# Heads of navy, army and air force on plane that barely avoided mid-air collision



## Navy_Blue (7 Aug 2009)

Bruce Campion-Smith 
Ottawa bureau chief

OTTAWA–Canada came close to losing its senior military leaders in the near-collision of a government Challenger jet and a commercial jetliner over British Columbia, the Star has learned.

The April incident is now prompting questions why the military allowed its top brass – including the heads of the navy, army and air force – to travel together in the first place, a practice that most large corporations forbid.

But the Star has learned the Canadian Forces have no policy on whether commanders should travel apart, a failing that exposes the military to serious risk in the event of an accident, one expert said.

"It is common sense not to have your key leaders together in one vehicle or one plane," said Susan Gurley, executive director of the U.S.-based Association of Corporate Travel Executives.

"Most global corporations have these very clear travel policies in place and they enforce them because they won't want to be in the position where something happens and the company is rudderless." 

"This might be one area where the government can look to the private sector," she said in an interview from the association headquarters in Alexandria, Va.

"I'm glad nothing bad happened and, hopefully, they will take this seriously." 

The Star revealed last month the government VIP jet en route to Ottawa from Vancouver had to descend out of the path of an Emirates Boeing 777 headed in the opposite direction near Penticton, B.C. 

Now a passenger manifest shows the Challenger was flying with nine of the most senior military commanders.

They included Vice-Admiral Drew Robertson, then head of the navy and now retired; Lt.-Gen. Angus Watt, head of the air force; and Lt.-Gen. Andrew Leslie, head of the army.

Also aboard were Vice-Admiral Dean McFadden, who was head of Canada Command and now heads the navy; Vice-Admiral Denis Rouleau, the vice-chief of defence staff; and Canadian Forces Chief Warrant Officer Greg Lacroix, the most senior non-commissioned member of the military.

The military does consider splitting up commanders when they travel – but only in theatres of operation, one defence official said yesterday.

"We don't have a policy that restricts the travel of senior leadership ... not in a domestic, everyday-type context," he said, speaking for background.

But he said that could change in the wake of this recent incident. 

Alain Pellerin, a retired colonel, said concern about spending taxpayers' money and worry about the public optics of using two or three corporate jets to shuttle about military brass were likely a factor in the decision to have the leaders fly together.

"That is always a concern in the back of their mind," said Pellerin, executive director of the Conference of Defence Associations, a pro-military lobby group based in Ottawa.

The military business jet and the Emirates Boeing 777-200 passed within 700 feet vertically after some last-minute manoeuvring prompted by high-tech equipment on both jets that alerted the pilots to the potential collision.

Heeding the electronic warnings, the Emirates pilots put their big, 266-seat jet into a climb while the military pilots pushed the nose of the Challenger down to descend.

As well, the controller issued his own instructions telling the Challenger to descend and turn to avoid the jetliner.

Officials with the Transportation Safety Board of Canada said it was "close" and are investigating the circumstances around the incident.

Nav Canada, the not-for-profit agency that runs the air traffic control system, declined to comment because of the ongoing probe.

However, spokesperson Ron Singer yesterday said that in the wake of any operational incident, the controller involved is typically removed from duty until a preliminary investigation is completed, usually within a few hours.

Depending on the circumstances, the controller might return to work, undergo a proficiency assessment or go through retraining.

"In this case the appropriate action was taken," Singer said in an email. 


http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/677556


We almost had new bosses


----------



## PMedJim (7 Aug 2009)

An interesting article and I am glad nothing happened but I don't think the military command should be compared to a business execs. The policy for business execs is understandable, if the CO, CEO, ect were all killed the business would take a serious stock hit and the investors could lose alot of money. What would happen if teh plane had crashed and all were killed? Someone would have just stepped up, the entire military would not have come to a grinding halt leaving Canada exposed to invasion.  Still it would be a good idea not to have so many of teh brass together (nice target).


----------



## Gunner98 (7 Aug 2009)

PMedJim said:
			
		

> Still it would be a good idea not to have so many of teh brass together (nice target).



Plain silliness - we are not the US of A. I guess the big CF decals on buses and aircraft, and DND vehicle licence plates and General flags flying from antennae should be stopped as they might make us good "targets" as well. Perhaps we should avoid having the Senior Leadership all work in the same building or attend meetings together.  Isn't that why we have a "chain of command" so we will never be rudderless.  I remember when we were prohibited from wearing our uniforms to and from work to avoid the post 9-11 terrorism threat.

Perhaps we should avoid having the GG and all of the members of parliament including the PM in one room for the throne speech - it could risk leaving the country "rudderless". I guess that is why so many MPs and Senators are absent from the Hill when "in-session", they are the back-up rudders.


----------



## Occam (7 Aug 2009)

Frostnipped Elf said:
			
		

> I guess that is why so many MPs and Senators are absent from the Hill when "in-session", they are the back-up rudders.



There is, of course, the occasional one that would make a better boat anchor.   ;D


----------



## Blackadder1916 (7 Aug 2009)

(I may be chastised for my morbid, sometimes inappropriate sense of humor, but...) When I saw the topic title my immediate thought was there may be a lot of disappointed (junior?) officers out there . . . those who have been told by their career managers that (because they were so far down the merit list) the only way they would be promoted is if a plane carrying every senior officer fell from the sky.

On the serious note.  While it would be tragic for those involved (and their family and friends), the CF would have carried on, and after a brief period of mourning, it would have been business as usual - because it is usual to change the occupants of senior leadership positions every few years.


----------



## helpup (7 Aug 2009)

There use to be a running joke in the late 80's and 90's about junior ranks hoping for the buss that was going to a PD event to run off a cliff.  The buss of course being full of MWO/CWO and or Maj/LCol........ 

Glad it was ok but agree with most here it is not as big of a deal as it is being made out to be.  From my point it should never be. With out reduncency in CoC you are not doing your job right.


----------



## Rifleman62 (7 Aug 2009)

Flew on an Nav Herc from Winnipeg to Ottawa in 1986 with the Comd and DComd of Air Comd and their wives. They sat up front, we sat in the web seats.


----------



## Otis (7 Aug 2009)

And of course, being the Canadian Media, if they HAD have been on different flights, the story would have been: 

CANADIAN MILITARY WASTES TAXPAYERS MONEY ON MULTIPLE FLIGHTS TO THE SAME LOCATION!

I keep reminding people, their job is to SELL NEWSPAPERS, not "tell impartial stories to the public" take everything with a grain of salt!


----------



## VIChris (7 Aug 2009)

Does anyone know what the policy on multiple top brass travelling together is in other militaries? I think the news report was wrong in comparing to private industry, but it does make for an interesting point. Weather or not there are understudies to fill the rolls of lost leaders, there would certainly be less confusion after a disaster if fewer top figures were lost in it. 

I still think it's not as big an issues as it's being trumped up to be, but I am curious about how other nations deal with the issue.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (7 Aug 2009)

Otis said:
			
		

> And of course, being the Canadian Media, if they HAD have been on different flights, the story would have been:
> 
> CANADIAN MILITARY WASTES TAXPAYERS MONEY ON MULTIPLE FLIGHTS TO THE SAME LOCATION!



Bang on!
Then some retired General and Steven Staples would talk about it for 10 minutes and spew there absolute lack of knowledge on the subject.Hurting my mind again.

If the plane crashed big deal.Were always trained to do the job above us and understand 2 up intent.Promotions and carry on.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (8 Aug 2009)

...........Having said that Jean Luc picard never sent all of his officers on away mission together....plus you need a ensign to get wacked.


----------



## vonGarvin (8 Aug 2009)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> ...........Having said that Jean Luc picard never sent all of his officers on away mission together*....plus you need a ensign to get wacked.*


Do you mean Ensign Ricky?


----------



## Old Sweat (8 Aug 2009)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> If the plane crashed big deal.Were always trained to do the job above us and understand 2 up intent.Promotions and carry on.



Quite right.

However the effect of the political and journalistic worlds would be quite devastating. There would be a fire storm of publicity and punditry over the policy of having senior officers travel together and the 'disarray in the Canadian Forces' after the loss of its senior leadership. Question period and the news/opinion pages and programs would be dominated by the event, and talk radio would go nuts. The conspiracy freaks would be having a field day and a few tasteless 'experts' would chime in with suggestions that this allows the CF rank level to be adjusted to something more in line with its strength.

In the meantime there would be a spike in the sales of Kiwi black boot polish as the CF prepares for the series of military funerals. The supply system would experience a sudden shortage of 105mm blank artillery rounds and some enterprising journalist would be drafting A of I requests for a story on the cost to the taxpayer of the funerals and memorials. And there would be a major flap over the condition and availability of the 25-pdr funeral guns.

And, as noted, the CF would stagger, shake off the loss, and carry on.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Aug 2009)

Navy_Blue said:
			
		

> Bruce Campion-Smith
> Ottawa bureau chief
> 
> OTTAWA–Canada came close to losing its senior military leaders in the near-collision of a government Challenger jet and a commercial jetliner over British Columbia, the Star has learned.
> ...



Once I saw the name/company of their "expert", I stopped reading this for anything other than entertainment purposes.

The CF will NEVER be rudderless, you stupid arse.   :




> Nav Canada, the not-for-profit agency that runs the air traffic control system, declined to comment because of the ongoing probe.



Probe?  Jesus, just ask the poor guy the questions, he'll likely answer of his own free will!   8)


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Aug 2009)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> > "It is common sense not to have your key leaders together in one vehicle or one plane," said Susan Gurley, executive director of the U.S.-based Association of Corporate Travel Executives.
> 
> 
> 
> Once I saw the name/company of their "expert", I stopped reading this for anything other than entertainment purposes.



And, judging by the list of said Association's "sponsors", her next message tidbit bit would be something like, "Look at how much safer they would be - not to mention cheaper for taxpayers - in nice, shiny, comfortable commercial airliners."


----------



## X-mo-1979 (8 Aug 2009)

Midnight Rambler said:
			
		

> Do you mean Ensign Ricky?



Poor Ensign Ricky. 

Old Sweat,you quite right.No matter what the media would have a hayday.

As for the boot polish...there would be so much pomp and pageantry M777's would probably be sent home from Afganistan.


----------



## SupersonicMax (8 Aug 2009)

Near mid-air... Right.  TCAS Resolution Alert.  I doubt they even came inside 5-600 ft.  While it is not a normal occurrence and somebody screwed up on the ATC side of things, that's why TCAS exists in the end.  Prevent mid-air.  But I do not thin kg it was a "near mid air"


----------



## FormerHorseGuard (9 Aug 2009)

i read the story  and my  first thought was some one would just assume command and carry on.  Most likely  a Sgt Major would take over till some officer came along and took charge. Bad story, bad shock value and poor reporting....nothing else can be said


----------



## armyvern (9 Aug 2009)

Geez,

Did these people never see _King Ralph_ !!?? The shock, the horror, the comedy.

 8)


----------



## observor 69 (9 Aug 2009)

thanks for that morning wake up Vern.  ;D


----------



## SeaKingTacco (9 Aug 2009)

SupersonicMax is correct- a TCAS resolution is hardly a "barely avoided collision".  True, someone screwed up and both NavCanada and Transport Canada are probably investigating.  The bigger story, had this gone completely wrong, would have been the 300 people killed on the 777.  As for losing the service heads all at once- we are probably the organization Canada that has the most redundancy and depth (for excellent reasons).  After a quick pause for funerals and promotions, the CF would have carried right on- because we are an organization that plans for, trains for and accepts that any one of us could become a casualty and that someone (probably even two ranks below you) could step in and passably do your job.


----------

