Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:59 PM - Re: T-3 FIREFLY (Doug Dodson)
2. 05:59 PM - Re: T-3 FIREFLY (Doug Dodson)
3. 06:46 PM - Re: T-3 FIREFLY (Jeff Boatright)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Doug Dodson" <dodsond@qnet.com>
Uh, OK. Maybe there is such a thing, but the DoD is not a college football
alumni association. What would be the driving motivation for "institutional
CYA"? Why would a person make a decision to protect an institution as fast
changing as the military? In my experience, my leaders considered first
what is best for the mission, and so long as that criteria is met, what is
best for the education and morale of the workforce. CYA certainly exists but
it doesn't seem to span the length of a tour of whomever is involved.
Safety IS the primary motivation for CYA decision making. The USAF may be
the second most risk-averse government agency, right after NASA.
Just my observations and opinion. Maybe I'm just naive.
-Doug Dodson
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jeff
Boatright
Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 5:21 PM
Subject: RE: Engines-List: T-3 FIREFLY
--> Engines-List message posted by: Jeff Boatright <jboatri@emory.edu>
Doug,
Is it that you're arguing institutional CYA doesn't exist?
Jeff
>--> Engines-List message posted by: "Doug Dodson" <dodsond@qnet.com>
>
>CYA doesn't wash because the "A" that bought the aircraft is long gone, and
>no less than three subsequent Air Force Chiefs of Staff came to the same
>decision after reviewing the situation (as it evolved) over a long period
of
time...
--
Jeffrey H. Boatright, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Ophthalmology
Emory University School of Medicine
Atlanta, GA 30322
Editor-in-Chief
Molecular Vision
http://www.molvis.org/
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Doug Dodson" <dodsond@qnet.com>
The T-3 hardware is a minor matter to the USAF in financial terms. I am
convinced someone would actually sue the DoD for simply selling the parts to
the public. No failure has to occur. This potential implies that simply
scrapping the hardware is the smart and simple way to go. I know of more
than one homebuilder who scrapped his own aircraft when he was done with it
rather than sell it.
-Doug Dodson
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Ed
Chmielewski
Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 6:06 PM
Subject: Re: Engines-List: T-3 FIREFLY
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Ed Chmielewski"
<edchmiel@mindspring.com>
Doug,
You must admit the tactics used in the Firefly disposal are pretty
unusual for what should otherwise be a relatively minor matter. CYA isn't
all that uncommon in the military and the Air Force-imposed mods to the T-3,
and the ensuing complications, make CYA all the more plausible.
Ed in JXN
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Dodson" <dodsond@qnet.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 8:06 PM
Subject: RE: Engines-List: T-3 FIREFLY
> --> Engines-List message posted by: "Doug Dodson" <dodsond@qnet.com>
>
> CYA doesn't wash because the "A" that bought the aircraft is long gone,
> and
> no less than three subsequent Air Force Chiefs of Staff came to the same
> decision after reviewing the situation (as it evolved) over a long period
> of
> time. They were no doubt advised by their respective JAG officers as well
> as MAJCOM commanders, contracting officers, financial officers, ... In the
> big scheme of things, more resources were spent trying to get the aircraft
> to work physically and politically than the darn things were worth.
>
> Considering how much military equipment has been retired over the years,
> there really isn't all that much in civilian hands. For aircraft at
> least,
> most individuals that own a warbird got it from a third party such as a
> foreign government or a military contractor that acquired the machine in
> service of the government.
>
> -Doug Dodson
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jeff
> Boatright
> Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 2:04 PM
> To: engines-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Engines-List: T-3 FIREFLY
>
>
> --> Engines-List message posted by: Jeff Boatright <jboatri@emory.edu>
>
> So we've now had several people in the know tell us that the airplane
> had problems, many of them brought on by the USAF higher-ups. The
> USAF brass does the dirty deed (maybe they took lessons from
> Chicago's Mayor Daley?) and then blames it on potential torts.
>
> Hm.
>
> I'd find them more believable if: 1) there was a history of similar
> suits (there's an awful lot of military surplus equipment out there -
> googling finds no cases brought against the feds due to selling Joe
> Civie something that ended up killing him) and 2) if they didn't have
> such a vested interest in making this all go away, what with being
> (apparently) part of the original problem and then remaining
> aggressively stupid about dealing with it.
>
> There may be tons of surplus equipment tort cases out there
> justifying blaming the litigation boogey man, so apologies if I
> missed them. And apologies in advance if this opinion offends tender
> sensibilities, but this sure smacks of classic CYA.
>
> My less than two cents. Have great weekend, I'm off to fly the Piet!
> --
>
> _____________________________________________________________
> Jeffrey H. Boatright, PhD
> Associate Professor, Emory Eye Center, Atlanta, GA, USA
> Senior Editor, Molecular Vision, http://www.molvis.org/molvis
> mailto:jboatri@emory.edu
>
>
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Engines-List message posted by: Jeff Boatright <jboatri@emory.edu>
Doug,
I'd say procurement is probably one of the top reasons for
institutional CYA. Misguided pride is another (where one gets the
actions of the organization confused with one's self-perception - I
feel bad when Emory University gets dinged. Why? I wasn't the one who
did x, y, or z. But I still feel bad.).
From my POV, which is not based on military experience, but rather a
little (a little) experience with large organizations both private
and public, there is a vast distance between those who get the job
done (people who you describe, I think, very aptly) and people who
set top level and long term policy. They often are the ones who are
looking to the budget for the next decades and "legacy". At that
level, regardless of who did what on any one project, if the
organization gets dinged, the organization's future is threatened.
Thus, sweep stuff under the rug, make sure the long term budget is
safe.
As for being naive, I apologize if I was condescending. I don't think
you're naive, I think that you and I were just talking at cross
purposes and I tend to be a smart-ass. But I'm working on toning it
down!
Jeff
>--> Engines-List message posted by: "Doug Dodson" <dodsond@qnet.com>
>
>Uh, OK. Maybe there is such a thing, but the DoD is not a college football
>alumni association. What would be the driving motivation for "institutional
>CYA"? Why would a person make a decision to protect an institution as fast
>changing as the military? In my experience, my leaders considered first
>what is best for the mission, and so long as that criteria is met, what is
>best for the education and morale of the workforce. CYA certainly exists but
>it doesn't seem to span the length of a tour of whomever is involved.
>Safety IS the primary motivation for CYA decision making. The USAF may be
>the second most risk-averse government agency, right after NASA.
>
>Just my observations and opinion. Maybe I'm just naive.
>
>-Doug Dodson
--
Jeffrey H. Boatright, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Ophthalmology
Emory University School of Medicine
Atlanta, GA 30322
Editor-in-Chief
Molecular Vision
http://www.molvis.org/
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|