Having been both in the 160th as an RLO and the National Guard as a -60 IP some random observations.
1. There is a stigma attached to the National Guard that is can have a basis in truth, but in many cases, particularly in units with specialised skills such as aviation units is unfounded. The National Guard unit I flew with had a level of experience that would have rivaled the 160th. Sometimes with experience, however, comes the "r" word- responsibility. The responsibility to say "Not today". My Guard unit had an OR and mission completion rate when we deployed that blew away active duty units, and we did so without damaging any airframes. Yet this was not because we launched in dangerous weather conditions, it was because we were experienced enough and worked together long enough that we could plan in execute mission safely and much quicker than our active duty counterparts who felt the need to do rock drills and long mission briefs every time they flew; yet we also knew when to say "this is too much".
We did cancel missions that did not meet specific parameters. We had a check and balance- if a mission hit a certain risk level, someone higher in the "food chain" had to sign off on it. We did turn back when encountering sand storms. In some cases aircraft climbed up and hit Basra for the ILS. In another case we did a mission a few times, but doing it was at the extreme end of the crew day in tough conditions (NVGs with body armor for about 9 hours in hot weather), and could not be safely sustainable for an entire year. So we passed it off to fixed wing assets for which it was better suited.
My Guard unit even did Ranger training missions at times, both in the mountains and in Florida. Again, these missions were treated no different from others. It met the safety parameters or it didn't go. It probably helped that we had other former 160th crews, crews that saw combat before 9/11 (even some Viet Nam pilots), so we had nothing to prove. We were mostly airline, EMS, police and corporate pilots who were exposed to civilian safety cultures as well.
2. The Army has a risk assessment process and it broke down in this mission- that is probably what the disobeying a direct order part was about. I don't have the weather forecast, but I assume it was less than 1000/3 which meant for an NVG overwater mission it would probably have needed the first O-4, possibly O-5 to sign off on it. At best. Yet two crews launched. I'm sure the AMC in chalk two was some LT who looked at the experienced crew in lead and went along. It should have been the flight lead telling the AMC they needed to CXL and try the next day. Shame on them. Unfortunately I can guarantee this was not the first mission where something like this happened, but nothing was done.
Kudos to the PIC in chalk 2 for saying "Heck with this" and not following lead into the bay.
3. Once they were in the bay flight lead messed up again by trying to maintain visual. Again, I don't get it. Punch in and recover. I assume this was a -60M since it had an autopilot. Good grief.
4. The military, particularly aviation, needs to look at the culture on the civilian side and see what they can learn and incorporate. I can say from experience that simulator training, for example, was worthless in the Army when compared to the airlines. IIMC should be a "LOFT" event for every RW aircrew in the simulator every year.
Yes, I've been there. But that was as a young LT when the senior pilots went along and I was riding the train. I remember breaking out of a fog bank over downtown Seoul and seeing the tops of apartment buildings above me sticking in the clouds. When I became a "salty" WO, however, I looked at the young pilots and realized I would have to be the one to say "No", and I had to know THEIR limits as well as my limits. Again, I was lucky enough to serve in a Guard unit surrounded with like minded senior pilots. We did not always see eye-to-eye, but I would serve with them again if given a chance.
The military is risky. Aviation is risky. Combine military, aviation and the sea and it's really risky. But we need to balance risk versus reward. The military needs to be able to look into the eyes of the parents, wives, sons and daughters of those lost and tell them that we will learn from this and won't needlessly sacrifice our greatest national treasure in the future.
