What I'd like to know is why this pilot was not told what would be going on in the area before he got into the plane. There was a communications breakdown somewhere, and it was costly.

http://edmonton.cbc.ca/regional/serv..._ppcli20040706

I fear no enemy soldier.
I fear no enemy tank.
I fear no man.
The only fear I have, is a jack ass in the seat with my grill doors in his sight.

Before I allow the gunner to pull the trigger, I double check to ensure what we are about to kill is without a doubt the enemy of my nation. The USAF is responsible for more friendly fire deaths than any armed agressor since Vietnam. Two months pay is hogwash! Make him the victims families casualty assistance officer. Then ground him, reduce him by 1, and make him the maintenance officer.

The article left out much. The man is a former naval aviator, and a TOP GUN instructor. He is not USAF, but Illinois Air National Guard. That he is arrogant and proud should not surprise; it comes with the terrain.

On to the particulars of the case, which is a classic example of allies not telling each other what they're doing well enough. The Canadians were, as this article notes, conduncting a NIGHT live-fire exercise, in an area that our hero was told no friendly forces would be. They could easily have been attacking his wingman (as he professed). HQ was laconic in its denial; however, its denial was NOT the last word. The man was a heavily trained and extraordinarily competent combat pilot, from all that I've read.

One of the disadvantages of being an officer is that occasionally you're obliged to act like one. [img]smile.gif[/img] It was incumbent upon him to decide and act in this situation. That a mistake was made and lives lost is not in question -- it unfortunately also goes with the terrain (i.e. war). These mistakes will continue as the conflict does, I fear...

Friendly fire... military intelligence... peaceful occupation... college student... the world is full of oxymorons. And, all types of morons for that matter.

What pisses me off is:

1) Nobody thought it was important to tell the pilot that allied forces were in the area doing live-fire night training.

2) The "disciplinary measures" seem to be entirely restricted to the pilots, e.g. scapegoats. I'd like to know that procedures have been changed so that the risk of this happening again is minimized.

I'm fully aware that mistakes and losses happen in war, and I was certainly not so naive as to think that we would take no casualties in Afghanistan. However, it hurts that these could have been avoided so easily, and that there is apparently no change in procedure (if there has been, I would appreciate somebody in the know telling me about it). Two sentences in the pre-flight briefing could have made the pilot act differently.

<font face="Verdana" size="3" color="#00FF00">I can't believe this is still being discussed or that this pilot is still not willing to admit he made a mistake. Here is some more news.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2...512717-ap.html </font>

NEW ORLEANS (CP) - A U.S. fighter pilot who was fined for bombing Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan plans to file a lawsuit against the air force over the public release of documents in the case, his lawyer said Thursday.

<font face="Verdana" size="3" color="#00FF00">He is still not willing to say he deserves some blame. His mission commander on the flight who did not drop the bombs took his punishment, and retired with some dignity.

While there was obviously a breakdown in communications with the pilots. I don't feel they should not be held slightly accountable. I feel the fine and disciplinary action was reasonable and the two pilots should have just accepted there punishment considering what they could have gotten. I also agree there should be changes to procedure if the current procedure didn't work. It is also possible the procedure that led to the event was not followed.</font>

[ 07-08-2004, 12:47 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

Sure, I'm not saying that the pilot didn't deserve the punishment he got! If he received more than he got, not one whine would escape my lips. He did make a mistake, e.g. that of being trigger-happy. He was told to wait for target confirmation, but did not.

My beef is that it looks like the buck stopped well down the chain of command/communication. To me, it is inexcusable for a combat pilot (or any military personnel) to be sent out without proper information about PLANNED movements and actions of allied forces.

Oh P-A-A-L-E-A-S-E.

And what of the TWO A-10 pilots that straffed C company 1st Marines, who had to take the VS-17 panel off the top of the ltvp-7 and fly it in the air?

Or, what about the Brits who had to watch their convoy come under USAF fire.

Or what about the bomb that was 'inadverteantly' dropped by a F-16c, that SPEC-OPS controllers said was a non-hostile target?

No. it's not just a case of not enough intel!

I'm not blaming the intel guys, Felix; they get more than their fair share of flak without my help.

I am saying that disparate force elements do not talk to each other as they should. I don't even limit it to allies: though people laugh at inter-service rivalries, I've seen Army officers refuse to be even civil to naval officers, war or no, whatever the secretaries or Joint Chiefs say.

The Air Force has enough trouble even coordinating the various National Guard elements flying under its command, to say nothing of working with Navy air or allied services.

Yes, the trend is obviously bad, and speaks of a general arrogance of service/country, among other things. I only say that I think THIS pilot was in the right.

You have to factor in the world looks quite differant from 30,0000ftdoing 600 knits, or down lown doing 350-400 knots. objects are real small and they go by real fast.