ANG pilot to face manslaughter charge

[ORAC]

THE WORLD
Pilots Reportedly Face Charges

From Times Wire Services

WASHINGTON -- The Air Force will recommend criminal charges against two Illinois Air National Guard pilots who mistakenly bombed Canadian troops in Afghanistan in April, killing four, U.S. officials said Thursday.

A joint U.S.-Canadian investigation found that the two pilots did not follow proper procedures. Additional details are to be released today, after which the charges may be announced.

A senior U.S. defense official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the Air Force would recommend that Maj. Harry Schmidt be charged with involuntary manslaughter and failure to exercise appropriate flight discipline.

Maj. William Umbach would face charges of aiding and abetting Schmidt in the involuntary manslaughter, according to the defense official.

[CrabInCab]

What utter, utter hoop. I know the spams have had more than there fair share of blue on blue, but these are genuine accidents. The ramifications of this going ahead, I believe, will be huge.

Displine maybe, manslaughter, madness.

[West Coast]

While it was an accident, it wasn't fog of war induced. In my opinion this is the proper course of action

[Scud-U-Like]

I have to agree with West Coast.

If indeed it was a genuine accident, the aircrew concerned can expect to be acquitted. If they were negligent, I'm afraid they must face the music.

[Woff1965]

I undertstand the Pilot was ORDERED NOT to engage as they were friendlies.

The flight leader rolled in and engaged anyway.

If he disregarded the order not to engage this was murder.

[Mmmmnice]

I wouldn't pretend to have anywhere near enough info to spout about specifics, but it is interesting to see the contrast with the handling of the "wedding party" affair - not that I'm suggesting for a minute that where you come from, or what colour you are, will have any influence on the degree of vigour with which the investigation (if there is one) is conducted. It doesn't really matter if you have a standing arrangement that you will not end up in the International Court.

[Dunhovrin]

It just goes to prove that the reason no country wants to join the US against Iraq is not worry over what the Iraqis will do but the US's blue-on-blue record.

Any before any spams start off - who killed more Brits in the Gulf War - Iraq or the USA?

[ORAC]

When you disobey an order and breach the ROE, kill friendly forces and claim self defence; you must be ready to justify yourself in court. Just as if you had pulled out a gun and shot someone in the street.

-----------------------------------------------------------

US accepts responsibility for accidental death of Canadian soldiers

WASHINGTON, July 01: The U.S. military has accepted full responsibility for the accidental April bombing that killed four Canadians and wounded eight others in Afghanistan.

The findings of a joint investigation could mean criminal charges for two U.S. pilots and discipline for superiors in the chain of command, according to CNN reports.

The fatal mistake occurred April 17 as two F-16s were returning from a mission over Afghanistan, and the lead F-16 pilot, Maj. William Umbach, saw what looked like fireworks coming from an area a few miles south of Kandahar, according to the report by U.S. and Canadian investigators.

An AWACS reconnaissance plane gave the first F-16 permission to pinpoint the source of the fire, but denied a request from his wingman, Maj. Harry Schmidt, in a second F-16, to attack the position with a 20-mm cannon.

The AWACS told the wingman to "stand by" and requested more information, while directing him to "hold fire."

But the second F-16 radioed back that he was "rolling in, in self-defense," and dropped a 500-pound bomb on the friendly forces.

The Canadians were operating in an established training area and aircraft were restricted to altitudes above 10,000 feet to avoid any incidents.

Pentagon officials said the pilots were flying at 23,000 feet, well out of danger from small arms or anti-aircraft guns, and that the proper procedure would have been to clear the area to assess the threat.

"The board found the cause of the friendly fire incident to be the failure of the two pilots to exercise appropriate flight discipline, which resulted in a violation of the rules of engagement and inappropriate use of lethal force," said Lt. Gen. Michael Delong of the U.S. Central Command.

The U.S. military refused to comment on whether the pilots were briefed about the Canadian exercise, except to say that "failings within the pilot's immediate command structures" were contributing factors to the accident.

In a statement, the wingman's attorney, Air Force Capt. James Key said, "The pilot ... was completely unaware of the ... training area, much less that there was a live-fire exercise." He said the pilot "followed the proper defensive procedures" and "believed that his and the other pilot's lives were at stake."

Pentagon officials said while the pilots should have been told about the Canadian exercise, that does not excuse the violation of the rules of engagement.

[Flap62]

I have seen our american friends pull this type of stunt on more than one occasion. Typical roe allows an attack to be made in self defence if that is the best course of action to minimise the threat to you. When pootling about at 10k+ there is almost no occasion when minimising the threat involves pointing your nose at it. The best course of action (especially in something as hot as an F-16) is to run away, shout for back up, then if cleared by higher authority, you go back and do your best to put bombs on target when the old pulse rate has slowed down a bit.
Have to agree with one of the above. Two senior guys should have assessed that the "fire" they saw presented no threat and should not have engaged - it was a ground-ex for gods sake! This leads me to assume that they were using it as an excuse. Don't care if they hit Canadians or afghans - that makes it murder.

[lanciaspezzata]

Would Major Schmidt be the same person referred to in some American/Canadian? report as Major Harry "Psycho" Schmidt?

[Scud-U-Like]

Why not just dispense with the formalities and hang 'em high instead? :rolleyes:

[StopStart]

Notwithstanding the facts in this particular case, the comments regarding the "fact" that the Americans always seem to be responsible for blue on blue are fairly poorly thought out.

Blue on blue will always happen in war. The fact that the USA will pretty much always be providing the vast bulk of the forces present on the battlefield means that they will, statisitically, be responsible for more blue/blues.


:(

[moggie]

Surely small arms fire can not be a threat to an F16 at 10K?

As I understand it form the reports, not only was he told not to engage but he was also told that there was a friendly exercise on in that area.

In that case - no excuse.

The "gung-ho" attitude of the US armed forces is unbelievable most of the time and sickening some of it. I recall day 1 of the Gulf war when I was stationed at an air defence base in northern England how the CNN interviews showed US pilots glorifying in their work ("we smoked those A-rabs good" type quotes) when the GR1 and Jag boys interviewed were quoted as saying "I was **** scared but the job needed doing".

Too many Bruce and Arnie films - no friendlies ever get killed in Hollywood so it's safe to lob bombs anywhere.

[Woff1965]

I had a look at the Washington Post-

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15392-2002Sep13.html

- they had a link to the CENTCOM report on this.

I skimmed the report and to me (IMHO) these guys screwed up by the numbers, at the very least a substantial breach of the ROE at worst definite manslaughter. i am sure there are posters in here who can/will explain the finer points to the rest of us.

http://www.centcom.mil/News/Reports/Tarnak_Farms_Report.htm

[ORAC]

Disregarding this particular incident, I find 3 comments in the report alarming. All concern airspace control and situational awareness.

Firstly, the comment concerning the Sqn: "COFFEE 51 and COFFEE 52 had dissimilar and incomplete special use airspace, notably AOs, on their maps and charts. The 170 EFS did not maintain a master map depicting the ACO".

Secondly, the comment concerning the AWACS: "the AWACS crew reported they had little readily available information about current ACO information, to include the AO and Tarnak Farms Range. The MCC reported that he did not review the ACO prior to every flight and that this type of information was generally provided by the CAOC".

Thirdly, "The Tarnak Farm Range was listed in the OEF ACO on 17 April 2002 as “Not continuously active, contact Kandahar tower for status" for the period of ___. It was described as a small arms range at Kandahar. The altitude restriction was listed as surface to _____. The range was listed as having a _____radius around a center point located at 31-27.18° North, 065-49.39° East. Although listed in the ACO, the COFFEE flight pilots stated to AWACS that they were unaware of this; AWACS concurred with this statement.

I can accept a FJ crew might not carry the full ACO, but a Sqn without a map and an AWACS without a copy!!!