USCG pilot in fatal mishap facing court martial

[Qutch]

This isn't new, it cyclic. Read Robin Olds book and see what he was saying the 60's, same sort of thing. I know folks always say we are at war but we really are not AT WAR. It's a contained conflict and the majority of the military operates as a peace time military and we know what happens in a peace time military.

We have peace?

 

[bunk22]

We have peace?

Peace is relative. We are not engaged in a large conflict and thus the majority of the military carry's on as if in a peace time military.

I was just thinking, if it has been over a year, the JAGMAN investigation is complete and that investigation offers opinions and recommendations as to the cause of the mishap, the blame, etc. I am conducting a JAGMAN investigation as of right now into the last T-45C mishap. The information provided by the JAGMAN is not privledged and thus is accessible. All of this could be based on the recomendations of that investigation.

 

[HeyEng]

And people wonder why *I* won't accept some risks that other may take. The job we do in military aviation is dangerous...it's not safe, but we do what we can to mitigate the larger and perhaps unacceptable risks. Maintenance gets pissed as hell when I tell them they have to fix something that I know deep-down doesn't amount to a hill of beans...BUT you go out and have a mishap then the games begin...and it's a game that an individual has a tough time winning. To me, this is sad...what is the purpose of CRIMINAL charges? To set an example? All it does for me is solidify the fact that Uncle Sugar will stick it to me if I make a mistake and guess what? I bet I do that on a regular basis. So...they have accomplished making me a pigeon...yep, you will have to throw rocks at me in order to get me to fly. Good job Uncle Sugar.

OK...back to flying my cubicle. Shouldn't get in trouble for that...hopefully.

 

[Qutch]

I was just thinking, if it has been over a year, the JAGMAN investigation is complete and that investigation offers opinions and recommendations as to the cause of the mishap, the blame, etc. I am conducting a JAGMAN investigation as of right now into the last T-45C mishap. The information provided by the JAGMAN is not privledged and thus is accessible. All of this could be based on the recomendations of that investigation.

Please post the JAG report if/when you get it. . My own experience with these things has taught me not to pass judgement until I've seen all the facts. . A little bit of new information can change things a lot. . I think IanJ's outline helped me better understand some of the potential issues. . But I'm waiting to find out what this big "thing" is that made the authorities reverse course and take a hard line. .

I'd also be curious to know what your, and others' opinions of the JAGs are now. . Years ago I was referred for a Courts-Martial for repeatedly refusing to obey a direct order. . Before I was assigned counsel I had a brief meeting with Prosecutors in which I told them that I would "Admit to the Charge", but was standing firm in refusing the order and would argue that the Order was "Contrary to our Mission Statement," something akin to an "unlawful order". . The Prosecutors looked over the documents I gave them, investigated, decided they agreed with me, and then dropped the charge. . I never needed counsel. . The JAG Prosecutors stepped in themselves, provided my defense, and I heard later, had a serious talk with my superiors. . I never had anymore trouble with them after that. . So, based on that limited experience, I've always thought highly of the JAG corp. .

From those of you who've had more recent experience with JAG, was my experience that far outside the norm? . In other words, is the JAG corp viewed as fair, objective, and a force for doing some good here. . Sort of like military doctors, a bit above the politics and independent? . Or is JAG suspected of being part of the problem you guys are talking about?

 

[Ian_J]

I'd start with keep it in-house, and deal with it accordingly. Note: I'm not suggesting sweeping it. I'm advocating dealing with it as a private command/USCG issue. There is NOTHING that will be revealed about this case in the long term. They're either going to 1. Find him guilty, and give him a DD, or a Big Chicken Dinner, and/or jail sentence. We won't know. Or 2. If he's plugged into the right circles, he'll get a Letter of Reprimand, and it'll get swept. Either way, we'll never know the outcome.

Watch.

admin discharge maybe? Court martial seems pretty extreme, especially for the copilot.

What if it were the pilot in command who lived rather than the copilot? Would that change things?

My suppositions were the obvious - lack of pre-flight planning. If that were the case, would the co-pilot be culpable? Legally, no idea, but in real military life the pilot in command is ultimately responsible for everything in the flight, just like in the civilian world. The PC can certainly delegate pre-flight planning tasks such as route planning and obstacle avoidance but he is very realistically responsible for that planning whether he did it personally or not. This is usually very easily accomplished during a detailed crew briefing. That's where the mistakes a possibly "inexperienced" co-pilot should be caught.

