Originally Posted by
LivingInMEM
Deuce - they didn't get grounded, they lost their aeronautical orders for good. You think that was appropriate? Don't forget, these are fighter pilots who will eventually be flying against an enemy that will likely be numerically superior the way we are going. Not everyone gets to wait until it's a permissive or semi-permissive environment before they go in.
Let me put it like this, I flew fighters and all fighter pilots are not equal. I don't know if you fly Hercs anymore - but, if I were a Herc driver and had to make a blind choice of who would be my OCA, I'd take these two guys over many others. Your Herc brethren may like to know that, when THEIR life is in danger due to the Su-27/35 threat (AA-11's/AA-12's/etc), it's the guy who is used to taking risks that is more likely to poke his nose into the fight. Do you really think that the guy who spends a career doing nothing but protecting his wings is suddenly not going to protect his life? Ignorance is bliss until the aircrews start dying.
Bunk - WWII was different - men were men and officers were leaders. Oh, and they flew with recips rather than jets (until the end of the war, at least). Other than that, what's different. The Admiral and the General are both responsible for maintaining combat forces, the General maintained his and the Admiral helped undercut his.
LiM, I do think the permanent grounding is too harsh, as I said in an earlier post. Yes, I'm still flying MC-130s in the Reserves. I'm not sure I follow your logic. I wouldn't call doing things day in and day out the right way, legally and safely, "protecting your wings." I'd call it doing the things you're supposed to do, the way it's supposed to be done. There's a time and a place for risks and I've hung it out myself against the rules - but, it's always been in the AOR, with a mission or lives in the balance. Not for a fly-by. As for who would I want protecting me? Truly, it's the guy I can trust to be there. Who did what they said they're were going to do, who was where he said he would be. Guys who make up their own rules as they go along or for their own convenience can't always be trusted, IMO. I do not consider intentionally violating an altitude restriction "risk-taking." Frankly, if everyone flew how ever the he** they wanted, whenever they wanted, it'd be freakin' chaos. It's probably going to be very easy for you to paint my post as uptight, pro-establishment, limp-wristed, SNAPishness...go ahead. Simply put, I don't find intentional flight violations anything to be proud of, nor is it an indication that to do so makes you a better fighter pilot or that you can be counted on when the flag goes up. I don't see why I should draw the conclusion that these two guys would be any quicker to risk their lives in combat than you any other fighter pilot.