Coast Guard pilot involved in crash to be charged with homicide

[Uncle Fester]

I'm not an admiral, so maybe I don't understand these things, but seems to me that if you're going to shoot some poor bastard for the encouragement of the others, your message better be clear and unambiguous. I'm not sure what lesson breaking this guy and trying to court-martial him is supposed to send to the rest of the Coast Guard...deviate even slightly outside the rules and we will fucking bury you? Fuck up once and you're done?

Pickle, sorry, but I strongly disagree with your argument as I understand it. The argument that fucking up in an airplane indicates you're an unfit officer and should be thrown overboard seems to me exactly the "zero defects" mentality everyone bemoans. Since this guy's culpability in this mishap is debatable, and I've seen nothing to indicate he had a history of reckless or irresponsible or incompetent flying, what exactly is the rationale for drumming him out of the service? Keep this guy around, and you'd have a pilot in your ready room who is your strongest advocate for good CRM and lookout doctrine, obstacle clearance, etc. Maybe most importantly, the pilot who gets the newer guys' attention when it comes to discussing these things.

 

[bert]

I don't think the CG was ever going to be able to make a court martial stick, and the fact that they at least created the appearance of wanting to could have a negative effect on an individual's willingness to be fully honest with a mishap investigation. That's unfortunate.

But backing off and nuking him from orbit on his FITREP? Perfectly valid - he allowed the HAC to screw around and kill his crewmen, and that would be reason enough for me not to trust his judgement. I'm not one for yanking wings for every mistake, even stupid ones. But just sitting there as he allowed the other pilot to piss it away on this scale while flathatting is inexcusable. IIRC he was a prior HAC in another airframe, which makes the failures even worse.

On another note: I don't fully buy the "we're safer at 200' than 500'," argument. That is only true for an actual main xmsn malfunction or being on fire. For T/R EP's, engine failures, etc you will be far safer at 500', because we don't train people anymore to enter autos from non-standard (500' minimum, 80 or 100kts) profiles. Give somebody a loss of T/R drive in the sim at 200/100+ kts and watch the clowns come tumbling out of the VW (honestly, we are very poor at T/R emergencies in general, but that is a topic for another time).

I've been in Phrog's shoes and had pieces in the filter basket you could read part numbers off of (aft XMSN chip light and fluctuating pressure 40 miles out over the sea of Japan at night) and I've had a no-warning, instantaneous, complete loss of T/R drive in flight. I've done dozens of x-country ferry flights and if I did another one today I'd be 500' +.

 

[HercDriver]

I just read through the FAM, and I'm assuming that an AEB is the Coastie version of FNAEB/FFPB? If so, it appears that one was directed to be convened. I don't disagree that they fucked up, and that he should have to face the music. It just seems that big Coast Guard wasn't happy with the results of the AEB, so they convened an article 32. When they weren't happy with those results, they went after him FitRep wise.

I believe the Aviator Evalution Board is the same as an FNAEB, Phrog; one was convened and found him safe to continue flying. In parallel the Art 32 hearing was convened for accountability; it wasn't because of unhappiness with the results of the AEB (they are two very different things), but there are a host of things that they did that were contrary to policy and regulations. If you have a bad day and get in an accident while you are following rules and regs, you don't have much to worry about in terms of your career. If you ignored those rules and regs you are going to be standing in front of the man in some fashion. Not saying I agree or disagree with how this has proceeded - but it is what it is.

I would echo what Brunes said (thanks for posting that, by the way): read the Final Action of the Admin Investigation - that is what folks should be debating.

 

[HercDriver]

I don't think the CG was ever going to be able to make a court martial stick, and the fact that they at least created the appearance of wanting to could have a negative effect on an individual's willingness to be fully honest with a mishap investigation. That's unfortunate.

But mishap investigation information can't be used in a court martial.

 

[helolumpy]

On page of of the FAM is mentions the lack of cockpit warning tones for the crew.
That was always one if the issues that was always discussed with the 60F/H, the lack of Aircrew hearing the RADALT Warning or the Stability Automode Fail auidible alarms.

Did the Romeo and Sierra have that incorporated or are the Aircrewmen still not hearing cockpit alarms?

 

[bert]

But mishap investigation information can't be used in a court martial.

Yep, and hopefully the average young guy will maintain his faith in that system. But if they know they've screwed up, and they think that their leadership will try to hunt them down for it, will they still feel trust in the system? Ideally a young guy with doubts would access the SIR, compare it to the administrative document you posted, and see that, yes, the system kept the trust. But I don't know if that will happen.

Don't get me wrong, I personally don't have an issue with the article 32 itself: they did it, they made the decision (correct, in my mind) not to prosecute, and one could say the system worked. But the impression left behind is that your leadership wanted to make the prosecution happen. Fair or unfair, that is how I think the average aviator is going to look at it.

 

[picklesuit]

I apologize, it was a drunk post - I edited the less than professional part...

No problem Sir...

 

[phrogpilot73]

But backing off and nuking him from orbit on his FITREP? Perfectly valid - he allowed the HAC to screw around and kill his crewmen, and that would be reason enough for me not to trust his judgement. I'm not one for yanking wings for every mistake, even stupid ones. But just sitting there as he allowed the other pilot to piss it away on this scale while flathatting is inexcusable. IIRC he was a prior HAC in another airframe, which makes the failures even worse.

If they had convened the AEB, found him able to return to flying and tanked him on a FITREP, I'd say that's perfectly valid. However, by going to an Article 32 - then nuking him? Perception would be they are making an example of him. Perception is reality.

On another note: I don't fully buy the "we're safer at 200' than 500'," argument. That is only true for an actual main xmsn malfunction or being on fire. For T/R EP's, engine failures, etc you will be far safer at 500', because we don't train people anymore to enter autos from non-standard (500' minimum, 80 or 100kts) profiles. Give somebody a loss of T/R drive in the sim at 200/100+ kts and watch the clowns come tumbling out of the VW (honestly, we are very poor at T/R emergencies in general, but that is a topic for another time).

I have never argued that we're safer at 200' then 500'. As you well know in the Phrog, no emergency kills you instantly - and the only one that will has no associated EP. We get some warnings something bad is about to happen (and even more so now that we have AIMS, but I digress). If I had indications of a coming transmission failure or flight boost failure, you can bet your ass I'm going to be at 200' - eyeballing every single possible place to land. A buddy of mine and I went to the sim one day and decided to give emergencies to each other in TERF regimes (200' and below), not telling each other what they were going to be. It was about 50/50 if we survived.

And for what it's worth - I do my x-countries at 500' AGL...

 

[bert]

If they had convened the AEB, found him able to return to flying and tanked him on a FITREP, I'd say that's perfectly valid. However, by going to an Article 32 - then nuking him? Perception would be they are making an example of him. Perception is reality.


I have never argued that we're safer at 200' then 500'. As you well know in the Phrog, no emergency kills you instantly - and the only one that will has no associated EP. We get some warnings something bad is about to happen (and even more so now that we have AIMS, but I digress). If I had indications of a coming transmission failure or flight boost failure, you can bet your ass I'm going to be at 200' - eyeballing every single possible place to land. A buddy of mine and I went to the sim one day and decided to give emergencies to each other in TERF regimes (200' and below), not telling each other what they were going to be. It was about 50/50 if we survived.

And for what it's worth - I do my x-countries at 500' AGL...

I think we are agreeing here. My thought is they want to make a public example of him: but my concern is that they are doing it in a ham-fisted way that isn't inspiring confidence in their aviators.

It's great that you and your buddy are doing that kind of training, but the problem is that the average Fleet first tour guy isn't from anything I've seen recently. I'd finish my NATOPS checks in the sim and give the instructor a list of other scenarios to give me, and I'd routinely hear "We don't really practice that," in reference to things we used to practice in the plane back in the day. I'm not saying we need to go back to practicing AFCS off autos or deliberately drooping generators offline doing HOGE's in the bird, but the least they could do is expand what we practice in the sim past the same canned EPs we do in the bird.