Charges in Joshua Caleb Baker 2010 death

[The Bread Guy]

Is there any way we can compel them to publish the tech results?

Dopey civilian question here:  isn't there some sort of mechanism/SOP to ensure such information is shared for the health/safety of others?  One would hope so, but it appears those tidbits haven't even been shared internally.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Jim I can't be 100% but WO Ravensdale was the lead man on the ground, the SME on the wpn and I believe was overseeing total set up.

 

[OldSolduer]

Jim I can't be 100% but WO Ravensdale was the lead man on the ground, the SME on the wpn and I believe was overseeing total set up.

Understood, but one of the duties of an NCO, as you know, is to ensure the troops are safe on a range. My point is that one of the Sgts or MCpls should have been appointed to ensure the tps were in the LAVs.....or am I right out of it?

 

[dangerboy]

Understood, but one of the duties of an NCO, as you know, is to ensure the troops are safe on a range. My point is that one of the Sgts or MCpls should have been appointed to ensure the tps were in the LAVs.....or am I right out of it?

Jim, I agree with your thinking.  A lot of people are asking the same questions about the Section Comd/2 ICs.

 

[Infanteer]

Dopey civilian question here:  isn't there some sort of mechanism/SOP to ensure such information is shared for the health/safety of others?  One would hope so, but it appears those tidbits haven't even been shared internally.

When the trial is done, it's results will be published.  As courts martial are public trials, there is no secrecy as to what comes out during their conduct.

 

[The Bread Guy]

When the trial is done, it's results will be published.  As courts martial are public trials, there is no secrecy as to what comes out during their conduct.

Seen - thanks!

 

[PanaEng]

There was a BOI conducted. The technical findings will be contained therein. Does anyone have information on when or if it will be released?

Indeed, the ball bearings don't go backwards. That would indicate a systemic manufacturing error which would have been seen more than once.
The only 2 ways that the projectiles ended up going towards the troops is that it was placed wrong ("FRONT TOWARDS ENEMY") - it could happen if some troop was totally disoriented and no one checked it or double-checked (as should have been the case); (I think it should actually say: THIS SIDE TOWARDS ENEMY)
or that the weapon got disrupted by either the blast from a nearby C19 or by someone pulling or tripping over the cable resulting in misalignment.

Can't comment at the moment about the minimum distance between C19s or other demolitions (not fired simultaneously) or if it should even be allowed to place multiple C19 then fired consecutively. The safest course would be to place and fire individually. (If multiple placement is allowed, my personal opinion would be to have a min of  20m between wpns, side by side only and no other demolitions in the relay.) All that may be clarified with the outcomes of the BOI.

Also of concern is one comment in the comments section from a guy that apparently is or was in the military. He said he used pickets to anchor the wpn. DO NOT USE STEEL PICKETS!  or any metal pickets. That will increase the safety template to 1km around the wpn.

Chimo!

 

[The Bread Guy]

There was a BOI conducted. The technical findings will be contained therein. Does anyone have information on when or if it will be released?

Quick Google-fu = nothing in the public domain yet.

If it will be released publicly, maybe the powers that be will wait until any court proceedings are all wrapped up?

 

[Infanteer]

BOI's aren't, as far as I know, generally released and it would take a Information Act request to secure the findings of the Board.

 

[PanaEng]

BOI's aren't, as far as I know, generally released and it would take a Information Act request to secure the findings of the Board.

Hopefully the findings will make their way into the Training Safety manuals and other publications related to the use of this weapon soon if not already covered.

 

[ammocat]

It will interesting to see what comes out of this as far as new training regulations, safety procedures, and the actual cause.  I wonder if lack of training or lack of proper training will be a contributing factor.  Years ago when I was still in the infantry we carried the practice mines regularly during training.  We never had all the accessories for them so you would unfold the legs, place it on the ground, and walk back to you position.  No aiming, no accounting for safety distances, missiles and debris being fired backwards, etc.  I am sure it was all in the lectures, but not practiced in the field.  Firing of live ones was a rare event.  Maybe regular use of the live item so troops are familiar with its characteristics would help.  Of course things might be different now.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

I see reports of your demise has been greatly exaggerated AC

 

[Nfld Sapper]

Sources close to me indicate that the C-19's where set up correctly but the successive concussion waves knocked over said C19 also they indicate that the LAV's where peppered from the ricochets too...

Take it for what it's worth.......

 

[Fishbone Jones]

BOI's aren't, as far as I know, generally released and it would take a Information Act request to secure the findings of the Board.

I'm sure the MSM has already applied..............from a number of sources.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Sources close to me indicate that the C-19's where set up correctly but the successive concussion waves knocked over said C19 also they indicate that the LAV's where peppered from the ricochets too...

Take it for what it's worth.......

Hopefully a report will be made where we can see the position of the C19's in relation to all the personel.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

I realize this was operational however the setting for the range seemed relaxed ie not in any immediate danger.  Therefore reading the C19 pub it is clear many things fell to the wayside. 


Before connecting the blasting cap to the firing device, the safety bail must be in the "SAFE" position.
All personnel with in 250 metres of the front and sides of the weapon, and who are within 100 metres
of the rear of the weapon, must be under cover

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I'm pretty sure all the water cooler talk and what should be and what is supposed to be, navel gazing et al was all covered at the trial.

 

[57Chevy]

                                                Shared with provisions of The Copyright Act

Jail or reprimand? Military judge to decide fate of convicted Calgary reservist
The Canadian Press By Bill Graveland, 20 Feb


CALGARY - A veteran Canadian Forces reservist convicted in a deadly training accident in Afghanistan is to learn his fate today when a military judge sentences him.

Cmdr. Peter Lamont could send Maj. Darryl Watts to jail, order him thrown out of the Canadian Forces in disgrace or demote him.

Watts was found guilty in December of unlawfully causing bodily harm and negligent performance of military duty in the training accident north of Kandahar City.

Cpl. Josh Baker, 24, died when an anti-personnel mine loaded with 700 steel balls peppered a platoon on a practice range three years ago. Four other soldiers hit by the blast were seriously injured.

The prosecution argued during the trial that Watts, who was the platoon commander, didn't enforce safety standards and abdicated his duty as leader when he handed over responsibility to Warrant Officer Paul Ravensdale.

The defence argued that Watts's blameworthiness is on the low end of the scale, since no one could have predicted what his lawyer called a "freak accident."

"He should only receive a very minimum sentence ... a reprimand," defence lawyer Balfour Der said after a sentencing hearing last month.

"Maj. Watts was found guilty, but it's as marginal as it can be," he added.

"I'm fairly confident that under these circumstances he's not going to get anything more than a reprimand."

But the prosecution said Watts should spend time behind bars.

"There's little evidence of remorse from Maj. Watts or that he has accepted responsibility for his actions," Maj. Dylan Kerr argued during the hearing.

Kerr suggested a message must be sent about Watts's part in the accident. He has called for 18 months in jail as well as outright dismissal or a demotion of two ranks to lieutenant.

The court martial heard that the range was divided into four training sections that day. The first two tests of the anti-personnel mine went off without a hitch. But when the second firing occurred, the ball bearings fired backwards, hitting Baker and the others.

Videos show several soldiers, including Watts, standing around watching the test. They are not inside armoured vehicles or standing behind them for cover as set out in safety regulations.

Der said a harsh sentence could destroy his client's life. Watts works as a senior firefighter with the Calgary Fire Department as his regular day-to-day job.

"Jail would likely end his career as a firefighter. It would end his career as a military officer."

Watts's commanding officer, Maj. Christopher Lunney, pleaded guilty in September to negligent performance of duty, was demoted to captain and given a severe reprimand.

Ravensdale, who has since retired, was convicted last week of unlawfully causing bodily harm, two counts of breach of duty and one count of negligent performance of military duty. He has yet to be sentenced.

 

[kratz]

shared from CBC.ca

A Calgary reservist has been sentenced to a reduction in rank and a severe reprimand for his role in a soldier's death during a live-fire training exercise in Afghanistan.

Maj. Darryl Watts was found guilty last year of unlawfully causing bodily harm and negligent performance of duty.

His rank was reduced to lieutenant as part of his sentence today at the Calgary court martial.

Watts, who is a full-time firefighter in Calgary, was the platoon commander when an explosive device killed 24-year-old Cpl. Josh Baker at a training range just north of Kandahar city in February 2010.

Four other soldiers were also wounded when Claymore explosives (C19s) packed with 700 steel balls hit a Canadian Forces platoon.

The prosecution was seeking a jail term of 18 months and dismissal from the forces, or demotion of two ranks.

The sentencing judge — a senior ranking military officer — cited Watts's promising career with the military and now with the Calgary Fire Department as reasons for not sending him to jail.

"He can continue to be a highly effective officer," said Cmdr. Peter Lamont.

Lamont called Watts' demotion rehabilitative, saying where rank can be lost it can also be regained.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

So what does a severe reprimand mean for an Officer?