I just wanted to stop back by and apologize to any military pilots who took insult to my posts. A bit of clarification if I may, and most of what I am saying is from a military context:

I was stationed 2 years in Aviano Italy working on f16 and f110 turbofans. The pilots were allegedly (not my word but a word used back then) engaging hostiles. I got engines into the shop with bullet holes and FOD damage. I dont know why that term was used, but it was. I did not mean to somehow insult a fighter pilot, and I am not clear exactly how it does. But apologize none the less and just know I meant no disrespect. To give you an idea of the time period I was there, this jet was in my shop with a gash halfway through the wing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavales...isaster_(1998)
We had Airforce, Army and Marines on all one base, including candies. What a mix, but it may explain my experience and impressions.

However, a lot of what I refer to with having to help pilots start a jet is with my years of experience on the b-1b lancer. This jet/bomber has 4 close engines which can be started several ways. APU, Hydraulic accumulators, cross bleed etc. There are several cross bleed switches which are in fact confusing. A single switch in the wrong spot will cause an APU to not couple or an engine to not rotate. I know there are civilian jets with that many engines and I have no idea if they can be started that number of ways. This is a long distance war machine that is designed to be able to keep going to drop nuclear weapons so I think that may make it more complex but maybe I am wrong.

So naturally this jet would be far more complex than a single engine fighter, which might explain why I had to help so much. Based on my experience and contact with these pilots, they did not fully understand jet engine operation or repair. Which to me, is understandable as they are pilots, not specialists. I dont claim to be able to fly real jets and know how to dog fight because I know jet engines, which IMO is a similar analogy. My team mates and I would joke about having to start jets for pilots so they could fly, and it happened quite a bit.

However the context of this argument was that a civilian pilot made a point to say that he is a pilot, and that TACs do not matter as much as starts and stops. This is just not true IMO. And I made a point that pilots dont necessarily know jet engines that well. I really meant it from a civilian context. However I admit I could be wrong. I do think military pilots have more exposure than civilian. There are pilots who were in fact jet engine mechanics at one time.

I will withdraw that comment.

One point I do want to make that in the military, men and woman spend years and years learning propulsion systems so they can troubleshoot and fix them with little research in war time scenarios. While reading books and theory is important, nothing can replace the real world experience it takes to obtain a true understanding how these things work in real life. Many, including myself, would find it insulting if someone who is a "big shot pilot" would claim he/she can do everything we can do, as if we are not needed, or what we did was trivial. No pilot is a one man show. I would invite any pilot who thinks he truly understands every system on his jet and could fix it himself, to really take a step back and realize that you are treating the people who keep you flying with great disrespect. Many of these people obtain advanced degrees and could become officers and pilots, but chose to stay in the enlisted ranks to keep you flying, as someone has to train the newcomers and keep the experience at hand.
I do think TACs would be a good way to track usage but at this point I digress. I really dont care about it at this point and wish I never brought it up!
Regardless I apologize to any military veterans who are insulted. Feel free to PM me and let me have it, I will make it right.

Both topics are off topic and I aplogize for that too.