Coast Guard pilot involved in crash to be charged with homicide

[Brett327]

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.

Not having all the facts makes this a difficult proposition (and I'm making some assumptions to make my point), but as a lawyer, I could make a convincing argument that hitting a powerline that is clearly marked on the sectional/TPC (I'm looking at it as I type) would fall under the negligent clause of the article. That, I could definitely sell to a jury - especially a Grand Jury where the rules of evidence are different than at a trial or CM. I acknowledge that it's a much harder sell to people like you and I who deal with this stuff every day, but the jury will be lay.

Again, this is not what I think or believe about the mishap - just endulging in a hypothetical.

Brett

 

[phrogpilot73]

And as a defense attorney, I would point out that while towers are marked with altitude on sectionals - power lines are not. Sometimes, the powerlines you see on a sectional are below the tops of trees, sometimes they are high tension lines. There is NO DIFFERENCE on how it's marked on the sectional.

 

[Brett327]

But one would expect an amount of due dilligence in their avoidance, regardless of their height, particularly when the span is over water. The potential ambiguity of how they're depicted on the chart warrants more caution, not less.

Brett

 

[Recovering LSO]

Either I misread the article or you're both missing the bigger point. The dereliction charges seem to be stemming from an alleged (wasn't there, don't know) CRM failure. That's gonna be one hell of a disclaimer before the next CRM brief I give to the ready room....

 

[Brett327]

I think you're missing the point. We're engaging in a hypothetical loosely based on this event.

Brett

 

[phrogpilot73]

But one would expect an amount of due dilligence in their avoidance, regardless of their height, particularly when the span is over water. The potential ambiguity of how they're depicted on the chart warrants more caution, not less.

However, the prosecution is more accustomed to instrument flight... The defense argues that it is unrealistic to approach all published wires on a sectional at the same altitude, as some wires can be at 50ft or less AGL, and some can be 1000ft AGL or more.

I think you're missing the point. We're engaging in a hypothetical loosely based on this event.

What he said.

 

[PropStop]

I met RADM Ostebo two weeks ago. It was all I could do not to ask him about this case...

That said, he struck me as a stand up guy. I spent about 1.5hrs working with him and he is intense, but I really feel he's an honest broker.

 

[blackbart22]

Have not seen that one either, but did get a FNKHS when my right wing kinda dropped crossing the ramp. Better that FNKUA that a friend got when his left wing dropped.

 

[KBayDog]

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...

Does the USCG fall under 3710.7U when not training Navy-style? I'm trying to work my way into our Coastie Mafia's Circle of Trust, but I seem to recall them saying that they don't fall under 3710.

 

[Brunes]

Before I say anything else- I don't know that a Art 32 or Courts Martial is in order in this case. But a serious discussion about the way some things get done in the cockpit needs to happen. This could have been avoided, just like every mishap.

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.

They were on a transit flight, outside their normal AOR. That helo had just been to depot and was given to them in Seattle (iirc) to take back to it's new homeplate.

This is why I kinda don't like this thread- Not all the fact ARE known to everyone...so there are "hypotheticals" being thrown out there that look bad for the pilot, bad for the chain of command, and they are based on 1/2 facts, 1/2 conjecture.

This is not some new slippy slope. If you have a bad day flying and miss the ball and have a ramp strike...You had a bad day. You tried, you pranged up an aircraft...Life goes on. If you mess up a SAR case because of a bad decision (winds/currents are drifting another way so you follow that....aircraft damage during a case...etc) that was within policy...You had a bad day. If you make a bad decision that was OUTSIDE policy- You are putting yourself and the crew at risk. Then you hope that you do not have a bad day. Sadly, this crew did. That being said- I don't know that a Art32 or courts martial is the right way to fix this (again).

Does the USCG fall under 3710.7U when not training Navy-style? I'm trying to work my way into our Coastie Mafia's Circle of Trust, but I seem to recall them saying that they don't fall under 3710.

The only time I can forsee the CG falling under the Navy 3710 is when working under the Navy's TACON. The rest of the time we have our own 3710.

 

[KBayDog]

The only time I can forsee the CG falling under the Navy 3710 is when working under the Navy's TACON. The rest of the time we have our own 3710.

Thought so, thanks for clearing it up. I recall some Coastie IPs back for another IP tour talking about how they had to re-learn 3710.

 

[Brett327]

However, the prosecution is more accustomed to instrument flight... The defense argues that it is unrealistic to approach all published wires on a sectional at the same altitude, as some wires can be at 50ft or less AGL, and some can be 1000ft AGL or more.

What he said.

Actually, the prosecution has quite a bit of time in the low level environment, and in fact has been an instructor of such for ~10 years. Avoiding obstacles, such as power lines is a familiar, frequently performed task.

Brett

 

[phrogdriver]

Actually, the prosecution has quite a bit of time in the low level environment, and in fact has been an instructor of such for ~10 years. Avoiding obstacles, such as power lines is a familiar, frequently performed task.

Brett

Having done LAT and TERF, they're different.

 

[Brett327]

Not enough to matter in what we're talking about here. You can't stiff-arm my argument with a "Man, you just don't know how it is.". Now, if you want to be more specific as to how it relates to this, I'm all ears.

Brett

 

[helolumpy]

However, the prosecution is more accustomed to instrument flight... The defense argues that it is unrealistic to approach all published wires on a sectional at the same altitude, as some wires can be at 50ft or less AGL, and some can be 1000ft AGL or more.

The conveining authority (technically it's just an investigation, but the guy who called for the investigation) is pretty well versed in helos and fixed-winged aircraft, so I don't thing the instrument flight vs. VFR will factor much on the decision maker.

http://uscg.mil/flag/D17.asp