US Air Force News

The theory and practice of the Profession of Arms through the ages.
User avatar
Pdf27
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2022 10:49 pm

Re: US Air Force News

Post by Pdf27 »

MikeKozlowski wrote: Thu Jun 20, 2024 10:55 amThe uniform inspections had BETTER simply be for utility uniforms - as nearly as I can tell, there's damned few people anymore who go to work in blues every day any more. There's NO reason a utility uniform can't be pressed/lightly starched, and boots at least brushed to get the dust off 'em. And overall, there shouldn't be a shop that can't take ten minutes in the morning to check everybody out.
If you need a formal inspection to be mandated from on high to ensure that people turn up for work correctly dressed, you've got all sorts of problems with your NCO corps.
MikeKozlowski wrote: Thu Jun 20, 2024 10:55 amThe shaving waivers are a touchier subject, but I'll say this - if it's to the point where the senior leadership is saying things, it can't be good. Religious beard exemptions...I'll be straight up with you: unless you're a Sikh, you're going to have to convince me. My feeling is that if USAF has chaplains in a given faith that requires a beard in recognized scripture, then make your case. If not, then maybe My Beloved Service isn't a good fit for you. And regardless, there need to be monthly inspections/reviews of any beard waivers.
One of the quotes in the article got me thinking here:
Senior Enlisted Advisor to the Chairman Ramón Colón-López wrote:“But quit wasting our time on something that doesn’t have anything to do with kicking the enemy’s ass.”
In a related article, they included side-by-side photos of him in full uniform and when he was on deployment in Afghanistan, looking ally and complete with beard!
Image
Beards are fundamentally a matter of military fashion - after all moustaches are allowed - and possibly (there seems to be some dissension on this) the fit of face masks. The latter can be handled by mandating that they pass a mask fit test using their assigned equipment. The British Army just changed policy on this after much pearl-clutching, and not much seems to have happened apart from a few photos in the press.
War is less costly than servitude. The choice is always between Verdun and Dachau. - Jean Dutourd
kdahm
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2023 3:08 pm

Re: US Air Force News

Post by kdahm »

Historic USAF Court-Martial Hits Snag as Too Many Generals Struck from Jury Duty

https://www.airandspaceforces.com/air-f ... andidates/
Historic USAF Court-Martial Hits Snag as Too Many Generals Struck from Jury Duty
June 20, 2024 | By David Roza

SAN ANTONIO—The trial of the second Air Force general in history to face court-martial hit a snag June 19 as the court ran out of candidates for the eight-seat jury—called a panel in the military—whose members must either be higher-ranked than the defendant or pinned on the same rank before him.

Of the 16 generals considered so far, nine have been dismissed and seven cleared to serve on the panel for Maj. Gen. Phillip Stewart, who on March 21 pleaded not guilty to charges including sexual assault, conduct unbecoming an officer, and controlling an aircraft within 12 hours of consuming alcohol.

The potential jurors included two four-star generals, 12 three-stars, and two two-stars. Two lead Air Force major commands, four are MAJCOM deputy commanders, one is a Numbered Air Force commander, several are members of the Air Staff, and others are the heads of important centers across the country.

It is a mix never seen before in an Air Force court-martial. The only other Air Force general to have been court-martialed, Maj. Gen. William Cooley, was convicted of abusive sexual contact in 2022 by military judge alone.

Stewart was relieved as the head of the 19th Air Force, which oversees all Air Force pilot training, by Lt. Gen. Brian Robinson, the head of Air Education and Training Command (AETC), on May 9, 2023. If convicted on all charges, Stewart could face up to 60 years in prison, according to his defense counsel.

The two-star’s trial began with administrative proceedings at Joint Base San Antonio-Fort Sam Houston, Texas, on June 17, followed by two days of “voir dire,” where the trial counsel and defense evaluate potential panel members for bias that could cloud their judgment.

Of the 16 considered for panel service, three generals were dismissed over the weekend, while 13 traveled to Texas to take part in a group voir dire session followed by individual voir dire.

“This is my first time speaking with 13 general officers,” trial counsel Lt. Col. Peter Havern said during group voir dire.

Stewart requested a trial by a panel of his peers back in March. But the field of candidates is relatively small: there are just 39 lieutenant generals and 11 generals in Active-Duty service, plus a small group from among 68 major generals who pinned on before Stewart.

The defense team also has a wide margin to challenge the jurors’ impartiality. Besides being the right rank, panel members must also be considered free of actual bias and implied bias. Actual bias might take the form of a member explicitly stating a biased view or if they have a close connection with the defendant.

But the standard for implied bias is more vague. A defense team could make a case for implied bias if a panel member has served as a convening authority (the ranking officer overseeing a court-martial) for a trial involving sexual assault, or even if they received extra training for how to oversee such cases.

“The implied bias standard is basically would a neutral member of the public who knows all the facts of the case have concerns about that person sitting as a court member?” retired Col. Don Christensen, a former chief prosecutor of the Air Force who is not involved in the case, told Air & Space Forces Magazine. “What’s that mean? Who knows … it’s pretty wild wild west when it comes to implied bias.”

A long-standing principle called the “liberal grant mandate” means military judges are mandated to err on the side of granting a challenge rather than deny it and risk the perception of bias.

Throughout the voir dire process, attorneys scrutinized the generals’ past service as convening authorities; their past interactions with Stewart; their professional and personal relationships with each other; and their beliefs and opinions on alcohol, adultery, and consent.

“We grew up in the Air Force together,” one of the court members said about his fellow generals, none of whom said they had a close relationship with Stewart, though nearly all had occasional professional interactions with him in the past.

“If I’ve drank bourbon twice with you, it’s a close professional relationship,” said another general, who said he had that relationship with several fellow panel members but not with Stewart.

At times the voir dire process became deeply personal, with general officers sharing stories of family members, loved ones, and staff members who had experienced sexual assault. That kind of experience was often cited by Stewart’s defense team as a basis for implied bias.

Another factor the defense team frequently cited as grounds for bias was whether the court member had a close working relationship with a widely known major general who the trial counsel plans to call as a witness. Still another was whether or not the court member expected Stewart to testify, with the defense citing the possibility that if Stewart does not testify it would color panel members’ judgement.
Context

Throughout voir dire, attorneys on both sides noted multiple times the importance of public perception that the trial is conducted fairly and impartially. In the past, general officers such as Maj. Gen. Thomas Fiscus and Brig Gen. Richard Hassan were demoted or allowed to retire rather than face court-martial after investigations found they had made inappropriate sexual advances on 13 women, or sexually harassed their subordinates, respectively.

Not until Cooley’s trial in April 2022 did any Air Force general officer endure a court-martial, but Stewart’s defense team fears the pendulum has swung too far.

“It’s looking more and more like a kangaroo court,” defense team member Jeffrey Addicott told Air & Space Forces Magazine in January, about three months after the presiding officer at Stewart’s preliminary hearing recommended the case not proceed to court-martial.

Christensen described the presiding officer, Col. Brian Thompson, as a highly-experienced former prosecutor, but Lt. Gen. Brian Robinson, head of Air Education and Training Command, decided to refer all charges to court-martial anyway. In January, Stewart filed a request to retire in lieu of court-martial, but the request was denied.

In the past, “you would often see, particularly general officers, get slapped on the wrist and then retire quietly,” Christensen at the time. “This one can’t be retired quietly because there is a lot of media interest in it.”

Christensen said the close scrutiny of court members could be part of the defense team’s strategy.

“I think they’re trying to say ‘we don’t think you can seat eight members,’ and they can make it so painful for the government that they let him retire,” he said. “I could be wrong but the large part of me thinks the strategy is: ‘the Air Force never had to seat a panel of general officers, let’s see if you can do it.’”
Next Steps

With just seven panel members, it will be at least a few more days before the court-martial can select an eighth member and then proceed to opening arguments. After court went into recess on June 19, the trial counsel sent Robinson, the convening authority, a list of new members to consider for jury duty.

