First rule of psyops: Never believe your own propaganda.
There oughtta be a corollary to that for fitreps and awards...
/segue
-
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
First rule of psyops: Never believe your own propaganda.
There oughtta be a corollary to that for fitreps and awards...
/segue
Yeah. Don't write in full sentences/use proper grammar; ie: subject verb object as a basic structure of complete sentences.
good post, but I think the concerning part of this situation for me is that negligence is often in the eye of the beholder particularly when there might people of dissimilar designators holding your fate in their hands (no idea if that's the setup here or not, but easy to see how this could happen in a joint environment). More concerning is the opportunity for the case to be "tried" in the court of public opinion where everyone is an "expert" and everyone has an opinion worth hearing (see VMFAT-101 circa 2008).
God bless FOIA.....
Where the OPSO, and CO were relieved...
Sure, but the example was more for the amount of media attention and subsequent public speculation by "experts".
Read the article again guys. Those wires were supposed to be marked (big orange balls) by the Coast Guard. The CG was responsible for those wires, which were involved in another mishap years back. Now they've been struck again! So who's responsible now?
They were on the auto pilot, and the PAC took them off to "over fly" a Coast Guard vessel. They're charging him because he didn't navigate well enough and because he didn't use proper CRM to challenge the PAC to not overfly the Coast Guard boat. Far stretch to lay blame on the only survivor so everyone forgets you were supposed to have marked the damn wires after the last aircraft hit them....
They were on the auto pilot, and the PAC took them off to "over fly" a Coast Guard vessel. They're charging him because he didn't navigate well enough and because he didn't use proper CRM to challenge the PAC to not overfly the Coast Guard boat. Far stretch to lay blame on the only survivor so everyone forgets you were supposed to have marked the damn wires after the last aircraft hit them....
The lines are marked with "big orange balls" as you say, but they don't go along the entire span - I've seen them myself from ground level (good camping in the area). Regardless, there's no requirement that they be marked along the span. Would that be a good idea? Probably, but seeing as how they're clearly marked on the TPC/Sectional, the aircrew had a responsibility to avoid them. It's not like they came out of nowhere - they go to an island.
You really can't argue this from an aircrew error perspective. After all, they hit a marked obstacle. This issue is about how the USCG deals with the culpability for their error and whether it meets a criminal threshold. Everything else is a distractor.
Brett
You really can't argue this from an aircrew error perspective. After all, they hit a marked obstacle. This issue is about how the USCG deals with the culpability for their error and whether it meets a criminal threshold. Everything else is a distractor.
Brett
The 'inability to challenge' here, and in the VMFAT-101 example, are difficult to speak on unless you are in military (perhaps ATP too? Don't know since I am not in that) aviation.
I remember seeing my grandfather this Christmas break (WWII Vet.) and he brought up the 101 mishap, asking why the RP didn't just go to NASNI. Saying screw the CO, do what you think is right since you are responsible. I wonder what infinitely small percentage of RPs are going to directly go against the 'word' from the Skipper, provided it is 'reasonable'. I'm sure under slight duress, at the time, it seemed reasonable. The thought that a stud is going to tell a Marine CO to F himself, and fly where he wants, against a potentially reasonable order (he didn't tell the kid to fly to Lemoore or something so absurd the immediate BS flag gets raised) is ridiculous. Fine tuning seems to happen with experience on where to draw the BS line, but in general one thing about the miltiary is if your superior tells (orders) you to do something, you do your best to do it.
I could totally see if these things start becoming a public spectacle the RP above (101 mishap) would have been crushed. Realistically, it's a culture issue, not a performance (negligence on the RP) issue.
Just my two cents. I don't know what happened here, but the slippery slope towards public trials is frightening.
I remember seeing my grandfather this Christmas break (WWII Vet.) and he brought up the 101 mishap, asking why the RP didn't just go to NASNI. Saying screw the CO, do what you think is right since you are responsible. I wonder what infinitely small percentage of RPs are going to directly go against the 'word' from the Skipper, provided it is 'reasonable'. I'm sure under slight duress, at the time, it seemed reasonable. The thought that a stud is going to tell a Marine CO to F himself, and fly where he wants, against a potentially reasonable order (he didn't tell the kid to fly to Lemoore or something so absurd the immediate BS flag gets raised) is ridiculous. Fine tuning seems to happen with experience on where to draw the BS line, but in general one thing about the miltiary is if your superior tells (orders) you to do something, you do your best to do it.
I could totally see if these things start becoming a public spectacle the RP above (101 mishap) would have been crushed. Realistically, it's a culture issue, not a performance (negligence on the RP) issue.
Just my two cents. I don't know what happened here, but the slippery slope towards public trials is frightening.
It may be different in TACAIR (I don't know, I'm not there), but I've been "ordered" to do some things that were dumb or just plain unsafe. You have to draw the line and, tactfully, tell them unable. Being in military aviation is a red herring. Sure, we try and make do and get the mission completed, but there's plenty of times that, with experience, you learn that the particular mission being tasked the way it's being tasked isn't going to come out favorably for anyone.
You're right Brett, no argument it was the aircrew's fault for hitting the wire, and like you said, the issue is the CG's way of dealing with this case. I read a couple other articles where the media dug up the past about the poorly marked wires and prior accidents. In my opinion, the CG sees this media attention, and they can cover their six by laying the blame on someone else.
Right on. The flip side of that argument is that we can't put a piece of fluorescent tape on every single thing an aircraft might hit. It's a dangerous world out there which is fundamentally incompatible with the zero-defect mentality some people in our leadership culture have adopted. Due diligence is all we should be expecting, not perfection. How that principle applies to this case is, of course, a matter of debate.
Brett
Brett
Not necessarily "screw the CO", per se, but I disagreed with the plan from on-high during a SAR. PM me for details if you're interested.
There was media attention post-accident, but not an extraordinary amount, and it wasn't a bunch of folks piling on about the wires. The attention died away, until this came up...if the CG was concerned about media attention they could have simply not pursued the Art 32 hearing.
Wish I could see the investigative report to speak to the charges better, but I do believe in the system and hope it becomes apparent as it procedes that the charges are warranted.
I try not to let my inner cynic shine through, but I believe the system will fuck over anyone and everyone to protect itself.