Blue on Blue.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Never far from water
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kill Box
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
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
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: -
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
"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...
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: guernsey
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the MOD report into the incident:
http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/887DE..._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.....
http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/887DE..._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.....
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Last edited by nigegilb; 8th Feb 2007 at 18:34.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NW FL
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: >30000'
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said US Herk
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.
US Herk, I think your comments are spot on.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: -
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by rab-k; 8th Feb 2007 at 18:04.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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
There is another thread running on this site on the media fallout from the naming of the pilot by the Sun today - here
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by nigegilb; 8th Feb 2007 at 22:09.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Nottingham UK
Age: 84
Posts: 5,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nigegilb
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?
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?
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NW FL
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NW FL
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wanted to hit a few points head on:
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.
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.
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).
Only one of the two investigations is "closed"
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.
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...
Originally Posted by rab-k
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.
Originally Posted by rab-k
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.
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.
Originally Posted by Wrathmonk
Only if we can compare number of frat incidents by country as well .....
Originally Posted by nigegilb
I understand that the US operates a closed system and who is to say this is wrong.
Originally Posted by nigegilb
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.
Originally Posted by nigegilb
She only wanted to know the truth.
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...
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Heathrow
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
