JUNEAU — The actions of the lone survivor of the deadly 2010 Coast Guard helicopter crash off the Washington coast directly contributed to the deaths of his colleagues and the destruction of the aircraft, according to the Coast Guard’s commander in Alaska, Rear Adm. Thomas Ostebo.
Ostebo, in administrative remarks for Lt. Lance Leone’s personnel file, said Leone’s failure to perform his required duties directly contributed to the accident. A copy of the remarks was obtained by The Associated Press.
This comes less than two weeks after the Coast Guard dismissed negligent homicide and other charges against Leone in connection with the crash.
Leone, who is based in Sitka, was called to Juneau to meet with Ostebo on Sunday.
The potential for administrative action — like having remarks entered into Leone’s personnel file — was known at the time of the dismissal. Ostebo’s report does not detail any possible punishment; it merely says that Leone is to adhere to all applicable laws, regulations and policies and that any “additional violations can lead to further administrative actions and/or military justice action.”
Leone refused to sign the report, on advice of counsel.
He was the co-pilot of an MH-60 Jayhawk helicopter flying from Astoria, Ore., to the crew’s base in Sitka, when it hit an unmarked span of low-hanging wires and crashed off the Washington coast. Killed in the crash were pilot Sean Krueger, of Connecticut, and crewmen Brett Banks, of Wyoming, and Adam C. Hoke, of Montana.
Leone, who has earned Coast Guard awards and accolades, had recovered from his injuries and been cleared for flight re-training when he was charged last year with negligent homicide, dereliction of duty and destruction of government property.
He was accused of not actively navigating or challenging Krueger’s decision to drop in altitude seconds before the helicopter hit a 1,900-foot span of wires and crashed.
An investigating officer, who presided over a three-day military hearing in December, recommended to Ostebo that the charges be dropped.
The wires, the site of at least two other accidents, were the Coast Guard’s responsibility. They sloped from 190 feet to about 36 feet. At the time of the 2010 crash, marking balls were not along the span but instead pooled near a pole, above land at the low point. The helicopter hit at about 114 feet, according to testimony and the hearing record.
One of the prosecutors, during the December hearing, said there was no requirement that the lines be marked since they were lower than 200 feet. The crash’s lead investigator in testimony said the unmarked wires contributed to the accident but also said there was no reason for the aircraft to be flying so low.
Leone’s civilian attorney John Smith argued during the hearing that Leone had programmed the helicopter on a track that would have missed the wires, but that Krueger deviated from it, dropping in altitude as he flew over a Coast Guard vessel in the channel. Seconds later, the aircraft struck the wires.
This point was not challenged during the hearing. The investigating officer, Capt. Andrew Norris, in his report in January said the helicopter had been on a track that would have avoided the wires before Krueger deviated from that track.
In Ostebo’s administrative remarks, he states that Leone at some point during the flight, “entered a course and heading into the onboard navigation system that had the aircraft fly directly toward a charted navigational hazard.” He said Leone did not warn Krueger of the hazard he’d “directed the aircraft toward.”
He does not specify that hazard but the report then goes into the last seconds of the flight, just before the wires were struck.
“As the co-pilot, your duties included serving as the safety pilot and ensuring the safe navigation of the aircraft,” Ostebo said near the beginning of his remarks. “Your failure to perform your required duties directly contributed to the crash of the aircraft and the deaths of the crew.”
Smith, in an email Sunday, said this “is a sad day for the CG and Coast Guard aviation.” CG refers to Coast Guard.
Smith said Ostebo’s “failure to acknowledge the CG’s failure to properly mark, inspect and maintain the wires, and its failure to act on reports of the unsafe condition from its own senior (non-commissioned officers), exposes the action against Lt. Leone as mere scapegoating.”
A message seeking comment was left with the Coast Guard Sunday.
Norris, during the military hearing, also investigated whether Leone was derelict in his duty for not advising Krueger that they were flying too low at certain points in the flight and recommending a rise in altitude. The allegation arose from the hearing. Prosecutors said they didn’t seek it.
Norris, in his January report, said he believed there were “reasonable grounds” to believe Leone had “committed the crime of negligent dereliction of duty” for not questioning or speaking up about the altitude. But he said proving that required speculation as to what Krueger may have done if Leone had spoken up, and he said he did not believe the government could prove this link “to a reasonable fact-finder.”
Norris said he didn’t believe disciplinary action was warranted in that instance but said it could be addressed through training and other “non-punitive measures.”





Comments (15)
Add commentTime to go?
Well MR. Ostebo, you preferred charges and when the evidence was trotted out, you were unable to sustain them. Now in a second and very obvious fit of poor judgment you are trying to complete your hatchet job.
It seems to me that if you are looking for a lack of judgment you had better spend some time navel gazing. As far as I am concerned we, the public that you serve could not have your resignation in hand quick enough.
Hindsight is 20/20
As the previous poster alluded to, if Ostebo's comments were remotely true, then the Coast Guard would not have dismissed the charges.
So it only stands to reason that there was reasonable doubt as to Leone's guilt. From what I've read in this forum, the public overwhelmingly agrees.
I used to work for a uber-macho ex-sergeant who spent eight years in the military. The mindset is the same: Something screwed up, so SOMEONE has to pay and it doesn't matter who, as long as he got his pound of flesh, any flesh would do.
And since Leone is the only one who survived, it would seemingly make Ostebo's job easier to accuse him rather than to admit to dozens of other possible scenarios which could have been contributing factors.
Either way, because of this and the recent Coastie program on the discovery channel, I have less and less respect for the Coast Guard "leadership." I love our coasties but I seriously question their leadership.
I commend Leone for refusing to sign something that appears to be manufactured to make him a scapegoat and to take the pressure off his superiors.
Blatant failure of leadership
Destroying this young man's career in this way is a rinky-dink act unworthy of what our senior leaders need to be. From a practical standpoint, it is very difficult for a co-pilot to cross-check and try to correct every stupid move by a pilot. The pilot had full control of the aircraft and wanted to buzz the beach and did so. Probably wouldn't've listened to prudent recommendations anyway. This is a tragic incident and Leone is less at fault than the pilot, who was the aircraft commander. I don't fault the pilot either; the power line he hit was "out of the blue" ... after miles and miles of no obstructions, these unmarked lines presented a unique and unexpected hazard to a helicopter flying up the coast of Washington. There are standards for visually marking hazards for a reason. The power lines weren't properly marked. If they were, I think this accident wouldn't have happened.
Perhaps Admiral Ostebo wishes to "save" CG aviation from future incidents such as this. In punishing Leone in this way, he does nothing but make things worse. It is ridiculous to think that this administrative punishment will correct any recklessness in the service. The fact of the accident in and of itself does far more than a peevish administrative act. I imagine the effect on rank-and-file morale will be extremely negative. The churlish act by this admiral does nothing but tarnish the service further, much further. It also makes one question the quality of upper-echelon leadership and surmise that the corrections that may be needed to redirect the service toward a safer work environment might better start at or near the top, not at the Lieutenant level.
Still no mention of burying the cables that have caused more than one accident! C'mon man!
The CG Commandant should remove Ostebo, due to a "lack of confidence" in his ability to command. And, Admiral Ostebo should do the right thing now: remove those administrative remarks from Leone's record.
It's over...
The fat lady has sung.
I think this Admiral should be passed over,
What point is he trying to make, the board dismissed all the charges and I served for 24years and I doubt this young pilot was derelict in his duties, the pilot is the ultimate in charge and I think this young man has suffered enough without this Admiral trying to make a name for himself. May he be passed over and put out to pasture.
co-pilot
The term co-pilot must carry some responsibilities. He was not a passenger. The C.C. must also shoulder some burden for the unmarked navigational wires. Sounds to me like the pilot buzzed a C.C. vessel in the channel for fun, wrong time, wrong place, and everything happened pretty darn quick. The co-pilot was probably caught up in the 'fly-by' incident and, in hindsight, would have done things different.
This Admiral seems like a
This Admiral seems like a picture perfect example of how leadership is a learned trait, not an appointed one. Just because your an Admiral, does not mean your a leader.
Coast Guard Senior Officers
I think Alaskans should be extremely careful in hiring retired senior CG officers directly in senior civilian government positions. Many that I've known really need a "cooling down" period. I wouldn't want to work for this guy at Alaska DOT!
Don't let facts get in the way of your commentary.
Look folks, this was an administrative action; not a legal action. The Article 32 recommendation was to not proceed with criminal charges and they did not - that does not mean LT Leone is not subject to an Admiral's Mast. The Article 32 recomendation only suggested that the issue could not be proven in a court martial. An Admirl's Mast is completely different. It is not uncommon for legal proceedings to fail, followed by administrative proceedings.
Fine, you can disagree with the Admiral's decision, but it's his to make. All you Monday-morning quarterbacks and home-schooled legal scholars, take the day off.
Leone
By hitting Mr Leone with these "administrative" remarks and
making a part of his personal file, he has effectively ended
the man's career in the CG. He will never be promoted again.
It seems to me that Admiral Ostebo has a personal vendetta against Lt Leone.
Why else would he continue along this route if that were not the case. Would not
be the first time something like this has happened in the military.
Happened to me at my last unit before retirement.
That was a very stressful time for me, glad I made it through. May Lt Leone find a good job flying helo's for a commercial carrier because by Admiral Ostebo's actions, he has
ended the mans flying career in the CG and most likely his entire CG career. I personally cannot see Ostebo's reasons. After all, he was one of those fire in the belly hot
dog CG helo pilots. Even served at Sitka as I recall. Godspeed Lt Leone.
@jmcasto
You are right, the decision is his to make. The decision he makes and how he makes it reflect his fitness for duty as a district commander. To be quite frank it appears that the community has lost faith in his ability to lead.
@jmcasto
Your comments deserve a response. It is sad that you find it necessary to lower yourself to name calling and making baseless assumptions about commenters whom you do not know, but with whom you disagree. For the record, while I do not know the qualifications of the others on this comment board, I am a retired O-6 CG District Legal Officer, and my J.D. was not obtained through home schooling. There is a difference between having the power to take an action, and acting responsibly in taking that action. The comments I read do not question the authority of the admiral, but rather the manner in which he exercised it. I have followed this case closely for several months. To hold a junior officer responsible for not advising his superior to not fly in a manner that the pilot should have already recognized was improper is ludicrous. The Article 32 Investigating Officer appears to have recognized this. The admiral's decision appears to me to be a case of "Somebody has to pay, and there is only one man left, so we will make him pay." This is not a new attitude in the CG, but one that my mentors and I worked hard to overcome. I am sorry to see this attitude return to the CG.
Leani is Subject of Coast Guard vindictiveness
So, the charges were dropped, yet the local Admiral wants to unfairly punish a young, dedicated Coast Guard pilot because he didn't question the authority of the Pilot in Command within 45 seconds? This is not the way to treat our pilots and their families, who, on a daily basis sacrifice and risk their lives to save lives. I have spoken with this fine young officer and have told him that there is a better life after the Coast Guard. I know this to be a fact because I spent 21 years in the Coast Guard. If the Coast Guard does not let him fly, they will lose this fine officer and outstanding pilot. If he was not outstanding before, he will be now.
Who dropped the ball...
...the big orange ball that is supposed to mark the span of highline wires. They've been hit twice before. Maybe Ostebo or one of his buddies in charge overlooked the proper markings and this is to draw attention away from the screw up. Just speculation on my part. Just doesn't make sense to hassle a copilot for not forcing an issue with the pilot.
Nice scapegoating
Wow, let's not blame the Coast Guard's failure to place proper warnings about hazards to navigation. I wonder if those power lines are properly marked today, given the record I doubt it.