Author Topic: Blue on Blue Afghanistan incident - Pilots on Amphetamines... (Read 1303 times)

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #15 on:** January 15, 2003, 12:43:18 PM »

I'm curous was this just an accident or is there something more behind it? If it was simply an accident then I'm not sure what the fuss is, there were tow other notable big friendly fire bombings with deaths in Afghanistan that Ive heard of, one around Mazar and another around Kandahar and I have not heard of a trial for either.

Is this case different than the others in fact, or is the Canadian government just insisting on this?

SW they are giving pilots both stimulants and depressants as required, there was a tread about this recently on the BBS.

AKIron · « **Reply #16 on:** January 15, 2003, 12:49:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I'm curous was this just an accident or is there something more behind it? If it was simply an accident then I'm not sure what the fuss is, there were tow other notable big friendly fire bombings with deaths in Afghanistan that Ive heard of, one around Mazar and another around Kandahar and I have not heard of a trial for either.

Is this case different than the others in fact, or is the Canadian government just insisting on this?

SW they are giving pilots both stimulants and depressants as required, there was a tread about this recently on the BBS.

Of course it was an accident. Ridiculous to suppose otherwise. The question is about negligence, who's and how severe. The very least that is likely is that these guys will lose their careers. The most is that they'll spend a few years in prison. Probably about the same as would happen in a car accident in Canada?

Thrawn · « **Reply #17 on:** January 15, 2003, 12:51:00 PM »

Apparently, US military pilots go on a course about the amphetemes, and the discuss it's symptoms etc. They are issued the "go-pills". And it is at the discretion of the pilot whether or not they use them.

It appears there is confusion on whether or not the pilot involved in this incident was ordered to take them or not.

AKS\/\/ulfe · « **Reply #18 on:** January 15, 2003, 12:51:39 PM »

Grun- you know the title of that thread?

I know the effects of amphetamines... and I know giving 'em to someone who needs to have their head on straight to do their job is a very bad idea.

I'd be happy to do that job sober!
-SW

Thrawn · « **Reply #19 on:** January 15, 2003, 12:52:33 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKIron
Of course it was an accident. Ridiculous to suppose otherwise. The question is about negligence, who's and how severe. The very least that is likely is that these guys will lose their careers. The most is that they'll spend a few years in prison. Probably about the same as would happen in a car accident in Canada?

Exactly. The question is whether or not the pilot was criminally negligent in his actions. And they are having a trial to determine this.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #20 on:** January 15, 2003, 12:56:06 PM »

I think it was "Bennies in the Jets" or something funny like that.

AKS\/\/ulfe · « **Reply #21 on:** January 15, 2003, 12:59:36 PM »

Found it Grun- thnx...

I knew soldiers were given drugs... but not all of them, and it was more a test during Vietnam on certain combat units...

But giving them to pilots?!

That is fukin criminal.
-SW

Furious · « **Reply #22 on:** January 15, 2003, 01:31:52 PM »

I don't see what the big deal is with flying on speed.

I have driven on acid many times before, and I have never hit a one of them dancing hippos.

F.
straight up

AKS\/\/ulfe · « **Reply #23 on:** January 15, 2003, 01:34:28 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Furious
I have driven on acid many times before, and I have never hit a one of them dancing hippos.

I see you failed to comment on the oompa loompas tho....
-SW

-dead- · « **Reply #24 on:** January 15, 2003, 02:53:55 PM »

Ground Control to Pilot
(Capt. Lockheed & The Starfighters, Robert Calvert 1974)

Ground Control: Ready... Ready... R- for ruminant ready for last minute cock-pit-check?
Pilot: OK.
GC: Largactil....five milligrammes.
P: Check.
GC: Valium...ten milligrammes.
P: Check.
GC: Haloperidol...five milligrammes.
P: Which one?
GC: The little white ones. W - W for white.
P: (a bit slower) OK. Check.
GC: Phenobarbitone. Five Milligrammes
P: (slower) Check.
GC: Disipel...five milligrammes.
P: (even slower) Cheeeck.
GC: Glass of water.
P: Cheeeeeeeck...
Ground Control and Pilot: Our father .... which art in heaven hallowed be ... mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxi ma culpa.

SaburoS · « **Reply #25 on:** January 15, 2003, 03:26:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by texace
The fact there's a trial over this sickens me. Blue on blue happens in war...that's why war is hell. If the Canadians are pissing and moaning over loss of troops, oh friggin well. There's been too many instances of blue on blue in every war past, and only now does anyone try to get reprocussions legally.

Canada's crying again...doesn't surprise me. This trial is a crock...if Canada can't handle war...they should stay out of it...

Sorry texace,
What if the roles were reversed and it was Canadian pilots wiping out some American ground forces? Would you still be so non-chalant about it? We owe the Canadian troops at least this much. If the pilots are found to be negligent, they will be punished, if not, they will be cleared.

MrLars · « **Reply #26 on:** January 15, 2003, 03:46:29 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
It was known several months ago that these pilots were on amphetamines...

But do you seriously think the USAF gave them these things? Recently a bunch of Marines were busted for traffiking large amounts of cocaine... I guess the Marine Corp was the one traffiking these drugs?
-SW

I have no doubt that USAF pilots get amped up, it was common during Nam to feed troops with it. One major side effect I ran into was that your pupils dialate making night fighting tough since any flash of light would blind you briefly and leave a remnant making it difficult to fire your weapon effectively.
The drug gurus in the military probably have developed a drug that doesn't have that particular side effect since quality of vision is paramount to a succesful air ops.

Ping · « **Reply #27 on:** January 15, 2003, 03:50:49 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by MrLars
The drug gurus in the military probably have developed a drug that doesn't have that particular side effect since quality of vision is paramount to a succesful air ops.

Hence the reason they hit friendlies?

hblair · « **Reply #28 on:** January 15, 2003, 03:52:22 PM »

I watched on a few different news shows last night. A couple of universal facts here...

The canadians were conducting a live fire exercise in a war zone that was being overflown by US military aircraft.

The pilots were not briefed that there were ANY friendlys on the ground in the area.

They were flying along and saw a missile fired from the ground. They got on the radio and asked for info, got none. The missile was in the air like 3 minutes.

Pilot made decision to drop bomb on what they thought was the enemy.

Right after bomb explodes, they hear on radio that there are friendlies in the area.

I saw people unassociated with the crews legal team claiming that the problem was further up the chain of command, that the pilots were more or less scapegoats.

Anyways, that's what I saw on the boob tube. Wouldn't be surprised if they are just scapegoats. Reminds me of back in the early nineties when the #2 gun on the Iowa exploded and the navy cooked up the story that one of the sailors was a homo and was tryin to 'splode him and his lover. Upon further investigation the crazy story was disproven.

whgates3 · « **Reply #29 on:** January 15, 2003, 03:55:57 PM »

maybe the .mil needs to drug it's pilots because they arent the cream-of-the-crop as they should be...appointments to the .mil academies are almost never merit based...alot like preWWII RAF