• There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Server side Maintenance is done. We still have an update to the forum software to run but that one will have to wait for a better time.

F18 down in san diego

Hey All,

Stiz we don't know where the carrier was so it may be absolutely true that Miramar was the nearest airport with enough runway. There is another on the coast but it's runway is less than 2000ft. I don't know the runway requirement for a landing FA-18 - does anybody?

I wonder more about the routing or maybe if the NAS wouldn't have been a better choice as there aren't so many civilian housing tracts around it. But it depends on where the carrier was.

I would be extremely critical of anybody who criticized a pilot for not wanting to risk civilian lives by ditching a troubled plane. People who think they have the right to dam you if you do or dam you if you don't aren't worth the time of day.

Like Panther says we'll have to wait for the report for all the facts. It won't surprise me if this turns out to be a precedent setting case and leads to a lot of changes in SOPs.

-Ed-
 
EasyEd said:
Hey All,

I said doubts not conclusions... big difference. -Ed-
Click to expand...

No big differences in how you're conveying yourself here....

You've got to have a blank mind as possible when you go into these things.

Accountability & responsibility takes places after the investigation, not before....
 
Just a couple of observations from my USAF days.
1. Just because one engine fails, it doesn't mean the other engine is damaged. It is quite common to land single engine. I myself have done so. They use two engines for redundancy.

I remember when the F-16 first came out and they were losing them right and left because of engine failures, the F-4/F-15 boys said, "See we told you so. Two engines" For a while, the F-16 used an engine that had "proven" itself in an F-15 for 100 hours. :costumes: Talk about eating crow.

2. No pilot ever wants to eject. It is in the marrow of a pilot NOT to lose his airplane. It is like a Marine Sgt. not wanting to lose one of his men.

I remember a study done when I was flying that found the single biggest cause of death in fighter crashes was the pilot did not eject soon enough. He waited too long, trying to save the airplane.

I know that syndrome well. I lost a very good friend who waited 1/2 sec too long to eject.
 
Hey All,

No big differences in how you're conveying yourself here....

You've got to have a blank mind as possible when you go into these things.

Accountability & responsibility takes places after the investigation, not before....
Click to expand...


Anybody on the face of the earth who believes that someone going into an investigation with a blank mind is lying to themselves. What they really go into the investigation with is the ability to change their mind as facts become available. being vocal ahead of an investigation may or may not bias the investigation - it depends totally on the character of the investigator. I would far rather have an investigator with an opinion ahead of time who is utterly unafraid to change his/her mind and has a record that shows it than a closed mouth seemingly neutral investigator who isn't. Stroo the political correctness it's character and honesty that matter and count - NOT who looks and acts right. I realize this might be hard to "get" but it is what I believe.

Accountability and responsibility do come after the investigation.

John you are right - when one engine fails it does not mean the other will as well - however what should a CO managing risk assume?

-Ed-
 
EasyEd said:
Hey All,



Anybody on the face of the earth who believes that someone going into an investigation with a blank mind is lying to themselves...

Accountability and responsibility do come after the investigation.

John you are right - when one engine fails it does not mean the other will as well - however what should a CO managing risk assume?

-Ed-
[/size]
Click to expand...

Well Ed, I have a feeling you and I will disagree on this question. I would assume the term "risk management" implies some risk is involved. Otherwise, there would be nothing to manage.

The question is was the risk managed properly and the law of probability reared up to bite the Navy or, was too much assumed by the Navy's decisions makers. I feel for anyone involved with the decision. I am sure they are second guessing themselves and asking, "if only."

That along with many other questions will be determined by the investigation board. Again, I am relying on experience thirty years old. However, if they are the same, I can assure you every statement, decision, and detail will be picked apart and reassembled.

Pilots use to get frustrated with safety boards because they would take months in the comfort of air conditioned/heated offices to look at a decision the pilot had mere seconds or less to make and find fault with his decision.

I too would be interested in the final report. I don't think you or I will ever see it. Maybe Panther or Ken Stallings could see it? Military accident board reports were not released to the general public. Maybe with the new Freedom of Information Act?
 
jmig said:
Well Ed, I have a feeling you and I will disagree on this question. I would assume the term "risk management" implies some risk is involved. Otherwise, there would be nothing to manage.

The question is was the risk managed properly and the law of probability reared up to bite the Navy or, was too much assumed by the Navy's decisions makers. I feel for anyone involved with the decision. I am sure they are second guessing themselves and asking, "if only."

That along with many other questions will be determined by the investigation board. Again, I am relying on experience thirty years old. However, if they are the same, I can assure you every statement, decision, and detail will be picked apart and reassembled.

Pilots use to get frustrated with safety boards because they would take months in the comfort of air conditioned/heated offices to look at a decision the pilot had mere seconds or less to make and find fault with his decision.

I too would be interested in the final report. I don't think you or I will ever see it. Maybe Panther or Ken Stallings could see it? Military accident board reports were not released to the general public. Maybe with the new Freedom of Information Act?
Click to expand...



Exactly the same thing happens daily with police officers. It must be done, however, otherwise there is no way to learn valuable lessons from each event.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top