THE PILOT WHO WOULDN'T FLY

Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..
On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 10:54:05 -0500, "Tony Volk"
wrote:

p.s.- wasn't it a well established phenomenon in Vietnam that pilots
generally went "candy-assed" when they got close to the end of their tour?
so much so that they were rotated out of Pack VI for their last five or ten?

YUP !


Arthur Kramer

NOPE! You might want to read When Thunder Rolled for my description of
the last mission of my tour in which two of the seven flying from my
squadron were lost and I recovered back at Korat with ten pounds of
fuel left in the jet.

Statistically the most dangerous missions on a 100 mission tour were
the first ten and the last ten. The first because you were scared and
inexperienced, the last because there was a tendency to get
over-aggressive and feel a bit immortal. Many guys were trying to win
the war on their last couple before they completed and went home.

That's suprising to hear. I think most (unexperienced) people just
assume that close to the end of a tour a man will start to get jumpy.
I've read multiple times that heavy bomber guys in the ETO started to
get more nervous the closer they got to the end of the tours. Do you
think there was maybe a completely different mindset for a fighter
pilot (from any war) than there would have been for a heavy bomber
crew?

~Michael

On 5 Feb 2004 10:01:30 -0800, (Michael) wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..

Statistically the most dangerous missions on a 100 mission tour were
the first ten and the last ten. The first because you were scared and
inexperienced, the last because there was a tendency to get
over-aggressive and feel a bit immortal. Many guys were trying to win
the war on their last couple before they completed and went home.

That's suprising to hear. I think most (unexperienced) people just
assume that close to the end of a tour a man will start to get jumpy.
I've read multiple times that heavy bomber guys in the ETO started to
get more nervous the closer they got to the end of the tours. Do you
think there was maybe a completely different mindset for a fighter
pilot (from any war) than there would have been for a heavy bomber
crew?

Lemme read that again slowly. You're asking a tactical aviator if
there "may be a completely different mindset for a fighter pilot...."

That's the very essence of the profession!!!!



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

Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..
On 5 Feb 2004 10:01:30 -0800, (Michael) wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..

Statistically the most dangerous missions on a 100 mission tour were
the first ten and the last ten. The first because you were scared and
inexperienced, the last because there was a tendency to get
over-aggressive and feel a bit immortal. Many guys were trying to win
the war on their last couple before they completed and went home.

That's suprising to hear. I think most (unexperienced) people just
assume that close to the end of a tour a man will start to get jumpy.
I've read multiple times that heavy bomber guys in the ETO started to
get more nervous the closer they got to the end of the tours. Do you
think there was maybe a completely different mindset for a fighter
pilot (from any war) than there would have been for a heavy bomber
crew?

Lemme read that again slowly. You're asking a tactical aviator if
there "may be a completely different mindset for a fighter pilot...."

That's the very essence of the profession!!!!

Sorry, should have said do you think fighter and bomber pilots (in
general) have a completely diffferent mindset in regard to the final
missions of a tour? I know they're different breeds to begin with,
but I'm wondering if that carries over into their outlook on the end
of a tour. Does one tend to view it as "I've got this in the bag" and
the other think "The numbers are aginst me, I'm dead"? Or does it
wind up being each individual is different and you can't judge a
group?

~Michael

do you think fighter and bomber pilots (in
general) have a completely diffferent mindset in regard to the final
missions of a tour? I know they're different breeds to begin with

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). 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.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

On 06 Feb 2004 22:10:24 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote:

do you think fighter and bomber pilots (in
general) have a completely diffferent mindset in regard to the final
missions of a tour? I know they're different breeds to begin with

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). 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.


BUFDRVR

Absolutely! Read the chapter in When Thunder Rolled, titled "Pilots
Flying Fighters". I learned long ago that "fighter pilot" is a state
of mind. The day I stood on the ramp at Edwards enroute to another
base and watched a B-52 come down initial and fly an overhead pattern,
I said, 'that guy is a fighter pilot'. Similarly, I've known a lot of
folks over the years who had the assignment, but weren't fighter
pilots--simply pilots who flew fighters.

I do like your "generalized definition" though.


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

(BUFDRVR) wrote:
someone wrote:

do you think fighter and bomber pilots (in
general) have a completely diffferent mindset in regard to the final
missions of a tour? I know they're different breeds to begin with

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....

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*).

On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 22:58:29 GMT, Mike Marron
wrote:

(BUFDRVR) wrote:
someone wrote:

do you think fighter and bomber pilots (in
general) have a completely diffferent mindset in regard to the final
missions of a tour? I know they're different breeds to begin with

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.

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.



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

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.

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*).

You'll never know the intensity of feeling that goes along with hovering over a
downed "single-seat fighter" pilot that is wet and alone in his raft, miles out
to sea, knowing that you and your crew are going to save his soggy butt. All
flying is good and not everyone belongs on the far side of mach 1, but that
doesn't mean those of us on this side didn't have very bit as much fun, or as
much job satisfaction.

Just a thought.

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.

nt (Krztalizer) wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:

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*).

You'll never know the intensity of feeling that goes along with hovering over a
downed "single-seat fighter" pilot that is wet and alone in his raft, miles out
to sea, knowing that you and your crew are going to save his soggy butt.

Actually, having done my fair share of lifeguard flights (fixed wing)
I know the feeling very well.

All flying is good and not everyone belongs on the far side of mach 1, but that
doesn't mean those of us on this side didn't have very bit as much fun, or as
much job satisfaction.

My sentiments exactly! I'd much prefer to fly my trike 1-up at 65 kts.
than fly as a backseater in an F-14 or F-15E on the far side of mach
one.