Arthur_Foyt
“after an off-the-books intercept of a private light aircraft”
Why do we have IDIOTS flying our military aircraft?
“after an off-the-books intercept of a private light aircraft”
Why do we have IDIOTS flying our military aircraft?
Don’t all military pilots get regularly tested for recreational drugs?
A double-tap of “Just because you can doesn’t mean you should.”
This incident is shocking. The GA aircraft was below the floor of the MOA and was in contact with Fort Polk control; what possessed these pilots to attempt an intercept, with all the hazards incident thereto? Thankfully the aircraft and occupant(s) were unharmed. The report documents multiple violations of intercept protocols under the Human Factors heading, but does not address the most important issue: the safety and disciplinary cultures of the unit involved. I have always believed that military pilots are highly disciplined and professional, but this outfit seems to have devolved into a cowboy operation where anything goes, and did. The CO and perhaps others should be relieved, and the unit should go on a safety stand down to reinstate proper operational standards.
Sum-ting-wong…
The culture starts at the top. All the more reason to correct the problem from the top down. But they won’t. The military machine has more spin than a Maytag washing machine.
God bless.
1 reply
When I was in flight training at Vincennes University back in 1991, I was on a solo cross-country to Terre Haute when a couple of F-15s from the local guard unit passed me going straight up about a half mile away. We were outside of the MOA. They were obviously messing with me, probably figured I was a student, and although it was kinda cool, it also annoyed me that they would do that.
There is no defense for this, but I thought the bottom of the MOA was 100’ AGL?
This is a real “wow” accident report. The mishap pilot (MP) was in an instructor.
The MP moved the wrong switch the wrong way if it had been the right switch. Muscle memory should have told him which way to move it. But instead he put it in digital backup instead of putting the Alt Flaps back to Norm.
The F-16 flies slower without using Alt Flaps. ACC and AETC need to remove Alt Flap use from low/slow VID procedures.
While I agree with making the ejection decision before you takeoff, holy cow, this guy didn’t even try and fly it. Full AB would have catapulted him out of it. If they didn’t find the throttle in Full burner (they didn’t) then, again, what was this pilot thinking? Geez.
Intercepting non-participating aircraft is the norm, just not for training. But saying otherwise is hard for me to believe the entire squadron “didn’t know any better.” Geez x 2.
Never pays to cover up for stupid.
National Guard again. We should merge the USAF National Guard units with the USAF Reserve and only have Reserve units. Governors don’t need to control USAF assets for state natural disasters. They can have plenty of aviation assets from their Army National Guard units. At one time we had the ridiculous situation of the State of Georgia Air National Guard “controlling” some B-1B bombers. What the heck was the governor of Georgia going to use B-1Bs for during the aftermath of a hurricane?
2 replies
The F-16 is notorious/famous for its relatively poor quality very slow airspeed flight characteristics. That’s one reason why you have hot rod H-60 Blackhawks and other types of aircraft doing intercepts of very slow airspeed flying GA aircraft in the Washington DC airspace. The entire consideration of the intercept should have ended before it was even verbalized.
LMAO!
LMAO!
Maybe he was going to nuke the storm before it came ashore? 
Given that an intercept “sneaks up on the target from behind” it is unlikely that the GA pilot was ever even aware of the F-16’s presence. Only if the F-16 pilot came up abreast of the target, where the GA pilot would have just been able to start to the see the F-16, would the GA pilot have been aware. (Done hundereds of intercepts.)
The primary purpose of the National Guard is not disaster relief. That’s an understandable mistake though, given the very bad changes in policies surrounding the military since WW2.
Perhaps we would all be better off if we took a good look at why things are the way they are, and started undoing many known mistakes rather than constantly layering new mistakes atop the old ones.
Awesome!!!
As is often the case, there is more to this than what seems to be the case at first glace.
Apparently the GA aircraft was below the MOA, but more than that, the GA pilot was flying a practice approach and talking to approach, so however you look at it, the GA pilot wasn’t violating any rules or common sense.
As for muscle memory, it’s still quite possible to think you have moved the intended switch/lever/knob/whatever but inadvertently moved one directly adjacent to what you think you’re doing. I know I’ve certainly done this with the light switches in the PA-28 aircraft. And since the control panel in question is apparently not in direct line of sight, I can see that mistake being made while trying to fly formation at the same time while low and slow.
Even with the aircraft still recoverable, my understanding is that the pilot essentially had only a second or two to figure out what was wrong, so I can certainly understand how the pilot might not have realized what actually happened and just assumed the aircraft wasn’t behaving normally and decided it was time to punch out.
I suspect the real issue is probably a variation on the normalization of deviance at that airwing. Normalization of bending some of the training rules here and there to the point where that’s just standard practice and no one really thinks to question it. It’s hard for an individual to go against institutional momentum, and I would think particularly so in a military environment where you generally avoid breaking the chain of command. Things certainly need to change there, but if one looks at all of the events leading up to this mishap, like many, it appears to be the result of multiple chains of events rather than maliciousness or ignorance.
