Originally Posted by
ORAC
I cant cut and paste it, but following the link at #15, and reading the statement of opinion 22, page 59, subpara i, it would seem to cast doubt the foolishness of the statement.
OK, I get to page 8, which gets to report page 59, which gets to opinion i. 22:
sorry, you are badly mistaken.
See above my point about the IUT syllabus. These three links provide:
two training instructions for T-45 IP qualification and
ONAV qualification, as well as the
IUT syllabus that the IP has to complete to be QUALIFIED to fly a T-45 as an IP.
That an E2-C pilot did not fly low level missions in an F-18 is irrelevant to his qualification as an instructor in a T-45. CNATRA and the Wing has that training syllabus for just that purpose; to make sure IP's are qualified to instruct in each stage of training. If you don't pass that check ride you don't instruct in that stage. I repeat for all of the ignorant: any claim or assertion that this instructor was not qualified to fly or instruct in the T-45 are a load of bollocks. Whether he was a good, bad, or in between IP is another matter. The
opinion offered (rather casually) that the E-2 community background informs this mishap is dubious,
at best ... but I won't get into the reasons for that here.
The report is blatantly obvious in its conclusion:
1. This IP exceeded curriculum standards.
You, and a few others, are fishing for a red herring.
Look into the very same paragraph and read the following:
"Many of the habit patterns and techniques he chose to use during low altitude flights were both violations of existing guidance and unsafe." That has bloody fork all to do with what aircraft he flew in the fleet.
The irritating part about this write up (for me)is that if these habits were known previous to the mishap, then why wasn't he called in for tea and biscuits with the Ops O or the CO, and had the LL quall pulled until he straightened up?
That's the issue with command climate that gets me smashing my head into the desk ... and it's not the first mishap endorsement that I've ever read that had something like this in it.
If you go to the end of the report, you can sum up this mishap with some alacrity:
2. IP demonstrated overconfidence in own abilities. (Gee, the first time this ever killed someone, right? Nope).
3. Contributing factor: it appears that peers and higher up the chain were aware, or partially aware of this and failed to correct it.
(And here I smash my head on the desk again).
@Airbubba: this appears to be an excerpt from the JAG investigation.