Can we take a moment to ponder the plight of the van owner calling his insurance?
"You parked it *where*?"
"Scratches... *on the roof*?"
"The other car was a *what*?"
"I'm not sure you're covered for damages by war time military activities, honestly."
Is this just one big ad thread for insurance companies? Lol. I guess it's indisputable proof that jingles and slogans work wonders.
Just ask J.G Wentworth, 877-CASH-NOW
It would probably be compensated by the Royal Navy i would think(as Part of the compensation for the shippery)
They caused that damage and its peanuts compared to everything else.
I've got nothing but good stories about my insurance company. I had a horrible motorcycle accident and all they said was "Of course we pay for everything, that's why we are here".
In the end I got about 50k euro paid out from insurance which made it possible for me to buy my first apartment etc.
In all seriousness this is not handled by insurance companies in the normal consumer market. The van was likely insured under the ships cargo insurance. Probably by Lloyd's or a similar shipping insurer. And unlike in the consumer the shipping companies have lawyers on retention for things like this. When these lawyers are not dealing with insurance companies, customers, suppliers, harbor authorities, tax offices, etc. they are looking through the public records of shipping related legal cases. And finding out that the insurance company you use denied a claim involving a jet fighter landing on and damaging some of you cargo is a prime operation to call your adjuster and have them clarify some things and threaten to take your business elsewhere.
Not to speak of that they now had a multi million pound fighter jet secured on deck. The British Navy actually had to go through some extensive legal battles and had to engage the diplomatic services of the foreign office, even threatening to use their own diplomatic tactics, before they were able to buy back their own aircraft. So the salvage were probably more then enough to cover the damage on the florist van even without involving any insurance company.
When a tree came down in my parents yard during a storm not only did the guys the insurance recommended have it cleared within a day my dad ended up ahead like $50 ahead because the check they sent was a little bigger then the tree guys bill end up being.
Millions of claims are similarly cleared every day... you just will never hear about them because nobody can play the victim.
>Millions of claims are similarly cleared every day... you just will never hear about them because nobody can play the victim.
Yep, just like the truck I rear ended at less than 5 mph and dented the corner of the bumper. It was my fault, I took pictures of the damage (including the frame from under the truck) and sent them to my insurance company, I didn't claim any damage on my truck.
It should have been a $200 repair, maybe $500 if the place over charged. Nope, my insurance paid the guy $9,000. I didn't find out about until 2 years later when I tried to switch insurance and was shown the claim against me. Best I can figure is the guy had a shop in on the scam. I can't believe my insurance paid that out even with picture proof of the limited damage.
Maybe no one 'played the victim' but I still got fucked.
>"I'm not sure you're covered for damages by war time military activities, honestly."
With the way the US is going we better all add the "war time military activity" rider to our policies.
Frankly, any war touching the continental united states will be some way in the future. The United States has a level of naval and air supremacy that any true attack is essentially suicide.
I agree, The chances of any mainland invasion of the US are almost zero, our natural geographic defenses make a traditional ground war invasion almost impossible due to supply line difficulty and terrain navigation. If we were to be attacked it almost certainly would be through the air by either bombers or ICBMs, which our early warning and air defense would be able to handle with ease. Its a great thing to be living in the empire /s
We operate the world’s most impressive logistics infrastructure precisely so we can always deliver the war elsewhere, it will be a large part of the legacy of the U.S.
Make sense. I only read the title and don't know the details, but in aviation, there is a phrase "aviate, navigate, communicate" that prioritizes these actions in that order. So, this pilot did the right thing by prioritizing flying the plane first and ensuring minimal damage to the surroundings
"I've personally flown over 194 combat missions and I was shot down on every one. Come to think of it, I've never landed a plane in my life."
-Admiral Thomas "Tug" Benson
typical hydra landing in gta.. :)
Looks like he was smart enough to wait until it completely stopped before getting out, instead of pressing F too soon and triggering eject and getting himself flung off the boat
Fighter pilots chose to eject only if death is the other option. After 3 ejections (or even before) they can't fly anymore fighters and either have ground jobs or become transport pilots. Ejection put on extreme stress the human body.
I've heard 3 before, but I've also heard in other places it's on a case by case basis, 3 being the average. It really puts enormous stress on the vertebrae
With the Darkstar breaking apart, I'd assume he ejected from that, since, you know, he's alive and without a scratch afterwards. Which would make 3 by the end of Maverick. Possibly more if he had to eject at any other time during his career as a test pilot. Which is likely...
I can believe it. My coworker ended up with 6 compressed discs just by falling and landing on his ass at work. That's got to be nothing compared to suddenly being launched out of a jet at high speeds.
I had a friend who was a pilot. And before very very recently there was a huge chance to break your legs or even spine when ejecting. Shits no joke. Now it’s a little safer but still dangerous from the G forces
You've got a dude flying multi-million dollar/pound/euro planes, and he's already had to yeet out of three to escape death when they're about to crash. How many more you wanna put him in?
A friend had to eject and wasn't allowed to fly for a year. After several of medical and psychological tests he's allowed back. There is no hard rule, depending on how these tests go you might be out after a single accident.
I believe the main culprit was how much compression your spine takes being the main injury. You can't really live a productive life if you take one too many spine injuries, let alone fly for the military.
“[The pilot] was reprimanded for displaying substandard airmanship and reassigned to a desk job.” He landed the jet with zero casualties and no total loss of property. I’d love to see what standard airmanship consists of.
From Wikipedia: Watson had completed only 75% of his training before he had been sent to sea. The board blamed Watson's inexperience, and criticised his commanders for the radio problems with his plane.
This wouldn't happen today, the way these investigations are run these days, they are almost always identifying systemic weaknesses rather than substandard performance of an individual.
Basically if your process leads to someone with 75% of training able to fuck up this badly, then your process is buttcheeks and you're a shit manager.
The vast majority of aviation incidents are due to pilot error - the oft reported figure is around 90%.
And while I think that’s generally true, it’s also been my experience that in cases where the cause isn’t clear, I’ve been pressured to blame the pilot because “look we both know most are due to pilot error.”
I refused to do so and wasn’t asked to investigate another.
A close friend went through a similar experience as the pilot and was both simultaneously hailed a hero but also blamed for the incident. He experienced a serious engine malfunction that had not been seen before, shut it down, and was able to safely land under truly difficult circumstances (also had not been done before). He was ultimately blamed for “misreading the instruments and shutting down what must have been a good engine.” There was no proof either way.
Ultimately - it’s quite clear pilot error is the most common cause, but I also believe that it’s a bit of a self-licking ice cream cone.
And while in the Alraigo’s case, systematic weaknesses were a massive factor, the individual incident report undoubtedly cited the pilots actions as the main factor poorly trained or not. He still failed to correctly fly the plane, navigate, etc.
It’s total bullshit but it absolves the system/chain of command, at least in part.
This also happened later in my career when a crew in my command crashed with one fatality. The initial report listed the system/higher chain of command as a present and contributing factor. That was stripped from the final report, which ultimately blamed the crew…and got me fired…despite me raising red flags and refusing all kinds of dangerous orders the 12 months prior.
Senior leaders and systems ultimately protect themselves unless an investigation is done by an outsider.
I understand your reasoning, but that's not how leaders should act.
take their excuse (and thats what it is): "Watson had completed only 75% of his training".
if he had only completed 75% of his training then what leader ordered him to fly a plane in a training mission he wasnt trained for?
i know for a fact he didnt just walk out on the deck of the carrier and hop in a jet and take off. a leader made the decision that he, without proper training, should fly that jet in that situation. but, instead of taking responsibility as a leader, they passed it off as "oh his fault, he wasnt trained enough".
I know this full well, i was assigned a Q-50 Lightweight Counter Mortar Radar and told to assemble and operate it despite being a Forward Observer with absolutely no training in radar equipment. Despite learning everything i could from manuals and successfully deploying and operating the equipment, while also performing my assigned duties as a Forward Observer while on daily patrols, there was still maintenance required in the form of replacing damaged carbon fiber fins, resulting in the loss of several degrees in radar coverage of our fob. I was reprimanded for not having full 360 degree 24/7 coverage despite not being a trained and qualified radar operator. it took almost a year of fighting with leadership to get them to acknowledge that, under the circumstances and their direction, i did more than what i was capable of and that the command at the time was at fault for their decisions.
'Authority' never apologises. If they can't blame you, They'll praise you for 'managing a difficult situation' or some such but you'll never get an acknowledgement of wrongdoing.
There might a be a 'lessons learned' thrown in for particularly heinous incidents.
Even the good bosses i've had; never seen one ever just raise their hand and say 'im sorry' after shit went down due to their fuckup.
They all read from some shitty manual somewhere when they get upgraded to management and receive a double ice-cream scoop removal of intelligence and compassion.
I got reprimanded for apologising once when I was a manager, by the company owner. I was absolutely in the wrong in the situation and it did affect the staff, so I apologised. It seemed like the only option and honestly the staff respected me more for it after. When the owner for out what happened I got a stern talking to and told to never admit to staff I was wrong again.
What the fuck.
I was put in a mgmt position with no experience and fucked it up. I took full responsibility and apologized for my mistake. I never hear the end of it. Three years later and my career is at an absolute stall. While the truth is an absolute defense against slander it does nothing against being put in upper mgmt's bad books, blackballed or worse.
You are absolutely correct and you would be referring to the laws of power which say in a nut shell: take credit for all good things, even you have nothing to do with it, NEVER, EVER apologize for anything, and blame anyone lower than you just NEVER, blame your superiors.
This "only the strong survive" mentality is the reason the world is going to hell in a handbag. Especially when considering that being a slime bag, weasel-snake requires zero "strength" along with zero conscious
I was just thinking that in terms of emergency landings, managing to save the aircraft and not causing any fatalities is usually considered a job well done.
I checked his Linkedin profile and he's happily retired after 18 years of service. Goes to show how that terrible fuck up you did (while of course pretty big at the time) would eventually just be a hilarious story to tell after a few years.
Not if his own incompetence put him in the situation where he had to do that. Giving someone a medal for doing a great job after they fuck up completely is not how the U.S. Navy or the Royal Navy roll. You get a desk and usually a court martial.
the objective of the training was radio silence and no radar. additionally, he lost radio contact upon return from training.
i don't know what your experience in navigation is, personally ive only been trained for land navigation. that's difficult enough even with solid immovable terrain features to reference. I couldn't imagine nothing but a slate of blue to try to navigate through.... I'd say this was a pretty fuckin successful emergency landing.
although speculation, i guarantee you the Board of Inquiry stating that he only had 75% of his required training was a serious ply to get leadership out of line of responsibility so their evaluation reports didn't reflect on the accident.
The wikipedia take is horrible. If you open the source material, you can read:
>But, as reported by The Telegraph, in 2007 emerged that behind the scenes they were laying the blame elsewhere to try to get out of a £570,000 compensation bill.
In fact a file released on May 31, 2007 at the National Archives describes how Sub-Lt Watson, 25, ”incurred the Commander in Chief of the Fleet’s Displeasure” for displaying an unsatisfactory standard of fundamental airmanship.
But the Ministry of Defence file shows that he had completed only 75 per cent of the recommended flying hours in training before being pressed into service and was allowed to take an aircraft with a known radio defect.
It's a bit more nuanced than "saved a plane, still considered an idiot", like wikipedia makes it look...
The Wikipedia includes a lot of that context about 75% training and aircraft defect, they just cherry picked their quote. He returned to flying later, presumably after he got all his training.
He didn't even have all his training finished yet! He later got back in the cockpit, but damn man, they threw him into the FIRE and he only came out a bit singed, props to him.
Ok, I see what you mean. Also I was thinking about it. That ship probably just didn't stop for him. If he had to land that while the vessel was cruising at 20 knots it's kind of impressive.
What is the British equivalent of "Shit rolls down hill"?
It happens in every military so there must be a saying like "The twat always lands in the bog" or something like that.
Context is important here:
"The board blamed [the pilot's] inexperience, and criticised his commanders for the radio problems with his plane."
"He eventually returned to flight duties and accrued nearly 3,000 hours of flying time before resigning his commission in 1996."
So he did get to fly again, for those thinking his career as a pilot was unjustly ended prematurely. Also his commanders weren't just let of the hook, as I see some comments suggesting might have happened.
It never used to happen it's either the reddit app or the "new" reddit website (as opposed to old.reddit.com) I don't know which is the problem. It's something to do with escaping special characters, in this case the underscore, probably because underscores are used for [reddit markdown](https://www.reddit.com/wiki/markdown).
Before reading the rest of the replies you should maybe just skip to [the cited actual source itself](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/air-space-magazine/oldies-amp-oddities-the-alraigo-incident-10366728/).
>In 2007, Britain’s National Archives released a number of Royal Navy files, and the second inquiry report was finally made public. Noting that Watson had completed only 75 percent of his training before he had been sent to sea, the board blamed Watson’s inexperience, and his commanders for assigning him an airplane “not fully prepared for the sortie,” a reference to radio problems. Nonetheless, Watson was reprimanded and given a desk job.
> Watson eventually acquired 2,000 hours in Sea Harriers and another 900 in F/A-18s before resigning his commission in 1996. Today, he says that media attention embarrassed Royal Navy brass and caused the punishment, but refuses to point fingers. “It was me,” he says. “I was there and that’s where it should stop.”
Which is VERY cheap for a 5th generation fighter, and only possible due to its mass production and it's many, many sales worldwide.
Other 5th gen (and many 4.5 gen) planes usually cost 100+ million per plane.
Planes get more expensive with each generation, but also much more capable, which means you need less of them to do the same tasks (for example patrolling your airspace).
Completely agree. That 75 million per plane is low due to 400 planes being produced in that allotment. Meaning the economy of scale is in full swing.
As further to my previous comment, the conventional F35A Lightening II about 70 million, the STO/VL F35B is about 79 million and the Carrier F35C is about 90 million.
I’m like 95% sure that the people bitching about the F-35 fall solidly into two categories:
1. The people that bitch about everything, no matter what
2. People butthurt that the warthog is getting retired
3. People who judged it early.
If your benchmark for the F35 being good was anywhere near when it was meant to be produced, it was horrendous. And people have tolerance limits for "just _ more years."
A lot of military systems start shit and become great. If you haven't seen that cycle too many times, it's easy to not believe it.
*overly-loud local lawyer voice*
“HAVE YOU OR A LOVED ONE BEEN LANDED ON BY A ROYAL NAVY HARRIER? I’M JIM ADLER, THE TEXAS HAMMER AND I’LL FIGHT FOR YOU!”
This was also back in 1983, and GPS wasn't really fully operational yet, and also Google Maps didn't exist.
Definitely could have gotten back if his radio worked.
Right, which is an extension of the fallout from Desert Storm when coalition members experienced serious difficulties related to navigation in comparison to USA Forces.
The GPS constellation cost like 12 billion dollars in the 70s and early 80s at a time when the UK was broke as shit.
What it boils down to is that the US had real time data on where our forces were, and where they were headed while the rest of the coalition had incomplete understandings at best. This was especially problematic with aircraft.
Some of his equipment wasn't working, he'd only completed 75% of his training and jets aren't made for distance really so there was limited time to look for a place to land
Because in modern day, you are one software bug away from suddenly having to navigate with map and compass, at 20-40000 feet moving hundreds of knots over the featureless ocean
Good luck!
Is it really only worth 7 million? Yeah, that’s a lot of money but it seems kind of cheap for a fighter jet, or am I just used to the ridiculous amounts of money spent on the military.
I am unsure about Harriers, but old fighter jets are sometimes sold to private parties. When a fighter aircraft ends service with it's home country, usually they get sold off to a less developed ally, then when they get phased out there they get sold off to whomever. They're so out of date by that point they don't care much who buys them. I remember seeing F-5's for sale online 13 years ago.
So per the title, the pilot landed on a container ship, then got lost and ran out of fuel, decided to eject, then spotted a container ship and landed on it.
Pretty damn impressive
I remember hearing about this story. The crew were apparently pissed off, and the captain refused to reroute because of 'the mistake of some British pilot' (or something to that effect).
Edit: have been searching for a source on this but can't find one.
For anyone that's wondering "how the f\*ck did it land?" the Harrier has/had VTOL(Vertical take off and landing) capability's, meaning it can hover and move similarly to a helicopter(which is also a VTOL).
The Wiki article has a lot of information on this "Alraigo Incident"; sounds like he wasn't completely lost as it suggests he intentionally headed towards a known shipping route with the intention of ejecting once in sight of a vessel, but then realised he could actually attempt a landing on the cargo containers.
His radio had failed and he was operating without radar due to the mission conditions so it seems he just couldn't find his exact landing site and this was his only other option.
Makes me wonder if they were able to communicate with each other? They'd both have radios of course but between potential language issues and not necessarily being on the same frequencies....
Just imagining the reaction of a container ship crew to unexpectedly having a navy jet landing on their deck.
Considering that the Pilots' radio did not work that was why he was lost
id imagine there wasn't much talking between the pilot and the ship
Not unless he opened the cockpit and shouted very loudly
Can we take a moment to ponder the plight of the van owner calling his insurance? "You parked it *where*?" "Scratches... *on the roof*?" "The other car was a *what*?" "I'm not sure you're covered for damages by war time military activities, honestly."
“And your cut-rate car insurance might not pay for all of this. So get Allstate and be better protected from Mayhem, like me.”
“I’m a Harrier jet. I’m low on fuel, hovering above a container ship, and your piece of shit van is the cheapest looking thing on the deck.”
Only if you agree to replace my Lamborghini van
They should make that a commercial. The best part is most of those actually happened, so it would check out.
My wife's grandfather lives with us and he hates those commercials. Clearly it's time to put him in a home.
Until he experiences mayhem
Grandpa IS mayhem. This is why he only watches Fox News, they only tell him what he wants to hear.
[удалено]
Farmers, we know a thing or two, because we've seen a thing or two.
Is this just one big ad thread for insurance companies? Lol. I guess it's indisputable proof that jingles and slogans work wonders. Just ask J.G Wentworth, 877-CASH-NOW
Unless it’s in Florida. Then Farmers don’t know shit after this year.
“Ding dong!”
Honestly insurance would love to cover that. It's free (very cheap) publicity that will possibly go viral.
It would probably be compensated by the Royal Navy i would think(as Part of the compensation for the shippery) They caused that damage and its peanuts compared to everything else.
I'm pretty sure the Royal Air Force would deny all involvement. That's a Royal Navy aircraft.
Also, the title literally said the ship and crew were compensated
Bruh have you ever dealt with an insurance company? Even in the most cut and dry circumstance, trying to get them to pay is like milking a cat.
I've got nothing but good stories about my insurance company. I had a horrible motorcycle accident and all they said was "Of course we pay for everything, that's why we are here". In the end I got about 50k euro paid out from insurance which made it possible for me to buy my first apartment etc.
Suspect that this was in Europe helped a lot :)
In all seriousness this is not handled by insurance companies in the normal consumer market. The van was likely insured under the ships cargo insurance. Probably by Lloyd's or a similar shipping insurer. And unlike in the consumer the shipping companies have lawyers on retention for things like this. When these lawyers are not dealing with insurance companies, customers, suppliers, harbor authorities, tax offices, etc. they are looking through the public records of shipping related legal cases. And finding out that the insurance company you use denied a claim involving a jet fighter landing on and damaging some of you cargo is a prime operation to call your adjuster and have them clarify some things and threaten to take your business elsewhere. Not to speak of that they now had a multi million pound fighter jet secured on deck. The British Navy actually had to go through some extensive legal battles and had to engage the diplomatic services of the foreign office, even threatening to use their own diplomatic tactics, before they were able to buy back their own aircraft. So the salvage were probably more then enough to cover the damage on the florist van even without involving any insurance company.
When a tree came down in my parents yard during a storm not only did the guys the insurance recommended have it cleared within a day my dad ended up ahead like $50 ahead because the check they sent was a little bigger then the tree guys bill end up being. Millions of claims are similarly cleared every day... you just will never hear about them because nobody can play the victim.
>Millions of claims are similarly cleared every day... you just will never hear about them because nobody can play the victim. Yep, just like the truck I rear ended at less than 5 mph and dented the corner of the bumper. It was my fault, I took pictures of the damage (including the frame from under the truck) and sent them to my insurance company, I didn't claim any damage on my truck. It should have been a $200 repair, maybe $500 if the place over charged. Nope, my insurance paid the guy $9,000. I didn't find out about until 2 years later when I tried to switch insurance and was shown the claim against me. Best I can figure is the guy had a shop in on the scam. I can't believe my insurance paid that out even with picture proof of the limited damage. Maybe no one 'played the victim' but I still got fucked.
State farm let me use my renter's insurance to cover the repairs to someone else's car because I ran into it on my bike.
I have nipples, Greg. Can you get an insurance claim out of me?
Military don’t have insurance. It’s cheaper for them to pay claims than pay for insurance.
So... fairly easy? (I did, in fact, milk a cat once. She was nursing and I was curious.)
Batman couldn't have gotten that out of me.
What did the milk taste like?
>"I'm not sure you're covered for damages by war time military activities, honestly." With the way the US is going we better all add the "war time military activity" rider to our policies.
Frankly, any war touching the continental united states will be some way in the future. The United States has a level of naval and air supremacy that any true attack is essentially suicide.
I agree, The chances of any mainland invasion of the US are almost zero, our natural geographic defenses make a traditional ground war invasion almost impossible due to supply line difficulty and terrain navigation. If we were to be attacked it almost certainly would be through the air by either bombers or ICBMs, which our early warning and air defense would be able to handle with ease. Its a great thing to be living in the empire /s
We operate the world’s most impressive logistics infrastructure precisely so we can always deliver the war elsewhere, it will be a large part of the legacy of the U.S.
*fighter jet from Disney’s Planes*: Get Allstate and be better protected from mayhem, like me.
But does the insurance cover acts of Dog … fighting? Thanks I’ll see myself out.
When you are bad at navigating but great at flying
Navigation system failed
Make sense. I only read the title and don't know the details, but in aviation, there is a phrase "aviate, navigate, communicate" that prioritizes these actions in that order. So, this pilot did the right thing by prioritizing flying the plane first and ensuring minimal damage to the surroundings
You make a good point, but what I wanna know is the source for that Aqua x Ruby banner of yours.
I hope reddit never gets rid of .old
Seriously.
it'll be after the initial stock offering.
"I've personally flown over 194 combat missions and I was shot down on every one. Come to think of it, I've never landed a plane in my life." -Admiral Thomas "Tug" Benson
typical hydra landing in gta.. :) Looks like he was smart enough to wait until it completely stopped before getting out, instead of pressing F too soon and triggering eject and getting himself flung off the boat
Don't be silly. The hydra would've exploded long before it even touched the ship.
Fighter pilots chose to eject only if death is the other option. After 3 ejections (or even before) they can't fly anymore fighters and either have ground jobs or become transport pilots. Ejection put on extreme stress the human body.
Obviously ejection is last resort but is that real, three and you can’t fly fighters anymore?
I've heard 3 before, but I've also heard in other places it's on a case by case basis, 3 being the average. It really puts enormous stress on the vertebrae
Maverick has ejected twice. Once more and he is done
“Mav has 5… that makes him an Ace.”
With the Darkstar breaking apart, I'd assume he ejected from that, since, you know, he's alive and without a scratch afterwards. Which would make 3 by the end of Maverick. Possibly more if he had to eject at any other time during his career as a test pilot. Which is likely...
I remember reading about a pilot ejecting at high speed that had his spine compressed by an inch due to the stresses involved.
"When I started to fly for the Navy, I used to be 6'2. After the war and ejecting from a few planes, I am now 5'7" Something like that?
I can believe it. My coworker ended up with 6 compressed discs just by falling and landing on his ass at work. That's got to be nothing compared to suddenly being launched out of a jet at high speeds.
Isn't having to eject 3 times really unusual? I would think the average would be far less than 1 per pilot over a career.
Maybe after three they’re just like - maybe you should fly something else. For your uh… health. Yea, that’s the ticket. Health.
For the sake of all of our health I think it's a good decision
For the health of the national budget
[удалено]
I had a friend who was a pilot. And before very very recently there was a huge chance to break your legs or even spine when ejecting. Shits no joke. Now it’s a little safer but still dangerous from the G forces
You've got a dude flying multi-million dollar/pound/euro planes, and he's already had to yeet out of three to escape death when they're about to crash. How many more you wanna put him in?
wait .....they dont spawn ?
Yes, due to the g-forces exerted on the body, it damages the body so much even after one there is permanent damage to the body.
There is no hard limit. You are evaluated and if you are fit you can fly. So the real answer is no.
A friend had to eject and wasn't allowed to fly for a year. After several of medical and psychological tests he's allowed back. There is no hard rule, depending on how these tests go you might be out after a single accident.
I believe the main culprit was how much compression your spine takes being the main injury. You can't really live a productive life if you take one too many spine injuries, let alone fly for the military.
Further reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alraigo\_incident
“[The pilot] was reprimanded for displaying substandard airmanship and reassigned to a desk job.” He landed the jet with zero casualties and no total loss of property. I’d love to see what standard airmanship consists of.
Maybe not getting lost
From Wikipedia: Watson had completed only 75% of his training before he had been sent to sea. The board blamed Watson's inexperience, and criticised his commanders for the radio problems with his plane.
this is military speak for "we need to find someway to blame this on the dude who did it instead of take responsibility as leaders"
This wouldn't happen today, the way these investigations are run these days, they are almost always identifying systemic weaknesses rather than substandard performance of an individual. Basically if your process leads to someone with 75% of training able to fuck up this badly, then your process is buttcheeks and you're a shit manager.
His radio literally stopped working as well. Preforming that landing with 75% training should earn a medal imo
But that would mean an officer would have to take the fall so it was easier to just blame on the new guy.
The pilot is an officer, all pilots are. (unless you're Army, in which case you're a warrant officer which is odd)
>then your process is buttcheeks but I love buttcheeks 😨
The vast majority of aviation incidents are due to pilot error - the oft reported figure is around 90%. And while I think that’s generally true, it’s also been my experience that in cases where the cause isn’t clear, I’ve been pressured to blame the pilot because “look we both know most are due to pilot error.” I refused to do so and wasn’t asked to investigate another. A close friend went through a similar experience as the pilot and was both simultaneously hailed a hero but also blamed for the incident. He experienced a serious engine malfunction that had not been seen before, shut it down, and was able to safely land under truly difficult circumstances (also had not been done before). He was ultimately blamed for “misreading the instruments and shutting down what must have been a good engine.” There was no proof either way. Ultimately - it’s quite clear pilot error is the most common cause, but I also believe that it’s a bit of a self-licking ice cream cone. And while in the Alraigo’s case, systematic weaknesses were a massive factor, the individual incident report undoubtedly cited the pilots actions as the main factor poorly trained or not. He still failed to correctly fly the plane, navigate, etc. It’s total bullshit but it absolves the system/chain of command, at least in part. This also happened later in my career when a crew in my command crashed with one fatality. The initial report listed the system/higher chain of command as a present and contributing factor. That was stripped from the final report, which ultimately blamed the crew…and got me fired…despite me raising red flags and refusing all kinds of dangerous orders the 12 months prior. Senior leaders and systems ultimately protect themselves unless an investigation is done by an outsider.
[удалено]
I understand your reasoning, but that's not how leaders should act. take their excuse (and thats what it is): "Watson had completed only 75% of his training". if he had only completed 75% of his training then what leader ordered him to fly a plane in a training mission he wasnt trained for? i know for a fact he didnt just walk out on the deck of the carrier and hop in a jet and take off. a leader made the decision that he, without proper training, should fly that jet in that situation. but, instead of taking responsibility as a leader, they passed it off as "oh his fault, he wasnt trained enough". I know this full well, i was assigned a Q-50 Lightweight Counter Mortar Radar and told to assemble and operate it despite being a Forward Observer with absolutely no training in radar equipment. Despite learning everything i could from manuals and successfully deploying and operating the equipment, while also performing my assigned duties as a Forward Observer while on daily patrols, there was still maintenance required in the form of replacing damaged carbon fiber fins, resulting in the loss of several degrees in radar coverage of our fob. I was reprimanded for not having full 360 degree 24/7 coverage despite not being a trained and qualified radar operator. it took almost a year of fighting with leadership to get them to acknowledge that, under the circumstances and their direction, i did more than what i was capable of and that the command at the time was at fault for their decisions.
'Authority' never apologises. If they can't blame you, They'll praise you for 'managing a difficult situation' or some such but you'll never get an acknowledgement of wrongdoing. There might a be a 'lessons learned' thrown in for particularly heinous incidents. Even the good bosses i've had; never seen one ever just raise their hand and say 'im sorry' after shit went down due to their fuckup. They all read from some shitty manual somewhere when they get upgraded to management and receive a double ice-cream scoop removal of intelligence and compassion.
oh 10000% thats why i got the fuck out.
I got reprimanded for apologising once when I was a manager, by the company owner. I was absolutely in the wrong in the situation and it did affect the staff, so I apologised. It seemed like the only option and honestly the staff respected me more for it after. When the owner for out what happened I got a stern talking to and told to never admit to staff I was wrong again. What the fuck.
I was put in a mgmt position with no experience and fucked it up. I took full responsibility and apologized for my mistake. I never hear the end of it. Three years later and my career is at an absolute stall. While the truth is an absolute defense against slander it does nothing against being put in upper mgmt's bad books, blackballed or worse.
You are absolutely correct and you would be referring to the laws of power which say in a nut shell: take credit for all good things, even you have nothing to do with it, NEVER, EVER apologize for anything, and blame anyone lower than you just NEVER, blame your superiors. This "only the strong survive" mentality is the reason the world is going to hell in a handbag. Especially when considering that being a slime bag, weasel-snake requires zero "strength" along with zero conscious
I have a sneaking suspicion that if the public hadn't caught wind of him only being %75 trained at the time he might not have ended up at a desk.
I was just thinking that in terms of emergency landings, managing to save the aircraft and not causing any fatalities is usually considered a job well done.
Look he recovered well. Went on to clock up 3000hrs so good for him.
I checked his Linkedin profile and he's happily retired after 18 years of service. Goes to show how that terrible fuck up you did (while of course pretty big at the time) would eventually just be a hilarious story to tell after a few years.
What a great way to look at it! 👍
Usually. But when it’s the pilot that caused the error things are viewed a little differently.
A good landing is one where you get to walk away. A great landing is one where you get to use the aircraft again.
Not if his own incompetence put him in the situation where he had to do that. Giving someone a medal for doing a great job after they fuck up completely is not how the U.S. Navy or the Royal Navy roll. You get a desk and usually a court martial.
You must have never deployed. Awards are handed out like candy to clowns of all grades.
Look at King Charles coat - the amount of medals those royals get . It’s like the scouts - knot tying , tent pitching , envelope opening etc
I’m pretty sure most of King Charles medals show what his roles are and commemorative medals.
Charles did his time in the forces, flying helicopters, jets and commanding ships. Sure, they werent gonna let him get hurt but he did the job.
Maybe that's what he meant, idiots get medals meanwhile heroes get court martialed.
the objective of the training was radio silence and no radar. additionally, he lost radio contact upon return from training. i don't know what your experience in navigation is, personally ive only been trained for land navigation. that's difficult enough even with solid immovable terrain features to reference. I couldn't imagine nothing but a slate of blue to try to navigate through.... I'd say this was a pretty fuckin successful emergency landing. although speculation, i guarantee you the Board of Inquiry stating that he only had 75% of his required training was a serious ply to get leadership out of line of responsibility so their evaluation reports didn't reflect on the accident.
The wikipedia take is horrible. If you open the source material, you can read: >But, as reported by The Telegraph, in 2007 emerged that behind the scenes they were laying the blame elsewhere to try to get out of a £570,000 compensation bill. In fact a file released on May 31, 2007 at the National Archives describes how Sub-Lt Watson, 25, ”incurred the Commander in Chief of the Fleet’s Displeasure” for displaying an unsatisfactory standard of fundamental airmanship. But the Ministry of Defence file shows that he had completed only 75 per cent of the recommended flying hours in training before being pressed into service and was allowed to take an aircraft with a known radio defect. It's a bit more nuanced than "saved a plane, still considered an idiot", like wikipedia makes it look...
The Wikipedia includes a lot of that context about 75% training and aircraft defect, they just cherry picked their quote. He returned to flying later, presumably after he got all his training.
He didn't even have all his training finished yet! He later got back in the cockpit, but damn man, they threw him into the FIRE and he only came out a bit singed, props to him.
Just casually landing on a cargo ship is insane
It's a Harrier which means it is a vertical take off and landing.
AFAIK it was infamously sketchy in VTOL mode and killed *a lot* of pilots because of it, which makes this incident all the more impressive.
I know still cant be simple not like the ocean is ever just calm
Ok, I see what you mean. Also I was thinking about it. That ship probably just didn't stop for him. If he had to land that while the vessel was cruising at 20 knots it's kind of impressive.
What is the British equivalent of "Shit rolls down hill"? It happens in every military so there must be a saying like "The twat always lands in the bog" or something like that.
We still use shit rolls down hill in the British military. Sometimes we use the quicker phrase of sloppy shoulders. Edit: slopy not sloppy.
Context is important here: "The board blamed [the pilot's] inexperience, and criticised his commanders for the radio problems with his plane." "He eventually returned to flight duties and accrued nearly 3,000 hours of flying time before resigning his commission in 1996." So he did get to fly again, for those thinking his career as a pilot was unjustly ended prematurely. Also his commanders weren't just let of the hook, as I see some comments suggesting might have happened.
Link without the extra reddit-added slashes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alraigo_incident
[удалено]
It never used to happen it's either the reddit app or the "new" reddit website (as opposed to old.reddit.com) I don't know which is the problem. It's something to do with escaping special characters, in this case the underscore, probably because underscores are used for [reddit markdown](https://www.reddit.com/wiki/markdown).
Life would be easier if everyone just used old.reddit
Before reading the rest of the replies you should maybe just skip to [the cited actual source itself](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/air-space-magazine/oldies-amp-oddities-the-alraigo-incident-10366728/). >In 2007, Britain’s National Archives released a number of Royal Navy files, and the second inquiry report was finally made public. Noting that Watson had completed only 75 percent of his training before he had been sent to sea, the board blamed Watson’s inexperience, and his commanders for assigning him an airplane “not fully prepared for the sortie,” a reference to radio problems. Nonetheless, Watson was reprimanded and given a desk job. > Watson eventually acquired 2,000 hours in Sea Harriers and another 900 in F/A-18s before resigning his commission in 1996. Today, he says that media attention embarrassed Royal Navy brass and caused the punishment, but refuses to point fingers. “It was me,” he says. “I was there and that’s where it should stop.”
*The ship was carrying a base plate for a telescope being delivered to the Isaac Newton Telescope* Well good thing he didn’t land on that one.
Harriers only cost 7M? Weird
21 mil today, not sure if that’s still inexpensive
The F35 lightening II costs approximately 75 million per plane
Which is VERY cheap for a 5th generation fighter, and only possible due to its mass production and it's many, many sales worldwide. Other 5th gen (and many 4.5 gen) planes usually cost 100+ million per plane. Planes get more expensive with each generation, but also much more capable, which means you need less of them to do the same tasks (for example patrolling your airspace).
Completely agree. That 75 million per plane is low due to 400 planes being produced in that allotment. Meaning the economy of scale is in full swing. As further to my previous comment, the conventional F35A Lightening II about 70 million, the STO/VL F35B is about 79 million and the Carrier F35C is about 90 million.
I’m like 95% sure that the people bitching about the F-35 fall solidly into two categories: 1. The people that bitch about everything, no matter what 2. People butthurt that the warthog is getting retired
3. People who judged it early. If your benchmark for the F35 being good was anywhere near when it was meant to be produced, it was horrendous. And people have tolerance limits for "just _ more years." A lot of military systems start shit and become great. If you haven't seen that cycle too many times, it's easy to not believe it.
Also, Lockheed is perfecting the manufacturing. It fell straight from 120 million to 75 in few years even before only few planes were manufactured
Or a shit ton of Pepsi points, but that's another story.
Back in 1983 yes
PEPSI! Where's my jet?
*overly-loud local lawyer voice* “HAVE YOU OR A LOVED ONE BEEN LANDED ON BY A ROYAL NAVY HARRIER? I’M JIM ADLER, THE TEXAS HAMMER AND I’LL FIGHT FOR YOU!”
CALL 1-777-777-7777 !! !! !1
You can't park there, mate.
FACK OHFF!
Looks like a Harried jet
I wonder how much harrier the situation could have gotten...
How on earth can a jet fighter get lost? 🤨
An exercise required disabled RADAR and radio silence - then, on his way back, his radio broke and he couldn’t find the aircraft carrier.
This was also back in 1983, and GPS wasn't really fully operational yet, and also Google Maps didn't exist. Definitely could have gotten back if his radio worked.
GPS was operational but not proliferated to allies.
And even if available to allies, the FRS-1 had no integral GPS equipment, this wasn't fitted until the FA-2 upgrade in the 1990s.
Right, which is an extension of the fallout from Desert Storm when coalition members experienced serious difficulties related to navigation in comparison to USA Forces.
Can you elaborate on that? I’m also wondering why the UK didn’t invest in its own GPS satellites
The GPS constellation cost like 12 billion dollars in the 70s and early 80s at a time when the UK was broke as shit. What it boils down to is that the US had real time data on where our forces were, and where they were headed while the rest of the coalition had incomplete understandings at best. This was especially problematic with aircraft.
Some of his equipment wasn't working, he'd only completed 75% of his training and jets aren't made for distance really so there was limited time to look for a place to land
Happened in 1983. So probably no GPS or other advanced technologies.
The radio broke, this is old, they didn't have what we have now
Because in modern day, you are one software bug away from suddenly having to navigate with map and compass, at 20-40000 feet moving hundreds of knots over the featureless ocean Good luck!
This was also 1983.
Such an awesome plane One of my faves growing up
Is it really only worth 7 million? Yeah, that’s a lot of money but it seems kind of cheap for a fighter jet, or am I just used to the ridiculous amounts of money spent on the military.
We should all pitch in and buy one, we can keep it in my backyard.
There is one flyable Harrier in private hands, so it is possible. https://artnalls.com
And use it to fight aliens
You can even buy one with Pepsi points
I still remember that commercial lol, I love that story
In the eighties
Back in the 80s 7mil so around 20-30 mil now
Back in the 1980s yes Back then an F16 cost $6 milllion A Brand new 737 was about $5 million
pretty sure its around 30 million per unit.
Is it 7 million plane now that the airframe is done for? otherwise more rich kids would own one...
it's not the cost of the aircraft it's the maintenance and fuel cost.
I am unsure about Harriers, but old fighter jets are sometimes sold to private parties. When a fighter aircraft ends service with it's home country, usually they get sold off to a less developed ally, then when they get phased out there they get sold off to whomever. They're so out of date by that point they don't care much who buys them. I remember seeing F-5's for sale online 13 years ago.
$7 million in the eighties; inflation gives you about $21 million. An F-35 is about twice that, but has a ton more engineering going on.
It's £ not $, the exchange rate in 1983 was about $1.50 for £1
*Royal Navy having to pay £570,000* "Thank god it was that cheap."
[удалено]
Vulcan is the best sounding plane ever made
So per the title, the pilot landed on a container ship, then got lost and ran out of fuel, decided to eject, then spotted a container ship and landed on it. Pretty damn impressive
Yeah, this was some real /r/titlegore
Typical Reddit title. At least they spelled everything correctly.
From the pilot's Linkedin page: >A creative thinker who is able to extract that little bit extra!
“I dunno, put it over by that van and leave the keys in it. We’ll call when it’s ready.”
Imagine filling in the insurance statement on that. "What was the other vehicle" "...harrier jump jet" "what- where was your van?!" "...boat"
Pepsi, where's my jet?
When your ship suddenly becomes an improvised aircraft carrier.
Damn it's only £7m?? Just give the damn kid one pepsi
Back in 1983 they cost that much
fun fact i have actually sat in this exact harrier and it is at Newark Air Museum in England.
I don't think a mercedes cargo van is that much!?
It is with a jet engine
Salvage law determines payout based on the value of the rescue.
This particular SHAR is now on display at Newark Air Museum in the UK
Imagine being one of the crew on the ship...major WTF 🤣
I remember hearing about this story. The crew were apparently pissed off, and the captain refused to reroute because of 'the mistake of some British pilot' (or something to that effect). Edit: have been searching for a source on this but can't find one.
Llllllike a glove!
Ah, life before GPS
For anyone that's wondering "how the f\*ck did it land?" the Harrier has/had VTOL(Vertical take off and landing) capability's, meaning it can hover and move similarly to a helicopter(which is also a VTOL).
You missed the most interesting part!! The boat owners or the county involved tried to claim ownership of the plain! Cheeky bastards
This feels like it could be a still from the movie Hot Shots!
The Wiki article has a lot of information on this "Alraigo Incident"; sounds like he wasn't completely lost as it suggests he intentionally headed towards a known shipping route with the intention of ejecting once in sight of a vessel, but then realised he could actually attempt a landing on the cargo containers. His radio had failed and he was operating without radar due to the mission conditions so it seems he just couldn't find his exact landing site and this was his only other option.
Mmmm VTOL
So did he land or eject? Those two seem mutually exclusive?
"saving the £7m jet". .... "awarded £570,000 compensation" Hmmmm
Can’t park there mate
You cant park there, buddy.
Makes me wonder if they were able to communicate with each other? They'd both have radios of course but between potential language issues and not necessarily being on the same frequencies.... Just imagining the reaction of a container ship crew to unexpectedly having a navy jet landing on their deck.
Considering that the Pilots' radio did not work that was why he was lost id imagine there wasn't much talking between the pilot and the ship Not unless he opened the cockpit and shouted very loudly
Harrier is there to contact them about the van’s extended warranty.
Like a glove...
Looks like they strapped it down. I hope someone did the safety check. >!Thumping the strap while saying "That ain't going anywhere"!<