Slick Goodlin dead at 82

[Paul Hirose]

Retired test pilot Chalmers "Slick" Goodlin died Oct. 20 of cancer.

http://pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/trib/regional/s_386693.html

--
Paul Hirose >
To reply by email remove INVALID

[vincent p. norris]

>Retired test pilot Chalmers "Slick" Goodlin died Oct. 20 of cancer.
>
I've read that Slick wanted a huge bundle of dough to test the X-1,
which is why Yeager, who was willing to do it for regular service pay,
got the job.

The newspaper didn't mention that. Not surprising.

vince norris

[[email protected]]

Vince,

Actually Slick wanted normal pay for a test pilot for the work he was
doing. It may well have been that the Air Force used the pay excuse to
make sure one of its pilots, rather than the factory test pilot, a
civilian, got the official record. Tom Wolfe in the book _The Right
Stuff_ treated Goodlin very shabbily and elevated a pretty much
otherwise regular test pilot who happened to have a monumental ego to
hero status. By denigrating Goodlin, who was extremely good and had
done some pretty incredible things (and went on to do some very amazing
things) Wolfe built up Yeager. There were quite a few pilots, civilian
and military, who were in line and willing to fly the X-1 because it
was getting a massive amount of publicity during the developmental
flights by the Bell factory pilot, Goodlin. (Bell had a rep for having
some of the best test pilots in the business-Boeing hired Tex Johnston
from Bell to be its chief of flight test.) During the late '40s
through the '60s the Air Force made sure its active duty pilots were
flying when records were "officially" set. However, what they didn't
talk about was that for all of the speed runs, a factory test pilot had
made the run a few days earlier, without the FAI observers present, to
confirm that the airplane would perform as advertised. The Air Force
did not want any surprises when the official observers were present.
Al White, who was chief of flight test for North American in the X-15
and XB-70 days, wrote a book about his experiences, including making
speed runs in the F-100 and F-107 a few days before the Air Force's
test pilot would repeat the run for the official record. He thought it
was interesting that the factory pilots could often get a few more
knots out of the airplane than the Air Force pilot on the record
setting day.

Interstingly, Wolfe and others failed to mention that the chief test
pilot for North American at the time, George Welch (who was one of the
few pilots who shot down Japanese airplanes over Pearl Harbor on Dec 7,
- later died when an upper right hand corner of the Vn diagram - max
speed, high G - test of an F-100 went horribly wrong), had exceeded the
speed of sound several times in the prototype F-86 in the two weeks
prior to Yeager's flight. But, the Air Force wanted the credit for the
first and made sure one of its pilots instead of a civilian pilot got
the publicity. North American was not allowed to instrument the
airplane for official speed until after Yeager did his thing. Yeager
was the first to go supersonic in level flight, and rightfully gets
credit for that, however, the F-86 did so in a dive, and actually went
through the transonic range much more smoothly than the straight wing
X-1.

It's sad that because of one book that glorified one guy whose
reputation in the test pilot community is lousy for letting his ego put
test programs at risk, also managed to effectively smear the reputation
of someone who was exceedingly good in his own right and went on to do
some humanitarian work that was most impressive.

All the best,
Rick

[Dave Stadt]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Vince,
>
> Actually Slick wanted normal pay for a test pilot for the work he was
> doing. It may well have been that the Air Force used the pay excuse to
> make sure one of its pilots, rather than the factory test pilot, a
> civilian, got the official record. Tom Wolfe in the book _The Right
> Stuff_ treated Goodlin very shabbily and elevated a pretty much
> otherwise regular test pilot who happened to have a monumental ego to
> hero status. By denigrating Goodlin, who was extremely good and had
> done some pretty incredible things (and went on to do some very amazing
> things) Wolfe built up Yeager. There were quite a few pilots, civilian
> and military, who were in line and willing to fly the X-1 because it
> was getting a massive amount of publicity during the developmental
> flights by the Bell factory pilot, Goodlin. (Bell had a rep for having
> some of the best test pilots in the business-Boeing hired Tex Johnston
> from Bell to be its chief of flight test.) During the late '40s
> through the '60s the Air Force made sure its active duty pilots were
> flying when records were "officially" set. However, what they didn't
> talk about was that for all of the speed runs, a factory test pilot had
> made the run a few days earlier, without the FAI observers present, to
> confirm that the airplane would perform as advertised. The Air Force
> did not want any surprises when the official observers were present.
> Al White, who was chief of flight test for North American in the X-15
> and XB-70 days, wrote a book about his experiences, including making
> speed runs in the F-100 and F-107 a few days before the Air Force's
> test pilot would repeat the run for the official record. He thought it
> was interesting that the factory pilots could often get a few more
> knots out of the airplane than the Air Force pilot on the record
> setting day.
>
> Interstingly, Wolfe and others failed to mention that the chief test
> pilot for North American at the time, George Welch (who was one of the
> few pilots who shot down Japanese airplanes over Pearl Harbor on Dec 7,
> - later died when an upper right hand corner of the Vn diagram - max
> speed, high G - test of an F-100 went horribly wrong), had exceeded the
> speed of sound several times in the prototype F-86 in the two weeks
> prior to Yeager's flight. But, the Air Force wanted the credit for the
> first and made sure one of its pilots instead of a civilian pilot got
> the publicity. North American was not allowed to instrument the
> airplane for official speed until after Yeager did his thing. Yeager
> was the first to go supersonic in level flight, and rightfully gets
> credit for that, however, the F-86 did so in a dive, and actually went
> through the transonic range much more smoothly than the straight wing
> X-1.
>
> It's sad that because of one book that glorified one guy whose
> reputation in the test pilot community is lousy for letting his ego put
> test programs at risk, also managed to effectively smear the reputation
> of someone who was exceedingly good in his own right and went on to do
> some humanitarian work that was most impressive.
>
> All the best,
> Rick

Has anybody ever met anyone that actually likes Yeager. Latest word is his
own kids are now on the outs after his recent female episode.

[Jay Honeck]

> Has anybody ever met anyone that actually likes Yeager. Latest word is
> his
> own kids are now on the outs after his recent female episode.

