THE PILOT WHO WOULDN'T FLY

In message , Mike Marron
writes
(WaltBJ) wrote:

[snipped for brevity]

FWIW I remember hearing about a pilot who flipped out while on his 748th
combat mission in SEA. Anybody else remember that case, supposedly
around 1971, or was it just another rumor?

After surviving nearly 750 missions (?!!) in combat who the hell
*wouldn't* be section eight material?

HE started with a large deposit of courage and endurance but made one
too many withdrawals?

Mike
--
M.J.Powell

I'm curious here. Would it have been different if he broke his back and
couldn't fly? That would be a medical reason. So what if he was medically
diagnoses as being mentally incompetent to fly? I wasn't there, and I don't
know him, but it sounds like he was courageous individual who had something
snap that he couldn't consciously control (extreme PTSD presumably). I
won't presume to judge your fraternity's opinion of him, but if he did have
an extreme (now medically diagnosable) mental breakdown, he deserves thanks
for his 62, and pity for his medical condition after. Crappy deal all the
way around.

Tony

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
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

"Tony Volk" wrote in message
...
I'm curious here. Would it have been different if he broke his back and
couldn't fly? That would be a medical reason. So what if he was medically
diagnoses as being mentally incompetent to fly? I wasn't there, and I don't
know him, but it sounds like he was courageous individual who had something
snap that he couldn't consciously control (extreme PTSD presumably). I
won't presume to judge your fraternity's opinion of him, but if he did have
an extreme (now medically diagnosable) mental breakdown, he deserves thanks
for his 62, and pity for his medical condition after. Crappy deal all the
way around.

Why are we branching out into imaginary medical/psychiatric conditions? As far
as anybody knows, he was of sound mind and body at that time. What it pretty
much boils down to is why he chose to cease flying (which he did when he failed
to renew his flight physical) while his country was involved in a shooting war
half way around the world.

His priorities obviously did not include retaining his flying status and maybe
even volunteering for transition into a combat aircraft in use in Viet Nam and
maybe even subsequently volunteering to serve in Viet Nam. I suppose he thought
his Texas ANG experience uniquely qualified him to manage some unknown Alabama
politician's election campaign, and that was his first priority. Then, too,
maybe the streets of Montgomery or Birmingham being far safer than the streets
of Pleiku or Bien Hoa might have had something to do with it.

The fact remains that our shooting war was in Southeast Asia and he chose to
walk in the opposite direction. You can call that kind of behavior courageous,
but I can think of numerous other descriptive adjectives I might use, none of
which would even remotely be identified with courage.

George Z.

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

snip


His priorities obviously did not include retaining his flying status and
maybe
even volunteering for transition into a combat aircraft in use in Viet Nam
and
maybe even subsequently volunteering to serve in Viet Nam.

He had already volunteered for Palace Alert duty--you were informed of this
before and admitted you had never heard of the program, much less the fact
that Bush did indeed volunteer for it. Your first false claim in this regard
can be chalked up to ignorance--repeated false claims just confirms your
lack of integrity.

I suppose he thought
his Texas ANG experience uniquely qualified him to manage some unknown
Alabama
politician's election campaign, and that was his first priority.

Gee, the idea that NG personnel consider their civilian occupations as being
their normal first priority--astounding!

Then, too,
maybe the streets of Montgomery or Birmingham being far safer than the
streets
of Pleiku or Bien Hoa might have had something to do with it.

Being as he had already volunteered for Palace Alert, you are just lying
agin.


The fact remains that our shooting war was in Southeast Asia and he chose
to
walk in the opposite direction. You can call that kind of behavior
courageous,
but I can think of numerous other descriptive adjectives I might use, none
of
which would even remotely be identified with courage.

Courage would require you to admit you were wrong in posting this nonsense
the first time you did so--integrity should have kept you from repeating
this crap again after admitting you had no idea that the program existed, or
that Bush had indeed volunteered for it. Seems like you are not exhibiting
much of either quality. If you want to attack Bush on the basis of differing
opinions regarding his policies, fine, that would be your right. But
attacking him based upon your own false assertions is just plain lying, pure
and simple.

Brooks


George Z.

On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 11:28:58 -0500, "George Z. Bush"
wrote:


"Tony Volk" wrote in message
...
I'm curious here. Would it have been different if he broke his back and
couldn't fly? That would be a medical reason. So what if he was medically
diagnoses as being mentally incompetent to fly? I wasn't there, and I don't
know him, but it sounds like he was courageous individual who had something
snap that he couldn't consciously control (extreme PTSD presumably). I
won't presume to judge your fraternity's opinion of him, but if he did have
an extreme (now medically diagnosable) mental breakdown, he deserves thanks
for his 62, and pity for his medical condition after. Crappy deal all the
way around.

Why are we branching out into imaginary medical/psychiatric conditions? As far
as anybody knows, he was of sound mind and body at that time. What it pretty
much boils down to is why he chose to cease flying (which he did when he failed
to renew his flight physical) while his country was involved in a shooting war
half way around the world.

His priorities obviously did not include retaining his flying status and maybe
even volunteering for transition into a combat aircraft in use in Viet Nam and
maybe even subsequently volunteering to serve in Viet Nam. I suppose he thought
his Texas ANG experience uniquely qualified him to manage some unknown Alabama
politician's election campaign, and that was his first priority. Then, too,
maybe the streets of Montgomery or Birmingham being far safer than the streets
of Pleiku or Bien Hoa might have had something to do with it.

The fact remains that our shooting war was in Southeast Asia and he chose to
walk in the opposite direction. You can call that kind of behavior courageous,
but I can think of numerous other descriptive adjectives I might use, none of
which would even remotely be identified with courage.

George Z.

You seemed to have dropped the ball here, George. We are talking about
a WW II pilot in Art Kramer's unit who was shot down and then refused
to fly. Your fixation (and associated errors) seems to be overwhelming
your judgement.

But, first there is no "renew your flight physical" in the military.
That applies to Class I/II/III for FAA license. If you are on flying
status in the military you take an annual flight physical. The
President did not "fail to renew" a physical.

The incident you refer to after four years of flying service including
UPT, operational qualification in the F-102 and achieving operational
alert status in the TANG was a request for four months detached duty
at Montgomery while working on a political campaign. The New York
Times has reported the corrected details of the events. Bush was
unable to meet commitments. He requested and received approval to make
up drill periods at a later time. This is standard ANG procedure.

He was current in a "combat aircraft in use in Viet Nam". The F-102
(including ANG crews) was deployed at Udorn, Danang and Tan Son Nhut
among other place.

So, follow the thread, contribute relevantly, get your facts straight,
and reduce the level of your personal agenda.






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

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.

Lucky Ekman extended beyond his first 100 and got shot down on 132.
Jim Mitchell, my flight commander got shot down his second time on 99.
Karl Richter was shot down on 198 near the end of his 200. Many guys
with 100 North came back for more tours.

The practice of trying to keep guys off of the Pack VI schedule at the
end of the tour was to keep them alive, not because they "went
candy-assed."

I'm biting my tongue to keep from pulling an Art here and asking the
source of your information.



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

In article ,
M. J. Powell wrote:
In message , Mike Marron
writes
(WaltBJ) wrote:

[snipped for brevity]

FWIW I remember hearing about a pilot who flipped out while on his 748th
combat mission in SEA. Anybody else remember that case, supposedly

After surviving nearly 750 missions (?!!) in combat who the hell
*wouldn't* be section eight material?

HE started with a large deposit of courage and endurance but made one
too many withdrawals?

Sounds like some of my father's stories.

They had one guy on his ship who'd been on Royal Oak when she
was topedoed. After he joined Egret he eventually reached the
stage where he couldn't sleep - or even go - below decks (this
on the Atlantic and South Atlantic convoy runs). IIRC he was
drafted to a shore post in the end (unless I'm thinking of
someone else). Certainly my father uses this (and similar)
stories to make the point that the Navy recognised that
very brave men could get to the point where they could no
longer function, whereas the RAF would have slapped them
with LMF.
One of his college friends (or a friend thereof - have to ask)
did join the RAF and after a time was threatened with being
declared LMF. He'd been flying low-level intruder missions
in daylight over France for about a year by then. In Blenheim
IVFs. No wonder the strain was showing. He kept flying and
didn't come back from his next intruder mission. No survivors
from the crew. Another splendid success for the RAF approach.

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)

I'm biting my tongue to keep from pulling an Art here and asking the
source of your information.

Hi Ed. I should've prefaced my statement with the reference to clarify
that I was quoting the word candy-assed (please accept my apology for not
doing so). My source is from G.I.'s book, from the chapter "Numbers Game",
p.103. To quote:

"After X number if missions, human nature being what it is, the pilot
suddenly realizes that he has indeed a chance that life may be possible. It
becomes utterly priceless again, and the warrior becomes a Candy-Ass. He
starts planning to survive the terminal disease of war, and his courage
leaves him. He is now vulnerable, and a hazard to himself and his
compatriots.
The bosses recognized this phenomena and declared the number 90 as
'golden'. After reaching 90, you went only to the easy ones again."

He goes on to explain how this doesn't work, as then pilots start
worrying about 89 as their last, then 88, etc. I'll leave further
clarification/interpretation of G.I.'s statement in your hands, as you are
far more qualified to interpret its meaning (did different wings have
different policies (or reasons underlying those policies?)). I just wanted
to clarify that my statements were based on a direct quote, and not any
personal belief that pilots lost their courage over time. Sincerely,

Tony Volk

On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 13:03:39 -0500, "Tony Volk"
wrote:

I'm biting my tongue to keep from pulling an Art here and asking the
source of your information.

Hi Ed. I should've prefaced my statement with the reference to clarify
that I was quoting the word candy-assed (please accept my apology for not
doing so). My source is from G.I.'s book, from the chapter "Numbers Game",
p.103. To quote:

"After X number if missions, human nature being what it is, the pilot
suddenly realizes that he has indeed a chance that life may be possible. It
becomes utterly priceless again, and the warrior becomes a Candy-Ass. He
starts planning to survive the terminal disease of war, and his courage
leaves him. He is now vulnerable, and a hazard to himself and his
compatriots.
The bosses recognized this phenomena and declared the number 90 as
'golden'. After reaching 90, you went only to the easy ones again."

He goes on to explain how this doesn't work, as then pilots start
worrying about 89 as their last, then 88, etc. I'll leave further
clarification/interpretation of G.I.'s statement in your hands, as you are
far more qualified to interpret its meaning (did different wings have
different policies (or reasons underlying those policies?)). I just wanted
to clarify that my statements were based on a direct quote, and not any
personal belief that pilots lost their courage over time. Sincerely,

Tony Volk

GI is right about the policy, but might be wrong about the rationale.
The statistics led to the conclusion that a guy was hazardous near the
end of the tour and it might be prudent to take some pressure off.
Depending upon manning levels (which because of losses in '66 and '67
were almost always minimal) the attempt would be made to take folks
off the Pack VI sorties for the last ten or last five. But, often the
requirement to fill the schedule meant it couldn't be done.

The reason was much more often that guys were becoming too aggressive
rather than too timid.

Unfortunately, any discussion with GI regarding his meaning will have
to wait until we meet again in Valhalla. GI passed away about two
weeks ago. Here's a nickle on the grass for a great one!


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

Subject: THE PILOT WHO WOULDN'T FLY
From: "M. J. Powell"
Date: 2/4/04 6:27 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

In message , ArtKramr
writes
Subject: THE PILOT WHO WOULDN'T FLY
From: "M. J. Powell"

Yes, I saw a paratroop sergeant break down in tears on television once,
after describing his experiences in NI. A paratroop sergeant! The
toughest of the tough.


It's not what you do on television that counts. It is what you do in combat
that counts. No Air Medals for TV appearances.

Sometimes Art, you show positive genius in misunderstanding people.

Mike
--
M.J.Powell


It's one of my strong points.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer