Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Air Force railroading its own pilots?
Self | Jan 03, 2003 | The Duke

Posted on 01/03/2003 4:22:58 AM PST by The Duke

Lately, if you've been paying close attention, you will have noticed minor news coverage of two US pilots, involved in a friendly fire incident in Afghanistan, which resulted in the unfortunate deaths of four Canadian soldiers, being hung out to dry by their/our own US government.


U.S. Air Force Pilots Charged

Criminal charges have been brought against two U.S. Air Force pilots responsible for the friendly fire bombing of Canadians in Afghanistan in April 2002.

Four Canadian soldiers were killed and eight others injured when a U.S. F-16 fighter jet dropped a bomb on the Canadian soldiers who were on a nighttime ground training exercise near Kandahar.

(Click Here for remainder of article.)


So I've got a couple of questions.

First, where the heck is the outrage? I mean, for God's sake, does anyone honestly believe that these two US pilots intentionally bombed their comrades-in-arms on the ground? The guys who were keeping the Mad Mullahs with leftover sidewider missiles from shooting one up their own tailpipes? If the US were not the laughing stock of the sane world before then we certainly are now!

Second, exactly what must be going through the minds of our pilots who have been deployed to the Persian Gulf today? Should we have new seats installed on all our military aircraft in which designated lawyers must sit in order to pre-approve all bombs dropped?

Third, why have our leaders allowed one minute of this farce to take place? Do we need new leaders?

This issue desperately needs to be discussed on all the talk radio programs and, if we have one grain of gratitude for the risks that our military people are taking right now today, and for the sactifices they are making, then we'll all call our representatives and make our voices heard in support of two highly trained, professional Air Force warriors, who are being railroaded to satisfy the sanctimonious, character-less, hand-wringing ninnies living to our north!

I say FREE THE PILOTS AND PROSECUTE THE GENERALS!


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: afghanistan; bombing; pilots; railroaded; stupidity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-65 next last
To: The Duke
Bump
21 posted on 01/03/2003 10:00:50 AM PST by Fiddlstix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cynicom
Military people sometimes do stupid things. Many years ago, we use to hunt for cargo ships in mid-ocean, then do a low level bomb run on them from out of the sun, with bomb bay doors open. At the time it was fun to see the ships crew running to and fro. Dumb, yes it was. Now and again we would dump scrap from in-flight lunches on them.

How many people did you kill doing that?

22 posted on 01/03/2003 10:06:46 AM PST by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
Dont recall any. Use to shoot up a lot birds too, along the cliffs, feathers all over.
23 posted on 01/03/2003 10:09:38 AM PST by cynicom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: cynicom
How many people did you kill doing that?

Dont recall any.

Exactly my point.

Doing stupid pranks in peacetime is a wee bit different from violating ROEs in a war zone.

24 posted on 01/03/2003 10:11:28 AM PST by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
This incident is remarkably similar to the one in which that Navy plane out of Avianno in Italy flew took down that cable car in the Italian Alps and killed all those skiers

Wrong, that was not combat, this was. When someone is shooting at you the rules change.

25 posted on 01/03/2003 10:16:02 AM PST by Centurion2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

Comment #26 Removed by Moderator

To: Poohbah
Same pilot made a three engine bombrun over North Korea few months prior. Not a prank but against all regs. The man under the gun is risking his life while others are safe and sound, monday morning quarter backing. With the drugs involved, let the guys walk.
27 posted on 01/03/2003 10:26:28 AM PST by cynicom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: cynicom
The man under the gun is risking his life while others are safe and sound, monday morning quarter backing. With the drugs involved, let the guys walk.

You mean the drugs that he VOLUNTARILY took?

Yeah, I'll gladly Monday-morning quarterback. I spent eight years in the USMC, and I don't think that people who are incontinent with ordnance should just get a pat on the head.

28 posted on 01/03/2003 10:28:53 AM PST by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
BUMP!
29 posted on 01/03/2003 10:30:17 AM PST by Publius6961
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: The Duke
I'm with you, I don't think criminal prosecutions are proper. and I like your comments about common sense. If these pilots made a mistake or broke the rules, then punish them by pointing their career in a different direction, not letting them be pilots again. Don't throw them in jail. It was war. War has special rules. It is a complete loss of common sense by the leaders to want to prosecute. But you know that it is done to keep 'allies' sending troops into harm's way. It will cause people who might serve our military in combat to decide to do other things instead.
30 posted on 01/03/2003 10:44:11 AM PST by Red Jones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: The Duke
Your posts are very insightful and exhibit an understanding of the challenges associated with flying fighters.

At night, in a combat zone, the margin of error is razor thin. Your mission is to kill people, and unfortunately, if you make the wrong judgment call, the wrong people may be killed. Fog of war is correct.

These pilots were acting correctly, they never violated any "orders," and they were responding to perceived enemy actions on the ground.

The pilots were acting in accordance with Rules of Engagement, as every soldier, sailor, Marine and airman has a right of self-defense, and some "controller" in an AWACS a hundred miles away knows this.

The pilots responded to shots being observed and the pilots reacted accordingly. It does not matter if the shots "could" have reached the aircraft, as tracers burn out way below maximum altitude.

Another aspect is the fact that any caliber of any weapon, to include rocks, can down a 50-million dollar jet. Heck we lose about a dozen jets a year due to bird strikes. Now, imagine what a 50 cal. round can do to an electric jet that flies by wire and is completely controlled by electronic pulses, pulses that would be mucked up if a round hit an electric circuit board.

All fire directed towards you is presumed to be hostile.

That the pilots made a mistake is not in dispute. What is in dispute is the question of mistake vs crime. Is a mistake a crime?

Keep up the good posts, as I've tired from participating in posts on this subject, as those that don't know/can't appreciate/do not understand the challenges of flying fighters are not worth the effort.

Have a great day.

Gunrunner2
31 posted on 01/03/2003 10:48:02 AM PST by Gunrunner2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Rokke
... this incident in no way supports your conclusion. There is nothing in this incident to suggest a backseater would have changed the outcome

Agreed. But the vocal protests/threats of a backseater who cares about his freedom, career and life can do wonders in preventing a hotshot pilot from making a fatal mistake.

32 posted on 01/03/2003 11:28:53 AM PST by catpuppy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: catpuppy
Perhaps. . .but the front-seater has 51% of the vote. (Notwithstanding the over-all veto--command ejection--of the back-seater).
;-)
33 posted on 01/03/2003 11:33:57 AM PST by Gunrunner2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

Comment #34 Removed by Moderator

To: Nip
The use of "Go Pills" goes back more than 12 years, I have been retired that long. In late 1989 I was given (them).

Indeed they do. The USAF issued them to aircrews ferrying fighter aircraft across the pond. This followed a night of sleep induced by the "stop" pills the USAF issued to the same crews.

35 posted on 01/03/2003 11:43:32 AM PST by catpuppy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: The Duke
I find it truly breathtaking that I woke up this morning in an America that is not unanimously rallying around this aircrew - who flew into danger on a regular basis to protect this nation.

They made a very serious, and a very deadly mistake. Yes, the AF maybe at fault for pushing them too far/wearing them out, but when all is said and done, when somebody in the military makes a mistake they are not immune to justice. Unfortunately, those above them who should share some of the blame won't be brought to justice.

36 posted on 01/03/2003 11:43:36 AM PST by af_vet_rr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Gunrunner2
Maybe if the units were adequately manned they wouldn't have been in the cockpit for 10 straight hours and they would have been able to think straight. After 10 hours in an F-16 cockpit, on dexadrine, they are beginning to lose responsibility for some judgement errors.
37 posted on 01/03/2003 11:46:58 AM PST by Check6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Gunrunner2
Cannot disagree entirely although that 51% vote had better be backed up by ROE and common sense. As for the ejection thing, have you forgotten the command selector valve (controlled by the backseater) whereby the backseater could ensure that the guy in front went along for the parachute ride?
38 posted on 01/03/2003 11:47:23 AM PST by catpuppy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Gunrunner2
Sorry Gr, I did not read very carefully your comments regarding the "veto." My bad.
39 posted on 01/03/2003 11:55:25 AM PST by catpuppy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: The Duke
Here is part of the transcript from the US Board of Inquiry -- enter text can be seen HERE

D. COFFEE FLIGHT OVER TARNAK FARMS

COFFEE flight reported to ____ that they were witnessing surface-to-air fire (SAFIRE) off to the right side of their formation. COFFEE 51 requested permission from _____ to take a mark, which was approved. At this point, COFFEE 52 put his NVGs back on and turned off his external lights. COFFEE 52 then made a right hand turn away from his flight lead and began a descent. COFFEE 51 remained above ___ feet MSL and started to fly a wide right turn around the location of the reported SAFIRE. At 2122:30Z, both pilots activated their on-board recorders. At this time, COFFEE 51 and COFFEE 52 were about ___nautical miles away from each other with the reported SAFIRE located between them.

Fifteen seconds later, COFFEE 52 made a descending left turn, putting the SAFIRE site in the center of his in an attempt to mark the coordinates. While doing so, COFFEE 52 descended to _____ AGL and slowed to _____knots calibrated air speed (KCAS).

COFFEE 52 then turned away from the site and reported that he could see the source of the reported SAFIRE. At 2123:23Z, he requested permission from ___ to "lay down some 20 mike-mike," meaning to fire on the site with his 20mm cannon. ____ replied “Standby." Twenty-eight seconds later, the AWACS Mission Crew Commander (MCC) had relayed this request to the CAOC, call sign ___. COFFEE flight could not hear these transmissions. ____ informed ____ that COFFEE flight had seen SAFIRE near Kandahar and that COFFEE 52 had requested to employ his 20mm cannon. The Chief of Combat Operations (CCO), immediately told the ____ controller to deny the request. The CCO asked the DCO seated near him, "Are you hearing this?" At 2124:38Z, ____ called ____ requesting more information on the SAFIRE and instructed ____ to tell COFFEE flight to hold fire. The direction “…hold fire, need details on SAFIRE for ____," was relayed by _____ to COFFEE flight shortly thereafter. At this point, 1 minute and 22 seconds had elapsed since COFFEE 52's initial request for permission to employ his 20mm cannon

E. FINAL INCIDENT SEQUENCE

At Tarnak Farms Range, the _____ crew had fired two of their remaining three rounds but were having difficulty properly loading the last round. Corporal _____ completed loading the final round and Corporal _____ was preparing to fire the weapon. Sergeant _____, the soldier furthest to the south, was observing the tank stalk crew

The _____ gunners, Corporal Dyer and Private Smith, directed by Master Corporal _____, had fired all their ammunition and the gunner manning the _____, Corporal _____, was firing at a slow rate (3-4 round bursts with about a 10 second pause between bursts) because he was conserving his ammunition. He occasionally fired faster bursts to assist the _____ gunners in sighting the tank target as necessary. Sergeant Léger and Master Corporal _____ continued supervising the tank stalk team

At 2124:54Z, in immediate response to direction to hold fire and request for information on the SAFIRE, COFFEE 52 told _____"Okay I’ve got a, uh, I’ve got some men on a road and it looks like a piece of artillery firing at us. I am rolling in in self defense.” _____responded four seconds later, “_____ copies.” Immediately after, COFFEE 51 reminded COFFEE 52 over the UHF frequency, “Check master arm, laser arm.” At the same time, _____ relayed to _____ COFFEE 52’s declaration of self-defense. COFFEE 52 then called “bombs away” over the UHF radio frequency and released one 500 pound GBU-12 laser-guided bomb. Thirty-eight seconds after _____call concerning COFFEE flight’s declaration of self-defense, _____ told _____, “_____, _____, be advised Kandahar has friendlies, you are to get COFFEE 51 out of there as soon as possible.” This call was received by _____ during bomb impact and was immediately acknowledged.

As the bomb was released, Sergeant Léger began walking from the _____ team towards the machine gun crew. Private Green was kneeling. Sergeant _____ and Corporals _____ and _____ heard a whistling sound that Sergeant _____ immediately recognized as incoming fire. The GBU-12 impacted the ground approximately three feet to the left of the machine gun crew on the west lip of Wadi East. The main force of the explosion hit the south end of the line of ten soldiers. Sergeant Léger, Corporal Dyer, Private Green and Private Smith died immediately. Two minutes and 20 seconds had elapsed from COFFEE 52's request to employ his 20mm cannon until the GBU-12 impacted at Tarnak Farms

After the bomb detonated, COFFEE 52 called “shack” over the radio frequency, indicating a direct hit on the target. This call was not acknowledged. Nine seconds after the bomb impacted the ground, COFFEE 52 began a radio call to ____. _____ interrupted and relayed the CAOC's directions to COFFEE flight to "Disengage, friendlies Kandahar." COFFEE 52 acknowledged the order from _____ and said, “…disengaging south.” COFFEE flight then proceeded southwest on their original heading of 230 degrees to rendezvous with an assigned air refueling tanker.

Approximately five seconds after informing _____ that he was disengaging south, COFFEE 51 called, “Copy, uh, can you confirm that they were shooting at us?” _____ replied, “COFFEE 51, ______, you cleared self-defense [unintelligible] ___ wants you to work south. There may be friendlies Kandahar.”

After air refueling, COFFEE flight returned to their deployed location. The return flight lasted approximately____ . While en route to the air refueling tanker, there was considerable communication, both internally between the two pilots, and externally with _____, concerning the location and the nature of the reported SAFIRE. Upon arrival at their deployed location, the pilots were met planeside by the 332 AEG Commander, Colonel Nichols. He informed the two pilots of the friendly fire incident.

AWACS remained on station for another _____ after COFFEE flight departed the area. They then returned to their deployed location. The crew was met at the debrief by their squadron operations officer, Lieutenant Colonel _____, who gathered information from them regarding their involvement with the friendly fire incident.

As an active duty AF member, this inquiry is quite clear. The pilots were clearly ordered to "Stand By". This is the equivelent of a DIRECT ORDER.

Yes, the pilot called "Self-defence", but they had already been told that there may be friendlies in the area. That over rules the "Self-defence" and the Order of STAND BY holds.

These pilots ignored a direct order and broke the Rules of Engagement. They may get lucky and have the charges reduced at Article 32 or Court Martial, but the bottom line is that they broke the ROE and their AF flying days are over.

40 posted on 01/03/2003 11:58:22 AM PST by commish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-65 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson