T-Bird mishap pilot receives CSAF safety award

[bagasticks]

Erich Hartmann donated 12 aircraft back to mother earth over the course of 352 aerial victories. . . none were from enemy fire.

even the best pilots have bad days. .

It drives me crazy the way people within our own community are so quick to crucify an aviator for making a mistake, especially when its an isolated incident not charaterstic of one's ability. I'm going to go out on a limb and state that everyone that has been flying for any length of time has made an error/decision at some point that could have been fatal. The sun shines on an old dog's ass every now and then . Looking at this guy's pedigree, i suspect he is a solid pilot/officer that had a real bad day (it clearly could have been worse). .

[zrooster99]

I have seen plenty of pilots lose quals over screw ups. I have never seen (or heard of) an officer being "demoted" or having a "loss of rank"

Only time I've ever heard of an O being "demoted" is if court-martialed and sent to prison as a result. It's a very rare thing and it's always all the way down to E-1.

[Guest Crew Report]

Only time I've ever heard of an O being "demoted" is if court-martialed and sent to prison as a result. It's a very rare thing and it's always all the way down to E-1.

I think the only person who can demote an O is the President due to the commission.

[Guest Rubber_Side_Down]

The punishment you receive from a military court (i.e. "reduction in pay to the next lowest grade") is not the same as a demotion, correct?

[zrooster99]

The punishment you receive from a military court (i.e. "reduction in pay to the next lowest grade") is not the same as a demotion, correct?

I believe that's correct.

[Smokin]

Erich Hartmann donated 12 aircraft back to mother earth over the course of 352 aerial victories. . . none were from enemy fire.

even the best pilots have bad days. .

It drives me crazy the way people within our own community are so quick to crucify an aviator for making a mistake, especially when its an isolated incident not charaterstic of one's ability. I'm going to go out on a limb and state that everyone that has been flying for any length of time has made an error/decision at some point that could have been fatal. The sun shines on an old dog's ass every now and then . Looking at this guy's pedigree, i suspect he is a solid pilot/officer that had a real bad day (it clearly could have been worse). .

I totally agree. Every pilot makes multiple mistakes on every single mission they fly; from forgetting to reset the altimeter to looking at the radar for a second or two too long. Skill and experience decrease the number of mistakes, but you will never be perfect no matter how good of a pilot you are.

[Guest TheBull]

I'm pretty sure a "demotion" is only for E-4 and below or for people who have been given a high rank for special training and wash out (example: E-3 who goes to OTS gets E-5 while they're there, then reverts back to E-3 if they wash out) - once you get above E-4 you have to do an Art 15 for a "reduction in rank."

As far as reduction in rank for officers - Since the NJP AFI is silent on it, I assume the only way to reduce rank of an officer is through a full blown court martial. Also as a note: officers aren't discharged, but they are dismissed by SECAF - just happened a few months back at Minot for the missileers that fell asleep with crypto.

[itsokimapilot]

I think the difference is in making a math error in a very in a demanding flight envelope, versus basic airmanship (putting gear down), plus additional factors listed above by others.

I have also worked for him, would gladly do so again, and would follow him anywhere. Definitely NOT the next "he whose name shall not be spoken."

Not condoning their actions, but I think they are similar basic airmanship traits. You always check your altitude at the top of a maneuver before you pull through. I wouldn't call a split s very demanding... for a thunderbird! You always put the gear down before you land. There was a lot going on the cockpit the night those guys landed gear up. Task saturation sucks no matter what aircraft you fly. That is why it is called an accident.

[Guest CombatDescent]

Demotion? When was the last time an officer was demoted without committing a serious crime? A mistake =! crime. I don't know you and I don't know your experience. But you knida sound like you're full of BS.

Enlisted world is a different, my mistake for comparing the two.

[FlyingBull]

Enlisted world is a different, my mistake for comparing the two.

No problem.

[Guest bunk22]

I disagree. Call it what you want, but pilot error is pilot error. The pilots flying these planes are trained to a standard, and that standard is to fly the plane in all normal and anticipated emergency regimes in a safe and effective manner. That's like saying the surgeon who sews up a scalpel inside some poor bastard's gut is less of a F-up than the janitor who forgets to empty the trash can in the bathroom because his job is harder. If you're qualled in the jet and the mission and you bend a perfectly good airplane, it's on you. There's no distinction between "acceptable" pilot error and "unacceptable" pilot error based on the aircraft, unit, mission, phase of flight, etc.

Don't get me wrong, the "additional factors" piece definitely changes the game. But if we're talking about one first time, non-doped offender vs. another, I don't see a difference.

Wow....I would say unless you have the wings and experience to comment, the best course of action is to STFU.

Anyway, as far as the Navy goes, generally after a mishap, the Navy convenes a SRB and JAG investigation...typically for a Class A mishap. Then there comes the FNAEB (Field Naval Aviator Evaluation Board) or FNFOEB (Field Naval Flight Officer Board). The board consists of 3 aviators of which the senior aviator must be higher senior to the aviator being boarded, and a flight surgeon. The board will take the information from the other boards, interview the aviator and come to a recomendation. The final decision is then made by the big boss....for the training command, that would be CNATRA. An aviator can be boarded for poor performance or performing a prohibited manuever as well. There are basically 5 results (unless it has changed):

Type A: Continuation of flight status

A1--no fault of the pilot (maint error), go back to flying at present command.

A2--transfer to another activity within the command

A3--transfer to another activity at another command...which as I understand it would be an F/A-18 guy being FNAEB'ed for his poor landing performance at the boat and should continue flying but in another community, such as P-3's. This happened to a COD pilot when we used to fly nights, he was not good at night, FNAEB'ed and sent to fly T-34's and E-6's.

A4--keep flying but with a probationary period. Read pilot error but honest error, seemingly like the T-bird mishap.

Type B. Termination of Flight Status with:

B1--termination of flight status but keeps the right to wear wings

B2--Revocation of the right to wear the insignia. This is considered appropriate board action as a result of acts which dishonor naval aviation or there has been willful and flagrant violation of established rules, regulations and directives.

If a pilot is awarded an A series for a mishap or performance, it's really up to the front office if they want to punish in a FITREP. A friend of mine and now Southwest pilot had a Class B mishap where the entire stbd vertical tail separated from the aircraft in flight. He was flying out of France, going to the boat, when it happened. He was FNAEB'd and was given an A1, it was a maint issue, two bolts were improperly installed. His speed was within NATOPS limits......HOWEVER, the front office, the CO specifically, didn't see it that way. I knew the CO and sorry, but he was a huge D-bag and for personal reasons, he ensured the mishap pilot did not get an EP during his DH tour. End of career, definitely for O-5 and probably would not get continuation until 20.

Another COD pilot was involved in a Class A or B mishap at the boat. The student forced the nose of the COD down on a night trap, collapsing the gear. He was given an A4, not necessarily entirely his fault but he was responsible for the aircraft. He later became the CO of VRC-40.

A B1 or B2 will result in documention in a FITREP and that would be the end of the aviator's career, as I understand it.

[Guest Okawner]

I'm not sure how your spewing of navy jibberish can be construed as a logical retort to my post (or why you even framed your remarks as a reply to my post). I think you have made the mistake of assuming that hours spent dedicated to posting on a message board somehow has a direct correlation to experience in an aircraft. Allow me to educate you - it doesn't.

I'm not sure what the navy would consider an "honest error" vs. a plain old error. In my experience, it is as others have already stated in this thread. Each time you fly, errors are made. Sometimes they coincide with other errors that you, or your crew chief, or your navigator, or the tower contoller have made. Sometimes they coincide with mechanical malfunctions that, by themselves on any other day, would normally present no prolems whatsoever. It is at those times that accidents happen. In the cases of the two accidents that were being discussed in this thread (the T-bird and the C-17 crew), pilot error was made. I'm disputing the assertion that, because the T-bird pilot was performing in a "demanding flight envelope", his error is less egregious. That's why this thread was started - because he screwed up the same as many before him have and many after him will with seemingly no ill effects on his career whereas others who have made the same mistake were hurt by it.

Personally, I don't think a single accident should end a person's flying career. Similarly, I don't think all people who have never had an accident are good pilots. There are some totally shitty pilots who, by the grace of God, have never scratched a jet. It's a crapshoot, really. There are so many things that can bite you when you step out the door to fly and no matter how "good" you think you are, you'll never be aware of all of them.

I think people who have a demonstrated history of poor judgement/performance should be the only folks to loose their wings. Could be accidents/incidents, could be performance during checkrides, could be performance during upgrade, could be a combination of things. But not a single accident, even if it is "pilot error".

[Guest]

Personally, I don't think a single accident should end a person's flying career. Similarly, I don't think all people who have never had an accident are good pilots. There are some totally shitty pilots who, by the grace of God, have never scratched a jet.

Huh? You are making a sweeping generalization here.

It's a crapshoot, really.

No, it isn't.

There are so many things that can bite you when you step out the door to fly and no matter how "good" you think you are, you'll never be aware of all of them.

But you should be aware of how to handle them, make the right decisions and execute the proper procedures, whatever they may be. If you do that - break even. If you don't do that - FAIL.

I think people who have a demonstrated history of poor judgement/performance should be the only folks to loose their wings. Could be accidents/incidents, could be performance during checkrides, could be performance during upgrade, could be a combination of things. But not a single accident, even if it is "pilot error".

Pilot error Class A mishaps are serious. They should be looked at very seriously and wings should be on the line. Period.

Performance on a checkride should be the very last metric used to get rid of a pilot. Checkrides are a joke and many SEFEs are total douchebags.

Upgrade performance is a good measure because it is not a snapshot like a checkride with a phoney scenario. The key element is an adequate number of qualified IPs and a solid training program in place. Can't hack the upgrade, tcheusse.

[Guest Okawner]

I think you have mistaken the use of the term "a single accident" to mean "any accident" (as in "I can't think of a single reason why I bother reading this crap"). I meant it as "one" accident. If that's not the case, then I'm not sure what you mean by "sweeping generalization". It's definitely a fact that there are crap pilots who haven't caused an accident.

It's also a fact that some pilots are better than others. If you hand Pilot A and Pilot B the same shit sandwich in a plane, there's a chance that Pilot A may be able to get the jet on the ground safely while Pilot B bites the dust. Ergo, Pilot A is a better pilot (on that day, anyway). However, there is also always the possibility that the odds are going to be stacked so high against the pilot that no matter how good he is, he ends up crashing anyway. His one small error is the culmination of a series of errors perpetrated by himself or others that tips the scale.

I would never suggest yanking someone's wings based on one checkride. That would be dumbassery. That's why we don't do that. But taken in the context of other performance failures, it could be one more indicator that something isn't right with that particular pilot.

What I'm saying is this. Look at Mr. T-bird. He crashed that jet because he made a very simple error with numbers (not sure if he did the math wrong or started with the wrong number, either way it was a simple mistake). It cost him big time because he made that particular error on that particular day on that particular manuever in that particular location. That same type of simple math error has cost many more their lives. Tell me you've never made a math error in the cockpit. You're not a computer, so I know you have. So have I. Does that make you a better or worse pilot than this guy? Hell, no. You can't make that call based on one error at the wrong place at the wrong time.

[Guest bunk22]

I'm not sure how your spewing of navy jibberish can be construed as a logical retort to my post (or why you even framed your remarks as a reply to my post). I think you have made the mistake of assuming that hours spent dedicated to posting on a message board somehow has a direct correlation to experience in an aircraft. Allow me to educate you - it doesn't.

No, my 2500+ flight hours of flying military aircraft is what gives me the credibility to state a valid opinion. My post was simply for education of how the Navy handles mishaps via FNAEB's. However, let me say it again, a person without experience flying for the military has zero credibility with respect to this issue. Your opinion comes with no credibility and thus the best course of action for a wannabe in this situation is to STFU.

I'm not sure what the navy would consider an "honest error" vs. a plain old error. In my experience, it is as others have already stated in this thread. Each time you fly, errors are made. Sometimes they coincide with other errors that you, or your crew chief, or your navigator, or the tower contoller have made. Sometimes they coincide with mechanical malfunctions that, by themselves on any other day, would normally present no prolems whatsoever. It is at those times that accidents happen. In the cases of the two accidents that were being discussed in this thread (the T-bird and the C-17 crew), pilot error was made. I'm disputing the assertion that, because the T-bird pilot was performing in a "demanding flight envelope", his error is less egregious. That's why this thread was started - because he screwed up the same as many before him have and many after him will with seemingly no ill effects on his career whereas others who have made the same mistake were hurt by it.

Really, error's are made when you fly? Please Oakawannabe, can you provide insight to your experience so that the rest of us military pilots can learn from your vast knowledge Until you provide some information on your credentials, you can stow the lecture BS.

