Seems to me that the root of the original chain of bad decisions was the failure to station a Maintenance Det in Afghganistan to save money and to encourage aviators in trouble to try and make it back to their carriers. So, here they lost a $50 million Super Hornet and nearly their lives because of financial shenanigans in Washington.
Seems to me that our government’s main mission is to provide defense for our country. It follows that we should have people in place,from the Commander-in-Chief on down,with military experience. This is vital,but doesn’t seem to be the case this time.
Two seat Hornet = Marines or a Growler. Carrier aviation is a high risk occupation. Running out of gas is always a pilot error.
Why doesn’t our govt ever try to save money by, say, cutting handouts to the slimy takers of society - those born on BOTH sides of our southern border???
“The jet had flown more than 400 miles, two-thirds of the way back to the ship, when the aviators noticed another problem.”
Glad their safe. I don’t blame it on anybody. I was a green shirt for a month ... not long by anybodies standard, but I don’t question their decision. If both made it back alive, then It was a good decision in my book.
I couldn’t read the rest of this. You’re spot on.
The incident could have resulted in loss of crew, all consequent to a major command error in logistics, which I can only assume extends all the way up the chain back to the Pentagon since they only assigned blame on the pilot. They simply chose to ignore the problem.
The proof is the lack of disciplinary action.
Why am I not surprised...
Footnote: At least some still care enough
http://www.goatlocker.org/resources/cpo/about/culture.htm
They should have the team, which is investigating MH370, solve the investigation...
See.......space shuttle......Challenger. Same deal.
I'm confused. If he was choosing between landing on a carrier, I would presume that meant he was over the ocean. Yet Kandahar is in land-locked Afghanistan, hundreds of miles from any sea. How could it be considered "nearby?"
If a maverick black hole from the Andromeda galaxy sweeps out of the mysterious dark unknown of deepest space and into our Solar System, slamming unpredictably into this pale blue dot of Earth, in the moments before everyone is annihilated, one or more commanders will most likely be asked that most standard of military questions: “What did YOU do to prevent this?”
AKA an "aw crap" moment.
I was in KAF in 2009 and we had a Hornet divert there with a malfunction. The USN didn’t have a maintenance detachment there at the time but a team was flown from the ship to fix the jet two days later. Not ideal but then again it was the smart play.
Really if you think about is it was a really bad call
He’s near Kandahar when he had the refueling basket stuck on his refueling probe...
..so land...
...pull the dam basket off...
.... retract the probe....
....inspect the aircraft for damage....
...and if none....
....top up and fly home..
And if the aircraft is damaged landing at Kandahar still the better bet as its closer and it’s not the carrier...
Landing a damaged aircraft on a carrier, besides being harder, and puts the carrier and the people on the carrier at risk.
Landing a damaged aircraft on an airfield is easier ...and just put the freaking dirt at risk.
I suspect that part of what led to this was a Navy mindset about the reach of carrier aviation. A war in a landlocked country hundreds of miles from the sea where we already controlled a number of airbases would not seem a logical choice for carrier operations, absent an agenda.