Navy Pilots Lose Wings Permenently For Low Flying

[eion]

Fly overs are done in a clean configuration.

Yeah, I'd like to see if we can find whether the flyover was planned as "dirty" or not. I've never seen one like that outside of the scenarios you described, and I imagine the admiral would be pissed about that as much, if not more so than the altitude.

I think the original claim by the pilots was that they made the same error that the Thunderbirds pilot did, miscalculated their altitude using MSL rather than AGL, which I would have hoped had been drilled into them not to do when they are planning low-level maneuvers. They claimed by the time their alarms went off it was too late to correct, which given the plane's configuration doesn't surprise me, with that much drag they'd stall if they pulled up.

I’m sure the flight recorder has all the answers; I wonder if they’ll release the cockpit voice record.

[Sheridan]

I've seen a lot of folks talking about the monetary cost of replacing the pilots in this thread. Quite simply, the cost of training the pilots or the cost of replacing the plane/buildings damaged/weregild payed to the families of those who die in an accident is, at best, a secondary concern.

I don't give a goddamn how much money you pay me if one of my loved ones dies due to negligence. You're talking about fucking lives here. Money doesn't bring that back. Money doesn't fucking make it better or easier to live with. If someone I care about dies, there's literally nothing that anyone can do to bring them back.

If the pilots deliberately violated a standing safety regulation, in a profession where screwing up means people die, then hell-yes they should be permanently grounded. Even if it was an accident, I'd still lean towards grounding them; flying is not something that should be taken lightly.

Essentially, every time that a pilot gets into the cockpit, he or she is operating a deadly weapon. Regulation of that is necessary, otherwise mortal tragedies occur.

[Simon_Jester]

A few problems with this:

How remote does a risk that people will die have to be to justify firing the pilot?
What if they did something dangerous because they followed orders: do we then sack them? The officer who gave the orders? Both?
How great does the increase in risk to bystanders have to be? Theoretically, someone who disobeys orders by staying up in the air for five or ten minutes longer than planned has infinitesimally increased the danger, simply because the probability of a random crash increases that little bit more. But the increase is so small that I can't see a hardline zero-tolerance policy making sense.

[Edi]

A few problems with this:

How remote does a risk that people will die have to be to justify firing the pilot?
What if they did something dangerous because they followed orders: do we then sack them? The officer who gave the orders? Both?
How great does the increase in risk to bystanders have to be? Theoretically, someone who disobeys orders by staying up in the air for five or ten minutes longer than planned has infinitesimally increased the danger, simply because the probability of a random crash increases that little bit more. But the increase is so small that I can't see a hardline zero-tolerance policy making sense.

Did you just take stupid pills or are you unable to read? They violated standing orders to not fly lower than 1000 feet. They were cleared for overflight at 1000 feet or above, but they overflew at 300 feet. That's all there is to it. We have had, in this very thread, people who are actual pilots explaining what these morons did wrong and why they were fired, so what the fuck is the problem with the idiots who wouldn't know the tail of an airplane from the cockpit bleating about how it was wrong?

Fucking morons.

[Broomstick]

Wish to clarify one tangent made earlier:

They're way closer than 1000 feet to those towers though. What if one of those jets had lost control and plowed into a skyscraper with a big load of hot jet fuel? They look like they're fooling around a lot more than some guys cruising in a straight line.

They spend a whole week dress rehearsing (literally flying the show every day) for their annual biennial appearance at the Chicago Air & Water Show. I'm certain there is no "fooling around" going on; it's all a part of the plan. The altimeter reading in that clip is 1,650 for the record.

For the record, the altimeter in question is set to Mean Sea Level. Ground elevation in the Loop is approximately 640 feet MSL (Actually, it varies slightly between 632 and 644 depending on where, exactly, you're standing). Therefore the pilot in that video actually is maintaining a 1,000 foot ground clearance which is - surprise! - in compliance with regulations. He just happens to be in one of the few places where flying 1,000 feet above the ground means you go between buildings.

EDIT: Thunderbirds only appear every other year.

True, they alternate with the Blue Angels.

[Broomstick]

Fucking morons.

I put it down to

1) Military worship
2) Lack of knowledge about aviation
3) Refusal to acknowledge a century of aviation experience

Technically, the two yahoos who were grounded fall into a category called "rogue pilots"* - these pilots are usually highly skilled, above average even for their level of flying, that enable them to engage successfully in maneuvers most other pilots do not have the ability to accomplish. Unfortunately, they get the idea the normal safety rules don't apply to them. They may have "spotless" records, they may have many honors heaped upon them, many accomplishments, many records.... but once they start violating safety minimums they are also at enormously increased risk of accidents, and they have a disturbing tendency to take other people with them when they finally die.

There was as time when rogue pilots were seen in a different light, but people in aviation got tired of the deaths, the maimings, and cleaning up the wreckage left behind. Unfortunately, Hollywood (Top Gun, etc.}, TV (Battlestar Galactica, etc.) and various works of fiction in print, along with a few biographies, continue to glorify the highly skilled rule breaker who pushes the limits and doesn't let those stupid rules get in the way! You know, fiction/fantasy is one thing, reality is another. Works glorifying rogues are akin to war movies that glorify combat and show no blood when people are shot - they're cool, sometimes inspiring stories but they don't reflect reality.

I think it notable that the people defending these guys are NOT in the military and, with the exception of Marina, I don't think any of them have any flight experience.

* Yes, that is the actual term, as opposed to "cowboy pilots". For a book-length discussion see Tony T. Kern's Darker Shades of Blue: The Rogue Pilot published in 1999

[Thanas]

Just in case anybody still wants to go down the moronic route:

The German Air Force really trained low level-flying extensively during the cold war and they still do. The idea was to be able to blast thousands of soviets streaming into Germany. The training program is still in place. Guess where they do so? In Labrador, devoid of people.

Here is a video.

Note how they are still far higher than the Navy pilots?

[lPeregrine]

Wish to clarify one tangent made earlier:

They're way closer than 1000 feet to those towers though. What if one of those jets had lost control and plowed into a skyscraper with a big load of hot jet fuel? They look like they're fooling around a lot more than some guys cruising in a straight line.

They spend a whole week dress rehearsing (literally flying the show every day) for their annual biennial appearance at the Chicago Air & Water Show. I'm certain there is no "fooling around" going on; it's all a part of the plan. The altimeter reading in that clip is 1,650 for the record.

For the record, the altimeter in question is set to Mean Sea Level. Ground elevation in the Loop is approximately 640 feet MSL (Actually, it varies slightly between 632 and 644 depending on where, exactly, you're standing). Therefore the pilot in that video actually is maintaining a 1,000 foot ground clearance which is - surprise! - in compliance with regulations. He just happens to be in one of the few places where flying 1,000 feet above the ground means you go between buildings.

Correction: the minimum altitude is based on the height of the buildings, not the ground:

(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.

So unless they're more than 2,000' horizontally from the nearest building, they're "breaking" the rules. Quote marks because the pilots in question have obviously been given special permission to do this, most likely after considerable effort in planning to ensure that it is safe (such as making sure the flight path doesn't have any unexpected obstacles, etc).


On the other hand, the pilots in the stadium flyby did NOT have special permission to fly lower, and I would not be at all surprised if their "planning" consisted of "hey, let's go even lower and really give them a show!". So this isn't just a case of slightly bending the rules a bit, they broke the altitude rules by hundreds of feet.

And there is no mistake here. Things look very different from 1000' compared to 100', and any pilot who can't tell the difference without looking at the altimeter should have been stripped of their wings for incompetence anyway.

[Serafina]

There was as time when rogue pilots were seen in a different light, but people in aviation got tired of the deaths, the maimings, and cleaning up the wreckage left behind. Unfortunately, Hollywood (Top Gun, etc.}, TV (Battlestar Galactica, etc.) and various works of fiction in print, along with a few biographies, continue to glorify the highly skilled rule breaker who pushes the limits and doesn't let those stupid rules get in the way! You know, fiction/fantasy is one thing, reality is another. Works glorifying rogues are akin to war movies that glorify combat and show no blood when people are shot - they're cool, sometimes inspiring stories but they don't reflect reality.

I think it notable that the people defending these guys are NOT in the military and, with the exception of Marina, I don't think any of them have any flight experience.

* Yes, that is the actual term, as opposed to "cowboy pilots". For a book-length discussion see Tony T. Kern's Darker Shades of Blue: The Rogue Pilot published in 1999

Besides making for really good characters, most of these stereotypes propably stem from a time where there simply wasn't enough experience to go around.
At that time, the rogue pilots actually made the rules - but only because there were none to rely upon yet.
But then again, the last time where this could have been true is WWII or perhaps the early ages of jet aviation.


Oh, and on the german tornado pilots: The Luftwaffe has lost 45 Panavian Tornados since 1980 due to accidents. Most of them were due to pilot error, and the Tornado pilots are the best pilots in the Luftwaffe with a lot of flying errors.

[Simon_Jester]

Did you just take stupid pills or are you unable to read? They violated standing orders to not fly lower than 1000 feet. They were cleared for overflight at 1000 feet or above, but they overflew at 300 feet. That's all there is to it. We have had, in this very thread, people who are actual pilots explaining what these morons did wrong and why they were fired, so what the fuck is the problem with the idiots who wouldn't know the tail of an airplane from the cockpit bleating about how it was wrong?

Fucking morons.

Did you miss the part where my post came right after Sheridan's? Or where Sheridan was proposing a general policy?

My problem is with Sheridan's general policy, because I'm not clear on how far he'd want to take it. It could be taken to extremes easily enough: say, not permitting overflights of populated areas at all. There's no obvious reason why a trainee pilot should be allowed to fly over major metropolitan areas, after all, and there's certainly a nonzero risk that they'll crash and kill someone on the ground. So how hardcore should we be eabout this?

I have no interest in defending Yahoos #1 and 2 who decided to buzz a football game at low altitude. I have an interest in knowing how risk-averse Sheridan is.

[Broomstick]

For the record, the altimeter in question is set to Mean Sea Level. Ground elevation in the Loop is approximately 640 feet MSL (Actually, it varies slightly between 632 and 644 depending on where, exactly, you're standing). Therefore the pilot in that video actually is maintaining a 1,000 foot ground clearance which is - surprise! - in compliance with regulations. He just happens to be in one of the few places where flying 1,000 feet above the ground means you go between buildings.

Correction: the minimum altitude is based on the height of the buildings, not the ground:

(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.

So unless they're more than 2,000' horizontally from the nearest building, they're "breaking" the rules. Quote marks because the pilots in question have obviously been given special permission to do this, most likely after considerable effort in planning to ensure that it is safe (such as making sure the flight path doesn't have any unexpected obstacles, etc).

Strictly speaking, I was referring to ground clearance. You, of course, correct in stating the 2000 foot horizontal clearance.

The regs also usually have a line in there about "except for take-offs and landings" when - duh! - you need to be, at some point, closer than 1,000 feet to the ground and for situations where the "mission" requires a closer approach to an obstacle. Exceptions to regulations can be made if cleared in advance and usually with an explanation/plan as to how to maximize safety under the particular circumstance involved.

Key phrase here, of course, is in advance.

The Thunderbirds are more likely than most to be permitted a closer than normal approach to buildings given that they are extremely high trained pilots. Nonetheless, they still have rules to follow. Flying between skyscrapers is no joke, as those towers do very unpleasant things to wind currents and that must also be taken into account. The Thunderbirds and Blue Angels also have stock variations on their shows to take into account weather conditions, and if the weather is bad enough they'll cancel.

[Broomstick]

Did you miss the part where my post came right after Sheridan's? Or where Sheridan was proposing a general policy?

My problem is with Sheridan's general policy, because I'm not clear on how far he'd want to take it. It could be taken to extremes easily enough: say, not permitting overflights of populated areas at all. There's no obvious reason why a trainee pilot should be allowed to fly over major metropolitan areas, after all, and there's certainly a nonzero risk that they'll crash and kill someone on the ground. So how hardcore should we be eabout this?

I have no interest in defending Yahoos #1 and 2 who decided to buzz a football game at low altitude. I have an interest in knowing how risk-averse Sheridan is.

Well, in theory we could easily eliminate ALL aviation accidents by simply ceasing to fly aircraft... but that's not practical.

You're talking about a slippery slope argument. In reality, even student civilian pilots are permitted to overfly metropolitan areas - I was allowed to do so over Chicago when I first started. On the other hand, such overflights have significant oversight (often with a licensed flight instructor nearby) and there actually are some places trainees are not permitted to go (for civilians, for example, you MUST have at least a private pilot license to fly into Chicago O'Hare airspace. I'm sure the military has comparable airspace/bases and rules. Perhaps more of them than the civilian world).

It's always a balance between what you want to do and the risk involved. The regulations as written down are actually minimums - some pilots/airlines/whatever actually set higher minimum altitudes or impose rules more strict that the baseline put into the books. It is repeatedly stated at all levels of aviation that there are situations where even if something is permitted by the regs it's not necessarily safe. That's why pilots must have trustworthy judgment - they have to evaluate what's going on second to second and not simply follow the rules by rote. They have to be able to look a superior in the face and say "That's not safe, and I'm not doing that." When they can't do that you wind up with shitty accidents like 10% of Poland's government dying in a field in Russia while attempting to land in adverse conditions. (They also need to have superiors who trust the judgment of their pilots - it's a bit of two-way street.) Or two 747's colliding on a foggy runway in Tenerife and killing 583 people.

In the US Part 91 section 3 paragraph b actually gives a pilot in an emergency the authority to break ANY regulation on the books in order to resolve the emergency. That's an awesome amount of power. Paragraph c, directly following, states just as plainly that said pilot may be called upon to JUSTIFY that deviation, and if said pilot can't, then the full weight of the authority in charge will come down on his or her ass. That's an equally awesome amount of responsibility. If you break the rules you WILL be called upon to account for your actions. I can't quote chapter and verse on the military regulations but I know they have ones that are more or less identical.

These guys? No emergency, no excuse. They airplanes they fly are, to be blunt, guns with wings. They're designed to kill people and destroy things. We need not only the most skilled pilots, but the most responsible ones for that. If you can't trust these guys to follow the rules in a low-stress, non-emergency situation how the hell can you trust them to have good judgment when the shit really hits the fan?

[Sheridan]

Did you miss the part where my post came right after Sheridan's? Or where Sheridan was proposing a general policy?

My problem is with Sheridan's general policy, because I'm not clear on how far he'd want to take it. It could be taken to extremes easily enough: say, not permitting overflights of populated areas at all. There's no obvious reason why a trainee pilot should be allowed to fly over major metropolitan areas, after all, and there's certainly a nonzero risk that they'll crash and kill someone on the ground. So how hardcore should we be eabout this?

I have no interest in defending Yahoos #1 and 2 who decided to buzz a football game at low altitude. I have an interest in knowing how risk-averse Sheridan is.

My issue has to do with what has already been raised in this thread; these pilots broke a standing safety regulation. If they had been following all safety regulations, those that are in place specifically to help prevent accidents that result in death, I would have no qualms with the pilots overflying the stadium.

Forgive me if I am misunderstanding you, but it seems to me that you are attempting to find where I draw the line? If that is so, then it is at the level of minimizing the danger to civilians on the ground (and in the air, if flying in a passenger plane).

There is, yes, a nonzero chance for a tragic accident to occur. According to the plane crash information database, though, pilot error accounts for more than double the crashes than any other cause over the past fifty years. Half the number of civilian crashes in the past half-century of flight that have been investigated have been caused by human error.

I can't help but think that maybe, just maybe, those safety regulations are in place for a reason. If the pilots are following those regs, then the likelyhood of fatalities is reduced as much as is possible. While I am not going to be comforted by cash in the event of a loved one's death, I am also not going to hold a true accident--one that could not have been prevented by the person at the controls--against the pilot.

If I need to elaborate further, I will. Please let me know.

[Thunderfire]

Just in case anybody still wants to go down the moronic route:

The German Air Force really trained low level-flying extensively during the cold war and they still do. The idea was to be able to blast thousands of soviets streaming into Germany. The training program is still in place. Guess where they do so? In Labrador, devoid of people.

They did that in middle franconia during the eighties. Several planes crashed during exercises in that area (7). At least one very close to a village. BTW I watched them flying at an altitude of less than 1000 feet.

[Thanas]

Just in case anybody still wants to go down the moronic route:

The German Air Force really trained low level-flying extensively during the cold war and they still do. The idea was to be able to blast thousands of soviets streaming into Germany. The training program is still in place. Guess where they do so? In Labrador, devoid of people.

They did that in middle franconia during the eighties. Several planes crashed during exercises in that area (7). At least one very close to a village. BTW I watched them flying at an altitude of less than 1000 feet.

Yes, which is why they are training in places devoid of people now. The German Air Force really likes low level flying, but they do not really like training it where accidents can happen. And at the new bombrodon, but that got cancelled by the courts.

[Shroom Man 777]

Oh, yes. Germany and the USA have sensible policies regarding low-altitude flying but I guess we can just ignore that and post some stupid useless bit about how French regulations are different or how Australian dingo-pilots fly low all the time, as if it's some kind of clever valid retort to the points raised above. For an added bonus, why not mention Israeli pilots and how they harass German warships? Yes, by mentioning all this nonsense we can half-assedly construe some point against USAF/USN and Luftwaffe regulations and protocols, lol am i rite?

For an added bonus, maybe someone should also post a graph about how Curtis LeMay gave SAC's XB-70s clearance to fly three hundred feet below ground level or something to avoid Nike-Hercules radar detection radiuses. None of this would've happened if the US Army still used portable radioisotope thermal generators, fucking McNamara!