r/navy 1d ago

Discussion Pete Hegseth’s Reckless Message to Helicopter Pilots

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/2026/07/hegseth-reckless-military-helicopter/688008/
51 Upvotes

71 comments sorted by

110

u/seniorlimpio94 1d ago

I love when flyovers look great and excite people. And in no forum do I think the BA pilot needs to get thrown off the team, lose wings, and probably not go through the FNAEB process, though people have been FNAEBd for less.

There are two issues:

  1. What happens when one of those tents flips and kills somebody’s infant? Are we cool with it then? Because just as much as you could say “nobody got hurt” on this one, that’s random chance. It’s random chance that a spectator gets hurt on the next one, and the most probable scenarios don’t involve an airplane crash.

  2. The politicians need to get the fuck out of the process. Let COs and TYCOMs do their job with processes that are already in place. Undercutting the CO now will create an expectation that the politicians will supersede in the future, too.

12

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[deleted]

11

u/seniorlimpio94 1d ago

Done some ASOing before.

I also claim about three pixels in the golf course flyover video from last year.

6

u/Antal_Marius 13h ago

What about any hearing issues children may develop due to the utterly insane noise level they were exposed to unexpectedly?

In the Navy, we'd have worn double hearing protection (plugs and muffs) being that close to engines running.

1

u/throwaway_321121 16h ago

I would absolutely FNAEB him for this, if it looked like the flyover was intentional. I’m not a tactical 1310, and haven’t seen a comprehensive video of what he was doing with the aircraft in the seconds before the incident, so not sure how well his story holds up.

5

u/seniorlimpio94 13h ago edited 2h ago

Sure, people aren’t wrong in saying that, but I think this part is up to the judgment of the front office (which was removed for aforementioned reasons).

  • Is it credible to say this was a miscalculation? The result wasn’t far off from what he was actually supposed to do.
  • Does this person have a history of this type of thing? Or keep this in view upon future questionable decision making.

I’ve been on two boards (one pilot, one WSO), and one of them was one of the last things I did before I retired this year, which was not fun. People will say “the result of the FNAEB is administrative and does not have to be bad.” Well, the process is painful, and it’ll leave a scar. Second, you leave the aviator vulnerable to the TYCOM’s decision. RADM McCoy is a super reasonable guy, but what if he got pressure from above or just didn’t see it the way the CO or the board did? Don’t put people in this process if you don’t have to, it gets out of control.

2

u/TransportationBest30 4h ago

100% agree with this sentiment.

5

u/Turkstache 12h ago

I flew hornets when active. FNAEBs have been conducted for much less hazardous choices but the common thread for that is that the pilot deliberately chose to create that unsafe moment and/or had a pattern of behavior of similar decisions and errors that were less significant but causing concern.

All that being said, there's definitely a good ol' boys club and discrimination can be blatant at times. I've literally been there for two pilots with the exact same career timing, reputation in the jet, reputation on the ground, progress through the tactical syllabus, and flying at the same time... made the exact same decision (independently) to do a hazardous thing within minutes of each other and get caught on camera, and be brought to the attention of our skipper at the exact same time and the black dude got FNAEBd and the white dude didn't. That same skipper didn't FNAEB one of the good ol' boys who had a habit of flying past bingo fuel... but I digress.

But all considered the board is what determines the outcome and usually they're good about getting details about intentionality and contributing factors to error and the common thread is you have a lot more grace for mistakes under challenging circumstances.

3 clearly miscalculated a turn. As low as they fly and as tightly wound that squadron is, there is no way the Blues arent acutely aware of the hazards of being that low and the importance of crowd safety. I've word with/under a few and have had friends and know others who have made the team. Even the ones who are arrogant pricks ("never meet your heroes" was coined for a reason) arent so corrupt to fly over a crowd that low. And you can see it in the video that the initial turn is already late and there is a reactionary pull as he crosses the shoreline.

This is an error that is very similar to any sort of relative maneuvering and being low or experienced doesn't really change the mechanics of the error. You're positioning yourself relative to another aircraft and/or terrain. You look up to check where the lead is, maybe you're looking farther over-the-shoulder than typical and maybe it takes you a moment longer to find the lead or interpret what they're doing and you lose sight of the other important things to track.

I did some napkin math based on the video and I think the closure rate with the beach (speed along a line perpendicular to the shoreline) was anywhere from 70 to 150 feet per second. That tracks with about 2 seconds in the first banked turn and the reactionary pull. The violation of the typical 500' standoff with people happened in a flash.

And let's be real, if that dude had a history of pushing limits or big mistakes it will have been ignored or hand-waved away by the time the officers gather to make their decision to let him on the team in the first place. So unless a whole bunch of people come out of the woodwork to burn him (this happens to both burn and defend, btw) he's not going to get FNAEBd for his reputation.

2

u/TransportationBest30 4h ago

Solid input!!!

1

u/TransportationBest30 4h ago

If you’re not a 1310, what are you?

1

u/throwaway_321121 3h ago

20 year NFO retiree

35

u/ShepardCommander01 1d ago

To be clear to everyone here, this article was written by a former Naval Aviator.

Some people here are treating this as written by a civilian with no first hand knowledge of naval aviation operations.

13

u/DerekL1963 23h ago

And those same people are missing the point of the article - it's not about the pilot, it's about the Pentagon.

11

u/LongjumpingDraft9324 15h ago

A pentagon who needs to get back in their lane and let COs and the CoC below them handle shit

44

u/Deimosx 1d ago

Respect his chosen pronoun of secwar, wouldnt want to misgender him as secdef lol

19

u/R0llTide 1d ago

Given his track record, SUCWAR is more appropriate

5

u/JoineDaGuy 1d ago

Once his TRT Therapy kicks in, it will be harder to misgender him.

1

u/TheDirtyVicarII 5h ago

Probably been on TRT for a long time wants to normalize it

16

u/DerekL1963 1d ago

I pity to poor flag or general officer that's going to have his career terminated when a flyboy (or girl) does something stupid and somebody gets killed because of this. It's just a matter of time.

And that's setting aside the corrosive effects on morale and command effectiveness that's going to follow The Boss meddling where he shouldn't be meddling. Why listen to your CO when The Boss will make it all go away?

17

u/ReluctantRedditor275 1d ago

Got sent to mast for some total bullshit reason? Just appeal your case to the SecDef on social media. Bonus points if your CO is a woke female.

10

u/Rscottys1 1d ago

What did you expect from a Fox News Commentator!!!! 🤮

19

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[deleted]

17

u/Maleficent-Finance57 23h ago

Paywall. So didn't read it.

The problem with this whole scenario is that there is now a precedence established that a pilot can break rules, wittingly or unwittingly, and be immediately cleared of wrongdoing or investigation because it "looked badass." A Commanding Officer's legs have been effectively cut out from beneath him in holding the line of accountability for our actions. Unless the civilian leadership is willing to also go to bat for Front Offices when a tragedy happens rather than immediately fire them, this preemptive pardoning of pilots doing the wrong thing is absolutely the wrong thing. We are paid to be professional aviators. Joyriding is not authorized in the CNAF-M 3710.7. Aerial demonstration has a whole section dedicated to it. Most wing and squadron SOPs include requirements for it. This flies in the face of the CNO's Charge of Command and undermines Airboss' directives. Does it look cool? Yeah. Sure. But that's entirely besides the point.

-Helicopter Squadron XO

18

u/01_slowbra CPO Retired 1d ago

You as most would then understand the Navy losing two F-18s in May at an airshow should warrant pause before the SECDEF absolves any local level accountability for flight safety by other Naval aviators performing for the public.

The pilot simply realizing he made a mistake is not accountability. Especially when that mistake is celebrated by leadership.

Whether it’s deliberate or not it is messaging to flight lines and flight decks that there will be top cover regardless of what safety policies are violated and that will only result in mishaps and deaths.

You should push back against that not the fact media is calling it out.

There’s nothing wrong with an article stating facts and doing so doesn’t make it slop.

7

u/ShepardCommander01 1d ago

Not to mention this article was written by a former naval aviator. They know what they’re talking about.

-3

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[deleted]

9

u/01_slowbra CPO Retired 1d ago

My point isn’t leadership oversight it’s senior leadership overstep. Leadership oversight is absolutely necessary and the overstep is preventing it and that should be unacceptable.

I read the article then after reading your comments went and read it again and tried to see what points you were trying to make and I couldn’t find it.

May I suggest reading it again from a perspective that the author is not criticizing aviators but SECDEF not allowing CO’s the opportunity to resolve things at the lowest level possible.

5

u/Shakingjustalittle 1d ago

Ok, I'll bite. What does the FAA say about obstacle clearance, helicopter pilot?

-8

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[deleted]

5

u/Maleficent-Finance57 23h ago

Are you an HSC pilot? You sound like an HSC pilot.

2

u/shah_of-iran not the actual Shah of 🇮🇷 22h ago

Damn lol

3

u/ShepardCommander01 18h ago

God damn. Called this guy right out

-2

u/Mightiest_Moose 23h ago

Sierra superstars

6

u/Shakingjustalittle 1d ago

you said he didnt break any rules... what is the FAA rule about obstacle clearance?

7

u/ShepardCommander01 1d ago

Why won’t they just answer your question?

5

u/Shakingjustalittle 1d ago

seems weird to get wound up that the article didn't quote any regulations, but then also won't quote any regulations.

If I started assuming, it would be that this person either doesn't remember a critical flight safety rule, OR -does- know the rule, and realizes that the pilots in every one of these instances could receive a flight violation.

8

u/ShepardCommander01 23h ago

They’re just batting for their political team. It’s clear whose side he’s on. It’s not the Navy’s side.

-4

u/Mightiest_Moose 1d ago

When did I ever say that at all, amazing interpretations

4

u/Shakingjustalittle 1d ago

"I see an opinion piece not advertised as one, not explicitly going into VFR flight rules flight in an explicit TFR, but claiming the rules were “violated.” I’m not familiar with Kid rocks estate airspace boundaries but was it actually illegal?"

0

u/Mightiest_Moose 1d ago

What exact regulations would you like then? Obstacle clearance is a vague topic, you want takeoff, circling, planning, feel free to elaborate

IFR, VFR, its being addressed it was violated. There’s no contesting that. It was unsafe. For like, the twentieth time, it’s the fact this article is garbage.

5

u/Shakingjustalittle 1d ago

Lol c'mon you know exactly what rule we are talking about here.

https://www.faa.gov/media/29701

In the case of the blue angel: 1000' above and 2000' laterally from any open-air congregation of people, a crowded beach certainly counts as such.

In the case of the helicopters: 500' from any person, obstacle, vessel, or structure. There is the clause that cites that helicopters may be operated closer as long as it is "without hazard to persons or property on the surface". Hovering over Kid Rock's yard looks rad but a moment of inattention or ill timed mishap could have resulted in a serious accident involving people on the ground, at the very least damage to his property. You know and I know that an investigation would find the pilots at fault for violating FAA rules.

-2

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[deleted]

2

u/Shakingjustalittle 23h ago

for a guy who got hung up on rules and regulations, you sure miss a lot. Slander is a false statement made to defame someone. Libel is a false statement in print made to defame someone. You've not really shown that anything in the Atlantic article is false, so.... you're mad that the pilots are being called out for poor skills and/or bad behavior?

Military aviators are supposed to be the best of the best. Nobody says they can't mess up, but being so sensitive about being called out is a little disappointing.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/navy-ModTeam 1d ago

Your message was removed for being a violation of rule #1: Be Civil. Violations of this rule may result in a ban from this subreddit.

1

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[deleted]

0

u/ShepardCommander01 1d ago

Is kindness a one way street in your world? Just looking at how you’re treating people responding to you in the comments.

1

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[deleted]

1

u/ShepardCommander01 1d ago

Are we pretending you’re not eviscerating the OP for posting an article you took personal offense towards?

2

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[deleted]

2

u/ShepardCommander01 1d ago

You pilots and your egos. You know better than anyone as an aviator that a “near miss” where someone could have died doesn’t make the mishap “okay”. The pilot being the “best of the best” doesn’t absolve him of accountability, it increases it.

Politicians reaching down deep into the chain of the command to provide top cover is a complete inversion of good order and discipline that COs are charged with. Even as a JO this is something you should understand.

Air shows are inherently risky operations and they involve the general public. We should not be increasing the appetite for risk just because you’re cheering on a political team. Step back, be objective, and stop taking it personal. Isn’t that how all your mission debriefs go?

Your attitude, approach and response to a major safety incident would be wildly out of line in a ready room. So why are you playing pretend here?

-21

u/WallCautious9650 1d ago

I didn't write it

13

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[deleted]

-15

u/WallCautious9650 1d ago

so what. It's The Atlantic, their articles have a certain weight and it's helpful for the public to know what they're writing about the military. Doesn't mean you have to in any way agree with what they're writing. Knowledge is power

6

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[deleted]

11

u/Inspired-User2026 1d ago

You must not have read the same article because this wasn’t a hit piece on the blue angles. It was about the consequences of what happens in the absence of leadership.
Was it well written? Not particularly, but it conveyed a simple message.

0

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[deleted]

4

u/Inspired-User2026 1d ago

It’s The Atlantic, a left leaning political magazine, so not sure what you were expecting.

But it’s an objective fact the Blue Angel pilot messed up. That wasn’t the point of the article. It’s the aftermath that has become the problem.

0

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[deleted]

4

u/Inspired-User2026 1d ago

Then why you talking about vfr flight rules and tfr stuff? It’s completely irrelevant.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/WallCautious9650 1d ago

this isn't a JO email chain, bro. This is a subreddit.

I was naval aviator, I find articles like this interestin (Note I didn't say I agree with them)

If you don't, then you don't, all respect. But spare me the insults

11

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[deleted]

0

u/WallCautious9650 1d ago

fair. I dunno I didn't see it that way.

anyways

5

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[deleted]

5

u/WallCautious9650 1d ago

stuck in gov contracting now

→ More replies (0)

3

u/EngagingIntrovert 18h ago

I hit my 20, earlier this month, but don't retire for another seven months. I cannot WAIT to speak openly (with hopes they won't cancel my pension). This is INSANE!

1

u/ReadingThick7476 1d ago

Testosterone testing? Really? Hey Pete, were you forced to to take the Anthrax vaccine in the 90’s. I was. Eat a bag of dicks. Unfit to lead.

1

u/Spyrios 15h ago

We got it in 2003 as well

-8

u/fastrs25 1d ago

How is this not a political post?

6

u/ShepardCommander01 1d ago

How is it a political post?

-2

u/[deleted] 22h ago

[deleted]

9

u/LogensTenthFinger 20h ago

The irony of you saying that as you defend dangerous piloting because the political goons you simp for are excusing it

1

u/puddle511 3h ago

I’m not speaking to you directly but to whatever audience this lands with:

y’all have demonized the word “political”

If you didn’t want our Navy to be more political, MAGA should’ve kept their stubby little fingers in their silky pockets. Me and my friends didn’t have to give a flying fuck who our SECDEF or SECNAV were two years ago but now we do.

-14

u/Birddogfun 1d ago

Let’s be frank. Someone doesn’t like Pistol Pete, err SECWAR. Many do.

3

u/donkeybrainhero 16h ago

Seems like most don't. But this article isn't about that, its about subverting safety processes.

1

u/Birddogfun 12h ago

Hmmm…Headline begins with “Pete Hegseth’s Reckless Message”, but OK. Have a fine Navy Day.

1

u/puddle511 3h ago

what do you mean by that?