Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

SpudmanWP wrote:

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?

It has been confirmed legally that they ARE protected. You should actually read the document you posted. You don't see a potential danger to public health and safety?? Possible abuse of authority in giving an unlawful order that they must fly in an aircraft that they are reporting serious safety incidents with??

F-16.net Sponsor

[quote="SpudmanWP"]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.

That first statement is like watching someone just drive into a concrete wall...way wrong. You are not disobeying orders if you reasonably believe them to be unlawful, period. Perhaps you have not served in the military? I ask because this is specifically covered in reoccurring training, every year.

The second statement you made is odd too. They didn't go to the media first...this is all well known. The problem has been addressed by the pilots, to the chain of command, to the manufacturer. As far as the pilots are concerned, the problem or symptoms are STILL reoccurring. All this is documented out there and I refuse to conduct research for anyone. If you actually believe the Air Force doesn't know the exact number, names and locations of pilots refusing to fly the jet or making complaints about it...then I assume you believe 9/11 was an inside job too. They know all that information.

They "ARE" protected because someone said so, btw, without citing the justification. This smells of a$$-covering and political correctness.

If the DoD says that flying with the PulseOX and filters is an acceptable risk, how can ordering a pilot to fly be "unlawful"?

Just because it's dangerous?

Ask an EOD guy or a test pilot about "acceptable risk".

If you ground the fleet until the fix is in, that may never happen. For all we know it only happens when flying above 30k and going M1+. If the pilots do not fly, the problem may never be solved.

There might also be a taint of hysteria involved. How else do you explain "ground crews" complaining of hypoxia symptoms?

As far as public safty, the section says "A substantial and specific danger to public health/safety". Neither qualifies.

SpudmanWP wrote:

They "ARE" protected because someone said so, btw, without citing the justification. This smells of a$$-covering and political correctness.

If the DoD says that flying with the PulseOX and filters is an acceptable risk, how can ordering a pilot to fly be "unlawful"?

Just because it's dangerous?

Ask an EOD guy or a test pilot about "acceptable risk".

If you ground the fleet until the fix is in, that may never happen. For all we know it only happens when flying above 30k and going M1+. If the pilots do not fly, the problem may never be solved.

There might also be a taint of hysteria involved. How else do you explain "ground crews" complaining of hypoxia symptoms?

As far as public safty, the section says "A substantial and specific danger to public health/safety". Neither qualifies.

As much as I hate searching for something when someone else should check it before they post, I did it anyways.

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corr ... 05006p.pdf

Bottom line sport....they ARE protected. Oh...and if you don't want to read...they simply need to REASONABLY believe that any one of those circumstances that you're hyper critical of, exist.

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".

Let me put it to you in this perspective. What if you were cruising down the road in your tank and all the sudden a poisonous fume started coming out of a vent and flooded the tank and everyone in the tank died. Now imagine this happened in 14 tanks over 2 years. Could you honestly tell me you wouldn't feel concerned for you life if they didn't figure out what was causing this poisonous gas, but kept making you drive the tank anyway.

There's risks that a pilot has to accept, like being in a firefight. These are things that the pilots can control to some extent, either with countermeasures, training, or if their shot and still live, an ejection seat. My point being, this oxygen issue is something they have no control over and have no idea when it will happen or when it is happening. That's why they're so afraid.

If you still don't think it's a big deal, when we do a maintenance run on the jet we have to have this giant a$$ "paddle board" to collect air samples the entire time in case we start to experience symptoms of hypoxia. This thing is literally the size of a large brief case and it sits on our laps just to collect all the air samples in the cockpit.

Oh and you don't seem to think this issue is a danger to the public? Remember that pilot that hit the trees while he was coming in for a landing in Alaska and didn't even remember hitting the trees? If he had come in to land on the other runway, he would have been low enough that if he was 100 feet to the right of the runway, he would have smashed into the dorms where hundreds of Airmen live. Both Langley and Tyndall are close enough to large cities for me to feel like this is an issue for public safety.

f22spec wrote:

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".

Let me put it to you in this perspective. What if you were cruising down the road in your tank and all the sudden a poisonous fume started coming out of a vent and flooded the tank and everyone in the tank died. Now imagine this happened in 14 tanks over 2 years. Could you honestly tell me you wouldn't feel concerned for you life if they didn't figure out what was causing this poisonous gas, but kept making you drive the tank anyway.

There are risks that a pilot has to accept, like being in a firefight. These are things that the pilots can control to some extent, either with countermeasures, training, or if they're shot and still live, an ejection seat. My point being, this oxygen issue is something they have no control over and have no idea when it will happen or when it is happening. That's why they're so afraid.

If you still don't think it's a big deal, when we do a maintenance run on the jet we have to have this giant a$$ "paddle board" to collect air samples the entire time in case we start to experience symptoms of hypoxia. This thing is literally the size of a large brief case and it sits on our laps just to collect all the air samples in the cockpit.

Oh and you don't seem to think this issue is a danger to the public? Remember that pilot that hit the trees while he was coming in for a landing in Alaska and didn't even remember hitting the trees? If he had come in to land on the other runway, he would have been low enough that if he was 100 feet to the right of the runway, he would have smashed into the dorms where hundreds of Airmen live. Both Langley and Tyndall are close enough to large cities for me to feel like this is an issue for public safety.

f22spec wrote:

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".

Let me put it to you in this perspective. What if you were cruising down the road in your tank and all the sudden a poisonous fume started coming out of a vent and flooded the tank and everyone in the tank died. Now imagine this happened in 14 tanks over 2 years. Could you honestly tell me you wouldn't feel concerned for you life if they didn't figure out what was causing this poisonous gas, but kept making you drive the tank anyway.

There's risks that a pilot has to accept, like being in a firefight. These are things that the pilots can control to some extent, either with countermeasures, training, or if their shot and still live, an ejection seat. My point being, this oxygen issue is something they have no control over and have no idea when it will happen or when it is happening. That's why they're so afraid.

If you still don't think it's a big deal, when we do a maintenance run on the jet we have to have this giant a$$ "paddle board" to collect air samples the entire time in case we start to experience symptoms of hypoxia. This thing is literally the size of a large brief case and it sits on our laps just to collect all the air samples in the cockpit.

Oh and you don't seem to think this issue is a danger to the public? Remember that pilot that hit the trees while he was coming in for a landing in Alaska and didn't even remember hitting the trees? If he had come in to land on the other runway, he would have been low enough that if he was 100 feet to the right of the runway, he would have smashed into the dorms where hundreds of Airmen live. Both Langley and Tyndall are close enough to large cities for me to feel like this is an issue for public safety.

Let's put it another way... What if this were happening on our SSN attack subs? What if while patrolling the oceans depths the on board oxygen generators starting pumping out noxious gas and everyone on board was overcome and blacked out. Would the USN make everyone on board wear a hypoxia monitoring device, and when someone's went off and detected a situation, the sub has to surface to let in fresh air? That's scenario is no different than the situation with the -22s. What if this were happening with the boomers and their dozen+ ballistic missiles? It's no different.

Spudman - I typically agree with what you write, but you are way off on this one. It is NOT isolated to the 'ANG' guys as you so delicately put it. (and I don't appreciate the implication that our Guard brothers & sisters are somehow different than our Reserve or active duty pilots.) I know of the guys on TV and they come with the highest respect in the F-16, Raptor & fighter community. They are not simply pogues who are scared to fly. They are well-decorated combat veterans. 'Mount' Gordon has years of active duty, handpicked to fly the Raptor (back when everyone wanted to fly it). They understand the risks and they have all lost brothers & sisters in combat. The issue is not isolated to them - you just aren't hearing about everything else on 60 Minutes. It took a lot of guts for them to do what they did. Regardless of the Whistleblower protections, they will probably never regain what they lost. They are 'taking one for the team', if you will. I have talked to pilots across the Raptor world and most seem to agree with the steps they took.

We (fighter pilots) put our lives on the line every day we fly whether in peace or in war - the question is not whether what we do is risky. It is. The question is whether the AF is requiring them to fly aircraft that they KNOW is poisoning its pilot (hypoxia or contaminants) - i.e. recklessly endangering them. We don't recklessly expose ourselves to the threats - we do it with purpose and confidence in what we do. The guys I talked to will absolutely fly the Raptor if it is needed for real world taskings - and they will crush anything else that stands in their way - but they are very reticent to do it on a daily basis for political purposes. They all know guys who have been radically affected in flight and they don't want to be the next one who comes back (or maybe doesn't) after flying through trees unknowingly. Sacrificing yourself for freedom, your country and/or your brothers and sisters is one thing. Doing it because the hard call is not politically correct or expedient is another issue.

I haven't paid much attention to the reporting in the 60 minutes or the ABC hit piece but AFA president Mike Dunn has addressed many of the numerous factual errors in this letter:

http://afa.org/PresidentsCorner/Notes/2 ... 5-3-12.pdf

I think beyond the blatant inaccuracies such as unit cost and inflammatory statements like "airshow airplane" one of the biggest points missed by these news agencies is the fact that while it's not the same exact system, the F-18 program has had similar problems and has joined in the investigation with the USAF.

Also as a side note for the two whistle blowers, they're requested to return to flight status flying the F-22:

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Pages/HomePage.aspx

Quote:

...they're requested to return to flight status flying the F-22

One little letter can make all the difference in the world.

It's NOT 'they'Re' requested to return to flight status, it's 'they'Ve' requested to return to flight status.

And in all honestly, with respect VprWzl, I'm with Spud on this.

The charcoal filters 'seem' to be what they have a problem with now. What's the timeline involved here? Apparently it was known that the filters were removed before the show aired. Now they're OK with it?

Even if the show was taped prior to this, each could have made a personal addenda to their commentary to be aired with the show that they were somehow satisfied now.

And this vast 'silent majority' of Raptor pilots is hearsay, no matter what you want ascribe to it from your 'guys I talked to'. And what or who are these two 'blowing the whistle' on?

This would be a heck of an Air Force if every pilot got to decide to fly when 'they' determined it was safe.

This a volunteer force. Nobody would begrudge them 'closing the door from the other side' and going out and doing something 'they'Re' comfortable with. Nobody forced them into this line of work. There are guys standing in line to get those slots, you know that.

We're not talking about individual character and past performance here. '60 Minutes' was a bad idea and inappropriate (and probably heavily edited and watched by an audience that would have every propensity to sympathize with these poor young boys without having any idea of the facts.)

(What Spud said about the Guard doesn't bother me at all and I am (was) one. Very Happy

)

Prepared for incoming... Shocked

What I think is odd about the 60 minutes piece is the little information provided on the events that occurred since the Raptors started flying again, other than the number of incidents reported. One of the pilots in the interview claimed to have an incident (along with his wingman) with the safety measures in place since the return to flight, yet there were no specifics as to what happened. Did he pull the oxy bottle? If he did, did his symptoms improve? Did his blood oxygen sensor ever go off? Were there any contaminants found in the filter? I think those details would be vital in trying to determine if the AF is unduly risking the lives of its aviators. If the safety measures did work, perhaps the AF is correct that they have managed the risk to an acceptable level while collecting data to ultimately solve the problem. If however the blood oxy meter didn’t alert the pilots or pulling the oxy bottle doesn’t relieve the symptoms, then it sounds like Russian roulette.

I’ve seen mention that the Navy had some similar problems with the Hornet a while back. Does anyone know specifically how they handled that problem? I don’t recall them ever being grounded for a prolonged period of time.

Vicious

vicious wrote:

I’ve seen mention that the Navy had some similar problems with the Hornet a while back. Does anyone know specifically how they handled that problem? I don’t recall them ever being grounded for a prolonged period of time.

Vicious

I've heard it was partly solved by operational changes to minimize the F/A-18 sucking in exhaust from other jets, while taxiing, especially on the carrier deck. They also made changes to the OBOGS oxygen concentrator to handle carbon monoxide better.

This post by Bill Sweetman seems to match other sources regarding this issue.
http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%253A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%253Af5c4481e-fc51-4749-92a3-b7b477ad3ebe"

Also, the OBOGS in the F/A-18 is made by Cobham, whereas the F-16 & F-22 OBOGS comes from Honeywell.

From what I've read, the C2A1 carbon filter does not protect against Carbon Monoxide.. other nasty stuff yes but not CO

popcorn wrote:

From what I've read, the C2A1 carbon filter does not protect against Carbon Monoxide.. other nasty stuff yes but not CO

One thing I don't get from the C2A1 filter being added is that it may not 'trap' the potentially toxic gasses for analysis. There are special AeroGel filters in development that actually trap gas particles for analysis, probably better than the C2A1 filter.

Have the docs actually detected abnormal CO levels in the pilots' blood?

Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

60 Minutes story on F-22 pilots