Fixing the Navy will take far more than money

a reply to: butcherguy

in the Corps that was called CCU (Correctional Custody Unit) known as "The Remotivation Platoon".

a reply to: Zaphod58

Thanks for mentioning the ethical quagmire the current US Navy is in; I recognize there is no 'easy fix', but if you had your druthers, how would you reconcile the current culture of the US Navy with what most Americans (I would wager the citizenry [at least a majority] is unaware of the crumbling of ethics within the US Navy) expect from their service(wo)men? Thanks in advance!

Agree 100% we have a problem in the military in general where integrity is dead... yea some of it can be attributed to changes in culture.

Personally I think its a top down problem, we have commanders get busted breaking rules and promoted, and allowed to retire... we have others push a system... they get out and boom 6 figure a year job consulting with the company they got the cush govt contract with.

As much as I hate to say it, anything short of Congress (yup I want the Fed to try and fix it) actually changing the way things are done at the top tier, and holding the general level officers accountable for their actions... I dont see anything further down the chain getting fixed.

a reply to: BeefNoMeat

Restore the Academy (all of them) to what they were twenty years ago. Back when the motto at the top of the cadet stairs at the AFA was "Bring Me Men" not the mish mash feel good message it is now.

Get rid of the Societies as well. An officer knows beyond a doubt that unless he screws up so bad it isn't even funny, and by that I mean up to and including getting someone killed through their stupidity, they're going to be somewhat protected.

A great example is the pilot, another person I won't ever name, of the B-52 crash at Fairchild in 1994. He had multiple reports of unsafe flying during his career. In 1991, while circling over his daughter's softball game, he banked a B-52 to over 60 degrees, and allowed that to increase to 80 degrees.

Also in 1991, a B-52 he flew at an airshow attended by the Wing Commander and staff exceeded back and pitch angles, and flew over the crowd, all violations of safety regulations. The Wing Commander took no action.

Also in 1991, at a change of command ceremony, a B-52 he flew did a flyover at less than 100 feet, banked over 45 degrees, exceeded pitch angles, and performed a wingover. He was verbally reprimanded.

In 1993:

navigator later brought the video to the attention of three Fairchild USAF officers. The first, Lieutenant Colonel Bullock, the current 325th Bomb Squadron commander, did not do anything about it and may have even tried to use the videotape as leverage to coerce the navigator into accepting a position as mission scheduler for the wing. The second, the deputy operations group commander, Lieutenant Colonel Harper, told the crew member to conceal the evidence. The third, the DO, allegedly responded to reports of the video by stating, "Okay, I don't want to know anything about that video—I don't care."

During the mission, Holland's aircraft was filmed crossing one ridgeline about 30 feet (10 m) above the ground. Fearing for their safety, the photography crew ceased filming and took cover as Holland's aircraft again passed low over the ground, this time estimated as clearing the ridgeline by only three feet (1 m). The co-pilot on Holland's aircraft testified that he grabbed the controls to prevent Holland from flying the aircraft into the ridge while the aircraft's other two aircrew members repeatedly screamed at Holland: "Climb! Climb!" Holland responded by laughing and calling one of the crew members "a pussy".[1]

After that mission, the crew decided that they would never again fly with Holland and reported the incident to the bomb squadron leadership. The squadron commander, Lieutenant Colonel Mark McGeehan, reported the incident to Pellerin and recommended that Holland be removed from flying duty. Pellerin consulted with Holland and gave him an oral reprimand and warning not to repeat the behavior, but refused to take him off flying duty. Pellerin also did not document the incident or the reprimand or notify his superiors, who remained unaware of the incident. McGeehan then decided that in order to protect his aircrews, he (McGeehan) would be the co-pilot on any future missions in which Holland was the command pilot. Evidence suggests that after this incident, "considerable animosity" existed between Holland and McGeehan.

en.m.wikipedia.org...
See a pattern?

originally posted by: Zaphod58
See a pattern?

Kara Hultgreen.

a reply to: Zaphod58

A disturbing pattern. Thanks for your take.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I have one thing to add, I worked with the guy at my first duty station that launched the bird at fairchild, that is all he did launch it... OSI spent days (at least) trying to get him to admit to some form of wrong doing..

Eventually they had to admit pilot error, but it broke the kid badly enough he got a free ride to 20, doing simplistic work that added no stress to him.

a reply to: JIMC5499

Anonymous? Seriously?

I wasn't aware of that. That's not right. Complain, sure. But have the courage to do it in public. If you're going to ruin careers, at least put your name on it, so if it's a bogus complaint, that person can pay the appropriate penalty.

a reply to: seagull

I agree with you. I have it on good authority that a helicopter squadron Senior Chief was relieved of duty, a while back and forced into retirement. Sexual misconduct was hinted at as the reason for his relief, but, it was an open secret that some of his subordinates though that he was being too hard on them and one of the women called a hotline.

a reply to: JIMC5499

In a former squadron of mine Chief got caught while deployed drunk in an airmens room trying to get hands on with her, she was very clearly saying no and he was clearly trying to force the issue.

Airmen that caught him had to physically restrain him while the cops were called, it was serious enough he left the deployed location in handcuffs... he got to retire.

After a certain level it is often to hard to bust someone down so the military would rather just get them out the door than go through the long process of a trial that will often end up with people that have known the defendant for 20+ years deciding their fate.

The navy needs 20 more Zumwalt destroyers. That would cost more than 100 billion dollars.