Marine pilot "not guilty" on all counts
Matt Jacobs
Marine not guilty on all counts in ski lift deaths
March 4, 1999
CAMP LEJEUNE, North Carolina (CNN) -- In a verdict with international
consequences, a U.S. military jury acquitted a Marine pilot Thursday of
all charges that he recklessly flew his jet into an Italian ski lift
cable, killing 20 people more than a year ago.
A whoop went up in the courtroom at the Camp Lejeune Marine base when
the decision was announced.
Capt. Richard Ashby, 31, had faced more than 200 years in prison if
convicted of all counts, which included 20 counts of involuntary
manslaughter plus one count each of destroying government property,
destroying private property, dereliction of duty and failure to plan the
flight properly.
The jury of eight Marine officers deliberated 7 1/2 hours, beginning
when closing arguments ended Wednesday. Testimony in Ashby's
court-martial began February 8 and ended Tuesday.
'If Ashby is not responsible, then who is?'
The accident on February 3, 1998, caused an uproar in Europe and
strained relations between Italy and the United States.
It happened on the final leg of a 42-minute, low-level training mission
in the Italian Alps. Ashby's EA-6B Prowler, a four-man radar-jamming
jet, tore through the cables in a valley near Cavalese, hurtling the
gondola car into the valley below. Two Poles, seven Germans, five
Belgians, three Italians, two Austrians and one Dutch person died.
Afterward, Italians demanded that U.S. landing rights be revoked at
bases in their country and that the crew be tried in Italy. People
living in the Alpine ski area said they had long complained about
low-flying jets from Aviano air base and their "Top Gun" antics.
Attorneys for the victims are seeking damage payments from the U.S.
government.
John Eaves, an attorney representing the families of the seven German
victims, said victims' relatives who were in the court to hear the
verdict were "shocked."
"If (Ashby) is not responsible, then who is, and why aren't they here?"
he said victims' relatives asked.
"These people want some sense of closure and some sense that responsible
powers will take responsibility," he told CNN. " And, of course, the
United States government has not paid these families for their losses."
Defense lawyers claimed Ashby and his navigator, Capt. Joseph
Schweitzer, 31, of Westbury, New York, were charged because of political
pressure that went as high as the White House.
Schweitzer faces a trial on similar charges later. Charges against the
two crewmen in the rear cockpit of the Prowler were dropped.
Reckless?
During Ashby's trial, prosecutors accused him of "flat-hatting," or
reckless flying.
They said he violated the mission's 517-mph speed limit and 2,000-foot
altitude restriction. His jet, traveling at 621 mph, cut the cable about
370 feet above the valley floor, prosecutors said.
Ashby, of Mission Viejo, California, said he thought the altitude
restriction was 1,000 feet.
He testified he was unaware of a mission speed limit. His attorneys also
contended the jet's altitude gauge malfunctioned, and an optical
illusion made Ashby think he was flying higher than he really was.
Both sides agree the Mount Cermis ski lift wasn't marked on Ashby's
government-issue map.
Ashby testified last week that he didn't see the cable until the last
second.
Tom Hayden
the underlying issues before the jury rendered a verdict. I figured
people wouldn't want to be accused of rushing to judgement, one way or
the other. But now that Capt. Ashby has been found not guilty, I'm
surprised no one here has said a thing. Are folks waiting for the
navigator's trial to finish? Or am I just being very naive in assuming
that a group which will debate ad nauseum some relatively obscure point
would give this serious (meaning not light and happy) matter some
serious (meaning important) discussion? Over in r.a.m. there've been a
number of opinions voiced, but not a lot of meaningful discussion.
Tom
C.Black
>Europeans 'shocked' at U.S. pilot's acquittal
>
I wonder what form of justice they would be happy with. Maybe if the
Prowler had been damaged enough that the crew would have had to eject. Then
a mob hunted them down and killed them? Or maybe marched them off ( beaten
up to a bloody pulp of course ) to a kangaroo court....... found guilty and
then kill them by hanging ? Or maybe since the plane made it back to
base....instead of a trial...we could take the crew...give them enough food
and water for a few days.....turn them loose in the Alps......if they make
to ' friendly ' country we'll spare their lives ?
Any of these options sound better? How much more do these pilots have
to pay......they already have to deal with the fact that the actions they
took that day lead to the death of 20 people. Its bad enough isnt it?
Keith Willshaw
Matt Jacobs wrote in message <36DED29F...@natinst.com>...
>Europeans 'shocked' at U.S. pilot's acquittal
>
Well speaking for myself not ALL Europeans are shocked.
I think the charges brought were inflated and in any case the
really important thing is that the lessons are learned to
minimise future risks.
Military flight training IS dangerous and some of those risks are
inevitbly borne by the general public. The dangers of NOT
having adequately trained pilots and crew are less obvious
but far greater in terms of the potential damage they do.
I have little doubt the pilot concerned was hotdogging but
there seems to have been a culture of that sort in place.
For this its his CO who should be facing some hard
questions.
As for the issue of maps etc. I am no Pilot but I seriously
doubt any map can ever be 100% accurate and any Pilot
in an area as developed as Europe would surely always
be aware that there are cables everywhere.
Keith
Ogden Johnson III
: I sorta expected there to be very little discussion here of the trial or
Most of us, I suspect, do not haunt the on-line news organs or 24-hour
news radio channels. Thus, we had to wait until the 6, 10, or 11 o'clock
[in DC] TV news or the morning paper to find out anything substantive
beyond the odd posts we might have read. Meaningful discussion can only
occur after formation of *knowledgeable* opinions. Having said that, and
not having read the morning papers, I will accede to your request and post
my initial impression, with my own *unknowledgeable* opinions. [Albeit
based on 19 years - '63-'82 - in Marine aviation as an Operations clerk/
NCO/NCOIC.]
As I originally suspected, much of the blame for the incident lies at
higher levels, specifically:
Italian altitude restrictions, 2000' AGL AIUI it, did not filter down to
briefings at the squadron level.
US altitude restrictions, 1000' AGL, although instructed to the VMAQ
crews, were not stressed.
A long standing, 300' AGL plus, cableway was not located on the maps made
available to the squadron and crew.
The aircraft maintenance officer, through the maintenance control officer,
released an aircraft for a low-level, high speed nav route flight that had
been griped for undiscovered altimeter problems on preceding flights.
From a distance of nearly as many years retired as I served in Marine
aviation, I am convinced in my own mind that the pilot, and crew, were
'busting' both minimum altitude and maximum speed restrictions, and doing
so knowingly and willingly. However, I was not sitting on the general
court martial, did not hear all the testimony, and did not participate in
the discussion that resulted in 2/3's of the members present and voting to
fail to vote for conviction on the charged or on lesser included offenses.
I would suspect that the court, aware of the universal tendency of pilots
to like flying low and fast, found that the true negligence that was the
root cause of this tragedy lay at the feet of the supervisors in the
command structure who were responsible for providing full-up aircraft,
accurate maps and procedures, analysing those maps and procedures for
added hazards, and conducting frequent, professional, briefings stressing
the importance of adherence to min altitudes and max speeds. However, I
would not have let those lapses prevent me from finding negligence on
Captain Ashby's part, and convicting him on a lesser included offense for
his negligence. He was low, fast, and inattentive, bad things to do in a
full-up aircraft, inexcusable in an aircraft with known altimeter
problems. However, 'my' sentence would have reflected the failures at
higher levels that I mentioned, criminal failures in the event, and would
probably have been considered a wrist-slap by the Europeans concerned.
Is that enough 'meaningful' discussion and opinion for you Tom?
OJ III
Tom Hayden
OJ III"
It's the type I was expecting, OJ III. No ranting, just personal opinion
presented rationally by people with experiences that could help us
non-aviator, non-Marine/Navy types understand some of the cultural and
practical issues behind such a tragedy. Is it enough? No. I expect other
opinions to follow - some in line with yours, and some opposed. But
thanks for kicking it off for us.
Tom
Bill Kambic
<excellent analysis snipped>
Bravo Zulu on your review of the matter.
I would add that the defense did an excellent job.
Bill Kambic, CDR, USNR(RET)
Honorary Staff Judge Advocate (with the plaque to prove it).
clmc...@my-dejanews.com
the crash of the Italian A.F. plane at the Ramstein Airshow back in the 80's?
I don't remember a wave of anti-Italian sentiment going over the U.S. after
that accident.
I'm supprised that the pilot was not convicted. But I don't feel that the
accident or verdict is the result of U.S. "Imperializm" or other such
nonsense.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Mike Yukish
"there but for the grace of god go I" with regards to this tragedy.
(Not me, of course.) Like any mishap, there were multiple points of
failure, multiple chances to take an action that would have prevented
it.
I always wondered, was this the first time someone has flown down that
valley? A marine EA-6B? Was the cablecar new? How many near-cablecar
strikes have there been? Civilians ask for my opinion on the matter
all of the time, and I have to say I don't know enough to have
anything more than the standard swag.
*****************************
Mike Yukish
may...@psu.edu
Applied Research Lab/Penn State U.
TMOliver
>
> Ogden Johnson III wrote:
>
> <excellent analysis snipped>
>
> Bravo Zulu on your review of the matter.
>
> I would add that the defense did an excellent job.
>
> Bill Kambic, CDR, USNR(RET)
>
a non-avaitor forced in his youth to live amongst them...
Pascalais wrote:
>
> >>Who is responsible of these 20 lfes lost?<<
>
> The publishers, distributors, and "authorizers"
> of the out of date map that showed no obstructions.
>
The squadron command structure and higher command levels which had
"winked" at altitude violations for many years on the grounds that a few
minor violations were justified in increasing training realism.
The Italian Air Force and government, partners in the game and of equal
culpability.
In this case the aircraft commander was exonerated by a Court
established by a command which would like to have seen it find him
guilty of "something/anything/even mopery in a public conveyance." It
didn't, likely based on the nonfunctional radar altimeter and the chart
which did not carry the cable. We forget that training ops related to
deployments such as Bosnia are just as fraught with peril as were the
old days on the Curtain. The final result remains unchanged, with the US
government likely to pay out substantial claims to 'keep the peace' with
an ally and with the pilot likely on a fast track to skivvilian life
(and a lifetime of painful memories). In all honesty, the a/c's
durability and his reasonable skill in bringing it home remain somewhat
amazing.
> The verdict was just.
Justice is an ephemereal concept, highly subjective, and all too often
contained in the perspective of the beholder. One man's justice may be
another's outrage. In its optimal manifestations, justice oft bears no
kinship to fairness, especially in a world in which "blame" must be
determined for every event.
--
TMOliver, el pelon sinverguenza
From a small observatory overlooking McLennan Crossing
- VESPER ADEST IUVENES CONSURGITE -
Catullus
John Weiss
disingenuous. Since ECMO1 also has the duties of a co-pilot, it is
reasonable to try him, even if it is not reasonable to try him for the same
charges or hold him to the same standards as the PIC.
BTW, if it was a "kangaroo court," how is it that he was acquitted? How is
it that ECMO2 and ECMO3 were never brought to trial?
---------------------
John R. Weiss
Seattle, WA
Remove *NOSPAM* from address for e-mail reply
J.D. Baldwin wrote in message ...
>
>In the case of CAPT Ashby, he *was* marched off to a kangaroo court,
>as were his fellow ECMO's. There was no reason to try anyone but the
>pilot in command, any more than one would try the flight attendants if
>a civilian airliner captain decided to buzz the tower. (Sorry to any
>of my fellow NFO's who are offended by this comparison, but the
>responsibility for safety of flight is the same.)
Mike Yukish
and can't shoot approaches, the A-6 and EA-6B were considered to be
'dual piloted'. Does the ECMO give an instrument check or NATOPS
check?
John Weiss wrote:
>Your comparison of the ECMO1 role to that of a flight attendant is
>disingenuous.
>
>J.D. Baldwin wrote in message ...
>>
>>There was no reason to try anyone but the
>>pilot in command, any more than one would try the flight attendants if
>>a civilian airliner captain decided to buzz the tower. (Sorry to any
>>of my fellow NFO's who are offended by this comparison, but the
>>responsibility for safety of flight is the same.)
>
>
>
*****************************
J.D. Baldwin
<may...@psu.edu> wrote:
> I remember from the standpoint of instrument minimums and when you can
> and can't shoot approaches, the A-6 and EA-6B were considered to be
> 'dual piloted'. Does the ECMO give an instrument check or NATOPS
> check?
Absolutely not. Never, ever, ever, ever.
--
From the catapult of J.D. Baldwin |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I
_,_ Finger bal...@netcom.com |+| say, I am quite prepared not only to
_|70|___:::)=}- for PGP public |+| retract it, but also to deny under
\ / key information. |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer
***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------
J.D. Baldwin
<jrweiss@seanet*NOSPAM*.com> wrote:
> Your comparison of the ECMO1 role to that of a flight attendant is
> reasonable to try him, even if it is not reasonable to try him for the
> same charges or hold him to the same standards as the PIC.
I disagree. Safety of flight responsibility rests purely, solely with
the pilot in command. It is undiluted. It is unshared. An O-6 NFO
cannot legally order an O-1 pilot to fly at 500' if, in the judgement
of the O-1, it would be unsafe to do so. Period.
An ECMO bears exactly the same share of this responsibility as does a
flight attendant or a passenger on a civilian airliner: zero point
zero zero per cent. He may have an important role in the completion
of the mission. He may assist with "co-pilot duties" in reporting
altitudes, etc., but he is NOT responsible for safety of flight.
Again, period.
If you have a reference to some naval regulation or publication (such
as NATOPS) that contradicts this, I would be most eager to hear about
it. Everything I've read in NATOPS and other OPNAV instructions, and
everything I was taught in flight school, emphasized this fact very
strongly and unambiguously.
> BTW, if it was a "kangaroo court," how is it that he was acquitted?
> How is it that ECMO2 and ECMO3 were never brought to trial?
CAPT Ashby, of course, was the PILOT. Not the ECMO. I erred on this
because when I saw him on CNN, I could have sworn he was wearing
crossed anchors on his wings. (I guess that shows you why I was an
NFO myself, eh?) I canceled my article, hoping to cover up my dumbass
mistake, but obviously it outstripped the control message and you saw
and responded to it before it could be wiped out on your server.
Bill Kambic
> I disagree. Safety of flight responsibility rests purely, solely with
> the pilot in command. It is undiluted. It is unshared. An O-6 NFO
> cannot legally order an O-1 pilot to fly at 500' if, in the judgement
> of the O-1, it would be unsafe to do so. Period.
Safety of flight responsibility does rest undiluted with the pilot in command. It
is not, however, unshared. Each crew member bears their proportionate share of
responsibility for safety of flight. That responsibility varies from position to
position, IAW NATOP's requirements, but it is always there.
While an O-6 NFO may not have the authority to order a maneuver the O-1 PIC deems
unsafe, he certainly has the responsibility to notify the PIC of unsafe conditions
and be the "second set of eyes" the NATOP's program clearly contemplates.
> An ECMO bears exactly the same share of this responsibility as does a
> flight attendant or a passenger on a civilian airliner: zero point
> zero zero per cent. He may have an important role in the completion
> of the mission. He may assist with "co-pilot duties" in reporting
> altitudes, etc., but he is NOT responsible for safety of flight.
> Again, period.
Disagree IAW notes above.
> If you have a reference to some naval regulation or publication (such
> as NATOPS) that contradicts this, I would be most eager to hear about
> it. Everything I've read in NATOPS and other OPNAV instructions, and
> everything I was taught in flight school, emphasized this fact very
> strongly and unambiguously.
NATOP's clearly envisions shared responsibility for safety of flight.
Consider the following:
"Check lists are provided to ensure that all basic safety precautions are observed
in the various phases of aircraft operation. Unless specifically noted otherwise
in this section the challenge and reply method shall be utilized with the co-pilot
reading and the pilot reporting completion of the necessary actions."
This small paragraph, found on page 3-5 of the S2D/E/G NATOPS, clearly places a
safety of flight burden on the co-pilot. It relieves the PIC of nothing; it
shares a critical burden.
I suspect I could find lots of other shared responsibility sections, but you get
the idea.<g>
> > BTW, if it was a "kangaroo court," how is it that he was acquitted?
> > How is it that ECMO2 and ECMO3 were never brought to trial?
>
> CAPT Ashby, of course, was the PILOT. Not the ECMO. I erred on this
> because when I saw him on CNN, I could have sworn he was wearing
> crossed anchors on his wings. (I guess that shows you why I was an
> NFO myself, eh?) I canceled my article, hoping to cover up my dumbass
> mistake, but obviously it outstripped the control message and you saw
> and responded to it before it could be wiped out on your server.
I doubt you are the only person on the Planet Urth whose digits have outrun their
neurons!<GGG>
Bill Kambic
Driver & Survivor, VS-27, VS-30, VS-73, VP-93, VT-28
John Weiss
><jrweiss@seanet*NOSPAM*.com> wrote:
>> Your comparison of the ECMO1 role to that of a flight attendant is
>> disingenuous. Since ECMO1 also has the duties of a co-pilot, it is
>> reasonable to try him, even if it is not reasonable to try him for the
>> same charges or hold him to the same standards as the PIC.
>
>the pilot in command. It is undiluted. It is unshared. An O-6 NFO
>cannot legally order an O-1 pilot to fly at 500' if, in the judgement
>of the O-1, it would be unsafe to do so. Period.
I believe you are very confused regarding "responsibility" and "authority,"
and have forgotten everything you ever learned about Crew Coordination, Crew
Concept, and Cockpit Resource Management.
_Responsibility_ for safety of flight is shared by EVERY crew member! Each
member is charged with doing his specific job tasks, and coordinating and
communicating with the rest of the crew. He is also charged with doing
everything within his power and purview to assure continued safety of
flight.
The pilot in command has the _final_ authority and responsibility for safety
of flight -- NOT _sole_ responsibility! He may override recommendations or
suggestions, but he is obligated to consider them. An O-1 NFO is absolutely
obligated to tell his O-6 pilot when he perceives an unsafe situation. It
may range from "LAWS tone" to "You're a bit low" to "100 feet low" to "Pull
up" to "WAVE OFF!" That O-6 pilot is absolutely obligated to consider that
O-1 NFO's input when making his final decision whether or not to pull up.
If the NFO makes a recommendation but is overridden, the responsibility
shifts totally to the pilot who made the decision. However, if the NFO does
not do his job and communicate a situation he perceives, he shares the
responsibility.
>An ECMO bears exactly the same share of this responsibility as does a
>flight attendant or a passenger on a civilian airliner: zero point
>zero zero per cent. He may have an important role in the completion
>of the mission. He may assist with "co-pilot duties" in reporting
>altitudes, etc., but he is NOT responsible for safety of flight.
>Again, period.
Again, I believe you are sadly mistaken.
First, the flight attendant is not a "flight deck crewmember," but only a
"flight crewmember." The flight attendant has different/lesser
responsibilities regarding safety of flight, but has them nonetheless.
Second, the passenger is not a flight crew member at all. However, IMO, a
knowledgeable passenger bears ethical, if not legal, responsibility for
safety of flight to the best of his ability. If I, a certified Air
Transport Pilot and type-rated 747 pilot, am a passenger in a 747, and see
an obvious defect in the flaps on taxi out to the runway, am I not
"responsible" if I fail to report the defect and the plane crashes on
takeoff?
>If you have a reference to some naval regulation or publication (such
>as NATOPS) that contradicts this, I would be most eager to hear about
>it. Everything I've read in NATOPS and other OPNAV instructions, and
>everything I was taught in flight school, emphasized this fact very
>strongly and unambiguously.
A-6E TRAM NATOPS, NAVAIR 01-85ADF-1, 15 June 1990, Change 4 -- 1 June 1992.
Chapter 30 (FLIGHT CREW COORDINATION)
Page IX-30-1, Section 30.1 (PILOT-BOMBARDIER/NAVIGATOR -- GENERAL
RESPONSIBILITIES):
"The mission commander bears responsibility for mission success, sharing
safety of flight responsibilities whether he be the pilot or
bombardier/navigator. The pilot is the aircraft commander and is
responsible for the safe control of the aircraft throughout its entire
mission. The bombardier/navigator should assist the pilot in every way
possible, anticipating rather than awaiting, developments. The duties of
the pilot-bombardier/navigator team are necessarily integrated, and each
must support and contribute to the performance of the other. Each
crewmember must share the responsibility of every evolution encountered. In
other words, crew concept is a system of checks and balances; as such; it is
a dual obligation equally shared."
Section 30.2 (PILOT-BOMBARDIER/NAVIGATOR -- SPECIFIC RESPONSIBILITIES)
Page IX-30-6, paragraph 30.2.12 (Mission):
"BOMBARDIER/NAVIGATOR
"1. Challenge pilot when LAWS tone activates. Verify altitude, attitude,
and VSI indications."
...
"7. Maintain DR plot and tactical situational awareness."
...
"10. Inform pilot of system degradations and provide alternatives."
Federal Aviation Regulations
Part 91 -- GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES
"91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.
(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and
is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft."
You may also want to read FAR Part 121, especially subparts M, N, and O. If
the FAA requires such extensive training of all crewmembers in
safety-related matters and Cockpit Resource management, I assume they hold
all the crewmembers responsible for knowing and carrying out those duties...
>> BTW, if it was a "kangaroo court," how is it that he was acquitted?
>> How is it that ECMO2 and ECMO3 were never brought to trial?
>
>CAPT Ashby, of course, was the PILOT. Not the ECMO. I erred on this
>because when I saw him on CNN, I could have sworn he was wearing
>crossed anchors on his wings. (I guess that shows you why I was an
>NFO myself, eh?) I canceled my article, hoping to cover up my dumbass
>mistake, but obviously it outstripped the control message and you saw
>and responded to it before it could be wiped out on your server.
