doug@terak.UUCP (Doug Pardee) (12/31/85)
Aviation Consumer magazine recently ripped into Chuck Yeager's
autobiography, "Yeager".
Calling Gen. Yeager "unsafe at any speed", AC expressed considerable
alarm that future pilots might be tempted to emulate his style.
A copy of the book found its way under my Christmas tree, and having
read it I feel that AC is way out of line. They could just as readily
complained that Yeager set a bad example because his favorite activities
revolved around killing and destruction.
There is no indication that Yeager ever held a civilian pilot's license,
and the only reference to him flying a civilian plane was when he
copiloted Jackie Cochran's Lodestar on a spy mission to Moscow. All the
rest of his life, he piloted either combat aircraft or research
aircraft.
For both of those kinds of flying, taking risks is absolutely mandatory.
The USAF would look rather poorly upon a fighter pilot refusing to go on
a mission because he might not make it back :-) As a civilian pilot, I
wouldn't think of taking off if there was any question of running out of
fuel; but the Air Force had nuke-armed F-86's stationed in Germany which
could not carry enough fuel to get back to friendly territory after
hitting their targets.
Ditto for test flying. Not much is going to be accomplished unless
the pilot is willing to take a chance.
I don't recall reading of any instance in which Yeager risked the life
of a passenger; his chancy flying was always solo.
I found the book to be a fascinating look at the life of a man to whom
death was simply the result of losing a game of mortal combat. His Air
Force flying activities provided a perfect "productive" outlet for his
insatiable need for mortal combat with other people and machines.
--
Doug Pardee -- CalComp -- {hardy,savax,seismo,decvax,ihnp4}!terak!dougkerry@ctvax (01/03/86)
I agree with you. As a former military pilot, I found Yeager's book to be quite
accurate concerning the early years of military aviation and Air Force life.
When I was applying to UPT, the keyword was AGRESSIVE. The military wants
agressive fighter pilots, and General Yeager fits the mold perfectly. In fact,
he most probably made the mold! He is a true aviation pioneer and lived with
danger every day. As a test pilot, it was a matter of a day's work.
However, he was not the only test pilot or military flyer that flew on the
edge. There were and still are many, many of them. Some of them are dead, and
some, like Chuck are still flying. The important point is, they did their jobs
and allowed us to sleep safely in our beds at night. To General Chuck Yeager:
my hat is off to you, sir. To Aviation Consumer: there is an old indian
proverb that states:
'Never judge a man until you have walked two weeks in his moccassins.'
To this I add, 'or flown at Mach .98 in his X-1'.ron@hpfcla.UUCP (01/03/86)
I agree that YEAGER was a great book ....However, I believe that
the world has changed sufficiently that there cannot be another
individual in the system who behaves as Yeager did.
The military systems commonly write a regulation to punish anyone who
attempts to do the same thing that one person has fouled up on.
For example, the low altitude acro stuff that Yeager would do without
concern killed enough pilots that such activities are court-martial material
in today's armed services. Another example, Yeager "checked out" in
dozens of different airplanes by merely a cockpit session with the
crew chief. THAT doesn't happen any more either.
Military managers get really bad grades for having pilots killed and
very expensive airplanes lost because of mistakes made in questionable
operations. They move to prevent questionable operations.
I'm sorry that it has come to that. I don't like it but it isn't going
to change anytime soon.
I also think that AC has a pretty good point. In our present society
it will not just be the insufficiently skilled individual who augers in on
a dumb move but it might be the aircraft manufacturer who must pay $ 10M
to the pilots heirs because he didn't build an airplane that would prevent
the pilot from flying inverted at 50'
Yeager himself admits that he had a BIG dose of luck to have survived.
*I* am not as good a pilot as Yeager
I worry about those who think they are but really aren't.
Ron Miller CFI-G
"Show me a country where the newspapers are filled with good news
and I'll show you a country where the jails are filled with good people."
-<I forgot>
Service Engineering (Hardware Support)
Hewlett-Packard Co.
Ft. Collins Systems Div. [ Home of the HP 9000 Series 200,300 & 500 ]
Ft. Collins, Colorado
303-226-3800
at: {ihnp4}hpfcla!rondoug@terak.UUCP (Doug Pardee) (01/08/86)
> For example, the low altitude acro stuff that Yeager would do without > concern killed enough pilots that such activities are court-martial material > in today's armed services. Huh? The "low altitude acro" wasn't exactly hammerheads and snap rolls. It was aileron rolls and buzzing, two techniques that are absolutely required for fighter operations against ground targets. The USAF not only condones low altitude aileron rolls, it teaches them as a basic maneuver for fighter pilots. Consider a fighter skimming along at treetop level, Mach 1.5 or so. When you come to the crest of a hill, you do *not* push the stick forward (negative G forces). Instead you roll inverted, pull back on the stick, and when "level" again you roll right side up. When approaching a ground target, one attack maneuver is the "pop-up". Starting at treetop level, you pull back on the stick to go into a sharp climb, then immediately roll inverted. Looking down through the canopy, you locate your target. At the appropriate point, you pull back sharply to bring the nose down, aim at the target, and fire your cannon while still inverted. If I have to defend the use of buzzing for strafing and low-altitude ordnance delivery, well... > I also think that AC has a pretty good point. In our present society > it will not just be the insufficiently skilled individual who augers in on > a dumb move but it might be the aircraft manufacturer who must pay $ 10M > to the pilots heirs because he didn't build an airplane that would prevent > the pilot from flying inverted at 50' I must not have been very clear in my original posting, because my main point is this: Nobody in his right mind would ever recommend that civilian pilots use Yeager as an example. Taking risks is the heart and soul of flying fighters and research planes, but it is the mortal enemy of civilian flying. But Yeager was a military fighter pilot and a military test pilot, *not* a civilian pilot. I can find no indication in the book that he ever held any civilian license (not even a student pilot license). The only reference I can find to him ever piloting a civilian plane was when he co-piloted Jackie Cochran's Lodestar on a spy mission to the USSR. It is simply not fair for Aviation Consumer to attack Yeager as "unsafe at any speed" and "a bad example for civilian pilots" when he never *was* a civilian pilot. It's like complaining that the Golden Gate Bridge is a terrible example of a cantilever bridge because it needs all of those cables just to keep from falling down! -- Doug Pardee -- CalComp -- {hardy,savax,seismo,decvax,ihnp4}!terak!doug
marcum@sun.uucp (Alan Marcum) (01/14/86)
> It is simply not fair for Aviation Consumer to attack Yeager as "unsafe > at any speed" and "a bad example for civilian pilots" when he never > *was* a civilian pilot. > -- > Doug Pardee -- CalComp -- {hardy,savax,seismo,decvax,ihnp4}!terak!doug Following from _Aviation Week_, 13Jan86, p. 11: "USAF Brig. Gen. Charles E. (Chuck) Yeager, ret., will receive the second David Bernard Air Safety Medal on Jan. 25 in Los Angeles in recognition of his lifetime contri- butions to aviation safety." I wonder what _Aviation Consumer_ has to say about that? -- Alan M. Marcum Sun Microsystems, Technical Consulting ...!{dual,ihnp4}!sun!nescorna!marcum Mountain View, California