US pilots on speed?!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New South Wales
Posts: 1,794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
US pilots on speed?!
Is anybody else as surprised as I am that US armed forces pilots regularly fly after taking amphetamines, as disclosed following recent friendly fire incidents and also those in Afghanistan a while back?
There is no objective medical evidence that I know of which points to an increase in performance, although subjectively the person may believe there is, rather like with alcohol. Anybody who has dealt with the results of popping speed / ecstasy (a close cousin) in a casualty department on a Saturday night would not step into an aircraft piloted by someone who has taken these drugs or anything like them. They have markedly different effects on different people and the effect is not always consistent either.
Take a theatre of war, add in confusion, inexperience, fatigue, adrenaline, fear and, especially, amphetamine-like drugs and you have a recipe for rash, cowboy-like action. I wonder if the taking of amphetamine underlies some of the friendly fire incidents?
Do British pilots take this ghastly stuff? I can't believe they do.
QDM
There is no objective medical evidence that I know of which points to an increase in performance, although subjectively the person may believe there is, rather like with alcohol. Anybody who has dealt with the results of popping speed / ecstasy (a close cousin) in a casualty department on a Saturday night would not step into an aircraft piloted by someone who has taken these drugs or anything like them. They have markedly different effects on different people and the effect is not always consistent either.
Take a theatre of war, add in confusion, inexperience, fatigue, adrenaline, fear and, especially, amphetamine-like drugs and you have a recipe for rash, cowboy-like action. I wonder if the taking of amphetamine underlies some of the friendly fire incidents?
Do British pilots take this ghastly stuff? I can't believe they do.
QDM
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Wenatchee, WA
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Before another thread starts spiralling into an orgy of slagging off the americans, can I ask if you actually have the facts at your fingertips? This whole 'on speed' quote is a great headline grabber, but it's not exactly the truth is it?
Go and see your local SMO at a front-line unit and he'll give you all the facts on the drugs he's allowed to issue to pilots in times of war - the Brits use the same stuff as the US as far as I know.
The drugs are not 'speed'. They are not recreational drugs that you can buy in your local nightclub. A trial is carried out, away from the cockpit, on everyone that wants (it's personal choice) to use them so you know whether you, personnally, have any adverse reaction. And they're issued by a doctor, carefully controlled and you're monitored.
I've taken them. I've yet to take them and fly, but I would have no qualms about doing so. The effect is to make you feel wide awake for about 4 hours. Of course, in the ideal world no one would need them. But in the ideal world, we wouldn't be at war either. There are times when they may come in handy: after a long sleepless night before your first mission to go and get shot at; at the end of a long day of flying or on alert, when fatigue is starting to set in but the boys on the ground are screaming for CAS and you get scrambled; for the long missions over Afghanistan where you're in the seat for 9 hours flat (which is a tad more unpleasant and tiring in a single-seat jet, compared to a tanker).
There's alot more to friendly fire incidents than 'pilot's on speed'.
Go and see your local SMO at a front-line unit and he'll give you all the facts on the drugs he's allowed to issue to pilots in times of war - the Brits use the same stuff as the US as far as I know.
The drugs are not 'speed'. They are not recreational drugs that you can buy in your local nightclub. A trial is carried out, away from the cockpit, on everyone that wants (it's personal choice) to use them so you know whether you, personnally, have any adverse reaction. And they're issued by a doctor, carefully controlled and you're monitored.
I've taken them. I've yet to take them and fly, but I would have no qualms about doing so. The effect is to make you feel wide awake for about 4 hours. Of course, in the ideal world no one would need them. But in the ideal world, we wouldn't be at war either. There are times when they may come in handy: after a long sleepless night before your first mission to go and get shot at; at the end of a long day of flying or on alert, when fatigue is starting to set in but the boys on the ground are screaming for CAS and you get scrambled; for the long missions over Afghanistan where you're in the seat for 9 hours flat (which is a tad more unpleasant and tiring in a single-seat jet, compared to a tanker).
There's alot more to friendly fire incidents than 'pilot's on speed'.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New South Wales
Posts: 1,794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's alot more to friendly fire incidents than 'pilot's on speed'
The drugs are not 'speed'.
I've taken them. I've yet to take them and fly, but I would have no qualms about doing so. The effect is to make you feel wide awake for about 4 hours.
I do though remain extremely surprised that they are issued to aircrew and would never personally get into an aircraft piloted by someone on central nervous system stimulants.
QDM
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Bristol,UK
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QDMQDMQDM
We were provided mild stimulants prior to the first A-10 Squadron deployment from the States to RAF Bentwaters (and that's a LONG time in a single seat cockpit) back in 1979. As SSSETOWTF points out, we were rigorously tested for adverse effects prior to using the medication and use was strictly voluntary.
At that time, they weren't using anything as potent as amphetamines--I believe it was dexedrine--and I would be surprized if that has changed. The dex was perfectly adequate for a few hours' mild boost (worked pretty well for all night cramming when I was at Uni, too--but that's another story.)
We were provided mild stimulants prior to the first A-10 Squadron deployment from the States to RAF Bentwaters (and that's a LONG time in a single seat cockpit) back in 1979. As SSSETOWTF points out, we were rigorously tested for adverse effects prior to using the medication and use was strictly voluntary.
