About Charles Denton
Charles Denton was born in Grafton, West Virginia in 1928. He
majored in engineering with a primary focus in mechanical engineering
at West Virginia University, receiving his degree in 1950. After
graduating, Denton worked as a design engineer at a Navy shipyard
in California before being called to active duty in 1952; first
to Fort Belvoir, Virginia and then the Far East Command, serving
in Japan and Korea during his two years of service. After leaving
the Army, Denton began working at Westinghouse Baltimore. His
first assignment was with an engineering group working on
defensive systems for Navy aircraft. Over his long career at Westinghouse,
Denton worked on many important projects – such as the UK2 satellite,
ECM programs, physical countermeasures pod, ALQ-131 and A-10 CFF – and
held managerial positions such as engineer supervisor (from 1954
to 1973), program engineering manager, program manager and investment
manager for commercial systems. Since retiring from Westinghouse,
Denton has become involved in digital photography and auto racing,
and remains technologically current through a colloquium at the
Applied Physics Lab at Johns Hopkins.
In this interview, Denton discusses his career in the Army, but
mostly his years at Westinghouse. He talks about his service as
a platoon leader in a combat engineering operation during the Korean
War, and his experiences in Japan and Korea. The many projects
he was involved with are also covered, including his time as an
investment manager for commercial systems, leading to a discussion
about Westinghouse’s attempts to move from mainly DOD-oriented
work to more commercial opportunities. Denton also talks about
the importance of ‘picking-up’ electronics during
his career because of the different concepts involved in mechanical
engineering. The organization of Westinghouse is also covered,
with a switch to a functional group organization which Denton viewed
as more efficient, allowing for more flexibility and the best use
of the good people Denton worked with throughout his career. Denton
also discusses his role as a manager, and the emphasis he placed
upon the goal of reliability.
About the Interview
CHARLES DENTON: An Interview Conducted by Frederik Nebeker, IEEE
History Center, 12 April 2010
Interview #535 for the National Electronics Museum and IEEE History
Center, The Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers Inc.
This manuscript is being made available for research
purposes only. All literary rights in the manuscript, including
the right to publish, are reserved to the National Electronics
Museum and to the IEEE History Center. No part of the manuscript
may be quoted for publication without the written permission of
the National Electronics Museum and the Director of IEEE History
Request for permission to quote for publication
should be addressed to The National Electronics Museum, P.O. Box
1693, MS 4015, Baltimore, MD 21203 and to the IEEE History Center
Oral History Program, 39 Union Street, New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8538
USA. It should include identification of the specific passages
to be quoted, anticipated use of the passages, and identification
of the user.
It is recommended that this oral history be cited
Charles Denton, an oral history conducted in 2010
by Frederik Nebeker, IEEE History Center, New Brunswick, NJ, USA
at the National Electronics Museum, Linthicum, MD, USA
Interview: Charles Denton
Interviewer: Frederik Nebeker
Date: 12 April 2010
Location: National Electronics Museum, Baltimore, Maryland
Background and Education
Nebeker: This is Frederik Nebeker of the IEEE
History Center. It’s Monday, the 12th of April 2010. I’m
here at the National Electronics Museum near Baltimore to interview
Charles Denton. I wonder if we could start by hearing a little
about your background, where and when you were born and a little
about your family.
Well, I was born in 1928 in Grafton, West Virginia, one of a family
of four. We were two boys and two girls in the family. I grew up
there, and I was educated in the public schools there in Grafton.
What did your father do?
My dad was primarily in the automobile business. He basically
ran a dealership, a Chevrolet/Oldsmobile dealership for a number
of years. I spent a lot of time there [as] kind of an apprentice
mechanic. I liked working there. It gave me a chance to get my
hands dirty, and it really did, much to my mother’s chagrin.
So you were interested in technology from an early age?
Very, very early age. It was always kind of interesting and gave
me exposure to really see how things worked, how they were built,
what it took to fix and maintain them. So it was an interesting
opportunity I enjoyed very much.
What was Grafton like?
Grafton basically was an old railroad town. It was a main stop
on the B&O Railroad from Baltimore to the west. It was also
in a mining area, so there was a lot of industry there, but it
was largely based on railroading. There were other subsidiaries,
you know, small businesses and activities and manufacturing facilities
that heavily depended on the railroad. When the railroad technology
went from steam engine to diesel engine that affected a lot of
things. There was a big repair center in Grafton where they did
a lot of maintenance work on the steam engines. But with the demise
of those and adoption of the diesel engine, why, that need, you
know, began to dwindle.
So you can probably remember something of that transition, which
was in the ’40s, is that right?
Very much so. Basically after World War II. That’s when
the change over went.
You grew up in Grafton and stayed there through high school?
Yes, through high school. Finished and graduated high school in
1946. Then I enrolled at West Virginia University, which was really
only about 30-35 miles away from Grafton, in Morgantown. I started
there and graduated in the summer of 1950.
Were you interested in science as a youngster?
Yes. I remember we started basically a science club. I was very
interested in chemistry, enjoyed it very much, also general physics.
Did you have a Gilbert chemistry set?
Later on, I did, that was interesting. Physics, for some reason,
was more of an attraction for me. Much to my wife’s chagrin,
I think, because when she was in school and college, I encouraged
her to take a course in physics, which she really resented, long
Thanks a lot.
Yes, thanks a lot is about the size of it. Anyhow, my contention
was, well, if you understand physics, you have a pretty good understanding
of the world around you.
So when you went to University of West Virginia, what did you
Majored in engineering with a primary emphasis in mechanical engineering,
which I think may have been kind of a follow-on from the auto interest
and work that I had done. I enjoyed it very much.
What was your intention, as to a career, when you started?
Well, I really didn’t have a fixed intention, but I thought
I would just go through and see what it was like and then, you
know, decide as I went along. So I just took a general mechanical
engineering course. There was an emphasis on engineering mechanics;
it was one branch of that. Another one was the power and the energy
side of it. I tried to mix them and blend them together so that
I had the opportunity to do both. But I think I ended up having
more of an interest in the physics and the structural part of the
mechanical design. That seemed to be a bit more interesting, and
academically, I think I took more of an interest in that as well.
Were you happy with the education you got at the university?
Yes, I felt that it was good. In retrospect, it was an interesting
experience. It was the first time that I was away from home, in
college and off on your own. So you tended to take advantage of
that liberty a little bit. But the interesting thing was, from
my point of view, that this was basically the end of World War
II and veterans coming back had the advantage of the GI Bill.
You must have seen a lot of the GI Bill people there.
They were really great. And when I was going in, there was a flood
of those. Of course, they were much more mature, many of them.
Most of them were married, so they had a different aspect on education.
It took me about a year to realize that if I was going to compete
with them, I needed to change my ways and focus on the academics.
I think a good experience that really helped me along the line.
So I began to change my attitude.
I can imagine these veterans were more goal directed.
Absolutely. It took me a little while to realize that basically
learning was what it’s all about.
Did you go straight through to your degree?
The university, being a land grant university, had a requirement
for two years of military ROTC work. Then [you] had the option
of continuing it for another two years, in which case at the time
of graduation not only would you get your academic degree, but
you’d get a commission in the Army for a commitment to active
duty, if called. My dad strongly encouraged me to do that, which
I did do. So when I graduated in 1950, I got my academic degree,
as well as a commission.
In the Army?
Yes. About the time of graduation was when the North Koreans crossed
the 38th Parallel.
In 1950, wasn’t it?
Yes. That was in 1950 and so I could see the handwriting on the
wall, but anyhow, I waited to see what happened. So I was then
able, mainly through my brother, who was a career Navy officer,
to come to California and work out there in the Navy shipyard.
And that’s how I happened to get involved there.
So at the time, you knew that you could be called to active duty
anytime, but in the meantime, you had to get a job?
Yes, to get a job, and I really wanted to put some of that education
time to work and just kind of go with it.
Where was that shipyard in California?
It was in Vallejo, California, right outside of San Francisco
in the bay there. So I went to work there as a design engineer,
working basically on submarine control, depth control systems.
Interestingly enough, they had a special project that I was asked
to get involved with where they were working on the capability
to launch a Regulus guided missile from the submarine.
From a submerged state?
No, you had to do it from the surface. And that grew, of course,
into the Polaris and the underwater Lodge system.
That sounds like quite a nice first job.
It really was. It was an excellent opportunity, a good experience,
and it got me away from home.
San Francisco was a nice area to be in, and you liked the work
you were doing there?
Oh, yes, I liked it very much. These were the World War II diesel
engine submarines that we were upgrading. With the Russian build-up
of their undersea capability, there was a strong emphasis then
on development of sonar for tracking.
This was an internal Navy development, that is, designed and implemented
by the Navy?
Right. About that time, well, actually while I was there, I came
back to West Virginia to get married. My wife and I then returned
to California. She enrolled at Cal Berkeley and was attending school
there while I was working.
Active Duty in Japan
But in early ’52, I got my call to active duty. I then reported
to active duty for two years.
Please tell me about that period of work.
That, again, was an interesting experience. My first assignment
in the military, I like to tell people, was to the post office
in Baltimore. As a matter of fact, it was interesting, but basically
it was a holding pattern, a holding assignment to the Maryland
military district. That was a paper shuffling exercise where they
basically were handling the logistics of active-duty military,
moving people and families, that sort of thing. At that point I
got orders to report to Fort Belvoir, Virginia, which is where
the engineering center was. My commission was the Corps of Engineers
in the Army. That was a three-month assignment, a basic training
program for new lieutenants. And it was a preparatory program for
going overseas. Ultimately then, I was assigned to what they call
the Far East Command.
In an engineering group?
Well, I was an individual then and would be assigned once I got
into the Far East. I ended up in Japan, and was assigned as a platoon
leader in a combat engineering operation as part of the 24th Infantry
Where in Japan?
First at Camp Matsushima and later at Camp Fuji, pretty much at
the base of Mount Fuji. It was really scenic. That was a different
experience too, you know, for a young immature lieutenant.
Was your wife able to go with you?
No. I knew at that point in time that I would be going ultimately
into Korea. The assignment into the 24th Infantry Division - this
was the early division that went from Japan into Korea at the time
of the invasion. They were decimated, really. So they were brought
back to be restructured in Japan. They were building up the troop
level and building up the equipment.
What were you responsible for?
I started out managing a carpool or a transportation center. It
was a matter of keeping the vehicles moving, that sort of thing.
Ultimately from there then, I moved as a platoon leader.
Was this a transportation platoon?
Well, actually, it was an engineering group, which has the responsibility
for engineering work associated with an infantry division, including
road building, grading equipment, heavy equipment, transportation,
trucks, that sort of thing. So it’s a matter of providing
the infrastructure for the transportation. Even the areas of mine
detection and water supply. So it was just a general utility type
It had very broad capability. My responsibility as a platoon leader
was basically building up and training the staff and getting them
built into an operating unit.
How long were you in Japan?
I guess it was about 9 or 10 months. At that point in time the
activity along the 38th parallel was kind of at a standoff. They
had truce talks that were going on, but they kept breaking down.
My wife and I were watching a history of the Korean War recently,
just as a matter of interest. That was the time when [Dwight D.]
Eisenhower, who was president then, said, “well, if we can’t
get these talks through, we’re going to go ahead and make
a grand push, to get the issue resolved and unify Korea.” They
began to build up troops in Korea, and we ended traveling north
on standby status behind the front lines. But fortunately, at that
point in time, a truce was signed.
That was the final armistice?
I wouldn't call it final. It was a cease fire. That's pretty much
what it amounted to. So they moved us back into the southern part
of Korea, down around Pusan. I spent the rest of my two years of
active duty there in Korea.
Well, it was the first time that I’d been in a different
culture. This was post-World War II time. In Japan, there was still
a lot of damage, but there was a lot of positive activity going
on. I had a chance to go out and interact with the native Japanese,
visiting and that sort of thing. It was a very positive experience
and a great learning experience for me, learning that there are
other cultures or other habits. And beginning to respect and honor
those, because that was very important to those people. On the
other hand, my military exposure was to a very broad mix of American
people. And I can still remember the thing that impressed me was
that there were people who couldn’t read and write. You know,
I’d had very limited exposure, and I’d come to believe
everybody was like me. But here, I was thrust into a different
mix of people, and it began to make me realize that even with our
own culture, there are lots of people, different capabilities,
that are good people, want to do the right thing, and you need
to encourage them and help them. I can still remember one individual
to this day, very strong resemblance to my dad, coming to me with
this letter and says, “can you read this to me?”
That made me sensitive then to other people. I think that’s
been a help to me through the rest of my life in terms of realizing
and understanding that there are people with differences, different
ideas. Doesn’t mean they’re wrong. And they should
be respected and honored for that.
Did you see any combat in Korea?
Very little. There was some activity going on once we got to the
front line, but after about three or four months, you’re
always on the alert.
So you completed your two years when you were there in Korea?
Yes, I did.
What was your feeling overall about that time with combat engineering
In terms of practical experience, I didn’t feel that it
added a lot to my engineering background and knowledge, other than
basically a little bit of hands-on time.
I would also imagine you gained some managerial skills.
Yes. But in a matter of working with people and understanding
people and being able to motivate - that was a great learning experience
So the deal when you received your commission was that there would
be two years of active duty. Would you then stay in reserves?
You stayed in reserve for a total of five years. That was the
commitment. At the end of five years, you had the option of continuing
on in the reserves or being discharged.
What did you elect to do?
I chose to be discharged.
And you were not called up in the five years of reserve duty?
Only the two years and when I fulfilled my commitment I settled
into a more conventional lifestyle.
Coming to Westinghouse
When you came out of the Army what work were you able to find?
I had contacted the folks at the Mare Island shipyard, and they
very much wanted me to come back for an assignment there, and I
was leaning heavily towards that. But while I was overseas, my
wife continued her education.
No, she went back with her parents in western Pennsylvania and
went to school there. So we talked about going back to California,
and her parents and my parents began to make subtle comments that
they wondered whether that was maybe the right thing to, the best
thing to do. So as an alternative, I went back to West Virginia
University to their placement bureau. Just so happens at that point
it was about midterm. They were in the process of industries coming
in, interviewing graduates, and so I signed up to interview just
through the university, even though I’d already graduated.
So [I] interviewed with several different companies. I actually
ended up with, I think, five job offers and chose to accept the
one from Westinghouse here in Baltimore.
Why did you choose that?
Well, that’s really hard exactly to say. I think probably
the main thing that drove that was the individual that did the
interview was a former graduate of West Virginia, a distinguished
gentleman. In my opinion, a great engineer.
Do you remember his name?
Yes, it was Reuben Lee who was a longtime engineer here at Baltimore.
He strongly encouraged me to consider that, and actually took the
extra step of arranging for me to come to Baltimore to be personally
interviewed and get exposure to what the opportunities were. So
I think it may have been that extra step that kind of made me make
the final decision.
What was your initial job at Westinghouse?
My initial job was that I was assigned to an engineering group,
working on defensive systems for Navy aircraft. Basically, radar controlled
A Navy patrol type aircraft. So I entered into a new area of airborne
You were hired as a mechanical engineer?
Yes, as a mechanical engineer.
Did you get drawn into the electronics work?
Had to, basically. When you stop and think about it, there’s
a strong interplay between the electronics and mechanical aspect,
because electronics end up as essentially mechanical equipment
in terms of performing their functions and activities. So I had
to begin to make kind of a transition to a different concept of
what mechanical engineering was. And to pick up on the electronics
side as much as possible and as quickly as possible.
How large was this group working on that system?
The group itself was probably about 25 people. There was a small
group of the mechanically inclined, part of a mechanical design
That was controlling the turret for the radar?
Yes. That would perform the tracking and the control function,
pointing the turret.
That was a Navy contract that that group was assigned to?
Yes, it was a Navy contract. Then that program evolved into other
tail turret programs. The other one that I was heavily involved
with was the beginning of a gun turret system for the Martin P6M
sea boat. That was a jet flying boat. It was very interesting and
had some unique mechanical problems associated with it.
You worked on the radar for that?
Yes, the radar and the turret itself. Sitting out there in the
ocean, that was a different environment. But that was an area where
some of my submarine experience at least helped me appreciate what
the environment was.
I see. How long were you then doing this work on the turret systems?
About two years, two to three years.
Then the organization within Westinghouse here in Baltimore began
to grow and evolve, and that’s when the concept of the functional
organization began to come into place. There would be basic engineering
groups that would be assigned to specific programs, as opposed
to a project having a committed and dedicated workforce.
Gave a lot more flexibility to the organization, able then to
apply the resources in the most effective manner where they were
needed. I ended up as part of that design group.
What was the work of that design group?
It was, at that point, a mechanical design group, as well as an
electrical design group, an antenna design group, support equipment,
that sort of thing. So there were groups that developed expertise
within airborne electronics equipment. I was assigned as an engineer
within that design group.
The mechanical design group?
Yes. And that’s where I spent a good bit of my time early
on from an engineer to a supervisor, and ultimately as a section
manager for supporting these various programs. There were two kind
of major activities. I had an opportunity to get involved as a
lead mechanical engineer on the UK2 scientific satellite that
Westinghouse built, integrated, and tested for NASA. As a matter
of fact, the prototype is here on display [at the Historical Electronics
Museum]. That was an interesting experience because we had an opportunity
to interface with the experimenters, who were all British experimenters,
who provided the instrumentation.
Tell me about that satellite.
It was a satellite that had sensors for evaluating galactic noise,
noise from the space environment. It had a meteorology experiment,
and it had a radio astronomy experiment. There was a long antenna
wire for the radio astronomy. These were projects that the scientific
community in the UK had proposed to be incorporated into the satellite.
This was a joint venture between the UK ministry and NASA in which
NASA would provide the satellite structure, the launch capability,
all of that, and then the UK would provide the instruments.
What was your part in that?
My part of that was the responsibility for the mechanical design
Of the entire thing?
Yes, entire structure.
How did that go?
I thought it went very well.
Did it work the way it was supposed to?
Yes, as a matter of fact, it did. As part of that, to make sure
we understood the needs of the experimenters, the program manager
and I made a trip to the UK and visited with the ministry. That
was in grand British style. They’d have a break in the afternoon
for tea and crumpets, all of that sort of thing. We went from there
to visit the suppliers of the experiments themselves.
The British makers?
Yes, such as the British General Electric. I know the Marconi
company was another one. I don’t remember who the third one
They were still using the English system of measurements then?
Oh, absolutely right.
So no snafu because of different units.
Right. So we came back, and it was then a matter of putting that
all together. Another interesting aspect of that work was that
if something goes wrong, you can’t go out there and repair
it. It’s going to work or it’s not going to work. That
made clear to me the real impact of quality and reliability, that
you need to do it right the first time because you only got one
shot at it. That lesson stuck with me through the rest of my career
So you did things differently on that project because of that
Yes, a little more thorough. Most things, you can go out into
the field, you can take it to test if it doesn’t work, and
you can repair it or modify it. With the satellite, there’s
no modification once it’s gone
Were there any NASA engineers working with you on this?
Yes. They provided a lot of support and guidance and monitored
us very closely to make sure that lessons learned from their experience
were incorporated. We had a very close working relationship, or
I did, with our counterparts. In that particular case it was NASA
Goddard, as you know, close by.
How long did that project occupy you?
It was about two years. From the beginning to launch.
Did you observe the launch?
Yes, I was there at the block house. You begin to get a little
uptight as the countdown starts, but it all worked out well. That
was another learning experience that I felt I carried with me later
So at that point, you were in this mechanical design group, which
was being put on different projects at different times.
What came next for you?
Well, as a result of those assignments, most of my activity was
associated with ECM programs, electronic countermeasures programs.
Just as a result of the assignments that were made?
That was the assignment and personal associations. You know, people
that you know and respect and like to work for.
You’d kind of like to get in an environment like that. So
I tended towards that, and those personal relationships that begin
to build up become a strong factor. As you get to know people and
work with them, that makes for a much better working relationship.
So I began to know most of the ECM group, a small development group
at that time.
They were a separate one of these functional groups?
Yes. They had a small ECM group and then they had the radar groups.
They had an electro optical group that was basically project or
program oriented, and there would be a small staff of key people
there. They would bring in resources they needed to support programs
from an engineering standpoint.
Systems Management and Structure
How did the overall management of Westinghouse Electronics Systems
I think it went exceptionally well. Considering the fact that
it was kind of a loose relationship and management - well, loose
isn’t the right word. It was not a strongly structured environment.
And I believe it was intentionally done that way in order to emphasize
entrepreneurship, doing your own thing within reason, bounds, and
It gave the flexibility that you mentioned, so that they could
shift resources quickly.
Right. The effectiveness of it was heavily dependent upon these
personal relationships, your working together. You began to build
up teams that were compatible. It was, in my opinion, a very effective
way of handling a growing business.
You didn’t feel that you were stifled by a very strict structure.
This was a project-oriented approach where the team was assembled
for a single project.
Right. You had the flexibility of shifting, and that is one of
the strengths that allowed the Electronics Group here to grow as
much and as quickly as it did. It also developed a very strong
rapport among the professionals here. You all worked together,
you grew together, you prospered together.
You knew where to go for certain skills and capabilities?
Yes. And you didn’t necessarily feel that you were limited
by a discipline. You could pretty much grow into it, and you felt
capable of going and doing.
That was a very significant part of the growth and development
of the operation here in Baltimore. One of the things that kept
me at Westinghouse as long as I was is because I felt that it was
an excellent group of people. Good people to be with, you liked
working with them, you didn’t mind socializing with them
off the job. So it began to develop a fairly close-knit organization
that still exists today.
You list the physical countermeasures pod in your work. Can you
tell me something about that?
That was interesting. That was, I guess, a Navy program as kind
of a follow-on, if you would, of the defensive systems, the radar-guided
gun turret, where they wanted to go more towards electronic defenses.
They wanted to develop an external mounted store that had countermeasures
To jam enemy radar or navigation systems?
Yes, basically to jam the radars themselves. So there was a chaff
dispenser, as chaff was one of the effective jamming techniques
at that time. There were forward-firing rockets. The chaff dispensers
would give you chaff aft of you. They had forward-firing chaff
rockets. There were IR [infrared] flares that could be dispensed.
Was there electronic jamming?
No. The chaff that created the noise was the primary countermeasure.
Then there was also a corner reflector decoy that could be deployed.
It had eight corner reflectors, which would enhance the return
signal. The decoy would be deployed and then drift away from the
ship itself. Enemy radar would lock onto it, that being the stronger
That was what the Navy wanted. In order to make it an external
store, it was decided that we would make the pod in the configuration
of an external fuel tank. That way, we knew we would have compatibility
with the air frame and with the aerodynamics.
As that had already been worked out.
We began looking at fuel tanks to be able to utilize those as
a structure, but those had all sorts of baffling and things like
that internally to prevent fuel sloshing. We settled on the configuration,
but built a structure in that configuration that was essentially
a shell, and the internal structure would accept all the countermeasures.
There was a radar sensor that would be used to detect an oncoming
target. That pod was a program then that I had an opportunity to
be the lead engineer on, designing the structure, integrating it,
and then testing it. We went through a testing program, but never
did get the flight test because at that point in time the major
thrust was on the electronic countermeasure as opposed to the physical
That did give us a base for sticking our foot in the door, saying
we have this kind of countermeasures experience. It was a very
early countermeasures program. That experience, because of personal
interest and experience, more or less drove me into this countermeasures
program that I was heavily involved in. It kind of just flowed
naturally that way.
The next thing you have listed here is the development of the
multipurpose pod for airborne electronic countermeasure systems.
That was the time the military began to realize that electronic
countermeasures have a place in lieu of the physical activity.
There were a lot of techniques, testing programs, and that sort
of thing in development to demonstrate effective countermeasures.
Techniques that were proven against different types of radar generated
interest in getting them into operational systems.
Countermeasures is a cat-and-mouse game, countermeasure, the counter-countermeasures,
this kind of thing. It was going to end up being a product that
needed to be highly flexible and easily adapted and easily changed.
Real estate in an airplane is at a premium and so the black box
concept, which is basically what the electronics was at that point
in time, was going to limit itself in terms of being able to adapt,
to be flexible enough. In order to modify, you’d have to
take a whole airplane out of service.
So the idea was to not have to do that by having things in a pod
that could be altered as the technology changed.
Right. That’s where the physical countermeasures pod, as
an external store, began to play a role. If we could develop a
smaller pod, highly flexible, that could be installed on the external
part of the airplane, it would give you the capability. You could
download this thing, take it offline, load another one back on
and do any modifications, updates, and that sort of thing.
Presumably it could go on different aircraft?
Absolutely. As long as you make a standard interface like the
stores, bombs, that sort of thing. There’s a standardized
So if we could adapt that standard interface into a structure
that was modular, compatible, flexible, those sort of things, it
seemed like that would be a right direction. So the small countermeasures
group that I’d said I was working with really picked that
up as a sales tool. Using the experience of the physical countermeasures
pod and saying, “look, we’ve been there, we’ve
done that, it works, the interface and that sort of thing. Why
don’t we institute a program to develop a standard modular
pod structure?” The countermeasures people within the Air
Force were all for this. They thought it was a great idea. And
so they funded this program to develop this, what we called the
Was the earlier pod also for the Air Force?
It was for the Navy.
But you convinced the Air Force that this was a good idea.
Right. From the business standpoint, the management here within
Westinghouse says, “okay, if we’re going to invest
in this product line, let’s go with the biggest customer,
the Air Force.”
