Okinawan gov't complains after PET water bottle falls from Osprey

All the protests these past couple years and the worst thing they can complain of is being water-bombed...

It is a more serious incident than many people might think. A falling PET water bottle, especially if it was full, could cause serious injury if it struck someone below.

ooooohhh A pet bottle!!! It,s so dangerous....

@marcels

It would be very dangerous if full or even half full, if it landed directly on a young child.

Brainiac Feb. 08, 2013 - 02:56PM JST

I agree with you. If the PET water bottle hit someone eyes, he or she will be blinded and permanently disabled. It has exposed the incompetency of Osprey Aircraft. Who knows, it will be petrol tank next time.

Nothing should be falling or dropping out of a flight worthy aircraft, if this happens in the USA? What would people there say? There is a kindergarten, middle school very close to Futenma airbase....

if this happens in the USA? What would people there say?

"I'll see you in court."

Falling from where? The plane was flying so unless someone threw it out how did it stay up there so long? Super PET bottle?

Ｃｌｏｓｅ　ｔｈｅ　ｂｌｏｏｄｙ　ｄｏｏｒｓ！

japal4649Feb. 08, 2013 - 03:09PM JST

It would be very dangerous if full or even half full, if it landed directly on a young child.

The chances are so small that it's "impossible" regardless of what some people coerce you to believe and wrongfully state. There's a higher chance that it would happen when someone's bottle they left on a balcony and coincidentally fell just as an aircraft was above.

FYI it wasn't a PET bottle according to the local news, it was a military issue plastic canteen, and it's already old news down here. The military graciously notified the local Japanese government about the canteen falling prior to the Osprey landing and the local government (AGAIN AD NASEUM!) went ape shite.

The local press is making it sound like they dropped a 5000 lb bomb on the city and interviewed all sorts of people who gave the appropriate and totally expected SHOCK. The local Japanese governments visited the local Defense ministry offices and complained, the local Japanese government officials filed official complaints with the US Military within 24 hours of being notified of the so-called incident.

There is some debate on whether or not the canteen was full or not, but no one seems to be able to find it, and it appears that the local police, local community associations, and countless numbers of cooperating citizens searched, and searched for the offending canteen and they still can't find it.

I wonder how many incidents of blue Ice damage have occurred in Japan.

@deadbeatles

Whatever Farmboy said, it's no longer there... but "things" falling out of 'planes COULD easily hit someone... (It's definitely adding fuel to the fire about those aircraft anyway...)

It has jack poop to do with the aircraft. It either fell out of an unsecured door or panel, or somehow a maintainer left it in a place it shouldn't have been.

Happens in pretty much ANY aircraft.

But, we can pretend this is an "Osprey" issue if it makes them feel better.

This is a stupid news story.

@Yubaru - that's an interesting and valid shift to the story. But why wasn't the point about it being reported to the Okinawan officials BEFORE they complained reported here?

It doesn't justify the incident, but says volumes about the openness and honesty the US forces are treating the situation. The problem is, that if all they get is hostility when they report non-events, there may be a temptation to not bother (although I suspect that the US forces are above such an action - honestly speaking).

Accidents happen, but you would hope, that with all the bad attention these birds are getting, that the utmost care to be whiter than white would prevail for the first year or so!

Didn't a bucket fall out of one of these last month and smash through a garage roof? Wasn't in Japan, but it does show that things are just rolling about in these planes and falling out of them.

A plastic bottle full of water will fall like a stone and cause the same amount of damage, whether it's to a human or a car. So for those going "oooh a scary PET bottle..." grow up.

Osprey service ceiling: 7620m 20cm PET bottle (full) : 500g (estimated) v=root of 2gh Energy of impact = 35525J

Just for reference, 1 gram of TNT is about 4184J, so being hit by this bottle would be the equivalent of about 8 grams of TNT... more than enough to blow your hand off... or your head off.

So this is no laughing matter. And for those who argue that the Osprey was nowhere near its operational ceiling, the actual height that this incident occurred at was immaterial, the important thing is that it was in flight and objects should have been secured. If this incident could have happened at 10 feet of 7000 meters, the same in-flight protocols apply.

Now the real issue here is that discipline seems to be non-existant at the Okinawa base. Base personnel hopping over the fence at night to go drinking, flight crews not exercising correct in-flight procedures, and these are only the incidents that are reaching the public's attention. The base commander should be before a general court marshal for failing to maintain operational security and discipline.

What a bunch of whiners

Did anyone actually see it fall from the plane?

Did anyone actually see it fall from the plane?

Only the guys inside the plane and upon landing it was reported to the proper authorities. The Osprey often flies with it's back hatch partially or fully open as a part of it's operations, and somehow the canteen fell out.

Evidently no one on the ground saw it, or even knew that it had fallen out.

Kudos to the USMC for reporting this, and a HUGE thumbs down to the Japanese media and politiks who are again making a mountain out of a mole hill.

@ Frungy

you computed for a vacuum a bottle of water will not break the sound barrier...... almost twice in 7620m. A human had to go to 36576m in a near vacuum of space to break it in freefall. Your math has the bottle going 1357 Kmh

drag coefficient, terminal velocity are needed....... I'm trying to fight the urge to do the math.......

FrungyFeb. 08, 2013 - 07:58PM JST

Osprey service ceiling: 7620m 20cm PET bottle (full) : 500g (estimated) v=root of 2gh Energy of impact = 35525J

That's the dumbest thing I've ever seen. It's just flat out insulting to thing you believe people are stupid enough to trust that bogus math. The absolute greatest speed you can hit in the inner atmosphere just falling is achieved at around 5 stories up (assuming the type of shape and density of the material). That's 20m if you you want to calculate, but you end up with nowhere near that, and your regular bottle of soda has more potential energy. Hell, a little league baseball holds more energy when it gets hit.

If Yubaru is correct and the people who noticed it and reported it are the flight crew themselves before they even landed, then this article is just another round of rabble rousing. I can easily see half the population of Ginowan searching frantically for the "damning evidence". It almost makes me laugh... ALMOST.

The fact remains that there was lax discipline on-board the aircraft. Loose articles MUST be secured even if the loading ramp is fully closed. If the aircraft enters turbulence, those loose articles become missiles. With the loading ramp open, lightweight items can easily get sucked out the opening as the plane moves through the air.

Didn't a bucket fall out of one of these last month and smash through a garage roof? Wasn't in Japan, but it does show that things are just rolling about in these planes and falling out of them.

Actually:

Lt. Tyler Balzer said the 5-gallon bucket of cleaning solution was strapped down inside the Osprey, but it somehow came loose and slid out shortly after the chopper took off from Miramar.

I'm getting senile. I hit "Submit" instead of "Quote" again. The source for that quote from Lt. Balzer is http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2013/01/ap-bucket-plunges-from-marine-helicopter-into-business-011813/

That article makes it sound like a full, sealed 5-gallon container of cleaning fluid. Five gallons of ANY liquid is going to weigh about 30 pounds, so its impact at terminal velocity would have easily killed someone had they been under it. The part I'm concerned about is the "somehow came loose" quote. It makes me wonder how the bucket was actually "strapped down".