I think Jim Weir likes him as a hangar neighbor?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bill]

On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 03:57:10 GMT, "Dave Stadt" >
wrote:

>
>Has anybody ever met anyone that actually likes Yeager. Latest word is his
>own kids are now on the outs after his recent female episode.
>
>

I like Yeager, but I was sure disappointed this year at Oshkosh.

My 8 year old daughter has gone to bed with stories of aviation's
greats for several years. She's enthralled with it all, and will
describe how much Mike Melville's wife loves him (She's seen the Black
Sky DVDs a half dozen times) or gladly tell you how Yeager broke the
sound barrier with a broken rib, how he used a broom handle, etc.

When she found out that Rutan would be at Oshkosh this year, along
with SpaceShipOne, she made me promise we would go. Go we did, and I
sat down with her and my two older boys to plan our stay there. Of
course we had to see Rutan and Yeager, which is how I found myself
sitting in on the last half of Bob Hoover's presentation in the
Heritage Museum.

Hoover's such a gentleman. Then Yeager came on, and the first thing
we got was a 20 minute video on Yeager. It seemed strange. He just
sat on stage for the whole thing, which would have been interesting to
watch at home, but not sitting there.

Then during his talk he started getting very political, and began
saying things like the British did the right thing by blowing that
guy's head off in the subway station and we should handle them that
way. This was AFTER it had been determined the poor guy had nothing
to do with terrorism. It was an embarassing moment more than
anything. I just felt kinda sad and embarassed, even though I do
actually agree with the sentiment.

My daughter took pictures of him, but complained that he showed the
video for such a long time. I could tell she wasn't quite as
impressed as she expected to be.

Bottom line, I was reminded of Hollywood celebrities who get out of
touch with the real world, begin to use the attention they have to
create a political platform, and forget what the fans are really there
to see.

Rutan on the other hand...quirky but a hell of a guy.

Bill Strahan
------------
Find a new reason to fly
www.adventurepilot.com

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[tomcervo]

"I've read that Slick wanted a huge bundle of dough to test the X-1,
which is why Yeager, who was willing to do it for regular service pay,
got the job. "

Goodlin said that he asked for the amount he was contracted for--and an
extra amount, agreed upon by the other pilots, for the widow of a pilot
killed earlier in the testing. The scene in the movie was total
fiction, like many of the scenes in the movie.

[Hilton]

Tom wrote:

> "I've read that Slick wanted a huge bundle of dough to test the X-1,
> which is why Yeager, who was willing to do it for regular service pay,
> got the job. "
>
> Goodlin said that he asked for the amount he was contracted for--and an
> extra amount, agreed upon by the other pilots, for the widow of a pilot
> killed earlier in the testing. The scene in the movie was total
> fiction, like many of the scenes in the movie.

I was amazed that Alan Shepard managed to come through the atmosphere 'sharp
side' down - we don't need no steekin' heat shield. I also didn't like the
way they portrayed Gus. I seem to remember hearing that Scott Crossfield
refused to work with them because of all the 'errors'. Having said all
that, my wife and I love the movie.

"Goes up like a cannonball and comes down like... a cannonball..."

FYI: Crossfield (my hero) refers to Yaeger as 'the famous author'. (pretty
funny when he says it)

Hilton

[[email protected]]

Dave,

It's quite interesting to spend time with test pilots who had worked
with Yeager. The real test pilots from the days of the early jets and
rocket planes are extremely quiet, not cocky at all; as if they know
just how very lucky they were just to survive. Then comes Yeager who
put a multi-million dollar test program at risk because he decided to
fly with broken ribs due to his own ego getting in the way of the
program. Then, to the astonishment of the test pilot community, he's
portrayed as larger than life for his absence of judgment. As you
listen to them talk, you hear about how Yeager would sometimes be truly
one of the guys, twisting wrenches with the enlisted men and then
would, strangely, refuse to read the technical material on a test,
again placing it at risk, until it bit him with the F-104 test where
what was described as his failure to understand the installed systems
lead to loss of the airplane and him having to eject, destroying the
airplane and ending the program. Of course Tom Wolfe portrayed it as
an heroic ejection and escape from nearly certain death. sigh

Funny how the truly great test pilots don't get well known, for
example, Ivan Kinchloe, the guy that the Society of Experimental Test
Pilots thought was so very good that it named the award it gives to the
best test pilot each year, is largely unknown outside of the community.
He was killed trying to eject from an F-104 that had difficulties
right after takeoff. Al White, who hand flew the XB-70 at Mach 3 at
over 70,000 feet, where the margin for error on handling tolerances was
tiny, and did it for hours at a time, now lives quietly in Arizona and
even his neighbors don't know what he did - yet if you go to the Air
Force Museum in Dayton and look at the XB-70 on display, it's his name
under the window as the pilot.

Slick Goodlin, who did all the initial testing on the X-1, before it
was in condition to be handed over to the military, got shafted by an
author, and despite all he did with humanitarian airlifts, is recalled
by the public as a greedy person. It doesn't matter what kind of
person one really is, I guess, it only matters how one is portrayed by
the popular media.

All the best,
Rick

[Jay Beckman]

> wrote in message
oups.com...

<Snip>

> Slick Goodlin, who did all the initial testing on the X-1, before it
> was in condition to be handed over to the military, got shafted by an
> author, and despite all he did with humanitarian airlifts, is recalled
> by the public as a greedy person. It doesn't matter what kind of
> person one really is, I guess, it only matters how one is portrayed by
> the popular media.

I hope for the sake of good people everywhere, you have this backwards...

I think it should read:

It doesn't matter how the popular media portray someone. What matters is
how they really are. This goes for Slick Goodlin and the hundreds of
thousands of others from that generation who were just "doin' a job that
needed doin'."

Regards,

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
AZ Cloudbusters
Chandler, AZ

[Matt Whiting]

Bill wrote:

> On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 03:57:10 GMT, "Dave Stadt" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Has anybody ever met anyone that actually likes Yeager. Latest word is his
>>own kids are now on the outs after his recent female episode.
>>
>>
>
>
> I like Yeager, but I was sure disappointed this year at Oshkosh.
>
> My 8 year old daughter has gone to bed with stories of aviation's
> greats for several years. She's enthralled with it all, and will
> describe how much Mike Melville's wife loves him (She's seen the Black
> Sky DVDs a half dozen times) or gladly tell you how Yeager broke the
> sound barrier with a broken rib, how he used a broom handle, etc.
>
> When she found out that Rutan would be at Oshkosh this year, along
> with SpaceShipOne, she made me promise we would go. Go we did, and I
> sat down with her and my two older boys to plan our stay there. Of
> course we had to see Rutan and Yeager, which is how I found myself
> sitting in on the last half of Bob Hoover's presentation in the
> Heritage Museum.
>
> Hoover's such a gentleman. Then Yeager came on, and the first thing
> we got was a 20 minute video on Yeager. It seemed strange. He just
> sat on stage for the whole thing, which would have been interesting to
> watch at home, but not sitting there.

Yes, Hoover is a class act all the way. Yeager is ego all the way.
Great pilots both, but if I could win a day with either one, the choice
would be a no-brainer.


Matt

[vincent p. norris]

> It doesn't matter what kind of person one really is,
>I guess, it only matters how one is portrayed by
>the popular media.

Although I understand what Jay Beckman means, what you meant is true,
too. The public, even interested persons like me, know nothing about
people in the news except what the media say about them.

Perhaps the Internet now provides a corrective, as you have done here.
Thanks for responding.

BTW, I disliked Wolfe's book; his writing style offended me.

vince norris

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Matt Whiting > wrote:

> Bill wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 03:57:10 GMT, "Dave Stadt" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Has anybody ever met anyone that actually likes Yeager. Latest word is his
> >>own kids are now on the outs after his recent female episode.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > I like Yeager, but I was sure disappointed this year at Oshkosh.
> >
> > My 8 year old daughter has gone to bed with stories of aviation's
> > greats for several years. She's enthralled with it all, and will
> > describe how much Mike Melville's wife loves him (She's seen the Black
> > Sky DVDs a half dozen times) or gladly tell you how Yeager broke the
> > sound barrier with a broken rib, how he used a broom handle, etc.
> >
> > When she found out that Rutan would be at Oshkosh this year, along
> > with SpaceShipOne, she made me promise we would go. Go we did, and I
> > sat down with her and my two older boys to plan our stay there. Of
> > course we had to see Rutan and Yeager, which is how I found myself
> > sitting in on the last half of Bob Hoover's presentation in the
> > Heritage Museum.
> >
> > Hoover's such a gentleman. Then Yeager came on, and the first thing
> > we got was a 20 minute video on Yeager. It seemed strange. He just
> > sat on stage for the whole thing, which would have been interesting to
> > watch at home, but not sitting there.
>
> Yes, Hoover is a class act all the way. Yeager is ego all the way.
> Great pilots both, but if I could win a day with either one, the choice
> would be a no-brainer.

I have a friend who gave instrument proficiency checks to both Yeager
and Hoover (and flew F-100s with Gabreski). You should hear some of the
tales!

[Matt Whiting]

Orval Fairbairn wrote:

> In article >,
> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
>
>>Bill wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 03:57:10 GMT, "Dave Stadt" >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Has anybody ever met anyone that actually likes Yeager. Latest word is his
>>>>own kids are now on the outs after his recent female episode.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I like Yeager, but I was sure disappointed this year at Oshkosh.
>>>
>>>My 8 year old daughter has gone to bed with stories of aviation's
>>>greats for several years. She's enthralled with it all, and will
>>>describe how much Mike Melville's wife loves him (She's seen the Black
>>>Sky DVDs a half dozen times) or gladly tell you how Yeager broke the
>>>sound barrier with a broken rib, how he used a broom handle, etc.
>>>
>>>When she found out that Rutan would be at Oshkosh this year, along
>>>with SpaceShipOne, she made me promise we would go. Go we did, and I
>>>sat down with her and my two older boys to plan our stay there. Of
>>>course we had to see Rutan and Yeager, which is how I found myself
>>>sitting in on the last half of Bob Hoover's presentation in the
>>>Heritage Museum.
>>>
>>>Hoover's such a gentleman. Then Yeager came on, and the first thing
>>>we got was a 20 minute video on Yeager. It seemed strange. He just
>>>sat on stage for the whole thing, which would have been interesting to
>>>watch at home, but not sitting there.
>>
>>Yes, Hoover is a class act all the way. Yeager is ego all the way.
>>Great pilots both, but if I could win a day with either one, the choice
>>would be a no-brainer.
>
>
> I have a friend who gave instrument proficiency checks to both Yeager
> and Hoover (and flew F-100s with Gabreski). You should hear some of the
> tales!

I'd love to. Care to share any?

Matt

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Matt Whiting > wrote:

> Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > Matt Whiting > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Bill wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 03:57:10 GMT, "Dave Stadt" >
> >>>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Has anybody ever met anyone that actually likes Yeager. Latest word is
> >>>>his
> >>>>own kids are now on the outs after his recent female episode.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I like Yeager, but I was sure disappointed this year at Oshkosh.
> >>>
> >>>My 8 year old daughter has gone to bed with stories of aviation's
> >>>greats for several years. She's enthralled with it all, and will
> >>>describe how much Mike Melville's wife loves him (She's seen the Black
> >>>Sky DVDs a half dozen times) or gladly tell you how Yeager broke the
> >>>sound barrier with a broken rib, how he used a broom handle, etc.
> >>>
> >>>When she found out that Rutan would be at Oshkosh this year, along
> >>>with SpaceShipOne, she made me promise we would go. Go we did, and I
> >>>sat down with her and my two older boys to plan our stay there. Of
> >>>course we had to see Rutan and Yeager, which is how I found myself
> >>>sitting in on the last half of Bob Hoover's presentation in the
> >>>Heritage Museum.
> >>>
> >>>Hoover's such a gentleman. Then Yeager came on, and the first thing
> >>>we got was a 20 minute video on Yeager. It seemed strange. He just
> >>>sat on stage for the whole thing, which would have been interesting to
> >>>watch at home, but not sitting there.
> >>
> >>Yes, Hoover is a class act all the way. Yeager is ego all the way.
> >>Great pilots both, but if I could win a day with either one, the choice
> >>would be a no-brainer.
> >
> >
> > I have a friend who gave instrument proficiency checks to both Yeager
> > and Hoover (and flew F-100s with Gabreski). You should hear some of the
> > tales!
>
> I'd love to. Care to share any?
>
> Matt

He didn't like Gabreski and considered both Hoover and Yeager to be
marginal on the gages.