Assuming Robinson can detail those members early in the morning of June 20 and notify them immediately, those members have until 5 p.m. Central Time on June 20 to fill out a pre-voir dire questionnaire, then report to the Fort Sam Houston courtroom by 8:30 in the morning on June 22. The full panel is expected to reconvene at 8:30 in the morning on June 24.

It was not clear how many more generals were included in this second set, but even if the court reaches eight panel members, the defense can still opt to go judge alone.

Though they had to travel far from demanding and important jobs, only one of the first 13 generals who participated in voir dire early this week expressed any frustration at being detailed as a court member, and just two expressed any doubt that they could be free and impartial, despite numerous opportunities to get out of jury duty by expressing otherwise.

Some of that apparent willingness to serve may be out of a wish to help shape the image of the Air Force in a high-visibility trial, Christensen said, but some of it may also be borne out of their own past experience as convening authorities.

“They have all selected panels to do exactly what they’re doing and they all heard people whining ‘I can’t do this, let me off, general’,” he said. “And they’ve all had to say, ‘no, this is your duty.’ So I would hope that they would want to stay.”

Stewart’s charges include six specifications:

Two specifications of violating Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, failing to obey a lawful order or regulation, first for allegedly failing “to refrain from pursuing an unprofessional relationship” and second for allegedly controlling an aircraft within 12 hours after consuming alcohol. The first specification allegedly dates to March 6 and May 9, while the second allegedly dates to on or about April 14 at or near Altus Air Force Base, Okla.
Two specifications of violating Article 120 of the UCMJ, which covers rape and sexual assault, for alleged nonconsensual sexual contact, dated on or about April 13 and 14 at Altus.
One specification of violating Article 133 of the UCMJ, conduct unbecoming an officer, at or near Denver, Colo., on or about March 6 and March 8, where it alleges that Stewart, “while on official travel, wrongfully invite [redacted] to spend the night alone with him in his private hotel room[.]”
And one specification of violating UCMJ Article 134, which refers to “all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces,” for allegedly engaging “in extramarital conduct” on or about April 13 and 14 at or near Altus.
1. Based on the facts as reported, hte USAF is quite right to try him instead of allowing him to resign in disgrace
2. Only two Generals court martialed? The USAF has been entirely too lenient to flag officers, like the rest of the services
3. What's wrong with getting flag officers from other branches to serve on a jury, if needed. Surely Army and Marine Generals and Navy Admirals are qualified....
4. Someone also needs to go through his past with a fine toothed comb, because if he did what was described, then it definitely wouldn't be first time. And has he infected his proteges through the years with the same poison?
User avatar
jemhouston
Posts: 3837
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2022 12:38 am

Re: US Air Force News

Post by jemhouston »

Could they recall Generals to serve on the panel?
MikeKozlowski
Posts: 1428
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2022 9:46 pm

Re: US Air Force News

Post by MikeKozlowski »

jemhouston wrote: Mon Jun 24, 2024 5:16 pm Could they recall Generals to serve on the panel?
Plenty of generals in the Guard and Reserve. I remember an instance in the early 80s where our DCM - an 06 - was busted for stealing air conditioners and toilet paper.

Not kidding, really happened, moving on.

They activated an 06 in the Michigan ANG to do the honors. He never went to CM, but HQ8AF was not playing around.

Mike
User avatar
Pdf27
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2022 10:49 pm

Re: US Air Force News

Post by Pdf27 »

Can we build a special jail cell for him at Minot pour encourager des autres?
War is less costly than servitude. The choice is always between Verdun and Dachau. - Jean Dutourd
User avatar
jemhouston
Posts: 3837
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2022 12:38 am

Re: US Air Force News

Post by jemhouston »

Pdf27 wrote: Mon Jun 24, 2024 6:24 pm Can we build a special jail cell for him at under Minot pour encourager des autres?

