27 January 2010

The Ghouls are back

New Democrat member of parliament Jack Harris once again shows his willingness to offer a comment based on ignorance.

Perhaps he could have the good sense to refrain from further comment rather than try to score cheap political points – yet again  - using a tragedy as his prop.

Amazing Ambulance Chasing Crap Update:  Your humble e-scribbler unfortunately just heard Jack Harris on CBC radio continuing his relentless campaign to display his own ignorance.

Sadly, Jack has obtained standing at the offshore helicopter inquiry and so will have a platform from which to spout his innuendo and political agenda in the midst of an inquiry that ought to be directed to identifying fact.

He  doesn’t want to acknowledge what has already been stated publicly repeatedly, namely that Cougar provides search and rescue service for the offshore as required by the offshore regulator.  That’s why – as he well knows – the helicopter was “reconfigured” on the day of the crash.  It had nothing to do with DND.

What’s more, the 103 Squadron aircraft were not “off station” or “away” as Jack continually stated.

There is no embarrassment within the SAR community over this, again as jack keeps trying to suggest.  There should only be embarrassment  - and huge dollop of shame shame – for people like Jack who continue to spread malicious nonsense despite having evidence that directly contradicts what he is still getting on about.

If  Jack’s appalling performance on the Cougar 491 case wasn’t bad enough, the federal Dipper defence critic then switched topics – in response to a question from the host -  critic is now chasing down the French missile bullshit and the UFO story.

The M51 flew a day AFTER the strange thing in the sky over Newfoundland.

This guy is absolutely, astoundingly ignorant.

Who does his research, ex-staffers from the Spindy?

-srbp-

14 comments:

Peter L. Whittle said...

If you did a little research yourself, you would learn that the French fired no fewer than four M151 rockets before attempting to fire one from a nuclear submarine.

Obviously the one fired on Wednesday could not have been the one seen over the Burn Peninsula, but what about the other tests? Did they fire anything on land on Monday? That is the question that needs to be addressed.

Ed Hollett said...

Peter:

Research is a bit more than cutting and pasting someone else's post on a message board of the NOTAM for this test flight along with all the original spelling mistakes and not noting either that you cut and pasted or that you didn't fix the guy's spelling problems.

In the meantime, those earlier test flights would be the ones like the one in November last year that was the first submerged test flight and the third in the series.

The one that happened Wednesday was the fourth in the series of launches dating back to 2006.

Liek I said, research is more than cutting and pasting.

Ed Hollett said...

It wasn't November last year Peter; it was November the year before.

Via Wikipedia:

The M51 performed its first flight test (unarmed) on 9 November 2006 from the French missile flight test centre in Biscarrosse (Landes). The target was reached twenty minutes later, in the north-west of the Atlantic Ocean.[1]

A second and third successful test were carried out on 21 June 2007 [2] and 13 November 2008 [3].

On 27 January 2010, at 9h25, a missile was launched underwater by the Terrible, from Audierne Bay[1]. The missile reached its target 2000 kilometres off South Carolina; the 4500 kilometre flight took about 20 minutes [2][3].

John L Matchim said...

Really. SAR was not off station or away. I see. How do you explain that they were in Cape Breton when the crash happened adding an hour onto a rescue mission?

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2009/03/13/chopper-response.html

Or is SAR and the DND so righteous in all its actions that it is above reprieve? Perhaps Hickman's recommendations on Ocean Ranger tragedy is a specter more to your liking? Hmmm.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2009/03/16/hickman-reax.html

Or maybe a 2000 DND report that suggested basing SAR at St. John's, in case of something like Cougar happening.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2009/11/30/nl-gander-sar-1130.html

Alas, DND, which of course in the opinion of our "humble e-scribbler" stands on the shoulders of Jesus in any and all decisions that it makes cannot be possibly flawed, or the most "efficent" (not most effective) use of our tax dollars that you and I pay. Perish the thought.

Perhaps our "humble e-scribbler" (that's the most turgid characterization I've read in a while) would like to move away from the counter factual claims about the virtual impossibility of rescue-- I don't think that can be proven or disproven-- it didn't happen. Using the Cougar crash as a panacea for all helicopter crashes is also silly and illogical. Any accident is not going to happen in the same fashion as Cougar. Where Harris and for that fact Justice Wells is correct is trying to correct SAR and DND policy so that rescue is not "virtually impossible" whether all on board died on impact or not.

I also think our "humble e-scribbler" should get his collection of facts right and stop this cultish chest-beating about Canada's military.

Dale Kirby said...

Better a Dipper than a Dipshit.

Ed Hollett said...

John:

Here it is in a nutshell.

1. The aircraft were on exercise but still able to respond to SAR needs anywhere within the oeprational zone. As such they were not "away" or "off-station."

2. The aircraft could have been within the province and been more than an hour's extra flying time away from the Cougar
incident.

3. The first aircraft on the scene arrived within 15 mins of impact and found the aircraft inverted, broken and with two bodies in the water on the surface. The remainder were - as we known from the subsequent recovery - upside down in their seats dead in a flooded cabin.

As such, had all the 103 aircraft been in gander, they would have arrived at such a point as to do exactly nothing to increase the number of survivors.

Even if all the aircraft had been in St. John's it is highly unlikely that a single additional life could have been saved.

My facts are correct. My comments are based on fact.

Yours are not.

It is that simple.

With that established let's turn to two other comments of yours:

1. "Using the Cougar crash as a panacea for all helicopter crashes is also silly and illogical."

Yes it would be if anyone was trying to use the Cougar incident to cure - be a pancea" - for all crashes.

I don't think that sentence says what you think it says.

"Where Harris and for that fact Justice Wells is correct is trying to correct SAR and DND policy so that rescue is not "virtually impossible" whether all on board died on impact or not."

Jack Harris is pursuing a partisan agenda and nothing more. There's no dolling it up: he is behaving reprehensibly and irresponsibly.

Neither he nor the commisioner are endeavouring to correct DND policy since it is not at the core of this issue of offshore safety.

Thanks, though for demonstrating you do understand what a counterfactual argument is. Your swas entirely running contrary to facts.

Why you have elected to deman the people who risk their lives on SAr missions and to torture the famnilies of those who lost their lives in this incident is beyond me, but if you are arguing that 103 could have done more by being in gander or even St. John's, then you are deluding way more than just yourself.

Ed Hollett said...

@Dale:

That might be a brilliant riposte except that in this instance the two are the same.

Dale Kirby said...

Where's the post about the pie throwing terrorists?

That Liberal MP's comments would seem to be problematic as well using the 'logic' in this post.

Could it be that the Hollett is pursuing a partisan agenda and nothing more . . . behaving reprehensibly and irresponsibly and the like?

Ed Hollett said...

Dale:

I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

I will not take what you just wrote as a serious comment equating search and rescue and Jack's reprehensible conduct with pie tossing, the seal hunt silliness and Gerry Byrne's foolishness.

For the record, though, here's what I thought of Gerry's foolishness.

I wholeheartedly endorse Inkless' comments, including this line: "The reason it 'might sound ridiculous' to seek to designate PETA as a terrorist organization because one of its members tossed a pie is because it is ridiculous."

But there is a huge gap between foolish and ridiculous on the one hand and Jack Harris' relentless and unjustifiable attack on the men and women of Canada's search and rescue community on the other.

If he genuinely believes that are as incompetent and insenstive as his comments would suggest, he should go to Greenwood, Gander, Trenton and Comox and explain in person why he feels that way.

Let him explain what he knows about SAR and why it was that last March 103 Squadron could have saved more lives if only they had not been in Nova Scotia.

Let him explain how being in this province would allow them to travel through time and space in a different way than Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein would allow.

I know he won't go because he is not ready for the dressing down he'd get and so richly deserve.

I know he wouldn't dare go to these places because none of what he said at the inquiry or about Cougar and SAR thus far is in the least bit defensible, factually or in any other way.

The very fact though that you have not been able to offer a single shred of factual evidence to support him only further demonstrates the bankruptcy of the position.

But by all means, feel free to suggest him to go to these places. I'll even do what I can to help set things up. I am sure he'd come away from the sessions greatly enlightened if not more than a bit shamed and chagrinned.

WJM said...

Could it be that the Hollett is pursuing a partisan agenda and nothing more . . . behaving reprehensibly and irresponsibly and the like?

What, you mean like accusing a bunch of grassroots rally organizers of being Liberal shills (or Liberals), only to see pretty well every major event across the country festooned in a certain orange and green logo?

That kind of partisan? Or some other kind?

Dale Kirby said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dale Kirby said...

It's unfortunate that the rest of us pale so in comparison to the intellectual giants amongst the Liberal e-snivelers.

Dale Kirby said...

And by the way, I notice that Jack Harris isn't the person hiding behind his keyboard.

Ed Hollett said...

Wow Dale, make it really obvious you have nothing.

Keep piling on the name calling and the nonsense and still not offer a shred of credible evidence or comment to justify Jack's grandstanding on a tragedy.