Criticizing MX got airman ousted

[Fud]

Criticizing maintenance got airman ousted

By all accounts, Adam Lucero was a hard-charging airman. When he didn’t make it into a summer camp for the Air Force Academy, he enlisted at age 17 through the Delayed Entry Program and had his staff sergeant rocker by the time he was 21.

But Lucero, now 24, dreamed of going to Officer Training School and earning his pilot wings, so he poured himself into his work and studies, hoping he could one day fly the fighter jets he maintained at Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska.

That same passion, drive and singleness of purpose may have led to his downfall. When he discovered what he considered to be unsafe maintenance practices by his squadron co-workers, and was unable to get the support he sought from his superiors, he started going directly to pilots to tell them the planes they were flying were unsafe. For 18 months, he pushed his complaints despite his leaders’ opposition. Finally, in July 2006, he was forced out of the Air Force.

The 11th Air Force Inspector General’s Office and Defense Department IG have concluded Lucero’s commanders engaged in reprisals against him. What remains unclear is whether another, ongoing investigation will clear his name and let him rejoin the service.

In the meantime, he’s selling trucks in Fairbanks.

Lucero’s troubles began in January 2005 when he transferred to Eielson’s 355th Aircraft Maintenance Unit to become an A-10 crew chief. There he met Staff Sgt. Dusty Surber, a fellow enlisted airman with designs on becoming a pilot. The 354th Aircraft Maintenance Squadron, the 355th’s parent unit, would seem to be the perfect place for two ambitious airmen: Winner of the 2004 Air Force Maintenance Effectiveness Award, the unit had earned all “outstanding” and “excellent” ratings in its most recent Pacific Air Forces inspections.

But in interviews with Air Force Times, Surber and Lucero said the drive for high sortie numbers there meant serious safety issues were overlooked to keep planes flying.

“I didn’t like what I saw — a lot of people were taking shortcuts, not following the [technical orders], letting aircraft fly that should [have been] grounded until they got repaired,” Lucero said.

He said he once had an airman first class suggest to him that they replace a lost screw with epoxy.

With such high expectations for producing sortie numbers, Surber said, maintenance holdups were unwelcome.

“If you wrote up something you thought was bad, they thought ... ‘You’re just doing this to try and screw us,’” Surber said. “These are training missions we’re flying here, you know? What’s the point of risking someone’s life over a training mission? “Everybody was gunning for that next stripe or ... that next rank,” Surber said. “Whenever you start affecting ... those numbers and those sorties ... you’re really messing with fire, because that’s somebody’s potential promotion.”

Disillusioned, Surber asked to be transferred to the base maintenance operations control center. At first, he said, his request was denied because the 355th didn’t want to lose a 7-level crew chief; but after he started talking to the squadron’s pilots about how unsafe he thought their aircraft were, “I was gone within a week,” he said.

Surber had a parting message for his friend Lucero, which he recalled for Air Force Times: “If you stick to your guns, and you’re not a ‘yes’ man, I guarantee you’re gonna find a whole world of trouble.” Lucero found it.

According to the report of a Defense Department-directed investigation into Lucero’s removal from the Air Force, Lucero identified a migrated wedding band — a bearing that fits around a steering pin — on an A-10 he was inspecting June 9, 2005. While that bearing was not specifically on his inspection checklist, he recognized the problem because of his previous work in the Aero Repair shop, and wrote it up as a Red X — the most serious indicator of a maintenance issue. A Red X grounds a plane.

The proper procedure, Lucero knew, was to remove the part and fix it — time-consuming, but it was in “black and white” on the technical order, Lucero said. When a specialist arrived, however, he climbed “on top of the jet, without a TO or anything, took a pry bar and popped it back into place,” Lucero said. The specialist then overwrote the Red X, clearing the plane to fly.

Lucero informed several flight-line supervisors of the incident, but each time was rebuffed. The specialist, his superiors told him, knew better than he how to handle the problem, and Lucero should trust the specialist’s judgment.

Dismayed, Lucero took his case up the chain — and for his troubles, he got harsh rater-directed feedback, a reprimand indicating the need for specific performance improvement. “Our section will not tolerate you being irresponsible,” the feedback reads. Any problems outside his specialty must be put “on a dash [indicating a nongrounding maintenance issue] ... let that shop determine what the symbol needs to be.”

According to the investigation report and unbeknownst to Lucero, the specialist who had “fixed” the wedding band was punished with a letter of reprimand July 6 for his actions. Lucero didn’t find that out until Sept. 12 — after months of being told he should know better than to correct a specialist.

Lucero said he quickly became persona non grata within the squadron. His supervisor said it was Lucero’s brashness and lack of respect that rubbed leadership the wrong way.

“It’s not what he had found, it was the way he was going about doing his work,” said Tech. Sgt. Donald Wayne McKee, Lucero’s former direct supervisor and now retired. “When he would up-channel something, he wasn’t doing it like he was supposed to.”

When a crew chief finds a problem, he is supposed to notify an expeditor, who alerts an appropriate specialist for an evaluation, according to AFI 21-101, the authority on aircraft maintenance. McKee said Lucero would often alert the specialist himself, or just Red-X the plane based on his prior training.

Documents in the investigation report show several other base leaders counseled Lucero on his failure to use correct reporting methods.

“It was causing jets not to make their flights,” McKee said. “I kept counseling him on that, telling him, listen, you need to make sure that people know.”

The battle escalated quickly: Lucero kept taking his story of bad maintenance to higher powers, and his leadership countered with increasingly stern discipline.

On July 15, 2005, Lucero met with investigators at the 354th Fighter Wing’s IG office, complaining of bad maintenance and reprisals against him. Within a week, he was ordered to get a mental health evaluation, and was diagnosed with obsessive-compulsive personality disorder.

Two further military evaluators gave Lucero the same diagnosis, one suggesting Lucero be kicked out of the service. A civilian psychologist later rejected the diagnosis.

Lucero’s paper trail kept growing. He had begun secretly using a voice recorder in conversations with his superiors, legal under federal and Alaska state law. But when McKee found out, he confiscated the recorder, leading to a heated confrontation with Lucero and squadron officers. Afterward, Lucero got a letter of reprimand for using the recorder and an Article 15 for disobeying direct orders not to use it. He was also taken off the flight line and assigned janitorial duties.

Lucero successfully rebutted the official reprimand and declined his Article 15. His squadron commander, Lt. Col. Rick Petito, brought court-martial charges but later dismissed them, instead issuing another letter of reprimand for the recorder.

Petito, who declined to comment for this report, later learned Lucero was telling pilots in the 354th Fighter Squadron their aircraft were not safe, the investigation report said. Petito slapped Lucero with no-contact orders, saying he could not speak with the pilots or the maintenance group commander.

Petito then gave Lucero a letter of admonishment on Sept. 23, 2005, officially for violating the no-contact order with the 354th Maintenance Group commander.

Then, on Oct. 11, 2005, McKee gave Lucero a referral enlisted performance report with the lowest possible rating. A referral EPR typically means an airman screwed up, is not likely to get promoted in the next cycle and could be forced out of the service. Lucero’s referral EPR included this statement: “You still find it necessary to try to undermined [sic] the moral [sic] of the section and the squadron.”

In August 2006, the 354th Fighter Wing’s Investigator General’s Office ruled against Lucero in his reprisal allegations. But Lucero took his complaint up the chain to the 11th Air Force IG, which told him that without new evidence, there were no grounds to investigate.

My question to anyone who flies, would you rather have a crew chief like this who seemingly wants to save your life, or would you not? On the surface, it seems like I would want to have a guy like this, but I could be way wrong.

[slacker]

The guy sounds unstable to me.

[Wolf424]

There are three sides to every story. This doesn't seem as cut and dry as the article makes it out to be.

edit: my day old spelling error

Edited April 28, 2009 by TheWolf424

[busdriver]

It seems to me that this guy had his heart in the right place, however he gave up on his proper chain of command all together. He should have continued to up channel the problems through the proper chain while simultaneously telling the Ops guys about what he found. In this way he'd have a couple O-5s on his side while still being able to say he was following proper procedure.

When you find that shit is seriously f'd up, it's time to find high ranking guys to back your play, not just for self preservation but because those guys can actually fix shit.

[M2]

This story is from January 2008, and is still being discussed ad nauseam on the MilitaryTimes.com forum. (13 pages worth of comments, to include those allegedly from Adam Lucero himself, if you're bothered to read it all).

I figure if the guy was correct, we'd see a Hog or two in the ground because of it. As this hasn't been the case, I think he wasn't as right as he thought he was, but that didn't stop him from killing his own career...

