Family says grounded Navy pilot's record being ignored

[IBNAV8R]

I'm willing to bet this is not an isolated incident with these guys. 'Professional pilots' with no history of hot dogging, don't just one day decide they are going to pull a single stunt and then never do it again.

There are thousands of blackened craters that never should have happened because squadron mates and skippers didn't want to tarnish a "good guy's" record.

Long, but a good read
http://www.crm-devel.org/resources/paper/darkblue/darkblue.htm

For better or worse, aviation is a pretty small community. These guys might find a job but their deeds will follow them.

 

[pilotyip]

Hot pilots = dead pilots

I'm willing to bet this is not an isolated incident with these guys. 'Professional pilots' with no history of hot dogging, don't just one day decide they are going to pull a single stunt and then never do it again.

Curtis Lemay ran across this when he took over SAC in the late 40's. Every time there was a crash, it was almost always reported that this was one of the best pilots in the squadron. He wondered how come not so good pilots don't crash as much. He found the hot piltos were always pushing the envelope, not using checklists, or taking input from anyone else. The average pilots, not having the same skill set, stayed inside the rules, used checklists, and asked for help when they were having problems. He fixed that, he was really big on training. I am really an average pilot

 

[Singlecoil]

I'm sure everyone in military aviation today is aware of this accident: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Fairchild_Air_Force_Base_B-52_crash

I shouldn't come as a a surprise that the command structure would take incidents like these seriously after accidents like that.

 

[IBNAV8R]

I highly recommend Darker Shades of Blue: The Rogue Pilot, by Tony Kern

 

[SIG600]

I'm willing to bet this is not an isolated incident with these guys. 'Professional pilots' with no history of hot dogging, don't just one day decide they are going to pull a single stunt and then never do it again.

Not true. One was a highly respected RAG instructor, who I spent many hours with over Iraq.

Talked with the guys in the squadron. The rumors of lying are completely untrue as well.

The simple fact of the matter is the Admiral made an example out of them. Future flyover participants have been warned. Although with that said, there are others as well that have had their wings clipped for fly over antics before this incident.

You can be completely within the letter of the law (not saying these guys were), however there is a clause in OPNAV 3710 that it only takes one person on the ground to feel there was something unsafe or they were put at risk, and you're guilty until proven innocent. I'm curious if anything would have ever come of this if they hadn't owned up to it on their own. Guess we'll never know.

 

[jmreii]

should not effect them, there is no way other than the pilot confessing that they did it, for the prospective employer to find out. PIRA does not go into military training. An easy answer that has been heard by many a recruiter is "There was a lack of flying opportunities for me in the Navy" It also depends upon the hiring cycle and I am getting out because I love flying airplanes, with the coming 2012 hiring boom they would be in good shape.

I would never tell on myself, I just worry about other people who have knowledge of my secret revealing my secret to someone else, which is the way most people get in trouble with anything they are attempting to hide.

 

[transpac]

Permanent ground assignments. Ouch!

I have a question. Say these guys decide to cut their losses and resign as soon as their commitment to the Navy is satisfied...then pursue a civilian career in aviation.

Is the information on this incident something a potential civilian airline employer would have access to?

To bottom line it...are they screwed future flying job-wise too?

If they have FAA Certificates the feds could go after them in addition to whatever the military does. It doesn't happen often, but it's considered in most high-profile cases. It also happens when the military and FAA disagree on the action taken by the military to resolve a case. I know of a case that a Warthog pilot decided to repeatedly buzz his hometown. It was a major deal and scared some folks witless. The FAA disagreed with the action taken by the AF and ended up revoking the pilot's Commercial certificate. Personally, I thought the Navy fly-by was pretty lame and that the brass greatly over reacted. Other than being low there was no hot-dogging going on and there was certainly no danger to the public.

 

[CatfishVT9]

I haven't been on here for a while so I just saw this thread. I have a unique perspective on this issue as to how the FNAEB (Filed Naval Aviator Evaluation Board)process works. I was on the COMNAVAIRLANT staff from 1998-2000 and it was my job to process every one of these that came to the Admiral.

While I don't know specifics of this case, there were several that were similar in nature that crossed my desk. When one of these boards is convened, they are tasked with evaluating the factors of the incident and making a detailed report to the squadron's CO. He then endorses it with his recommendations and forwards it up the chain of command through his CAG or Typewing Commander and then to Airlant. When it gets there, we would convene a review panel of about 5 Officers, usually Commanders and Captains to review the package and then interview the individual. Normally, at least one or two of the reviewers was qualified in the aircraft in question. The tone of these was different every time and would depend on the individual and how thorough the FNAEB looked at the case. Some guys needed a sympathetic ear and some needed a boot in the arse that they didn't get from their CO. After that, I would compile a summary of the meeting, forward it to the Admiral with the panel's recommendation, and schedule a face to face between the Avaiator and Admiral where he would make his final decision.

Very rarely, the Admiral would make a decision counter to the chain of command. When he did, it was due to a whitewash of the event because he was "the best pilot", or maybe they hadn't given the guy a fair shake and wanted to get rid of him. Those type of cases would really piss off the review panel and the Admiral too. Those COs usually got a personal response directly from the Admiral. Not fun.

I don't ever remember anyone removed from flight status that was a contentious case and against the chain of command recommendation, but there were certainly a few that if the Admiral had made that decision, it would have been understandable. It could be that in this case, there were extenuating issues that aren't public knowledge, or there had been a rise in incidents throughout the fleet and a signal was needed.

I don't know if the review process has changed, but if it has, it's still probably pretty close to what I described.

 

[Redmeat]

^^^

Very informative. Thanks for taking the time to post that up.

 

[Pistlpetet]

From the article..."Instead of looking at what went wrong, why didn't anyone see the 2,500 hours of what went right?"

Cause that is the world we live in today, and we all have to accept that fact.

That flyby looked pretty "Weak" in my opinion, but maybe I have been watching too many vids of the top ten flybys