THE PILOT WHO WOULDN'T FLY

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

snip


If I was an F-102 pilot who was hot to trot, I think I might have
volunteered to
transition into one of the birds actively used in the shooting war, like
the
F-105, or whatever equipment they were then using for top covers.

Demonstrating once again your complete and utter lack of touch with reality.
He was an ANG pilot, trained to fly an aircraft assigned to the unit he was
in. You don't just up and decide, "Hey, I think I'll become a (F-100, F-86,
etc.) pilot tomorrow!" In order for him to transition, he'd have had to have
found another unit with a pilot vacancy (getting harder to come by at the
time due to the fallout of former active duty pilots), transferred to said
unit, and then gone through the transition training program. Now quickly,
what were the ONLY two ANG combat aircraft types that were deployed to
Vietnam and surrounding environs? That's right--the F-100 and the...F-102!
Gee, that latter mount was the one that GWB was flying, and the one for
which he VOLUNTEERED (since you are apparnetly having a difficult time
understanding that FACT) to fly in PALACE ALERT...



So, follow the thread, contribute relevantly, get your facts straight,
and reduce the level of your personal agenda.

Would you care to comment on his submission of a "volunteer for o/s duty"
statement when he knew or should have known that he had insufficient
flying time
in the bird to be favorably considered?

How was he to know that? Why did they offer these new guys the chance to
volunteer while they were still in the training pipeline if their
participation was already irrevocably ruled out? H'mmm?

All he had to do was to ask around, and
he'd have learned that they wanted people with more hours than he had.

Then you would no doubt have hammered him for NOT volunteering...oh, that's
right, you have done that ANYWAY. Looks like GWB was in a "damned if he did,
damned if he didn't" conundrum in your view.

Excuse
me if I conclude that he was just going through the motions but I can't
think
of any other reason for volunteering for something you know you're not
going to
get.

How do you know he knew he was not going to be selected? Do you think he was
clairvoyant, and should have been able to devine that in the end, yes, they
did have enough more experienced volunteers come forward so they would not
have to use the less experienced personnel? Do you think that just MAYBE the
ANG/USAF asked for volunteers straight out of the training pipeline because
they were not sure they would continue to get enough more experienced
personnel to support PALACE ALERT rotations, nor were they aware that the
program itself would end within a year or so?


If I haven't got my facts right, please do straighten me out,

We have been--you just continue to listen to the facts.

since you seem to
think you know everything there is to know about his flying career. On
the
subject of relevent, if you try hard, I think you'll have to admit that
the
subject of this thread, which may well have started out as one about one
of
Kramer's mates, also fits our current President like a glove. It seemed
relevent to me when I saw it.

Well, since your view of the actual situation is so wrapped up in your own
fantasies instead of the actual factual events that occured, that is little
surprise.


As for my personal agenda, I don't have one that I'm aware of

ROFLOL! Give us a break; if you can't 'fess up to holding a grudge against
GWB that forces you to go to the lengths you have gone to (refusing to
acknowledge that he did volunteer, refusing to understand that he was indeed
flying one of the two models of fighter that the ANG sent into the theater,
etc.), then your integrity problem is even greater than I thought, 'cause
you are deceiving yourself in addition to everyone else.

Brooks

and so don't know
what level it's at or is supposed to be at. If you happen to run across
it,
would you mind sending me a copy? I seem to have misplaced mine.

George Z.






Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

Look what happened to Guy Gibson - too many times to the well and
ended up
killing his hapless "navigator" and himself. His "bravery" (or
internal drive
to grapple with the enemy) was the primary reason both of these airmen
died.

Oh? Actually I thought the mainspar failed in the Mosquito after being
previously
overstressed in a very high G pullout elsewhere? Or am I thinking of
someone else?

He took a navigator up who had never been inside a Mosquito before. There was
little to no pre-flight briefing and the switchology on the fuel system on the
Mosquito, frankly, required a systems expert to operate it all in the dark. At
a point coinciding with fuel starvation on the main tanks, the aircraft "ran
out" of fuel and crashed in the dark, next to a village with many witnesses.
Rumors about the crash persist to this day, but the villagers described the
hapless crew struggling to restart engines as it circled lower and lower,
finally impacting the ground. It was a very odd sound for late at night - a
circling aircraft with engines cutting out, then silence for half a minute
followed by a shattering crash.

Expecting men to face death daily over a period of years is not a way
to find
out who is brave and who is not

No, and I wasn't implying anything of the kind. My statement about
courage seems
to have become out of context. IIRC, it was Gibson(?) who said that
there were 2
kinds of courage, the man who simply feels 'it can't/won't happen to
me', perhaps somewhat
unimaginative in that respect, and who is therefore more readily able to
do dangerous things
supposedly without being *really* afraid and the other kind, who *knows*
that it *can* happen to him,
perhaps through seeing just one too many close friends or associates
'get the chop' or just through
being more 'imaginative' BUT still 'carry on' regardless. IIRC, he
considered the second kind the bravest
of the brave. He put himself in the first category. I'm in no position
to argue with him, or indeed anyone
who's 'been there'.

Basil Embry, #1 bad ass of the RAF, agreed and used almost the exact wording.
"Chop rate" gives me the willies - the stoicism displayed by the Bomber Command
boys during the bloody period between 1940 to 1942 far exceeds my own; right up
there with the USN's torpedo bomber crews of 1942...

- its simply a way to expend them like
cartridges, or leave many of them as broken shadows for the rest of
their
lives.

True enough. I could hypothesise that the first kind could suddenly
lose that belief in their immortality
that seems natural in those under about 30 through constant trauma.
Perhaps enough to make them
unable to carry on in the same way. (As did Art's "Captain Johnson" I
think). That he 'lost his bottle'
as the poms put it, was just one man reaching his breaking point.


Agree.

We did have one that fell into neither of these two categories: I served with
a chump who decided (after 4 years of quiet, relatively safe peacetime
training) that it wasn't "safe" for him to fly night landings aboard ship. He
became a pariah in my squadron and he had no reason whatever to justify all the
thousands of dollars he soaked up, just to quit when he actually had to face a
little danger. He didn't ever live it down and when I see him on occasion, I
call him a coward to his face, San Diego Sheriff uniform or not. I can't
believe he took another career where folks will be depending on him, after the
way he reacted the first time. If I had him with me in battle, I'd shove him
out ahead of me and use what was left as a barricade, because I sure as hell
wouldn't want him _beside_ me.

v/r
Gordon
====(A+C====
USN SAR

Donate your memories - write a note on the back and send your old photos to a
reputable museum, don't take them with you when you're gone.

The Luftwaffe certainly had examples of both kinds of man. Galland was
somewhere
between the two I think.....


LOL When you make General at 30, fitting the oversize head through doorways
is going to be a problem.

G

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

As for my personal agenda, I don't have one that I'm aware of and so don't
know
what level it's at or is supposed to be at.

That noise you just heard was the sound of hundreds of people
either laughing, choking or using profanity.

From: "John Keeney"



"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

As for my personal agenda, I don't have one that I'm aware of and so don't
know
what level it's at or is supposed to be at.

That noise you just heard was the sound of hundreds of people
either laughing, choking or using profanity.

Or all of the above.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

In article , Keith Willshaw keithNoSp
writes

"Dave Eadsforth" wrote in message
...
In article , ArtKramr
writes


That was a distinct improvement on the WWI practice of the British army
of allowing kids in their mid-teens to lie about their age and enter the
war; and then shoot them when they (unsurprisingly) cracked. It is said
that the army simply could not afford to acknowledge the fact of shell-
shock - although the army of 1939-45 seemed to have managed things a bit
better and only used the firing squad when it seemed to be absolutely
necessary to stop things unravelling. The execution of Eddie Slovik in
January 1945 owed more to a view of practical necessities during the
Battle of the Bulge than to the 'shock' of finding a deserter; there
were an incredible number - Hitler executed 50,000 men for cowardice; a
price in manpower paid for not correctly choosing between the men who
should be holding muskets; and those who should be away from the front
line.

I guess we just cannot expect sympathy and an objective view of the
human condition to reign supreme during wartime. As ever; management is
at fault, but believes it cannot afford to admit it.


I'm not sure I entirely agree.

I guess you are referring to the bit about 'sympathy and objective
view'?

While the psychiatric help may have been available (and since your note
I have researched a bit more and found that shrinks were actually
assigned to the field), there was still a huge hurdle of official
disapproval (to say nothing of the potential disapproval of the men in
the unit - the man your father spoke of seems to have been luckier than
many - probably because of his long service) to overcome before a man
could expect help. The LMF tag loomed large in the existence of the RAF
pilot; even if the help was available behind it. I seem to remember in
'Fly for your Life' where Tuck bounced a pilot who had tried to make
excuses for returning early - the pilot was next seen as an aircraftman
sweeping the floors; still wearing his pilot's brevet. So the process
of providing help did not appear to be well exposed.

As you have mentioned the RAF and British Army at least attempted
to address the issue in a more realistic and enlightened way. I recall
my father speaking about a number of men who simply cracked under
the pressure of constant fear in the line. It wasnt just a matter of courage
as at least one of them had been awarded the military medal.

Yes, too much exposure to danger will ultimately grind you down. One
psychiatric source reckons that nervous breakdowns will end up 100
percent if a unit never gets any rest. Interesting discovery - he
British army tried to keep its units 12 days in the line followed by 4
out, to keep them effective.

One case he never forgot was when they were pinned down for
2 days by German mortars and machine guns just outside
Caen in 1944 when his mate who had been in the regiment since
1938 and served throughout France in 1940 , North Africa and
Italy had a breakdown. They had to physically restrain him or he'd
have bolted from the trench which would have been suicidal.

He rejoined the regiment in early 1945 after treatment and nobody
thought the worse of him, he was just another casualty of
the war. A more well known example is the late comedian
Spike Milligan who broke down in Italy in 1944 after
being shelled on a mountain side in Italy while acting
as a forward artillery observer.

I'm sure the US forces were equally enlightened by the way its just
that my only direct knowledge is related to the British armed forces.

Yes, again your note prompted me to research a bit more. The US did
have shrinks in the field as well. However, the day of the 'political
trial for cowardice' does not appear to have passed. While researching
last night, I found that a US soldier in the Gulf is at present under a
charge of 'cowardice in the face of the enemy' for having told his
superiors that he could not proceed with a combat assignment after
having seen the mangled body of an Iraqi soldier. Either it was the
shrink's day off or someone is trying to make a point.

A further finding; there appear to have been fewer cases of breakdown in
the US army in Korea, as against WWII, and very few in Vietnam, so one
monitoring process seemed to have improved. However, in Vietman, there
was a new phenomenon. The schedule for rotating men in and out of
theatre ended up with each man being given a set date to return home.
This meant that units were composed of men drifting in and out at all
times, which was disastrous for unit morale and cohesion, with men
comparing their departure dates and predictably, as the date drew near,
thinking more and more about survival. (Any layman might have predicted
this - the practice must have originated from some bureaucratic or
political angle) They were then whisked home and returned to normal
life still blinking at it all and wondering what had been achieved. And
no big thank you from a country that had been worn down by watching it
all on TV. This led to a huge number of Post Traumatic cases.

However, in WWII, men shipped out together and were shipped home
together - usually by ship. They had time to readjust and generally
rounded off their experience, often with a victory parade. So,
cohesion, comradeship, and a big thank-you at the end, meant that they
had a fraction of the PTs.

I do recall the furore that resulted after Patton slapped a man
suffering from combat fatigue.

In WW1 that man would have been shot.

Too true - the British army ended up shooting over 300 men for
cowardice. BTW, I have one correction to make to my last note. I read
once that Auckinleck had requested the return of the death sentence for
cowardice (after it had been abolished in 1929) and I thought his
request had been granted and the firing squad periodically used again.
Last night, I found out from elsewhere that his request had been turned
down.

Keith


Cheers,

Dave

--
Dave Eadsforth

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police Ed Rasimus
blurted out:

On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 11:28:58 -0500, "George Z. Bush"

But, first there is no "renew your flight physical" in the military.
That applies to Class I/II/III for FAA license. If you are on flying
status in the military you take an annual flight physical. The
President did not "fail to renew" a physical.

True, he simply failed to meet his "obligation" to take a flight
physical with a military flight surgeon. One published report has GWB
claiming he had his military physical administered by his private
physician. Come on Ed, how many Guard guys do you know that were dumb
enough (or smart depending on your perspective) to use that as an
excuse?

The incident you refer to after four years of flying service including
UPT, operational qualification in the F-102 and achieving operational
alert status in the TANG was a request for four months detached duty
at Montgomery while working on a political campaign.

Fair enough, do you recall what your service commitment was upon
graduation from UPT was? I think mine was 6 years. Perhaps the service
commitment was shortened during 1972, but I doubt it.

The NYT has reported the corrected details of the events. Bush was
unable to meet commitments.

You are being more than kind my friend. On one hand he has
authorization to drill with the AL ANG, and said he did, but later
says he was unable to. Skeptics would say this claim came after the CO
of the AL unit, said GWB never showed up as planned.

He requested and received approval to make
up drill periods at a later time. This is standard ANG procedure.

OK he recieved approval to make up the missed drills, and yet never
met his "obligation." He didn't...he never flew again. He was removed
from flying status for failing to meet his "obligation." I have
difficulty with the notion that a guy that managed to get a flying
slot in an ANG fighter squadron would simply be "unable to meet
commitments," and you buy into that. Your charity is extremely kind
considering where you were at the time.

He was current in a "combat aircraft in use in Viet Nam". The F-102
(including ANG crews) was deployed at Udorn, Danang and Tan Son Nhut
among other place.

Ed, we've covered this before. F-102s were no longer in SEA during
your second tour. So it is factually incorrect to claim they were in
use (at that time). For those that don't believe me, check the lineage
of the F-102 units in PACAF and see when they converted to F-4s or
were deactivated. Absent that look in the Appendices of "To Hanoi And
Back", specifically the AOB for 1972...you will find no F-102s in SEA
[period].

So, follow the thread, contribute relevantly, get your facts straight,

Hehe...even the best of us make errors.

and reduce the level of your personal agenda.

Come on Ed, George thought this thread was about not meeting one's
obligation (a pilot that wouldn't fly) and it logically, naturally
leads many to think of the current occupant of the Oval Office. That's
what I thought it was, I only read it because I have Agent set up to
read threads you post to. I obviously agree with George on this, and
without any agenda.

Juvat

On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 19:26:19 -0500, "George Z. Bush"
wrote:


I don't know who you were talking about, since I don't read Kramer's stuff any
more. I was responding to comments made by Tony and, for whatever reason I think
too unimportant to seek out, it led me to believe that there was a reference to
comments made about our President's military aviation career.


The incident you refer to after four years of flying service including
UPT, operational qualification in the F-102 and achieving operational
alert status in the TANG was a request for four months detached duty
at Montgomery while working on a political campaign. The New York
Times has reported the corrected details of the events. Bush was
unable to meet commitments. He requested and received approval to make
up drill periods at a later time. This is standard ANG procedure.

He was current in a "combat aircraft in use in Viet Nam". The F-102
(including ANG crews) was deployed at Udorn, Danang and Tan Son Nhut
among other place.

If I was an F-102 pilot who was hot to trot, I think I might have volunteered to
transition into one of the birds actively used in the shooting war, like the
F-105, or whatever equipment they were then using for top covers.

"Top covers"?? What the hell are they? Do you mean MiGCAP? Not a
specialized mission for most of the war, usually flown by F-4s.
Primary job was ground attack, not traditional "fighter" against
"fighter" stuff. F-102s were deployed for airbase defense intercept
duty throughout the war.

Remember, Bush was ANG, not active force, hence he would have needed
to move out of state and establish residence to find a unit with one
of those aircraft types, which would probably not have gotten him
deployed anyway. Your whole postulate is a non-starter here.

So, follow the thread, contribute relevantly, get your facts straight,
and reduce the level of your personal agenda.

Would you care to comment on his submission of a "volunteer for o/s duty"
statement when he knew or should have known that he had insufficient flying time
in the bird to be favorably considered? All he had to do was to ask around, and
he'd have learned that they wanted people with more hours than he had. Excuse
me if I conclude that he was just going through the motions but I can't think
of any other reason for volunteering for something you know you're not going to
get.

Volunteering means a requirement exists and if your volunteer
statement is accepted, you are eligible. There might have been a
"desired" hours requirement, but it was a long way from "hard and
fast" if you were current in the system.

I flew my first F-105 combat to NVN, right out of training with less
than 120 hours after undergraduate pilot training. I flew my first F-4
combat, again to NVN with less than 30 hours in the F-4C (the combat
was in the F-4E).

I don't think lack of hours was any sort of protection from
deployment.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

"Juvat" wrote in message
...
After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police Ed Rasimus
blurted out:


snip


The incident you refer to after four years of flying service including
UPT, operational qualification in the F-102 and achieving operational
alert status in the TANG was a request for four months detached duty
at Montgomery while working on a political campaign.

Fair enough, do you recall what your service commitment was upon
graduation from UPT was? I think mine was 6 years. Perhaps the service
commitment was shortened during 1972, but I doubt it.

A couple of other factors likely entered into the picture. GWB had been
trained to fly the F-102, which was leaving the ANG inventory rather quickly
in the 72-75 timeframe (IIRC the last ANG F-102, from the HIANG, left
service in early 76). GWB's unit had alrady received its first replacement
aircraft in May 71 (the F-101), and by 1974 all of its F-102's were gone.
With new aircraft coming into the inventory, and pilots increasingly
available from the active component who were likely already qualified in the
new aircraft, the likelihood of the ANG releasing pilots rather than pay to
have them requalify in a new aircraft is not all that unlikely, espeially
given that Bush's unit was destined to become the ANG's training unit for
F-101's and would therefore have probably *preferred* to have the more
experienced pilots serving as IP's.


The NYT has reported the corrected details of the events. Bush was
unable to meet commitments.

You are being more than kind my friend. On one hand he has
authorization to drill with the AL ANG, and said he did, but later
says he was unable to. Skeptics would say this claim came after the CO
of the AL unit, said GWB never showed up as planned.

And some would point out that the ALANG officer in question later backed off
from that initial assertion offering ""I don't think he did, but I wouldn't
stake my life on it. I think I would have remembered him."
(www.sundaysalon.org/press_reference.asp ) Now how many then-LTC's could be
expected to recall the names of 1LT's who performed a couple of weekends of
duty under their (probably somewhat remote) control some thirty years later?
As a Guard officer I had junior officers from other states and units perform
"split assemblies" in our S-3 shop on numerous occasions, and *five* years
later I could not recall their names if I *had* to. Further:

"Colonel Turnipseed, who retired as a general, said in an interview that
regulations allowed Guard members to miss duty as long as it was made up
within the same quarter. Mr. Bartlett pointed to a document in Mr. Bush's
military records that showed credit for four days of duty ending Nov. 29 and
for eight days ending Dec. 14, 1972, and, after he moved back to Houston, on
dates in January, April and May. The May dates correlated with orders sent
to Mr. Bush at his Houston apartment on April 23, 1973, in which Sgt. Billy
B. Lamar told Mr. Bush to report for active duty on May 1-3 and May 8-10.
Another document showed that Mr. Bush served at various times from May 29,
1973, through July 30, 1973, a period of time questioned by The Globe."
(NYT, Nov 3, 2000) http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1071031/posts



He requested and received approval to make
up drill periods at a later time. This is standard ANG procedure.

OK he recieved approval to make up the missed drills, and yet never
met his "obligation." He didn't...he never flew again.

Where in his legal military obligations does it require him to remain in a
flying status in a unit that is dumping the very aircraft he was current in?

He was removed
from flying status for failing to meet his "obligation." I have
difficulty with the notion that a guy that managed to get a flying
slot in an ANG fighter squadron would simply be "unable to meet
commitments," and you buy into that. Your charity is extremely kind
considering where you were at the time.

Ed likely understands the timeline of Bush's service in the F-102, and the
nature of what it was like flying in an ANG unit, better than most of us.


He was current in a "combat aircraft in use in Viet Nam". The F-102
(including ANG crews) was deployed at Udorn, Danang and Tan Son Nhut
among other place.

Ed, we've covered this before. F-102s were no longer in SEA during
your second tour. So it is factually incorrect to claim they were in
use (at that time). For those that don't believe me, check the lineage
of the F-102 units in PACAF and see when they converted to F-4s or
were deactivated. Absent that look in the Appendices of "To Hanoi And
Back", specifically the AOB for 1972...you will find no F-102s in SEA
[period].

Meaningless. Bush volunteered for Palace Alert while it was still underway
(unless you think the USAF made a practice of soliciting volunteers for
programs that had already been terminated).


So, follow the thread, contribute relevantly, get your facts straight,

Hehe...even the best of us make errors.

So far, your's seem to be more evident than any of Ed's.


and reduce the level of your personal agenda.

Come on Ed, George thought this thread was about not meeting one's
obligation (a pilot that wouldn't fly) and it logically, naturally
leads many to think of the current occupant of the Oval Office.

"Logically, naturally" leads to that conclusion only if one has an already
rather well sharpened axe to grind vis a vis the current C-inC, you mean.

Brooks

That's
what I thought it was, I only read it because I have Agent set up to
read threads you post to. I obviously agree with George on this, and
without any agenda.

Juvat

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 19:26:19 -0500, "George Z. Bush"
wrote:


He was current in a "combat aircraft in use in Viet Nam". The F-102
(including ANG crews) was deployed at Udorn, Danang and Tan Son Nhut
among other place.

Your memory is apparently failing. See Juvat's comments elsewhere on this
subject.

If I was an F-102 pilot who was hot to trot, I think I might have volunteered
to
transition into one of the birds actively used in the shooting war, like the
F-105, or whatever equipment they were then using for top covers.

"Top covers"?? What the hell are they? Do you mean MiGCAP? Not a
specialized mission for most of the war, usually flown by F-4s.
Primary job was ground attack, not traditional "fighter" against
"fighter" stuff.

Whatever! I obviously did not fly in VN and am not familiar with the terms used
there. "Top cover" was a term used in WWII and Korea, son.

......F-102s were deployed for airbase defense intercept
duty throughout the war.

Not according to Juvat.

Remember, Bush was ANG, not active force, hence he would have needed
to move out of state and establish residence to find a unit with one
of those aircraft types, which would probably not have gotten him
deployed anyway. Your whole postulate is a non-starter here.

So, follow the thread, contribute relevantly, get your facts straight,
and reduce the level of your personal agenda.

Would you care to comment on his submission of a "volunteer for o/s duty"
statement when he knew or should have known that he had insufficient flying
time
in the bird to be favorably considered? All he had to do was to ask around,
and
he'd have learned that they wanted people with more hours than he had.
Excuse
me if I conclude that he was just going through the motions but I can't
think
of any other reason for volunteering for something you know you're not going
to
get.

Volunteering means a requirement exists and if your volunteer
statement is accepted, you are eligible.

His wasn't, so he wasn't eligible. So what's your point?

.....There might have been a "desired" hours requirement, but it was a long
way from "hard and
fast" if you were current in the system.

So what? Are we now going to criticize the people who turned him down? I made
a point that was critical of him and you're intent on making excuses for his
behavior. Until you can show me something different (and I know you can't),
I've concluded that he put in his volunteer statement knowing full well when he
did it that it wouldn't be approved, and that he did it for self-aggrandizing
purposes.

I flew my first F-105 combat to NVN, right out of training with less
than 120 hours after undergraduate pilot training. I flew my first F-4
combat, again to NVN with less than 30 hours in the F-4C (the combat
was in the F-4E).

I don't think lack of hours was any sort of protection from
deployment.

Perhaps not. I've read somewhere that he, even with his 300 hours more or less,
was not the brightest candle on the F-102 cake. IAC, as I'm sure you know and
will agree, there are pilots and there are pilots, and they sure as hell aren't
one just like the other. For all I know, you could have taken up an F-102 with
15 or 20 hours under your belt and done a better job with the bird than he could
with 500. It's possible.

George Z.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8