Contact  |  Baseops Wiki  |  Military Pay  |  Military Discounts  |  Air  Force UPT  |  Aviation  Jobs   |  Aviation  Medicine   |  Pilot Supplies  |  Donate

Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook Log in with OpenID Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Photo
- - - - -

C-17 Pilot Charged in Training Jump Death


  • Please log in to reply
196 replies to this topic

#61 ThreeHoler

ThreeHoler

    Gray Beard

  • Supreme User
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,442 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 31 July 2012 - 05:00 AM

And the instant the first "serious" question is asked, ask if you're under investigation and for your rights to be read to you.


An IO is supposed to identify themselves as such before asking questions.
  • 0
MTFU

#62 Lord Ratner

Lord Ratner

    Crew Dawg

  • Registered User
  • PipPip
  • 156 posts

Posted 31 July 2012 - 10:15 AM

A non-tactical background pilot I flew with last summer went on a tirade about what a rogue Joe Jackson was for landing his C-123 at a closed airstrip against orders and that he should never have been awarded a MoH for such a blatant violation of flight discipline...so you never know what some folks might find of value.

Haha, I miss the Crows, though I'm shocked you were able to get him/her to stop taking about Challenge and Response checklist discipline or the importance of Vref long enough to talk about Joe Jackson.
  • 1

#63 Snooter

Snooter

    Crew Dawg

  • Registered User
  • PipPip
  • 158 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SECountry

Posted 22 August 2012 - 04:07 PM

Any more info on this?
  • 0
"If no one ever gave up when the goin got tough, they would have nothing to regret for the rest of their lives" -Lance Armstrong

#64 iowa

iowa

    Crew Dawg

  • Registered User
  • PipPip
  • 55 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 December 2012 - 09:43 PM

They are pressing with the court martial of the pilot.

http://www.airforcet...PaeXMg.facebook
  • 0

#65 O Face

O Face

    SNAP

  • Registered User
  • Pip
  • 28 posts

Posted 10 December 2012 - 11:56 AM

2012-12-10T09:41:00Z Court martial for pilot in Montana parachute deathThe Associated Press The Associated Press

8 minutes ago • Associated Press
(0) Comments



JOINT BASE LEWIS-MCCHORD, Wash. — A court martial is scheduled Tuesday at Joint Base Lewis-McChord for a C-17 pilot accused of dereliction of duty for a training accident last year in Montana where a paratrooper from Pennsylvania died after landing on a roof.
The Air Force accuses Capt. Jared Foley of reckless conduct for approving an additional airdrop without command approval.
Sgt. Francis Campion of Holidaysburg, Pa., was the last out of the plane on July 10, 2011, in windy conditions. He was supposed to land at Fort Harrison's Marshall Field but hit a roof and fell to his death.
Campion was training with the West Virginia National Guard and had served in Afghanistan.
Foley serves with McChords' 62nd Airlift Wing. McChord operates 51 of the C-17 transport jets

Read more: http://billingsgazet...l#ixzz2EfXfQCgS

Edited by O Face, 10 December 2012 - 11:57 AM.

  • 0

#66 Fud

Fud

    Gray Beard

  • Supreme User
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 608 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 10 December 2012 - 08:03 PM

I am not normally a praying man, but I am going to say a rosary for Jared Foley tonight. I am hoping some of you can shed a light on what was "wrong" with this situation, and why there is a court martial taking place.

Jared, If you are reading this, stay strong brother. You have a man who was completely apathetic about religion on his knees tonight in prayer. If he is not, please pass this along to him and his family.

Edited by Fud, 10 December 2012 - 08:03 PM.

  • 2
A3.19.1.1. History of penis amputation (878.0) is disqualifying.

#67 day man

day man

    Gray Beard

  • Supreme User
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,027 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 10 December 2012 - 08:27 PM

"Hey Jared! Some guy named Fud or Food on the internets is on his knees for you...good luck with the trial."

Just giving ya shit...+1 for a win for the good guys this week.
  • 0

#68 Fud

Fud

    Gray Beard

  • Supreme User
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 608 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 10 December 2012 - 08:43 PM

"Hey Jared! Some guy named Fud or Food on the internets is on his knees for you...good luck with the trial."

Just giving ya shit...+1 for a win for the good guys this week.


I just re-read what I typed and your comment made me laugh...however, I was serious.
  • 0
A3.19.1.1. History of penis amputation (878.0) is disqualifying.

#69 Bobby

Bobby

    Crew Dawg

  • Registered User
  • PipPip
  • 141 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 10 December 2012 - 09:42 PM

Good luck, stay strong bro...
  • 0

#70 BQZip01

BQZip01

    Gray Beard

  • Supreme User
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,344 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 10 December 2012 - 10:13 PM

Good luck, Jared.
  • 0
Toro: "BQZip beat me to it"
Rainman: "...it could easily be argued the BUFF is THE best combat aircraft of all time."

#71 day man

day man

    Gray Beard

  • Supreme User
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,027 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 December 2012 - 09:04 PM

day 1 in the books...mostly a bunch of legal garbage with some vetting of the jury.
  • 0

#72 Hacker

Hacker

    Gray Beard

  • Supreme User
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,447 posts
  • Location:'Merica

Posted 12 December 2012 - 07:14 AM

http://blog.thenewst...eads-not-guilt/

So far, the main arguments center on what kind of testimony senior Air Force officers can give in court.

Air Force Capt. Mark Rosenow submitted a motion to bar witnesses from offering opinions about whether a reasonable pilot would have made the same choices as Foley during the air drop exercise on July 10, 2011


  • 0

Flight engineer's primary job is to make sure the pilots do everything on the check list.


#73 Wolf424

Wolf424

    Gray Beard

  • Supreme User
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 969 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:KDYS
  • Interests:Flying low and slow

Posted 12 December 2012 - 09:41 AM

That just reaffirms my beliefs that this is a witch hunt.
  • 0
"Yeah, well, you know, that’s just, like, your opinion, man."

#74 Guest_one_*

Guest_one_*
  • Unregistered / Not Logged In

Posted 12 December 2012 - 10:35 AM

I am not very knowledgeable on the court martial process but I thought that you had the right to have a jury of your peers and since it is an officer they had to all be officers themselves. In a different article, it says SNCOs are also on the jury. Is this possible because the victim is enlisted? Even when an enlisted person faces a court martial, the enlisted member’s attorney has to specifically ask for enlisted members to be on the jury because the default is an all officer jury.

Edited by one, 12 December 2012 - 10:56 AM.

  • 0

#75 day man

day man

    Gray Beard

  • Supreme User
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,027 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 December 2012 - 10:50 AM

there were no enlisted candidates for the jury....all officers higher in rank than the defendant.
  • 0

#76 Chapter29

Chapter29

    Crew Dawg

  • Registered User
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 11:18 AM

....all officers higher in rank than the defendant.


How many are rated?
  • 0

#77 SFGuy

SFGuy

    SNAP

  • Registered User
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:FL
  • Interests:scuba diving, hunting, Airborne ops, good friends you can count on

Posted 12 December 2012 - 01:58 PM

I didn't land off the Drop zone, nor did I steer my chute off the Drop zone. I landed on the asphalt next to a building the was near the fence and building that was near the Chute truck. Depending on who you ask, some say I was off some say I avoided obstacles. I was briefed that the drop zone had the following obstacles. Main Post was to the east, a mount site was to the west, a fence and power lines were to the North. all of which are considered obstacles within the surveyed drop zone. This pilot did nothing wrong. The winds on the ground exceeded 15knots and the Army DZSO was taking the winds from the riggers. The riggers were reading the winds while sitting on the back of the chute truck which was a large box truck surrounded by two other trucks. The winds should have been taken 20 meters from any object that could give incorrect readings. The Army is at fault here not the pilot. How is the pilot supposed to calculate the correct PI if the wind readings he was given from the ground were wrong. in fact the winds that the Pilot were given were 8 knots but the true winds were above 15 based on the fully inflated wind sock that was caught on video.
  • 0

#78 slacker

slacker

    Gray Beard

  • Supreme User
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,787 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 December 2012 - 03:14 PM

The Army is at fault here not the pilot.


If I had a nickel for everytime an army guy gave me bad winds, either 180 degrees out or just within limits....

Good luck Jared.
  • 1
“We can’t expect the American people to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism.”

Nikita Krushchev

Posted Image

#79 Shakey

Shakey

    SNAP

  • Registered User
  • Pip
  • 12 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:KOKC

Posted 12 December 2012 - 03:22 PM


If I had a nickel for everytime an army guy gave me bad winds, either 180 degrees out or just within limits....


Two

Good luck brother.
  • 0

#80 VSP or 365

VSP or 365

    Flight Lead

  • Supreme User
  • PipPipPip
  • 314 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 December 2012 - 06:44 PM

I didn't land off the Drop zone, nor did I steer my chute off the Drop zone. I landed on the asphalt next to a building the was near the fence and building that was near the Chute truck. Depending on who you ask, some say I was off some say I avoided obstacles. I was briefed that the drop zone had the following obstacles. Main Post was to the east, a mount site was to the west, a fence and power lines were to the North. all of which are considered obstacles within the surveyed drop zone. This pilot did nothing wrong. The winds on the ground exceeded 15knots and the Army DZSO was taking the winds from the riggers. The riggers were reading the winds while sitting on the back of the chute truck which was a large box truck surrounded by two other trucks. The winds should have been taken 20 meters from any object that could give incorrect readings. The Army is at fault here not the pilot. How is the pilot supposed to calculate the correct PI if the wind readings he was given from the ground were wrong. in fact the winds that the Pilot were given were 8 knots but the true winds were above 15 based on the fully inflated wind sock that was caught on video.


So....this pops in out of the blue. First post.
The details are very believable, but can anybody verify?

Second - has anybody pulled the survey off the ZAR? Does it check with this?
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users