Lack of Flight Discipline

[soultrain]

Nobody is saying that. Your argument is a straw man.

Except for "CJ-6A"...to whom my post was directed. His question was:

"What TO/AFI guidance says not to roll a King Air? The aircraft did not exceed its G-limits, airspeed, or come close to a CFIT scenario."

To me, this sounds like "Who cares? What reg did they break? It wasn't unsafe, so what?" Hammer the mouth-breathers that thought it would be fun to barrel roll a MC-12, and get back to the business of winning a war.

[Homestar]

:::cough:::

[nsplayr]

It's not a flippant attitude. This shouldn't have been blown up.. whatever happened to things being handled within a squadron? Guess that was a couple generations ago? You all are crying to lynch these dudes... come on.

You are being flippant man, honest feedback. You admit later that rolling the airplane was a bad decision by whoever actually did it, and I'll take from that statement that you also think it should therefore not be done/you would not do it.

There's no need to up and crucify people over the incident if nothing bad actually happened (outside of an ass chewing by the SQ/CC), but it's the attitude that is perhaps the problem the FCIF was poorly trying to address. From your posts here you seem to have the attitude that it's NBD to depart from standard flight profiles for non-mission-related reasons, and that's a bad atitude to have. If doing something related to flight safety is a bad idea then we should be actively stopping guys from thinking it's ok to do it.

This is exactly where you prove the shoes wrong when they think, "Well if he can't tuck in his PT shirt or trim his mustache he must not follow other rules." That's a bullshit attitude and we all know it, but it's incidents like this rumored one that give them the ammunition to gay-up everywhere they possibly can. I'll admit I'm usually the guy with bushy sideburns and long hair and missing the reflective belt, but I'll be damned if I'm gonna allow anyone on my crew to do something stupid in Uncle Sam's airplane that puts people in unnecessary danger.

Flight safety, to me, is one of those "show me" categories of things where dudes have to take it 100% seriously and not do stupid shit; it gives you cover to do less risky stupid shit like growing a nasty 'stache or getting falling-down drunk in the squadron bar and still receive a pass from the Boss and a high-five from your bros.

[CJ-6A]

Try telling the airline Captain conducting your future FedEx interview why you think a willing breach of flight discipline is "no biggie...wasn't unsafe, so who cares?" See how far that gets you. Grow up and set the bar high...it's there for a reason.

Except for "CJ-6A"...to whom my post was directed. His question was:

"What TO/AFI guidance says not to roll a King Air? The aircraft did not exceed its G-limits, airspeed, or come close to a CFIT scenario."

To me, this sounds like "Who cares? What reg did they break? It wasn't unsafe, so what?" Hammer the mouth-breathers that thought it would be fun to barrel roll a MC-12, and get back to the business of winning a war.

You are being flippant man, honest feedback. You admit later that rolling the airplane was a bad decision by whoever actually did it, and I'll take from that statement that you also think it should therefore not be done/you would not do it.

There's no need to up and crucify people over the incident if nothing bad actually happened (outside of an ass chewing by the SQ/CC), but it's the attitude that is perhaps the problem the FCIF was poorly trying to address. From your posts here you seem to have the attitude that it's NBD to depart from standard flight profiles for non-mission-related reasons, and that's a bad atitude to have. If doing something related to flight safety is a bad idea then we should be actively stopping guys from thinking it's ok to do it.

My point is that it's being blown out of proportion and comparing it to Bud Holland is stupid.

Everyone is getting on their soapboxes about what they think "flight safety" is... well, if that helps put a star on your shoulder... great. God forbid any one of you ever get yourselves into something like this... I'm sure there will be a bunch of overachievers looking to gut you over it. Was it a bad decision? Yes. Was it unsafe? No. This doesn't need to be a huge deal.

[ThreeHoler]

Ok, so someone posted an excerpt from a manual that I assume is appropriate to this discussion. It said "no acro." How do you justify violating the POH/TO/AFI when it is not mission essential?

Flying a VFR leg up the Grand Canyon in said heavy aircraft, for training? Yes. Flying a low-level because the Strike Eagle bubbas get Nellis to approve you as part of their package (sts). No.

Should it have gone to the level of an AF-wide FCIF? Maybe. It depends on the culture of the unit and the pervasiveness of said culture (I say this as an AMIC/FSO trained individual with quite a few investigations under my belt).

[Bergman]

The 'attitude' out there that if the Air Force doesn't specifically tell me I can't do it, I should be able to do it should worry you too.

No it shouldn't. The Navy has operated with that mindset for many, many years and they seem to get the job done well and safely enough.

Beyond that, the narrow minded viewpoint that if someone hasn't told you specifically when or how to do something, that it can't be done is the same attitude of many of the worst pilots I know...Guys that lock up the first time they find themselves in a scenario that they haven't read about in the regs or have seen previously. "Now what?" and then just sit there until the situation is OBE. Not good, IMHO.

I would much rather fly with folks who know the rules, know their jet, and can operate safely within the meaning of the regs, not bend any metal, and get the job done. Even if they aren't necessarily following the letter of the law.

Again, I don't know the whole story, but I can't think of a reason to have flown an aircraft that way. If you think it was ok, then you are focused on something other than the mission in my opinion.

I agree with you here. Although the thought of doing a barrel roll in a C-12 would probably cross my mind at some point, especially after boring holes in the sky for 6-9 months, I think the 'ol barrel roll would be out of bounds. I don't know about you guys, but it took more than a few attempts to perfect it in the T-37...can't imagine having to get it perfect the first time.

[Napoleon_Tanerite]

No it shouldn't. The Navy has operated with that mindset for many, many years and they seem to get the job done well and safely enough.

Beyond that, the narrow minded viewpoint that if someone hasn't told you specifically when or how to do something, that it can't be done is the same attitude of many of the worst pilots I know...Guys that lock up the first time they find themselves in a scenario that they haven't read about in the regs or have seen previously. "Now what?" and then just sit there until the situation is OBE. Not good, IMHO.

I would much rather fly with folks who know the rules, know their jet, and can operate safely within the meaning of the regs, not bend any metal, and get the job done. Even if they aren't necessarily following the letter of the law.

I agree with you here. Although the thought of doing a barrel roll in a C-12 would probably cross my mind at some point, especially after boring holes in the sky for 6-9 months, I think the 'ol barrel roll would be out of bounds. I don't know about you guys, but it took more than a few attempts to perfect it in the T-37...can't imagine having to get it perfect the first time.

Thats why I think the AF vs Navy comparison is idiotic. I've never felt limited in flying how I needed to to accomplish the mission. Thats why the AF has pilots, even for UAVs... we exist to fill in the gaps that simple regs can't cover. If you can't handle a "gray" situation as confidently as you handle a black and white one (and be able to defend your decision to anyone necessary) you probably shouldn't be a pilot, or at least not an AC.

[BitteEinBit]

No it shouldn't. The Navy has operated with that mindset for many, many years and they seem to get the job done well and safely enough.

Beyond that, the narrow minded viewpoint that if someone hasn't told you specifically when or how to do something, that it can't be done is the same attitude of many of the worst pilots I know.

I would much rather fly with folks who know the rules, know their jet, and can operate safely within the meaning of the regs, not bend any metal, and get the job done. Even if they aren't necessarily following the letter of the law.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying everything has to be spelled out. Not knowing the whole story, I would still say that this maneuver had nothing to with the mission at all...and to justify it by saying the Air Force didn't tell me I couldn't do that is what I'm saying is wrong. I understand about hacking the mission by getting around the black and white of AFIs and TOs, I've been there and done that. We wouldn't get anything done if we went strictly by the letter of the law. This case does not fall into that category IMO. Clearly, I should not have to tell MC-12 pilots that barrel rolls are not authorized.

I agree with you here. Although the thought of doing a barrel roll in a C-12 would probably cross my mind at some point, especially after boring holes in the sky for 6-9 months, I think the 'ol barrel roll would be out of bounds. I don't know about you guys, but it took more than a few attempts to perfect it in the T-37...can't imagine having to get it perfect the first time.

Good point. That's probably what is happening...dudes are getting bored over there.

Edited: to fix drunken post. Maybe time for bed...

Edited December 12, 2011 by BitteEinBit

[Guest Hueypilot812]

My point is that it's being blown out of proportion and comparing it to Bud Holland is stupid.

Everyone is getting on their soapboxes about what they think "flight safety" is... well, if that helps put a star on your shoulder... great. God forbid any one of you ever get yourselves into something like this... I'm sure there will be a bunch of overachievers looking to gut you over it. Was it a bad decision? Yes. Was it unsafe? No. This doesn't need to be a huge deal.

I'm a career flight safety guy. I did the safety job with the Army Guard and I've been doing it for over a decade with the USAF. There is a comparison to Bud Holland that you're refusing to see. The difference is leadership intervened this time. Bud kept pushing and pushing because rather than slap his hand, everyone encouraged him or at the very least tolerated it, and over the years it led to the Fairchild mishap. I don't know the crew of the MC-12 in question, but I can tell you from knowing my history and just simple human nature, had leadership treated this lightly and turned a blind eye, there would have been temptation to continue or perhaps push the boundaries more.

You seem to be pretty stubborn, stating things like "there's nothing prohibiting a King Air from doing a roll"...yet the FAA certification and the POH prohibits that maneuver. I'm quite certain that a highly skilled and qualified test pilot could roll a King Air safely. We all know Bob Hoover can roll a twin easily as well. The difference is those maneuvers are done in a controlled environment with a routine that's been vetted and planned. Not on an ad hoc basis over a combat zone with a normal crew compliment.

Those of you that think rolling a King Air just for the hell of it is "ok" need to ask yourself this question...it's been proven that a Boeing 707 can be rolled. It was accomplished by a Boeing demonstration pilot. Chances are, you could probably roll a 737 as well. But how many of you would be fine if your family flew out on a Southwest flight and the captain decided it would be cool to do a roll over DAL on the way out? I'd be pissed...it's called "risk management", and taking risks "just because" is stupid.

As for the FCIF, I don't think this ONE incident drove that. There's been a lot of discussion of aircrew discipline over the past few years following a few recent mishaps. As someone else stated, this was probably the straw that broke the camel's back and leadership felt they needed to get a message through in a very direct manner.

-- Edited to add about "the good old days"...certainly there were many skilled pilots in the past, but you're omitting the fact that the mishap rate was very, very high. Nearly as many people died in routine training as were killed flying combat missions in WWII. Using good decision-making skills and refraining from doing unnecessary maneuvers like rolling a non-aerobatic aircraft has played a role in saving lives and keeping us from bending metal.

Edited December 12, 2011 by Hueypilot812

[FallingOsh]

Does anyone actually know this AF wide FCIF is due to the MC-12 incident? It started out, I think on page 2, as a hypothetical. Four pages later, it's stated as fact and an "AF wide FCIF is blowing this out of proportion."

Assuming the FCIF is due to the MC-12, and admitting we don't know all of the facts, which we don't, we could possibly assume this was not an isolated incident and it is actually being handled at the appropriate level. There are apparently pilots out there who think this is no big deal. If the squadron/group/wing had this infection then maybe a big ass FCIF is appropriate.

[Fudge]

Real quick, does anyone know if they actually performed a barrel roll vs. an aileron roll?

[TrainerModel]

Real quick, does anyone know if they actually performed a barrel roll vs. an aileron roll?

...uh i dont think you can really aileron roll a king air. It'd turn into an overbank, nose low, high speed dive recovery

[Champ Kind]

Whether or not this was handled with an FCIF or behind a closed door in the DO's office, the fact that some of you think that performing any of these maneuvers in a King Air is OK is seriously frightening.

..... Unless it is just some pointy nose dudes trolling the herbivores that call "terminate" at greater than 60 degrees AOB. If so, well played.

Edited December 12, 2011 by Champ Kind

[Muscle2002]

Does anyone have the FCIF they can pm me? I just left ACC and am now inprocessing AFMC so I have not seen it yet.

[CJ-6A]

...uh i dont think you can really aileron roll a king air. It'd turn into an overbank, nose low, high speed dive recovery

Wow, just wow

[HiFlyer]

Personally, I've flown with enough students who've turned a one G barrel role into a 4 G nose low pullout four or five thousand feet below where they started (and not on their first try either). I'd be real worried about a guy who tried it the first time with a combat loaded airframe with four guys on-board. If they survive, the scenario goes: they do it a couple of more times, by the next week its all over the squadron. Supervision doesn't step in so a few more adventurous souls try. Then somone tries something else just a little more exciting, or dicks up the recovery. Pretty soon there's a smoking hole in the ground. Its happened more than once. The only variation in the pattern is time and airframe. There's a lot of difference between a test or demonstration pilot doing an extreme maneuver in a lightly loaded airframe under tightly controled conditions and a line pilot trying something out of limits with a loaded aircraft. What can be done is not the same as what should be done. Like several others here, I doubt if this was only related to the MC-12 incident...I suspect its a reaction to a number of dumb stunts in the last year or two.

By the way, I've met Robin Olds and swapped stories at the bar with him. If he had been the commander of this unit I think he would have ripped the skin off a kid who did something like this, but his people knew that too, so they didn't.

Edited December 12, 2011 by HiFlyer

[Guest]

By the way, I've met Robin Olds and swapped stories at the bar with him. If he had been the commander of this unit I think he would have ripped the skin off a kid who did something like this, but his people knew that too, so they didn't.

There it is in a nutshell.

[Toro]

Does anyone have the FCIF they can pm me? I just left ACC and am now inprocessing AFMC so I have not seen it yet.

You don't need it via PM. Wait until you're inprocessed and if you don't see the FCIF binder, ask to have it sent to your .mil address.

It's a short nondescript letter and pretty much covered here - a recent breech of flight discipline makes us look bad, and the offenders are subject to NJP and FEB.

[ThreeHoler]

There it is in a nutshell.

[BQZip01]

I think the problem people are seeing is person XYZ is in squadron 69 (not in my MAJCOM, AOR, or even the same hemisphere) does something that most people would kindly describe as "stooopid". The Chief of Staff finds out and issues an edict saying "You need to adhere to flight discipline" (right. we should also have integrity and not tell our people that "you are essential and we can't do the job without you"...and then RIF them...).

Seriously?!? In my airframe we are quite exact and professional regarding the AOB limitations on our airframe. Why do I need to be reminded with a vague "nonleadership-through-writing" e-mail when it isn't our portion of the fleet that's having issues? We learned the lessons of Bud Holland and haven't had a need to look back. I'm sure >95% of the people here don't need a reminder to fly by the rules. It's sort of like checklist discipline: either you perform each step of the checklist or you don't, but just because Airman Snuffy in Baghdad makes a mistake on a checklist step, it doesn't mean those of us performing professionally need a reminder to do our jobs. It makes as much sense as a Gov't-wide e-mail from the President reminding us to follow the rules in our workplace because some bubba in the FBI accidentally shot himself while cleaning a firearm. It's overkill and it unnecessarily wastes time.

Instead, they should focus on WHY it happened in the first place and determine if there is a personnel problem, a local problem, a theater problem, a majcom problem, or an AF-wide problem. I know it doesn't take long to read and sign off, but with tens of thousands of aviators grounded until they read and sign off this FCIF, how many man hours are wasted?

Then let's throw into the mix that the reason that they did it in the first place is that they violated the rules set down by their commanders intentionally. What makes you think those that ignore the commanders are going to listen now?

Edited December 13, 2011 by BQZip01

[ThreeHoler]

My friends in the B-1 and C-17 also think they're doing fine at putting the landing gear down and following that pesky checklist.

/douchecommentbecauselotsofcommunitiesarefuckingupandleadershipislost

Seriously though, if multiple communities continue to see issues with the "basics," perhaps we really do need to focus on those flight basics. As to the "why" problem...sternly worded emails are far easier than looking in the mirror and assigning (CAUSAL) to leadership failures, and I'm not talking about silly little uniform infraction leadership "failures." I once investigated a mishap where a particular O-6 was casual as this O-6 directly ordered subordinates to violate T.O. guidance. We got really lucky on that mishap and no one got hurt/no metal got bent. It could have been a lot worse. It was still an uphill battle to publish the report because many refused to believe that an O-6 would disregard T.O. guidance.

Sometimes, I think he who will not be named had a good concept when he challenged the culture of the AF...it's too bad he got personal with it and completely lost credibility due to shoddy research.

[BitteEinBit]

I think everyone on this board knows what the problem is with the "basics." We don't focus on the basics anymore. We have Lts and young Capts doing everything but focusing on flying (a generalization, not all inclusive). When I see young LTs taking leave to finish a Master's paper, I think the leadership and the culture have done them a disservice. We're still good at what we do, we just aren't as good as we could be. I am predicting that it will get worse before it gets better...especially in light of the current state of the force. With force reductions coming, everyone is in "self preservation" mode, which means they are focusing on the things that count in today's Air Force that will keep them employed an upwardly mobile. Unfortunately today, flying isn't one of those things. Perhaps a message from the boss re-caging the focus on the basics is what we need. Sorry, slight hijack.

[ThreeHoler]

I think everyone on this board knows what the problem is with the "basics." We don't focus on the basics anymore. We have Lts and young Capts doing everything but focusing on flying (a generalization, not all inclusive). When I see young LTs taking leave to finish a Master's paper, I think the leadership and the culture have done them a disservice. We're still good at what we do, we just aren't as good as we could be. I am predicting that it will get worse before it gets better...especially in light of the current state of the force. With force reductions coming, everyone is in "self preservation" mode, which means they are focusing on the things that count in today's Air Force that will keep them employed an upwardly mobile. Unfortunately today, flying isn't one of those things. Perhaps a message from the boss re-caging the focus on the basics is what we need. Sorry, slight hijack.

It would have to be more than just a message. There has to be accountability. As long as one dude thinks he can get ahead by doing a Master's early; as long as one commander racks and stacks by PME/AAD completion date; this will continue.

In that vein, word on the street is changes are coming to AMC's GRACC program that will require co-rockets to be secondary dutiless for the first six months after IQT. One can only hope.

[Muscle2002]

It would have to be more than just a message. There has to be accountability. As long as one dude thinks he can get ahead by doing a Master's early; as long as one commander racks and stacks by PME/AAD completion date; this will continue.

In that vein, word on the street is changes are coming to AMC's GRACC program that will require co-rockets to be secondary dutiless for the first six months after IQT. One can only hope.

For the non-MAF types, what is the GRACC program?

[Boxhead]

In that vein, word on the street is changes are coming to AMC's GRACC program that will require co-rockets to be secondary dutiless for the first six months after IQT. One can only hope.

Ha, AFSOC has had that policy for years....talk about written policies getting disregarded at the sq/og/wg level...

It will go strong for awhile, then someone will realize that someone didn't get their 1LT PRF DP recommendation because they didn't do enough "office" stuff for their records...

Actually had a paraphrased conversation with an E-8 a few years back, "Hey Capt, I need that guy to do be in charge of that thing. I said "No, he is brand new an inexperienced, there is that policy, ya know"...He said, "yeah, but nobody follows that one". I said, "didn't I just watch you correct someone for a random minor uniform infraction, that usually no one follows"? The conversation pretty much ended there.