That was how that evolved. They did fund the development of a
standard 10-inch diameter pod with a hard back, inside of which
the electronics could be mounted. It incorporated a cooling system
and had the flexibility of being able to add to or change a set
of specs for a standard interface. It then went through a qualification
program from the air framer standpoint to demonstrate compatibility
and jettison-ability, that sort of thing. So as long as you were
within these standard interface limits, you didn’t have to
go back and requalify and recertify the physical aspect.
So it turned out to be a good program and a very effective program
and a real key building block.
So these pods were actually used?
Yes, they were, with that standard pod. The activity in Southeast
Asia was starting to pick up at that point in time. There was heavy
This is the mid ’60s?
Yes, the mid ’60s, early ’70s, that time period.
They were able to demonstrate techniques that were effective against
the SAM, the radar-guided SAM missiles. And when they were flying
in Southeast Asia, the Air Force was losing a lot of airplanes,
[a] lot of pilots, so it was a key emphasis that we needed to get
something out there quick. So they turned on the program of incorporating
these ECM techniques using the standard pod structure, because
that way they could be built, tested, and incorporated on the airplane.
That turned out to be a very effective tool for the pilots, once
they accepted it. We said, we’re going to start putting this
ECM pod on your airplane and you’re going to give up one
of your store mounts. Once they finally consented to some trial
period, they began to realize the effectiveness of it, and it got
to the point that they really wouldn’t fly without an ECM
I see. What aircraft were these on?
Mainly the F-4s and the F-105s. Those were the two key airplanes
flying in Southeast Asia.
Did this kind of standardized pod, modular pod structure, spread
to other types of aircraft?
Those were the main ones. With later versions of the pod, the
131 was certified for use on the F-4s and F-105s. Let’s see,
A-10s, later on, F-16s C-130s. So it got wide application where
it could be used as deemed appropriate.
That sounds like a fundamental idea to me, rather than incorporating
equipment in the fuselage, putting [it] in a pod.
Right. I think that was the thing that allowed Westinghouse to
get a major hold on the ECM business from the Air Force. Of course,
it was growing at that time. New techniques and the ground radar
would change, you would have to then change the programming techniques
for the pod. In the early days of the program, in order to reprogram
it, this was done mechanically by setting switches and that sort
of thing. You needed to download the pod, take it back into the
As when the enemy starts using different radar?
Yes, you'd have to reset it. But still, that was much better than
tying up an airplane. You could then turn this thing around in
probably 24 to 48 hours.
So that early program then led on to later versions with newer
and updated techniques.
Was this your main work in those years?
I was almost solely dedicated to that. It was an interesting time.
To a large extent, it was a management activity, providing the
guidance and direction for the engineers that were part of that
support team, utilizing the background experience.
So you were more a manager than a design engineer?
Right. But I was still working closely with the program people
in terms of the direction and the inputs and that sort of thing.
There must have been quite a few companies involved in countermeasures.
Were there exchanges of results or collaborations?
Yes. The Air Force was more of an overseer. There were symposiums,
that sort of thing.
So your group might show what it had been able to do?
Yes. It would be more of the program people than the direct design
people. We would support them, but they were driving the show and
interfacing more directly with the customer. You know, there was
an informal organization of the Old Crows, the ECM fraternity.
There would be a lot of informal exchange at the personal level.
You weren't discouraged from doing that?
No, not with reasonable bounds. Some of the conferences were classified
conferences. Still, there was a lot of exchange.
You could talk to an engineer working on similar problems elsewhere?
Yes. Sanders was a big player in this. Raytheon was a major competitor.
And the engineers formed this community that had real opportunities
to share results?
One might imagine that because the work was classified that it
would get done in isolated groups.
Right. It was kind of compartmentalized.
But that wasn’t a problem in your experience?
No. I didn’t feel constrained, but using prudent judgment.
You’re not going to give away the store.
Did Westinghouse collaborate with these other companies on projects?
Or were the systems pretty much isolated, this would be a Westinghouse
system and this would be a Sanders system?
Pretty much. There would probably be more collaboration through
supplier databases because you were very dependent upon component
suppliers that performed specific functions.
With leading-edge technology we were very heavily dependent upon
key component suppliers. And these key component suppliers would
be working with other systems. So there was a lot of interchange
because there was a very limited capability within the industry.
What about the relationship with the suppliers? How often would
Westinghouse say to, I don’t know, some magnetron manufacturer,
we need this kind of a tube.
All the time.
So you’re constantly getting them to develop new components?
All the time, because new techniques generally required new components
of some nature. Because you’re either stretching the limits
of the frequency, bandwidth or the power levels. Almost every change
was an upgrade.
More often than not it would evolve around key suppliers. So the
development of a relationship with those suppliers was key. The
nature of the business, from my perspective later on as I got more
involved in [the] program, [it] became obvious to me that the people
you have are the discriminating factor. Anybody else could go out
and buy the same thing that you could from these key suppliers.
You’re heavily dependent upon that core group of people with
the technical expertise there.
How did it work with these suppliers? If they manufactured something
to your specs, could they immediately sell it to other companies?
Yes. They could market it elsewhere. Restraint of trade is what
the government would refer to it as. But you tried to develop that
relationship closely enough that they say, here’s a key customer
we want to keep. But, you know, they were in business too.
Were there ever cases where a supplier would say, well, can’t
you use this that we’ve developed for NASA or some company?
Yes, that was their first opening, generally. But then you begin
to say, we’ve got this configuration of structure, we’ve
got these mechanical constraints, we’ve got these power constraints.
More often than not, it ends up being a tailored design.
Maybe you can take the basic function, but then you begin to need
to tailor it to the application. And so that’s kind of the
way a lot of the development evolved.
I wanted to ask about these titles that you held. You were from
1954 to ’73 engineer supervisor, engineering manager. And
then in ’73, you became program engineering manager. What
change was that?
A little bit of background. In the ’60s, ’70s time
period when Southeast Asia was driving this countermeasure activity,
Westinghouse kept getting basically sole source procurements for
new techniques, new programs. There was a lot of flack, if you’ll
pardon the expression, from the industry about the sole source.
So later on the Air Force acknowledged it, saying the next generation
of ECM pods were going to be put out as a competitive bid so the
industry will have an opportunity. We will give everybody a chance
to compete on even footing.
Here will be your opportunity to break into the business. That
was basically the ALQ-131 program. That was a competitive one,
and fortunately, Westinghouse won that program.
Were you manager of that program?
Not at that point in time. I was still part of the design group,
the manager of the design group, supporting that proposal and the
development of it.
It was based on, again, the modularity, the flexibility. So we
were successful in winning that program. We got a development and
a limited production order. Early on in the program there were
a lot of problems that began developing, and there was a thrust
that said we’re going to terminate the program. But then
there were other elements in the Air Force that said, no, we’ll
go ahead. So it was restructured, there was a change of management
that the customer insisted on. At that point, I was approached
and asked if I would accept the job as the program engineering
manager and then be responsible for the overall program engineering.
It was a matter then of completing the design. There was a very
strong ECM design team there doing that. That worked out well.
This was where, in order to get the flexibility that they needed,
it was to be a digital system. A centralized computer with a basic
operating system that would make it operate like a pod.
Program control of the system?
Exactly. Then there would be a separate program so that you would
be able to tailor it for mission to mission to mission. That was
a whole new thrust for ECM. All of the software associated with
it, which was a new experience for me and an interesting learning
experience. We were successful in getting the design completed.
It was in 1976 that you went from being engineering manager to
Right. We finished up the design, we did the flight testing, quality
testing, basically the DT&E, or design, test, and evaluation
phase. Then the Air Force had to make a decision whether they wanted
to proceed with a full-scale production, or what they wanted to
do because they did have production options in the program at that
point. During that time phase, there were a limited number of the
131 pods that were in the operating environment within the Air
Force. I spent a reasonable amount of time visiting the user, the
ones that were flying. That was a part of the business that I had
not been directly associated with within the engineering community.
I felt it would be worthwhile getting out and see how the user
perceives this equipment, what their thoughts and ideas are.
What sorts of aircraft was this intended for?
At the time the F-16 was being brought into the inventory and
replacing the F-4. The early flight tests were done on the F-4,
but the operational usage was going to be with the F-16.
So we went out and visited the users, not only the field shop
support people, but the flyers as well. I brought back a message
on one trip. I remember this tall, nice-looking bird colonel, you
know, a typical fighter pilot. He was telling [me], “I flew
in Southeast Asia, I saw these SAM missiles coming up, like telephone
poles, and I could see them veering off.” And he says, “I’m
a believer in ECM.” But the F-16 is coming on, the, as he
put it, hottest airplane in the world. We’ve got a bunch
of young, white-scarf pilots, they think they can out-fly anything
in the world. They’re just that cocky. And he said, “you’re
really going to have problems getting them to accept this dummy
[the pod] flying on the airplane.”
Limiting their performance and that sort of thing. “The
thing you got to realize,” he said, “when you’re
actually on a combat mission” - and these are his exact words – “you’re
putting your ass on the line and you got to decide whether you’re
going to go for it or whether you’re going to abort.” And
he said, “that pilot’s going to be sitting there with
that dummy, as he looks at it, it doesn’t make any noise,
it doesn’t go bang, it doesn’t go flashing,” he
said, “he doesn’t know whether it’s working or
not. And he’s putting his life on the line for that piece
That stuck with me, that we really need to address the reliability
issue. Because at the same time, when I had gone out into the field
shop, there were shipping containers with 131s in there, still
sitting in their container. I said, “why are they there?” He
said, “we don’t want to waste our time testing them
because we take them out of the shipping create, run them through
a test, and they fail.” I said, “man, bad news.”
I came back, talked with Jim Holman, who was my boss at that point,
a staunch man at reliability. That was his theme song. I told him, “Jim,
we’ve got to do something about the reliability.” “All
for it,” he said, “but just don’t screw it up.” Anyhow,
we went through an update program, and at that point, with Jim’s
consent, I agreed to a requirement in the contract where we would
double the MTBF from 25 hours, which, in retrospect, was nothing,
to 50 hours. We would guarantee that on production equipment that
was going out. That’s where I began to think back on my concept
of the UK 2, when it’s out there, you know, you can’t
go out and fix it. It’s got to be right the first time.
And so that’s when, you know, it really hit home to me,
it said, “hey, this electronics equipment, we’ve
really got to drive the reliability.” All right? You know,
if it’s going to go and it’s going to be successful,
it’s got to work right, it’s got to work the first
time. And so that was my main thrust then within, you know, the
engineering activity. And then ultimately, I took over as the program
manager. And that’s when I began to drive this thrust home,
that, if you’re going to do it, it takes a total commitment.
So with this goal of reliability, you put a lot more time into
the testing of systems?
No. As a matter of fact, I said, we need to do the opposite. We
need to do the right testing, but we need to do less of it. We
need to build it right the first time, so that when it goes to
test, you test it once, it’s there, and it goes. That was
basically my thrust, we’ve got to go back to the basic design,
the basic components. We’ve got to get the reliability built
in there. Now, do more testing, perhaps, at that level. Drive that
test back down rather than leave it at the end where it’s
very time consuming, it’s very expensive. Drive it back down.
I don’t want to sound overdramatic, but it almost involved
changing the culture of an industry. Because up until that point
in time, the main thrust on ECM was, we need it, we need it now,
because we’ve got this crisis in the field.
I could imagine you’re also looking at the end capability
Absolutely. They went to this quick react capability. The important
thing is build it, do safety of flight testing, get it out into
the field. We’ll worry about it later on. That very quickly
gained a bad reputation.
This next competitive generation, where they went to digital to
give them a lot more flexibility, it became obvious that we needed
to drive the reliability. To do that, we needed to change, from
my perspective, the quality culture. There was such a close relationship
between suppliers, so it was not only an in-house problem, but
it was a vendor problem.
That’s the reason I say you need to change the industry.
And that was where I spent, I’ll bet, 75 or 80% of my time,
driving that message home.
So there was more rigorous testing of all the components. Were
there also more reliability measures at the system level?
Absolutely. Because part of this agreement to improve the reliability
was the incorporation of what I call a TAF program, test, analyze,
and fix. You’d test until you got a failure, you’d
fix that, and you’d test some more. It was difficult to get
the customer to accept this concept that a test didn’t have
a pass/fail criteria. The purpose of the test was to find out where
the weak links are, fix them, and go back and find where the next
weak link is. We drove that point home, and we had a reliability
growth curve that we monitored to see where we were. As we went
through that, it was a matter of going back to our vendor base
also. It became obvious to me, in order to make this happen, we
had to get a top management commitment. The best way I could find
to do that was related to cost. Get the top management level to
say, look, take a look at your test yields. Every time a test fails,
it goes back and into what I call the hidden factory. You’re
doing more rework. That’s costing you money. Find out what
it is, fix it so that your test yield goes up. Then we provided
incentives to vendors. TWTs were one very fragile structure.
What is that?
Traveling wave tubes, an RF amplifier.
If you envision the old electron
tubes with the grids and everything, well, the TWTs were
a version of that in which they had these very fragile grids.
They were subjected to high stresses as a result of extreme temperature
changes. At one time, we even funded TWT suppliers to do a finite
element analysis of where the stress fractures were, in order
to go in and fix those on the front end. So it took a cooperative
effort to get them to do it. A TWT vendor used to send me his
first cycle test unit curves where he was very pleased when,
for a month, he’d have zero failures. So they began to
realize that it became a more profitable business for them. Using
that cost technique and making sure that the management wanted
to be a part of the program, the successful, profitable program.
Then you could get their dedication. In-house, we did the same
thing. We instituted this first cycle test yield at the production
level. Drive the test back down. PC boards? They all go through
the first time and pass and no failures. So we were very successful
with doing that. But in order to follow that, there was a matter
then of rigorous failure analysis and corrective action that
says, I got a problem, fix it. It became obvious to me that finding
a problem is easy, getting the fix for a problem is easy. Implementing
that fix and getting a change made, difficult. Because that’s
where you had to go in and change the culture. It says, you need
to do something different. But, we’ve done it like this
in the past, and everybody else is doing it this way was often
Did you see going into this program manager position that that
would be your main work, the reliability issue?
Hadn’t the faintest idea. It wasn’t until I went out
and began to realize the user’s perspective in this equipment
. You know, once that pilot’s out there getting lined up,
he has to believe that when he flicks that system on it’s
going to work and it’s going to work right and it’s
going to work every time. That really made an impact on me.
Was your emphasis on reliability something that was noticed elsewhere
Yes, it was beginning to permeate. Radar was basically doing the
same thing. So it wasn’t unique to us. But I personally felt
that the particular industry that we dealt with was not akin to
this. Our customer talked a good game, but I think didn’t
appreciate what it took to get it implemented. Like the concept
that says, if you’re testing and it fails rather than say
it’s a failure, that’s an improvement. We’re
going to go on from there. They finally came around to it as well.
Looking back on that ALQ-131 project, how would you say it worked
Very well. The equipment got deployed and had excellent results.
As a matter of fact, I’m almost certain that it’s still
in the active inventory. It was heavily used in the Middle East,
in the Shock and Awe program.
And this was one of the early digital systems?
That’s quite an achievement.
It was the first program that could be programmed on the flight
line. Before, we had to take it off, take it back to the shop,
flip the switches to set up different techniques. Not required
on this. You didn’t have to download it from the airplane.
You had what we called a loader box where you could generate the
threat tape, as we called it. In the shop you could generate the
new tape and reprogram the pod on the flight line. Then it was
ready to go with the latest updates. That worked out well, and
I’m very pleased.
How widely was that system used?
It was a prime mission piece of equipment for the F-16. The A-10,
which is the tank buster, so to speak, it was standard on that.
And then was used on transports.
But the main mission was the fighter, the F-16 and the A-10. Those
were the mainstream equipment that it was dedicated to.
I see that you were on that 131 project for many years.
More than I expected. A lifetime, it seemed like. From the early
1970s to about 1990. But never a dull moment. I remember a fellow
telling me, I feel sorry for you as a program manager. I said, “why
is that?” He said, “program managers are like baseball
managers. There are those that have been fired and there are those
that are going to get fired.” That's a pretty good assessment.
The program manager is where the rubber meets the road.
I always figured if at least 50% of my decisions could be right,
I’d be okay. But the 131 turned out to be a very good piece
of equipment, a very profitable one from a business standpoint.
You couldn’t ask for more. You got all kinds of support from
general management, as long as you’re delivering on time
and delivering a profit. There aren’t too many people that
are going to rock the boat.
You managed not to have a nervous breakdown in these years in
charge of the program?
Well, yes. It takes a different mindset. I used to get really
upset about things, then I finally decided to tell myself, I’m
going to put in a good hard day’s work. When I leave, I’m
gone until tomorrow. And every time you’d have a major success,
you’d want to say, that’s over with, now I can lean
back and relax. I learned you don’t lean back and relax more
than a few hours because the next one is right out there coming
down the pike.
One of the best historians of engineering, Henry Petroski, has
written about how top engineers are worriers. They are people who
are always thinking about what can go wrong.
It’s such an intense job in that way.
Yes. You’ve got to do that, but at some point, I said, I’ve
got to be able to turn that off because I got another life as well.
Somehow, I was able to do that. How successfully, I’m not
sure. I’m still married.
Before we go on, is there more about the 131 project that you’d
like to mention?
Well, this earlier thing I talked about, about how to work with
people. I was always a strong believer that if I was going to be
involved in something, I’d like to have strong people there
working with me or working for me. I’d rather not have somebody
that comes and asks, “what do you want me to do?” Take
it and go with it. We developed that very strong team, a team that
really pulled this thing together, and especially during this reliability
growth. There were a core group of myself, the engineering manager,
the production manager, the quality manager, procurement, you know,
the key people. We were a corrective action review board. We were
configuration management review. We did things all together as
a team and worked very well together. We didn’t always see
eye to eye, but we managed okay. I remember that within Westinghouse,
they had these self-audit groups to make sure that, with these
programs that were kind of autonomous, they were fulfilling the
policies and the standards and the commitments that are set up.
So they had this group that would come in, and they would audit
each group individually. I can remember that we always came out
very well on those. Jack, the fellow that headed up the group,
said, “where in the world did you get that bunch of renegades
that you got there?” Because everybody was strong willed.
I said, “Jack, they were all handpicked.” That was
a team building exercise that I thought was meaningful to me because
we had good personal relationships, as well as a good project and
a good product, and it was successful. It was a win-win situation
for everybody, which is what I took a lot of pride in and was comfortable
So in 1990 you became a program manager of the A-10 CFF project.
That was a Navy program that was going to be the next generation
of stealth attack aircraft. It was run by General Dynamics. Westinghouse
had the radar sensor part of that program. We were also the supplier
of a passive sensing system, the CFF (Combined Function FLIR – Forward
The development program was pretty well along, and they were looking
to transition into production. So Emmett Wheeler, who was the manager
at that time, approached me and wanted to know if I would be willing
to move over and assume the responsibility of transitioning that
program into a production phase, based on my experience in the
131. I told him, “you know, Emmett, I’m getting pretty
close to retirement age.” But he said, “what we really
need to do is to get this program on track, get it moving in the
right direction.” There were, as typical in a program, some
significant problems that needed to get ironed out. So I agreed
to do that and was very involved with that. But unfortunately,
Dick Cheney was Secretary of Defense at that point in time, and
there was a lot of problems associated with the air frame itself
at General Dynamics. He ended up saying, “this program isn’t
going to be successful, it’s overweight, it’s not going
to meet the mission of flying off the aircraft carrier, so we’re
going to cancel the program.”
