I'm still interested to hear a rebuttal from Pickle. This has turned into a good and informative conversation about community qual/standards, but I'd like to hear more in response to the Fester's and my posts.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Coast Guard pilot involved in crash to be charged with homicide
- Thread starter HercDriver
- Start date
I'm still interested to hear a rebuttal from Pickle. This has turned into a good and informative conversation about community qual/standards, but I'd like to hear more in response to the Fester's and my posts.
phrogpilot73
Well-Known Member
Happens on the green side as well. We had two HACs that I can remember that were in the "HAC, but..." category. One was a day only HAC AND had to fly with senior/experienced H2P (we have no PQM in the Phrog, we come out of the FRS as H2Ps) or another HAC. She couldn't even taxi - which sounds retarded, but the Phrog has brought even experienced pilots to their knees when it comes to taxiing. It's a weird dance we have to do with the controls to turn - make a small "U" in the directon of the turn with the cyclic, little pedal in the opposite direction to get more droop stop clearance, then tap the brake in the direction of the turn if you need to tighten it up. As part of our HAC check, we have to demonstrate the ability to taxi (including elevated nosewheel and rearward taxi) - so I'm still curious why she passed her HAC check to begin with.
The other was a HAC would wasn't allowed to go to the boat as a HAC. He got that caveat after he responded to his crew chief waving him off at the boat with "No, I've got this." HUH?!?!? Thankfully, neither of them are in the Marine Corps anymore.
In the Phrog world - if you leave the squadron as a HAC - a message has been sent to the rest of the community. Eyebrows start to get raised if you're a section lead with no other quals as well. However, shitty guys still end up sliming their way in and get promoted. We had one guy come in as a Section Lead (no other quals), and despite our commentary to the OpsO (who had never flown with him) about why he SHOULD NOT be anything more than a Section Lead - he was sent to WTI. He left the squadron as a WTI (but no AFL, which would raise the eyebrows of a PTO - but no one else really). By the time we finished our deployment in Iraq, he wasn't even allowed to lead a section. Why the CO didn't pull his quals, I don't know. He transistioned to V-22s, where I can only assume that he showed his ass. He's still in, but he's an acquisitions officer now.
The thing that pisses me off about giving these guys the keys to a flying machine is then the CO expects me to crawl into the same aircraft and go flying with him or sign a Page 13 and change jobs.
If his qualifications are suspect in any area, I would expect them to be suspect in ALL areas.
Sorry for the wait LSO, had the sim until 2330, just getting my lazy ass out of bed. So here is my opinion on the matter. Take it for what it is worth. We don't fly near as much VFR as our helo brethren, nor as fast as our pointy nose brethren. So when I DO decide to do any flying below 3000' AGL, I start doing some research. Grab the old VFR sectionals and plan a route, maybe highlight the tall stuff, chum a little, etc. Then, as we live in the PNW surrounded by whiny tree-hugger types with cameras, I start looking for wildlife areas, national parks, bird conservatories, etc., all the shit that you are supposed to be over by either 2000' or 3000', depending on the area. I know it seems like basic, primary shit, but it prevents, I dunno, things like running into towers and wires, complaints from hippies with a picture of the top of your plane in a National Park...
It seems, to me, they missed this step, or made a mistake, and the crew paid for it. We always preach individual responsibility, and it seems this guy had the onus on him. I don't think anyone is out of bounds suggesting this guy may not be Top Gun material after they ran into some immovable objects marked on a chart while fucking off on a repo...
As attached, you will see the cable marked, and the National Wildlife Refuge marked. This is why I think there was, indeed, some level of responsibility required on the part of the flight crew.
Pickle
Pickle
Sure. In any mishap you can drill down through several layers of what and why (see HFAC codes taught by SAS), but at what point do you draw the line and accept that folks make mistakes. Its a tough sport we play and if we wanted to look through the rule book we'd find plenty of justifications for hanging folks out to dry - almost daily.
