Back on this subject: It's been said many times but the only good result nowadays from statics and flybys is that you get to keep your wings...unless you don't. I did find it interesting that lead got grounded telephonically and told to drive home. That his bosses texted him he flew "too low"--where were these guys in mission planning? Did no one in supervision even ask lead about his plan? In our community, any high-vis sortie gets a once-over from a DO or ADO...usually on the form of a quick brief from the mission CC to the boss, or a boss will attend the actual crew/pilot briefing. Find it interesting that no one thought to ask Lead what the plan was...

I wouldn't be surprised if the plan WAS vetted through leadership before the left; however, I'd be willing to bet "well boss, I intend to shine my ass in front of tens of thousands of people and millions more on youtube, costing myself everything I've worked 20 years for" came up in the briefing.

The flyby was planned. All the details that normally go into this Group's planning process for flybys (which that squadron does literally dozens of every year) were planned. The plan was briefed to the CC and the OG prior to leaving home station. Leadership did not attend the flight brief because it took place as part of a long multi-day cross country. Plenty of people "thought to ask" what the plan was.

It's a big stretch to go from one of the flight members saying that #1 "didn't give them a target altitude" to your feeling that "it wasn't planned and there was no oversight".

After the flyby, since the SQ/CC wasn't on the cross-country trip with the formation members, how else would you have suggested he ground them other than via telephone?

It wasn't a "feeling"--apparently just my ignorance of how those events get done in that community. My community does it differently, and I applied my limited knowledge to what I thought should've happened in this case. No offense or slight intended.

As for the grounding, I would've thought the SQ/CC may have permitted the flight to RTB, then conduct the interviews/investigation...and THEN taken the action. Grounding him before he even gets a chance to defend himself is the CCs prerogative, no doubt, but also unusual in my community...thus my interest.

I wouldn't be surprised if the plan WAS vetted through leadership before the left; however, I'd be willing to bet "well boss, I intend to shine my ass in front of tens of thousands of people and millions more on youtube, costing myself everything I've worked 20 years for" came up in the briefing.

Got it: he briefed it, supervision blessed the plan, then he deviated from the prebriefed plan, and he reaped the consequences.

As for the grounding, I would've thought the SQ/CC may have permitted the flight to RTB, then conduct the interviews/investigation...and THEN taken the action. Grounding him before he even gets a chance to defend himself is the CCs prerogative, no doubt, but also unusual in my community...thus my interest.

Not letting a guy fly until the investigation is complete is pretty standard for most. YMMV. No 'guilt' or 'innocence' assigned by telling a guy not to fly until you've had a chance to look into his alleged actions.

Deny, deny, counter-accuse, demand an apology.

Fail.

ACT SURPISED, deny, deny, deny, counter accuse, demand an apology.

ACT SURPISED

Although acting surprised is a natural reaction in that situation, I will be sure to spell it out in my future explaination of these particular TTPs.

Well played