Another friend's father was a close friend of Yeager and has some
uncomplimentary stories about Chuck, too.

[Darrel Toepfer]

Matt Whiting wrote:
> If I could win a day with either one, the choice would be a
> no-brainer.

How many of those are there? Yawn and Zzzoom are the only 2 that come to
mind. Well Yawn has half a one so guess he doesn't count...

[Peter Stickney]

Hilton wrote:

> Tom wrote:
>
>> "I've read that Slick wanted a huge bundle of dough to test the
>> X-1, which is why Yeager, who was willing to do it for regular
>> service pay, got the job. "
>>
>> Goodlin said that he asked for the amount he was contracted
>> for--and an extra amount, agreed upon by the other pilots, for the
>> widow of a pilot killed earlier in the testing. The scene in the
>> movie was total fiction, like many of the scenes in the movie.
>
> I was amazed that Alan Shepard managed to come through the
> atmosphere 'sharp
> side' down - we don't need no steekin' heat shield.
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? Over.
Didn't happen.

> I also didn't
> like the
> way they portrayed Gus.

The book and the movie did Gus Grissom an incredible disservice.

> I seem to remember hearing that Scott Crossfield
> refused to work with them because of all the 'errors'.

I wouldn't be surprised at that at all - Gen. Yeager had definitely
bedazzled Wolfe and whoever adapted the book into the screenplay, and
he's never had too much good to say about Crossfield or too many of
the other NACA Test Pilots.

--
Pete Stickney
Java Man knew nothing about coffee.

[tomcervo]

"Having said all that, my wife and I love the movie. "

Well, it's a good movie--some of the best American actors of the time
in it--and it has a few potent things to say about Fame despite the
inexactitudes. For example, the look on Alan Shepard's face after the
goober finds out he isn't Glenn and asks him where Glenn is. Probably a
lot like the look on Bud Anderson's face when someone calls him
Yeager's wingman.

[Jay Honeck]

> He didn't like Gabreski and considered both Hoover and Yeager to be
> marginal on the gages.

I wonder if that's not uncommon? Being a fighter ace and flying on the
gauges are totally different skills.

In fact, now that I ponder it, being the aggressive, unpredictable,
sharp-eyed fighter ace is almost diametrically opposed to the image of a
skillful, competent IFR pilot.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[George Patterson]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> I wonder if that's not uncommon? Being a fighter ace and flying on the
> gauges are totally different skills.

Flying escort fighters from Britain during WWII required long periods of
instrument work in a marginally stable platform on a regular basis.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

[RST Engineering]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:z5L7f.472406$x96.142332@attbi_s72...
>> Has anybody ever met anyone that actually likes Yeager. Latest word is
>> his
>> own kids are now on the outs after his recent female episode.


The "outs" are due to Yeager modifying his will and other financial matters
to include the "female episode" which happens to be his wife. Damned good
pilot, by the way. The wife, that is.

>
> I think Jim Weir likes him as a hangar neighbor?

I said he is my hangar neighbor, period. Son of a bitch used to steal
peaches from my orchard when he cut across my place walking up to the
airport from his house.


Jim

[Dave Stadt]

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:z5L7f.472406$x96.142332@attbi_s72...
> >> Has anybody ever met anyone that actually likes Yeager. Latest word is
> >> his
> >> own kids are now on the outs after his recent female episode.
>
>
> The "outs" are due to Yeager modifying his will and other financial
matters
> to include the "female episode" which happens to be his wife.

Which happens to be half his age and younger than his kids as I understand.
Not that there is anything wrong with that.

>Damned good pilot, by the way. The wife, that is.
>
> >
> > I think Jim Weir likes him as a hangar neighbor?
>
> I said he is my hangar neighbor, period. Son of a bitch used to steal
> peaches from my orchard when he cut across my place walking up to the
> airport from his house.
>
>
> Jim
>
>

[FatKat]

Goodlin doesn't seem to have been slammed by Yeager, according to my
recollection of Yeager's book. Though noting the high figures demanded
(or contracted for), I remember the other evaluating pilot saying that
Goodlin deserved "every dime". I think the USAF wanted to grab the
project because it coincided with the official inauguration of the AF
as a separate service. That's the impression I got from Yeager's book
- which seems implicitly lauditory when you think of how low Yeager
held civilian test pilots in esteem. Civilian test pilots? They do it
for the money. They pick up an airplane, play around with it, then
discard it without contributing any useful information about it. Even
George Welch gets the treatment. The pilot of the F-104 that collided
with B-70 No. 2? A NASA pilot. It's not the same deal in NASA, Yeager
says - he'd stand up any day for those shuttle drivers. But during the
golden years of aviation, Goodlin emerges favorably.

I read years later that Goodlin flew Spitfires for the Israeli AF in
'48 - this from an Israeli magazine that mentions Goodlin having been a
test pilot, but omits any mention of the X-1.

[Newps]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>He didn't like Gabreski and considered both Hoover and Yeager to be
>>marginal on the gages.
>
>
> I wonder if that's not uncommon? Being a fighter ace and flying on the
> gauges are totally different skills.
>
> In fact, now that I ponder it, being the aggressive, unpredictable,
> sharp-eyed fighter ace is almost diametrically opposed to the image of a
> skillful, competent IFR pilot.

Exactly. The same goes for the myth that getting an instrument rating
makes you a better pilot. It makes you a better instrument pilot. It
makes you a worse VFR pilot.

[Jim Campbell]

tomcervo wrote:
> "I've read that Slick wanted a huge bundle of dough to test the X-1,
> which is why Yeager, who was willing to do it for regular service pay,
> got the job. "
>
> Goodlin said that he asked for the amount he was contracted for--and an
> extra amount, agreed upon by the other pilots, for the widow of a pilot
> killed earlier in the testing. The scene in the movie was total
> fiction, like many of the scenes in the movie.

I just quickly re-read "Tex" Johnston's account of this in "Tex
Johnston Jet-Age Test Pilot". IIRC, Johnston was Chief Experimental
Test Pilot at Bell during the initial X-1 flights. He says "Likewise
much has been made of the purported pilot bonus (hazard pay) committed
by Bell Aircraft for the Phase 1 testing of the X-1 aircraft and the
amount demanded by Goodlin. I was never privy to either of those two
numbers..."

Johnston's recollection of Bell losing management of the X-1 project
goes like this:

Goodlin flew the first powered X-1 flight on December 9, 1946. He
reported satisfactory handling with no comments concerning aerodynamic
control or longitiudinal trim characteristics.

After several more flights, Johnston, based at Bell's Niagara Falls,
NY factory, received a call from the X-1 project officer at Wright
saying that the air force technical people at Muroc (Edwards) say
Goodlin is uncooperative and are unhappy with progress to date.

Johnston flies to Muroc and is told that Goodlin has engaged a
Hollywood agent and instructed that the Wright X-1 project office that
any meetings with Goodlin should be arranged through his agent.

Johnston flies the X-1 (books includes a copy of his "Pilot's Report"
for the flight) on May 22, 1947. He can't believe that "a pilot
[Goodlin] could fly this airplane for two months and never mention the
severe and dangerous deficiency in the longitiudinal trim system." He
grounds the plane until this is fixed. The next day Johnston gets a
call from Stanley at Bell telling him that Wright Field is taking over
the program.

When Goodlin returned to Niagara Falls he was told Bell Aircraft would
not honor his X-1 contract.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 13:40:42 -0600, Newps > wrote
in >::

>
>Jay Honeck wrote:
>>>He didn't like Gabreski and considered both Hoover and Yeager to be
>>>marginal on the gages.
>>
>>
>> I wonder if that's not uncommon? Being a fighter ace and flying on the
>> gauges are totally different skills.
>>
>> In fact, now that I ponder it, being the aggressive, unpredictable,
>> sharp-eyed fighter ace is almost diametrically opposed to the image of a
>> skillful, competent IFR pilot.
>
>Exactly. The same goes for the myth that getting an instrument rating
>makes you a better pilot. It makes you a better instrument pilot. It
>makes you a worse VFR pilot.

While I understand the reasoning behind the comments of both, I find
it revealing that neither Scott nor John have anything more than
AIRPLANE SINGLE ENGINE LAND on their PRIVATE PILOT certificates (with
the possible exception of: MUST WEAR CORRECTIVE LENSES).

[FatKat]

tomcervo wrote:

> Probably a lot like the look on Bud Anderson's face when someone calls
> him Yeager's wingman.

Does anybody really think of him that way? The only reason I know
about him was because of his book (easily one of the most memorable
fighter-pilot memoirs) which made it clear that they weren't wingmen.
My favorite part was Anderson's tale of "The Drink Not Toasted" with
Tom Lanphier, who claimed credit for shooting down Adm. Yamamoto in
1943, meeting Minoru Genda years later.

[Matt Whiting]

Newps wrote:

>
>
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>>> He didn't like Gabreski and considered both Hoover and Yeager to be
>>> marginal on the gages.
>>
>>
>>
>> I wonder if that's not uncommon? Being a fighter ace and flying on
>> the gauges are totally different skills.
>>
>> In fact, now that I ponder it, being the aggressive, unpredictable,
>> sharp-eyed fighter ace is almost diametrically opposed to the image of
>> a skillful, competent IFR pilot.
>
>
> Exactly. The same goes for the myth that getting an instrument rating
> makes you a better pilot. It makes you a better instrument pilot. It
> makes you a worse VFR pilot.

How so?

Matt

[[email protected]]

Newps,

>>Exactly. The same goes for the myth that getting an instrument rating
makes you a better pilot. It makes you a better instrument pilot. It
makes you a worse VFR pilot.<<

With all due respect, having flown with a few hundred pilots as a
flight instructor, my observation is that pilots who have their
instrument ratings are better all around pilots than those who do not.
(Again, that is a general statement, there are certainly exceptions,
but it is true in general.) It does not make them a worse VFR pilot.
Well to the contrary, in fact, it improves their VFR skills due to
their ability to fly the airplane more precisely, something that seems
to make a big difference on crosswind landings (once they get past
spending too much time head down in the cockpit, which is also true of
VFR pilots with a moving map GPS). While it is only my observation,
pilots without instrument ratings tend to be sloppier on speed control
on landing approach, and are more likely to err on the fast side,
something that is a common cause of loss of control accidents on
landing - more energy, a squared function, to manage, and it doesn't
always get managed well. Noninstrument rated pilots also, in my
observation, tend to be far sloppier on altitude and heading than
pilots with instrument ratings and seem to be more likely to fly at
altitudes that are in violation of the east-west rule.

While the instrument rating is certainly not for everyone, the skill
sets it teaches, mostly the process of thinking much further ahead of
the airplane than one is used to doing when flying VFR, has positive
carryover value, as is usually the case with any additional training,
it has benefits beyond the specific areas being addressed.

As was stated here, fighter pilots in WWII got a lot of instrument
time, especially in the European Theatre where the weather often was
just plain lousy. In fact, they were known to shoot approaches down to
less than 200 and a half to get in after missions.

Interestingly, Al White, combat fighter pilot in WWII with victories,
then military test pilot and then test pilot for North American, was
probably the finest pilots with whom I've ever flown, even when he was
in his late 60s. His handling of the airplane was absolutely fluid and
I've never, ever seen anyone fly more precisely than he could, VFR or
IFR. During one series of maneuvers in a Cessna 402, I tapped the
altimeter on my side of the cockpit because it had not moved through
several 60 degree banked turns and I thought it was stuck. It wasn't.


All the best,
Rick

All the best,
Rick

[Newps]

Matt Whiting wrote:

>>
>> Exactly. The same goes for the myth that getting an instrument rating
>> makes you a better pilot. It makes you a better instrument pilot. It
>> makes you a worse VFR pilot.
>
>
> How so?

Getting the IFR rating is all about ignoring what your senses are
telling you and trusting the gauges. Limiting banks to standard rate
turns, keeping the ball centered, very minor pitch and airspeed changes.
That's necessary when you can't see anything. It's also why guys in a
172 get all puckered up when the runway is only 3000 feet long, they
start to worry it's too short. They never explore the low end of the
performance envelope. I bought my Bonanza in August. The first thing I
looked at when I was deciding if I wanted a Bonanza was where is the
bottom of the white arc. My 182 was 60 MPH, the Bo is 62. Perfect I
thought, I won't give up hardly any short field performance.(And I
don't, the Bo lands in 550 feet, takeoff in 550-600) Then I started
asking Bo pilots what speed they fly on final with a load of just
themselves and a half tank of gas. The lowest was 90 MPH IAS and the
highest was 110. That's right, there's morons out there flying at 110
on final when the stall speed is less than half that. Instrument pilots
all. They are so scared of their planes I don't know why they even fly.

[Matt Whiting]

wrote:
> Newps,
>
>
>>>Exactly. The same goes for the myth that getting an instrument rating
>
> makes you a better pilot. It makes you a better instrument pilot. It
> makes you a worse VFR pilot.<<
>
> With all due respect, having flown with a few hundred pilots as a
> flight instructor, my observation is that pilots who have their
> instrument ratings are better all around pilots than those who do not.
> (Again, that is a general statement, there are certainly exceptions,
> but it is true in general.) It does not make them a worse VFR pilot.
> Well to the contrary, in fact, it improves their VFR skills due to
> their ability to fly the airplane more precisely, something that seems
> to make a big difference on crosswind landings (once they get past
> spending too much time head down in the cockpit, which is also true of
> VFR pilots with a moving map GPS). While it is only my observation,
> pilots without instrument ratings tend to be sloppier on speed control
> on landing approach, and are more likely to err on the fast side,
> something that is a common cause of loss of control accidents on
> landing - more energy, a squared function, to manage, and it doesn't
> always get managed well. Noninstrument rated pilots also, in my
> observation, tend to be far sloppier on altitude and heading than
> pilots with instrument ratings and seem to be more likely to fly at
> altitudes that are in violation of the east-west rule.
>
> While the instrument rating is certainly not for everyone, the skill
> sets it teaches, mostly the process of thinking much further ahead of
> the airplane than one is used to doing when flying VFR, has positive
> carryover value, as is usually the case with any additional training,
> it has benefits beyond the specific areas being addressed.


This is my experience as well. I find that I not only fly more
precisely than before, but I also am MUCH better in my communications
with ATC and in my understanding of weather and the ATC system. Still
much to learn to be sure, but the instrument rating definitely raised my
game another notch.


> As was stated here, fighter pilots in WWII got a lot of instrument
> time, especially in the European Theatre where the weather often was
> just plain lousy. In fact, they were known to shoot approaches down to
> less than 200 and a half to get in after missions.
>
> Interestingly, Al White, combat fighter pilot in WWII with victories,
> then military test pilot and then test pilot for North American, was
> probably the finest pilots with whom I've ever flown, even when he was
> in his late 60s. His handling of the airplane was absolutely fluid and
> I've never, ever seen anyone fly more precisely than he could, VFR or
> IFR. During one series of maneuvers in a Cessna 402, I tapped the
> altimeter on my side of the cockpit because it had not moved through
> several 60 degree banked turns and I thought it was stuck. It wasn't.

That just isn't right to fly like that! :-)

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Newps wrote:

>
>
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Exactly. The same goes for the myth that getting an instrument
>>> rating makes you a better pilot. It makes you a better instrument
>>> pilot. It makes you a worse VFR pilot.
>>
>>
>>
>> How so?
>
>
> Getting the IFR rating is all about ignoring what your senses are
> telling you and trusting the gauges. Limiting banks to standard rate
> turns, keeping the ball centered, very minor pitch and airspeed changes.
> That's necessary when you can't see anything. It's also why guys in a
> 172 get all puckered up when the runway is only 3000 feet long, they
> start to worry it's too short. They never explore the low end of the
> performance envelope. I bought my Bonanza in August. The first thing I
> looked at when I was deciding if I wanted a Bonanza was where is the
> bottom of the white arc. My 182 was 60 MPH, the Bo is 62. Perfect I
> thought, I won't give up hardly any short field performance.(And I
> don't, the Bo lands in 550 feet, takeoff in 550-600) Then I started
> asking Bo pilots what speed they fly on final with a load of just
> themselves and a half tank of gas. The lowest was 90 MPH IAS and the
> highest was 110. That's right, there's morons out there flying at 110
> on final when the stall speed is less than half that. Instrument pilots
> all. They are so scared of their planes I don't know why they even fly.

I don't think that is an issue related to the instrument rating. I
think that is related to their primary instructor and where they learned
to fly. I've found that folks that learned to fly at small airports,
preferably with a grass runway, and who had an instructor at least 50
years old, fly similar to how you fly ... which is how I fly. However,
people who learned at large controlled fields with instructors in their
early 20s seem to fly as do the Bo pilots you describe above.

If you really want to scare one take them up in a Skylane and perform a
short-field takeoff. I'm not sure if I remember this exactly, as I sold
my 182 more than 5 years ago, but I believe that Vx was something like
61 MPH. The deck angle in my 182 with flaps 20 and Vx was rather
impressive and tended to make most pilot friends of mine look for
something firm to grab onto. :-)

I really doubt these folks started flying this way upon receiving their
instrument rating.

Matt

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Newps wrote:
>>> Exactly. The same goes for the myth that getting an instrument rating
>>> makes you a better pilot. It makes you a better instrument pilot. It
>>> makes you a worse VFR pilot.
>>
>> How so?
>
> Getting the IFR rating is all about ignoring what your senses are
> telling you and trusting the gauges. Limiting banks to standard rate
> turns, keeping the ball centered, very minor pitch and airspeed changes.
> That's necessary when you can't see anything.


It keeps things from getting out of hand when you can't see out. It's a whole
different game when it's VFR. I still strive for smoothness over pulling Gs
when trying to impress someone. Any damned fool can pull Gs... but not all can
achieve smoothness and accuracy in flying.




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Matt Whiting]

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
> Newps wrote:
>
>>>>Exactly. The same goes for the myth that getting an instrument rating
>>>>makes you a better pilot. It makes you a better instrument pilot. It
>>>>makes you a worse VFR pilot.
>>>
>>>How so?
>>
>>Getting the IFR rating is all about ignoring what your senses are
>>telling you and trusting the gauges. Limiting banks to standard rate
>>turns, keeping the ball centered, very minor pitch and airspeed changes.
>> That's necessary when you can't see anything.
>
>
>
> It keeps things from getting out of hand when you can't see out. It's a whole
> different game when it's VFR. I still strive for smoothness over pulling Gs
> when trying to impress someone. Any damned fool can pull Gs... but not all can
> achieve smoothness and accuracy in flying.


And fewer still can pull Gs with smoothness and accuracy! :-)

Matt

[vincent p. norris]

>Getting the IFR rating is all about ignoring what your senses are
>telling you and trusting the gauges. Limiting banks to standard rate
>turns, keeping the ball centered, very minor pitch and airspeed changes.
> That's necessary when you can't see anything. It's also why guys in a
>172 get all puckered up when the runway is only 3000 feet long, they
>start to worry it's too short. They never explore the low end of the
>performance envelope.

I think you're going off the deep end, drawing the inferences you do.

In naval flight training, we learned instrument flying in D Stage.
We had to fly a Charlie Pattern, a very complicated series of ascents,
descents, turns, to limits you probably won't believe: we had to stay
within 3 degrees on heading, 20 feet on altitude, and 3 seconds on
timing of turns, ascents and descents.

Then we went on to E stage, night flying (VFR), F Stage, formation
flying (VFR, of course, and requiring smooth flying), G Stage, gunnery
(ditto), ACM (ditto) and carrier qualification --where I think you
could say we explored the low end of the envelope.

It worked pretty well. Cadets with barely over 200 hours total time
landed on the boat after the above training schedule.

vince norris

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
> Newps wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Jay Honeck wrote:
> >
> >>> He didn't like Gabreski and considered both Hoover and Yeager to be
> >>> marginal on the gages.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I wonder if that's not uncommon? Being a fighter ace and flying on
> >> the gauges are totally different skills.
> >>
> >> In fact, now that I ponder it, being the aggressive, unpredictable,
> >> sharp-eyed fighter ace is almost diametrically opposed to the image of
> >> a skillful, competent IFR pilot.
> >
> >
> > Exactly. The same goes for the myth that getting an instrument rating
> > makes you a better pilot. It makes you a better instrument pilot. It
> > makes you a worse VFR pilot.
>
> How so?

Because such pilots can become complacent about VFR flight. Say they're
VFR in borderline VMC - not uncommon for such pilots to do a bit of
'cheating' by using IFR instruments to "help out". It can lead to bad
accidents...
McDonnell-Douglas DC10-30 ZK-NZP collision with terrain, Ross Island,
Antarctica, 28 November 1979 (257 deaths).

If yer VFR, yer fly by VFR.

--
Duncan

[Gernot Hassenpflug]

>>>>> "rdurden" == rdurden > writes:

rdurden> Dave, It's quite interesting to spend time with test
rdurden> pilots who had worked with Yeager. The real test pilots
rdurden> from the days of the early jets and rocket planes are
rdurden> extremely quiet, not cocky at all; as if they know just
rdurden> how very lucky they were just to survive.

rdurden> Funny how the truly great test pilots don't get well
rdurden> known, for example, Ivan Kinchloe, ... Al White, who
rdurden> hand flew the XB-70 at Mach 3 at over 70,000 feet ...

rdurden> Slick Goodlin, who did all the initial testing on the
rdurden> X-1, before it was in condition to be handed over to the
rdurden> military, got shafted by an author, and despite all he
rdurden> did with humanitarian airlifts, is recalled by the public
rdurden> as a greedy person. It doesn't matter what kind of
rdurden> person one really is, I guess, it only matters how one is
rdurden> portrayed by the popular media.

Human beings classify people on a few perceived characteristics, and
in general are unable to reevaluate based on later evidence,
preferring instead to add the newer evidence as as sub-grouping of
their main initial evaluation. So it is not really possible for people
generally to accept that a person can be of "characteristic" a,b,c,d
at different times, but not be classified as any one of them.
--
G Hassenpflug * IJN & JMSDF equipment/history fan

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 16:40:06 +0900, Gernot Hassenpflug >
wrote in >::

>Human beings classify people on a few perceived characteristics, and
>in general are unable to reevaluate based on later evidence,
>preferring instead to add the newer evidence as as sub-grouping of
>their main initial evaluation. So it is not really possible for people
>generally to accept that a person can be of "characteristic" a,b,c,d
>at different times, but not be classified as any one of them.

If that statement is true, someone who commits the act of murder, for
instance, and may be capable of many other altruistic acts, is not
classified as a murderer while being altruistic. That is, of course,
absurd.

My point is, a person who has demonstrated the capacity to commit a
given act is not in the same class as one who hasn't committed that
act regardless of their capacity to demonstrate other characteristics.

[Gernot Hassenpflug]

>>>>> "Larry" == Larry Dighera > writes:

Larry> On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 16:40:06 +0900, Gernot Hassenpflug
Larry> > wrote in >::

>> Human beings classify people on a few perceived
>> characteristics, and in general are unable to reevaluate based
>> on later evidence, preferring instead to add the newer evidence
>> as as sub-grouping of their main initial evaluation. So it is
>> not really possible for people generally to accept that a
>> person can be of "characteristic" a,b,c,d at different times,
>> but not be classified as any one of them.

Larry> If that statement is true, someone who commits the act of
Larry> murder, for instance, and may be capable of many other
Larry> altruistic acts, is not classified as a murderer while
Larry> being altruistic. That is, of course, absurd.

Hi Larry, thanks for the reply (in this forum)

To illustrate my point, I don't categorize you as dense just because I
think what you posted is rubbish :-) Just kidding - here is the
explanation: categorizing the person as a murderer is giving him an
epithet due to an action and an idea that you have about that
action. That is related to the human notion of character, and we
extend that to our other ideas about the person in dealing with
them. Think of someone who is a convicted murderer, and someone who
was let off due to some legal shenanigans. Do you feel more
comfortable with one than with the other? Sure, that's how the human
mind works. We cannot imagine having to recategorize again and again
based on new information, instead we prefer sub-categories of existing
ones. Children learn this way, and adults are not that different in
detail. What is most difficult is to come to a new upper-level
categorization to replace an existing one. In fact, the problem is
that such a hierarchal idea is fundamentally flawed.

