schmellba99 said:

---

gigemtxag2025 said:

---

ord89 said:

---

ApachePilot has the right take here. Not a big deal. Happens more than you might think.

BTW, since the aircraft was crewed by the Commander and the Standardization Pilot, the investigation would have been VERY problematic.

---

If the unit commander and standardization pilot were the ones flying, that's more reason for an independent review, not less, IMO.

---

Was Captain Sobel your great grandfather or something?

---

Aren't my standards. Just following Hegseth's own words from Quantico about professionalism, accountability, holding personnel to standards. Don't think it's radical - I hope not - to judge a government official by their own words.

Two things can be true at once. What the pilots did was kind of dumb, and what hegseth did was dumb.
What I think will be funny to watch is next time someone gets in trouble for doing what those guys did, it will definitely be a bit difficult to explain why they are in trouble and those guys aren't.

3/6 CAV in Korea?

What's stopping the next Democrat SecDef from using this same logic to reinstate people who broke rules for causes you hate? Are we setting a standard or just playing sides?

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

If only Hegseth were in charge for the great Sky ***** of 2017

---

Ha I was just talking with one of my coworkers today who was in that squadron when that happened. Said that they had to report in to their leadership/hq (sorry not all that familiar with navy command structure) in San Diego and were told they wouldn't lose their wings but had to go on an apology tour and tell all their fellow pilots not to do what they did. Apparently the wind conditions were abnormally perfect that day to not dissipate.

AuditAg said:

---

What's stopping the next Democrat SecDef from using this same logic to reinstate people who broke rules for causes you hate? Are we setting a standard or just playing sides?

---

Nothing would stop them anyway. Democrats have no ethical, moral, or legal boundaries and a justice system and journalism industry that are unwilling to hold them accountable. They will do what they want regardless of precedents set by Republican administrations. The uproar over this is completely stupid.

aggieforester05 said:

---

AuditAg said:

---

What's stopping the next Democrat SecDef from using this same logic to reinstate people who broke rules for causes you hate? Are we setting a standard or just playing sides?

---

Nothing would stop them anyway. Democrats have no ethical, moral, or legal boundaries and a justice system and journalism industry that are unwilling to hold them accountable. They will do what they want regardless of precedents set by Republican administrations. The uproar over this is completely stupid.

---

Agreed. Pretty much all arguments to not do the right thing now because some future commie Dem may do it too are pointless.

AuditAg said:

---

What's stopping the next Democrat SecDef from using this same logic to reinstate people who broke rules for causes you hate? Are we setting a standard or just playing sides?

---

The last democrat SOD did far worse than this during the rona scare, as mentioned above. Don't try to pretend the libs give a **** about rules.

Just dudes being bros, right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_Cavalese_cable_car_crash

Maga wants to run the military like they're running the government, roughshod incompetence.

ETFan said:

---

Just dudes being bros, right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_Cavalese_cable_car_crash

Maga wants to run the military like they're running the government, roughshod incompetence.

---

Even if that were true, it would be a huge upgrade over the way the moronic Democrats run the government. While their braindead sheep followers wallow in propaganda and cheer on their malfeasance.

gigemtxag2025 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

ApachePilot said:

---

My only reservation would be FAA regs possibly broken. Other than that this stuff never bothers me. It's always a gamble when you do this stuff that the wrong person sees it. Lots of Karen's out there.

---

As an Apache pilot, you feel this will destroy army aviation morale as that one poster claimed?

---

I said discipline and good order, not morale, which are different things. Same guy who stood at Quantico speaking about standards, professionalism, and holding personnel accountable killed an investigation before it finished because the guy they buzzed is politically connected. Don't doubt you can be in great spirits and still be in a system where the rules are applied selectively.

---

You know all the facts? Or you assume you do?

The convo he had with FOs vs here are very different things and contexts.

Now maybe he just skirted all the rules and you're right. Or maybe he knows something you do not.

OverSeas AG said:

---

gigemtxag2025 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

ApachePilot said:

---

My only reservation would be FAA regs possibly broken. Other than that this stuff never bothers me. It's always a gamble when you do this stuff that the wrong person sees it. Lots of Karen's out there.

---

As an Apache pilot, you feel this will destroy army aviation morale as that one poster claimed?

---

I said discipline and good order, not morale, which are different things. Same guy who stood at Quantico speaking about standards, professionalism, and holding personnel accountable killed an investigation before it finished because the guy they buzzed is politically connected. Don't doubt you can be in great spirits and still be in a system where the rules are applied selectively.

---

You know all the facts? Or you assume you do?

The convo he had with FOs vs here are very different things and contexts.