Fixed it for you.
Johnnie Lyle
Posts: 2710
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2022 2:27 pm

Re: US Air Force News

Post by Johnnie Lyle »

jemhouston wrote: Mon Jun 24, 2024 7:41 pm
Pdf27 wrote: Mon Jun 24, 2024 6:24 pm Can we build a special jail cell for him at under Minot pour encourager des autres?

Fixed it for you.
Underground is not sufficiently visible and entirely too well insulated.
User avatar
jemhouston
Posts: 3837
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2022 12:38 am

Re: US Air Force News

Post by jemhouston »

Johnnie Lyle wrote: Mon Jun 24, 2024 8:03 pm
jemhouston wrote: Mon Jun 24, 2024 7:41 pm
Pdf27 wrote: Mon Jun 24, 2024 6:24 pm Can we build a special jail cell for him at under Minot pour encourager des autres?

Fixed it for you.
Underground is not sufficiently visible and entirely too well insulated.
Put the bars on top
Johnnie Lyle
Posts: 2710
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2022 2:27 pm

Re: US Air Force News

Post by Johnnie Lyle »

jemhouston wrote: Mon Jun 24, 2024 8:42 pm
Johnnie Lyle wrote: Mon Jun 24, 2024 8:03 pm
jemhouston wrote: Mon Jun 24, 2024 7:41 pm


Fixed it for you.
Underground is not sufficiently visible and entirely too well insulated.
Put the bars on top
Still blocks the wind and the earth provides cooling/heating.

Plus the miscreant could drown and thus escape punishment.
kdahm
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2023 3:08 pm

Re: US Air Force News

Post by kdahm »

Remember, innocent until proven guilty.

Now if guilty...
1. General population at Leavenworth.
2. Nice cozy cell at Barksdale, being issued a broom, dustpan, and wheelybin every day for the cleaning of the flightline
3. Weather officer at Attu or Kiska
4. Make a cell with a glass-fronted office just inside the main entrance to the Pentagon. Give him utterly pointless paperwork to process, like backlogged records from the Cold War. Hang up a sign over the windows reading, "pour encourager les autres" and "Another cell is waiting"
5. If Minot, I'm sure some of the old weapon storage bays are empty and would only need a portacan added to inhabitable. By Marine standards, anyway. And it'd certainly be secure stowage.
6. Require to attend remotely every sex harassment and discrimination session given by the USAF worldwide. With the mike and camera off, of course.
User avatar
Pdf27
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2022 10:49 pm

Re: US Air Force News

Post by Pdf27 »

jemhouston wrote: Mon Jun 24, 2024 7:41 pm
Pdf27 wrote: Mon Jun 24, 2024 6:24 pm Can we build a special jail cell for him at under Minot pour encourager des autres?
Fixed it for you.
Nope. The full quote is from Candide and reads "il est bon de tuer de temps en temps un amiral pour encourager les autres" - it is good from time to time to kill an admiral to encourage the others.
The point I was trying to make was that certain US Air Force commands appear to have some serious issues with professionalism and would benefit from an example of just how seriously the US Air Force takes living up to their values & standards. Minot being an obvious example. Another potential location which would be helpful is the gatehouse of the US Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, again to set an example to future generals of exactly what is expected of them.
War is less costly than servitude. The choice is always between Verdun and Dachau. - Jean Dutourd
Johnnie Lyle
Posts: 2710
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2022 2:27 pm

Re: US Air Force News

Post by Johnnie Lyle »

Pdf27 wrote: Tue Jun 25, 2024 5:23 am
jemhouston wrote: Mon Jun 24, 2024 7:41 pm
Pdf27 wrote: Mon Jun 24, 2024 6:24 pm Can we build a special jail cell for him at under Minot pour encourager des autres?
Fixed it for you.
Nope. The full quote is from Candide and reads "il est bon de tuer de temps en temps un amiral pour encourager les autres" - it is good from time to time to kill an admiral to encourage the others.
The point I was trying to make was that certain US Air Force commands appear to have some serious issues with professionalism and would benefit from an example of just how seriously the US Air Force takes living up to their values & standards. Minot being an obvious example. Another potential location which would be helpful is the gatehouse of the US Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, again to set an example to future generals of exactly what is expected of them.
Large pieces of the US in general have serious issues with professionalism and using their goddamn brains. A major piece of the problem is that we do a very poor job of holding people accountable for professional failure.