But suppose that was all done per the regs but during that portion of the flight the PC happened to be on the controls? The co-pilot should be on the map and should warn the PC of obstacles. What if he wasn't sure where he was on the map due to simple pilot error? On the map all those islands on the coast could look the same. What if it were reversed? What if the PC was on the map and screwed up the navigation?

I've read a few FAA accident cases where they put responsibility of an accident on the SIC as equally as the PIC, but they were usually cases where the decision-making breakdown occurred during the flight as opposed to a failure of pre-flight planning. This case conflicts me because as a military PC I understand the power I wield - and I also understand how junior and inexperienced our co-pilots can be. Messily mixed in with that is how the PC delegates tasks, how pre-flight briefings are conducted, how the briefing and approval process actually works, and how decision making actually occurs during flight.

While discussing this with my non-pilot, civilian wife, she asked an excellent question: who is making these charges? I answered the US government... or the military... well, someone. I don't know. She asked why are the making these criminal charges then. What's their motivation? Well, shoot - anything from achieving justice from a known wrong to egotistical benefit I guess.

I've been through a military aviation accident investigation for what it's worth. It was just the Army - just a stupid thing me and my crew did, but they treated me fairly and really truly and honestly attempted to get at the root cause of the accident in order to prevent future accidents of the same nature. I as the pilot in command could have been sent out to pasture after what happened but I wasn't. They very critically analyzed the issues, made recommendations, and closed the case in a remarkably professional manner. They were just soldiers doing their jobs trying to do the right thing. Maybe, just maybe, these Coast Guard people have done the same thing but discovered things which warranted criminal charges.

I don't know. And neither do you.

 

[bunk22]

Please post the JAG report if/when you get it. . My own experience with these things has taught me not to pass judgement until I've seen all the facts. . A little bit of new information can change things a lot. . I think IanJ's outline helped me better understand some of the potential issues. . But I'm waiting to find out what this big "thing" is that made the authorities reverse course and take a hard line.

There are two boards convened after a mishap, the first is an Aircraft Mishap Board:

[FONT=&amp]An AMB is an aviation mishap safety investigation conducted in accordance with the Naval Aviation Safety Programs to determine why a mishap occurred with an ultimate goal of preventing future mishaps. It is conducted solely for safety purposes and is independent of any other investigation or board. All information gathered or collected is confidential. [/FONT]

Here is the purpose of a JAGMAN:

[FONT=&amp]The JAGMAN is an administrative fact-finding body constituted under the regulations set forth in Chapter II of the JAG Manual to determine the causes and responsibility for the mishap, nature and extent of any injuries, description of all damage to property, and any attendant circumstances. The JAGMAN investigation is in addition to, and separate from, the aviation mishap safety investigation, which has priority over obtaining and analyzing evidence.
[/FONT][FONT=&amp]
Both investigations are tasked to determine the cause(s) of a mishap and make recommendations regarding actions that might prevent a recurrence, however, a JAGMAN investigation also determines liability and can be used to hold people accountable for their actions or inaction. Thus the information provided to a JAGMAN is not confidential. [/FONT]

Again, we don't know what truly happened yet. For all we know the co-pilot could have had cocaine in his system and the recommendation from the JAGMAN could be the above because of that. Until all what actually happened is known, can't make the call whether the above is right or wrong.

 

[MikeD]

In the USAF, the same two separate boards are known as the Safety Investigation Board, and the Accident Investigation Board (formerly known as the Collateral Board), respectively. Have worked on both.

 

[rockman2343@aol.com]

This one is odd. Not a lot of background detail as of yet, but facing an Article 32....essentially a military grand jury hearing........so far, as a result of a July 2010 accident off of Washington state. It's rare that a military accident generates UCMJ charges; the last one I remember off the top of my head being the USMC EA-6B Prowler front-end crew who were involved in the cable car collision in Italy in 1998, resulting in the death of 20 civilians.



Story here:

http://news.yahoo.com/cg-crash-survivor-faces-charges-deadly-incident-163127666.html

This is B.S. and it makes me furious. Unless they were fooling around hopefully the I.O.C. dismisses the charges. We don't need to punish somebody everytime they make an honest mistake (not saying they did, I don't know).

 

[GX]

What if it were the pilot in command who lived rather than the copilot? Would that change things?

That's not the point. The point is that this crew should be dealt with in private, behind closed doors, where most investigations occur. They should remain behind closed doors, where most things, in the military are dealt with. To parade these people out in front of the US, with a one-sided (the military) press release is nonsense.

Edit: I'll add that there is a precedent until recently to keep investigations private UNLESS it affected members of the public (F-18 incident over SD), and they were involved in the incident. As a controller at an extremely busy Advanced Training Base I went through 6 of them in 2 years. On the mic for 6 incidents. All handled in private, and never mentioned anywhere, ever. Why?

There are two sides to the investigation. There is a side where there are some 03's-05's looking at it from the safety standpoint. This is where the real meat of the solution lies. What happened? Why? And how do you fix it? And there's the 06-07-8-9 standpoint of doing whatever is necessary to protect their careers. Who's responsible? Can they affect ME? And what needs to be done to protect my career?

 

[Qutch]

Again, we don't know what truly happened yet. For all we know the co-pilot could have had cocaine in his system and the recommendation from the JAGMAN could be the above because of that. Until all what actually happened is known, can't make the call whether the above is right or wrong.

Hearing Summary so far - From what I can tell so far, the gist of this seems to be that the aircraft was 1) flying at 114ft. instead of the required 2000 ft. 2) may have been flying too fast 3) both pilots were sightseeing 4) the co-pilot was not actively navigating as he should have been 5) The Sitka Station Commander intended to take no action against the surviving pilot, but the new Alaska Region Commander overruled him (and can if he wants to, also overrule the results of this hearing if he does not like the results) 6) Drugs and alcohol were not a factor 7) Hot-dogging was the factor



Sitka commander was prepared to drop charges

Associated Press - Friday - December 9th

Cmdr. William Cameron testified Thursday ..... that he told a Coast Guard rear admiral that he intended to take no action against the co-pilot in a fatal helicopter crash, but indicated that the plan was trumped by the senior officer.....the new Coast Guard commander in Alaska, Rear Adm. Thomas Ostebo. .

http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Sitka-commander-was-prepared-to-drop-charges-2357377.php

http://www.norwichbulletin.com/news...ns-over-fatal-Coast-Guard-crash#axzz1g433hKK6

 

[Qutch]

"The hearing into a Coast Guard pilot’s alleged negligence wrapped up Friday afternoon in Juneau after the last round of testimony by witnesses."

So it looks like there was no big bombshell. . No drugs. . Apparently 114 ft is common in Akaska but not OK in Oregon? . Crew a bit careless? .

Analysis? . IanJ. . Bunk. . MikeD. . Not my field, but I'm curious about this one.

http://www.kcaw.org/2011/12/12/sitka-cg-aviator-faces-uncertain-future-after-hearing/

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/12/09/defense-coast-guard-set-trap-with-wires/

 

[Ian_J]

I don't know . . this one may be too hot for JC . . and naturally those main stream media links you posted are slanted one way . . I'd have to see some alternative media or talk with some Europeans to better formulate an opinion . . yup, better leave an emotional topic like this alone on JC . . I just don't think their minds are open enough to truly explore this accident . .

 

[Roger Roger]

I don't know . . this one may be too hot for JC . . and naturally those main stream media links you posted are slanted one way . . I'd have to see some alternative media or talk with some Europeans to better formulate an opinion . . yup, better leave an emotional topic like this alone on JC . . I just don't think their minds are open enough to truly explore this accident . .

Lol. Awesome.

 

[Qutch]

I think you're up to it. . Give it a shot.

Hey!! Look what I found. . This guy looks good. .

What if it were the pilot in command who lived rather than the copilot? Would that change things?

My suppositions were the obvious - lack of pre-flight planning. If that were the case, would the co-pilot be culpable? Legally, no idea, but in real military life the pilot in command is ultimately responsible for everything in the flight, just like in the civilian world. The PC can certainly delegate pre-flight planning tasks such as route planning and obstacle avoidance but he is very realistically responsible for that planning whether he did it personally or not. This is usually very easily accomplished during a detailed crew briefing. That's where the mistakes a possibly "inexperienced" co-pilot should be caught.