Now maybe he just skirted all the rules and you're right. Or maybe he knows something you do not.

---

His post said "Thank you @KidRock" and "No punishment. No investigation. Carry on, patriots." Didn't cite a review of the facts, didn't reference consulting the chain of command, didn't mention the regulatory concerns the Army raised, anything like that. Pentagon had nothing to add beyond the post itself.

Even if there were conversations behind the scenes, the post is what everyone sees, and it communicates that investigations can be terminated based on who's watching and who's politically connected, whether he meant it to or not. That precedent will exist regardless of whether these particular pilots deserved punishment.

gigemtxag2025 said:

---

OverSeas AG said:

---

gigemtxag2025 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

ApachePilot said:

---

My only reservation would be FAA regs possibly broken. Other than that this stuff never bothers me. It's always a gamble when you do this stuff that the wrong person sees it. Lots of Karen's out there.

---

As an Apache pilot, you feel this will destroy army aviation morale as that one poster claimed?

---

I said discipline and good order, not morale, which are different things. Same guy who stood at Quantico speaking about standards, professionalism, and holding personnel accountable killed an investigation before it finished because the guy they buzzed is politically connected. Don't doubt you can be in great spirits and still be in a system where the rules are applied selectively.

---

You know all the facts? Or you assume you do?

The convo he had with FOs vs here are very different things and contexts.

Now maybe he just skirted all the rules and you're right. Or maybe he knows something you do not.

---

His post said "Thank you @KidRock" and "No punishment. No investigation. Carry on, patriots." Didn't cite a review of the facts, didn't reference consulting the chain of command, didn't mention the regulatory concerns the Army raised, anything like that. Pentagon had nothing to add beyond the post itself.

Even if there were conversations behind the scenes, the post is what everyone sees, and it communicates that investigations can be terminated based on who's watching and who's politically connected, whether he meant it to or not. That precedent will exist regardless of whether these particular pilots deserved punishment.

---

So you are arguing that sometime in the future, some action that causes injury, death, destruction of property, or gross dereliction of duty will be whitewashed away - justified by Hegseth's failure to allow an unnecessary public investigation and potential tar/feathering to proceed?

And that will be on Hegseth's shoulders? Because a couple of pilots paused for a moment or two in front of Kid Rock's house?

Dude, you are way out over your skis here.

jrdaustin said:

---

gigemtxag2025 said:

---

OverSeas AG said:

---

gigemtxag2025 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

ApachePilot said:

---

My only reservation would be FAA regs possibly broken. Other than that this stuff never bothers me. It's always a gamble when you do this stuff that the wrong person sees it. Lots of Karen's out there.

---

As an Apache pilot, you feel this will destroy army aviation morale as that one poster claimed?

---

I said discipline and good order, not morale, which are different things. Same guy who stood at Quantico speaking about standards, professionalism, and holding personnel accountable killed an investigation before it finished because the guy they buzzed is politically connected. Don't doubt you can be in great spirits and still be in a system where the rules are applied selectively.

---

You know all the facts? Or you assume you do?

The convo he had with FOs vs here are very different things and contexts.

Now maybe he just skirted all the rules and you're right. Or maybe he knows something you do not.

---

His post said "Thank you @KidRock" and "No punishment. No investigation. Carry on, patriots." Didn't cite a review of the facts, didn't reference consulting the chain of command, didn't mention the regulatory concerns the Army raised, anything like that. Pentagon had nothing to add beyond the post itself.

Even if there were conversations behind the scenes, the post is what everyone sees, and it communicates that investigations can be terminated based on who's watching and who's politically connected, whether he meant it to or not. That precedent will exist regardless of whether these particular pilots deserved punishment.

---

So you are arguing that sometime in the future, some action that causes injury, death, destruction of property, or gross dereliction of duty will be whitewashed away - justified by Hegseth's failure to allow an unnecessary public investigation and potential tar/feathering to proceed?

And that will be on Hegseth's shoulders? Because a couple of pilots paused for a moment or two in front of Kid Rock's house?

Dude, you are way out over your skis here.

---

I'm not arguing future disasters are on Hegseth. That's a big leap. The point is that the public signal matters. When the Secretary of Defense kills an investigation through an X post thanking a celebrity (for what exactly, God only knows), that's what everyone sees, regardless of whether these pilots deserved punishment.

Does it really matter though? Regardless of what happens the press is going to drag Republicans through the mud and goal tend for Democrats. I'd agree that it's best not to give them unnecessary ammunition, but swing voters are already drowned in a sea of "Republican Bad!!!" and "Democrat Good!!!" propaganda.

This is just tilting at windmills. Every leader in an organization has the power of discretion for their area of authority. Sometimes you let the normal organizational processes of your subordinates run their course. In fact, most of the time you do. But every now and then you see something that is off the rails, and you step in and say "no, we're not going to do it that way." The vast majority will be relieved you had the courage to act, while the few who rigidly cling to their narrow-minded view of organizational purity clutch their pearls.

gigemtxag2025 said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

gigemtxag2025 said:

---

OverSeas AG said:

---

gigemtxag2025 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

ApachePilot said:

---

My only reservation would be FAA regs possibly broken. Other than that this stuff never bothers me. It's always a gamble when you do this stuff that the wrong person sees it. Lots of Karen's out there.

---

As an Apache pilot, you feel this will destroy army aviation morale as that one poster claimed?

---

I said discipline and good order, not morale, which are different things. Same guy who stood at Quantico speaking about standards, professionalism, and holding personnel accountable killed an investigation before it finished because the guy they buzzed is politically connected. Don't doubt you can be in great spirits and still be in a system where the rules are applied selectively.

---

You know all the facts? Or you assume you do?

The convo he had with FOs vs here are very different things and contexts.

Now maybe he just skirted all the rules and you're right. Or maybe he knows something you do not.

---

His post said "Thank you @KidRock" and "No punishment. No investigation. Carry on, patriots." Didn't cite a review of the facts, didn't reference consulting the chain of command, didn't mention the regulatory concerns the Army raised, anything like that. Pentagon had nothing to add beyond the post itself.

Even if there were conversations behind the scenes, the post is what everyone sees, and it communicates that investigations can be terminated based on who's watching and who's politically connected, whether he meant it to or not. That precedent will exist regardless of whether these particular pilots deserved punishment.

---

So you are arguing that sometime in the future, some action that causes injury, death, destruction of property, or gross dereliction of duty will be whitewashed away - justified by Hegseth's failure to allow an unnecessary public investigation and potential tar/feathering to proceed?

And that will be on Hegseth's shoulders? Because a couple of pilots paused for a moment or two in front of Kid Rock's house?

Dude, you are way out over your skis here.

---

I'm not arguing future disasters are on Hegseth. That's a big leap. The point is that the public signal matters. When the Secretary of Defense kills an investigation through an X post thanking a celebrity (for what exactly, God only knows), that's what everyone sees, regardless of whether these pilots deserved punishment.

---

You made the point that Hegseth was setting a precedent that future investigations would be summarily killed by his actions. "Investigations can be terminated based on who's watching and who's politically connected" was a blanket accusation, and I was merely pointing out that in most instances there's more meat on the bone when most 15-6 inquiries are initiated, and that you appeared to be painting with a very broad brush.

OK. So I'll take you at your current word and I'll reply by saying that I have absolutely no problem with the X post and the killing of the investigation.

Kid Rock is a bit of a nut, but he's been consistently and 100% in support of our country and its military. That is what Hegseth was thanking him for.

Now, some may think that thanks are due to folks like Jane Fonda, Olbermann, and Rosie O when they spout how much they hate anyone involved with the current administration or military, and say that they don't want to live here. And that's okay, free speech and all. But the highest civilian head of the military chose to thank a celebrity who has openly supported the military - simply doubling down on a couple of pilots who bent the rules to obviously do the same thing.

It's really not that big of a deal, unless you already had an axe to grind against this administration.

This thread reminds me of this scene from Good Morning Veitnam. NSFW.

gigemtxag2025 said:

---

OverSeas AG said:

---

gigemtxag2025 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

ApachePilot said:

---

My only reservation would be FAA regs possibly broken. Other than that this stuff never bothers me. It's always a gamble when you do this stuff that the wrong person sees it. Lots of Karen's out there.

---

As an Apache pilot, you feel this will destroy army aviation morale as that one poster claimed?

---

I said discipline and good order, not morale, which are different things. Same guy who stood at Quantico speaking about standards, professionalism, and holding personnel accountable killed an investigation before it finished because the guy they buzzed is politically connected. Don't doubt you can be in great spirits and still be in a system where the rules are applied selectively.

---

You know all the facts? Or you assume you do?

The convo he had with FOs vs here are very different things and contexts.

Now maybe he just skirted all the rules and you're right. Or maybe he knows something you do not.

---

His post said "Thank you @KidRock" and "No punishment. No investigation. Carry on, patriots." Didn't cite a review of the facts, didn't reference consulting the chain of command, didn't mention the regulatory concerns the Army raised, anything like that. Pentagon had nothing to add beyond the post itself.

