On 12 Jul 2006 16:14:00 -0700, "FatKat" wrote in
.com::


Larry Dighera wrote:
On 12 Jul 2006 14:44:01 -0700, "Gordon" wrote in
. com::

Real fighter pilots have little in common with 'Maverick'; I remember
sitting in that movie with about a dozen other Navy flyers and the
concensus was that any "****BIRD" like him would be grounded and
drummed out.

If the verbal reprimand Lt. Conl. Parker received as a result of
leading his wingman into a fatal collision with a Cessna 172 over
Florida on November 16, 2000 is indicative of how the military
disciplines a pilot who entered congested Class B and C terminal
airspace at ~500 knots without the benefit of the required ATC
clearance, I'm unconvinced your statement above is accurate.

Hardly an adequate description of the outcome

Which, the death of the Cessna pilot, or the verbal reprimand as
fitting punishment?

and the initial assessment.

Initial assessment?

It appears that there was at least an issue as to how much
blame can be shouldered by Parker himself.

There were issues with Parker's navigation equipment and a rookie on
the ATC scope, neither of which contributed to Parker's decision to
descend into congested terminal airspace at high speed without the
required clearance. Parker was just betting on the big-sky-theory to
protect him and the others in along his route of flight.

The article below suggests
that there was a confusion of procedures as to the use of transponders
by multiple formations. At the very least the report also cited ATC.

The Pilot In Command is responsible for the safety of his flight, not
ATC. ATC wasn't providing separation at the time; parker had no ATC
clearance to descend into the Class B airspace. That wasn't ATC's
fault.

Was this a case of bad decisionmaking? For the sake of argument yes -
but not every bad decision elevates the one who makes it to the level
of Tom Cruise.

If Parker were a prudent pilot who followed regulations, he wouldn't
have made the reckless decision to enter terminal airspace without a
clearance. It's not very much different to me.

This was hardly hot-dogging;

Given that the maximum airspeed in airspace below 10,000' is
restricted below 250 knots normally, I would say traveling twice that
speed while performing G-shock maneuvers would come pretty close.

on the other hand, there
is the case of Richard Webb, who made a high-speed pass of San Luis
Obispo in a Super Hornet. Though the flight was otherwise uneventful,
Webb was stripped of flight status and reassigned to Qatar. Looks like
lean times for Mavericks everywhere.

http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Safet...perhornet.html


If this is what Webb said:

In regard to his unauthorized flyby, Webb wrote, "No respected
fighter pilot worth his salt can look me in the eye and tell me
they've never done the exact same thing."

Webb concluded that he was "not apologetic for what I did, and if
given the chance, I'd do the same thing again….

He was clearly a hazard in the sky, and grounding him was appropriate.


http://www.sptimes.com/2003/01/25/Ta..._F_16_pi.shtml

Parker's reckless and careless operation, on the other hand, resulted
in the destruction of a ~$30,000,000.00 airplane and the death of a
fellow airman, but General Rosa found a verbal reprimand appropriate.
Parker lost neither rank nor pay for the death and destruction he
caused.

Perhaps Navy justice is more just than Air Force justice.