So we never did make the final transition into the production
program. But it was a new technology for me. It would’ve
been an extremely interesting program, and I was looking forward
to being able to do the front end of that transition and get it
Manager for Commercial Systems
Then you became investment manager for the commercial systems?
Yes. At that point I was debating whether to retire or not. Westinghouse
Baltimore was a mainly electronics DOD-oriented business. The decision
was made that we should take this technology and apply it to some
areas of the commercial market in order to provide another growth
So Ed Silcott, who was head of the commercial part of it -I had
worked closely with Ed on some of the production programs before
- wanted to know if I would come onboard to work with him as an
investment manager because there was a big emphasis on managing
and controlling the investment.
Could you explain that?
Well, within the military, the contracting part of it, you could
be reimbursed for your cost on a progress payment basis. Within
the commercial business, you didn't get the benefit of that. When
you deliver the product, you get your money.
The mindset basically was, okay, we’ll do a lot of front
end work, we’ll basically recover the cost in time so we
won’t be carrying a big investment on the books. So from
a profit and loss standpoint, you’re able to run a business
in an acceptable manner. When you go into the commercial side of
it, there's a different mindset. So he said he’d really like
to have somebody to work with him to say how we manage this investment
side of it. So I got involved with that for a couple years. Then
I went to Ed and said, “I’m not sure how well this
commercial operation is really going to pan out because it is a
When did the commercial systems start at Westinghouse electronics?
It was in the late ’80s, early ’90s.
To be honest, at that point, Westinghouse, as a corporation, was
struggling financially. They’d had problems with the nuclear
It nearly took the company under, and that was followed with some
bad real estate. The mainstream industries that they had were really
not growing. The two most profitable operations within Westinghouse
were broadcasting, basically through CBS and cable, and the Electronics
Systems Group here in Baltimore. Those were the two. They brought
in some new management, and they were trying to decide which way
should the corporation go. So they were trying to get a commercial
side of the electronic system as a growth opportunity.
Such as equipment for civilian air traffic control?
Right. Or, the transportation market, such as some of these sensors
for highways. Also, security systems.
That was coming along. They were hoping that that was going to
be a growth opportunity for the corporation. But in the meantime,
the new management that came in said, if you look at it objectively,
there are two growth opportunities: the entertainment and the electronics,
which is heavily defense-oriented. Personally, I think they made
the right decision. If you look at the military electronics industry
that’s dominated by the big air-frame people, here at Westinghouse
Baltimore, the bulk of the business was subcontracts from the air-frame
So you’re going to have a tough time competing in that business,
unless you can expand. The decision was made, go entertainment.
That’s when they ended up selling the Electronics Systems
Group here to Northrop Grumman and using the proceeds of that to
That was going on at about the time that you retired?
You could kind of see which way things were going. So I said,
hey, I think it’s time. Actually, I’d worked beyond
the normal retirement age by a couple years anyhow. So I said,
I think it’s time to relax.
I see. I’m interested in any hobbies you have and in how
your retirement years have gone.
An interest that my son and I have is that we got involved with
A throwback to your father's automobile business?
Yes. My son and I made it a point to follow the Formula 1, which
is a world-class, really the high-tech part of auto racing, the
open wheel racing. It really is the ultimate capability in a machine
itself and the best of the drivers. We became enthusiasts, and
we traveled to the races. I always thought I’d like to go
to Monte Carlo to see the race there through the streets, so we
Then I decided I’d like to try driving on the racetrack.
So I ended up with a Lotus Elan, a little British sports car, and
had that rebuilt. I got a BMW 2002 and had that updated. We’d
drive it on the track. The Elan, I did a lot of auto crossing with
that, which is where a course is laid out on a big parking lot.
It’s a function of how well the driver can do, racing against
the clock. We did well on that.
And then I got involved with digital photography. I became very
interested in the Photoshop aspect of handling and processing digital
images. So I signed up for a couple of courses at the community
college. Bought the program, a fantastic, powerful program. It
was a way of keeping the brain exercised.
Yes, enhancing images. A lot of personal pictures, being able
to improve and develop those. But I don’t profess to be a
You haven’t turned that into a business?
No. I don’t think we need that. So that’s an activity.
We moved into a retirement community. It’s about 2,000 residents
on a 100-acre campus. They have lots of activities going on, so
I’ve gotten involved in that. I'm limping along with a sprained
ankle now because of playing softball. So I am able to keep occupied.
I wanted to ask about your involvement with professional societies.
I know you were with the American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics. That was your principle professional society over
Did you join that early on?
Yes, shortly after I graduated from college. Just seemed to have
an interest in that.
And that was before you got into the aeronautics business.
Right. But later on, the AIAA began to broaden their scope. They
began to have specialties in sensors and electronics and that sort
of thing. So I began to focus in on that.
I see. So they have technical groups in those areas?
Yes, technical groups and meetings and journals.
Did you go to AIAA meetings?
Yes, I’d go to several of them. As part of the local group,
you can meet your peers. I was able to end up as an Associate Fellow
within the AIAA based on experience.
Did you value their publications over the years?
I did early on, but then as I got more and more into the management
side of the thing, their general publications were a way of keeping
Were there other professional societies you were involved with?
Not actively. Since retirement, there's another thing that I’ve
done. I have an associate at Charlestown who is a retiree from
the Applied Physics Lab of Johns Hopkins. And at the lab there
they have a weekly colloquium as they call them. I look at it as
kind of a staff development where they have top-notch speakers
that come in and present hour or two-hour sessions on various topics.
He’s invited me to go to that, and I’ve been a fairly
regular attendee. That's a way to keep current with what’s
going on in technology, as well as through general publications.
One speaker was the retired chairman of the medical group at University
of Maryland who gave an hour presentation on his perspective of
healthcare in the future. He was a very distinguished individual,
very interesting. So it is a broad area of topics that kind of
keeps you challenged and keeps you thinking.
That’s wonderful. Since I'm at the IEEE History Center,
I wonder if you’ve had any involvement with IEEE
Aeronautics and Electronic Systems Society.
I’ve attended some of the meetings, as a matter of fact,
but I have not been actively involved.
Are there any things I haven’t thought to ask about that
you’d care to comment on?
I think you’ve done an excellent job of bringing out all
aspects and covering the main highlights. I guess the final thing
that I would say is that I’ve enjoyed my career, it has been
a good experience being associated with some outstanding individuals,
and so I’m comfortable with it.
Thank you very much.
You’re quite welcome. And thank you for your time.