But suppose that was all done per the regs but during that portion of the flight the PC happened to be on the controls? The co-pilot should be on the map and should warn the PC of obstacles. What if he wasn't sure where he was on the map due to simple pilot error? On the map all those islands on the coast could look the same. What if it were reversed? What if the PC was on the map and screwed up the navigation?

I've read a few FAA accident cases where they put responsibility of an accident on the SIC as equally as the PIC, but they were usually cases where the decision-making breakdown occurred during the flight as opposed to a failure of pre-flight planning. This case conflicts me because as a military PC I understand the power I wield - and I also understand how junior and inexperienced our co-pilots can be. Messily mixed in with that is how the PC delegates tasks, how pre-flight briefings are conducted, how the briefing and approval process actually works, and how decision making actually occurs during flight.

While discussing this with my non-pilot, civilian wife, she asked an excellent question: who is making these charges? I answered the US government... or the military... well, someone. I don't know. She asked why are the making these criminal charges then. What's their motivation? Well, shoot - anything from achieving justice from a known wrong to egotistical benefit I guess.

I've been through a military aviation accident investigation for what it's worth. It was just the Army - just a stupid thing me and my crew did, but they treated me fairly and really truly and honestly attempted to get at the root cause of the accident in order to prevent future accidents of the same nature. I as the pilot in command could have been sent out to pasture after what happened but I wasn't. They very critically analyzed the issues, made recommendations, and closed the case in a remarkably professional manner. They were just soldiers doing their jobs trying to do the right thing. Maybe, just maybe, these Coast Guard people have done the same thing but discovered things which warranted criminal charges.

 

[Ian_J]

I think you're up to it. . Give it a shot.

Hey!! Look what I found. . This guy looks good. .

Just having some fun... you know what they say about imitation, right?

I really don't have much to add in all seriousness. I don't know if 114ft is too low because I don't know what their unit SOP says. My unit SOP says I can only go below 500 AGL (except takeoff, landing and emergencies) in designated training areas which have been surveyed, approved, and are posted on a hazard map updated monthly. Who knows what theirs says. I don't know if CRM was an issue or not - the articles talk about it but it's all speculation.

The things I know for a fact are this: those wires were charted on the local sectional map and CG pilots are instructed and tested in navigation using maps.

Whether they were hotdogging, or if the co-pilot was afraid to speak up, or if it was just a navigation error, I don't know.

 

[Qutch]

Just having some fun... you know what they say about imitation, right?

Yep. . It's Ok. . I dish it, so I've got to take it. . (And it was pretty funny. . I was laughing. . At least I can see you're reading my rants. . And you're fair. .)

I really don't have much to add in all seriousness. I don't know if 114ft is too low because I don't know what their unit SOP says. My unit SOP says I can only go below 500 AGL (except takeoff, landing and emergencies) in designated training areas which have been surveyed, approved, and are posted on a hazard map updated monthly. Who knows what theirs says. I don't know if CRM was an issue or not - the articles talk about it but it's all speculation.

The things I know for a fact are this: those wires were charted on the local sectional map and CG pilots are instructed and tested in navigation using maps.

Whether they were hotdogging, or if the co-pilot was afraid to speak up, or if it was just a navigation error, I don't know.

Thanks. . The thing is, I watch those guys go by me all day long on their coastal patrols at 2000', just like the prosecution says. . They don't drop too far below that unless they are training or on a Case (coasties word for "rescue mission"). . I never bothered to ask them about that altitude before the mishap, and now that this has exploded, I know better than to ask them to talk about this issue right now. . It's too sensitive. . But what I'm wondering about is this Alaska vs. lower 48 differential. . I think the Sitka Commander implied that in Alaska they hug the water all day long, because of low ceilings and such, so that "violation" was no big deal to him. . I guess violating the Protected Wildlife Area restrictions was also no big deal to him either. .

