ARMOUR TRAINING CENTRE (Explosion incident)

ARMOUR TRAINING CENTRE:

(Explosion incident): 1.

Dr Ong Chit Chung asked the Minister for Defence (a) what is the cause of the recent explosion incident at the Armour Training Centre at Sungei Gedong; and (b) whether safety measures have been followed.

The Minister for Defence (RAdm Teo Chee Hean): Mr Speaker, Sir, on 23rd February 2004 , Active Training Wing (ATW) of Armour Training Centre (ATC) conducted a live firing at the range in Area 'D' as part of the unit's course syllabus to practise the gunners in their gunnery skills and knowledge.

During the night live firing, at about 2000 hours, there was a stoppage in one of the 0.5 inch calibre Machine Guns. The gunner carried out the prescribed immediate action drill, but was unable to rectify the stoppage. The bolt of the gun was stuck in the forward position. The Chief Safety Officer and the vehicle Safety Officer were informed of the incident, and tried unsuccessfully to rectify the problem. The weapon was then left in-situ facing the range targets until the end of the live firing session.

At the end of the live firing, the Chief Safety Officer and the vehicle Safety Officer tried again to rectify the problem, but were unsuccessful. They mistakenly assessed that the weapon was clear of ammunition and deemed it safe to be brought back to the armoury in camp when, in fact, there was a round lodged in the chamber.

At about 1100 hours on 24th February 2004 , an Officer and three Specialists drew out the weapon from the armoury with the intent of rectifying the stoppage.

Column: 552

They tried to rectify the jammed weapon without knowing that there was a round in the chamber. In the course of doing so, there was an explosion in the chamber of the machine gun.

The preliminary investigations ascertained the following:

(a) there was a current lesson plan for the conduct of the live firing, and the live firing at the range was conducted in accordance with the lesson plan.

(b) Incorrect procedures were adopted by the two Officers at the range to check whether the jammed weapon was free from any ammunition.

(c) The actions taken to rectify the jammed weapon after it was brought back to the unit were also incorrect.

(d) As regards medical coverage, there was proper medical coverage in the unit and the evacuation procedure was prompt and correct.

Four servicemen, a Regular and three Full-time National Servicemen, were hurt as a result of this incident. One of the National Servicemen was required to undergo an operation to remove fragments from his eyes sustained from the exploded weapon. He has been discharged from the hospital, and is recuperating at home. The remaining three servicemen sustained minor injuries and were treated as outpatients. All four servicemen will have their medical condition reviewed by the medical specialists over time.

A Board of Inquiry has since been convened to investigate the circumstances leading to this incident. Disciplinary action will be taken against individuals found to be negligent or to have contravened the established procedures and safety regulations leading to this incident.

Column: 553

Dr Ong Chit Chung (Jurong): Sir, should the officer or men not send the defective weapon to the armourer or ammunition specialists? What lessons can we draw from this particular incident, and can such lessons be incorporated into the training of our officers or men?

RAdm Teo Chee Hean: Sir, the correct procedure for dealing with such a situation is that if a gun stops and there is a round in the chamber or it is assessed that there is a possibility of a round in the chamber, the gun should be left in-situ . The armourer should come to the range and clear the weapon and rectify the fault in-situ . The officers incorrectly assessed that there was no round in the chamber which led to the string of events.

Dr Ong is quite correct. This is something which should continue to be stressed to the soldiers and officers.