[Military Funny]Pilots strafe NJ school.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 1:08 am

This is kind of funny. Whoops! Talk about lucky-if the school hadn't been empty this would have been very bad.

Nobody was injured when the rounds hit the Little Egg Harbor Intermediate School just after 10 p.m. Wednesday. A custodian was the only employee in the section of the building that was hit; she was not hurt.

National Guard officials are trying to figure out why the pilot opened fire from 7,000 feet with 25 rounds from a wing-mounted M61-A1 Vulcan cannon. The pilot, who was not identified by the military, was supposed to be aiming at a target on a practice range 3 1/2 miles away.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 1:16 am

Apparently, they were doing night-time exercises, and the pilot was a couple miles off-target. Bet he's not going to fly again.

abcnews.com wrote:Calling the accidental strafing of a school by a fighter jet "totally incomprehensible," Sen. Frank Lautenberg called on the Air National Guard to halt all training flights over New Jersey until an investigation is complete.

The New Jersey Democrat on Friday demanded a "guarantee that nothing like this can ever happen again."

Eat a bad of dicks. You want a "guarantee" there will never be an accident? What a moron.

FlakJacket · Post by **FlakJacket** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 1:27 am

Well I'm fairly certain that the Guard will be making damn certain they don't strafe the school again.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 3:26 am

Yeah, as unfortunate as this is,these sort of accidents should be expected from any sort of military that actively trains. Soldiers are people too.

mrmooky · Post by **mrmooky** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 6:15 am

AP wrote:The 113th has been in the air over Washington 24 hours a day since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Some of its pilots have flown missions during the Iraq war, and in the no-fly zones above Iraq before the war, Smith said.

These guys flew missions in Iraq? That might explain a few things.

Anguirel · Post by **Anguirel** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:10 am

3278 wrote:Eat a bad of dicks. You want a "guarantee" there will never be an accident? What a moron.

Not necessarily. Part one would be - can they use some sort of simulation bullets that fail to have a killing punch to them when they fly their training missions at this facility? Part two would be - if they can, and they need live-fire excercises, can they get these pilots to a different facility further removed from things like, say, schools at reasonable cost?

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:45 am

Answer to question number one: Nothing substitutes for live fire training. Even in this age of computer technology and simulations. Same for Blanks-which I have no idea if they make in that size-they are just a shitty sub for the real thing.

As for question two-well a lot comes in play here. First keep in mind they were a long ways off from their range. 20 miles. Thats damn far from the school. So they are already using a range that is far from people, relatively speaking.

Also keep in mind that you want your live fire ranges to be useful-not just target shooting. That means a range that simulates real conditions. Pilots have to be able to bomb and shoot shit, and not hit schools or buses or what not.

In this case there is nothing to blame but pilot error. I can almost guarentee these guys are done flying. Forever. They take this sort of shit seriously, and I wouldn't be surprised to see them court martialed. Even if they aren't I am willing to bet their flying days are over. At least anything with guns.

Can we say bus instead of porsche?

Anguirel · Post by **Anguirel** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 8:04 am

Serious Paul wrote:Answer to question number one: Nothing substitutes for live fire training. Even in this age of computer technology and simulations. Same for Blanks-which I have no idea if they make in that size-they are just a shitty sub for the real thing.

Yeah, I know... I was just curious if there were any alternatives possible in this case that coudl be used for real flight time but without the risk of shooting that far off target.

As for question two-well a lot comes in play here. First keep in mind they were a long ways off from their range. 20 miles. Thats damn far from the school. So they are already using a range that is far from people, relatively speaking.

Yeah, but the target was only 3.5 miles away, evidently. And the guy was what, 2 miles up in the air when he shot? Work out the angles such that, assuming the idiot fires generally towards the giant ball of solid matter and not away from it, he's not hitting anything of consequence. I'd say a 5 or 10 mile buffer minimally between targets and anything else.

In this case there is nothing to blame but pilot error. I can almost guarentee these guys are done flying. Forever. They take this sort of shit seriously, and I wouldn't be surprised to see them court martialed. Even if they aren't I am willing to bet their flying days are over. At least anything with guns.

Can we say bus instead of porsche?

Yeah, I'd assumed it was pilot error, and there's no way to account for that as soon as live rounds are loaded up. Even assuming hardware malfunction (he was still getting set for his run and an electrical short bypassed the trigger and started the guns firing or whatever - ignore that this is incredibly unlikely, so is shooting a school - or the guns were mis-aligned somehow), it can't really be accounted for as soon as real bullets are there. Thus, the only way to answer to the guarantee is to remove the real shells somehow. Aren't there fin-guided shells? Maybe they could use those, and have the training ones designed to ground themselves if they're veering off the training facility, but otherwise they simulate a "normal" path. This would considerably increase costs (which would suck), but might also lead to developments in guided weaponry (which would be nice).

The main thing is to get the politician behind this to agree to the following - "Sure, we'll guarantee that this never happens again if you can guarantee us the money to buy this additional equipment that will prevent it" - putting the burden of maintaining the desired safety levels on him and his constituency. As close as possible to guaranteed safety has a cost associated, and we aren't paying it right now. Funding for the military is fucked up, and this might be a way to get the funds needed to the appropriate places (you know, the spots that the Pentagon really wants the money to be spent, as opposed to what the guys in Congress actually pay for).