FlyBoyd

They distribute FNAEB results at Walmart?

Copy that...bad/misleading post on my part. Scuttlebutt is they sea lawyered until the FNAEB. I was wondering if they had handled it better when confronted initially, if it might not have made it to a FNAEB or the result of the FNAEB would have been different.

LivingInMEM

The reports that I have seen have seen have statements such as this one: "The pilots reported the low pass themselves upon landing and the Navy convened the evaluation board immediately to determine if the officers violated FAA and Navy rules."

That doesn't matter anyway because the Admiral did not cite their actions after the incident, he cited their actions during the incident. If the charge was lying to the boards, they would have been cited for that.

Here is how our previous REAL leaders (the ones that actually won wars) treated aggressive fighter pilots. This account is from Wikipedia, but you can read it better in "General Kenney Reports" in the General's own words. On June 12, 1942, Bong flew very low over ("buzzed") a house in nearby San Anselmo, the home of a pilot who had just been married. He was cited and temporarily grounded for breaking flying rules, along with three other P-38 pilots who had looped around the Golden Gate Bridge on the same day.[1] For looping the Golden Gate Bridge, for flying at low level down Market Street in San Francisco and for blowing the clothes off of an Oakland woman's clothesline, Bong was reprimanded by General George C. Kenney, commanding officer of the Fourth Air Force, who told him, "If you didn't want to fly down Market Street, I wouldn't have you in my Air Force, but you are not to do it any more and I mean what I say." Kenney later wrote: "We needed kids like this lad."[2]

BDGERJMN

They do indeed, in the greeting card section, sometimes I wander over that way from my 'post' at the door stacking carts and asking to look in your bag on the way out.

I'd say the scuttlebutt is just that...then again what do I know, I work at Wal-mart.

USMCFLYR

So true...and then came the likes of people LCDR Stacy Bates.
Starfire Tor: Navy F-14 Crash News Reports

The actions of a few affect the lives of many.
We called it "controlled agression". Do it when the situation warrants it; rein it in when it does not.
I don't remember the days (and I don't think you were around then either LIM) but you do know what the outcome of some unbriefed BFM would be nowdays - yet in the not too distant past - it was some of the best training out there!
Currently - if a midair occurs during BFM they want to make new and improved A/A training rules, even though the crews violated 5 of the existing A/A training rules.

USMCFLYR

Grumble

I owe my life, many times over to one of those guys. He kept me off the ramp many, MANY times during my nugget combat cruise. Talk about throwing your best and brightest under the bus.

I will never again do a fly over. Some of the greatest memories of my career thus far have been supporting events like this with squadron mates on a weekend, but the best you can do anymore is break even.

bunk22

Good story but very hard to compare WWII era with today. Pilots got away with so much in those days regardless. Luckily Bong wasn't grounded for good, he wouldn't have become America's leading fighter ace otherwise.

Deuce130

Let's say for a second they didn't get grounded for intentionally violating the rules for this particular incident. What incidents SHOULD get you grounded? What flying rules do some of you think it's OK to break and get away with before you get grounded?

LivingInMEM

Deuce - they didn't get grounded, they lost their aeronautical orders for good. You think that was appropriate? Don't forget, these are fighter pilots who will eventually be flying against an enemy that will likely be numerically superior the way we are going. Not everyone gets to wait until it's a permissive or semi-permissive environment before they go in.

Let me put it like this, I flew fighters and all fighter pilots are not equal. I don't know if you fly Hercs anymore - but, if I were a Herc driver and had to make a blind choice of who would be my OCA, I'd take these two guys over many others. Your Herc brethren may like to know that, when THEIR life is in danger due to the Su-27/35 threat (AA-11's/AA-12's/etc), it's the guy who is used to taking risks that is more likely to poke his nose into the fight. Do you really think that the guy who spends a career doing nothing but protecting his wings is suddenly not going to protect his life? Ignorance is bliss until the aircrews start dying.

Bunk - WWII was different - men were men and officers were leaders. Oh, and they flew with recips rather than jets (until the end of the war, at least). Other than that, what's different. The Admiral and the General are both responsible for maintaining combat forces, the General maintained his and the Admiral helped undercut his.

Deuce130

LiM, I do think the permanent grounding is too harsh, as I said in an earlier post. Yes, I'm still flying MC-130s in the Reserves. I'm not sure I follow your logic. I wouldn't call doing things day in and day out the right way, legally and safely, "protecting your wings." I'd call it doing the things you're supposed to do, the way it's supposed to be done. There's a time and a place for risks and I've hung it out myself against the rules - but, it's always been in the AOR, with a mission or lives in the balance. Not for a fly-by. As for who would I want protecting me? Truly, it's the guy I can trust to be there. Who did what they said they're were going to do, who was where he said he would be. Guys who make up their own rules as they go along or for their own convenience can't always be trusted, IMO. I do not consider intentionally violating an altitude restriction "risk-taking." Frankly, if everyone flew how ever the he** they wanted, whenever they wanted, it'd be freakin' chaos. It's probably going to be very easy for you to paint my post as uptight, pro-establishment, limp-wristed, SNAPishness...go ahead. Simply put, I don't find intentional flight violations anything to be proud of, nor is it an indication that to do so makes you a better fighter pilot or that you can be counted on when the flag goes up. I don't see why I should draw the conclusion that these two guys would be any quicker to risk their lives in combat than you any other fighter pilot.

bunk22

I know what they flew in WWII thank you very much. I read books too you know. What's different is self-explanatory. Different times today, there is a zero tolerance policy. Does it make it right? No but it is what it is. If the fly-by height is 1000' and you fly it at 500' you take your chances. You made your bed so to speak. Like Deuce said, there is a time and place for everything. There is no need to hang it all out for a fly-by or for a training mission. Saving men on the ground is a time to hang it all out there. Do I think these guys should have lost their wings? Hell no but again, they knew what the rules were and took their chances. Why push it in a fly-by? What does it gain? Might look $hiit hot but you don't look so $hiit hot flying a desk after the fact.