Top Gun CUNNINGHAM: I broke the law, concealed my conduct and disgraced my office.

Robert M. Gary wrote:
Gordon wrote:
Braggart
bull-headed
bully
pushy
self-centered

Sounds like he met the minimum quals for a great fighter pilot.


I'd disagree, Robert - I've known quite a few, had breakfast with
approximately 30 fighter and combat pilots this morning, and I can
honestly say that there is the smallest percentage that I'd discribe as
I did Cunningham. He takes the qualities of a fighter pilot and
discards the best of them, making a mockery of the work ethic,
dedication, and professionalism that exemplify the breed. A lot of
fighter pilots brag, primarily because they have something to brag
about. I think of Bud Anderson -- "Call me Andy, my friends do." --
described by Chuck Yeager as "the best fighter pilot". Anderson is
caring, quiet, introspective, self-effacing. None of the descriptors I
used for Cunningham would be remotely applicable to Col. Anderson.
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. There are many things in that movie that made us laugh or
just shake our heads, but the whole speech by CAG about what a FU
Maverick was, but he still 'had' to send him to Top Gun was beyond
ludicrous. The real Maverick would have been sent TAD as a Supply
Officer or given command of a BEQ someplace. I watched (and
participated) in circumstances that ended poor Navy aviator's careers.
Maverick was a myth - Cunningham was a cautionary tale for why Mav
should remain a myth.

v/r
Gordon

Gordon wrote:
I think of Bud Anderson -- "Call me Andy, my friends do." --
described by Chuck Yeager as "the best fighter pilot". Anderson is
caring, quiet, introspective, self-effacing.

The first time I flew with Bud he walked up to the plane next to ours
and took a **** on the tire. He was very colorful.

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.

Being the CO's son I got to spent a lot of time sitting in the squadron
room and road out the Kitty Hawk on a few Tiger cruises. Fighter pilots
today are probably more bookish than in years past. Less seat of the
paints flying. I don't get the impression that Vietnam era was quite
that way.

-Robert

Robert M. Gary wrote:

Being the CO's son I got to spent a lot of time sitting in the squadron
room and road out the Kitty Hawk on a few Tiger cruises. Fighter pilots
today are probably more bookish than in years past. Less seat of the
paints flying. I don't get the impression that Vietnam era was quite
that way.

-Robert

During my last couple of years of flying I was IP for the IP course at
Fighter-Lead-In at Holloman. I recalled one afternoon when I pulled
Sqdn duty officer until closing. After last launches, I went down and
sat at the bar in the sqdn lounge. Sipped on a beer and shortly five
guys in flight suits came in and sat down in easy chairs and sofa
behind me. I listened for maybe twenty minutes, then turned and said,
"Who are you guys?"

"We're in the new IP class. We finished academics and thought we'd come
over and see what the flying squadron looked like."

"Impossible," I said. "IP students are all fighter pilots with minimum
four years in fighters and qualified four-ship flight leads. I've
listened to you guys talking about investments, annuities and
debentures for the last twenty minutes without a single comment on the
basics of fighter pilot discussion--i.e. flying, fighting and
fornicating. You can't be the new class..."

Unfortunately they were. And that is representative of the modern
breed.

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.

See: http://tinyurl.com/fn2f2
http://tinyurl.com/krm6e

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...999e553d4dff5f

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.

http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Safet...perhornet.html

http://www.sptimes.com/2003/01/25/Ta..._F_16_pi.shtml

On 12 Jul 2006 16:14:00 -0700, "FatKat" wrote in
.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

Which, the death of the Cessna pilot, or the verbal reprimand as
fitting punishment?

and the initial assessment.

Initial assessment?

It appears that there was at least an issue as to how much
blame can be shouldered by Parker himself.

There were issues with Parker's navigation equipment and a rookie on
the ATC scope, neither of which contributed to Parker's decision to
descend into congested terminal airspace at high speed without the
required clearance. Parker was just betting on the big-sky-theory to
protect him and the others in along his route of flight.

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.

The Pilot In Command is responsible for the safety of his flight, not
ATC. ATC wasn't providing separation at the time; parker had no ATC
clearance to descend into the Class B airspace. That wasn't ATC's
fault.

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.

If Parker were a prudent pilot who followed regulations, he wouldn't
have made the reckless decision to enter terminal airspace without a
clearance. It's not very much different to me.

This was hardly hot-dogging;

Given that the maximum airspeed in airspace below 10,000' is
restricted below 250 knots normally, I would say traveling twice that
speed while performing G-shock maneuvers would come pretty close.

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.

http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Safet...perhornet.html


If this is what Webb said:

In regard to his unauthorized flyby, Webb wrote, "No respected
fighter pilot worth his salt can look me in the eye and tell me
they've never done the exact same thing."

Webb concluded that he was "not apologetic for what I did, and if
given the chance, I'd do the same thing again….

He was clearly a hazard in the sky, and grounding him was appropriate.


http://www.sptimes.com/2003/01/25/Ta..._F_16_pi.shtml

Parker's reckless and careless operation, on the other hand, resulted
in the destruction of a ~$30,000,000.00 airplane and the death of a
fellow airman, but General Rosa found a verbal reprimand appropriate.
Parker lost neither rank nor pay for the death and destruction he
caused.

Perhaps Navy justice is more just than Air Force justice.

"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.

Dave Stadt wrote:

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.

You might want to research the elements of "murder" before conducting
much more slander. You might also want to spend some time in a
single-seat, single-engine aircraft making decisions at the speed
required by the job on a daily basis.

Someone died and that is very, repeat very, unfortunate. But, with the
proliferation of restrictions on airspace and the continual
restrictions on military training it is increasingly more difficult to
avoid offending some petty bureaucrat or noise sensitive home-owner
while conducting training. No one needs to die and you can take to the
bank that no one in the military ever intends to participate in a
mid-air.

If you've read all of the testimony and understand all of the factors
involved, you are entitled to an opinion, but keep in mind that
opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one and they all stink.

Ed Rasimus wrote:

You might want to research the elements of "murder" before conducting
much more slander.
snip

Wouldn't the typed word be considered libel, assuming, of course, that
there were provable damages to the receiver's reputation?

If you've read all of the testimony and understand all of the factors
involved, you are entitled to an opinion, but keep in mind that
opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one and they all stink.

I'd be interested in your opinion of that particular mid-air.

--
Peter

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
oups.com...

Dave Stadt wrote:

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.

You might want to research the elements of "murder" before conducting
much more slander. You might also want to spend some time in a
single-seat, single-engine aircraft making decisions at the speed
required by the job on a daily basis.

Someone died and that is very, repeat very, unfortunate. But, with the
proliferation of restrictions on airspace and the continual
restrictions on military training it is increasingly more difficult to
avoid offending some petty bureaucrat or noise sensitive home-owner
while conducting training. No one needs to die and you can take to the
bank that no one in the military ever intends to participate in a
mid-air.

If you've read all of the testimony and understand all of the factors
involved, you are entitled to an opinion, but keep in mind that
opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one and they all stink.

I read it numerous times and stand by my decisioon. Any civilian criminal
court would have tried the case as such.