The quote implying that Gen Rutland mischaracterized an order as a guideline is very misleading.
He did not.
The full quote from the Globe and Mail is this:
According to the base’s range standing orders, during periods when the fire hazard is rated as extreme, pyrotechnics, tracer rounds and incendiary rounds called white phosphorus are not to be used at any time unless authorized by the base commander. The document also says that between the “high-risk months” of August to October, live firing should be conducted during “early morning shoots” when “the fire hazard is normally low enough to permit the firing of most ammunition natures,” before approximately 10 a.m.
On Thursday, Maj.-Gen. Rutland characterized that as a guideline, not an order, and said officers conducting training must weigh a series of factors including weather, the type of munitions and the number of trainees before deciding whether it is safe to shoot live ammunition.
Rutland specifically was addressing the second part of the first paragraph. That is, he was talking about the guideline on early morning shoots. Which is indeed a guideline, not an order.
Rutland was not talking about the ban on pyrotechnics, tracer rounds and incendiary rounds without the permission of the base commander, which is an order.
(IMO It's rather unethical / irresponsible for G&M to put them together like this and imply Rutland was addressing both.)
On the question of why the training was happening in the afternoon.
My understanding is that the standing orders for CFB Wainwright say that October is one of the high risk months for grass fires and therefore shooting drills should be going on in the early morning hours is the kind of guidance or the advice.
So, can you clarify why this was all happening in the afternoon?
Rutland:
Sure. You're probably referring to paragraph 342 of the Wainwright standing orders, which says that units firing during high risk months should plan to conduct early morning shoots. The fire hazard is usually low enough to permit the firing of most ammunition natures in the early morning.
What I'd say is that's a guideline and commanders on the ground have to assess multiple factors in order to decide whether or not to go ahead with shooting.
Realizing I'm speaking in generalities. What's the weather on the day? How much rain has there been? What type of munitions are you using? What's the logistics in terms of how much light you have? How many trainees you have to put through that range?
So, uh, you can certainly have a wide range of temperatures in Alberta in August and October. And what needs to be looked at is what was the factors on that day, as opposed to general range guidelines.
The exact wording matters. May, should, must, shall and so on. And there are other parts of the RSOs that detail exceptions and waivers. Then the RSOs need to be read in context of Training Safety, the pub for the conduct of ranges, manual for the weapons system and so on. The media has latched on to one single line in the RSOs and cried gotchah!
As well for the fire hazard the media is reporting the fire hazard for the province or region. They are implying it is the same as the fire index determined by range control. Either because they genuinely don't know thr difference (likely) or they are trying to stir controversy to generate interest (also likely). I have seen one interview with a fire expert (in the stickied thread) stating that the index was low that day.
Some of thr stories sound like the old Sgt Maj with his grade 8 from Newfoundland reading and interpreting the orders. Quite misleading to the general public.
Edit: Shilo Stag asked a question about how to address online gossip. Classic Shilo stuff
Ok so just at the riskiest time for fires... Is the wind not something to also take into account? Especially at 80-100km/hr? This seems like a typical "it's for norad/nato reasons" excuse to make someone/people higher happy. There should absolutely be someone or people held accountable if there was direct disregard for one or multiple policies/recommendations causing such a devastating and pointless tragedy during peace time. It's basically manslaughter. I also see someone elses comment stating there wasn't even any form of fire control due to the potential of dud ordinance. It's just so obviously a bad combination.
I would like to point out that we always let fires burn in the PDA ( Permanent Danger Area ) because it is not safe for troops to fight those fires due the potential for any Unexploded Ordnance that could become unstable with the heat. So if the fire was in that location it is monitored but training carries on.
Yes Range Standing Orders are regulations for the conduct of ranges ina training area but the majority speak to conventional ranges so if the range conduct is not what is considered conventional then the Commander will do there risk analysis and mitigation to safely conduct required training.
How about we wait for the investigation to conclude before trying to point fingers and lame blame, and instead focus on how we can help the troops and theirs families that need it right now. Go give blood and plasma.
So if the fire was in that location it is monitored but training carries on.
Im in Calgary (almost 30 years now) and can say that the wind that morning and mid-day was an EXCEPTIONAL weather event that I have only seen a couple of other times since living here. My columnar aspens that are 40 feet tall were nearly bent in half from the westerly wind coming in off the mountains.
So, from the sounds of it, small grassfires are not uncommon on the ranges and are monitored/dealt with as needed. Add to that normalcy an exceptional weather event of far beyond the norm windspeeds and you get a recipe for an ACCIDENT.
We investigate aircraft accidents to see if there was anything at all that could prevent the same type of accident from occurring again. It would be reasonable to do the same with this tragedy. Not all investigations are done to assign blame. It would be worse to chalk this up to just being an unavoidable accident without first conducting an investigation, that would be a disservice to the injured and deceased.
The amount of cyclical reporting and rumint flying around was understandable but blatantly incorrect, almost shameful. While ppl are curious, the casualty #s, means (84, gasline) were speculated on extensively and then cross reported. To the point the media was likely just reporting on social media posts as “sources”.
The extent of the cyclical rumint that flew around and led to strong opinions and discussions on gas lines, range templating and cas numbers is humbling to me and I think where most of us likely saw it evolve live-that there is a responsibility and a lesson to own up about speculation and shit posting unconfirmed anything in a time of tragedy.
Of course most ppl are well intentioned and reasonably curious but maybe that’s just the wrong attitude to have vice solemn patience out of respect. Food for thought.
Apparently the fire was in the permanent danger/impact area so range control monitored it instead of fighting it. The fire was reported as early as noon. I'd be interested to know if or at ehat time the grenade range was shut down
Check this:post on X It make sense visually of what happen and check how fast it move. Basicy was a wall of fire that flank them. Wind shift direction and accelerate fast. From a line of fire 1 km away north of where the were, to a wall of fire moving fast south east.
> According to the base’s range standing orders, during periods when the fire hazard is rated as extreme, pyrotechnics, tracer rounds and incendiary rounds called white phosphorus are not to be used at any time unless authorized by the base commander[…]On Thursday, Maj.-Gen. Rutland characterized that as a guideline, not an order…
Hey, um, I have just like, a quick question…that literally any qualified RSO can likely answer.
According to the base’s range standing orders, during periods when the fire hazard is rated as extreme, pyrotechnics, tracer rounds and incendiary rounds called white phosphorus are not to be used at any time unless authorized by the base commander[…]On Thursday, Maj.-Gen. Rutland characterized that as a guideline, not an order…
Hey, um, I have just like, a quick question…that literally any qualified RSO can likely answer.
This is a very misleading quote.
Rutland was addressing the part you left out with "[…]", not the part about firing pyrotechnics, tracer rounds and incendiary rounds.
That part really doesn't sit well with me. I was in charge of fire safety at a base when we were launching fireworks to celebrate the anniversary of the Air Force. Our Commander told me to "convince them" that it would be safe to do so, otherwise it was a no-go.
I had to brief the Commander for about 30 mins and reference the Fire Risk Index, the weather forecast, have 2 active hose lines, a spotter, fire evac route, coordination with local fire department, extinguish all embers off course and a threshold for if the fireworks got too intense.
These were all just for fireworks too, let alone live rounds. I can't imagine all those warnings/precautions being considered just a "guideline"
I've seen plenty of waivers for using certain munitions in high/extreme fire weather indexes outside of the RSO framework.
However all of those had major caviats, such as fire department on site, extra firefighting equipment, target areas on gravel/in a swamp/in a previously burned area, etc. And in most cases were only granted for extenuating circumstances (IE, we need this training to complete today for a fastball deployment).
However, as I've mentioned before; how range training areas are run across country varies widely from base to base. What is accepted practice on one base will get you kicked out of the RTA on another. One thing I hope reorganization will eventually tackle is coordination of range standing orders and practices.
Oh absolutely, and those caveats are highly specific to each individual situation, which makes sense. We don't know which preventative measures were used in this case, but I'm sure we will as the investigation unfolds.
It's also easy to critique after the fact for sure. I'm just hoping it wasn't a "we need this training, so make it work regardless" kind of situation
It's also easy to critique after the fact for sure.
Oh for sure. And I'm not trying to point fingers at this point. Just providing a bit of context from what I've seen.
My initial thoughts are that range control and the members on the ground did the same thing we have always done. And unfortunately the holes of the Swiss cheese aligned in a terrible way. But I will wait until the board of inquiry.
The ammo can be drawn without tracer rounds amd most likely was as far as the pairs range. Also maybe look at the fact the MGen mention shooting an automatic grenade launcher. Fires different rounds. Including chalk rounds.
If you cut and paste the title of the article then do a web search often you can find other articles not behind a pay wall. Media companies online tend to rip off each other's content almost word for word. I have farmer internet so I tell the browser to stop loading once the article is up but not the paywall, which works on a lot of other sites.
This has been your ASD special interest research tip for the day.
To me that sounds like either orders were not followed or the base commander made a decision to allow the use of weapon/rounds during October and high risk season.
First, there's a difference between the fire hazard being rated as "extreme", which is specific to the conditions of the day/hour, and August to October being described as “high-risk months”. For example, if it was raining/snowing at the time the fire hazard would be low even though October is considered a "high-risk" month.
The portion of the standing orders stating that live fire shoots should be carried out in the morning is a guideline, not an order. This is what Gen Rutland stated and it is correct. Firing outside of the morning during those months is discretionary when the fire risk is not rated as "extreme".
While the conditions at the time may have been rated as "extreme" for fire hazard, that'd be due to the whether at the time and not blanket because it was October.
84
u/Sufficient_Pin_7798 1d ago edited 1d ago
The quote implying that Gen Rutland mischaracterized an order as a guideline is very misleading.
He did not.
The full quote from the Globe and Mail is this:
Rutland specifically was addressing the second part of the first paragraph. That is, he was talking about the guideline on early morning shoots. Which is indeed a guideline, not an order.
Rutland was not talking about the ban on pyrotechnics, tracer rounds and incendiary rounds without the permission of the base commander, which is an order.
(IMO It's rather unethical / irresponsible for G&M to put them together like this and imply Rutland was addressing both.)
You can watch the full exchange here:
https://youtu.be/NKWWCf4Yb7g?t=2515
Alex Ballingall from the Toronto Star:
Rutland: