Coast Guard pilot involved in crash to be charged with homicide

[Uncle Fester]

I'm not arguing whether the crew fucked up. My issue is that leadership is pursuing criminal prosecution in the wake of a mishap, and no one seems to know why. The CG does FNAEBs, right? Why is this not being handled that way?

The naval aviation safety system works in large part because aviators are willing to fess up when they fuck up, and everyone can learn from your screw-up. When the worst consequence is possibly losing your wings, that's one thing. When owning up to bad judgement - not criminal, just having a bad day in the plane - may mean the admiral's going to send you to goddamned Leavenworth? Then everyone becomes more concerned with lawyering up and covering their ass than writing Approach articles. The circumstances of a mishap become rumor and o-club bullshit, rather than a full report everyone can read and learn from.

 

[Pugs]

http://www.kcaw.org/2011/12/09/breaking-leone-hearing-officer-to-investigate-extra-charge/.

Interesting for sure. "The new dereliction charge is for not following proper Crew Resource Management procedures. It follows testimony yesterday Thursday from Leone’s commanding officer, Air Station Sitka Cmdr. Doug Cameron, who suggested Leone may have been reluctant to question Krueger as the helicopter’s pilot-in-command. Cameron speculated that Leone deferred to Krueger, because of rank and experience."

Cross-cockpit experience gradient has been the cause of many a military and civilian mishaps (the most visible may be the Air Florida Washington National 737 flight 90). The concept that it is criminal sets a dangerous precedent IMO. In my former community if the pilot didn't listen to ECMO 1 about nav/SOF duties there was little short of ejecting or whacking him on the head with your kneeboard that you could do and both are pretty discouraged.

 

[MasterBates]

Glad I'm out if this is the new direction we are going.

Sent from my PH44100 using Tapatalk

 

[bunk22]

Interesting for sure. "The new dereliction charge is for not following proper Crew Resource Management procedures. It follows testimony yesterday Thursday from Leone’s commanding officer, Air Station Sitka Cmdr. Doug Cameron, who suggested Leone may have been reluctant to question Krueger as the helicopter’s pilot-in-command. Cameron speculated that Leone deferred to Krueger, because of rank and experience."

Cross-cockpit experience gradient has been the cause of many a military and civilian mishaps (the most visible may be the Air Florida Washington National 737 flight 90). The concept that it is criminal sets a dangerous precedent IMO. In my former community if the pilot didn't listen to ECMO 1 about nav/SOF duties there was little short of ejecting or whacking him on the head with your kneeboard that you could do and both are pretty discouraged.

Yeah, I'm definitely not liking where this is going if this is the case as to why the charges are being brought. It's ridiculous really.

 

[Flash]

You are right about stabs in the dark but wasn't one of the issues with the Marines in the Italy incident that they destroyed a tape that could have been used against them? Do you suspect that in the case with this CG Officer?

Not to diverge much from the original subject but this highlights one of the dangers from not doing a SIR or a proper investigation and allowing criminal proceeding get in the mix, bad info gets out there. They didn't get in trouble because they destroyed a tape, there was no 'tape' to destroy. That was what some Italian officials claimed but they wouldn't know which end of the Prowler was the front one. As hard as it may be to believe for some folks not all military aircraft are loaded with the most sophisticated gear available, especially stuff like flight recorders that are standard on commercial airliners. The only 'tape' we had on the Prowler was a 'mission' one that made you nostalgic for 8-track tapes and didn't record jack or shit flight-wise.

When I was going through VT-86 one of the instructors was the ECMO3 on that flight and gave a very lengthy and pretty good account of the whole incident and the aftermath at a safety stand-down that was basically nothing but him briefing the mishap followed by a Q&A for about 2-3 hours. He didn't gloss over the bad parts too much and was pretty frank overall. The real eye opener was how 'big' USMC treated them, threw them to the wolves without any help or backup at all.

Getting back to the original topic, adding charges for not following CRM? What kind of absurdity is that? If this goes forward the 'chill' that mishap investigations are supposed to avoid might settle in pretty quick.

 

[Brett327]

Not to diverge much from the original subject but this highlights one of the dangers from not doing a SIR or a proper investigation and allowing criminal proceeding get in the mix, bad info gets out there. They didn't get in trouble because they destroyed a tape, there was no 'tape' to destroy. That was what some Italian officials claimed but they wouldn't know which end of the Prowler was the front one. As hard as it may be to believe for some folks not all military aircraft are loaded with the most sophisticated gear available, especially stuff like flight recorders that are standard on commercial airliners. The only 'tape' we had on the Prowler was a 'mission' one that made you nostalgic for 8-track tapes and didn't record jack or shit flight-wise.

When I was going through VT-86 one of the instructors was the ECMO3 on that flight and gave a very lengthy and pretty good account of the whole incident and the aftermath at a safety stand-down that was basically nothing but him briefing the mishap followed by a Q&A for about 2-3 hours. He didn't gloss over the bad parts too much and was pretty frank overall. The real eye opener was how 'big' USMC treated them, threw them to the wolves without any help or backup at all.

Getting back to the original topic, adding charges for not following CRM? What kind of absurdity is that? If this goes forward the 'chill' that mishap investigations are supposed to avoid might settle in pretty quick.

Conventional wisdom is that the "tape" was a hand held camcorder. That's the story as I know it.

Brett

 

[Uncle Fester]

Believe pilot and ecmo-1 were kicked out for burning a personal tape of the flight they made on a camcorder (it was the pilot's last flight of the deployment, I believe).

Still, from what I heard, the carabinieri were grilling them within hours of the incident and throwing around talk of murder indictments. Sure as hell threw out any chance of getting a honest mishap investigation done...which was my point about this case.

Anyone really want to get to a point where someone has a mishap due to an honest screw-up, and refuses to talk to the AMB 'on the advice of counsel'?

 

[MasterBates]

Looks like we are there now..

Sent from my PH44100 using Tapatalk

 

[phrogdriver]

Believe pilot and ecmo-1 were kicked out for burning a personal tape of the flight they made on a camcorder (it was the pilot's last flight of the deployment, I believe).

Still, from what I heard, the carabinieri were grilling them within hours of the incident and throwing around talk of murder indictments. Sure as hell threw out any chance of getting a honest mishap investigation done...which was my point about this case.

Anyone really want to get to a point where someone has a mishap due to an honest screw-up, and refuses to talk to the AMB 'on the advice of counsel'?

Looks like we are there now..

Sent from my PH44100 using Tapatalk

So far there's no evidence that anyone has used privileged information in order to conduct a prosecution, so let's not jump the gun. I think the military will try its best to keep the AMB and the JAG separate.

In the future, it may be a concern, though. The more imminent concern is that civilian authorities or the media may be able to get privileged mishap information for either civil legal action or publication.

 

[Flash]

Conventional wisdom is that the "tape" was a hand held camcorder. That's the story as I know it.

According to ECMO3 the camera wasn't being run on the route. It was one of the last flights in the area for that squadron, ECMO3 was ADVON for the relieving squadron and it was his first flight there.

 

[Harrier Dude]

According to ECMO3 the camera wasn't being run on the route. It was one of the last flights in the area for that squadron, ECMO3 was ADVON for the relieving squadron and it was his first flight there.

Both true. The problem was that the camcorder was with them, but supposedly the battery died early on, if not before wheels up. Supposedly one of the crew had said something into the tape that would have looked bad in retrospect. They decided to destroy the tape, but if they hadn't, it would have shown jack shit.

The "coverup" is always worse than the crime.

 

[Brett327]

Both true. The problem was that the camcorder was with them, but supposedly the battery died early on, if not before wheels up. Supposedly one of the crew had said something into the tape that would have looked bad in retrospect. They decided to destroy the tape, but if they hadn't, it would have shown jack shit.

The "coverup" is always worse than the crime.

True that.

 

[helolumpy]

So far there's no evidence that anyone has used privileged information in order to conduct a prosecution, so let's not jump the gun. I think the military will try its best to keep the AMB and the JAG separate.

In the future, it may be a concern, though. The more imminent concern is that civilian authorities or the media may be able to get privileged mishap information for either civil legal action or publication.

The was I interpret the press reports is that the Base CO was informed of the results of the AMB and decided to take no official action WRT the surviving pilot.
The District Commander over ruled him to include reference that the Base CO may have his judgement impaired by his relationship with the crews involved.

It appears that the normal process was conducted and HHQ is going against the Base CO's recommendations.

I have to agree with phrogdriver that it does not appear (at least publicly) the mishap process has been compromised. It seems that the higher command is rejecting the recommendations of the Base CO and is investigating whether to hold him criminally liable for the mishap.

When I think back to some of the mishaps that have involved blatant (and unsafe) flat-hatting, I'm surprised a pilot hasn't been held criminally liable for actions before. Not saying it's justified in this case, but saying that I know some folks who have done some pretty f*cked-up sh!t in aircraft So far the worst penalty has been loss of wings (and career). Maybe the Coast Guard is looking to expand the scope of punishment for pilots who have mishaps. Don't know if it's right, but it maybe what's happening here.

Of course I'm just speculating as well, but I can only go on what I've read.

 

[Recovering LSO]

Why is the base CO involved. Did I read this wrong or does the CG give base CO's more of operational responsibility than the Navy?

 

[phrogdriver]

Yes, they do. I don't know how it falls organizationally, but I believe they're responsible for USCG operations in their AORs.