[Guy_Fawkes]

Xort Xort:

The LAV IIIs are very tippy, and they tend to sink into the ground much faster due to their narrow tall wheels than the very similar LAV 25. It's a real shame the someone was killed.

The German Puma would make a very good replacement for the LAV IIIs given what commanders want them to do, and how they are operated.

Their is no real good way to armour a wheeled vehicle to give any meaningful protection to 25mm or larger autocannons, protect the crew and passengers from mine or IED strikes, and keep good off road stability.

The only thing you can do is train the drivers and crew commanders to pick better ground.

Track can be very labor intensive when it comes to maintenance, and the Puma is not modular enough for what the CF wants.

Again, you cant blame the driver or crew commander; this was an accident. To say they CO's vehicle crew were not properly trained is a very bold accusation.

[Jabberwalker]

I'm not blaming anyone. I'm just asking if this system can be made safer for their crews.

[Jabberwalker]

Also I think you mean stacking, not daisy chaining, the mines.

Hey. I was a stoker in the Navy.

[Guy_Fawkes]

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

I'm not blaming anyone. I'm just asking if this system can be made safer for their crews.

Xort was blaming the crew not you.

[andyt]

If it's driver error, who else you going to blame? When pilots crash planes we blame them. When drivers crash their cars we blame them.

We don't know what happened. You said the vehicles are stable, tho, so that would point to driver error going by your statement.

[Guy_Fawkes]

Why does there have to blame? It was just a very unfortunate training accident, those that survived are likely going to be blaming themselves and dont need our help to do that for them.

[andyt]

There's always blame in an accident. You don't know that? Blame as in responsibilty. Eg the crash is blamed on pilot error. The soldier made a mistake and his loaded rifle went off in an armored vehicle - he sure got blamed for that one. Pull over too far off the road and roll your car into the ditch, see if you don't get blamed.

[Xort]

Guy_Fawkes Guy_Fawkes:

Again, you cant blame the driver or crew commander; this was an accident. To say they CO's vehicle crew were not properly trained is a very bold accusation.

I didn't say they were not properly trained. What I said is that with armoured wheeled vehicles the only way to avoid a roll over accident is by having the crew commander and driver pick better ground.

Blame isn't the correct word as that implies wrong doing. The crew commander and the driver are the cause. Outside of some freak mechanical failure that has more than one wheel's suspension failing at the same time on the same side, you don't roll a vehicle unless your doing something that will place the vehicle in a situation that it is able to roll.

It's possible to do nothing at all wrong, and still end up with a bad result. That said in the context of vehicle maneuvers their is an almost unlimited number of choices that could be made to complete a movement goal, picking the right ones comes down to experience and training.

I have heard a second hand account of the accident, but I'm going to keep that one to myself.

[Regina]

Guy_Fawkes Guy_Fawkes:

Why does there have to blame? It was just a very unfortunate training accident, those that survived are likely going to be blaming themselves and don't need our help to do that for them.

Exactly. Training and pushing equipment to it's max performance is how you train to fight. It's not like there's road signs telling you there's a bump coming or steep grade. Toss in poor visibility compared to any civilian vehicle on the road. Years ago Jeeps were famous for killing soldiers too.

[Guy_Fawkes]

andyt andyt:

There's always blame in an accident. You don't know that? Blame as in responsibilty. Eg the crash is blamed on pilot error. The soldier made a mistake and his loaded rifle went off in an armored vehicle - he sure got blamed for that one. Pull over too far off the road and roll your car into the ditch, see if you don't get blamed.

This isnt someone texting on a phone and going into the ditch or some one doing something inherently unsafe. This was a training accident. It is the same as if someone is trying to disarm a bomb, follows all the rules, but the bomb still goes off when he did not want it to.

As Regina has said, in training you push yourself and your equipment to the limit. The crew of the LAV did nothing at the time of the accident; we all have the unfair benefit to look back and judge their actions based on the outcome.

[putz]

Xort Xort:

Guy_Fawkes Guy_Fawkes:

Again, you cant blame the driver or crew commander; this was an accident. To say they CO's vehicle crew were not properly trained is a very bold accusation.