At that time, they weren't using anything as potent as amphetamines--I believe it was dexedrine--and I would be surprized if that has changed. The dex was perfectly adequate for a few hours' mild boost (worked pretty well for all night cramming when I was at Uni, too--but that's another story.)
Unfortunately I suspect that unit medics are not all that rigorous in every case about who gets these, particularly when a squadron is on active service in a war zone.
I would also point out Dexadrine IS a AMPHETEMINE!
I would also direct you to some of its more entertaining side effects -
"Central Nervous System
Psychotic episodes at recommended doses (rare), overstimulation, restlessness, dizziness, insomnia, euphoria, dyskinesia, dysphoria, tremor, headache, exacerbation of motor and phonic tics and Tourette's syndrome"
More info at - http://www.rxlist.com/cgi/generic/de...etamine_ad.htm
I would NOT EVER get in a aircraft with a user of this stuff nor would I be happy calling in airsupport from someone using this stuff. (Thank god I am a civvie!).
.
I would also point out Dexadrine IS a AMPHETEMINE!
I would also direct you to some of its more entertaining side effects -
"Central Nervous System
Psychotic episodes at recommended doses (rare), overstimulation, restlessness, dizziness, insomnia, euphoria, dyskinesia, dysphoria, tremor, headache, exacerbation of motor and phonic tics and Tourette's syndrome"
More info at - http://www.rxlist.com/cgi/generic/de...etamine_ad.htm
I would NOT EVER get in a aircraft with a user of this stuff nor would I be happy calling in airsupport from someone using this stuff. (Thank god I am a civvie!).
.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Wenatchee, WA
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You wouldn't be asked to get in the aircraft with someone who's taken these - they're for pilots of single or 2 seat attack aircraft flying in a war zone.
Some points that may put your mind at ease, though probably won't:
You don't get issued a bottle of these things to keep in your room. They're controlled drugs. If you think you may need one, you consult your MO and have to justify yourself.
I don't think it's too much of a sweeping generalization to suggest that fast jet aircrew did not take up that particular profession because it was an easy way to procure 'speed'. We're not the sort of people who take these things because it's fun.
Flying in a war zone has a couple of inherent risks that are slightly out of the ordinary experience of the average civilian, though I appreciate many civilians have now watched CNN and are therefore armchair experts on all matters pertaining to warfighting. Taking a pill that keeps you awake is definitely the lesser of 2 evils - falling asleep in a single seat cockpit flying at 400+ knots is not a good thing.
I can't imagine needing to take one of these before or during combat. Adrenaline and nerves are more than sufficient to keep you awake on the ingress and while being shot at.
I offer the following scenario as a possible occasion when a drug that keeps you awake may be useful:
You don't always get a good night's sleep when the ceiling of your room is the flight deck of a carrier - jets taking off 6' above your head make a bit of noise. Similarly when you're living in a tent a couple of hundred yards from an extremely active runway with jets taking off in full blower every couple of minutes, you may not get the ideal 10 hours of uninterrupted crew rest. In addition, the fact that you're going to face the Baghdad 'Super Missile Engagement Zone' when you wake up, and that if you're shot down and eject it appears you're likely to be executed and have your body paraded on Al Jazeera for the Arab world's delectation, may influence your sleep pattern adversely.
Wake up at 9pm, get airborne at midnight, ingress via a tanker for 90 minutes, 30 minutes 'on station' getting shot at, then egress. Egressing from the battlefield you're coming down from a pretty big adrenaline rush, you've haven't had great sleep, your body's at it's 2-3am 'low', and you hit a wall of fatigue.
If you were driving a car, you'd pull over, stretch your legs, get a cup of coffee, get some fresh air. You're not in a car, you're strapped to an ejection seat and you're falling asleep. What would you do?
I have every confidence that military docs will have done a comprehensive amount of research into the exact effects of the drug before giving it to pilots. I reiterate my point that I've done the trial with whatever drug it is that's issued. I noticed no effects other than I stayed wide awake for 4 hours when I'd normally be asleep. If I'm tired and going on a long mission in the small hours, I often fly with a pill in my pocket, 'just in case'. I haven't felt the need to take it yet and have given it back to the MO each time on my return.
Civilians have the luxury of being able to sit in the comfort of their front rooms and pontificate on half-baked, ill-conceived sweeping statements about the battlefield being filled with drug-crazed pilots. The truth is somewhat different - but then the truth doesn't make great headlines.
Some points that may put your mind at ease, though probably won't:
You don't get issued a bottle of these things to keep in your room. They're controlled drugs. If you think you may need one, you consult your MO and have to justify yourself.
I don't think it's too much of a sweeping generalization to suggest that fast jet aircrew did not take up that particular profession because it was an easy way to procure 'speed'. We're not the sort of people who take these things because it's fun.
Flying in a war zone has a couple of inherent risks that are slightly out of the ordinary experience of the average civilian, though I appreciate many civilians have now watched CNN and are therefore armchair experts on all matters pertaining to warfighting. Taking a pill that keeps you awake is definitely the lesser of 2 evils - falling asleep in a single seat cockpit flying at 400+ knots is not a good thing.
I can't imagine needing to take one of these before or during combat. Adrenaline and nerves are more than sufficient to keep you awake on the ingress and while being shot at.
I offer the following scenario as a possible occasion when a drug that keeps you awake may be useful:
You don't always get a good night's sleep when the ceiling of your room is the flight deck of a carrier - jets taking off 6' above your head make a bit of noise. Similarly when you're living in a tent a couple of hundred yards from an extremely active runway with jets taking off in full blower every couple of minutes, you may not get the ideal 10 hours of uninterrupted crew rest. In addition, the fact that you're going to face the Baghdad 'Super Missile Engagement Zone' when you wake up, and that if you're shot down and eject it appears you're likely to be executed and have your body paraded on Al Jazeera for the Arab world's delectation, may influence your sleep pattern adversely.
Wake up at 9pm, get airborne at midnight, ingress via a tanker for 90 minutes, 30 minutes 'on station' getting shot at, then egress. Egressing from the battlefield you're coming down from a pretty big adrenaline rush, you've haven't had great sleep, your body's at it's 2-3am 'low', and you hit a wall of fatigue.
If you were driving a car, you'd pull over, stretch your legs, get a cup of coffee, get some fresh air. You're not in a car, you're strapped to an ejection seat and you're falling asleep. What would you do?
I have every confidence that military docs will have done a comprehensive amount of research into the exact effects of the drug before giving it to pilots. I reiterate my point that I've done the trial with whatever drug it is that's issued. I noticed no effects other than I stayed wide awake for 4 hours when I'd normally be asleep. If I'm tired and going on a long mission in the small hours, I often fly with a pill in my pocket, 'just in case'. I haven't felt the need to take it yet and have given it back to the MO each time on my return.
Civilians have the luxury of being able to sit in the comfort of their front rooms and pontificate on half-baked, ill-conceived sweeping statements about the battlefield being filled with drug-crazed pilots. The truth is somewhat different - but then the truth doesn't make great headlines.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: On a track winding back
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ummmm SSSETOWTF
You didn't know it is Speed
You didn't know it was an amphetamine.
And yet you're prepared to ingest this unknown substance and take off in an aircraft with "every confidence that military docs will have done a comprehensive amount of research into the exact effects of the drug"
And then have the temerity to slag civilians who may have the temerity to query the wisdom of this practice?
Doh!
You didn't know it is Speed
You didn't know it was an amphetamine.
And yet you're prepared to ingest this unknown substance and take off in an aircraft with "every confidence that military docs will have done a comprehensive amount of research into the exact effects of the drug"
And then have the temerity to slag civilians who may have the temerity to query the wisdom of this practice?
Doh!
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Wenatchee, WA
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bon,
Clearly you're a very different animal from me.
When I go to the doc with some sort of ailment I tell him the problem. Then I take the prescription he gives me, hand it to the pharmicist, and take whatever pills I'm given.
I'm afraid I don't get terribly excited by the drug's name, I don't go to my local medical library and root around to find out what family of drugs it comes from, I don't investigate all the trial reports. I trust a doc to be an expert in his field, as I am in mine.
Obviously you're not like me, you totally distrust all doctors, and have carried out your own thorough research into every single remedy you've ever ingested.
Unfortunately when I was working up to go on ops over Iraq and we trialed the pills in question, I didn't have access to a complete medical library and I thought it'd be a better use of my time to read books about the threat I was about to face, and the weapons I'd be about to employ. I thought it'd be pretty safe to do so in view of the fact that none of the 50 odd pilots around me had any noticeable side effects at all other than they stayed awake.
I apologize if my previous replies may have been construed as 'slagging offs'. They weren't intended to be such, but I must confess to getting a tad annoyed when people sitting on the sidelines make rather thoughtless sweeping statements.
Clearly you're a very different animal from me.
When I go to the doc with some sort of ailment I tell him the problem. Then I take the prescription he gives me, hand it to the pharmicist, and take whatever pills I'm given.
I'm afraid I don't get terribly excited by the drug's name, I don't go to my local medical library and root around to find out what family of drugs it comes from, I don't investigate all the trial reports. I trust a doc to be an expert in his field, as I am in mine.
Obviously you're not like me, you totally distrust all doctors, and have carried out your own thorough research into every single remedy you've ever ingested.
Unfortunately when I was working up to go on ops over Iraq and we trialed the pills in question, I didn't have access to a complete medical library and I thought it'd be a better use of my time to read books about the threat I was about to face, and the weapons I'd be about to employ. I thought it'd be pretty safe to do so in view of the fact that none of the 50 odd pilots around me had any noticeable side effects at all other than they stayed awake.
I apologize if my previous replies may have been construed as 'slagging offs'. They weren't intended to be such, but I must confess to getting a tad annoyed when people sitting on the sidelines make rather thoughtless sweeping statements.
Lupus Domesticus
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NZ
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clearly.
And everyone who ever took valium, thalidomide, depo provera, polio vaccine, rofecoxid, lotronex, raxar, avelox, posicor, redux, ecainide, flecainide, clioquinol, eraldin, propulsid, baycol, vanlev, sorivudine, lipostat, Imigraine, Zyban, Seroxat, Relenza, Septrin, Phenylpropanolamine (PPA), Sumatripan, Flovent, Selacryn, ridaura, clozapine, methysergide, zolmitriptan, and a host of other tested and approved "safe" medicines obviously thought the same.
