Non-combat military aircraft losses

art · Sat Jan 28, 2023 12:47 pm

I cannot see a thread covering military aircraft losses through accident or misadventure. Fortunately they are infrequent, so rather than threads being opened to cover a single incident, I thought I would create a thread to cover all accidents involving military aircraft lost in non-combat situations.

If I am mistaken and there is such a thread, mods please delete this duplicate!

art · Sat Jan 28, 2023 12:51 pm

An Indian Air Force Su-30MKI and a Mirage 2000 are reported to have been lost in a collision over central India. One pilot reported dead.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-64437573

GalaxyFlyer · Sat Jan 28, 2023 2:54 pm

There’s high probability as many, perhaps more, are lost in non-combat flight. The first years of Red Flag, TAC was losing one plane per exercise. I’ve lost 7 friends in non-combat training accidents.

keesje · Sun Jan 29, 2023 8:49 pm

I think during most conflicts, aircraft losses will be labelled technical/ unknown / TBD for as long as possible.
"Enemy fire" only if outside prove becomes overwhelming.

These days with everybody in the street having a good camera and instant media access things go much faster & uncensored..

SteelChair · Thu Feb 02, 2023 4:41 pm

It seems like the accident reports are much less available than for civilian aircraft accidents.

I'm still wondering what caused the F35 ramp strike last year.

GalaxyFlyer · Thu Feb 02, 2023 4:49 pm

Safety Investigations (Mishap Investigation Board) are privileged investigations and not released. The Accident Investigation Board report is releasable, but not easily found. Congress gave the DOD an exemption keeping safety investigations privileged so the outcomes don’t become public allowing for quick fixes to immediate safety problems.

Avatar2go · Thu Feb 02, 2023 7:52 pm

SteelChair wrote:
It seems like the accident reports are much less available than for civilian aircraft accidents.

I'm still wondering what caused the F35 ramp strike last year.

Those accident reports are eventually released. But a thorough accident investigation may take a year or more. Even if the proximate causes are known relatively quickly. It's somewhat the mark of professionalism that you run down even unlikely causes and contributions.

In addition for the military, there are further levels of screening to prevent some details from becoming public. Where F-35 carrier operations are involved, that would be a valid concern.

SteelChair · Thu Feb 02, 2023 9:10 pm

Thanks for the replies. I understand the need for security but feel there is also a "public right to know."

LyleLanley · Thu Feb 02, 2023 10:42 pm

SteelChair wrote:
Thanks for the replies. I understand the need for security but feel there is also a "public right to know."

There's a difference between "public right to know" and "public wants to know". I "want" to know if there are aliens at Area 51 but I don't have a "right" to storm the gate and inspect each hangar until my curiosity is sated.

johns624 · Thu Feb 02, 2023 10:55 pm

LyleLanley wrote:
SteelChair wrote:
Thanks for the replies. I understand the need for security but feel there is also a "public right to know."

There's a difference between "public right to know" and "public wants to know". I "want" to know if there are aliens at Area 51 but I don't have a "right" to storm the gate and inspect each hangar until my curiosity is sated.

I thought everyone knew that they've been moved to Wright-Patterson?

GalaxyFlyer · Fri Feb 03, 2023 1:11 am

Note what I posted, there are TWO boards—Safety Investigation Board (SIB, aka Mishap Board) and Accident Investigation Board (AIB). The SIB is privileged and NOT released, the AIB is released and may recommend disciplinary actions. The public will NOT see the SIB report. It’s not FOIA actionable.

The AIB can only use factual SIB data, but conduct its own interviews, etc. it is usually released and is accessible to the public. The AIB follows the SIB and may come to different conclusions.

SteelChair · Fri Feb 03, 2023 3:35 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Note what I posted, there are TWO boards—Safety Investigation Board (SIB, aka Mishap Board) and Accident Investigation Board (AIB). The SIB is privileged and NOT released, the AIB is released and may recommend disciplinary actions. The public will NOT see the SIB report. It’s not FOIA actionable.

The AIB can only use factual SIB data, but conduct its own interviews, etc. it is usually released and is accessible to the public. The AIB follows the SIB and may come to different conclusions.

Are these boards for all services? This seems like USAF stuff and the F35 ramp strike was obviously Navy.

I'm all for OpSec, but why so much secrecy around safety stuff? What are they hiding or protecting? We're not China after all....I mean, it's not like we are prone to trusting the governing our culture.

GalaxyFlyer · Fri Feb 03, 2023 3:59 am

That’s how all the services handle investigations. It’s not Operational Security, it’s about finding and fixing safety deficiencies. The system was enacted by Congress to allow the services to quickly and without fear of legal action to investigate safety problems. The system means testimony by individuals won’t, in the safety realm, be used in courts martial, contractors can be immune from prosecution or suit. The accident rates in the services were astronomical in the Fifties, something needed doing and “safety privilege” was the answer. Is it perfect, no. Is there a system to address it! Yes the AIB acts to identify discipline lapses, public “need to know”; and contractor deficiencies. I’ve been thru the process on several sides, it works pretty well.

In an accident, the immediate pilot investigator interviewed me prior to the operating room. All without being “read my rights”, no lawyers, no jeopardy—tell us what happened. Later a LtCol, as president of the AIB and a JAG, read me my Article 32 rights (Miranda); I was questioned, I could have a Defense Counsel, etc.

I’ve also been on an SIB as an outside contractor for the manufacturer, same process. The AIB was released publically. I have nothing to disagree with the AIB report.

Avatar2go · Fri Feb 03, 2023 12:40 pm

SteelChair wrote:

I'm all for OpSec, but why so much secrecy around safety stuff? What are they hiding or protecting? We're not China after all....I mean, it's not like we are prone to trusting the governing our culture.

Helps to understand that the purpose of accident investigation is prevention of future accidents. The public release of information is a byproduct, but is not the goal of investigators.

This is why no party to an investigation releases information except the investigator of record, and they generally will not, except at required reporting intervals. And why not all the information discovered is included in the reports.

The investigative agency is only bound to release information in the interest of public safety. That is the only interest the public has in the matter. Further in order for the agency to have absolute power of discovery, they must respect the confidentiality of the participants. You can't have one without the other.

As GalaxyFlyer said, there is no public right to know, in the world of professional investigation. That concept is wholly fabricated.

GalaxyFlyer · Fri Feb 03, 2023 2:48 pm

I maybe be old fashioned, but I was taught a phrase, “none of your business””; but it seems today people think everything that passes by their view is their business. Posters ask about diverts, on-normal flight tracks, of which they have no interest beyond seeing it on Flight Aware. People believe they have right to follow others for no reason beyond voyeurism. None of your business can be a lifesaver, too.

SteelChair · Fri Feb 03, 2023 4:28 pm

I disagree with both comments. I admit I am no lawyer and don't have a legal basis.

The old fashioned phrase I was taught was that "if you don't have anything to hide don't hide anything."

Open society.....open government.....I thought those concepts were central to our republic. The government is the servant of the people. There is an argument that the public is owed transparency, that transparency is the norm, the baseline, and only extreme examples (national security secrets) preclude that transparency.

Why hide what caused an airplane crash? There is an element of arrogance in the attitude that the government can fly around their $100M jets and crash them with impunity and answer to no one.

GalaxyFlyer · Fri Feb 03, 2023 4:51 pm

That doesn’t happen, officers are held to account regularly. The one thing process that has been key to safety improvement is taking punishment out of the process, “what happened”; not “who caused it to happen”. Punishment leads to hiring problems. That’s the reason for the “safety privilege “ and for the AIB process. One is safety, the other is potential discipline and public knowledge. Most military mishaps are qualitatively different than civilian ones—there are no civilian mid-airs in multi-ship surface attack training sorties. No accidents coming aboard ships. Hence, no applicable lessons.

The Ron Brown accident ended lots of careers, wrote new rules and re-established USAF instrumrnt instructor school. The C-130 accident at Jackson Hole was similarly transforming. All thru the SIB privileged process.
There are limits to openness. Lessons learned in training become tactics and life-saving processes in combat.

I completely agree on openness in democratic societies, but there are millions of better areas to start, like why the DOT wrote rules that incentivize building certain types of vehicles over others. Why pickups are so popular?

SteelChair · Fri Feb 03, 2023 4:56 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
That doesn’t happen, officers are held to account regularly. The one thing process that has been key to safety improvement is taking punishment out of the process, “what happened”; not “who caused it to happen”. Punishment leads to hiring problems. That’s the reason for the “safety privilege “ and for the AIB process. One is safety, the other is potential discipline and public knowledge. Most military mishaps are qualitatively different than civilian ones—there are no civilian mid-airs in multi-ship surface attack training sorties. No accidents coming aboard ships. Hence, no applicable lessons.

There are limits to openness. Lessons learned in training become tactics and life-saving processes in combat.

I completely agree on openness in democratic societies, but there are millions of better areas to start, like why the DOT wrote rules that incentivize building certain types of vehicles over others. Why pickups are so popular?

And we're just supposed to believe them when they say there is accountability. Strangely ironic that they want us to believe that they hold others accountable yet provide no accountability themselves. Meanwhile, that same government is secretly spying on all of us?

The argunents of Snowden and Assange make more and more sense as the years go by.

Edit for situational awarenenss: I'm currently reading McNamara's book.

LyleLanley · Fri Feb 03, 2023 5:09 pm

SteelChair wrote:
And we're just supposed to believe them when they say there is accountability...Meanwhile, that same government is secretly spying on all of us?...The argunents of Snowden and Assange make more and more sense as the years go by.

If Snowden and Assange are your argument's basis points for how the military investigates accidents, you'll never be satisfied with whatever degree of openness you get. At what point will you understand the military isn't in the business of opening up its doors to the public in all matters? Is there oversight? Yes. Is that oversight administered by any citizen who feels he has a "right" to be, act, and administer said oversight? No. Get over it. There is an avenue for the public to get information, but there is no need for the public to have all information.

SteelChair wrote:
I admit I am no lawyer and don't have a legal basis.

You could've simply stopped there.

SteelChair · Fri Feb 03, 2023 5:27 pm

LyleLanley wrote:
SteelChair wrote:
And we're just supposed to believe them when they say there is accountability...Meanwhile, that same government is secretly spying on all of us?...The argunents of Snowden and Assange make more and more sense as the years go by.

If Snowden and Assange are your argument's basis points for how the military investigates accidents, you'll never be satisfied with whatever degree of openness you get. At what point will you understand the military isn't in the business of opening up its doors to the public in all matters? Is there oversight? Yes. Is that oversight administered by any citizen who feels he has a "right" to be, act, and administer said oversight? No. Get over it. There is an avenue for the public to get information, but there is no need for the public to have all information.

SteelChair wrote:
I admit I am no lawyer and don't have a legal basis.

You could've simply stopped there.

And you could've simply not replied. But you did. So I must be I to something.

I clearly mentioned a carve out for national security stuff. I'll grant that there are real secrets that need to be protected. I won't even mention that the Chinese and the Russians already know them. There are always more Rosenbergs and the Walker spy rings. And "allies" giving away Nene engines. The only people that don't know the secrets are US taxpayers. It's ridiculous but I still grant that point on principle

We're talking about aviation safety. That's all. Why hide anything about that topic? My guess is that a lot of people reading this don't believe CVRs should have been allowed. Yet they have clearly benefitted safety. Why don't we have cameras? Because pilots refuse to allow it. Wouldn't it be nice to see more camera views of Apollo 11, let say the lift off? Yet when he was asked about cameras in a press conference, NAA said, "I would prefer more fuel." That comment doesn't look so good 50 years later when there is so little film of the event. But that's a historical event instead of safety and I digress, but I offer it in the context of pilot attitudes.

LyleLanley · Fri Feb 03, 2023 5:39 pm

SteelChair wrote:
And you could've simply not replied. But you did. So I must be I to something.

I clearly mentioned a carve out for national security stuff. I'll grant that there are real secrets that need to be protected. I won't even mention that the Chinese and the Russians already know them. There are always more Rosenbergs and the Walker spy rings. And "allies" giving away Nene engines. The only people that don't know the secrets are US taxpayers. It's ridiculous but I still grant that point on principle

We're talking about aviation safety. That's all. Why hide anything about that topic? My guess is that a lot of people reading this don't believe CVRs should have been allowed. Yet they have clearly benefitted safety. Why don't we have cameras? Because pilots refuse to allow it. Wouldn't it be nice to see more camera views of Apollo 11, let say the lift off? Yet when he was asked about cameras in a press conference, NAA said, "I would prefer more fuel." That comment doesn't look so good 50 years later when there is so little film of the event. But that's a historical event instead of safety and I digress, but I offer it in the context of pilot attitudes.

You just don't get it.

There are TWO boards! The SIB and the AIB. The SIB is the no-kidding 'debrief' of the mishap. It's where the mistakes are revealed in a manner and environment where everyone who wants to prevent the next mishap can. The AIB is where the lawyers come in and do their thing in full view of the public, for better or worse. Do the Blue Angels debrief in front of cameras? No. You know why? Because debriefs won't work when everyone holds their punches because the public would be offended by #6 telling the Boss he sucked. Like it or not, being in full view of the public brings up people's armor and prevents real change. The DoD safety system isn't perfect, but it works. Your desires of having all the information out there would make that system not work.

You bring a lot of assumptions to your "argument". One, that the Chinese and Russians "already know" any and all secrets. Secondly, that just because you don't have all the details means that something nefarious is going on. Grow up. As the song goes, "it's not all about you". Lastly, your point about Neil Armstrong actually disproves your argument: if there were more cameras onboard and they had to carry less fuel, the Apollo 11 landing probably wouldn't have happened. If you remember, they were seconds from aborting their landing after NA had to take over and change landing locations. Talk about sabotaging your own point...

SteelChair · Fri Feb 03, 2023 5:52 pm

LyleLanley wrote:
SteelChair wrote:
And you could've simply not replied. But you did. So I must be I to something.

I clearly mentioned a carve out for national security stuff. I'll grant that there are real secrets that need to be protected. I won't even mention that the Chinese and the Russians already know them. There are always more Rosenbergs and the Walker spy rings. And "allies" giving away Nene engines. The only people that don't know the secrets are US taxpayers. It's ridiculous but I still grant that point on principle

We're talking about aviation safety. That's all. Why hide anything about that topic? My guess is that a lot of people reading this don't believe CVRs should have been allowed. Yet they have clearly benefitted safety. Why don't we have cameras? Because pilots refuse to allow it. Wouldn't it be nice to see more camera views of Apollo 11, let say the lift off? Yet when he was asked about cameras in a press conference, NAA said, "I would prefer more fuel." That comment doesn't look so good 50 years later when there is so little film of the event. But that's a historical event instead of safety and I digress, but I offer it in the context of pilot attitudes.

You just don't get it.

There are TWO boards! The SIB and the AIB. The SIB is the no-kidding 'debrief' of the mishap. It's where the mistakes are revealed in a manner and environment where everyone who wants to prevent the next mishap can. The AIB is where the lawyers come in and do their thing in full view of the public, for better or worse. Do the Blue Angels debrief in front of cameras? No. You know why? Because debriefs won't work when everyone holds their punches because the public would be offended by #6 telling the Boss he sucked.

You bring a lot of assumptions to your "argument". One, that the Chinese and Russians "already know" any and all secrets. Secondly, that just because you don't have all the details means that something nefarious is going on. Grow up. As the song goes, "it's not all about you". Lastly, your point about Neil Armstrong actually disproves your argument: if there were more cameras onboard and they had to carry less fuel, the Apollo 11 landing probably wouldn't have happened. If you remember, they were seconds from aborting their landing after NA had to take over and change landing locations. Talk about sabotaging your own point...

In his only authorized biography, NAA states that once you were below 50ft, the engine could fail/stop and you could drop to the surface without problem. They were at 35 feet when the fuel light (30 seconds remaining) came on. In other words, the landing was already safe/made. He was simply trying to find the best spot to touch down. He said he wasn't out of options and he wasn't out of fuel. Best guess is that they had ~15 second of fuel remaining at touch down. Thay wasnt abnormal, he said "We did that all the time in the LLTV." He was also accustomed to landing on a carrier in wartime with less than 5 minutes of fuel. The "drama" was a press invention. The weight of a camera in fuel might have been a second or two of fuel. Fuel that was unnecessary because the landing was already in the bag. For these reasons your assertion is factually incorrect.

You are correct in that I don't get the excessive culture of secrecy around accident investigation in the military. What are they hiding?

Our society is increasingly data driven. Back to McNamara again haha. People and institutions increasingly manage perceptions through manipulation of release of data. I assert they in this instance more data could be released.

LyleLanley · Fri Feb 03, 2023 6:19 pm

SteelChair wrote:
LyleLanley wrote:
SteelChair wrote:
And you could've simply not replied. But you did. So I must be I to something.

I clearly mentioned a carve out for national security stuff. I'll grant that there are real secrets that need to be protected. I won't even mention that the Chinese and the Russians already know them. There are always more Rosenbergs and the Walker spy rings. And "allies" giving away Nene engines. The only people that don't know the secrets are US taxpayers. It's ridiculous but I still grant that point on principle

We're talking about aviation safety. That's all. Why hide anything about that topic? My guess is that a lot of people reading this don't believe CVRs should have been allowed. Yet they have clearly benefitted safety. Why don't we have cameras? Because pilots refuse to allow it. Wouldn't it be nice to see more camera views of Apollo 11, let say the lift off? Yet when he was asked about cameras in a press conference, NAA said, "I would prefer more fuel." That comment doesn't look so good 50 years later when there is so little film of the event. But that's a historical event instead of safety and I digress, but I offer it in the context of pilot attitudes.

You just don't get it.

There are TWO boards! The SIB and the AIB. The SIB is the no-kidding 'debrief' of the mishap. It's where the mistakes are revealed in a manner and environment where everyone who wants to prevent the next mishap can. The AIB is where the lawyers come in and do their thing in full view of the public, for better or worse. Do the Blue Angels debrief in front of cameras? No. You know why? Because debriefs won't work when everyone holds their punches because the public would be offended by #6 telling the Boss he sucked.

You bring a lot of assumptions to your "argument". One, that the Chinese and Russians "already know" any and all secrets. Secondly, that just because you don't have all the details means that something nefarious is going on. Grow up. As the song goes, "it's not all about you". Lastly, your point about Neil Armstrong actually disproves your argument: if there were more cameras onboard and they had to carry less fuel, the Apollo 11 landing probably wouldn't have happened. If you remember, they were seconds from aborting their landing after NA had to take over and change landing locations. Talk about sabotaging your own point...

In his only authorized biography, NAA states that once you were below 50ft, the engine could fail/stop and you could drop to the surface without problem. They were at 35 feet when the fuel light (30 seconds remaining) came on. In other words, the landing was already safe/made. He was simply trying to find the best spot to touch down. He said he wasn't out of options and he wasn't out of fuel. Best guess is that they had ~15 second of fuel remaining at touch down. Thay wasnt abnormal, he said "We did that all the time in the LLTV." He was also accustomed to landing on a carrier in wartime with less than 5 minutes of fuel. The "drama" was a press invention. The weight of a camera in fuel might have been a second or two of fuel. Fuel that was unnecessary because the landing was already in the bag. For these reasons your assertion is factually incorrect.

You are correct in that I don't get the excessive culture of secrecy around accident investigation in the military. What are they hiding?

Our society is increasingly data driven. Back to McNamara again haha. People and institutions increasingly manage perceptions through manipulation of release of data. I assert they in this instance more data could be released.

Lots of assumptions, there, and who knows how much those cameras would weigh, where to install, etc. They were also supposed to land with two minutes of descent fuel remaining, miles away, but that didn’t happen. There’s also a world of difference between contingencies in the event of an engine failure and running yourself out of gas. “Press invention”? Tell that to Mission Control.

There were cameras and there is footage, but that doesn’t sate you. I doubt 5 more would, either. Sorta like your insatiable need for mishap information and that you’re not sated because of a government/military conspiracy. I wonder if you feel the same way about the ASAP program.

GalaxyFlyer · Fri Feb 03, 2023 6:26 pm

TWO boards, both charged with specific missions is NOT an excessive culture of secrecy. I was in business end for 30 years, read innumerable reports, even was the subject of an SIB and AIB; been involved as a contractor. You don’t know what you’re talking about. Sorry, to be blunt, but you just don’t have experience or the scars, literal and figurative.

Are you going to feel better if an open investigative process proves Engisn Snuffy screwed up and a ramp struck on a dark and stormy night? Is there any conceivable lesson outside of carrier ops? Will the NTSB issue a request to the FAA to improve carrier training? Nope.

I’m not exactly sure how much openness you desire, but while libraries of corporate and government information is proprietary and confidential. It’s on everyone one of my company’s documents, subject to an NDA. Do you read the Federal Register everyday?

art · Fri Feb 03, 2023 6:55 pm

A pilot was killed when a Vietnamese air force fighter jet crashed during a training session on Tuesday (Jan 31) in the north of the country, state media reported.

The accident happened at noon in Yen Bai province and the 30-year-old pilot died while trying to land the Russian-made Su-22 jet at a local airport, the official Vietnam News Agency reported.

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/asia/vi ... ed-3243826

SteelChair · Fri Feb 03, 2023 7:11 pm

You're correct that I don't have that military experience ("scars" etc). So what? We live in a world that is increasingly more open. More information flows more freely to more people than ever before. And it will flow more freely tomorrow. And I think that's a good thing. Large institutions both private and public routinely bring in outsiders to have a look around because even they recognize the insularity of their own organizations. "Echo chamber" is a generalization for a reason....its a real thing. Is there anything more insular than the military officer class? They've now included people of different races, sexes, etc., but it appears there is no diversity of the mind, of opinion.

What if Ensign Snuffy was a quota candidate? Or a legacy? Pushed through training with multiple failures or more likely marginal scores but passed because of external factors like daddy was a squadron commander or because they were a member of a traditionally under represented group? Does that change anything for you?

I've given multiple arguments for more openness of military aviation safety investigations. I haven't yet heard a solid answer to: "In the absence of a security concern, what is there to hide?"

Your reference to the federal register is predictable. Reductio ad absurdum (sorry for the spelling)is a strategy.... extend my argument to absurdity in order to discredit.

If one Ensign can make a $100M mistake.... thats the final answer.....then we're not far from automated landings becoming standard imho. In the civil world, there has never been a hull loss on an CAT III autolanding....

Mission Control was stressful all the time....but as long as they don't initiate an abort all is well. NAA expressed that concern...they talked about that leading up to the mission. The final authority always rests with the pilot in command. Your bringing that in as an example was inappropriate, your whole line of argument was incorrect and factually wrong, and perhaps intended as a distraction.

None of this is about my feelings. "Are you going to feel better if...."

Avatar2go · Fri Feb 03, 2023 7:20 pm

Again this argument comes down to confusion regarding the purpose of accident investigation. The goal is to prevent future accidents, and that's all.

When public knowledge and understanding are aligned with accident prevention, the information is released. When it isn't, it's not released.

The purpose of this is not to conceal or hide information, it's to ensure that all the information can be available to the investigators. That won't happen if liability or public disclosure are attached to the investigation.

It's why the NTSB steadfastly opposes any of it's investigative work being used to assign blame or prosecute. And why both they and the FAA respect the confidentiality interests of the participants, unless they go against the public interest. This includes rejecting Congressional, FOIA, and court requests demanding disclosure.

The error in reasoning that is made by those that see conspiracy or cover-up in this, is that all information is in the public interest. That claim is objectively false, and it would decimate the freedom and independence of the investigative process.

What GalaxyFlyer and LyleLanley have explained above, is that the investigations are centered around finding the truth, not revealing it to the public. Those are two separate matters. The investigative constructs around them are objective and subject to review. It's why they are composed of diverse boards and not individuals, and the board must agree on the conclusion.

When we agree to live in society, we delegate certain powers to central authorities, and accident investigation is one of them. As well as absolute power of discovery, in return for respect of privacy rights and public discretion. That's how our democratic system works.

LyleLanley · Fri Feb 03, 2023 8:25 pm

Avatar2go wrote:
Wise words

Well said!

SteelChair wrote:
None of this is about my feelings. "Are you going to feel better if...."

Your entire argument is about your feelings: your entire argument rests upon supposition and mistrust, with no factual underpinning of any sort. You drop turds into the punch bowl by bringing up hypothetical “legacy” and “quota” hires, and the “insularity” of the officer corps, without evidence of the sort contributing to your argument. That’s an emotional argument.

The fact is there IS oversight. It’s just not you.

SteelChair · Fri Feb 03, 2023 10:56 pm

LyleLanley wrote:
Avatar2go wrote:
Wise words

Well said!

SteelChair wrote:
None of this is about my feelings. "Are you going to feel better if...."

Your entire argument is about your feelings: your entire argument rests upon supposition and mistrust, with no factual underpinning of any sort. You drop turds into the punch bowl by bringing up hypothetical “legacy” and “quota” hires, and the “insularity” of the officer corps, without evidence of the sort contributing to your argument. That’s an emotional argument.

The fact is there IS oversight. It’s just not you.

Well thanks for your opinion of my feelings.

There is a long history of malfeasance from the government in the United States. And that's before we even get to honest mistakes like a nuclear weapon in a swamp in Savannah (oops another turd!) There's plenty of reason for civilian oversight. Independent, unbiased, non Congressional oversight that can only be provided by an informed electorate and the 3rd estate.

When they came for me no one was left to say anything.

LyleLanley · Fri Feb 03, 2023 11:45 pm

SteelChair wrote:
There is a long history of malfeasance from government.

FIFY! Name a government that is perfect and entirely transparent to its people and I'll sell you a bridge. Unreachable goalposts.

SteelChair wrote:
When they came for me no one was left to say anything.

You're proving my point about emotionalism by literally equating the DoD not releasing privileged safety information of aviation mishaps with the rise of a fascist state, the holocaust, and genocide. I'm reasonably certain Martin Niemöller would NOT be impressed.

GalaxyFlyer · Sat Feb 04, 2023 1:30 am

SteelChair wrote:
LyleLanley wrote:
Avatar2go wrote:
Wise words

Well said!

SteelChair wrote:
None of this is about my feelings. "Are you going to feel better if...."

Your entire argument is about your feelings: your entire argument rests upon supposition and mistrust, with no factual underpinning of any sort. You drop turds into the punch bowl by bringing up hypothetical “legacy” and “quota” hires, and the “insularity” of the officer corps, without evidence of the sort contributing to your argument. That’s an emotional argument.

The fact is there IS oversight. It’s just not you.

Well thanks for your opinion of my feelings.

There is a long history of malfeasance from the government in the United States. And that's before we even get to honest mistakes like a nuclear weapon in a swamp in Savannah (oops another turd!) There's plenty of reason for civilian oversight. Independent, unbiased, non Congressional oversight that can only be provided by an informed electorate and the 3rd estate.

When they came for me no one was left to say anything.

You have a cocky cynicism common to those without any knowledge or experience of what they’re opining on. Can’t say Lyle, but I’ve lost friends in military accidents, been in an accident, served on disciplinary (Flying Evaluation Boards), appeared as a witness and attended safety and law courses for command positions. Listen to a couple of recordings and simulations of a crew’s final moments for a reality check. Mostly due to losing friends, don’t you think, if I felt from experience and meeting widows, I’d work for improvements? I’m pretty cynical about a lot in the military, especially in the political nether regions, but not about safety programs, investigations and the people in them.

If you think the MSM journalist with a degree in Journalism and a word processor can shed learned light on safety and accident, I see the bridge and add a tunnel. Look at MSM, print or video, and nose toy tell me they know what they’re talking about? They’re worse than the politicians. Yes’m I’ve had quality time with both—Ted Kennedy had some excellent ones, by the way. Kerry’s we’re idiots who thought they ran the DOD, but couldn’t spell FEB.

When you can tote up years of real experience,come back to post facts, not opinions, sentimental and emotional.

SteelChair · Sat Feb 04, 2023 6:10 pm

Still looking for a good reason why results of safety investigations aren't public.

GalaxyFlyer · Sat Feb 04, 2023 7:32 pm

But they are in the form of Accident Board reports and frequently in the news.

Here’s a recent one,

https://www.afjag.af.mil/Portals/77/AIB ... rative.pdf

Here’s many more,

https://www.afjag.af.mil/AIB-Reports/

If SIBs were like NTSB investigations, where the first response by those involved is “I want my lawyer and my union rep”. The “safety privilege” was enacted by Congress in response to a horrific accident rate and military accident rates have plunged since its institution. Having a safety investigation system. We eliminated commanders from hiding causes, malfeasance because mishap crews and immediate supervisors were free to talk without disciplinary concerns.

There’s another problem, one cannot Sue the government without the government’s permission, especially in the military. So, make the SIB public and every body gets sued except the military. Being injured or killed in the service is an “assumed risk”. Usually contractors are immune from suit if the product met specification.

LyleLanley · Sun Feb 05, 2023 3:20 am

That’s some irony: I knew Paul Voss from when we were in the 32nd ARS at McGuire in the early 2000s. A great guy who could make great times out of thin air.

GalaxyFlyer · Sun Feb 05, 2023 3:38 am

There’s a lot coming out of that mishap. It makes SteelChair’s idea for more openness moot.

art · Thu Feb 09, 2023 9:16 pm

A Pakistan Air Force (PAF) training plane on Wednesday made an emergency landing in the fields near Khyber Pakhtunkhwa’s Mardan after facing issues mid-flight, the PAF said.

Both pilots present in the plane — a Super Mushshak training aircraft —survived the crash-landing, the PAF said in a statement.

https://www.dawn.com/news/1736028/paf-t ... ilots-safe

Aircraft reported to be written off here:

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/308040

GalaxyFlyer · Sat Feb 11, 2023 12:43 am

Steel chair wanted to know why the military has the privilege on safety investigations—the AA crew is refusing to testify on their involvement in the JFK incursion. You want to fix problems, not place blame or put people in jeopardy in safety investigations. It’s about “what happened”; not “who’s to blame”.

art · Wed Feb 22, 2023 2:38 pm

deleted - posted in error

GDB · Tue Mar 07, 2023 9:21 pm

Not a loss;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SD-C5xFdB1s

But the pilot did well to put it down.

cjg225 · Wed Mar 08, 2023 11:54 am

GDB wrote:
Not a loss;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SD-C5xFdB1s

But the pilot did well to put it down.

I wonder what that second, smaller flash was.

LyleLanley · Wed Mar 08, 2023 4:13 pm

cjg225 wrote:
GDB wrote:
Not a loss;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SD-C5xFdB1s

But the pilot did well to put it down.

I wonder what that second, smaller flash was.

Reflection of the sun off the nose?

GalaxyFlyer · Wed Mar 08, 2023 5:01 pm

One of the unsung success stories after Vietnam was Red Flag and Top Gun where very senior officers were willing to accept losses as necessary to be combat-ready. Success in Desert Storm and Iraq is due to those losses. In Vietnam on RP6 most losses were in a new pilot’s first ten missions. Red Flag tried to do those missions in peacetime. General Dixon famously said, to paraphrase, “if we’re gonna lose them in the first real combat missions, we might as well do so at Red Flag.” And, in the beginning they did, one or two Class A mishaps at every RF.

cjg225 · Wed Mar 08, 2023 11:13 pm

LyleLanley wrote:
Reflection of the sun off the nose?

Could be, yeah. There's no apparent sound within 1-2 seconds after it happens.

art · Thu Mar 30, 2023 9:22 am

Kentucky helicopter crash: Deaths feared after military aircraft crash

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-65121331

art · Thu Apr 06, 2023 6:07 pm

Black Hawk helicopter carrying 10 crew members crashes into ocean, Japan's army says

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/japan-heli ... ko-island/

art · Sun May 07, 2023 1:20 am

Indian military helicopter crash...

Army grounds ALH Dhruv fleet again following May 4 crash in Jammu and Kashmir

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ ... 819308.ece

747classic · Sun May 07, 2023 4:48 pm

A USAF F-16 of the 8th fighter wing crashed during a training mission approx 10 nautical miles from Osan AFB at May 6th at 09:45 LT.
The pilot safely ejected and was transported to the nearest medical facility.
See : https://twitter.com/aviationbrk/status/ ... 2873486336

art · Mon Jul 03, 2023 1:26 pm

Accident involving 2 Colombian Air Force Tucanos results in a fatality.

https://www.aviacionline.com/2023/07/ac ... olombiana/

art · Tue Jul 04, 2023 8:28 am

Pilot dies after Sukhoi-30MK2 crashes during fly-past exercise in Venezuela

https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/pilo ... -venezuela

747classic · Tue Jul 04, 2023 6:44 pm

A Russian AF Mig-31 crashed during a training flight in Kamchatka Peninsula, Russia, and the crew is being searched.

Original uploaded by @southpatt at twitter, see : https://twitter.com/southpatt/status/16 ... 0323353600

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net