Navy Pilots Reprimanded for Rescuing Victims

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 05:54 AM
link   
Just when you thought you couldnt be shocked, angered and generally pissed off anymore from the situation in New Orleans, a new story always surfaces to reinstill the fact that the apocalypse is happening right in the Big Easy.



PENSACOLA, Fla., Sept. 6 - Two Navy helicopter pilots and their crews returned from New Orleans on Aug. 30 expecting to be greeted as lifesavers after ferrying more than 100 hurricane victims to safety.

Instead, their superiors chided the pilots, Lt. David Shand and Lt. Matt Udkow, at a meeting the next morning for rescuing civilians when their assignment that day had been to deliver food and water to military installations along the Gulf Coast.

"I felt it was a great day because we resupplied the people we needed to and we rescued people, too," Lieutenant Udkow said. But the air operations commander at Pensacola Naval Air Station "reminded us that the logistical mission needed to be our area of focus."
NY Times


So these guys completed their 'mission' and as an added bonus rescued 100 people from a wasteland. But apparently they were just supposed to deliver food to the military installation and that's it. What the hell is going on over there?

[edit on 9/8/2005 by Simulacra]

[edit on 9/8/2005 by Simulacra]




posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 06:41 AM
link   
We all need to send this information to the people who will be doing this investigation into who messed up.

*By passing the censors is not allowed*

[edit on 8-9-2005 by Amuk]



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 07:06 AM
link   
It depends on what their orders were. If their orders were to drop off the supplies and return to base to pick up more supplies, then they violated their orders and their commander was right to say something about it. Yeah, it's great that they flew all those people to safety, but you have to look at how the flight operations are organized, do they have one group responsible for picking up people, one for supplies, etc, and what their orders were. This is a case of getting all the facts before jumping all over someone.



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
It depends on what their orders were. If their orders were to drop off the supplies and return to base to pick up more supplies, then they violated their orders and their commander was right to say something about it.


If you would have taken all two minutes to read the complete article you would havent even wasted your time making this post. The pilots completed their mission and rescued 100 people from death. But good job reading the article, you get a 'C' for effort.

[edit on 9/8/2005 by Simulacra]



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 07:20 AM
link   
I read the article, and their ORDERS were to drop off water and parts and RETURN TO BASE. They violated their orders and were lucky that they didn't suffere worse punishment.



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
I read the article, and their ORDERS were to drop off water and parts and RETURN TO BASE. They violated their orders and were lucky that they didn't suffere worse punishment.


So you can honestly sit there and tell me that what these pilots did was wrong despite the fact that they probably saved 100 lives?

You would much rather let those people die in the arid sun and flooded waters?

Well this is what you are implying. And I think it's sick, disgusting, pathetic, ignorant and extremly close minded. I hope and pray to whatever God you believe in that you will someday understand this concept called 'compassion and humanity'.

Disgusting.

[edit on 9/8/2005 by Simulacra]



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 07:25 AM
link   
I can honestly sit here and tell you that rescuing them without letting the base know that they were diverting from their mission WAS wrong yes. As I said in my previous post it's great that they rescued the people, HOWEVER they should have done a radio relay if they were out of range, or had the Coast Guard notify their base they were diverting at the Coast Guard request. You DON'T just divert from your orders without notifying your base that you were requested to.



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 07:27 AM
link   
The navy is not the only ones doing this.
I submitted a news story yesterday about Customs telling their employees that they should no longer volunteer to assist FEMA. The Customs officials are now telling their employees that if they want to volunteer, they should instead volunteer to assist the law enforcement officials. The best part that I liked on the story was the reason that Customs gave for this decision was so that they would not stretch their resources.
www.abovetopsecret.com...'



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
You DON'T just divert from your orders without notifying your base that you were requested to.


The world doesn't operate on orders and commands.

These people are dying and starving. They've been in flood waters for over a week now. They have been baking in the hot sun for days upon days. Heroes are not made by how many commands and orders they follow. That's the composition of a drone, a slave.

Instead, these people understod compassion and humanity. Something that has obviously evaded your comprehension.



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 07:38 AM
link   
Try READING and COMPREHENDING my posts. The RESCUE was not wrong. I am NOT SAYING the rescue was wrong. It was great that they rescued those people. THE WAY THEY DID IT was wrong. The MILITARY runs on orders and commands, and ways of doing things that MUST BE FOLLOWED. When they turned to rescue the people they should have notified their base that they were diverting at the request of the Coast Guard to pick people up. The rest of the world has the option to do or not do things. If you are in the military and you are under orders to fly from point A to point B and return, and you fly to point C without notifying your base that you are and why you are then you ARE violating orders and subject to disciplinary action. When they went to rescue those people, since it was at the request of the Coast Guard, then they HAD to respond, HOWEVER they also were obligated to inform their base that they were diverting. If they were out of range to contact them directly then they should have called the Coast Guard and had them notify their base for them that they were being diverted. THAT is what they did wrong. What part of what I am saying do you NOT understand?



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 07:41 AM
link   


Zaphod58
If their orders were to drop off the supplies and return to base to pick up more supplies, then they violated their orders and their commander was right to say something about it.


They dropped the supplies off, saved 100 people, and returned to base to pick up more supplies. They did not violate their orders.

Simple as that. It's apparent that you don't even understand your own post.



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Simulacra
They dropped the supplies off, saved 100 people, and returned to base to pick up more supplies. They did not violate their orders.

Simple as that. It's apparent that you don't even understand your own post.


Actually they did, they were ordered to make the drop off and return to base for more runs of supplies to the area. I am not saying what they did was wrong, just that they did not follow the orders that they were given.

There were other aircraft that were specifically tasked to make rescue runs, just as that aircraft was tasked with doing logistics runs. The correct thing to do (and by correct I mean follow the orders given) would have been to report the location of the people to the higher authorities who could have then diverted rescue craft to the people.

It is blatantly obvious that people here did not get the entire story, or just breezed over certain parts of it.



The world doesn't operate on orders and commands.


The civilian world might not, but the military does.



[edit on 8/9/05 by COOL HAND]



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 10:58 AM
link   
What they did might have been morally right, but they still disobeyed orders. If you don't have order in the military then you also end up with problems. What if people died because they didn't return fast enough and were supposed to fly more food & water out?

They did what they thought was right, but if everyone in the military did that...there would be chaos.




posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 11:52 AM
link   
I wouldn't care who's orders it was if I was in those pilots shoes I wouldn't have left those people either. It's real sad people would argue that they should be punished. Yes the military is about orders but I would like to think they are soldiers that don't care about the orders in a case of saving lives.



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kramthenothing
Yes the military is about orders but I would like to think they are soldiers that don't care about the orders in a case of saving lives.

But since technically the soldier in the field knows the little picture and the command knows the big picture...what if by not caring about orders they actually cost lives somewhere else? Is it really that hard to understand?

Maybe if people were following what they were told rather than doing what they thought they needed to do, the whole matter might not have been such a cluster___.

Like I said, morally they felt compelled to help but in reality they should have returned to ferry more supplies. They rescued 100 people. What if their supplies that they DIDN'T deliver in the second, third, fourth runs they should have made, were to feed 1000 people? Then ten times the amount they rescued would be at risk.

Maybe the command knew that. ANY action either offensive, defensive or rescue NEEDS supplies. How many times do you hear that when you cut the enemy's supply lines...then you win? In fact this whole rescue was about supplies that COULDN'T be delivered on time. Well, rather than an enemy doing it...our own pilots cut the supply lines that might have been VITAL to the entire rescue effort.

All of NOLA was in trouble, not just one area with 100 people.

[edit on 8-9-2005 by ZeddicusZulZorander]



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 01:14 PM
link   
The problem with those people that know "The big picture", is that they are far removed from the little people in the little picture - which, incidently, is the whole reason for the military to exsist - to protect the lives of the people of their country.

That said, I can see the other side. If they were charged with merely dropping food off and return, reload, repeat, then by diverting from their return for any cause is slowing down the plan. Others may be charged with picking up the civilians, and that is their job - maybe they got tied up dropping off food somewhere else because they used their judgement instead of following orders. SO it is very important that all units do what the units are charged with and not deveate from it.

That said, why didn't they just send the flights out with food, drop off the food and on their way back pick up civilians, drop off the civilians and reload with food, repeat. WOuld have been much more efficient wouldn't it?



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 01:36 PM
link   
The military does not want cowboys. They want and need people who follow orders. All those pilots had to do was radio the coast guard. If the Coast Guard had told them to go ahead and rescue, then they would have been covered. As a vet, I can understand why they were repramanded. The first thing you learn in the military is CYA!



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 01:49 PM
link   
With all due respect to everyone that is or has been in the military. And allow me to say that it is my hope that all of us want to see these people aided and helped out of the area. That said though.....

While anyone can say the military runs on this or that. That one must fellow orders because that is the way they help the most....and I can agree with that in most cases but the undeniable fact over riding all of this is that no one was helping these people. Their government has let them down(whichever, or all branches), and that is primarily(assuming the best) because everyone was being a good little soilder and not worrying about the people that needed to be helped, instead they were merely following orders - and that is why this has been such a horrible thing.

I agree the rules and orders must be followed, but, when nothing is happening, and people, they people you swore an oath to protect are dying and starving. It replaces the soldier who did what he did for the greater good of his country, with merely a robotic order taker.



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Passer By
I agree the rules and orders must be followed, but, when nothing is happening, and people, they people you swore an oath to protect are dying and starving. It replaces the soldier who did what he did for the greater good of his country, with merely a robotic order taker.



And those who do go against their orders to help the dying and starving, should be prepared to face the consequence of disobeying their orders.

Had they asked for permission and been denied, then that would be something to be upset about. If they thought that just because they saved some people they would get a pat on the back, they were wrong.

The ends do not justify the means in the military. Disobeience will be punished. They took the risk, they did a good thing. They knew what the consequences of their actions would be.



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Passer By
I agree the rules and orders must be followed, but, when nothing is happening, and people, they people you swore an oath to protect are dying and starving. It replaces the soldier who did what he did for the greater good of his country, with merely a robotic order taker.


Again, how do you know that?

How do you know that they didn't cause MORE people to be at risk due to their actions? It was Aug 30th. What if because of them...there was a huge delay in getting water and food loaded on the military convoy and as a result...it was very late getting into NOLA.

Bottom line is you don't. You can applaud the rescues, but they should have followed orders.

If you think that soldiers should be able to decided for the "greater good" than you must support the Abu Gharib scandal. They were just torturing suspected terrorists for the "great good" right? Maybe support the idea that they could just roam wherever they wish doing whatever they wish for the "greater good?"





top topics
 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join