800 people evacuated on one C-17 flight

Kenny Phillips said:
Hopefully the upcoming civil [tribal] wars will consume all of the resources of the Taliban.
Click to expand...

They'll be busy for a while getting re-established for sure. I doubt they'll want to poke the bear [USA] for a long while, since they know it will likely result in lost power for another couple of decades. I wish we had enacted a much more orderly drawdown and removed as much of the US military equipment as possible, in addition to evacuating people. However, the only good thing that should come out of this event is hopefully a bad taste for regime-building by the US gov't politicians so that they avoid getting entrenched on any foreign soil. I'm sure they'll screw up some military response down the road and end up doing it all over again, but maybe it buys us a few decades without having boots on the ground fighting an endless war.
 
SoonerAviator said:
I doubt they'll want to poke the bear [USA] for a long while, since they know it will likely result in lost power for another couple of decades.
Click to expand...

I don't think they know that and I don't think it's true. I cannot imagine anything that would result in the US reentering Afghanistan.
 
The Taliban tried the kinder gentler act back in 96 too. It's baloney.

Not necessary to "go in." We'll rearm the Tajiks and Uzbeks and provide air support just like after 911. But this time we'll let them partition the country. Once Pashtunistan exists, they'll turn against Pakistan and the real fun will begin.
 
Ed Haywood said:
The Taliban tried the kinder gentler act back in 96 too. It's baloney.

Not necessary to "go in." We'll rearm the Tajiks and Uzbeks and provide air support just like after 911. But this time we'll let them partition the country. Once Pashtunistan exists, they'll turn against Pakistan and the real fun will begin.
Click to expand...

You seen Legion of Brothers? Those guys did more in 3 months than we did in 20 years. Amazing what they accomplished in such a short span…while riding donkeys. ;)
 
Morgan3820 said:
Bought it. Started it yesterday. Thanks.
Click to expand...
Take just about everything Marcus Luttrell sais with a large grain of salt. I'm not going to outright call the man a liar, but his version of events in the book is more than a little disconnected from reality.

Sent from my LML212VL using Tapatalk
 
Beggs said:
Take just about everything Marcus Luttrell sais with a large grain of salt. I'm not going to outright call the man a liar, but his version of events in the book is more than a little disconnected from reality.

Sent from my LML212VL using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Well you just took the fun out of it. Buzzkill.:)
 
I'll be curious to follow the court martial of the pilot who decided it was a good idea to proceed to taxi and take off with people hanging on his frame outside the plane. Instead of aborting, applying brakes and waiting for the crowd to be controlled, like the other aircraft did, he just panicked and decided to disregard the situation. People fell off , at altitude, to their death. A corpse was found in the landing gear.

Especially in a situation like Kabul, what is expected of a PIC, in particular a military one, is to not panick. These unarmed civilians never posed a threat, it happened on an airport controlled by NATO forces, where other planes waited a few hours for the crowd to be controlled to taxi and take off.

The fact that there is a USAF enquiry is no guarantee that the PIC will ever be sanctioned, revoked, or do prison time.
 
Cedric said:
I'll be curious to follow the court martial of the pilot who decided it was a good idea to proceed to taxi and take off with people hanging on his frame outside the plane. Instead of aborting, applying brakes and waiting for the crowd to be controlled, like the other aircraft did, he just panicked and decided to disregard the situation. People fell off , at altitude, to their death. A corpse was found in the landing gear.

Especially in a situation like Kabul, what is expected of a PIC, in particular a military one, is to not panick. These unarmed civilians never posed a threat, it happened on an airport controlled by NATO forces, where other planes waited a few hours for the crowd to be controlled to taxi and take off.

The fact that there is a USAF enquiry is no guarantee that the PIC will ever be sanctioned, revoked, or do prison time.
Click to expand...

What number do you wear on your Monday morning quarterback jersey?

I’d wager you have little to no idea what the situation was on the ground there at the time outside of shear chaos. To say that the airfield was under NATO forces control at the time is crazy. A runway lined with thousands of people and people swarming airplanes is not being controlled.

You also assume the aircrew was aware people were on and immediately around the airplane. The view from the cockpit to the landing gear area is not great/nonexistent. Maybe they knew, maybe they didn’t but I wasn’t in the seat and neither were you. I don’t know how anyone could see those videos of an overrun airfield and say “hey, just go grab a cup of coffee in the FBO, this will be under control in a few hours.”

As I said early in this thread, the crew was forced to make a decision in an impossible situation. I don’t envy them and think they probably did the best they could have.
 
What is the ROE for pilots in such a situation? What were the pilot's orders?
 
WTF. There are a lot of people to blame for why we didn't leave that miserable country after we removed what's his name during the Obama administration, but NONE of them were wearing a uniform.

These guys weren't leaving Logan when a bunch of drunk college students stormed the field on a prank.
 
Bob Noel said:
What is the ROE for pilots in such a situation? What were the pilot's orders?
Click to expand...

ROE (that’s rules of engagement luvflyin) apply to the use of weapons and wouldn’t typically be something related to C-17 ops.

I’ve never seen anything in an AFI (Air Force Instruction) or AFMAN (Air Force Manual) that would provide guidance in this situation. Maybe there is something in the theater specific instructions but I doubt it, that’s going to be an a classified document anyway so we won’t find out on this message board.

When you’re operating in what is essentially a pickup game you have to make the best decision you can with the information you have. I don’t think making a judgement of the crew’s actions with even less information and SA (situational awareness) than they had at the time is reasonable.

Edit to add: Bob I didn’t mean to imply you were making a judgement, that’s for earlier posters that seemed to be.
 
Cedric said:
I'll be curious to follow the court martial of the pilot who decided it was a good idea to proceed to taxi and take off with people hanging on his frame outside the plane. Instead of aborting, applying brakes and waiting for the crowd to be controlled, like the other aircraft did, he just panicked and decided to disregard the situation. People fell off , at altitude, to their death. A corpse was found in the landing gear.

Especially in a situation like Kabul, what is expected of a PIC, in particular a military one, is to not panick. These unarmed civilians never posed a threat, it happened on an airport controlled by NATO forces, where other planes waited a few hours for the crowd to be controlled to taxi and take off.

The fact that there is a USAF enquiry is no guarantee that the PIC will ever be sanctioned, revoked, or do prison time.
Click to expand...
Velocity173 said:
You seen Legion of Brothers? Those guys did more in 3 months than we did in 20 years. Amazing what they accomplished in such a short span…while riding donkeys. ;)
Click to expand...

I am SF, so most of those guys were my peers and friends. That mission is the reason we exist.

This has been a double gut punch for that community. We spent the last 15 years paired closely with the ANA Commandos. It's in the nature of that work to develop close bonds and mutual respect. A lot of guys have spent the last few days on the phone trying to facilitate getting old partners and their families through the wire at the airport. Looked pretty grim at first but now seems to be working in some sort of fashion.
 
Arm3 said:
I’d wager you have little to no idea what the situation was on the ground there at the time outside of shear chaos. To say that the airfield was under NATO forces control at the time is crazy. A runway lined with thousands of people and people swarming airplanes is not being controlled.

You also assume the aircrew was aware people were on and immediately around the airplane. The view from the cockpit to the landing gear area is not great/nonexistent. Maybe they knew, maybe they didn’t but I wasn’t in the seat and neither were you. I don’t know how anyone could see those videos of an overrun airfield and say “hey, just go grab a cup of coffee in the FBO, this will be under control in a few hours.”
Click to expand...
1. I actually know this airport quite well, I've spent 4 years in the country, and am in contact daily with people at KIA to get some of our ex-afghan colleagues out. This is not some bush airstrip in a jungle. It's been a military American airbase for 20 years, complete with state of the art tower and communications. If a C-17 takes off in Nevada with a family on the wing and another on the gear, the Tower will let them know. Well it's exactly the same at Kabul airport. Besides, it was evident that more crowd was invading the runway. There is simply no way the pilots did not see the crowd, nor that no one told them they had families clinging to their sides and gear.

2. There is an investigation, so despite the quick conclusions you are making, the USAF is less quick than you are, and wants to investigate responsibilities. So does the press, rightfully so.

3. Since last Sunday, KIA has been and remains perhaps the only safe place in Kabul. It is very difficult to access and the Afghans who are admitted in the perimeter are civilians and are unarmed. That same crowd of civilians is still there, by the way, under the protection of the NATO perimeter. At no point was the plane, its crew or its cargo, at risk. Shortly afterwards, other flights took off, including C-17s, with proper care from the crew to remove people from taxiways and of course from their frame. It is still the case today.

We are not talking about engagement or rules of engagement here, there was no attack on that plane, no guns.
 
The USAF wants to investigate because it's a PR problem for the USAF and its leadership. The press cares because stories like this make them money.
 
Cedric said:
1. I actually know this airport quite well, I've spent 4 years in the country, and am in contact daily with people at KIA to get some of our ex-afghan colleagues out. This is not some bush airstrip in a jungle. It's been a military American airbase for 20 years, complete with state of the art tower and communications. If a C-17 takes off in Nevada with a family on the wing and another on the gear, the Tower will let them know. Well it's exactly the same at Kabul airport. Besides, it was evident that more crowd was invading the runway. There is simply no way the pilots did not see the crowd, nor that no one told them they had families clinging to their sides and gear.

2. There is an investigation, so despite the quick conclusions you are making, the USAF is less quick than you are, and wants to investigate responsibilities. So does the press, rightfully so.

3. Since last Sunday, KIA has been and remains perhaps the only safe place in Kabul. It is very difficult to access and the Afghans who are admitted in the perimeter are civilians and are unarmed. That same crowd of civilians is still there, by the way, under the protection of the NATO perimeter. At no point was the plane, its crew or its cargo, at risk. Shortly afterwards, other flights took off, including C-17s, with proper care from the crew to remove people from taxiways and of course from their frame. It is still the case today.

