Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

SpudmanWP wrote:

I was a tanker on the M1 and there are plenty of things that we did that could get us killed, equipment wise.

The fact is that they are whiners, are not adding anything new to the discussion, and most certainly do not qualify as "whistleblowers".

No disrespect to what you did, but flying a F-22 has few things in common with flying a tanker.

These pilots could have easily shut up and requested to transfer to other units, leaving the risk to somebody else.

F-16.net Sponsor

I think he was referring to the M1 Abrams MBT, but I could be wrong...

Correct, M1 then M1A1 MBT.

Quote:

I was a tanker on the M1 and there are plenty of things that we did that could get us killed, equipment wise.

The fact is that they are whiners, are not adding anything new to the discussion, and most certainly do not qualify as "whistleblowers".

In the national guard you have your military career and your civilian career. I imagine the civilian career is what pays the bills and provides the vast majority of income with which to support yourself and family. They are in a better position to take this risk than active duty pilots. I don't understand how we can compare operating the Abrams to the Raptor. Ever flown jets?

My point was that any job in the military is dangerous on its face. Sure, the F-22 (being a jet) is more dangerous than a tank, but you still do what you are told without whining to the press.

My overall point is this, they do not qualify for "whistleblower" status.

You don't have to believe me, take it from the source.

discofishing wrote:

In the national guard you have your military career and your civilian career. I imagine the civilian career is what pays the bills and provides the vast majority of income with which to support yourself and family. They are in a better position to take this risk than active duty pilots.

Not unless they are full-time Guard and that is their main / only job.

SpudmanWP wrote:

My point was that any job in the military is dangerous on its face. Sure, the F-22 (being a jet) is more dangerous than a tank, but you still do what you are told without whining to the press.

My overall point is this, they do not qualify for "whistleblower" status.

You don't have to believe me, take it from the source.

Or a soon-to-be 4 star generals' testimony, reflecting the views of the secretary, before the senate.
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2012/05/air-force-f22-raptor-pilots-whistle-blower-protection-050812/

SpudmanWP wrote:

I was a tanker on the M1 and there are plenty of things that we did that could get us killed, equipment wise.

The fact is that they are whiners, are not adding anything new to the discussion, and most certainly do not qualify as "whistleblowers".

I'm hesitant to call 2 officers "whiners" about going public with their concerns. It's one thing to deliberately do dangerous "things" with your equipment knowing that you may get yourself killed or injured, buts its something completely different when your equipment has an inherent flaw that causes you (through no fault of your own) to lose consciousness in just normal operation. What if one of these incidents causes an F-22 to go down into a housing subdivision, or an apartment complex (like the F-18 a weeks ago), and kills civilians, not to mention the -22 driver?

I was always under the assumption that the -22 had a ground collision avoidance fail safe built into its 90 million lines of code...

In brief, when your equipment will kill you just by getting into it and operating it normally, I don't consider that to be whining. Its also worth noting the praise they have for the aircraft's prowess in the air. Its still a pity we're only getting 187 copies.

neurotech wrote:

Or a soon-to-be 4 star generals' testimony, reflecting the views of the secretary, before the senate.
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2012/05/air-force-f22-raptor-pilots-whistle-blower-protection-050812/

Sorry, I did not make my poiht clear, IMHO they SHOULD NOT get whistle blower protection. Look at the criteria from the pic and see if any qualify:

1. A violation of any law, rule , or regulation - Nope
2. Gross Mismanagement - Nope
3. A gross waste of funds - Nope
4. An abuse of authority - Nope
5. A substantial and specific danger to public health - Nope
6. A substantial and specific danger to public safety - Nope

Which clause do you think they qualify under?

Why should they have gone public? Does it change anything?

AF command deemed the F-22 safe to fly (with precautions taken) while it investigates and fixes the issue. If you refuse to obey an order to fly, then be prepared to suffer the consequences.

An yes, they should have gotten more than 187.

It would be the first one - "A violation of any law, rule, or regulation"

I didn't fly for the USAF, but I'm pretty sure that failing to report a serious aeromedical issue would be a violation of the rules, serious enough to get a pilot grounded.

The issues dealing with the O2 system have been reported "ad nauseam" in the press for over a year (and I am sure in-service from the very beginning).

Again, what they have whined about on tv is not anything that has already been reported on.

That assumes it is a 02/OBOGS issue - "Aeromedical Issue" includes many more things.

It is entirely possible that its something to do with the Raptors profile that is either not flown in other jets, or rarely flown in operational flights.

Hypothetically, if a pilot shows effects of dehydrated in during a high-altitude flight, its not a design flaw with the jet. A dehydration incident should still be reported to the flight surgeon, by regulation.

Quote:

Sorry, I did not make my poiht clear, IMHO they SHOULD NOT get whistle blower protection. Look at the criteria from the pic and see if any qualify:

1. A violation of any law, rule , or regulation - Nope
2. Gross Mismanagement - Nope

I don't know about these two. There are laws, rules, and regulations governing just about every aspect of aviation operations. If you can't operate a motor vehicle with a certain amount of toxins in your blood (like alcohol) then how on earth would it be legally justifiable to be forced into operating a $140m aircraft with toxins and hazardous substances involuntarily put into your blood? Forcing highly specialized pilots to fly high valued military assets while basically intoxicated sounds like it's beyond gross mismanagement. If major worldwide war broke out, I think things would be different, but right now this issue needs to be handled before it gets worse. This is one of the things I hated most about being in the military; leadership tended to be reactive instead of proactive. Reactive measures by 1SG/CSM or CO always tended to be more retarded than proactive measures. Spud, I served too (Army), having spent 5 of 8 years as an NCO. I think my bullshit detector works pretty well. These pilots are well trained, well educated warriors who have already proven themselves. They're not snot-nosed privates with an entitlement complex. BTW, Who is the congressman protecting these whistle blowers? Another USAF pilot!

If this is such a problem, then why has it not come up before in units that fly it more often? I find it suspicious that the only two pilots to ever go public are from the same ANG unit.

If no law or rule was broken, how do they get "whistle blower" protection? What legal argument are they using?

Has there been any serious issues since the grounding was lifted?

On the danger front, with precautions the DoD deemed the issue to be an "acceptable risk". That term is used throughout the military, just ask the EOD guys. If the DoD orders you to fly and you say no, you are disobeying orders, period.

What did they try to accomplish through the chain of command, Congressional reps, etc? Or did they go straight to the media?

Quote:

The Air Force doesn't have specific details on numbers and locations of pilots who have refused to fly the F-22, said Maj. Brandon Lingle, an Air Force spokesman. "We are generally aware of a small number of pilots who have expressed reservations about flying the F-22, and each of those cases will be handled individually through established processes," he said.

With concerns being handled, why did these two feel the need to go to the media?

Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

60 Minutes story on F-22 pilots