Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
EU Set To Regulate Military Aircraft Emissions  
User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3763 times:

Originally, military aircraft were to be exempt from carbon emissions scheme(s). Now, this no longer appears to be the case.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...e-combat-aircraft-emissions-04214/

Quote:
Aviation Week's Ares reports that The European Parliament will vote on including military aviation in the EU's greenhouse gas emission trading scheme (ETS) during its plenary session in Strasbourg, France, this week. Military aircraft were not originally included, but an amendment to the draft legislation calls for flights performed by military aircraft to be included in the ETS unless they are "part of an international mission."
If the aircraft are included, the cost of purchasing emissions credits would be added to the price of training flights and other military activities – presumably including local disaster relief, unless this too was exempted.

Presumably, this will exempt aircraft supporting the NATO effort in Afghanistan, as well as Kosovo and USAF's flights back and forth from Iraq. IMO most worrisome, in the short term, would be training.

I don't follow EU politics very closely, but does this thing have a chance of passing?


"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
34 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinePADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3761 times:

The EU is probably greatest thing since the invention of sliced bread, but sometimes they go over board with it. A few years ago they tried to standardize the curvature of a banana (no joke!). I don't think this will go through, probably an initiative of some of the green/leftist parties in the EU parliament ...

[Edited 2007-11-13 04:15:40]

User currently offlineWingman From Seychelles, joined May 1999, 2267 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3741 times:

Actually, they tried to flatten the curvature of bananas so that that the lefties could slip them into fighter jet tail pipes. This was to prevent military carbon emissions altogether.

User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 3, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3738 times:



Quoting PADSpot (Reply 1):
The EU is probably greatest thing since the invention of sliced bread, but sometimes they go over board with it. A few years ago they tried to standardize the curvature of a banana (no joke!). I don't think this will go through, probably an initiative of some of the green/leftist parties in the EU parliament ...

I guess you have seen the Yes Minister episode about the Eurosausage? It was Hackers splendid handling of that tricky problem was a critical factor in Hacker's promotion to PM as I recall.

Some targets about smoke emission and noise levels in non-afterburner would seem reasonable. Certain planes are much more smoky than they need be.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 4, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 3736 times:



Quoting Lumberton (Thread starter):
Originally, military aircraft were to be exempt from carbon emissions scheme(s). Now, this no longer appears to be the case.

First, the EU Parliament does not have the authority to legislate military aircraft owned by other nations, like the US, even those operating in European airspace. The international agreements muct include the agreement of the owner nation, and these agreements are regulated by the ICAO (UN). All of the member states within the EU are members of ICAO, therefore these nations already have an agreement.

So, military aircraft will continue to be exempt from "greenie schemes" like this one.

The European Parliament can do what it wants, but what ever it passes in this area is a waste of paper and ink.


User currently offlinePADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3717 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):


That misses the point and you seem to be unaware of how the EU works.

EU nations have delegated their legislative supremacy to the EU in some areas. Defense and security issues do not (yet) belong to those areas. The exemptions from law that foreign forces enjoy in NATO countries are explicitly (not in a comprehensive or subsuming manner) regulated by the NATO Statute and the related contracts. These are clearly part of defense and security domain and therewith the business of each single nation. And therewith there is no institution on EU level that could have an impact on those treaties (if not wanted by the respective member).

But in the areas where it is responsible, EU law breaks national law in its final consequences. And if foreign forces are not explicitly taken out of environmental regulations (which are part of the EU's legislative authority) then foreign forces will have to obey what is ratified on a EU level. And if that means that foreign could not fly anymore within the EU then they couldn't fly.

However, this discussion is theoretical because the EU would not (and cannot) decide against two thirds of its member states which are also NATO members. There is also more than one way to block such decisions for example through the Ministerial Council or a full scale government conference.

[Edited 2007-11-13 08:02:46]

User currently offlineEBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3704 times:



Quoting PADSpot (Reply 5):
However, this discussion is theoretical because the EU would not (and cannot) decide against two thirds of its member states which are also NATO members. There is also more than one way to block such decisions for example through the Ministerial Council or a full scale government conference.

In other words, trying to get military aircraft to be more environmentally friendly is a nice idea, but that's about as far as this is likely to go. There's nothing wrong with a good idea, as long as its broader impact is studied too. These folks don't seem to have looked at the much larger picture.



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlinePADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3703 times:



Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 6):
In other words, trying to get military aircraft to be more environmentally friendly is a nice idea, but that's about as far as this is likely to go. There's nothing wrong with a good idea, as long as its broader impact is studied too. These folks don't seem to have looked at the much larger picture.

 checkmark  I could not put it shorter!  Smile


User currently offlineF27Friendship From Netherlands, joined Jul 2007, 1125 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3662 times:



Quoting Lumberton (Thread starter):
I don't follow EU politics very closely, but does this thing have a chance of passing?

I hope note! This is getting too far!

Quoting Wingman (Reply 2):
Actually, they tried to flatten the curvature of bananas so that that the lefties could slip them into fighter jet tail pipes. This was to prevent military carbon emissions altogether.

Good one! Big grin

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
So, military aircraft will continue to be exempt from "greenie schemes" like this one.

I think we have to thank a certain former US Vice-President for this madness. Sure, we should take care of the environment, but heavens: CO2! Next thing they'll ask us to breathe less!


User currently offlineBuyantUkhaa From Mongolia, joined May 2004, 2899 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3661 times:



Quoting Wingman (Reply 2):
Actually, they tried to flatten the curvature of bananas so that that the lefties could slip them into fighter jet tail pipes. This was to prevent military carbon emissions altogether.

 rotfl 



I scratch my head, therefore I am.
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 14027 posts, RR: 62
Reply 10, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3623 times:



Quoting Wingman (Reply 2):
Actually, they tried to flatten the curvature of bananas so that that the lefties could slip them into fighter jet tail pipes. This was to prevent military carbon emissions altogether.

Hmmm, banana fritter with vanilla ice cream!  yummy 

Jan


User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7957 posts, RR: 12
Reply 11, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3623 times:



Quoting PADSpot (Reply 1):
A few years ago they tried to standardize the curvature of a banana (no joke!).

Actually, that's an urban myth.
Daft talk from the regular's table and nothing more.



I support the right to arm bears
User currently offlineWrighbrothers From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2005, 1875 posts, RR: 9
Reply 12, posted (6 years 8 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 3323 times:

Well, it's not just aircrafts, it's vehicles (Land Rovers, troop transporters) APCs and tanks aswell, so this affects the land Army too.

There's another brilliant law that says vehicles (including military) cannot have sideward facing seats.
This means that we cannot travel in our famous 'Four tonner' troop trucks (if you don't know what one looks like, imagine a small lorry used to carry cargo) which have the old style wooden benches that are in the centre and face outwards to either side..
Because the vehicles also now have to have seat belts, not only must the seats face forwards, but must have seat belts. Now, anyone who has ever worn full combat gear, with your bergan, webbing and rifle on you, will know that you simply cannot fit in a normal seat because you're about twice as wide as you usually are, and so not only do you have the inconvenience of having to stand up, turn around while everyone else is doing the same thing and is equally wide and bundle down an aircraft size isle out the back, but also can't fit tin the damn seat !
This simply doesn't work and means everyone wastes time smashing into each other and swearing because 16 men have to go one at a time down a thin isle between the 2 X 2 (two seats - Isle - two seats) seats.

Now, because the Four Tonner trucks are extremely old (usually older than the people being transported in them), they don't meet these new requirements and the MoD is not willing to pay to have new seats fitted to the majority of the fleet (although some will get new forward facing, seatbelted seats) ans so we have to put up with getting, and I kid you not, to training areas, on white civilian minibuses or coaches.
Decide for yourself how this affects morale, you now jump into a training ground with your face all camouflaged up and rifles ready to go....in a white coach that usually transports old people on trips to the sea-sdie.


There is thankfully one exemption to the rule, and that is those Land Rovers and Four tonners on operations (Iraq, Afghanistan etc) because I kid you not, having such time wasting would cost lives.
Wrighbrothers



Always stand up for what is right, even if it means standing alone..
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 14027 posts, RR: 62
Reply 13, posted (6 years 8 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 3310 times:



Quoting Wrighbrothers (Reply 12):
There is thankfully one exemption to the rule, and that is those Land Rovers and Four tonners on operations (Iraq, Afghanistan etc) because I kid you not, having such time wasting would cost lives.
Wrighbrothers

The Bundeswehr soldiers in Afghanistan complained that they have to follow rules in the field, which were designed for garisson duty in Germany, e.g. vehicles were pulled out of service because the annual emission test expired and there was no equipment and personnel in Afghanistan to renew it. So the soldiers had to patrol on foot because their armoured vehicle was not allowed to be used due to one "expiry" sticker.
Or they had to strictly seperate paper, plastics, metal etc. in their camps, as per German waste disposal rules (the Afghan rubbish collector just dumped everything in the same landfill outside the camp).
Military bureaucracy at it's finest.

Jan


User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16872 posts, RR: 51
Reply 14, posted (6 years 8 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 3298 times:

If this goes through I would look for more NATO nations to do their training in Canada at Cold Lake or Nellis and Holloman AFB in the US.


Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 15, posted (6 years 8 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 3296 times:



Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 8):
I think we have to thank a certain former US Vice-President for this madness. Sure, we should take care of the environment, but heavens: CO2! Next thing they'll ask us to breathe less!

That just goes to prove that US Politicians are just as stupid as EU Politicians. When VP Gore was "just" a Senator from TN, that Congress passed a bill authorizing the study of the sexual habits of the common house fly.  ashamed 

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 11):
Actually, that's an urban myth.

But, it sounded good. Don't give up, someone may propose it yet.  bigthumbsup 


User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7957 posts, RR: 12
Reply 16, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3217 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 15):
But, it sounded good. Don't give up, someone may propose it yet.

The origin of this myth can be traced back to a German politician, Mr. Westerwelle, who said that citizens won't embrace the European Union if officials contemplate over the curvature of bananas and try to press the curvature into a norm.
Westerwelle shouldn't be taken too seriously anyway, but quite a number of people took this for real.

What promoted the myth was that there does exist a norm on the curvature of Class 1 pickles. But this norm was introduced after pressure of the industry. Before that, almost each member country had a norm of its own. Class 1 pickles from the Netherlands had a different shape than those from Britain, Italy or Germany. As a result, pickles from say Germany were clogging up automated slicers in say Britain, and only 5 say: Italian Class 1 pickles fit into a 500g jar, whereas you could put i.e. 7 British Class 1 pickles in it. Hence the industry (most noteably the British!) pressed the EU to replace the wide variety of Class 1 rulings with one single norm valid for the entire Union. After they complied to the request, one - well: British - newspaper wrote that cucumbers "must not grow bent in the EU" (they can, only they are then Class 2), and people (most noteably the British) got hirewire over the "overboarding bureaucracy in Brussel", since they have replaced a dozen or so regulations with only one.  Yeah sure



I support the right to arm bears
User currently onlineTheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3602 posts, RR: 29
Reply 17, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 3199 times:



Quoting NoUFO (Reply 16):

Very well summarized. The EU is bashed for everything, even if it does something good. In fact, what makes the EU strong is the fact that we have a functioning rule of law. EC legislation gets enforced by courts, and this actually helps competition in the european union for the benefit of everyone.

Otherwise, one should relax: There won't be Eurofighter bans just because it is as loud as concorde... I doubt this legislation will really change anything. Nevertheless, I do think that military trucks have to obey emission standards when only used in the EU, if this is no threat to their suitability for combat...


User currently offlineStealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5697 posts, RR: 44
Reply 18, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 3134 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Lumberton (Thread starter):
unless they are "part of an international mission."

I guess that would include attack or invasion of another nation!!



If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 18
Reply 19, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3034 times:



Quoting PADSpot (Reply 5):
However, this discussion is theoretical because the EU would not (and cannot) decide against two thirds of its member states which are also NATO members.

Wrong. Once that blighted EU constitution gets through (however they now call it), which is going through against the will of the people in pretty much every country, Brussels can decide whatever it likes and it's automatically law in all countries with no national ratification required.
And Brussels will be able to pass anything it likes because there's no more majority of countries' representatives required to vote for something.
Effectively if the German, French, and one other (there are other combinations of 4 countries) vote for something it will automatically be law in every country in the EU.
This includes votes on allowing countries to leave the EU, making it essentially impossible to leave as only 3 or 4 countries have to vote against you leaving and you're not allowed to.



I wish I were flying
User currently onlineTheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3602 posts, RR: 29
Reply 20, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 3016 times:



Quoting Jwenting (Reply 19):
Brussels can decide whatever it likes and it's automatically law in all countries with no national ratification required.

Wrong. Brussels is only allowed to rule in areas which it is given competences. The fact that the European court of Justice tends to be very wide does not change this.

Quoting Jwenting (Reply 19):
Effectively if the German, French, and one other (there are other combinations of 4 countries) vote for something it will automatically be law in every country in the EU.

Wrong again. The practical reality is different. EC works by consensus, and this will not be changed by the new EC legislation. BTW, norway is forced to adopt every law the EC adepts anyway, as they otherwise could not sell their goods in the EC.

I am sick and tired of all this stupid EC bashing. So far, EC has been a constant success, something many fail to acknowledge, as the benefits cannot be seen directly. However, the result was increased wealth for everyone. The new treaty is just a necessary step to keep the EC able to be working, as the current system is not able to cope with so many member states, as it was designed for 6 states.


User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 18
Reply 21, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2980 times:



Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 20):
Wrong. Brussels is only allowed to rule in areas which it is given competences. The fact that the European court of Justice tends to be very wide does not change this.

Wrong. Under the new rules they'll be given near universal power in all member states. And that power will go to a body that's not even elected.

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 20):
EC has been a constant success, something many fail to acknowledge, as the benefits cannot be seen directly. However, the result was increased wealth for everyone.

Wrong. It's been a success for French farmers and a lot of politicians and other kleptocrats.
For most others it's mainly meant paying a lot more for things than they would otherwise have to do to cover the cost of running the whole circus.

And now we're all being turned into peons of the French and German governments, not much better than the Russian kulaks under the Czars.

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 20):
as it was designed for 6 states.

It was also designed for small scale economic cooperation, not to be a supernational government that replaces national authority in the member states at almost every level.

Individual US states are more independent than EU member nations will be under the new rules, a very scary thought for what are supposed to be independent countries enrolled in an economic cooperation system rather than colonies of some powerful neighbours.



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineCurt22 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 335 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 2964 times:



Quoting Jwenting (Reply 21):
Individual US states are more independent than EU member nations will be under the new rules, a very scary thought for what are supposed to be independent countries enrolled in an economic cooperation system rather than colonies of some powerful neighbours.

I'm not at all sure I understand why the many old, proud and stable nations of Europe find what appears to be a very powerful and very suppressive "Uber-Government" that asserts it's will over all these sovereign nations is a GOOD idea for them.

Does this "EU Govt" actually have some measure of enforcement powers over it's member states?

Perhaps such an alliance would be good for newly formed or newly liberated nations that have neither the economic or political power to assert themselves, but I don't see how such a union is helpful to the "old school" powerhouses of Europe.


User currently onlineTheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3602 posts, RR: 29
Reply 23, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2954 times:



Quoting Jwenting (Reply 21):

Wrong. Under the new rules they'll be given near universal power in all member states. And that power will go to a body that's not even elected.

Totally wrong. Read the treaty before stating such crap. The new treaty changes the decision making process, while not giving the EU the Kompetenz-Kompetenz about its competences.

Quoting Jwenting (Reply 21):

Wrong. It's been a success for French farmers and a lot of politicians and other kleptocrats.
For most others it's mainly meant paying a lot more for things than they would otherwise have to do to cover the cost of running the whole circus.

Wrong again. Or what would the dutch economy say if their trucks weren't allowed to drive through Germany? Besides, why did Denmark and the UK join in 1972? Because EFTA proved to be much less succesful and economically beneficiary than the EC.


User currently onlineTheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3602 posts, RR: 29
Reply 24, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2952 times:



Quoting Curt22 (Reply 22):
Does this "EU Govt" actually have some measure of enforcement powers over it's member states?

Yes and no. They have a very strong legal power, but they could not force a state to obey a ruling by sending tanks to the country. The EC has no army, no police officers, and only few own staff.

They have, however, a very strong legal influence. The European Court of Justice has ruled that EC legislation is directly applicable in all member states, with other words, a regulation the EC has adopted WITHIN its competence (which is stated in the treaty) is directly binding not only all states but also the members within the state.

The fields where the EC is allowed to rule are defined in the EC treaty, and the EC is bound to the limited powers principle. This will be retained in the new treaty.

