Because the HAC is the aircraft "CO"! Using your reasoning, maybe they should go all the way up the chain and relieve CNO... as he is ultimately responsible?
BzB
-
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
Because the HAC is the aircraft "CO"! Using your reasoning, maybe they should go all the way up the chain and relieve CNO... as he is ultimately responsible?
BzB
Otto, you're being a pain in the ass, again. Don't pretend to be stupid.
The buck stops with the AC. The copilot misreads the chart and steers me into an airspace incursion, I'm the one talking to the FAA. He may end up with an ass-chewing from someone, but I'm the one who takes the official responsibility, and the violation.
COs do get relieved, if their pilots repeatedly screw things away, as it shows poor training.
And yes, the aircraft commander is always responsible for navigation whether the chart is in his hands or not. You delegated the performance of safe navigation to your 2P, not the responsibility for it. We expect aircraft commanders to be able to monitor their copilot's navigating and fly at the same time.
phrogpilot73
Well-Known Member
I don't know if he is... He is a combat hardened HAC after all...
To get us back on topic - do you think Otto's copilot will have to stand trial because he wasn't able to convice Otto to land even though he was on fire?
Just goes to show you that the real learning starts after you get the qual.
Brett
This might be the funniest thing I've read all day. Thank you.
curious what Otto's HAC board was like?
The short answer is, yes. You are the Aircraft Commander, what happens with the aircraft, to the aircraft and inside the aircraft is your responsibility.
Would you let an obviously intoxicated pilot fly? According to your statement, what someone else chooses to do is not your responsibility. So would you let him/her in the aircraft?
If you want to fly ( past the 24 minth mark in your first tour), then you must make HAC. Therefore you must take-on all the responsibilities that go with it. If you don't want the responsibilities, then by all means, resign your flight status and get a staff job where you don't have to be responsible for the consequences of your decisions.
That did happen in HS-15 in the mid-90's. The behavior of some HACs was so reckless, that once the facts came to light, the CO was relieved.
But the CO didn't actually kill anyone, but by his inaction, he allowed two pilots to fly a perfectly good HH-60 into the water and killed two pilots and a SEAL in the back.
Once again according to "Otto Logic" the CO was no culpable since he was not in the aircraft, therefore he has zero responsibility for the mishap.
Fortunately, Big Navy does not subscribe to "Otto Logic"
Just a little perspective from the civilian side.
If something happens, the FAA will definitely hold the Captain responsible no matter if it was the Captain or FO how screwed up. But the FAA will also hold the FO responsible no matter if it was the Captain or FO who screwed up. As far as the FAA is concerned, even the the Captain holds the ultimate authority it's a team and the team is held responsible.
If something happens, the FAA will definitely hold the Captain responsible no matter if it was the Captain or FO how screwed up. But the FAA will also hold the FO responsible no matter if it was the Captain or FO who screwed up. As far as the FAA is concerned, even the the Captain holds the ultimate authority it's a team and the team is held responsible.
No, but apparently Big Coast Guard does... explain that one. I mean I know I suck and all (because your clairvoyance includes knowledge of my FITREPS), but maybe take a step back and understand that I am trying to figure out how in THIS CASE this one guy is taking the fall, right or wrong. At SOME point, personal responsibility takes over, or it's a witch hunt.
It was an hour and ten minutes from start to finish.
Actually my FITREP says "Combat Aviator". Only my buddies were "Combat Hardened". shame...
Since we are all just speculating, how about we discuss what we do know.
A helo crashed and 3 of the crew died. The survivor went through the usual AMB and the Base CO was not recommending any punitive action being taken. (as reported in press)
The pilot (PNAC) who was navigating the flight is being undergoing an Article 32 investigation (also reported in press)
The survivor has not been charged with any wrong doing, the Coast Guard is merely following UCMJ procedures for investigating any possibility of wrong doing.
Everything else is just speculation.
Why is this pilot being investigated? I don't know. I'm not privy to the AMB finding, any records that may exist (like cockpit voice recordings or FAA tapes) or any history these pilots and crewmen may have.
So why this mishap? Maybe because there's a new Commandant, maybe because there is some evidence that is damming that the Base CO (who was being accused in the press of being too tight with his crews) overlooked, maybe because there is a history with the individuals involved. Who knows.
There is a formal investigation on-going being conducted by a neutral party. When he finishes his invesitgation, we'll know more.
Most of us are sweating the fact that in the future we may be held criminally liable for doing stupid stuff in the aircraft. I'm honestly surprised the armed forces have not taken legal action against pilots doing dumb things before... I can think of a few mishaps where the pilot should have been held criminally negligent for action taken that resulted in multiple deaths or the destruction of millions of dollars or equipment.
Sometimes you should just not post, you may be a cool dude in person but damn, really?