Ed Rasimus wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:
(BUFDRVR) wrote:

I've often heard this, and I have trouble believing it. Usually the "fighter
pilot" lable is defined as agressive, unshakeable and highly skilled (someone
correct me if that's not the generalized definition).

That definition also fits a lot of cops, pro athletes, doctors,
lawyers, cops, coaches, car racers, cowboys, insurance agents,
investigative reporters, truck drivers, stockbrokers, entrepreneurs,
lion tamers, hunting guides, firemen, ironworkers, motocross racers,
etc. etc. etc....

You've broken the code. Add the caveat, that you only gain the title
when someone else gives it and you've got the basics down.

While I was finishing up my civilian commercial/instrument ground
school back in 1987, the instructor (an old P-51 and B-29 pilot
curmudgeon) once remarked (under his breath) that I should become
a fighter pilot (FWIW). Alas, by that time I was already 26 years of
age...

I know numerous bomber pilots (and navs!!) that meet that criteria and some
fighter pilots who do not. The only difference in plying our unique trades is
that my "wingmen" fly in the same jet with me.

That's a big difference though. It's beyond me why anyone would
choose a multi-engined bomber, trash hauler, whirlybird, or whatever
vis a vis a single-seat fighter (or a single-seat *anything*).

We aren't always in total control of our future. Sometimes, you can
bring together the talent, the desire and the opportunity with the
resultant being that you achieve your goal. But, probably more often,
someone has the attitude but not the opportunity. The assignment isn't
available. Then, the objective is achieved by carrying the attitude
into the assignment, whatever it is.

Well said as usual and I salute BUFDRVR.