Posted on 12/10/2008 12:05:41 PM PST by Virginia Ridgerunner
The man who on Monday lost his wife, two daughters and mother-in-law in the San Diego jet fighter crash says he doesn't blame the pilot, who "did everything he could" to avoid the disaster.
Don Yoon, 37, yesterday visited the remains of his home in the suburb of University City. His Cather Avenue house was completely destroyed when a F/A-18D Hornet lost power in both engines while trying to land at nearby Miramar Marine Corps Air Station.
The pilot - named as Lt Dan Neubauer of Marine Corps Fighter Attack Training Squadron 101 - ejected safely, suffering only minor injuries after coming down in trees. The aircraft ploughed into Yoon's residence, killing his wife Youngmi Lee, 36, the couple's daughters, two-month-old Rachel and 15-month-old Grace, and his mother-in-law, Seokim Kim, 60.
(snip)
At the scene yesterday, Yoon said of Neubauer: "I don't want him to suffer from this accident. I know he's one of our treasures for the country. And I don't blame him, I don't have any hard feelings. I know he did everything he could."
(Excerpt) Read more at theregister.co.uk ...
Thanks for trying to keep it civil.
No problem. I’ve got to stay friendly with my fellow second ammendment guardians.
Having once worn the wings myself, albeit as a prop guy, I just get a little agitated when people try to second guess a pilot’s reaction in an emergency. Now I know how former quarterbacks feel reading the sports pages. :o)
He couldn't do anything to change the course or outcome with two dead engines. No controls nothing. However his debriefing as a LIVE pilot might shed some light as to cause and prevent another such failure. The crash was witnessed by a Navy CDR Retired a former aviator. The plane was not controllable. The fact that the pilot waited till about 2500 feet to jettison says he knew it had reached the point of no return. Even if by some faint miracle both engines actually started there would not be enough thrust to change or overcome the crash.
The good news is these type of crashes are becoming less frequent. In the 70's it wasn't uncommon for carriers to loose several planes per deployment. There is also a Navy rumor that Captain's go down with the ship. It's just that a rumor.
I've seen pilots ride it out even to the point of keeping from killing shipmates. One was an F-14 pilot who came in too low and hit the round down aft flight deck. The landing gear immediately broke and he hit hard starboard thrust to send the bird off the angle. He and second seater made it out alive. They popped out as it went over the side. CNO and SECNAV were on the bridge watching flight opps that night.
Each plane is different having different responses to catastrophic engine failures. If it had been a prop? Yea he might have made a difference riding it out or had the hydraulics and other control systems etc been different. A lot of Freepers in here with good knowledge say with both engines gone there was no hope for control recovery of plane or altering it's course at the point where the pilot jettisoned.
Don't blame the pilot for building homes in an area where there is a substantial risk of this occurring. The base was there first IOW. For that the greed of the developer who knew better preyed on the uneducated consumer who thought he was getting a bargain. If ever Zoning Laws actually had a useful purpose they would be well served in preventing residential and a lot of commercial development in such high risk areas.
I lived a year in Squidview just below the curve on Oceanview drive. I could hear the planes going in and out of NOB from there. Always wondered how much of the place would go up if one came down wrong. Oceanview today is a shell of what it once was as far as housing goes. Most of it when I lived there in the late 70's was mainly military families.
The Tidewater area is one big giant accident waiting to happen and has been for decades. Everything from the tunnels to the airbases etc. That's just a reality of the numerous operations going on there vs the geographical limitations. Does it mean we should shut it all down? No. But people shouldn't act so shocked and outraged when the disaster finally hits either.
I live near a high risk area myself. I'm considered within ground zero downwind wise if the city of Oak Ridge has an attack or accident. I have a choice either move or live with the risk. Been here 51 years and so far the only thing happened was a Whack-Job in the early- mid 1970's hi-jacked an airliner and threatened to crash in into the nuclear weapons plants.
Contaminated fuel possible although with military supplied fuel highly unlikely, but possible. Fuel starvation, bird injestion many reasons. I read the aircraft was already single engine while making the approach. This is an interesting case for sure.
“PS - The F18 still has cables. They are hydraulically assisted, but it still has cables. The F-16 does not. How’s that for “advanced” concepts, you arrogant jackass?”
WayneS,
Sorry I didn’t get back to you sooner, I took a month off FR for Christmas/New Year’s.
1. Here’s an advanced concept: Hydraulically assisted cables can’t usually be budged without... hydraulic assistance.
2. We both have Navy fathers. Good for us. My subject, however, is not them, but you.
3. As far as I can see, you did everything I said you did. Even more, I’ve found that people with your kind of (ranting, raving) foul mouth usually use it to cover up getting nailed and to try to divert attention away from the subject matter. So in response, let me reiterate - I think what you posted was a low blow to the pilot specifically and all of Naval Aviation generally, posted in order to deliberately spin a time of crisis and tragedy towards the worst possible light, and I found it revolting. And I still do.
1. I will draw an implication...there were technical problems well prior to this aircraft just suddenly dropping out of the sky. Yet the pilot chose to or was instructed to fly over a heavily populated area when another base was available without flying over a heavily populated area.
2. After an investigation it is possible that this pilot could be found to be responsible for saving his own skin at the expense of 2 dead children. Maybe not, we will have to see.
3. So, there were no technical problems at all as a warning? The plane just dropped suddenly like a rock with no warning at all? Not what has been reported.
4. To criticize any member of the military for any action is subverting the entire military? Perhaps there was more this pilot could have done to avoid this tragedy. A very valid question, and one that deserves an answer. The ultimate answer could be “no”. This should come out in time.
5. Perhaps you should admit to some of the flaws of your argument.
Azrael,
Sorry I didn’t get back to you sooner, I took a month off FR for Christmas/New Year’s.
My argument doesn’t have to accomodate your misuse of logic, nor your attempted defense of the indefensible.
But for learning purposes: 1. You don’t specify what preexisting “technical problems” existed, though you imply they were sufficient to have forewarned a crash; 2. You premise the repulsive possibility of manslaughter based on pilot cowardice with ZERO evidence; 3. You repeat your first implication again, and again without divulging any technical problems you are aware of; 4. You mis-represent the generalization issue twice, once by mis-attributing to mere criticism of the pilot rather than all Naval aviators (”back in the day”), and again by expanding Naval Aviation to “the entire military;” and then you combine this double spin with a third nonspecific FUD musing about “perhaps” something could have been done - so as to again mis-representing the argument, this time towards whether or not such a question “deserves” an answer; 5. You then imply these faux-logic implications are somehow derived from my posting, rather than being solely your creations.
Therefore, pay attention and receive your just desserts. FYI, the technical problems (which you addressed three times) OBVIOUSLY did NOT indicate a possible shut-down of the SECOND engine over a population before landing could be achieved. HOW do we know this, you might ask? Simple: by ASSUMING that the pilot and flight officers involved in the decisionmaking process during this crisis would NOT have knowingly risked danger to... now how did YOU put it... “a heavily populated area” in order to “save his own skin at the expense of 2 dead children” (how... objective... of you...). Of course, you obviously believe that the military and professional status of those involved in this decisionmaking process do NOT rule out such a presumption of murderous cowardice, so - in the name of fairness in seeking the truth, of course - you had to include it as an objection to my... illogically... leaving it out.
I don’t know, maybe you’re just a professional shill trying to support your flailing partner by making your smug implications of military cowardice even more pointed, in order to try to cover for his getting smacked for the same attempt.
Or you could just be a liberal true-believer, in which case I suggest your local Junior College for a basic logic class, and Al-Anon for help with co-dependency.
Of course, just like your potentially mass-murderous and cowardly Naval aviators, the ultimate answer to these speculations about your character could be “no”. This should come out in time. Until then, perhaps you should admit to some of the flaws of your argument.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.