Originally Posted by
VAMC
I see you posting a lot about ATAC too.
I use to work there. Did you? I still have friends that work there. Do you?
None of the ATAC accidents occurred during tactical flying: They were all close to the airport during takeoff or landing, with nothing tactical going on.
The mission is tactical from the time you brief to the time you debrief. You maintina that professionalism throughout. What you mean is that they happened during the administrative portion of the flight vice any maneuvering portion - either air-to-air or air-to-ground.
My interest is in airplanes....and, the high number of accidents at this company that happen during basic flying phases, and why 3 good pilots were killed in the last 3 years by working there, after surviving 20+ years doing far more tactical and demanding flying in the military and in combat.
Because - as they told me in the interview - flying vintage tactical aircraft in tactical situations without some of the aids in modern strike fighter aircraft is dangerous. Have you ever seen the cockpits of the Hunter for example? Now try tactical flying, at night or in some poor weather, in formation, 100+ miles out over the ocean without the aid of any night vision googles - while maneuvering in and around other aircraft. And as you have noted - without incident. That is due to the professionals that they hire and the standards that they hold the aircrew too in the performance of every aspect of their missions.
When did ATAC have their first Class A VAMC? Do you know?
How many hours, missions, years did they have a Class A mishap free record? A hint.....it was longer than any USN/USMC squadron that I served in - - - and those mihaps were almost always the dreaded pilot error
Here are two that hit close to home:
Miramar-based F-18 jets collide in Oregon; 2 reported dead [Archive] - Marine Corps - USMC Community
Lemoore Pilot Killed in Crash a N.Y. Marine - Business News - redOrbit
All killed in 'Admin' portions of a tactical training flight - mid-airs with the lead aircraft. The first before they got to the range and the second after the KIO on the join-up to head home.
Can you explain what made those training missions in the fleet fighters more demanding and difficult than they are in the ATAC planes?
I flew almost all of the same type of missions without the aids of modern fighter conveinences (NVGs, Radar, RWR, FLIRs) and the planes demand more attention in some aspects than the modern fighters do too. You could get yourslef out of a few problems in 4th gen fighters with a simple stiff left arm - but you have to think further ahead in MIL only aircraft.
You point to the mishaps being admin. Minutes made the difference. Less than 5 minutes later and we would have been in the area taking the first 9-line. It is an unfortunate truth that many fleet mishaps happen in the admin phase of flight too. We talk about the let-down 'after the mission' and get complacent. For instance - after the KIO is usually once of the most dangerous times.
You are wrong about the Lortie crew. The ATAC Hunter maintainers who take care of daily flight operations are mostly ex-military (not all) but the Lortie maintainers who support ATAC's Hunters (rebuilding them, major maintenance, part overhauls, recurring inspections, engine rebuilding and overhauls, training, etc.) are not ex-military, and few of them have any professional aviation training or experience at all - according to Lortie representatives at ATAC.
That is what I said. If that is not what you meant in your original post, then your intent was unclear.
I appreciate you posting these NTSB reports. We can all learn from reading them. Unless you have some insider knowledge or experience with the operation though - your insinuations against the pilots and maintainers of the company itself is disrespectful. If you do - spell it out and quit beating around the bush.