---------------------
John Weiss
---------------------
John R. Weiss
Seattle, WA
Remove *NOSPAM* from address for e-mail reply
Mike Yukish wrote in message <36e038cd....@news.psu.edu>...
Dudley Henriques
interest. I believe that there SHOULD be discussion on this matter by
those interested in military aviation; but let's be a bit more
objective.
I think everyone is aware that this terrible accident had all sorts of
ramifications from many different directions. I speak as a military
pilot and a member of the fighter community.
Yes, there are pilots who hot dog. Yes, there are pilots who do stupid
things with airplanes.
Yes as well, there were heavy political aspects to this accident.
From the onset of this event there were those with agendas maneuvering
for positional advantage. The pressure on the Marine Corps must have
been tremendous concerning this matter.
I don't know Dick Ashby. I wasn't in the cockpit with him and I don't
know what actually happened. But I do know this!
I believe strongly that an MIR report reaching the top level and not
being bounced can be trusted. The Marines could have bounced the report
and did not. I commend them, and I firmly believe that a full
investigation of this matter failed to provide the evidence needed to
convict Capt. Ashby of negligence. I further believe that if there was
such evidence. the Marines would have produced it.
For those who would consider my feelings to be biased, let me add this.
If I were sitting on a court martial board dealing with a pilot who
evidence proved was responsible for the deaths of twenty people through
negligence, I would most certainly vote to convict.
Dudley Henriques
>
> Ogden Johnson III wrote:
>
> <excellent analysis snipped>
>
> Bravo Zulu on your review of the matter.
>
> I would add that the defense did an excellent job.
>
> Bill Kambic, CDR, USNR(RET)
>
Michael Nott
with the book. Whenever I was in the front seat of the S-3 I felt
equally responsible for the completion of the mission and the safety of
my crew (as mission commander) as I thought the pilot should feel
(probably more, since I was usually senior). I fully understand trying
the ECMO 1 on the same charges as the pilot, but the prosecutor in CAPT
Ashby's case certainly weakened the next prosecutor's case by stating
that the ECMO 1 was not at fault.
Mike Nott
Michael Nott
fellows' mistakes than the general public (witness O.J. Simpson). You're
my brother, but if you disgrace the brotherhood, bad on you. BTW, I
doubt that CAPT Ashby, if he remains in the Marine Corps, ever sees gold
on his collar. I would also make a side bet that his log book is as full
as it ever gets.
Mike Nott
Charles Crain
that the Radar Altimeter (RADALT) system was one that failed quite often. It
does not surprise me that this system could have failed on this flight.
If I were deployed to this Theatre of Operations as aircrew, I would practice
low level, nap of the earth "hot dogging" at every peacetime opportunity, for
the real thing might just have to be pulled off with no RADALT, or any other
system with a high failure rate. People tend to forget that aircraft
(especially older ones), break.
Capt O'Grady had a fully functional aircraft shot out from under him. This
incident is undoubtably a tragedy. I don't know quite how I feel about the
verdict. Damn shame.
in article <_SQD2.50$6b4.24...@dca1-nnrp1.news.digex.net>, o...@cpcug.org
says...
Marcus Graham
"Keith Willshaw" <10057...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>
> Matt Jacobs wrote in message <36DED29F...@natinst.com>...
> >Europeans 'shocked' at U.S. pilot's acquittal
> >
>
> Well speaking for myself not ALL Europeans are shocked.
No, but those who would have liked to see justice in this case, are.
He has the blood of twenty innocent people on his hands, and he is free
to go home, like nothing has happened. It is revolting, and it wouldn't
have happened if the victims had been Americans, and this is what is most
offensive for most Europeans, the double standard that is applied to human
life.
>
> I think the charges brought were inflated and in any case the
Inflated??? Had your mother or father been among the dead, I'm sure we
would have heard another tune.
> really important thing is that the lessons are learned to
> minimise future risks.
The important thing is that the responsible persons have to face the
consequences of killing twenty people. If not, there will surely be more
dangerous and reckless behaviour in the future, as soldiers will feel immune
and protected by a corrupt system, that refuses to hold their own accountable
for their actions. No lessons can be learned in this case, unless the
pilot is properly punished for his actions.
>
> Military flight training IS dangerous and some of those risks are
> inevitbly borne by the general public. The dangers of NOT
> having adequately trained pilots and crew are less obvious
> but far greater in terms of the potential damage they do.
In this case he was trained alright, and he wanted to show just how trained
he was, and twenty lives are lost because of it.
>
> I have little doubt the pilot concerned was hotdogging but
> there seems to have been a culture of that sort in place.
That fact doesn't make it OK. It makes it all the more necessary with
a conviction.
> For this its his CO who should be facing some hard
> questions.
Sure. And the one "hotdogging", should be in jail. End of story.
>
> As for the issue of maps etc. I am no Pilot but I seriously
> doubt any map can ever be 100% accurate and any Pilot
> in an area as developed as Europe would surely always
> be aware that there are cables everywhere.
He was flying way too low, and at too high a speed, in direct violation
of the regulations. The map "excuse" is pathetic, but I guess that was all
they could come up with. With that kind of defense, it would be OK for any
car driver who killed someone while speeding, to say, "Hey, my map didn't
show that crossing, and by the way, the street isn't marked either!"
Marcus
Marcus Graham
cr...@ti.com (Charles Crain) wrote:
> I worked on the A-6 for a few years as a flight deck troubleshooter. I recall
> that the Radar Altimeter (RADALT) system was one that failed quite often. It
> does not surprise me that this system could have failed on this flight.
All the more reason not to fly at low altitudes, not to mention dangerously
low, as in this case. This argument only makes the case against him worse.
Apparently he lacked any kind of responsibility, and this should be taken
into consideration when determining guilt. Of course it never was, as his
fellow marines who "tried" him, would probably have been just as reckless in
similar circumstances.
>
> If I were deployed to this Theatre of Operations as aircrew, I would practice
> low level, nap of the earth "hot dogging" at every peacetime opportunity, for
Thank you. You just proved me right.
> the real thing might just have to be pulled off with no RADALT, or any other
> system with a high failure rate. People tend to forget that aircraft
> (especially older ones), break.
>
> Capt O'Grady had a fully functional aircraft shot out from under him. This
> incident is undoubtably a tragedy. I don't know quite how I feel about the
> verdict. Damn shame.
Exactly. The verdict was a shame, and a disgrace.
Jim Strand
<marcus_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> He was flying way too low, and at too high a speed, in direct violation
> of the regulations. The map "excuse" is pathetic, but I guess that was all
> they could come up with. With that kind of defense, it would be OK for any
> car driver who killed someone while speeding, to say, "Hey, my map didn't
> show that crossing, and by the way, the street isn't marked either!"
>
Aeronautical charts (maps) are specialized items the flight crew is
required to review before each flight. Not only are these updated on
a regular basis but special update notices are published during the
interim.
The Italian aviation authorities knew for a very long time that
training routes were flown through those passes. Likely many were
first designed and used by the Italians. As such the database
maintenance is indeed a critical factor that can't be ignored.
If a foreign flag carrier were to strike a radio tower while
approaching New York's JFK airport you can bet that the lack of that
tower on the charts would become an issue. Responsibility involving
many outside of the flight crew itself. The USA has regulations in
place requiring official notification prior to construction of
anything exceeding a given height. Whether other countries have
equivilent regulations or enforce them would be worthy of further
review.
Although the crew of the EA-6B contributed to this horrible accident
chances are others outside the cockpit contributed as well. Any one
of them who may have changed the outcome had they done something
different.
***************************************
delete "nospam" for e-mail reply
***************************************
Marcus Graham
chie...@unix.nospam.asb.com (Jim Strand) wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Mar 1999 07:26:06 GMT, Marcus Graham
> <marcus_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > He was flying way too low, and at too high a speed, in direct violation
> > of the regulations. The map "excuse" is pathetic, but I guess that was all
> > they could come up with. With that kind of defense, it would be OK for any
> > car driver who killed someone while speeding, to say, "Hey, my map didn't
> > show that crossing, and by the way, the street isn't marked either!"
> >
>
> Aeronautical charts (maps) are specialized items the flight crew is
> required to review before each flight. Not only are these updated on
> a regular basis but special update notices are published during the
Of course they are, and proper attention should be given to them, naturally.
This does in no way mean that a pilot is granted total immunity when he
is in clear violation of his rules, if a wire, cable, tree top or other
infrastructure for some reason or other is not marked. It is pure nonsense.
Furthermore, it was no surprise to the marines stationed at the Aviano base
that they operated in a populated area, which is also a popular ski resort.
The fact that cables are present, is not exactly some new, revolutionary
revelation. After all, the altitude and speed restrictions are there for a
reason, and this is not something that is in any way difficult to grasp for
an intelligent and skilled marine pilot, who like a coward now chooses to
avoid responsibility for his unlawful actions, blaming everything else but
himself. I have never seen such pathetic behaviour, and he is a disgrace to
the marine. The truth is that he willingly and recklessly chose to ignore
the rules and regulations as had happened so often before, according to
residents in the area.
> interim.
>
> The Italian aviation authorities knew for a very long time that
> training routes were flown through those passes. Likely many were
They also knew that they had given regulations regarding altitude and
speed, which were not followed. It is very simple, really. The cable was cut
at a very low altitude, and there is no question that he was in blatant
violation of the Italian regulations. Of course he now says that he had no
idea of the altitude restrictions, and the marine court chose to believe
him, no matter how ridiculous this prospect is.
> first designed and used by the Italians. As such the database
> maintenance is indeed a critical factor that can't be ignored.
>
> If a foreign flag carrier were to strike a radio tower while
> approaching New York's JFK airport you can bet that the lack of that
> tower on the charts would become an issue. Responsibility involving
I don't see any comparison. The pilot of a landing jet would be operating in
the correct and allowed air space.
This pilot was flying in an airspace FORBIDDEN to him.
Is this so difficult to comprehend?
> many outside of the flight crew itself. The USA has regulations in
> place requiring official notification prior to construction of
> anything exceeding a given height. Whether other countries have
> equivilent regulations or enforce them would be worthy of further
> review.
The marines at the Aviano base are bound by the regulations in Italy,
period. There are clear altitude and speed regulations in the area, and
it is no secret that among the mountains in the region there are cables,
used for transporting people. That is precisely why there are rules and
regulations. (God, what a ridiculous discussion. This is rather elementary,
wouldn't you say?)
>
> Although the crew of the EA-6B contributed to this horrible accident
> chances are others outside the cockpit contributed as well. Any one
> of them who may have changed the outcome had they done something
> different.
Absolutely not. The pilot is in command of his plane, and has to face
responsibility for breaking the law, killing TWENTY people in the process.
He was a skillful and experienced pilot who simply misused his plane.
It happens all the time, but in this instance people died because of it.
For him to simply go free is a travesty and a miscarriage of justice.
John Weiss
from the A-6 NATOPS that I provided?
It is true that the FINAL responsibility/authority for safety of flight lies
with the pilot in command. However, if the co-pilot or other flight deck
crewmember sees an unsafe situation but does nothing about it, he most
certainly shares the responsibility. It is entirely possible that the PIC
temporarily overlooks a bad situation, and only the co-pilot has the full SA
to prevent a tragedy. It is certainly the co-pilot's responsibility and
duty to take appropriate action.
It is only when another crewmember takes appropriate action, but is
overridden by the PIC, that the other crewmember is relieved of
responsibility. Inaction by that crewmember does _NOT_ relieve him of that
responsibility. In fact, you bring up the concept of "dereliction of duty"
below. IF ECMO1 _knew_ they were flying at an altitude significantly lower
than that briefed, he was derelict in his duty if he did not point out that
fact to the PIC.
I am not privy to all the facts and evidence. However, I do agree that the
charge of manslaughter was likely overkill (especially in the case of
ECMO1). I also believe that a charge of dereliction of duty would likely be
provable against both the PIC and ECMO1 in this case. Since dereliction of
duty is not (to my knowledge) a "lesser included offense" under
manslaughter, the Court Martial had no option to convict on those grounds.
The USMC had a duty to fully investigate the matter. They would have been
derelict in their collective duty if they did NOT hold the Article 32
investigation on ECMO2 and ECMO3. Rightfully, they were exonerated. I see
absolutely nothing wrong with that series of events.
---------------------
John R. Weiss
Seattle, WA
Remove *NOSPAM* from address for e-mail reply
J.D. Baldwin wrote in message ...
>>
>> I believe you are very confused regarding "responsibility" and
>> "authority," and have forgotten everything you ever learned about
>> Crew Coordination, Crew Concept, and Cockpit Resource Management.
>
>Those are all nice things, and I do remember them dimly, but they're
>not really that relevant to what I was talking about. Yes, everyone
>in the crew has an important contribution to make to safety of flight,
>mission effectiveness and the reading on the fun-meter. When the shit
>hits the fan and bodies litter the countryside, the responsibility
>rests with one man. That's why they call him the pilot in COMMAND.
>
>I didn't mean to denigrate the role (sometimes important, sometimes
>less so) other crew members play in keeping the airplane from becoming
>part of the aforementioned countryside. Taken out of the context, of
>course, it's easy to read my remarks that way. But the context here
>is criminal culpability for dereliction of duty. I believe it was a
>stretch to put Ashby in the docket for manslaughter over this incident.
>Putting Schweitzer (sp?) in the docket is unconscionable. The attempt
>to fry the backseaters was simply beyond the pale.
Michael Wise
<marcus_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > He was flying way too low, and at too high a speed, in direct violation
> > > of the regulations. The map "excuse" is pathetic, but I guess that
was all
> > > they could come up with. With that kind of defense, it would be OK
for any
> > > car driver who killed someone while speeding, to say, "Hey, my map didn't
> > > show that crossing, and by the way, the street isn't marked either!"
> > >
> >
> > Aeronautical charts (maps) are specialized items the flight crew is
> > required to review before each flight. Not only are these updated on
> > a regular basis but special update notices are published during the
>
>
> Of course they are, and proper attention should be given to them, naturally.
> This does in no way mean that a pilot is granted total immunity when he
> is in clear violation of his rules, if a wire, cable, tree top or other
> infrastructure for some reason or other is not marked. It is pure nonsense.
> Furthermore, it was no surprise to the marines stationed at the Aviano base
> that they operated in a populated area, which is also a popular ski resort.
One thing which didn't get very much mention in the press was the fact
that the crew of the A-6 had video taped some of that fatefull mission
flight...and that Capt. Ashby destroyed the video tape after the flight.
Why did he destroy the tape? Did he not want people to see something on
the tape? It sure makes it look like he was trying hide something.
--Mike
Jim Strand
Not to recognize that others were also factors contributing to this
disaster and placing the entire blame on a single crew is more of a
miscarriage of justice.
I sense you are trolling with this subject. As such this will be the
end of my comments on this matter.
Marcus Graham
chie...@unix.nospam.asb.com (Jim Strand) wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Mar 1999 18:38:15 GMT, Marcus Graham
> <marcus_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > For him to simply go free is a travesty and a miscarriage of justice.
> >
> >
> > Marcus
> >
>
> Not to recognize that others were also factors contributing to this
> disaster and placing the entire blame on a single crew is more of a
> miscarriage of justice.
The fact that others may have their share of the blame does in no way
mean that the pilot in charge of his plane should walk free. I cannot see
any logic in that argument.
>
> I sense you are trolling with this subject. As such this will be the
> end of my comments on this matter.
I happen to have a different view than yours. It is not called trolling, it
is called a debate, but I respect your view, of course.
Sorry if I offended you.
Matt Clonfero
<marcus_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Well speaking for myself not ALL Europeans are shocked.
>
> No, but those who would have liked to see justice in this case, are.
> He has the blood of twenty innocent people on his hands, and he is free
> to go home, like nothing has happened. It is revolting, and it wouldn't
> have happened if the victims had been Americans, and this is what is most
> offensive for most Europeans, the double standard that is applied to human
> life.
Fine. I take it that the Italian Government will be undertaking a
witchhunt^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H investigation into the crash at Ramstein by
their display team which killed a number of civilians.
>> Military flight training IS dangerous and some of those risks are
>> inevitbly borne by the general public. The dangers of NOT
>> having adequately trained pilots and crew are less obvious
>> but far greater in terms of the potential damage they do.
>
> In this case he was trained alright, and he wanted to show just how trained
> he was, and twenty lives are lost because of it.
If you think that training stops when you leave flight school, you are a
long way short of the reality of the situation.
Aetherem Vincere
Matt
--
Matt Clonfero: Mat...@aetherem.demon.co.uk | To err is human, To forgive
My employer and I have a deal - I don't speak | is not Air Force Policy.
for them, and they don't speak for me. | -- Anon, ETPS.
Chris Wheal
Marcus Graham wrote:
> In article <7bq65u$dqt$1...@ox.spdc.ti.com>,
> cr...@ti.com (Charles Crain) wrote:
> > I worked on the A-6 for a few years as a flight deck troubleshooter. I recall
> > that the Radar Altimeter (RADALT) system was one that failed quite often. It
> > does not surprise me that this system could have failed on this flight.
>
> All the more reason not to fly at low altitudes, not to mention dangerously
> low, as in this case. This argument only makes the case against him worse.
> Apparently he lacked any kind of responsibility, and this should be taken
> into consideration when determining guilt. Of course it never was, as his
> fellow marines who "tried" him, would probably have been just as reckless in
> similar circumstances.
>
Anybody who thinks that a rad-alt is or should be a no-go item on a low level
training flight has obviously never been there. At high speed a rad-alt is only
any good over a smooth surface, e.g. the sea and even then mostly over calm water
where judging height by eye can be very difficult. Its usefulness decreases
rapidly with increasing terrain roughness. In mountainous country it's pretty well
useless except perhaps for telling you your minimum altitude over the crests if
you're interested. In serious low level flying, especially in the mountains, you
judge altitude almost entirely by eye -- the ground (and the rad-alt) is going up
and down much faster than you or the aircraft can respond.
Having said that, if there was really a 1,000 foot altitude restriction in force
under US rules (or 2,000 feet under Italian) and if that is interpreted as being
the absolute minimum anywhere (i.e. over mountain crests) he would probably have
been nearer 1,500 feet over the valley floor and nowhere near the cable car. It
would also have been a total waste of time as a low level training exercise, but
that's another story. He was obviously well below either of the quoted height
restrictions or the accident couldn't have happened in the first place but he
should have known that with or without a rad-alt.
IMHO the thing that really did him in was that the wretched cable wasn't marked on
his map. I know you can't expect enemy countries to provide up-to-date maps with
all their power cables and stuff marked on them, but in peace-time flying in
friendly countries crews rely heavily on knowing where they are. You're mostly
focused two or three miles ahead of the aircraft and you just cannot see the damned
things in time to make any difference -- all you can hope to pick up is the support
towers or maybe a gondola or those red balls that some kind people string on their
wires, aircrew for the use of. Memories of power cables strung across Welsh
valleys. Low level in single seaters is fun, but two sets of eyes are better than
one and it always felt a lot safer to have a navigator in the back seat helping to
keep track of stuff like wires.
Chris
John Weiss
>Anybody who thinks that a rad-alt is or should be a no-go item on a low
level
>training flight has obviously never been there. At high speed a rad-alt is
only
>any good over a smooth surface, e.g. the sea and even then mostly over calm
water
>where judging height by eye can be very difficult. Its usefulness
decreases
>rapidly with increasing terrain roughness. In mountainous country it's
pretty well
>useless except perhaps for telling you your minimum altitude over the
crests if
>you're interested. In serious low level flying, especially in the
mountains, you
>judge altitude almost entirely by eye -- the ground (and the rad-alt) is
going up
>and down much faster than you or the aircraft can respond.
Sorry, but you're wrong about the usefulness of the RADALT.
The RADALT is an excellent instrument for showing trends, as well as for
showing "snapshots" of instantaneous altitude. A good pilot will integrate
its output with that of the baro altimeter and the topographical chart (and
radar, if available) to maintain a constant crosscheck on current vs. target
altitude. While nobody would try to maintain _constant_ radar altitude
above rough terrain, the RADALT is far from "useless"...
>Having said that, if there was really a 1,000 foot altitude restriction in
force
>under US rules (or 2,000 feet under Italian) and if that is interpreted as
being
>the absolute minimum anywhere (i.e. over mountain crests) he would probably
have
>been nearer 1,500 feet over the valley floor and nowhere near the cable
car. It
>would also have been a total waste of time as a low level training
exercise, but
>that's another story. He was obviously well below either of the quoted
height
>restrictions or the accident couldn't have happened in the first place but
he
>should have known that with or without a rad-alt.
Nope. Over the valley floor, between the time he stabilized after the
previous ridge crossing and the time he has to climb for the next ridge,
he'd be as close to 1000' (or 2000') as possible, if he was indeed training.
>IMHO the thing that really did him in was that the wretched cable wasn't
marked on
>his map. I know you can't expect enemy countries to provide up-to-date
maps with
>all their power cables and stuff marked on them, but in peace-time flying
in
>friendly countries crews rely heavily on knowing where they are. You're
mostly
>focused two or three miles ahead of the aircraft and you just cannot see
the damned
>things in time to make any difference -- all you can hope to pick up is the
support
>towers or maybe a gondola or those red balls that some kind people string
on their
>wires, aircrew for the use of. Memories of power cables strung across
Welsh
>valleys. Low level in single seaters is fun, but two sets of eyes are
better than
>one and it always felt a lot safer to have a navigator in the back seat
helping to
>keep track of stuff like wires.
I disagree again. IF he was following the rules (even the misunderstood one
of a 1000' minimum altitude, or the more general one of a 500' minimum), he
would not have hit the cable. To me, the possibilities boil down to
something like:
He was flathatting -- he was LOW, he knew it, and he didn't care. His
fault; gross negligence; should be found guilty of manslaughter.
