Soldier's Drowning.
-
so it was SOF training.
what a waste!!! -
Yes,even before the training began,saftety measures were not followed.So what can u expect the level of saftety conciousness of those ppl concerned?Originally posted by nightzip:Just watched the Channel U news.
The minister say everything is alright, and according to safety regulations. WTF! 
How can everything be according to system safety where you have a lifevest where its NOT working, and NO MO on duty!
What nonsense is he talking about? how can the investigation come out say nothing wrong has happened? -
Again another news article on Today, saying good good, nothing is wrong with SAF procedures etc.
I strongly believe that we need to write to st.forums or Today, that a majority of us has Nothing to say about existing protocol.
Its about the instructors or MO procedures and the apparent Disorganisation of the "organising" of the exercise that pisses people off.
Lack of assuring safety, quality of life-vests, alertness of trainers to trainees in distress, etc... -
the instructors should not Cao Jian Ren Ming...
the soldier is also a human being. why should the instructors not treasure his life?
i think instructors should treasure the lives of those who are under them as their own life. everyone's life is precious. we should treasure each other's life and not to harm each other.
the instructors dun even hav the rights to do so! in nicer words, the soldier died in training is an accident, but i think it is just like the instructor killed him.
-
btw what causes the drowning?
what did the autopsy report say?
any idea? -
i remembered clearly from the news article, the state coroner blasted the instructors....dun believe go read Today 2 days back.
But minister say okok. -
state coroner blasted them implies most probably the coroner's report shows that he could have die from prolonged deprevation of air or drowning, which normally wouldnt occur instantly, but maybe after 5 minutes or so. Perhaps it implies that if the trainers were to be more on the ball, the accident could have been averted, that's why the state coroner blasted the trainers?
-
26/07: SAF Training Accidents: Shit Happens?
Category: Columns Posted by: Bo Zheng Hu
"Besides enhancing the safety culture, the SAF has also improved the dissemination of safety information within its ranks. A knowledge management system for safety information is currently being set up. The SAF is also studying trend forecasting methods to anticipate and address potential safety problems before they arise."
Defence Minister Teo Chee Hean's comments during the Budget Debate 2004
Oh really?
MINDEF has been pretty quiet on the recent fatal rapelling mishap at Sembawang Airbase. In that training accident, 1SGT Shiva Mohan and a foreign trooper fell to their deaths during heliborne training on 13.07.05. Since 14.07.05, MINDEF has not released new information on the accident, probably pending some serious bureaucratic redtape paperwork on what accurately happened. This is what we found out in the Internet. Accurate or not? Hmmm
We all want to know what happened then. Was it human error or a technical fault, since a similar rapelling accident happened before in the early 1990s? According to some theories in the Internet by people in the loop, it might be a technical design in the rope anchor devise that farked things up. From what I understood as the closest thing I did to heliborne rapelling was climbing down a double-decker bed in student hostels overseas, all safety checks were done prior to the exercise. The pin in the rope anchor devise that ensured that a trooper would not plunge down to earth during rapelling was probably not inserted fully. And this is the shit happens part. It was not human error as all SOP were followed to check that the pin was 'inserted' and rope could hold. It was not a technical fault as all SOP was done to check that the equipment was OK. So everyone sadly looked up to the sky and shrugged their shoulders? While the crew and technicians looked around nerviously who might become a scapegoat this time.
Speculation arose because the SAF has not chosen to comment on the accident. Just like they did not comment on the drowning of 2SGT Ong Jia Hui at Changi Naval Base on 15.06.05 during 'special operations training'. The MINDEF statement said that the case was being investigated and there is no news on it since then. Maybe 2SGT Ong was climbing up the side of a ship and fell into the water, his body armour and weapons dragging him down to the bottom of the sea. But we will never know the truth and whether safety SOP were observed or not.
MINDEF might give the excuse that full public disclosure of such accidents could breach the OSA. Whatever. Maybe. But it shows that MINDEF is not subtle enough in its PR skills to reveal information without revealing information. Why can't the SAF be mature enough to be more open in explaining to the public?
The same old story of accidents in the SAF and transparency. Since RSS Courageous, the SAF has been struggling to juggle concerns of realistic training, transparency and accountability in human errors. The public has tasted blood since the milestone RSS Courageous tragedy and goes on a lynch mob frenzy especially if a NSF dies during training.
I guess you already know that MINDEF does not publish statistics of training accidents in their website. They do not even have a special section on updates on investigations in training deaths. We don't need to hear the results of the inquiry yet. We just want to hear the progress of what is being done. These are sure signs of deliberately not being transparent.