I didn't say they were not properly trained. What I said is that with armoured wheeled vehicles the only way to avoid a roll over accident is by having the crew commander and driver pick better ground.

Blame isn't the correct word as that implies wrong doing. The crew commander and the driver are the cause. Outside of some freak mechanical failure that has more than one wheel's suspension failing at the same time on the same side, you don't roll a vehicle unless your doing something that will place the vehicle in a situation that it is able to roll.

It's possible to do nothing at all wrong, and still end up with a bad result. That said in the context of vehicle maneuvers their is an almost unlimited number of choices that could be made to complete a movement goal, picking the right ones comes down to experience and training.

I have heard a second hand account of the accident, but I'm going to keep that one to myself.

That is a very bold statement. I have had years of experience with LAV's. Sometimes situations are unavoidable. Lack of visibility due to being "hatches down", a shift in the ground, sudden terrain changes etc. These are all outside of the control of the driver or the crew commander. To make a blanket statement that the crew commander and driver are the cause is downright insulting.

[Xort]

putz putz:

That is a very bold statement. I have had years of experience with LAV's. Sometimes situations are unavoidable. Lack of visibility due to being "hatches down", a shift in the ground, sudden terrain changes etc. These are all outside of the control of the driver or the crew commander. To make a blanket statement that the crew commander and driver are the cause is downright insulting.

The LAV III doesn't drive on it's own. The driver and commander are the ones that make it move. Any moving accident that isn't caused by a massive mechanical failure is caused by the LAV being moved, which means they are caused by the driver and crew commander.

I can't see, I have poor visibility, the terrain is changing too fast because I'm driving too fast to see what is ahead, are all issues that crew commander and driver need to work together to overcome.

If the driver can't see, then it is the crew commander's job to guide the driver, or let the driver adjust something so that the driver can see. If the driver can't see and the crew commander doesn't know it's the driver's job to tell the commander that they can't see anything.

Yes some of the night vision systems for vehicles are very poor and give images that are very hard to drive by. In those cases it is still the job and responsibility of the crew to safely drive. If the crew can not drive safely under their current conditions while moving over their current ground they must stop and change things with their vehicle setup or take a different route.

The military does operate in conditions that are not always safe, and some accidents do happen when it is unfair and pointless to blame the operators of the vehicle. However it's still caused by the driver and crew commander.

"These are all outside of the control of the driver or the crew commander."
That statement is false and is the sort of thinking that gets people hurt, more so while in training. Their is no situation for the regular military that doing something that will kill people is acceptable to ensure the realism of the training exercise.

[Guy_Fawkes]

The statement is not false Xort; if there is something in the path of the CC and driver that they have no knowledge of, which causes and accident, then no one is at fault. Again assigning blame is pointless, this was a training accident, no one is accountable and no one is at fault.

[Xort]

Guy_Fawkes Guy_Fawkes:

The statement is not false Xort; if there is something in the path of the CC and driver that they have no knowledge of, which causes and accident, then no one is at fault. Again assigning blame is pointless, this was a training accident, no one is accountable and no one is at fault.

Other than a covered pit fall or tank trap what do you suggest they would not know of and would cause an accident that they shouldn't have been able to detect?

Vehicles are no longer forded in Canada, and that's about the only case I can think of where you can get in trouble while being able to see where you are driving.

[Guy_Fawkes]

Xort Xort:

Guy_Fawkes Guy_Fawkes:

The statement is not false Xort; if there is something in the path of the CC and driver that they have no knowledge of, which causes and accident, then no one is at fault. Again assigning blame is pointless, this was a training accident, no one is accountable and no one is at fault.

Other than a covered pit fall or tank trap what do you suggest they would not know of and would cause an accident that they shouldn't have been able to detect?

Vehicles are no longer forded in Canada, and that's about the only case I can think of where you can get in trouble while being able to see where you are driving.

So because you cant think of it, it cant happen and have you ever been offroad in a vehicle?

You are also wrong about the fording.