This week I came across a story about a Navy Fighter Pilot, Lt. Cmdr. Marc Fryman, who was recently grounded over an incident at a Georgia Tech Football game last November.
The 36 year old Navy fighter pilot was part of a flyover at the Tech-Wake Forest Game in which he and other pilot flew their F/A-18 Super Hornets just a few hundred feet above the crowd. It is regulation that fighter jets are flown at least at 1000 feet at these kinds of spectator events and because of this he has been permanently grounded.
About to be deployed for the third time in his Navy career, he will be serving in Afghanistan on the ground for the first time.
Both the pilot himself and a Navy evaluation have stated that the incident was neither intentional nor malicious, but that his failure to respond to warnings about his altitude has made this decision necessary on the part of the Navy. His career up until this incident has been spotless, and he has received several honors including be given the Top Hook Award at the completion of his flight training.
His family has said that he is still proud to serve his country in Afghanistan and that he truly regrets the incident in question.
There are several videos of the flyover on YouTube. This one gives a really good perspective of how low these jets were, and this one gives you a perspective from some fans sitting higher in the stadium.
While the show was certainly a spectacular one, there is little doubt that it was a dangerous flyover, but was the punishment fitting the crime?
I would love to see what you have to say about this decision and what you think about the incident in general!
Mandy says
You can tell the fans loved it and it doesn’t seem like anyone got hurt. Still, rules are rules…though I don’t think he should have been stripped of his wings, it’s a tough call. That could have been an extremely bad situation.
Jay says
He shouldn’t have been grounded. These are trained experts who are in full control at all times. These aren’t some kids doing this in Microsoft Flight Simulator, he’s a veteran and has years of experience. And having him fight on the ground is like putting salt in the wound. That’s no way to treat an officer.
Kitson says
Well i guess thats what make him fighterpilot? The ability to manage risks. Its truely sad he lost his wings.
Henry says
I’d say it really depends on what the pilot was told over the radio. Obviously flying that low is dangerous, and if he was told to gain altitude, there would have had to been an extremely good reason for it to be acceptable for him to ignore that order. Not knowing a more obscure rule like that is one thing, but ignoring an order to obey that rule is another.
Caleb says
He’s obviously a good pilot if he has a clean record and is able to fly the f/a-18…hes an asset in afghanistan and the navy is the one thats losing the most. if they grounded him when he got back or something it would be better…and smarter
Bobby says
Pilots should be setting an example for all men and women of service. Now is not the best time to be flying planes too close to large structures. We all make mistakes, and sometimes big mistakes. Perhaps the pilot will be able to fly after some needed time on the ground. Can pilots get their wings back? What happened to the other pilot?
Sabrina Clark says
Although cool for a graduation. This could have ended tragically due to simply not following direction. He is a pilot and knows better.
Anonymous says
Wow, sucks that he got grounded. Amazing flyover though, wish I was there.
Jason says
Ok, so he broke the rules. Obviously though, with the formation looking good and the flight path straight and level, he was in complete control the entire time. The issue is really a what if situation. What if he had experienced an engine or flight control problem at that altitude, could he have avoided the people? In the high drag configuration that he was in, it would have been tough. So yeah, he was in the wrong, it was a bad call on his part. However, do I feel that the punishment fit the crime? Absolutely not!!! There is a good chance that there were some complaints about the altitude and it being such a public venue, the Navy had to make an example. I feel a suspension would have been adequate enough though, especially if his record had been spotless prior. Given the fact that he was Top Hook, and had a spotless record, he’s probably a sierra hotel officer and a strong smack on the tally-wacker would have been sufficient. It is a shame to see a flying career messed up by a decision that he made probably to excite the crowd and get people talking Navy. Because that’s the basis of these flyovers, to present the Navy to the public as a recruiting tool. Well, obviously that’s not the only reason for the flyovers, but that is a big part. I do not think that he was intentionally trying to put anyone in danger, nor do I think he was intentionally out to break the rules and be a hot dog. I think he simply pushed the envelope a little too far. It’s a bad call on the Navy for putting this guy on the sidelines. Especially when they have so much time and money invested in him.
jblandrum says
I serve in the navy on the enlisted side. ive also planned on putting in a flight packet a time or two (having a degree already). This makes my mind go exactly where it goes 90% of the time i hear a safety brief and that is – the military beurocracy is castrating our nation’s warriors through over protective parenting. Safety is a wonderful thing but the military takes it way to far on many issues and this is clearly one of them.
Nicholas says
I agree that rules are rules, but it seems like a bit of an overreaction…did he intentionally disregard the warnings or did his equipment malfunction and he not hear them? More facts need to be known before rushing to judgment. In any event, without other reasons/evidence, permanently sidelining a well trained and pilot seems a bit over the top when it costs millions of dollars to properly train one.
Steve says
I’m training in T-45s in the navy, and I agree with jblandrum. Although flying that low increases the risk, this is an experienced O-4 department head. Guys like that should be given a little latitude. This kind of stuff increases respect for the naval aviation community. Nobody in the crowd was thinking, “man, we really need to take these guys’ wings away.” They were thinking that maybe the military is doing something right, and that they know how to train the best pilots in the world. But instead the navy is down a department head that could be helping junior guys in the squadron train.
Anonymous says
That was cool
Ash says
I’m torn on this issue. As a pilot myself, I know that if I busted a single regulation on my checkride, I would have failed. If I disregard any federal aviation regulation during flight, I can be fined or lose my license if that deviation is not in the context of an emergency. Part of being a pilot is maintaining situational awareness and having the skill and good judgment to exercise appropriate action to fly safely. This should apply no less for our Nation’s fighter pilots. If one of those jets had taken a bird into an intake some time before reaching the stadium, we’d have dozens or more dead right now. At less than 1000′ there is simply no time to glide safely away from a congested area. There is a reason federal regulations exist that specify minimum safe altitudes. Nobody was hurt so the pilot should be grounded for some time, or maybe busted a rank. Permanent loss of wings seems a bit harsh but it seems the Navy wanted to make an example of him. It’s a shame, and a lesson to us all that our actions have consequences, and we have nobody but ourselves to blame if we make mistakes. Good judgment is as important a skill as any other as a pilot.
Tommy Owen says
I was a crewman aboard a B-29 during the Korean war. According to my pilot, he once got grounded for 90 days because he once buzzed the golden gate bridge with a B-29 which was much more Hazardous. I think that a 90 day suspension would have been more in line with his offense.
tmadison says
FAA regulations, for all aircraft, call for at least 1000 feet above populated areas. Plus, at Airshows planes can’t perform maneuvers in the direction of the crowd. The reason is that crashing planes make fiery explosions. Those pilots should have known better.
However, I think a suspension and inquiry would be in order vs. a full out grounding and reassignment, unless that was the finding. The article doesn’t say. As for experience, sometimes that isn’t enough, for example Scott Crossfield who was Chuck Yeager’s civilian counterpart didn’t get updated weather and was killed in a thunderstorm a few years back.
On a side note, the flyover was pretty cool.
On a second side note, it doesn’t really say what the warnings were either, they could be from the briefing, ATC, or the aircraft systems itself.
Tom says
I guess I can see both sides of the argument. The rules are in place for a reason. Thankfully, everything worked as it was supposed to. Is the punishment too harsh? Tough call; but, the pilot is a Lt. Commander, not just a Lt. Increased rank enjoys increased privileges, as well as increased responsibilities and increased consequences. I’m assuming that he’s the ranking officer in that formation; so, he probably was hit harder than his wingman.
Visiting air shows is one of my favorite activites, and I know that, with high-performance aircraft, when something goes wrong, it can go wrong in a hurry. Plane-to-spectator distances have been increased at air shows for just that reason. I can understand the desire to thrill the crowd; but, 300 feet of altitude allows for virtually no error correction time.
Did the Navy do the right thing? I think the punishment doesn’t fit the crime; but, I wasn’t there when it was handed down. This fellow’s career is pretty much over; it’s a shame because he was, apparently, a valuable asset in the air. There are others, though, quite willing to take his place.
Tom says
One more thing: As an officer, he’s expected to lead by example. How can he expect obedience to his orders, when he disregards the orders (rules) of others?
Still, my heart goes out to him. I’ve made some stupid mistakes in my life, and know how painful they can be. We can choose our actions; but, we can’t choose the consequences of our actions.
Joe Citizen says
Let the punishment fit the crime. Let me get this straight… the pilot is permanently grounded because he showed his pride in flying a little too low? Are you kidding me? This is why people are turned off to governmental cry babies. We need real men to run the service… not babies. Why couldn’t the pilot get verbal reprimand and STILL be allowed to fly. The government is going to waste tens of thousands of dollars on his training and ground him… Uh… okay.
Roland says
I think that it would be interesting to hear the radio com, also pilot punished was he the lead on this flyover?? was he assigned to this flyover or was it a volunteer assignment, either way “Jason and Tom” are right…The Navy has trained these guys to deal with situations tougher than a flyover and yes at that altitude it would of been probable to hit a bird, and killed an engine “No safety for the plane, and the people below” point granted but is the navy saying he’s not qualified to fly then? after 2 tours?? Talk about the loss of Navy training by putting him on the ground…Suspension and loss of wage would of been more than enough to scare the LT Cmdr with suspension of privilages “cause from what I hear to perform, or media events such as flyovers” are privilages permanently were probably better options for the Navy to not loose a pilot and money! Well on the positive note and sorry to point this out this opens up a pilot slot, just sad to hear this is how it open. Way too strict…We’ll never know what was said on the radio coms.
Clint says
I believe that if he was a good pilot and this was the first time he broke rules set by the Navy then he should not be stripped of his wings. Hell the thunderbirds and blue angels fly low by the crowd also.. I say drop him a rank and make him earn it back, grounding him is a little extreme…
AJ says
Ed go on youtube right now, and type in TCU at NAVY FLY BY, and tell me
what you think.
Jake says
We must remember that the real world and Hollywood differ in monumental ways. Example we all know the movie TOP GUN, Cruise buzzes the C.T. He’s still allowed to fly, or Pearl Harbour, when the two pilots fly head on at eachother and break right last second. They both get a talking to but then go on to save the day…… We cant let ourselves get caught up in this Hollywood mumbo jumbo. He wanted to impress the crowd i dont blame him!!! Taking away the mans wings as a result…..my opinion…OVERBOARD. We can all agree however that rules are rules. Not sure if you know this but Chuck Yeager in one of his last flights as a Mustang Pilot buzzed the control tower and flathatted a fishermen blowing his boat over. He was almost court marshled. So if it can happen to Yeager it could happen to anyone. Anyway guys Keep The Faith and See ya in the SKY!!!!!!!!!!
Andy says
He should have know better … He is a fighter pilot with years of experience. And as a fighter pilot is encourager to test the limits. This was just not the time of place to do so.!
will rogers says
A low flyby is surely not a reason to ground a fully qualified pilot, who has already demonstrated his valor and dedicated service to his country
and more..Perhaps a private talk from his commander, would be more appropriate, rather than a naval tribunal, which has seeminly taken place by the Navy department. Maybe we should begin to prosecute our congressional leaders, for their numerous falures and their outright commitment, to undermine the security and safety of our country !
Anonymous says
Rules are given for a reason; for the saftey of you and any civilian personel spectating the event. I am a strong suporter of this nation and our military but to disobey orders which are given for saftey reasons is unacceptable especialy for an officer which are held up to a higher standard because the are suppost to lead by example. I believe the removel of his wings might have been harsh, he might have been used as an example for other military personel thinking about trying the same stunt Lt Cmdr. Fryman did
Randy says
Those guys were pretty close to the crowd but I think that it’s unfortunate that he was banned from flying anymore. I really wonder what the problem was there, if he disobeyed the order or if he just wasn’t aware of the situation, who knows.
Ryan says
It is a shame that this happened. Obviously safety is a very important factor when it comes to flying any kind of aircraft for any reason, but the situation didn’t look unsafe. However, rules are rules and they are put in place for a reason. The punishment does seem extreme, but I guess we don’t really know what the exact reasoning is. One thing is for sure, there won’t be any other pilots who ignore that rule anymore.
Max says
Analizing all comments made on this issue I agree with some of the guys on this matter and it is a pitty to see the action taken by the Navy command. I do not think that he was intentionally trying to put anyone in danger, nor do I think he was intentionally out to break the rules. I think he simply pushed it a little too far. It’s a bad call on the Navy for putting this guy on the sidelines. Especially when they have so much time and money invested in him. Safety is a wonderful thing, but the military takes it way to far on many issues and this is clearly one of them. He’s obviously a good pilot if he has a clean record and is able to fly the f/a-18…he’s an asset in Afghanistan and the navy is the one that’s losing the most. If they grounded him when he got back, it would have been better…and smarter!
Kitson says
If this was too dangerous for a flyby, watch ‘TCU at NAVY FLY BY’ at youtube now. I agree that rules are rules, but he is a fighterpilot and I strongly believe that every fighterpilot are daredevils and would push their limits while managing the risk. That’s because of their confidence! They believe that they can do it. Up there, there’s no time to decide if they want to break the rules or not. Speed and risk are in their blood. That’s what make them fighterpilots.
John Breuwet says
What was the altitude at, and what did he say back to tower or carrier?
John Breuwet says
Steve im laughphing man because there not in the military, there civilians, they dont know rules and regulations.
Adam says
I definitely don’t think he should have lost his wings for good. Maybe if this was his 2nd or 3rd violation, but not when his record up to this point has been perfect.
Ryan says
A good pilot. Excellent in what he does with a good reputation.
That means he doesn’t have the luxury of breaking the rules like this. He knew better. Simple as that.
Will Ahmad says
showing off is costly, and i am pretty sure the millitary court will work around that, because its a pretty hard punishment but if they gave him a slap on the hand it wouldnt be a valuable lessons to the other pilots. but every now and then fighters should do supersonic fly by around the city no lower than 500′ just to keep the citizens more confident about our Air defense,,because there paying for it…
Donald Spivack says
I know that this did not end with some crazy crash, or mishap. I also know that these guys are professionals, however even professionals can be unprofessional sometimes. Do you think if a civilian with the same clearance did this he would not lose his wings? I feel bad for the guy who lost his wing, I know he went through a lot to get those wings. However, regulations are put forth for a reason. Even though he seemed to have full control, planes have failures all the time. If he had a complete electrical failure, that could have ended a whole lot differently than him just losing his wings.
joe says
i’d fly into combat with him any day… that’s what happens when REMF’s call the shots…
ardiles diogo says
Forssa have enough ability and am a deserted so choose certain things as always vom sussesso of your sms in my mail my deposit to you Ed confiansa Rsh Fighter Pilot