WHAT SHUD HAPPEN TO THE PILOTS..........

by Mary 28 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  DakotaRed

  The "speed" shouldn't really figure into this at all.

  Sorry, but I have to totally disagree here. Whether or not the intelligence was factual does not play as big a role as anyone armed in combat under the influence, especially with a multimillion dollar weapon under them.

  Knowing full well the aspects of combat and the split second decisions that must be made and also knowing these will be wrong at times, that does not excuse being under the influence of a drug or alcohol during a mission. Speed may not have been the deciding factor or blame in this, but it may have contributed to it too. Vietnam was known for rampant drug useage, but I never saw it during a mission or out in combat, it was for afterwards, back in base camp.

  Sorry, but I also disagree it is an outrage for these pilots to be tried. A terrible mistake was made and all the facts need to be made public, if for no other reason than to assure the Canadians they were not targeted. However, there should be no coverup and if the facts show a dereliction of duty, it should be dealt with appropriately.

  The intelligence and technology we depended on in Vietnam was archaic compared to today. Yes, mistakes are still made and with have to be lived with. But, if gross negligence was behind that mistake, or being high, or even overly rambunctious shooting, it too must be properly dealt with. There is no room in a combat situation for exercising that poor of judgment.

  But please, let's reserve judgment of these guys until all the facts are presented. No enlarging upon them or covering them up, just the true facts, please.

  Lew W
• 

  maximumflash

  Pilots who refused to take the drugs could be banned from taking part in a mission.

  The pilots were provided with the stimulant Dexedrine, generically known as dextroamphetamine and referred to as a "go-pill" by the airmen, when they set off on missions. When they returned, doctors gave them sedatives or "no-go pills" to help them sleep. Pilots who refused to take the drugs could be banned from taking part in a mission.

  The use of the drugs is outlined in a 58-page document seen by The Independent entitled Performance Maintenance During Continuous Flight Operations, produced by the Naval medical research laboratory in Pensacola, Florida. It says: "Combat naps, proper nutrition and caffeine are currently approved and accepted ways ... to prevent and manage fatigue. However, in sustained and continuous operations these methods may be insufficient ..."

  A statement issued yesterday by the US Air Force Surgeon General's Office confirmed the use of amphetamines by pilots. It said: "During contingency and combat operations, aviators are often required to perform their duties for extended periods without rest. While we have many planning and training techniques to extend our operations, prescribed drugs are sometimes made available to counter the effects of fatigue during these operations."

  http://www.thepowerhour.com/postings-three/pilots-on-speed.htm

  If these men were forced to take speed as their commanding officer ordered I do not believe it should be figured into the equation in this instance. However the pilots stating that this was a reason for the friendly fire mishap then by all means the policy needs to be reevaluated as I was always under the impression drugs of any type were a no go by military standards.
• 

  RAYZORBLADE

  Just an added note. Some of the families of the 4 Canadian men whom were accidentally killed, did not seek revenge.

  An invesitgation? Yes, absolutely, so that no one, no matter where they are from: allied forces or their own, would face 'friendly fire' issues (oxymoron).

  I cannot speak on behalf of all those families, but I do recall family members on television being interviewed, and a couple of them did not speak in such a manner as to rake the American pilots over the coals. They figured, having done such an error and living with that, was punishment enough.

  I wish I had the links, but I believe CBC footage of March/April 2002 would have some of it. Speeches from family, friends, and in-laws.

  Think of what happened during World War 2 with the Canadian warship: Haida. It was concluded, that it had been sunk, by 'friendly fire' and many men were lost off of the coast of France that day. I believe it was in the 100s.

  Tragic. The American soldiers have to live with this. That would be punishment more than I could possibly bear. Let's hope these misfortunes, never happen again.

  Friendly fire, even by ones own country, is unfortunately, nothing new.

  
  
• 

  Navigator

  Maximum Flash

  I doubt very much that the pilots were ordered to take the "Go Pills". They were probably optional. I always refused to take them and I was never banned from a mission because someone else would have to be scheduled or the mission cancelled, something commanding officers don't want to happen. Sometimes the amount of intel data given aircrew is so voluminous that it is difficult to get through it in a reasonable amount of time. The fact that the Canadians were conducting "live fire" exercises should have been a special briefing item. I still think the pilots used poor judgement in dropping the bomb(see my post above)and should be severely reprimanded or perhaps given Article15 punishment, but court martial?
• 

  hawkaw

  Legal counsel for the pilots went on a "full court" press in the media prior to this hearing, bringing out all sorts of things that have been known for years on the "speed" and of course the diverting blame game and the friendly fire incidents in the Gulf War. I saw how the press play was going and how it worked on people like my parents.

  Problem is, as was brought out in the hearing yesterday, the pilots were told not to fire. Experts from the military were put on the stand and told that if the situation happened to them, they would leave the area, not drop bombs. Others explained the importance and seriousness of the "order". And of course 3 minutes later they were told NOT to drop the bombs ...

  Each friendly fire case has to handled on a case by case basis. The evidence so far really looks to be manslaughter. A "specialized" trained pilot was told NOT to drop the bomb and indicated he received the order. If there was a concern he was going to be fired upon his training taught him not to drop the bomb but to leave the area.

  I think the defence was horrible yesterday and scored few points with the chain of command problems defence.

  I think their only defence is going to be drug issue. But this will be tough to beat becuase the onus will be on the defence to prove that the pilots took way to much speed to impair their thoughts and emotions. Why? Well a licenced doctor administered the drug taking to ensure the correct concentration was provided to the pilots.

  hawk
• 

  daveyJones

  Dakota,

  The "speed" was legal, the biggest factor here was a break down in the pre-flight mission brief. I've been to these before in Kosovo and Jordan. If there were friendlies in the area doing a live fire exercise the pilots should have been told, and there should have been a NOTAM issued (Notice To Airmen). That is standard procedure, so is returning fire when you think you're being fired at. Even after the "hold fire" order, under the Rules of Engagement as I understand them if they thought they were being fired on again after the Hold Fire was issued, they were weapons free.

  Are there other things these guys could have done? I'm almost sure of it. The culpability though, is with the breifers, and someone needs to explain why no NOTAM was issued.

  Yeru writing as Sean
• 

  hawkaw

  davey,

  Evidence from the experts on the stand yesterday was clear ..... In this particular case, if a "trained" pilot was told to hold .... and then he thought he was coming under fire, the pilot has been trained to "leave" the area.

  The expert was very clear on this point and the defence counsel cross examination was a disaster.

  hawk
• 

  Pleasuredome

  "blue on blues" are usually a result of lack of discipline or bad communication. the case should be investigated and if negligence is found then the person responsible should be brought to account.
• 

  RunningMan

  Whenever I think of this court case, I can't help bringing to mind the scene from Seinfeld where Jackie Chiles chastises Kramer for using a Chinese balm to heal his coffee burn:

  "Who told you to put the balm on. I didn't tell you to put the balm on. Nobody knows what a balm can do. A balm could do anything."

  I think someone should have told the pilots not to put the bomb on.
• 

  Stan Conroy

  As a Canadian, I get offended anytime Canada or Canadians are viewed as inferior to Americans. Bush's response to this tragedy did just that. As for the pilots, it was a terrible mistake, but sometimes when you are in a situation that doesn't allow much time for a decision, you have to make a call. They did so, and it was wrong. Is it worth a court martial? I don't think so. I'm sure there are other forms of discipline that can be used.

  If it was up to me:

  Discipline the pilots, pay restitution to the families of the killed and wounded (don't forget about the other 8 soldiers that were involved) and make Bush go on CBC and apologize to Canada.

  Stan