http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0603/04/cst.02.html
WHITFIELD: The Democrat who delivered the address is Francine Busby,
the party's candidate to replace former Republican Congressman, Randy
"Duke" Cunningham of California.

Cunningham is now serving a federal prison term for bribery. The San
Diego Republican was sentenced yesterday to eight years and four
months for taking bribes from at least three defense contractors.

CNN's chief national correspondent, John King, takes a closer look at
Cunningham's career and his fall from power.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JOHN KING, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Randy Cunningham and high
risk have been partners a long time.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: His name is Randy "Duke" Cunningham, and he is a
legend of air power.

KING: The Vietnam ace whose daring exploits were an inspiration for
Maverick in Hollywood's "Top Gun."

VAL KILMER, ACTOR: I don't like you because you're dangerous.

TOM CRUISE, ACTOR: That's right, Iceman. I am dangerous.

KING: And from famous war hero, Cunningham parachuted into a seemingly
less risky business: politics.

RANDY "DUKE" CUNNINGHAM (R), FORMER CALIFORNIA REPRESENTATIVE: Duke
Cunningham, running for U.S. Congress.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Duke Cunningham will be a congressman we can be
proud of.

KING: Now 16 years after that first campaign, San Diego Congressman
Duke Cunningham's exploits are once again the stuff of Hollywood.

CUNNINGHAM: I broke the law, concealed my conduct and disgraced my
office.

KING: His corruption is stunning in its scope and in its sheer
audacity: $2.4 million in bribes, at least. Private jets for resort
getaways. A California mansion. A Rolls Royce. A lifestyle well beyond
his means and a thirst for more.

That appetite, longtime friends like Charles Nesby say, perhaps were
some of the traits that made Duke Cunningham a successful ace.
Cockiness.

CAPT. CHARLES NESBY, CUNNINGHAM FRIEND: That's the nature of the beast
in all of us that are fighter pilots. You're naturally aggressive.

KING: Naked avarice is what prosecutors call it.

And look at this. Cunningham actually scribbled this bribe menu on his
congressional notepad. Want a $16 million contract? The cost is a
boat, "BT" for short, worth $140,000. Add in another $50,000 for each
additional million dollars in contracts.

NORMAN ORNSTEIN, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE: What Cunningham did is
breathtaking.

KING: Norman Ornstein has been studying Congress for 30 years and says
there has been nothing like this before.

ORNSTEIN: This is somebody who set out to live a lavish lifestyle by
making sure he could shake down contractors, lobbyists and interest
groups.

KING: Thousands of dollars in meals, at the Capital Grille and other
pricey Washington restaurants, Cunningham's tab picked up by defense
contractors.

Private jets, again, paid for by contractors, to whisk the congressman
around the country.

Then trendy Delano Hotel on Miami's South Beach was one destination
two years ago: $1,254 for the room, $848 for Cunningham's meals at the
hotel. Nearly $13,000 for the chartered jet.

Cunningham grew to expect luxury, the prosecution memo says. His
co-conspirators eagerly plied him with it.

He was, after all, on the House Appropriations Committee, a leading
voice on its defense subcommittee, able to enter multimillion dollar
favors into the Pentagon and other budgets.

His Navy days gave him standing on military matters, and stories via
the big screen.

CUNNINGHAM: I met my wife by singing, "You Lost That Loving Feeling"
to her at the Miramar officer's club.

KING (on camera): Perhaps they should have raised questions, some
friends say, when a congressman with a $165,000 a year salary bought a
penthouse condominium here just outside Washington, in addition to the
pricey home he owned in southern California.

(voice-over) The condo came courtesy of a defense contractors'
$200,000 down payment. Inside, tens of thousands of dollars worth of
antiques the congressman demanded in exchange for favors, all now in a
warehouse awaiting government auction.

This is the boat from the bribe menu, The Duke-Stir, a flashy exhibit
of Cunningham's lifestyle. Real estate records like these, the more
mundane evidence that would begin his fall from grace.

November, 2003, Cunningham sold his home in Del Mar to a defense
contractor for nearly $1.7 million. The contractor lost $700,000 when
he resold it. That caught the eye of a Copley News Service reporter,
and then that caught the eye of the feds. What they found is eye
popping.

NESBY: It's the power, and then some people handle the power
correctly. Other people, the power can be misused. Duke lost his moral
compass.

KING: Nesby is one of 40 Cunningham friends and family members who
wrote the judge, appealing for leniency. In his letter, Nesby recalled
the white naval officer who took a risk, standing up for a young black
pilot.

NESBY: It was not popular for him to do that, but I appreciated it.
What he did, he leveled the playing field and allowed me to compete
and gave me what I deserved. And I'll always love him for that.

KING: In his note to the judge, Cunningham wrote, "It all started very
slowly and innocently," that he's sorry, worried about dying in
prison. But "I will accept your sentence without complaint."

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Randy "Duke" Cunningham will be remembered as an
educator, a legislator, but most of all, as a legend of air power.

KING: A career that is the stuff of Hollywood. Then...

CUNNINGHAM: In my life I have had great joy and great sorrow. And now
I have great shame.

KING: ... and now.

John king, CNN, Washington.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

"Duke" Cunningham is living proof that a profoundly stupid man can be a
fighter pilot and get elected to high office.

That's news?

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0603/04/cst.02.html

> CAPT. CHARLES NESBY, CUNNINGHAM FRIEND: That's the nature of the beast
> in all of us that are fighter pilots. You're naturally aggressive.

Bull Crap Nes; you can be aggressive as hell and still remain honest.
Actually, in a twisted way, although aggressiveness is a must in flying high
performance airplanes; honesty is even more important a trait in a fighter
pilot.
An aggressive fighter pilot who is incapable of assessing his own
performance honestly will soon become a dead fighter pilot!

Dudley Henriques
Past President 1971-1985
International Fighter Pilots Association

> Cunningham is now serving a federal prison term for bribery. The San
> Diego Republican was sentenced yesterday to eight years and four
> months for taking bribes from at least three defense contractors.

This whole thing is so sad. Duke Cunningham was always one of my
heroes, and to see him completely fall from grace is stunning. What a
stupid, stupid thing to do.

Just goes to show you that a great fighter pilot doesn't necessarily
make an honest politician, I guess.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>Cunningham is now serving a federal prison term for bribery. The San
>>Diego Republican was sentenced yesterday to eight years and four
>>months for taking bribes from at least three defense contractors.
>
>
> This whole thing is so sad. Duke Cunningham was always one of my
> heroes, and to see him completely fall from grace is stunning. What a
> stupid, stupid thing to do.
>
> Just goes to show you that a great fighter pilot doesn't necessarily
> make an honest politician, I guess.

Is there such a person as an honest politician? I don't think those two
words can appear in the same sentence anymore.


Matt

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>>>Cunningham is now serving a federal prison term for bribery. The San
>>>Diego Republican was sentenced yesterday to eight years and four
>>>months for taking bribes from at least three defense contractors.
>>
>>
>> This whole thing is so sad. Duke Cunningham was always one of my
>> heroes, and to see him completely fall from grace is stunning. What a
>> stupid, stupid thing to do.
>>
>> Just goes to show you that a great fighter pilot doesn't necessarily
>> make an honest politician, I guess.
>
> Is there such a person as an honest politician? I don't think those two
> words can appear in the same sentence anymore.
>
>
> Matt

Cunningham is a pariah in the fighter community. I talk to these people
every day. He's toast!
As for the honest politicians; there are indeed a few honest politicians who
run for office. Unfortunately, the instant they arrive to take that office,
they learn immediately that the system itself is so corrupt that no honest
politician can function there and survive.
Dudley Henriques

> Cunningham is a pariah in the fighter community. I talk to these people
> every day. He's toast!

Echo that - we have one of his aircraft on display and essentially, no
one wants to mention him when a tour goes past it. If visitors bring
him up, it is universally for the same reason, to deride and insult
him. My history with him is negative but most of our former military
pilots on staff were quite stout supporters of him, until his great "I
have sinned against yooooouuuuu!" speech. Now, its impossible to find
someone that isn't disgusted with him.

> As for the honest politicians; there are indeed a few honest politicians who
> run for office. Unfortunately, the instant they arrive to take that office,
> they learn immediately that the system itself is so corrupt that no honest
> politician can function there and survive.

I agree. From the moment a person gets elected, he has to begin the
process of getting RE-elected, with all the ass-kissing and kow-towing
that such an accomplishment requires. End result is that instead of
following their own principles, a freshman representative ends up
having to adopt whatever positions and views their new benefactors can
coerce them to accept. Its sad. I watched an idealistic young family
man rise up from the masses to become a representative here in San
Diego and within a couple years, his votes could be accurately
predicted by following which companies had donated money to his
reelection campaign. Worse, he is now righteously indignant when such
conduct gets pointed out by the media. Our system is broken. The
people who benefit from it being broken are the only ones that are in a
position to fix it, so its going to STAY broken. Duke was simply the
post child for the whole system.

v/r
Gordon

"Gordon" > wrote

> My history with him is negative but most of our former military
> pilots on staff were quite stout supporters of him, until his great "I
> have sinned against yooooouuuuu!" speech. Now, its impossible to find
> someone that isn't disgusted with him.

Care to give us a little insight on what the "I have sinned against
yooooouuuuu!" speech is all about?
--
Jim in NC

Morgans wrote:
> "Gordon" > wrote
>
> > My history with him is negative but most of our former military
> > pilots on staff were quite stout supporters of him, until his great "I
> > have sinned against yooooouuuuu!" speech. Now, its impossible to find
> > someone that isn't disgusted with him.
>
> Care to give us a little insight on what the "I have sinned against
> yooooouuuuu!" speech is all about?

Cunningham's tearful mea culpa reminded me of an earlier, equally
unconvincing speech by disgraced Pastor Jimmy Swaggart, who used that
time worn phrase in front of the tv cameras. Go in front of your
constituents, grab the microphone, cry like a baby and try to convince
the faithful that you really are _sorry_ .... for getting caught!

v/r
Gordon

In article >,
mumbled
> The Democrat who delivered the address is Francine Busby,
> the party's candidate to replace former Republican Congressman, Randy
> "Duke" Cunningham of California.


And she lost.....

"Gordon" > wrote

> Cunningham's tearful mea culpa reminded me of an earlier, equally
> unconvincing speech by disgraced Pastor Jimmy Swaggart, who used that
> time worn phrase in front of the tv cameras. Go in front of your
> constituents, grab the microphone, cry like a baby and try to convince
> the faithful that you really are _sorry_ .... for getting caught!

Ahh, 2 +2 really is equal to 4, in this case! <g>
--
Jim in NC

Dirty Harry put it this way, "A man's got to know his limitations." I was
always amazed by the capacity for self-delusion suffered by some aviators:
"Great" gun passes with the pipper off target. "Rails" approaches that
weren't. etc.

R / John

PS. IIRC Chuck Nesby wasn't a fighter pilot.

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
>> http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0603/04/cst.02.html
>
>> CAPT. CHARLES NESBY, CUNNINGHAM FRIEND: That's the nature of the beast
>> in all of us that are fighter pilots. You're naturally aggressive.
>
> Bull Crap Nes; you can be aggressive as hell and still remain honest.
> Actually, in a twisted way, although aggressiveness is a must in flying
> high performance airplanes; honesty is even more important a trait in a
> fighter pilot.
> An aggressive fighter pilot who is incapable of assessing his own
> performance honestly will soon become a dead fighter pilot!
>
> Dudley Henriques
> Past President 1971-1985
> International Fighter Pilots Association
>

On 7 Jul 2006 19:45:45 -0700, "Jay Honeck" > wrote
in om>::

>
>Just goes to show you that a great fighter pilot doesn't necessarily
>make an honest politician, I guess.

Perhaps it is more an alarming illustration of how pervasive the
corruption ethos of US Congress is. It appears that Cunningham was so
comfortable with malfeasance, that he was openly penning bribe demands
on his congressional notepad. He had apparently long ago lost sight
of the gravity of the crime he was committing out of naked avarice.

It makes you wonder how many hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribe
money he had stashed in his freezer*.


* http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5421939

On 7 Jul 2006 20:44:49 -0700, "Gordon" > wrote in
om>::

>Our system is broken. The
>people who benefit from it being broken are the only ones that are in a
>position to fix it, so its going to STAY broken.

Are you saying that the corporations who pay the bribes, for surely
they reap the most benefit from them, are the ones that are in a
position to make the US Congress ethical and honest? Perhaps that is
correct; all that has to be proved is that their actually paid for
congressional favors. Once the corporations find that they are at
risk in paying bribes, they might think twice.

On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 01:27:55 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> wrote:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0603/04/cst.02.html
>
>> CAPT. CHARLES NESBY, CUNNINGHAM FRIEND: That's the nature of the beast
>> in all of us that are fighter pilots. You're naturally aggressive.
>
>Bull Crap Nes; you can be aggressive as hell and still remain honest.
>Actually, in a twisted way, although aggressiveness is a must in flying high
>performance airplanes; honesty is even more important a trait in a fighter
>pilot.
>An aggressive fighter pilot who is incapable of assessing his own
>performance honestly will soon become a dead fighter pilot!
>
>Dudley Henriques
>Past President 1971-1985
>International Fighter Pilots Association
>
Twoop!


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

"John Carrier" > wrote in message
. ..
> Dirty Harry put it this way, "A man's got to know his limitations." I was
> always amazed by the capacity for self-delusion suffered by some aviators:
> "Great" gun passes with the pipper off target. "Rails" approaches that
> weren't. etc.
>
> R / John

"ain't it the truth"

You know, and I'm sure you will know exactly what I'm talking about there;
when its all been said and done for Cunningham, what's really going to hurt
him the most is what has happened to his reputation inside the community he
knew and loved the best. That alone, is a penalty above all the others, and
one that will follow him the rest of his days.
What a shame.......and what a waste!
Dudley

On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 14:04:32 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> wrote in
t>::

>when its all been said and done for Cunningham, what's really going to hurt
>him the most is what has happened to his reputation inside the community he
>knew and loved the best. That alone, is a penalty above all the others, and
>one that will follow him the rest of his days.

Personally, I'd feel that justice was significantly better served if
Cunningham were made to make restitution for results of the illegal
acts he committed.

"Dan Luke" > wrote in
:

> "Duke" Cunningham is living proof that a profoundly stupid man can be a
> fighter pilot and get elected to high office.
>
> That's news?

And its equal opportunity stupidity. Look at Buh'wheat McKinney
and Marxine Waters.

IBM

"Gordon" > wrote in
oups.com:

> Morgans wrote:
>> "Gordon" > wrote
>>
>> > My history with him is negative but most of our former military
>> > pilots on staff were quite stout supporters of him, until his great "I
>> > have sinned against yooooouuuuu!" speech. Now, its impossible to find
>> > someone that isn't disgusted with him.
>>
>> Care to give us a little insight on what the "I have sinned against
>> yooooouuuuu!" speech is all about?
>
> Cunningham's tearful mea culpa reminded me of an earlier, equally
> unconvincing speech by disgraced Pastor Jimmy Swaggart, who used that
> time worn phrase in front of the tv cameras. Go in front of your
> constituents, grab the microphone, cry like a baby and try to convince
> the faithful that you really are _sorry_ .... for getting caught!

Not to mention Jimmy and Tammy Faye Bakkers bravura performance.
My reaction when they got caught was "THANK YOU, JESUS!" ( so to
speak ). They made my skin crawl. First time I saw Ernest Angeley(sp)
on TV ( circa 1984 ) I had a similar reaction.

IBM

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 14:04:32 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> > wrote in
> t>::
>
>>when its all been said and done for Cunningham, what's really going to
>>hurt him the most is what has happened to his reputation inside the
>>community he knew and loved the best. That alone, is a penalty above all
>>the others, and one that will follow him the rest of his days.
>
> Personally, I'd feel that justice was significantly better served if
> Cunningham were made to make restitution for results of the illegal
> acts he committed.

Did the bribers actually deliver what they were supposed to?
Out of idle curiosity.
I suppose I could stroll over to their offices and ask :)

IBM

On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 10:17:40 -0500, Ian MacLure > wrote
in >::

>"Dan Luke" > wrote in
:
>
>> "Duke" Cunningham is living proof that a profoundly stupid man can be a
>> fighter pilot and get elected to high office.
>>
>> That's news?
>
> And its equal opportunity stupidity. Look at Buh'wheat McKinney
> and Marxine Waters.
>
> IBM

Were McKinney and Waters revered former Top Gun aces who toured the US
as heroes and as shining examples of military can-do also? I had no
idea. :-)

On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 10:30:57 -0500, Ian MacLure > wrote
in >::

>Larry Dighera > wrote in
:
>
>> Personally, I'd feel that justice was significantly better served if
>> Cunningham were made to make restitution for results of the illegal
>> acts he committed.
>
> Did the bribers actually deliver what they were supposed to?

The CNN new account mentions Cunningham's mansions and yachts:

His corruption is stunning in its scope and in its sheer
audacity: $2.4 million in bribes, at least. Private jets for
resort getaways. A California mansion. A Rolls Royce. A lifestyle
well beyond his means and a thirst for more.

It would seem they did.

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote

> Twoop!

????
--
Jim in NC

Jay Honeck wrote:

> Just goes to show you that a great fighter pilot doesn't necessarily
> make an honest politician, I guess.


Not to mention a chickenhawk, merely capable, fighter pilot.

On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 18:56:52 -0500, "Dan Luke"
> wrote:

>
>"Duke" Cunningham is living proof that a profoundly stupid man can be a
>fighter pilot and get elected to high office.
>
>That's news?
>
Lemme see, is that a reference to the incumbent president? The one who
spent three times as long in military service and qualified to fly
single-seat, single-engine jets? The one with the Yale degree and the
Harvard MBA?

Or, is that somehow implying that flying military fighters is a simple
task? In combat?

I've encountered some unsophisticated tactical aviators along the way,
and even some folks populating fighter cockpits who were in no way,
shape or form, qualified to carry the title, Fighter Pilot. But I
don't know a single one that I would characterize as "profoundly
stupid".

You got any experience in that line?


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 10:25:53 -0500, Ian MacLure > wrote:

>"Gordon" > wrote in
oups.com:

>>
>> Cunningham's tearful mea culpa reminded me of an earlier, equally
>> unconvincing speech by disgraced Pastor Jimmy Swaggart, who used that
>> time worn phrase in front of the tv cameras. Go in front of your
>> constituents, grab the microphone, cry like a baby and try to convince
>> the faithful that you really are _sorry_ .... for getting caught!
>
> Not to mention Jimmy and Tammy Faye Bakkers bravura performance.
> My reaction when they got caught was "THANK YOU, JESUS!" ( so to
> speak ). They made my skin crawl. First time I saw Ernest Angeley(sp)
> on TV ( circa 1984 ) I had a similar reaction.
>
> IBM

Now there was a piece of work. I'd forgotten about him with the shiny
silk suits and very poor hairpiece, slapping people in the forehead,
shouting "out, Satan" and having them fall backward into the arms of
the catchers. Great TV!

Duke disappointed a lot of folks and in the process destroyed himself.
Lots of time ahead of him in Federal prison to consider what choices
he might have made.

Overall though, we've had some pretty good former military aviators
brave the political process and come out without disgrace--two George
Bush's, McCain, Denton, Sam Johnson, Rick Perry (gov. TX), Pete
Peterson (ambassador), and more that don't come to mind immediately.
Hell, even anti-war Sen. George McGovern flew bombers in combat--don't
agree with him, but he wasn't disgraced. Got a former Phantom Phlyer
running for Congress in my old district in Colorado this year--Bentley
Rayburn.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

On 8 Jul 2006 09:54:47 -0700, " >
wrote:

>
>Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>> Just goes to show you that a great fighter pilot doesn't necessarily
>> make an honest politician, I guess.
>
>
>Not to mention a chickenhawk, merely capable, fighter pilot.

Ever been on the wing in the weather at night in a single-seat jet?

Didn't think so. "Merely capable" translates as pretty damn good in
terms of most folks capabilities.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

Ed Rasimus wrote:

> Lemme see, is that a reference to the incumbent president?


DUH !!

The one who
> spent three times as long in military service and qualified to fly
> single-seat, single-engine jets?

Yeah, much of it in absentia (stateside no less), and who didn't show
for a flight physical for unexplained reasons.

The one with the Yale degree and the
> Harvard MBA?

A legacy.

> Or, is that somehow implying that flying military fighters is a simple
> task? In combat?

Not saying it is simple, but it's not rocket science, either. He never
flew in combat...never even saw combat...never went to Nam (unlike his
last opponent).

>
> I've encountered some unsophisticated tactical aviators along the way,
> and even some folks populating fighter cockpits who were in no way,
> shape or form, qualified to carry the title, Fighter Pilot.

I didn't know you'd met W.

But I
> don't know a single one that I would characterize as "profoundly
> stupid".
>
> You got any experience in that line?

No. Unlike you, I don't have any experience being profoundly stupid.

Ed Rasimus wrote:
> Ever been on the wing in the weather at night in a single-seat jet?
>
> Didn't think so. "Merely capable" translates as pretty damn good in
> terms of most folks capabilities.
>
You're drifting off topic, Eddy. The topic isn't about whether I (or
any other poster, for that matter) has ever been a jet pilot. I
suspect most of the posters here, both conservative and liberal haven't
been. Are you putting us all down? The question is whether a
profoundly stupid mancan be a fighter pilot and also be elected to high
office.
The answer is obviouly "yes."

On 8 Jul 2006 10:31:26 -0700, " >
wrote:

>
>Ed Rasimus wrote:
>
>> Lemme see, is that a reference to the incumbent president?
>
>
>DUH !!
>
>The one who
>> spent three times as long in military service and qualified to fly
>> single-seat, single-engine jets?
>
>Yeah, much of it in absentia (stateside no less), and who didn't show
>for a flight physical for unexplained reasons.

You might want to look beyond the media talking points. Even ANG
pilots are full time active duty for all of their UPT and operational
training. They then qualify for mission-ready in their unit of
assignment. GWB handled all of that for nearly five years.

The flight physical issue is a red herring. His TX unit was
re-equipping with a different aircraft and a different mission. He
wasn't flying when he got attached to the Montgomery ANG unit which
was also transitioning from RF-84 to RF-4C and had NEITHER TYPE in
place at the period in question. In other words, no flying
opportunity, no requirement for a flight physical.
>
>The one with the Yale degree and the
>> Harvard MBA?
>
>A legacy.

Undergraduate admission is unquestionably a legacy issue. At Yale,
Bush got about the same grades as Kerry. No problem. But, Harvard
doesn't issue MBA's on legacy credentials.
>
>> Or, is that somehow implying that flying military fighters is a simple
>> task? In combat?
>
>Not saying it is simple, but it's not rocket science, either. He never
>flew in combat...never even saw combat...never went to Nam (unlike his
>last opponent).