He was low, but didn't realize _how_ low because the RADALT wasn't
working and he didn't crosscheck. His fault; negligence (because he KNEW of
the previous RADALT problems, and should have compensated); should be found
guilty of something less than manslaughter.
He was low, but he didn't know it because he was distracted by something
else (e.g., checking chart and/or fuel in the cockpit). His fault; no
negligence; should not be convicted of a criminal offense.
Personally, I think the second is the closest approximation of what
happened.
---------------------
John R. Weiss
Seattle, WA
ex A-4, A-6, and EA-6B pilot
Zabo
>Anybody who thinks that a rad-alt is or should be a no-go item on a low
level
>training flight has obviously never been there.
To go in the low altitude environment ( less than 1500) It is a no-go for
every Hornet squadron I know of.
I do (and so do a lot of other pilots I know) do a RADALT check at 1500 AGL.
I compare the RAD
ALT to what the BARO ALT should say and if it checks good I continue my
descend to <500 ft AGL. When
we instruct LAT (low altitude training) this is a mandatory check and part
of the training rules. If it checks
bad we go home.
Zabo
Marcus Graham
> Anybody who thinks that a rad-alt is or should be a no-go item on a low
level> you're interested. In serious low level flying, especially in the
mountains, you
> judge altitude almost entirely by eye -- the ground (and the rad-alt) is
going up
> and down much faster than you or the aircraft can respond.
That is very interesting. This pilot who was out on a final joy ride before
his transfer to fighter pilot training, bringing his home video camera with
him, tried to argue in his defense that he had no way of estimating how high
or low he was flying, since his altimeter was malfunctioning. That is,
whether he flew at 1000 feet (absolute lowest altitude permitted due to the
cables in the area, a fact that was common knowledge among the marines,
according to testimony.)or at 300 feet, when the accident occurred.
I'm not a pilot, but common sense tells me that had this been true he
wouldn't have been off for fighter pilot training.
The audacity of his defense is astounding to me, and I'm only surprised
that he didn't claim to have some serious visual disability, showing his
prescription glasses with one inch thick lenses to the jury.
> Having said that, if there was really a 1,000 foot altitude restriction in
force
> under US rules (or 2,000 feet under Italian) and if that is interpreted as
being
> the absolute minimum anywhere (i.e. over mountain crests) he would probably
have
> been nearer 1,500 feet over the valley floor and nowhere near the cable car.
It
> would also have been a total waste of time as a low level training exercise,
but
> that's another story. He was obviously well below either of the quoted height
> restrictions or the accident couldn't have happened in the first place but he
> should have known that with or without a rad-alt.
This is the core issue. He says he shouldn't, and at the same time he says
that he had no idea what the altitude restriction was, something that to
me sounds downright ridiculous. In that case it could successfully be
argued that he was obligated to find out BEFORE he started skirting the
ground in a mountain area full of ski lift cables everywhere. It sounds
like pure nonsense to me. After all, it has never been a defense to claim
lack of knowledge, if you can't at least show that you've made some effort
to find out such an elementary thing as where you are allowed to fly.
>
> IMHO the thing that really did him in was that the wretched cable wasn't
marked on
> his map. I know you can't expect enemy countries to provide up-to-date maps
with
> all their power cables and stuff marked on them, but in peace-time flying in
> friendly countries crews rely heavily on knowing where they are. You're
This is a common misconception about this case. There were plenty of maps
at the base, where this cable was clearly marked. His defense is solely
based on that the particular map he had chosen for the flight, didn't
have the cable marked. This comes from someone who has a motive
to lie, obviously. Apparently he believs that others should have given him
a better map, not that he was responsible for picking out a suitable one.
Of course he says that no one ever showed him any other map.
mostly
> focused two or three miles ahead of the aircraft and you just cannot see the
damned
> things in time to make any difference -- all you can hope to pick up is the
support
> towers or maybe a gondola or those red balls that some kind people string on
their
> wires, aircrew for the use of. Memories of power cables strung across Welsh
> valleys. Low level in single seaters is fun, but two sets of eyes are
better than
> one and it always felt a lot safer to have a navigator in the back seat
helping to
> keep track of stuff like wires.
This is exactly why there is a 1000 feet altitude restriction, and a speed
restriction for that matter, which was also ignored. (I'm not sure, but I
think he claimed that he didn't know the speed limit either.
I'm really surprised that he even knew which country he was in.)
The nastiest thing in this ugly affair is that he most certainly knew what
he was doing, that he deliberately tried to fly under the cable. Shortly
before the impact he had made a 360 degree roll according to testimony, and
I believe that he intentionally meant to fly under the cable in the same
sequence. This totally illegal kind of behaviour had gone on before,
according to residents' accounts. Not one pilot testified to that effect, to
my knowledge.
I believe that on this last flight, as some kind of final show, he
intended to use all his skill as a pilot, flying as dangerously as he could,
having someone in the plane recording his performance as a souvenir. This is
not entirely my own invention since during the first two, or three days
after the disaster, rumours to this effect were circulating somewhere around
the base, and a few newspapers picked it up. This story died down at around
the same time the tape disappeared.
To me this is rather telling, and above all, it makes sense. His defense,
claiming practically total amnesia and ignorance about everything involving
flying proceedures, doesn't.
We must also think about why he destroyed a tape, fully knowing that it
must come out, taking the risk of being charged with obstruction (which he
was). As his pattern of dangerous low flying was not so much in dispute,
except for the 360 degree roll shortly before the impact, I believe that it
was always more a question of what was said. Something extremely damaging to
his defense was said, which made the destruction of the tape necessary. I
believe that the tape recorded someone talking about that cable, and talking
about flying under it, which would have demonstrated that he knew of its
presence at the time. It is only my guess of course, but it fits perfectly
with the events.
I also believe that there was absolutely nothing wrong with the altitude
radar, not until after the accident at least, if you see my meaning.
This pathetic defense, that he couldn't judge the altitude because of
this malfunction, was indeed his major defense, apart from the map he
claimed he had.
In light of a fellow officer's testimony that it was common knowledge at
the base that there were cables in the area under 1000 feet, and that
residents reported seeing planes flying under them (I cannot say whether or
not these residents testified to this effect) leads me to believe that this
was a classic case of hotdogging gone terribly wrong. Had this pilot and
crew been convicted, he could have spent the rest of his life in prison. In
that case I believe that he would have started to talk, and it would have
become public that the airforce on a more or less regular basis had been
ignoring regulations, endangering people's lives. In short, there would have
been more heads rolling.
Marcus Graham
> I disagree again. IF he was following the rules (even the misunderstood one
> of a 1000' minimum altitude, or the more general one of a 500' minimum), he
He didn't misunderstand a thing. He was a highly skilled and trained pilot,
who like his fellow officers knew about the 1000 feet rule, and ignoring
it. To even suggest that he had spent all his time in Aviano not knowing
where he could legally fly is ridiculous, and most pilots agree, albeit
somewhat reluctantly.
We don't deel with any 500 feet minimum. There is a 1000 feet minimum
in the area, period.
The cable was severed at around 300 feet. Most pilots would say his claim
that he couldn't judge 1000 feet from 300 feet is nonsense,
and a responsible jury would be bound to find it less than credible.
This man was hardly a beginner, and he was taught to use his two eyes as
well as artificial equipment in estimating altitude, especially if his
instruments were malfunctioning, in which case he had NO business
practicing extreme low level flying. Clear criminal negligence, and in
no way any mitigating circumstances.
> would not have hit the cable. To me, the possibilities boil down to
> something like:
>
> He was flathatting -- he was LOW, he knew it, and he didn't care. His
> fault; gross negligence; should be found guilty of manslaughter.
According to the evidence this is what occurred.
Of course he knew he was flathatting, unless you suggest he was
unconscious. Of course he didn't care, otherwise he would have
respected the 1000 feet regulation. Pretty basic. Marines testified that
this restriction was commonly known, and there is no reason to believe
that this highly skilled pilot, on his way to fighter pilot school
didn't know where to fly. Merely because he says so doesn't mean that
the jury must agree, if they feel that his claim is unreasonable.
>
> He was low, but didn't realize _how_ low because the RADALT wasn't
> working and he didn't crosscheck. His fault; negligence (because he KNEW of
This is not the case. It was never a question of knowing how low,
per se. It was a question of whether or not he reasonably knew that
he was BELOW 1000 feet at the time of impact.
He can differentiate between 1000 feet and 300 feet
with his eyes. He doesn't need equipment for that unless he has
a bad vision. Again, credibility must be assessed.
Is this claim reasonable or not? Remember, if the prosecution
could establish that he must have known that he was under the 1000 feet
altitude limit, he is guilty of the charges. The jury didn't want to
convict, and therefore went along with this argument, no matter
how ridiculous, and no matter that he must have been flying many times
before in the area, being very familiar with the surroundings.
> the previous RADALT problems, and should have compensated); should be found
> guilty of something less than manslaughter.
Waste and spoilage, I pressume?
Wrong conclusion. He had an obligation to follow regulations. As he
flew unlawfully low, and the accident happened because of it, he
must be found guilty if it is reasonable to conclude that he must
have realised that he was under the 1000 feet restriction when it
happened. His problem is that almost no one believes him when he says
he didn't, because it goes against all reason and common sense.
> He was low, but he didn't know it because he was distracted by something
> else (e.g., checking chart and/or fuel in the cockpit). His fault; no
> negligence; should not be convicted of a criminal offense.
On the contrary. Is he flatthatting while eating a banana or picking
his nose and twenty people die because he doesn't concentrate on his
performance, and where he is, he is all the more guilty. This last
scenario is the most damning one, not the other way around.
Elmshoot
Well said! I trained that guy. People fly low, disregard the rules more than we
care to admit. The malfunctioning Rad Alt is a CYA. Heck I would have done the
same given the same circumstances... except if the route said 1k I would have
been there not .3k. I find it
unbelieveable that any sane aviator would atempt to fly under any cables.
Sparky
John Weiss
>> I disagree again. IF he was following the rules (even the misunderstood
one
>> of a 1000' minimum altitude, or the more general one of a 500' minimum),
he
>
> He didn't misunderstand a thing. He was a highly skilled and trained
pilot,
> who like his fellow officers knew about the 1000 feet rule, and ignoring
>it. To even suggest that he had spent all his time in Aviano not knowing
>where he could legally fly is ridiculous, and most pilots agree, albeit
>somewhat reluctantly.
On what do you base your claim that he was intentionally ignoring the 1000'
rule? Tell me how you KNOW it was not a transient altitude excursion due to
an in-cockpit or outside distraction.
<snip>
> This man was hardly a beginner, and he was taught to use his two eyes
as
> well as artificial equipment in estimating altitude, especially if his
> instruments were malfunctioning, in which case he had NO business
> practicing extreme low level flying. Clear criminal negligence, and in
> no way any mitigating circumstances.
Similar question to that above: On what basis do you KNOW there were no
mitigating circumstances?
>> would not have hit the cable. To me, the possibilities boil down to
>> something like:
>>
>> He was flathatting -- he was LOW, he knew it, and he didn't care.
His
>> fault; gross negligence; should be found guilty of manslaughter.
>
> According to the evidence this is what occurred.
That's not what the Court Martial, who heard and deliberated ALL the
evidence, found...
> Of course he knew he was flathatting, unless you suggest he was
> unconscious. Of course he didn't care, otherwise he would have
> respected the 1000 feet regulation. Pretty basic. Marines testified
that
> this restriction was commonly known, and there is no reason to believe
> that this highly skilled pilot, on his way to fighter pilot school
> didn't know where to fly. Merely because he says so doesn't mean that
> the jury must agree, if they feel that his claim is unreasonable.
Your first sentence indicates you didn't even consider the other options
before you responded. I didn't suggest he was unconscious; I suggested he
was unprofessional or distracted. There's a big difference.
>> He was low, but didn't realize _how_ low because the RADALT wasn't
>> working and he didn't crosscheck. His fault; negligence (because he KNEW
of
>
> This is not the case. It was never a question of knowing how low,
> per se. It was a question of whether or not he reasonably knew that
> he was BELOW 1000 feet at the time of impact.
That is most definitely NOT the question! Even if he was meticulously
following the 1000' restriction and his RADALT was working, standard
procedures allow a 10% deviation below the minimum altitude on a transient
basis -- the RADALT warning bug is routinely set at 10% below the minimum
(900' in this case). Otherwise, the warning tone and light become
distractions, and are a DETRIMENT to safety.
> He can differentiate between 1000 feet and 300 feet
> with his eyes. He doesn't need equipment for that unless he has
> a bad vision. Again, credibility must be assessed.
I don't question the 1000' vs. 300' issue. I DO question the issues of
immediate knowledge, intent, and duration. Evidently, you are unable or
unwilling to address those issues.
> Is this claim reasonable or not? Remember, if the prosecution
> could establish that he must have known that he was under the 1000
feet
> altitude limit, he is guilty of the charges. The jury didn't want to
> convict, and therefore went along with this argument, no matter
> how ridiculous, and no matter that he must have been flying many
times
> before in the area, being very familiar with the surroundings.
Your first argument has absolutely no basis. The prosecution, AT A MINIMUM,
would have to establish he was INTENTIONALLY less than 900', for a duration
longer than would be defined as "transient," without attempting to correct
back to 1000'. That would be ONLY THE BEGINNING of satisfying the elements
of manslaughter!
I challenge you to substantiate your claim that "The jury didn't want to
convict, and therefore went along with this argument, no matter how
ridiculous." I doubt you can.
>> the previous RADALT problems, and should have compensated); should be
found
>> guilty of something less than manslaughter.
>
> Waste and spoilage, I pressume?
No (and I thought you were the one who complained about the lack of
"substantial argument...). Destruction:
Art. 108. Military property of United States - Loss, damage,
destruction, or wrongful disposition
Art. 109. Property other than military property of United States -
Waste, spoilage, or destruction
and/or
Art. 90. Assaulting or willfully disobeying superior commissioned
officer
Art. 92. Failure to obey order or regulation
Art. 111. Drunken or reckless operation of a vehicle, aircraft, or
vessel
> Wrong conclusion. He had an obligation to follow regulations. As he
> flew unlawfully low, and the accident happened because of it, he
> must be found guilty if it is reasonable to conclude that he must
> have realised that he was under the 1000 feet restriction when it
> happened. His problem is that almost no one believes him when he says
> he didn't, because it goes against all reason and common sense.
You still have not established beyond a reasonable doubt that the altitude
excursion was intentional, uncorrected, and non-transient. Until you do so,
your arguments continue to be specious.
>> He was low, but he didn't know it because he was distracted by
something
>> else (e.g., checking chart and/or fuel in the cockpit). His fault; no
>> negligence; should not be convicted of a criminal offense.
>
> On the contrary. Is he flatthatting while eating a banana or picking
> his nose and twenty people die because he doesn't concentrate on his
> performance, and where he is, he is all the more guilty. This last
> scenario is the most damning one, not the other way around.
You obviously have no idea of the definition of flathatting, or are
intentionally spouting pure bullshit (or both).
Flathatting is _intentionally_ flying too low/too fast for thrill purposes
only.
---------------------
John R. Weiss
Seattle, WA
billwg
Marcus Graham <marcus_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7c20vs$9em$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com...
>
> The nastiest thing in this ugly affair is that he most certainly knew
what
> he was doing, that he deliberately tried to fly under the cable. Shortly
> before the impact he had made a 360 degree roll according to testimony,
The roll was executed, according to the testimony, well before the mishap
and as part of a ridge crossing. You're implying a reckless spirit where
there was only adherence, I think, to normal practice.
> I believe that he intentionally meant to fly under the cable in the same
> sequence. This totally illegal kind of behaviour had gone on before,
> according to residents' accounts. Not one pilot testified to that effect,
to
> my knowledge.
>
Interestingly, no resident testified to ever having observed this practice.
I would think that the prosecution would have found a few, since they had so
many residents testifying. Anybody of the real aviation community care to
offer an opinion as to what 3 EMOs would say about being under the cables,
inverted, at 300' in a mountain valley? Is it likely that nobody would flag
this?
> ...Something extremely damaging to
> his defense was said, which made the destruction of the tape necessary.
I
> believe that the tape recorded someone talking about that cable, and
talking
> about flying under it, which would have demonstrated that he knew of its
> presence at the time. It is only my guess of course, but it fits
perfectly
> with the events.
>
The video camera isn't going to act as a make-do CVR. The crew intercom is
in the helmets and O2 masks and conversations aren't going to be picked up
out of the engine noise in a Prowler going pretty much max power.
HOPFIFI
and effect as well as the clearst example of "eating their young" I have seen
in a while.
DC-8 dutch
John Weiss
>> >He didn't misunderstand a thing. He was a highly skilled and trained
pilot,
>> > who like his fellow officers knew about the 1000 feet rule, and
ignoring
>> >it. To even suggest that he had spent all his time in Aviano not knowing
>> >where he could legally fly is ridiculous, and most pilots agree, albeit
>> >somewhat reluctantly.
>> On what do you base your claim that he was intentionally ignoring the
1000'
>> rule? Tell me how you KNOW it was not a transient altitude excursion due
to
>> an in-cockpit or outside distraction.
>
> Tell me how you know that it is. It is a matter of judging what
is
> most credible. Most people don't think it is credible, as many
> professionals in this and other threads have told you.
> It is his duty to know where he is flying, and if he was in any
> doubt he had no business flying at 300 feet. If you don't see it,
> it is perhaps your reasoning that is lacking credibility.
I made no such claim. I proposed several possible scenarios. I also stated
that I would not be able to reach any such conclusion without seeing at
least a partial transcript of the proceedings.
OTOH, you reached a conclusion and stated it as such. Reread your first
sentence at the top. I have not seen any substantial reasoning behind the
conclusion. Could you summarize the statements of those "many professionals
in this and other threads" on which you base your conclusion, or at least
list their names so I can research their statements?
<snip>
>> That's not what the Court Martial, who heard and deliberated ALL the
>> evidence, found...
>
> You don't know that, since you were not in the deliberation room.
> He was acquitted, but it could have been for other reasons, such
as
> improper sentencing, personal bias or conflicts of interest.
> This jury is not in any way comparable to a civilian jury, which
has
> to go through a strict jury selection process. This is a marine
> jury judging and punishing one of their own.
I already addressed your misconceptions regarding sentencing in another
message.
There is a selection process in a General Court Martial, and the defense has
the option to reject members if they show any "personal bias or conflicts of
interest." It is _very_ comparable to a civilian jury selection, in that
there is a pool of potential members, chosen according to relevant laws (the
UCMJ, in the case of the Court Martial), from which the final members are
selected. Those members are "peers" of the accused, as provided for in the
Constitution.
>> Your first sentence indicates you didn't even consider the other options
>> before you responded. I didn't suggest he was unconscious; I suggested
he
>> was unprofessional or distracted. There's a big difference.
>
> Unprofessional or distracted are perfectly legal grounds for conviction.
I
>can see by your arguments here and in other posts that you don't
understand
>this, but that is the truth. His defense never claimed that he was,
because
>they know that this is the case. You know too few facts to begin arguing
>this one. On the contrary, they brought witnesses forward to show just how
>professional and skilled he was, because they were afraid someone would
>argue precisely the points that you believe exonerate him.
"Unprofessional" _may_ be grounds for conviction of manslaughter;
"distracted," in the context originally presented, is not.
>> That is most definitely NOT the question! Even if he was meticulously
>> following the 1000' restriction and his RADALT was working, standard
>> procedures allow a 10% deviation below the minimum altitude on a
transient
>
> Not in Italy they don't. He was on foreign soil, remember. I know
> NATO loves to create its own rules, but the agreement was 1000 feet,
> period.
Please cite the source, or point me to an on-line source of the agreement.
I'd like to read it.
John Weiss
>In article <7c3quv$11...@news3.newsguy.com>,
> "billwg" <bil...@magicnet.net> wrote:
>>
>> Marcus Graham <marcus_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:7c20vs$9em$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com...
>> >
what
>> > he was doing, that he deliberately tried to fly under the cable.
Shortly
>> > before the impact he had made a 360 degree roll according to
testimony,
>>
>> and as part of a ridge crossing. You're implying a reckless spirit where
>
> on the ground didn't. Credibility must be assessed here.
1) What witnesses testified, under oath, before the court martial, to what
details, regarding the roll?
2) Why did the witnesses _not_ have a reason to lie? Some folks out there
wanted to have all military training in the area terminated...
> It was performed shortly before the accident according to witnesses.
> He doesn't acknowledge it, but that doesn't mean that it didn't happen.
> Your roll could be an earlier one. Who knows. The flight recorder was
> destroyed by Ashby, "accidentaly" as he happened to cause a
short-circuit.
> Of course he destroyed the video tape as well, but I guess this is
> all totally innocent, right? The 360 degree roll is illegal, and as
such
> it is reckless, especially when performed during low level flying, in a
> forbidden air space. Just because these stunts happen, it doesn't
follow
> that it's OK.
WHAT FLIGHT RECORDER?!? The EA-6B doesn't have a flight recorder! What is
this "short circuit" you claim? How did he allegedly cause it? This is
getting _real_ interesting!
You continue to talk about an "illegal" roll, but cannot even establish
where it was supposedly done!
>> > I believe that he intentionally meant to fly under the cable in the
same
>> > sequence. This totally illegal kind of behaviour had gone on before,
>> > according to residents' accounts. Not one pilot testified to that
effect, to
>> > my knowledge.
>>
>> Interestingly, no resident testified to ever having observed this
practice.
>
> Wrong. Residents said that they often saw planes skirting buildings,
> skirting the ground, diving under cables and in other ways behaving
> recklessly, in total violation of the regulations in the country they
> had the privilege to be in. Local officials reported that 30 power
cables
> had been severed during a short time period, and I doubt very much if
the
> marine even payed for the damages.
"Residents said..." "Local officials reported..."
How many of them testified before the court? What did they say? What
airplanes did they report as the culprits?
>> I would think that the prosecution would have found a few, since they had
so
>
> They did. Cables and wires. It was common knowledge and a daily
occurrence.
> As a matter of fact it STILL happens there. At the base was a club
called
> "The Cable Club", where "membership" demanded that cables or wires were
> flown under in a demonstration of manhood and courage. Of course, this
was
> forcefully denied by the defense. It is therefore a matter of who you
> believe, and what makes sense in view of the evidence as a whole.
If you're attempting to provide evidence to establish these facts "beyond a
reasonable doubt," you are failing miserably. Previously, you provided a
set of facts that _may_ have satisfied a "preponderence of the evidence"
standard for a civil tort suit, even if they fell far short of the standard
required for a criminal conviction. These current claims don't even
approach that standard...
>> many residents testifying. Anybody of the real aviation community care
to
>> offer an opinion as to what 3 EMOs would say about being under the
cables,
>> inverted, at 300' in a mountain valley? Is it likely that nobody would
flag
>> this?
>
> Nobody says he was inverted under the cables. That's your own version.
Now you're mixing quotes. That's not mine.
>> The video camera isn't going to act as a make-do CVR. The crew intercom
is
>> in the helmets and O2 masks and conversations aren't going to be picked
up
>> out of the engine noise in a Prowler going pretty much max power.
>
> Why don't you say illegally fast? He violated speed restrictions as
well
> as every other restriction and rule you could possibly conceive of.
That's not mine, either.
But tell me about the speed restrictions anyhow. What were they? Where did
they apply? Who imposed them?
Marcus Graham
"John Weiss" <jrweiss@seanet*NOSPAM*.com> wrote:
> Marcus Graham wrote in message <7c2e6t$kdf$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>
> >> I disagree again. IF he was following the rules (even the misunderstood
> one
> >> of a 1000' minimum altitude, or the more general one of a 500' minimum),
> he
> >
> > He didn't misunderstand a thing. He was a highly skilled and trained
> pilot,
> > who like his fellow officers knew about the 1000 feet rule, and ignoring
> >it. To even suggest that he had spent all his time in Aviano not knowing
> >where he could legally fly is ridiculous, and most pilots agree, albeit
> >somewhat reluctantly.
>
> On what do you base your claim that he was intentionally ignoring the 1000'
> rule? Tell me how you KNOW it was not a transient altitude excursion due to
> an in-cockpit or outside distraction.
Tell me how you know that it is. It is a matter of judging what is
most credible. Most people don't think it is credible, as many
professionals in this and other threads have told you.
It is his duty to know where he is flying, and if he was in any
doubt he had no business flying at 300 feet. If you don't see it,
it is perhaps your reasoning that is lacking credibility.
> > This man was hardly a beginner, and he was taught to use his two eyes
> as
> > well as artificial equipment in estimating altitude, especially if his
> > instruments were malfunctioning, in which case he had NO business
> > practicing extreme low level flying. Clear criminal negligence, and in
> > no way any mitigating circumstances.
>
> Similar question to that above: On what basis do you KNOW there were no
> mitigating circumstances?
Based on what I told you already. He had a responsibility, and if
he was so incapable of judging altitudes without an altimeter he
had NO business practicing extreme low level flying between mountains.
Again, several professional have told you so.
His problem is that he doesn't seem to believe that he has any
personal responsibility as a pilot for making correct judgments.
He was out hot-dogging, and now says he doesn't know where he could
fly, how fast he could fly, whether or not there were cables in the
air space he flew in, whether or not his map was the best one for the
flight or not, whether or not it was proper to ask his navigator to
film with a home video camera instead of performing his duty as
navigator while out on a extremely dangerous flight. I can go on and
on, but it is evident to all but the most narrow-minded observer
what has been going on here.
> >> would not have hit the cable. To me, the possibilities boil down to
> >> something like:
> >>
> >> He was flathatting -- he was LOW, he knew it, and he didn't care.
> His
> >> fault; gross negligence; should be found guilty of manslaughter.
> >
> > According to the evidence this is what occurred.
>
> That's not what the Court Martial, who heard and deliberated ALL the
> evidence, found...
You don't know that, since you were not in the deliberation room.
He was acquitted, but it could have been for other reasons, such as
improper sentencing, personal bias or conflicts of interest.
This jury is not in any way comparable to a civilian jury, which has
to go through a strict jury selection process. This is a marine
jury judging and punishing one of their own.
> > Of course he knew he was flathatting, unless you suggest he was
> > unconscious. Of course he didn't care, otherwise he would have
> > respected the 1000 feet regulation. Pretty basic. Marines testified
> that
> > this restriction was commonly known, and there is no reason to believe
> > that this highly skilled pilot, on his way to fighter pilot school
> > didn't know where to fly. Merely because he says so doesn't mean that
> > the jury must agree, if they feel that his claim is unreasonable.
>
> Your first sentence indicates you didn't even consider the other options
> before you responded. I didn't suggest he was unconscious; I suggested he
> was unprofessional or distracted. There's a big difference.
Unprofessional or distracted are perfectly legal grounds for conviction. I
can see by your arguments here and in other posts that you don't understand
this, but that is the truth. His defense never claimed that he was, because
they know that this is the case. You know too few facts to begin arguing
this one. On the contrary, they brought witnesses forward to show just how
professional and skilled he was, because they were afraid someone would
argue precisely the points that you believe exonerate him.
> >> He was low, but didn't realize _how_ low because the RADALT wasn't
> >> working and he didn't crosscheck. His fault; negligence (because he KNEW
> of
> >
> > This is not the case. It was never a question of knowing how low,
> > per se. It was a question of whether or not he reasonably knew that
> > he was BELOW 1000 feet at the time of impact.
>
> That is most definitely NOT the question! Even if he was meticulously
> following the 1000' restriction and his RADALT was working, standard
> procedures allow a 10% deviation below the minimum altitude on a transient
Not in Italy they don't. He was on foreign soil, remember. I know
NATO loves to create its own rules, but the agreement was 1000 feet,
period.
In any case, 900 feet doesn't come anyway near 314' - 347', which is
the exact impact altitude.
Could the pilot have been expected to realise that he was flying below
the allowed altitude for low level practice? That is the simple
question. The figures above speak for themselves. His illegal 360 degree
roll doesn't in any way help his case here, as it's not exactly a way
to better judge how high or low you are, since it's easy to become
disoriented. Again, criminal negligence. Of course he says it never
happened, in spite of witnesses claiming the opposite.
> basis -- the RADALT warning bug is routinely set at 10% below the minimum
> (900' in this case). Otherwise, the warning tone and light become
> distractions, and are a DETRIMENT to safety.
>
> > He can differentiate between 1000 feet and 300 feet
> > with his eyes. He doesn't need equipment for that unless he has
> > a bad vision. Again, credibility must be assessed.
>
> I don't question the 1000' vs. 300' issue. I DO question the issues of
> immediate knowledge, intent, and duration. Evidently, you are unable or
> unwilling to address those issues.
No I'm not. Those issues are secondary in so far as he MUST be
responsible for his own decisions and actions. The evidence shows
that he had intent, unless he was completely unfit to judge the
most basic elements of flying, and it has always been a credibility
question. Apparently you give him less credit in that respect than
I and his own defense do.
Practically no pilot buys his story, and that should perhaps tell
you something. That they differ on the prosecutorial issues is
another matter. In fact most of them say, he must have known that
he was flying below the restricted limit, but they pardon him for
it for other reasons, and they think the prosecution was unfair and
politically motivated.
> > Is this claim reasonable or not? Remember, if the prosecution
> > could establish that he must have known that he was under the 1000
> feet
> > altitude limit, he is guilty of the charges. The jury didn't want to
> > convict, and therefore went along with this argument, no matter
> > how ridiculous, and no matter that he must have been flying many
> times
> > before in the area, being very familiar with the surroundings.
>
> Your first argument has absolutely no basis. The prosecution, AT A MINIMUM,
> would have to establish he was INTENTIONALLY less than 900', for a duration
> longer than would be defined as "transient," without attempting to correct
> back to 1000'. That would be ONLY THE BEGINNING of satisfying the elements
> of manslaughter!
You are right. Intent must be established. My lapse. For the issue on
intent, see above.
>
> I challenge you to substantiate your claim that "The jury didn't want to
> convict, and therefore went along with this argument, no matter how
> ridiculous." I doubt you can.
I have substantiated this in many posts in this thread and others,
and quite frankly I don't intend to repeat myself over and over.
For those interested in that part of the discussion, there are several
other posts dealing with that issue.
>
> >> the previous RADALT problems, and should have compensated); should be
> found
> >> guilty of something less than manslaughter.
> >
> > Waste and spoilage, I presume?
>
> No (and I thought you were the one who complained about the lack of
> "substantial argument...). Destruction:
Your idea that he should have been charged with waste and spoilage,
INSTEAD of the involuntary manslaughter charges is unsubstantiated by
reason and common sense, common practice and precedents.
Show me a case of multiple counts of manslaughter which was transformed
into a case of waste of property, where there was as much direct and
circumstantial evidence as in this case. It's ridiculous. By the way,
he was charged with waste of government property, so you had you way.
For some mysterious reason they also believed that the waste of human
lives ought to be addressed during the trial.
> Art. 108. Military property of United States - Loss, damage,
> destruction, or wrongful disposition
>
> Art. 109. Property other than military property of United States -
> Waste, spoilage, or destruction
>
> and/or
>
> Art. 90. Assaulting or willfully disobeying superior commissioned
> officer
>
> Art. 92. Failure to obey order or regulation
>
> Art. 111. Drunken or reckless operation of a vehicle, aircraft, or
> vessel
>
> > Wrong conclusion. He had an obligation to follow regulations. As he
> > flew unlawfully low, and the accident happened because of it, he
> > must be found guilty if it is reasonable to conclude that he must
> > have realised that he was under the 1000 feet restriction when it
> > happened. His problem is that almost no one believes him when he says
> > he didn't, because it goes against all reason and common sense.
>
> You still have not established beyond a reasonable doubt that the altitude
> excursion was intentional, uncorrected, and non-transient. Until you do so,
> your arguments continue to be specious.
That is your own opinion, not shared by many people with a knowledge
of the case, who have similar training and flying experiences and an
honest disposition.
> >> He was low, but he didn't know it because he was distracted by
> something
> >> else (e.g., checking chart and/or fuel in the cockpit). His fault; no
> >> negligence; should not be convicted of a criminal offense.
> >
> > On the contrary. Is he flathatting while eating a banana or picking
> > his nose and twenty people die because he doesn't concentrate on his
> > performance, and where he is, he is all the more guilty. This last
> > scenario is the most damning one, not the other way around.
>
> You obviously have no idea of the definition of flathatting, or are
> intentionally spouting pure bullshit (or both).
Is this an example of substantial argumentation?
>
> Flathatting is _intentionally_ flying too low/too fast for thrill purposes
> only.
Exactly. And while doing it, you don't usually check your charts,
check your fuel (That's a good one! :)), film with a home video
camera, pick your nose, eat a banana, do your laundry or plan your
shopping. How about concentrating on your job, or is that too
old-fashioned for you?
Marcus Graham
"billwg" <bil...@magicnet.net> wrote:
>
> Marcus Graham <marcus_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:7c20vs$9em$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com...
> >
> what
> > he was doing, that he deliberately tried to fly under the cable. Shortly
> > before the impact he had made a 360 degree roll according to testimony,
>
> and as part of a ridge crossing. You're implying a reckless spirit where
Defense's version. He had a very good reason to lie. Witnesses
on the ground didn't. Credibility must be assessed here.
> there was only adherence, I think, to normal practice.
It was performed shortly before the accident according to witnesses.
He doesn't acknowledge it, but that doesn't mean that it didn't happen.
Your roll could be an earlier one. Who knows. The flight recorder was
destroyed by Ashby, "accidentaly" as he happened to cause a short-circuit.
Of course he destroyed the video tape as well, but I guess this is
all totally innocent, right? The 360 degree roll is illegal, and as such
it is reckless, especially when performed during low level flying, in a
forbidden air space. Just because these stunts happen, it doesn't follow
that it's OK.
> > I believe that he intentionally meant to fly under the cable in the same
> > sequence. This totally illegal kind of behaviour had gone on before,
> > according to residents' accounts. Not one pilot testified to that effect,
> to
> > my knowledge.
> >
>
> Interestingly, no resident testified to ever having observed this practice.
Wrong. Residents said that they often saw planes skirting buildings,
skirting the ground, diving under cables and in other ways behaving
recklessly, in total violation of the regulations in the country they
had the privilege to be in. Local officials reported that 30 power cables
had been severed during a short time period, and I doubt very much if the
marine even payed for the damages.
> I would think that the prosecution would have found a few, since they had so
They did. Cables and wires. It was common knowledge and a daily occurrence.
As a matter of fact it STILL happens there. At the base was a club called
"The Cable Club", where "membership" demanded that cables or wires were
flown under in a demonstration of manhood and courage. Of course, this was
forcefully denied by the defense. It is therefore a matter of who you
believe, and what makes sense in view of the evidence as a whole.
> many residents testifying. Anybody of the real aviation community care to
> offer an opinion as to what 3 EMOs would say about being under the cables,
> inverted, at 300' in a mountain valley? Is it likely that nobody would flag
> this?
Nobody says he was inverted under the cables. That's your own version.
>
> > ...Something extremely damaging to
> > his defense was said, which made the destruction of the tape necessary.
> I
> > believe that the tape recorded someone talking about that cable, and
> talking
> > about flying under it, which would have demonstrated that he knew of its
> > presence at the time. It is only my guess of course, but it fits
> perfectly
> > with the events.
> >
> The video camera isn't going to act as a make-do CVR. The crew intercom is
> in the helmets and O2 masks and conversations aren't going to be picked up
> out of the engine noise in a Prowler going pretty much max power.
Why don't you say illegally fast? He violated speed restrictions as well
as every other restriction and rule you could possibly conceive of.
We'll never know for sure what was picked up or not. I don't think you
can say that it is totally impossible, not if you speak or shout loudly
enough. Something about the planned route could also have been
discussed before take off, mentioning cables or wires. There are two
front seats in this plane, and it was the navigator who was filming.
It's not at all impossible that they had their masks off for a few seconds
when discussing their route, especially since the navigator was filming
instead of bothering with dull things such as navigation. Ask Ashby.
As he unlawfully destroyed the tape, he will probably not be very
forthcoming.
Marcus Graham
"John Weiss" <jrweiss@seanet*NOSPAM*.com> wrote:
> Marcus Graham wrote in message <7c4ef9$daj$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>
> >> >He didn't misunderstand a thing. He was a highly skilled and trained
> pilot,
> >> > who like his fellow officers knew about the 1000 feet rule, and
> ignoring
> >> >it. To even suggest that he had spent all his time in Aviano not knowing
> >> >where he could legally fly is ridiculous, and most pilots agree, albeit
> >> >somewhat reluctantly.
>
> >> On what do you base your claim that he was intentionally ignoring the
> 1000'
> >> rule? Tell me how you KNOW it was not a transient altitude excursion due
> to
> >> an in-cockpit or outside distraction.
> >
> > Tell me how you know that it is. It is a matter of judging what
> is
> > most credible. Most people don't think it is credible, as many
> > professionals in this and other threads have told you.
> > It is his duty to know where he is flying, and if he was in any
> > doubt he had no business flying at 300 feet. If you don't see it,
> > it is perhaps your reasoning that is lacking credibility.
>
> that I would not be able to reach any such conclusion without seeing at
> least a partial transcript of the proceedings.
>
> OTOH, you reached a conclusion and stated it as such. Reread your first
> sentence at the top. I have not seen any substantial reasoning behind the
> conclusion. Could you summarize the statements of those "many professionals
I haven't seen anything remotely substantial from you since this
obsessive discussion began. Why should I summarize them? Can't you
read posts for yourself? By the way, are you paying me by the hour
or a flat fee? As for conclusions, you stated somewhere among your many
rantings that you believe that the jury in NO way could convict based on
the information you had seen. Sounds like a conclusion to me.
> in this and other threads" on which you base your conclusion, or at least
> list their names so I can research their statements?
I don't base my conclusions on the posts in the threads, but I find it
educating to see what these people have to say. What's the matter with
you? You're starting to act like a hysteric.
> <snip>
>
> >> That's not what the Court Martial, who heard and deliberated ALL the
> >> evidence, found...
> >
> > You don't know that, since you were not in the deliberation room.
> > He was acquitted, but it could have been for other reasons, such
> as
> > improper sentencing, personal bias or conflicts of interest.
> > This jury is not in any way comparable to a civilian jury, which
> has
> > to go through a strict jury selection process. This is a marine
> > jury judging and punishing one of their own.
>
> I already addressed your misconceptions regarding sentencing in another
> message.
Yes you did. It is not a misconception. What is technically possible, is
not always possible for other reasons, as I told you. Particularly not in
such a high profile case such as this one. It is bad but nevertheless
the case. This was always an all or nothing case from the beginning,
since too many different interests were at stake.
> There is a selection process in a General Court Martial, and the defense has
> the option to reject members if they show any "personal bias or conflicts of
> interest." It is _very_ comparable to a civilian jury selection, in that
Are you kidding me? The jury candidates are all marines.
What you say is that some selection AMONG the marines is available.
It's still the institution judging a member of the institution.
> there is a pool of potential members, chosen according to relevant laws (the
> UCMJ, in the case of the Court Martial), from which the final members are
> selected. Those members are "peers" of the accused, as provided for in the
> Constitution.
It all sounds very nice and clean, doesn't it. A shiny apple can be
just as rotten inside. These general statements don't prove the process
is trustworthy. A jury of police officers judging a police officer is
also a jury of his peers. I don't think you would see it in the civilian
courts.
> >> Your first sentence indicates you didn't even consider the other options
> >> before you responded. I didn't suggest he was unconscious; I suggested
> he
> >> was unprofessional or distracted. There's a big difference.
> >
> > Unprofessional or distracted are perfectly legal grounds for conviction.
> I
> >can see by your arguments here and in other posts that you don't
> understand
> >this, but that is the truth. His defense never claimed that he was,
> because
> >they know that this is the case. You know too few facts to begin arguing
> >this one. On the contrary, they brought witnesses forward to show just how
> >professional and skilled he was, because they were afraid someone would
> >argue precisely the points that you believe exonerate him.
>
> "Unprofessional" _may_ be grounds for conviction of manslaughter;
> "distracted," in the context originally presented, is not.
Yes, if the distraction is unprofessional. :)
> >> That is most definitely NOT the question! Even if he was meticulously
> >> following the 1000' restriction and his RADALT was working, standard
> >> procedures allow a 10% deviation below the minimum altitude on a
> transient
> >
> > Not in Italy they don't. He was on foreign soil, remember. I know
> > NATO loves to create its own rules, but the agreement was 1000 feet,
> > period.
>
> Please cite the source, or point me to an on-line source of the agreement.
> I'd like to read it.
You could find the regulations cited on several Italian web sites.
They are written in Italian though, and I can't find them easily as it
was a long time since I surfed the Italian web.I'm not even sure they
are there now.
Marcus Graham
"John Weiss" <jrweiss@seanet*NOSPAM*.com> wrote:
> Marcus Graham wrote in message <7c4k0p$i5g$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >In article <7c3quv$11...@news3.newsguy.com>,
> > "billwg" <bil...@magicnet.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> Marcus Graham <marcus_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:7c20vs$9em$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com...
> >> >
> what
> >> > he was doing, that he deliberately tried to fly under the cable.
> Shortly
> >> > before the impact he had made a 360 degree roll according to
> testimony,
> >>
> >> and as part of a ridge crossing. You're implying a reckless spirit where
> >
> > Defense's version. He had a very good reason to lie. Witnesses
> > on the ground didn't. Credibility must be assessed here.
>
> details, regarding the roll?
Why don't you look it up?
>
> 2) Why did the witnesses _not_ have a reason to lie? Some folks out there
> wanted to have all military training in the area terminated...
Because the complaints about low level flyings, and detailed accounts
of them, existed long before this happened, that's why. It wasn't
in any way a unique event, except for the fact that it had a fatal
outcome.
> > It was performed shortly before the accident according to witnesses.
> > He doesn't acknowledge it, but that doesn't mean that it didn't happen.
> > Your roll could be an earlier one. Who knows. The flight recorder was
> > destroyed by Ashby, "accidentaly" as he happened to cause a
> short-circuit.
> > Of course he destroyed the video tape as well, but I guess this is
> > all totally innocent, right? The 360 degree roll is illegal, and as
> such
> > it is reckless, especially when performed during low level flying, in a
> > forbidden air space. Just because these stunts happen, it doesn't
> follow
> > that it's OK.
>
> WHAT FLIGHT RECORDER?!? The EA-6B doesn't have a flight recorder! What is
> this "short circuit" you claim? How did he allegedly cause it? This is
> getting _real_ interesting!
Again, there are numerous newspaper stories about it. It stirred a major
dispute between Italy that demanded access to it, and the US, that
stonewalled. When it was finally turned over, 14 days later for
investigation, there was nothing on it, and the official explanation was
that the pilot had removed it from the plane after the incident and
accidentaly caused a short-circuit, exactly how I don't know, destroying any
information it may have contained.
The Italians became suspicious and accused the US of wanting to
conceal evidence of voice communications in the plane.
The US responded that it was different from the "black box" in a jet,
as it didn't record voice communication, but that flight data was
recorded. This squabble went on for a long time, as the Italians
presumably saw it as the one piece of evidence that could have told
exactly what happened during in the minutes before the disaster.
Whether or not this type of plane generally carries this type of
flight recorder I can't say, but this plane apparently was equipped
with something of the kind.
> You continue to talk about an "illegal" roll, but cannot even establish
> where it was supposedly done!
