A Wake Up Call From Luke AFB

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

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 19:03:17 -0400, Peter Clark wrote:

I'd love to be on the receiving end of that call and free to tell the
person making the completely fictitious complaint exactly how stupid they
are. Anyone caught making fictitious noise complaints should also be
prohibited from filing any subsequent noise complaints.

I hope they track/record these false complaints. It should do wonders for
the credibility of these "witnesses" should they ever try to seriously
push the noise issue.

- 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

Neil Gould wrote:
Recently, Dudley Henriques posted:

Neil Gould wrote:
Recently, Paul Dow (Remove CAPS in address)
posted:

According to Snopes.com, this incident was in 2005.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/wakeup.asp


There was another letter that continued this topic.

To his credit, the complainant, Mr. MacRae, tendered a written
apology which was published in The Republic on 9 July:

[...]
I had no idea of the significance of the flyby, and would never have
insulted such a fine and respectful display had I known.
[...]
I served in the U.S. Navy and am a Vietnam veteran.

Anyone else have trouble reconciling these two statements?

Neil


Not at all. The first statement obviously is a referral to THIS
SPECIFIC flyby and indicates that the complainant was unaware that
the flyby involved a ceremony.
The second statement is a simple comment that indicates the
complainant was a veteran and had he known it was a cerimonial flyby
would NOT have written his letter.
I see no "sinister" indications here. I'm assuming you are referring
to a veteran having no idea what the significence of the flyby would
be and therefore suspect?
I don't see that at all.

Just to be clear, I see no "sinister" indications, either. I wondered
about anyone, especially a vet, not at least thinking that a low-level
formation flyby might be part of a ceremony. It's the first thing that
would have occurred to me, but perhaps I've just seen too many of them?
Also, it took some time to reflect on the incident in order to write the
letter to the newspaper, and that may have triggered a recollection, too.
So, I asked the question, and accept from the responses of others that it
not would be all that unusual.

BTW - I agree with your conclusion that the Col. missed an opportunity,
although I wouldn't expect his superior to be any more sensitive to that
possibility than he was.

Neil



I understand what you are saying. It would have occured to me as well.
The interesting thing about the position I have taken on this is that
the complainant is actually irrelevant in the equation. His letter for
my position is nothing more or less than a useful tool that might have
been used by the Col to a better advantage.
It was a gambit declined....a stalemate achieved where checkmate was
obvious. :-)

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.

Recently, Dudley Henriques posted:

Neil Gould wrote:
Recently, Paul Dow (Remove CAPS in address)
posted:

According to Snopes.com, this incident was in 2005.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/wakeup.asp


There was another letter that continued this topic.

To his credit, the complainant, Mr. MacRae, tendered a written
apology which was published in The Republic on 9 July:

[...]
I had no idea of the significance of the flyby, and would never have
insulted such a fine and respectful display had I known.
[...]
I served in the U.S. Navy and am a Vietnam veteran.

Anyone else have trouble reconciling these two statements?

Neil


Not at all. The first statement obviously is a referral to THIS
SPECIFIC flyby and indicates that the complainant was unaware that
the flyby involved a ceremony.
The second statement is a simple comment that indicates the
complainant was a veteran and had he known it was a cerimonial flyby
would NOT have written his letter.
I see no "sinister" indications here. I'm assuming you are referring
to a veteran having no idea what the significence of the flyby would
be and therefore suspect?
I don't see that at all.

Just to be clear, I see no "sinister" indications, either. I wondered
about anyone, especially a vet, not at least thinking that a low-level
formation flyby might be part of a ceremony. It's the first thing that
would have occurred to me, but perhaps I've just seen too many of them?
Also, it took some time to reflect on the incident in order to write the
letter to the newspaper, and that may have triggered a recollection, too.
So, I asked the question, and accept from the responses of others that it
not would be all that unusual.

BTW - I agree with your conclusion that the Col. missed an opportunity,
although I wouldn't expect his superior to be any more sensitive to that
possibility than he was.

Neil

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...
Neil Gould wrote:

BTW - I agree with your conclusion that the Col. missed an opportunity,
although I wouldn't expect his superior to be any more sensitive to that
possibility than he was.

Neil



I understand what you are saying. It would have occured to me as well.
The interesting thing about the position I have taken on this is that the
complainant is actually irrelevant in the equation. His letter for my
position is nothing more or less than a useful tool that might have been
used by the Col to a better advantage.
It was a gambit declined....a stalemate achieved where checkmate was
obvious. :-)

Go back and re-read the first churlish, snot-nosed complaint letter again.

As I mention elssewhere, my first take was some teenaged punk, not a 50's
something vet.

Al the colonel did was state the facts.

Matt Barrow wrote:
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...
Neil Gould wrote:
BTW - I agree with your conclusion that the Col. missed an opportunity,
although I wouldn't expect his superior to be any more sensitive to that
possibility than he was.

Neil



I understand what you are saying. It would have occured to me as well.
The interesting thing about the position I have taken on this is that the
complainant is actually irrelevant in the equation. His letter for my
position is nothing more or less than a useful tool that might have been
used by the Col to a better advantage.
It was a gambit declined....a stalemate achieved where checkmate was
obvious. :-)

Go back and re-read the first churlish, snot-nosed complaint letter again.

As I mention elssewhere, my first take was some teenaged punk, not a 50's
something vet.

Al the colonel did was state the facts.


I have no need to re-read what I have already read and after doing so
formed a firm opinion. You and I are simply in disagreement on this. The
entire discussion is moot as are most discussions like this one on Usenet.
Opinions on past actions by others are simply opinions. Mine will not
change by re-reading the complainant's letter. As I said, the
complainant, his attitude, and his letter are not relevant in my position.
If you believe the Col "simply stated the facts", that is your position.
I respect that and have no desire whatsoever to "push" my position on
the matter any further then my passing comment on the matter and least
of all to indicate someone else's position is wrong.
Such is Usenet :-)
Dudley Henriques

On Jul 13, 10:50 am, Dudley Henriques wrote:

I respect that and have no desire whatsoever to "push" my position on
the matter any further then my passing comment on the matter and least
of all to indicate someone else's position is wrong.

Such is Usenet :-)

(just have to ask) Anyone else have trouble reconciling these two
statements?
;-) ;-)

"Bob Crawford" wrote in message
(just have to ask) Anyone else have trouble reconciling these two
statements?
;-) ;-)


BOHICA!!!