Originally Posted by nigegilb
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.
Originally Posted by nigegilb
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.
Originally Posted by SASless
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.