LAV-III Rollovers: is the problem real?
With the news that a second Canadian soldier, Cpl Paul Davis, has been killed in a rollover accident, expect to see speculation about the safety of the LAV-III.
We've seen that speculation before. When Pte Braun Scott Woodfield was killed in a rollover accident involving an LAV APC in November, the CBC was quick to suggest that the vehicle is unstable and has a "history of rollovers."
This time out, blogger Ottawa Core takes up the theme, asking if the LAV is safe, or is being demonized by "leftists." Left-leaning bloggers, for their part, haven't addressed the issue at all, but Core concludes that there is a problem. Looks like the LAV is now being demonized by "rightists," but we'll skip lightly over the ideological ribbing.
Full disclosure: I once worked for GM Defence, and actually worked on one of the product development teams that developed the LAV-III. The vehicle has its faults, as all vehicles do. Systems engineering is a game of compromises. I think the winch design, for example, is what we non-engineers call "dumb." But overall, it is a good vehicle -- as at least one crew can attest -- and claims that it is inherently dangerous or prone to rollovers are not particularly believable.
The CBC report that the LAV-III has a "history of rollovers" is misleading, because in fact all military vehicles have a history of rollovers. These vehicles are operated on poor quality roads in all kinds of weather, by drivers whose visibility is often restricted by armour protection. M113 APCs have a "history of rollovers," as did the AVGP Cougar and Grizzly vehicles. At least one Canadian soldier, to my recollection, was killed in a rollover accident in Bosnia, involving an M113.
Vehicle accidents do happen, and in fact are more likely to happen where traffic laws are effectively nonexistent and roads are poor. Vehicle accidents are a fact of military training and a fact of military operations. The question is not whether the LAV-III has rolled over in the past, but whether it is especially prone to rollover accidents.
The LAV-III has been operating in Afghanistan throughout the Canadian deployment. One rollover accident occured in late November, and another at the start of March. That's two accidents in three months. There have been 12 rollovers, in total, since the LAV-III entered service in 2000.
That seems like a lot of accidents, but a closer look suggests the cause isn't the vehicle so much as the terrain it operates on. The document the CBC links to lists four LAV rollovers (they published only the first page), of which three were caused by the vehicle sliding into a ditch. We know that in the two accidents in Afghanistan, the vehicle swerved off the road before rolling over.
The document asserts that the vehicle can handle a 30-degree side slope, which in the CBC report becomes a claim that the vehicle is "limited in the type of terrain it can handle." Presumably, the CBC reporter who came up with that interpretation was unaware that a 30-degree side slope was specified in the original system specification issued by DND for this vehicle, a matter that could have been cleared up by a simple phone call. What this actually tells us is that the vehicle works as designed.
And is that a good design? Well, try exceeding a 30-degree side slope -- or, in fact, even reaching that angle -- in your minivan, and then get back to me. Try it in your family car, if you don't own a minivan. It doesn't look like much on a protractor, but if you've ever operated vehicles on that kind of terrain, well, it's much steeper than you think. Next time you see a civilian car that has swerved off the highway and down an embankment, let me know if it's still upright.
The CBC is also disingenuous in writing that "documents obtained through Access to Information laws show the army was warned in May 2004 that "speed and driver inexperience" were frequent causes of rollovers involving the LAV III."
Indeed, those documents showed that seven of nine accidents were the result of driver errors, but this hardly supports the CBC's case. Driver error was not found to be the cause of frequent rollovers; rather, it was found to be the frequent cause. If the cause is usually attributable to a training problem, this hardly suggests that the design is at fault.
Part of the training problem may well be that the LAV-III is more prone to roll over than its predecessors. It does have a higher centre of gravity than the old 6x6 AVGP, and the 8x8 Bison and Coyote. This is exacerbated by adding addon armour and extra kit, so that the vehicle is likely to be less forgiving when a driver exceeds a 30 degree side slope, such as by suddenly swerving into a ditch.
Ottawa Core raises another question:
There was a design problem with the similar Stryker vehicle, used by the US Army: seat belts couldn't be worn by soldiers wearing full fighting order. This sort of thing could certainly contribute to injuries. However, before we get too excited about this point, we need to consider how the vehicle is used in the real world.
While I haven't yet seen any information on what position Cpl Davis filled in the crew, Pte Woodfield was serving as air sentry at the time of his death. The air sentry's job is to stand up in the back hatch and watch for threats from the rear. One cannot wear a seatbelt while doing this, and anything that restricts your ability to move could in fact endanger your safety. On the other hand, in a rollover, you are extremely vulnerable. The same goes for the crew commander, whose head is poking out of the turret. He can't wear a seatbelt, because he needs to have freedom of movement to look to the rear.
If the LAV-III does prove to be unsafe, then the problems should be corrected -- and if they can't be corrected, the vehicle should be withdrawn from service. But crewing an armoured vehicle has its hazards, and soldiers will continue to be injured and occasionally killed in accidents. We shouldn't assume that every accident can be attributed to a problem with the equipment.
And for the CBC's benefit, that means we should be prepared to admit that sometimes, well, there isn't a news story here, beyond the tragic loss of a husband and father of two, serving his country overseas.
x-posted to The Amazing Wonderdog
We've seen that speculation before. When Pte Braun Scott Woodfield was killed in a rollover accident involving an LAV APC in November, the CBC was quick to suggest that the vehicle is unstable and has a "history of rollovers."
This time out, blogger Ottawa Core takes up the theme, asking if the LAV is safe, or is being demonized by "leftists." Left-leaning bloggers, for their part, haven't addressed the issue at all, but Core concludes that there is a problem. Looks like the LAV is now being demonized by "rightists," but we'll skip lightly over the ideological ribbing.
Full disclosure: I once worked for GM Defence, and actually worked on one of the product development teams that developed the LAV-III. The vehicle has its faults, as all vehicles do. Systems engineering is a game of compromises. I think the winch design, for example, is what we non-engineers call "dumb." But overall, it is a good vehicle -- as at least one crew can attest -- and claims that it is inherently dangerous or prone to rollovers are not particularly believable.
The CBC report that the LAV-III has a "history of rollovers" is misleading, because in fact all military vehicles have a history of rollovers. These vehicles are operated on poor quality roads in all kinds of weather, by drivers whose visibility is often restricted by armour protection. M113 APCs have a "history of rollovers," as did the AVGP Cougar and Grizzly vehicles. At least one Canadian soldier, to my recollection, was killed in a rollover accident in Bosnia, involving an M113.
Vehicle accidents do happen, and in fact are more likely to happen where traffic laws are effectively nonexistent and roads are poor. Vehicle accidents are a fact of military training and a fact of military operations. The question is not whether the LAV-III has rolled over in the past, but whether it is especially prone to rollover accidents.
The LAV-III has been operating in Afghanistan throughout the Canadian deployment. One rollover accident occured in late November, and another at the start of March. That's two accidents in three months. There have been 12 rollovers, in total, since the LAV-III entered service in 2000.
That seems like a lot of accidents, but a closer look suggests the cause isn't the vehicle so much as the terrain it operates on. The document the CBC links to lists four LAV rollovers (they published only the first page), of which three were caused by the vehicle sliding into a ditch. We know that in the two accidents in Afghanistan, the vehicle swerved off the road before rolling over.
The document asserts that the vehicle can handle a 30-degree side slope, which in the CBC report becomes a claim that the vehicle is "limited in the type of terrain it can handle." Presumably, the CBC reporter who came up with that interpretation was unaware that a 30-degree side slope was specified in the original system specification issued by DND for this vehicle, a matter that could have been cleared up by a simple phone call. What this actually tells us is that the vehicle works as designed.
And is that a good design? Well, try exceeding a 30-degree side slope -- or, in fact, even reaching that angle -- in your minivan, and then get back to me. Try it in your family car, if you don't own a minivan. It doesn't look like much on a protractor, but if you've ever operated vehicles on that kind of terrain, well, it's much steeper than you think. Next time you see a civilian car that has swerved off the highway and down an embankment, let me know if it's still upright.
The CBC is also disingenuous in writing that "documents obtained through Access to Information laws show the army was warned in May 2004 that "speed and driver inexperience" were frequent causes of rollovers involving the LAV III."
Indeed, those documents showed that seven of nine accidents were the result of driver errors, but this hardly supports the CBC's case. Driver error was not found to be the cause of frequent rollovers; rather, it was found to be the frequent cause. If the cause is usually attributable to a training problem, this hardly suggests that the design is at fault.
Part of the training problem may well be that the LAV-III is more prone to roll over than its predecessors. It does have a higher centre of gravity than the old 6x6 AVGP, and the 8x8 Bison and Coyote. This is exacerbated by adding addon armour and extra kit, so that the vehicle is likely to be less forgiving when a driver exceeds a 30 degree side slope, such as by suddenly swerving into a ditch.
Ottawa Core raises another question:
An obvious element for design correction would be: if it flips over, prevent occupants from injury or death. Duh. Retrofit these machines or return to a safer fit-up fellows. Before more of us die.
There was a design problem with the similar Stryker vehicle, used by the US Army: seat belts couldn't be worn by soldiers wearing full fighting order. This sort of thing could certainly contribute to injuries. However, before we get too excited about this point, we need to consider how the vehicle is used in the real world.
While I haven't yet seen any information on what position Cpl Davis filled in the crew, Pte Woodfield was serving as air sentry at the time of his death. The air sentry's job is to stand up in the back hatch and watch for threats from the rear. One cannot wear a seatbelt while doing this, and anything that restricts your ability to move could in fact endanger your safety. On the other hand, in a rollover, you are extremely vulnerable. The same goes for the crew commander, whose head is poking out of the turret. He can't wear a seatbelt, because he needs to have freedom of movement to look to the rear.
If the LAV-III does prove to be unsafe, then the problems should be corrected -- and if they can't be corrected, the vehicle should be withdrawn from service. But crewing an armoured vehicle has its hazards, and soldiers will continue to be injured and occasionally killed in accidents. We shouldn't assume that every accident can be attributed to a problem with the equipment.
And for the CBC's benefit, that means we should be prepared to admit that sometimes, well, there isn't a news story here, beyond the tragic loss of a husband and father of two, serving his country overseas.
x-posted to The Amazing Wonderdog
posted by AJSomerset at 12:36 p.m.
4 Comments:
CBC also has this story.
A New Brunswick soldier injured in a traffic accident in Afghanistan three months ago says the vehicle is not to blame for recent deaths...McIvor said driving in Afghanistan is always a challenge. The roads are crowded, and at night many Afghans drive without their headlights on to conserve their batteries. He said his LAV 3 had to swerve at the last minute to avoid a car and rolled over.
So they aren't exactly trying to paint a one sided picture here.
Thanks for that Link, Robert. I hadn't seen that.
Just a couple of points:
1. The CBC always does that. You have to understand that THEY do not understand. When they hear vehicle roll-over, they equate it to their BMW SUV. They also feel they are doing some good because they believe that successive governments have shorted the CF on EVERYTHING. When we tell them that the LAV III does not necessarily fall into that category, they don't believe us.
2. Some of you need to come up with a new definition and you need to do it in a right quick manner. One's positing on one side or the other of the political spectrum does not indicate an interest in the warfighting ability of the armed services. Given my voting history, I would be hard to pin down, although right now most would view me as slightly left of centre. The automatic assumption that I drag my views of the armed services and their raison d'etre into a the anti-military cargo cult of the NDP would be so wrong as to be laughable.
Left-wing blogs may well have avoided comment because they simply do not know enough to do so. In my case it was because I see no issue. As Skippy suggests - there is no story there and I wasn't about to get into blog fights with people going into hysterics when they haven't even read the specs on the piece of kit they're criticizing.
Anyway, that's my little rant.
Aside from that, excellent post.
Well, actually, left-wing blogs weren't entirely silent. This was, after all, cross-posted to one a them anti-military cargo-cult NDP blogs. :)
Post a Comment
<< Home