Even if there were conversations behind the scenes, the post is what everyone sees, and it communicates that investigations can be terminated based on who's watching and who's politically connected, whether he meant it to or not. That precedent will exist regardless of whether these particular pilots deserved punishment.

---

Sooooooo.......tell me you know nothing about all of history without telling me you know nothing about all of history.

The wailing and gnashing of teeth over something as trivial as this just shows how much TDS there is floating around. It's dumb. Save the hate and screaming for something that is actually worth it.

gigemtxag2025 said:

---

His post said "Thank you @KidRock" and "No punishment. No investigation. Carry on, patriots." Didn't cite a review of the facts, didn't reference consulting the chain of command, didn't mention the regulatory concerns the Army raised, anything like that. Pentagon had nothing to add beyond the post itself.

Even if there were conversations behind the scenes, the post is what everyone sees, and it communicates that investigations can be terminated based on who's watching and who's politically connected, whether he meant it to or not. That precedent will exist regardless of whether these particular pilots deserved punishment.

---

Interesting that you state he didn't reference consulting chain of command or address regulatory concerns others may have raised. Maybe he did and forgot to tell you. In short- you don't know. My experience with hard nosed, hard driving civilian and military leaders is such that they'll tell you real quick that THEY ARE THE CHAIN OF COMMAND and when they want your opinion they'll give it to you.

I note that you never answered whether you served or are serving. Or whether you're class of '25. But your persistent rant suggests you have no mature, real world experience.

jrdaustin said:

---

gigemtxag2025 said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

gigemtxag2025 said:

---

OverSeas AG said:

---

gigemtxag2025 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

ApachePilot said:

---

My only reservation would be FAA regs possibly broken. Other than that this stuff never bothers me. It's always a gamble when you do this stuff that the wrong person sees it. Lots of Karen's out there.

---

As an Apache pilot, you feel this will destroy army aviation morale as that one poster claimed?

---

I said discipline and good order, not morale, which are different things. Same guy who stood at Quantico speaking about standards, professionalism, and holding personnel accountable killed an investigation before it finished because the guy they buzzed is politically connected. Don't doubt you can be in great spirits and still be in a system where the rules are applied selectively.

---

You know all the facts? Or you assume you do?

The convo he had with FOs vs here are very different things and contexts.

Now maybe he just skirted all the rules and you're right. Or maybe he knows something you do not.

---

His post said "Thank you @KidRock" and "No punishment. No investigation. Carry on, patriots." Didn't cite a review of the facts, didn't reference consulting the chain of command, didn't mention the regulatory concerns the Army raised, anything like that. Pentagon had nothing to add beyond the post itself.

Even if there were conversations behind the scenes, the post is what everyone sees, and it communicates that investigations can be terminated based on who's watching and who's politically connected, whether he meant it to or not. That precedent will exist regardless of whether these particular pilots deserved punishment.

---

So you are arguing that sometime in the future, some action that causes injury, death, destruction of property, or gross dereliction of duty will be whitewashed away - justified by Hegseth's failure to allow an unnecessary public investigation and potential tar/feathering to proceed?

And that will be on Hegseth's shoulders? Because a couple of pilots paused for a moment or two in front of Kid Rock's house?

Dude, you are way out over your skis here.

---

I'm not arguing future disasters are on Hegseth. That's a big leap. The point is that the public signal matters. When the Secretary of Defense kills an investigation through an X post thanking a celebrity (for what exactly, God only knows), that's what everyone sees, regardless of whether these pilots deserved punishment.

---

You made the point that Hegseth was setting a precedent that future investigations would be summarily killed by his actions. "Investigations can be terminated based on who's watching and who's politically connected" was a blanket accusation, and I was merely pointing out that in most instances there's more meat on the bone when most 15-6 inquiries are initiated, and that you appeared to be painting with a very broad brush.

OK. So I'll take you at your current word and I'll reply by saying that I have absolutely no problem with the X post and the killing of the investigation.

Kid Rock is a bit of a nut, but he's been consistently and 100% in support of our country and its military. That is what Hegseth was thanking him for.

Now, some may think that thanks are due to folks like Jane Fonda, Olbermann, and Rosie O when they spout how much they hate anyone involved with the current administration or military, and say that they don't want to live here. And that's okay, free speech and all. But the highest civilian head of the military chose to thank a celebrity who has openly supported the military - simply doubling down on a couple of pilots who bent the rules to obviously do the same thing.

It's really not that big of a deal, unless you already had an axe to grind against this administration.

---

Wasn't a blanket accusation; I specifically said "regardless of whether these particular pilots deserved punishment." The concern is narrow and about how it was done publicly, not whether the outcome was wrong.

