Lack of Flight Discipline

[NEflyer]

Guys are starting to break shit because they are choosing to do stupid things with Uncle Sam's airplanes. If this were an isolated incident, a swift kick in the nuts from the DO might be appropriate punishment. The fear is that this is just the latest in a string of incidents that reflects a systemic issue with aircrew attitudes. Leadership is right to be concerned. Maybe, just maybe, they'll snap out of their facination with reflective belts and mottos and re-focus on the job we're supposed to be doing.

Three whole incidents in a year, that's an epidemic alright! I'll bet the AF has never seen anything like this before, time to get out the pitchforks and "set an example."

If YouTube, camera phones, HUD tapes, and the current leadership existed 30+ years ago, we wouldn't have had a functioning AF or Army Air Corps because all the pilots would have been grounded. Yet in spite of all those "stupid things" we somehow still managed to fight and win wars. The only difference between "incidents" like these nowadays and the more serious problems which are largely ignored, is they're typically spectacular and/or on camera. All senior leadership cares about is that visibility because it makes them look bad. Until that changes they'll continue to ignore the real, insidious, and ultimately far more dangerous problems that are progressively destroying the AF.

[Guest Hueypilot812]

Three whole incidents in a year, that's an epidemic alright! I'll bet the AF has never seen anything like this before, time to get out the pitchforks and "set an example."

Having been working in flight safety for some time now, there's more than three incidents...those are the ones that hit the rumor mill or got press.

[ThreeHoler]

The more that I think about this, the more I realize that it must have been perfectly safe, as all the pilot had to do was press Z or R twice.

[Ramathorn]

The more that I think about this, the more I realize that it must have been perfectly safe, as all the pilot had to do was press Z or R twice.

Do a barrel roll!

[Buddy Spike]

Dude WTF? What's your background? Fighter? Heavy? I suppose you think there's no danger in taking a C-17 to 90 degrees of bank either. Guys are starting to break shit because they are choosing to do stupid things with Uncle Sam's airplanes. If this were an isolated incident, a swift kick in the nuts from the DO might be appropriate punishment. The fear is that this is just the latest in a string of incidents that reflects a systemic issue with aircrew attitudes. Leadership is right to be concerned. Maybe, just maybe, they'll snap out of their fascination with reflective belts and mottos and re-focus on the job we're supposed to be doing.

(edit: spelling)

90 degrees of bank?!?! OHNOES!! Give me a break, chicken little.

Edited December 17, 2011 by Buddy Spike

[Guest]

Do a barrel roll!

Use the boost to chase.

[Seriously]

Three whole incidents in a year, that's an epidemic alright! I'll bet the AF has never seen anything like this before, time to get out the pitchforks and "set an example."

If YouTube, camera phones, HUD tapes, and the current leadership existed 30+ years ago, we wouldn't have had a functioning AF or Army Air Corps because all the pilots would have been grounded. Yet in spite of all those "stupid things" we somehow still managed to fight and win wars. The only difference between "incidents" like these nowadays and the more serious problems which are largely ignored, is they're typically spectacular and/or on camera. All senior leadership cares about is that visibility because it makes them look bad. Until that changes they'll continue to ignore the real, insidious, and ultimately far more dangerous problems that are progressively destroying the AF.

Right on.

[Prozac]

90 degrees of bank?!?! OHNOES!! Give me a break, chicken little.

Really?....didn't seem to work out too well for the guys at Elmo and those guys were supposed to know what they were doing. Not trying to piss on anyone's grave here, but if you are fvcking around in USAF assets, stop. We're supposed to be professionals. Act like it.

[Herk Driver]

Agreed. Sq CC can give anything from a harsh warning to a CC directed Q-3.

There are many more options available to the Sq/CC. Some of those options require the Sq/CC to notify the chain of command up to the AFCENT/CC level.

I am interested in what others would have done if they were the Sq/CC.

[Whitman]

Me too. How do you play the balancing act of handling it at the lowest level but also ensuring that the OG isn't blind sided when he hears the story from mx?

(null)

[backseatdriver]

I am interested in what others would have done if they were the Sq/CC.

Q-3 and send home - tends to send the message.

[Jaded]

I never understood how getting sent home to the wife was such a bad punishment.

[Toro]

I never understood how getting sent home to the wife was such a bad punishment.

When accompanied by a Q3 in your FEF....not so great.

[Buddy Spike]

Really?....didn't seem to work out too well for the guys at Elmo and those guys were supposed to know what they were doing. Not trying to piss on anyone's grave here, but if you are fvcking around in USAF assets, stop. We're supposed to be professionals. Act like it.

Well, like everything else, it depends - mostly on altitude, airspeed, and pilot SA. Elmo was a tragic error chain, but flatly saying "I bet you think 90 degrees of bank in a C-17 isn't dangerous either" is just stupid. This "sky is falling" nonsense that you and the rest of the Air Force leaders are spewing lacks a basic understanding of the principles of flight we all learned in UPT. Is a barrel roll inherently dangerous? No. Is it dangerous at night, at 10,000 ft in mountainous terrain with unsecured equipment in the back? Yes. Is doing 90 degrees of bank in any aircraft dangerous? No. Is it dangerous at 500' in an aircraft going slow (already in the stick shaker) with very little roll authority? Yes.

I'm curious how anyone even found out about the MC-12 barrel roll. Anyone know that story?

[Learjetter]

When accompanied by a Q3 in your FEF....not so great.

Absolutely survivable...Q3 only a minor blip on the record these days...even the 89AW is taking looks at folks w/Q3s...Unless you also document it with a referral OPR...that's tougher to bury...but also survivable.

[Prozac]

Well, like everything else, it depends - mostly on altitude, airspeed, and pilot SA. Elmo was a tragic error chain, but flatly saying "I bet you think 90 degrees of bank in a C-17 isn't dangerous either" is just stupid. This "sky is falling" nonsense that you and the rest of the Air Force leaders are spewing lacks a basic understanding of the principles of flight we all learned in UPT. Is a barrel roll inherently dangerous? No. Is it dangerous at night, at 10,000 ft in mountainous terrain with unsecured equipment in the back? Yes. Is doing 90 degrees of bank in any aircraft dangerous? No. Is it dangerous at 500' in an aircraft going slow (already in the stick shaker) with very little roll authority? Yes.

I'm curious how anyone even found out about the MC-12 barrel roll. Anyone know that story?

OK, I'll admit to poor wording on my part. Exchange "danger" with "stupid". While most airplanes are capable of operations well beyond tech order limits, please explain how doing so brings anyting to the fight. I've found myself in situations where, in my own judgement, certian rules impeded quick action and left people on the ground vulnerable. I broke them. I also promptly explained myself to the DO upon landing so he would have the real story if confronted. I was never second guessed. Most of us have broken rules to get the job done. This is not one of those cases

[Toro]

Absolutely survivable...Q3 only a minor blip on the record these days...even the 89AW is taking looks at folks w/Q3s...Unless you also document it with a referral OPR...that's tougher to bury...but also survivable.

I never said it wasn't survivable, my response was to the statement that getting sent home wasn't such a bad punishment.

[Guest Hueypilot812]

OK, I'll admit to poor wording on my part. Exchange "danger" with "stupid". While most airplanes are capable of operations well beyond tech order limits, please explain how doing so brings anyting to the fight.

This.

You coulda just stopped right there. A few dudes are bringing up the "good old days" were pilots were tough guys that did incredible feats. That's true, we did have dudes with brass balls that did some crazy shit and some of it led to positive things. But what they are glossing over is the fact that the mishap rate was incredibly high. For each of those personalities quoted around here (Bob Hoover among them), there are dozens of other guys that did stupid shit and died. Some bases had a fatal Class A just about every week. One of the reasons why the mishap rate has declined over the years to where it is now is because we manage risks...in other words if there's no good reason to do it, then don't. That's the point trying to made about the MC-12...why on Earth would you roll it in the AOR? I can't think of a single good reason to do so. Sure, it's capable of doing that. I've rolled the Herk in the sim...not too difficult...but why the would I ever do it in real life?

[SurelySerious]

I'm curious how anyone even found out about the MC-12 barrel roll. Anyone know that story?

Don't take pictures/video. In addition to the FCIF we had a visit from the AFCENT commander, so it's not just leadership by email.

[backseatdriver]

I never understood how getting sent home to the wife was such a bad punishment.

I guess it depends on community. In Gunships (and AFSOC in general) getting sent home from combat is about the most emasculating thing you could have happen and carries a stigma with it that takes awhile to recover from - I'm surprised it wouldn't be the same elsewhere.

It also plants the bug in everyone else to question any buffoonery they're thinking about trying with "is this worth getting sent home over?".

And to clarify - I'm talking about sending dudes home for stupid shit like rolling an MC-12, not for leaning forward to hack the mish.

[Guest]

You guys are harsh on this stuff, which is probably good.

Yes, there used to be a lot of crashes. Some of that was from guys fucking around. Much of it was because the training was more demanding/higher risk and there was less/no magic on the airplanes.

