![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 15:32:42 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote in :: [...] Thank you for the ejection example you cited. I am saddened to hear of the pilot's injuries. However, I never said ejection was without its hazards. And in the case of the November 16, 2000 MAC, there was no mention of any injuries to the pilot who ejected. I'm sure the Cessna pilot would have preferred to eject rather than meet the fate he did. That is my point: military pilots have an option other than see-and-avoid; they can exit the aircraft. I've never known a fighter pilot to have anything but respect for the potential of a midair -- more, in fact than the average transport pilot, and immensely more than the average light plane pilot, in my experience. That is a result of the limited set of fighter pilots with whom you have been in contact. You obviously hadn't known those military pilots involved in the four military/civil MACs whose NTSB links I posted. In 23 years in the fighter business I have lived, worked, fought wars with and watched fighter pilots die for their country. Thousands of them. Don't spout drivel about limited contact. You may have overlooked the fact, that I was responding to Jack's assertion, not yours. In any event, you misunderstand the issue I am attempting to raise. I do not have issues with military pilots generally, although those who were involved in the four MACs I cited seem to have violated regulations resulting in a MAC. We all have issues with airmen who violate regulations. It is the flawed system of permitting high-speed, low-level military operations within joint use airspace and expecting see-and-avoid exclusively to provide separation. That is irresponsible on the part of the FAA and military, and should be corrected. How would you characterize the respect for a potential midair demonstrated by Parker when he violated regulations by failing to brief terminal airspace, and dove into congested Class B and C airspace with the required ATC clearance? (I don't expect you to answer that, it would require some courage on your part.) I will take your failure to provide your opinion as requested above as concurrence with mine, that Parker's decisions were criminal. Apparently, all your "experience" was bought at the news stand, considering how little relevance your complaints have to the real world. If you consider NTSB and military accident reports, and eye witness reports unreliable, what information sources meet your criteria for relevance? Once again, after 23 years experience in the fighter business, I have read, been briefed, and face-to-face discussed hundreds of aircraft accidents with board members as well as participants. Every single aircraft accident results in an investigation and a board of inquiry. Almost all have a "corollary board" after the investigation board which determines culpability and liability. Some result in Flying Evaluation Boards which consider the qualifications and retention of the aviators. And some result in Courts-Martial when malfeasance is indicated by any of the investigations. Can you get that through your fixated civilian mentality? I don't question your experience nor qualifications to speak on this subject. What I find objectionable is your unwillingness to acknowledge the fact that a lethal problem exists, and your unwillingness to take action to remedy that. Do you know what action the military took against Parker? Was he court marshaled? Was he fined? Was he incarcerated for killing a civilian as a result of violating regulations? Was he made to pay restitution to the family of the pilot his actions killed? Was a corollary board convened? Are you able to speek with knowledge about the what the military did to Parker as a result of the death his actions caused? The invistagory actions you mention may be what ocurrs regularly, but in Parker's case, I have not heard of any of them except the board of inquiry report, and Parker's CO's statement that Parker would receive a verbal or written repremand. Do you have other information on that specific case? If not, then I respectfully submit, that the military does not adiquately repremand those pilots who are involved in military/civil fatal MACs as evidenced in this case. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
UBL wants a truce - he's scared of the CIA UAV | John Doe | Aviation Marketplace | 1 | January 19th 06 08:58 PM |
The kids are scared, was Saddam evacuated | D. Strang | Military Aviation | 0 | April 7th 04 10:36 PM |
Scared and trigger-happy | John Galt | Military Aviation | 5 | January 31st 04 12:11 AM |