No, he didn't go to Vietnam. At the time he went to UPT, the F-102
(from various ANG units) WAS being rotated through SEA and the
possibility for assignment existed. By the time he was operationally
ready, the aircraft was no longer being used in the limited mission it
had in SEA. Somehow, not even I can tell what is going to be a
situation two or more years in advance during a war.
>
>>
>> I've encountered some unsophisticated tactical aviators along the way,
>> and even some folks populating fighter cockpits who were in no way,
>> shape or form, qualified to carry the title, Fighter Pilot.
>
>I didn't know you'd met W.

I haven't met him, but I'm a close friend of the guy who was GWB's
T-38 Instructor Pilot at in UPT. The guy flew F-105s with me as a 1/Lt
and we both went into the training business after our 100 missions
tours. He testifies to GWB's capabilities in the fighter business and
I've no reason to doubt him. He's been to the White House twice in the
last three years on personal visits.
>
>But I
>> don't know a single one that I would characterize as "profoundly
>> stupid".
>>
>> You got any experience in that line?
>
>No. Unlike you, I don't have any experience being profoundly stupid.

We might get some objective evaluators here in the news group to
validate that now. I think you don't give your experience enough
credit.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

On 8 Jul 2006 10:41:37 -0700, " >
wrote:

>
>Ed Rasimus wrote:
>> Ever been on the wing in the weather at night in a single-seat jet?
>>
>> Didn't think so. "Merely capable" translates as pretty damn good in
>> terms of most folks capabilities.
>>
>You're drifting off topic, Eddy. The topic isn't about whether I (or
>any other poster, for that matter) has ever been a jet pilot. I
>suspect most of the posters here, both conservative and liberal haven't
>been. Are you putting us all down? The question is whether a
>profoundly stupid mancan be a fighter pilot and also be elected to high
>office.
>The answer is obviouly "yes."

Since we've come to a first-name basis, Smackey, let me note that the
topic has been about fighter pilots and political office. You made the
"profoundly stupid" assertion without qualification.

While many posters here from both ends of the political spectrum
haven't been in the business, they also refrain from expressing
derogatory opinions about things of which they have little knowledge.

You seem unconstrained by that civility.

Can you describe how someone "profoundly stupid" can be a fighter
pilot? How do they overcome the hurdles to achieve that specialty? You
know, the degree, the commission, the physical requirements, the long
and competitive training program, the technology, maybe even the
intestinal fortitude to climb into a machine, load it with ten tons of
jet fuel and then light the ass on fire...or, maybe you're right!


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

A little one-sided isn't it?
Lots of R's but no D's.
You listed indicted, convicted and under investigation, but none
sentenced or impeached.

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 18:56:52 -0500, "Dan Luke"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Duke" Cunningham is living proof that a profoundly stupid man can be a
>>fighter pilot and get elected to high office.
>>
>>That's news?
>>
> Lemme see, is that a reference to the incumbent president? The one who
> spent three times as long in military service and qualified to fly
> single-seat, single-engine jets? The one with the Yale degree and the
> Harvard MBA?
>
> Or, is that somehow implying that flying military fighters is a simple
> task? In combat?
>
> I've encountered some unsophisticated tactical aviators along the way,
> and even some folks populating fighter cockpits who were in no way,
> shape or form, qualified to carry the title, Fighter Pilot. But I
> don't know a single one that I would characterize as "profoundly
> stupid".
>
> You got any experience in that line?

I do a simple comparison for my students:

80,000 and change -- number of carrier aviators since Wilbur and Orville,
all nations
500,000 -- number of combat forces, all US services
700,000 -- number of MD's in the U.S.
1,000,000+ -- number of lawyers in the U.S. .... How hard can it be?

A combat aviator must combine quick reactions, extraordinary spatial
awareness, exceptional hand/eye coordination, mastery of a significant body
of knowledge, and superior decision making skills. More like a surgeon than
a dumb jock. Big difference? When the surgeon screws up, the patient dies.
When the aviator screws up, it's HIS (sometimes her) family that gets to
attend a funeral/memorial service.

R / John

Ed Rasimus wrote:
> While many posters here from both ends of the political spectrum
> haven't been in the business, they also refrain from expressing
> derogatory opinions about things of which they have little knowledge.
>
You must be new to the group. Many of the posters express derogatory
opinions about things about which they have little knowledge...like
you. Do you know how smart W is?
If he is smart in your opinion, then I'm glad you're retired.

I don't know how someone profoundly stupid can be a fighter pilot and
get elected to high office.. I only know that at least one profoundly
stupid person became a fighter pilot and has been elected to the
highest office in the land. Apparantly others, not including me, have
characterized at least one other fighter pilot as such, also. I guess
the armed services aren't as picky as I had hoped they would be.

> Can you describe how someone "profoundly stupid" can be a fighter
> pilot?

See above.

>How do they overcome the hurdles to achieve that specialty? You
> know, the degree...

Be honest, there are alot of stupid college grads, especially if they
are "legacies"

...., the commission

Again, be honest, you've known some stupid officers


...the physical requirements,

doesn't take brains


....the long and competitive training program

perseverence, while a very admirable trait, does not equal intelligence

....the technology,

while aviation technology may seem complex to you, I'm not impressed
with the need for any particular intelligence to master it. While I'm
sure many here, including myself, would like to think that the ability
to operate aviation systems equates to all around intelligence, I'm
afraid you'll find that it only applies in a rather narrow context.
After all, if W is so smart how come he was a failure at every business
he had ever been in before he became president?

....maybe even the
> intestinal fortitude to climb into a machine, load it with ten tons of
> jet fuel and then light the ass on fire...or, maybe you're right!

Thank you; I am right. By your logic, suicide bombers are the smartest
people on the planet!

On 7-Jul-2006, "Gordon" > wrote:

> I agree. From the moment a person gets elected, he has to begin the
> process of getting RE-elected, with all the ass-kissing and kow-towing
> that such an accomplishment requires. End result is that instead of
> following their own principles, a freshman representative ends up
> having to adopt whatever positions and views their new benefactors can
> coerce them to accept.

There's one exception I can think of: Senator Russ Feingold from Wisconsin.
No signs of corruption so far anyway, I should add. The guy certainly
stands up for what he believes no matter how unpopular it might be (the only
Senate vote against the Patriot Act for one), and to my knowledge no one has
ever accused him of kissing up to campaign contributors.
Scott Wilson

On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 18:06:14 GMT, Ed Rasimus >
wrote:


>>No. Unlike you, I don't have any experience being profoundly stupid.
>
>We might get some objective evaluators here in the news group to
>validate that now. I think you don't give your experience enough
>credit.
>

Oh, that's gotta hurt.
--
If you want venality, if you want ignorance, if you want drunkenness,
and facility for being intimidated; or if, on the other hand, you
want impulsive, unreflecting, and violent people, where do you look
Do you go to the top or to the bottom?

Ed Rasimus wrote
>> Twoop!

Morgans wrote:
> ????

Ed's just checking in on the flight freq! ;-)


Jeff

Ed Rasimus wrote:
> You might want to look beyond the media talking points. Even ANG
> pilots are full time active duty for all of their UPT and operational
> training. They then qualify for mission-ready in their unit of
> assignment. GWB handled all of that for nearly five years.

It may be a media talking point to you, but it's true. W might have
been "mission ready" but only the most naive person in the world would
believe that he would have ever had to go. The man's whole life has
been one of privilege and benefit. John Kerry was also mission ready
and stepped up to the plate.

> The flight physical issue is a red herring. His TX unit was
> re-equipping with a different aircraft and a different mission. He
> wasn't flying when he got attached to the Montgomery ANG unit which
> was also transitioning from RF-84 to RF-4C and had NEITHER TYPE in
> place at the period in question. In other words, no flying
> opportunity, no requirement for a flight physical.

Doesn't sound "mission ready" to me. Are you saying that all the other
pilots in his unit skipped their physicals also?

> >The one with the Yale degree and the
> >> Harvard MBA?
> >
> >A legacy.
>
.. But, Harvard doesn't issue MBA's on legacy credentials.

And you know this how? Anyway, of course they don't issue them solely
on legacy credentials. In W's case, however, he relied on it.
Interestingly, one of W's B school profs recently reported that W was
not a good student but was not reluctant to remind everyone just who
his family was.

> >> Or, is that somehow implying that flying military fighters is a simple
> >> task? In combat?
> >
> >Not saying it is simple, but it's not rocket science, either. He never
> >flew in combat...never even saw combat...never went to Nam (unlike his
> >last opponent).
>
> No, he didn't go to Vietnam. At the time he went to UPT, the F-102
> (from various ANG units) WAS being rotated through SEA and the
> possibility for assignment existed. By the time he was operationally
> ready, the aircraft was no longer being used in the limited mission it
> had in SEA.

How convenient.

> >> I've encountered some unsophisticated tactical aviators along the way,
> >> and even some folks populating fighter cockpits who were in no way,
> >> shape or form, qualified to carry the title, Fighter Pilot.

> >I didn't know you'd met W.
>
> I haven't met him, but I'm a close friend of the guy who was GWB's
> T-38 Instructor Pilot at in UPT. The guy flew F-105s with me as a 1/Lt
> and we both went into the training business after our 100 missions
> tours. He testifies to GWB's capabilities in the fighter business and
> I've no reason to doubt him.

So, it's just a coincidence that some of his records have been lost
(like the DUI charges). Again, how convenient.

He's been to the White House twice in the
> last three years on personal visits.

Oh, well then...

> >
> >But I
> >> don't know a single one that I would characterize as "profoundly
> >> stupid".
> >>
> >> You got any experience in that line?
> >
> >No. Unlike you, I don't have any experience being profoundly stupid.
>
> We might get some objective evaluators here in the news group to
> validate that now. I think you don't give your experience enough
> credit.

Actually, I don't need appraisal by others. My educational and
professional accomplishments are enough, thank you.
>

john smith > writes:

> A little one-sided isn't it?
> Lots of R's but no D's.
> You listed indicted, convicted and under investigation, but none
> sentenced or impeached.

I found one D on the list. I don't off the top of my head know of any
other recent ones he missed, but I make no claims to expertise,
either. If you know some, point them out. Perhaps he intends the
list to be as fair and balanced *as the facts allow* <veg>.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 18:06:14 GMT, Ed Rasimus wrote:

>>No. Unlike you, I don't have any experience being profoundly stupid.
>
> We might get some objective evaluators here in the news group to
> validate that now. I think you don't give your experience enough
> credit.

Aren't you supposed to make some type of "fox" call before releasing
live ordnance?...

--

-Jeff B.
zoomie at fastmail dot fm

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 10:30:57 -0500, Ian MacLure > wrote
> in >::

[snip]

>> Did the bribers actually deliver what they were supposed to?
>
> The CNN new account mentions Cunningham's mansions and yachts:
>
> His corruption is stunning in its scope and in its sheer
> audacity: $2.4 million in bribes, at least. Private jets for
> resort getaways. A California mansion. A Rolls Royce. A lifestyle
> well beyond his means and a thirst for more.
>
> It would seem they did.

No, did they actually deliver whatever it was they were contracted
to supply to DOD. Some sort of document management system wasn't it?

On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 17:15:25 GMT, Ed Rasimus
> wrote in
>::

>On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 18:56:52 -0500, "Dan Luke"
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Duke" Cunningham is living proof that a profoundly stupid man can be a
>>fighter pilot and get elected to high office.
>>
>>That's news?
>>
>Lemme see, is that a reference to the incumbent president? The one who
>spent three times as long in military service and qualified to fly
>single-seat, single-engine jets? The one with the Yale degree and the
>Harvard MBA?


Word is he was a 'C' average student. Despite his Harvard MBA, baby
Bush's Arab funded oil exploration company was a failure. Word is
that he ran all his business ventures into the ground* at some point.
While he may have been privileged enough to qualify to fly a jet
fighter, he saw no combat in the TANG, and apparently left his duty
early to campaign for a politician. And while he may be an incumbent
president, he wasn't elected to both terms.

