Space Forum / Shuttle / July 2007

Thanks for the kind words.  In spite of how the tone of my posts come
across, I am having fun here.  I must say having iron clad
documentation helps a lot.  Without it I wouldn't have a case at all.

Danny Dege

I wrote:

Danny corrected me on the other thread.  For some reason I remembered
"this almost killed me" as an attempt to kill.  But my comments about
alternatives to situations of this type still apply.  And that holds
whether or not the pain inflicted is intentional.

~ CT

On Jul 22, 12:55 pm, tdadamemd-spamblo...@excite.com wrote:

snip

This is total nonsense.  I said I thought he tried to fly a pattern
tighter than I could so I would be embarrassed by not flying a good
pattern.  I clearly stated in my book no one knew an F-4 flying into
another F-4's wake turbulence would cause a loss of control.  I didn't
think so or I wouldn't have flown into his wake turbulence.  Please
stick to the facts.

To all that don't want to find the section in my book, I have attached
the section of my book below.

This is true.  Up to this point I have lost.  But because NASA left a
document trail, I have a chance of exposing their misconduct and
violations of state and federal laws in how they treated me.

Danny Deger

Here is the section of my book on my near miss by flying into leads
wake turbulence.  I do NOT state I think lead was trying to kill me.

The normal way to land is what is called the overhead break.  The
number 2 plane is put on the side opposite of the break and the
formation flies down the runway at about 1,500 feet altitude.  As the
formation passes over the runway lead breaks and number 2 stays level
for a few seconds.  After the delay, number 2 breaks.
One of the rules was number 2 can not fly a pattern further from the
runway than lead.  One day this almost killed me.  Lead did a very
aggressive break.  By this I mean he makes a small/tight turn.  I
followed.    If you are too close to the runway, you can't make the
turn and you overshoot.  I knew I was closer than I ever had been in
my life, and I was going to have to make a maximum performance turn to
final.  At the proper time, I started a turn at the optimum Angle Of
Attack, AOA.  The F-4 had an audio feed back on AOA and had a nice
solid tone in the head set when on the optimum AOA.  I was inside
lead's turn to start off with, so I am out of his wake turbulence.
But, I must go right into the center of his wake turbulence to line up
on the runway.  Wake turbulence is like small horizontal tornadoes
that can cause huge roll rates if you get into one.  Normally, a
fighter can fly into another fighter's wake turbulence without any big
problems.  But lead was doing a more aggressive turn than usual which
made his wake stronger.  Then I was at a higher than normal angle of
attack with decreased my aileron effectiveness.  The end result was
when I hit his wake turbulence, I rolled instantly about 120 degrees
to the left.  I knew I was in big trouble.  Fortunately my training
and instincts kicked in.  At a high angle of attack, the F-4 does not
roll well.  I needed to get the AOA down.  To do this I pushed the
stick full forward until it hit its stop.  At the same time I gave the
plane full right rudder.  About the time my controls become effective,
I left my lead's wake turbulence and rolled quickly back to the
right.  I overshot the roll a lot and ended up in about 90 degrees of
roll to the right.  The AOA was down by now, so the ailerons start to
work.  With left aileron and left rudder I brought the plane back to
level flight and actually made a good landing without having to go
around.  The roll excursions lasted a second or two at the most and I
was still on glide slope and on the centerline of the runway.  My WSO
told me after landing he was reaching for the ejection handle as I was
fighting for control.  Before he could pull the handle, I had the
plane back under control.  I am glad he didn't have time.  At our
altitude and roll angles, we probably would not have had time for the
chutes could open before we hit the ground.
What was strange for me at the time was the lack of interest in what
happened.  We were well trained to avoid the wake of heavy airplanes,
but the general thought was the wake turbulence of another F-4 was not
dangerous.  I asked that the Tactical Air Command safety organization
be brought in to get the word out that if the pattern is flown too
aggressively, lead's wake turbulence could be deadly.  My request was
denied.  I requested the topic be brought up at the next wing safety
briefing.  Again my request was denied.  I didn't at the time
understand why loosing control in the traffic pattern would not be of
interest to the F-4 safety community.  Now I think I know why.  Leads
are not supposed to fly such a tight pattern.  He was very likely
attempting to embarrass me by flying a pattern tighter than he thought
I could.  Even if his overly aggressive pattern was not meant to
embarrass me, he was at fault for the near miss.  It wasn't my
favorite lead, John "Lips" Fraley, but it was a respected flight lead
of the squadron.  If you are part of the in crowd, you can screw up
and not be called on the mistake.  If you are not in the in crowd,
every tiny issue is blown out of proportion and used to further damage
your reputation.  Being in a fighter squadron was just like being back
in junior high.

Idiot.

On Jul 23, 9:58 am, "Jeff Findley" <jeff.find...@ugs.nojunk.com>
wrote:

Actually, you can read a major part of their side.  My conduct in
1999 was carefully documented by my management at the time.  I provide
a complete copy on my web site and as an appendix to in my book.  It
does show an angry employee, but not one that made open homicidal
threats which is what NASA told about me to local authorities in
1999.  I also have many documents copied and available for review.  I
would not have bothered to write the book if I didn't have
documentation.  The story is hard to believe without it.  I still find
it hard to believe an agency of the Federal government would lie to
local officials and participate in a person being denied due process.
In my recent sick leave problems, people told lie after lie, but I
didn't bother to mention them in my book.  I have attempted to make
sure my accusations of misconduct are backed up with documentation.

Danny Deger
www.dannydeger.net

Yep.  Many events in Danny's book start with him thinking he may have
screwed up and caused some mishap, only to have the story unfold in such a
way that he realized that he couldn't possibly have been wrong and the
mishap was entirely someone else's fault.  Following that, there is often a
continuation of the thread where he trys to tell higher-ups this fact, but
for one reason or another, they don't listen.

There certainly is a pattern going on in that book.

Jeff