But you're also making my point for me, right? The investigation was killed because Kid Rock supports the military and Hegseth wanted to thank him for it. That's exactly what "terminated based on who's watching and who's politically connected" means.

Wasn't an informal commander's inquiry. Army's own chain of command initiated a formal AR 15-6, second most serious of three levels, based on their assessment. Can't credit their judgment enough to call the investigation legitimate but dismiss their judgment that it warranted that level of scrutiny.

Investigation also got killed before anything was produced. Can't know what the substance was because Hegseth essentially prevented anyone from finding out by doing that.

Also I have no axe to grind, I'm just sourcing from Hegseth's own speech and the Army's own procedures. Again, at Quantico, Hegseth told every general and admiral he wanted leaders who are "competent, qualified, professional, apolitical" and said "the standard you walk past is the standard you set." Not some sort of partisan standard on my end, just his own standard. The gap between what he preached and what he did is exactly as wide as he made it himself.

Hegseth just relieved the Army chief of staff.

I suspect he was fired for objecting to Hegseth letting those rogue Apache aircrews off the hook.

Insisting on "good order and discipline" is his likely offense.

Connect the dots.

AgEngineer72 said:

---

gigemtxag2025 said:

---

His post said "Thank you @KidRock" and "No punishment. No investigation. Carry on, patriots." Didn't cite a review of the facts, didn't reference consulting the chain of command, didn't mention the regulatory concerns the Army raised, anything like that. Pentagon had nothing to add beyond the post itself.

Even if there were conversations behind the scenes, the post is what everyone sees, and it communicates that investigations can be terminated based on who's watching and who's politically connected, whether he meant it to or not. That precedent will exist regardless of whether these particular pilots deserved punishment.

---

Interesting that you state he didn't reference consulting chain of command or address regulatory concerns others may have raised. Maybe he did and forgot to tell you. In short- you don't know. My experience with hard nosed, hard driving civilian and military leaders is such that they'll tell you real quick that THEY ARE THE CHAIN OF COMMAND and when they want your opinion they'll give it to you.

I note that you never answered whether you served or are serving. Or whether you're class of '25. But your persistent rant suggests you have no mature, real world experience.

---

Again, the Pentagon had nothing to add beyond the X post when asked. If there was a deeper review behind the scenes then nothing public pointing to that.

Just applying Hegseth's own self-proclaimed standards to his actions. If that comes across as immature then that's a problem with the gap between his words and his actions.

Not sure what my service status would change here. Hegseth made his standards public at Quantico and his intervention public on social media. Comparing the two doesn't require a security clearance, just reading and paying attention, lol.

You've already dismissed my argument before I've answered any of your questions, so would the answers change your mind? Guess that won't answer them, but it does show why I didn't find them worth answering. If you want to discuss the topic we can do that, or we can keep vetting each other's credentials to figure out who's allowed to discuss politics on the politics forum, which may actually be more fun.

If you know the required personality of a pilot, you understand that this is a common occurance. You just try to be sure they don't do anything dangerous because those guys are professionally required to live on the edge.

I think this is the spot where someone posts:

We are not a serious nation and we are not led by serious men.

74OA said:

---

Hegseth just relieved the Army chief of staff.

I suspect he was fired for objecting to Hegseth letting those rogue Apache aircrews off the hook.

Insisting on "good order and discipline" is his likely offense.

Connect the dots.

---

Not according to any of the "sources" in this article.

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/hegseth-ousts-army-chief-of-staff-gen-randy-george/

Take it for what it's worth, but I'm sure the media would've been happy to make that case if they thought they could.

maverick2076 said:

---

74OA said:

---

Hegseth just relieved the Army chief of staff.

I suspect he was fired for objecting to Hegseth letting those rogue Apache aircrews off the hook.

Insisting on "good order and discipline" is his likely offense.

Connect the dots.

---

Not according to any of the "sources" in this article.

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/hegseth-ousts-army-chief-of-staff-gen-randy-george/

Take it for what it's worth, but I'm sure the media would've been happy to make that case if they thought they could.

---

It is just my off the cuff reaction. You don't find the timing more than coincidental?

Not with him getting rid of two other senior officers, including the head of the Chaplain Corps, at the same time. I think it's more likely that it's related to the Chaplain Corps reforms he announced.

[You can make your point without being disrespectful to others and bypassing obscenity filters. We were very clear on the mod rules for this thread in the OP -- Staff]

[When we advised against deliberate derails and left a staff note reminder on moderation norms immediately above your post, that included you -- Staff]