• 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

squorch2 said:
Pfft, you can argue anything with *facts*.
Click to expand...
P-3 guys have a weird attitude towards VFR flight; ie its far to dangerous to attempt. A buddy of mine suggested to his crew one day that because it was a nice day that they should head from Pax to Jax VFR. All the "good CRM" came out and told him he was touched in the head and that IFR was the way the community rolled and so they filed and enjoyed the country from some retardedly high altitude as opposed to cruising the beaches.

An older version of our SOP had some weird stuff in it for the helos; there was a list of approved fields and going to any other field required a DD-175 despite the fact that the other fields were well within the local area and would therefore be covered under the flight sked. I took it out when I was rewriting the SOP and got some pushback from an older P-3 pilot. It didn't jive with his worldview and he felt that at the very least we should be using a stereo route, but he couldn't provide any rational for why that should be. I showed him the 3710 and mentioned how I had gone to a field not on the list the day prior with the CO. I told him it was stupid to have rules no one followed, the CO obviously didn;t care, and there was no need for it and it impressed no one. The Skipper signed it without a question.
 
I had the same attitude for the longest time. Actually, I think I still have it. That little blurb in 3710 that says something to the effect of 'IFR to the maximum extent practicable' makes me think that if something bad happens after I cancel, I'm going to get my dick stomped for raging around VFR.
 
I did a roadshow for a weekend towards the end of the rag that ended up just being a bunch of non syllabus good deal flights in the chuck I'd signed for.....my lead/IP was an avid civilian pilot and LOVED flying the Hornet vfr. We went everywhere vfr that weekend, all over SoCal, all staying around or below LA class b airspace. It was an awesome experience and did a lot to shake the inherent fear of vfr you get in the training command.
 
C420sailor said:
I had the same attitude for the longest time. Actually, I think I still have it. That little blurb in 3710 that says something to the effect of 'IFR to the maximum extent practicable' makes me think that if something bad happens after I cancel, I'm going to get my dick stomped for raging around VFR.
Click to expand...

I submit that the mad dash to make it back to the Case I stack as the waist is about to shoot is more dangerous.

I fly home from the MOAs VFR all the time (provided i'm not now FPAS'ing it home...) - just ask for flight following and use the sensors the nice people at Boeing gave you :)
 
Here's something that will probably make some heads explode, you can fly through downtown Los Angelas and not talk to a single controller/tower/whatever. That is true VFR and it is absolutely glorious. I even have a picture of the Hollywood sign as I flew past :)
 
Sweet!

I know you helo bubbas can pretty much go as low as you want, but is there a restriction for TACAIR types beyond the basic FAA restrictions? Cruising down a beach at 500' AGL in a jet just sounds too good to be true...
 
Pags, Phrog,
I have no problem flying VFR. I encourage it, and do it often (easiest way from W237 to KNUW is VFR through the Straits) I am not trying to argue against VFR flight. I am arguing that this guy is indeed negligent, as he missed something on a VFR Sectional (which probably would have been even better explained on your fancy JOGAIR or any "better" charts) that even a dumbass, IFR crippled, fixed wing high altitude flyer can see...an electrical line running to an island that he then ran into. But fuck it, he's probably good for an EP and a trip to the FRS...right?
Pickle
 
I haven't seen the administrative ruling that RDML Ostebo is putting forth, so can't speak to that.

Here's what I know from the publicly available info:
They were flying low with no operational need (lower than FAA regs for flying over wildlife areas, IIRC), and this contributed to the accident. I've read nothing about the IMC weather forcing them low, and these birds operate out of Sitka, so I'm guessing they've flown IFR a time or two.

MasterBates said:
Words, words, words, then: I am in a bar in Amsterdam on my phone
Sent from my PH44100 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Dear God, why are you checking on AW whilst in a freakin' bar in freakin' Amsterdam???? C'mon, MB-below in headwork. ;)
 
