Aloysius Pang accident: Howitzer design is inherently dangerous. Do not let SAF explain their way out of this.

[Johnrambo]

When I was serving the country as a soldier, I served in Control of Personnel Centre. During my stint, I received awards for productivity and process improvements signed by the then Chief of Army and also Dr Yeo Ning Hong.


Now I am serving as a Practising Management Consultant certified by a Board closely related to the government. My job concerns the design of management and operations systems for companies. The principles of business management & designing operating procedures for these tanks are the same.

When I am looking at the design of the Self-Propelled Howitzer, I would tell you that the design is inherently dangerous and no amount of SOP design / redesign is going to change the fact that this is a dangerous vehicle.


1) In the press conference, one officer mentioned that CFC Pang could not get away in time. That is nonsense, that space should not be occupied at any point of time. Given that all the potential movement of the turret would crush anyone who is there, that space should be blocked off and only to be accessed (if ever) during repairs.


2) I remember some officer mentioned that "usually most people would not have problem". That is one sure way of pointing the blame at CFC Pang. That is nonsense.


I was not trained to be operating the Howitzer gun, so let me just exercise my commonsense a bit. Did the tank even take into account of the recoil effect when the turret is firing? To take into account of the recoil effect all the space behind the turret cannot be used at all and access blocked off saved for maintenance purposes.


3) One officer even mentioned that there is a procedure to sound an alarm or informing when the turret is moving. This is again nonsense, if CFC Pang is repairing the turret, he must be the one who can decide when the machine can be used.


A few of my peers who are in workplace safety has mentioned this practice known as LOTO (Lock out tag out) system, in which no officer of any rank should be able to override to operate the machine when there is a soldier repairing the machine.


The design of the turret is from ground up, wrong, and let's not mince words. When the design of the system is wrong, no amount of SOP nonsense would be able to compensate for an inherently dangerous design.

More at https://tinyurI.com/y9egzhqt

 

[FuckOttoke]

3 of them horseplay , end up 1 uplorry .

 

[Hypocrite-The]

 

[Hypocrite-The]

When I was serving the country as a soldier, I served in Control of Personnel Centre. During my stint, I received awards for productivity and process improvements signed by the then Chief of Army and also Dr Yeo Ning Hong.


Now I am serving as a Practising Management Consultant certified by a Board closely related to the government. My job concerns the design of management and operations systems for companies. The principles of business management & designing operating procedures for these tanks are the same.

When I am looking at the design of the Self-Propelled Howitzer, I would tell you that the design is inherently dangerous and no amount of SOP design / redesign is going to change the fact that this is a dangerous vehicle.


1) In the press conference, one officer mentioned that CFC Pang could not get away in time. That is nonsense, that space should not be occupied at any point of time. Given that all the potential movement of the turret would crush anyone who is there, that space should be blocked off and only to be accessed (if ever) during repairs.


2) I remember some officer mentioned that "usually most people would not have problem". That is one sure way of pointing the blame at CFC Pang. That is nonsense.


I was not trained to be operating the Howitzer gun, so let me just exercise my commonsense a bit. Did the tank even take into account of the recoil effect when the turret is firing? To take into account of the recoil effect all the space behind the turret cannot be used at all and access blocked off saved for maintenance purposes.


3) One officer even mentioned that there is a procedure to sound an alarm or informing when the turret is moving. This is again nonsense, if CFC Pang is repairing the turret, he must be the one who can decide when the machine can be used.


A few of my peers who are in workplace safety has mentioned this practice known as LOTO (Lock out tag out) system, in which no officer of any rank should be able to override to operate the machine when there is a soldier repairing the machine.


The design of the turret is from ground up, wrong, and let's not mince words. When the design of the system is wrong, no amount of SOP nonsense would be able to compensate for an inherently dangerous design.

More at https://tinyurI.com/y9egzhqt

Me not arty so don't know the stuff. However look at the Paladin system. There is space. So how come the Singkie system is soo expose that the barrel moves within the turret. The Yankee system seems different. The barrel is not expose.

 

[glockman]

When I was serving the country as a soldier, I served in Control of Personnel Centre. During my stint, I received awards for productivity and process improvements signed by the then Chief of Army and also Dr Yeo Ning Hong.


Now I am serving as a Practising Management Consultant certified by a Board closely related to the government. My job concerns the design of management and operations systems for companies. The principles of business management & designing operating procedures for these tanks are the same.

When I am looking at the design of the Self-Propelled Howitzer, I would tell you that the design is inherently dangerous and no amount of SOP design / redesign is going to change the fact that this is a dangerous vehicle.


1) In the press conference, one officer mentioned that CFC Pang could not get away in time. That is nonsense, that space should not be occupied at any point of time. Given that all the potential movement of the turret would crush anyone who is there, that space should be blocked off and only to be accessed (if ever) during repairs.


2) I remember some officer mentioned that "usually most people would not have problem". That is one sure way of pointing the blame at CFC Pang. That is nonsense.


I was not trained to be operating the Howitzer gun, so let me just exercise my commonsense a bit. Did the tank even take into account of the recoil effect when the turret is firing? To take into account of the recoil effect all the space behind the turret cannot be used at all and access blocked off saved for maintenance purposes.


3) One officer even mentioned that there is a procedure to sound an alarm or informing when the turret is moving. This is again nonsense, if CFC Pang is repairing the turret, he must be the one who can decide when the machine can be used.


A few of my peers who are in workplace safety has mentioned this practice known as LOTO (Lock out tag out) system, in which no officer of any rank should be able to override to operate the machine when there is a soldier repairing the machine.


The design of the turret is from ground up, wrong, and let's not mince words. When the design of the system is wrong, no amount of SOP nonsense would be able to compensate for an inherently dangerous design.

More at https://tinyurI.com/y9egzhqt

I appreciate this Raymond Ng chap for sticking his neck out to sound out the public and SAF.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10156369689818655&id=698343654

 

[eatshitndie]

all military hardware designs are inherently dangerous. they are meant to kill and destroy. what a moron.

 

[glockman]

Me not arty so don't know the stuff. However look at the Paladin system. There is space. So how come the Singkie system is soo expose that the barrel moves within the turret. The Yankee system seems different. The barrel is not expose.

The Paladin is bigger, wider and heavier.

The decision to develop the Primus was made after a market survey in 1995 and 1996 of some of the world's best self-propelled guns from the United States (M109 Paladin), United Kingdom (AS90 Braveheart), Japan (Type 75) and Russia (2S3M1) found them either too heavy or too wide for local terrain. They were known to have a lot of firepower, were highly mobile and very survivable but they were also very heavy, mostly in the range of 50 tons, and the SAF needed something lighter. The SAF needed the Primus to weigh less than 30 tons and be no wider than 3 metres, for it to move across bridges and through the local vegetation. Hence the decision was made to develop a completely new self-propelled howitzer.[citation needed]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSPH_Primus

 

[FuckOttoke]

saf machines are good at killing sinkie slaves !

 

[winnipegjets]

3 of them horseplay , end up 1 uplorry .

That's MINDEF BS. Make the deceased responsible so that MINDEF can pay pittance as compensation. I hope the family of the deceased will not let MINDEF get away with that. Seek at least $10 million or have the issue publicized through a lawsuit.

 

[halsey02]

SAF is the best...just like PAP is the best.period.

 

[eatshitndie]

Me not arty so don't know the stuff. However look at the Paladin system. There is space. So how come the Singkie system is soo expose that the barrel moves within the turret. The Yankee system seems different. The barrel is not expose.

the primus has an extended loading cradle at the bottom of the barrel thus less room in turret when gun is lowered. shells are right behind in paladin thus american crew can work on shell selection, range cap adjustments, loading and unloading of shells by hand. don’t know why the shell feed cradle of the primus is so long, and i assume that’s the part that crushed pang. anybody in st kinetics knows? sinkie arties too small, skinny, and weak to carry and load shells at full salvo? thus require a long cradle for holding and feeding shells? anyway, recoil of barrel in paladin can also hurt, if not kill, if crew is not careful.

 

[winners]

I stopped reading at the sentence: "that space should be blocked off and only to be accessed (if ever) during repairs." He must be damned ignorant if he still doesn't know that Aloysius was there for the repair. How to believe this kind of nerd?

 

[winnipegjets]

SAF is the best...just like PAP is the best.period.

I whole heartedly agree. When I pray to Lee CON U every night, he smiles back.

 

[winnipegjets]

all military hardware designs are inherently dangerous. they are meant to kill and destroy. what a moron.

Our military hardware is meant to kill our soldiers! Well done, PAP.

 

[Leongsam]

Military weaponry has never been designed with safety as a primary concern. Armaments are killing machines. On a battlefield the primary function of a weapon is to kill the enemy.

Operator safety is secondary to factors such as reliability, ease of maintenance, quick deployment and so on.

 

[sweetiepie]

Our military hardware is meant to kill our soldiers! Well done, PAP.

KNN without any explosives, bullets or bayonet it look quite silly for a soldier to get killed by it's own weapon KNN

 

[mojito]

Our military hardware is meant to kill our soldiers! Well done, PAP.

No kills people will not take our army seriously.

 

[Leongsam]

No kills people will not take our army seriously.

Rather aim for zero deaths in training which is simply not possible a threshold based upon training hours should be set instead.

Military training will never be safe. If it is made absolutely risk free it would mean that it is totally unrealistic and the cost of inadequate preparation for a real war would be catastrophic when the SAF actually has to take part in a real fight.

 

[borom]

Any discussion will not be meaningful unless people with the requisite technical knowledge can compare it with other self-propelled howitzer like the US M109 Paladin, ,UK AS90 , Japan Type 75 ,Russian 253M1, German PzH 2000 ect2 and any one considering taking legal action would presumably have to bring in an expert who can compare the safety profiles of these weapon systems.

According to Wikipedia , "The SAF needed the Primus to weigh less than 30 tons and be no wider than 3 metres"-
So could it be the need for less weight and width that causes them to design a narrower turret which does not allow the mechanic to be inside when the gun is lowered?
As a non artillery person I can only wonder aloud

 

[Leckmichamarsch]

When I was serving the country as a soldier, I served in Control of Personnel Centre. During my stint, I received awards for productivity and process improvements signed by the then Chief of Army and also Dr Yeo Ning Hong.


Now I am serving as a Practising Management Consultant certified by a Board closely related to the government. My job concerns the design of management and operations systems for companies. The principles of business management & designing operating procedures for these tanks are the same.

When I am looking at the design of the Self-Propelled Howitzer, I would tell you that the design is inherently dangerous and no amount of SOP design / redesign is going to change the fact that this is a dangerous vehicle.


1) In the press conference, one officer mentioned that CFC Pang could not get away in time. That is nonsense, that space should not be occupied at any point of time. Given that all the potential movement of the turret would crush anyone who is there, that space should be blocked off and only to be accessed (if ever) during repairs.


2) I remember some officer mentioned that "usually most people would not have problem". That is one sure way of pointing the blame at CFC Pang. That is nonsense.


I was not trained to be operating the Howitzer gun, so let me just exercise my commonsense a bit. Did the tank even take into account of the recoil effect when the turret is firing? To take into account of the recoil effect all the space behind the turret cannot be used at all and access blocked off saved for maintenance purposes.


3) One officer even mentioned that there is a procedure to sound an alarm or informing when the turret is moving. This is again nonsense, if CFC Pang is repairing the turret, he must be the one who can decide when the machine can be used.


A few of my peers who are in workplace safety has mentioned this practice known as LOTO (Lock out tag out) system, in which no officer of any rank should be able to override to operate the machine when there is a soldier repairing the machine.


The design of the turret is from ground up, wrong, and let's not mince words. When the design of the system is wrong, no amount of SOP nonsense would be able to compensate for an inherently dangerous design.

More at https://tinyurI.com/y9egzhqt

I agree with almost all points you have made.
I believe this toy together with many ither gadgets like anti terrorism bowling ball were released courtesy of Dr Richard Kwok to fish for a promotion to Sr VP of ST Kinetics. Whether this howitzer n others were fully or properly tested were not made known....but there were rumours of problems n accudents....we saw how bionix can kill too. R Kwok also has a hand in developing the bionix which earned him a promotion from Sr Mgr to VP...
He has left ST to be advisor to SMRT ... but there are still delays n breakdown despite CTO n EVP of ST now trouble shooting there.
All roads lead to ROME?