View Poll Results: Schmidt/Umbach are they guilty?
Guilty as charged
48
94.12%
Innocent, they are being used as scapegoats
3
5.88%
Voters: 51. This poll is closed
Schmidt/Umbach Guilty or Innocent?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
It's not the full report, just a "Summary of Facts". It doesn't name the individuals or give any details not considered relevant to the incident, which is why it doesn't go into any details of the earlier part of the sortie. The drugs were/are in routine use and not considered relevant.
The pilots have since raised the issue as part of their defence.
The pilots have since raised the issue as part of their defence.
Pilot website
The pilots have a site to fundraise for their defence - there are a couple of interesting sites linked to it though -
Harry Schmidt defence site
http://www.harryschmidt.org/
and ABC news report -
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/...lls021220.html
I also understand the article 32 is on line somewhere butI can't seem to find it at the moment.
Harry Schmidt defence site
http://www.harryschmidt.org/
and ABC news report -
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/...lls021220.html
I also understand the article 32 is on line somewhere butI can't seem to find it at the moment.
I skimmed Harry's site and the ABC report and could see no mention of the fact that they'd been explicitely told not to engage by the AWACS, nor that SOPs would have dictated a rather different course of action.
Funny that.
Funny that.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Harry dropped a bomb in self-defense which stopped the machine from firing but killed four Canadian soldiers and wounded eight others.
The Controller said cleared in self-defence, after he let the bloody thing go...
Most weird
It'll be swept under the carpet. Just like 2 A-10 pilots some time ago
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 690
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Read a WSJ item on this a few months back. Story was crews didn't have to take speed, but they'd be decalred unfit to fly the long distance missions otherwise. A modern Catch 22 and as paranoia can be a side effect.....
In the Blackhawk shootdown didn't they initially go after one of the AWACS controllers?
In the Blackhawk shootdown didn't they initially go after one of the AWACS controllers?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Not a huge sand box but very nice winters anymore
Age: 57
Posts: 548
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A flight surgeon has testified that the pills have no more effect than a cup of coffee. This is just another attempt to deflect the course of justice. Seems to me these two officers need a reminder that integrity is a pillar of the commission that they both enjoy. I suspect that one is trying to keep his UAL job and the other his new house by the golf course
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New South Wales
Posts: 1,794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
amphetamines probably helped turn clouded judgement into bad decisions
I'm gobsmacked that this stuff is still used. My mum was fed benzedrine-laced tea as a WAAF during the war to help keep her awake until the bombers got back, but I thought it had gone out with the ark.
QDM
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: East of Gibraltar
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This was an incident waiting to happen. When military aircrew walk around wearing badges on their flying suits saying "Patience, my ass, I want to kill something", their lords and masters should be taking a very close look at the implications of this behaviour.
Unfortunately, this gung ho attitude is not a rare occurence and the USAF (and ANG) are the worst examples. I have experienced this on numerous occassions in the past few years in my job and I cannot believe the crass stupidity of some of the so called professionals.
Unfortunately, this gung ho attitude is not a rare occurence and the USAF (and ANG) are the worst examples. I have experienced this on numerous occassions in the past few years in my job and I cannot believe the crass stupidity of some of the so called professionals.
You don't want to do it like that !
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Richmond Texas
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understand that benzedrine was made available to RAF single engine fighter pilots during the second world war. I don't know if they were compelled to take it or not. Its use here is not to keep the subject awake or extend duty time but rather to enhance performance in the normal course of duty. There is some evidence that it does just that.
After an excellent landing you can use the airplane again!
After an excellent landing you can use the airplane again!
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Pilots Didn't Follow Orders, General Says.
From Associated Press
BARKSDALE AIR FORCE BASE, La. -- The two U.S. pilots who mistakenly killed four Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan last year showed a "reckless disregard" for standing orders by attacking instead of continuing on their way, an Air Force general testified Tuesday.
Brig. Gen. Stephen Sargeant, who headed the investigation into the bombing, said the pilots failed to follow procedure by not communicating about gunfire they had spotted on the ground.
"At that point it would have been possible to continue on," Sargeant said at a military hearing to determine whether the pilots will face a court-martial for the deadly bombing in April.
Defense lawyers asked the hearing officer, Col. Patrick Rosenow, to throw Sargeant's testimony out. They said the law bars the opinion of investigators on the cause of the accident from being considered as evidence in civil military proceedings.
Rosenow heard arguments on the issue, but he did not rule.....
From Associated Press
BARKSDALE AIR FORCE BASE, La. -- The two U.S. pilots who mistakenly killed four Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan last year showed a "reckless disregard" for standing orders by attacking instead of continuing on their way, an Air Force general testified Tuesday.
Brig. Gen. Stephen Sargeant, who headed the investigation into the bombing, said the pilots failed to follow procedure by not communicating about gunfire they had spotted on the ground.
"At that point it would have been possible to continue on," Sargeant said at a military hearing to determine whether the pilots will face a court-martial for the deadly bombing in April.
Defense lawyers asked the hearing officer, Col. Patrick Rosenow, to throw Sargeant's testimony out. They said the law bars the opinion of investigators on the cause of the accident from being considered as evidence in civil military proceedings.
Rosenow heard arguments on the issue, but he did not rule.....
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whatever the outcome one can only hope, (perhaps in vain), that lessons will be learned and the chances of this happening again be significantly reduced. However, I can't help but think that the coming months will again show us just how easy it can be to make such a "mistake".
The following may be of some interest - if nothing else it'll make the hair on the back of your neck stand up.
(Good luck to all destined to get sand between their toes)
Rgds
T3
http://www.afa.org/magazine/perspect.../1291fire.html
The following may be of some interest - if nothing else it'll make the hair on the back of your neck stand up.
(Good luck to all destined to get sand between their toes)
Rgds
T3
http://www.afa.org/magazine/perspect.../1291fire.html
Lupus Domesticus
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NZ
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You know, I drink an awful lot of coffee, and have done so for some considerable number of years now. I have never felt compelled to drop bombs on Canadians whilst under the influence of coffee.
Also, if the pills have no greater effect than a cup of coffee, why don't they just drink coffee?
Either way, I can't see how it constitutes a defence - unless of course the establishment comes out and admits that feeding warriors on mind-altering substances banned in general society, before sending them out in the field in charge of incredibly powerful killing machines, is not, in fact, a good idea.
Good call, saudipc-9.
Also, if the pills have no greater effect than a cup of coffee, why don't they just drink coffee?
Either way, I can't see how it constitutes a defence - unless of course the establishment comes out and admits that feeding warriors on mind-altering substances banned in general society, before sending them out in the field in charge of incredibly powerful killing machines, is not, in fact, a good idea.
Good call, saudipc-9.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: SCOTLAND
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tug 3 Did you catch the caption to one of the photos in the Airforce article...." The Royal Scats Dragoon...." Flourescent Identification panels...................oigh vay !!!!!!!!!!!
One interesting point from this ( if you all will forgive an intrusion from a non military person)......... FATIGUE MANAGEMENT...Am I right in remembering a thread in this forum not so long ago about an exercise East of Suez in an area where boots burn and tank filters clog up when a flying person complained that the tented accomodation where he was expected to manage his fatigue was a couple of hundred metres from an active runaway ????? Just one of the Arduum that you have to get through to reach the Astra ?.....or wpould it have ever ben allowed to included in any Court Martial evidence ?
Good luck and thanks to you all
One interesting point from this ( if you all will forgive an intrusion from a non military person)......... FATIGUE MANAGEMENT...Am I right in remembering a thread in this forum not so long ago about an exercise East of Suez in an area where boots burn and tank filters clog up when a flying person complained that the tented accomodation where he was expected to manage his fatigue was a couple of hundred metres from an active runaway ????? Just one of the Arduum that you have to get through to reach the Astra ?.....or wpould it have ever ben allowed to included in any Court Martial evidence ?
Good luck and thanks to you all
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guilty as sin; but there is no way thay should be facing this music alone. There are serious issus that go both around and above just these two individuals. Unfortunately, as has already been stated, this isn't the first time either.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Not a huge sand box but very nice winters anymore
Age: 57
Posts: 548
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This makes interesting reading
Cutting through the 'fog of war'
Jonathan Kay
National Post
Wednesday, January 29, 2003
On April 17, 2002, Illinois Air National Guard pilot Harry Schmidt dropped a 500-pound laser-guided bomb on a coalition firing range in Afghanistan. Four Canadian soldiers were killed, eight wounded. And yet, some Canadian journalists have openly taken Maj. Schmidt's side. He was just an ordinary American grunt trying to do the best he could in the fog of war, the argument goes. Give the man a break.
I have all the respect in the world for America's grunts, and I like to think I'm one of the last columnists in this country who can be accused of America-bashing -- but I refuse to accept this sort of apologism. As the evidence presented at this month's military hearing in Louisiana shows, this isn't about a good man taking the fall for the mistakes of highers-up. It's about a pilot who made a series of terrible, possibly reckless, decisions.