picklesuit said:
Pags, Phrog,
I have no problem flying VFR. I encourage it, and do it often (easiest way from W237 to KNUW is VFR through the Straits) I am not trying to argue against VFR flight. I am arguing that this guy is indeed negligent, as he missed something on a VFR Sectional (which probably would have been even better explained on your fancy JOGAIR or any "better" charts) that even a dumbass, IFR crippled, fixed wing high altitude flyer can see...an electrical line running to an island that he then ran into. But fuck it, he's probably good for an EP and a trip to the FRS...right?
Pickle
Click to expand...
pickle, hate to say it - but you're still full of shit. According to the news articles linked in this thread - they hit the powerlines at 250 feet AGL. I also think you missed the most important point of what was posted in my initial response to you. Yes, powerlines are marked on sectionals. No, there is no altitude associated with them. I have seen powerlines that were marked on sectionals be as low as 15-20' AGL, and as high as 600' AGL. Oh, and our "fancy" JOGAIRS and 1:50,000 aren't fancy at all. They have NO altitude associated with ANYTHING. We take altitudes for towers (which ARE published on sectionals, just not altitudes for wires) and update them. They just provide more information. Like the fact there are 5 sets of powerlines when the sectional says there's one. Flying 500' and below is not unusual, nor is it frowned upon by all ATC agencies - it is actually ENCOURAGED by most of them. Why? Because it keeps us the hell out of their way. Hell, most of the rules in the FARs start off with "with the exception of helicopters."

There are numerous reasons we fly low, routinely. We don't have the luxury of 3 other engines when one of ours shits. Our transmission is a vital part of us staying aloft... If that shits - we're falling out of the sky where we are. Our glide ratio is close to that of a beveled brick. We have a better chance of surviving if we're lower. Why? Because trannies give us indications that they're about to fail (like for instance, when I was repositioning a Phrog from NPA to PNS and got a chip light with associated debris screen flag. I was eyeballing every single soccer field, baseball diamond, football field, parking lot, you name it - for the remainder of the 10 minutes I had left to get to PNS. Oh, we found a 3" bearing race in the debris screen and had to remove/replace the tranny after that), and if it does fail - altitude is our enemy. Being close to ground, and being able to land immediately is key.

Oh, and we don't have parachutes either. We're riding Mr. Toad's wild ride down to the ground, for better or worse.

"Map Study, Too cool to CHUM", that's what you're parroting. Do you KNOW that he didn't do a map study? Maybe he did, and he was looking for powerlines - again, we spend the bulk of our time actually LOOKING for powerlines, vice staring at the chart. Because what's going to fuck you quicker than an escort in Colombia? Staring at the chart, and NOT looking outside the plane for powerlines. I don't know a single guy that would be glued to the chart if he knew there were powerlines ahead. Normally at that point - the chart is in the map case, and EVERYONE on board has a head on a swivel looking for them. Looking for orange balls, stanchions, etc... Guess what, we're humans - sometimes we make mistakes.

Did the guys who recommended a replacement pilot, flying an aircraft with known maintenance issues, who told him to go to Miramar vice North Island get an Article 32 hearing? No? Why not? They killed an entire family.

Yes, the guy is likely negligent. However, how much negligence have you seen in your career, and the individual in question is allowed to continue to fly? If you say none - I still say you're full of shit.

A CH-46E went down in New River a while back. The copilot lost half of his hand in the mishap (and got a waiver from NAMI to continue to fly, he just retired after being a pilot at HMX-1). The HAC was short, and swatted at the anti-collision lights with his kneeboard, and accidentally turned on the cockpit dome lights. Fucking grossly negligent? Yes. Three crewmembers killed in back? Yes. Flew again? Yes.

Throttle back a bit, and think about how you would feel in his situation.

Oh, and I've never second guessed a P-3 pilots decision to cut power to a failing engine, without restoring power to the simulated failure engine first, which followed up with departing controlled flight and damn near ripping the wings off in recovery. Why? Because I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about. And neither do you.
 
pickle, not to pile on but phrog is right. unless you have seen some solid evidence that this guy was willfully negligent and that drove the resulting article 32 then let's hear it. otherwise, you can guess that he did not do a chart study and was not looking outside the same way that i can sit here and say that he did a thorough chart study and was actively looking for wires. Just because the flight environment is relatively uncommon to you doesn't mean he was wrong for being there.

The point with this back and forth is that he was charged with being negligent and being thrown to the wolves career-wise for having been in an accident. The implications are severe, and an example could be "IBB loses both engines and doesn't shoot a perfect auto to touchdown, thereby killing his crew, so he is criminally negligent for not having practiced more autos". I could keep going but the point has been made.

The concern I have, especially for the Coast Guard, is the precedent that has been set and the very real possibility for guys to clam up, plead the 5th, and not help in a mishap investigation for fear of being criminally prosecuted.

And, if they were in fact flying low over a wildlife fowl area for no other reason than just because that is a civil issue that is to be handled per the FAR's and the FAA, not in a criminal courtroom.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top