Sure, training accidents happen in all professional armies. It is a job hazard and I don't deny it. But the more the SAF does not reveal, the more I feel that a particular fatal accident could have been prevented, the more I develop a lynch mob mentality and want someone in the SAF to take the blame, sadly even if a fatal accident was truly unpreventable and genuinely a tragic act of God.
RSS Courageous and 2SGT Hu Enhuai's drowning were controversially steps in the right direction for the SAF's move towards accountability and transparency. The SAF should improve on it and now give frequent updates on what is happening in getting to the bottom of the recent training deaths. Saying that they are investigating the matter and leaving it at that is no longer enough.
Comments
Rachel wrote:
I think they wont release any details from the investigations, and even if they do release any official statements, they may not reflect the entire truth at all. Usually, the results of the investigations are released to immediate family only. Personally, I do hope that MINDEF releases the results of these investigations as public record. The people have the right to know, because some of the injured/deceased are friends and they won't know how or why their friend(s) were taken.
04/08 20:30:42
Noname wrote:
Release details to family? You sure? THe SAF policy on accidents now seems be open, then delay so that public will forget.
10/08 10:04:26
The Void Deck wrote:
hehe SAF PR approach oso like Hellfire fire and forget. They fire some short press release and hope we forget to pursue the matter!
11/08 09:43:08
Rachel wrote:
Anyway, i just miss him heaps. And up till now I still don't know why/how he was taken. =(
23/08 01:44:04
Shoba wrote:
I am the sister of 1SG SHIVA MOHAN.. Yes, i am really very angry with the SAF as we are not given any details as to what has happened on that unfortunate night.. All that they could say was.. Ermm the investigations is still going on.we would get back to you in a months or so..or maybe it might even take a year..They really want us to suffer in silence..It kills us. Do you know how frustrated i am? We are having sleepless nights.. worried.. tensed.. feel as if like we've broken our left arms.. But these SAF officers are just having their normal routines carried out.. How can these people be like that.. Our lives can never be the same again.. SAF can have new recruits every year.. But i can only have one brother in my entire life.. SAF is suppose to carry out safety procedures. My brother is very good at rappelling. He has even done that for last year's national day parade, at other countries too.. He has carried out numerous rappelling exercises.. Why is that so? I dont want the question mark to be placed on my family .. Why are they taking so long in getting back to us? I want a SOLID and VALID reason and not a scapegoat to be blamed in the end.. Just because we are ladies.. Is that the reason why they are keeping things away from us????? Life is very precious and so is my brother and mum to me. If ITS gone, i need a REASON!
23/08 23:22:48
Apologies for copy and pasting, the link to the above is http://www.thevoiddeck.org/index.php?itemid=41&catid=3 -
really? u think so? What if i told u what they did for 2SG Hu's case was actually damage control? Because the truth had already gotten out and they felt its better for people to hear it coming from them rather than other *ahem* sources? steps in the right direction? nothing they do is not for their own selfish benefit.Originally posted by nightzip:RSS Courageous and 2SGT Hu Enhuai's drowning were controversially steps in the right direction for the SAF's move towards accountability and transparency. The SAF should improve on it and now give frequent updates on what is happening in getting to the bottom of the recent training deaths. Saying that they are investigating the matter and leaving it at that is no longer enough. -
All the hooha about improving safety is useless if the safety practitioners are not up to the task, or are not censured for failing to observe protocol.
It's no use churning out SOPs/Directives/GOMs by the dozen if the people stated inside to be responsible, are simply not responsible.
Heads have to roll before they understand the seriousness of it.And I don't mean small heads. -
SOP only to look nice when the ISO inspectors come n look see only la.Originally posted by LazerLordz:All the hooha about improving safety is useless if the safety practitioners are not up to the task, or are not censured for failing to observe protocol.
It's no use churning out SOPs/Directives/GOMs by the dozen if the people stated inside to be responsible, are simply not responsible.
Heads have to roll before they understand the seriousness of it.And I don't mean small heads. -
Some SOPs were crafted by NSFs who have ORDed years back, and the current regulars, have no idea about it and still use the same old hash..Originally posted by HENG@:SOP only to look nice when the ISO inspectors come n look see only la.
oh yes, ISO inspectors..fairly friendly bunch they are..always up for some kopi
-
Well, this is different from dunking case. Firstly, the victim was a regular this time, and the instructors were negligent, not behaving badly.
-
Negligence in special forces training is as good as abuse or a flagrant disregard for national assets.Originally posted by iveco:Well, this is different from dunking case. Firstly, the victim was a regular this time, and the instructors were negligent, not behaving badly. -
If anything, negligence in ANY type of training is as good as abuse. I don't see why we should distinguish between SOF training and other forms of training. If the training activity has potential to cause casualties, any and all safety measures that can be taken should be taken.Originally posted by LazerLordz:Negligence in special forces training is as good as abuse or a flagrant disregard for national assets.
We can't prevent true acts of God, but we can stop truly preventable mishaps. -
yes.just that if the instructors are that negligent, I don't want to cast aspersions on the quality of our operators, but it's getting hard not to.Originally posted by fudgester:If anything, negligence in ANY type of training is as good as abuse. I don't see why we should distinguish between SOF training and other forms of training. If the training activity has potential to cause casualties, any and all safety measures that can be taken should be taken.
We can't prevent true acts of God, but we can stop truly preventable mishaps. -
true, totally true...no audit no wayang...audit come then wayang....in between is own time own target i guessOriginally posted by HENG@:SOP only to look nice when the ISO inspectors come n look see only la. -
Originally posted by fudgester:
It seems they did not want to inflate the life vests because they will not be able to wear life vests in operations. Wearing life vests will reveal their location to the enemy. Remember that a terrorist who takes hold of a ship will have posted look-outs for government forces.
[b]
If anything, negligence in ANY type of training is as good as abuse. I don't see why we should distinguish between SOF training and other forms of training. If the training activity has potential to cause casualties, any and all safety measures that can be taken should be taken.
b]
But the training safety regulations require them to wear life vests, so they wear them but not allowed to inflate them, to make the training realistic.
There is a difference between training of ordinary troops and the SOF. For one thing, the likelihood of a terrorist attack is much greater than invasion by a foreign power. -
Even so, the fact remains that the life vest in this drowning case was defective. Even though it had not been inflated and did not contribute to the drowning anyway, the stand is pretty clear: all safety equipment must be checked prior to training and replaced if they're defective.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:It seems they did not want to inflate the life vests because they will not be able to wear life vests in operations. Wearing life vests will reveal their location to the enemy. Remember that a terrorist who takes hold of a ship will have posted look-outs for government forces.
But the training safety regulations require them to wear life vests, so they wear them but not allowed to inflate them, to make the training realistic.
There is a difference between training of ordinary troops and the SOF. For one thing, the likelihood of a terrorist attack is much greater than invasion by a foreign power.
When I said that there shouldn't be a distinction made between ordinary training and SOF training, I was referring to a distinction with regards to safety. While I can accept that the life vests were not inflated for the sake of realism, defective life vests should never have been used. Sorry if I didn't make that clear just now. -
He was given a defective life vest.What would happen if he needed to use it?Was the defective life vest given to him intentionally (say the storeman doesn't like him)?Did the police probe into this?
-
But if they were not allowed to use life vests in the first place, whether or not he was given a defective life vest would not have made any difference..Originally posted by PRP:He was given a defective life vest.What would happen if he needed to use it?Was the defective life vest given to him intentionally (say the storeman doesn't like him)?Did the police probe into this? -
If he was in danger of drowning, then I suppose he would be allowed to use the life vest.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:But if they were not allowed to use life vests in the first place, whether or not he was given a defective life vest would not have made any difference..
Whether or not he would have had the time to inflate it is another issue altogether. What that really matters is, used or unused, ALL safety equipment must be checked prior to training. If it's defective, then it should have been replaced with a working one. Under no circumstances should a defective piece of safety equipment be put into training. -
realism in training does not equate to letting a man drown in training, if he is in danger, he has to inflate his vest.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:But if they were not allowed to use life vests in the first place, whether or not he was given a defective life vest would not have made any difference..
That's why the safety aspect of equipment check is of paramount importance. -
Definitely. Hence the importance of annual LRIs.Originally posted by LazerLordz:realism in training does not equate to letting a man drown in training, if he is in danger, he has to inflate his vest.
That's why the safety aspect of equipment check is of paramount importance. -
If he was in danger of drowning, then I suppose he would be allowed to use the life vest.
I agree but I doubt that would have made a difference. That soldier would not have inflated in any case until it is too late. He's SOF...if he is told not to inflate the life vest, he won't do it...
Reminds me of an instance years ago during BMT. We had to pass a swimming test...tread water for a certain period without any floating aids. If you cannot tahan you are allowed to stop and swim to the side of the pool. But if you fail, you will be confined over the weekend 'for additional training'. Quite a few nearly drowned that day...die die must tahan until one by one they sank...