USAFA Fleet Grounded Again

I caught the last few seconds of a report from a C. Springs TV station
last night. So stunned to actually see gliders on TV I didn't catch the
full gist of the story. Here's the Gazette's
http://www.gazette.com/display.php?sid=899540
Makes me wonder why club owned Blaniks aren't falling out of the sky the
world over (and yet Zoomies are nearly ripping their wings off). ;-)

Shawn

Shawn Curry wrote:
I caught the last few seconds of a report from a C. Springs TV station
last night. So stunned to actually see gliders on TV I didn't catch the
full gist of the story. Here's the Gazette's
http://www.gazette.com/display.php?sid=899540
Makes me wonder why club owned Blaniks aren't falling out of the sky the
world over (and yet Zoomies are nearly ripping their wings off). ;-)

Looks like a procedural thing to me. Military is very big on tool
control and maintenance records, and those seem to be out of whack,
according to the article.

Shawn Curry wrote:

(and yet Zoomies are nearly ripping their wings off).

What are you inferring here?

The referenced article says nothing about aircraft structural failure
nor does it address questionable flying operations other than related
maintenance concerns.

FWIW, during my involvement with this flying program in each of the
last two decades, the maintenance of the gliders and towplanes was not
performed by military personnel but contracted out to non-military
vendors.

My assumption is that club-owned Blaniks are also not maintained by
military personnel.

So what?

I commend the Air Force Academy's actions to take the actions they
deem necessary to ensure the safety of the Cadets in their charge. To
do otherwise would be both fiscally and morally irresponsible. There
have been several past USAFA soaring accidents to include cadet
fatalities [even when the cadet(s) was flying with a qualified Air
Force Instructor Pilot(s)] which were directly attributed to poor
aircraft design, questionable maintenance procedures, and training
beyond the scope of that necessary to fulfil the objective of the
introductory nature of the soaring program at the United States Air
Force Academy (USAFA). If I may clear up a common misconception, Cadet
involvement in the USAFA soaring program is not considered a formal
part of U.S. Air Force Undergraduate Flight Training (UPT). Those
USAFA Cadets medically qualified have the opportunity to request
assignment to UPT upon graduation from that accredited academic
institution (i.e., college, not military flight school).

These are not fighter pilots flying gliders at the Air Force Academy.
These are college students--a select few of which who just may become
such after at least two years of intense formal flight training in jet
aircraft.

So, in reality, the USAFA soaring program is actually not all that
dissimilar from a club operation albeit on a much larger scale
(~10,000 sorties/year) and arguably on a more regimented and
structured degree.

Lastly, I don't quite understand the propensity of those via this
forum who given the opportunty cast dispersion upon the Academy, its
programs, or its students every time a blurb about its soaring program
makes the local news. As a taxpayer whose funds support all the
aforementioned, I (for one) would prefer that necessary precautions
are taken to protect my investment in the future leaders of our Air
Force and the country. Yes, club Blaniks will continue to be flown
all day long without ever being exposed to such a high degree of
scrutiny. However, I dare say that not every club Blanik is purchased
and maintained by taxpayer dollars, and that not every club member is
receiving a $250,000 government sponsored academic scholarship with
the potential to then receive a million-dollars worth of *formal*
flight training to, in turn, then be given the responsibility to
operate a $25 million dollar jet aircraft in the defense of our
national objectives.

So let's be respectful of the reasoning behind the positions taken by
the Academy's leadership, give 'em a break, and be thankful that you
can go fly your club ships without consideration to such a high level
of public visibilty and bureaucratic B.S.

RD

rjciii wrote:

Shawn Curry wrote:


(and yet Zoomies are nearly ripping their wings off).


What are you inferring here?

The referenced article says nothing about aircraft structural failure
nor does it address questionable flying operations other than related
maintenance concerns.

Snip unnecessarily defensive rant

No. A cadet overstressed a glider and jumped-old news.
The buck stops with the Academy. Who oversees the contractor
maintaining the ships? Who oversees the cadets who get into trouble and
have to jump?
I guess what it really comes down to is the tax payers. I don't like
the way the way the Academy appears to be managing this valuable
program. As a tax payer, I do have a right to express my disapproval
(at least for now) and expect the Academy to be accountable. This being
a glider forum, I suspected some people would be interested in more news
about the Academy program.
The length of previous threads would support this assumption (e.g.
http://tinyurl.com/25as4 ).

Shawn

Shawn Curry wrote:

I don't like the way the way the Academy appears to be managing this
valuable program.

So now I'm confused as to your position in this matter.

Are you more concerned with how maintenance on the Academy's aircraft
is documented and the management of such documentation, or are you
more concerned about the cessation of flying once discrepancies in the
documentation were discovered?

And, by the way, what does either of these concerns have to do with a
Cadet overstressing an aircraft at some point in the past?

As far as fiscal concern, tell me which of the following ails you:

1. The internal audit that uncovered maintenance documentation concern
was unnecessary and a waste of taxpayer money, or

2. The organizational self-imposed cessation of flying until the
maintenance paperwork is brought up to military standards is a waste
of taxpayer money, or

3. Bitching about something that really doesn't concern you somehow
makes you feel superior (or at least less inferior) to those enrolled
in a highly demanding and highly selective institution that most
people can't even remotely be considered for much less graduated from.

Can't help you much if the answer is #3., but if your position is best
decribed as either #1. and/or #2. above, I ask you to consider what,
then, would you as a taxpayer prefer the Academy do? Not document
aircraft maintenance? No, that would be silly, wouldn't it? So would
you prefer the Academy not scrutinize maintenance documentation? And
if any documentation decrepancies are found should they just blow it
off and press ahead with the flying as if nothing was remiss?

It seems to me that the Academy is managing this situation no
differently than you or I or any FBO or the FAA would do should an
aircraft's maintenance records be determined suspect. Don't fly the
plane until the paperwork is straightened out.

Since you don't like the way this "valuable program" is being managed,
I encourage you to send your opinions to the Superintendent. Be sure
to include suggestions on how you would do it better. I'm sure he'll
give it the attention such insightfulness deserves.

Cadets ripping their [sic] wings off, indeed!

RD

rjciii wrote:
Shawn Curry wrote:


I don't like the way the way the Academy appears to be managing this
valuable program.


So now I'm confused as to your position in this matter.

Are you more concerned with how maintenance on the Academy's aircraft
is documented and the management of such documentation, or are you
more concerned about the cessation of flying once discrepancies in the
documentation were discovered?

Not interested in multiple choice.
Of course if discrepancies are found they must be dealt with.
There have already been two groundings of a new fleet of gliders with an
established, world-wide track record. That's why I said "I don't like
the way the way the Academy appears to be managing this valuable
program." Its a simple program really. These aren't B2s we're talking
about. Is that clear enough?
As for the L-33 accident, my understanding was that the cadet was
outside the flight envelope. S/he should have known better, because
S/he should have been instructed to. Another Academy issue.

Shawn

I doubt we'll see common ground on this issue.

Snip

...operate a $25 million dollar jet aircraft in the defense of our national objectives.

WTF? You don't mean 757s do you?

Do you mean "In defense of our nation from all foes foreign and
domestic" or something like that, maybe defense of the Constitution?
I used to believe our "national objectives" involved economic growth,
better health care, and educating poor kids in Five Points. Silly me.

Shawn

Shawn Curry wrote:

...operate a $25 million dollar jet aircraft in the defense of our national objectives.

WTF? You don't mean 757s do you?

No Shawn. Actually, I was trying to make an estimate of the cost of
an F-16 ($26.9 million FY98).
I am not aware of any 757s in the U.S. Air Force inventory (yet).

If your remark is a slight about an Academy grad leaving the Air Force
after honorable serving out his training commitment and applying his
learned skill to an airline job:

1. How is that any different than ROTC grad engineer type doing the
same and mustering out to a job at a Denver Construction firm?
(It's not.)

2. What's wrong with it?
(Nothing--taxpayers paid are back in full for the educational
expenditure. BTW, the payback is over 10 years of active duty service
now--much of the time living forward deployed in tent cities in
hostile foreign environments in wartime conditions.)

3. And why is it any business of yours?
(It damn sure ain't.)

4. And what does all this have to do with recreational soaring?
(Nothing. But your now two egregious statements against Air Force
Academy Cadets/Graduates begs retort. I would not have been compelled
to get involved if only you would have exercised some discretion and
not made a snide, unrelated, and untrue comment about Cadets ripping
the wings off of aircraft. Let's just stick to the script, shall we.)

Do you mean "In defense of our nation from all foes foreign and
domestic" or something like that, maybe defense of the Constitution?

As opposed to teaching underpriviledged kids to read by strafing them?
As opposed to increasing the GDP by transporting chocolat bars to
Afganistan?
Yes, of course I meant in defense of our nation--which has always been
the prime national objective.
Yes, indeed--silly you!

RD

rjciii wrote:

Shawn Curry wrote:


...operate a $25 million dollar jet aircraft in the defense of our national objectives.

WTF? You don't mean 757s do you?


No Shawn. Actually, I was trying to make an estimate of the cost of
an F-16 ($26.9 million FY98).
I am not aware of any 757s in the U.S. Air Force inventory (yet).

If your remark is a slight about an Academy grad leaving the Air Force
after honorable serving out his training commitment and applying his
learned skill to an airline job:

Wow! How can you get off the ground with that chip on your shoulder. I
didn't even allude to such a spectacular twisting of my words.
Didn't know you flew 757s. Cool with me. (Is the green showing through
:-) )
1) My first breath was in a military hospital.
2) My father would be a Vietnam vet if he had survived the war (and I
respect him and ALL vets, war or not)
3) I grew up in the Springs going to Graduations and riding my bike
around the base. I didn't pursue the USAFA when I was a kid because
back then, if you didn't have 20/20 vision, there was no chance to fly
F-16s.


3. And why is it any business of yours?
(It damn sure ain't.)\

Right, and frankly Ray I don't need you to tell me now.

4. And what does all this have to do with recreational soaring?
(Nothing. But your now two egregious statements against Air Force
Academy Cadets/Graduates begs retort.

No, not cadets (OK one, who shouldn't have pulled so aggressively above
Va), not the Grads. The staff/command that can't keep the program in
the air.

I would not have been compelled
to get involved if only you would have exercised some discretion and
not made a snide, unrelated, and untrue comment about Cadets ripping
the wings off of aircraft. Let's just stick to the script, shall we.)

Here's a snip from the report I read:

3. AVIATION CLASS A MISHAPS UNDER INVESTIGATION:
3.1. TG-10D, 18 OCT 02
THE MISHAP PILOT (MP) (CADET) WAS CONDUCTING A SOLO TRANSITION SORTIE
FOR QUALIFICATION TRAINING PURPOSES. THE PROFILE WAS TO CONSIST
PRIMARILY OF SPIN TRAINING. AFTER COMPLETING THE SPIN ACTIVITY THE MP
INITIATED A HIGH-SPEED PASS IN PREPARATION/PRACTICE FOR A STADIUM
FLYOVER TO BE ACCOMPLISHED THE FOLLOWING DAY. THE MP PUSHED THE NOSE
OVER AND ACCELERATED TO APPROXIMATELY 100 KNOTS. HE THEN PULLED AN
ESTIMATED 3 G'S TO RECOVER FROM THE DIVE. AS THE MP RELAXED BACK
PRESSURE TOWARDS THE NEUTRAL POSITION, APPROXIMATELY 6 FEET OF THE LEFT
WING FOLDED OVER THE TOP OF THE WING.
Told ya so :-P
TG-10D = L-33 Solo. That's what it has to do with recreational soaring.

Yes, of course I meant in defense of our nation--which has always been
the prime national objective.

Let me quote a few more lines from the federal government.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
common defense, ..."
Looks like defense is #4

Don't know where "Common offense" comes in. W is fixing that I guess.
The parallel between W and Hitler and the early Nazi Party is frightening.
There can I invoke Godwin's and we'll call it a day?

Shawn

Shawn Curry wrote:

Wow! How can you get off the ground with that chip on your shoulder.

Hey, I'm not the one that "coulda, woulda, shoulda" and takes cheap
shots at those who did.

Perhaps one might now realize that there is at least one person
perusing this public forum that will not let tactless jabs against the
U.S. Air Force Academy, its soaring program, its Cadets, or its
graduates go unchecked. The Academy's soaring program is generally a
good, safe operation (especially considering the fleet count, number
of sorties, and variation in flying) that, by far, cranks out more new
glider pilots and potential long term participants in the sport than
any other program in this country and most probably in the world.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
common defense [sic], ..."
Looks like defense is #4

The use of commas to separate items in series does not denote any
weighting or degree of importance as to any one item's placement
within the series. The commas used in such a series can be
interpreted as "and".
Use of semicolons would denote a greater degree of separation to
convey the idea of an order of precedence or importance.

If your logic held true, then defence [the British variation of the
word as it is spelled in the preamble] would take priority over
promoting the general Welfare and securing the Blessings of Liberty.

I must therefore respectfully disagree with your assumption that
providing for the defense of our nation is any more or less important
that any other Constitutional directive.

My apology to those international users of this forum for the
tangential domestic politico-philosophical discussion.

RD