Larry> My point is, a person who has demonstrated the capacity to
Larry> commit a given act is not in the same class as one who
Larry> hasn't committed that act regardless of their capacity to
Larry> demonstrate other characteristics.

The statement of "in the same class" exactly makes my point, as
explained above, and if you do a bit of research on this topic in
psychology you will be convinced yourself (for laypeople, try "The
Tipping Point" and "Blink" and references therein). We choose to
categorize a person due to a certain perception (action noted,
thoughts expressed, etc.), instead of accepting that all manner of
"classes" live together inside that one person, and appear at one
moment or another (think of the difference in your own mind when
seeing a person you categorize as nice doing something mean, and
someone you think of as sort of unpleasant doing something nice for
someone: one is a nice person having a bad day, the other is a nasty
person uncharacteristically doing something nice). This realization is
of course critical in a number of areas related to decision-making in
human society, both to predict and to understand behaviour. Quite
fascinating stuff, I strongly recommend the books above.

Damn OT though, hope we'll be forgiven for this one! cheers!
--
G Hassenpflug * IJN & JMSDF equipment/history fan

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 15:13:57 +0900, Gernot Hassenpflug >
wrote in >::

>>>>>> "Larry" == Larry Dighera > writes:
>
> Larry> On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 16:40:06 +0900, Gernot Hassenpflug
> Larry> > wrote in >::
>
> >> Human beings classify people on a few perceived
> >> characteristics, and in general are unable to reevaluate based
> >> on later evidence, preferring instead to add the newer evidence
> >> as as sub-grouping of their main initial evaluation. So it is
> >> not really possible for people generally to accept that a
> >> person can be of "characteristic" a,b,c,d at different times,
> >> but not be classified as any one of them.
>
> Larry> If that statement is true, someone who commits the act of
> Larry> murder, for instance, and may be capable of many other
> Larry> altruistic acts, is not classified as a murderer while
> Larry> being altruistic. That is, of course, absurd.
>
>Hi Larry, thanks for the reply (in this forum)

You're welcome.

>To illustrate my point, I don't categorize you as dense just because I
>think what you posted is rubbish :-) Just kidding

And I don't categorize you as an arrogant, pseudo superior,
passive-aggressive sociopath spoiling for a fight either. Now we're
both palterers. :-)

>- here is the explanation: categorizing the person as a murderer is
>giving him an epithet due to an action and an idea that you have about
>that action.

Given the laws throughout the world against murder, the religious
mandate, and the disgusting repugnance of the act, I have to believe
that my idea is reasonable regarding the idea I have about that act.

What epithet would you ascribe to someone who commits the wanton act
of murder?

>That is related to the human notion of character, and we
>extend that to our other ideas about the person in dealing with
>them.

Absolutely. If we failed to recognize a person's past acts in judging
their character, we'd be at quite a disadvantage in dealing with them.
>Think of someone who is a convicted murderer, and someone who
>was let off due to some legal shenanigans. Do you feel more
>comfortable with one than with the other?

Not at all. They have both demonstrated their capacity for ruthless
mayhem, and will evoke a cautious and guarded regard in me.

>Sure, that's how the human mind works.

I completely fail to understand why you would erroneously jump to the
conclusion that there is a difference in how I would react to a
murderer regardless if they had been jailed or not. Perhaps you'd be
kind enough to explain what lead you to that conclusion.

>We cannot imagine having to recategorize again and again
>based on new information,

What new information. Are you intimating, that somehow doing a long
prison sentence for murder excuses the act and renders the murderer
more comfortable to be around? That would be ludicrous.

>instead we prefer sub-categories of existing ones.

I'm having trouble understanding your meaning. Perhaps an example
would help. What's a sub-category of an existing category into which
we have placed our regard for a murderer?

>Children learn this way, and adults are not that different in detail.

You've failed to make yourself clear on this point, as I have no idea
what sort of sub-category it is to which you refer. Please be more
explicit.

>What is most difficult is to come to a new upper-level categorization
>to replace an existing one. In fact, the problem is that such a hierarchal
>idea is fundamentally flawed.

It's easy to come to a new upper-level categorization of Catholic
priests, for instance. Once they were held in great esteem; now they
are seen for the pedophiles they have been all along.

> Larry> My point is, a person who has demonstrated the capacity to
> Larry> commit a given act is not in the same class as one who
> Larry> hasn't committed that act regardless of their capacity to
> Larry> demonstrate other characteristics.
>
>The statement of "in the same class" exactly makes my point, as
>explained above,

Which point was that? Perhaps you can state it more succinctly and
explicitly.

>and if you do a bit of research on this topic in
>psychology you will be convinced yourself (for laypeople, try "The
>Tipping Point" and "Blink" and references therein).

Perhaps you'll be good enough to provide a quoted passage or two from
those texts that elucidate your point.

>We choose to categorize a person due to a certain perception (action
>noted, thoughts expressed, etc.), instead of accepting that all manner of
>"classes" live together inside that one person, and appear at one
>moment or another

In the example we are using of a murderer, one who has DEMONSTRATED
the capacity to commit that act rightly deserves to be in a different
class from one who has not. That's why they are put to death in this
country.

While we may all be physically capable of the act of murder, some of
us have the emotional control and intelligence to refrain from acting.
Those who cannot, are unstable sociopath, and deserve to be
categorized as such.

>(think of the difference in your own mind when
>seeing a person you categorize as nice doing something mean, and
>someone you think of as sort of unpleasant doing something nice for
>someone: one is a nice person having a bad day, the other is a nasty
>person uncharacteristically doing something nice).

I make no such rationalizations in my objective judgment of behaviors.
Each act is a data point to be factored into the aggregate in
reassessing the categorization.

>This realization is of course critical in a number of areas related to
>decision-making in human society, both to predict and to understand
>behaviour.

Which realization?

>Quite fascinating stuff, I strongly recommend the books above.
>
>Damn OT though, hope we'll be forgiven for this one! cheers!

If this newsgroup's readership's past behavior is any indication,
they'll hardly notice. :-(