Two F-18E pilots permanently grounded after Nov 7th Georgia Tech football game low flyover - Page 7

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Two F-18E pilots permanently grounded after Nov 7th Georgia Tech football game low flyover (Page 7 of 11)

Posted: 3/19/2010 7:53:18 PM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Please cite example where mil plane has crashed into stadium. I'll be awaiting response.

Please explain why the fact that it has never happened matters. I can cite a host of occurances where .mil aircraft have turned themselves into smoking holes while show-boating... but you can use google as well as me. There is even one instance of a Tomcat just tearing itself apart (for no real discernable reason) during a fly-by of an aircraft carrier... even when the aircrew was doing everything by the book. Shit happens when dealing with tactical aircraft... no reason to place innocent people at unnecessary risk.

Honestly, I think I'm done arguing with the uninformed. The rules are there for a reason (sometimes they're written in blood, and sometimes they're written in litigation). Break them, and you'll get in trouble. Break them and LIE about it... and you'll lose your wings. The world of tactical aviation really is that simple. We all know it... we all abide by it. If you think it's unfair, you are free to earn yourself a pair of golden (or lead) wings and change the system.... or you can keep bitching about how unfair life is on the internet.

When you guys can go a year without wrecking planes, ships or boats, then you can talk down to all us po folk who fund your vocation.

http://www.navytimes.com/xml/news/2009/11/navy_hartford_111509w/032309_hartford3_800.JPG

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/USS_Port_Royal_grounded.jpg

http://www.maritimequest.com/in_the_news_pages/uss_san_francisco_grounding/04_uss_san_francisco_damage.jpg

If we had your track record in the medical industry we would be crucified. Of course, you don't design the sh!t, you just play with the end product.

I think you're getting your panties in a bunch over the wrong thing. What you're advocating by going against V21 is more risk to an already risky profession that has subs hit ships, ships run aground, aircraft collide in flight (as has happened recently) or crash into the sea (again as has happened recently). There is a reason why we are so harsh when it comes to mistakes. Mistakes are preventable. And by not following the rules, by not mitigating the risk, you're increasing the level of danger. Why do you think the USN has fired something like 22 or 24 COs last year and another 7 this year? It's because by not following the rules, by losing the confidence of their seniors, they can no longer be trusted to make good decisions.

So what, two O-4s got "fired" from their jobs. Do you know how many more are fired each year? These guys just got publicity because they were stupid on camera. The others are nameless, faceless masses, who make bad decisions, who lose the confidence of their seniors just like these two yahoos. We won't even get to the hundreds of officers each year that don't make the cut to the next level because they are merely competent. (In a community of a couple thousand, it's a very large percentage, btw.)

I think the caliber of people who served under Rickover are head and shoulders above the ding dongs that are wrecking sh!t left & right.

And I have worked with both and there is no comparison.

Posted: 3/19/2010 7:53:41 PM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Please cite example where mil plane has crashed into stadium. I'll be awaiting response.

Please explain why the fact that it has never happened matters. I can cite a host of occurances where .mil aircraft have turned themselves into smoking holes while show-boating... but you can use google as well as me. There is even one instance of a Tomcat just tearing itself apart (for no real discernable reason) during a fly-by of an aircraft carrier... even when the aircrew was doing everything by the book. Shit happens when dealing with tactical aircraft... no reason to place innocent people at unnecessary risk.

Honestly, I think I'm done arguing with the uninformed. The rules are there for a reason (sometimes they're written in blood, and sometimes they're written in litigation). Break them, and you'll get in trouble. Break them and LIE about it... and you'll lose your wings. The world of tactical aviation really is that simple. We all know it... we all abide by it. If you think it's unfair, you are free to earn yourself a pair of golden (or lead) wings and change the system.... or you can keep bitching about how unfair life is on the internet.

When you guys can go a year without wrecking planes, ships or boats, then you can talk down to all us po folk who fund your vocation.

http://www.navytimes.com/xml/news/2009/11/navy_hartford_111509w/032309_hartford3_800.JPG

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/USS_Port_Royal_grounded.jpg

http://www.maritimequest.com/in_the_news_pages/uss_san_francisco_grounding/04_uss_san_francisco_damage.jpg

If we had your track record in the medical industry we would be crucified. Of course, you don't design the sh!t, you just play with the end product.

OK, let me get this right.

Valheru got tired of arguing against people who were defending the pilot's unsafe actions, so you try and discredit him by pointing out examples of accidents?

Valheru was condemning unsafe actions.... you bring up accidents.....

Dude it's GD, the arguments don't have to be...well you know...logical.

Posted: 3/19/2010 7:54:21 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
A major waste of training dollars, spank and put them back in the cockpit.

I just want to refer back to an earlier post of mine about accountability.

Posted: 3/19/2010 7:55:26 PM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
A major waste of training dollars, spank and put them back in the cockpit.

I disagree, 'cause these guys should have known better than to do what they did.

Posted: 3/19/2010 7:56:00 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Please cite example where mil plane has crashed into stadium. I'll be awaiting response.

Please explain why the fact that it has never happened matters. I can cite a host of occurances where .mil aircraft have turned themselves into smoking holes while show-boating... but you can use google as well as me. There is even one instance of a Tomcat just tearing itself apart (for no real discernable reason) during a fly-by of an aircraft carrier... even when the aircrew was doing everything by the book. Shit happens when dealing with tactical aircraft... no reason to place innocent people at unnecessary risk.

Honestly, I think I'm done arguing with the uninformed. The rules are there for a reason (sometimes they're written in blood, and sometimes they're written in litigation). Break them, and you'll get in trouble. Break them and LIE about it... and you'll lose your wings. The world of tactical aviation really is that simple. We all know it... we all abide by it. If you think it's unfair, you are free to earn yourself a pair of golden (or lead) wings and change the system.... or you can keep bitching about how unfair life is on the internet.

When you guys can go a year without wrecking planes, ships or boats, then you can talk down to all us po folk who fund your vocation.

http://www.navytimes.com/xml/news/2009/11/navy_hartford_111509w/032309_hartford3_800.JPG

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/USS_Port_Royal_grounded.jpg

http://www.maritimequest.com/in_the_news_pages/uss_san_francisco_grounding/04_uss_san_francisco_damage.jpg

If we had your track record in the medical industry we would be crucified. Of course, you don't design the sh!t, you just play with the end product.

I think you're getting your panties in a bunch over the wrong thing. What you're advocating by going against V21 is more risk to an already risky profession that has subs hit ships, ships run aground, aircraft collide in flight (as has happened recently) or crash into the sea (again as has happened recently). There is a reason why we are so harsh when it comes to mistakes. Mistakes are preventable. And by not following the rules, by not mitigating the risk, you're increasing the level of danger. Why do you think the USN has fired something like 22 or 24 COs last year and another 7 this year? It's because by not following the rules, by losing the confidence of their seniors, they can no longer be trusted to make good decisions.

So what, two O-4s got "fired" from their jobs. Do you know how many more are fired each year? These guys just got publicity because they were stupid on camera. The others are nameless, faceless masses, who make bad decisions, who lose the confidence of their seniors just like these two yahoos. We won't even get to the hundreds of officers each year that don't make the cut to the next level because they are merely competent. (In a community of a couple thousand, it's a very large percentage, btw.)

I think the caliber of people who served under Rickover are head and shoulders above the ding dongs that are wrecking sh!t left & right.

And I have worked with both and there is no comparison.

And my argument completely escaped you I see. WTF does Rickover have to do with anything? We've had a bunch of reactor accidents since he left.

Posted: 3/19/2010 7:57:12 PM EDT

[#6]

I see the three of the most senior active duty Navy people on this board all agree they got what they deserved. And senior USAF personnel are also agreeing. I do believe they call that a "clue."

Posted: 3/19/2010 7:58:20 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:

OK, let me get this right.

Valheru got tired of arguing against people who were defending the pilot's unsafe actions, so you try and discredit him by pointing out examples of accidents?

Valheru was condemning unsafe actions.... you bring up accidents.....

And also condemning me because I'm uninformed? I haven't even gotten into the meat of an argument, I was just simply asking for examples of stadium crashes, because I thought there might have been one at some point that I missed in google search. (Read: I haven't even posted an opinion, yet was called uninformed right away)

I agree that pointing out accidents doesn't really do much at all for the argument here, but he's the one pointing out planes breaking up. That only shows that stuff happens no matter what the rules are........ And that's my argument. Not defending the pilots in any way, just seems like an oxymoron to me.

Posted: 3/19/2010 8:02:39 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:

Quoted:

OK, let me get this right.

Valheru got tired of arguing against people who were defending the pilot's unsafe actions, so you try and discredit him by pointing out examples of accidents?

Valheru was condemning unsafe actions.... you bring up accidents.....

And also condemning me because I'm uninformed? I haven't even gotten into the meat of an argument, I was just simply asking for examples of stadium crashes, because I thought there might have been one at some point that I missed in google search. (Read: I haven't even posted an opinion, yet was called uninformed right away)

I agree that pointing out accidents doesn't really do much at all for the argument here, but he's the one pointing out planes breaking up. That only shows that stuff happens no matter what the rules are........ And that's my argument. Not defending the pilots in any way, just seems like an oxymoron to me.

I don't pretend to speak for V21, but I think he's just frustrated at the second-guessing. In GD the masses cry for politicians, police, judges, etc, to be held accountable. But not in this case, for whatever reason.

Posted: 3/19/2010 8:04:08 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:

Quoted:

OK, let me get this right.

Valheru got tired of arguing against people who were defending the pilot's unsafe actions, so you try and discredit him by pointing out examples of accidents?

Valheru was condemning unsafe actions.... you bring up accidents.....

And also condemning me because I'm uninformed? I haven't even gotten into the meat of an argument, I was just simply asking for examples of stadium crashes, because I thought there might have been one at some point that I missed in google search. (Read: I haven't even posted an opinion, yet was called uninformed right away)

I agree that pointing out accidents doesn't really do much at all for the argument here, but he's the one pointing out planes breaking up. That only shows that stuff happens no matter what the rules are........ And that's my argument. Not defending the pilots in any way, just seems like an oxymoron to me.

Then I recommend you go back through the thread and read the numerous posts about risk analysis and mitigation. It's a cost benefit analysis and there is no good reason to fly an aircraft 500' above 15,000 people.

Unless you're an aviator, you are relatively uninformed. That isn't a personal attack its just a fact. I'm sure there are things you know plenty more about than I do and I would be equally misguided to argue about it.

Posted: 3/19/2010 8:06:03 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Please cite example where mil plane has crashed into stadium. I'll be awaiting response.

Please explain why the fact that it has never happened matters. I can cite a host of occurances where .mil aircraft have turned themselves into smoking holes while show-boating... but you can use google as well as me. There is even one instance of a Tomcat just tearing itself apart (for no real discernable reason) during a fly-by of an aircraft carrier... even when the aircrew was doing everything by the book. Shit happens when dealing with tactical aircraft... no reason to place innocent people at unnecessary risk.

Honestly, I think I'm done arguing with the uninformed. The rules are there for a reason (sometimes they're written in blood, and sometimes they're written in litigation). Break them, and you'll get in trouble. Break them and LIE about it... and you'll lose your wings. The world of tactical aviation really is that simple. We all know it... we all abide by it. If you think it's unfair, you are free to earn yourself a pair of golden (or lead) wings and change the system.... or you can keep bitching about how unfair life is on the internet.

When you guys can go a year without wrecking planes, ships or boats, then you can talk down to all us po folk who fund your vocation.

http://www.navytimes.com/xml/news/2009/11/navy_hartford_111509w/032309_hartford3_800.JPG

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/USS_Port_Royal_grounded.jpg

http://www.maritimequest.com/in_the_news_pages/uss_san_francisco_grounding/04_uss_san_francisco_damage.jpg

If we had your track record in the medical industry we would be crucified. Of course, you don't design the sh!t, you just play with the end product.

Are you fucking serious??

Your record in the medical community is FAR worse than anything the Navy has ever done.

Should I start listing incorrect organs removed, incorrect limbs amputated, blood type fuckups, surgeons drunk on duty, patients dead because their doctor misdiagnosed them?? You guys make the news every single day!

Posted: 3/19/2010 8:06:14 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:

Quoted:

OK, let me get this right.

Valheru got tired of arguing against people who were defending the pilot's unsafe actions, so you try and discredit him by pointing out examples of accidents?

Valheru was condemning unsafe actions.... you bring up accidents.....

And also condemning me because I'm uninformed? I haven't even gotten into the meat of an argument, I was just simply asking for examples of stadium crashes, because I thought there might have been one at some point that I missed in google search. (Read: I haven't even posted an opinion, yet was called uninformed right away)

I agree that pointing out accidents doesn't really do much at all for the argument here, but he's the one pointing out planes breaking up. That only shows that stuff happens no matter what the rules are........ And that's my argument. Not defending the pilots in any way, just seems like an oxymoron to me.

I don't think you understand the Type A personality. The rules exist, not because 1000 feet is the SAFEST altitude, but because it is AN altitude that IS mostly safe. If you just say, "go fly over that stadium," to Naval Aviators, after three or four iterations of the pilots trying to one-up each other, the Hornets will come back with grass stains on their tail-cans. And, I guaran-damn-tee you they would be safe while acquiring said stains. That isn't the point. The point is, there are rules to prevent bad shit from happening. You follow them unless there is a COMPELLING reason to break them (like saving the lives of ground troops from enemy fire). Showing off to a stadium full of people is not a compelling reason. It really is that simple. If you allow an O-4 and and O-5 to break the rules, what does that tell the O-3 and O-2? It tells them to go see about getting some grass-stains on the tail-cans.