It’s notable that the two courts martial of general officers noted were for sexual misconduct. That will (as it damn well should) get you a court, but most of the other professional failures that will get people killed when we end up in some damn fool shooting war do not.
MikeKozlowski
Posts: 1428
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2022 9:46 pm

Re: US Air Force News

Post by MikeKozlowski »

...UPDATE: General Snookums got the hint and pled guilty:

https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your ... n-of-duty/

I don't see him doing a minute of hard time, but I'd be willing to bet he gets dropped back a star or two, with the concomitant hit to his pension.

Mike
Drunknsubmrnr
Posts: 332
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2022 2:35 am

Re: US Air Force News

Post by Drunknsubmrnr »

We had something similar with the CF recently. Twice.

First time with the chief military judge, second time with the CDS. They both ended up pleading guilty.
kdahm
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2023 3:08 pm

Re: US Air Force News

Post by kdahm »

MikeKozlowski wrote: Tue Jun 25, 2024 11:57 am ...UPDATE: General Snookums got the hint and pled guilty:

https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your ... n-of-duty/

I don't see him doing a minute of hard time, but I'd be willing to bet he gets dropped back a star or two, with the concomitant hit to his pension.

Mike
And more than one person here is hoping that the cold dead hands of General Curtis LeMay rise up out of the ground and let this alleged gentleman know what he thinks of the alleged gentleman's actions.
Craiglxviii
Posts: 2110
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2022 7:25 am

Re: US Air Force News

Post by Craiglxviii »

Pdf27 wrote: Tue Jun 25, 2024 5:23 am
jemhouston wrote: Mon Jun 24, 2024 7:41 pm
Pdf27 wrote: Mon Jun 24, 2024 6:24 pm Can we build a special jail cell for him at under Minot pour encourager des autres?
Fixed it for you.
Nope. The full quote is from Candide and reads "il est bon de tuer de temps en temps un amiral pour encourager les autres" - it is good from time to time to kill an admiral to encourage the others.
The point I was trying to make was that certain US Air Force commands appear to have some serious issues with professionalism and would benefit from an example of just how seriously the US Air Force takes living up to their values & standards. Minot being an obvious example. Another potential location which would be helpful is the gatehouse of the US Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, again to set an example to future generals of exactly what is expected of them.
Did you do Candide with Mrs Halborg? I just had really disturbing flashbacks.
User avatar
Pdf27
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2022 10:49 pm

Re: US Air Force News

Post by Pdf27 »

Craiglxviii wrote: Tue Jun 25, 2024 5:30 pmDid you do Candide with Mrs Halborg? I just had really disturbing flashbacks.
Nah, gave it up earlier to do ridiculous amounts of maths.
War is less costly than servitude. The choice is always between Verdun and Dachau. - Jean Dutourd
Craiglxviii
Posts: 2110
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2022 7:25 am

Re: US Air Force News

Post by Craiglxviii »

Pdf27 wrote: Tue Jun 25, 2024 6:35 pm
Craiglxviii wrote: Tue Jun 25, 2024 5:30 pmDid you do Candide with Mrs Halborg? I just had really disturbing flashbacks.
Nah, gave it up earlier to do ridiculous amounts of maths.
Cousins? O’Grady?
User avatar
Pdf27
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2022 10:49 pm

Re: US Air Force News

Post by Pdf27 »

Craiglxviii wrote: Tue Jun 25, 2024 6:55 pmCousins? O’Grady?
Those two, and the rest. The way it was set up they split the syllabus between four of them, but I did end up with three A-levels just in maths. Does send you a bit weird!
War is less costly than servitude. The choice is always between Verdun and Dachau. - Jean Dutourd
James1978
Posts: 1207
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2022 8:38 pm

Re: US Air Force News

Post by James1978 »

Whatever is afflicting the USAF is spreading . . . or at least becoming more apparent.
USAF crew faulted for Ellsworth B-1B crash
By Ryan Finnerty - Flight Global
26 July 2024

US Air Force investigators blame crew error for a January crash that saw the destruction of a Boeing B-1B Lancer strategic bomber.

The January 2024 incident occurred during a training flight from the aircraft’s (85-0085) home station of Ellsworth AFB in South Dakota. While attempting to make a night landing during poor weather conditions, the aircraft undershot the runway forcing a rare quadruple ejection of the B-1B’s crew.

All four aviators survived, but the $450 million bomber was deemed a total loss after skidding across the airfield and catching fire.

The lead investigator in the accident probe now says many of the factors that led to the catastrophic mishap are likely to be repeated.

In a report, Colonel Erick Lord said the inquiry found that “many failures leading to this mishap were not a one-time occurrence or an aberration”.

The crew’s failure to conduct a composite crosscheck during the approach was seen as the primary cause of the accident.

“The mission crew did not follow the low-visibility approach to land communication and flying responsibilities,” the report states.

The mishap pilot apparently failed to brief the remaining crew on the expected vertical velocity during the approach, which prevented weapon systems officers from performing an adequate crosscheck. The pilot also descended below 200ft above ground level without approval from the onboard instructor pilot.

“The mishap pilot did not effectively crosscheck the airspeed, descent rate, and projected aircraft flight path leading up to the mishap,” investigators conclude.

“By failing to crosscheck using his instruments effectively, the mishap pilot did not recognise the [aircraft’s] deviations from the desired airspeed, descent rate and aircraft flight path.”

Deteriorating weather conditions during the winter training flight had forced the B-1B crew to cut the sortie short and attempt an instrument landing on a different runway than originally planned. The landing occurred during night hours with visibility even further reduced by dense fog in the local area, which investigators say exacerbated the Lancer crew’s deviation from established policy.

A ground-based flight supervisor also improperly directed the B-1B pilot to land on a runway that lacked adequate weather observation – violating a Notice to Airmen alert issued over the impaired visibility.

Investigators describe “undisciplined procedures” employed by the ground-based flight supervisors, including insufficient shift changeover and individual failure to review applicable airfield hazards, that resulted in the mishap B-1B making a dangerous and unauthorised approach.

As a result, the aircraft rapidly descended below its authorised altitude and impacted the ground before its intended landing zone.

While Lord notes that bad weather “substantially contributed” to the crash, he says a “culture of noncompliance and widespread deviation from established policy” among bomber crews within the B-1B squadron created the potential for such an incident.

“I find by a preponderance of the evidence that these leadership and climate issues directly contributed to the mishap,” he says in the investigation report.

He notes a failure by squadron leadership to conduct adequate supervision of flight operations and a lack of effective communication regarding airfield and weather conditions as examples of the poor safety culture at the 34th Bomb Squadron.

The investigation board also found an “unsatisfactory level of basic airmanship” within the Lancer squadron’s flight crews.

As further evidence of this, investigators note that the lead instructor pilot onboard the mishap aircraft apparently exceeded the maximum approved weight for the B-1B’s Collins Aerospace ACES II ejection seat, which is rated for 111kg (245lb) according to the USAF.

That individual apparently suffered more severe injuries during the ejection than the rest of the crew, according to the investigation report.

The B-1B ejection system is typically set so that an ejection initiated by one crew member triggers a rapidly sequenced firing of the remaining seats. This procedure is meant to prevent a collision between crew members.
B-1 bomber crash report blasts crew mistakes, culture of ‘complacency’
By Stephen Losey
July 25, 2024

The crew of a B-1B Lancer that crashed at Ellsworth Air Force Base in South Dakota in January failed to properly manage the bomber’s airspeed and angle of approach while landing, a scathing accident investigation board report found.

The investigation, which Air Force Global Strike Command released on July 25, also found that poor weather conditions, a lack of discipline, poor resource management and communication, and “an organizational culture that tolerated decaying airmanship skills” were among the other factors contributing to the Jan. 4 crash.

The report, signed by accident investigation board president Col. Erick Lord, criticized the 34th Bomb Squadron’s alleged lack of effective supervision of flying operations, and the 28th Operations Support Squadron’s alleged failure to communicate airfield and weather conditions, which “all speak to culture and leadership issues.” Investigators also said they found “unsatisfactory levels of basic airmanship” at the 34th.

“Many failures leading to this mishap were not a one-time occurrence or an aberration,” the report concluded. “The mishap occurred due to numerous factors, including a culture of noncompliance, widespread deviation from established policy and procedure, and several organizational influences and preconditions.”

Global Strike said the chain of command will take the appropriate corrective actions to address the problems highlighted in the report.

The four members of the bomber’s air crew ejected during the crash; two sustained injuries and were treated and released from a medical facility.

Fire engulfed the $451 million B-1 bomber, which was assigned to the 28th Bomb Wing at Ellsworth, and it was a total loss.

The B-1 bomber was one of two that took part in a routine training flight that began the afternoon of Jan. 4. Winds were calm when the pair of bombers took off, but during the roughly 90-minute flight, the weather worsened and dense fog began rolling across the airfield. The bombers cut their training flights short and headed back to the base.

The first bomber landed safely. But the fog left the crew of the doomed B-1 with low visibility as it approached the airfield, the report said, and the winds rapidly shifted during the flight’s final minute, speeding the bomber up. The pilot reduced the engine throttle three times to cut the bomber’s airspeed and stay on the right angle.

But when the wind stabilized, the report said the pilot didn’t dial the throttle back up to return the bomber to the right airspeed. The bomber dropped below its intended glide path and “became thrust deficient,” but the air crew didn’t realize the bomber’s vertical velocity had dropped before it became unrecoverable.

Four seconds before the crash, the instructor pilot on board called out “climb, climb, climb,” and then two seconds later repeated “climb.” The report said the data suggests that after the instructor’s final call to climb, the pilot hit the afterburners and pulled the control stick back, but by that point the bomber “was unrecoverable and out of control.”

The bomber first hit the ground about 100 feet shy of the runway overrun, and the crew compartment lost power and went dark. The crew then ejected. The bomber skidded for about 5,000 feet across the runway, veering to the left, before coming to a flaming halt in an infield between two runways.

The report found that the main cause of the crash was the crew’s lack of an effective “composite crosscheck,” a practice which brings together various instruments to keep track of how the aircraft is performing in a low-visibility environment. Had an effective crosscheck been performed, investigators found, the crew should have been able to tell the plane’s speed was dropping dangerously.

“The [mishap crew] succumbed to complacency and fixation, while the [mishap instructor pilot] was ineffective in his crew leadership and instructor supervision duties,” the report concluded.

Poor weather conditions – including icing conditions during the descent phase – and a lack of awareness of airfield conditions substantially contributed to the crash, investigators found.

The report said investigators did not find any maintenance issues contributed to the crash.

The loss of the bomber represented another blow to an already dwindling B-1 fleet, which now numbers 44.

The B-1, a conventional bomber that is not nuclear-capable, was flown extremely hard during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the fleet has suffered from serious maintenance problems as a result.

The Air Force retired 17 of the oldest and most worn-out B-1s in 2021 in an attempt to free up resources to maintain healthier planes, leaving it with 45. The service hopes to keep flying them, along with the B-2 Spirit and B-52 Stratofortress, until the B-21 Raider comes online. At some point in the 2030s, the Air Force plans to retire all its B-1s and B-2s.

Ellsworth halted B-1 operations the day after the crash and closed its runway for a month. Some Ellsworth B-1s were sent to Dyess Air Force Base in Texas during the investigation.

During that period, Ellsworth B-1s that had temporarily relocated to Dyess took part in strikes against Iran-linked targets in Iraq and Syria after drone strikes killed three U.S. troops and wounded dozens more.
Post Reply