So is Alaska sort of considered the "combat zone" deployment of the Coast Guard? . The unwritten rule (or SOP) is "the stateside rules don't apply here?" . Or "Don't ask, don't tell.". Maybe a stupid question, but would the rules really vary that much between Alaska and Oregon/Washington? . Apparently, even the Sitka CO and his Admiral don't see eye-to-eye on this, and the Sitka CO got a dressing-down over it. . Maybe we need a coastie to tell us what's really going on here. . Are their any Helo coasties on JC?

 

[Ian_J]

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/...n-Coast-Guard-helicopter-crash-136873873.html

By BECKY BOHRER, Associated Press January 7, 2012

JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) - Negligent homicide and other charges against the sole survivor of a deadly 2010 Coast Guard helicopter crash should be dismissed, an investigating officer has determined.

Capt. Andrew Norris, in recommendations obtained by The Associated Press, said he doesn't conclude that Lt. Lance Leone was faultless during the flight. But Norris said the charges against him - negligent homicide, dereliction of duty and destroying military property - focus on alleged navigational failures by Leone and tie those to the destruction of a helicopter and death of two crew members.

"It is in this focus, and in making this tie, that I believe the charged offenses fail," he wrote.
Norris' recommendations will be reviewed by the Coast Guard commander in Alaska, Rear Admiral Thomas Ostebo. He is not bound by them.

Leone, who has earned a long list of Coast Guard awards and accolades, including commendation medals, was co-pilot of the MH-60 Jayhawk helicopter flying from Astoria, Ore., to the crew's base in Sitka, Alaska, when it hit an unmarked span of low-hanging wires and crashed off LaPush, Wash., in July 2010, killing three.

The negligent homicide charges were related to the deaths of crew members Brett Banks and Adam C. Hoke. Leone was not charged in the death of the pilot, Lt. Sean Krueger.

Prosecutors, during a military hearing last month, argued that Leone did not fulfill his duties, which included acting as a navigator and safety officer, and should face court martial. Leone's civilian defense attorney, John Smith, countered that the Coast Guard had "set a trap" by not marking the power lines that the aircraft hit.

The crash's lead investigator called the lines a contributing factor but also said there was no reason for the aircraft to be flying so low. The prosecution maintained there was no requirement that the lines be marked because they were below 200 feet.

The wires, the site of at least two other accidents, were the responsibility of the Coast Guard. They sloped from 190 feet to about 36 feet. At the time of the 2010 crash, marking balls were pooled near a pole, above land, at the low point, not along the span. The helicopter hit at about 114 feet, according to testimony and the court record.

Smith said Leone had programmed the helicopter on a track that would have missed the wires, but Krueger deviated from that, dropping in altitude as he flew over a Coast Guard vessel in the channel. Seconds later, the aircraft struck the wires.

Norris said he doesn't believe that a reasonable navigator would have identified, through study of charts, hazards reasonably close by that would have posed no threat to the helicopter along its planned route.

Norris said Leone and Krueger discussed navigational aspects of a feature about 10 minutes before the crash, making clear, he said, that Leone was consulting a navigational chart or charts at the time. Referencing the hearing transcript, Norris said Krueger's plan to deviate from the flight plan was unexpected and announced. Leone didn't provide verbal navigational information at that point.

"As it is inconceivable that the accused would have failed to have provided such warnings had he known of the hazard, it is reasonable to conclude that the accused did not know of, or discover the presence of, the wires before the helicopter flew into them," Norris said.

Norris also investigated whether Leone was derelict in his duty for not advising Krueger that they were flying too low at certain points in the flight and recommending a rise in altitude. This arose during the hearing, and prosecutors said they did not seek the new charge.

Norris, in his report, said he believes "reasonable grounds do exist" to believe Leone "committed the crime of negligent dereliction of duty" for not questioning or speaking up about the altitude. "Proceeding in accordance with this theory is the only way I can see to causally link the accused's derelictions with the crash and deaths," Norris wrote.

"However," he said, "I do not believe that the government could prove this link to a reasonable fact-finder, as it requires speculations and suppositions as to what Lt. Krueger may or may not have done in response to such advisements, if given, that are simply unknowable."

In testimony, the commanding officer of Air Station Sitka, Cmdr. William Cameron, said that if anything would have stopped the crash, it would have been stronger cockpit communication skills. But Cameron also said he didn't think Krueger would have listened had Leone spoken up about the drop in altitude, saying he believed Krueger, who also had a list of military service awards, was comfortable in what he was doing.

Cameron also said he was prepared to recommend that allegations against Leone be dropped, but said that decision was "somewhat overrun by events." In meeting with the new Coast Guard commander in Alaska, Ostebo, in August, he said Ostebo suggested he had "gotten too close emotionally to Lt. Leone or something like that,"' and lost objectivity. Cameron then outlined his reasoning in a memo.

 

[Minuteman]

Google StreetView

(The photos/cables may not represent conditions at the time of the accident.)

 

[Sandy]

Welcome to the NEW and IMPROVED US military. This is a very clear example as to why I... not got out... ran the eff away... from the military. When guys were being tried for actions performed in combat, overseas, while engaged in a firefight, I knew my time was up. The military no longer has great leaders looking to do what is in the best interest of their people, it is chock full of boxhead corporate types incapable of making command decisions, taking care of their people, and doing what is in the best interest of the team. The General/Admiral types only care about their next gig as a lobbyist, or high level executive in the military industrial complex. The mid level E's have no real authority aside from a threat of UCMJ for perceived infractions that may affect their careers.

This is a sham. Some Admiral is looking out for his career...

What year do you think it was when the military first tried service members for actions performed in combat?

What year did you join the military and what year did you get out?

I'm trying to figure where it is you think the change occurred that made you run away.

 

[GX]

What year do you think it was when the military first tried service members for actions performed in combat?

What year did you join the military and what year did you get out?

I'm trying to figure where it is you think the change occurred that made you run away.

I went into the Navy in 03. My circumstances were a bit different. I went in at 27, after selling a successful technology company. I felt that I had an obligation to do my part, as did my great-grandfather, grandfather, father, and numerous uncles and cousins did dating back to the Civil War. I got out in 08. I knew things were "not as advertised" quickly after entering A School just out of boot camp. After getting to my 1st command (KNMM), I asked my Chief what he would do if he were in my shoes (27 year old E3, just in the military, and contemplating a career) his reply, "I'd do my time and get the eff out." Big red flag, right? So, there were problems that were developing long before I arrived.

2006, Fallujah occured and there was the hanging of the Blackwater contractors from the bridge. The military response was to all but level Fallujah. The eyes of the world watched as we leveled that city. Abu Ghraib became a scandal in February of 2006, I believe, and then the 3rd attack on Fallujah from Sept. - Jan 2007. With the press descending on Pres. Bush, and his advisors' over the approach to the war in Iraq, they needed a facelift, and changed all of the ROE's, among many other things. Nobody was spared; SOC and the regular troops alike. I think 2006 and Fallujah 3 is a data point worth noting. Many atrocities were committed prior to 2006, but none of them were brought to light until 2006, or later. Certainly, nobody was charged publicly for anything that was committed until after 2006. The only noteworthy exception is Abu Ghraib.

Abu Ghraid is noteworthy and really poignant because it illustrates so well what is happening in this USCG case. Everyone from President Bush (through Rumsfeld's council) had signed off on what was occurring at Abu Ghraib. Rumsfeld had spoken publicly many times about doing whatever it took to obtain actionable intelligence from captured combatants and suspected terrorists. The CIA had a sign off on it, as did every other agency that was working in Iraq; the death that brought Abu Ghraib to light was committed by a CIA interrogator and a Blackwater contractor. Neither were charged, let alone interviewed. Nobody above the rank of Staff Sergeant did time in prison, or received a discharge. Some charges were dropped because "rights had failed to be read prior to an interview". I see everyone as equally responsible from top to bottom, but the OIC's had not only signed off, but encouraged this behavior until those photos were released. They were seen as not culpable in the eyes of their superiors and instead let some junior enlisted folks take the ride for their directives.

This may be an extreme example of what made me get out, but when things like this are going on at all levels, in every area of a command, and then swept under the rug, one is forced to either placate the system and play along, or decide that it's a broken system that cannot be repaired, and make the decision to move on. I have no regrets in making the decision that I made. The only thing that I REALLY miss is the free travel around the world. And the refueling missions that I was able to jump on. Other than that, I don't miss any of it.

Hope it answers your question.