Navy Pilots Lose Wings Permenently For Low Flying

[Lord MJ]

This took place at a Georgia Tech football game.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdnpAAoV ... re=related

The navy pilots were grounded permanently for the flyover. What do you think?

In my opinion these pilots should have been punished for their actions But not sure about permanent grounding.

[Rogue 9]

If nothing else, that's a very expensive punishment; fighter pilots are not cheap to train...

[The Romulan Republic]

If nothing else, that's a very expensive punishment; fighter pilots are not cheap to train...

Granted, but what's even more expensive is dead pilots and crashed planes because someone didn't understand or bother to follow flying safety. To say nothing of bystanders on the ground. I'm not sure if the measure is warranted in this specific case, but its something to keep in mind, I think.

[Darth Fanboy]

Yeah it looked cool and i'm sure the fans were thrilled but if something had gone wrong flying that low (less than 1,000 feet above the stadium) then that would have been beyond a colossal fuckup.

I don't know what punishment they recieved beyond being grounded but I am not surprised nor particularly disappointed by the decision. These pilots risked too much for too little as far as i'm concerned.

[eion]

Wow, that was quite a close and slow pass.

Without knowing further particulars about this though:

-Was this a scheduled flyover or did they deviate from their flight plan to do this?
-Did they have a history of disobeying SOP regarding flyovers?
-Had they been warned/ordered not to do this?
-How fast and how low were they exactly?

It's really hard to reach any sort of judgment, but 58 to 114 million seems like a lot of money to crash looking cool for your alma mater.

[Bellosh101]

Link to news story: http://www.navytimes.com/news/2010/03/n ... d_031910w/

Pilots grounded for good after low flyover

By Mark D. Faram - Staff writer
Posted : Monday Mar 22, 2010 7:00:04 EDT

NORFOLK, Va. — Two F/A-18E Super Hornet pilots from Strike Fighter Squadron 136 have been permanently grounded for flying too low before a Georgia Tech football game Nov. 7, according to a source.

The pilots, both mid-’90s graduates of Georgia Tech, flew over Bobby Dodd Stadium in downtown Atlanta at just a few hundred feet above the stadium, under the 1,000 feet minimum required by Navy rules.

Multiple videos of the flyover, posted on YouTube, show the planes screaming low over the stadium.

“I can confirm the incident did happen,” said Lt. Cmdr. Phil Rosi, spokesman for Naval Air Force Atlantic. “But it would be inappropriate to comment further as these are not public figures and have an expectation of privacy.”

But documents obtained by Navy Times and authenticated by a senior Navy official familiar with the investigation name the pilots as Lt. Cmdr. Marc Fryman and Lt. Cmdr. Christopher Condon. Both were assigned to non-flying jobs through an administrative process called a Field Naval Aviator Evaluation Board, the results of which are not released by the Navy.

In the documents, Rear Adm. R.J. O’Hanlon, commander of AirLant, was unforgiving in his assessment of the incident and in Fryman and Condon’s future in naval aviation.

“Fryman failed to provide effective [crew resource management] for his flight lead and allowed an unsafe flyby to occur with nearly tragic consequences,” O’Hanlon wrote of the mission commander. “Despite his spotless record, his complacent, passive response to a major altitude transgression is unforgivable in my view.

“Continued aviation service involving flying is not in the best interest of Lt. Cmdr. Fryman or the United States Navy.”

O’Hanlon’s judgment of Condon was equally tough. The admiral wrote that Condon ignored low-altitude warnings and didn’t “keep altitude in his scan” and that the incident could have ended “tragically.”

O’Hanlon dismissed the conclusion by some of the reviewers of the board’s results that the altitude error was unintentional.

“The arguments written by prior endorsers that Lt. Cmdr. Condon’s actions were an honest mistake are not persuasive,” he wrote. “He is a senior, very experienced department head who placed his aircraft and wingman in a very dangerous position.”

Both will stay in the Navy, but O’Hanlon recommended both have a “warfare transition” to another officer community.

The pilots reported the low pass themselves upon landing and the Navy convened the evaluation board immediately to determine if the officers violated Navy rules.

Navy records show that Condon was reassigned to AirLant on Feb. 12, but Fryman’s record still shows him at VFA 136. However, sources say that he, too, is at AirLant.

“The results are tough for sure, but they broke the rules and got a proper punishment for what they did,” said the senior Navy official, who asked not to be named because he was not authorized to speak on the matter. “It may seem tough, but it’s a safety issue and the admiral made the right call.”

[JointStrikeFighter]

lol that isn't low.

[Broomstick]

Too many people have been killed over the years by low-flying passes, and all too many of them innocents on the ground.

Even professional stunt pilots authorized to fly mere centimeters off the ground must keep their distance from the audience both vertically and horizontally.

The Navy has rules, the officers and enlisted people are expected to obey them. There is no conceivable circumstance here to allow an exception.

They weren't off altitude by a smidgen, they were off hundreds of feet (a hundred feet is roughly 30 meters for you metric folks). Civilian student pilots are usually granted a margin of error of only 15 meters! This was not a mistake, that's a huge variance, and these guys are supposed to be professionals.

They knew better.

On top of that - if their intention was to fly information their technique was sloppy. That's bad, as it doesn't take much of an error for two airplanes that close to each other to hit. Imagine a mid-air over a stadium full of people....

Aviation is horrifically intolerant of those who disobey the rules.

So are those who regulate aviation.

Those of you who are thinking this is too draconian a punishment - remember that next time you hear of low-flying planes taking out people on a ski lift, or crashing in a war zone and killing civilians, or hitting power lines somewhere.

Bottom line: flying low is dangerous. There was no justification for it here. They knew better. They lose their wings.

[JointStrikeFighter]

For all we know they may have been using automated TFR systems.

[eion]

For all we know they may have been using automated TFR systems.

Does the F/A-18 even have terrain following radar? Would such a system even be effective in that kind of enviroment? Plus watch the video, the planes don't seem to dip up or down in their manuvers, and if the TFR was on when they flew toward the tower, why didn't they climb quickly?

Regardless, using TFR is not an excuse to break regulations regarding minimum safe altitude.

[Broomstick]

Even if it did - using it over a crowd at a civilian event is not allowed. TFR is not infallible, neither are pilots, and the margin of error is hair thin. Not a good enough excuse.

[Havok]

So two guys that could possibly be tasked with dogfighting with other jets, that have spent hundreds and maybe thousands of hours in flight, not to mention landing on carriers, can't get away with flying low... once.

Hey, maybe they can go be truck drivers. What was the name of that truck driving school I saw on TV? What was it... Truck Masters?

[Sky Captain]

That is`t low flying, there are probably some 30 - 40 meters between the top of a stadium and those two planes. Obviously the pilots broke the rules, they deviated from their assigned flight path and should be punished for that, but grounding them permanently seems a bit too harsh.
This is what I`d call low level flying.

[Admiral Valdemar]

The RAF now uses a lot of "show of force" flybys to disorient Taliban positions in A'stan. Flying 50 metres off the deck at Mach 1 with full reheat is enough to ruin your day and give the boots on the ground chance to return fire.

In a civilian area, flying low is just plain risky, or at the very least, annoying. I went to school near Walton, and when they were testing the EFA prototypes, more than once they flew over at less than 1,000 ft doing a fair clip. Rattling a fair few windows in Preston doesn't endear you to the public, even if the local economy relies on such testing.

[eion]

This is what I`d call low level flying.

Most of those were by single aircraft over calm water with no assets or personel below them. That is about as far away from what these two guys did as you can get. One of those was even a helo, give me a break.

I hope the A-10 guy had a damn good reason to do what he did. That's 10,000 different levels of reckless and insane right there.

[Alyrium Denryle]

This is what I`d call low level flying.

Most of those were by single aircraft over calm water with no assets or personel below them. That is about as far away from what these two guys did as you can get. One of those was even a helo, give me a break.

I hope the A-10 guy had a damn good reason to do what he did. That's 10,000 different levels of reckless and insane right there.

A lot of the military ones (maybe not the A 10...) were probably training flights as well. They may have to do that sort of stuff. Practice makes perfect.

Over a civilian area that sort of recklessness is not OK.

[Imperial Overlord]

People have been killed by these kinds of stunts before. This isn't harmless behavior.

20 dead in Cavalese Italy 1998

[Havok]

*sigh* First of all, it isn't 'behavior' it is a very specific event, a fly over of a game for your alma mator, done one time. These pilots have spotless records up until this point, so there is no pattern of behavior.

Second, no one is arguing that this was smart, or good judgment or that it couldn't of had a very harmful outcome.

I personally am just having a problem with the permanent grounding. Tell them not to do it again and they won't. Ground them for a while or dock their pay, something. But why throw away two pilots that have been, up until this one, very specific occurrence and event (something that will probably never even happen again), perfect.

[Alyrium Denryle]

*sigh* First of all, it isn't 'behavior' it is a very specific event, a fly over of a game for your alma mator, done one time. These pilots have spotless records up until this point, so there is no pattern of behavior.

Second, no one is arguing that this was smart, or good judgment or that it couldn't of had a very harmful outcome.

I personally am just having a problem with the permanent grounding. Tell them not to do it again and they won't. Ground them for a while or dock their pay, something. But why throw away two pilots that have been, up until this one, very specific occurrence and event (something that will probably never even happen again), perfect.

I could get behind wage garnishment... say, garnesh their wages until they pay back an amount of money equal to the chance of an accident multiplied by the average cost of said accident.

[Mr Bean]

Having lived directly under where the Blue Angels practice I have little sympathy. I've seen identically low passes with planes doing far crazier stunts growing up. Yes the Blue Angels are some of the best pilots in the world and trained to do exactly that kind of thing. But I have to agree to one thing.

If this was not planned (And it did not seemed to be) grounding them might be warranted. If they were however overflying the city as any kind of pre-approved action then grounding them is wrong.

I could get behind wage garnishment... say, garnesh their wages until they pay back an amount of money equal to the chance of an accident multiplied by the average cost of said accident.

So in other words you want to put them into indentured servitude because the minimum amount is roughly sixty million dollars assuming they never hit the ground.

[FSTargetDrone]

I hope the A-10 guy had a damn good reason to do what he did. That's 10,000 different levels of reckless and insane right there.

Frankly, that F-14 (at the beginning of you video) flying between the carrier and the other ship seems extraordinarily dangerous, training mission or not. If someone can justify that, fine. However...

That clown in the prop plane over that divided highway, flipping the bird to the motorists. I don't need to see that kind of stuff happening once, thanks. And those aircraft in formation dipping their wheels into the water seems recklessly foolish as well, but what do I know...

A certain Lt. Col Arthur "Bud" Holland was known to be a reckless pilot. One day, the ground caught up with him:



Screw these guys. I'll trade the lost investment of training for the loss of people and materials, any day.

[SCRawl]

I could get behind wage garnishment... say, garnesh their wages until they pay back an amount of money equal to the chance of an accident multiplied by the average cost of said accident.

So in other words you want to put them into indentured servitude because the minimum amount is roughly sixty million dollars assuming they never hit the ground.

The amount of payback suggested would, I think, be best represented by this equation:

Amount owed = (average cost of accident) * (probability of accident)

If you assume $60 million for the total cost, and, say, .001 for the probability of having an accident, then our flyboys would be out $60k. I think that the average cost would be much higher, but I really know nothing about the odds -- that one was pulled from my rectum.

As for the whole "is it too severe?" thing, I'm of too minds. I agree that giving these guys a stern talking-to would probably achieve the desired results. On the other hand, is it worthwhile handing them the keys to some pretty destructive (and dangerous) hardware when they've demonstrated that they're willing to behave with extreme recklessness in a populated area while operating that hardware. If nothing else, this sends a very clear message to their (former) colleagues.

[Broomstick]

I personally am just having a problem with the permanent grounding.

I don't. I mean, as a pilot, I don't enjoy the notion of someone losing their wings for good, but they put innocent bystanders in unnecessary danger. That is not acceptable whether you're flying a 50 year old Piper Cub or modern fighter jet.

Tell them not to do it again and they won't.

Unauthorized low passes over bystanders is not to be tolerated. Not in any branch of aviation. This has, without question been covered in flight school. They knew better and did it anyway.

But why throw away two pilots that have been, up until this one, very specific occurrence and event (something that will probably never even happen again), perfect.

Because a century of experience has shown that these sorts of maneuvers carry significant risk, when shit goes bad they kill not only those on the airplane but all too frequently those on the ground, it could have been a mass causality situation, and that even a first time offense is not something that should be tolerated. There is a saying in aviation that the regs are written in blood, and the ones regarding low flying are bloodier than most.

Airplanes are, to an extent, inherently dangerous objects. If they had been waving guns around at random would you feel the same way? This is unacceptable behavior in any pilot. What makes it doubly-damning is that they were in close proximity to many, many other people. IF they hadn't been so close to a crowd maybe some leniency could be justified but that is not the case.

Are there times low flying is justified? Yes - but they are very few and careful planning and training is required. And people still die. I can't condone the actions taken by the pilots in the OP. A pass at an acceptable altitude would have been just as thrilling to the audience, yet much, much safer for all involved and the pilots would still have their wings.

[eion]

<snip>

There are very good reasons why we don't do low-flyovers over crowds.

And that's one of the absolute best fighter pilots flying. Picture that with a stadium full of people right underneath him. 700 ft might not seem like a lot, but it may well be the difference between a recovered stall and a fiery crash.

[FSTargetDrone]

There are very good reasons why we don't do low-flyovers over crowds.

(video snipped)

And that's one of the absolute best fighter pilots flying. Picture that with a stadium full of people right underneath him. 700 ft might not seem like a lot, but it may well be the difference between a recovered stall and a fiery crash.

Here is another video of the above, with some views from inside the cockpit: