Air Force railroading its own pilots?

Self | Jan 03, 2003 | The Duke

[xsrdx]

The pilots were clearly ordered to "Stand By".

Like most others on this thread, I have mixed emotions. I hate to see military personnel hung out to dry for political correctness, or as scapegoats for rotten ROE/procedure/doctrine/technology etc.

But CAS is there to support the ground combatants, and as such pilots have an OVERRIDING OBLIGATION to be absolutely damn positive of what they are engaging, especially in a relatively low (air) threat environment like OEF/Afghanistan. If in doubt, check fire.

Self defense is fine if the threat is legitimate, but even that is debatable in this case.

Jail may or may not be appropriate, but they certainly deserve some degree of punishment.

[Rokke]

"this inquiry is quite clear"

It is? Then maybe you can clarify what "stand by" means. And does the term "stand by" preclude a military combatant from defending himself. Also, please point out when the pilots were told there were friendlies in the area. And once you do that, explain how someone reading a transcript of an incident, while sitting at a computer at 1G and 0 knots can be excused for making an error, while a pilot strapped to an ejection seat in the 8th hour of a 10 hour mission cannot.

[Rokke]

"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."

But you are assuming that somehow that backseater had access to information that no one else in the air that night had. Also, you are assuming that a pilot with several hundred of hours of combat experience in two different services, in three different combat theaters, who had dropped hundreds of air to ground munitions in all levels of threat environment, didn't care about his freedom, career or life.

[catpuppy]

Not really. I am just saying that sometimes another voice saying "wait a minute" or "what about this?" or just plain "NO!" can save another from making a big mistake. Perhaps this might have been the case here but I certainly do not know.

[commish]

It is? Then maybe you can clarify what "stand by" means. And does the term "stand by" preclude a military combatant from defending himself. Also, please point out when the pilots were told there were friendlies in the area. And once you do that, explain how someone reading a transcript of an incident, while sitting at a computer at 1G and 0 knots can be excused for making an error, while a pilot strapped to an ejection seat in the 8th hour of a 10 hour mission cannot.

Yes, the term "Stand BY" is very clear -- be it from a Combat Controller (As in this case), or a flight leader, or a drill Instructor, or an NCOIC, or a commander ... if you request permission to take an action and you receive "STAND BY" as the response - that translates to "Hold all action we are assessing the situation" -- military members are trained from day one as to the full and complete meaning of the Term "stand by"

Also, I didn't even mentioned that in addition the term "HOLD FIRE" was also used. The instructions to these pilots were VERY clear.

Now that said, their calling of "self-defense" is a mitigating factor. If the pilot truly felt his and his flights lives were in danger by inaction, then that can be used as a defense.

I take back the statement about "friendlies" , a rereading of the transcript shows that the actual term Friendlies was not used until after the bomb was dropped. BUT, I can garauntee that in their mission brief they were aware of Friendly forces being in the Kandahar Area. Now, being in hour number 8 of their flight is a mitigating factor to this, and will be used by their Defense team.

Finally - if someone sitting at Computer at 1 G and 0 Knots "Committed an Error" that resulted in the loss of 4 lives and multiple injuries - you can be assured that they would also be held accountable.

ONE THING TO NOTE : These officers have not been convicted -- this inquiry is just referring charges to an Article 32 hearing. I can pretty safely guess that some of these charges will be reduced during the Article 32, and some may even be dropped. Then it will go to Court Martial where the Pilots may be cleared by the panel. However, I think I can safely say that at the least there will be deriliction of duty, negligence, and disobeying an order charges at some point.

Now for the Curious - I am a 22 year AF NCO, and have been through Law of Armed Conflict, Rules of Engagement and combat training. I also served air crew in the Gulf War (As a Courier, but it was still considered an air crew position) and went through that ROE training.

The rules are quite clear -- when told to "Stand By" and "Hold Fire", you do exactly that. Their defense will be the calling of "Self-defense", but the burdon of proof will be on them to prove they were in danger.

[Rokke]

"Yes, the term "Stand BY" is very clear"

Baloney. The term "stand by" has no specific military definition. It is commonly used in the aviation community as a way of saying "Uh, just a minute." It is NOT an order or anything similar. It is a radio stall technique. If your drill instructor or NCOIC ever responded with "stand by" when your life was on the line, it is HIGHLY unlikely, that you would "hold all action" while he assessed the situation. I can confidently say that the term "stand by" was not a part of MY military training.

"Now that said, their calling of "self-defense" is a mitigating factor. If the pilot truly felt his and his flights lives were in danger by inaction, then that can be used as a defense."

Bingo. And it was.

Look, these guys have been tried and convicted a thousand times in internet forums by guys like you, who have very little understanding of the complexities of the situation they faced. The guy who dropped the bomb that night has spent more time flying combat missions than almost any fighter pilot currently flying in the world. He was an instructor at the Navy's TopGun school, and the Air Force's equivalent Fighter Weapons School. He is the foremost expert in the topics we are discussing...and he committed an error that cost 4 good men their lives. With all due respect to your time in service, and your experience as an air courier during the Gulf War, you have NO IDEA what was going on that night over Afghanistan. I'm not trying to be personal by pointing out your incorrect reading of the transcript. I am simply trying to highlight how complicated the combat environment has become. Every day in Afghanistan was an exercise in tactics development. NOTHING was standard. B-52 CAS?!?! Who would have ever thought. But in the process of learning, bad things are going to happen. The Canadians weren't the first men to die in Afghanistan due to friendly fire. And unfortunately, I think we'll see in upcoming conflicts that they won't be the last. I'm sure the computer screen lawyers will be ready to pounce in the future too. I guess everyone has to have a hobby.

[Rokke]

I'll buy that.

[Gunrunner2]

A "Combat Controller?"

I thought it was AWACS, as a Combat Controller is a USAF Special Operations guy that is trained in all sorts of things. . .but Air Weapons Control at a work station on an AWACS is not one of them.

"Stand By" is instructive. . .until being shot at. That is the ROE, as no one can deny you permission to defend yourself if you are being shot at.

Nice resume, but you are not the only one schooled in LOAC/ROE and in-flight operations and procedures. In fact, I'd say there are more than a few with a bit more experience and understanding about the situation. . .based upon stick time and actually making life/death decisions in a combat environment.

Oh, explain what "Courier" is. . .as "air crew" is a bit vague and non-specific. I'd say being a "courier" is interesting but hardly recognized as in the same league as "rated."

Have a nice day.

[Gunrunner2]

No problem (hugs and air kisses. . .)
;-)

[The Duke]

Hey, your last name would happen to be "Hussein" would it?

Seriously, I find it amazing how many contributors here are ready to hang these airmen - these fellow Americans who were responding to the atrocity of 9/11 - putting their lives on the line. I find it equally amazing how many here purport to know their very thoughts.

We're not at war yet, you'll know when we're *really* in a state of war when our troops suddenly become other than whipping boys for our worthless "political class".

Say, you wouldn't be a "trial lawyer", would ya? Or maybe, just maybe, you're one of those "generals"?

[cynicom]

Pooh...

You aint been there, so monday morning quarterbacking suits you fine.

[Happy2BMe]

"Three words..."Fog - of - War".

Bears repeating.

[Mr Rogers]

Actually, a lot of the footage I saw came from F-111s. Targeting pods are greatly improved since Vietnam and getting better. They have a lot of automation. In a really tense action, a WSO might help. In this case, the pilots had all the time in the world, but had a trigger finger. BTW - I'm an aging WSO, so I'm somewhat biased. I also work enough with F-16s to know the wingman are pretty silent nowadays. It is hard not to get task-saturated in a modern fighter.

Poohbah - I was going to make a point-by-point response, but you nailed it.

[Mr Rogers]

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

Discipline never changes. In peace or in wartime, flight discipline is crucial. In both this case and Aviano, the crews lacked fundamental flight discipline.

[Mr Rogers]

I've spent enough time flying over bad guy land to know you are wrong. There is strict ROE. Self defense can trump the ROE, but only when it is an ongoing attack. These guys were not threatened. They had plenty of time. They didn't take it. I've met pilots like them, and on a couple of occassions as package commander ordered them to wait. I understand the fog of war - but this wasn't an unavoidable accident. It was a violation of flight discipline that result in 4 good guys dying. That is manslaughter.

[Mr Rogers]

Actually, that depends. The pilot is always the aircraft commander, and responsible for safety of flight. However, the WSO can be the mission commander, responsible for tactical decisions like dropping. However, the F-16 is very much a single seat fighter. A WSO might have made a difference, but there is no guarantee - some WSOs are as undisciplined as some pilots.

[Light Speed]

This morning several reports aired...later reports same stations omitted the previous info.
Several incidents had occured in that sector...the number 17 is mentioned but is not clarified.
the video reveals com link with controller...but the hint is they are allready looking for something...they are not simply flying by.
I believe they were looking for RPG teams or other ground to ground rocket movement.
The pilots are experienced...they are briefed on sector intel prior to flight package.
My guess is they thought they had contact with one of the threat warnings which was a possible projection due to recent activity in the sector..even though they heard a check up com..the pilot saw the flash activity as being hostile.
I remember listening to the Gulf Controller on Short Wave,...outgoing..inbound... tankering vectors,..alot of chat.
Unknown if they will reveal to us the contact time line prior to the incident..how long they were in com link that sector.

[Rokke]

I can't argue with any of your posts. Including your comments concerning the time not taken by the pilots in this case. They would have been better served by departing the area and assessing their situation at range. But they didn't, and that was a poor tactical decision. Having made a poor tactical decision, they then had to respond to the circumstances they forced themselves into. Within those circumstances, they operated within the ROE of self-defense. The board will determine whether a court martial is warranted, but it is going to have to be based on errors in tactical airmanship rather than disobeying orders or violating ROE. Court martialing someone for a legal, tactical decision is a dangerous precedent. But what do I know. I am certainly not a lawyer.

On a related but very small point, I believe the only aircraft to operate over Bahgdad during the Gulf War were F-117's. That notwithstanding, some of the best bar stories I've heard from the Gulf War have come from 111 crews talking about dodging SAM's at 300'.

[Gunrunner2]

I understand the Navy allows WSO's to be the mission/package commander, but not in the USAF.

[Gunrunner2]

>>I've spent enough time flying over bad guy land to know you are wrong.<<

Nice to be sure. I've flown my share over bad guy land as well and I think I am right.

>>There is strict ROE.<<<

Never heard of "strict ROE." Tell me exactly where "strict ROE" is defined. What is the offical difference between "strict ROE" and just plain 'ol "ROE."

Hint: ROE is ROE.

>>Self defense can trump the ROE, but only when it is an ongoing attack.<<

Kinda my point, as the pilots perceived themselves to be receiving fire, and no one, on either side of this issue, disputes the pilots were operating on this perception.

>>These guys were not threatened.<<

All peception to the contrary, as the pilots called they were receving fire. (And, of course, since you've flown over bad guy land you are aware that tracer rounds burn-out well below max ord, so you never know just how high the round may fly.)

>>They had plenty of time.<<

Right. Night, being shot at, target likely on the move. . .right, plenty of time.

>>I've met pilots like them, and on a couple of occassions as package commander ordered them to wait.<<

Completely different scenario/situation when you are actually flying with them in the same airspace, sharing the same threat, eyes on the situation. Quite a different story when you are talking with AWACS a hundred miles away (or more).

>>I understand the fog of war - but this wasn't an unavoidable accident.<<

ALL mishaps/accidents are avoidable--to some extent.

>>It was a violation of flight discipline that result in 4 good guys dying.<<

Disagree, and apparently a whole lot of other people, to include almost everyone flying over there right now, thinks this is a political deal, not a true examination on how to make the processes better.