Considering the incidence of refusals to fly (So called LMF) in WW2 (not high, but present nevertheless), one assumes that there must have been a small number in WW1. Did these men ever get charged with cowardice, refusal to obey an order etc, as would have happened with a PBI? What did happen to them? I am not suggesting that cowardice is a suitable term for those men who couldn`t take the strain of combat flying, but in the mores of the time it was what was applied to infantrymen who couldn`t take it. Phil B

Obviously the vast majority of WW1 pilots were officers and as such rather than facing Court Martial they would be diagnosed with stress and sent back to Blighty and probably would never have flown combat again.

Also I dont think any Squadron CO would have wanted his Sqn to be the first to have a pilot charged with cowardice.

Another point is that I believe pilots were "rested" - sent back to Blighty as trainers etc.

Quite happy to be corrected if anyone else knows better.

But what were the usual grounds for refusal? it is perfectly reasonable to decide against flying if the weather conditions don't allow to do it with a minimum of security: fog, too much wind, etc

Gloria

It`s my understanding, Gloria, that, if the CO says you fly, you fly whatever the weather etc. And if you don`t, you`re in the same position as the infantryman who refuses to go into the line or over the top. Or should be. My suspicion is that the two events were treated in grossly dissimilar ways. I`m really looking for answers to the query - did any airmen get charged with refusing to fly? And what happened? Phil B

No pilots that I have ever come across apart from in Aces High

You're assuming it happened - any evidence?

Thank God it's not like that now. I throw that out as you make your statement in the present tense. The pilot is the aircraft commander, and he has the final authority if he goes up or not. He may be standing tall in front of the CO the next morning, but it's the pilot's final decision--period.

Paul

I think we have to differentiate the problem. If a pilot refused to fly for a valid/rational reason (e.g. airplane in bad condition, pilot ill, weather too bad), that was accepted and nothing more was said about it.

If, however, a pilot showed "loss of nerve for flying", and refused to fly certain types of missions, or refused to fly at all, this was normally (at least after the UK instituted the "care of the flyer " program in about 1916, treated as a medical condition. The US publication "Air Service Medical-1919", based in large part on UK practice, differentiates various types/reasons for refusals, and gives a prognosis. Those who were "technically" inefficient (i.e. poor pilots) were not dealt with by medical personnel, and were distinguished from those who were "tempermentally inefficient", who were seen as medical problems. Loss of nerve in the air was categorised in this book as 1) loss of nerve for flying any machine-- permanent; 2) loss of nerve for "stunting"-- usually temporary and often associated with short-term vertigo; 3) loss of nerve for fighting in the air-- may be temporary or permanent-- often associated with fatigue; 4) Loss of nerve for anti-aircraft shells-- generally permanent-- seemingly this was a diagnosis used for pilots with "shell-shock"; 5) Loss of nerve due to crashes-- often associated with concussion and fatigue-- often permanent.

Bottom line answer, cases were in most instances dealt with on an individual basis, and at least later in the war were seen as primarily a medical problem. After institution of the "care of the flyer" program, in which
Flight Surgeons were assigned to flying units, the incidence of these incidents went down, incipient problems were dealt with early, and pilots were returned to duty at a high rate. Aviation psychology was in its infancy, but these pilots were dealt with medically, frequently in separate aviation hospitals, not as behavior problems. Doc2

Not assuming - suspecting! No evidence - I`m asking for it in this thread.
I am, however, making the assumption that there were airmen who refused to fly for the same reasons that infantrymen refused to go into the line - they couldn`t face the stress of combat. It happened in WW2, so, presumably. also in WW1. Let me hastily add that I`m not decrying anyone who was in that position, but Doc2`s response does indicate that there would have been significant differences in their treatment. Phil B

Not quite what you are asking for, but Naval 10's temporary Commanding Officer, the Canadian FLt Redpath, refused to carry out Lt. Colonel Veasey-Holt's orders to repeat a low level bombing mission, stating that "his men were not up for it ".

Morale within RNAS squadrons attached to the RFC was at a low ebb and whilst Trenchard and particularly Veasey-Holt would probably have liked to have had the CO and the flight in question strung up and made an example of, instead the squadron was summarily pulled out of the thick of the fighting and transferred to the coast.

