<<
It seems to me that Roguism can be bred into individuals via the
organizational culture. The Air Force, unlike the airlines, has a great
number of very young troops (most of which may eventually be airline pilots).
The commander and operations officer significantly influence those
youngsters... That attitude seems very difficult to change. Indeed, I think
that many leave the service sooner than expected because they cannot
transition to a more disciplined unit.
What do you think? How does this differ from the airline operation?
>>
Jeff,
I spent 27 years in the AF, in C-130s, including both gunship and other
special ops. You are correct in your assumption that rogueism can be bred
into an individual by the organization. But that is not a good thing. I think
we have to be careful here about our definition of "rogue". I am talking
about the guy or an organization that does not follow the rules.
I think the acceptance of responsibility, reliability, dependability define
the anti-rogue. The rogue is the guy like Bud Holland in Tony Kern's case
study, "Darker Shades of Blue". I think an arguement could be mounted that he
was created by the environment in which he grew up. That his leaders ignored
the early signs of his growing rebellion. I spoke to one of his early wing
commanders. He was astounded when he read the case study. "That was not the
Bud Holland I knew", he said. I suspect he was right, but somewhere along the
line, Bud began to slip.
In his condition just prior to his death, I would not want him on my wing or
in my aircraft. Reid Fairburn, in response to your message wrote, in part: "
The rogue pilots are usually the first category, good hands, no
brains....there are definite
advantage to these types in the combat arena. . . " I disagree. I can think
of absolutely no use for a pilot, fighter or otherwise, who is not dependable
in a combat situation, I do not care how good his hands are. The Bud
Hollands of this world need to be in one place, outside of an aircraft, any
aircraft.
In my experience, the good pilot has the attributes that Reid describes:
"good hands, good brain, quick" . I would add "reliable". If I can not count
on him to be there when I need him, I'd rather he not be flying in my
aircraft (or on my wing). One of the hard lessons for us pilots to learn is
that there is almost nothing we do in the air, single seat or multiplace,
that is dependent only on us. Somewhere, somehow we all have to rely on
others. I would like the others to be as concerned about my "butt" as they
want me to be about theirs.
The rogue (as I understand him) is a killer. He is not just unruly; he is not
just impulsive; he is not just inventive; he is an aberration. The first
thing we should do with him is get him out of the aircraft. Maybe he can be
salvaged, but that is not a job that should be undertaken while he is "still
in the seat". Nothing can justify the rogue staying in the left or any seat
of an aircraft.
I noticed on the news this a.m. that an airline was taking action against a
Captain for allowing a 5-year old child into the cockpit in flight. That
action was against company policy. I remember a story of an SST Captain being
disciplined for overflying a refueling stop, even though refueling was not
necessary. It was against company policy. I know of two AF pilots who were
disciplined for victory rolls in their fighters over the runway on initial. I
know a C-130 pilot who was grounded for feathering two engines abeam the con
on an authorized high speed pass over a carrier flight deck. The machines we
fly are not toys and are not provided for us to fly any way we like. The keys
to truly good pilots are good hands, good brains, quick thinking, AND
integrity.
Dave Wilson
HTI