Friendly Fire Notebook

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

(BUFDRVR) wrote:

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 amount of weight to
physical evidence when there's some ambiguity in it. Rightly so
IMO.
--

-Gord.

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

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

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

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.

(ArtKramr) wrote:

GB wrote:

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

Dunno Arthur, guess in that case yer kinda skrood aincha?...

Note the "first hand account" of a lady watching (from the
ground) the prang of the, what DC-8? 707? aircraft from South
America which ran out of fuel. "I watched the pilot standing at a
cockpit window waving a little red flag". She likely really
thought that she saw that, but it 'probably' didn't happen.

Of course what Ed says about experience has some value but even
the most experienced flyer can get rattled when presented with a
very traumatic happening causing him to 'fill in' areas that
might later be proven untrue. He really might believe that what
his mind 'filled in' happened when it couldn't have. The NTSB has
proven this many times.

Nothing to do with stupidity (or nobility either) just human
nature.
--

-Gord.

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