Blue Angels Commander Steps Down
05-28-2011 | 03:39 PM
#21
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 44,945
Likes: 709
From: Engines Turn or People Swim
Rickair,
The selection process for the BOSS is not the same as squadron command or even bonus command for that matter. It's NOT a BUPERS process. The BOSS selection is vetted with the team during the rush process and by a panel of former Blue Angel CO's and ultimately CNATRA.
In this case I would caution the crowd to judge Mongo for anything other than being a solid Officer who made a very difficult, but right decision. For any one of us to comment further on this particular situation without ever having worn a blue suit or flown a blue yet is just not right.
BDGERJMN
The selection process for the BOSS is not the same as squadron command or even bonus command for that matter. It's NOT a BUPERS process. The BOSS selection is vetted with the team during the rush process and by a panel of former Blue Angel CO's and ultimately CNATRA.
In this case I would caution the crowd to judge Mongo for anything other than being a solid Officer who made a very difficult, but right decision. For any one of us to comment further on this particular situation without ever having worn a blue suit or flown a blue yet is just not right.
BDGERJMN
05-29-2011 | 08:02 AM
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 428
Likes: 0
From: Various
Wow, I took this whole event in a different light I guess. This guy voluntarily stepped down, I assumed, because his personal performance as flight lead wasn't up to Blue Angels standards. I saw this as perhaps the most professional response a superior aviator could make. When perfection is your standard, and you demand perfection from your flight mates, this action is perfectly understandable. Seen in that light, it is actually commendable.
05-29-2011 | 09:27 AM
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,511
Likes: 112
Wow, I took this whole event in a different light I guess. This guy voluntarily stepped down, I assumed, because his personal performance as flight lead wasn't up to Blue Angels standards. I saw this as perhaps the most professional response a superior aviator could make. When perfection is your standard, and you demand perfection from your flight mates, this action is perfectly understandable. Seen in that light, it is actually commendable.
05-29-2011 | 10:14 PM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,511
Likes: 112
05-30-2011 | 09:34 PM
#27
Banned
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 793
Likes: 0
Rickair7777,
Congratulations, your post aggravated me to the point of registering on APC to reply.
As a Military Officer and Aviator, I can say what Blue Angel One did by stepping down was above and beyond. The intestinal fortitude for a TACAIR Blue Angel Commander to step down is truly admirable. Unlike the Thunderbird commander many years ago who led his entire team right into the deck, Blue Angel 1 is doing the right thing, and no doubt he probably hasn't slept a wink this week.
Congratulations, your post aggravated me to the point of registering on APC to reply.
As a Military Officer and Aviator, I can say what Blue Angel One did by stepping down was above and beyond. The intestinal fortitude for a TACAIR Blue Angel Commander to step down is truly admirable. Unlike the Thunderbird commander many years ago who led his entire team right into the deck, Blue Angel 1 is doing the right thing, and no doubt he probably hasn't slept a wink this week.
From what I've read the T-bird accident you refer to was officially due to mechanical failure; perhaps unofficially it was pilot error. Even if it wasn't mechanical both commanders didn't fly the maneuver as it was designed and planned; the only difference is BA1's error wasn't as great and he lived. To draw from this the conclusion that "Unlike the Thunderbird commander many years ago who led his entire team right into the deck, Blue Angel 1 is doing the right thing" is both disingenuous and irreverent. You had a good point to make. It's unfortunate you weren't more particular about how you tried to make it.
05-30-2011 | 11:26 PM
#28
China Visa Applicant
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,964
Likes: 16
From: Midfield downwind
You respond to an aggravating post and in doing so post one yourself.
From what I've read the T-bird accident you refer to was officially due to mechanical failure; perhaps unofficially it was pilot error. Even if it wasn't mechanical both commanders didn't fly the maneuver as it was designed and planned; the only difference is BA1's error wasn't as great and he lived. To draw from this the conclusion that "Unlike the Thunderbird commander many years ago who led his entire team right into the deck, Blue Angel 1 is doing the right thing" is both disingenuous and irreverent. You had a good point to make. It's unfortunate you weren't more particular about how you tried to make it.
From what I've read the T-bird accident you refer to was officially due to mechanical failure; perhaps unofficially it was pilot error. Even if it wasn't mechanical both commanders didn't fly the maneuver as it was designed and planned; the only difference is BA1's error wasn't as great and he lived. To draw from this the conclusion that "Unlike the Thunderbird commander many years ago who led his entire team right into the deck, Blue Angel 1 is doing the right thing" is both disingenuous and irreverent. You had a good point to make. It's unfortunate you weren't more particular about how you tried to make it.
The item that supposedly "failed" in the mishap T-38 is a part which, to this day, still has yet to be discovered.
05-31-2011 | 04:29 AM
#29
Banned
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 793
Likes: 0
You respond to an aggravating post and in doing so post one yourself.
From what I've read the T-bird accident you refer to was officially due to mechanical failure; perhaps unofficially it was pilot error. Even if it wasn't mechanical both commanders didn't fly the maneuver as it was designed and planned; the only difference is BA1's error wasn't as great and he lived. To draw from this the conclusion that "Unlike the Thunderbird commander many years ago who led his entire team right into the deck, Blue Angel 1 is doing the right thing" is both disingenuous and irreverent. You had a good point to make. It's unfortunate you weren't more particular about how you tried to make it.
From what I've read the T-bird accident you refer to was officially due to mechanical failure; perhaps unofficially it was pilot error. Even if it wasn't mechanical both commanders didn't fly the maneuver as it was designed and planned; the only difference is BA1's error wasn't as great and he lived. To draw from this the conclusion that "Unlike the Thunderbird commander many years ago who led his entire team right into the deck, Blue Angel 1 is doing the right thing" is both disingenuous and irreverent. You had a good point to make. It's unfortunate you weren't more particular about how you tried to make it.
If you do a little digging on the T-Bird crash, you'll see plenty of firsthand testimony that the "mechanical failure" was invented at the direct order of TAC Commander, General Creech.
The item that supposedly "failed" in the mishap T-38 is a part which, to this day, still has yet to be discovered.
The item that supposedly "failed" in the mishap T-38 is a part which, to this day, still has yet to be discovered.
Last edited by Jesse; 05-31-2011 at 04:58 AM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