What a staggering attitude.
But then, the docs know everything nowadays, don't they?
And everyone who ever took valium, thalidomide, depo provera, polio vaccine, rofecoxid, lotronex, raxar, avelox, posicor, redux, ecainide, flecainide, clioquinol, eraldin, propulsid, baycol, vanlev, sorivudine, lipostat, Imigraine, Zyban, Seroxat, Relenza, Septrin, Phenylpropanolamine (PPA), Sumatripan, Flovent, Selacryn, ridaura, clozapine, methysergide, zolmitriptan, and a host of other tested and approved "safe" medicines obviously thought the same.
What a staggering attitude.
But then, the docs know everything nowadays, don't they?
Also SSSETOWTF you do not mention that having been officially prescribed amphetemine does provide a useful excuse should you get trigger happy and decide to attack anything that moves whether it is friendly/enemy of just a pretty colour.
After all it does appear to have given the Afghan "friendly fire" duo a get out of jail free card following their murder...oops self defence against the Canadian army in Afghanistan.
As for your comment that I would not have to fly with someone using this stuff, that is a fatuous point. I may not be placed in direct risk by these cowboys but I know people who are on the ground calling in airsupport from them and I am sure they will be greatly pleased that some overworked flight surgeon has said it is OK for the pilot to be using this stuff.
You should note that even occasional users of amphetemine run the risk of psychotic episodes, addiction, impaired judgement, tremors and paranoia etc. Disturbingly a user can get these side effects on the first use or his/her fifth or never
Just to reiterate my previous comments I would not get in a car being driven by someone using this stuff. Just think this through, if you say you are unfit to function without speed you should NOT be flying. Where do you stop, a lot of NHS staff work long hours - anyone fancy being seen in casualty by a doctor on Speed because he has been doing double shifts all week?
If you are prescribed a medication that may affect your safety, or more importantly the safety of others YOU have a responsibility to ensure you know the side effects of it so that at the very least you can recognise a bad reaction.
I have a heart condition and take 7 types of medication a day - the first thing I did was research the side effects to see if they would reduce my ability to drive or do other safety critical tasks. If I can do that why should a pilot or WSO not?
Frankly SSSETOWTF I am stunned (but not surprised) by your lacksidaisical attitude to the safety of others!
After all it does appear to have given the Afghan "friendly fire" duo a get out of jail free card following their murder...oops self defence against the Canadian army in Afghanistan.
As for your comment that I would not have to fly with someone using this stuff, that is a fatuous point. I may not be placed in direct risk by these cowboys but I know people who are on the ground calling in airsupport from them and I am sure they will be greatly pleased that some overworked flight surgeon has said it is OK for the pilot to be using this stuff.
You should note that even occasional users of amphetemine run the risk of psychotic episodes, addiction, impaired judgement, tremors and paranoia etc. Disturbingly a user can get these side effects on the first use or his/her fifth or never
Just to reiterate my previous comments I would not get in a car being driven by someone using this stuff. Just think this through, if you say you are unfit to function without speed you should NOT be flying. Where do you stop, a lot of NHS staff work long hours - anyone fancy being seen in casualty by a doctor on Speed because he has been doing double shifts all week?
If you are prescribed a medication that may affect your safety, or more importantly the safety of others YOU have a responsibility to ensure you know the side effects of it so that at the very least you can recognise a bad reaction.
I have a heart condition and take 7 types of medication a day - the first thing I did was research the side effects to see if they would reduce my ability to drive or do other safety critical tasks. If I can do that why should a pilot or WSO not?
Frankly SSSETOWTF I am stunned (but not surprised) by your lacksidaisical attitude to the safety of others!
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Wenatchee, WA
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Staggered',
Are you serious? Someone with your depth of knowledge is wasted on pprune - you should be finding the cure for cancer or something. I'm afraid I haven't got a clue what most of the drugs you mention are for. I'm only a simple pilot who reads books about flying, not medical journals at bedtime. I can only assume you never go to the doctor because they're all stupid, unprofessional people intent on trying to kill you.
'Stunned',
I take my hat off to you too.
While we're on the subject, I must confess to not knowing anything about the drugs that were used to innoculate me against anthrax, smallpox and flu. I haven't read the trial reports for the indigestion pills I have in my washbag, and I have no idea what the chemical composition of 'Deep Heat' is. In fact, I know nothing about the medical trade and I do have a blind faith that things do 'exactly what they say on the tin'. Similarly I have a blind faith that mechanics that fix my car/plane know more about it than me, that professional lawyers know more about the law than me and that people that built the buildings I live and work in know more about building than me.
Clearly you know more about the drugs given to me than my flight surgeon. Do you want his name so you can report him to the appropriate authorities and have him struck off? By inference all the doctors involved in analyzing the trials undertaken are equally negligent - I'm afraid I don't know their names, but I recommend you dig around and get them all struck off too while you're at it.
Your insight into my true nature is equally impressive. I had no idea that I, along with the rest of my sqn, and all other coalition aircraft, were lacksidaisically floating around the battlefield, intent on bombing any pretty coloured lights we saw with malice and forethought, hoping they were friendlies. You're obviously a far better attack pilot than me too. How on earth did we manage to hit any Iraqis? Were they caught up in our crossfire? How did you get to know so much more than me about what I do every day/night while sitting around several thousand miles away?
By the way, while we were doing our trial to see if we'd turn into psychotic, paranoid mass-murderers after taking our 'stay awake pills' we were sitting around chatting with some of the guys who call us in for air support. They've called us in since then, and we haven't killed any friendlies, so it appears that even if you're worried (while sitting in your comfortable chair back in Wales), the boys in a firefight in Iraq aren't.
Where do you draw the line? Well I can't see many reasons to do this in a peacetime environment. Unfortunately in a conflict we can't timetable the enemy's movements & actions so that we make sure everyone has a good night's rest. Don't know if you've noticed, but alot of normal rules have to be put to one side, after due consideration when people start shooting at you. We don't all wear blue helmets and safety goggles either, or put yellow and black striped tape on all the pointy bits of our planes, or put Health and Safety notices on our bombs.
Perhaps you should talk to your friend who's been over here - you may be enlightened to learn that in a shooting war difficult choices have to be made. While taking an amphetamine in peace would be totally unacceptable to a pilot, people who are experts in their field (dare I say it, they may know more than even you do) deem that there may be occasions when it becomes the lesser of 2 evils.
Finally, it's truly heart-warming to know that people back home have such a low opinion of their military professionals and think we're all 'on speed'. What's next - battlefield casualties who're administered a morphine-based painkiller being dubbed 'on heroin'?
Are you serious? Someone with your depth of knowledge is wasted on pprune - you should be finding the cure for cancer or something. I'm afraid I haven't got a clue what most of the drugs you mention are for. I'm only a simple pilot who reads books about flying, not medical journals at bedtime. I can only assume you never go to the doctor because they're all stupid, unprofessional people intent on trying to kill you.
'Stunned',
I take my hat off to you too.
While we're on the subject, I must confess to not knowing anything about the drugs that were used to innoculate me against anthrax, smallpox and flu. I haven't read the trial reports for the indigestion pills I have in my washbag, and I have no idea what the chemical composition of 'Deep Heat' is. In fact, I know nothing about the medical trade and I do have a blind faith that things do 'exactly what they say on the tin'. Similarly I have a blind faith that mechanics that fix my car/plane know more about it than me, that professional lawyers know more about the law than me and that people that built the buildings I live and work in know more about building than me.
Clearly you know more about the drugs given to me than my flight surgeon. Do you want his name so you can report him to the appropriate authorities and have him struck off? By inference all the doctors involved in analyzing the trials undertaken are equally negligent - I'm afraid I don't know their names, but I recommend you dig around and get them all struck off too while you're at it.
Your insight into my true nature is equally impressive. I had no idea that I, along with the rest of my sqn, and all other coalition aircraft, were lacksidaisically floating around the battlefield, intent on bombing any pretty coloured lights we saw with malice and forethought, hoping they were friendlies. You're obviously a far better attack pilot than me too. How on earth did we manage to hit any Iraqis? Were they caught up in our crossfire? How did you get to know so much more than me about what I do every day/night while sitting around several thousand miles away?
By the way, while we were doing our trial to see if we'd turn into psychotic, paranoid mass-murderers after taking our 'stay awake pills' we were sitting around chatting with some of the guys who call us in for air support. They've called us in since then, and we haven't killed any friendlies, so it appears that even if you're worried (while sitting in your comfortable chair back in Wales), the boys in a firefight in Iraq aren't.
Where do you draw the line? Well I can't see many reasons to do this in a peacetime environment. Unfortunately in a conflict we can't timetable the enemy's movements & actions so that we make sure everyone has a good night's rest. Don't know if you've noticed, but alot of normal rules have to be put to one side, after due consideration when people start shooting at you. We don't all wear blue helmets and safety goggles either, or put yellow and black striped tape on all the pointy bits of our planes, or put Health and Safety notices on our bombs.
Perhaps you should talk to your friend who's been over here - you may be enlightened to learn that in a shooting war difficult choices have to be made. While taking an amphetamine in peace would be totally unacceptable to a pilot, people who are experts in their field (dare I say it, they may know more than even you do) deem that there may be occasions when it becomes the lesser of 2 evils.
Finally, it's truly heart-warming to know that people back home have such a low opinion of their military professionals and think we're all 'on speed'. What's next - battlefield casualties who're administered a morphine-based painkiller being dubbed 'on heroin'?
Last edited by SSSETOWTF; 14th Apr 2003 at 16:17.
Oh dear SSSETOWTF you seem a bit touchy on this subject, one might even say... irritable, finding it hard to sleep, perhaps the odd tremor maybe, you may even find yourself making impulsive decisions?.
Might I suggest it may beneficial to reduce your intake of those nice pills your flight surgeon may be handing out.
On the other hand being able to stay up all night looking at the pictures in Janes Armored Fighting Vehicles and seeing all that equipment which looks strangely unfamiliar yet is apparently owned by your allies may prove time well spent.
