Punishment can range anywhere from non-judicial (Art 15 or letter of reprimand / relief from duties) to full blown courts martial. In the case of civil jurisdiction the case is handled by the civilian authorities. But since this is a military training accident, it will most likely stay inside the military system.

Without the specific briefing or commanders notes we can not say exactly why he relieved them from their command / duty. But it most likely is because somethings unearthed during the investigation pointed towards wrong doing or other mistakes made by the command.

Really guys, there is a reason I'm saying to wait it out, unless your on the inside of these things you have NO CLUE whats going on. Or would you rather act like the Korean media did after the two girls were hit?

If the answer to either of those two questions is "NO" then you have no ability to make a judgment either way. Especially since you are just quoting what someone else said. As has already been said, the fact that his superiors got relieved indicates something happened in that direction.

Everything said during the incident will be recorder and reviewed, and black box recovered will have recordings on the status of his aircraft, and the pilot himself will also be interviewed. The fact that so little information has been made available to the public so far means their still knee-deep in the investigation.

Random internet armchair commentators don't decide how these investigations and administrative decisions go (thank god). So just sit tight and wait it for the full brief. Rendering judgment, so early merely makes people look like a$$'s.

"Classic case of get-home-itis. Pilot probably wanted to land at Miramar and be able to go home versus getting stuck in North Island while his plane gets repaired. Poor head work here by the pilot. Violated 3710.7T procedures which if I recall state that the pilot land at the nearest suitable airfield. I know there are some caveats to this rule (really applies to multi-engine prop). I'm gonna have to look it up at work tomorrow. Curious as to why the MO got relieved. I know it mentions fuel leak but I would've liked to have sen more details on that. In the Navy, if a plane ISN'T leaking fuel, that's when it becomes a concern!!"

Here's the link- http://wizbangblog.com/content/2009/03/03/marine-…

He also wrote me in a email-

I’ll let you know what it says. I’ve been flying P-3’s for 16 years so I’m not familiar with F-18 specifics but if the tech manual does not call for the aircraft to be grounded, it’s hard to fault the maintenance side. I’ll see if I can read the SIR and see if the fuel transfer issue was a contributing factor to the mishap. If it wasn’t, I don’t see how their MO takes the heat for this. Since he was relieved, I think it’s safe to assume that the SIR probably links the fuel transfer issue to the mishap (probably caused a flameout of the second engine maybe or a lateral imbalance in the wings since one engine was shutdown and no way to transfer that fuel out of that wing?). I’ll see what 3710 says about engine out requirements and how it pertains to F-18’s.

and in another email-

Pretty cut and dry according to NATOPS 3710.7T, which is the guiding

operating manual for Naval Aviators to live by. Should've gone to North

Island.

Chapter 7, section 7.1.5.1 states: "Twin Engine Aircraft: In the event of

power failure or whenever an engine is stopped as a precaution on an

aircraft that has two engines, the pilot in command shall land at the

nearest suitable airfield, in terms of time, provided weather conditions,

terrain, and facilities available indicate that a safe landing can be

accomplished."

And I agree with the fact that his superiors with punished means they told him to return back to base. Its WHEN they told him that matters.

Totally agree on waiting till after the investigation is complete before trying to crucify him. That was the entire point of my posts, people seem to want to join on the "burn the pilot, charge him for murder, kill him NOW" bandwagon based on a reporters interpretation of a handful of facts during an open investigation.

I HIGHLY doubt he “turned down” the importunity to land at a safe base if the second engine was having problems. And if read carefully it never mentions the second engine having issued BEFORE he made the choice to return to base (and therefor not land at NAS), only afterward. A lot of people have stretched the scant facts out and built a straw house to implicate the pilot, making it sound like this guy did everything shy of aiming the plane at the house. Also remember hindsight is 20/20, now we KNOW he couldn’t make it back to the base, but at that exact moment the decision was made, based on the information available to HIM at THAT moment, that is the glass’s you must see the situation through. He didn’t have mechanics out on his wings inspecting his aircraft during flight, he didn’t have a recorder telling him he would crash if he didn’t land at the civilian air port. He only had his instrument panel, advice from superiors, and the knowledge that you can fly those jets home on one engine.