Navy Pilots Busted for Low Flyover

colomtnflyer

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Feb 18, 2007
Messages
1,008
Location
Guess it depends on what week it is!
Display Name

Display name:
iAM in AK!
Pilots grounded for good after low flyover




By Mark D. Faram - Staff writer
Posted : Monday Mar 22, 2010 7:00:04 EDT

NORFOLK, Va. — Two F/A-18E Super Hornet pilots from Strike Fighter Squadron 136 have been permanently grounded for flying too low before a Georgia Tech football game Nov. 7, according to a source.
The pilots, both mid-’90s graduates of Georgia Tech, flew over Bobby Dodd Stadium in downtown Atlanta at just a few hundred feet above the stadium, under the 1,000 feet minimum required by Navy rules.
Multiple videos of the flyover, posted on YouTube, show the planes screaming low over the stadium.
“I can confirm the incident did happen,” said Lt. Cmdr. Phil Rosi, spokesman for Naval Air Force Atlantic. “But it would be inappropriate to comment further as these are not public figures and have an expectation of privacy.”
But documents obtained by Navy Times and authenticated by a senior Navy official familiar with the investigation name the pilots as Lt. Cmdr. Marc Fryman and Lt. Cmdr. Christopher Condon. Both were assigned to non-flying jobs through an administrative process called a Field Naval Aviator Evaluation Board, the results of which are not released by the Navy.
In the documents, Rear Adm. R.J. O’Hanlon, commander of AirLant, was unforgiving in his assessment of the incident and in Fryman and Condon’s future in naval aviation.
“Fryman failed to provide effective [crew resource management] for his flight lead and allowed an unsafe flyby to occur with nearly tragic consequences,” O’Hanlon wrote of the mission commander. “Despite his spotless record, his complacent, passive response to a major altitude transgression is unforgivable in my view.
“Continued aviation service involving flying is not in the best interest of Lt. Cmdr. Fryman or the United States Navy.”
O’Hanlon’s judgment of Condon was equally tough. The admiral wrote that Condon ignored low-altitude warnings and didn’t “keep altitude in his scan” and that the incident could have ended “tragically.”
O’Hanlon dismissed the conclusion by some of the reviewers of the board’s results that the altitude error was unintentional.
“The arguments written by prior endorsers that Lt. Cmdr. Condon’s actions were an honest mistake are not persuasive,” he wrote. “He is a senior, very experienced department head who placed his aircraft and wingman in a very dangerous position.”
Both will stay in the Navy, but O’Hanlon recommended both have a “warfare transition” to another officer community.
The pilots reported the low pass themselves upon landing and the Navy convened the evaluation board immediately to determine if the officers violated Navy rules.
Navy records show that Condon was reassigned to AirLant on Feb. 12, but Fryman’s record still shows him at VFA 136. However, sources say that he, too, is at AirLant.
“The results are tough for sure, but they broke the rules and got a proper punishment for what they did,” said the senior Navy official, who asked not to be named because he was not authorized to speak on the matter. “It may seem tough, but it’s a safety issue and the admiral made the right call.”
 
"Nearly tragic consequences" my ass...this is the Navy "covering their butt", period.

I am NOT saying to let these guys off, hell they should be punished, but bust a grade, maybe take some money, but why the hell would you toss away two highly-trained (at great expense) Naval officers...one of which has a "spotless record".

Sorry...but THIS taxpayer disagrees with the punishment.
 
Last edited:
This is the Captain speaking... All Blue Angel personnel will report to the bridge for immediate reassignment to the oiler gang!


denny-o
 
Sounds like the admiral was trying to make a point. However, given the recommendations of the endorsers, I'd expect both individuals to ask for CNO review.

Also, regarding the suggestion about punishment rather than taking their wings, those are separate actions. The FEB is an entirely separate administrative action from any punishment resulting from judicial or non-judicial punishment. They could have received punishment in addition to the grounding action, but neither would be in place of the other. The issues and processes are separate and independent.
 
I still see this as a little harsh, IMHO. D

Does anyone know what the navy reg's say about thier altitude restrictions over events like that?

I can understand some discipline if the broke the rules, but to completely throw away both of those aviators careers is too much!

If they are moved to another officer branch they would be competing against other officers with years more experience and they would never get promoted. Which would then result in a rift of some sort. I remember the army used to be, get passed over twice for promotion and you were gone.
________
GSX-R750
 
Last edited:
This is the Captain speaking... All Blue Angel personnel will report to the bridge for immediate reassignment to the oiler gang!


denny-o

I was thinking the same thing. Have these guys ever been to a Blue Angels or Thunderbirds air show? It would be a little boring if they had a 1,000 ft. floor to the show.
 
The stunt sounds pretty intentional to me. Low pass over their college stadium by accident? When people intentionally break the rules, the punishment becomes very harsh. I neither agree nor disagree with the decisions taken, but I think I understand the reasoning involved.
 
The stunt sounds pretty intentional to me. Low pass over their college stadium by accident? When people intentionally break the rules, the punishment becomes very harsh. I neither agree nor disagree with the decisions taken, but I think I understand the reasoning involved.

Georgia? Sure seems like a "HEY Y'ALL, WATCH THIS" moment...
 
Does anyone know what the navy reg's say about thier altitude restrictions over events like that?
Per OPNAVINST 3710.7:
1.2.3 Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR).
Naval aircraft shall be operated in accordance with
applicable provisions of FAR, Part 91, except:
a. Where this instruction prescribes more stringent​
requirements.
b. Where exemptions or authorizations issued to the
Department of the Navy/DOD permit deviation​
from FAR.
Thus, 91.119(b) would apply to this open-air assembly situation, and the 1000-foot limit stated at the top would apply unless there was a specific exemption or authorization for a lower altitude for this specific flight. After checking the exemption site (http://aes.faa.gov), there is no exemption for 91.119 for flyovers, and it sure appears there wasn't an authorization from the Navy.
 
I was thinking the same thing. Have these guys ever been to a Blue Angels or Thunderbirds air show? It would be a little boring if they had a 1,000 ft. floor to the show.
The demo teams have authorization to fly lower in waivered airspace (air show TFR's). This wasn't waivered airspace, and these guys weren't authorized.
 
The stunt sounds pretty intentional to me. Low pass over their college stadium by accident? When people intentionally break the rules, the punishment becomes very harsh. I neither agree nor disagree with the decisions taken, but I think I understand the reasoning involved.
Note that they were assigned to perform this flyover, so just flying over the stadium wasn't an issue. What was an issue was doing it significantly lower than they were authorized to do, and the Navy views that deviation as a flight discipline problem.
 
Did everyone watch the video? I didn't see anything slightly dangerous. Why is everyone jumping at shadows these days, sheesh!
 
Did everyone watch the video? I didn't see anything slightly dangerous. Why is everyone jumping at shadows these days, sheesh!

It says above they reported the incident themselves.

So no ones jumping at anything. Just discussing the severity of the punishment.

The flyover appeared to be controlled, well coordinated and below the legal minimum.

Wonder if anyone would have raised the issue if they had not reported it?
 
“The results are tough for sure, but they broke the rules and got a proper punishment for what they did,” said the senior Navy official, who asked not to be named because he was not authorized to speak on the matter. “It may seem tough, but it’s a safety issue and the admiral made the right call.”

~~~~~~~~
OK. so this guy who doesn't want to be named because he isn't authorized to speak still spoke? Uh, rules are rules -Maybe they should find him and punish him too. Interesting he's talking about breaking a rule while he's breaking a rule.....
 
If your gonna do that...at least make it cool and go fast.......that was kind of lame to see them in landing config at 170 kts...

I was there. Trust me, it was the lowest, loudest stadium flyover I've seen by far. That's why you drop the gear and flaps, so you can use max (non-burner) power without zooming by before everyone sees you.

When it occurred, I told SWMBO that there would be ramifications.
 
They are military personnel who demonstrated poor judgment. Myself, I do not believe anyone who exercises poor judgment, even one time, should be allowed to command a military weapons system of any kind, much less one that possesses such devastating firepower.

I feel sorry for the two officers involved, but the got what they deserved. Think about a private on guard duty packing a loaded automatic rifle, what if he exercised poor judgment? Should he keep his job?

John
 
They are military personnel who demonstrated poor judgment. Myself, I do not believe anyone who exercises poor judgment, even one time, should be allowed to command a military weapons system of any kind, much less one that possesses such devastating firepower.

I feel sorry for the two officers involved, but the got what they deserved. Think about a private on guard duty packing a loaded automatic rifle, what if he exercised poor judgment? Should he keep his job?

John


Oh please :rofl:
 
I wasn't in Georgia for this event, but I've witnessed the flyover at the Army Navy game in Philly, and those dudes are seriously low. I swear the Apaches dipped below the top of Lincoln Field (where my seats are!). The F18s that followed were nearly as low. This type of behavior should be categorized as recruiting and exusable, without question. It usually comes across to spectators as "totally awesome".
 
I wasn't in Georgia for this event, but I've witnessed the flyover at the Army Navy game in Philly, and those dudes are seriously low. I swear the Apaches dipped below the top of Lincoln Field (where my seats are!). The F18s that followed were nearly as low. This type of behavior should be categorized as recruiting and exusable, without question. It usually comes across to spectators as "totally awesome".

There's usually not a problem when they take the time to apply for a waiver before hand.
 
There's usually not a problem when they take the time to apply for a waiver before hand.

The Navy allegedly has a 1,000' hard deck. That's 1,000' AGL. The flight over Tech's football game was 200-300' AGL. I'm sure they could have gotten away with a 700' flyover, or maybe a 500' flyover, but 250' +/-...

Naah.
 
This was many years before 9/11.

I was on an aircrew assigned to join one of many different aircraft doing fly overs at the USAFA. Both for the morning parade and later over the stadium for the home coming game.

We were assigned our arrival times and altitudes over the parade grounds and the stadium. At the stadium most aircraft were doing the standard south to north pass. We were the last in line and it was requested we complete a east to west pass.

During our mission review we noted our assigned MSL altitude over the stadium, the axis of attack and that there was a higher peak not too far west of the stadium. We brought it to the attention of the planning staff at the Academy. They asked if we had enough power and climb capability to avoid the peak.

Yes sir, if we can see it, we can miss it.

Our timing was to be "stadium center" at the final bars of the National Anthem. They even piped it onto a UHF frequency so we could hear it along with "fly by control". Our approach was from the south, Valley of the Gods, north then northeast to swing low out over the city and approach from east to west.

Part way through the turn our timing was working out as we accelerated and started sweeping the wings aft. We crossed the stadium on our mark, wings aft, and in full AB accelerating through 480knts. We pitched up 45degrees nose high in full AB for the climb out. Reaching a safe altitude above the peak we rolled 90 right to let the nose slice down to level flight, turn north and exited the area.

In November our unit hosted cadets from the Academy for Thanksgiving Dinner. We heard then that a rumor had circulated the Academy that the flight crew had lost their wings for that stunt at the home coming.

Well cadet, I was on that crew and never heard a word about it, other than.. well done.

It appeared that the rumble and noise from a 480knt and accelerating full afterburner climb reverberated down into the stadium.. Chests were pounding.. and the football fell over on the T and they had to reset it for the opening kickoff.

The place went wild.

Yes, we met all the limitations assigned to us by the event organizers and our leadership, and we had a waiver for working within the NOTAM'd airspace above 250knts. It turned out our assigned altitude over the stadium was about 600ft above the football field (factor in the height of the stands). Which we had brought to the attention of all involved before the event.

Flying that bird was so much fun.
B-1B, MAJ (Ret) USAF
 
Sounds like the admiral was trying to make a point. However, given the recommendations of the endorsers, I'd expect both individuals to ask for CNO review.

Also, regarding the suggestion about punishment rather than taking their wings, those are separate actions. The FEB is an entirely separate administrative action from any punishment resulting from judicial or non-judicial punishment. They could have received punishment in addition to the grounding action, but neither would be in place of the other. The issues and processes are separate and independent.

Thanks Ron, I did not know that.
 
They are military personnel who demonstrated poor judgment. Myself, I do not believe anyone who exercises poor judgment, even one time, should be allowed to command a military weapons system of any kind, much less one that possesses such devastating firepower.

I feel sorry for the two officers involved, but the got what they deserved. Think about a private on guard duty packing a loaded automatic rifle, what if he exercised poor judgment? Should he keep his job?

John

You sir, have no clue.
 
"I am a student pilot, therefor I know little or nothing about aviation. Any post I make on POA should not be taken seriously by anyone"

The above disclaimer allows me to say anything I want, so there. :D

John

OK..that was a good one!
 
I don't know enough about military procedure to say whether or not they did something wrong or if their punishment is justified. However, if the pass was much lower than authorized it was one of those, "What were they thinking?" moments. They were doing this over a stadium full of thousands of people, half of whom probably had a video feature on their camera.

My perception is that both military aviation and civilian aviation have moved towards much more of a safety culture even in the past 10 years. You can think that is bad or good but the result is that things that might have been overlooked in the past or treated with a wink and a nod will get you in trouble these days. I think the Navy probably wanted to avoid an incident like the AF guy who crashed his B52 at an airshow after having doing increasingly risky maneuvers at previous airshows.
 
I think the Navy probably wanted to avoid an incident like the AF guy who crashed his B52 at an airshow after having doing increasingly risky maneuvers at previous airshows.
It was not actually at an airshow but your point is still valid and I am sure had a lot to do with the Navy's decision. When the risks are high, the reward is high as are the penalties. Kicking these guys to curb may be too much, But they are senior experienced aviation officers. Certainly youthful exuberance or failure to know the regulation could not be valid excuses. Therefore it could only be considered carelessness or willful behavior and I am sure that is why they are being treated so harshly. As Ron said this is just a salvo, but I also agree with Bruce, their career as aviators is over. Their best hope is to moderately clear their records and be able to work until retirement. But I am willing to bet it is a long shot fort hem to get that 4th stripe even if everything works out.
 
Last edited:
This is the Captain speaking... All Blue Angel personnel will report to the bridge for immediate reassignment to the oiler gang!

Snort! Good one, Denny.

Gawd, we've become a nation of wimps. Check out videos from air shows and flight demonstrations in the 1950s and 60s. They included, in no particular order:

1. Live fire demonstrations
2. Treetop passes OVER the crowd
3. Entire squadrons flying overhead

*sigh* It must've been AWESOME! :hairraise: :yesnod:

These poor guys fly over their alma mater in landing configuration and get chopped off at the knees. In some ways it's good that the WWII guys are mostly gone, so they don't have to see what their descendents have wrought...
 
They are military personnel who demonstrated poor judgment. Myself, I do not believe anyone who exercises poor judgment, even one time, should be allowed to command a military weapons system of any kind, much less one that possesses such devastating firepower.
That's more or less the senior military leadership's position on stuff like this. Back in my day, they court-martialed and jailed an F-15 pilot who gave an unauthorized air show over his home town. BTW, that cat was caught because the Mayor called his wing commander to say thanks for the show.

Why all that fuss?

Mainly because they have to trust the crews to do exactly what they are told, exactly where they are told, exactly when they are told, and exactly how they are told, because otherwise the right people don't get killed and the wrong people do. For example...

One of the crews in my RF-4 squadron flying a post-strike recce pass at Red Flag was almost blown out of the sky because an A-7 pilot running late dropped a stick of live 500-lb bombs 60 seconds after his TOT (Time on Target) window closed and he didn't want to have to explain why he brought the ordnance back. Our guys were just about to go "cameras on" to take a picture of that A-7 pilot's hopefully-destroyed target when the bombs detonated, and only a 7g pull kept them out of the bomb frag pattern (which goes up half a mile in the air). And because that happened, the A-7 driver did have to explain what happened, and was sent home from Red Flag for his bad decision to drop late. (Dunno if or what happened to him later.)

BTW, we managed to keep our crew away from the A-7 unit until the offending pilot left the base, but it wasn't easy.
 
Last edited:
Snort! Good one, Denny.

Gawd, we've become a nation of wimps. Check out videos from air shows and flight demonstrations in the 1950s and 60s. They included, in no particular order:

1. Live fire demonstrations
2. Treetop passes OVER the crowd
3. Entire squadrons flying overhead

*sigh* It must've been AWESOME! :hairraise: :yesnod:

These poor guys fly over their alma mater in landing configuration and get chopped off at the knees. In some ways it's good that the WWII guys are mostly gone, so they don't have to see what their descendents have wrought...

Military hardware now costs hundreds of millions. Billions of dollars of damage has occurred at Air Shows as it is. Personally, I think the brass making the rules knows a boatload more about this stuff than you or I.
 
Military hardware now costs hundreds of millions. Billions of dollars of damage has occurred at Air Shows as it is. Personally, I think the brass making the rules knows a boatload more about this stuff than you or I.
During every conflict involving aircraft, we've lost more aircraft and crews to accidents than to the enemy, and that includes the horrific losses incurred by the 8th AF's daylight raids over Europe in WWII. Further, the #1 cause of military aviation accidents is personnel error, and it's been that way for a very long time. So, those generals and admirals have history to support their position of absolute adherence to flight discipline.
 
During every conflict involving aircraft, we've lost more aircraft and crews to accidents than to the enemy, and that includes the horrific losses incurred by the 8th AF's daylight raids over Europe in WWII. Further, the #1 cause of military aviation accidents is personnel error, and it's been that way for a very long time. So, those generals and admirals have history to support their position of absolute adherence to flight discipline.

Cite the reference for your information please.
 
...even if the keep their wings they will never exercise them again. Nor will the receive promotion. Nor will they ever be given command again.

The will retire O-5. That's how it is.
 
Back
Top