If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Jacksonville.com)   If the country was serious about ending the debt woes, it would cancel all military flyovers at professional sporting events   (jacksonville.com) divider line 154
    More: Obvious, sporting events, University of Phoenix Stadium, El Centro, Veterans Day, thunderbird, Times-Union, Florida Panhandle, reader response  
•       •       •

9788 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Nov 2011 at 11:39 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



154 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread
 
2011-11-28 01:24:41 AM
If they need the training hours anyway, let 'em fly. I imagine this actually saves money on marketing/recruiting.
 
2011-11-28 03:08:47 AM
We should just ground all our jets until there is an actual military threat. I mean, spending all that money on jet fuel is such a waste!
 
2011-11-28 08:22:22 AM
Do not underestimate how many guys sign up because of that waste of jet fuel.
I say that as someone who knows Aussie and British guys and gals who are watching American soldiers backs.

Maybe sub-cheap-ass-mitter can explain what cost to benefit ratio is for an Irish friend who was so impressed with what she saw by the USAF that she joined the UK Intelligence wing and saved a few of their Yankee and Southern butts.
 
2011-11-28 08:43:26 AM

DON.MAC: Do not underestimate how many guys sign up because of that waste of jet fuel.
I say that as someone who knows Aussie and British guys and gals who are watching American soldiers backs.

Maybe sub-cheap-ass-mitter can explain what cost to benefit ratio is for an Irish friend who was so impressed with what she saw by the USAF that she joined the UK Intelligence wing and saved a few of their Yankee and Southern butts.


I dunno, but I'm a little concerned about the quality of the "intelligence" wing if it's staffed by people whose career decisions are affected by fly-overs.
 
2011-11-28 08:57:18 AM
um, why doesn't the govn't just charge the stadium for the cost of the flyovers? lord knows they make enough money off the games to pay for it.
 
2011-11-28 09:35:16 AM

Wendy's Chili: I dunno, but I'm a little concerned about the quality of the "intelligence" wing if it's staffed by people whose career decisions are affected by fly-overs.


That's a little ridiculous, isn't it? People are always going to be influenced by flashy shows of strength and superiority. It's just plain human nature. It's this crap of demanding immediate and direct results of any governmental/military action and every cent spent which creates these horribly inefficient and ineffective bureaucracies in the first place.
 
2011-11-28 09:35:48 AM
If the govt was serious about ending debt it'd cancel the farking military.
 
2011-11-28 09:42:44 AM
How about helicopter flyovers, is that okay? Link (new window)
 
2011-11-28 09:52:35 AM

RodneyToady: If they need the training hours anyway, let 'em fly. I imagine this actually saves money on marketing/recruiting.


Done in one.

Those hours are already budgeted, so they don't cost extra. If the article writer were ever in the Air Force he would know that planes regularly sit for a month or two at the end of the fiscal year because the allotted flying hours are gone. The Air Force cannot afford to engage in such frivolity for frivolity's sake. The flyby is typically 30 seconds of a long training flight.
 
2011-11-28 10:07:52 AM
If the country was serious about ending debt woes we'd stop trying to pay it off with loose change we find in the national couch cushions.
 
2011-11-28 10:17:29 AM
Yes, It is imperative that our pilots get all the training they need in the crucial task of flying low over a stadium. Without that kind of focused, mission critical training would we have ever won the battles of Saddam Hussein Field or Mullah Omar Park?
 
2011-11-28 10:27:48 AM
Old and busted: F-16 / F-18 flyovers
The new hotness: UAV flyovers
 
2011-11-28 10:36:25 AM

Wendy's Chili:
I dunno, but I'm a little concerned about the quality of the "intelligence" wing if it's staffed by people whose career decisions are affected by fly-overs.


I know military "intelligence".... but sometimes they aren't idiots. The one I know was very patriotic... and passed a lot of tests. The people I know in her field can translate half a dozen languages after a less than a year training and they weren't languages they ever even knew about in high school.
 
2011-11-28 11:04:00 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: Yes, It is imperative that our pilots get all the training they need in the crucial task of flying low over a stadium. Without that kind of focused, mission critical training would we have ever won the battles of Saddam Hussein Field or Mullah Omar Park?


media.moddb.com
 
2011-11-28 11:11:57 AM
If the time spent on flyovers was completely extraneous and would generate a net savings, then it's worth considering. But I imagine that the actual flight times wouldn't decrease much, because the pilots would just be training and flying elsewhere.
 
2011-11-28 11:42:51 AM

veedeevadeevoodee: Old and busted: F-16 / F-18 flyovers
The new hotness: UAV flyovers


The new new hotness: Recon Drone flyovers

/+20 Tagged Assist!
 
2011-11-28 11:43:00 AM
I prefer the flying of blimps over closed roof stadiums.
 
2011-11-28 11:43:43 AM
welcome to post 9/11 national security.
 
2011-11-28 11:44:19 AM
What has been said before, they are not flying over a stadium to look cool, but they are flying over to bomb/strafe it. Does not really cost that much extra for training.
 
2011-11-28 11:44:21 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: Yes, It is imperative that our pilots get all the training they need in the crucial task of flying low over a stadium. Without that kind of focused, mission critical training would we have ever won the battles of Saddam Hussein Field or Mullah Omar Park?


1) Time on Target
2) Formation flying
3) Precision navigation

All of those are mission critical, and all of those are necessary for a typical fly-by.

Trolling indeed.
 
2011-11-28 11:45:13 AM
Military spending and tax cuts are the only reason we have a deficit. Just get rid of them and America will never be in the red again.
 
2011-11-28 11:45:34 AM
I disagree with Subby except in the instances of domed stadiums. Then fly-overs are pointless.
 
2011-11-28 11:46:12 AM
There are many things we could do to spend money a little more slowly.

How about, instead of cancelling them, they charge the stadium for them?
 
2011-11-28 11:46:14 AM

The Third Man: veedeevadeevoodee: Old and busted: F-16 / F-18 flyovers
The new hotness: UAV flyovers

The new new hotness: Recon Drone flyovers

/+20 Tagged Assist!


i28.lulzimg.com

Still on the hunt for prostitutes. Should be some outside the stadium.

/I thought Judge had lost his touch... until that episode.
//damn that was funny.
 
2011-11-28 11:46:22 AM
I'm ok with this
 
2011-11-28 11:46:46 AM
"If the flyovers were discontinued, I would not be at the games," Scott Flanders wrote in an email. "The fact is, without the flyover, Jaxson de Ville and a halftime show, the games today would be a bore."

There are few good reasons to go to a Jacksonville game. These are not them.
 
2011-11-28 11:47:13 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: Yes, It is imperative that our pilots get all the training they need in the crucial task of flying low over a stadium. Without that kind of focused, mission critical training would we have ever won the battles of Saddam Hussein Field or Mullah Omar Park?


Actually, I read that it was a very efficient way to train the pilots into coordinating attacks, as the flybys have to be done in very precise time windows.
 
2011-11-28 11:47:26 AM

LarryDan43: I prefer the flying of blimps over closed roof stadiums.


There's a reason for that.

2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2011-11-28 11:47:34 AM
Link (new window)

hey don't come cheaply: It cost $36,000 for six F/A-18A Hornet fighter jets -- from the Navy's Blue Angels squadron -- to fly over the University of Phoenix Stadium before the 2008 Super Bowl [source: Robbins]. (A Blue Angels press officer told the Orlando Sentinel that the cost was worth it in order to increase the Blue Angels' and the Navy's visibility [source: Robbins].)
The cost is deducted from funds used for training, but for some special services, like the Golden Knights skydiving team, the event organizer (if it's a private organization) may have to pay for lodging, meals and transportation -- up to $3,000 a day.
The military views flyovers as promotional and recruiting opportunities for the armed services. They allow ordinary citizens to see the military up close in a way that's normally not possible.
A flyover flight actually counts as training for the pilots, but with a flyover essentially consisting of a brief flight between two points, labeling it "training" could be viewed as rather generous.
 
2011-11-28 11:48:17 AM
SPOILER ALERT: the country isn't serious about ending debt woes
 
2011-11-28 11:48:42 AM

Jake Havechek: Just catapult Lee Greenwood over the stadium.


Oh, that would be sweeeet!
 
2011-11-28 11:49:24 AM

beta_plus: Military spending and tax cuts are the only reason we have a deficit. Just get rid of them and America will never be in the red again.


/Yes and just think how nice a place the world will be with roses and butterflies for everyone.
 
2011-11-28 11:49:43 AM

cgraves67: I disagree with Subby except in the instances of domed stadiums. Then fly-overs are pointless.


Depends on the ordnance they are delivering. Say, a BLU-96 to Cowboys Stadium.
 
2011-11-28 11:50:08 AM

Adolf Oliver Nipples: All of those are mission critical, and all of those are necessary for a typical fly-by.


