# 2002 Friendly Fire Pilot Suing USAF



## The Bread Guy (9 Apr 2006)

Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act - http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33409

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=db86a6b2-a37d-4c3e-9666-613b667c1396&k=85344

Pilot sues U.S. air force over bombing that killed 4 Canadians in Afghanistan
Canadian Press, April 09, 2006

''SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (CP) - A decorated pilot involved in a friendly-fire bombing that killed four Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan in 2002 is suing the U.S. air force, accusing it of ruining his reputation. 

National Guard Maj. Harry Schmidt says military officials should not have released to the public the scathing letter of reprimand he was given for the bombing. 

His lawsuit, filed Friday in federal court, alleges the military violated privacy laws. It seeks unspecified damages. 

The disclosure in July 2004 also violated a settlement agreement that spared Schmidt from being court-martialled for the bombing, said his lawyer, Charles Gittins. 

"The government flat-out failed to comply with their agreement," Gittins said. 

Lt.-Col. Catherine Reardon, an air force spokeswoman, had not seen the lawsuit. "At this point, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the case," she said Sunday. 

On April 18, 2002, Schmidt and another pilot were flying F-16s when they spotted muzzle flashes near Kandahar airport. The Canadians were firing weapons on a training range but Schmidt mistook them for Taliban forces and dropped a 225-kilogram laser-guided bomb, killing Cpl. Ainsworth Dyer, Sgt. Marc Leger, Pte. Richard Green and Pte. Nathan Smith. 

The four were the first Canadians to die in combat since the Korean War. Eight others were injured. 

Schmidt has said his superiors never told him the Canadians would be conducting live-fire exercises that night. 

The second pilot received a letter of reprimand and was allowed to retire. He is not a party to the lawsuit. ''

© The Canadian Press 2006


----------



## FredDaHead (9 Apr 2006)

This guy disobeys a direct order and murders four people, injuring others, gets off with a simple reprimand, and now he's suing the Air Force? He should be frying in hell right about now.

What reputation did he still have, anyways? That of someone who wouldn't listen to orders and who didn't mind dropping bombs on friendlies?


----------



## JBP (9 Apr 2006)

I cannot even comment in words how this makes me feel... What a bag of shit to say the least...

RIP to those 4 slaughtered by him...


----------



## MikeM (9 Apr 2006)

What a piece of shit, he's lucky he's still in the Air Force... unbelievable.


----------



## tomahawk6 (10 Apr 2006)

He has no one but himself to blame for the situation he finds himself in. Although he was allowed to retire, as a reservist he cannot receive retired pay until age 60 so he has a long way to go before he gets a pay check from the government. I can only add that this action by Schmidt once again demonstrates what a sorry excuse for a human being that he is.

When I reflect on this case I think of another accident caused by a USN sub commander that caused the sinking of a japanese training vessel with the loss of 9 people, I think. The sub commander was contrite and even went to Japan to apologize. His career was ended by the incident but he at least showed class in dealing with this tragic incident.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/sub.collision/


----------



## Thompson_JM (10 Apr 2006)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> He has no one but himself to blame for the situation he finds himself in. Although he was allowed to retire, as a reservist he cannot receive retired pay until age 60 so he has a long way to go before he gets a pay check from the government. I can only add that this action by Schmidt once again demonstrates what a sorry excuse for a human being that he is.
> 
> When I reflect on this case I think of another accident caused by a USN sub commander that caused the sinking of a Japanese training vessel with the loss of 9 people, I think. The sub commander was contrite and even went to Japan to apologize. His career was ended by the incident but he at least showed class in dealing with this tragic incident.
> 
> http://www.CNN.com/SPECIALS/2001/sub.collision/



That Officer made a Grave mistake, but at least he learned how to be an adult and accept responsibility for his actions....

Schmidt sickens me with this juvenile pass the buck shift the blame attitude.... And the truth of the matter is that he is not fooling anyone... 
pathetic really....

with any luck he'll loose the lawsuit and maybe the US Military can take him to court for at the very least, the legal fees incurred...

Regards
   - Josh


----------



## 043 (10 Apr 2006)

Frederik G said:
			
		

> This guy disobeys a direct order and murders four people, injuring others, gets off with a simple reprimand, and now he's suing the Air Force? He should be frying in hell right about now.
> 
> What reputation did he still have, anyways? That of someone who wouldn't listen to orders and who didn't mind dropping bombs on friendlies?




Murder??????????????IMHO, you should get your head out of your ass!


----------



## JBP (10 Apr 2006)

2023 said:
			
		

> Murder??????????????IMHO, you should get your head out of your ***!



What would you label it as? Friendly Fire? Does that make it any better? Do you think the families of those dead soldiers would say it feels any different if it's called something else? It was deemed to be murder, since Maj. Schmidt disobeyed direct orders and dropped his 500lbs LGB and blew 4 soldiers to pieces and injured several more. He was found guilty of dereliction of duty and disobeying orders and some other things also.

Maybe you should read the book on how and what happened and then make an informed decision. 

Maybe you should get your head out of your ass?


----------



## scoutfinch (10 Apr 2006)

There is no way that this incident can be categorized as friendly fire, notwithstanding the title of the Friscolanti book.  These deaths did not take place within the context of combat.  The Canadians were on the range and these American pilots were returning from a mission, flying over an area that they knew or should have known was being used for training.

For reasons pertaining to my civilian job, I have had to review the cockpit video _ad nauseum_.  It was horrifying the first, second, twentieth, hundredth time I watched it.  The simple fact of the matter is that Schmidt fired upon the Canadians after being told to wait by the AWACS.  The first thing he did when he saw the flash from the Canadians was to request permission to lay down some 20MM.  He was told to wait out.  He disobeyed those orders and chose to bomb the Canadians.  Within seconds (3.8, to be precise I believe), he was told by the AWACS that he just dropped on friendlies.  It was immediately after that moment that Schmidt started to create the story about being fired upon so as to cover his ***. It was only after he let his bombs loose that he claimed he was coming under fire, seeking clarification from his lead that he could *see* the tracers (which would have been impossible at the altitude he was flying (10000 m).  

My legal opinion is that Schmidt should have been charged with homicide, or at a minimum, manslaughter.   I think there is a very real chance that he could have been convicted of homicide.  He had the intent to kill but was willfullly blind as to the identity of his victim.  He got off easy and then had the unmitigated gall to stick around so that he could get in enough time flying a desk after the incident so that he could be fully pensionable.  What a piece of crap.

Unger took his punishment as he should have.


----------



## scoutfinch (10 Apr 2006)

I feel it is incumbent on me to reproduce a copy of the reprimand Schmidt received from Lt-Gen Carlson whcih I believe was issued in July 2004.  This is the document released for which he is suing the USAF for damaging his *reputation*:

"You are hereby reprimanded. You flagrantly disregarded a direct order from the controlling agency, exercised a total lack of basic flight discipline over your aircraft, and blatantly ignored the applicable rules of engagement and special instructions. Your wilful misconduct directly caused the most egregious consequences imaginable, the deaths of four coalition soldiers and injury to eight others. The victims of your callous misbehaviour were from one of our staunch allies in Operation Enduring Freedom and were your comrades-in-arms.

"You acted shamefully on 17 April 2002 over Tarnak Farms, Afghanistan, exhibiting arrogance and a lack of flight discipline. When your flight lead warned you to "make sure it's not friendlies" and the Airborne Warning and Control System aircraft controller directed you to "stand by" and later to "hold fire," you should have marked the location with your targeting pod. Thereafter, if you believed, as you stated, you and your leader were threatened, you should have taken a series of evasive actions and remained at a safe distance to await further instructions from AWACS. Instead, you closed on the target and blatantly disobeyed the direction to "hold fire." Your failure to follow that order is inexcusable. I do not believe you acted in defence of Maj. Umbach or yourself. Your actions indicate that you used your self-defence declaration as a pretext to strike a target, which you rashly decided was an enemy firing position, and about which you had exhausted your patience in waiting for clearance from the Combined Air Operations Center to engage. You used the inherent right of self-defence as an excuse to wage your own war.

"In your personal presentation before me on 1 July 2004, I was astounded that you portrayed yourself as a victim of the disciplinary process without expressing heartfelt remorse over the deaths and injuries you caused to the members of the Canadian Forces. In fact, you were obviously angry that the United States Air Force had dared to question your actions during the 17 April 2002 tragedy. Far from providing any defence for your actions, the written materials you presented to me at the hearing only served to illustrate the degree to which you lacked flight discipline as a wingman of COFFEE Flight on 17 April 2002.

Through your arrogance, you undermined one of the most sophisticated weapons systems in the world, consisting of the Combined Air Operations Center, the Airborne Warning and Control System, and highly disciplined pilots, all of whom must work together in an integrated fashion to achieve combat goals. The United States Air Force is a major contributor to military victories over our nation's enemies because our pilots possess superior flight discipline. However, your actions on the night of 17 April 2002 demonstrate an astonishing lack of flight discipline. You were blessed with an aptitude for aviation, your nation provided you the best aviation training on the planet, and you acquired combat expertise in previous armed conflicts. However, by your gross poor judgment, you ignored your training and your duty to exercise flight discipline, and the result was tragic. I have no faith in your abilities to perform in a combat environment.

"I am concerned about more than your poor airmanship; I am also greatly concerned about your officership and judgment. Our Air Force core values stress "integrity first." Following the engagement in question, you lied about the reasons why you engaged the target after you were directed to hold fire and then you sought to blame others. You had the right to remain silent, but not the right to lie. In short, the final casualty of the engagement over Kandahar on 17 April 2002 was your integrity."


----------



## 043 (10 Apr 2006)

R031 Pte Joe said:
			
		

> What would you label it as? Friendly Fire? Does that make it any better? Do you think the families of those dead soldiers would say it feels any different if it's called something else? It was deemed to be murder, since Maj. Schmidt disobeyed direct orders and dropped his 500lbs LGB and blew 4 soldiers to pieces and injured several more. He was found guilty of dereliction of duty and disobeying orders and some other things also.
> 
> Maybe you should read the book on how and what happened and then make an informed decision.
> 
> Maybe you should get your head out of your ***?



Pte,

Maybe one day you will understand. I am not even going to qualify my previous statement here.  When you get more than 15 months service......wait, you are a reservist.........ah never mind.

While unfortunate that it happened, I disagree that it was murder.

Chimo!


----------



## 2 Cdo (10 Apr 2006)

> Pte,
> 
> Maybe one day you will understand. I am not even going to qualify my previous statement here.  When you get more than 15 months service......wait, you are a reservist.........ah never mind.
> 
> While unfortunate that it happened, I disagree that it was murder.



Some people need to get the anti-American blinders off! Did Schmidt screw up, yes! Does he deserve to go to jail for murder, of course not.

Scoutfinch, I too have seen the cockpit video umpteen times. I too have read the book "Friendly Fire", and did not come to any conclusions that Schmidt should have been charged with murder. Of course he screwed up, but just like our Somalia investigation debacle, as soon as screw-ups from a higher source were starting to be hinted at, everything ended. Schmidt was the lowest man on the totem pole, but he was not the only one who screwed up! That is what I gleaned from the book.
All of that being said, I do agree with the content of the reprimand, that Schmidt was an arrogant and reckless individual and should never fly again.


----------



## JBP (10 Apr 2006)

Fair enough that you folks believe he shouldn't be charged/jailed for something as serious as murder... What about these basic facts even?

First off, he was flying at 20,000 feet. The weapons being trained with that night have a maximum range of what... Let's say 2000Meters at FARTHES. He or his wingman were at no time in any danger from those weapons, even if the boys on the range fired them straight into the air! And as stated in that book and many times else where, thier "immediate action" drills were to evade enemy fire and seek a higher/safer altitude if being engaged. He did neither. Also, thier "hard deck" that night was 10,000ft. They were not to go below that height unless specifically given permission or in self-defence etc... He had to actually physically FLY the aircraft below 10,000ft to engage the soldiers with his 500lbs laser guided munition. There were some communication problems between the Fighters and thier controller (AWACS) but not to the extend that would enable them to fire. They were told not to fire...

Regardless, it was blantant ignorance, several times of the regulations and rules set down and he got off WAY easier then one of our flyboys would have I bet if they smoked some Americans or other coalition soldiers at that point.

Maybe he doesn't need to go to jail for murder, but he did need to go to jail. 




> Some people need to get the anti-American blinders off!



There was no anti-Americanism involved in this, simple facts and figures.


----------



## Strike (10 Apr 2006)

Obviously we all see Schmidt as being an idiot who believes he is the one getting the raw deal.

Unfortunately, there are serveral groups of people who have backed or are currently backing him.  Some friends were off to an air show in the US where one of the parties being held was to raise money for the man's defence.  I'm not sure if there still is, but there used to be a site where one could donate to pay his defence bills.

Very sad indeed.

http://www100.state.il.us/PressReleases/ShowPressRelease.cfm?SubjectID=1&RecNum=1908
http://www.illinois.gov/PressReleases/ShowPressRelease.cfm?SubjectID=1&RecNum=1937
http://jagmire.blogspot.com/
http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display/7730/index.php

I could go on...

(edited to include links)


----------



## JBP (10 Apr 2006)

Okay, fine. I do see what your getting at Piper, I do. Basically "fog of war".... Yeah.... And yes, I do feel very strongly about this issue.

Now in response to this portion:



> Quote
> Regardless, it was blantant ignorance, several times of the regulations and rules set down and he got off WAY easier then one of our flyboys would have I bet if they smoked some Americans or other coalition soldiers at that point.
> 
> Bulls***, you don't know that for certain.



Remember what happened to a certain Airborne Regiment when a couple key individuals FUBAR'd things up? Yep... I know, almost comparing apples to oranges but you see MY point I'm sure as well... 

Said turd really pisses me off I suppose is the last point I'll stick out in this thread. I guess that's apparent. It just really irks me every time I read about our guys being all chewed up. Every time it eats away at me slightly more, I can't imagine what it would be like to loose a fellow soldier I trained/lived with. Must be horrible. I hope none of us have to go through that but I imagine at one time or another we'll have to, and deal with it then.


----------



## Strike (10 Apr 2006)

It seems that the issue that upsets people most is that the soldiers were conducting training when they were hit.  When a soldier gets caught up in the crossfire and there is blue on blue, it is a different story all together.  That's when you can start talking about the "fog of war".

Just a pilot's opinion of course.


----------



## JBP (11 Apr 2006)

Strike said:
			
		

> It seems that the issue that upsets people most is that the soldiers were conducting training when they were hit.  When a soldier gets caught up in the crossfire and there is blue on blue, it is a different story all together.  That's when you can start talking about the "fog of war".
> 
> Just a pilot's opinion of course.



I was going to try and point that out Strike, but I don't think I could have said it as subtely as you or as diplomatically... I would basically have said BU*LSHIT on fog of war idea but he's right, I've never been in any theatre of conflict and I would probably be damn trigger happy as well.... 

Joe


----------



## 2 Cdo (11 Apr 2006)

> I would basically have said BU*LSHIT on fog of war idea but he's right, I've never been in any theatre of conflict and I would probably be damn trigger happy as well



And it was for this reason you were told to remove your head from your posterior!



> I can't imagine what it would be like to loose a fellow soldier I trained/lived with. Must be horrible. I hope none of us have to go through that but I imagine at one time or another we'll have to, and deal with it then.



Have gone through this many times over the years and yes it doesn't get any easier, but to attempt to call a screw-up "murder" shows that you weren't thinking rationally, just emotionally!


----------



## LIKELY (11 Apr 2006)

.....wait, you are a reservist.........

Was totally on your side till that crap!


----------



## Scott (11 Apr 2006)

I hope that remark was in jest.

Reserve/Reg wars and bashing are not tolerated here.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/24937.0.html


----------



## scoutfinch (11 Apr 2006)

I can't even figure out to whom it was directed given that it appears outta nowhere and in relation to nothing! ???


----------



## DG-41 (11 Apr 2006)

> R031 Pte Joe, it was NOT murder. It was an incident of friendly fire in a combat zone.



From the reprimand - and note that this is an OFFICIAL document, equal in strength to a PER. It amounts to the USAF's final say on the matter:



> Your actions indicate that you used your self-defence declaration as a pretext to strike a target, which you rashly decided was an enemy firing position, and about which you had exhausted your patience in waiting for clearance from the Combined Air Operations Center to engage. You used the inherent right of self-defence as an excuse to wage your own war.
> 
> "In your personal presentation before me on 1 July 2004, I was astounded that you portrayed yourself as a victim of the disciplinary process without expressing heartfelt remorse over the deaths and injuries you caused to the members of the Canadian Forces. In fact, you were obviously angry that the United States Air Force had dared to question your actions during the 17 April 2002 tragedy. Far from providing any defence for your actions, the written materials you presented to me at the hearing only served to illustrate the degree to which you lacked flight discipline as a wingman of COFFEE Flight on 17 April 2002.



If that's not murder, it's as close as you can get to it without crossing the line.

And it sure ain't accidental fratricide. When someone orders you not to shoot, and then you shoot, you have left the realm of the accidental.

DG


----------



## JBP (11 Apr 2006)

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> And it was for this reason you were told to remove your head from your posterior!
> 
> Have gone through this many times over the years and yes it doesn't get any easier, but to attempt to call a screw-up "murder" shows that you weren't thinking rationally, just emotionally!



Let's give an example... If I was manning a defensive position, let's say something equivalent to a "foxhole" with a C9 at night and I was overlooking a small field which would make a good approach to my platoon's "hide" and on this very night I noticed a small group of soldiers walking towards me from about 500 meters off and I couldn't make them out to see if they were friendly or foe. Instead of challenging them when they were closer, I just opened fire, after contacting my 2i/c or section Cmdr and asking if we had any friendly patrols out that night and he hadn't had time to come back and tell me yet but did tell me to hold fire at the moment. 

So, turns out there WAS a friendly patrol out lastnight doing recon on E positions and I just lit those 4 soldiers up with my C9 and cut them in half.


OOOPPPSSS!!! It was just an accident!!! "I was acting in self defence as they had weapons and kept approaching my position directly".... Equivalent to what happened, he didn't wait for permission.

You can say it's "Apples to oranges" and that BS but really, it's about the same as what Maj. Schmidt did. He didn't wait like he was ORDERED to and didn't follow procedure (which for us in that circumstance would be challenge procedures etc.. Or whatever was set down by the Commander of the area as ROE). 

If it's not an accident, and it's not following direct orders, and it's not following procedure and breaking standing orders.... It's on the line with murder.

Seeing as this is an incredibly touchy subject among us in the Armed Forces and it's been a healthy debate/conversation and I've made my point and stand, there's nothing else to be said by me. I don't want this to degenerate into an argument but I do believe it was equivalent to murder really due to the circumstances. I do appreciate what some of you other folks have said and it's given me time to think about the situation again but I still stand that it was ridiculous to call it anything but what the facts show. If you feel better, just keep calling it homicide fratricide.


----------



## LIKELY (11 Apr 2006)

2023 said:
			
		

> Pte,
> 
> Maybe one day you will understand. I am not even going to qualify my previous statement here.  When you get more than 15 months service......wait, you are a reservist.........ah never mind.
> 
> ...



Sorry ..my last post was a $hitty attempt to quote and rebuke this...I am aware of the rules.


----------



## scoutfinch (11 Apr 2006)

Homicide, fratricide and murder are legal terms of art.  They have particular meaning. While they also may have commonplace meaning, when you are discussing a legal issue the words must be viewed through a legal prism.

Homicide includes all occasions where one human being, by act or omission, takes away the life of another.  It includes murder, manslaughter, acts of war and executions. Murder is the intentional homicide (the taking of another person's life), without legal justification or provocation.  A very narrow definition of fratricide adopted by the US states:    Fratricide is the employment of friendly weapons and munitions with the intent to kill the enemy or destroy his equipment or facilities, which results in unforeseen and unintentional death or injury to friendly personnel. Fratricide is homicide but it is not murder.  

The question that appears to be the subject of debate here was whether Schmidt should have been charged. I can say with confidence that, in my opinion, all of the elements of manslaughter were made out on the evidence.  I can say that there was a pretty strong argument that murder could have been made out on the evidence as well.  But we are not talking about a civie street homicide.  We are talking about deaths that occured in theatre where -- whether we like it or not -- there are sometimes greater considerations than seeing justice served. Amongst a plethora of good reasons of why charging Schmidt would have been a bad idea is that in the circumstances, charging the pilots with murder may have resulted in reduced effectiveness of other combat air missions... which I think we all would agree would be a bad thing.  

So, I think we have to keep in mind that in certain ways we are discussing apples and oranges.  In the immediate aftermath of this tragedy, while we might in our hearts have wanted justice for the Canadian solders killed and injured, given the circumstances, only rough justice was possible.  And rough justice is what we got.  

Do I think Schmidt was guilty of a legally culpable homicide (ie either murder or manslaughter)?  Yep.
Do I think he should have been charged?  Nope.
Do I think justice was served?  Not a chance.
Do I think we should have expected justice to be served given the circumstances? Not realistically.

But I have a problem with the people who make *fog of war* excuses for this guy.  There was no fog of war.  He failed to follow orders.  He failed to follow proper flight discipline.  He is a waste of skin and air.

At the end of the day, the two pilots weren't charged criminally because it would have potentially hampered operations.  That's it.  Full stop.  The sooner we accept that harsh reality we can stop talking about shoulda/coulda/woulda -- all of which are irrelevant now.

And, I am going to add this -- knowing that it might get under the skin of some people but not with that intention -- there would not have been an eyebrow raised had Schmidt killed Americans.


----------



## Scott (11 Apr 2006)

LIKELY said:
			
		

> Sorry ..my last post was a $hitty attempt to quote and rebuke this...I am aware of the rules.



Seen and all well and good then. The member who made that post has been dealt with for it. It's sometimes hard to know who and what people are talking about in the absence of quotes. Also very hard to discern tone through type over this medium.

I apologize if I jumped on you for it.


----------



## LIKELY (11 Apr 2006)

Scott,

Thanks and Nema Problemo.


----------



## DG-41 (11 Apr 2006)

> OOOPPPSSS!!! It was just an accident!!! "I was acting in self defence as they had weapons and kept approaching my position directly".... Equivalent to what happened, he didn't wait for permission.



With one major difference - you, in your theoretical foxhole, are tied to your position. You cannot leave, both in terms of your duty (ie, it is your job to defend the piece of ground commanded by that foxhole) and in terms of capability (getting out of the foxhole and running away is physically difficult and tactically dubious)

If those guys were to approach close enough to your position that you felt threatened enough to open up, *before* they had been confirmed as friendly (you can see guns, they are moving tactically, they look threatening, but you cannot ID them) you *might* be justified in opening up on them. A lot depends on the theatre ROEs and the local tactical situation.

But the pilot of that plane *HAD* the option to retreat to a safe distance/altitude and then loiter until he got his permission to engage. He had options you, in a foxhole, would not.

And the USAF agreed with that assessment.



> We are talking about deaths that occured in theatre where -- whether we like it or not -- there are sometimes greater considerations than seeing justice served.



And one of them is the maintainence of command, control, and fire discipline. 

He ignored an order to hold fire. He wrongfully invoked "self defense" as a way to sidestep a legal order. This is not subject to argument; it states so in his reprimand.

I would argue that maintaining control over rogue soldiers is every bit as mission critical as any other consideration.

DG


----------



## Strike (11 Apr 2006)

R031 Pte Joe said:
			
		

> I was going to try and point that out Strike, but I don't think I could have said it as subtely as you or as diplomatically...
> 
> Joe



That's DPAC for you... ;D


----------



## Cloud Cover (11 Apr 2006)

scoutfinch said:
			
		

> And, I am going to add this -- knowing that it might get under the skin of some people but not with that intention -- there would not have been an eyebrow raised had Schmidt killed Americans.



I don't know about that. Given the callous facts of the case, questions would be asked. If not shortly after the material time, then certainly now as the "fog" lifts.  

Is it possible you meant an eyebrow raised by Canadians? That I would agree with.


----------



## Strike (11 Apr 2006)

No, but we would have shaken our heads...again.


----------



## 3rd Horseman (11 Apr 2006)

Now that the emotional tone has lowered I will interject. 

Lets me correct a few inaccuracies:

(1)  Laser guided bombs do not need to be released below 10,000.
(2) AWAC crews do not have the authority to override pilots release of weapons on search and destroy missions when in target box.
(3) Tracer fire from ground fire can be seen easily at night from 10,000 or higher
(4) Tracer fire from ground fire easily shoots upwards much like AAA fire.
(5)  Pilots like infantry do not run from a threat they stand and fight that is their job, escape to safe altitude in a search and destroy mission is not an option.

These statements in no way change the out come, just the perspective. He was wrong and he now pays the price and unfortunately for our soldiers they payed the highest price for his error in judgement.


----------



## 2 Cdo (12 Apr 2006)

By the way R031, in the CANADIAN army we do not dig foxholes! Better learn the proper terminology before you make further comments that reveal your ignorance! Try to stay awake in your classes, it might save your life someday. Also it would help if you knew anything regarding ROE's and the right to self defence!


----------



## Strike (12 Apr 2006)

> (5)  Pilots like infantry do not run from a threat they stand and fight that is their job, escape to safe altitude in a search and destroy mission is not an option.



Gonna have to disagree with some of that last one there.  The guys were returning from a sortie, and were not on a "Search and Destroy" mission.  The fact that the pilot asked AWACS for permission to fire clearly shows that this was a regular practice (to ask permission) given their particular ROEs.


----------



## 3rd Horseman (12 Apr 2006)

Disagree? would that be the part about taking the fight to the EN like Inf and not running to a safe altd or that they were on a search and destroy mission?

    I will assume that you agree with the fighting like Inf part and it is the search and destroy mission that you disagree with. They were on a sortie....a search and destroy sortie. I am aware that they were at the end of the patrol and returning to base. If they were on a recce or top cover or EW sortie you would be right but they were not on those sorties. As for the AWAC part it would appear that it was routine to talk with controllers in AWAC for inquires about contact not permission.


----------



## Strike (12 Apr 2006)

Let's see.  Given that they initially ASKED PERMISSION from the AWACS to fire, then the chances are pretty good that it was part of their ROE to have AWACS check a location before the bomber/fighters engaged the target.

Infantry and flying are two very different jobs and your comparing the two to each other does both jobs a disservice.

Horse, I would hope your experience would have taught you this.


(edited for sp)


----------



## 3rd Horseman (12 Apr 2006)

Strike, I don't disagree with your thought process it has plausibility.

My example of Inf to fighter pilot was in response to the comment earlier in the thread about pilots when coming under fire escaping to safe altd as a drill. When attacked they don't flee as suggested....just like Inf don't flee to safe position. My experience has taught me that. It may have been a bad example but it is accurate.


----------



## DG-41 (13 Apr 2006)

> When attacked they don't flee as suggested.



The word isn't "flee" the word is "extend".

Fighters move fast, right? So they have the ability to scoot out of harm's way, assess the situation, and then just as quickly, scoot back.

If you read any book on fighter tactics, they are full of discussion on when in the fight to continue a turning duel, keep the scissors going, or when to break, extend, and re-engage.

Is has nothing to do with cowardice, any more than a tank backing out of his turret-down so he can jockey into a new position has to do with cowardice - it's just tactics.

Besides, re-read the reprimand. His peers and superiors in the USAF (who understand fighter tactics and ROE better than either of us) state explicitly that he disobeyed an order to hold fire and falsely misrepresented his situation as self defense in order to fight his own private war. There is no wiggle room in his actions; that they were wrong is not up for debate.

DG


----------



## GK .Dundas (13 Apr 2006)

The good Major had just better hope the judge isn't a former fighter pilot or he's probably screwed.I'll say one thing he got balls not much in the way of brains but by god he does have balls.........or is it just gall?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (13 Apr 2006)

gall


----------



## Marauder (13 Apr 2006)

I think they should give the schmidthead a big 'ole pay-off, with one catch. To get to his bag o'cash, he has to walk the gauntlet, made up of all the men still alive who have ever served in 3VP. Who have axehandles. And have been shown the guncamera footage just before Schmidty starts his walk. 

If he wants a shitload metric ton of money for his "bruised" reputation, he should exhange some real bruises for it and actually EARN it. JMO.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (13 Apr 2006)

Marauder I think it would only be appropriate to through in some of the fellas from 2 VP as well.


----------