It was done very near the point of impact. Exactly how this was
established is impossible to say unless you have access to the investigation
documents. The thing I can say is that it was established that an illegal
360 degree roll had been made very shortly before it hit the cables. The
defense was reluctant to even admit to this at all, but eventually conceded
that it had been done, but earlier on in the flight. Presumably the
prosecution didn't think this very plausible since the position of the
witnesses at the time wouldn't correspond with the defense's version.
One witness said that he saw the plane flying extremely low, and
practically horisontally for a long period of time, which also reflected
negatively on the defense's version of events. He was standing at around 350
feet altitude according to estimations. He had an impression of the plane
being headed directly towards him, and instinctively felt an urge to throw
himself flat on the ground. This testimony was damning as it happened in the
same valley, right before impact, and demonstrated that an attempt to fly
under the cables had been made. It would also be consistent with a motive
for destroying all recordings of the flight.
> >> > I believe that he intentionally meant to fly under the cable in the
> same
> >> > sequence. This totally illegal kind of behaviour had gone on before,
> >> > according to residents' accounts. Not one pilot testified to that
> effect, to
> >> > my knowledge.
> >>
> >> Interestingly, no resident testified to ever having observed this
> practice.
> >
> > Wrong. Residents said that they often saw planes skirting buildings,
> > skirting the ground, diving under cables and in other ways behaving
> > recklessly, in total violation of the regulations in the country they
> > had the privilege to be in. Local officials reported that 30 power
> cables
> > had been severed during a short time period, and I doubt very much if
> the
> > marine even payed for the damages.
>
> "Residents said..." "Local officials reported..."
>
> How many of them testified before the court? What did they say? What
> airplanes did they report as the culprits?
14 witnesses I believe, for the prosecution. I'm not entirely sure.
You know, I'm not a book. :) You ought to make some investigations
on your own if this case is so fascinating to you. I can say the things
I remember from memory, but for more exact information you would have
to go back and read what has been written about it. Most stories are
old now.
>
> >> I would think that the prosecution would have found a few, since they had
> so
> >
> > They did. Cables and wires. It was common knowledge and a daily
> occurrence.
> > As a matter of fact it STILL happens there. At the base was a club
> called
> > "The Cable Club", where "membership" demanded that cables or wires were
> > flown under in a demonstration of manhood and courage. Of course, this
> was
> > forcefully denied by the defense. It is therefore a matter of who you
> > believe, and what makes sense in view of the evidence as a whole.
>
> If you're attempting to provide evidence to establish these facts "beyond a
> reasonable doubt," you are failing miserably. Previously, you provided a
I'm not a prosecutor for this case. I tell you what was said about this
subject, and it's up to everyone to judge its merits. To me it fits
perfectly with what had happened for a long time around Aviano.
Others may interpret it differently.
> set of facts that _may_ have satisfied a "preponderence of the evidence"
> standard for a civil tort suit, even if they fell far short of the standard
> required for a criminal conviction. These current claims don't even
> approach that standard...
>
> >> many residents testifying. Anybody of the real aviation community care
> to
> >> offer an opinion as to what 3 EMOs would say about being under the
> cables,
> >> inverted, at 300' in a mountain valley? Is it likely that nobody would
> flag
> >> this?
> >
> > Nobody says he was inverted under the cables. That's your own version.
>
> Now you're mixing quotes. That's not mine.
>
> >> The video camera isn't going to act as a make-do CVR. The crew intercom
> is
> >> in the helmets and O2 masks and conversations aren't going to be picked
> up
> >> out of the engine noise in a Prowler going pretty much max power.
> >
> > Why don't you say illegally fast? He violated speed restrictions as
> well
> > as every other restriction and rule you could possibly conceive of.
>
> That's not mine, either.
>
> But tell me about the speed restrictions anyhow. What were they? Where did
> they apply? Who imposed them?
You really are a piece of work. Do your own research. If you don't
know basic facts about the case, I can't see how you can possibly say
anything one way or the other about the case.
You are not logic in the slightest.
I can go on mouth feeding you, but I have better things to do with my
time.
Elmshoot
>dispute between Italy that demanded access to it, and the US, that
>stonewalled. When it was finally turned over, 14 days later for
>investigation, there was nothing on it, and the official explanation was
>that the pilot had removed it from the plane after the incident and
>accidentaly caused a short-circuit, exactly how I don't know, destroying any
>information it may have contained.
>
> The Italians became suspicious and accused the US of wanting to
> conceal evidence of voice communications in the plane.
> The US responded that it was different from the "black box" in a jet,
> as it didn't record voice communication, but that flight data was
> recorded. This squabble went on for a long time, as the Italians
> presumably saw it as the one piece of evidence that could have told
> exactly what happened during in the minutes before the disaster.
>
> Whether or not this type of plane generally carries this type of
> flight recorder I can't say, but this plane apparently was equipped
> with something of the kind.
Marcus,
There is no flight recorder in the EA-6B. There is no black box in the EA-6B.
There IS a Mission Recorder. That is used for replaying the EW portion of the
mission during post flight analysis. It is used for
recording signals and jammer stuff. It does have a crude nav track capability.
It was rarely used and very unlikely that it was recording duing a routine Low
Level. It does NOT record voice data. And the NAV track can be altered in the
post flight analysis as well. I suspect just about any other paramater could
be altered, but that part I'm not to sure about.
I have over 20 hours of video recordings taken from the Prowler. I used a Sony
8mm camera. Trust me the only way to comunicate in the cockpit is over the ICS
or hand signals it is much too loud an enviroment for any routine comunication
to take place. I did rig up a ICS recorder but I doubt that they were using
anything like that.
I have over 2k hrs in the Prowler, and very likely trained these guys duing my
tour in the rag.
Sparky
charl...@my-dejanews.com
ignorance here, but being a Grunt we had such things as SOPs and Guidelines
we had to follow. Don't Marines have the same thing?
Also, isn't their an Air Traffic Controller who watches these training
flights as they occur and advise the pilots? This is the part I am most
curious about.
TIA
Charles
In article <36DF50FA...@mediaone.net>,
Tom Hayden <geez...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> I sorta expected there to be very little discussion here of the trial or
> the underlying issues before the jury rendered a verdict. I figured
> people wouldn't want to be accused of rushing to judgement, one way or
> the other. But now that Capt. Ashby has been found not guilty, I'm
> surprised no one here has said a thing. Are folks waiting for the
> navigator's trial to finish? Or am I just being very naive in assuming
> that a group which will debate ad nauseum some relatively obscure point
> would give this serious (meaning not light and happy) matter some
> serious (meaning important) discussion? Over in r.a.m. there've been a
> number of opinions voiced, but not a lot of meaningful discussion.
>
> Tom
Jeff Crowell
billwg wrote:
>> The roll was executed, according to the testimony, well before the mishap
>> and as part of a ridge crossing. You're implying a reckless spirit where
Marcus Graham wrote:
> Defense's version. He had a very good reason to lie. Witnesses
> on the ground didn't. Credibility must be assessed here.
>
>> there was only adherence, I think, to normal practice.
>
> It was performed shortly before the accident according to witnesses.
> He doesn't acknowledge it, but that doesn't mean that it didn't happen.
> Your roll could be an earlier one.
Doesn't matter. This sort of roll is entirely normal. Your continual
claims
of illegality are not correct.
> Who knows. The flight recorder was destroyed by Ashby,
There was, and is, no "flight recorder." Military aircraft do not have
them.
You will find people less likely to discard your claims and arguments out
of hand if your terminology is correct--it at least gives the impression
that
you know what you are talking about.
> The 360 degree roll is illegal,
Wrong
> in a forbidden air space
Wrong
I believe you will find that the prosecution did not challenge either the
rolls
or the airspace. So why do they keep coming up in your posts?
> Residents said that they often saw planes skirting buildings,
> skirting the ground, diving under cables and in other ways behaving
> recklessly, in total violation of the regulations in the country they
> had the privilege to be in. Local officials reported that 30 power
cables
> had been severed during a short time period, and I doubt very much if
the
> marine even payed for the damages.
Did anyone care to mention what country's markings were on these planes?
You will no doubt claim that they were all US airplanes. I, ah, "beg to
differ."
Jeff
John Weiss
Some of them conflict with each other, others apply only in certain areas or
under certain circumstances.
There is no Air Traffic Controller that monitors most training flights such
as these. At low level, the airplane is below radar coverage much of the
time. Controllers concentrate on IFR (instrument) traffic, and generally
leave the VFR (visual) traffic alone. Common exceptions are:
In the vicinity of an airport, where there is class B or C airspace (or
equivalent).
When monitoring is requested by enroute VFR aircraft at normal cruising
altitudes.
When on an instrumented and monitored training range like that at Fallon
or Nellis.
---------------------
John R. Weiss
Seattle, WA
Remove *NOSPAM* from address for e-mail reply
charl...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<7c6hqo$8do$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
Bill Kambic
> I read all the threads to this group and I am going to show some of my
> ignorance here, but being a Grunt we had such things as SOPs and Guidelines
> we had to follow. Don't Marines have the same thing?
I guess this might be considered the crucial issue: did he break the rules in a
knowing and culpable fashion? Was that breach of the rules responsible for the
deaths of 20 people?
> Also, isn't their an Air Traffic Controller who watches these training
> flights as they occur and advise the pilots? This is the part I am most
> curious about.
Probably not. In mountainous terrain radar coverage is usually quite spotty.
Even in the flatlands the radar horizon is not all that far for an aircraft at
500 or 1000 feet.
Bill Kambic, Bright Star Farm, Kingston, TN
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Hills/1816
Marc de Vries
wrote:
>Tom Hayden (geez...@mediaone.net) wrote:
>
>: I sorta expected there to be very little discussion here of the trial or
>: the underlying issues before the jury rendered a verdict. I figured
>: people wouldn't want to be accused of rushing to judgement, one way or
>: the other. But now that Capt. Ashby has been found not guilty, I'm
>: surprised no one here has said a thing. Are folks waiting for the
>: navigator's trial to finish? Or am I just being very naive in assuming
>: that a group which will debate ad nauseum some relatively obscure point
>: would give this serious (meaning not light and happy) matter some
>: serious (meaning important) discussion? Over in r.a.m. there've been a
>: number of opinions voiced, but not a lot of meaningful discussion.
>
>Most of us, I suspect, do not haunt the on-line news organs or 24-hour
>news radio channels. Thus, we had to wait until the 6, 10, or 11 o'clock
>[in DC] TV news or the morning paper to find out anything substantive
>beyond the odd posts we might have read. Meaningful discussion can only
>occur after formation of *knowledgeable* opinions. Having said that, and
>not having read the morning papers, I will accede to your request and post
>my initial impression, with my own *unknowledgeable* opinions. [Albeit
>based on 19 years - '63-'82 - in Marine aviation as an Operations clerk/
>NCO/NCOIC.]
>
>As I originally suspected, much of the blame for the incident lies at
>higher levels, specifically:
>
>Italian altitude restrictions, 2000' AGL AIUI it, did not filter down to
>briefings at the squadron level.
>
>US altitude restrictions, 1000' AGL, although instructed to the VMAQ
>crews, were not stressed.
>
>A long standing, 300' AGL plus, cableway was not located on the maps made
>available to the squadron and crew.
>
>The aircraft maintenance officer, through the maintenance control officer,
>released an aircraft for a low-level, high speed nav route flight that had
>been griped for undiscovered altimeter problems on preceding flights.
>
>From a distance of nearly as many years retired as I served in Marine
>aviation, I am convinced in my own mind that the pilot, and crew, were
>'busting' both minimum altitude and maximum speed restrictions, and doing
>so knowingly and willingly. However, I was not sitting on the general
>court martial, did not hear all the testimony, and did not participate in
>the discussion that resulted in 2/3's of the members present and voting to
>fail to vote for conviction on the charged or on lesser included offenses.
>
>I would suspect that the court, aware of the universal tendency of pilots
>to like flying low and fast, found that the true negligence that was the
>root cause of this tragedy lay at the feet of the supervisors in the
>command structure who were responsible for providing full-up aircraft,
>accurate maps and procedures, analysing those maps and procedures for
>added hazards, and conducting frequent, professional, briefings stressing
>the importance of adherence to min altitudes and max speeds. However, I
>would not have let those lapses prevent me from finding negligence on
>Captain Ashby's part, and convicting him on a lesser included offense for
>his negligence. He was low, fast, and inattentive, bad things to do in a
>full-up aircraft, inexcusable in an aircraft with known altimeter
>problems. However, 'my' sentence would have reflected the failures at
>higher levels that I mentioned, criminal failures in the event, and would
>probably have been considered a wrist-slap by the Europeans concerned.
Well I'm European and this would seem reasonable to me.
(I am not Italian, that probably makes a difference too)
Marc
Marc de Vries
Strand) wrote:
>On Sat, 06 Mar 1999 18:38:15 GMT, Marcus Graham
><marcus_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>> For him to simply go free is a travesty and a miscarriage of justice.
>>
>>
>> Marcus
>>
>
>Not to recognize that others were also factors contributing to this
>disaster and placing the entire blame on a single crew is more of a
>miscarriage of justice.
>
>I sense you are trolling with this subject. As such this will be the
>end of my comments on this matter.
Sorry Jim, but Marcus had lots of good points in a very long post.
You didn't reply to any of those, but just only this one last sentence
in which his frustration is visible and then accuse him of trolling
with this subject.
Everyone that has followed the threat can see that this is clearly not
the case. Your response is quite unfair to Marcus.
Marc
Jim Strand
>Also, isn't their an Air Traffic Controller who watches these training
>flights as they occur and advise the pilots? This is the part I am most
>curious about.
>
>TIA
>Charles
Not very often. Radar first is line of sight. The low level training
flights nearly always operate below the radar view.
The air traffic controller will advise both the military aircraft and
the other known civilian aircraft if conflicts of their respective
flights paths appear likely. Controllers also control the "gate"
ensuring only one flight runs the training route at a time.
***************************************
delete "nospam" for e-mail reply
***************************************
todd michael prine
>
> AN OPEN LETTER TO MARCUS GRAHAM.
>
> Marcus
>
I just wanted to take a moment to say that after reading Mr.
Henriques' statements, I agree with you. I was assuming of course that
you were about to type some venomous reply accusing him of not having the
facts, about your right to post your own opinions here without being
labeled childish or whatever term he or anyone else chooses to throw your
way, etc, etc. But along with this right to post opinions is your right
to hear opposing opinions and opinions of those who take *strong*
exception to your postings, whether they be based in fact or myth (which I
am not here to judge).
You see Mr Graham, up to this point I have kept quiet. I have not seen fit
to either perpetuate this endless armchair quarterbacking nor infer that
you nor anyone else would not have the right or even be welcome to post to
this NG. But Mr Graham, sit tight, cause I'm just getting warmed up.
No, I haven't been saving any previous posts and I wouldn't take
the time to dig 'em up because what I have to say can be said 'from the
hip'. (I'm not going to quote or cite, so fergetit.) I'm going to start
out by making a few assumptions. As assumptions I do invite any
corrections.
1. You are not a pilot. You don't talk like one, and based upon your B&W
view of the world, you have never walked into a ready room on a daily
basis and once, if only for a moment, considered the fact that one mistake
that day could place a heavy burden of cost on not only your loved ones,
but innocent lives as well. But above that you act as though the job that
Capt Ashby and thousands like him performed were as benign as your
everyday accountant's. I've been on enough low-levels to know that it's
not my place to judge Capt Ashby or his crew. I can only hope that the
Jury can have the wisdom to do so.
2. You have never put on a uniform. I won't go into the ocean of
experiences that this would give you to put a situation like this in
perspective, but it starts at one end with a sense of responsibility much
like that noted above, and in today's military, ends almost full circle in
that an even smaller mistake, one that pales in comparison to the tragedy
that started this thread, could end your beloved career.
Now, I don't pretend to stand up in defense of Capt Ashby. I'm not his
lawyer or his friend. But I am a Marine. And I will stand beside him as
a fellow Marine until a Jury of his peers (My peers as well , I
might add) *convicts*. I will do so even when there are those (and I'm
going for assumption #3 here) who would just as soon go with the rest of
the world (because, of *course* the rest of the world agrees with them,
damn those who don't), gather up Capt Ashby and a long rope and find the
tallest tree around.
Assumption #4: Are you a lawyer? Cause I have never seen anyone sling so
much mud that is only loosely based on someone's interpretation of, at
best half the facts in a totally foreign environment. Well, that could
make you a politician. But this paints a picture of someone who has the
audacity to walk into a honky-tonk deep in southern Redneckville, USA
wearing a bright purple teeshirt and starts putting up gay-pride posters
all over the walls. Hey, did ya notice it got real quiet all of a sudden?
Sleep on it, Marcus. The sun is going to come up tommorrow, wherever you
may be.
Todd
s
Marcus Graham
"Jeff Crowell" <jeff_crow...@hp.com> wrote:
>
>
> billwg wrote:
> >> The roll was executed, according to the testimony, well before the mishap
> >> and as part of a ridge crossing. You're implying a reckless spirit where
>
> Marcus Graham wrote:
> > Defense's version. He had a very good reason to lie. Witnesses
> > on the ground didn't. Credibility must be assessed here.
> >
> >> there was only adherence, I think, to normal practice.
> >
> > It was performed shortly before the accident according to witnesses.
> > He doesn't acknowledge it, but that doesn't mean that it didn't happen.
> > Your roll could be an earlier one.
>
> Doesn't matter. This sort of roll is entirely normal. Your continual
> claims
> of illegality are not correct.
Simply because you make an unsubstantiated claim to the contrary, it
doesn't prove that you are right. Italian regulations say that the
roll is forbidden on extremely low altitudes, as it is too dangerous,
since you easily lose your orientation immediately after.
The NATO or US rules may be different, but this took place in Italy,
not in the US, no matter how difficult this is to grasp, there is
a difference.
Whether or not it was "normal" is irrelevant. It wasn't allowed, and
rightfully so, as it is too dangerous to perform in this region, at
that forbidden altitude, and the regulation makes perfect sense.
> > Who knows. The flight recorder was destroyed by Ashby,
>
> There was, and is, no "flight recorder." Military aircraft do not have
> them.
Apparently you are misinformed about this too. It was handed over to them,
so I don't know how you can say that. The Ashby tape, which obviously showed
something damaging to his story, was never handed over. That just
disappeared, and he later confessed to having got rid of it.
> You will find people less likely to discard your claims and arguments out
> of hand if your terminology is correct--it at least gives the impression
> that
> you know what you are talking about.
Your statements make it obvious that you are the one not knowing
anything at all about either local restrictions, regulations or
what the facts of this case are. Do your homework before you try to
teach others.
>
> > The 360 degree roll is illegal,
>
> Wrong
Right.
>
> > in a forbidden air space
>
> Wrong
???????? Is it right to perform this roll in a forbidden air space?
Another example of your advanced learning, I presume. Where are you
flying so I can avoid going there?
> I believe you will find that the prosecution did not challenge either the
> rolls
> or the airspace. So why do they keep coming up in your posts?
You are making a fool of yourself. The question of the forbidden
air space was one of the major points of the prosecution's case,
as was the illegal 360 degree roll, performed in that air space.
Your entire post is wrong. Go back to bed, it's way past your
bedtime.
>
> > Residents said that they often saw planes skirting buildings,
> > skirting the ground, diving under cables and in other ways behaving
> > recklessly, in total violation of the regulations in the country they
> > had the privilege to be in. Local officials reported that 30 power
> cables
> > had been severed during a short time period, and I doubt very much if
> the
> > marine even payed for the damages.
>
> Did anyone care to mention what country's markings were on these planes?
> You will no doubt claim that they were all US airplanes. I, ah, "beg to
> differ."
I'm sure you do. :)
Am I getting a small hint of bias here on your part?
It is the "OJ" thing all over again, I guess. "Don't bother me with
facts, when my mind is made up".
Marcus Graham
elms...@aol.com (Elmshoot) wrote:
> > Again, there are numerous newspaper stories about it. It stirred a major
> >dispute between Italy that demanded access to it, and the US, that
> >stonewalled. When it was finally turned over, 14 days later for
> >investigation, there was nothing on it, and the official explanation was
> >that the pilot had removed it from the plane after the incident and
> >accidentaly caused a short-circuit, exactly how I don't know, destroying any
> >information it may have contained.
> >
> > The Italians became suspicious and accused the US of wanting to
> > conceal evidence of voice communications in the plane.
> > The US responded that it was different from the "black box" in a jet,
> > as it didn't record voice communication, but that flight data was
> > recorded. This squabble went on for a long time, as the Italians
> > presumably saw it as the one piece of evidence that could have told
> > exactly what happened during in the minutes before the disaster.
> >
> > Whether or not this type of plane generally carries this type of
> > flight recorder I can't say, but this plane apparently was equipped
> > with something of the kind.
>
> There is no flight recorder in the EA-6B. There is no black box in the EA-6B.
There is no black box. There was evidently some kind of recording
device in the plane that was delivered to the Italian investigation
team, as I said. This particular plane had some sort of instrument
that registered flight data. It was delivered around two weeks after
the incident, destroyed, as reported by the US officials.
This is a fact of the case, you see.
> There IS a Mission Recorder. That is used for replaying the EW portion of the
> mission during post flight analysis. It is used for
> recording signals and jammer stuff. It does have a crude nav track capability.
Twenty people are dead here, and there is an investigation going on.
Anything that can be of help in establishing what happened is of value.
It has a track capability. Well, in that case it was crucial to the
investigation. Is this so hard to understand? Your assertion that it was
crude makes no sense. In that case why bother picking up evidence at all
at any crime scene? Do you seriously suggest that the track recorder was
immaterial to the case against Ashby? I don't believe you will find any
professional involved in these types of investigations that would agree.
> It was rarely used and very unlikely that it was recording duing a routine Low
> Level. It does NOT record voice data. And the NAV track can be altered in the
It was used. The issue was that the data had "accidentaly" been destroyed
by none other than our Ashby. This is the US's version, mind you, not
someone else's. It was the explanation that was given when it was handed
over, two weeks afterwards. If this is not smelly, I don't know what is.
> post flight analysis as well. I suspect just about any other paramater could
> be altered, but that part I'm not to sure about.
You can call it anything you like. It was a recording device which should
have been handed over immediately, had there been no suspicious
circumstances involved. The fact that information was deleted, as
ACKNOWLEDGED by the US, is very telling, as is the deliberate destruction of
the video tape. It ought to tell you something, and above all, it ought to
have told the jury something. This guy is charged with obstruction of
justice, this innocent fellow, and it was no secret why. His behaviour
immediately after the accident was incriminating and pointed to his guilt.
> I have over 20 hours of video recordings taken from the Prowler. I used a
Sony
> 8mm camera. Trust me the only way to comunicate in the cockpit is over the
So you say. I'll take your word for it. You know, it is not communication
necessarily that we are talking about. When the navigator is filming he has
the camera pressed to his face. The mike is around 10 cm from his mouth. I
am certain that his voice was on that tape, and that is why it was
destroyed. Furthermore I'm certain that it showed a 360 degree roll being
performed very shortly before impact, which would have been devastating to
the defense's case. Besides, you can technically enhance sound that can't be
heard normally. This tape was dangerous, and that is why he got rid of it.
Rather elementary, my dear Watson. :)
DC8DUTCH
Allow me to shake your digital hand. your cep was zero and your pk was 1.0
thanks
John Weiss
>
> Simply because you make an unsubstantiated claim to the contrary, it
> doesn't prove that you are right. Italian regulations say that the
> roll is forbidden on extremely low altitudes, as it is too
dangerous,
> since you easily lose your orientation immediately after.
What Italian regulations are those? Your claim is less substantial and less
credible than those made by people with experience flying the airplane in
that environment.
> The NATO or US rules may be different, but this took place in Italy,
> not in the US, no matter how difficult this is to grasp, there is
> a difference.
I'm not sure what difference there is, because you have not told us what
specific regulation you think prohibited a roll. Operations of US military
aircraft are governed primarily by International Civil Areonautic
Organization (ICAO) rules, US Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR), and
service-specific (e.g., USAF, USN) regulations. The service regulations
cannot conflict with the ICAO or FAR, but may be more stringent. Local
rules, where they differ from ICAO rules, may apply as well.
If there are applicable NATO rules for that area (and I don't know them,
off-hand), they would have been accepted by every NATO country as applicable
to NATO forces operating in every member country's airspace.
> Whether or not it was "normal" is irrelevant. It wasn't allowed, and
> rightfully so, as it is too dangerous to perform in this region, at
> that forbidden altitude, and the regulation makes perfect sense.
Your first statement is absolutely incorrect. According to FAR 91.303, "not
necessary for normal flight" is part of the definition of "aerobatic
flight." To my knowledge, FAR 91.103 is the governing regulation in this
case (it is available on-line via
http://www.faa.gov/avr/AFS/FARS/far_idx.htm, should you wish to review it);
please cite the applicable Italian regulation you think is overriding.
Since a roll to inverted, and either a continued roll or a reversal back to
upright flight, is a "normal" tactical maneuver for cresting a ridge in
low-level flight, the 1500' minimum altitude restriction does not apply in
this case.
>> > Who knows. The flight recorder was destroyed by Ashby,
>>
>> There was, and is, no "flight recorder." Military aircraft do not have
>> them.
>
> Apparently you are misinformed about this too. It was handed over to
them,
>so I don't know how you can say that.
I dont know how you could truthfully or credibly say, "The flight recorder
was destroyed by Ashby." The EA-6B does not have one. "Flight recorders"
meet certain FAA specifications (FAR Part 91, Appendix E), and are not
required on tactical military aircraft. The only tape that may have
resembled a "flight recorder" is the "mission recorder" tape from the EA-6B.
As someone else already noted in this forum, it does not contain any
high-fidelity navigation or performance data.
Mary Shafer
> Operations of US military
> aircraft are governed primarily by International Civil Areonautic
> Organization (ICAO) rules, US Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR), and
> service-specific (e.g., USAF, USN) regulations. The service regulations
> cannot conflict with the ICAO or FAR, but may be more stringent.
Not true at all. The FARs prohibit intentionally dropping things from
aircraft, for example, but military aircraft are allowed to do it all
the time. NASA flies aircraft at speeds higher than that permitted by
FAR in uncontrolled airspace--the Shuttle Orbiter isn't below 250 kt
under 10,000 ft until the very end of final. Military aircraft rarely
have FAA type certificates, not having been certified through the FAA
process as set forth in the FARs.
The FAA regulates _private_ aviation but does not regulate _public_
aviation. Public aviation is the operation of aircraft by public
entities, including the Federal government, state governments, and
other public entities. Many public entities require adherence to as
much of the FARs as is reasonable, but this is entirely voluntary on
the part of the agency and the FAA has no control over it.
We, NASA, routinely fly aircraft supersonic over land, which is
prohibited by the FARs. Military pilots do not have FAA-issued
pilot's licenses (although they can use military training and
experience to get FAA-issued licenses). NASA and military pilots
don't have FAA medicals, either.
ICAO is equally inapplicable; it's for _Civil_ aviation (says so right
in the name), not military or other governmental aviation. Again,
many military and other governmental agencies may conform as far as
convenient to ICAO rules, but that's strictly voluntary.
I have seen military aircraft in other countries fly in ways that I am
certain violate the civil rules--watching a recce plane race down a
valley at 0.8 Mach 200 ft AGL is a good example. I've never heard of
military pilots having civil licenses or non-dual-use aircraft being
certified through the JARs. Surely you don't think Tornados or
Harriers have civil type certificates. I know the F-104s flown by the
Italian Air Force, the Royal Netherlands Air Force, and the Luftwaffe
didn't have civil type certificates. Nor do the French F-8s or
Mirages, for that matter.
> Your first statement is absolutely incorrect. According to FAR 91.303, "not
> necessary for normal flight" is part of the definition of "aerobatic
> flight." To my knowledge, FAR 91.103 is the governing regulation in this
> case (it is available on-line via
> http://www.faa.gov/avr/AFS/FARS/far_idx.htm, should you wish to review it);
> please cite the applicable Italian regulation you think is overriding.
> Since a roll to inverted, and either a continued roll or a reversal back to
> upright flight, is a "normal" tactical maneuver for cresting a ridge in
> low-level flight, the 1500' minimum altitude restriction does not apply in
> this case.
It doesn't matter what the FAR says, as the FARs are for private
aircraft, not public aircraft. Public aircraft are not covered by the
FARs or ICAO regulations (or civil Italian regulations, which are
probably the JARs, or Joint Aviation Regulations). Any rules
applicable to military aircraft are, I'm sure, worked out by treaty.
Not by civil regulations.
Government aviation, mostly military, has always been recognized as
being entirely separate from civil aviation in the West. From the day
the Army Signal Corps gave the Wright Brothers the first government
contract this has been obvious.
--
Mary Shafer NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA
SR-71 Flying Qualities Lead Engineer Of course I don't speak for NASA
sha...@reseng.dfrc.nasa.gov DoD #362 KotFR
URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html
For personal messages, please use sha...@ursa-major.spdcc.com
John Weiss
>"John Weiss" <jrweiss@seanet*NOSPAM*.com> writes:
>
>> Operations of US military
>> aircraft are governed primarily by International Civil Areonautic
>> Organization (ICAO) rules, US Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR), and
>> service-specific (e.g., USAF, USN) regulations. The service regulations
>> cannot conflict with the ICAO or FAR, but may be more stringent.
>Not true at all. The FARs prohibit intentionally dropping things from
>aircraft, for example, but military aircraft are allowed to do it all
>the time. NASA flies aircraft at speeds higher than that permitted by
>FAR in uncontrolled airspace--the Shuttle Orbiter isn't below 250 kt
>under 10,000 ft until the very end of final. Military aircraft rarely
>have FAA type certificates, not having been certified through the FAA
>process as set forth in the FARs.
Ya gotta read _all_ the regs... The activities you mention are not _in
conflict with_ the FARs, but _provided for_ in the FARs. ;-)
Some FARs only apply to civil aircraft. Others have specific exemptions
written into them. Otherwise noncompliant, activities may be performed in
special use airspace (FAR Part 73).Finally, FARs may be waived in specific
circumstances by the Administrator via certificate of waiver in accordance
with FAR 91.903 (e.g., flight shows).
FAR "91.15 Dropping objects.
"No pilot in command of a civil aircraft may allow any object to be
dropped from that aircraft in flight that creates a hazard to persons or
property. However, this section does not prohibit the dropping of any
object if reasonable precautions are taken to avoid injury or damage to
persons or property."
Note 2 things: 1) _civil_ aircraft; and 2) reasonable precautions. Our
flying club used to hold "bombing derbies" as well as spot landing
contests -- drop small flour bags from the open window of a Cessna 150 or
172, under the watchful eyes of Air Traffic Controllers. Perfectly legal,
if reasonable precautions are taken.
FAR "91.117 Aircraft speed.
"(a) Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, no person may
operate an aircraft below 10,000 feet MSL at an indicated airspeed of more
than 250 knots (288 m.p.h.)."
...
"(d) If the minimum safe airspeed for any particular operation is greater
than the maximum airspeed prescribed in this section, the aircraft may be
operated at that minimum speed."
The Shuttle Orbiter, as well as my 747-400 climbing out clean near max
TOGW, are exempted by (d).
I don't have a copy of FAR Part 21 handy. However, if the general rule
reads like FAR 25.1 (applicability, transport category airplanes), the FARs
do not require that military aircraft have a type certificate.
The military is still subject to applicable FARs, but not all of the FARs
apply to military aircraft.
>The FAA regulates _private_ aviation but does not regulate _public_
>aviation. Public aviation is the operation of aircraft by public
>entities, including the Federal government, state governments, and
>other public entities. Many public entities require adherence to as
>much of the FARs as is reasonable, but this is entirely voluntary on
>the part of the agency and the FAA has no control over it.
I'm not sure that is quite right. Is there an explicit statute to that
effect?
As far as I know, compliance with FARs is mandatory. At the very minimum,
it is the "price of admission" for using FAA-controlled airspace and
FAA-operated facilities. I suppose there may be a legal means of public
aviation outside FAA jurisdiction, but I don't know one.
FAR 61.3 (requirements for certificates, ratings, and authorizations)
specifically requires a pilot certificate of a "pilot of a civil aircraft of
U.S. registry" (note the word "civil" in this case. FAR 91.1
(Applicability, General Operating and Flight Rules) "prescribes rules
governing the operation of aircraft... within the United States..." (note
there is no "civil" modifier). A military pilot can receive a flight
violation from the FAA based on his operation of his aircraft.
>We, NASA, routinely fly aircraft supersonic over land, which is
>prohibited by the FARs. Military pilots do not have FAA-issued
>pilot's licenses (although they can use military training and
>experience to get FAA-issued licenses). NASA and military pilots
>don't have FAA medicals, either.
FAR 91.817 and Appendix B to Part 91 _regulate_ supersonic flight over
land -- they do not "prohibit" it. Strictly speaking, they only apply to
civil aircraft (but NASA operates aircraft with civil registrations...), but
military aircraft also adhere to them. IIRC, supersonic flight around
Edwards is restricted to the supersonic corridor (or are there 2 of them),
which is covered by a waiver and/or Special Use Airspace designation.
I noted applicability of FAR Part 61 (certifications) above.
>ICAO is equally inapplicable; it's for _Civil_ aviation (says so right
>in the name), not military or other governmental aviation. Again,
>many military and other governmental agencies may conform as far as
>convenient to ICAO rules, but that's strictly voluntary.
>
>I have seen military aircraft in other countries fly in ways that I am
>certain violate the civil rules--watching a recce plane race down a
>valley at 0.8 Mach 200 ft AGL is a good example. I've never heard of
>military pilots having civil licenses or non-dual-use aircraft being
>certified through the JARs. Surely you don't think Tornados or
>Harriers have civil type certificates. I know the F-104s flown by the
>Italian Air Force, the Royal Netherlands Air Force, and the Luftwaffe
>didn't have civil type certificates. Nor do the French F-8s or
>Mirages, for that matter.
That recce plane racing down a valley in the US is on a designated low-level
high-speed Military Training Route, with an applicable waiver/approval from
the FAA for that _operation_.
Again, type certificates apply only to civil aircraft -- military aircraft
are not in conflict/violation of the FARs or JARs, they are simply outside
the intended scope of applicability of the regulations.
>It doesn't matter what the FAR says, as the FARs are for private
>aircraft, not public aircraft. Public aircraft are not covered by the
>FARs or ICAO regulations (or civil Italian regulations, which are
>probably the JARs, or Joint Aviation Regulations). Any rules
>applicable to military aircraft are, I'm sure, worked out by treaty.
>Not by civil regulations.
I disagree. Though _certifications_ are limited to civil aircraft and
pilots, operations are not so limited, AFAIK. If you can find the
appropriate statutes, please correct me.
>Government aviation, mostly military, has always been recognized as
>being entirely separate from civil aviation in the West. From the day
>the Army Signal Corps gave the Wright Brothers the first government
>contract this has been obvious.
The plethora of special use airspace designations around Edwards should make
it equally obvious that is not the case today. Restricted areas are as much
for keeping the military people _inside_, as they are for keeping the civil
people _outside_.
John Weiss
---------------------
John R. Weiss
Seattle, WA
Remove *NOSPAM* from address for e-mail reply
David Hyde wrote in message <7c9rmu$37o$1...@hecate.umd.edu>...
>
>Dave 'tried to stay outta this' Hyde
John Weiss
>>
>> What Italian regulations are those? Your claim is less substantial and
less
>
> I'm sick and tired of your demanding me to present you with
> data. What's the matter with you? Were you never weaned?
I know better than to NOT question your word!
You were the one who wanted "substantial argument." So far, you've refused
to provide ANY concrete substantiation of any of your claims. Maybe it's
about time...
>> credible than those made by people with experience flying the airplane in
>> that environment.
>
> The prosecution did not agree with you. The illegal roll was
part
> of their case. I guess the don't have the experience necessary
> to try this holy cow.
I haven't seen anything here so far that substantiates your first 2 claims.
You probably have the 3rd sentence right, though...
>> > The NATO or US rules may be different, but this took place in
Italy,
>> > not in the US, no matter how difficult this is to grasp, there is
>> > a difference.
>>
>> I'm not sure what difference there is, because you have not told us what
>> specific regulation you think prohibited a roll. Operations of US
military
>
> See above. Before you can say that I'm wrong, present me
> with the non-existant material, or shut up.
You want ME to present the material to substantiate YOUR side of the debate?
Yougottabekiddingme!
You're the one to claim knowledge of Italian regulations. It's YOUR burden
to present the evidence behind the "facts" YOU claim.
I fully respect your right to have ANY personal opinion or prejudice based
on ANY [lack of] facts or evidence on ANY issue. You certainly have made us
aware of your opinions and prejudices (all of us have some).
This thread, however, started with your request for "substantial argument,"
which to me is equivalent to "debate." If YOU make a claim, it is YOUR job
to substantiate it. You can use a combination of personal experience,
reference to applicable literature/reports/transcripts, citation of
applicable law/statute, quotation of expert witnesses, and other substantial
and credible material. So far, your collection of anecdotal sources from
the press and other forums have lacked substance and credibility.
>> aircraft are governed primarily by International Civil Areonautic
>> Organization (ICAO) rules, US Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR), and
>> service-specific (e.g., USAF, USN) regulations. The service regulations
>> cannot conflict with the ICAO or FAR, but may be more stringent. Local
>> rules, where they differ from ICAO rules, may apply as well.
>
> There is no point here, except the last part. Local rules
> do apply. What do you think Italy is, a fucking colony?
The point is that you have claimed existence of a regulation, but have
provided no evidence to support your claim.
>> If there are applicable NATO rules for that area (and I don't know them,
>> off-hand), they would have been accepted by every NATO country as
applicable
>> to NATO forces operating in every member country's airspace.
>
> The rule was 1000 feet. I have repeated myself like a parrot simply
>because you haven't the capacity to grasp this. The roll was performed in
>forbidden air space, and was dangerous and illegal. It is not what I say,
it
>is what the prosecution say. Of course Ashby's version is different, and
>since he destroyed data from the flight, we'll have to rely on existing
>evidence. NATO rules were not followed. Why exactly do you think there was
>a court martial?
I heard the "1000 feet," and asked for evidence of the intent and culpable
negligence to support your calim that a conviction of manslaughter was
warranted on those grounds. You have been unable or unwilling to provide
that evidence to support your claim.
Similarly, you claim a "dangerous and illegal" roll in "forbidden airspace,"
but have yet to explain why the roll was dangerous _or_ illegal, or on what
basis the airspace was "forbidden."
The prosecution was not there. Their claims are based on what they _think_
might have happened. It was their burden to prove those claims and
establish the existence of EACH and EVERY element of manslaughter "beyond a
reasonable doubt." They apparently did not do so. You aren't even coming
close.
David Hyde
> The FARs prohibit intentionally dropping things from
> aircraft
Dropping things from a civil aircraft is perfectly legal so long as (I'm
paraphrasing here) you make sure you don't endanger anyone. Not all FAR's
apply to military aircraft, but then again not all FAR's apply to ALL
civil aircraft either. Homebuilts, for example, don't require type
certificates as such (in spite of what some here have claimed), and you
can bet that the FARs applicable to the national airspace system are
applicable to military aircraft - as some well-publicised NASA and
military violations have demonstrated
Dave 'tried to stay outta this' Hyde
na...@glue.umd.edu
RAH15/?
Marcus Graham
"John Weiss" <jrweiss@seanet*NOSPAM*.com> wrote:
> Marcus Graham wrote in message <7c74h7$pn1$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >
> > Simply because you make an unsubstantiated claim to the contrary, it
> > doesn't prove that you are right. Italian regulations say that the
> > roll is forbidden on extremely low altitudes, as it is too
> dangerous,
> > since you easily lose your orientation immediately after.
>
Well, go and look them up, if you question my word.
I'm sick and tired of your demanding me to present you with
data. What's the matter with you? Were you never weaned?
> credible than those made by people with experience flying the airplane in
> that environment.
The prosecution did not agree with you. The illegal roll was part
of their case. I guess the don't have the experience necessary
to try this holy cow.
>
> > The NATO or US rules may be different, but this took place in Italy,
> > not in the US, no matter how difficult this is to grasp, there is
> > a difference.
>
> I'm not sure what difference there is, because you have not told us what
> specific regulation you think prohibited a roll. Operations of US military
See above. Before you can say that I'm wrong, present me
with the non-existant material, or shut up.
> aircraft are governed primarily by International Civil Areonautic
> Organization (ICAO) rules, US Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR), and
> service-specific (e.g., USAF, USN) regulations. The service regulations
> cannot conflict with the ICAO or FAR, but may be more stringent. Local
> rules, where they differ from ICAO rules, may apply as well.
There is no point here, except the last part. Local rules
do apply. What do you think Italy is, a fucking colony?
>
> If there are applicable NATO rules for that area (and I don't know them,
> off-hand), they would have been accepted by every NATO country as applicable
> to NATO forces operating in every member country's airspace.
The rule was 1000 feet. I have repeated myself like a parrot simply
because you haven't the capacity to grasp this. The roll was performed in
forbidden air space, and was dangerous and illegal. It is not what I say, it
is what the prosecution say. Of course Ashby's version is different, and
since he destroyed data from the flight, we'll have to rely on existing
evidence. NATO rules were not followed. Why exactly do you think there was
a court martial?
The rest of your post is a mere repetition of what we have discussed
over and over, and I won't go into it again.
Marcus Graham
Thank you, Todd. This post of yours demonstrates EXCELLENTLY my claim
that a marine jury would never be able to be unbiased, and would never
convict. Especially the last part.
You have made your point crystal clear. Again, thanks.
I'm thinking about forwarding this important letter to the appropriate
authorities in Italy and the US for review.
BUFDRVR
>the camera pressed to his face. The mike is around 10 cm from his mouth. I
>am certain that his voice was on that tape,
You know, I've been reading this ignorant fools crap for over a week now, and
I've laughed quite often, but this quote takes the cake. If an EA-6B is half
as loud as a BUFF the only sound recorded on that tape was loud white noise,
air rushing, engine buzz and an occasional air conditioning "whine".
This guy obviously hasn't got a clue about any form of military aviation, yet
he talks like hes got 5,000 hours.
BUFDRVR
"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"
Marcus Graham
"John Weiss" <jrweiss@seanet*NOSPAM*.com> wrote:
> Marcus Graham wrote in message <7c9usf$90j$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >>
> >> What Italian regulations are those? Your claim is less substantial and
> less
> >
> > Well, go and look them up, if you question my word.
> > I'm sick and tired of your demanding me to present you with
> > data. What's the matter with you? Were you never weaned?
>
You don't know anything. Period. That's your problem.
You cite regulations all right, but you can't apply them to the
case. As a defense attorney you do a pretty lousy job.
>
> You were the one who wanted "substantial argument." So far, you've refused
> to provide ANY concrete substantiation of any of your claims. Maybe it's
> about time...
Ridiculous. You have cited a few regulations that you
THINK are relevant, in higly general terms, and not once have
you actually discussed the issues of this case, or how it is
that this or that particular rule would exonerate Ashby. Why?
Simply because you don't even know the core issues of the case,
and therefore you can't present any esculpatory evidence
AT ALL. Your're pathetic.
As the saying goes in the marine "Your ego are writing checks
your body can't cash."
Sweeping words, flashing of papers, but no substance whatsoever.
I bet that no one can even see your point, or what you're driving
at, and I doubt you know yourself.
> >> credible than those made by people with experience flying the airplane in
> >> that environment.
> >
> > The prosecution did not agree with you. The illegal roll was
> part
> > of their case. I guess they don't have the experience necessary
> > to try this holy cow.
>
> I haven't seen anything here so far that substantiates your first 2 claims.
> You probably have the 3rd sentence right, though...
It is a fact of the case. It is not even in dispute!
Jesus, you're completely lost, aren't you.
The defense agrees that the air space was forbidden and that
that particular roll would have been illegal.
They say that the first issue was not criminally negligence, and
that the second issue never happened.
Your last sentence proves to anyone reading this that you are
so biased that you won't even acknowledge that the prosecution
is qualified to try the case! Let everyone read and reflect...
> >> > The NATO or US rules may be different, but this took place in
> Italy,
> >> > not in the US, no matter how difficult this is to grasp, there is
> >> > a difference.
> >>
> >> I'm not sure what difference there is, because you have not told us what
> >> specific regulation you think prohibited a roll. Operations of US
> military
> >
> > See above. Before you can say that I'm wrong, present me
> > with the non-existant material, or shut up.
>
> You want ME to present the material to substantiate YOUR side of the debate?
> Yougottabekiddingme!
You challenge me on that issue. Then it is up to you to prove me
wrong. You can't, and that's what all this screaming is about.
You want me to prove your point for you, but I won't let you.
Let's see some real homework here, instead of the usual flashing
of papers. I bet that you are a big bluff. :)
>
> You're the one to claim knowledge of Italian regulations. It's YOUR burden
> to present the evidence behind the "facts" YOU claim.
I have told you that the Italian website is closed. This happened February
3, 1998, and the info isn't there. I have read it, I remember it clearly,
and it is up to you, as the big authority, to either show me any information
that proves me wrong, or acknowledge that you don't have a clue what these
regulations say. I bet you don't have a clue.
>
> I fully respect your right to have ANY personal opinion or prejudice based
> on ANY [lack of] facts or evidence on ANY issue. You certainly have made us
> aware of your opinions and prejudices (all of us have some).
This is a good one coming from you. :)
The prosecution wasn't qualified to try the case, right?
No prejudice there as far as the eye can see. :)
As usual the latter part of your post is a mere repetition
of the same empty arguments you make above, so with your
permission I think I'll snip you right here.
Marcus Graham
buf...@aol.com (BUFDRVR) wrote:
> >When the navigator is filming he has
> >the camera pressed to his face. The mike is around 10 cm from his mouth. I
> >am certain that his voice was on that tape,
>
> You know, I've been reading this ignorant fools crap for over a week now, and
> I've laughed quite often, but this quote takes the cake. If an EA-6B is half
> as loud as a BUFF the only sound recorded on that tape was loud white noise,
> air rushing, engine buzz and an occasional air conditioning "whine".
>
> This guy obviously hasn't got a clue about any form of military aviation, yet
> he talks like hes got 5,000 hours.
And yet the video tape was destroyed by our Ashby. Gee, why could
that be? Your presumptions don't match the evidence of this
case, but, then again, I'm getting used to the mental
incapacity of the military. I've had some good laughs myself.
Jeff Crowell
Marcus Graham wrote:
>> > Simply because you make an unsubstantiated claim to the contrary,
it
>> > doesn't prove that you are right. Italian regulations say that
the
>> > roll is forbidden on extremely low altitudes, as it is too
>> dangerous,
>> > since you easily lose your orientation immediately after.
John Weiss wrote:
>> What Italian regulations are those? Your claim is less substantial and
less
Marcus Graham wrote:
> Well, go and look them up, if you question my word.
> I'm sick and tired of your demanding me to present you with
> data. What's the matter with you? Were you never weaned?
I would bet a great deal of money that John has been weaned a lot longer
than Marcus.
Marcus, the way this works is that if you make an allegation, such as
"the maneuver was illegal", you need to back that up with a
reference. Otherwise your claims and allegations will be disregarded as
the mere rantings of a spoiled little boy who didn't the prize in the
toy store window.
"NATO rules", at least as regards the maneuvers of the aircraft
(i.e rolling to perform ridge-crossing maneuvers) were followed.
You are the one making the outrageous claim that this is
not permitted under local rules. Prove it by citing or shut
the hell up.
Jeff
Dudley Henriques
well.
Dudley Henriques
Marcus Graham wrote:
>
> In article <Pine.SOL.3.96.990310...@ux7.cso.uiuc.edu>,
> todd michael prine <pr...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > AN OPEN LETTER TO MARCUS GRAHAM.
> > >
> > > Marcus
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> Thank you, Todd. This post of yours demonstrates EXCELLENTLY my claim
> that a marine jury would never be able to be unbiased, and would never
> convict. Especially the last part.
>
> You have made your point crystal clear. Again, thanks.
> I'm thinking about forwarding this important letter to the appropriate
> authorities in Italy and the US for review.
>
Paul J. Adam
<marcus_...@yahoo.com> writes
>In article <7c9gdd$l90$3...@q.seanet.com>,
> "John Weiss" <jrweiss@seanet*NOSPAM*.com> wrote:
>> What Italian regulations are those? Your claim is less substantial and less
>
> I'm sick and tired of your demanding me to present you with
> data. What's the matter with you? Were you never weaned?
When you make a claim, Marcus, it's incumbent on you to support it with
evidence.
If I were to claim that the President of Italy personally gave Ashby
permission to fly that low that day, it's surely up to me to provide
some documentary evidence, rather than whine and complain when people
won't believe my word unsupported alone...
>> I'm not sure what difference there is, because you have not told us what
>> specific regulation you think prohibited a roll. Operations of US military
>
> See above. Before you can say that I'm wrong, present me
> with the non-existant material, or shut up.
You're claiming there is such a regulation, Marcus. Where should we
look?
--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...
Paul J. Adam pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk
BUFDRVR
> case,
Mine is not a presumption ! Military aircraft are not insulated for sound
(well, I think those designed in the last 10 years may have been, but not
before that). I've flown 3 types of military aircraft and aboard 4 others, all
of them L O U D !!!
How many military aircraft have you flown on ?
OK, then who's making presumptions ?
Baby Grand
Seems to me like you are all getting buried in the "details" here, and
are missing one critical point:
When a guy climbs in the airplane and assumes the mantel of "pilot in
command", he also assumes the responsibility for the safety of himself, his
crew and the airplane, as well as any innocent civilians that might be
affected by either his actions or his inactions. I don't think it says
anywhere in the regulations that "PIC is responsible for the airplane
except when the radar altimeter malfunctions".
You can belabor the details and bicker about who else shares
responsibility, but Ashby ultimately has to be responsible for his actions
when he says "I've got the airplane". I don't dispute that lots of other
parties should step up and say, "We, too, are partly responsible for this
tragedy", chiefly the US of A government, but that shouldn't relieve Ashby
of his personal and moral responsibility.
Or is it just me???
the Duke of URL
N 369 RD
"Baby Grand"
Paul J. Adam
<babyXX...@spam-free.com> writes
> You can belabor the details and bicker about who else shares
>responsibility, but Ashby ultimately has to be responsible for his actions
>when he says "I've got the airplane".
No argument there. The debate (such as it is) is over whether he's
guilty of manslaughter.
> I don't dispute that lots of other
>parties should step up and say, "We, too, are partly responsible for this
>tragedy", chiefly the US of A government, but that shouldn't relieve Ashby
>of his personal and moral responsibility.
--
Mary Shafer
public aviation may be conducted in accordance with the FARs at the
option of the public agency, it need not be. All civil aviation in
the US must, however, be conducted in accordance with the relevant
sections of the FARs.
This is explicitly stated in the FARs, in the FAA agency goals, and a
wide variety of documents. NASA Dryden conducts its operations in
accordance with the "Basic Operations Manual", which doesn't have a
single reference to the FAA or the FARs anywhere in it. We have our
own regulations and we use them.
It is true that NASA, like the military, does its best to interface
with the civil aviation system, but we are not part of it and do so
voluntarily. Someone has noted that NASA Dryden is located at Edwards
AFB and conforms to local USAF rules, but we do so voluntarily and are
not limited by them except when we wish to be. For example, we fly
supersonic well outside the three supersonic corridors when that's
necessary to meet our objectives.
The NTSB is also limited to civil transportation and does not, for
example, investigate military aircraft accidents. When the NASA JSC
T-38s had a couple of near-misses with airliners at National Airport,
the NTSB reports explicitly remarked that neither they nor the FAA had
any jurisdiction over NASA aircraft, as NASA is a public agency. The
NTSB did make certain suggestions to NASA, but they were only
suggestions and no changes could be required by NTSB as NTSB had no
jurisdiction.
Jim Copanos
Marcus Graham wrote in message <7cajjj$qjp$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>
> As the saying goes in the marine "Your ego are writing checks
> your body can't cash."
>
No, that's Kelly what'shername's line out of the movie, "TopGun"! (the sum
total of your experience maybe? Blockbuster)
John Weiss
We have to be able to discriminate, however, between the certainty of his
personal and/or moral responsibility by virtue of his PIC title, and the
possibility of legal/criminal responsibility because of some degree of
negligence. At least from this keyboard, all this debate explores those
possibilities.
---------------------
John R. Weiss
Seattle, WA
Remove *NOSPAM* from address for e-mail reply
Baby Grand wrote in message ...
>
> Seems to me like you are all getting buried in the "details" here, and
>are missing one critical point:
>When a guy climbs in the airplane and assumes the mantel of "pilot in
>command", he also assumes the responsibility for the safety of himself, his
>crew and the airplane, as well as any innocent civilians that might be
>affected by either his actions or his inactions. I don't think it says
>anywhere in the regulations that "PIC is responsible for the airplane
>except when the radar altimeter malfunctions".
>
> You can belabor the details and bicker about who else shares
>responsibility, but Ashby ultimately has to be responsible for his actions
>when he says "I've got the airplane". I don't dispute that lots of other
>parties should step up and say, "We, too, are partly responsible for this
>tragedy", chiefly the US of A government, but that shouldn't relieve Ashby
>of his personal and moral responsibility.
>
John Weiss
>The FAA was established to promote and regulate civil aviation. While
>public aviation may be conducted in accordance with the FARs at the
>option of the public agency, it need not be. All civil aviation in
>the US must, however, be conducted in accordance with the relevant
>sections of the FARs.
>
>This is explicitly stated in the FARs, in the FAA agency goals, and a
>wide variety of documents. NASA Dryden conducts its operations in
>accordance with the "Basic Operations Manual", which doesn't have a
>single reference to the FAA or the FARs anywhere in it. We have our
>own regulations and we use them.
I have not seen any explicit statement to that effect in any of the FARs I
have immediate access to. As I pointed out yesterday, there is a distinct
difference in wording between the _certification_ sections of the FARs
(e.g., Parts 25, 61) and the _operating_ section (Part 91). I would
appreciate a pointer to any of those explicit references that specifically
exempt public aviation from Part 91 (or the FARs in general).
>It is true that NASA, like the military, does its best to interface
>with the civil aviation system, but we are not part of it and do so
>voluntarily. Someone has noted that NASA Dryden is located at Edwards
>AFB and conforms to local USAF rules, but we do so voluntarily and are
>not limited by them except when we wish to be. For example, we fly
>supersonic well outside the three supersonic corridors when that's
>necessary to meet our objectives.
I have to take your word re SR-71 operations, since I don't know whether
NASA has executed any Letters of Agreement or Cretifications of Waiver with
the FAA regarding their operation.
I wonder why there is a significant FAA contingent at Edwards, if nobody
there is subject to their rules...
>The NTSB is also limited to civil transportation and does not, for
>example, investigate military aircraft accidents. When the NASA JSC
>T-38s had a couple of near-misses with airliners at National Airport,
>the NTSB reports explicitly remarked that neither they nor the FAA had
>any jurisdiction over NASA aircraft, as NASA is a public agency. The
>NTSB did make certain suggestions to NASA, but they were only
>suggestions and no changes could be required by NTSB as NTSB had no
>jurisdiction.
You are correct re the NTSB when the military aircraft mishap is contained
solely within the jurisdiction of the military. However, they _do_
investigate mishaps where there is also civil jurisdiction involved. For
example, I investigated a Navy mishap at MCAS Yuma (a joint civil/military
field) in the early 80s. A Navy airplane crashed into a civilian hangar
shortly after takeoff. The NTSB was there as well as the Navy Safety
Center. The NTSB had no jurisdiction over the Navy Mishap Investigation
Board, but they certainly did their own, independent investigation.
John Weiss
>The FAA was established to promote and regulate civil aviation. While
>public aviation may be conducted in accordance with the FARs at the
>option of the public agency, it need not be. All civil aviation in
>the US must, however, be conducted in accordance with the relevant
>sections of the FARs.
>
>This is explicitly stated in the FARs, in the FAA agency goals, and a
>wide variety of documents. NASA Dryden conducts its operations in
>accordance with the "Basic Operations Manual", which doesn't have a
>single reference to the FAA or the FARs anywhere in it. We have our
>own regulations and we use them.
Just to show I haven't been slacking off, I did a bit of web research on the
subject. All following references are from Title 49 of the United States
Code (49USCxxxx), unless otherwise noted. In their totality, they
definitely indicate to me that military/public aviation _is_ subject to FAA
operating/safety regulations, unless otherwise exempted:
DOT is charged with regulating air traffic with regard to commerce and
national defense. See especially 40101(d)(6):
Sec. 40101. Policy
(a) Economic Regulation. - In carrying out subpart II of this part and
those
provisions of subpart IV applicable in carrying out subpart II, the
Secretary of Transportation shall consider the following matters, among
others, as being in the public interest and consistent with public
convenience and necessity:
. . .
(3) preventing deterioration in established safety procedures,
recognizing the clear intent, encouragement, and dedication of
Congress to further the highest degree of safety in air
transportation and air commerce, and to maintain the safety
vigilance that has evolved in air transportation and air commerce
and has come to be expected by the traveling and shipping public.
. . .
(7) developing and maintaining a sound regulatory system that
is responsive to the needs of the public and in which decisions
are reached promptly to make it easier to adapt the air
transportation system to the present and future needs of -
(A) the commerce of the United States;
(B) the United States Postal Service; and
(C) the national defense.
. . .
(c) General Safety Considerations. - In carrying out subpart III of this
part and those provisions of subpart IV applicable in carrying out
subpart
III, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall
consider
the following matters:
(1) the requirements of national defense and commercial and
general aviation.
(2) the public right of freedom of transit through the
navigable airspace.
. . .
(d) Safety Considerations in Public Interest. - In carrying out subpart
III
of this part and those provisions of subpart IV applicable in carrying
out
subpart III, the Administrator shall consider the following matters,
among
others, as being in the public interest:
(1) assigning, maintaining, and enhancing safety and security
as the highest priorities in air commerce.
(2) regulating air commerce in a way that best promotes safety
and fulfills national defense requirements.
(3) encouraging and developing civil aeronautics, including new
aviation technology.
(4) controlling the use of the navigable airspace and
regulating civil and military operations in that airspace in the
interest of the safety and efficiency of both of those
operations.
(5) consolidating research and development for air navigation
facilities and the installation and operation of those
facilities.
(6) developing and operating a common system of air traffic
control and navigation for military and civil aircraft.
"Air commerce" includes _all_ aircraft that operate on Federal airways:
Sec. 40102. Definitions
(a) General Definitions. - In this part -
. . .
(3) ''air commerce'' means foreign air commerce, interstate air
commerce, the transportation of mail by aircraft, the operation
of aircraft within the limits of a Federal airway, or the
operation of aircraft that directly affects, or may endanger
safety in, foreign or interstate air commerce.
. . .
(6) ''aircraft'' means any contrivance invented, used, or
designed to navigate, or fly in, the air.
. . .
(16) ''civil aircraft'' means an aircraft except a public
aircraft.
. . .
(37) ''public aircraft'' -
(A) means an aircraft -
(i) used only for the United States Government; or
(ii) owned and operated (except for commercial purposes),
or exclusively leased for at least 90 continuous days, by a
government (except the United States Government), including
a
State, the District of Columbia, or a territory or
possession
of the United States, or political subdivision of that
government; but
(B) does not include a government-owned aircraft -
(i) transporting property for commercial purposes; or
(ii) transporting passengers other than -
(I) transporting (for other than commercial purposes)
crewmembers or other persons aboard the aircraft whose
presence is required to perform, or is associated with the
performance of, a governmental function such as
firefighting, search and rescue, law enforcement,
aeronautical research, or biological or geological resource
management; or
(II) transporting (for other than commercial purposes)
persons aboard the aircraft if the aircraft is operated by
the Armed Forces or an intelligence agency of the United
States.
An aircraft described in the preceding sentence shall,
notwithstanding any limitation relating to use of the aircraft
for commercial purposes, be considered to be a public aircraft
for the purposes of this part without regard to whether the
aircraft is operated by a unit of government on behalf of
another unit of government, pursuant to a cost reimbursement
agreement between such units of government, if the unit of
government on whose behalf the operation is conducted certifies
to the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration
that the operation was necessary to respond to a significant
and imminent threat to life or property (including natural
resources) and that no service by a private operator was
reasonably available to meet the threat.
When it comes to use of airspace, there appears to be a definite distinction
between "aircraft" and "civil aircraft." The FAA is responsible for use of
airspace by "aircraft." Given the definitions in the above paragraph, I
have to assume that "aircraft" includes both public and civil aircraft:
Sec. 40103. Sovereignty and use of airspace
. . .
(b) Use of Airspace. - (1) The Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration shall develop plans and policy for the use of the
navigable
airspace and assign by regulation or order the use of the airspace
necessary
to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. The
Administrator may modify or revoke an assignment when required in the
public
interest.
(2) The Administrator shall prescribe air traffic regulations on the
flight of aircraft (including regulations on safe altitudes) for -
(A) navigating, protecting, and identifying aircraft;
(B) protecting individuals and property on the ground;
(C) using the navigable airspace efficiently; and
(D) preventing collision between aircraft, between aircraft and
land or water vehicles, and between aircraft and airborne
objects.
(3) To establish security provisions that will encourage and allow
maximum use of the navigable airspace by civil aircraft consistent
with
national security, the Administrator, in consultation with the
Secretary
of Defense, shall -
(A) establish areas in the airspace the Administrator decides
are necessary in the interest of national defense; and
(B) by regulation or order, restrict or prohibit flight of
civil aircraft that the Administrator cannot identify, locate,
and control with available facilities in those areas.
(4) Notwithstanding the military exception in section 553(a)(1) of
title
5, subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 5 applies to a regulation
prescribed under this subsection.
Also, the military must have specific authorization to _deviate_ from air
traffic regulations; the baseline assumption _must_ be that they are
otherwise _subject_ to them:
Sec. 40106. Emergency powers
(a) Deviations From Regulations. - Appropriate military authority may
authorize aircraft of the armed forces of the United States to deviate
from
air traffic regulations prescribed under section 40103(b)(1) and (2) of
this
title when the authority decides the deviation is essential to the
national
defense because of a military emergency or urgent military necessity.
The
authority shall -
(1) give the Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration prior notice of the deviation at the earliest
practicable time; and
(2) to the extent time and circumstances allow, make every
reasonable effort to consult with the Administrator and arrange
for the deviation in advance on a mutually agreeable basis.
>It is true that NASA, like the military, does its best to interface
>with the civil aviation system, but we are not part of it and do so
>voluntarily. Someone has noted that NASA Dryden is located at Edwards
>AFB and conforms to local USAF rules, but we do so voluntarily and are
>not limited by them except when we wish to be. For example, we fly
>supersonic well outside the three supersonic corridors when that's
>necessary to meet our objectives.
The bottom line is that the FARs, including FAR Part 91 (General Operating
and Flight Rules) are totally consistent in their wording and definitions
with the underlying USC -- "aircraft" means ALL public and civil aircraft.
FAR Part 91 applies to "aircraft."
>The NTSB is also limited to civil transportation and does not, for
>example, investigate military aircraft accidents. When the NASA JSC
>T-38s had a couple of near-misses with airliners at National Airport,
>the NTSB reports explicitly remarked that neither they nor the FAA had
>any jurisdiction over NASA aircraft, as NASA is a public agency. The
>NTSB did make certain suggestions to NASA, but they were only
>suggestions and no changes could be required by NTSB as NTSB had no
>jurisdiction.
The NTSB specifically has jurisdiction over public, nonmilitary aircraft
(A); and, in some circumstances, could even have jurisdiction over a
"catastrophic" or "recurring" military mishap (F):
Sec. 1131. General authority
(a) General. - (1) The National Transportation Safety Board shall
investigate or have investigated (in detail the Board prescribes) and
establish the facts, circumstances, and cause or probable cause of -
(A) an aircraft accident the Board has authority to investigate
under section 1132 of this title or an aircraft accident
involving a public aircraft as defined by section 40102(a)(37) of
this title other than an aircraft operated by the Armed Forces or
by an intelligence agency of the United States;
. . .
(F) any other accident related to the transportation of
individuals or property when the Board decides -
(i) the accident is catastrophic;
(ii) the accident involves problems of a recurring character;
or
(iii) the investigation of the accident would carry out this
chapter.
(2) An investigation by the Board under paragraph (1)(A)-(D)
or
(F) of this subsection has priority over any investigation by
another
department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States
Government.
The Board shall provide for appropriate participation by other
departments, agencies, or instrumentalities in the investigation.
However, those departments, agencies, or instrumentalities may not
participate in the decision of the Board about the probable cause of
the
accident.
(3) This section and sections 1113, 1116(b), 1133, and 1134(a)
and
(c)-(e) of this title do not affect the authority of another
department, agency, or instrumentality of the Government to
investigate an accident under applicable law or to obtain
information directly from the parties involved in, and witnesses
to,
the accident. The Board and other departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities shall ensure that appropriate information
developed about the accident is exchanged in a timely manner.
todd michael prine
Well ok, Marcus, but what I was looking for was for a correction to *any*
of my assumtions. See, my point was that yes, you are more than welcome
in this forum, as welcome as anyone. But maybe it's time to read a little
more and type a little less.
Golly, I sure don't want the Italians after me.
Todd
"Quick trip. I'm back."
On Fri, 12 Mar 1999, Marcus Graham wrote:
> In article <Pine.SOL.3.96.990310...@ux7.cso.uiuc.edu>,
> todd michael prine <pr...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Marcus,
> > I just wanted to take a moment to say that after reading Mr.
> > Henriques' statements, I agree with you. I was assuming of course that
> > hip'. (I'm not going to quote or cite, so fergetit.) I'm going to start
> > out by making a few assumptions. As assumptions I do invite any
> > corrections.
> > 1. You are not a pilot. You don't talk like one, and based upon your B&W
> > 2. You have never put on a uniform. I won't go into the ocean of
> > going for assumption #3 here) who would just as soon go with the rest of
> > Assumption #4: Are you a lawyer? Cause I have never seen anyone sling so
> >
> > Sleep on it, Marcus. The sun is going to come up tommorrow, wherever you
> > may be.
> >
> > Todd
> >
>
Marcus Graham
buf...@aol.com (BUFDRVR) wrote:
> >Your presumptions don't match the evidence of this
> > case,
>
> Mine is not a presumption ! Military aircraft are not insulated for sound
> (well, I think those designed in the last 10 years may have been, but not
> before that). I've flown 3 types of military aircraft and aboard 4 others,
all
> of them L O U D !!!
So? Your experiences are irrelevant to this case.
You don't even fly the same plane for God's sake. Next witness!
As a side note, sound can be artificially enhanced.
Do you have any particular experience in this field to be able to rule
that out? Thought not.
>
> How many military aircraft have you flown on ?
How many prowlers of this type, as relevant here, have you flown?
Have you ever had your navigator film with the specific type of video
camera we are discussing in this particular case?
Are you in any way qualified as an expert witness in the field of
sound technique, and if so please tell us how.
> OK, then who's making presumptions ?
Seems to be you.
Marcus Graham
"Baby Grand" <babyXX...@spam-free.com> wrote:
>
> Seems to me like you are all getting buried in the "details" here, and
> are missing one critical point:
> When a guy climbs in the airplane and assumes the mantel of "pilot in
> command", he also assumes the responsibility for the safety of himself, his
> crew and the airplane, as well as any innocent civilians that might be
> affected by either his actions or his inactions. I don't think it says
> anywhere in the regulations that "PIC is responsible for the airplane
> except when the radar altimeter malfunctions".
>
> You can belabor the details and bicker about who else shares
> responsibility, but Ashby ultimately has to be responsible for his actions
> when he says "I've got the airplane". I don't dispute that lots of other
> parties should step up and say, "We, too, are partly responsible for this
> tragedy", chiefly the US of A government, but that shouldn't relieve Ashby
> of his personal and moral responsibility.
>
> Or is it just me???
>
> N 369 RD
> "Baby Grand"
>
This is exactly what I've been trying to say the whole time.
The pilot has a responsibility for his actions, and must face
the consequences when he causes unnecessary deaths because
of his own choices. The higher commands are responsible for
their actions as well, which doesn't in any way whatsoever
make the pilot in the plane immune from prosecution
when the evidence screams out his guilt.
Marcus Graham
Mary Shafer <sha...@reseng2.dfrc.nasa.gov> wrote:
> The FAA was established to promote and regulate civil aviation. While
> public aviation may be conducted in accordance with the FARs at the
> option of the public agency, it need not be. All civil aviation in
> the US must, however, be conducted in accordance with the relevant
> sections of the FARs.
>
> This is explicitly stated in the FARs, in the FAA agency goals, and a
> wide variety of documents. NASA Dryden conducts its operations in
> accordance with the "Basic Operations Manual", which doesn't have a
> single reference to the FAA or the FARs anywhere in it. We have our
> own regulations and we use them.
>
> with the civil aviation system, but we are not part of it and do so
> voluntarily. Someone has noted that NASA Dryden is located at Edwards
> AFB and conforms to local USAF rules, but we do so voluntarily and are
> not limited by them except when we wish to be. For example, we fly
> supersonic well outside the three supersonic corridors when that's
> necessary to meet our objectives.
>
> example, investigate military aircraft accidents. When the NASA JSC
> T-38s had a couple of near-misses with airliners at National Airport,
> the NTSB reports explicitly remarked that neither they nor the FAA had
> any jurisdiction over NASA aircraft, as NASA is a public agency. The
> NTSB did make certain suggestions to NASA, but they were only
> suggestions and no changes could be required by NTSB as NTSB had no
> jurisdiction.
>
LOL. Boy, are you wiping the floor with this dude!
Don't be so cruel on the poor guy! You had him staying up all
night writing his frantic replies. :)
I like it! More power to you!
NAv8or
> Thank you, Todd. This post of yours demonstrates EXCELLENTLY my claim
> that a marine jury would never be able to be unbiased, and would never
> convict. Especially the last part.
>
> You have made your point crystal clear. Again, thanks.
> I'm thinking about forwarding this important letter to the appropriate
> authorities in Italy and the US for review.
>
>
> Marcus
Appropriate authorities? Sure, Marcus, anything you say. I am sure all your
contacts in the Italian and US governments are waiting, with baited breath, for
your insights into the matter. They will probably listen to you almost as much
as you listen to the voices in your head.
Todd was right. You are obviously not a pilot, nor trained in flight
physiology, and you try to equate emotion with fact in all of your posts which
I have read.
Nav8or
Marcus Graham
> Marcus, the way this works is that if you make an allegation, such as
> "the maneuver was illegal", you need to back that up with a
I make the allegation???? The prosecution did, you moron.
You obviously lack any knowledge of the case.
I trust the prosecution far more than the clown we have here,
whose word I wouldn't trust any further than I could throw him.
> reference. Otherwise your claims and allegations will be disregarded as
Again, it is not my allegation. Have you reading problems?
> the mere rantings of a spoiled little boy who didn't the prize in the
> toy store window.
Then we will have something in common.
>
> "NATO rules", at least as regards the maneuvers of the aircraft
> (i.e rolling to perform ridge-crossing maneuvers) were followed.
Again, for the last time, this is NOT IN DISPUTE!
The defense admits that the roll witnessed shortly before impact
would be illegal.
Therefore, after the mysterious disappearance of the videotape,
and the destruction of the track recorder, the defense has all
the time claimed that this particular roll, the controversial
roll, was never performed. Are you with me?
What they say, instead, is that the witnesses must have seen an
much EARLIER roll being performed as part of a ridge crossing,
which would not have been illegal.
The prosecution says that this can not be so. They say that
facts demonstrate that the roll MUST have been made very close to
impact, in forbidden airspace, in violation of regulations, a roll
which was dangerous and reckless.
Now, I admit willingly that I don't know these rules. There now,
satisfied? I report to you what the allegations were and what the
response to those allegations were. It is as simple as that.
Witness testimony and circumstantial evidence doesn't support
the defense, it supports the prosecution, and everyone can make
up their minds as to which version makes more sense.
I believe personally that the defense's roll did take place, but
I also believe that the unlawful roll, which would prove criminal
negligence, a roll which was performed right before impact at
around 400 feet altitude in direct sequence with the attempt to fly
under the cable, was performed as well. This is one of the major
reasons for the "disapppearance" of the video tape in my view.
I could be wrong, but it is very unlikely. The destruction of the
evidence points to my being right, and as no reason AT ALL has been
given for this disappearance, it would take a more naive person
than myself to believe that this wasn't a cover-up.
joaquim
> John Weiss wrote:
> >> What Italian regulations are those? Your claim is less substantial and
> less
>
Let me explain what is happening. Probably your TV and newspapers didn't cover
the story as much as Italian media did. Yesterday Italy's State Attorney
revelead these very important points:
a) The Prowler was not authorized to perform ANY training flight in that area.
b) The co-pilot destroyed the tape of the flight just after landing. Why did
he do it? What were they trying to conceal?
c) Italy government gave the updated map (with the cables clearly signed) to
US Militay authority back in 1995, but the pilot had the old one.
d) residents of the Cermis area often protested for very low flights (nearly
evey week), mainly for the terrible noise in a quiet mountain resort. But US
army didin't bother to change the situation, neither did the Italian gov.
It seems to me that there are enough reasons to reopen the case.
Joaquim-Milano-Italia
Escape from Samsara-1999
Marcus Graham
joaquim <joaq...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>
>
> > John Weiss wrote:
> > >> What Italian regulations are those? Your claim is less substantial and
> > less
> >
>
> Let me explain what is happening. Probably your TV and newspapers didn't cover
> the story as much as Italian media did. Yesterday Italy's State Attorney
> revelead these very important points:
>
> a) The Prowler was not authorized to perform ANY training flight in that area.
This is news to me. I was aware that Italy had a 2000 feet restriction in
the area, and that NATO used a lower 1000 feet altitude restriction. I also
read that he was several miles off course, but it didn't say whether or not
that was during the impact, or earlier in the flight.
>
> b) The co-pilot destroyed the tape of the flight just after landing. Why did
> he do it? What were they trying to conceal?
The story of the tape is the most damaging piece of evidence there is,
because something that doesn't match the defense's official version
MUST be on that tape, either visual or audio, or both.
You won't hear much talk about the tape in this group. The folks here
love to explain away everything involving this case, but the one thing
they haven't been able to come up with a good reason for is the tape.
Their solution; ignore it.
> c) Italy government gave the updated map (with the cables clearly signed) to
> US Militay authority back in 1995, but the pilot had the old one.
Remember, they say he had an old one, a 30-year-old map.
A general of some sorts was fired after he went out in the media and
said that the cable was marked on the map that the pilots used.
This high ranking official has never been heard from since. He's
probably under gag order. This whole thing stinks of conspiracy.
He also said publicly that there was never anything wrong with the
altimeter. Can you believe it? He just happens to mention two major
defense pillars that were incorrect, and afterwards he just disappears.
> d) residents of the Cermis area often protested for very low flights (nearly
> evey week), mainly for the terrible noise in a quiet mountain resort. But US
> army didin't bother to change the situation, neither did the Italian gov.
Not to mention severed power cables.
>
> It seems to me that there are enough reasons to reopen the case.
The US won't reopen it. They just buried it. I don't know what Italy
can do. It seems like this pilot has more or less immunity, even
if he would have made a confession. One thing is clear. He won't ever
set his foot on Italian soil, ever in his life, if he knows what's good
for him.
What is Italy going to do now when the US has told Italy that their
pilot did nothing wrong? What is going on over there?
What are the politicians going to do about it?
Best Regards,
Marcus
John Weiss
>Let me explain what is happening. Probably your TV and newspapers didn't
cover
>the story as much as Italian media did. Yesterday Italy's State Attorney
>revelead these very important points:
>
>a) The Prowler was not authorized to perform ANY training flight in that
area.
What is the basis for this claim? Is it something beyond the claim that he
was 3.5 miles off the centerline of his planned course?
>b) The co-pilot destroyed the tape of the flight just after landing. Why
did
>he do it? What were they trying to conceal?
Hmmm... Marcus said Ashby destroyed a tape. What tape was he speaking of
(mission tape or personal video)?
>c) Italy government gave the updated map (with the cables clearly signed)
to
>US Militay authority back in 1995, but the pilot had the old one.
I wasn't aware he had an old chart. I thought he had the current TPC for
the area, but the US CHUMs still hadn't added the cable...
>d) residents of the Cermis area often protested for very low flights
(nearly
>evey week), mainly for the terrible noise in a quiet mountain resort. But
US
>army didin't bother to change the situation, neither did the Italian gov.
Who was flying the low-levels? Was it only US airplanes, or were other
countries forces included?
>It seems to me that there are enough reasons to reopen the case.
The "case" isn't closed (ECMO1 has yet to go to trial; another "review" of
the mishap was recently announced), though it would be against the US
Constitution to retry Ashby for manslaughter. Besides, unless there is
_new_ evidence that was not brought out before the trial, there is no reason
to "reopen" a case (usually done after a US criminal trial only when a
person is convicted, and new evidence to exonerate him comes up).
Marcus Graham
nav...@aol.com (NAv8or) wrote:
> Marcus Graham posted:
>
> > Thank you, Todd. This post of yours demonstrates EXCELLENTLY my claim
> > that a marine jury would never be able to be unbiased, and would never
> > convict. Especially the last part.
> >
> > You have made your point crystal clear. Again, thanks.
> > I'm thinking about forwarding this important letter to the appropriate
> > authorities in Italy and the US for review.
> >
> >
> > Marcus
>
> Appropriate authorities? Sure, Marcus, anything you say. I am sure all your
> contacts in the Italian and US governments are waiting, with baited breath,
for
> your insights into the matter. They will probably listen to you almost as
much
> as you listen to the voices in your head.
You don't understand. I'm not saying that people are going to listen to
me. I'm saying that this marine who wrote me an open letter, speaking in his
capacity as a marine, expressed clear bias and a "We'll defend a brother"
attitude, even comparing my view versus theirs to a gay wearing a purple
tee-shirt versus southern rednecks. This came close to being a poorly masked
threat, and I'm sure that media in the US would just love to have got their
hands on it.
This type of information from a US marine is very relevant to anyone
responsible for looking into the issue of whether or not a fair and
just trial has been conducted, as promised by the US government
as a condition for the trial being conducted in the US, and not in
Italy, where in hindsight it would rightfully have belonged.
I'm certain that this type of information is interesting to at least
Italian authorities, who are now looking into this matter more
closely after the acquittal of the pilot and most likely his
navigator, as well.
Bill Kambic
> joaquim wrote in message <7cdmsm$eck$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
<snipped>
> >b) The co-pilot destroyed the tape of the flight just after landing. Why
> did
> >he do it? What were they trying to conceal?
>
> Hmmm... Marcus said Ashby destroyed a tape. What tape was he speaking of
> (mission tape or personal video)?
This is one of the more disturbing aspects of the case. At the very least it
raises questions of what might have been on that tape. And given the prevalence
of "X-Files Thinking" it means that debate will be just that much extended.
> >It seems to me that there are enough reasons to reopen the case.
>
> The "case" isn't closed (ECMO1 has yet to go to trial; another "review" of
> the mishap was recently announced), though it would be against the US
> Constitution to retry Ashby for manslaughter. Besides, unless there is
> _new_ evidence that was not brought out before the trial, there is no reason
> to "reopen" a case (usually done after a US criminal trial only when a
> person is convicted, and new evidence to exonerate him comes up).
CAPT Ashby is probably off the criminal hook. The prohibition on "double
jeopardy" is pretty much "transactional" and the Government is bound to
prosecute any charges that might arise from the incident or loose them forever.
The very reason we have this Constitutional guarantee to ensure that that a
defendant in a politically sensitive case is protected from the very thing that
the Italian authorities seem to be requesting.
Bill Kambic, Bright Star Farm, Kingston, TN
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Hills/1816
Gary
> You don't understand. I'm not saying that people are going to listen to
>me. I'm saying that this marine who wrote me an open letter, speaking in his
>capacity as a marine, expressed clear bias and a "We'll defend a brother"
>attitude, even comparing my view versus theirs to a gay wearing a purple
>tee-shirt versus southern rednecks. This came close to being a poorly masked
>threat, and I'm sure that media in the US would just love to have got their
>hands on it.
>
Marcus I will say you are a persistent troll. While the US Media is remarkably
dense about most things that go on in the world, what makes you think that they
would be interested in anything you had to send to them. I think the slow
witted political news commentator (well they them seem to be that way in
Atlanta) at a local news station in the deep south can run a 30 second
deja-news author profile to check his source before he says anything.
BUFDRVR
> that out?
Do you ? Thought not.
>Have you ever had your navigator film with the specific type of video
> camera we are discussing in this particular case?
Have seen over a dozen VCR tapes from inside a B-52 cockpit, with probably a
dozen different VCR's. The result was the same, nothing on the audio except
unbearable white noise.
>> OK, then who's making presumptions ?
>
> Seems to be you.
Nice job answering questions with questions. Its OK though I knew your answers
before I posted the questions. You have absolutely no military aviation
experience, not even as a passanger on a military cargo plane !!!
John Weiss
>>
>> Hmmm... Marcus said Ashby destroyed a tape. What tape was he speaking
of
>> (mission tape or personal video)?
>
>This is one of the more disturbing aspects of the case. At the very least
it
>raises questions of what might have been on that tape. And given the
prevalence
>of "X-Files Thinking" it means that debate will be just that much extended.
I suspect there were things on the personal video that he didn't want aired
on CNN. Whether or not they were directly related to the mishap is another
question. Unless he gets acquitted of all charges and decides to go for big
bux and write a book, we'll probably never know for sure...
>CAPT Ashby is probably off the criminal hook. The prohibition on "double
>jeopardy" is pretty much "transactional" and the Government is bound to
>prosecute any charges that might arise from the incident or loose them
forever.
>The very reason we have this Constitutional guarantee to ensure that that a
>defendant in a politically sensitive case is protected from the very thing
that
>the Italian authorities seem to be requesting.
I'm not so sure... I suspect his "obstruction of justice" trial will be
_very_ interesting...
Martin P.
If You drive a car with faulty speedometer and lost Your Map and drive too
fast on a closed road who is responsible for that, what will the cops do
with You? (and I am a pilot....)
Martin
Marcus Graham
buf...@aol.com (BUFDRVR) wrote:
> > Do you have any particular experience in this field to be able to rule
> > that out?
>
> Do you ? Thought not.
That is a no, I presume. I know enough to know that this technique
exists, and I know that you don't know a flying fuck about it.
>
> >Have you ever had your navigator film with the specific type of video
> > camera we are discussing in this particular case?
>
> Have seen over a dozen VCR tapes from inside a B-52 cockpit, with probably a
> dozen different VCR's. The result was the same, nothing on the audio except
> unbearable white noise.
This is your word, and I won't trust it as gospel.
Your story is still of no value at all.
You can't compare a B-52 to a prowler. It's ridiculous.
Admittedly I'm not a pilot, but even I can see that this is like
comparing oranges and apples.
Not one word on sound enhancement. You are apparently not qualified there
either.
> >> OK, then who's making presumptions ?
> >
> > Seems to be you.
>
> Nice job answering questions with questions. Its OK though I knew your
answers
I have said several times that I'm not a pilot myself.
Your question was rethorical and totally pointless.
> before I posted the questions. You have absolutely no military aviation
> experience, not even as a passanger on a military cargo plane !!!
Is this an attempt to dodge the issue we discussed?
Your Ashby destroyed the tape. Gee, why could that be?
I haven't seen so many different ways to avoid this issue as in
this group. Incredible. And then you folks tell me I'm being
prejudicial when I say that the marine can't be unbiased.
Yeah, right, sure... :)
Marcus Graham
> I suspect there were things on the personal video that he didn't want aired
> on CNN.
You can say that again!
Don't worry. The only video tape they air on CNN is the
president's grand jury testimony. I think Ashby can relax.
joaquim
Marcus Graham <marcus_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Captain Ashby's Prwoler was not authorized to perform ANY training flight in
that area.
>
> This is news to me. I was aware that Italy had a 2000 feet restriction in
> the area, and that NATO used a lower 1000 feet altitude restriction. I also
> read that he was several miles off course, but it didn't say whether or not
> that was during the impact, or earlier in the flight.
>
Yes these are breaking news: it seem that the flight request was made for
another type of aircraft, trying to hide the real plane ID, since the
agreements about the Prowler were that it could have been used ONLY in case
of attack to SERBIA. So probably US Marines didn't want to reveal that they
were using it for missions over Italy. (as you all know, Prowler is a
spy-plane).
> > b) The co-pilot destroyed the tape of the flight just after landing. Why did
> > he do it? What were they trying to conceal?
>
> The story of the tape is the most damaging piece of evidence there is,
> because something that doesn't match the defense's official version
> MUST be on that tape, either visual or audio, or both.
>
> You won't hear much talk about the tape in this group. The folks here
> love to explain away everything involving this case, but the one thing
> they haven't been able to come up with a good reason for is the tape.
> Their solution; ignore it.
>
> > c) Italy government gave the updated map (with the cables clearly signed) to
> > US Militay authority back in 1995, but the pilot had the old one.
>
> Remember, they say he had an old one, a 30-year-old map.
>
> A general of some sorts was fired after he went out in the media and
> said that the cable was marked on the map that the pilots used.
> This high ranking official has never been heard from since. He's
> probably under gag order. This whole thing stinks of conspiracy.
>
> He also said publicly that there was never anything wrong with the
> altimeter. Can you believe it? He just happens to mention two major
> defense pillars that were incorrect, and afterwards he just disappears.
>
>
>
> What is Italy going to do now when the US has told Italy that their
> pilot did nothing wrong? What is going on over there?
> What are the politicians going to do about it?
As you all know, there's a strong and old friendship between USA and Italy
(we joined your forces in Desert Storm for more than one-hundred missions
over Iraq, with our Tornadoes). So we don't think this will strain our
relations. Of course part of the politicians and media are requesting, after
the acquittal, that US basis should be closed (not the NATO ones). Nobody
here wants to use Ashby as a scapegoat, just to know who, in charge of the
operations, is held responsible for all this mess. Best regards to all.
Joaquim
Escape from Samsara-1999
Marcus Graham
I used the wrong word. I meant prejudiced, not prejudicial.
BUFDRVR
Interesting, I always thought it was for Electronic Attack (Thus the EA in
EA-6B) :)