Mefesto said:More AP anti-military rhetoric at best. Far less "reckless" flying in military than civilian flying due to MANY more regulations and MUCH more command oversight.
2003 civilian accident rate per 100,000 flight hours=11.286
http://www.ntsb.gov/Aviation/Table1.htm
2003 DoD aviation mishap rate per 100,000 flight hours=2.41
http://armedservices.house.gov/openingstatementsandpressreleases/108thcongress/04-02-11bolkcom.pdf#search='military%20aviation%20mishap %20rate%202004'
I agree - things inside our fishbowl always appear worse than they are. (Especially when we make it very public that we are putting an end to it.) There will always be the civilian/military rift, mostly due to irresponsible journalism. (Just like yesterday, when they made it well-known that one Marine was killed fighting insurgents near Syria - and I feel for him and his family - and sort of glossed over the fact that we killed several dozen of them.
However, the difference here that gives this article any kind of credibility is that Jim-Bob stalls and crashes his plane (while staying "in the box"), he's out $100K of his own money (and his fancy cropduster). When LT Mav stalls and crashes his plane (after pushing his plane to the limit), he's not out any money - the taxpayers who read the AP articles are out one of their $30 million cropdusters. Plus, you can't just go down to Sporty's and pick up a new Hornet when the insurance claim goes through.
Just based on how expensive/hard to replace they are does make this a bit of a security issue. If, say, bayonets aren't working right, no problem - the lowest bidder is summoned, and new ones are purchased. Not so with "Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines."