As a B-52 pilot in the USAF, I was constantly being tested and evaluated.  These tests came in the form of practical (flying) and written tests.  Failing a test meant that you could not fly until you could successfully be re-evaluated.  In other words, you were grounded.  The standards for passing an evaluation or test were very high.  In some cases, 100% on a written test was the only passing grade. 

The following was an actual question from a written flight-safety test I took as a B-52 pilot.  (If you don’t understand the question, don’t panic: I will translate.)  Here goes:

On a lightweight touch-and-go landing, do not advance the throttles to full-MILITARY because:

  A. It may put the aircraft into a dangerous nose-up attitude from which you may not be able to recover;

  B. It may put the aircraft into a dangerous nose-up attitude from which you will not be able to recover;

  C. It will put the aircraft into a dangerous nose-up attitude from which you may not be able to recover;

  D. It will put the aircraft into a dangerous nose-up attitude from which you will not be able to recover;

  E. None of the above.

Now, let me translate.

A “touch-and-go” landing is a practice landing where the pilot sets the aircraft down on the runway (without stopping), then takes off again so the pilot can circle around and do it again.  (A landing where you actually stay on the ground is called a “full-stop” landing.)  “Full-MILITARY” is “Air Force” for “full-power”.  “Attitude” refers to the orientation of the aircraft.  A “nose-up attitude” means that the nose of the aircraft is pointing higher than it should be.  To “recover” means to correct the dangerous nose-up attitude.

Now permit me to give you a little context.

The engines on a B-52 are located below the wing.  There are many advantages to this design, however, I won’t go into them here.  The disadvantage is that the thrust of the engines generates torque that pushes the nose of the aircraft up. 

When you push the throttles to full-MILITARY (full-power), this torque increases.  If you advance the throttles slowly, you need to compensate for this torque by applying a little forward pressure to the flight controls (to keep the nose from rising).  If you advance the throttles quickly, you have to compensate more quickly (not a good thing to be doing close to the ground).   When you are lightweight (i.e., you have don’t have a lot of fuel or payload onboard), this exacerbates the problem. 

Now, if the nose of the aircraft rises too much, you lose lift and begin to fall out of the sky.  This is called a “stall”.  If you stall too close to the ground, you and your crew crash and die, your multi-million dollar aircraft becomes a giant ball of flame, and the fire department has to work a lot harder than they should ever have to. 

This is, generally speaking, a really stupid way to ruin your whole day. 

Now that you can understand the test question, here it is again (emphasis added by me):

On a lightweight touch-and-go landing, do not advance the throttles to full-MILITARY because:

  A. It may put the aircraft into a dangerous nose-up attitude from which you may not be able to recover;

  B. It may put the aircraft into a dangerous nose-up attitude from which you will not be able to recover;

  C. It will put the aircraft into a dangerous nose-up attitude from which you may not be able to recover;

  D. It will put the aircraft into a dangerous nose-up attitude from which you will not be able to recover;

  E. None of the above.

Now, let me translate.

Notice that answers A through D are nearly identical, the only difference being the “will” and “may” word choices.  The correct answer is B (I think).  The intent of the question is to see how well you know the exact wording of the warning in the B-52H flight manual. 

But honestly, who cares? 

The bottom line is that you SHOULD NOT DO IT.  It’s STUPID to advance the throttles to full-power on a lightweight touch-and-go landing, because if you do it, you will probably DIE, and your family will get to deal first-hand with your life insurance company. 

And nobody wants that.  (Unless of course, you have an insanely high life insurance death benefit… perhaps.)

The semantics don’t matter.  The only thing that matters are your actions. 

I am an expert marksman (or at least the Air Force gave me an award that says so).  When I learned how to handle a firearm, I was taught that I should always treat a weapon as if it were loaded.  I also learned that I should never point weapon (loaded or otherwise) at a person unless I intended to shoot and kill that person. 

Unless I were acting in self-defense or in the defense of others, if I were to point a weapon at someone and shoot him (or her), my reasons for doing so do not matter.  If I were to murder someone because I hate them or because I want to steal their stuff, it makes no difference.  It doesn’t matter if I were to do it because of their race, religion, country of origin, age, sex, hair color, sexual orientation, or even if they were a Captain Picard fan.  All that matters is the deliberate act, not the motivation behind it.

If I were to deliberately do harm to another (except in defense), my motivations are irrelevant.  Regardless of my reasons, I should pay the penalty for my crime.  

Matthew Shepard was murdered on October 12th, 1998.  Larry E. Byrd, Jr. was murdered on June 7th of that same year.  Their murderers deserve to be punished to the full extent of the law.  It doesn’t matter whether Mr. Shepard was murdered because he was homosexual or not.  It doesn’t matter whether Mr. Byrd was murdered because of the color of his skin or not.  It doesn’t make the crimes any more or less horrific and inhuman.  Their murderers deserve the death penalty or at the very least to spend the rest of their miserable lives in prison. 

As I’ve stated before, I don’t understand hatred.  I used to live within an hour’s drive of the Aryan Nations compound.  Now those were people who understood hatred.  It spewed from their mouths like particularly rancid vomit.  Only dogs of their own ilk would lap it up.  Every rational person who heard their poison rejected it.  Many called for them to be silenced or even arrested for giving voice to their twisted, evil ideas.  I wasn’t among those calling for legal censure.  I wanted them to speak.  At least then I would know who the monsters were.  It was only when they encouraged violence or other criminal activity that action could and should be taken.  Simply stating that they hate anybody who was different was not a crime. 

Nor should it be. 

What is the purpose of hate crime legislation?  To punish a murderer or rapist more if the motivation for violence was hatred toward someone different?  How does that make the act more or less vile? 

Punish the crime, not the intent and thoughts of the heart.  Let God be the judge of the heart. 

Right now, there is proposed legislation making its way through both houses of congress that would make it a crime to quote on radio, television, or internet any verse from the Bible that condemns homosexual acts.  I understand taking action if someone promotes violence, but how can you punish someone for quoting scripture?  Simply because I hold a religious belief and try to life my life—that’s my life, not anyone else’s—does not make me criminal. 

Well, at least not yet.