Blue on Blue. [Archive] - PPRuNe Forums

Rakshasa

6th Feb 2007, 09:12

Transcript starts:
1336.30 MANILA HOTEL:
POPOV from MANILA HOTEL. Can you confirm you engaged that tube and those vehicles?
1336.36 POPOV35:
Affirm Sir. Looks like I’ve got multiple vehicles in reverts at about 800 metres to the north of your arty rounds. Can you switch fire, and shift fire, and get some arty rounds on those?
1336.47 MANILA HOTEL:
Roger, I understand that those are the impacts you observed earlier on my timing?

1336.51 POPOV35:
Affirmative.
1336.52 MANILA HOTEL:
Roger, standby. Let me make sure they’re not on another mission.
1336.57 POPOV36:
Hey, I got a four ship. Looks like we got orange panels on them though. Do we have any friendlies up in this area?
1337.03 MANILA HOTEL:
I understand that was north 800 metres.
1337.12 MANILA HOTEL:
POPOV, understand that was north 800 metres?
1337.16 POPOV35:
Confirm, north 800 metres. Confirm there are no friendlies this far north on the ground.
1337.21 MANILA HOTEL:
That is an affirm. You are well clear of friendlies.
1337.25 POPOV35:
Copy. I see multiple riveted vehicles. Some look like flatbed trucks and others are green vehicles. Can’t quite make out the type. Look like may be ZIL157s (Russian made trucks used by Iraqi army).
1337.36 MANILA HOTEL:
Roger. That matches our Intel up there. And understand you also have the other fixed wing up this push? For terminal control, if you can.
1337.44 POPOV35:
I’d love to. I didn’t talk to him yet.

1337.46 MANILA HOTEL:
Roger, I believe CASPER is up this push too. Two Super Tomcats.
1337.54 POPOV35:
Hey dude.
1337.56 POPOV36:
I got a four ship of vehicles that are evenly spaced along a road [B]going north.

[Orange paneled and heading north?? Use your brain, please.]

1338.04 POPOV36:
Look down at your right, 2 o’clock, at 10 o’clock low, there is a, left 10 o’clock low, look down there north along that canal, right there. Coming up just south of the village.
1338.21 POPOV35:
Evenly spaced? Where we strafed?
1338.23 POPOV36:
No. No. Further east, further west, right now. And there’s four or five of them right now heading up there.
1338.29 POPOV35:
No, I don’t have you visual.
1338.30 POPOV36:
I’m back at your 6 – no factor.
1338.31 POPOV35:
OK, now where’s this canal?
1338.35 POPOV35:
Don’t hit those F18s that are out there.
1338.38 POPOV36:
OK. Right underneath you. Right now, there’s a canal that runs north/south. There’s a small village, and there are vehicles that are spaced evenly there.
1338.49 POPOV36:
They look like they have orange panels on though.
1338.51 POPOV35:
He told me, he told me there’s nobody north of here.

[who's got eyes on, dumb ass, you or him?]

1338.52 POPOV36:
I know. There, right on the river.
1338.53 POPOV35:
I see vehicles though, might be our original dudes.
1339.09 POPOV36:
They’ve got something orange on top of them.
1339.10 POPOV35:
POPOV for MANILA 3, is MANILA 34 in this area?
[ie is that our FAC down there?]
1339.14 MANILA HOTEL:
Say again?
1339.15 POPOV35:
MANILA HOTEL, is MANILA 34 in this area?
1339.19 MANILA HOTEL:
Negative. Understand they are well clear of that now.
1339.23 POPOV35:
OK, copy. Like I said, multiple riveted vehicles. They look like flatbed trucks. Are those your targets?
1339.30 MANILA HOTEL:
That’s affirm.
1339.31 POPOV35:
OK.
1339.34 POPOV36:
Let me ask you one question.
1339.35 POPOV35:
What’s that?
1339.45 POPO36:
(to MANILA HOTEL) Hey, tell me what type of rocket launchers you got up here?
1339.50 POPOV36:
I think they’re rocket launchers.
1339.52 MANILA HOTEL:
. . . (garbled) You were stepped on, say again.
1339.54 POPOV35:
MANILA HOTEL, fire your arty (artillery) up that 800 metres north, and see how we do.
1340.01 MANILA HOTEL:
Roger, standby for shot. They are getting adjustments to the guns now.
1340.34 POPOV35:
Copy.

[Anybody else sensing a bad case of target confusion?]

1340.09 POPOV36:Roll up your right wing and look right underneath you.
1340.12 POPOV35:
(angry) I know what you’re talking about.
1340.13 POPOV36:
OK, well they got orange rockets on them.
1340.17 POPOV35:
Orange rockets?
1340.17 POPOV36:
Yeah, I think so.
1340.18 POPOV35:
Let me look.
1340.26 POPOV35:
We need to think about getting home.
1340.29 POPOV36:
3.6 is what it says (a fuel measurement).
1340.31 POPOV35:
Yeah, I know. I’m talking time wise.
1340.35 POPOV36:
I think killing these damn rocket launchers, it would be great.
(The tape then becomes garbled)
1340.52 MANILA HOTEL:
Yeah, POPOV36, MANILA HOTEL. I’ve got other aircraft up this push. Not sure they’re coming to me. Someone else might be working this freak.
1341.00 POPOV35:
Yeah, MANILA34 is working them, break, break.
1340.12 POPOV36:
Yeah, I see that, you see I’m going to roll down.
1340.15 MANILA 34:
Break, be advised MANILA34 is not working the F18s unless they are trying to check in with me, over.
1341.21 POPOV35:
Copy.
1341.24 POPOV36:
OK, do you see the orange things on top of them?
1341.32 MANILA HOTEL:
POPOV 36 from MANILA HOTEL. Are you able to switch to Crimson?
1341.37 POPOV36:
POPOV 36 is rolling in.
1341.40 MANILA HOTEL:
Tell you what.
1341.41 POPOV35:
I’m coming off west. You roll in. It looks like they are exactly what we’re talking about.
1341.49 POPOV36:
We got visual.
1341.50 POPOV36:
OK. I want to get that first one before he gets into town then.
1341.53 POPOV35:
Get him – get him.
1341.55 POPOV36:
All right, we got rocket launchers, it looks like. Number 2 is rolling in from the south to the north, and 2’s in.
1342.04 POPOV35:
Get it.
(Sun commment:)POPOV36, “rolls in” for an attack and turns his A-10 into a vertical dive to strafe the British column, destroying two Scimitar armoured vehicles and killing L/Cpl of Horse Matty Hull.)
1342.09 - GUNFIRE -

[shoot first, double check on IR later?!]

1342.18 POPOV35:
I’m off your west.
1342.22 POPOV35:
Good hits.
1342.29 POPOV36:
Got a visual.
1342.30 POPOV35:
I got a visual. You’re at your high 10.
1342.31 POPOV36:
Gotcha.
1342.30 POPOV36:
That’s what you think they are, right?
1342.39 POPOV35:
It looks like it to me, and I got my goggles on them now.
1342.59 POPOV35:
OK, I’m looking at getting down low at this.
1343.13 MANILA HOTEL:
POPOV 36 from MANILA HOTEL, guns . . .
1343.17 MANILA HOTEL:
To engage those targets in the revetts (slopes).
[MH is eyes on on something else, clearly.]
1343.24 POPOV36:
It looks like he is hauling ass. Ha ha. Is that what you think they are?
1343.34 POPOV36:
1–2
1343.35 POPOV35:
It doesn’t look friendly.
1343.38 POPOV36:
OK, I’m in again from the south.
1343.40 POPOV35:
Ok.
1343.47 - GUNFIRE -
1343.54 LIGHTNING 34:
POPOV 34, LIGHTNING 34.
1344.09 POPOV35:
POPOV 35, LIGHTNING 34 GO.
1344.12 LIGHTNING 34:
Roger, POPOV. Be advised that in the 3122 and 3222 group box you have friendly armour in the area. Yellow, small armoured tanks. Just be advised.
1344.16 POPOV35:
Ahh s***.
1344.19 P0POV35:
Got a — got a smoke.
1344.21 LIGHTNING 34:
Hey, POPOV34, abort your mission. You got a, looks we might have a blue on blue situation.
1344.25 POPOV35:
F***. God bless it.
1344.29 POPOV35:
POPOV 34.
1344.35 POPOV35:
F***, f***, f***.
1344.36 MANILA 34:
POPOV34, this is MANILA 34. Did you copy my last, over?
1344.39 POPOV35:
I did.
1344.47 POPOV35:
Confirm those are friendlies on that side of the canal.
1344.51 POPOV35:
S***.
1344.58 MANILA 34:
Standby POPOV.
1345.04 POPOV36:
God dammit.
1344.14 MANILA HOTEL:
Hey POPOV 36, from MANILA HOTEL.
1344.25 MANILA 34:
OK POPOV. Just west of the 3-4 easting. On the berm up there, the 3422 area is where we have our friendlies, over.
1344.39 POPOV35:
All right, POPOV 35 has smoke. Let me know how those friendlies are right now, please.
1344.45 MANILA 34:
Roger, standby.
1344.49 POPOV35:
Gotta go home dude.
1344.50 POPOV36:
Yeah, I know. We’re f***ed.
1345.54 POPOV35:
S***.
1346.01 POPOV36:
As you cross the circle, you are 3 o’clock low.
1346.03 POPOV35:
Roger.
1346.12 POPOV35:
POPOV 35 is Bingo. Let us know what’s happening.
13446.15 MANILA HOTEL:
Roger. We are getting that information for you right now. Standby.
1346.20 POPOV36:
F***.
1346.47 MANILA 34:
POPOV, this is MANILA 34 over.
1346.51 POPOV35:
Go.
1346.55 MANILA 34:
POPOV 4, MANILA 34 over.
1347.01 POPOV35:
Go.
1347.02 MANILA 34:
We are getting an initial brief that there was one killed and one wounded, over.
1347.09 POPOV35:
Copy. RTB (return to base).
1347.18 POPOV35:
I’m going to be sick.
1347.24 POPOV36:
Ah f***.
1347.48 POPOV35:
Did you hear?
1347.51 POPOV36:
Yeah, this sucks.
1347.52 POPOV35:
We’re in jail dude.
1347.59 POPOV36:
Aaaahhhh.
1348.12 SKY CHIEF:
MANILA this is SKY CHIEF over.
1348.18 MANILA34:
This is MANILA 34, send SKY CHIEF.
1348.22 COSTA58:
SKY CHIEF, SKY CHIEF. COSTA 58.
1348.25 MANILA HOTEL:
SKY CHIEF, this is MANILA HOTEL.
1348.30 COSTA58:
SKY CHIEF, SKY CHIEF. COSTA 58.
1348.41 SKY CHIEF:
Relaying for TWINACT, the A-10s are running against friendlies.
1348.47 COSTA58:
POPOV 35, this is COSTA58. Relaying message for TWINACT. Abort, abort.
1348.54 SKY CHIEF:
MANILA how copy A-10s are running against friendlies. Abort. Over.
1349.07 COSTA58:
From TWINACT, abort, abort.
1349. 11 POPOV35:
POPOV 35 aborting.
1349.14 COSTA58:
We will relay that back to TWINACT.
1349.18 POPOV36:
F***. God f***ing s***.
1350.21 POPOV36:
Dammit. F***ing damn it.
1351.17 P0POV36:
God dammit. F*** me dead (weeping).
1351.25 POPOV35:
You with me?
1351.27 POPOV36:
Yeah.
1351.30 POPOV35:
They did say there were no friendlies.
1351.33 POPOV36:
Yeah, I know that thing with the orange panels is going to screw us. They look like orange rockets on top.
1351.48 POPOV35:
Your tape still on?
1351.49 POPOV36:
Yeah.
1351.54 POPOV35:
Mine is end of tape.
Transcript ends.
I won't blame them for this- MH is ID'ing something else clearly- and that's what they think they're looking at - but I do think this could've been avoided.

WebPilot

6th Feb 2007, 09:17

Is anyone else as astonished as I by the lack of radio discipline shown in this transcript? Parts of it sound more like kids on their mobile phones talking about some video game than professional military pilots.

I am genuinely shocked.

Ivor Fynn

6th Feb 2007, 09:26

Web Pilot,
unfortunatley R/T discipline is not high on the list of priorities in this situation - good comms is vital and plain speaking often works. If you have never been in that situation you wouldn't understand.

However, Rule 1. If there is any doubt don't drop/fire.

Rule 2. Don't break rule 1.

Very sad for all.

Ivor

Ewan Whosearmy

6th Feb 2007, 09:27

WP

They're talking on their discrete intraflight frequency, as well as on the UHF/VHF. The more conversational stuff is on the discrete freq and I would expect it to flow the way it does. I don't think that shows a lack of professionalism.

I do think that shooting the gun having already established doubt about the ID of the targets is inexcusable.

I also wonder why they weren’t getting the GFAC to squirt his target with a laser so that they could cue their Litening or Pave Penny spot trackers onto them for confirmation.

I think that one of the most interesting (telling?) comments is right at the start, when the flight lead suggests they get a move on because of time. Were they running out of time in the kill box? Did this cause them to rush? I think that now would be a very good time for the USAF to present its own findings before people (and I am guilty of this) start picking the VTRS tape apart and drawing their own conclusions.

cvg2iln

6th Feb 2007, 09:36

The pilots are American, when viewed from a British perspective they are foreign and as such have a different culture and lexicon. They don't do banter. The lack of discipline isn't in the RT, it's in opening fire on a target displaying orange with an element of ambiguity as to positive identification entering into the mix. Once again, the cover-up is worse than the crime. Where is the reciprocal extradition treaty when it's needed?

rab-k

6th Feb 2007, 09:37

Pardon my ignorance, but did the Iraqi Army regularly take to the field with 'day-glo' "orange rockets" strapped to their vehicles? I thought that such colour schemes were strictly for the test-range and not for actual combat.

My heart also goes out to the mates of the poor sod who died in his vehicle, as not only will they likely suffer PTSD compounded by the circumstances of his death, but given all that 'D-U' flying around, their own eventual deaths might be somewhat more prolonged and agonising.

forget

6th Feb 2007, 09:53

Pardon my ignorance, but did the Iraqi Army regularly take to the field with 'day-glo' "orange rockets" strapped to their vehicles?

My thoughts exactly! .... and going North? Put two-and-two together guys! Two-and-two together. The rule book was out of the window.

WebPilot

6th Feb 2007, 10:00

Ivor - these pilots assumed and made a mistake - please don't make mistaken assumptions about my experience!

I realise that much of this is on a discreet waveband, and that the culture of US forces is different to the British culture - and I have worked with US forces so I am not unaware of the style of US talk. cvg2iln makes a good point that the lack of professionalism is in opening fire on a target displaying orange with an element of ambiguity as to positive identification, but I would add that professionalism comes from maintaining good discipline in all areas of operation otherwise mistakes and misunderstandings do occur.

Clearly this incident has a number of factors contributing to it, but ultimately the responsibility lies with the guy pulling the trigger.

Blacksheep

6th Feb 2007, 10:03

Nothing changes. I was reading an account of a friendly fire attack made upon a group of Royal Navy minesweepers in the English Channel soon after D-Day by the RAF. The controllers advised the RAF leader that there were no friendly ships in their area and the attack was pressed home, despite the minesweepwers firing the correct colours of the day and displaying their ensigns.

As a currently civilian (but formerly military) avionics specialist I'm amazed that there is no electronic identification in use. Accountants run the armed forces as well as the corporations these days, so it seems you military chaps are still using ancient IFF systems. Even though 21st century electronics would make identifying friendly forces very easy, money is saved by not including 'friend' identification into targeting systems. The procurement people don't seem to put much value on preventing you accidentally killing each other.

Incidentally, how would those orange roof panels function in an environment where 'The Coalition' didn't have total air superiority?

Gainesy

6th Feb 2007, 10:06

What I thought as well. Orange Rockets:confused: WTF:confused:
And he seems to be trying to VID them from around 12 grand.

TOPBUNKER

6th Feb 2007, 10:11

I wonder if there will ever be any evidence of "The MoD" having made real efforts to co-operate with the Coroner and provide/declassify the tape.
I rather suspect that (with Government direction?) they were never going to even attempt to get the tape to the Inquest. After all these events occured some 4 years ago. It would be nice to have my suspicions proved wrong.
Perhaps another enquiry should be launched along the lines of a suspicion of Attempting to Pervert the Course of Justice.
My, albeit limited, understanding is that a Coroner's Court is one of the most powerful in the land.
Does anyone really expect the Septics to deliver the pilots to give their evidence??? Special relationship? Reciprocal extradition policy? - Pull the other one!!!
Tony's new Corporate Manslaughter legislation pops up in one's head by the way! (Remind me again who is the Big Boss of the American Armed Forces???)

Maple 01

6th Feb 2007, 10:17

Everyone f***s up occasionally, most of the time we get away with it, let's no decend into another 'slagging the Yanks' stance. Two pilots, overworked, adrenalin pumping, unclear tactical situation - let he who is without sin cast the first stone

Regie Mental

6th Feb 2007, 10:23

What struck me on watching the full tape on The Sun website was that the two A-10s were tasked with attacking targets in revertments including flat bed trucks. They i.d these targets and get confirmation from the FAC/TAC-P that these are the correct targets. Then one pilot sees the British vehicles and despite being on low fuel they decide to go after them and not the original targets (which they never attacked).

cvg2iln

6th Feb 2007, 10:27

Granted Maple 01, and stones shouldn't be directed at the pilots but at those persons further up the food chain who've suppressed this evidence over the last four years. To err is human, etc, etc. To cover-up is criminal.

WebPilot

6th Feb 2007, 10:30

Maple 01 - yes of course FUBARS occur, but a genuine accident is different from the sort of situation we are seeing here where a wilful lack of clear thinking seems to have been going on. Under pressure though? God help us if these guys were in a really pressured situation under hostile fire and in bad weather as opposed to sitting high up in clear skies with total air superiority!

This shouldn't be seen as a "beat the Yanks" stance but commenting on what seemed a very sloppy operation from all sides, irrespective of nationality. The cover up makes everything a million times worse.

TOPBUNKER

6th Feb 2007, 10:49

Maple 01.
Did I slag off the pilots? - I think not!
I suggested that arrangements should be made for them to give evidence at the Inquest - under compulsion if necessary.
I further remark about what appears to be an attempted cover-up.
Dont assume; READ THE POST!
Let's use the Inquest to further attempts to prevent avoidable blue on blue episodes. And maybe, by punitive action if needed, even to encourage others not to attempt to organise cover-ups.
I also, of course, offer my condolences to the bereaved and the injured.

[Edited for spelling correction]

BluntedAtBirth

6th Feb 2007, 10:55

Perhaps to much too hope that this might shed some light for the masses on the 'utterly, utterly useless' aircrew who were unwilling to drop in Afghanistan because they couldn't get a positive ident on their target. Or was that last year's story and old hat.

heavybuffet

6th Feb 2007, 11:08

Firstly, my sincere condolences to the families involved. This was a tragic accident that I am sure will have affected the lives of the both the soldiers families and the aircrew.
Too all those that are quick to sling mud I can only assume that you have no idea how diffiult a job CAS is. The pilots are clearly working hard and have made the situation fit what they want to see. They want to do their very best to help the forces on the ground. In this instance there has been a terrible mistake. The pilots will no doubt have to sholder that cross for the rest of their days. Hindsight, with a pause button, in an air conditioned office at 1g on the ground with no one shooting at you is very different place. I hope the nintendo warrior aircrew on proon save their comments for more appropriate threads.
I might add that just about any frontline military jets video is secret. I do not think seeing this tape out of context adds anything to the corroners judgement. He cannot understand the environment which the aircrew are working. To err is human. Lets learn from this and move on.

Ivor Fynn

6th Feb 2007, 11:08

Web pilot,
I wasn't making assumptions about your experience, just read all your previous posts.

As I said in my previous, R/T discip on a discreet frequency is not always highest priority, whilst you are in a 3-dimensional CAS scenario in Iraq trying to ident or missident a tgt with the help of GFAC or AFAC and coordinate your wingman whilst also listening to RHWR, AWACS + numerous other agencies some of which you might be trying to control, there but for the grace of God and Positive ID go many of us. I am not defending what happened, it was not a pleasant outcome for anyone and the tgt should have been positively identified by GFAC/AFAC or cockpit, see rule 1 and 2.

Ivor

WebPilot

6th Feb 2007, 11:15

Ivor, you read *all* of my previous posts before posting? Astounding! ;) Certainly CAS is outside my experience, but professionalism isn't and I stand by my comment.

TOPBUNKER

6th Feb 2007, 11:25

Heavybuffet.
I suspect that the pilots will never be appearing in front of the Coroner - even in closed session. The tape is, therefore, possibly the best evidence he is going to get to represent the actions/considerations of the trigger puller(s?).
The tape is therefore of enormous significance. The USAF or RAF could eprobably offer up expert witnesses (any volunteers from the 'self-declared SME' Prooners?) to put the video evidence in context. Do remember that tragically the Oxford Coroners have steadily been gaining a lot of experience in similar matters.
Ultimately though, nothing better than to have the pilots appear in person!

Bernie

6th Feb 2007, 11:33

Guys, is anyone else left in no doubt about the contempt both we and our families are held in by the MOD? Not only could they not be bothered to source the video but coldly looked the bereaved family in the eye and told them it didn't exist! Watch and learn people.

Fly safe

B

Ivor Fynn

6th Feb 2007, 11:33

WP,
yes read some of your threads prior to posting 1st and all before 2nd. Whilst I don't disagree with you about professionalism, unless you've tried ML, LL, Day or night CAS you may not see the necessity for the chat.

Ivor.

Rule 1 and 2 still apply.

Clockwork Mouse

6th Feb 2007, 11:56

They were not under exceptional pressure. Close Air Support was their job, for which they were selected and intensively trained. Orange markings on a potential target means leave alone.

They were gung-ho, trigger-happy and unprofessional.

The official misinformation and cover-up makes it much worse.

A sorry affair, especially for the family of the bereaved.

TOPBUNKER

6th Feb 2007, 11:58

Oh Heavybuffet.
I also meant to ask how do you think the family of Lance Corporal Hull would react to your insensitive and crass remark of "Lets learn from this and move on." They deserve a full and co-operative enquiry and the parties involved in this attempted cover-up should be ashamed.
Sadly it is of course not unique. The approaches to the Pentagon should be from the very top - Harriet Harman and other Ministers have tried to get witnesses and evidence to Coroners in vain many times.
Bliar should speak to Dubbya and insist on a result over this and other matters of non-co-operation.

blackace

6th Feb 2007, 12:03

I see a lot of comments about the stress these guys were under and how different it is up there to seeing it on the ground.

forgive my ignorance but as highly trained and professional pilots isn't that the whole idea of combat flying, being calm and able to make the right decision under pressure ?

To see some combat pilots use it as a reason to not question the actions of these in this case is disconcerting for sure.

DucatiST4

6th Feb 2007, 12:11

Maybe not relevant but were the pilots ANG or regular (if thats what the US call their airforce pilots).

The Gorilla

6th Feb 2007, 12:11

I think a lot of people are missing the real point here! Not to take any of the grief away from the relatives but Blue on Blue happens all the time it's an occupational hazard. The real story here is that yet again the MOD and its servants have lied, to the relatives, to the public and to the Coroner. I sincerely hope the coroner returns an unlawful killing verdict but what chance the pilots would be extradited under Bliars wonderful extradition treaty? The Natwest three went quick enough though, all one way with the Spams isn’t it?

Just like their Lords and Masters in Westminster the MOD show no honour or courage in covering up such mistakes. I am so glad I do not work for people like that any more, I pity those of you who do..

:mad:

blackace

6th Feb 2007, 12:31

The cockpit video at the heart of a row over the "friendly fire" death of a British soldier could now be shown at his inquest, a coroner's official says.

Mr Webb told the BBC the Sun has promised to give the coroner's court a copy of the video.

jollygreenfunmachine

6th Feb 2007, 12:36

The real tragedy here is that after similar incidents in GW1, recommendations were made to fit vehicles with some sort of IFF. Why 13,14,15 years later are we still relying on orange dayglo stickers to identify friendly vehicles to aircraft. Am i the only one that finds this amazing?! Surely there must be some sort of portable IFF equipment out there that could be 'signed out' as each vehicle goes on patrol to stop this from happening?! Why have the MOD/government yet again failed to act on recommendations made over 15 years ago! Money i know you scream back at me. The cost of losing a warrior and a few troops every couple of years is far cheaper than new kit! Thanks agaain for not looking after the very people who do your bidding and make your beds safe to sleep in at night.

Rant over!

CaptainFillosan

6th Feb 2007, 12:37

Cover up! Cover up! Cover up!

It's now in the open and the MoD walk away from it at their peril.

There MUST be Staff Officers in the MoD who will now say 'OK that's it, now we tell it as it was.'

There is NO defence for the indefensible, and the only way forward for the families is for the MoD to get to the Coroner and honour these unfortunate guys and their families. They MUST do that now unless they are looking at the tape and trying to see how they can wriggle!

These pilots did make a mistake. From the video standpoint it is fact - it sure ain't a PS2 game - it is real!!

The video was shown on BBC about 25 minutes ago and those asked their opinions were shocked.

The pilot who said "we are in jail Dude" didn't go did they and that means the US were covering big time.

I can think of a lot more to say about this sordid affair but right now the thing that matters is the families, and the MoD must act NOW! To-day would not be too soon!

Good on THE SUN. I never thought I would say that!

TOPBUNKER

6th Feb 2007, 12:44

Well said Gorilla.

Perhaps I could be indulged in repeating a line from my first post on this subject - #21 above.
"Perhaps another enquiry should be launched along the lines of a suspicion of Attempting to Pervert the Course of Justice.
My, albeit limited, understanding is that a Coroner's Court is one of the most powerful in the land."
Thoughts anyone?

Ivor Fynn

6th Feb 2007, 12:46

Well Said.

Ivor.

Come on MOD - sort it out!!

PhoenixDaCat

6th Feb 2007, 12:54

Some American was wheeled out onto the Today programme, and Jeremy Vines Radio 2 show. Each time he said that to release the video would compromise American technology.

Would the video have been recorded by the same cameras that they have released footage from in the past, showing how accurate their bombing is. Remember all the GW1 footage, of bridges being blown up etc.

Why is it that footage putting them in a good light doesn't compromise technology and operations, yet a blue on blue does?

WebPilot

6th Feb 2007, 13:00

OOpsIdiditagain

6th Feb 2007, 13:21

Why is it that the MOD and Gov't seem to cooperate fully with things like the Bloody Sunday enquiry that's cost miliions and is happy (rightly) to prosecute our own boys and girls should they operate (kill) outside of the in force ROE but stand quietly by without saying a word when others do it to ours. Bloomin disgraceful.
A mistake was made, yes no doubt, but it was totally avoidable and therefore manslaughter at the very least.
C'mon MOD stand up for us for once!

The Helpful Stacker

6th Feb 2007, 13:26

While Blue on Blue is naturally an occupational hazard of warfare, like any occupational hazard this does not mean it should therefore be accepted as inevitable. That is not missing the point but taking the real world as it is and trying to reduce the likelihood.

And if you draw the occupational hazard line to its logical conclusion then investigating the matter fully to prevent a repeat would be 'active monitoring', a major part of the Management of Successful Health and Safety guidelines as laid down by the government under which we all act.

Cold as it is persuing the H&S implications of the MoD failure to act/attempt to cover-up may be the best and most legally enforcable route to go down.

SASless

6th Feb 2007, 13:30

I have a much simpler and more effective way of improving things.....assign USAF FAC's to every unit down to platoon sized group. That way the Air Force has a vested interest in not hitting the wrong target.

Am I the only one that gets completely fed up with the US Air Force bombing/strafing friendly Blackhawks and ground units with no effective punishment of the very few who do these sorts of heinous acts.

We have to be fair....we only have a few of these events despite thousands of sorties flown. That means the vast majority are done correctly.

Let's not tar the whole Air Force for actions of the few.

We are quite comfortable putting ground troops on trial for murder but not Air Force Zoomie's.....something is wrong with that picture.

What can be super secret about a HUD video of a strafing run with the cannon? It smacks of the US Air Force covering up for yet another dumbass pilot(s).

OOpsIdiditagain

6th Feb 2007, 13:38

Farmer 1

copied and edited.

Farmer 1

6th Feb 2007, 13:57

Oops - my post deleted.

Latest headline on the BBC website - the coroner involved will not have his contract renewed. No details as yet.

What's that smell?

Maple 01

6th Feb 2007, 14:00

Some American was wheeled out onto the Today programme, and Jeremy Vines Radio 2 show. Each time he said that to release the video would compromise American technology.

Now that is bolox - during Kosovo one of my jobs was to sanitise UK HUD footage for release to the media - basically blank the figures out. Imagine my surprise to find the same US HUD info unmasked on the stuff they released.

So now it’s classified? How old is the A-10 attack system?

mutleyfour

6th Feb 2007, 14:10

Sad thing about this sorry tale is that the US will spend every waking minute tracking the source of the leak and expect the UK Government to extradite the said person to the US. whilst at the same time not allowing any of the culprits of the said blue on blue be to face any examination in a UK court of Law.

Aren't we supposed to be the closest of Allies?

L/COH M Hull is buried in a small village west of Salisbury and my family place flowers at the war memorial which proudly displays his name. For his sake acknowledgement of poor procedures that will enforce a tightening of US attitude toward ground attack must be sought. I am not sure what his family would like to achieve but denial, lies, and little or no facts are not enough.

Ivan Rogov

6th Feb 2007, 14:32

Some time ago I read the report on the 1991 A-10/Warrior Blue on Blue incident, I had a quick look on the web but couldn't find it. In some ways very similar, mis-id by pilots (despite a correct id by a Jag at 16k) and confussion about the FLOT/FEBA/troops on the ground. Think it recomended better proceedures and some sort of IFF for vehicles, this why we now call them 'Lessons Identified' because we don't learn :( .
Were the vehicles fitted with BFT? How has pilot training been improved, to prevent mis id?

Another tragic loss of life and many others damaged.

lawboy6

6th Feb 2007, 14:38

Silly question - but do we think that POPOV35 and POPOV36 will still be on active duty?

Gainesy

6th Feb 2007, 14:53

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/6335701.stm
Coroner's contract not to be renewed.

wee one

6th Feb 2007, 14:54

Too far up the yerkes dodson curve.Add a standard confirmation bias and bobs your uncle.
Same **** different airline (force)

forget

6th Feb 2007, 15:03

How can anyone claim that release of this video would compromise Mil Operations? It can’t be the HUD. This probably relates to the current kit

Accession Number : ADP004112. Report Date : JUL 1984
Title : F-16 and A-10 Diffraction Optics Head Up Display (HUD) Flight Test Evaluation,

Corporate Author : AIR FORCE FLIGHT TEST CENTER EDWARDS AFB CA
Distribution Statement : APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

Members of the public may purchase hardcopy documents from the National Technical Information Service.

All you need to know about HUDs

http://www.hec.afrl.af.mil/Publications/ASC030025.pdf

And …………. A-10. PILOT OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES—
A/OA-10 MULTI-COMMAND INSTRUCTION 11-A/OA10 VOLUME 3 - 17 JANUARY 1997.

At ………. http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/docs/11oa10v3.pdf

..... as you'd expect ---

*6.4.2. Pilots must positively identify the target prior to weapons release. Achieve positive identification by either visually acquiring the target or by confirming target location through valid on-board/off-board cues. These cues include marking rounds, Pave Penny spot, IR Maverick lock-on, IR pointers, or other NVG compatible marking devices. Pilots should exercise caution and possess a high level of target situational awareness when relying on a single target cue to confirm target location.

norihaga

6th Feb 2007, 15:08

ST4:

Globalsecurity.org suggests that A10 squadrons in the theatre as of March 17, 2003 included the 190th FS (Idaho ANG), 172nd FS (Michigan ANG), 81st FS (regular USAF) and 75th FS (also regular). I have seen a google-cached news report from the Idaho Press-Tribune that states the aircraft were from the 190th, i.e. were ANG.

I have no personal knowledge of the exact differences in ANG, reserve and regular USAF training/readiness. One suspects that ANG pilots would not fly as much (i.e., not on a daily basis) as full-time USAF pilots, but that's only my assumption.

Phochs3

6th Feb 2007, 15:08

It's a sad fact that blue on blue's still occur, but whenever there is war, and confusion, errors are bound to happen.

To criticise the pilots, from 1g, at the comfort of your anonymous desktop, when you have never done hot CAS yourself, is a questionable thing to do. The A-10 is a complete CAS platform; that is all they train to do, they are damn good at it, and if they are making errors then these are errors that anyone could make.

The unsavoury thing here is the lack of IFF technology that could easily be employed, and the fact that the Forward Air Controller thought he knew that there were no friendlies in the area. All the parties concerned did what they thought was the right thing to do, at the time. That is all we can ask of people who's lives are in danger themselves. Isn't hindsight a wonderful thing.

Blue on blues can be mitigated against with technology, and this is something that the MOD needs to invest in heavily, and urgently.

My thoughts are with Lance Corporal Hull's family.

Barn Doors

6th Feb 2007, 15:16

There are 3 pages here full of opinion, very few of which hit right at the heart of the matter; namely, what can we do to ensure that in modern-day conflicts we avoid, to the absolute very best of our ability, fratricide. No body wants to kill our own, you could call it murder! Did the pilots of the two A-10s want to go out that day and do this? No, they didn't.....whatever is said, they didn't. Their reaction on finding out they had just been part of a blue-on-blue, regardless of the words or manner they used, proves this. The pilot(s) in question were exceptionally remorseful.

What we need to ensure is that we learn from all of this horrible event. Investment in robust technologies, available to ALL in the battlespace (aircraft, ships, soliders etc) that show up-to-date information on the situation is vital to prevent this in future. Yes it exists, but generally it is only afforded to US units (ironically in this case). CAS, by its very definition, happens 'Close' to our own ground forces and requires a certain discipline on everyone's part; from the transcript there is confusion, not least caused by the guy on the ground. Nobody has really mentioned his part in all this though as the pilot is the last link in the chain of events; take away any of these people involved and the outcome may have been different - who do you apportion blame to? I think the correct question is 'WHAT' do you apportion blame to! Blue-on-blue usually results from a situation of confusion and pressure, both of which were present here. A time-critical situation requiring split-second decision making, albeit leaving enough time to accurately bring weapons to bear can, does, and always will result in errors from time to time.

Military history is littered with mistakes, but overwhelmed with great triumphs and decisive victories. They all come at a cost and my condolences still remain with the families all over the world who have lost their own. If there have been untruths spoken of to the family of the L/Cpl then that is unexcusable and is a bare-faced lie - THAT is the real issue here!

BD

mutleyfour

6th Feb 2007, 15:43

Blue on Blue as an event has happened in all wars and conflicts I agree. The difference nowadays however is that a lot of them are filmed, usually from the offending aircraft.

Until we can be grown up about this and use such footage to ascertain how the event occurred and the best means to prevent or minimise its reoccurence, we are merely turning a blind eye.

MarkD

6th Feb 2007, 15:50

I bet the families of those CF personnel strafed by A-10s in Afstan in September (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060813/friendly_fire_060904/20060904?hub=TopStories) will find this interesting viewing, not least given that it happened after the Iraq incident and thus one would think A-10 units would have tightened up IFF after that. Apparently not.

BootFlap

6th Feb 2007, 15:50

Barn Doors,
well said! There are many comments on this thread from people trying to make a political point, with little apparent knowledge or experience of CAS in a hostile environment. Well, having had that experience I watched the HUD video and could see exactly how this mistake happened. Sad though it is for the families involved, these are the risks that come with CAS and a fast moving ground picture. Technology will hopefully help us in the future, but it cannot be relied upon, and bad things happen in combat.
I must admit to feeling uncomfortable as I watched, as 'there but for the grace' came to mind. Before any one rants at me, which I will duly answer as best I can, I am not condoning the actions of the A-10 drivers, but I am saying I can see how this dreadful mistake happened. The HUD tape cannot show what the stresses were on those pilots; how many missions had they been flying, had there been SAM shots earlier, who knows? But as said earlier, 'he who is without sin, etc.'

BattlerBritain

6th Feb 2007, 16:07

How about giving our Forward units and CAS assets Link16 terminals?

Either that or attching a Gepard/2S6 unit to the Forward boys with orders to shoot any A-10s that look like they're going to do something they shouldn't?

That'd focus their attention.

In the short term how about making sure that part-time A-10 jockeys can at least recognise the difference between between a ZIL truck and a Sabre armoured unit?

Rakshasa

6th Feb 2007, 16:21

I don't think anyone is trying to point fingers at the pilots, despite some reactions from soldiers (I'd be pretty upset about it too if I was a squaddie). But point out that it's the aftermath that has been bungled badly

Yes, they made a mistake during active operations and yes many of our two-winged regular posters are understandably quiet for obvious reasons.

I think all anyone here is saying is that investigations into these things shouldn't be hushed up or held behind closed doors, except in regards opsec.

The more agencies like the DoD and MoD obfuscate and um-err over these things, the longer it will take lessons to be leaned, equipment to be improved and people will suspect a cover-up.

Ivor Fynn

6th Feb 2007, 17:23

BootFlap,

concur totally, a lot of drivel from a number of people who have never been or will be in that situation. Operational stresses only add to the difficulty of the job. A mistake was made and lessons re-learned again.

Ivor

NURSE

6th Feb 2007, 17:25

There is IFF equipment available but its gadgets that get broken.
The recognition markings and panels only work when everyone knows/understands the SOP/ROE
Yes Active Air Defence of own assets would focus minds.

But its incident after incident i've not heard any results of US Courts of inquirey which would be reassuring. If lessons aren't being learnt by the US military then we need to evaluate how we work in a way that keeps our people safe. The simpleist solution is we stay away fro US military ops but thats not likley to happen.

Maybe we need more accessible direct comms with US command aircraft and a fall back smoke grenade or marker solution. The US needs to ensure its pilots are correctly trained on proceedures and recognition of coalition equipments. But they also have to be transparent and robust in their dealing with those who do cause thease incidents. The cover up and secrecy certainly doesn't promote trust amongst their allies.

SASless

6th Feb 2007, 17:41

I have no personal knowledge of the exact differences in ANG, reserve and regular USAF training/readiness. One suspects that ANG pilots would not fly as much (i.e., not on a daily basis) as full-time USAF pilots, but that's only my assumption.

What RAF pilot on active duty flies every day....five flights one each day over a five day work week?

For that matter....what Air Force pilot on active anywhere in the world flies every work day?

In my National Guard unit we had two guys that had flown in three wars...and most of the rest of us had two tours of combat.

Generally speaking, the Reserve/Guard pilots have more experience than do the Regular Air Force pilots.

Stan Woolley

6th Feb 2007, 17:45

Can anyone tell me how many A10 pilots have been shot down in Iraq?

FJJP

6th Feb 2007, 17:47

Would someone please tell me what I can say that is going to make those 2 pilots feel worse than they already do?

I have no doubt that there has been/will be an inquiry in the States which will determine whether or not charges are to be laid at the feet of these 2 aviators.

Anybody know?

Blue on Blue is perhaps the most tragic occurence in any conflict. I hope that lessons will be learned from this one...

Rakshasa

6th Feb 2007, 17:54

My understanding is they have already been cleared. (it is 4 years ago afterall.)

rab-k

6th Feb 2007, 17:56

Civvy question, so 'scuse if verging on the 'dumb' side:

If the Iraqi Army arsenal of conventional weapons was known, and I've never heard anything to the contrary, then the existence of day-glo orange rockets would have been widely known throughout the allied ground and air forces who would presumably come up against such hardware and be on the look out for it.

If indeed the Iraqi arsenal included such hardware, why was the thermal I-D panel/day-glow orange side panels used by coalition forces? If this was a known factor in possible mis I-D, as demonstrated with the 9 UK fatalities during the Gulf War with A-10 vs Warriors, why is this still being used?

BOI summary of incident giving more detail here: Appendix 2, Paras 7 - 10.

http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/nao_reports/05-06/0506936.pdf

(Suggest those wishing to pass further comment on this thread read the summary before doing so as it touches upon several points already raised in previous posts - only take a couple of minutes but v.relevant)

rab-k

6th Feb 2007, 18:23

Don't know if this will be readable, but for the benefit of those without Acrobat Reader, here goes... from:

http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/nao_reports/05-06/0506936.pdf

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/rab-knight/Para7.jpg

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/rab-knight/Para8.jpg

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/rab-knight/Para10.jpg

End. (Full report also v.interesting, if you've time.)

mutleyfour

6th Feb 2007, 18:26

Bootflap and barndoors, I for one am not condemning the crews or the TAC P, but like the majority on here we simply cannot condone the events following the sad incident.
Yes these things happen in war and yes you are probably under a lot of duress in the cockpit but please spare me the you lot don't know etc etc for that isn't my point. The sad fact about this is that none of that has anything to do with the "no film! lies, lies, and counterlies" that have followed and hampered this case.
That poor lads family have not deserved these past 4 years and I would imagine had it not been for the Sun intervening it would probably have been another 4 years.

Faithless

6th Feb 2007, 19:10

Watched it it sky news this morning and was gutted just like the two reporters discussing it. My heart goes out to the family. Well done to the Sun for exposing the possible MOD cover up stating that ther was no film. But just like old Lee Clegg the finger is finally pointed to the one that pulled the trigger := . It is happening too often and something needs to be done.

scribbler614

6th Feb 2007, 19:29

I'm one of the many who will never sit in the cockpit in a warzone doing my best while all around is madness, so I'm in no hurry to condemn these two.
But studying the leaked transcript carefully, I can't help but contrast their approach with the attitude I've seen at first hand among UK aircrew, doing the same job today in Afghanistan. 'If in doubt, don't release' seems to be the first, last and most important rule at all times.
Try as I might I can't avoid the conclusion that these two had considerable doubts - rightly, as it turned out - but still attacked.
There was doubt before the attack. POPOV36 raises the orange panels five times on air, and asks his ground controller: 'Hey, tell me what type of rocket launchers you got up here?' He doesn't know. He's guessing.
Both pilots ask for more information from the ground. One suggests an artillery round is fired at what the ground controllers believe is the target. But POPOV36 doesn't wait for answers and launches his attack. There's no real pressure of time. Nobody on the ground asking him to release.
There is doubt in between the two attacks. POPOV36 asks his wingman, after shooting the 'Iraqi' vehicles: 'That's what you think they are, right?' A minute later he asks the question again. Then he launches another attack.
There is doubt after the attack. Once they're told to abort, that there is 'friendly armour' in the area, they both start swearing like mad. They immediately know they've made a mistake. No apparent confidence in their decision.
OK, agree with posters who say there's no point hanging these guys. They have to live with it. Important thing is to learn lessons.
But are lessons learned? Were they learned after 1991? Were they learned after 2003?
These two pilots were cleared of any wrongdoing and returned to flying duties. Hmmm. OK, the U.S. inquiry had all the evidence before it.
But what's actually been done to prevent a repeat? Have procedures been tightened?
MOD claims it's made 'good progress in these areas', and spent £3.8bn since 2002 on 'projects with combat identification elements.'
Is it enough? Will cowboys in A10s always make it all irrelevant? Should we just get real and accept the risk?
Don't know the answers. I ask the question of those who might.

XXTSGR

6th Feb 2007, 20:04

The only sound I hear after the event is of 2 A10 drivers swearing and the scurrying sound of senior officers and politicians running for cover.

The cover-up is the most disgraceful thing about all of this. The crews apparently screwed up. Whether it is considered (by those who have to decide) that they did or not, and, if so, why, are two questions that need answering. A cover-up will not do it. The Pentagon and the MoD are colluding in a conspiracy not only to lie to the American public and the British public, but L/CoH Hull's family and anyone who may follow him, and their respective families as well.

Blue on blue happens. We need to learn from each incident, but it appears we are not. My personal opinion is that these two acted in too gung-ho a manner. We need to know why. Is their training lacking? Profiling US pilots? I don't know. I don't have any answers. That is why we need a full inquiry without the Pentagon trying to close ranks against anyone and everyone. That way they're going to end up with nobody trusting them.

PS How many blue on blue result in UK forces splashing US personnel?

Capt. Queeg

6th Feb 2007, 20:47

Did you ever stop to think maybe the odds favour the US forces carrying out acts of friendly fire more than the Brit forces or any other forces... Why are so many ignorant comments being made here???

The two A-10 pilots don't sound flippant and definitely not "gloating sickeningly" during the strike. Gung ho??? They are killers doing some killing, in the belief they were striking legitimate targets.

How do you know, XX, they weren't fired on all throughout the previous hour or so of the sortie or on other sorties in the area earlier on?

Without losing sight of the fact they obviously misidentified the target with tragic results, there is still a lot of sheer ignorance being displayed here, and partly I'm sure because bagging the yanks is good sport.

These two pilots have to live with it, as does the FAC. Bit hard for any of us to put ourselves in their shoes and dictate what they should or shouldn't have said, in the seconds post-combat.

mutleyfour

6th Feb 2007, 21:11

Playing Devils advocate here Capt Queeg:

You said: How do you know, XX, they weren't fired on all throughout the previous hour or so of the sortie or on other sorties in the area earlier on?

Can I ask how do you know that they did? They don't appear too concerned about the THREAT on the video!

vecvechookattack

6th Feb 2007, 21:36

I have just listened to the Audio on the Sun's website and was almost in tears. A very, Very sad episode. There are no winners here.....everyone lost.

There but for the grace of god ( and a heap of Recce Training) go I

rab-k

6th Feb 2007, 22:29

bagging the yanks is good sport.

To use a Yank term, that comment is so lame if it were a horse you'd have to shoot it.

Read my previous post - Para 10 of the joint NAO/MoD report states not only the cause of the incident but goes on to list a number of contributory factors.

Despite these findings, the A10 crews were exonerated and the DoD/MoD have sought to obstruct any subsequent independent examination of these events. (And not for the first time either).

This is not about "bagging yanks", it is about getting to the truth and stopping this s*** from happening again.

BTW - Still no info on the supposed "orange rocket" in the Iraqi inventory then?

TEEEJ

6th Feb 2007, 22:31

"Can anyone tell me how many A10 pilots have been shot down in Iraq?"

Stan,

One A-10 was lost during April 2003 to a hand-held SAM near Baghdad International Airport. That was the only A-10 combat loss in Iraq during 2003 and since. None lost in Afghanistan to date.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83504,00.html

During Jan/Feb 1991 there was 5 A-10 lost to Iraqi ground fire.

http://www.pats-world.com/gulfwar/

vortexadminman

6th Feb 2007, 22:59

I am not a massive fan of the US way of operating at all. I do not think that we can sit back and harp on about training though. Not been a FJ mate can't really say how much recce you people do although I have asked a lot of people over the years and theatres about NATO kit. Been a bit of a spotter and having done a lot of recce courses I still ask peeps on the Sqn whats that? When it comes to US kit we ain't that good, normal reply is "I don't know some yank crap" OK ID 'd as US thats a good thing. But hoofing around at a few hundred knots low level in a situation they have been briefed is a war zone, plus been told on radio all in front of you is not ours ( Not being under the same built in if in doubt don't shoot mentality as we are) who can say what you would do. Yes they questioned the orange panels. and were told ???. Nothing in this is forgivable at all especially the smoke and mirrors and that made this sad loss fall away until now.

In Tor Wot

6th Feb 2007, 23:09

A number of people on here have asked the legitimate question of why lessons weren't learnt from an almost identical incident during GW1 between the warrior and A-10 (12 years previously). The answer is that the lessons were learnt - by the U.S., and they have heavily invested in Blue Force Tracker, and the means to display tracks at the tactical level (Links, C2PC etc). Like it or not, they at least got their **it in a sock.

