Workers to be disciplined for misfiring avalanche cannon ...American

[Scoobie Newbie]

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) - Two avalanche-safety workers will be disciplined for misfiring a 105 mm howitzer and sending a round into a backyard last week, state officials said Friday.


The March 24 explosion would not have happened if the workers had followed state procedures, said Carlos Braceras, Transportation Department deputy director.

The two workers, who were not identified, were trying to set loose an avalanche before it could rip down onto U.S. Route 189 in Provo Canyon, but they sent the shell sailing with too much propellant and overshot the steep slope.

The round was supposed to travel fewer than 3,700 metres, but instead flew about 8,200 metres.

No one was injured, but the shell left a crater in a backyard and sent shrapnel flying into a house.

The exact punishment had not been determined, but the workers will not be dismissed, department spokesman Tom Hudachko told The Associated Press. He declined to name the workers.

The department fires about 550 rounds a year and said the mishap was the first in the 22 years it has used howitzers for avalanche control.

It suspended howitzer use in Provo Canyon for the season while it reviews procedures. Any charges needed for spring snow will be dropped by hand from helicopters.

 

[Michael OLeary]

One winger in 22 years. Any of our arty units have a better record?

 

[Old Sweat]

This sort of thing happens. I'll bet the lawyers have a field day over this one.

 

[Gunner]

One winger in 22 years. Any of our arty units have a better record?

Michael, surely you know that this never happens in the Royal Regiment of Canadian Artillery.  :

I can only speak of my involvement with Parks Canada at Rodgers Pass.  In my mind, the two workers would be guilty of negligence as most avalanche control in conducted in a very deliberate manner.  Most gun platforms are "dug in" and the gun is well calibrated with specific aiming points used to control avalanches.  The second aspect of using artillery guns for avalanche control is you are firing high explosive projectiles into protected/designated park land and miscalculation can have an evironmental impact (not too mention landing in someone's backyard!).

If I place my domestic operations hat on, from a provision of services perspective, if the US can conduct avalanche control with military weapons, why can't parks canada?

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

I thought there were gun crews from the RCHA/RCA that did this sort of thing in Canada.

 

[Gunner]

CFL, that is the Rodger's Pass Avalanche Control task given to 1 RCHA each year (although 2 RCHA and Reserve units have assisted in past years).  Their mandate, under Parks Canada direction, is the keep the TransCanada Highway/Rail line open.  I'm not aware of any other artillery involvement for avalanche control (at least in Western Canada).  Parks Canada and other organizations use a variety of air guns, explosives, etc to cause controlled avalanches. 

 

[Cloud Cover]

LOL, reminds me of this incident in 2000 when the CIWS went off by accident in Esquimalt harbour: http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002jti

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

I thought by your statement here: "if the US can conduct avalanche control with military weapons, why can't parks canada? "  that you were implying that CAN didn't have a similar system.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Any financial restitution with regards to the navy firing that missile?

 

[Cloud Cover]

Probably. I doubt accidental missile strikes are a specified peril in the typical homeowners insurance policy! 

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

LOL, reminds me of this incident in 2000 when the CIWS went off by accident in Esquimalt harbour: http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002jti

We are fortunate no one was injured in those two cases and in this one. :/

 

[Gunner]

"if the US can conduct avalanche control with military weapons, why can't parks canada? "  that you were implying that CAN didn't have a similar system.

AFAIK there are no US miltiary forces involved in avalanche control. My question is why can't/why shouldn't Parks Canada do it themselves.  The Provision of Services guidelines are very clear on the CF creating dependency with both government and non-government agencies.  Where a service can be done by a civilian contractor, it should be done.  We (the army) have created a dependency with Parks Canada (30 + year commitment).   

 

[Old Sweat]

Gunner,

Are you referring to the same bunch that closed the Banff Cadet Camp because it was militarizing a national park?

Ubique

 

[Gunner]

Gunner,
Are you referring to the same bunch that closed the Banff Cadet Camp because it was militarizing a national park?
Ubique

I didn't hear why they closed it...was that why?

 

[Paish]

I didn't hear why they closed it...was that why?

I actually read in the paper somewhere that shelia copps had it closed because she felt that it brought down the clasiness of the park  :threat:

 

[Gunner]

she felt that it brought down the clasiness of the park

What, a bunch of kids running around doing good adventure training?  Yikes, they should have been studing Marx's communist maniefesto.  We Shall Overcome....

 

[Horse Gunner]

I had the pleasure of commanding the Avcon Troop twice, once as a Third Herd Subbie and once when Two Horse had the job while the Third were conspicuously sunbathing in Cyprus.  Got 'dusted' twice.

For those who haven't been 'Snowpunchers', getting 'dusted' is having an avalanche roll up to or over your gun platform.  The awsome power of nature is such that at times, after the gun was laid and loaded, the Det Comd retired with truck and det into a slide shelter and the officer (a far more expendible person!) along with the SRAWS (Snow Research and Avalanche Warning Section) representative in command (more later) stayed out, fired the gun, watched (or listened, when it was dark or blizzarding) and then retired poste haste when they heard the impact and the slide shift.

The SRAWS scientist always gave the command to "engage" to the officer as it was tied directly to the whole "assistance to civil authority" legal stuff.  The officer could refuse the order if he felt his detachment were in danger but had better discuss it at great length with the SRAWS guy first.  The officer gave the Det Comd the order to fire and the Det Comd commanded his gun.  Checks were doubled and tripled to ensure no wingers but at least one happened to my knowledge but not on my watch.  It impacted in wilderness thankfully, so repercussions were limited.  It did spark a humourous cartoon in the Vancouver paper about the Victoria Irregulars using the winger as an excuse to march on the rest of Canada!  ;D

Negotiations to adjust new targets were very formal and done on paper.  Once the target was adjusted (in perfect weather) it was reshot again after coming out and back into action to ensure that the data was accurate for the platform.  All the targets were recorded in a big book much like a gun programme.

As for why the army did it and not Parks Canada I can't say.  I understand that Banff Park had its own 106mm recoiless prior to getting the big airguns.  I would suggest the difference is that the civi-used guns were fixed into permanent positions and not mobile, firing direct fire at targets they could see clearly.  The whole gun drill, coming into and out of action, maintaining target records and having the knowledge to adjust new targets with indirect fire was a skill set that Parks canada was not prepared to gain and maintain and DND was not prepared to run courses for such a small organisation to assist them in maintaining the expertise... it was easier for them to buy the skill from us and we gained by having a steady stream of Gunners who were experienced in mountain gunnery in trying circumstannces.

I remember a discussion with  MGen "Two Gun" Baker back in the early 80's (I was on my FOO course) and he was negotiating with Parks Canada.  He wanted them to take over the trucks and driving aspect by putting pintle hooks on their highspeed snowplows.  Two of us who had done the job gave him our horrified reaction (we had both driven with the civi drivers) and the matter died on the table... the Gunners kept their tractors.  The key point as far as we were concerned is that the Det Comd had to have full legal command over the driver... I even alluded to the 18th century system where civilian drivers were hired by the army and the reason it was replaced with dedicated soldier drivers; to ensure that they were soldiers who would stay by their posts.

Anyway, my 2 cents is that Parks Canada was not prepared to grow the expertise and the army was happy with the status quo.  There was probably much more to it but I wasn't privy to those decisions.

Cheers!  Mike

 

[SHELLDRAKE!!]

AVCON is a great opportunity for the artillery to deploy beside a civillian highway and show Canada that our use of weapons does have a life saving capacity.Also the employment of members of 2RCHA a few years ago in the recovery of the student skiiers who died gave our public relations a shot in the arm.I believe handing the task over to civillian agencies will only give ammunition to those who say the modern millitary is only a tax burden.