He's got no one to blame but himself.

Cheers! M2

[JP84U2]

Coming from an active duty A-10 mx backround, albiet years ago, I can tell you that mx shortcuts are (or at least were) the norm and that as he aledges, making the sorties happen took precedence over good mx practices. I had a similar experience in my day and when I refused to sign off a legitimate red x write up that I could not repair (long story) I was summarily stuck in the snack bar for two months when they figured out they could not force me to sign off the red X. I left AD shortly after and always regretted not taking it to the IG. Prior to the incident I was considered a "good troop" but when I would not sign off on a fraudulent corrective action my leadership shit on me. I'm not saying that this guy handled the situation correctly, I am hovever saying that mx shortcuts are taken and jets are being flown with known grounding write ups every day in the name of making the all important sortie count.

Humps

[Guest WillysJK]

Wow- after reading that long, nauseating thread on militarytimes.com I don't really know what to think. Admittedly, as a pilot the idea of "improper maint. proceedures" stirs up something in me, but after looking at everyone's postings (Assuming the parties are who they are claiming to be) I am a bit more skeptical.

It would seem from his actions, Lucero is somewhat of a textbook sociopath.

Not to hijack the thread, but as a possible side discussion:

During my (admittedly short) career I feel like I have met quite a few of these "self-first" sociopathic-types and I'm never really sure how to handle them. Part of me says, "do the right thing, work towards the good of the AF, and the rest will pan out in the wash," but all too often I either;

A) Get dragged into the drama and react/engage in argument or dispute or

B) Watch said offender skirt "justice" and reap the rewards of their own negative actions (or worse, the positive actions of others!)

I know there are a lot of "Old-Timers" around here- what tactics have others used to handle folks like this?

[M2]

I am getting confirmation from a maintainer who was at the 355th at the same time as Lucero that confirmed the latter was the idiot and "pathological liar" he seems to be.

And, as usual, the Air Force Times failed to properly research this story (I know, shocking, isn't it?!?) and that the Colonel involved wrote a rather scathing letter to the editor, it seems to tell the other (truthful) side of the story...

As an avid reader and 27-year subscriber to the Air Force Times, I was shocked and appalled at the article, “Whistleblower’s woes” [Jan. 14].

Your article seemed to rely on the opinions of those who had an ax to grind and discounted the army of supervisors, section chiefs, flight chiefs, officers in charge, first sergeants, chiefs and commanders (in two squadrons) who were behind disciplinary actions against [staff Sgt. Adam] Lucero. It also discounts all of the lawyers who scrutinized those legal actions, the wing commander who reviewed all of the history and investigator general reviewers all the way from the wing through the 11th Air Force who agreed that Lucero was handled appropriately.

Here are some actual facts that should have been included in the article:

Lucero wasn’t “thrown” out of the Air Force. He ended his career with an honorable discharge at the end of his enlistment. He had been denied re-enlistment because of his disciplinary issues and recommendations from medical evaluators.

Lucero did not get an Article 15 for disobeying orders not to use the recorder. When the recorder was discovered and disagreement ensued, a senior master sergeant and a captain intervened and tried to defuse the situation by telling Lucero to leave the room. Lucero disobeyed both of them. Thus, the Article 15 was offered because he refused to obey the direct orders of a senior noncommissioned officer and an officer, not for his attempt to record a conversation. He subsequently declined the Article 15 and elected trial by court-martial.

The article suggests the squadron kept Lucero in the dark about disciplinary action taken against the technician that repaired the wedding band. What the article neglects to mention is that the 7-level technician was assigned to another squadron. It’s a stretch to insinuate that a squadron commander needs to answer to a 5-level for disciplinary action taken against a 7-level in another squadron. As far as Lt. Col. [Anthony] Buck is concerned, I find it curious that everyone involved in this case has been advised to withhold comment and respect the IG investigation currently underway. The guy appointed as an IG in this case is not only venting his opinions about the case to the press, but is also stating his opinions on disciplinary actions he thinks should be taken.

This says a lot about Buck’s lack of professionalism and respect for IG investigations (or at least investigations conducted by someone other than himself), and his comments in the article clearly bring his objectivity into question.

The issue was never faulty maintenance. People recommend improvements to maintenance all the time, and believe it or not, those improvements are implemented because our No. 1 priority is safe, reliable aircraft. Maintainers are keenly aware that training lost because of system malfunctions today means more work tomorrow.