* http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?bid=3&pid=21

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 10:17:40 -0500, Ian MacLure > wrote
> in >::
>
>>"Dan Luke" > wrote in
:
>>
>>> "Duke" Cunningham is living proof that a profoundly stupid man can be a
>>> fighter pilot and get elected to high office.
>>>
>>> That's news?
>>
>> And its equal opportunity stupidity. Look at Buh'wheat McKinney
>> and Marxine Waters.
>>
>> IBM
>
> Were McKinney and Waters revered former Top Gun aces who toured the US
> as heroes and as shining examples of military can-do also? I had no
> idea. :-)

Don't know about the pilot bit but they are clearly cruising above
FL450 on something.

IBM

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> And while he may be an incumbent
> president, he wasn't elected to both terms.

get over it.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 00:25:42 GMT, Yeff > wrote:

>On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 18:06:14 GMT, Ed Rasimus wrote:
>
>>>No. Unlike you, I don't have any experience being profoundly stupid.
>>
>> We might get some objective evaluators here in the news group to
>> validate that now. I think you don't give your experience enough
>> credit.
>
>Aren't you supposed to make some type of "fox" call before releasing
>live ordnance?...


LOL! 'Tally Ho' it is then.
--
If you want venality, if you want ignorance, if you want drunkenness,
and facility for being intimidated; or if, on the other hand, you
want impulsive, unreflecting, and violent people, where do you look
Do you go to the top or to the bottom?

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 10:17:40 -0500, Ian MacLure > wrote
> in >::
>
> >"Dan Luke" > wrote in
> :
> >
> >> "Duke" Cunningham is living proof that a profoundly stupid man can be a
> >> fighter pilot and get elected to high office.
> >>
> >> That's news?
> >
> > And its equal opportunity stupidity. Look at Buh'wheat McKinney
> > and Marxine Waters.
> >
> > IBM
>
> Were McKinney and Waters revered former Top Gun aces who toured the US
> as heroes and as shining examples of military can-do also? I had no
> idea. :-)

Okay, let's set the record straight - Duke hasn't been revered as a
shining hero for years. While he's earned his place in fighter-driver
Valhalla, no word of the man that I've seen or heard in the past ten
years excludes his more recent escapades - Capitol Hill loudmouth,
self-righteous Republican, congressional-floor bully. I'm still amazed
that a guy whose behavior practically screams for attack managed to
conduct so much misconduct. The old "living in glass houses" warning
doesn't begin to cut it. Duke's legendary status came about decades
ago, and from a war that will likely remain one we'd like to put behind
us, and from what I've read, was a shining moment in what was gradually
becoming a non-starter of a career. In short, it's time to give the
whole "Fallen 'Top Gun'" tag a rest.

("Larry Dighera" wrote)
> And while he may be an incumbent president, he wasn't elected to both
> terms.


http://advertising.yahoo.com/advertisingweek_06/icon_poll.html
Good luck figuring out the ballot.

"Kool-Aid Man" appears to be your choice!


Montblack
NAC (Necessary Aviation Content)
I ordered a (Free) Jolly Green Giant kite when I was a kid - late '60's.
IIRC, the thing was huge ...to an eight year old.

On 8-Jul-2006, Ian MacLure > wrote:

> Not to mention Jimmy and Tammy Faye Bakkers bravura performance.

Back in the mid-70s my high school friends and I used to watch the PTL club
for its comedic value. We called it the "Pocket The Loot Club".
Scott Wilson

wrote in :

> On 8-Jul-2006, Ian MacLure > wrote:
>
>> Not to mention Jimmy and Tammy Faye Bakkers bravura performance.
>
> Back in the mid-70s my high school friends and I used to watch the PTL club
> for its comedic value. We called it the "Pocket The Loot Club".
> Scott Wilson

I dare say you weren't alone in that.

IBM

On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 23:59:27 GMT, wrote in
>::

>
>On 8-Jul-2006, Ian MacLure > wrote:
>
>> Not to mention Jimmy and Tammy Faye Bakkers bravura performance.
>
>Back in the mid-70s my high school friends and I used to watch the PTL club
>for its comedic value. We called it the "Pocket The Loot Club".
>Scott Wilson

It's still going on under a different name:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_Broadcasting_Network#Criticism
Criticism
The network has attracted criticism for its continuous fundraising
activities, including the "prosperity gospel," an offshoot of the
Word of faith doctrine that appears to promise donors, including
impecunious ones, that God will make them rich as long as they
have faith and give to TBN. Paul Crouch has made statements to his
viewers such as, "Have you got something that you have been
praying about ten, fifteen, twenty years? You have been praying
for it and haven't gotten it...," and that people haven't received
it because they haven't given their ten percent. During a 1997
program, he conversely said, "If you have been healed or saved or
blessed through TBN and have not contributed...you are robbing God
and will lose your reward in heaven." The network reports that
seventy percent of its donations are in amounts under fifty
dollars. Some viewers consider Crouch's prosperity as a positive
demonstration of the success of their prosperity gospel
message.[citation needed] A group of critical Christians has
banded together to attempt to jam the TBN phones during its
telethons as a protest against its fundraising, which the group's
organizer, a retired pastor, likens to robbery.

The network cancelled its November 2004 "Praise-a-thon"
fundraising telethon in favor of showing forty hours of reruns
from past telethons. Network officials blamed the cancellation
mostly on health concerns for both Paul and Jan Crouch, the latter
of whom had gall bladder surgery at the time. The Associated Press
reported those officials also noted however, that the cancellation
would take pressure off other religious figures who would have
appeared on the live telethon. In the wake of recent revelations
that Paul Crouch paid $425,000 in 1998 to a male former employee
to keep him quiet about claims of a homosexual tryst with Crouch,
and the AP also cited the recent newspaper reports about the
Crouchs' "lavish lifestyle" as well as ongoing rumors of marital
strife between Paul Sr. and Jan.

Paul Crouch Jr. voiced his belief that other ministries were
concerned "they are going to be next on the hit list." R. Marie
Griffith, a Princeton University scholar studying evangelical
Christianity and the media, said that "to take the live
broadcasting off...suggests...the chaos" at TBN.

If you thought Tammy Fay was a bizarre sight, wait until you see Jan
Crouch.

And then there's the son:

http://www.rickross.com/reference/tbn/tbn6.html
Televangelists settle $40 million plagiarism suit

These folks built a Taj Mahal on land that backs to the 405 freeway in
Orange County, California. They then illegally removed the CalTrans
landscaping that shielded motorists from the sight of their edifice.

It's evident, that folks are laughable crooks.

Or more correctly that even a great man can become corrupt and do
stupid things.

-Robert



Dan Luke wrote:
> "Duke" Cunningham is living proof that a profoundly stupid man can be a
> fighter pilot and get elected to high office.
>
> That's news?

It should be noted that he tried to post the list of democrats but his
news server overloaded.

-Robert


wrote:
> Convicted/Pled Guilty
> --------------
> Republican Governor George Ryan - CONVICTED (along with 72 others)
> NH GOP Chair Chuck McGee - CONVICTED
> Republican Allen Raymond -- CONVICTED
> Republican James Tobin (NE Regional Dir., Bush campaign) -- CONVICTED
> Republican Scott Falwell - CONVICTED

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> Or more correctly that even a great man can become corrupt and do
> stupid things.

Robert, this can hardly be the case in Duke's case - he was only a
"great man" in his own eyes. I know people who worked with him during
his very first political campaign and as recently as today, we had a
discussion about what he was like back then. A few words that stand
out from the conversation were:

Braggart
bull-headed
bully
pushy
self-centered


Plus a few words that went far beyond that. A 'great man' he never
was. A SH pilot, once.

v/r
Gordon

Yeah, while I don't really buy into 'heroes', I thought he must have
been hot sh-t. I can still remember the account of his 'ace day' in
some book on the Phantom back in the 60s. Of course, the war was
underway and I was struck by everything having to do with wings. Heck,
I remember where I was when I read it...

....But I never liked the smug look and ego that I saw in the picture
that accompanied the account of his flights.

I never forgot any of it. Too bad he turned out to be a scumbag.

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>Cunningham is now serving a federal prison term for bribery. The San
>>Diego Republican was sentenced yesterday to eight years and four
>>months for taking bribes from at least three defense contractors.
>
>
> This whole thing is so sad. Duke Cunningham was always one of my
> heroes, and to see him completely fall from grace is stunning. What a
> stupid, stupid thing to do.
>
> Just goes to show you that a great fighter pilot doesn't necessarily
> make an honest politician, I guess.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

wrote:


> Actually, I don't need appraisal by others. My educational and
> professional accomplishments are enough, thank you.

Too bad they aren't in any of the areas you are so quick to judge.

You have, however, made of yourself a flaming example of
Internet-enabled stupidity. I'd vote Republican just for the pleasure of
seeing more of your kind go apoplectic.

Thanks for the show.


Jack

Gordon wrote:
> Braggart
> bull-headed
> bully
> pushy
> self-centered

Sounds like he met the minimum quals for a great fighter pilot.

-Robert

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> Gordon wrote:
> > Braggart
> > bull-headed
> > bully
> > pushy
> > self-centered
>
> Sounds like he met the minimum quals for a great fighter pilot.


I'd disagree, Robert - I've known quite a few, had breakfast with
approximately 30 fighter and combat pilots this morning, and I can
honestly say that there is the smallest percentage that I'd discribe as
I did Cunningham. He takes the qualities of a fighter pilot and
discards the best of them, making a mockery of the work ethic,
dedication, and professionalism that exemplify the breed. A lot of
fighter pilots brag, primarily because they have something to brag
about. I think of Bud Anderson -- "Call me Andy, my friends do." --
described by Chuck Yeager as "the best fighter pilot". Anderson is
caring, quiet, introspective, self-effacing. None of the descriptors I
used for Cunningham would be remotely applicable to Col. Anderson.
Real fighter pilots have little in common with 'Maverick'; I remember
sitting in that movie with about a dozen other Navy flyers and the
concensus was that any "****BIRD" like him would be grounded and
drummed out. There are many things in that movie that made us laugh or
just shake our heads, but the whole speech by CAG about what a FU
Maverick was, but he still 'had' to send him to Top Gun was beyond
ludicrous. The real Maverick would have been sent TAD as a Supply
Officer or given command of a BEQ someplace. I watched (and
participated) in circumstances that ended poor Navy aviator's careers.
Maverick was a myth - Cunningham was a cautionary tale for why Mav
should remain a myth.

v/r
Gordon

Gordon wrote:
> I think of Bud Anderson -- "Call me Andy, my friends do." --
> described by Chuck Yeager as "the best fighter pilot". Anderson is
> caring, quiet, introspective, self-effacing.

The first time I flew with Bud he walked up to the plane next to ours
and took a **** on the tire. He was very colorful.

> Real fighter pilots have little in common with 'Maverick'; I remember
> sitting in that movie with about a dozen other Navy flyers and the
> concensus was that any "****BIRD" like him would be grounded and
> drummed out.

Being the CO's son I got to spent a lot of time sitting in the squadron
room and road out the Kitty Hawk on a few Tiger cruises. Fighter pilots
today are probably more bookish than in years past. Less seat of the
paints flying. I don't get the impression that Vietnam era was quite
that way.

-Robert

On 12 Jul 2006 14:44:01 -0700, "Gordon" > wrote in
om>::

>Real fighter pilots have little in common with 'Maverick'; I remember
>sitting in that movie with about a dozen other Navy flyers and the
>concensus was that any "****BIRD" like him would be grounded and
>drummed out.

If the verbal reprimand Lt. Conl. Parker received as a result of
leading his wingman into a fatal collision with a Cessna 172 over
Florida on November 16, 2000 is indicative of how the military
disciplines a pilot who entered congested Class B and C terminal
airspace at ~500 knots without the benefit of the required ATC
clearance, I'm unconvinced your statement above is accurate.

See: http://tinyurl.com/fn2f2
http://tinyurl.com/krm6e

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.military/tree/browse_frm/thread/f17eac7ee0653e60/99999e553d4dff5f?rnum=1&hl=en&q=cessna+f-15+florida+author%3Alarry+author%3Adighera&_done=%2Fgroup%2Frec.aviation.military%2Fbrowse_fr m%2Fthread%2Ff17eac7ee0653e60%2F594c195356989dec%3 Flnk%3Dst%26q%3Dcessna+f-15+florida+author%3Alarry+author%3Adighera%26rnum% 3D4%26hl%3Den%26#doc_99999e553d4dff5f

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On 12 Jul 2006 14:44:01 -0700, "Gordon" > wrote in
> om>::
>
> >Real fighter pilots have little in common with 'Maverick'; I remember
> >sitting in that movie with about a dozen other Navy flyers and the
> >concensus was that any "****BIRD" like him would be grounded and
> >drummed out.
>
> If the verbal reprimand Lt. Conl. Parker received as a result of
> leading his wingman into a fatal collision with a Cessna 172 over
> Florida on November 16, 2000 is indicative of how the military
> disciplines a pilot who entered congested Class B and C terminal
> airspace at ~500 knots without the benefit of the required ATC
> clearance, I'm unconvinced your statement above is accurate.
>
Hardly an adequate description of the outcome and the initial
assessment. It appears that there was at least an issue as to how much
blame can be shouldered by Parker himself. The article below suggests
that there was a confusion of procedures as to the use of transponders
by multiple formations. At the very least the report also cited ATC.
Was this a case of bad decisionmaking? For the sake of argument yes -
but not every bad decision elevates the one who makes it to the level
of Tom Cruise. This was hardly hot-dogging; on the other hand, there
is the case of Richard Webb, who made a high-speed pass of San Luis
Obispo in a Super Hornet. Though the flight was otherwise uneventful,
Webb was stripped of flight status and reassigned to Qatar. Looks like
lean times for Mavericks everywhere.

http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Safety_Issues/RiskManagement/superhornet.html

http://www.sptimes.com/2003/01/25/TampaBay/Report_faults_F_16_pi.shtml

On 12 Jul 2006 16:14:00 -0700, "FatKat" > wrote in
. com>::

>
>Larry Dighera wrote:
>> On 12 Jul 2006 14:44:01 -0700, "Gordon" > wrote in
>> om>::
>>
>> >Real fighter pilots have little in common with 'Maverick'; I remember
>> >sitting in that movie with about a dozen other Navy flyers and the
>> >concensus was that any "****BIRD" like him would be grounded and
>> >drummed out.
>>
>> If the verbal reprimand Lt. Conl. Parker received as a result of
>> leading his wingman into a fatal collision with a Cessna 172 over
>> Florida on November 16, 2000 is indicative of how the military
>> disciplines a pilot who entered congested Class B and C terminal
>> airspace at ~500 knots without the benefit of the required ATC
>> clearance, I'm unconvinced your statement above is accurate.
>>
>Hardly an adequate description of the outcome

Which, the death of the Cessna pilot, or the verbal reprimand as
fitting punishment?

>and the initial assessment.

Initial assessment?

>It appears that there was at least an issue as to how much
>blame can be shouldered by Parker himself.

There were issues with Parker's navigation equipment and a rookie on
the ATC scope, neither of which contributed to Parker's decision to
descend into congested terminal airspace at high speed without the
required clearance. Parker was just betting on the big-sky-theory to
protect him and the others in along his route of flight.

>The article below suggests
>that there was a confusion of procedures as to the use of transponders
>by multiple formations. At the very least the report also cited ATC.

The Pilot In Command is responsible for the safety of his flight, not
ATC. ATC wasn't providing separation at the time; parker had no ATC
clearance to descend into the Class B airspace. That wasn't ATC's
fault.

>Was this a case of bad decisionmaking? For the sake of argument yes -
>but not every bad decision elevates the one who makes it to the level
>of Tom Cruise.

If Parker were a prudent pilot who followed regulations, he wouldn't
have made the reckless decision to enter terminal airspace without a
clearance. It's not very much different to me.

>This was hardly hot-dogging;

Given that the maximum airspeed in airspace below 10,000' is
restricted below 250 knots normally, I would say traveling twice that
speed while performing G-shock maneuvers would come pretty close.

>on the other hand, there
>is the case of Richard Webb, who made a high-speed pass of San Luis
>Obispo in a Super Hornet. Though the flight was otherwise uneventful,
>Webb was stripped of flight status and reassigned to Qatar. Looks like
>lean times for Mavericks everywhere.
>
>http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Safety_Issues/RiskManagement/superhornet.html
>

If this is what Webb said:

In regard to his unauthorized flyby, Webb wrote, "No respected
fighter pilot worth his salt can look me in the eye and tell me
they've never done the exact same thing."

Webb concluded that he was "not apologetic for what I did, and if
given the chance, I'd do the same thing again….

He was clearly a hazard in the sky, and grounding him was appropriate.


>http://www.sptimes.com/2003/01/25/TampaBay/Report_faults_F_16_pi.shtml

Parker's reckless and careless operation, on the other hand, resulted
in the destruction of a ~$30,000,000.00 airplane and the death of a
fellow airman, but General Rosa found a verbal reprimand appropriate.
Parker lost neither rank nor pay for the death and destruction he
caused.

Perhaps Navy justice is more just than Air Force justice.

"FatKat" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Larry Dighera wrote:
>> On 12 Jul 2006 14:44:01 -0700, "Gordon" > wrote in
>> om>::
>>
>> >Real fighter pilots have little in common with 'Maverick'; I remember
>> >sitting in that movie with about a dozen other Navy flyers and the
>> >concensus was that any "****BIRD" like him would be grounded and
>> >drummed out.
>>
>> If the verbal reprimand Lt. Conl. Parker received as a result of
>> leading his wingman into a fatal collision with a Cessna 172 over
>> Florida on November 16, 2000 is indicative of how the military
>> disciplines a pilot who entered congested Class B and C terminal
>> airspace at ~500 knots without the benefit of the required ATC
>> clearance, I'm unconvinced your statement above is accurate.
>>
> Hardly an adequate description of the outcome and the initial
> assessment. It appears that there was at least an issue as to how much
> blame can be shouldered by Parker himself. The article below suggests
> that there was a confusion of procedures as to the use of transponders
> by multiple formations. At the very least the report also cited ATC.
> Was this a case of bad decisionmaking? For the sake of argument yes -
> but not every bad decision elevates the one who makes it to the level
> of Tom Cruise. This was hardly hot-dogging; on the other hand, there
> is the case of Richard Webb, who made a high-speed pass of San Luis
> Obispo in a Super Hornet. Though the flight was otherwise uneventful,
> Webb was stripped of flight status and reassigned to Qatar. Looks like
> lean times for Mavericks everywhere.

Parker was guilty of murder the same as if he held a gun the head of the 172
pilot and pulled the trigger. He broke nearly every rule in the book and
got away with murder. The US military is the big loser as it is hard to
respect an organization that condones such actions and does nothing to
punish the guilty.

588 wrote:
> You have, however, made of yourself a flaming example of
> Internet-enabled stupidity. I'd vote Republican just for the pleasure of
> seeing more of your kind go apoplectic.


I am a republican, too (I have for years called myself an Arlen Specter
type republican...one who is a little too liberal, though, for the
sheep). I just don't blindly follow a party line. Our current pres is
an embarrassment.

Robert M. Gary wrote:
>>
> Being the CO's son I got to spent a lot of time sitting in the squadron
> room and road out the Kitty Hawk on a few Tiger cruises. Fighter pilots
> today are probably more bookish than in years past. Less seat of the
> paints flying. I don't get the impression that Vietnam era was quite
> that way.
>
> -Robert

During my last couple of years of flying I was IP for the IP course at
Fighter-Lead-In at Holloman. I recalled one afternoon when I pulled
Sqdn duty officer until closing. After last launches, I went down and
sat at the bar in the sqdn lounge. Sipped on a beer and shortly five
guys in flight suits came in and sat down in easy chairs and sofa
behind me. I listened for maybe twenty minutes, then turned and said,
"Who are you guys?"

"We're in the new IP class. We finished academics and thought we'd come
over and see what the flying squadron looked like."

"Impossible," I said. "IP students are all fighter pilots with minimum
four years in fighters and qualified four-ship flight leads. I've
listened to you guys talking about investments, annuities and
debentures for the last twenty minutes without a single comment on the
basics of fighter pilot discussion--i.e. flying, fighting and
fornicating. You can't be the new class..."

Unfortunately they were. And that is representative of the modern
breed.

Dave Stadt wrote:
>
> Parker was guilty of murder the same as if he held a gun the head of the 172
> pilot and pulled the trigger. He broke nearly every rule in the book and
> got away with murder. The US military is the big loser as it is hard to
> respect an organization that condones such actions and does nothing to
> punish the guilty.

You might want to research the elements of "murder" before conducting
much more slander. You might also want to spend some time in a
single-seat, single-engine aircraft making decisions at the speed
required by the job on a daily basis.

Someone died and that is very, repeat very, unfortunate. But, with the
proliferation of restrictions on airspace and the continual
restrictions on military training it is increasingly more difficult to
avoid offending some petty bureaucrat or noise sensitive home-owner
while conducting training. No one needs to die and you can take to the
bank that no one in the military ever intends to participate in a
mid-air.

If you've read all of the testimony and understand all of the factors
involved, you are entitled to an opinion, but keep in mind that
opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one and they all stink.

Ed Rasimus > wrote:

> You might want to research the elements of "murder" before conducting
> much more slander.
<snip>

Wouldn't the typed word be considered libel, assuming, of course, that
there were provable damages to the receiver's reputation?

> If you've read all of the testimony and understand all of the factors
> involved, you are entitled to an opinion, but keep in mind that
> opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one and they all stink.

I'd be interested in your opinion of that particular mid-air.

--
Peter

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Dave Stadt wrote:
>>
>> Parker was guilty of murder the same as if he held a gun the head of the
>> 172
>> pilot and pulled the trigger. He broke nearly every rule in the book and
>> got away with murder. The US military is the big loser as it is hard to
>> respect an organization that condones such actions and does nothing to
>> punish the guilty.
>
> You might want to research the elements of "murder" before conducting
> much more slander. You might also want to spend some time in a
> single-seat, single-engine aircraft making decisions at the speed
> required by the job on a daily basis.
>
> Someone died and that is very, repeat very, unfortunate. But, with the
> proliferation of restrictions on airspace and the continual
> restrictions on military training it is increasingly more difficult to
> avoid offending some petty bureaucrat or noise sensitive home-owner
> while conducting training. No one needs to die and you can take to the
> bank that no one in the military ever intends to participate in a
> mid-air.
>
> If you've read all of the testimony and understand all of the factors
> involved, you are entitled to an opinion, but keep in mind that
> opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one and they all stink.

I read it numerous times and stand by my decisioon. Any civilian criminal
court would have tried the case as such.

On 13 Jul 2006 13:33:14 -0700, "Ed Rasimus" >
wrote in . com>::

>
>Dave Stadt wrote:
>>
>> Parker was guilty of murder the same as if he held a gun the head of the 172
>> pilot and pulled the trigger. He broke nearly every rule in the book and
>> got away with murder. The US military is the big loser as it is hard to
>> respect an organization that condones such actions and does nothing to
>> punish the guilty.
>
>You might want to research the elements of "murder" before conducting
>much more slander.

In the state of Florida, the crime of Third Degree Murder is what
would be called Manslaughter in other jurisdictions.

>You might also want to spend some time in a
>single-seat, single-engine aircraft making decisions at the speed
>required by the job on a daily basis.

If you ever descend to descend into congested terminal airspace at
~500 knots without the required ATC clearance, you have taken
responsibility for the consequences of that violation of regulations,
and should suffer the consequences of your imprudent act.
Unfortunately, the USAF found justice would be served with a verbal
reprimand, no loss of pay or rank, nor incarceration nor restitution
to the widow and family, nor for the destroyed $30,000,000.00 F-15.
That slap on the wrist is so disproportionate to the carnage and
destruction Parker caused, as to outrageously offend any thinking
person's sense of justice.

>Someone died and that is very, repeat very, unfortunate. But, with the
>proliferation of restrictions on airspace and the continual
>restrictions on military training it is increasingly more difficult to
>avoid offending some petty bureaucrat or noise sensitive home-owner
>while conducting training.

I hope I'm not hearing you say the military has it rough, so expect to
see the incompetence of cowboy fighter pilots go unpunished even when
civilian fatalities are involved.

>No one needs to die and you can take to the
>bank that no one in the military ever intends to participate in a
>mid-air.

What would you expect the outcome to be of entering congested terminal
airspace at ~500 knots without talking to Air Traffic Control?

>If you've read all of the testimony and understand all of the factors
>involved, you are entitled to an opinion, but keep in mind that
>opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one and they all stink.

Not nearly as much as the injustice perpetrated by Gen. Rosa in
finding a verbal reprimand appropriate punishment for Parker's
infamous acts.

Ed Rasimus wrote:
>>You might want to research the elements of "murder" before conducting
>>much more slander.

Larry Dighera wrote:
> In the state of Florida, the crime of Third Degree Murder is what
> would be called Manslaughter in other jurisdictions.

>>You might also want to spend some time in a
>>single-seat, single-engine aircraft making decisions at the speed
>>required by the job on a daily basis.

> If you ever (int?)end to descend into congested terminal airspace at
> ~500 knots without the required ATC clearance, you have taken
> responsibility for the consequences of that violation of regulations,
> and should suffer the consequences of your imprudent act.

Just for the hell of it, do you know if he knew that he was entering
terminal airspace? I'm not trying to throw out red herrings, I
honestly don't recall, but I think not.


If my edit of your post (descend to --> intend to) is not what you
meant to say, my apologies!



Jeff
Saying "Guns kill people" is like saying "Spoons made Rosie O'Donnell fat."

Jeff Crowell wrote:

>
> Jeff
> Saying "Guns kill people" is like saying "Spoons made Rosie O'Donnell
> fat."


Guns don't kill people, husbands who come home early kill people.




--

Cheers

Dave Kearton

Dave Kearton wrote:
> Jeff Crowell wrote:
>
> >
> > Jeff
> > Saying "Guns kill people" is like saying "Spoons made Rosie O'Donnell
> > fat."
>
>
> Guns don't kill people, husbands who come home early kill people.

Geez, Dave - if you know something about his schedule that I don't
know, just TELL me!

yfG

" > wrote:

>Ed Rasimus wrote:

>> Ever been on the wing in the weather at night in a single-seat jet?
>>
>> Didn't think so. "Merely capable" translates as pretty damn good in
>> terms of most folks capabilities.
>>
>You're drifting off topic, Eddy. The topic isn't about whether I (or
>any other poster, for that matter) has ever been a jet pilot.

Oh, yes it is, punk.

You just don't know it.


Billy

http://www.two--four.net/weblog.php

On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 23:10:07 -0600, "Jeff Crowell"
<Jcrow9DOTcableone.net> wrote in
>::

>Just for the hell of it, do you know if he knew that he was entering
>terminal airspace?

In this case, USAF Brigadier General ROBIN E. SCOTT, President of the
USAF accident investigation Board (not exactly an impartial observer),
found that Flight Lead Parker's decision to intentionally descend into
congested Class B terminal airspace at over 400 knots without the
required ATC clearance not to constitute "a deliberate disregard for
the safety of others."

In fact, his report intimates that the cause of Parker's misbehavior
was a loss of situational awareness, which lead to the death of
Jacques Olivier, was a malfunction of the navigation electronics on
board Parker's southbound F-16, when in fact, the documented equipment
errors actually placed Parker 10 NM farther north from the center of
the Tampa Class B airspace than he believed he was at the time. That
is to say, Parker would have been inside Tampa Class B airspace
without the required ATC clearance for many more miles had he actually
descended at the position he believed he was located instead of the
position the malfunctioning/miss-operated navigational.equipment
placed him.

The facts presented in the Air Force accident report support my
contention that Parker intentionally, willfully, deliberately and
recklessly descended into a very congested terminal area in excess of
400 knots and without being in communication with the authority
responsible for separating aircraft in that airspace, and without
regard for the life and safety of the civilians operating there nor
those residing under his flight path.

Assuming the Air Force accident report is 100% factual, it indicates
that Parker, Ninja Flight Lead, began his descent into Tampa Class B
airspace at a point he believed at the time was ~15 miles inside its
boundary. Any airman, even an illustrious Air Force pilot, knows that
the dimensions of Class B areas are roughly a 30 NM radius from the
central airport (KTPA in this case).

Parker was aware he was above Tampa Class B airspace when he
recklessly decided to descend through it, or he is a careless and
incompetent pilot (or both).

The errors in the systems did not cause this mishap.

According to the Air Force accident report, he INS system mysteriously
developed a ~10 NM southerly steering error spontaneously, subsequent
to the first sortie. This had the effect of indicating that the
aircraft's position was ~10 NM south of its true position. Parker
failed to do the _required_ position check which would have detected
this error.

Parker also erroneously input a slew error, and failed to make the
_required_ check when he engaged that navigation equipment. The
results of that error placed him 5 NM west of his indicated position.

Neither of the errors, electronic nor Parker's erroneous input, were
adequate in explaining why a highly trained Air Force pilot chose to
descend into Tampa Class B airspace at what Parker's navigation
equipment indicated was 15 miles inside the Class B boundary at the
time. The malfunctioning/misdialed navigational errors actually
assisted Parker's flight in being closer to the edge of the Class B
area when he chose to descend (at 140 knots in excess of his
aircraft's minimum safe speed in violation of FAR 19.117(d)) without a
clearance into the congested Class B terminal area. So the
navigational system errors lessened the time Parker's flight posed a
threat to Class B air traffic.

THE NAVIGATIONAL ERRORS DO NOT IN ANY WAY EXCUSE PARKER FOR HIS
RECKLESS ACTIONS. In fact the opposite is true.

There is no doubt in my mind that Parker's decision to descend into
the Tampa Class B area without the required ATC clearance was
deliberate and intentional; He had to be aware that he wasn't clear of
the class bravo airspace.

I believe Parker's decision to recklessly descend without a
clearance was a result of the situation created by all the careless
errors he made. Due to Parker's canceling IFR and failure to contact
Tampa Approach Control because he input the wrong frequency in his
radio, he either had to descend without a clearance, or fly past the
MTR entry point. He thought he was ~10 NM closer to the MTR entry
point then he actually was at the time. Parker just chose to chance
what he thought would be only a few moments of violating FARs, and
indulged in unprofessional, unsafe operation, rather than pausing to
safely regain control of the rapidly determining situation.

Parker made more than a _few_ careless mistakes and/or reckless
decisions. Some of them were indeed minor, but others were
unforgivable and deadly. The Air Force accident report mentions
these:


1. Lieutenant Colonel Parker did not specifically brief Class B and
Class C airspace restrictions in the Tampa area during the flight
briefing. Air Force directives _require_ the flight lead to brief
applicable airspace restrictions.

2. Canceled IFR with Miami Center.

3. Declined flight following service.

4. Erroneously thought he was given frequency 362.35 by Miami Center
and attempted to contact Tampa Approach Control there.

5. Failed to obtain ATC clearance from Tampa Approach for entry into
the Tampa Class B airspace.

6. Failed to establish two-way radio communications with Tampa
Approach Control prior to entering Sarasota Class C airspace.

7. Failed to adequately deconflict flight path (Air Force training
manuals emphasize that flight path deconfliction is a critical task,
one that can never be ignored without catastrophic consequences.)

8. Lost situational awareness.

9. Failed to recognize a significant 9 to 11 nautical mile position
error in his aircraft's Inertial Navigation System.

10. Did not crosscheck the INS accuracy with other systems.

11. Parker failed to notice the degradation in INS system accuracy.
The system showed a navigational system accuracy of 'medium', which
eventually degraded to 'low' prior to the collision.

12. Unintentional cursor slew bias input by the pilot. A crosscheck
of system indications is _required_ so that unintentional slews are
recognized and zeroed out. Parker didn't bother to perform the
_required_ crosscheck.

12. Failed to recognize a cursor slew bias in his ground attack
steering.

14. Mis-prioritization of tasks.

15. Parker had a normal post-mishap physical examination on 24
November 2000, 8-days after his flight killed Jacques Olivier!

I believe the high-speed of Parker's flight reduced the time the
pilots had to detect an aircraft on a collision course, and prevented
the late Cessna 172 pilot, Jacques Olivier, from maneuvering his
aircraft out of the path of the F-16s in time to avoid the collision
(which scattered parts of his still warm remains over 4 acres
surrounding the 2nd hole of busy Rosedale Golf and Country Club) that
afternoon. Olivier's aircraft was in a right turn at the time of the
480 knot (~550 mph) impact, so he had seen the rogue F-16 before it
shattered his light aircraft (and virtually caused his body to
explode), but because of its excessive speed, he lacked sufficient
time to get out of its way.

High speed leaves little time for human responses. (I direct your
attention to the table in the article included below.)


>>
>> How long does a full windscreen traffic scan take?
>
>I believe that the FAA or NTSB standard requires/suggests 15
>seconds to scan left to right (but this assumes only one person
>scanning the whole field of view).
>
>> How long does it take you to spot an F-16 against low-level
>>ground clutter at 12'O clock and one mile? How frequently do
>>you fail to see traffic called by ATC? We're both pilots. You
>>know what I'm talking about.
>
>It is estimated that the average person can detect an object on a
>collision course (stationary in the field of view rather than
>moving) when it occupies 12 minutes of arc in the field of view
>(1/5th of a degree) or (ISTR - badly :)) something like 450-500m
>range for each m radius of the central mass.
>
>Assuming no glare reflection, which can confound any calculation
>on detection range and probability, statistically, it would take
>7.5 seconds to reach 12 O'clock using approved search patterns.
>(OTOH, if its against low level ground clutter, then its probably
>not on a collision course with you :))
[This last sentence may be somewhat true in _level_ flight over
_level_ terrain with meteorologically restricted visibility; it
is not pertinent otherwise.]


If we generously assume that the head-on frontal-area "central mass"
of an F-16 is approximately 2 meters, we find that it should be
humanly detectable at a distance of ~1,000 meters, or ~3,250 feet.
This is roughly 1/2 of a nautical mile.


The table of airspeeds equated to feet-per-second below can be used to
compute the time-budget available to pilots for visually _detecting_
conflicting air traffic at that distance. It does not take into
consideration lighting, contrast, the time necessary to deduce and
make _appropriate_ control inputs, nor the time for the aircraft to
actually maneuver out of the path of the conflicting aircraft's path.


Time Until Impact
Closing-speed Feet Per Second At 3,250 Foot Distance
------------- --------------- ----------------------
250 knots 417 feet per second 7.8 seconds
300 knots 500 feet per second 6.5 seconds
350 knots 583 feet per second 5.6 seconds
400 knots 667 feet per second 4.9 seconds
480 knots 800 feet per second 4.1 seconds


From this table it is evident that the pilot of a military aircraft
traveling at a 400 knot closing-speed has _inadequate_ time to
"see-and-avoid". Using Kerryn Offord's figures, the pilot would have
the impossible task of repeatedly, spending 15 seconds, 8 to 12 times
a minute, scanning the entire windscreen during that portion of the
flight conducted below 18,000 feet. Clearly, there is only time for 4,
not 8 to 12, full scans in a minute. So it is not possible to rely
solely on visual detection of conflicting air traffic to prevent
midair collisions at high-speed. Even if the scan for conflicting air
traffic is divided among 4 pilots, there is no time left to do
anything else such as visual navigation, tuning radios, ...

These calculations only concern detecting the conflicting air traffic,
not avoiding collision with it. So, it is patently evident that some
other means of collision avoidance must be _required_ to insure the
hazard to air-safety posed by high-speed low-level military operations
is mitigated.

It is also evident that the FAA IS FAILING TO PROVIDE SAFE SKIES for
the public when it permits the military to indulge in this reckless
high-speed low-level operation.

It is my belief that there came a time when Parker had to descend to
reach the MTR start point, or admit to his student that he had lost
situational awareness. At that instant, he chose to descend into
Class B airspace without the REQUIRED ATC clearance, rather than
confess his confusion. This would have been consistent with Parker's
failure to perform all the other REQUIRED items/checks he failed to
accomplish on the mishap sortie.

Can you explain how Parker could possibly NOT have known that Class B
airspace lay just below him when he descended into it (clear & 10
miles visibility at the time)?

Class B airspace is typically 30 nautical miles in radius around the
central airport; that's 60 NM in diameter. This particular Class B
abuts the Sarasota Class C to the south. The MTR VR1098 start point
is ~1 nm outside the boundaries of these areas just west of Manatee
Dam. Given VR1098 extends to the eastsoutheast, it begs the question,
"how does a flight enter VR1098 WITHOUT being in contact with ATC, and
remain within the governing regulations?"

To have been UNAWARE that Class B airspace lay beneath the Ninja
flight, Parker would have to have been incapacitated in some way.
Another reason Parker may not have known his position relative to the
Tampa terminal airspace is mentioned in the Air Force AIB report:

"Lieutenant Colonel Parker did not specifically brief Class B
and Class C airspace restrictions in the Tampa area during the
flight briefing. Air Force directives require the flight lead
to brief applicable airspace restrictions."

The malfunctioning INS erroneously indicated Parker's position to be
~10 miles north of his true location. This resulted in his southbound
flight being ~10 miles FARTHER toward the edge of Tampa International
(TPA), the core airport, Class B airspace than indicated by Parker's
INS. Thus, the INS error actually contributed to moving the flight
toward the (presumably safer) periphery of the congested terminal
airspace, just not far enough. So, while the INS error may have
contributed to confusing Parker, it does not excuse his actions in any
way IMNSHO.

If he was disorientated, he should have remained above the terminal
area until he regained situational awareness. But, Parker was the
instructor on this sortie; did his ego play a part in his decisions?

Without evidence to the contrary, I have to attribute his decision to
descend NORDO into Tampa Class B airspace (and accelerated to 440
KIAS) to unprofessional arrogance rather than lost situational
awareness. His failure to perform the required airspace briefing, and
failure to perform the required navigational cross-checks is
indicative of a lack of professionalism or incapacitation; the AIB
report fails to substantiate the later due to the eight day delay in
the medical examination of Parker.



So if you were unable to contact the Class B ATC controlling
authority, would you descend into 60-mile diameter congested Class B
terminal airspace without the required clearance?

SNIP all

Is this personal? You've got a hard-on for this guy like a DA six months
before the election.

R / John

"John Carrier" > wrote in message
. ..
> SNIP all
>
> Is this personal? You've got a hard-on for this guy like a DA six months
> before the election.
>
> R / John

Shouldn't that be "erection"? No, I guess not. That would limit the election
to Japan.
:-)
Dudley

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 18:36:08 -0500, "John Carrier" >
wrote in >::

>Is this personal?

To whom are you referring Parker or Rosa?

Parker did a lot of irresponsible things, that resulted in the death
of a fellow airman. Rosa let him off with a reprimand.

If I had killed someone, I would have stood trial, and if convicted,
would have been sentenced. There is little question that Parker
should have been subject to the same sort of judicial due process. The
only conclusion one can draw is, that our military is above the law.

We all share the NAS. I would prefer not to end up like Jacques
Olivier splattered over four acres of golf course as a result of lax
USAF discipline. I know neither men, so my issue with these events
not personal, but their actions have sensitized me to the lack of
responsibility apparently rampant in the military. And I'm
uncomfortable seeing my tax dollars funding the death of a fellow
airman, and the injustice perpetrated against us civilians.

So now that I've answered your question, perhaps you'll be good enough
to answer one for me. Do you feel that justice was done in this case?

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 18:36:08 -0500, "John Carrier" >
> wrote in >::
>
>>Is this personal?
>
> To whom are you referring Parker or Rosa?
>
> Parker did a lot of irresponsible things, that resulted in the death
> of a fellow airman. Rosa let him off with a reprimand.
>
> If I had killed someone, I would have stood trial, and if convicted,
> would have been sentenced. There is little question that Parker
> should have been subject to the same sort of judicial due process. The
> only conclusion one can draw is, that our military is above the law.
>
> We all share the NAS. I would prefer not to end up like Jacques
> Olivier splattered over four acres of golf course as a result of lax
> USAF discipline. I know neither men, so my issue with these events
> not personal, but their actions have sensitized me to the lack of
> responsibility apparently rampant in the military. And I'm
> uncomfortable seeing my tax dollars funding the death of a fellow
> airman, and the injustice perpetrated against us civilians.
>
> So now that I've answered your question, perhaps you'll be good enough
> to answer one for me. Do you feel that justice was done in this case?

I haven't a clue. Without access to all the original data (as one might
have in an MIR), I wouldn't formulate an opinion. I doubt you've had such
access, but you've got your opinion, expressed in voluminous and vehement
detail. So be it.

R / John

Ed Rasimus wrote:

> You might want to research the elements of "murder" before conducting
> much more slander. You might also want to spend some time in a
> single-seat, single-engine aircraft making decisions at the speed
> required by the job on a daily basis.

Would Criminally Negligent Manslaughter be more appropriate? Had he been
at the legally required speed, he would have had twice the time to make
the necessary decisions.

Using that term would be fine with me.. it's still a felony..

Dave

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Randy_Cunningham
Table of contents
1 Bio

1.1 Background
1.2 Congressional Career


2 Meet the Cash Constituents

2.1 Campaign Contributions from Defense Industry


3 Controversy

3.1 Del Mar Real Estate "Deal"


3.1.1 Realtor was campaign contributor
3.1.2 Subsequent Rancho Santa Fe Real Estate "Deal"
3.1.3 Tom DeLay Defended Cunningham


3.2 Boat purchases, sale and "free rent"


3.2.1 Kelly C
3.2.2 Duke Stir
3.2.3 Boat #3 and Brent Wilkes


3.3 Wilkes/ADCS Investigation
3.4 War Profiteering?
3.5 Money Laundering?
3.6 Post-conviction
3.7 Honored in Washington
3.8 Use of classified bills for personal gain


4 Committees and Affiliations

4.1 Committees


5 More Background Data

6 Resources and Articles

6.1 Resources
6.2 Articles & Commentary
6.3 SourceWatch Resources


-------------------------------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randy_Cunningham

Sentencing
On March 3, 2006, U.S. District Judge Larry A. Burns sentenced
Cunningham to 100 months (eight years and four months) in prison.[46]
Federal prosecutors had pushed for the maximum sentence of ten years,
but Cunningham's defense lawyers said that at 64 years old and with
prostate cancer, Cunningham would likely die in prison if he received
the full sentence.[47][48]. Judge Burns cited his military service in
Vietnam as the reason the full ten years was not imposed. Prosecutors
announced that they were satisfied with the sentence, which is the
longest jail term ever given to a former Congressman.[49]

On the day of sentencing, Cunningham was 90 pounds (41 kg) lighter
than when allegations first surfaced 9 months earlier. After receiving
his sentence, Cunningham made a request to see his 91-year-old mother
one last time before going to prison. "I made a very wrong turn. I
rationalized decisions I knew were wrong. I did that, sir," Cunningham
said. The request was denied, and Burns remanded him immediately upon
rendering the sentence.[50]

According to the Inmate Locator at the Federal Bureau of Prisons
website, Cunningham is currently incarcerated at the low-security wing
of the Butner Federal Correctional Complex in Butner, North Carolina
with inmate register number 94405-198. His projected release date is
listed as June 4, 2013.


Aftermath
Almost as soon as Cunningham pled guilty, Intelligence Committee
chairman Pete Hoekstra of Michigan (who, ironically, represents Guy
Vander Jagt's former district) announced his panel would investigate
whether Cunningham used his post on that committee to steer contracts
to favored companies. Hoekstra said that Cunningham "no longer gets
the benefit of the doubt" due to his admission to "very, very serious"
crimes. "We need to look at worst-case scenarios," he added. He also
shut off Cunningham's access to classified information. While Hoekstra
doesn't believe that Cunningham improperly influenced the Intelligence
Committee's work, a committee spokesman said that he wanted to make
sure its work stayed on the level.[51]

Bill Young of Florida, chairman of the Defense Appropriations
Subcommittee and former chairman of the full Appropriations Committee,
said that he plans to review Cunningham's requests for defense
projects. While he felt most of the requests were legitimate and
supported by the Pentagon, he said that he needed to be "doubly sure
that anything shaky is not going to stay in."[52]

On December 14, prosecutors in former House Majority Leader Tom
DeLay's money laundering trial revealed that they are looking into
ties between Wilkes and DeLay. One of Wilkes' companies donated
$15,000 to DeLay's PAC, Texans for a Republican Majority. Wilkes also
hired a consulting firm that employed DeLay's wife, Christine.[53]
On January 6, 2006, Time reported that Cunningham cooperated with law
enforcement by wearing a concealed recording device (a "wire") while
meeting with associates prior to his guilty plea. It is not known whom
he met with while wired, but there is speculation Cunningham's
misdeeds were not isolated instances and his case could reveal a
larger web of corruption.[54]

On February 24, 2006, Mitchell Wade pleaded guilty to paying
Cunningham more than $1 million in bribes in exchange for millions
more in government contracts.[55]

In March, it was revealed that CIA officials have opened an
investigation into the CIA's No.3 official, Kyle Foggo, and his
relationship with Wilkes, "one of his closest friends," according to
the article. Foggo has said that all of the contracts he oversaw were
properly awarded and administered.[56]

On April 17, 2006, the staffs of the The San Diego Union-Tribune and
Copley News Service were awarded the 2006 Pulitzer Prize for National
Reporting for their investigative work in uncovering Cunningham's
crimes.[57]

On May 12, 2006, FBI officials raided the Vienna, Virginia home of
former CIA official Kyle "Dusty" Foggo in connection with the
scandal.[58]

On June 6, 2006, Republican and former congressman Brian Bilbray won
the run-off election for Cunningham's seat, narrowly defeating
Democrat Francine Busby. The current term ends in 2006, so Bilbray
will face another election in November.[59]


-----------------------------------------



http://cunningham.house.gov/Biography/

Randy "Duke" Cunningham was born December 8, 1941, in Los Angeles,
California. After earning his bachelors degree in 1964 and his masters
in education in 1965 from the University of Missouri, Cunningham began
his career as an educator and a coach at Hinsdale (Ill.) High School.
As a swimming coach, Duke trained two athletes to Olympic gold and
silver medals. He later expanded his education experience as the Dean
of the School of Aviation at National University in San Diego.

