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


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

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

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

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

George Z.

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

I don't know who you were talking about, since I don't read Kramer's stuff any
more. I was responding to comments made by Tony and, for whatever reason I think
too unimportant to seek out, it led me to believe that there was a reference to
comments made about our President's military aviation career.

But, first there is no "renew your flight physical" in the military.
That applies to Class I/II/III for FAA license. If you are on flying
status in the military you take an annual flight physical.

I concur. In my day, when we (active duty guys) were ordered to the FSO for our
annual physical, we simply showed up at the right time for it. I can't remember
for a fact how that was handled when I was in an active AFRes outfit; I think we
were notified that we were in need of a current flight physical to be acquired
some time during the month preceding our birthday, and it was up to us to see
that we got it by making the necessary appointments with the FSO.

.....The President did not "fail to renew" a physical.

If I recall correctly, he was notified by his ANG people that he needed a
current flight physical.....he simply did not see to it that he got one. That's
what I meant by my reference to his failure to renew his physical. If there's
any blame to be attributed to that, it can only go to the flier who allowed it
to happen.



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

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

If I was an F-102 pilot who was hot to trot, I think I might have volunteered to
transition into one of the birds actively used in the shooting war, like the
F-105, or whatever equipment they were then using for top covers.

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

Would you care to comment on his submission of a "volunteer for o/s duty"
statement when he knew or should have known that he had insufficient flying time
in the bird to be favorably considered? All he had to do was to ask around, and
he'd have learned that they wanted people with more hours than he had. Excuse
me if I conclude that he was just going through the motions but I can't think
of any other reason for volunteering for something you know you're not going to
get.

If I haven't got my facts right, please do straighten me out, since you seem to
think you know everything there is to know about his flying career. On the
subject of relevent, if you try hard, I think you'll have to admit that the
subject of this thread, which may well have started out as one about one of
Kramer's mates, also fits our current President like a glove. It seemed
relevent to me when I saw it.

As for my personal agenda, I don't have one that I'm aware of and so don't know
what level it's at or is supposed to be at. If you happen to run across it,
would you mind sending me a copy? I seem to have misplaced mine.

George Z.






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