A Wake Up Call From Luke AFB

Arnold Sten wrote:
GA Pilots are not the only pilots who are subject to noise complaints.
Read this story:


Subject: A Wake Up Call From Luke AFB, AZ

Luke AFB is west of Phoenix and is rapidly being
surrounded by civilization that complains about the
noise from the base and its planes, forgetting that it
was there long before they were.

A certain lieutenant colonel at Luke AFB deserves a
big pat on the back. Apparently, an individual who
lives somewhere near Luke AFB wrote the local paper
complaining about a group of F-16s that disturbed
his/her day at the mall. When that individual read the
response from a Luke AFB officer, it must have stung
quite a bit.

The complaint:
"Question of the day for Luke Air Force Base: Whom do
we thank for the morning air show? Last Wednesday, at
precisely 9:11 a.m., a tight formation of four F-16
jets made a low pass over Arrowhead Mall, continuing
west over Bell Road at approximately 500 feet.

Imagine our good fortune! Do the Tom Cruise-wannabes
feel we need this wake-up call, or were they trying to
impress the cashiers at Mervyns early bird special? Any
response would be appreciated."


The response:
Regarding "A wake-up call from Luke's jets" (Letters,
Thursday): On June 15, at precisely 9:12 a.m., a
perfectly timed four-ship flyby of F-16s from the 63rd
Fighter Squadron at Luke Air Force Base flew over the
grave of Capt. Jeremy Fresques.

Capt. Fresques was an Air Force officer who was
previously stationed at Luke Air Force Base and was
killed in Iraq on May 30, Memorial Day. At 9 a.m. on
June 15, his family and friends gathered at Sunland
Memorial Park in Sun City to mourn the loss of a
husband, son and friend.

Based on the letter writer's recount of the flyby,
and because of the jet noise, I'm sure you didn't hear
the 21-gun salute, the playing of taps, or my words to
the widow and parents of Capt. Fresques as I gave them
their son's flag on behalf of the President of the
United States and all those veterans and servicemen and
women who understand the sacrifices they have endured.
A four-ship flyby is a display of respect
the Air Force pays to those who give their lives in
defense of freedom.

We are professional aviators and take our jobs
seriously, and on June 15 what the letter writer
witnessed was four officers lining up to pay their
ultimate respects.

The letter writer asks, "Whom do we thank for the
morning air show?" The 56th Fighter Wing will call for
you, and forward your thanks to the widow and parents
of Capt. Fresques, and thank them for you, for it was
in their honor that my pilots flew the most honorable
formation of their lives.

Lt. Col. Scott Pleus
CO, 63rd Fighter Squadron
Luke AFB
I have a slightly different read on this incident.

It goes without saying that the ceremony was totally justified and in
line with all existing regulations. That isn't the real issue here.
Neither is the letter written by the complainant.
The real issue here is that the AF Col who answered the letter in my
opinion used extremely poor judgment in handling the situation the way
he did.
He used information that HE had at his disposal that was NOT available
to the complainant at the time the complainant wrote the letter, to
attempt to embarrass and hurt the complainant with the reply.
Had the Col prior knowledge that the complainant KNEW about the ceremony
and THEN wrote the letter, his answer in my opinion would have been
justified.
In my opinion, the Col's INITIAL response was unjustified and
unnecessarily cruel. Although it is understandable that he, being aware
of the circumstances involved, would be taken back by the complainant's
letter, his initial response should have been to reply in a
non-threatening manner, informing the complainant of the situation
involving the overflight giving the complainant an opportunity to
retract. By doing what he did, the Col in my opinion unnecessarily
deeply hurt an innocent person who had absolutely no idea that there
were extenuating circumstances involving a fallen comrade. From the
complainant's VOLUNTARY and IMMEDIATE retraction, it is clear that the
Col succeeded.
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.
If I was Soloman, which I am not, and had the chance to talk to this
Col, I would explain what I have said here gently and with a deep
understanding for what he must have been feeling at the time. But make
no mistake; I would do my best to impress upon him the wrong path he
took in handling this delicate matter and encourage him to think twice
if faced with a similar incident again.
Dudley Henriques
President Emeritus
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
(has flown missing man formations)

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

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

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
news
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".

I suspect that the Colonel's response would have been more informative,
rather than brutal, if the letter writers comments had not come off in such
a smartassed manner.

If the writers question had been formed something like. "...what's with the
low flying planes?", the colonel's response would NOT have been justified.

In fact, I'd say the whole issue of "Missing Man formation", is almost
negligible. My first take on the original writer was of a snot-nosed,
teen-aged punk, certainly not an adult, a veteran in his later 50's. That
"ghetto mentality" is, unfortunately, too much a part of our culture
anymore.