Is this alleged F/A 18 pilot + CFI a fake?

Thread starter here. ;) I actually already wrote this yesterday, for some reason my post however never became visible.

When I looked him up in the FAA’s airmen database, I saw that he has the ratings ASEL, AMEL, that he is IR and a CFII as well. Nothing beyond that, however.
Then again, a friend of ours is a Blackhawk pilot and CFI with the US Army: While his FAA record shows all the ratings you would expect for a helicopter CFII, the only thing which points towards his military background is his A/S-70 (Sikorsky S-70, UH-60 in the military) type rating.

My understanding is, that one would also need a type rating to fly a F/A 18. I am however not sure, whether military type ratings automatically appear in the FAA’s airmen database!?
Frankly, I would have thought that somebody with fighter jet experience could either walk straight into a corporate jet business (his career goal) or to at least not get stuck for multiple years in a low end flight school as a CFI, competing with 20 year old kids for a job as a corporate pilot!?

His jacket and sunglasses looked like this (+ a Top Gun sticker), he probably also thought that everybody would confuse him with Tom Cruise:
Tom-Cruise-Top-Gun-Bomber-Flight-Jacket.png



Anyways, I guess I started this thread mainly to share this rather amusing experience and because I was curious, but not because I wanted to get this guy into any kind of trouble. I will therefore not disclose his identity and also not post under my PoA user name, as this might give an indication of which flight school I am talking about… ;)
After getting checked out, I rented one of their crappy aircraft for a few hours. Because of multiple technical issues, I however decided to walk away from this company.
 
Velocity173 said:
And there are plenty of people who have seen "chit" who write books and do television interviews.
Click to expand...

Slippery slope.

If you're make money off having a good story, easy to fall into making it better, adding more chapters to it, etc.

Also a wee bit disrespectful to write about killing folks, I mean you're going to profit from telling stories of others deaths? It just doesn't seem 100% right IMO.
 
James331 said:
Also a wee bit disrespectful to write about killing folks, I mean you're going to profit from telling stories of others deaths? It just doesn't seem 100% right IMO.
Click to expand...
This is one of the reasons why some of the returning vets have issues adjusting to life back home. The idea that talking or writing or profiting from their experiences is somehow dishonorable or disrespectful. They don't get that from the guys they deployed with or the branch of service that trained/equipped/sent them to war. They get it from people back home that never went.

You can't say that service for your country is an honorable endeavor, and then in the next breath say that it is somehow shameful to want to share that experience. If a soldier becomes a songwriter, is his military experience off limits? Or if he paints, should he only paint things he sees at home?

People talk about what they are proud of - writers write, painters paint, singers sing - and they all make money at it. A soldier that isn't proud of what he does shouldn't be a soldier. If he's not good at what he does he's going to get the guys that depend on him hurt or killed.

...aaaand I'll stop now. Probably shouldn't get so angry at things like this.
 
Rigged4Flight said:
This is one of the reasons why some of the returning vets have issues adjusting to life back home. The idea that talking or writing or profiting from their experiences is somehow dishonorable or disrespectful. They don't get that from the guys they deployed with or the branch of service that trained/equipped/sent them to war. They get it from people back home that never went.

You can't say that service for your country is an honorable endeavor, and then in the next breath say that it is somehow shameful to want to share that experience. If a soldier becomes a songwriter, is his military experience off limits? Or if he paints, should he only paint things he sees at home?

People talk about what they are proud of - writers write, painters paint, singers sing - and they all make money at it. A soldier that isn't proud of what he does shouldn't be a soldier. If he's not good at what he does he's going to get the guys that depend on him hurt or killed.

...aaaand I'll stop now. Probably shouldn't get so angry at things like this.
Click to expand...

Meh. You do what you have to do I guess, being proud of occupying a country and killing it's people who are resisting occupation, I spose some folks may be proud of that.

Fact is the American people were not into these occupations, heck MaObama ran and won partially on getting our guys out of this chit show...twice, signing up in a post occupation/Guantano/Patrotic Act America, you should have known what you were getting into, un popular occupations, questionable millitary actions, made by less than honorable leadership, so it should not have come as a shock when your actions are not popular when you come home.

And ether way, making money off others misery is not cleaver, not honorable, and doesn't say much about the person.

You don't need to sign up for that crap to deal with death, it's not romantic, exciting or anything of the sorts, unless you're one sick SOB.

So yeah, people that like to tell their Rambo stories, I just turn my back and walk, there ether full of it (most likely), or have some major character flaw.
 
Last edited:
Rigged4Flight said:
This is one of the reasons why some of the returning vets have issues adjusting to life back home. The idea that talking or writing or profiting from their experiences is somehow dishonorable or disrespectful. They don't get that from the guys they deployed with or the branch of service that trained/equipped/sent them to war. They get it from people back home that never went.

You can't say that service for your country is an honorable endeavor, and then in the next breath say that it is somehow shameful to want to share that experience. If a soldier becomes a songwriter, is his military experience off limits? Or if he paints, should he only paint things he sees at home?

People talk about what they are proud of - writers write, painters paint, singers sing - and they all make money at it. A soldier that isn't proud of what he does shouldn't be a soldier. If he's not good at what he does he's going to get the guys that depend on him hurt or killed.

...aaaand I'll stop now. Probably shouldn't get so angry at things like this.
Click to expand...


I think the idea of Soldier as an Honorable Endevour is at the root of the issue. Soldier should never be viewed as an honorable endevour, it should be viewed as an occasionally necessary evil that must be done. There are many who believe it should never be done, and we allow for that with conscientious objector status. The Founders never intended for America to have career soldiers, and we didn't really until after WWII. We should have listened to Eisenhower, but we didn't, and we grew an industrial complex, "too big to fail" and have been suffering for it ever since.

There should be no glory in killing, even within the service the accommodations given are mostly for the people you saved, it glosses over the part where you killed 120 people to save your buddies.

When killing becomes honorable, we have real problems.
 
Being a Soldier isn't honorable...got it. Man, I knew I should have joined the Navy and become a Sailor. :mad2:
 
Last edited:
Velocity173 said:
Being a soldier isn't honorable...got it. Man, I knew I should have joined the Navy and become a sailor. :mad2:
Click to expand...
Because we tell you(and ourselves) it is honoroable, is why we can send you off to kill and die without any guilt(or thought.) See how that works?
 
Unregistered said:
Thread starter here. ;) I actually already wrote this yesterday, for some reason my post however never became visible.



When I looked him up in the FAA’s airmen database, I saw that he has the ratings ASEL, AMEL, that he is IR and a CFII as well. Nothing beyond that, however.

Then again, a friend of ours is a Blackhawk pilot and CFI with the US Army: While his FAA record shows all the ratings you would expect for a helicopter CFII, the only thing which points towards his military background is his A/S-70 (Sikorsky S-70, UH-60 in the military) type rating.



My understanding is, that one would also need a type rating to fly a F/A 18. I am however not sure, whether military type ratings automatically appear in the FAA’s airmen database!?

Frankly, I would have thought that somebody with fighter jet experience could either walk straight into a corporate jet business (his career goal) or to at least not get stuck for multiple years in a low end flight school as a CFI, competing with 20 year old kids for a job as a corporate pilot!?



His jacket and sunglasses looked like this (+ a Top Gun sticker), he probably also thought that everybody would confuse him with Tom Cruise:

Tom-Cruise-Top-Gun-Bomber-Flight-Jacket.png






Anyways, I guess I started this thread mainly to share this rather amusing experience and because I was curious, but not because I wanted to get this guy into any kind of trouble. I will therefore not disclose his identity and also not post under my PoA user name, as this might give an indication of which flight school I am talking about… ;)

After getting checked out, I rented one of their crappy aircraft for a few hours. Because of multiple technical issues, I however decided to walk away from this company.
Click to expand...


The reason your last post and this one were not visible is that you posted as unregistered an included a link (picture).
 
You probably saw a Blackhawk guy with the associated type rating because one exists....same would be true for someone in P-3s or KC/EC-135/E-3/E-6 with similar Electra or 707 ratings available. For most mil acft there is no applicable FAA type in existence so it would not be something they would have. I have no type ratings though have been qualified in multiple mil aircraft as an example
 
ClimbnSink said:
Because we tell you(and ourselves) it is honoroable, is why we can send you off to kill and die without any guilt(or thought.) See how that works?
Click to expand...

Your clip shows one person's view on his actions in war. He has issues with what he did because of his own religious or moral beliefs. For everyone of him, you'll find 10 others who don't have problems dealing with what they did. Watch the end of Korengal and you'll see that in the interviews. Even their Captain was praising his guys that they shouldn't feel guilty or ashamed about what they did during their year there. In fact you'll see one soldier who talks about all the schools, hospitals etc that were built. Our military did a lot of good in both Iraq and Afghanistan but you don't get those stories in the news because only things like Abu Ghraib attract viewers.

I think some of you are confusing honor with glory. Honor could mean that but that's not what the majority of people define when they say they served honorably. You can do something honorable by engaging in an endeavor that requires respect, not glorification. That's all that's meant in "honorable." Meaning, hey, war is ugly I know that but just give us the respect in knowing that we're doing our best and fighting a war that our elected leaders sent us to fight.

I don't equate non violence as being the only action that can be qualified as honorable either. For example, I've flown aid workers all over my region in Afghanistan ranging from agricultural / livestock education or assistance with medical issues in local villages. I'd say that's an honorable thing. I've also flown Soldiers & Sailors on offensive operations in an effort to eliminate the insurgent problem. I don't believe that's any less honorable. Without those that have the courage to engage the enemy on the ground, those aid workers can't do the job we're asking them to do. You can't have peaceful elections or women's rights. Not to mention, we were trying to protect the public from insurgents that were threating the very lifestyle of it's own people. No one in their right mind would say the Taliban is good for Afghanistan...unless you're Tali.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
I think the idea of Soldier as an Honorable Endevour is at the root of the issue. Soldier should never be viewed as an honorable endevour, it should be viewed as an occasionally necessary evil that must be done. There are many who believe it should never be done, and we allow for that with conscientious objector status. The Founders never intended for America to have career soldiers, and we didn't really until after WWII. We should have listened to Eisenhower, but we didn't, and we grew an industrial complex, "too big to fail" and have been suffering for it ever since.

There should be no glory in killing, even within the service the accommodations given are mostly for the people you saved, it glosses over the part where you killed 120 people to save your buddies.

When killing becomes honorable, we have real problems.
Click to expand...
Not killing, Henning, murder, or willful aggression. It's a GOOD thing to kill those intent on taking the life of another. It is honorable to stand up and protect another. That said, I don't believe it should be celebrated, rather it should be mourned as necessary evil. I think we'd be better off if everyone refused to make it a career choice, but until bad guys put down their weapons, one must stand prepared to engage in defense.
 
Henning said:
You misconstrued the endeavor for the person. Going to war should never be something one endeavors to do.
Click to expand...

And you're confusing endeavor with want or glorification.

Endeavor-
1. Serious determined effort
2. Activity directed toward a goal

I never wanted to go to war but it does help if one actually makes an "effort" at fighting.
 
RyanShort1 said:
Not killing, Henning, murder, or willful aggression. It's a GOOD thing to kill those intent on taking the life of another. It is honorable to stand up and protect another. That said, I don't believe it should be celebrated, rather it should be mourned as necessary evil. I think we'd be better off if everyone refused to make it a career choice, but until bad guys put down their weapons, one must stand prepared to engage in defense.
Click to expand...

Willful aggression follows intent, that is determined in why the war is being fought. If the entire basis behind the war is not honorable, then neither are any of the acts associated with it.

We were not meant to have a standing army, we were meant to have a well trained militia, much like the Swiss work it. That makes it harder for tyrannical forces in society to use force in either domestic or imperialistic fronts. War should never be entered into easily, and people need to decide for themselves whether a war is worth fighting, do economic interests in our society trump the right to live freely in another? That is the fight we are fighting, one of our economic supremacy over their right to exist as they choose.

If you feel that is okay, then you're okay. If however you are 19-20 and come to believe that your actions are injust and now you consider yourself having been duped into being a murderer, now we run into some severe problems. I can't help but wonder if this doesn't drive a good bit of the soldier/vet suicide rate.:(
 
Velocity173 said:
And you're confusing endeavor with want or glorification.

Endeavor-
1. Serious determined effort
2. Activity directed toward a goal

I never wanted to go to war but it does help if one actually makes an "effort" at fighting.
Click to expand...

But what happens when the goal is basically evil?
 
Henning said:
Willful aggression follows intent, that is determined in why the war is being fought. If the entire basis behind the war is not honorable, then neither are any of the acts associated with it.
Click to expand...
Agreed...
Henning said:
We were not meant to have a standing army, we were meant to have a well trained militia, much like the Swiss work it. That makes it harder for tyrannical forces in society to use force in either domestic or imperialistic fronts. War should never be entered into easily, and people need to decide for themselves whether a war is worth fighting, do economic interests in our society trump the right to live freely in another? That is the fight we are fighting, one of our economic supremacy over their right to exist as they choose.
Click to expand...
That's definitely what the language of the Constitution leads one to believe the Founding Fathers intended. Pretty much agree. I don't believe in provoking such wars.
Henning said:
If you feel that is okay, then you're okay. If however you are 19-20 and come to believe that your actions are injust and now you consider yourself having been duped into being a murderer, now we run into some severe problems. I can't help but wonder if this doesn't drive a good bit of the soldier/vet suicide rate.:(
Click to expand...
Yep.
 
Henning said:
But what happens when the goal is basically evil?
Click to expand...
Evil? He is helicoptering around fighting for feminism. Said so himself. Wonder if the ladies in the womyn studies program down at the local college know he is killing in their name.:sigh:
 
Velocity173 said:
Being a Soldier isn't honorable...got it. Man, I knew I should have joined the Navy and become a Sailor. :mad2:
Click to expand...
It has its perks, but everything I've heard says that QOL in the Air Force is best!

You know, the whole 'golf course before the runway' bit...
 
Henning said:
But what happens when the goal is basically evil?
Click to expand...

You mean the goal of killing aggression such as ISIS, Taliban or Al Qaeda? Unfortunately in the real world, not all conflicts with radical groups can be handled through diplomatic means.
 
Velocity173 said:
You mean the goal of killing aggression such as ISIS, Taliban or Al Qaeda? Unfortunately in the real world, not all conflicts with radical groups can be handled through diplomatic means.
Click to expand...
Which one of those three did the US / CIA not have a hand in starting / building up / etc... ? Why did we help create them?
Yeah, those are bad groups, probably worthy of being destroyed, but we are definitely culpable in their formation.
 
When I looked him up in the FAA’s airmen database, I saw that he has the ratings ASEL, AMEL, that he is IR and a CFII as well. Nothing beyond that, however.
Then again, a friend of ours is a Blackhawk pilot and CFI with the US Army: While his FAA record shows all the ratings you would expect for a helicopter CFII, the only thing which points towards his military background is his A/S-70 (Sikorsky S-70, UH-60 in the military) type rating.

My understanding is, that one would also need a type rating to fly a F/A 18. I am however not sure, whether military type ratings automatically appear in the FAA’s airmen database!?
Click to expand...

Military pilots don't necessarily even have an FAA license, it's something they have to ask for after they get their wings.

Military pilots can get a type rating on their FAA license if the FAA in fact offers a type rating for that airplane and can show the FAA that the military training is equivalent to an approved FAA type rating course.

For example, if a military C-37B pilot wants to add a Gulfstream type to his FAA license it's just a FSDO visit, because he or she probably took the Flight Safety type course as their initial C-37B training anyway.

As far as I know, there are no type ratings for any military fighters, because those airplanes are 'public use' and not FAA certified airplanes. I would not expect the average F-18 pilot to have any FAA type ratings at all.

Question for ex-military instructor pilots: Can a military IP obtain an FAA CFI certificate based on his or her military IP designation?
 
ClimbnSink said:
Evil? He is helicoptering around fighting for feminism. Said so himself. Wonder if the ladies in the womyn studies program down at the local college know he is killing in their name.:sigh:
Click to expand...

Increased women's rights was a byproduct of military action, not a mission statement. Considering the horrors that some of them went through during Taliban rule, I'd say that's a positive byproduct. If some Afghan woman no longer worries about being beaten in public as a result of our involvement, so be it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban_treatment_of_women
 
Last edited:
JimNtexas said:
Military pilots don't necessarily even have an FAA license, it's something they have to ask for after they get their wings.

Military pilots can get a type rating on their FAA license if the FAA in fact offers a type rating for that airplane and can show the FAA that the military training is equivalent to an approved FAA type rating course.

For example, if a military C-37B pilot wants to add a Gulfstream type to his FAA license it's just a FSDO visit, because he or she probably took the Flight Safety type course as their initial C-37B training anyway.

As far as I know, there are no type ratings for any military fighters, because those airplanes are 'public use' and not FAA certified airplanes. I would not expect the average F-18 pilot to have any FAA type ratings at all.

Question for ex-military instructor pilots: Can a military IP obtain an FAA CFI certificate based on his or her military IP designation?
Click to expand...

They can but they still have to take the written test (61.73G). You can also use your up chit (4186) for a class 3 now. I believe both of those changes occurred in late 2009.
 
RyanShort1 said:
Which one of those three did the US / CIA not have a hand in starting / building up / etc... ? Why did we help create them?
Yeah, those are bad groups, probably worthy of being destroyed, but we are definitely culpable in their formation.
Click to expand...
What does that have to do with an ex-soldier writing a book about his experiences in war?

That's like saying damn the cancer doctor for the brutal treatment he subjects you to after you smoke a pack a day for years. It's not the doctor's fault. Hope the doctor never writes a book about his experiences. Such a glory hound. :rolleyes2:
 
Velocity173 said:
You mean the goal of killing aggression such as ISIS, Taliban or Al Qaeda? Unfortunately in the real world, not all conflicts with radical groups can be handled through diplomatic means.
Click to expand...

It's none of our damn business, and it's not our country, there is no honor in occupying another mans land and imposing your values onto foreign
people from the muzzle of a weapon. History has shown this over and over and over and over.

If someone Afghanistan/ISIS/who ever the flavor of the week is, military was invading the US I'll bet the US people would be showing some of that "aggression".
 
Velocity173 said:
They can but they still have to take the written test (61.73G). . . those changes occurred in late 2009.
Click to expand...

And not the full up written test, just an equivalency test (far fewer questions). Reportedly passing that written, and a squadron NATOPS check pilot designation letter from the CO will get you a CFI certificate (and a similar Instrument check pilot letter will get you a CFII). Which leaves all sorts of loopholes for a lot of elder aviators (like my Dad, who has not PIC'd anything since he last flew that thing over to the left while in the Navy in '74).
 
Last edited:
RyanShort1 said:
Henning said:
We were not meant to have a standing army, we were meant to have a well trained militia, much like the Swiss work it. That makes it harder for tyrannical forces in society to use force in either domestic or imperialistic fronts. War should never be entered into easily, and people need to decide for themselves whether a war is worth fighting, do economic interests in our society trump the right to live freely in another?
Click to expand...
Agreed...

That's definitely what the language of the Constitution leads one to believe the Founding Fathers intended.
Click to expand...
And I believe that's how the average citizen interpreted it, as well. During the War of 1812, a number of militia units refused to take part in the invasion of Canada. They felt that service outside the boundaries of the US was not within permitted bounds for the militia.

Ron "Regulars, by God!" Wanttaja
 
I didn't read the entire thread, but those who have walked the walk usually don't dress themselves up. I was also in the Navy back in the 90s. "Drove" the reactor on a special ops sub. The only people who know about that are my family. And now you weirdos.
 
Velocity173 said:
You mean the goal of killing aggression such as ISIS, Taliban or Al Qaeda? Unfortunately in the real world, not all conflicts with radical groups can be handled through diplomatic means.
Click to expand...

Why are we out to kill them? Why do they want to kill us? Who started the conflict? Who invaded whose society, Gerrymandered up the land that defied the cultural boundaries that had finally formed to allow peaceful coexistence in the area, all so some oil companies could start pumping oil? Who has financed the corruption of whose society with money creating a region of tyranny where before there were tribes that had worked out a peace that had held for several centuries?

We created our enemies, now we suffer for it, that's karma on the cultural scale.

If you think there is a cultural disparity of wealth here, go to the Arab world. That's what all this is about, disparity of wealth, and it is we who brought it to them.
 
Last edited:
Ghery said:
And if the Air Force built ships...
Click to expand...

:rofl: A few years back a British carrier came up for sale at a cheap price, real cheap. A client brings me the listing and that picture and asks "What could we do this for as a first class resort?" I laughed my ass off and started putting some numbers down on basic sqft figures for an interior refit...":yikes: I could buy an island for that!":lol:
 
Velocity173 said:
You mean the goal of killing aggression such as ISIS, Taliban or Al Qaeda? Unfortunately in the real world, not all conflicts with radical groups can be handled through diplomatic means.
Click to expand...

It doesn't really matter if you use diplomacy or military, if you don't remove the cause, the symptoms will always reappear, and our presence is the cause.
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top