• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Replacing the Subs

Good2Golf

Army.ca Legend
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
1,147
Points
1,160
Thanks. I think we agree on this.

So here is the test: when an air force general orders planes to fly and is told they can't due to air worthiness issues, what is his/her response?

If an admiral orders a ship to sea and is told they can't because of seaworthiness (something like the red/purple button above), what is his/her response?

A. Procedural compliance is the mechanism by which we assure the safety of our sailors / airmen (air women?) and please expedite remediation of this situation as quickly as possible.

B. In order to meet operational commitments, get operational and deploy NOW.
The RCAF has a specifically codified set of regulations that very strictly control when an aircraft can be flown in what would be considered an unserviceable state. It has minimum levels to which flight authorization can be delegated, usually formation or division auth required. So the answer isn’t ‘never’ but it is very well understood by all, what the regulations are and procedure to follow.
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
1,248
Points
890
Much as it pains me to admit it and say anything nice about the Light Blue folks, the RCAF flight safety program is well designed and inculcates a genuine safety culture that the RCN and CA would be smart to emulate.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
2,245
Points
1,060
Much as it pains me to admit it and say anything nice about the Light Blue folks, the RCAF flight safety program is well designed and inculcates a genuine safety culture that the RCN and CA would be smart to emulate.

So, like, throwing a grenade to (hopefully) detonate another (blind) grenade, or the equivalent, wouldn't make it into the RCAF safety manual? ;)
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
1,248
Points
890
RCAF would actually investigate to figure out why there was the blind - is there an issue with the batch of detonators? Were personnel properly trained? Were the conditions of the training area appropriate?

You know, all those factors which may contribute to the problem would be assessed, and the results would be widely promulgated so others will not make the same errors again.
 

childs56

Sr. Member
Reaction score
21
Points
180
There is no reason that both the Army and Navy cannot adopt/adapt their versions of flight safety to each environment. It is not rocket surgery.
Except the army would never do anything if they had to investigate every mishap like the Airforce does. No body moves, no body gets hurt.
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
381
Points
860
That's a good question Stoker, and one that you are probably more qualified to answer than most on here. (Although there are a few of you who are quite the experienced Navy folks.)

I'd be curious to hear your answer about the admiral ordering a ship to sea -- and an answer from an Air Force type about the air force general
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
1,248
Points
890
Except the army would never do anything if they had to investigate every mishap like the Airforce does. No body moves, no body gets hurt.
The Army approach: A vehicle rolls. Passengers in back are injured - some sent to hospital. Investigation: The driver - staff on a course - fell asleep. Stupid corporal, unavoidable accident.

But why did the driver fall asleep? Because he wasn't given adequate time to rest. Why wasn't he given the time to rest that CAF directives require? Because leadership (Sgt and Lt) of the course didn't think they had to follow the rules.

So it was in fact avoidable, there was in fact misconduct, and it wasn't a Stupid Corporal situation - it was a bad leadership situation.

But the Army would never admit to that, so the official MSE accident report blames it all on the Corporal.
 

Good2Golf

Army.ca Legend
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
1,147
Points
1,160
The difference between a blame-based vs cause-based investigatory mind-set. One actually does seek to learn lessons often learned in blood, vice just talking about lessons learned (aka recorded)...
 

OldSolduer

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
818
Points
910
The Army approach: A vehicle rolls. Passengers in back are injured - some sent to hospital. Investigation: The driver - staff on a course - fell asleep. Stupid corporal, unavoidable accident.

But why did the driver fall asleep? Because he wasn't given adequate time to rest. Why wasn't he given the time to rest that CAF directives require? Because leadership (Sgt and Lt) of the course didn't think they had to follow the rules.

So it was in fact avoidable, there was in fact misconduct, and it wasn't a Stupid Corporal situation - it was a bad leadership situation.

But the Army would never admit to that, so the official MSE accident report blames it all on the Corporal.
You're absolutely correct - the Army always had to find someone to blame vice fix the problem.

August 1993 Croatia: one of our corporals was crushed between two MLVWs. The parking brake failed, the marshalling area was on a hill, the front ML rolled back and pinned the corporal. He did not survive.

The tech - a corporal - that inspected the vehicle determined that "someone's gonna hang over this one".
 

YZT580

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
147
Points
630
This points out the main reason why TC went to a no fault system for reporting incidents in aviation. It allowed those involved to report system errors and their own incidentally without fear of repercussion. Probably, no definitely, prevented a lot of fatal flaws from actually becoming lethal.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
878
Points
910
Also MTU engine rebuild facility in Richmond has a policy of not punishing mistakes that are admitted right away, so if a tech forgets a part of the very strict procedure and process, they are safe to report it. However lying, covering up the mistake or not reporting a known mistake is instant dismissal.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
2,245
Points
1,060
Also MTU engine rebuild facility in Richmond has a policy of not punishing mistakes that are admitted right away, so if a tech forgets a part of the very strict procedure and process, they are safe to report it. However lying, covering up the mistake or not reporting a known mistake is instant dismissal.
"Research shows that the climate of an organization influences an individual's contribution far more than the individual himself.

"Wherever there is fear you will get wrong figures."

W. Edwards Deming
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
941
Points
910
You're absolutely correct - the Army always had to find someone to blame vice fix the problem.

August 1993 Croatia: one of our corporals was crushed between two MLVWs. The parking brake failed, the marshalling area was on a hill, the front ML rolled back and pinned the corporal. He did not survive.

The tech - a corporal - that inspected the vehicle determined that "someone's gonna hang over this one".
That is exactly what we don’t do in the RCAF- hang people. You are personally accountable for your actions in aviation and are expected to own up to your own mistakes. As long as you have not deliberately and willfully broken regulations, no harm will come to you. Any conversation you have in a flight safety investigation is protected by law and that has been upheld at the Supreme Court level.
 

YZT580

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
147
Points
630
That is exactly what we don’t do in the RCAF- hang people. You are personally accountable for your actions in aviation and are expected to own up to your own mistakes. As long as you have not deliberately and willfully broken regulations, no harm will come to you. Any conversation you have in a flight safety investigation is protected by law and that has been upheld at the Supreme Court level.
Very true. Co-chaired a number of fact finding boards: only discipline ever handed out was a suspension for lying to the board.
 

JMCanada

Member
Reaction score
16
Points
180
Let me bring in an article about nuclear boats from the aussies.


While it seems clear the purpose to "make a call" for the conference (at the very end of the article), it's also true that, as said in there "Diesel submarines have been around for about 120 years and nuclear submarines have been around for about 65 years, so neither form represents new technology."
 

LoboCanada

Member
Reaction score
18
Points
230
I wonder how the damage to Corner Brook has moved up the high-level meeting to discuss the future of RCNs sub service. I'm sure it's an easy $20Bish bill to avoid while deciding about the $120B+ Fighter and CSC bills too.

Should be reaching out to the US for reduced-VLS/strike capability and refurbished LA Class SNNs. Could leverage the new $2T US New Deal economic plan to boost programs that would better Canadian Industry or transport infrastructure too. That would equate to IRBs from US contractors. Leverage existing global US LA/Virginia Class infrastructure, industrial capacity and 49 years of exp on the platform. "New page in post-trump US-Canada relations..."

Hard to imagine trying to guestimate the cost of a build-in-Canada capability for just 4-6 expensive ships. Can't be easy for other nations to promote an OTS SSK or SNN design that would return $$$ to Canadian companies, or compete with a US proposal.
 
Top