US Army Medevac Policy Kills Another Soldier

[SASless]

Here we go again!

Armed and go....unarmed and wait for an armed escort....all the while a young Soldier is left suffering and dying while some dimwitted Officer tries to sort out conflicting policies and command decisions and sorting out how to get a helicopter (of any kind) to the wounded Soldier.

I am flat disgusted by all of this....if it were my Son the Army Chief of Staff would be getting some very up close and personal attention of the kind he doesn't want.

Since when have we had the leadership that could so callously write off a fellow soldier's life like this?

Soldier's death sparks debate over arming medevacs - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/soldiers-death-sparks-debate-over-arming-medevacs-184034109.html)



A medevac helicopter pilot flying in Afghanistan, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he feared repercussions from his superiors, challenged the Army's belief that weighing down medevacs with guns would result in fewer wounded troops being evacuated.
The issue is not how many patients can fit in a helicopter, but how many patients the single medic aboard can treat at a time — and that is one, the pilot said.
He said waiting a long time for an escort is not common — but one time is one too many.


Anyone who has flown EMS knows that statement to be absolutely true. Even in a Bell 412 equipped to carry four patients...only one could be Critical and one Serious while the other two could not expect any inflight care. The Critical patient would have two Med Crew working on him...and the Serious patient would be monitored with only minor care being rendered inflight.

[alfred_the_great]

Sometimes people die because things aren't available to us in the field. That's what unlimited liability means. And if we demand that we have everything required and that it works perfectly will quickly see us left in the UK, and possibly worse, disestablished.

Is it heartbreaking, and do I feel for the family? Absolutely. But that's the way it goes sometimes.

[morticiaskeeper]

Michael Yon - Online Magazine (http://www.michaelyon-online.com/) has a fair bit to say on this subject. It seems the politicians are getting involved.

[KG86]

Another tragedy in Afghanistan, but let's keep things in perspective.

To send a medevac helicopter into a firefight, whether it's armed or not, risks the lives of all of those on it. A commander needs to assess that risk and, often, will need to weigh the potential death of a wounded soldier against the potential death of all on board the heli, and the loss of a valuable aircraft.

A harsh choice, but it's a war out there.

[glojo]

I'm sure I will take some criticism over this but war is not nice, people get hurt, people get maimed and people get killed. The instant we add journalists to the mix we are going to have morale issues, be they at home when the public see or hear about the incident, or at the front line when our illustrious journalist\camera person stands over a wounded soldier taking pictures rather than giving medical aid, or perhaps reporting an event in a manner that may have wording that might cause offence to the serving soldier..

In the example that is being citied, is it possible that everything that could be done, was done but once this story gets into the media we will then be getting everyone and their dog criticising issues they have no knowledge of and making judgements on very little or no evidence.

Some really hard decisions clearly had to be taken and respect to the person who had to decide on what action was deemed correct.

This tragic incident appears to be a very sad consequence of being in a war zone.... Making it public helps no one, and I am certain that if lessons can be learnt, they will be learnt.

Instead of pointing fingers let us instead remember the victims and not inflict more pain on the grieving relatives. My respects and thoughts are with all those who have suffered a tragic loss.

John

[sycamore]

Where is all the `fast/slow-air..? No `Spookys, no Warts,no Spads in the area as top-cover ..?

[P6 Driver]

As far as the original post goes, it's easy to make statements such as "some dim witted Officer" without knowing all the facts. Isn't the interweb wonderful.

[SASless]

Folks....read up on the Robert's Ridge fight...and how Airman Jason Cunningham died...and why. Read up on the US Army's policy about adhering to the Geneva convention requirements for Medical Evacuation flights/aircraft....and compare it to the reality of Afghanistan.

This is not conventional warfare. The Enemy does not recognize the Geneva Accords or rules.

The issue at hand is a decision made from on high that results in denying wounded Troops timely dispatch of Medevac helicopters to fetch them from the field.

The US Air Force, US Marine Corps, RAF, all arm their aircraft and do not slap a big ol' Red Cross on the side of them....thus not playing nice by the Geneva Accords and facilitating the retrieval of the Wounded.

In the early days of Vietnam we had a similar situation where Dustoff Unit helicopters would not land at hot LZ's....but ordinary Lift Ships would. That is well documented. In time the Dust Off Guys changed their policy and made a tremendous improvement in the survival rate for our Wounded....at no small cost to themselves.

This is exactly the same situation.....a "Rule" which sounds good on paper....when confronted by reality....just doesn't hold water.

Perhaps I am old fashioned here and was brain washed during my time in the Army when we had the simple mindset of "If there were Wounded on the ground...we would try our best to get to them and carry them to medical care." It was just something we did....it was as natural to us as breathing....and took no thought, consideration, or prompting.

We did not do it insanely....we weighed the risks...but we went...we tried...and usually we found a way to get in, get the wounded, and get out.

We saw it as our "Duty".

Perhaps, having been involved in a War and knowing the reality of War, shapes my views on the issue. I see each life as being precious....I don't see losing people as just a byproduct of War...and I certainly don't look at what is going on as being anyway acceptable. We owe it to those that will take the risk to do our best to help them when they get hurt....and do it the very best we can.

I once carried a Navy Swift Boat Crewman with a head wound to a hospital....all we were doing was scrounging some empty howitzer ammo boxes for a bit of furniture making at our base camp. I returned to the base camp without the scrap wood...got into some very hot water with the OC....was written up for an award by the Navy....which cancelled the hot water....and the very good news was the Sailor recovered because of his timely delivery at the Surgical Hospital. That one result alone made it all worthwhile.

If it is you, your Son or Daughter, lying out there in the dirt with horrible wounds.....would you be satisfied with the current US Army Policy or would you want to see an armed aircraft show up to fetch you/them or would you be happy the Army saw fit to withhold that flight because they were trying to apply Geneva Accords policy for a conventional war to a counter-insurgency fight?


02 February 2012

An Army officer writes:

The Army is not resisting Dustoff policy change because our leadership honestly believes the current policy is superior, but rather because of AMEDD's [Army Medical Department] protectionist attitude toward "their" Dustoff MEDEVAC helicopters. I'm an active duty infantry officer, and I've been following the Dustoff issue since you first brought attention to it. More importantly, I have a lot of contacts within the Medical Service branch. While we have discussed this issue "around the watercooler" at work, Medical Service officers have been receiving briefings from senior members of their branch about a selectively edited account of SPC Clark's MEDEVAC mission, and what their message should be if anyone asks about it.

My contacts have highlighted that AMEDD's number one priority is protecting their "ownership" of the helicopters in question. They are concerned that removing the Red Cross from AMEDD's birds will result in those helicopters being assigned general purpose tasks, outside of the Medical Service Corp's control. In other words, their top priority is NOT providing the best possible care for our Soldiers and partners, but rather protecting their own fiefdoms. AMEDD is choosing to put Soldiers' lives in danger rather than chance losing "their" birds. Never mind that our sister services, special operations forces and allies are all able to field armed, dedicated CASEVAC/MEDEVAC helicopters! Somehow, despite all the evidence to the contrary, this is still the irrational argument AMEDD is sticking to, and directing its officers to spread. I'm concerned that in the dust-up over policy recommendations, comparisons with Pedro, and rebutting the JCS letter that we may be losing sight of the real obstacle in our path to reform. Sincere thanks for all you do, and keep up the fire!

The trouble the Pentagon has with Yon is troops on scene and involved in the situation talk to Yon...openly and without guile or deceit. When he documents or reports the results of those conversations it directly conflicts with what the Pentagon tries to pass off as being the "actual situation". Harken back to the Tillman Friendly Fire tragedy for example.

The Air Force Pedro Pilot sums up the problem in this article.

13 Military Pilots Rebuke the Joint Chiefs of Staff (http://www.michaelyon-online.com/13-military-pilots-rebuke-the-joint-chiefs-of-staff.htm)

[Melchett01]

The issue at hand is a decision made from on high that results in denying wounded Troops timely dispatch of Medevac helicopters to fetch them from the field.


Not quite. The issue is actually a decision is often one made by a mid ranking officer stood by a bird table and a bank of monitors in a dusty tent in the middle of nowhere, trying to balance his overwhelming urge to get his guys out of the fight and back to safety, and the realisation that to throw aviation in to the mix without first assessing the situation throroughly could quite easily lead to 5 or 6 casualties in need of resuce rather than one and the loss of a crucial and numbers limited asset.

I have seen such decisions being made. The time in question it was Lt Col Tootal, the then CO 3 Para. He had the FOB medic on one end of the phone giving updates on the guy's condition whilst he had the aviation commanders and J2 around the table monitoring the situation and developing COAs, and he really agonised about sending aviation into a high threat area (Sangin if memory serves). It certainly wasn't a decision that was taken lightly, but was one made after careful consideration of all the relevant factors at play.

To shout from the sidelines that this is pencil pushers and Captain Darling types making life and death pronouncements from the comfort of a desk really does a disservice to a very difficult decision.

[glojo]

Hi SASless,
To me this is an emotional topic and UNDERSTANDABLY SO, however I have a very low opinion of journalists that usually want to sell their words and usually they will write their stories in a way that grabs the eye :8... Boring material will possibly never make these people famous or rich, it might even get them the sack?

We as readers also tend to believe what we want to believe and poo hoo those words that we may have issues with even though we lack any personal knowledge regarding that specific topic.

I would hate to think that any front line officer would glibly sacrifice the life of any human being and if a decision was made that this operation was too dangerous then what right have we to query it? If it were deemed to be too dangerous then I am guessing that the person that had to make that decision is not sleeping very well and do they need arm chair critics telling them what they did was wrong?

I am positive that you will have first hand experience of media hype\exaggeration, it has always taken place and I will tactfully suggest it always will. Did you ever decide something was too dangerous and if so how would we feel if a retired pilot sitting behind a computer, thousands of miles away from your location comes out and criticises your decision?

I value your opinions, I respect your expertise and my comments are most certainly NOT a criticism of you or your achievements:ok:;)

My only observation regarding this whole thread is when someone tried to suggest that the cost of a helicopter might outweigh the cost of the life of the person being rescued! If that is a sound reason then I will be writing to both the Ministry of Defence and my local MP as that to me is a disgusting attitude.:eek: Bottom line is the helicopter is a hunk of junk flown by very brave, highly skilled professional people.

The operation might be deemed too risky, but surely that call should be entrusted to those with the experience, plus local knowledge, local intelligence? Their advice has to be listened to and given serious consideration. Cost of operation is best left to bean counters AFTER the mission.

The advice, opinion, judgement of a news reporter or a retired General should probably be at best ignored.

[Airborne Aircrew]

While not coming down on either side of the argument I think that one of the most compelling reasons not to arm a medevac kite is that it might make the crew feel better "protected" than they really are causing them to enter situations they might not normally do and thus significantly elevate the risk of loss of the aircraft, crew and MERT members aboard.

Just a thought...

[Easy Street]

Surely the argument about 'policy' and the Geneva Conventions here is nothing to do with prioritisation, or risk levels, as such. Rather it is about the decision by the US Army to mark their medevac birds with the Red Cross and to have them unarmed. They see this as mandatory under the Geneva Convention. However the approach taken by the USAF, USMC and RAF to arm the helicopters and not to wear the Red Cross also complies with the Geneva Convention.

It is not mandatory for vehicles or personnel involved in the recovery of wounded to bear distinguishing marks (if it were so, it would not be permissible for members of combat units to rescue wounded comrades!) By electing not to wear the Red Cross, all a medic loses is the protection afforded to him under the conventions (which is fairly useless in Afghanistan anyway). There is no question of perfidy as no unfair advantage is being sought.

I find it hard to think of a single advantage to using a Red Cross-marked helicopter in Afghanistan... however the list of disadvantages is extensive. Among them is inflexibility (the cab can't be used for anything else without a paint job first), which when you have as few as the Brits do is simply not a weakness we can afford. Increased requirement for escort is another, and obviously the one causing delays and consternation...

[Lonewolf_50]

Ed Freeman wept. :(

EDIT:
This is odd. From Mr Yon.


Last time I was there and went to the PECC at Kandahar to see for myself who was making these decisions I was surprised to see for myself that it was a Medical NCO with clinical but no evacuation experience. Medical personnel run system not Personnel Recovery folks. They simply don’t know anything about tactical operations. They spend a lot of time thinking about what is the right thing to do rather than instinctively knowing what to do immediately.

From personal experience:

Last time I worked in a JOC, the current ops air tasking authority (a field grade officer) had working for him, at the watch station where the Combat SAR and Dustoff tasks were reviewed and missions assigned, alerts launched, etc fully warfare qualified watch officers (24/7, three rotating shifts) all of whom were experienced. Daytime, two NCO's on task as well, third shift had one NCO.

But this is now an ISAF operation. Having been involved in a few combined operations, you never know who or what you'll get when the nation tagged with contributing a body to "billet X" shows up.