Aviation Fatalities: "he died doing something he loved..."

It's a wise man who knows when enough is enough and when the hell to just
shut up and enjoy the trip.
Dudley Henriques



Good advice that I personally should take to heart. That Boyer clown is
just so infuriating that I have a hard time not spouting off (here and
through other means).

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
ink.net...

He has a propensity for shooting from the hip when questioned by
reporters and can quite often stick his perferbial foot in his mouth.
To this day, Yeager still doesn't know how to handle the press. He is the
ultimate mixture of extreme talent, tremendous ability, and intellectual
stupidity.

I wouldn't call it stuoidity, but the fact he comes from a place where
plain talk and a lack of unmitigated bull**** is commonplace.

Understandable considering beginnigs and his "ride" to the top, wouldn't
you say?

Actually no, at least not in my opinion anyway.
Even when considering Yeager's back country beginnings, anyone who has been
exposed to him through his career (and I know a bunch :-) will tell you in
a nano second that his intelligence goes way beyond whatever boundaries this
factor might define in his life equation.
Perhaps intellillectual stupidity is the wrong phrase to use to describe
Yeager. Closer would be his inability to keep his mouth shut after his point
has been made. He has always had an unbridled propensity to take it out
there "one bridge too far".
This latest statement about Crossfield is a perfect example.
Facing a CNN reporter, Yeager was asked for a comment on Crossfield's death.
His gut reaction and his initial response was correct. He simply stated that
he was "sad this had occurred".
But then something else kicked in. I won't presume to actually know what
that was, but knowing about and his relationship with the civilian test
pilots of his era, and especially his feelings about Crossfield; Armstrong
and a few others, his next remark came as no surprise.
Saying it was "not surprising" and commenting on Crossfield's alleged
propensity to take unnecessary risk was not only out of place, but it took
Yeager right into that area he should know by now causes him trouble.
His follow-up remarks suggesting that Crossfield took unnecessary risks when
a civilian test pilot and got himself into trouble with weather, and
attributing the cause of the crash to Crossfield himself were simply
inappropriate, and based on Yeager's relationship with the civilian test
pilot community, downright mean and intentionally made.
It's the fact that these remarks were unnecessary that mark them as a major
intellectual flaw for Yeager, and mark what he said as being stupid.
There's a time and a place to shoot from the hip, and knowing where those
places are for a hip shooter like Yeager should be 101. He's simply never
learned when to shoot and when not to shoot.
The problem with Yeager is that he came out of the back woods with nothing
but sheer coordination and good eyesight. Then he got the break of his life
when the section trailer in the four ship flight of German aircraft he was
shooting at broke into instead of away from his section leader, colliding
with him and giving Yeager 5 for the day. Stars and Stripes picked it up as
a major story and Yeager was an instant "hero". Not to say he didn't deserve
it, but nonetheless, it was a fluke that launched him. Any fighter pilot
flying in that era will tell you that it was the magic number 5 that
launched Yeager.
If that German pilot had broken the other way and Yeager's score for the one
mission had been 4 instead of 5, chances are S&S would never have picked up
the story and what followed in Yeager's life would possibly have been quite
different then the way it went from that point on.
Yeager has always been lucky. He's also very talented and probably one of
the premier "sticks" of all time.
He was extremely lucky in the Bell X1 program. Everybody in the flight test
community knows it was George Welch and not Yeager who went mach 1 first.
Yeager got the gravy because it came down that way for reasons beyond the
scope of my remarks here.
The trouble with Yeager is his mouth. It's gotten him into trouble with the
AF, and now in civilian life afterward.
He would be just fine if he'd let things be and simply enjoy the good
fortune. Guys like Yeager make a huge mistake when they start "talking" to
an audience that already accepts them as heroes. The more they talk, the
deeper into the way the audience thinks they penetrate. They never seem to
realize that silence and/or extremely well thought out comment is the way to
keep the status quo.
Tom Cruise is going through this right now. Yeager would be wise to observe
what has happened to Cruise and the way the public views him.
I have no doubt Yeager will go on "speaking his mind". Actually, I have it
on fairly good authority that he really doesn't give a damn what people
think about him, and that's the saddest part of all, because all he ever had
to do was to share the limelight with those who shared the risks with him.
Crossfield was one of those with whom he chose not to share, and that, in my
humble opinion is the ultimate stupidity.
You might get the impression from all this that I don't like Yeager. That's
not true. I actually feel sorry for him. He was much better than he has
chosen to project of himself.
Dudley Henriques

Good advice that I personally should take to heart.

Many of us on this NG wish you would do just that. Or find a hobby not
involving computers.

That Boyer clown is just so infuriating that I have a hard time not spouting off (here and
through other means).

A little restraint goes a long way, my friend...

Dudley H wrote:

Yeager would be wise to observe what has happened to Cruise and the way the public views him. I have no doubt Yeager will go on "speaking his mind".

I don't recall Crossfield making any public comment on Yeager's going
off the runway in a T-6 a few years back. Chuck should return the honor
and stifle any negative comments IMHO.

"Dudley Henriques" wrote:
in message k.net...

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
ink.net...

He has a propensity for shooting from the hip when questioned by
reporters and can quite often stick his perferbial foot in his mouth.
To this day, Yeager still doesn't know how to handle the press. He is the
ultimate mixture of extreme talent, tremendous ability, and intellectual
stupidity.

I wouldn't call it stuoidity, but the fact he comes from a place where
plain talk and a lack of unmitigated bull**** is commonplace.

Understandable considering beginnigs and his "ride" to the top, wouldn't
you say?

Actually no, at least not in my opinion anyway.
Even when considering Yeager's back country beginnings, anyone who has been
exposed to him through his career (and I know a bunch :-) will tell you in
a nano second that his intelligence goes way beyond whatever boundaries
this factor might define in his life equation.
Perhaps intellillectual stupidity is the wrong phrase to use to describe
Yeager.

Let us not put too fine a point on this.

"Horse's ass" is the good old-fashioned term that I think best describes
Yeager. His remarks upon the death of a great aviator are more evidence of
his resemblance to an equine posterior--as if any more was needed after his
autobiography.

As was noted in AvWeb today, when Mr. Right Stuff ran a T-6 off the runway a
couple of years back, Scott Crossfield maintained a discreet silence, a sign
of a gentlemanly character missing in Yeager.

[snip]

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

"Kingfish" wrote in message
oups.com...
Dudley H wrote:

Yeager would be wise to observe what has happened to Cruise and the way
the public views him. I have no doubt Yeager will go on "speaking his
mind".

I don't recall Crossfield making any public comment on Yeager's going
off the runway in a T-6 a few years back. Chuck should return the honor
and stifle any negative comments IMHO.

You are correct, although the two scenarios might not be quite comparable.
Crossfield, being out of the public limelight for many years, and never
having had the exposure Yeager has had, wouldn't have been an attractant for
the press after Yeager's little "incident" with the T6.
It would have been unnatural for the press to interview someone like
Crossfield after the T6 incident, as no harm was done and only egos were
involved. I wouldn't have put it past the National Inquirer however :-)
It was however, natural for Yeager to be asked to comment on the death of a
test pilot of Crossfield's caliber; someone whom he knew personally.

Just as an aside, and I can't speak for Crossfield of course, I would have
been very surprised had Crossfield had been asked to comment after Yeager's
incident, if he would have said anything more than that the T6 can be quite
a handful on rollout in a crosswind for the best of pilots and that Yeager
wasn't the first, nor would he be the last pilot to get bitten in this
manner.
This is the kind of comment you give to the press at moments like these.
It's called "Class"!
Dudley Henriques

Montblack wrote:
("Blanche Cohen" wrote)
personally, I fully intend on dying of very old age, in my sleep, and NOT
in any airplane or any other vehicle.


Agreed ...except change sleep to bed. :-)

well, my standard response is something closer to an R rating. I wrote
this way to attempt to maintain some semblance of propriety in what
is often a family-oriented newsgroup....

("Dudley Henriques" wrote)
[snip]
Perhaps intellillectual stupidity is the wrong phrase to use to describe
Yeager. Closer would be his inability to keep his mouth shut after his
point has been made. He has always had an unbridled propensity to take it
out there "one bridge too far".

This latest statement about Crossfield is a perfect example.

Facing a CNN reporter, Yeager was asked for a comment on Crossfield's
death. His gut reaction and his initial response was correct. He simply
stated that he was "sad this had occurred".

But then something else kicked in. I won't presume to actually know what
that was, but knowing about and his relationship with the civilian test
pilots of his era, and especially his feelings about Crossfield; Armstrong
and a few others, his next remark came as no surprise.

Saying it was "not surprising" and commenting on Crossfield's alleged
propensity to take unnecessary risk was not only out of place, but it took
Yeager right into that area he should know by now causes him trouble.

His follow-up remarks suggesting that Crossfield took unnecessary risks
when a civilian test pilot and got himself into trouble with weather, and
attributing the cause of the crash to Crossfield himself were simply
inappropriate, and based on Yeager's relationship with the civilian test
pilot community, downright mean and intentionally made.


Not intending to ruffle feathers here, but...

In these days of media savvy interview subjects, I found Yeager's remarks
refreshingly honest.

This is what Chuck Yeager thinks vs. This is the APPROPRIATE thing to say -
is how he handled the question.

Was Yeager right in saying what he did?
I don't know. Maybe, maybe not.

Was it an un-classy thing to say?
I don't know. Maybe, maybe not.

Was it (refreshingly) honest?
Yes.


Montblack

"Montblack" wrote in message
...
("Dudley Henriques" wrote)
[snip]
Perhaps intellillectual stupidity is the wrong phrase to use to describe
Yeager. Closer would be his inability to keep his mouth shut after his
point has been made. He has always had an unbridled propensity to take it
out there "one bridge too far".

This latest statement about Crossfield is a perfect example.

Facing a CNN reporter, Yeager was asked for a comment on Crossfield's
death. His gut reaction and his initial response was correct. He simply
stated that he was "sad this had occurred".

But then something else kicked in. I won't presume to actually know what
that was, but knowing about and his relationship with the civilian test
pilots of his era, and especially his feelings about Crossfield;
Armstrong and a few others, his next remark came as no surprise.

Saying it was "not surprising" and commenting on Crossfield's alleged
propensity to take unnecessary risk was not only out of place, but it took
Yeager right into that area he should know by now causes him trouble.

His follow-up remarks suggesting that Crossfield took unnecessary risks
when a civilian test pilot and got himself into trouble with weather, and
attributing the cause of the crash to Crossfield himself were simply
inappropriate, and based on Yeager's relationship with the civilian test
pilot community, downright mean and intentionally made.


Not intending to ruffle feathers here, but...

In these days of media savvy interview subjects, I found Yeager's remarks
refreshingly honest.

This is what Chuck Yeager thinks vs. This is the APPROPRIATE thing to
say - is how he handled the question.

Was Yeager right in saying what he did?
I don't know. Maybe, maybe not.

Was it an un-classy thing to say?
I don't know. Maybe, maybe not.

Was it (refreshingly) honest?
Yes.


Montblack

Doctor to family of person who just died on the operating table;
"Listen up gang. She's dead!"
Refreshing honest? Perhaps.
Tactful? Don't think so.
Necessary? Absolutely not!
There is a time and a place for being honest and direct and a time and a
place for avoiding it.
What makes one intelligent and in possession of what we like to call "class"
is in knowing the difference.
If for no other reason, Yeager should have passed on ANY public comment
suggesting a DIRECT cause for the crash based on nothing more than the fact
that the investigation is on-going.
Dudley Henriques

"Blanche Cohen" wrote in message
...
well, my standard response is something closer to an R rating. I wrote
this way to attempt to maintain some semblance of propriety in what
is often a family-oriented newsgroup....

USENET, family oriented? And exactly *what* have you been inhaling?