Oh and a previous Chief of the USAF banned Amphetemines in 1993 because of the potential risks they could cause on the battlefield (and then they were quietly reintroduced when no one was looking in 1999).
Might I suggest it may beneficial to reduce your intake of those nice pills your flight surgeon may be handing out.
On the other hand being able to stay up all night looking at the pictures in Janes Armored Fighting Vehicles and seeing all that equipment which looks strangely unfamiliar yet is apparently owned by your allies may prove time well spent.
Oh and a previous Chief of the USAF banned Amphetemines in 1993 because of the potential risks they could cause on the battlefield (and then they were quietly reintroduced when no one was looking in 1999).
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rudeness
Directed at woff1965
While I do agree that amphetemines have quite alarming effects and rather than taking a pill (which is a quick fix) other measures could be taken- your comments woff1965 are way out of line. I would like to see you serving under the pressure and conditions that these pilots are under- but perhaps you are too much of a pansy to get off your butt and do something more productive with your life. If you have so many problems with the use of these drugs...why don't you come up with a better alternative rather than just hurling abuse from the side line!
While I do agree that amphetemines have quite alarming effects and rather than taking a pill (which is a quick fix) other measures could be taken- your comments woff1965 are way out of line. I would like to see you serving under the pressure and conditions that these pilots are under- but perhaps you are too much of a pansy to get off your butt and do something more productive with your life. If you have so many problems with the use of these drugs...why don't you come up with a better alternative rather than just hurling abuse from the side line!
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Wenatchee, WA
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Woff old chap,
So the Chief of the USAF banned the use of these drugs in 93, when there wasn't a shooting war. Then in 99 when Bosnia/Kosovo kicked off, they were reintroduced. Isn't that what I suggested would be appropriate? People like the Chief of the USAF wouldn't make a decision on a matter like this on a personal whim. I imagine he was briefed by a number of experts in the field. Perhaps you should give him a call seeing as you know more than everyone.
I'm curious - how do you know so much about my knowledge (or lack of) of vehicle recognition? You wouldn't happen to be making up random accusations in your deluded little head would you? So apparantly, despite 12 years of daily recognition briefs I know nothing. And the even more intensive training and briefings we had for 6 weeks cruising over here on the entire friendly & enemy orbats didn't actually happen either?
You may find in my previous posts that I've said I've taken one of these pills in my life. So it'll be quite hard for me to 'reduce my intake' further. Or did you forget that fact? Short-term memory failing you - or a lack of concentration? Have you been smoking something you shouldn't?
As for my irritation. Well it could be due to drug-induced psychosis I suppose. Alternatively it could be due to an ignorant lay-person accusing me of being a murderer and a drug addict.
So the Chief of the USAF banned the use of these drugs in 93, when there wasn't a shooting war. Then in 99 when Bosnia/Kosovo kicked off, they were reintroduced. Isn't that what I suggested would be appropriate? People like the Chief of the USAF wouldn't make a decision on a matter like this on a personal whim. I imagine he was briefed by a number of experts in the field. Perhaps you should give him a call seeing as you know more than everyone.
I'm curious - how do you know so much about my knowledge (or lack of) of vehicle recognition? You wouldn't happen to be making up random accusations in your deluded little head would you? So apparantly, despite 12 years of daily recognition briefs I know nothing. And the even more intensive training and briefings we had for 6 weeks cruising over here on the entire friendly & enemy orbats didn't actually happen either?
You may find in my previous posts that I've said I've taken one of these pills in my life. So it'll be quite hard for me to 'reduce my intake' further. Or did you forget that fact? Short-term memory failing you - or a lack of concentration? Have you been smoking something you shouldn't?
As for my irritation. Well it could be due to drug-induced psychosis I suppose. Alternatively it could be due to an ignorant lay-person accusing me of being a murderer and a drug addict.
Lupus Domesticus
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NZ
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SSSETOWTF, I also felt that your response was perhaps just a little over the top.
On reflection, maybe my criticism of your initial, very reasonable post, was a little sarcastically harsh.
By all means, take whatever you feel comfortable with, based on your own judgement - which appears to be perfectly sound, rational, and founded in intelligence - and on the advice of those competent professionals in whom you trust.
However, for what it is worth, and since you have raised the analogies, my free, no-obligation, opined advice would be as follows:
Competent lawyers sometimes lose cases despite supposedly having good knowledge of laws they haven't written.
Competent mechanics sometimes fit faulty parts for whose manufacture they have not been responsible.
And competent doctors sometimes prescribe drugs which later prove to be not quite as safe as the manufacturer may have claimed them to be.
I do call on the medical profession as and when the need arises, though I will be the first to admit that it not always my first or only option. This too is a matter of judgement. In my judgement my health is my own responsibility, and it is not a responsibility which I feel it would be wise to delegate to any other person, regardless of their qualifications. I don't believe for a moment that the medical proffession are trying to kill me, or that they are stupid or unprofessional; quite the reverse, in fact. I do, however, believe that they are not always in possession of all the facts, and that to assume that they are, is perhaps a little risky.
I have far more exciting things to do at bedtime than read medical journals
, and should it ever prove to be of value or interest to you, rest assured that cancer has been very curable for many decades now, and that information on this is readily available.
I'm not the enemy, I wish you the best, and if the tone of my previous post offended you in any way, please accept my apologies.
As to the thread, the molecule of oxygen which makes amphetamine and methamphetamine different also means that there are significant similarities between them. Maybe we need to explore other ways of successfully conducting combat operations than by relying on them. I don't have immediate suggestions as to what or how, but perhaps it could be the beginning of an idea.
Just a thought.
On reflection, maybe my criticism of your initial, very reasonable post, was a little sarcastically harsh.
By all means, take whatever you feel comfortable with, based on your own judgement - which appears to be perfectly sound, rational, and founded in intelligence - and on the advice of those competent professionals in whom you trust.
However, for what it is worth, and since you have raised the analogies, my free, no-obligation, opined advice would be as follows:
Competent lawyers sometimes lose cases despite supposedly having good knowledge of laws they haven't written.
Competent mechanics sometimes fit faulty parts for whose manufacture they have not been responsible.
And competent doctors sometimes prescribe drugs which later prove to be not quite as safe as the manufacturer may have claimed them to be.
I do call on the medical profession as and when the need arises, though I will be the first to admit that it not always my first or only option. This too is a matter of judgement. In my judgement my health is my own responsibility, and it is not a responsibility which I feel it would be wise to delegate to any other person, regardless of their qualifications. I don't believe for a moment that the medical proffession are trying to kill me, or that they are stupid or unprofessional; quite the reverse, in fact. I do, however, believe that they are not always in possession of all the facts, and that to assume that they are, is perhaps a little risky.
I have far more exciting things to do at bedtime than read medical journals
, and should it ever prove to be of value or interest to you, rest assured that cancer has been very curable for many decades now, and that information on this is readily available.I'm not the enemy, I wish you the best, and if the tone of my previous post offended you in any way, please accept my apologies.
As to the thread, the molecule of oxygen which makes amphetamine and methamphetamine different also means that there are significant similarities between them. Maybe we need to explore other ways of successfully conducting combat operations than by relying on them. I don't have immediate suggestions as to what or how, but perhaps it could be the beginning of an idea.
Just a thought.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Wenatchee, WA
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BlueWolf,
You're a gent sir. I totally agree with you that some of what I've said is more than a tad over the top in the flippancy and sarcasm departments too. My only excuse is that it's a little frustrating to come back from another flight 'over the berm' to find people making sweeping statements that all your colleagues are regularly taking speed to enhance their performance etc, which, to me down here at the coalface, seems to be far removed from the truth of the matter.
I concur that experts in all fields make mistakes, some of which appear, with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, almost criminally daft. They're what keep tabloid newspapers' circulation figures up after all. It's a sad fact that a mistake in my trade can lead to a 'friendly fire' incident - one of the many things you can lie awake in your pit worrying about.
I don't think any of the pilots I'm working with are particularly over the moon about the notion of taking these things. They really are only for the very rare occasions when, for whatever reason, you find yourself doing the old nodding off routine in the jet and turning the air con to fully cold doesn't work and you can't do a couple of quick aileron rolls to try to wake yourself back up.
I'm afraid I don't have anything more exciting to do at bedtime than read flying books at the moment - stuck on an aircraft carrier, living in a room full of blokes for at least another couple of months
Doh!
You're a gent sir. I totally agree with you that some of what I've said is more than a tad over the top in the flippancy and sarcasm departments too. My only excuse is that it's a little frustrating to come back from another flight 'over the berm' to find people making sweeping statements that all your colleagues are regularly taking speed to enhance their performance etc, which, to me down here at the coalface, seems to be far removed from the truth of the matter.
I concur that experts in all fields make mistakes, some of which appear, with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, almost criminally daft. They're what keep tabloid newspapers' circulation figures up after all. It's a sad fact that a mistake in my trade can lead to a 'friendly fire' incident - one of the many things you can lie awake in your pit worrying about.
I don't think any of the pilots I'm working with are particularly over the moon about the notion of taking these things. They really are only for the very rare occasions when, for whatever reason, you find yourself doing the old nodding off routine in the jet and turning the air con to fully cold doesn't work and you can't do a couple of quick aileron rolls to try to wake yourself back up.
I'm afraid I don't have anything more exciting to do at bedtime than read flying books at the moment - stuck on an aircraft carrier, living in a room full of blokes for at least another couple of months
Doh!
SSSETOWTF - I must apologise for the tone of my previous post. I was simply stating some deep concerns over the use of such heavy duty medication by someone who has to perform highly skilled tasks such as flying a high performance aircraft.
From previous postings by non-US aircrew it appears that the use of speed is practically unknown in other NATO forces whilst the US persists in doing so. I still regard it as irresponsible to expose aircrew and their "customers" to the effects of Amphetimine. I intended my comments more as a criticism of those allowing this to continue rather than those at the sharp end. I agree with BlueWolf, there should be more efforts made in finding ways to conduct operations, rather than the troops needing to use a chemical crutch to get them through the day.
On the subject of vehicle recognition I was merely relating the views of some of my friends who serve or have served in the Army and Airforce relating to USAF vehicle recognition. The general opinion of the army guys was that the USAF pilots must be the fittest in the world as they walked everywhere, the reason being that they could never pick out their car in the car park after work!