I've done my share of flybys and these tasks get done but they are so far outside of the normal mission profile as to be pointless. Fun to do though.

Having tried recently, it's gotten really hard to get a flyby these days. New policies in effect due to deficits. Somehow TV events have no problems though.
 
2011-11-28 11:50:20 AM
"You're underwater in your mortgage, your car is falling apart, and your credit sucks so you can't get a new one. You shouldn't let your 4-year old drop that penny in the wishing well in the park. It shows you're not serious about saving money."
 
2011-11-28 11:50:52 AM

basemetal: How about helicopter flyovers, is that okay? Link (new window)


ok, that was really impressive. I bet the pilots loved that.

Philip Francis Queeg: Yes, It is imperative that our pilots get all the training they need in the crucial task of flying low over a stadium. Without that kind of focused, mission critical training would we have ever won the battles of Saddam Hussein Field or Mullah Omar Park?


Mission planning, airspace planning, weather planning, and stick time. All important stuff to practice.
 
2011-11-28 11:51:15 AM

Adolf Oliver Nipples: Philip Francis Queeg: Yes, It is imperative that our pilots get all the training they need in the crucial task of flying low over a stadium. Without that kind of focused, mission critical training would we have ever won the battles of Saddam Hussein Field or Mullah Omar Park?

1) Time on Target
2) Formation flying
3) Precision navigation

All of those are mission critical, and all of those are necessary for a typical fly-by.

Trolling indeed.


Farking utter bullshiat. Seriously all of those tasks could be simulated and trained in much better ways than a fly-by over a stadium.

Flowing low over a stadium in a tight formation has pretty much zero in common with modern combat. Unless they are practicing to be sitting ducks, there is little or no training value in a fly-by.

That's not trolling, that's just not accepting the bullshiat shoveled to justify wasting resources on these events.
 
2011-11-28 11:51:40 AM

meat0918: There are many things we could do to spend money a little more slowly.

How about, instead of cancelling them, they charge the stadium for them?


So, combining required training and recruitment advertising not good enough for you, eh? Need a three-fer? My, aren't you the efficient one.
 
2011-11-28 11:52:08 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: Yes, It is imperative that our pilots get all the training they need in the crucial task of flying low over a stadium. Without that kind of focused, mission critical training would we have ever won the battles of Saddam Hussein Field or Mullah Omar Park?


On the other hand, if we saved that money, we could hire, like, 100 more lousy, unionized teachers!
 
2011-11-28 11:52:34 AM
Military spending and tax cuts are the only reason we have a deficit. Just get rid of them and America will never be in the red again.

Wow. This is a new one for ß+. It's like a reverse Immelman troll.
 
2011-11-28 11:52:52 AM
Like most shiat "our" gov does it is justified with twisted logic, is not worth what we spend, and is fiscally irresponsible. If it was worth it, businesses would already be doing it or sponsoring it.

I wonder how many people showing up at the recruiting station go, "hey i was just over at the football game and saw your flyover, can I join up and do that too?"
 
2011-11-28 11:53:08 AM

"If the flyovers were discontinued, I would not be at the games," Scott Flanders wrote in an email. "The fact is, without the flyover, Jaxson de Ville and a halftime show, the games today would be a bore."


Get a life and go to an airshow.
 
2011-11-28 11:53:26 AM
Adolf Oliver Nipples

Those hours are already budgeted, so they don't cost extra. If the article writer were ever in the Air Force he would know that planes regularly sit for a month or two at the end of the fiscal year because the allotted flying hours are gone. The Air Force cannot afford to engage in such frivolity for frivolity's sake. The flyby is typically 30 seconds of a long training flight.

They are also useful for when the government has to exterminate a large number of its own population. Merely gather the primaries in a stadium with a known targeting designator, fly a F-15 with a canister of FD-7 Gas and poof! You've eliminated a couple of thousand plus outside collateral and re-established the peace with the Big Nose Blue Aliens and the Short Greys.

The dead are then fed to the aliens.They don't eat a lot of humans just during their ceremonies. The last big ceremony was in 2001 ...

Hang on. There's a helicopter in my front yard.
 
2011-11-28 11:53:40 AM

cgraves67: I disagree with Subby except in the instances of domed stadiums. Then fly-overs are pointless


Those at home still have the chance to root for a massive, catastrophic crash. Isn't that the whole point?
 
2011-11-28 11:54:08 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: Flowing low over a stadium in a tight formation has pretty much zero in common with modern combat. Unless they are practicing to be sitting ducks, there is little or no training value in a fly-by.


Thanks for the two cents. So, you're not in favor of close air support? That's precisely why the Marines don't trust the Air Force for that mission. Also, TOT is important to modern combat, as is precision navigation. You must have built all your hours in Flight Simulator.
 
2011-11-28 11:54:22 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: Farking utter bullshiat. Seriously all of those tasks could be simulated and trained in much better ways than a fly-by over a stadium.

Flowing low over a stadium in a tight formation has pretty much zero in common with modern combat. Unless they are practicing to be sitting ducks, there is little or no training value in a fly-by.

That's not trolling, that's just not accepting the bullshiat shoveled to justify wasting resources on these events.


still trolling and still stupid.
 
2011-11-28 11:54:54 AM
Flyovers... over a closed-dome stadium... nice.
 
2011-11-28 11:55:25 AM

Espertron: Link (new window)

hey don't come cheaply: It cost $36,000 for six F/A-18A Hornet fighter jets -- from the Navy's Blue Angels squadron -- to fly over the University of Phoenix Stadium before the 2008 Super Bowl [source: Robbins]. (A Blue Angels press officer told the Orlando Sentinel that the cost was worth it in order to increase the Blue Angels' and the Navy's visibility [source: Robbins].)
The cost is deducted from funds used for training, but for some special services, like the Golden Knights skydiving team, the event organizer (if it's a private organization) may have to pay for lodging, meals and transportation -- up to $3,000 a day.
The military views flyovers as promotional and recruiting opportunities for the armed services. They allow ordinary citizens to see the military up close in a way that's normally not possible.
A flyover flight actually counts as training for the pilots, but with a flyover essentially consisting of a brief flight between two points, labeling it "training" could be viewed as rather generous.


Technically, many ordinary citizens get to see the military up close. Just not American citizens.
 
2011-11-28 11:56:05 AM

maniac64: wonder how many people showing up at the recruiting station go, "hey i was just over at the football game and saw your flyover, can I join up and do that too?"


Please don't go into advertising.
 
2011-11-28 11:56:20 AM
few years back i was bumping around town on chandler blvd, piont to point about 12-15 miles away from Sun Devil Stadium. I think it was a bowl game that was being hosted there. anyways, 4-5 fighter jets (most likely f-15s or whatever Luke Air Field had at the time, this being around 2005 or so) flew over me, south to north, i was like "HOLY shiat!"

then i realized the game was juuuuuuuuuuuust about to start and they'd be flying over SunDeevil Stadium right as the closing ntoes of the national anthem were ending. of course, at 250MPH or whatever they were doing, that 12 or so miles was like, 4 seconds or whatever.


/lame story bro
 
2011-11-28 11:57:40 AM

beta_plus: Military spending and tax cuts are the only reason we have a deficit. Just get rid of them and America will never be in the red again.


How about the entire government, including the military, just spends less? To be bothered that someone else gets a tax cut demonstrates a real loser mentality. I won't say bad things about you, because you might be my brother. He refers to the guy in front of us in a BMW or Mercedes as a "rich farker" as if he knows that person and as if neither of could be driving the exact same car had we not pissed our money away on 20 years of immediate gratification spending rather than saving. If you save your money instead of drinking and smoking it, and then you invest your AFTER TAX dollars, you shouldn't be penalized with large taxes in the event you should happen to earn a good return on the same money someone else might have shoved up their nose over the course of several weekends. Losers will disagree however...and they will complain about it any chance they get. They won't change their lives for the better, but they will try to drag down others. That's why they are losers.
 
2011-11-28 11:57:43 AM

theorellior: It's like a reverse Immelman troll.


Since a split-S is a backward Immelman, this would be a split-_ss troll. Seems about right.
 
2011-11-28 11:58:09 AM

beta_plus: Military spending and tax cuts are the only reason we have a deficit. Just get rid of them and America will never be in the red again.


You know, we hear this endless cry for "jobs, jobs, jobs". You do understand that the military, its contractors, support staff, acquisition apparatus, etc., also known as the "military-industrial complex", is collectively the largest government employment program in the United States, don't you? But hey, the best way to create jobs is to cut them, so let's slash the military to the bone and raise taxes on the newly unemployed. Great idea. I suppose we could probably find a way to squeeze blood from a turnip, too. We're Americans, we can do anything!

OK, I'm done with the sarcasm now.

If we're going to do something like that we have to think it through. It's never as simple as some of you seem to think it is, and it shouldn't be done on a whim. Should we cut back on military spending? Yes. But it should be done in stages to minimize the impact. Should we raise taxes? Sure. Again, stages. You can't just do it overnight. You can't just "get rid of them".

Also, America will never be in the black again, but that's an argument that we could have all day. Let's just say that deficit spending is an expedient way for politicians to "do something" without ever having to pay the consequences for their actions, and after the Euro collapses and the US Dollar is massively strengthened the calls for national debt/deficit spending reduction will diminish dramatically.
 
2011-11-28 11:58:13 AM
How about we stop the wasteful vacation flights by Oobooma and Moochi?
 
2011-11-28 11:59:57 AM

beta_plus: Military spending and tax cuts are the only reason we have a deficit. Just get rid of them and America will never be in the red again.


Canada seems to be doing very well without much of a military. Why can't the USA? The USA is #1 at making war and spending more money than it has.
 
2011-11-28 12:00:54 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Flowing low over a stadium in a tight formation has pretty much zero in common with modern combat. Unless they are practicing to be sitting ducks, there is little or no training value in a fly-by.


And yet, as I said before, the fly-by is almost always a 5-minute part of a long training flight. I've been on many fly-bys, and I'm busy as hell for the rest of the flight.
 
2011-11-28 12:01:13 PM

Adolf Oliver Nipples: But hey, the best way to create jobs is to cut them,


You hush about the emperor's clothes, now.
 
2011-11-28 12:01:14 PM
maniac64

I wonder how many people showing up at the recruiting station go, "hey i was just over at the football game and saw your flyover, can I join up and do that too?"


And the recruiter says "Sure. I can get you a guaranteed seat in the fighter plane of your choice. I need you to fill out this form though. In the MOS field, put 11B. That means you are going to go right to the front of fighter plane operator. You'll just have to complete some thing called One Station Unit Training."

CSB
Just before Desert Storm, I was in the Reserves doing public affairs stuff. During a parade downtown, we had a couple of static displays, Huey, OH-58d, so I was wandering around taking photos. Some guy comes up to me and starts railing on how we should hunt down Saddam and nuke him. I told him that he was a fine, patriotic U S American and I was an Army recruiter. I started to promise him that I could get him in to the first wave of soldiers to storm Baghdad but he remembered a previous appointment and ran away.
 
2011-11-28 12:01:18 PM

rickythepenguin: at 250MPH or whatever they were doing, that 12 or so miles was like, 4 seconds or whatever.



just measured. 8.2 miles. and not sure how fast they were going, but they were hauling ass. not like, sound barrier speed, but still moving fast as shiat.
 
2011-11-28 12:01:20 PM
This has to be the perfect troll thread. Ought to be fun...
 
2011-11-28 12:03:28 PM
The whole point of a big military is to show it off to the world. You don't keep it out of view until a conflict arises. You want it in everyone's face. Flyover's and air shows should be considered money well spent in the military.
 
2011-11-28 12:03:58 PM

TigerStar: Canada seems to be doing very well without much of a military. Why can't the USA?


Either you are very innocent, or very trollish.

Canada is no threat to anyone, competes against no one but the US (mostly), and has a big brother living right next door who will defend their markets and trade routes for them.
 
2011-11-28 12:04:20 PM

RodneyToady: If they need the training hours anyway, let 'em fly. I imagine this actually saves money on marketing/recruiting.


More or less that. Is the author really under the impression that these are special flights that would never happen otherwise? Because, c'mon, I know military people tend to not be the brightest in the world, but I'm pretty sure the USAF can figure out the whole "they want a flyover? OK, I guess we know where the next training flight is going" thing.
 
2011-11-28 12:04:32 PM

Harry Freakstorm: And the recruiter says "Sure. I can get you a guaranteed seat in the fighter plane of your choice. I need you to fill out this form though. In the MOS field, put 11B. That means you are going to go right to the front of fighter plane operator. You'll just have to complete some thing called One Station Unit Training."


Exactly.
 
2011-11-28 12:06:07 PM

Russ1642: The whole point of a big military is to show it off to the world. You don't keep it out of view until a conflict arises. You want it in everyone's face. Flyover's and air shows should be considered money well spent in the military.


And at least bowl game flyovers are relatively tasteful and fun, unlike the giant parades of missiles, tanks and goosestepping soldiers you get in other countries.
 
2011-11-28 12:06:21 PM
Philip Francis Queeg 2011-11-28 11:51:15 AM

Adolf Oliver Nipples: Philip Francis Queeg: Yes, It is imperative that our pilots get all the training they need in the crucial task of flying low over a stadium. Without that kind of focused, mission critical training would we have ever won the battles of Saddam Hussein Field or Mullah Omar Park?

1) Time on Target
2) Formation flying
3) Precision navigation

All of those are mission critical, and all of those are necessary for a typical fly-by.

Trolling indeed.

Farking utter bullshiat. Seriously all of those tasks could be simulated and trained in much better ways than a fly-by over a stadium.

Flowing low over a stadium in a tight formation has pretty much zero in common with modern combat. Unless they are practicing to be sitting ducks, there is little or no training value in a fly-by.

That's not trolling, that's just not accepting the bullshiat shoveled to justify wasting resources on these events.


Umm, no, as a matter of fact, it cant be simulated. Just like beating off isnt practicc for sex or watching film on how to run receiver routes, imagining how you would fly in combat doesnt cut it. You can make an argument that the training isnt worth the value, or that we shouldnt be training unless we are expecting/in war, but you cant make the argment that you can simulate training, thats borderline retarded. Good try though chump, you are an idiot. Also, dont talk about modern aviation combat, you dont know the difference between an HH-60 and an A-10 let alone how to train in said aircraft.
 
2011-11-28 12:06:30 PM

TigerStar: Canada seems to be doing very well without much of a military. Why can't the USA? The USA is #1 at making war and spending more money than it has.


To be fair, the reason nobody has seriously considered invading North America is because of the US military, and Canada has been able to coast on that for a half-century. Same-same with NATO. But, as usual, this is off-topic.
 
2011-11-28 12:07:27 PM

Harry Freakstorm: In the MOS field, put 11B


what's the joke? is that like, "has trouble walkign and breathing at the same time?"

the navy didn't do MOS. i would all the time get asked what my MOS was. i'd be like, "uhh......sonar." "uhhh....ok, but what is your MOS?" "....uhhh.....did i not say sonar?"
 
2011-11-28 12:09:30 PM

Marine1: The Third Man: veedeevadeevoodee: Old and busted: F-16 / F-18 flyovers
The new hotness: UAV flyovers

The new new hotness: Recon Drone flyovers

/+20 Tagged Assist!

[i28.lulzimg.com image 640x480]

Still on the hunt for prostitutes. Should be some outside the stadium.

/I thought Judge had lost his touch... until that episode.
//damn that was funny.


YES! I'm glad it's back
 
2011-11-28 12:09:52 PM
IF WE WERE SERIOUS ABOUT ANY COST SAVING WE"D START RIGHT THE FARK HERE

*Congressional Reform Act of 2011*
1. No Tenure / No Pension. A Congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no
pay when they are out of office.

2. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security. All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people. It may not be used for any other purpose.

3. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.

4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

5. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.

6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.

7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective 1/1/12. The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen. Congressmen made all these contracts for themselves. Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work.
Since 2008, every sitting Congressional Representatives - 100 Senate and 435 U. S. House of Representatives' personal wealth have increased 25%, sharing combined GRAND TOTAL: 2.04 BILLION DOLLARS (Kickbacks?).
 
2011-11-28 12:10:20 PM

rickythepenguin: what's the joke? is that like, "has trouble walkign and breathing at the same time?"


That IS the joke. 11B is infantry, but a civilian doesn't know that so the joke is that they're being suckered by the recruiter into being a grunt when they think they're going to fly.
 
2011-11-28 12:10:25 PM
Of course the waste of the flyby (oooh noooo more trolling with that blasphemy!) is dwarfed by the obscene waste of the millions of tax payer dollars per year spent to subsidize the football team below.
 
2011-11-28 12:11:05 PM
They fly jets over sporting events? Huh. How about that. I learned something today.

The last sporting event I went to or watched (besides hockey games, which are inside the Verizon Center for me, which is enclosed) was watching the Orioles play like 5 years ago, and they didn't have any jets flying overhead. That's a shame too, because baseball is horrendously farking boring to watch and so at least there would have been SOMETHING fun to watch.
 
2011-11-28 12:11:25 PM

beta_plus: Military spending and tax cuts are the only reason we have a deficit. Just get rid of them and America will never be in the red again.


Medicare and social security would like a word with you
 
2011-11-28 12:13:32 PM

Gdalescrboz: Philip Francis Queeg 2011-11-28 11:51:15 AM

Adolf Oliver Nipples: Philip Francis Queeg: Yes, It is imperative that our pilots get all the training they need in the crucial task of flying low over a stadium. Without that kind of focused, mission critical training would we have ever won the battles of Saddam Hussein Field or Mullah Omar Park?

