Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21

Thread: Former Blue Angels CO relieved

  1. #11
    Senior Member Absinthe Anecdote's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Baltimore
    Posts
    3,669
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sandsjames View Post
    Quick question. How does one "inadvertently" mail something to a Washington Post editor?
    That's a very astute observation, I'm not sure I would have noticed that.

    It could have been a case of the sender forwarding several authorized attachments that inadvertently included the internal memo that wasn't intended to be sent.

    So if they didn't properly scrub all the attachments, a document could be inadvertently sent.
    All behold that fancy strutting peacock, the bake sale diva...

  2. #12
    Senior Member Stalwart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Annapolis, MD
    Posts
    1,055
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sandsjames View Post
    Quick question. How does one "inadvertently" mail something to a Washington Post editor?
    I don't know. Auto-complete when typing an email address maybe ...

  3. #13
    Banned sandsjames's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,984
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Absinthe Anecdote View Post
    That's a very astute observation, I'm not sure I would have noticed that.

    It could have been a case of the sender forwarding several authorized attachments that inadvertently included the internal memo that wasn't intended to be sent.

    So if they didn't properly scrub all the attachments, a document could be inadvertently sent.
    Thanks for the clarification. I didn't think of that.

  4. #14
    Senior Member BENDER56's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    At the beach, out of reach
    Posts
    561
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    I read a lengthy article about this when the story broke, which I can't find right now.

    One odd thing the story mentioned was that during McWherter's first tour as the Boss, he had to correct exactly this same type of behavior. He squelched the frat-boy hijinks and cleaned the place up.

    Then he returns and allows the squadron to backslide. Hell, it seemed as though he actively abetted the backslide. I don't get it.
    "Every society honors its live conformists and its dead troublemakers."
    ~Mignon McLaughlin

  5. #15
    Junior Member forcedj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Portsmouth, RI
    Posts
    23
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Stalwart View Post
    I don't know. Auto-complete when typing an email address maybe ...
    Maybe left his CAC in his Unattended computer.

    Dan
    CTOC(AW), USN, Retired

    Recruit Training Command (Company 50), Orlando, FL Dec 1981-Jan 1982; CTO "A" and "C" schools NTTC Corry Station, Pensacola, FL Feb-Oct 1982; USS Saratoga (CV-60) 1982-1985; USS Forrestal (CV-59) 1985-1988; ONI Det Naval War College, Newport, RI 1988-1991; NAVSECGRUACT Terceira Island, Azores, Portugal 1991-1992; NAVSECGRUACT Rota, Spain 1992-1995; National Security Agency, Fort Meade, MD 1995-1998; USS John F. Kennedy (CV-67) 1998-2001.

  6. #16
    Senior Member BURAWSKI's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Miami, Florida
    Posts
    305
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Speaking of accountability. I read this today:

    http://www.navytimes.com/article/201...port-ship-fire


    Apparently the Hue City XO was relieved for a fire that started in Engineering spaces while the ship was at sea. The CO was not relieved and mention was made that he was only aboard less than a month. Seems there is some disparity on CO firings. The CO is not held accountable, and no one in Engineering is held accountable, just the XO, and the investigation is not even complete yet? Seems to me there is some disparity in how these firings are made. Yes each situation is different, but accountability should start with the CO. I believe the Blue Angels firing of the CO was probably appropriate, except I do not believe it was legitimate to wait so long after he leaves the squadron. It just seems that accountability isn't always properly administered. And I am sure that there were others in the Blue Angels that probably should have been held accountable, but weren't.

  7. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    East Coast, USA
    Posts
    113
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Q: What does a 747 and a fake blonde have in common?
    A: They both have black boxes!

    Guess that would be inappropriate, huh?! Man, people need to lighten up!

  8. #18
    Senior Member Stalwart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Annapolis, MD
    Posts
    1,055
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by BURAWSKI View Post
    Speaking of accountability. I read this today:

    http://www.navytimes.com/article/201...port-ship-fire


    Apparently the Hue City XO was relieved for a fire that started in Engineering spaces while the ship was at sea. The CO was not relieved and mention was made that he was only aboard less than a month. Seems there is some disparity on CO firings. The CO is not held accountable, and no one in Engineering is held accountable, just the XO, and the investigation is not even complete yet? Seems to me there is some disparity in how these firings are made. Yes each situation is different, but accountability should start with the CO. I believe the Blue Angels firing of the CO was probably appropriate, except I do not believe it was legitimate to wait so long after he leaves the squadron. It just seems that accountability isn't always properly administered. And I am sure that there were others in the Blue Angels that probably should have been held accountable, but weren't.
    I saw that and really don't know about that. I have not seen anything yet (report, email summary etc.)

    I would hope that the apparent disparity is due to something that those on the outside may not currently be privy to.

    I do agree, it seems odd that only the XO was relieved and no one else ...


    Quote Originally Posted by socal1200r View Post
    Q: What does a 747 and a fake blonde have in common?
    A: They both have black boxes!

    Guess that would be inappropriate, huh?! Man, people need to lighten up!
    I have read the whole report (83 pages before you get to the witness statements) and it was not a random or occasional off color joke, it was pervasive disregard for:

    1. Appropriate conduct in the workplace (Ready room or otherwise)

    2. Some conduct that caused embarrassment to the Navy. For example: when the videographers make a point of videotaping -- at length -- attractive females in the crowd. These tapes from various airshows were shown in the ready room and making them was encouraged by the flight team & CO. At one point unbeknownst to the videographers they taped the wife of a civilian VIP who later saw the tape.

    3. Most importantly -- the CO failed to maintain discipline and the authority of command (surrendering authority to a democratic procedure.)

    Did most people like what he was doing? Sure. Was it appropriate ... no.

    You should take the time to read the report and see if you think it is just people needing to lighten up.
    Last edited by Stalwart; 06-27-2014 at 05:29 PM.

  9. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Opt out
    Posts
    2,285
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)

  10. #20
    Senior Member BURAWSKI's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Miami, Florida
    Posts
    305
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Wow, that is a British newspaper too! Looks like the story has gone international.

Similar Threads

  1. Blue Angels, Thunderbirds: take note
    By Robert F. Dorr in forum Navy
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 08-01-2013, 04:56 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •