![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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) |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Wake for RAR | Stuart & Kathryn Fields | Rotorcraft | 24 | April 16th 07 04:40 AM |
Wake turbulence | Glen in Orlando | Aviation Photos | 2 | December 2nd 06 03:39 PM |
Wake Turbulence behind an A-380 | Jay Honeck | Piloting | 23 | November 29th 05 04:14 AM |
caution - wake turbulence | John Harlow | Piloting | 1 | June 4th 04 04:40 PM |
Wake turbulence avoidance and ATC | Peter R. | Piloting | 24 | December 20th 03 11:40 AM |