His error was honest in that it wasn't an unsafe act due to a violation. If using HFACS, this would most likely fall under actions committed by an operator that results in human error or an unsafe situation. This would be a skill based error. The fact that he was a T-bird pilot leads me to believe that his prior performance was exemplary and this was a first time, almost tragic mistake. But a mistake that was without ill intent. Whether there were any pre-conditions for what he did, I don't know but it's my understanding that he returned to flying though not with the T-birds. A mishap board would look at all those factors. If his mistake was just that, a one time skill-based error, there would be no reason to hurt his career IMO. Valid opinions may vary of course.

Personally, I don't think a single accident should end a person's flying career. Similarly, I don't think all people who have never had an accident are good pilots. There are some totally shitty pilots who, by the grace of God, have never scratched a jet. It's a crapshoot, really. There are so many things that can bite you when you step out the door to fly and no matter how "good" you think you are, you'll never be aware of all of them.

Wow, broad stroke there Okawannabe. So a pilot who willfully violates rules and regulations should continue? Again, thank's for the infinite flying words of wisdom you are providing us. Please oh wise one, tell us military aviators more...please!!

I think people who have a demonstrated history of poor judgement/performance should be the only folks to loose their wings. Could be accidents/incidents, could be performance during checkrides, could be performance during upgrade, could be a combination of things. But not a single accident, even if it is "pilot error".

Okawannabe, genius here. Did you have to look that up or figure it out on your own? Might want to rethink some of it. However, again, thanks for the words of wannabe wisdom

I would never suggest yanking someone's wings based on one checkride. That would be dumbassery. That's why we don't do that. But taken in the context of other performance failures, it could be one more indicator that something isn't right with that particular pilot.

Yet in the above quote, you said just that. So which is it Okawannabe? You seem to have it all figured out so help us experienced aviators learn from your extensive knowledge. I'm enjoying it thus far

Edited March 16, 2010 by bunk22

[lloyd christmas]

Besides, The AF has a few other senior leaders in is history that have lost a jet, and went on to do great things.

The only one I can think of that crashed as a T-Bird was good ole Merrill McPeak. I can not say that he went on to do great things.....

Edited March 17, 2010 by lloyd christmas

[Guest]

No, my 2500+ flight hours of flying military aircraft is what gives me the credibility to state a valid opinion.

2500 hours, is that a lot?

Look at the signals the AF sent at all the nuke firings.

We lost a great warrior leader at the top of the house over that one.

[Guest Okawner]

No, my 2500+ flight hours of flying military aircraft is what gives me the credibility to state a valid opinion. My post was simply for education of how the Navy handles mishaps via FNAEB's. However, let me say it again, a person without experience flying for the military has zero credibility with respect to this issue. Your opinion comes with no credibility and thus the best course of action for a wannabe in this situation is to STFU.

Really, error's are made when you fly? Please Oakawannabe, can you provide insight to your experience so that the rest of us military pilots can learn from your vast knowledge Until you provide some information on your credentials, you can stow the lecture BS.

His error was honest in that it wasn't an unsafe act due to a violation. If using HFACS, this would most likely fall under actions committed by an operator that results in human error or an unsafe situation. This would be a skill based error. The fact that he was a T-bird pilot leads me to believe that his prior performance was exemplary and this was a first time, almost tragic mistake. But a mistake that was without ill intent. Whether there were any pre-conditions for what he did, I don't know but it's my understanding that he returned to flying though not with the T-birds. A mishap board would look at all those factors. If his mistake was just that, a one time skill-based error, there would be no reason to hurt his career IMO. Valid opinions may vary of course.

Wow, broad stroke there Okawannabe. So a pilot who willfully violates rules and regulations should continue? Again, thank's for the infinite flying words of wisdom you are providing us. Please oh wise one, tell us military aviators more...please!!

Okawannabe, genius here. Did you have to look that up or figure it out on your own? Might want to rethink some of it. However, again, thanks for the words of wannabe wisdom

Yet in the above quote, you said just that. So which is it Okawannabe? You seem to have it all figured out so help us experienced aviators learn from your extensive knowledge. I'm enjoying it thus far

Not too sure where your hostility is coming from. Probably some massive insecurities and a deep seated inferiority complex. If I hurt your feelings with my comments then I'm sorry. Maybe you should try to be more thick skinned about these things. This is a place where people air their opinions. Not everyone is going to agree on everything - you don't have to take it personally.

As far as your "2500+" hours of flight time - congratulations! That's impressive.

[M2]

This thread has run its course...