The problem in this case was that rather than being part of the solution and helping to fix problems, Lucero disobeyed lawful orders, was disrespectful and threatening to superiors, and attempted to sow seeds of distrust with pilots; a significant negative impact on good order and discipline.

In this case, Air Force Times was so eager to use an “Officers Gone Wild” story to sell papers that it threw its journalistic integrity out the window.

In my opinion, that classifies you as a tabloid no longer worthy of my longstanding subscription. Shame on you.

Col. Ron Crosby (ret.)

Cheers! M2

[Fud]

M2, thanks for posting that, as I figured the article was a quite one-sided. It fired me up when I first read it, but after thinking about it I posted so that I could get the rest of the story.

[M2]

I got another reply from a maintainer who was also at the 355th at the time, working QA (Quality Assurance). He pretty much confirmed the first person's account of events and Col Crosby's letter to the editor. I think that about confirms that Lucero was a troublemaker and circumvented the chain of command, and everyone who was there said the story is completely one-sided.

Cheers! M2

[Guest AV8TR]

I got another reply from a maintainer who was also at the 355th at the time, working QA (Quality Assurance). He pretty much confirmed the first person's account of events and Col Crosby's letter to the editor. I think that about confirms that Lucero was a troublemaker and circumvented the chain of command, and everyone who was there said the story is completely one-sided.

Cheers! M2

Sources from the very people who were investigated? Sure they are going to disagree they got thier pee pees smacked! I herd the 355 FS FMC rate went to 20% after the big investigation started; down from the 90's. Coincedence? I think not. Disgruntle ret. Col's, shady MX, investigations; sounds like someone got caught with thier hand in the cookie jar and Dad (DOD) pulled out the belt!

DEFINITIONS

(1) INTEGRITY FIRST

Integrity is a character trait. It is the willingness to do what is right even when no one is looking.

It is the “moral compass”—the inner voice; the voice of self–control; the basis for the trust

imperative in today’s military.

• Integrity is the ability to hold together and properly regulate all of the elements of a personality.

A person of integrity, for example, is capable of acting on conviction. A person of integrity can

control impulses and appetites. Below is straight out of the Core values book.

• But integrity also covers several other moral traits indispensable to national service.

· Courage. A person of integrity possesses moral courage and does what is right even if

the personal cost is high.

· Honesty. Honesty is the hallmark of the military professional because in the military,

our word must be our bond. We don’t pencil-whip reports, we don’t cover up tech data

violations, we don’t falsify documents, and we don’t write misleading operational

readiness messages. The bottom line is we don’t lie, and we can’t justify any deviation.

· Responsibility. No person of integrity is irresponsible; a person of true integrity

acknowledges his or her duties and acts accordingly.

· Accountability. No person of integrity tries to shift the blame to others or take credit for

the work of others; “the buck stops here” says it best.

· Justice. A person of integrity practices justice. Those who do similar thingsmust get

similar rewards or similar punishments.

· Openness. Professionals of integrity encourage a free flow of information within the

organization. They seek feedback from all directions to ensure they are fulfilling key

responsibilities, and they are never afraid to allow anyone at any time to examine how

they do business.

· Self-respect. To have integrity also is to respect oneself as a professional and a human

being. A person of integrity does not behave in ways that would bring discredit upon

himself or the organization to which he belongs.

· Humility. A person of integrity grasps and sobered by the awesome task of defending

the Constitution of the United States of America.

The Air Force requires a high level of professional skill, a 24-hour a

day commitment, and a willingness to make personal sacrifices. Unfortunately,

we’ve all seen what happens when people forget that basic

tenet. Examples of careerism and self interest are present at every level,

but they do the most damage when they are displayed by the leader.

If the leader is unwilling to sacrifice individual goals for the good of the

unit, it’s hard to convince other unit members to do so. At that point,

the mission suffers, and the ripple effects can be devastating.

— Secretary Widnall

[slacker]

Adam Lucero? Is that you?

[BQZip01]

He said he once had an airman first class suggest to him that they replace a lost screw with epoxy.

I, for one, see nothing wrong with this in certain instances (like an screw to an internal maintenance panel that cannot be accessed during flight) and sounds like muckraking to me. I'm pretty positive the scrutiny of this IG investigation is what cause rates to drop (everybody double check everything=twice the time to do things), not this airman.