In 1966, at the age of 25, Cunningham joined the U.S. Navy and became
one of the most highly decorated pilots in the Vietnam War. As the
first fighter ace of the war, Cunningham was nominated for the Medal
of Honor, received the Navy Cross, two Silver Stars, fifteen Air
Medals, the Purple Heart, and several other decorations.

Duke's experience in Vietnam and his background as an educator
prepared him well to train fighter pilots at the Navy Fighter Weapons
School -- the famed "Top Gun" program at Miramar Naval Air Station. As
Commanding Officer of the elite Navy Adversary Squadron, Cunningham
flew Russian tactics and formations against America's best combat
fighter pilots. Many of his real-life experiences as a Navy aviator
and fighter pilot instructor were depicted in the popular movie "Top
Gun."

Upon his retirement from the Navy in 1987, Cunningham translated the
Masters in Business Administration he earned at National University
into a successful business in San Diego.

In 2004, the people of California's 50th Congressional District
elected Duke Cunningham to his eighth term in the House of
Representatives. As the voters returned a Republican majority to both
chambers of Congress, Congressman Cunningham retained his position on
the powerful House Appropriations Committee. Cunningham serves on the
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations
subcommittee, which is instrumental in providing key funding for
education and medical research, two of his priorities. He also serves
on the panel's Defense subcommittee, which provides funding for our
national defense and armed services. At the beginning of the 109th
Congress, Cunningham was selected to serve as the Chairman of the
Subcommittee on Human Intelligence Analysis and Counterintelligence on
the House Select Committee on Intelligence. Cunningham was first named
to the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence by Speaker Hastert
in the 107th Congress. His extensive military experience, continued
service on defense and intelligence committees, and recognition as a
congressional leader on national security issues make him an ideal fit
for this prestigous position.

Through his committee assignments and the pursuit of his legislative
priorities, Congressman Cunningham continues to work for a stronger
economy; quality education for our children, a strong and efficient
national defense; and smart investment in medical research and
innovation. He places a priority on the effective use of taxpayer
resources for our children's future.

Several organizations have honored Congressman Cunningham for his work
in Congress. Most notably, he has been recognized for his work as a
fiscal conservative by such organizations as Citizens for a Sound
Economy, the National Taxpayer's Union, and the National Federation of
Independent Businesses. He has also been recognized by education
groups for his tireless advocacy and by several law enforcement
organizations for his tough-on-crime position.

Duke and his wife Nancy, the Director of Administrative Support
Services for the Encinitas Union School District, have three children
-Todd, April and Carrie.


Contact Duke Cunningham

2350 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-5452
(202) 225-2558 fax

613 West Valley Parkway
Suite 320
Escondido, CA 92025
(858) 755-8382
(760) 737-8438
(760) 737-9132 fax

-------------------------------------------------------------------
On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 23:39:14 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote in >:

>http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0603/04/cst.02.html
>WHITFIELD: The Democrat who delivered the address is Francine Busby,
>the party's candidate to replace former Republican Congressman, Randy
>"Duke" Cunningham of California.
>
>Cunningham is now serving a federal prison term for bribery. The San
>Diego Republican was sentenced yesterday to eight years and four
>months for taking bribes from at least three defense contractors.
>
>CNN's chief national correspondent, John King, takes a closer look at
>Cunningham's career and his fall from power.
>
>(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
>
>JOHN KING, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Randy Cunningham and high
>risk have been partners a long time.
>
>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: His name is Randy "Duke" Cunningham, and he is a
>legend of air power.
>
>KING: The Vietnam ace whose daring exploits were an inspiration for
>Maverick in Hollywood's "Top Gun."
>
>VAL KILMER, ACTOR: I don't like you because you're dangerous.
>
>TOM CRUISE, ACTOR: That's right, Iceman. I am dangerous.
>
>KING: And from famous war hero, Cunningham parachuted into a seemingly
>less risky business: politics.
>
>RANDY "DUKE" CUNNINGHAM (R), FORMER CALIFORNIA REPRESENTATIVE: Duke
>Cunningham, running for U.S. Congress.
>
>UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Duke Cunningham will be a congressman we can be
>proud of.
>
>KING: Now 16 years after that first campaign, San Diego Congressman
>Duke Cunningham's exploits are once again the stuff of Hollywood.
>
>CUNNINGHAM: I broke the law, concealed my conduct and disgraced my
>office.
>
>KING: His corruption is stunning in its scope and in its sheer
>audacity: $2.4 million in bribes, at least. Private jets for resort
>getaways. A California mansion. A Rolls Royce. A lifestyle well beyond
>his means and a thirst for more.
>
>That appetite, longtime friends like Charles Nesby say, perhaps were
>some of the traits that made Duke Cunningham a successful ace.
>Cockiness.
>
>CAPT. CHARLES NESBY, CUNNINGHAM FRIEND: That's the nature of the beast
>in all of us that are fighter pilots. You're naturally aggressive.
>
>KING: Naked avarice is what prosecutors call it.
>
>And look at this. Cunningham actually scribbled this bribe menu on his
>congressional notepad. Want a $16 million contract? The cost is a
>boat, "BT" for short, worth $140,000. Add in another $50,000 for each
>additional million dollars in contracts.
>
>NORMAN ORNSTEIN, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE: What Cunningham did is
>breathtaking.
>
>KING: Norman Ornstein has been studying Congress for 30 years and says
>there has been nothing like this before.
>
>ORNSTEIN: This is somebody who set out to live a lavish lifestyle by
>making sure he could shake down contractors, lobbyists and interest
>groups.
>
>KING: Thousands of dollars in meals, at the Capital Grille and other
>pricey Washington restaurants, Cunningham's tab picked up by defense
>contractors.
>
>Private jets, again, paid for by contractors, to whisk the congressman
>around the country.
>
>Then trendy Delano Hotel on Miami's South Beach was one destination
>two years ago: $1,254 for the room, $848 for Cunningham's meals at the
>hotel. Nearly $13,000 for the chartered jet.
>
>Cunningham grew to expect luxury, the prosecution memo says. His
>co-conspirators eagerly plied him with it.
>
>He was, after all, on the House Appropriations Committee, a leading
>voice on its defense subcommittee, able to enter multimillion dollar
>favors into the Pentagon and other budgets.
>
>His Navy days gave him standing on military matters, and stories via
>the big screen.
>
>CUNNINGHAM: I met my wife by singing, "You Lost That Loving Feeling"
>to her at the Miramar officer's club.
>
>KING (on camera): Perhaps they should have raised questions, some
>friends say, when a congressman with a $165,000 a year salary bought a
>penthouse condominium here just outside Washington, in addition to the
>pricey home he owned in southern California.
>
>(voice-over) The condo came courtesy of a defense contractors'
>$200,000 down payment. Inside, tens of thousands of dollars worth of
>antiques the congressman demanded in exchange for favors, all now in a
>warehouse awaiting government auction.
>
>This is the boat from the bribe menu, The Duke-Stir, a flashy exhibit
>of Cunningham's lifestyle. Real estate records like these, the more
>mundane evidence that would begin his fall from grace.
>
>November, 2003, Cunningham sold his home in Del Mar to a defense
>contractor for nearly $1.7 million. The contractor lost $700,000 when
>he resold it. That caught the eye of a Copley News Service reporter,
>and then that caught the eye of the feds. What they found is eye
>popping.
>
>NESBY: It's the power, and then some people handle the power
>correctly. Other people, the power can be misused. Duke lost his moral
>compass.
>
>KING: Nesby is one of 40 Cunningham friends and family members who
>wrote the judge, appealing for leniency. In his letter, Nesby recalled
>the white naval officer who took a risk, standing up for a young black
>pilot.
>
>NESBY: It was not popular for him to do that, but I appreciated it.
>What he did, he leveled the playing field and allowed me to compete
>and gave me what I deserved. And I'll always love him for that.
>
>KING: In his note to the judge, Cunningham wrote, "It all started very
>slowly and innocently," that he's sorry, worried about dying in
>prison. But "I will accept your sentence without complaint."
>
>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Randy "Duke" Cunningham will be remembered as an
>educator, a legislator, but most of all, as a legend of air power.
>
>KING: A career that is the stuff of Hollywood. Then...
>
>CUNNINGHAM: In my life I have had great joy and great sorrow. And now
>I have great shame.
>
>KING: ... and now.
>
>John king, CNN, Washington.
>
>(END VIDEOTAPE)

Larry Dighera wrote:

<snip vast amount of info readily available elsewhere on the net>

Any particular reason you did that? Why not post the link, instead of
posting yards of text straight off another website?

Gordon

On 3 Aug 2006 19:18:19 -0700, "Gordon" > wrote in
. com>:

>Any particular reason you did that? Why not post the link, instead of
>posting yards of text straight off another website?

Web sites are ephemeral. GoogleGroups archives Usenet articles for
posterity.

Spooky. The Butner prison complex is where I take anybody I give a ride
to out of 8NC8. For Young Eagles its, "guess what's in those
buildings". And it's our flight school's standard practice area. There
are 3 to 5 prisons there, roughly 3 miles from the airport (thankfully
across a lake, a quarry, swamplands, and interstate).

How many times have I wondered about people imprisoned below while I'm
doing figure eights and turns around a point in the big blue sky overhead.

As a kid, reading the account of his big flight in Vietnam while
building model airplanes, I was saddened knowing I would probably never
get to fly a Phantom but I knew I would always fly.

Thanking of Cunningham sitting it out in Butner while I cavort
overhead...as much as I hate what he did, how he did it, and the
egotistical a--hole he always seemed to be in public accounts... life
seems harsh and arbitrary even when law and order is righteously served.
But it is the way it is.

Larry Dighera wrote:
> According to the Inmate Locator at the Federal Bureau of Prisons
> website, Cunningham is currently incarcerated at the low-security wing
> of the Butner Federal Correctional Complex in Butner, North Carolina
> with inmate register number 94405-198. His projected release date is
> listed as June 4, 2013.

On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 14:04:47 GMT, Maule Driver
> wrote in
>:

>Thanking of Cunningham sitting it out in Butner while I cavort
>overhead...a

It's good to know that he can see people enjoying their freedom over
his head, but I'd prefer to see the millions of dollars he cost the
country back in the federal coffers.

In rec.aviation.military Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On 3 Aug 2006 19:18:19 -0700, "Gordon" > wrote in
> . com>:

> >Any particular reason you did that? Why not post the link, instead of
> >posting yards of text straight off another website?

> Web sites are ephemeral. GoogleGroups archives Usenet articles for
> posterity.

Keep in mind Google now only displays the first 20 kbytes
of posts (about 250 lines).

Such a sad story though where "Duke" Cunningham will be remembered
as one of the biggest crooks in Congress instead of his accomplisments
in the air.

--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Herb Oxley
From: address IS Valid.

On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 13:50:59 +0000 (UTC),
(RadicalModerate) wrote in >:

>Keep in mind Google now only displays the first 20 kbytes
>of posts (about 250 lines).

Thanks for that; where did you find that information? Does that mean,
that when the option to 'display original message' is invoked,
messages longer than 20 Kbytes will be truncated also?

>Such a sad story though where "Duke" Cunningham will be remembered
>as one of the biggest crooks in Congress instead of his accomplisments
>in the air.

I'll always remember both his aviation accomplishments, and his being
the biggest congressional crook brought to justice.