Marine F-35 Down

[Swanee]

Not entirely true (and not that ATC was trying to deviate anyone in this case), but the FAA can go after a military member's civilian certificate if they know the pilot's name/details. Essentially it's a dual jeopardy situation. However the FAA knows this and is fine with letting a member hide behind military protection. Hence why on a flight plan (back when you filed with a FSS regularly) you could just say "On file, KNxx" when they asked for the pilot's name.

Is there more to this story? Not trying to be a dick, I'm very curious as to whether they have been successful doing this to someone.

I got the advice early on that if I ever got a number to call, only ID yourself by your flight's callsign, and then call dad to let him know that the FAA may call someone.

With the VMU we've had a couple of folks do some wonky stuff, and a couple of airplanes do even wonkier stuff, and ATC got mad. Our response* to them was that the aircrew is doing something that the FAA doesn't have a certificate for, so they can pound sand. But then we did the FFPB thing when it was appropriate.



*Through the DCA's office, as in the cases of flight violations, technically it is the service chief who is the one who is supposed to deal with it. They delegate that down to the DCA office, and I'm sure it's the FAA liaison dude for the service that deals with the stuff.

 

[nittany03]

Not entirely true (and not that ATC was trying to deviate anyone in this case), but the FAA can go after a military member's civilian certificate if they know the pilot's name/details. Essentially it's a dual jeopardy situation. However the FAA knows this and is fine with letting a member hide behind military protection. Hence why on a flight plan (back when you filed with a FSS regularly) you could just say "On file, KNxx" when they asked for the pilot's name.

We had that brief way back when I was a Red Knight from a guy at the FAA whose job was to be the interface between FAA enforcement and the OPNAV staff. His first words . . . "my callsign is Shitscreen."

words

We simo-posted, but I was briefed on this as a young SNA. Granted that's dated, but unless things have changed, it's true from the FAA's mouth. Back then, I was told there's a gentleman's agreement where the FAA lets the military handle most buffoonery, but it's technically possible for a military pilot who also has an airman certificate to get in certificate trouble for doing something dumb in a military airplane.

That said, there are measures to keep this from happening, and one of them is to say the PIC's identity is "on file," because unless it's really egregious, the FAA will generally not dig too hard for minor shit.

 

[HuggyU2]

I was violated once by the FAA when I was in the Edwards Complex. I refused to take a vector for traffic avoidance. The ensuing investigation involved very little from my part. I spoke on the phone to the Western Region Military Liaison (no clue if that's the title... it's been too many years) and explained what happened from my cockpit. My name remained sanitized from the process.

The FAA "violates the call sign", and not the pilot/crew. However, the scuttlebutt (unconfirmed) is you need to keep your name out of it if you have an FAA certificate since there is the potential (again, unconfirmed) that the FAA could take action on your certificate.

In the paranoid world I live in, when I filed the DD 175 on active duty, I didn't list my SSN (does anyone?) and my name was spelled "slightly wrong"... so when the FAA called Airmen Schmuckenfuss at Beale Base Ops to say "Who was Pinon 32?" and the young Airman mistakenly gave out my info, it wouldn't come back to bite me.

Let's face it: what's the bottom portion of the DD 175 used for? Identification of the crew.

If I crash a military aircraft, no one is going to say "Quick! Grab the DD 175 and see who it was!!" I could fill in my name as 'Alfred E. Newman' and it wouldn't confuse a single person... since no one is going to give two shits about what name is on the DD 175 post impact.

Therefore... I treated the DD 175 as document that was required to get the USAF/USN/USMC Base Ops system to allow me to taxi, raise the landing gear, and go on my merry way. I'll fill out whatever blocks you want me to... using the info I am willing to give you... ... may I go now?

It was for my convenience... not theirs.

edit: OBTW, if your unit doesn't have a program to fly the local FAA FSDO folks... fix it! This pays dividends. Big time. And the professional relationships have the potential to last for years... and pay further dividends.

 

[insanebikerboy]

I was violated once by the FAA when I was in the Edwards Complex. I refused to take a vector for traffic avoidance.

That's interesting you were violated for refusing a vector. One of the first briefs I got when I first moved to San Diego was from SOCAL TRACON and the briefer talked about vectors. Specifically, he told us that if ATC gives you a vector, you can refuse it and ATC will have to give you something else. However, once you roger up and say "fly heading 220", etc, then you've agreed to it and if you deviate you can get violated.

 

[nittany03]

That's interesting you were violated for refusing a vector. One of the first briefs I got when I first moved to San Diego was from SOCAL TRACON and the briefer talked about vectors. Specifically, he told us that if ATC gives you a vector, you can refuse it and ATC will have to give you something else. However, once you roger up and say "fly heading 220", etc, then you've agreed to it and if you deviate you can get violated.

Seems that the magic word would be “unable,” as long as you as PIC could later defend why the vector was a dumb idea. Granted, if the controller knew something you didn’t re: your present course/speed/rate of climb’s propensity to run into something bad like an airliner, that’s probably not the wisest COA.

But if the controller is asking you to do something really dumb, wouldn’t “unable” or if applicable “cancel IFR” be appropriate, followed by cluing in your Skipper on the ground and possibly calling whatever number is provided? Without giving your name?

 

[insanebikerboy]

Seems that the magic word would be “unable,” as long as you as PIC could later defend why the vector was a dumb idea. Granted, if the controller knew something you didn’t re: your present course/speed/rate of climb’s propensity to run into something bad like an airliner, that’s probably not the wisest COA.

But if the controller is asking you to do something really dumb, wouldn’t “unable” or if applicable “cancel IFR” be appropriate, followed by cluing in your Skipper on the ground and possibly calling whatever number is provided? Without giving your name?

It's been over 10 years since I sat in that brief but the takeaway that I remember is that, legally, you're not required to fly the vector unless you roger up to the heading. Obviously 99.9% of the time we all roger up right away because it's in our best interest to fly what ATC gives us.

Of course, I could be misremembering.

 

[FrankTheTank]

Not entirely true (and not that ATC was trying to deviate anyone in this case), but the FAA can go after a military member's civilian certificate if they know the pilot's name/details. Essentially it's a dual jeopardy situation. However the FAA knows this and is fine with letting a member hide behind military protection. Hence why on a flight plan (back when you filed with a FSS regularly) you could just say "On file, KNxx" when they asked for the pilot's name.

This! We had a couple IPs violated when I was in Meridian due to the SDO (or whatever we called the SNAs on duty) giving out IPs names. There was a controller trying to get a transfer from Meridian Approach and figured a way was to become a pain in the ass to the Navy! I’m sure he was ruthless on civilian flyers too.

 

[Gatordev]

Is there more to this story? Not trying to be a dick, I'm very curious as to whether they have been successful doing this to someone.

I got the advice early on that if I ever got a number to call, only ID yourself by your flight's callsign, and then call dad to let him know that the FAA may call someone.

With the VMU we've had a couple of folks do some wonky stuff, and a couple of airplanes do even wonkier stuff, and ATC got mad. Our response* to them was that the aircrew is doing something that the FAA doesn't have a certificate for, so they can pound sand. But then we did the FFPB thing when it was appropriate.



*Through the DCA's office, as in the cases of flight violations, technically it is the service chief who is the one who is supposed to deal with it. They delegate that down to the DCA office, and I'm sure it's the FAA liaison dude for the service that deals with the stuff.

Frank obviously has some examples, and I want to say @HAL Pilot shared an example in the past, but I may be mis-rembering. I've had a lot of FSS briefers want to take my name, but I've had a few who won't ask for it. I remember one guy, when filing a DVFR flight plan to the Bahamas that just asked "and where are you on file at?" He knew the game.

Big picture-wise, the usual process is FAA->Military Liason->Wing. I'll use Florida as an example, as I've seen the process happen first-hand. GLUE SNIFFER 101 violates airspace at Mega Complex Intl, so ATC wants to issue the deviation. They don't know who GS101 is, so ATC calls the regional office (in Atlanta), who then hands the deviation to that particular service liaison rep. That rep then calls the Type Wing to report and ask for findings. After an investigation (which may be minutes or days), a determination happens by Wing leadership and sent back to the service rep (I'm assuming this is mostly a courtesy unless it's something really egregious and the FAA isn't satisfied).

As mentioned earlier, the pilot's name is not shared with the FAA (or shouldn't be, at least). That service liaison can also help with other matters. I spoke with the rep one time trying to work a non-JANAP callsign at one point, just to keep both ATC happy and not confuse USN aircraft with other PAO aircraft. He just asked to be told what the decision was and he'd pass it along to the FAA and ATC.

 

[scoolbubba]

The Whiting IGS peeps are putting out that you must, 100% of the time, put your actual name and signature on a flight plan. I don't think they appreciated the peanut gallery of reservists with ATPs in the back calling immediate bullshit on that, for this exact reason.

My foreflight email is decline@decline.com. My Name? Mr. Decline. Phone number? 1234567890. If Mr. Decline had an address, it would be 123 fake street. None of this makes it impossible for the FAA to get my name when i'm doing orange and white things with ENS Getyaviolated up front, it just doesn't make it any easier for them.

 

[Gatordev]

The Whiting IGS peeps are putting out that you must, 100% of the time, put your actual name and signature on a flight plan. I don't think they appreciated the peanut gallery of reservists with ATPs in the back calling immediate bullshit on that, for this exact reason.

As I was ranting to @Jim123 via PM last week, I don't think either Whiting Base Opsses know as much as they think they do. See also: weather office (if that's even still manned at this point).

 

[scoolbubba]

It is, and they are actually right next to the Ops desks for all the squadrons in the new building. It's quite nice to be able to pop in and speak face to face with the weather lady about whether or not to hang onto a stud for a few more hours or just start drinking early and weather cancel.

 

[ea6bflyr]

From social media: a closeup of the right engines.


Also from twitter: video of F-35 impact

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1311365856639758337

 

[wink]

The FAA taking certificate action on the civ liciense of a military pilot flying DOD aircraft on a military mission is like the state board of medical licensing going after a military physician for leaving a sponge in a military surgical patient. It is a military matter.

 

[taxi1]

From social media: a closeup of the right engines.
View attachment 27532

As a retiree with zero inside knowledge, I wonder why the plane was anywhere near those engines.

If it was near them, it was hella-close to the wing, which is definitely needed for flight. Engines were luckily optional.

whew

 

[ea6bflyr]

As a retiree with zero inside knowledge, I wonder why the plane was anywhere near those engines.

If it was near them, it was hella-close to the wing, which is definitely needed for flight. Engines were luckily optional.

whew

Yes, it could have been much worse if the F-35 had torn off the KC-130's wing.

As a non-tanking E-2 guy, your comment above makes sense. You've never joined up and wrestled with a tanker.

I have some thoughts as to what may have happened, but I'll refrain from speculating on an active mishap.