new developments posted on CNN about the -18 mishap in Miramar last december

[xj220]

Great read, very eye opening. A lot can be learned from these investigations. If I remember correctly, the recommendations portion is always there. We had to write one for a class but I don't really remember much (unfortunately). Interesting to see where a lot of decisions were made.

 

[picklesuit]

It seems with these investigations there is zero "slack" given in regards to the realistic elements of handling a complex EP with only seconds to spare. It's as if these investigations are extensively comprehensive yet they leave out the status quo. Also they busted the MP on the fact that he didn't break out his PCL.

It's obvious that these investigations are made in order to improve everything from training to maintanance, which makes great sense. I just have a hard time passing judgement on people in circumstances like this....

/End of worthless .02 from the non-winged guy

There is not much room in this profession for "slack" and the point of this investigation was to determine all of the causal factors and make some recommendations to avoid making the same mistake twice. That is one thing I believe we, as a community, are good at.

It may seem painful, impersonal, and accusatory to some; but remember we are doing it for the benefit of ALL aviators. That is why we say that the NATOPS is "written in blood"...we take all of our mistakes/mishaps/near-mishaps/hazreps and incorporate them into our training. This saves lives.

It is not about the MP's feelings, or the CO's career, or even the litigation/prosecution/fallout that results of mishaps such as the one in San-Dog...it is about making sure the NEXT GUY does not do the same thing...You can bet the next guy having problems off of the SW coast of CA will be diverting to NASNI instead of overflying town. That is why the P-3 bubba's make such a big deal about prop overspeed/oil-starvation...we see one prop blade go through a fuselage, we never want to do it again, it's not fun...

Notes/Warnings/Cautions exist for a reason...as does CRM, as do PCL's...if they weren't meant to be used, we wouldn't get them. Would I have done any better than this guy in the exact same situation? I have no idea...I fly a P-3 and don't train for what those guys do...but the next Hornet-driver will think twice if THEY have the same problem...

 

[MIDNJAC]

Dumb maintenance related question that I had reading through the JAG report.....the corrective action comment on the fuel transfer MAF said "L wing transfer test checks 5.0"

I thought 4.0 referred to 100%, so what does 5.0 mean? (just asking for my own "professional" knowledge )

 

[ghost]

Dumb maintenance related question that I had reading through the JAG report.....the corrective action comment on the fuel transfer MAF said "L wing transfer test checks 5.0"

I thought 4.0 referred to 100%, so what does 5.0 mean? (just asking for my own "professional" knowledge )

5.0 is the new 4.0. I think it because FITREPS/EVALS are now on a 5.0 scale. Just think of it as grade inflation.

 

[phrogpilot73]

One question: I was surprised that there was a "Recommendations" section at the end; I had thought that JAGMANs were really about "findings of fact", and that something like "recommendations" would have been out-of-scope - left to the leadership / chain of command, based on whatever conclusions the JAGMAN reached. Are recommendations always included at the end, or is that an optional step? And if they are always there, do they tend to be always followed?

As a veteran of doing three different JAGMANs, the recommendations section is always included in a JAGMAN. They don't necessarily have to be followed, that part is up to the leadership/chain of command.

 

[MAKE VAPES]

Diverts do change over the course of the hour during CQ as the ship eats up sea space. I wouldn't ever count on the coffee sippers in the tower and CATC on knowing what the closest suitable airfield was.

We did CQ outta Cecil; Mayport would be the closest field to the water but for closures etc, we would use NAS Jax or Savannah as the divert. The T-45C's can give a snap vector to any airfield in the "brick" of waypoints, I figure with a GPS the Hornets can do the same...

Folks airborne, on many an occasion had to inform the folks standing/sitting on the deck of their loss of divert SA (do this early and often). The coffee sippers are to be verified then trusted or duly disregarded.

Happy Easter.

 

[Ken_gone_flying]

I don't think the articles were focused on blaming the pilot; they aimed much more at decisions that led to the attempt to land at Miramar rather than North Island, and the thought that that aircraft had long-standing fuel issues that may have contributed. I didn't see anything that was unfair.

Agreed. However, I think its kind of rediculous for the North Island vs. Miramar arguement as well. North Island and Miramar are only 11 miles apart. Plus, since its unclear exactly when the low fuel light illuminated, he could have already been closer to Miramar than North Island anyway when the light came on.

 

[exhelodrvr]

Agreed. However, I think its kind of rediculous for the North Island vs. Miramar arguement as well. North Island and Miramar are only 11 miles apart. Plus, since its unclear exactly when the low fuel light illuminated, he could have already been closer to Miramar than North Island anyway when the light came on.

The big difference is that the approach to North Island can be completely over water; the same is not true of Miramar.

 

[Ken_gone_flying]

The big difference is that the approach to North Island can be completely over water; the same is not true of Miramar.

Oh yeah, that makes sense. But in order to place the blame on the pilot for that decision, you'd still need to know when the low fuel light came on, right? Because I'm assuming its not SOP for a Miramar based Hornet to divert to North Island if they lose an engine.

 

[MasterBates]

Don't assume what you don't know about CQ diverts.

I cant speak to mirimar based jets, but Cecil based jets were to divert to Mayport with any sort of fuel/engine problem normally. (Mayport right on coast, like NASNI)

 

[MIDNJAC]

Oh yeah, that makes sense. But in order to place the blame on the pilot for that decision, you'd still need to know when the low fuel light came on, right? Because I'm assuming its not SOP for a Miramar based Hornet to divert to North Island if they lose an engine.

It says when the light came on in the report. The report also indicates that the CVN was south of NASNI which would mean that the jet would have had to pass North Island either way.

 

[Ken_gone_flying]

Don't assume what you don't know about CQ diverts.

I cant speak to mirimar based jets, but Cecil based jets were to divert to Mayport with any sort of fuel/engine problem normally. (Mayport right on coast, like NASNI)

I figured it was a pretty safe assumption since the aircraft was single engine at the time and did not divert to NASNI.

 

[exhelodrvr]

Don't assume what you don't know about CQ diverts.

I cant speak to mirimar based jets, but Cecil based jets were to divert to Mayport with any sort of fuel/engine problem normally. (Mayport right on coast, like NASNI)

Any S/E would be a "Land As Soon As Practicable", wouldn't it? Which would be North Island, in this case.

 

[ghost]

Any S/E would be a "Land As Soon As Practicable", wouldn't it? Which would be North Island, in this case.

3710 trumps aircraft NATOPS here. Paragraph 7.1.5.1 is very specific about what you are supposed to consider when choosing a landing site after you are single engine (it uses shall). "Land as soon as practicable" implies that the pilot in command can choose to extend flight at the PICs discretion. 3710 does not permit this (it reads very similarly to land as soon as possible). The JAGMAN implies that everyone from the squadron CO to the Pilot ignored this part of 3710 in their decision making.

The JAGMAN also indicates when the Fuel Low was illuminated.

 

[MAKE VAPES]

Sounds like we're asking alot of a voice activated CAT-1 right? The dudes on the boat should have had the correct divert field (up to the minute, after all the boat has a GPS to!). CAT-1's don't know their hole from an ass in the ground... throw in a single engine divert and a compound emergency... sounds like whomever directed him to Miramar (and he had to have been told where to go) on the big grey floating prison absolutelly screwed the pooch...

Most CAT-1's wouldn't trump what the voice of god (consortium of Boss/Rep/DetOIC and any FRS higherups on boat) told them to do...

I bingoed once in my boat going life... the signal to divert provided "pigeons bear", I didn't contemplate it... just got on my profile...

This reminds me of the T-45 from K-Rock that flamed out in TX a few year back... also a Marine... also a chain of dicked up decision making...

The swiss cheese model is alive and lurking... waiting to align on your ass soon!