The fact remains that there was lax discipline on-board the aircraft.

Lax discipline? Have you EVER been in an Osprey or military helicopter in your life? Dude I AM a former Marine, I have repelled out of helicopters (scary as all get out the first time), and I WILL tell you from experience that there is no such thing as LAX discipline in a moving aircraft.

Who knows what happened besides the people on the aircraft. Turbulence, the aircraft popping up and down, the chance of something coming lose, while not unheard of, but typically does not happen because it is dangerous for everyone on the aircraft. Things happen, and odds are close to 100% is was an oversight or and act of God ACCIDENT but NO ONE got hurt, and the military obviously followed procedures and notified the proper authorities and now they are getting blasted for doing the right thing.

I wouldnt blame them one bit if anything happens again that they say nothing!

So wait... a bottle fell out of a plane and no one noticed.... but the crew reported it and now it is a major issue?

A water bottle/canteen? Oh dear, these Ospreys are bad news arent they? Seriously! 'Sorry, a bottle fell out, we will try not to let it happen again' FOr Pete's sake Okinawa Govt

Maybe the canteen fell out after the Osprey had to do emergency maneuvers avoiding the kites that protesters are flying up to get caught up in the MV-22's blades and therefore prove it's not safe.

Posters combinibento, Brainiac, marcels and others: Don't make short shrift of this accident. As japal4649 says, a pet bottle full or even half full might be fatal if it landed directly on someone walking on the street. And this may be the beginning of accidents in Okinawa with the infamous Ospreys involved.

Everyone might know about the accident that occurred in San Diego, California, on January 17. A 19-liter bucket fell from a MV-22, piercing the roof of an auto repair shop and damaging six cars inside. Such accidents may frequently occur in Okinawa from now on.

The Osprey lacks an air-pressure regulator and, to maintain a full rear view, keeps a rear hatch open in flight, so that there's always a danger of burdens falling unless they are tightly fixed, according to The Ryukyu Shimpo, a local newspaper.

The Osprey lacks an air-pressure regulator and, to maintain a full rear view, keeps a rear hatch open in flight, so that there's always a danger of burdens falling unless they are tightly fixed, according to The Ryukyu Shimpo, a local newspaper.

It's VERY hard to trust the Ryukyu Shimpo as it and all other mass media in Okinawa are 100% biased against the US military and anything and everything is blown out of proportion.

The rear hatch of the Osprey is not ALWAYs open in flight.

http://o.aolcdn.com/mars/21364/635/357/mv-22-tilting.jpg

So, if a pet bottle falls out of an osprey, and nobody sees it fall ........ does it make a sound ?

The U.S. Marines, along with the rest of the U.S. military in Japan, has kept Japan out of trouble since WW2. Puts a falling PET bottle into perspective, doesn't it?

So, if a pet bottle falls out of an osprey, and nobody sees it fall ........ does it make a sound ?

No, no, that explosion you hear is from the locals, not from the bottle.

Anything falling out of an aircraft on take-off or approach would seem to be pretty unusual.

How is it that this water bottle has been ID'd as having come from a plane?

Tyler VandenbergFeb. 08, 2013 - 08:46PM JST @ Frungy you computed for a vacuum a bottle of water will not break the sound barrier...... almost twice in 7620m. A human had to go to 36576m in a near vacuum of space to break it in freefall. Your math has the bottle going 1357 Kmh drag coefficient, terminal velocity are needed....... I'm trying to fight the urge to do the math.......

You are right, I apologise. The real speed is probably closer to 300 km/hr (estimate based on the terminal velocity of small objects falling from commercial aircraft - although this is a very conservative number). However a 500g bottle of water hitting you at 300km/hr is enough to kill. The force on contact is about half a ton to the affected area. If someone dropped a half ton weight on your head from 1cm up it would snap your neck and kill you, if it hit your arm it would shatter it. While my initial estimate was high (for which I apologise) the risk of a falling bottle from an Osprey is very real and very significant. If anything your corrections on terminal velocity just make my case stronger, because 1000 meters (a seventh of the Osprey's maximum height) up would be more than sufficient for the object to reach terminal velocity.

basroilFeb. 08, 2013 - 09:41PM JST That's the dumbest thing I've ever seen. It's just flat out insulting to thing you believe people are stupid enough to trust that bogus math. The absolute greatest speed you can hit in the inner atmosphere just falling is achieved at around 5 stories up (assuming the type of shape and density of the material). That's 20m if you you want to calculate, but you end up with nowhere near that, and your regular bottle of soda has more potential energy. Hell, a little league baseball holds more energy when it gets hit.

Oh my goodness, well that would explain how a small hailstone the size of an ping pong ball can accure enough force punch through safety glass... oh, wait, it doesn't. A human skydiver with arms outstretched (the shape that provides maximum air resistance) goes about 200 km/hr, and considerably faster when diving in a streamlined profile (about 300 km/hr), although there are other complicating factors like changes in air density. Oh, and it takes a skydiver about 15 seconds to reach terminal velocity, a fall of 5 stories would be, at most, about 2 seconds, so I don't know where you get your "facts" from, but clearly you're sadly mistaken and need a refresher course in basic physics.

Regardless of nit-picking by various people it doesn't change the fact that this sort of thing isn't funny and isn't trivial, a falling bottle can do real damage. If anything I underestimated the risk on every factor. A military canteen typically holds 1 liter of water, double the amount of water I based the calculations on, and therefore double the force. I likewise low-balled the terminal velocity (if a human skydiver can hit 300km/hr a reasonably aerodynamic bottle should hit a significantly higher number). All in all a dropped canteen from a military aircraft is NOT something that should happen for very good reasons.

The bottle/canteen should have been secured. It's good that it was reported though.

As for the media frenzy, just look at the rehashed sensationalist "stuff" that passes for news on this site.

Lax discipline? Have you EVER been in an Osprey or military helicopter in your life? Dude I AM a former Marine, I have repelled out of helicopters (scary as all get out the first time), and I WILL tell you from experience that there is no such thing as LAX discipline in a moving aircraft.

Actually, yes I have ridden in a military helicopter. When I was transferred to a frigate escorting a carrier during my enlistment, I was flown from Rota, Spain to the U.S.S. Eisenhower on a C-2 "Greyhound" COD plane. Carrier arrester gear landings are... different. From there, I was flown to my ship on an SH-2 "Seasprite" Lamps Mk I helicopter. I'm well aware of the need to eliminate potential missile hazards inside the aircraft and I was just a PASSENGER.

Whether it was a water bottle or canteen, IT WAS NOT SECURED. If it belonged to the crew, then that's a definite lack of crew discipline. If it belonged to a Marine riding as part of the training mission, then that's STILL a lack of crew discipline for the loadmaster not making sure the passengers had their gear properly stowed.