1) Time on Target
2) Formation flying
3) Precision navigation

All of those are mission critical, and all of those are necessary for a typical fly-by.

Trolling indeed.

Farking utter bullshiat. Seriously all of those tasks could be simulated and trained in much better ways than a fly-by over a stadium.

Flowing low over a stadium in a tight formation has pretty much zero in common with modern combat. Unless they are practicing to be sitting ducks, there is little or no training value in a fly-by.

That's not trolling, that's just not accepting the bullshiat shoveled to justify wasting resources on these events.

Umm, no, as a matter of fact, it cant be simulated. Just like beating off isnt practicc for sex or watching film on how to run receiver routes, imagining how you would fly in combat doesnt cut it. You can make an argument that the training isnt worth the value, or that we shouldnt be training unless we are expecting/in war, but you cant make the argment that you can simulate training, thats borderline retarded. Good try though chump, you are an idiot. Also, dont talk about modern aviation combat, you dont know the difference between an HH-60 and an A-10 let alone how to train in said aircraft.


But he could wiki it, if you gave him enough time.
 
2011-11-28 12:14:09 PM
I'd be fine, hell in FAVOR of, military fly-overs....
IFF the organizers of the event paid AT LEAST twice what it costs to perform the fly-over (including all the worker pay required to organize, taxi, monitor, fuel, maintain, direct takeoff & landings etc for the fly-over).

If the government can make a profit and not impose the cost on tax-payers, then sure hire them to do your fly-over.
 
2011-11-28 12:14:11 PM
Am I the ONLY one who wished that they would go supersonic during the stadium flyover?
I am disappointed every time.

sigh
 
2011-11-28 12:15:50 PM

Adolf Oliver Nipples: TigerStar: Canada seems to be doing very well without much of a military. Why can't the USA? The USA is #1 at making war and spending more money than it has.

To be fair, the reason nobody has seriously considered invading North America is because of the US military, and Canada has been able to coast on that for a half-century. Same-same with NATO. But, as usual, this is off-topic.



I was just about to explain to that guy that Canada doesn't need to have a huge military because they're effectively subsidized by us, their big strong neighbor to the south, but I see you covered that already. So I guess I'll just add that Europe spends a lot less on the military than they would otherwise, for the same reason.
 
2011-11-28 12:15:55 PM

Adolf Oliver Nipples: Philip Francis Queeg: Flowing low over a stadium in a tight formation has pretty much zero in common with modern combat. Unless they are practicing to be sitting ducks, there is little or no training value in a fly-by.

And yet, as I said before, the fly-by is almost always a 5-minute part of a long training flight. I've been on many fly-bys, and I'm busy as hell for the rest of the flight.


Tell us then what the fly by part of the exercise did to increase your skills and readiness over and above the rest of the training mission? Could the time spent flying over the stadium have been spent in a more worthwhile way? On any mission in your long and heroic career did you ever think to yourself, "Wow, flying low over a football game really prepared me for this moment?"
 
2011-11-28 12:16:53 PM
As the former NCOIC of the 3544th US Air Force Recruiting Squadron (and a former aircrew member,) I'm getting a kick out of this.

// it was a pain in the ass to schedule flyovers
// but a great recruiting tool
 
2011-11-28 12:17:20 PM
What's that sound?

Jet noise, sir! The sound of freedom!
 
2011-11-28 12:17:52 PM
Patriotic flyovers are about as good for our country as having a TSA agent shove his hand up your shirt.
So is pro sports.
 
2011-11-28 12:18:50 PM
Flyovers are badass and free. Keep 'em coming.
 
2011-11-28 12:22:17 PM
2010 spending
just restate what I stated before.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2011-11-28 12:22:17 PM

TopNotched: IF WE WERE SERIOUS ABOUT ANY COST SAVING WE"D START RIGHT THE FARK HERE

*Congressional Reform Act of 2011*
1. No Tenure / No Pension. A Congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no
pay when they are out of office.

2. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security. All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people. It may not be used for any other purpose.

3. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.

4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

5. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.

6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.

7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective 1/1/12. The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen. Congressmen made all these contracts for themselves. Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work.
Since 2008, every sitting Congressional Representatives - 100 Senate and 435 U. S. House of Representatives' personal wealth have increased 25%, sharing combined GRAND TOTAL: 2.04 BILLION DOLLARS (Kickbacks?).


Check your facts, please. (new window)

Yawn...
 
2011-11-28 12:22:28 PM

The Third Man: veedeevadeevoodee: Old and busted: F-16 / F-18 flyovers
The new hotness: UAV flyovers

The new new hotness: Recon Drone flyovers

/+20 Tagged Assist!


New hotness: Anti-aircraft installations at all major sporting arenas.
 
2011-11-28 12:22:58 PM
Just wanted to point out that this "sound of freedom" that everyone is hearing- is for everyone that the USA is occupying and liberating.

Freedom? I do not think this word means what you think it means...
 
2011-11-28 12:23:55 PM
Done in one. They need to fly anyway, so it's basically free recruiting advertisement.
 
2011-11-28 12:26:30 PM
priapus54
As the former NCOIC of the 3544th US Air Force Recruiting Squadron (and a former aircrew member,) I'm getting a kick out of this.

// it was a pain in the ass to schedule flyovers
// but a great recruiting tool


Did you hit up the Reserves and National Guard? They were always happy to do a training mission if the event fell on their training weekend.

Got a couple of Shiathooks to do a flyover once. They flew low enough to set off car alarms. Three leaky bastards in a V formation. Their training mission for the day had the three take off, go different routes to the event, meet up, buzz the crowd, split off and land navigate back home.
 
2011-11-28 12:26:56 PM

basemetal: How about helicopter flyovers, is that okay? Link (new window)


Yeah, what the fark is up with that? I went to a Packer (GO PACK!) game last week against Tampa and we got our cameras out to shoot the fly-by, cause if your not ready you'll miss em, and here comes these 2 choppers putting by at about 50 mph...........what a let down. The pack kicked ass anyway so it was all good.
.
GO PACK GO!
 
2011-11-28 12:27:07 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Tell us then what the fly by part of the exercise did to increase your skills and readiness over and above the rest of the training mission? Could the time spent flying over the stadium have been spent in a more worthwhile way? On any mission in your long and heroic career did you ever think to yourself, "Wow, flying low over a football game really prepared me for this moment?"


So you've never heard the terms "bomb run" or "air drop?"

/why am I feeding him?
 
2011-11-28 12:28:51 PM

A_Listless_Wanderer: So you've never heard the terms "bomb run" or "air drop?"

/why am I feeding him?



Sometimes it's hard not to feed a troll. Best just to insult them, occasionally poke them to make sure their idiocy is out for all to see, etc.
 
2011-11-28 12:33:24 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Adolf Oliver Nipples: Philip Francis Queeg: Flowing low over a stadium in a tight formation has pretty much zero in common with modern combat. Unless they are practicing to be sitting ducks, there is little or no training value in a fly-by.

And yet, as I said before, the fly-by is almost always a 5-minute part of a long training flight. I've been on many fly-bys, and I'm busy as hell for the rest of the flight.

Tell us then what the fly by part of the exercise did to increase your skills and readiness over and above the rest of the training mission? Could the time spent flying over the stadium have been spent in a more worthwhile way? On any mission in your long and heroic career did you ever think to yourself, "Wow, flying low over a football game really prepared me for this moment?"


You are trying to hard(whether it is trolling, or trying make a pointless point), Now I am just kind of feeling sad for you.
 
2011-11-28 12:33:32 PM

A_Listless_Wanderer: Philip Francis Queeg: Tell us then what the fly by part of the exercise did to increase your skills and readiness over and above the rest of the training mission? Could the time spent flying over the stadium have been spent in a more worthwhile way? On any mission in your long and heroic career did you ever think to yourself, "Wow, flying low over a football game really prepared me for this moment?"

So you've never heard the terms "bomb run" or "air drop?"

/why am I feeding him?


Yes, I have heard of them.

Do you honestly believe that the mission profile of a stadium fly by in any way resembles how bombing missions are carried out in modern combat? Do you really think that when we go to bomb a target in Afghanistan that we send a couple of F-18 directly over the target in straight line flight, wing tip to wing tip, at low speeds and low altitude?

People really need to think a bit more than just saying "Oooooh, that was kooool!"
 
2011-11-28 12:33:37 PM

Gdalescrboz: Philip Francis Queeg 2011-11-28 11:51:15 AM

Adolf Oliver Nipples: Philip Francis Queeg: Yes, It is imperative that our pilots get all the training they need in the crucial task of flying low over a stadium. Without that kind of focused, mission critical training would we have ever won the battles of Saddam Hussein Field or Mullah Omar Park?

1) Time on Target
2) Formation flying
3) Precision navigation

All of those are mission critical, and all of those are necessary for a typical fly-by.

Trolling indeed.

Farking utter bullshiat. Seriously all of those tasks could be simulated and trained in much better ways than a fly-by over a stadium.

Flowing low over a stadium in a tight formation has pretty much zero in common with modern combat. Unless they are practicing to be sitting ducks, there is little or no training value in a fly-by.

That's not trolling, that's just not accepting the bullshiat shoveled to justify wasting resources on these events.

Umm, no, as a matter of fact, it cant be simulated. Just like beating off isnt practicc for sex or watching film on how to run receiver routes, imagining how you would fly in combat doesnt cut it. You can make an argument that the training isnt worth the value, or that we shouldnt be training unless we are expecting/in war, but you cant make the argment that you can simulate training, thats borderline retarded. Good try though chump, you are an idiot. Also, dont talk about modern aviation combat, you dont know the difference between an HH-60 and an A-10 let alone how to train in said aircraft.


I see two reasonable alternatives. 1) Arm the folks in the stadium and encourage them to shoot at the flyby. The stadium can even sell weapons and make a profit while tax dollars flow back to the military. Why take training measures only half way? 2) Use only stealth aircraft the first few times and then just simulate the flyby but tell folks it was done. 100% savings yet the public, who will apparently believe anything leaves satisfied.
 
2011-11-28 12:34:38 PM
I wish people would talk about all government costs in percentage points and not dollars.

Instead of saying, 'X wastes Y MILLIONS of dollars on Z!' it should be, 'X wastes Y% of all government spending on Z'. It would really help give perspective to these discussions.

Isn't military spending something like 20-30% of the federal budget?
And all of the fly-bys, combined, I don't know, it can't be more than 1% of the military budget. I can't imagine it being anywhere near that much. Something like 0.001% is more likely.

This is akin to arguing that someone who makes 50k a year, but spends 60k a year needs to stop wasteful water spending spending because they don't turn off the faucet while brushing their teeth. While you might be correct, that's so low on the totem pole that it's not worth mentioning until you address lots and lots of other things first. Like why you have two new cars, a 2k mortgage, use credit cards, and go out to dinner once a week.
 
2011-11-28 12:37:06 PM

Petit_Merdeux: We should just ground all our jets until there is an actual military threat.


You mean like we did on 911 when the air force "calvary" rode to the rescue in the nick of time.

Oh wait ...

The fark ups only had to get it right one time and they couldn't even manage that.

Lamest military ever.
 
2011-11-28 12:39:36 PM

Russ1642: The whole point of a big military is to show it off to the world. You don't keep it out of view until a conflict arises. You want it in everyone's face. Flyover's and air shows should be considered money well spent in the military.


i.dailymail.co.uk
Exactly.
 
2011-11-28 12:39:55 PM

Fark_Guy_Rob: I wish people would talk about all government costs in percentage points and not dollars.

Instead of saying, 'X wastes Y MILLIONS of dollars on Z!' it should be, 'X wastes Y% of all government spending on Z'. It would really help give perspective to these discussions.

Isn't military spending something like 20-30% of the federal budget?
And all of the fly-bys, combined, I don't know, it can't be more than 1% of the military budget. I can't imagine it being anywhere near that much. Something like 0.001% is more likely.

This is akin to arguing that someone who makes 50k a year, but spends 60k a year needs to stop wasteful water spending spending because they don't turn off the faucet while brushing their teeth. While you might be correct, that's so low on the totem pole that it's not worth mentioning until you address lots and lots of other things first. Like why you have two new cars, a 2k mortgage, use credit cards, and go out to dinner once a week.


LOGIC?? in a political thread?
My favorite LIE with numbers is stating how much will be saved/cut over 10 years. EXCUSE ME! when did we start that lie?

sigh
 
2011-11-28 12:41:38 PM

DON.MAC: Maybe sub-cheap-ass-mitter can explain what cost to benefit ratio is for an Irish friend who was so impressed with what she saw by the USAF that she joined the UK Intelligence wing and saved a few of their Yankee and Southern butts.


Where the hell was she saving Yankee and Southern butts? Maybe they don't even need to be there.
 
2011-11-28 12:41:40 PM

Gdalescrboz: Philip Francis Queeg 2011-11-28 11:51:15 AM

Adolf Oliver Nipples: Philip Francis Queeg: Yes, It is imperative that our pilots get all the training they need in the crucial task of flying low over a stadium. Without that kind of focused, mission critical training would we have ever won the battles of Saddam Hussein Field or Mullah Omar Park?

1) Time on Target
2) Formation flying
3) Precision navigation

All of those are mission critical, and all of those are necessary for a typical fly-by.

Trolling indeed.

Farking utter bullshiat. Seriously all of those tasks could be simulated and trained in much better ways than a fly-by over a stadium.

Flowing low over a stadium in a tight formation has pretty much zero in common with modern combat. Unless they are practicing to be sitting ducks, there is little or no training value in a fly-by.

That's not trolling, that's just not accepting the bullshiat shoveled to justify wasting resources on these events.

Umm, no, as a matter of fact, it cant be simulated. Just like beating off isnt practicc for sex or watching film on how to run receiver routes, imagining how you would fly in combat doesnt cut it. You can make an argument that the training isnt worth the value, or that we shouldnt be training unless we are expecting/in war, but you cant make the argment that you can simulate training, thats borderline retarded. Good try though chump, you are an idiot. Also, dont talk about modern aviation combat, you dont know the difference between an HH-60 and an A-10 let alone how to train in said aircraft.


I would venture to say that flying over a stadium is much needed practice. Because of noise regulations and local flight patterns, pilots don't get to train over cities on a regular basis. Cities can be confusing from the air and if a pilot is tasked with hitting a specific building, I would prefer they know how to find their way through a city. Flyovers allow the pilots to navigate through the city to find a specific building and be on target at the correct time.

To get this experience otherwise, the government would have to build fake cities, which do you think will cost more?
 
2011-11-28 12:42:32 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Do you honestly believe that the mission profile of a stadium fly by in any way resembles how bombing missions are carried out in modern combat? Do you really think that when we go to bomb a target in Afghanistan that we send a couple of F-18 directly over the target in straight line flight, wing tip to wing tip, at low speeds and low altitude?


Yes.
Care to show me otherwise?

Also, I work for an airlift wing that does flybys once in a while. Great practice for air drop missions.
 
2011-11-28 12:44:29 PM
Philip Francis Queeg 2011-11-28 12:33:32 PM

A_Listless_Wanderer: Philip Francis Queeg: Tell us then what the fly by part of the exercise did to increase your skills and readiness over and above the rest of the training mission? Could the time spent flying over the stadium have been spent in a more worthwhile way? On any mission in your long and heroic career did you ever think to yourself, "Wow, flying low over a football game really prepared me for this moment?"

So you've never heard the terms "bomb run" or "air drop?"

/why am I feeding him?

Yes, I have heard of them.

Do you honestly believe that the mission profile of a stadium fly by in any way resembles how bombing missions are carried out in modern combat? Do you really think that when we go to bomb a target in Afghanistan that we send a couple of F-18 directly over the target in straight line flight, wing tip to wing tip, at low speeds and low altitude?

People really need to think a bit more than just saying "Oooooh, that was kooool!"


The stadium? No. But maybe the "0" in the 50 yard line. Oh shiat, i went there, i thought critically, sorry.
 
2011-11-28 12:44:40 PM

Bob16: Petit_Merdeux: We should just ground all our jets until there is an actual military threat.

You mean like we did on 911 when the air force "calvary" rode to the rescue in the nick of time.

Oh wait ...

The fark ups only had to get it right one time and they couldn't even manage that.

Lamest military ever.


closer than you think actually.
 
2011-11-28 12:51:27 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Do you honestly believe that the mission profile of a stadium fly by in any way resembles how bombing missions are carried out in modern combat? Do you really think that when we go to bomb a target in Afghanistan that we send a couple of F-18 directly over the target in straight line flight, wing tip to wing tip, at low speeds and low altitude?

People really need to think a bit more than just saying "Oooooh, that was kooool!"


Look, Francis, we don't fly every mission as though it were a combat mission, OK?

In real life, the type wing would get a request for a flyby and if they thought it was a good deal they would then hand it down to one of their squadrons. The CO of the squadron would call in the XO and say "Make this happen". So the XO goes to talk to the operations officer and they decide that they should find some JO* to do all of the grunt work with the flight planning and coordination with the requesting organization. In the end, LT(jg) Titwillow gets the valuable experience of coordinating all of the bits and pieces and might even get to do the flight brief as the lead pilot. That way, the XO can fly on his wing and see if he can handle shiat at this level before trusting him with something more important, like planning a strike mission for instance.

So, you see, it's not all about just flying over a stadium in terms of the training that takes place.


* JO = Junior Officer
 
2011-11-28 12:51:32 PM

rickythepenguin: Harry Freakstorm: In the MOS field, put 11B

what's the joke? is that like, "has trouble walkign and breathing at the same time?"

the navy didn't do MOS. i would all the time get asked what my MOS was. i'd be like, "uhh......sonar." "uhhh....ok, but what is your MOS?" "....uhhh.....did i not say sonar?"


11B is infantry. The rest of the joke is OSUT, which is essentially the training to be a front line foot-soldier.

/USAF
 
2011-11-28 12:51:55 PM
Less military fly-overs more Fan Man!!!

www.vegas.com


sports-venue.info
 
2011-11-28 12:54:20 PM
I agree, public money spent on entertainment should be banned immediately. I imagine that many stories of outrage about the millions wasted funding the arts, public radio and television while the 99% suffer without healthcare are being written as I type.

/one man's entertainment is anothers noise
//why yes, your talk radio is like a jet engine
///(loud and whining)
 
2011-11-28 12:55:08 PM
Didn't they used to do this only in title games? And now they're doing it for every random meaningless matchup? At least save the flyovers for games that actually mean something.
 
2011-11-28 12:56:59 PM
Those planes are in the air anyway, every day. Did some work at Duluth airport and the Military jets there were up and flying training missions apparently every day.
 
2011-11-28 12:57:20 PM
When sales lag, Coke sure as heck doesn't cut its advertising budget. This is effective marketing, pure and simple.
 
2011-11-28 12:57:20 PM

Harry Freakstorm: priapus54
As the former NCOIC of the 3544th US Air Force Recruiting Squadron (and a former aircrew member,) I'm getting a kick out of this.

// it was a pain in the ass to schedule flyovers
// but a great recruiting tool

Did you hit up the Reserves and National Guard? They were always happy to do a training mission if the event fell on their training weekend.

Got a couple of Shiathooks to do a flyover once. They flew low enough to set off car alarms. Three leaky bastards in a V formation. Their training mission for the day had the three take off, go different routes to the event, meet up, buzz the crowd, split off and land navigate back home.


My main flyover was on the 4th of July back when the Texas Rangers were in Arlington, and the paperwork for that one flyover had to be started six months in advance. We always used aircraft from active duty training bases, and I suspect funding was the main reason, not to mention the rivalry that existed (and probably still does) between the ANG, Reserves and the active duty Air Force.

I didn't care what they flew, as long as it read "US Air Force" on the side and made lots and lots of noise. I was up in the stands one year, and the formation hit the mark perfectly. As the last note of the National Anthem played, a three ship formation of T-38s flew about 150 feet over the stadium, and 44,000 people collectively shiat themselves. It was great . . .
 
2011-11-28 12:58:14 PM
CSB time...

A friend and I were driving out to Vegas from CA on a forever-straight backroad in the middle of nowhere somewhere in Nevada. My V1 radar detector started signaling a laser signal every couple minutes for no apparent reason. I mean nothing was visible, no towers, no buildings...

This goes on for about 15 minutes with the V1 going off randomly and us ignoring it. Flying along in my Subaru, well over the posted limit. (again, long, straight, flat, no cars for miles)

Suddenly a very VERY low, very fast, very loud jet streaks over top of us from behind before pulling up and peeling off. No warning, didn't hear or see a thing beforehand. We pretty much crapped ourselves. I looked at my friend and said, "I think we were just part of a training exercise... and I think we're dead."

The V1 quit going off, and we never saw the jet again after that. No clue what the deal was.

My tax dollars well spent, no sarcasm there.
 
2011-11-28 01:01:04 PM

Benucio: Flyovers... over a closed-dome stadium... nice.



Ray Charles doesn't unstand your attitude . . .
 
2011-11-28 01:23:12 PM
Because its always a good thing to have a buncha guys practicing over a stadium packed full o citizens.
 
2011-11-28 01:24:47 PM
Can't we find something real to worry about? The flyovers are in conjunction with routine training and, more importantly, are one of the best recruiting tools the military has. Kid who has never seen a fighter goes to a game, sees the flyover, gets a boner and head to the recruiters office. It happens a lot.
 
2011-11-28 01:25:50 PM

basemetal: How about helicopter flyovers, is that okay? Link (new window)


That was cool!
 
2011-11-28 01:26:16 PM

moike: CSB time...

A friend and I were driving out to Vegas from CA on a forever-straight backroad in the middle of nowhere somewhere in Nevada. My V1 radar detector started signaling a laser signal every couple minutes for no apparent reason. I mean nothing was visible, no towers, no buildings...

This goes on for about 15 minutes with the V1 going off randomly and us ignoring it. Flying along in my Subaru, well over the posted limit. (again, long, straight, flat, no cars for miles)

Suddenly a very VERY low, very fast, very loud jet streaks over top of us from behind before pulling up and peeling off. No warning, didn't hear or see a thing beforehand. We pretty much crapped ourselves. I looked at my friend and said, "I think we were just part of a training exercise... and I think we're dead."

The V1 quit going off, and we never saw the jet again after that. No clue what the deal was.

My tax dollars well spent, no sarcasm there.


This happens to me basically every year during the warm-ups for the annual Blue Angels show at Jones Beach. My neighborhood is only a few miles away from Jones Beach as the crow flies, and I always happen to be off on the Friday before Memorial Day when they warm up. Every year I about shiat my pants as they fly over and then realize what's going on 5 seconds later.
 
2011-11-28 01:26:48 PM

TopNotched: Because its always a good thing to have a buncha guys practicing over a stadium packed full o citizens.


yeah.. so they could accidentally the whole thing... with the bombs they arent carrying...
 
2011-11-28 01:26:52 PM

DON.MAC: Do not underestimate how many guys sign up because of that waste of jet fuel.
I say that as someone who knows Aussie and British guys and gals who are watching American soldiers backs.

Maybe sub-cheap-ass-mitter can explain what cost to benefit ratio is for an Irish friend who was so impressed with what she saw by the USAF that she joined the UK Intelligence wing and saved a few of their Yankee and Southern butts.


"Buzz-cut Alabamians spewing colored smoke from their whiz jets to the strains of "Rock You Like A Hurricane?" What kind of countrified rube is still impressed by that?"

2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2011-11-28 01:30:39 PM
Flyovers are paid for from the training and recruiting budget. Reserve pilots need to get a certain number of hours, and doing a flyover is much cheaper than doing something complicated like dogfight or bombing training, which requires the use of a range. There's absolutely no good reason to stop doing them.
 
2011-11-28 01:31:42 PM

TopNotched: Because its always a good thing to have a buncha guys practicing over a stadium packed full o citizens.


So you can cite a stadium fly-by that crashed into the stadium and killed the spectators, right? Otherwise your rhetorical argument is nothing but nonsense.
 
2011-11-28 01:33:37 PM
How else are they gonna make it seem interesting to watch grown men chase a ball around?
 
2011-11-28 01:33:48 PM

TopNotched: Because its always a good thing to have a buncha guys practicing over a stadium packed full o citizens.


Depends on the stadium. A crash over Oakland Coliseum would probably reduce recidivism rates in the California penal system by at least 50%.
 
2011-11-28 01:36:48 PM

PYROY: How else are they gonna make it seem interesting to watch grown men chase a ball around?


Link (new window)

IT crowd on football
 
2011-11-28 01:40:11 PM

FreakinB:
This happens to me basically every year during the warm-ups for the annual Blue Angels show at Jones Beach. My neighborhood is only a few miles away from Jones Beach as the crow flies, and I always happen to be off on the Friday before Memorial Day when they warm up. Every year I about shiat my pants as they fly over and then realize what's going on 5 seconds later.


My own CSB,

I was in Sioux Falls, SD a few summers ago for a week visiting family and the Blue Angels were in town for the airshow. Every day they'd be out practicing and you could get some great views from the bike trail that circles the town (although they block off the section up by the airport during practice). So after a couple days of this I thought it would be cool to bring my camera and try to get some shots. So as 4 of them were cutting a lazy arc in a diamond formation, I'm straddling my bike, off to the side of the trail, happily clicking away and trying to work the zoom...

I was too engrossed in what I was doing to think about the fact that the Angels are a 6-plane team, and where the hell were the other two planes?

Well, one of came screaming RIGHT OVER LEFT SHOULDER and HOLY SHIAT I THINK I NEED TO CHANGE PANTS as it was practicing the head to head run that they do where they converge low right in front of the stands. I would have dropped the camera if I hadn't had the strap around my wrist.

/CSB
 
2011-11-28 01:40:51 PM

cbackous: PYROY: How else are they gonna make it seem interesting to watch grown men chase a ball around?

Link (new window)

IT crowd on football


Heh. I remember when I was in high school, in rural Texas, we would have students carrying around our rival school's stuffed mascot with a noose around its neck (this in a town where lynchings had occurred in living memory), and go to rallies chanting that we were going to "kill the other team", but I was the one investigated for potential violence because I was quiet and liked to read.

Also, what's the deal with airline food?
 
2011-11-28 01:44:15 PM
Read the comments in the newspaper. I can see why Fark has a special Florida tag. If it didn't it would wear out the stupid tag.
 
2011-11-28 01:49:30 PM

Adolf Oliver Nipples: TopNotched: Because its always a good thing to have a buncha guys practicing over a stadium packed full o citizens.

So you can cite a stadium fly-by that crashed into the stadium and killed the spectators, right? Otherwise your rhetorical argument is nothing but nonsense.


So you're saying that just because it hasn't happened before it's not possible to happen at all?
 
2011-11-28 01:55:29 PM

More_Like_A_Stain: Adolf Oliver Nipples: TopNotched: Because its always a good thing to have a buncha guys practicing over a stadium packed full o citizens.

So you can cite a stadium fly-by that crashed into the stadium and killed the spectators, right? Otherwise your rhetorical argument is nothing but nonsense.

So you're saying that just because it hasn't happened before it's not possible to happen at all?


I'm not worried. Are you?
 
2011-11-28 02:01:08 PM

Adolf Oliver Nipples: More_Like_A_Stain: Adolf Oliver Nipples: TopNotched: Because its always a good thing to have a buncha guys practicing over a stadium packed full o citizens.

So you can cite a stadium fly-by that crashed into the stadium and killed the spectators, right? Otherwise your rhetorical argument is nothing but nonsense.

So you're saying that just because it hasn't happened before it's not possible to happen at all?

I'm not worried. Are you?


Nope. Not a sports fan. Haven't been to a stadium in years.
 
2011-11-28 02:13:13 PM

More_Like_A_Stain: Adolf Oliver Nipples: TopNotched: Because its always a good thing to have a buncha guys practicing over a stadium packed full o citizens.

So you can cite a stadium fly-by that crashed into the stadium and killed the spectators, right? Otherwise your rhetorical argument is nothing but nonsense.

So you're saying that just because it hasn't happened before it's not possible to happen at all?


To ban something on a highly-unlikely event doesn't seem to be a particularly smart way to go about things. In essence, you've now engaged in a "think of the childrens" argument.
 
2011-11-28 02:20:00 PM

Lord Dimwit: but I was the one investigated for potential violence because I was quiet and liked to read.


I was kicked out of a game for cheering when an opposing player got injured. My argument to the vice principal "hurting them is the whole point right?!" was not received well.
 
2011-11-28 02:22:30 PM

ronaprhys: More_Like_A_Stain: Adolf Oliver Nipples: TopNotched: Because its always a good thing to have a buncha guys practicing over a stadium packed full o citizens.

So you can cite a stadium fly-by that crashed into the stadium and killed the spectators, right? Otherwise your rhetorical argument is nothing but nonsense.

So you're saying that just because it hasn't happened before it's not possible to happen at all?

To ban something on a highly-unlikely event doesn't seem to be a particularly smart way to go about things. In essence, you've now engaged in a "think of the childrens" argument.


Not at all. I just think that it's a little foolhardy to think just because something hasn't happened that it can't. It's equally silly to think that just because it hasn't happened that it is inevitable. The real world lies somewhere between those two points. Please note that I did not advocate banning fly-overs at all.
 
2011-11-28 02:28:37 PM

More_Like_A_Stain: ronaprhys: More_Like_A_Stain: Adolf Oliver Nipples: TopNotched: Because its always a good thing to have a buncha guys practicing over a stadium packed full o citizens.

So you can cite a stadium fly-by that crashed into the stadium and killed the spectators, right? Otherwise your rhetorical argument is nothing but nonsense.

So you're saying that just because it hasn't happened before it's not possible to happen at all?

To ban something on a highly-unlikely event doesn't seem to be a particularly smart way to go about things. In essence, you've now engaged in a "think of the childrens" argument.

Not at all. I just think that it's a little foolhardy to think just because something hasn't happened that it can't. It's equally silly to think that just because it hasn't happened that it is inevitable. The real world lies somewhere between those two points. Please note that I did not advocate banning fly-overs at all.


I don't think anyone said that it can't happen. What happened was that you put a statement out there that strongly implied that flyovers were a bad thing due to safety concerns. When it's clearly pointed out that there hasn't been an issue you jump to "it's not possible?". That was never the point - the point was that the safety record is clearly on the side of flyovers and the danger is minimal, at best.
 
2011-11-28 02:46:12 PM

ronaprhys: More_Like_A_Stain: ronaprhys: More_Like_A_Stain: Adolf Oliver Nipples: TopNotched: Because its always a good thing to have a buncha guys practicing over a stadium packed full o citizens.

So you can cite a stadium fly-by that crashed into the stadium and killed the spectators, right? Otherwise your rhetorical argument is nothing but nonsense.

So you're saying that just because it hasn't happened before it's not possible to happen at all?

To ban something on a highly-unlikely event doesn't seem to be a particularly smart way to go about things. In essence, you've now engaged in a "think of the childrens" argument.

Not at all. I just think that it's a little foolhardy to think just because something hasn't happened that it can't. It's equally silly to think that just because it hasn't happened that it is inevitable. The real world lies somewhere between those two points. Please note that I did not advocate banning fly-overs at all.

I don't think anyone said that it can't happen. What happened was that you put a statement out there that strongly implied that flyovers were a bad thing due to safety concerns. When it's clearly pointed out that there hasn't been an issue you jump to "it's not possible?". That was never the point - the point was that the safety record is clearly on the side of flyovers and the danger is minimal, at best.


Read the bolded comment by Adolf Oliver Nipples. That is what I responded to. So you can cite a stadium fly-by that crashed into the stadium and killed the spectators, right? Otherwise your rhetorical argument is nothing but nonsense. His comment does not speak to the safety issue being minimal. It instead speaks to concern being nonsense specifically because such an event has not happened before. As if it were impossible. That is what I questioned. Yes, the record clearly shows that the safety record is unblemished. But the record alone does not rule out the possibility of failure. The Hindenburg only crashed once.
 
2011-11-28 03:21:04 PM
I want to see a dozen bombers lined up, wingtip to wingtip, do a flyover.

Call it 'Rolling Thunder 2011' or something like that...

/obscure? :p
 
2011-11-28 03:40:50 PM

Finger51: I was kicked out of a game for cheering when an opposing player got injured. My argument to the vice principal "hurting them is the whole point right?!" was not received well.


Were you a Dead Kennedys fan in high school?
 
2011-11-28 03:41:07 PM

moike: CSB time...

...

Suddenly a very VERY low, very fast, very loud jet streaks over top of us from behind before pulling up and peeling off. No warning, didn't hear or see a thing beforehand. We pretty much crapped ourselves. I looked at my friend and said, "I think we were just part of a training exercise... and I think we're dead."

...

My tax dollars well spent, no sarcasm there.


This exact thing happened to me driving on I-95 one afternoon in Florida when I was a kid. We hadn't seen another car for 20-30 minutes. I was staring out of the back windshield and saw it coming about .5 seconds before we heard it. Mom, sleeping, woke up screaming. Dad, driving, struggled to keep it between the ditches. In the end, we all thought it was awesome.
 
2011-11-28 03:43:20 PM

More_Like_A_Stain: ronaprhys: More_Like_A_Stain: ronaprhys: More_Like_A_Stain: Adolf Oliver Nipples: TopNotched: Because its always a good thing to have a buncha guys practicing over a stadium packed full o citizens.

So you can cite a stadium fly-by that crashed into the stadium and killed the spectators, right? Otherwise your rhetorical argument is nothing but nonsense.

So you're saying that just because it hasn't happened before it's not possible to happen at all?

To ban something on a highly-unlikely event doesn't seem to be a particularly smart way to go about things. In essence, you've now engaged in a "think of the childrens" argument.

Not at all. I just think that it's a little foolhardy to think just because something hasn't happened that it can't. It's equally silly to think that just because it hasn't happened that it is inevitable. The real world lies somewhere between those two points. Please note that I did not advocate banning fly-overs at all.

I don't think anyone said that it can't happen. What happened was that you put a statement out there that strongly implied that flyovers were a bad thing due to safety concerns. When it's clearly pointed out that there hasn't been an issue you jump to "it's not possible?". That was never the point - the point was that the safety record is clearly on the side of flyovers and the danger is minimal, at best.

Read the bolded comment by Adolf Oliver Nipples. That is what I responded to. So you can cite a stadium fly-by that crashed into the stadium and killed the spectators, right? Otherwise your rhetorical argument is nothing but nonsense. His comment does not speak to the safety issue being minimal. It instead speaks to concern being nonsense specifically because such an event has not happened before. As if it were impossible. That is what I questioned. Yes, the record clearly shows that the safety record is unblemished. But the record alone does not rule out the possibility of failure. The Hindenburg only crashed once.


He was responding to your clearly implied point, which is what I addressed.
 
2011-11-28 03:52:50 PM

Cajnik: Finger51: I was kicked out of a game for cheering when an opposing player got injured. My argument to the vice principal "hurting them is the whole point right?!" was not received well.

Were you a Dead Kennedys fan in high school?


'that obvious?
 
2011-11-28 04:22:55 PM

ronaprhys: More_Like_A_Stain: ronaprhys: More_Like_A_Stain: ronaprhys: More_Like_A_Stain: Adolf Oliver Nipples: TopNotched: Because its always a good thing to have a buncha guys practicing over a stadium packed full o citizens.

So you can cite a stadium fly-by that crashed into the stadium and killed the spectators, right? Otherwise your rhetorical argument is nothing but nonsense.

So you're saying that just because it hasn't happened before it's not possible to happen at all?

To ban something on a highly-unlikely event doesn't seem to be a particularly smart way to go about things. In essence, you've now engaged in a "think of the childrens" argument.

Not at all. I just think that it's a little foolhardy to think just because something hasn't happened that it can't. It's equally silly to think that just because it hasn't happened that it is inevitable. The real world lies somewhere between those two points. Please note that I did not advocate banning fly-overs at all.

I don't think anyone said that it can't happen. What happened was that you put a statement out there that strongly implied that flyovers were a bad thing due to safety concerns. When it's clearly pointed out that there hasn't been an issue you jump to "it's not possible?". That was never the point - the point was that the safety record is clearly on the side of flyovers and the danger is minimal, at best.

Read the bolded comment by Adolf Oliver Nipples. That is what I responded to. So you can cite a stadium fly-by that crashed into the stadium and killed the spectators, right? Otherwise your rhetorical argument is nothing but nonsense. His comment does not speak to the safety issue being minimal. It instead speaks to concern being nonsense specifically because such an event has not happened before. As if it were impossible. That is what I questioned. Yes, the record clearly shows that the safety record is unblemished. But the record alone does not rule out the possibility of failure. The Hindenburg only crashed once.

He was responding to your clearly implied point, which is what I addressed.


Sorry, I was responding to him. Look at it again. The order of posting was TopNotched, followed by Adolf Oliver Nipples. I then responded to AON. Lastly, you jumped in. It's all right there, all you have to do is read it. You have it backwards.
 
2011-11-28 04:42:40 PM

Finger51: Cajnik: Finger51: I was kicked out of a game for cheering when an opposing player got injured. My argument to the vice principal "hurting them is the whole point right?!" was not received well.

Were you a Dead Kennedys fan in high school?

'that obvious?


Probably not to most, just been on a DK trip lately
 
2011-11-28 04:53:55 PM
St. Augustine, FL native checking in. Grew up 40 mins south of JAX and it is probably one of the biggest pro-military towns in the US. There's a FL national guard station 20 mi to the south of JAX (camp blanding) Naval AIR STATION about 2 mins from the stadium as the C-130 Flies (NAS-JAX) Mayport Naval station and a slew of other auxiliary military fields for subs, helicopters etc.

They picked on the wrong team. The Jaguars, while poorly supported work very closely with the military and operate recruiting stations inside the stadium. They frequently have military hero segments during game breaks where they profile local guys who deliver video messages from overseas or actually get tickets to bring their families to the games. It really isn't a stretch for the Jaguars, with so much military around to find a flight crew to fly over the stadium at some outrageous cost to the taxpayers.

That being said, I remember going to a game last year sometime between thanksgiving and xmas where a service-member's family was in the end zone with mom, young son and newborn in hand watching dad (in fatigues) delivering a video message from Afghanistan. Well before he could finish his message, he ran out of the tunnel behind his family so they couldn't see him but the whole stadium could and the first thing he did was pick up his new kid which he had never seen before. Grown, obese men in skynyrd hats, wallets on chains, black jeans and a dip in the lip were balling their eyes out. As for me, it was pretty dusty that day but I held up.
 
2011-11-28 04:55:34 PM
I like the question Are they still worth it? A better question might be Were they ever worth it? it's just a public relations tool. Just hope there is never an accident.
 
2011-11-28 05:35:13 PM

Khellendros: "You're underwater in your mortgage, your car is falling apart, and your credit sucks so you can't get a new one. You shouldn't let your 4-year old drop that penny in the wishing well in the park. It shows you're not serious about saving money."

 
2011-11-28 05:52:41 PM

Cajnik: Finger51: Cajnik: Finger51: I was kicked out of a game for cheering when an opposing player got injured. My argument to the vice principal "hurting them is the whole point right?!" was not received well.

Were you a Dead Kennedys fan in high school?

'that obvious?

Probably not to most, just been on a DK trip lately


heh. I saw them at the "fabulous mabuhay gardens" back in the day (wanna say 1984 or 1985?). Had to sneak in- I was only 17. Crazy show. good times.
/csb
 
2011-11-28 06:43:21 PM
They have to log the hours in the air anyway, why not spend as many of those hours as possible giving the public a good show? I can't count the number of tree hugging hypocrites I've seen biatch about this sort of thing and then brag about all the frivolous places they've flown to all over the world. Look up how much fuel it burns to fly a 757 overseas.
 
2011-11-28 06:50:43 PM
No.

Keep the military flyovers and end the $3 billion in "aid" every year to Israel.
 
2011-11-28 07:34:17 PM

Rapmaster2000: Espertron: Link (new window)

hey don't come cheaply: It cost $36,000 for six F/A-18A Hornet fighter jets -- from the Navy's Blue Angels squadron -- to fly over the University of Phoenix Stadium before the 2008 Super Bowl [source: Robbins]. (A Blue Angels press officer told the Orlando Sentinel that the cost was worth it in order to increase the Blue Angels' and the Navy's visibility [source: Robbins].)
The cost is deducted from funds used for training, but for some special services, like the Golden Knights skydiving team, the event organizer (if it's a private organization) may have to pay for lodging, meals and transportation -- up to $3,000 a day.
The military views flyovers as promotional and recruiting opportunities for the armed services. They allow ordinary citizens to see the military up close in a way that's normally not possible.
A flyover flight actually counts as training for the pilots, but with a flyover essentially consisting of a brief flight between two points, labeling it "training" could be viewed as rather generous.

Technically, many ordinary citizens get to see the military up close. Just not American citizens.


THIS
 
2011-11-28 08:14:48 PM

Rapmaster2000: Espertron: Link (new window)

hey don't come cheaply: It cost $36,000 for six F/A-18A Hornet fighter jets -- from the Navy's Blue Angels squadron -- to fly over the University of Phoenix Stadium before the 2008 Super Bowl [source: Robbins]. (A Blue Angels press officer told the Orlando Sentinel that the cost was worth it in order to increase the Blue Angels' and the Navy's visibility [source: Robbins].)
The cost is deducted from funds used for training, but for some special services, like the Golden Knights skydiving team, the event organizer (if it's a private organization) may have to pay for lodging, meals and transportation -- up to $3,000 a day.
The military views flyovers as promotional and recruiting opportunities for the armed services. They allow ordinary citizens to see the military up close in a way that's normally not possible.
A flyover flight actually counts as training for the pilots, but with a flyover essentially consisting of a brief flight between two points, labeling it "training" could be viewed as rather generous.

Technically, many ordinary citizens get to see the military up close. Just not American citizens.


Clearly 'in a way that's normally normally possible' refers to not getting shot at.
 
2011-11-29 01:19:54 AM

o5iiawah: St. Augustine, FL native checking in. Grew up 40 mins south of JAX and it is probably one of the biggest pro-military towns in the US. There's a FL national guard station 20 mi to the south of JAX (camp blanding) Naval AIR STATION about 2 mins from the stadium as the C-130 Flies (NAS-JAX) Mayport Naval station and a slew of other auxiliary military fields for subs, helicopters etc.

They picked on the wrong team. The Jaguars, while poorly supported work very closely with the military and operate recruiting stations inside the stadium. They frequently have military hero segments during game breaks where they profile local guys who deliver video messages from overseas or actually get tickets to bring their families to the games. It really isn't a stretch for the Jaguars, with so much military around to find a flight crew to fly over the stadium at some outrageous cost to the taxpayers.


One of the booths, and some of the beer vendors are actually from local commands, who use the profits from games for their command Morale Welfare and Recreation funding. If you sell beer as a vendor, you can actually watch the game while you sell beer for free.

As for the whole flyover thing, on occasion the P-3 does flyovers for the Suns games. It's actually a pretty good deal, because the altitude is pretty much on par with a type of mission that gets flown regularly by the ancient aircraft. I expect the P-8(replacement for the P-3) won't be doing flyovers for a long time after they're transfered to the local squadrons.
 
2011-11-29 05:38:58 AM
Remember kids, it's not socialism when the US does it.
 
2011-11-29 10:14:02 AM

Coming on a Bicycle: Remember kids, it's not socialism when the US does it.


Its not socialism when the raising of taxes to support an army is an enumerated power in the constitution
 
Displayed 154 of 154 comments



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report