T-45 Safety concerns in the real world

Yes, it's not "exactly" the Hawk, but interesting none the less in light of who builds the plane.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/04/navy-instructor-pilots-refusing-to-fly-over-safety-concerns-pences-son-affected.html

It does say in the article that they are having similar issues in other aircraft (FA-18 Hornets). I suspect Ellis and the guys at VEAO could locate the source of the problem and fix it in short order.:thumbup: Shouldn't take the Navy 6 years to get to the bottom of something so critical.

Not to worry guys, like the Hawk they'll get around to fixing it after they finish with other aircraft, it's just not high on their to do list. Sound familiar? TC

Isn't the F-22 having a similar issue?

Holy... sounds like a very unhealthy aviation safety culture on part of the high brass...

Calm down, it is likely fake news... Err, Fox News. :D

And inadequate equipment or budget cut related risks, is not an uncommon issue in the armed forces...

Calm down, it is likely fake news... Err, Fox News. :D

 

And inadequate equipment or budget cut related risks, is not an uncommon issue in the armed forces...

Histotoxic hypoxia is no joke, especially since NATOPS dictates that jet aircrews are on 100% oxygen from takeoff to landing. It's not just a matter of "budget cuts", but rather cuts that were so drastic that they likely compromised the readiness of the squadrons.

Things like this should not be issues in training squadrons, much less systemic issues. A training squadron has no operational requirements and therefore has no safety vs. mission trade-off (aside from the normal hazards of carrier aviation).

Histotoxic hypoxia is no joke, especially since NATOPS dictates that jet aircrews are on 100% oxygen from takeoff to landing.

This explains a lot to me, I was already thinking why don't they just go to lower altitude and put of the mask? Didn't know the aviators wear the mask always. Tom Cruise didn't for sure :D

Hornet and Hawk cough it is...

Histotoxic hypoxia is no joke, especially since NATOPS dictates that jet aircrews are on 100% oxygen from takeoff to landing. It's not just a matter of "budget cuts", but rather cuts that were so drastic that they likely compromised the readiness of the squadrons.

 

Things like this should not be issues in training squadrons, much less systemic issues. A training squadron has no operational requirements and therefore has no safety vs. mission trade-off (aside from the normal hazards of carrier aviation).

That is the bitter irony, we can "afford" even to loose men during training, it seems, but whenever you ask politicians their "main concern" in actual missions and operations abroad is the "well being" of their soldiers.

Considering the cost in training and facilities to train aviators for the military, and the NAVY especially, it doesn't even compute to "safe" a couple bucks on the budget, only to loose pilots, which considering the earlier "investment" were horribly expensive to train!

Stupidity of economics in capitalism.

Safe some budget now, care about the effect later... :doh:

That is the bitter irony, we can "afford" even to loose men during training, it seems, but whenever you ask politicians their "main concern" in actual missions and operations abroad is the "well being" of their soldiers.

 

Considering the cost in training and facilities to train aviators for the military, and the NAVY especially, it doesn't even compute to "safe" a couple bucks on the budget, only to loose pilots, which considering the earlier "investment" were horribly expensive to train!

Stupidity of economics in capitalism.

Safe some budget now, care about the effect later... :doh:

QFT.

We accept a certain amount of risk every time we strap into an aircraft, training or operational. That level of risk goes up around the boat, simply due to the unforgiving nature of the environment. However, the job is dangerous enough when we hedge our bets in maintaining our equipment and following procedure; when we slack off in either maintenance or procedure, then an already hazardous job becomes unnecessarily risky.

I've lost three friends around the boat, two of which were in avoidable accidents in which following procedure would have prevented their occurrence. The cause of the third is still unknown, but was during a time in the mid 1990s when operational maintenance was stretched thin and there was a string of similar mishaps in the fleet.

QFT.

 

We accept a certain amount of risk every time we strap into an aircraft, training or operational. That level of risk goes up around the boat, simply due to the unforgiving nature of the environment. However, the job is dangerous enough when we hedge our bets in maintaining our equipment and following procedure; when we slack off in either maintenance or procedure, then an already hazardous job becomes unnecessarily risky.

 

I've lost three friends around the boat, two of which were in avoidable accidents in which following procedure would have prevented their occurrence. The cause of the third is still unknown, but was during a time in the mid 1990s when operational maintenance was stretched thin and there was a string of similar mishaps in the fleet.

^this

I guess most people in military service accept the risks coming with the job.

The risks that can't be mitigated, that is.

Yet, whenever you look at the risks they face aside from getting shot in a war zone, it seems government representatives are willing to accept far more ridiculous risks, than they would ever take if they were personally affected!

It would be nice to take the guys up to 20k feet, that decided to cut budget on maintenance, repairs and modern equipment, to enhance their willingness to invest in the proper things... :D

The problem is more than just elected officials, though it starts there.

You may have heard the joke about the flight attendant coming over the intercom and telling the passengers that the pilot heard something he didn't like. The flight is delayed because they're looking for another pilot. Unfortunately, there is some truth to this in the military when toeing the line is a prerequisite for advancement to senior rank. This tends to happen when the politicians approve general and flag officers who won't rock the boat, and then the same politically motivated officers promote the squadron and wing commanders who "just get it done" without protest.

When a military is cut, these officers tend to rise to the top. The US Military was cut to the bone over the past eight years, and with a few notable exceptions the senior officers who "survived" did so through political skills. However, what we're seeing are the junior officers who persisted over this time and stayed in the military are well aware of the shortcomings they endured and are now in a position as department heads and squadron COs to say something about it. You're seeing this disconnect between the operational troops and the political flag officers come to roost with the flight instructors refusing to fly and the squadron commanders backing them up.

The problem is more than just elected officials, though it starts there.

 

You may have heard the joke about the flight attendant coming over the intercom and telling the passengers that the pilot heard something he didn't like. The flight is delayed because they're looking for another pilot. Unfortunately, there is some truth to this in the military when toeing the line is a prerequisite for advancement to senior rank. This tends to happen when the politicians approve general and flag officers who won't rock the boat, and then the same politically motivated officers promote the squadron and wing commanders who "just get it done" without protest.

 

When a military is cut, these officers tend to rise to the top. The US Military was cut to the bone over the past eight years, and with a few notable exceptions the senior officers who "survived" did so through political skills. However, what we're seeing are the junior officers who persisted over this time and stayed in the military are well aware of the shortcomings they endured and are now in a position as department heads and squadron COs to say something about it. You're seeing this disconnect between the operational troops and the political flag officers come to roost with the flight instructors refusing to fly and the squadron commanders backing them up.

Yep, that is an unfortunate truth. The Yes-Man prevails, whereas any good leadership should encourage speaking freely and voicing oppinion.

The final decision stays with command, anyway, but if you educate a culture of "keep your mouth shut and comply" it ultimately weakens any organization.

Though the German military tends to encourage this more than the US Military, when it comes to ranks beyond Captain I saw pretty much the same during my time.

To get a promotion you needed friends in the right places, would not complain to much and if you did not **** up something important, you were fine.

Though good connections could even cover a total **** up.

Personally, I am very happy, we never lost anyone through laxity in procedures or incompetence. Though we had a few "close calls"... But then army isn't NAVY aviation, where, as you said, even the environment is usually against you and the risks tremendously higher. :(