We are not talking about engagement or rules of engagement here, there was no attack on that plane, no guns.
Click to expand...
Sounds like you’ve got it all figured out.
 
Cedric said:
1. I actually know this airport quite well, I've spent 4 years in the country, and am in contact daily with people at KIA to get some of our ex-afghan colleagues out. This is not some bush airstrip in a jungle. It's been a military American airbase for 20 years, complete with state of the art tower and communications. If a C-17 takes off in Nevada with a family on the wing and another on the gear, the Tower will let them know. Well it's exactly the same at Kabul airport. Besides, it was evident that more crowd was invading the runway. There is simply no way the pilots did not see the crowd, nor that no one told them they had families clinging to their sides and gear.

2. There is an investigation, so despite the quick conclusions you are making, the USAF is less quick than you are, and wants to investigate responsibilities. So does the press, rightfully so.

3. Since last Sunday, KIA has been and remains perhaps the only safe place in Kabul. It is very difficult to access and the Afghans who are admitted in the perimeter are civilians and are unarmed. That same crowd of civilians is still there, by the way, under the protection of the NATO perimeter. At no point was the plane, its crew or its cargo, at risk. Shortly afterwards, other flights took off, including C-17s, with proper care from the crew to remove people from taxiways and of course from their frame. It is still the case today.

We are not talking about engagement or rules of engagement here, there was no attack on that plane, no guns.
Click to expand...

But this isn’t Nevada, it’s a war zone and the ROE do apply. While I wouldn’t consider the acts of the mob as hostile, they’re still in violation of law. They invaded government property and tried to unlawfully board a military aircraft. Second, an argument could be made for “hostile intent” in that the airport was about to be overrun by the Taliban. A declared hostile, terrorist group. The PIC has self defense authorization based on that alone. The PIC has also been forced to make a decision based on the possibility of his 600-800 PAX being slaughtered at the expense of a few civilian deaths. Not a decision I’d like to be responsible for.

There hasn’t been any announcement from the AF about a court martial. The announcement of an investigation to the event has nothing to do with any particular crew actions either. It’s an accident (most likely Class A) that resulted in a fatality and damage to the aircraft. It has to be investigated.
 
Last edited:
Ed Haywood said:
The Taliban tried the kinder gentler act back in 96 too. It's baloney.

Not necessary to "go in." We'll rearm the Tajiks and Uzbeks and provide air support just like after 911. But this time we'll let them partition the country. Once Pashtunistan exists, they'll turn against Pakistan and the real fun will begin.
Click to expand...
Kind what I think will happen as well. In thinking about Pakistan, it will be interesting to see what transpires re NWFP* or whatever it’s called today.

@luvflin: *NorthWest Frontier Province, since renamed, the autonomous-ish fifth province.
 
For those keeping score, US and G7 partners meet tomorrow (Tuesday) to discuss extending the Aug 31 date because, well, nobody can really guarantee their ex patriate citizens wishing to repatriate from Afghanistan can do so by the end of the month.

The away team, following it’s usual tactic, has essentially said ‘Thanks but no thanks’ be out or else. This stance was predictable and why I’m interested in what will 9/1 looks like.
 
TCABM said:
For those keeping score, US and G7 partners meet tomorrow (Tuesday) to discuss extending the Aug 31 date because, well, nobody can really guarantee their ex patriate citizens wishing to repatriate from Afghanistan can do so by the end of the month.

The away team, following it’s usual tactic, has essentially said ‘Thanks but no thanks’ be out or else. This stance was predictable and why I’m interested in what will 9/1 looks like.
Click to expand...
What's the away team?
 
Can some of you with knowledge speak to the capabilities of the 20 something "bases" that were closed over the previous 18+ months. I have heard some of them described as "air fields" and wonder how accurate that is. Were they outposts with chopper pads or full on secured fields/improved strips that may have been useful in these desperate times?
 
There were quite a few airfields around the country that could reasonably serve something like a C-17 if that is what you are asking. Bagram, Kandahar, and to a lesser extent, Bastion and Mazar-i-sharif, were the busiest with fixed wing (and obviously Kabul Intl). There were also a lot of random FOBs, the specifics of which are lost to me since we never considered them to be suitable diverts (for my aircraft). Lashkar Gah also had a nice little airfield. I imagine the chopper dudes here have a better recollection/list of accommodations and airplane watering holes.
 
Last edited:
asicer said:
Other countries don't have home/away teams?
Click to expand...

Golf (Scotland) and Tennis (France) both have team formats and neither refers to the opposing sides as a home team or a visiting team, so I guess not.
 
As someone else shared - I have nothing to add, but appreciate the civil and informed discussion of the events so far.

Question from the back of the room... Based on the lack of a sense of common nationality there, does it make sense to break the whole place up into distinct entities and parse them out to the existing groups? At least then you would have borders to 'enforce'. Let Taliban put shariah law into their spot on the map, and after a few years when there's nobody left to terrorize because they've all defected or been beheaded for stealing a chicken, maybe there will be a different recourse for eliminating them altogether.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top