• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Active Shooter In NS. April 19 2020

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
12,008
Points
1,360
I’m pretty sure they do not. They do have a spotlight.
Grrr…they whined about it and had a chunk of green Griffon’s inventory of turrets transferred to yellow many years back…I was the OpsO of a unit that shipped three of our FLIRs onwards to yellow units. If they’re not using them now, that organization need a slap upside the head… 😠
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,112
Points
1,160
Once again, according to the CBC, the CAF are the "bad" guys.

In fairness, every dept, every policy, every employee who didn’t do everything they could have that day were “the bad guys”. RCMP, EMO, JRCC, CAOC, the CofC, and our policies that left us all impotent those 2 days while 1 man wasn’t denied freedom of manoeuvre in rural Nova Scotia and killed people at will for an extended period of time.

CBC et al should be asking “what processes and policies have been reviewed since then and what improvements have been made in the RCMP, DND and the CAF to avoid a similar clusterfuck in the future?”.
 
Last edited:

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,112
Points
1,160
Really? In this day and age. The person giving the order, the guy who fueled the helicopter and all the crew are definitely fired immediately. If shit goes sideways and someone get hurt or killed those people would be looking at jail time.

People were killed. Many of them. Would you care to stand in front of all of their families and friends and wholeheartedly defend the positions of the depts and governments involved?
 
Last edited:

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,112
Points
1,160
Let me try this on you:

Bring in an ARV and some HLVW wreckers on a low level phone call and let’s clear that trucker convoy out!

Still ok with the Military getting inserted into law emforcement without the proper Ministerial oversight?

While I see the point you are making, I can’t agree the situations are comparable because of (1) the gravity and urgency of the situation and (2) the significant difference in the effect being sought by the requesting dept/agency.

April 2020, law enforcement would have remained the shooter; any airborne asset the RCAF had ONSTA would have been the spotter.

Is there still a requirement for the proper authorization from depts and government? There is, and in situations like April 2020, those phone calls and authorizations should happen in quick time with all the cell phones and smartphones etc the tax payers fund for government employees across all depts.
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,112
Points
1,160
And that's fair. I'm also just pissed because as per, the CBC paints the CAF to look like a bunch of chuckle heads when it looks like everyone knew exactly what their job & authorities were.

While I don’t expect the JRCC to properly advise other depts on the best aircraft for effects, I certainly do the CAOC. I know what I would have replied back with and what phone calls to what WOps DWO would have happened really, really shortly after to have that crew and aircraft literally ready to start engines once the thumbs up came.

“Anticipate future tasks” was a big lesson on my CLC as a Cpl.

Also sounds like the Province needs to buy the RCMP an additional aircraft. Or they'll probably just send more social assistance cheques to Cape Breton, as is tradition.

One thing these articles fail to do is point the finger at government, which is overall responsible for funding and equipping both the RCMP and CAF.

How odd.
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
4,672
Points
1,260
While I see the point you are making, I can’t agree the situations are comparable because of (1) the gravity and urgency of the situation and (2) the significant difference in the effect being sought by the requesting dept/agency.

April 2020, law enforcement would have remained the shooter; any airborne asset the RCAF had ONSTA would have been the spotter.

Is there still a requirement for the proper authorization from depts and government? There is, and in situations like April 2020, those phone calls and authorizations should happen in quick time with all the cell phones and smartphones etc the tax payers fund for government employees across all depts.

After big events, especially negative ones, our processes need to dissected and if needed improvements made.

We always do AARs and hot washes at the tactical level. Should be the same at the strategic and governmental as well.

We obviously need a less difficult way to get support to and from other gov depts.
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,112
Points
1,160
It took a massive pile of work to purchase a single H145 helicopter for RCMP Air Services Lower Mainland. It has a hoist, IR, spot light and is absolutely the kind of helicopter they needed for this. It can apparently carry an ERT assaulter team and they have practiced insertions and extractions. It shares its time with one of the older AS350's which have significantly shorter legs and can only carry the pilot and tactical flight officer (with significant weight restrictions for those jobs).

I have a close friend of many years on the Teams there; we’ve discussed the lack of air/what air support can and should look like today/tomorrow. It can be a vital tool but it is an expensive one so politicians don’t like to talk about them.

Again going back to the theme of what I've been saying in this thread and elsewhere about how the RCMP would start doing business if I was Commissioner, Air Services would be something that the RCMP does its own way, and the bill can be sent to the Province whether they like it or not. Don't want to pay for a second helicopter despite the obvious safety and tactical considerations? Too bad, here's the bill. Don't like it? Hire somebody else to police your province.

I wonder how the governments willingness to buy more needed EFFECTIVE aircraft would be if it suddenly became important to voters who understood and cared about these issues?
 
Last edited:

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,112
Points
1,160
Knowing what I know about H and budgets- I bet dollars to donuts that the cost of leasing from that PAL company and getting an appropriate budget holder to sign off was part of the issue having leased enough helicopters and seen how that goes.

Everyone is assuming that PAL would have had standby crews that was able to launch and fly at a moments notice on a Saturday night into Sunday morning.

I can’t comment on the PAL crews and their proficiency on Overland Ops. It’s a fairly perishable skill set.
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,112
Points
1,160
After big events, especially negative ones, our processes need to dissected and if needed improvements made.

We always do AARs and hot washes at the tactical level. Should be the same at the strategic and governmental as well.

We obviously need a less difficult way to get support to and from other gov depts.

Agreed. The current gov likes to quote “whole of government approach” the last few years.

Haven’t heard that one used yet for the April 2020 tragedy. Again, how odd.

CBC seems quite happy to not hold the government accountable for how the RCMP is funded, equipped and trained. It is happy to not hold the government accountable for how federal department like the RCMP and CAF exercise interoperability, which is more important with the lack of resources either of those departments have to support Canadians domestically in times of urgent need.
 
Last edited:

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
12,008
Points
1,360
Everyone is assuming that PAL would have had standby crews that was able to launch and fly at a moments notice on a Saturday night into Sunday morning.

I can’t comment on the PAL crews and their proficiency on Overland Ops. It’s a fairly perishable skill set.
Like any business, I’m pretty sure…no, make that very sure, that PAL has crews working regularly planned activities for DFO and that any non-scheduled request for surplus capabilities would come from a quick sweep of “who’s not scheduled, or not up now, but could come in?” personnel.

As you point out up thread, EITS, the CAOC would be where I would expect some dynamic consideration of available air power and how to coordinate its use in a timely and effective manner, not a blow-off by a junior duty member.
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,112
Points
1,160
Kudos to N.S. DNRR who were able to get one of these in the air. Not the most effective aircraft but better than what any/everyone else was capable of that fateful day.

 

RedFive

Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
353
Points
830
I have a close friend of many years on the Teams there; we’ve discussed the lack of air/what air support can and should look like today/tomorrow. It can be a vital tool but it is an expensive one so politicians don’t like to talk about them.



I wonder how the governments willingness to buy more needed EFFECTIVE aircraft would be if it suddenly became important to voters who understood and cared about these issues?
Quite frankly if it were up to me they would strap a thermal to all the extra Griffons hanging around the deliver them to the Division's Air Services hangers. They keep going with the Airbus products with fenestron tail rotors in the name of cost efficiency and noise reduction. A Griffon is more helicopter than is really needed to do traffic enforcement/take over pursuits, but nobody is going to convince me that's not a suitable SAR or tactical helicopter for ERT's purposes (And before any of the Tac Hel guys on this forum jump down my throat YES I KNOW its not a good helicopter for the CAF I'm talking about ERT and the RCMP lol)
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
12,008
Points
1,360
A Griffon is more helicopter than is really needed to do traffic enforcement/take over pursuits, but nobody is going to convince me that's not a suitable SAR or tactical helicopter for ERT's purposes (And before any of the Tac Hel guys on this forum jump down my throat YES I KNOW its not a good helicopter for the CAF I'm talking about ERT and the RCMP lol)
Yes and no, I’d say. I don’t think you’ll get any pushback from TH folks who are familiar with ERT ops. I flew SERT, E, K, O, A, C, J and H Div ERTs all with a 212/CH135 and O, A and C with a 412/CH146 and worked with FBI HRT and their 412s. The Griffon isn’t a bad airframe for that role. The cost to run a 146/412 is something that even O/C Div these days would have a challenge keeping current and proficient. CFAAD request to the CAF is likely the best all-around COA to get that capability. Each of CJOC’s regional air component commanders has aviation staff to link up with any LE in the region quickly. I have no clue why the CAOC didn’t shoot the RCMP over to JTF-A’s ACCE (air component coord elem). 🤷🏻‍♂️
 

brihard

Army.ca Legend
Mentor
Reaction score
8,496
Points
1,110
Yes and no, I’d say. I don’t think you’ll get any pushback from TH folks who are familiar with ERT ops. I flew SERT, E, K, O, A, C, J and H Div ERTs all with a 212/CH135 and O, A and C with a 412/CH146 and worked with FBI HRT and their 412s. The Griffon isn’t a bad airframe for that role. The cost to run a 146/412 is something that even O/C Div these days would have a challenge keeping current and proficient. CFAAD request to the CAF is likely the best all-around COA to get that capability. Each of CJOC’s regional air component commanders has aviation staff to link up with any LE in the region quickly. I have no clue why the CAOC didn’t shoot the RCMP over to JTF-A’s ACCE (air component coord elem). 🤷🏻‍♂️
Am I correct in interpreting this as meaning that a call to JRCC for something like Moncton or Portapique could realistically be met with a “not from us, but…” with the request or being forwarded immediately to the appropriate authority, and a simultaneous message to a squadron saying “start up a bird, law enforcement request coming in for an active shooter”? I’m trying to envision an approach that absolutely minimizes delay through concurrent activity ‘risked out’ in anticipation of likely approval.
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
12,008
Points
1,360
Am I correct in interpreting this as meaning that a call to JRCC for something like Moncton or Portapique could realistically be met with a “not from us, but…” with the request or being forwarded immediately to the appropriate authority, and a simultaneous message to a squadron saying “start up a bird, law enforcement request coming in for an active shooter”? I’m trying to envision an approach that absolutely minimizes delay through concurrent activity ‘risked out’ in anticipation of likely approval.
Personally I think JRCC should have immediately forwarded the request to ACCE(A) (heck, they might even be co-located in Halifax 🤷🏻‍♂️) when it was clear the situation was to support LE dealing with the situation it was and not trying to find some poor lost soul. I don’t know what the current TT&Ps are for dealing with a request that initially comes into the JRCC.
 

kev994

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,113
Points
1,260
Personally I think JRCC should have immediately forwarded the request to ACCE(A) (heck, they might even be co-located in Halifax 🤷🏻‍♂️) when it was clear the situation was to support LE dealing with the situation it was and not trying to find some poor lost soul. I don’t know what the current TT&Ps are for dealing with a request that initially comes into the JRCC.
It’s a single Captain whose background is likely a single tour at a SAR unit, and a member of the CCG. And depending what else is going on in the SRR they may be completely overwhelmed with their actual jobs, or they may have lots of time to try to puzzle through what to do with this. Sometimes there’s an assistant, usually that would be a Sgt with a SAR background
 
Top