I've known mostly military pilots and most have an ego a mile high and wide. They may follow rules religiously, but at the same time they'll also be the first to break them when they feel it's necessary. Rules are the means to an end - promotion and pension.

The few commercial pilots I know have also had an ego a mile high, but are different from military pilots, and for some reason the ones I've known are ALL womanizers - even the married ones.

Both are leader types but are quite different 'birds'.

My point was leader types react to a crisis differently than do non-leader types. Pilots were a convenient example, but there are other sources of better statistical evidence.

I recall reading some of the after-action reports from Vietnam where only 10% of our troops fired at the enemy after an engagement. 90% returned without having fired a single shot. This was highly effective in eliminating the draft, because it illustrated certain types, no matter how smart they are, don't do well in combat.

The draft had been designed to bring brighter folks into the services and particularly to fuel the officer pool, but the bottom line was there were too many non-combatants on the front lines. One of the national weeklies, either LIFE or LOOK had made a big deal out of this and publicized one instance where the after-action indicated that only two soldiers of an entire Battalion had returned fire in a 'hot' area when they came under fire, helping speed the welcome demise of the draft.

These two soldiers were likely the same type as the kid jumping up and personally hauling the desk to blockade the door. They don't freeze up, but the fear and adrenalin triggers physical action - even if it may be more wise to duck and take cover.

It's this sort of thing that I'm talking about - different human responses to physical conflict and imminent danger. I'm not trying to stir up seaman-aviator rivalry.

;-)