IN THE latest thread on Kirsty Stewart, the Royal Air Force pilot who was reassigned due to stress, Henry McCulloch, a former American fighter pilot, responds to the point made by another RAF pilot that it is no longer shameful for a pilot to be overcome by stress.

Mr. McCulloch writes:

Grounding oneself because of stress or PTSD is an admission of a failing: that a pilot cannot manage operational stress and perform his flying duties.  That is not, unless it’s actually an excuse to shirk duty, a moral failing. But neither is it something to celebrate; it is an abandonment of duty – even if a necessary one.  Either someone else will have to step in and do the incapacitated pilot’s job for him or his squadron will have to fly short-handed.  In Flt Lt Stewart’s specific case, the Red Arrows are finessing the shortfall by flying a season of seven-aircraft shows instead of the customary nine.  I feel sorry for Red Arrow #8, who through no fault of his own has just lost a full season of flying shows.

For a fast jet pilot, in British parlance, who is truly incapacitated by stress or PTSD clearly it is right to acknowledge the problem and ground oneself.  Nevertheless, it is reasonable to expect well-led fast jet pilots – that is, with adequate crew rest and rotations in and out of combat – to cope with operational stress, including the occasional accidental death of a squadron mate, and to carry on.  Fast jet pilots – especially British ones – are (Cold War-era jocks definitely were) products of long, very expensive and highly selective training.  So, yes, the normal thing among us Cold War-era fighter jocks – and the expected thing in our all-male fighter squadrons – was to honor fallen comrades, man up and carry on.  We did not consider those unreasonable expectations.  RAF pilot says that is no longer the case.  I would be interested to know, then, what is the new case.  Still, as I think I make clear above, stress and PTSD are real, and do need to be dealt with; as RAF pilot says, a fast jet cockpit is not the place for sub-par pilots.  But the over-sympathetic fawning over the stricken Flt Lt Stewart is, dare I say it, unmanly.

                                    — Comments —

James P. writes:

Henry McCulloch states that grounding oneself is not a moral failing. In more traditional times, it was considered exactly that. The RAF term for refusing to fly in World War II was “Lack of Moral Fibre.” We should note that these men were, unlike Flt. Lt. Kirsty Stewart, actually being shot at and their comrades killed or imprisoned in Germany. Yet most of the men who flew against Germany mastered their fears and went into action despite the knowledge that the odds of completing an operational tour were not good.

Mr. McCulloch responds:

Does that mean that this Cold War Era fighter jock is a bit of a softy?

Forcing pilots to fly combat missions when their nerves clearly are shot is just giving the enemy a nice present and getting your own people killed. Mastering one’s fears is not what I was referring to. Mastering fear is an ordinary part of a fighter pilot’s duty; a pre-condition for employment as a fighter pilot, if you will. So I’m not sure James P. quite got my point, which doesn’t say much for me as a communicator. There are two reasons to refuse to fly in combat. One is not a moral failing; the other is. The first is awareness that stress, battle fatigue or whatever one cares to call it has rendered one useless: dangerous to oneself and one’s wingmen; anything but dangerous to the enemy. The other is fear of death or wounds: cowardice, to use a word one doesn’t hear any more. Neither is something to celebrate, still less to give fawning media coverage.

James P. is right that the RAF had little tolerance for shirking in World War II; neither did any other air arm. It was the norm for Luftwaffe, Japanese and Red Air Force aircrews to fly until killed or disabled, but that doesn’t strike me as the smartest way to run an air force. Western aircrews had the relative luxury of flying combat tours then being rotated off the line to training or staff billets – that’s the main reason the leading Luftwaffe aces’ scores are several times higher than those of the highest-scoring Allied aces. The ranking Luftwaffe ace, Erich Hartmann, had 352 kills (one of 103 Luftwaffe pilots to score more than 100), but he had to survive 14 crashes and crash-landings to do it while flying combat essentially non-stop from October 1942 through May 1945. He was exceptionally lucky at times, and we will never see his like again. The highest scoring of Western Allied aces was Pat Pattle, a South African in the RAF, who achieved a score somewhere between 40 and 50 before he was killed in 1941. I suspect, however, that the WWII RAF’s attitude about genuine battle fatigue was a bit more nuanced than James P. implies. As far as I can tell, in the Great War – when the whole fighter pilot game got started – there was no nuance at all.

Anyway, this discussion has shifted from something that seems frivolous (Flt Lt Kirsty Stewart’s declining to fly in air shows) to the deadly serious business of combat performance. The real importance of this story is what forcing women into this ultimate man’s world does to British – and American – fighter squadrons’ ability to perform in combat, and what message making a big fuss over the presence of women such as Flt Lt Stewart in fast jets sends to our society.

I think it sends two messages. First, the RAF, and other Western air arms that feminize, are not serious about war. I don’t see how interested observers like the world’s Muslims and the Communist Chinese can fail to notice that. Second, Western society overall is deeply confused and very ill. That, too, I suspect the same interested observers notice – and welcome.

Paul writes:

If I don’t play my role as a hard working attorney, I will lose my role in society. I did not freely choose this role. I was told to work hard. I was told I was smart. I was told to be a doctor or an attorney. Of course I could not think of anything I would like better to do, considering the psychological indoctrination and peer pressure.

And indoctrination could be what the problem is with society’s demands on women. Society is telling them they have no role but are exactly equal to men, who do have roles. Men are always physically strong and fast and are expected to protect their families. Yet women are not always strong and are not expected to protect their families; women can have their sugar daddy, a government that steals from men (and many other women) to provide for their families.

Vincent C. writes:

Please follow and like us: