THE PILOT WHO WOULDN'T FLY

(Chuck) wrote:

On Feb 4 2004 (Mike Marron) quoted
John F. Kennedy ""War will exist until that distant day when the
conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation in prestige that
the warrior does today."

In 1963 a VQ-2 Elint collection mission was planned in coordination with
other collectors, as one of VQ-2's missions at that time.

Two A3D-2Q (EA-3B) and one WV-2Q (EC-121M) flew to the Black Sea. One
A3D-2Q was to penetrate low-level under radar for 60 miles over Yalta,
then pop up
to hopefully cause Soviet Union radars to light up, and scram back over
the Black Sea. (A well practiced loft and toss maneuver from the A3D
Heavy Attack program). The other collectors would then document the
transmissions, ie., standard Elint stuff.

However the Navy CDR pilot of the probe aborted the mission just before
landfall, turned around and returned to the staging airfield. He was a
combat carrier pilot in WWII, and Heavy Attack pilot in VC and VAH
squadrons when they had the nuclear attack role 1948 - 1956, and had no
qualms about dropping a nuclear weapon if the flag went up in those
days.

The CDR, whom no other officers would talk to, was flown back to Rota,
VQ-2's homebase, then sent back to the United States for Courts Martial
(or some other action). I flew with him, as I had completed ten years
service and was leaving the Navy. He talked to me on the flight back to
Philadelphia, in a confessional type of way (we had a history together
that allowed that).

His position was that he was a patriot, and had risked his life many
times to defend the United States. His decision not to overfly was not,
in his view, an act of cowardice, as he was confident that he and his
crew would have successfully returned. His judgment was that such
provocative missions were wrong, and he could no longer conscientiously
or morally participate. He did not "go public" to push his views ie.,
did not have a political agenda; he gave up his career, retirement etc.,
as a matter of conscience. He was hoping that he could avoid other
punishment, but realized that he might not.

Interesting story. JFK's "conscientious objector" quote sprang to mind
not because I'm a dove, but because after flying 62 missions "the
pilot who wouldn't fly" is not a coward. The author of the story (e.g:
Kramer) is the real coward. As Ghandi said, "A coward is incapable
of exhibiting love; it is the prerogative of the brave."

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.

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.

I disagree. The only difference is I use the intercom vis the radio to
coordinate with my team.

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*).

I chose a BUFF over an F-16 and an F-15C, in fact the only difficulty I may
have had in chosing would have been if an F-15E were available, and even then I
think I would have taken the BUFF. I'm the opposite of you, for the life of me,
I can't figure out why anyone would take a fighter, particularly an F-15C. Sure
you have a great time at RED FLAG, but when it comes time for the real deal,
you're a spectator. As for the fighters that employ air-ground ordnance; if
you aren't carrying double digits(in number of weapons), you're just a bomber
want to be


BUFDRVR

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