Helicopters Over DC Protesters Broke Regulations While Commander was Driving Home, DC Guard Concludes

[Ian_J]

I have issue with that. As a line pilot you shouldn't blindly follow what dispatch tells you to do. For a crew to do a crowd dispersal maneuver, at night, in a medevac helicopter, alarm bells should have been going off in their heads from a safety stand point, at a minimum. The fact that a military asset was being turned against peaceful civilians is horrific and the crew should have sensed something was up and not do what they did.




That could very well be the case, but the crew should know better. 'I was just following orders' isn't a valid excuse and as stated alarm bells should have been going off in their heads.

With the leadership piece, I am sure that played a very large part in all of this and don't disagree with you there.

I’ll also add I am a huge fan of our responsibility to refuse immoral and unethical orders. It’s a cornerstone of why we’re supposed to be a professional military. It’s just that given the few facts I know of this event, it doesn’t appear to me to unethical or immoral from what I’d expect the crew to know.

 

[jynxyjoe]

I’ll also add I am a huge fan of our responsibility to refuse immoral and unethical orders. It’s a cornerstone of why we’re supposed to be a professional military. It’s just that given the few facts I know of this event, it doesn’t appear to me to unethical or immoral from what I’d expect the crew to know.

At the risk of making you reexplain it *deep breath* The regs you're working under have enough grey (have enough leeway) to allow a crew to do this particular hover maneuver? This is something that can be ordered and you can follow that order without conflict on the regs. *crosses wingers while wincing*

 

[USMCmech]

I’ll also add I am a huge fan of our responsibility to refuse immoral and unethical orders. It’s a cornerstone of why we’re supposed to be a professional military. It’s just that given the few facts I know of this event, it doesn’t appear to me to unethical or immoral from what I’d expect the crew to know.

We all have the responsibility to refuse immoral or unethical orders. However, "this is going to look really bad on MSNBC" doesn't fall under that category. I can easily see those pilots saying "Yes Sir" then walking to their ship and saying to each other "How are we going to do this without wrecking anything or hurting anyone?"

I have issue with that. As a line pilot you shouldn't blindly follow what dispatch tells you to do. For a crew to do a crowd dispersal maneuver, at night, in a medevac helicopter, alarm bells should have been going off in their heads from a safety stand point, at a minimum.

Flying a helicopter down a that low isn't a red flag, especially for military crews. I've seen the videos and he wasn't much closer to those buildings than normal medevac birds are when landing at hospital pads. Defiantly riskier than normal operations but hardly airshow stunt work.

 

[Seggy]

Flying a helicopter down a that low isn't a red flag, especially for military crews. I've seen the videos and he wasn't much closer to those buildings than normal medevac birds are when landing at hospital pads. Defiantly riskier than normal operations but hardly airshow stunt work.

Easy to say now, but if a tree limb snapped, went flying and hurt/killed people, the crew would have been asked, "Why did you fly so low near an urban area outside of a designated and cleared operating area."

'Oh, you were given orders? Did the orders say to fly that low over an urban area in an area that might have objects that can go flying and hurt people?'

and so on and so forth...

 

[SteveC]

Easy to say now, but if a tree limb snapped, went flying and hurt/killed people, the crew would have been asked, "Why did you fly so low near an urban area outside of a designated and cleared operating area."

'Oh, you were given orders? Did the orders say to fly that low over an urban area in an area that might have objects that can go flying and hurt people?'

and so on and so forth...

Sometimes I think you enjoy talking more than listening.

I’ve been guilty of that too, though, so it looks like you’re in good company.

 

[Ian_J]

At the risk of making you reexplain it *deep breath* The regs you're working under have enough grey (have enough leeway) to allow a crew to do this particular hover maneuver? This is something that can be ordered and you can follow that order without conflict on the regs. *crosses wingers while wincing*

There’s really two separate issues in play here. One, the approval for the operation (in general) itself. I detailed all that above, but none of those approvals/regulations really deal with an altitude over a crowd except they can essentially waive 91.119 and other altitude Regs.

The other is the briefing and approving process I’ve referenced a few times but really haven’t gone into detail about. I haven’t gone into detail because we have no clue how that process worked in this case. My guess is that it was abbreviated and didn’t come close to risk mitigation solutions that is expected. But that’s a guess. Regardless, the purpose of the briefing/approving process is to do a deep dive into the specifics of the mission, identify risks, mitigate those risks, and have a competent authority literally sign off on those risks and the mission as a whole.

From an aircrew perspective, and assuming the approvals were received (or they were told as much) and assuming a hasty and weak brief/approve process: there is no written task for “crowd dispersion” in a manual. There is also no data in the manual about at what hover height may break branches and cause injury to people. If they happen to also do rescue hoist operations they might know hoisting at 100 ft is better than 25 because at 25 it’s brutal on the person on the ground. But at what point is too low is a complete guess. This was a Lakota which is pretty light so maybe it’s no big deal. I don’t know. I also don’t know if a medevac configured Lakota has single engine hover capability or not. A medevac Blackhawk most likely would not.

To more directly answer your specific question, if a crewmember thinks a mission is unsafe, especially while not in combat, it’s absolutely their duty to bring it up, mitigate it, or even refuse it. Whether or not this specific mission meets that threshold for an average crewmember, I don’t know.

 

[jynxyjoe]

There’s really two separate issues in play here. One, the approval for the operation (in general) itself. I detailed all that above, but none of those approvals/regulations really deal with an altitude over a crowd except they can essentially waive 91.119 and other altitude Regs.

The other is the briefing and approving process I’ve referenced a few times but really haven’t gone into detail about. I haven’t gone into detail because we have no clue how that process worked in this case. My guess is that it was abbreviated and didn’t come close to risk mitigation solutions that is expected. But that’s a guess. Regardless, the purpose of the briefing/approving process is to do a deep dive into the specifics of the mission, identify risks, mitigate those risks, and have a competent authority literally sign off on those risks and the mission as a whole.

From an aircrew perspective, and assuming the approvals were received (or they were told as much) and assuming a hasty and weak brief/approve process: there is no written task for “crowd dispersion” in a manual. There is also no data in the manual about at what hover height may break branches and cause injury to people. If they happen to also do rescue hoist operations they might know hoisting at 100 ft is better than 25 because at 25 it’s brutal on the person on the ground. But at what point is too low is a complete guess. This was a Lakota which is pretty light so maybe it’s no big deal. I don’t know. I also don’t know if a medevac configured Lakota has single engine hover capability or not. A medevac Blackhawk most likely would not.

To more directly answer your specific question, if a crewmember thinks a mission is unsafe, especially while not in combat, it’s absolutely their duty to bring it up, mitigate it, or even refuse it. Whether or not this specific mission meets that threshold for an average crewmember, I don’t know.

Seems like a lot more than what a news article is going to get into. Thats why we leave this stuff yo the pros and not the jynxyjoes of the world.

 

[deadstick]

There’s really two separate issues in play here. One, the approval for the operation (in general) itself. I detailed all that above, but none of those approvals/regulations really deal with an altitude over a crowd except they can essentially waive 91.119 and other altitude Regs.

The other is the briefing and approving process I’ve referenced a few times but really haven’t gone into detail about. I haven’t gone into detail because we have no clue how that process worked in this case. My guess is that it was abbreviated and didn’t come close to risk mitigation solutions that is expected. But that’s a guess. Regardless, the purpose of the briefing/approving process is to do a deep dive into the specifics of the mission, identify risks, mitigate those risks, and have a competent authority literally sign off on those risks and the mission as a whole.

From an aircrew perspective, and assuming the approvals were received (or they were told as much) and assuming a hasty and weak brief/approve process: there is no written task for “crowd dispersion” in a manual. There is also no data in the manual about at what hover height may break branches and cause injury to people. If they happen to also do rescue hoist operations they might know hoisting at 100 ft is better than 25 because at 25 it’s brutal on the person on the ground. But at what point is too low is a complete guess. This was a Lakota which is pretty light so maybe it’s no big deal. I don’t know. I also don’t know if a medevac configured Lakota has single engine hover capability or not. A medevac Blackhawk most likely would not.

To more directly answer your specific question, if a crewmember thinks a mission is unsafe, especially while not in combat, it’s absolutely their duty to bring it up, mitigate it, or even refuse it. Whether or not this specific mission meets that threshold for an average crewmember, I don’t know.

My former employer had an EMS-configured EC145 (IIRC a C-2), and it was not Cat A “fly-away” capable. Maybe when it was empty, but not with the standard equipment.

 

[Seggy]

Sometimes I think you enjoy talking more than listening.

I’ve been guilty of that too, though, so it looks like you’re in good company.

I have learned a lot from the members on here. One thing I have learned is just because it is legal, doesn't make it safe/good decision. That is pertinent to what happened with this helicopter.

The fact is a national asset was used to disperse peaceful protestors in a highly questionable aviation maneuver and I believe, which I can do, heads need to roll over this.

 

[Ian_J]

I have learned a lot from the members on here. One thing I have learned is just because it is legal, doesn't make it safe/good decision. That is pertinent to what happened with this helicopter.

I hope it doesn’t seem like I’m arguing that point. That concept should be foremost in the minds of any professional aviator. Here’s what I think:

- Overall decision to launch helicopters to provide situational awareness and medical support. Good.
- Decision to use those helicopters to disperse protestors. Bad.
- The brief/approval process. Terrible.
- The medevac helicopter oversight. Incompetent.
- The flight crew’s decision (the Blackhawk) to hover at a 100 feet. Probably not unsafe. Terrible optics. Terrible PR. Unamerican.
- The flight crew’s decision (the Lakota) to hover at 50 feet. Maybe unsafe. Really terrible optics and PR. Very Unamerican.

The fact is a national asset was used to disperse peaceful protestors in a highly questionable aviation maneuver and I believe, which I can do, heads need to roll over this.

The investigation is still ongoing, apparently hung up with the DOD IG. I’m really hoping they come with some solid details outside of “Wingblade screwed up the General’s intent.” If heads roll, I’m hoping it’s at some pretty high levels.

 

[Nark]

@Seggy just so we are on the same page: how many burnt buildings/cars and smashed windows does it take to go from a “peaceful” protest, to civil insurrection? I’ll need to know, because I’m one of the guys that responds when the governor ask’s for help.
@Seggy who was fired at Colgan, when Marvin Renslow killed 49 others, due to his incompetence? Was the last checkairmen who signed him off to fly the line fired, was the sim checkairmen fired for passing him? I want to know why in one situation that got 50 people killed, you haven’t or don’t call for heads to roll, yet in another, a situation you are extremely ignorant of, you are calling for the Spanish Inquisition.

 

[Nark]

@MikeFavinger :
Are the troops standing in line pushing back the “protestors” UnAmerican?

 

[Ian_J]

@MikeFavinger :
Are the troops standing in line pushing back the “protestors” UnAmerican?

Yeah. I injected too much opinion in that post. This question leads down a rabbit hole of a lot of history, a lot of what ifs, and a lot of policy I’m not interested in getting into. I was doing a good job staying In my lane and went off the rails. Consider me counseled, Chief.

To not dodge your question, I’ll say it depends on the decisions those troops make in the heat of the moment, but it is more likely the decision makers who put them there in the first place might be unamerican.

That being said, I’ll try to stay out of this until I have more facts or get fact/experienced based questions.

Speaking of, as one of the few Guard pilots here, what’s your take on the application of the 40-3, 95-5, and the brief/approval process in this case? You made mention earlier of the Geneva Convention - is there something I missed in how I broke down the relevant regulations? I haven’t seen a reference to the Geneva Convention in relation to the use of medevac helicopters in the US and am always happy to fill up my tool kit.

 

[Nark]

We are the tactical technical experts, designed to keep commanders out of hot water.

Notably, the Geneva Conventions do not apply to civilians in non-wartime settings, nor do they generally have a place in dealing with domestic civil rights issues.

https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/when-does-the-geneva-convention-apply-31520

 

[deadstick]

I couldn’t find the post from when this happened regarding the unique chain-of-command trace for the DC Guard. I’m trying to remember whether this was already discussed. Does the DC ARNG operate under Title 32 at all, or are they always Title 10? I don’t think it’d matter in this case, but the GC discussion took me down that rabbit hole.

 

[Seggy]

I hope it doesn’t seem like I’m arguing that point. That concept should be foremost in the minds of any professional aviator. Here’s what I think:

- Overall decision to launch helicopters to provide situational awareness and medical support. Good.
- Decision to use those helicopters to disperse protestors. Bad.
- The brief/approval process. Terrible.
- The medevac helicopter oversight. Incompetent.
- The flight crew’s decision (the Blackhawk) to hover at a 100 feet. Probably not unsafe. Terrible optics. Terrible PR. Unamerican.
- The flight crew’s decision (the Lakota) to hover at 50 feet. Maybe unsafe. Really terrible optics and PR. Very Unamerican.



The investigation is still ongoing, apparently hung up with the DOD IG. I’m really hoping they come with some solid details outside of “Wingblade screwed up the General’s intent.” If heads roll, I’m hoping it’s at some pretty high levels.

I appreciate your response and opinions. Everything you said above is very much agreeable.

Thank you for that.

 

[Seggy]

@Seggy just so we are on the same page: how many burnt buildings/cars and smashed windows does it take to go from a “peaceful” protest, to civil insurrection? I’ll need to know, because I’m one of the guys that responds when the governor ask’s for help.

Stop clutching your pearls. They were peaceful protestors. Where are the burning cars in these pictures? The only thing I see damaged are trees from the rotorwash.

@Seggy who was fired at Colgan, when Marvin Renslow killed 49 others, due to his incompetence? Was the last checkairmen who signed him off to fly the line fired, was the sim checkairmen fired for passing him? I want to know why in one situation that got 50 people killed, you haven’t or don’t call for heads to roll, yet in another, a situation you are extremely ignorant of, you are calling for the Spanish Inquisition.

Actually many folks are rightfully no longer working in aviation, not by their choice, as a result of their incompetence leading up to the Colgan 3407 accident.

 

[Nark]

Stop clutching your pearls. They were peaceful protestors. Where are the burning cars in these pictures? The only thing I see damaged are trees from the rotorwash.

View attachment 56578

View attachment 56579
Actually many folks are rightfully no longer working in aviation, not by their choice, as a result of their incompetence leading up to the Colgan 3407 accident.

Those pictures show the helicopters did their intended job, don’t they?

I'm so glad that those "peaceful" protestors didn't laser any of the aircraft, oh wait...
I'm also glad those "peaceful" protestors didn't take shots at NG helicopters. Oh wait...

I'm so glad that I've carried dead soldiers home who fought for these a-holes to have the right to PEACEFULLY ASSEMBLE, only to be lasered, and shot at here in the US. I'm also extremely happy that we have had to come up with procedures to circumvent the FAR's in order to keep the crews safe from LITERAL attacks from fellow countrymen.

Guy, you are willfully ignorant of what we as National Guard pilots do. It is not like 91, 135 or 121. I have asked you several times what regulations were busted, and you had no idea what it takes to "dispatch" a flight. Ian had to state it, but that was lost on you. You don't like the optics: got it. We operate in area's well removed from your comfortable 737.

 

[jynxyjoe]

@Seggy just so we are on the same page: how many burnt buildings/cars and smashed windows does it take to go from a “peaceful” protest, to civil insurrection? I’ll need to know, because I’m one of the guys that responds when the governor ask’s for help.
@Seggy who was fired at Colgan, when Marvin Renslow killed 49 others, due to his incompetence? Was the last checkairmen who signed him off to fly the line fired, was the sim checkairmen fired for passing him? I want to know why in one situation that got 50 people killed, you haven’t or don’t call for heads to roll, yet in another, a situation you are extremely ignorant of, you are calling for the Spanish Inquisition.

Holy christ man.

 

[Ian_J]

We operate in area's well removed from your comfortable 737.

Comfortable 737? Let's try and deal with facts here, okay?