Can you still shoot the approach?

"Military stuff" means the ability to navigate in bad-guy land without the need for terrestrial radio navigation, and -- lately -- the ability to place a bomb precisely on the bad guys' back porch.

"Military stuff" does not mean instrument approaches. The F-15E and T-38C weren't even able to file /G or any of the related RNAV-capable conditions, much less being able to fly a GPS approach. Was the equipment theoretically capable of it? Most definitely. Military regs wouldn't allow it, regardless.
I must again question what we, the taxpayers, are paying for, when I read things like this.

When my 1950s Twin Bonanza can, at the cost of about $10,000 (ish), become IFR, RNAV, WAAS-capable down to 250-1 1/2...
 
Wait. What?!?!
That was epic. If you were the approach controller, even more epic. If that's what happened in real time (no editing) you're the man. Even with editing you're the man. Seriously, that was some quick thinking/controlling. If that was you at the end in the picture receiving an award you more than deserve it. Excellent job.

I appreciate it. It was more like 20-25 minutes from start to finish after the first go around. There were 8 people trying to figure out what to do. I was just the one behind the mic.

That's my go to example of ATC going the extra mile in tough circumstances.

Did they ever work out why they couldn't get 117.4?

Alex.

I heard two stories. One was it wasn't pre programmed, the other was the jet was a heap in general being sent either for heavy MX or a bone yard. I have no idea how valid any of those stories could be.
 
I must again question what we, the taxpayers, are paying for, when I read things like this.

When my 1950s Twin Bonanza can, at the cost of about $10,000 (ish), become IFR, RNAV, WAAS-capable down to 250-1 1/2...

It's not just military. Your plane can do gps approaches a ups 757 can't do. At least I can do an autoland.
 
I must again question what we, the taxpayers, are paying for, when I read things like this.

When my 1950s Twin Bonanza can, at the cost of about $10,000 (ish), become IFR, RNAV, WAAS-capable down to 250-1 1/2...

I think you're paying for "the ability to navigate in bad-guy land without the need for terrestrial radio navigation, and -- lately -- the ability to place a bomb precisely on the bad guys' back porch."
 
Last edited:
I must again question what we, the taxpayers, are paying for, when I read things like this.

You are paying for combat airpower, which does not run on WAAS.

When you can drop a single bomb to a 30-foot circular error of probability, that's where your money is going.

That may seem "ho hum", but that's because you are of a generation that has been sold the idea of "surgical strikes" and "precision weapons."

You would think differently if you'd lived through a war where "carpet bombing" was the standard...or a war where the city of Dresden was burned to the ground as a tactic.

In Vietnam, combat fighter units had a 50% loss/shootdown rate. You can count on one hand how many USAF pilots have been shot down in the last 15 years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Seems like money well spent to me.
 
Last edited:
You are paying for combat airpower, which does not run on WAAS.

When you can drop a single bomb to a 30-foot circular error of probability, that's where your money is going.

That may seem "ho hum", but that's because you are of a generation that has been sold the idea of "surgical strikes" and "precision weapons."
My own personal views on GWOT aside (I'm surprisingly comfortable with collateral damage, which for a liberal, is an odd position), I do think that the CEP is pretty impressive. I was never really "sold" on "surgical war." The point of war is (and has been, since WWII illustrated it dramatically at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and possibly since even before that, to the time of Master Sun) to break the opposing population through whichever means necessary.

Leaving WAAS out of it, I'm merely surprised at how modern warplanes are equipped for "admin" flying, is all.
 
Back
Top