NO Helicopter Pilots Reprimanded...!

[TooTaxed]

From an article in the Sept 7th Wall Street Journal, page A21:

Two Navy H-3 helicopter pilots and their crews returned from New Orleans on August 30th expecting to be greeted as lifesavers after rescuing 110 hurricane victims. (You probably saw them on TV.)

The pilots had delivered loads of food and water to Stennis Space Center near the Mississippi coast, and while returning empty to Pensacola received urgent requests for helicopter assistance from the Coast Guard at New Orleans. Out of range for direct radio communications with Pensacola, more than 100 miles to the East, the pilots, trained in search and rescue, decided to respond, diverting from their orders to return without getting permission from their home base. Within minutes they were rescuing people from rooftops in the flooded areas. Few other rescue units were in the area that day.

While refueling at a Coast Guard pad, the pilots phoned Pensacola and received permission to continue rescue efforts that evening, then return to base.

However, the next morning the two pilots, Lt. David Shand and Lt. Matt Udkow, and their crews were called to a meeting with Pensacola's Air Operations Chief, Michael Holdener, who chewed them out for diverting in the first place. Priority is support of military operations, not civilian rescue efforts.

Lt. Udkow voiced his disagreement, and was removed from flight status and put in charge of a temporary kennel established to hold pets of evacuated service members.

IMHO, the pilots and crews should have been praised for displaying personal initiative in reaction to a very real emergency rather than support of a rather unlikely potential military mission. The Air Ops Chief needs to be educated and reassigned.

 

[joab]

The military operates on order not free thinking.

they should have been given minorreprimands, and they should get the medals that they are up for.

That's just the way the military works

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Why should they get even a minor reprimand?

This is ridiculous. Suppose it was the Navy asking for help -- if a CG chopper or three were within range to respond, does the Navy think the CG should say "Sorry, not my job, mon" and go home? Somehow, I don't think so.

I think the pilots reacted rationally and appropriately. They had been dispatched on a humanitarian, not military support, mission. Unable to communicate with base, they received an URGENT request for assistance from another branch of our armed services, and having the capability to assist, assisted AS REQUESTED.

For this they are being reprimanded? I think the AOC has his head so far in a place where the sun doesn't shine that he may never experience daylight again.

 

[joab]

Why should they get even a minor reprimand?

Failure to follow orders and diverting equipment and personnel from their assigned mission.

The military isn't all glamor and heroics.
Strict discipline is necessary for an operation to flow correctly.

But they weren't even reprimanded anyway They met with the commander who praised their actions and reminded them of the need to adhere to mission directives.

 

[Sleeping Dog]

the pilots phoned Pensacola and received permission to continue

So what "mission directives" were they not adhering to? Sounds like they accomplished their mission, then diverted from the deadhead ride home. And, checked in for authorization.

If they were needed by Pensacola for some other mission, they would have been re-diverted pronto.

For their efforts they were given an opportunity to swab out the kennels. No good deed goes unpunished.

Regards.

 

[joab]

So what "mission directives" were they not adhering to? Sounds like they accomplished their mission,

No they were to immediately return to base.

And, checked in for authorization.

Actually they called in to tell their base that they had broken off from their assigned task after the fact.
And were told to continue on probably because they were already there.

They also would have most likely been given permission if they had bee able to get through on the radio

The fact still remains that the military operates under a strict code of discipline.

The fact also remains that as I said before they were not reprimanded they were advise of the necessity to follow orders and praised for their actions

A lot more is being made of this than there really is

 

[jrfoxx]

the Navy works on the principle that you do NOTHING without orders. while i agree, that they should not see any more punishment than an 'on principle' ass-chewing' , they did not have orders to perform operations in that area. however, since they were serving thier country by performing SAR operations as trained, to rescue americans and were responding to a VERY serious catastrophe, they should (and i guess will) see no real problems to thier career from this. What they did was 100% right, and violation of orders/SOP should be ignored in this case due to the situation. a simple butt-chewing on principle will suffice, then they should later be given thier medals.


AT3 Schmuckatelli, USN NASWI

 

[joab]

Here's a little more research on the issue for what it worth to you

http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/004596.html

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,76741,00.html

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/005393.php

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/07/national/nationalspecial/07navy.html

 

[joab]

a simple butt-chewing on principle will suffice, then they should later be given thier medals.

Which is exactly what would have happened if the Capt had not felt the need to run his mouth

 

[JohnKSa]

Without getting into how this should have been handled, the situation is this.

The pilots are government property. The helicopters are government property. The fuel in the helicopters is government property. The other personnel in the helicopter are government property.

There are strict rules controlling the use of government property, and just because a person is given custody of government property doesn't give them the right to use it any way they see fit. No matter how reasonable that use may seem at first glance.

One more thing--what's not apparent is that the person who will REALLY get burned for this if it becomes a major issue is the commanding officer who didn't know what his subordinates were doing until they phoned in. A big part of his job is being able to immediately account for the assets (men and materiel) that are entrusted to him.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

the Navy works on the principle that you do NOTHING without orders.

There are strict rules controlling the use of government property, and just because a person is given custody of government property doesn't give them the right to use it any way they see fit. No matter how reasonable that use may seem at first glance.

Let me see if I follow this line of reasoning. I am the skipper of a U.S. Navy guided missile frigate. I have been on deployment somewhere and I am now en route back to CONUS. My radioman picks up a Mayday from an Air Force C-130 that has lost all power and all flight controls and is ditching in the North Atlantic a few miles from my position. For technical reasons beyond my control I am unable to contact Fleet for instructions.

By your analysis then, gentlemen, it is my duty to steam on along a direct route back to Norfolk and tell the USAF flyboys to have a nice swim. After all, my orders are to RTB.

Does that about sum it up?

 

[magsnubby]

All you vets don't waste your breath trying to explain it. Those who have never been in the military will never understand. I spent my time in the army and i still don't understand.

As my old platoon sgt. used to say "There's the right way, the wrong way and the military way".

 

[joab]

Let me see if I follow this line of reasoning. I am the skipper of a U.S. Navy guided missile frigate. I have been on deployment somewhere and I am now en route back to CONUS. My radioman picks up a Mayday from an Air Force C-130 that has lost all power and all flight controls and is ditching in the North Atlantic a few miles from my position. For technical reasons beyond my control I am unable to contact Fleet for instructions.

Not an apt comparison.

Is there already a rescue mission under way and do you have pressing duties elsewhere.

Are the men safely in there life/ditch boats.

Are you close to your base where you could go and relay the message without compromising your objective or their safety

Or are you really just the only person in the world to the best of your knowledge that can save the men from certain and imminent death

When you accomplish your self imposed rescue mission would you take the dressing down that you would get if your actions were deemed inappropriate or would you run crying to the press after talking back to your commanding officer and being put on dog poop detail.

I got KP for correcting the Drill Sergent on the pronunciation of my name. Being forced to pet a few puppies after getting mouthy with the CO seems kinda light to me

 

[joab]

As my old platoon sgt. used to say "There's the right way, the wrong way and the military way".

My drill sergeant just use to say
"Shut the hell up Kojak, you ain't worth the time and effort it took your mama to push you out. Drop and give me twenty"
God I miss that man

And if you don't understand that sentiment, you'll never understand this thread

 

[MechAg94]

Isn't there something in there about officers out of contact with command being able to exercise some initiative? Otherwise, just put auto-pilots on the things and not worry about diversions. I guess there is always a fine line between dscipline and initiative in any military. Peace time armies like the former and discourage the latter.

 

[artherd]

Why should they get even a minor reprimand?

Because this is the military. In the military, those two damn choppers could have been earmarked to do something VERY DAMN IMPORTANT (like move a vice president to a safe location, drop supplies that 1200 troops would die withought, whatever.) They can be earmarked for this, and never told about it. Infact that is likely.

It is not up to the pilot to disobey a (valid & legal of course) order because he 'thinks it's a good idea.' He is not in a command position with all relivant data before him.

Now, this all turned out well, and that's why they should get minor chewings, a "don't do it again" and then a friggin MEDAL for what they did acomplish!


Lastly, they need satcoms. Or at least working radios.

 

[Freedomv]

There is much more to this than just stopping off to lend a hand when someone from a different branch of service ask for it.
These men had orders to return to thier base. I am sure that there was a time table for them that indicates that they should be expected to return at a certain time. If they do not return it is assumed that the worst has happened and a (unnecessary) search and rescue will have to be initiated. This is especially true with no radio contact.
Although they called in, it was much later after performing rescue operations and needing a refuel.

It is my opinion that they should have continued under orders untill they could gain and maintain radio contact, then report the situation, ask for and recieve permission to divert their aircraft to rescue missions.

There just might have been a more important or demanding mission for them to accomplish quite possible preventing more loss of life etc. They certainly did not know what the over all situation was or if they were needed somewhere else.

Everyone talks about no one knowing whats going on or being in control of the situation yet would incourage this type of activity. If you are a civilian you can follow your instinct but when in the military you follow orders.

Vern

 

[c_yeager]

the pilots phoned Pensacola and received permission to continue

In order to continue something, you have to have already started it. They did not have permission to start this operation, and so they get a reprimand, which isnt a big deal unless you break discipline and get mouthy, then it becomes a different issue entirely.

The thing with the military is that while soldiers are allowed to improvise when necessary, if there is ANY MEANS WHATSOEVER of getting orders from a higher authority then they must do so. Soldiers are often given little to no insight into how their mission fits into the grand scheme of things. It may appear that they were simply ferrying their choppers home, but maybe those choppers were slated to perform some uber-secret rescue mission to save the world. Unlikely? Oh yes, but the point is that the pilots themselves dont know one way or the other what the consequences of their actions could have been.

Ultimately it was a minor mistake, and it came with an appropriately minor consequence.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

For those who wish to dismiss my opinion as that of a "civilian," I am not. (Well, I am today, but I was not in the past.) I am a US Army veteran, as was my father and three uncles. Another uncle was a Navy vet, and a cousin is a USAF vet.

And I still think this is BS.

 

[riverdog]

It's easier to get forgiveness than permission.

Going only on what is written in the initial post, my analysis based on not being there is that the only thing they did wrong was to mouth off -- puppy duty is appropriate.

H-3 pilots are trained for SAR, that's what H-3's do in Pensacola, a jet training base. This crew flew a milk run to Mississippi, completed that task and received a call to assist the USCG doing SAR. This is not the kind of call you refuse unless you aren't equipped or have other tasking that's more important. Dead heading back to base is not more important.

Initiative in the Navy is usually applauded when the pilot does a good thing with his initiative. The pilot did a good thing and he made NAS Pensacola and the Navy look good. Refusing the SAR mission could also have gotten him face time with Air Ops or maybe the base CO, for refusing a SAR mission requested by the Coast Guard. (I can see the local Coast Guard commander calling the CO of NAS Pensacola about why his aircraft refused to lend assistance to this national tragedy -- not good.) In his seat I'd've done the SAR mission too.

Two Navy H-3 helicopter pilots and their crews returned from New Orleans on August 30th expecting to be greeted as lifesavers after rescuing 110 hurricane victims. (You probably saw them on TV.)

Pensacola's base CO may have seen them on TV too and wondered where that H-3 came from. Base CO's don't like to find out their aircraft are conducting SAR missions by watching CNN. However, remember that the crew was doing a good thing, for that you are forgiven.

From what I read, there was no second mission or they would have been recalled immediately upon reaching base ops via land line. When Pensacola's Air Operations Chief called them in it was forgiveness in the words "don't do it again". Air Ops didn't know about it first and he got surprised to find out that one of his aircraft was involved in a SAR without his knowledge. Lots of questions here run through the mind of Air Ops involving what the mission involves, qualifications, equipment on the aircraft, et al; or he calls the base CO to inform him that one of his aircraft is doing SAR in NOLA and maybe the base CO already knew because he had seen it on TV. "Air Ops is supposed to know what his aircraft are doing". (Also remember that Air Ops at Pensacola is a Jet (probably FA-18) pilot and doesn't much care for helo's unless they are hovering over him after he punches out.)

Also, according to the flight plan they were due back and may have been overdue before their phone call. Folks in aviation start getting spun up when their aircraft are overdue. The helo and crew were on a mission that wasn't on the daily flight schedule

If it was really bad he'd have had them in his office immediately after they landed. Instead he calls them in the next day and tells them to not do it again. At this point the pilot got mouthy (his only mistake) and that's why he got puppy duty. All he needed to say was "Yes, Sir" and walk away smirking, instead he gets to pet puppies. This gives him time to cool his jets and answers the question "which junior officer gets stuck with managing the kennel?" Somebody has to do it.

BTW, my background is in Naval Aviation, something I retired from 10 years ago. I know about forgiveness

 

[ArmyAviator]

RiverDog was spot on.

As a career Army Warrant Officer and BlackHawk pilot who has flown in and out of NO for this disaster, I can support RiverDogs statement(s). Irrespective of branch of service, missions briefs are directive and mandate compliance unless there are profoundly mitigating circumstances. We pilots do not always have the whole mission scope in our sights nor the follow on support efforts that are in addition to our currently briefed and authorized mission. The USN aircrew should have, at a minimum, flown a bit further east to facilitate commz with Air Ops and perhaps acquired due authorization. The point of Naval Air Ops during that event was the sustainment of momentum in the air resupply mission, which arguably is as essential as the ongoing extraction of NO. Were the USN aircrew under an impression that "life and limb" were in peril? Likely. Would this same aircrew's disposition and availability to still be "in the fight" be different had they (he) been willing to "eat a liddle humble pie"? HIGHLY likely. The Air Ops does need more training nor firing....he/she has a job to do and sh*t rolls down hill. --Bryant.

 

[riverdog]

Bryant,
Rough numbers, but Stennis is 40 miles from NOLA and 145 miles from Pensacola. Depending on altitude they may have been 90 miles from NOLA by the time they got comms and then they were out of the fight. The crew should have had the flight schedule for the day and should have known if the aircraft was needed in Pensacola. What I would have done is had the Coast Guard call Pensacola on landline to inform them that their aircraft had received SAR tasking. That way it would have been official and the aircrew would have been covered. Still, it was a judgement call and the pilots did the right thing.

 

[riverdog]

While I'm thinking about it. . . connecting the dots

How did the Coast Guard in NOLA know that a SAR capable Navy H-3 was available since Stennis isn't in the NOLA area? Hmmmm. . .

The coasties knew there was a helo available that was 40 miles away during a very hectic mission? I don't think so. Maybe FAA knew and facilitated the mission shift, but I'd really like more info on how the H-3 initially became involved.

Did the H-3 crew maybe fly the wrong direction on their way back to P'cola and found themselves in the right place to volunteer their services? "Hey you guys busy? Need some help?" There's no such thing as a crowded battlefield so the odds of being turned away by the Coast Guard was pretty slim and it was a lot more fulfilling mission than logistics runs between P'cola and Stennis. Hmmm, this could answer the question of why the Air Ops officer was so pissed.

 

[joab]

The two pilots delivered the supplies and were heading back to Pensacola when they picked up a Coast Guard transmission saying helicopters were needed in New Orleans, the New York Times reports.

The two air crews picked up a Coast Guard radio call that helicopters were needed for rescues in New Orleans,

None of the articles state that the crews were contacted specifically.

Is it possible to receive open transmissions on helicopters

 

[riverdog]

I missed that part of the article. Yes, if the request for assistance went out on 243.0 MHz, any aircraft with military guard channel selected would hear the radio call -- that makes sense. If that's how they got the request for assistance, I go back to my original post; the only thing they did wrong was try to argue with Air Ops. Of all the aircraft out there, an H-3 is one that should have answered that call.