"FatKat" wrote in message
oups.com...

Larry Dighera wrote:
On 12 Jul 2006 14:44:01 -0700, "Gordon" wrote in
. com::

Real fighter pilots have little in common with 'Maverick'; I remember
sitting in that movie with about a dozen other Navy flyers and the
concensus was that any "****BIRD" like him would be grounded and
drummed out.

If the verbal reprimand Lt. Conl. Parker received as a result of
leading his wingman into a fatal collision with a Cessna 172 over
Florida on November 16, 2000 is indicative of how the military
disciplines a pilot who entered congested Class B and C terminal
airspace at ~500 knots without the benefit of the required ATC
clearance, I'm unconvinced your statement above is accurate.

Hardly an adequate description of the outcome and the initial
assessment. It appears that there was at least an issue as to how much
blame can be shouldered by Parker himself. The article below suggests
that there was a confusion of procedures as to the use of transponders
by multiple formations. At the very least the report also cited ATC.
Was this a case of bad decisionmaking? For the sake of argument yes -
but not every bad decision elevates the one who makes it to the level
of Tom Cruise. This was hardly hot-dogging; on the other hand, there
is the case of Richard Webb, who made a high-speed pass of San Luis
Obispo in a Super Hornet. Though the flight was otherwise uneventful,
Webb was stripped of flight status and reassigned to Qatar. Looks like
lean times for Mavericks everywhere.

Parker was guilty of murder the same as if he held a gun the head of the 172
pilot and pulled the trigger. He broke nearly every rule in the book and
got away with murder. The US military is the big loser as it is hard to
respect an organization that condones such actions and does nothing to
punish the guilty.