A squadron commander shouldn't be afraid to hammer a guy appropriately for fucking up and he shouldn't be afraid to let his bosses know.

The punishment should be situationally dependent. First time for a high performer is different than the second time for a douchebag. It's a judgement call and it should be handled at the lowest level (Flt/CC or SQ/DO) if possible.

[Vetter]

The punishment should be situationally dependent. First time for a high performer is different than the second time for a douchebag. It's a judgement call and it should be handled at the lowest level (Flt/CC or SQ/DO) if possible.

While I agree with this, this is a balancing act most commanders can't pull off. If one guy does something and it gets swept under the rug (because he's "good", is being molded for WIC, is an ass-kisser, whatever) and another guy gets hammered, it will rip a squadron apart.

We had a few issues with guys shooting below abort on our last deployment...nothing heinous, but still below abort. Well, a few guys got sat down for a week or two by the Squadron Commander on the recommendation from the patches. While grounded, those guys had plenty of time to review tape as directed by the patches. They found numerous examples of the patches and Squadron Commander shooting below abort. After that, an A-team/B-team mentality emerged that plagued the squadron for the rest of the deployment.

Double standards have no place in issues involving flight discipline, safety, and weapons employment. If the CC is going to hammer someone, it should be even across the board.

[Guest Hueypilot812]

Yes, there used to be a lot of crashes. Some of that was from guys ing around. Much of it was because the training was more demanding/higher risk and there was less/no magic on the airplanes.

There's truth in that statement...not all of it was from ing around, which is why I said part of the reason was due to that. But there's a lot of other factors that led to the high mishap rate, and among them was just generally pushing things too far. I know of a guy who spoke to my pilot training class about the time he flew a T-33 somewhere cross country, figured he'd just wag the gas, and wound up flaming out on final. The jet made the runway but back then all he got were some stares from the fuel truck guys, probably thinking "holy shit this guy was low on gas". There was no real oversight on that kind of stuff, and pilots/crews didn't have the standards that are currently in place now...much of what you read in 11-202 and 11-2MDS was developed from past mishaps like that.

There's risk management and risk aversion. Risk aversion is telling the Army that landing a Herk on a dirt LZ in Iraq is "too risky" despite the fact they have dudes running IED-laden roads every day to do stuff we could have been doing in that theater. Risk management is "rolling this MC-12 has no purpose and only raises the chances of a mishap for no reason".

The FCIF wasn't based on one event. It's not like things were going great, no mishaps due to poor decision making or discipline had occurred and then they overreacted. This came from a string of events, some of which were published and many others were only seen by those in the leadership chain and those of us who input stuff into AFSAS (safety database). I'm talking wing-tip scrapes, hard landings, hot brakes that nearly burns up the airplane, among others. The MC-12 was just the cherry on top.

The fact there are people here that think rolling an MC-12 is pretty much a non-event bothers me. There are other factors behind the MC-12 event that havent' been discussed and it's not really appropriate for an open forum...but it wasn't a one time thing, nor was it a rogue pilot.

[Guest]

While I agree with this, this is a balancing act most commanders can't pull off. If one guy does something and it gets swept under the rug (because he's "good", is being molded for WIC, is an ass-kisser, whatever) and another guy gets hammered, it will rip a squadron apart.

We had a few issues with guys shooting below abort on our last deployment...nothing heinous, but still below abort. Well, a few guys got sat down for a week or two by the Squadron Commander on the recommendation from the patches. While grounded, those guys had plenty of time to review tape as directed by the patches. They found numerous examples of the patches and Squadron Commander shooting below abort. After that, an A-team/B-team mentality emerged that plagued the squadron for the rest of the deployment.

Double standards have no place in issues involving flight discipline, safety, and weapons employment. If the CC is going to hammer someone, it should be even across the board.

OK, I think you're missing the point I was trying to make.

I see several references to ass kissers, patchwearers causing problems, favoring individuals being "groomed" for FWIC and some people flaunting the rules. That sounds like a personal problem and it is not what I am talking about.

Fair is not equal. Commanders should be allowed to use their judgement and discretion when dealing with any issue. I am not saying anything should be swept under the rug. I am saying hammering everyone equally every time because you want to hide behind the skirt of fairness creates as many problems splitting a squadron apart as what you describe as the weapons officers and SQ/CC screwing up your squadron.

Using equal as a technique shows weakness as a leader. It is the baseline of what I hear lamented as what is wrong with our leadership today.

BTW, what was the primary reason for the abort altitude for strafe? And what events are ou talking about. I'm just curious.

[Vetter]

Okay, I got ya.

I'll PM you about the abort issues.