In fact, Redpath was supporting the view of one of his Flight Commanders, Howard Saint. Other members of Saint's flight knew nothing about the fracas. Shortly after, Saint was posted back to home establishment. Redpath, who had somewhat wealthy and influential contacts was also posted back to Home Establishment when the regular CO, Bert Bell returned to the squadron. Redpath was not posted to a position of authority again until the war ended.

Trenchard and Holt had long memories and pilots that were in the squadron at the time of the incident failed to get any further recognition of their work once the RAF came into existence. I have letters of complaint written by Bell where he complains that if his men had been ex-RFC they would have been overburdened with decorations - not politically correct and guaranteed to prevent further promotion but indicative of his frustration.


Mike

Perhaps worth pointing out that, with flying still in its relative infancy, anyone who took to the air was regarded as being very brave and refusal to fly was treated very much more sympathetically than it was in WW2, when flying had become more commonplace. The usual course of action was for them to be categorised as having Flying Sickness Debility. They were either sent to a rest camp or to home establishment.

Charles M

I suppose, Charles, it`s fair to say anyone who went over the top was also very brave. Why do you reckon the more sympathetic treatment? Why wasn`t it necessary to encourager les autres when it came to flyers? Phil B

Infantry went over the top infrequently compared to fliers, who, even if they were not crossing into enemy territory, were risking their lives because of the relative unreliability of their aircraft. If you want to know more I would recommend Denis Winter's The First of the Few: Fighter Pilots of the First World War.

Charles M

... And I should add: parachutes weren't worn/used until later in the war. Some aerial manoeuvres were far more adventurous than today: primitive airplanes with less aerodynamic designs and less powerful motors meant that unwanted situations, such aspiral dives, could happen quite often. The technique to avoid spiral dives was rather recent, and was discovered accidentally -and luckily- by Lieutenant Wilfrid Parke in 1912 (and subsequently dubbed "Parke's dive")

Apart from the risks involved in flight itself, there were the Enemy pilots and Anti Aircraft devices...

Gloria

Mates,

One thing seen in these older movies is the airman who for different reasons during a sortie returns to base without going all the way or breaks formation due to engine trouble.

These men are stigmatized by their mates particularly if they do it often.

These you could put into the pot as refuzing to fly as even if they did fly they didn't go all the way.

If this is shown in these movies then it may have happened in real life.

The books on WWI by airman don't mention these things even if they do mention having engine trouble at times, but I do have a number, even if small, of pilots who due to many reasons were sent from their Sqn's during the war.

Could that be stress related and sent to Training units I would say most proberly and likely, a thing you could n't do for every PBI soldier out there, but it did happen to Infantry officers who could be sent to Training units.

Cheers

S.B

Just come across this thread,searching for information regarding as to why no WW1 aircrew had been "shot at dawn"Found your remarks interesting with reference to most of the pilots being Officers so they would not have faced a Court Martial. As you know,there were 346 who were shot at dawn,three of which were Officers,two for desertion and one for murder.I do not think the fact that they were mostly Officers stopped them from a Court Martial,they were certainly brave men,but no braver than any other man facing death by going over the top,there must be other reasons,and I will continue to try and find out.I did read some time ago,that when the parachute was first introduced,they were not issued to aircrew as some one high up in the chain of command thought the wearing of such an item may lead to cowardice on the part of some aircrew,so they were only given to those who went up in balloons.

Joan

A quote from ace Edward Mannock RFC when with 40 Sqdn

"Feeling nervy and ill during the past week. Afraid I am breaking up ...Captain Keen very decent. Let me off flying for today. I think I will take a book and wander into the woods this afternoon."

I suspect that many RFC "senior" officers had been and often still were combat fliers themselves so they knew what the stress and strains were. Unlike I would venture to suggest senior officers in the infantry who rarely stood on a firestep. Having a shared experience would mean that men like Mannock were treated sensitively.

Incidentally used to work for an old Headmaster who would send notes to you about pupils with the damming LMF noted against their name!!