Apache pilot suspension lift

3,745 Views | 43 Replies | Last: 1 mo ago by WBBQ74
Fdsa
How long do you want to ignore this user?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/south-carolina-beach-flyby-national-guard-suspensions-lifted/

Any helo pilots know why they would have been suspended in the first place? I know fixed wing have minimum altitude but wasn't sure for rotary.
bigtruckguy3500
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Generally speaking, every air wing/group/unit has rules regarding designated flight paths and altitudes to minimize risks. For example, where we flew, all north bound traffic would fly at one altitude, and all southbound traffic at another. We also had to avoid flying over certain housing complexes, so we'd follow along one road, then turn right at powerlines and follow those up, till we got to more open area without restrictions. Right before I left the air group I was a part of, a couple pilots flew under a bridge. It was a relatively high bridge, but it was still a no-no. Of course they got caught. Not sure what their final punishment was.

I don't know the details about this, but if these pilots, on a whim, decided to pull a stunt for the beach goers, that wasn't approved, or they broke their course rules, it opens up risk that the CO may not be willing to take. Or, breaking rules without consequences sets a precedent that anyone can do anything cool for fun and no biggie.

There are a bunch of videos out there of pilots of fixed and rotator wing aircraft doing stuff that shouldn't be a big deal, but turns into a mishap. Often to try and impress civilians, or even grunts, on the ground.
Fdsa
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Gotcha, yeah, just saw one vantage point of the video where they are flying directly over people in the water. That might have been it. You see low flying helos do demos all the time during SOF week, yes, different unit, but maybe the people directly underneath the low pass was the issue.
F4GIB71
How long do you want to ignore this user?
My ANG unit in Houston hired a young Citadel grad to send to pilot training. He was a great fighter pilot and ended up retiring in SC ANG and later commercial pilot. He was on the beach in SC that day and sent me a video clip. 99% of the people on the beach will say. "How cool, I'm proud of what they are doing". The 1% says, "that must be a violation of something". The commander of the unit in SC probably was more concerned about CYA for his career than his aviators.

We did a July 4, 1985 flyby at some stadium in the Woodlands. That turned into multiple flybys at IAH, then Hobby, around downtown in Houston, the beach in Galveston, my pilot's house, he gave me the jet in backseat so my house. Each pass got lower and faster. Our command post controller was waiting when we walked back into Ops holding a sheet of paper. "Who wants to call the noise complaints". My pilot and I took turns. Most were apprehensive but just startled by the noise.

On a side note, my pilot's son that day later went to A&M and was commander of Blue Angels a few years ago.
OldArmyCT
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I think suspensions are normal when complaints are lodged. The question is was it an authorized flyby or did the pilots just decide to do it? As for the comment above about flying under bridges, the below link describes what happened to a flight school classmate of mine who thought flying under a bridge was a good idea.

https://www.vhpa.org/KIA/incident/690311381ACD.HTM
F4GIB71
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Comments from SC Governor are spot on

https://www.facebook.com/share/1JDfrPuo31/?mibextid=wwXIfr
Fdsa
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If they flew within regulations and as briefed, all good. I have no doubt the pilots are capable of flying in that environment. Having the crowd directly underneath is where things get a little more uncertain and where you bring a little more risk to the US taxpayer. Keeping some distance is probably prudent. We had a family friend who flew cobras and our house was almost directly under his cross country routes. Some of my best memories as a kid were when he would visit and fly a few circles around the house.
CanyonAg77
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
As an aviation buff with no military experience, I love to see pilots showing off their aircraft.

While I'm glad they got reinstated, how do yo military folks feel about local commanders being overridden by the War Department? On one hand, I like when the SecWar rights wrongs. On the other, looks like you should trust your local commanders.
bigtruckguy3500
How long do you want to ignore this user?
CanyonAg77 said:

As an aviation buff with no military experience, I love to see pilots showing off their aircraft.

While I'm glad they got reinstated, how do yo military folks feel about local commanders being overridden by the War Department? On one hand, I like when the SecWar rights wrongs. On the other, looks like you should trust your local commanders.

I don't like it. There are formal processes and investigations that should occur. At the very least, let those play out.

Further, it would be one thing if they did everything by the book and got in trouble for something out of their control. But when they purposely broke the rules to do something cool, and get a "get out of jail card" from SecDef, it sets a bad precedent. Especially when it becomes a pattern for him interfering.

If the next time someone thinks they can pull a stunt and get away with it, but there's a mishap instead, how many people cheering this on are going to be advocating for the pilot to get his "get out of jail card," especially before a complete investigation?

Fdsa
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bigtruckguy3500 said:

CanyonAg77 said:

As an aviation buff with no military experience, I love to see pilots showing off their aircraft.

While I'm glad they got reinstated, how do yo military folks feel about local commanders being overridden by the War Department? On one hand, I like when the SecWar rights wrongs. On the other, looks like you should trust your local commanders.

I don't like it. There are formal processes and investigations that should occur. At the very least, let those play out.

Further, it would be one thing if they did everything by the book and got in trouble for something out of their control. But when they purposely broke the rules to do something cool, and get a "get out of jail card" from SecDef, it sets a bad precedent. Especially when it becomes a pattern for him interfering.

If the next time someone thinks they can pull a stunt and get away with it, but there's a mishap instead, how many people cheering this on are going to be advocating for the pilot to get his "get out of jail card," especially before a complete investigation?


agree…Pete never had command at any level. Probably feels good to be cool for the guys.
OldArmyCT
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Pete is in over his head. I still think they were flying an approved mission but Pete butting in way below his pay grade taints those pilot's reputations.
12th Man
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I disagree with both of you. In general terms, a crime requires a victim or an aggrieved party; both of which are absent in this situation. The military's "Search for the Guilty" is a legendary thing, driven as it is by both dogma and history. There is & was nothing to investigate here, though: dudes broke the rules, but NObody got hurt by it. Rather than see these intrepid few punished "bc that's how we roll", SecWar correctly took the decision away from the lower echelon & commanded fido. I like it. Just my $.02.
Fdsa
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oh, I didn't realize they had a criminal investigation ongoing.
CharlieBrown17
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
F4GIB71 said:

Comments from SC Governor are spot on

https://www.facebook.com/share/1JDfrPuo31/?mibextid=wwXIfr


Stupid take. Nothing they were doing equates to skill in a combat zone.

Sure apaches over the beach look badass but these dudes put thousands of people at risk and there's about zero chance they were flying within their own regulations.

There's also no way this is what was briefed and signed off on, so you have aircrew taking risk outside of what their command signed off on and transferring risk to people with zero say in the matter.

You want to talk about trusting someone in a combat zone? Fly with discipline.

A suspension from flying duties until a real investigation occurred was 100% the correct answer and SECWAR (no matter who it is) doesn't need to making phone calls to ensure the morons on Facebook are happy with the military.
CharlieBrown17
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
12th Man said:

I disagree with both of you. In general terms, a crime requires a victim or an aggrieved party; both of which are absent in this situation. The military's "Search for the Guilty" is a legendary thing, driven as it is by both dogma and history. There is & was nothing to investigate here, though: dudes broke the rules, but NObody got hurt by it. Rather than see these intrepid few punished "bc that's how we roll", SecWar correctly took the decision away from the lower echelon & commanded fido. I like it. Just my $.02.


Rules only matter if people die. Wisdom at its finest here folks. Since these "intrepid few" were able to do it we should all keep breaking standards until someone gets hurt.

There is 100% something to investigate, the standards and evaluations function (or whatever the army calls it) at the base exists to handle matters like this. No it's not a crime, but there are consequences for aviators flying against regulations.
12th Man
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Better to be unwise than a sanctimonious, perfumed prince. These aviators deserved what they got from Secretary Hegseth.
Pirate04
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
What aircraft did you fly in the military?
Fdsa
How long do you want to ignore this user?
12th Man said:

Better to be unwise than a sanctimonious, perfumed prince. These aviators deserved what they got from Secretary Hegseth.
sorry, they weren't flying in the jungles of Vietnam…I'd be all about this flying there.
12th Man
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Several- about 4500 hours worth. Mostly P-3's & MC-12's. What about you?
12th Man
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Pete Hegseth & I both agree you should keep on being true to yourself, Corky: ubu.
Fdsa
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Pirate04
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Army Blackhawk pilot. Just crossed over the 1000 hour mark and I can understand both sides honestly.
Fdsa
How long do you want to ignore this user?
https://www.facebook.com/reel/1760636988629930

Might need to change this to the flyover thread...I've seen some really low flyovers, below press boxes, etc. Watched the Blue Angels at least 5 times. Never seen one this low.

This is actually better: https://www.facebook.com/reel/1538794710906137
bigtruckguy3500
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I lived in Pensacola for 7 months. Watched the Blue Angels frequently. Never saw anything so low either. That is insanely low. Can't be more than 75-100 feet, max.
Fdsa
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It will be interesting to see how this one plays out. I've known a few Blue Angels and was able to have dinner with one of the CO's a few years back. I would imagine the pilot made a miscalculation which might take him off the team. They require such precision that they might lose trust. Not saying this is what I think should happen, but you don't see them deviating much from their typical routines. And it might have nothing to do with a broken regulation, etc...just an error when perfection is demanded.
bigtruckguy3500
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Good insight, I think. As I thought, I don't know if they realized how low they were going, or slipped below what their intended altitude was. Of course, I'm not a pilot, I just pretend to be one when they'll let me fly.

Fdsa
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bigtruckguy3500 said:


Good insight, I think. As I thought, I don't know if they realized how low they were going, or slipped below what their intended altitude was. Of course, I'm not a pilot, I just pretend to be one when they'll let me fly.


interesting insight…this was not about a warrior showing his bravery - he just misjudged the turn. No need to go big on punishment, but errors have consequences in that squadron. Lives on the line with each maneuver.
F4GIB71
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Based on 2000 hours flying fighters, my take all along on both SC Apaches and the Blues was the only issue was flying over the crowds. I think the helicopters were marginal as they were flying over the water although there were people in the water. With the Blues, I did not have an issue with the altitude per se if he had been over the water and not the crowd. When the Blues and the T-Birds do shows at an airfield, they are not this low but when they cross over the crowd, it is at perpendicular to the crowd line.

Ward Carroll's video was good as they usually are.
Fdsa
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Looks like #3 didn't fly today - I saw a post stating he was a little shaken by the whole deal and admitted he just misjudged the maneuver. I wonder if he asked to take a few days off to reset. Hope he's back in the saddle again soon.
TexasAggie73
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
My issue besides following written guidelines, is beach goer safety. I've seen pictures of light weight chairs flying because of the jet wash and the pilots were lucky that no small child was injured from flying chairs. On a side note, I wonder how many people found beach dirt in their food and drinks, but it was cool.
OldArmyCT
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
12th Man said:

I disagree with both of you. In general terms, a crime requires a victim or an aggrieved party; both of which are absent in this situation. The military's "Search for the Guilty" is a legendary thing, driven as it is by both dogma and history. There is & was nothing to investigate here, though: dudes broke the rules, but NObody got hurt by it. Rather than see these intrepid few punished "bc that's how we roll", SecWar correctly took the decision away from the lower echelon & commanded fido. I like it. Just my $.02.

Just because it's always been done and no one got hurt doesn't mean it might be wrong. A Vietnam unit had a tradition of flying under a bridge then immediately over another (or vice versa ( it's been awhile) soon after a pilot made Aircraft Commander. Everyone did it, even the CO. A flight school classmate of mine tried it in reverse with extra passengers on board. He smacked the bridge and killed a bunch of people. They classified a lot of accidents as combat losses over there, not this one.
Nobody gets hurt until somebody does. Flight safety regulations are there for a purpose.
12th Man
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Does it look to you like these guys were flying backwards under a bridge? The subject fly-by is to the mishap you relate what a shoplifted Snickers bar is to capital murder.

These Army Aviators were finna be skinned & made an example of, which is ruinous. We no longer operate in the understanding military milieu wherein Passed Midshipman Ernest King can stand on the quarterdeck, barf over the side and still become our first Fleet Admiral. In today's navy, Ensign Chester Nimitz would've been cashiered for running his destroyer onto a sandbar in Manila Bay.

It's okay to not see things my way, but I agree with SecWar: imco, the sin deserves neither the process nor the penance our zero-defect military mindset routinely demands.


bigtruckguy3500
How long do you want to ignore this user?
12th Man said:

Does it look to you like these guys were flying backwards under a bridge? The subject fly-by is to the mishap you relate what a shoplifted Snickers bar is to capital murder.

These Army Aviators were finna be skinned & made an example of, which is ruinous. We no longer operate in the understanding military milieu wherein Passed Midshipman Ernest King can stand on the quarterdeck, barf over the side and still become our first Fleet Admiral. In today's navy, Ensign Chester Nimitz would've been cashiered for running his destroyer onto a sandbar in Manila Bay.

It's okay to not see things my way, but I agree with SecWar: imco, the sin deserves neither the process nor the penance our zero-defect military mindset routinely demands.




The Marines have something called a FFPB, or field flight performance board. The Navy has a FNAEB, or Field Naval Aviator Evaluation Board. These are administrative and are fact finding investigations to look into factors that could have led to poor judgment or professionalism on the part of the aviator. They are always convened when there is a class A/B mishap, but also convened at the direction of the CO if professionalism and judgement are a concern.

I have seen, and been a part of, several FFPBs, where there was no "punishment" for the pilot. In fact, the opposite, the whole goal was to determine if they made a mistake, why they made that mistake, and if there is a way to remediate them and keep them flying.

I suspect the Army has something similar. I suspect there would have been an investigation, and the facts of the investigation would have shown why it happened, if they deviated from the flight as briefed, any potential safety violations, and whether those pilots should remain in flight status, be put in probation, or lose flight status, or lose their wings.

I doubt they would have been put in probation. But my doubt they would have been put in probation holds about as much weight as your thought that they were "finna be skinned & mad an example of."
Fdsa
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I now wonder if the Apaches flew as briefed with no altitude restriction over water, but failed to realize in the brief there would be a bunch of people right under them playing in the waves. If so, lesson learned, move on.
OldArmyCT
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
bigtruckguy3500 said:

12th Man said:

Does it look to you like these guys were flying backwards under a bridge? The subject fly-by is to the mishap you relate what a shoplifted Snickers bar is to capital murder.

These Army Aviators were finna be skinned & made an example of, which is ruinous. We no longer operate in the understanding military milieu wherein Passed Midshipman Ernest King can stand on the quarterdeck, barf over the side and still become our first Fleet Admiral. In today's navy, Ensign Chester Nimitz would've been cashiered for running his destroyer onto a sandbar in Manila Bay.

It's okay to not see things my way, but I agree with SecWar: imco, the sin deserves neither the process nor the penance our zero-defect military mindset routinely demands.




The Marines have something called a FFPB, or field flight performance board. The Navy has a FNAEB, or Field Naval Aviator Evaluation Board. These are administrative and are fact finding investigations to look into factors that could have led to poor judgment or professionalism on the part of the aviator. They are always convened when there is a class A/B mishap, but also convened at the direction of the CO if professionalism and judgement are a concern.

I have seen, and been a part of, several FFPBs, where there was no "punishment" for the pilot. In fact, the opposite, the whole goal was to determine if they made a mistake, why they made that mistake, and if there is a way to remediate them and keep them flying.

I suspect the Army has something similar. I suspect there would have been an investigation, and the facts of the investigation would have shown why it happened, if they deviated from the flight as briefed, any potential safety violations, and whether those pilots should remain in flight status, be put in probation, or lose flight status, or lose their wings.

I doubt they would have been put in probation. But my doubt they would have been put in probation holds about as much weight as your thought that they were "finna be skinned & mad an example of."

Your argument and 12th Man's argument are examples of arguments concerning like or dislike of the SecWar. No Army pilot is going to get "skinned" for low level flying but getting "pardoned" by that same SecWar may taint their careers. Unit commanders have a lot of say in who gets which jobs, both in the unit and when pilots leave. If their commander gets his nose out of joint then it's not a finished game. I also think we have a difference of opinion as to how the SecWar is perceived by members of the military. I can only speak for Army aviation but there are a ton of Army pilots who have done something worthy of an FEB, and took their verbal admonishment and checkride and continued to march. If I were active today the last person I would want to know my name would be Hegseth.
Page 1 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.