…as deliciously confirmed by Gerry’s* use of “new” and “thier” in his failed comment. So yes…truly an idiot, blissfully ignorant of how ironic he/she/they voluntarily confirmed that it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt. (* ironic aside: gender identity unclear due to androgynous given name and no helpful pronouns provided)
No name calling, David. C’mon. Disagree all you want but be nice.
And what does that have to do with anything, Gerry? Stick to the topic at hand, please.
Best comment I’ve ever seen on AVWEB
Hopefully, they at least used the right pronouns.
Good Lordy… LMAO!!! Home run!!!
The article and many comments point out that the GA pilot was clear (or not) of the MOA. Matters not! MOAs are shared airspace. To be clear, flying through a MOA (hot or not) is not a violation, while military aircraft engaging GA (or attempting to) in a MOA is a severely punishable act.
Used to fly “Bad Guy” flights in a C182 in some W airspaces. It was pretty funny watching those F-15s trying to keep “down” with a 182 at low cruise.
Luke AFB would constantly harass the trainees off of KDVT. clearly many at the AFB knew as it was a ‘thing’ new entrants would do on occasion. Luckily nothing major happened while I was training at DVT but a few ab initio pilots were pretty rattled at times. Kinda juvenile if you ask me
Here is the full report. Interesting read and lots of retraining. Ground him, perhaps for a short time, retraining YES, but pulling his wings…I won’t cast the first stone, I pulled a bone head stunt during my younger years…no crash but for the grace of our good lord.
When goofing around destroys a 27 million dollar asset and even though no one was seriously harmed, I think that pilot has used up all his chits. Time to find a new job.
Lawyers and the legal profession wonder why their reputation is poor? This is not the way to win over a jury. Inhumane and reprehensible.
Damn! That’s cold even for a mega company like Boeing.
The headline leaves me speechless. Boeing now knows the feelings of the passengers/crew that died? They are digging a deeper hole.
…but legally correct.
Adding pain and suffering to the compensation request is disingenuous at best, a lawyers way to make more money for themselves at worst. Adding pain and suffering to the quickest form of death ever known only helps the prosecuting lawyers.
Neither boeing nor it’s liability carriers’ lawyers have souls - former aviation liability carrier attorney.
Just another example as to why Dante put lawyers on the lowest circle of the infernal regions…and is the same profession that is drawn to politics. Any wonder why we’re in the shape we are in?
I can not even imagine, in my worst nightmare, what it would have been like to be strapped into a seat on one of those flights, knowing viscerally that my life was reaching its end. It comes to us soon enough…but watching it unfold because of a known issue (not that we’d have known…but there was some faceless someone who did) makes it even more terrifying.
It’s the same cold-hearted ‘stockholder return on investment’ mentality that let Ford justify continuing to produce the Pinto because the cost of redesign etc. was more than the potential lawsuit payouts from barbecued drivers when the gas tank would explode.
Just plain despicable and beneath contempt.
assciated with
YES!
If a fish hits the water at 700 mph, then no - it probably feels no pain.
Same with the passengers. Mental anguish prior to the impact? You bet. But I didn’t see any counter-arguments to Beeing’s claim that “there wasn’t enough time in the 700-MPH impact for the human brain to process pain signals.”
Pain and suffering just wasn’t an option.
1 reply
I could possibly agree with this morally bankrupt attempt, if the two airplanes were full of soulless lawyers.
“FOR the people!” … 346 of 'em
Agree that the passengers may experienced some seconds of suffering when they felt the plane heading to the ground. The question is how much will be the “cost” of that suffering for being “compensated” to the families of those unfortunate passengers. Quite a different thing is the lost of incoming suffered by the families of them and the “compensation” of sadness those families experienced.
These two things must be “compensated”. If not, that’s immoral.
American legal system at work!
OK, if so then a fair assessment would be 20 seconds/20 years. If the normal 20 year pain settlement is used then 20/6.312e+8 would be the fair and equitable amount added on. Since it’s less than a penny (and lawyers fees add up) then it’s NOT reasonable to add in a pain/suffering to a summary class action lawsuit. Q.E.D.
1 reply
My dictionary defines “pain” as,
Noun - highly unpleasant physical sensation caused by illness or injury
Verb - cause mental or physical pain to
Knowing you’re about to die a violent death is going to bring about mental pain I would suggest, to the point of losing some bodily functions - heart attack, bowels, urinary, brought about by stress.
The law has a different view of “fair and equitable” than you; and, thankfully, so do our juries.
Mental anguish, the specific case of mental or emotional injury absent physical injury, is subsumed under the damage category, “pain and suffering.” There is really no need for numbering (enumerating) them.
Boeing has run their course ! It wouldn’t surprise me if they declare bankruptcy to avoid paying anything!