There are a lot of junior pilots who say, "fuck the rules, I'm going to fly the way I want..." Whenever I meet them, I tell them, "if you're such a hot-shot, follow the rules for one entire flight...." Most can't do it*... If you're truly a shit-hot pilot, you can fly an entire flight and follow EVERY single FAR and SOP rule in the book. If you can prove to me that you can do that on a regular basis, we can talk - until then? Don't bother telling me how cool you are.

*Before you condemn pilots for being unprofessional, go hop in your car, drive around for two hours and see if you can follow EVERY single traffic law on the books for the duration of your drive.

Posted: 3/19/2010 8:06:53 PM EDT

[#12]

Sound of freedom, boys!

Posted: 3/19/2010 8:07:36 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:

Quoted:

OK, let me get this right.

Valheru got tired of arguing against people who were defending the pilot's unsafe actions, so you try and discredit him by pointing out examples of accidents?

Valheru was condemning unsafe actions.... you bring up accidents.....

And also condemning me because I'm uninformed? I haven't even gotten into the meat of an argument, I was just simply asking for examples of stadium crashes, because I thought there might have been one at some point that I missed in google search. (Read: I haven't even posted an opinion, yet was called uninformed right away)

I agree that pointing out accidents doesn't really do much at all for the argument here, but he's the one pointing out planes breaking up. That only shows that stuff happens no matter what the rules are........ And that's my argument. Not defending the pilots in any way, just seems like an oxymoron to me.

I don't pretend to speak for V21, but I think he's just frustrated at the second-guessing. In GD the masses cry for politicians, police, judges, etc, to be held accountable. But not in this case, for whatever reason.

God forbid!!

Posted: 3/19/2010 8:08:25 PM EDT

[#14]

These guys were dumb. They knew better and are now paying the price. The real kicker here that many missed is the fact they lied to the investigators. Honestly, I think they would have gotten a slap on the wrist if they just admitted to what they did. When they lied they put their heads on the chopping block.

The Navy decided a fly-by was worth while for recruiting or whatever. They mitigated the risk by setting 1000' AGL as the min altitude for the event in case something did happen. As others mentioned, at 1000' AGL or 500' AGL there is not a lot of time to correct for aircraft issues. Ask the F-117 pilot who had his aircraft fall apart around him on an airshow fly-by.

And note that airshows are specially sanctioned by the FAA and military flight demo teams. The FAA closes all the airspace around an area based on the speed of the aircraft participating. The faster the aircraft the bigger the safe zone they create. Ask the folks who died in the crash at Ramstein AB, Germany why this might be important... And the demo teams are not performing these maneuvers off the cuff or at the spur of the moment. They spend a great deal of time and effort ensuring what they do is as safe as possible. Even with those precautions stuff happens and they've crashed more than once.

Spooky

Posted: 3/19/2010 8:10:39 PM EDT

[#15]

Whether you think they should be punished or not, this was definitely a case of making an example. Setting a precedent.

Posted: 3/19/2010 8:11:07 PM EDT

[#16]

Who was that airforce colonel who constantly did stupid shit like that?

And then he drove his B-52 into the ground, killing himself, the co-pilot, and everyone else on the plane.

Posted: 3/19/2010 8:13:13 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Well I'm not saying it's a bad rule. I'm sure the # of flight "hours" over stadiums is quite low compared to the rest of the training hour activities in mil jets.

I'm just saying, look at the totality of the circumstances. Didn't seem high speed. No crazy maneuvers. No upside down/inverted flyover at 100ft above the stadium. Just a straight up fly over, lower that the posted alt. If they had just misconfigured the alt or misread the RA (a mistake), should they lose wings over a mistake? (I openly admit I'm just basing my opinions on the video I watched)

Yes, let's look at the totality of the circumstance from an organizational view. The flyovers offer what to the Navy? A recruiting tool. You can accomplish recruiting with far less risky options, like a TV ad. This particular recruiting tool only reaches a couple of thousand people. A TV ad reaches millions. Can you effectively employ an aircraft as a recruiting tool at 1k feet? Yes. So why add the increased risk to the pilot, the airframe, and the crowd by flying at 500' when you can accomplish your mission at 1kft and give the pilots almost double the time to react to an inflight emergency, increasing their margin for error, etc.?

All it takes is one mishap over a crowded stadium, and then where is the Navy's recruiting efforts? How many millions of dollars will it take to replace the aircraft, pay the families of those killed or injured, repair property, pay for new pilot training, etc.

So explain to me how the increased risk of flying lower over a populated area is worth the severity of the possible negative consequences?

Recruiting purposes or not, they are accepting a certain level of risk by doing the fly-overs. I don't see the recruiting reasoning behind it having much weight in the safety argument here. It could just as well be required to be 5000 feet above. But then, that might not have quite the impact on recruiting now would it, since the plane is more of a speck in the sky. They are obviously taking risk by making it 1000 ft. How low is enough here?

And i totally agree, 500 vs 1000 ft gives a margin for a lot of things that can go wrong. They broke a rule. They slightly increased the danger here. Danger is still there. There is obviously danger in low flying in a populated area, as you put in your last question. But again, they are recruiting despite the danger.

Posted: 3/19/2010 8:14:21 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
Who was that airforce colonel who constantly did stupid shit like that?

And then he drove his B-52 into the ground, killing himself, the co-pilot, and everyone else on the plane.

Bud Holland

Posted: 3/19/2010 8:15:36 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Please cite example where mil plane has crashed into stadium. I'll be awaiting response.

Please explain why the fact that it has never happened matters. I can cite a host of occurances where .mil aircraft have turned themselves into smoking holes while show-boating... but you can use google as well as me. There is even one instance of a Tomcat just tearing itself apart (for no real discernable reason) during a fly-by of an aircraft carrier... even when the aircrew was doing everything by the book. Shit happens when dealing with tactical aircraft... no reason to place innocent people at unnecessary risk.

Honestly, I think I'm done arguing with the uninformed. The rules are there for a reason (sometimes they're written in blood, and sometimes they're written in litigation). Break them, and you'll get in trouble. Break them and LIE about it... and you'll lose your wings. The world of tactical aviation really is that simple. We all know it... we all abide by it. If you think it's unfair, you are free to earn yourself a pair of golden (or lead) wings and change the system.... or you can keep bitching about how unfair life is on the internet.

When you guys can go a year without wrecking planes, ships or boats, then you can talk down to all us po folk who fund your vocation.

http://www.navytimes.com/xml/news/2009/11/navy_hartford_111509w/032309_hartford3_800.JPG

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/USS_Port_Royal_grounded.jpg

http://www.maritimequest.com/in_the_news_pages/uss_san_francisco_grounding/04_uss_san_francisco_damage.jpg

If we had your track record in the medical industry we would be crucified. Of course, you don't design the sh!t, you just play with the end product.

Are you fucking serious??

Your record in the medical community is FAR worse than anything the Navy has ever done.

Should I start listing incorrect organs removed, incorrect limbs amputated, blood type fuckups, surgeons drunk on duty, patients dead because their doctor misdiagnosed them?? You guys make the news every single day!

Oh hell yes, bring it.

She's still employed. Might as well be the UAW.

Posted: 3/19/2010 8:17:45 PM EDT

[#20]

Punished by Naval officers who CAN'T safely operate a tactical aircraft below 1000'...

Probably the same people who put a 500' restriction on the MudEagle guys in the sandbox prepping for GW1 (where they would be required to fly below 100' to avoid detection).

I say again: Anyone over the rank of O-5 is a politician and should be regarded with suspicion.

TC

Posted: 3/19/2010 8:17:48 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Please cite example where mil plane has crashed into stadium. I'll be awaiting response.

Please explain why the fact that it has never happened matters. I can cite a host of occurances where .mil aircraft have turned themselves into smoking holes while show-boating... but you can use google as well as me. There is even one instance of a Tomcat just tearing itself apart (for no real discernable reason) during a fly-by of an aircraft carrier... even when the aircrew was doing everything by the book. Shit happens when dealing with tactical aircraft... no reason to place innocent people at unnecessary risk.

Honestly, I think I'm done arguing with the uninformed. The rules are there for a reason (sometimes they're written in blood, and sometimes they're written in litigation). Break them, and you'll get in trouble. Break them and LIE about it... and you'll lose your wings. The world of tactical aviation really is that simple. We all know it... we all abide by it. If you think it's unfair, you are free to earn yourself a pair of golden (or lead) wings and change the system.... or you can keep bitching about how unfair life is on the internet.

When you guys can go a year without wrecking planes, ships or boats, then you can talk down to all us po folk who fund your vocation.

http://www.navytimes.com/xml/news/2009/11/navy_hartford_111509w/032309_hartford3_800.JPG

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/USS_Port_Royal_grounded.jpg

http://www.maritimequest.com/in_the_news_pages/uss_san_francisco_grounding/04_uss_san_francisco_damage.jpg

If we had your track record in the medical industry we would be crucified. Of course, you don't design the sh!t, you just play with the end product.

Are you fucking serious??

Your record in the medical community is FAR worse than anything the Navy has ever done.

Should I start listing incorrect organs removed, incorrect limbs amputated, blood type fuckups, surgeons drunk on duty, patients dead because their doctor misdiagnosed them?? You guys make the news every single day!

Oh hell yes, bring it.

http://www.cowpensvets.org/co/graf.jpg

She's still employed. Might as well be the UAW.

So you're comparing safety, which was the original point, to bad personalities? She's employed, but dead-ended, and won't be employed for long.

Posted: 3/19/2010 8:17:50 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
I see no reason for grounding.

I'm suprised they will not get kicked out. As fairly senior naval officers, they should know how this will bring bad publicity to the US Navy. These officers are NOT stupid college students anymore. My guess is that they were caught up in the moment and realized the error upon landing and reported the incident.

I have worked in naval aviation for over 20 yrs and know how seriously they take any infraction, never mind one that takes place in front of thousands of civilians.

Posted: 3/19/2010 8:18:51 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Please cite example where mil plane has crashed into stadium. I'll be awaiting response.

Please explain why the fact that it has never happened matters. I can cite a host of occurances where .mil aircraft have turned themselves into smoking holes while show-boating... but you can use google as well as me. There is even one instance of a Tomcat just tearing itself apart (for no real discernable reason) during a fly-by of an aircraft carrier... even when the aircrew was doing everything by the book. Shit happens when dealing with tactical aircraft... no reason to place innocent people at unnecessary risk.

Honestly, I think I'm done arguing with the uninformed. The rules are there for a reason (sometimes they're written in blood, and sometimes they're written in litigation). Break them, and you'll get in trouble. Break them and LIE about it... and you'll lose your wings. The world of tactical aviation really is that simple. We all know it... we all abide by it. If you think it's unfair, you are free to earn yourself a pair of golden (or lead) wings and change the system.... or you can keep bitching about how unfair life is on the internet.

When you guys can go a year without wrecking planes, ships or boats, then you can talk down to all us po folk who fund your vocation.

http://www.navytimes.com/xml/news/2009/11/navy_hartford_111509w/032309_hartford3_800.JPG

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/USS_Port_Royal_grounded.jpg

http://www.maritimequest.com/in_the_news_pages/uss_san_francisco_grounding/04_uss_san_francisco_damage.jpg

If we had your track record in the medical industry we would be crucified. Of course, you don't design the sh!t, you just play with the end product.

Are you fucking serious??

Your record in the medical community is FAR worse than anything the Navy has ever done.

Should I start listing incorrect organs removed, incorrect limbs amputated, blood type fuckups, surgeons drunk on duty, patients dead because their doctor misdiagnosed them?? You guys make the news every single day!

Oh hell yes, bring it.

http://www.cowpensvets.org/co/graf.jpg

She's still employed. Might as well be the UAW.

Yes, she's in Dahlgren, waiting on her board. "Employed" is a relative term. She's been relieved of command, her career is over.

Posted: 3/19/2010 8:19:59 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
I was just simply asking for examples of stadium crashes, because I thought there might have been one at some point that I missed in google search.

IIRC, in "A Fighter Pilot's Story," Aanenson mentions a showboating pilot who flew into the open end of the (then) horseshoe shaped Tiger Stadium at LSU, lost control pulling out, and crashed into the riverbank. Only thing that comes immediately to mind; I don't think the pilot actually crashed into the stadium itself; I don't even recall that there was anything going on in the stadium at the time. But it's been a long time since I've seen that documentary, and I haven't found any documentation online (yet). FWIW.

Posted: 3/19/2010 8:20:40 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
Punished by Naval officers who CAN'T safely operate a tactical aircraft below 1000'...

Probably the same people who put a 500' restriction on the MudEagle guys in the sandbox prepping for GW1 (where they would be required to fly below 100' to avoid detection).

I say again: Anyone over the rank of O-5 is a politician and should be regarded with suspicion.

TC

You do know that restriction showed up because two guys rode one into the sand right?

Posted: 3/19/2010 8:20:47 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
Punished by Naval officers who CAN'T safely operate a tactical aircraft below 1000'...

Probably the same people who put a 500' restriction on the MudEagle guys in the sandbox prepping for GW1 (where they would be required to fly below 100' to avoid detection).

I say again: Anyone over the rank of O-5 is a politician and should be regarded with suspicion.

TC

??

The Admiral who grounded them has been a rated Naval Aviator for something like 33 years. He's also a test pilot. I'm quite sure he's capable of flying any aircraft to its limits.

Posted: 3/19/2010 8:21:12 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Well I'm not saying it's a bad rule. I'm sure the # of flight "hours" over stadiums is quite low compared to the rest of the training hour activities in mil jets.

I'm just saying, look at the totality of the circumstances. Didn't seem high speed. No crazy maneuvers. No upside down/inverted flyover at 100ft above the stadium. Just a straight up fly over, lower that the posted alt. If they had just misconfigured the alt or misread the RA (a mistake), should they lose wings over a mistake? (I openly admit I'm just basing my opinions on the video I watched)

Yes, let's look at the totality of the circumstance from an organizational view. The flyovers offer what to the Navy? A recruiting tool. You can accomplish recruiting with far less risky options, like a TV ad. This particular recruiting tool only reaches a couple of thousand people. A TV ad reaches millions. Can you effectively employ an aircraft as a recruiting tool at 1k feet? Yes. So why add the increased risk to the pilot, the airframe, and the crowd by flying at 500' when you can accomplish your mission at 1kft and give the pilots almost double the time to react to an inflight emergency, increasing their margin for error, etc.?

All it takes is one mishap over a crowded stadium, and then where is the Navy's recruiting efforts? How many millions of dollars will it take to replace the aircraft, pay the families of those killed or injured, repair property, pay for new pilot training, etc.

So explain to me how the increased risk of flying lower over a populated area is worth the severity of the possible negative consequences?

Recruiting purposes or not, they are accepting a certain level of risk by doing the fly-overs. I don't see the recruiting reasoning behind it having much weight in the safety argument here. It could just as well be required to be 5000 feet above. But then, that might not have quite the impact on recruiting now would it, since the plane is more of a speck in the sky. They are obviously taking risk by making it 1000 ft. How low is enough here?

And i totally agree, 500 vs 1000 ft gives a margin for a lot of things that can go wrong. They broke a rule. They slightly increased the danger here. Danger is still there. There is obviously danger in low flying in a populated area, as you put in your last question. But again, they are recruiting despite the danger.

What you're missing is the danger-altitude curve. Someone, more likely some people, all aviators (they sure as hell ain't gonna let a shoe do it) got together and decided where the cutoff was between acceptable an unacceptable risk. They decided that 1kft was the cutoff for this particular evolution. The pilots that were assigned the "mission" knew it. The pilots that were assigned the mission decided to take on more risk when it was not their place to do so.

Posted: 3/19/2010 8:23:23 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:

Quoted:

OK, let me get this right.

Valheru got tired of arguing against people who were defending the pilot's unsafe actions, so you try and discredit him by pointing out examples of accidents?

Valheru was condemning unsafe actions.... you bring up accidents.....

And also condemning me because I'm uninformed? I haven't even gotten into the meat of an argument, I was just simply asking for examples of stadium crashes, because I thought there might have been one at some point that I missed in google search. (Read: I haven't even posted an opinion, yet was called uninformed right away)

I agree that pointing out accidents doesn't really do much at all for the argument here, but he's the one pointing out planes breaking up. That only shows that stuff happens no matter what the rules are........ And that's my argument. Not defending the pilots in any way, just seems like an oxymoron to me.

I don't think you understand the Type A personality. The rules exist, not because 1000 feet is the SAFEST altitude, but because it is AN altitude that IS mostly safe. If you just say, "go fly over that stadium," to Naval Aviators, after three or four iterations of the pilots trying to one-up each other, the Hornets will come back with grass stains on their tail-cans. And, I guaran-damn-tee you they would be safe while acquiring said stains. That isn't the point. The point is, there are rules to prevent bad shit from happening. You follow them unless there is a COMPELLING reason to break them (like saving the lives of ground troops from enemy fire). Showing off to a stadium full of people is not a compelling reason. It really is that simple. If you allow an O-4 and and O-5 to break the rules, what does that tell the O-3 and O-2? It tells them to go see about getting some grass-stains on the tail-cans.

There are a lot of junior pilots who say, "fuck the rules, I'm going to fly the way I want..." Whenever I meet them, I tell them, "if you're such a hot-shot, follow the rules for one entire flight...." Most can't do it*... If you're truly a shit-hot pilot, you can fly an entire flight and follow EVERY single FAR and SOP rule in the book. If you can prove to me that you can do that on a regular basis, we can talk - until then? Don't bother telling me how cool you are.

*Before you condemn pilots for being unprofessional, go hop in your car, drive around for two hours and see if you can follow EVERY single traffic law on the books for the duration of your drive.

That's the caliber response I was looking for. Yes, it's agreed you have to set some "minimum". Minimums are definitely a common safety check in aviation. A plane coming in on a Cat 5 landing has a point "minimums" where it has to decide if it's all go for landing (can see runway, on track on the glideslope, etc etc), or abort the landing and go around.

Now if a minimum is at 1000 (just taking an example) on landing, and decides to go down to 500 before calling it off, yes, that decreased the safety "threshold" there.

I'm just saying, I hope the totality of circumstances were considered before pulling the wings, and just hope an honest error didn't happen, and someone lose their wings over it.

I know lots of hot shot pilots, my BIL is definitely one, and the ones that push the envelope at the expense on safety in these circumstances (stadiums, for example) should be appropriately punished.

Posted: 3/19/2010 8:23:38 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Punished by Naval officers who CAN'T safely operate a tactical aircraft below 1000'...

Probably the same people who put a 500' restriction on the MudEagle guys in the sandbox prepping for GW1 (where they would be required to fly below 100' to avoid detection).

I say again: Anyone over the rank of O-5 is a politician and should be regarded with suspicion.

TC

You do know that restriction showed up because two guys rode one into the sand right?

As nearly all safety restrictions come about –– written in blood.

Posted: 3/19/2010 8:24:13 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
What you're missing is the danger-altitude curve. Someone, more likely some people, all aviators (they sure as hell ain't gonna let a shoe do it) got together and decided where the cutoff was between acceptable an unacceptable risk. They decided that 1kft was the cutoff for this particular evolution. The pilots that were assigned the "mission" knew it. The pilots that were assigned the mission decided to take on more risk when it was not their place to do so.

There really is a dramatic difference between 1000' and 200' when you're flying. Until you've seen it at 400-500 knots, you really don't "get it."

Posted: 3/19/2010 8:27:25 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
That's the caliber response I was looking for. Yes, it's agreed you have to set some "minimum". Minimums are definitely a common safety check in aviation. A plane coming in on a Cat 5 landing has a point "minimums" where it has to decide if it's all go for landing (can see runway, on track on the glideslope, etc etc), or abort the landing and go around.

I apologize if I misunderstood the intent of your original post.

Now if a minimum is at 1000 (just taking an example) on landing, and decides to go down to 500 before calling it off, yes, that decreased the safety "threshold" there.

If the company that owns the plane says, "you will go around at 1k'," and you go around at 500' and someone sees it or someone dies... YOU will be held liable. If you go around at 1k' and someone dies, the company will (generally) stand behind you. If you follow the rules, the Navy will always stand behind you if things go to hell.

I'm just saying, I hope the totality of circumstances were considered before pulling the wings, and just hope an honest error didn't happen, and someone lose their wings over it.

I assure you, all angles were considered. We do not pull wings lightly.

I know lots of hot shot pilots, my BIL is definitely one, and the ones that push the envelope at the expense on safety in these circumstances (stadiums, for example) should be appropriately punished.

These two were appropriately punished.

Posted: 3/19/2010 8:31:29 PM EDT

[#32]

If one really wants, one can look up the Navy instructions that govern "display flights" to include the Blue Angels, "Missing Man" formations, Air Show performances / demonstrations by single / multiple aircraft, flight rules for VFR / IFR, FAA rules, all sorts of cool boring stuff that Naval Aviators have to comply with.

Here's one manual that I am sure V-21 is familiar with.
I know I was when I was a Crewman.

http://safetycenter.navy.mil/aviation/aeromedical/downloads/References/OPNAV%203710/3710_7t%20%20MARCH%2004.pdf

You might want to take a look at the section on ACT / CRM / ORM.

These might be of interest too.

3.3.3 Regulations. The following regulations
apply to participation in flight demonstrations and
static displays:
a. Flight personnel assigned to participate in flight
demonstrations should be those with the maximum
training and experience. No pilot shall be
permitted to participate who has not currently
demonstrated to the commanding officers satisfaction
complete familiarity with the flight characteristics
by performing with precision and
safety all maneuvers to be demonstrated.
b. No extra hazardous or unusual maneuvers shall be
planned or permitted at the demonstration.
Routine maneuvers shall not be conducted in a
manner that could make them hazardous (i.e., at
excessively low altitudes or with undue close
interval between aircraft). Care shall be exercised
in planning and conducting the demonstration to
provide maximum safety to personnel and property
in event of mishap. Any ordnance delivery or
expenditure in connection with a demonstration
ashore for nonmilitary personnel shall receive
prior specific approval from the type commander
concerned.

7.1.1.1 Conduct of Flight. Pilots shall conduct
their flights in such a manner as to avoid all unacceptable
risks as determined by following the ORM process.
Each pilot must exercise prudent judgment and take
proper action (including modifying NATOPS procedures)
when dictated by emergencies that endanger life
or property. The decision to abandon aircraft should be
tempered by the pilot’s responsibility for the safety of
lives that may be endangered by subsequent flight of a
pilotless but controllable aircraft. It is the responsibility
of the pilot/crew to aviate, navigate, and communicate,
in that priority, throughout all aspects of both routine
and unusual circumstances.

Posted: 3/19/2010 8:31:41 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
A major waste of training dollars, spank and put them back in the cockpit.

I love these quotes because the Navy has already gotten their pound of flesh for their training dollars. This, in the grand scheme of things, isn't s big deal for the training pipeline. Pilots leave the military, on average, every day, having flown their share of a commitment with the military. Should we just sign people up for careers, make everyone get their twenty? Of course not. They have served in a flying capacity and now they will serve as an example of the importance of flight discipline.

Posted: 3/19/2010 8:34:37 PM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:
If one really wants, one can look up the Navy instructions that govern "display flights" to include the Blue Angels, "Missing Man" formations, Air Show performances / demonstrations by single / multiple aircraft, flight rules for VFR / IFR, FAA rules, all sorts of cool boring stuff that Naval Aviators have to comply with.

Here's one manual that I am sure V-21 is familiar with.
I know I was when I was a Crewman.

When presented with a professional quandry, the submariner will solemnly quote chapter and verse of the book... the SWO will say, "I think the book says....this." The Aviator will say, "What book?"

Posted: 3/19/2010 8:35:13 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:

Quoted:

What you're missing is the danger-altitude curve. Someone, more likely some people, all aviators (they sure as hell ain't gonna let a shoe do it) got together and decided where the cutoff was between acceptable an unacceptable risk. They decided that 1kft was the cutoff for this particular evolution. The pilots that were assigned the "mission" knew it. The pilots that were assigned the mission decided to take on more risk when it was not their place to do so.

There really is a dramatic difference between 1000' and 200' when you're flying. Until you've seen it at 400-500 knots, you really don't "get it."

They have their landing gear down and are definitely around landing speeds in the flyover. Definitely not doing 400 to 500. That'd be absurd.

I'm probably a horrible estimator in their height above the stadium here, it just didn't appear that bad to me. No blazing 400 mph pass, doing an inverted roll as they went over or anything. Just a slow pass, a little low.

Posted: 3/19/2010 8:36:05 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:

Quoted:
If one really wants, one can look up the Navy instructions that govern "display flights" to include the Blue Angels, "Missing Man" formations, Air Show performances / demonstrations by single / multiple aircraft, flight rules for VFR / IFR, FAA rules, all sorts of cool boring stuff that Naval Aviators have to comply with.

Here's one manual that I am sure V-21 is familiar with.
I know I was when I was a Crewman.

When presented with a professional quandry, the submariner will solemnly quote chapter and verse of the book... the SWO will say, "I think the book says....this." The Aviator will say, "What book?"

That's funny because it's true!

Posted: 3/19/2010 8:36:09 PM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Please cite example where mil plane has crashed into stadium. I'll be awaiting response.

Please explain why the fact that it has never happened matters. I can cite a host of occurances where .mil aircraft have turned themselves into smoking holes while show-boating... but you can use google as well as me. There is even one instance of a Tomcat just tearing itself apart (for no real discernable reason) during a fly-by of an aircraft carrier... even when the aircrew was doing everything by the book. Shit happens when dealing with tactical aircraft... no reason to place innocent people at unnecessary risk.

Honestly, I think I'm done arguing with the uninformed. The rules are there for a reason (sometimes they're written in blood, and sometimes they're written in litigation). Break them, and you'll get in trouble. Break them and LIE about it... and you'll lose your wings. The world of tactical aviation really is that simple. We all know it... we all abide by it. If you think it's unfair, you are free to earn yourself a pair of golden (or lead) wings and change the system.... or you can keep bitching about how unfair life is on the internet.

When you guys can go a year without wrecking planes, ships or boats, then you can talk down to all us po folk who fund your vocation.

http://www.navytimes.com/xml/news/2009/11/navy_hartford_111509w/032309_hartford3_800.JPG

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/USS_Port_Royal_grounded.jpg

http://www.maritimequest.com/in_the_news_pages/uss_san_francisco_grounding/04_uss_san_francisco_damage.jpg

If we had your track record in the medical industry we would be crucified. Of course, you don't design the sh!t, you just play with the end product.

Are you fucking serious??

Your record in the medical community is FAR worse than anything the Navy has ever done.

Should I start listing incorrect organs removed, incorrect limbs amputated, blood type fuckups, surgeons drunk on duty, patients dead because their doctor misdiagnosed them?? You guys make the news every single day!

Oh hell yes, bring it.

http://www.cowpensvets.org/co/graf.jpg

She's still employed. Might as well be the UAW.

So you're comparing safety, which was the original point, to bad personalities? She's employed, but dead-ended, and won't be employed for long.

As a TAXPAYER I am still paying her salary.

So yes, in the Navy apparantly if you fvck up, you get shuffled of somewhere, WITH PAY, and we 'uninformed masses' have to fund yet another fvck up.
Now and throughout her pension.

In the real world we can shitcan the incompetent. Somehow you view 'promoting out of the area of incompetence" as equivalent.

Maybe if her salary came out of your pocket...

Posted: 3/19/2010 8:37:01 PM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:

Quoted:
If one really wants, one can look up the Navy instructions that govern "display flights" to include the Blue Angels, "Missing Man" formations, Air Show performances / demonstrations by single / multiple aircraft, flight rules for VFR / IFR, FAA rules, all sorts of cool boring stuff that Naval Aviators have to comply with.
Here's one manual that I am sure V-21 is familiar with.
I know I was when I was a Crewman.

When presented with a professional quandry, the submariner will solemnly quote chapter and verse of the book... the SWO will say, "I think the book says....this." The Aviator will say, "What book?"

NATOPS = Navy's Attempt To Operate Planes Safely

Posted: 3/19/2010 8:38:36 PM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:

I don't think you understand the Type A personality. The rules exist, not because 1000 feet is the SAFEST altitude, but because it is AN altitude that IS mostly safe. If you just say, "go fly over that stadium," to Naval Aviators, after three or four iterations of the pilots trying to one-up each other, the Hornets will come back with grass stains on their tail-cans. And, I guaran-damn-tee you they would be safe while acquiring said stains. That isn't the point. The point is, there are rules to prevent bad shit from happening. You follow them unless there is a COMPELLING reason to break them (like saving the lives of ground troops from enemy fire). Showing off to a stadium full of people is not a compelling reason. It really is that simple. If you allow an O-4 and and O-5 to break the rules, what does that tell the O-3 and O-2? It tells them to go see about getting some grass-stains on the tail-cans.

There are a lot of junior pilots who say, "fuck the rules, I'm going to fly the way I want..." Whenever I meet them, I tell them, "if you're such a hot-shot, follow the rules for one entire flight...." Most can't do it*... If you're truly a shit-hot pilot, you can fly an entire flight and follow EVERY single FAR and SOP rule in the book. If you can prove to me that you can do that on a regular basis, we can talk - until then? Don't bother telling me how cool you are.

There is much wisdom in these words, for .mil and civi aviators alike.

Posted: 3/19/2010 8:41:11 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:

Quoted:
What you're missing is the danger-altitude curve. Someone, more likely some people, all aviators (they sure as hell ain't gonna let a shoe do it) got together and decided where the cutoff was between acceptable an unacceptable risk. They decided that 1kft was the cutoff for this particular evolution. The pilots that were assigned the "mission" knew it. The pilots that were assigned the mission decided to take on more risk when it was not their place to do so.

There really is a dramatic difference between 1000' and 200' when you're flying. Until you've seen it at 400-500 knots, you really don't "get it."

They have their landing gear down and are definitely around landing speeds in the flyover. Definitely not doing 400 to 500. That'd be absurd.

http://i39.tinypic.com/23ljy3a.jpg

I'm probably a horrible estimator in their height above the stadium here, it just didn't appear that bad to me. No blazing 400 mph pass, doing an inverted roll as they went over or anything. Just a slow pass, a little low.

Ok, that's about 200' (using the wingspan as a rough gauge). You're right, it's nothing close to 400 knots... but... it's still against the rules. Remember what I said about the one-ups-manship. The rules (as much as we hate them) are there for a reason.

I can do all sorts of stuff that is against the rules safely.... but... can the next pilot with fewer hours or worse stick-and-rudder skills who sees or hears about my flight and tries to one-up me? There is more to this than a simple fly-by.

Being an instructor has really opened my eyes to why rules exist. Can I do some octaflugeron safely? Probably. Can a student (or less experienced aviator) who sees me make it look easy? Nope... he'll turn himself into a smoking hole.

Posted: 3/19/2010 8:41:41 PM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Please cite example where mil plane has crashed into stadium. I'll be awaiting response.

Please explain why the fact that it has never happened matters. I can cite a host of occurances where .mil aircraft have turned themselves into smoking holes while show-boating... but you can use google as well as me. There is even one instance of a Tomcat just tearing itself apart (for no real discernable reason) during a fly-by of an aircraft carrier... even when the aircrew was doing everything by the book. Shit happens when dealing with tactical aircraft... no reason to place innocent people at unnecessary risk.

Honestly, I think I'm done arguing with the uninformed. The rules are there for a reason (sometimes they're written in blood, and sometimes they're written in litigation). Break them, and you'll get in trouble. Break them and LIE about it... and you'll lose your wings. The world of tactical aviation really is that simple. We all know it... we all abide by it. If you think it's unfair, you are free to earn yourself a pair of golden (or lead) wings and change the system.... or you can keep bitching about how unfair life is on the internet.

When you guys can go a year without wrecking planes, ships or boats, then you can talk down to all us po folk who fund your vocation.

http://www.navytimes.com/xml/news/2009/11/navy_hartford_111509w/032309_hartford3_800.JPG

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/USS_Port_Royal_grounded.jpg

http://www.maritimequest.com/in_the_news_pages/uss_san_francisco_grounding/04_uss_san_francisco_damage.jpg

If we had your track record in the medical industry we would be crucified. Of course, you don't design the sh!t, you just play with the end product.

Are you fucking serious??

Your record in the medical community is FAR worse than anything the Navy has ever done.

Should I start listing incorrect organs removed, incorrect limbs amputated, blood type fuckups, surgeons drunk on duty, patients dead because their doctor misdiagnosed them?? You guys make the news every single day!

Oh hell yes, bring it.

http://www.cowpensvets.org/co/graf.jpg

She's still employed. Might as well be the UAW.

So you're comparing safety, which was the original point, to bad personalities? She's employed, but dead-ended, and won't be employed for long.

As a TAXPAYER I am still paying her salary.

So yes, in the Navy apparantly if you fvck up, you get shuffled of somewhere, WITH PAY, and we 'uninformed masses' have to fund yet another fvck up.
Now and throughout her pension.

In the real world we can shitcan the incompetent. Somehow you view 'promoting out of the area of incompetence" as equivalent.

Maybe if her salary came out of your pocket...

Actually, I do pay federal taxes, so what's your point about my pocket again?

