In The Ever-Changing World Of Aviation, One Thing Remains: Fill & Download for Free

“Can you describe a moment you almost ‘lost it’ in the military?”I retired after exactly 20 years and 21 days in the U.S. Army. During that time, only one stands out: a training flight at COB Speicher sometime around November 2006.It was a result of a hellacious training cycle which started shortly after we arrived at the sprawling, former Iraqi Air Force training base not too far from Tikrit. From 20 August to 30 Nov 2009, I had logged 190.4 flight hours doing crewchief and medic progressions – academic and performance training on basic and mission skills. Six-hour flights – three during the day, break dinner, three at night for the night vision goggle (NVG) portion… in heat that could best be described as taking a fan, sticking it in an oven, and standing a foot from it wearing thermal underwear, flannel shirts, and a good winter coat.Miserable, yet the flights had to happen – the unit we relieved had left a handful of crew members behind so we could properly pull MEDEVAC coverage.I did not note the actual day this happened in my Excel flight log – I neglected to include any noteworthy remarks. However I do remember the two crew chiefs I was training: H and G. Bright kids – H was a diminutive yet determined Mexican, and G was a huge Dominican with a goofy fondness for outrageous humor. However, H had been in progression for a while due to an aberration in lining up the concurrent training of backseaters and pilots – namely one in particular: Charlie.Charlie was the type of person who could manage to get under ones’ skin just by opening his mouth. An overabundance of schooling with little emphasis on common sense, this guy was… well, for those who have served, he was the epitome of “THAT guy.” A poor communicator, a horrible leader, and a pilot who served best as a source of inspiration for anyone being able to graduate flight school, Charlie was… special.The moment in question where I almost “lost it” remains laser-etched into my mind. I was hot and seeking shade near the right side flare dispenser. The auxiliary power unit (APU) was on, the engines were off, and the pilots were in the middle of their flight controls and stabilator checks, where they verify free movement of both systems. The pilots were talking almost continuously on the internal communications system (ICS); Charlie was rattling off steps in the checklist and a “stream of consciousness” type monologue of extraneous verbiage while the instructor pilot (IP) constantly asked for clarification and Charlie’s justification for the steps he was performing.Wow… 12 years ago… almost to the day. (COB Speicher, Iraq. Source: author.)H had her role as well, but patiently waited for a break in the conversation from the cockpit as she stood on the left side of the aircraft by the tail. At the first opportunity, she chimed in to verify the movement of the tail rotor blades and the stabilator.Charlie: “I wasn’t moving anything.”H (confused): “Um, yeah… you were.”Charlie: “You’re wrong – I wasn’t moving anything.”Me: “She was waiting for a break. They moved.”Charlie: “My feet were flat on the floor and I wasn’t doing anything.”Mind you, he had verbalized each step in a rapid-fire manner with seemingly no break for anything else, including a breath of air. The only way the IP could get a word in was probably to make a hand gesture or merely talk over Charlie.IP: “Wait… why are you disputing what your crewmember is telling you?”Charlie: “As her Platoon Leader, I have to make sure that she’s doing her job correctly.”I looked at G. We both shared the same incredulous look and unspoken comment: “What the fuck?”The IP proceeds to firmly remind Charlie that it is not his job to do so – that would be my domain. They talk a bit more about roles in and out of the aircraft and the IP poses the question: “Why are you questioning H?”Charlie: “I was calling her bluff.”Crew coordination is a complex theory where one learns how to effectively work as a crewmember in the very fluid and dangerous world of aviation. A two-man crew on an Apache or Kiowa can have serious problems just as easily as the 5-man crew on a Chinook if their ability to communicate is not built on standardized procedures, clear understanding of what is meant or about to happen, or – most importantly – implicit trust in the other crew members. For me, there is no “bluff” to be called.I had HAD it. The heat, the seemingly never-ending flights with Charlie, his overcompensation…I stood up and started walking forward towards the open pilots’ door where Charlie sat. Between the door and I was the right main landing gear tire… and the wooden chock blocks, joined together with a thick rope.The IP, sitting the co-pilots’ seat on the left side of the cockpit must have seen me moving quietly past the open cargo door and probably saw the expression on my face because he immediately started repeating “Hold on, hold on, hold on,” to no one in particular.I cannot say why the chock blocks were part of my crucial observation as I made my way to the door. No, really, I can’t say it – I still mull over terms like “probable cause,” “motive,” and “intent to do grievous bodily harm with large wooden blocks” and to this day, I view that moment as the closest I ever got to going to Ft. Leavenworth.However, the chocks stayed put and I positioned myself uncomfortably close to Charlie as he looked at the IP who had proceeded to verbally tear him a new sphincter. I don’t remember what exactly was said – I was probably as pissed as I can remember while performing duties as an instructor. I do remember that Charlie must had seen me in the reflection of the IP’s helmet visor; during the dressing-down, he refused to turn to look at me.IP: “…And don’t you EVER dispute what SGT Bennett tells you! You have a fraction of his time and experience… He is conducting his training and he is doing an excellent job! Is there anything you wanted to add, SGT Bennett?”Never before had I heard an IP so effectively curb a pilot; in doing so, the IP had effectively taken the angry wind out of my sails. “Only one thing: every time you do something like that, Charlie, you set my training back hours. I have to de-brief this as an example of how not to do things so that they have the confidence in other pilots and crew members.” There was a lot more I could have said, but to belabor the subject would be to stand even longer in the Iraqi sun and probably piss me off even more.Now that I think of it, that flight may have been terminated at that point by the IP. Charlie had been through seven other IP’s during those three months and more than likely a discussion was approaching about his future as an aviator. Oh, he flew more after that event but never did fully get the hang of working as a functional member of a crew and left our unit a few months later.Of course, there are other events… but those will have to wait for another time or a separate blog post, because getting punched in the face (accidentally on purpose, by mistake) is always a fun story…(Names have been changed for obvious reasons…)

This is an interesting mystery that has been unsolved for the last 66 years!Stanley Park in Vancouver, British Columbia is a 405-hectare (1,001 acres) public park that borders the downtown of Vancouver. It is almost entirely surrounded by the water of Vancouver Harbour and English Bay and is full of Hemlock, Cedar and Douglas Fir trees.Stanley Park is to Vancouver what Central Park is to New York!January 14th, 1953At around 10:30 am, a park gardener found two human skeletons. Due to the small size of the two skeletons, it was believed that they were of two children or a child and a woman.The remains were placed side by side and had been covered with a coat. Also found with the bones were a hatchet, a woman’s shoe, a rusted metal lunch box, bits of children’s clothing (a belt and two jacket zippers) and two leather aviator caps which used to be popular with little boys pretending to be Second World War flyers.Evidence found at the scene. (Photo Source: babesinthewoodsmurdercase.com)A wound in one skull matched the blade of the hatchet and the other skull had a wound from the hatchets end. A medical examiner determined that they were the skulls of a boy and a girl between the ages 5–7 and 7–9. It was also determined that the murders had taken place about 6 years before.From the beginning, the case was botched due to the examiner saying the skulls were those of a boy and a girl. In 1990, DNA analysis proved that the skulls were actually those of two boys. Before this discovery, the police had been searching school records and following up on tips in an attempt to identify a missing boy and a girl. With this new discovery, it completely changed the course of the investigation. Now they were looking for witnesses who had possibly seen a woman and two boys rather than a woman and a boy and girl.Now detectives had these leads to go on:• A woman who stayed in the New Haven Hotel with two boys, and then disappeared• A woman from Mission who hitchhiked to Stanley Park with her two young boys (the boys were wearing aviation helmets as well)• A woman (allegedly a prostitute) who lived with her father and two young boys in a house by the lighthouse at Prospect Point in Stanley Park• A woman and a man who was seen with two kids at Stanley Park with a hatchet. The woman was said to have disappeared into the woods with the kids and the man. She returned later with only the man. She also had blood all over her legs when she returnedThey followed up on all of these leads, but surprisingly, found that the children in question were still alive, or the dates and times did not line up with the actual murder.Over time, there was nothing more to go on and the case was put on hold.In 1996, more DNA testing was done and it was determined that the two boys were brothers but from different fathers.Thanks to the major advancement in DNA technology, in 2018 police were discussing putting the boys DNA samples into an online consumer database like Ancestry.com or 23AndMe.com to see if their identities could finally be discovered.Police believe that doing this could possibly reveal the names of relatives of the two boys. If they can find out the last names of those relatives then they can check school attendance records to see if boys matching those surnames suddenly stopped going to school sometime in the late 1940s.If they do indeed do this, then I hope it leads to something because otherwise, this case will remain unsolved forever! Maybe at least they will be able to give names to those two poor boys who murdered 66 years ago.The case is also known as “The babes in the woods murders” and is one of Vancouver's oldest unsolved mysteries.Sketches of the two boys. (Photo Source: vancouverpolicemuseum.com)(Photo Source: Eve Lazarus)

As you know, you go to war with what you have, not what you might want or wish to have at a later time." Donald RumsfeldThroughout the history of carrier aviation, it has been said that the first thing a President asks during times of crisis is: “Where is the nearest aircraft carrier?” Our nation’s aircraft carriers have and will continue to serve as the centerpiece for our National Security Strategy. Given the Administration’s recent embrace of the Navy’s “Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Sea Power” and the increased commitment to the Pacific Rim this holds true more now than ever before.Aircraft carriers provide four-and-a-half acres of survivable,sovereign U.S. territory wherever they deploy. They represent a unique warfare capability that can quickly arrive at a trouble spot and provide robust, and sustainable combat air power. The modern air wing can provide credible combat capacity with 80-125 air dominance, strike, electronic warfare and surveillance combat missions each day. Carriers are both responsive and capable of immediate action as they enable our nation to project power worldwide from the sea without dependence on other governments or local bases. By relying on aircraft carriers our country avoids the huge investment required to establish and maintain bases and infrastructure ashore in a foreign country. So there’s no question our nation needs its aircraft carriers- so the next question is why do we need 11? The combatant commanders request aircraft carrier presence the same way they request ground troops or aircraft deployments. Their staffs analyze the current environment and decide what forces they require to maintain peace, or if necessary, conduct combat operations. While wartime capacity and routine operational presence are very important they are not the only factors defining the need for 11 aircraft carriers. Maintenance required for the ship, and the training required to keep the crew combat ready are also essential considerations that have been studied and refined over the history of aircraft carrier operations.While continuously deploying two or three carriers overseas has become a normal practice, the current aircraft carrier inventory allows our country to “surge” more carriers to a hot spot if needed during an international crisis. During the Gulf War in the early 90s and again a decade later after the terrorist attacks of 2001, the Navy simultaneously deployed as many as six aircraft carriers for combat operations. We surged to six for Desert Storm in 1991, four for enduring Freedom in 2001, and six for Iraqi Freedom in 2003.The aircraft carriers that were in the training cycle or undergoing light maintenance were quickly made available for these operations. The aircraft carriers which were already deployed provided an immediate, credible and lasting combat capability until the other carriers and shore based forces could flow into the area. An aircraft carrier has large ammunition magazines, aircraft fuel storage tanks and supply storerooms. Everything that is required to support sustained combat flight operations is available in a single mobile package. Since the carrier can replenish any of these commodities at sea, not only do these carriers serve as first responders, they may also continue combat operations for many months.The best way to demonstrate why we need 11 aircraft carriers is to look at a recent typical day in the Navy. On that day, two carriers were deployed to the Middle East. Another carrier was under way to relieve one of those deployed carriers. Two carriers were underway near the coast of the United States conducting training. One carrier had just returned from deployment and was in a post-cruise stand-down period. Two were in-port for light maintenance and were conducting shore-based training events. Two were in various stages of a heavy maintenance period, and one was in a Refueling Complex Over-Haul (RCOH) period. So let’s add it up -- two deployed, one on its way, two underway for training, one in post deployment stand-down, two in-port for light maintenance/training, two in heavy maintenance and one in RCOH equals 11 total aircraft carriers. While on any given day these numbers may be somewhat different, the fact remains that the aircraft carrier fleet is kept busy with operational requirements, training and maintenance.A History of Fluctuating RequirementsDuring my early Pentagon tours, the prescribed requirement for aircraft carrier inventory was 15. I believe this requirement was based on the calculated minimum number of carriers required to support Major Combat Operations (MCOs) and provide routine presence. Over time it was decided that we could save money if we accepted additional risk by reducing the force to 12. Recently, we assumed even more risk by reducing the force to 11. While current law dictates that the Navy maintains the inventory at 11, Congress has given the Navy relief to allow the inventory to slip to 10 during the period between the decommissioning of the USS Enterprise(CVN 65) in 2012 and the delivery of USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) in 2015. I’m confident that number of carriers has the Navy’s operational schedulers scrambling to lay out the carrier schedules to meet the carrier presence requirements for the next few years.Maintenance- ‘Pay me now or Pay me Later’Typical maintenance periods range from six to 11 months, depending upon where the ship is in its comprehensive maintenance cycle. At the mid-point of its 50-year lifetime, the aircraft carrier will undergo a refueling complex overhaul (RCOH) that lasts about 44 months. Additionally, at any point in time there will probably be two carriers in heavy maintenance, and one carrier will be in the RCOH process. When the required maintenance or RCOH is complete, underway training commences for the next deployment.With some risk, maintenance can be deferred for short periods of time, but keep in mind that the maintenance schedules have been refined to an ideal interval given the experience of operating the ships. Deferring maintenance tends to be one of those “pay me now or pay me a whole lot more later” propositions that can upset the entire balance of the rotation cycle. With fewer carriers, more time will be spent underway meeting the presence requirements, and less time will be available to take care of the ever-important maintenance. This will cause increased risk for the crew and in the long run increase