FrungyFeb. 09, 2013 - 12:12AM JST

Oh my goodness, well that would explain how a small hailstone the size of an ping pong ball can accure enough force punch through safety glass...

You don't need force, you need pressure, so strike one for your nonsense. Water bottles, even full ones are fairly soft, so maximum impact pressures can be pretty low thanks to deformation.

A human skydiver with arms outstretched (the shape that provides maximum air resistance) goes about 200 km/hr, and considerably faster when diving in a streamlined profile (about 300 km/hr), although there are other complicating factors like changes in air density.

Air pressure isn't a "complicating factor", it's half of the equation. At sea level, you have far more air to slow your fall than at 35000 feet.

Oh, and it takes a skydiver about 15 seconds to reach terminal velocity,

We're talking about falling objects, not people. And even so, you can't reach terminal velocity, you can only reach approximately terminal velocity

a fall of 5 stories would be, at most, about 2 seconds, so I don't know where you get your "facts" from, but clearly you're sadly mistaken and need a refresher course in basic physics.

Good thing I'm an engineer who knows more about it than your highschool teacher ever did. From five stories, a bottle would get at least 50% of the maximum kinetic energy it would ever obtain. If you want me to start explaining about the effects of turbulence slowing a falling bottle, I can, but that would be deleted anyway . Lets just leave it at the fact that a falling bottle would have the same magnitude of kinetic energy whether it fell from a medium sized building or an aircraft, and the change in weight is far more important.

@Fadamor....you are just looking for an excuse to blame someone for a rather minuscule accident that no one would have ever known about if the crew hadn't said anything.

It could have been a malfunction or defective equipment, there is no way to know.

I'm well aware of the need to eliminate potential missile hazards inside the aircraft and I was just a PASSENGER

Next time try it as a warrior.

Does the military on Okinawa do anything good for the people? I thought they were moving the base to Guam. Having military on the island actually makes it a target... these should be islands of nature and peace after what the people have had to endure.

basroilFeb. 09, 2013 - 01:04AM JST You don't need force, you need pressure, so strike one for your nonsense. Water bottles, even full ones are fairly soft, so maximum impact pressures can be pretty low thanks to deformation.

... this is sheer nonsense. To describe any object travelling at 300km/hr as "soft" is ridiculous. Anyone who's played paintball can immediately spot that you're spewing nonsense. A paintball is soft, far softer than plastic, being just a gel coating that you can break with incautious handling. The muzzle velocity is about 300km/hr. Fire a paintball at yourself at point blank and you will break skin, and severe bruising will result. The "softness" of the object is completely immaterial at those speeds. Likewise there is almost no deformation on a paintball, so a much thicker plastic bottle is even less likely to show significant deformation. in short, your hypothesis fails to match up to observed reality, so either reality is wrong... or you are.

A human skydiver with arms outstretched (the shape that provides maximum air resistance) goes about 200 km/hr, and considerably faster when diving in a streamlined profile (about 300 km/hr), although there are other complicating factors like changes in air density.

Air pressure isn't a "complicating factor", it's half of the equation. At sea level, you have far more air to slow your fall than at 35000 feet.

There is no "air pressure" in the equation for terminal velocity. What there is is drag coefficient, which is only one of five factors in terminal velocity. In the drag coefficient equation the mass density of the medium (in this case air density) is again only one factor in four, and the difference between air density at sea level (760mmHg) and 2000 meters up (564mmHg) is a volume correction factor of only 1.24. ... so in other words, this component that you're saying is "half of the equation" is in fact a 24% variance in one quarter of one fifth of the equation.

Oh, and it takes a skydiver about 15 seconds to reach terminal velocity, We're talking about falling objects, not people. And even so, you can't reach terminal velocity, you can only reach approximately terminal velocity

... so a person isn't an object? ... umm... no. Just no. But yes, you are correct that you cannot reach terminal velocity, in the same way that you cannot "reach" infinity... however 0.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 is pretty much the same as 1 in layman's terms and since you can't seem to tell the difference between 24% of 1/4 of 1/5 and 50%... well, me rounding up hardly seems a big deal.

The fact remains that a falling bottle of water is a hazard to anyone it falls on, and it shouldn't have happened. If you've ever had a water balloon dropped on you from the top of a building you'll understand just how much it hurts (it was a favourite passtime of bored students at my university, who used to raid the health office for condoms, fill them with water then drop them from the top of the library). Your argument that it hurts the same from 5 stories as from 10... well, that's just ridiculous, by your reckoning a hailstone falling from 12 meters is the same as a hailstone falling from 500 meters... and reality just doesn't support that conclusion.

@Fadamor....you are just looking for an excuse to blame someone for a rather minuscule accident that no one would have ever known about if the crew hadn't said anything.

An "excuse"? There's absolutely no need to go looking for excuses. Three weeks ago an Osprey drops a 5-gallon bucket full of cleaning solvent that crashes through the roof of a San Diego business and now an Osprey drops a PET bottle (or canteen). As has been pointed out numerous times, the USMC was LUCKY that apparently nobody was injured and nothing was damaged during this most recent incident. Just because nobody on the ground was inconvenienced in this incident does NOT mean that it was OK that this happened.

It could have been a malfunction or defective equipment,

So Ospreys have specific equipment (that can malfunction or become defective) for securing intividual PET bottles or canteens? Why not say that it could have been unicorns? That's just as likely. SOMEBODY took that canteen or bottle out of what it was being stored in and allowed it to depart the aircraft while in-flight. If you want to talk "defective equipment" then you should be talking about the brain of the Cleetus that allowed that to happen.

Next time try it as a warrior.

Let's see... I pointed out that, as a passenger, I knew about paying attention to keeping my gear secured while in flight and your reply was, "Next time try it as a warrior." So you're saying "warriors" are too stupid to figure out they need to pay attention to potential missile hazards while on aircraft? Or are you saying that "warriors" are some special class that doesn't have to care about potential missile hazards to either themselves or the people below them? NOW who's making excuses?

Don't need any math to figure this one out. A bottle of water (or canteen or pretty much anything else) falling from a plane will kill anyone it hits.

The Okinawans are complaining, as well they should, because they've been putting up with this stupid nonsense for going on 60* years and they're sick of it. SICK of it!

Does the military on Okinawa do anything good for the people? I

Yes they do, plenty, but you won't ever hear about it from any of the local press or media outlets. It's like this one huge secret that they are all trying to hide, by constantly harping on the accidents and incidents, both major and minor.

This news article does not provide enough information. "Near futenma airbase" doesn't explain whether it fell into an area where there are a lot of people or if it fell on some cliff where nobody lives .

I wish the American military would leave Okinawa and head back home. Obviously Okinawa doesn't deserve the the military presence .

This news article does not provide enough information. "Near futenma airbase" doesn't explain whether it fell into an area where there are a lot of people or if it fell on some cliff where nobody lives

.Let me paint a picture for you, imagine a small city, imagine opening a hole in the middle of the city and dumping a military airfield in it. There you have it, Futenma. Except that's not how the base got there, the base was there first and everyone decided to build their homes and schools right around it.

They only can say "near" because they don't know exactly where it fell. It being the canteen that is.

Let the statistics tell the whole story about the negative side of the U.S. military presence in Okinawa, which is never reported by the "unbiased" U.S. media. In the hidebound poster like Yubaru's thinking, it's always the local media that are biased against the U.S. military.

The Okinawa Prefectural Government's statistics shows that during the period from 2003 to 2010 there were 247 accidents involving U.S. military aircraft in Okinawa, of which 3 were crashes, 205 emergency landings and others 39.

To retrace the course of post-War Okinawan history, the figures would certainly skyrocket astronomically. The most vivid in our memory is the F 100D fighter jet crash in 1959 on the section of Ishikawa City having an elementary school, killing 17 people and injuring 210 people.

In June 1965, a trailer weighing 2 tons fell near a house at Yomitan from a helicopter maneuvering parachuting military supplies, crashing an elementary school girl to death.

The Ospreys have started similar maneuvering, and who knows there would be no similar accident in the near future? Can Yubaru guarantee?

Let the statistics tell the whole story about the negative side of the U.S. military presence in Okinawa, which is never reported by the "unbiased" U.S. media. In the hidebound poster like Yubaru's thinking, it's always the local media that are biased against the U.S. military

.And since reversion in 1972 how many people have died on Okinawa from "things" falling from the sky?

Come on, let's here those fingers work on google, let's see the sweat form on your brow...wait can't?

Hmmm...even after the helicopter crashed into Okinawa International University there have been no casualties or deaths from "things" falling from the sky in Okinawa from US military planes or aircraft. Sure the helicopter incident was more luck than anything else but considering the military's operational commitments the "statistics" are still low.

FYI when you start quoting statistics you should give links to the data.

The Okinawa Prefectural Government's statistics shows that during the period from 2003 to 2010 there were 247 accidents involving U.S. military aircraft in Okinawa, of which 3 were crashes, 205 emergency landings and others 39.

On a sarcastic lighter note: The Okinawa government probably counts a pilot farting on take off or landing as an incident.

Back on topic please.

FrungyFeb. 09, 2013 - 03:44AM JST

To describe any object travelling at 300km/hr as "soft" is ridiculous. Anyone who's played paintball can immediately spot that you're spewing nonsense. A paintball is soft, far softer than plastic, being just a gel coating that you can break with incautious handling. The muzzle velocity is about 300km/hr. Fire a paintball at yourself at point blank and you will break skin, and severe bruising will result. The "softness" of the object is completely immaterial at those speeds.

Softness in terms of elasticity has nothing to do with the velocity at the speeds and materials we are discussing, the material IS soft regardless of what your uneducated conjectures say. But did I ever say you would get away unscathed? No, but it's not going to kill you either. You can empty a whole carton of paintball into someone point blank and all you'll have done is piss your opponent off. Compared to even a baseball a bottle of water is very soft.

There is no "air pressure" in the equation for terminal velocity.

Air density and pressure are interchangeable for the most part, since density in gases are a function of pressure.

What there is is drag coefficient, which is only one of five factors in terminal velocity.

Six variables, assuming fixed coefficient, which the velocity is dependent and two variables change pretty drastically and one less so (Cd).

In the drag coefficient equation the mass density of the medium (in this case air density) is again only one factor in four, and the difference between air density at sea level (760mmHg) and 2000 meters up (564mmHg) is a volume correction factor of only 1.24. ... so in other words, this component that you're saying is "half of the equation" is in fact a 24% variance in one quarter of one fifth of the equation.

That's like saying that the meat patty is only a quarter of a fifth of the hamburger. Sure you can count variables all day long, but physical significance is far different.

turbulence is factored in under the air density portion of the terminal velocity equation, and has very little effect on terminal velocity in air (in more dense substances like water it's a very different issue).

Turbulence itself doesn't, but the effects caused by it do. If your 3cm radius bottle suddenly had an effective radius of 12, you just lost half your terminal velocity. A bottle dropped is likely to fall in a somewhat chaotic fashion, and the average velocity is bound to be far lower than the maximum terminal velocity. That would be especially true if the bottle had little water.

The matter is simple, this water bottle had little chance to damage anything, let along seriously injure someone.

basroilFeb. 09, 2013 - 06:57PM JST Softness in terms of elasticity has nothing to do with the velocity at the speeds and materials we are discussing, the material IS soft regardless of what your uneducated conjectures say. But did I ever say you would get away unscathed? No, but it's not going to kill you either. You can empty a whole carton of paintball into someone point blank and all you'll have done is piss your opponent off. Compared to even a baseball a bottle of water is very soft.

Umm... except a paintball weighs less than 1 gram, and can break skin and cause bruising. A pet bottle with even 200grams of water in it (half full) weighs more than 200 times what a paintball does. A standard issue GI plastic 1 quart canteen weighs more than 100grams when empty. Anyway, the softness doesn't matter because of surface tension. To illustrate, water is "soft" and "elastic", but jump off a high diving board and hit the water wrong and you'll be covered in bruises... freefall at near terminal velocity into water and it won't matter whether you hit concrete or water, because the net effect is the same, you'll be splattered all over the water. Again, your hypothesis disagrees with observed reality... you seem to have a habit of trying to contradict the universe's rules, how's that working out for you?

Turbulence itself doesn't, but the effects caused by it do. If your 3cm radius bottle suddenly had an effective radius of 12, you just lost half your terminal velocity. A bottle dropped is likely to fall in a somewhat chaotic fashion, and the average velocity is bound to be far lower than the maximum terminal velocity. That would be especially true if the bottle had little water.

... it may initially tumble, but as velocity increases it'll point down, presenting the smallest profile. If you drop a bottle off your desk it'll tumble, but drop a bottle from 100 meters up and it'll behave the same for a litle while and then stabilise. .

The matter is simple, this water bottle had little chance to damage anything, let along seriously injure someone. I know that you prefer to be treated like royalty, but there's no reason why your thinly veiled attacks should get special treatment here.

You have repeatedly made elementary errors in physics which can be demonstrated as false by simple and easily verifiable examples. This isn't about my ego, it's very clearly about your inability to accept that you're dead wrong. But hey, if you don't believe me then let's agree to a little challenge. I'll stand under a half-full pet bottle dropped from five stories up, and you can stand under one dropped from a bridge a hundred meters up. We'll see who's still standing after the experiment. Just to spice things up I'll bet 100 000yen that it'll be me... oh, but please put the cash up front first, because it's hard to get money from a dead man.

Okinawans must be the unhappiest islanders I've ever met. S*it happens. Yeah, what if it fell and hit a kid. Then that would really suck. I get it. But it didn't. Just be more careful in the future. That's why pencils have erasers. We all make mistakes. A Japanese dude at the movie theatre accidentally dropped popcorn on me. I didn't protest the movie theatre or contact my embassy. What if I were allergic to buttered popcorn? What if what if.

Readers, no more bickering please.

I agree with Harvey. Parts fall of commercial airliners all the time, but the try to avoid it. Stuff happens. You are much more likely to get hit by a car, so protest that.

Charles M BurnsFeb. 09, 2013 - 09:33PM JST

I agree with Harvey. Parts fall of commercial airliners all the time, but the try to avoid it. Stuff happens

Hell, garbage falls from buildings too, and nobody bothers to do anything about that in Okinawa.

Many posters here write as if this pet bottle-falling incident had occurred in the U.S. mainland, forgetting that Okinawa is foreign land, not a U.S. colony. They cannot understand why Okinawa protests against the U.S. military footprint. Can Hawaii protest like us or can California? they wonder.

Yubaru, just think about it. And also go to Okinawa Prefectural Government's U.S. Base Affairs Section for precise information on U.S. base issues. The following might also help:

http://www.pref.okinawa.jp/site/chijiko/kichitai/documents/kadai_1.pdf

http://www.pref.okinawa.lg.jp/site/chijiko/kichitai/17870.html

Anyone interested in knowing about how the U.S. bases in Okinawa are officially documented? Search for "US Military Base Issues in Okinawa" compiled by the Okinawa Prefectural Government in 2011. That's written in English, so readable by U.S. citizens.

Charles M BurnsFeb. 09, 2013 - 09:33PM JST I agree with Harvey. Parts fall of commercial airliners all the time, but the try to avoid it. Stuff happens. You are much more likely to get hit by a car, so protest that.

The actual falling bottle isn't the real problem (although I find people denying that it could cause injury a bit idiotic).

The real problem is that pre-flight checks require that items be secured before take-off. That this happened means that the people in that aircraft were being sloppy, and sloppiness gets people killed. It might get some random bystander killed when something drops on them, or it might get a dozen marines and the pilot killed when they miss something else important on the pre-flight checklist.

It doesn't matter which side of this issue you're on, whether you're anti-US in Okinawa or pro-US, this is something that could hurt both sides, and I'm a bit surprised that people don't see that. Discipline is critical, especially in the military where they use things that could easily kill no only themselves but also others. What if someone had forgotten to secure a missile properly in the hanger, or had left their rifle lying around where a kid could pick it up? Discipline is critical and that's the core issue here, not that some bottle dropped, but that the fact that it happened means that someone wasn't exercising due care.

The real problem is that pre-flight checks require that items be secured before take-off. That this happened means that the people in that aircraft were being sloppy, and sloppiness gets people killed. It might get some random bystander killed when something drops on them, or it might get a dozen marines and the pilot killed when they miss something else important on the pre-flight checklist.

You are assuming something here that you don't know if it happened or not, and in cases like this it behooves people to get the right information before coming to a conclusion.

It very well could have been someone on board taking a drink from their canteen, as it was a canteen and not a PET bottle according to the local Okinawa news. So someone takes a drink, gets hit in turbulence and the canteen flies out the partially or fully open back hatch. Pure accident, no malicious intent, no problems with discipline, if drinking on the flight was allowed.

So it could very well have nothing to do with what you insinuated.

voiceofokinawaFeb. 09, 2013 - 11:32PM JST

Anyone interested in knowing about how the U.S. bases in Okinawa are officially documented? Search for "US Military Base Issues in Okinawa" compiled by the Okinawa Prefectural Government in 2011. That's written in English, so readable by U.S. citizens.

Nobody is, and to be honest, I don't know what the hell that has to do with bottles falling form aircraft. Why the hell did you post that?

YubaruFeb. 10, 2013 - 10:36AM JST It very well could have been someone on board taking a drink from their canteen, as it was a canteen and not a PET bottle according to the local Okinawa news. So someone takes a drink, gets hit in turbulence and the canteen flies out the partially or fully open back hatch. Pure accident, no malicious intent, no problems with discipline, if drinking on the flight was allowed.

... or the canteen could have bounced forward into the pilots area and hit one of the controls, or hit one of the other marines, or any other number of bad things could have happened. This is the reason why unsecured objects are not allowed during flights, too many bad things can happen. Undeniably this is poor discipline, someone ignoring the rules.

So it could very well have nothing to do with what you insinuated.

I've actually been very generous in assuming just simple incompetence. It could just as easily have been a marine in a bad temper over the increased restrictions on base personnel dropping or throwing their canteen out of the aircraft on purpose. I didn't suggest this because I don't like that idea, but you have to admit that you also don't know, and it could just as easily have been malicious.

What is undeniable though is that if there had been good discipline this incident would not have happened.

What is undeniable though is that if there had been good discipline this incident would not have happened.

Nonsense. To assume the rules are so perfect that any incident is a result of not following the rules is a failure to account for reality.

or the canteen could have bounced forward into the pilots area and hit one of the controls,

Only if you assume the cockpit door was open.

http://www.fredsboringpictures.com/images/pensacola%2006/images/7369%20Osprey%20Interior.jpg

Bring up whatever situation you want, but in the end it's all the same, a minor incident that no one got hurt, AND that the US Military had the courtesy to tell the Defense ministry that it happened in the first place and not keep it a secret AND that the politicians in Okinawa went over board AGAIN in their response.

cabadajeFeb. 10, 2013 - 01:14PM JST Nonsense. To assume the rules are so perfect that any incident is a result of not following the rules is a failure to account for reality.

Umm... it doesn't take unrealistically perfect rules to require that outer doors are closed when in flight (or do you think that the object dropped through solid metal), or that lose items are secured. These are in the regs. Pop over to your nearest U.S. airforce base and ask them, they'll confirm what I say.

YubaruFeb. 10, 2013 - 01:16PM JST Only if you assume the cockpit door was open.

So to you it is plausible that the outer doors could be left open or improperly closed.... but utterly implausible that someone could fail to close the cockpit door? I mean these are both in the regs, but somehow you think one is impossible, while the other clearly happened?

... someone stuffed up, and they didn't follow rules. In military circles the failure to follow rules and procedures is an issue of discipline. Cut it whatever way you want, but procedure wasn't followed. The doors WERE open, an object WAS NOT secured properly during flight. You can't argue with the good sense of these rules, nor can you argue that the rules were broken. I find continued attempts to do so utterly ridiculous.

As many people are pointing out, this is just a case of "what if". In America, we have many safety laws to deal with much more dangerous "what if" situations such as against fire-hazards obstructing exit paths and against building doorways that are only 175 cm high. The fact of the matter is that a large majority of buildings in Japan would violate these fire-code laws that potentially save more lives than preventing falling airplane debris does. If they're really in the business to save lives, then focus your attention on other, more pressing matters.

Also, as another reader pointed out, even if a water bottle did fall out of a plane, the chance of it hitting someone is astronomically small. Again, this is entirely a "what if" situation over nothing that's actually happened.

Finally, do the Okinawan people not realize why the base is there in the first place? I will be the first to admit that yes, there are military personnel who behave badly and may be less than respectful to the locals, but the same can be said about respect towards foreigners from locals anywhere else in Japan. The Japanese Empire committed terrible atrocities that put them into this situation in the first place. Good luck getting taken over by China if the Americans ever do pull out like some Okinawans want.

@Frungy

Umm... it doesn't take unrealistically perfect rules to require that outer doors are closed when in flight (or do you think that the object dropped through solid metal), or that lose items are secured.

To refer to something being "undeniably" a lack of discipline is to assume that had the rules been followed, this event would never have occurred. If we assume that the rules (when followed, i.e. "good" discipline) will prevent all incidents, then we assume the rules to be faultless, which is as unrealistic as demanding perfection.

These are in the regs. Pop over to your nearest U.S. airforce base and ask them, they'll confirm what I say.

Thanks, I'll stick with the Navy guide. I have five years worth of experience as a AMDO, so I do have some knowledge regarding the regulations on securing missile hazards.

I also have the experience to know that incidents happen regardless of the level of discipline. While it is true that the majority of incidents do happen because of a lapse in attention to regs, this does not automatically equate to a general "bad discipline" judgement, or even a "lack of good discipline" decision. Prior to passing judgement, you have to know the factors. In this case, the only factor we have is that the canteen fell out of the Osprey. That is a pretty thin foundation for referring to the crew on the craft as lacking discipline.

No, we do have another piece of data: The crew called the incident in on returning to base. Some would refer to that as good discipline.

Absolutely no argument at all, that the majority, even the vast majority, of all such incidents stem directly from bad discipline; Worse, bad discipline in these sorts of things are a little like cockroaches, in that if you spot one example, you have to consider that there are dozens more hiding in the walls. But one can never forget that Rules do not prevent human error. Rules only minimize them to the fullest extent possible. Prior to putting a big black mark in someone's permanent record for bad discipline, one should make sure that it was actually bad discipline, and not unforeseeable circumstances. And you can't do that if you train yourself to believe that any incident would be prevented had people had good discipline.

cabadajeFeb. 10, 2013 - 06:23PM JST To refer to something being "undeniably" a lack of discipline is to assume that had the rules been followed, this event would never have occurred.

Here you're talking about the specific rules about closing doors and securing loose objects preventing this specific incident. UNDENIABLY following these rules would have prevented this specific incident. UNDENIABLY failure to follow these rules caused this incident and indicates poor discipline.

If we assume that the rules (when followed, i.e. "good" discipline) will prevent all incidents, then we assume the rules to be faultless, which is as unrealistic as demanding perfection.

No, "we" are not assuming anything of the sort. You are making the massive leap from this specific incident to generalising to all possible incidents. I did nothing of the sort.

Thanks, I'll stick with the Navy guide. I have five years worth of experience as a AMDO, so I do have some knowledge regarding the regulations on securing missile hazards. I also have the experience to know that incidents happen regardless of the level of discipline. While it is true that the majority of incidents do happen because of a lapse in attention to regs, this does not automatically equate to a general "bad discipline" judgement, or even a "lack of good discipline" decision. Prior to passing judgement, you have to know the factors. In this case, the only factor we have is that the canteen fell out of the Osprey. That is a pretty thin foundation for referring to the crew on the craft as lacking discipline.

Firstly, thank you for confirming that this indeed against Navy regs. I have only Air Force regs as my guide.

Finally, perhaps you need to be reminded that discipline means in the military context since, despite your claim to military service, you seem blissfully unaware. Discipline means following regulations and orders (not necessarily in that order, but usually). Unless there was a specific order to open those doors and leave that object unsecured then it was in breach of regulations, and that makes it a discipline problem. If you have any further questions I recommend you take them to your JAG corps officers, they'll set you straight.

... and on a personal note I am woefully disappointed that someone who is nominally an officer fails to understand what constitutes military discipline. I would suggest that you immediately enroll yourself for a refresher course. I'd also suggest a basic course in logic, since your inability to distinguish specific from general is a major failing.

Okay, apparently you missed the entire purpose of my post. It is not undeniable that the rules would have prevented this, nor is it undeniable that this occurring was a result of not following rules, nor does this incident inevitably indicate poor discipline.

What "specific incident"? All you know is that a canteen fell from an Osprey. There are no specifics here. The only way it could get more general is if we didn't know what sort of aircraft it was.

Firstly, thank you for confirming that this indeed against Navy regs. I have only Air Force regs as my guide.

Hmm...wasn't aware it needed confirming. Did anyone doubt that the military requires people to strap things down in aircraft when not in use? It's kind of general knowledge.

Discipline means following regulations and orders (not necessarily in that order, but usually). Unless there was a specific order to open those doors and leave that object unsecured then it was in breach of regulations, and that makes it a discipline problem.

Spoken like a true lean, mean, typing machine.

If you have any further questions I recommend you take them to your JAG corps officers, they'll set you straight.

Well, sure, if you happen to be in a TV series. In real life, no, JAG doesn't get involved in squadron discipline issues (as opposed to disciplinary issues, in which it can be consulted for advice regarding appropriate punishment).

... and on a personal note I am woefully disappointed that someone who is nominally an officer fails to understand what constitutes military discipline. I would suggest that you immediately enroll yourself for a refresher course.

And...that's enough of the armchair warrior talk. Personal note...right...

Let's talk about the world of an actual aviation officer, as opposed to a paper pusher of some kind. Discipline, according the dictionary, means following rules and regulations or being punished. In the real world, discipline means being able to do things you don't like doing on a regular and reliable basis. Usually, that means following the rules. However, a real officer recognizes that it is entirely possible to follow all the rules and still have something go tits up. Probably everyone here is familiar with the SNAFU acronym. A paper pusher who prioritizes his rules over reality tends to forget this and makes definitive judgements on situations in which the rules should have prevented the incident. The paper pusher has an inner belief that the rules are perfect, and so any incident must have been the result of not following the rules. A real officer, most of whom have experienced at one time or another in their career a point in which things got screwed up despite their best efforts, will suspend judgement until he has the facts.

Perhaps I am being unfair saying "real" officer; I'll avoid the True Scotsman by referring to an experienced officer. An experienced officer knows that Marines, both prior to boarding and prior to a jump, always check their gear. Additionally, they get their mates to check their gear as well. What's the easiest way to check if gear is secure? You give it a hard whack. If it doesn't dislodge, it's secure. If it does dislodge, people grin at you in amusement and you sheepishly pick up whatever and re-secure it. Normally, this isn't a problem. If, however, you are on a plane, and something isn't secured as well as you thought it was, the object has an additional option beyond simply laying on the ground. It also has the option of going under the nearest fixed object (very popular), or out the door you will soon be jumping out of. If Murphy's Law was in play (and in the real world, it always is), the unsecured object will attempt a solo jump.

Did this happen? No clue. We have only the most general of descriptions of the incident. However, what we can say is that in this example (and it is by no means an improbable, or even all that rare an example) not only were all the rules being followed, it is arguably the following of the rules (the secondary inspection of secured items) actually resulted in the incident taking place!

But maybe it wasn't the jumpers. Maybe it was the pilots (although that's unlikely, as the pilots don't usually take canteens unless they are flying over a hot zone and might get shot down. Even then...ergh, trying to get pilots to take their full load-out is like pulling teeth). But let's say the pilots brought canteens. A pilot takes out his canteen for a drink. His hand slips and the canteen goes skittering out the back, past the jumpmaster who was busy pulling in the static straps.

Did that happen? Again, no one here knows, because we don't have any details. Could it have happened? Absolutely. Was it a violation of rules and regs? Nope. Did it indicate poor discipline? Nope.

I can keep going, making example after example of real-life situations where personnel followed all the regs and yet still things went wrong. That's what real world experience affords you: the ability to say (let's hold off on that till we know more". If all your experience lies in pushing words around, then you are kind of stuck having to rely on a dictionary definition and passing judgement based on second-hand logic.

What's that? Logic?

I'd also suggest a basic course in logic, since your inability to distinguish specific from general is a major failing.

Another thing that real world experience gives you is the understanding that something being logical is not the same as something being correct.

If: Discipline means following the rules, And: Rules state all items are to be secured, Then: Unsecured items mean no discipline (Logically speaking, not..."Frungy said there was no discipline at all". Basically, If A and B, then -A and -B, for those who dabble in Formal Logic)

Perfectly logical, but not correct. Even though discipline does refer to following all the rules, it does not follow that breaking the rules is the only way for unsecured objects to occur.

But it isn't logic that will actually tell us whether something is specific or general. That isn't so much logic as it is preponderance of data. The more data you have, the more specific a situation is.

How specific is this situation? Not at all specific. We have practically no data with which to work with. All we know from this article is that there was an Osprey (which, in and of itself, is enough for some people), there was a canteen that fell, and the incident was reported. That is the sum total of our knowledge. As an experienced aviation officer, my advice would be:

Don't be so eager to decide who is at fault and what they are at fault for. Especially don't be so willing to make absolute and definitive statements and publicly publish them. In the same way that unfounded accusations can destroy the careers of the accused, they can also turn back and bite the person accusing.

And yeah, that's also some real-world experience talking there too.

cabadajeFeb. 12, 2013 - 12:04PM JST Okay, apparently you missed the entire purpose of my post. It is not undeniable that the rules would have prevented this, nor is it undeniable that this occurring was a result of not following rules, nor does this incident inevitably indicate poor discipline. What "specific incident"? All you know is that a canteen fell from an Osprey. There are no specifics here. The only way it could get more general is if we didn't know what sort of aircraft it was.

Fact 1 - The bottle was not secured, in violation of regs. Fact 2 - The object fell out of the Osprey over a civilian area indicating that some egress was open, in violation of regs. If regs (or even a tiny bit of common sense) had been followed the doors would have been closed and/or the bottle secured, thus preventing the incident. This is undeniable, unless you believe that it is possible for a secured item to spontaneously teleport out the aircraft. If so you may have more serious problems than a failure to see how this incident directly resulted from the failure to follow regs.

Well, sure, if you happen to be in a TV series. In real life, no, JAG doesn't get involved in squadron discipline issues (as opposed to disciplinary issues, in which it can be consulted for advice regarding appropriate punishment).

They can also be consulted on whether an item constitutes a discipline problem or a disciplinary issue. They can also be consulted on interpreting military regulations and orders. This is what I was advising you to do.

Since you didn't do it, I got a simple explanation that even the lowest IQ jarhead should be able to understand. She said that regulations are orders. At some point a CO gave an order that was such good sense that it got written down in the regs so that officers wouldn't have to waste their time endlessly repeating these orders. What makes regs so important is that they're reviewed by panels of experts and very senior officers, who agree on them being good sense. You are, doubtless, familiar with the penalty for disobeying a direct order of a senior officer? Well, breaking regs is doing that. Disobeying the regs is disobeying a direct order, and is a disciplinary issue, and can get your courtmarshalled if you stuff up badly enough.

Does that explain it simply enough for you. I mean I know that the navy are scraping the bottom of the barrel, but I had no idea that it had got so bad that they had officers who couldn't understand how to obey orders. This explains everything anyone needs to know about discipline problems in Okinawa.

Fact 1 - The bottle was not secured, in violation of regs.

Incorrect. You will find no reg that states canteens (or anything else) must be secured at all times (indeed, that would defeat the purpose of bringing the item). They must be secured when not in use.

Fact 2 - The object fell out of the Osprey over a civilian area indicating that some egress was open, in violation of regs.

Over a civilian area? That's a fact, is it? Or are you trying to sneak in a detail that isn't actually part of the data we do have?

And, again, there is no rule stating that all egresses must be closed at all times. Again, it would defeat at least one of the specific purposes for which the Osprey was designed for. Again, incorrect.

If regs (or even a tiny bit of common sense) had been followed the doors would have been closed and/or the bottle secured, thus preventing the incident.

It isn't common sense to assume regs exist that tell people not to drink from a canteen whose purpose is to provide people with drink, or to always keep doors shut on an aircraft designed to allow exit while in flight. It's actually the opposite, although I would warn my men about that as well.

This is undeniable, unless you believe that it is possible for a secured item to spontaneously teleport out the aircraft.

And yet, I gave two real-life examples where just that situation could occur without having to violate any of the known laws of physics.

If so you may have more serious problems than a failure to see how this incident directly resulted from the failure to follow regs.

Well...given that you are the one who actually offered up teleportation as the only possible explanation, where I gave to examples consisting of a strap coming undone, and a person fumbling their drink, then the logical conclusion as to who has serious problems would be...

Those Okinawans down there are one unruly lot! They have the nicest weather. Why can't they be as content as the rest of Japan?!

Since these comments are both off-topic and wrong, I'll post the replies separately.

They can also be consulted on whether an item constitutes a discipline problem or a disciplinary issue. They can also be consulted on interpreting military regulations and orders. This is what I was advising you to do.

And, like I said initially, perhaps you should refrain from making statements based on incomplete information. If not, you end up looking silly for advising someone to go and ask a JAG officer when they've been out of the military for close to 10 years, or more generally, because it illustrates the radical difference between someone with actual experience, and someone who looked it up on the internet. It's like trying to pretend you know enough physics to authoritatively claim the effects of a falling PET bottle, so you Google up a bunch of equations and confidently claim it has enough energy to blow off someone's head. At that point, someone who actually knows what they're doing points out elementary mistakes, such as not knowing that a particular formula is a theoretical base formula without the variables needed for real world calculations.

Since you didn't do it, I got a simple explanation that even the lowest IQ jarhead should be able to understand. She said that regulations are orders.

She who? Sarah Mackenzie? I doubt she would use the term "lowest IQ jarhead".

At some point a CO gave an order that was such good sense that it got written down in the regs so that officers wouldn't have to waste their time endlessly repeating these orders.

Yes indeed, the vast majority of them are just that. Mostly, they are casually referred to as "the rules" and cover topics all the way from how to where which uniform, to who and how to address others, to what time the mess opens, to whether or not you get a single or have to share a room, to whether or not you get to play your guitar in the hangar in down time.

Regulations sounds like a scary word, and it certainly can be. However, most of the time, they are really not much more than rules, just like any other workplace has. This is not to say that there aren't serious regulations. There certainly are. However, not all of them are life-or-death matters, not all of them lead to court martials, and certainly not all of them require JAG involvement. The JAGs don't really care unless someone's rights are being violated.

What makes regs so important is that they're reviewed by panels of experts and very senior officers, who agree on them being good sense. You are, doubtless, familiar with the penalty for disobeying a direct order of a senior officer? Well, breaking regs is doing that.

In the world of the Google expert, sure. In the real world, things aren't quite so black and white.

Disobeying the regs is disobeying a direct order, and is a disciplinary issue, and can get your courtmarshalled if you stuff up badly enough.

Yep. Willfully and intentionally disobeying a reg will get you into a lot of trouble, and it doesn't even have to be one of the serious regs.

But, again, one does not have to disobey a reg in order for an incident to happen.

Yes, it is a disciplinary issue. As I said. In other words, you are getting punished. That is when JAG gets involved.

However, maintaining "good discipline", or having "poor discipline", is not a reference to how one is going to be punished, or even of success or failure, but rather whether a person is following the rules or not. This is why a person who follows the rules, and yet still suffers an incident is not said to have bad discipline.

That is the difference between discipline and disciplinary. Discipline is how a squadron enforces its rules. JAG doesn't care about that unless rights are being violated. Disciplinary is an actual punishment, and if it is at the level that JAG is involved, it's pretty significant. Money, rank, and/or career is at stake. Not all discipline issues require disciplinary actions. Squadrons have more than one way of enforcing discipline.

But this is something that you wouldn't have picked up on from Google.

Does that explain it simply enough for you. I mean I know that the navy are scraping the bottom of the barrel, but I had no idea that it had got so bad that they had officers who couldn't understand how to obey orders. This explains everything anyone needs to know about discipline problems in Okinawa.

Stay classy, Frungy.

cabadajeFeb. 12, 2013 - 08:59PM JST

Fact 1 - The bottle was not secured, in violation of regs. Incorrect. You will find no reg that states canteens (or anything else) must be secured at all times (indeed, that would defeat the purpose of bringing the item). They must be secured when not in use.

Loose objects must be secured during flight. You already conceded that this was a reg. Stop trying to backtrack.

Fact 2 - The object fell out of the Osprey over a civilian area indicating that some egress was open, in violation of regs. Over a civilian area? That's a fact, is it? Or are you trying to sneak in a detail that isn't actually part of the data we do have? And, again, there is no rule stating that all egresses must be closed at all times. Again, it would defeat at least one of the specific purposes for which the Osprey was designed for. Again, incorrect.

It is a fact. Other reports confirmed that the Osprey was over a civilian area outside of the base. There's no reason for the door to be open. Are you implying that the navy regs are so idiotic that they do not contain simple modifiers like, "Doors should be secured, unless required to be open.". There is no conceivable reason for the doors to be open over civilian areas.

And, like I said initially, perhaps you should refrain from making statements based on incomplete information. If not, you end up looking silly for advising someone to go and ask a JAG officer when they've been out of the military for close to 10 years

You can still call up the JAG as a civilian, especially as ex-military. Anyone who had actually been in the military would know that. Nothing silly about it. You're the one who's wrong here.

Regulations sounds like a scary word, and it certainly can be. However, most of the time, they are really not much more than rules, just like any other workplace has. This is not to say that there aren't serious regulations. There certainly are. However, not all of them are life-or-death matters, not all of them lead to court martials, and certainly not all of them require JAG involvement. The JAGs don't really care unless someone's rights are being violated.

Rules is not the right word, Orders is the right word. Maybe in the Navy they tell you they're just rules, but so are civilian laws. Breaking a law might not get you prison time, for example littering, however if your littering resulted in someone losing their life (by, for example, throwing a full bottle of water off the empire state building), then you'd be charged with murder. Consequences do matter in the interpretation of laws and orders.

Yes, it is a disciplinary issue. As I said. In other words, you are getting punished. That is when JAG gets involved.

... yet just a few posts ago you were arguing that this wasn't a disciplinary issue... and just a few paragraphs ago you were arguing that JAG wouldn't be interested. You're all over the place.

This is why a person who follows the rules, and yet still suffers an incident is not said to have bad discipline.

But if they didn't follow the rules, and there is ample evidence in the newspaper reports that they disobeyed the regs, then there is bad discipline.

You're making yet another elementary error in logic. You're arguing that not all disciplinary action is the result of bad discipline, for example when bad consequences resulted despite following the regs. You're then trying to leverage that into an argument that not following the regs is not an indicator of bad discipline. Thats like trying to argue that breaking the law isn't criminal. By definition not following regs is bad discipline.

I realised you got me side-tracked, and I missed the most important bit of your post:

Regulations sounds like a scary word, and it certainly can be. However, most of the time, they are really not much more than rules, just like any other workplace has. This is not to say that there aren't serious regulations. There certainly are. However, not all of them are life-or-death matters, not all of them lead to court martials, and certainly not all of them require JAG involvement. The JAGs don't really care unless someone's rights are being violated.

All regulations are important, just like all laws are important. Laws are there for the protection and good order of society, and regulations serve the same function. Even though it is unlikely to cause death and chaos I wouldn't litter, nor would I jaywalk. Why? Because there are no "serious" and trivial rules or laws, they are all there for everyone's protection and well-being. More importantly than that only an amazingly arrogant and insubordinate individual would presume to decide which regulations are important and which can be ignored.

A man who cannot be trusted to obey regulations that may, at times, seem petty, cannot be trusted in the big things, because he puts his judgement above that of his superiors, and his convenience above the well-being of those around him, and is ultimately an undisciplined and irresponsible individual.

You may think I'm coming across as a by-the-book boy scout, and perhaps I am, but I've seen far too many people put their convenience about the good of everyone else, and they always start with small stuff, and then it becomes bigger and bigger until they're positive liabilties. Your post suggests this sort of thinking, that breaking some regulations is okay. This perfectly sums up what seems to be wrong with the bases in Okinawa, with military personnel slipping off base to have a drink (what many would consider to be a small thing provided you were back before morning count), and this irresponsible attitude becomes big crimes, like rape and breaking and entering.

The failure isn't just the individual concerned, it is the failure of every single person who knew about the breach of discipline and turned a blind eye, and of individuals who think that some rules are okay to break. There are no rules that it is okay to break. The military is better off without these people and those who support them in their lack of discipline. Hell, society is better off without them.