical velocity of about 270 mph. METHOD OF CALCULATION The cool thing is that the calculations cascade from one to the next. Starting with just one number (seconds between impacts) one can calculate two numbers (height and vertical velocity), and then by measuring one more number (angle of impact) other numbers come out (horizontal velocity, etc.), and it keeps going like that with each new number making it possible to compute the next. Only high-school physics is needed: v = a * t d = 0.5 * a * t * t a = 32 ft / sec / sec, sorry for the English units. d = v * t a little geometry These events are numbered as above. 5) The object between the two impacts visually follows a symmetrical parabolic path at apparently constant horizontal speed with the high point in the arc at the halfway point in time. Conclusion: the object is little affected by air resistance, which is therefore neglected. 5) 5.6 seconds from the high point in the arc to impact gives the vertical speed of impact (120 mph) from the first formula above and the height of the arc (500 ft) from the second. 5) The 500 ft altitude combined with the wide angle of the camera, which includes the horizon most of the time allows direct measurement of the thickness and length of the object using a ruler pressed to the computer monitor. I got a length of 50 feet or 75 feet depending on how I squinted. Let's call it 65 ft or so. 7) Measuring the angle of the second impact (with a ruler pressed to computer screen) at about 12 degrees gives a velocity triangle with one side known (120 mph). The hypotenuse (airspeed) is about 550 mph. Everything else follows from this 550 mph. 7) Error alert: This 550 mph airspeed could be way off. The impact angle (12 degrees?) was hard to measure. It could be several degrees off giving an airspeed anywhere from oh, maybe 450 to 650 mph with similar error in all other velocities below. 5) The horizontal component of the speed triangle (a little less than 550 mph maybe) gives (d = r * t) about 0.8 mile of ground travel in 5.6 seconds or 0.8 miles to the high-point of the skip and one more 0.8 mile leg to second impact. 8) Debris at the second impact angles up at 30 degrees measured using a ruler pressed to the computer monitor to get a speed triangle with one side assumed to still be 550 mph and so an upward speed of 270 mph. 1-3) Going back to the first impact the object is traveling with a significant component of motion towards the camera making the angle that it skips up appear steeper than it really is. Assume the angle of descent to the second impact (12 degrees) where the object appears to be traveling at a right angle to the direction of view is the same as the true angle it skips up at the first impact (apparently 16 degrees but really 12 degrees). So at first impact perspective makes horizontal velocity appear less by a factor of about 0.75. Consequently, after measuring initial descent (1) at 33 degrees and drawing a speed triangle giving a 340 mph vertical component and at initial impact (3) measuring 22 degrees and 230 mph, we correct for perspective foreshortening by multiplying all these by 0.75 to get at initial descent (1) 26 degrees at 260 mph and at initial impact (3) 17 degrees at 175 mph, and yes I know this is only an approximation to doing it right. 2) Initial pull-up can then be calculated. Going from a vertical component of 260 mph to 175 mph loses 85 mph in 2 seconds for 2 gees additional pull-up above the 1 gee we always have. Total: 3 gees. 3) For first impact force assume conservatively a soft impact of a 65-foot-long object gouging the earth for 3 times its length (200 feet) at 530 mph. Impact duration is then 0.25 seconds with a vertical velocity change of 175 mph down plus 120 mph up. 300 mph in 1/4 sec. works out to about 50 gees. SO WHAT IS IT? Meteorite? Aircraft? Who knows? As a skunky aircraft it would hang tough to sustain a 50-gee bounce with stability and smoke trail unchanged. Although I'll admit to sometimes meeting the runway early, enough above stalling speed to bounce up for another try, you won’t see me do it with a descent rate of 15,000 feet per minute. They don't hand out many of those kind of second chances. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 07 Mar 1999 23:23:24 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: FWD: (SW/UASR) Re: Biefield-Brown nonsense Posted by : Lee Markland At 09:54 PM 11/30/98 -0700, you wrote: Tom Mahood is probably another mass gravitarian. If so then his hostility is understandable. According to that ideology of circular and metaphysical reasoning. Anti gravity is only possible by modifying mass. Which of course is impossible, unless one uses anti matter, which itself is only a hypothetical construct. To try and to discuss with such folks is akin to arguing religion, or trying to convince a YVHVist or Iesus ist that there gods are fictional. It just goes nowhere except more and more hostility and bitterness. Been down this road to many times. Lee Markland - ------------ >Skeptics do provide good information even when hostile. Later in his >description of the electric fields he mentions "anomalous forces." > >Terry > >---------------- >From: Tom Mahood > >>Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 13:50:05 -0700 >>From: "Terry W. Colvin" >>Subject: Befield-Brown effect [was Re: [UASR]> FWD: Victorville, CA - 1958 >shootdown of UFO] >> >>Posted by : Lee Markland >> >>Just an opinion, but I'm sure that what you saw, and most people see are in >>reality flights of classified aircraft. For instance I will wager that the >>Air Force was testing the Befield Brown effect well before they flew the >>B-2 and I suspect the F117A aircraft. >> >>Befield-Brown effect is electrostatic (antigrav) propulsion, used in >>conjunction with "standard" jet engines. Article on it in the April 9, 1992 >>Aviation Week and Space Technology Magazine. They let slip that the B-2 >>electrostatically charges its leading edges and exhaust stream - for those >>who are aware of the work of Thomas Townsend Brown, this is tantamount to >>admitting that the B-2 is an antigravity aircraft. >> >>Lee Markland > >I am so tired of this craziness rearing its head over and over again. The >AvWeek article mentioned was the one by Bill Scott where he made a few >pretty speculative statements that were very much open to interpretation. >A few wingnuts have taken it to mean the B-2 is antigravity powered. Now I >don't know if it's true if its leading edges are charged or not. But if >they are, there are certainly mundane explanations for doing so, such as >flow control, or perhaps increasing dissipation of the hot exhaust stream >to boost stealth. > >As for the alleged "Biefeld-Brown effect", I can speak as someone who has >spent a fair amount of time looking into the subject. Beyond those >"effects" due solely to poor experimental protocols, it doesn't exist. >Zip, nada, nothing. If it did, it would be the easiest thing in the world >to demonstrate, and we'd have a hell of a lot more things floating around >than B-2s. A definitive report on the Bielfeld-Brown effect that the >fringe crowd is either unaware of or conveniently ignores (as it clearly >shows the effect doesn't exist) , was commissioned by Phillips Labs out at >Edwards AFB around 1990. Entitled "Twenty First Century Propulsion >Concept", by R. L. Talley, it was completed in May of 1991, and is >available through the NTIS or DTIC. It's an extremely comprehensive >report, and Talley's experimental procedures were first rate. A worthwhile >report to peruse through, for while Talley found no evidence of any forces >produced by static fields (ala the Biefeld-Brown effect) he did find hints >of what he called "anomalous forces" produced in certain experimental >configurations with TRANSIENT electric fields. But that's a whole 'nuther >story, and outside the charter of this list.... > >Tom - -- Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean@primenet.com > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/8832 > Sites: Fortean Times * Northwest Mysteries * Mystic's Cyberpage * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 07 Mar 1999 23:26:18 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: FWD: (FT) SubOrbtal Passenger Aircraft Terry, and others! It was on the Oz ABC new tonight! They are talking about the hypersomething - shown as a dart shaped black aircraft that will fly to suborbit and skip across the atmosphere to destination in a fraction of the time and cost of conventional air travel. They are talking about flying the prototypes in 6 years. But here is the most interesting bit. They said the military have "already developed" the technology. The TR-3B? This sounds to me like a possible softener for the antigravity drive being released to public knowledge. They said that passengers would have a roller coaster ride because of the way the plane is to skim across the atmosphere. It makes sense, since unlike a rocket the aircraft would not need to carry oxygen with its fuel. Not sure what effect it would have on our tenuous outer atmosphere if thousands of planes are skipping back and forth around the world. I'd say we'd lose a lot of atmoisphere over time. Could end up like the world of Aries, although it was a natural disaster got them. Lawrie___________running ahead of himselfto no avail - -- Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean@primenet.com > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/8832 > Sites: Fortean Times * Northwest Mysteries * Mystic's Cyberpage * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program - ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: < http://www.seacoast.com/~jsweet/brotherh/index.html > Southeast Asia (SEA) service: Vietnam - Theater Telecommunications Center/HHC, 1st Aviation Brigade Long Binh, Can Tho, Danang (Jan 71 - Aug 72) Thailand/Laos - Telecommunications Center/U.S. Army Support Thailand (USARSUPTHAI), Camp Samae San (Jan 73 - Aug 73) - Special Security/Strategic Communications - Thailand (STRATCOM - Thailand), Phu Mu (Pig Mountain) Signal Site (Aug 73 - Jan 74) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 07 Mar 1999 22:58:57 -0800 From: patrick Subject: Re: Numbers extracted from aviation video At 11:29 PM 3/7/99 -0500, you wrote: >Rarely it is possible to get numbers out of a video when the target is a >tiny, fuzzy blob. It could be a skunky aircraft, and anyway we are >engineers, we like numbers, so I hope this is the right crowd. We >appreciate aviation video better when we know the dimensions, >velocities, and forces. > >~~~SNIP~~~ >SO WHAT IS IT? > >Meteorite? Aircraft? Who knows? As a skunky aircraft it would hang >tough to sustain a 50-gee bounce with stability and smoke trail >unchanged. Although I'll admit to sometimes meeting the runway early, >enough above stalling speed to bounce up for another try, you won’t see >me do it with a descent rate of 15,000 feet per minute. They don't hand >out many of those kind of second chances. ==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Well first of all this video is several years old. It was previously presented as a possible "UFO" landing or crashing by some other member of this newslist as I recall. The area seen in this video is identical to some of the target areas at White Sands Missile Range. And anyone who has been there will recognize the plethora of telephone poles that are used on the range for various reasons. Another reason to suspect this was taken at WSMR is the very existence of the video. During missile firings numerous mobile tracking units are pre positioned with equipment to make videos such as these. And I would argue that without prior knowledge of an incoming missile at this speed and trajectory nor this equipment, this video would probably not have been made. Its my opinion this video was taken at WSMR where several missile tests are conducted on a daily basis. patrick ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Mar 1999 13:28:37 From: win@writer.win-uk.net (David) Subject: Re: FWD: (FT) SubOrbtal Passenger Aircraft Terry C forwarded: >Terry, and others! It was on the Oz ABC new tonight! They are >talking about the hypersomething - shown as a dart shaped >black aircraft that will fly to suborbit and skip across the atmosphere >to destination in a fraction of the time and cost of conventional >air travel. They are talking about flying the prototypes in 6 years. HyperSoar is its name - it's a concept by Preston Carter of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California for a Mach 10 waverider. I'd love to see it flying in 6 years, but I suspect it would be closer to reality to say it 'could be flying in six years' - >if< it was fully funded. Passenger flights would follow eventually, but its initial commerical application would be as a cargo carrier. >But here is the most interesting bit. They said the military have >"already developed" the technology. The TR-3B? The intersting bit for me would be seeing a hypersonic waverider actually fly ! The concept uses rocket-based combined-cycle (RBCC) engines. I'm not sure that such an engine has been flight tested, but I could be wrong of course. The TR-3B is this ET/particle-acclerator/plasma/anti-grav drive propelled fantasy of someone on the UFO circuit is it not ? Not SW List material IMHO. >This sounds to me like a possible softener for the antigravity >drive being released to public knowledge. Non Sequitur Alert ! Calling an RBCC engine an 'antigravity drive' is just silly. I suppose you might argue that whilst the thing was operating, it would prevent the airframe it propels from falling to Earth, thus defying gravity, but then that little Cessna I was in the other day could also be said to employ an antigravity drive. HyperSoar's alleged anti-gravity propulsion system would I suspect, come as a major shock to LLNL and its inventor :) D ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Mar 1999 09:30:03 PST From: "wayne binkley" Subject: Re: FWD: (SW/UASR) Re: Biefield-Brown nonsense never argue with an idiot.they will drag you down to their level then beat you with experience.anon. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 12:00:09 -0600 (Central Standard Time) From: Donald H Portch Subject: My red face re resolution Hoo, boy. I've been had big time. The only Clancy book I haven't read. Wait till I see that @#%@### again. Thanks for not laughing - - -too loud. Don ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 19:43:54 -0800 (PST) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: Lockheed Stealth model Hello guys, I recently saw a pic of a Stealth model built by Lockheed at NASA Ames Research Center wind tunnel. It looks very similar to the Lockheed JSF except the intake in under like the Boing JSF proposal. I spoke with one of the chief wind tunnel guy of the facility and he told me that it is a testing of a new type of wing which it deformes instead of using convencional flaps, alerons, etc. They are stuyding trade off between the drag reduccion and lift loss due to the gap of the convencional control surfaces with the vortex generated if they use this type of system. I don't remember the name of the project or aircraft, but it sound like "Advances Fighter... (two more words)". So, can anyone post more information about this airplane I will very much appreciate. Thanks in advances. 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: Mon, 08 Mar 1999 20:41:14 -0800 From: "A.J. Craddock" Subject: Re: EA-6 Accident Being a complete outsider, what would be the reason for destroying the videotape of the run (other than the obvious desire to destroy incriminating evidence)? Tony Craddock ********* At 01:14 PM 3/6/99 -0500, Jim Rotramel wrote: >I spent roughly six years running the program to ensure two F-111 wings (first the >48th at Lakenheath, then the 27th at Cannon) trained our aircrew how to plan to fly >and fight at low altitudes safely. The objective was to BLOW S*** UP and live to >fight another day (not necessarily in that order). I have quite a bit of practical >experience with the challenges of working with often inadequate charts in both Europe >and the US. (And the charts for countries surrounding the Mediterranean are uniformly >AWFUL.) > >The wings I was in went to great lengths to let everyone know where the obstructions >were. At Cannon, we even sent light airplanes out to fly the low level corridors >periodically to make sure we had all the towers more than 100 feet high properly >located (the normal charts only show them if they're 200 feet or higher). We liked to >have them plotted within 60 feet so we could also use them for radar offsets too, but >that's another story... > >One thing I never heard about during this trial was whether or not the CHart Update >Manual (CHUM) gave any information about the gondola. We expended great effort to >plot all the CHUM information on mylar, then had clear acetate overlays made for each >squadron that they could lay over an uncorrected chart so aircrew could quickly add >any obstructions before they went to fly. The CHUM covers the world, with a section >for every chart. Today, the Air Force has a computerized e-CHUM that allows the crew >to enter their route of flight and have all obstructions within 10 nm show up on >screen. This is available to the USN and USMC as well, but I don't know how widely >used it is or whether it was available when this incident occurred. > >A story: An F-111F cut a power line strung over a dam in Turkey in about 1984. They >didn't realize it until they swept the wings forward to land and noticed the right >slat was damaged (the jet flew fine). Then came the reports of a town near the dam >losing its electricity. Oops. The line wasn't plotted on the chart, so it was added >to the CHUM. About five years later a couple of Lawn Darts from a different wing (you >guessed it) cut the same power line. Because they hadn't CHUMed their charts, they >were privileged to go to EVERY fighter squadron in USAFE to brief the importance of >CHUMing charts before going to fly. (Public humiliation is a wonderful learning tool, >especially for Thunderbird wannabes.) > >My point is that ultimately it is the crew's responsibility to have the relevant >obstructions plotted and fly the mission in accordance with the rules of the route. >However, because flying at low altitude is dangerous enough, the PROFESSIONAL wings I >was associated with made every effort from the supervisory level to make sure the >crews DID know what was expected of them. In addition to the steps outlined above, >items like periodically restricted 'floors' on a low level would have shown up as a >part of the Flight Crew Information File (FCIF) which all aircrew had to read and >initial before going to fly. > >>From what little relevant information the news media published about this trial, it >looks like there were poor lines of communication between the USAF host unit and the >transient units. A good host would have prevented the transient units from "turning a >wheel" until satisfied they would conduct themselves professionally. After all, it's >the host unit that has to answer to the host country. > >I'm pretty sure the low level speed limit in Italy is 450 KCAS and, if memory serves, >1,000 feet AGL was the baseline floor. From what I've been told, to get an EA-6B up >to 540 KCAS pretty much requires the pilot to hold the throttle forward with his (or >her) foot. Any pilot who is qualified to fly low level should know without looking at >an altimeter if they're at "about 1,000 feet" or "about 500 feet." At 2,000 feet >(where they should have been), someone in the cockpit should have had a nose bleed >from excessive altitude. > >In short, a lot of people should be answering some very pointed questions about this >fiasco. > >Jim Rotramel > ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V8 #17 ******************************** 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