THE PILOT WHO WOULDN'T FLY

Subject: THE PILOT WHO WOULDN'T FLY
From: Ed Rasimus
Date: 2/4/04 8:58 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 10:54:05 -0500, "Tony Volk"
wrote:

p.s.- wasn't it a well established phenomenon in Vietnam that pilots
generally went "candy-assed" when they got close to the end of their tour?
so much so that they were rotated out of Pack VI for their last five or ten?

YUP !


Arthur Kramer

NOPE! You might want to read When Thunder Rolled for my description of
the last mission of my tour in which two o


That YUP wasn't from me.

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

That YUP wasn't from me.
Arthur Kramer

Well, it was, but it was in the wrong context in that it was
bottom-quoted in my original reply to you. Certainly, it had nothing to do
with my Vietnam comments.

Tony

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

I'm sorry to hear that. My condolences to his friends and family.
Sincerely,

Tony Volk

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

Rudel had over 2,000 combat missions. The reason he didn't go nuts is because
he started out nuts, a true "war lover".

Gunther Rall, onetime LW fighter ace and third highest scoring pilot of all
time, had a similar number of wartime sorties. In direct contrast to Rudel,
Rall kept his humanity intact and further served as NATO's commanding general
for some period. He remains a warm gentleman of integrity with wit and all of
his faculties in place. It just shows that some people indeed can 'hack it'
for years in combat without losing their minds, but Rall is undoubtably an
exception in this regard.

v/r
Gordon
====(A+C====
USN SAR

Donate your memories - write a note on the back and send your old photos to a
reputable museum, don't take them with you when you're gone.

From: "George Z. Bush" am



"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.

Clue me, George, how does a GI of company grade refuse a physical?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...

And what then of the war when those few, those happy few, that band of
brothers are reviled by their countrymen as baby-killers and
murderers? Where "gentlemen in America now a-bed" don't have the
slightest inkling of the accursedness of not being there?

I think he just means that you *had* to be there. Anyone who wasn't
wouldn't and
couldn't *really* understand, especially the 'gentlemen.......now a-bed'
(in the US and Oz - our diggers
got similar treatment at home initially) There's still a small minority
that wanted to practice that kind of
thing on our digs coming home from Afghanistan and Iraq, but they were,
ahem, discouraged, by the
fact that an awful lot of people here *do* understand duty - you do it
whether you agree with it or not
and don't take kindly to the dutiful wearing unpopularity that belongs
to the Pollies.......

For the record, I've never been in any form of combat and at my age now,
am unlikely to be.
But I respect those that have 'seen the elephant' since but for accident
of birth, there but
for the grace of God, go I.

Then, we who were there will hold their manhood cheap among ourselves
when we gather and speak of those who fought with us.

Those who weren't there have no right to disparage
the acts of those that were fulfilling their oath of obedience to the
CinC (or HM)
whether the political masters were doing the right thing or not.....
Unfortunately there are always some (then and now) that don't get
that...

Henry V, never would have imagined the modern citizen of the English
speaking world.

Perhaps not in as much quantity, but I think he understood the differnt
types
of people pretty well. There are arseholes and scumbags in his plays as
well.

The CO

"Krztalizer" wrote in message
...

Hold on a bit. Bravery is not a never-ending supply.

Agree, Walt. Bravery and, just as important, mental sharpness both
are
exhaustible resources.

No argument with either of those *facts*. There is a breaking point for
anyone,
it's just in different places and triggerable by different events.....

Look what happened to Guy Gibson - too many times to the well and
ended up
killing his hapless "navigator" and himself. His "bravery" (or
internal drive
to grapple with the enemy) was the primary reason both of these airmen
died.

Oh? Actually I thought the mainspar failed in the Mosquito after being
previously
overstressed in a very high G pullout elsewhere? Or am I thinking of
someone else?

snip

Expecting men to face death daily over a period of years is not a way
to find
out who is brave and who is not

No, and I wasn't implying anything of the kind. My statement about
courage seems
to have become out of context. IIRC, it was Gibson(?) who said that
there were 2
kinds of courage, the man who simply feels 'it can't/won't happen to
me', perhaps somewhat
unimaginative in that respect, and who is therefore more readily able to
do dangerous things
supposedly without being *really* afraid and the other kind, who *knows*
that it *can* happen to him,
perhaps through seeing just one too many close friends or associates
'get the chop' or just through
being more 'imaginative' BUT still 'carry on' regardless. IIRC, he
considered the second kind the bravest
of the brave. He put himself in the first category. I'm in no position
to argue with him, or indeed anyone
who's 'been there'.

- its simply a way to expend them like
cartridges, or leave many of them as broken shadows for the rest of
their
lives.

True enough. I could hypothesise that the first kind could suddenly
lose that belief in their immortality
that seems natural in those under about 30 through constant trauma.
Perhaps enough to make them
unable to carry on in the same way. (As did Art's "Captain Johnson" I
think). That he 'lost his bottle'
as the poms put it, was just one man reaching his breaking point.

The CO

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

[snipped for brevity]

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

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

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

Sounds like as good a description as any.

The CO

"Krztalizer" wrote in message
...

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

Rudel had over 2,000 combat missions. The reason he didn't go nuts is
because
he started out nuts, a true "war lover".

Having read his book, I'd have to agree. Good pilot, good Nazi and
slightly loopy.
It was all a big adventure to him and he was sorry it was over....

Rather like a particular officer depicted in movie of "Battle of the
Bulge", who was told
by a subordinate that 'he would do anything just to keep wearing that
uniform'...
All sides have them in varying quantities I guess.

Gunther Rall, onetime LW fighter ace and third highest scoring pilot
of all
time, had a similar number of wartime sorties. In direct contrast to
Rudel,
Rall kept his humanity intact and further served as NATO's commanding
general
for some period. He remains a warm gentleman of integrity with wit
and all of
his faculties in place. It just shows that some people indeed can
'hack it'
for years in combat without losing their minds, but Rall is
undoubtably an
exception in this regard.

The Luftwaffe certainly had examples of both kinds of man. Galland was
somewhere
between the two I think.....

The CO

"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