
Friday, 3rd July 2009 - 15:26CET
Gunner Psaila's death: Inquiry faults AFM training safety structure
An inquiry into the death of an AFM soldier during a training exercise at Chadwick Lakes on February 13 has concluded that no individual could be held to blame, but the safety arrangements put in place for the exercise were inadequate.
The inquiry was appointed by the Prime Minister and was headed by Judge Victor Caruana Colombo, assisted by Brig (retired) John Spiteri, former AFM commander, and Mr Joseph Sultana.
Gunner Matthew Psaila, 19, died in hospital three days after the incident, during which he was under water for up to 10 minutes as his section ran into difficulties while wading under a bridge.
"The events of 13 February 2009 have shown that the safety arrangements put in place for the training exercise were inadequate for an event such as happened to One Section under the Rabat-Mosta road bridge, and these arrangements could, at most, be sufficient to deal with one or two persons at the most.
"The possibility that practically all of a platoon section's trainee members (8 to 10 men) could get into difficulties simultaneously was apparently never contemplated, or was considered too remote by exercise planners ever since this type of exercise first started being carried out by the AFM in Chadwick Lakes years ago," the report says.
The report also says that in volunteering to undergo the B III infanty training course to become a fully fledged member of C (Special Duties) Company, Gunner Psaila was well aware of the high risk tasks and situations that he would have encountered both on training and on operations.
"The Board is of the opinion that no individual can be held to blame for the death of Gunner Matthew Psaila. The cause was misadventure," the Inquiry found.
WEAK LINK IN CHAIN OF COMMAND
The inquiry found that the organisation and structure of HQ, AFM had a weak link in the training chain of command. A Staff Officer 2 (Major) with very little authority was the officer responsible for policy and planning, which should include safety during training. The board was of the opinion that such duties should be carried by a much higher ranking officer.
It said that in training matters, the HQ organisation was practically concerned solely with the administrative aspects of the courses.
"No member of those interviewed could provide the Board with any AFM Standing Orders which cover safety of troops while undergoing infantry training."
It said no staff officer assumed responsibility for safety of personnel while on training. Neither general basic guidelines, nor instructions for safety of personnel while training were issued by HQ except where firing on ranges and some field training exercised were concerned. This responsibility was left entirely to AFM unit commanders.
This left the Commander, AFM in a position where he was not fully aware of what was being done at unit level about safety on training.
"The Board is of the opinion that the AFM should reconsider the training structure at headquarters and the compiling of Standing Orders while carrying out Infantry training, and in particular, high risk exercises such as that which was carried out on the 13 February 2009 at Chadwick Lakes," the board said.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Among its recommendations, the board said the AFM should reconsider its training chain of command at HQ level with a view to upgrading the appointment of the training officer responsible for policy, planning and safety
The upgraded staff officer respoinsible for training should ideally be part of the Operations Branch and should also involve himself in the oversight of safety on training in military courses..
For training under wet and cold conditions, an alternative wading exercise site should be considered, where environmental risks were lower while similar harsh conditions as those at Chadwick Lakes were found. Mellieha Bay could be considered for this purpose.
"Complex or multi-disciplinary high risk exercises should be carried out after regular and progressively more difficult training is carried out, so that there may be successful outcomes with possibly no injuries to participants, and certainly no fatalities," the inquiry board said.
It said the AFM should encourage its personnel to learn to swim and also provide swimming training sessions, including in non-salty water, especially for C Company staff in view of their possible deployment on rescue missions.
Soldiers should also be trained to cope with difficult conditions such as those experienced at Chadwick Lakes. Soldiers had to be competent swimmers. They should also be trained to remove their equipment and weapon under water and swim to safety, the board said.








RSS
Comments
This was an unfortunate incident but are the squads prepared in such comradeship and taking care of their buddies? This accident is not bad leadership only, these are no boy scoats cubs but the infantry. The squad N.C.O. and comrades should account for each soldier and not all the pressure on the Lt. If they were fording a river abroad or exercising an amphibious landing would this have not been riskier? Difficulty in water is not only a matter that you now how to swim but how your squad team up. Swimming with over a 15Kg gear is no joke ... and it seems from what was said on the report when difficulty came on the squad, panic overtook the training and the result was to loose one good soldier.
Fully agree with the sentiments expressed by other bloggers.
Heads must roll
@Mike Micallef. You are right. Matthew cannot defend himself from his grave. But neither can he admit to his mistakes.
One doesn’t need to be an expert in military operations for one to conclude that the fatal ending of this young man was the result of the bad management, by his superiors, of the safety rules and equipment for an exercise of that nature. Had the responsible officers provided the necessary training and provided the necessary equipment, Gunner Psaila would still be around. They did not and that tells me that they are to be processed by a court marshal and face the music. In management terms, mismanagement of funds is a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment, are we to accept that mismanagement of health and safety rules is not even a felony?
If I were this victim’s father I’ll fight this case with AFM and the government if it takes my last hard earned penny.
Now let’s wait and see whether our PM will accept this verdict. I predict he would, he doesn’t want more trouble. But we are proud to be European.
Quite a shoking remark. Training matters do not tackle safety but how to draw up a report and a record of the happenings and present it to the superiors to be tapped on the back for how well written and given some points for future promotion.
Red tape is supreme even in the army!How would an army that does not go into the difficulties of a mission be called? It has to go by the book- theory! this is what the official report convey. No one responsibl; not even who drew up the plan of action and whoever gave the go ahead.
Of course nobody found guilty of causing voluntary harm. But nobody was declared responsible for the right supervision in case of unforseen circumstances. A soldier was forgotten that he formed part of the ranks, and diappeared (drowned) without anyone noticing it, though the place was crowded with soldiers and officers. This happened probably after a session of instructions of what to do: meaning military planning.
It is the perception that at times, “collective responsibility might be a convenient excuse, so as to cancel out individual culpability!” That is, everyone is responsible but who is to blame? In such cases it is infrequent that harm can be clearly attributed to the particular actions or inactions of specific individuals.
Therefore this conclusion was expected although not accepted since negligence was the cause of a tragic loss! Furthermore precedence is set for those responsible for similar accident to plead for their innocence!
No one is to blame "No member of those interviewed could provide the Board with any AFM Standing Orders which cover safety of troops while undergoing infantry training. This left the Commander, AFM in a position where he was not fully aware of what was being done at unit level about safety on training."
Even scout groups cam account for more professionalism.
Rather then chopping of heads this report blames this incident on the system.
Poor Matthew, he thought he formed part of a "PROFESSIONAL ARMY"
What a disgrace.
Why do I get this feeling ... that in Malta, investigations and inquiries have the same ending?
Clearly, recommendations are made so that the chances of recurrence in future exercises are reduced to a minimum; they can never be totally eliminated. Unfortunately, misadventure is - and will forever remain - a fact of life.
If one, or two, or three, or four individuals were in difficulty, this possibly may be termed as misadventure - but eight to ten; give me a break!
I read that the inquiry was appointed by the Prime Minister. I , together with the whole of Malta, await his reaction with interest.
Accepting this verdict effectively condemns current and future recruits and their loved ones and families to a sad environment. Weak links and board recommendations are, by their own nature, admissions of fault.
Malta, and Europe, are watching....
The fact that the deceased knew the risks involved when he signed up to join the Armed Forces does not mean that his life was expendable and that he, or any other soldier should have to be
put thru any unnecessary dangers/risks DUE TO LACK of safety precautions WHILE TRAINING!
This inquiry and the conclusion it arrived at is a nothing but a sham! This man died WHILE IN TRAINING AND NOT WHILE IN COMBAT!!!!
What a shame, life must be really, really cheap in Malta for no-one to be held accountable for this young man's death! Shame! Shame! Shame!
Bill Millam
Los Angeles