If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#121
|
|||
|
|||
Ed Rasimus wrote:
On 23 Apr 2004 21:57:13 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote: I think if you review your psych books you'll find that traumatic experiences (near-death events) can either result in partial amnesia--blanking of the unpleasantness; or at the opposite extreme, near photographic recollection. However, according to numerous psychologists (highlighted recently), chances are much greater that you will not accurately recall information that occured under stress. This has been highlighted recently in light of eyewitnesses to crimes who have been used to put the wrong person in jail. I'm not a big psyche guy, but I do watch Dateline And, I stayed last night in a Holiday Inn Express. Seriously, the eyewitnesses to crimes comparison isn't relevant with regard to the recollection of details by an experienced combat operator. Certainly on the first trip or so there might be some elements of "buck fever" but the level of efficiency goes up and the tendency for tunnel vision goes down over multiple exposures. Oh, damn. Here I've been unable to reply for almost a week, and the discussion has moved on so far, with so much back and forth, that there's no way I can ever get back in sync with the rest of you if I go back and reply to old posts replying to my old posts. My apologies to all who I haven't replied to (You, John, and anyone else). I hate it when that happens. I will say that personal perceptions are just that, and while training and experience can influence their accuracy, so does an individual's biases and outlook. "Rashomon" applies. There's a reason that accident investigators want to see the recorded and physical data instead of relying on eyewitness accounts. The latter are almost always wrong, wholly or partially so, no matter how experienced the witnesses are. Kind of like when they installed gun cameras in fighters; they were finally able to compare reported results as to target type, range, angle, effects etc., with those captured on film; only the latter could be objective. If eyewitness accounts were considered accurate, there would be little reason for the elaborate recording devices found in modern combat a/c. Only when you have a large number of independent accounts in essential agreement, FROM ALL SIDES, with no opportunity for the witnesses to be influenced by other people's accounts prior to giving their own, can you assume accuracy. Even then it should be considered unverified if you lack direct hard evidence of the event. Once you add in the further effects of time and outside influences on memory, the accuracy degrades even further. The one constant I've found when trying to correlate accounts of the exact same occurrence is that if two accounts agree completely in all essential details, one of them was based on the other. I could, for example, give you both Steve Ritchie and Chuck DeBellevue's accounts of the same double kill mission (Paula 01, 8 July 1972), with the two men separated by six feet or less; even so, their recollections of the order of events, colors, spatial relationships etc. differ slightly, and the accounts of each man change slightly depending on the audience and the passage of time, no doubt influenced by hundreds of tellings, and hearing each other tell the story. And that doesn't even get into the accounts of the 3 other U.S. crews directly involved, or those of the Vietnamese side, etc. I've heard some of the radio tape of Cunnigham/Driscoll's 10 May triple MiG kill mission, as well as read their accounts. When it comes to timing of events, who said what when, etc., the tape's 'memory' is completely accurate, the men's perceptions and memories are of lesser accuracy. Why should this be a surprise? OTOH, when I read Keith Rosenkranz' book "Vipers in the Storm", where he gives exact times, radio calls, altitudes etc., I'm going to put the highest accuracy as far as those items are concerned, because he had copies of his mission HUD tapes and used them when writing the book; if you go to his website you can watch and listen to the tapes yourself. Here's one from the big attack on the nuclear complex at Osirak: http://www.vipersinthestorm.com/html/chapter_24.html But anything that isn't on those tapes and which he didn't personally experience and have 'non-volatile' evidence of, gets a much lower reliability rating pending similar confirmation. Guy |
#122
|
|||
|
|||
|
#123
|
|||
|
|||
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. "I seen this big ol' airyplane sort of wallowing around and it looked like he was on fahr. There was smoke coming off of his wings an' his motor was sputtering and like all choked up. Then his back winder sort of just blew off that thang and he jumped out right after that." Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" Smithsonian Institution Press ISBN #1-58834-103-8 |
#124
|
|||
|
|||
Subject: Friendly Fire Notebook
From: "Gord Beaman" ) Date: 4/24/04 9:39 AM Paci I'd personally believe personal accounts given first hand, than anything else. Well, often first hand accounts are wrong, or at best conflicting. For example Ed doesn't believe the BUFF-MiG-21 shootdowns, but you and both B-52 aircrews involved do. I find first hand accounts good for supporting data, personally I prefer records, although as you pointed out these are often incorrect too. BUFDRVR The NTSB sure doesn't put much credence in eyewitness accounts at all. They use them only to add a slight And whathapopens in the cases where the only accounts you have are first hand eye witness accounts??? Then what? Arthur Kramer 344th BG 494th BS England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany Visit my WW II B-26 website at: http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer |
#125
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#126
|
|||
|
|||
Ed Rasimus wrote:
If you'd logged a dozen or so witnessings, your ability to recall the details will be pretty darn good. The NTSB puts very little value in eyewitness reports and I'm inclined to put a rather high value on their opinion. That said I agree that the less stress the more reliable your witnessing will be (to a point of course) one tends to be a poor witness again when boredom sets in. -- -Gord. |
#127
|
|||
|
|||
|
#128
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#129
|
|||
|
|||
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... |
#130
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"Friendly fire" | Mike | Military Aviation | 0 | March 19th 04 02:36 PM |
B-52 crew blamed for friendly fire death | Paul Hirose | Military Aviation | 0 | March 16th 04 12:49 AM |
U.S. won't have to reveal other friendly fire events: Schmidt's lawyers hoped to use other incidents to help their case | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | December 18th 03 08:44 PM |
Fire officer tops in field — again | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | October 13th 03 08:37 PM |
Friendly fire pilot may testify against wingman | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | October 11th 03 09:32 PM |