As for "being promoted out" that couldn't be further from the truth. Her promotions are over. Instead of getting a hi-viz job in the Pentagon, she was stashed in a little backwater base (where I spent three years of my life that I'll never get back) to wait it out until all the legal paperwork is completed. Because, of course, there are no HR rules in the private sector. You don't have to show cause to fire anyone and stuff like that.

The paper trail drill exists everywhere.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7069215.ece

ETA: And all this still distracts from the fact that you were using accidents as an argument for MORE risky behavior. Which doesn't make a lick of sense.

Posted: 3/19/2010 8:42:40 PM EDT

[#42]

Just a factoid for the discussion: the stadium in question was full of spectators, but more notably, it is in downtown Atlanta. Even aside from the risk of crashing into the stadium, any problem would have meant a nearly certain risk of serious civilian casualties.

I still would have loved to see it, but these guys screwed the pooch unfortunately.

Posted: 3/19/2010 8:43:26 PM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:
As a TAXPAYER I am still paying her salary.

So yes, in the Navy apparantly if you fvck up, you get shuffled of somewhere, WITH PAY, and we 'uninformed masses' have to fund yet another fvck up.
Now and throughout her pension.

In the real world we can shitcan the incompetent. Somehow you view 'promoting out of the area of incompetence" as equivalent.

Maybe if her salary came out of your pocket...

She's not been promoted. She's been demoted.

Posted: 3/19/2010 8:45:53 PM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:

Quoted:

As a TAXPAYER I am still paying her salary.

So yes, in the Navy apparantly if you fvck up, you get shuffled of somewhere, WITH PAY, and we 'uninformed masses' have to fund yet another fvck up.

Now and throughout her pension.

In the real world we can shitcan the incompetent. Somehow you view 'promoting out of the area of incompetence" as equivalent.

Maybe if her salary came out of your pocket...

She's not been promoted. She's been demoted.

Really? What's her current and former pay grade? Position demotions mean jack shit, and reflect on retired pay not one cent.

Posted: 3/19/2010 8:48:17 PM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:

Quoted:
As a TAXPAYER I am still paying her salary.

So yes, in the Navy apparantly if you fvck up, you get shuffled of somewhere, WITH PAY, and we 'uninformed masses' have to fund yet another fvck up.
Now and throughout her pension.

In the real world we can shitcan the incompetent. Somehow you view 'promoting out of the area of incompetence" as equivalent.

Maybe if her salary came out of your pocket...

She's not been promoted. She's been demoted.

Really? What's her current and former pay grade? Position demotions mean jack shit, and reflect on retired pay not one cent.

When the context was being "promoted out of the area of incompetence" then paygrade didn't factor into the discussion. She was no more promoted to RDML from the Cowpens than she was demoted to CDR from the Cowpens.

Context. It's a wonderful thing.

Posted: 3/19/2010 8:49:49 PM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:

Quoted:
As a TAXPAYER I am still paying her salary.

So yes, in the Navy apparantly if you fvck up, you get shuffled of somewhere, WITH PAY, and we 'uninformed masses' have to fund yet another fvck up.
Now and throughout her pension.

In the real world we can shitcan the incompetent. Somehow you view 'promoting out of the area of incompetence" as equivalent.

Maybe if her salary came out of your pocket...

She's not been promoted. She's been demoted.

Really? What's her current and former pay grade? Position demotions mean jack shit, and reflect on retired pay not one cent.

Really? So the fact she was on the fast track to flag rank and would have been wearing a star in another few years, possibly retiring anywhere from an O-7 to an O-9, when now she may retire as an O-6 doesn't reflect in her retired pay? I suspect she'll be allowed to retire as an O-6, but I don't think that's guaranteed.

And being demoted from being a CO of a warship is a demotion. She was stripped of her prestige and power, if nothing else, and given her behaviour, those were probably far more important to her than money.

Posted: 3/19/2010 8:51:15 PM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:

Quoted:
As a TAXPAYER I am still paying her salary.

So yes, in the Navy apparantly if you fvck up, you get shuffled of somewhere, WITH PAY, and we 'uninformed masses' have to fund yet another fvck up.
Now and throughout her pension.

In the real world we can shitcan the incompetent. Somehow you view 'promoting out of the area of incompetence" as equivalent.

Maybe if her salary came out of your pocket...

She's not been promoted. She's been demoted.

Really? What's her current and former pay grade? Position demotions mean jack shit, and reflect on retired pay not one cent.

Really? So the fact she was on the fast track to flag rank and would have been wearing a star in another few years, possibly retiring anywhere from an O-7 to an O-9, when now she [i|may[/i] retire as an O-6 doesn't reflect in her retired pay? I suspect she'll be allowed to retire as an O-6, but I don't think that's guaranteed.

It's not. She made the mistake of getting a lot of public attention and then fighting the process. They may just lay the smackdown to her, but as was established earlier in this very thread, a reduction in paygrade is a junior enlisted punishment in the Navy.

Posted: 3/19/2010 8:51:29 PM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:

Bet that was badass to see (and hear). It's great when they do that at the Nascar races

This x 100!

Posted: 3/19/2010 8:53:54 PM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:

Quoted:
As a TAXPAYER I am still paying her salary.

So yes, in the Navy apparantly if you fvck up, you get shuffled of somewhere, WITH PAY, and we 'uninformed masses' have to fund yet another fvck up.
Now and throughout her pension.

In the real world we can shitcan the incompetent. Somehow you view 'promoting out of the area of incompetence" as equivalent.

Maybe if her salary came out of your pocket...

She's not been promoted. She's been demoted.

Really? What's her current and former pay grade? Position demotions mean jack shit, and reflect on retired pay not one cent.

Really? So the fact she was on the fast track to flag rank and would have been wearing a star in another few years, possibly retiring anywhere from an O-7 to an O-9, when now she [i|may[/i] retire as an O-6 doesn't reflect in her retired pay? I suspect she'll be allowed to retire as an O-6, but I don't think that's guaranteed.

It's not. She made the mistake of getting a lot of public attention and then fighting the process. They may just lay the smackdown to her, but as was established earlier in this very thread, a reduction in paygrade is a junior enlisted punishment in the Navy.

reduction in paygrade is enlisted only (I was one of the ones who pointed it out), but I believe there are provisions to retire an officer at a lower paygrade than they are wearing. I could be wrong –– or there may be more factors involved than I'm aware of, but I seem to recall a case where a General was retired as a LTC for some misconduct.

Posted: 3/19/2010 8:54:39 PM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:

You do know that restriction showed up because two guys rode one into the sand right?

So, you expect people to train at 500' and then not crash when they're forced into the weeds when it's real? I guess "you train like you fight" died at the hands of JAG's and ass covering O-7's...

TC

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Two F-18E pilots permanently grounded after Nov 7th Georgia Tech football game low flyover (Page 7 of 11)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us