Blackwater 61

Legally speaking, there are some interesting issues involving the lawsuit. Without writing a novel, suffice it to say that the widow is facing some high hurdles.
 
Bummer and all, but people have died from far dumber, more negligent decisions.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
Legally speaking, there are some interesting issues involving the lawsuit. Without writing a novel, suffice it to say that the widow is facing some high hurdles.
Click to expand...
I didn't watch it so much with an eye to the lawsuit but was looking at it more from an aviation accident point of view.
 
I'm not sure she was really ready to hear that tape, or if it was necessarily good (kind?) to play it to her. Hard call to make.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
Legally speaking, there are some interesting issues involving the lawsuit. Without writing a novel, suffice it to say that the widow is facing some high hurdles.
Click to expand...

Not sure if you watched the entire story, but she and the other widows were offered a settlement from Blackwater... after this interview with her was taped and 60 Minutes asked Blackwater for an interview/statement. She might not have more hurdles to clear.
 
Its a tragic NEEDLESS accident, and without getting overboard, I think its ludicrous that a contractor (mercenary or not) should have the same sovereign immunity that the military or government does.. They should be accountable for their personnel and training, as well as operational oversight and mentorship..
 
TangoWhiskey said:
I'm not sure she was really ready to hear that tape, or if it was necessarily good (kind?) to play it to her. Hard call to make.
Click to expand...
She said she wanted to hear it and she's an adult capable of making that decision. I was just surprised that they played a real CVR on the air.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
Go figure. Just like a lawyer to look at it that way. :rolleyes: :smile:
Click to expand...
Guess it also makes sense that I wasn't looking at it from a legal or political standpoint. :) I just thought it would be interesting for other pilots to see the chain of events leading up to the accident.
 
Doggtyred said:
Its a tragic NEEDLESS accident, and without getting overboard, I think its ludicrous that a contractor (mercenary or not) should have the same sovereign immunity that the military or government does.. They should be accountable for their personnel and training, as well as operational oversight and mentorship..
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I agree. Moving outside this specific case, you have a contractor flying in a combat zone, flying to unimproved or non-existent strips, flying on a military schedule. At times, operational requirements override safety-based decision making, because there may be harms to people on the ground if the deliveries aren't made.

It can be summarized as: In part 91/135/121 flying, you don't fly if it's unsafe. In contingency operations, there are risk/reward decisions that must be made, and it's not always the PICs decision, and it's not always just a question of "is this flight safe".
 
Not enough information given to evaluate the decision-making; what information were the pilots provided for flight-planning? What resources (charts, etc.) were available?

My conclusion could range from "coulda happened to anybody" to "holy cr*p, what morons."
 
What struck me was you have a mechanic telling the PIC "C'mon, man, you gotta make a decision."
I guess the magenta line doesn't work in AfPak. I mean WTF.
 
SCCutler said:
Not enough information given to evaluate the decision-making; what information were the pilots provided for flight-planning? What resources (charts, etc.) were available?

My conclusion could range from "coulda happened to anybody" to "holy cr*p, what morons."
Click to expand...

With the information given and the snippets of the CVR they painted them as morons. But then that was probably the goal.
 
PilotAlan said:
I'm not sure I agree. Moving outside this specific case, you have a contractor flying in a combat zone, flying to unimproved or non-existent strips, flying on a military schedule. At times, operational requirements override safety-based decision making, because there may be harms to people on the ground if the deliveries aren't made.

It can be summarized as: In part 91/135/121 flying, you don't fly if it's unsafe. In contingency operations, there are risk/reward decisions that must be made, and it's not always the PICs decision, and it's not always just a question of "is this flight safe".
Click to expand...

Didn't watch the video (and wasn't planning on it) but this is correct. I have a friend who does military contract flying. Some of the stories he's told me are things that I wouldn't be too thrilled with doing, but he's a better pilot than I am and the consequences of his missions not getting completed are far greater than the consequences of our missions not getting completed.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Didn't watch the video (and wasn't planning on it) but this is correct. I have a friend who does military contract flying. Some of the stories he's told me are things that I wouldn't be too thrilled with doing, but he's a better pilot than I am and the consequences of his missions not getting completed are far greater than the consequences of our missions not getting completed.
Click to expand...
If you had watched the video you would have seen that this accident had nothing to do with being in a combat zone or flying to unimproved strips. It could have happened in the mountains of the US just as easily as in the mountains of Afghanistan.
 
Everskyward said:
If you had watched the video you would have seen that this accident had nothing to do with being in a combat zone or flying to unimproved strips. It could have happened in the mountains of the US just as easily as in the mountains of Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

Note I also didn't say that the widow did or did not have any claims, it was a generic comment on military contract flying. :)

Also to note, sometimes the contract flying is done in local areas for practice. Sure, that poses a risk, but do you really want to be doing something like that for the first time in a combat zone?
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Note I also didn't say that the widow did or did not have any claims, it was a generic comment on military contract flying. :)

Also to note, sometimes the contract flying is done in local areas for practice. Sure, that poses a risk, but do you really want to be doing something like that for the first time in a combat zone?
Click to expand...
I think it's interesting that everyone is focusing on the military contract flying part, or the lawsuit by the widow. I would just invite people to look at the accident and see how it resembles others we have looked at in a civilian setting.
 
Exactly. It was stupid pilots but not out of the ordinary range of stupid pilots. Unfortunate but I can't get worked up imagining a travesty of justice or some such. RIP.
Everskyward said:
I think it's interesting that everyone is focusing on the military contract flying part, or the lawsuit by the widow. I would just invite people to look at the accident and see how it resembles others we have looked at in a civilian setting.
Click to expand...
 
Everskyward said:
I think it's interesting that everyone is focusing on the military contract flying part, or the lawsuit by the widow. I would just invite people to look at the accident and see how it resembles others we have looked at in a civilian setting.
Click to expand...

Fine, you've made me watch the video. ;)

Yeah, that's a stupid accident that shouldn't have happened. Sounds like the pilots not only weren't experienced with flight in that area, but with mountain flying in general. That plus overconfidence sounds like the three links in the chain.
 
I did not watch the video, but I read the transcript of the 60 minutes report up to the point where it said "The tape has never been made public."

The Blackwater 61 tape has been available for years. If 60 minutes can not get this much of their report correct, why should I spend my time reading the rest of a story that may have even more inaccuracies.

IMHO, the pilots of this flight massively screwed up and everyone on board paid the price. The audio of the events leading up to the crash should be required listening by all pilots, new and experienced.
 
These pilots were WAY off task! What got me was when he said it doesn't matter where they're going. They were in unfamiliar mountainous territory with the power or pressurization to make the rising terrain. **** poor planing if there was any at all.
 
Any, don't say anymore. Let me say it.....

"Same level of competency as Colgan Air...."
sigh.
 
It seems a litany of mistakes and errors in judgment occurred. In the end those that made those errors suffered the same fate as those they had in their care.

Nothing good about this one all around.
 
tdager said:
It seems a litany of mistakes and errors in judgment occurred. In the end those that made those errors suffered the same fate as those they had in their care.
Click to expand...

I have fewer problems with pilots making stupid mistakes and killing themselves. When they make stupid mistakes and kill others, that bothers me.
 
Perhaps the armed forces should transport their troops with their own pilots and equipment, over which they could exert considerably greater control.
 
steingar said:
Perhaps the armed forces should transport their troops with their own pilots and equipment, over which they could exert considerably greater control.
Click to expand...

gee, ya think????

I'm not really a fan of contracting out war.
 
After reading the report, it sounds to me like this was primarily a stupid pilot issue. While they brought up some problems with how the operation was being run over there, I'd want to compare it to how the military was operating their own aircraft. Not saying they weren't doing it better, just saying that it should be investigated. I'm not sure how the military operating the aircraft themselves would have made things much better, unless they weeded out stupid pilots.

If the pilots had taken a known route and followed the company procedures, it seems like that would have prevented the accident. That said, the references to a lack of way of communicating the flight was terminated sound like an area issue - how are you supposed to call to tell someone you're there when your phone doesn't work?

The NTSB synopsis at the end brings up a lot of good points, namely that it's virtually impossible for DoD, NTSB, or FAA to keep an eye on these operations half a world away. So it would seem to me that the military is the only group who can keep an eye on such operations.

As to the aircraft, I have a friend who flies CASAs. He's not a fan, prefers the DHC-6s.
 
bbchien said:
Any, don't say anymore. Let me say it.....

"Same level of competency as Colgan Air...."
sigh.
Click to expand...

I think everyone can agree that with any accident, there is a chain of events that leads to it. In this case, that chain goes back many, many years. Hindsight is 20-20 and if the folks involved knew then what they know now that chain may have been broken long before the two pilots met. The really sad part is that half that chain is still intact and continuing to this day.

The story is worthy of a book, or at the very least a significant chapter.

Ted DuPuis said:
After reading the report, it sounds to me like this was primarily a stupid pilot issue. While they brought up some problems with how the operation was being run over there, I'd want to compare it to how the military was operating their own aircraft. Not saying they weren't doing it better, just saying that it should be investigated. I'm not sure how the military operating the aircraft themselves would have made things much better, unless they weeded out stupid pilots.

If the pilots had taken a known route and followed the company procedures, it seems like that would have prevented the accident. That said, the references to a lack of way of communicating the flight was terminated sound like an area issue - how are you supposed to call to tell someone you're there when your phone doesn't work?

The NTSB synopsis at the end brings up a lot of good points, namely that it's virtually impossible for DoD, NTSB, or FAA to keep an eye on these operations half a world away. So it would seem to me that the military is the only group who can keep an eye on such operations.

As to the aircraft, I have a friend who flies CASAs. He's not a fan, prefers the DHC-6s.
Click to expand...

Since Henning publicly outted me on the Purple Board I haven't really kept my employer a secret (never really did anyway, but I didn't broadcast it either), however I still refuse to discuss them publicly due to the controversial nature of our work. All that being said, after I read (can't download the video) the 60 minutes report I surfed the usual suspects (Red, Purple, Blue) to see what was being said, expecting to see the usual public lambasting. I am surprised (don't know why) to see that most of the comments here have targeted the real issue (stupid pilot tricks) and not the politics involved with military contractors.

Perhaps I've said too much, but so be it.


EDIT: The reason I quoted Ted's post... I found the parting comments at the end of the PDF version of the report to be particularly insightful. This is the first time I'd ever seen such a thing.
 
Last edited:
Stupid pilot tricks can happen regardless of who your employer is. Those final words in the report I found to be very good. Obviously none of us who are simply reading the report can fully know what's going on, but it's pretty obvious there were a lot of links in the chain that broke.

As to the politics of military contarct flying, you're a pilot you're over there doing the job that you're being paid to do. I'd be very interested in a job like that simply for the experience, regardless of my thoughts on the military aspects or being a military contractor. Like any other commercial pilot or ATP, you're out there doing the job that you were hired and paid to do.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Stupid pilot tricks can happen regardless of who your employer is. Those final words in the report I found to be very good. Obviously none of us who are simply reading the report can fully know what's going on, but it's pretty obvious there were a lot of links in the chain that broke.

As to the politics of military contract flying, you're a pilot you're over there doing the job that you're being paid to do. I'd be very interested in a job like that simply for the experience, regardless of my thoughts on the military aspects or being a military contractor. Like any other commercial pilot or ATP, you're out there doing the job that you were hired and paid to do.
Click to expand...

Noel had one thing right. If they knew how much fun the flying was, they wouldn't pay us.
 
Anymouse said:
Noel had one thing right. If they knew how much fun the flying was, they wouldn't pay us.
Click to expand...
I'm sure you're right about that.

What struck me when I first saw the show was not the political aspect and not even the stupid pilot aspect. I could see how one questionable decision led to another but they still could have saved it until the very end. Also never underestimate the power of the adrenaline rush...

It seemed like the whole incident fit the pattern of a lot of mountain accidents which happen to GA pilots. This case was just better documented because of its high profile nature and the fact that the airplane had a CVR.
 
Everskyward said:
It seemed like the whole incident fit the pattern of a lot of mountain accidents which happen to GA pilots. This case was just better documented because of its high profile nature and the fact that the airplane had a CVR.
Click to expand...

'Hold my beer and watch this'

This was a performance at private pilot levels. Suprising how primitive an operation this was, you would think that the operator would have had a closer eye on their crews simply to maintain maximal profitability.

The accident illlustrates the need for 406mHz ELTs with harnessed GPS.
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top