American pilot responsible in mistaken death of Canadian, U.S. says:

[Praxius]

American pilot responsible in mistaken death of Canadian, U.S. says

The fate of the American pilot who mistakenly shot up Canadian troops last fall, killing one and wounding 30, will be decided by his commanding officer, the U.S. Air Force said Monday. An investigation by American authorities has concluded that the pilot, who has yet to be identified, was responsible for the incident that killed Pte. Mark Anthony Graham, a former Olympic athlete, on Sept. 4, 2006. The inquiry found by "clear and convincing evidence" that the cause of the early morning incident was the "misidentification of a friendly position by the mishap pilot," said a censored version the U.S. investigation released Monday. It states that the pilot of the A-10A Thunderbolt II sprayed 180 rounds of 30 mm high-explosive bullets from the aircraft's Gatling gun, aiming at a garbage fire he thought was the smoky residue of a bomb he'd just dropped. Members of Charles Company 1st Battalion Royal Canadian Regiment had camped overnight at the base of Ma'sum Ghar, a rocky outcrop about 40 kilometres west of Kandahar, and were preparing to resume fighting when the attack jet swooped in. The pilot, who had removed his night vision goggles, pulled the trigger even though the rising sun and weather conditions prevented him from seeing the ground at all, U.S. investigators found. "The mishap pilot was at a range and altitude from where he could see neither personnel nor friendly vehicles in the mishap area," said the American report's executive summary. The findings of the U.S. investigation are similar to the results of a Canadian military board of inquiry, which was released late Friday night. Maj. John Elolf, a spokesman for the U.S. Air Force, says now that the investigation is complete, the commander of the 81st Fighter Squadron must now decide whether there is enough evidence to charge the pilot with negligence. "It's all up to him; it's all up to the commander on what he wants to do," Elolf said in an interview from Shaw Air Force Base, near Sumter, N.C. The pilot had 60 combat missions in Afghanistan to his credit and was considered "highly experienced and competent," according to the separate Canadian investigation. He has since ended his tour and returned with his unit to Spangdahlem Air Base in Germany. Elolf could give no timeline on when a decision will be made about possible charges and also would not identify the pilot for security and privacy reasons. Third incident The deadly mistake came at the height of Operation Medusa, the Canadian-led offensive to sweep the Taliban out of the Panjwaii district, where they had been massing for their offensive to retake Kandahar city. It is the third time since Canada landed in Afghanistan following the ouster of the Taliban in 2001 that troops have died as a result of U.S. fire. Two of the opposition parties took a shots at the Conservative government Monday over the timing of the release of the Canadian investigation. New Democrat defence critic Dawn Black said putting the report out after 5 p.m. on a Friday, the same day that the trial of media baron Conrad Black comes to end, is a guarantee that the findings will not register with the public. "The government is worried about the loss of support by the Canadian public for this mission," said Black, in a telephone interview from her B.C. home. "They're looking at ways to keep stories off the front pages, especially issues of deaths by friendly fire. That's wrong. I think Canadians need to know the full details of this." Liberal defence critic Denis Coderre said burying the report also gives the government the opportunity to avoid troubling questions that were raised about the inadequate training of Canadian soldiers whose responsibility it is to call in air strikes. Maj. Richard Perreault, a spokesman for the Canadian Forces, said Monday that there was no intention by the military to downplay the report. Release of the 118-page document was held up as the military censored parts of it for national security reasons.

ok, first this quote:

The pilot had 60 combat missions in Afghanistan to his credit and was considered "highly experienced and competent," according to the separate Canadian investigation. He has since ended his tour and returned with his unit to Spangdahlem Air Base in Germany.

If the Victim's country and military deems this pilot as Highly Experienced and Competent and flew 60 missions..... why would he have pulled a stunt like the above? Would it possibly have something to do with the perscribed drugs to keep the pilots awake that clouded his judgement?

Secondly:

Liberal defence critic Denis Coderre said burying the report also gives the government the opportunity to avoid troubling questions that were raised about the inadequate training of Canadian soldiers whose responsibility it is to call in air strikes.

This idiot doesn't know what he's talking about, because the Canadians didn't call in an Air Strike in the first place, so how can you blame them for failing to call in a proper air strike? They were just friggin waking up.... cripes.... someone fire him.

[Praxius]

Friendly fire death was preventable: government report

This is an earlier story of one of the first FF incidences on Canadian troops by US forces:

OTTAWA -- The U.S. fighter pilot who dropped the bomb that killed four Canadian soldiers three years ago says he's the fall guy in a Pentagon coverup aimed at hiding a dysfunctional command-control system. In a new book, Maj. Harry Schmidt, who has been assigned to desk duty for the balance of his air force career, is quoted as saying the whole incident would have been shoved under the carpet had it involved U.S. troops instead of Canadians. In Friendly Fire: The Untold Story, author and journalist Michael Friscolanti said the air force realized soon after the air strike southwest of Kandahar that its entire command-control system could be opened to scrutiny. In the first extensive interview with the F-16 pilot since the April 18, 2002, incident, Friscolanti says Schmidt believes a coverup was the only way the military could protect the status quo going into the Iraq war. "I think I'm a victim of the fact that it was an international accident," Schmidt told him, adding it would have been the same if the victims were Danish or French or anyone else in the U.S.-led coalition. The Pentagon could have kept the whole thing relatively quiet if the troops taking part in the live-fire exercise that night were Americans.

This all stinks of bad intelligence and these guys are taking the major guilt for things.

In the original topic and pilot who strafed in the A-10.... he was instructed to target smoke..... that's not the smartest or brightest discription now is it? A normal operation would be based on general co-ordinates and some additional descriptions..... not just look for smoke and blow it up.

If military intelligence was working properly, don't you think a warning of friendly soldiers would have been annouced that they are in the area?

These pilots can only work with what they are given..... and perhaps the reason why he never used his equipment, is probably based on the difficulty of the mission assigned to him..... if he was under the impression no allies were nearby, then why would he require to identify his target during this strafing mission?

If they were to cover our troops, then don't you think co-ordinates would have been supplied to where we were located in the first place to avoid such an incident.

This might be partly the pilots error in not using the equipment supplied to him, but I don't think this is all his fault.

If he was supplied information of co-ordinates and locations of friendly forces, then he'd have a use for his equipment.... instead he was just instructed to target smoke.... as if there wouldn't be any other smoke during a war?

Sometimes I wonder and worry about your guy's troops..... like is the Military just throwing darts at a map and telling everyone to attack wherever it lands?

[jose]

A pilot involved in the "friendly fire" incident which killed a UK soldier has more then 20 years experience in the US Air Force, it has been reported. The Sun has identified Col Gus Kohntopp as the pilot who fired the shots in Iraq which killed Lance Corporal of Horse Matty Hull, 25, from Berkshire.

BBC NEWS | UK | Friendly fire pilot 'experienced'

As of February 9, 2007 Kohntopp was reported to be "in hiding."[14] On March 16, 2007, the Oxfordshire assistant deputy coroner Andrew Walker ruled that the killing of Matty Hull was, "unlawful and the result of a criminal attack" IE the official verdict was one of unlawful killing. Neither Kohntopp nor any other representative from the U.S. government appeared before or provided testimony to the inquest in spite of requests from the British coroner to do so.[15][16]

Gus Kohntopp - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
he got the Bronze star and promoted to colonel

[Praxius]

What the hell man!

This seems a bit odd considdering it's people outside of the US who are finding these things out about how their own soldiers, good soldiers at that are taking the fall, and the US govenment won't even back them up, appear to testify or anything...... what disrespect for your soldiers!!

I would at least think there'd be at least some defense for your soldiers in these cases..... any other country would at least attempt to defend them a little bit. But there's one big stinky pattern I'm seeing here between all these pilots..... good respectable pilots at that.

I want justice for those friendly fire incidences, not fall guys who were following orders. I have more faith in long term soldiers with great experience and good judgement then I do towards a couple of stars behind a desk.

[Zeebadee]

There's not enough information in the linked article to really draw any conclusions.

..."the pilot of the A-10A Thunderbolt II sprayed 180 rounds of 30 mm high-explosive bullets from the aircraft's Gatling gun, aiming at a garbage fire he thought was the smoky residue of a bomb he'd just dropped."

He'd already dropped a bomb on a target he couldn't see?? Was he told to drop at that location? Doesn't make sense to drop a bomb and then strafe a position he couldn't even see. There must be more to this than we are being told, but of course, "Release of the 118-page document was held up as the military censored parts of it for national security reasons."

[Praxius]

Yeah indeed.... something's not right.....

And if it was US troops that were fired on, as mentioned above and in previous incidences, it would have been covered up by another situation they would explain to the public.... since we know some of the details as well, they gotta explain in a manner that doesn't make it look like the system made an error, but the pilot...... in multiple cases in the last number of years since the wars started..... and not just on Canadian troops as shown in previous post linked by Jose..... and not just UK.....

Air Strikes on Civilian compounds, the Marines who went on a rampage from apparently being ambushed, although most of the injured and dead were civilians and families parked in their cars on the side of the roads after they were told to pull to the side...... and then confiscating film and other media from reporters who arrived on the scene?

I could list two pages of articles of seperate questionable incidences, that were either never explained or partially explained. Every other country in NATO for example, have always reported the incident, how many people were involved, what time, location, what division was attacked or did the attacking, what was the intelligence behind the mission, etc.....

And what do we get form the US? Something just doesn't add up right and it's very unsettling.