US Air Force Says 'Speed' Good for Tired Pilots

[Djinn Raffo]

yahoo source

---

BARKSDALE AIR FORCE BASE (Reuters) - An Air Force physician sang the praises on Thursday of amphetamines used by two fighter pilots who bombed a Canadian infantry unit in Afghanistan (news - web sites), saying fatigue, not "speed," kills.

The defense had contended that Majs. Harry Schmidt and William Umbach, who face possible court-martial, were buzzed out on Air Force-sanctioned Dexedrine when they dropped a 500-pound (227-kg) bomb on a Canadian infantry unit near Kandahar on April 17.

An Air Force air combat commander said on Thursday in the hearing that he saw no evidence of the "fog of war" in a video of the "friendly fire" bombing, which killed four Canadians, wounded eight others and drew an angry response from Canada.

The grand jury-like "Article 32" hearing began on Tuesday. Schmidt and Umbach face charges of involuntary manslaughter, aggravated assault and dereliction of duty that could bring up to 64 years in military prison if convicted.

The two, both formerly full-time military pilots now in the Illinois National Guard, mistook the Canadians for the enemy when they thought they saw shots fired at them during a routine air cover mission. The Canadians were conducting a live-fire anti-tank exercise at the ruins of Tarnak Farms, once the property of Osama bin Laden (news - web sites).

Their lawyers have blamed battlefield confusion and "go pills" for the mistaken attack. The pilots were not warned that the Canadians were below and their judgment was affected by Dexedrine the Air Force provides for long flights, they said.

GOOD, NOT BAD

On Thursday, the Air Force Surgeon General's office sent pilot physician Pete Demitry to Barksdale to tell reporters covering the hearing that Dexedrine is a good thing, not bad.

He told a news conference the Air Force has used the stimulant safely for 60 years and that it is better than coffee because it not only keeps users awake, but also increases alertness.

There had been no known speed-related mishaps in the Air Force, whereas there had been many fatigue-related accidents, Demitry said.

"The hazard here is that fatigue kills," he said. "It (speed) is a life and death issue for our military."

The Air Force offers the drug on a voluntary basis, he said. Schmidt and Umbach popped "go pills" shortly before the attack as they started the long trip back to their home base in Kuwait.

Demitry said Dexedrine's side effects include headache, nausea and irritability.

Air Force Col. Lawrence Stutzrein, a director at the air combat command center for the Afghan war, testified on Wednesday that Schmidt, 37, and Umbach, 43, had acted far too quickly in deciding the Canadians were the enemy and then bombing them.

A video taken from the pilots' F-16 fighters showed little evidence of the "continuous firing" they told air controllers they saw and recorded their deep, rapid breathing as they zeroed in on the target and Schmidt unleashed the bomb.

CONFUSION

Adding to their confusion was that of the controller in a nearby AWACS radar plane, who told them shortly after the bombing that those were "friendlies" below, but also told the pilots they had been shot at.

"I hope that (bombing) was the right thing to do," Umbach radioed to Schmidt.

"Me too," Schmidt replied.

After viewing the tape again on Thursday, Stutzrein was asked by Col. Patrick Rosenow, who is presiding over the hearing, if the video showed "the fog of war."

"I don't see fog at all. I saw a lot of procedural problems," Stutzrein said.

"You didn't find that to be the fog of war?" he was asked.

"No," Stutzrein insisted.

Schmidt's attorney, Charles Gittins, told reporters outside the hearing that the Air Force's treatment of the two pilots could affect the behavior of others hesitant to make the quick decisions combat requires.

"There other pilots out there watching this hearing who are going to be making combat decisions based on what happens here," he warned.

Schmidt, a former "top gun" pilot at the Navy flying school, and Umbach, a pilot for United Airlines, have been supported by veterans' groups and other organizations who say they are heroes, not criminals. They were charged with crimes only because the Bush administration wanted to placate Canada, their backers say.

---

To be honest i feel kind of bad for these pilots.. And think that it was an inteligence mistake more than 'speed' or pilots who erred.. but i don't really know.

One question for the yanks here who would know. when their is a friendly fire incident involving other americans being killed by friendly fire.. i imagine their is an investigation but is their usually a trial and court case like this one? Maybe it's just in Canada but this case is big news up here. is it in the states?

And i never heard if what was true or not.. but do you remember that wedding party that was bombed in Afghanistan.. if it was a wedding or not i never heard.. but if it was.. would their be a court case like this?

[ 01-22-2003, 02:54 PM: Message edited by: Djinn Raffo ]

[Ronn_Bman]

I heard some of this being talked about yesterday on the talk show "feed" Ziroc was playing on Ironworks' Radio.

The lady said the pilots were given the "uppers" despite the warning on the label saying "Do Not Operate Heavy Machinery". [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img]

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Djinn Raffo: yahoo source To be honest i feel kind of bad for these pilots.. And think that it was an inteligence mistake more than 'speed' or pilots who erred.. but i don't really know. One question for the yanks here who would know. when their is a friendly fire incident involving other americans being killed by friendly fire.. i imagine their is an investigation but is their usually a trial and court case like this one? Maybe it's just in Canada but this case is big news up here. is it in the states? And i never heard if what was true or not.. but do you remember that wedding party that was bombed in Afghanistan.. if it was a wedding or not i never heard.. but if it was.. would their be a court case like this?

Don't feel too bad for the pilots. Here's today's NYTimes on how they screwed the pooch:

General Says U.S. Pilots 'Reckless' in Bombing
By REUTERS
Filed at 7:05 p.m. ET

BARKSDALE AIR FORCE BASE, La. (Reuters) - U.S. fighter pilots showed a ``reckless disregard'' for flight rules when they mistakenly bombed a Canadian infantry unit in Afghanistan instead of flying away from what they believed was hostile fire, a U.S. Air Force general said on Tuesday.

Testifying in a military ``Article 32'' hearing, Brig. Gen. Stephen Sargeant pinned the blame for the attack squarely on F- 16 pilots Harry Schmidt and William Umbach, whom he accused of violating rule after rule as they zeroed in on the Canadians on April 17 near the city of Kandahar.

``In my opinion, this is a reckless disregard for the SPINS (special instructions) and the ROE (rules of engagement),'' Sargeant said, using military lingo. ``There is a breakdown in basic airmanship throughout this portion of the flight.''

Schmidt, 37, and Umbach, 43, face manslaughter, assault and dereliction of duty charges for dropping a 500-pound bomb on the Canadians, who were conducting a night live-fire exercise that the pilots, out on patrol, mistook for an attack.

Four Canadians died in the attack and eight were wounded.

The incident hurt U.S.-Canada relations and was one of at least a dozen embarrassing ``friendly fire'' accidents by the U.S. military in the Afghan war, but the only one that brought criminal charges.

The hearing, now in its second week, was to consider whether the pilots, both former full-time military pilots now in the Illinois Air National Guard, should face court martial that could bring up to 64 years in prison.

Sargeant co-chaired a U.S.-Canada bombing investigation that blamed Umbach and Schmidt for the accident and recommended they be charged.

His testimony on Tuesday was aimed at defusing defense contentions that the bombing was an unlucky accident to which inept air controllers, poor communications and amphetamines that the Air Force provides for tired pilots all contributed.

CLOSE TO KANDAHAR AIRFIELD

The general, testifying before investigating officer Col. Patrick Rosenow in a conference room too small for spectators, said the pilots should have flown away when they saw what they believed was hostile fire.

They were not within range of anti-aircraft artillery and were just 3 miles from Kandahar airfield, where allied forces were in full control.

Instead of turning to fight, they should have radioed the position of the suspected fire to the airfield, which could have sent troops to check it out, Sargeant said.

``Against surface-to-air firing you are not to put yourself in harm's way,'' he said.

Sargeant said the pilots took no evasive measures and did not follow proper procedure in communicating with military air controllers or each other. He also said Schmidt essentially took over from flight leader Umbach, who said or did nothing to assert control over his colleague.

Schmidt is a former ``top gun'' from the Navy flying school, while Umbach is a long-time United Airlines pilot.

``Major Schmidt has control of the situation and was directing where that bomb was going to go,'' Sargeant said. ``I hear no change of lead, I hear no defensive calls (on a videotape of the incident).''

According to the tape, air controllers told Schmidt to hold fire, but he radioed back that he was dropping a bomb ``in self defense.''

Sargeant, who was scheduled to testify again on Wednesday, was not asked why he thought the pilots were so quick to attack, but some reports have suggested that officials accused Schmidt of being a ``cowboy'' with an itchy trigger finger.

Fellow pilots who knew him testified that he was a good flier who acted reasonably in the incident.

Defense attorneys said the Article 32 hearing, including Sargeant's testimony, could cause Air Force pilots to wonder if they will be second-guessed for their actions in combat.

``We think it sends a very dangerous precedent to pilots who are now preparing for war,'' said Umbach's lawyer, David Beck.

Yo guys...Im not sure how many of you have ever been in the military but the use of prescribed (yes thats right prescribed) medications by critical people in the military has been a fact for decades (and decades).
Ever hear the title "Flight Surgeon"? Ever wonder why pilots need their very own special doctors? These guys Lawyers just jumped on this to use as a defense int heir case...because they really don't have a case and it was their last gasp at a justifiable defense.

Wether the guys did anything actually wrong will be decided at their courts marshal. The drugs were not the cause of the "accident"

[ 01-22-2003, 03:18 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Djinn Raffo]

I agree you with MagiK it wasn't the speed that was the cause.. even if one of the side effects are irritability...

But isn't Dexedrine illegal in the US? at least outside the military? I just think it sends a mixed message what with the war on drugs and all.. don't you?

And uppers do have a long military history yeah. edit> I've heard about germans eating caffiene rich chocolate in wwII and then russians with vodka yeah.. im not sure about the actual history of amphetamines though..

[ 01-22-2003, 04:24 PM: Message edited by: Djinn Raffo ]

[Djinn Raffo]

I also read in the paper (can't provide link) that US Air Force Brig-Gen. Stephen Sargeant said pilots who mistakenly bombed em should have taken evasive action. That one of the most fundamental rules dicates pilots take evasive measure when they are being threatened. Instead these pilots veered back towards the Canadians and manoevered to set up to attack the target..

[ 01-22-2003, 03:27 PM: Message edited by: Djinn Raffo ]

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Djinn Raffo: I also read in the paper (can't provide link) that US Air Force Brig-Gen. Stephen Sargeant said pilots who mistakenly bombed em should have taken evasive action. That one of the most fundamental rules dicates pilots take evasive measure when they are being threatened. Instead these pilots veered back towards the Canadians and manoevered to set up to attack the target..

This was in the article I posted above. Rather than descend and slow down, the Rules of Flight state they should have ascended, sped up, and viewed the *threat* from a distance.

[Djinn Raffo]

Thats right it is to. The one i read was Canadian Press which probably means the article was amassed from info from reuters and/or Associated Press.

EDIT> Also in the article i read though.. it said that Sargeant is in conflict of interest because he was appointed to the board by lt. gen Micheal Mosely (top air force official in Afghanistan) and Moseley was in a position to promote Sargeant. And Sargeant also co-wrote a 1600 page report on the accident that was the basis of the charges against the pilots.

[ 01-22-2003, 03:46 PM: Message edited by: Djinn Raffo ]

[Skunk]

This was in the article I posted above. Rather than descend and slow down, the Rules of Flight state they should have ascended, sped up, and viewed the *threat* from a distance.

That's correct - but the question is:
"Did the drugs impair their ability for rational thought. Did it adversely affect the decision process? If not, was it mental fatigue that led to the error of judgement?"

When I was at Universtity, come the finals I went without sleep and took 'uppers' to keep me going. After about 5 days, I remember doing strange things like putting the sugar in the fridge and the milk in the kitchen cupboard.

Civilian pilots are not allowed to take 'uppers'. If you are involved in a road n accident in Europe and it is discovered that you were taking 'uppers' - you WILL be held at fault for the accident.

In the case of these pilots, they were more or less 'ordered' to take these pills - or face being grounded and perhaps (off the record) being labeled as 'trouble makers'.

My sympathy is with the pilots - they are being made into scapegoats.

[ 01-23-2003, 05:40 AM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

[Timber Loftis]

Well, skunk, I guess you've got a point. But, the warrior's job is dictated by his commander. If it is his job to be able to perform under certain pressures - including the influence of drugs - and he fails, then he fails. It's that simple.

Now, for holding them civilly liable for things requiring more culpability the "reckless" would not be possible - because that's the highest mens rea you can hold someone to when under the influence of drugs.