This was a tragic event - on that I trust we can agree - there is however a way to squeeze some good from it...IMO, the better and most useful way to handle situations like this is to trust that their experience will not be for naught - that they will become part of our walking/talking corporate encyclopedia for future crewmembers and wingmen to learn from. Caveat all of this with the fact that I'm forming this opinion based only what I've read of this mishap in the public domain, but I also come to this opinion after several years of watching aviators survive mishaps (literally and figuratively) to go on and become outstanding community assets. Whether it was ramp strike, a mid-air, engine fires, weather related, etc - a ready room now has an incredible TINS story teller for the young 'uns to learn from.
This may also be a community-specific mindset based on mission sets, community mindsets, and mission complexities.....
This was a tragic event - on that I trust we can agree - there is however a way to squeeze some good from it...IMO, the better and most useful way to handle situations like this is to trust that their experience will not be for naught - that they will become part of our walking/talking corporate encyclopedia for future crewmembers and wingmen to learn from. Caveat all of this with the fact that I'm forming this opinion based only what I've read of this mishap in the public domain, but I also come to this opinion after several years of watching aviators survive mishaps (literally and figuratively) to go on and become outstanding community assets. Whether it was ramp strike, a mid-air, engine fires, weather related, etc - a ready room now has an incredible TINS story teller for the young 'uns to learn from.
This may also be a community-specific mindset based on mission sets, community mindsets, and mission complexities.....
I'm not disputing that the mishap H2P (and the HAC) fucked up. I don't think anyone's disputing that. What I didn't and still don't understand is how the leadership feels it crossed the line into criminal negligence. They court-martialed him, for fuck's sake...for not paying close enough attention to a chart? And not being an assertive copilot? A FNAEB was in order, yes. Possibly reprimand as well. But hardly criminal charges, and when that didn't stick, drumming him out of the service.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
phrogpilot73
Well-Known Member
I think you should also add that you don't routinely fly as low as helos do. Here's a chart from the local area here. I've highlighted the wires on the chart. I routinely fly this route well below 500'. Why? It's part of our certified TERF route. When you are doing a TERF route at 50 feet, you aren't glued to the map. Your primary focus is outside the plane looking for things you could hit. When we fly TERF routes, the preferred map is a 1:50,000. Here we have to operate off of a JOGAIR, because there is not enough 1:50,000 coverage for the area.
Why don't we use a sectional? Because they don't have enough detail. How high are those powerlines? The southernmost ones (along the James River Bridge), I cross around 500' because they get high in some places. The northernmost ones, I cross around 300' - because there's a shitload of them - and some unmarked/unlit towers in the area as well. The center set? They're probably closer to 15' high, and I blast over them at 50'. A good quality map study will tell you there are wires - but not how high they are, if they're marked, where specifically the stanchions are, etc... And OPNAV says nothing about Wildlife Refuges. It says you shall fly at 3000' over known WILD FOWL habitations. The little line and dots on the chart indicate wildlife refuges, not wild fowl habitations. Not every wildlife refuge is a wild fowl habitation. And some are constantly changing (ie - there's a crap ton of birds nesting in the OBX right now, so we're supposed to avoid it as much as possible, but they're not there all the time).
In my mind - who gives a shit that he flew low to greet a CG Boat. We (in the helo world) fly low all the time. But to indict them as fucktards because they didn't do a map study? I've done a map study before a flight and still grabbed an armful of collective, screaming "wires" over the radio to avoid hitting them. Because I couldn't see the stanchions (what we really are looking for when we're looking for wires) and they were HUGE, probably close to 600' AGL.
The USCG did not court martial the survivor. The Air Station did an investigation and the District Commander (next stop in the chain of command) rejected the findings.
The District Commander (an aviator) called for an Art 32 INVESTIGATION to determine if criminal charges were warranted.
The investigation was done by an outside JAG who determined that criminal charges were not warranted. Since the survivor never went before a judge, you can't call it a court martial.
Phrog,
You make great points, I can't argue that we fly at 50'. At the end of the day though, these guys ran into a marked obstacle on a repo. Not an operational flight, not SAR exercise, not Coord-Ops with CG buddies, a REPO...I have a hard time arguing the necessity of flying down low "because we do all the time." That is part of an accepted risk as part of your operational envelope.
You need to fly low to do VERTREP, you gotta fly low to do SAR and CSAR, you gotta fly low to drag a dipper. You don't have to fly low to drop a bird off in Seattle. I believe your biggest threat as helo-bubbas is running into shit at low altitude (insert numbers from 20 minutes of internet and WESS search) and mechanical malfunctions, yes? So why poke the bear? I'm all for some VFR funtime, I love shooting the Lake Chelan Gorge and buzzing around mountains, but not on a Repo from KNUW to KNIP. And not without proper planning.
You can't argue "Too cool to CHUM" to me, I'm sorry, but those kinds of attitudes get people killed, including 1 of my best buddies in a helo wreck in CA. These guys poked the bear, the bear ate 3 of them. None of this shit really matters to this guy because at the end of the day, HE has to sleep with the fact that he contributed to 3 guys getting killed. Glad he is out of jail, don't know if he has a future, but he is lucky to have the option to bitch about a shitty FITREP.
Pickle
You make great points, I can't argue that we fly at 50'. At the end of the day though, these guys ran into a marked obstacle on a repo. Not an operational flight, not SAR exercise, not Coord-Ops with CG buddies, a REPO...I have a hard time arguing the necessity of flying down low "because we do all the time." That is part of an accepted risk as part of your operational envelope.
You need to fly low to do VERTREP, you gotta fly low to do SAR and CSAR, you gotta fly low to drag a dipper. You don't have to fly low to drop a bird off in Seattle. I believe your biggest threat as helo-bubbas is running into shit at low altitude (insert numbers from 20 minutes of internet and WESS search) and mechanical malfunctions, yes? So why poke the bear? I'm all for some VFR funtime, I love shooting the Lake Chelan Gorge and buzzing around mountains, but not on a Repo from KNUW to KNIP. And not without proper planning.
You can't argue "Too cool to CHUM" to me, I'm sorry, but those kinds of attitudes get people killed, including 1 of my best buddies in a helo wreck in CA. These guys poked the bear, the bear ate 3 of them. None of this shit really matters to this guy because at the end of the day, HE has to sleep with the fact that he contributed to 3 guys getting killed. Glad he is out of jail, don't know if he has a future, but he is lucky to have the option to bitch about a shitty FITREP.
Pickle
MasterBates
Well-Known Member
Pickle,
As a guy who has flown props and helos, you are talkin out your asshole about no operational need to be low.
Before you start spouting how they should have been on a V route, you want something that can struggle to make 100 knots at some of the MEAs out there, IF they can get that high at all.
Without knowing the wx and navigation capabilities of the aircraft (I am in a bar in Amsterdam on my phone) low altitude might have been the only viable altitude.
They screwed the pooch on CRM and hazard avoidance.
Just having helos fly at Fixed Wing altitudes is a whole nother problem. And since you mentioned mechanical malfunctions, beyond 1000 AGL, altitude is a bad thing to have a lot of the time.
Scariest three or four minutes of my life to date was descending from Angels 8 to Cherubs .5 with a MAIN XMSN CHIP with an associated INPUT MOD CHIP, MAIN XMSN PRESS LOW lights and oil pressure fluctuations from 10 to 40 PSI.
Sent from my PH44100 using Tapatalk
As a guy who has flown props and helos, you are talkin out your asshole about no operational need to be low.
Before you start spouting how they should have been on a V route, you want something that can struggle to make 100 knots at some of the MEAs out there, IF they can get that high at all.
Without knowing the wx and navigation capabilities of the aircraft (I am in a bar in Amsterdam on my phone) low altitude might have been the only viable altitude.
They screwed the pooch on CRM and hazard avoidance.
Just having helos fly at Fixed Wing altitudes is a whole nother problem. And since you mentioned mechanical malfunctions, beyond 1000 AGL, altitude is a bad thing to have a lot of the time.
Scariest three or four minutes of my life to date was descending from Angels 8 to Cherubs .5 with a MAIN XMSN CHIP with an associated INPUT MOD CHIP, MAIN XMSN PRESS LOW lights and oil pressure fluctuations from 10 to 40 PSI.
Sent from my PH44100 using Tapatalk
Point taken, I stand corrected. But I didn't exactly get the impression that the district commander called for the Art 32 as a formality. What was it about this case that led the admiral to believe that criminal charges were warranted?
Yes, these pilots poked the bear and got them and their crew bit hard. They forgot about the "inherently unforgiving" part of aviation while flying near the ground. But why were the normal mechanisms for investigating, rehabilitating and if necessary disciplining naval aviators not enough?
I'll reiterate my point: if this was an extraordinary case that required the extraordinary step of an Art 32, then the hows and whys need to be published. Otherwise, what was the point? It doesn't help prevent further mishaps in the future, it doesn't help this pilot. Even if you don't care about the mishap pilot in question, leaving the rest of your aviators to think that you'll pursue them criminally if they fuck up is a difficult move for me to understand.
Morale aside, it runs the risk of stifling open and honest mishap investigations. Don't tell me about privilege either...this guys sins seem to sum up as, he got distracted and complacent and deferred too much to a more experienced HAC during a critical phase of flight. Bad aviating, but hardly criminal. If he can be brought up to an Art 32 for that, you better believe guys will lawyer up before admitting anything to a mishap investigator.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
You're heading to the training command right? I suspect your tone might change just a little bit after you've had the shit scared out of you a few times. Maybe even on a benign flight (similar to a "repo") where you give the student a little too much rope. I certainly do not wish any fright-ex's upon you - but I do submit that with greater experience your perspective might change a little bit.
phrogpilot73
Well-Known Member
I was never arguing the "Too cool to CHUM" philosophy. Which, may be prevalent in some ready rooms - but I've never been in a squadron that didn't have a master hazard map. Which occasionally got CHUM'd by pilots seeing something, vice waiting on the good mapping people to get around to updating their stuff. There's a myriad of reasons to fly low in Helos, not just "because it's what we've always done".
What you might not get since all you know is P-3s (which isn't bad, it just is), is that VFR is often times the only option for helos. I don't know what the specific nav suite is of the H-60T, but if it's anything like the Navy 60s then it isn't exactly an airways machine. For instance, the 60S has a decent nav suite, but is still limited to using TACAN/VOR for IFR flight with the option of a ILS at the end. However, the 60S has limited fuel, so the weather is bad and you don't have a good alternate that's close, then there's no point in going. The 60R is even more navaid limited, having only a TACAN. Neither aircraft has a legal way to file as GPS capable right now (/G?). In helos if the weather is only kind of crappy, say between 500-1 and 1000-3, then you might as well just go SVFR. If it's really crappy then you'd better have a good reason to go where you're getting. Also, due to the helo's low speed and the nature of the enroute structure, most of the time it's just more efficient to go VFR direct.
"Standard" overland altitude for me (and everyone I've ever flown with) has always been 500' Why 500'? 500' is a good compromise between your worst cases: your transmission seizes (no longer flying, only falling), in which case being lower is better; engine failure, which will give you plenty of altitude to respond to the EP before the ground comes after you, or tail rotor drive failure, which will give you plenty of altitude to get on profile to execute the auto. In addition to these risk mitigators, 500' puts you above most obstacles and will give you decent enough vis to spot larger obstacles. With a max speed of ~150, you have a lot more time to respond to obstacles, and even more time if you slow down (a la SVFR).
The fleet standard for low levels is 200' overland. Anything below 200' and now you're on a low level flight that requires proper planning or luck. That said, there are ways to get lower if you need to by checking the LZ for hazards.
Aerodynamically, flight at much past sea level is not ideal for helos. Helos like thick air. There's a noticable performance drop off at 5k and 10k is a good round number for a service ceiling. Start flying high and you start having to contend with higher headwinds (when you go 120, a 40kt headwind is a big deal) and lower ground speeds, thus increasing your time to get anywhere. If you do end up having to fly higher, say in a mountainous environment, then helos actually like to be flown closer to the ground to stay within the boundary layer of the mountain, this usually equates to about 50-100' AGL.
So what this means is that you can't necessarily equate flying a large patrol aircraft to flying a helo. Different beasts.