The rest of it sounds like he might have had his heart in the right place, but went about it in such a brash way that his discpline was an issue, not what he discovered. As for the technician who popped the band back into place, if he is "the approval authority" on such repairs, it may not have been the best way to do it, but if he knows his job and what strains the band can take, such a solution could have been just fine. I'm not saying I condone it, but the observation seems very one-sided.

In short, too much stuff doesn't add up here and it sounds suspicious (as does the post two above mine), however, I will wait to see what the outcome of everything is before I pass any judgment.

[M2]

Adam Lucero? Is that you?

I strongly suspect so, as from what I have heard he is exactly the kind of self-centered assclown who Googles his name and signs up to a forum to claim his righteousness despite the overwhelming evidence against him. And that response (his first post) seems overly canned, like he's used it numerous times before.

But, being the fair and balanced individual I am, I will give "AV8TR" a chance to provide some substantial information to back up his claims (FMC rates to 20%? It will have been documented); otherwise, his days on here will be very numbered...

[MKopack]

He said he once had an airman first class suggest to him that they replace a lost screw with epoxy.

I, for one, see nothing wrong with this in certain instances (like an screw to an internal maintenance panel that cannot be accessed during flight) and sounds like muckraking to me. I'm pretty positive the scrutiny of this IG investigation is what cause rates to drop (everybody double check everything=twice the time to do things), not this airman.

You're right, and while this is going from memory from LONG ago, our F-16 access panel JG spelled out how many fasteners were permitted to be missing from particular panels (as I recall it was basically one each, except stress panels or anything in front of or near the intake). We'd never have a missing screw unless there was a broken nutplate underneath, and in general instead of having an empty hole, we'd glue a screw into place until we could make a permanent fix. The procedure was approved by the TO, but like the airmen in the story there were a couple of guys around who always had their panties in a bunch about it...

Mike

[HiFlyer]

I had a similar adventure with a guy (a Major) in one of my former commands. He was absolutley psychotic about being "right", and could not accept the fact that his opinion might not be the only one that counted. Every action taken by people in his shop was critiqued by him according to his personal interpretation of the regulation or policy. When he was counseled about the problem he responded by beginning a minute-by-minute log of all the people who were after him and every action he observed with a reference to some incorrect action they had taken. His wife made an appointment with me and I saw her, expecting to discuss the problem, and she showed up with a four-inch thick binder of notes about all the people spying on them and trying to keep her husband from getting the "truth" out. After an hour of discussion I still couldn't figure out exactly what it was that "the truth" was all about, but whatever it was, he was right and everyone else was wrong. The psychiatrist at the base hospital had a long word for it, but basically he just "Had to be right"...his psyche couldn't accept the possibility that he could be wrong about anything. He finally retired a few months later. I had two subsequent calls from one of his neighbors trying to get help from the Air Force. The guy was video taping all the neighbors and their kids, following them around, apparently trying to prove he was correct in accusing them of being rude to his children. I politely pointed out that it was a civil problem and stayed well clear!!

[brabus]

it may not have been the best way to do it, but if he knows his job and what strains the band can take, such a solution could have been just fine.

Just b/c a MX guy "knows the job" doesn't mean he's always right when it comes to the jet. Two days ago I had to taxi back to chocks to get a "simple" problem fixed, however as I was taxiing out of arming the engine started to surge at idle, engine instruments were fluctuating rapidly...completely abnormal. So I told lead I was just taking the jet back and getting a spare...he agreed (mind you he's a 2000 hr patch wearer). I got back to the chocks and a "specialist" tried to convince me that everything was w/in ops limits (they weren't) and that I should just let them fix the other issue and take this jet. I said no, I'm shutting down and going to a spare. I then go to talk to the MX super and ask him about a spare, his reply: "Sir, I can't just give you a spare b/c you don't feel like flying this jet." I was shocked...I told him, fine call the TOP 3 and see what he has to say. Needless to say I went to a spare a few min later. When it comes down to it, MX plays a numbers game and it's not their asses in the air. I've had no problems with MX until that day, but it just goes to show they're not always looking to do the "right" thing.

[Guest Hueypilot812]

You are correct. Often it is a numbers game, and just because their books says the airplane is "flyable" doesn't mean it's "flyable" for the conditions you are about to operate in. In any case, I never take a degraded airplane for a training sortie. And always make Mx do their job, don't let someone take short cuts.