However, as you are obviously USN (or USMC) you probably have more than a clue on the subject and I would not wish to suggest otherwise - indeed I suggested you spent long hours studying the subject which your post confirms.
In my own defence BlueWolf made precisely the point I was trying for but much more politely and effectively than I.
Might I also say that I too hope that the number of take offs equal the number of landings.
From previous postings by non-US aircrew it appears that the use of speed is practically unknown in other NATO forces whilst the US persists in doing so. I still regard it as irresponsible to expose aircrew and their "customers" to the effects of Amphetimine. I intended my comments more as a criticism of those allowing this to continue rather than those at the sharp end. I agree with BlueWolf, there should be more efforts made in finding ways to conduct operations, rather than the troops needing to use a chemical crutch to get them through the day.
On the subject of vehicle recognition I was merely relating the views of some of my friends who serve or have served in the Army and Airforce relating to USAF vehicle recognition. The general opinion of the army guys was that the USAF pilots must be the fittest in the world as they walked everywhere, the reason being that they could never pick out their car in the car park after work!
However, as you are obviously USN (or USMC) you probably have more than a clue on the subject and I would not wish to suggest otherwise - indeed I suggested you spent long hours studying the subject which your post confirms.
In my own defence BlueWolf made precisely the point I was trying for but much more politely and effectively than I.
Might I also say that I too hope that the number of take offs equal the number of landings.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 452
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Woff and Wolf
Just to add a little more knowledge to the subject here, the problem isn't finding a way to conduct operations without using some type of drug. The problem is trying to overcome the limits of the human body and evolution. Man has evolved as a diurnal creature. Trying to sustain combat operations at night goes against how our bodies operate. Sure, we can shift our circadian rythm to adapt to a night schedule, but we can never fully adapt, even if we sustain a night schedule for years. The fact is, our best performance at night will never be as good as our best performance during the daytime due to many factors involved in how our bodies operate. If one is forced to live a life that has a crazy schedule that interupts our natural circadian rythm then we get into a state called circadian desynchrinosis. At this point a person has no true circadian rythm and perfomance drops considerably. Some doctors theorize that this is why airline pilots have such terrible longetivity compared to other groups.
The drugs that doctors give aircrew are meant to try and overcome the effects of fatigue. They were developed because some aircrew have to deploy great distances and perform long flights in single seat aircraft that exceed the performance capabilities of the human body. For instance, deploying from the states to southwest Asia can involve a flight of more than ten or twelve hours, with multiple in-flight refuelings. When you can't get up and move around, sitting this long and not falling asleep can become a real challenge. In some airplanes missions can be over twenty hours. For bomber aircraft, a combat mission can involve a five or six hour flight with two refuelings just to get to the combat zone. Add four or five hours on station and then a return flight home with more refuelings and you can see the challenge for aircrew, especially when the cockpit is not big enough to add extra aircrew.
There are a myriad of situations where it may be helpful to give aircrew some type of stimulant to help them get through a long, tough, demanding mission. In a perfect world, we would not require our pilots to perform these missions, but this is not a perfect world.
Fogeo
Just to add a little more knowledge to the subject here, the problem isn't finding a way to conduct operations without using some type of drug. The problem is trying to overcome the limits of the human body and evolution. Man has evolved as a diurnal creature. Trying to sustain combat operations at night goes against how our bodies operate. Sure, we can shift our circadian rythm to adapt to a night schedule, but we can never fully adapt, even if we sustain a night schedule for years. The fact is, our best performance at night will never be as good as our best performance during the daytime due to many factors involved in how our bodies operate. If one is forced to live a life that has a crazy schedule that interupts our natural circadian rythm then we get into a state called circadian desynchrinosis. At this point a person has no true circadian rythm and perfomance drops considerably. Some doctors theorize that this is why airline pilots have such terrible longetivity compared to other groups.
The drugs that doctors give aircrew are meant to try and overcome the effects of fatigue. They were developed because some aircrew have to deploy great distances and perform long flights in single seat aircraft that exceed the performance capabilities of the human body. For instance, deploying from the states to southwest Asia can involve a flight of more than ten or twelve hours, with multiple in-flight refuelings. When you can't get up and move around, sitting this long and not falling asleep can become a real challenge. In some airplanes missions can be over twenty hours. For bomber aircraft, a combat mission can involve a five or six hour flight with two refuelings just to get to the combat zone. Add four or five hours on station and then a return flight home with more refuelings and you can see the challenge for aircrew, especially when the cockpit is not big enough to add extra aircrew.
There are a myriad of situations where it may be helpful to give aircrew some type of stimulant to help them get through a long, tough, demanding mission. In a perfect world, we would not require our pilots to perform these missions, but this is not a perfect world.
Fogeo
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fatigue
As a GR4 man I find a 5 hr flt a pain in the lower decks and I am fortunate to have a crew buddy to banter and keep the sleep at bay. Sadly the medics don't prescribe any drugs to turn electricity on and make water run from the tap. A combination of these factors and the change from days to night to days makes flying on current operations a challenge which can rarely be simulated at home due to peacetime constraints. My advice is take up yoga, keep to the assigned ht block and make sure you're squawking!: