F-18 Pilot gets a desk job

TheCheez · Post by **TheCheez** » Wed Oct 26, 2005 4:12 pm

Yeah blame the soldiers, nice hijack btw.

scaredpax · Post by **scaredpax** » Wed Oct 26, 2005 4:13 pm

SplitS wrote:
Showing the Grace and Skill of a Defender of Freedom I hope the people of his home town show some support and appreciation for the skills that keep them free....God bless him and the other defenders of our freedom
What a pile of crap....

Defenders of the oil barons, protectors of Haliburton's greed more like it...

Grace and skill of a defender of Freedom? Pleeeeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzzzzzze...

Thats the lamest post ever....

If I may help hijack this thread...I read a very good piece on the same. The myth lives on and is used to justify lots of things...

here http://www.fff.org/comment/com0510g.asp

Wilbur · Post by **Wilbur** » Wed Oct 26, 2005 4:36 pm

This guy didn't get busted for breaking civilian regs. He violated Navy orders. You guys who think this stunt was Ok are missing the whole point of the discipline taken against him. Members of the military, especially Officers, are expected to have the maturity and integrity to follow orders and regulations at all times; not just when someone is looking. The military is the only organization in a democracy that is given the tools to overthrow the government. From that simple fact flows a very high set of ethical and obedience to authority expectations. Would you really want some clown, who thinks he is above the rules, entrusted to fly around with any variety of weapons at his disposal; potentially including nuclear weapons?

His act of e-mailing a "snivel letter" to some number of people and trying to claim others engage in similar activity are just further acts of profound immaturity. Hell, it would seem he doesn't even have the integrity to just stand up, accept responsibility, and take his lumps. If he keeps it up, he will likely find himself unemployed at the end of his 4 year desk job.

mellow_pilot · Post by **mellow_pilot** » Wed Oct 26, 2005 4:49 pm

Precisely...

Shady McSly · Post by **Shady McSly** » Wed Oct 26, 2005 7:39 pm

I buzzed a tower once in a C152(with wheel fairings) and sure I was really moving when I passed by but I just thought 'what the hell, you only live once!'

LH · Post by LH » Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:44 pm

Let's keep this simple and/or re-read the article:

1) The pilot broke Navy regulations that he knew were in place BEFORE he did his fly-by.

2) NOWHERE in the article does it state that he had PRIOR permission from ANYBODY to commit this act NOR at that height. Ergo, local pilots were not aware of him inbound at high speed and at VERY low altitde. Even IF he did have permission from local authorities, HE DID NOT have prior permission to contravene his own service's regulations regarding same. He ain't going to get any permission either for 200' above the ground. There's also a "minimum height" for airshows by ALL theServices in the US and so that comment about airshows "doesn't wash" either.

3) Having been a member of that military, I can assure you that "I'd clip his fu*king wings" real quick because of the above and it wouldn't be because of any public outcry either. I know that airport and how close residential areas are nearby. If he makes anyone of a number of mistakes, he can spread himself and a $52M a/c over the landscape and takes innocents with him.........and he thinks he's "hard done-by" or "everyone else does it, so what's the big deal"? Sorry, but if I'm on a Military Board of Review and that's all the evidence submitted for my decision, then his ass is grass and I'll be the lawnmower.

As far as the comment about defending Haliburton is concerned, then crap on Canadians also. A full 50% of the contracts that Haliburton honours worldwide are contracted-out to Canadian firms. Doubt that? Take the bloody time to check with the Canadian Petroleum Association or step into the Oilmen's Club in Calgary for a "pop" on some Friday afternoon......and you're allowed to do so. First, find out how "dirty" your own hands are before commenting on someone else's. Also take the time to read-up on the French version of Haliburton, by the name of "Rue de Lyonnaise". Never heard of them? That's because you spend too much time reading about Haliburton and ignoring the other players and THEIR "activities". Sorry, but contrary to popular belief, NOT everything BIG is American and they ain't the ONLY big players in the oil business worldwide.

Schooner69 · Post by **Schooner69** » Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:03 pm

A question: do military aircraft have to abide by speed restrictions below 10000 feet?

LH · Post by LH » Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:23 pm

1) If they are within "military airspace" over some military real estate, then everyone else is not allowed into that airspace anyway and they can do as they please under the directions of their own CO's of course.

2) If it's within "civilian airspace" and they wish to fly at their own airspeeds and ignore civilan rules about same, playing 'wargames' for example, then a Notam is issued to the aviation world who might pass through that area and/or be unaware. The times of day/night and dates of same will be stated also. They do the same thing and for the same reasons over many forest fires.

3) If the above does not apply, then they are controlled by ATC as any other a/c would be and obey the same rules. The fuel-burn at low altitudes is too great to "mess around" and they get their best rates at the higher altitudes in their normal "playgrounds".

shitdisturber · Post by **shitdisturber** » Wed Oct 26, 2005 11:19 pm

Schooner69 wrote:A question: do military aircraft have to abide by speed restrictions below 10000 feet?

To paraphrase the CAR's somewhat; a military aircraft at a civilian aerodrome during peacetime or if not on exercise must adhere to the speed limits if it is safe to do so. Driving a 104 at less than 200 kts was asking for trouble unless you were on final so it didn't apply. An 18 on the other hand, can maintain 200 kts without too much difficulty, ie final approach @ 135 kts.

The Old Fogducker · Post by **The Old Fogducker** » Wed Oct 26, 2005 11:32 pm

Well said LH.

I get such a kick out of the drivel these parrots for Michael Moore, Barabara Streisand, Barbara Boxer, etc. spout out in such a sanctimonius manner.

This is the audience an idiot like Carolyne Parrish plays to.

Fogducker
A proud running dog lackey of the imperialist industrial complex

LH · Post by LH » Thu Oct 27, 2005 12:31 am

Old Fogducker ------- too right. The man disobeyed a serious direct "Standing Order" of the service that he was a member of....... is now being punished for it.......and now he's been treated unfairly? Really? I've had those kind of "turkeys" flying air support above my head before and more than once I threatened to train my own aircraft's firepower on them if they didn't obey a direct order and do EXACTLY as they were ordered. A large percentage of the regulations I had to put up with then and have to put up with now in civilian aviation, are in place because of guys like that. If he wanted to do shit like that, then let him apply to The Top Gun School that the USN operates at Miramar, CA and let him see how good he is there. He reminds me of the street racer with the "hot car" who will drag on the streets and endanger people, but you seldom see him at the dragstrip for a sanctioned NHRA meet.
He needs a large dose of "Grow-Up" medicine" while he sitting at that desk these days.

complexintentions · Post by **complexintentions** » Thu Oct 27, 2005 7:41 am

LH,

Agreed with your comments re: jackass pilot maneuvers. Break the regs, expect to pay the consequences. Full stop. It's embarassing that this idiot would then start a whining email campaign. Grow a pair, will ya buddy?

But...I'm not sure I'm following your rationale about Haliburton...in essence you are saying to stow it, since the Canadians and French also have interests in the war? Can't agree with you there, if that's the case. The fact that various multinational interests, not just the US, are exploiting the "war on terrorism" (puke) doesn't make it any less cynical. And last I checked, it was the US oh A that has boys with guns over there, (Iraq, not Afghanistan), not the Canadians nor Francais..

On the other hand, if you were simply decrying the general ignorance of the population out there - have at 'er...

CI

(semi-sometimes-intelligent cantankerous somewhat liberal who understands the need for armed intervention sometimes but hates right wing jingoistic zealots masquerading as defenders of freedom, whilst waving a bible in one hand with the other in the pocket of big business...yoohoo...Dubya...callin' your name...)

Swamp Donkey · Post by **Swamp Donkey** » Thu Oct 27, 2005 10:29 am

LH wrote:If he makes anyone of a number of mistakes, he can spread himself and a $52M a/c over the landscape and takes innocents with him..........

Well said LH, and I think that's the bottom line....

It's happened before.

LH · Post by LH » Thu Oct 27, 2005 2:34 pm

complexintentions ------WHO do you think the Canadians were replacing when they were patrolling the Red Sea and interdicting shipping in that region? Who do you think would have had to do that if Canada wasn't there? Why did Canada have on two occasions, Commanders who were in charge of and also commanding the USN fleets in the same area? Why would that happen if they weren't working in conjunction with them? Whose military do you think they are easing the pain of by supplying personnel when they are in Afghanistan now and before? Who were the JTF-2 assisting when they were in Iraq with the British SAS and American Delta Forces before this last "punch-up? Who were they assisting when they were training and working with Peruvian Military Forces in Peru against the Communist Shining Path guerillas and that pre-dates the second Iraq invasion? Who supplied Iraq/Saddam with Eurocopter helicopter parts from their factory in Ft. Erie, Ont WITH the knowledge of the Canadian government and breaking and contravening the rules of the UN Arms Embargo. Those helicopters carried French missiles and they were used against British and American fighters in the "No Fly Zone" for years.....and the Americans knew it. Would it surprise you that most of the ammo used in Iraq now has "CIL, CANADA" stamped on the metal ammo boxes? Not surprising either because every stinking box of ammo loaded that what loaded inot my aircraft's guns in Vietnam was made in dear 'ol Montreal, back home in Canada........BUT Canada was not involved in that war either......and that's "official".

That's just a "starter" on us Canadians....there's plenty more. The French? They are supplying the MRE's at present, under contract, that the USMC are eating in Iraq at this very moment and have been doing do for the total duration of their presence there.

I could go on, but I've made this too long already.

bumffs · Post by **bumffs** » Fri Oct 28, 2005 12:34 pm

You bunch of whiney teabaggers,
Would you rather a military that does not think,does not feel,does only what it is told to do.Perhaps such a military should wear grey and click their heels at theirs masters voice,and do nothing when people are getting stuffed in ovens.
Military needs discipline ,but not blind obedience.
The last general who followed his orders to the letter sat on his hands while 800,000 people were slaughtered.If he could have that day back ,Would he now fight to protect those unarmed people. And if he had saved those people who would dare say he did wrong.Although judging by his inability to kill himself he probably did the best thing by hiding in the barracks and playing with the fax machine. If you cannot end your own life you probably are not much of a threat to anyone else.

The pilot was having fun at his hometown ,get a life

Hedley · Post by **Hedley** » Fri Oct 28, 2005 1:50 pm

It is not exactly news that military pilots who are tremendously successful in wartime are usually disasters in peacetime.

I might mention George Beurling, whom all Canadian pilot should be familiar with, since he is indisputably the greatest Canadian fighter pilot in the last 75 years, if not all time.

Or perhaps Richard Bong, who almost got cashiered for looping the Golden Gate bridge in his P-38 before being sent to the Pacific Theater in WWII where he won the Congressional Medal of Honor and is known as the "Ace of Aces" in the USA.

I suppose if Richard Bong was alive today, he would have been grounded by the hand-wringers here before he got a chance to distinguish himself in combat.

Such are the perils of living in such politically-correct times.

It is unfortunate that great warriors make lousy soldiers.

LH · Post by LH » Fri Oct 28, 2005 1:58 pm

bumffs ------this action demonstrates the POSSIBLE mentality and thinking that this pilot would possibly use in combat. I've "been there" and there are enough "possibles" as it is.......and you don't need some "hot-shot" going off on his own ideas of what to do. The regulations are there for purpose and one of them is because others are trusting you to carry out those orders as given......because they are part of your team and working with you to reach the same goal and entrusting their lives to you. Whether a given pilot agrees with them is neither here nor there. The military is not a democracy where you get asked if you agree to anything........you are TOLD that you agree with it OR ELSE. You also relinquish some of the Rights that you are helping protect for "Joe Public". You aren't part of "Joe Public" anymore and you can't have ALL the Rights that he has because in order to do your job, you have to take ORDERS..... again,whether you like them or not. You can't quit right there and say "take this job and shove it" if you don't agree like "Joe Public" can because you end up in military prison awaiting charges. In a combat theatre, you can be shot where you stand for disobeying a direct order when the lead is flying.

The man is educated and of normal intelligence or he wouldn't have the job. He was entrusted with flying a $52M piece of the public's property for their defense when needed. He carries out those duties and responsibilites with certain caveats because they're paying him money to do so and charging him with that responsibility. They expect that the agency controlling his actions for them will put certain guidelines, Rules and Regulations in place and that he will obey them or suffer some type of consequence. The consequences are expected to increase with the severity of the infraction. The military has established the rules and they have "passed muster" of all legal authorities within the Services. Now some pilot contravenes those rules that he has known about for approximately 10 years and he feels "hard done by?" He ain't hard done by at all. What he is in actual fact is a "borderline Court Martial Case" and he should consider himself VERY lucky as it styands. He knew the rules, their severity if caught, decided to ignore or push those rules........and he LOST. I'd also suggest to you that this wasn't the first time that he pulled similar stunts, BUT it was just the FIRST time that he was caught.

I'd want to see his Personnel File first, but based on what I'm reading, I wouldn't want him backing-me-up in some gunfight. I'd turn around looking for possible help and he'd be somewhere else "seducing canines". The offense may or may not be serious in your eyes, but I've dealt with the type in actual combat situations and I read this item altogether different than you. That a/c is also a two-seater a/c and I'm wondering where his Weapons Officer was during that flight. Perhaps he's still cleaning-out his shorts after that ride....IF he was onboard.

Wilbur · Post by **Wilbur** » Fri Oct 28, 2005 7:36 pm

Bumffs, your comments indicate you no nothing of which you speak. In our democracy the military is bound to follow the lawful orders of the civilian government. They DO NOT get to decide the civil powers are wrong about some issue and then choose their own course of action. The only exception is if they recieve an order that is manifestly unlawful; such as throwing people into ovens. An order to "sit on your hands" is not unlawful no matter how many people suffer or die because of inaction.

Your derogatory comments about General Dallaire are totally disgraceful and a product of your own ignorance. You clearly have never met the man or spoken with him or you wouldn't make those kinds of jerk-off comments. His problems with post traumatic stress disorder are entirely because he did his job exactly as he was supposed to do his job. He reported what was happening in Rwanda, provided his recommendations to his civilian masters, and then obeyed the orders he was given. As long as he was in uniform he had no choice or right to do anything but follow his lawful orders; no matter how distasteful or mistaken he personally found them.

mellow_pilot · Post by **mellow_pilot** » Fri Oct 28, 2005 9:25 pm

Wilbur, you are right on. Dallaire was in a shitty spot. He did the best he could and more than most have done in his place.

Bumffs,

Ripping up a GA airport at 600kts is not "thinking for yourself and questioning an unlawful order". It is commiting an unlawful act. How can you argue against criminal acts while supporting other equally as criminal acts at the same time?

Driving Rain · Post by **Driving Rain** » Fri Oct 28, 2005 10:58 pm

This guy never gives up. Shit, now he's written an book to profit from his stupidity/crime ( he was convicted)
His commanding officer took his punishment and shut up. Not this guy. I think sometimes the measure of a man is in how well they take their punishment.
First he blamed command and control , then he blamed the drugs they gave him and now....a shooting star

http://www.canada.com/national/national ... 4a36d2b25e
Results 4 dead and and 8 wounded Canadians because he's is a trigger happy hot shot.

I hope the buzzing F-18 driver in this thread takes his medicine better than Major Schmidt.

charlie_g · Post by **charlie_g** » Sat Oct 29, 2005 2:11 am

Schooner69 wrote:A question: do military aircraft have to abide by speed restrictions below 10000 feet?

Affirm.

LH · Post by LH » Sun Oct 30, 2005 12:55 am

My questions to the pilot in question and to all those who think like him would be...(1)"Would you care to speculate what would happen to a the Captain and FO of some a/c like a civilian Lear Jet who would have done EXACTLY the same thing? and (2) Do you think that because you are in the military, that you are entitled to "special privileges" not accorded to others?

Sorry, "defending freedom" entitles you to our utmost respect and a paycheque for doing so.......NOTHING MORE.

BamBam · Post by **BamBam** » Fri Nov 04, 2005 12:01 am

nark wrote:I'm not an 18 driver, yet. My office over looks an airfeild where theres 2 squadrons of F-18's. There is no way in hell they enter the pattern at 300 knots. 250 would be pushing it.

I'm not sure which airfield you're at - but in Canada (since this is a Canadian Web Forum) the pattern speed is 300kts for a Hornet. We push that up to 400Kts for 'tactical' patterns.

Rockie · Post by **Rockie** » Fri Nov 04, 2005 6:17 am

Schooner69 wrote:A question: do military aircraft have to abide by speed restrictions below 10000 feet?

This is taken directly from the CAR's.

102.01 These Regulations do not apply in respect of:

(a) military aircraft of Her Majesty in right of Canada when they are being manoeuvred under the authority of the Minister of National Defence;

(b) military aircraft of a country other than Canada, to the extent that the Minister of National Defence has exempted them from the application of these Regulations pursuant to subsection 5.9(2) of the Act; or

(c) model aircraft, rockets, hovercraft or wing-in-ground-effect machines, unless otherwise indicated in the Regulations.

102.01 (a) applies here. Military jets legally fly in civilian airspace all the time and at much higher speeds than 250kts below 10,000 feet (the normal pattern speed of an F-18 is 300 kts). They also routinely fly below 500 feet in full compliance with their own regulations in civilian airspace. In Cold Lake and Bagotville their flying area is mostly in civilian airspace and they fly tactically below 500 feet at 420 kts or faster. In Germany they regularly flew directly over small towns at that altitude and speed because there were so many of them they couldn't possible go around them all. All completely legal.

That being said, military pilots are also expected to exercise common sense, and more than one guy has stood at attention in front of his CO's desk for doing stupid stuff.

LH · Post by LH » Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:43 pm

Bam Bam -------yes you may operate as you please UP TO A CERTAIN POINT. Try coming into Winnipeg Intn'l Airport or any other Canadian airport unannounced, 200'-300' "off the deck" and at 300 kts and "your ass will be grass and some "governing body" inside or outside the CAF will be dealing with you. Do it when I'M on approach and don't know you are there and we'll have our own "fireside chat" once I'm able to identify who you are........bet on that.

There once was a military "wargames" excercise conducted out of Prince George, BC in 1981. During the course of that exercise an F-18 driver decided he was going to have a "brain cramp" and decided he's fly down a place called the Sukunka Valley, just south of Chetwynd, BC at 500'off the trees and in excess of an admitted to 800MPH. In the course of doing so (with no lights of any sort on) I got caught in his vortex on my approach to landing. Briefly put, he may have THOUGHT and BELIEVED that he was invincible from civilian regs and lawyers, but he found out quite different.

One may do many things while flying a military a/c that the civilian population of pilots couldn't do or wouldn't be allowed to do, BUT when you are in the same airspace as a multitude of different types of civilian a/c you do those things "at your own peril". I've been on the military side and there are loads of "wannabes" just waiting for some idiot to put his brain in idle so that they can take his seat.

F-18 Pilot gets a desk job

NARK - Head's Up Dude