# Friendly fire' pilot given reprimand and fine



## Scoobie Newbie (6 Jul 2004)

[ Original Article ]


The commander in charge of an administrative hearing said that the U.S. fighter pilot who mistakenly dropped a bomb that killed Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan "acted shamefully" and found him guilty of dereliction of duty, according to a written statement released by the U.S. air force Tuesday.

Maj. Harry Schmidt, 37, faced four charges of dereliction of duty. He had been scheduled for a court martial, but recently agreed to an administrative hearing instead.

Lt.-Gen. Bruce Carlson, the commander of the 8th Air Force, handed Schmidt a letter of reprimand and ordered him to forfeit almost $5,700 in pay.

In addition, Schmidt will longer be allowed to fly Air Force planes, but can continue to serve in the Illinois Air National Guard.

In his written decision, Carlson said Schmidt was guilty of "exhibiting arrogance and a lack of flight discipline." 

"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," he wrote. 

Carlson wrote that if Schmidt believed, as he stated in his defence, that he and his wingman Maj. William Umbach were threatened, he should have taken a series of evasive actions and remained at a safe distance to await further instructions from the Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircraft controller, who directed Schmidt to "stand by" and later to "hold fire." 

Instead, Carlson wrote, "you used the inherent right of self-defence as an excuse to wage your own war."

On April 18, 2002, Schmidt dropped a 225-kilogram bomb on a group of Canadian soldiers engaged in a night-time live-fire training exercise, killing four soldiers and injuring another eight.

Sgt. Marc Leger, Pte. Richard Green, Cpl. Ainsworth Dyer and Pte. Nathan Smith were killed in the explosion. Eight others were injured. The men were all members of the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry. They were the first Canadian troops to be killed on duty since the Korean War.

Schmidt said that he dropped the bomb because he thought Taliban soldiers were firing on him from the ground.

Canadian and American inquiries found that Schmidt acted too hastily in his decision to drop the bomb. The U.S. investigation said he should have left the area instead of dropping the bomb.

Schmidt and Umbach were originally charged with manslaughter and aggravated assault and faced up to 64 years in prison. 

Those charges were later dropped against Schmidt, who was offered administrative punishment rather than a court martial. At that time, he refused, saying he wanted to clear his name. 

Military officials suggested he be tried for dereliction of duty.

All charges were dismissed against Umbach, 44, a United Airlines pilot. He was given a letter of reprimand and allowed to retire, as he had requested.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (6 Jul 2004)

Much as a sense of outrage in me wants more, I must take solace in the fact that he won't fly again.
We can go into the whole argument again but that still leaves us 4 wonderful souls short and nothing will change that.
I also must console myself that I believe that if he thought for a second that they were our troops he would have peeled off.
Godspeed and fast healing to those they leave behind.
Bruce


----------



## Michael Dorosh (7 Jul 2004)

The letter itself is a doozy - this guy sounds some pissed....

 Following is the text of a letter of reprimand issued Tuesday by Lt.-Gen. Bruce Carlson of the United States 8th Air Force to fighter pilot Maj. Harry Schmidt, who dropped a bomb that killed four Canadian soldiers and injured eight others in April 2002 in Afghanistan:

"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."


----------



## Guardian (7 Jul 2004)

...... Ouch .......

That'll look good on his pers file.  :skull:


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (7 Jul 2004)

The US airforce says he will never fly again and I think thats best for everyone involved.


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 Jul 2004)

Thanks for posting that Michael.  Your post really humbled me too Bruce..


After reading that "repremand" how can this guy NOT be punished something more strict?



> 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.



Michael where did you find that letter? That repremand sounds really weird to me for some reason. (Then again i've never got one heh)
The repremand  almost sounds staged, like  ohh look were being really mean on him saying bad things so everything is fine now.
It just kinda seems staged or made for everyone to see it if you know what i mean..


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (7 Jul 2004)

http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1089142017405_84551217?hub=TopStories

pilot has no remorse and is appealing the descion.


----------



## casing (7 Jul 2004)

I still don't understand why one of the punishments wasn't getting turfed on his ass out of the Air Force with a dishonourable discharge.  He's closer to the end of his flying days than the start, anyway.  The punishment is not severe enough.  Especially considering his attitude about the whole thing.  Disgraceful!


----------



## stukirkpatrick (8 Jul 2004)

Taken from http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1845&ncid=1845&e=3&u=/cpress/20040707/ca_pr_on_na/us_cda_friendly_fire

..."Sgt. Lorne Ford, who lost an eye and suffered other wounds from the bombing, has not often agreed to talk about what happened, but he spoke Wednesday to say he was also upset at word of the appeal. 

"It doesn't surprise me the little weasel is going to try to get out of it again," Ford told CFRN-TV in Edmonton. 

Ford said he was pleased with the strong language of the reprimand, but wasn't sure it would have an effect on Schmidt. 

"I hope somebody reads the reprimand word for word to that remorseless p***k because I don't think he would read it. I think he would just shove it aside and he doesn't care," Ford said. 

"I felt that as soon as I walked into the court house that first day and I saw him. He had a smug look on his face and all the families picked up on that."

-quote edited for language


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 Jul 2004)

I saw his wife on TV. Oh he's being railroaded, he's being made the scape goat. He's sorry, it still keeps him up at night.


> You used the inherent right of self-defence as an excuse to wage your own war.





> 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



I still don't understand how that reprimand can be so harsh obviously indicating that this guy fucked up, and get off with what he did.
It's like saying 'Your guilty of murder and your too stupid to even pretend you feel remorseful, so heres a slap on the wrist".

I've heard people argue. 'Well he's never going to fly again, thats punishment enough!'. 
Thats not punishment, thats normal. If i bust open a door without thinking as an infantry soldier and hose down the room with gunfire killing a bunch of civilians am I going to be carrying a rifle ever again? I doubt it.  If I'm an MP and I pull someone over, shoot them in the face and then say hands up don't move i doubt i'll be driving a patrol car again.

Now he's trying to appeal the decision. I hope they get fed up with his BS and throw the book at him.  Better yet give him an M16 and send him to the Marines or Army for some patrolling in Iraq. I bet he wouldn't look so smug then.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (8 Jul 2004)

If he bombed a bunch of allied local militia's we would have never heard a peep.  Shit happens in the fog of war.  
Hopefully everyone learns from this.


----------



## girlfiredup (8 Jul 2004)

Now he's decided to sue the air force.

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/07/08/world/schmidt040708


----------



## McG (8 Jul 2004)

The "administrative hearing" sounds a lot like a summary trial in the Canadian military.  Is there anyone out there that is qualified to compare the two for those of us not knowledgeable of the US military justice system.


----------



## bossi (8 Jul 2004)

I have the utmost respect for the USAF general who wrote that letter
(it was published again today in the Toronto Star).
Text of Letter, An Excuse To Wage Your Own War

Based on remarks from a colleague who has heard much of the evidence first-hand, the USAF general has accurately summed up the actions of the pilot, and also delivered a reminder about "honour".

The letter is scathing, but a reminder that true warriors must follow a higher code of conduct.


----------



## tabernac (8 Jul 2004)

What kind of person would show no remorse to the victims and their families, and then sue the USAF for releasing "damaging" information? He caused so much hurt and damage to the families of the soldiers, yet he states that he doesn't care about the families? I have more choice words against him, but I'm sure you all know what they are.



> I have the utmost respect for the USAF general who wrote that letter.


As do I


----------



## SFontaine (8 Jul 2004)

CFL said:
			
		

> If he bombed a bunch of allied local militia's we would have never heard a peep.



Whenever a member of the US Military kills large numbers of any sort of innocent/allied men, women or children it's normally a big deal. Case in point, the accidental killing of 9 civilians in Afghanistan by a US Warplane, in an attempt to kill an AQ Lieutenant.


----------



## shaboing (10 Jul 2004)

I'd just like to point 2 things out, I'm sure we all know the whole Todd Bertuzzi incident.... he can get up to 18 months jailtime and the guy he hit is living and is expected to get back into hockey. now compare that to the severity of the friendly fire incident..... 

also i would like to add that if it was a Canadian pilot who bombed Americans how do you think the verdict would change. i bet the US would see to it that it was way more then 1 weeks pay and early retirement with a pension.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (10 Jul 2004)

I am in the wrong military if USAF pilots get paid over 5000 a week. I think you need to get your figures checked if you think it was only a weeks pay.


----------



## shaboing (10 Jul 2004)

cmon, you took that literally, i was being sarcastic. but 5600 or whatever isn't really a whole lot.


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Jul 2004)

> also i would like to add that if it was a Canadian pilot who bombed Americans how do you think the verdict would change.



This is a really good question.  What do you think would happen if a Canadian pilot bombed an american company?

I think the americans would accept that friendlies died because of the 'fog od war' and be thankful to have canadial support in the war while I think the Canadian goverment would make  a HUGE example out of the pilot upto and including jailtime and a dishonourable discharge for "waging his own war".


----------



## SFontaine (10 Jul 2004)

Then maybe disband the Air Force


----------



## Hawaii Mike (11 Jul 2004)

You must have an appreciation for the US military's penchant for writing between the lines.  Basically, this guy has been cast out by the Air Force.  He'll never fly anything again and the FAA will probably pull his civilian endorsements as well.  This is as far as the USAF can go; at the end of the day, they armed him, gave him a commission and let him fly.  They've done evrything they could to hammer him yet save themselves from more liability.  Anything more would call into question the judgment of his superiors in allowing him to get into the cockpit in the first place.

I must add, as a partisan for Marine Corps CAS doctrine, that the Air Farce has never been particularly good at that mission.  They fly too high and too fast for effective support.  "Low and Slow" is the way to go, as it were.  Recall also that the AF tried for years to delay, forestall, cancel, kill and abandon the A-10.  They only kept it to save their turf from the Army.  Sickening, actually.  Fifty-seven years after they were mistakenly given birth, and they still haven't realized that they are, at best, a supporting arm.  Not a very good one, at that.  In comparison, all USMC officers are trained as riflemen first.  Navy and Marine Corps officers serve as ground-based FACs in the ANGLICO and infantry battalion fire support coordination center.  Air Force pilots don't serve as FACs on the ground, as far as I know.  They fly FAC missions from F-16s!  How?  I don't know.  Not well.

If ANGLICO sailors and Marines had been with your lads, this never would have happened.  If it'd been AV-8B or F/A-18 above, this could've been avoided.  I apologize for my country's inept air force.


----------



## stukirkpatrick (11 Jul 2004)

I don't know about current American doctrine, but during the Ia Drang campaign of Vietnam in 1965, an air force pilot was assigned to LCol Moore's men to coordinate the many airstrikes that were conducted during the battle at LZ X-Ray.  As well, many air force planes flew sorties in the battle, including Skyraider prop planes that were good for ground attack because of their slow speed and high payload.

We Were Soldiers Once... And Young is a very good book.  Moore states that the airstrikes and other firepower support were invaluable in preventing the NVA from overruning the Air Cav units.


----------



## Scott (11 Jul 2004)

Hawaii Mike, I would hope that the biggest difference between Air Force pilots and Marine aviators would be that a Marine would stand tall and take his licks graciously and show remorse for any wrongdoing UNLIKE this oxygen bandit from the Air Force. I believe that the Marines, as a group, instill that in their men. Correct me if I am wrong.

I have read that over 70% of the Boston Fire Department are former Marines. As a member of the Fire Service, this states something very important to me: That Marines have the core values that are essential in the emergency services, honesty, integrity and performance for the greater good, not the individual. I have alot of respect for ANY Marine. 

God forbid this ever happens again.

Cheers


----------



## devil39 (11 Jul 2004)

Hawaii Mike said:
			
		

> If ANGLICO sailors and Marines had been with your lads, this never would have happened.   If it'd been AV-8B or F/A-18 above, this could've been avoided.   I apologize for my country's inept air force.



I doubt that ANGLICO types on the ground would have made a difference.   Our FOO/FACs are very competent troops, and I would soldier anywhere with them.   Transitting a/c, targets of opportunity, etc.   

The USAF is not inept.   I am certain that their very presence saved a hundred times the friendly lives that they took in that theatre.   

I am certain the sentiment is appreciated.   This post in no way excuses the actions of a rogue who took the lives of some great soldiers.


----------



## Hawaii Mike (11 Jul 2004)

I believe you are correct in your assessment of the situation.  Nobody on the ground that night could've prevented this idiot from doing what he did.  And I do recognize the inherently good qualities of most ground controllers, USAF CCTs amongst them.  I am trying to illustrate the USAF notion that CAS are the bastard stepchildren of that service.  

For over half a century, politics associated with first the post-WWII "bomber" AF, and then the McNamara-era-onward "Fighter" AF have dominated USAF policy.  CAS has always been given short shrift by the blue suiters.  USMC/USN doctrine is exactly 180 opposite.  We all know that air power has _never_ won a war.  Always been bayonets and balls.  However, Gen. Curtis Lemay and his ilk, post-WWII, managed to convince the nation that strategic airpower brought the Germans and Japanese to their knees.  BS, and we all know it.  Both countries had industrial capacity at or in excess of 1941 levels by the time the war ended.  This jerkoff in Afghanistan is a direct product of that thinking.  Just as a good rifleman will never use un-aimed fire, sh should a pilot be at least a bit more sure of what is on the ground below him.  He probably ignored the "deconfliction" portion of his pre-flight mission brief.

A1-D "Spads" and A-10 Warthogs?  Great, beautiful aircraft.  Wish we had more of 'em.  But you'll never see a CAS pilot as chief of staff or even as CG TAC (or whatever it's called these days).

By the way, love this board.  Thoughtful, reasoned, gentlemanly dialogue.  Reminds me of the Canadians I worked with here a few years ago.  Frightfully polite arguments.  I went and bought a six-pack of Labatt's in honor of you guys tonight.  Also have fond, if hazy, memories of port call in St Johns.  Screech!


----------



## Hawaii Mike (11 Jul 2004)

Mr Baker:  Under United States Code, all service members' records are considered public documents, with the exception of those portions that deal with classified matter.  A Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to DoD will get you anybody's service records.  That's how PJ Burkett (_Stolen Valor_) manages to expose pathetic wannabe Vietnam veterans.  Next time you hear some fat loser in the VFW bragging about his "classified" unit or "secret" commendation, the red flags should go up.  Units, personnel records, commendations and punishments are not classified. Only the "where" and "how" and "when" might reasonably be considered sensitive.  To stretch a point, military members in the US are considered public servants.  Their pays, assignments, qualifications, disciplinary records and awards are open to scrutiny.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (11 Jul 2004)

Well shabong..if you want people to understand your point at least try to get the facts straight or use emotes.  :


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Jul 2004)

If that is accurate Hawaii Mike (Very informitive posts as well thank you) Then i can't see this pilots lawsuit going very far regarding the release of his reprimand.   This guy is like that dumb kid when your going up that everyone picks on. He just doens't know when to quit.


----------



## Scott (11 Jul 2004)

Very good post, Mike. I didn't know that about American Service Records. Thank you. And I do agree that if that is the case then this guy probably has no shot of winning his lawsuit and will just be disgraced more, but he seems like the sort who will just sue again for something else, and then when he loses that he will sue for yet another thing. Guys like this have no remorse because they have never been taught about it and this fella is too stooooooopid to realize that he should quit while he is ahead. He's just pi**ed because he got his precious wings yarded away from him. F*** him

Sorry for the ignorance of my post but I cannot believe the ignorance of that man!

Cheers!


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (11 Jul 2004)

I always appreciated the USMC doctorine that absolutely everyone was a ground pounder first.   that way a pilot or tanker could appreciate teh infantry and there needs.


----------



## SFontaine (16 Jul 2004)

*Crickets*


----------



## Jarnhamar (16 Jul 2004)

X


----------



## Hawaii Mike (17 Jul 2004)

Mr. Baker,

Why would I want to see your service records?  I'm confused.  

www.usdoj.gov/oip/foia_updates/Vol_XVII_4/page2.htm


----------



## Hawaii Mike (17 Jul 2004)

And....

www.archives.gov/facilities/mo/st_louis/military_personnel_records/foia_info.html


----------



## commando_wolf63 (18 Jul 2004)

This jetjock what an ego he was told not to fire yet, he did as he darn well pleased. Insubordination or what. What is more galling is the fact he's showing no remorse, and is concidering suing the USAF.  If the shoe were on the other foot and a Canadian pilot killed a bunch of US soldiers his butt would have been raked over the coals been handed a dishonerable discharge and would be sitting in prison. Not to mention the U.S. would be asking for his head on a platter (excuse the pun)


----------



## SFontaine (18 Jul 2004)

commando_wolf63 said:
			
		

> If the shoe were on the other foot and a Canadian pilot killed a bunch of US soldiers his butt would have been raked over the coals been handed a dishonerable discharge and would be sitting in prison. Not to mention the U.S. would be asking for his head on a platter (excuse the pun)



You have any evidence that would happen or are you just speculating?


----------



## commando_wolf63 (18 Jul 2004)

to SFontaine  I guess it would be a speculation then. But that's not the point Our soldiers were either killed or injured and This USAF pilot is showing no remorse for disobeying orders and has the B***s to sue his Gov't for stripping him of his flight status :


----------



## cpl forrester (19 Jul 2004)

there is no greater deed in the calling to lay down ur life for ur country...........but blue on blue is a real problem we have lost many of our friends in such misstakes (a10 attack strafing 9 of over boys) miss directed arti and mbt fire but all this is down to one thing mistakes it all about do they know were u r i think multi coalition forces sould allways be aware of where others r many tanks m.r.v. and fcp" foward command posts " r the ones at fault as they ultimately give the weapons free comands. so in that respect thy are the persons with the shame for lack of appreciation of the facts and info under there noses and there respons ( u will always have blue on blue on a fast moving fast changing battle field ) i say crock of s**t no plane tank or infantry unit is as fast as radio and satellite................but a side that my heart will allways go out to the loved ones who r never told the whole truth as they sould.


----------



## Yard Ape (19 Jul 2004)

Friendly fire pilot loses appeal
Associated Press  

Barksdale Air Force Base, La. â â€ A U.S. fighter pilot found guilty of dereliction of duty in the mistaken bombing that killed four Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan in 2002 has lost his appeal.

Lieutenant-General Bruce Carlson, who handed down the verdict against Major Harry Schmidt, said in a letter of reprimand that Major Schmidt â Å“acted shamefullyâ ? and exhibited â Å“arrogance and a lack of flight disciplineâ ? in the bombing.

Major Schmidt, who was ordered to forfeit more than $5,000 (U.S.) in pay, had appealed the ruling, saying the reprimand was issued as a â Å“desire to mount a public relations campaign rather than actually attempt to see justice done.â ?

Major Schmidt said he mistook the Canadians' gunfire for an attack from Taliban fighters. The pilot said his superiors never told him that the Canadians would be conducting live-fire exercises near Kandahar airport that night.

The U.S. Air Force announced Monday that Gen. Carlson had rejected Major Schmidt's appeal. The case will be forwarded to General Hal Hornburg, commander of the air force combat command, for a final decision, the air force said.


Looks like it is still not over.


----------

