Andrew Gideon wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 18:42:22 -0400, Dudley Henriques wrote:

My read on this is bad judgment on the part of the Col caused by his
natural concern and deep feelings for the ceremony and the people involved
with it.

What about the presumption on the part of the part of the letter writer
that the flight was "inappropriate" in some way?

More, we're speaking of a flight at 9:11am. Not 5:11am. And near a
shopping mall; not a hospital or school or other noise-sensitive
environment.

And we're not speaking of an inquiry to the base, but a letter published
in the local (or so I presume) paper.

The response could have been more gentle, but I'm not convinced that the
author deserves the label "innocent".

- Andrew


It's assumed that the complainant thought he had a gripe with the base
concerning the low level of the overflight. It must also be assumed that
the complainant had no way of knowing the flight was being conducted
under the circumstances it was. Complaints like this one are registered
almost daily in communities surrounding Air Bases.
It is a fact that in the flying military complaints like this one are
handled in a manner inconsistent with this Col's actions.
When I say bad judgment I don't mean the complainant was right and the
Col wrong. What I'm saying is that the Col, if nothing else, missed a
tremendous opportunity to make his point much more powerful than it was
by taking the high road instead of his obvious tone of reproach in
answering the complainant's letter.
The Col made his case all right, but he did it the wrong way. He simply
"nailed" the complainant. What he should have done and could have done
had he done it the right way, was to totally DESTROY the complainant.
What he should have done was answer the complainant's letter in a
completely neutral, non confrontational manner, simply stating what the
circumstances were and making it a POINT to avoid appearing as though he
was striking back. By doing this with a velvet glove instead of an axe,
his response would have been much more powerful and the effect of his
response much more positive within the community.
In other words, the Col missed the chance to kill two birds with the
same stone. I'm sure he generated sympathy in the community, but by
using a totally controlled and well thought out answer instead of the
one he used, he scored a win where he could have scored a HUGE win for
the base.
There are many ways to do things; the wrong way; the right way; and the
SMART way :-))
BTW; I whizzed this one by an old friend of mine who used to be a Public
Affairs Officer for the Thunderbirds. He agrees. The Col could have
scored a higher mark on this one. What he did wrong specifically was to
miss the opportunity to not only correct a bad situation, but make a
friend out of the complainant in the process of doing that. Instead, he
simply corrected the situation by using a hammer on the complainant.
Bad juju in a world where the military needs friends in the civilian
community.
Dudley Henriques