Outing a Walt!

[An Teallach]

Why the need to prick his bubble?

Jeez, Flap62

I'm glad you didn't use that terminology on the Gay Pride? thread!

[5 Forward 6 Back]

"I think all people who are going to give orders should experience being commanded first"

But surely as a Fg Off she'd be ordered by enough senior officers to gain experience of it....?

Seems a bit of a bizarre route to a commission if that's the end result. If you have no interest in the job, fine, but why invent your own route there if you do?

[Rakshasa]

True but Jr Off isn't quite the same as being... to use an americanism, enlisted.

Mind you, I'll admit, if I'd been more up for driving I'd probably have gone the DE route myself.

[allan907]

Further to the post by Pontious...when I was OC PSF at Honington (many, many, many moons ago) I had 2 SACs in the General Office. Both had degrees! Tried to persuade one to go for a commission; the other was a complete nerd and I suspect would have been happiest habitating a hole in the ground somewhere.

[Daedal_oz]

Masters of the airspace. As much as I enjoy picking at your foibles (flying suits when not flying etc) I actually need some help.

Test his technical knowledge: just ask him what the relationship between the thronomister and sphetzner valve is.

[stellair]

Ask him which engine is the critical engine on his twin, if he says the starboard engine he's talking **** as props rotate clockwise when viewed from behind on western aircraft types. If he says neither engine, ask him why as aircraft with counter rotating props have no critical engine. If he correctly answers the port engine probe him further by asking him why the left engine is critical and what happens if it fails at lower speeds such as just after take off, maybe then ask him explain asymetric blade effect. If he stumbles on any of this chances are he's blagging as all multi piston/turboprop pilots will know this subject back to front, our lives depend upon it in the event of a low speed engine failure!

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

"the other was a complete nerd and I suspect would have been happiest habitating a hole in the ground somewhere."

Sounds like the perfect candidate for the post of OC Admin to me

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[Onan the Clumsy]

as aircraft with counter rotating props have no critical engine.

apart from the P38 of course where both engines are critical



or


Q) Which is the critical engine

A) The female one of course





regarding the term Walt, in the States, I have heard it quoted that you need to meet four, count them, four hundred people who say they were Special Forces before you find one who actually was


...and when you do meet him, don't make the mistake that I did and ask him if Special forces is anything like Special Ed

[TOPBUNKER]

Bolleaux

"Ask him which engine is the critical engine on his twin, if he says the starboard engine he's talking **** as props rotate clockwise when viewed from behind on western aircraft types. If he says neither engine, ask him why as aircraft with counter rotating props have no critical engine. If he correctly answers the port engine probe him further by asking him why the left engine is critical and what happens if it fails at lower speeds such as just after take off, maybe then ask him explain asymetric blade effect. If he stumbles on any of this chances are he's blagging as all multi piston/turboprop pilots will know this subject back to front, our lives depend upon it in the event of a low speed engine failure! "


... What complete bolleaux.

A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

It is perfectly possible for an aircraft to be certified for a left-hand engine to be 'critical' for aileron control (for instance) and the right-hand engine to be ' critical' for rudder control... and vice versa. The engines' "criticality" varying with airspeed and configuration.

For engine also read propellor.

[allan907]

And the purpose of ABIWs irrational, prejudiced, inaccurate and pointless nasty little post which serves neither to enlighten nor to advance the discussion on this thread is.....?????

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

As you seldom fail to post without pointing out your past rank/appt it was aimed at getting a rise out of you sir..............seems to have worked nicely don't you think

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[Jobza Guddun]

Quote:

Walt = Walter Mitty, a character in a novel by James Thurber.

Thanks for clarifying that. I thought it might have meant What A Lying Tw@t.

Cheers Jobza

[John Eacott]

Stellair,

Flown a Seneca recently? Opposite rotation engines, which one would you choose

[allan907]

ABIW Point taken. However, I think your post says more about you and the particular chip on your shoulder than it says about me. I really enjoyed my 30 years as a 'blunty'; got on extremely well with a goodly percentage of the sharp end; and am now a pilot myself. Funny old world isn't it??

[Dan Winterland]

Sounds like this Walt is not in a position of responsibility, and the level of his'bullsh!t' is fairly low grade. From my experience, Walts who are in a position of responsibility are a potential risk. Here's some of the cases I've known.

A pilot who was a complete bullsh!tter. He was unaware of his limitations bth in his general life and in the air. He crashed an aircraft.

A pilot in a UK charter company who had a fairly impressive logbook from his days in the RAF. Only that when he went for a command in the company and his logbook was put under more scrutiny, it turned out he was actually an Air Trafficker, his logbook was pure fabrication and he didn't have anything like the hours he said he had.

An OC Accounts (a true Walt and master bullsh!tter) who was giving me grief over a paperwork irregularity in an imprest. He was soon after fond to have helped himself to a hundred thousand US dollars from the staion safe.

In my experience, Walts are a liability. A bit of 'experience ellaboration' isn't a crime, but it can lead to other things.

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

Dear Sir,

After my 31 years of loyal service I have often found that my "Baldrick" sense of humour, sometimes confused with sarcasm and cynacism, has on numerous occasions proved far too effective for those it was aimed at

A standard "Royal" counter of "should have done better at school" or the "chip" thing just serves to prove that all the education in the world does not provide some "clever" folks with the ability to out banter us commoners

Now in keeping with this thread abour WALTS........."I really enjoyed my 30 years as a 'blunty'; got on extremely well with a goodly percentage of the sharp end; and am now a pilot myself."

PILOT.......Oh really, pull the other one Mr Mitty

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[allan907]

ABIW The world is far too nasty a place for intelligent human beings, both of whom were/are part of one of the best teams in the world to conduct a pointless spat (no, it’s not banter) in a public medium. We both chose our career paths from (probably) the very same beginnings. Each of those paths has as much validity as the other. The key word is, was, and hopefully ever will be, TEAMWORK.

Although now living in a country a long way away I nevertheless salute the work that you are currently doing, particularly in support of what appears to be an increasingly fraught scenario in the middle east. I am also sympathetic with the stresses and strains of the modern day RAF which perhaps exacerbate some of the ‘blunty vs sharp end’ and ‘officer vs airmen’ – or even ‘movers vs loadies’ arguments that I read about on Pprune. It’s a shame. The team is about doing the one job that, hopefully, you love – misguided prejudice should not cloud the issue.

As I said previously, I enjoyed my time in the RAF and lived every minute of it. Nevertheless, I did not regret leaving when I did and I consider that the days of the 100,000+ RAF were, perhaps, some of the better years. I was proud at what I achieved, as you should also be proud of what you have achieved. I desperately would have liked to have been aircrew when I was in; you made it. Fortunately, I am now in a position where I can fly and my work for the company enables me to fly in some fairly challenging circumstances. I hope that you are as fortunate when you finally leave the RAF.

[Stax]

Walt

Gents

Thanks for your input (although contra and counter rotating propellers was getting a tad heavy!) My Walt has hoisted himself by his own petard and has crashed and burned! Unfortunatley I really can't go into details as involves an offence. The reason I don't like Walt's in the service is that gradually their lies start to blend into their own slant on reality and they can, and do, cause morale problems within the flight or section.

VP8, I can assure you there is no greenery involved in this thread, I am quite content to be bussed around by those magnificent men in green growbags. I did at one time a qualify as a provisional Glider pilot at 631 GS at Sealand when I was a small space cadet, it was fun but it didn't grip me. However I didn't turn it into a Gold C/soaring certificate/marathon round the world glider record holder story. I much prefer to get pi55ed and 5hag!

[PPRuNeUser0172]

I know, put him in a big tub of water and If he can walk on it, he is clearly a pilot, if he sinks then he is a witch and should be burnt.

Totally agree on your point about bullsh!t baffling brain and people confusing fact and fiction though. Nice to know that it all came out in the wash......

Regards

[6Z3]

Actually if he S(t)inks he's a submariner, in which case there's a good chance he'll combust spontaneously.