UnderOveur

I agree. I loved the flyovers too, and have always heard from experienced folks that they were highly beneficial to the aircrews who flew them.

And yes, certain voices in this forum most definitely have an political axe to grind re: this topic.

jungle

Good news gentlemen, all the kabuki about cuts matters not!

"Today is the day when an unprecedented $85 billion spending cuts will be sequestered, unleashing famine, pestilence, the apocalypse and grizzly bears (as all park rangers will be dead from starvation). Which is why we applaud the administration's desire to preempt this tragic for the nation outcome, by issuing, in one day alone: February 28, $80 billion in Treasurys sending debt to (obviously) what is a new all time high $16,687,289,180,215.37.

In other words, the entire apocalyptic impact of the sequester for 2013 was offset by one day's debt issuance."


Bravo, now see how easy that was, it only took one day.

Snarge

Chant with me! USA! USA! USA! USA #1!

Nextlife

Bravado and perfectionism is what makes aircrews strive to be better. It's what makes us better than any other flying force in the world. (and yes I've flown agains the Israelis and most European AF's) I could care less what anyone other than my squadron mates (and myself) think about my tactical ability in the jet. Not "messing this stuff up" in the minds of the people that matter (the guys I go to war with) is a HUGE motivator. And it does only benefit a few, who else other than the four pilots, or one crew, etc. is flying training supposed to benefit? I get that the image of flyovers are a waste, so agree that we should cancel them for the time being, but saying they have no value is short sighted and uninformed.

Just one tactical aviator's two cents.

Spur

Perspective:

The Blues total annual budget is 1/2 that of the Superbowl ads.

One hour on AF1 would pay for 2 airshows.

I know which One I would ground.

Blue Angels - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Super Bowl advertising - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

rickair7777

Common sense should be somewhat universal.



They are not any more expensive than if they took the same budgeted flight hours and flew them somewhere else. But since they could easily lead a casual observer to assume it's a waste off money, it only makes sense to stop for the time being.

Self-aggrandizing? Well it is a marketing effort, so maybe if you twist some adverbs around you could paint it is a self-aggrandizing.

The "MIL" we are talking about (individual airplanes, operators, and squadrons are not part of the MIC.

The MIC is certainly a legit concern, and requires constant vigilance to restrain. But the MIC is made up of corporations and political leaders (maybe a tiny handful of very senior military officers are peripherally involved). Remember, the military leaders who actually make large-scale funding decisions are elected or appointed civilians. That major or captain doing the flyover wasn't the guy who contracted with Lock-Mart to provide his airplane.

From the military perspective, a stadium full of 100,000 people is a prime opportunity to get some positive exposure towards recruiting. I doubt the corporation benefits very much...the flyover is not the reason all those people bought tickets. The military is taking advantage of an opportunity to reach out to a big crowd (provided by the corporation), not vice versa.

Another example: Movies. When the DoD allows it's hardware to participate in movie making 1) The movie has to have recruiting value and 2) the film-maker pays the cost...all of it.

Like we keep saying, flyover money is not "extra" money...it's going to be spent on flight hours anyway. IMO it would be worth the cost of the flight time just for the recruiting benefit.

Honestly, you have a seriously warped perspective about the realities of government, the military, and finance. I'm no apologist for what's wrong with the system, but your attitudes border on tin-foil hat conspiracy theories. Your problem here is that you're debating with a bunch of folks who have years (decades) of experience and perspective on these issues from both from the inside and outside. There are probably forums elsewhere where your highly simplified outlook would be welcomed with open arms. This forum is not kindergarten (maybe junior high school, but not kindergarten).

Snarge

Al-Queda has tactical jets?

It isn't that flyovers don't have training value... it is that as a country, we actually value other things ..... more.

note the Marine reply.... I asked would you want to save lives and violence to stop MIL rape and suicides or have flyovers.... his reply ... flyovers...

Moby Dick

Come on, rick. Quantify how many people ran out to the recruiting office after they saw a stadium flyover.

Or the Blues...or the Tbirds.

Flight demo teams should have been abandoned after the accident where the 4 Tbirds were killed practicing in the desert.

Snarge

why choose?

Moby Dick

P.S. Using T-38s or A-4s (essentially training airplanes) for flight demo teams is way preferable than using current tactical assets like Vipers or Hornets. There's 12-14 airframes that belong in the fleet.

The Snowbirds and Red Arrows use trainers and I submit their shows are as good as ours.