Coast Guard pilot involved in crash to be charged with homicide

[helolumpy]

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?

In the USCG, there are no Squadron CO's. The Base CO has direct command of the USCG units on that base, therefor the Base CO is the first CO in the chain of command for this pilot.

 

[phrogpilot73]

In the USCG, there are no Squadron CO's. The Base CO has direct command of the USCG units on that base, therefor the Base CO is the first CO in the chain of command for this pilot.

And there are no "squadrons" in the Coast Guard. You are a pilot assigned to Air Station X.

 

[Brunes]

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?

In this instance- The "Base CO" is an Air Station CO and is responsible to the District Commander (RADM-UH)/District Chief of Staff(CAPT). The different air frames that operate out of that base are not separate units, just seperate "departments". Just one CO/XO/CMC/OPS/EO and then an assistant OPS/EO/LCPO for each platform.

 

[wink]

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.

In many countries, most of Europe I believe, criminal investigations are routine with prosecution and conviction not unheard of. I recall an eastern European air traffic controller going to jail for a mid air. France wanted to criminally prosecute Continental Airline officials for the FOD that caused the last Concorde accident. Brazil has an arrest warrant out for the American pilots (copilot is a furloughed American Airlines pilot) on a biz jet that had a mid air with a B737.

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'?

And this is why we fight that so much in this country. Safety will be not be served.

 

[ChunksJR]

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'?

You should never say anything, until given privelidge. Don't talk about it in the Ready Room, don't tell your wife. No one. No matter how much you didn't do wrong.
The Supreme Court has upheald safety privelidge and the illegality of using it in criminal investigations.
Then, and only then, pour your hearts out for an AMB to make us all aware of how not to fck it away. Please.

 

[Recovering LSO]

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."

So by that raionale we would pursue criminal action for ramp strikes? I mean if you had followed procedures and FTBATWTT you wouldn't have hit the ramp...? This is a very slippery slope.

 

[MasterBates]

So by that raionale we would pursue criminal action for ramp strikes? I mean if you had followed procedures and FTBATWTT you wouldn't have hit the ramp...? This is a very slippery slope.

I agree. I've flown some Turdburglar passes, but its not a crime. Yet.

Sent from my PH44100 using Tapatalk

 

[helolumpy]

FTBATWTT

Acronym check on aisle 9, please.

 

[MasterBates]

Fly The Ball All The Way To Touchdown

Sent from my PH44100 using Tapatalk

 

[rondebmar]

Fly The Ball All The Way To Touchdown

Sent from my PH44100 using Tapatalk

Thanks for that! Almost 500 traps, and I never heard the expression. Obviously, neither did these folks:

http://www.acronymfinder.com/~/search/af.aspx?Acronym=ftbatwtt&Find=find&string=exact

 

[helolumpy]

Thanks for that! Almost 500 traps, and I never heard the expression. Obviously, neither did these folks:

http://www.acronymfinder.com/~/search/af.aspx?Acronym=ftbatwtt&Find=find&string=exact

Thanks for the info. I Googled FTBATHTT and got nothing...

I always thought it was fly the ball all the way until you're about 10 feet above the flight deck, then slow down to translations lift speed until you can air taxi up the angle to your assigned landing spot...
Oh yeah, I'm a helo guy....

 

[KBayDog]

I always thought it was fly the ball all the way until you're about 10 feet above the flight deck, then slow down to translations lift speed until you can air taxi up the angle to your assigned landing spot...
Oh yeah, I'm a helo guy....

Same procedures for Harriers, except you have to ensure that your engine volume is turned up to "11" as you're sliding over your spot.

 

[nittany03]

So by that raionale we would pursue criminal action for ramp strikes? I mean if you had followed procedures and FTBATWTT you wouldn't have hit the ramp...? This is a very slippery slope.

Granted, I'm not a lawyer; I just pester them at work from time to time. It seems to me that this could either start down the slippery slope or stop it cold. Charges have been made; they will be investigated by an Article 32 hearing, and possibly by a court-martial. But if the Court-Martial or the Court of Criminal Appeals decides that this was an inappropriate use of Article 92(3), then there will be case law created which stipulates that "honest" pilot error is not punishable under Article 92(3).

As a matter of fact, as I break out my MCM and turn to Article 92(3): Dereliction of Duty, let's see what the prosecution would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt:

(a) That the accused had certain duties;
( b ) That the accused knew or reasonably should have known of the duties; and
(c) That the accused was (willfully) (through neglect or culpable inefficiency) derelict in the performance
of those duties.

So you have to know of your job or have such responsibilities that you would be a dirtbag NOT to know them, and fail to fulfill those responsibilities by gaffing them off deliberately, being negligent, or "culpably inefficient." What do those mean? Let's see.

(3) Dereliction in the performance of duties.
(a) Duty. A duty may be imposed by treaty, statute, regulation, lawful order, standard operating procedure, or custom of the service.
(b) Knowledge. Actual knowledge of duties may be proved by circumstantial evidence. Actual knowledge need not be shown if the individual reasonably should have known of the duties. This may be demonstrated by regulations, training or operating manuals, customs of the service, academic literature or testimony, testimony of persons who have held similar or superior positions, or similar evidence.
(c) Derelict. A person is derelict in the performance of duties when that person willfully or negligently fails to perform that person’s duties or when that person performs them in a culpably inefficient manner . “ Willfully” means intentionally. It refers to the doing of an act knowingly and purposely, specifically intending the natural and probable consequences of the act. “Negligently” means an act or omission of a person who is under a duty to use due care which exhibits a lack of that degree of care which a reasonably prudent person would have exercised under the same or similar circumstances. “Culpable inefficiency” is inefficiency for which there is no reasonable or just excuse.
(d) Ineptitude. A person is not derelict in the performance of duties if the failure to perform those duties is caused by ineptitude rather than by willfulness, negligence, or culpable inefficiency, and may not be charged under this article, or otherwise punished. For example, a recruit who has tried earnestly during rifle training and throughout record firing is not derelict in the performance of duties if the recruit fails to qualify with the weapon.

So it seems to me that if you did your level best to avoid hitting the ramp, it's not punishable under Article 92(3). As to its applicability to the case at hand, well, none of us are lawyers or know enough to say yes or no. I think COs and higher need the criminal option available to them, because if you do something no-kidding criminal in a jet, they need to hold you to account in the interests of good order and discipline. We have a huge amount of trust placed in us to sling heavy metal around over Grandma's house and not kill or hurt anyone. But I'm also not naive enough to think that the mere act of convening an Article 32 hearing and court-martial proceedings won't have a chilling effect on people's ability to come clean about mishaps to help the next guy. Hopefully, the heavies in Nav Air keep those interests in balance.

 

[Brett327]

Given what's been in the press about the CG mishap in question, I could make a pretty sound argument in favor of dereliction. Not to imply that I believe anyone was derelict in their duties, but to illustrate that the burden for the prosecutor may not be as difficult as you might think.

Brett

 

[phrogpilot73]

Given what's been in the press about the CG mishap in question, I could make a pretty sound argument in favor of dereliction. Not to imply that I believe anyone was derelict in their duties, but to illustrate that the burden for the prosecutor may not be as difficult as you might think.

I disagree. Mainly because I'm a rotorhead, not a tacair guy. Those altitudes are not unusual for RW, and the 3710.7U says "shall" fly at 3000 ft, conditions permitting. But it also says "wildfowl". I may be sea lawyering here, but try flying on the east coast and avoid the Wildlife Refuges (or fly at 3000 ft)... It can be hard, especially considering some of our ranges are knee-deep in a wildlife refuge. There are no "Wildfowl" refuges on the chart.

What if they were doing a rescue? Are we to believe that they need to maintain a 3000 ft hover? Shit, the instruction doesn't say crap about that.

I really think this is a dick measuring contest more than anything else.