Oceana F/A-18 pilots grounded after low flyover

[hey_moe]

OCEANA
Two fighter pilots from Virginia Beach have been permanently grounded after flying too low over a packed Georgia Tech football game last year.

The aviators, both from Strike Fighter Squadron 136 at Oceana Naval Air Station and both Georgia Tech alum ni, were supposed to pass over Bobby Dodd Stadium in downtown Atlanta (http://www.dailypress.com/topic/us/georgia/dekalb-county-%28georgia%29/atlanta-PLGEO100101101011253.topic) at 1,000 feet, the standard altitude for military flyovers.

Plans called for two jets to pass overhead after the conclusion of the national anthem, shortly before Georgia Tech took the field against Wake Forest on Nov. 7.

Instead, the two F/A-18 Super Hornets flew just a few hundred feet above the stadium.

The low-altitude pass may not have been intentional, but it seemed to thrill the crowd. Within hours of the game, various fans posted videos on the Internet of the jets screaming overhead.

''However much of my tax $$ went to that, I'd gladly give it again for the same purpose," one fan wrote on a Georgia Tech sports blog two days after the flyover. "It was INCREDIBLE."

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.

The board found that they chose to fly using barometric altitude measurements (feet above sea level) instead of radar altitude measurements (feet above ground level) but failed to adjust their low-altitude warning systems accordingly.

By the time the alarm sounded, the pilots didn't have enough time to correct the mistake.

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.

But the final authority on the matter, Rear Adm. R.J. O'Hanlon, commander of Naval Air Force Atlantic, disputed the conclusion that Condon, the lead pilot, had unintentionally flown that low.

''The arguments written by prior endorsers that LCDR Condon's actions were an honest mistake are not persuasive," O'Hanlon wrote. "He is a senior, very experienced department head who placed his aircraft and wingman in a very dangerous position."

O'Hanlon also had tough words for Fryman. Despite a spotless record, O'Hanlon wrote, Fryman's complacent response to the altitude transgression and lack of situational awareness were "unforgiveable in my view."

Lt. Cmdr. Phil Rosi, a spokesman for the Norfolk (http://www.dailypress.com/topic/us/virginia/norfolk-county/norfolk-%28norfolk-virginia%29-PLGEO100101185020000.topic)-based Commander Naval Air Force Atlantic, said the Navy would not confirm the pilots' names. The field naval aviator evaluation board process is administrative, Rosi said, one of naval aviation's internal checks and balances, and carries with it an expectation of privacy.

''I can confirm that this incident happened," Rosi said, and because minimum established guidelines were violated, the Navy took appropriate action to handle it.

O'Hanlon's decision was not disciplinary, and he recommended that both men be retained and shifted to a different specialty. He described both as motivated and dedicated naval officers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvlX2Fb0kZM

[David_L6]

and he recommended that both men be retained and shifted to a different specialty.


What "different specialty" could possibly compare to being a pilot?

[cheezyflier]

What "different specialty" could possibly compare to being a pilot?

maybe they mean they won't fly fighters anymore. just guessing

[TARPSBird]

In this case I think it means being moved from F-18's to some other aircraft type such as P-3's or E-2's. No offense to any forum members who have served in those communities but for a fighter guy that's equivalent to exile in Siberia. I hope they don't get their wings pulled for the incident.

[hey_moe]

To me I think they are being to picky on the pilots. I see nothing wrong with what they did and at air shows they fly lower than that.

[deathfromafar]

I agree with Moe 100%. Typical chickens**t move by command staff which is too common these days. Permanently grounding them over this? Geez.

[Wing_Z]

"Tower...request flyby.."
"Negative, the pattern is full!"
"Uh, Mav, this is not a good idea..." :d

[jmig]

It is the "kiss of death" to their careers. They will both be retiring soon.

In this world of "Politically Correctness" things that were once over looked are now mortal sins.

It is a shame to destroy to careers over this. I can assure you that they or the public were in no danger.

[PRB]

One time, when I worked at NAS Lemoore, and lived in the near by town of Hanford, CA, a couple of Super Hornets flew down "main st." in Hanford, at very low altitude, to kick off the 4th of July fire works show. It was cool. My two cats were terrified, running "to and fro" looking for cover. One of the guys in our office called the base commander to complain about it!! And he was himself an ex-naval aviator. Some people!

[Navy Chief]

'Tis a different Navy, and indeed, a changed society.

In years past, such things would not only have been accepted, but cheered.

No more fun..............

GO NAVAIR......long live the "old" days.

NC

[Odie]

To me I think they are being to picky on the pilots. I see nothing wrong with what they did and at air shows they fly lower than that.

Ya hit the nail on the head with that one, Moe !

[stiz]

In years past, such things would not only have been accepted, but cheered.


not really, in ww2 an awful lot of people complained about the RAF doing low flying excersies near em, they were just told to sod off though, allthough in different terms :mixedsmi:

[PRB]

In the 1980s, two of our pilots (A-7Es) got into a wee bit of trouble after flying over then President Reagan's CA ranch, for a sight seeing pass... But it was just a butt chewing. They kept thier Corsair wings.

[Flyboy208]

Such a shame to hear this. It's not like they were a couple of Junior Officers out showboating, but rather a pair of experienced LCDR's. What in the hell is this world coming to?

Mike

[oakfloor]

It is the "kiss of death" to their careers. They will both be retiring soon.

In this world of "Politically Correctness" things that were once over looked are now mortal sins.

It is a shame to destroy to careers over this. I can assure you that they or the public were in no danger.
Nail -on - head correct, welcome to the un-employment line, please take a number. Or they could allways get a job with Fedx. But thats why not every one gets a seat in a F-18.

[hey_moe]

I would find it hard to believe those two pilots would do something to endanger the public at a game like that.To what they did and to justify that kind of punishment to me is totally uncalled for. To me some big wheel tird is really over stepping his authority.

[GT182]

To me I think they are being to picky on the pilots. I see nothing wrong with what they did and at air shows they fly lower than that.

Gotta agree with Moe.... But besides that, what about combat? Isn't that extreme danger, or am I missing something?

But then again there are rules:

1. The Boss is always right.

2. See rule number 1.

[jkcook28]

I would not be surprised a bit if the Rear Admiral got a call from the FAA, them having been notified by one of our fearless politicians that saw this...http://www.smileyvault.com/albums/userpics/10172/faint.gif (http://www.smileyvault.com/)

[Ken Stallings]

Way overboard on the punishment in my view. The difference visually speaking between "a few hundred feet" versus 1,000 feet AGL is very difficult to detect in flight. Furthermore, I believe a flawed assumption is being made by the senior reviewing officer. It is not automatically superior to use radar altimeter over barometric altimeter. Radar altimeters can be inaccurate also due to the reflective nature of the terrain and the calibration of the equipment.

The issue was the accuracy of the local pressure altitude setting dialed into the baro altimeter. My guess is the two pilots were using the local altimeter used by the nearest airport and normally that is very accurate. However, on days where the pressure is rapidly changing, being 500 feet off (which is likely all this was) is not uncommon.

I think the recommendations made by the reviewing board were rational and fair. Obviously this senior reviewing officer has a size twelve corn cob stuck high up his rectum and needs an enema!

If the two pilots were hot dogging then that's one thing, but the fact they landed and promptly filed a report on themselves shows it was unintentional. I have never known a hot dog artist to file paperwork on himself immediately after landing. All this sanctimonious jerk of a reviewing officer likely did was cost this nation the vital services of two highly professional aviators during prolonged war.

In wars past, such a ruling would have been considered laughable. Richard Bong's punishment for flying too low over a civilian's house was his commander ordered him to report to the house and perform laundry chores for the lady who's "wash was blown off her line!"

If this dimwit who crucified these two Naval officers had been Bong's boss, there would have been forty fewer Japanese aircraft shot down in the war!

Ken

[Wing_Z]

Wasn't there a Blue Angels crash attributed to incorrect altimeter pressure setting, a while ago?

[Ken Stallings]

What in the hell is this world coming to?

Mike

... A long overdue correction back to equilibrium and sanity! Because I think this holier-than-thou and merciless sense of punishment over any slight mistake has reached full stupidity and too many good people are being arbitrarily hung out to dry.

Every time something like this happens, you can bank on at least several potential recruits who decide perhaps the US military isn't the carerr for them after all!

Flying is supposed to be fun and you don't have to hot dog to have fun flying. However, there is a gross difference between hot dogging and an honest inability to calibrate your eyeballs to within 500 feet or so at low level.

Ken

[Willy]

My two cents is that this Admiral has a case of "watch me do this and thereby in some miniscule way justify my job". There's been a enviroment in the Navy upper echelons of eating their young since before I retired. It all goes back to zero tolerance for any transgressions which in my mind is a career killer and totally un-necessary.

On a related front for Ken. At the horse forums I frequent, a woman out west has been having problems with low flying aircraft coming in low level and scaring her horses enough that they're coming through the fences injuring themselves in the process. She says that this happens every few weeks. From her description, it's some kind of motorized glider. I told her to call the tower at her local airport and try to get the tail number of the aircraft. Any further suggestions that I could pass on, other than a shotgun and buckshot?

[stansdds]

Two LCDR's? Hmmmm, they must have about 15 years in service. Drum them out before retirement eligibility? Saves money for the navy. I know a former LCDR who was drummed out with 16 years in. He was sufficiently connected and bitched enough to get a partial retirement, but I think he is the rare case.

Just my tinfoil hat thoughts.

[HouseHobbit]

It seems that we are NOT ALLOWED to have fun anymore.. What a Bummer..

That shouldn't pull those mens wings..They showed very good flying skills: low level in any Modern jet at speed takes skill and daring..
Perhaps they should be Teaching the "Brass" how to fly aircraft and Not desks..

So much for the good old days, when be "michievous" wasn't a Crime..

[tigisfat]

A few points:

-This waiver to fly over an event with assembled people had a hard deck. It is illegal to fly aerobatics or a flight demonstration over a crowd without a specific one-time waiver.

-You can't compare this flight to airshows because a military airshow demo pilot has a full aerobatic waiver for each performance and his sole flying mission is to demonstrate the aircraft, which he's been training for and has a fully developed and realized profile. He also belongs to a unit that primarily flies demos. In every service, just about any pilot who's approved can perform an event flyover. There's a very large difference. Many flyovers are tacked onto normal training sorties.

-The punishment is par for the course. It stinks, but everyone in today's military knows the stakes, and absolutely flawless behavior at all times is expected. They still chose to hang themselves out.

-Hotdogging and playing in aircraft is allowed, I guarantee every Super Hornet pilot at their base has had the oppurtunity to screw off a little, but there's a time and place such as on a low level route or out in Nevada. Perhaps if there weren't a jillion cameras rolling they would've fared better.


Personally, I think they didn't do anything wrong. If I were the commander, they'd get a slap on the wrist. They were a little excessively low, and I would rather see that height with higher speed for momentum, lower AOA for visibility and better margins and maneuvering, but that's all kinda whatever. An old colonel flight instructor of mine said that when he was a lieutenant, his AC rolled a B-1 so smoothly he barely noticed in the back of the aircraft. He had to find out later. MANY years later, someone reported the AC as the AC was going for his first star. My instructor was permanently refused full bird because of being part of the aircrew.



It's regrettable.

[TARPSBird]

There's been a enviroment in the Navy upper echelons of eating their young since before I retired. It all goes back to zero tolerance for any transgressions which in my mind is a career killer and totally un-necessary.
I couldn't agree more Willy. All too often the Navy uses "zero tolerance" as a substitute for common sense and even-handed treatment in addressing infractions of regulations. Its history of witch-hunts and blame-placing is bad enough (USS Indianapolis sinking, USS Pueblo seizure, USS Iowa turret explosion). Then add political correctness (Tailhook convention scandal, SEALs prosecution) into the mix and you have an unhealthy atmosphere where a sailor is almost afraid to do his/her job for fear even a small mistake will cost them their career. :frown:

[Flyboy208]

One thing to remember is the cost to the taxpayers for the USN aviator training - from Pensacola "Nugget" to operational O4 rank and Hornet drivers with a possible F-14 background, or possibly all Hornet time - all of the accumulated flight hours and experience - this really ticks me off now! Again, what the hell is this world coming to? I remember a time in my Navy Active duty service when "wings of gold" were hard to tarnish.

This is a big blow to Naval Aviation as I see it. Mike :kilroy:

[Ken Stallings]

My two cents is that this Admiral has a case of "watch me do this and thereby in some miniscule way justify my job". There's been a enviroment in the Navy upper echelons of eating their young since before I retired. It all goes back to zero tolerance for any transgressions which in my mind is a career killer and totally un-necessary.

On a related front for Ken. At the horse forums I frequent, a woman out west has been having problems with low flying aircraft coming in low level and scaring her horses enough that they're coming through the fences injuring themselves in the process. She says that this happens every few weeks. From her description, it's some kind of motorized glider. I told her to call the tower at her local airport and try to get the tail number of the aircraft. Any further suggestions that I could pass on, other than a shotgun and buckshot?

Might should also contact the FBO owner at any of the non-towered local airports also. Depending upon how many local airports there are, the glider could be launching from anywhere within 50 miles. The good news is there are very few motorized gliders so she has a good chance to track it down.

These gliders are subject to the same FAR/AIM that powered aircraft are subject to, and this includes the requirement that no pilot may operate his aircraft in a way to hazard the public, nor may he operate his aircraft at less than 500 feet above any person, structure, or object on the ground except for takeoffs and landings. Further, in a populated area, no pilot may operate his aircraft less than 1000 feet above the highest obstruction wtihint 2000 feet horizontal of the aircraft.

Sounds like by the witness, this glider pilot is violating at least three federal laws.

Ken

[tigisfat]

...at less than 500 feet above any person, structure, or object on the ground except for takeoffs and landings. .....


I'm sure you meant to say 'from' any person or property as opposed to 'above'. You can fly at 1 foot above the ground if the only piece of property around is a fence 500 feet to your right, or fly 1 foot off the water where no boats are within 500 feet.

Also of note is the rule about performances in front of an assembly of people. If she owns an equestrian center and there are 40 people gathered for horse activities on a Saturday, she could REALLY hammer the pilot by saying he was hottdogging it because he saw a gathering on the ground.

[WND]

I find it ironic that the "Blues" and the "Birds" break rules at every airshow and all they get is a hand shake and a "job well done" and yet these 2 pilots who reported themselves upon landing get a much stiffer penalty!!!

I guess it's not what you did BUT who did it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bill

[Ken Stallings]

I would find it hard to believe those two pilots would do something to endanger the public at a game like that.To what they did and to justify that kind of punishment to me is totally uncalled for. To me some big wheel tird is really over stepping his authority.

When I first read your comment, Moe, something was bubbling up from inside me but I could not figure it out until just now. Of course, I fully agreed with your comment, but I didn't connect the dots in my cranium to fully understand why.

Until now!

I served most of my military career in Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC). And for many years I realized how fortunate that was. Over the years, the military outside Special Forces became so engrossed in politics that it lost its focus on mission accomplishment. Rules and rulebooks became far more important than flexible mission accomplishment.

It became within the larger military a top-heavy authoritarian concept. It didn't matter any longer if the mission was safely accomplished. Instead, it mattered entirely how well the subordinates followed every rule the brass established. You could be entirely successful, overcome a roadblock in your path, to accomplish a wartime mission. But, if you violated a rule while achieving success, even in combat operations, then the brass would crucify you!

I encountered a bit of that mentality but fortunately my bosses who's opinions really mattered on my career were AFSOC, and therefore were raised on a far more mission-centric ethic. They congratulated me for my decision to put the mission first and get the job done. However, since I was deployed, my immediate boss was not in AFSOC, but in Air Combat Command, where the rulebook is God almighty!

Didn't matter that I communicated immediately what the roadblock was. Didn't matter that I advocated a solution and my intent to follow it. Didn't matter that I made two efforts to call my boss on the phone twice before being compelled to put my solution into effect. Didn't matter that I was unable to reach him on the phone, but left two messages for him to call me back, and he didn't call me back to personally speak with me on the issue. Didn't matter that his email he sent me didn't arrive in time.

Nope, when faced with a decision to deviate from a written administrative rule and do it in a way that was safe and allowed the misison to be carried out, I decided to deviate and safely accomplish the mission.

My ACC boss hammered me and relieved me from command.

My AFSOC boss back home congratulated me!

That's why my career continued without a hitch. In fact, multiple times I had senior AFSOC officers shake my hand and tell me I made the right choice and put the mission first!

That is also why Special Forces are doing the lion's share of the successful work in this war even though by sheer numbers we are but a small fraction of the people and equipment allocated in the war. But, as regular forces sit in garrison with all the gear, small units of well trained SF are performing the mission all out of proportion to their numbers.

It is because these SF forces have a different concept of duty. When they are given a combat mission to carry out, they allow subordinates actually on the field to make ad-hoc decisions. SF are measured by one standard -- safe mission accomplishment. Safety is not paramount. Safe mission accomplishment is paramount. So, if you find a way to "hack the mission" you are rewarded for your ability to think agily and creatively to reach success. One of the best pieces of leadership advice I ever got was from an Army SF Colonel, who during an operation to capture a Serbian war criminal for transport to the Hague, when an important decision needed to be made by a SEAL team, I saw this Colonel sit by the radio and not make any inputs. When I asked him about it, he said, "The Army doesn't need an O-6 platoon leader!" In other words, the man had the faith in his people to make the right choices on the fly, and most important of all the personal courage to accept the risks of those decisions so made, without fear compelling him to micro-manage the fast-paced situation. Nor, had his SEAL team leader made a less than perfect choice would he had crucified him. His SEAL team leader made the right choices and accomplished the mission. I never forgot that lesson, and applied it to the best extent I could from then on. Unfortunately, my immediate bosses while deployed many years later were not that of the same mind as that Army SF Colonel, nor could they possibly comprehend what that old Colonel understood!

All the company grade officers during Vietnam, who learned the painful lessons of an overly bureaucratic senior leadership, and promised to do things differently when they became general officers, have since retired. They have been replaced by a generation of officers who mostly came through the ranks during a period of prolonged peace. They rose through bureaucratic decision-making, and their lives are dominated by CYA and rules! They stifle creative thinking in subordinate officers and NCO's. They want absolute control over the smallest of decisions, and will destroy the careers of officers and NCO's who act independently to the degree required to get a job done. Worst of all, they live in a climate of personal fear for the impact on their careers that dynamic subordinate mission decisions might cause. So, they seek to stifle that creative thinking so vital to winning a war! And by destroying the careers of subordinates who make hard choices to achieve mission success, or make honest mistakes, they further create a climate of fear within the ranks, and promote those who share the same obsession on micro-management, with the associated refusal to bend the rules to achieve success against an enemy who's intent is to see your mission fail!

This is the true damage the current generation of military general officers are causing. The rule books have exploded in size, complexity, and scope. The smallest actions are now codified and dominated by a lawyeristic layer of jargon and often conflicting instruction. The current Rules of Engagement are so thick with requirements that complaints are being uttered in increasing stridency by enlisted members, NCO's, and lower ranking officers to a degree not seen since Vietnam. And we all know what happened ultimately in Vietnam! The climate became so bad that Bill Gates in desperation, called upon an officer who had already announced his pending retirement to his many friends in AFSOC. However, this old officer, Norton Schwartz, was called upon to become the current Air Force Chief of Staff. Gates said, "Give me an officer without a call sign!" He got one. He's been known as "Norty" his whole career. He's a straight shooter -- an honest and hard working man who knows the pains of Vietnam first hand as a very young Lieutenant flying the right seat of a "Slick" C-130E, and he doesn't tolerate bureacratic officers who stand in the way of mission success. He's fired many a wing commander for failure to meet objective performance standards, especially mishandling of nuclear weapons! He cut most of his career path in AFSOC!

It is time to call it like it is, and I am glad to be liberated as a civilian so I can now talk about it openly. It must change. And we as the people who ultimately pay the bills are the ones who can work to make it change. Norty Schwartz is trying to change it, but he has many enemies within the big blue AF standing in his way! Rational changes must be made to destroy this obsessive level of control and intolerance of even the smallest errors. This situation with these two clearly professional and responsible Naval aviators brought up all the BS I have had to see take place since the Norman Schwartzkoph's and Colin Powell's retired. These men were Lieutenants and Captains in Vietnam and they swore personal oaths that they would act opposite of the way generals like William Westmoreland did in Vietnam.

This is the prime reason why Desert Storm was fought to such spectacular success with such low casualties. When the decision to kill was made, the men in the ranks were told to get in there and kill! The ROE were clear and the mandate was simple -- find the enemy and kill the enemy! If Stormin Norman got upset about anything, it was when his subordinate general officers didn't get in there and kill fast and efficiently enough!

As a direct consequence to this clear thinking, the same generation of general officers also knew the difference between an honest mistake in peacetime operations versus indications of true unprofessional actions, or a climate that prevented people getting a job done right. They would forgive the former and punish the latter. Rightly so!

Today, the bureaucratic generation of generals are so quick to second guess their own leaders in the field. They are quick to react to honest mistakes by erecting further layers of overbearing rules of engagement, making everyone's job ever more difficult. Worse, they have sponsored a climate of 100% unforgiveness, a merciless sense of authority, rules, and climate of enforcement. In short, they act to protect their careers vice act to achieve the mission!

Fortunately, I got to serve the balance of my career in the one exception -- Special Forces. Now I fear whether before the unavoidable correction back to equilibrium takes place, whether the climate of CYA, rules, and oppressive authority might destroy the flexible climate of dynamic subordinancy that has come to characterize Special Forces, and account for their near total levels of safe mission accomplishment despite being given the toughest jobs in the toughest of circumstances.

Sincerely offered,

Ken Stallings

[Skittles]

Wasn't there a Blue Angels crash attributed to incorrect altimeter pressure setting, a while ago?

There was a thunderbirds F-16 crash and (successful ejection) by a pilot who I think had QNH set when starting a loop rather than QFE. Started too low, and finished too low.

Edit: In fact here's an excellent video of it. Wasn't a loop;

http://www.encyclopedia.com/video/alo_XWCqNUQ-thunderbirds-ejectcrash-how-it-happened.aspx

I'll say again that the pilot was safe and sound.

[Skittles]

I find it ironic that the "Blues" and the "Birds" break rules at every airshow and all they get is a hand shake and a "job well done" and yet these 2 pilots who reported themselves upon landing get a much stiffer penalty!!!

I guess it's not what you did BUT who did it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bill


The blues and the birds (and indeed every pro demo team) break no regulations whatsoever. However, I do think the penalty for this incident is ridiculous.

[jmig]

There was a thunderbirds F-16 crash and (successful ejection) by a pilot who I think had QNH set when starting a loop rather than QFE. Started too low, and finished too low.

Edit: In fact here's an excellent video of it. Wasn't a loop;

http://www.encyclopedia.com/video/alo_XWCqNUQ-thunderbirds-ejectcrash-how-it-happened.aspx

I'll say again that the pilot was safe and sound.


That was a case of not considering the density altitude of his elevation. It was a stupid error and he almost paid the ultimate price for his error.

Ken, well said. However, even the Special Forces are started to see the nit picking, pissant B.S. The case of the SEALs who are being court marshaled for breaking a terrorist's nose is an example of what you were talking about.

[Ken Stallings]

I thought about adding my observations on that exact situation, but knew my post was already getting way too long.

However, those two SEALS weren't dimed out by their fellow SF peers and commanders. It wasn't until the thug they captured made outrageous accusations through his civilian lawyer that the brass inside the regular Navy decided to take the word of a murderous thug over their own SF leadership!

But you are right, this prosecution despite all evidence to the contrary is a low point for the problems I am talking about. So you are right to bring it up.

It's just another example of the regular military walking all over everything and everyone to keep up the PC appearances.

Ken

[kilo delta]

One wonders whatever became of the pilot involved in this fly-over?...

PLPC-4Mj3N8

[jmig]

I thought about adding my observations on that exact situation, but knew my post was already getting way too long.

However, those two SEALS weren't dimed out by their fellow SF peers and commanders. It wasn't until the thug they captured made outrageous accusations through his civilian lawyer that the brass inside the regular Navy decided to take the word of a murderous thug over their own SF leadership!

But you are right, this prosecution despite all evidence to the contrary is a low point for the problems I am talking about. So you are right to bring it up.

It's just another example of the regular military walking all over everything and everyone to keep up the PC appearances.

Ken

After posting Ken, I decided to do a search and see if there was any updated info on the SEAL injustice. I found a letter from the head of the former SEALs organization to all of its members. He stated that the NSW was NOT who brought the charges but from with the greater Naval JAG system. Probably some two-bit LT (JG) JAG who hates everyone better than he is, which means just about everyone, trying to make points.

After reading the book Lone Survivor" I have a better understanding how the current ROE is tying the hands of the combatants. We complained about in in SEA. I guess it is even worse now.

[tigisfat]

I find it ironic that the "Blues" and the "Birds" break rules at every airshow and all they get is a hand shake and a "job well done" and yet these 2 pilots who reported themselves upon landing get a much stiffer penalty!!!

I guess it's not what you did BUT who did it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bill


That is not true at all. The Blue Angels and the Thunderbirds fly under an aerobatic waiver that is specific to each demonstration. Within that waiver, there are another set of rules as well as the airshow's specific rules. That being said, They don't break the rules.

[safn1949]

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/alo_XWCqNUQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/alo_XWCqNUQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>


Here you go,this pilot has nerve,I'll give that to him.:d

[Technogrunt]

I served in the Navy on LSD 39 U.S.S. MT Vernon (an amphibious ship currently on permanent patrol Naval Weapons Station Catalina, ca.), I have been out pushing 14 years. We road in the back of the bus and most of the time we were not sure what carrier we were following. To punish these pilots is a crime, they flew too low they are trained professionals at no time was anyone or any property in danger. They were doing a low speed pass. Unlike some of the Air National Guard stationed in Fresno ca., my office is just up the street from the airport and those rocket jockeys are at mach 1+ over the city all the time on their takeoffs.
The Navy Pilots just wanted the people at the game to get an up-close good look at what their tax $$ are paying for in flight.
John

[jmig]

I served in the Navy on LSD 39 U.S.S. MT Vernon (an amphibious ship currently on permanent patrol Naval Weapons Station Catalina, ca.), I have been out pushing 14 years. We road in the back of the bus and most of the time we were not sure what carrier we were following. To punish these pilots is a crime, they flew too low they are trained professionals at no time was anyone or any property in danger. They were doing a low speed pass. Unlike some of the Air National Guard stationed in Fresno ca., my office is just up the street from the airport and those rocket jockeys are at mach 1+ over the city all the time on their takeoffs.
The Navy Pilots just wanted the people at the game to get an up-close good look at what their tax $$ are paying for in flight.
John

Sorry John, I have to correct you here. You might unknowingly confuse others. While it may sound to you that they are going over Mach 1, I can assure they are not. If they did, chances are you would lose some of your office windows and you would then KNOW what Mach 1+ sounds like.

When I was flying in the USAF we had to log every Mach 1+ flight over land. We had to show where we started and ended. This was in case someone claimed damages. The difference between .98 mach and mach 1 is nothing inside the cockpit. But it is a BIG difference outside of the cockpit.

[Ken Stallings]

That's very true. If they were flying at transsonic speeds or higher, you would have heard a sound that would have made you duck under your desk in fear someone had set off a bomb in your office.

No joke!

Cheers,

Ken

[Willy]

I remember sonic booms as a kid in Southern California when my dad was stationed there. Once you've heard one, you'll not forget it.

Mt Vernon eh? USS Tortuga (LSD 46) out of Little Creek here. Gotta love a gator freighter!

[WND]

I find it ironic that the "Blues" and the "Birds" break rules at every airshow and all they get is a hand shake and a "job well done" and yet these 2 pilots who reported themselves upon landing get a much stiffer penalty!!!

I guess it's not what you did BUT who did it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bill


The blues and the birds (and indeed every pro demo team) break no regulations whatsoever.

That is not true at all. The Blue Angels and the Thunderbirds fly under an aerobatic waiver that is specific to each demonstration. Within that waiver, there are another set of rules as well as the airshow's specific rules. That being said, They don't break the rules.


Skittles & Tigisfat:

I stand corrected on my comment! That was not quite a correct statement I made and I apologize for that - I certainly don't want to mislead anyone with in-correct information!!!!!!!

Since I HAVE NOT attended "EVERY" "Blues" and Birds" show, I will replace the word "EVERY" with "AIRSHOW's THAT I HAVE ATTENDED"!!!

Having been a pilot for quite some time, having "Airbossed" airshows for over 20 years, and for the SOLE PURPOSE of this thread, I will stand by my CORRECTED statement!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bill

[jmig]

Skittles & Tigisfat:

I stand corrected on my comment! That was not quite a correct statement I made and I apologize for that - I certainly don't want to mislead anyone with in-correct information!!!!!!!

Since I HAVE NOT attended "EVERY" "Blues" and Birds" show, I will replace the word "EVERY" with "AIRSHOW's THAT I HAVE ATTENDED"!!!

Having been a pilot for quite some time, having "Airbossed" airshows for over 20 years, and for the SOLE PURPOSE of this thread, I will stand by my CORRECTED statement!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bill

Hi Bill! I am confused now? Since you have been an airboss, you obviously are familiar with the rules and regs governing airshows. If I read your statement correctly, it seems to me that you feel as if you are correct in your original statement that the TBs and Blues violate the rules during their performances? You are only conceding the "always" point.

I have been fortunate to fly a low pass tight formation flyby in two different airshows. In both cases during the pre-flight briefing we went over what we were to do and not do, i.e. overfly the crowds, altitudes, where the IP of the pass would be, etc. In videos of the TBs and Blue Angels I have seen them discussing these exact same things during their briefings.

I guess my confusing and question is, you obviously are familiar with what can and cannot be done at airshows. So, just how are these demo/acrobatic teams violating the AFRs at these shows? I am genuinely curious. I assumed that they had waviers for the low flying.

[Odie]

That is not true at all. The Blue Angels and the Thunderbirds fly under an aerobatic waiver that is specific to each demonstration. Within that waiver, there are another set of rules as well as the airshow's specific rules. That being said, They don't break the rules.

Tig is correct. They have to work with the FAA closely in show prep and there's an FAA official onsite every day of the show to work with the airshow planners in case "changes" in the planned routines are needed. This includes every a/c going up to perform.

In addition, they have to get an okay from the host city authorities as well.

[centuryseries]

The difference visually speaking between "a few hundred feet" versus 1,000 feet AGL is very difficult to detect in flight.

I'm sure two experienced naval aviators who land on a carrier deck a couple of hundred feet above sea level know the difference between 200 feet, and 1000 feet! Otherwise it's amazing they didn't crash into the deck!!


but the fact they landed and promptly filed a report on themselves shows it was unintentional.

Or a sign of total guilt. If it was unintentional and they didn't realise, they would not have said anything surely!

As much as I like a low pass, rules are rules - if they didn't make examples of pilots doing this sort of thing breaking rules would be seen to be okay.

Top Gun types eh!

[PRB]

That's very true. If they were flying at transsonic speeds or higher, you would have heard a sound that would have made you duck under your desk in fear someone had set off a bomb in your office.

No joke!

Cheers,

KenNo joke is right. A while back, while working at NAS Lemoore, an FA-18C did a supersonic pass. We all thought he screwed up, but evidently it was authorized. We were on the second floor of the flight simulation building. I've seen supersonic passes while standing on the ground outside, but never, before this incident, while inside a building. The building mooved, a lot. It was huge. It felt like an earthquake, accompanied by the loud boom. One of our graphic artists did dive under the desk! We all had a good laugh over that for a while...

[WND]

Good Morning John:

You are correct, there are MANY "general" rules governing an airshow and there are "specific" rules based on many different issues for that specific airshow and it's surroundings etc. Whenever there is public attendance at an airshow, the governing body (in this country) is the FAA - even if you have military participation..

A pilots briefing is MANDATORY!!! I would hold mine no later than 1 hour prior to show start (I would try for 2) - that way we could get the main briefing done, the individual groups had time to finalize their stuff - and I could get together with each group, and the pilots could get to their aircraft and relax a few minutes before things got going.. I assume you where the pilot in your 2 shows?? The reason I say that is I never allowed "passengers" to participate in the shows - only mandatory crew members... For safety reasons.. However I will also say that a few times I got overruled on that issue - probably because of political reason's!!! lol

Now, I'm not saying they violated ALL the rules, but I have witnessed a rule or 2 broken!!

Example: At a show (as you probably are aware of since you participated in a couple), you have a "crowd line" and you have several "show" lines - which are dictated upon the speed of the aircraft doing the routine - and there generally the center line of the runway. Another words, a small bi-plane (such as a Pitts) can use a 500' show line, a higher performance aircraft (say a P-51) has to use a 1000' show line, and real high performance aircraft (jets) are at a 1500' (or greater) show line. The bigger the airport, the easier it is to control!!! If we where doing a show at a large airport, we would set the "crowd line" at the greatest distance and then change the "show line" for a particular aircraft. You really get tested when you do shows at small airports because the "crowd line" extends all the way around the airport!!! So now you have hangers / houses or whatever to contend with!!!

The performers CANNOT get any closer than that to the crowd OR crowd line.. And that includes whether he / she is making a low pass or at the top of a loop!!! On occasion I had to warn pilots during their routine that they where "drifting" but that was a rarity.

So, whenever you see (and I'm sure you have) an aircraft heading towards the crowd / flying over the crowd BUT inside that distance between his / her "show line" and the "crowd line", A RULE is being broken!!!! BTW, the "show line" goes all the way around the crowd - not just in front of them and then once outside the confines of the airport, you have other rules that apply as well.

Now, that's just one example but it was the easiest one to explain at the moment, and I hope it helped.. I will also say that I had to answer to a "higher up" and as long as he was happy - I was happy!!!

The point I was trying to make regarding this thread was the fact that it didn't matter what was done BUT who did it!!!

Hope you have a great day..

Bill

[Ken Stallings]

Centuryseries,

I spent a career flying low level in various C-130's. Your eyeballs aren't good enough to calibrate the difference between 500 and 1000 feet. You can perceive differences, but often you can be decieved by optical illusions.

The testimony is they did not realize the error until they got close enough to the stadium to recognize the situation. That is a classic example of using a known height reference. The carrier is a known height reference and pilots can use that consistently well to gauge their altitude.

But as a pilot you should realize how often visual glideslope can be fooled when you are landing at a runway considerably narrower or wider than one you are accustomed to. Further, it is known that when approaching a runway sitting on a plateau, you are often below glideslope because you are gauging your altitude by what's below you vice the runway that is sitting up higher.

The reverse is true when a runway is in a valley. You tend to come in too high.

The point is that optical illusions are a known issue and pilots who have supreme faith in their abilities to gauge altitude with their eyes can often kill themselves being unable to perceive the situation accurately. My view is this admiral has supreme faith in his ability to judge a situation he wasn't there to see himself. Seems to me he flew himself into the rocks!

Cheers,

Ken

[clmooring]

I live a few miles from oceana and I will tell you that the f18's fly the landing pattern over lynnheaven mall no much higher than that everyday. A few years ago I lived on their approach, and they flew over my house not much higher than that and T that speed; sometimes a lot faster.

In Virginia Beech, it is called the sound of freedom.