F18 down in san diego

[Daveroo]

i dont have much..but an F18 went down in san diego shortly before noon pst today 12/8/08..seems the pilot ejected..but no word on his condition yet..nor on people on the ground...seems one house is distroyed and two cars...any one got more information???

[Quicksand]

Bad news, indeed.. I'll be praying for the pilot(s), as well as anyone involved on the ground....

[CodyValkyrie]

I JUST heard this on the news. I'll keep tracking it. I'm curious to hear what happened. I'm also curious what model F-18 it was (C, D, E models). I would assume that since they said "pilot" it is a single seat model...

[Ferry_vO]

Military jet crashes in Calif. residential area
Pilot reportedly ejected before plane crashed into neighborhood

BREAKING NEWS
msnbc.com staff and news service reports
updated 3:35 p.m. ET Dec. 8, 2008

SAN DIEGO - An F-18 military jet crashed in a San Diego neighborhood on Monday, sparking at least one house fire.

It wasn't immediately clear whether anyone was injured, said Maurice Luque, a spokesman for the San Diego Fire-Rescue Department. Television news footage showed one house and two cars on fire.

The plane crashed shortly before noon Monday as it prepared to land at Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, said Ian Gregor, a Federal Aviation Administration spokesman. The crash occurred two miles from the base.

The pilot ejected, Gregor said.

"We saw two big bangs," resident Scott Patterson told KNX radio. "The smoke came up. We don't know what it was."

The F-18 is a supersonic jet used widely in the Marine Corps and Navy.

Miramar, well known for its role in the movie "Top Gun," is home to some 10,000 Marines. It was operated by the Navy until 1996.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28115760/

[von Bek]

Also on the BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7772344.stm

[N2056]

I was not able to follow this much due to being at work, but as of now the local news channels are reporting that the pilot ejected and suffered minor injuries, and sadly 2 people on the ground were killed and apparently 2 are missing :frown:

Latest, according to one of the residents who was one of the first to get to the pilot and talked to him...
The plane took off from a carrier about 100 miles off the coast, and shortly after takeoff he lost an engine. He elected to try to fly it to Miramar and was almost there when he lost the other engine...

[Shylock]

Man this is bad. One of my buddies is based near there and I cant reach him as of yet.

[jmig]

Terrible news. My prayers and condolences to the victims' families.

[eddie]

Sadly, the death toll has climbed to 3.

http://wcco.com/national/fighter.jet.crashes.2.882480.html

[Quicksand]

:frown::frown::frown:

[EasyEd]

Hey All,

Jeez I hate seeing this... So tragic and to be honest - angering - it's always small children never "the jet crashed into a known drug house where the occupants were killed as they manufactured crystal met" no it always has to be... (from Aeronews.net)


The Los Angeles Times reports two people on the ground were killed, with "a grandmother and two small children" who lived in the burning home still missing. The pilot's condition is unknown, though witnesses saw the pilot walking around "in a daze" after the accident. Witness John Kreischer told the Times he saw and heard the jet laboring as it approached to land at MCAS Miramar.
"It was must mushing through the air," Kreischer said. "It was chugging along with what seemed like one engine. Then I heard a roar of engine and all of a sudden, woop, dead silence.
"This guy could have turned it around and put it in the ocean," he continued. "He was never going to make it to Miramar."Think there will be any fallout from this one? I hope so - in situations like this you don't even consider trying to save the jet.

-Ed-

Clearly the news has been updated since this but still - mother grandmother small children probably all looking forward to Christmas.

[Panther_99FS]

Hey All,

Jeez I hate seeing this... So tragic and to be honest - angering - it's always small children never "the jet crashed into a known drug house where the occupants were killed as they manufactured crystal met" no it always has to be... (from Aeronews.net)

Think there will be any fallout from this one? I hope so - in situations like this you don't even consider trying to save the jet.

-Ed-

Clearly the news has been updated since this but still - mother grandmother small children probably all looking forward to Christmas.

Pretty bold statements when a safety report hasn't even been written yet...And I doubt the safety investigation has even begun...


(and my deepest sympathies for the families involved)

[jmig]

Hey All,

Jeez I hate seeing this... So tragic and to be honest - angering - it's always small children never "the jet crashed into a known drug house where the occupants were killed as they manufactured crystal met" no it always has to be... (from Aeronews.net)

Think there will be any fallout from this one? I hope so - in situations like this you don't even consider trying to save the jet.

-Ed-

Clearly the news has been updated since this but still - mother grandmother small children probably all looking forward to Christmas.

Ed, I doubt the pilot decided alone to try and reach Miramar on one engine. Although, he does have the final say so, he would have been advised by senior pilots (don't know what the Navy calls SOFs?) who would have looked the situation over completely. You can bet an O-6 or above was aware of the situation.

The fact the jet was flown over a populated area leads me to believe they (a collective they) felt it fairly safe to attempt the landing. As the other Ed said, we don't really know any of the facts, other than it crashed and killed three people.

[EasyEd]

Hey All,

I don't dispute what you say Panther or Jmig - we'll see what the investigation finds. Maybe you know - will every detail be as public as an NTSB report on a crash since it's military with civilian casualties? I think there are risks that you just don't take.

-Ed-

[Panther_99FS]

Here you go EasyEd--> http://usaf.aib.law.af.mil/ (http://usaf.aib.law.af.mil/)

I leave it to you now jmig....

[Kofschip]

Panther, I am glad that I am not doing that anymore. My last investigation was Ron Brown A/C in Croatia. -- K

[GT182]

We've got friends up in Massena, NY that have a daughter, her husband and kids in San Diego. I hope they are all ok. Her husband is retired from the Navy and was based at Miramar.

Thoughts and prayer for the victims.

[TARPSBird]

GT, I'm sure they're OK. Apparently the fatalities were limited to the four folks in the house. Korean family, last name Yoon.

[N2056]

I just watched the man who lost his whole family try to give a news conference...very hard to watch. The poor man is just devastated, but despite what happened he asked that prayers be offered for the pilot of the plane (he was released from the hospital today)...and stated that he held nothing against him.

I got both on my list.

What I don't understand is the decision to go to Miramar vice North Island. North Island would not have required any overflight of a populated area with a known defective aircraft.

[EasyEd]

Hey All,

http://www.sandiego6.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=1e261b8c-260e-46de-9da0-cb1635075720&rss=tick

for some details.

My prayers are with the father too.

As I said before I think there will rightly be fallout over this one. From all I can tell the decision-making was pretty poor to say the least. I'm going to make a point of following this one through just to see how it ends up.

Next question I have is: Do military bases (or even airports for that matter) located in crowded urban areas have emergency highway/freeway landing strips preidentified and actually work with and practice how fast local police/sheriffs/highway patrol/fire depts can make one ready? If not why not? Wouldn't it help get local government bureaucracies including the military used to working with each other as well as potentially avoid this kind of krapp? Seems to me some countries Finland for one routinely practice using highways as runways - for the FA-18 as well as other aircraft. Strikes me as a pretty obvious thing to do.

-Ed-

[Panther_99FS]

Next question I have is: Do military bases (or even airports for that matter) located in crowded urban areas
-Ed-

You'll find out that a lot of military & civilian bases/airports were built in quite open areas until people decided to move in close to them...

[EasyEd]

Hey All,

Panther that dog won't hunt.

I've seen farms and ranches in exactly the same situation and the will of the people will prevail and I'm sure no base commander wants the kind of negativity saying we were here first guarantees him/her. The history of how it happened is irrelevant only the will of the people there will count with the politicians. Proactivity outside of "do I havta" in working with the community is your best defense. That said...

Is there an answer to the question I asked?

-Ed-

[Panther_99FS]

Wait until the safety report comes out, Then you can go into full gear...(and I've seen pilots get 100% of the blame in some safety reports)

BTW Ed,
How come you haven't commented/posted about the 2 civilian planes that collided in the other tragic thread???

[EasyEd]

Hey All,

Panther I'm not in full gear about anything. Just looking for answers as I bet others are as well. Basically I'd like to know the decision-making and full rationale that went into the idea that it is best to fly an FA18 on one engine over crowded housing tracts into a military base instead of ditching it, landing on the carrier, flying a less hazardous route, landing elsewhere. What thinking went into this?

Now before you think I'm anti-military you should know my brother-in-law flew air force transports for 25 odd years and retired a lt colonel - my sister retired from the air force after 25 years a lt colonel in logistics but at one time worked on sr71s at Beale where I saw one up close and personal - very cool plane. I'm not anti-military but am often unabashedly anti the leadership of the military.

And Yes I feel for the pilot he'll have to deal with this the rest of his life.

That said yes the incident over Florida was tragic but not in the same way as this or another example I'll give you. Remember the Southwest airlines over-run at midway in Chicago in 2005. A 6 year-old boy missed Christmas that year and every year thereafter because a pilot forgot the 737 had thrust reversers on a snowy winter night.

To put it simply I hold airline pilots and military pilots to a far higher standard than GA pilots just as I hold Police officers to a higher standard than the ordinary driver. I think rightfully so.

All this said I'm not interested in blood but am curious about the rationale and how the military cooperates - or doesn't - with local communities. Why you wonder - in real life I plan strategies around how wildfire (forest fires) do or not not get fought coupled with fuels management and other associated activities. I'm finding ever increasingly the "silo" mentality has to be broken down because so many have a stake in the work that I do.

-Ed-

PS Oh an I don't like to see children paying the ultimate price for adult errors.

[Panther_99FS]

The problem I have with your comments Ed is that you've already reached a conclusion without even seeing a safety board report. (Which has nothing to do with higher standards)

If you came to that conclusion after reviewing the safety board report, I'd have no issues at all....

[EasyEd]

Hey All,

Panther I've no prob waiting for that report - that's why I said I am going to make a point of following this through. Some "facts" though do appear to be very self evident... (from the newspaper link)

The aircraft, on a training mission off the carrier Abraham Lincoln, was ordered to fly to Miramar rather than return to the flattop after one of its engines failed.

Military officials blamed the crash on equipment malfunction.

"We don't know exactly what was the cause of the problem he was having, and ... we will be conducting a thorough safety investigation to find that out," USMC Col. Chris O'Connor told reporters Monday afternoon.

Is the newspaper wrong? Is all this bogus? Or was there a utterly totally and completely wrong decision made? About the return to Miramar or the route taken? Does the testing (which I bet was done) of the flying capability of an FA18 with one engine turned off truly represent the real ability of the aircraft to fly on one engine when one has failed?

Irrespective of the aircraft what about the decision-making. As I get older I ever increasingly ask - "what was the thinking?" Whether it be this or the concept of unfettered capitalism on the part of the USA that is clearly to blame for the current economic crisis or my 14 year-old son's sometimes dumb decisions. What was the thinking? and why can't humans "smarten up"?

-Ed-

[Panther_99FS]

What was the thinking? -Ed-

That will be in the safety report...

[EasyEd]

Hey All,

Fair enuff - It better be or I'll know that military leadership - in this case - has gone down the exact same "hole" that political leadership has.

-Ed-

[Panther_99FS]

Hey All,

Fair enuff - It better be or I'll know that military leadership - in this case - has gone down the exact same "hole" that political leadership has.

-Ed-

Like I stated earlier,
You've already come to a conclusion without seeing the safety report....

And thus judging by your post above, if the safety report doesn't match your already pre-determined conclusion, then you'll have lost faith in military leadership....

[EasyEd]

Hey All,

One more time...

It's not about the conclusion it's about full and complete disclosure. I believe that people deserve all and I mean all the facts so that we can decide based on the evidence that "someone" came to the proper conclusion and subsequent actions. "Trust me" don't cut it anymore - too much lying has gone on for "officials" to be credible. It's the sad truth about where we are in this world and it will take time, truth and leadership before "the people" believe again. We call it apathy but I think this is what it really is.

-Ed-

PS I'll edit a bit - facts and rationale - thats what I'm looking for.

[viking3]

Almost every aircraft incident/accident is a chain of events which may or may not result in catastrophe. An AF-18 is more than capable of flying on 1 good engine, a major reason Canada bought them. It is hard enough to land on a carrier with 2 good engines, After the first engine failure the safest option would be to divert to the nearest land facility. Whatever took out the first engine MAY have caused the second failure while the aircraft was too close to final to divert over water or away from housing. The encroachment of the 'burbs is a problem all airports face. Just some observations of the incident from my computer chair.:cost1:

Regards, Rob:ernae:

[Allen]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/12/09/military.jet.crash/index.html?iref=mpstoryview :frown:

[jmig]

Hey All,

http://www.sandiego6.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=1e261b8c-260e-46de-9da0-cb1635075720&rss=tick

for some details.

My prayers are with the father too.

As I said before I think there will rightly be fallout over this one. From all I can tell the decision-making was pretty poor to say the least. I'm going to make a point of following this one through just to see how it ends up.

Next question I have is: Do military bases (or even airports for that matter) located in crowded urban areas have emergency highway/freeway landing strips preidentified and actually work with and practice how fast local police/sheriffs/highway patrol/fire depts can make one ready? If not why not? Wouldn't it help get local government bureaucracies including the military used to working with each other as well as potentially avoid this kind of krapp? Seems to me some countries Finland for one routinely practice using highways as runways - for the FA-18 as well as other aircraft. Strikes me as a pretty obvious thing to do.

-Ed-

Ed, my answer will be based on my experience from thirty years (God, can't believe it was THAT long) ago. However, my experience with the military is that while, tactics and equipment change, the basic process remains relatively the same.

To answer you question about landing on a highway, the answer is no. Why? Because that would be much more dangerous. Think about it, a modern fighter will take could 5000 feet or more to stop. That is just short of a mile. What are the odds of missing cars in that amount of room. Plus they may be overhead wires, turns, overpasses, etc in the way. It is much safer to fly to an airfield.

Concerning this accident, tou have no idea what discussions were made and what the reasoning was for attempting to land at Miramar.

If the Navy is anything like the Air Force was 30 years ago, there was a lot of discussion before the pilot landed. I was involved with a no-**** serious emergency while in the F-4s. Not unlike this F-18.

On takeoff from Hill AFB we had a bleed air leak into the right wing. This meant 800 degree air was being dumped into the wing. You can imagine what happened. Darn near every warning light in the cockpit came on.

The jet was in serious trouble and it could have gotten worse any minute. We could either eject or land. Problem was we were very heavy, too heavy in fact to land.

For fifteen minutes we monitored the jet and burnt off fuel while circling over the Great Salt Lake. During that time a group of experts both experienced pilots, McDonald Douglass engineers, and some heavy metal officers discussed the best course of action.

The decision was made (thank goodness) to land. We burnt off enough fuel to get just below max landing weight and took the cable. All ended well.

During the approach, I did have to fly over houses. what if the wing had decided to fall off because of the high heat weaken it? What if fuel or oil would have ignited in the wing? Or, if I had had an electric fire because of shorted wiring?

I would have ejected, just like that F-18 pilot did. Maybe someone would have been killed? Would you have ranted about the decision and how stupid it was?

The point is, we know only one thing. The decision to land at Miramar tragically was the wrong decision. That is all you, Panther or I know. We don't know any other facts.

We don't what went into the decision or WHY it was made. We don't know the final events before the crash? Did the pilot lose control? The stress factor of landing a crippled jet is high. I would say my anus was about chest high, when I landed at 220 plus knots. Did something else break, due to stress or damage from the engine failure?

These posibilites were obviously discussed and considered in the group decision to land. From my past experience I believe the Navy was very aware of safety and was doing what they thought was best.

If the father and husband of the victims isn't placing blame, shouldn't we wait until the facts are learned to make a judgment?

[Panther_99FS]

Well described jmig,
And your personal experience example distinctly illustrates that you shouldn't have knee-jerk reactions and "point the finger" solely at the individual in the seat.....And it also re-affirms that you must wait until the safety report is finished before you make any conclusions...

[EasyEd]

Hey All,

I've said I'll wait for the report but I expect it to detail their rationale and the assumptions they made in sending that jet to Miramar.

From an above link...

The Union-Tribune spoke with Steve Diamond, a retired naval aviator who said he found the pilot in a tree behind a house. He told the paper he helped the man, who Diamond said was a lieutenant in his 20s, down from the tree. The pilot told him that after he lost power in one engine, it was decided he would try to get the jet to Miramar on the single working engine, Diamond told the paper. The pilot was in communication with military air traffic controllers before the jet crashed about two miles from the airfield, the Federal Aviation Administration (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/federal_aviation_administration) said. According to the Los Angeles Times, the pilot ejected moments before the crash and landed in a tree. Jason Widmer said he talked to the pilot, who said he had tried to steer the jet from the homes and into a brushy canyon. "He was pretty shook up and pretty concerned if he had killed anyone," Widmer told San Diego 6. "He had seen his bird go into a house." A retired general, a pilot who has flown for 40 years and more than 270 missions in Vietnam, said the decision to eject is up to the pilot. F/A-18D planes are very dependable, but any aircraft is subject to error. That model has two engines, and it can operate with one engine. But if one engine malfunctions, it's possible that a blade can break off and fly into the other engine, causing it to malfunction, too. If both engines are inoperable and the plane descends below 10,000 feet, it's likely the pilot will soon lose control.
So decision by committee and who knows what the state of the second engine was. I'll be looking at the quality of the decision making process.


In this case if an engine fails why is it logical to assume the other engine is fine enough to take unnecessary risks? I very much doubt that the effects of a failed engine are truly represented by turning an engine off during flight testing in terms of the probability of the second engine failing. It is the data and logic behind the decision that the second engine would keep running that I want to see. Now lets suppose that only 1 in 10,000 times will both engines fail? What is the logic and rationale that says - we'll take that risk - over San Diego in a fly by wire aircraft that you can't control without power? To me it is obviously a bad gamble because it then becomes a case of not - if - but when. Is that smart?


As for landing on a highway - it is clear to me that what I was saying simply went over everyone's head. I never suggested a plane land among cars. The issue is can local authorities completely clear a temporary runway on a highway of cars for an emergency situation in a matter of minutes say 15 or 20 if trained and practiced? Why not? Is it a hassle? Yes but still why not?


I'm not ranting about anything - where does this come from?


-Ed-

An edit: Jmig I've no doubt that was scary - just as scary as I have been in a hughes 500 threading our way up a drainage in steep mountainous country and then in a sudden absolute milkbottle with trees and steep hillsides less than 75 yards away in two directions and maybe a 100 in another in. We got out by going as straight up as we could but I never wanna do it again. But getting back to your story - I don't know all the details but your of the opinion the right decision was made since it worked out but what if it hadn't? Or what if you weren't in the air force but lived in one of those houses on final? What defines acceptable risk?

[Panther_99FS]

What defines acceptable risk?

Operational Risk Management (ORM) --> http://www.safetycenter.navy.mil/orm/generalorm/introduction/default.htm

[EasyEd]

Hey All,

Interesting site Panther. I'll give it a pretty thorough look as much of this could apply to what I do in RL. That said - the 4 operational principles of risk management (ORM) pretty well say it all.



4 Principles of Applying ORM

#1 Accept risk when the Benefit>Risk.



Risk is inherent in the nature of military action.
Leaders who are in the risk-taking business must be top-quality risk managers.
Risk is usually proportional to gain.
You cannot eliminate all risk

#2 Accept no unnecessary risk.



An unnecessary risk is any risk that, if taken, will not contribute meaningfully to mission accomplishment.
Leaders who accept unnecessary risks are gambling with the lives of their Marines - for nothing.
The gambler doesn't know what will happen; the risk -managing leader can reasonably predict what the outcome will be.

#3 Anticipate and manage risks by planning.



Risks are more easily controlled when identified in planning because more time, assets, and options are available to deal with the risk.
It improves efficiency and saves money if ORM is integrated early in the planning process. If risk controls are tacked on as an afterthought in training or in combat, they will probably fail.
Proper Prior Planning Prevents Poor Performance

#4 Make risk decisions at the right level.



The leader directly responsible for the operation makes risk decisions.
If Risk > Benefit; goes beyond the Commander's stated intent; or help is needed to implement controls - communicate with higher authority.

Now apply the context of FA-18 with an engine out for unknown reasons flying over housing tracts in San Diego to Miramar. See where my doubts come from? We'll wait for the report though.

-Ed-

PS This is funny! http://www.safetycenter.navy.mil/photo/archive/archive_301-350/photo313.asp

[Panther_99FS]

See where my doubts come from?

No.

Because as I've stated before, your doubts are based upon a pre-determined conclusion....And your doubts demonstrate bias without any investigative facts & therefore I wouldn't want you as an investigator...


As for me, I've seen enough of these to know that I shouldn't lean in ANY DIRECTION until after the investigation has concluded...

[EasyEd]

Hey All,

I said doubts not conclusions... big difference. You have percieved a bias on my part where no bias exists. I draw conclusions from facts and there is absolutely no reason why my conclusions can't change with additional facts - in fact they often do. I am a scientist by training. The fundamental point is that you have assumed that I have come to a conclusion and that I'm the type that sticks to that conclusion no matter what the facts are. You have no cause for that conclusion and in fact it isn't true - but you wouldn't know that. So you accuse me when in fact you are the one with a preformed apparently unchangable opinion - not about the incident itself but about my perception of it.

But as to that site

Go through this

http://www.safetycenter.navy.mil/orm/generalorm/introduction/5steps.htm

especially the risk matrix

Now what is the benefit of getting that FA-18 to Miramar via that route that makes the benefit exceed the risk? Because the risk is at least serious by my reckoning.

-Ed-

[stiz]

the way i see it, if he'd ejected over the sea, there would have been some sort of upoar about how they ditched a plane which still had an engine and that the air force was wasteing money.

Also whats the chance that both engines where faultly?? (from what i've read). Isnt it standard that if one engine goes you land and the nearest airport?

[EasyEd]

Hey All,

Stiz we don't know where the carrier was so it may be absolutely true that Miramar was the nearest airport with enough runway. There is another on the coast but it's runway is less than 2000ft. I don't know the runway requirement for a landing FA-18 - does anybody?

I wonder more about the routing or maybe if the NAS wouldn't have been a better choice as there aren't so many civilian housing tracts around it. But it depends on where the carrier was.

I would be extremely critical of anybody who criticized a pilot for not wanting to risk civilian lives by ditching a troubled plane. People who think they have the right to dam you if you do or dam you if you don't aren't worth the time of day.

Like Panther says we'll have to wait for the report for all the facts. It won't surprise me if this turns out to be a precedent setting case and leads to a lot of changes in SOPs.

-Ed-

[Panther_99FS]

Hey All,

I said doubts not conclusions... big difference. -Ed-

No big differences in how you're conveying yourself here....

You've got to have a blank mind as possible when you go into these things.

Accountability & responsibility takes places after the investigation, not before....

[jmig]

Just a couple of observations from my USAF days.
1. Just because one engine fails, it doesn't mean the other engine is damaged. It is quite common to land single engine. I myself have done so. They use two engines for redundancy.

I remember when the F-16 first came out and they were losing them right and left because of engine failures, the F-4/F-15 boys said, "See we told you so. Two engines" For a while, the F-16 used an engine that had "proven" itself in an F-15 for 100 hours. :costumes: Talk about eating crow.

2. No pilot ever wants to eject. It is in the marrow of a pilot NOT to lose his airplane. It is like a Marine Sgt. not wanting to lose one of his men.

I remember a study done when I was flying that found the single biggest cause of death in fighter crashes was the pilot did not eject soon enough. He waited too long, trying to save the airplane.

I know that syndrome well. I lost a very good friend who waited 1/2 sec too long to eject.

[EasyEd]

Hey All,


No big differences in how you're conveying yourself here....

You've got to have a blank mind as possible when you go into these things.

Accountability & responsibility takes places after the investigation, not before....

Anybody on the face of the earth who believes that someone going into an investigation with a blank mind is lying to themselves. What they really go into the investigation with is the ability to change their mind as facts become available. being vocal ahead of an investigation may or may not bias the investigation - it depends totally on the character of the investigator. I would far rather have an investigator with an opinion ahead of time who is utterly unafraid to change his/her mind and has a record that shows it than a closed mouth seemingly neutral investigator who isn't. Stroo the political correctness it's character and honesty that matter and count - NOT who looks and acts right. I realize this might be hard to "get" but it is what I believe.

Accountability and responsibility do come after the investigation.

John you are right - when one engine fails it does not mean the other will as well - however what should a CO managing risk assume?

-Ed-

[jmig]

Hey All,



Anybody on the face of the earth who believes that someone going into an investigation with a blank mind is lying to themselves...

Accountability and responsibility do come after the investigation.

John you are right - when one engine fails it does not mean the other will as well - however what should a CO managing risk assume?

-Ed-
[/size]

Well Ed, I have a feeling you and I will disagree on this question. I would assume the term "risk management" implies some risk is involved. Otherwise, there would be nothing to manage.

The question is was the risk managed properly and the law of probability reared up to bite the Navy or, was too much assumed by the Navy's decisions makers. I feel for anyone involved with the decision. I am sure they are second guessing themselves and asking, "if only."

That along with many other questions will be determined by the investigation board. Again, I am relying on experience thirty years old. However, if they are the same, I can assure you every statement, decision, and detail will be picked apart and reassembled.

Pilots use to get frustrated with safety boards because they would take months in the comfort of air conditioned/heated offices to look at a decision the pilot had mere seconds or less to make and find fault with his decision.

I too would be interested in the final report. I don't think you or I will ever see it. Maybe Panther or Ken Stallings could see it? Military accident board reports were not released to the general public. Maybe with the new Freedom of Information Act?

[Toastmaker]

Well Ed, I have a feeling you and I will disagree on this question. I would assume the term "risk management" implies some risk is involved. Otherwise, there would be nothing to manage.

The question is was the risk managed properly and the law of probability reared up to bite the Navy or, was too much assumed by the Navy's decisions makers. I feel for anyone involved with the decision. I am sure they are second guessing themselves and asking, "if only."

That along with many other questions will be determined by the investigation board. Again, I am relying on experience thirty years old. However, if they are the same, I can assure you every statement, decision, and detail will be picked apart and reassembled.

Pilots use to get frustrated with safety boards because they would take months in the comfort of air conditioned/heated offices to look at a decision the pilot had mere seconds or less to make and find fault with his decision.

I too would be interested in the final report. I don't think you or I will ever see it. Maybe Panther or Ken Stallings could see it? Military accident board reports were not released to the general public. Maybe with the new Freedom of Information Act?



Exactly the same thing happens daily with police officers. It must be done, however, otherwise there is no way to learn valuable lessons from each event.