Friendly Fire Notebook

Ed Rasimus wrote:

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 16:39:14 GMT, "Gord Beaman" )
wrote:


The NTSB sure doesn't put much credence in eyewitness accounts at
all. They use them only to add a slight amount of weight to
physical evidence when there's some ambiguity in it. Rightly so
IMO.

As we've been discussing, there are "witnesses" and there are
"Witnesses". The eyewitness recollection of Joe Bagadonutz, the night
shift fry-cook at the local McBurgerWendBell, on the condition of a
crashing tactical fighter might not be very reliable. The eyewitness
observation of a qualified aircrewmember in the type who was in
position might be of considerable value.

Put a student tactical aviator in charge of the debrief after his
first 2-v-1 sortie and you won't get much of value. Put the lead IP at
the whiteboard with his three colored markers, HUD tape and commentary
and you'll get a pretty accurate picture. Add the input of any
supporting IPs in the flight and you'll be almost perfect. Now add the
mission controller (if used) and the ACMI recreation and you've got
exactly what happened.

Evaluating the qualification of the observer is a critical part of the
process.

Sure is, but experience only helps, it doesn't guarantee complete
accuracy. I'm reminded of an account told to me by an IAF pilot, of an
IAF helo accident which a very experienced Canadian military helo pilot
(instructor etc.) witnessed from the ground in the Sinai (IIRR, it was
during the Israeli pullout in 1982). He was the best eyewitness they had,
although they later found someone who had filmed it. When questioned,
among the things he stated was that the a/c had definitely made 4-5
revolutions before ground impact (spins; IIRC, there was a tail rotor
failure of some kind). When they eventually got their hands on the film,
the a/c had clearly made only 1 1/2 revs before impact.

Guy

Guy Alcala wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote:

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 16:39:14 GMT, "Gord Beaman" )
wrote:


The NTSB sure doesn't put much credence in eyewitness accounts at
all. They use them only to add a slight amount of weight to
physical evidence when there's some ambiguity in it. Rightly so
IMO.

As we've been discussing, there are "witnesses" and there are
"Witnesses". The eyewitness recollection of Joe Bagadonutz, the night
shift fry-cook at the local McBurgerWendBell, on the condition of a
crashing tactical fighter might not be very reliable. The eyewitness
observation of a qualified aircrewmember in the type who was in
position might be of considerable value.

Put a student tactical aviator in charge of the debrief after his
first 2-v-1 sortie and you won't get much of value. Put the lead IP at
the whiteboard with his three colored markers, HUD tape and commentary
and you'll get a pretty accurate picture. Add the input of any
supporting IPs in the flight and you'll be almost perfect. Now add the
mission controller (if used) and the ACMI recreation and you've got
exactly what happened.

Evaluating the qualification of the observer is a critical part of the
process.

Sure is, but experience only helps, it doesn't guarantee complete
accuracy. I'm reminded of an account told to me by an IAF pilot, of an
IAF helo accident which a very experienced Canadian military helo pilot
(instructor etc.) witnessed from the ground in the Sinai (IIRR, it was
during the Israeli pullout in 1982). He was the best eyewitness they had,
although they later found someone who had filmed it. When questioned,
among the things he stated was that the a/c had definitely made 4-5
revolutions before ground impact (spins; IIRC, there was a tail rotor
failure of some kind). When they eventually got their hands on the film,
the a/c had clearly made only 1 1/2 revs before impact.

Guy


Not a bit surprising Guy...the finest minds in the world are all
prone to these kinds of 'filling in' from the observed hints
intermixed with what the witness expects to happen and intermixed
again with his prior memories etc.

The human mind is a fearsomely convoluted unit indeed.
(especially mine when I can't find my GD car in the full lot)

--

-Gord.

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 00:16:59 GMT, "Gord Beaman" )
wrote:

Not a bit surprising Guy...the finest minds in the world are all
prone to these kinds of 'filling in' from the observed hints
intermixed with what the witness expects to happen and intermixed
again with his prior memories etc.

Pilot walks into debriefing at Ubon around in 67 and talks about the
heavy AAA around the target. I believe just above the DMZ. Pilot is
really hyped up talking about evasive actions, etc. Another crew
walking by the door hears him and starts laughing. It wasn't AAA. It
was the CBUs the other crew had just dropped.

The human mind is a fearsomely convoluted unit indeed.
(especially mine when I can't find my GD car in the full lot)


They have long range remote beepers just for that situation. My cousin
had my uncles car outfitted with one, and showed my uncle how it
worked over at our house. Put the little remote on my uncles key
chain. Uncle went home and then returned in about an hour. Couldn't
figure out what the new thing was on his key chain...

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 04:37:16 GMT, Buzzer wrote:

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 00:16:59 GMT, "Gord Beaman" )
wrote:

Not a bit surprising Guy...the finest minds in the world are all
prone to these kinds of 'filling in' from the observed hints
intermixed with what the witness expects to happen and intermixed
again with his prior memories etc.

Pilot walks into debriefing at Ubon around in 67 and talks about the
heavy AAA around the target. I believe just above the DMZ. Pilot is
really hyped up talking about evasive actions, etc. Another crew
walking by the door hears him and starts laughing. It wasn't AAA. It
was the CBUs the other crew had just dropped.

Absolutely! Not at all an uncommon occurence. You might want to add
the relative combat experience of the two pilots--my guess (and it's
no more than that) is the first guy was an FNG and the second was a
FOG. ("new" and "old")

Similarly the reports of hundreds of SAM firings quite often were the
result of numerous observers of the same event from different
positions. Without some common timeline and a bit of triangulation,
the data becomes meaningless.

Can't begin to tell you the number of times tense newbies called SAM
launches on Shrike or Standard ARM firings or even the fuel mist trail
of a jettisoned tank.

AB plumes, the tell-tale streak of white contrail caused by unburned
fuel out the back before ignition, often get you a SAM or Atoll call
as well.

Which simply goes back to my original contention--evaluation of the
observer is at least as important at evaluation of the observation.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

Buzzer wrote:

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 00:16:59 GMT, "Gord Beaman" )
wrote:

Not a bit surprising Guy...the finest minds in the world are all
prone to these kinds of 'filling in' from the observed hints
intermixed with what the witness expects to happen and intermixed
again with his prior memories etc.

Pilot walks into debriefing at Ubon around in 67 and talks about the
heavy AAA around the target. I believe just above the DMZ. Pilot is
really hyped up talking about evasive actions, etc. Another crew
walking by the door hears him and starts laughing. It wasn't AAA. It
was the CBUs the other crew had just dropped.

The human mind is a fearsomely convoluted unit indeed.
(especially mine when I can't find my GD car in the full lot)


They have long range remote beepers just for that situation. My cousin
had my uncles car outfitted with one, and showed my uncle how it
worked over at our house. Put the little remote on my uncles key
chain. Uncle went home and then returned in about an hour. Couldn't
figure out what the new thing was on his key chain...

LOL...pretty good...I have the -real- answer though...buy a PT
Cruiser, then you can just casually look over the lot and spot
the ugly rising above it.

:
--

-Gord.