Navy Pilots Busted for Low Flyover

...except that I believe the report said they were LCDR's (O-4), not CDR's (O-5). That leaves open the possibility of being passed over for CDR and being dumped just short of the 18-year safety zone for retirement.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
Cite the reference for your information please.
Click to expand...
About 62 different safety briefings I got during my 15-year military flying career. Sorry I can't provide an actual citation, but if you ask the Navy or Air Force Safety Centers, you can probably get the straight data.

'Course, maybe they lied to us just to make a point, but that would be another issue.
 
Did these guys push the envelope ? Yup
Did they fire up the crowd ? You bet
Do military fly bys enhance recruitment ? Without a doubt

In these uncertain times the military needs all help they can get to recruit and retain quality forces. When the masses that are entertaining the thought of joining the military see and hear all the horror stories of active troops being suckered into being deployed with the promise they will be there for a preset amount of time then cycled home and then some idiot politician who has never been in the armed forces determines they will extend their deployment you can bank on the fact it will deter any future signups.

Should the pilots be punished ? Yup.
Permenantly clip their wings ? Hell no

No accident or injuries / no foul.

Don't even get me started on a crew of four who severed a tram cable while out buzzing a mountian and sent a few dozen innocent humans crashing to their death and probably came out better in their present/future careers. I am all for oversight and firm management of pilots but just be consistant.

Off my soapbox now.

Ben.

Ps. A fast and low pass of military jets is "almost" better then sex. Almost.! :no: And it is the sights and sounds of freedom.:yesnod::yesnod::yesnod:
 
Ron Levy said:
That's more or less the senior military leadership's position on stuff like this. Back in my day, they court-martialed and jailed an F-15 pilot who gave an unauthorized air show over his home town. BTW, that cat was caught because the Mayor called his wing commander to say thanks for the show.

Why all that fuss?

Mainly because they have to trust the crews to do exactly what they are told, exactly where they are told, exactly when they are told, and exactly how they are told, because otherwise the right people don't get killed and the wrong people do. For example...

One of the crews in my RF-4 squadron flying a post-strike recce pass at Red Flag was almost blown out of the sky because an A-7 pilot running late dropped a stick of live 500-lb bombs 60 seconds after his TOT (Time on Target) window closed and he didn't want to have to explain why he brought the ordnance back. Our guys were just about to go "cameras on" to take a picture of that A-7 pilot's hopefully-destroyed target when the bombs detonated, and only a 7g pull kept them out of the bomb frag pattern (which goes up half a mile in the air). And because that happened, the A-7 driver did have to explain what happened, and was sent home from Red Flag for his bad decision to drop late. (Dunno if or what happened to him later.)

BTW, we managed to keep our crew away from the A-7 unit until the offending pilot left the base, but it wasn't easy.
Click to expand...


I was a Red Flag Air Operations Officer at one time in my career. I know from whence you speak...

Rules are made to keep people ALIVE !!!!

I've seen more than one crew sent home for dumb tricks.
 
John Baker said:
Think about a private on guard duty packing a loaded automatic rifle, what if he exercised poor judgment? Should he keep his job?
Click to expand...
No, because private wanna-be cops are not NEARLY as valuable to us. I already don't want these people (not very bright people for the most part) to have weapons, and I certainly don't want them to have weapons if they're dangerous in addition to being dumb. I didn't pay for their training, either.

This isn't a good analogy. These military officers did something that, while against the rules, was safe. They acted in very good judgement except for when they forgot to consider the ridiculous consequences. I'd be prone to do something similar.

-Felix
 
sba55 said:
No, because private wanna-be cops are not NEARLY as valuable to us. I already don't want these people (not very bright people for the most part) to have weapons, and I certainly don't want them to have weapons if they're dangerous in addition to being dumb. I didn't pay for their training, either.

This isn't a good analogy. These military officers did something that, while against the rules, was safe. They acted in very good judgement except for when they forgot to consider the ridiculous consequences. I'd be prone to do something similar.

-Felix
Click to expand...

JB was referring to a "Private" -- a low ranking enlisted person -- in the Armed Forces -- not a mall cop.

As a former Infantry Company Commander, I was surrounded by E-2s through E-8 "packing automatic weapons."

Of course, 20 years earlier I was "packing" either a shotgun or an M-16 at age 18 around nuclear weapons.

I was far, far safer in those situations than on any gun range, public highway, or busy VFR airport anywhere on earth.
 
These two officers were command grade officers, not leadership grade. They will be held to the Command grade standards r.e following rules.

They be gone.
 
sba55 said:
This isn't a good analogy. These military officers did something that, while against the rules, was safe.
Click to expand...
You miss the admiral's point -- the issue here is discipline, not safety, as you note, what they did was against the rules.
They acted in very good judgement except for when they forgot to consider the ridiculous consequences.
Click to expand...
The military does not consider violations of flight discipline to be "very good judgement."
I'd be prone to do something similar.
Click to expand...
Good thing for you that you're not a military flyer.
 
Two Northwest pilots made a mistake and overshot an airport and although their aircraft and passengers were never in danger they had their certificates revoked and careers ended, and many contributors to this board were cheering.

Two Navy pilots do a low flyover of a stadium filled with thousands of people, unplanned and unauthorized and have their flying privileges revoked which will probably end their career, and many contributors to this board find that terrible and unjust.
 
I thank the lord J_sus that I had the fortune to be trained in a disciplined environment. Discipline is lacking in all parts of American culture, including, unfortunately, two Lieutenant Commanders.
 
I know most of you will never be in a position to command folks like this; I was. Every time you entrust folks with sophisticated, high performance equipment, a challenging mission and put them in an environment where they could be harmed or harm overs, you think it over carefully. To have two folks breach that trust in confidence means you don't ever allow it to happen again.

Let's just say, something went wrong. Not only them, but the people that trusted them would be on the carpet answering for what happened. When everything goes right, there are no adverse consequences, but military commanders have to take all things into consideration--including if things go wrong. The folks flying the mission don't always have the full picture either. The commander relies on them to do their part as directed; others may depend on that in other missions. In this case, the pilots let testosterone trump judgment and following orders. Just not good for military aviators. Young guys, maybe get a bit more slack. Folks at this level shouldn't expect much.
During time of war, when these folks are needed much more, things seem to be more flexible. This kind of mission is a good will mission that is supposed to demonstrate the high standards of naval aviators.

Best,

Dave
 
Rotor&Wing said:
Two Navy pilots do a low flyover of a stadium filled with thousands of people, unplanned and unauthorized and have their flying privileges revoked which will probably end their career, and many contributors to this board find that terrible and unjust.
Click to expand...

Is that a fact?

My understanding is they busted an altitude and that this was a scheduled flyover planned and authorized.

Your scenario shoul dhave totally different consequences.
 
RMCN172RG said:
Is that a fact?

My understanding is they busted an altitude and that this was a scheduled flyover planned and authorized.

Your scenario shoul dhave totally different consequences.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I misread the article.

So, in this instance they busted altitude over a stadium filled with thousands of spectators. My "scenario" is just pointing out how two situations with similar outcomes are being perceived.

Run both scenarios through a Risk Management matrix and determine if there are any differences or not.
 
Y'all should be careful about the semantics involved and how they are viewed inside and outside the military. Don't anyone confuse what happened here with an "altitude bust" like what happens when someone accidently deviates from an assigned altitude or accidentally busts a B/C/D airspace. In the view of the military, this was not a simple mistake -- it is considered an unacceptable violation of flight discipline incompatible with being a senior aviation officer serving at the department head level. In that sense, the context as well as the act itself is significant.
 
Ron Levy said:
Y'all should be careful about the semantics involved and how they are viewed inside and outside the military. Don't anyone confuse what happened here with an "altitude bust" like what happens when someone accidently deviates from an assigned altitude or accidentally busts a B/C/D airspace. In the view of the military, this was not a simple mistake -- it is considered an unacceptable violation of flight discipline incompatible with being a senior aviation officer serving at the department head level. In that sense, the context as well as the act itself is significant.
Click to expand...

So its more of... "a pilot of this experience and responsibility does not make "mistakes" of this nature"...


Had they sent the two most junior pilots out and they had done the same thing, would the senior aviators still have their balls hanging from the yardarm for a failure of command?
 
If you are in the military, you do as your told, and how your told to do it. Above all things, military discipline is paramount.

During Roman times, serving in a legion meant 100% commitment. Officers received no special treatment from enlisted members when it came to the punishments issued for breaches in discipline. Punishment was usually cruel and lasted long enough to make an impression on all members of the unit, and most always resulted in death.

The military has never been a democracy. Throughout history, those serving in armies or navies do so at the pleasure of their commander. It mattered little that they agreed or disagreed with his directives. What did matter is that they executed them as he ordered.

No military can succeed or survive without absolute discipline. Any commander who thinks otherwise is doing nothing more than fooling himself, and his time in command will be brief.

In earlier times, those two officers would have lost a whole lot more than their right to fly.

John
 
John Baker said:
If you are in the military, you do as your told, and how your told to do it. Above all things, military discipline is paramount.

During Roman times, serving in a legion meant 100% commitment. Officers received no special treatment from enlisted members when it came to the punishments issued for breaches in discipline. Punishment was usually cruel and lasted long enough to make an impression on all members of the unit, and most always resulted in death.

The military has never been a democracy. Throughout history, those serving in armies or navies do so at the pleasure of their commander. It mattered little that they agreed or disagreed with his directives. What did matter is that they executed them as he ordered.

No military can succeed or survive without absolute discipline. Any commander who thinks otherwise is doing nothing more than fooling himself, and his time in command will be brief.

In earlier times, those two officers would have lost a whole lot more than their right to fly.

John
Click to expand...

Fortunately, the United States Military isn't only about "following orders."

There are unlawful orders, and even the lowest enlisted member is duty bound to refuse to obey an unlawful order.

We don't train automatons -- we train leaders who are supposed to think and act with the men and the mission foremost, one never superseding the other.

An imperfect art, certainly, but the intent and expectation.
 
Even the Romans had what would be termed, "unlawful orders" and I agree with that concept completely. I should have included following lawful orders somewhere in my post.
 
Jay Honeck said:
These poor guys fly over their alma mater in landing configuration and get chopped off at the knees. In some ways it's good that the WWII guys are mostly gone, so they don't have to see what their descendents have wrought...
Click to expand...

"I have seen them in their T-Bolts, when their eyes were dancing flame
I have seen their screaming power-dives that blasted Goering's name
Now they fly like sissies, and they hang their heads in shame
The force is shot to hell!
"Glory flying regulations
Have them read at all the stations
Burn the ass of those that breaks them
The force is shot to hell!"


​
Ron Wanttaja
 
Doggtyred said:
But.. this finding is determined after the fact, in a nonjudicial hearing or in a courts martial..
Click to expand...

The case may be established after the fact, but every soldier should know that an order to kill unarmed civilians constitutes an unlawful order.

It's like pornography -- hard to define, but you know it when you see it.
 
The easiest way to look at this is through the commanders eyes. What would you do, had you been him? Forget the pilots who broke the regs, now that your the commander, the entire unit is your responsibility, now and into the future. What will you be handing over to the next commander?

If you accept little mistakes, what, exactly is the line between little and big? Between big and horrendous? You let those guys off with a slap on the wrist, what about the next guys, will you be as "fair" with them as well?

John
 
In thinking about it (which is a dangerous thing to do) I have decided that a lot of people find it easier to forgive a "boys will be boys" scenario, as in the flyover, than inattention, as in the laptop incident. As far as my personal observation flying with former and retired military pilots, some were pretty disciplined, others not so much so. Sort of like the general pilot population.
 
Ron Levy said:
Good thing for you that you're not a military flyer.
Click to expand...
Yes. I wouldn't do well in the military, nor would I want to be the kind of person who does well there. Pragmatism always comes ahead of rules for me.

-Felix
 
sba55 said:
Yes. I wouldn't do well in the military, nor would I want to be the kind of person who does well there. Pragmatism always comes ahead of rules for me.

-Felix
Click to expand...

Is it easier to be pragmatic in German or Russian, or perhaps Japanese? Would it matter?

John
 
dmccormack said:
There are unlawful orders, and even the lowest enlisted member is duty bound to refuse to obey an unlawful order.
Click to expand...
Not entirely so. Lt William Calley was court-martialed and convicted for what ordering the massacre at My Lai, but his platoon sergeant was acquited on the basis of a direct order from a superior commissioned officer (Lt Calley) in a combat situation. Charges against the rest of the platoon were then dropped. When Lt Calley presented the same defense at his court-martial, saying he, too, was doing as ordered by his company commander Capt. Ernest Medina, his defense was rejected on the basis of his status as a commissioned officer.

But of course, this is irrelevant to the instant case, in which two senior officers deviated from flying regulations in a public manner without any justification.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
Not entirely so. Lt William Calley was court-martialed and convicted for what ordering the massacre at My Lai, but his platoon sergeant was acquited on the basis of a direct order from a superior commissioned officer (Lt Calley) in a combat situation. Charges against the rest of the platoon were then dropped. When Lt Calley presented the same defense at his court-martial, saying he, too, was doing as ordered by his company commander Capt. Ernest Medina, his defense was rejected on the basis of his status as a commissioned officer.

But of course, this is irrelevant to the instant case, in which two senior officers deviated from flying regulations in a public manner without any justification.
Click to expand...

The Calley case was a travesty in many, many ways, and is in no way normative for soldiers of any rank, EM or O.
 
ted gilbertson said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Dr2ZB36p9Y

If this is the case the pilots in these videos are all going to be reassigned to cleaning toilets. These guys are not even close to 1000agl:yikes:
Click to expand...
The first one was part of a movie shoot and done with permission. Another two were part of Blue Angels demos, again with permission. Others appear to have been either on ranges or in combat zones. Several were done over runways at military installations. Several were non-US aircraft. All in all, none appear to be violations of the rules violated by the two pilots involved in the action covered by this thread.
 
Ron Levy said:
Not entirely so. Lt William Calley was court-martialed and convicted for what ordering the massacre at My Lai, but his platoon sergeant was acquited on the basis of a direct order from a superior commissioned officer (Lt Calley) in a combat situation. Charges against the rest of the platoon were then dropped. When Lt Calley presented the same defense at his court-martial, saying he, too, was doing as ordered by his company commander Capt. Ernest Medina, his defense was rejected on the basis of his status as a commissioned officer.

But of course, this is irrelevant to the instant case, in which two senior officers deviated from flying regulations in a public manner without any justification.
Click to expand...

Yes Ron, some of us were at Fort Benning during that trial; I was duty officer for the post at least once that I recall. Those of us on active duty at the time read that decision to mean a commissioned officer was the lowest rank where one could be held responsible for moral decisions. Obviously, more to it.
Medina's boss (Ross Franklin) never make general officer even though no direct link could be established to him (the battalion CO at the time). Heck of a officer; I was under him at Benning.

Also, while I was there in attending the Officer's Advanced Course, Captain Major represented the Pentagon (Officer of Personnel something). He was promoted to major before I resigned from active duty :smile:

Best,

Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top