I was sitting in parking with all four engines running at Dyess (C-130s), and the engineer said the #3 engine oil pressure was at 40 psi (limits are 50-60), even with the engine on speed. We called mx up just so they could see it (often if they don't see it, they'll CND the problem), and as we're about to shut the engine down, the mx troop says "it's probably a gauge problem". He proceeds to remove the oil pressure gauge, adjusted it on the back, and put it back in the stack, and low and behold it was indicating 50 psi. I was pretty suspicious of that fix, so I had the crew shut down all four. When the props stopped, engines 1, 2 and 4 all indicated 0 psi, while engine #3 indicated 10 psi. Gauge problem my a$$...

[slacker]

When pushed by mx to take a bad plane, invite them to fly with you. Or better yet, tell them you’ll get their spouse approved for a spouse flight, so get them to the flight line ASAP.

[donkey]

When pushed by mx to take a bad plane, invite them to fly with you. Or better yet, tell them you’ll get their spouse approved for a spouse flight, so get them to the flight line ASAP.

"What do you mean you don't feel like flying today?"

[Stitch]

When the props stopped, engines 1, 2 and 4 all indicated 0 psi, while engine #3 indicated 10 psi. Gauge problem my a$$...

It's lazy assclowns like that and stat chasing Pro-Supers that give ALL of maintenance a bad name.

And to chime in with MKopack there are published limts to which panels and how many fasteners are permitted to be missing but a jet should never have to fly that way. There are maintainers out there that give a rats ass about the jet and those flying them. But not to the point of this Lucerno guy.

[HiFlyer]

It's lazy assclowns like that and stat chasing Pro-Supers that give ALL of maintenance a bad name.

And to chime in with MKopack there are published limts to which panels and how many fasteners are permitted to be missing but a jet should never have to fly that way. There are maintainers out there that give a rats ass about the jet and those flying them. But not to the point of this Lucerno guy.

I don't think "this Lucerno guy" gave a hoot about the people flying them. That was just his excuse. It was all about him!

[MKopack]

It's lazy assclowns like that and stat chasing Pro-Supers that give ALL of maintenance a bad name.

And to chime in with MKopack there are published limits to which panels and how many fasteners are permitted to be missing but a jet should never have to fly that way. There are maintainers out there that give a rats ass about the jet and those flying them. But not to the point of this Lucerno guy.

I agree that they shouldn't have to, but if I break off a nutplate on a ventral panel ten minutes before crew show there's no real reason to scrub a flight (or fly a spare) for something like that. Back when I was on the flightline - a long time ago I'll admit - I can't imagine anyone trying to talk a pilot into taking a 'bad jet' rather than a spare. Hell, it's their butts in the seat.

I hope maintainers today care as much about their jets and those that they strap into them as we did back then. I ate dinner one night across from one of our crew chiefs just after he was told that "his" pilot and jet had just been shot down and wouldn't be coming home. I can't even describe how I felt, and I know he felt a lot worse...

Mike

[BQZip01]

Just b/c a MX guy "knows the job" doesn't mean he's always right when it comes to the jet. Two days ago I had to taxi back to chocks to get a "simple" problem fixed, however as I was taxiing out of arming the engine started to surge at idle, engine instruments were fluctuating rapidly...completely abnormal. So I told lead I was just taking the jet back and getting a spare...he agreed (mind you he's a 2000 hr patch wearer). I got back to the chocks and a "specialist" tried to convince me that everything was w/in ops limits (they weren't) and that I should just let them fix the other issue and take this jet. I said no, I'm shutting down and going to a spare. I then go to talk to the MX super and ask him about a spare, his reply: "Sir, I can't just give you a spare b/c you don't feel like flying this jet." I was shocked...I told him, fine call the TOP 3 and see what he has to say. Needless to say I went to a spare a few min later. When it comes down to it, MX plays a numbers game and it's not their asses in the air. I've had no problems with MX until that day, but it just goes to show they're not always looking to do the "right" thing.

I concur, but that's why I prefaced my comment with it "could" have been just fine.

In any case, all of these should have been written up and the pilot-in-command would be the ultimate approval authority.

Edited June 26, 2009 by BQZip01

[Guest AV8TR]

I herd Lucero made 2LT