Meanwhile the UK stuck its head into the sand (being polite as to where they actually stuck it!!), and spent millions (billions?) of pounds ‘investigating solutions’ and have produced ? - absolutely nothing. The NAO report patted everyone on the back for their ‘vigorous research’ when it should have been kicking someone’s ar$e for not buying equipment off the shelf 6 years ago that would have stopped (or at least reduced its likely hood to a minimum) this kind of incident from occurring. :ugh:

I’m not going to throw stones a the A-10 drivers as I don’t know all the circumstances of the incident and I refuse to believe that they set off that day with the intention of killing their coalition partner’s soldiers. I do, however, think that the deliberate obfuscation and downright lies by the DOD/MOD should be answered for - preferably in the coroners court.

Tigs2

7th Feb 2007, 00:02

Human Error occurs and it is easy to blame these two guys. I doubt they sleep much these days. They never would have attacked the guys had they known they were friendly, i.e there was no intent. However, there was intent in the cover up! The people who covered this up knew the EXACT facts (the existance of the vid) and covered it up (isn't this obstructing the cause of justice, or perverting the cause of justice?? oy! lawers, where are you?).
Vevechookattack hit the nail on the head
I have just listened to the Audio on the Sun's website and was almost in tears. A very, Very sad episode. There are no winners here.....everyone lost.
There but for the grace of god ( and a heap of Recce Training) go I
The thing is the UK Mil have always done recce for ALL nations (enemy and friendly), when i was in GW1 i flew to a US Patriot Battery to be asked by the commander in charge of the stinger support unit asking "hey whos flying the pink Hips??"
The pink 'Hips' were infact Pumas of the coilition forces!! How nervous were the puma guys, particularly knowing that Saddam had Hips!!
To those commenting on the use of orange panels if the enemy have aircraft, Saddam had no aircraft during GW2, therefore Orange panels are a legite way of initially saying 'i am on your side'!
Sincere condolences to the family and all the lads involved.
Why has the coroners contract not been renewed?? anybody know??

Archimedes

7th Feb 2007, 00:10

Without wishing to be overly cynical about the MoD's motivations, the video may have rather undermined the following pledge by Hoon to the Commons on 7 Jan 2003:

As for the question of friendly fire, we are engaged in a process of ensuring that combat identification is dealt with satisfactorily. There is no single technological solution to that difficult problem, but we will acquire new equipment that will be available in time for any potential conflict in the Gulf. Obviously, I cannot go into precise details, but, as for combat identification, I can assure the House that British troops will be able to work alongside American forces entirely safely and satisfactorily(my bold) (source Hansard (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmhansrd/vo030107/debtext/30107-06.htm) (just prior to Column 29).

One can either say that Hoon was being extremely foolish in making such a bold assertion (demonstrating that he learned very little about the nature of military operations despite his long tenure in the MoD), or that he misled the House.

The context of this observation was that the former CO of 3RRF had written to the Telegraph pointing out that for all the MoD's fine words, it appeared that nothing had been done to try to prevent a replication of the A-10/Warrior Blue-on-Blue. The letter was quoted in full on the army means - click (http://www.arrse.com/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=715.html). IIRC, there was considerable publicity at the time about the letter.

So having been warned prior to deployment that there was a problem, the government asserted that there would be no problem, only to be proven disastrously wrong. Without wishing to indulge in a spot of tin-foil hat wearing, I can't help wondering whether denying that the video existed was some sort of MoD self-protection measure to prevent anyone from suggesting that it demonstrated that the relatively rudimentary measures in place for identification in no way met the promises of the (then) Sec of State and creating problems for the MoD?

Tigs2

7th Feb 2007, 00:29

Archimedes
you are right! The MOD have had 14 years to sort this out since GW1!(Army please help me here, it does not cost that much to get good IFF kit fitted to ground vehicles surely)

I really don't believe that Hoon or any of the other buffoons come out with these statements before they have been approved by Bliar at a 'board' meeting.

Bliar, you are named and shamed and shamed.....Get out!(Then again why should he resign and get away with it?? They send people to prison at the moment for a lot lot less)

Two's in

7th Feb 2007, 01:05

So while we are waiting for the multi-billion dollar IFF solution, would it be reasonable to expect CAS crews to spend 30 minutes a day on vehicle recognition training as part of the CR package?
...the pilots had received minimal recognition training on allied fighting vehicles...
In the predictable days of keeping Ivan out of the Fulda gap, every other met brief was followed by a 30 minute AFV lesson. For the cost of a a few slides and a projector, at least we all knew what we were likely to be shooting at, and consequently who was batting for our team.
In my experience "Fog of war" is one of those great testosterone laden phrases that lends credibilty to poor planning and execution.

ORAC

7th Feb 2007, 06:12

Why has the coroners contract not been renewed?? anybody know?? BBC: ....The Oxford assistant deputy coroner is one of three who are losing their jobs. It is understood Mr Walker's contract will end in June of this year, following the expected completion of hearings in to a backlog of military inquests in Oxford. Two other coroners brought in at the same time will also not be asked to continue.

More staff were appointed in Oxford last year by the Department for Constitutional affairs after complaints from service families. The majority of inquests are held in Oxford because the bodies of service personnel are returned to RAF Brize Norton nearby.

A spokesman for the Department for Constitutional Affairs said: "To reduce the backlog of military inquests held in Oxfordshire going back several years, three extra coroners were appointed in 2005. Sir Richard Curtis was appointed until December last year and heard six inquests. Selena Lynch and Andrew Walker have heard most of the 85 inquests identified as in the backlog".

The government believes that these extra resources can complete all 85 inquests by May 2007......

London Mil

7th Feb 2007, 06:17

Rather a bold assumption being made that the repatriation rate will drop?

tucumseh

7th Feb 2007, 07:10

In Tor Wot

"Meanwhile the UK stuck its head into the sand, and spent millions (billions?) of pounds ‘investigating solutions’ and have produced ? - absolutely nothing. The NAO report patted everyone on the back for their ‘vigorous research’ when it should have been kicking someone’s ar$e for not buying equipment off the shelf 6 years ago that would have stopped (or at least reduced its likely hood to a minimum) this kind of incident from occurring".

Spot on about NAO. As usual, MoD probably offered up a poodle to spin the lies, while making sure no-one who knows the truth gets near the committee. Perhaps they should have asked what is the MoD's policy on interoperability with non-UK forces. Or with our own forces, for that matter.

Looking at this from the US' viewpoint, they have a far greater Combat ID capability than we do, and their training is probably predominantly geared around that. It is not wholly unreasonable for them to expect that any minority ally (e.g. UK) bridges the capability / interoperability gap to protect their own forces. We simply cannot keep padding out our URDs and doctrine with the assumption that the US will bridge the gaps. I suspect this point has been made behind the scenes in no uncertain terms.

As ever, the MoD's actions stink.

BattlerBritain

7th Feb 2007, 07:52

Having watched Channel 4 news last night where they interviewed a senior American official who said that they supplied the MoD with the vid straight after the incident and that they have co-operated with everything that the MoD have requested I get the distinct impression that the MoD is about as much use as t*ts-on-a-nun.

Looks like MoD aren't even asking the questions (plausible deniability?)

The only thing the Yanks don't seem to want to do is let their pilots appear in a Civilian court to be held responsible for military actions. They say "How can a civilian court judge these actions?", which seems fair to me.

You know, I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was the Yanks that gave the vid to the Sun just to bypass MoD.

It does appear though that nothing seems to have been learnt by the Yanks about CAS and supporting 'friendly' forces since Normandy in 1944. What was the saying they used then?
"When the RAF appears, the Germans duck. When the Luftwaffe appears, the Allies duck. When the Americans appear, everybody ducks."

Concur with the voices above about simple AFV recognition training. If I can tell the difference between a T-54 and a Warrior and between a ZIL truck and a Scimitar why can't a CAS pilot?

And I'm a bl**dy civvy!

Famous Pierre

7th Feb 2007, 08:19

Spare me the 'fog of war' crap, I was there that day. The weather was reasonable with good vis. These guys had absolutely no excuse to mistake a tiny bright orange tracked Scimitar with a massive black wheeled Scud launcher. Especially after the first strike, when they passed so close to the wagons that the guys in the troop could see the pilots' helmets. And red smoke was thrown. The geography was off (poor FAC skills), the troop were further from the river, heading north, and the 'Scud' was reported as static 200m from it; the river is a K wide, you can't miss it. This was poor drills, both FAC and A-10.
As for being shot at, the 51st Mech Inf had largely disappeared by then and the 7Tk Div were still well to the North; there were no rounds going skywards. As for recognition, that's their core business. Despite this, all the right efforts were made to educate the US pilots on vehicle recognition by sending our wagons down to the A-10 base so they could see them before the war.
So no excuse, as the tape clearly shows, they knew they were bang to rights and I for one am delighted it's now in the open. In this case war was not a good enough excuse. RiP Matty.

NURSE

7th Feb 2007, 08:23

The basic problems with things like blueforce tracker is cost and like the RAF the army only has a finite budget. Its also a gadget that can go wrong so UK relied on visual recogntiton training at basic level in 03 of UK equipments chaning to Principle allies kit and possible enemeys kit and now to nothing most army personel receive no recognititon training.
The army made a point ofmaking sure all vehicles going north had thermal panels, visual v's and orange panels but from experience of myself,friends and media reports the US soldier did not have any understanding of thease.
From a communications perspective telling the Americans anything over radio was problematic as their systems and our don't net together well. I fond it easier to ring whitehall and get put through to US telephone network to speak to people on same camp.
If we were to purchase a combat tracker system would we uy our own? would it be compatible with allies systems? would they allow us band width to use it? and what happens when it goes wrong as IFF did with fatal consequences in 03?

Northern Circuit

7th Feb 2007, 08:35

I cannot be so forgiving.
As soon as the word 'orange' had been mentioned, that should have been enough to prompt not to engage unless a positive ID had been made.

BattlerBritain

7th Feb 2007, 08:38

I also have to wonder what would happen if an RAF plane strafed an American unit?

How would the Yanks feel then?

But that would never happen would it.

'Coz RAF planes are now so politically correct they don't carry guns!!

Wrathmonk

7th Feb 2007, 08:52

Battler

Not quite true. The Tornado GR4, Tornado F3, Jaguar and Hawk are all still gun equipped (not forgetting the guns hung out of the side of Helicopters various).

Granted, the Harrier does not have a gun and the Typhoon doesn't (yet?). But given the above we will still have a strafe capability for many years to come.

XXTSGR

7th Feb 2007, 08:52

In my experience, US forces rely very heavily on technology in an attempt to root out "human error". Brit forces tend to rely much more heavily on training and lower-level technology.

Found this today:-

1991 US A-10 plane attacks British armoured personnel carriers in the Gulf, killing nine soldiers
April 1994 Nato delegation of 26 people, including two high-ranking British army officers, die when their US Blackhawk helicopter is shot down in Iraq by American fighters
2002 US F-16 pilot kills four Canadian soldiers when he drops a laser-guided bomb on a Canadian live-fire exercise near Kandahar, Afghanistan
2003 American aircraft attacks a Kurdish and US special forces convoy, killing 15 people. BBC translator Kamaran Abdurazaq Muhamed dies in the attack. Journalists Tom Giles and John Simpson both injured
2003 RAF Tornado pilot and navigator mistaken for an Iraqi misslile and shot down by US gunners. The pilot was trying to land near the Kuwait border, having carried out a successful sortie in an earlier offensive on Iraqi positions. A US general blames the “fog of war”.
2003 Lance Corporal of Horse Matty Hull and two Iraqi civilians die and four other soldiers seriously injured when their convoy is attacked by two A-10 aircraft near Basra in southern Iraq. The incident occurred despite excellent visibility and the convoy displaying the correct panels identifying them as “friendlies”
2005 Italian intelligence agent Nicola Calipari killed and journalist Giuliana Sgrena wounded in Baghdad after US forces open fire on their car. Sgrena had been kidnapped and subsequently rescued by Calipari
2006 Two US A-10 Thunderbolts attack NATO forces in southern Afghanistan, killing Mark Anthony Graham, a Canadian soldier, and seriously wounding five others during a mission to seize a Taliban stronghold
Contrary to how it may seem, I personally attribute very little blame to the individual pilots in this case. I attribute far more blame to their lack of training, to the ethos in which they operate, to their controllers, and to the US Military itself in an atmosphere which prefers to err on the side of ensuring the bad guys are wiped out rather than trying not to cause unnecessary "collateral damage".

endplay

7th Feb 2007, 10:03

On a site such as this it’s only natural for the aircrew to be defended but I find myself agreeing with a minority of posters who take the view that the pilots must accept the lion’s share of responsibility for this tragedy. They clearly saw the orange panels and clearly understood their significance. Such a sighting should not absolutely guarantee ground troops immunity from attack as it is too open to compromise but it should have given the pilots more pause for thought than it appears to have done.

The clusterf**k over the video evidence is separate issue and whilst I would like to buy a beer for whoever (in MoD??) released it to the Sun I hope I never get the opportunity. If he/she is ever identified the extradition papers will be signed quicker than you can say “Yo’ Mister President”

rab-k

7th Feb 2007, 10:04

Northern Circuit - Couldn't agree more.

The BoI states that the A10 crew twice engaged the patrol "without the required authorisation", yet they were exonerated? Watching the HUD-cam/CVR footage again, I can't help wondering if this wasn't a case of being in too much of a hurry to 'frag some bad guys' prior to having to RTB:

POPOV35 - "We need to think about getting home"

POPOV36 - "Ah, three point, ah, six, is what it says"

POPOV35 - "Yeah. I know. I, I'm talking about time wise"

POPOV36 - "I'm thinking (indistinct) some of these rocket launchers 'd be great"

90 seconds later the patrol is attacked...

PS XXTSGR - You forgot Terry Lloyd: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6046950.stm

Flap62

7th Feb 2007, 10:12

This was a result of poor skills, poor discipline and a dangerous mind set.

These guys were supposed to be CAS specialists yet they somehow got airborne with inadequate brief about ident of friendlies and friendly kit and capabilities.
Their CAS skills were poor. They talked themselves into beleiving that what they saw fitted their mental picture. The informality of the banter gives huge scope for error and an earlier poster who defended this type of approach hasn't done CAS. There was no attempt on the transcript to use any of the approved techniques to unambiguously ident the target. No unit of measure, nothing!

The fact that these were ANG guys has a bearing but that has been beaten to death before.

Yes these guys didn't intend to hit friendlies but they sure as hell were going to hit something and the tension that creeps into their voices as they approach Bingo with other assets inbound is obvious for all to hear. While commendable to prosecute attacks, it is unprofessional to allow time pressure to cloud your judgement.

The fact that they were inadequately prepared and then exucuted a rushed plan using poor skills in an unprofessional manner lead to the inevitable tragic consequences and should result in them appearing before a court.

WebPilot

7th Feb 2007, 10:27

Flap62, I absolutely agree with the points made in your post.

As an aside to the debate on the use of US reserve pilots, the Daily Telegraph claims that the pilots were senior ranks (lieutenant colonel,and a major) but had little or no combat experience.

The DT reporting also makes the point that I made yesterday:
"It wasn't the grainy video images that shocked, but the radio traffic between the pilots and their command. It reveals that the decision to attack the British convoy was taken with frightening casualness, even though the airmen appeared far from certain there were no "friendlies" in the area".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/02/07/dl0701.xml

XXTSGR

7th Feb 2007, 10:45

It has to be said - the record of US Forces in blue-on-blue incidents in action is appalling. It also appears that few lessons are learned. It also appears that there is a cult of needless secrecy in covering up errors. It further appears that the MoD are prepared to bend over and say "Yes Sir" when so instructed by the Pentagon.

None of this will assist in preventing more tragic incidents like the death of Matty Hull.

rab-k

7th Feb 2007, 11:38

Despite the MoD finding that the crew had engaged the patrol "without the required authorisation", the US enquiry concluded that, according to Pentagon Spokesman Bryan Whitman, the crew "followed the procedures and processes for engaging targets". How do you square that particular circle?

The intent to avoid any damning admission of failure is no doubt driven by events elsewhere, such as the appeal made by USAF F16 pilot Maj. Harry Schmidt, who was disciplined following his bombing of Canadian troops in Afghanistan during April of 2002. Schmidt's lawyers for the appeal argued that punishing him would have "an adverse effect on the future performance of air force pilots".

They went on to state: "A finding of guilt and imposition of punishment of a pilot, who acted in self-defence in a combat situation, even though his decision was objectively determined to be in error with the benefit of hindsight, sends a profoundly wrong message to other pilots who are flying" - "Hesitation and indecision out of fear that judgment will be second-guessed are potentially more dangerous to combat pilots than honest mistakes made by good officers under the stress of combat".

Despite their best efforts, Schmidt's appeal was thrown out. However, you don't need 20/20 vision to see the logic in avoiding, at all costs, the fall out from prosecuting such apparent acts of negligence. Perhaps it is now accepted that the arguments made by Schmidt's lawyers are paramount in all such cases. Or perhaps it was simply Schmidt's misfortune that it was Canadians and not Brits that were on the ground at the time - the Canadian DND/CF perhaps not being quite so co-operative as our own MoD appear to have been.

I suspect that once the Coroner closes the case, nothing more will be heard.

London Mil

7th Feb 2007, 11:55

..... apart from a small, unannounced transfer of funds. It has happened before.

rab-k

7th Feb 2007, 12:45

Do those "funds" come in $ or £ I wonder...

Suggest you have a receptacle within range to catch any :yuk: that may be forthcoming after reading this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/6338607.stm

But then again, what should one expect from a pig - but a grunt.

GANNET FAN

7th Feb 2007, 12:57

The Evening Standard, and others earlier, have said

quote
The Pentagon says showing the footage would give enemies information about U.S. weapons systems.
unquote.

Is this simply a ruse to prevent the tapes going public, or is there any truth in the statement?

Just interested, that's all.

JC

XXTSGR

7th Feb 2007, 13:01

One notices that Bliar apologises to the family for distress caused by the delay in concluding the inquest, but makes no comment whatsoever about the lies they were told by the MoD.

Rakshasa

7th Feb 2007, 13:07

Uncensored HUD footage maybe... but that's belied by what Maple posted earlier.

Call signs?

They're four years OOD.

What it's like to fly in a warzone?

Footage like turns up on the Discovery and History channels everyday.

Unless there's something more I'm overlooking (would have to watch it again to be sure- I'd rather not) I'd chalk that up as BS.

22/7 Master

7th Feb 2007, 13:08

Cash for honours, 45 min claim, dodgy flat buying in Bristol, failure of all major policies since 1997, promise of "we will do better in the future".
I take it this is B-liar stating his intent to rival Dulux in the sale of whitewash in his post politics career, or perhaps he will successfully market the replacement for Teflon he has so ably developed.

spectre150

7th Feb 2007, 13:41

I dont think the HUD symbology is what was labelled as Classified (although their operating heights might be interesting to an enemy although not exactly a well kept secret), or the imagery itself (I couldnt make out ANYTHING on the ground). Wasn't the security issue (if there was one) the video as a whole, including the R/T between the pilots, the pilots and the JTAC/FAC, the parameters of the attacks and the tactics etc.

Zoom

7th Feb 2007, 14:35

Returning to the (comparatively insignificant) matter of the R/T discipline, I take it that we only heard the transmitted conversations. So I am at a loss to understand why they should have transmitted all of their bad language - discrete frequency or not - rather than just turn the air in their own cockpits blue in solitude. Only one expletive ('We're f***ed.') was part of a conversation, while the rest seemed to be merely gratuitous. Is that really the norm nowadays, and with the RAF as well?

brickhistory

7th Feb 2007, 14:52

Much chattering on here about the term 'murder' being applied to this event.

While it can never replace the life of the trooper or console his family, what about all the times CAS is gotten right?

The only way CAS fratricide can ever be completely eliminated is to not call for CAS. Since you can't or won't pay for a numerically significant CAS force of your own - the fact that adding ONE more jet to the line up generated so much buzz should be embarrassing! - (Hat's off, however, to those that do exist; there just should be many more of you!), the odds on any given day favor CAS support being American supplied.

Not many news stories or posts about good work being done. Not as much fun there, is it?

To sit at your comfy computer and second-guess those out there doing the job is the height of hypocrisy to me.

The only opinions on here worth reading have been from those who have actually FLOWN CAS or were there on the ground. Those opinions seem to much less hysterical and more professional.
The useless chatter includes my own post here.

Cut and paste the entire post, not just the last line)

vortex.ring

7th Feb 2007, 15:09

brickhistory, I don't think that bringing up the fact of whether or not we have our own CAS support has anything to do with this topic, it's merely a little sneer at a much smaller country (UK) from a country that is 10x + in size and numbers and therefore can afford to run that size fleet. :ugh:

@Zoom - I think if you'd just realised what you'd done, you possibly might forget radio discipline, I know I would.
Whether or not it was about what had just happened or what would happen when they returned to Viper base is mere speculation also.

My two pennies are that was a few miles away when it happened, A-10's circled like vultures, then all hell broke loose on the radios as the whole world wanted to stop the eager beavers in the air. The fact they turned around and went for a second pass after having had time during the strafe run is what baffles me.

I believe recognition training is a major factor here, alongside the "gotta get me one" attitude displayed by so many of our Allied Nations colleagues.

Flandan

7th Feb 2007, 15:10

How many A-10 pilots does it take to change a lightbulb?...
Two, but they'll encourage each other to go change the good one in the other room.

BattlerBritain

7th Feb 2007, 15:23

Maybe buy the A-10 jocks some of these for Christmas....
http://www.ghqmodels.com/store/n58.html
http://www.ghqmodels.com/store/n119.html
http://www.ghqmodels.com/store/n59.html
http://www.ghqmodels.com/store/n103.html
They could even take them with them for the flight.

brickhistory

7th Feb 2007, 15:40

vortex.ring qoute:

brickhistory, I don't think that bringing up the fact of whether or not we have our own CAS support has anything to do with this topic, it's merely a little sneer at a much smaller country (UK) from a country that is 10x + in size and numbers and therefore can afford to run that size fleet.

Nope, you are choosing not to fund a comparable fleet for your size. As a nation, you have chosen to have a small air force and military. However, that does mean that if you put your troops in harms' way and they need CAS, it more than likely won't be yours.

Thus, it does, to me anyway, have something to do with this topic. Would there be the cry for retribution to RAF pilots if they'd been there?

No one is infallible and unfortunately, Trooper Hull paid for that. Except for his family, I bet there is no one on this planet who feels worse than that two-ship of A-10 pilots.

I'm not sneering at anything, rather I'm amazed at what gets done with so little.

anotherthing

7th Feb 2007, 15:48

Brickhistory

1. The transcripts clearly show the pilots realise they are close to having to leave station and return home.

2. You can clearly hear one of the pilots state "wouldn't it be great to attack them" (paraphrased)

3. You can clearly hear the hesitation and doubt in the R/T of the pilots (based on the orange markers), and the uncertainty in the controllers replies.

4. You can even hear one pilot alomost plead with the other to confirm what he thinks he can see.

Now given those things (amongst many others), why should we not ask questions.

point 1 above - were the pilots feeling pressured by time constraints? Even in the exchange about RTB, there was confusion.

point 2 - was this 'press-on-itis', i.e. the guys wanted to have something to show for their sortie (more of this in a moment).

point 3 and 4 - the two real biggies - under what ROE were these guys, and therefore the US forces operating under if it is deemed acceptable to fire on a target that has not been positively identified, or where there is doubt?

These pilots, despite an American BOI 4 years ago, must carry some of the blame for not adhering to SOPs and ROE.

However, why are the leaders allowing two ANG pilots with (at that time) limited combat experience and limited currency, fly as a two ship on a mission with a high probability of encountering the enemy? Why were they not paired with another pilot who had some experience instead of with each other?

Where is the recognition training amidst all this? Hell, in the not too distant past we used to have to be able to identify submarines by seeing their antennae - how can you mis-ident a british vehicle with promulgated identifying markings on it? If you can't make it out, you look harder/lower... you do not open fire and hope it's the enemy.

So, yes, the pilots are to blame (read famous pierres post (number 93 on page 5))

However, more at fault in this instance is the US system that effectively allows two 'rookie' (before you start, I know they were fairly Senior ANG officers, but they were rookies at this - if not then they are even more to blame) pilots to team up on a hot sortie.

And to cap it all there is the collusion between the MOD and the US, hiding the facts from the family.

We are four years down the line - have we learned from this mistake? I doubt it - we are allowing this type of thing to continue.

This one incident has ruined the lives of the family of L/C of H Hull and probably the 2 A10 pilots (they are victims too - they should not have been placed in the situation).

The ineptitude displayed seems criminal enough, the cover up and therefore the lack of opportunity to learn from this is even more of a heinous crime.

nigegilb

7th Feb 2007, 15:54

Further to the above post. The A10s were operating in a kill zone. What implication does this have to the RoE?

Got a little perspective from our allies the other day. The lack of Link 16 appears to be a big factor. I was surprised that A10 pilots operating in these fluid situations do not have any form of datalink to assist in targetting.

EODFelix

7th Feb 2007, 16:11

Further to Archimedes post on combat ID to avoid fratricide and the promise by Buffhoon to the House to acquire the necessary kit pre GW2. Anyone remember the blue on blue Challenger incident? (I think Scots DG and RTR). You may be interested to note that following pressures on the EP Battlefield Target Identification System (BTIS) has been deleted and to quote LAND this "... impacts particulary in warfighting (DI and FI) requiring armoured vehicle crews to remain reliant upon Situational Awareness and tactics, techniques and procedures to avoid fratricide as opposed to an automatic 'friend or foe' system.

Kitbag

7th Feb 2007, 16:34

Just heard Mrs Hull on PM. Fantastically dignified lady asking to be left alone to rebuild her life in spite of some very leading questions from the journalist. Made me remember that real people are still living with the effects of ... poor investment, tactics, decision making, briefing, training etc. Lots of armchair pontificators here (inc me) but for some reason her words and manner really struck me today.

PPRuNeUser0211

7th Feb 2007, 16:43

Zoom,

The cockpit recording is of everything that was going through the audio box on the jet it was taken from. This includes what the guy in the cockpit is saying to himself. As he says "I'm going to be sick" or words to that effect you can hear him unmask, and all the way through you can hear him breathing.

bombedup6

7th Feb 2007, 17:23

"Aall the right efforts were made to educate the US pilots on vehicle recognition by sending our wagons down to the A-10 base so they could see them before the war."

Yes, but did they drive them out into the desert to have the A-10 pilots spot them from above? I'm told they just sat on the pan.

The A-10 training base at Davis-Monthan AFB, Ariz, where all the US-based ANG A-10 units did their work-ups before deploying, did not have ANY British ground combat equipment to train with out at the Barry Goldwater range.

The first time the Davis-Monthan trainers had cockpit views of Scimitars, according to a US trainer I spoke to three years ago (Scimitars apparently look a bit like BMP2s from a distance and from above (though the two Popovs seemed to think they were Zils or flatbed trucks)) - was when a Tornado GR4 semi-squadron came in for CAS training in January 03. By which time the 190th (the Popovs) had already left for Kuwait.

And anyway, weren't they trained to recognise orange ID panels? Anyone ever heard of orange rockets?

SASless

7th Feb 2007, 17:44

What happened during this blue on blue incident where Two soldiers were killed by tank fire?
What did the investigation determine the cause to be and could have IFF gear or the like have prevented this tragedy?

The British Defense Ministry announced Tuesday that two Britishtank crew were killed late Monday in "a friendly fire" incident near the Iraqi second largest city of Basra.

The soldiers were killed Monday night in a friendly fire incident from another British Challenger during a night battle with Iraqi forces on the outskirts of Basra, said a spokesman for the Ministry of Defense.

The two soldiers were from the Queen's Royal Lancers operating a Challenger II main battle tank, the spokesman said.

"It is with deep regret that the Ministry of Defense has to confirm the death of Corporal Stephen John Allbutt, 35, and Trooper David Jeffrey Clarke, 19," he added.

Army chiefs investigating the incident have not disclosed whether the tank which fired the fatal shot was from the same regiment.

The Challenger II is the British Army's main battle tank and entered service in June 1998. Its advanced thermal imaging system, used to function at night, is regarded as the best in the world.

A second Blue on Blue from Afghanistan

If one views the documentary of the killing of the American football star, Pat Tillman" in Afghanistan, it shows how despite the very best of intentions, these things happen. Please to remember the brother of the fellow killed was in the very same unit and involved in that combat action during which Tillman died after being hit by .50 caliber fire from a Humvee trying to escape an ambush.
The chain of events in Tillman's death paint a situation where there was either mis-communication or no communication during a running gun battle between two Friendly units and two enemy units.
The documentary included interviews of many of the people in the unit who were involved in the action. It is heart breaking to listen to their accounts all the while knowing what the outcome was.
It should be a case study on how confusing things can be in combat despite thinking you know what the heck is going on when you really do not.
For those of you who are not familar withe what happened....
Convoy made up of two groups of Humvees and civilian vehicles are having to traverse a canyon with steep hills on either side. The road snakes back and forth along the narrow bottom of the canyon. The trailing half is stopped by a broken down civvie truck and the lead half drives on out of the canyon and is out of sight of the other part of the column. Bad guys on each side of the canyon kick off an ambush using RPG's and small arms fire to include light machine guns....the column under attack is blocked by the Civvie truck. After a bit....the civvie truck is moved to the side of the road and the column moves out towards the lead part of the column.
The lead column sees and hears tracers and gunfire but cannot see the other half of the unit in contact. They move to either side of the road on the hillsides leading up to the top of the two ridges and move to engage the ambushers. Tillman with an Afghani soldier go on the left side of the ridge as they face the direction of the ambush. These troops then engage the ambush just as the stopped column is making its way out. The vehicles are returning fire against the ambushers.
As the column passes Tillman's position (with the setting sun behind him and blinding the the vehicle gunners....the Afghani firing an AK engages the ambushers on the hillside near Tillman and himself. A Humvee gunner sees muzzle flashes and hears the sound of the AK being fired....directs his .50 Cal M2 fire towards that and kills both the Afghani and Tillman.
The column moving out of the valley while shooting their way out....did not know the other half of the unit was returning to their location to help break the ambush.

nigegilb

7th Feb 2007, 18:10

Very unfortunate example.

"They blew up their poster boy," Tillman's father, Patrick, a San Jose lawyer, told the Washington Post last week. He joined his former wife to demand accountability for the latest military cover-up to happen on Commander in Chief Bush's watch. High-ranking Army officials, he said, told "outright lies."

"After it happened, all the people in positions of authority went out of their way to script this," Tillman said. "They purposely interfered with the investigation .... I think they thought they could control it, and they realized that their recruiting efforts were going to go to hell in a handbasket if the truth about his death got out."

Kitbag

7th Feb 2007, 18:22

SASless, I think a major difference here is that in the engagements you discuss there was an active firefight in progress with people making truly split second decisions. That is the fog of war and even a civilian could understand it.
The A10 case doesn't really fit in with that type of scenario as far as most contributors to this thread seem to be concerned, and from the transcript the pilots seem to take a little over five minutes to make the decision to engage.
Doubts must exist over the suitability of the two pilots involved in terms of their decision making capabilities. BBC R4 is rumouring that one of those involved was subsequently promoted to full colonel. Hopefully he will be able to lead his men with the full benefit of his experiences.

rab-k

7th Feb 2007, 19:47

SASless

In answer to your questions re. the Challengers, as with the main topic of this post, may I refer you to Appendix 2 of the document which I quoted previously:

http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/nao_reports/05-06/0506936.pdf

h73kr

7th Feb 2007, 20:23

I can't be the only one here who finds the low brow commentary from 'The Sun' to the comments made on the tape highly distateful, seems designed to inflame the reader without any objective thought, taking the 'how could they do this to 'our boys' approach it always adopts. I find it pathetic. It was a tragic mistake, and hindsight is a wonderful thing. Does The Sun ever report anything objectively at a higher level than the playground? :ugh:

Kitbag

7th Feb 2007, 20:43

Interesting read, lots of jam tomorrow, in the meantime we (the UK) will rely on training, tactics and not a little good luck. If as the report acknowledges UK forces will be operating in concert with Allies, primarily US what training and tactics is jointly carried out to provide all offensive air assets in theatre with the requisite skills to minimise such events?

BlooMoo

7th Feb 2007, 22:00

and from the transcript the pilots seem to take a little over five minutes to make the decision to engage.

From the transcript they took 5mins+ to consider engagement but the decision 'to engage' seems pretty abrupt. To me anyway. There seems obvious doubt by the pilots on the quality of the target for those 5mins - what took the doubt away? It seems a voice on an earpiece rather than what the pilots see with their own eyes - DOUBT. And why was the first reaction from the pilots 'oh sh!t' rather than 'NO WAY!!!'???

The pilot(s) must live with their decision and they were immediately aware of how poor it was. I can't get away from the feeling they knew it was poor...

nigegilb

8th Feb 2007, 06:45

One word, RECKLESS.

speeddial

8th Feb 2007, 07:09

And in today's Sun they have found just who the pilot was, allegedly.......makes the US's Privacy Act look a little useless?

teeteringhead

8th Feb 2007, 08:04

Don't think IFF would necessarily help. If it were to come into use, and be relied upon, the downside is that a non-squawker would be assumed to be hostile - even if the kit was u/s ......

....... Tonka ........ Patriot ........ Ali ........... :(

BattlerBritain

8th Feb 2007, 08:14

Comment in The Times on this....
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article1350515.ece

nigegilb

8th Feb 2007, 08:52

IFF certainly would not be of any use directly to the A10 pilots. No data link capability. An unusual oversight on behalf of US DoD. Maybe they will revisit this capability gap. The international outcry must be causing a major headache. It was all over CNN in the States when I left on Tuesday. Can't see the coroner holding back on his criticism now. This is already a diplomatic incident and we have not heard his conclusion yet.

NURSE

8th Feb 2007, 09:00

isn't the A10C datalinked ?

UnderPowered

8th Feb 2007, 09:02

Nige,

Knowing your experience as a CAS pilot, I think its unfair to use the word "RECKLESS".

The boys made an honest mistake, like I have, like you must have during your FJ trg, and like every pilot does. They were not trying to commit a blue on blue. Their mental model was skewed and they may have made the scenario fit their own mental model, but this is in the realms of human psychology. If you were to ask Jon Chappelow, I'm betting he would say that the human mind has a propensity for making these kind of mistakes.

Its very, very sad that this has happened, but I relly don't think its right to use the word "RECKLESS"; rather we should use the word "HUMAN FACTORS", exacerbated by incomplete information. I don't like the word "RECKLESS" in a similar way that we don't like the accusation that the two Mull of Kintyre Chinook pilots were "NEGLIGENT".

I've done thousands of hours of CAS and I think that, until we have a 100% solution of perhaps the Blue Force Tracker type, then it'll happen again.

Cheers, and good luck to all our people out there.

NURSE

8th Feb 2007, 09:04

I wonder what would the US medias response been if it had been a troops of LAV25's being engaged by RAF Harriers with a similar result and similar mistakes being made. I'm sure the outcry and demands for action would have been as loud and probably 2 RAF pilots facing extradition.

WebPilot

8th Feb 2007, 09:08

One of the US pilots has allegedly been identified:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/08/npilot08.xml

Chugalug2

8th Feb 2007, 09:15

<Nigeglb said: ....Can't see the coroner holding back on his criticism now. This is already a diplomatic incident and we have not heard his conclusion yet.>

Well he's holding back for 6 weeks AFAIK, as that is how long the inquest is adjourned for. I also understand that his contract as Assistant Coroner is not to be renewed. A pity, we need good men like him to stand up to the disreputable rogues that roam the corridors of power. Let us hope he does not decide that he needs to spend more time with his family before this case is through. If it was not for him and the "criminals" (from the DoD, talk about pots and kettles!) at the Sun, Mrs Hull and the rest of us would be none the wiser. So much for open government. If this incident, and the blatant whitewash by the USAF, DoD, MOD, Bliar et al does not make us think twice before going out on another special relationship spree, we deserve all that befalls us. All in this coalition are equal, some a good deal more than others!

nigegilb

8th Feb 2007, 09:20

Under powered. Not a nice word to use, I agree. And unfair of me to comment because I have no CAS experience? Well, a coroner with no military experience is looking at the evidence now. I do not like the way the media circus is turning this whole thing into a vindictive event. I don't agree with that at all. Having said all that, I stand by my own conclusion. Their actions appear reckless to me. I would be very disappointed if that was a video of an RAF pilot(s) going about his business. I remember how proud I was of a Harrier mate of mine who brought back his bombs in the Kosovo war because he could not make out his target. I am not saying the guys should not be forgiven, but trying to cover up the existence of this video does nobody any favours, and a military that lacks discipline turns into something else.

If the MoD had been wiser it might have prevented the media circus happening at all. But when has the MoD displayed much in the way of morality in recent times?

BattlerBritain

8th Feb 2007, 09:21

Nurse,

See my post #96.

Further to point about RAF a/c having strafe capability:
Hawks are trainers and unlikely to be deployed in active warzone
Jags are being retired
Tornado F3's are air defence and unlikely to be deployed in ground support role

..which leaves only the Tornado GR4.

Why aren't they deployed as UK CAS assets?

Wrathmonk

8th Feb 2007, 09:27

Battler

They are, as openly reported on the RAF Website (http://www.raf.mod.uk/currentoperations/opsiraq.cfm). Why they are in one particular theatre rather than the other (or indeed both at the same time) should not be a topic for further discussion on this forum IMHO.

W

NURSE

8th Feb 2007, 09:33

have seen pics of Harrier with aden packs on them when were they deleated?

typhoon will have cannon despite the best efforts of the Mod and i'm sure the swing role ones could usse them.

Tonka in cas that would be interesting!!

mind you hawk is used across the world as a light attack aircraft and with an extra 10 becoming available couldn't they be deployed to give UK forces some additional suport ;)

UnderPowered

8th Feb 2007, 09:33

Nige,

I agree that, if the MoD denied the existence of the vid (I don't have the facts on this), that would be bad. I would also like a CAS expert to be advising the coroner, if there is not one there already, and I agree that culturally the RAF is prouder of how many bombs it brings back than how many it delivers.

Having said that, the A-10 mates, especially the SANDYs, that I have met are some of the bravest, most professional souls I have ever met.

I hope that the identifiaction of the pilots is not detrimental to them in a disproportionate way. I fear that it might be, and I'm not sure that it was a good idea for the papers to publish his identity. Surely an anonymous witness statement would have been sufficient; I don't know. The problem is that Joe Public won't have a deep enough understanding of events such as these to see the situation in its true light.

thunderbird7

8th Feb 2007, 09:49

Surely another aspect of this is the earlier press reports of the RAF in Afg being 'utterly utterly useless' as described by some pongo. Maybe if he looked at this vid he would be grateful for the adherence to ROEs etc.

Capt Pit Bull

8th Feb 2007, 09:56

Brickhistory,

The only opinions on here worth reading have been from those who have actually FLOWN CAS or were there on the ground. Those opinions seem to much less hysterical and more professional.

Never flown CAS in my life.

This doesn't stop me from recognising classic crm errors such as confirmation bias, risky shift and plain old press-on-it-is.

The simple fact is there was serious concerns on the part of one of the pilots that were never satisfactorally resolved; a similar pattern to many accidents.

pb

MrBernoulli

8th Feb 2007, 10:09

These 2 pilots were just looking for something more to shoot before going home. No positive target ID at all, lots of assumptions. Pair of idiots.

XXTSGR

8th Feb 2007, 10:09

Major General Larry Lafrenz, the commanding general of the Idaho National Guard, said in a statement: "The entire Idaho National Guard family extends our deepest sympathies to the family of Lance Corporal Hull and the coalition service member who was injured during this unfortunate accident.

"Military pilots are among the most skilled and highly trained, and take every precaution to avoid tragedies like this.

"However, in the uncertainty of a wartime environment, accidents can and do happen. "While nothing we can do will alleviate the grief of the Hull family, we can only continue to promise all concerned that our personnel will continue to receive the very best training that the Armed Forces have to offer, in an effort to minimise the potential for similar occurrences in the future."

and the coalition service member who was injured - he can't be bothered to find out the guy's name?
our personnel will continue to receive the very best training that the Armed Forces have to offer - more to the point would be to improve that training. Producing bullshot whitewash inquiries that totally exonerate the pilots while saying "full steam ahead" is simply going to create more and more and yet more unnecessary tragedies.

UnderPowered

8th Feb 2007, 10:13

Maybe we need you to be our CAS pilot next time, eh? Sounds like you'd do a much better job.

MrBernoulli

8th Feb 2007, 10:21

Up yours chum! The evidence is clear. They were cavalier about their ROE. And the ensuing cover up is just as disgraceful.

rab-k

8th Feb 2007, 10:28

Press now listing a catalogue of errors relating to:
POPOV asking MANILA HOTEL to "confirm there are no friendlies this far north on the ground". (The entire exchange between POPOV and MANILA HOTEL relates to "multiple vehicles in revets" which POPOV has spotted "800m to the north of (your) 'Arty' rounds" observed impacting earlier. POPOV describes the revetted vehicles as "flatbed trucks and others are green vehicles, can't quite make out the type, look like maybe ZIL157s", which MANILA HOTEL confirms "matches our intel up there" and are indeed the targets of the 'Arty' rounds). During the exchange MANILA HOTEL confirms "You are well clear of friendlies" - POPOV makes no reference whatsoever to MANILA HOTEL of a "four ship" of vehicles.
POPOV fails to inform MANILA HOTEL/MANILA34 of the grid reference or "group box" of the "four ship", nor a description of the vehicles, number of vehicles, direction of travel, nor "orange panels" or "orange rockets" on the UK patrol, which is "further west" of their position, "right on the river".
Both crews convince themselves that the "orange panels" are in fact "orange rockets", prior to using "goggles" or obtaining a positive I-D or confirmation from the FAC.
Without the required authorisation from the FAC, the attack commences. After the first strafe, POPOV36 questions his wingman further saying "That's what you think they are, right?" to which POPOV35 replies "It looks like it to me and I got my goggles on them now". POPOV36 continues "It looks like he's hauling ass. (Ha, ha, ha). Is that what you think they are?" to which the response is "They don't look friendly". The second attack then follows.
Immediately after the second attack, LIGHTENING34 advises POPOV of "friendly armour in the area", followed by a description, to which the immediate response is "Ahh ****". LIGHTENING34 then goes on to instruct POPOV to abort the mission.Yet, according to the Pentagon's Spokesman Bryan Whitman, both crew "Followed the procedures and processes for engaging targets".

What am I missing here?

MrBernoulli

8th Feb 2007, 10:31

You haven't missed anything ...... it's just that POPOV were being extremely cavalier.

UnderPowered

8th Feb 2007, 10:37

Just for clarification, how many of us categorically know what the ROE were at the time? I dare say that they were classified, and still are. What type of CAS was it? Was it KI? What was the devolved authority, what was the hostile act/hostile intent definition?

Are we applying a generic set of assumptions to a specific event?

I agree with Capt Pit Bull about confirmation bias etc, but this is Human Factors, and it can't be surgically removed because its how brains work. For anyone who's been there, its a factor, and it can't be rationalised at 1g with a cup of coffee.

We weren't there, so we shouldn't judge.

vortex.ring

8th Feb 2007, 10:45

No matter what happened, no matter what the findings, to release his name and family's along with their history is just disgusting. Everyone, take a second to stand in his shoes...he probably has nightmares about it already, waking up in cold sweat as most as us would, I'm sure. Now he's got a bunch of reporter vultures on his doorstep.
This guy flies 737's in everyday life, with any sense they'll ground him until this blows over as it'll surely affect his ability to safely carry out his duty as a pilot or captain in these conditions. No matter what happened, the way the press are acting on this is disgusting. Yes, we want news...no we don't want peoples life stories. Who knows what the guy did in his other 28 combat missions in Iraqi Freedom, maybe he is a hero of sorts from them? Who are we to judge.....

nigegilb

8th Feb 2007, 10:50

Under powered thank you for your considered reply. I was contacted by a journo the other day who wanted me to help him find the names of the pilots. I refused. There has been a chase on amongst the media to discover the identity of the pilots. Sadly, the Sun in some ways bravely shows a classified video to the world, but then shows us the under belly of the British media in its actions afterwards. I would far rather this video was shown in weapons training schools as an example of how not to go about your business.

Just hope everyone keeps the feelings of Matty Hull's widow close to heart over the next few days and weeks.

Edited to add that I also agree with the above comments about the well being of the pilots involved.

Hope you agree that cover-ups ain't the way ahead. When they are exposed for what they are, all hell breaks loose.

UnderPowered

8th Feb 2007, 11:14

Couldn't agree more. Damn shame that it happened. For all concerned. Can't help but think that the respective Minisitries/Departments, by being utterly truthful in the first place, could have shown more respect for the bereaved, and better explained why this kind of stuff happens.

scribbler614

8th Feb 2007, 11:18

'We weren't there so we shouldn't judge.'
Come on, UnderPowered, that won't wash. Nobody should be held to account for actions in war except by people who were also there at the time?
Judging after the event at 1g with cup of coffee etc isn't easy and must be done by those suitably qualified, but sometimes it must be done nonetheless. This is a case in point.
I still struggle square the U.S. inquiry findings - that they followed correct procedures for an attack - with the transcript.
And if they did follow 'correct procedures' what does that say about U.S. Air Force's SOPs?

rab-k

8th Feb 2007, 11:18

UnderPowered

The ROE as you state are classified, however, the UK BoI points to what they were on the day by concluding that "the cause of the incident was that the A10 had engaged the United Kingdom patrol believing it to be hostile, without the required authorisation from the United States of America Liaison team".

("Contributory factors to the incident included - ROE for CAS [Type3]". See my previous post: #73)

PS As for Journo's, I recall only too well what happened to a colleague in Switzerland whose name made it into the public domain following a tragic event, therefore I hope those Journo's responsible this time rot in hell. :mad:

Chugalug2

8th Feb 2007, 11:27

<UnderPowered wrote at #138: I don't like the word "RECKLESS" in a similar way that we don't like the accusation that the two Mull of Kintyre Chinook pilots were "NEGLIGENT".

I've done thousands of hours of CAS >

And I haven't, but instead of knowing that you are right and others like me are wrong about this, shouldn't you just sit on your hands and think, you know like the good Lt Col and Maj should have done?
I don't recall MAFLs definition 0f RECKLESS or NEGLIGENT, but my Collins gives "heedless" and "having or showing no regard for danger or consequences" for the first, and "habitually neglecting duties, responsibilities, etc" and "lacking attention, care, concern" for the second. Both cases you cite were the subject of formal assessment by their parent services. In the case of the USAF, with an abundance of evidence and the availability of all those involved (with the exception of Matty Hull), there was found to be no blame to attach to the pilots (or anyone else?). In the case of the RAF with no supporting evidence and no crew or pax survivors, the final verdict was of Gross Negligence. Was that because both these verdicts were sound or because they were both flying in the face of reason? A pity for their sake that the Mull guys were not in the ANG!

Top Right

8th Feb 2007, 11:45

The BBC yesterday were quoting a US expert - Ward Carroll, a former navy pilot who is now editor of the Military.com website (don't know how respected he is), on the "fog of war" issue.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6337137.stm

The pilots, he (Carroll) said, would be trying to balance competing demands."If I am too cautious and we get a village taken out, the question would arise: 'Why did you not drop your weapons when you were cleared to fire?'" On the other hand, he added, the pilot saw the signal that should have told him he was not looking at hostile troops. Now the speech quotations do not reflect what either of the pilots said, this is purely his conjecture of what they could have been thinking. But what strange conjecture - "if ... we get a village taken out" then the pilots would have been questioned as to why they hadn't fired.

If the vehicles had been Iraqi, why would they have "taken out a village" when they (had they been Iraqi) would more likely have wished to get into the village and hide from any possible attack?

And this assumption is from an expert? Makes you think.

nigegilb

8th Feb 2007, 11:50

Always useful to look from another perspective. Not much has been said about kill boxes in all this. This article questions the propriety of using target rich kill zones. I believe Matty Hull was in a kill zone at the time. In a vehicle not equipped with IFF because of the useless MoD. Was it an accident waiting to happen? What ere the ROE in kill zones?

Article form the first post, not sure of any political affiliation.

"With friends like these...

The attempt to hide footage of US pilots bombing British soldiers reveals a wider malaise in military thinking, says robert fox

The cockpit footage of the friendly fire incident in which two US A10 tankbusters shot up a British convoy of the Household Cavalry in Iraq in March 2003 is shocking. But it is hardly surprising given the record of 'blue on blue' incidents involving American A10s, which have run into the dozens over the past 20 years.

The first issue must be the poor fire control and engagement discipline of the pilots themselves. They nattered for what seemed minutes about what the orange-covered vehicles were, and did not refer their position - nor their doubts - to ground controllers.

Also, they did not know how to identify allied vehicles. This raises questions about the whole principle of laying out targets in 'kill boxes' of so-called 'target-rich' zones. This does not allow for human error, for the target
It is clear they did not want this evidence to come to public attention
zones cannot be guaranteed to be free of friendly forces or civilians at any time. Quite how many innocents have died in the kill zones of Iraq is an issue barely raised in public. That must change.

The second major issue is the conduct of the US and UK governments and their defence departments. It is clear they did not want this evidence to come to public attention. The family of L/Cpl Matty Hull were not given the full video evidence, and this seems to have been no accident. This is what appears to have so enraged the Oxford coroner Andrew Walker, now trying to conclude an inquest four years after the event.

After a similar incident on February 26, 1991, in which A10s shot up the battle group of the Fusiliers in the advance into Kuwait, killing nine and wounding 11, the Oxford coroner's inquest came to a stark verdict - that the fusiliers had suffered an act of unlawful killing. It is a charge the US military must answer to again, whatever Andrew Walker's verdict."
FIRST POSTED FEBRUARY 6, 2006

rab-k

8th Feb 2007, 13:21

Having probably been assured by his superiors that the tape would never see the light of day, the following appeared in an interview in 2005:

"My best piloting experience has been flying the A10 in Iraqi Freedom. After all the years of training, to go to war and use my experiences to to help dispose Saddam from power was the epitome of my career".

No wonder they fought tooth and nail to prevent the tape being aired. From now on, no US service personel will ever believe any Brass who say details regarding such incidents will remain classified.

Zero credibility all round...

kuningan

8th Feb 2007, 13:27

In the MOD report into the incident:
http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/887DE696-1DB9-4512-AF8E-2ECFED455356/0/boi_lcpl_hull.pdf
There is an interesting footnote on page 25, which possibly comes from General [Blanked out] who was responsible for 'the direction given to the US FFIB' which led the MOD to believe that the US FFIB findings 'will be reconsidered'

2. Quote:
'The findings of the board (US FFIB) that cognitive and physical task overload, inneffective communication and failure to recognise identification panels contributed to the terrible loss of life, injury and damage are difficult to square with a finding that no procedures were violated. In view of the above, the Commander Coalition Forces Air Component Command should reconsider the actions of subordinate personel for possible administrative or disciplinary action as he deems appropriate.

I wonder why they did not blank out that quote - looks like someone in US command recognised that their conclusions were not consistent with the data....so, DID they reconsider, and if so, WHY did they reach the same conclusion, and if they did not reconsider, why not? Or was someone trying to sweet-talk an MOD enquiry.

Curiously, the MOD report was first published 6 March 2006, removed 'due to security concerns 31 January 2007, then republished 7th February 2007. I wonder what the security concerns were, and why they went away.....

woodring

8th Feb 2007, 15:49

The MOD seem to want to stick their heads in the sand and do nothing to try to prevent blue on blue attacks ,it just boils down to money. But at some stage moral will be so affected that this type of incident will no longer be allowed to be ignored.
Truth and integrity no longer seem to matter .The powers that be are so wrapped up in their desire to show a positive appearance that they will lie and deceive to realise that aim.
How can servicemen and women work for people that fail to show such a lack of respect for them and their families.

nigegilb

8th Feb 2007, 16:02

Beats me. The liars in the MoD and Govt are wrecking our armed forces. All Susan Hull wanted to know was the truth. She deserves better than this. By actively taking part in a cover-up elements of the MoD are acting disgracefully and at the same time mortally wounding recruitment and retention prospects that have been damaged by a series of self-inflicted blows. Idiots.

US Herk

8th Feb 2007, 16:46

Two things to consider as I finally succumb to the blood rushing from my well-bitten tongue...

A - Not only do we all sit here in 1g comfort to pass judgement, but we also know the outcome of the tape before we even view it. How can anyone who was not there even consider these events in the true time relationship they happened. It is far too easy to dissect a transcript, "hear" inflections where we want, insert our own interpretations of statements, read between the lines, and pass judgment when we already know the horrific outcome. It is more than simple hindsight, it is four years of well-biased hindsight.

B - For the US part, ALL safety investigations are kept strictly private and are not made public. This is to engender a sense of trust between aircrew and investigators so aircrew are forthright when telling their side of the story in the hopes of preventing future mishaps - this goes for all safety investigations. There is, often, another investigation that is made public, but not always. When these investigators question aircrew, lawyers are present, rights are read, & there is a very real threat of administrative & legal retribution. Consequently, information is patchy, at best.

I will not comment on any cover-up, lack of cooperation, or any intent to mislead anyone - these facts simply are not known and are pure conjecture - appropriate for a RUMOUR network I supposed, but not appropriate for hanging anyone (reviled government entitities & inidividuals not excepted). If, however, there proves to be a cover-up, those involved should be prosecuted to the fullest.

I will not acknowledge the journos who published pilot's names, biographies, family names, addresses, et al any further than to spit on them.

That said, mistakes are made. That some, like this one, are tragic, makes them harder to reconcile with apparently factual data such as HUD vid. In no way am I sanctioning blue on blue, nor dismissing it as "Sh*t happens", but I would be interested in seeing some sort of comparison of # of targets serviced, # of sorties flown, # of bombs/bullets dropped vs # of frat incidents. I suspect, but cannot prove, that you will find the percentage of blue on blue to be so small as to be near dismissable by a statistician. We, however, are not statisticians and strive for perfection - especially in this arena where the results are tragic.

Zero blue on blue is a noble, but unachievable goal.

My thoughts and condolences to the families involved - both the deceased & the pilots.

heavybuffet

8th Feb 2007, 17:04

I rarely post on prrune due to the fact that there are seemingly few military aircrew within these forums. Watching the video definitely stirred something inside that made me want to comment. I am sickened by alot of the ill informed armchair pundits on here.

US Herk, I think your comments are spot on.

rab-k

8th Feb 2007, 17:14

US Herk.

Some particularly salient points you make there. A 'no blame culture' is one which those involved in anything concerning the safety of others seeks to achieve, in the hope that open and honest reporting leads to fewer mistakes. However, if negligence is proven then appropriate action should be taken.

The problem here as seen this side of the pond is that Govt. departments from both sides were seen to be party to a "cover-up", which is not "Rumour", but fact. The wife of the deceased was told that no such video existed. Now guess what is airing in the media? If that is not a "cover-up" then I don't know what is.

The scum Journo's sadly didn't need do much digging once his name was known. (Google can be an enemy as well as a friend). Perhaps the real scum is the one who let it slip in the first place, closely followed by the ones who authorised its publication.

Either way the system is not being seen to be both fair and open to all involved, hence the greater criticism is being directed at those responsible for it, more so than the individuals concerned.

Edit

PS My last on this - time would be better spent writing to my local MP to express my disgust at the shoddy behaviour of his Govt. and its Ministers. However, for all you service personnel who might scorn or dismiss the civvy input into this thread, one final thought - it is the ability to question both the actions and authority of the State, in all its forms, that makes for a democracy. Never forget that for you in uniform, it is we the civilians who may be your only chance of establishing the truth, however uncomfortable our questions and accusations make some of your superiors feel.

woodring

8th Feb 2007, 17:41

I was most impressed by Mrs Hull when she was interviewed on tv.
She is not trying to apportion blame. She only seeks the truth about the circumstances of her husband's death. That should be the right of any
family. If there are reasons why those circumstances cannot be made public
then surely a private briefing could take place.
The quiet dignity of this lady should be an example to us all.

Wrathmonk

8th Feb 2007, 20:34

but I would be interested in seeing some sort of comparison of # of targets serviced, # of sorties flown, # of bombs/bullets dropped vs # of frat incidents. I suspect, but cannot prove, that you will find the percentage of blue on blue to be so small as to be near dismissable by a statistician

Only if we can compare number of frat incidents by country as well .....

There is another thread running on this site on the media fallout from the naming of the pilot by the Sun today - here (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=263465)

nigegilb

8th Feb 2007, 21:01

US Herk, don't get me wrong, I don't for a second believe that these pilots should be thrown in the clink for this. I absolutely accept your point that it is impossible to understand the stresses these guys were under from the comfort of an armchair. I am sickened by the sight of the great British media circus camped outside this man's house tonight. As usual they have missed the big picture, by going for a shallow, emotive angle. Why aren't they focussing their energies on discovering the identities of MoD personnel who lied to Mrs Hull? Or finding out why we have no way of effectively tracking our troops? And establishing some accountability?

I just feel for Mrs Hull in all this. 4 years have passed since her husband died. She has had no closure and until last week she did not realise that a video existed showing the death of her husband. There is absolutely no excuse for this. The video was shown at the BoI 3 years ago.

I understand that the US operates a closed system and who is to say this is wrong. Your country's record in looking after its troops is second to none. However, we do not have a closed system. It is a matter of British law that an inquest has to be held. And we do not have a good record in looking after our people. However, if the HUD video was so sensitive why could the US authorities not have invited Mrs Hull over for a private showing of the video on US soil? It could have been explained to her that this was a tragedy that probably should not have happened and that your people were very sorry, but that tragedies such as this one, do happen in war.

She only wanted to know the truth. Now we have the disastrous situation of having the very worst of our press camped outside this man's home, interviewing anyone who will speak to them. Whilst Mrs Hull's life is being turned over for a second time.

I do not believe that ignoring the plight of the bereaved family can possibly be condoned and I do not believe that this case has been satisfactorily handled either by the US DoD or our own MoD. In fact, it stinks.

MReyn24050

8th Feb 2007, 22:36

Quote:
Now we have the disastrous situation of having the very worst of our press camped outside this man's home, interviewing anyone who will speak to them. Whilst Mrs Hull's life is being turned over for a second time.
I couldn't agree more. Why doesn't the media, if they must wish to persecute anyone, camp on Main Building doorstep and find out who lied to the effect that they had no such evidence?

US Herk

9th Feb 2007, 00:09

As a USAF trained aircraft mishap investigator, I can tell you that the HUD vid, while not classified, is often not released outside the USAF - not for security reasons necessarily (although that is much easier to explain to the public), rather, for the concept of privileged information. Priviliged information, as it pertains to safety investigations, means that only persons with a need to know, narrowly defined as those who are able to learn lessons from it (ie - the aviation community & leadership), are allowed access to it. This is very difficult to explain to the public at large as it smells very much like cover-up, when it's true purpose is the very noble effort of mishap prevention. Unless aircrew can KNOW the safety investigators are not going to hang them out to dry, or worse, be promised confidentiality by the investigators and then hung out by leadership for political expediency, then they will not be open & forthcoming with preventative information.

This came to a head here in the US during the Blackhawk shootdown previously mentioned. Then Secretary of the Air Force, Shiela Widnall, wanted to do away with priviledged information in safety investigations - this caused no small amount of consternation & was fortunately never brought to fruition.

Unfortunately, well-intentioned people often leak safety privileged information to those not authorized. This information is then used against the very people it was provided for to protect. It is my belief that this is what happened in this instance. I'm not saying aircrew who c*ck up should get a free ride if they turn "state's evidence", but that is not for the safety investigation to determine - that's precisely why we have two completely separate investigations.

That said, during the public investigation, factual evidence is made available from the safety investigation. The HUD vid would have been one such piece of evidence - most likely accompanied by a transcript that showed what freq everything you hear is transmitted on (so there would be no conjecture on whether something was in-cockpit, inter-flight, or external). The decision to release this is retained by the board president on advice from a military lawyer. Many, many times, this type of evidence is not released with the report, but transcripts nearly always are. Understandably, there is often not much press when these are "released to the public."

I do not presume to know how this investigation(s) was handled, any decisions to release/not release, nor would I likely ever be briefed on it - as I don't have a need to know being a non-CAS platform. I just provide the above as background info so you might understand how our BoI-type investigations operate.

Being told there was no video can mean different things too. It could be that the USAF/DoD conducted both investigations, decided not to include the HUD vid in the publicly releasable investigation, handed said report to the MoD & said, "Here's what we came up with." So when the MoD told the widow there was no vid, perhaps they weren't necessarily lying (lying implies you knowingly state a falsehood) as they were not aware of any video.

Perhaps, the Mod knew the vid existed, but the USAF refused to provide it. It may have been that well-intentioned MoD folks wanted to prevent any further undue strife by simply telling her there wasn't any video.

I am not saying that's what happened, I'm merely providing for the "reasonable doubt" before we lead everyone off to be hanged. Nor am I defending anyone who may have willfully lied. Well-intentioned lies are some of the most dangerous...

As for "private viewings" - several aircrew have gone to jail for that. One somewhat infamous incident involving Martinsburg, WV ANG C-130 that did some impromptu low-flying caught a powerline & were unable to climb out of the valley they were in - knowing they were going to crash & die, at least two of them left messages for the families during the nearly 5-minutes it took before they impacted. Squadron members got copies of the CVR and brought families in to listen to them - they were dealt with very harshly.

The concept of privileged information is often hard to reconcile with bereaved family members. What is morally right for one person vs an entire Air Force is potentially in the balance. For that portion of our "closed system", there can be no compromise in my mind; that's why we have two investigations - one for prevention, one for disclosure - they're never identical and often have differing opinions.

FWIW, I believe we, as aircrew who have a need to know, should be provided full-disclosure crosstell in these safety investigations.

US Herk

9th Feb 2007, 00:47

Wanted to hit a few points head on:

A 'no blame culture' is one which those involved in anything concerning the safety of others seeks to achieve, in the hope that open and honest reporting leads to fewer mistakes. However, if negligence is proven then appropriate action should be taken.

Precisely why we have two completely separate investigations. The first is called the Safety Investigation Board (SIB) and is completely privileged, confidential, & it's use is solely for mishap prevention. The second is typically called an Accident Investigation Board (AIB) - the principle purpose of this investigation is to provide a public accounting to the taxpayers what we did with their money (ie - crashed a plane, killed a man, etc). Lawyers are present, blame may be apportioned, & negligence or other culpability may be assigned. So you see, we don't have a "no blame culture" - I think you understand this, but wanted it to be clear to others.

The problem here as seen this side of the pond is that Govt. departments from both sides were seen to be party to a "cover-up", which is not "Rumour", but fact. The wife of the deceased was told that no such video existed. Now guess what is airing in the media? If that is not a "cover-up" then I don't know what is.
OK, I'll play semantics - you say, "...both sides were seen to be party to a "cover-up", which is not "Rumour", but fact." The only fact in this statement is qualified by the modifiers "...were seen..." - there is no factual basis for claiming a cover-up just yet, unless you have more info than that being reported in the Sun. Read my other post & you will see at least two scenarios where someone may have legitimately told the wido there was no video. I'm not alleging that's what happened, merely that it could have happened.

To play devil's advocate for a moment, what purpose would be served by showing the distressed widow that video? You cannot see her husband, you cannot even clearly make out the vehicle he was in. For all she knows, there is no direct tie-in to her husband's death & it serves only to fuel the calls for "off with their heads!" for the pilots involved.

Only if we can compare number of frat incidents by country as well .....
I'd be happy with that. I still believe, but cannot prove, that the statistics would be infintessimal & statistically insignificant. Sheer size & numbers mean the US will always have the most - it means almost nothing as a number & only means something with a "per capita" type context (ie - X frat per 1 million targets).

I understand that the US operates a closed system and who is to say this is wrong. Only one of the two investigations is "closed"

It could have been explained to her that this was a tragedy that probably should not have happened and that your people were very sorry, but that tragedies such as this one, do happen in war.
I'm going to sound crass & I don't mean to be, but I don't see how jeopardizing our "closed system" would help anyone. I think we could state exactly what you have there, express our sorrow & firm resolution that we will continue to strive to eliminate these tragic accidents, but I wouldn't compromise our privileged information just to show her, what I believe to be, an irrelevant video.

She only wanted to know the truth. Was she ever lied to in regards to how her husband died? Did the MoD tell her it was enemy fire? The existence of the video doesn't change how her husband died. It doesn't change anything but people's speculation.

You want cover-up? Look at how the US Army handled the Tillman frat case. If Mrs. Hull was only lied to about the existence of a near irrelevant video, she got off much better than Tillman's family. I don't mean to devolve into a "my scar is bigger than your scar" exchange, rather, to illustrate that I believe this video is largely irrelevant to the widow in this case.

Of course, in my zeal for protecting privileged information I could be missing the plot entirely...:(

yamaha

9th Feb 2007, 03:22

I think all this conspiracy theory, he lied she lied nonsense is a modern day illness. It generally serves absolutely no purpose except to give creedance to opinions based upon little or no fact.

I was moved while watching the video and had has much sympathy for the pilot as for the dead soldier and his wife. Yet I was also disgusted that the story was not about the tragic death of a man but was now about the sickening media frenzy surrounding this story.

We live in an age where if there is no news, we make some.

Leave the unfortunate victims of this tragedy in peace. This circus will not bring anyone back.

Thank god we didn't have to fight world war 2 with all this nonsense detracting from the job in hand.

rudekid

9th Feb 2007, 05:22

US Herk

Very thoughtful and interesting points, nice to see a measured input. I suspect a lot of this comes down to how 'official sources' communicate to families. In my experience, at a corporate level, this is almost always bad and more damaging than it needs to be. This, I believe, is caused by the fear of litigation across all levels of government.

We need an open and honest culture (at least in the UK) where families are concerned. The fear of litigation only leads to PR disasters like this.

As for the press, it just confirms my utmost contempt for the so called 'journalists' of the popular press. Pigs.

And for those on here who are naive enough to think (armchair warriors) that only our US friends commit frat, I'm afraid it's simply not true.

Thoughts with the deceased's wife AND the US pilots and families.

nigegilb

9th Feb 2007, 06:24

US Herk, nicely crafted reply. Points taken. However, it has been widely reported here that the video of the HUD was shown at the BoI 3 years ago. I am sorry but in my mind at least, if Mrs Hull was told , categorically, that no video was in existence, then she was lied to. I have no reason to disbelieve Mrs Hull, she comes over as a remarkable person. And for those who find the issue of lying unimportant, then please turn away. How can you explain the way this video turned up at the coroner's office last week? Did the US DoD send it? I hardly think so. The suspicion of cover-up is not helped by the conclusion of the US inquiry that stated that all normal procedures had been followed by the pilots. Even as a former non-CAS platform flyer myself, I find that hard to believe. For one, we have a dead soldier and 4 wounded as a result. You have done us a favour by carefully explaining the US system but I remain convinced that Mrs Hull has beed treated in an unforgivable way. And I believe that a better way has to be found of conducting these inquests where there is a clash of systems and cultures.

tucumseh

9th Feb 2007, 08:39

Understandably, most take a view of this tragedy after the event. But others have an obligation before the event to reduce the risk to as low as reasonably possible.

Not all fratricide, but consider these cases and ask what the common denominators are;

LCoH Hull / A10
Hercules ESF
Sgt Roberts’ Combat Body Armour
Tornado / Patriot
Sea King AEW collision
Mull of Kintyre

I wonder how many of these inquests would be still in adjournment if the full facts were known, by the Coroner or the families. You only have to read the BOI reports and then ask if the main points were addressed at the inquest or within the MoD. And, more pertinently, were they known about beforehand. Mr Walker (the Asst Coroner) has shown himself willing to make a stand in this most recent case, but it would appear only because evidence was brought to his attention via an unofficial route. Judging by other recent cases (Tornado and Sea King for example), I don’t think the Coroner actually demands answers to issues raised by the BOI. Or at least it’s not reported. Perhaps he does this in camera. I’m not sure if his remit covers this. I get the feeling Mr Walker is acutely aware the MoD routinely withholds key evidence and his recent actions may be borne of long frustration. Well done Sir.

Some of the above examples have been, or are being, ameliorated, to a point. ESF being fitted (slowly). ECBA being bought (too little too late). IFF failure warnings being integrated (but why not do it in the first case, or later, when you were told to). ACL refitted (but why remove it at all when HISL was unfit for purpose). They even did something about Mull (applied the rules properly and grounded Mk3s). I wonder what they’ll do –re Combat ID?

Common factors? All were, I suspect, predictable, predicted and ignored, to a greater or lesser extent. A reactive, not proactive approach. Abrogation of Duty of Care.

Get the basics right. Dig the foundations deep. Give the guys at the front line every chance.

BEagle

9th Feb 2007, 10:02

2 main issues here:

1. The information given to the bereaved - was the 'no video' MoD statement a deliberate lie, or did it mean 'no releasable' video was available?

2. The 'culture' and training of the A-10 pilots. The fact that they were allegedly given very little recce training in theatre seems very alarming indeed.

I would have thought that the whole 'friendly marker panels' issue was surely a hot item at the outset of GW2, given the Warrior fratricide in GW1. If it wasn't, WHY wasn't it?

IDENT before SHOOT?

nigegilb

9th Feb 2007, 11:36

Light bed time reading link below. Alternatively go straight to page 24. Funding issues abound. This NAO report came about after the fratricide in GW1. Back then we were using orange panels, we still are. Agree with Tuc, this was a tragedy waiting to happen, a carbon copy of what has gone before. Senior officers, Ministers, and CS high ups you have failed your men again.

http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/nao_reports/01-02/0102661.pdf

"The various projects and DECs simply don't speak to each other."

SASless

9th Feb 2007, 12:59

Just why would we ever assume there was no video?

Are not all fighter/attack aircraft equipped with recording devices?

Would it be unreasonable to assume after such an event as this, the video would be pulled and retained for use in any inquiry?

As to whether someone "lied"....I would have to be convinced they did so with intent to deceive and did so knowingly. I also consider a willful omission of a fact to be equal to lying.

Chugalug2

9th Feb 2007, 13:29

SAS, AFAIK no one has assumed that. Mrs Hull says that she was told that by the MOD. Mr Bliar says, in so many words, that she wasn't. Given his track record, and as others have said, the quiet understated dignity of this lady, I know who I believe. On this side of the pond we have grown used to routine dissembling by him and his gang. That is not rhetoric or exaggeration, but how it is. That is our misfortune, and our responsibility. The problem is that all the formality and procedure of official inquiries designed to determine facts and avoid repetition fail if the authorities simply lie. Tucumseh, who is informed, provides us with the list of lies, many of which are current threads on this forum. Whatever our nationality, service or civilian, as aviators we know we live or die by determining truth rather than lies, wishful thinking or blind faith. Politicians don't, nor it would seem many senior officers. What you do about yours is your business, for our part there is a growing outrage amongst those serving and retired to restore the substance implied by the words "an officer and a gentleman".

nigegilb

9th Feb 2007, 14:56

Evening Standard
'Appalling cover-up' that kept truth from friendly-fire widow
06.02.07

The Ministry of Defence has been accused of conspiring with the Americans in an 'appalling' cover-up to prevent the widow of a British soldier killed by a U.S. warplane learning the truth about his death......

....As the video sparked an international diplomatic incident, the coroner fighting to get it played at L/Cpl Hull's inquest demanded that the two American pilots testify when the hearing resumes on March 12....

...Susan Hull says the Ministry of Defence 'categorically' denied the existence of the footage, even though it had been used as part of a British Army board of inquiry...

...The tape came to light only last Wednesday, when the coroner was shown it in private by an MoD official. Mrs Hull's solicitor confirmed that the MoD had previously insisted the cockpit recording had been damaged beyond use.
Geraldine McCool said: 'Mrs Hull has had several conversations with the MoD. In one of these, within months of her husband's death, she was told it was unlikely the cockpit recorder had been switched on at the time of the incident.
'Later, in the same conversation, she was told that the tape existed but had been damaged. Several of her husband's colleagues were also told by the MoD that it had been damaged.'
Tory defence spokesman Gerald Howarth said: 'The MoD have completely screwed up. They appear to have been engaged in some kind of subterfuge with the U.S. This is an abysmal failure of the duty of care. The MoD have handled it appallingly.'.....

.....Following the leak, the Pentagon authorised the release of the video. But farcically, even though the footage was shown on every major TV channel in Britain and the U.S., American officials continued to insist that it not be played in open court.
Geoff Webb, the coroner's clerk, revealed that Andrew Walker - the Oxfordshire assistant deputy coroner in charge of the inquiry - does want the two pilots to give evidence.
'Anybody who can help who was a witness to these deaths would be of use as a witness at the inquest. It would be ideal if the American pilots could come along.'

The Ministry of Defence admitted it had not told Mrs Hull about the existence of the tape but claimed there had never been 'any intention to deliberately deceive or mislead the family.'

Maj-Gen Sir Patrick Cordingley, commander of the Desert Rats in the first Gulf War, said: 'I think the Ministry of Defence is very secretive.
Three years ago it could have said to the family of Matty Hull, "We've got this evidence but because of the rules of war we're not able to show it to you but I can tell you it does support the view that he was killed as a result of friendly fire". I think it would have defused the situation.'
The affair has led to a straining of Anglo-American relations.

US Herk

9th Feb 2007, 15:56

it has been widely reported here that the video of the HUD was shown at the BoI 3 years ago. I am sorry but in my mind at least, if Mrs Hull was told , categorically, that no video was in existence, then she was lied to.
This may put it in a different light - I missed this point previously. Nevertheless (with my crass side exposed again), I don't see how the video helps. What am I missing? "Deception" aside, she was told US warplanes mis-identified her husband's vehicle for an enemy vehicle & strafed it, killing her husband & wounding his comrades. What further purpose does providing the video serve? It doesn't provide contradicting evidence, it doesn't change any of the facts surrounding the case, and it only serves to provide speculation against the pilots involved.

Maj-Gen Sir Patrick Cordingley, commander of the Desert Rats in the first Gulf War, said: 'I think the Ministry of Defence is very secretive.
Three years ago it could have said to the family of Matty Hull, "We've got this evidence but because of the rules of war we're not able to show it to you but I can tell you it does support the view that he was killed as a result of friendly fire". I think it would have defused the situation.'
The affair has led to a straining of Anglo-American relations.
This is the most sensical thing stated in that article. I would have no issue with this course of action.

Would it be unreasonable to assume after such an event as this, the video would be pulled and retained for use in any inquiry?
Absolutely. And any pilot who willfully damaged or erased said tape would be strung up quickly. Its existence does not automatically mean its releasable though (again, I believe you know this, but want to be clear to all).

Earlier, several expressed concern over the apparent disconnect between the BoI & the USAF AIB regarding whether or not the pilots followed procedure/ROE. Two things on this:

A - ALL reports are written with an agenda. Right or wrong, it is human nature to put some sort of spin, emotive or otherwise, into reports - even factual ones. Case in point - one of the AIBs I was involved in had nothing to do with safety & survival equipment, but I went out of my way to ask each of the aircrew very pointed questions about their gear & included it in the report because I'm sick of having ****e survival gear. Didn't impact the outcome of the investigation, didn't have anything to do with cause, but it put it in leadership's sight & the public eye. It was well within the bounds of the investigation as there is a section devoted to safety/survival equipment usage & serviceability.

With that in mind, there are "variations" in the ROE & SPINS as most of us who've been on both sides of a coalition understand. Some are related to kit (or lack thereof), some are related to political constraints. Sometimes, what appear to be black & white statements are even interpreted differently due to culture and other biases. I've seen it first hand.

I would say the BoI has a different agenda than the SIB/AIB. Not right or wrong, better or worse - different. This means that grey areas are interpreted differently (and possibly some not-so-grey areas too). Again, not right or wrong, better or worse - differently.

B - We will never know what the exact ROE in place at the time was. It will remain, rightfully so, classified.

One other thing - we don't know what conversations, coordination, previous CAS handoff, etc. took place prior to the "start" point on the HUD vid. Some of this may have coloured the perspective of pilots, they may have been working with a different GFAC in a different area, etc. Any number of things could have been going on that we simply don't have available to us and may have directly or indirectly affected their judgment or perception of the ground situation.

Someone else mentioned the pilots talking themselves into the "orange rockets" - they may have. The human mind often fills in the gaps when information is missing or not making sense. These gaps will be filled differently by different people based on paradigms & perception - issues that can be influenced by literally millions of things going back to a person's childhood upbringing.

Have any of you seen the perceptions & paradigm training videos foisted upon the USAF in the early-mid '90s? One of the most interesting parts (OK, the only interesting part), was when they showed a series of playing cards. At first, they showed them slowly & you saw an 8 of diamonds, jack of clubs, 2 of hearts, etc. Next, they showed you different cards very quickly & you were asked what you saw. They kept speeding them up & flashing the cards on the screen for a shorter & shorter intervals - all the while, they were changing the colours of the suits - actually reversing them. All the clubs & spades were red, and all the hearts and diamonds were black. In my class, nobody picked up on this - they told us the percentages were very small - less than 1% of people do. Your brain just fills in what it "expects" to see.

The human factors folks call this "expectation" but I believe that is too simple of a term. Each person's expectations are coloured by his experience and even two people with similar backgrounds and experiences can "fill in the gaps" quite differently.

Again, I'm not condoning what happened, nor am I dismissing it. I'm just hoping that those who read it will better understand how these things can and do happen.

kuningan

9th Feb 2007, 16:10

Looks like The SUN has picked up on what was pointed out here yesterday, with its usual balanced perspective:

THE Pentagon stood accused of an alarming cover-up last night over hero soldier Matty Hull’s “friendly fire” death.

A senior American general in charge of a US probe into what went wrong recommended two airmen face court martial, The Sun can reveal.

But defence chiefs over-ruled his findings into the Iraq war tragedy to clear both A10 tankbuster pilots of any wrongdoing.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007060633,00.html

Wonder how they know that 'defence chiefs over-ruled' bit.

And the report certainly did NOT suggest that the airmen face court martial - merely that it should be 'considered'.

As ever with these things, its the cover-up that gets them.

woodring

9th Feb 2007, 16:22

No matter what one's personal view on the actions of these pilots,we in the UK can only comment with some degree of knowledge on the MOD's behaviour in this sorry tale.
One can only come to one of two conclusions, either,
The MOD entered into a conspiracy to try to prevent the full facts becoming known.
Or
The Mod's protocols for dealing with the bereaved families of our personnel
are at best woefully inadequate or at worst a complete and utter shambles .

Either way they have again let down their most important asset.
They still haven't learnt any lessons from the Mull of Kintyre .

nigegilb

9th Feb 2007, 16:24

Cover-up indeed.

US Herk you dismissed the article too quickly. SASless wondered why the very existence of the video was in question.

Answer, because the MoD said the HUD film had been damaged.

It was Mrs Hull's legal counsel who confirmed this, also confirming that other families had been told the same thing.

You keep saying that the video adds nothing and is of no importance to Mrs Hull. I am sorry, but I strongly disagree. The video could have shown that the orange panels were not visible to the pilots. In fact it showed the opposite. All four vehicles had panels visible to the pilots. This is crucial evidence. The HUD film shows that the pilots failed to identify the vehicles. This failure needs to be addressed. Was it a failure of briefing, training or a simple human failure on the day? Is it safe for British troops to enter killboxes with the current combat ID capability?

The audio suggests that the pilots pressed on with the attack without final FAC clearance. Do you need final clearance in a kill box? Why should this remain classified to the coroner? They are DV cleared. Was it simply a failure of coordination? Should the Brits share some blame? We have had years to improve Combat ID. Should the US introduce data link to CAS capable aircraft? I hope the coroner is looking at all these points and more. If I was Mrs Hull I would want to know that all these things are being addressed. I would want to know that my husband had not died in vain. And I would want some accountability.

And yes, it is important that everyone knows the at the MoD lied when they said the HUD film did not exist or had been damaged. The very fact that Mrs Hull has now seen this film proves that point.

saudipc-9

9th Feb 2007, 16:36

As a military pilot I do understand that there is the fog of war. During this "fog" unfortunate incidents do happen and will continue to happen as we are all human. However, what seems to be lacking here is a suitable solution by the USAF to better train their pilots to avoid making these errors as much as they do. In Afghanistan the Canadian Armed Forces have lost 44 soldiers. 5 of these soldiers have been killed by the USAF due to blue on blue. ROE's are one thing but in this case better training/awareness is required.

my 2cents

cheers

PompeySailor

9th Feb 2007, 16:44

And of course, it has to happen again....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6346901.stm

However, it being local Iraqi soldiers, I wonder if the cockpit recording will be chased down quite as strenuously?

StbdD

9th Feb 2007, 22:13

From the perspective of combat exerience as a grunt, CAS pilot and FAC/TACP Team Leader, a few questions come to mind:

- What FSCMs were in effect?

- What was the location of LCPL Hull's unit/vehicle when it was hit?

- What was the unit's position relative to AI Killboxes, FSCL, CFL, or any other permissive FSCM?

- Who directed the unit's movement to that location?

- Had that movement been coordinated with higher, adjacent, or even within their own unit?

- Why didn't the TACP, located within the ground unit FSCC/CP, know that there were friendlies in that location?

- Why were attack aircraft specifically told by the ground unit that there were no friendlies in that area?

FSCMs and target location relative to them define what coordination procedures are required. Some are more permissive than others. Another potential issue here is that definitions for these FSCMs can vary even amongst NATO Allies (STANAG 2099/QSTAG 531).

If the FSCM is poorly designed and is unidentifiable by either terrain features or electronically by equipment available to all commanders then it is less than worthless, it is dangerous.

If the FSCMs and changes to them are not disseminated to all in an accurate and timely fashion they are again worthless.

If ground units do not know where their elements are then no accurate air/ground coordination is possible. If elements are not where they are supposed to be the same is true.

I'm not implying that any of the above is fact. I'm not trying to deflect the issues regarding aircrew which have been discussed at some length here. I am trying to expand the discussion of potential lessons learned with the intent of prevention.

As in most mishaps, close examination will likely show there was more than one breakdown in discipline, judgement, procedure, and/or communication that day. All of which contributed to the chain of events which led to a tragic and avoidable conclusion.

SASless

9th Feb 2007, 23:09

Chug,

I am well aware of how the pursuit of the truth can enter perilous paths for those trying to arrive at a statement of facts that are direct, real, ascertainable, and clear to the point there is exactly one interpetation.

At times, the appearance of a cover up can be explained away by sheer incompetence vice evil intent.

The perception of a cover up alone is sufficient to indict those that are party to it even when there was no crime, misconduct, or liability.

It is the cover up that invaribly dooms people when even the event being covered up is of no significance. Let that happen in something as serious as this tragedy and simply put.....there will be Hell to pay. The sad thing is all the fuss winds up being focussed at the "cover up" and the core issue loses significance as a result.

We have keep our sights on the right target (purposely phrased that way) so as to do what can be done to prevent this from happening again. That being the killing and wounding of our own people.

The shrill outcry for more training is a rather hollow demand. Until the accident chain caused by this tragedy is fully documented and investigated to identify its various components, no logical and effective action can be defined.

It might not be something from afield from an issue curable by "training". Nothing like this happens with just a single cause.....there is a chain of things. Breaking the chain at any one point would have prevented this from occurring. Lets lay out the chain and see what needs fixing that will be the most effective and work down from there.

US Herk

9th Feb 2007, 23:52

You keep saying that the video adds nothing and is of no importance to Mrs Hull. I am sorry, but I strongly disagree. The video could have shown that the orange panels were not visible to the pilots. In fact it showed the opposite. All four vehicles had panels visible to the pilots. This is crucial evidence. The HUD film shows that the pilots failed to identify the vehicles. This failure needs to be addressed. Was it a failure of briefing, training or a simple human failure on the day? Is it safe for British troops to enter killboxes with the current combat ID capability?

Was any of this in question? Does any of this change the outcome? Hull died, the reasons why were stated, the video merely confirms the facts. I still don't see what it adds or why it was necessary. I guess I'm missing something & we'll agree to disagree on this point.

I don't believe Mrs. Hull should have been lied to.

This is an extremely emotional subject - understandably. However, we must strive to keep emotion separate from logic when analysing this.

Perhaps I don't appreciate or understand the difference between your BoI & Coroner's Inquest. If the sole purpose of the CI is to point the finger at the pilots, the existence of a tape is still largely immaterial IMO. We know what happened. There is no question.

If we want to delve into culpability, that's another issue entirely. I don't think we'll ever have all the info we need to make an accurate assessment - because ROE are classified.

Every single accident is preventable. All of them. Simply choose not to accept any risk & you won't have accidents. If we never fly, we never crash, we never mis-identify targets, we never commit frat (with air power). We all know that will never happen. Apportioning blame is a dangerous task. During times of conflict, even moreso. There really must be blatantly gross negligence, or willful malicious intent to assess culpability during conflicts. Otherwise, it's a witch-hunt and it erodes our combat capability. In fact, I would argue, it already is - it has made leadership skittish to the point they lead through liability control - decisions are based on how much risk they are exposed to. This erodes combat capability.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't search for the truth in an effort to prevent these tragic mishaps. We should - by any means available.

Why should this remain classified to the coroner? They are DV cleared. The posession of a clearance does not authorise you for disclosure - I KNOW you know this. There is still the element of 'need to know' - here is where I'm sure we'll diverge - I don't think a coroner has a need to know ROE. Again, I'm sure I'm illustrating my ignorance on the purpose of a coroner's inquest. But I'll circle my wagon back around to say placing culpability during times of war is a dangerous game that only serves to weaken the armed forces for the sake of mollifying bereaved families.

And yes, it is important that everyone knows the at the MoD lied when they said the HUD film did not exist or had been damaged.
I believe this is part of a different campaign. In and of itself, it isn't important to the facts of this case. Together with a history of deceit, you can then conduct a different case against the gov't as a whole. But to this case, it is but a footnote.

Nige, I'm not singling you out, just that you have an excellent perspective on this & bring up outstanding issues.

As mentioned, I'm not real clear on the purpose of a Coroner's Inquest - to me & my way of thinking (culture) - a coroner does nothing more than determine the cause of death. Obviously, there is much more to it in the UK, but I'm not sure I understand the purpose of the inquest. If someone would explain it to me, maybe it will help me see where I'm digressing so much from the common view here about the video. Feel free to PM me to keep the thread on track.

glum

10th Feb 2007, 00:06

If the tape, coupled with evidence from the pilots and area controller established they were acting outside the ROE, then perhaps the death would be classed as manslaughter as opposed to an accident?

If the inquest found that our chaps shouldn't have been there as the ROE were to kill everything moving as it was guaranteed enemy in that zone, then the pilots were right and should be cleared.

If it turns out the system was at fault, then perhaps someone further up the food chain should be blamed.

Either way, I do think the tape sheds light on the incident. It certainly gives us all an insight into the minds of the guys in the A10's.

nigegilb

10th Feb 2007, 07:23

The power of the Inquest and Mr Walker, a man who does not mince his words.

19 Dec 2006 : 3 pm

Mr. Andrew Mackay (Bracknell) (Con):

...I want to draw the House’s attention to yesterday’s inquest into the death of Sergeant Steve Roberts at which the coroner, Andrew Walker, said:
“To send soldiers into a combat zone without the appropriate basic equipment is, in my view, unforgivable and inexcusable and represents a breach of trust that the soldiers have in those in Government”.
You will recall, Madam Deputy Speaker, that back in March 2003, Sergeant Steve Roberts died because he did not have lifesaving body armour, which had been denied him by the then Secretary of State for Defence. Mr. Walker went on to say:

“Sergeant Roberts’ death was as a result of delay and serious failures in the acquisition and support chain that resulted in a significant shortage within his fighting unit of enhanced combat body armour, none being available for him to wear.”

The coroner had requested that the then Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon), come to give evidence at the inquest. That did not happen. Instead, the Ministry of Defence sent David Williams, who is its director of capability, resources and scrutiny. Mr. Williams said that buying large numbers of body armour sets would have
“obviously indicated the department was pressing ahead with preparations for war when negotiations were still firmly at the diplomatic stage”.

What an unbelievably cynical and outrageous remark to make. Does that mean that if we ever order more bullets and guns, we are telling our enemies that we might be about to engage in conflict? That was a totally inadequate response.

I found it amazing that the current Secretary of State for Defence did not come to the Dispatch Box today to make a statement in light of the coroner’s remarks. It was quite unacceptable that the right hon. Member for Ashfield delayed for eight weeks before agreeing to the request that the body armour be made available. The right hon. Gentleman should be seriously considering his position. Frankly, having spent 25 years in this House, I do not see how he can remain as a Minister—you will be aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the right hon. Gentleman still serves in a non-Cabinet capacity as Minister for Europe.

The other place is considering the Government’s Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill. I would suggest that if this was the real world and the private sector, the right hon. Gentleman could well be up on a charge of corporate manslaughter. Part of the Bill, which will soon return to this House, says clearly that a person who has left their job and moved to another position has no excuse—that person can still be prosecuted.

And here an interesting article about US pilot training and lack of IR capability in today's Telegraph.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/10/nirq10.xml

Chugalug2

10th Feb 2007, 10:45

SASless wrote at #194:-
"We have (to) keep our sights on the right target (purposely phrased that way) so as to do what can be done to prevent this from happening again. That being the killing and wounding of our own people.

The shrill outcry for more training is a rather hollow demand. Until the accident chain caused by this tragedy is fully documented and investigated to identify its various components, no logical and effective action can be defined"

SAS thank you for your thoughtful reply. It seems we are in violent agreement! For this country, at least, all violent or unusual death of our subjects (sorry, citizens!) are the subject of investigation by coroners who have, as we see in the person of Mr Andrew Walker, peculiar and extensive powers to determine the truth of the circumstances of the death. He wishes to have the pilots give evidence as to what happened. If they did so it would no doubt be painful and embarrassing for them, but that would not be the purpose, rather it would be to discover that truth. Your inquiry seems not to have done that to our satisfaction, nor our inquiry come to that. Of course no genuine op sec should be breached, nor would it be. I suspect that all the worry about HUD videos, etc, is so much froth to hide behind. It could well be that the people most anxious to hide and to obscure the truth are Brits, as mentioned in previous posts. Whatever, the truth will emerge anyway. This is a variant of the Flight Safety model that has served our aviators, military or civilian of whatever nationality, well over the years. All the relevant facts must be known to arrive at the cause(s) and the recommendations to avoid a repetition. If there is truly a special relationship it must be capable of such a process or it is a sham. The money at the moment in the UK is on the latter, I have to say.

SASless

10th Feb 2007, 13:31

Chug,

I need to correct part of what I wrote. It is the sequence of events that create the "chain" and not the event that creates the chain. You are entirely correct when you reference the source of that concept....having been both trainee and trainer at FSI, I am firmly convinced that is a valid concept for arriving at a listing of contributing factors for any accident or incident.

The key to its proper use however demands an open mind willing to objectively identify and assess the causes and then seek a determination of the effect each "link" in the chain had with a view to putting a priority to corrective actions to be undertaken as a preventive measure for future events.

Chugalug2

10th Feb 2007, 15:52

"The key to its proper use however demands an open mind willing to objectively identify and assess the causes and then seek a determination of the effect each "link" in the chain had with a view to putting a priority to corrective actions to be undertaken as a preventive measure for future events"

Aye, and there's the rub, SAS! Look at the list in tucumseh's post, and ask how many of those inquiries have resulted in findings based on the criteria that you propose. Maybe a similar US list would pose the same concern? Note that I talk of the findings. The inquiries themselves were, I'm sure conducted in a thorough, diligent and professional way. It is the subsequent input from the "worried" Minister, the "concerned" Senior Civil Servant, or the "frankly perplexed" Air Marshal, etc, that warps the final outcome. In the case of the Mull accident of course, the findings were simply thrown out on review, and the infamous Gross Negligence verdict substituted.
I'm afraid that at this stage your chain will have burst its links asunder, SAS, and the whole point of the exercise, to determine causes and recommendations to avoid repetitions, lost. As a BOF, steeped in the Flight Safety culture of the RAF of the 60s/70s I am simply appalled. I don't care if that makes me a reactionary cold war warrior, our system worked (well usually), and the present situation is more akin to the infamous one in the USSR, where ashes were returned to NOK, with a reminder that further discussion would constitute a betrayal of State secrets!
If it takes an English Coroner's Inquest to do the job that the MOD should have done but failed to, so be it. Let us give thanks that an archaic institution still exists to protect the interests of ordinary people, and that hasn't yet been swept aside as redundant in the modern world!

US Herc, in case no one has PM'd you, details on Coroners, both UK and US types, can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coroner I see ours go back to the 11th Century, not sure about yours though! :)

SASless

10th Feb 2007, 16:01

Chug,

I am intimately aware of how the course of justice gets perverted by the Mandarins up the chain.

With no effort at all I can list several very notable incidents that has happened.

Some of the examples would be the Pat Tillman Friendly Fire death, the USS Iowa Main Turret explosion, The Moscow Embassy Marine Guard investigation, and the Rickover investigation.

On the other hand I know of investigations that took on a life of its own despite repeated confirmations nothing worth investigation occurred.

Government bureaucracy everywhere do not like sunshine being shined on their mistakes thus it should come as no surprise to any of us that these events occur.

US Herk

10th Feb 2007, 16:44

US Herc, in case no one has PM'd you, details on Coroners, both UK and US types, can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coroner I see ours go back to the 11th Century, not sure about yours though!

Thanks - it helps some. As usual, divided by common language. :ugh: As you can probably tell by the very rambling & unspecific US entry there, it varies by state, county, & municipality in the US. I guess I grew up watching Quincy and always thought of coroners in the M.E. light.

I now see both sides of this. I don't think I care much for your system having a single individual with seemingly unfettered power to subpoena & whose decision is all but final, but I do see the checks & balances it can provide against the bigger gov't machine.

With this new-found insight, however, I can see why the video is important - but to the coroner for the inquest, not for Mrs. Hull. I still stand by the fact she wasn't lied to about what happened & the tape doesn't change anything. For the Coroner's Inquest, however, there would seem to be a great deal of importance in having the tape and whether there was MoD/DoD obstruction in obtaining said tape.

Now that we can agree on why the coroner would want the tape, we can argue if he should or shouldn't be given access to it. :ouch:

As I still have much ignorance about how the CI is conducted, I can only guess based on my limited gleaning of info here & elsewhere, that it is very much public. If so, I still have heartburn with the tape being used as documented evidence for public scrutiny (realising that with the Sun having it on their website, we're talking principle now) :hmm:

Even in our publicly accountable AIB investigations, we do not document certain things & there is often a small, classified addendum. For example, we usually do not name General Officers - where they are referenced, it will be by some sort of code - GO1, GO2, etc. The classified addendum will have their name, actual rank, & post. It's not to protect them from prosecution (if they're found culpable, they will be prosecuted), rather, to protect them (and the military) from media circus antics like we're seeing with these A10 pilots. We will also do this (code) in order to declassify something where it adds substance if we can (and we can't always).

Realise that our investigations happen very quickly. The SIB portion has 30 days from the date of the incident to publish their report!!:eek: They may seek an extension from the board convening authority, but that is the exception rather than the rule. They also have near unlimited resources at their disposal to find the cause. The second public AIB operates on an equally quick schedule with 30 days to conduct their investigation starting when the SIB turns over the factual data (usually in the second to third week of their investigation). The AIB operates from a substantially less-funded perspective and has limited resources available to them requiring approval from the board convening authority for major expenditures.

Because they're concluded w/in 60 days of an incident, things such as callsigns, R/T, tactics, etc. are very fresh, so we do classify that much in order to retain as much OPSEC as we can.

I offer the last few paragraphs merely as more insight into our processes. For insomnia, you can download the manuals governing both investigations, at least as it pertains to the USAF, online: search for: SIB is AFI 91-204 & AIB is AFI 51-503

nigegilb

10th Feb 2007, 17:01

US Herk, I share your concerns about all this possibly affecting combat capability. New Labour's idea of warfare appears to be to swamp the theatre with military police and legal warnings. I have heard of military cops actually being sent on ops in Helmand province. In theatre briefings of ROE have been accompanied by MoD lawyers. I don't see any probs with the coroner knowing ROE. He will probably request that the 2 A10 pilots give evidence in person. He cannot subpoena witnesses. He requested TC Hoon to give evidence at Sgt Roberts' inquest. Hoon refused, as is his right. I would like to see the coroner's powers beefed up. I think he should be able to subpoena witnesses.
Have to say I agree with Chug, we need all the info on the table. We don't want this to happen again. Fratricide is the most senseless way of all to die.

Chugalug2

10th Feb 2007, 17:22

US Herc, well it would seem that Mr Walker must have watched a lot of Quincy also! He is rather the exception to most Coroners, who seem more willing to tow the "party line". For all their power, their purpose, as with yours, is to bring in a verdict as to the cause of death. It is for the Crown Prosecution Service to decide if legal proceedings are subsequently called for. By the way, if this one results in a finding of Unlawful Killing, it would not be the first in the present conflict resulting from a blue on blue.
We (the Brits), seem to be concerned on two levels here. We are outraged that Mrs Hull should have been treated with such careless disrespect by the MOD for the 4 years since her husband's death. That is not the responsibility of the US authorities, but of ours. We also want to make sure that the chances of this happening again are greatly reduced. That is the responsibility of all the coalition authorities. Just saying that in war stuff happens is frankly not acceptable. If we are to fight together we must work together to prevent us fighting one another!
Whoever was in the wrong here, Brit or Yank or both, we have to determine what happened, why it happened, and what we (Brits and Yanks!) can do to reduce the chances of it happening again. That is what our inquiries should have achieved. AFAIK they did not. That is an indictment of them both. At the moment the ball is in Mr Walker's court (sorry, unintentional pun!), who has I believe already viewed the video with Mrs Hull, in closed court. Now he wants the pilots involved to give evidence. Of course they don't have to (it seems our extradition treaty with the US is a one way system only, rather like our overall relationship? All this would have been avoided if the US and UK had done a proper job in the first place!

time expired

10th Feb 2007, 22:35

I will not comment on this latest blue on blue as it has been covered quite
extensively on this thread,however I have noted that most of these
regretable incidents seem to involve USAF aircraft,almost non by the
US navy and never by Marine air, there seems to be an institutional problem
with CAS in the USAF.Historicaly the USAF were never comfortable with
the CAS tasking,during the Korean war they initially tried to avoid CAS
and concentrated on interdiction missions,striking enemy supplies 20+
miles behind the FEBA,.However the easy targets soon dissapeared and
the were forced into the CAS role, the result being a rash of blue on blues,
ask the Argyles,. In Vietnam most ground troops seemed much more
confident in CAS supplied by the Navy or Marines.
The USAF did not want the A 10 and only took it to avoid it going
to the Army and a loss of budget funds and when they took the aircraft
into service were reluctant to spend money to do the upgrading required
to turn into a viable CAS platform.This and the abovementioned points
may explain the apparent low level of skill and trg. of SOME USAF pilots
in the CAS mission.
Regards

Lon More

11th Feb 2007, 00:18

Tell it to the Argyles.
SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 1950
BOMBING ERROR 150 BRITISH CASUALTIES
Strafed & Firebombed by U.S. Aircraft
hundred and fifty Britons were killed or wounded to-day during accidental bombing and strafing by American planes on tbe south-east Korean front.
The troops of the 27th Brigade, Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders were hit with napalm (jellied petrol) incendiary bombs.
Fighter-bombers going in with bombs and machine guns blazing, straffed the British by mistake. A First Corps officer said British forward troops had called for an air strike on a hill about two miles south-east of Songju.
The mistaken raid was on high ground which two companies of the Argylls had just captured. The planes dropped their bombs too far back in spite of huge recognition panels laid out by the Scots.
A half-hour after the raid the Communists themselves attacked.
Before the Communist attack, the Argylls called for artillery support, but none was available, the Americans having already withdrawn their guns
BROADCAST
New York radio stations broadcast a despatch from South east Korea saying a News Agency photographer saw American planes inadvertently strafe and firebomb elements of the British 28th Brigade with napalm jellied petrol, apparently with heavy casualties.
The photographer, Gene Herrick, said he saw the attack from forward command post 400 yards away.
During the air strafing and the Communist attack, supported by artillery fire, the number of dead and wounded in the British force were believed to have risen in 30 minutes to well over 150 .
Though earlier reports of the bombing mentioned the Middlesex Battalion, it later became clear that only two companies of the Argylls were involved
plus ça change ....

US Herk

11th Feb 2007, 01:06

however I have noted that most of these
regretable incidents seem to involve USAF aircraft,almost non by the
US navy and never by Marine air, there seems to be an institutional problem
with CAS in the USAF
Again, we're dealing with numbers - the USAF has several times the combat air capability of both the Navy & Marines combined. The Navy concentrates primarily on fleet defence & the Marines typically support only their own going so far as withholding assets from the JFACC (in fact, they barely recongise the JFACC).

Pure numbers are all but worthless w/o context - Frat per XXXX sorties/bombs/bullets/etc. is a far more meaningful number that we sadly don't have much access to.

Additionally, numbers can be twisted to mean near anything - we have a saying, "Figures lie & liars figure", so my insistence that these frat numbers be compared in some sort of uniform manner rather than total numbers may fall on deaf ears.

In no way am I saying there is not room for improvement, but the A10 community calls CAS, "God's Work", and they're not overly reliant on technology (as they haven't got much!) - they take very seriously their role and importance to ground troops. To say they need to train more may be disingenuous.

In today's ever more litigous societies, one dead person carries the weight of hundreds in times past (just look at the Argyles) & individual lives lost make headline today where before it had to be a significant incident - because it was expected the people were lost in conflict. It seems we no longer accept that & pounce on nearly any loss looking for where we can place blame.

Sadly, it's a game of numbers. High risk activities carry a higher risk - combat is an extremely high risk activity. The margin for error, narrower & with greater consequence. Somewhere along the way, we decided we didn't want anymore risk, so when bad things happen, we want to blame someone.

I blame CNN.:E

SASless

11th Feb 2007, 01:31

Found an interesting article about stats and related calculations of Blue on Blue.

. If allied forces kill 1000 people for each one lost to enemy fire, that's very good. If they are 99.9% successful in avoiding 'friendly fire' deaths, that's also very good. But the combination of these two good things has the perverse result that fully half of their deaths will be from 'friendly fire'.

Suppose that in a given week Iraqi soldiers kill 10 allied soldiers in battle.

Assuming a 1000:1 ratio and 99.9% accuracy, that would mean that coalition forces would kill 10,000 people in the same week, 99.9% of whom are not allied soldiers -- say 99% Iraqi soldiers, 0.9% civilians, 0.1% allied soldiers.

The result of our hypothetical case is that the Iraqis lose 9,900 soldiers and 90 civilians to Allied fire, while the Coalition loses 10 soldiers to Iraqi fire, 10 more to 'friendly fire'.

The very competence of coalition troops, as shown by (a) the huge disproportion in casualties and (b) the very high accuracy in targeting, produces a shockingly high percentage of deaths from 'friendly fire'.

Since coalition forces take good care to determine and publish the cause of each allied death, 50% of relatives in our hypothetical case have the added misery of knowing that their loves ones died at the hands of their fellow soldiers.

US Herk

11th Feb 2007, 04:23

What's the source, SASless?

the very high accuracy in targeting, produces a shockingly high percentage of deaths from 'friendly fire'.
This is what I mean about figures lying & liars figuring - this is an invalid comparison. This article is comparing percentage of total friendly losses to total frat losses - a wholly irrelevant comparison in my mind, but it makes good news, I'm sure.

Doubly troubling is the "made up" percentages designed to provide the necessary shock factor that sells "news."

In my mind, frat stats can only be compared on basis of rounds down range/targets serviced/iron dropped/etc. How many times do we pull the trigger & kill one of our own in comparison to the total number of times we pull the trigger?

Seldomfitforpurpose

11th Feb 2007, 09:10

"How many times do we pull the trigger & kill one of our own in comparison to the total number of times we pull the trigger?"

Reading Lon Mores post and several others on here I would regrefully suggest far too often US Herk:(

Tigs2

11th Feb 2007, 12:11

SASless

All when and good with the stats, but how do they work out if say the coilition forces kill 100 000 Iraqi civilians?? We certainly didnt kill 10 million Iraqi soldiers in the process. I guess our percentage for accuracy isn't as good as the statisticians think.

ScotsmanCalledPaddy

11th Feb 2007, 12:16

U.S. airstrike mistakenly kills at least five allied Kurdish fighters (http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070210/NEWS01/702100351/1002/NEWS01)

Pontius Navigator

11th Feb 2007, 13:39

NigelGib you said I have heard of military cops actually being sent on ops in Helmand province

This is more or less true. In the 'utterly, utterly' email a member of the RMP was, together with other non-teeth soldiers, involved in offensive ops against the Taliban.

He had been in the forward area to investigate an accidental shooting (or something similar) when the situation turned hot. I don't recall the exact details but there was a number of soldiers who would not normally have been in the front line who willing joined the Paras.

brickhistory

11th Feb 2007, 15:28

Lon More's quote:
Tell it to the Argyles.

While this was tragic, it actually reinforces the odds that any air to ground 'blue on blue' would be from the US. With the exception of 77 Sq RAAF with F-51s/later Meteors, I don't know of ANY RAF/Commonwealth fighter/ground attack aircraft committed during Korea. Apologies if I'm wrong.

Even the RN's one carrier on station with A squadron of 12-ish Fireflies and A squadron of 12-ish Sea Furies (Seafires in 1950) were numerically insignificant.

Interesting read from a Princeton University paper, dated 1993.

http://www.wws.princeton.edu/ota/disk1/1993/9351/935105.PDF

US Herk

11th Feb 2007, 18:00

Reading Lon Mores post and several others on here I would regrefully suggest far too often US Herk
Don't take this the wrong way, but I believe it's statistically insignificant from a purely numbers perspective.

From the human perspective, once is too many.

From a realistic perspective, it's impossible to prevent 100% of the time until we quit warring.
All when and good with the stats, but how do they work out if say the coilition forces kill 100 000 Iraqi civilians?? We certainly didnt kill 10 million Iraqi soldiers in the process.
Precisely why made-up percentages are dangerous - while the intention may have been to illustrate how well we are doing (killing more of them than they are of us effectively making the frat number go up as a percentage of total friendly losses), it is a skewed perspective from the beginning & an almost totally irrelevant comparison & invites over-simplified comparisons.

Thanks for the article, Brickhistory. I disagreed with some of the "how we count it" type stuff, but that wasn't the thrust of the paper & it was relatively concise & probably very useful reading for the non-mil types...

Couple pertinent clips from the article:
Avoiding fratricide is never the sole objective of a military force; it must be balanced with other military goals and efforts to hold down overall human costs. Combat is inherently dangerous and casualties are inevitable, and some of those casualties inevitably will be due to fratricide. Moreover, some measures to reduce fratricide could be so stringent that they would reduce military effectiveness and, in the end, increase the casualties inflicted by enemy forces.
Even the most straightforward technique, looking at a potential target with human eyes, is neither simple nor reliable; combatants need training to identify forces quickly. Even with training, mistakes that appear egregious in the calm of peaceful retrospection are all too common in the confusion of combat.
Cures for the fratricide problem deserve serious, continuing attention, but fratricide is not a cause for panic and will not lose the next war.
Today, the military R&D community is pursuing several antifratricide developments. Existing efforts to coordinate with sister Services and allies should be vigorously maintained.

Flatus Veteranus

11th Feb 2007, 18:49

Does anyone know when it became the practice to hold coroners' inquests into the deaths of British servicemen in battle, or on active service? There must have been a mighty host of coroners around during the two World Wars!
Were there, for example, inquests into the deaths of all hands on the British cruiser (HMS Curacao??) when she was escorting one of the Queen liners in WW2 and was cut down by her "charge"?

To my mind the Oxford coroner seems to be a rather pompous official who seems unable to get his mind around the tensions and difficulties facing the A10 pilots. The vindictive tone adopted by much of the press comment seems unlikely to encourage the USAF to help out the British army when it finds itself in tight spots in future.

MReyn24050

11th Feb 2007, 19:09

The following might help:-
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds06/text/60605-30.htm
Scroll down to 5 June 2006 Col WS270.

Chugalug2

11th Feb 2007, 19:14

FV, the reason that the Oxford Coroner's office is so involved with our dead in Bliars wars, is that their remains are repatriated into his area, ie via BZN. The practise in WW2, and indeed nearly all previous conflicts, has been to bury the remains of our dead in the IWCs, later CWCs, abroad. My Dad for instance is buried at the one near Yokohama. The requirement for a Coroner's Inquest thus did not exist. What provision was made for those killed in the UK, both civilian and military, was presumably a somewhat simplified version of the present arrangements. One thinks of the Coventry blitz for example.
As to Assistant Coroner Walker being pompous, I wouldn't know, not having met him. Perhaps you have, in which case perhaps he might say the same about you, who knows? :)
As to the Press, I couldn't agree more!

Pontius Navigator

12th Feb 2007, 08:35

Chugalug, anyone less pompous than FV I have yet to meet.
Wanting a light for his cigarette he crouched down and drew the flame from someone else's fag - he didn't want to interrupt their conversation.
Rather than 'pompous' one could say pernicity but more probably precise and exact. I wonder what a coroner is 'charged with' in the way that those with commissions are required to discharge their duties?

Chugalug2

12th Feb 2007, 09:16

PN, I take your reprimand on the chin. The point I was trying to make was that Walker's pomposity, or lack of it, is no more relevant than FV's, hence the smiley! As to commissioned officers in the Armed Forces, senior ones of various shades on either side of the pond were indeed charged, with investigating the circumstances and causes of L/Cploh Mulls death, and to publish findings that might lead to a reduced chance of a similar tragedy in the future. AFAIK they failed to do so, for by now we would be in possession of some reassurances re training and operational procedures to that effect. To that extent I say that Mrs Hull, and her husband's colleagues have been failed by the military, both Brit and Yank.
Then enter stage left the Oxford Coroner, as though in a G&S opera. One is reminded of the sudden appearance of the "Official Solicitor" some time back, to solve another legal dilemma (I don't even remember which one). If Mr Walker can attend to the business that commissioned senior officers were charged with and do what they failed to, to any extent, then he has my vote whatever his personal traits!

US Herk

12th Feb 2007, 14:08

As to commissioned officers in the Armed Forces, senior ones of various shades on either side of the pond were indeed charged, with investigating the circumstances and causes of L/Cploh Mulls death, and to publish findings that might lead to a reduced chance of a similar tragedy in the future. AFAIK they failed to do so, for by now we would be in possession of some reassurances re training and operational procedures to that effect.
Let me state again that the USAF have two investigations - one closed, one public - the purpose of each is quite different. Only the closed one searches solely for solutions. The open one - which we've seen snippets of, but not the whole report - does not have the specific goal of prevention, rather, disclosure. Therefore, the assertion that there's been a failure of future prevention is not necessarily true...unless you have access the USAF closed investigation.

I cannot presume to speak for the MoD's BoI in this instance.

nigegilb

12th Feb 2007, 14:37

Once more I agree with Chug. The families have been failed by
the military on both sides of the Atlantic here. The open US inquiry concluded that all procedures had been followed correctly and in an interview, the base commander at Idaho has said that no changes to training arose out of this incident. The pilot concerned has been promoted. Over here the MoD treated the relatives with disdain and arrogance. Thankfully, it only takes one good man to make a difference. (And an unofficial copy of the video). This same man, also found fault with the way the BoI into the death of Sgt Roberts had been conducted. In this case, it appears that the only friend of the family's has been the coroner. Bearing in mind the families of the bereaved are not given legal representation, the role of the coroner has been critical for truth to prevail.

Chugalug2

12th Feb 2007, 15:20

Thanks for that Nige. Incidents, Accidents, Alleged Military Offences. All are theoretically dealt with in the same way by any Air Force that wishes to remain an Air Force, that is to keep losses of men and equipment to a minimum. Collect evidence, review it, come to a verdict/ decision, publish it (as Herk says not necessarily to the big wide world). If said Air Force subverts that process it is an act of self mutilation.
Again I commend a study of tucemsehs posted list. There are those in/ex the higher command of the RAF (can't speak for the USAF) who are/have been complicit in said mutilation. What surprises me is the urge to protect them by, of all people, professional aviators who should treasure truth above all. Knowing the truth, good bad or indifferent, is the only way of staying alive in this game. Fool yourself into wishful thinking, trusting to luck, saying "stuff happens, what can you do", means more losses of men and equipment that might otherwise be avoided. If that is the status of the "blue on blue" scenario it is unacceptable and needs urgent and speedy revision by ALL concerned NOW!

US Herk

12th Feb 2007, 20:21

The open US inquiry concluded that all procedures had been followed correctly and in an interview, the base commander at Idaho has said that no changes to training arose out of this incident. The pilot concerned has been promoted.
Regardless of the findings of the closed report, so long as the public report had nothing bad to say about the pilot in question, there can be no adminstrative obstruction of his promotion. As you might be aware, our promotion systems are vastly different. Our ANG & Reserves promote slightly differently still.

As for no changes in training, you're going to hate me for this, but there may well have been changes in training based on the closed report, however, since the public report didn't recommend any, the party line answer would be that none were put in place. This again is done to provide the security of the privileged information contained within the closed report. It could be argued that certain changes to ROE, training, etc. could be "reverse engineered" to determine causal findings in the privileged report. That's extreme, but it has happened.

The bottom line - The absence of confirmation that anything has changed isn't proof it hasn't happened. :confused:

Fool yourself into wishful thinking, trusting to luck, saying "stuff happens, what can you do", means more losses of men and equipment that might otherwise be avoided.

My RAF training is still with me - I'm reminded of a Blackadder quote:

If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through.

Sadly too true in many cases.

If my posts sound as if I'm defending the pilots too vigorously, I'm really only defending our investigative process. I do not presume to make allegations or reach conclusions based simply on a leaked videotape without all the facts and the corrupting benefit of hindsight. The situation we're in finds us decidedly without all the facts and unlikely to obtain them all in a public forum.

FWIW, I'm defending our investigative processes not their causal findings.

Chugalug2

12th Feb 2007, 22:03

Herk, I've no interest or issue with the USAF's, ANG's or for that matter any one else's processes. They are bound to be different from ours by definition. So what? If it waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck. The issue is does it produce the goods? I, for one, have very grave doubts that ours do now. You must look to yours yourself. SASless in reply to one of my posts gave a list where in his opinion it would seem that some US ones (not all USAF) haven't produced the goods either. In this particular case though, we (the Brits) are uniquely interested in the efficacy of your system, because if it cannot be relied on then more Brits (amongst others) may be killed or injured. We are, strike that, I am of the opinion that it is also unreliable. Having an open/closed system appears from the outside like a classic PR job, ie keep the dirty washing in house. As Nigegib says, the public findings appear to fly in the face of what we now know thanks to the tape. No wonder your guys are apoplectic about the leak, for it would appear to conflict with what was stated. By the way, if the pilot concerned is truly in charge of A-10 training (as rumoured) I for one would have no objections. I can think of nobody better suited to really ram home the necessary stricture to check and double check before attacking.

US Herk

13th Feb 2007, 01:31

I'm far too easy to bait...:ouch:

Having an open/closed system appears from the outside like a classic PR job, ie keep the dirty washing in house.
I'm sure it does to the uninformed. That's why I've been laboring to explain our system. :ugh: Anytime you have protected information of any type, the appearance of a cover-up/PR job is present. As a USAF-trained accident investigator, I can only offer my experiences.

As Nigegib says, the public findings appear to fly in the face of what we now know thanks to the tape.
Unfortunately, we don't know everything & hanging the guilty verdict on a single piece of evidence taken out of context with 4 years of pent-up anger as the biased hindsight seems very disingenuous (but probably emotionally satisfying). You do not know all the facts, so "...what we now know..." is still only a small piece of the equation. Yet many here seem quite happy to leap to conclusions.:ugh:

This will be my last for a bit - off on det from early tomorrow.

BattlerBritain

13th Feb 2007, 08:34

Thanks for your posts US Herk. I find them informative, reasoned and valuable. A great contibution to this discussion.

Something else which might also add weight to both US Herks and Chugs statements is this 'Letter to the Editor' in The Times today:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/debate/letters/article1374924.ece

Could be that the American enquiry found no fault with the pilots as the problem was deemed 'further up the food chain'. Hence you might not see any changes in pilot training as that may not be where the problem is? reverse engineering, I know, but a guess nevertheless.

I think that may be the case but that if the pilots vehicle recognition skills had been up to scratch they surely wouldn't have gone ahead and fired.

I also think the fact that this was their first combat mission speaks volumes.

To me there are questions that need answering:
a) Why didn't the American FAC know there were Brits in that area? What happened to the Brit input to the C&C?
b) Why did the A-10's open up on a vehicle with Orange panels on it?
c) Why didn't the pilots recognise those vehicles as Brit vehicles considering that the Household Cavalry had shown the pilots those vehicles on a ground inspection tour before the war had kicked off?

Maybe the Coroner will ask the same questions?

Flatus Veteranus

13th Feb 2007, 15:06

MReyn 24050
Chugalug 2
Pontius Navigator

Thank you all for your help to understand when an inquest is required. Thank you Pontius Nav for defending me against Chugalug’s charge of pomposity (to which I plead guilty, citing my age as partial mitigation.) I have sometimes to try to live up to my nom de plume.

Personally I feel that a coroner’s inquest is wholly out of place when considering combat casualties, wherever the body is repatriated. Nobody has suggested that the A10 pilot committed a deliberate act of murder. Obviously he made a terrible error and this should have been investigated strictly through military channels. If it had come to a Court Martial, the Corporal’s widow would have been entitled to attend. In the event, no disciplinary action was taken. But I should like to think that the USAF sent their Air Attaché to brief the NoK as fully as possible on what happened, and hand over a note of regret/apologies signed by a very senior officer.

The account in the Times of the inquest which described the coroner to be “shaking with anger” when told that the MOD could not release the video tape, suggests he was indeed being a bit pompous. If coroners are unaware of the details of the OSA and the cardinal rule in international intelligence relationships that only the owner can consent to release of classified material, he really ought to join the real world. I do not buy the idea that NoK are “entitled” to access all the evidence in such cases in order to achieve “closure”. Most families in WW2 and the immediate postwar world had to be content with much less.

I remember from the early ‘50s the Darlington coroner summoning the stationmaster at Middleton St George to his court and demanding that he produce the BofI reports into a series of fatal Meteor accidents , when students had “tent-pegged” into his parish. The stationmaster, a redoubtable Kiwi, aplogised politely; but the proceedings were all classified and he was not authorised to release them. The coroner threatened him with jail for contempt, but the Gp Capt stood his ground . The coroner contented himself with “shaking with anger”.

tucumseh

13th Feb 2007, 16:49

"Personally I feel that a coroner’s inquest is wholly out of place when considering combat casualties, wherever the body is repatriated.

I'd tend to agree with the above only if the MoD showed the slightest inclination to tell the truth. But they don't. They lie. They get caught out. They lie again. They constantly withhold key unclassified information and evidence. No-one is disciplined for this (as far as I know) so one assumes it is policy, or at least condoned.

I therefore support the concept of a Coroner's Inquest, as his remit is to establish the truth. Perhaps one of the reasons why these inquests are being delayed for years is the Coroners have to spend so much time (a) working out if the MoD are lying (although this should be the default position by now) and (b) obtaining the truth from MoD. If anyone thinks this makes Mr Walker pompous, then you are entitled to your view. But pomposity is not an offence; withholding evidence and lying during this legal process is. I wish Mr Walker would be more "pompous" or robust and ask MoD plod to investigate the MoD's actions. And, if he has the power, order judicial reviews into other cases if, with the benefit of hindsight and experience, he now thinks he may have been misled.

I also wish he'd dissect the BOI reports, if only to demand a statement from MoD as to (a) What has been done to implement the many recommendations in each report and (b) Whether the underlying issues, reflected in these recommendations, were known before the accidents. (YES!).

It may be that the pilots’ actions were cavalier, but this detracts from the root cause. In this case, lack of adequate Combat ID. It’s not as if it’s a new concept to MoD.

nigegilb

13th Feb 2007, 17:16

Further to Tuc's comments about the need for these inquests. The unreconstructed liars at the MoD, were directly responsible for the death of Sgt Roberts, ignoring safe windows of procurement for enhanced body armour. Preventing DEC from purchasing essential safety equipment so as not to give the heads up to Saddam - Read upset the French and Germans. Knowing that the body armour would not be in place for the start of the war.

Mrs Hull has had to wait 4 years and she still has no closure. I have been working with bereaved families for one year, they should have been left to grieve, instead they fight the MoD. Closure is important here. In my own experience, many are driven solely so that no other families should have to go through the same ordeal as themselves. We already did this kind of friendly fire in GW1 and yet here we are again 15 years later, soldiers having to rely on orange tarpaulin and more dead and injured as a result. A10 pilots saw the tarpaulin but did not appear to know what it signified.

Shaking with anger? I think I would have chinned the nearest MoD rep.

Chugalug2

13th Feb 2007, 22:34

US Herk:
"The bottom line - The absence of confirmation that anything has changed isn't proof it hasn't happened. :confused: "
Agreed!

"If my posts sound as if I'm defending the pilots too vigorously, I'm really only defending our investigative process"
They do not Herk, you clearly respect the system you serve, and I respect and accept what you say. As I tried to state, but failed to be clear; the process I've no doubt is fine, it is the use to which it is put that is in question. As tucsumeh points out, in too many of our accidents the process has been subverted by findings that do not reflect all of the available evidence. We fear that this tendency is contagious.

"I'm far too easy to bait"
Not my intention Herk, I greatly appreciate the informed and patient way you have responded to my concerns, thank you.

"Unfortunately, we don't know everything & hanging the guilty verdict on a single piece of evidence taken out of context with 4 years of pent-up anger as the biased hindsight seems very disingenuous (but probably emotionally satisfying). You do not know all the facts, so "...what we now know..." is still only a small piece of the equation. Yet many here seem quite happy to leap to conclusions.:ugh: "
I absolutely agree that I don't know everything, and personally have no wish to hang anyone. I certainly do not know what the root causes of this accident were. I hope someone does after four years! All I expect is a proper investigation followed by a proper implementation of the proper findings of that proper investigation. We see no sign or hint of that whatsoever over here. You are in the business, and know better than I that the whole point of the process is to prevent (as much as possible) a recurrence. That is all that any of us want!
Enjoy the det. Cheers Chug.

XV277

13th Feb 2007, 23:05

have seen pics of Harrier with aden packs on them when were they deleated?

They were never actually carried, just the pods as LIDs. The 25mm Aden was years behind in development, then was cancelled just when (allegedly) they got it working, as a medium level bombing force had no need for a gun. At leats that was the spin at the time. Would have been mid/late 90s

Chugalug2

13th Feb 2007, 23:21

tucumseh and nigegib, well said both of you. The canker of deceit that has permeated every crevice of Government has now infected the higher command of our armed services. The only institutions that seem able to resist its insidious spread are our oldest and most arcane, e.g. The House of Lords and the County Coroners. For those who ask what is the point of such outmoded and unrepresentative arrangements, we are hopefully about to have an answer. I say hopefully, for I can imagine that realpolitik is happening big time in Oxford right now. Lets us hope that pompous or not our man upholds the independent tradition of his august office!

spectre150

14th Feb 2007, 07:15

There was an article in the Times last Sunday written by the journalist John Simpson about an incident when his embedded media team was attacked by a US Navy F15 (yes that's what he said - even 'respected' journos get it wrong). IIRC an interpreter was killed and some other members of the convoy were badly injured. Another Blue on Blue, and it got me wondering just how many of these incidents have happened. Maybe they are not as isolated are those who wish to play them down would suggest. I have held strong personal views on 'friendly fire kills' (what a contradiction that is) since the GR4/Patriot incident and nothing I have read on here has inclined me to moderate those views.

nigegilb

14th Feb 2007, 07:46

Put the qustion another way round. How many times have marine corps pilots killed their own? American contributors could set me right here but I seem to recall that USAF reluctantly took on the A10. Reluctant because USAF was considered strategic. Is there a case for CAS to be delivered by the same outfit as those on the ground? Don't wish to diss Harrier pilots at all. They have been coolly professional as ever. Just making a suggestion. The Apache pilots have performed brilliantly, even effecting a back of a fag packet emergency rescue. But the HUD video of the ANG pilots just suggested that they were out for a kill without being too fussy.

Flap62

14th Feb 2007, 08:07

The term CAS keeps being used in this case. It wasn't really CAS. There was little or no control or co-ordination. No attempt was made to use the air assets to ensure they achieved the greatest possible damage on the enemy.

What we saw was the flaws in the "kill box" philosophy. This broadly embraces the concept that in a defined area, all targets are hostile and can be engaged. This has been increasingly adopted by the US because of their perceived total dominance of the battle space. This technique is flawed in this case for at least two reasons;

Firstly, the kill box concept does not work if there are any friendlies even remotely close. In that case positve, close control by some form of FAC is required.
Secondly, it is an inefficient use of the weapons platform. As we saw in this case it often requires the pilots eyeballing potential targets from medium level and deciding which to engage. Even with the load out carried by US platforms, this often means that ordnance is wasted on decoys and "flat bed trucks" when much more significant targets may be missed. Again, there is a requirement for positive control onto the highest value targets, not simply two guys who are determined to shoot something and can't even be bothered to pick up their binoculars!

bombedup6

14th Feb 2007, 08:27

Flatus

"Personally I feel that a coroner’s inquest is wholly out of place when considering combat casualties, wherever the body is repatriated"

You cite the examples of World War II and a Darlington coroner in the 1950s.
Standards and attitudes have changed significantly since then, mostly for the better I'd say, and one of them is government/public accountability.

Culturally, however, the armed forces of both the UK and US are at least a generation behind the civilian world. They're among the last to provide equality to women, gays, etc and the last to provide legal protections civvies now take for granted. On the other hand, there are things in the culture/generation gap the public likes - and misses: tradition, cohesion, pride, total dedication, 'can do' attitude, adaptability and yes, even echoes of class structure.

The problem comes when the services can't sense which quality the wider world wants from them and when. A sharper political nose would have sensed this confrontation with the coroner and media coming a mile away, but the MoD and particularly US seem to have believed they could get away with their 'that's the way we've always done it' attitude with the idea that's what the public still really wants from them.

I would have thought the MoD had learned from the Mull of Kintyre PR disaster,

Chugalug2

14th Feb 2007, 20:00

Now an entry in Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/190th_Fighter_Squadron%2C_Blues_and_Royals_friendly_fire_inc ident_-_March_28%2C_2003

General Mike Jackson was interviewed by Jon Snow on Ch4 News, very carefully stating that he believed that there was a reluctance by the US authorities to provide everything available for the investigation. The interview is at the end of the Col Mendonca verdict video at:
http://www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/special-reports-storypage.jsp?id=4609

By the way the Wiki link includes the transcript and the audio of the tape. Sobering listening indeed.

US Herk

15th Feb 2007, 01:02

Culturally, however, the armed forces of both the UK and US are at least a generation behind the civilian world. They're among the last to provide equality to women, gays, etc and the last to provide legal protections civvies now take for granted.

You're kidding, right? The US military, with the notable exception of gays, has embraced every minority & long before the civilian side. In fact, I would argue the US military is used by our government as a great social experiment - they were the first to ban smoking & I'll likely see the end of alcohol use before I retire even. First to integrate blacks & women and other minorities - well before the civil rights movement. US Mil soliders even have some benefits civilians don't when tried under UCMJ vs civilian courts (not many & specific cases, but...)

The problem comes when the services can't sense which quality the wider world wants from them and when.
The quality to kill people & break things is the only one a military truly needs. Anything else is fluff. If it sounds cavalier & over-simplistic, it's because we need to keep sight of what a military is supposed to be called upon to do. Governments may misuse their militaries insofar as having them do things they really aren't meant to do, but that's politics & doesn't really have much bearing on the military themselves.

In fact, I would argue that militaries typically reflect societal standards fairly well for the most part. There's very much a wysiwyg cross-section of the populace...

If a country's military isn't living up to "world expectations", then the politics of a given country are up for debate - not necessarily the military. Militaries do not decide politics, rather, politicians decide how to use their ultimate instrument of national power on the geopolitical stage.

Virtually none of this is germane to the discussion at hand...

Personally I feel that a coroner’s inquest is wholly out of place when considering combat casualties, wherever the body is repatriated.

Agree 100% - we end up sacrificing combat capability on the altar of compassion, but from a purely utilitarian perspective, this is completely backwards with the needs of the bereaved families being more important than the combat capability of a military.:=

I think I'm probably done here with nothing left to contribute - I'll monitor & attempt to correct errors I may see, but I think that's it.

Flatus Veteranus

15th Feb 2007, 19:35

A few more thoughts:-
Having served the odd penance in the “mad house” while still in the RAF, and as a civil servant in retirement, I do not remember meeting any, “incorrigible” liars, although there enough of those who, for a quiet life or to further their careers, were prepared to be economical with les verités.. In which other walk of life are such people not to be found? Please do not quote the legal profession – particularly in this age when money is to be made from the “victim” culture. Someone, it seems nowadays, is always to blame for any unfortunate event and if the “victim” worked for the MOD, then oodles of dosh for compensation for his NoK and for lawyers fees’ (funded by the taxpayer) are there for the grabbing.
Suppose that I am an Int Officer and I am in possession of highly classified material which, if a hostile Int agency even suspected that I had it, would give them clues as to my source and its capabilities. If the source was Humint, an agent’s life might be at risk If I were asked a question by a service BOI to which any answer I gave other than “No” or “Don’t know” would blow the gaffe, my position would be difficult enough. If I refused to answer I could be ordered (if still serving) to do so. I could ask to speak in private with with the president and explain the situation in the most general terms and ask him to seek guidance from on high. If the int was of foreign source and shared with the UK under terms of a mutual treaty, I would know that a formal approach to that state would be needed. I would know that that would take months, and the result would almost certainly be negative. So I think I would don my best poker face and lie. If I were in front of a coroner’s court I would certainly lie, with a smile, and hope that friends and family would visit me in the clink until the situation was sorted. To imperil a long-standing treaty for the sake of bringing “closure” to the NOK of a single unlucky serviceman and satisfying the egos of a bunch of journos would to me seem ridiculous. But then, as someone has pointed out, I am an old-fashioned hard-nose, out of touch with our caring, rights-conscious modern society. However, I am not homophobic (so long as gays behave discreetly) and I am certainly not chauvinist. I think in our present climate it may take a lady CAS /CDS to take the necessary hard line with the politicians. General Dannat made a start. When does he get backup?
The idea that the armed services must adopt the values of the society from which they are recruited is true only in the very long term. They need to be sure that a current trend is not ephemeral before they throw out traditons, mindsets and disciplines which have been proved in war. The events around Diana’s funeral marked an apogee in the “touchy-feely” trend which may have started to recede a bit, judging by the acclaim wich has greeted the “Queen Elizabeth”film. I am old enough to remember the Munich crisis in ’38’(?) when Chamberlain was feted as a hero. “Peace in Our Time” he declaimed at the foot of the airstairs, waving his piece of paper signed by Adolph Hitler. Everyone adored him – including most of the staff of the rather posh prep-school where I was at that time (although theHeadmaster, who had fought through WW1 was distinctly uneasy). Winston Churchill was unpopular throughout the country. It only took two years for the pendulum to swing back and for the great unwashed to be spellbound by the “blood, toil, sweat and tears” speech.
As for the notion that the MOD is derelict if it does not implement every recommendation of a BOI, the idea is ludicrous. BsOI have narrow terms of reference relative to a specific event. They cannot tie MOD's hand in ordering priorities for expenditure. I should imagine that some early accidents in the V Force (Heathrow?) gave rise to recommendations that ejection seats be provided for the rear crew. Someone had to take the gritty decision that it would have been cheaper to scrap the whole fleet and start with a clean drawing board!. :uhoh: I think I just farted! Sorry to bore you – rant over!

Chugalug2

15th Feb 2007, 22:04

US Herk posted at #239:
"The quality to kill people & break things is the only one a military truly needs. Anything else is fluff. If it sounds cavalier & over-simplistic, it's because we need to keep sight of what a military is supposed to be called upon to do."

Hi there US Herk, back from detachment already? That was quick, well off we jolly well go!
The quality, I think, that a military most truly needs is professionalism, so that it may carry out its orders all the more effectively and efficiently. This may well involve a great deal of killing and breaking, but effectiveness and efficiency requires the minimum of both to achieve the aim of those orders. Collateral and blue on blue killing and breaking do not achieve that aim, and indeed can severely detract from it. Such killing and breaking is unprofessional, contrary to orders and damages the national reputation. Though impossible to avoid completely, every effort should be made to reduce them to the minimum. As Nigegilb said, bringing munitions home because a pilot could not positively ID a target is a professional and proper thing to do.
As to the military vis a vis society etc, what's that got to do with the price of fish? Like you say, hardly germane.
Concerning U.K. Coroners Inquests on repatriated combat casualties sacrificing combat capability, I have seen no reports of this. Have you? What can adversely affect combat capability are misleading statements and outright lies by the MOD, and blue on blue incidents, and of course the combination of both!
Such Inquests should be mere formalities, as the causes of the death would have been already properly investigated by the parent service. In this case two such Inquiries have been carried out by the USAF and the British Army. The question is were these two Inquiries properly conducted to arrive at proper findings that have been properly implemented?

NURSE

16th Feb 2007, 01:27

seams as if the spams are updating the warthog. Just hope they give it to people who won't shoot at us. (received an infraction for saying this on another forum from one of the US Mods)

US Herk

16th Feb 2007, 01:29

OK - I lied. Guess I will continue to wade in (see - I am too easy to bait!).

I suppose we could continue to twist each other's words to no end. No military force sets off with frat in mind. Should we leave it at that? We'll obviously not agree on much beyond that it seems.

The question is were these two Inquiries properly conducted to arrive at proper findings that have been properly implemented?
Until someone can provide incontrovertible proof, I'm happy in the assumption that at least the US side was conducted objectively & reached a reasonable conclusion (no matter what it was). However, we may never know for certain (more later on this). As for new findings implemented, not all findings are - refer to FV's post just previous. There will be a cost-benefit analysis - not everyone will agree with it regardless of the decision reached.

Concerning U.K. Coroners Inquests on repatriated combat casualties sacrificing combat capability, I have seen no reports of this. Have you? What can adversely affect combat capability are misleading statements and outright lies by the MOD, and blue on blue incidents, and of course the combination of both!
Reports? Hardly. Simple common sense says if we continue to conduct these witch-hunts with blood in our eyes to appease bereaved families, we give others pause & hesitation in combat is deadly. Likewise, revealing privileged safety information compromises the entire investigative process & I'm not willing to compromise that simply to appease family members who don't like the answers they've gotten so far.

The King 56 crash of a Portland ANG HC-130 back in the early-mid '90s is a good illustration of what can happen when a family member pushes too hard because they don't like the answers they're getting. The wife of the FE tried to sue Lockheed for design deficiencies because her husband fed the engines with a fuselage tank using aircraft pressurisation until said tank was not only empty, but forced air to the gear-driven pumps & completely cavitated them effectively vapour locking the engines, flamed all four out, & was unable to re-establish fuel flow or restart. She pushed & pushed until she was finally told in no uncertain terms that her husband killed that crew & destroyed that plane by using a somewhat accepted, but very illegal & poor technique.

Sometimes we don't want to know the answers & definitely don't like them.
Of course, I'm in no way implying that Mrs. Hull's husband did anything of the sort. I'm simply illustrating that in virtually all circumstances of human error, good people execute good & sound procedures poorly & the results, in our business, can be very tragic. Manslaughter, murder, recklessness - none of these have any place in most accident findings - that's why we call them accidents because we don't set out to do them intentionally.

Short of willful malice & gross negligence, there should not be any prosecutions of any combat forces = particularly in times of conflict - anywere. Ever. That does not mean incidents should not be investigated in an attempt to learn from our mistakes. If, during the course of an investigation, the above is discovered, then transgressors should be prosecuted to the fullest.

It appears to me there is a radical difference between most of the folks on here and at least me with regard to trust of leadership, the military system, and government. It seems you have a near complete lack of trust in your fellow military, leaders, processes, & government. The way I view it is kinda the way old Ronnie Reagan viewed the Ruskies - 'Trust but verify' - I operate on the assumption of good faith and innocence until given a good reason not to, evaluate what evidence I can, concede I don't know all the facts, & decide if I'm happy - it's a purely personal decision. FWIW, a bereaved family member not happy with an investigation isn't a good reason to give up on a process, organisation, or my fellow military officers who happen to be investigators.

I do not believe the investigators always get it right, but I do believe they take their assignments very seriously, use subject matter experts to verify everything they can, and normally reach reasonable conclusions.

One more rant - The word 'closure' as applied to bereaved family members is a very modern concept and is grossly misused much of the time (IMO). It is an objective term applied to a subjective situation and designed to invoke an emotional response - either positive or negative. As any psychiatrist worth his salt will tell you, grief is a process that often has no end for an individual and there is never an instant where you wake up one day & say, "By golly, I've got all my answers & I can move on now because I have 'closure' since all my questions & concerns have been answered."

Returned from det today - yes, quite the short one, but with sh*te hours - 'tis what we get paid for though.:ok:

nigegilb

16th Feb 2007, 11:56

US Herk, look away the coroner has used the word closure.
Surely the point about closure is that the family cannot continue the normal grieving process until these inquests are complete? 4 long years the Govt have made the families wait, only resourcing the coroner's office satisfactorily a few months ago. Disagree with your idea about Inquests affecting combat capability. Failing to be honest and failing to equip soldiers satisfactorily is what affects combat capability, because it wrecks recruitment and retention. Myself and the likes of Chug have a different perspective to the guys serving. We can see the damage being done by this kind of cover-up. Any small tactical or battlefield advantage that might be gained by keeping it secret is completely outweighed by the ensuing bad publicity once the cover-up becomes public knowledge. AKA Pat Tillman.

A coroner has reluctantly agreed to a US demand not to show a video of British soldier Matty Hull being killed in a friendly fire incident in open court.

Oxfordshire Assistant Deputy Coroner Andrew Walker said he would take a "pragmatic" approach to showing the video, a cockpit recording of US pilots in A10 tank-buster planes opening fire on Lance Corporal Hull's armoured vehicle convoy in Southern Iraq four years ago, to ensure the US provided further information for his inquiry.

Addressing a pre-inquest hearing before the full inquest on March 12, he said: "I can say quite categorically that if it were not for the potential delay and distress this would cause the family, I would not be willing to be bound by an agreement with the US as to use of evidence that I consider crucial to this inquest.

"I would be wrong to accept that the US are correct in seeking to bind the hands of the coroners' court in this way but in these circumstances I feel that in order to make progress and provide the family with closure, it seems to me that I must act in this way as far as the copy of that video is concerned."

Mr Walker was told by Ministry of Defence lawyer Leigh-Ann Mulcahy that the American government has authorised the transcript of the video to be presented in open court. But the video, which is of poor quality and shows little of what is happening on the ground, cannot be shown in public. It will be brought to the court by an MoD official and shown to the coroner and the family. The coroner asked if he could get the video analysed or enhanced but was told he did not have US authorisation.

Geraldine McCool, respresenting Susan Hull, said: "My client's views are that the video is absolutely vital evidence for this inquest and there is an artificial situation in discussing these conditions when the video has been displayed and is available around the world. I would say there is a lack of co-operation on behalf of the US government."

But she added that the Hull family would rather that the coroner co-operated with the US over the video to ensure the US provides a witness to interpret it and transcripts of the US investigation into the pilots' training hours.

Transcripts of interviews with the pilots already read to the coroner's court show the two pilots had no conflict experience.

The coroner repeatedly spoke of his frustration at the slow progress and obstacles put in his path. "It seems to me that this inquest creeps forward step by step. Each time I hear something new, I have to approach the MoD to seek clarification about that point," he said.

"The time has come where I should be entitled to see all the material and form a judgment on what I have seen. I'm not unreasonable, I shall be fair but this investigation needs to be thorough. I just want to know, and I'm sure the family want to know, why this happened, in as much detail as possible."

US Herk

16th Feb 2007, 13:25

Nige - loads of respect for you, what you're doing, & your views, but I think we'll agree to disagree.

The coroner did not use the word closure in any new way - same way - emotive statements to solicit a given reaction - it obviously has worked.
In my mind, the coroner is at least contributory to the slowing of the grieving process. If there were no coroner's inquest, the family would have "moved on" by now - instead, they are faced with a public servant who appears to have widespread power, but is impotent to really cut through any red tape put in his path (either intentionally or due to standard bureaucracy), continually delaying any of his findings...combat deaths are just that, combat deaths.

The fact someone illegally leaked the vid does not mean the US should now just roll over & provide a more detailed or enhanced copy of it, nor should they just release it to the public in any official capacity. The reason is quite simple - precedent. If it is officially released here, then the next time there will be a hue & cry to release the next one - further damaging our investigative process & ultimately combat capability. This is not a cover-up, nor is it obstruction - in fact, I think the US is doing much more than it would with one of our citizens...

You are 100% correct that failing to be honest & failing to equip soldiers satisfactorily most definitely degrades combat capability. Do not let your passion for these very worthy causes cloud your perspective & think there is nothing else that degrades combat capability - it's not a one or the other situation & is likely cumulative.

Many have obviously lost faith in (pick your individual/organisation) so they decide the investigative process must surely be corrupt from the beginning & are eager to throw the baby out with the bathwater - I cannot disagree with this premise strongly enough. Preserving the integrity of the investigative process is paramount IMO. It is only through these processes that we can hopefully prevent these accidents in future. Politically influenced & emotionally charged public inquests cannot do anything other than point fingers, re-open raw wounds, & yes, IMO, degrade combat capability.

EDIT - I initially joined this discussion out of concern over the allegations of a US cover-up and attempted to clarify the normally very thorough investigative process we typicalyl conduct into nearly all significant incidents. What I have seen is an attitude of, "Yes, yes, that's all well & good, but we still want blood - look at the poor widow." It seems to this outside observer that this widow is nothing more than a tool to be used against the government - another indictment of the shoddy handling of a very unpopular conflict run by an unpopular (at least with the military) government and all that goes with it. I have no doubt many are very sincere in their concern for the widow in this case, perhaps even all are, but she most definitely is being used as a political pawn. I hope you can see that.