The tragic sequence began on April 17 as Maj. Schmidt and his flight commander, Maj. William Umbach, were returning from a patrol in northeastern Afghanistan, each in a single-seat F-16. While passing Kandahar at 20,000 feet, Maj. Schmidt saw fiery streaks that he mistook for vertical fire from anti-aircraft artillery (AAA). In fact, the shots were coming from Canadian machine guns and anti-tank weapons, both aimed horizontally at a tank hull they were using as a practice target.
Following instructions from controllers, Maj. Schmidt set out to mark the exact co-ordinates of the fire source. One way to accomplish this would have been to fly over the target at cruising altitude. But instead, he chose a more dangerous method -- going into a dive and aiming his plane directly at the Canadian troops. He also requested permission to spray the area with his 20 mm canon. Controllers wisely instructed him to "stand by" and then, a minute later, "hold fire."
But by now, Maj. Schmidt was low enough that he could make out shapes. "I've got some men on a road and it looks like a piece of artillery firing at us," he said. "I am rolling in in self-defence."
Maj. Schmidt then called "bombs away" and released his payload. Ten seconds later, the tragically useless message came in from controllers: "Be advised Kandahar has friendlies. You are to get ... out of there as soon as possible."
At the hearing last week, Maj. Schmidt explained: "I was called upon to make a perfect decision in a rapidly unfolding combat environment ... I had to make that decision with, what I now know, with the acuity of 20-20 hindsight, was imperfect information." But this argument doesn't fly: There was no urgency in his situation, no reason Maj. Schmidt couldn't sit tight at 20,000 feet -- where the threat from anti-aircraft artillery would be negligible -- and wait for more information.
In fact, air control personnel operating in the Afghanistan theatre testified to the coalition team investigating the April 17 bombing that reports of surface-to-air fire were routine, and that pilots operating at normal cruising attitude didn't perceive it as a threat to safe flight.
"Historically in response to [surface-to-air fire], the practice was to take a report and to process that report through the Coalition Air Operations Center," according to investigators. "This process typically required at least five minutes and was done in a non-urgent reporting environment ... [But] the timeframe in this situation was significantly compressed due to [Maj. Schmidt's] inappropriate response to the perceived [surface-to-air fire]. From the time of the transmission ... to 'lay down some 20 [mm fire]' until he released his [bomb], only 1:57 had elapsed."
So much, in other words, for the "fog of war."
Every single experienced F-16 pilot interviewed by investigators stated that, confronted with a similar perceived threat, their response would be to accelerate, climb and leave the area. According to the rules of engagement implemented during the Afghanistan campaign: "Aircraft always have the right of self-defence against [AAA, but] should NOT deliberately descend into the AAA range to engage and destroy AAA units which fire well below their altitude."
Yet that is precisely what Maj. Schmidt did: Notwithstanding his claim of "self-defence," he circled the fire source at speeds as low as 440 km/h (less than the velocity of a commercial aircraft), and descended to about 10,000 feet, an altitude within the range of most anti-aircraft guns and shoulder-mounted missiles. He never took evasive manoeuvres or otherwise signalled that he was in imminent danger. It is impossible to escape the suspicion that this was merely an aggressive pilot looking for a notch on his wing.
Maj. Schmidt's contention that he was never specifically informed that Canadian solders were active in the area seems credible: There is plenty of contradictory evidence about how well he and Maj. Umbach were briefed on coalition ground activities. But this is mostly beside the point. From the start of the Afghanistan campaign, pilots knew the ground situation was fluid, and that allies and special forces could be just about anywhere. Maj. Umbach certainly seemed aware of this. Even before controllers gave the word to "hold fire," he asked Maj. Schmidt to make sure "it's not friendlies."
This month's proceeding was not a trial. Rather, it was the military equivalent of a civilian grand jury hearing. When he rules in coming weeks, the presiding judge will merely recommend whether the charges against the two pilots -- involuntary manslaughter, aggravated assault and dereliction of duty -- can potentially be proved beyond a reasonable doubt in a general court-martial. From the evidence presented, it is impossible to know whether the pair are guilty. But at the very least, the evidence suggests that a full trial is warranted.
Jonathan Kay is editorials editor. [email protected]
© Copyright 2003 National Post
Cutting through the 'fog of war'
Jonathan Kay
National Post
Wednesday, January 29, 2003
On April 17, 2002, Illinois Air National Guard pilot Harry Schmidt dropped a 500-pound laser-guided bomb on a coalition firing range in Afghanistan. Four Canadian soldiers were killed, eight wounded. And yet, some Canadian journalists have openly taken Maj. Schmidt's side. He was just an ordinary American grunt trying to do the best he could in the fog of war, the argument goes. Give the man a break.
I have all the respect in the world for America's grunts, and I like to think I'm one of the last columnists in this country who can be accused of America-bashing -- but I refuse to accept this sort of apologism. As the evidence presented at this month's military hearing in Louisiana shows, this isn't about a good man taking the fall for the mistakes of highers-up. It's about a pilot who made a series of terrible, possibly reckless, decisions.
The tragic sequence began on April 17 as Maj. Schmidt and his flight commander, Maj. William Umbach, were returning from a patrol in northeastern Afghanistan, each in a single-seat F-16. While passing Kandahar at 20,000 feet, Maj. Schmidt saw fiery streaks that he mistook for vertical fire from anti-aircraft artillery (AAA). In fact, the shots were coming from Canadian machine guns and anti-tank weapons, both aimed horizontally at a tank hull they were using as a practice target.
Following instructions from controllers, Maj. Schmidt set out to mark the exact co-ordinates of the fire source. One way to accomplish this would have been to fly over the target at cruising altitude. But instead, he chose a more dangerous method -- going into a dive and aiming his plane directly at the Canadian troops. He also requested permission to spray the area with his 20 mm canon. Controllers wisely instructed him to "stand by" and then, a minute later, "hold fire."
But by now, Maj. Schmidt was low enough that he could make out shapes. "I've got some men on a road and it looks like a piece of artillery firing at us," he said. "I am rolling in in self-defence."
Maj. Schmidt then called "bombs away" and released his payload. Ten seconds later, the tragically useless message came in from controllers: "Be advised Kandahar has friendlies. You are to get ... out of there as soon as possible."
At the hearing last week, Maj. Schmidt explained: "I was called upon to make a perfect decision in a rapidly unfolding combat environment ... I had to make that decision with, what I now know, with the acuity of 20-20 hindsight, was imperfect information." But this argument doesn't fly: There was no urgency in his situation, no reason Maj. Schmidt couldn't sit tight at 20,000 feet -- where the threat from anti-aircraft artillery would be negligible -- and wait for more information.
In fact, air control personnel operating in the Afghanistan theatre testified to the coalition team investigating the April 17 bombing that reports of surface-to-air fire were routine, and that pilots operating at normal cruising attitude didn't perceive it as a threat to safe flight.
"Historically in response to [surface-to-air fire], the practice was to take a report and to process that report through the Coalition Air Operations Center," according to investigators. "This process typically required at least five minutes and was done in a non-urgent reporting environment ... [But] the timeframe in this situation was significantly compressed due to [Maj. Schmidt's] inappropriate response to the perceived [surface-to-air fire]. From the time of the transmission ... to 'lay down some 20 [mm fire]' until he released his [bomb], only 1:57 had elapsed."
So much, in other words, for the "fog of war."
Every single experienced F-16 pilot interviewed by investigators stated that, confronted with a similar perceived threat, their response would be to accelerate, climb and leave the area. According to the rules of engagement implemented during the Afghanistan campaign: "Aircraft always have the right of self-defence against [AAA, but] should NOT deliberately descend into the AAA range to engage and destroy AAA units which fire well below their altitude."
Yet that is precisely what Maj. Schmidt did: Notwithstanding his claim of "self-defence," he circled the fire source at speeds as low as 440 km/h (less than the velocity of a commercial aircraft), and descended to about 10,000 feet, an altitude within the range of most anti-aircraft guns and shoulder-mounted missiles. He never took evasive manoeuvres or otherwise signalled that he was in imminent danger. It is impossible to escape the suspicion that this was merely an aggressive pilot looking for a notch on his wing.
Maj. Schmidt's contention that he was never specifically informed that Canadian solders were active in the area seems credible: There is plenty of contradictory evidence about how well he and Maj. Umbach were briefed on coalition ground activities. But this is mostly beside the point. From the start of the Afghanistan campaign, pilots knew the ground situation was fluid, and that allies and special forces could be just about anywhere. Maj. Umbach certainly seemed aware of this. Even before controllers gave the word to "hold fire," he asked Maj. Schmidt to make sure "it's not friendlies."
This month's proceeding was not a trial. Rather, it was the military equivalent of a civilian grand jury hearing. When he rules in coming weeks, the presiding judge will merely recommend whether the charges against the two pilots -- involuntary manslaughter, aggravated assault and dereliction of duty -- can potentially be proved beyond a reasonable doubt in a general court-martial. From the evidence presented, it is impossible to know whether the pair are guilty. But at the very least, the evidence suggests that a full trial is warranted.
Jonathan Kay is editorials editor. [email protected]
© Copyright 2003 National Post