However, and in this point I partly have to agree with Jwenting, since the EC has lots of powers for the regulation of the internal market, there are lots of measures which directly, or indirectly can affect the internal market. Thus, the EC has to be given implied powers in order to make the internal market working. These implied powers are not written in the treaty, the European Court of Justice has largely created them, in a very innovative way of jurisdiction.

This can be criticized, as the European Court is too community friendly. But if it goes too far, the national courts actually can get rather critical. For example, the Federal German Constitutional Court has ruled on this issue several times, and has also stressed that there are limits for the EC supremacy.


This discussion could lead very far, but I will give you a short answer on your question now:

Quoting Curt22 (Reply 22):
Does this "EU Govt" actually have some measure of enforcement powers over it's member states?

The EC has different institutions. The adminstrative branch is taken by the Commission, which can be called the government of the EC. It controls whether member states accept the EC legislation, for example checking subsidies. A member state can violate the EC treaty in many ways. Making discriminative laws, forbidding foreign products and the like, or simply adminstrating the law in a wrong way.

If the commission finds that a member states violates the treaty (or better said, thinks the member state is doing so), it can sue the member state before the European Court, which then votes on the issue, whether the national provision was legal or not.

If the court finds the state has violated the treaty, it rules so, and the member state must adhere to the ruling.

In reality, the member state always accepts the ruling. Just to give you one example: A french brewery wants to sell their beer in Germany (the treaty allows that). Germany denies that, because of the German purity law on beer. The commission believes this law is an infringement of the treaty (which it is), and brings it before the court, which rules in favour of the commission.

If germany still does not allow the beer to be sold, the french brewery can go before German courts, which rule that Germany must pay compensation.

Since Germany has a functioning divistion of the three powers, the german administration MUST listen to the court, which will rule in accordance with the European court of justice. The german court can otherwise force the administration to accept the ruling.


So you see, while the EU is very weak in terms of administrative power, it has a very good functioning legal framework. This is what makes it so strong.


25 NoUFO : Absolutely correct. And if more than half of the member states have any objections against any law imposed by the EU, the ruling in question goes bac
26 Curt22 : Good example, but I must say it may speak volumes to the real motives of such a union in the first place....GREED! The EU gives smaller, weaker (poli
27 Post contains images TheSonntag : Funny to hear this from an US citizen . You could also call it freedom and liberalism I would say it is a win-win situation. Economic benefit for all
28 NoUFO : An open market is a synonym for greed? Yes we can, but not to protect our market from compeition. Protectionism != Freedom Without protectionism, I h
29 TheSonntag : Very true. You see this especially in the car market. French brands dominate in France, while in Germany, there are only German cars in the top-10 of
30 Curt22 : Thanks for your feedback...brings back memories of the good old days talking about politics (and everything else) in the local gasthaus when I was st
31 TheSonntag : Communism? How is a free-trade zone with standardisation communism? The EC creates a bigger market, leading to a fair competition between the member
32 Glideslope : EU= George Orwell. Hide your books. They could be used to rebut initiatives.
33 NoUFO : Neither does the EU promote socialism (quite to the contrary) nor is the Union dictating member states what they can do with their aircraft. The ques
34 TheSonntag : Simply rediculous. I could ask about the depatment of homeland security here, but lets keep this diskussion on a better level... However, there IS a
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic EU Set To Regulate Military Aircraft Emissions
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Venezuela Plans To Build Its Own Military Aircraft posted Thu Jan 11 2007 02:00:17 by Acheron
Link To Military Aircraft posted Fri Mar 11 2005 12:38:20 by C5Loadmaster
How To Tell When Military Aircraft Are Arriving? posted Tue Feb 10 2004 22:39:39 by Corey07850
Future International Military Aircraft posted Wed Oct 3 2007 15:30:59 by PMN1
Military Aircraft And "enemy" ATC posted Wed Sep 12 2007 19:40:55 by A342
Legalities Of Photographing Military Aircraft? posted Tue Jun 19 2007 14:51:33 by OzTech
Boeing Set To Extend C-17 Production At Own Risk posted Mon Jun 18 2007 03:34:00 by T773ER
Strange Engine Choices On Military Aircraft posted Wed Jun 6 2007 23:28:04 by A342
Speed-Gauge / Mach Indicators In Military Aircraft posted Fri May 25 2007 06:24:57 by Blackbird
Loudest Military Aircraft? posted Sat Feb 3 2007 00:43:16 by KevinSmith

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format