Do Us Air Force Pilots Take Amphetamines?

[PatrickHenry]

Scotland on Sunday - US Air Force uses drugs to keep pilots alert
And if so, does it affect their performance?

Is it right to have the military be hopped up on speed, but the general populace may find themselves arrested for the same thing?

[another day]

The general populace would not find themselves arrested for the same thing because amphetamines are widely available in many prescription and non-prescription medications. They are widely prescribed to children as young as 8. You can buy ephedrine at any supplement store and that is basically amphetamines. Crystal Meth is sold in pill form as Desoxyn® CII. Still, yes non-pharmaceutical amphetamines should be legal.

And yes it does affect their performance, positively, which is why they take it. Amphetamines improve performance in almost anything, from drawing to having a conversation to flying a plane.

[Technosoul]

This is an interesting topic in that the people who join the airforce wave some of their consitutional rights and so they are more or less citizens of the military more so then citizens of the USA while on duty.

I am not sure but stuff can be addedd to their food or they can be given shots or wharever and they are not supposed to object or refuse. I least that is what I hear.

Simular to prisoners in our jails who have lost their consitutional rights to some degree.

If the army thought it would improve their reaction time during combat or if they thought it would stemulate being more agressive then such drugs might be provided. (not because of a choice on the part of the pliots to "get high".)

Safty in battle is not a big objective because if you play it safe you would not be much of a fighter. Where as in public life safty is an important concern because private people might not manage the dose correctly.

And so this is like saying: is it right for the military to drive tanks when that is not allowed on the freeway here by citizens in pubic situations.

(just taking stab in the dark here about the reasoning involved).

[Jack]

I am not sure but stuff can be addedd to their food or they can be given shots or wharever and they are not supposed to object or refuse. I least that is what I hear.

As a survivor of the great swine flu fiasco in the Army (around 1976), I assure you that this was the case. Whether or not it still is I can't say.

[Gods_Mercenary]

And if so, does it affect their performance?

Of course it affects their performance, I doubt the Air force is just giving them pills to get them high, pilots spend greuling amounts of time in the air, and the nature of their job is that they have to be alert the entire time, so amphetamines make sense.

[Jack]

Drug use is different from drug abuse. Just because a drug is abused by a large number of people doesn't imply it has no legitimate uses. Stories of drug abuse unfairly demonize the legitimate uses they can be put to.

[PatrickHenry]

There are allegations that amphetamine use causes errors of judgement that result in friendly fire deaths.
The U.S. Military Needs Its Speed

Pilots from the Air Force 183rd Fighter Wing felt the reverberations of Marshall's assessment -- which is cited on page 3 of the Navy's official guide for managing fatigue -- last April. According to reports published in Canada, they misidentified a target during a bombing run over Iraq. Meeting with their commanders, they complained they were exhausted, that the "common-sense" rule of 12 hours of rest between missions was being ignored. In return they got two pieces of advice: Stop whining and visit the flight surgeon for some "go/no-go" pills. About a week later, two members of the 183rd, Majs. Harry Schmidt and William Umbach, launched a laser-guided bomb on a Canadian training force, killing four and injuring eight. At a recently concluded Article 32 hearing to determine if the pilots should be court-martialed for manslaughter, assault and dereliction of duty, Schmidt and Umbach's attorneys claimed it was the Air Force's dextro-amphetamine (trade name, Dexedrine) tablets, aka speed, that killed the Canadians, not Schmidt and Umbach.

[gallo]

Quote by: Technosoul This is an interesting topic in that the people who join the airforce wave (wave bye, bye now, kiddies. I presume you actually mean "waive.") some of their consitutional [sic] rights and so they are more or less citizens of the military more so then [b](I presume you mean "than") citizens of the USA while on duty.

While it is true that certain Constitutional rights are waived by our military, they do so voluntarily. That was not necessarily the case in my day. However, there is no such thing a being a "citizen of the military." I'm not sure why you specified the Air Force. The UCMJ isn't specific to a particular branch of service.

I am not sure but stuff can be addedd [sic] to their food

Nope. Our military personnel know what inoculations they are receiving. They are told so when it is administered and they carry an inoculation record.

or they can be given shots or wharever [???] and they are not supposed to object or refuse. I least that is what I hear.

Do you think that they should object? Usually the inoculations are administered upon induction, for common diseases that are arise in cases of crowding, i.e., barracks life of people from many environments. Additional inoculation are given before overseas deployment, and then they are most usually for diseases endemic to the duty station to which our military probably have not developed a resistance. They are also inoculated against diseases that might be weaponized, such as small pox and anthrax.

Simular [sic] to prisoners in our jails who have lost their consitutional [sic] rights to some degree.

Actually, it's not similar to prisoners in jails.

If the army thought it would improve their reaction time during combat or if they thought it would stemulate (I presume you mean "stimulate.") being more agressive [sic] then such drugs might be provided. (not because of a choice on the part of the pliots to "get high".)

I guess you missed the point of the thread, as well as the spelling of "pilots." The amphetamines are not intended to increase reaction time (they don't) or to increase aggression (they don't). They are to keep a pilot alert in spite of fatigue on extended missions where there is little sensory stimulation. The Army doesn't do that and the Army doesn't need to do that. There is nothing like a few AK rounds showering you with wood chips to improve reaction time and increase aggression. I don't know what your experience is or how you feel about it, but someone shooting at me always made me alert and aggressive. I'm not sure how you transposed this question from the Air Force (specifically, pilots on long missions), to the Army.

Safty [sic] in battle is not a big objective because if you play it safe you would not be much of a fighter.

On the other hand, if you are dead, you are even less of a fighter. In fact, much of Army combat training is about keeping yourself safe, as much as possible, in an inherently dangerous situation. The training is all about safety - concealment and cover, maneuver, and fire power. The purpose is to defeat the enemy without loss, even though that may not be possible. Of course, when most of our casualties are the result of IEDs, where they didn't have the opportunity to meet the enemy, such discussions are moot. When one is killed by an enemy who isn't even there, it matters little what drugs the troops were taking. Increased alertness or aggression are irrelevant. As Gen. George Patton said, "No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."

Where as (do you mean "whereas'?) in public life safty [sic] is an important concern because private people might not manage the dose correctly.

Right. And we wouldn't want exhausted civilians launching rockets at friendly troops.

And so this is like saying: is it right for the military to drive tanks when that is not allowed on the freeway here by citizens in pubic situations.

Since the military does not drive tanks on the freeways, and since the question of Air Force pilots on extended missions has no relevance to Army tanks on freeways, what are you trying to say? Did you actually think that you were making a point?

(just taking stab in the dark here about the reasoning involved).

Since there is little evidence of any sort of logical reasoning, your stab missed.

[Praxius]

Quote by: PatrickHenry There are allegations that amphetamine use causes errors of judgement that result in friendly fire deaths. The U.S. Military Needs Its Speed

I was gonna point this out, but thanks for beating me to it.

In the meeting, held in the week before Canadian soldiers were shelled by American bombs in Afghanistan, at least one F-16 pilot complained that requirements for crew rest were not being observed and that many of the pilots were overtired. The pilot was told, however, that further questions about crew rest would not be looked on favourably by the wing command. Instead, pilots were advised to speak to a flight surgeon about so-called "go/no pills" -- amphetamines used to help stay awake on long missions, and sedatives to help sleep. Then, on April 17, a fighter from the 183rd flying a patrol mission accidentally bombed Canadian troops conducting a live-fire exercise south of Kandahar. Four soldiers from the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry were killed and eight injured. Pilots are supposed to get 12 hours of rest between missions, but that can be changed when the unit is in a state of alert. The 183rd has been flying missions in the no-fly zone since March. Although U.S. air force rules allow flight surgeons to prescribe dextro-amphetamine (dexe-drine), the drug is supposed to be used for long transoceanic transport flights, not combat missions.

Fatigue dogged U.S. pilots: Crews urged to use amphetamines days before Canadian troops killed, 6/3/02

So it's not a question of "Do they use them" ~ instead the question should be "Why?" considdering the above information and the fact they are supposed to be Px'd for long transport flights, not combat missions.

[PatrickHenry]

My point is that it is not a matter of medical treatment that USAF pilots use amphetamines.

They are expected to use drugs for practical military reasons. Whether we disagree with the military agenda or not, we must see the disjunction when it's ok for people with the implements of death to use, but not the citizen who has little to do with such weapons...

[Praxius]

They should be permitted medical use of drugs, when needed.

These pilots in the above examples were over worked and exausted, and when concern was announced by the pilots themselves, it went ignored and they were drugged up with a narcotic not ment for what they did.

This does not solve the problem of them being over worked and exausted, but masked the effect that they are still exausted.

Without proper sleep and REM, you loose your ability to make sound judgements, for one thing.... and these drugs didn't solve that problem.

They made the problem worse and could have been directly responsible for the judgements of the pilot.

Jumping into hypotheticals (But this is a logical one) you've must have pulled a few long days without sleep, or decent sleep? If you were a pilot, over tired and drugged to stay awake, do you think you would be able to determine with certainty and safe judgment of your own life, the difference between fire from the ground firing in a live fire exercise, and ground fire into the air?

During limited visability and the information provided to you?

Then the question is who is responsible for the incident? Plenty of people have their responsibilities in this matter.