It's not just about safety
One of the legitimate functions of a politician is to draw light and heat to a problem. Oftentimes, their attention and scrutiny forces needed changes upon a bad situation.
I wish I had more confidence in the motives of those politicians quoted inthis story to limit themselves to that goal:
You see, it sounds to me like they're just looking to score political points with this - against Gen Hillier or whichever Conservative politician is most convenient.
The report into Capt McCaughey's death was already public, and the pilot-restraint system was replaced. So the immediate cause of the crash has already been discovered and corrected in order that the same issue doesn't crop up again.
The bigger problem here, I suspect, is a systemic one that allowed a known problem to remain a danger for so long before it was fixed. I doubt there's any one officer upon whom total blame can be fixed for letting a safety report languish on a desk for too long, or one maintenance tech who didn't properly repair a latch. No, I'd guess that in an overtasked and underfunded CF, this particular problem simply never reached the top of enough people's "to do" piles.
Unfortunately, even with all the funding and manning in the world, there's never enough time to cover everything. While one would hope a pilot-restraint problem would be considered a critical issue, in the context of a military focused on a mission in Afghanistan, on fundamental organizational transformation, on budgetary constraints (the capital acquisitions don't help the operational budget), on the ongoing personnel crunch in many military occupations, I don't know whether yet another equipment problem in a demonstration team's forty-year-old aircraft attracts the attention it should:
Which brings me to Dawn Black's comment:
I hope that the reporter left out some context with that partial quote, because otherwise Ms. Black is astoundingly ignorant of one of the fundamental principles of military service: namely, that safety is not the prime concern, the mission is. The concept of "unlimited liability" - the idea that a member of the Canadian Forces may be required to die in the service of his or her country - puts the lie to any thought of safety as the CF's prime concern.
Capt McCaughey's death was almost certainly preventable. Measures have been taken to ensure a similar death is not visited upon another pilot of his squadron. More measures need to be taken to ensure that problems of this nature aren't allowed to linger in decision-making limbo as long as this one did.
But as concerned as each of them is with safety, I don't know a single military pilot who would make it his or her "prime concern." Each time they go up, they're fully aware that they might not come down again in one piece. And they go up anyhow. Just as the soldiers riding LAVIII's across a dusty desert halfway around the world know they might meet an explosive death, and our sailors know they might disappear under the waves one night with barely a trace.
As safe as we try to make it, a military career will always be a dangerous one. No matter what comes of the opposition's concerns about a faulty lap-belt, that reality will not change.
I wish I had more confidence in the motives of those politicians quoted inthis story to limit themselves to that goal:
Someone must be held accountable for the Canadian Forces' failure to replace the Snowbirds' faulty lap belt system that was responsible for the crash that killed Captain Shawn McCaughey in May, opposition parties said yesterday.
Defence critics for the Liberal Party, the Bloc Québécois and the NDP said the military has to explain how a lap belt that first malfunctioned in 2002 was not changed until after Capt. McCaughey's death.
Liberal MP Denis Coderre said it is difficult to understand why someone had to die before the faulty component that connects the lap belt to the parachute was finally modified.
"Who was responsible for this equipment? Who was responsible for the decision-making process?" Mr. Coderre asked.
Bloc MP Claude Bachand said the situation "simply doesn't make sense."
"There really was negligence here and there has to be someone who is held responsible," he said.
You see, it sounds to me like they're just looking to score political points with this - against Gen Hillier or whichever Conservative politician is most convenient.
The report into Capt McCaughey's death was already public, and the pilot-restraint system was replaced. So the immediate cause of the crash has already been discovered and corrected in order that the same issue doesn't crop up again.
The bigger problem here, I suspect, is a systemic one that allowed a known problem to remain a danger for so long before it was fixed. I doubt there's any one officer upon whom total blame can be fixed for letting a safety report languish on a desk for too long, or one maintenance tech who didn't properly repair a latch. No, I'd guess that in an overtasked and underfunded CF, this particular problem simply never reached the top of enough people's "to do" piles.
Unfortunately, even with all the funding and manning in the world, there's never enough time to cover everything. While one would hope a pilot-restraint problem would be considered a critical issue, in the context of a military focused on a mission in Afghanistan, on fundamental organizational transformation, on budgetary constraints (the capital acquisitions don't help the operational budget), on the ongoing personnel crunch in many military occupations, I don't know whether yet another equipment problem in a demonstration team's forty-year-old aircraft attracts the attention it should:
“The problem within DND is, and always will be, that the priority for an aerobatic demonstration team will never measure up to the priority of a real combat capability,” [retired LGen] Macdonald said.
Which brings me to Dawn Black's comment:
New Democratic MP Dawn Black said Capt. McCaughey's death was a "preventable loss."
"Safety always has to be the prime concern" in the Canadian Forces, she said.
I hope that the reporter left out some context with that partial quote, because otherwise Ms. Black is astoundingly ignorant of one of the fundamental principles of military service: namely, that safety is not the prime concern, the mission is. The concept of "unlimited liability" - the idea that a member of the Canadian Forces may be required to die in the service of his or her country - puts the lie to any thought of safety as the CF's prime concern.
Capt McCaughey's death was almost certainly preventable. Measures have been taken to ensure a similar death is not visited upon another pilot of his squadron. More measures need to be taken to ensure that problems of this nature aren't allowed to linger in decision-making limbo as long as this one did.
But as concerned as each of them is with safety, I don't know a single military pilot who would make it his or her "prime concern." Each time they go up, they're fully aware that they might not come down again in one piece. And they go up anyhow. Just as the soldiers riding LAVIII's across a dusty desert halfway around the world know they might meet an explosive death, and our sailors know they might disappear under the waves one night with barely a trace.
As safe as we try to make it, a military career will always be a dangerous one. No matter what comes of the opposition's concerns about a faulty lap-belt, that reality will not change.
posted by Babbling Brooks at 9:26 a.m.
6 Comments:
hmmm wonder what the casualty count is from operating worn out equipment because the liberals, with full NDP support, failed to replace old kit (Sea Kings), canceled the purchase of new kit (EH 101's) and sent our troops into harms way with obsolete equipment (Iltis) ?
How many soldier's lives would have been saved in the current Afghanistan mission if we had our own medium lift helicopters to do re-supply missions by air instead of road based convoys ?
Perhaps Mr Coderre can provide some answers. I am sure Ms. Black will assist him.
Because they are not too busy playing cheap politics with tragic accidents and lives lost.
Well said Fred.
I would say that completion of the mission is and always should be the primary concern of units on deployment or engaged in the support of such units. When it comes to a unit engaged in DAPS (Dog And Pony Show) like the Snowbirds, then safety really ought to be a primary concern, if for no other reason than that PR is not helped by flying a jet into the crowd at an airshow.
Totally agree with fred's comments on again equipment.
Dawn Black's comments reflect the mentality of a party heavily beholden to unions. "Workplace safety" is a top consideration. They have difficulty getting their tiny minds around the military and a deep concept like 'primacy of the mission'.
In fact you sometimes get the impression that, to Dippers, the Afstan mission is one great workplace safety issue. And if we could only get our soldiers to stop carrying those dangerous guns we'd be so much, ..er, safer.
When it comes to a unit engaged in DAPS (Dog And Pony Show) like the Snowbirds, then safety really ought to be a primary concern, if for no other reason than that PR is not helped by flying a jet into the crowd at an airshow.
"A" primary concern, yes; "the" primary concern, no. And remember, Michael, to make things completely safe, all the way safe, you'd have to simply not fly the aircraft at all.
Apart from that, I agree with you that safety takes on a different degree of importance depending upon the task at hand.
Reminds me of a CF-104 pilot I knew in Cold Lake who was over 6 feet in height. If he had to eject, he would of lost his kneecaps because they would have been unable to clear the instrument panel, because he was to tall. Obviously, dedication and a desire to fly, not safety were his main concerns.
Post a Comment
<< Home