the cost of operations and maintenance.Operational Tempo and Sailor MoraleThere is also a different kind of risk associated with the longer deployments. Crew fatigue and morale can degrade over the course of a lengthened deployment. The son of one of my old shipmates is a naval aviator in an E-2C Hawkeye squadron that is currently deployed on an aircraft carrier. He is at the four-month point of what looks like will be an eight or nine-month cruise. He is already talking about everyday being the same; it is like being in the movie “Groundhog Day.” Quite likely the carrier fleet will continue to see deployments of eight or nine months for the next couple of years. It will be challenging for the commanding officer and air wing commander to keep the crew focused on safe and effective operations during the later stages of the deployment. The long time away from home may cause retention to slip from the current great statistics. This situation is less than ideal and will become expensive in that every sailor who decides the sacrifice is too hard and leaves the Navy will result in a requirement for a new recruit that must be found and trained. This is yet another example of the increased operational costs associated with trying to meet presence requirements with a smaller carrier fleet.I recently posted a discussion about my experiences about maintaining fleet readiness as a commanding officer of the aircraft carrier USSGeorge Washington (CVN 73). I provided a detailed discussion of how our Navy prepares our ships and crews for combat. In summary, the aircraft carriers that are not deployed undergo what is generally referred to as a turnaround training cycle. This period is made up of maintenance, training and some amount of time serving as an operationally ready aircraft carrier that can rapidly deploy in response to our nation’s needs. When an aircraft carrier returns from a deployment, it typically spends a couple weeks in a post-cruise stand-down for the crew. After the post-cruise stand-down, the ship may maintain a ready-carrier condition for a few months or it may transition into a maintenance period that could last from a few months to nearly a year. Determining the schedule for the carrier fleet is a very dynamic balancing act that flexes to meet the needs of our country.In combat, a fighter pilot always expects to “rise to the occasion” but in fact he will always fall back to his level of training.” Lt (jg) Bill “Willy” Driscoll, Navy AceThe length of the turnaround cycle is also important for the carrier air wing. This time is needed to conduct shore-based training and perform maintenance and upgrades to the aircraft. The air wing typically spends several months in weapons and tactics training prior to deploying aboard the ship. Occasionally the air wing squadrons may require several months of non-deployed time to transition to a new or upgraded aircraft.Can’t Predict an Unpredictable Security EnvironmentOne area where we can change the schedule, of course with risk, is to provide less presence globally. However, providing less presence is an open acknowledgement that our country will not continue to influence the world in the manner we have in the past. There are critics who contend that our enemies will defeat us in the financial world, not on the battlefield. Maybe that will be our downfall in the end, but if we give up our ability to defend ourselves, the sea lanes and our allies anywhere in the world, our world will rapidly change in what I predict will be disastrous ways. When I was a junior officer in my E-2C Hawkeye squadron, a few of my friends would like to have lofty discussions about the world, our Navy and carrier aviation. We would argue about the value of presence. We would describe how we each thought our presence made a difference in the world. We talked about how our presence influenced bad actors into deciding not to do bad things. The problem with our argument is that we had no proof. How do you prove that something didn’t happen because the carrier was right off a bad actor’s coast … or might have been? After all of these years, I still can’t prove that our presence prevented disasters, but one thing I do know is that on all of my deployments we were able to make a difference because we were there and responded to the aggression of others. On every one of my deployments, I can think of at least one event that was of historical significance. Let me run down the list of operations that my shipmates and I participated in during 10 cruises: Iranian hostage crisis, evacuation of Palestine Liberation Organization from Lebanon (twice), Grenada, response to the Beirut Marine barracks bombing, several freedom of navigation operations off Libya, response to the murder of Col. William R. Higgins, Operation Southern Watch in southern Iraq (three times), Kosovo, several presence operations off the coast of North Korea, operations in Afghanistan (four times), and combat operations in Iraq (three times). Our arrival on the scene was often all that was needed to quiet a belligerent, but sometimes our warfighting capabilities were put into action. Either way, the aircraft carrier has and will continue to impact history, to what degree will be a direct result of the size of aircraft carrier fleet.Finally, it will be interesting to watch our aircraft carrier fleet over the next few years. With only 10 carriers available for operations, something must change in the way we operate. What will change? Will it be less presence overseas, longer deployments or less maintenance? In my view, none are good options.Recent headlines provide part of the answer to my question:Eisenhower aircraft carrier strike group deploys for 9 months ... "Navy says will be the longest of its type in a decade." (Associated Press)