Two F-18E pilots permanently grounded after Nov 7th Georgia Tech football game low flyover - Page 6

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Two F-18E pilots permanently grounded after Nov 7th Georgia Tech football game low flyover (Page 6 of 11)

Posted: 3/19/2010 5:01:58 PM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
So, skippy, how many stars do YOU have on your shoulder? How many times have YOU flown a fighter under the Navy's rules and regulations (Ace Combat 4 doesn't count)?

none and never. but those who drop the hammer should never be surprised if it falls on them.

now if those two lied about the situation then, yes, they've earned their grounding. but there was no mention of that. the other article I found said they self-reported so I don't know where the disconnect is.

the most detailed article I've found was the one I linked earlier:

http://hamptonroads.com/2010/03/low-flyover-lands-two-oceana-pilots-hot-water

According to documents obtained by The Virginian-Pilot, Lt. Cmdr. Christopher Condon and Lt. Cmdr. Marc Fryman reported the breach immediately after landing. The Navy quickly convened an evaluation board to consider whether they should continue flying.
Although the pilots "inexplicably failed to recognize" how low they were flying, the board concluded, their lapse was neither intentional nor malicious. It recommended putting both pilots on probation, an outcome endorsed and forwarded up multiple levels of the chain of command.

eta: just to be clear, I'm not arguing AGAINST discipline, after all attention to detail is far more critical in the air than on the ground. but a PERMANENT grounding when there was no negative outcome? seems excessive.

"So it takes negative outcomes?" No .......... I didn't insinuate that

Posted: 3/19/2010 5:02:41 PM EDT

[#2]

If you want to fly low like a maniac, go fly a French Mirage F1 over Chad.

Frying Chickens in The Barnyard!

Posted: 3/19/2010 5:04:48 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I fail to see a problem. F-16s come screaming over my house less than 500 foot much faster and chasing each other. It was an urban area and I am in BFE but these guys are the best of the best. Not like a UPS Airbus rolled over at 300 foot.

So you'd be cool if those two F-18's had hit a gust of wind, touched wings and crashed into the crowd and made headline news around the world?

You're not a pilot are you?

Posted: 3/19/2010 5:05:35 PM EDT

[#4]

The first home football game after 9/11, 2 F-16s did a flyover (complete with afterburner) of the stadium at my university. Everyone thought it was cool as shit, and they were well below 1,000ft AGL.

Posted: 3/19/2010 5:05:56 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I am just surprise they fly around topped off for a flyby. I watched about 5 superhornets depart KBUR for the rose bowl flyby and return after it, so I figured they were fueled appropriately for a short mission.

Fueled appropriately is "full."

The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire, right? :-)

Posted: 3/19/2010 5:06:50 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I am just surprise they fly around topped off for a flyby. I watched about 5 superhornets depart KBUR for the rose bowl flyby and return after it, so I figured they were fueled appropriately for a short mission.

Fueled appropriately is "full."

The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire, right? :-)

Well... if you can put the fire out, you might WANT that fuel.

Posted: 3/19/2010 5:07:24 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Some of you think that setting an altimeter is not that bad of a fuck-up... and that shit never happens with professional pilots in the vicinity of fly-bys and air-shows...

Let's review:

THIS is the result of a mis-set altimeter by an ELITE Air Force airshow pilot. Be thankful there is not a stadium of 50k people underneath him.

http://digilander.libero.it/karenfuxia/tbird.jpg

would 500 feet really make a difference?

FAA rules, even as a civilian you will lose your ticket

I was referring to after having a tail strike and frapping your engine.

Posted: 3/19/2010 5:30:58 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:

I wonder if any of the pilots from "The Right Stuff" era would survive the modern military bullcrap. Warriors will act up on occasion, give them a tongue lashing and put them back to work.

The story about "don't fly under the pelicans"

comes to mind.

And if there was ever a bunch of guys that know how to fly

'low and slow' it would be these dudes. And to permanently ground them

is just fucking stupid - and a total waste of taxpayers money - millions of $$$

spent on training - WTF.

The word probably came from teh chosen one -

"only MY plane does stupid shit, like flying around doing photo ops"

Posted: 3/19/2010 5:32:15 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
The landing pattern is the only time you can descend below 1000 feet AGL, where there is no people or obstacles your minimum altitude is 500 AGL uncontrolled airspace for egs....in VFR controlled airspace you must be at least 1000 AGL and 500 above any obstacle...VFR Visual Flight Rules...AGL Above Ground Level

Sorry but this is not quite true either. Much of my flight time was below 500 Ft AGL...with no waivers needed. Ever heard of a LLTR? We routinely trained at 500 AGL but also had routes that were certified to 300 AGL. Sometimes we DO(did for me) train like we fight. Spec Ops guys even lower. Just ask the Army rotor heads! The get nose bleeds at 300 AGL.

Posted: 3/19/2010 5:43:01 PM EDT

[#10]

The new feminavy.

A friend and his crew made the roofs shake in the hometown and were grounded when they landed.

A month later their commander asked them if they wanted to be the lead ship in the Grenada invasion.

Wings restored.

Posted: 3/19/2010 5:43:35 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
Some of you think that setting an altimeter is not that bad of a fuck-up... and that shit never happens with professional pilots in the vicinity of fly-bys and air-shows...

Let's review:

THIS is the result of a mis-set altimeter by an ELITE Air Force airshow pilot. Be thankful there is not a stadium of 50k people underneath him.

In this specific case it wasn't a mis-set altimeter but a pilot mistaking maneuver altitudes. Differences in airfield altitudes between Nellis and Mt Home contributed to this one. He was supposed to go to 2500 MSL before he pulled over the top instead he only went to 1670 MSL. Not enough altitude for recovery. In this case he did something boneheaded. A cranial rectal inversion as we called it.

Still surprised the guy got promoted twice after this however.

Posted: 3/19/2010 5:49:23 PM EDT

[#12]

Here's another view of the same Navy-TCU fly by at Navy-Marine Corps Memorial Stadium that someone posted earlier. By the way, this had to be sometime before 2004, because it's before the stadium was renovated.

Posted: 3/19/2010 5:50:32 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The landing pattern is the only time you can descend below 1000 feet AGL, where there is no people or obstacles your minimum altitude is 500 AGL uncontrolled airspace for egs....in VFR controlled airspace you must be at least 1000 AGL and 500 above any obstacle...VFR Visual Flight Rules...AGL Above Ground Level

Sorry but this is not quite true either. Much of my flight time was below 500 Ft AGL...with no waivers needed. Ever heard of a LLTR? We routinely trained at 500 AGL but also had routes that were certified to 300 AGL. Sometimes we DO(did for me) train like we fight. Spec Ops guys even lower. Just ask the Army rotor heads! The get nose bleeds at 300 AGL.

IIRC those are the rules outside military flying areas.

Posted: 3/19/2010 5:57:34 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Different story if somebody @#$%ed up and 10,000 college students burned to death in the resultant fireball.

It sucks, but I get it. If anything, I'm glad to see people can still get effectively canned for doing stupid shit with Taxpayer's Equipment.

You have no idea.

We used to shoot our cleaning rods out of the barrels of our M16A2s, with blanks, to kill rabbits.

Asking servicemen/women to "try not to fuck this thing up" is like asking our current regime to stop fucking the country up.

Not going to happen.

Never thought about a cleaning rod... I used to use a #4 buck shot pellet and a blank.

Posted: 3/19/2010 6:01:49 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Yeah because we can't trust our highly trained pilots not to crash into a stadium full of people while doing a flyover

Have we completely lost our balls as a country?

By the admiral's own admission those pilots had spotless records and now they are permanently grounded when there was no incident whatsoever? It doesn't even say they disobeyed orders, they probably just wanted to put on a good show (and they did), but somebody with friends in high places didn't like it and those pilots got railroaded.

They did disobey orders. Safety regulations have the full force of law, and are usually written in blood. Brand-new LT (sorry, ensign)? Okay, slap them and send them on their way. O5s? Nope. They new better, and gambled with taxpayer's money and equipment and civilian's lives.

Hello People,
On June 12, 1942, Bong flew very low over ("buzzed") a house in nearby San Anselmo, the home of a pilot who had just been married. He was cited and temporarily grounded for breaking flying rules, along with three other P-38 pilots who had looped around the Golden Gate Bridge on the same day.[1] For looping the Golden Gate Bridge, for flying at low level down Market Street in San Francisco and for blowing the clothes off of an Oakland woman's clothesline, Bong was reprimanded by General George C. Kenney, commanding officer of the Fourth Air Force, who told him, "If you didn't want to fly down Market Street, I wouldn't have you in my Air Force, but you are not to do it any more and I mean what I say." Kenney later wrote: "We needed kids like this lad."[2] In all subsequent accounts, Bong denied flying under the Golden Gate Bridge.[3] Nevertheless, Bong was still grounded when the rest of his group was sent without him to England in July 1942. Bong then transferred to another Hamilton Field unit, 84th Fighter Squadron of the 78th Fighter Group. From there Bong was sent to the Southwest Pacific Area. There is a reason they are called "Fighter Pilots"

Posted: 3/19/2010 6:20:22 PM EDT

[#16]

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.

Yeah, I can also cite plenty of examples of aircraft not doing any show boating and crashing for no apparent reason. But you mentioned that above. So you realize, even at 1000 ft above the stadium, shit happens. It's not like they were doing some crazy stunt over the stadium. They were flying straight and level.

They flew a little low, yes. But 500 ft or 1000 ft, if shit happens, like it breaking apart, there's not going to be much difference when the pieces fall down.

If you are so concerned about this, then there should be no flyover whatsoever over stadiums. Really.

I come from an air force family, and brother in law that flys F18s out of Dobbins AFB which close to the Georgia Tech stadium. I also used to lived right by Dobbins, and those F18s were always going just a hundred feet above my place. Why do I mention that? Because crashes in neighborhoods (residential) have happened. Yet, hrrm, no stadium crashes.

The big question is, if it were to crash in a stadium, would all fly-overs be banned? If so, then why not just ban them now? 1000 ft is smoke and mirrors.

If they indeed did lie about it, I agree that makes it worse. But I'm disagreeing about the safety argument on this one here.

Posted: 3/19/2010 6:24:59 PM EDT

[#17]

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.

Yeah, I can also cite plenty of examples of aircraft not doing any show boating and crashing for no apparent reason. But you mentioned that above. So you realize, even at 1000 ft above the stadium, shit happens. It's not like they were doing some crazy stunt over the stadium. They were flying straight and level.

They flew a little low, yes. But 500 ft or 1000 ft, if shit happens, like it breaking apart, there's not going to be much difference when the pieces fall down.

If you are so concerned about this, then there should be no flyover whatsoever over stadiums. Really.

I come from an air force family, and brother in law that flys F18s out of Dobbins AFB which close to the Georgia Tech stadium. I also used to lived right by Dobbins, and those F18s were always going just a hundred feet above my place. Why do I mention that? Because crashes in neighborhoods (residential) have happened. Yet, hrrm, no stadium crashes.

The big question is, if it were to crash in a stadium, would all fly-overs be banned? If so, then why not just ban them now? 1000 ft is smoke and mirrors.

If they indeed did lie about it, I agree that makes it worse. But I'm disagreeing about the safety argument on this one here.

You do realize the trajectory of a body in flight that loses power at 500 feet is significantly different than a body in flight that loses power at 1k feet, right?

That might be a factor in this decision. Not an expert in aeronautical engineering (though the guy you're talking to is, IIRC), but that's basic physics.

ETA: Altitude == Time. I think somebody posted it before.

Posted: 3/19/2010 6:31:02 PM EDT

[#18]

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.

Yeah, I can also cite plenty of examples of aircraft not doing any show boating and crashing for no apparent reason. But you mentioned that above. So you realize, even at 1000 ft above the stadium, shit happens. It's not like they were doing some crazy stunt over the stadium. They were flying straight and level.

They flew a little low, yes. But 500 ft or 1000 ft, if shit happens, like it breaking apart, there's not going to be much difference when the pieces fall down.

If you are so concerned about this, then there should be no flyover whatsoever over stadiums. Really.

I come from an air force family, and brother in law that flys F18s out of Dobbins AFB which close to the Georgia Tech stadium. I also used to lived right by Dobbins, and those F18s were always going just a hundred feet above my place. Why do I mention that? Because crashes in neighborhoods (residential) have happened. Yet, hrrm, no stadium crashes.

The big question is, if it were to crash in a stadium, would all fly-overs be banned? If so, then why not just ban them now? 1000 ft is smoke and mirrors.

If they indeed did lie about it, I agree that makes it worse. But I'm disagreeing about the safety argument on this one here.

You do realize the trajectory of a body in flight that loses power at 500 feet is significantly different than a body in flight that loses power at 1k feet, right?

That might be a factor in this decision. Not an expert in aeronautical engineering (though the guy you're talking to is, IIRC), but that's basic physics.

ETA: Altitude == Time. I think somebody posted it before.

Altitude does equal time, but he's the one that mentions the Tomcat just "tearing itself apart" while doing a fly-over. So if it can do that, what difference does it make then. A plane abiding by the rules would just have to break up a little earlier in the approach to the stadium, and the trajectory could still have it hit the stands just the same.

Posted: 3/19/2010 6:34:11 PM EDT

[#19]

CF-18, F-86 and Tutor doing a fly by over my house the day before the Nascar race last summer.

Blue Angel doing a really low altitude, high speed pass. Love the roar of the engines, especially at the 8 second mark. I get a boner every time I listen to this video

Posted: 3/19/2010 6:36:40 PM EDT

[#20]

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.

Yeah, I can also cite plenty of examples of aircraft not doing any show boating and crashing for no apparent reason. But you mentioned that above. So you realize, even at 1000 ft above the stadium, shit happens. It's not like they were doing some crazy stunt over the stadium. They were flying straight and level.

They flew a little low, yes. But 500 ft or 1000 ft, if shit happens, like it breaking apart, there's not going to be much difference when the pieces fall down.

If you are so concerned about this, then there should be no flyover whatsoever over stadiums. Really.

I come from an air force family, and brother in law that flys F18s out of Dobbins AFB which close to the Georgia Tech stadium. I also used to lived right by Dobbins, and those F18s were always going just a hundred feet above my place. Why do I mention that? Because crashes in neighborhoods (residential) have happened. Yet, hrrm, no stadium crashes.

The big question is, if it were to crash in a stadium, would all fly-overs be banned? If so, then why not just ban them now? 1000 ft is smoke and mirrors.

If they indeed did lie about it, I agree that makes it worse. But I'm disagreeing about the safety argument on this one here.

You do realize the trajectory of a body in flight that loses power at 500 feet is significantly different than a body in flight that loses power at 1k feet, right?

That might be a factor in this decision. Not an expert in aeronautical engineering (though the guy you're talking to is, IIRC), but that's basic physics.

ETA: Altitude == Time. I think somebody posted it before.

Altitude does equal time, but he's the one that mentions the Tomcat just "tearing itself apart" while doing a fly-over. So if it can do that, what difference does it make then. A plane abiding by the rules would just have to break up a little earlier in the approach to the stadium, and the trajectory could still have it hit the stands just the same.

And an Aviator with double the altitude to work with might be able to change the aircraft's course before being forced to eject.

Posted: 3/19/2010 6:44:27 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:

And an Aviator with double the altitude to work with might be able to change the aircraft's course before being forced to eject.

Agreed, I'm sure there are a million and one scenarios that could happen. Heck, there might have been a case where something did happen on a stadium fly-over, and disaster was averted. But the fact is, crashes are pretty rare. It just seems if they are willing to let jets fly over stadiums (which I love seeing myself), that they are "accepting" the risk.

But as always, lying always makes it worse, just as Martha found out.

Posted: 3/19/2010 6:44:33 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I wonder if any of the pilots from "The Right Stuff" era would survive the modern military bullcrap. Warriors will act up on occasion, give them a tongue lashing and put them back to work.

The answer to the question is no the pilots of "The Right Stuff" era wouldn't have survived in the modern military. Further Patton would have been in a rubber room long before he made General, Eisenhower would never have made General, and MacArthur would have be doing life (deserved so) in Ft. Leavenworth.

I bet John Glenn would have made it based upon what I know of his background - Mr Clean.

Yeager - probably not. His actions at the 2006 airshow at Edwards AFB reportedly got him disinvited from future shows, namely getting lost in the airspace north of Edwards, taxiing out of order, and flying over the assembled crowd (a huge no-no).

ETA: I can't be certain he never flew there again, it was just the rumor at the time.

Posted: 3/19/2010 6:47:40 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:

Here's another view of the same Navy-TCU fly by at Navy-Marine Corps Memorial Stadium that someone posted earlier. By the way, this had to be sometime before 2004, because it's before the stadium was renovated.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUIO1nJesYk

See, in this video, a turn (maneuver) is done right over the stadium. The video in the OP at Ga Tech, it's just straight and level flying across the stadium.

Nice video BTW, always awesome to see close ups.

Posted: 3/19/2010 6:52:08 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Yeah because we can't trust our highly trained pilots not to crash into a stadium full of people while doing a flyover

Have we completely lost our balls as a country?

By the admiral's own admission those pilots had spotless records and now they are permanently grounded when there was no incident whatsoever? It doesn't even say they disobeyed orders, they probably just wanted to put on a good show (and they did), but somebody with friends in high places didn't like it and those pilots got railroaded.

+1

What a bunch of pussies we are.

I remember hearing some crazy stuff about back in the glory days (50's-80's) about the crazy shit that Fighter pilots used to pull, it's a shame they're so regulated now....I was truly born in the wrong generation.

I drove with a guy from the "glory days" around Edwards AFB a few years back. He pointed out streets named after so-and-so who crashed his B-47 over where the gas station is, etc. Aviation was pehaps more dangerous then, given the lack of experience in risk mitigation as well as immature technologies. My point is that is not the way we view aviation today.

A hundred and fifty years ago we lined soldiers up in ranks and massed fire through large formations of men. Should we return to that just because it takes huge balls? No, instead we have a better way of doing business.

PS: that guy's name was Yeager.

Posted: 3/19/2010 6:54:53 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
I betcha these guys must have been castrated by their CO.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7ZzGzoX5U8

1:30 in, holy fuck

Posted: 3/19/2010 6:57:16 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:

Quoted:
This guy was highly experienced, too.

What does a B-52 flown by a pilot who treats it like a fighter plane have to do with a F-18 making a simple low alt flyover?

All of these crashes involve someone flying the aircraft outside of its limits, which these flyover pilots did not do.

That B52 pilot was a known jackass and had scores of people tell their co to throw them in jail if they had to, but they'd never fly with him again.

Posted: 3/19/2010 7:00:43 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I betcha these guys must have been castrated by their CO.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7ZzGzoX5U8

1:30 in, holy fuck

Control: Viper 2-6, this is control, please come in. Over.

Viper 2-6: Control, this is Viper 2-6. Over.

Control: Viper 2-6, what is your altitude? Over

Viper 2-6: Control, current altitude is 72. Over.

Control: Viper 2-6, did I read you correctly? Your altitude is 72 feet? Over.

Viper 2-6: Negative Control, inches.

Control:

Posted: 3/19/2010 7:02:55 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I betcha these guys must have been castrated by their CO.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7ZzGzoX5U8

1:30 in, holy fuck

Wow, nice. get a beard shave off of that one.

Posted: 3/19/2010 7:03:23 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I betcha these guys must have been castrated by their CO.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7ZzGzoX5U8

1:30 in, holy fuck

Control: Viper 2-6, this is control, please come in. Over.
Viper 2-6: Control, this is Viper 2-6. Over.
Control: Viper 2-6, what is your altitude? Over
Viper 2-6: Control, current altitude is 72. Over.
Control: Viper 2-6, did I read you correctly? Your altitude is 72 feet? Over.
Viper 2-6: Negative Control, inches.
Control:

Not American jets or pilots.

Posted: 3/19/2010 7:04:37 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I fail to see a problem. F-16s come screaming over my house less than 500 foot much faster and chasing each other. It was an urban area and I am in BFE but these guys are the best of the best. Not like a UPS Airbus rolled over at 300 foot.

So you'd be cool if those two F-18's had hit a gust of wind, touched wings and crashed into the crowd and made headline news around the world?

You're not a pilot are you?

I was wondering if you would get drawn into this thread. That bothered you too, eh?

Posted: 3/19/2010 7:09:46 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Some of you think that setting an altimeter is not that bad of a fuck-up... and that shit never happens with professional pilots in the vicinity of fly-bys and air-shows...

Let's review:

THIS is the result of a mis-set altimeter by an ELITE Air Force airshow pilot. Be thankful there is not a stadium of 50k people underneath him.

http://digilander.libero.it/karenfuxia/tbird.jpg

would 500 feet really make a difference?

It did there, as I recall from the report (mentioned earlier).

Posted: 3/19/2010 7:10:28 PM EDT

[#32]

For all of you saying the punishment is too harsh––I've said it before on this thread....the fact is two O5s with thousands of hours between them should have known better. They were in the public eye, made a rookie mistake, and have now lost the ability to command respect in their career field, in my opinion...(ETA) and the confidence of their superiors in their ability to do their jobs––lead aviators safely, and setting the example with the competence and skill required to be a good steward of millions of dollars of national treasure.

The Admiral is right in slapping these guys harshly. Not (or lightly) disciplining them would have sent an undesirable message to the junior pilots that mistakes involving safety are OK, after all, the O5s can get away with it, right?

Posted: 3/19/2010 7:14:26 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I betcha these guys must have been castrated by their CO.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7ZzGzoX5U8

1:30 in, holy fuck

Control: Viper 2-6, this is control, please come in. Over.
Viper 2-6: Control, this is Viper 2-6. Over.
Control: Viper 2-6, what is your altitude? Over
Viper 2-6: Control, current altitude is 72. Over.
Control: Viper 2-6, did I read you correctly? Your altitude is 72 feet? Over.
Viper 2-6: Negative Control, inches.
Control:

Not American jets or pilots.

IAF?

Posted: 3/19/2010 7:14:36 PM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The landing pattern is the only time you can descend below 1000 feet AGL, where there is no people or obstacles your minimum altitude is 500 AGL uncontrolled airspace for egs....in VFR controlled airspace you must be at least 1000 AGL and 500 above any obstacle...VFR Visual Flight Rules...AGL Above Ground Level

Sorry but this is not quite true either. Much of my flight time was below 500 Ft AGL...with no waivers needed. Ever heard of a LLTR? We routinely trained at 500 AGL but also had routes that were certified to 300 AGL. Sometimes we DO(did for me) train like we fight. Spec Ops guys even lower. Just ask the Army rotor heads! The get nose bleeds at 300 AGL.

I swear to God your buddies buzz my house at less than 500 on a daily basis. More than once I could tell you the color of the pilot's eyes. I love it, I'd love it even more if one would take aerial pics of my homestead

Posted: 3/19/2010 7:19:02 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:

what's the difference between a few hundred feet and 1,000 feet?

i honestly don't know and it's a serious question

I don't have them handy but we use what are referred to as "time to die" charts to show the differences in time to impact when at low altitude. These charts are used to show that if you are maneuvering at low altitude you have significantly less reaction time at, say 500' AGL versus 1,000' AGL. There is a HUGE difference between flying at 1k' AGL and 500' AGL at 500-ish knots.

Planes do just "disintegrate" in mid air apparently, like the Tomcat example from earlier in the thread. But, a few hundred feet can give a pilot significant maneuvering capability to handle a bird strike or engine failure, for example.

Let's not forget the thread here about a year ago when the Hornet crashed into that home in or around San Diego, killing the Korean immigrant's family. There were guys saying we should move the base, that they should have done more to mitigate risk to the people on the ground.

I guess most of the, "what a bunch of pussies we have become," responses show how everyone can have a strong opinion they can voice with little or no repercussions on the interweb regardless of their familiarity with the topic. I don't go spouting off on topics relating to, say, accounting. Perhaps it is just too much to ask to say, "People, think before you write."

Posted: 3/19/2010 7:22:05 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:
The new feminavy.

A friend and his crew made the roofs shake in the hometown and were grounded when they landed.

A month later their commander asked them if they wanted to be the lead ship in the Grenada invasion.

Wings restored.

Ok, this went unanswered long enough, so I hate to be the first one to write this, but I am compelled to do it:

BS.

Posted: 3/19/2010 7:24:36 PM EDT

[#37]

What did trusting our aviators get us in Italy? Was it a low pass through a valley that cut the cable for a lift, killing a number of Italian citizens and giving the US a black eye? Personally, I think it's the proper move by the Navy to take affective action in this case. It sends a strong message that should discourage other aviators from engaging in behavior in non combat zones that winds up giving America a black eye, and potentially killing people.

Posted: 3/19/2010 7:27:32 PM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:

i'll just wait for dave to tell us what should be done to these fine pilots

Tanker school has kept Dave away from ARFCOM for the past week or so...

Dave_A defers to Valerhu21 on this subject.

** My limited 'pilot' experience (private) indicates that low-flyovers at high speeds require special paperwork, to avoid 'meeting' other aircraft, in a 'generally fatal' sort of way...

Posted: 3/19/2010 7:31:03 PM EDT

[#39]

Could be the rules prevent such a thing from happening...don't ya think?

The crash in Italy that killed a whole bunch of people because their rules weren't as stringent as ours might be a good example to consider.

Quoted:

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

Posted: 3/19/2010 7:33:28 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:
Yeah because we can't trust our highly trained pilots not to crash into a stadium full of people while doing a flyover

Have we completely lost our balls as a country?

By the admiral's own admission those pilots had spotless records and now they are permanently grounded when there was no incident whatsoever? It doesn't even say they disobeyed orders, they probably just wanted to put on a good show (and they did), but somebody with friends in high places didn't like it and those pilots got railroaded.

It aint who you blow its who you know. Or in this case for the pilots, they didnt know but blew right over.

Posted: 3/19/2010 7:33:31 PM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I betcha these guys must have been castrated by their CO.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7ZzGzoX5U8

1:30 in, holy fuck

Control: Viper 2-6, this is control, please come in. Over.
Viper 2-6: Control, this is Viper 2-6. Over.
Control: Viper 2-6, what is your altitude? Over
Viper 2-6: Control, current altitude is 72. Over.
Control: Viper 2-6, did I read you correctly? Your altitude is 72 feet? Over.
Viper 2-6: Negative Control, inches.
Control:

Not American jets or pilots.

IAF?

Dutch I think

Posted: 3/19/2010 7:38:22 PM EDT

[#42]

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.

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.

Posted: 3/19/2010 7:40:51 PM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:

Quoted:

what's the difference between a few hundred feet and 1,000 feet?

i honestly don't know and it's a serious question

I don't have them handy but we use what are referred to as "time to die" charts to show the differences in time to impact when at low altitude. These charts are used to show that if you are maneuvering at low altitude you have significantly less reaction time at, say 500' AGL versus 1,000' AGL. There is a HUGE difference between flying at 1k' AGL and 500' AGL at 500-ish knots.

Planes do just "disintegrate" in mid air apparently, like the Tomcat example from earlier in the thread. But, a few hundred feet can give a pilot significant maneuvering capability to handle a bird strike or engine failure, for example.

Let's not forget the thread here about a year ago when the Hornet crashed into that home in or around San Diego, killing the Korean immigrant's family. There were guys saying we should move the base, that they should have done more to mitigate risk to the people on the ground.

I guess most of the, "what a bunch of pussies we have become," responses show how everyone can have a strong opinion they can voice with little or no repercussions on the interweb regardless of their familiarity with the topic. I don't go spouting off on topics relating to, say, accounting. Perhaps it is just too much to ask to say, "People, think before you write."

It is a general forum on arfcom after all ;) If posts were saved just for the experts, it'd be pretty low volume and boring :)

Breaking the rules is breaking the rules. My thoughts are if they didn't willingly do it, then the punishment doesn't fit the crime. I.E. if they made a mistake. Again, having the experience they did, that should not have happened. But then again, wing tip clips while in formation happens too. BIL had that happen in his F18, clipping wings with another in formation. And he's been flying for over 15 years.

Given no history of "Mavericking" (I don't know the history of these too) I'd find it hard to take their wings. (assuming no lying going on).

Posted: 3/19/2010 7:41:29 PM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:
What did trusting our aviators get us in Italy? Was it a low pass through a valley that cut the cable for a lift, killing a number of Italian citizens and giving the US a black eye? Personally, I think it's the proper move by the Navy to take affective action in this case. It sends a strong message that should discourage other aviators from engaging in behavior in non combat zones that winds up giving America a black eye, and potentially killing people.

Again, the regulations are often written in blood.

Posted: 3/19/2010 7:45:56 PM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I betcha these guys must have been castrated by their CO.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7ZzGzoX5U8

1:30 in, holy fuck

Control: Viper 2-6, this is control, please come in. Over.
Viper 2-6: Control, this is Viper 2-6. Over.
Control: Viper 2-6, what is your altitude? Over
Viper 2-6: Control, current altitude is 72. Over.
Control: Viper 2-6, did I read you correctly? Your altitude is 72 feet? Over.
Viper 2-6: Negative Control, inches.
Control:

Not American jets or pilots.

IAF?

Dutch I think

Look at the video at around 1:10. Side of the vehicle "ISAF" Too fast for a Fin Flash otherwise. Looks like an Afghan video so more than likely not IAF.

Posted: 3/19/2010 7:47:30 PM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:

Could be the rules prevent such a thing from happening...don't ya think?

The crash in Italy that killed a whole bunch of people because their rules weren't as stringent as ours might be a good example to consider.

Quoted:

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

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)

Posted: 3/19/2010 7:48:10 PM EDT

[#47]

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.)

Posted: 3/19/2010 7:48:53 PM EDT

[#48]

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.....

Posted: 3/19/2010 7:51:57 PM EDT

[#49]

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

Posted: 3/19/2010 7:52:52 PM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Could be the rules prevent such a thing from happening...don't ya think?

The crash in Italy that killed a whole bunch of people because their rules weren't as stringent as ours might be a good example to consider.

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

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?

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Two F-18E pilots permanently grounded after Nov 7th Georgia Tech football game low flyover (Page 6 of 11)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us